,,the ,,life ,,of ,,jesus ,,critically ,,examined ,,by ,,dr4 ,,david ,,friedrich ,,strauss ,translated from the ,fourth ,german ,edition ,by ,,george ,,eliot ,,fourth ,,edition4 ,,in ,,one ,,volume4 ,london ,,swan ,,sonnenschein ,,co4 ,lim4 #aijb ,,introduction ,,to ,,the ,,present ,,edition1 ,,by ,,professor ,,otto ,,pfleiderer1 ,d4,d4 ,the ,leben ,jesu of ,david ,friedrich ,strauss1 which was published in the year #ahce1 marked an epoch in the history of theology4 ,on the one hand1 this book represents the crisis in theology at which the doubts and critical objections of centuries as to the credibility of the ,bible narratives had accumulated in such overwhelming volume as to break through and sweep away all the defences of orthodox apologetics4 ,on the other hand1 in the very completeness of the destructive criticism of past tradition lay the germs of a new science of constructive critical inquiry1 the work of which was to bring to light the truth of history4 ,it is quite true that the ,life of ,jesus of #ahce was far from perfect1 as judged by the present standard of scientific criticism1 and ,biblical science has long since advanced beyond it4 ,nevertheless1 it cannot be disputed that it takes rank amongst the standard works which are secure of a permanent place in literature for all time1 for the reason that they give final expression to the spirit of their age1 and represent typically one of its characteristic tendencies4 ,the liberating and purifying influence which such works exert on their own time1 as well as the service they render in opening out new lines of thought1 lends to them1 for all coming generations1 a peculiar value as admirable weapons in the great fight for truth and freedom4 ,indeed1 if our scientists are to be believed1 when they tell us that the development of the individual is only an abbreviated repetition of the similar but much slower phases of the development of the species1 it is hardly too much to maintain1 that in the present and in the future every individual who determines to make his way from the bondage of a nave trust in authority and tradition into the freedom and light of mature thought must pass through precisely that stage of thorough-going logical negative criticism which is represented by ,strauss's work in a unique manner4 ,as1 according to ,christian ethics1 the formation of a pure moral character is possible only by the death of the old ,adam1 the rise of true religious convictions is by a similar ,stirb und werde1 die and come to life4 ,the imaginary lights of mythological tradition must be put out1 that the eye may distinguish the false from the true in the twilight of the ,biblical origins of our religion4 ,the ancient structures of belief1 which the childish fancy of men had constructed of truth and poetry1 ,wahrheit und ,dichtung1 must be taken down and cleared away1 in order that a new erection of more durable materials may be raised4 ,to all earnest seekers after truth1 the ,leben ,jesu of ,strauss may be helpful1 not as supplying the truth ready to hand1 but as stripping the bandages of prejudice from the eyes1 and so enabling them clearly to see and rightly to seek it4 ,for these reasons it is obvious that the publication of a new edition of the ,english translation of this work needs no justification4 ,it is only those who consider the first appearance of the book inexcusable and unfortunate that can call in question the desirability of its republication4 ,but no one can hold such an opinion who is able to follow the course of the history of the religious thought of ,protestantism4 ,the critical process which reached its conclusion in ,strauss's book1 with its negative or revolutionary results1 was latent from the beginning in the life-blood of ,protestantism4 ,the theologians of the ,reformed ,churches of the sixteenth century subjected the traditions of ,catholic ,church history to keen historical criticism2 and if they did not then think of extending its operations to ,biblical tradition1 we are justified in recognising in the well-known declarations of ,luther1 as to the inferior value of certain books of the ,bible1 and as to the unimportance of physical in comparison with spiritual miracles1 plain predictions of the line of development which ,protestant theology was destined ultimately to take4 ,it is intelligible enough that the criticism of the ,bible could not arise amongst the orthodox theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries4 ,they were restrained by a rigid doctrine of inspiration from an unprejudiced treatment of the ,bible1 and were moreover too much absorbed in dogmatic controversies and the defence of their confessions of faith1 to feel the need of more searching ,biblical studies4 ,it was amongst ,english ,free-thinkers and ,deists that the credibility of the ,biblical narratives was first seriously assailed1 and with so much temper as to greatly detract from the scientific value of the result4 ,thomas ,woolston's ,discourses on the ,miracles of our ,saviour 7six in number1 #agbg-agbi7 are specially noteworthy4 ,they attack the literal interpretation of the miracles as ludicrous and offensive1 and advocate the allegorical interpretation of them as figures and parables of spiritual truths4 ,it is possible to find in ,woolston's theory an anticipation of the mythical principle of interpretation which ,strauss opposes to the rationalistic one4 ,reimarus1 the author of the ,wolfenbttel ,fragments1 by the publication of which ,lessing threw ,german theology into a ferment1 occupies the same position as the ,english ,deists1 and indeed owed much to their influence4 ,but at the same time a noteworthy difference is observable from the very first between the way in which ,lessing treated these questions and their treatment by the earlier ,free-thinkers2 and the difference is characteristic of the two schools4 ,german rationalism bears the marks of its origin in the idealistic optimism of the philosophy of ,leibnitz and ,wolff1 and remains in sympathy with the ethical spirit of ,biblical religion2 whilst the but faintly religious naturalism of the ,english ,deists leads them1 with their rejection of the ,biblical miracles1 to attack the religion of the ,bible1 and drag down into the mire its representatives and heroes4 ,with this the ,german ,rationalists have no sympathy4 ,they were unable to treat the ,biblical narratives of miracles as historical occurrences1 but they were not prepared on that account to regard them as deceit and delusion on the part of ,biblical heroes1 or as the invention of ,biblical narrators3 their reverence for the ,bible and its religion kept them from both of these inferences4 ,they tried to get over the difficulty in two ways1--either they looked upon the narratives of miracles1 particularly those of the ,old ,testament1 as popular religious legends1 traditions1 or 8myths10 of the same kind as the myths to be met with in all heathen religions2 or1 on the other hand1 regarding them as containing the actual history of perfectly natural events1 they ascribed the miraculous appearance and form which they bear simply to the mistaken judgment of the narrators1 or1 in other cases1 to the erroneous view of the interpreters4 ,the latter method was employed especially by ,dr4 ,paulus in his commentary on the ,gospels1 in which he seeks1 with a great display of learning and ingenuity1 to explain all the miracles of the ,new ,testament4 ,the theologian ,schleiermacher also made frequent use of it in his ,lectures on the ,life of ,jesus2 and traces of it are to be met with even in the commentaries of theologians of the supernaturalist school--as1 for instance1 ,olshausen's4 ,the inexcusable violence which was thereby done to the ,biblical narratives1 by which they are forced to say something quite different from what the unsophisticated narrators intended them to say1 according to the plain sense of their words1 was not felt2 nor were these interpreters conscious of how much the ,gospels are deprived of their choicest treasures of ideal truth and poetic beauty by this method of treatment1 and this only for the sake of securing instead miserable common-place stories as the final outcome of critical examination4 ,the favour with which this radically false rationalistic interpretation of the ,gospels was received by very many ,german theologians at the beginning of this century finds its sole explanation and excuse in the prevailing view of the time--that our ,gospels were written very soon after the death of ,jesus1 during the first generation of ,christians1 and two of them by eye-witnesses--the apostles ,matthew and ,john4 ,on this supposition1 the occurrence in the ,gospels of unhistorical elements1 of religious legends1 such as might be without hesitation allowed in the ,old ,testament1 could not be thought of4 ,or if the admissibility of this point of view was granted in the case of the birth-stories of the opening chapters of ,matthew and ,luke 7as by ,de ,wette71 objection was felt against its application to the miracles of the public life of ,jesus4 ,thus1 on the question of the historicity of the gospel narratives1 theologians held views which were confused1 undecided1 contradictory1 and lacking thoroughness4 ,this state of things could not last2 simple faith had at every point lost its security2 doubt attached to the miraculous narratives of the ,new no less than to those of the ,old ,testament4 ,but before ,strauss no one had had the courage to explain all these narratives of both ,testaments alike by the logical application of one and the same principle2 and mainly for the reason1 that the critics were all under the bondage of the supposition of the apostolic authorship of the ,gospels of ,matthew and ,john4 ,yet even this supposition had received various shocks prior to ,strauss4 ,critics had been unable to close their eyes to the fact that there are differences between these two ,gospels particularly1 of such a fundamental nature as to preclude the possibility of both being right1 and therefore of both having been written by eye-witnesses and apostles4 ,under the influence of dogmatic and sentimental motives1 ,schleiermacher and his disciples accepted it as an a priori certainty that ,john is to be preferred to ,matthew2 and from this secure position1 as was imagined1 these theologians assailed the narrative of ,matthew at all points1 and undermined the tradition of its apostolic authority4 ,but suppose the same arguments with which they assailed ,matthew might be used against their favourite evangelist ,john8 ,what if it could be shown that his narrative is in no respect more probable1 but1 on the contrary1 more improbable1 than that of ,matthew8 ,in that case1 must not the critical verdict which those theologians had given against ,matthew so triumphantly and without regard to its consequences1 apply equally to ,john1 and thereby overthrow the only remaining pillar of apostolic authority for the gospel tradition8 ,this logical consequence1 which was at the time deemed an unheard-of innovation1 notwithstanding the opinions of a few individual critics 7,vogel1 ,bretschneider71 ,strauss had the courage to draw4 ,by that act he cast off the fetters by which the examination of the ,gospels had till then been bound1 and secured a free field for a thorough-going criticism of them4 ,since the external evidence of the authorship of the ,gospels is not of a kind or a date such as to compel us to consider the tradition of their apostolic origin established1 and as the matter of all the ,gospels alike is not free from historical improbability1 there is nothing1 ,strauss argued1 to prevent our complete abandonment of the historicity of their miraculous narratives1 though the ,rationalists continue to maintain it1 or our treating them as religious legends or myths1 similar to those which1 as was admitted1 the ,old ,testament contained4 ,the novelty in the work of ,strauss was not the application of the principle of 8myth0 to ,biblical narratives2 others had already made use of it in the case of the ,old and to some extent in the case of the ,new ,testament2 the originality lay in the uncompromising thoroughness with which the principle was applied to every section of the gospel story2 the originality lay in the merciless acumen and clearness with which the discrepancies between the ,gospels and the difficulties presented to the critical understanding by their narratives were laid bare1 and with which all the subterfuges of supernaturalist apologists1 as well as all the forced and artificial interpretations of semi-critical ,rationalists1 were exposed1 thereby cutting off all ways of escape from the final consequences of criticism4 ,the merciless thoroughness and unreserved honesty with which criticism did its negative work in this book1 by exposing the baselessness of the supposed knowledge of the gospel history1 produced a profound shock amongst theologians and laymen4 ,it was not merely the untaught multitude who believed that the foundations of ,christianity must perish with the miraculous stories of the ,bible2 learned theologians were distressed as the daring critic so rudely1 and without any regard to consequences1 roused them from the illusions of their sentimental or speculative dogmatism and their precipitate treaty of peace between faith and knowledge4 8,strauss was hated10 as ,baur truly said1 8because the spirit of the time was unable to look upon its own portrait1 which he held up before it in faithful1 clearly drawn lines4 ,the spirit of this age resists with all its power the proof of its ignorance on a matter about which it has long thought itself certain4 ,instead of acknowledging what had to be acknowledged1 if any progress was to be made1 all possible attempts were instituted to create fresh illusions as to the true state of the case1 by reviving obsolete hypotheses and by theological charlatanism4 ,but a higher certainty as to the truth of the gospel history can be attained in no other way than by acknowledging1 on the basis of ,strauss's criticism1 that our previous knowledge is no knowledge at all40 ,but here we come upon the limits of the criticism of ,strauss3 it brought home to men the fact of their want of knowledge1 but it did not conduct to the required new and positive knowledge4 ,this ,strauss was unable to do1 because he offered a critique of the gospel history only1 without a critique of the documents which form the sources of this history4 ,in these words ,baur has accurately described the main defect of ,strauss's book4 ,when ,strauss drew from the discrepancies and contradictions of the various narratives of the ,gospels the conclusion that they have all alike little credibility1 the conclusion was intelligible enough in reply to the ingenious artifices of the traditional harmonists1 who maintained that in spite of the contradictions the evangelists were all alike worthy of credit2 but really this line of procedure on the part of ,strauss conformed as little as that of the harmonists to the principles of strict historical inquiry4 ,these principles require us to examine the relative value of the various sources with reference to their age1 to the situation1 the character1 the interests1 and aims of their author2 to assign accordingly to one account a higher measure of credibility than to another2 and so1 by distinguishing between what is better and what is not so well attested1 to make out what is probable and reach the original matter of fact4 ,it is true ,strauss made some advance towards such a differentiation of the relative value of the gospel narratives2 and particularly with reference to the inferior historical value of the ,johannine in comparison with the ,synoptic narrative1 he has made acute observations1 the worth of which ought to be estimated the higher as they boldly opposed the then dominant preference for the ,gospel of ,john1 and effectively prepared the way for the criticism of ,baur4 ,but it was not ,strauss's forte to prepare1 as the foundation of the material critique of the gospel history1 a thorough critique of the literary sources1 nor1 in the state of the general science of criticism at the time1 could this be very well expected4 ,when all deductions have been made1 to ,strauss belongs the honour of having given1 by his criticism of the gospel narratives1 the most effective impulse to a more penetrating examination of the sources of the gospel story1 and of having prepared the way for this to no small extent1 particularly as regards the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,baur's classical critique of this ,gospel completed in this direction the criticism of ,strauss1 and laid its foundations deeper4 ,as regards the ,synoptic ,gospels1 ,weisse and ,ewald1 ,holtzmann and ,volkmar1 did good work towards clearing up the relations of the ,gospels to each other1 especially in establishing the priority of ,mark1 by which a firmer basis was laid for the positive decision of the question as to the historical foundations of the gospel tradition4 ,the fruit of this critique of the sources1 carried on from various sides with painstaking industry1 was the new literature dealing with the life of ,jesus1 which1 just a generation after the first ,leben ,jesu of ,strauss1 took up again the problems it had raised1 but in a new fashion1 and with improved critical apparatus4 ,we shall have further on to refer to ,strauss's new life of ,jesus4 ,the same scholar1 ,weisse1 who was the first to point out the want in ,strauss's book of a more satisfactory critique of the sources1 and who had sought to supply this defect in his ,evangelische ,geschichte 7#ahch71 called attention at the same time to a defect in the mythical theory of ,strauss4 ,weisse was fully agreed with ,strauss so far1 that we must acknowledge the presence of religious myths in miraculous narratives of the ,bible1 but he was not satisfied with the way in which ,strauss had explained their origin4 ,according to ,strauss1 the early ,christians had simply transferred to ,jesus as the actual ,messiah the miraculous legends of the ,old ,testament1 out of which the ,jews were supposed to have composed the miraculous portrait of their expected ,messiah2 and he was right in thinking that the miraculous stories of the ,old ,testament do undoubtedly supply the motives and models of no few narratives in the ,new ,testament1 but not1 surely1 of all4 ,precisely the chief miracles--the birth of ,jesus1 his baptism1 transfiguration1 resurrection1 the change of water into wine at ,cana1 the stilling of the storm1 and walking on the sea--violence must be used to explain these miracles by reference to ,old ,testament types1 and the ,jewish idea of the ,messiah offers no lines corresponding to these4 ,at this point therefore1 at all events1 we must look about us for another method of explanation4 ,and ,weisse was undoubtedly right in pointing to the spontaneous productivity of the ,christian spirit in the primitive ,church as the source of the miraculous narratives1 in which it gave expression in symbolic and allegorical forms to its ideal truth and the new inspired life of which it was conscious4 ,not that these narratives were intended by the narrators themselves to be merely allegories1 or symbolical illustrations of spiritual truths2 but the religious imagination gave birth to these illustrations after the manner of unconscious poetry1 that is1 without distinguishing between the poetic form and the essential truth of the idea2 believing1 as the religious imagination did1 in the ideal content of the narratives1 and being at the same time unable to give vivid and sensible expression to it in any other than the material form of outward miracles1 it involuntarily came to believe also in the reality of the symbolical form of the narrative to which it had itself given rise2 it conceived idea and history both together in such inseparable combination as to confer on each equal truth and certainty4 ,in the production of such ideal narratives the same process is observable to-day in the experience of simple religious believers3 feeling the ideal truth of the content of the stories1 they come to believe also in the reality of the outward history in which the idea has for them been incorporated4 ,but the critical understanding of the historical inquirer is permitted1 and indeed is bound1 to distinguish clearly and definitely1 as the simple-minded believer cannot do1 between the spiritual idea and the outward form of its representation1 and to find in the former both the productive power and the permanent kernel within the outward husk4 ,this explanation of the miraculous legends of the ,bible is not only more correct and profound than ,strauss's from the point of view of historical science1 but for the religious consciousness it is far less objectionable1 as ,weisse observes with truth2 inasmuch as in this case the legends do not appear as the worthless product of the idle play of the imagination1 but as the normal expression1 rationally and psychologically intelligible1 of a creative religious spirit1 which displays its treasures of ideal truth in this legendary and mythical poetry for the benefit of the originators and the wider world4 ,nor should it be left unnoticed that ,strauss himself had already indicated in a few cases this more profound explanation of myths by means of the religious idea4 ,at the close of his interpretation of the story of the ,transfiguration 7 #ajg71 for instance1 he says1 we may see from this example very plainly how the natural system of explanation1 by insisting on the historical certainty of the narratives1 lets go their ideal truth1 sacrificing the content to the form of the story1 whereas the mythical interpretation1 by resigning the historical material body of such narratives1 really rescues and preserves their idea1 their soul and spirit4 ,he might1 however1 have unfolded the idea of the ,transfiguration with greater definiteness and fulness if he had not merely alluded to the dogmatic discussion of ,paul in #b ,cor4 iii4 #g sq41 but had recognised it as the real theme of the gospel story1 and had interpreted the latter accordingly4 ,in the same way1 in the case of the story of the birth of ,jesus 7,luke i4 and ii471 ,strauss laid great emphasis on the analogies and figures of the ,old ,testament1 which1 after all1 could only contribute as secondary motives in the formation of this birth-story1 while its real origin is to be sought in the ,pauline ,messianic idea of 8the ,son of ,god1 according to the spirit of holiness0 7,rom4 i4 #d2 #a ,cor4 xv4 #de sq471 a fact ,strauss overlooked4 ,this defect takes a really surprising form when he comes to explain the miracles of the ,fourth ,gospel1 which1 in complete independence of any suggestion from the ,old ,testament1 are entirely based upon the dogmatic ideas of the ,alexandrian theology1 and simply supply their transparent symbolic vestment4 ,how much more truthfully and profoundly can the miracle at ,cana1 or the raising of ,lazarus1 or the cure of the man born blind1 be interpreted from this point of view than from that of ,strauss6 ,in this respect ,baur's interpretation of the ,fourth ,gospel was an immense advance beyond ,strauss1 as the latter himself acknowledged subsequently4 ,with the above defects of ,strauss's method of interpretation is connected1 in the last place1 the fact that the outcome of his book in reference to the decisive question1--,what1 then1 is the historical kernel of the evangelical tradition1 what the real character of ,jesus and of his work8--is meagre and unsatisfactory4 ,in the closing essay at the end of his work1 it is true1 he endeavoured to restore dogmatically what he had destroyed critically1 but he effected this in a way which amounted to the transformation of religious faith in ,christ into a metaphysical allegory4 ,the predications of faith with regard to ,christ are to be regarded as containing predications as to the relations of the human race to the ,absolute1 as to the self-abasement of the ,infinite to the ,finite1 and the return of the ,infinite to itself1 as to mind and its power over nature1 and its dependence on it1 and the like4 ,in all this ,strauss was led astray by the influence of the ,hegelian philosophy1 which looked for the truth of religion in logical and metaphysical categories instead of in the facts and experiences of moral feeling and volition4 ,but as there is no essential relation between these metaphysical ideas and the person of ,jesus1 he is made arbitrarily1 as any one else might have been1 an illustration and example of absolute ideas to which he stands in no more intimate relation than the rest of the human race2 whereby the special historical importance of the originator of the ,christian community1 and of the first model of its religious and moral life1 is not only left without explanation1 but is lost altogether1 a result which does violence not merely to the religious consciousness1 but is unsatisfactory to historical science1 which is concerned to understand ,jesus as the originating source of ,christianity4 ,it is quite true that we can go with ,strauss in his answer to the alternative of ,ullmann whether the church created the ,christ of the ,gospels or he the church1 by declaring the alternative false1 and the two things in so far both tenable as the ,christ of the ,gospels is a creation of the faith of the church1 but this faith an effect of the person of the historical ,jesus4 ,we find this answer to ,ullmann just1 but cannot free ,strauss from the charge of having worked out in his book the first only of these two positions1 and of having passed over the second4 ,he has shown no more than that the church formed the mythical traditions about ,jesus out of its faith in him as the ,messiah4 ,but how did the church come by the faith that ,jesus of ,nazareth was the ,messiah8 ,to this question--which is the main question of a ,life of ,jesus--,strauss gave his readers no answer4 ,undoubtedly it can be urged in his defence that the criticism of the sources was at that time still in a condition of too great confusion and uncertainty to permit any successful answer to that problem of the historical kernel of the life of ,jesus4 ,nevertheless the difficulty of the matter could not relieve the historian of the duty of at least making an attempt to trace from the materials left to him1 as the residue of his critical analysis of the deeds and words of ,jesus1 the main outlines of his character1 to bring out the peculiarity and originality of his religious genius1 and in this way to discover in the original personality and reforming activity of ,jesus the originating cause of the rise of the community of his disciples and their faith in him as the ,messiah and his divine mission4 ,if in his closing essay ,strauss had presented a religious and moral description of ,jesus of this nature1 instead of a metaphysical allegory as a substitute for the shattered mythological conception of tradition1 though the objection of the church to his work would not have been wanting1 it would then undoubtedly have taken a less passionately denunciatory form than was the case1 in consequence of the purely negative character of the result1 unrelieved by any modifying conclusion4 ,in proportion to the strength of the feeling of these defects1 shared by readers of all parties1 was the urgency of the duty laid upon scientific theologians of preparing1 by a renewed and more thorough examination of the ,gospels1 the stones of a new edifice to be reared upon the site laid bare by ,strauss's critical labours4 8,in the darkness which criticism produces1 by putting out all the lights hitherto thought to be historical1 the eye has first to learn by gradual habit to again distinguish a few single objects10 as ,strauss himself remarked in his third edition4 ,but this difficult task was not accomplished by those apologists who endeavoured to make good the damage by the antiquated arts of the harmonists1 with their petty concessions1 mystifications1 and evasions1 but by those courageous inquirers who1 undeterred by dogmatic considerations1 sought by a strictly historical method to set in the true light the exact composition and the mutual relations of the evangelical documents4 ,we have already remarked that ,baur and his disciples1 the so-called ,tbingen school1 took a leading part in this work1 while other independent students co-operated with them1 supplementing and correcting their labours4 ,this1 however1 is not the place to follow these inquiries in detail2 but we must glance at their result as regards the historical treatment of the life of ,jesus4 ,for an entire generation the examination of the literary details of the ,gospels had occupied theologians so exclusively that the interest in the supreme problems of the evangelical history seemed to have been almost lost sight of4 ,but this interest was newly awakened1 and made itself felt far beyond learned theological circles1 by the nearly simultaneous publication of ,renan's ,vie de ,jsus and ,strauss's second ,leben ,jesu fr das deutsche ,volk 7#ahfd74 ,these two works1 with all their dissimilarity1 resemble each other in this1 that they were both written by scholars of the highest eminence1 not for the learned world1 but for educated people generally1 both throwing overboard1 therefore1 the ballast of learned detailed criticism1 and presenting the results of their inquiries in a language intelligible to everybody1 and attractive from its literary excellence4 ,they are alike also in this1 that both subordinate the criticism of the gospel traditions to a positive description of the personality of ,jesus1 of his essential religious tendency and genius1 of his relation to the ,messianic idea of his nation1 to the law and the temple1 to the hierarchy and religious and political parties of his time1 both seeking an explanation of the reformatory success of the commencement1 and also of the tragical issue of his labours in these factors4 ,but inasmuch as ,strauss confines himself to what he can deem the ascertained or probable facts1 after a strict critique of the sources1 the portrait delineated by him turns out naturally somewhat indistinct and defective in its outlines2 the meagreness of the result answers to the caution of his historical conscience4 ,renan1 on the other hand1 feels no such scruples2 in his criticism of the sources he goes to work with a much lighter heart1 and claims for the biographer the right to help himself over the lacun and obscurities or contradictions of his authorities by calling in the aid of the creative imagination1 with its powers of combination and inference4 ,by this means he has succeeded in presenting a life of ,jesus distinguished for its epic vividness and dramatic development1 but its sthetic charm has been purchased at the price of its historical solidity4 ,this novelistic feature becomes most questionable when it wanders into the vagaries of the naturalistic explanation of the miracles 7e4g4 the raising of ,lazarus71 and in such cases casts reflections on the moral character of ,jesus4 ,on the other hand1 for ,renan must be claimed the merit of having emphasised the social aspects of the ,messianic mission of ,jesus1 and of having attempted to sketch the development of his inner life1 a change in the phases of his reformatory labours4 ,as to ,strauss's second ,life of ,jesus1 its strength lies1 as in the first1 not so much in the first part1 which deals with the positive side of the history1 as in the second part1 where it comes to treat of the mythical side of the history4 ,but in the second work1 in the place of the analysis of the traditions given in the first1 we get a synthetic presentation of the rise and gradual growth and elaboration1 in more and more exalted forms1 of the idea of the ,christ of mythical tradition2 the successive stages of the development of the ,christian consciousness are set forth by reference to the genesis of the ideas of ,christ's person1 power1 and supernatural exaltation4 ,thus this genetic method of treatment1 followed in the later work1 supplants and confirms the result of the former one2 while the latter had shown that the miraculous narratives in the ,gospels are myth and not history1 the new ,life shows how in these myths1 after all1 history is reflected1 namely1 the history of the religious consciousness of the ,christian community4 ,the great advance of this new treatment upon that of the previous work was the fruit of the intervening studies of ,baur and his disciples1 to which ,renan1 to the detriment of the critical and historical value of his work1 had not paid sufficient attention4 ,the two works of ,renan and ,strauss were followed by a deluge of literature on the life of ,jesus1 the historical value of which is very various4 ,to give an account of all these books would require more space than is at my disposal4 ,i must confine myself to the work of ,theodor ,keim1 an ,english translation of which has been published under the 8,theological ,translation ,fund40 ,the work is so distinguished by the richness of its learned material1 and the ability with which it is handled1 as to constitute it the best representation of the present condition of our knowledge of the life of ,jesus4 ,keim's standpoint differs from that of ,strauss by the warmth of religious feeling and enthusiasm which pervades his entire work1 while at the same time no fetters are laid upon the critical reason2 freedom and piety join hands1 in order to be just to the double claim which the truth of history on the one hand1 and the church on the other1 are justified in presenting4 ,the most brilliant part of ,keim's work is his delineation of the religious personality of ,jesus1--how in it were combined1 in a unique degree1 strength and harmony1 complete openness towards the world1 with perfect inwardness towards ,god1 so as to become the source of a new religion1 in which self-surrender and liberty1 humility and energy1 enthusiasm and lucidity1 are blended1 and the chasm of previous ages between ,god and man filled up4 ,his description of the psychological development of the ,messianic consciousness of ,jesus out of inward experiences and outward impressions and impulses1 is also drawn with great delicacy of touch2 at all events1 it is an able and suggestive effort to penetrate1 as far as the state of the sources admits1 by means of sympathetic and reproductive divination1 to the personal experiences and mental states of the religious genius from whom a new epoch in the world's religious history proceeded4 ,still1 as in the kindred efforts of ,renan1 ,weizscker1 ,beyschlag and ,weiss1 we may never forget how much1 with the poverty of the ascertained historical materials1 is left to the uncontrolled power of combination and divination2 in other words1 to the imagination1 which at best can do no more than roughly and approximately arrive at the truth1 while it may no less easily go far astray4 ,it is certainly to be deemed an advance that in the more recent works on the life of ,jesus the subject of main interest is not so much the external miracles as the internal1 the problems of the peculiar nature and development of his religious consciousness and character1 his view of his vocation1 his attitude towards the ,messianic idea1 and the like4 ,yet this advance is manifestly attended by the temptation to sacrifice the caution of historical criticism to the production of a biography as rich in detail and as dramatic in movement as possible1 and to represent things as the ascertained results of critical examination1 which are really nothing more than subjective combinations of the writers1 to which a certain degree of probability may be attached1 though the possibility will always remain1 that the actual facts were something quite different4 ,the subtle examination of the question1 whether ,jesus himself ever declared himself to be the ,messiah1 or spoke of his return in celestial glory1 by ,martineau1 in his ,seat of ,authority in ,religion1 is in this respect deserving of all attention1 and is of great value1 as at least supplying a needed lesson in caution in view of the excessive confidence with which questions such as these have been treated by ,renan1 ,keim1 and later writers4 ,in any case1 the reserve and caution of ,strauss are quite justified as a corrective and counterpoise to the extravagances committed in the opposite direction4 ,with regard to the miraculous narratives of the ,gospels1 the advance of more recent criticism beyond the first book of ,strauss has been in two directions4 ,first1 these questions no longer constitute the central point of historical interest1 but are subordinated in importance to the problems of the religious consciousness of ,jesus4 ,secondly1 we do not now seek to interpret these narratives so exclusively and without distinction from the one motive of the transference to ,jesus of the types of the ,old ,testament2 but the great difference between the various narratives of miracles is clearly recognised1 and various clues are accordingly used in their explanation2 whilst in one narrative we observe merely symbols of religious and dogmatic ideas1 in others we discover1 behind the glorifying tendency to idealism1 some background of historical fact1 for instance1 in the miracles of healing1 as is now very generally acknowledged4 ,it cannot be denied1 it is true1 that with this perfectly legitimate endeavour is connected the peril of falling back into the old abuses of rationalistic artifice4 ,even ,keim has not quite escaped this danger1 inasmuch as he abandons the basis of strict history in the case of the story of the resurrection of ,jesus1 and makes concessions to supernaturalistic dogma2 as the sequel of which the old doctrine of miracles may be readmitted into ,lives of ,jesus1 as is really the case in the works of ,beyschlag and ,weiss4 ,in this danger appears the necessity for the continued prosecution of the negative work of criticism1 a duty as yet by no means supererogatory4 ,the inclination to sink into the slumber of dogma is so natural to every generation that the most uncompromising critical intellect must without intermission stand upon the watch against it4 ,and as this task was performed by ,strauss in his first ,life of ,jesus in a manner that may serve as a model for all time1 the book1 like every truly classical work1 must ever retain its value4 ,strauss's criticism broke down the ramparts of dogmatism1 new and old1 and opened to the inquiring mind the breach through which the conquest of historical truth might be won4 ,otto ,pfleiderer4 ,certior factus ex ,britannia1 librum meum1 quem de vita ,jesu ,,xi abhinc annis composui1 virorum ejusmodi studiis faventium cura in linguam ,britannicam translatum1 brevi illic in publicum proditurum esse1 llitia anxietate temperata commoveor4 ,nam ut gratulari sibi quum est auctorem1 cujus operi contigit1 patri terr ac lingu fines transgredi1 ita sollicitudo eundem subeat necesse est1 ne1 qui domi placuit liber1 foris displiceat1 aut cujus inter populares vel adversariorum numero creverat auctoritas1 apud exteros neglectus in obscuro maneat4 ,solum enim clumque vix minore libri quam plant periculo mutant4 ,et facilius quidem transtuleris opera in illis rebus versantia1 de quibus inter diversas gentes communis quidam aut certe parum discrepans sensus obtinet3 ut1 qu poet aut disciplinarum quas exactas dicunt periti proferunt1 inter politiores hujus seculi nationes fere solent esse communia4 ,neque tamen vel hoc in librorum genere plane quum ,germano cum ,britannis aut ,gallis certamen4 ,peregrina enim cum facilius nostra quam illorum et lingua et indoles recipiat1 longe frequentius poet quoque illorum in nostram quam nostri in illorum linguas transferuntur4 ,at ,germanicum opus in theologi et philosophi quasi confinio versans1 si trajicere in ,britanniam parat1 ne illa quidem inter utramque gentem sensus et studiorum communione adjuvatur4 ,tam diversa enim utrimque via ist disciplin processerunt1 ut in theologia impii1 in philosophia superstitiosi ,britannis ,germani iidem videamur4 ,cum iis1 qui in ,britannia ausi sunt1 historias1 ,judorum et ,christianorum religione sacratas1 examini ut ajunt critico subjicere1 nihil agendum esset1 nisi ut ,lockii sui atque ,humii principia philosophica1 sicut ad reliquas omnes historias1 ita ad illas etiam1 quas legibus istis hucusque superstitio subtraxerat1 adhiberent3 in ,germania ad hoc monstri res degeneraverat1 ut superstitioni a theologorum potissima parte derelict philosophia succurreret1 critico ergo non simplex san philosophi contra theologorum superstitionem1 sed duplex et contra philosophorum ex sanioribus principiis deductas ineptas conclusiones1 et contra theologorum propter philosophica ista auxilia ornamentaque inflatam atque induratam superstitionem1 certamen ineundum esset4 ,ex hoc rei statu proprie ,germanico natum opus meum1 nominibus insuper atque opinionibus theologorum ac philosophorum nostratium refertum1 nec scholarum etiam vocabula1 quibus nostr tantum aures assuevere1 satis evitans1 a ,britannorum usu ingenioque non posse non abhorrere1 tam probe scio1 ut de translato in eorum linguam1 licet interpretatio1 quantum quidem ejus inspicere potuerim1 et accurata et perspicua sit et librum1 quantum in ipsa est1 popularibus commendet1 num gaudendum mihi magnopere sit1 mehercule nesciam4 ,accedit1 quod a primo libri mei ortu duo lustra1 et a recentissima etiam editione unum jam lustrum intercessit4 ,ut tum1 quum opus inchoabam1 via incedebam1 quam pauci ingressi1 totam emensus nemo erat1 ita per primum illud lustrum null fere nisi adversariorum voces audiebantur1 principia mea negantium et historiam in ,evangeliis vel meram1 vel levissima tantum erroris rumorisve adspersione tinctam contineri affirmantium1 cum quibus non modo non disputandum1 sed a quibus ne discendum quidem quidquam erat1 quod ad rem et ad librum vere emendandum pertineret4 ,proximo demum lustro viri vestigia mea non refugientes neque evitantes1 sed persequentes1 ubi ego substiteram longius progressi1 rem revera juverunt atque promoverunt4 ,narrationes in ,evangeliis traditas1 quas rerum vere gestarum esse persuadere mihi non potueram1 mythorum in modum1 qui inter antiquas gentes inveniuntur1 aut in ore populi a minutis initiis coaluisse et eundo crevisse1 aut a singulis1 sed qui vere ita evenisse superstitiose in animum induxerant1 fictas esse existimaveram4 ,quod ut sufficit explicandis plerisque eorum1 qu dubitationem moventia tribus prioribus ,evangeliis continentur3 ita quarti ,evangelii auctorem ad tuendas et illustrandas sententias suas haud raro meras fabulas scientem confinxisse1 a ,baurio1 theologo ,tubingensi doctissimo1 nuper ita demonstratum est1 ut critici me judicii rigori religiosius quam verius temperasse intelligam4 ,dumque prima a ,christo secula accuratius perscrutantur1 partes partiumque certamina1 quibus nova ecclesia commovebatur1 in apricum proferunt1 narrationum haud paucarum1 quas fabulas esse ego bene quidem perspexeram1 sed unde ort essent demonstrare non valueram1 veram in illis prim ecclesi motibus originem detegere theologis ,tubingensibus contigit4 ,imperfectum igitur opus meum1 ut solent rerum initia1 non ob hoc tamen1 quod sententi deest1 timerem1 ne a ,britannis sperneretur1 nisi form etiam illud quod supra dixi peregrinum atque inusitatum accederet4 ,qui si suum ,hennellium non audiverunt1 de iisdem rebus cum ,britannis ,britannice agentem1 quomodo audient1 si quis ,germanus surget1 cujus liber cum sua lingua non potuerit cogitandi quoque disputandique morem prorsus ,germanicum exuere8 ,sed absit omen verbis meis1 atque ut pridem in ,germania1 ita mox in ,britannia jaceat liber hic 4 ,,strauss4 ,scribebam ,heilbronn4 ,med4 mens4 ,april a4 #ahdf4 ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,first ,,german ,,edition4 ,it appeared to the author of the work1 the first half of which is herewith submitted to the public1 that it was time to substitute a new mode of considering the life of ,jesus1 in the place of the antiquated systems of supranaturalism and naturalism4 ,this application of the term antiquated will in the present day be more readily admitted in relation to the latter system than to the former4 ,for while the interest excited by the explanations of the miracles and the conjectural facts of the rationalists has long ago cooled1 the commentaries now most read are those which aim to adapt the supernatural interpretation of the sacred history to modern taste4 ,nevertheless1 in point of fact1 the orthodox view of this history became superannuated earlier than the rationalistic1 since it was only because the former had ceased to satisfy an advanced state of culture1 that the latter was developed1 while the recent attempts to recover1 by the aid of a mystical philosophy1 the supernatural point of view held by our forefathers1 betray themselves1 by the exaggerating spirit in which they are conceived1 to be final1 desperate efforts to render the past present1 the inconceivable conceivable4 ,the new point of view1 which must take the place of the above1 is the mythical4 ,this theory is not brought to bear on the evangelical history for the first time in the present work3 it has long been applied to particular parts of that history1 and is here only extended to its entire tenor4 ,it is not by any means meant that the whole history of ,jesus is to be represented as mythical1 but only that every part of it is to be subjected to a critical examination1 to ascertain whether it have not some admixture of the mythical4 ,the exegesis of the ancient church set out from the double presupposition3 first1 that the gospels contained a history1 and secondly1 that this history was a supernatural one4 ,rationalism rejected the latter of these presuppositions1 but only to cling the more tenaciously to the former1 maintaining that these books present unadulterated1 though only natural1 history4 ,science cannot rest satisfied with this half-measure3 the other presupposition also must be relinquished1 and the inquiry must first be made whether in fact1 and to what extent1 the ground on which we stand in the gospels is historical4 ,this is the natural course of things1 and thus far the appearance of a work like the present is not only justifiable1 but even necessary4 ,it is certainly not therefore evident that the author is precisely the individual whose vocation it is to appear in this position4 ,he has a very vivid consciousness that many others would have been able to execute such a work with incomparably superior erudition4 ,yet on the other hand he believes himself to be at least possessed of one qualification which especially fitted him to undertake this task4 ,the majority of the most learned and acute theologians of the present day fail in the main requirement for such a work1 a requirement without which no amount of learning will suffice to achieve anything in the domain of criticism--namely1 the internal liberation of the feelings and intellect from certain religious and dogmatical presuppositions2 and this the author early attained by means of philosophical studies4 ,if theologians regard this absence of presupposition from his work1 as unchristian3 he regards the believing presuppositions of theirs as unscientific4 ,widely as in this respect the tone of the present work may be contrasted with the edifying devoutness and enthusiastic mysticism of recent books on similar subjects2 still it will nowhere depart from the seriousness of science1 or sink into frivolity2 and it seems a just demand in return1 that the judgments which are passed upon it should also confine themselves to the domain of science1 and keep aloof from bigotry and fanaticism4 ,the author is aware that the essence of the ,christian faith is perfectly independent of his criticism4 ,the supernatural birth of ,christ1 his miracles1 his resurrection and ascension1 remain eternal truths1 whatever doubts may be cast on their reality as historical facts4 ,the certainty of this can alone give calmness and dignity to our criticism1 and distinguish it from the naturalistic criticism of the last century1 the design of which was1 with the historical fact1 to subvert also the religious truth1 and which thus necessarily became frivolous4 ,a dissertation at the close of the work will show that the dogmatic significance of the life of ,jesus remains inviolate3 in the meantime let the calmness and insensibility with which1 in the course of it1 criticism undertakes apparently dangerous operations1 be explained solely by the security of the author's conviction that no injury is threatened to the ,christian faith4 ,investigations of this kind may1 however1 inflict a wound on the faith of individuals4 ,should this be the case with theologians1 they have in their science the means of healing such wounds1 from which1 if they would not remain behind the development of their age1 they cannot possibly be exempt4 ,for the laity the subject is certainly not adequately prepared2 and for this reason the present work is so framed1 that at least the unlearned among them will quickly and often perceive that the book is not destined for them4 ,if from curiosity or excessive zeal against heresy they persist in their perusal1 they will then have1 as ,schleiermacher says on a similar occasion1 to bear the punishment in their conscience1 since their feelings directly urge on them the conviction that they understand not that of which they are ambitious to speak4 ,a new opinion1 which aims to fill the place of an older one1 ought fully to adjust its position with respect to the latter4 ,hence the way to the mythical view is here taken in each particular point through the supranaturalistic and rationalistic opinions and their respective refutations2 but1 as becomes a valid refutation1 with an acknowledgment of what is true in the opinions combated1 and an adoption of this truth into the new theory4 ,this method also brings with it the extrinsic advantage1 that the work may now serve as a repertory of the principal opinions and treatises concerning all parts of the evangelical history4 ,the author has not1 however1 aimed to give a complete bibliographical view of this department of theological literature1 but1 where it was possible1 has adhered to the chief works in each separate class of opinions4 ,for the rationalistic system the works of ,paulus remain classical1 and are therefore pre-eminently referred to2 for the orthodox opinions1 the commentary of ,olshausen is especially important1 as the most recent and approved attempt to render the supranatural interpretation philosophical and modern2 while as a preliminary to a critical investigation of the life of ,jesus1 the commentaries of ,fritzsche are excellently adapted1 since they exhibit1 together with uncommon philological learning1 that freedom from prejudice and scientific indifference to results and consequences1 which form the first condition of progress in this region of inquiry4 ,the second volume1 which will open with a detailed examination of the miracles of ,jesus1 and which will conclude the whole work1 is already prepared and will be in the press immediately on the completion of the first4 ,,the ,,author4 ,tbingen1 #bdth ,may1 #ahce4 ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,fourth ,,german ,,edition4 ,as this new edition of my critical examination of the life of ,jesus appears simultaneously with the first volume of my ,dogmatik1 it will not be expected to contain any essential alterations4 ,indeed1 even in the absence of other labours1 ,i should scarcely have been inclined to undertake such on the present occasion4 ,the critical researches prompted by the appearance of my work have1 after the stormy reaction of the first few years1 at length entered on that quiet course1 which promises the most valuable assistance towards the confirmation and more precise determination of the negative results at which ,i have arrived4 ,but these fruits still require some years for their maturing2 and it must therefore be deferred to a future opportunity to enrich this work by the use of them4 ,i could not persuade myself to do so1 at least in the present instance1 by prosecuting a polemic against opposite opinions4 ,already in the last edition there was more of a polemical character than accorded with the unity and calmness proper to such a work2 hence ,i was in this respect admonished rather to abridge than to amplify4 ,but that edition also contained too much of compliance4 ,the intermingling voices of opponents1 critics1 and fellow labourers1 to which ,i held it a duty attentively to listen1 had confused the idea of the work in my mind2 in the diligent comparison of divergent opinions ,i had lost sight of the subject itself4 ,hence on coming with a more collected mind to this last revision1 ,i found alterations at which ,i could not but wonder1 and by which ,i had evidently done myself injustice4 ,in all these passages the earlier readings are now restored1 and thus my labour in this new edition has chiefly consisted in whetting1 as it were1 my good sword1 to free it from the notches made in it rather by my own grinding1 than by the blows of my enemies4 ,,the ,,author4 ,stuttgard1 #agth ,october1 #ahdj4 ,,contents4 ,,introduction4 ,,development ,,of ,,the ,,mythical ,,point ,,of ,,view ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,gospel ,,histories4 ,,page #a4 ,inevitable rise of different modes of explaining sacred histories #ci #b4 ,different explanations of sacred legends among the ,greeks #dj #c4 ,allegorical interpretations among the ,hebrews4 ,philo #da #d4 ,allegorical interpretations among the ,christians4 ,origen #da #e4 ,transition to more modern times4 ,deists and ,naturalists of the #agth and #ahth centuries4 ,the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist #dd #f4 ,natural mode of explanation adopted by the ,rationalists4 ,eichhorn4 ,paulus #df #g4 ,moral interpretation of ,kant #ej #h4 ,rise of the mythical mode of interpreting the sacred history1 in reference first to the ,old ,testament #eb #i4 ,the mythical mode of interpretation in reference to the ,new ,testament #eg #aj4 ,the notion of the mythus in its application to sacred histories not clearly apprehended by theologians #ei #aa4 ,the application of the notion of the mythus too circumscribed #fc #ab4 ,opposition to the mythical view of the ,gospel history #fe #ac4 ,the possibility of the existence of mythi in the ,new ,testament considered in reference to external evidences #fi #ad4 ,the possibility of mythi in the ,new ,testament considered on internal grounds #ge #ae4 ,definition of the evangelical mythus1 and its distinctive characteristics #hf #af4 ,criteria by which to distinguish the unhistorical in the ,gospel narrative #hg ,,first ,,part4 ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,birth ,,and ,,childhood ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,annunciation ,,and ,,birth ,,of ,,john ,,the ,,baptist4 #ag4 ,account given by ,luke4 ,immediate supernatural character of the representation #ie #ah4 ,natural explanation of the narrative #ajj #ai4 ,mythical view of the narrative in its different stages #ajd ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,davidical ,,descent ,,of ,,jesus1 ,,according ,,to ,,the ,,genealogical ,,tables ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke4 #bj4 ,the two genealogies of ,jesus considered separately and irrespectively of one another #ajh #ba4 ,comparison of the two genealogies4 ,attempt to reconcile their contradictions #aab #bb4 ,the genealogies unhistorical #aag ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,announcement ,,of ,,the ,,conception ,,of ,,jesus4--,,its ,,supernatural ,,character4--,,visit ,,of ,,mary ,,to ,,elizabeth4 #bc4 ,sketch of the different canonical and apocryphal accounts #aai #bd4 ,disagreements of the canonical gospels in relation to the form of the annunciation #aba #be4 ,import of the angel's message4 ,fulfilment of the prophecy of ,isaiah #abf #bf4 ,jesus begotten of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,criticism of the orthodox opinion #acj #bg4 ,retrospect of the genealogies #acb #bh4 ,natural explanation of the history of the conception #acg #bi4 ,history of the conception of ,jesus viewed as a mythus #adj #cj4 ,relation of ,joseph to ,mary4 ,brothers of ,jesus #adc #ca4 ,visit of ,mary to ,elizabeth #adh ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,birth ,,and ,,earliest ,,events ,,of ,,the ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 #cb4 ,the census #aeb #cc4 ,particular circumstances of the birth of ,jesus4 ,the circumcision #aef #cd4 ,the ,magi and their star4 ,the flight into ,egypt1 and the murder of the children in ,bethlehem4 ,criticism of the supranaturalistic view #afb #ce4 ,attempts at a natural explanation of the history of the ,magi4 ,transition to the mythical explanation #afi #cf4 ,the purely mythical explanation of the narrative concerning the ,magi1 and of the events with which it is connected #agc #cg4 ,chronological relation between the visit of the ,magi1 together with the flight into ,egypt1 and the presentation in the temple recorded by ,luke #agh #ch4 ,the presentation of ,jesus in the temple #aha #ci4 ,retrospect4 ,difference between ,matthew and ,luke as to the original residence of the parents of ,jesus #ahd ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,first ,,visit ,,to ,,the ,,temple1 ,,and ,,the ,,education ,,of ,,jesus4 #dj4 ,jesus1 when twelve years old1 in the temple #aia #da4 ,this narrative also mythical #aif #db4 ,on the external life of ,jesus up to the time of his public appearance #aih #dc4 ,the intellectual development of ,jesus #bja ,,second ,,part4 ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,public ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,relations ,,between ,,jesus ,,and ,,john ,,the ,,baptist4 #dd4 ,chronological relations between ,john and ,jesus #bji #de4 ,appearance and design of the ,baptist4 ,his personal relations with ,jesus #bad #df4 ,was ,jesus acknowledged by ,john as the ,messiah8 and in what sense8 #bai #dg4 ,opinion of the evangelists and of ,jesus concerning the ,baptist1 with his own judgment of himself4 ,result of the inquiry into the relationship between these two individuals #bcj #dh4 ,the execution of ,john the ,baptist #bcd ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,baptism ,,and ,,temptation ,,of ,,jesus4 #di4 ,why did ,jesus receive baptism from ,john8 #bcg #ej4 ,the scene at the baptism of ,jesus considered as supernatural1 and as natural #bci #ea4 ,an attempt at a criticism and mythical interpretation of the narratives #bdb #eb4 ,relation of the supernatural at the baptism of ,jesus to the supernatural in his conception #bdg #ec4 ,place and time of the temptation of ,jesus4 ,divergencies of the evangelists on this subject #bdi #ed4 ,the history of the temptation conceived in the sense of the evangelists #beb #ee4 ,the temptation considered as a natural occurrence either internal or external2 and also as a parable #bee #ef4 ,the history of the temptation as a mythus #bei ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,locality ,,and ,,chronology ,,of ,,the ,,public ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 #eg4 ,difference between the synoptical writers and ,john1 as to the customary scene of the ministry of ,jesus #bfd #eh4 ,the residence of ,jesus at ,capernaum #bga #ei4 ,divergencies of the ,evangelists as to the chronology of the life of ,jesus4 ,duration of his public ministry #bge #fj4 ,the attempts at a chronological arrangement of the particular events in the public life of ,jesus #bgh ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,jesus ,,as ,,the ,,messiah4 #fa4 ,jesus1 the ,son of ,man #bha #fb4 ,how soon did ,jesus conceive himself to be the ,messiah1 and find recognition as such from others8 #bhd #fc4 ,jesus1 the ,son of ,god #bhh #fd4 ,the divine mission and authority of ,jesus4 ,his pre-existence #bia #fe4 ,the messianic plan of ,jesus4 ,indications of a political element #bic #ff4 ,data for the pure spirituality of the messianic plan of ,jesus4 ,balance #bie #fg4 ,the relation of ,jesus to the ,mosaic law #big #fh4 ,scope of the messianic plan of ,jesus4 ,relation to the ,gentiles #cjj #fi4 ,relation of the messianic plan of ,jesus to the ,samaritans4 ,his interview with the woman of ,samaria #cjc ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,disciples ,,of ,,jesus4 #gj4 ,calling of the first companions of ,jesus4 ,difference between the first two ,evangelists and the fourth #cji #ga4 ,peter's draught of fishes #cae #gb4 ,calling of ,matthew4 ,connexion of ,jesus with the publicans #cai #gc4 ,the twelve apostles #cbc #gd4 ,the twelve considered individually4 ,the three or four most confidential disciples of ,jesus #cbf #ge4 ,the rest of the twelve1 and the seventy disciples #ccj ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,discourses ,,of ,,jesus ,,in ,,the ,,three ,,first ,,gospels4 #gf4 ,the ,sermon on the ,mount #ccd #gg4 ,instructions to the twelve4 ,lamentations over the ,galilean cities4 ,joy over the calling of the simple #cdb #gh4 ,the parables #cde #gi4 ,miscellaneous instructions and controversies of ,jesus #cee ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,discourses ,,of ,,jesus ,,in ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel4 #hj4 ,conversation of ,jesus with ,nicodemus #cfe #ha4 ,the discourses of ,jesus1 ,john v4-xii4 #cga #hb4 ,isolated maxims of ,jesus1 common to the fourth gospel and the synoptical ones #cgg #hc4 ,the modern discussions on the authenticity of the discourses in the ,gospel of ,john4 ,result #cha ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,events ,,in ,,the ,,public ,,life ,,of ,,jesus1 ,,exclusive ,,of ,,the ,,miracles4 #hd4 ,general comparison of the manner of narration that distinguishes the several ,evangelists #chg #he4 ,isolated groups of anecdotes4 ,imputation of a league with ,beelzebub1 and demand of a sign #cia #hf4 ,visit of the mother and brethren of ,jesus4 ,the woman who pronounces the mother of ,jesus blessed #cid #hg4 ,contentions for pre-eminence among the disciples4 ,the love of ,jesus for children #cif #hh4 ,the purification of the temple #cii #hi4 ,narratives of the anointing of ,jesus by a woman #djb #ij4 ,the narratives of the woman taken in adultery1 and of ,mary and ,martha #dji ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,miracles ,,of ,,jesus4 #ia4 ,jesus considered as a worker of miracles #dac #ib4 ,the demoniacs1 considered generally #dae #ic4 ,cases of the expulsion of demons by ,jesus1 considered singly #dbc #id4 ,cures of lepers #dcg #ie4 ,cures of the blind #dda #if4 ,cures of paralytics4 ,did ,jesus regard diseases as punishments8 #deb #ig4 ,involuntary cures #deg #ih4 ,cures at a distance #dfb #ii4 ,cures on the sabbath #dga #ajj4 ,resuscitations of the dead #dgf #aja4 ,anecdotes having relation to the sea #dif #ajb4 ,the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes #ejg #ajc4 ,jesus turns water into wine #eai #ajd4 ,jesus curses a barren fig-tree #ebg ,,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,transfiguration ,,of ,,jesus1 ,,and ,,his ,,last ,,journey ,,to ,,jerusalem4 #aje4 ,the transfiguration of ,jesus considered as a miraculous external event #ece #ajf4 ,the natural explanation of the narrative in various forms #ecg #ajg4 ,the history of the transfiguration considered as a mythus #edj #ajh4 ,diverging accounts concerning the last journey of ,jesus to ,jerusalem #edf #aji4 ,divergencies of the gospels1 in relation to the point from which ,jesus made his entrance into ,jerusalem #edi #aaj4 ,more particular circumstances of the entrance4 ,its object and historical reality #eec ,,third ,,part4 ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,passion1 ,,death1 ,,and ,,resurrection ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,relation ,,of ,,jesus ,,to ,,the ,,idea ,,of ,a ,,suffering ,,and ,,dying ,,messiah2 ,,his ,,discourses ,,on ,,his ,,death1 ,,resurrection1 ,,and ,,second ,,advent4 #aaa4 ,did ,jesus in precise terms predict his passion and death8 #efc #aab4 ,the predictions of ,jesus concerning his death in general2 their relation to the ,jewish idea of the ,messiah2 declarations of ,jesus concerning the object and effects of his death #efg #aac4 ,precise declarations of ,jesus concerning his future resurrection #egd #aad4 ,figurative discourses1 in which ,jesus is supposed to have announced his resurrection #egf #aae4 ,the discourses of ,jesus on his second advent4 ,criticism of the different interpretations #ehb #aaf4 ,origin of the discourses on the second advent #eia ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,machinations ,,of ,,the ,,enemies ,,of ,,jesus2 ,,treachery ,,of ,,judas2 ,,last ,,supper ,,with ,,the ,,disciples4 #aag4 ,development of the relation of ,jesus to his enemies #eii #aah4 ,jesus and his betrayer #fjb #aai4 ,different opinions concerning the character of ,judas1 and the motives of his treachery #fjg #abj4 ,preparation for the passover #faa #aba4 ,divergent statements respecting the time of the last supper #fad #abb4 ,divergencies in relation to the occurrences at the last meal of ,jesus #fba #abc4 ,announcement of the betrayal and the denial #fbf #abd4 ,the institution of the ,lord's supper #fca ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,retirement ,,to ,,the ,,mount ,,of ,,olives1 ,,arrest1 ,,trial1 ,,condemnation1 ,,and ,,crucifixion ,,of ,,jesus4 #abe4 ,agony of ,jesus in the garden #fce #abf4 ,relation of the fourth gospel to the events in ,gethsemane4 ,the farewell discourses in ,john1 and the scene following the announcement of the ,greeks #fdj #abg4 ,arrest of ,jesus #fdi #abh4 ,examination of ,jesus before the high priest #fec #abi4 ,the denial by ,peter #feh #acj4 ,the death of the betrayer #ffb #aca4 ,jesus before ,pilate and ,herod #ffi #acb4 ,the crucifixion #fgg ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,death ,,and ,,resurrection ,,of ,,jesus4 #acc4 ,prodigies attendant on the death of ,jesus #fia #acd4 ,the wound by a spear in the side of ,jesus #fig #ace4 ,burial of ,jesus #gja #acf4 ,the watch at the grave of ,jesus #gje #acg4 ,first tidings of the resurrection #gji #ach4 ,appearances of the risen ,jesus in ,galilee and in ,judea1 including those mentioned by ,paul and by apocryphal writings #gah #aci4 ,quality of the body and life of ,jesus after the resurrection #gbh #adj4 ,debates concerning the reality of the death and resurrection of ,jesus #gce ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,ascension4 #ada4 ,the last commands and promises of ,jesus #gde #adb4 ,the so-called ascension considered as a supernatural and as a natural event #gdi #adc4 ,insufficiency of the narratives of the ascension4 ,mythical conception of those narratives #geb ,,concluding ,,dissertation4 ,,the ,,dogmatic ,,import ,,of ,,the ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 #add4 ,necessary transition from criticism to dogma #geg #ade4 ,the ,christology of the orthodox system #geh #adf4 ,objections to the ,christology of the church #gfd #adg4 ,the ,christology of rationalism #gfg #adh4 ,the eclectic ,christology of ,schleiermacher #gfh #adi4 ,christology interpreted symbolically4 ,kant4 ,de ,wette #ggc #aej4 ,the speculative ,christology #ggg #aea4 ,last dilemma #ggh #aeb4 ,relation of the critical and speculative theology to the church #gha ,,the ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,introduction4 ,,development ,,of ,,the ,,mythical ,,point ,,of ,,view ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,gospel ,,histories4 #a4 ,,inevitable ,,rise ,,of ,,different ,,modes ,,of ,,explaining ,,sacred ,,histories4 ,wherever a religion1 resting upon written records1 prolongs and extends the sphere of its dominion1 accompanying its votaries through the varied and progressive stages of mental cultivation1 a discrepancy between the representations of those ancient records1 referred to as sacred1 and the notions of more advanced periods of mental development1 will inevitably sooner or later arise4 ,in the first instance this disagreement is felt in reference only to the unessential--the external form3 the expressions and delineations are seen to be inappropriate2 but by degrees it manifests itself also in regard to that which is essential3 the fundamental ideas and opinions in these early writings fail to be commensurate with a more advanced civilisation4 ,as long as this discrepancy is either not in itself so considerable1 or else is not so universally discerned and acknowledged1 as to lead to a complete renunciation of these ,scriptures as of sacred authority1 so long will a system of reconciliation by means of interpretation be adopted and pursued by those who have a more or less distinct consciousness of the existing incongruity4 ,a main element in all religious records is sacred history2 a history of events in which the divine enters1 without intermediation1 into the human2 the ideal thus assuming an immediate embodiment4 ,but as the progress of mental cultivation mainly consists in the gradual recognition of a chain of causes and effects connecting natural phenomena with each other2 so the mind in its development becomes ever increasingly conscious of those mediate links which are indispensable to the realization of the ideal2 #a and hence the discrepancy between the modern culture and the ancient records1 with regard to their historical portion1 becomes so apparent1 that the immediate intervention of the divine in human affairs loses its probability4 ,besides1 as the humanity of these records is the humanity of an early period1 consequently of an age comparatively undeveloped and necessarily rude1 a sense of repulsion is likewise excited4 ,the incongruity may be thus expressed4 ,the divine cannot so have happened2 7not immediately1 not in forms so rude27 or1 that which has so happened cannot have been divine3--and if a reconciliation be sought by means of interpretation1 it will be attempted to prove1 either that the divine did not manifest itself in the manner related1--which is to deny the historical validity of the ancient ,scriptures2 or1 that the actual occurrences were not divine--which is to explain away the absolute contents of these books4 ,in both cases the interpretation may be partial or impartial3 partial1 if undertaken with a determination to close the eyes to the secretly recognised fact of the disagreement between the modern culture and the ancient records1 and to see only in such interpretation the original signification of these records2 impartial1 if it unequivocally acknowledges and openly avows that the matters narrated in these books must be viewed in a light altogether different from that in which they were regarded by the authors themselves4 ,this latter method1 however1 by no means involves the entire rejection of the religious documents2 on the contrary1 the essential may be firmly retained1 whilst the unessential is unreservedly abandoned4 #b4 ,,different ,,explanations ,,of ,,sacred ,,legends ,,among ,,the ,,greeks4 ,though the ,hellenistic religion cannot be said to have rested upon written records1 it became enshrined in the ,greek poems1 for example1 in those of ,homer and ,hesiod2 and these1 no less than its orally transmitted legends1 did not fail to receive continually varying interpretations1 successively adapted to the progressive intellectual culture of the ,greeks4 ,at an early period the rigid philosophy of the ,greeks1 and under its influence even some of the ,greek poets1 recognized the impossibility of ascribing to ,deity manifestations so grossly human1 so immediate1 and so barbarous1 as those exhibited and represented as divine in the wild conflicts of ,hesiod's ,theogony1 and in the domestic occupations and trivial pursuits of the ,homeric deities4 ,hence arose the quarrel of ,plato1 and prior to him of ,pindar1 with ,homer2 #b hence the cause which induced ,anaxagoras1 to whom the invention of the allegorical mode of interpretation is ascribed1 to apply the ,homeric delineations to virtue and to justice2 #c hence it was that the ,stoics understood the ,theogony of ,hesiod as relating to the action of the elements1 which1 according to their notions1 constituted1 in their highest union1 the divine nature4 #d ,thus did these several thinkers1 each according to his own peculiar mode of thought1 succeed in discovering an absolute meaning in these representations3 the one finding in them a physical1 the other an ethical signification1 whilst1 at the same time1 they gave up their external form1 ceasing to regard them as strictly historical4 ,on the other hand1 the more popular and sophistical culture of another class of thinkers led them to opposite conclusions4 ,though1 in their estimation1 every semblance of the divine had evaporated from these histories2 though they were convinced that the proceedings ascribed to the gods were not godlike1 still they did not abandon the historical sense of these narratives4 ,with ,evemerus #e they transformed the subjects of these histories from gods to men1 to heroes and sages of antiquity1 kings and tyrants1 who1 through deeds of might and valour1 had acquired divine honours4 ,some indeed went still further1 and1 with ,polybius1 #f considered the whole system of heathen theology as a fable1 invented by the founders of states to awe the people into subjection4 #c4 ,,allegorical ,,interpretations ,,among ,,the ,,hebrews4--,,philo4 ,whilst1 on the one hand1 the isolation and stability of the ,hebrews served to retard the development of similar manifestations amongst this people1 on the other hand1 when once actually developed1 they were the more marked2 because1 in proportion to the high degree of authority ascribed to the sacred records1 was the skill and caution required in their interpretation4 ,thus1 even in ,palestine1 subsequent to the exile1 and particularly after the time of the ,maccabees1 many ingenious attempts were made to interpret the ,old ,testament so as to remove offensive literalities1 supply deficiencies1 and introduce the notions of a later age4 ,examples of this system of interpretation occur in the writings of the ,rabbins1 and even in the ,new ,testament2 #g but it was at that place where the ,jewish mind came into contact with ,greek civilization1 and under its influence was carried beyond the limits of its own national culture--namely at ,alexandria--that the allegorical mode of interpretation was first consistently applied to the whole body of historical narrative in the ,old ,testament4 ,many had prepared the way1 but it was ,philo who first fully developed the doctrine of both a common and a deeper sense of the ,holy ,scriptures4 ,he was by no means inclined to cast away the former1 but generally placed the two together1 side by side1 and even declared himself opposed to those who1 everywhere and without necessity1 sacrificed the literal to the higher signification4 ,in many cases1 however1 he absolutely discarded the verbal meaning and historical conception1 and considered the narrative merely as the figurative representation of an idea4 ,he did so1 for example1 whenever the sacred story appeared to him to present delineations unworthy of ,deity1 tending either to materialism or anthropomorphism1 or otherwise to contain contradictions4 #h ,the fact that the ,jews1 whilst they adopted this mode of explaining the ,old ,testament1 7which1 in order to save the purity of the intrinsic signification1 often sacrificed the historical form71 were never led into the opposite system of ,evemerus 7which preserved the historical form by divesting the history of the divine1 and reducing it to a record of mere human events71 is to be ascribed to the tenacity with which that people ever adhered to the supernatural point of view4 ,the latter mode of interpretation was first brought to bear upon the ,old ,testament by the ,christians4 #d4 ,,allegorical ,,interpretations ,,among ,,the ,,christians4--,,origen4 ,to the early ,christians who1 antecedent to the fixing of the christian canon1 made especial use of the ,old ,testament as their principal sacred record1 an allegorical interpretation was the more indispensable1 inasmuch as they had made greater advances beyond the views of the ,old ,testament writers than even the most enlightened of the ,jews4 ,it was no wonder therefore that this mode of explanation1 already in vogue among the ,jews1 was almost universally adopted by the primitive christian churches4 ,it was however again in ,alexandria that it found the fullest application amongst the ,christians1 and that in connexion with the name of ,origen4 ,origen attributes a threefold meaning to the ,scriptures1 corresponding with his distribution of the human being into three parts3 the literal sense answering to the body2 the moral1 to the soul2 and the mystical1 to the spirit4 #i ,the rule with him was to retain all three meanings1 though differing in worth2 in some particular cases1 however1 he was of opinion that the literal interpretation either gave no sense at all1 or else a perverted sense1 in order the more directly to impel the reader to the discovery of its mystical signification4 ,origen's repeated observation that it is not the purpose of the biblical narratives to transmit old tales1 but to instruct in the rules of life2 #aj his assertion that the merely literal acceptation of many of the narratives would prove destructive of the christian religion2 #aa and his application of the passage 8,the letter killeth1 but the spirit giveth life10 #ab to the relative worth of the allegorical and the literal modes of biblical interpretation1 may be understood as indicating only the inferiority of the literal to the deeper signification4 ,but the literal sense is decidedly given up when it is said1 8,every passage of ,scripture has a spiritual element1 but not every one has a corporeal element20 #ac 8,a spiritual truth often exists embodied in a corporeal falsehood02 #ad 8,the ,scriptures contain many things which never came to pass1 interwoven with the history1 and he must be dull indeed who does not of his own accord observe that much which the ,scriptures represent as having happened never actually occurred40 #ae ,among the passages which ,origen regarded as admitting no other than an allegorical interpretation1 besides those which too sensibly humanised the ,deity1 #af he included those which attributed unworthy action to individuals who had held intimate communion with ,god4 #ag ,it was not however from the ,old ,testament views alone that ,origen had1 in consequence of his christian training1 departed so widely that he felt himself compelled1 if he would retain his reverence for the sacred records1 to allegorize their contents1 as a means of reconciling the contradiction which had arisen between them and his own mind4 ,there was much likewise in the ,new ,testament writings which so little accorded with his philosophical notions1 that he found himself constrained to adopt a similar proceeding in reference to them4 ,he reasoned thus3--the ,new ,testament and the ,old are the work of the same spirit1 and this spirit would proceed in the same manner in the production of the one and of the other1 interweaving fiction with reality1 in order thereby to direct the mind to the spiritual signification4 #ah ,in a remarkable passage of his work against ,celsus1 ,origen classes together1 and in no ambiguous language1 the partially fabulous stories of profane history1 and of heathen mythology1 with the gospel narratives4 #ai ,he expresses himself as follows3 8,in almost every history it is a difficult task1 and not unfrequently an impossible one1 to demonstrate the reality of the events recorded1 however true they may in fact be4 ,let us suppose some individual to deny the reality of a ,trojan war on account of the incredibilities mixed up with the history2 as1 for example1 the birth of ,achilles from a goddess of the sea4 ,how could we substantiate the fact1 encumbered as it is with the numerous and undeniable poetical fictions which have1 in some unascertainable manner1 become interwoven with the generally admitted account of the war between the ,greeks and the ,trojans8 ,there is no alternative3 he who would study history with understanding1 and not suffer himself to be deluded1 must weigh each separate detail1 and consider what is worthy of credit and may be believed without further evidence2 what1 on the contrary1 must be regarded as merely figurative2 7 7 always bearing in mind the aim of the narrator--and what must be wholly mistrusted as being written with intent to please certain individuals40 ,in conclusion ,origen says1 8,i was desirous of making these preliminary observations in relation to the entire history of ,jesus given in the ,gospels1 not with the view of exacting from the enlightened a blind and baseless belief1 but with design to show how indispensable to the study of this history are not only judgment and diligent examination1 but1 so to speak1 the very penetrating into the mind of the author1 in order to discover the particular aim with which each narrative may have been written40 ,we here see ,origen almost transcending the limits of his own customary point of view1 and verging towards the more modern mythical view4 ,but if his own prepossessions in favour of the supernatural1 and his fear of giving offence to the orthodox church1 combined to hinder him from making a wider application of the allegorical mode of interpretation to the ,old ,testament1 the same causes operated still more powerfully in relation to the ,new ,testament2 so that when we further inquire of which of the gospel histories in particular did ,origen reject the historical meaning1 in order to hold fast a truth worthy of ,god8 the instances will prove to be meagre in the extreme4 ,for when he says1 in illustration of the above-mentioned passage1 that amongst other things1 it is not to be understood literally that ,satan showed to ,jesus all the kingdoms of the earth from a mountain1 because this is impossible to the bodily eye2 he here gives not a strictly allegorical interpretation1 but merely a different turn to the literal sense1 which1 according to him1 relates not to an external fact1 but to the internal fact of a vision4 ,again1 even where the text offers a tempting opportunity of sacrificing the literal to the spiritual meaning1 as1 for example1 the cursing of the fig-tree1 #bj ,origen does not speak out freely4 ,he is most explicit when speaking of the expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the temple2 he characterizes the conduct of ,jesus1 according to the literal interpretation1 as assuming and seditious4 #ba ,he moreover expressly remarks that the ,scriptures contain many more historical than merely scriptural truths4 #bb #e4 ,,transition ,,to ,,more ,,modern ,,times4--,,deists ,,and ,,naturalists ,,of ,,the #ag,,th ,,and #ah,,th ,,centuries4--,,the ,,wolfenb,,ttel ,,fragmentist4 ,thus was developed one of those forms of interpretation to which the ,hebrew and ,christian ,scriptures1 in common with all other religious records1 in relation to their historical contents1 became necessarily subjected2 that1 namely1 which recognizes in them the divine1 but denies it to have actually manifested itself in so immediate a manner4 ,the other principal mode of interpretation1 which1 to a certain extent1 acknowledges the course of events to have been historically true1 but assigns it to a human and not a divine origin1 was developed amongst the enemies of ,christianity by a ,celsus1 a ,porphyry1 and a ,julian4 ,they indeed rejected much of the history as altogether fabulous2 but they admitted many of the incidents related of ,moses1 ,jesus1 and others1 to be historical facts3 these facts were however considered by them as originating from common motives2 and they attributed their apparently supernatural character either to gross fraud or impious sorcery4 ,it is worthy of observation that the circumstances attending the introduction of these several modes of interpretation into the heathen and ,jewish religions1 on the one hand1 and into the christian religion1 on the other1 were different4 ,the religion and sacred literature of the ,greeks and ,hebrews had been gradually developed with the development of the nation1 and it was not until the intellectual culture of the people had outgrown the religion of their fathers1 and the latter was in consequence verging towards decay1 that the discrepancy which is the source of these varying interpretations became apparent4 ,christianity1 on the contrary1 came into a world of already advanced civilization2 which was1 with the exception of that of ,palestine1 the ,judaico-,hellenistic and the ,greek4 ,consequently a disagreement manifested itself at the very beginning2 it was not now1 however1 as in former times1 between modern culture and an ancient religion1 but between a new religion and ancient culture4 ,the production of allegorical interpretations among the ,pagans and the ,hebrews1 was a sign that their religion had lost its vitality2 the allegories of ,origen and the attacks of ,celsus1 in reference to ,christianity1 were evidences rather that the world had not as yet duly accommodated itself to the new religion4 ,as however with the christianizing of the ,roman empire1 and the overthrow of the chief heresies1 the christian principle gained an ever-increasing supremacy2 as the schools of heathen wisdom closed2 and the uncivilized ,germanic tribes lent themselves to the teaching of the church2--the world1 during the tedious centuries of the middle ages1 was satisfied with ,christianity1 both in form and in substance4 ,almost all traces of these modes of interpretation which presuppose a discrepancy between the culture of a nation1 or of the world1 and religion1 in consequence disappeared4 ,the reformation effected the first breach in the solid structure of the faith of the church4 ,it was the first vital expression of a culture1 which had now in the heart of ,christendom itself1 as formerly in relation to ,paganism and ,judaism1 acquired strength and independence sufficient to create a reaction against the soil of its birth1 the prevailing religion4 ,this reaction1 so long as it was directed against the dominant hierarchy1 constituted the sublime1 but quickly terminated1 drama of the reformation4 ,in its later direction against the ,bible1 it appeared again upon the stage in the barren revolutionary efforts of deism2 and many and various have been the forms it has assumed in its progress down to the present time4 ,the deists and naturalists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries renewed the polemic attacks of the pagan adversaries of ,christianity in the bosom of the christian church2 and gave to the public an irregular and confused mass of criticisms1 impugning the authenticity and credibility of the ,scriptures1 and exposing to contempt the events recorded in the sacred volume4 ,toland1 #bc ,bolingbroke1 #bd and others1 pronounced the ,bible to be a collection of unauthentic and fabulous books2 whilst some spared no pains to despoil the biblical histories1 and the heroes whose actions they celebrate1 of every ray of divine light4 ,thus1 according to ,morgan1 #be the law of ,moses is a miserable system of superstition1 blindness1 and slavery2 the ,jewish priests are deceivers2 and the ,jewish prophets the originators of the distractions and civil wars of the two kingdoms of ,judah and ,israel4 ,according to ,chubb1 #bf the ,jewish religion cannot be a revelation from ,god1 because it debases the moral character of the ,deity by attributing to him arbitrary conduct1 partiality for a particular people1 and above all1 the cruel command to exterminate the ,canaanitish nations4 ,assaults were likewise made by these and other deists upon the ,new ,testament3 the ,apostles were suspected of being actuated by selfish and mercenary motives2 #bg the character of ,jesus himself was not spared1 #bh and the fact of his resurrection was denied4 #bi ,the miracles of ,jesus1 wrought by an immediate exercise of divine power in human acts and concerns1 were made the particular objects of attack by ,woolston4 #cj ,this writer is also worthy of notice on account of the peculiar position taken by him between the ancient allegorists and the modern naturalists4 ,his whole reasoning turns upon the alternative2 either to retain the historical reality of the miracles narrated in the ,bible1 and thus to sacrifice the divine character of the narratives1 and reduce the miracles to mere artifices1 miserable juggleries1 or commonplace deceptions2 or1 in order to hold fast the divine character of these narratives1 to reject them entirely as details of actual occurrences1 and regard them as historical representations of certain spiritual truths4 ,woolston cites the authority of the most distinguished allegorists among the fathers in support of this view4 ,he is wrong however in representing them as supplanting the literal by the figurative meaning4 ,these ancient fathers1 on the contrary1 were disposed to retain both the literal and the allegorical meaning4 7,a few examples in ,origen1 it is true1 are an exception to this rule47 ,it may be doubted1 from the language of ,woolston1 which alternative was adopted by himself4 ,if we reason from the fact1 that before he appeared as the opponent of the commonly entertained views of ,christianity1 he occupied himself with allegorical interpretations of the ,scriptures1 #ca we may be led to consider the latter alternative as expressing his real conviction4 ,on the other hand1 he enlarges with so evident a predilection on the absurdities of the miracles1 when literally understood1 and the manner in which he treats the whole subject is so tinged with levity1 that we may suspect the ,deist to put forward the allegorical interpretations merely as a screen1 from behind which he might inveigh the more unreservedly against the literal signification4 ,similar deistical objections against the ,bible1 and the divine character of its history1 were propagated in ,germany chiefly by an anonymous author 7,reimarus7 whose manuscripts were discovered by ,lessing in the ,wolfenbttel library4 ,some portions of these manuscripts1 called the 8,wolfenbttel ,fragments10 were published by ,lessing in #aggd4 ,they consist of ,essays1 one of which treats of the many arguments which may be urged against revealed religion in general2 the others relate partly to the ,old and partly to the ,new ,testament4 ,it is the opinion of the ,fragmentist1 in relation to the ,old ,testament1 first1 that the men1 of whom the ,scriptures narrate that they had immediate communications with ,god1 were so unworthy1 that such intercourse1 admitting its reality1 compromised the character of ,deity2 secondly1 that the result of this intercourse1--the instructions and laws alleged to have been thus divinely communicated1--were so barbarous and destructive1 that to ascribe them to ,god is impossible2 and thirdly1 that the accompanying miracles were at once absurd and incredible4 ,from the whole1 it appears to him clear1 that the divine communications were only pretended2 and that the miracles were delusions1 practised with the design of giving stability and efficiency to certain laws and institutions highly advantageous to the rulers and priests4 ,the author finds much to condemn in the conduct of the patriarchs1 and their simulations of divine communications2 such as the command to ,abraham to sacrifice his son4 ,but it is chiefly ,moses upon whom he seeks1 in a long section1 to cast all the obloquy of an impostor1 who did not scruple to employ the most disgraceful means in order to make himself the despotic ruler of a free people3 who1 to effect his purpose1 feigned divine apparitions1 and pretended to have received the command of ,god to perpetrate acts which1 but for this divine sanction1 would have been stigmatized as fraudulent1 as highway robbery1 as inhuman barbarity4 ,for instance1 the spoiling of the ,egyptians1 and the extirpation of the inhabitants of ,canaan2 atrocities which1 when introduced by the words 8,jehovah hath said it10 became instantly transformed into deeds worthy of ,god4 ,the ,fragmentist is as little disposed to admit the divinity of the ,new ,testament histories4 ,he considers the aim of ,jesus to have been political2 and his connexion with ,john the ,baptist a preconcerted arrangement1 by which the one party should recommend the other to the people4 ,he views the death of ,jesus as an event by no means foreseen by himself1 but which frustrated all his plans2 a catastrophe which his disciples knew not how else to repair than by the fraudulent pretence that ,jesus was risen from the dead1 and by an artful alteration of his doctrines #cb4 #f4 ,,natural ,,mode ,,of ,,explanation ,,adopted ,,by ,,the ,,rationalists4--,,eichhorn4--,,paulus4 ,whilst the reality of the biblical revelation1 together with the divine origin and supernatural character of the ,jewish and ,christian histories1 were tenaciously maintained in opposition to the ,english deists by numerous ,english apologists1 and in opposition to the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist by the great majority of ,german theologians1 there arose a distinct class of theologians in ,germany1 who struck into a new path4 ,the ancient pagan mythology1 as understood by ,evemerus1 admitted of two modes of explanation1 each of which was in fact adopted4 ,the deities of the popular worship might1 on the one hand1 be regarded as good and benevolent men2 as wise lawgivers1 and just rulers1 of early times1 whom the gratitude of their contemporaries and posterity had encircled with divine glory2 or they might1 on the other hand1 be viewed as artful impostors and cruel tyrants1 who had veiled themselves in a nimbus of divinity1 for the purpose of subjugating the people to their dominion4 ,so1 likewise1 in the purely human explanation of the bible histories1 besides the method of the deists to regard the subjects of these narratives as wicked and deceitful men1 there was yet another course open2 to divest these individuals of their immediate divinity1 but to accord to them an undegraded humanity2 not indeed to look upon their deeds as miraculous2--as little on the other hand to decry them as impositions2--but to explain their proceedings as altogether natural1 yet morally irreprehensible4 ,if the ,naturalist was led by his special enmity to the ,christianity of the church to the former explanation1 the ,rationalist1 anxious1 on the contrary1 to remain within the pale of the church1 was attracted towards the latter4 ,eichhorn1 in his critical examination of the ,wolfenbttel ,fragments1 #cc directly opposes this rationalistic view to that maintained by the ,naturalist4 ,he agrees with the ,fragmentist in refusing to recognize an immediate divine agency1 at all events in the narratives of early date4 ,the mythological researches of a ,heyne had so far enlarged his circle of vision as to lead ,eichhorn to perceive that divine interpositions must be alike admitted1 or alike denied1 in the primitive histories of all people4 ,it was the practice of all nations1 of the ,grecians as well as the ,orientals1 to refer every unexpected or inexplicable occurrence immediately to the ,deity4 ,the sages of antiquity lived in continual communion with superior intelligences4 ,whilst these representations 7such is ,eichhorn's statement of the matter7 are always1 in reference to the ,hebrew records1 understood verbally and literally1 it has hitherto been customary to explain similar representations in the pagan histories1 by presupposing either deception and gross falsehood1 or the misinterpretation and corruption of tradition4 ,but ,eichhorn thinks justice evidently requires that ,hebrew and pagan history should be treated in the same way2 so that intercourse with celestial beings during a state of infancy1 must either be accorded to all nations1 pagan and ,hebrew1 or equally denied to all4 ,the mind hesitates to make so universal an admission3 first1 on account of the not unfrequent errors contained in religions claiming to have been divinely communicated2 secondly1 from a sense of the difficulty of explaining the transition of the human race from a state of divine tutelage to one of self-dependence3 and lastly1 because in proportion as intelligence increases1 and the authenticity of the records may be more and more confidently relied upon1 in the same proportion do these immediate divine influences invariably disappear4 ,if1 accordingly1 the notion of supernatural interposition is to be rejected with regard to the ,hebrews1 as well as to all other people1 the view generally taken of pagan antiquity presents itself1 at first sight1 as that most obviously applicable to the early ,hebrews2 namely1 that their pretended revelations were based upon deceit and falsehood1 or that their miraculous histories should be referred to the misrepresentations and corruptions of tradition4 ,this is the view of the subject actually applied by the ,fragmentist to the ,old ,testament2 a representation1 says ,eichhorn1 from which the mind on a nearer contemplation recoils4 ,is it conceivable that the greatest men of antiquity1 whose influence operated so powerfully and so beneficially upon their age1 should one and all have been impostors1 and yet have escaped the detection of their contemporaries8 ,according to ,eichhorn1 so perverted a view could arise only in a mind that refused to interpret the ancient records in the spirit of their age4 ,truly1 had they been composed with all the philosophical accuracy of the writers of the present day1 we should have been compelled to find in them either actual divine interpositions1 or a fraudulent pretence4 ,but they are the production of an infant and unscientific age2 and treat1 without reserve of divine interventions1 in accordance with the conceptions and phraseology of that early period4 ,so that1 in point of fact1 we have neither miracles to wonder at1 on the one hand1 nor deceptions to unmask on the other2 but simply the language of a former age to translate into that of our own day4 ,eichhorn observes that before the human race had gained a knowledge of the true causes of things1 all occurrences were referred to supernatural agencies1 or to the interposition of superhuman beings4 ,lofty conceptions1 noble resolves1 useful inventions and regulations1 but more especially vivid dreams1 were the operations of that ,deity under whose immediate influence they believed themselves placed4 ,manifestations of distinguished intelligence and skill1 by which some individual excited the wonder of the people1 were regarded as miraculous2 as signs of supernatural endowments1 and of a particular intercourse with higher beings4 ,and this was the belief1 not of the people only1 but also of these eminent individuals1 who entertained no doubt of the fact1 and who exulted in the full conviction of being in mysterious connexion with the ,deity4 ,eichhorn is of opinion that no objection can be urged against the attempt to resolve all the ,mosaic narratives into natural occurrences1 and thus far he concedes to the ,fragmentist his primary position2 but he rejects his inference that ,moses was an impostor1 pronouncing the conclusion to be over-hasty and unjust4 ,thus ,eichhorn agreed with the ,naturalists in divesting the biblical narratives of all their immediately divine contents1 but he differed from them in this1 that he explained the supernatural lustre which adorns these histories1 not as a fictitious colouring imparted with design to deceive1 but as a natural and as it were spontaneous illumination reflected from antiquity itself4 ,in conformity with these principles ,eichhorn sought to explain naturally the histories of ,noah1 ,abraham1 ,moses1 etc4 ,viewed in the light of that age1 the appointment of ,moses to be the leader of the ,israelites was nothing more than the long cherished project of the patriot to emancipate his people1 which when presented before his mind with more than usual vividness in his dreams1 was believed by him to be a divine inspiration4 ,the flame and smoke which ascended from ,mount ,sinai1 at the giving of the law1 was merely a fire which ,moses kindled in order to make a deeper impression upon the imagination of the people1 together with an accidental thunderstorm which arose at that particular moment4 ,the shining of his countenance was the natural effect of being over-heated3 but it was supposed to be a divine manifestation1 not only by the people1 but by ,moses himself1 he being ignorant of the true cause4 ,eichhorn was more reserved in his application of this mode of interpretation to the ,new ,testament4 ,indeed1 it was only to a few of the narratives in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 such as the miracle of the day of ,pentecost1 the conversion of the ,apostle ,paul1 and the many apparitions of angels1 that he allowed himself to apply it4 ,here too1 he refers the supernatural to the figurative language of the ,bible2 in which1 for example1 a happy accident is called--a protecting angel2 a joyous thought--the salutation of an angel2 and a peaceful state of mind--a comforting angel4 ,it is however remarkable that ,eichhorn was conscious of the inapplicability of the natural explanation to some parts of the gospel history1 and with respect to many of the narratives took a more elevated view4 ,many writings in a similar spirit1 which partially included the ,new ,testament within the circle of their explanations1 appeared2 but it was ,dr4 ,paulus who by his commentary on the ,gospels #cd in #ahjj1 first acquired the full reputation of a christian ,evemerus4 ,in the introduction to this work he states it to be the primary requisite of the biblical critic to be able to distinguish between what is fact1 and what is opinion4 ,that which has been actually experienced1 internally or externally1 by the participants in an event1 he calls fact4 ,the interpretation of an event1 the supposed causes to which it is referred either by the participants or by the narrators1 he calls opinion4 ,but1 according to ,dr4 ,paulus1 these two elements become so easily blended and confounded in the minds both of the original sharers in an event1 and of the subsequent relators and historians1 that fact and opinion lose their distinction2 so that the one and the other are believed and recorded with equal confidence in their historical truth4 ,this intermixture is particularly apparent in the historical books of the ,new ,testament2 since at the time when ,jesus lived1 it was still the prevailing disposition to derive every striking occurrence from an invisible and superhuman cause4 ,it is consequently the chief task of the historian who desires to deal with matters of fact1 that is to say1 in reference to the ,new ,testament1 to separate these two constituent elements so closely amalgamated1 and yet in themselves so distinct2 and to extricate the pure kernel of fact from the shell of opinion4 ,in order to do this1 in the absence of any more genuine account which would serve as a correcting parallel1 he must transplant himself in imagination upon the theatre of action1 and strive to the utmost to contemplate the events by the light of the age in which they occurred4 ,and from this point of view he must seek to supply the deficiencies of the narration1 by filling in those explanatory collateral circumstances1 which the relator himself is so often led by his predilection for the supernatural to leave unnoticed4 ,it is well known in what manner ,dr4 ,paulus applies these principles to the ,new ,testament in his ,commentary1 and still more fully in his later production1 8,the ,life of ,jesus40 ,he firmly maintains the historical truth of the gospel narratives1 and he aims to weave them into one consecutive chronologically-arranged detail of facts2 but he explains away every trace of immediate divine agency1 and denies all supernatural intervention4 ,jesus is not to him the ,son of ,god in the sense of the ,church1 but a wise and virtuous human being2 and the effects he produced are not miracles1 but acts sometimes of benevolence and friendship1 sometimes of medical skill1 sometimes also the results of accident and good fortune4 ,this view proposed by ,eichhorn1 and more completely developed by ,paulus1 necessarily presupposes the ,old and ,new ,testament writings to contain a minute and faithful narration1 composed shortly after the occurrence of the events recorded1 and derived1 wherever this was possible1 from the testimony of eye-witnesses4 ,for it is only from an accurate and original report that the ungarbled fact can be disentangled from interwoven opinion4 ,if the report be later and less original1 what security is there that what is taken for the matter-of-fact kernel does not belong to opinion or tradition8 ,to avoid this objection1 ,eichhorn sought to assign a date to the ,old ,testament histories approximating as nearly as possible to the events they record3 and here he1 and other theologians of the same school1 found no difficulty in admitting suppositions the most unnatural3 for example1 that the ,pentateuch was written during the passage through the wilderness4 ,however this critic admits that some portions of the ,old ,testament1 the ,book of ,judges1 for instance1 could not have been written contemporaneously with the events2 that the historian must have contemplated his heroes through the dim mist of intervening ages1 which might easily have magnified them into giant forms4 ,no historian who had either witnessed the circumstances1 or had been closely connected with them in point of time1 could embellish after such fashion1 except with the express aim to amuse at the expense of truth4 ,but with regard to remote occurrences it is quite different4 ,the imagination is no longer restricted by the fixed limits of historical reality1 but is aided in its flight by the notion that in earlier times all things were better and nobler2 and the historian is tempted to speak in loftier phrase1 and to use hyperbolical expressions4 ,least of all is it possible to avoid embellishment1 when the compiler of a subsequent age derives his materials from the orally transmitted traditions of antiquity4 ,the adventures and wondrous exploits of ancestors1 handed down by father to son1 and by son to grandson1 in glowing and enthusiastic representations1 and sung by the poet in lofty strains1 are registered in the written records of the historian in similar terms of high flowing diction4 ,though ,eichhorn took this view of a portion of the ,old ,testament ,books1 he believed he was not giving up their historical basis1 but was still able1 after clearing away the more or less evident legendary additions1 to trace out the natural course of the history4 ,but in one instance at least1 this master of the natural mode of interpretation in reference to the ,old ,testament1 took a more elevated view3--namely1 of the history of the creation and the fall4 ,in his influential work on primitive history1 #ce although he had from the first declared the account of the creation to be poetry1 he nevertheless maintained that of the fall to be neither mythology nor allegory1 but true history4 ,the historical basis that remained after the removal of the supernatural1 he stated to be this3 that the human constitution had at the very beginning become impaired by the eating of a poisonous fruit4 ,he thought it indeed very possible in itself1 and confirmed by numerous examples in profane history1 that purely historical narratives might be overlaid by a mythical account2 but owing to a supranaturalistic notion1 he refused to allow the same possibility to the ,bible1 because he thought it unworthy of the ,deity to admit a mythological fragment into a book1 which bore such incontestable traces of its divine origin4 ,later1 however1 ,eichhorn himself declared that he had changed his opinion with regard to the second and third chapters of ,genesis4 #cf ,he no longer saw in them an historical account of the effects of poison1 but rather the mythical embodying of a philosophical thought2 namely1 that the desire for a better condition than that in which man actually is1 is the source of all the evil in the world4 ,thus1 in this point at least1 ,eichhorn preferred to give up the history in order to hold fast the idea1 rather than to cling to the history with the sacrifice of every more elevated conception4 ,for the rest1 he agreed with ,paulus and others in considering the miraculous in the sacred history as a drapery which needs only to be drawn aside1 in order to disclose the pure historic form4 #g4 ,,moral ,,interpretation ,,of ,,kant4 ,amidst these natural explanations which the end of the eighteenth century brought forth in rich abundance1 it was a remarkable interlude to see the old allegorical system of the christian fathers all at once called up from its grave1 and revived in the form of the moral interpretation of ,kant4 ,he1 as a philosopher1 did not concern himself with the history1 as did the rationalist theologians1 but like the fathers of the church1 he sought the idea involved in the history3 not however considering it as they did an absolute idea1 at once theoretical as well as practical1 but regarding it only on its practical side1 as what he called the moral imperative and consequently belonging to the finite4 ,he moreover attributed these ideas wrought into the biblical text1 not to the ,divine ,spirit1 but to its philosophical interpreters1 or in a deeper sense1 to the moral condition of the authors of the book themselves4 ,this opinion ,kant #cg bases upon the fact1 that in all religions old and new which are partly comprised in sacred books1 intelligent and well-meaning teachers of the people have continued to explain them1 until they have brought their actual contents into agreement with the universal principles of morality4 ,thus did the moral philosophers amongst the ,greeks and ,romans with their fabulous legends2 till at last they explained the grossest polytheism as mere symbolical representations of the attributes of the one divine ,being1 and gave a mystical sense to the many vicious actions of their gods1 and to the wildest dreams of their poets1 in order to bring the popular faith1 which it was not expedient to destroy1 into agreement with the doctrines of morality4 ,the later ,judaism and ,christianity itself he thinks have been formed upon similar explanations1 occasionally much forced1 but always directed to objects undoubtedly good and necessary for all men4 ,thus the ,mahometans gave a spiritual meaning to the sensual descriptions of their paradise1 and thus the ,hindoos1 or at least the more enlightened part of them1 interpreted their ,vedas4 ,in like manner1 according to ,kant1 the ,christian ,scriptures of the ,old and ,new ,testament1 must be interpreted throughout in a sense which agrees with the universal practical laws of a religion of pure reason3 and such an explanation1 even though it should1 apparently or actually1 do violence to the text1 which is the case with many of the biblical narratives1 is to be preferred to a literal one1 which either contains no morality at all or is in opposition to the moral principle4 ,for example1 the expressions breathing vengeance against enemies in many of the ,psalms are made to refer to the desires and passions which we must strive by all means to bring into subjection2 and the miraculous account in the ,new ,testament of the descent of ,jesus from heaven1 of his relationship to ,god1 etc41 is taken as an imaginative description of the ideal of humanity well-pleasing to ,god4 ,that such an interpretation is possible1 without even always too offensive an opposition to the literal sense of these records of the popular faith1 arises according to the profound observations of ,kant from this3 that long before the existence of these records1 the disposition to a moral religion was latent in the human mind2 that its first manifestations were directed to the worship of the ,deity1 and on this very account gave occasion to those pretended revelations2 still1 though unintentionally1 imparting even to these fictions somewhat of the spiritual character of their origin4 ,in reply to the charge of dishonesty brought against his system of interpretation1 he thinks it a sufficient defence to observe1 that it does not pretend that the sense now given to the sacred books1 always existed in the intention of the authors2 this question it sets aside1 and only claims for itself the right to interpret them after its own fashion4 ,whilst ,kant in this manner sought to educe moral thoughts from the biblical writings1 even in their historical part1 and was even inclined to consider these thoughts as the fundamental object of the history3 on the one hand1 he derived these thoughts only from himself and the cultivation of his age1 and therefore could seldom assume that they had actually been laid down by the authors of those writings2 and on the other hand1 and for the same reason1 he omitted to show what was the relation between these thoughts and those symbolic representations1 and how it happened that the one came to be expressed by the other4 #h4 ,,rise ,,of ,,the ,,mythical ,,mode ,,of ,,interpreting ,,the ,,sacred ,,history1 ,,in ,,reference ,,first ,,to ,,the ,,old ,,testament4 ,it was impossible to rest satisfied with modes of proceeding so unhistorical on the one hand1 and so unphilosophical on the other4 ,added to which1 the study of mythology1 now become far more general and more prolific in its results1 exerted an increasing influence on the views taken of biblical history4 ,eichhorn had indeed insisted that all primitive histories1 whether ,hebrew or ,pagan1 should be treated alike1 but this equality gradually disappeared2 for though the mythical view became more and more developed in relation to profane history1 the natural mode of explanation was still rigidly adhered to for the ,hebrew records4 ,all could not imitate ,paulus1 who sought to establish consistency of treatment by extending the same natural explanation which he gave to the ,bible1 to such also of the ,greek legends as presented any points of resemblance2 on the contrary1 opinion in general took the opposite course1 and began to regard many of the biblical narratives as mythi4 ,semler had already spoken of a kind of ,jewish mythology1 and had even called the histories of ,samson and ,esther mythi2 ,eichhorn too had done much to prepare the way1 now further pursued by ,gabler1 ,schelling1 and others1 who established the notion of the mythus as one of universal application to ancient history1 sacred as well as profane1 according to the principle of ,heyne3 ,a mythis omnis priscorum hominum cum historia tum philosophia procedit4 #ch ,and ,bauer in #ahbj ventured so far as to publish a ,hebrew mythology of the ,old and ,new ,testament4 #ci ,the earliest records of all nations are1 in the opinion of ,bauer1 mythical3 why should the writings of the ,hebrews form a solitary exception8--whereas in point of fact a cursory glance at their sacred books proves that they also contain mythical elements4 ,a narrative he explains1 after ,gabler and ,schelling1 to be recognizable as mythus1 first1 when it proceeds from an age in which no written records existed1 but in which facts were transmitted through the medium of oral tradition alone2 secondly1 when it presents an historical account of events which are either absolutely or relatively beyond the reach of experience1 such as occurrences connected with the spiritual world1 and incidents to which1 from the nature of the circumstances1 no one could have been witness2 or thirdly1 when it deals in the marvellous and is couched in symbolical language4 ,not a few narratives of this description occur in the ,bible2 and an unwillingness to regard them as mythi can arise only from a false conception of the nature of a mythus1 or of the character of the biblical writings4 ,in the one case mythi are confounded with fables1 premeditated fictions1 and wilful falsehoods1 instead of being recognised as the necessary vehicle of expression for the first efforts of the human mind2 in the other case it certainly does appear improbable1 7the notion of inspiration presupposed17 that ,god should have admitted the substitution of mythical for actual representations of facts and ideas1 but a nearer examination of the scriptures shows that this very notion of inspiration1 far from being any hindrance to the mythical interpretation1 is itself of mythical origin4 ,wegscheider ascribed this greater unwillingness to recognise mythi in the early records of the ,hebrew and ,christian religion than in the heathen religions1 partly to the prevailing ignorance respecting the progress of historical and philosophical science2 partly to a certain timidity which dares not call things manifestly identical by the same name4 ,at the same time he declared it impossible to rescue the ,bible from the reproaches and scoffs of its enemies except by the acknowledgment of mythi in the sacred writings1 and the separation of their inherent meaning from their unhistorical form4 #dj ,these biblical critics gave the following general definition of the mythus4 ,it is the representation of an event or of an idea in a form which is historical1 but1 at the same time characterized by the rich pictorial and imaginative mode of thought and expression of the primitive ages4 ,they also distinguished several kinds of mythi4 #da #ast4 ,historical mythi3 narratives of real events coloured by the light of antiquity1 which confounded the divine and the human1 the natural and the supernatural4 #bnd4 ,philosophical mythi3 such as clothe in the garb of historical narrative a simple thought1 a precept1 or an idea of the time4 #crd4 ,poetical mythi3 historical and philosophical mythi partly blended together1 and partly embellished by the creations of the imagination1 in which the original fact or idea is almost obscured by the veil which the fancy of the poet has woven around it4 ,to classify the biblical mythi according to these several distinctions is a difficult task1 since the mythus which is purely symbolical wears the semblance of history equally with the mythus which represents an actual occurrence4 ,these critics however laid down rules by which the different mythi might be distinguished4 ,the first essential is1 they say1 to determine whether the narrative have a distinct object1 and what that object is4 ,where no object1 for the sake of which the legend might have been invented1 is discoverable1 every one would pronounce the mythus to be historical4 ,but if all the principal circumstances of the narrative concur to symbolize a particular truth1 this undoubtedly was the object of the narrative1 and the mythus is philosophical4 ,the blending of the historical and philosophical mythus is particularly to be recognised when we can detect in the narrative an attempt to derive events from their causes4 ,in many instances the existence of an historical foundation is proved also by independent testimony2 sometimes certain particulars in the mythus are intimately connected with known genuine history1 or bear in themselves undeniable and inherent characteristics of probability3 so that the critic1 while he rejects the external form1 may yet retain the groundwork as historical4 ,the poetical mythus is the most difficult to distinguish1 and ,bauer gives only a negative criterion4 ,when the narrative is so wonderful on the one hand as to exclude the possibility of its being a detail of facts1 and when on the other it discovers no attempt to symbolize a particular thought1 it may be suspected that the entire narrative owes its birth to the imagination of the poet4 ,schelling particularly remarks on the unartificial and spontaneous origin of mythi in general4 ,the unhistorical which is interwoven with the matters of fact in the historical mythus is not1 he observes1 the artistical product of design and invention4 ,it has on the contrary glided in of itself1 as it were1 in the lapse of time and in the course of transmission4 ,and1 speaking of philosophical mythi1 he says3 the sages of antiquity clothed their ideas in an historical garb1 not only in order to accommodate those ideas to the apprehension of a people who must be awakened by sensible impressions1 but also on their own account3 deficient themselves in clear abstract ideas1 and in ability to give expression to their dim conceptions1 they sought to illumine what was obscure in their representations by means of sensible imagery4 #db ,we have already remarked1 that the natural mode of interpreting the ,old ,testament could be maintained only so long as the records were held to be contemporaneous1 or nearly so1 with the events recorded4 ,consequently it was precisely those theologians1 ,vater1 ,de ,wette and others who controverted this opinion1 who contributed to establish the mythical view of the sacred histories4 ,vater #dc expressed the opinion that the peculiar character of the narrations in the ,pentateuch could not be rightly understood1 unless it were conceded that they are not the production of an eye witness1 but are a series of transmitted traditions4 ,their traditional origin being admitted1 we cease to feel surprised at the traces which they discover of a subsequent age2 at numerical exaggerations1 together with other inaccuracies and contradictions2 at the twilight which hangs over many of the occurrences2 and at representations such as1 that the clothes of the ,israelites waxed not old during their passage through the wilderness4 ,vater even contends1 that unless we ascribe a great share of the marvellous contained in the ,pentateuch to tradition1 we do violence to the original sense of the compilers of these narratives4 ,the natural mode of explanation was still more decidedly opposed by ,de ,wette than by ,vater4 ,he advocated the mythical interpretation of a large proportion of the ,old ,testament histories4 ,in order to test the historical credibility of a narrative1 he says1 #dd we must ascertain the intention of the narrator4 ,if that intention be not to satisfy the natural thirst for historical truth by a simple narration of facts1 but rather to delight or touch the feelings1 or to illustrate some philosophical or religious truth1 then his narrative has no pretension to historical validity4 ,even when the narrator is conscious of strictly historical intentions1 nevertheless his point of view may not be the historical3 he may be a poetical narrator1 not indeed subjectively1 as a poet drawing inspiration from himself1 but objectively1 as enveloped by and depending on poetry external to himself4 ,this is evidently the case when the narrator details as bon fide matter of fact things which are impossible and incredible1 which are contrary not only to experience1 but to the established laws of nature4 ,narrations of this description spring out of tradition4 ,tradition1 says ,de ,wette1 is uncritical and partial2 its tendency is not historical1 but rather patriotic and poetical4 ,and since the patriotic sentiment is gratified by all that flatters national pride1 the more splendid1 the more honourable1 the more wonderful the narrative1 the more acceptable it is2 and where tradition has left any blanks1 imagination at once steps in and fills them up4 ,and since1 he continues1 a great part of the historical books of the ,old ,testament bear this stamp1 it has hitherto been believed possible 7on the part of the natural interpreters7 to separate the embellishments and transformations from the historical substance1 and still to consider them available as records of facts4 ,this might indeed be done1 had we1 besides the marvellous biblical narratives1 some other purely historical account of the events4 ,but this is not the case with regard to the ,old ,testament history2 we are solely dependent on those accounts which we cannot recognize as purely historical4 ,they contain no criterion by which to distinguish between the true and the false2 both are promiscuously blended1 and set forth as of equal dignity4 ,according to ,de ,wette1 the whole natural mode of explanation is set aside by the principle that the only means of acquaintance with a history is the narrative which we possess concerning it1 and that beyond this narrative the historian cannot go4 ,in the present case1 this reports to us only a supernatural course of events1 which we must either receive or reject3 if we reject it1 we determine to know nothing at all about it1 and are not justified in allowing ourselves to invent a natural course of events1 of which the narrative is totally silent4 ,it is moreover inconsistent and arbitrary to refer the dress in which the events of the ,old ,testament are clothed to poetry1 and to preserve the events themselves as historical2 much rather do the particular details and the dress in which they appear1 constitute a whole belonging to the province of poetry and mythus4 ,for example1 if ,god's covenant with ,abraham be denied in the form of fact1 whilst at the same time it is maintained that the narrative had an historical basis1--that is to say1 that though no objective divine communication took place1 the occurrence had a subjective reality in ,abraham's mind in a dream or in a waking vision2 in other words1 that a natural thought was awakened in ,abraham which he1 in the spirit of the age1 referred to ,god3--of the naturalist who thus reasons1 ,de ,wette asks1 how he knows that such thoughts arose in ,abraham's mind8 ,the narration refers them to ,god2 and if we reject the narration1 we know nothing about these thoughts of ,abraham1 and consequently cannot know that they had arisen naturally in him4 ,according to general experience1 such hopes as are described in this covenant1 that he should become the father of a mighty nation which should possess the land of ,canaan1 could not have sprung up naturally in ,abraham's mind2 but it is quite natural that the ,israelites when they had become a numerous people in possession of that land1 should have invented the covenant in order to render their ancestor illustrious4 ,thus the natural explanation1 by its own unnaturalness1 ever brings us back to the mythical4 ,even ,eichhorn1 who so extensively employed the natural explanation in reference to the ,old ,testament1 perceived its inadmissibility in relation to the gospel histories4 ,whatever in these narratives has a tendency to the supernatural1 he remarks1 #de we ought not to attempt to transform into a natural occurrence1 because this is impossible without violence4 ,if once an event has acquired a miraculous colouring1 owing to the blending together of some popular notion with the occurrence1 the natural fact can be disentangled only when we possess a second account which has not undergone the like transformation2 as1 concerning the death of ,herod ,agrippa1 we have not only the narrative in the ,acts1 but also that of ,josephus4 #df ,but since we have no such controlling account concerning the history of ,jesus1 the critic who pretends to discover the natural course of things from descriptions of supernatural occurrences1 will only weave a tissue of indemonstrable hypotheses3--a consideration which1 as ,eichhorn observes1 at once annihilates many of the so-called psychological interpretations of the ,gospel histories4 ,it is this same difference between the natural and mythical modes of interpretation which ,krug intends to point out1 referring particularly to the histories of miracles1 when he distinguishes the physical or material1 from the genetic or formal1 mode of explaining them4 ,following the former mode1 according to him1 the inquiry is3 how can the wonderful event here related have possibly taken place with all its details by natural means and according to natural laws8 ,whereas1 following the latter1 the question is3 whence arose the narrative of the marvellous event8 ,the former explains the natural possibility of the thing related 7the substance of the narrative72 the latter traces the origin of the existing record 7the form of the narrative74 ,krug considers attempts of the former kind to be fruitless1 because they produce interpretations yet more wonderful than the fact itself2 far preferable is the other mode1 since it leads to results which throw light upon miraculous histories collectively4 ,he gives the preference to the exegetist1 because in his explanation of the text he is not obliged to do violence to it1 but may accept it altogether literally as the author intended1 even though the thing related be impossible2 whereas the interpreter1 who follows the material or physical explanation1 is driven to ingenious subtleties which make him lose sight of the original meaning of the authors1 and substitute something quite different which they neither could nor would have said4 ,in like manner ,gabler recommended the mythical view1 as the best means of escaping from the so called natural1 but forced explanation1 which had become the fashion4 ,the natural interpreter1 he remarks1 commonly aims to make the whole narrative natural2 and as this can but seldom succeed1 he allows himself the most violent measures1 owing to which modern exegesis has been brought into disrepute even amongst laymen4 ,the mythical view1 on the contrary1 needs no such subtleties2 since the greater part of a narrative frequently belongs to the mythical representation merely1 while the nucleus of fact1 when divested of the subsequently added miraculous envelopments1 is often very small4 ,neither could ,horst reconcile himself to the atomistic mode of proceeding1 which selected from the marvellous narratives of the ,bible1 as unhistorical1 isolated incidents merely1 and inserted natural ones in their place1 instead of recognizing in the whole of each narrative a religious moral mythus in which a certain idea is embodied4 ,an anonymous writer in ,bertholdt's ,journal has expressed himself very decidedly against the natural mode of explaining the sacred history1 and in favour of the mythical4 ,the essential defect of the natural interpretation1 as exhibited in its fullest development by ,paulus's ,commentary1 is1 according to that writer1 its unhistorical mode of procedure4 ,he objects3 that it allows conjecture to supply the deficiencies of the record2 adopts individual speculations as a substitute for real history2 seeks by vain endeavours to represent that as natural which the narrative describes as supernatural2 and lastly1 evaporates all sacredness and divinity from the ,scriptures1 reducing them to collections of amusing tales no longer meriting the name of history4 ,according to our author1 this insufficiency of the natural mode of interpretation1 whilst the supernatural also is felt to be unsatisfactory1 leads the mind to the mythical view1 which leaves the substance of the narrative unassailed2 and instead of venturing to explain the details1 accepts the whole1 not indeed as true history1 but as a sacred legend4 ,this view is supported by the analogy of all antiquity1 political and religious1 since the closest resemblance exists between many of the narratives of the ,old and ,new ,testament1 and the mythi of profane antiquity4 ,but the most convincing argument is this3 if the mythical view be once admitted1 the innumerable1 and never otherwise to be harmonized1 discrepancies and chronological contradictions in the gospel histories disappear1 as it were1 at one stroke4 #dg #i4 ,,the ,,mythical ,,mode ,,of ,,interpretation ,,in ,,reference ,,to ,,the ,,new ,,testament4 ,thus the mythical mode of interpretation was adopted not only in relation to the ,old ,testament1 but also to the ,new2 not1 however1 without its being felt necessary to justify such a step4 ,gabler has objected to the ,commentary of ,paulus1 that it concedes too little to the mythical point of view1 which must be adopted for certain ,new ,testament narratives4 ,for many of these narratives present not only those mistaken views of things which might have been taken by eye-witnesses1 and by the rectification of which a natural course of events may be made out2 but frequently1 also1 false facts and impossible consequences which no eye-witness could have related1 and which could only have been the product of tradition1 and must therefore be mythically understood4 #dh ,the chief difficulty which opposed the transference of the mythical point of view from the ,old ,testament to the ,new1 was this3--it was customary to look for mythi in the fabulous primitive ages only1 in which no written records of events as yet existed2 whereas1 in the time of ,jesus1 the mythical age had long since passed away1 and writing had become common among the ,jews4 ,schelling had however conceded 7at least in a note7 that the term mythi1 in a more extended sense1 was appropriate to those narratives which1 though originating in an age when it was usual to preserve documentary records1 were nevertheless transmitted by the mouth of the people4 ,bauer #di in like manner asserted1 that though a connected series of mythi1--a history which should be altogether mythical1--was not to be sought in the ,new ,testament1 yet there might occur in it single myths1 either transferred from the ,old ,testament to the ,new1 or having originally sprung up in the latter4 ,thus he found1 in the details of the infancy of ,jesus1 much which requires to be regarded from a mythical point of view4 ,as after the decease of celebrated personages1 numerous anecdotes are circulated concerning them1 which fail not to receive many and wondrous amplifications in the legends of a wonder-loving people2 so1 after ,jesus had become distinguished by his life1 and yet more glorified by his death1 his early years1 which had been passed in obscurity1 became adorned with miraculous embellishments4 ,and1 according to ,bauer1 whenever in this history of the infancy we find celestial beings1 called by name and bearing the human shape1 predicting future occurrences1 etc41 we have a right to suppose a mythus2 and to conjecture as its origin1 that the great actions of ,jesus being referred to superhuman causes1 this explanation came to be blended with the history4 ,on the same subject1 ,gabler #ej remarked that the notion of ancient is relative2 compared with the ,mosaic religion ,christianity is certainly young2 but in itself it is old enough to allow us to refer the original history of its founder to ancient times4 ,that at that time written documents on other subjects existed1 proves nothing1 whilst it can be shown that for a long period there was no written account of the life of ,jesus1 and particularly of his infancy4 ,oral narratives were alone transmitted1 and they would easily become tinged with the marvellous1 mixed with ,jewish ideas1 and thus grow into historical mythi4 ,on many other points there was no tradition1 and here the mind was left to its own surmises4 ,the more scanty the historical data1 the greater was the scope for conjecture1 and historical guesses and inferences of this description1 formed in harmony with the ,jewish-,christian tastes1 may be called the philosophical1 or rather1 the dogmatical mythi of the early christian ,gospel4 ,the notion of the mythus1 concludes ,gabler1 being thus shown to be applicable to many of the narratives of the ,new ,testament1 why should we not dare to call them by their right name2 why--that is to say in learned discussion--avoid an expression which can give offence only to the prejudiced or the misinformed8 ,as in the ,old ,testament ,eichhorn had been brought over by the force of internal evidence from his earlier natural explanation1 to the mythical view of the history of the fall2 so in the ,new ,testament1 the same thing happened to ,usteri in relation to the history of the temptation4 ,in an earlier work he had1 following ,schleiermacher1 considered it as a parable spoken by ,jesus but misunderstood by his disciples4 #ea ,soon however he perceived the difficulties of this interpretation2 and since both the natural and the supernatural views of the narrative appeared to him yet more objectionable1 he had no alternative but to adopt the mythical4 ,once admit1 he remarks1 a state of excitement1 particularly of religious excitement1 among a not unpoetical people1 and a short time is sufficient to give an appearance of the marvellous not only to obscure and concealed1 but even to public and well-known facts4 ,it is therefore by no means conceivable that the early ,jewish ,christians1 gifted with the spirit1 that is1 animated with religious enthusiasm1 as they were1 and familiar with the ,old ,testament1 should not have been in a condition to invent symbolical scenes such as the temptation and other ,new ,testament mythi4 ,it is not however to be imagined that any one individual seated himself at his table to invent them out of his own head1 and write them down1 as he would a poem3 on the contrary1 these narratives like all other legends were fashioned by degrees1 by steps which can no longer be traced2 gradually acquired consistency1 and at length received a fixed form in our written ,gospels4 ,we have seen that in reference to the early histories of the ,old ,testament1 the mythical view could be embraced by those only who doubted the composition of these ,scriptures by eye-witnesses or contemporaneous writers4 ,this was equally the case in reference to the ,new4 ,it was not till ,eichhorn #eb became convinced that only a slender thread of that primitive ,gospel believed by the ,apostles ran through the three first ,gospels1 and that even in ,matthew this thread was entangled in a mass of unapostolic additions1 that he discarded as unhistorical legends1 the many narratives which he found perplexing1 from all share in the history of ,jesus2 for example1 besides the ,gospel of ,infancy1 the details of the temptation2 several of the miracles of ,jesus2 the rising of the saints from their graves at his crucifixion2 the guard at the sepulchre1 etc4 #ec ,particularly since the opinion1 that the three first ,gospels originated from oral traditions1 became firmly established1 #ed they have been found to contain a continually increasing number of mythi and mythical embellishments4 #ee ,on this account the authenticity of the ,gospel of ,john1 and consequently its historical credibility1 is confidently maintained by most of the theologians of the present day3 he only who1 with ,bretschneider1 #ef questions its apostolic composition1 may cede in this ,gospel also a considerable place to the mythical element4 #aj4 ,,the ,,notion ,,of ,,the ,,mythus ,,in ,,its ,,application ,,to ,,sacred ,,histories ,,not ,,clearly ,,apprehended ,,by ,,theologians4 ,thus1 indeed1 did the mythical view gain application to the biblical history3 still the notion of the mythus was for a long time neither clearly apprehended nor applied to a due extent4 ,not clearly apprehended4 ,the characteristic which had been recognised as constituting the distinction between historical and philosophical mythi1 however just that distinction might in itself be1 was of a kind which easily betrayed the critic back again into the scarcely abandoned natural explanation4 ,his task1 with regard to historical mythi1 was still to separate the natural fact--the nucleus of historical reality--from its unhistorical and miraculous embellishments4 ,an essential difference indeed existed3 the natural explanation attributed the embellishments to the opinion of the actors concerned1 or of the narrator2 the mythical interpretation derived them from tradition2 but the mode of proceeding was left too little determined4 ,if the ,rationalist could point out historical mythi in the ,bible1 without materially changing his mode of explanation2 so the ,supernaturalist on his part felt himself less offended by the admission of historical mythi1 which still preserved to the sacred narratives a basis of fact1 than by the supposition of philosophical mythi1 which seemed completely to annihilate every trace of historical foundation4 ,it is not surprising1 therefore1 that the interpreters who advocated the mythical theory spoke almost exclusively of historical mythi2 that ,bauer1 amongst a considerable number of mythi which he cites from the ,new ,testament1 finds but one philosophical mythus2 and that a mixed mode of interpretation1 partly mythical and partly natural1 7a medley far more contradictory than the pure natural explanation1 from the difficulties of which these critics sought to escape17 should have been adopted4 ,thus ,bauer #eg thought that he was explaining ,jehovah's promise to ,abraham as an historical mythus1 when he admitted as the fundamental fact of the narrative1 that ,abraham's hopes of a numerous posterity were re-awakened by the contemplation of the star-sown heavens4 ,another theologian #eh imagined he had seized the mythical point of view1 when1 having divested the announcement of the birth of the ,baptist of the supernatural1 he still retained the dumbness of ,zachariah as the historical groundwork4 ,in like manner ,krug1 #ei immediately after assuring us that his intention is not to explain the substance of the history1 7according to the natural mode17 but to explain the origin of the narrative1 7according to the mythical view17 constitutes an accidental journey of oriental merchants the basis of the narrative of the visit of the wise men from the east4 ,but the contradiction is most glaring when we meet with palpable misconceptions of the true nature of a mythus in a work on the mythology of the ,new ,testament1 such as ,bauer's2 in which for instance he admits1 in the case of the parents of ,john the ,baptist1 a marriage which had actually been childless during many years2--in which he explains the angelic appearance at the birth of ,jesus as a meteoric phenomenon2 supposes the occurrence of thunder and lightning and the accidental descent of a dove at his baptism2 constitutes a storm the groundwork of the transfiguration2 and converts the angels at the tomb of the risen ,jesus into white grave-clothes4 ,kaiser also1 though he complains of the unnaturalness of many of the natural explanations1 accords to a very considerable proportion of natural explanations a place by the side of the mythical2 remarking--and the remark is in itself just--that to attempt to explain all the miracles of the ,new ,testament in one and the same manner betrays a limited and partial comprehension of the subject4 ,let it be primarily admitted that the ancient author intended to narrate a miracle1 and the natural explanation is in many instances admissible4 ,this may be either a physical-historical explanation1 as in the narrative of the leper whose approaching recovery ,jesus doubtless perceived2 or it may be a psychological explanation2 since1 in the case of many sick persons1 the fame of ,jesus and faith in him were mainly instrumental in effecting the cure2 sometimes indeed good fortune must be taken into the account1 as where one apparently dead revived in the presence of ,jesus1 and he became regarded as the author of the sudden re-animation4 ,with respect to other miracles ,kaiser is of opinion that the mythical interpretation is to be preferred2 he1 however1 grants a much larger space to historical1 than to philosophical mythi4 ,he considers most of the miracles in the ,old and ,new ,testament real occurrences mythically embellished3 such as the narrative of the piece of money in the fish's mouth2 and of the changing of water into wine3 which latter history he supposes to have originated from a friendly jest on the part of ,jesus4 ,few only of the miracles are recognised by this critic as pure poetry embodying ,jewish ideas2 as the miraculous birth of ,jesus1 and the murder of the innocents4 #fj ,gabler in particular calls attention to the error of treating philosophical mythi as if they were historical1 and of thus converting into facts things that never happened4 #fa ,he is however as little disposed to admit the exclusive existence of philosophical1 as of historical mythi in the ,new ,testament1 but adopting a middle course1 he decides in each case that the mythus is of this kind or of that according to its intrinsic character4 ,he maintains that it is as necessary to guard against the arbitrary proceeding of handling as philosophical a mythus through which a fact unquestionably glimmers1 as it is to avoid the opposite tendency to explain naturally or historically that which belongs properly to the mythical clothing4 ,in other words3 when the derivation of a mythus from a thought is easy and natural1 and when the attempt to educe from it a matter of fact and to give the wonderful history a natural explanation1 does violence to the sense or appears ridiculous1 we have1 according to ,gabler1 certain evidence that the mythus is philosophical and not historical4 ,he remarks in conclusion that the philosophical-mythical interpretation is in many cases far less offensive than the historical-mythical explanation4 #fb ,yet1 notwithstanding this predilection in favour of the philosophical mythus in relation to biblical history1 one is surprised to find that ,gabler himself was ignorant of the true nature both of the historical and of the philosophical mythus4 ,speaking of the mythological interpreters of the ,new ,testament who had preceded him1 he says that some of them1 such as ,dr4 ,paulus1 discover in the history of ,jesus historical mythi only2 whilst others1 the anonymous ,e4 ,f4 in ,henke's ,magazine for instance1 find only philosophical mythi4 ,from this we see that he confounded not only the natural explanation with the historical-mythical view1 7for in ,paulus's 8,commentar0 the former only is adopted17 but also historical with philosophical mythi2 for the author ,e4 ,f4 is so exclusively attached to the historical-mythical view that his explanations might almost be considered as naturalistic4 ,de ,wette has some very cogent observations directed equally against the arbitrary adoption either of the historical-mythical or of the natural explanation in relation to the ,mosaic history4 ,in reference to the ,new ,testament an anonymous writer in ,bertholdt's ,critical ,journal #fc is the most decided in his condemnation of every attempt to discover an historical groundwork even in the ,gospel mythi4 ,to him likewise the midway path struck out by ,gabler1 between the exclusive adoption of historical mythi on the one hand and of philosophical mythi on the other1 appears inapplicable2 for though a real occurrence may in fact constitute the basis of most of the ,new ,testament narratives1 it may still be impossible at the present time to separate the element of fact from the mythical adjuncts which have been blended with it1 and to determine how much may belong to the one and how much to the other4 ,usteri likewise expressed the opinion that it is no longer possible to discriminate between the historical and the symbolical in the gospel mythi2 no critical knife however sharp is now able to separate the one element from the other4 ,a certain measure of probability respecting the preponderance of the historical in one legend1 and of the symbolical in another1 is the ultimate point to which criticism can now attain4 ,opposed however to the onesidedness of those critics who found it so easy to disengage the historical contents from the mythical narratives of the ,scriptures1 is the onesidedness of other critics1 who1 on account of the difficulty of the proposed separation1 despaired of the possibility of success1 and were consequently led to handle the whole mass of gospel mythi as philosophical1 at least in so far as to relinquish the endeavour to extract from them a residuum of historical fact4 ,now it is precisely this latter onesidedness which has been attributed to my criticism of the life of ,jesus2 consequently1 several of the reviewers of this work have taken occasion repeatedly to call attention to the varying proportions in which the historical and the ideal in the pagan religion and primitive history1 7the legitimate province of the mythus17 alternate2 an interchange with the historical which in the christian primitive history1 presupposing the notion of the mythus to be admitted here1 must unquestionably take place in a far greater degree4 ,thus ,ullmann distinguishes not only firstly the philosophical1 and secondly the historical mythus1 but makes a further distinction between the latter 7that is the historical mythus1 in which there is always a preponderance of the fictitious17 and thirdly the mythical history1 in which the historical element1 though wrought into the ideal1 forms the predominating constituent2 whilst fourthly in histories of which the legend is a component element we tread properly speaking upon historical ground1 since in these histories we meet only with a few faint echoes of mythical fiction4 ,ullmann is moreover of opinion1 and ,bretschneider and others agree with him1 that independently of the repulsion and confusion which must inevitably be caused by the application of the term mythus to that which is ,christian--a term originally conceived in relation to a religion of a totally different character--it were more suitable1 in connexion with the primitive ,christian records1 to speak only of ,gospel legend1 7,sage7 and the legendary element4 #fd ,george on the contrary has recently attempted not only more accurately to define the notions of the mythus and of the legend1 but likewise to demonstrate that the gospel narratives are mythical rather than legendary4 ,speaking generally1 we should say1 that he restricts the term mythus to what had previously been distinguished as philosophical mythi2 and that he applies the name legend to what had hitherto been denominated historical mythi4 ,he handles the two notions as the antipodes of each other2 and grasps them with a precision by which the notion of the mythus has unquestionably gained4 ,according to ,george1 mythus is the creation of a fact out of an idea3 legend the seeing of an idea in a fact1 or arising out of it4 ,a people1 a religious community1 finds itself in a certain condition or round of institutions of which the spirit1 the idea1 lives and acts within it4 ,but the mind1 following a natural impulse1 desires to gain a complete representation of that existing condition1 and to know its origin4 ,this origin however is buried in oblivion1 or is too indistinctly discernible to satisfy present feelings and ideas4 ,consequently an image of that origin1 coloured by the light of existing ideas1 is cast upon the dark wall of the past1 which image is however but a magnified reflex of existing influences4 ,if such be the rise of the mythus1 the legend1 on the contrary1 proceeds from given facts3 represented1 indeed1 sometimes in an incomplete and abridged1 sometimes in an amplified form1 in order to magnify the heroes of the history--but disjoined from their true connexion2 the points of view from which they should be contemplated1 and the ideas they originally contained1 having in the course of transmission wholly disappeared4 ,the consequence is1 that new ideas1 conceived in the spirit of the different ages through which the legend has passed down1 become substituted in the stead of the original ideas4 ,for example1 the period of ,jewish history subsequent to the time of ,moses1 which was in point of fact pervaded by a gradual elevation of ideas to monotheism and to a theocracy1 is1 in a later legend1 represented in the exactly opposite light1 as a state of falling away from the religious constitution of ,moses4 ,an idea so unhistorical will infallibly here and there distort facts transmitted by tradition1 fill up blanks in the history1 and subjoin new and significant features--and then the mythus reappears in the legend4 ,it is the same with the mythus3 propagated by tradition1 it1 in the process of transmission1 loses its distinctive character and completeness1 or becomes exaggerated in its details--as for example in the matter of numbers--and then the mythus comes under the influence of the legend4 ,in such wise do these two formations1 so essentially distinct in their origin1 cross each other and mingle together4 ,now1 if the history of the life of ,jesus be of mythical formation1 inasmuch as it embodies the vivid impression of the original idea which the first christian community had of their founder1 this history1 though unhistorical in its form1 is nevertheless a faithful representation of the idea of the ,christ4 ,if instead of this1 the history be legendary--if the actual external facts are given in a distorted and often magnified form--are represented in a false light and embody a false idea1--then1 on the contrary1 the real tenour of the life of ,jesus is lost to us4 ,so that1 according to ,george1 the recognition of the mythical element in the ,gospels is far less prejudicial to the true interests of the ,christian faith than the recognition of the legendary element4 #fe ,with respect to our own opinion1 without troubling ourselves here with the dogmatic signification1 we need only remark in this introduction1 that we are prepared to meet with both legend and mythus in the gospel history2 and when we undertake to extract the historial contents which may possibly exist in narratives recognized as mythical1 we shall be equally careful neither on the one part by a rude and mechanical separation1 to place ourselves on the same ground with the natural interpreter2 nor on the other by a hypercritical refusal to recognize such contents where they actually exist1 to lose sight of the history4 #aa4 ,,the ,,application ,,of ,,the ,,notion ,,of ,,the ,,mythus ,,too ,,circumscribed4 ,the notion of the mythus1 when first admitted by theologians1 was not only imperfectly apprehended1 but also too much limited in its application to biblical history4 ,as ,eichhorn recognized a genuine mythus only on the very threshold of the ,old ,testament history1 and thought himself obliged to explain all that followed in a natural manner2 as1 some time later1 other portions of the ,old ,testament were allowed to be mythical1 whilst nothing of the kind might be suspected in the ,new2 so1 when the mythus was once admitted into the ,new ,testament1 it was here again long detained at the threshold1 namely1 the history of the infancy of ,jesus1 every farther advance being contested4 ,ammon1 #ff the anonymous ,e4 ,f4 in ,henke's ,magazine1 ,usteri1 and others maintained a marked distinction between the historical worth of the narratives of the public life and those of the infancy of ,jesus4 ,the records of the latter could not1 they contend1 have been contemporaneous2 for particular attention was not at that time directed towards him2 and it is equally manifest that they could not have been written during the last three years of his life1 since they embody the idea of ,jesus glorified1 and not of ,jesus in conflict and suffering4 ,consequently their composition must be referred to a period subsequent to his resurrection4 ,but at this period accurate data concerning his childhood were no longer to be obtained4 ,the apostles knew him first in manhood4 ,joseph was probably dead2 and ,mary1 supposing her to be living when the first and third gospels were composed1 had naturally imparted an imaginative lustre to every incident treasured in her memory1 whilst her embellishments were doubtless still further magnified in accordance with the ,messianic ideas of those to whom her communications were made4 ,much also that is narrated had no historical foundation1 but originated entirely from the notions of the age1 and from the ,old ,testament predictions--that a virgin should conceive--for example4 ,but1 say these critics1 all this does not in any degree impair the credibility of what follows4 ,the object and task of the ,evangelists was merely to give an accurate account of the three last years of the life of ,jesus2 and here they merit implicit confidence1 since they were either themselves spectators of the details they record1 or else had learned them from the mouth of trustworthy eye-witnesses4 ,this boundary line between the credibility of the history of the public life1 and the fabulousness of the history of the infancy of ,jesus1 became yet more definitely marked1 from the circumstance that many theologians were disposed to reject the two first chapters of ,matthew and ,luke as spurious and subsequent additions4 #fg ,soon1 however1 some of the theologians who had conceded the commencement of the history to the province of mythi1 perceived that the conclusion1 the history of the ascension1 must likewise be regarded as mythical4 #fh ,thus the two extremities were cut off by the pruning knife of criticism1 whilst the essential body of the history1 the period from the baptism to the resurrection1 remained1 as yet1 unassailed3 or in the words of the reviewer of ,greiling's ,life of ,jesus3 #fi the entrance to the gospel history was through the decorated portal of mythus1 and the exit was similar to it1 whilst the intermediate space was still traversed by the crooked and toilsome paths of natural interpretations4 ,in ,gabler's #gj writings we meet with a somewhat more extended application of the mythical view4 ,he distinguishes 7and recently ,rosenkranz #ga has agreed with him7 between the miracles wrought by ,jesus and those operated on him or in relation to him1 interpreting the latter mythically1 but the former naturally4 ,subsequently however1 we find ,gabler expressing himself as if with the above mentioned theologians he restricted the mythical interpretation to the miraculous narratives of the childhood of ,jesus1 but this restriction is in fact a limitation merely of the admitted distinction3 since though all the miracles connected with the early history of ,jesus were operated in relation to him and not wrought by him1 many miracles of the same character occur in the history of his public life4 ,bauer appears to have been guided by the same rule in his ,hebrew mythology4 ,he classes as mythical the narratives of the conception and birth of ,jesus1 of the ,baptism1 the transfiguration1 the angelic apparitions in ,gethsemane and at the sepulchre3 miracles selected from all periods of the life of ,jesus1 but all operated in relation to him and not by him4 ,this enumeration1 however1 does not include all the miracles of this kind4 ,the often referred to author of the treatise 8,upon the different views with which and for which a ,biographer of ,jesus may work10 has endeavoured to show that so limited an application of the notion of the mythus to the history of the life of ,jesus is insufficient and inconsequent4 ,this confused point of view from which the gospel narrative is regarded as partly historical and partly mythical owes its origin1 according to him1 to those theologians who neither give up the history1 nor are able to satisfy themselves with its clear results1 but who think to unite both parties by this middle course--a vain endeavour which the rigid supranaturalist pronounces heretical1 and the rationalist derides4 ,the attempt of these reconcilers1 remarks our author1 to explain as intelligible everything which is not impossible1 lays them open to all the charges so justly brought against the natural interpretation2 whilst the admission of the existence of mythi in the ,new ,testament subjects them to the direct reproach of being inconsequent3 the severest censure which can be passed upon a scholar4 ,besides1 the proceeding of these ,eclectics is most arbitrary1 since they decide respecting what belongs to the history and what to the mythus almost entirely upon subjective grounds4 ,such distinctions are equally foreign to the evangelists1 to logical reasoning1 and to historical criticism4 ,in consistency with these opinions1 this writer applies the notion of the mythus to the entire history of the life of ,jesus2 recognizes mythi or mythical embellishments in every portion1 and ranges under the category of mythus not merely the miraculous occurrences during the infancy of ,jesus1 but those also of his public life2 not merely miracles operated on ,jesus1 but those wrought by him4 ,the most extended application of the notion of the philosophical or dogmatical mythus to the ,gospel histories which has yet been made1 was published in #agii in an anonymous work concerning ,revelation and ,mythology4 ,the writer contends that the whole life of ,jesus1 all that he should and would do1 had an ideal existence in the ,jewish mind long prior to his birth4 ,jesus as an individual was not actually such as according to ,jewish anticipations he should have been4 ,not even that1 in which all the records which recount his actions agree1 is absolutely matter of fact4 ,a popular idea of the life of ,jesus grew out of various popular contributions1 and from this source our written ,gospels were first derived4 ,a reviewer objects that this author appears to suppose a still smaller portion of the historical element in the gospels than actually exists4 ,it would1 he remarks1 have been wiser to have been guided by a sober criticism of details1 than by a sweeping scepticism4 #gb #ab4 ,,opposition ,,to ,,the ,,mythical ,,view ,,of ,,the ,,gospel ,,history4 ,in adopting the mythical point of view as hitherto applied to ,biblical history1 our theologians had again approximated to the ancient allegorical interpretation4 ,for as both the natural explanations of the ,rationalists1 and the jesting expositions of the ,deists1 belong to that form of opinion which1 whilst it sacrifices all divine meaning in the sacred record1 still upholds its historical character2 the mythical mode of interpretation agrees with the allegorical1 in relinquishing the historical reality of the sacred narratives in order to preserve to them an absolute inherent truth4 ,the mythical and the allegorical view 7as also the moral7 equally allow that the historian apparently relates that which is historical1 but they suppose him1 under the influence of a higher inspiration known or unknown to himself1 to have made use of this historical semblance merely as the shell of an idea--of a religious conception4 ,the only essential distinction therefore between these two modes of explanation is1 that according to the allegorical this higher intelligence is the immediate divine agency2 according to the mythical1 it is the spirit of a people or a community4 7,according to the moral view it is generally the mind of the interpreter which suggests the interpretation47 ,thus the allegorical view attributes the narrative to a supernatural source1 whilst the mythical view ascribes it to that natural process by which legends are originated and developed4 ,to which it should be added1 that the allegorical interpreter 7as well as the moral7 may with the most unrestrained arbitrariness separate from the history every thought he deems to be worthy of ,god1 as constituting its inherent meaning2 whilst the mythical interpreter1 on the contrary1 in searching out the ideas which are embodied in the narrative1 is controlled by regard to conformity with the spirit and modes of thought of the people and of the age4 ,this new view of the sacred ,scriptures was opposed alike by the orthodox and by the rationalistic party4 ,from the first1 whilst the mythical interpretation was still restricted to the primitive history of the ,old ,testament1 ,hess #gc on the orthodox side1 protested against it4 ,the three following conclusions may be given as comprising1 however incredible this may appear1 the substance of his book1 a work of some compass2 upon which however it is unnecessary to remark further than that ,hess was by no means the last orthodox theologian who pretended to combat the mythical view with such weapons4 ,he contends1 #ast1 that mythi are to be understood figuratively2 now the sacred historians intended their writings to be understood literally3 consequently they do not relate mythi4 #bndly1 ,mythology is something heathenish2 the ,bible is a christian book2 consequently it contains no mythology4 ,the third conclusion is more complex1 and1 as will appear below1 has more meaning4 ,if1 says ,hess1 the marvellous were confined to those earliest biblical records of which the historical validity is less certain1 and did not appear in any subsequent writings1 the miraculous might be considered as a proof of the mythical character of the narrative2 but the marvellous is no less redundant in the latest and undeniably historical records1 than in the more ancient2 consequently it cannot be regarded as a criterion of the mythical4 ,in short the most hollow natural explanation1 did it but retain the slightest vestige of the historical--however completely it annihilated every higher meaning1--was preferable1 in the eyes of the orthodox1 to the mythical interpretation4 ,certainly nothing could be worse than ,eichhorn's natural explanation of the fall4 ,in considering the tree of knowledge as a poisonous plant1 he at once destroyed the intrinsic value and inherent meaning of the history2 of this he afterwards became fully sensible1 and in his subsequent mythical interpretation1 he recognized in the narrative the incorporation of a worthy and elevated conception4 ,hess however declared himself more content with ,eichhorn's original explanation1 and defended it against his later mythical interpretation4 ,so true is it that supranaturalism clings with childlike fondness to the empty husk of historical semblance1 though void of divine significance1 and estimates it higher than the most valuable kernel divested of its variegated covering4 ,somewhat later ,de ,wette's bold and thorough application of the mythical view to the ,mosaic writings2 his decided renunciation of the so-called historical-mythical1 or more properly speaking of the natural mode of interpretation2 and his strict opposition to the notion of the possibility of arriving at any certainty respecting the residue of fact preserved in these writings1 gave rise to much controversy4 ,some agreed with ,steudel in totally rejecting the mythical view in relation to the ,bible1 and in upholding the strictly historical and indeed supranatural sense of the ,scriptures3 whilst ,meyer and others were willing to follow the guidance of ,de ,wette1 at least as far as the principles of ,vater1 which permitted the attempt to extract some1 if only probable1 historical data from the mythical investment4 ,if1 says ,meyer #gd1 the marvellousness and irrationality of many of the narratives contained in the ,pentateuch1 7narratives which no one would have thought of inventing17 together with the want of symmetry and connexion in the narration1 and other considerations1 permit us not to mistake the historical groundwork of the record2 surely1 allowing the existence of an historical basis1 a modest and cautious attempt to seek out or at any rate to approximate towards a discovery of that historical foundation is admissible4 ,in the hope of preserving those who adopted the historical-mythical view from relapsing into the inconsistencies of the natural interpreters1 ,meyer laid down the following rules1 which however serve rather to exhibit afresh the difficulty of escaping this danger4 #a4 ,to abstract every thing which is at once recognizable as mythical representation as opposed to historical fact2 that is the extraordinary1 the miraculous1 accounts of immediate divine operation1 also the religious notions of the narrators in relation to final causes4 #b4 ,to proceed from that which is simple to that which is more complicated4 ,let a case be supposed where we have two accounts of the same event1 the one natural1 the other supernatural1 as1 for instance1 the gathering of the elders by ,moses1 attributed1 ,numbers1 xi4 #af41 to the suggestion of ,jehovah1 and ,exodus1 xviii4 #ad41 to the counsel of ,jethro4 ,according to this rule all divine inspiration must be subtracted from the known decisions of ,noah1 ,abraham1 ,moses1 and others4 7,precisely the proceeding which met with the censure of ,de ,wette quoted above47 #c4 ,as far as possible to contemplate the fact which forms the basis of a narrative1 in its simple and common character1 apart from all collateral incidents4 7,this however1 is going too far where no basis of fact exists47 ,for example4 ,the story of the deluge may be reduced thus2 a great inundation in ,asia ,minor1 according to the legend1 destroyed many wicked4 7,here the supposed final cause is not abstracted47 ,noah the father of ,shem1 a devout man1 7the teleological notion again67 saved himself by swimming4 ,the exact circumstances of this preservation1 the character of the vessel1 if such there were1 which saved him1 are left undetermined in order to avoid arbitrary explanations4 ,thus1 in reference to the birth of ,isaac1 ,meyer is satisfied with saying1 that the wish and hope of the wealthy and pious ,emir ,abraham to possess an heir by his wife ,sara was fulfilled unusually late1 and in the eyes of others very unexpectedly4 7,here again ,de ,wette's censure is quite applicable47 ,in like manner ,eichhorn1 in his ,introduction to the ,new ,testament1 declared in yet stronger terms his opposition to the view advocated by ,de ,wette4 ,if the orthodox were displeased at having their historical faith disturbed by the progressive inroads of the mythical mode of interpretation1 the rationalists were no less disconcerted to find the web of facts they had so ingeniously woven together torn asunder1 and all the art and labour expended on the natural explanation at once declared useless4 ,unwillingly does ,dr4 ,paulus admit to himself the presentiment that the reader of his ,commentary may possibly exclaim3 8,wherefore all this labour to give an historical explanation to such legends8 how singular thus to handle mythi as history1 and to attempt to render marvellous fictions intelligible according to the rules of causality60 ,contrasted with the toilsomeness of his natural explanation1 the mythical interpretation appears to this theologian merely as the refuge of mental indolence1 which1 seeking the easiest method of treating the gospel history1 disposes of all that is marvellous1 and all that is difficult to comprehend1 under the vague term--mythus1 and which1 in order to escape the labour of disengaging the natural from the supernatural1 fact from opinion1 carries back the whole narration into the camera-obscura of ancient sacred legends4 #ge ,still more decided was ,greiling's #gf expression of disapprobation1 elicited by ,krug's commendation of the genetic--that is to say1 mythical theory2 but each stroke levelled by him at the mythical interpretation may be turned with far greater force against his own natural explanation4 ,he is of opinion that among all the attempts to explain obscure passages in the ,new ,testament1 scarcely any can be more injurious to the genuine historical interpretation1 to the ascertaining of actual facts and their legitimate objects 7that is1 more prejudicial to the pretensions of the natural expounder7 than the endeavour to supply1 by aid of an inventive imagination1 the deficiencies of the historical narrative4 7,the inventive imagination is that of the natural interpreter1 which suggests to him collateral incidents of which there is no trace in the text4 ,the imagination of the mythical interpreter is not inventive2 his part is merely the recognizing and detecting of the fictitious47 ,according to ,greiling the genetic1 or mythical mode of explaining miracles1 is a needless and arbitrary invention of the imagination4 7,let a groping spirit of inquiry be added1 and the natural explanation is accurately depicted47 ,many facts1 he continues1 which might be retained as such are thus consigned to the province of fable1 or replaced by fictions the production of the interpreter4 7,but it is the historical mythical mode of interpretation alone which substitutes such inventions1 and this only in so far as it is mixed up with the natural explanation47 ,greiling thinks that the explanation of a miracle ought not to change the fact1 and by means of interpretation1 as by sleight of hand1 substitute one thing for another2 7which is done by the natural explanation only17 for this is not to explain that which shocks the reason1 but merely to deny the fact1 and leave the difficulty unsolved4 7,it is false to say we have a fact to explain2 what immediately lies before us is a statement1 respecting which we have to discover whether it embody a fact or not47 ,according to this learned critic the miracles wrought by ,jesus should be naturally1 or rather psychologically1 explained2 by which means all occasion to change1 clip1 and amplify by invention the recorded facts1 till at length they become metamorphosed into fiction1 is obviated--7with how much justice this censure may be applied to the natural mode of explanation has been sufficiently demonstrated47 ,heydenreich has lately written a work expressly on the inadmissibility of the mythical interpretation of the historical portions of the ,new ,testament4 ,he reviews the external evidences concerning the origin of the ,gospels1 and finds the recognition of a mythical element in these writings quite incompatible with their substantiated derivation from the ,apostles1 and the disciples of the ,apostles4 ,he also examines the character of the gospel representations1 and decides1 in reference to their form1 that narratives at once so natural and simple1 so complete and exact1 could be expected only from eye-witnesses1 or those connected with them2 and1 with respect to their contents1 that those representations which are in their nature miraculous are so worthy of ,god1 that nothing short of an abhorrence of miracles could occasion a doubt as to their historical truth4 ,the divine operations are indeed generally mediate1 but according to ,heydenreich this by no means precludes the possibility of occasional intermediate exertions of the divine energy1 when requisite to the accomplishment of some particular object2 and1 referring to each of the divine attributes in succession1 he shows that such intervention in nowise contradicts any of them2 and that each individual miracle is a peculiarly appropriate exercise of divine power4 ,these1 and similar objections against the mythical interpretation of the gospel histories1 which occur in recent commentaries and in the numerous writings in opposition to my work on the life of ,jesus1 will find their place and refutation in the following pages4 #ac4 ,,the ,,possibility ,,of ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,mythi ,,in ,,the ,,new ,,testament ,,considered ,,in ,,reference ,,to ,,the ,,external ,,evidences4 ,the assertion that the ,bible contains mythi is1 it is true1 directly opposed to the convictions of the believing christian4 ,for if his religious view be circumscribed within the limits of his own community1 he knows no reason why the things recorded in the sacred books should not literally have taken place2 no doubt occurs to him1 no reflection disturbs him4 ,but1 let his horizon be so far widened as to allow him to contemplate his own religion in relation to other religions1 and to draw a comparison between them1 the conclusion to which he then comes is that the histories related by the heathens of their deities1 and by the ,mussulman of his prophet1 are so many fictions1 whilst the accounts of ,god's actions1 of ,christ and other ,godlike men contained in the ,bible are1 on the contrary1 true4 ,such is the general notion expressed in the theological position3 that which distinguishes ,christianity from the heathen religions is this1 they are mythical1 it is historical4 ,but this position1 thus stated without further definition and proof1 is merely the product of the limitation of the individual to that form of belief in which he has been educated1 which renders the mind incapable of embracing any but the affirmative view in relation to its own creed1 any but the negative in reference to every other--a prejudice devoid of real worth1 and which cannot exist in conjunction with an extensive knowledge of history4 ,for let us transplant ourselves among other religious communities2 the believing ,mohammedan is of opinion that truth is contained in the ,koran alone1 and that the greater portion of our ,bible is fabulous2 the ,jew of the present day1 whilst admitting the truth and divine origin of the ,old ,testament1 rejects the ,new2 and1 the same exclusive belief in the truth of their own creed and the falsity of every other was entertained by the professors of most of the heathen religions before the period of the ,syncretism4 ,but which community is right8 ,not all1 for this is impossible1 since the assertion of each excludes the others4 ,but which particular one8 ,each claims for itself the true faith4 ,the pretensions are equal2 what shall decide8 ,the origin of the several religions8 ,each lays claim to a divine origin4 ,not only does the ,christian religion profess to be derived from the ,son of ,god1 and the ,jewish from ,god himself1 through ,moses2 the ,mohammedan religion asserts itself to be founded by a prophet immediately inspired by ,god2 in like manner the ,greeks attributed the institution of their worship to the gods4 8,but in no other religion0 it is urged 8are the vouchers of a divine origin so unequivocal as in the ,jewish and the ,christian4 ,the ,greek and ,roman mythologies are the product of a collection of unauthenticated legends1 whilst the ,bible history was written by eye-witnesses2 or by those whose connexion with eye-witnesses afforded them opportunities of ascertaining the truth2 and whose integrity is too apparent to admit of a doubt as to the sincerity of their intentions40 ,it would most unquestionably be an argument of decisive weight in favour of the credibility of the biblical history1 could it indeed be shown that it was written by eye-witnesses1 or even by persons nearly contemporaneous with the events narrated4 ,for though errors and false representations may glide into the narrations even of an eye-witness1 there is far less probability of unintentional mistake 7intentional deception may easily be detected7 than where the narrator is separated by a long interval from the facts he records1 and is obliged to derive his materials through the medium of transmitted communications4 ,but this alleged ocular testimony1 or proximity in point of time of the sacred historians to the events recorded1 is mere assumption1 an assumption originating from the titles which the biblical books bear in our ,canon4 ,those books which describe the departure of the ,israelites from ,egypt1 and their wanderings through the wilderness1 bear the name of ,moses1 who being their leader would undoubtedly give a faithful history of these occurrences1 unless he designed to deceive2 and who1 if his intimate connexion with ,deity described in these books be historically true1 was likewise eminently qualified1 by virtue of such connexion1 to produce a credible history of the earlier periods4 ,in like manner1 of the several accounts of the life and fate of ,jesus1 the superscriptions assign one to ,matthew and one to ,john3 two men who having been eye-witnesses of the public ministry of ,jesus from its commencement to its close were particularly capable of giving a report of it2 and who1 from their confidential intercourse with ,jesus and his mother1 together with that supernatural aid which1 according to ,john1 ,jesus promised to his disciples to teach them and bring all things to their remembrance1 were enabled to give information of the circumstances of his earlier years2 of which some details are recorded by ,matthew4 ,but that little reliance can be placed on the headings of ancient manuscripts1 and of sacred records more especially1 is evident1 and in reference to biblical books has long since been proved4 ,in the so-called books of ,moses mention is made of his death and burial3 but who now supposes that this was written beforehand by ,moses in the form of prophecy8 ,many of the ,psalms bear the name of ,david which presuppose an acquaintance with the miseries of the exile2 and predictions are put into the mouth of ,daniel1 a ,jew living at the time of the ,babylonish captivity1 which could not have been written before the reign of ,antiochus ,epiphanes4 ,it is an incontrovertible position of modern criticism that the titles of the ,biblical books represent nothing more than the design of their author1 or the opinion of ,jewish or ,christian antiquity respecting their origin2 points the first of which proves nothing2 and as to the second every thing depends upon the following considerations3 #a4 the date of the opinion and the authority on which it rests2 #b4 the degree of harmony existing between this opinion and the internal character of the writings in question4 ,the first consideration includes an examination of the external1 the second of the internal grounds of evidence respecting the authenticity of the biblical books4 ,to investigate the internal grounds of credibility in relation to each detail given in the ,gospels1 7for it is with them alone we are here concerned7 and to test the probability or improbability of their being the production of eye-witnesses1 or of competently informed writers1 is the sole object of the present work4 ,the external grounds of evidence may be examined in this introduction1 only so far however as is necessary in order to judge whether they yield a definite result1 which may perhaps be in opposition to the internal grounds of evidence2 or whether the external evidence1 insufficient of itself1 leaves to the internal evidence the decision of the question4 ,we learn from the works of ,irenus1 of ,clemens ,alexandrinus1 and of ,tertullian1 that at the end of the second century after ,christ our four ,gospels were recognized by the orthodox church as the writings of the ,apostles and the disciples of the ,apostles2 and were separated from many other similar productions as authentic records of the life of ,jesus4 ,the first ,gospel according to our ,canon is attributed to ,matthew1 who is enumerated among the twelve ,apostles2 the fourth to ,john the beloved disciple of our ,lord2 the second to ,mark the interpreter of ,peter2 and the third to ,luke the companion of ,paul4 #gg ,we have1 besides1 the authority of earlier authors1 both in their own works and in quotations cited by others4 ,it is usual1 in reference to the first ,gospel1 to adduce the testimony of ,papias1 ,bishop of ,hierapolis1 said to have been an auditor of ,john1 7probably the presbyter7 and to have suffered martyrdom under ,marcus ,aurelius4 7#afa-ahj47 ,papias asserts that ,matthew the ,apostle wrote 7 #gh74 ,schleiermacher1 straining the meaning of 1 has latterly understood it to signify merely a collection of the sayings of ,jesus4 ,but when ,papias speaks of ,mark1 he seems to use 1 and as equivalent expressions4 ,whence it appears that the word designates a writing comprehending the acts and fate of ,jesus2 and the fathers of the church were justified in understanding the testimony of ,papias as relating to an entire ,gospel4 #gi ,they did indeed apply this testimony decidedly to our first ,gospel2 but the words of the ,apostolic father contain no such indication1 and the manuscript1 of which he speaks1 cannot be absolutely identical with our ,gospel2 for1 according to the statement given by ,papias1 ,matthew wrote in the ,hebrew language2 and it is a mere assumption of the christian fathers that our ,greek ,matthew is a translation of the original ,hebrew ,gospel #hj4 ,precepts of ,jesus1 and narratives concerning him1 corresponding more or less exactly with passages in our ,matthew1 do indeed occur in the works of other of the apostolic fathers2 but then these works are not wholly genuine1 and the quotations themselves are either in a form which indicates that they might have been derived from oral traditions2 or where these authors refer to written sources1 they do not mention them as being directly apostolic4 ,many citations in the writings of ,justin ,martyr 7who died #aff7 agree with passages in our ,matthew2 but there are also1 mixed up with these1 other elements which are not to be found in our ,gospels2 and he refers to the writings from which he derives them generally as 1 or 1 without naming any author in particular4 ,celsus1 #ha the opponent of ,christianity1 7subsequent to #aej7 mentions that the disciples of ,jesus had written his history1 and he alludes to our present ,gospels when he speaks of the divergence of the accounts respecting the number of angels seen at the resurrection2 but we find no more precise reference to any one ,evangelist in his writings1 so far as we know them through ,origen4 ,we have the testimony of the same ,papias who has the notice concerning ,matthew1 a testimony from the mouth of ,john 771 that ,mark1 who according to him was the interpreter of ,peter 7 71 wrote down the discourses and actions of ,jesus from his recollections of the instructions of that ,apostle4 #hb ,ecclesiastical writers have likewise assumed that this passage from ,papias refers to our second ,gospel1 though it does not say any thing of the kind1 and is besides inapplicable to it4 ,for our second ,gospel cannot have originated from recollections of ,peter's instructions1 i4e41 from a source peculiar to itself1 since it is evidently a compilation1 whether made from memory or otherwise1 from the first and third ,gospels4 #hc ,as little will the remark of ,papias that ,mark wrote without order 7 7 apply to our ,gospel4 ,for he cannot by this expression intend a false chronological arrangement1 since he ascribes to ,mark the strictest love of truth1 which1 united with the consciousness that he had not the means of fixing dates1 must have withheld him from making the attempt4 ,but a total renunciation of chronological connexion1 which ,papias can alone have meant to attribute to him1 is not to be found in the second ,gospel4 ,this being the case1 what do those echoes which our second ,gospel1 in like manner as our first1 seems to find in the most ancient ecclesiastical writers1 prove8 ,that ,luke1 the companion of ,paul1 wrote a ,gospel1 is not attested by any authority of corresponding weight or antiquity with that of ,papias in relation to ,matthew and to ,mark4 ,the third ,gospel however possesses a testimony of a particular kind in the 8,acts of the ,apostles20 not indeed authenticating it as the composition of ,luke1 but attributing it to an occasional companion of the ,apostle ,paul4 ,according to the prom to the ,acts and that to the ,gospel of ,luke1 these two books proceeded from the same author or compiler3 an origin which these writings do not1 in other respects1 contradict4 ,in several chapters in the second half of the ,book of the ,acts the author1 speaking of himself together with ,paul1 makes use of the first person plural1 #hd and thus identifies himself with the companion of that apostle4 ,the fact is1 however1 that many of the details concerning ,paul1 contained in other parts of the book of the ,acts1 are so indefinite and marvellous1 and are moreover so completely at variance with ,paul's genuine epistles1 that it is extremely difficult to reconcile them with the notion that they were written by a companion of that apostle4 ,it is also not a little remarkable that the author1 neither in the introduction to the ,acts1 nor in that to the ,gospel1 alludes to his connexion with one of the most distinguished of the ,apostles1 so that it is impossible not to suspect that the passages in which the writer speaks of himself as an actor in the scenes described1 belong to a distinct memorial by another hand1 which the author of the ,acts has merely incorporated into his history4 ,but leaving this conjecture out of the question1 it is indeed possible that the companion of ,paul may have composed his two works at a time1 and under circumstances1 when he was no longer protected by ,apostolic influence against the tide of tradition2 and that he saw no reason why1 because he had not heard them previously from this ,apostle1 he should therefore reject the instructive1 and 7according to his notions1 which certainly would not lead him to shun the marvellous17 credible narratives derived from that source4 ,now1 it is asserted that because the ,book of the ,acts terminates with the two years' imprisonment of ,paul at ,rome1 therefore this second work of the disciple of that apostle1 must have been written during that time1 7#fc-fe1 ,a4,d47 before the decision of ,paul's trial1 and that consequently1 the ,gospel of ,luke1 the earlier work of the same author1 could not have been of later date4 ,but1 the breaking off of the ,acts at that particular point might have been the result of many other causes2 at all events such testimony1 standing alone1 is wholly insufficient to decide the historical worth of the ,gospel4 ,it were to be wished that ,polycarp1 7he died #afg7 who both heard and saw the ,apostle ,john1 #he had left us a testimony respecting him similar to that of ,papias concerning ,matthew4 ,still his silence on this subject1 in the one short epistle which has come down to us1 is no evidence against the authenticity of that ,gospel1 any more than the more or less ambiguous allusions in several of the ,apostolic fathers to the ,epistles of ,john are proofs in its favour4 ,but it is matter of surprise that ,irenus the disciple of ,polycarp1 who was called upon to defend this ,gospel from the attacks of those who denied its composition by ,john1 should neither on this occasion1 nor once in his diffuse work1 have brought forward the weighty authority of his ,apostolic master1 as to this fact4 ,whether or not the fourth ,gospel originally bore the name of ,john remains uncertain4 ,we meet with it first among the ,valentinians and the ,montanists1 about the middle of the second century4 ,its ,apostolic origin was however 7immediately after7 denied by the so-called ,alogi1 who ascribed it to ,cerinthus2 partly because the ,montanists derived from it their idea of the ,paraclete2 partly also because it did not harmonize with the other ,gospels4 #hf ,the earliest quotation expressly stated to be from the ,gospel of ,john is found in ,theophilus of ,antioch1 about the year #agb4 #hg ,how little reason the numerous theologians of the present day have to boast of the evidences in favour of the fourth ,gospel1 whilst they deny the not less well attested ,apocalypse1 has been well remarked by ,tholuck4 ,lastly1 that there were two ,johns1 the ,apostle and the ,presbyter1 living contemporaneously at ,ephesus1 is a circumstance which has not received sufficient attention in connexion with the most ancient testimonies in favour of the derivation from ,john1 of the ,apocalypse on the one hand1 and of the ,gospels and ,epistles on the other4 ,thus these most ancient testimonies tell us1 firstly1 that an apostle1 or some other person who had been acquainted with an apostle1 wrote a ,gospel history2 but not whether it was identical with that which afterwards came to be circulated in the church under his name2 secondly1 that writings similar to our ,gospels were in existence2 but not that they were ascribed with certainty to any one individual apostle or companion of an apostle4 ,such is the uncertainty of these accounts1 which after all do not reach further back than the third or fourth decade of the second century4 ,according to all the rules of probability1 the ,apostles were all dead before the close of the first century2 not excepting ,john1 who is said to have lived till ,a4,d4 #ajj2 concerning whose age and death1 however1 many fables were early invented4 ,what an ample scope for attributing to the ,apostles manuscripts they never wrote6 ,the ,apostles1 dispersed abroad1 had died in the latter half of the first century2 the ,gospel became more widely preached throughout the ,roman empire1 and by degrees acquired a fixed form in accordance with a particular type4 ,it was doubtless from this orally circulated ,gospel that the many passages agreeing accurately with passages in our ,gospels1 which occur without any indication of their source in the earliest ecclesiastical writers1 were actually derived4 ,before long this oral traditionary ,gospel became deposited in different manuscripts3 this person or that1 possibly an apostle1 furnishing the principal features of the history4 ,but these manuscripts were not at first compiled according to a particular form and order1 and consequently had to undergo many revisions and re-arrangements1 of which we have an example in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews and the citations of ,justin4 ,it appears that these manuscripts did not originally bear the names of their compilers1 but either that of the community by whom they were first read1 as the ,gospel of ,hebrews2 or that of the ,apostle or disciple after whose oral discourses or notes some other person had composed a connected history4 ,the latter seems to have been the original meaning attached to the word 2 as in the title to our first ,gospel4 #hh ,nothing however was more natural than the supposition which arose among the early christians1 that the histories concerning ,jesus which were circulated and used by the churches had been written by his immediate disciples4 ,hence the ascription of the gospel writings generally to the apostles by ,justin and by ,celsus2 and also of particular gospels to those particular apostles and disciples1 whose oral discourses or written notes might possibly have formed the groundwork of a gospel manuscript1 or who had perhaps been particularly connected with some certain district1 or had been held in especial esteem by some particular community4 ,the ,gospel of the ,hebrews successively received all three kinds of appellations2 being first called ' 1 after the community by which it was read2 somewhat later1 ,evangelium juxta duodecim apostolos2 and finally1 secundum ,matthum4 ,admitting however that we do not possess the immediate record of an eye-witness in any one of the four ,gospels1 it is still very incomprehensible1 replies the objector1 how in ,palestine itself1 and at a time when so many eye-witnesses yet lived1 unhistorical legends and even collections of them should have been formed4 ,but1 in the first place1 the fact that many such compilations of narratives concerning the life of ,jesus were already in general circulation during the lifetime of the ,apostles1 and more especially that any one of our gospels was known to an ,apostle and acknowledged by him1 can never be proved4 ,with respect to isolated anecdotes1 it is only necessary to form an accurate conception of ,palestine and of the real position of the eye-witnesses referred to1 in order to understand that the origination of legends1 even at so early a period1 is by no means incomprehensible4 ,who informs us that they must necessarily have taken root in that particular district of ,palestine where ,jesus tarried longest1 and where his actual history was well known8 ,and with respect to eye-witnesses1 if by these we are to understand the ,apostles1 it is to ascribe to them absolute ubiquity1 to represent them as present here and there1 weeding out all the unhistorical legends concerning ,jesus in whatever places they had chanced to spring up and flourish4 ,eye-witnesses in the more extended sense1 who had only seen ,jesus occasionally and not been his constant companions1 must1 on the contrary1 have been strongly tempted to fill up their imperfect knowledge of his history with mythical representations4 ,but it is inconceivable1 they say1 that such a mass of mythi should have originated in an age so historical as that of the first ,roman emperors4 ,we must not however be misled by too comprehensive a notion of an historical age4 ,the sun is not visible at the same instant to every place on the same meridian at the same time of year2 it gleams upon the mountain summits and the high plains before it penetrates the lower valleys and the deep ravines4 ,no less true is it that the historic age dawns not upon all people at the same period4 ,the people of highly civilized ,greece1 and of ,rome the capital of the world1 stood on an eminence which had not been reached in ,galilee and ,juda4 ,much rather may we apply to this age an expression become trite among historians1 but which seems in the present instance willingly forgotten3 namely1 that incredulity and superstition1 scepticism and fanaticism go hand in hand4 ,but the ,jews1 it is said1 had long been accustomed to keep written records2 nay1 the most flourishing period of their literature was already past1 they were no longer a progressing and consequently a productive people1 they were a nation verging to decay4 ,but the fact is1 the pure historic idea was never developed among the ,hebrews during the whole of their political existence2 their latest historical works1 such as the ,books of the ,maccabees1 and even the writings of ,josephus1 are not free from marvellous and extravagant tales4 ,indeed no just notion of the true nature of history is possible1 without a perception of the inviolability of the chain of finite causes1 and of the impossibility of miracles4 ,this perception which is wanting to so many minds of our own day was still more deficient in ,palestine1 and indeed throughout the ,roman empire4 ,and to a mind still open to the reception of the marvellous1 if it be once carried away by the tide of religious enthusiasm1 all things will appear credible1 and should this enthusiasm lay hold of a yet wider circle1 it will awaken a new creative vigour1 even in a decayed people4 ,to account for such an enthusiasm it is by no means necessary to presuppose the gospel miracles as the existing cause4 ,this may be found in the known religious dearth of that period1 a dearth so great that the cravings of the mind after some religious belief excited a relish for the most extravagant forms of worship2 secondly in the deep religious satisfaction which was afforded by the belief in the resurrection of the deceased ,messiah1 and by the essential principles of the doctrine of ,jesus4 #ad4 ,,the ,,possibility ,,of ,,mythi ,,in ,,the ,,new ,,testament ,,considered ,,on ,,internal ,,grounds4 ,seeing from what has already been said that the external testimony respecting the composition of our ,gospels1 far from forcing upon us the conclusion that they proceeded from eye-witnesses or well-informed contemporaries1 leaves the decision to be determined wholly by internal grounds of evidence1 that is1 by the nature of the ,gospel narratives themselves3 we might immediately proceed from this introduction to the peculiar object of the present work1 which is an examination of those narratives in detail4 ,it may however appear useful1 before entering upon this special inquiry1 to consider the general question1 how far it is consistent with the character of the ,christian religion that mythi should be found in it1 and how far the general construction of the ,gospel narratives authorizes us to treat them as mythi4 ,although1 indeed1 if the following critical examination of the details be successful in proving the actual existence of mythi in the ,new ,testament1 this preliminary demonstration of their possibility becomes superfluous4 ,if with this view we compare the acknowledged mythical religions of antiquity with the ,hebrew and ,christian1 it is true that we are struck by many differences between the sacred histories existing in these religious forms and those in the former4 ,above all1 it is commonly alleged that the sacred histories of the ,bible are distinguished from the legends of the ,indians1 ,greeks1 ,romans1 etc41 by their moral character and excellence4 8,in the latter1 the stories of the battles of the gods1 the loves of ,krishna1 ,jupiter1 etc41 contain much which was offensive to the moral feeling even of enlightened heathens1 and which is revolting to ours3 whilst in the former1 the whole course of the narration1 offers only what is worthy of ,god1 instructive1 and ennobling40 ,to this it may be answered with regard to the heathens1 that the appearance of immorality in many of their narratives is merely the consequence of a subsequent misconception of their original meaning3 and with regard to the ,old ,testament1 that the perfect moral purity of its history has been contested4 ,often indeed1 it has been contested without good grounds1 because a due distinction is not made between that which is ascribed to individual men1 7who1 as they are represented1 are by no means spotless examples of purity17 and that which is ascribed to ,god3 #hi nevertheless it is true that we have commands called divine1 which1 like that to the ,israelites on their departure out of ,egypt to purloin vessels of gold1 are scarcely less revolting to an enlightened moral feeling1 than the thefts of the ,grecian ,hermes4 ,but even admitting this difference in the morality of the religions to its full extent 7and it must be admitted at least with regard to the ,new ,testament71 still it furnishes no proof of the historical character of the ,bible2 for though every story relating to ,god which is immoral is necessarily fictitious1 even the most moral is not necessarily true4 8,but that which is incredible and inconceivable forms the staple of the heathen fables2 whilst in the biblical history1 if we only presuppose the immediate intervention of the ,deity1 there is nothing of the kind40 ,exactly1 if this be presupposed4 ,otherwise1 we might very likely find the miracles in the life of ,moses1 ,elias1 or ,jesus1 the ,theophany and ,angelophany of the ,old and ,new ,testament1 just as incredible as the fables of ,jupiter1 ,hercules1 or ,bacchus3 presuppose the divinity or divine descent of these individuals1 and their actions and fate become as credible as those of the biblical personages with the like presupposition4 ,yet not quite so1 it may be returned4 ,vishnu appearing in his three first avatars as a fish1 a tortoise1 and a boar2 ,saturn devouring his children2 ,jupiter turning himself into a bull1 a swan1 etc4--these are incredibilities of quite another kind from ,jehovah appearing to ,abraham in a human form under the terebinth tree1 or to ,moses in the burning bush4 ,this extravagant love of the marvellous is the character of the heathen mythology4 ,a similar accusation might indeed be brought against many parts of the ,bible1 such as the tales of ,balaam1 ,joshua1 and ,samson2 but still it is here less glaring1 and does not form as in the ,indian religion and in certain parts of the ,grecian1 the prevailing character4 ,what however does this prove8 ,only that the biblical history might be true1 sooner than the ,indian or ,grecian fables2 not in the least that on this account it must be true1 and can contain nothing fictitious4 8,but the subjects of the heathen mythology are for the most part such1 as to convince us beforehand that they are mere inventions3 those of the ,bible such as at once to establish their own reality4 ,a ,brahma1 an ,ormusd1 a ,jupiter1 without doubt never existed2 but there still is a ,god1 a ,christ1 and there have been an ,adam1 a ,noah1 an ,abraham1 a ,moses40 ,whether an ,adam or a ,noah1 however1 were such as they are represented1 has already been doubted1 and may still be doubted4 ,just so1 on the other side1 there may have been something historical about ,hercules1 ,theseus1 ,achilles1 and other heroes of ,grecian story4 ,here1 again1 we come to the decision that the biblical history might be true sooner than the heathen mythology1 but is not necessarily so4 ,this decision however1 together with the two distinctions already made1 brings us to an important observation4 ,how do the ,grecian divinities approve themselves immediately to us as non-existing beings1 if not because things are ascribed to them which we cannot reconcile with our idea of the divine8 whilst the ,god of the ,bible is a reality to us just in so far as he corresponds with the idea we have formed of him in our own minds4 ,besides the contradiction to our notion of the divine involved in the plurality of heathen gods1 and the intimate description of their motives and actions1 we are at once revolted to find that the gods themselves have a history2 that they are born1 grow up1 marry1 have children1 work out their purposes1 suffer difficulties and weariness1 conquer and are conquered4 ,it is irreconcileable with our idea of the ,absolute to suppose it subjected to time and change1 to opposition and suffering2 and therefore where we meet with a narrative in which these are attributed to a divine being1 by this test we recognize it as unhistorical or mythical4 ,it is in this sense that the ,bible1 and even the ,old ,testament1 is said to contain no mythi4 ,the story of the creation with its succession of each day's labour ending in a rest after the completion of the task2 the expression often recurring in the farther course of the narrative1 ,god repented of having done so and so2--these and similar representations cannot indeed be entirely vindicated from the charge of making finite the nature of the ,deity1 and this is the ground which has been taken by mythical interpreters of the history of the creation4 ,and in every other instance where ,god is said to reveal himself exclusively at any definite place or time1 by celestial apparition1 or by miracle wrought immediately by himself1 it is to be presumed that the ,deity has become finite and descended to human modes of operation4 ,it may however be said in general1 that in the ,old ,testament the divine nature does not appear to be essentially affected by the temporal character of its operation1 but that the temporal shows itself rather as a mere form1 an unavoidable appearance1 arising out of the necessary limitation of human1 and especially of uncultivated powers of representation4 ,it is obvious to every one1 that there is something quite different in the ,old ,testament declarations1 that ,god made an alliance with ,noah1 and ,abraham1 led his people out of ,egypt1 gave them laws1 brought them into the promised land1 raised up for them judges1 kings1 and prophets1 and punished them at last for their disobedience by exile2--from the tales concerning ,jupiter1 that he was born of ,rhea in ,crete1 and hidden from his father ,saturn in a cave2 that afterwards he made war upon his father1 freed the ,uranides1 and with their help and that of the lightning with which they furnished him1 overcame the rebellious ,titans1 and at last divided the world amongst his brothers and children4 ,the essential difference between the two representations is1 that in the latter1 the ,deity himself is the subject of progression1 becomes another being at the end of the process from what he was at the beginning1 something being effected in himself and for his own sake3 whilst in the former1 change takes place only on the side of the world2 ,god remains fixed in his own identity as the ,i ,,am1 and the temporal is only a superficial reflection cast back upon his acting energy by that course of mundane events which he both originated and guides4 ,in the heathen mythology the gods have a history3 in the ,old ,testament1 ,god himself has none1 but only his people3 and if the proper meaning of mythology be the history of gods1 then the ,hebrew religion has no mythology4 ,from the ,hebrew religion1 this recognition of the divine unity and immutability was transmitted to the ,christian4 ,the birth1 growth1 miracles1 sufferings1 death1 and resurrection of ,christ1 are circumstances belonging to the destiny of the ,messiah1 above which ,god remains unaffected in his own changeless identity4 ,the ,new ,testament therefore knows nothing of mythology in the above sense4 ,the state of the question is however somewhat changed from that which it assumed in the ,old ,testament3 for ,jesus is called the ,son of ,god1 not merely in the same sense as kings under the theocracy were so called1 but as actually begotten by the divine spirit1 or from the incarnation in his person of the divine 4 ,inasmuch as he is one with the ,father1 and in him the whole fullness of the godhead dwells bodily1 he is more than ,moses4 ,the actions and sufferings of such a being are not external to the ,deity3 though we are not allowed to suppose a theopaschitic union with the divine nature1 yet still1 even in the ,new ,testament1 and more in the later doctrine of the ,church1 it is a divine being that here lives and suffers1 and what befals him has an absolute worth and significance4 ,thus according to the above accepted notion of the mythus1 the ,new ,testament has more of a mythical character than the ,old4 ,but to call the history of ,jesus mythical in this sense1 is as unimportant with regard to the historical question as it is unexceptionable2 for the idea of ,god is in no way opposed to such an intervention in human affairs as does not affect his own immutability2 so that as far as regards this point1 the gospel history1 notwithstanding its mythical designation1 might be at the same time throughout historically true4 ,admitting that the biblical history does not equally with the heathen mythology offend our idea of ,deity1 and that consequently it is not in like manner characterized by this mark of the unhistorical1 however far it be from bearing any guarantee of being historical1--we are met by the further question whether it be not less accordant with our idea of the world1 and whether such discordancy may not furnish a test of its unhistorical nature4 ,in the ancient world1 that is1 in the east1 the religious tendency was so preponderating1 and the knowledge of nature so limited1 that the law of connexion between earthly finite beings was very loosely regarded4 ,at every link there was a disposition to spring into the ,infinite1 and to see ,god as the immediate cause of every change in nature or the human mind4 ,in this mental condition the biblical history was written4 ,not that ,god is here represented as doing all and every thing himself3--a notion which1 from the manifold direct evidence of the fundamental connexion between finite things1 would be impossible to any reasonable mind3--but there prevails in the biblical writers a ready disposition to derive all things down to the minutest details1 as soon as they appear particularly important1 immediately from ,god4 ,he it is who gives the rain and sunshine2 he sends the east wind and the storm2 he dispenses war1 famine1 pestilence2 he hardens hearts and softens them1 suggests thoughts and resolutions4 ,and this is particularly the case with regard to his chosen instruments and beloved people4 ,in the history of the ,israelites we find traces of his immediate agency at every step3 through ,moses1 ,elias1 ,jesus1 he performs things which never would have happened in the ordinary course of nature4 ,our modern world1 on the contrary1 after many centuries of tedious research1 has attained a conviction1 that all things are linked together by a chain of causes and effects1 which suffers no interruption4 ,it is true that single facts and groups of facts1 with their conditions and processes of change1 are not so circumscribed as to be unsusceptible of external influence2 for the action of one existence or kingdom in nature intrenches on that of another3 human freedom controls natural development1 and material laws react on human freedom4 ,nevertheless the totality of finite things forms a vast circle1 which1 except that it owes its existence and laws to a superior power1 suffers no intrusion from without4 ,this conviction is so much a habit of thought with the modern world1 that in actual life1 the belief in a supernatural manifestation1 an immediate divine agency1 is at once attributed to ignorance or imposture4 ,it has been carried to the extreme in that modern explanation1 which1 in a spirit exactly opposed to that of the ,bible1 has either totally removed the divine causation1 or has so far restricted it that it is immediate in the act of creation alone1 but mediate from that point onwards2--i4e41 ,god operates on the world only in so far as he gave to it this fixed direction at the creation4 ,from this point of view1 at which nature and history appear as a compact tissue of finite causes and effects1 it was impossible to regard the narratives of the ,bible1 in which this tissue is broken by innumerable instances of divine interference1 as historical4 ,it must be confessed on nearer investigation1 that this modern explanation1 although it does not exactly deny the existence of ,god1 yet puts aside the idea of him1 as the ancient view did the idea of the world4 ,for this is1 as it has been often and well remarked1 no longer a ,god and ,creator1 but a mere finite ,artist1 who acts immediately upon his work only during its first production1 and then leaves it to itself2 who becomes excluded with his full energy from one particular sphere of existence4 ,it has therefore been attempted to unite the two views so as to maintain for the world its law of sequence1 and for ,god his unlimited action1 and by this means to preserve the truth of the biblical history4 ,according to this view1 the world is supposed to move in obedience to the law of consecutive causes and effects bound up with its constitution1 and ,god to act upon it only mediately3 but in single instances1 where he finds it necessary for particular objects1 he is not held to be restricted from entering into the course of human changes immediately4 ,this is the view of modern ,supranaturalism #ij2 evidently a vain attempt to reconcile two opposite views1 since it contains the faults of both1 and adds a new one in the contradiction between the two ill-assorted principles4 ,for here the consecutiveness of nature and history is broken through as in the ancient biblical view2 and the action of ,god limited as in the contrary system4 ,the proposition that ,god works sometimes mediately1 sometimes immediately1 upon the world1 introduces a changeableness1 and therefore a temporal element1 into the nature of his action1 which brings it under the same condemnation as both the other systems2 that1 namely1 of distinguishing the maintaining power1 in the one case from individual instances of the divine agency1 and in the other from the act of creation4 #ia ,since then our idea of ,god requires an immediate1 and our idea of the world a mediate divine operation2 and since the idea of combination of the two species of action is inadmissible3--nothing remains for us but to regard them both as so permanently and immoveably united1 that the operation of ,god on the world continues for ever and every where twofold1 both immediate and mediate2 which comes just to this1 that it is neither of the two1 or this distinction loses its value4 ,to explain more closely3 if we proceed from the idea of ,god1 from which arose the demand for his immediate operation1 then the world is to be regarded in relation to him as a ,whole3 on the contrary1 if we proceed from the idea of the finite1 the world is a congeries of separate parts1 and hence has arisen the demand for a merely mediate agency of ,god3--so that we must say--,god acts upon the world as a ,whole immediately1 but on each part only by means of his action on every other part1 that is to say1 by the laws of nature4 #ib ,this view brings us to the same conclusion with regard to the historical value of the ,bible as the one above considered4 ,the miracles which ,god wrought for and by ,moses and ,jesus1 do not proceed from his immediate operation on the ,whole1 but presuppose an immediate action in particular cases1 which is a contradiction to the type of the divine agency we have just given4 ,the supranaturalists indeed claim an exception from this type on behalf of the biblical history2 a presupposition which is inadmissible from our point of view #ic1 according to which the same laws1 although varied by various circumstances1 are supreme in every sphere of being and action1 and therefore every narrative which offends against these laws1 is to be recognized as so far unhistorical4 ,the result1 then1 however surprising1 of a general examination of the biblical history1 is that the ,hebrew and ,christian religions1 like all others1 have their mythi4 ,and this result is confirmed1 if we consider the inherent nature of religion1 what essentially belongs to it and therefore must be common to all religions1 and what on the other hand is peculiar and may differ in each4 ,if religion be defined as the perception of truth1 not in the form of an idea1 which is the philosophic perception1 but invested with imagery2 it is easy to see that the mythical element can be wanting only when religion either falls short of1 or goes beyond1 its peculiar province1 and that in the proper religious sphere it must necessarily exist4 ,it is only amongst the lowest and most barbarous people1 such as the ,esquimaux1 that we find religion not yet fashioned into an objective form1 but still confined to a subjective feeling4 ,they know nothing of gods1 of superior spirits and powers1 and their whole piety consists in an undefined sentiment excited by the hurricane1 the eclipse1 or the magician4 ,as it progresses however1 the religious principle loses more and more of this indefiniteness1 and ceasing to be subjective1 becomes objective4 ,in the sun1 moon1 mountains1 animals1 and other objects of the sensible world1 higher powers are discovered and revered2 and in proportion as the significance given to these objects is remote from their actual nature1 a new world of mere imagination is created1 a sphere of divine existences whose relations to one another1 actions1 and influences1 can be represented only after human analogy1 and therefore as temporal and historical4 ,even when the mind has raised itself to the conception of the ,divine unity1 still the energy and activity of ,god are considered only under the form of a series of acts3 and on the other hand1 natural events and human actions can be raised to a religious significance only by the admission of divine interpositions and miracles4 ,it is only from the philosophic point of view that the world of imagination is seen again to coincide with the actual1 because the thought of ,god is comprehended to be his essence1 and in the regular course itself of nature and of history1 the revelation of the divine idea is acknowledged4 ,it is certainly difficult to conceive1 how narratives which thus speak of imagination as reality can have been formed without intentional deceit1 and believed without unexampled credulity2 and this difficulty has been held an invincible objection to the mythical interpretation of many of the narratives of the ,old and ,new ,testament4 ,if this were the case1 it would apply equally to the ,heathen legends2 and on the other hand1 if profane ,mythology have steered clear of the difficulty1 neither will that of the ,bible founder upon it4 ,i shall here quote at length the words of an experienced inquirer into ,grecian mythology and primitive history1 ,otfried ,mller1 since it is evident that this preliminary knowledge of the subject which must be derived from general mythology1 and which is necessary for the understanding of the following examination of the evangelic mythus1 is not yet familiar to all theologians4 8,how10 says ,mller #id1 8shall we reconcile this combination of the true and the false1 the real and ideal1 in mythi1 with the fact of their being believed and received as truth8 ,the ideal1 it may be said1 is nothing else than poetry and fiction clothed in the form of a narration4 ,but a fiction of this kind cannot be invented at the same time by many different persons without a miracle1 requiring1 as it does1 a peculiar coincidence of intention1 imagination1 and expression4 ,it is therefore the work of one person3--but how did he convince all the others that his fiction had an actual truth8 ,shall we suppose him to have been one who contrived to delude by all kinds of trickery and deception1 and perhaps allied himself with similar deceivers1 whose part it was to afford attestation to the people of his inventions as having been witnessed by themselves8 ,or shall we think of him as a man of higher endowments than others1 who believed him upon his word2 and received the mythical tales under whose veil he sought to impart wholesome truths1 as a sacred revelation8 ,but it is impossible to prove that such a caste of deceivers existed in ancient ,greece 7or ,palestine72 on the contrary1 this skilful system of deception1 be it gross or refined1 selfish or philanthropic1 if we are not misled by the impression we have received from the earliest productions of the ,grecian 7or ,christian7 mind1 is little suited to the noble simplicity of those times4 ,hence an inventer of the mythus in the proper sense of the word is inconceivable4 ,this reasoning brings us to the conclusion1 that the idea of a deliberate and intentional fabrication1 in which the author clothes that which he knows to be false in the appearance of truth1 must be entirely set aside as insufficient to account for the origin of the mythus4 ,or in other words1 that there is a certain necessity in this connexion between the ideal and the real1 which constitutes the mythus2 that the mythical images were formed by the influence of sentiments common to all mankind2 and that the different elements grew together without the author's being himself conscious of their incongruity4 ,it is this notion of a certain necessity and unconsciousness in the formation of the ancient mythi1 on which we insist4 ,if this be once understood1 it will also be perceived that the contention whether the mythus proceed from one person or many1 from the poet or the people1 though it may be started on other grounds1 does not go to the root of the matter4 ,for if the one who invents the mythus is only obeying the impulse which acts also upon the minds of his hearers1 he is but the mouth through which all speak1 the skilful interpreter who has the address first to give form and expression to the thoughts of all4 ,it is however very possible that this notion of necessity and unconsciousness1 might appear itself obscure and mystical to our antiquarians 7and theologians71 from no other reason than that this mythicising tendency has no analogy in the present mode of thinking4 ,but is not history to acknowledge even what is strange1 when led to it by unprejudiced research80 ,as an example to show that even very complicated mythi1 in the formation of which many apparently remote circumstances must have combined1 may yet have arisen in this unconscious manner1 ,mller then refers to the ,grecian mythus of ,apollo and ,marsyas4 8,it was customary to celebrate the festivals of ,apollo with playing on the lyre1 and it was necessary to piety1 that the god himself should be regarded as its author4 ,in ,phrygia1 on the contrary1 the national music was the flute1 which was similarly derived from a demon of their own1 named ,marsyas4 ,the ancient ,grecians perceived that the tones of these two instruments were essentially opposed3 the harsh shrill piping of the flute must be hateful to ,apollo1 and therefore ,marsyas his enemy4 ,this was not enough3 in order that the lyre-playing ,grecian might flatter himself that the invention of his god was the more excellent instrument1 ,apollo must triumph over ,marsyas4 ,but why was it necessary in particular that the unlucky ,phrygian should be flayed8 ,here is the simple origin of the mythus4 ,near the castle of ,celne in ,phrygia1 in a cavern whence flowed a stream or torrent named ,marsyas1 was suspended a skin flask1 called by the ,phrygians1 the bottle of ,marsyas2 for ,marsyas was1 like the ,grecian ,silenus1 a demi-god symbolizing the exuberance of the juices of nature4 ,now where a ,grecian1 or a ,phrygian with ,grecian prepossessions1 looked on the bottle1 he plainly saw the catastrophe of ,marsyas2 here was still suspended his skin1 which had been torn off and made into a bottle3--,apollo had flayed him4 ,in all this there is no arbitrary invention3 the same ideas might have occurred to many1 and if one first gave expression to them1 he knew well that his auditors1 imbued with the same prepossessions1 would not for an instant doubt his accuracy40 8,the chief reason of the complicated character of mythi in general1 is their having been formed for the most part1 not at once1 but successively and by degrees1 under the influence of very different circumstances and events both external and internal4 ,the popular traditions1 being orally transmitted and not restricted by any written document1 were open to receive every new addition1 and thus grew in the course of long centuries to the form in which we now find them4 7,how far this applies to a great part of the ,new ,testament mythi1 will be shown hereafter47 ,this is an important and luminous fact1 which however is very frequently overlooked in the explanation of mythi2 for they are regarded as allegories invented by one person1 at one stroke1 with the definite purpose of investing a thought in the form of a narration40 ,the view thus expressed by ,mller1 that the mythus is founded not upon any individual conception1 but upon the more elevated and general conception of a whole people 7or religious community71 is said by a competent judge of ,mller's work to be the necessary condition for a right understanding of the ancient mythus1 the admission or rejection of which henceforth ranges the opinions on mythology into two opposite divisions4 #ie ,it is not however easy to draw a line of distinction between intentional and unintentional fiction4 ,in the case where a fact lay at the foundation1 which1 being the subject of popular conversation and admiration1 in the course of time formed itself into a mythus1 we readily dismiss all notion of wilful fraud1 at least in its origin4 ,for a mythus of this kind is not the work of one man1 but of a whole body of men1 and of succeeding generations2 the narrative passing from mouth to mouth1 and like a snowball growing by the involuntary addition of one exaggerating feature from this1 and another from that narrator4 ,in time however these legends are sure to fall into the way of some gifted minds1 which will be stimulated by them to the exercise of their own poetical1 religious1 or didactic powers4 ,most of the mythical narratives which have come down to us from antiquity1 such as the ,trojan1 and the ,mosaic series of legends1 are presented to us in this elaborated form4 ,here then it would appear there must have been intentional deception3 this however is only the result of an erroneous assumption4 ,it is almost impossible1 in a critical and enlightened age like our own1 to carry ourselves back to a period of civilization in which the imagination worked so powerfully1 that its illusions were believed as realities by the very minds that created them4 ,yet the very same miracles which are wrought in less civilized circles by the imagination1 are produced in the more cultivated by the understanding4 ,let us take one of the best didactic historians of ancient or modern times1 ,livy1 as an example4 8,numa10 he says1 8gave to the ,romans a number of religious ceremonies1 ne luxuriarentur otio animi1 and because he regarded religion as the best means of bridling multitudinem imperitam et illis seculis rudem4 ,idem10 he continues1 8nefastos dies fastosque fecit1 quia aliquando nihil cum populo agi utile futurum erat40 #if ,how did ,livy know that these were the motives of ,numa8 ,in point of fact they certainly were not4 ,but ,livy believed them to be so4 ,the inference of his own understanding appeared to him so necessary1 that he treated it with full conviction as an actual fact4 ,the popular legend1 or some ancient poet1 had explained this fertility of religious invention in ,numa otherwise2 namely1 that it arose from his communication with the nymph ,egeria1 who revealed to him the forms of worship that would be most acceptable to the gods4 ,it is obvious1 that the case is pretty nearly the same with regard to both representations4 ,if the latter had an individual author1 it was his opinion that the historical statement could be accounted for only upon the supposition of a communication with a superior being2 as it was that of ,livy1 that its explanation must lie in political views4 ,the one mistook the production of his imagination1 the other the inference of his understanding1 for reality4 ,perhaps it may be admitted that there is a possibility of unconscious fiction1 even when an individual author is assigned to it1 provided that the mythical consists only in the filling up and adorning some historical event with imaginary circumstances3 but that where the whole story is invented1 and not any historical nucleus is to be found1 this unconscious fiction is impossible4 ,whatever view may be taken of the heathen mythology1 it is easy to show with regard to the ,new ,testament1 that there was the greatest antecedent probability of this very kind of fiction having arisen respecting ,jesus without any fraudulent intention4 ,the expectation of a ,messiah had grown up amongst the ,israelitish people long before the time of ,jesus1 and just then had ripened to full maturity4 ,and from its beginning this expectation was not indefinite1 but determined1 and characterized by many important particulars4 ,moses was said to have promised his people a prophet like unto himself 7,deut4 xviii4 #ae71 and this passage was in the time of ,jesus applied to the ,messiah 7,acts iii4 #bb2 vii4 #cg74 ,hence the rabbinical principle3 as the first redeemer 7,gol71 so shall be the second2 which principle was carried out into many particulars to be expected in the ,messiah after his prototype ,moses4 #ig ,again1 the ,messiah was to come of the race of ,david1 and as a second ,david take possession of his throne 7,matt4 xxii4 #db2 ,luke i4 #cb2 ,acts ii4 #cj73 and therefore in the time of ,jesus it was expected that he1 like ,david1 should be born in the little village of ,bethlehem 7,john vii4 #db2 ,matt4 ii4 #e f474 ,in the above passage ,moses describes the supposed ,messiah as a prophet2 so in his own idea1 ,jesus was the greatest and last of the prophetic race4 ,but in the old national legends the prophets were made illustrious by the most wonderful actions and destiny4 ,how could less be expected of the ,messiah8 ,was it not necessary beforehand1 that his life should be adorned with that which was most glorious and important in the lives of the prophets8 ,must not the popular expectation give him a share in the bright portion of their history1 as subsequently the sufferings of himself and his disciples were attributed by ,jesus1 when he appeared as the ,messiah1 to a participation in the dark side of the fate of the prophets 7,matt4 xxiii4 #bi ff42 ,luke xiii4 #cc ff42 comp4 ,matt4 v4 #ab78 ,believing that ,moses and all the prophets had prophesied of the ,messiah 7,john v4 #df2 ,luke iv4 #ba2 xxiv4 #bg71 it was as natural for the ,jews1 with their allegorizing tendency1 to consider their actions and destiny as types of the ,messiah1 as to take their sayings for predictions4 ,in general the whole ,messianic era was expected to be full of signs and wonders4 ,the eyes of the blind should be opened1 the ears of the deaf should be unclosed1 the lame should leap1 and the tongue of the dumb praise ,god 7,isa4 xxxv4 #e f42 xlii4 #g2 comp4 xxxii4 #c1 #d74 ,these merely figurative expressions soon came to be understood literally 7,matt4 xi4 #e2 ,luke vii4 #ba f471 and thus the idea of the ,messiah was continually filled up with new details1 even before the appearance of ,jesus4 #ih ,thus many of the legends respecting him had not to be newly invented2 they already existed in the popular hope of the ,messiah1 having been mostly derived with various modifications #ii from the ,old ,testament1 and had merely to be transferred to ,jesus1 #ajj and accommodated to his character and doctrines4 ,in no case could it be easier for the person who first added any new feature to the description of ,jesus1 to believe himself its genuineness1 since his argument would be3 ,such and such things must have happened to the ,messiah2 ,jesus was the ,messiah2 therefore such and such things happened to him4 #aja ,truly it may be said that the middle term of this argument1 namely1 that ,jesus was the ,messiah1 would have failed in proof to his contemporaries all the more on account of the common expectation of miraculous events1 if that expectation had not been fulfilled by him4 ,but the following critique on the ,life of ,jesus does not divest it of all those features to which the character of miraculous has been appropriated3 and besides we must take into account the overwhelming impression which was made upon those around him by the personal character and discourse of ,jesus1 as long as he was living amongst them1 which did not permit them deliberately to scrutinize and compare him with their previous standard4 ,the belief in him as the ,messiah extended to wider circles only by slow degrees2 and even during his lifetime the people may have reported many wonderful stories of him 7comp4 ,matt4 xiv4 #b74 ,after his death1 however1 the belief in his resurrection1 however that belief may have arisen1 afforded a more than sufficient proof of his ,messiahship2 so that all the other miracles in his history need not be considered as the foundation of the faith in this1 but may rather be adduced as the consequence of it4 ,it is however by no means necessary to attribute this same freedom from all conscious intention of fiction1 to the authors of all those narratives in the ,old and ,new ,testament which must be considered as unhistorical4 ,in every series of legends1 especially if any patriotic or religious party interest is associated with them1 as soon as they become the subject of free poetry or any other literary composition1 some kind of fiction will be intentionally mixed up with them4 ,the authors of the ,homeric songs could not have believed that every particular which they related of their gods and heroes had really happened2 and just as little could the writer of the ,chronicles have been ignorant that in his deviation from the books of ,samuel and of the ,kings1 he was introducing many events of later occurrence into an earlier period2 or the author of the book of ,daniel #ajb that he was modelling his history upon that of ,joseph1 and accommodating prophecies to events already past2 and exactly as little may this be said of all the unhistorical narratives of the ,gospels1 as for example1 of the first chapter of the third1 and many parts of the fourth ,gospel4 ,but a fiction1 although not undesigned1 may still be without evil design4 ,it is true1 the case is not the same with the supposed authors of many fictions in the ,bible1 as with poets properly so called1 since the latter write without any expectation that their poems will be received as history3 but still it is to be considered that in ancient times1 and especially amongst the ,hebrews1 and yet more when this people was stirred up by religious excitement1 the line of distinction between history and fiction1 prose and poetry1 was not drawn so clearly as with us4 ,it is a fact also deserving attention that amongst the ,jews and early ,christians1 the most reputable authors published their works with the substitution of venerated names1 without an idea that they were guilty of any falsehood or deception by so doing4 ,the only question that can arise here is whether to such fictions1 the work of an individual1 we can give the name of mythi8 ,if we regard only their own intrinsic nature1 the name is not appropriate2 but it is so when these fictions1 having met with faith1 come to be received amongst the legends of a people or religious party1 for this is always a proof that they were the fruit1 not of any individual conception1 but of an accordance with the sentiments of a multitude4 #ajc ,a frequently raised objection remains1 for the refutation of which the remarks above made1 upon the date of the origin of many of the gospel mythi1 are mainly important3 the objection1 namely1 that the space of about thirty years1 from the death of ,jesus to the destruction of ,jerusalem1 during which the greater part of the narratives must have been formed2 or even the interval extending to the beginning of the second century1 the most distant period which can be allowed for the origin of even the latest of these gospel narratives1 and for the written composition of our gospels2--is much too short to admit of the rise of so rich a collection of mythi4 ,but1 as we have shown1 the greater part of these mythi did not arise during that period1 for their first foundation was laid in the legends of the ,old ,testament1 before and after the ,babylonish exile2 and the transference of these legends with suitable modifications to the expected ,messiah1 was made in the course of the centuries which elapsed between that exile and the time of ,jesus4 ,so that for the period between the formation of the first ,christian community and the writing of the ,gospels1 there remains to be effected only the transference of ,messianic legends1 almost all ready formed1 to ,jesus1 with some alterations to adapt them to christian opinions1 and to the individual character and circumstances of ,jesus3 only a very small proportion of mythi having to be formed entirely new4 #ae4 ,,definition ,,of ,,the ,,evangelical ,,mythus ,,and ,,its ,,distinctive ,,characteristics4 ,the precise sense in which we use the expression mythus1 applied to certain parts of the gospel history1 is evident from all that has already been said2 at the same time the different kinds and gradations of the mythi which we shall meet with in this history may here by way of anticipation be pointed out4 ,we distinguish by the name evangelical mythus a narrative relating directly or indirectly to ,jesus1 which may be considered not as the expression of a fact1 but as the product of an idea of his earliest followers3 such a narrative being mythical in proportion as it exhibits this character4 ,the mythus in this sense of the term meets us1 in the ,gospel as elsewhere1 sometimes in its pure form1 constituting the substance of the narrative1 and sometimes as an accidental adjunct to the actual history4 ,the pure mythus in the ,gospel will be found to have two sources1 which in most cases contributed simultaneously1 though in different proportions1 to form the mythus4 ,the one source is1 as already stated1 the ,messianic ideas and expectations existing according to their several forms in the ,jewish mind before ,jesus1 and independently of him2 the other is that particular impression which was left by the personal character1 actions1 and fate of ,jesus1 and which served to modify the ,messianic idea in the minds of his people4 ,the account of the ,transfiguration1 for example1 is derived almost exclusively from the former source2 the only amplification taken from the latter source being--that they who appeared with ,jesus on the ,mount spake of his decease4 ,on the other hand1 the narrative of the rending of the veil of the temple at the death of ,jesus seems to have had its origin in the hostile position which ,jesus1 and his church after him1 sustained in relation to the ,jewish temple worship4 ,here already we have something historical1 though consisting merely of certain general features of character1 position1 etc42 we are thus at once brought upon the ground of the historical mythus4 ,the historical mythus has for its groundwork a definite individual fact which has been seized upon by religious enthusiasm1 and twined around with mythical conceptions culled from the idea of the ,christ4 ,this fact is perhaps a saying of ,jesus such as that concerning 8fishers of men0 or the barren fig-tree1 which now appear in the ,gospels transmuted into marvellous histories3 or1 it is perhaps a real transaction or event taken from his life2 for instance1 the mythical traits in the account of the baptism were built upon such a reality4 ,certain of the miraculous histories may likewise have had some foundation in natural occurrences1 which the narrative has either exhibited in a supernatural light1 or enriched with miraculous incidents4 ,all the species of imagery here enumerated may justly be designated as mythi1 even according to the modern and precise definition of ,george1 inasmuch as the unhistorical which they embody--whether formed gradually by tradition1 or created by an individual author--is in each case the product of an idea4 ,but for those parts of the history which are characterized by indefiniteness and want of connexion1 by misconstruction and transformation1 by strange combinations and confusion1--the natural results of a long course of oral transmission2 or which1 on the contrary1 are distinguished by highly coloured and pictorial representations1 which also seem to point to a traditionary origin2--for these parts the term legendary is certainly the more appropriate4 ,lastly4 ,it is requisite to distinguish equally from the mythus and the legend1 that which1 as it serves not to clothe an idea on the one hand1 and admits not of being referred to tradition on the other1 must be regarded as the addition of the author1 as purely individual1 and designed merely to give clearness1 connexion1 and climax1 to the representation4 ,it is to the various forms of the unhistorical in the ,gospels that this enumeration exclusively refers3 it does not involve the renunciation of the historical which they may likewise contain4 #af4 ,,criteria ,,by ,,which ,,to ,,distinguish ,,the ,,unhistorical ,,in ,,the ,,gospel ,,narrative4 ,having shown the possible existence of the mythical and the legendary in the ,gospels1 both on extrinsic and intrinsic grounds1 and defined their distinctive characteristics1 it remains in conclusion to inquire how their actual presence may be recognised in individual cases8 ,the mythus presents two phases3 in the first place it is not history2 in the second it is fiction1 the product of the particular mental tendency of a certain community4 ,these two phases afford the one a negative1 the other a positive criterion1 by which the mythus is to be recognised4 ,i4 ,negative4 ,that an account is not historical--that the matter related could not have taken place in the manner described is evident1 ,first4 ,when the narration is irreconcilable with the known and universal laws which govern the course of events4 ,now according to these laws1 agreeing with all just philosophical conceptions and all credible experience1 the absolute cause never disturbs the chain of secondary causes by single arbitrary acts of interposition1 but rather manifests itself in the production of the aggregate of finite causalities1 and of their reciprocal action4 ,when therefore we meet with an account of certain phenomena or events of which it is either expressly stated or implied that they were produced immediately by ,god himself 7divine apparitions--voices from heaven and the like71 or by human beings possessed of supernatural powers 7miracles1 prophecies71 such an account is in so far to be considered as not historical4 ,and inasmuch as1 in general1 the intermingling of the spiritual world with the human is found only in unauthentic records1 and is irreconcilable with all just conceptions2 so narratives of angels and of devils1 of their appearing in human shape and interfering with human concerns1 cannot possibly be received as historical4 ,another law which controls the course of events is the law of succession1 in accordance with which all occurrences1 not excepting the most violent convulsions and the most rapid changes1 follow in a certain order of sequence of increase and decrease4 ,if therefore we are told of a celebrated individual that he attracted already at his birth and during his childhood that attention which he excited in his manhood2 that his followers at a single glance recognized him as being all that he actually was2 if the transition from the deepest despondency to the most ardent enthusiasm after his death is represented as the work of a single hour2 we must feel more than doubtful whether it is a real history which lies before us4 ,lastly1 all those psychological laws1 which render it improbable that a human being should feel1 think1 and act in a manner directly opposed to his own habitual mode and that of men in general1 must be taken into consideration4 ,as for example1 when the ,jewish ,sanhedrim are represented as believing the declaration of the watch at the grave that ,jesus was risen1 and instead of accusing them of having suffered the body to be stolen away whilst they were asleep1 bribing them to give currency to such a report4 ,by the same rule it is contrary to all the laws belonging to the human faculty of memory1 that long discourses1 such as those of ,jesus given in the fourth ,gospel1 could have been faithfully recollected and reproduced4 ,it is however true that effects are often far more rapidly produced1 particularly in men of genius and by their agency1 than might be expected2 and that human beings frequently act inconsequently1 and in opposition to their general modes and habits2 the two last mentioned tests of the mythical character must therefore be cautiously applied1 and in conjunction only with other tests4 ,secondly4 ,an account which shall be regarded as historically valid1 must neither be inconsistent with itself1 nor in contradiction with other accounts4 ,the most decided case falling under this rule1 amounting to a positive contradiction1 is when one account affirms what another denies4 ,thus1 one gospel represents the first appearance of ,jesus in ,galilee as subsequent to the imprisonment of ,john the ,baptist1 whilst another ,gospel remarks1 long after ,jesus had preached both in ,galilee and in ,judea1 that 8,john was not yet cast into prison40 ,when on the contrary1 the second account1 without absolutely contradicting the first1 differs from it1 the disagreement may be merely between the incidental particulars of the narrative2 such as time1 7the clearing of the ,temple17 place1 7the original residence of the parents of ,jesus27 number1 7the ,gadarenes1 the angels at the sepulchre27 names1 7,matthew and ,levi27 or it may concern the essential substance of the history4 ,in the latter case1 sometimes the character and circumstances in one account differ altogether from those in another4 ,thus1 according to one narrator1 the ,baptist recognizes ,jesus as the ,messiah destined to suffer2 according to the other1 ,john takes offence at his suffering condition4 ,sometimes an occurrence is represented in two or more ways1 of which one only can be consistent with the reality2 as when in one account ,jesus calls his first disciples from their nets whilst fishing on the sea of ,galilee1 and in the other meets them in ,judea on his way to ,galilee4 ,we may class under the same head instances where events or discourses are represented as having occurred on two distinct occasions1 whilst they are so similar that it is impossible to resist the conclusion that both the narratives refer to the same event or discourse4 ,it may here be asked3 is it to be regarded as a contradiction if one account is wholly silent respecting a circumstance mentioned by another8 ,in itself1 apart from all other considerations1 the argumentum ex silentio is of no weight2 but it is certainly to be accounted of moment when1 at the same time1 it may be shown that had the author known the circumstance he could not have failed to mention it1 and also that he must have known it had it actually occurred4 ,,ii4 ,positive4 ,the positive characters of legend and fiction are to be recognized sometimes in the form1 sometimes in the substance of a narrative4 ,if the form be poetical1 if the actors converse in hymns1 and in a more diffuse and elevated strain than might be expected from their training and situations1 such discourses1 at all events1 are not to be regarded as historical4 ,the absence of these marks of the unhistorical do not however prove the historical validity of the narration1 since the mythus often wears the most simple and apparently historical form3 in which case the proof lies in the substance4 ,if the contents of a narrative strikingly accords with certain ideas existing and prevailing within the circle from which the narrative proceeded1 which ideas themselves seem to be the product of preconceived opinions rather than of practical experience1 it is more or less probable1 according to circumstances1 that such a narrative is of mythical origin4 ,the knowledge of the fact1 that the ,jews were fond of representing their great men as the children of parents who had long been childless1 cannot but make us doubtful of the historical truth of the statement that this was the case with ,john the ,baptist2 knowing also that the ,jews saw predictions everywhere in the writings of their prophets and poets1 and discovered types of the ,messiah in all the lives of holy men recorded in their ,scriptures2 when we find details in the life of ,jesus evidently sketched after the pattern of these prophecies and prototypes1 we cannot but suspect that they are rather mythical than historical4 ,the more simple characteristics of the legend1 and of additions by the author1 after the observations of the former section1 need no further elucidation4 ,yet each of these tests1 on the one hand1 and each narrative on the other1 considered apart1 will rarely prove more than the possible or probable unhistorical character of the record4 ,the concurrence of several such indications1 is necessary to bring about a more definite result4 ,the accounts of the visit of the ,magi1 and of the murder of the innocents at ,bethlehem1 harmonize remarkably with the ,jewish ,messianic notion1 built upon the prophecy of ,balaam1 respecting the star which should come out of ,jacob2 and with the history of the sanguinary command of ,pharaoh4 ,still this would not alone suffice to stamp the narratives as mythical4 ,but we have also the corroborative facts that the described appearance of the star is contrary to the physical1 the alleged conduct of ,herod to the psychological laws2 that ,josephus1 who gives in other respects so circumstantial an account of ,herod1 agrees with all other historical authorities in being silent concerning the ,bethlehem massacre2 and that the visit of the ,magi together with the flight into ,egypt related in the one ,gospel1 and the presentation in the temple related in another ,gospel1 mutually exclude one another4 ,wherever1 as in this instance1 the several criteria of the mythical character concur1 the result is certain1 and certain in proportion to the accumulation of such grounds of evidence4 ,it may be that a narrative1 standing alone1 would discover but slight indications1 or perhaps1 might present no one distinct feature of the mythus2 but it is connected with others1 or proceeds from the author of other narratives which exhibit unquestionable marks of a mythical or legendary character2 and consequently suspicion is reflected back from the latter1 on the former4 ,every narrative1 however miraculous1 contains some details which might in themselves be historical1 but which1 in consequence of their connexion with the other supernatural incidents1 necessarily become equally doubtful4 ,in these last remarks we are1 to a certain extent1 anticipating the question which is1 in conclusion1 to be considered3 viz41 whether the mythical character is restricted to those features of the narrative1 upon which such character is actually stamped2 and whether a contradiction between two accounts invalidate one account only1 or both8 ,that is to say1 what is the precise boundary line between the historical and the unhistorical8--the most difficult question in the whole province of criticism4 ,in the first place1 when two narratives mutually exclude one another1 one only is thereby proved to be unhistorical4 ,if one be true the other must be false1 but though the one be false the other may be true4 ,thus1 in reference to the original residence of the parents of ,jesus1 we are justified in adopting the account of ,luke which places it at ,nazareth1 to the exclusion of that of ,matthew1 which plainly supposes it to have been at ,bethlehem2 and1 generally speaking1 when we have to choose between two irreconcilable accounts1 in selecting as historical that which is the least opposed to the laws of nature1 and has the least correspondence with certain national or party opinions4 ,but upon a more particular consideration it will appear that1 since one account is false1 it is possible that the other may be so likewise3 the existence of a mythus respecting some certain point1 shows that the imagination has been active in reference to that particular subject2 7we need only refer to the genealogies27 and the historical accuracy of either of two such accounts cannot be relied upon1 unless substantiated by its agreement with some other well authenticated testimony4 ,concerning the different parts of one and the same narrative3 it might be thought for example1 that though the appearance of an angel1 and his announcement to ,mary that she should be the ,mother of the ,messiah1 must certainly be regarded as unhistorical1 still1 that ,mary should have indulged this hope before the birth of the child1 is not in itself incredible4 ,but what should have excited this hope in ,mary's mind8 ,it is at once apparent that that which is credible in itself is nevertheless unhistorical when it is so intimately connected with what is incredible that1 if you discard the latter1 you at the same time remove the basis on which the former rests4 ,again1 any action of ,jesus represented as a miracle1 when divested of the marvellous1 might be thought to exhibit a perfectly natural occurrence2 with respect to some of the miraculous histories1 the expulsion of devils for instance1 this might with some limitation1 be possible4 ,but for this reason alone3 in these instances1 a cure1 so instantaneous1 and effected by a few words merely1 as it is described in the ,gospels1 is not psychologically incredible2 so that1 the essential in these narratives remains untouched4 ,it is different in the case of the healing of a man born blind4 ,a natural cure could not have been effected otherwise than by a gradual process2 the narrative states the cure to have been immediate2 if therefore the history be understood to record a natural occurrence1 the most essential particular is incorrectly represented1 and consequently all security for the truth of the otherwise natural remainder is gone1 and the real fact cannot be discovered without the aid of arbitrary conjecture4 ,the following examples will serve to illustrate the mode of deciding in such cases4 ,according to the narrative1 as ,mary entered the house and saluted her cousin ,elizabeth1 who was then pregnant1 the babe leaped in her womb1 she was filled with the ,holy ,ghost1 and she immediately addressed ,mary as the mother of the ,messiah4 ,this account bears indubitable marks of an unhistorical character4 ,yet1 it is not1 in itself1 impossible that ,mary should have paid a visit to her cousin1 during which everything went on quite naturally4 ,the fact is however that there are psychological difficulties connected with this journey of the betrothed2 and that the visit1 and even the relationship of the two women1 seem to have originated entirely in the wish to exhibit a connexion between the mother of ,john the ,baptist1 and the mother of the ,messiah4 ,or when in the history of the transfiguration it is stated1 that the men who appeared with ,jesus on the ,mount were ,moses and ,elias3 and that the brilliancy which illuminated ,jesus was supernatural2 it might seem here also that1 after deducting the marvellous1 the presence of two men and a bright morning beam might be retained as the historical facts4 ,but the legend was predisposed1 by virtue of the current idea concerning the relation of the ,messiah to these two prophets1 not merely to make any two men 7whose persons1 object and conduct1 if they were not what the narrative represents them1 remain in the highest degree mysterious7 into ,moses and ,elias1 but to create the whole occurrence2 and in like manner not merely to conceive of some certain illumination as a supernatural effulgence 7which1 if a natural one1 is much exaggerated and misrepresented71 but to create it at once after the pattern of the brightness which illumined the face of ,moses on ,mount ,sinai4 ,hence is derived the following rule4 ,where not merely the particular nature and manner of an occurrence is critically suspicious1 its external circumstances represented as miraculous and the like2 but where likewise the essential substance and groundwork is either inconceivable in itself1 or is in striking harmony with some ,messianic idea of the ,jews of that age1 then not the particular alleged course and mode of the transaction only1 but the entire occurrence must be regarded as unhistorical4 ,where on the contrary1 the form only1 and not the general contents of the narration1 exhibits the characteristics of the unhistorical1 it is at least possible to suppose a kernel of historical fact2 although we can never confidently decide whether this kernel of fact actually exists1 or in what it consists2 unless1 indeed1 it be discoverable from other sources4 ,in legendary narratives1 or narratives embellished by the writer1 it is less difficult1--by divesting them of all that betrays itself as fictitious imagery1 exaggeration1 etc4--by endeavouring to abstract from them every extraneous adjunct and to fill up every hiatus--to succeed1 proximately at least1 in separating the historical groundwork4 ,the boundary line1 however1 between the historical and the unhistorical1 in records1 in which as in our ,gospels this latter element is incorporated1 will ever remain fluctuating and unsusceptible of precise attainment4 ,least of all can it be expected that the first comprehensive attempt to treat these records from a critical point of view should be successful in drawing a sharply defined line of demarcation4 ,in the obscurity which criticism has produced1 by the extinction of all lights hitherto held historical1 the eye must accustom itself by degrees to discriminate objects with precision2 and at all events the author of this work1 wishes especially to guard himself in those places where he declares he knows not what happened1 from the imputation of asserting that he knows that nothing happened4 ,,first ,,part4 ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,birth ,,and ,,childhood ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,annunciation ,,and ,,birth ,,of ,,john ,,the ,,baptist4 #ag4 ,,account ,,given ,,by ,,luke4 #ajd ,,immediate1 ,,supernatural ,,character ,,of ,,the ,,representation4 ,each of the four ,evangelists represents the public ministry of ,jesus as preceded by that of ,john the ,baptist2 but it is peculiar to ,luke to make the ,baptist the precursor of the ,messiah in reference also to the event of his birth4 ,this account finds a legitimate place in a work devoted exclusively to the consideration of the life of ,jesus3 firstly1 on account of the intimate connexion which it exhibits as subsisting from the very commencement between the life of ,john and the life of ,jesus2 and secondly1 because it constitutes a valuable contribution1 aiding essentially towards the formation of a correct estimate of the general character of the gospel narratives4 ,the opinion that the two first chapters of ,luke1 of which this particular history forms a portion1 are a subsequent and unauthentic addition1 is the uncritical assumption of a class of theologians who felt that the history of the childhood of ,jesus seemed to require a mythical interpretation1 but yet demurred to apply the comparatively modern mythical view to the remainder of the ,gospel4 #aje ,a pious sacerdotal pair had lived and grown old in the cherished1 but unrealized hope1 of becoming parents1 when1 on a certain day1 as the priest is offering incense in the sanctuary1 the angel ,gabriel appears to him1 and promises him a son1 who shall live consecrated to ,god1 and who shall be the harbinger of the ,messiah1 to prepare his way when he shall visit and redeem his people4 ,zacharias1 however1 is incredulous1 and doubts the prediction on account of his own advanced age and that of his wife2 whereupon the angel1 both as a sign and as a punishment1 strikes him dumb until the time of its accomplishment2 an infliction which endures until the day of the circumcision of the actually born son1 when the father1 being called upon to assign to the child the name predetermined by the angel1 suddenly recovers his speech1 and with the regained powers of utterance1 breaks forth in a hymn of praise4 7,luke i4 #e-be1 #eg-hj47 ,it is evidently the object of this gospel account to represent a series of external and miraculous occurrences4 ,the announcement of the birth of the forerunner of the ,messiah is divinely communicated by the apparition of a celestial spirit2 the conception takes place under the particular and preternatural blessing of ,god2 and the infliction and removal of dumbness are effected by extraordinary means4 ,but it is quite another question1 whether we can accede to the view of the author1 or can feel convinced that the birth of the ,baptist was in fact preceded by such a series of miraculous events4 ,the first offence against our modern notions in this narrative is the appearance of the angel3 the event contemplated in itself1 as well as the peculiar circumstances of the apparition4 ,with respect to the latter1 the angel announces himself to be ,gabriel that stands in the presence of ,god4 ,now it is inconceivable that the constitution of the celestial hierarchy should actually correspond with the notions entertained by the ,jews subsequent to the exile2 and that the names given to the angels should be in the language of this people4 #ajf ,here the supranaturalist finds himself in a dilemma1 even upon his own ground4 ,had the belief in celestial beings1 occupying a particular station in the court of heaven1 and distinguished by particular names1 originated from the revealed religion of the ,hebrews1--had such a belief been established by ,moses1 or some later prophet1--then1 according to the views of the supranaturalist1 they might1 nay they must1 be admitted to be correct4 ,but it is in the ,maccaban ,daniel #ajg and in the apocryphal ,tobit1 #ajh that this doctrine of angels1 in its more precise form1 first appears2 and it is evidently a product of the influence of the ,zend religion of the ,persians on the ,jewish mind4 ,we have the testimony of the ,jews themselves1 that they brought the names of the angels with them from ,babylon4 #aji ,hence arises a series of questions extremely perplexing to the supranaturalist4 ,was the doctrine false so long as it continued to be the exclusive possession of the heathens1 but true as soon as it became adopted by the ,jews8 or was it at all times equally true1 and was an important truth discovered by an idolatrous nation sooner than by the people of ,god8 ,if nations shut out from a particular and divine revelation1 arrived at truth by the light of reason alone1 sooner than the ,jews who were guided by that revelation1 then either the revelation was superfluous1 or its influence was merely negative3 that is1 it operated as a check to the premature acquisition of knowledge4 ,if1 in order to escape this consequence1 it be contended that truths were revealed by the divine influence to other people besides the ,israelites1 the supranaturalistic point of view is annihilated2 and1 since all things contained in religions which contradict each other cannot have been revealed1 we are compelled to exercise a critical discrimination4 ,thus1 we find it to be by no means in harmony with an elevated conception of ,god to represent him as an earthly monarch1 surrounded by his court3 and when an appeal is made1 in behalf of the reality of angels standing round the throne1 to the reasonable belief in a graduated scale of created intelligences1 #aaj the ,jewish representation is not thereby justified1 but merely a modern conception substituted for it4 ,we should1 thus1 be driven to the expedient of supposing an accommodation on the part of ,god3 that he sent a celestial spirit with the command to simulate a rank and title which did not belong to him1 in order that1 by this conformity to ,jewish notions1 he might insure the belief of the father of the ,baptist4 ,since however it appears that ,zacharias did not believe the angel1 but was first convinced by the result1 the accommodation proved fruitless1 and consequently could not have been a divine arrangement4 ,with regard to the name of the angel1 and the improbability that a celestial being should bear a ,hebrew name1 it has been remarked that the word ,gabriel1 taken appellatively in the sense of ,man of ,god1 very appropriately designates the nature of the heavenly visitant2 and since it may be rendered with this signification into every different language1 the name cannot be said to be restricted to the ,hebrew4 #aaa ,this explanation however leaves the difficulty quite unsolved1 since it converts into a simple appellative a name evidently employed as a proper name4 ,in this case likewise an accommodation must be supposed1 namely1 that the angel1 in order to indicate his real nature1 appropriated a name which he did not actually bear3 an accommodation already judged in the foregoing remarks4 ,but it is not only the name and the alleged station of the angel which shock our modern ideas1 we also feel his discourse and his conduct to be unworthy4 ,paulus indeed suggests that none but a levitical priest1 and not an angel of ,jehovah1 could have conceived it necessary that the boy should live in nazarite abstemiousness1 #aab but to this it may be answered that the angel also might have known that under this form ,john would obtain greater influence with the people4 ,but there is a more important difficulty4 ,when ,zacharias1 overcome by surprise1 doubts the promise and asks for a sign1 this natural incredulity is regarded by the angel as a crime1 and immediately punished with dumbness4 ,though some may not coincide with ,paulus that a real angel would have lauded the spirit of inquiry evinced by the priest1 yet all will agree in the remark1 that conduct so imperious is less in character with a truly celestial being than with the notions the ,jews of that time entertained of such4 ,moreover we do not find in the whole province of supranaturalism a parallel severity4 ,the instance1 cited by ,paulus1 of ,jehovah's far milder treatment of ,abraham1 who asks precisely the same question unreproved1 ,gen4 xv4 #h1 is refuted by ,olshausen1 because he considers the words of ,abraham1 chap4 xv4 #f1 an evidence of his faith2 but this observation does not apply to chap4 xviii4 #ab1 where the greater incredulity of ,sarah1 in a similar case1 remains unpunished2 nor to chap4 xvii4 #ag1 where ,abraham himself is not even blamed1 though the divine promise appears to him so incredible as to excite laughter4 ,the example of ,mary is yet closer1 who 7,luke i4 #cd7 in regard to a still greater improbability1 but one which was similarly declared by a special divine messenger to be no impossibility1 puts exactly the same question as ,zacharias2 so that we must agree with ,paulus that such inconsistency certainly cannot belong to the conduct of ,god or of a celestial being1 but merely to the ,jewish representation of them4 ,feeling the objectionableness of the representation in its existing form1 orthodox theologians have invented various motives to justify this infliction of dumbness4 ,hess has attempted to screen it from the reproach of an arbitrary procedure by regarding it as the only means of keeping secret1 even against the will of the priest1 an event1 the premature proclamation of which might have been followed by disastrous consequences1 similar to those which attended the announcement by the wise men of the birth of the child ,jesus4 #aac ,but1 in the first place1 the angel says nothing of such an object1 he inflicts the dumbness but as a sign and punishment2 secondly1 the loss of speech did not hinder ,zacharias from communicating1 at any rate to his wife1 the main features of the apparition1 since we see that she was acquainted with the destined name of the child before appeal was made to the father4 ,thirdly1 what end did it serve thus to render difficult the communication of the miraculous annunciation of the unborn babe1 since no sooner was it born than it was at once exposed to all the dreaded dangers8--for the father's sudden recovery of speech1 and the extraordinary scene at the circumcision excited attention and became noised abroad in all the country4 ,olshausen's view of the thing is more admissible4 ,he regards the whole proceeding1 and especially the dumbness1 as a moral training destined to teach ,zacharias to know and conquer his want of faith4 #aad ,but of this too we have no mention in the text2 besides the unexpected accomplishment of the prediction would have made ,zacharias sufficiently ashamed of his unbelief1 if instead of inflicting dumbness the angel had merely remonstrated with him4 ,but however worthy of ,god we might grant the conduct of his messenger to have been1 still many of the present day will find an angelic apparition1 as such1 incredible4 ,bauer insists that wherever angels appear1 both in the ,new ,testament and in the ,old1 the narrative is mythical4 #aae ,even admitting the existence of angels1 we cannot suppose them capable of manifesting themselves to human beings1 since they belong to the invisible world1 and spiritual existences are not cognizable by the organs of sense2 so that it is always advisable to refer their pretended apparitions to the imagination4 #aaf ,it is not probable1 it is added1 that ,god should make use of them according to the popular notion1 for these apparitions have no apparent adequate object1 they serve generally only to gratify curiosity1 or to encourage man's disposition passively to leave his affairs in higher hands4 #aag ,it is also remarkable that in the old world these celestial beings show themselves active upon the smallest occasions1 whilst in modern times they remain idle even during the most important occurrences4 #aah ,but to deny their appearance and agency among men is to call in question their very being1 because it is precisely this occupation which is a main object of their existence 7,heb4 i4 #ad74 ,according to ,schleiermacher #aai we cannot indeed actually disprove the existence of angels1 yet the conception is one which could not have originated in our time1 but belongs wholly to the ancient ideas of the world4 ,the belief in angels has a twofold root or source3 the one the natural desire of the mind to presuppose a larger amount of intelligence in the universe than is realized in the human race4 ,we who live in these days find this desire satisfied in the conviction that other worlds exist besides our own1 and are peopled by intelligent beings2 and thus the first source of the belief in angels is destroyed4 ,the other source1 namely1 the representation of ,god as an earthly monarch surrounded by his court1 contradicts all enlightened conceptions of ,deity2 and further1 the phenomena in the natural world and the transitions in human life1 which were formerly thought to be wrought by ,god himself through ministering angels1 we are now able to explain by natural causes2 so that the belief in angels is without a link by which it can attach itself to rightly apprehended modern ideas2 and it exists only as a lifeless tradition4 ,the result is the same if1 with one of the latest writers on the doctrine of angels1 #abj we consider as the origin of this representation1 man's desire to separate the two sides of his moral nature1 and to contemplate1 as beings existing external to himself1 angels and devils4 ,for1 the origin of both representations remains merely subjective1 the angel being simply the ideal of created perfection3 which1 as it was formed from the subordinate point of view of a fanciful imagination1 disappears from the higher and more comprehensive observation of the intellect4 #aba ,olshausen1 on the other hand1 seeks to deduce a positive argument in favour of the reality of the apparition in question1 from those very reasonings of the present day which1 in fact1 negative the existence of angels2 and he does so by viewing the subject on its speculative side4 ,he is of opinion that the gospel narrative does not contradict just views of the world1 since ,god is immanent in the universe and moves it by his breath4 #abb ,but if it be true that ,god is immanent in the world1 precisely on that account is the intervention of angels superfluous4 ,it is only a ,deity who dwells apart1 throned in heaven1 who requires to send down his angels to fulfil his purposes on earth4 ,it would excite surprise to find ,olshausen arguing thus1 did we not perceive from the manner in which this interpreter constantly treats of angelology and demonology1 that he does not consider angels to be independent personal entities2 but regards them rather as divine powers1 transitory emanations and fulgurations of the ,divine ,being4 ,thus ,olshausen's conception of angels1 in their relation to ,god1 seems to correspond with the ,sabellian doctrine of the ,trinity2 but as his is not the representation of the ,bible1 as also the arguments in favour of the former prove nothing in relation to the latter1 it is useless to enter into further explanation4 ,the reasoning of this same theologian1 that we must not require the ordinariness of every-day life for the most pregnant epochs in the life of the human race2 that the incarnation of the eternal word was accompanied by extraordinary manifestations from the world of spirits1 uncalled for in times less rich in momentous results1 #abc rests upon a misapprehension4 ,for the ordinary course of every-day life is interrupted in such moments1 by the very fact that exalted beings like the ,baptist are born into the world1 and it would be puerile to designate as ordinary those times and circumstances which gave birth and maturity to a ,john1 because they were unembellished by angelic apparitions4 ,that which the spiritual world does for ours at such periods is to send extraordinary human intelligences1 not to cause angels to ascend and descend4 ,finally1 if1 in vindication of this narrative1 it be stated that such an exhibition by the angel1 of the plan of education for the unborn child1 was necessary in order to make him the man he should become1 #abd the assumption includes too much2 namely1 that all great men1 in order by their education to become such1 must have been introduced into the world in like manner1 or cause must be shown why that which was unnecessary in the case of great men of other ages and countries was indispensable for the ,baptist4 ,again1 the assumption attaches too much importance to external training1 too little to the internal development of the mind4 ,but in conclusion1 many of the circumstances in the life of the ,baptist1 instead of serving to confirm a belief in the truth of the miraculous history1 are on the contrary1 as has been justly maintained1 altogether irreconcilable with the supposition1 that his birth was attended by these wonderful occurrences4 ,if it were indeed true1 that ,john was from the first distinctly and miraculously announced as the forerunner of the ,messiah1 it is inconceivable that he should have had no acquaintance with ,jesus prior to his baptism2 and that1 even subsequent to that event1 he should have felt perplexed concerning his ,messiahship 7,john i4 #cj2 ,matt4 xi4 #b74 #abe ,consequently the negative conclusion of the rationalistic criticism and controversy must1 we think1 be admitted1 namely1 that the birth of the ,baptist could not have been preceded and attended by these supernatural occurrences4 ,the question now arises1 what positive view of the matter is to replace the rejected literal orthodox explanation8 #ah4 ,,natural ,,explanation ,,of ,,the ,,narrative4 ,in treating the narrative before us according to the rationalistic method1 which requires the separation of the pure fact from the opinion of interested persons1 the simplest alteration is this3 to retain the two leading facts1 the apparition and the dumbness1 as actual external occurrences2 but to account for them in a natural manner4 ,this were possible with respect to the apparition1 by supposing that a man1 mistaken by ,zacharias for a divine messenger1 really appeared to him1 and addressed to him the words he believed he heard4 ,but this explanation1 viewed in connexion with the attendant circumstances1 being too improbable1 it became necessary to go a step further1 and to transform the event from an external to an internal one2 to remove the occurrence out of the physical into the psychological world4 ,to this view the opinion of ,bahrdt1 that a flash of lightning was perhaps mistaken by ,zacharias for an angel1 #abf forms a transition2 since he attributes the greater part of the scene to ,zacharias's imagination4 ,but that any man1 in an ordinary state of mind1 could have created so long and consecutive a dialogue out of a flash of lightning is incredible4 ,a peculiar mental state must be supposed2 whether it be a swoon1 the effect of fright occasioned by the lightning1 #abg but of this there is no trace in the text 7no falling down as in ,acts ix4 #d72 or1 abandoning the notion of the lightning1 a dream1 which1 however1 could scarcely occur whilst burning incense in the temple4 ,hence1 it has been found necessary1 with ,paulus1 to call to mind that there are waking visions or ecstasies1 in which the imagination confounds internal images with external occurrences4 #abh ,such ecstasies1 it is true1 are not common2 but1 says ,paulus1 in ,zacharias's case many circumstances combined to produce so unusual a state of mind4 ,the exciting causes were1 firstly1 the long-cherished desire to have a posterity2 secondly1 the exalted vocation of administering in the ,holy of ,holies1 offering up with the incense the prayers of the people to the throne of ,jehovah1 which seemed to ,zacharias to foretoken the acceptance of his own prayer2 and thirdly1 perhaps an exhortation from his wife as he left his house1 similar to that of ,rachel to ,jacob4 ,gen4 xxx4 #a767 ,in this highly excited state of mind1 as he prays in the dimly-lighted sanctuary1 he thinks of his most ardent wish1 and expecting that now or never his prayer shall be heard1 he is prepared to discern a sign of its acceptance in the slightest occurrence4 ,as the glimmer of the lamps falls upon the ascending cloud of incense1 and shapes it into varying forms1 the priest imagines he perceives the figure of an angel4 ,the apparition at first alarms him2 but he soon regards it as an assurance from ,god that his prayer is heard4 ,no sooner does a transient doubt cross his mind1 than the sensitively pious priest looks upon himself as sinful1 believes himself reproved by the angel1 and--here two explanations are possible--either an apoplectic seizure actually deprives him of speech1 which he receives as the just punishment of his incredulity1 till the excessive joy he experiences at the circumcision of his son restores the power of utterance3 so that the dumbness is retained as an external1 physical1 though not miraculous1 occurrence2 #abi or the proceeding is psychologically understood1 namely1 that ,zacharias1 in accordance with a ,jewish superstition1 for a time denied himself the use of the offending member4 #acj ,reanimated in other respects by the extraordinary event1 the priest returns home to his wife1 and she becomes a second ,sarah4 ,with regard to this account of the angelic apparition given by ,paulus1--and the other explanations are either of essentially similar character1 or are so manifestly untenable1 as not to need refutation--it may be observed that the object so laboriously striven after is not attained4 ,paulus fails to free the narrative of the marvellous2 for by his own admission1 the majority of men have no experience of the kind of vision here supposed4 #aca ,if such a state of ecstasy occur in particular cases1 it must result either from a predisposition in the individual1 of which we find no sign in ,zacharias1 and which his advanced age must have rendered highly improbable2 or it must have been induced by some peculiar circumstances1 which totally fail in the present instance4 #acb ,a hope which has been long indulged is inadequate to the production of ecstatic vehemence1 and the act of burning incense is insufficient to cause so extraordinary an excitement1 in a priest who has grown old in the service of the temple4 ,thus ,paulus has in fact substituted a miracle of chance for a miracle of ,god4 ,should it be said that to ,god nothing is impossible1 or to chance nothing is impossible1 both explanations are equally precarious and unscientific4 ,indeed1 the dumbness of ,zacharias as explained from this point of view is very unsatisfactory4 ,for had it been1 as according to one explanation1 the result of apoplexy2 admitting ,paulus's reference to ,lev4 xxi4 #af1 to be set aside by the contrary remark of ,lightfoot1 #acc still1 we must join with ,schleiermacher in wondering how ,zacharias1 notwithstanding this apoplectic seizure1 returned home in other respects healthy and vigorous2 #acd and that in spite of partial paralysis his general strength was unimpaired1 and his long-cherished hope fulfilled4 ,it must also be regarded as a strange coincidence1 that the father's tongue should have been loosed exactly at the time of the circumcision2 for if the recovery of speech is to be considered as the effect of joy1 #ace surely the father must have been far more elated at the birth of the earnestly-desired son1 than at the circumcision2 for by that time he would have become accustomed to the possession of his child4 ,the other explanation3 that ,zacharias's silence was not from any physical impediment1 but from a notion1 to be psychologically explained1 that he ought not to speak1 is in direct contradiction to the words of ,luke4 ,what do all the passages1 collected by ,paulus to show that may signify not only a positive non posse1 but likewise a mere non sustinere1 #acf prove against the clear meaning of the passage and its context8 ,if perhaps the narrative phrase 7v4 #bb71 might be forced to bear this sense1 yet certainly in the supposed vision of ,zacharias1 had the angel only forbidden him to speak1 instead of depriving him of the power of speech1 he would not have said3 1 1 but 1 ' 4 ,the words 7v4 #ba7 also most naturally mean actual dumbness4 ,this view assumes1 and indeed necessarily so1 that the gospel history is a correct report of the account given by ,zacharias himself2 if then it be denied that the dumbness was actual1 as ,zacharias affirms that actual dumbness was announced to him by the angel1 it must be admitted that1 though perfectly able to speak1 he believed himself to be dumb1 which leads to the conclusion that he was mad3 an imputation not to be laid upon the father of the ,baptist without compulsory evidence in the text4 ,again1 the natural explanation makes too light of the incredibly accurate fulfilment of a prediction originating1 as it supposes1 in an unnatural1 over-excited state of mind4 ,in no other province of inquiry would the realization of a prediction which owed its birth to a vision be found credible1 even by the ,rationalist4 ,if ,dr4 ,paulus were to read that a somnambulist1 in a state of ecstasy1 had foretold the birth of a child1 under circumstances in the highest degree improbable2 and not only of a child1 but of a boy2 and had moreover1 with accurate minuteness1 predicted his future mode of life1 character1 and position in history2 and that each particular had been exactly verified by the result3 would he find such a coincidence credible8 ,most assuredly to no human being1 under any conditions whatsoever1 would he concede the power thus to penetrate the most mysterious workings of nature2 on the contrary he would complain of the outrage on human free-will1 which is annihilated by the admission that a man's entire intellectual and moral development may be predetermined like the movements of a clock4 ,and he would on this very ground complain of the inaccuracy of observation1 and untrustworthiness of the report which represented1 as matters of fact1 things in their very nature impossible4 ,why does he not follow the same rule with respect to the ,new ,testament narrative8 ,why admit in the one case what he rejects in the other8 ,is biblical history to be judged by one set of laws1 and profane history by another8--,an assumption which the ,rationalist is compelled to make1 if he admits as credible in the ,gospels that which he rejects as unworthy of credit in every other history--which is in fact to fall back on the supranaturalistic point of view1 since the assumption1 that the natural laws which govern in every other province are not applicable to sacred history1 is the very essential of supranaturalism4 ,no other rescue from this self-annihilation remains to the anti-supernatural mode of explanation1 than to question the verbal accuracy of the history4 ,this is the simplest expedient1 felt to be such by ,paulus himself1 who remarks1 that his efforts may be deemed superfluous to give a natural explanation of a narrative1 which is nothing more than one of those stories invented either after the death or even during the lifetime of every distinguished man to embellish his early history4 ,paulus1 however1 after an impartial examination1 is of opinion that the analogy1 in the present instance1 is not applicable4 ,the principal ground for this opinion is the too short interval between the birth of the ,baptist1 and the composition of the ,gospel of ,luke4 #acg ,we1 on the contrary1 in harmony with the observations in the introduction1 would reverse the question and inquire of this interpreter1 how he would render it credible1 that the history of the birth of a man so famed as the ,baptist should have been transmitted1 in an age of great excitement1 through a period of more than sixty years1 in all its primitive accuracy of detail8 ,paulus's answer is ready3 an answer approved by others 7,heidenreich1 ,olshausen73--the passage inserted by ,luke i4 #e2 ii4 #ci was possibly a family record1 which circulated among the relatives of the ,baptist and of ,jesus2 and of which ,zacharias was probably the author4 #ach ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt controverts this hypothesis with the remark1 that it is impossible that a narrative so disfigured 7we should rather say1 so embellished7 could have been a family record2 and that1 if it does not belong altogether to the class of legends1 its historical basis1 if such there be1 is no longer to be distinguished4 #aci ,it is further maintained1 that the narrative presents certain features which no poet would have conceived1 and which prove it to be a direct impression of facts2 for instance1 the ,messianic expectations expressed by the different personages introduced by ,luke 7chap4 i4 and ii47 correspond exactly with the situation and relation of each individual4 #adj ,but these distinctions are by no means so striking as ,paulus represents2 they are only the characteristics of a history which goes into details1 making a transition from generalities to particulars1 which is natural alike to the poet and to the popular legend2 besides1 the peculiar ,judaical phraseology in which the ,messianic expectations are expressed1 and which it is contended confirm the opinion that this narrative was written1 or received its fixed form1 before the death of ,jesus1 continued to be used after that event ,acts i4 #f #ada4 ,moreover we must agree with ,schleiermacher when he says3 #adb least of all is it possible to regard these utterances as strictly historical2 or to maintain that ,zacharias1 in the moment that he recovered his speech1 employed it in a song of praise1 uninterrupted by the exultation and wonder of the company1 sentiments which the narrator interrupts himself to indulge4 ,it must1 at all events1 be admitted that the author has made additions of his own1 and has enriched the history by the lyric effusions of his muse4 ,kuinl supposes that ,zacharias composed and wrote down the canticle subsequent to the occasion2 but this strange surmise contradicts the text4 ,there are some other features which1 it is contended1 belong not to the creations of the poet2 such as1 the signs made to the father1 the debate in the family1 the position of the angel on the right hand of the altar4 #adc ,but this criticism is merely a proof that these interpreters have1 or determine to have1 no just conception of poetry or popular legend2 for the genuine characteristic of poetry and mythus is natural and pictorial representation of details4 #add #ai4 ,,mythical ,,view ,,of ,,the ,,narrative ,,in ,,its ,,different ,,stages4 ,the above exposition of the necessity1 and lastly1 of the possibility of doubting the historical fidelity of the gospel narrative1 has led many theologians to explain the account of the birth of the ,baptist as a poetical composition2 suggested by the importance attributed by the ,christians to the forerunner of ,jesus1 and by the recollection of some of the ,old ,testament histories1 in which the births of ,ishmael1 ,isaac1 ,samuel1 and especially of ,samson1 are related to have been similarly announced4 ,still the matter was not allowed to be altogether invented4 ,it may have been historically true that ,zacharias and ,elizabeth lived long without offspring2 that1 on one occasion whilst in the temple1 the old man's tongue was suddenly paralyzed2 but that soon afterwards his aged wife bore him a son1 and he1 in his joy at the event1 recovered the power of speech4 ,at that time1 but still more when ,john became a remarkable man1 the history excited attention1 and out of it the existing legend grew4 #ade ,it is surprising to find an explanation almost identical with the natural one we have criticised above1 again brought forward under a new title2 so that the admission of the possibility of an admixture of subsequent legends in the narrative has little influence on the view of the matter itself4 ,as the mode of explanation we are now advocating denies all confidence in the historical authenticity of the record1 all the details must be in themselves equally problematic2 and whether historical validity can be retained for this or that particular incident1 can be determined only by its being either less improbable than the rest1 or else less in harmony with the spirit1 interest1 and design of the poetic legend1 so as to make it probable that it had a distinct origin4 ,the barrenness of ,elizabeth and the sudden dumbness of ,zacharias are here retained as incidents of this character3 so that only the appearing and prediction of the angel are given up4 ,but by taking away the angelic apparition1 the sudden infliction and as sudden removal of the dumbness loses its only adequate supernatural cause1 so that all difficulties which beset the natural interpretation remain in full force3 a dilemma into which these theologians are1 most unnecessarily1 brought by their own inconsequence2 for the moment we enter upon mythical ground1 all obligation to hold fast the assumed historical fidelity of the account ceases to exist4 ,besides1 that which they propose to retain as historical fact1 namely1 the long barrenness of the parents of the ,baptist1 is so strictly in harmony with the spirit and character of ,hebrew legendary poetry1 that of this incident the mythical origin is least to be mistaken4 ,how confused has this misapprehension made1 for example1 the reasoning of ,bauer6 ,it was a prevailing opinion1 says he1 consonant with ,jewish ideas1 that all children born of aged parents1 who had previously been childless1 became distinguished personages4 ,john was the child of aged parents1 and became a notable preacher of repentance2 consequently it was thought justifiable to infer that his birth was predicted by an angel4 ,what an illogical conclusion6 for which he has no other ground than the assumption that ,john was the son of aged parents4 ,let this be made a settled point1 and the conclusion follows without difficulty4 ,it was readily believed1 he proceeds1 of remarkable men that they were born of aged parents1 and that their birth1 no longer in the ordinary course of nature to be expected1 was announced by a heavenly messenger #adf2 ,john was a great man and a prophet2 consequently1 the legend represented him to have been born of an aged couple1 and his birth to have been proclaimed by an angel4 ,seeing that this explanation of the narrative before us1 as a half 7so called historical7 mythus1 is encumbered with all the difficulties of a half measure1 ,gabler has treated it as a pure philosophical1 or dogmatical mythus4 #adg ,horst likewise considers it1 and indeed the entire two first chapters of ,luke1 of which it forms a part1 as an ingenious fiction1 in which the birth of the ,messiah1 together with that of his precursor1 and the predictions concerning the character and ministry of the latter1 framed after the event1 are set forth2 it being precisely the loquacious circumstantiality of the narration which betrays the poet4 #adh ,schleiermacher likewise explains the first chapter as a little poem1 similar in character to many of the ,jewish poems which we meet with in their apocrypha4 ,he does not however consider it altogether a fabrication4 ,it might have had a foundation in fact1 and in a widespread tradition2 but the poet has allowed himself so full a license in arranging1 and combining1 in moulding and embodying the vague and fluctuating representations of tradition1 that the attempt to detect the purely historical in such narratives1 must prove a fruitless and useless effort4 #adi ,horst goes so far as to suppose the author of the piece to have been a ,judaising ,christian2 whilst ,schleiermacher imagines it to have been composed by a ,christian of the famed ,jewish school1 at a period when it comprised some who still continued strict disciples of ,john2 and whom it was the object of the narrative to bring over to ,christianity1 by exhibiting the relationship of ,john to the ,christ as his peculiar and highest destiny2 and also by holding out the expectation of a state of temporal greatness for the ,jewish people at the reappearance of ,christ4 ,an attentive consideration of the ,old ,testament histories1 to which1 as most interpreters admit1 the narrative of the annunciation and birth of the ,baptist bears a striking affinity1 will render it abundantly evident that this is the only just view of the passage in question4 ,but it must not here be imagined1 as is now so readily affirmed in the confutation of the mythical view of this passage1 that the author of our narrative first made a collection from the ,old ,testament of its individual traits2 much rather had the scattered traits respecting the late birth of different distinguished men1 as recorded in the ,old ,testament1 blended themselves into a compound image in the mind of their reader1 whence he selected the features most appropriate to his present subject4 ,of the children born of aged parents1 ,isaac is the most ancient prototype4 ,as it is said of ,zacharias and ,elizabeth1 8they both were advanced in their days0 7v4 #g7 1 so ,abraham and ,sarah 8were advanced in their days0 7,gen4 xviii4 #aa2 ,,lxx3 71 when they were promised a son4 ,it is likewise from this history that the incredulity of the father1 on account of the advanced age of both parents1 and the demand of a sign1 are borrowed in our narrative4 ,as ,abraham1 when ,jehovah promises him he shall have a son and a numerous posterity who shall inherit the land of ,canaan1 doubtingly inquires1 8,whereby shall ,i know that ,i shall inherit it80 1 2 7sc4 4 ,gen4 xv4 #h4 ,,lxx473 so ,zacharias--8,whereby shall ,i know this80 2 7v4 #ah47 ,the incredulity of ,sarah is not made use of for ,elizabeth2 but she is said to be of the daughters of ,aaron1 and the name ,elizabeth may perhaps have been suggested by that of ,aaron's wife 7,exod4 vi4 #bc4 ,,lxx474 ,the incident of the angel announcing the birth of the ,baptist is taken from the history of another late-born child1 ,samson4 ,in our narrative1 indeed1 the angel appears first to the father in the temple1 whereas in the history of ,samson he shows himself first to the mother1 and afterwards to the father in the field4 ,this1 however1 is an alteration arising naturally out of the different situations of the respective parents 7,judges xiii474 ,according to popular ,jewish notions1 it was no unusual occurrence for the priest to be visited by angels and divine apparitions whilst offering incense in the temple4 #aej ,the command which before his birth predestined the ,baptist--whose later ascetic mode of life was known--to be a ,nazarite1 is taken from the same source4 ,as1 to ,samson's mother during her pregnancy1 wine1 strong drink1 and unclean food1 were forbidden1 so a similar diet is prescribed for her son1 #aea adding1 as in the case of ,john1 that the child shall be consecrated to ,god from the womb4 #aeb ,the blessings which it is predicted that these two men shall realize for the people of ,israel are similar 7comp4 ,luke i4 #af1 #ag1 with ,judges xiii4 #e71 and each narrative concludes with the same expression respecting the hopeful growth of the child4 #aec ,it may be too bold to derive the ,levitical descent of the ,baptist from a third ,old ,testament history of a late-born son--from the history of ,samuel 7compare #a ,sam4 i4 #a2 ,chron4 vii4 #bg72 but the lyric effusions in the first chapter of ,luke are imitations of this history4 ,as ,samuel's mother1 when consigning him to the care of the high priest1 breaks forth into a hymn 7#a ,sam4 ii4 #a71 so the father of ,john does the same at the circumcision2 though the particular expressions in the ,canticle uttered by ,mary--of which we shall have to speak hereafter--have a closer resemblance to ,hannah's song of praise than that of ,zacharias4 ,the significant appellation ,john 7 71 predetermined by the angel1 had its precedent in the announcements of the names of ,ishmael and ,isaac #aed2 but the ground of its selection was the apparently providential coincidence between the signification of the name and the historical destination of the man4 ,the remark1 that the name of ,john was not in the family 7v4 #fa71 only brought its celestial origin more fully into view4 ,the tablet 77 upon which the father wrote the name 7v4 #fc71 was necessary on account of his incapacity to speak2 but it also had its type in the ,old ,testament4 ,isaiah was commanded to write the significant names of the child ,maher-shalal-hash-baz upon a tablet 7,isaiah viii4 #a ff474 ,the only supernatural incident of the narrative1 of which the ,old ,testament may seem to offer no precise analogy1 is the dumbness2 and this is the point fixed upon by those who contest the mythical view4 #aee ,but if it be borne in mind that the asking and receiving a sign from heaven in confirmation of a promise or prophecy was usual among the ,hebrews 7comp4 ,isaiah vii4 #aa ff472 that the temporary loss of one of the senses was the peculiar punishment inflicted after a heavenly vision 7,acts ix4 #h1 #ag ff472 that ,daniel became dumb whilst the angel was talking with him1 and did not recover his speech till the angel had touched his lips and opened his mouth 7,dan4 x4 #ae f473 the origin of this incident also will be found in the legend1 and not in historical fact4 ,of two ordinary and subordinate features of the narrative1 the one1 the righteousness of the parents of the ,baptist 7v4 #f71 is merely a conclusion founded upon the belief that to a pious couple alone would the blessing of such a son be vouchsafed1 and consequently is void of all historical worth2 the other1 the statement that ,john was born in the reign of ,herod 7the ,great7 7v4 #e71 is without doubt a correct calculation4 ,so that we stand here upon purely mythical-poetical ground2 the only historical reality which we can hold fast as positive matter of fact being this3--the impression made by ,john the ,baptist1 by virtue of his ministry and his relation to ,jesus1 was so powerful as to lead to the subsequent glorification of his birth in connection with the birth of the ,messiah in the ,christian legend4 #aef ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,davidical ,,descent ,,of ,,jesus1 ,,according ,,to ,,the ,,genealogical ,,tables ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke4 #bj4 ,,the ,,two ,,genealogies ,,of ,,jesus ,,considered ,,separately ,,and ,,irrespectively ,,of ,,one ,,another4 ,in the history of the birth of the ,baptist1 we had the single account of ,luke2 but regarding the genealogical descent of ,jesus we have also that of ,matthew2 so that in this case the mutual control of two narrators in some respects multiplies1 whilst in others it lightens1 our critical labour4 ,it is indeed true that the authenticity of the two first chapters of ,matthew1 which contain the history of the birth and childhood of ,jesus1 as well as that of the parallel section of ,luke1 has been questioned3 but as in both cases the question has originated merely in a prejudiced view of the subject1 the doubt has been silenced by a decisive refutation4 #aeg ,each of these two ,gospels contains a genealogical table designed to exhibit the ,davidical descent of ,jesus1 the ,messiah4 ,that of ,matthew 7i4 #a-ag7 precedes1 that of ,luke 7iii4 #bc-ch7 follows1 the history of the announcement and birth of ,jesus4 ,these two tables1 considered each in itself1 or both compared together1 afford so important a key to the character of the evangelic records in this section1 as to render a close examination of them imperative4 ,we shall first consider each separately1 and then each1 but particularly that of ,matthew1 in comparison with the passages in the ,old ,testament to which it is parallel4 ,in the ,genealogy given by the author of the first ,gospel1 there is a comparison of the account with itself which is important1 as it gives a result1 a sum at its conclusion1 whose correctness may be proved by comparing it with the previous statements4 ,in the summing up it is said1 that from ,abraham to ,christ there are three divisions of fourteen generations each1 the first from ,abraham to ,david1 the second from ,david to the ,babylonish exile1 the third from the exile to ,christ4 ,now if we compute the number of names for ourselves1 we find the first fourteen from ,abraham to ,david1 both included1 complete 7#b-e72 also that from ,solomon to ,jechonias1 after whom the ,babylonish exile is mentioned 7#f-aa72 but from ,jechonias to ,jesus1 even reckoning the latter as one1 we can discover only thirteen 7#ab-af74 ,how shall we explain this discrepancy8 ,the supposition that one of the names has escaped from the third division by an error of a transcriber1 #aeh is in the highest degree improbable1 since the deficiency is mentioned so early as by ,porphyry4 #aei ,the insertion1 in some manuscripts and versions1 of the name ,jehoiakim #afj between ,josias and ,jechonias1 does not supply the deficiency of the third division2 it only adds a superfluous generation to the second division1 which was already complete4 ,as also there is no doubt that this deficiency originated with the author of the genealogy1 the question arises3 in what manner did he reckon so as to count fourteen generations for his third series8 ,truly it is possible to count in various ways1 if an arbitrary inclusion and exclusion of the first and last members of the several series be permitted4 ,it might indeed have been presupposed1 that a generation already included in one division was necessarily excluded from another3 but the compiler of the genealogy may perhaps have thought otherwise2 and since ,david is twice mentioned in the table1 it is possible that the author counted him twice3 namely1 at the end of the first series1 and again at the beginning of the second4 ,this would not indeed1 any more than the insertion of ,jehoiakim1 fill up the deficiency in the third division1 but give too many to the second2 so that we must1 with some commentators1 #afa conclude the second series not with ,jechonias1 as is usually done1 but with his predecessor ,josias3 and now1 by means of the double enumeration of ,david1 ,jechonias1 who was superfluous in the second division1 being available for the third1 the last series1 including ,jesus1 has its fourteen members complete4 ,but it seems very arbitrary to reckon the concluding member of the first series twice1 and not also that of the second3 to avoid which inconsistency some interpreters have proposed to count ,josias twice1 as well as ,david1 and thus complete the fourteen members of the third series without ,jesus4 ,but whilst this computation escapes one blunder1 it falls into another2 namely1 that whereas the expression 444 7v4 #ag7 is supposed to include the latter1 in 1 the latter is excluded4 ,this difficulty may be avoided by counting ,jechonias twice instead of ,josias1 which gives us fourteen names for the third division1 including ,jesus2 but then1 in order not to have too many in the second1 we must drop the double enumeration of ,david1 and thus be liable to the same charge of inconsistency as in the former case1 since the double enumeration is made between the second and third divisions1 and not between the first and second4 ,perhaps ,de ,wette has found the right clue when he remarks1 that in v4 #ag1 in both transitions some member of the series is mentioned twice1 but in the first case only that member is a person 7,david71 and therefore to be twice reckoned4 ,in the second case it is the ,babylonish captivity occurring between ,josias and ,jechonias1 which latter1 since he had reigned only three months in ,jerusalem 7the greater part of his life having passed after the carrying away to ,babylon71 was mentioned indeed at the conclusion of the second series for the sake of connexion1 but was to be reckoned only at the beginning of the third4 #afb ,if we now compare the genealogy of ,matthew 7still without reference to that of ,luke7 with the corresponding passages of the ,old ,testament1 we shall also find discrepancy1 and in this case of a nature exactly the reverse of the preceding3 for as the table considered in itself required the duplication of one member in order to complete its scheme1 so when compared with the ,old ,testament1 we find that many of the names there recorded have been omitted1 in order that the number fourteen might not be exceeded4 ,that is to say1 the ,old ,testament affords data for comparison with this genealogical table as the famed pedigree of the royal race of ,david1 from ,abraham to ,zorobabel and his sons2 after whom1 the ,davidical line begins to retire into obscurity1 and from the silence of the ,old ,testament the genealogy of ,matthew ceases to be under any control4 ,the series of generations from ,abraham to ,judah1 ,pharez1 and ,hezron1 is sufficiently well known from ,genesis2 from ,pharez to ,david we find it in the conclusion of the book of ,ruth1 and in the #bnd chapter of the #ast ,chronicles2 that from ,david to ,zerubbabel in the #crd chapter of the same book2 besides passages that are parallel with separate portions of the series4 ,to complete the comparison3 we find the line from ,abraham to ,david1 that is1 the whole first division of fourteen in our genealogy1 in exact accordance with the names of men given in the ,old ,testament3 leaving out however the names of some women1 one of which makes a difficulty4 ,it is said v4 #e that ,rahab was the mother of ,boaz4 ,not only is this without confirmation in the ,old ,testament1 but even if she be made the great-grandmother of ,jesse1 the father of ,david1 there are too few generations between her time and that of ,david 7from about #adej to #ajej ,b4,c471 that is1 counting either ,rahab or ,david as one1 four for #djj years4 ,yet this error falls back upon the ,old ,testament genealogy itself1 in so far as ,jesse's great-grandfather ,salmon1 whom ,matthew calls the husband of ,rahab1 is said ,ruth iv4 #bj1 as well as by ,matthew1 to be the son of ,nahshon1 who1 according to ,numbers i4 #g1 lived in the time of the march through the wilderness3 #afc from which circumstance the idea was naturally suggested1 to marry his son with that ,rahab who saved the ,israelitish spies1 and thus to introduce a woman for whom the ,israelites had an especial regard 7compare ,james ii4 #be1 ,heb4 xi4 #ca7 into the lineage of ,david and the ,messiah4 ,many discrepancies are found in the second division from ,david to ,zorobabel and his son1 as well as in the beginning of the third4 ,firstly1 it is said v4 #h ,joram begat ,ozias2 whereas we know from #a ,chron4 iii4 #aa1 #ab1 that ,uzziah was not the son1 but the grandson of the son of ,joram1 and that three kings occur between them1 namely1 ,ahaziah1 ,joash1 and ,amaziah1 after whom comes ,uzziah 7#b ,chron4 xxvi4 #a1 or as he is called #a ,chron4 iii4 #ab1 and #b ,kings xiv4 #ba1 ,azariah74 ,secondly3 our genealogy says v4 #aa1 ,josias begat ,jechonias and his brethren4 ,but we find from #a ,chron4 iii4 #af1 that the son and successor of ,josiah was called ,jehoiakim1 after whom came his son and successor ,jechoniah or ,jehoiachin4 ,moreover brethren are ascribed to ,jechoniah1 whereas the ,old ,testament mentions none4 ,jehoiakim1 however1 had brothers3 so that the mention of the brethren of ,jechonias in ,matthew appears to have originated in an exchange of these two persons4--,a third discrepancy relates to ,zorobabel4 ,he is here called1 v4 #ab1 a son of ,salathiel2 whilst in #a ,chron4 iii4 #ai1 he is descended from ,jechoniah1 not through ,shealtiel1 but through his brother ,pedaiah4 ,in ,ezra v4 #b1 and ,haggai i4 #a1 however1 ,zerubbabel is designated1 as here1 the son of ,shealtiel4--,in the last place1 ,abiud1 who is here called the son of ,zorobabel1 is not to be found amongst the children of ,zerubbabel mentioned #a ,chron4 iii4 #ai f43 perhaps because ,abiud was only a surname derived from a son of one of those there mentioned4 #afd ,the second and third of these discrepancies may have crept in without evil intention1 and without any great degree of carelessness1 for the omission of ,jehoiakim may have arisen from the similar sound of the names 7 and 71 which accounts also for the transposition of the brothers of ,jechoniah2 whilst respecting ,zorobabel the reference to the ,old ,testament is partly adverse1 partly favourable4 ,but the first discrepancy we have adduced1 namely1 the omission of three known kings1 is not so easily to be set aside4 ,it has indeed been held that the similarity of names may here also have led the author to pass unintentionally from ,joram to ,ozias1 instead of to the similar sounding ,ahaziah 7in the ,,lxx4 ,ochozias74 ,but this omission falls in so happily with the author's design of the threefold fourteen 7admitting the double enumeration of ,david71 that we cannot avoid believing1 with ,jerome1 that the oversight was made on purpose with a view to it4 #afe ,from ,abraham to ,david1 where the first division presented itself1 having found fourteen members1 he seems to have wished that those of the following divisions should correspond in number4 ,in the whole remaining series the ,babylonish exile offered itself as the natural point of separation4 ,but as the second division from ,david to the exile gave him four supernumerary members1 therefore he omitted four of the names4 ,for what reason these particular four were chosen would be difficult to determine1 at least for the three last mentioned4 ,the cause of the compiler's laying so much stress on the threefold equal numbers1 may have been simply1 that by this adoption of the ,oriental custom of division into equal sections1 the genealogy might be more easily committed to memory3 #aff but with this motive a mystical idea was probably combined4 ,the question arises whether this is to be sought in the number which is thrice repeated1 or whether it consists in the threefold repetition8 ,fourteen is the double of the sacred number seven2 but it is improbable that it was selected for this reason1 #afg because otherwise the seven would scarcely have been so completely lost sight of in the fourteen4 ,still more improbable is the conjecture of ,olshausen1 that the number fourteen was specially chosen as being the numeric value of the name of ,david2 #afh for puerilities of this kind1 appropriate to the rabbinical gematria1 are to be found in no other part of the ,gospels4 ,it is more likely that the object of the genealogists consisted merely in the repetition of an equal number by retaining the fourteen which had first accidentally presented itself3 since it was a notion of the ,jews that signal divine visitations1 whether of prosperity or adversity1 recurred at regular periodical intervals4 ,thus1 as fourteen generations had intervened between ,abraham1 the founder of the holy people1 and ,david the king after ,god's own heart1 so fourteen generations must intervene between the re-establishment of the kingdom and the coming of the son of ,david1 the ,messiah4 #afi ,the most ancient genealogies in ,genesis exhibit the very same uniformity4 ,as according to the 1 cap4 v41 from ,adam the first1 to ,noah the second1 father of men1 were ten generations3 so from ,noah1 or rather from his son1 the tenth is ,abraham the father of the faithful4 #agj ,this priori treatment of his subject1 this ,procrustes-bed upon which the author of our genealogy now stretches1 now curtails it1 almost like a philosopher constructing a system1--can excite no predisposition in his favour4 ,it is in vain to appeal to the custom of ,oriental genealogists to indulge themselves in similar licence2 for when an author presents us with a pedigree expressly declaring that all the generations during a space of time were fourteen1 whereas1 through accident or intention1 many members are wanting1--he betrays an arbitrariness and want of critical accuracy1 which must shake our confidence in the certainty of his whole genealogy4 ,the genealogy of ,luke1 considered separately1 does not present so many defects as that of ,matthew4 ,it has no concluding statement of the number of generations comprised in the genealogy1 to act as a check upon itself1 neither can it be tested1 to much extent1 by a comparison with the ,old ,testament4 ,for1 from ,david to ,nathan1 the line traced by ,luke has no correspondence with any ,old ,testament genealogy1 excepting in two of its members1 ,salathiel and ,zorobabel2 and even with respect to these two1 there is a contradiction between the statement of ,luke and that of #a ,chron4 iii4 #ag1 #ai f43 for the former calls ,salathiel a son of ,neri1 whilst1 according to the latter1 he was the son of ,jechoniah4 ,luke also mentions one ,resa as the son of ,zorobabel1 a name which does not appear amongst the children of ,zerubbabel in #a ,chron4 iii4 #ag1 #ai4 ,also1 in the series before ,abraham1 ,luke inserts a ,cainan1 who is not to be found in the ,hebrew text1 ,gen4 x4 #bd2 xi4 #ab ff41 but who was however already inserted by the ,,lxx4 ,in fact1 the original text has this name in its first series as the third from ,adam1 and thence the translation appears to have transplanted him to the corresponding place in the second series as the third from ,noah4 #ba4 ,,comparison ,,of ,,the ,,two ,,genealogies--,,attempt ,,to ,,reconcile ,,their ,,contradictions4 ,if we compare the genealogies of ,matthew and ,luke together1 we become aware of still more striking discrepancies4 ,some of these differences indeed are unimportant1 as the opposite direction of the two tables1 the line of ,matthew descending from ,abraham to ,jesus1 that of ,luke ascending from ,jesus to his ancestors4 ,also the greater extent of the line of ,luke2 ,matthew deriving it no further than from ,abraham1 while ,luke 7perhaps lengthening some existing document in order to make it more consonant with the universalism of the doctrines of ,paul7 #aga carries it back to ,adam and to ,god himself4 ,more important is the considerable difference in the number of generations for equal periods1 ,luke having #da between ,david and ,jesus1 whilst ,matthew has only #bf4 ,the main difficulty1 however1 lies in this3 that in some parts of the genealogy1 in ,luke totally different individuals are made the ancestors of ,jesus from those of ,matthew4 ,it is true1 both writers agree in deriving the lineage of ,jesus through ,joseph from ,david and ,abraham1 and that the names of the individual members of the series correspond from ,abraham to ,david1 as well as two of the names in the subsequent portion2 those of ,salathiel and ,zorobabel4 ,but the difficulty becomes desperate when we find that1 with these two exceptions about midway1 the whole of the names from ,david to the foster-father of ,jesus are totally different in ,matthew and in ,luke4 ,in ,matthew1 the father of ,joseph is called ,jacob2 in ,luke1 ,heli4 ,in ,matthew1 the son of ,david through whom ,joseph descended from that king is ,solomon2 in ,luke1 ,nathan3 and so on1 the line descends1 in ,matthew1 through the race of known kings2 in ,luke1 through an unknown collateral branch1 coinciding only with respect to ,salathiel and ,zorobabel1 whilst they still differ in the names of the father of ,salathiel and the son of ,zorobabel4 ,since this difference appears to offer a complete contradiction1 the most industrious efforts have been made at all times to reconcile the two4 ,passing in silence explanations evidently unsatisfactory1 such as a mystical signification1 #agb or an arbitrary change of names1 #agc we shall consider two pairs of hypotheses which have been most conspicuous1 and are mutually supported1 or at least bear affinity to one another4 ,the first pair is formed upon the presupposition of ,augustine1 that ,joseph was an adopted son1 and that one evangelist gave the name of his real1 the other that of his adopted1 father #agd2 and the opinion of the old chronologist ,julius ,africanus1 that a ,levirate marriage had taken place between the parents of ,joseph1 and that the one genealogy belonged to the natural1 the other to the legal1 father of ,joseph1 by the one of whom he was descended from ,david through ,solomon1 by the other through ,nathan4 #age ,the farther question3 to which father do the respective genealogies belong8 is open to two species of criticism1 the one founded upon literal expressions1 the other upon the spirit and character of each gospel3 and which lead to opposite conclusions4 ,augustine as well as ,africanus1 has observed1 that ,matthew makes use of an expression in describing the relationship between ,joseph and his so-called father1 which more definitely points out the natural filial relationship than that of ,luke3 for the former says 3 whilst the expression of the latter1 1 appears equally applicable to a son by adoption1 or by virtue of a ,levirate marriage4 ,but since the very object of a ,levirate marriage was to maintain the name and race of a deceased childless brother1 it was the ,jewish custom to inscribe the first-born son of such a marriage1 not on the family register of his natural father1 as ,matthew has done here1 but on that of his legal father1 as ,luke has done on the above supposition4 ,now that a person so entirely imbued with ,jewish opinions as the author of the first ,gospel1 should have made a mistake of this kind1 cannot be held probable4 ,accordingly1 ,schleiermacher and others conceive themselves bound by the spirit of the two ,gospels to admit that ,matthew1 in spite of his 1 must have given the lineage of the legal father1 according to ,jewish custom3 whilst ,luke1 who perhaps was not born a ,jew1 and was less familiar with ,jewish habits1 might have fallen upon the genealogy of the younger brothers of ,joseph1 who were not1 like the firstborn1 inscribed amongst the family of the deceased legal father1 but with that of their natural father1 and might have taken this for the genealogical table of the first-born ,joseph1 whilst it really belonged to him only by natural descent1 to which ,jewish genealogists paid no regard4 #agf ,but1 besides the fact1 which we shall show hereafter1 that the genealogy of ,luke can with difficulty be proved to be the work of the author of that ,gospel3--in which case the little acquaintance of ,luke with ,jewish customs ceases to afford any clue to the meaning of this genealogy2--it is also to be objected1 that the genealogist of the first ,gospel could not have written his thus without any addition1 if he was thinking of a mere legal paternity4 ,wherefore these two views of the genealogical relationship are equally difficult4 ,however1 this hypothesis1 which we have hitherto considered only in general1 requires a more detailed examination in order to judge of its admissibility4 ,in considering the proposition of a ,levirate marriage1 the argument is essentially the same if1 with ,augustine and ,africanus1 we ascribe the naming of the natural father to ,matthew1 or with ,schleiermacher1 to ,luke4 ,as an example we shall adopt the former statement3 the rather because ,eusebius1 according to ,africanus1 has left us a minute account of it4 ,according to this representation1 then1 the mother of ,joseph was first married to that person whom ,luke calls the father of ,joseph1 namely ,heli4 ,but since ,heli died without children1 by virtue of the ,levirate law1 his brother1 called by ,matthew ,jacob the father of ,joseph1 married the widow1 and by her begot ,joseph1 who was legally regarded as the son of the deceased ,heli1 and so described by ,luke1 whilst naturally he was the son of his brother ,jacob1 and thus described by ,matthew4 ,but1 merely thus far1 the hypothesis is by no means adequate4 ,for if the two fathers of ,joseph were real brothers1 sons of the same father1 they had one and the same lineage1 and the two genealogies would have differed only in the father of ,joseph1 all the preceding portion being in agreement4 ,in order to explain how the discordancy extends so far back as to ,david1 we must have recourse to the second proposition of ,africanus1 that the fathers of ,joseph were only half-brothers1 having the same mother1 but not the same father4 ,we must also suppose that this mother of the two fathers of ,joseph1 had twice married2 once with the ,matthan of ,matthew1 who was descended from ,david through ,solomon and the line of kings1 and to whom she bore ,jacob2 and also1 either before or after1 with the ,matthat of ,luke1 the offspring of which marriage was ,heli3 which ,heli1 having married and died childless1 his half-brother ,jacob married his widow1 and begot for the deceased his legal child ,joseph4 ,this hypothesis of so complicated a marriage in two successive generations1 to which we are forced by the discrepancy of the two genealogies1 must be acknowledged to be in no way impossible1 but still highly improbable3 and the difficulty is doubled by the untoward agreement already noticed1 which occurs midway in the discordant series1 in the two members ,salathiel and ,zorobabel4 ,for to explain how ,neri in ,luke1 and ,jechonias in ,matthew1 are both called the father of ,salathiel1 who was the father of ,zorobabel2--not only must the supposition of the ,levirate marriage be repeated1 but also that the two brothers who successively married the same wife1 were brothers only on the mother's side4 ,the difficulty is not diminished by the remark1 that any nearest blood-relation1 not only a brother1 might succeed in a ,levirate marriage1--that is to say1 though not obligatory1 it was at least open to his choice 7,ruth iii4 #ab4 f41 iv4 #d f4 #agg74 ,for since even in the case of two cousins1 the concurrence of the two branches must take place much earlier than here for ,jacob and ,eli1 and for ,jechonias and ,neri1 we are still obliged to have recourse to the hypothesis of half-brothers2 the only amelioration in this hypothesis over the other being1 that these two very peculiar marriages do not take place in immediately consecutive generations4 ,now that this extraordinary double incident should not only have been twice repeated1 but that the genealogists should twice have made the same selection in their statements respecting the natural and the legal father1 and without any explanation1--is so improbable1 that even the hypothesis of an adoption1 which is burdened with only one-half of these difficulties1 has still more than it can bear4 ,for in the case of adoption1 since no fraternal or other relationship is required1 between the natural and adopting fathers1 the recurrence to a twice-repeated half-brotherhood is dispensed with2 leaving only the necessity for twice supposing a relationship by adoption1 and twice the peculiar circumstance1 that the one genealogist from want of acquaintance with ,jewish customs was ignorant of the fact1 and the other1 although he took account of it1 was silent respecting it4 ,it has been thought by later critics that the knot may be loosed in a much easier way1 by supposing that in one ,gospel we have the genealogy of ,joseph1 in the other that of ,mary1 in which case there would be no contradiction in the disagreement3 #agh to which they are pleased to add the assumption that ,mary was an heiress4 #agi ,the opinion that ,mary was of the race of ,david as well as ,joseph has been long held4 ,following indeed the idea1 that the ,messiah1 as a second ,melchizedec1 ought to unite in his person the priestly with the kingly dignity1 #ahj and guided by the relationship of ,mary with ,elizabeth1 who was a daughter of ,aaron 7,luke i4 #cf72 already in early times it was not only held by many that the races of ,judah and ,levi were blended in the family of ,joseph2 #aha but also the opinion was not rare that ,jesus1 deriving his royal lineage from ,joseph1 descended also from the priestly race through ,mary4 #ahb ,the opinion of ,mary's descent from ,david1 soon however became the more prevailing4 ,many apocryphal writers clearly state this opinion1 #ahc as well as ,justin ,martyr1 whose expression1 that the virgin was of the race of ,david1 ,jacob1 ,isaac1 and ,abraham1 may be considered an indication that he applied to ,mary one of our genealogies1 which are both traced back to ,abraham through ,david4 #ahd ,on inquiring which of these two genealogies is to be held that of ,mary8 we are stopped by an apparently insurmountable obstacle1 since each is distinctly announced as the genealogy of ,joseph2 the one in the words 1 the other by the phrase 4 ,here also1 however1 the of ,matthew is more definite than the of ,luke1 which according to those interpreters may mean just as well a son-in-law or grandson2 so that the genitive of ,luke in iii4 #bc was either intended to express that ,jesus was in common estimation a son of ,joseph1 who was the son-in-law of ,heli1 the father of ,mary #ahe3--or else1 that ,jesus was1 as was believed1 a son of ,joseph1 and through ,mary a grandson of ,heli4 #ahf ,as it may here be objected1 that the ,jews in their genealogies were accustomed to take no account of the female line1 #ahg a farther hypothesis is had recourse to1 namely1 that ,mary was an heiress1 i4e4 the daughter of a father without sons3 and that in this case1 according to ,numbers xxxvi4 #f1 and ,nehemiah vii4 #fc1 ,jewish custom required that the person who married her should not only be of the same race with herself1 but that he should henceforth sink his own family in hers1 and take her ancestors as his own4 ,but the first point only is proved by the reference to ,numbers2 and the passage in ,nehemiah1 compared with several similar ones 7,ezra ii4 #fa2 ,numbers xxxii4 #da2 comp4 with #a ,chron4 ii4 #ba f471 shows only that sometimes1 by way of exception1 a man took the name of his maternal ancestors4 ,this difficulty with regard to ,jewish customs1 however1 is cast into shade by one much more important4 ,although undeniably the genitive case used by ,luke1 expressing simply derivation in a general sense1 may signify any degree of relationship1 and consequently that of son-in-law or grandson2 yet this interpretation destroys the consistency of the whole passage4 ,in the thirty-four preceding members1 which are well known to us from the ,old ,testament1 this genitive demonstrably indicates throughout the precise relationship of a son2 likewise when it occurs between ,salathiel and ,zorobabel3 how could it be intended in the one instance of ,joseph to indicate that of son-in-law8 or1 according to the other interpretation1 supposing the nominative to govern the whole series1 how can we suppose it to change its signification from son to grandson1 great-grandson1 and so on to the end8 ,if it be said the phrase is a proof that the genitive does not necessarily indicate a son in the proper sense of the word1 we may reply that it bears a signification with regard to the immediate ,author of existence equally inapplicable to either father-in-law or grandfather4 ,a further difficulty is encountered by this explanation of the two genealogies in common with the former one1 in the concurrence of the two names of ,salathiel and ,zorobabel4 ,the supposition of a ,levirate marriage is as applicable to this explanation as the other1 but the interpreters we are now examining prefer for the most part to suppose1 that these similar names in the different genealogies belong to different persons4 ,when ,luke however1 in the twenty-first and twenty-second generations from ,david1 gives the very same names that ,matthew 7including the four omitted generations71 gives in the nineteenth and twentieth1 one of these names being of great notoriety1 it is certainly impossible to doubt that they refer to the same persons4 ,moreover1 in no other part of the ,new ,testament is there any trace to be found of the ,davidical descent of ,mary3 on the contrary1 some passages are directly opposed to it4 ,in ,luke i4 #bg1 the expression refers only to the immediately preceding 1 not to the more remote 4 ,and more pointed still is the turn of the sentence in ,luke ii4 #d1 -- 1 4441 where might so easily have been written instead of 1 if the author had any thought of including ,mary in the descent from ,david4 ,these expressions fill to overflowing the measure of proof already adduced1 that it is impossible to apply the genealogy of the third ,evangelist to ,mary4 #bb4 ,,the ,,genealogies ,,unhistorical4 ,a consideration of the insurmountable difficulties1 which unavoidably embarrass every attempt to bring these two genealogies into harmony with one another1 will lead us to despair of reconciling them1 and will incline us to acknowledge1 with the more free-thinking class of critics1 that they are mutually contradictory4 #ahh ,consequently they cannot both be true3 if1 therefore1 one is to be preferred before the other1 several circumstances would seem to decide in favour of the genealogy of ,luke1 rather than that of ,matthew4 ,it does not exhibit an arbitrary adherence to a fixed form and to equal periods3 and whilst the ascribing of twenty generations to the space of time from ,david to ,jechonias or ,neri1 in ,luke1 is at least not more offensive to probability1 than the omission of four generations in ,matthew to historical truth2 ,luke's allotment of twenty-two generations from the period from ,jechonias 7born #fag ,b4,c47 to ,jesus1 i4e4 about #fjj years1 forming an average of twenty-seven years and a half to each generation1 is more consonant with natural events1 particularly amongst eastern nations1 than the thirteen generations of ,matthew1 which make an average of forty-two years for each4 ,besides the genealogy of ,luke is less liable than that of ,matthew to the suspicion of having been written with a design to glorify ,jesus1 since it contents itself with ascribing to ,jesus a descent from ,david1 without tracing that descent through the royal line4 ,on the other hand1 however1 it is more improbable that the genealogy of the comparatively insignificant family of ,nathan should have been preserved1 than that of the royal branch4 ,added to which1 the frequent recurrence of the same names is1 as justly remarked by ,hoffmann1 an indication that the genealogy of ,luke is fictitious4 ,in fact then neither table has any advantage over the other4 ,if the one is unhistorical1 so also is the other1 since it is very improbable that the genealogy of an obscure family like that of ,joseph1 extending through so long a series of generations1 should have been preserved during all the confusion of the exile1 and the disturbed period that followed4 ,yet1 it may be said1 although we recognise in both1 so far as they are not copied from the ,old ,testament1 and unrestrained play of the imagination1 or arbitrary applications of other genealogies to ,jesus1--we may still retain as an historical basis that ,jesus descended from ,david1 and that only the intermediate members of the line of descent were variously filled up by different writers4 ,but the one event on which this historical basis is mainly supported1 namely1 the journey of the parents of ,jesus to ,bethlehem in order to be taxed1 so far from sufficing to prove them to be of the house and lineage of ,david1 is itself1 as we shall presently show1 by no means established as matter of history4 ,of more weight is the other ground1 namely1 that ,jesus is universally represented in the ,new ,testament1 without any contradiction from his adversaries1 as the descendant of ,david4 ,yet even the phrase is a predicate that may naturally have been applied to ,jesus1 not on historical1 but on dogmatical grounds4 ,according to the prophecies1 the ,messiah could only spring from ,david4 ,when therefore a ,galilean1 whose lineage was utterly unknown1 and of whom consequently no one could prove that he was not descended from ,david1 had acquired the reputation of being the ,messiah2 what more natural than that tradition should under different forms have early ascribed to him a ,davidical descent1 and that genealogical tables1 corresponding with this tradition1 should have been formed8 which1 however1 as they were constructed upon no certain data1 would necessarily exhibit such differences and contradictions as we find actually existing between the genealogies in ,matthew and in ,luke4 #ahi ,if1 in conclusion1 it be asked1 what historical result is to be deduced from these genealogies8 we reply3 a conviction 7arrived at also from other sources71 that ,jesus1 either in his own person or through his disciples1 acting upon minds strongly imbued with ,jewish notions and expectations1 left among his followers so firm a conviction of his ,messiahship1 that they did not hesitate to attribute to him the prophetical characteristic of ,davidical descent1 and more than one pen was put in action1 in order1 by means of a genealogy which should authenticate that descent1 to justify his recognition as the ,messiah4 #aij ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,announcement ,,of ,,the ,,conception ,,of ,,jesus4--,,its ,,supernatural ,,character4--,,visit ,,of ,,mary ,,to ,,elizabeth4 #bc4 ,,sketch ,,of ,,the ,,different ,,canonical ,,and ,,apocryphal ,,accounts4 ,there is a striking gradation in the different representations of the conception and birth of ,jesus given in the canonical and in the apocryphal ,gospels4 ,they exhibit the various steps1 from a simple statement of a natural occurrence1 to a minute and miraculously embellished history1 in which the event is traced back to its very earliest date4 ,mark and ,john presuppose the fact of the birth of ,jesus1 and content themselves with the incidental mention of ,mary as the mother 7,mark vi4 #c71 and of ,joseph as the father of ,jesus 7,john i4 #df74 ,matthew and ,luke go further back1 since they state the particular circumstances attending the conception as well as the birth of the ,messiah4 ,but of these two evangelists ,luke mounts a step higher than ,matthew4 ,according to the latter ,mary1 the betrothed of ,joseph1 being found with child1 ,joseph is offended1 and determines to put her away2 but the angel of the ,lord visits him in a dream1 and assures him of the divine origin and exalted destiny of ,mary's offspring2 the result of which is that ,joseph takes unto him his wife3 but knows her not till she has brought forth her first-born son4 7,matt4 i4 #ah-be47 ,here the pregnancy is discovered in the first place1 and then afterwards justified by the angel2 but in ,luke the pregnancy is prefaced and announced by a celestial apparition4 ,the same ,gabriel1 who had predicted the birth of ,john to ,zacharias1 appears to ,mary1 the betrothed of ,joseph1 and tells her that she shall conceive by the power of the ,holy ,ghost2 whereupon the destined mother of the ,messiah pays a visit full of holy import to the already pregnant mother of his forerunner2 upon which occasion both ,mary and ,elizabeth pour forth their emotions to one another in the form of a hymn 7,luke i4 #bf-ef74 ,matthew and ,luke are content to presuppose the connexion between ,mary and ,joseph2 but the apocryphal ,gospels1 the ,protevangelium ,jacobi1 and the ,evangelium de ,nativitate ,mariae1 #aia 7books with the contents of which the ,fathers partially agree17 seek to represent the origin of this connexion2 indeed they go back to the birth of ,mary1 and describe it to have been preceded1 equally with that of the ,messiah and the ,baptist1 by a divine annunciation4 ,as the description of the birth of ,john in ,luke is principally borrowed from the ,old ,testament accounts of ,samuel and of ,samson1 so this history of the birth of ,mary is an imitation of the history in ,luke1 and of the ,old ,testament histories4 ,joachim1 so says the apocryphal narrative1 and ,anna 7the name of ,samuel's mother #aib7 are unhappy on account of their long childless marriage 7as were the parents of the ,baptist72 when an angel appears to them both 7so in the history of ,samson7 at different places1 and promises them a child1 who shall be the mother of ,god1 and commands that this child shall live the life of a ,nazarite 7like the ,baptist74 ,in early childhood ,mary is brought by her parents to the temple 7like ,samuel72 where she continues till her twelfth year1 visited and fed by angels and honoured by divine visions4 ,arrived at womanhood she is to quit the temple1 her future provision and destiny being revealed by the oracle to the high priest4 ,in conformity with the prophecy of ,isaiah xi4 #a f43 egredietur virga de radice ,jesse1 et flos de radice ejus ascendet1 et requiescet super eum spiritus ,domini2 this oracle commanded1 according to one ,gospel1 #aic that all the unmarried men of the house of ,david1--according to the other1 #aid that all the widowers among the people1--should bring their rods1 and that he on whose rod a sign should appear 7like the rod of ,aaron1 ,numb4 xvii471 namely the sign predicted in the prophecy1 should take ,mary unto himself4 ,this sign was manifested upon ,joseph's rod2 for1 in exact accordance with the oracle1 it put forth a blossom and a dove lighted upon it4 #aie ,the apocryphal ,gospels and the ,fathers agree in representing ,joseph as an old man2 #aif but the narrative is somewhat differently told in the two apocryphal ,gospels4 ,according to the ,evang4 de nativ4 ,mariae1 notwithstanding ,mary's alleged vow of chastity1 and the refusal of ,joseph on account of his great age1 betrothment took place at the command of the priest1 and subsequently a marriage--7which marriage1 however1 the author evidently means to represents also as chaste74 ,according to the ,protevang4 ,jacobi1 on the contrary1 neither betrothment nor marriage are mentioned1 but ,joseph is regarded merely as the chosen protector of the young virgin1 #aig and ,joseph on the journey to ,bethlehem doubts whether he shall describe his charge as his wife or as his daughter2 fearing to bring ridicule upon himself1 on account of his age1 if he called her his wife4 ,again1 where in ,matthew ,mary is called of ,joseph1 the apocryphal ,gospel carefully designates her merely as 1 and even avoids using the term or substitutes with which many of the ,fathers concur4 #aih ,in the ,protevangelium it is further related that ,mary1 having been received into ,joseph's house1 was charged1 together with other young women1 with the fabrication of the veil for the temple1 and that it fell to her lot to spin the true purple4--,but whilst ,joseph was absent on business ,mary was visited by an angel1 and ,joseph on his return found her with child and called her to account1 not as a husband1 but as the guardian of her honour4 ,mary1 however1 had forgotten the words of the angel and protested her ignorance of the cause of her pregnancy4 ,joseph was perplexed and determined to remove her secretly from under his protection2 but an angel appeared to him in a dream and reassured him by his explanation4 ,the matter was then brought before the priest1 and both ,joseph and ,mary being charged with incontinence were condemned to drink the 8bitter water10 #aii 1 but as they remained uninjured by it1 they were declared innocent4 ,then follows the account of the taxing and of the birth of ,jesus4 #bjj ,since these apocryphal narratives were for a long period held as historical by the church1 and were explained1 equally with those of the canonical accounts1 from the supranaturalistic point of view as miraculous1 they were entitled in modern times to share with the ,new ,testament histories the benefit of the natural explanation4 ,if1 on the one hand1 the belief in the marvellous was so superabundantly strong in the ancient church1 that it reached beyond the limits of the ,new ,testament even to the embracing of the apocryphal narratives1 blinding the eye to the perception of their manifestly unhistorical character2 so1 on the other hand1 the positive rationalism of some of the heralds of the modern modes of explanation was so overstrong that they believed it adequate to explain even the apocryphal miracles4 ,of this we have an example in the author of the natural history of the great prophet of ,nazareth2 #bja who does not hesitate to include the stories of the lineage and early years of ,mary within the circle of his representations1 and to give them a natural explanation4 ,if we in our day1 with a perception of the fabulous character of such narratives1 look down alike upon the ,fathers of the church and upon these naturalistic interpreters1 we are certainly so far in the right1 as it is only by gross ignorance that this character of the apocryphal accounts is here to be mistaken2 more closely considered1 however1 the difference between the apocryphal and the canonical narratives concerning the early history of the ,baptist and of ,jesus1 is seen to be merely a difference of form3 they have sprung1 as we shall hereafter find1 from the same root1 though the one is a fresh and healthy sprout1 and the other an artificially nurtured and weak aftergrowth4 ,still1 the ,fathers of the church and these naturalistic interpreters had this superiority over most of the theologians of our own time2 that they did not allow themselves to be deceived respecting the inherent similarity by the difference of form1 but interpreted the kindred narratives by the same method2 treating both as miraculous or both as natural2 and not1 as is now usual1 the one as fiction and the other as history4 #bd4 ,,disagreements ,,of ,,the ,,canonical ,,gospels ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,form ,,of ,,the ,,annunciation4 ,after the foregoing general sketch1 we now proceed to examine the external circumstances which1 according to our ,gospels1 attended the first communication of the future birth of ,jesus to ,mary and ,joseph4 ,leaving out of sight1 for the present1 the special import of the annunciation1 namely1 that ,jesus should be supernaturally begotten of the ,holy ,ghost1 we shall1 in the first place1 consider merely the form of the announcement2 by whom1 when1 and in what manner it was made4 ,as the birth of the ,baptist was previously announced by an angel1 so the conception of ,jesus was1 according to the gospel histories1 proclaimed after the same fashion4 ,but whilst1 in the one case1 we have but one history of the apparition1 that of ,luke2 in the other we have two accounts1 accounts however which do not correspond1 and which we must now compare4 ,apart from the essential signification the two accounts exhibit the following differences4 #a4 ,the individual who appears is called in ,matthew by the indefinite appellation1 angel of the ,lord1 3 in ,luke by name1 the angel ,gabriel1 4 #b4 ,the person to whom the angel appears is1 according to ,matthew1 ,joseph1 according to ,luke1 ,mary4 #c4 ,in ,matthew the apparition is seen in a dream1 in ,luke whilst awake4 #d4 ,there is a disagreement in relation to the time at which the apparition took place3 according to ,matthew1 ,joseph receives the heavenly communication after ,mary was already pregnant3 according to ,luke it is made to ,mary prior to her pregnancy4 #e4 ,lastly1 both the purpose of the apparition and the effect produced are different2 it was designed1 according to ,matthew1 to comfort ,joseph1 who was troubled on account of the pregnancy of his betrothed3 according to ,luke to prevent1 by a previous announcement1 all possibility of offence4 ,where the discrepancies are so great and so essential1 it may1 at first sight1 appear altogether superfluous to inquire whether the two ,evangelists record one and the same occurrence1 though with considerable disagreement2 or whether they record distinct occurrences1 so that the two accounts can be blended together1 and the one be made to amplify the other8 ,the first supposition cannot be admitted without impeaching the historical validity of the narrative2 for which reason most of our theologians1 indeed all who see in the narrative a true history1 whether miraculous or natural1 have decided in favour of the second supposition4 ,maintaining1 and justly1 that the silence of one ,evangelist concerning an event which is narrated by the other1 is not a negation of the event1 #bjb they blend the two accounts together in the following manner3 #a1 ,first1 the angel makes known to ,mary her approaching pregnancy 7,luke72 #b1 she then journeys to ,elizabeth 7the same ,gospel72 #c1 after her return her situation being discovered1 ,joseph takes offence 7,matthew72 whereupon1 #d1 he likewise is visited by an angelic apparition 7the same ,gospel #bjc74 ,but this arrangement of the incidents is1 as ,schleiermacher has already remarked1 full of difficulty #bjd2 and it seems that what is related by one ,evangelist is not only not presupposed1 but excluded1 by the other4 ,for1 in the first place1 the conduct of the angel who appears to ,joseph is not easily explained1 if the same or another angel had previously appeared to ,mary4 ,the angel 7in ,matthew7 speaks altogether as if his communication were the first in this affair3 he neither refers to the message previously received by ,mary1 nor reproaches ,joseph because he had not believed it2 but more than all1 the informing ,joseph of the name of the expected child1 and the giving him a full detail of the reasons why he should be so called1 7,matt4 i4 #ba7 would have been wholly superfluous had the angel 7according to ,luke i4 #cd7 already indicated this name to ,mary4 ,still more incomprehensible is the conduct of the betrothed parties according to this arrangement of events4 ,had ,mary been visited by an angel1 who had made known to her an approaching supernatural pregnancy1 would not the first impulse of a delicate woman have been1 to hasten to impart to her betrothed the import of the divine message1 and by this means to anticipate the humiliating discovery of her situation1 and an injurious suspicion on the part of her affianced husband4 ,but exactly this discovery ,mary allows ,joseph to make from others1 and thus excites suspicions2 for it is evident that the expression 7,matt4 i4 #ah7 signifies a discovery made independent of any communication on ,mary's part1 and it is equally clear that in this manner only does ,joseph obtain the knowledge of her situation1 since his conduct is represented as the result of that discovery 774 ,the apocryphal ,protevangelium ,jacobi felt how enigmatical ,mary's conduct must appear1 and sought to solve the difficulty in a manner which1 contemplated from the supranaturalistic point of view1 is perhaps the most consistent4 ,had ,mary retained a recollection of the import of the heavenly message--upon this point the whole ingenious representation of the apocryphal ,gospel rests--she ought to have imparted it to ,joseph2 but since it is obvious from ,joseph's demeanour that she did not acquaint him with it1 the only remaining alternative is1 to admit that the mysterious communication made to ,mary had1 owing to her excited state of mind1 escaped her memory1 and that she was herself ignorant of the true cause of her pregnancy4 #bje ,in fact1 nothing is left to supranaturalism in the present case but to seek refuge in the miraculous and the incomprehensible4 ,the attempts which the modern theologians of this class have made to explain ,mary's silence1 and even to find in it an admirable trait in her character1 are so many rash and abortive efforts to make a virtue of necessity4 ,according to ,hess #bjf it must have cost ,mary much self-denial to have concealed the communication of the angel from ,joseph2 and this reserve1 in a matter known only to herself and to ,god1 must be regarded as a proof of her firm trust in ,god4 ,without doubt ,mary communed thus with herself3 ,it is not without a purpose that this apparition has been made to me alone2 had it been intended that ,joseph should have participated in the communication1 the angel would have appeared to him also 7if each individual favoured with a divine revelation were of this opinion1 how many special revelations would it not require872 besides it is an affair of ,god alone1 consequently it becomes me to leave it with him to convince ,joseph 7the argument of indolence74 ,olshausen concurs1 and adds his favourite general remark1 that in relation to events so extraordinary the measure of the ordinary occurrences of the world is not applicable3 a category under which1 in this instance1 the highly essential considerations of delicacy and propriety are included4 ,more in accordance with the views of the natural interpreters1 the ,evangelium de nativitate ,mariae1 #bjg and subsequently some later writers1 for example1 the author of the ,natural ,history of the ,great ,prophet of ,nazareth1 have sought to explain ,mary's silence1 by supposing ,joseph to have been at a distance from the abode of his affianced bride at the time of the heavenly communication4 ,according to them ,mary was of ,nazareth1 ,joseph of ,bethlehem2 to which latter place ,joseph departed after the betrothing1 and did not return to ,mary until the expiration of three months1 when he discovered the pregnancy which had taken place in the interim4 ,but since the assumption that ,mary and ,joseph resided in different localities has no foundation1 as will presently be seen1 in the canonical ,gospels1 the whole explanation falls to the ground4 ,without such an assumption1 ,mary's silence towards ,joseph might1 perhaps1 have been accounted for from the point of view of the naturalistic interpreters1 by imagining her to have been held back through modesty from confessing a situation so liable to excite suspicion4 ,but one who1 like ,mary1 was so fully convinced of the divine agency in the matter1 and had shown so ready a comprehension of her mysterious destination 7,luke i4 #ch71 could not possibly have been tongue-tied by petty considerations of false shame4 ,consequently1 in order to rescue ,mary's character1 without bringing reproach upon ,joseph's1 and at the same time to render his unbelief intelligible1 interpreters have been compelled to assume that a communication1 though a tardy one1 was actually made by ,mary to ,joseph4 ,like the last-named apocryphal ,gospel1 they introduce a journey1 not of ,joseph1 but of ,mary--the visit to ,elizabeth mentioned in ,luke--to account for the postponement of the communication4 ,it is probable1 says ,paulus1 that ,mary did not open her heart to ,joseph before this journey1 because she wished first to consult with her older friend as to the mode of making the disclosure to him1 and whether she1 as the mother of the ,messiah1 ought to marry4 ,it was not till after her return1 and then most likely through the medium of others1 that she made ,joseph acquainted with her situation1 and with the promises she had received4 ,but ,joseph's mind was not properly attuned and prepared for such a disclosure2 he became haunted by all kinds of thoughts2 and vacillated between suspicion and hope till at length a dream decided him4 #bjh ,but in the first place a motive is here given to ,mary's journey which is foreign to the account in ,luke4 ,mary sets off to ,elizabeth1 not to take counsel of her1 but to assure herself regarding the sign appointed by the angel4 ,no uneasiness which the friend is to dissipate1 but a proud joy1 unalloyed by the smallest anxiety1 is expressed in her salutation to the future mother of the ,baptist4 ,but besides1 a confession so tardily made can in nowise justify ,mary4 ,what behaviour on the part of an affianced bride--after having received a divine communication1 so nearly concerning her future husband1 and in a matter so delicate--to travel miles away1 to absent herself for three months1 and then to permit her betrothed to learn through third persons that which could no longer be concealed6 ,those1 therefore1 who do not impute to ,mary a line of conduct which certainly our ,evangelists do not impute to her1 must allow that she imparted the message of the angel to her future husband as soon as it had been revealed to her2 but that he did not believe her4 #bji ,but now let us see how ,joseph's character is to be dealt with6 ,even ,hess is of opinion that1 since ,joseph was acquainted with ,mary1 he had no cause to doubt her word1 when she told him of the apparition she had had4 ,this scepticism presupposes a mistrust of his betrothed which is incompatible with his character as a just man 7,matt4 i4 #ai71 and an incredulity respecting the marvellous which is difficult to reconcile with a readiness on other occasions to believe in angelic apparitions2 nor1 in any case1 would this want of faith have escaped the censure of the angel who subsequently appeared to himself4 ,since then1 to suppose that the two accounts are parallel1 and complete one another1 leads unavoidably to results inconsistent with the sense of the ,gospels1 in so far as they evidently meant to represent the characters of ,joseph and ,mary as free from blemish2 the supposition cannot be admitted1 but the accounts mutually exclude each other4 ,an angel did not appear1 first to ,mary1 and also afterwards to ,joseph2 he can only have appeared either to the one or to the other4 ,consequently1 it is only the one or the other relation which can be regarded as historical4 ,and here different considerations would conduct to opposite decisions4 ,the history in ,matthew might appear the more probable from the rationalistic point of view1 because it is more easy to interpret naturally an apparition in a dream2 whilst that in ,luke might be preferred by the supranaturalist1 because the manner in which the suspicion cast upon the holy virgin is refuted is more worthy of ,god4 ,but in fact1 a nearer examination proves1 that neither has any essential claim to be advanced before the other4 ,both contain an angelic apparition1 and both are therefore encumbered with all the difficulties which1 as was stated above in relation to the annunciation of the birth of the ,baptist1 oppose the belief in angels and apparitions4 ,again1 in both narrations the import of the angelic message is1 as we shall presently see1 an impossibility4 ,thus every criterion which might determine the adoption of the one1 and the rejection of the other1 disappears2 and we find ourselves1 in reference to both accounts1 driven back by necessity to the mythical view4 ,from this point of view1 all the various explanations1 which the ,rationalists have attempted to give of the two apparitions1 vanish of themselves4 ,paulus explains the apparition in ,matthew as a natural dream1 occasioned by ,mary's previous communication of the announcement which had been made to her2 and with which ,joseph must have been acquainted1 because this alone can account for his having heard the same words in his dream1 which the angel had beforehand addressed to ,mary3 but much rather1 is it precisely this similarity in the language of the presumed second angel to that of the first1 with the absence of all reference by the latter to the former1 which proves that the words of the first angel were not presupposed by the second4 ,besides1 the natural explanation is annihilated the moment the narratives are shown to be mythical4 ,the same remark applies to the explanation1 expressed guardedly indeed by ,paulus1 but openly by the author of the ,natural ,history of the ,great ,prophet of ,nazareth1 namely1 that the angel who visited ,mary 7in ,luke7 was a human being2 of which we must speak hereafter4 ,according to all that has been said1 the following is the only judgment we can form of the origin of the two narratives of the angelic apparitions4 ,the conception of ,jesus through the power of the ,holy ,ghost ought not to be grounded upon a mere uncertain suspicion2 it must have been clearly and positively asserted2 and to this end a messenger from heaven was required1 since theocratic decorum seemed to demand it far more in relation to the birth of the ,messiah1 than of a ,samson or a ,john4 ,also the words which the angels use1 correspond in part with the ,old ,testament annunciations of extraordinary children4 #baj ,the appearing of the angel in the one narrative beforehand to ,mary1 but in the other at a later period to ,joseph1 is to be regarded as a variation in the legend or in the composition1 which finds an explanatory counterpart in the history of the annunciation of ,isaac4 ,jehovah 7,gen4 xvii4 #ae7 promises ,abraham a son by ,sarah1 upon which the ,patriarch cannot refrain from laughing2 but he receives a repetition of the assurance2 ,jehovah 7,gen4 xviii4 #a ff47 makes this promise under the ,terebinth tree at ,mamre1 and ,sarah laughs as if it were something altogether novel and unheard of by her2 lastly1 according to ,genesis xxi4 #e ff4 it is first after ,isaac's birth that ,sarah mentions the laughing of the people1 which is said to have been the occasion of his name2 whereby it appears that this last history does not presuppose the existence of the two other accounts of the annunciation of the birth of ,isaac4 #baa ,as in relation to the birth of ,isaac1 different legends or poems were formed without reference to one another1 some simpler1 some more embellished3 so we have two discordant narratives concerning the birth of ,jesus4 ,of these the narrative in ,matthew #bab is the simpler and ruder style of composition1 since it does not avoid1 though it be but by a transient suspicion on the part of ,joseph1 the throwing a shade over the character of ,mary which is only subsequently removed2 that in ,luke1 on the contrary1 is a more refined and artistical representation1 exhibiting ,mary from the first in the pure light of a bride of heaven4 #bac #be4 ,,import ,,of ,,the ,,angel',s ,,message4--,,fulfilment ,,of ,,the ,,prophecy ,,of ,,isaiah4 ,according to ,luke1 the angel who appears to ,mary1 in the first place informs her only that she shall become pregnant1 without specifying after what manner3 that she shall bring forth a son and call his name ,jesus2 ,he shall be great1 and shall he called the ,son of the ,highest 7 72 and ,god shall give unto him the throne of his father ,david1 and he shall reign over the house of ,jacob for ever4 ,the subject1 the ,messiah is here treated precisely in the language common to the ,jews1 and even the term ,son of the ,highest1 if nothing further followed1 must be taken in the same sense2 as according to #b ,sam4 vii4 #ad1 ,ps4 ii4 #g an ordinary king of ,israel might be so named2 still more1 therefore1 the greatest of these kings1 the ,messiah1 even considered merely as a man4 ,this ,jewish language reflects in addition a new light upon the question of the historic validity of the angelic apparition2 for we must agree with ,schleiermacher that the real angel ,gabriel would hardly have proclaimed the advent of the ,messiah in a phraseology so strictly ,jewish3 #bad for which reason we are inclined to coincide with this theologian1 and to ascribe this particular portion of the history1 as also that which precedes and relates to the ,baptist1 to one and the same ,jewish-christian author4 ,it is not till ,mary opposes the fact of her virginity to the promises of a son1 that the angel defines the nature of the conception3 that it shall be by the ,holy ,ghost1 by the power of the ,highest2 after which the appellation receives a more precise metaphysical sense4 ,as a confirmatory sign that a matter of this kind is nowise impossible to ,god1 ,mary is referred to that which had occurred to her relative ,elizabeth2 whereupon she resigns herself in faith to the divine determination respecting her4 ,in ,matthew1 where the main point is to dissipate ,joseph's anxiety1 the angel begins at once with the communication1 that the child conceived by ,mary is 7as the ,evangelist had already stated of his own accord1 chap4 i4 #ah71 of the ,holy ,ghost 7 72 and hereupon the ,messianic destination of ,jesus is first pointed out by the expression1 ,he shall save his people from their sins4 ,this language may seem to sound less ,jewish than that by which the ,messianic station of the child who should be born1 is set forth in ,luke2 it is however to be observed1 that under the term sins 77 is comprehended the punishment of those sins1 namely1 the subjection of the people to a foreign yoke2 so that here also the ,jewish element is not wanting2 as neither in ,luke1 on the other hand1 is the higher destination of the ,messiah left wholly out of sight1 since under the term to reign1 1 the rule over an obedient and regenerated people is included4 ,next is subjoined by the angel1 or more probably by the narrator1 an oracle from the ,old ,testament1 introduced by the often recurring phrase1 all this was done1 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the ,lord by the prophet v4 #bb4 ,it is the prophecy from ,isaiah 7chap4 vii4 #ad7 which the conception of ,jesus after this manner should accomplish3 namely1 a virgin shall be with child1 and shall bring forth a son1 and they shall call ,his name ,emmanuel--,god-with-us4 ,the original sense of this passage in ,isaiah is1 according to modern research1 #bae this4 ,the prophet is desirous of giving ,ahaz1 who1 through fear of the kings of ,syria and ,israel1 was disposed to make a treaty with ,assyria1 a lively assurance of the speedy destruction of his much dreaded enemies2 and he therefore says to him3 suppose that an unmarried woman now on the point of becoming a wife #baf shall conceive2 or categorically3 a certain young woman is1 or is about to be with child 7perhaps the prophet's own wife72 now1 before this child is born1 the political aspect of affairs shall be so much improved1 that a name of good omen shall be given to the child2 and before he shall be old enough to use his reason1 the power of these enemies shall be completely annihilated4 ,that is to say1 prosaically expressed3 before nine months shall have passed away1 the condition of the kingdom shall be amended1 and within about three years the danger shall have disappeared4 ,thus much1 at all events1 is demonstrated by modern criticism1 that1 under the circumstances stated by ,isaiah in the introduction to the oracle1 it is only a sign having reference to the actual moment and the near future1 which could have any meaning4 ,how ill chosen1 according to ,hengstenberg's #bag interpretation1 is the prophet's language3 ,as certainly as the day shall arrive when1 in fulfilment of the covenant1 the ,messiah shall be born1 so impossible is it that the people among whom he shall arise1 or the family whence he shall spring1 shall pass away4 ,how ill-judged1 on the part of the prophet1 to endeavour to make the improbability of a speedy deliverance appear less improbable1 by an appeal to a yet greater improbability in the far distant future6--,and then the given limit of a few years6 ,the overthrow of the two kingdoms1 such is ,hengstenberg's explanation1 shall take place--not in the immediately succeeding years1 before the child specified shall have acquired the use of his reason1 but--within such a space of time1 as in the far future will elapse between the birth of the ,messiah and the first development of his mental powers2 therefore in about three years4 ,what a monstrous confounding of times6 ,a child is to be born in the distant future1 and that which shall happen before this child shall know how to use his reason1 is to take place in the nearest present time4 ,thus ,paulus and his party are decidedly right in opposing to ,hengstenberg and his party1 that the prophecy of ,isaiah has relation1 in its original local signification1 to the then existing circumstances1 and not to the future ,messiah1 still less to ,jesus4 ,hengstenberg1 on the other hand1 is equally in the right1 when in opposition to ,paulus he maintains1 that the passage from ,isaiah is adopted by ,matthew as a prophecy of the birth of ,jesus of a virgin4 ,whilst the orthodox commentators explain the often recurring that it might be fulfilled 7 71 and similar expressions as signifying3 this happened by divine arrangement1 in order that the ,old ,testament prophecy1 which in its very origin had reference to the ,new ,testament occurrence1 might be fulfilled2--the rationalistic interpreters1 on the contrary1 understand merely3 this took place after such a manner1 that it was so constituted1 that the ,old ,testament words1 which1 originally indeed1 had relation to something different1 should admit of being so applied2 and in such application alone do they receive their full verification4 ,in the first explanation1 the relation between the ,old ,testament passage and the ,new ,testament occurrence is objective1 arranged by ,god himself3 in the last it is only subjective1 a relation perceived by the later author2 according to the former it is a relationship at once precise and essential3 according to the latter both inexact and adventitious4 ,but opposed to this latter interpretation of ,new ,testament passages1 which point out an ,old ,testament prophecy as fulfilled1 is the language1 and equally so the spirit of the ,new ,testament writers4 ,the language3 for neither can signify in such connexion anything than ratum fieri1 eventu comprobari1 nor anything than eo consilio ut1 whilst the extensive adoption of has arisen only from dogmatic perplexity4 #bah ,but such an interpretation is altogether at variance with the ,judaical spirit of the authors of the ,gospels4 ,paulus maintains that the ,orientalist does not seriously believe that the ancient prophecy was designedly spoken1 or was accomplished by ,god1 precisely in order that it should prefigure a modern event1 and vice versa2 but this is to carry over our sober ,european modes of thought into the imaginative life of the ,orientals4 ,when however ,paulus adds3 much rather did the coincidence of a later event with an earlier prophecy assume only the form of a designed coincidence in the mind of the ,oriental3 he thus1 at once1 annuls his previous assertion2 for this is to admit1 that1 what in our view is mere coincidence1 appeared to the oriental mind the result of design2 and we must acknowledge this to be the meaning of an oriental representation1 if we would interpret it according to its original signification4 ,it is well known that the later ,jews found prophecies1 of the time being and of the future1 everywhere in the ,old ,testament2 and that they constructed a complete image of the future ,messiah1 out of various1 and in part falsely interpreted ,old ,testament passages4 #bai ,and the ,jew believed he saw in the application he gave to the ,scripture1 however perverted it might be1 an actual fulfilment of the prophecy4 ,in the words of ,olshausen3 it is a mere dogmatic prejudice to attribute to this formula1 when used by the ,new ,testament writers1 an altogether different sense from that which it habitually bears among their countrymen2 and this solely with the view to acquit them of the sin of falsely interpreting the ,scripture4 ,many theologians of the present day are sufficiently impartial to admit1 with regard to the ,old ,testament1 in opposition to the ancient orthodox interpretation1 that many of the prophecies originally referred to near events2 but they are not sufficiently rash1 with regard to the ,new ,testament1 to side with the rationalistic commentators1 and to deny the decidedly ,messianic application which the ,new ,testament writers make of these prophecies2 they are still too prejudiced to allow1 that here and there the ,new ,testament has falsely interpreted the ,old4 ,consequently1 they have recourse to the expedient of distinguishing a double sense in the prophecy2 the one relating to a near and minor occurrence1 the other to a future and more important event2 and thus they neither offend against the plain grammatical and historical sense of the ,old ,testament passage on the one hand1 nor distort or deny the signification of the ,new ,testament passage on the other4 #bbj ,thus1 in the prophecy of ,isaiah under consideration1 the spirit of prophecy1 they contend1 had a double intention3 to announce a near occurrence1 the delivery of the affianced bride of the prophet1 and also a distinct event in the far distant future1 namely the birth of the ,messiah of a virgin4 ,but a double sense so monstrous owes its origin to dogmatic perplexity alone4 ,it has been adopted1 as ,olshausen himself remarks1 in order to avoid the offensive admission that the ,new ,testament writers1 and ,jesus himself1 did not interpret the ,old ,testament rightly1 or1 more properly speaking1 according to modern principles of exegesis1 but explained it after the manner of their own age1 which was not the most correct4 ,but so little does this offence exist for the unprejudiced1 that the reverse would be the greater difficulty1 that is1 if1 contrary to all the laws of historical and national development1 the ,new ,testament writers had elevated themselves completely above the modes of interpretation common to their age and nation4 ,consequently1 with regard to the prophecies brought forward in the ,new ,testament1 we may admit1 according to circumstances1 without further argument1 that they are frequently interpreted and applied by the evangelists1 in a sense which is totally different from that they originally bore4 ,we have here in fact a complete table of all the four possible views on this point3 two extreme and two conciliatory2 one false and one1 it is to be hoped1 correct4 #a4 ,orthodox view 7,hengstenberg and others73 ,such ,old ,testament passages had in their very origin an exclusive prophetic reference to ,christ1 for the ,new ,testament writers so understand them2 and they must be in the right even should human reason be confounded4 #b4 ,rationalistic view 7,paulus and others73 ,the ,new ,testament writers do not assign a strictly ,messianic sense to the ,old ,testament prophecies1 for this reference to ,christ is foreign to the original signification of these prophecies viewed by the light of reason2 and the ,new ,testament writings must accord with reason1 whatever ancient beliefs may say to the contrary4 #c4 ,mystical conciliatory view 7,olshausen and others73 ,the ,old ,testament passages originally embody both the deeper signification ascribed to them by the ,new ,testament writers1 and that more proximate meaning which common sense obliges us to recognize3 thus sound reason and the ancient faith are reconcilable4 #d4 ,decision of criticism3 ,very many of the ,old ,testament prophecies had1 originally1 only an immediate reference to events belonging to the time3 but they came to be regarded by the men of the ,new ,testament as actual predictions of ,jesus as the ,messiah1 because the intelligence of these men was limited by the manner of thinking of their nation1 a fact recognized neither by ,rationalism nor the ancient faith4 #bba ,accordingly we shall not hesitate for a moment to allow1 in relation to the prophecy in question1 that the reference to ,jesus is obtruded upon it by the ,evangelists4 ,whether the actual birth of ,jesus of a virgin gave rise to this application of the prophecy1 or whether this prophecy1 interpreted beforehand as referring to the ,messiah1 originated the belief that ,jesus was born of a virgin1 remains to be determined4 #bf4 ,,jesus ,,begotten ,,of ,,the ,,holy ,,ghost4 ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,orthodox ,,opinion4 ,the statement of ,matthew and of ,luke concerning the mode of ,jesus's conception has1 in every age1 received the following interpretation by the church2 that ,jesus was conceived in ,mary not by a human father1 but by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,and truly the gospel expressions seem1 at first sight1 to justify this interpretation2 since the words 7,matt4 i4 #ah7 and 7,luke i4 #cd7 preclude the participation of ,joseph or any other man in the conception of the child in question4 ,nevertheless the terms and do not represent the ,holy ,ghost in the sense of the church1 as the third person in the ,godhead1 but rather the 1 ,spiritus ,dei as used in the ,old ,testament3 ,god in his agency upon the world1 and especially upon man4 ,in short the words in ,matthew1 and 444 in ,luke1 express with sufficient clearness that the absence of human agency was supplied--not physically after the manner of heathen representations--but by the divine creative energy4 ,though this seems to be the representation intended by the evangelists in the passages referred to concerning the origin of the life of ,jesus1 still it cannot be completed without considerable difficulties4 ,we may separate what we may term the physico-theological from the historical-exegetical difficulties4 ,the physiological difficulties amount to this1 that such a conception would be a most remarkable deviation from all natural laws4 ,however obscure the physiology of the fact1 it is proved by an exceptionless experience that only by the concurrence of the two sexes is a new human being generated2 on which account ,plutarch's remark1 8 10 #bbb and ,cerinthus's 8impossible0 become applicable4 #bbc ,it is only among the lowest species of the animal kingdom that generation takes place without the union of sexes2 #bbd so that1 regarding the matter purely physiologically1 what ,origen says1 in the supranaturalistic sense1 would indeed be true of a man of the like origin2 namely1 that the words in ,psalm xxii4 #g1 ,i am a worm and no man is a prophecy of ,jesus in the above respect4 #bbe ,but to the merely physical consideration a theological one is subjoined by the angel 7,luke i4 #cg71 when he appeals to the divine omnipotence to which nothing is impossible4 ,but since the divine omnipotence1 by virtue of its unity with divine wisdom1 is never exerted in the absence of an adequate motive1 the existence of such1 in the present instance1 must be demonstrated4 ,but nothing less than an object worthy of the ,deity1 and at the same time necessarily unattainable except by a deviation from the ordinary course of nature1 could constitute a sufficient cause for the suspension by ,god of a natural law which he had established4 ,only here1 it is said1 the end1 the redemption of mankind1 required impeccability on the part of ,jesus2 and in order to render him exempt from sin1 a divinely wrought conception1 which excluded the participation of a sinful father1 and severed ,jesus from all connexion with original sin1 was necessary4 #bbf ,to which it has been answered by others1 #bbg 7and ,schleiermacher has recently most decisively argued this side of the question1 #bbh7 that the exclusion of the paternal participation is insufficient1 unless1 indeed1 the inheritance of original sin1 on the maternal side1 be obviated by the adoption of the ,valentinian assertion1 that ,jesus only passed through the body of ,mary4 ,but that the gospel histories represent an actual maternal participation is undeniable2 consequently a divine intervention which should sanctify the participation of the sinful human mother in the conception of ,jesus must be supposed in order to maintain his assumed necessary impeccability4 ,but if ,god determined on such a purification of the maternal participation1 it had been easier to do the same with respect to that of the father1 than by his total exclusion1 to violate the natural law in so unprecedented a manner2 and consequently1 a fatherless conception cannot be insisted upon as the necessary means of compassing the impeccability of ,jesus4 ,even he who thinks to escape the difficulties already specified1 by enveloping himself in a supranaturalism1 inaccessible to arguments based on reason or the laws of nature1 must nevertheless admit the force of the exegetical-historical difficulties meeting him upon his own ground1 which likewise beset the view of the supernatural conception of ,jesus4 ,nowhere in the ,new ,testament is such an origin ascribed to ,jesus1 or even distinctly alluded to1 except in these two accounts of his infancy in ,matthew and in ,luke4 #bbi ,the history of the conception is omitted not only by ,mark1 but also by ,john1 the supposed author of the fourth ,gospel and an alleged inmate with the mother of ,jesus subsequent to his death1 who therefore would have been the most accurately informed concerning these occurrences4 ,it is said that ,john sought rather to record the heavenly than the earthly origin of ,jesus2 but the question arises1 whether the doctrine which he sets forth in his prologue1 of a divine hypostasis actually becoming flesh and remaining immanent in ,jesus1 is reconcilable with the view given in the passages before us1 of a simple divine operation determining the conception of ,jesus2 whether therefore ,john could have presupposed the history of the conception contained in ,matthew and ,luke8 ,this objection1 however1 loses its conclusive force if in the progress of our investigation the apostolic origin of the fourth ,gospel is not established4 ,the most important consideration therefore is1 that no retrospective allusion to this mode of conception occurs throughout the four ,gospels2 not only neither in ,john nor in ,mark1 but also neither in ,matthew nor in ,luke4 ,not only does ,mary herself designate ,joseph simply as the father of ,jesus 7,luke ii4 #dh71 and the ,evangelist speak of both as his parents1 7,luke ii4 #da71--;an appellation which could only have been used in an ulterior sense by one who had just related the miraculous conception1--but all his contemporaries in general1 according to our ,evangelists1 regarded him as a son of ,joseph1 a fact which was not unfrequently alluded to contemptuously and by way of reproach in his presence 7,matt4 xiii4 #ee2 ,luke iv4 #bb2 ,john vi4 #db71 thus affording him an opportunity of making a decisive appeal to his miraculous conception1 of which1 however1 he says not a single word4 ,should it be answered1 that he did not desire to convince respecting the divinity of his person by this external evidence1 and that he could have no hope of making an impression by such means on those who were in heart his opponents1--it must also be remembered1 that1 according to the testimony of the fourth ,gospel1 his own disciples1 though they admitted him to be the son of ,god1 still regarded him as the actual son of ,joseph4 ,philip introduces ,jesus to ,nathanael as the son of ,joseph1 7,john i4 #df71 manifestly in the same sense of real paternity which the ,jews attached to the designation2 and nowhere is this represented as an erroneous or imperfect notion which these ,apostles had subsequently to relinquish2 much rather does the whole sense of the narrative1 which is not to be mistaken1 exhibit the ,apostles as having a right belief on this point4 ,the enigmatical presupposition1 with which1 at the marriage in ,cana1 ,mary addressed herself to ,jesus1 #bcj is far too vague to prove a recollection of his miraculous conception on the part of the mother2 at all events this feature is counterbalanced by the opposing one that the family of ,jesus1 and1 as appears from ,matt4 xii4 #df ff4 compared with ,mark iii4 #ba ff41 his mother also were1 at a later time1 in error respecting his aims2 which is scarcely explicable1 even of his brothers1 supposing them to have had such recollections4 ,just as little as in the ,gospels1 is anything in confirmation of the view of the supernatural conception of ,jesus1 to be found in the remaining ,new ,testament writings4 ,for when the ,apostle ,paul speaks of ,jesus as made of a woman1 7,gal4 iv4 #d71 this expression is not to be understood as an exclusion of paternal participation2 since the addition made under the law1 1 clearly shows that he would here indicate 7in the form which is frequent in the ,old and ,new ,testament1 for example ,job xiv4 #a2 ,matt4 xi4 #aa7 human nature with all its conditions4 ,when ,paul 7,rom4 i4 #c1 #d compared with ix4 #e7 makes ,christ according to the flesh1 1 descend from ,david1 but declares him to be the son of ,god according to the ,spirit of ,holiness1 2 no one will here identify the antithesis flesh and spirit with the maternal human participation1 and the divine energy superseding the paternal participation in the conception of ,jesus4 ,finally when in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews 7vii4 #c7 ,melchisedec is compared with the son of ,god1 1 because without father1 1 the application of the literally interpreted to ,jesus1 as he appeared upon earth1 is forbidden by the addition without mother1 1 which agrees as little with him as the immediately following without descent1 4 #bg4 ,,retrospect ,,of ,,the ,,genealogies4 ,the most conclusive exegetical ground of decision against the supernatural conception of ,jesus1 which bears more closely on the point than all the hitherto adduced passages1 is found in the two genealogies previously considered4 ,even the ,manichan ,faustus asserted that it is impossible without contradiction to trace the descent of ,jesus from ,david through ,joseph1 as is done by our two genealogists1 and yet assume that ,joseph was not the father of ,jesus2 and ,augustine had nothing convincing to answer when he remarked that it was necessary1 on account of the superior dignity of the masculine gender1 to carry the genealogy of ,jesus through ,joseph1 who was ,mary's husband if not by a natural by a spiritual alliance4 #bca ,in modern times also the construction of the genealogical tables in ,matthew and in ,luke has led many theologians to observe1 that these authors considered ,jesus as the actual son of ,joseph4 #bcb ,the very design of these tables is to prove ,jesus to be of the lineage of ,david through ,joseph2 but what do they prove1 if indeed ,joseph was not the father of ,jesus8 ,the assertion that ,jesus was the son of ,david1 1 which in ,matthew 7i4 #a7 prefaces the genealogy and announces its object1 is altogether annulled by the subsequent denial of his conception by means of the ,davidical ,joseph4 ,it is impossible1 therefore1 to think it probable that the genealogy and the history of the birth of ,jesus emanate from the same author #bcc2 and we must concur with the theologians previously cited1 that the genealogies are taken from a different source4 ,scarcely could it satisfy to oppose the remark1 that as ,joseph doubtlessly adopted ,jesus1 the genealogical table of the former became fully valid for the latter4 ,for adoption might indeed suffice to secure to the adopted son the reversion of certain external family rights and inheritances2 but such a relationship could in no wise lend a claim to the ,messianic dignity1 which was attached to the true blood and lineage of ,david4 ,he1 therefore1 who had regarded ,joseph as nothing more than the adopted father of ,jesus1 would hardly have given himself the trouble to seek out the ,davidical descent of ,joseph2 but if indeed1 besides the established belief that ,jesus was the son of ,god1 it still remained important to represent him as the son of ,david1 the pedigree of ,mary would have been preferred for this purpose2 for1 however contrary to custom1 the maternal genealogy must have been admitted in a case where a human father did not exist4 ,least of all is it to be believed1 that several authors would have engaged in the compilation of a genealogical table for ,jesus which traced his descent through ,joseph1 so that two different genealogies of this kind are still preserved to us1 if a closer relationship between ,jesus and ,joseph had not been admitted at the time of their composition4 ,consequently1 the decision of the learned theologians who agree that these genealogies were composed in the belief that ,jesus was the actual son of ,joseph and ,mary1 can hardly be disputed2 but the authors or compilers of our ,gospels1 notwithstanding their own conviction of the divine origin of ,jesus1 received them among their materials2 only that ,matthew 7i4 #af7 changed the original ,joseph begat ,jesus of ,mary-- 7comp4 verses #c4 #e4 #f7 according to his own view2 and so likewise ,luke 7iii4 #bc7 instead of commencing his genealogy simply with1 ,jesus--the son of ,joseph-- 1 inserts being as was supposed1 1 444 ,let it not be objected that the view for which we contend1 namely1 that the genealogies could not have been composed under the notion that ,joseph was not the father of ,jesus1 leaves no conceivable motive for incorporating them into our present ,gospels4 ,the original construction of a genealogy of ,jesus1 even though in the case before us it consisted simply in the adapting of foreign already existing genealogical tables to ,jesus1 required a powerful and direct inducement2 this was the hope thereby to gain--the corporeal descent of ,jesus from ,joseph being presupposed--a main support to the belief in his ,messiahship2 whilst1 on the other hand1 a less powerful inducement was sufficient to incite to the admission of the previously constructed genealogies3 the expectation that1 notwithstanding the non-existence of any real relationship between ,joseph and ,jesus1 they might nevertheless serve to link ,jesus to ,david4 ,thus we find1 that in the histories of the birth both in ,matthew and in ,luke1 though they each decidedly exclude ,joseph from the conception1 great stress is laid upon the ,davidical descent of ,joseph 7,matt4 i4 #bj1 ,luke i4 #bg1 ii4 #d72 that which in fact had no real significance1 except in connexion with the earlier opinion1 is retained even after the point of view is changed4 ,since1 in this way1 we discover both the genealogies to be memorials belonging to the time and circle of the primitive church1 in which ,jesus was still regarded as a naturally begotten man1 the sect of the ,ebionites cannot fail to occur to us2 as we are told concerning them1 that they held this view of the person of ,christ at this early period4 #bcd ,we should therefore have expected1 more especially1 to have found these genealogies in the old ,ebionitish ,gospels1 of which we have still knowledge1 and are not a little surprised to learn that precisely in these ,gospels the genealogies were wanting4 ,it is true ,epiphanius states that the ,gospel of the ,ebionites commenced with the public appearance of the ,baptist #bce2 accordingly1 by the genealogies1 1 which they are said to have cut away1 might have been meant1 those histories of the birth and infancy comprised in the two first chapters of ,matthew2 which they could not have adopted in their present form1 since they contained the fatherless conception of ,jesus1 which was denied by the ,ebionites3 and it might also have been conjectured that this section which was in opposition to their system had alone perhaps been wanting in their ,gospel2 and that the genealogy which was in harmony with their view might nevertheless have been somewhere inserted4 ,but this supposition vanishes as soon as we find that ,epiphanius1 in reference to the ,nazarenes1 defines the genealogies1 7of which he is ignorant whether they possessed them or not17 as reaching from ,abraham to ,christ1 #bcf2 consequently1 by the genealogies which were wanting to some heretics1 he evidently understood the genealogical tables1 though1 in relation to the ,ebionites1 he might likewise have included under this expression the history of the birth4 ,how is the strange phenomenon1 that these genealogies are not found among that very sect of ,christians who retained the particular opinion upon which they were constructed1 to be explained8 ,a modern investigator has advanced the supposition1 that the ,jewish-christians omitted the genealogical tables from prudential motives1 in order not to facilitate or augment the persecution which1 under ,domitian1 and perhaps even earlier1 threatened the family of ,david4 #bcg ,but explanations1 having no inherent connexion with the subject1 derived from circumstances in themselves of doubtful historical validity1 are admissible only as a last refuge1 when no possible solution of the questionable phenomenon is to be found in the thing itself1 as here in the principles of the ,ebionitish system4 ,but in this case the matter is by no means so difficult4 ,it is known that the ,fathers speak of two classes of ,ebionites1 of which the one1 besides strenuously maintaining the obligation of the ,mosaic law1 held ,jesus to be the naturally begotten ,son of ,joseph and ,mary2 the other1 from that time called also ,nazarenes1 admitted with the orthodox church the conception by the ,holy ,ghost4 #bch ,but besides this distinction there existed yet another4 ,the most ancient ecclesiastic writers1 ,justin ,martyr and ,irenus for example1 are acquainted with those ,ebionites only1 who regarded ,jesus as a naturally born man first endowed with divine powers at his baptism4 #bci ,in ,epiphanius and the ,clementine ,homilies1 on the other hand1 we meet with ,ebionites who had imbibed an element of speculative ,gnosticism4 ,this tendency1 which according to ,epiphanius is to be dated from one ,elxai1 has been ascribed to ,essenic influence1 #bdj and traces of the same have been discovered in the heresies referred to in the ,epistle to the ,colossians2 whereas the first class of ,ebionites evidently proceeded from common ,judaism4 ,which form of opinion was the earlier and which the later developed is not so easily determined2 with reference to the last detailed difference1 it might seem1 since the speculative ,ebionites are mentioned first by the ,clementines and ,epiphanius1 whilst ,ebionites holding a simpler view are spoken of by ,justin and by ,irenus1 that the latter were the earlier2 nevertheless as ,tertullian already notices in his time the ,gnosticising tendency of the opinions of the ,ebionites respecting ,christ #bda1 and as the germ of such views existed among the ,essenes in the time of ,jesus1 the more probable assumption is1 that both opinions arose side by side about the same period4 #bdb ,as little can it be proved with regard to the other difference1 that the views concerning ,christ held by the ,nazarenes became first1 at a later period1 lowered to those of the ,ebionites #bdc2 since the notices1 partly confused and partly of late date1 of the ecclesiastical writers1 may be naturally explained as arising out of what may be called an optical delusion of the church1 which1--whilst she in fact made continual advances in the glorification of ,christ1 but a part of the ,jewish ,christians remained stationary1--made it appear to her as if she herself remained stationary1 whilst the others fell back into heresy4 ,by thus distinguishing the simple and the speculative ,ebionites1 so much is gained1 that the failure of the genealogies among the latter class1 mentioned by ,epiphanius1 does not prove them to have been also wanting among the former4 ,and the less if we should be able to make it appear probable1 that the grounds of their aversion to the genealogical table1 and the grounds of distinction between them and the other class of ,ebionites1 were identical4 ,one of these grounds was evidently the unfavourable opinion1 which the ,ebionites of ,epiphanius and of the ,clementine ,homilies had of ,david1 from whom the genealogy traces the descent of ,jesus4 ,it is well known that they distinguished in the ,old ,testament a twofold prophecy1 male and female1 pure and impure1 of which the former only promised things heavenly and true1 the latter things earthly and delusive2 that proceeding from ,adam and ,abel1 this from ,eve and ,cain2 and both constituted an under current through the whole history of the revelation4 #bdd ,it was only the pious men from ,adam to ,joshua whom they acknowledged as true prophets3 the later prophets and men of ,god1 among whom ,david and ,solomon are named1 were not only not recognized1 but abhorred4 #bde ,we even find positive indications that ,david was an object of their particular aversion4 ,there were many things which created in them a detestation of ,david 7and ,solomon74 ,david was a bloody warrior2 but to shed blood was1 according to the doctrines of these ,ebionites1 one of the greatest of sins2 ,david was known to have committed adultery1 7,solomon to have been a voluptuary72 and adultery was even more detested by this sect than murder4 ,david was a performer on stringed instruments2 this art1 the invention of the ,canaanites 7,gen4 iv4 #ba71 was held by these ,ebionites to be a sign of false prophecy2 finally1 the prophecies announced by ,david and those connected with him1 7and ,solomon17 had reference to the kingdoms of this world1 of which the ,gnosticising ,ebionites desired to know nothing4 #bdf ,now the ,ebionites who had sprung from common ,judaism could not have shared this ground of aversion to the genealogies2 since to the orthodox ,jew ,david was an object of the highest veneration4 ,concerning a second point the notices are not so lucid and accordant as they should be2 namely1 whether it was a further development of the general ,ebionitish doctrine concerning the person of the ,christ1 which led these ,ebionites to reject the genealogies4 ,according to ,epiphanius1 they fully recognized the ,gnostic distinction between ,jesus the son of ,joseph and ,mary1 and the ,christ who descended upon him #bdg2 and consequently might have been withheld from referring the genealogy to ,jesus only perhaps by their abhorrence of ,david4 ,on the other hand1 from the whole tenor of the ,clementines1 and from one passage in particular1 #bdh it has recently been inferred1 and not without apparent reason1 that the author of these writings had himself abandoned the view of a natural conception1 and even birth of ,jesus #bdi2 whereby it is yet more manifest that the ground of the rejection of the genealogies by this sect was peculiar to it1 and not common to the other ,ebionites4 ,moreover positive indications1 that the ,ebionites who proceeded from ,judaism possessed the genealogies1 do not entirely fail4 ,whilst the ,ebionites of ,epiphanius and of the ,clementines called ,jesus only ,son of ,god1 but rejected the appellation ,son of ,david1 as belonging to the common opinion of the ,jews #bej2 other ,ebionites were censured by the ,fathers for recognizing ,jesus only as the ,son of ,david1 to whom he is traced in the genealogies1 and not likewise as the ,son of ,god4 #bea ,further1 ,epiphanius relates of the earliest ,judaising ,gnostics1 ,cerinthus and ,carpocrates1 that they used a ,gospel the same in other respects indeed as the ,ebionites1 but that they adduced the genealogies1 which they therefore read in the same1 in attestation of the human conception of ,jesus by ,joseph4 #beb ,also the cited by ,justin1 and which originated upon ,judo-christian ground1 appear to have contained a genealogy similar to that in our ,matthew2 since ,justin as well as ,matthew speaks1 in relation to ,jesus1 of a 1 of a 1 1 #bec2 only that at the time1 and in the circle of ,justin1 the opinion of a supernatural conception of ,jesus had already suggested the reference of the genealogy to ,mary1 instead of to ,joseph4 ,hence it appears that we have in the genealogies a memorial1 agreeing with indications from other sources1 of the fact that in the very earliest ,christian age1 in ,palestine1 a body of ,christians1 numerous enough to establish upon distinct fundamental opinions two different ,messianic tables of descent1 considered ,jesus to have been a naturally conceived human being4 ,and no proof is furnished to us in the apostolic writings1 that the ,apostles would have declared this doctrine to be unchristian2 it appeared so first from the point of view adopted by the authors of the histories of the birth in the first and third ,gospels3 notwithstanding which1 however1 it is treated with surprising lenity by the ,fathers of the church4 #bh4 ,,natural ,,explanation ,,of ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,conception4 ,if1 as appears from the foregoing statements1 so many weighty difficulties1 philosophical as well as exegetical1 beset the supranaturalistic explanation1 it is well worth while to examine whether it be not possible to give an interpretation of the gospel history which shall obviate these objections4 ,recourse has been had to the natural explanation1 and the two narratives singly and conjointly have been successively subjected to the rationalistic mode of interpretation4 ,in the first place1 the account in ,matthew seemed susceptible of such an interpretation4 ,numerous rabbinical passages were cited to demonstrate1 that it was consonant with ,jewish notions to consider a son of pious parents to be conceived by the divine co-operation1 and that he should be called the son of the ,holy ,spirit1 without its being ever imagined that paternal participation was thereby excluded4 ,it was consequently contended1 that the section in ,matthew represented merely the intention of the angel to inform ,joseph1 not indeed that ,mary had become pregnant in the absence of all human intercourse1 but that notwithstanding her pregnancy she was to be regarded as pure1 not as one fallen from virtue4 ,it was maintained that the exclusion of paternal participation--which is an embellishment of the original representation--occurs first in ,luke in the words 7i4 #cd74 #bed ,when however this view was justly opposed by the remark1 that the expression in ,matthew 7i4 #ah7 decidedly excludes the participation of the only individual in question1 namely ,joseph2 it was then thought possible to prove that even in ,luke the paternal exclusion was not so positive3 but truly this could be done only by an unexegetical subversion of the clear sense of the words1 or else by uncritically throwing suspicion on a part of a well-connected narrative4 ,the first expedient is to interpret ,mary's inquiry of the angel i4 #cd1 thus3 ,can ,i who am already betrothed and married give birth to the ,messiah1 for as the mother of the ,messiah ,i must have no husband8 whereupon the angel replies1 that ,god1 through his power1 could make something distinguished even of the child conceived of her and ,joseph4 #bee ,the other proceeding is no less arbitrary4 ,mary's inquiry of the angel is explained as an unnatural interruption of his communication1 which being abstracted1 the passage is found to contain no decided intimation of the supernatural conception4 #bef ,if consequently1 the difficulty of the natural explanation of the two accounts be equally great1 still1 with respect to both it must be alike attempted or rejected2 and for the consistent ,rationalist1 a ,paulus for example1 the latter is the only course4 ,this commentator considers the participation of ,joseph1 indeed excluded by ,matt4 i4 #ah1 but by no means that of every other man2 neither can he find a supernatural divine intervention in the expression of ,luke i4 #ce4 ,the ,holy ,ghost-- --is not with him objective1 an external influence operating upon ,mary1 but her own pious imagination4 ,the power of the ,highest-- --is not the immediate divine omnipotence1 but every natural power employed in a manner pleasing to ,god may be so called4 ,consequently1 according to ,paulus1 the meaning of the angelic announcement is simply this3 prior to her union with ,joseph1 ,mary1 under the influence of a pure enthusiasm in sacred things on the one hand1 and by an human co-operation pleasing to ,god on the other1 became the mother of a child who on account of this holy origin was to be called a son of ,god4 ,let us examine rather more accurately the view which this representative of rationalistic interpretation takes of the particulars of the conception of ,jesus4 ,he begins with ,elizabeth1 the patriotic and wise daughter of ,aaron1 as he styles her4 ,she1 having conceived the hope that she might give birth to one of ,god's prophets1 naturally desired moreover that he might be the first of prophets1 the forerunner of the ,messiah2 and that the latter also might speedily be born4 ,now there was among her own kinsfolk a person suited in every respect for the mother of the ,messiah1 ,mary1 a young virgin1 a descendant of ,david2 nothing more was needful than to inspire her likewise with such a special hope4 ,whilst these intimations prepare us to anticipate a cleverly concerted plan on the part of ,elizabeth in reference to her young relative1 in the which we hope to become initiated2 ,paulus here suddenly lets fall the curtain1 and remarks1 that the exact manner in which ,mary was convinced that she should become the mother of the ,messiah must be left historically undetermined2 thus much only is certain1 that ,mary remained pure1 for she could not with a clear conscience have stationed herself1 as she afterwards did1 under the ,cross of her ,son1 had she felt that a reproach rested on her concerning the origin of the hopes she had entertained of him4 ,the following is the only hint subsequently given of the particular view held by ,paulus4 ,it is probable1 he thinks1 that the angelic messenger visited ,mary in the evening or even at night2 indeed according to the correct reading of ,luke i4 #bh1 which has not the word angel1 1 without 1 the evangelist here speaks only of some one who had come in4 7,as if in this case1 the participle must not necessarily be accompanied by 2 or1 in the absence of the pronoun be referred to the subject1 the angel ,gabriel-- 1 v4 #bf67 ,paulus adds3 that this visitant was the angel ,gabriel was the subsequent suggestion of ,mary's own mind1 after she had heard of the vision of ,zacharias4 ,gabler1 in a review of ,paulus's ,commentary #beg has fully exposed1 with commensurate plainness of speech1 the transaction which lies concealed under this explanation4 ,it is impossible1 says he1 to imagine any other interpretation of ,paulus's view than that some one passed himself off for the angel ,gabriel1 and as the pretended ,messenger of ,god remained with ,mary in order that she might become the mother of the ,messiah4 ,what6 asks ,gabler1 is ,mary1 at the very time she is betrothed1 to become pregnant by another1 and is this to be called an innocent holy action1 pleasing to ,god and irreproachable8 ,mary is here pourtrayed as a pious visionary1 and the pretended messenger of heaven as a deceiver1 or he too is a gross fanatic4 ,the reviewer most justly considers such an assertion as revolting1 if contemplated from the christian point of view2 if from the scientific1 as at variance both with the principles of interpretation and of criticism4 ,the author of the ,natural ,history of the ,great ,prophet of ,nazareth is1 in this instance1 to be considered as the most worthy interpreter of ,paulus2 for though the former could not1 in this part of his work1 have made use of ,paulus's ,commentary1 yet1 in exactly the same spirit1 he unreservedly avows what the latter carefully veils4 ,he brings into comparison a story in ,josephus1 #beh according to which1 in the very time of ,jesus1 a ,roman knight won the chaste wife of a ,roman noble to his wishes1 by causing her to be invited by a priest of ,isis into the temple of the goddess1 under the pretext that the god ,anubis desired to embrace her4 ,in innocence and faith1 the woman resigned herself1 and would perhaps afterwards have believed she had given birth to the child of a god1 had not the intriguer1 with bitter scorn1 soon after discovered to her the true state of the case4 ,it is the opinion of the author that ,mary1 the betrothed bride of the aged ,joseph1 was in like manner deceived by some amorous and fanatic young man 7in the sequel to the history he represents him to be ,joseph of ,arimathea71 and that she on her part1 in perfect innocence1 continued to deceive others4 #bei ,it is evident that this interpretation does not differ from the ancient ,jewish blasphemy1 which we find in ,celsus and in the ,talmud2 that ,jesus falsely represented himself as born of a pure virgin1 whereas1 in fact1 he was the offspring of the adultery of ,mary with a certain ,panthera4 #bfj ,this whole view1 of which the culminating point is in the calumny of the ,jews1 cannot be better judged than in the words of ,origen4 ,if1 says this author1 they wished to substitute something else in the place of the history of the supernatural conception of ,jesus1 they should at any rate have made it happen in a more probable manner2 they ought not1 as it were against their will1 to admit that ,mary knew not ,joseph1 but they might have denied this feature1 and yet have allowed ,jesus to have been born of an ordinary human marriage2 whereas the forced and extravagant character of their hypothesis betrays its falsehood4 #bfa ,is not this as much as to say1 that if once some particular features of a marvellous narrative are doubted1 it is inconsequent to allow others to remain unquestioned8 each part of such an account ought to be subjected to critical examination4 ,the correct view of the narrative before us is to be found1 that is indirectly1 in ,origen4 ,for when at one time he places together1 as of the same kind1 the miraculous conception of ,jesus and the story of ,plato's conception by ,apollo 7though here1 indeed1 the meaning is that only ill-disposed persons could doubt such things #bfb71 and when at another time he says of the story concerning ,plato1 that it belongs to those mythi by which it was sought to exhibit the distinguished wisdom and power of great men 7but here he does not include the narrative of ,jesus's conception71 he in fact states the two premises1 namely1 the similarity of the two narratives and the mythical character of the one #bfc2 from which the inference of the merely mythical worth of the narrative of the conception of ,jesus follows2 a conclusion which can never indeed have occurred to his own mind4 #bi4 ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,conception ,,of ,,jesus ,,viewed ,,as ,a ,,mythus4 ,if1 says ,gabler in his review of the ,commentary of ,paulus1 we must relinquish the supernatural origin of ,jesus1 in order to escape the ridicule of our contemporaries1 and if1 on the other hand1 the natural explanation leads to conclusions not only extravagant1 but revolting2 the adoption of the mythus1 by which all these difficulties are obviated1 is to be preferred4 ,in the world of mythology many great men had extraordinary births1 and were sons of the gods4 ,jesus himself spoke of his heavenly origin1 and called ,god his father2 besides1 his title as ,messiah was--,son of ,god4 ,from ,matthew i4 #bb1 it is further evident that the passage of ,isaiah1 vii4 #ad1 was referred to ,jesus by the early ,christian ,church4 ,in conformity with this passage the belief prevailed that ,jesus1 as the ,messiah1 should be born of a virgin by means of divine agency2 it was therefore taken for granted that what was to be actually did occur2 and thus originated a philosophical 7dogmatical7 mythus concerning the birth of ,jesus4 ,but according to historical truth1 ,jesus was the offspring of an ordinary marriage1 between ,joseph and ,mary2 an explanation which1 it has been justly remarked1 maintains at once the dignity of ,jesus and the respect due to his mother4 #bfd ,the proneness of the ancient world to represent the great men and benefactors of their race as the sons of the gods1 has therefore been referred to1 in order to explain the origin of such a mythus4 ,our theologians have accumulated examples from the ,greco-,roman mythology and history4 ,they have cited ,hercules1 and the ,dioscuri2 ,romulus1 and ,alexander2 but above all ,pythagoras1 #bfe and ,plato4 ,of the latter philosopher ,jerome speaks in a manner quite applicable to ,jesus3 sapienti principem non aliter arbitrantur1 nisi de partu virginis editum4 #bff ,from these examples it might have been inferred that the narratives of the supernatural conception had possibly originated in a similar tendency1 and had no foundation in history4 ,here however the orthodox and the rationalists are unanimous in denying1 though indeed upon different grounds1 the validity of the analogy4 ,origen1 from a perception of the identical character of the two classes of narratives1 is not far from regarding the heathen legends of the sons of the gods as true supernatural histories4 ,paulus on his side is more decided1 and is so logical as to explain both classes of narratives in the same manner1 as natural1 but still as true histories4 ,at least he says of the narrative concerning ,plato3 it cannot be affirmed that the groundwork of the history was a subsequent creation2 it is far more probable that ,perictione believed herself to be pregnant by one of her gods4 ,the fact that her son became a ,plato might indeed have served to confirm that belief1 but not to have originated it4 ,tholuck invites attention to the important distinction that the mythi concerning ,romulus and others were formed many centuries after the lifetime of these men3 the mythi concerning ,jesus1 on the contrary1 must have existed shortly after his death4 #bfg ,he cleverly fails to remember the narrative of ,plato's birth1 since he is well aware that precisely in that particular1 it is a dangerous point4 ,osiander however approaches the subject with much pathos1 and affirms that ,plato's apotheosis as son of ,apollo did not exist till several centuries after him #bfh2 whereas in fact ,plato's sister's son speaks of it as a prevailing legend in ,athens4 #bfi ,olshausen1 with whom ,neander coincides1 refuses to draw any detrimental inference from this analogy of the mythical sons of the gods2 remarking that though these narratives are unhistorical1 they evince a general anticipation and desire of such a fact1 and therefore guarantee its reality1 at least in one historical manifestation4 ,certainly1 a general anticipation and representation must have truth for its basis2 but the truth does not consist in any one individual fact1 presenting an accurate correspondence with that notion1 but in an idea which realizes itself in a series of facts1 which often bear no resemblance to the general notion4 ,the widely spread notion of a golden age does not prove the existence of a golden age3 so the notion of divine conceptions does not prove that some one individual was thus produced4 ,the truth which is the basis of this notion is something quite different4 ,a more essential objection #bgj to the analogy is1 that the representations of the heathen world prove nothing with respect to the isolated ,jews2 and that the idea of sons of the gods1 belonging to polytheism1 could not have exerted an influence on the rigidly monotheistic notion of the ,messiah4 ,at all events such an inference must not be too hastily drawn from the expression 8sons of ,god10 found likewise among the ,jews1 which as applied in the ,old ,testament to magistrates1 7,ps4 lxxxii4 #f1 or to theocratic kings1 #b ,sam4 vii4 #ad1 ,ps4 ii4 #g17 indicates only a theocratic1 and not a physical or metaphysical relation4 ,still less is importance to be attached to the language of flattery used by a ,roman1 in ,josephus1 who calls beautiful children of the ,jewish princes children of ,god4 #bga ,it was1 however1 a notion among the ,jews1 as was remarked in a former section1 that the ,holy ,spirit co-operated in the conception of pious individuals2 moreover1 that ,god's choicest instruments were conceived by divine assistance of parents1 who could not have had a child according to the natural course of things4 ,and if1 according to the believed representation1 the extinct capability on both sides was renewed by divine intervention 7,rom4 iv4 #ai71 it was only one step further to the belief that in the case of the conception of the most distinguished of all ,god's agents1 the ,messiah1 the total absence of participation on the one side was compensated by a more complete superadded capability on the other4 ,the latter is scarcely a degree more marvellous than the former4 ,and thus must it have appeared to the author of ,luke i41 since he dissipates ,mary's doubts by the same reply with which ,jehovah repelled ,sara's incredulity4 #bgb ,neither the ,jewish reverence for marriage1 nor the prevalent representation of the ,messiah as a human being1 could prevent the advance to this climax2 to which1 on the other hand1 the ascetic estimation of celibacy1 and the idea1 derived from ,daniel1 of the ,christ as a superhuman being1 contributed4 ,but decided impulse to the development of the representations embodied in our histories of the birth1 consisted partly in the title1 ,son of ,god1 at one time usually given to the ,messiah4 ,for it is the nature of such originally figurative expressions1 after a while to come to be interpreted according to their more precise and literal signification2 and it was a daily occurrence1 especially among the later ,jews1 to attach a sensible signification to that which originally had merely a spiritual or figurative meaning4 ,this natural disposition to understand the ,messianic title ,son of ,god more and more literally1 was fostered by the expression in the ,psalms 7ii4 #g71 interpreted of the ,messiah3 ,thou art my ,son2 this day have ,i begotten thee3 words which can scarcely fail to suggest a physical relation2 it was also nurtured by the prophecy of ,isaiah respecting the virgin who should be with child1 which it appears was applied to the ,messiah2 as were so many other prophecies of which the immediate signification had become obscure4 ,this application may be seen in the ,greek word chosen by the ,septuagint1 1 a pure unspotted virgin1 whereas by ,aquila and other ,greek translators the word is used4 #bgc ,thus did the notions of a son of ,god and a son of a virgin complete one another1 till at last the divine agency was substituted for human paternal participation4 ,wetstein indeed affirms that no ,jew ever applied the prophecy of ,isaiah to the ,messiah2 and it was with extreme labour that ,schoettgen collected traces of the notion that the ,messiah should be the son of a virgin from the ,rabbinical writings4 ,this however1 considering the paucity of records of the ,messianic ideas of that age1 #bgd proves nothing in opposition to the presumption that a notion then prevailed1 of which we have the groundwork in the ,old ,testament1 and an inference hardly to be mistaken in the ,new4 ,one objection yet remains1 which ,i can no longer designate as peculiar to ,olshausen1 since other theologians have shown themselves solicitous of sharing the fame4 ,the objection is1 that the mythical interpretation of the gospel narrative is especially dangerous1 it being only too well fitted to engender1 obscurely indeed1 profane and blasphemous notions concerning the origin of ,jesus2 since it cannot fail to favour an opinion destructive of the belief in a ,redeemer1 namely1 that ,jesus came into being through unholy means2 since1 in fact1 at the time of her pregnancy ,mary was not married4 #bge ,in ,olshausen's first edition of his work1 he adds that he willingly allows that these interpreters know not what they do3 it is therefore but just to give him the advantage of the same concession1 since he certainly appears not to know what mythical interpretation means4 ,how otherwise would he say1 that the mythical interpretation is fitted only to favour a blasphemous opinion2 therefore that all who understand the narrative mythically1 are disposed to commit the absurdity with which ,origen reproaches the ,jewish calumniators2 the retaining one solitary incident1 namely1 that ,mary was not married1 whilst the remainder of the narrative is held to be unhistorical2 a particular incident which evidently serves only as a support to the other1 that ,jesus was conceived without human paternal participation1 and with it1 therefore1 stands or falls4 ,no one among the interpreters who1 in this narrative1 recognise a mythus1 in the full signification of that term1 has been thus blind and inconsequent2 all have supposed a legitimate marriage between ,joseph and ,mary2 and ,olshausen merely paints the mythical mode of interpretation in caricature1 in order the more easily to set it aside2 for he confesses that in relation to this portion of the ,gospel in particular1 it has much that is dazzling4 #cj4 ,,relation ,,of ,,joseph ,,to ,,mary--,,brothers ,,of ,,jesus4 ,our ,gospels1 in the true spirit of the ancient legend1 find it unbecoming to allow the mother of ,jesus1 so long as she bore the heavenly germ1 to be approached or profaned by an earthly husband4 ,consequently ,luke 7ii4 #e7 represents the connexion between ,joseph and ,mary1 prior to the birth of ,jesus1 as a betrothment merely4 ,and1 as it is stated respecting the father of ,plato1 after his wife had become pregnant by ,apollo3 1 #bgf so likewise it is remarked of ,joseph in ,matthew 7i4 #be73 7 7 4 ,in each of these kindred passages the ,greek word 7till7 must evidently receive the same interpretation4 ,now in the first quotation the meaning is incontestably this3--that till the time of ,plato's birth his father abstained from intercourse with his wife1 but subsequently assumed his conjugal rights1 since we hear of ,plato's brothers4 ,in reference1 therefore1 to the parents of ,jesus1 the cannot have a different signification2 in each case it indicates precisely the same limitation4 ,so again the expression 7firstborn7 used in reference to ,jesus in both the ,gospels 7,matt4 i4 #be1 ,luke ii4 #g7 supposes that ,mary had other children1 for as ,lucian says3 1 1 4 #bgg ,even in the same ,gospels 7,matt4 xiii4 #ee1 ,luke viii4 #ai7 mention is made of 7the brothers of ,jesus74 ,in the words of ,fritzsche3 ,lubentissime post ,jesu natales ,mariam concessit ,matthus 7,luke does the same7 uxorem ,josepho1 in hoc uno occupatus1 ne quis ante ,jesu primordia mutu venere usos suspicaretur4 ,but this did not continue to satisfy the orthodox2 as the veneration for ,mary rose even higher1 she who had once become fruitful by divine agency was not subsequently to be profaned by the common relations of life4 #bgh ,the opinion that ,mary after the birth of ,jesus became the wife of ,joseph1 was early ranked among the heresies1 #bgi and the orthodox ,fathers sought every means to escape from it and to combat it4 ,they contended that according to the exegetical interpretation of 1 it sometimes affirmed or denied a thing1 not merely up to a certain limit1 but beyond that limitation and for ever2 and that the words of ,matthew 444 excluded a matrimonial connexion between ,joseph and ,mary for all time4 #bhj ,in like manner it was asserted of the term 1 that it did not necessarily include the subsequent birth of other children1 but that it merely excluded any previous birth4 #bha ,but in order to banish the thought of a matrimonial connexion between ,mary and ,joseph1 not only grammatically but physiologically1 they represented ,joseph as a very old man1 under whom ,mary was placed for control and protection only2 and the brothers of ,jesus mentioned in the ,new ,testament they regarded as the children of ,joseph by a former marriage4 #bhb ,but this was not all2 soon it was insisted not only that ,mary never became the wife of ,joseph1 but that in giving birth to ,jesus she did not lose her virginity4 #bhc ,but even the conservation of ,mary's virginity did not long continue to satisfy3 perpetual virginity was likewise required on the part of ,joseph4 ,it was not enough that he had no connexion with ,mary2 it was also necessary that his entire life should be one of celibacy4 ,accordingly1 though ,epiphanius allows that ,joseph had sons by a former marriage1 ,jerome rejects the supposition as an impious and audacious invention2 and from that time the brothers of ,jesus were degraded to the rank of cousins4 #bhd ,some modern theologians agree with the ,fathers of the ,church in maintaining that no matrimonial connexion subsisted at any time between ,joseph and ,mary1 and believe themselves able to explain the gospel expressions which appear to assert the contrary4 ,in reference to the term firstborn1 ,olshausen contends that it signifies an only son3 no less than the eldest of several4 ,paulus allows that here he is right1 and ,clemen #bhe and ,fritzsche seek in vain to demonstrate the impossibility of this signification4 ,for when it is said in ,ex4 xiii4 #b1 7 ,,lxx47 it was not merely a firstborn followed by others subsequently born1 who was sanctified to ,jehovah1 but the fruit of the body of that mother of whom no other child had previously been born4 ,therefore the term must of necessity bear also this signification4 ,truly however we must confess with ,winer #bhf and others1 on the other side1 that if a narrator who was acquainted with the whole sequel of the history used that expression1 we should be tempted to understand it in its primitive sense2 since had the author intended to exclude other children1 he would rather have employed the word 1 or would have connected it with 4 ,if this be not quite decisive1 the reasoning of ,fritzsche in reference to the 1 4441 is more convincing4 ,he rejects the citations adduced in support of the interpretation of the ,fathers of the ,church1 proving that this expression according to its primitive signification affirms only to a given limit1 and beyond that limit supposes the logical opposite of the affirmation to take place2 a signification which it loses only when the context shows clearly that the opposite is impossible in the nature of things4 #bhg ,for example1 when it is said 1 1 it is self-evident that the negation1 during the time elapsed till death--cannot be transformed after death into an affirmation2 but when it is said1 as in ,matthew1 4 4 1 the giving birth to the divine fruit opposes no impossibility to the establishment of the conjugal relations2 on the contrary it renders it possible1 i4e4 suitable #bhh for them now to take place4 ,olshausen1 impelled by the same doctrinal motives which influenced the ,fathers1 is led in this instance to contradict both the evidence of grammar and of logic4 ,he thinks that ,joseph1 without wishing to impair the sanctity of marriage1 must have concluded after the experiences he had had 787 that his marriage with ,mary had another object than the production of children2 besides it was but natural 787 in the last descendant of the house of ,david1 and of that particular branch from which the ,messiah should come forth1 to terminate her race in this last and eternal offshoot4 ,a curious ladder may be formed of these different beliefs and superstitions in relation to the connexion between ,mary and ,joseph4 #a4 ,contemporaries of ,jesus and composers of the genealogies3 ,joseph and ,mary man and wife--,jesus the offspring of their marriage4 #b4 ,the age and authors of our histories of the birth of ,jesus3 ,mary and ,joseph betrothed only2 ,joseph having no participation in the conception of the child1 and previous to his birth no conjugal connexion with ,mary4 #c4 ,olshausen and others3 subsequent to the birth of ,jesus1 ,joseph1 though then the husband of ,mary1 relinquishes his matrimonial rights4 #d4 ,epiphanius1 ,protevangelium ,jacobi and others3 ,joseph a decrepit old man1 no longer to be thought of as a husband3 the children attributed to him are of a former marriage4 ,more especially it is not as a bride and wife that he receives ,mary2 he takes her merely under his guardianship4 #e4 ,protevang41 ,chrysostom and others3 ,mary's virginity was not only not destroyed by any subsequent births of children by ,joseph1 it was not in the slightest degree impaired by the birth of ,jesus4 #f4 ,jerome3 not ,mary only but ,joseph also observed an absolute virginity1 and the pretended brothers of ,jesus were not his sons but merely cousins to ,jesus4 ,the opinion that the 7brothers7 and 7sisters of ,jesus7 mentioned in the ,new ,testament1 were merely half brothers or indeed cousins1 appears in its origin1 as shown above1 together with the notion that no matrimonial connexion ever subsisted between ,joseph and ,mary1 as the mere invention of superstition1 a circumstance highly prejudicial to such an opinion4 ,it is however no less true that purely exegetical grounds exist1 in virtue of which theologians who were free from prejudice have decided1 that the opinion that ,jesus actually had brothers is untenable4 #bhi ,had we merely the following passages--,matt4 xiii4 #ee1 ,mark vi4 #c1 where the people of ,nazareth1 astonished at the wisdom of their countryman1 in order to mark his well known origin1 immediately after having spoken of 7the carpenter7 his father1 and his mother ,mary1 mention by name his 7brothers7 ,james1 ,joses1 ,simon1 and ,judas1 together with his sisters whose names are not given #bij2 again ,matt4 xii4 #df1 ,luke viii4 #ai1 when his mother and his brethren come to ,jesus2 ,john ii4 #ab1 where ,jesus journeys with his mother and his brethren to ,capernaum2 ,acts i4 #ad1 where they are mentioned in immediate connexion with his mother--if we had these passages only1 we could not for a moment hesitate to recognize here real brothers of ,jesus at least on the mother's side1 children of ,joseph and ,mary2 not only on account of the proper signification of the word 1 but also in consequence of its continual conjunction with ,mary and ,joseph4 ,even the passages--,john vii4 #e1 in which it is remarked that his brethren did not believe on ,jesus1 and ,mark iii4 #ba1 compared with #ca1 where1 according to the most probable explanation1 the brothers of ,jesus with his mother went out to lay hold of him as one beside himself--furnish no adequate grounds for relinquishing the proper signification of 4 ,many theologians have interpreted in the last cited passage half brothers1 sons of ,joseph by a former marriage1 alleging that the real brothers of ,jesus must have believed on him1 but this is a mere assumption4 ,the difficulty seems greater when we read in ,john xix4 #bf f4 that ,jesus1 on the cross1 enjoined ,john to be a son to his mother2 an injunction it is not easy to regard as suitable under the supposition that ,mary had other children1 except indeed these were half-brothers and unfriendly to ,jesus4 ,nevertheless we can imagine the existence both of external circumstances and of individual feelings which might have influenced ,jesus to confide his mother to ,john rather than to his brothers4 ,that these brothers appeared in company with his apostles after the ascension 7,acts i4 #ad7 is no proof that they must have believed on ,jesus at the time of his death4 ,the real perplexity in the matter1 however1 originates in this3 that besides the ,james and ,joses spoken of as the brothers of ,jesus1 two men of the same name are mentioned as the sons of another ,mary 7,mark xv4 #dj1 #dg1 xvi4 #a1 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ef71 without doubt that ,mary who is designated1 ,john xix4 #be1 as the sister of the mother of ,jesus1 and the wife of ,cleophas2 so that we have a ,james and a ,joses not only among the children of ,mary the mother of ,jesus1 but again among her sister's children4 ,we meet with several others among those immediately connected with ,jesus1 whose names are identical4 ,in the lists of the apostles 7,matt4 x4 #b ff41 ,luke vi4 #ad ff47 we have two more of the name of ,james3 that is four1 the brother and cousin of ,jesus included2 two more of the name of ,judas3 that is three1 the brother of ,jesus included2 two of the name of ,simon1 also making three with the brother of ,jesus of the same name4 ,the question naturally arises1 whether the same individual is not here taken as distinct persons8 ,the suspicion is almost unavoidable in reference to ,james4 ,as ,james the son of ,alpheus is1 in the list of the apostles1 introduced after the son of ,zebedee1 as the second1 perhaps the younger2 and as ,james the cousin of ,jesus is called 78the less07 ,mark xv4 #dj2 and since by comparing ,john xix4 #be1 we find that the latter is called the son of ,cleophas1 it is possible that the name 7,cleophas7 given to the husband of ,mary's sister1 and the name 7,alpheus7 given to the father of the apostle1 may be only different forms of the ,hebrew 4 ,thus would the second ,james enumerated among the apostles and the cousin of ,jesus of that name be identical1 and there would remain besides him only the son of ,zebedee and the brother of ,jesus4 ,now in the ,acts 7xv4 #ac7 a ,james appears who takes a prominent part in the so-called apostolic council1 and as1 according to ,acts xii4 #b1 the son of ,zebedee had previously been put to death1 and as in the foregoing portion of the book of the ,acts no mention is made of any other ,james besides the son of ,alpheus 7i4 #ac71 so this ,james1 of whom 7,acts xv4 #ac7 no more precise description is given1 can be no other than the son of ,alpheus4 ,but ,paul speaks of a ,james 7,gal4 i4 #ai7 the ,lord's brother1 whom he saw at ,jerusalem1 and it is doubtless he of whom he speaks in connexion with ,cephas and ,john as the 7pillars7 of the church--for this is precisely in character with the 7,apostle7 ,james as he appeared at the apostolic council--so that this ,james may be considered as identical with the ,lord's brother1 and the rather as the expression 1 7but other of the apostles saw ,i none1 save ,james the ,lord's brother4 ,gal4 i4 #ai71 makes it appear as if the ,lord's brother were reckoned among the apostles2 with which also the ancient tradition which represents ,james the ,just1 a brother of ,jesus1 as the first head of the church at ,jerusalem1 agrees4 #bia ,but admitting the ,james of the ,acts to be identical with the distinguished apostle of that name1 then is he the son of ,alpheus1 and not the son of ,joseph2 consequently if he be at the same time 1 then cannot signify a brother4 ,now if ,alpheus and ,cleophas are admitted to be the same individual1 the husband of the sister of ,mary the mother of ,jesus1 it is obvious that 1 used to denote the relationship of his son to ,jesus1 must be taken in the signification1 cousin4 ,if1 after this manner1 ,james the ,apostle the son of ,alpheus be identified with the cousin1 and the cousin be identified with the brother of ,jesus of the same name1 it is obvious that in the catalogue of the ,apostles in ,luke 7,luke vi4 #af1 ,acts i4 #ac71 must be translated brother of ,james 7son of ,alpheus72 and this ,apostle ,jude must be held as identical with the ,jude 1 that is1 with the cousin of the ,lord and son of ,mary ,cleophas 7though the name of ,jude is never mentioned in connexion with this ,mary74 ,if the ,epistle of ,jude in our canon be authentic1 it is confirmatory of the above deduction1 that the author 7verse #a7 designates himself as the 7brother of ,james74 ,some moreover have identified the ,apostle ,simon or 7,zelotes or the ,canaanite7 with the ,simon enumerated among the brothers of ,jesus 7,mark vi4 #c71 and who according to a tradition of the church succeeded ,james as head of the church at ,jerusalem #bib2 so that ,joses alone appears without further designation or appellative4 ,if1 accordingly1 those spoken of as were merely cousins1 and three of these were apostles1 it must excite surprise that not only in the ,acts 7i4 #ad71 after an enumeration of the apostles1 the brothers of ,jesus are separately particularized1 but that also 7#a ,cor4 ix4 #e7 they appear to be a class distinct from the apostles4 ,perhaps1 also1 the passage ,gal4 i4 #ai ought to be understood as indicating that ,james1 the ,lord's brother1 was not an apostle4 #bic ,if1 therefore1 the seem thus to be extruded from the number of the apostles1 it is yet more difficult to regard them merely as the cousins of ,jesus1 since they appear in so many places immediately associated with the mother of ,jesus1 and in two or three passages only are two men bearing the same names mentioned in connexion with the other ,mary1 who accordingly would be their real mother4 ,the ,greek word may indeed signify1 in language which pretends not to precision1 as well as the ,hebrew 1 a more distant relative2 but as it is repeatedly used to express the relationship of these persons to ,jesus1 and is in no instance replaced by --a word which is not foreign to the ,new ,testament language when the relationship of cousin is to be denoted 7,col4 iv4 #aj71 it cannot well be taken in any other than its proper signification4 ,further1 it need only be pointed out that the highest degree of uncertainty exists respecting not only the identity of the names ,alpheus and ,cleophas1 upon which the identity of ,james the cousin of ,jesus and of the ,apostle ,james the ,less rests1 but also regarding the translation of by the brother of ,james2 and likewise respecting the assumed identity of the author of the last ,catholic ,epistle with the ,apostle ,jude4 ,thus the web of this identification gives way at all points1 and we are forced back to the position whence we set out2 so that we have again real brothers of ,jesus1 also two cousins distinct from these brothers1 though bearing the same names with two of them1 besides some apostles of the same names with both brothers and cousins4 ,to find two pairs of sons of the same names in a family is1 indeed1 not so uncommon as to become a source of objection4 ,it is1 however1 remarkable that the same ,james who in the ,epistle to the ,galatians is designated 7the ,lord's brother71 must unquestionably1 according to the ,acts of the ,apostles1 be regarded as the son of ,alpheus2 which he could not be if this expression signified a brother4 ,so that there is perplexity on every side1 which can be solved only 7and then1 indeed1 but negatively and without historical result7 by admitting the existence of obscurity and error on this point in the ,new ,testament writers1 and even in the very earliest ,christian traditions2 error which1 in matters of involved relationships and family names1 is far more easily fallen into than avoided4 #bid ,we have consequently no ground for denying that the mother of ,jesus bore her husband several other children besides ,jesus1 younger1 and perhaps also older2 the latter1 because the representation in the ,new ,testament that ,jesus was the first-born may belong no less to the mythus than the representation of the ,fathers that he was an only son4 #ca4 ,,visit ,,of ,,mary ,,to ,,elizabeth4 ,the angel who announced to ,mary her own approaching pregnancy1 at the same time informed her 7,luke i4 #cf7 of that of her relative ,elizabeth1 with whom it was already the sixth month4 ,hereupon ,mary immediately set out on a journey to her cousin1 a visit which was attended by extraordinary occurrences2 for when ,elizabeth heard the salutation of ,mary1 the babe leaped in her womb for joy2 she also became inspired1 and in her exultation poured forth an address to ,mary as the future mother of the ,messiah1 to which ,mary responded by a hymn of praise 7,luke i4 #ci-ef74 ,the rationalistic interpreter believes it to be an easy matter to give a natural explanation of this narrative of the ,gospel of ,luke4 ,he is of opinion #bie that the unknown individual who excited such peculiar anticipations1 in ,mary1 had at the same time acquainted her with the similar situation of her cousin ,elizabeth4 ,this it was which impelled ,mary the more strongly to confer on the subject with her older relative4 ,arrived at her cousin's dwelling1 she first of all made known what had happened to herself2 but upon this the narrator is silent1 not wishing to repeat what he had just before described4 ,and here the ,rationalist not only supposes the address of ,elizabeth to have been preceded by some communication from ,mary1 but imagines ,mary to have related her history piecemeal1 so as to allow ,elizabeth to throw in sentences during the intervals4 ,the excitement of ,elizabeth--such is the continuation of the rationalistic explanation--communicated itself1 according to natural laws1 to the child1 who1 as is usual with an embryo of six months1 made a movement1 which was first regarded by the mother as significant1 and as the consequence of the salutation1 after ,mary's farther communications4 ,just as natural does it appear to the ,rationalist that ,mary should have given utterance to her ,messianic expectations1 confirmed as they were by ,elizabeth1 in a kind of psalmodic recitative1 composed of reminiscences borrowed from various parts of the ,old ,testament4 ,but there is much in this explanation which positively contradicts the text4 ,in the first place1 that ,elizabeth should have learned the heavenly message imparted to ,mary from ,mary herself4 ,there is no trace in the narrative either of any communication preceding ,elizabeth's address1 or of interruptions occasioned by farther explanations on the part of ,mary4 ,on the contrary1 as it is a supernatural revelation which acquaints ,mary with the pregnancy of ,elizabeth1 so also it is to a revelation that ,elizabeth's immediate recognition of ,mary1 as the chosen mother of the ,messiah1 is attributed4 #bif ,as little will the other feature of this narrative--that the entrance of the mother of the ,messiah occasioned a responsive movement in his mother's womb on the part of his forerunner--bear a natural explanation4 ,in modern times1 indeed1 even orthodox interpreters have inclined to this explanation1 but with the modification1 that ,elizabeth in the first place received a revelation1 in which however the child1 owing to the mother's excitement1 a matter to be physiologically explained1 likewise took part4 #big ,but the record does not represent the thing as if the excitement of the mother were the determining cause of the movement of the child2 on the contrary 7v4 #da71 the emotion of the mother follows the movement of the child1 and ,elizabeth's own account states1 that it was the salutation of ,mary 7v4 #dd71 not indeed from its particular signification1 but merely as the voice of the mother of the ,messiah1 which produced the movement of the unborn babe3 undeniably assuming something supernatural4 ,and indeed the supranaturalistic view of this miracle is not free from objection1 even on its own ground2 and hence the anxiety of the above-mentioned modern orthodox interpreters to evade it4 ,it may be possible to conceive the human mind immediately acted upon by the divine mind1 to which it is related1 but how solve the difficulty of an immediate communication of the divine mind to an unintelligent embryo8 ,and if we inquire the object of so strange a miracle1 none which is worthy presents itself4 ,should it be referred to the necessity that the ,baptist should receive the earliest possible intimation of the work to which he was destined2 still we know not how such an impression could have been made upon an embryo4 ,should the purpose be supposed to centre in the other individuals1 in ,mary or ,elizabeth2 they had been the recipients of far higher revelations1 and were consequently already possessed of an adequate measure of insight and faith4 ,no fewer difficulties oppose the rationalistic than the supranaturalistic explanation of the hymn pronounced by ,mary4 ,for though it is not1 like the ,canticle of ,zacharias 7v4 #fg7 and the address of ,elizabeth 7v4 #da71 introduced by the formula 1 she was filled with the ,holy ,ghost1 still the similarity of these utterances is so great1 that the omission cannot be adduced as a proof that the narrator did not intend to represent this1 equally with the other two1 as the operation of the 7spirit74 ,but apart from the intention of the narrator1 can it be thought natural that two friends visiting one another should1 even in the midst of the most extraordinary occurrences1 break forth into long hymns1 and that their conversation should entirely lose the character of dialogue1 the natural form on such occasions8 ,by a supernatural influence alone could the minds of the two friends be attuned to a state of elevation1 so foreign to their every-day life4 ,but if1 indeed1 ,mary's hymn is to be understood as the work of the ,holy ,spirit1 it is surprising that a speech emanating immediately from the divine source of inspiration should not be more striking for its originality1 but should be so interlarded with reminiscences from the ,old ,testament1 borrowed from the song of praise spoken by the mother of ,samuel 7#a ,sam4 ii47 under analogous circumstances4 #bih ,accordingly we must admit that the compilation of this hymn1 consisting of recollections from the ,old ,testament1 was put together in a natural way2 but allowing its composition to have been perfectly natural1 it cannot be ascribed to the artless ,mary1 but to him who poetically wrought out the tradition in circulation respecting the scene in question4 ,since then we find all the principal incidents of this visit inconceivable according to the supernatural interpretation2 also that they will not bear a natural explanation2 we are led to seek a mythical exposition of this as well as the preceding portions of the gospel history4 ,this path has already been entered upon by others4 ,the view of this narrative given by the anonymous ,e4 ,f4 in ,henke's ,magazine #bii is1 that it does not pourtray events as they actually did occur1 but as they might have occurred2 that much which the sequel taught of the destiny of their sons was carried back into the speeches of these women1 which were also enriched by other features gleaned from tradition2 that a true fact however lies at the bottom1 namely an actual visit of ,mary to ,elizabeth1 a joyous conversation1 and the expression of gratitude to ,god2 all which might have happened solely in virtue of the high importance attached by ,orientals to the joys of maternity1 even though the two mothers had been at that time ignorant of the destination of their children4 ,this author is of opinion that ,mary1 when pondering over at a later period the remarkable life of her son1 may often have related the happy meeting with her cousin and their mutual expressions of thankfulness to ,god1 and that thus the history gained currency4 ,horst also1 who has a just conception of the fictitious nature of this section in ,luke1 and ably refutes the natural mode of explanation1 yet himself slides unawares half-way back into it4 ,he thinks it not improbable that ,mary during her pregnancy1 which was in many respects a painful one1 should have visited her older and more experienced cousin1 and that ,elizabeth should during this visit have felt the first movement of her child3 an occurrence which as it was afterwards regarded as ominous1 was preserved by the oral tradition4 #cjj ,these are farther examples of the uncritical proceeding which pretends to disengage the mythical and poetical from the narrative1 by plucking away a few twigs and blossoms of that growth1 whilst it leaves the very root of the mythus undisturbed as purely historical4 ,in our narrative the principal mythical feature 7the remainder forms only its adjuncts7 is precisely that which the above-mentioned authors1 in their pretended mythical explanations1 retain as historical3 namely1 the visit of ,mary to the pregnant ,elizabeth4 ,for1 as we have already seen1 the main tendency of the first chapter of ,luke is to magnify ,jesus by connecting the ,baptist with him from the earliest possible point in a relation of inferiority4 ,now this object could not be better attained than by bringing about a meeting1 not in the first instance of the sons1 but of the mothers in reference to their sons1 during their pregnancy1 at which meeting some occurrence which should prefigure the future relative positions of these two men should take place4 ,now the more apparent the existence of a dogmatical motive as the origin of this visit1 the less probability is there that it had an historical foundation4 ,with this principal feature the other details are connected in the following order3--,the visit of the two women must be represented as possible and probable by the feature of family relationship between ,mary and ,elizabeth 7v4 #cf71 which would also give a greater suitability to the subsequent connexion of the sons4 ,further1 a visit1 so full of import1 made precisely at that time1 must have taken place by special divine appointment2 therefore it is an angel who refers ,mary to her cousin4 ,at the visit the subservient position of the ,baptist to ,jesus is to be particularly exhibited2--this could have been effected by the mother1 as indeed it is1 in her address to ,mary1 but it were better if possible that the future ,baptist himself should give a sign4 ,the mutual relation of ,esau and ,jacob had been prefigured by their struggles and position in their mother's womb 7,gen4 xxv4 #bb ff474 ,but1 without too violent an offence against the laws of probability1 an ominous movement would not be attributed to the child prior to that period of her pregnancy at which the motion of the ftus is felt2 hence the necessity that ,elizabeth should be in the sixth month of her pregnancy when ,mary1 in consequence of the communication of the angel1 set out to visit her cousin 7v4 #cf74 ,thus1 as ,schleiermacher remarks1 #cja the whole arrangement of times had reference to the particular circumstance the author desired to contrive--the joyous responsive movement of the child in his mother's womb at the moment of ,mary's entrance4 ,to this end only must ,mary's visit be delayed till after the fifth month2 and the angel not appear to her before that period4 ,thus not only does the visit of ,mary to ,elizabeth with all the attendant circumstances disappear from the page of history1 but the historical validity of the further details--that ,john was only half a year older than ,jesus2 that the two mothers were related2 that an intimacy subsisted between the families2--cannot be affirmed on the testimony of ,luke1 unsupported by other authorities3 indeed1 the contrary rather will be found substantiated in the course of our critical investigations4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,birth ,,and ,,earliest ,,events ,,of ,,the ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 #cb4 ,,the ,,census4 ,with respect to the birth of ,jesus1 ,matthew and ,luke agree in representing it as taking place at ,bethlehem2 but whilst the latter enters into a minute detail of all the attendant circumstances1 the former merely mentions the event as it were incidentally1 referring to it once in an appended sentence as the sequel to what had gone before 7i4 #be71 and again as a presupposed occurrence 7ii4 #a74 ,the one ,evangelist seems to assume that ,bethlehem was the habitual residence of the parents2 but according to the other they are led thither by very particular circumstances4 ,this point of difference between the ,evangelists however can only be discussed after we shall have collected more data2 we will therefore leave it for the present1 and turn our attention to an error into which ,luke1 when compared with himself and with dates otherwise ascertained1 seems to have fallen4 ,this is the statement1 that the census1 decreed by ,augustus at the time when ,cyrenius 7,quirinus7 was governor of ,syria1 was the occasion of the journey of the parents of ,jesus1 who usually resided at ,nazareth1 to ,bethlehem where ,jesus was born 7,luke ii4 #a ff474 ,the first difficulty is that the 7namely1 the inscription of the name and amount of property in order to facilitate the taxation7 commanded by ,augustus1 is extended to all the world1 4 ,this expression1 in its common acceptation at that time1 would denote the orbis ,romanus4 ,but ancient authors mention no such general census decreed by ,augustus2 they speak only of the assessment of single provinces decreed at different times4 ,consequently1 it was said ,luke meant to indicate by merely the land of ,judea1 and not the ,roman world according to its ordinary signification4 ,examples were forthwith collected in proof of the possibility of such an interpretation1 #cjb but they in fact prove nothing4 ,for supposing it could not be shown that in all these citations from the ,septuagint1 ,josephus1 and the ,new ,testament1 the expression really does signify1 in the extravagant sense of these writers1 the whole known world2 still in the instance in question1 where the subject is a decree of the ,roman emperor1 must necessarily be understood of the regions which he governed1 and therefore of the orbis ,romanus4 ,this is the reason that latterly the opposite side has been taken up1 and it has been maintained1 upon the authority of ,savigny1 that in the time of ,augustus a census of the whole empire was actually undertaken4 #cjc ,this is positively affirmed by late ,christian writers #cjd3 but the statement is rendered suspicious by the absence of all more ancient testimony #cje2 and it is even contradicted by the fact1 that for a considerable lapse of time an equal assessment throughout the empire was not effected4 ,finally1 the very expressions of these writers show that their testimony rests upon that of ,luke4 #cjf ,but1 it is said1 ,augustus at all events attempted an equal assessment of the empire by means of an universal census2 and he began the carrying out his project by an assessment of individual provinces1 but he left the further execution and completion to his successors4 #cjg ,admit that the gospel term 7decree7 may be interpreted as a mere design1 or1 as ,hoffmann thinks1 an undetermined project expressed in an imperial decree2 still the fulfilment of this project in ,judea at the time of the birth of ,jesus was impossible4 ,matthew places the birth of ,jesus shortly before the death of ,herod the ,great1 whom he represents 7ii4 #ai7 as dying during the abode of ,jesus in ,egypt4 ,luke says the same indirectly1 for when speaking of the announcement of the birth of the ,baptist1 he refers it to the days of ,herod the ,great1 and he places the birth of ,jesus precisely six months later2 so that according to ,luke1 also1 ,jesus was born1 if not1 like ,john1 previous to the death of ,herod ,i41 shortly after that event4 ,now1 after the death of ,herod the country of ,judea fell to his son ,archelaus 7,matt4 ii4 #bb71 who1 after a reign of something less than ten years1 was deposed and banished by ,augustus1 #cjh at which time ,judea was first constituted a ,roman province1 and began to be ruled by ,roman functionaries4 #cji ,thus the ,roman census in question must have been made either under ,herod the ,great1 or at the commencement of the reign of ,archelaus4 ,this is in the highest degree improbable1 for in those countries which were not reduced in formam provinci1 but were governed by regibus sociis1 the taxes were levied by these princes1 who paid a tribute to the ,romans #caj2 and this was the state of things in ,judea prior to the deposition of ,archelaus4 ,it has been the object of much research to make it appear probable that ,augustus decreed a census1 as an extraordinary measure1 in ,palestine under ,herod4 ,attention has been directed to the circumstance that the breviarium imperii1 which ,augustus left behind him1 contained the financial state of the whole empire1 and it has been suggested that1 in order to ascertain the financial condition of ,palestine1 he caused a statement to be prepared by ,herod4 #caa ,reference has been made first to the record of ,josephus1 that on account of some disturbance of the relations between ,herod and ,augustus1 the latter threatened for the future to make him feel his subjection #cab2 secondly1 also to the oath of allegiance to ,augustus which1 according to ,josephus1 the ,jews were forced to take even during the lifetime of ,herod4 #cac ,from which it is inferred that ,augustus1 since he had it in contemplation after the death of ,herod to restrict the power of his sons1 was very likely to have commanded a census in the last years of that prince4 #cad ,but it seems more probable that it took place shortly after the death of ,herod1 from the circumstance that ,archelaus went to ,rome concerning the matter of succession1 and that during his absence the ,roman procurator ,sabinus occupied ,jerusalem1 and oppressed the ,jews by every possible means4 #cae ,the ,evangelist relieves us from a farther inquiry into this more or less historical or arbitrary combination by adding1 that this taxing was first made when ,cyrenius 7,quirinus7 was governor of ,syria1 2 for it is an authenticated point that the assessment of ,quirinus did not take place either under ,herod or early in the reign of ,archelaus1 the period at which1 according to ,luke1 ,jesus was born4 ,quirinus was not at that time governor of ,syria1 a situation held during the last years of ,herod by ,sentius ,saturninus1 and after him by ,quintilius ,varus2 and it was not till long after the death of ,herod that ,quirinus was appointed governor of ,syria4 ,that ,quirinus undertook a census of ,judea we know certainly from ,josephus1 #caf who1 however1 remarks that he was sent to execute this measure1 1 or1 #cag2 thus about ten years after the time at which1 according to ,matthew and ,luke1 ,jesus must have been born4 ,yet commentators have supposed it possible to reconcile this apparently undeniable contradiction between ,luke and history4 ,the most dauntless explain the whole of the second verse as a gloss1 which was early incorporated into the text4 #cah ,some change the reading of the verse2 either of the nomen proprium1 by substituting the name of ,saturninus or ,quintilius1 #cai according to the example of ,tertullian1 who ascribed the census to the former #cbj2 or of the other words1 by various additions and modifications4 ,paulus's alteration is the most simple4 ,he reads1 instead of 1 1 and concludes1 from the reasons stated above1 that ,augustus actually gave orders for a census during the reign of ,herod ,i41 and that the order was so far carried out as to occasion the journey of ,joseph and ,mary to ,bethlehem2 but that ,augustus being afterwards conciliated1 the measure was abandoned1 and was only carried into effect a considerable time later1 by ,quirinus4 ,trifling as this alteration1 which leaves the letters unchanged1 may appear1 in order to render it admissible it must be supported by the context4 ,the reverse1 however1 is the fact4 ,for if one sentence narrates a command issued by a prince1 and the very next sentence its execution1 it is not probable that a space of ten years intervened4 ,but chiefly1 according to this view the ,evangelist speaks1 verse #a1 of the decree of the emperor2 verse #b1 of the census made ten years later2 but verse #c1 without any remark1 again of a journey performed at the time the command was issued2 which1 in a rational narrative1 is impossible4 ,opposed to such arbitrary conjectures1 and always to be ranked above them1 are the attempts to solve a difficulty by legitimate methods of interpretation4 ,truly1 however1 to take in this connexion for 1 and 4 not for a genitive absolute1 but for a genitive governed by a comparative1 and thus to understand an enrolment before that of ,quirinus1 #cba is to do violence to grammatical construction2 and to insert after #cbb is is no less uncritical4 ,as little is it to be admitted that some preliminary measure1 in which ,quirinus was not employed1 perhaps the already mentioned oath of allegiance1 took place during the lifetime of ,herod1 in reference to the census subsequently made by ,quirinus2 and that this preliminary step and the census were afterwards comprised under the same name4 ,in order in some degree to account for this appellation1 ,quirinus is said to have been sent into ,judea1 in ,herod's time1 as an extraordinary tax-commissioner #cbc2 but this interpretation of the word is rendered impossible by the addition of the word 1 in combination with which the expression can denote only the ,prses ,syri4 ,thus at the time at which ,jesus1 according to ,matt4 ii4 #a1 and ,luke i4 #e1 #bf1 was born1 the census of which ,luke ii4 #a f4 speaks could not have taken place2 so that if the former statements are correct1 the latter must be false4 ,but may not the reverse be the fact1 and ,jesus have been born after the banishment of ,archelaus1 and at the time of the census of ,quirinus8 ,apart from the difficulties in which this hypothesis would involve us in relation to the chronology of the future life of ,jesus1 a ,roman census1 subsequent to the banishment of ,archelaus1 would not have taken the parents of ,jesus from ,nazareth in ,galilee to ,bethlehem in ,judea4 ,for ,judea only1 and what otherwise belonged to the portion of ,archelaus1 became a ,roman province and subjected to the census4 ,in ,galilee ,herod ,antipas continued to reign as an allied prince1 and none of his subjects dwelling at ,nazareth could have been called to ,bethlehem by the census4 ,the ,evangelist therefore1 in order to get a census1 must have conceived the condition of things such as they were after the deposition of ,archelaus2 but in order to get a census extending to ,galilee1 he must have imagined the kingdom to have continued undivided1 as in the time of ,herod the ,great4 ,thus he deals in manifest contradictions2 or rather he has an exceedingly sorry acquaintance with the political relations of that period2 for he extends the census not only to the whole of ,palestine1 but also 7which we must not forget7 to the whole ,roman world4 ,still these chronological incongruities do not exhaust the difficulties which beset this statement of ,luke4 ,his representation of the manner in which the census was made is subject to objection4 ,in the first place1 it is said1 the taxing took ,joseph to ,bethlehem1 because he was of the house and lineage of ,david1 1 and likewise every one into his own city1 1 i4e4 according to the context1 to the place whence his family had originally sprung4 ,now1 that every individual should be registered in his own city was required in all ,jewish inscriptions1 because among the ,jews the organization of families and tribes constituted the very basis of the state4 ,the ,romans1 on the contrary1 were in the habit of taking the census at the residences1 and at the principal cities in the district4 #cbd ,they conformed to the usages of the conquered countries only in so far as they did not interfere with their own objects4 ,in the present instance it would have been directly contrary to their design1 had they removed individuals--,joseph for example--to a great distance1 where the amount of their property was not known1 and their statement concerning it could not be checked4 #cbe ,the view of ,schleiermacher is the more admissible1 that the real occasion which took the parents to ,bethlehem was a sacerdotal inscription1 which the ,evangelist confounded with the better known census of ,quirinus4 ,but this concession does not obviate the contradiction in this dubious statement of ,luke4 ,he allows ,mary to be inscribed with ,joseph1 but according to ,jewish customs inscriptions had relation to men only4 ,thus1 at all events1 it is an inaccuracy to represent ,mary as undertaking the journey1 in order to be inscribed with her betrothed in his own city4 ,or1 if with ,paulus we remove this inaccuracy by a forced construction of the sentence1 we can no longer perceive what inducement could have instigated ,mary1 in her particular situation1 to make so long a journey1 since1 unless we adopt the airy hypothesis of ,olshausen and others1 that ,mary was the heiress of property in ,bethlehem1 she had nothing to do there4 ,the ,evangelist1 however1 knew perfectly well what she had to do there2 namely1 to fulfil the prophecy of ,micah 7v4 #a71 by giving birth1 in the city of ,david1 to the ,messiah4 ,now as he set out with the supposition that the habitual abode of the parents of ,jesus was ,nazareth1 so he sought after a lever which should set them in motion towards ,bethlehem1 at the time of the birth of ,jesus4 ,far and wide nothing presented itself but the celebrated census2 he seized it the more unhesitatingly because the obscurity of his own view of the historical relations of that time1 veiled from him the many difficulties connected with such a combination4 ,if this be the true history of the statement in ,luke1 we must agree with ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt when he says1 that to attempt to reconcile the statement of ,luke concerning the with chronology1 would be to do the narrator too much honour2 he wished to place ,mary in ,bethlehem1 and therefore times and circumstances were to accommodate themselves to his pleasure4 #cbf ,thus we have here neither a fixed point for the date of the birth of ,jesus1 nor an explanation of the occasion which led to his being born precisely at ,bethlehem4 ,if then--it may justly be said--no other reason why ,jesus should have been born at ,bethlehem can be adduced than that given by ,luke1 we have absolutely no guarantee that ,bethlehem was his birth-place4 #cc4 ,,particular ,,circumstances ,,of ,,the ,,birth ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,the ,,circumcision4 ,the basis of the narrative1 the arrival of ,joseph and ,mary as strangers in ,bethlehem on account of the census1 being once chosen by ,luke1 the farther details are consistently built upon it4 ,in consequence of the influx of strangers brought to ,bethlehem by the census1 there is no room for the travellers in the inn1 and they are compelled to put up with the accommodation of a stable where ,mary is forthwith delivered of her first-born4 ,but the child1 who upon earth comes into being in so humble an abode1 is highly regarded in heaven4 ,a celestial messenger announces the birth of the ,messiah to shepherds who are guarding their flocks in the fields by night1 and directs them to the child in the manger4 ,a choir of the heavenly host singing hymns of praise next appears to them1 after which they seek and find the child4 7,luke ii4 #f-bj47 ,the apocryphal gospels and the traditions of the ,fathers still further embellished the birth of ,jesus4 ,according to the ,protevangelium ,jacobi1 #cbg ,joseph conducts ,mary on an ass to ,bethlehem to be taxed4 ,as they approach the city she begins to make now mournful1 now joyous gestures1 and upon inquiry explains that--7as once in ,rebecca's womb the two hostile nations struggled1 ,gen4 xxv4 #bc7--she sees two people before her1 the one weeping1 the other laughing3 i4e4 according to one explanation1 the two portions of ,israel1 to one of whom the advent of ,jesus was set 7,luke ii4 #cd7 1 for the fall1 to the other 1 for the rising again4 ,according to another interpretation1 the two people were the ,jews who should reject ,jesus1 and the heathens who should accept him4 #cbh ,soon1 however1 whilst still without the city--as appears from the context and the reading of several ,,mss4--,mary is seized with the pains of child-bearing1 and ,joseph brings her into a cave situated by the road side1 where1 veiled by a cloud of light1 all nature pausing in celebration of the event1 she brings her child into the world1 and after her delivery is found1 by women called to her assistance1 still a virgin4 #cbi ,the legend of the birth of ,jesus in a cave was known to ,justin #ccj and to ,origen1 #cca who1 in order to reconcile it with the account in ,luke that he was laid in a manger1 suppose a manger situated within the cave4 ,many modern commentators agree with them #ccb2 whilst others prefer to consider the cave itself as 1 in the sense of foddering-stall4 #ccc ,for the birth of ,jesus in a cave1 ,justin appeals to the prophecy in ,isaiah xxviii4 #af3 7the righteous7 4 ,in like manner1 for the statement that on the third day the child ,jesus1 when brought from the cave into the stable1 was worshipped by the oxen and the asses1 the ,historia de ,nativitate ,mariae1 #ccd etc4 refers to ,isaiah i4 #c3 cognovit bos possessorem suum1 et asinus praesepe domini sui4 ,in several apocryphas1 between the ,magi and the women who assist at the birth1 the shepherds are forgotten2 but they are mentioned in the ,evangelium infantiae arabicum1 #cce where it says1 that when they arrived at the cave1 and had kindled a fire of rejoicing1 the heavenly host appeared to them4 ,if we take the circumstances attending the birth of ,jesus1 narrated by ,luke1 in a supranaturalistic sense1 many difficulties occur4 ,first1 it may reasonably be asked1 to what end the angelic apparition8 ,the most obvious answer is1 to make known the birth of ,jesus2 but so little did it make it known that1 in the neighbouring city of ,jerusalem1 it is the ,magi who give the first information of the new-born king of the ,jews2 and in the future history of ,jesus1 no trace of any such occurrence at his birth is to be found4 ,consequently1 the object of that extraordinary phenomenon was not to give a wide-spreading intimation of the fact2 for if so1 ,god failed in his object4 ,must we then agree with ,schleiermacher1 that the aim was limited to an immediate operation upon the shepherds8 ,then we must also suppose with him1 that the shepherds1 equally with ,simeon1 were filled with ,messianic expectations1 and that ,god designed by this apparition to reward and confirm their pious belief4 ,the narrative however says nothing of this heavenly frame of mind1 neither does it mention any abiding effects produced upon these men4 ,according to the whole tenor of the representation1 the apparition seems to have had reference1 not to the shepherds1 but exclusively to the glorification and the proclaiming of the birth of ,jesus1 as the ,messiah4 ,but as before observed1 the latter aim was not accomplished1 and the former1 by itself1 like every mere empty display1 is an object unworthy of ,god4 ,so that this circumstance in itself presents no inconsiderable obstacle to the supranaturalistic conception of the history4 ,if1 to the above considerations1 we add those already stated which oppose the belief in apparitions and the existence of angels in general1 it is easy to understand that with respect to this narrative also refuge has been sought in a natural explanation4 ,the results of the first attempts at a natural explanation were certainly sufficiently rude4 ,thus ,eck regarded the angel as a messenger from ,bethlehem1 who carried a light which caught the eye of the shepherds1 and the song of the heavenly host as the merry tones of a party accompanying the messenger4 #ccf ,paulus has woven together a more refined and matter of fact explanation4 ,mary1 who had met with a hospitable reception in a herdsman's family1 and who was naturally elated with the hope of giving birth to the ,messiah1 told her expectations to the members of this family2 to whom as inhabitants of a city of ,david the communication could not have been indifferent4 ,these shepherds therefore on perceiving1 whilst in the fields by night1 a luminous appearance in the air--a phenomenon which travellers say is not uncommon in those regions--they interpret it as a divine intimation that the stranger in their foddering-stall is delivered of the ,messiah2 and as the meteoric light extends and moves to and fro1 they take it for a choir of angels chaunting hymns of praise4 ,returning home they find their anticipations confirmed by the event1 and that which at first they merely conjectured to be the sense and interpretation of the phenomenon1 they now1 after the manner of the ,east1 represent as words actually spoken4 #ccg ,this explanation rests altogether on the assumption1 that the shepherds were previously acquainted with ,mary's expectation that she should give birth to the ,messiah4 ,how otherwise should they have been led to consider the sign as referring particularly to the birth of the ,messiah in their manger8 ,yet this very assumption is the most direct contradiction of the gospel account4 ,for1 in the first place1 the ,evangelist evidently does not suppose the manger to belong to the shepherds3 since after he has narrated the delivery of ,mary in the manger1 he then goes on to speak of the shepherds as a new and distinct subject1 not at all connected with the manger4 ,his words are3 and there were in the same country shepherds1 4 ,if this explanation were correct he would1 at all events1 have said1 the shepherds etc4 4442 besides he would not have been wholly silent respecting the comings and goings of these shepherds during the day1 and their departure to guard the flock at the approach of night4 ,but1 grant these presupposed circumstances1 is it consistent in ,paulus to represent ,mary1 at first so reserved concerning her pregnancy as to conceal it even from ,joseph1 and then so communicative that1 just arrived among strangers1 she parades the whole history of her expectations8 ,again the sequel of the narrative contradicts the assumption that the shepherds were informed of the matter by ,mary herself1 before her delivery4 ,for1 according to the gospel history1 the shepherds receive the first intelligence of the birth of the ,saviour from the angel who appears to them1 and who tells them1 as a sign of the truth of his communication1 that they shall find the babe lying in a manger4 ,had they already heard from ,mary of the approaching birth of the ,messiah1 the meteoric appearance would have been a confirmation to them of ,mary's words1 and not the finding of the child a proof of the truth of the apparition4 ,finally1 may we so far confide in the investigations already made as to inquire1 whence1 if neither a miraculous announcement nor a supernatural conception actually occurred1 could ,mary have derived the confident anticipation that she should give birth to the ,messiah8 ,in opposition to this natural explanation1 so full of difficulties on every side1 ,bauer announced his adoption of the mythical view #cch2 in fact1 however1 he did not advance one step beyond the interpretation of the ,rationalists1 but actually repeated ,paulus's exposition point for point4 ,to this mixed mythical explanation ,gabler justly objected that it1 equally with the natural interpretation1 multiplies improbabilities3 by the adoption of the pure1 dogmatic mythus1 everything appears simpler2 thereby1 at the same time1 greater harmony is introduced into the early christian history1 all the preceding narratives of which ought equally to be interpreted as pure mythi4 #cci ,gabler1 accordingly1 explained the narrative as the product of the ideas of the age1 which demanded the assistance of angels at the birth of the ,messiah4 ,now had it been known that ,mary was delivered in a dwelling belonging to shepherds1 it would also have been concluded that angels must have brought the tidings to these good shepherds that the ,messiah was born in their manger2 and the angels who cease not praising ,god1 must have sung a hymn of praise on the occasion4 ,gabler thinks it impossible1 that a ,jewish christian who should have known some of the data of the birth of ,jesus1 could have thought of it otherwise than as here depicted4 #cdj ,this explanation of ,gabler shows1 in a remarkable manner1 how difficult it is entirely to extricate oneself from the natural explanation1 and to rise completely to the mythical2 for whilst this theologian believes he treads on pure mythical ground1 he still stands with one foot upon that of the natural interpretation4 ,he selects from the account of ,luke one incident as historical which1 by its connexion with other unhistorical statements and its conformity to the spirit of the primitive christian legend1 is proved to be merely mythical2 namely1 that ,jesus was really born in a shepherd's dwelling4 ,he also borrows an assumption from the natural explanation1 which the mythical needs not to obtrude on the text3 that the shepherds1 to whom it is alleged the angels appeared1 were the possessors of the manger in which ,mary was delivered4 ,the first detail1 upon which the second is built1 belongs to the same machinery by which ,luke1 with the help of the census1 transported the parents of ,jesus from ,nazareth to ,bethlehem4 ,now we know what is the fact respecting the census2 it crumbles away inevitably before criticism1 and with it the datum built entirely upon it1 that ,jesus was born in a manger4 ,for had not the parents of ,jesus been strangers1 and had they not come to ,bethlehem in company with so large a concourse of strangers as the census might have occasioned1 the cause which obliged ,mary to accept a stable for her place of delivery would no longer have existed4 ,but1 on the other hand1 the incident1 that ,jesus was born in a stable and saluted in the first instance by shepherds1 is so completely in accordance with the spirit of the ancient legend1 that it is evident the narrative may have been derived purely from this source4 ,theophylact1 in his time1 pointed out its true character1 when he says3 the angels did not appear to the scribes and pharisees of ,jerusalem who were full of all malice1 but to the shepherds1 in the fields1 on account of their simplicity and innocence1 and because they by their mode of life were the successors of the patriarchs4 #cda ,it was in the field by the flocks that ,moses was visited by a heavenly apparition 7,exod4 iii4 #a ff472 and ,god took ,david1 the forefather of the ,messiah1 from his sheepfolds 7at ,bethlehem71 to be the shepherd of his people4 ,psalm lxxviii4 #gj 7comp4 #a ,sam4 xvi4 #aa74 ,the mythi of the ancient world more generally ascribed divine apparitions to countrymen #cdb and shepherds #cdc2 the sons of the gods1 and of great men were frequently brought up among shepherds4 #cdd ,in the same spirit of the ancient legend is the apocryphal invention that ,jesus was born in a cave1 and we are at once reminded of the cave of ,jupiter and of the other gods2 even though the misunderstood passage of ,isaiah xxxiii4 #af may have been the immediate occasion of this incident4 #cde ,moreover the night1 in which the scene is laid1--7unless one refers here to the rabbinical representations1 according to which1 the deliverance by means of the ,messiah1 like the deliverance from ,egypt1 should take place by night #cdf7--;forms the obscure background against which the manifested glory of the ,lord shone so much the more brilliantly1 which1 as it is said to have glorified the birth of ,moses1 #cdg could not have been absent from that of the ,messiah1 his exalted antitype4 ,the mythical interpretation of this section of the gospel history has found an opponent in ,schleiermacher4 #cdh ,he thinks it improbable that this commencement of the second chapter of ,luke is a continuation of the first1 written by the same author2 because the frequent opportunities of introducing lyrical effusions--as for example1 when the shepherds returned glorifying and praising ,god1 v4 #bj--;are not taken advantage of as in the first chapter2 and here indeed we can in some measure agree with him4 ,but when he adds that a decidedly poetical character cannot be ascribed to this narrative1 since a poetical composition would of necessity have contained more of the lyrical1 this only proves that ,schleiermacher has not justly apprehended the notion of that kind of poetry of which he here treats1 namely1 the poetry of the mythus4 ,in a word1 mythical poetry is objective3 the poetical exists in the substance of the narrative1 and may therefore appear in the plainest form1 free from all the adornments of lyrical effusions2 which latter are rather only the subsequent additions of a more intelligent and artificially elaborated subjective poetry4 #cdi ,undoubtedly this section seems to have been preserved to us more nearly in its original legendary form1 whilst the narratives of the first chapter in ,luke bear rather the stamp of having been re-wrought by some poetical individual2 but historical truth is not on that account to be sought here any more than there4 ,consequently the obligation which ,schleiermacher further imposes upon himself1 to trace out the source of this narrative in the ,gospel of ,luke1 can only be regarded as an exercise of ingenuity4 ,he refuses to recognize that source in ,mary1 though a reference to her might have been found in the observation1 v4 #ai1 she kept all these sayings in her heart2 wherein indeed he is the more right1 since that observation 7a fact to which ,schleiermacher does not advert7 is merely a phrase borrowed from the history of ,jacob and his son ,joseph4 #cej ,for as the narrative in ,genesis relates of ,jacob1 the father of ,joseph1 that child of miracle1 that when the latter told his significant dreams1 and his brethren envied him1 his father observed the saying3 so the narrative in ,luke1 both here and at verse #ea1 relates of ,mary1 that she1 whilst others gave utterance aloud to their admiration at the extraordinary occurrences which happened to her child1 kept all these things and pondered them in her heart4 ,but the above-named theologian points out the shepherds instead of ,mary as the source of our narrative1 alleging that all the details are given1 not from ,mary's point of view1 but from that of the shepherds4 ,more truly however is the point of view that of the legend which supersedes both4 ,if ,schleiermacher finds it impossible to believe that this narrative is an air-bubble conglomerated out of nothing1 he must include under the word nothing the ,jewish and early christian ideas--concerning ,bethlehem1 as the necessary birthplace of the ,messiah2 concerning the condition of the shepherds1 as being peculiarly favoured by communications from heaven2 concerning angels1 as the intermediate agents in such communications--notions we on our side cannot possibly hold in so little estimation1 but we find it easy to conceive that something similar to our narrative might have formed itself out out of them4 ,finally1 when he finds an adventitious or designed invention impossible1 because the ,christians of that district might easily have inquired of ,mary or of the disciples concerning the truth of the matter3 he speaks too nearly the language of the ancient apologists1 and presupposes the ubiquity of these persons1 #cea already alluded to in the ,introduction1 who however could not possibly have been in all places rectifying the tendency to form christian legends1 wherever it manifested itself4 ,the notice of the circumcision of ,jesus 7,luke ii4 #ba71 evidently proceeds from a narrator who had no real advice of the fact1 but who assumed as a certainty that1 according to ,jewish custom1 the ceremony took place on the eighth day1 and who was desirous of commemorating this important event in the life of an ,israelitish boy2 #ceb in like manner as ,paul 7,phil4 iii4 #e7 records his circumcision on the eighth day4 ,the contrast however between the fulness of detail with which this point is elaborated and coloured in the life of the ,baptist1 and the barrenness and brevity with which it is stated in reference to ,jesus1 is striking1 and may justify an agreement with the remark of ,schleiermacher1 that here1 at least the author of the first chapter is no longer the originator4 ,such being the state of the case1 this statement furnishes nothing for our object1 which we might not already have known2 only we have till now had no opportunity of observing1 distinctly1 that the pretended appointment of the name of ,jesus before his birth likewise belongs merely to the mythical dress of the narrative4 ,when it is said his name was called ,jesus1 which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb1 the importance attached to the circumstance is a clear sign1 that a dogmatic interest lies at the bottom of this feature in the narrative2 which interest can be no other than that which gave rise to the statement--in the ,old ,testament concerning an ,isaac and an ,ishmael1 and in the ,new ,testament concerning a ,john--that the names of these children were1 respectively1 revealed to their parents prior to their birth1 and on account of which interest the rabbins1 in particular1 expected that the same thing should occur in relation to the name of the ,messiah4 #cec ,without doubt there were likewise other far more natural reasons which induced the parents of ,jesus to give him this name 7 an abbreviation of 1 72 a name which was very common among his countrymen2 but because this name agreed in a remarkable manner with the path of life subsequently chosen by him as ,messiah and 1 it was not thought possible that this coincidence could have been accidental4 ,besides it seemed more appropriate that the name of the ,messiah should have been determined by divine command than by human arbitration1 and consequently the appointment of the name was ascribed to the same angel who had announced the conception of ,jesus4 #cd4 ,,the ,,magi ,,and ,,their ,,star4 ,,the ,,flight ,,into ,,egypt ,,and ,,the ,,murder ,,of ,,the ,,children ,,in ,,bethlehem4 ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,supranaturalistic ,,view4 ,in the ,gospel of ,matthew also we have a narrative of the ,messiah's entrance into the world2 it differs considerably in detail from that of ,luke1 which we have just examined1 but in the former part of the two accounts there is a general similarity 7,matt4 ii4 #a ff474 ,the object of both narratives is to describe the solemn introduction of the ,messianic infant1 the heralding of his birth undertaken by heaven itself1 and his first reception among men4 #ced ,in both1 attention is called to the new-born ,messiah by a celestial phenomenon2 according to ,luke1 it is an angel clothed in brightness1 according to ,matthew1 it is a star4 ,as the apparitions are different1 so accordingly are the recipients2 the angel addresses simple shepherds2 the star is discovered by eastern magi1 who are able to interpret for themselves the voiceless sign4 ,both parties are directed to ,bethlehem2 the shepherds by the words of the angel1 the magi by the instructions they obtain in ,jerusalem2 and both do homage to the infant2 the poor shepherds by singing hymns of praise1 the magi by costly presents from their native country4 ,but from this point the two narratives begin to diverge widely4 ,in ,luke all proceeds happily2 the shepherds return with gladness in their hearts1 the child experiences no molestation1 he is presented in the temple on the appointed day1 thrives and grows up in tranquillity4 ,in ,matthew1 on the contrary1 affairs take a tragical turn4 ,the inquiry of the wise men in ,jerusalem concerning the new-born ,king of the ,jews1 is the occasion of a murderous decree on the part of ,herod against the children of ,bethlehem1 a danger from which the infant ,jesus is rescued only by a sudden flight into ,egypt1 whence he and his parents do not return to the ,holy ,land till after the death of ,herod4 ,thus we have here a double proclamation of the ,messianic child3 we might1 however1 suppose that the one by the angel1 in ,luke1 would announce the birth of the ,messiah to the immediate neighbourhood2 the other1 by means of the star1 to distant lands4 ,but as1 according to ,matthew1 the birth of ,jesus became known at ,jerusalem1 which was in the immediate vicinity1 by means of the star2 if this representation be historical1 that of ,luke1 according to which the shepherds were the first to spread abroad with praises to ,god 7v4 #ag1 #bj71 that which had been communicated to them as glad tidings for all people 7v4 #aj71 cannot possibly be correct4 ,so1 on the other hand1 if it be true that the birth of ,jesus was made known in the neighbourhood of ,bethlehem as ,luke states1 by an angelic communication to the shepherds1 ,matthew must be in error when he represents the first intelligence of the event as subsequently brought to ,jerusalem 7which is only from two to three hours distant from ,bethlehem7 by the magi4 ,but as we have recognized many indications of the unhistorical character of the announcement by the shepherds given in ,luke1 the ground is left clear for that of ,matthew1 which must be judged of according to its inherent credibility4 ,our narrative commences as if it were an admitted fact1 that astrologers possessed the power of recognizing a star announcing the birth of the ,messiah4 ,that eastern magi should have knowledge of a ,king of the ,jews to whom they owed religious homage might indeed excite our surprise2 but contenting ourselves here with remarking1 that seventy years later an expectation did prevail in the east that a ruler of the world would arise from among the ,jewish people1 #cee we pass on to a yet more weighty difficulty4 ,according to this narrative it appears1 that astrology is right when it asserts that the birth of great men and important revolutions in human affairs are indicated by astral phenomena2 an opinion long since consigned to the region of superstition4 ,it is therefore to be explained1 how this deceptive science could in this solitary instance prove true1 though in no other case are its inferences to be relied on4 ,the most obvious explanation1 from the orthodox point of view1 is an appeal to the supernatural intervention of ,god2 who1 in this particular instance1 in order to bring the distant magi unto ,jesus1 accommodated himself to their astrological notions1 and caused the anticipated star to appear4 ,but the adoption of this expedient involves very serious consequences4 ,for the coincidence of the remarkable sequel with the astrological prognostic could not fail to strengthen the belief1 not only of the magi and their fellow-countrymen1 but also of the ,jews and ,christians who were acquainted with the circumstances1 in the spurious science of astrology1 thereby creating incalculable error and mischief4 ,if therefore it be unadvisable to admit an extraordinary divine intervention1 #cef and if the position that in the ordinary course of nature1 important occurrences on this earth are attended by changes in the heavenly bodies1 be abandoned1 the only remaining explanation lies in the supposition of an accidental coincidence4 ,but to appeal to chance is in fact either to say nothing1 or to renounce the supranaturalistic point of view4 ,but the orthodox view of this account not only sanctions the false science of astrology1 but also confirms the false interpretation of a passage in the prophets4 ,for as the magi1 following their star1 proceed in the right direction1 so the chief priests and scribes of ,jerusalem whom ,herod1 on learning the arrival and object of the magi1 summons before him and questions concerning the birth-place of the ,king of the ,jews1 interpret the passage in ,micah v4 #a as signifying that the ,messiah should be born in ,bethlehem2 and to this signification the event corresponds4 ,now such an application of the above passage can only be made by forcing the words from their true meaning and from all relation with the context1 according to the well-known practice of the rabbins4 ,for independently of the question whether or not under the word 1 in the passage cited1 the ,messiah be intended1 the entire context shows the meaning to be1 not that the expected governor who was to come forth out of ,bethlehem would actually be born in that city1 but only that he would be a descendant of ,david1 whose family sprang from ,bethlehem4 #ceg ,thus allowing the magi to have been lightly directed by means of the rabbinical exegesis of the oracle1 a false interpretation must have hit on the truth1 either by means of divine intervention and accommodation1 or by accident4 ,the judgment pronounced in the case of the star is applicable here also4 ,after receiving the above answer from the ,sanhedrim1 ,herod summons the magi before him1 and his first question concerns the time at which the star appeared 7v4 #g74 ,why did he wish to know this #ceh8 ,the #afth verse tells us1 that he might thereby calculate the age of the ,messianic child1 and thus ascertain up to what age it would be necessary for him to put to death the children of ,bethlehem1 so as not to miss the one announced by the star4 ,but this plan of murdering all the children of ,bethlehem up to a certain age1 that he might destroy the one likely to prove fatal to the interests of his family1 was not conceived by ,herod until after the magi had disappointed his expectation that they would return to ,jerusalem2 a deception which1 if we may judge from his violent anger on account of it 7v4 #af71 ,herod had by no means anticipated4 ,prior to this1 according to v4 #h1 it had been his intention to obtain from the magi1 on their return1 so close a description of the child1 his dwelling and circumstances1 that it would be easy for him to remove his infantine rival without sacrificing any other life4 ,it was not until he had discovered the stratagem of the magi1 that he was obliged to have recourse to the more violent measure for the execution of which it was necessary for him to know the time of the star's appearance4 #cei ,how fortunate for him1 then1 that he had ascertained this time before he had decided on the plan that made the information important2 but how inconceivable that he should make a point which was only indirectly connected with his original project1 the subject of his first and most eager interrogation 7v4 #g76 ,herod1 in the second place1 commissions the magi to acquaint themselves accurately with all that concerns the royal infant1 and to impart their knowledge to him on their return1 that he also may go and tender his homage to the child1 that is1 according to his real meaning1 take sure measures for putting him to death 7v4 #h74 ,such a proceeding on the part of an astute monarch like ,herod has long been held improbable4 #cfj ,even if he hoped to deceive the magi1 while in conference with them1 by adopting this friendly mask1 he must necessarily foresee that others would presently awaken them to the probability that he harboured evil designs against the child1 and thus prevent them from returning according to his injunction4 ,he might conjecture that the parents of the child on hearing of the ominous interest taken in him by the king1 would seek his safety by flight1 and finally1 that those inhabitants of ,bethlehem and its environs who cherished ,messianic expectations1 would not be a little confirmed in them by the arrival of the magi4 ,on all these grounds1 ,herod's only prudent measure would have been either to detain the magi in ,jerusalem1 #cfa and in the meantime by means of secret emissaries to dispatch the child to whom such peculiar hopes were attached1 and who must have been easy of discovery in the little village of ,bethlehem2 or to have given the magi companions who1 so soon as the child was found1 might at once have put an end to his existence4 ,even ,olshausen thinks that these strictures are not groundless1 and his best defence against them is the observation that the histories of all ages present unaccountable instances of forgetfulness--a proof that the course of human events is guided by a supreme hand4 ,when the supernaturalist invokes the supreme hand in the case before us1 he must suppose that ,god himself blinded ,herod to the surest means of attaining his object1 in order to save the ,messianic child from a premature death4 ,but the other side of this divine contrivance is1 that instead of the one child1 many others must die4 ,there would be nothing to object against such a substitution in this particular case1 if it could be proved that there was no other possible mode of rescuing ,jesus from a fate inconsistent with the scheme of human redemption4 ,but if it be once admitted1 that ,god interposed supernaturally to blind the mind of ,herod and to suggest to the magi that they should not return to ,jerusalem1 we are constrained to ask1 why did not ,god in the first instance inspire the magi to shun ,jerusalem and proceed directly to ,bethlehem1 whither ,herod's attention would not then have been so immediately attracted1 and thus the disastrous sequel perhaps have been altogether avoided8 #cfb ,the supranaturalist has no answer to this question but the old-fashioned argument that it was good for the infants to die1 because they were thus freed by transient suffering from much misery1 and more especially from the danger of sinning against ,jesus with the unbelieving ,jews2 whereas now they had the honour of losing their lives for the sake of ,jesus1 and thus of ranking as martyrs1 and so forth4 #cfc ,the magi leave ,jerusalem by night1 the favourite time for travelling in the east4 ,the star1 which they seem to have lost sight of since their departure from home1 again appears and goes before them on the road to ,bethlehem1 until at length it remains stationary over the house that contains the wondrous child and its parents4 ,the way from ,jerusalem to ,bethlehem lies southward2 now the true path of erratic stars is either from west to east1 as that of the planets and of some comets1 or from east to west1 as that of other comets2 the orbits of many comets do indeed tend from north to south1 but the true motion of all these bodies is so greatly surpassed by their apparent motion from east to west produced by the rotation of the earth on its axis1 that it is imperceptible except at considerable intervals4 ,even the diurnal movement of the heavenly bodies1 however1 is less obvious on a short journey than the merely optical one1 arising from the observer's own change of place1 in consequence of which a star that he sees before him seems1 as long as he moves forward1 to pass on in the same direction through infinite space2 it cannot therefore stand still over a particular house and thus induce a traveller to halt there also2 on the contrary1 the traveller himself must halt before the star will appear stationary4 ,the star of the magi could not then be an ordinary1 natural star1 but must have been one created by ,god for that particular exigency1 and impressed by him with a peculiar law of motion and rest4 #cfd ,again1 this could not have been a true star1 moving among the systems of our firmament1 for such an one1 however impelled and arrested1 could never1 according to optical laws1 appear to pause over a particular house4 ,it must therefore have been something lower1 hovering over the earth's surface2 hence some of the ,fathers and apocryphal writers #cfe supposed it to have been an angel1 which1 doubtless1 might fly before the magi in the form of a star1 and take its station at a moderate height above the house of ,mary in ,bethlehem2 more modern theologians have conjectured that the phenomenon was a meteor4 #cff ,both these explanations are opposed to the text of ,matthew3 the former1 because it is out of keeping with the style of our ,gospels to designate anything purely supernatural1 such as an angelic appearance1 by an expression that implies a merely natural object1 as 7a star72 the latter1 because a mere meteor would not last for so long a time as must have elapsed between the departure of the magi from their remote home and their arrival in ,bethlehem4 ,perhaps1 however1 it will be contended that ,god created one meteor for the first monition1 and another for the second4 ,many1 even of the orthodox expositors1 have found these difficulties in relation to the star so pressing1 that they have striven to escape at any cost from the admission that it preceded the magi in their way towards ,bethlehem1 and took its station directly over a particular house4 ,according to ,sskind1 whose explanation has been much approved1 the verb 7went before7 7v4 #i71 which is in the imperfect tense1 does not signify that the star visibly led the magi on their way1 but is equivalent to the pluperfect1 which would imply that the star had been invisibly transferred to the destination of the magi before their arrival1 so that the ,evangelist intends to say3 the star which the magi had seen in the east and subsequently lost sight of1 suddenly made its appearance to them in ,bethlehem above the house they were seeking2 it had therefore preceded them4 #cfg ,but this is a transplantation of rationalistic artifice into the soil of orthodox exegesis4 ,not only the word 1 but the less flexible expression 444 7till it came1 etc47 denotes that the transit of the star was not an already completed phenomenon1 but one brought to pass under the observation of the magi4 ,expositors who persist in denying this must1 to be consistent1 go still farther1 and reduce the entire narrative to the standard of merely natural events4 ,so when ,olshausen admits that the position of a star could not possibly indicate a single house1 that hence the magi must have inquired for the infant's dwelling1 and only with child-like simplicity referred the issue as well as the commencement of their journey to a heavenly guide #cfh2 he deserts his own point of view for that of the rationalists1 and interlines the text with explanatory particulars1 an expedient which he elsewhere justly condemns in ,paulus and others4 ,the magi then enter the house1 offer their adoration to the infant1 and present to him gifts1 the productions of their native country4 ,one might wonder that there is no notice of the astonishment which it must have excited in these men to find1 instead of the expected prince1 a child in quite ordinary1 perhaps indigent circumstances4 #cfi ,it is not fair1 however1 to heighten the contrast by supposing1 according to the common notion1 that the magi discovered the child in a stable lying in the manger2 for this representation is peculiar to ,luke1 and is altogether unknown to ,matthew1 who merely speaks of a house1 1 in which the child was found4 ,then follows 7v4 #aj7 the warning given to the magi in a dream1 concerning which1 as before remarked1 it were only to be wished that it had been vouchsafed earlier1 so as to avert the steps of the magi from ,jerusalem1 and thus perchance prevent the whole subsequent massacre4 ,while ,herod awaits the return of the magi1 ,joseph is admonished by an angelic apparition in a dream to flee with the ,messianic child and its mother into ,egypt for security 7v4 #ac-ae74 ,adopting the evangelist's point of view1 this is not attended with any difficulty2 it is otherwise1 however1 with the prophecy which the above event is said to fulfil1 ,hosea xi4 #a4 ,in this passage the prophet1 speaking in the name of ,jehovah1 says3 ,when ,israel was a child1 then ,i loved him1 and called my son out of ,egypt4 ,we may venture to attribute1 even to the most orthodox expositor1 enough clear-sightedness to perceive that the subject of the first half of the sentence is also the object of the second1 namely the people of ,israel1 who here1 as elsewhere1 7e4g4 ,exod4 iv4 #bb1 ,sirach xxxvi4 #ad71 are collectively called the ,son of ,god1 and whose past deliverance under ,moses out of their ,egyptian bondage is the fact referred to3 that consequently1 the prophet was not contemplating either the ,messiah or his sojourn in ,egypt4 ,nevertheless1 as our evangelist says1 v4 #ae1 that the flight of ,jesus into ,egypt took place expressly that the above words of ,hosea might be fulfilled1 he must have understood them as a prophecy relating to ,christ--must1 therefore1 have misunderstood them4 ,it has been pretended that the passage has a twofold application1 and1 though referring primarily to the ,israelitish people1 is not the less a prophecy relative to ,christ1 because the destiny of ,israel 8after the flesh0 was a type of the destiny of ,jesus4 ,but this convenient method of interpretation is not applicable here1 for the analogy would1 in the present case1 be altogether external and inane1 since the only parallel consists in the bare fact in both instances of a sojourn in ,egypt1 the circumstances under which the ,israelitish people and the child ,jesus sojourned there being altogether diverse4 #cgj ,when the return of the magi has been delayed long enough for ,herod to become aware that they have no intention to keep faith with him1 he decrees the death of all the male children in ,bethlehem and its environs up to the age of two years1 that being1 according to the statements of the magi as to the time of the star's appearance1 the utmost interval that could have elapsed since the birth of the ,messianic child 7#af-ah74 ,this was1 beyond all question1 an act of the blindest fury1 for ,herod might easily have informed himself whether a child who had received rare and costly presents was yet to be found in ,bethlehem3 but even granting it not inconsistent with the disposition of the aged tyrant to the extent that ,schleiermacher supposed1 it were in any case to be expected that so unprecedented and revolting a massacre would be noticed by other historians than ,matthew4 #cga ,but neither ,josephus1 who is very minute in his account of ,herod1 nor the rabbins1 who were assiduous in blackening his memory1 give the slightest hint of this decree4 ,the latter do1 indeed1 connect the flight of ,jesus into ,egypt with a murderous scene1 the author of which1 however1 is not ,herod1 but ,king ,jannus1 and the victims not children1 but rabbins4 #cgb ,their story is evidently founded on a confusion of the occurrence gathered from the christian history1 with an earlier event2 for ,alexander ,jannus died #dj years before the birth of ,christ4 ,macrobius1 who lived in the fourth century1 is the only author who notices the slaughter of the infants1 and he introduces it obliquely in a passage which loses all credit by confounding the execution of ,antipater1 who was so far from a child that he complained of his grey hairs1 #cgc with the murder of the infants1 renowned among the ,christians4 #cgd ,commentators have attempted to diminish our surprise at the remarkable silence in question1 by reminding us that the number of children of the given age in the petty village of ,bethlehem1 must have been small1 and by remarking that among the numerous deeds of cruelty by which the life of ,herod was stained1 this one would be lost sight of as a drop in the ocean4 #cge ,but in these observations the specific atrocity of murdering innocent children1 however few1 is overlooked2 and it is this that must have prevented the deed1 if really perpetrated1 from being forgotten4 #cgf ,here also the evangelist cites 7v4 #ag1 #ah7 a prophetic passage 7,jerem4 xxxi4 #ae71 as having been fulfilled by the murder of the infants2 whereas it originally referred to something quite different1 namely the transportation of the ,jews to ,babylon1 and had no kind of reference to an event lying in remote futurity4 ,while ,jesus and his parents are in ,egypt1 ,herod the ,great dies1 and ,joseph is instructed by an angel1 who appears to him in a dream1 to return to his native country2 but as ,archelaus1 ,herod's successor in ,juda1 was to be feared1 he has more precise directions in a second oracular dream1 in obedience to which he fixes his abode at ,nazareth in ,galilee1 under the milder government of ,herod ,antipas 7#ai-bc74 ,thus in the compass of this single chapter1 we have five extraordinary interpositions of ,god2 an anomalous star1 and four visions4 ,for the star and the first vision1 we have already remarked1 one miracle might have been substituted1 not only without detriment1 but with advantage2 either the star or the vision might from the beginning have deterred the magi from going to ,jerusalem1 and by this means perhaps have averted the massacre ordained by ,herod4 ,but that the two last visions are not united in one is a mere superfluity2 for the direction to ,joseph to proceed to ,nazareth instead of ,bethlehem1 which is made the object of a special vision1 might just as well have been included in the first4 ,such a disregard1 even to prodigality1 of the lex parsimoni in relation to the miraculous1 one is tempted to refer to human imagination rather than to divine providence4 ,the false interpretations of ,old ,testament passages in this chapter are crowned by the last verse1 where it is said that by the settlement of the parents of ,jesus at ,nazareth was fulfilled the saying of the prophets3 ,he shall be called a ,nazarene4 ,now this passage is not to be found in the ,old ,testament1 and unless expositors1 losing courage1 take refuge in darkness by supposing that it is extracted from a canonical #cgg or apocryphal #cgh book now lost1 they must admit the conditional validity of one or other of the following charges against the evangelist4 ,if1 as it has been alleged1 he intended to compress the ,old ,testament prophecies that the ,messiah would be despised1 into the oracular sentence1 ,he shall be called a ,nazarene1 i4e4 the citizen of a despised city1 #cgi we must accuse him of the most arbitrary mode of expression2 or1 if he be supposed to give a modification of 7nasir7 we must tax him with the most violent transformation of the word and the grossest perversion of its meaning1 for even if1 contrary to the fact1 this epithet were applied to the ,messiah in the ,old ,testament1 it could only mean either that he would be a ,nazarite1 #chj which ,jesus never was1 or that he would be crowned1 #cha as ,joseph1 ,gen4 xlix4 #bf1 in no case that he would be brought up in the petty town of ,nazareth4 ,the most probable interpretation of this passage1 and that which has the sanction of the ,jewish ,christians questioned on the subject by ,jerome1 is1 that the evangelist here alludes to ,isa4 xi4 #a1 where the ,messiah is called 7surculus ,jesse7 as elsewhere 4 #chb ,but in every case there is the same violence done to the word by attaching to a mere appellative of the ,messiah1 an entirely fictitious relation to the name of the city of ,nazareth4 #ce4 ,,attempts ,,at ,a ,,natural ,,explanation ,,of ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,magi4 ,,transition ,,to ,,the ,,mythical ,,explanation4 ,to avoid the many difficulties which beset us at every step in interpreting this chapter after the manner of the supranaturalists1 it is quite worth our while to seek for another exposition which may suffice to explain the whole according to physical and psychological laws1 without any admixture of supernaturalism4 ,such an exposition has been the most successfully attempted by ,paulus4 ,how could heathen magi1 in a remote country of the east1 know anything of a ,jewish king about to be born8 ,this is the first difficulty1 and it is removed on the above system of interpretation by supposing that the magi were expatriated ,jews4 ,but this1 apparently1 is not the idea of the evangelist4 ,for the question which he puts into the mouth of the magi1 8,where is he that is born ,king of the ,jews80 distinguishes them from that people1 and as regards the tendency of the entire narrative1 the church seems to have apprehended it more correctly than ,paulus thinks1 in representing the visit of the magi as the first manifestation of ,christ to the ,gentiles4 ,nevertheless1 as we have above remarked1 this difficulty may be cleared away without having recourse to the supposition of ,paulus4 ,further1 according to the natural explanation1 the real object of the journey of these men was not to see the new-born king1 nor was its cause the star which they had observed in the east2 but they happened to be travelling to ,jerusalem perhaps with mercantile views1 and hearing far and wide in the land of a new-born king1 a celestial phenomenon which they had recently observed occurred to their remembrance1 and they earnestly desired to see the child in question4 ,by this means1 it is true1 the difficulty arising from the sanction given to astrology by the usual conception of the story is diminished1 but only at the expense of unprejudiced interpretation4 ,for even if it were admissible unceremoniously to transform magi into merchants1 their purpose in this journey cannot have been a commercial one1 for their first inquiry on arriving at ,jerusalem is after the new-born king1 and they forthwith mention a star1 seen by them in the east1 as the cause not only of their question1 but also of their present journey1 the object of which they aver to be the presentation of their homage to the new-born child 7v4 #b74 ,the 7star7 becomes1 on this method of interpretation1 a natural meteor1 or a comet1 #chc or finally1 a constellation1 that is1 a conjunction of planets4 #chd ,the last idea was put forth by ,kepler1 and has been approved by several astronomers and theologians4 ,is it more easy1 on any one of these suppositions1 to conceive that the star could precede the magi on their way1 and remain stationary over a particular house1 according to the representation of the text8 ,we have already examined the two first hypotheses2 if we adopt the third1 we must either suppose the verb 7v4 #i7 to signify the disjunction of the planets1 previously in apparent union1 #che though the text does not imply a partition but a forward movement of the entire phenomenon2 or we must call ,sskind's pluperfect to our aid1 and imagine that the constellation1 which the magi could no longer see in the valley between ,jerusalem and ,bethlehem1 again burst on their view over the place where the child dwelt4 #chf ,for the expression1 7v4 #i71 denotes merely the place of abode1 not the particular dwelling of the child and his parents4 ,this we grant2 but when the evangelist proceeds thus3 1 7v4 #i71 he gives the more general expression the precise meaning of dwelling-house1 so that this explanation is clearly a vain effort to abate the marvellousness of the evangelical narrative4 ,the most remarkable supposition adopted by those who regard as a conjunction of planets1 is that they hereby obtain a fixed point in accredited history1 to which the narrative of ,matthew may be attached4 ,according to ,kepler's calculation1 corrected by ,ideler1 there occurred1 three years before the death of ,herod1 in the year of ,rome #gdg1 a conjunction of ,jupiter and ,saturn in the sign ,pisces4 ,the conjunction of these planets is repeated in the above sign1 to which astrologers attribute a special relation to ,palestine1 about every #hjj years1 and according to the computation of the ,jew ,abarbanel 7#adfc7 it took place three years before the birth of ,moses2 hence it is probable enough that the hope of the second great deliverer of the nation would be associated with the recurrence of this conjunction in the time of ,herod1 and that when the phenomenon was actually observed1 it would occasion inquiry on the part of ,babylonian ,jews4 ,but that the star mentioned by ,matthew was this particular planetary conjunction1 is1 from our uncertainty as to the year of ,christ's birth1 and also as to the period of the above astrological calculation1 an extremely precarious conjecture2 and as1 besides1 there are certain particulars in the evangelical text1 for instance1 the words and 1 which do not accord with such an explanation1--so soon as another1 more congruous with ,matthew's narrative1 presents itself1 we are justified in giving it the preference4 ,the difficulties connected with the erroneous interpretations of passages from the ,old ,testament are1 from the natural point of view1 eluded by denying that the writers of the ,new ,testament are responsible for the falsity of these interpretations4 ,it is said that the prophecy of ,micah is applied to the ,messiah and his birth in ,bethlehem by the ,sanhedrim alone1 and that ,matthew has not committed himself to their interpretation by one word of approval4 ,but when the evangelist proceeds to narrate how the issue corresponded with the interpretation1 he sanctions it by the authoritative seal of fact4 ,in relation to the passage from ,hosea1 ,paulus and ,steudel #chg concur in resorting to a singular expedient4 ,matthew1 say they1 wished to guard against the offence which it might possibly give to the ,jews of ,palestine to learn that the ,messiah had once left the ,holy ,land2 he therefore called attention to the fact that ,israel1 in one sense the first-born of ,god1 had been called out of ,egypt1 for which reason1 he would imply1 no one ought to be astonished that the ,messiah1 the son of ,god in a higher sense1 had also visited a profane land4 ,but throughout the passage there is no trace #chh of such a negative1 precautionary intention on the part of the evangelist in adducing this prophecy3 on the contrary1 all his quotations seem to have the positive object to confirm the ,messiahship of ,jesus by showing that in him the ,old ,testament prophecies had their fulfilment4 ,it has been attempted with reference to the two other prophecies cited in this chapter1 to reduce the signification of the verb 7to be fulfilled7 to that of mere similitude or applicability2 but the futility of the effort needs no exposure4 ,the various directions conveyed to the persons of our narrative by means of visions are1 from the same point of view1 all explained psychologically1 as effects of waking inquiries and reflections4 ,this appears1 indeed1 to be indicated by the text itself1 v4 #bb1 according to which ,joseph1 hearing that ,archelaus was master of ,judea1 feared to go thither1 and not until then did he receive an intimation from a higher source in a dream4 ,nevertheless1 on a closer examination we find that the communication given in the dream was something new1 not a mere repetition of intelligence received in waking moments4 ,only the negative conclusion1 that on account of ,archelaus it was not advisable to settle at ,bethlehem1 was attained by ,joseph when awake2 the positive injunction to proceed to ,nazareth was superadded in his dream4 ,to explain the other visions in the above way is a direct interpolation of the text1 for this represents both the hostility and death of ,herod as being first made known to ,joseph by dreams2 in like manner1 the magi have no distrust of ,herod until a dream warns them against his treachery4 ,thus1 on the one hand1 the sense of the narrative in ,matt4 ii4 is opposed to the conception of its occurrence as natural2 on the other hand1 this narrative1 taken in its original sense1 carries the supernatural into the extravagant1 the improbable into the impossible4 ,we are therefore led to doubt the historical character of the narrative1 and to conjecture that we have before us something mythical4 ,the first propounders of this opinion were so unsuccessful in its illustration1 that they never liberated themselves from the sphere of the natural interpretation1 which they sought to transcend4 ,arabian merchants 7thinks ,krug1 for example7 coming by chance to ,bethlehem1 met with the parents of ,jesus1 and learning that they were strangers in distress 7according to ,matthew1 the parents of ,jesus were not strangers in ,bethlehem71 made them presents1 uttered many good wishes for their child1 and pursued their journey4 ,when subsequently1 ,jesus was reputed to be the ,messiah1 the incident was remembered and embellished with a star1 visions1 and believing homage4 ,to these were added the flight into ,egypt and the infanticide2 the latter1 because the above incident was supposed to have had some effect on ,herod1 who1 on other grounds than those alleged in the text1 had caused some families in ,bethlehem to be put to death2 the former1 probably because ,jesus had1 with some unknown object1 actually visited ,egypt at a later period4 #chi ,in this1 as in the purely naturalistic interpretation1 there remain as so many garb1 the arrival of some oriental travellers1 the flight into ,egypt1 and the massacre in ,bethlehem2 divested1 however1 of the marvellous garb with which they are enveloped in the evangelical narrative4 ,in this unadorned form1 these occurrences are held to be intelligible and such as might very probably happen1 but in point of fact they are more incomprehensible even than when viewed through the medium of orthodoxy1 for with their supernatural embellishments vanishes the entire basis on which they rest4 ,matthew's narrative adequately accounts for the relations between the men of the east and the parents of ,jesus2 this attempt at mythical exposition reduces them to a wonderful chance4 ,the massacre at ,bethlehem has1 in the evangelical narrative1 a definite cause2 here1 we are at a loss to understand how ,herod came to ordain such an enormity2 so1 the journey into ,egypt1 which had so urgent a motive according to ,matthew1 is on this scheme of interpretation totally inexplicable4 ,it may indeed be said3 these events had their adequate causes in accordance with the regular course of things1 but ,matthew has withheld this natural sequence and given a miraculous one in its stead4 ,but if the writer or legend be capable of environing occurrences with fictitious motives and accessory circumstances1 either the one or the other is also capable of fabricating the occurrences themselves1 and this fabrication is the more probable1 the more clearly we can show that the legend had an interest in depicting such occurrences1 though they had never actually taken place4 ,this argument is equally valid against the attempt1 lately made from the supranaturalistic point of view1 to separate the true from the false in the evangelical narrative4 ,in a narrative like this1 says ,neander1 we must carefully distinguish the kernel from the shell1 the main fact from immaterial circumstances1 and not demand the same degree of certitude for all its particulars4 ,that the magi by their astrological researches were led to anticipate the birth of a ,saviour in ,judea1 and hence journeyed to ,jerusalem that they might offer him their homage is1 according to him1 the only essential and certain part of the narrative4 ,but how1 when arrived in ,jerusalem1 did they learn that the child was to be born in ,bethlehem8 ,from ,herod1 or by some other means8 ,on this point ,neander is not equally willing to guarantee the veracity of ,matthew's statements1 and he regards it as unessential4 ,the magi1 he continues1 in so inconsiderable a place as ,bethlehem1 might be guided to the child's dwelling by many providential arrangements in the ordinary course of events2 for example1 by meeting with the shepherds or other devout persons who had participated in the great event4 ,when however they had once entered the house1 they might represent the circumstances in the astrological guise with which their minds were the most familiar4 ,neander awards an historical character to the flight into ,egypt and the infanticide4 #cij ,by this explanation of the narrative1 only its heaviest difficulty1 namely1 that the star preceded the magi on their way and paused above a single house1 is in reality thrown overboard2 the other difficulties remain4 ,but ,neander has renounced unlimited confidence in the veracity of the evangelist1 and admitted that a part of his narrative is unhistorical4 ,if it be asked how far this unhistorical portion extends1 and what is its kind--whether the nucleus around which legend has deposited its crystallizations be historical or ideal--it is easy to show that the few and vague data which a less lenient criticism than that of ,neander can admit as historical1 are far less adapted to give birth to our narrative1 than the very precise circle of ideas and types which we are about to exhibit4 #cf4 ,,the ,,purely ,,mythical ,,explanation ,,of ,,the ,,narrative ,,concerning ,,the ,,magi1 ,,and ,,of ,,the ,,events ,,with ,,which ,,it ,,is ,,connected4 ,several ,fathers of the ,church indicated the true key to the narrative concerning the magi when1 in order to explain from what source those heathen astrologers could gather any knowledge of a ,messianic star1 they put forth the conjecture that this knowledge might have been drawn from the prophecies of the heathen ,balaam1 recorded in the ,book of ,numbers4 #cia ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt justly considers it a deficiency in the exposition of ,paulus1 that it takes no notice of the ,jewish expectation that a star would become visible at the appearance of the ,messiah2 and yet1 he adds1 this is the only thread to guide us to the true origin of this narrative4 #cib ,the prophecy of ,balaam 7,num4 xxiv4 #ag71 ,a star shall come out of ,jacob1 was the cause--not indeed1 as the ,fathers supposed1 that magi actually recognized a newly-kindled star as that of the ,messiah1 and hence journeyed to ,jerusalem--but that legend represented a star to have appeared at the birth of ,jesus1 and to have been recognized by astrologers as the star of the ,messiah4 ,the prophecy attributed to ,balaam originally referred to some fortunate and victorious ruler of ,israel2 but it seems to have early received a ,messianic interpretation4 ,even if the translation in the ,targum of ,onkelos1 surget rex ex ,jacobo et ,messias 7unctus7 ungetur ex ,israele1 prove nothing1 because here the word unctus is synonymous with rex1 and might signify an ordinary king--it is yet worthy of notice that1 according to the testimony of ,aben ,ezra1 #cic and the passages cited by ,wetstein and ,schttgen1 many rabbins applied the prophecy to the ,messiah4 ,the name ,bar-,cocheba 7son of a star71 assumed by a noted pseudo-,messiah under ,hadrian1 was chosen with reference to the ,messianic interpretation of ,balaam's prophecy4 ,it is true that the passage in question1 taken in its original sense1 does not speak of a real star1 but merely compares to a star the future prince of ,israel1 and this is the interpretation given to it in the ,targum above quoted4 ,but the growing belief in astrology1 according to which every important event was signalized by sidereal changes1 soon caused the prophecy of ,balaam to be understood no longer figuratively1 but literally1 as referring to a star which was to appear contemporaneously with the ,messiah4 ,we have various proofs that a belief in astrology was prevalent in the time of ,jesus4 ,the future greatness of ,mithridates was thought to be prognosticated by the appearance of a comet in the year of his birth1 and in that of his accession to the throne #cid2 and a comet observed shortly after the death of ,julius ,csar1 was supposed to have a close relation to that event4 #cie ,these ideas were not without influence on the ,jews2 at least we find traces of them in ,jewish writings of a later period1 in which it is said that a remarkable star appeared at the birth of ,abraham4 #cif ,when such ideas were afloat1 it was easy to imagine that the birth of the ,messiah must be announced by a star1 especially as1 according to the common interpretation of ,balaam's prophecy1 a star was there made the symbol of the ,messiah4 ,it is certain that the ,jewish mind effected this combination2 for it is a rabbinical idea that at the time of the ,messiah's birth1 a star will appear in the east and remain for a long time visible4 #cig ,the narrative of ,matthew is allied to this simpler ,jewish idea2 the apocryphal descriptions of the star that announced the birth of ,jesus1 to the extravagant fictions about the star said to have appeared in the time of ,abraham4 #cih ,we may therefore state the opinion of ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt1 #cii recently approved by ,fritzsche and ,de ,wette1 as the nearest approach to truth on the subject of ,matthew's star in the east4 ,in the time of ,jesus it was the general belief that stars were always the forerunners of great events2 hence the ,jews of that period thought that the birth of the ,messiah would necessarily be announced by a star1 and this supposition had a specific sanction in ,num4 xxiv4 #ag4 ,the early converted ,jewish ,christians could confirm their faith in ,jesus1 and justify it in the eyes of others1 only by labouring to prove that in him were realized all the attributes lent to the ,messiah by the ,jewish notions of their age--a proposition that might be urged the more inoffensively and with the less chance of refutation1 the more remote lay the age of ,jesus1 and the more completely the history of his childhood was shrouded in darkness4 ,hence it soon ceased to be matter of doubt that the anticipated appearance of a star was really coincident with the birth of ,jesus4 #djj ,this being once presupposed1 it followed as a matter of course that the observers of this appearance were eastern magi2 first1 because none could better interpret the sign than astrologers1 and the east was supposed to be the native region of their science2 and secondly1 because it must have seemed fitting that the ,messianic star which had been seen by the spiritual eye of the ancient magus ,balaam1 should1 on its actual appearance be first recognized by the bodily eyes of later magi4 ,this particular1 however1 as well as the journey of the magi into ,judea1 and their costly presents to the child1 bear a relation to other passages in the ,old ,testament4 ,in the description of the happier future1 given in ,isaiah1 chap4 lx41 the prophet foretells that1 at that time1 the most remote people and kings will come to ,jerusalem to worship ,jehovah1 with offerings of gold and incense and all acceptable gifts4 #dja ,if in this passage the messianic times alone are spoken of1 while the ,messiah himself is wanting1 in ,psalm lxxii4 we read of a king who is to be feared as long as the sun and moon endure1 in whose times the righteous shall flourish1 and whom all nations shall call blessed2 this king might easily be regarded as the ,messiah1 and the ,psalm says of him nearly in the words of ,isa4 lx41 that foreign kings shall bring him gold and other presents4 ,to this it may be added1 that the pilgrimage of foreign people to ,jerusalem is connected with a risen light1 #djb which might suggest the star of ,balaam4 ,what was more natural1 when on the one hand was presented ,balaam's messianic star out of ,jacob 7for the observation of which magian astrologers were the best adapted72 on the other1 a light which was to arise on ,jerusalem1 and to which distant nations would come1 bringing gifts--than to combine the two images and to say3 ,in consequence of the star which had risen over ,jerusalem1 astrologers came from a distant land with presents for the ,messiah whom the star announced8 ,but when the imagination once had possession of the star1 and of travellers attracted by it from a distance1 there was an inducement to make the star the immediate guide of their course1 and the torch to light them on their way4 ,this was a favourite idea of antiquity3 according to ,virgil1 a star1 stella facem ducens1 marked out the way of neas from the shores of ,troy to the west #djc2 ,thrasybulus and ,timoleon were led by celestial fires2 and a star was said to have guided ,abraham on his way to ,moriah4 #djd ,besides1 in the prophetic passage itself1 the heavenly light seems to be associated with the pilgrimage of the offerers as the guide of their course2 at all events the originally figurative language of the prophet would probably1 at a later period1 be understood literally1 in accordance with the rabbinical spirit of interpretation4 ,the magi are not conducted by the star directly to ,bethlehem where ,jesus was2 they first proceed to ,jerusalem4 ,one reason for this might be1 that the prophetic passage connects the risen light and the offerers with ,jerusalem2 but the chief reason lies in the fact1 that in ,jerusalem ,herod was to be found2 for what was better adapted to instigate ,herod to his murderous decree1 than the alarming tidings of the magi1 that they had seen the star of the great ,jewish king8 ,to represent a murderous decree as having been directed by ,herod against ,jesus1 was the interest of the primitive christian legend4 ,in all times legend has glorified the infancy of great men by persecutions and attempts on their life2 the greater the danger that hovered over them1 the higher seems their value2 the more unexpectedly their deliverance is wrought1 the more evident is the esteem in which they are held by heaven4 ,hence in the history of the childhood of ,cyrus in ,herodotus1 of ,romulus in ,livy1 #dje and even later of ,augustus in ,suetonius1 #djf we find this trait2 neither has the ,hebrew legend neglected to assign such a distinction to ,moses4 #djg ,one point of analogy between the narrative in ,exod4 i41 ii41 and that in ,matthew1 is that in both cases the murderous decree does not refer specially to the one dangerous child1 but generally to a certain class of children2 in the former1 to all new-born males1 in the latter to all of and under the age of two years4 ,it is true that1 according to the narrative in ,exodus1 the murderous decree is determined on without any reference to ,moses1 of whose birth ,pharaoh is not supposed to have had any presentiment1 and who is therefore only by accident implicated in its consequences4 ,but this representation did not sufficiently mark out ,moses as the object of hostile design to satisfy the spirit of ,hebrew tradition1 and by the time of ,josephus it had been so modified as to resemble more nearly the legends concerning ,cyrus and ,augustus1 and above all the narrative of ,matthew4 ,according to the later legend1 ,pharaoh was incited to issue his murderous decree by a communication from his interpreters of the sacred writings1 who announced to him the birth of an infant destined to succour the ,israelites and humble the ,egyptians4 #djh ,the interpreters of the sacred writings here play the same part as the interpreters of dreams in ,herodotus1 and the astrologers in ,matthew4 ,legend was not content with thus signalizing the infancy of the lawgiver alone--it soon extended the same distinction to the great progenitor of the ,israelitish nation1 ,abraham1 whom it represented as being in peril of his life from the murderous attempt of a jealous tyrant1 immediately after his birth4 ,moses was opposed to ,pharaoh as an enemy and oppressor2 ,abraham held the same position with respect to ,nimrod4 ,this monarch was forewarned by his sages1 whose attention had been excited by a remarkable star1 that ,tharah would have a son from whom a powerful nation would descend4 ,apprehensive of rivalry1 ,nimrod immediately issues a murderous command1 which1 however1 ,abraham happily escapes4 #dji ,what wonder then1 that1 as the great progenitor and the lawgiver of the nation had their ,nimrod and ,pharaoh1 a corresponding persecutor was found for the restorer of the nation1 the ,messiah1 in the person of ,herod2--that this tyrant was said to have been apprised of the ,messiah's birth by wise men1 and to have laid snares against his life1 from which1 however1 he happily escapes8 ,the apocryphal legend1 indeed1 has introduced an imitation of this trait1 after its own style1 into the history of the ,forerunner2 he1 too1 is endangered by ,herod's decree1 a mountain is miraculously cleft asunder to receive him and his mother1 but his father refusing to point out the boy's hiding place1 is put to death4 #daj ,jesus escapes from the hostile attempts of ,herod by other means than those by which ,moses1 according to the mosaic history1 and ,abraham1 according to the ,jewish legend1 elude the decree issued against them2 namely1 by a flight out of his native land into ,egypt4 ,in the life of ,moses also there occurs a flight into a foreign land2 not1 however1 during his childhood1 but after he had slain the ,egyptian1 when1 fearing the vengeance of ,pharaoh1 he takes refuge in ,midian 7,exod4 ii4 #ae74 ,that reference was made to this flight of the first ,gol in that of the second1 our text expressly shows1 for the words1 which it attributes to the angel1 who encourages ,joseph to return out of ,egypt into ,palestine1 are those by which ,moses is induced to return out of ,midian into ,egypt4 #daa ,the choice of ,egypt as a place of refuge for ,jesus1 may be explained in the simplest manner3 the young ,messiah could not1 like ,moses1 flee out of ,egypt2 hence1 that his history might not be destitute of so significant a feature as a connexion with ,egypt1 that ancient retreat of the patriarchs1 the relation was reversed1 and he was made to flee into ,egypt1 which1 besides1 from its vicinity1 was the most appropriate asylum for a fugitive from ,judea4 ,the prophetic passage which the evangelist cites from ,hosea xi4 #a1 ,out of ,egypt have ,i called my son--is less available for the elucidation of this particular in our narrative4 ,for the immediate proofs that the ,jews referred this passage to the ,messiah are very uncertain2 #dab though1 if we compare such passages as ,ps4 ii4 #g1 in which the words 7thou art my son7 are interpreted of the ,messiah1 it cannot appear incredible that the expression 7my son7 in ,hosea was supposed to have a messianic signification4 ,against this mythical derivation of the narrative1 two objections have been recently urged4 ,first1 if the history of the star originated in ,balaam's prophecy1 why1 it is asked1 does not ,matthew1 fond as he is of showing the fulfilment of ,old ,testament predictions in the life of ,jesus1 make the slightest allusion to that prophecy8 #dac ,because it was not he who wove this history out of the materials furnished in the ,old ,testament2 he received it1 already fashioned1 from others1 who did not communicate to him its real origin4 ,for the very reason that many narratives were transmitted to him without their appropriate keys1 he sometimes tries false ones2 as in our narrative1 in relation to the ,bethlehem massacre1 he quotes1 under a total misconception of the passage1 ,jeremiah's image of ,rachel weeping for her children4 #dad ,the other objection is this3 how could the communities of ,jewish ,christians1 whence this pretended mythus must have sprung1 ascribe so high an importance to the heathen as is implied in the star of the magi8 #dae ,as if the prophets had not1 in such passages as we have quoted1 already ascribed to them this importance1 which1 in fact1 consists but in their rendering homage and submission to the ,messiah1 a relation that must be allowed to correspond with the ideas of the ,jewish ,christians1 not to speak of the particular conditions on which the heathen were to be admitted into the kingdom of the ,messiah4 ,we must therefore abide by the mythical interpretation of our narrative1 and content ourselves with gathering from it no particular fact in the life of ,jesus1 but only a new proof how strong was the impression of his messiahship left by ,jesus on the minds of his contemporaries1 since even the history of his childhood received a messianic form4 #daf ,let us now revert to the narrative of ,luke1 chap4 ii41 so far as it runs parallel with that of ,matthew4 ,we have seen that the narrative of ,matthew does not allow us to presuppose that of ,luke as a series of prior incidents3 still less can the converse be true1 namely1 that the magi arrived before the shepherds3 it remains then to be asked1 whether the two narratives do not aim to represent the same fact1 though they have given it a different garb8 ,from the older orthodox opinion that the star in ,matthew was an angel1 it was an easy step to identify that apparition with the angel in ,luke1 and to suppose that the angels1 who appeared to the shepherds of ,bethlehem on the night of the birth of ,jesus1 were taken by the distant magi for a star vertical to ,judea1 #dag so that both the accounts might be essentially correct4 ,of late1 only one of the ,evangelists has been supposed to give the true circumstances1 and ,luke has had the preference1 ,matthew's narrative being regarded as an embellished edition4 ,according to this opinion1 the angel clothed in heavenly brightness1 in ,luke1 became a star in the tradition recorded by ,matthew1 the ideas of angels and stars being confounded in the higher ,jewish theology2 the shepherds were exalted into royal magi1 kings being in antiquity called the shepherds of their people4 #dah ,this derivation is too elaborate to be probable1 even were it true1 as it is here assumed1 that ,luke's narrative bears the stamp of historical credibility4 ,as1 however1 we conceive that we have proved the contrary1 and as1 consequently1 we have before us two equally unhistorical narratives1 there is no reason for preferring a forced and unnatural derivation of ,matthew's narrative from that of ,luke1 to the very simple derivation which may be traced through ,old ,testament passages and ,jewish notions4 ,these two descriptions of the introduction of ,jesus into the world1 are1 therefore1 two variations on the same theme1 composed1 however1 quite independently of each other4 #cg4 ,,chronological ,,relation ,,between ,,the ,,visit ,,of ,,the ,,magi1 ,,together ,,with ,,the ,,flight ,,into ,,egypt1 ,,and ,,the ,,presentation ,,in ,,the ,,temple ,,recorded ,,by ,,luke4 ,it has been already remarked1 that the narratives of ,matthew and ,luke above considered at first run tolerably parallel1 but afterwards widely diverge2 for instead of the tragical catastrophe of the massacre and flight1 ,luke has preserved to us the peaceful scene of the presentation of the child ,jesus in the temple4 ,let us for the present shut our eyes to the result of the preceding inquiry--the purely mythical character of ,matthew's narrative--and ask3 ,in what chronological relation could the presentation in the temple stand to the visit of the magi and the flight into ,egypt8 ,of these occurrences the only one that has a precise date is the presentation in the temple1 of which it is said that it took place at the expiration of the period appointed by the law for the purification of a mother1 that is1 according to ,lev4 xii4 #b-d1 forty days after the birth of the child 7,luke ii4 #bb74 ,the time of the other incidents is not fixed with the same exactness2 it is merely said that the magi came to ,jerusalem1 7,matt4 ii4 #a7--;how long after the birth the ,evangelist does not decide4 ,as1 however1 the participle connects the visit of the magi with the birth of the child1 if not immediately1 at least so closely that nothing of importance can be supposed to have intervened1 some expositors have been led to the opinion that the visit ought to be regarded as prior to the presentation in the temple4 #dai ,admitting this arrangement1 we have to reconcile it with one of two alternatives2 either the flight into ,egypt also preceded the presentation in the temple2 or1 while the visit of the magi preceded1 the flight followed that event4 ,if we adopt the latter alternative1 and thrust the presentation in the temple between the visit of the magi and the flight1 we come into collision at once with the text of ,matthew and the mutual relation of the facts4 ,the ,evangelist connects the command to flee into ,egypt with the return of the magi1 by a participial construction 7v4 #ac7 similar to that by which he connects the arrival of the oriental sages with the birth of ,jesus2 hence those1 who in the one instance hold such a construction to be a reason for placing the events which it associates in close succession1 must in the other instance be withheld by it from inserting a third occurrence between the visit and the flight4 ,as regards the mutual relation of the facts1 it can hardly be considered probable1 that at the very point of time in which ,joseph received a divine intimation1 that he was no longer safe in ,bethlehem from the designs of ,herod1 he should be permitted to take a journey to ,jerusalem1 and thus to rush directly into the lion's mouth4 ,at all events1 the strictest precautions must have been enjoined on all who were privy to the presence of the messianic child in ,jerusalem1 lest a rumour of the fact should get abroad4 ,but there is no trace of this solicitous incognito in ,luke's narrative2 on the contrary1 not only does ,simeon call attention to ,jesus in the temple1 unchecked either by the ,holy ,spirit or by the parents1 but ,anna also thinks she is serving the good cause1 by publishing as widely as possible the tidings of the ,messiah's birth 7,luke ii4 #bh ff41 #ch74 ,it is true that she is said to have confined her communications to those who were like-minded with herself 7 71 but this could not hinder them from reaching the ears of the ,herodian party1 for the greater the excitement produced by such news on the minds of those who looked for redemption1 the more would the vigilance of the government be aroused1 so that ,jesus would inevitably fall into the hands of the tyrant who was lying in wait4 ,thus in any case1 they who place the presentation in the temple after the visit of the magi1 must also determine to postpone it until after the return from ,egypt4 ,but even this arrangement clashes with the evangelical statement2 for it requires us to insert1 between the birth of ,jesus and his presentation in the temple1 the following events3 the arrival of the magi1 the flight into ,egypt1 the ,bethlehem massacre1 the death of ,herod1 and the return of the parents of ,jesus out of ,egypt--obviously too much to be included in the space of forty days4 ,it must therefore be supposed that the presentation of the child1 and the first appearance of the mother in the temple1 were procrastinated beyond the time appointed by the law4 ,this expedient1 however1 runs counter to the narrative of ,luke1 who expressly says1 that the visit to the temple took place at the legal time4 ,but in either case the difficulty is the same2 the parents of ,jesus could1 according to ,matthew's account1 as little think of a journey to ,jerusalem after their return from ,egypt1 as immediately previous to their departure thither4 ,for if ,joseph1 on his return from ,egypt1 was warned not to enter ,judea1 because ,archelaus was ,herod's successor in that province1 he would least of all venture to ,jerusalem1 the very seat of the redoubted government4 ,on neither of the above plans1 therefore1 will the presentation in the temple bear to be placed after the visit of the magi1 and the only remaining alternative1 which is embraced by the majority of commentators1 #dbj is to make the incident noticed by ,luke1 precede both those narrated by ,matthew4 ,this is so far the most natural1 that in ,matthew there is at least an indirect intimation of a considerable interval between the birth of ,jesus and the arrival of the magi4 ,for we are told that ,herod's decree included all the children in ,bethlehem up to the age of two years2 we must therefore necessarily infer1 that even if ,herod1 to make sure of his object1 exceeded the term fixed by the magi1 the star had been visible to these astrologers for more than a year4 ,now the narrator seems to suppose the appearance of the star to have been cotemporary with the birth of ,jesus4 ,viewing the narratives in this order1 the parents of ,jesus first journeyed from ,bethlehem1 where the child was born1 to ,jerusalem1 there to present the legal offerings2 they next returned to ,bethlehem1 where 7according to ,matt4 ii4 #a and #e7 they were found by the magi2 then followed the flight into ,egypt1 and after the return from thence1 the settlement at ,nazareth4 ,the first and most urgent question that here suggests itself is this3 ,what had the parents of ,jesus to do a second time in ,bethlehem1 which was not their home1 and where their original business connected with the census must surely have been despatched in the space of forty days8 ,the discussion of this question must be deferred1 but we can find an ample substitute for this argument1 drawn from the nature of the fact1 in one which rests on the words of the evangelical narrative4 ,luke 7v4 #ci7 says1 in the most definite manner1 that after the completion of the legal observance1 the parents of ,jesus returned to ,nazareth1 as to their proper home1 not to ,bethlehem1 which1 according to him1 was merely a temporary residence4 #dba ,if1 then1 the magi arrived after the presentation in the temple1 they must have met with the parents of ,jesus in ,nazareth1 and not in ,bethlehem1 as ,matthew states4 ,moreover1 had the arrival of the magi really been preceded by the presentation in the temple1 together with the attention which must have been excited by the language of ,simeon and ,anna2 it is impossible that at the period of that arrival the birth of the messianic child could have been so much a secret in ,jerusalem1 that the announcement of it by the magi should be1 as ,matthew relates1 a source of general astonishment4 #dbb ,if1 then1 the presentation of ,jesus in the temple can have taken place neither earlier nor later than the visit of the magi and the flight into ,egypt2 and if the flight into ,egypt can have taken place neither earlier nor later than the presentation in the temple2 it is impossible that both these occurrences really happened1 and1 at the very utmost1 only one can be historical4 #dbc ,to escape from this dangerous dilemma1 supranaturalism has lately been induced to take a freer position1 that by the surrender of what is no longer tenable1 the residue may be saved4 ,neander finds himself constrained to admit1 that neither did ,luke know anything of what ,matthew communicates concerning the childhood of ,jesus1 nor did the ,greek editor of ,matthew 7to be distinguished from the apostle7 know anything of the events detailed by ,luke4 ,but1 he contends1 it does not therefore follow that both the different series of incidents cannot have happened4 #dbd ,by giving this turn to the matter1 the difficulties arising from the words of the ,evangelist are certainly avoided2 not so1 the difficulties arising from the nature of the facts4 ,the first ,evangelist ranges in close succession the visit of the magi and the flight into ,egypt1 as though no change of place had intervened2 the author of the third ,gospel represents the parents of ,jesus as returning with the child1 after the presentation in the temple1 directly to ,nazareth4 ,we cannot1 on this ground1 argue from one evangelist against the other2 for it is inadmissible to maintain that certain events never happened1 because they were unknown to a remote narrator4 ,but viewing the two narratives in another light1 we perceive how improbable it is that1 after the scene in the temple1 the birth of the messianic child should be so entirely unknown in ,jerusalem as the conduct of ,herod on the arrival of the magi implies2 how incredible 7reversing the order of the events7 that ,joseph should be permitted to go to ,jerusalem1 with the child which ,herod had just sought to kill2 how inconceivable1 finally1 that the parents of ,jesus should have returned to ,bethlehem after the presentation in the temple 7of which more hereafter74 ,all these difficulties1 lying in the nature of the facts1 difficulties not less weighty than those connected with the words of the ,evangelists1 still subsist in ,neander's explanation1 and prove its inadequacy4 ,thus the dilemma above stated remains1 and were we compelled to choose under it1 we should1 in the present stage of our inquiry1 on no account decide in favour of ,matthew's narrative1 and against that of ,luke2 on the contrary1 as we have recognized the mythical character of the former1 we should have no resource but to adhere1 with our modern critics1 #dbe to the narrative of ,luke1 and surrender that of ,matthew4 ,but is not ,luke's narrative of the same nature as that of ,matthew1 and instead of having to choose between the two1 must we not deny to both an historical character8 ,the answer to this question will be found in the succeeding examination4 #ch4 ,,the ,,presentation ,,of ,,jesus ,,in ,,the ,,temple4 ,the narrative of the presentation of ,jesus in the temple 7,luke ii4 #bb7 seems1 at the first glance1 to bear a thoroughly historical stamp4 ,a double law1 on the one hand1 prescribing to the mother an offering of purification1 on the other1 requiring the redemption of the first-born son1 leads the parents of ,jesus to ,jerusalem and to the temple4 ,here they meet with a devout man1 absorbed in the expectation of the ,messiah1 named ,simeon4 ,many expositors hold this ,simeon to be the same with the ,rabbi ,simeon1 the son of ,hillel1 his successor as president of the ,sanhedrim1 and the father of ,gamaliel2 some even identify him with the ,sameas of ,josephus1 #dbf and attach importance to his pretended descent from ,david1 because this descent makes him a relative of ,jesus1 and helps to explain the following scene naturally2 but this hypothesis is improbable1 for ,luke would hardly have introduced so celebrated a personage by the meagre designation1 1 7a certain man74 #dbg ,without this hypothesis1 however1 the scene between the parents of ,jesus and ,simeon1 as also the part played by ,anna the prophetess1 seems to admit of a very natural explanation4 ,there is no necessity for supposing1 with the author of the ,natural ,history1 #dbh that ,simeon was previously aware of the hope cherished by ,mary that she was about to give birth to the ,messiah2 we need only1 with ,paulus and others1 conceive the facts in the following manner4 ,animated1 like many of that period1 with the hope of the speedy advent of the ,messiah1 ,simeon receives1 probably in a dream1 the assurance that before his death he will be permitted to see the expected deliverer of his nation4 ,one day1 in obedience to an irresistible impulse1 he visited the temple1 and on this very day ,mary brought thither her child1 whose beauty at once attracted his notice2 on learning the child's descent from ,david1 the attention and interest of ,simeon were excited to a degree that induced ,mary to disclose to him the hopes which were reposed on this scion of ancient royalty1 with the extraordinary occurrences by which they had been called into existence4 ,these hopes ,simeon embraced with confidence1 and in enthusiastic language gave utterance to his messianic expectations and forebodings1 under the conviction that they would be fulfilled in this child4 ,still less do we need the supposition of the author of the ,natural ,history with respect to ,anna1 namely1 that she was one of the women who assisted at the birth of the infant ,jesus1 and was thus acquainted beforehand with the marvels and the hopes that had clustered round his cradle2 she had heard the words of ,simeon1 and being animated by the same sentiments1 she gave them her approval4 ,simple as this explanation appears1 it is not less arbitrary than we have already found other specimens of natural interpretation4 ,the evangelist nowhere says1 that the parents of ,jesus had communicated anything concerning their extraordinary hopes to ,simeon1 before he poured forth his inspired words2 on the contrary1 the point of his entire narrative consists in the idea that the aged saint had1 by virtue of the spirit with which he was filled1 instantaneously discerned in ,jesus the messianic child1 and the reason why the co-operation of the ,holy ,spirit is insisted on1 is to make it evident how ,simeon was enabled1 without any previous information1 to recognise in ,jesus the promised child1 and at the same time to foretell the course of his destiny4 ,our canonical ,gospel refers ,simeon's recognition of ,jesus to a supernatural principle resident in ,simeon himself2 the ,evangelium infanti arabicum refers it to something objective in the appearance of ,jesus #dbi--;far more in the spirit of the original narrative than the natural interpretation1 for it retains the miraculous element4 ,but1 apart from the general reasons against the credibility of miracles1 the admission of a miracle in this instance is attended with a special difficulty1 because no worthy object for an extraordinary manifestation of divine power is discoverable4 ,for1 that the above occurrence during the infancy of ,jesus served to disseminate and establish in more distant circles the persuasion of his ,messiahship1 there is no indication2 we must therefore1 with the ,evangelist1 limit the object of these supernatural communications to ,simeon and ,anna1 to whose devout hopes was vouchsafed the special reward of having their eyes enlightened to discern the messianic child4 ,but that miracles should be ordained for such occasional and isolated objects1 is not reconcileable with just ideas of divine providence4 ,thus here again we find reason to doubt the historical character of the narrative1 especially as we have found by a previous investigation that it is annexed to narratives purely mythical4 ,simeon's real expressions1 say some commentators1 were probably these3 ,would that ,i might yet behold the new-born ,messiah1 even as ,i now bear this child in my arms6--a simple wish which was transformed ex eventu by tradition1 into the positive enunciations now read in ,luke #dcj4 ,but this explanation is incomplete1 for the reason why such stories became current concerning ,jesus1 must be shown in the relative position of this portion of the evangelical narrative1 and in the interest of the primitive ,christian legend4 ,as to the former1 this scene at the presentation of ,jesus in the temple is obviously parallel with that at the circumcision of the ,baptist1 narrated by the same evangelist2 for on both occasions1 at the inspiration of the ,holy ,spirit1 ,god is praised for the birth of a national deliverer1 and the future destiny of the child is prophetically announced1 in the one case by the father1 in the other by a devout stranger4 ,that this scene is in the former instance connected with the circumcision1 in the latter with the presentation in the temple1 seems to be accidental2 when however the legend had once1 in relation to ,jesus1 so profusely adorned the presentation in the temple1 the circumcision must be left1 as we have above found it1 without embellishment4 ,as to the second spring in the formation of our narrative1 namely1 the interest of the ,christian legend1 it is easy to conceive how this would act4 ,he who1 as a man1 so clearly proved himself to be the ,messiah1 must also1 it was thought1 even as a child have been recognisable in his true character to an eye rendered acute by the ,holy ,spirit2 he who at a later period1 by his powerful words and deeds1 manifested himself to be the ,son of ,god1 must surely1 even before he could speak or move with freedom1 have borne the stamp of divinity4 ,moreover if men1 moved by the ,spirit of ,god1 so early pressed ,jesus with love and reverence in their arms1 then was the spirit that animated him not an impious one1 as his enemies alleged2 and if a holy seer had predicted1 along with the high destiny of ,jesus1 the conflict which he had to undergo1 and the anguish which his fate would cause his mother1 #dca then it was assuredly no chance1 but a divine plan1 that led him into the depths of abasement on the way to his ultimate exaltation4 ,this view of the narrative is thus countenanced positively by the nature of the fact1--and negatively by the difficulties attending any other explanation4 ,one cannot but wonder1 therefore1 how ,schleiermacher can be influenced against it by an observation which did not prevent him from taking a similar view of the history of the ,baptist's birth1 namely1 that the narrative is too natural to have been fabricated #dcb2 and how ,neander can argue against it1 from exaggerated ideas of the more imposing traits which the mythus would have substituted for our narrative4 ,far from allowing a purification for the mother of ,jesus1 and a redemption for himself1 to take place in the ordinary manner1 ,neander thinks the mythus would have depicted an angelic appearance1 intended to deter ,mary or the priest from an observance inconsistent with the dignity of ,jesus4 #dcc ,as though even the ,christianity of ,paul did not maintain that ,christ was born under the law 7,gal4 iv4 #d72 how much more then the ,judaic ,christianity whence these narratives are derived6 ,as though ,jesus himself had not1 agreeably to this view of his position1 submitted to baptism1 and according to the ,evangelist whose narrative is in question1 without any previous expostulation on the part of the ,baptist6 ,of more weight is ,schleiermacher's other observation1 that supposing this narrative to be merely a poetical creation1 its author would scarcely have placed by the side of ,simeon ,anna1 of whom he makes no poetical use1 still less would he have characterized her with minuteness1 after designating his principal personage with comparative negligence4 ,but to represent the dignity of the child ,jesus as being proclaimed by the mouth of two witnesses1 and especially to associate a prophetess with a prophet--this is just the symmetrical grouping that the legend loves4 ,the detailed description of ,anna may have been taken from a real person who1 at the time when our narrative originated1 was yet held in remembrance for her distinguished piety4 ,as to the ,evangelist's omission to assign her any particular speech1 it is to be observed that her office is to spread abroad the glad news1 while that of ,simeon is to welcome ,jesus into the temple3 hence as the part of the prophetess was to be performed behind the scenes1 her precise words could not be given4 ,as in a former instance ,schleiermacher supposes the ,evangelist to have received his history from the lips of the shepherds1 so here he conceives him to have been indebted to ,anna1 of whose person he has so vivid a recollection2 ,neander approves this opinion--not the only straw thrown out by ,schleiermacher1 to which this theologian has clung in the emergencies of modern criticism4 ,at this point also1 where ,luke's narrative leaves ,jesus for a series of years1 there is a concluding sentence on the prosperous growth of the child 7v4 #dj72 a similar sentence occurs at the corresponding period in the life of the ,baptist1 and both recall the analogous form of expression found in the history of ,samson 7,judg4 xiii4 #bd f474 #ci4 ,,retrospect4 ,,difference ,,between ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,as ,,to ,,the ,,original ,,residence ,,of ,,the ,,parents ,,of ,,jesus4 ,in the foregoing examinations we have called in question the historical credibility of the ,gospel narratives concerning the genealogy1 birth1 and childhood of ,jesus1 on two grounds3 first1 because the narratives taken separately contain much that will not bear an historical interpretation2 and secondly1 because the parallel narratives of ,matthew and ,luke exclude each other1 so that it is impossible for both to be true1 and one must necessarily be false2 this imputation however may attach to either1 and consequently to both4 ,one of the contradictions between the two narratives extends from the commencement of the history of the childhood to the point we have now reached2 it has therefore often come in our way1 but we have been unable hitherto to give it our consideration1 because only now that we have completely reviewed the scenes in which it figures1 have we materials enough on which to found a just estimate of its consequences4 ,we refer to the divergency that exists between ,matthew and ,luke1 in relation to the original dwelling-place of the parents of ,jesus4 ,luke1 from the very beginning of his history1 gives ,nazareth as the abode of ,joseph and ,mary2 here the angel seeks ,mary 7i4 #bf72 here we must suppose ,mary's house 81 to be situated 7i4 #ef72 from hence the parents of ,jesus journey to ,bethlehem on account of the census 7ii4 #d73 and hither1 when circumstances permit1 they return as to their own city 7v4 #ci74 ,thus in ,luke1 ,nazareth is evidently the proper residence of the parents of ,jesus1 and they only visit ,bethlehem for a short time1 owing to a casual circumstance4 ,in ,matthew1 it is not stated in the first instance where ,joseph and ,mary resided4 ,according to ii4 #a1 ,jesus was born in ,bethlehem1 and since no extraordinary circumstances are said to have led his parents thither1 it appears as if ,matthew supposed them to have been originally resident in ,bethlehem4 ,here he makes the parents with the child receive the visit of the magi2 then follows the flight into ,egypt1 on returning from which ,joseph is only deterred from again seeking ,judea by a special divine admonition1 which directs him to ,nazareth in ,galilee 7ii4 #bb74 ,this last particular renders certain what had before seemed probable1 namely1 that ,matthew did not with ,luke suppose ,nazareth1 but ,bethlehem1 to have been the original dwelling-place of the parents of ,jesus1 and that he conceived their final settlement at ,nazareth to have been the result of unforeseen circumstances4 ,this contradiction is generally glided over without suspicion4 ,the reason of this lies in the peculiar character of ,matthew's ,gospel1 a character on which a modern writer has built the assertion that this ,evangelist does not contradict ,luke concerning the original residence of the parents of ,jesus1 for he says nothing at all on the subject1 troubling himself as little about topographical as chronological accuracy4 ,he mentions the later abode of ,joseph and ,mary1 and the birth-place of ,jesus1 solely because it was possible to connect with them ,old ,testament prophecies2 as the abode of the parent of ,jesus prior to his birth furnished no opportunity for a similar quotation1 ,matthew has left it entirely unnoticed1 an omission which however1 in his style of narration1 is no proof that he was ignorant of their abode1 or that he supposed it to have been ,bethlehem4 #dcd ,but even admitting that the silence of ,matthew on the earlier residence of the parents of ,jesus in ,nazareth1 and on the peculiar circumstances that caused ,bethlehem to be his birth-place1 proves nothing2 yet the above supposition requires that the exchange of ,bethlehem for ,nazareth should be so represented as to give some intimation1 or at least to leave a possibility1 that we should understand the former to be a merely temporary abode1 and the journey to the latter a return homeward4 ,such an intimation would have been given1 had ,matthew attributed to the angelic vision1 that determined ,joseph's settlement in ,nazareth after his return from ,egypt1 such communications as the following3 ,return now into the land of ,israel and into your native city ,nazareth1 for there is no further need of your presence in ,bethlehem1 since the prophecy that your messianic child should be born in that place is already fulfilled4 ,but as ,matthew is alleged to be generally indifferent about localities1 we will be moderate1 and demand no positive intimation from him1 but simply make the negative requisition1 that he should not absolutely exclude the idea1 that ,nazareth was the original dwelling-place of the parents of ,jesus4 ,this requisition would be met if1 instead of a special cause being assigned for the choice of ,nazareth as a residence1 it had been merely said that the parents of ,jesus returned by divine direction into the land of ,israel and betook themselves to ,nazareth4 ,it would certainly seem abrupt enough1 if without any preamble ,nazareth were all at once named instead of ,bethlehem3 of this our narrator was conscious1 and for this reason he has detailed the causes that led to the change 7ii4 #bb74 ,but instead of doing this1 as we have shown that he must have done if had he1 with ,luke1 known ,nazareth to be the original dwelling-place of the parents of ,jesus1 his account has precisely the opposite bearing1 which undeniably proves that his supposition was the reverse of ,luke's4 ,for when ,matthew represents ,joseph on his return from ,egypt as being prevented from going to ,judea solely by his fear of ,archelaus1 he ascribes to him an inclination to proceed to that province--an inclination which is unaccountable if the affair of the census alone had taken him to ,bethlehem1 and which is only to be explained by the supposition that he had formerly dwelt there4 ,on the other hand as ,matthew makes the danger from ,archelaus 7together with the fulfilment of a prophecy7 the sole cause of the settlement of ,joseph and ,mary at ,nazareth1 he cannot have supposed that this was their original home1 for in that case there would have been an independently decisive cause which would have rendered any other superfluous4 ,thus the difficulty of reconciling ,matthew with ,luke1 in the present instance1 turns upon the impossibility of conceiving how the parents of ,jesus could1 on their return from ,egypt1 have it in contemplation to proceed a second time to ,bethlehem unless this place had formerly been their home4 ,the efforts of commentators have accordingly been chiefly applied to the task of finding other reasons for the existence of such an inclination in ,joseph and ,mary4 ,such efforts are of a very early date4 ,justin ,martyr1 holding by ,luke1 who1 while he decidedly states ,nazareth to be the dwelling-place of the parents of ,jesus1 yet does not represent ,joseph as a complete stranger in ,bethlehem 7for he makes it the place from which he lineally sprang71 seems to suppose that ,nazareth was the dwelling-place and ,bethlehem the birth-place of ,joseph1 #dce and ,credner thinks that this passage of ,justin points out the source1 and presents the reconciliation of the divergent statements of our two ,evangelists4 #dcf ,but it is far from presenting a reconciliation4 ,for as ,nazareth is still supposed to be the place which ,joseph had chosen as his home1 no reason appears why1 on his return from ,egypt1 he should all at once desire to exchange his former residence for his birth-place1 especially as1 according to ,justin himself1 the cause of his former journey to ,bethlehem had not been a plan of settling there1 but simply the census--a cause which1 after the flight1 no longer existed4 ,thus the statement of ,justin leans to the side of ,luke and does not suffice to bring him into harmony with ,matthew4 ,that it was the source of our two evangelical accounts is still less credible2 for how could the narrative of ,matthew1 which mentions neither ,nazareth as a dwelling-place1 nor the census as the cause of a journey to ,bethlehem1 originate in the statement of ,justin1 to which these facts are essential8 ,arguing generally1 where on the one hand1 there are two diverging statements1 on the other1 an insufficient attempt to combine them1 it is certain that the latter is not the parent and the two former its offspring1 but vice vers4 ,moreover1 in this department of attempting reconciliations1 we have already1 in connection with the genealogies1 learned to estimate ,justin or his authorities4 ,a more thorough attempt at reconciliation is made in the ,evangelium de nativitate ,mari1 and has met with much approval from modern theologians4 ,according to this apocryphal book1 the house of ,mary's parents was at ,nazareth1 and although she was brought up in the temple at ,jerusalem and there espoused to ,joseph1 she returned after this occurrence to her parents in ,galilee4 ,joseph1 on the contrary1 was not only born at ,bethlehem1 as ,justin seems to intimate1 but also lived there1 and thither brought home his betrothed4 #dcg ,but this mode of conciliation1 unlike the other1 is favourable to ,matthew and disadvantageous to ,luke4 ,for the census with its attendant circumstances is left out1 and necessarily so1 because if ,joseph were at home in ,bethlehem1 and only went to ,nazareth to fetch his bride1 the census could not be represented as the reason why he returned to ,bethlehem1 for he would have done so in the ordinary course of things1 after a few days' absence4 ,above all1 had ,bethlehem been his home1 he would not on his arrival have sought an inn where there was no room for him1 but would have taken ,mary under his own roof4 ,hence modern expositors who wish to avail themselves of the outlet presented by the apocryphal book1 and yet to save the census of ,luke from rejection1 maintain that ,joseph did indeed dwell1 and carry on his trade1 in ,bethlehem1 but that he possessed no house of his own in that place1 and the census recalling him thither sooner than he had anticipated1 he had not yet provided one4 #dch ,but ,luke makes it appear1 not only that the parents of ,jesus were not yet settled in ,bethlehem1 but that they were not even desirous of settling there2 that1 on the contrary1 it was their intention to depart after the shortest possible stay4 ,this opinion supposes great poverty on the part of ,joseph and ,mary2 ,olshausen1 on the other hand1 prefers enriching them1 for the sake of conciliating the difference in question4 ,he supposes that they had property both in ,bethlehem and ,nazareth1 and could therefore have settled in either place1 but unknown circumstances inclined them1 on their return from ,egypt1 to fix upon ,bethlehem until the divine warning came as a preventive4 ,thus ,olshausen declines particularizing the reason why it appeared desirable to the parents of ,jesus to settle in ,bethlehem2 but ,heydenreich #dci and others have supplied his omission1 by assuming that it must have seemed to them most fitting for him1 who was pre-eminently the ,son of ,david1 to be brought up in ,david's own city4 ,here1 however1 theologians would do well to take for their model the honesty of ,neander1 and to confess with him that of this intention on the part of ,joseph and ,mary to settle at ,bethlehem1 and of the motives which induced them to give up the plan1 ,luke knows nothing1 and that they rest on the authority of ,matthew alone4 ,but what reason does ,matthew present for this alleged change of place8 ,the visit of the magi1 the massacre of the infants1 visions in dreams--events whose evidently unhistorical character quite disqualifies them from serving as proofs of a change of residence on the part of the parents of ,jesus4 ,on the other hand ,neander1 while confessing that the author of the first ,gospel was probably ignorant of the particular circumstances which1 according to ,luke1 led to the journey to ,bethlehem1 and hence took ,bethlehem to be the original residence of the parents of ,jesus1 maintains that there may be an essential agreement between the two accounts though that agreement did not exist in the consciousness of the writers4 #ddj ,but1 once more1 what cause does ,luke assign for the journey to ,bethlehem8 ,the census1 which our previous investigations have shown to be as frail a support for this statement1 as the infanticide and its consequences for that of ,matthew4 ,hence here again it is not possible by admitting the inacquaintance of the one narrator with what the other presents to vindicate the statements of both2 since each has against him1 not only the ignorance of the other1 but the improbability of his own narrative4 ,but we must distinguish more exactly the respective aspects and elements of the two accounts4 ,as1 according to the above observations1 the change of residence on the part of the parents of ,jesus1 is in ,matthew so linked with the unhistorical data of the infanticide and the flight into ,egypt1 that without these every cause for the migration disappears1 we turn to ,luke's account1 which makes the parents of ,jesus resident in the same place1 both after and before the birth of ,jesus4 ,but in ,luke1 the circumstance of ,jesus being born in another place than where his parents dwelt1 is made to depend on an event as unhistorical as the marvels of ,matthew1 namely the census4 ,if this be surrendered1 no motive remains that could induce the parents of ,jesus to take a formidable journey at so critical a period for ,mary1 and in this view of the case ,matthew's representation seems the more probable one1 that ,jesus was born in the home of his parents and not in a strange place4 ,hitherto1 however1 we have only obtained the negative result1 that the evangelical statements1 according to which the parents of ,jesus lived at first in another place than that in which they subsequently settled1 and ,jesus was born elsewhere than in the home of his parents1 are destitute of any guarantee2 we have yet to seek for a positive conclusion by inquiring what was really the place of his birth4 ,on this point we are drawn in two opposite directions4 ,in both ,gospels we find ,bethlehem stated to be the birth-place of ,jesus1 and there is1 as we have seen1 no impediment to our supposing that it was the habitual residence of his parents2 on the other hand1 the two ,gospels again concur in representing ,nazareth as the ultimate dwelling-place of ,joseph and his family1 and it is only an unsupported statement that forbids us to regard it as their original residence1 and consequently as the birth-place of ,jesus4 ,it would be impossible to decide between these contradictory probabilities were both equally strong1 but as soon as the slightest inequality between them is discovered1 we are warranted to form a conclusion4 ,let us first test the opinion1 that the ,galilean city ,nazareth was the final residence of ,jesus4 ,this is not supported barely by the passages immediately under consideration1 in the #bnd chapters of ,matthew and ,luke2--it rests on an uninterrupted series of data drawn from the ,gospels and from the earliest church history4 ,the ,galilean1 the ,nazarene--were the epithets constantly applied to ,jesus4 ,as ,jesus of ,nazareth he was introduced by ,philip to ,nathanael1 whose responsive question was1 ,can any good thing come out of ,nazareth8 ,nazareth is described1 not only as the place where he was brought up1 7,luke iv4 #af f471 but also as his country2 7,matt4 xiii4 #cd1 ,mark vi4 #a74 ,he was known among the populace as ,jesus of ,nazareth 7,luke xviii4 #cg71 and invoked under this name by the demons 7,mark i4 #bd74 ,the inscription on the cross styles him a ,nazarene 7,john xix4 #ai71 and after his resurrection his apostles everywhere proclaimed him as ,jesus of ,nazareth 7,acts ii4 #bb71 and worked miracles in his name 7,acts iii4 #f74 ,his disciples too were long called ,nazarenes1 and it was not until a late period that this name was exclusively applied to a heretical sect4 #dda ,this appellation proves1 if not that ,jesus was born in ,nazareth1 at least that he resided in that place for a considerable time2 and as1 according to a probable tradition 7,luke iv4 #af f4 parall471 ,jesus1 during his public life1 paid but transient visits to ,nazareth1 this prolonged residence must be referred to the earlier part of his life1 which he passed in the bosom of his family4 ,thus his family1 at least his parents1 must have lived in ,nazareth during his childhood2 and if it be admitted that they once dwelt there1 it follows that they dwelt there always1 for we have no historical grounds for supposing a change of residence3 so that this one of the two contradictory propositions has as much certainty as we can expect1 in a fact belonging to so remote and obscure a period4 ,neither does the other proposition1 however1 that ,jesus was born in ,bethlehem1 rest solely on the statement of our ,gospels2 it is sanctioned by an expectation1 originating in a prophetic passage1 that the ,messiah would be born at ,bethlehem 7comp4 with ,matt4 ii4 #e f41 ,john vii4 #db74 ,but this is a dangerous support1 which they who wish to retain as historical the ,gospel statement1 that ,jesus was born in ,bethlehem1 will do well to renounce4 ,for wherever we find a narrative which recounts the accomplishment of a long-expected event1 a strong suspicion must arise1 that the narrative owes its origin solely to the pre-existent belief that that event would be accomplished4 ,but our suspicion is converted into certainty when we find this belief to be groundless2 and this is the case here1 for the alleged issue must have confirmed a false interpretation of a prophetic passage4 ,thus this prophetic evidence of the birth of ,jesus in ,bethlehem1 deprives the historical evidence1 which lies in the #bnd chapters of ,matthew and ,luke1 of its value1 since the latter seems to be built on the former1 and consequently shares its fall4 ,any other voucher for this fact is however sought in vain4 ,nowhere else in the ,new ,testament is the birth of ,jesus at ,bethlehem mentioned2 nowhere does he appear in any relation with his alleged birth-place1 or pay it the honour of a visit1 which he yet does not deny to the unworthy ,nazareth2 nowhere does he appeal to the fact as a concomitant proof of his messiahship1 although he had the most direct inducements to do so1 for many were repelled from him by his ,galilean origin1 and defended their prejudice by referring to the necessity1 that the ,messiah should come out of ,bethlehem1 the city of ,david 7,john vii4 #db74 #ddb ,john does not1 it is true1 say that these objections were uttered in the presence of ,jesus2 #ddc but as1 immediately before1 he had annexed to a discourse of ,jesus a comment of his own1 to the effect that the ,holy ,ghost was not yet given1 so here he might very suitably have added1 in explanation of the doubts expressed by the people1 that they did not yet know that ,jesus was born in ,bethlehem4 ,such an observation will be thought too superficial and trivial for an apostle like ,john3 thus much however must be admitted2 he had occasion repeatedly to mention the popular notion that ,jesus was a native of ,nazareth1 and the consequent prejudice against him2 had he then known otherwise1 he must have added a corrective remark1 if he wished to avoid leaving the false impression1 that he also believed ,jesus to be a ,nazarene4 ,as it is1 we find ,nathanael1 ,john i4 #df1 alleging this objection1 without having his opinion rectified either mediately or immediately1 for he nowhere learns that the good thing did not really come out of ,nazareth1 and the conclusion he is left to draw is1 that even out of ,nazareth something good can come4 ,in general1 if ,jesus were really born in ,bethlehem1 though but fortuitously 7according to ,luke's representation71 it is incomprehensible1 considering the importance of this fact to the article of his messiahship1 that even his own adherents should always call him the ,nazarene1 instead of opposing to this epithet1 pronounced by his opponents with polemical emphasis1 the honourable title of the ,bethlehemite4 ,thus the evangelical statement that ,jesus was born at ,bethlehem is destitute of all valid historical evidence2 nay1 it is contravened by positive historical facts4 ,we have seen reason to conclude that the parents of ,jesus lived at ,nazareth1 not only after the birth of ,jesus1 but also1 as we have no counter evidence1 prior to that event1 and that1 no credible testimony to the contrary existing1 ,jesus was probably not born at any other place than the home of his parents4 ,with this twofold conclusion1 the supposition that ,jesus was born at ,bethlehem is irreconcileable3 it can therefore cost us no further effort to decide that ,jesus was born1 not in ,bethlehem1 but1 as we have no trustworthy indications that point elsewhere1 in all probability at ,nazareth4 ,the relative position of the two evangelists on this point may be thus stated4 ,each of their accounts is partly correct1 and partly incorrect3 ,luke is right in maintaining the identity of the earlier with the later residence of the parents of ,jesus1 and herein ,matthew is wrong2 again1 ,matthew is right in maintaining the identity of the birth-place of ,jesus with the dwelling-place of his parents1 and here the error is on the side of ,luke4 ,further1 ,luke is entirely correct in making the parents of ,jesus reside in ,nazareth before1 as well as after1 the birth of ,jesus1 while ,matthew has only half the truth1 namely1 that they were established there after his birth2 but in the statement that ,jesus was born at ,bethlehem both are decidedly wrong4 ,the source of all the error of their narratives1 is the ,jewish opinion with which they fell in1 that the ,messiah must be born at ,bethlehem2 the source of all their truth1 is the fact which lay before them1 that he always passed for a ,nazarene2 finally1 the cause of the various admixture of the true and the false in both1 and the preponderance of the latter in ,matthew1 is the different position held by the two writers in relation to the above data4 ,two particulars were to be reconciled--the historical fact that ,jesus was universally reputed to be a ,nazarene1 and the prophetic requisition that1 as ,messiah1 he should be born at ,bethlehem4 ,matthew1 or the legend which he followed1 influenced by the ruling tendency to apply the prophecies1 observable in his ,gospel1 effected the desired reconciliation in such a manner1 that the greatest prominence was given to ,bethlehem1 the locality pointed out by the prophet2 this was represented as the original home of the parents of ,jesus1 and ,nazareth merely as a place of refuge1 recommended by a subsequent turn of events4 ,luke1 on the contrary1 more bent on historic detail1 either adopted or created that form of the legend1 which attaches the greatest important to ,nazareth1 making it the original dwelling-place of the parents of ,jesus1 and regarding the sojourn in ,bethlehem as a temporary one1 the consequence of a casual occurrence4 ,such being the state of the case1 no one1 we imagine1 will be inclined either with ,schleiermacher1 #ddd to leave the question concerning the relation of the two narratives to the real facts undecided1 or with ,sieffert1 #dde to pronounce exclusively in favour of ,luke4 #ddf ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,first ,,visit ,,to ,,the ,,temple1 ,,and ,,the ,,education ,,of ,,jesus4 #dj4 ,,jesus1 ,,when ,,twelve ,,years ,,old1 ,,in ,,the ,,temple4 ,the ,gospel of ,matthew passes in silence over the entire period from the return of the parents of ,jesus out of ,egypt1 to the baptism of ,jesus by ,john3 and even ,luke has nothing to tell us of the long interval between the early childhood of ,jesus and his maturity1 beyond a single incident--his demeanour on a visit to the temple in his twelfth year 7ii4 #da-eb74 ,this anecdote1 out of the early youth of ,jesus is1 as ,hess has truly remarked1 #ddg distinguished from the narratives hitherto considered1 belonging to his childhood1 by the circumstance that ,jesus no longer1 as in the latter1 holds a merely passive position1 but presents an active proof of his high destination2 a proof which has always been especially valued1 as indicating the moment in which the consciousness of that destination was kindled in ,jesus4 #ddh ,in his twelfth year1 the period at which1 according to ,jewish usage1 the boy became capable of an independent participation in the sacred rites1 the parents of ,jesus1 as this narrative informs us1 took him for the first time to the ,passover4 ,at the expiration of the feast1 the parents bent their way homewards2 that their son was missing gave them no immediate anxiety1 because they supposed him to be among their travelling companions1 and it was not until after they had accomplished a day's journey1 and in vain sought their son among their kinsfolk and acquaintance1 that they turned back to ,jerusalem to look for him there4 ,this conduct on the part of the parents of ,jesus may with reason excite surprise4 ,it seems inconsistent with the carefulness which it has been thought incumbent on us to attribute to them1 that they should have allowed the divine child entrusted to their keeping1 to remain so long out of their sight2 and hence they have on many sides been accused of neglect and a dereliction of duty1 in the instance before us4 #ddi ,it has been urged1 as a general consideration in vindication of ,joseph and ,mary1 that the greater freedom permitted to the boy is easily conceivable as part of a liberal method of education2 #dej but even according to our modern ideas1 it would seem more than liberal for parents to let a boy of twelve years remain out of their sight during so long an interval as our narrative supposes2 how far less reconcileable must it then be with the more rigid views of education held by the ancients1 not excepting the ,jews8 ,it is remarked however1 that viewing the case as an extraordinary one1 the parents of ,jesus knew their child1 and they could therefore very well confide in his understanding and character1 so far as to be in no fear that any danger would accrue to him from his unusual freedom2 #dea but we can perceive from their subsequent anxiety1 that they were not so entirely at ease on that head4 ,thus their conduct must be admitted to be such as we should not have anticipated2 but it is not consequently incredible nor does it suffice to render the entire narrative improbable1 for the parents of ,jesus are no saints to us1 that we should not impute to them any fault4 ,returned to ,jerusalem1 they find their son on the third day in the temple1 doubtless in one of the outer halls1 in the midst of an assembly of doctors1 engaged in a conversation with them1 and exciting universal astonishment 7v4 #de f474 ,from some indications it would seem that ,jesus held a higher position in the presence of the doctors1 than could belong to a boy of twelve years4 ,the word 7sitting7 has excited scruples1 for according to ,jewish records1 it was not until after the death of the ,rabbi ,gamaliel1 an event long subsequent to the one described in our narrative1 that the pupils of the rabbins sat1 they having previously been required to stand #deb when in the school2 but this ,jewish tradition is of doubtful authority4 #dec ,it has also been thought a difficulty1 that ,jesus does not merely hear the doctors1 but also asks them questions1 thus appearing to assume the position of their teacher4 ,such is indeed the representation of the apocryphal ,gospels1 for in them ,jesus1 before he is twelve years old1 perplexes all the doctors by his questions1 #ded and reveals to his instructor in the alphabet the mystical significance of the characters2 #dee while at the above visit to the temple he proposes controversial questions1 #def such as that touching the ,messiah's being at once ,david's ,son and ,lord 7,matt4 xxii4 #da71 and proceeds to throw light on all departments of knowledge4 #deg ,if the expressions and implied that ,jesus played the part of a teacher in this scene1 so unnatural a feature in the evangelical narrative would render the whole suspicious4 #deh ,but there is nothing to render this interpretation of the words necessary1 for according to ,jewish custom1 rabbinical teaching was of such a kind that not only did the masters interrogate the pupils1 but the pupils interrogated the masters1 when they wished for explanations on any point4 #dei ,we may with the more probability suppose that the writer intended to attribute to ,jesus such questions as suited a boy1 because he1 apparently not without design1 refers the astonishment of the doctors1 not to his questions1 but to that in which he could best show himself in the light of an intelligent pupil--namely1 to his answers4 ,a more formidable difficulty is the statement1 that the boy ,jesus sat in the midst of the doctors1 4 ,for we learn from ,paul 7,acts xxii4 #c7 the position that became a pupil1 when he says that he was brought up at the feet 7 7 of ,gamaliel3 it being the custom for the rabbins to be placed on chairs1 while their pupils sat on the ground1 #dfj and did not take their places among their masters4 ,it has indeed been thought that might be so explained as to signify1 either that ,jesus sat between the doctors1 who are supposed to have been elevated on chairs1 while ,jesus and the other pupils are pictured as sitting on the ground between them1 #dfa or merely that he was in the company of doctors1 that is1 in the synagogue2 #dfb but according to the strict sense of the words1 the expression appears to signify1 if not as ,schttgen believes1 #dfc in majorem ,jesu gloriam1 a place of pre-eminent honour1 at least a position of equal dignity with that occupied by the rest4 ,it need only be asked1 would it harmonize with the spirit of our narrative to substitute for 4 4 48 the answer will certainly be in the negative1 and it will then be inevitable to admit1 that our narrative places ,jesus in another relation to the doctors than that of a learner1 though the latter is the only natural one for a boy of twelve1 however highly gifted4 ,for ,olshausen's position1 #dfd--that in ,jesus nothing was formed from without1 by the instrumentality of another's wisdom1 because this would be inconsistent with the character of the ,messiah1 as absolutely self-determined1--contradicts a dogma of the church which he himself advances1 namely1 that ,jesus in his manifestation as man1 followed the regular course of human development4 ,for not only is it in the nature of this development to be gradual1 but also1 and still more essentially1 to be dependent1 whether it be mental or physical1 on the interchange of reception and influence4 ,to deny this in relation to the physical life of ,jesus--to say1 for example1 that the food which he took did not serve for the nourishment and growth of his body by real assimilation1 but merely furnished occasion for him to reproduce himself from within1 would strike every one as ,docetism2 and is the analogous proposition in relation to his spiritual development1 namely1 that he appropriated nothing from without1 and used what he heard from others merely as a voice to evoke one truth after another from the recesses of his own mind--is this anything else than a more refined ,docetism8 ,truly1 if we attempt to form a conception of the conversation of ,jesus with the doctors in the temple according to this theory1 we make anything but a natural scene of it4 ,it is not to be supposed that he taught1 nor properly speaking that he was taught1 but that the discourse of the doctors merely gave an impetus to his power of teaching himself1 and was the occasion for an ever-brightening light to rise upon him1 especially on the subject of his own destination4 ,but in that case he would certainly have given utterance to his newly acquired knowledge2 so that the position of a teacher on the part of the boy would return upon us1 a position which ,olshausen himself pronounces to be preposterous4 ,at least such an indirect mode of teaching is involved as ,ness subscribes to1 when he supposes that ,jesus1 even thus early1 made the first attempt to combat the prejudices which swayed in the synagogue1 exposing to the doctors1 by means of good-humoured questions and requests for explanation1 such as are willingly permitted to a boy1 the weakness of many of their dogmas4 #dfe ,but even such a position on the part of a boy of twelve1 is inconsistent with the true process of human development1 through which it behoved the ,god-,man himself to pass4 ,discourse of this kind from a boy must1 we grant1 have excited the astonishment of all the hearers2 nevertheless the expression 7v4 #dg71 looks too much like a panegyrical formula4 #dff ,the narrative proceeds to tell us how the mother of ,jesus reproached her son when she had found him thus1 asking him why he had not spared his parents the anguish of their sorrowful search8 ,to this ,jesus returns an answer which forms the point of the entire narrative2 he asks whether they might not have known that he was to be sought nowhere else than in the house of his ,father1 in the temple8 7v4 #dh f47 ,one might be inclined to understand this designation of ,god as generally1 as implying that ,god was the ,father of all men1 and only in this sense the ,father of ,jesus4 ,but this interpretation is forbidden1 not only by the addition of the pronoun 1 the above sense requiring 7as in ,matt4 vi4 #i71 but still more absolutely by the circumstance that the parents of ,jesus did not understand these words 7v4 #ej71 a decided indication that they must have a special meaning1 which can here be no other than the mystery of the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 who as ,messiah1 was in a peculiar sense4 ,but that ,jesus in his twelfth year had already the consciousness of his ,messiahship1 is a position which1 although it may be consistently adopted from the orthodox point of view1 and although it is not opposed to the regular human form of the development of ,jesus1 which even orthodoxy maintains1 we are not here bound to examine4 ,so also the natural explanation1 which retains the above narrative as a history1 though void of the miraculous1 and which accordingly supposes the parents of ,jesus1 owing to a particular combination of circumstances1 to have come even before his birth to a conviction of his ,messiahship1 and to have instilled this conviction into their son from his earliest childhood1--this too may make it plain how ,jesus could be so clear as to his messianic relation to ,god2 but it can only do so by the hypothesis of an unprecedented coincidence of extraordinary accidents4 ,we1 on the contrary1 who have renounced the previous incidents as historical1 either in the supernatural or the natural sense1 are unable to comprehend how the consciousness of his messianic destination could be so early developed in ,jesus4 ,for though the consciousness of a more subjective vocation1 as that of a poet or an artist1 which is dependent solely on the internal gifts of the individual 7gifts which cannot long remain latent71 may possibly be awakened very early2 an objective vocation1 in which the conditions of external reality are a chief co-operator1 as the vocation of the statesman1 the general1 the reformer of a religion1 can hardly be so early evident to the most highly endowed individual1 because for this a knowledge of cotemporary circumstances would be requisite1 which only long observation and mature experience can confer4 ,of the latter kind is the vocation of the ,messiah1 and if this is implied in the words by which ,jesus in his twelfth year justified his lingering in the temple1 he cannot have uttered the words at that period4 ,in another point of view also1 it is worthy of notice that the parents of ,jesus are said 7v4 #ej7 not to have understood the words which he addressed to them4 ,what did these words signify8 ,that ,god was his ,father1 in whose house it behoved him to be4 ,but that her son would in a specific sense be called a had been already made known to ,mary by the annunciating angel 7,luke i4 #cb1 #ce71 and that he would have a peculiar relation to the temple she might infer1 both from the above title1 and from the striking reception which he had met with at his first presentation in the temple1 when yet an infant4 ,the parents of ,jesus1 or at least ,mary1 of whom it is repeatedly noticed that she carefully kept in her heart the extraordinary communications concerning her son1 ought not to have been in the dark a single moment as to the meaning of his language on this occasion4 ,but even at the presentation in the temple1 we are told that the parents of ,jesus marvelled at the discourse of ,simeon 7v4 #cc71 which is merely saying in other words that they did not understand him4 ,and their wonder is not referred to the declaration of ,simeon that their boy would be a cause1 not only of the rising again1 but of the fall of many in ,israel1 and that a sword would pierce through the heart of his mother 7an aspect of his vocation and destiny on which nothing had previously been communicated to the parents of ,jesus1 and at which therefore they might naturally wonder72 for these disclosures are not made by ,simeon until after the wonder of the parents1 which is caused only by ,simeon's expressions of joy at the sight of the ,saviour1 who would be the glory of ,israel1 and a light even to the ,gentiles4 ,and here again there is no intimation that the wonder was excited by the idea that ,jesus would bear this relation to the heathens1 which indeed it could not well be1 since this more extended destination of the ,messiah had been predicted in the ,old ,testament4 ,there remains therefore as a reason for the wonder in question1 merely the fact of the child's ,messiahship1 declared by ,simeon2 a fact which had been long ago announced to them by angels1 and which was acknowledged by ,mary in her song of praise4 ,we have just a parallel difficulty in the present case1 it being as inconceivable that the parents of ,jesus should not understand his allusion to his messianic character1 as that they should wonder at the declaration of it by ,simeon4 ,we must therefore draw this conclusion3 if the parents of ,jesus did not understand these expressions of their son when twelve years old1 those earlier communications cannot have happened2 or1 if the earlier communications really occurred1 the subsequent expressions of ,jesus cannot have remained incomprehensible to them4 ,having done away with those earlier incidents as historical1 we might content ourselves with this later want of comprehension1 were it not fair to mistrust the whole of a narrative whose later portions agree so ill with the preceding4 ,for it is the character1 not of an historical record1 but of a marvellous legend1 to represent its personages as so permanently in a state of wonder1 that they not only at the first appearance of the extraordinary1 but even at the second1 third1 tenth repetition1 when one would expect them to be familiarized with it1 continually are astonished and do not understand--obviously with the view of exalting the more highly the divine impartation by this lasting incomprehensibleness4 ,so1 to draw an example from the later history of ,jesus1 the divine decree of his suffering and death is set forth in all its loftiness in the evangelical narratives by the circumstance1 that even the repeated1 explicit disclosures of ,jesus on this subject1 remain throughout incomprehensible to the disciples2 as here the mystery of the ,messiahship of ,jesus is exalted by the circumstance1 that his parents1 often as it had been announced to them1 at every fresh word on the subject are anew astonished and do not understand4 ,the twofold form of conclusion1 that the mother of ,jesus kept all these sayings in her heart 7v4 #ea71 and that the boy grew in wisdom and stature1 and so forth1 we have already recognised as a favourite form of conclusion and transition in the heroic legend of the ,hebrews2 in particular1 that which relates to the growth of the boy is almost verbally parallel with a passage relating to ,samuel1 as in two former instances similar expressions appeared to have been borrowed from the history of ,samson4 #dfg #da ,,this ,,narrative ,,also ,,mythical4 ,thus here again we must acknowledge the influence of the legend2 but as the main part of the incident is thoroughly natural1 we might in this instance prefer the middle course1 and after disengaging the mythical1 seek to preserve a residue of history4 ,we might suppose that the parents of ,jesus really took their son to ,jerusalem in his early youth1 and that after having lost sight of him 7probably before their departure71 they found him in the temple1 where1 eager for instruction1 he sat at the feet of the rabbins4 ,when called to account1 he declared that his favourite abode was in the house of ,god2 #dfh a sentiment which rejoiced his parents1 and won the approbation of the bystanders4 ,the rest of the story we might suppose to have been added by the aggrandizing legend1 after ,jesus was acknowledged as the ,messiah4 ,here all the difficulties in our narrative1--the idea of the boy sitting in the midst of the doctors1 his claiming ,god as his father in a special sense1 and the departure of the parents without their son1 would be rejected2 but the journey of ,jesus when twelve years old1 the eagerness for knowledge then manifested by him1 and his attachment to the temple1 are retained4 ,to these particulars there is nothing to object negatively1 for they contain nothing improbable in itself2 but their historical truth must become doubtful if we can show1 positively1 a strong interest of the legend1 out of which the entire narrative1 and especially these intrinsically not improbable particulars1 might have arisen4 ,that in the case of great men who in their riper age have been distinguished by mental superiority1 the very first presaging movements of their mind are eagerly gleaned1 and if they are not to be ascertained historically1 are invented under the guidance of probability1 is well known4 ,in the ,hebrew history and legend especially1 we find manifold proofs of this tendency4 ,thus of ,samuel it is said in the old ,testament itself1 that even as a boy he received a divine revelation and the gift of prophecy 7#a ,sam4 iii471 and with respect to ,moses1 on whose boyish years the ,old ,testament narrative is silent1 a subsequent tradition1 followed by ,josephus and ,philo1 had striking proofs to relate of his early development4 ,as in the narrative before us ,jesus shows himself wise beyond his years1 so this tradition attributes a like precocity to ,moses2 #dfi as ,jesus1 turning away from the idle tumult of the city in all the excitement of festival time1 finds his favourite entertainment in the temple among the doctors2 so the boy ,moses was not attracted by childish sports1 but by serious occupation1 and very early it was necessary to give him tutors1 whom1 however1 like ,jesus in his twelfth year1 he quickly surpassed4 #dgj ,according to ,jewish custom and opinion1 the twelfth year formed an epoch in development to which especial proofs of awakening genius were the rather attached1 because in the twelfth year1 as with us in the fourteenth1 the boy was regarded as having outgrown the period of childhood4 #dga ,accordingly it was believed of ,moses that in his twelfth year he left the house of his father1 to become an independent organ of the divine revelations4 #dgb ,the ,old ,testament leaves it uncertain how early the gift of prophecy was imparted to ,samuel1 but he was said by a later tradition to have prophesied from his twelfth year2 #dgc and in like manner the wise judgments of ,solomon and ,daniel 7#a ,kings iii4 #bc ff41 ,susann4 #de ff47 were supposed to have been given when they were only twelve4 #dgd ,if in the case of these ,old ,testament heroes1 the spirit that impelled them manifested itself according to common opinion so early as in their twelfth year1 it was argued that it could not have remained longer concealed in ,jesus2 and if ,samuel and ,daniel showed themselves at that age in their later capacity of divinely inspired seers1 ,solomon in that of a wise ruler1 so ,jesus at the corresponding period in his life must have shown himself in the character to which he subsequently established his claim1 that namely1 of the ,son of ,god and ,teacher of ,mankind4 ,it is1 in fact1 the obvious aim of ,luke to pass over no epoch in the early life of ,jesus without surrounding him with divine radiance1 with significant prognostics of the future2 in this style he treats his birth1 mentions the circumcision at least emphatically1 but above all avails himself of the presentation in the temple4 ,there yet remained according to ,jewish manners one epoch1 the twelfth year1 with the first journey to the passover2 how could he do otherwise than1 following the legend1 adorn this point in the development of ,jesus as we find that he has done in his narrative8 and how could we do otherwise than regard his narrative as a legendary embellishment of this period in the life of ,jesus1 #dge from which we learn nothing of his real development1 #dgf but merely something of the exalted notions which were entertained in the primitive church of the early ripened mind of ,jesus8 ,but how this anecdote can be numbered among mythi is found by some altogether inconceivable4 ,it bears1 thinks ,heydenreich1 #dgg a thoroughly historical character 7this is the very point to be proved71 and the stamp of the highest simplicity 7like every popular legend in its original form72 it contains no tincture of the miraculous1 wherein the primary characteristic of a mythus 7but not of every mythus7 is held to consist2 it is so remote from all embellishment that there is not the slightest detail of the conversation of ,jesus with the doctors 7the legend was satisfied with the dramatic trait1 sitting in the midst of the doctors3 as a dictum1 v4 #di was alone important1 and towards this the narrator hastens without delay72 nay1 even the conversation between ,jesus and his mother is only given in a fragmentary aphoristic manner 7there is no trace of an omission72 finally1 the inventor of a legend would have made ,jesus speak differently to his mother1 instead of putting into his mouth words which might be construed into irreverence and indifference4 ,in this last observation ,heydenreich agrees with ,schleiermacher1 who finds in the behaviour of ,jesus to his mother1 liable as it is to be misinterpreted1 a sure guarantee that the whole history was not invented to supply something remarkable concerning ,jesus1 in connexion with the period at which the holy things of the temple and the law were first opened to him4 #dgh ,in combating the assertion1 that an inventor would scarcely have attributed to ,jesus so much apparent harshness towards his mother1 we need not appeal to the apocryphal ,evangelium ,thom1 which makes the boy ,jesus say to his foster-father ,joseph3 insipientissime fecisti2 #dgi for even in the legend or history of the canonical gospels corresponding traits are to be found4 ,in the narrative of the wedding at ,cana1 we find this rough address to his mother3 7,john ii4 #d72 and in the account of the visit paid to ,jesus by his mother and brethren1 the striking circumstance that he apparently wishes to take no notice of his relatives 7,matt4 xii4 #df74 ,if these are real incidents1 then the legend had an historical precedent to warrant the introduction of a similar feature1 even into the early youth of ,jesus2 if1 on the other hand1 they are only legends1 they are the most vivid proofs that an inducement as not wanting for the invention of such features4 ,where this inducement lay1 it is easy to see4 ,the figure of ,jesus would stand in the higher relief from the obscure background of his contracted family relations1 if it were often seen that his parents were unable to comprehend his elevated mind1 and if even he himself sometimes made them feel his superiority--so far as this could happen without detriment to his filial obedience1 which1 it should be observed1 our narrative expressly preserves4 #db4 ,,on ,,the ,,external ,,life ,,of ,,jesus ,,up ,,to ,,the ,,time ,,of ,,his ,,public ,,appearance4 ,what were the external conditions under which ,jesus lived1 from the scene just considered up to the time of his public appearance8 ,on this subject our canonical gospels give scarcely an indication4 ,first1 as to his place of residence1 all that we learn explicitly is this3 that both at the beginning and at the end of this obscure period he dwelt at ,nazareth4 ,according to ,luke ii4 #ea1 ,jesus when twelve years old returned thither with his parents1 and according to ,matthew iii4 #ac1 ,mark i4 #i1 he1 when thirty years old 7comp4 ,luke iii4 #bc71 came from thence to be baptized by ,john4 ,thus our evangelists appear to suppose1 that ,jesus had in the interim resided in ,galilee1 and1 more particularly1 in ,nazareth4 ,this supposition1 however1 does not exclude journeys1 such as those to the feasts in ,jerusalem4 ,the employment of ,jesus during the years of his boyhood and youth seems1 from an intimation in our gospels1 to have been determined by the trade of his father1 who is there called a 7,matt4 xiii4 #ee74 ,this ,greek word1 used to designate the trade of ,joseph1 is generally understood in the sense of faber lignarius 7carpenter72 #dhj a few only1 on mystical grounds1 discover in it a faber ferrarius 7blacksmith71 aurarius 7goldsmith71 or cmentarius 7mason74 #dha ,the works in wood which he executed are held of different magnitude by different authors3 according to ,justin and the ,evangelium ,thom1 #dhb they were ploughs and yokes1 1 and in that case he would be what we call a wheel-wright2 according to the ,evangelium infanti arabicum1 #dhc they were doors1 milk-vessels1 sieves and coffers1 and once ,joseph makes a throne for the king2 so that here he is represented partly as a cabinet-maker and partly as a cooper4 ,the ,protevangelium ,jacobi1 on the other hand1 makes him work at buildings1 1 #dhd without doubt as a carpenter4 ,in these labours of the father ,jesus appears to have shared1 according to an expression of ,mark1 who makes the ,nazarenes ask concerning ,jesus1 not merely as in the parallel passage of ,matthew3 ,is not this the carpenter's son8 2 but ,is not this the carpenter8 7vi4 #c74 ,it is true that in replying to the taunt of ,celsus that the teacher of the ,christians was a carpenter by trade1 1 ,origen says1 he must have forgotten that in none of the ,gospels received by the churches is ,jesus himself called a carpenter1 4 #dhe ,the above passage in ,mark has1 in fact1 the various reading1 1 which ,origen must have taken1 unless he be supposed altogether to have overlooked the passage1 and which is preferred by some modern critics4 #dhf ,but here ,beza has justly remarked that fortasse mutavit aliquis1 existimans1 hanc artem ,christi majestati parum convenire2 whereas there could hardly be an interest which would render the contrary alteration desirable4 #dhg ,moreover ,fathers of the ,church and apocryphal writings represent ,jesus1 in accordance with the more generally accepted reading1 as following the trade of his father4 ,justin attaches especial importance to the fact that ,jesus made ploughs and yokes or scales1 as symbols of active life and of justice4 #dhh ,in the ,evangelium infanti ,arabicum1 ,jesus goes about with ,joseph to the places where the latter has work1 to help him in such a manner that if ,joseph made anything too long or too short1 ,jesus1 by a touch or by merely stretching out his hand1 gave to the object its right size1 an assistance which was very useful to his foster-father1 because1 as the apocryphal text naively remarks3 nec admodum peritus erat artis fabrilis4 #dhi ,apart from these apocryphal descriptions1 there are many reasons for believing that the above intimation as to the youthful employment of ,jesus is correct4 ,in the first place1 it accords with the ,jewish custom which prescribed even to one destined to a learned career1 or in general to any spiritual occupation1 the acquisition of some handicraft2 thus ,paul1 the pupil of the rabbins1 was also a tent-maker1 7,acts xviii4 #c74 ,next1 as our previous examinations have shown that we know nothing historical of extraordinary expectations and plans on the part of the parents of ,jesus in relation to their son1 so nothing is more natural than the supposition that ,jesus early practised the trade of his father4 ,further1 the ,christians must have had an interest in denying1 rather than inventing1 this opinion as to their ,messiah's youthful occupation1 since it often drew down upon them the ridicule of their opponents4 ,thus ,celsus1 as we have already mentioned1 could not abstain from a reflection on this subject1 for which reason ,origen will know nothing of any designation of ,jesus as a in the ,new ,testament2 and every one knows the scoffing question of ,libanius about the carpenter's son1 a question which seems to have been provided with so striking an answer1 only ex eventu4 #dij ,it may certainly be said in opposition to this1 that the notion of ,jesus having been a carpenter1 seems to be founded on a mere inference from the trade of the father as to the occupation of the son1 whereas the latter was just as likely to apply himself to some other branch of industry2 nay1 that perhaps the whole tradition of the carpentry of ,joseph and ,jesus owes its origin to the symbolical significance exhibited by ,justin4 ,as however the allusion in our ,gospels to the trade of ,joseph is very brief and bare1 and is nowhere used allegorically in the ,new ,testament1 nor entered into more minutely2 it is not to be contested that he was really a carpenter2 but it must remain uncertain whether ,jesus shared in this occupation4 ,what were the circumstances of ,jesus and his parents as to fortune8 ,the answer to this question has been the object of many dissertations4 ,it is evident that the ascription of pressing poverty to ,jesus1 on the part of orthodox theologians1 rested on dogmatical and sthetic grounds4 ,on the one hand1 they wished to maintain even in this point the status exinanitionis1 and on the other1 they wished to depict as strikingly as possible the contrast between the 7form of ,god7 and the 7form of a servant74 ,that this contrast as set forth by ,paul 7,phil4 ii4 #f1 ff471 as well as the expression 1 which this apostle applies to ,christ 7#b ,cor4 viii4 #i7 merely characterizes the obscure and laborious life to which he submitted after his heavenly pre-existence1 and instead of playing the part of king which the ,jewish imagination attributed to the ,messiah1 is also to be regarded as established4 #dia ,the expression of ,jesus himself1 ,the ,son of man hath not where to lay his head1 7,matt4 viii4 #bj71 may possibly import merely his voluntary renunciation of the peaceful enjoyment of fortune1 for the sake of devoting himself to the wandering life of the ,messiah4 ,there is only one other particular bearing on the point in question1 namely1 that ,mary presented1 as an offering of purification1 doves 7,luke ii4 #bd71--;according to ,lev4 xii4 #h1 the offering of the poor3 which certainly proves that the author of this information conceived the parents of ,jesus to have been in by no means brilliant circumstances2 #dib but what shall assure us that he also was not induced to make this representation by unhistorical motives8 ,meanwhile we are just as far from having tenable ground for maintaining the contrary proposition1 namely1 that ,jesus possessed property3 at least it is inadmissible to adduce the coat without seam #dic 7,john xix4 #bc71 until we shall have inquired more closely what kind of relation it has to the subject4 #dc4 ,,the ,,intellectual ,,development ,,of ,,jesus4 ,our information concerning the external life of ,jesus during his youth is very scanty3 but we are almost destitute of any concerning his intellectual development4 ,for the indeterminate phrase1 twice occurring in ,luke's history of the childhood1 concerning the increase of his spiritual strength and his growth in wisdom1 tells us no more than we must necessarily have presupposed without it2 while on the expectations which his parents cherished with respect to him before his birth1 and on the sentiment which his mother especially then expressed1 no conclusion is to be founded1 since those expectations and declarations are themselves unhistorical4 ,the narrative just considered1 of the appearance of ,jesus in the temple at twelve years of age1 rather gives us a result--the early and peculiar development of his religious consciousness1--than an explanation of the causes and conditions by which this development was favoured4 ,but we at least learn from ,luke ii4 #da 7what however is to be of course supposed of pious ,israelites71 that the parents of ,jesus used to go to ,jerusalem every year at the ,passover4 ,we may conjecture1 then1 that ,jesus from his twelfth year generally accompanied them1 and availed himself of this excellent opportunity1 amid the concourse of ,jews and ,jewish proselytes of all countries and all opinions1 to form his mind1 to become acquainted with the condition of his people and the false principles of the ,pharisaic leaders1 and to extend his survey beyond the narrow limits of ,palestine4 #did ,whether or in what degree ,jesus received the learned education of a rabbin1 is also left untold in our canonical ,gospels4 ,from such passages as ,matt4 vii4 #bi1 where it is said that ,jesus taught not as the scribes1 1 we can only infer that he did not adopt the method of the doctors of the law1 and it does not follow that he had never enjoyed the education of a scribe 774 ,on the other hand1 not only was ,jesus called and by his disciples 7,matt4 xxvi4 #be1 #di2 ,mark ix4 #e1 xi4 #ba1 xiv4 #de2 ,john iv4 #ca1 ix4 #b1 xi4 #h1 xx4 #af3 comp4 i4 #ch1 #dj1 #ej71 and by supplicating sufferers 7,mark x4 #e71 but even the pharisaic ,nicodemus 7,john iii4 #b7 did not refuse him this title4 ,we cannot1 however1 conclude from hence that ,jesus had received the scholastic instruction of a rabbin2 #die for the salutation ,rabbi1 as also the privilege of reading in the synagogue 7,luke iv4 #af ff471 a particular which has likewise been appealed to1 belonged not only to graduated rabbins1 but to every teacher who had given actual proof of his qualifications4 #dif ,the enemies of ,jesus explicitly assert1 and he does not contradict them1 that he had never learned letters3 7,john vii4 #ae72 and the ,nazarenes are astonished to find so much wisdom in him1 whence we infer that he had not to their knowledge been a student4 ,these facts cannot be neutralized by the discourse of ,jesus in which he represents himself as the model of a scribe well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven #dig 7,matt4 xiii4 #eb71 for the word here means a doctor of the law in general1 and not directly a doctor qualified in the schools4 ,lastly1 the intimate acquaintance with the doctrinal traditions1 and the abuses of the rabbins1 which ,jesus exhibits1 #dih especially in the sermon on the mount and the anti-pharisaic discourse ,matt4 xxiii4 he might acquire from the numerous discourses of the ,pharisees to the people1 without going through a course of study under them4 ,thus the data on our present subject to be found in the ,gospels1 collectively yield the result that ,jesus did not pass formally through a rabbinical school2 on the other hand1 the consideration that it must have been the interest of the ,christian legend to represent ,jesus as independent of human teachers1 may induce a doubt with respect to these statements in the ,new ,testament1 and a conjecture that ,jesus may not have been so entirely a stranger to the learned culture of his nation4 ,but from the absence of authentic information we can arrive at no decision on this point4 ,various hypotheses1 more or less independent of the intimations given in the ,new ,testament1 have been advanced both in ancient and modern times concerning the intellectual development of ,jesus3 they may be divided into two principal classes1 according to their agreement with the natural or the supernatural view4 ,the supernatural view of the person of ,jesus requires that he should be the only one of his kind1 independent of all external1 human influences1 self-taught or rather taught of ,god2 hence1 not only must its advocates determinedly reject every supposition implying that he borrowed or learned anything1 and consequently place in the most glaring light the difficulties which lay in the way of the natural development of ,jesus2 #dii but1 the more surely to exclude every kind of reception1 they must also be disposed to assign as early an appearance as possible to that spontaneity which we find in ,jesus in his mature age4 ,this spontaneous activity is twofold3 it is theoretical and practical4 ,as regards the theoretical side1 comprising judgment and knowledge1 the effort to give as early a date as possible to its manifestation in ,jesus1 displays itself in the apocryphal passages which have been already partly cited1 and which describe ,jesus as surpassing his teachers long before his twelfth year1 for according to one of them he spoke in his cradle and declared himself to be the ,son of ,god4 #ejj ,the practical side1 too1 of that superior order of spontaneity attributed to ,jesus in his later years1 namely1 the power of working miracles1 is attached by the apocryphal gospels to his earliest childhood and youth4 ,the ,evangelium ,thom opens with the fifth year of ,jesus the story of his miracles1 #eja and the ,arabian ,evangelium ,infanti fills the journey into ,egypt with miracles which the mother of ,jesus performed by means of the swaddling bands of her infant1 and the water in which he was washed4 #ejb ,some of the miracles which according to these apocryphal gospels were wrought by ,jesus when in his infancy and boyhood1 are analogous to those in the ,new ,testament--cures and resuscitations of the dead2 others are totally diverse from the ruling type in the canonical ,gospels--extremely revolting retributive miracles1 by which every one who opposes the boy ,jesus in any matter whatever is smitten with lameness1 or even with death1 or else mere extravagancies1 such as the giving of life to sparrows formed out of mud4 #ejc ,the natural view of the person of ,jesus had an opposite interest1 which was also very early manifested both among ,jewish and heathen opponents of ,christianity1 and which consisted in explaining his appearance conformably to the laws of causality1 by comparing it with prior and contemporaneous facts to which it had a relation1 and thus exhibiting the conditions on which ,jesus depended1 and the sources from which he drew4 ,it is true that in the first centuries of the ,christian era1 the whole region of spirituality being a supernatural one for heathens as well as ,jews1 the reproach that ,jesus owed his wisdom and seemingly miraculous powers1 not to himself or to ,god1 but to a communication from without1 could not usually take the form of an assertion that he had acquired natural skill and wisdom in the ordinary way of instruction from others4 #ejd ,instead of the natural and the human1 the unnatural and the demoniacal were opposed to the divine and the supernatural 7comp4 ,matt xii4 #bd71 and ,jesus was accused of working his miracles by the aid of magic acquired in his youth4 ,this charge was the most easily attached to the journey of his parents with him into ,egypt1 that native land of magic and secret wisdom1 and thus we find it both in ,celsus and in the ,talmud4 ,the former makes a ,jew allege against ,jesus1 amongst other things1 that he had entered into service for wages in ,egypt1 that he had there possessed himself of some magic arts1 and on the strength of these had on his return vaunted himself for a ,god4 #eje ,the ,talmud gives him a member of the ,jewish ,sanhedrim as a teacher1 makes him journey to ,egypt with this companion1 and bring magic charms from thence into ,palestine4 #ejf ,the purely natural explanation of the intellectual development of ,jesus could only become prevalent amid the enlightened culture of modern times4 ,in working out this explanation1 the chief points of difference are the following3 either the character of ,jesus is regarded in too circumscribed a view1 as the result of only one among the means of culture which his times afforded1 or more comprehensively1 as the result of all these combined2 again1 in tracing this external influence1 either the internal gifts and self-determination of ,jesus are adequately considered1 or they are not4 ,in any case1 the basis of the intellectual development of ,jesus was furnished by the sacred writings of his people1 of which the discourses preserved to us in the ,gospels attest his zealous and profound study4 ,his ,messianic ideas seem to have been formed chiefly on ,isaiah and ,daniel3 spiritual religiousness and elevation above the prejudices of ,jewish nationality were impressively shadowed forth in the prophetic writings generally1 together with the ,psalms4 ,next among the influences affecting mental cultivation in the native country of ,jesus1 must be reckoned the three sects under which the spiritual life of his fellow-countrymen may be classified4 ,among these1 the ,pharisees1 whom ,jesus at a later period so strenuously combated1 can apparently have had only a negative influence over him2 yet along with their fondness for tradition and legal pedantry1 their sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy1 by which ,jesus was repelled from them1 we must remember their belief in angels and in immortality1 and their constant admission of a progressive development of the ,jewish religion after ,moses1 which were so many points of union between them and ,jesus4 ,still as these tenets were only peculiar to the ,pharisees in contradistinction to the ,sadducees1 and1 for the rest1 were common to all orthodox ,jews1 we abide by the opinion that the influence of the ,pharisaic sect on the development of ,jesus was essentially negative4 ,in the discourses of ,jesus ,sadduceeism is less controverted1 nay1 he agrees with it in rejecting the ,pharisaic traditions and hypocrisy2 hence a few of the learned have wished to find him a school in this sect4 #ejg ,but the merely negative agreement against the errors of the ,pharisees1--an agreement which1 moreover1 proceeded from quite another principle in ,jesus than in the ,sadducees1--is more than counterbalanced by the contrast which their religious indifference1 their unbelief in immortality and in spiritual existences1 formed with the disposition of ,jesus1 and his manner of viewing the world4 ,that the controversy with the ,sadducees is not prominent in the ,gospels1 may be very simply explained by the fact that their sect had very slight influence on the circle with which ,jesus was immediately connected1 the adherents of ,sadduceeism belonging to the higher ranks alone4 #ejh ,concerning one only of the then existing ,jewish sects can the question seriously arise1 whether we ought not to ascribe to it a positive influence on the development and appearance of ,jesus--the sect1 namely1 of the ,essenes4 #eji ,in the last century the derivation of ,christianity from ,essenism was very much in vogue2 not only ,english deists1 and among the ,germans1 ,bahrdt and ,venturini1 but even theologians1 such as ,studlin1 embraced the idea4 #eaj ,in the days of freemasonry and secret orders1 there was a disposition to transfer their character to primitive ,christianity4 ,the concealment of an ,essene lodge appeared especially adapted to explain the sudden disappearance of ,jesus after the brilliant scenes of his infancy and boyhood1 and again after his restoration to life4 ,besides the forerunner ,john1 the two men on the ,mount of ,transfiguration1 and the angels clothed in white at the grave1 and on the ,mount of ,ascension1 were regarded as members of the ,essene brotherhood1 and many cures of ,jesus and the ,apostles were referred to the medical traditions of the ,essenes4 ,apart1 however1 from these fancies of a bygone age1 there are really some essential characteristics which seem to speak in favour of an intimate relation between ,essenism and ,christianity4 ,the most conspicuous as such are the prohibition of oaths1 and the community of goods3 with the former was connected fidelity1 peaceableness1 obedience to every constituted authority2 with the latter1 contempt of riches1 and the custom of travelling without provisions4 ,these and other features1 such as the sacred meal partaken in common1 the rejection of sanguinary sacrifices and of slavery1 constitute so strong a resemblance between ,essenism and ,christianity1 that even so early a writer as ,eusebius mistook the ,therapeut1 a sect allied to the ,essenes1 for ,christians4 #eaa ,but there are very essential dissimilarities which must not be overlooked4 ,leaving out of consideration the contempt of marriage1 1 since ,josephus ascribes it to a part only of the ,essenes2 the asceticism1 the punctilious observance of the ,sabbath1 the purifications1 and other superstitious usages of this sect1 their retention of the names of the angels1 the mystery which they affected1 and their contracted1 exclusive devotion to their order1 are so foreign1 nay so directly opposed to the spirit of ,jesus1 that1 especially as the ,essenes are nowhere mentioned in the ,new ,testament1 the aid which this sect also contributed to the development of ,jesus1 must be limited to the uncertain influence which might be exercised over him by occasional intercourse with ,essenes4 #eab ,did other elements than such as were merely ,jewish1 or at least confined to ,palestine1 operate upon ,jesus8 ,of the heathens settled in ,galilee of the ,gentiles1 1 there was hardly much to be learned beyond patience under frequent intercourse with them4 ,on the other hand1 at the feasts in ,jerusalem1 not only foreign ,jews1 some of whom1 as for example the ,alexandrian and ,cyrenian ,jews1 had synagogues there 7,acts vi4 #i71 but also devout heathens were to be met with 7,john xii4 #bj72 and that intercourse with these had some influence in extending the intellectual horizon of ,jesus1 and spiritualizing his opinions1 has1 as we have already intimated1 all historical probability4 #eac ,but why do we1 in the absence of certain information1 laboriously seek after uncertain traces of an influence which cotemporary means of development may have exercised on ,jesus8 and yet more1 why1 on the other side1 are these labours so anxiously repudiated8 ,whatever amount of intellectual material may be collected1 the spark by which genius kindles it1 and fuses its various elements into a consistent whole1 is neither easier to explain nor reduced in value4 ,thus it is with ,jesus4 ,allow him to have exhausted the means of development which his age afforded3 a comprehensive faculty of reception is with great men ever the reverse side of their powerful originality2 allow him to have owed far more to ,essenism and ,alexandrianism1 and whatever other schools and tendencies existed1 than we1 in our uncertainty1 are in a condition to prove3--still1 for the reformation of a world these elements were all too little2 the leaven necessary for this he must obtain from the depth of his own mind4 #ead ,but we have not yet spoken of an appearance to which our ,gospels assign a most important influence in developing the activity of ,jesus--that of ,john the ,baptist4 ,as his ministry is first noticed in the ,gospels in connexion with the baptism and public appearance of ,jesus1 our inquiry concerning him1 and his relation to ,jesus1 must open the second part4 ,,second ,,part4 ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,public ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,relations ,,between ,,jesus ,,and ,,john ,,the ,,baptist4 #dd4 ,,chronological ,,relations ,,between ,,john ,,and ,,jesus4 ,for the ministry of ,john the ,baptist1 mentioned in all the ,gospels1 the second and fourth evangelists fix no epoch2 the first gives us an inexact one2 the third1 one apparently precise4 ,according to ,matt4 iii4 #a1 ,john appeared as a preacher of repentance1 in those days1 1 that is1 if we interpret strictly this reference to the previous narrative1 about the time when the parents of ,jesus settled at ,nazareth1 and when ,jesus was yet a child4 ,we are told1 however1 in the context1 that ,jesus came to ,john for baptism2 hence between the first appearance of the ,baptist1 which was cotemporary with the childhood of ,jesus1 and the period at which the latter was baptized1 we must intercalate a number of years1 during which ,jesus might have become sufficiently matured to partake of ,john's baptism4 ,but ,matthew's description of the person and work of the ,baptist is so concise1 the office attributed to him is so little independent1 so entirely subservient to that of ,jesus1 that it was certainly not the intention of the evangelist to assign a long series of years to his single ministry4 ,his meaning incontestably is1 that ,john's short career early attained its goal in the baptism of ,jesus4 ,it being thus inadmissible to suppose between the appearance of ,john and the baptism of ,jesus1 that is1 between verses #ab and #ac of the #crd chapter of ,matthew1 the long interval which is in every case indispensable1 nothing remains but to insert it between the close of the second and the beginning of the third chapter1 namely1 between the settlement of the parents of ,jesus at ,nazareth and the appearance of the ,baptist4 ,to this end we may presume1 with ,paulus1 that ,matthew has here introduced a fragment from a history of the ,baptist1 narrating many particulars of his life immediately preceding his public agency1 and very properly proceeding with the words1 in those days1 1 which connecting phrase ,matthew1 although he omitted that to which it referred1 has nevertheless retained #eae2 or we may1 with ,sskind1 apply the words1 not to the settlement1 but to the subsequent residence of ,jesus at ,nazareth2 #eaf or better still1 1 like the corresponding ,hebrew expression1 e4g41 ,exod4 ii4 #aa1 is probably to be interpreted as relating indeed to the establishment at ,nazareth1 but so that an event happening thirty years afterwards may yet be said1 speaking indefinitely1 to occur in those days4 #eag ,in neither case do we learn from ,matthew concerning the time of ,john's appearance more than the very vague information1 that it took place in the interval between the infancy and manhood of ,jesus4 ,luke determines the date of ,john's appearance by various synchronisms1 placing it in the time of ,pilate's government in ,judea2 in the sovereignty of ,herod 7,antipas71 of ,philip and of ,lysanias over the other divisions of ,palestine2 in the high priesthood of ,annas and ,caiaphas2 and1 moreover1 precisely in the #aeth year of the reign of ,tiberius1 which1 reckoning from the death of ,augustus1 corresponds with the year #bh-bi of our era #eah 7iii4 #a1 #b74 ,with this last and closest demarcation of time all the foregoing less precise ones agree4 ,even that which makes ,annas high priest together with ,caiaphas appears correct1 if we consider the peculiar influence which1 according to ,john xviii4 #ac1 ,acts iv4 #f1 that ex-high priest retained1 even when deposed1 especially after the assumption of office by his son-in-law1 ,caiaphas4 ,a single exception occurs in the statement about ,lysanias1 whom ,luke makes cotemporary with ,antipas and ,philip as tetrarch of ,abilene4 ,josephus1 it is true1 speaks of an 1 and mentions a ,lysanias as governor of ,chalcis in ,lebanon1 near to which lay the territory of ,abila2 so that the same ,lysanias was probably master of the latter4 ,but this ,lysanias was1 at the instigation of ,cleopatra1 put to death #cd years before the birth of ,christ1 and a second ,lysanias is not mentioned either by ,josephus or by any other writer on the period in question4 #eai ,thus1 not only is the time of his government earlier by #fj years than the #aeth year of ,tiberius1 but it is also at issue with the other dates associated with it by ,luke4 ,hence it has been conjectured that ,luke here speaks of a younger ,lysanias1 the descendant of the earlier one1 who possessed ,abilene under ,tiberius1 but who1 being less famous1 is not noticed by ,josephus4 #ebj ,we cannot indeed prove what ,sskind demands for the refutation of this hypothesis1 namely1 that had such a younger ,lysanias existed1 ,josephus must have mentioned him2 yet that he had more than one inducement to do so1 ,paulus has satisfactorily shown4 ,especially1 when in relation to the times of the first and second ,agrippa he designates ,abila1 1 he must have been reminded that he had only treated of the elder ,lysanias1 and not at all of the younger1 from whom1 as the later ruler1 the country must at that time have derived its second appellation4 #eba ,if1 according to this1 the younger ,lysanias is but an historic fiction1 the proposed alternative is but a philological one4 #ebb ,for when it is said in the first place3 -- 1 4441 and when it follows3 3 we cannot possibly understand from this1 that ,philip reigned also over the ,abilene of ,lysanias4 ,for in that case the word ought not to have been repeated1 #ebc and ought to have been placed before ,lysanias1 if the author wished to avoid misconstruction4 ,the conclusion is therefore inevitable that the writer himself erred1 and1 from the circumstance that ,abilene1 even in recent times1 was called1 after the last ruler of the former dynasty1 1 drew the inference that a monarch of that name was still existing2 while1 in fact1 ,abilene either belonged to ,philip1 or was immediately subject to the ,romans4 #ebd ,the above chronological notation relates directly to ,john the ,baptist alone2 a similar one is wanting when ,luke begins farther on 7v4 #ba ff47 to speak of ,jesus4 ,of him it is merely said that he was about thirty years of age1 1 on his public appearance 771 but no date is given2 while1 in the case of ,john1 there is a contrary omission4 ,thus even if ,john commenced his ministry in the #aeth year of ,tiberius1 we cannot thence gather anything as to the time when ,jesus commenced his1 as it is nowhere said how long ,john had been baptizing when ,jesus came to him on the ,jordan2 while1 on the other hand1 although we know that ,jesus1 at his baptism1 was about #cj years old1 this does not help us to ascertain the age of ,john when he entered on his ministry as ,baptist4 ,remembering1 however1 ,luke i4 #bf1 according to which ,john was just half a year older than ,jesus1 and calling to our aid the fact that ,jewish usage would scarcely permit the exercise of public functions before the thirtieth year1 we might infer that the ,baptist could only have appeared half a year before the arrival of ,jesus on the banks of the ,jordan1 since he would only so much earlier have attained the requisite age4 ,but no express law forbade a public appearance previous to the thirtieth year2 and it has been justly questioned whether we can apply to the freer office of a ,prophet a restriction which concerned the ,priests and ,levites1 for whom the thirtieth year was fixed for their entrance on regular service #ebe 7,num4 iv4 #c1 #dg4 ,compare besides #b ,chron4 xxxi4 #ag1 where the #bjth year is named74 ,this then would not hinder us from placing the appearance of ,john considerably prior to that of ,jesus1 even presupposing the averred relation between their ages4 ,hardly1 however1 could this be the intention of the ,evangelist4 ,for to ascertain so carefully the date of the ,forerunner's appearance1 and leave that of the ,messiah himself undetermined1 would be too great an oversight1 #ebf and we cannot but suppose that his design1 in the particulars he gives concerning ,john1 was to fix the time for the appearance of ,jesus4 ,to agree with this purpose1 he must have understood that ,jesus came to the banks of the ,jordan and began to teach1 shortly after the appearance of ,john4 #ebg ,for that the above chronological determination was originally merely the introduction to a document concerning ,john1 quoted by ,luke1 is improbable1 since its exactness corresponds with the style of him who had perfect understanding of all things from the very first1 1 and who sought to determine1 in like manner1 the epoch of the ,messiah's birth4 ,it is not easy1 however1 to imagine1 in accordance with this statement1 that ,john was by so little the predecessor of ,jesus1 nor is it without reason that the improbability of his having had so short an agency is maintained4 ,for he had a considerable number of disciples1 whom he not only baptized1 but taught 7,luke xi4 #a71 and he left behind a party of his peculiar followers 7,acts xviii4 #be1 xix4 #c71 all which could hardly be the work of a few months4 ,there needed time1 it has been observed1 for the ,baptist to become so well known1 that people would undertake a journey to him in the wilderness2 there needed time for his doctrine to be comprehended1 time for it to gain a footing and establish itself1 especially as it clashed with the current ,jewish ideas2 in a word1 the deep and lasting veneration in which ,john was held by his nation1 according to ,josephus #ebh as well as the evangelists1 could not have been so hastily won4 #ebi ,but the foregoing considerations1 although they demand1 in general1 a longer agency for the ,baptist1 do not prove that the evangelists err in placing the commencement of his ministry shortly before that of ,jesus1 since they might suppose the required prolongation as a sequel1 instead of an introduction1 to the appearance of ,jesus4 ,such a prolongation of the ,baptist's ministry1 however1 is not to be found1 at least in the first two ,gospels2 for not only do these contain no details concerning ,john1 after the baptism of ,jesus1 except his sending two disciples 7,matt4 xi471 which is represented as a consequence of his imprisonment2 but we gather from ,matt4 iv4 #ab1 ,mark i4 #ad1 that during or shortly after the forty days' abode of ,jesus in the wilderness1 the ,baptist was arrested1 and thereupon ,jesus went into ,galilee1 and entered on his public career4 ,luke1 it is true 7iv4 #ad71 does not mention the imprisonment of ,john as the cause of the appearance of ,jesus in ,galilee1 and he seems to regard the commission of the two disciples as occurring while ,john was at large 7vii4 #ah ff472 and the fourth ,evangelist testifies yet more decisively against the notion that ,john was arrested so soon after the baptism of ,jesus2 for in chap4 iii4 #bd1 it is expressly stated1 that ,john was actively engaged in his ministry after the first passover1 attended by ,jesus during ,his public life4 ,but on the one hand1 as it appears from ,luke ix4 #i2 ,matt4 xiv4 #a ff42 ,mark xiv4 #af1 that ,john was put to death long before ,jesus1 the continuance of his agency after the rise of the latter could not be very protracted 7,luke ix4 #i2 ,matt4 xiv4 #a ff42 ,mark xiv4 #af72 and on the other1 that which may be added to the agency of ,john after the appearance of ,jesus1 will not make amends for that which is subtracted from it before that epoch4 ,for1 apart from the fact implied by the fourth ,evangelist 7i4 #ce71 that the ,baptist had formed a definite circle of familiar disciples before the appearance of ,jesus1 it would be difficult to account for the firm footing acquired by his school1 if he had laboured only a few months1 to be1 at their close1 eclipsed by ,jesus4 ,there is yet one resource1 namely1 to separate the baptism of ,jesus from the commencement of his ministry1 and to say3 ,it was indeed after the first half-year of ,john's agency that ,jesus was so attracted by his fame1 as to become a candidate for his baptism2 but for some time subsequently1 he either remained among the followers of the ,baptist1 or went again into retirement1 and did not present himself independently until a considerable interval had elapsed4 ,by this means we should obtain the requisite extension of ,john's ministry prior to the more brilliant career of ,jesus1 without impugning the apparent statement of our evangelists that the baptism of ,jesus followed close upon the public appearance of ,john4 ,but the idea of a long interim1 between the baptism of ,jesus and the commencement of his ministry1 is utterly foreign to the ,new ,testament writers4 ,for that they regard the baptism of ,jesus as his consecration to the ,messianic office1 is proved by the accompanying descent of the spirit and the voice from heaven2 the only pause which they allow to intervene1 is the six weeks' fast in the wilderness1 immediately after which1 according to ,luke1 or after the apparently cotemporary arrest of the ,baptist1 according to ,matthew and ,mark1 ,jesus appears in ,galilee4 ,luke1 in particular1 by designating 7iii4 #bc7 the baptism of ,jesus as his 1 his assumption of office1 and by dating the intercourse of ,jesus with his disciples from the 7,acts i4 #bb71 evinces his persuasion that the baptism and public manifestation of ,jesus were identical4 ,thus the gospel narrative is an obstacle to the adoption of the two most plausible expedients for the prolongation of ,john's ministry1 viz41 that ,jesus presented himself for baptism later1 or that his public appearance was retarded longer after his baptism1 than has been generally inferred4 ,we are not1 however1 compelled to renounce either of these suppositions1 if we can show that the ,new ,testament writers might have been led to their point of view even without historical grounds4 ,a sufficient motive lies close at hand1 and is implied in the foregoing observations4 ,let the ,baptist once be considered1 as was the case in the ,christian ,church 7,acts xix4 #d71 not a person of independent significance1 but simply a ,forerunner of the ,christ2 and the imagination would not linger with the mere ,precursor1 but would hasten forward to the object at which he pointed4 ,yet more obvious is the interest which primitive ,christian tradition must have had in excluding1 whatever might have been the fact1 any interval between the baptism of ,jesus and the beginning of his public course4 ,for to allow that ,jesus1 by his submission to ,john's baptism1 declared himself his disciple1 and remained in that relation for any length of time1 was offensive to the religious sentiment of the new church1 which desired a ,founder instructed by ,god1 and not by man3 another turn1 therefore1 would soon be given to the facts1 and the baptism of ,jesus would be held to signify1 not his initiation into the school of ,john1 but a consecration to his independent office4 ,thus the diverging testimony of the evangelists does not preclude our adopting the conclusion to which the nature of the case leads us2 viz41 that the ,baptist had been long labouring1 anterior to the appearance of ,jesus4 ,if1 in addition to this1 we accept the statement of ,luke 7i4 #bf and iii4 #bc71 that ,jesus1 being only half a year younger than ,john1 was about in his thirtieth year at his appearance1 we must suppose that ,john was in his twentieth year when he began his ministry4 ,there is1 as we have seen1 no express law against so early an exercise of the prophetic office2 neither do ,i1 so decidedly as ,cludius1 #ecj hold it improbable that so young a preacher of repentance should make an impression1 or even that he should be taken for a prophet of the olden time--an ,elias2 ,i will only appeal to the ordinary course of things as a sanction for presuming1 that one who entered so much earlier upon the scene of action was proportionately older1 especially when the principles and spirit of his teaching tell so plainly of a mature age as do the discourses of ,john4 ,there are exceptions to this rule2 but the statement of ,luke 7i4 #bf71 that ,john was only six months older than ,jesus1 is insufficient to establish one in this instance1 as it accords with the interest of the poetical legend1 and must therefore be renounced for the slightest improbability4 ,the result then of our critique on the chronological data ,luke iii4 #a1 #b1 comp4 #bc and i4 #bf1 is this3 if ,jesus1 as ,luke seems to understand1 appeared in the fifteenth year of ,tiberius1 the appearance of ,john occurred1 not in the same year1 but earlier2 and if ,jesus was in his thirtieth year when he began his ministry1 the ,baptist1 so much his predecessor1 could hardly be but six months his senior4 #de4 ,,appearance ,,and ,,design ,,of ,,the ,,baptist4 ,,his ,,personal ,,relations ,,with ,,jesus4 ,john1 a ,nazarite1 according to our authorities 7,matt4 iii4 #d1 ix4 #ad1 xi4 #ah2 ,luke i4 #ae71 and in the opinion of several theologians1 #eca an ,essene1 is said by ,luke 7iii4 #b7 to have been summoned to his public work by the word of ,god 1 which came to him in the wilderness4 ,not possessing the ,baptist's own declaration1 we cannot accept as complete the dilemma stated by ,paulus1 #ecb when he says1 that we know not whether ,john himself interpreted some external or internal fact as a divine call1 or whether he received a summons from another individual2 and we must add as a third possibility1 that his followers sought to dignify the vocation of their ,teacher by an expression which recalls to mind the ancient ,prophets4 ,while from the account of ,luke it appears that the divine call came to ,john in the wilderness1 1 but that for the purpose of teaching and baptizing he resorted to the country about ,jordan1 7ver4 #c72 ,matthew 7iii4 ff47 makes the wilderness of ,judea the scene of his labours1 as if the ,jordan in which he baptized flowed through that wilderness4 ,it is true that1 according to ,josephus1 the ,jordan before emptying itself into the ,dead ,sea traverses a great wilderness1 1 #ecc but this was not the wilderness of ,judea1 which lay farther south4 #ecd ,hence it has been supposed that ,matthew1 misled by his application of the prophecy1 the voice of one crying in the wilderness1 1 to ,john1 who issued from the wilderness of ,judea1 1 placed there his labours as a preacher of repentance and a baptizer1 although their true scene was the blooming valley of the ,jordan4 #ece ,in the course of ,luke's narrative1 however1 this evangelist ceases to intimate that ,john forsook the wilderness after receiving his call1 for on the occasion of ,john's message to ,jesus1 he makes the latter ask1 ,whom went ye out into the wilderness to see8 7vii4 #bd74 ,now as the valley of the ,jordan in the vicinity of the ,dead ,sea was in fact a barren plain1 the narrow margin of the river excepted1 no greater mistake may belong to ,matthew than that of specifying the wilderness as the 2 and even that may be explained away by the supposition1 either that ,john1 as he alternately preached and baptized1 passed from the wilderness of ,judea to the borders of the ,jordan1 #ecf or that the waste tract through which that river flowed1 being a continuation of the wilderness of ,judea1 retained the same name4 #ecg ,the baptism of ,john could scarcely have been derived from the baptism of proselytes1 #ech for this rite was unquestionably posterior to the rise of ,christianity4 ,it was more analogous to the religious lustrations in practice amongst the ,jews1 especially the ,essenes1 and was apparently founded chiefly on certain expressions used by several of the prophets in a figurative sense1 but afterwards understood literally4 ,according to these expressions1 ,god requires from the ,israelitish people1 as a condition of their restoration to his favour1 a washing and purification from their iniquity1 and he promises that he will himself cleanse them with water 7,isaiah i4 #af1 ,ez4 xxxvi4 #be1 comp4 ,jer4 ii4 #bb74 ,add to this the ,jewish notion that the ,messiah would not appear with his kingdom until the ,israelites repented1 #eci and we have the combination necessary for the belief that an ablution1 symbolical of conversion and forgiveness of sins1 must precede the advent of the ,messiah4 ,our accounts are not unanimous as to the signification of ,john's baptism4 ,they all1 it is true1 agree in stating repentance1 1 to be one of its essential requirements2 for even what ,josephus says of the ,baptist1 that he admonished the ,jews1 practising virtue1 just towards each other1 and devout towards ,god1 to come to his baptism1 1 1 #edj has the same sense under a ,greek form4 ,mark and ,luke1 however1 while designating the baptism of ,john1 1 add1 7i4 #d1 iii4 #c74 ,matthew has not the same addition2 but he1 with ,mark1 describes the baptized as confessing their sins1 7iii4 #f74 ,josephus1 on the other hand1 appears in direct contradiction to them1 when he gives it as the opinion of the ,baptist1 that baptism is pleasing to ,god1 not when we ask pardon for some transgressions1 but when we purify the body1 after having first purified the mind by righteousness1 7 7 1 1 ' ' 1 1 4 ,we might here be led to the supposition that the words for the remission of sins1 1 as in ,acts ii4 #ch1 and other passages1 was commonly used in relation to ,christian baptism1 and was thence transferred unhistorically to that of ,john2 but as in the passages quoted from ,ezekiel the washing typified not only reformation but forgiveness1 the probabilities are in favour of the evangelical statement4 ,moreover1 it is possible to reconcile ,josephus and the ,evangelists1 by understanding the words of the former to mean that the baptism of ,john was intended to effect a purification1 not from particular or merely ,levitical transgressions1 but of the entire man1 not immediately and mysteriously through the agency of water1 but by means of the moral acts of reformation4 #eda ,the several accounts concerning ,john are farther at variance1 as to the relation in which they place his baptism to the kingdom of heaven1 4 ,according to ,matthew1 the concise purport of the appeal with which he accompanied his baptism was1 ,repent1 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand1 ' 7iii4 #b72 according to ,luke1 the ,baptist in the first instance mentions only repentance and remission of sins1 but no kingdom of heaven2 and it is the conjecture of the people1 that he might be the ,messiah1 by which he is first led to direct them to one who was coming after him 7iii4 #ae ff474 ,in ,josephus1 there is no trace of a relation between the ministry of ,john and the ,messianic idea4 ,yet we must not therefore conclude that the ,baptist himself recognized no such relation1 and that its only source was the ,christian legend4 ,for the baptism of ,john1 waiving the opinion that it was derived from the baptism of proselytes1 is not quite explicable without a reference to the above-mentioned expiatory lustrations of the people--lustrations which were to usher in the times of the ,messiah2 moreover1 the appearance of ,jesus is made more comprehensible by the supposition1 that ,john had introduced the idea of the proximity of the ,messiah's kingdom4 ,that ,josephus should keep back the ,messianic aspect of the fact1 is in accordance with his general practice1 which is explained by the position of his people with respect to the ,romans4 ,besides1 in the expression1 to assemble for baptism1 1 in his mention of popular assemblages1 1 and in the fear of ,antipas lest ,john should excite a revolt1 there lies an intimation of precisely such a religious and political movement as the hope of the ,messiah was calculated to produce4 ,that the ,baptist should so distinctly foretell the immediate appearance of the ,messiah's kingdom must create surprise1 and 7,luke's reference to a divine call and revelation being held unsatisfactory7 might lead to the supposition that the ,christian narrator1 believing that the true ,messiah was actually manifested in the person of ,jesus1 the cotemporary of ,john1 gave to the language of the latter a definiteness which did not belong to it originally2 and while the ,baptist merely said1 consonantly with the ,jewish notion already mentioned3 ,repent1 that the kingdom of heaven may come1 1 4 4 41 a later edition of his words gave 7for7 instead of 7that74 ,but such a supposition is needless4 ,in those times of commotion1 ,john might easily believe that he discerned signs1 which certified to him the proximity of the ,messiah's kingdom2 the exact degree of its proximity he left undecided4 ,according to the ,evangelists1 the coming of the kingdom of heaven1 1 was associated by ,john with a ,messianic individual to whom he ascribed1 in distinction from his own baptism with water1 a baptism with the ,holy ,ghost and with fire1 7,matt4 iii4 #aa parall471 the outpouring of the ,holy ,spirit being regarded as a leading feature of the ,messianic times 7,joel ii4 #bh2 ,acts ii4 #af ff474 ,of this personage he farther predicted1 in imagery akin to that used by the prophets on the same subject1 that he would winnow the people as wheat 7,mal4 iii4 #b1 #c2 ,zech4 xiii4 #i74 ,the ,synoptical ,gospels state the case as if ,john expressly understood this ,messianic individual to be ,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,according to ,luke1 indeed1 the mothers of these two men were cousins1 and aware of the destination of their sons4 ,the ,baptist while yet unborn acknowledged the divinity of ,jesus1 and all the circumstances imply that both were early acquainted with their relative position1 predetermined by a heavenly communication4 ,matthew1 it is true1 says nothing of such a family connexion between ,john and ,jesus2 but when the latter presents himself for baptism1 he puts into the mouth of ,john words which seem to presuppose an earlier acquaintance4 ,his expression of astonishment that ,jesus should come to him for baptism1 when he had need to be baptized of ,jesus1 could only arise from a previous knowledge or instantaneous revelation of his character4 ,of the latter there is no intimation2 for the first visible sign of the ,messiahship of ,jesus did not occur till afterwards4 ,while in the first and third ,gospels 7in the second1 the facts are so epitomized that the writer's view on the subject is not evident71 ,john and ,jesus seem to have been no strangers to each other prior to the baptism2 in the fourth1 the ,baptist pointedly asserts that he knew not ,jesus before the heavenly appearance1 which1 according to the ,synoptical ,gospels1 was coincident with his baptism 7i4 #ca1 #cc74 ,simply considered1 this looks like a contradiction4 ,by ,luke1 the previous acquaintance of the two is stated objectively1 as an external matter of fact2 by ,matthew1 it is betrayed in the involuntary confession of the astonished ,baptist2 in the fourth ,gospel1 on the contrary1 their previous unacquaintance is attested subjectively1 by his premeditated assertion4 ,it was not1 therefore1 a very far-fetched idea of the ,wolfenbttel fragmentist1 to put down the contradiction to the account of ,john and ,jesus1 and to presume that they had in fact long known and consulted each other1 but that in public 7in order better to play into one another's hands7 they demeaned themselves as if they had hitherto been mutual strangers1 and each delivered an unbiassed testimony to the other's excellence4 #edb ,that such premeditated dissimulation might not be imputed to ,john1 and indirectly to ,jesus1 it has been sought to disprove the existence of the contradiction in question exegetically4 ,what ,john learned from the heavenly sign was the ,messiahship of ,jesus2 to this therefore1 and not to his person1 refer the words1 ,i knew him not1 4 #edc ,but it may be questioned whether such an acquaintance as ,john must have had with ,jesus1 presupposing the narrative of ,matthew and ,luke1 was separable from a knowledge of his ,messiahship4 ,the connection and intercourse of the two families1 as described by ,luke1 would render it impossible for ,john not to be early informed how solemnly ,jesus had been announced as the ,messiah1 before and at his birth2 he could not therefore say at a later period that1 prior to the sign from heaven1 he had not known1 but only that he had not believed1 the story of former wonders1 one of which relates to himself4 #edd ,it being thus unavoidable to acknowledge that by the above declaration in the fourth ,gospel1 the ,baptist is excluded1 not only from a knowledge of the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 but also from a personal acquaintance with him2 it has been attempted to reconcile the first chapter of ,luke with this ignorance1 by appealing to the distance of residence between the two families1 as a preventive to the continuance of their intercourse4 #ede ,but if the journey from ,nazareth to the hill country of ,judea was not too formidable for the betrothed ,mary1 how could it be so for the two sons when ripening to maturity8 ,what culpable indifference is hereby supposed in both families to the heavenly communications they had received6 nay1 what could be the object of those communications1 if they had no influence on the early life and intercourse of the two sons8 #edf ,let it be granted that the fourth ,gospel excludes an acquaintance with the ,messiahship only of ,jesus1 and that the third presupposes an acquaintance with his person only1 on the part of ,john2 still the contradiction is not removed4 ,for in ,matthew1 ,john1 when required to baptize ,jesus1 addresses him as if he knew him1 not generally and personally alone1 but specially1 in his character of ,messiah4 ,it is true that the words3 ,i have need to be baptized of thee1 and comest thou to me8 7iii4 #ad71 have been interpreted1 in the true spirit of harmonizing1 as referring to the general superior excellence of ,jesus1 and not to his ,messiahship4 #edg ,but the right to undertake the baptism which was to prepare the way for the ,messiah's kingdom1 was not to be obtained by moral superiority in general1 but was conferred by a special call1 such as ,john himself had received1 and such as could belong only to a prophet1 or to the ,messiah and his ,forerunner 7,john i4 #ai ff474 ,if then ,john attributed to ,jesus authority to baptize1 he must have regarded him not merely as an excellent man1 but as indubitably a prophet1 nay1 since he held him worthy to baptize himself1 as his own superior3 that is1 since ,john conceived himself to be the ,messiah's ,forerunner1 no other than the ,messiah himself4 ,add to this1 that ,matthew had just cited a discourse of the ,baptist1 in which he ascribes to the coming ,messiah a baptism more powerful than his own2 how then can we understand his subsequent language towards ,jesus otherwise than thus3 8,of what use is my water baptism to thee1 ,o ,messiah8 ,far more do ,i need thy baptism of the ,spirit60 #edh ,the contradiction cannot be cleared away2 we must therefore1 if we would not lay the burthen of intentional deception on the agents1 let the narrators bear the blame2 and there will be the less hindrance to our doing so1 the more obvious it is how one or both of them might be led into an erroneous statement4 ,there is in the present case no obstacle to the reconciliation of ,matthew with the fourth evangelist1 farther than the words by which the ,baptist seeks to deter ,jesus from receiving baptism2 words which1 if uttered before the occurrence of anything supernatural1 presuppose a knowledge of ,jesus in his character of ,messiah4 ,now the ,gospel of the ,hebrews1 according to ,epiphanius1 places the entreaty of ,john that ,jesus would baptize him1 as a sequel to the sign from heaven2 #edi and this account has been recently regarded as the original one1 abridged by the writer of our first ,gospel1 who1 for the sake of effect1 made the refusal and confession of the ,baptist coincident with the first approach of ,jesus4 #eej ,but that we have not in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews the original form of the narrative1 is sufficiently proved by its very tedious repetition of the heavenly voice and the diffuse style of the whole4 ,it is rather a very traditional record1 and the insertion of ,john's refusal after the sign and voice from heaven1 was not made with the view of avoiding a contradiction of the fourth ,gospel1 which cannot be supposed to have been recognized in the circle of the ,ebionite ,christians1 but from the very motive erroneously attributed to ,matthew in his alleged transposition1 namely1 to give greater effect to the scene4 ,a simple refusal on the part of the ,baptist appeared too weak2 he must at least fall at the feet of ,jesus2 and a more suitable occasion could not be given than that of the sign from heaven1 which accordingly must be placed beforehand4 ,this ,hebrew ,gospel1 therefore1 will not help us to understand how ,matthew was led into contradiction with ,john2 still less will it avail for the explanation of ,luke's narrative4 ,all is naturally explained by the consideration1 that the important relation between ,john and ,jesus must have been regarded as existing at all times1 by reason of that ascription of pre-existence to the essential which is a characteristic of the popular mind4 ,just as the soul1 when considered as an essence1 is conceived more or less clearly as pre-existent2 so in the popular mind1 every relation pregnant with consequences is endowed with pre-existence4 ,hence the ,baptist1 who eventually held so significant a relation to ,jesus1 must have known him from the first1 as is indistinctly intimated by ,matthew1 and more minutely detailed by ,luke2 according to whom1 their mothers knew each other1 and the sons themselves were brought together while yet unborn4 ,all this is wanting in the fourth ,gospel1 the writer of which attributes an opposite assertion to ,john1 simply because in his mind an opposite interest preponderated2 for the less ,jesus was known to ,john by whom he was afterwards so extolled1 the more weight was thrown on the miraculous scene which arrested the regards of the ,baptist--the more clearly was his whole position with respect to ,jesus demonstrated to be the effect1 not of the natural order of events1 but of the immediate agency of ,god4 #df4 ,,was ,,jesus ,,acknowledged ,,by ,,john ,,as ,,the ,,messiah8 ,,and ,,in ,,what ,,sense8 ,to the foregoing question whether ,jesus was known to ,john before the baptism1 is attached another1 namely1 ,what did ,john think of ,jesus and his ,messiahship8 ,the evangelical narratives are unanimous in stating1 that before ,jesus had presented himself for baptism1 ,john had announced the immediate coming of ,one to whom he stood in a subordinate relation2 and the scene at the baptism of ,jesus marked him1 beyond mistake1 as the personage of whom ,john was the forerunner4 ,according to ,mark and ,luke1 we must presume that the ,baptist gave credence to this sign2 according to the fourth ,gospel1 he expressly attested his belief 7i4 #cd71 and moreover uttered words which evince the deepest insight into the higher nature and office of ,jesus 7i4 #bi ff4 #cf2 iii4 #bg ff472 according to the first ,gospel1 he was already convinced of these before the baptism of ,jesus4 ,on the other hand1 ,matthew 7xi4 #b ff47 and ,luke 7vii4 #ah ff47 tell us that at a later period1 the ,baptist1 on hearing of the ministry of ,jesus1 despatched some of his disciples to him with the inquiry1 whether he 7,jesus7 was the promised ,messiah1 or whether another must be expected4 ,the first impression from this is1 that the question denoted an uncertainty on the part of the ,baptist whether ,jesus were really the ,messiah2 and so it was early understood4 #eea ,but such a doubt is in direct contradiction with all the other circumstances reported by the ,evangelists4 ,it is justly regarded as psychologically impossible that he whose belief was originated or confirmed by the baptismal sign1 which he held to be a divine revelation1 and who afterwards pronounced so decidedly on the ,messianic call and the superior nature of ,jesus1 should all at once have become unsteady in his conviction2 he must then indeed have been like a reed shaken by the wind1 a comparison which ,jesus abnegates on this very occasion 7,matt4 xi4 #g74 ,a cause for such vacillation is in vain sought in the conduct or fortunes of ,jesus at the time2 for the rumour of the works of ,christ1 1 which in ,luke's idea were miracles1 could not awaken doubt in the ,baptist1 and it was on this rumour that he sent his message4 ,lastly1 how could ,jesus subsequently 7,john v4 #cc ff47 so confidently appeal to the testimony of the ,baptist concerning him1 when it was known that ,john himself was at last perplexed about his ,messiahship8 #eeb ,hence it has been attempted to give a different turn to the facts1 and to show that ,john's inquiry was not made on his own account1 but for the sake of his disciples1 to overcome in them the doubt with which he was himself untainted4 #eec ,hereby it is true1 the above-named difficulties are removed2 in particular it is explained why the ,baptist should contrive to send this message precisely on hearing of the miracles of ,jesus2 he plainly hoping that his disciples1 who had not believed his testimony to the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 would be convinced of its truth by beholding the marvellous works of the latter4 ,but how could ,john hope that his envoys would chance to find ,jesus in the act of working miracles8 ,according to ,matthew1 indeed1 they did not so find him1 and ,jesus appeals 7v4 #d7 only to his former works1 many of which they had seen1 and of which they might hear wherever he had presented himself4 ,luke alone1 in giving his evidently second-hand narrative1 #eed misconstrues the words of ,jesus to require that the disciples of ,john should have found him in the exercise of his supernatural power4 ,further1 if it had been the object of the ,baptist to persuade his disciples by a sight of the works of ,jesus1 he would not have charged them with a question which could be answered by the mere words1 the authentic declaration of ,jesus4 ,for he could not hope by the assertion of the person whose ,messiahship was the very point in debate1 to convince the disciples whom his own declaration1 in other cases authoritative1 had failed to satisfy4 ,on the whole1 it would have been a singular course in the ,baptist to lend his own words to the doubts of others1 and thereby1 as ,schleiermacher well observes1 to compromise his early and repeated testimony in favour of ,jesus4 ,it is clear that ,jesus understood the question proposed to him by the messengers as proceeding from ,john himself2 7 1 ,matt4 xi4 #d27 and he indirectly complained of the want of faith in the latter by pronouncing those blessed who were not offended in him 7ver4 #f74 #eee ,if then it must be granted that ,john made his inquiry on his own behalf1 and not on that of his disciples1 and if nevertheless we cannot impute to him a sudden lapse into doubt after his previous confidence2 nothing remains but to take the positive instead of the negative side of the question1 and to consider its scepticism as the mere garb of substantial encouragement4 #eef ,on this interpretation1 the time which ,jesus allowed to escape without publicly manifesting himself as the ,messiah1 seemed too tedious to ,john in his imprisonment2 he sent therefore to inquire how long ,jesus would allow himself to be waited for1 how long he would delay winning to himself the better part of the people by a declaration of his ,messiahship1 and striking a decisive blow against the enemies of his cause--a blow that might even liberate the ,baptist from his prison4 ,but if the ,baptist1 on the strength of his belief that ,jesus was the ,messiah1 hoped and sued for a deliverance1 perhaps miraculous1 by him from prison1 he would not clothe in the language of doubt an entreaty which sprang out of his faith4 ,now the inquiry in our evangelical text is one of unmixed doubt1 and encouragement must be foisted in1 before it can be found there4 ,how great a violence must be done to the words is seen by the way in which ,schleiermacher handles them in accordance with this interpretation4 ,the dubitative question1 2 he changes into the positive assumption1 thou art he who was to come2 the other still more embarrassing interrogatory1 2 he completely transfigures thus3 wherefore 7seeing that thou performest so great works7 do we yet await thee8--shall not ,john with all his authority command1 through us1 all those who have partaken of his baptism to obey thee as the ,messiah1 and be attentive to thy signs8 ,even if we allow1 with ,neander1 the possibility of truth to this interpretation1 a mere summons to action will not accord with the earlier representation of ,jesus given by the ,baptist4 ,the two enunciations are at issue as to form2 for if ,john doubted not the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 neither could he doubt his better knowledge of the fitting time and manner of his appearance3 still farther are they at issue as to matter2 for the ,baptist could not take offence at what is termed the delay of ,jesus in manifesting himself as the ,messiah1 or wish to animate him to bolder conduct1 if he retained his early view of the destination of ,jesus4 ,if he still1 as formerly1 conceived ,jesus to be the ,lamb of ,god that taketh away the sins of the world1 1 1 no thought could occur to him of a blow to be struck by ,jesus against his enemies1 or in general1 of a violent procedure to be crowned by external conquest2 rather1 the quiet path which ,jesus trod must appear to him the right one--the path befitting the destination of the ,lamb of ,god4 ,thus if the question of ,john conveyed a mere summons to action1 it contradicted his previous views4 ,these expedients failing1 the original explanation returns upon us2 namely1 that the inquiry was an expression of uncertainty respecting the messianic dignity of ,jesus1 which had arisen in the ,baptist's own mind2 an explanation which even ,neander allows to be the most natural4 ,this writer seeks to account for the transient apostacy of the ,baptist from the strong faith in which he gave his earlier testimony1 by the supposition that a dark hour of doubt had overtaken the man of ,god in his dismal prison2 and he cites instances of men who1 persecuted for their ,christian faith or other convictions1 after having long borne witness to the truth in the face of death1 at length yielded to human weakness and recanted4 ,but on a closer examination1 he has given a false analogy4 ,persecuted ,christians of the first centuries1 and1 later1 a ,berengarius or a ,galileo1 were false to the convictions for which they were imprisoned1 and by abjuring which they hoped to save themselves3 the ,baptist1 to be compared with them1 should have retracted his censure of ,herod1 and not have shaken his testimony in favour of ,christ1 which had no relation to his imprisonment4 ,however that may be1 it is evident here that these doubts cannot have been preceded by a state of certainty4 ,we come again to the difficulty arising from the statement of ,matthew that ,john sent his two disciples on hearing of the works of ,christ1 1 or as ,luke has it1 because his disciples showed him of all these things1 4 ,the latter evangelist has narrated1 immediately before1 the raising of the widow's son1 and the healing of the centurion's servant4 ,could ,john1 then1 believe ,jesus to be the ,messiah before he had performed any messianic works1 and be seized with doubt when he began to legitimatize his claim by miracles such as were expected from the ,messiah #eeg8 ,this is so opposed to all psychological probability1 that ,i wonder ,dr4 ,paulus1 or some other expositor versed in psychology and not timid in verbal criticism1 has not started the conjecture that a negative has slipped out of ,matt4 xi4 #b1 and that its proper reading is1 1 444 ,it might then be conceived1 that ,john had indeed been convinced1 at a former period1 of the ,messiahship o ,jesus2 now1 however1 in his imprisonment1 the works of ,jesus came no longer to his ears1 and imagining him inactive1 he was assailed with doubt4 ,but had ,john been previously satisfied of the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 the mere want of acquaintance with his miracles could not have unhinged his faith4 ,the actual cause of ,john's doubt1 however1 was the report of these miracles2--a state of the case which is irreconcilable with any previous confidence4 ,but how could he become uncertain about the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 if he had never recognised it8 ,not indeed in the sense of beginning to suspect that ,jesus was not the ,messiah2 but quite possibly in the sense of beginning to conjecture that a man of such deeds was the ,messiah4 ,we have here1 not a decaying1 but a growing certainty1 and this discrimination throws light on the whole purport of the passages in question4 ,john knew nothing of ,jesus before1 but that he had1 like many others1 partaken of his baptism1 and perhaps frequented the circle of his disciples2 and not until after the imprisonment of the ,baptist did ,jesus appear as a teacher1 and worker of miracles4 ,of this ,john heard1 and then arose in his mind a conjecture1 fraught with hope1 that as he had announced the proximity of the ,messiah's kingdom1 this ,jesus might be he who would verify his idea4 #eeh ,so interpreted1 this message of the ,baptist excludes his previous testimony2 if he had so spoken formerly1 he could not have so inquired latterly1 and vice vers4 ,it is our task1 therefore1 to compare the two contradictory statements1 that we may ascertain which has more traces than the other1 of truth or untruth4 ,the most definite expressions of ,john's conviction that ,jesus was the ,messiah are found in the fourth ,gospel1 and these suggest two distinct questions3 first1 whether it be conceivable that ,john had such a notion of the ,messiah as is therein contained2 and1 secondly1 whether it be probable that he believed it realized in the person of ,jesus4 ,with respect to the former1 the fourth ,gospel makes the ,baptist's idea of the ,messiah include the characteristics of expiatory suffering1 and of a premundane1 heavenly existence4 ,it has been attempted1 indeed1 so to interpret the expressions with which he directs his disciples to ,jesus1 as to efface the notion of expiatory suffering4 ,jesus1 we are told1 is compared to a lamb on account of his meekness and patience2 1 is to be understood either of a patient endurance of the world's malice1 or of an endeavour to remove the sins of the world by reforming it2 and the sense of the ,baptist's words is this3 8,how moving is it that this meek and gentle ,jesus should have undertaken so difficult and painful an office #eei60 ,but the best critics have shown that even if by itself might bear this interpretation1 still 1 not merely with the article but with the addition 1 must signify1 not a lamb in general1 but a special1 holy ,lamb2 and if1 as is most probable1 this designation has reference to ,isa4 liii4 #g41 can only be expounded by what is there predicated of the lamb-like servant of ,god1 that he 1 7,v4 #d1 ,,lxx471 words which must signify vicarious suffering4 #efj ,now that the ,baptist should have referred the above prophetic passage to the ,messiah1 and hence have thought of him as suffering1 has been recently held more than doubtful4 #efa ,for so foreign to the current opinion1 at least1 was this notion of the ,messiah1 that the disciples of ,jesus1 during the whole period of their intercourse with him1 could not reconcile themselves to it2 and when his death had actually resulted1 their trust in him as the ,messiah was utterly confounded 7,luke xxiv4 #bj ff474 ,how1 then1 could the ,baptist1 who1 according to the solemn declaration of ,jesus1 ,matt4 xi4 #aa1 confirmed by the allusions in the ,gospels to his strict ascetic life1 ranked below the least in the kingdom of heaven1 to which the apostles already belonged--how could this alien discern1 long before the sufferings of ,jesus1 that they pertained to the character of the ,messiah1 when the denizens were only taught the same lesson by the issue8 ,or1 if the ,baptist really had such insight1 and communicated it to his disciples1 why did it not1 by means of those who left his circle for that of ,jesus1 win an entrance into the latter--nay1 why did it not1 by means of the great credit which ,john enjoyed1 mitigate the offence caused by the death of ,jesus1 in the public at large #efb8 ,add to this1 that in none of our accounts of the ,baptist1 with the exception of the fourth ,gospel1 do we find that he entertained such views of the ,messiah's character2 for1 not to mention ,josephus1 the ,synoptical ,gospels confine his representation of the ,messianic office to the spiritual baptism and winnowing of the people4 ,still it remains possible that a penetrating mind1 like that of the ,baptist1 might1 even before the death of ,jesus1 gather from ,old ,testament phrases and types the notion of a suffering ,messiah1 and that his obscure hints on the subject might not be comprehended by his disciples and cotemporaries4 ,thus the above considerations are not decisive1 and we therefore turn to the expressions concerning the premundane existence and heavenly origin of the ,messiah1 with the question3 ,could the ,baptist have really held such tenets8 ,that from the words1 ,john i4 #ae1 #bg1 #cj3 ,he that cometh after me is preferred before me2 for he was before me1 1 1 nothing but dogmatical obstinacy can banish the notion of pre-existence1 is seen by a mere glance at such expositions as this of ,paulus3 8,he who in the course of time comes after me2 has so appeared in my eyes1 1 that he 7--1 premiss--conclusion67 deserves rather from his rank and character to be called the first40 #efc ,with preponderating arguments more unprejudiced commentators have maintained1 that the reason here given why ,jesus1 who appeared after the ,baptist in point of time1 had the precedence of him in dignity1 is the pre-existence of the former4 #efd ,we have here obviously the favourite dogma of the fourth ,evangelist1 the eternal pre-existence of the 1 present indeed to the mind of that writer1 who had just been inditing his proem1 but that it was also present to the mind of the ,baptist is another question4 ,the most recent expositor allows that the sense in which the ,evangelist intends 1 must have been very remote from the ,baptist's point of view1 at least so far as the is concerned4 ,the ,baptist1 he thinks1 held the popular ,jewish notion of the pre-existence of the ,messiah1 as the subject of the ,old ,testament theophanies4 #efe ,there are traces of this ,jewish notion in the writings of ,paul 7e4g4 #a ,cor4 x4 #d4 ,col4 i4 #ae f47 and the rabbins #eff2 and allowing that it was of ,alexandrian origin1 as ,bretschneider argues1 #efg we may yet ask whether even before the time of ,christ1 the ,alexandrian-judaic theology may not have modified the opinions of the mother country8 #efh ,even these expressions then1 taken alone1 are not conclusive1 although it begins to appear suspicious that the ,baptist1 otherwise conspicuous for exhibiting the practical side of the idea of the ,messiah's kingdom1 should have ascribed to him by the fourth ,evangelist solely1 two notions which at that time undoubtedly belonged only to the deepest messianic speculations2 and that the form in which those notions are expressed is too peculiarly that of the writer1 not to be put to his account4 ,we arrive at a more decisive result by taking into examination the passage ,john iii4 #bg-cf1 where ,john replies to the complaints of his disciples at the rival baptism of ,jesus1 in a way that reduces all commentators to perplexity4 ,after showing how it lay at the foundation of their respective destinies1 which he desired not to overstep1 that he must decrease1 while ,jesus must increase1 he proceeds 7ver4 #ca7 to use forms of expression precisely similar to those in which the ,evangelist makes ,jesus speak of himself1 and in which he delivers his own thoughts concerning ,jesus4 ,our most recent commentator #efi allows that this discourse of ,john seems the echo of the foregoing conversation between ,jesus and ,nicodemus4 #egj ,the expressions in the speech lent to the ,baptist are peculiarly those of the apostle ,john2 for instance1 7to seal71 7testimony71 the antithesis of and 7from above and of the earth71 the phrase 7to have eternal life72 and the question presents itself3 ,is it more probable that the ,evangelist1 as well as ,jesus1 in whose mouth these expressions are so often put1 borrowed them from the ,baptist1 or that the ,evangelist lent them 7,i will only at present say7 to the latter8 ,this must be decided by the fact that the ideas1 to which the ,baptist here gives utterance1 lie entirely within the domain of ,christianity1 and belong specially to the ,christianity of the ,apostle ,john4 ,take for example that antithesis of 7from above71 and 7of the earth71 the designation of ,jesus as 7he that cometh from above71 as 7he whom ,god hath sent71 who consequently 7speaketh the words of ,god71 the relation of ,jesus to ,god as the 7son71 whom 7the ,father loveth73--what can be characteristic of ,christianity1 and of the ,apostle ,john's mode of presenting it1 if these ideas are not so8 and could they belong to the ,baptist8 ,christianismus ante ,christum6 ,and then1 as ,olshausen well observes1 #ega is it consistent for ,john1 who1 even on the fourth ,evangelist's own showing1 remained separate from ,jesus1 to speak of the blessedness of a believing union with him8 7v4 #cc and #cf74 ,thus much then is certain1 and has been acknowledged by the majority of modern commentators3 the words v4 #ca-cf cannot have been spoken by the ,baptist4 ,hence theologians have concluded1 that the ,evangelist cannot have intended to ascribe them to him1 but from v4 #ca speaks in his own person4 #egb ,this sounds plausible1 if they can only point out any mark of division between the discourse of the ,baptist and the addenda of the ,evangelist4 ,but none such is to be found4 ,it is true that the speaker from v4 #ca uses the third person1 and not the first as in v4 #cj1 when referring to the ,baptist3 but in the former passage the ,baptist is no longer alluded to directly and individually1 but as one of a class1 in which case he must1 though himself the speaker1 choose the third person4 ,thus there is no definitive boundary1 and the speech glides imperceptibly from those passages which might have been uttered by the ,baptist1 into those which are altogether incongruous with his position2 moreover from v4 #cj ,jesus is spoken of in the present tense1 as the ,evangelist might represent the ,baptist to speak during the lifetime of ,jesus1 but could not in his own person have written after the death of ,jesus4 ,in other passages1 when presenting his own reflections concerning ,jesus1 he uses the preterite4 #egc ,thus1 grammatically1 the ,baptist continues to speak from v4 #ca1 and yet1 historically1 it is impossible that he should have uttered the sequel2 a contradiction not to be solved1 if it be added that1 dogmatically1 the ,evangelist cannot have ascribed to the ,baptist words which he never really pronounced4 ,now if we do not choose to defy the clear rules of grammar1 and the sure data of history1 for the sake of the visionary dogma of inspiration1 we shall rather conclude from the given premises1 with the author of the ,probabilia1 that the ,evangelist falsely ascribes the language in question to the ,baptist1 putting into his mouth a ,christology of his own1 of which the latter could know nothing4 ,this is no more than ,lcke #egd confesses1 though not quite so frankly1 when he says that the reflections of the ,evangelist are here more than equally mixed with the discourse of the ,baptist1 in such a way as to be undistinguishable4 ,in point of fact1 however1 the reflections of the ,evangelist are easily to be recognized2 but of the fundamental ideas of the ,baptist there is no trace1 unless they are sought for with a good will which amounts to prejudice1 and to which therefore we make no pretension4 ,if then we have a proof in the passages just considered1 that the fourth ,evangelist did not hesitate to lend to the ,baptist messianic and other ideas which were never his2 we may hence conclude retrospectively concerning the passages on which we formerly suspended our decision1 that the ideas expressed in them of a suffering and pre-existent ,messiah belonged1 not to the ,baptist1 but to the ,evangelist4 ,in giving the above reply to our first question1 we have1 in strictness1 answered the remaining one2 for if the ,baptist had no such messianic ideas1 he could not refer them to the person of ,jesus4 ,but to strengthen the evidence for the result already obtained1 we will make the second question the object of a special examination4 ,according to the fourth ,evangelist the ,baptist ascribed to ,jesus all the messianic attributes above discussed4 ,if he did this so enthusiastically1 publicly1 and repeatedly1 as we read in ,john1 he could not have been excluded by ,jesus from the kingdom of heaven 7,matt4 xi4 #aa71 nor have been placed below the least of its citizens4 ,for such a confession as that of the ,baptist1 when he calls ,jesus the 1 who was before him1--such refined insight into the messianic economy1 as is shown by his designating ,jesus 1 1 ,peter himself had not to produce1 though ,jesus not only receives him into the kingdom of heaven for his confession1 ,matt4 xvi4 #af1 but constitutes him the rock on which that kingdom was to be founded4 ,but we have something yet more incomprehensible4 ,john1 in the fourth gospel1 gives it as the object of his baptism1 7,jesus as ,messiah7 7i4 #ca71 and acknowledges it to be the divine ordinance1 that by the side of the increasing ,jesus1 he must decrease 7iii4 #cj72 nevertheless after ,jesus had begun to baptize by the instrumentality of his disciples1 ,john continues to practise his baptism 7iii4 #cb74 ,why so1 if he knew the object of his baptism to be fulfilled by the introduction of ,jesus1 and if he directed his followers to him as the ,messiah8 7i4 #cf f474 #ege ,the continuance of his baptism would be to no purpose2 for ,lcke's supposition that ,john's baptism was still of effect in those places where ,jesus had not appeared1 he himself overthrows by the observation1 that at least at the period treated of in ,john iii4 #bb ff41 ,jesus and ,john must have been baptizing near to each other1 since the disciples of ,john were jealous of the concourse to the baptism of ,jesus4 ,but the continuance of ,john's baptism appears even to counteract his aim1 if that aim were merely to point out ,jesus as the ,messiah4 ,he thereby detained a circle of individuals on the borders of the ,messiah's kingdom1 and retarded or hindered their going over to ,jesus 7and that through his own fault1 not theirs alone1 #egf for he nullified his verbal direction to ,jesus by his contradictory example74 ,accordingly we find the party of ,john's disciples still existing in the time of the ,apostle ,paul 7,acts xviii4 #bd f41 xix4 #a ff472 and1 if the ,sabans are to be credited concerning their own history1 the sect remains to this day4 #egg ,certainly1 presupposing the averred conviction of the ,baptist relative to ,jesus1 it would seem most natural for him to have attached himself to the latter2 this1 however1 did not happen1 and hence we conclude that he cannot have had that conviction4 #egh ,but chiefly the character and entire demeanour of the ,baptist render it impossible to believe that he placed himself on that footing with ,jesus1 described by the fourth evangelist4 ,how could the man of the wilderness1 the stern ascetic1 who fed on locusts and wild honey1 and prescribed severe fasts to his disciples1 the gloomy1 threatening preacher of repentance1 animated with the spirit of ,elias--how could he form a friendship with ,jesus1 in every thing his opposite8 ,he must assuredly1 with his disciples1 have stumbled at the liberal manners of ,jesus1 and have been hindered by them from recognizing him as the ,messiah4 ,nothing is more unbending than ascetic prejudice2 he who1 like the ,baptist1 esteems it piety to fast and mortify the body1 will never assign a high grade in things divine to him who disregards such asceticism4 ,a mind with narrow views can never comprehend one whose vision takes a wider range1 although the latter may know how to do justice to its inferior2 hence ,jesus could value and sanction ,john in his proper place1 but the ,baptist could never give the precedence to ,jesus1 as he is reported to have done in the fourth gospel4 ,the declaration of the ,baptist 7,john iii4 #cj71 that he must decrease1 but ,jesus must increase1 is frequently praised as an example of the noblest and sublimest resignation4 #egi ,the beauty of this representation we grant2 but not its truth4 ,the instance would be a solitary one1 if a man whose life had its influence on the world's history1 had so readily yielded the ascendant1 in his own ra1 to one who came to eclipse him and render him superfluous4 ,such a step is not less difficult for individuals than for nations1 and that not from any vice1 as egotism or ambition1 so that an exception might be presumed 7though not without prejudice7 in the case of a man like the ,baptist2 it is a consequence of that blameless limitation which1 as we have already remarked1 is proper to a low point of view in relation to a higher1 and which is all the more obstinately maintained if the inferior individual is1 like ,john1 of a coarse1 rugged nature4 ,only from the divine point of view1 or from that of an historian1 bent on establishing religious doctrines1 could such things be spoken1 and the fourth ,evangelist has in fact put into the mouth of the ,baptist the very same thoughts concerning the relation between him and ,jesus1 that the compiler of the #bnd book of ,samuel has communicated1 as his own observation1 on the corresponding relation between ,saul and ,david4 #ehj ,competent judges have recently acknowledged that there exists a discrepancy between the synoptical gospels and the fourth1 the blame of which must be imputed to the latter3 #eha and this opinion is confirmed and strengthened by the fact that the fourth ,evangelist transforms the ,baptist into a totally different character from that in which he appears in the ,synoptical gospels and in ,josephus2 out of a practical preacher he makes a speculative christologist2 out of a hard and unbending1 a yielding and self-renunciating nature4 ,the style in which the scenes between ,john and ,jesus 7,john i4 #bi ff4 #ce ff47 are depicted1 shows them to have originated partly in the free composition of the imagination1 partly in a remodelling of the synoptical narratives with a view to the glorification of ,jesus4 ,with respect to the former3 ,jesus is walking1 v4 #ce1 near to ,john2 in v4 #bi he is said to come directly to him2 yet on neither occasion is there any account of an interview between the two4 ,could ,jesus really have avoided contact with the ,baptist1 that there might be no appearance of preconcerted action8 ,this is ,lampe's conjecture2 but it is the product of modern reflections1 foreign to the time and circumstances of ,jesus4 ,or shall we suppose that the narrator1 whether fortuitously or purposely1 omitted known details8 ,but the meetings of ,jesus and ,john must have furnished him with peculiarly interesting matter1 so that1 as ,lcke allows1 #ehb his silence is enigmatical4 ,from our point of view the enigma is solved4 ,the ,baptist had1 in the ,evangelist's idea1 pointed to ,jesus as the ,messiah4 ,this1 understood as a visible pointing1 required that ,jesus should pass by or approach ,john2 hence this feature was inserted in the narrative2 but the particulars of an actual meeting being unnecessary1 were1 though very awkwardly1 omitted4 ,the incident of some disciples attaching themselves to ,jesus in consequence of the ,baptist's direction1 seems to be a free version of the sending of two disciples by ,john from his prison4 ,thus1 as in ,matthew xi4 #b1 and ,luke vii4 #ah1 ,john despatches two disciples to ,jesus with the dubitative question1 8,art thou he that should come80 so in the fourth gospel he likewise sends two disciples to ,jesus1 but with the positive assertion that he 7,jesus7 is the ,lamb of ,god1 2 as ,jesus in the former case gives to the disciples1 after the delivery of their message1 the direction3 8,go and tell ,john the things ye have seen and heard10 3 so in the latter1 he gives to the inquiry concerning his abode1 the answer3 ,come and see1 4 ,but while in the synoptical gospels the two disciples return to ,john1 in the fourth1 they permanently attach themselves to ,jesus4 ,from the foregoing considerations1 it is inconceivable that ,john should ever have held and pronounced ,jesus to be the ,messiah3 but it is easy to show how a belief that he did so might obtain1 without historical foundation4 ,according to ,acts xix4 #d1 the ,apostle ,paul declares what seems sufficiently guaranteed by history1 that ,john baptized 1 and this coming ,messiah1 adds ,paul1 to whom ,john pointed was ,jesus 7 74 ,this was an interpretation of the ,baptist's words by the issue2 for ,jesus had approved himself to a great number of his cotemporaries1 as the ,messiah announced by ,john4 ,there was but a step to the notion that the ,baptist himself had1 under the 1 understood the individual ,jesus1--had himself the 1 444 in his mind2 a view which1 however unhistorical1 would be inviting to the early ,christians1 in proportion to their wish to sustain the dignity of ,jesus by the authority of the ,baptist1 then very influential in the ,jewish world4 #ehc ,there was yet another reason1 gathered from the ,old ,testament4 ,the ancestor of the ,messiah1 ,david1 had likewise in the old ,hebrew legend a kind of forerunner in the person of ,samuel1 who by order from ,jehovah anointed him to be king over ,israel 7#a ,sam4 xvi471 and afterwards stood in the relation of a witness to his claims4 ,if then it behoved the ,messiah to have a forerunner1 who1 besides1 was more closely characterized in the prophecy of ,malachi as a second ,elias1 and if1 historically1 ,jesus was preceded by ,john1 whose baptism as a consecration corresponded to an anointing2 the idea was not remote of conforming the relation between ,john and ,jesus to that between ,samuel and ,david4 ,we might have decided with tolerable certainty which of the two incompatible statements concerning the relation between the ,baptist and ,jesus is to be renounced as unhistorical1 by the universal canon of interpretation1 that where1 in narratives having a tendency to aggrandise a person or a fact 7a tendency which the ,gospels evince at every step71 two contradictory statements are found1 that which best corresponds to this aim is the least historical2 because if1 in accordance with it1 the original fact had been so dazzling1 it is inconceivable that the other less brilliant representation should afterwards arise2 as here1 if ,john so early acknowledged ,jesus1 it is inexplicable how a story could be fabricated1 which reports him to have been in doubt on the same subject at a very late period4 ,we have1 however1 by a separate examination of the narrative in the fourth gospel1 ascertained that it is self-contradictory and contains its own solution2 hence our result1 found independently of the above canon1 serves for its confirmation4 ,meanwhile that result is only the negative1 that all which turns upon the early acknowledgment of ,jesus by ,john has no claim to be received as historical2 of the positive we know nothing1 unless the message out of prison may be regarded as a clue to the truth1 and we must therefore subject this side of the matter to a separate examination4 ,we will not extend our arguments against the probability of an early and decided conviction on the part of the ,baptist1 to a mere conjecture awakened in him at a later period that ,jesus was the ,messiah2 and therefore we leave uncontested the proper contents of the narrative4 ,but as regards the form1 it is not to be conceived without difficulty4 ,that the ,baptist in prison1 1 should have information of the proceedings of ,jesus2 that he should from that locality send his disciples to ,jesus2 and that these as we are led to infer1 should bring him an answer in his imprisonment4 ,according to ,josephus1 #ehd ,herod imprisoned ,john from fear of disturbances3 allowing this to be merely a joint cause with that given by the ,evangelist1 it is yet difficult to believe that to a man1 one motive of whose imprisonment was to seclude him from his followers1 his disciples should have retained free access2 although we cannot prove it an impossibility that circumstances might favour the admission of certain individuals4 ,now that the message was sent from prison we learn from ,matthew alone2 ,luke says nothing of it1 although he tells of the message4 ,we might hence1 with ,schleiermacher1 #ehe consider ,luke's account the true one1 and the of ,matthew an unhistorical addition4 ,but that critic has himself very convincingly shown1 from the tedious amplifications1 partly betraying even misunderstanding1 which the narrative of ,luke contains 7vii4 #bj1 #ba1 #bi1 #cj71 that ,matthew gives the incident in its original1 ,luke in a revised form4 #ehf ,it would indeed be singular if ,matthew had supplied the when it was originally wanting2 it is far more natural to suppose that ,luke1 who in the whole paragraph appears as a reviser1 expunged the original mention of the prison4 ,in judging of ,luke's motives for so doing1 we are led to notice the difference in the dates given by the evangelists for the imprisonment of ,john4 ,matthew1 with whom ,mark agrees1 places it before the public appearance of ,jesus in ,galilee2 for he gives it as the motive for the return of ,jesus into that province 7,matt4 iv4 #ab2 ,mark i4 #ad74 ,luke assigns no precise date to the arrest of the ,baptist 7iii4 #ai f471 yet it is to be inferred from his silence about the prison1 in connexion with the sending of the two disciples1 that he regarded it as a later occurrence2 but ,john expressly says1 that after the first passover attended by ,jesus in his public character1 ,john was not yet cast into prison 7iii4 #bd74 ,if it be asked1 who is right8 we answer that there is something on the face of the account of the first ,evangelist1 which has inclined many commentators to renounce it in favour of the two last4 ,that ,jesus1 on the report of ,john's imprisonment in ,galilee by ,herod ,antipas1 should have returned into the dominions of that prince for the sake of safety1 is1 as ,schneckenburger well maintains1 #ehg highly improbable1 since there1 of all places1 he was the least secure from a similar fate4 ,but even if it be held impossible to dissociate the 7he withdrew7 from the cognate idea of seeking security1 we may still ask whether1 disregarding the mistake in the motive1 the fact itself may not be maintained4 ,matthew and ,mark connect with this journey into ,galilee after ,john's imprisonment1 the commencement of the public ministry of ,jesus2 and that this was consequent on the removal of the ,baptist1 ,i am quite inclined to believe4 ,for it is in itself the most natural that the exit of the ,baptist should incite ,jesus to carry on in his stead the preaching of 2 and the canon cited above is entirely in favour of ,matthew4 ,for if it be asked which fiction best accords with the aggrandising spirit of the ,christian legend1--that of ,john's removal before the appearance of ,jesus1 or that of their having long laboured in conjunction8--the answer must be1 the latter4 ,if he to whom the hero of a narrative is superior disappears from the scene before the entrance of the latter1 the crowning opportunity for the hero to demonstrate his ascendancy is lost--the full splendour of the rising sun can only be appreciated1 when the waning moon is seen above the horizon1 growing paler and paler in the presence of the greater luminary4 ,such is the case in the ,gospels of ,luke and ,john1 while ,matthew and ,mark rest satisfied with the less effective representation4 ,hence1 as the least calculated to magnify ,jesus1 the account of ,matthew has the advantage in historical probability4 ,thus at the time when the two disciples must have been sent to ,jesus1 the ,baptist was already imprisoned1 and we have remarked above1 that he could hardly1 so situated1 transmit and receive messages4 ,but popular legend might be prompted to fabricate such a message1 that the ,baptist might not depart without at least an incipient recognition of ,jesus as the ,messiah2 so that neither the one nor the other of the two incompatible statements is to be regarded as historical4 #dg4 ,,opinion ,,of ,,the ,,evangelists ,,and ,,jesus ,,concerning ,,the ,,baptist1 ,,with ,,his ,,own ,,judgment ,,on ,,himself4 ,,result ,,of ,,the ,,inquiry ,,into ,,the ,,relationship ,,between ,,these ,,two ,,individuals4 ,the ,evangelists apply to ,john1 as the preparer of the ,messiah's kingdom1 several passages of the ,old ,testament4 ,the abode of the preacher of repentance in the wilderness1 his activity in preparing the way for the ,messiah1 necessarily recalled the passage of ,isaiah 7xl4 #c;ff4 ,,lxx473 444 ,this passage1 which in its original connection related not to the ,messiah and his forerunner1 but to ,jehovah1 for whom a way was to be prepared through the wilderness toward ,judea1 that he might return with his people from exile1 is quoted by the first three ,evangelists as a prophecy fulfilled by the appearance of the ,baptist 7,matt4 iii4 #c2 ,mark i4 #c2 ,luke iii4 #d ff474 ,this might be thought a later and ,christian application1 but there is nothing to controvert the statement of the fourth ,evangelist1 that the ,baptist had himself characterized his destination by those prophetic words4 ,as the synoptical gospels have unanimously borrowed this passage from the ,baptist himself1 so ,mark has borrowed the application of another prophetic passage to the ,baptist from ,jesus4 ,jesus had said 7,matt4 xi4 #aj2 ,luke vii4 #bg73 1 4 ,this is he of whom it is written1 ,behold ,i send my messenger before thy face1 to prepare thy way before thee2 and ,mark in the introduction to his ,gospel1 applies these words of ,malachi 7iii4 #a71 together with the above passage from ,isaiah1 without distinguishing their respective sources1 to the forerunner1 ,john4 ,the text is a messianic one2 ,jehovah1 however1 does not therein speak of sending a messenger before the ,messiah1 but before himself3 and it is only in the ,new ,testament citations in all these instances that the second person 77 is substituted for the first 774 ,another notable passage of the same prophet 7iii4 #bc1 ,,lxx4 iv4 #d3 1 1 4443 ,behold1 ,i will send you ,elijah the ,tishbite before the coming of the day of the ,lord1 etc47 suggested to the ,evangelists the assimilation of ,john the ,baptist to ,elias4 ,that ,john1 labouring for the reformation of the people1 in the spirit and power of ,elias1 should prepare the way for the ,divine visitation in the times of the ,messiah1 was according to ,luke i4 #ag1 predicted before his birth4 ,in ,john i4 #ba1 when the emissaries of the ,sanhedrim ask1 8,art thou ,elias80 the ,baptist declines this dignity3 according to the usual explanation1 he only extended his denial to the rude popular notion1 that he was the ancient seer corporeally resuscitated1 whereas he would have admitted the view of the synoptical gospels1 that he had the spirit of ,elias4 ,nevertheless it appears improbable that if the fourth ,evangelist had been familiar with the idea of the ,baptist as a second ,elias1 he would have put into his mouth so direct a negative4 ,this scene1 peculiar to the fourth gospel1 in which ,john rejects the title of ,elias1 with several others1 demands a yet closer examination1 and must be compared with a narrative in ,luke 7iii4 #ae71 to which it has a striking similarity4 ,in ,luke1 the crowd assembled round the ,baptist begin to think3 ,is not this the ,christ8 in ,john1 the deputies of the ,sanhedrim #ehh ask him1 ,who art thou8 2 which we infer from the ,baptist's answer to mean3 8,art thou1 as is believed1 the ,messiah80 #ehi ,according to ,luke1 the ,baptist answers1 ,i indeed baptize you with water2 but one mightier than ,i cometh1 the latchet of whose shoes ,i am not worthy to unloose4 ,according to ,john he gives a similar reply3 ,i baptize with water2 but there standeth one among you whom ye know not2 ,he it is who coming after me is preferred before me1 whose shoes' latchet ,i am not worthy to unloose3 the latter ,evangelist adding his peculiar propositions concerning the pre-existence of ,jesus1 and deferring to another occasion 7v4 #cc7 the mention of the ,messiah's spiritual baptism1 which ,luke gives in immediate connexion with the above passage4 ,in ,luke1 and still more decidedly in ,john1 this whole scene is introduced with a design to establish the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 by showing that the ,baptist had renounced that dignity1 and attributed it to one who should come after him4 ,if at the foundation of two narratives so similar1 there can scarcely be more than one fact1 #eij the question is1 which gives that fact the most faithfully8 ,in ,luke's account there is no intrinsic improbability2 on the contrary it is easy to imagine1 that the people1 congregated round the man who announced the ,messiah's kingdom1 and baptized with a view to it1 should1 in moments of enthusiasm1 believe him to be the ,messiah4 ,but that the ,sanhedrim should send from ,jerusalem to ,john on the banks of the ,jordan1 for the sake of asking him whether he were the ,messiah1 seems less natural4 ,their object could only be what1 on a later occasion1 it was with respect to ,jesus 7,matt4 xxi4 #bc ff471 namely1 to challenge the authority of ,john to baptize1 as appears from v4 #be4 ,moreover1 from the hostile position which ,john had taken towards the sects of the ,pharisees and ,sadducees 7,matt4 iii4 #g71 to whom the members of the ,sanhedrim belonged1 they must have prejudged that he was not the ,messiah1 nor a prophet1 and consequently1 that he had no right to undertake a 4 ,but in that case1 they could not possibly have so put their questions as they are reported to have done in the fourth gospel4 ,in the passage from ,mathew above cited1 they asked ,jesus1 quite consistently with their impression that he had no prophetic authority3 2 ,by what authority doest thou these things8 but in ,john1 they question the ,baptist precisely as if they pre-supposed him to be the ,messiah1 and when he1 apparently to their consternation1 has denied this1 they tender him successively the dignities of ,elias1 and of another prophetic forerunner1 as if they earnestly wished him to accept one of these titles4 ,searching opponents will not thus thrust the highest honours on the man to whom they are inimical2--this is the representation of a narrator who wishes to exhibit the modesty of the man1 and his subordination to ,jesus1 by his rejection of those brilliant titles4 ,to enable him to reject them1 they must have been offered2 but this could in reality only be done by well-wishers1 as in ,luke1 where the conjecture that the ,baptist was the ,messiah is attributed to the people4 ,why then did not the fourth ,evangelist attribute those questions likewise to the people1 from whom1 with a slight alteration1 they would have seemed quite natural8 ,jesus1 when addressing the unbelieving ,jews in ,jerusalem1 7,john v4 #cc71 appeals to their message to the ,baptist1 and to the faithful testimony then given by the latter4 ,had ,john given his declaration concerning his relation to ,jesus before the common people merely1 such an appeal would have been impossible2 for if ,jesus were to refer his enemies to the testimony of ,john1 that testimony must have been delivered before his enemies2 if the assertions of the ,baptist were to have any diplomatic value1 they must have resulted from the official inquiry of a magisterial deputation4 ,such a remodelling of the facts appears to have been aided by the above-mentioned narrative from the synoptical traditions1 wherein the high priests and scribes ask ,jesus1 by what authority he does such things 7as the casting out of the buyers and sellers74 ,here also ,jesus refers to ,john1 asking for their opinion as to the authority of his baptism1 only1 it is true1 with the negative view of repressing their further inquiries 7,matt4 xxi4 #bc ff4 parall472 but how easily might this reference be made to take an affirmative sense1 and instead of the argument1 8,if ye know not what powers were entrusted to ,john1 ye need not know whence mine are given10--the following be substituted3 8,since ye know what ,john has declared concerning me1 ye must also know what power and dignity belong to me20 whereupon what was originally a question addressed to ,jesus1 transformed itself into a message to the ,baptist4 #eia ,the judgment of ,jesus on the character of ,john is delivered on two occasions in the synoptical gospels2 first after the departure of ,john's messengers 7,matt xi4 #g ff472 secondly1 after the appearance of ,elias at the transfiguration 7,matt4 xvii4 #ab ff471 in reply to the question of a disciple4 ,in the fourth gospel1 after an appeal to the ,baptist's testimony1 ,jesus pronounces an eulogium on him in the presence of the ,jews 7v4 #ce71 after referring1 as above remarked1 to their sending to ,john4 ,in this passage he calls the ,baptist a burning and a shining light1 in whose beams the fickle people were for a season willing to rejoice4 ,in one synoptical passage1 he declares ,john to be the promised ,elias2 in the other1 there are three points to be distinguished4 ,first1 with respect to the character and agency of ,john1--the severity and firmness of his mind1 and the pre-eminence which as the messianic forerunner1 who with forcible hand had opened the kingdom of heaven1 he maintained even over the prophets1 are extolled 7v4 #g-ad72 secondly1 in relation to ,jesus and the citizens of the kingdom of heaven1 the ,baptist1 though exalted above all the members of the ,old ,testament economy1 is declared to be in the rear of every one on whom1 through ,jesus1 the new light had arisen 7v4 #aa74 ,we see how ,jesus understood this from what follows 7v4 #ah71 when we compare it with ,matt4 ix4 #af f4 ,in the former passage ,jesus describes ,john as 1 neither eating nor drinking2 and in the latter it is this very asceticism which is said to liken him to the and 1 the old garments and old bottles1 with which the new1 introduced by ,jesus1 will not agree4 ,what else then could it be1 in which the ,baptist was beneath the children of the kingdom of ,jesus1 but 7in connexion with his non-recognition or only qualified acknowledgment of ,jesus as ,messiah7 the spirit of external observance1 which still clung to fasting and similar works1 and his gloomy asceticism8 ,and1 in truth1 freedom from these is the test of transition from a religion of bondage1 to one of liberty and spirituality4 #eib ,thirdly1 with respect to the relation in which the agency of ,john and ,jesus stood to their cotemporaries1 the same inaptitude to receive the ministrations of both is complained of v4 #af ff41 although in v4 #ab it is observed1 that the violent zeal of some had1 under the guidance of ,john1 wrested for them an entrance into the kingdom of the ,messiah4 #eic ,in conclusion1 we must take a review of the steps by which tradition has gradually annexed itself to the simple historical traits of the relation between ,john and ,jesus4 ,thus much seems to be historical3 that ,jesus1 attracted by the fame of the ,baptist1 put himself under the tuition of that preacher1 and that having remained some time among his followers1 and been initiated into his ideas of the approaching messianic kingdom1 he1 after the imprisonment of ,john1 carried on1 under certain modifications1 the same work1 never ceasing1 even when he had far surpassed his predecessor1 to render him due homage4 ,the first addition to this in the ,christian legend1 was1 that ,john had taken approving notice of ,jesus4 ,during his public ministry1 it was known that he had only indefinitely referred to one coming after him2 but it behoved him1 at least in a conjectural way1 to point out ,jesus personally1 as that successor4 ,to this it was thought he might have been moved by the fame of the works of ,jesus1 which1 loud as it was1 might even penetrate the walls of his prison4 ,then was formed ,matthew's narrative of the message from prison2 the first modest attempt to make the ,baptist a witness for ,jesus1 and hence clothed in an interrogation1 because a categorical testimony was too unprecedented4 ,but this late and qualified testimony was not enough4 ,it was a late one1 for prior to it there was the baptism which ,jesus received from ,john1 and by which he1 in a certain degree1 placed himself in subordination to the ,baptist2 hence those scenes in ,luke1 by which the ,baptist was placed1 even before his birth1 in a subservient relation to ,jesus4 ,not only was it a late testimony which that message contained2 it was but half a one2 for the question implied uncertainty1 and conveyed indecision4 ,hence in the fourth gospel there is no longer a question about the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 but the most solemn asseverations on that head1 and we have the most pointed declarations of the eternal1 divine nature of ,jesus1 and his character as the suffering ,messiah4 ,in a narrative aiming at unity1 as does the fourth gospel1 these very pointed declarations could not stand by the side of the dubious message1 which is therefore only found in this ,gospel under a totally reorganized form4 ,neither does this message accord with that which in the synoptical gospels is made to occur at the baptism of ,jesus1 and even earlier in his intercourse with ,john2 but the first three ,evangelists1 in their loose compositions1 admitted1 along with the more recent form of the tradition1 the less complete one1 because they attached less importance to the question of ,john than to the consequent discourse of ,jesus4 #dh4 ,,the ,,execution ,,of ,,john ,,the ,,baptist4 ,we here take under our examination1 by way of appendix1 all that has been transmitted to us concerning the tragic end of the ,baptist4 ,according to the unanimous testimony of the synoptical ,evangelists and ,josephus1 #eid he was executed1 after a protracted imprisonment1 by order of ,herod ,antipas1 tetrarch of ,galilee2 and in the ,new ,testament accounts he is said to have been beheaded4 7,matt4 xiv4 #c ff42 ,mark vi4 #ag ff42 ,luke ix4 #i47 ,but ,josephus and the ,evangelists are at variance as to the cause of his imprisonment and execution4 ,according to the latter1 the censure which ,john had pronounced on the marriage of ,herod with his 7half7 brother's #eie wife1 was the cause of his imprisonment1 and the revengeful cunning of ,herodias1 at a court festival1 of his death3 ,josephus gives the fear of disturbances1 which was awakened in ,herod by the formidable train of the ,baptist's followers1 as the cause at once of the imprisonment and the execution4 #eif ,if these two accounts be considered as distinct and irreconcilable1 it may be doubted which of the two deserves the preference4 ,it is not here as in the case of ,herod ,agrippa's death1 ,acts xii4 #bc1 viz41 that the ,new ,testament narrative1 by intermixing a supernatural cause where ,josephus has only a natural one1 enables us to prejudge it as unhistorical2 on the contrary1 we might here give the palm to the evangelical narrative1 for the particularity of its details4 ,but on the other hand1 it must be considered that that very particularity1 and especially the conversion of a political into a personal motive1 corresponds fully to the development of the legendary spirit among the people1 whose imagination is more at home in domestic than in political circles4 #eig ,meanwhile it is quite possible to reconcile the two narratives4 ,this has been attempted by conjecturing1 that the fear of insurrection was the proper cabinet motive for the imprisonment of the ,baptist1 while the irreverent censure passed on the ruler was thrust forward as the ostensible motive4 #eih ,but ,i greatly doubt whether ,herod would designedly expose the scandalous point touched on by ,john2 it is more likely1 if a distinction is to be here made between a private and ostensible cause1 that the censure of the marriage was the secret reason1 and the fear of insurrection disseminated as an excuse for extreme severity4 #eii ,such a distinction1 however1 is not needed2 for ,antipas might well fear1 that ,john1 by his strong censure of the marriage and the whole course of the tetrarch's life1 might stir up the people into rebellion against him4 ,but there is a diversity even between the evangelical narratives themselves1 not only in this1 that ,mark gives the scene at the feast with the most graphic details1 while ,luke is satisfied with a concise statement 7iii4 #ah-bj1 ix4 #i71 and ,matthew takes a middle course2 but ,mark's representation of the relation between ,herod and the ,baptist differs essentially from that of ,matthew4 ,while according to the latter1 ,herod wished to kill ,john1 but was withheld by his dread of the people1 who looked on the ,baptist as a prophet 7v4 #e72 according to ,mark1 it was ,herodias who conspired against his life1 but could not attain her object1 because her husband was in awe of ,john as a holy man1 sometimes heard him gladly1 and not seldom followed his counsel 7v4 #ai74 #fjj ,here1 again1 the individualizing characteristic of ,mark's narrative has induced commentators to prefer it to that of ,matthew4 #fja ,but in the finishing touches and alterations of ,mark we may detect the hand of tradition2 especially as ,josephus merely says of the people1 that they gave ear to the sound of his words1 1 while he says of ,herod1 that having conceived fears of ,john1 he judged it expedient to put him to death1 7 7 4 ,how near lay the temptation to exalt the ,baptist1 by representing the prince against whom he had spoken1 and by whom he was imprisoned1 as feeling bound to venerate him1 and only1 to his remorse1 seduced into giving his death-warrant1 by his vindictive wife6 ,it may be added1 that the account of ,matthew is not inconsistent with the character of ,antipas1 as gathered from other sources4 #fjb ,the close of the evangelical narratives leaves the impression that the dissevered head of ,john was presented at table1 and that the prison was consequently close at hand4 ,but we learn from the passage in ,josephus above cited1 that the ,baptist was confined in ,machrus1 a fortress on the southern border of ,pera1 whereas the residence of ,herod was in ,tiberias1 #fjc a day's journey distant from ,machrus4 ,hence the head of ,john the ,baptist could only be presented to ,herod after two days' journey1 and not while he yet sat at table4 ,the contradiction here apparent is not to be removed by the consideration1 that it is not expressly said in the ,gospels that ,john's head was brought in during the meal1 for this is necessarily inferred from the entire narrative4 ,not only are the commission of the executioner and his return with the head1 detailed in immediate connexion with the incidents of the meal2 but only thus has the whole dramatic scene its appropriate conclusion2--only thus is the contrast complete1 which is formed by the death-warrant and the feast3 in fine1 the 1 on which the dissevered head is presented1 marks it as the costliest viand which the unnatural revenge of a woman could desire at table4 ,but we have1 as a probable solution1 the information of ,josephus1 #fjd that ,herod ,antipas was then at war with the ,arabian king1 ,aretas1 between whose kingdom and his own lay the fortress of ,machrus2 and there ,herod might possibly have resided with his court at that period4 ,thus we see that the life of ,john in the evangelical narratives is1 from easily conceived reasons1 overspread with mythical lustre on the side which is turned towards ,jesus1 while on the other its historical lineaments are more visible4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,baptism ,,and ,,temptation ,,of ,,jesus4 #di4 ,,why ,,did ,,jesus ,,receive ,,baptism ,,from ,,john8 ,in conformity with the evangelical view of the fact1 the customary answer given by the orthodox to this question is1 that ,jesus1 by his submission to ,john's baptism1 signified his consecration to the messianic office2 an explanation which is supported by a passage in ,justin1 according to which it was the ,jewish notion1 that the ,messiah would be unknown as such to himself and others1 until ,elias as his forerunner should anoint him1 and thereby make him distinguishable by all4 #fje ,the ,baptist himself1 however1 as he is represented by the first ,evangelist1 could not have partaken of this design2 for had he regarded his baptism as a consecration which the ,messiah must necessarily undergo1 he would not have hesitated to perform it on the person of ,jesus 7iii4 #ad74 ,our former inquiries have shown that ,john's baptism related partly 1 its recipients promising a believing preparation for the expected ,messiah2 how then could ,jesus1 if he was conscious of being himself the 1 submit himself to this baptism8 ,the usual answer from the orthodox point of view is1 that ,jesus1 although conscious of his ,messiahship1 yet1 so long as it was not publicly attested by ,god1 spoke and acted1 not as ,messiah1 but merely as an ,israelite1 who held himself bound to obey every divine ordinance relative to his nation4 #fjf ,but1 here1 there is a distinction to be made4 ,negatively1 it became ,jesus to refrain from performing any messianic deeds1 or using any of the ,messiah's prerogatives1 before his title was solemnly attested2 even positively1 it became him to submit himself to the ordinances which were incumbent on every ,israelite2 but to join in a new rite1 which symbolized the expectation of another and a future ,messiah1 could never1 without dissimulation1 be the act of one who was conscious of being the actual ,messiah himself4 ,more recent theologians have therefore wisely admitted1 that when ,jesus came to ,john for baptism1 he had not a decided conviction of his ,messiahship4 #fjg ,they indeed regard this uncertainty as only the struggle of modesty4 ,paulus1 for instance1 observes that ,jesus1 notwithstanding he had heard from his parents of his messianic destination1 and had felt this first intimation confirmed by many external incidents1 as well as by his own spiritual development1 was yet not over eager to appropriate the honour1 which had been as it were thrust upon him4 ,but1 if the previous narratives concerning ,jesus be regarded as a history1 and therefore1 of necessity1 as a supernatural one2 then must he1 who was heralded by angels1 miraculously conceived1 welcomed into the world by the homage of magi and prophets1 and who in his twelfth year knew the temple to be his ,father's house1 have long held a conviction of his ,messiahship1 above all the scruples of a false modesty4 ,if on the contrary it be thought possible1 by criticism1 to reduce the history of the childhood of ,jesus to a merely natural one1 there is no longer anything to account for his early belief that he was the ,messiah2 and the position which he adopted by the reception of ,john's baptism becomes1 instead of an affected diffidence1 a real ignorance of his messianic destiny4--,too modest1 continue these commentators1 to declare himself ,messiah on his own authority1 ,jesus fulfilled all that the strictest self-judgment could require1 and wished to make the decisive experiment1 whether the ,deity would allow that he1 as well as every other1 should dedicate himself to the coming ,messiah1 or whether a sign would be granted1 that he himself was the 4 ,but to do something seen to be inappropriate1 merely to try whether ,god will correct the mistake1 is just such a challenging of the divine power as ,jesus1 shortly after his baptism1 decidedly condemns4 ,thus it must be allowed that1 the baptism of ,john being a baptism 1 if ,jesus could submit himself to it without dissimulation or presumption1 he could not at the time have held himself to be that 1 and if he really uttered the words 1 4441 ,suffer it to be so now1 etc4 7which1 however1 could only be called forth by the refusal of the ,baptist--a refusal that stands or falls with his previous conviction of the ,messiahship of ,jesus71 he could only mean by them1 that it became him1 with every pious ,israelite1 to devote himself by anticipation to the expected ,messiah1 in baptism1 although the ,evangelist1 instructed by the issue1 put on them a different construction4 ,but the relation hitherto discussed is only one aspect of ,john's baptism2 the other1 which is yet more strongly attested by history1 shows it as a 1 a baptism of repentance4 ,the ,israelites1 we are told1 ,matt4 iii4 #f1 were baptized of ,john1 confessing their sins3 shall we then suppose that ,jesus made such a confession8 ,they received the command to repent3 did ,jesus acknowledge such a command8 ,this difficulty was felt even in the early church4 ,in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews1 adopted by the ,nazarenes1 ,jesus asks his mother and brother1 when invited by them to receive ,john's baptism1 wherein he had sinned1 that this baptism was needful for him8 #fjh and an heretical apocryphal work appears to have attributed to ,jesus a confession of his own sins at his baptism4 #fji ,the sum of what modern theologians have contributed towards the removal of this difficulty1 consists in the application to ,jesus of the distinction between what a man is as an individual1 and what he is as a member of the community4 ,he needed1 say they1 no repentance on his own behalf1 but1 aware of its necessity for all other men1 the children of ,abraham not excepted1 he wished to demonstrate his approval of an institute which confirmed this truth1 and hence he submitted to it4 ,but let the reader only take a nearer view of the facts4 ,according to ,matt4 iii4 #f1 ,john appears to have required a confession of sins previous to baptism2 such a confession ,jesus1 presupposing his impeccability1 could not deliver without falsehood2 if he refused1 ,john would hardly baptize him1 for he did not yet believe him to be the ,messiah1 and from every other ,israelite he must have considered a confession of sins indispensable4 ,the non-compliance of ,jesus might very probably originate the dispute to which ,matthew gives a wholly different character2 but certainly1 if the refusal of ,john had such a cause1 the matter could scarcely have been adjusted by a mere suffer it to be so now1 for no confession being given1 the ,baptist would not have perceived that all righteousness was fulfilled4 ,even supposing that a confession was not required of every baptized person1 ,john would not conclude the ceremony of baptism without addressing the neophyte on the subject of repentance4 ,could ,jesus tacitly sanction such an address to himself1 when conscious that he needed no regeneration8 and would he not1 in so doing1 perplex the minds which were afterwards to believe in him as the sinless one8 ,we will even abandon the position that ,john so addressed the neophytes1 and only urge that the gestures of those who plunged into the purifying water must have been those of contrition2 yet if ,jesus conformed himself to these even in silence1 without referring them to his own condition1 he cannot be absolved from the charge of dissimulation4 ,there is then no alternative but to suppose1 that as ,jesus had not1 up to the time of his baptism1 thought of himself as the ,messiah1 so with regard to the 7repentance71 he may have justly ranked himself amongst the most excellent in ,israel1 without excluding himself from what is predicated in ,job iv4 #ah1 xv4 #ae4 ,there is little historical ground for controverting this2 for the words1 which of you convinceth me of sin8 7,john viii4 #df7 could only refer to open delinquencies1 and to a later period in the life of ,jesus4 ,the scene in his twelfth year1 even if historical1 could not by itself prove a sinless development of his powers4 #ej4 ,,the ,,scene ,,at ,,the ,,baptism ,,of ,,jesus ,,considered ,,as ,,supernatural ,,and ,,as ,,natural4 ,at the moment that ,john had completed his baptism of ,jesus1 the synoptical gospels tell us that the heavens were opened1 the ,holy ,spirit descended on ,jesus in the form of a dove1 and a voice from heaven designated him the ,son of ,god1 in whom the ,father was well pleased4 ,the fourth ,evangelist 7i4 #cb ff47 makes the ,baptist narrate that he saw the ,holy ,spirit descend like a dove1 and remain on ,jesus2 but as in the immediate context ,john says of his baptism1 that it was destined for the manifestation of the ,messiah1 and as the description of the descending dove corresponds almost verbally with the synoptical accounts1 it is not to be doubted that the same event is intended4 ,the old and lost ,gospels of ,justin and the ,ebionites give1 as concomitants1 a heavenly light1 and a flame bursting out of the ,jordan2 #faj in the dove and heavenly voice also1 they have alterations1 hereafter to be noticed4 ,for whose benefit the appearance was granted1 remains doubtful on a comparison of the various narratives4 ,in ,john1 where the ,baptist recites it to his followers1 these seem not to have been eye-witnesses2 and from his stating that he who sent him to baptize1 promised the descent and repose of the ,spirit as a mark of the ,messiah1 we gather that the appearance was designed specially for the ,baptist4 ,according to ,mark it is ,jesus1 who1 in ascending from the water1 sees the heavens open and the ,spirit descend4 ,even in ,matthew it is the most natural to refer 1 he saw1 and 1 were opened to him1 to 1 ,jesus1 the subject immediately before2 but as it is said1 in continuation1 that he saw the ,holy ,spirit ' 1 not ' 7,mark's ' 1 which does not agree with his construction1 is explained by his dependence on ,matthew71 the beholder seems not to be the same as he on whom the ,spirit descended1 and we are obliged to refer and to the more remote antecedent1 namely the ,baptist1 who1 as the heavenly voice speaks of ,jesus in the third person1 is most naturally to be regarded as also a witness4 ,luke appears to give a much larger number of spectators to the scene1 for according to him1 ,jesus was baptized 1 when all the people were baptized1 and consequently he must have supposed that the scene described occurred in their presence4 #faa ,the narrations directly convey no other meaning1 than that the whole scene was externally visible and audible1 and thus they have been always understood by the majority of commentators4 ,but in endeavouring to conceive the incident as a real one1 a cultivated and reflecting mind must stumble at no insignificant difficulties4 ,first1 that for the appearance of a divine being on earth1 the visible heavens must divide themselves1 to allow of his descent from his accustomed seat1 is an idea that can have no objective reality1 but must be the entirely subjective creation of a time when the dwelling-place of ,deity was imagined to be above the vault of heaven4 ,further1 how is it reconcilable with the true idea of the ,holy ,spirit as the divine1 all-pervading ,power1 that he should move from one place to another1 like a finite being1 and embody himself in the form of a dove8 ,finally1 that ,god should utter articulate tones in a national idiom1 has been justly held extravagant4 #fab ,even in the early church1 the more enlightened fathers adopted the opinion1 that the heavenly voices spoken of in the biblical history were not external sounds1 the effect of vibrations in the air1 but inward impressions produced by ,god in the minds of those to whom he willed to impart himself3 thus of the appearance at the baptism of ,jesus1 ,origen and ,theodore of ,mopsuestia maintain that it was a vision1 and not a reality1 1 4 #fac ,to the simple indeed1 says ,origen1 in their simplicity1 it is a light thing to set the universe in motion1 and to sever a solid mass like the heavens2 but those who search more deeply into such matters1 will1 he thinks1 refer to those higher revelations1 by means of which chosen persons1 even waking1 and still more frequently in their dreams1 are led to suppose that they perceive something with their bodily senses1 while their minds only are affected3 so that consequently1 the whole appearance in question should be understood1 not as an external incident1 but as an inward vision sent by ,god2 an interpretation which has also met with much approbation among modern theologians4 ,in the first two ,gospels and in the fourth1 this interpretation is favoured by the expressions1 were opened to him1 1 he saw1 1 and ,i beheld1 1 which seem to imply that the appearance was subjective1 in the sense intended by ,theodore1 when he observes that the descent of the ,holy ,spirit was not seen by all present1 but that1 by a certain spiritual contemplation1 it was visible to ,john alone1 1 3 to ,john however we must add ,jesus1 who1 according to ,mark1 participated in the vision4 ,but in opposition to this stands the statement of ,luke3 the expressions which he uses1 ---- -- --1 it came to pass--was opened--and descended--and a voice came1 bear a character so totally objective and exterior1 #fad especially if we add the words1 in a bodily form1 1 that 7abiding by the notion of the perfect truthfulness of all the evangelical records7 the less explicit narratives must be interpreted by the unequivocal one of ,luke1 and the incident they recount must be understood as something more than an inward revelation to ,john and ,jesus4 ,hence it is prudent in ,olshausen to allow1 in concession to ,luke1 that there was present on the occasion a crowd of persons1 who saw and heard something1 yet to maintain that this was nothing distinct or comprehensible4 ,by this means1 on the one hand1 the occurrence is again transferred from the domain of subjective visions to that of objective phenomena2 while on the other1 the descending dove is supposed visible1 not to the bodily eye1 but only to the open spiritual one1 and the words audible to the soul1 not to the bodily ear4 ,our understanding fails us in this pneumatology of ,olshausen1 wherein there are sensible realities transcending the senses2 and we hasten out of this misty atmosphere into the clearer one of those1 who simply tell us1 that the appearance was an external incident1 but one purely natural4 ,this party appeals to the custom of antiquity1 to regard natural occurrences as divine intimations1 and in momentous crises1 where a bold resolution was to be taken1 to adopt them as guides4 ,to ,jesus1 spiritually matured into the ,messiah1 and only awaiting an external divine sanction1 and to the ,baptist who had already ceded the superiority to the friend of his youth1 in their solemn frame of mind at the baptism of the former by the latter1 every natural phenomenon that happened at the time1 must have been pregnant with meaning1 and have appeared as a sign of the divine will4 ,but what the natural appearance actually was1 is a point on which the commentators are divided in opinion4 ,some1 with the synoptical writers1 include a sound as well as an appearance2 others give1 with ,john1 an appearance only4 ,they interpret the opening of the heavens1 as a sudden parting of the clouds1 or a flash of lightning2 the dove they consider as a real bird of that species1 which by chance hovered over the head of ,jesus2 or they assume that the lightning or some meteor was compared to a dove1 from the manner of its descent4 ,they who include a sound as a part of the machinery in the scene1 suppose a clap of thunder1 which was imagined by those present to be a ,bath ,kol1 and interpreted into the words given by the first ,evangelist4 ,others1 on the contrary1 understand what is said of audible words1 merely as an explanation of the visible sign1 which was regarded as an attestation that ,jesus was the ,son of ,god4 ,this last opinion sacrifices the synoptical writers1 who undeniably speak of an audible voice1 to ,john1 and thus contains a critical doubt as to the historical character of the narratives1 which1 consistently followed out1 leads to quite other ground than that of the naturalistic interpretation4 ,if the sound was mere thunder1 and the words only an interpretation put upon it by the bystanders2 then1 as in the synoptical accounts1 the words are evidently supposed to have been audibly articulated1 we must allow that there is a traditional ingredient in these records4 ,so far as the appearance is concerned1 it is not to be denied that the sudden parting of clouds1 or a flash of lightning1 might be described as an opening of heaven2 but in nowise could the form of a dove be ascribed to lightning or a meteor4 ,the form is expressly the point of comparison in ,luke only1 but it is doubtless so intended by the other narrators2 although ,fritzsche contends that the words like a dove1 1 in ,matthew refer only to the rapid motion4 ,the flight of the dove has nothing so peculiar and distinctive1 that1 supposing this to be the point of comparison1 there would not be in any of the parallel passages a variation1 a substitution of some other bird1 or an entirely new figure4 ,as1 instead of this1 the mention of the dove is invariable through all the four gospels1 the simile must turn upon something exclusively proper to the dove1 and this can apparently be nothing but its form4 ,hence those commit the least violence on the text1 who adopt the supposition of a real dove4 ,paulus1 however1 in so doing1 incurred the hard task of showing by a multitude of facts from natural history and other sources1 that the dove might be tame enough to fly towards a man2 #fae how it could linger so long over one1 that it might be said1 ' 1 it abode upon him1 he has not succeeded in explaining1 and he thus comes into collision with the narrative of ,john1 by which he had sustained his supposition of the absence of a voice4 #faf #ea4 ,,an ,,attempt ,,at ,a ,,criticism ,,and ,,mythical ,,interpretation ,,of ,,the ,,narratives4 ,if then a more intelligible representation of the scene at the baptism of ,jesus is not to be given1 without doing violence to the evangelical text1 or without supposing it to be partially erroneous1 we are necessarily driven to a critical treatment of the accounts2 and indeed1 according to ,de ,wette and ,schleiermacher1 #fag this is the prevalent course in relation to the above point in the evangelical history4 ,from the narrative of ,john1 as the pure source1 it is sought to derive the synoptical accounts1 as turbid streams4 ,in the former1 it is said1 there is no opening heaven1 no heavenly voice2 only the descent of the ,spirit is1 as had been promised1 a divine witness to ,john that ,jesus is the ,messiah2 but in what manner the ,baptist perceived that the ,spirit rested on ,jesus1 he does not tell us1 and possibly the only sign may have been the discourse of ,jesus4 ,one cannot but wonder at ,schleiermacher's assertion1 that the manner in which the ,baptist perceived the descending ,spirit is not given in the fourth gospel1 when here also the expression 1 like a dove1 tells it plainly enough2 and this particular marks the descent as a visible one1 and not a mere inference from the discourse of ,jesus4 ,usteri1 indeed1 thinks that the ,baptist mentioned the dove1 merely as a figure1 to denote the gentle1 mild spirit which he had observed in ,jesus4 ,but had this been all1 he would rather have compared ,jesus himself to a dove1 as on another occasion he did to a lamb1 than have suggested the idea of a sensible appearance by the picturesque description1 ,i saw the ,spirit descending from heaven like a dove4 ,it is therefore not true in relation to the dove1 that first in the more remote tradition given by the synoptical writers1 what was originally figurative1 was received in a literal sense2 for in this sense it is understood by ,john1 and if he have the correct account1 the ,baptist himself must have spoken of a visible dove-like appearance1 as ,bleek1 ,neander1 and others1 acknowledge4 ,while the alleged distinction in relation to the dove1 between the first three evangelists and the fourth1 is not to be found2 with respect to the voice1 the difference is so wide1 that it is inconceivable how the one account could be drawn from the other4 ,for it is said that the testimony which ,john gave concerning ,jesus1 after the appearance3 ,this is the ,son of ,god 7,john i4 #cd71 taken in connexion with the preceding words3 ,he that sent me to baptize1 the same said unto me1 etc41 became1 in the process of tradition1 an immediate heavenly declaration1 such as we see in ,matthew3 ,this is my beloved ,son1 in whom ,i am well pleased4 ,supposing such a transformation admissible1 some instigation to it must be shown4 ,now in ,isaiah xlii4 #a1 ,jehovah says of his servant3 2 words which1 excepting those between the parentheses1 are almost literally translated by the declaration of the heavenly voice in ,matthew4 ,we learn from ,matt4 xii4 #ag ff4 that this passage was applied to ,jesus as the ,messiah2 and in it ,god himself is the speaker1 as in the synoptical account of the baptism4 ,here then was what would much more readily prompt the fiction of a heavenly voice1 than the expressions of ,john4 ,since1 therefore1 we do not need a misapprehension of the ,baptist's language to explain the story of the divine voice1 and since we cannot use it for the derivation of the allusion to the dove2 we must seek for the source of our narrative1 not in one of the evangelical documents1 but beyond the ,new ,testament1--in the domain of cotemporary ideas1 founded on the ,old ,testament1 the total neglect of which has greatly diminished the value of ,schleiermacher's critique on the ,new ,testament4 ,to regard declarations concerning the ,messiah1 put by poets into the mouth of ,jehovah1 as real1 audible voices from heaven1 was wholly in the spirit of the later ,judaism1 which not seldom supposed such vocal communications to fall to the lot of distinguished rabbins1 #fah and of the messianic prejudices1 which the early ,christians both shared themselves1 and were compelled1 in confronting the ,jews1 to satisfy4 ,in the passage quoted from ,isaiah1 there was a divine declaration1 in which the present ,messiah was pointed to as it were with the finger1 and which was therefore specially adapted for a heavenly annunciation concerning him4 ,how could the spirit of ,christian legend be slow to imagine a scene1 in which these words were audibly spoken from heaven of the ,messiah4 ,but we detect a farther motive for such a representation of the case by observing1 that in ,mark and ,luke1 the heavenly voice addresses ,jesus in the second person1 and by comparing the words which1 according to the ,fathers1 were given in the old and lost gospels as those of the voice4 ,justin1 following his ,memoirs of the ,apostles1 1 thus reports them3 4 2 #fai ,thou art my ,son1 this day have ,i begotten thee4 ,in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews1 according to ,epiphanius2 #fbj this declaration was combined with that which our ,gospels contain4 ,clement of ,alexandria #fba and ,augustin #fbb seem to have read the words even in some copies of the latter2 and it is at least certain that some of our present manuscripts of ,luke have this addition4 #fbc ,here were words uttered by the heavenly voice1 drawn1 not from ,isaiah1 but from ,psalm ii4 #g1 a passage considered messianic by ,jewish interpreters2 #fbd in ,heb4 i4 #e1 applied to ,christ2 and1 from their being couched in the form of a direct address1 containing a yet stronger inducement to conceive it as a voice sent to the ,messiah from heaven4 ,if then the words of the psalm were originally attributed to the heavenly voice1 or if they were only taken in connexion with the passage in ,isaiah 7as is probable from the use of the second person1 1 in ,mark and ,luke1 since this form is presented in the psalm1 and not in ,isaiah71 we have a sufficient indication that this text1 long interpreted of the ,messiah1 and easily regarded as an address from heaven to the ,messiah on earth1 was the source of our narrative of the divine voice1 heard at the baptism of ,jesus4 ,to unite it with the baptism1 followed as a matter of course1 when this was held to be a consecration of ,jesus to his office4 ,we proceed to the descent of the ,spirit in the form of a dove4 ,in this examination we must separate the descent of the ,spirit from the form of the dove1 and consider the two particulars apart4 ,that the ,divine ,spirit was to rest in a peculiar measure on the ,messiah1 was an expectation necessarily resulting from the notion1 that the messianic times were to be those of the outpouring of the ,spirit upon all flesh 7,joel iii4 #a ff472 and in ,isaiah xi4 #a f4 it was expressly said of the stem of ,jesse1 that the spirit of the ,lord would rest on it in all its fulness1 as the ,spirit of wisdom and understanding1 of might1 and of the fear of the ,lord4 ,the communication of the ,spirit1 considered as an individual act1 coincident with the baptism1 had a type in the history of ,david1 on whom1 when anointed by ,samuel1 the spirit of ,god came from that day forward 7#a ,sam4 xvi4 #ac74 ,further1 in the ,old ,testament phrases concerning the imparting of the ,divine ,spirit to men1 especially in that expression of ,isaiah1 1 which best corresponds to the of ,john1 there already lay the germ of a symbolical representation2 for that ,hebrew verb is applied also to the halting of armies1 or1 like the parallel ,arabic word1 even of animals4 ,the imagination1 once stimulated by such an expression1 would be the more strongly impelled to complete the picture by the necessity for distinguishing the descent of the ,spirit on the ,messiah1--in the ,jewish view1 from the mode in which it was imparted to the prophets 7e4g4 ,isaiah lxi4 #a7--;in the ,christian view1 from its ordinary communication to the baptized 7e4g4 ,acts xix4 #a ff74 #fbe ,the position being once laid down that the ,spirit was to descend on the ,messiah1 the question immediately occurred3 ,how would it descend8 ,this was necessarily decided according to the popular ,jewish idea1 which always represented the ,divine ,spirit under some form or other4 ,in the ,old ,testament1 and even in the ,new 7,acts ii4 #c71 fire is the principal symbol of the ,holy ,spirit2 but it by no means follows that other sensible objects were not similarly used4 ,in an important passage of the ,old ,testament 7,gen4 i4 #b71 the ,spirit of ,god is described as hovering 771 a word which suggests1 as its sensible representation1 the movement of a bird1 rather than of fire4 ,thus the expression 1 ,deut4 xxxii4 #aa1 is used of the hovering of a bird over its young4 ,but the imagination could not be satisfied with the general figure of a bird2 it must have a specific image1 and everything led to the choice of the dove4 ,in the ,east1 and especially in ,syria1 the dove is a sacred bird1 #fbf and it is so for a reason which almost necessitated its association with the ,spirit moving on the face of the primitive waters 7,gen4 i4 #b74 ,the brooding dove was a symbol of the quickening warmth of nature2 #fbg it thus perfectly represented the function which1 in the ,mosaic cosmogony1 is ascribed to the ,spirit of ,god1--the calling forth of the world of life from the chaos of the first creation4 ,moreover1 when the earth was a second time covered with water1 it is a dove1 sent by ,noah1 which hovers over its waves1 and which1 by plucking an olive leaf1 and at length finally disappearing1 announces the renewed possibility of living on the earth4 ,who then can wonder that in ,jewish writings1 the ,spirit hovering over the primeval waters is expressly compared to a dove1 #fbh and that1 apart from the narrative under examination1 the dove is taken as a symbol of the ,holy ,spirit8 #fbi ,how near to this lay the association of the hovering dove with the ,messiah1 on whom the dove-like spirit was to descend1 is evident1 without our having recourse to the ,jewish writings1 which designate the ,spirit hovering over the waters1 ,gen4 i4 #b1 as the ,spirit of the ,messiah1 #fcj and also connect with him its emblem1 the ,noachian dove4 #fca ,when1 in this manner1 the heavenly voice1 and the ,divine ,spirit down-hovering like a dove1 gathered from the cotemporary ,jewish ideas1 had become integral parts of the ,christian legend concerning the circumstances of the baptism of ,jesus2 it followed1 of course1 that the heavens should open themselves1 for the ,spirit1 once embodied1 must have a road before it could descend through the vault of heaven4 #fcb ,the result of the preceding inquiries1 viz41 that the alleged miraculous circumstances of the baptism of ,jesus have merely a mythical value1 might have been much more readily obtained1 in the way of inference from the preceding chapter2 for if1 according to that1 ,john had not acknowledged ,jesus to be the ,messiah1 there could have been no appearances at the baptism of ,jesus1 demonstrative to ,john of his ,messiahship4 ,we have1 however1 established the mythical character of the baptismal phenomena1 without presupposing the result of the previous chapter2 and thus the two independently obtained conclusions may serve to strengthen each other4 ,supposing all the immediate circumstances of the baptism of ,jesus unhistorical1 the question occurs1 whether the baptism itself be also a mere mythus4 ,fritzsche seems not disinclined to the affirmative1 for he leaves it undecided whether the first ,christians knew historically1 or only supposed1 in conformity with their messianic expectations1 that ,jesus was consecrated to his messianic office by ,john1 as his forerunner4 ,this view may be supported by the observation1 that in the ,jewish expectation1 which originated in the history of ,david1 combined with the prophecy of ,malachi1 there was adequate inducement to assume such a consecration of ,jesus by the ,baptist1 even without historical warrant2 and the mention of ,john's baptism in relation to ,jesus 7,acts i4 #bb71 in a narrative1 itself traditional1 proves nothing to the contrary4 ,yet1 on the other hand1 it is to be considered that the baptism of ,jesus by ,john furnishes the most natural basis for an explanation of the messianic project of ,jesus4 ,when we have two cotemporaries1 of whom one announces the proximity of the ,messiah's kingdom1 and the other subsequently assumes the character of ,messiah2 the conjecture arises1 even1 without positive information1 that they stood in a relation to each other--that the latter owed his idea to the former4 ,if ,jesus had the messianic idea excited in him by ,john1 yet1 as is natural1 only so far that he also looked forward to the advent of the messianic individual1 whom he did not1 in the first instance1 identify with himself2 he would most likely submit himself to the baptism of ,john4 ,this would probably take place without any striking occurrences2 and ,jesus1 in no way announced by it as the ,baptist's superior1 might1 as above remarked1 continue for some time to demean himself as his disciple4 ,if we take a comparative retrospect of our evangelical documents1 the pre-eminence which has of late been sought for the fourth gospel appears totally unmerited4 ,the single historical fact1 the baptism of ,jesus by ,john1 is not mentioned by the fourth ,evangelist1 who is solicitous about the mythical adjuncts alone1 and these he in reality gives no more simply than the synoptical writers1 his omission of the opening heaven excepted2 for the divine speech is not wanting in his narrative1 if we read it impartially4 ,in the words1 i4 #cc3 ,he that sent me to baptize with water1 the same said unto me1 ,upon whom thou shalt see the ,spirit descending1 and remaining on him1 the same is he which baptizeth with the ,holy ,ghost1 we have not only substantially the same purport as that conveyed by the heavenly voice in the synoptical gospels1 but also a divine declaration2 the only difference being1 that here ,john is addressed exclusively1 and prior to the baptism of ,jesus4 ,this difference originated partly in the importance which the fourth ,evangelist attached to the relation between the ,baptist and ,jesus1 and which required that the criteria of the messianic individual1 as well as the proximity of his kingdom1 should have been revealed to ,john at his call to baptize2 and it might be partly suggested by the narrative in #a ,sam4 xvi41 according to which ,samuel1 being sent by ,jehovah to anoint a king selected from the sons of ,jesse1 is thus admonished by ,jehovah on the entrance of ,david3 ,arise and anoint him1 for this is he 7v4 #ab74 ,the descent of the ,spirit1 which in ,david's case follows his consecration1 is1 by the fourth ,evangelist1 made an antecedent sign of the ,messiahship of ,jesus4 #eb4 ,,relation ,,of ,,the ,,supernatural ,,at ,,the ,,baptism ,,of ,,jesus ,,to ,,the ,,supernatural ,,in ,,his ,,conception4 ,at the commencement of this chapter1 we enquired into the subjective views of ,jesus in his reception of ,john's baptism1 or the idea which he entertained of its relation to his own character4 ,we close this discussion with an inquiry into the objective purpose of the miracles at the baptism of ,jesus1 or the mode in which they were to subserve the manifestation of his messiahship4 ,the common answer to such an inquiry is1 that ,jesus was thereby inducted to his public office1 and declared to be the ,messiah1 #fcc i4e4 that nothing was conferred on him1 and that simply the character which he already possessed was manifested to others4 ,but1 it may be asked1 is such an abstraction intended by our narrators8 ,a consecration to an office1 effected by divine co-operation1 was ever considered by antiquity as a delegation of divine powers for its fulfilment2 hence1 in the ,old ,testament1 the kings1 as soon as they are anointed1 are filled with the spirit of ,god 7#a ,sam4 x4 #f1 #aj1 xvi4 #ac72 and in the ,new ,testament also1 the apostles1 before entering on their vocation1 are furnished with supernatural gifts 7,acts ii474 ,it may1 therefore1 be beforehand conjectured1 that according to the original sense of the ,gospels1 the consecration of ,jesus at his baptism was attended with a supply of higher powers2 and this is confirmed by an examination of our narratives4 ,for the synoptical writers all state1 that after the baptism1 the ,spirit led ,jesus into the wilderness1 obviously marking this journey as the first effect of the higher principle infused at his baptism3 and in ,john1 the words ' 1 applied to the descending ,spirit1 seem to intimate1 that from the time of the baptism there was a relation not previously subsisting1 between the and ,jesus4 ,this interpretation of the marvels at the baptism of ,jesus seems in contradiction with the narratives of his conception4 ,if ,jesus1 as ,matthew and ,luke state1 was conceived by the ,holy ,ghost2 or if1 as ,john propounds1 the divine 1 the word1 was made flesh in him1 from the beginning of his earthly existence2 why did he yet need1 at his baptism1 a special intromission of the 8 ,several modern expositors have seen1 and sought to solve1 this difficulty4 ,olshausen's explanation consists in the distinction between the potential and the actual2 but it is self-contradictory4 #fcd ,for if the character of the which was manifested act1 with the ripened manhood of ,jesus1 at his baptism1 was already present potenti in the child and youth2 there must have also been an inward principle of development1 by means of which his powers would gradually unfold themselves from within1 instead of being first awakened by a sudden illapse of the ,spirit from without4 ,this1 however1 does not preclude the possibility that the divine principle1 existing in ,jesus1 as supernaturally conceived1 from the moment of his birth1 might need1 owing to the human form of its development1 some impulse from without2 and ,lcke #fce has more justly proceeded on this contrast between external impulse and inward development4 ,the 1 present in ,jesus from his birth1 needed1 he thinks1 however strong might be the inward bent1 some external stimulus and vivification1 in order to arrive at full activity and manifestation in the world2 and that which awakens and guides the divine life-germ in the world is1 on apostolic showing1 the 4 ,allowing this1 yet the inward disposition and the requisite force of the outward stimulus stand in an inverse relation to each other2 so that the stronger the outward stimulus required1 the weaker is the inward disposition2 but in a case where the inward disposition is consummate1--as it must be supposed in ,jesus1 engendered by the ,spirit1 or animated by the 1--the exterior impulse ought to be a minimum1 that is1 every circumstance1 even the most common1 might serve as a determination of the inward tendency4 ,but at the baptism of ,jesus we see the maximum of exterior impulse1 in the visible descent of the divine ,spirit2 and although we allow for the special nature of the messianic task1 for the fulfilment of which he must be qualified1 #fcf yet the maximum of inward disposition1 which fitted him to be the 1 cannot at the same time be supposed as existing in him from his birth3 a consequence which ,lcke only escapes1 by reducing the baptismal scene to a mere inauguration1 thus1 as has been already shown1 contradicting the evangelical records4 ,we must here give a similar decision to that at which we arrived concerning the genealogies2 viz41 that in that circle of the early ,christian church1 in which the narrative of the descent of the on ,jesus at his baptism was formed1 the idea that ,jesus was generated by the same cannot have prevailed2 and while1 at the present day1 the communication of the divine nature to ,jesus is thought of as cotemporary with his conception1 those ,christians must have regarded his baptism as the epoch of such communication4 ,in fact1 those primitive ,christians whom1 in a former discussion1 we found to have known nothing1 or to have believed nothing1 of the supernatural conception of ,jesus1 were also those who connected the first communication of divine powers to ,jesus with his baptism in the ,jordan4 ,for no other doctrine did the orthodox fathers of the church more fiercely persecute the ancient ,ebionites1 #fcg with their gnostic fellow-believer ,cerinthus1 #fch than for this3 that the ,holy ,spirit first united himself with ,jesus at his baptism4 ,in the ,gospel of the ,ebionites it was written that the not only descended on ,jesus in the form of a dove1 but entered into him2 #fci and according to ,justin1 it was the general expectation of the ,jews1 that higher powers would first be granted to the ,messiah1 when he should be anointed by his forerunner ,elias4 #fdj ,the development of these ideas seems to have been the following4 ,when the messianic dignity of ,jesus began to be acknowledged among the ,jews1 it was thought appropriate to connect his coming into possession of the requisite gifts1 with the epoch from which he was in some degree known1 and which1 from the ceremony that marked it1 was also best adapted to represent that anointing with the ,holy ,spirit1 expected by the ,jews for their ,messiah3 and from this point of view was formed the legend of the occurrences at the baptism4 ,but as reverence for ,jesus was heightened1 and men appeared in the ,christian church who were acquainted with more exalted messianic ideas1 this tardy manifestation of messiahship was no longer sufficient2 his relation with the ,holy ,spirit was referred to his conception3 and from this point of view was formed the tradition of the supernatural conception of ,jesus4 ,here too1 perhaps1 the words of the heavenly voice1 which might originally be those of ,ps4 ii4 #g1 were altered after ,isaiah xlii4 #a4 ,for the words1 1 ,this day have ,i begotten thee1 were consistent with the notion that ,jesus was constituted the ,son of ,god at his baptism2 but they were no longer suitable to that occasion1 when the opinion had arisen that the origin of his life was an immediate divine act4 ,by this later representation1 however1 the earlier one was by no means supplanted1 but1 on the contrary1 tradition and her recorders being large-hearted1 both narratives--that of the miracles at the baptism1 and that of the supernatural conception1 or the indwelling of the in ,jesus from the commencement of his life1 although1 strictly1 they exclude each other1 went forth peaceably side by side1 and so were depicted by our ,evangelists1 not excepting even the fourth4 ,just as in the case of the genealogies3 the narrative of the imparting of the ,spirit at the baptism could not arise after the formation of the idea that ,jesus was engendered by the ,spirit2 but it might be retained as a supplement1 because tradition is ever unwilling to renounce any of its acquired treasures4 #ec4 ,,place ,,and ,,time ,,of ,,the ,,temptation ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,divergencies ,,of ,,the ,,evangelists ,,on ,,this ,,subject4 ,the transition from the baptism to the temptation of ,jesus1 as it is made by the synoptical writers1 is attended with difficulty in relation both to place and time4 ,with respect to the former1 it strikes us at once1 that according to all the synoptical gospels1 ,jesus after his baptism was led into the wilderness to be tempted1 implying that he was not previously in the wilderness1 although1 according to ,matt4 iii4 #a1 ,john1 by whom he was baptized1 exercised his ministry there4 ,this apparent contradiction has been exposed by the most recent critic of ,matthew's gospel1 for the sake of proving the statement that ,john baptized in the wilderness to be erroneous4 #fda ,but they who cannot resolve to reject this statement on grounds previously laid down1 may here avail themselves of the supposition1 that ,john delivered his preliminary discourses in the wilderness of ,judea1 but resorted to the ,jordan for the purpose of baptizing2 or1 if the banks of the ,jordan be reckoned part of that wilderness1 of the presumption that the ,evangelists can only have intended that the ,spirit led ,jesus farther into the recesses of the wilderness1 but have neglected to state this with precision1 because their description of the scene at the baptism had obliterated from their imagination their former designation of the locality of ,john's agency4 ,but there is1 besides1 a chronological difficulty3 namely1 that while1 according to the synoptical writers1 ,jesus1 in the plenitude of the ,spirit1 just communicated to him at the ,jordan1 betakes himself1 in consequence of that communication1 for forty days to the wilderness1 where the temptation occurs1 and then returns into ,galilee2 ,john1 on the contrary1 is silent concerning the temptation1 and appears to suppose an interval of a few days only1 between the baptism of ,jesus and his journey into ,galilee2 thus allowing no space for a six weeks' residence in the wilderness4 ,the fourth ,evangelist commences his narrative with the testimony which the ,baptist delivers to the emissaries of the ,sanhedrim 7i4 #ai72 the next day 7 7 he makes the ,baptist recite the incident which in the synoptical gospels is followed by the baptism 7v4 #bi73 again1 the next day 7 7 he causes two of his disciples to follow ,jesus 7v4 #ce72 farther1 the next day 7 1 v4 #dd71 as ,jesus is on the point of journeying into ,galilee1 ,philip and ,nathanael join him2 and lastly1 on the third day1 7ii4 #a71 ,jesus is at the wedding in ,cana of ,galilee4 ,the most natural inference is1 that the baptism took place immediately before ,john's narrative of its attendant occurrences1 and as according to the synoptical gospels the temptation followed close on the baptism1 both these events must be inserted between v4 #bh and #bi1 as ,euthymius supposed4 ,but between that which is narrated down to v4 #bh1 and the sequel from v4 #bi inclusive1 there is only the interval of a morrow1 1 while the temptation requires a period of forty days2 hence1 expositors have thought it necessary to give the wider sense of afterwards2 this however is inadmissible1 because the expression 1 the third day1 follows in connexion with 1 and restricts its meaning to the morrow4 ,we might therefore be inclined1 with ,kuinl1 to separate the baptism and the temptation1 to place the baptism after v4 #bh1 and to regard the next day's interview between ,jesus and ,john 7v4 #bi7 as a parting visit from the former to the latter3 inserting after this the journey into the wilderness and the temptation4 ,but without insisting that the first three ,evangelists seem not to allow even of a day's interval between the baptism and the departure of ,jesus into the wilderness1 yet even later we have the same difficulty in finding space for the forty days4 ,for it is no more possible to place the residence in the wilderness between the supposed parting visit and the direction of the two disciples to ,jesus1 that is between v4 #cd and #ce1 as ,kuinl attempts1 than between v4 #bh and #bi1 since the former as well as the latter passages are connected by 1 on the morrow4 ,hence we must descend to v4 #dc and #dd2 but here also there is only the interval of a morrow1 and even chap4 ii4 #a1 we are shut out by an 1 third day1 so that1 proceeding in this way1 the temptation would at last be carried to the residence of ,jesus in ,galilee1 in direct opposition to the statement of the synoptical writers2 while1 in further contradiction to them1 the temptation is placed at a farther and farther distance from the baptism4 ,thus neither at v4 #bi1 nor below it1 can the forty days' residence of ,jesus in the wilderness with the temptation be intercalated3 and it must therefore be referred1 according to the plan of ,lcke and others1 #fdb to the period before v4 #ai1 which seems to allow of as large an interpolation as can be desired1 inasmuch as the fourth ,evangelist there commences his history4 ,now it is true that what follows from v4 #ai to #bh is not of a kind absolutely to exclude the baptism and temptation of ,jesus as earlier occurrences2 but from v4 #bi to #cd1 the ,evangelist is far from making the ,baptist speak as if there had been an interval of six weeks between the baptism and his narrative of its circumstances4 #fdc ,that the fourth ,evangelist should have omitted1 by chance merely1 the history of the temptation1 important as it was in the view of the other ,evangelists1 seems improbable3 it is rather to be concluded1 either that it was dogmatically offensive to him1 so that he omitted it designedly1 or that it was not current in the circle of tradition from which he drew his materials4 ,the period of forty days is assigned by all three of the synoptical writers for the residence of ,jesus in the wilderness2 but to this agreement is annexed the not inconsiderable discrepancy1 that1 according to ,matthew1 the temptation by the devil commences after the lapse of the forty days1 while1 according to the others1 it appears to have been going forward during this time2 for the words of ,mark 7i4 #ac71 he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of ,satan1 1 and the similar ones of ,luke i4 #b1 can have no other meaning4 ,added to this1 there is a difference between the two latter evangelists2 ,mark only placing the temptation generally within the duration of forty days1 without naming the particular acts of the tempter1 which according to ,matthew1 were subsequent to the forty days2 while ,luke mentions both the prolonged temptation 77 of the forty days1 and the three special temptations 77 which followed4 #fdd ,it has been thought possible to make the three accounts tally by supposing that the devil tempted ,jesus during the forty days1 as ,mark states2 that after the lapse of that time he approached him with the three temptations given by ,matthew2 and that ,luke's narrative includes the whole4 #fde ,further1 the temptations have been distinguished into two kinds2 that which is only generally mentioned1 as continued through the forty days1 being considered invisible1 like the ordinary attempts of ,satan against men2 and the three particularized temptations being regarded as personal and visible assaults1 resorted to on the failure of the first4 #fdf ,but this distinction is evidently built on the air2 moreover1 it is inconceivable why ,luke should not specify one of the temptations of the forty days1 and should only mention the three subsequent ones detailed by ,matthew4 ,we might conjecture that the three temptations narrated by ,luke did not occur after the six weeks1 but were given by way of specimen from among the many that took place during that time2 and that ,matthew misunderstood them to be a sequel to the forty days' temptation4 #fdg ,but the challenge to make stones bread must in any case be placed at the end of that period1 for it appealed to the hunger of ,jesus1 arising from a forty days' fast 7a cause omitted by ,mark alone74 ,now in ,luke also this is the first temptation1 and if this occurred at the close of the forty days1 the others could not have been earlier4 ,for it is not to be admitted that the separate temptations being united in ,luke merely by 1 and not by and as in ,matthew1 we are not bound to preserve the order of them1 and that without violating the intention of the third ,evangelist we may place the second and third temptation before the first4 ,thus ,luke is convicted of a want of historical fact2 for after representing ,jesus as tempted by the devil forty days1 he has no details to give concerning this long period1 but narrates later temptations2 hence we are not inclined1 with the most recent critic of ,matthew's ,gospel1 to regard ,luke's as the original1 and ,matthew's as the traditional and adulterated narrative4 #fdh ,rather1 as in ,mark the temptation is noticed without farther details than that it lasted forty days1 and in ,matthew the particular cases of temptation are narrated1 the hunger which induced the first rendering it necessary to place them after the forty days2 ,luke has evidently the secondary statement1 for he unites the two previous ones in a manner scarcely tolerable1 giving the forty days' process of temptation1 and then superfluously bringing forward particular instances as additional facts4 ,it is not on this account to be concluded that ,luke wrote after ,mark1 and in dependence on him2 but supposing1 on the contrary1 that ,mark here borrowed from ,luke1 he extracted only the first and general part of the latter ,evangelist's narrative1 having ready1 in lieu of the farther detail of single temptations1 an addition peculiar to himself2 namely1 that ,jesus1 during his residence in the wilderness was 1 with the wild beasts4 ,what was ,mark's object in introducing the wild beasts1 it is difficult to say4 ,the majority of expositors are of opinion that he intended to complete the terrible picture of the wilderness2 #fdi but to this it is not without reason objected1 that the clause would then have been in closer connexion with the words 1 he was in the wilderness1 instead of being placed after 1 tempted4 #fej ,usteri has hazarded the conjecture that this particularity may be designed to mark ,christ as the antitype of ,adam1 who1 in ,paradise1 also stood in a peculiar relation to the animals1 #fea and ,olshausen has eagerly laid hold on this mystical notion2 but it is an interpretation which finds little support in the context4 ,schleiermacher1 in pronouncing this feature of ,mark's narrative extravagant1 #feb doubtless means that this ,evangelist here1 as in other instances of exaggeration1 borders on the style of the apocryphal gospels1 for whose capricious fictions we are not seldom unable to suggest a cause or an object1 and thus we must rest contented1 for the present1 to penetrate no farther into the sense of his statement4 ,with respect to the difference between ,matthew and ,luke in the arrangement of the several temptations1 we must equally abide by ,schleiermacher's criticism and verdict1 namely1 that ,matthew's order seems to be the original1 because it is founded on the relative importance of the temptations1 which is the main consideration1--the invitation to worship ,satan1 which is the strongest temptation1 being made the final one2 whereas the arrangement of ,luke looks like a later and not very happy transposition1 proceeding from the consideration--alien to the original spirit of the narrative--that ,jesus could more readily go with the devil from the wilderness to the adjacent mountain and from thence to ,jerusalem1 than out of the wilderness to the city and from thence back again to the mountain4 #fec ,while the first two ,evangelists close their narrative of the temptation with the ministering of angels to ,jesus1 ,luke has a conclusion peculiar to himself1 namely1 that the devil left ,jesus for a season1 7v4 #ac71 apparently intimating that the sufferings of ,jesus were a farther assault of the devil2 an idea not resumed by ,luke1 but alluded to in ,john xiv4 #cj4 #ed4 ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,temptation ,,conceived ,,in ,,the ,,sense ,,of ,,the ,,evangelists4 ,few evangelical passages have undergone a more industrious criticism1 or more completely run through the circle of all possible interpretations1 than the history in question4 ,for the personal appearance of the devil1 which it seems to contain1 was a thorn which would not allow commentators to repose on the most obvious interpretation1 but incessantly urged them to new efforts4 ,the series of explanations hence resulting1 led to critical comparisons1 among which those of ,schmidt1 #fed ,fritzsche1 #fee and ,usteri1 #fef seem to have carried the inquiry to its utmost limits4 ,the first interpretation that suggests itself on an unprejudiced consideration of the text is this2 that ,jesus was led by the ,divine ,spirit received at his baptism into the wilderness1 there to undergo a temptation by the devil1 who accordingly appeared to him visibly and personally1 and in various ways1 and at various places to which he was the conductor1 prosecuted his purpose of temptation2 but meeting with a victorious resistance1 he withdrew from ,jesus1 and angels appeared to minister to him4 ,such is the simple exegesis of the narrative1 but viewed as a history it is encumbered with difficulties4 ,to take the portions of the narrative in their proper order3 if the ,divine ,spirit led ,jesus into the wilderness with the design of exposing him to temptation1 as ,matthew expressly says1 1 7iv4 #a71 of what use was this temptation8 ,that it had a vicarious and redeeming value will hardly be maintained1 or that it was necessary for ,god to put ,jesus to a trial2 neither can it be consistently shown that by this temptation ,jesus was to be made like us1 and1 according to ,heb4 iv4 #ae1 tempted in all things like as we are2 for the fullest measure of trial fell to his share in after life1 and a temptation1 effected by the devil in person1 would rather make him unlike us1 who are spared such appearances4 ,the forty days' fast1 too1 is singular4 ,one does not understand how ,jesus could hunger after six weeks of abstinence from all food without having hungered long before2 since in ordinary cases the human frame cannot sustain a week's deprivation of nourishment4 ,it is true1 expositors #feg console themselves by calling the forty days a round number1 and by supposing that the expression of ,matthew1 1 and even that of ,luke1 1 are not to be taken strictly1 and do not denote abstinence from all food1 but only from that which is customary1 so that the use of roots and herbs is not excluded4 ,on no supposition1 however1 can so much be subtracted from the forty days as to leave only the duration of a conceivable fast2 and that nothing short of entire abstinence from all nourishment was intended by the ,evangelists ,fritzsche has clearly shown1 by pointing out the parallel between the fast of ,jesus and that of ,moses and ,elias1 the former of whom is said to have eaten no bread and drunk no water for forty days 7,exod4 xxxiv4 #bh2 ,deut4 ix4 #i1 #ah71 and the latter to have gone for the same period in the strength of a meal taken before his journey 7#a ,kings xix4 #h74 ,but such a fast wants the credentials of utility1 as well as of possibility4 ,from the context it appears1 that the fast of ,jesus was prompted by the same ,spirit which occasioned his journey to the wilderness1 and which now moved him to a holy self-discipline1 whereby men of ,god1 under the old dispensation1 purified themselves1 and became worthy of divine visions4 ,but it could not be hidden from that ,spirit1 that ,satan1 in attacking ,jesus1 would avail himself of this very fast1 and make the hunger thence arising an accomplice in his temptation4 ,and was not the fast1 in this case1 a kind of challenge to ,satan1 an act of presumption1 ill becoming even the best warranted self-confidence8 #feh ,but the personal appearance of the devil is the great stumbling-block in the present narrative4 ,if1 it is said1 there be a personal devil1 he cannot take a visible form2 and if that were possible1 he would hardly demean himself as he is represented to have done in the gospels4 ,it is with the existence of the devil as with that of angels--even the believers in a revelation are perplexed by it1 because the idea did not spring up among the recipients of revelation1 but was transplanted by them1 during exile1 from a profane soil4 #fei ,moreover1 to those who have not quite shut out the lights of the present age1 the existence of a devil is become in the highest degree doubtful4 ,on this subject1 as well as on that of angels1 ,schleiermacher may serve as an interpreter of modern opinion4 ,he shows that the idea of a being such as the devil1 is an assemblage of contradictions3 that as the idea of angels originated in a limited observation of nature1 so that of the devil originated in a limited observation of self1 and as our knowledge of human nature progresses1 must recede farther into the background1 and the appeal to the devil be henceforth regarded as the resource of ignorance and sloth4 #ffj ,even admitting the existence of a devil1 a visible and personal appearance on his part1 such as is here supposed1 has its peculiar difficulties4 ,olshausen himself observes1 that there is no parallel to it either in the ,old or ,new ,testament4 ,farther1 if the devil1 that he might have some hope of deceiving ,jesus1 abandoned his own form1 and took that of a man1 or of a good angel2 it may be reasonably asked whether the passage1 #b ,cor4 xi4 #ad1 ,satan is transformed into an angel of light1 be intended literally1 and if so1 whether this fantastic conception can be substantially true8 #ffa ,as to the temptations1 it was early asked by ,julian1 how the devil could hope to deceive ,jesus1 knowing1 as he must1 his higher nature8 #ffb ,and ,theodore's answer that the divinity of ,jesus was then unknown to the devil1 is contradicted by the observation1 that had he not then beheld a higher nature in ,jesus1 he would scarcely have taken the trouble to appear specially to him in person4 ,in relation to the particular temptations1 an assent cannot be withheld from the canon1 that1 to be credible1 the narrative must ascribe nothing to the devil inconsistent with his established cunning4 #ffc ,now the first temptation1 appealing to hunger1 we grant1 is not ill-conceived2 if this were ineffectual1 the devil1 as an artful tactician1 should have had a yet more alluring temptation at hand2 but instead of this1 we find him1 in ,matthew1 proposing to ,jesus the neck-breaking feat of casting himself down from the pinnacle of the temple--a far less inviting experiment than the metamorphosis of the stones4 ,this proposition finding no acceptance1 there follows1 as a crowning effort1 a suggestion which1 whatever might be the bribe1 every true ,israelite would instantly reject with abhorrence--to fall down and worship the devil4 ,so indiscreet a choice and arrangement of temptations has thrown most modern commentators into perplexity4 #ffd ,as the three temptations took place in three different and distant places1 the question occurs3 how did ,jesus pass with the devil from one to the other8 ,even the orthodox hold that this change of place was effected quite naturally1 for they suppose that ,jesus set out on a journey1 and that the devil followed him4 #ffe ,but the expressions1 the devil takes him--sets him1 -- 1 in ,matthew3 taking1 1 brought1 1 set1 1 in ,luke1 obviously imply that the transportation was effected by the devil1 and moreover1 the particular given in ,luke1 that the devil showed ,jesus all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time1 points to something magical2 so that without doubt the ,evangelists intended to convey the idea of magical transportations1 as in ,acts viii4 #bi1 a power of carrying away1 1 is attributed to the ,spirit of the ,lord4 ,but it was early found irreconcilable with the dignity of ,jesus that the devil should thus exercise a magical power over him1 and carry him about in the air2 #fff an idea which seemed extravagant even to those who tolerated the personal appearance of the devil4 ,the incredibility is augmented1 when we consider the sensation which the appearance of ,jesus on the roof of the temple must have excited1 even supposing it to be the roof of ,solomon's ,porch only1 in which case the gilded spears on the holy of holies1 and the prohibition to laymen to tread its roof1 would not be an obstacle4 #ffg ,the well-known question suggested by the last temptation1 as to the situation of the mountain1 from whose summit may be seen all the kingdoms of the world1 has been met by the information that here means no more than ,palestine1 and 1 its several kingdoms and tetrarchies2 #ffh but this is a scarcely less ludicrous explanation than the one that the devil showed ,jesus all the kingdoms of the world on a map6 ,no answer remains but that such a mountain existed only in the ancient idea of the earth as a plain1 and in the popular imagination1 which can easily stretch a mountain up to heaven1 and sharpen an eye to penetrate infinity4 ,lastly1 the incident with which our narrative closes1 namely1 that angels came and ministered to ,jesus1 is not without difficulty1 apart from the above-mentioned doubts as to the existence of such beings4 ,for the expression can signify no other kind of ministering than that of presenting food2 and this is proved not only by the context1 according to which ,jesus had need of such tendance1 but by a comparison of the circumstances with #a ,kings xix4 #e1 where an angel brings food to ,elijah4 ,but of the only two possible suppositions1 both are equally incongruous3 that ethereal beings like angels should convey earthly material food1 or that the human body of ,jesus should be nourished with heavenly substances1 if any such exist4 #ee4 ,,the ,,temptation ,,considered ,,as ,a ,,natural ,,occurrence ,,either ,,internal ,,or ,,external2 ,,and ,,also ,,as ,a ,,parable4 ,the impossibility of conceiving the sudden removals of ,jesus to the temple and the mountain1 led some even of the ancient commentators to the opinion1 that at least the locality of the second and third temptations was not present to ,jesus corporeally and externally1 but merely in a vision2 #ffi while some modern ones1 to whom the personal appearance of the devil was especially offensive1 have supposed that the whole transaction with him passed from beginning to end within the recesses of the soul of ,jesus4 ,herewith they have regarded the forty days' fast either as a mere internal representation #fgj 7which1 however1 is a most inadmissible perversion of the plainly historic text3 1 ,matt4 iv4 #b71 or as a real fact1 in which case the formidable difficulties mentioned in the preceding section remain valid4 ,the internal representation of the temptations is by some made to accompany a state of ecstatic vision1 for which they retain a supernatural cause1 deriving it either from ,god1 or from the kingdom of darkness3 #fga others ascribe to the vision more of the nature of a dream1 and accordingly seek a natural cause for it1 in the reflections with which ,jesus was occupied during his waking moments4 #fgb ,according to this theory1 ,jesus1 in the solemn mood which the baptismal scene was calculated to produce1 reviews his messianic plan1 and together with the true means for its execution1 he recalls their possible abuses2 an excessive use of miracles and a love of domination1 by which man1 in the ,jewish mode of thinking1 became1 instead of an instrument of ,god1 a promoter of the plans of the devil4 ,while surrendering himself to such meditations1 his finely organized body is overcome by their exciting influence2 he sinks for some time into deep exhaustion1 and then into a dream-like state1 in which his mind unconsciously embodies his previous thoughts in speaking and acting forms4 ,to support this transference of the whole scene to the inward nature of ,jesus1 commentators think that they can produce some features of the evangelical narrative itself4 ,the expression of ,matthew 7iv4 #a71 1 and still more that of ,luke 7iv4 #a71 1 correspond fully to the forms3 1 ,rev4 i4 #aj1 1 xvii4 #c1 and to similar ones in ,ezekiel2 and as in these passages inward intuition is alone referred to1 neither in the evangelical ones1 it is said1 can any external occurrence be intended4 ,but it has been with reason objected1 #fgc that the above forms may be adapted either to a real external abduction by the ,divine ,spirit 7as in ,acts viii4 #ci2 #b ,kings ii4 #af71 or to one merely internal and visionary1 as in the quotation from the ,apocalypse1 so that between these two possible significations the context must decide2 that in works replete with visions1 as are the ,apocalypse and ,ezekiel1 the context indeed pronounces in favour of a merely spiritual occurrence2 but in an historical work such as our gospels1 of an external one4 ,dreams1 and especially visions1 are always expressly announced as such in the historical books of the ,new ,testament3 supposing1 therefore1 that the temptation was a vision1 it should have been introduced by the words 1 1 as in ,acts ix4 #ab1 x4 #aj2 or ' 1 as in ,matt4 i4 #bj1 ii4 #ac4 ,besides1 if a dream had been narrated1 the transition to a continuation of the real history must have been marked by a 1 being awaked1 as in ,matt4 i4 #bd1 ii4 #ad1 #ba2 whereby1 as ,paulus truly says1 much labour would have been spared to expositors4 ,it is further alleged against the above explanations1 that ,jesus does not seem to have been at any other time subject to ecstasies1 and that he nowhere else attaches importance to a dream1 or even recapitulates one4 #fgd ,to what end ,god should have excited such a vision in ,jesus1 it is difficult to conceive1 or how the devil should have had power and permission to produce it2 especially in ,christ4 ,the orthodox1 too1 should not forget that1 admitting the temptation to be a dream1 resulting from the thoughts of ,jesus1 the false messianic ideas which were a part of those thoughts1 are supposed to have had a strong influence on his mind4 #fge ,if1 then1 the history of the temptation is not to be understood as confined to the soul of ,jesus1 and if we have before shown that it cannot be regarded as supernatural2 nothing seems to remain but to view it as a real1 yet thoroughly natural1 event1 and to reduce the tempter to a mere man4 ,after ,john had drawn attention to ,jesus as the ,messiah 7thinks the author of the ,natural ,history of the ,prophet of ,nazareth71 #fgf the ruling party in ,jerusalem commissioned an artful ,pharisee to put ,jesus to the test1 and to ascertain whether he really possessed miraculous powers1 or whether he might not be drawn into the interest of the priesthood1 and be induced to give his countenance to an enterprise against the ,romans4 ,this conception of the is in dignified consistency with that of the 1 who appeared after his departure1 to refresh ,jesus1 as an approaching caravan with provisions1 or as soft reviving breezes4 #fgg ,but this view1 as ,usteri says1 has so long completed its phases in the theological world1 that to refute it would be to waste words4 ,if the foregoing discussions have proved that the temptation1 as narrated by the synoptical ,evangelists1 cannot be conceived as an external or internal1 a supernatural or natural occurrence1 the conclusion is inevitable1 that it cannot have taken place in the manner represented4 ,the least invidious expedient is to suppose that the source of our histories of the temptation was some real event in the life of ,jesus1 so narrated by him to his disciples as to convey no accurate impression of the fact4 ,tempting thoughts1 which intruded themselves into his soul during his residence in the wilderness1 or at various seasons1 and under various circumstances1 but which were immediately quelled by the unimpaired force of his will1 were1 according to the oriental mode of thought and expression1 represented by him as a temptation of the devil2 and this figurative narrative was understood literally4 #fgh ,the most prominent objection to this view1 that it compromises the impeccability of ,jesus1 #fgi being founded on a dogma1 has no existence for the critic3 we can1 however1 gather from the tenor of the evangelical history1 that the practical sense of ,jesus was thoroughly clear and just2 but this becomes questionable1 if he could ever feel an inclination corresponding to the second temptation in ,matthew1 or even if he merely chose such a form for communicating a more reasonable temptation to his disciples4 ,further1 in such a narrative ,jesus would have presented a confused mixture of fiction and truth out of his life1 not to be expected from an ingenuous teacher1 as he otherwise appears to be1 especially if it be supposed that the tempting thoughts did not really occur to him after his forty days' sojourn in the wilderness1 and that this particular is only a portion of the fictitious investiture2 while if it be assumed1 on the contrary1 that the date is historical1 there remains the forty days' fast1 one of the most insurmountable difficulties of the narrative4 ,if ,jesus wished simply to describe a mental exercise in the manner of the ,jews1 who1 tracing the effect to the cause1 ascribed evil thoughts to diabolical agency1 nothing more was requisite than to say that ,satan suggested such and such thoughts to his mind2 and it was quite superfluous to depict a personal devil and a journey with him1 unless1 together with the purpose of narration1 or in its stead1 there existed a poetical and didactic intention4 ,such an intention1 indeed1 is attributed to ,jesus by those who hold that the history of the temptation was narrated by him as a parable1 but understood literally by his disciples4 ,this opinion is not encumbered with the difficulty of making some real inward experience of ,jesus the basis of the history2 #fhj it does not suppose that ,jesus himself underwent such temptations1 but only that he sought to secure his disciples from them1 by impressing on them1 as a compendium of messianic and apostolic wisdom1 the three following maxims3 first to perform no miracle for their own advantage even in the greatest exigency2 secondly1 never to venture on a chimerical undertaking in the hope of extraordinary divine aid2 thirdly1 never to enter into fellowship with the wicked1 however strong the enticement4 #fha ,it was long ago observed1 in opposition to this interpretation1 that the narrative is not easily recognized as a parable1 and that its moral is hard to discern4 #fhb ,with respect to the latter objection1 it is true that the second temptation would be an ill-chosen image2 but the former remark is the more important one4 ,to prove that this narrative has not the characteristics of a parable1 the following definition has been recently given3 a parable1 being essentially historical in its form1 is only distinguishable from real history when its agents are of an obviously fictitious character4 #fhc ,this is the case where the subjects are mere generalizations1 as in the parables of the sower1 the king1 and others of a like kind2 or when they are1 indeed1 individualized1 but so as to be at once recognized as unhistorical persons1 as mere supports for the drapery of fiction1 of which even ,lazarus1 in the parable of the rich man1 is an example1 though distinguished by a name4 ,in neither species of parable is it admissible to introduce as a subject a person corporeally present1 and necessarily determinate and historical4 ,thus ,jesus could not make ,peter or any other of his disciples the subject of a parable1 still less himself1 for the reciter of a parable is pre-eminently present to his auditors2 and hence he cannot have delivered the history of the temptation1 of which he is the subject1 to his disciples as a parable4 ,to assume that the history had originally another subject1 for whom oral tradition substituted ,jesus1 is inadmissible1 because the narrative1 even as a parable1 has no definite significance unless the ,messiah be its subject4 #fhd ,if such a parable concerning himself or any other person1 could not have been delivered by ,jesus1 yet it is possible that it was made by some other individual concerning ,jesus2 and this is the view taken by ,theile1 who has recently explained the history of the temptation as a parabolic admonition1 directed by some partisan of ,jesus against the main features of the worldly messianic hope1 with the purpose of establishing the spiritual and moral view of the new economy4 #fhe ,here is the transition to the mythical point of view1 which the above theologian shuns1 partly because the narrative is not sufficiently picturesque 7though it is so in a high degree72 partly because it is too pure 7though he thus imputes false ideas to the primitive ,christians72 and partly because the formation of the mythus was too near the time of ,jesus 7an objection which must be equally valid against the early misconstruction of the parable74 ,if it can be shown1 on the contrary1 that the narrative in question is formed less out of instructive thoughts and their poetical clothing1 as is the case with a parable1 than out of ,old ,testament passages and types1 we shall not hesitate to designate it a mythus4 #ef4 ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,temptation ,,as ,a ,,mythus4 ,satan1 the evil being and enemy of mankind1 borrowed from the ,persian religion1 was by the ,jews1 whose exclusiveness limited all that was good and truly human to the ,israelitish people1 viewed as the special adversary of their nation1 and hence as the lord of the heathen states with whom they were in hostility4 #fhf ,the interests of the ,jewish people being centred in the ,messiah1 it followed that ,satan was emphatically his adversary2 and thus throughout the ,new ,testament we find the idea of ,jesus as the ,messiah associated with that of ,satan as the enemy of his person and cause4 ,christ having appeared to destroy the works of the devil 7#a ,john iii4 #h71 the latter seizes every opportunity of sowing tares among the good seed 7,matt4 xiii4 #ci71 and not only aims1 though unsuccessfully1 at obtaining the mastery over ,jesus himself 7,john xiv4 #cj71 but continually assails the faithful 7,eph4 vi4 #aa2 #a ,pet4 v4 #h74 ,as these attacks of the devil on the pious are nothing else than attempts to get them into his power1 that is1 to entice them to sin2 and as this can only be done by the indirect suggestion or immediate insinuation of evil1 seductive thoughts1 ,satan had the appellation of 1 the tempter4 ,in the prologue to the book of ,job1 he seeks to seduce the pious man from ,god1 by the instrumentality of a succession of plagues and misfortunes3 while the ensnaring counsel which the serpent gave to the woman was early considered an immediate diabolical suggestion4 7,wisdom ii4 #bd2 ,john viii4 #dd2 ,rev4 xii4 #i47 ,in the more ancient ,hebrew theology1 the idea was current that temptation 71 ,,lxx4 7 was an act of ,god himself1 who thus put his favourites1 as ,abraham 7,gen4 xxii4 #a71 and the people of ,israel 7,exod4 xvi4 #d1 and elsewhere71 to the test1 or in just anger even instigated men to pernicious deeds4 ,but as soon as the idea of ,satan was formed1 the office of temptation was transferred to him1 and withdrawn from ,god1 with whose absolute goodness it began to be viewed as incompatible 7,james i4 #ac74 ,hence it is ,satan1 who by his importunity obtains the divine permission to put ,job to the severest trial through suffering2 hence ,david's culpable project of numbering the people1 which in the second book of ,samuel was traced to the anger of ,god1 is in the later chronicles 7#a ,chron4 xxii4 #a7 put directly to the account of the devil2 and even the well-meant temptation with which1 according to ,genesis1 ,god visited ,abraham1 in requiring from him the sacrifice of his son1 was in the opinion of the later ,jews1 undertaken by ,god at the instigation of ,satan4 #fhg ,nor was this enough--scenes were imagined in which the devil personally encountered ,abraham on his way to the place of sacrifice1 and in which he tempted the people of ,israel during the absence of ,moses4 #fhh ,if the most eminent men of piety in ,hebrew antiquity were thus tempted1 in the earlier view1 by ,god1 in the later one1 by ,satan1 what was more natural than to suppose that the ,messiah1 the ,head of all the righteous1 the representative and champion of ,god's people1 would be the primary object of the assaults of ,satan8 #fhi ,and we find this actually recorded as a rabbinical opinion1 #fij in the material mode of representation of the later ,judaism1 under the form of a bodily appearance and a personal dialogue4 ,if a place were demanded where ,satan might probably undertake such a temptation of the ,messiah1 the wilderness would present itself from more than one quarter4 ,not only had it been from ,azazel 7,lev4 xvi4 #h-aj71 and ,asmodeus 7,tobit viii4 #c71 to the demons ejected by ,jesus 7,matt4 xii4 #dc71 the fearful dwelling-place of the infernal powers3 it was also the scene of temptation for the people of ,israel1 that filius ,dei collectivus4 #fia ,added to this1 it was the habit of ,jesus to retire to solitary places for still meditation and prayer 7,matt4 xiv4 #ac2 ,mark i4 #ce2 ,luke vi4 #ab2 ,john vi4 #ae72 to which after his consecration to the messianic office he would feel more than usually disposed4 ,it is hence possible that1 as some theologians #fib have supposed1 a residence of ,jesus in the wilderness after his baptism 7though not one of precisely forty days' duration7 served as the historical foundation of our narrative2 but even without this connecting thread1 both the already noticed choice of place and that of time are to be explained by the consideration1 that it seemed consonant with the destiny of the ,messiah that1 like a second ,hercules1 he should undergo such a trial on his entrance into mature age and the messianic office4 ,but what had the ,messiah to do in the wilderness8 ,that the ,messiah1 the second ,saviour1 should like his typical predecessor1 ,moses1 on ,mount ,sinai1 submit himself to the holy discipline of fasting1 was an idea the more inviting1 because it furnished a suitable introduction to the first temptation which presupposed extreme hunger4 ,the type of ,moses and that of ,elias 7#a ,kings xix4 #h71 determined also the duration of this fast in the wilderness1 for they too had fasted forty days2 moreover1 the number forty was held sacred in ,hebrew antiquity4 #fic ,above all1 the forty days of the temptation of ,jesus seem1 as ,olshausen justly observes1 a miniature image of the forty years' trial in the wilderness1 endured by the ,israelitish people as a penal emblem of the forty days spent by the spies in the land of ,canaan 7,num4 xiv4 #cd74 ,for1 that in the temptations of ,jesus there was a special reference to the temptation of ,israel in the wilderness1 is shown by the circumstance that all the passages cited by ,jesus in opposition to ,satan are drawn from the recapitulatory description of the journeyings of the ,israelites in ,deut4 vi4 and viii4 ,the apostle ,paul too1 #a ,cor4 x4 #f1 enumerates a series of particulars from the behaviour of the ,israelites in the wilderness1 with the consequent judgments of ,god1 and warns ,christians against similar conduct1 pronouncing1 v4 #f and #aa1 the punishments inflicted on the ancients to be types for the admonition of the living1 his cotemporaries1 on whom the ends of the world were come2 wherefore1 he adds1 let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall4 ,it is not probable that this was merely the private opinion of the apostle--it seems rather to have been a current notion that the hard trials of the people led by ,moses1 as well as of ,moses individually1 were types of those which awaited the followers of the ,messiah in the catastrophe which he was to usher in1 and still more emphatically the ,messiah himself1 who here appears as the antitype of the people1 gloriously overcoming all the temptations under which they had fallen4 ,the ,israelites were principally tempted by hunger during their wanderings in the wilderness2 #fid hence the first temptation of the ,messiah was determined beforehand4 ,the rabbins1 too1 among the various temptations of ,abraham which they recount1 generally reckon hunger4 #fie ,that ,satan1 when prompting ,jesus to seek relief from his hunger by an exertion of his own will instead of awaiting it in faith from ,god1 should make use of the terms given in our ,evangelists1 cannot be matter of surprise if we consider1 not only that the wilderness was stony1 but that to produce a thing from stones was a proverbial expression1 denoting the supply of an object altogether wanting 7,matt4 iii4 #i2 ,luke xix4 #dj71 and that stone and bread formed a common contrast 7,matt4 vii4 #i74 ,the reply of ,jesus to this suggestion is in the same train of ideas on which the entire first act of temptation is constructed2 for he quotes the lesson which1 according to ,deuteronomy viii4 #c1 the people of ,israel tardily learned from the temptation of hunger 7a temptation1 however1 under which they were not resigned1 but were provoked to murmur73 namely1 that man shall not live by bread alone1 etc4 ,but one temptation would not suffice4 ,of ,abraham the rabbins enumerated ten2 but this number was too large for a dramatic narrative like that in the gospels1 and among lower numbers the sacred three must have the preference4 ,thrice during his spiritual contest in ,gethsemane ,jesus severed himself from his disciples 7,matt4 xxvi472 thrice ,peter denied his ,lord1 and thrice ,jesus subsequently questioned his love 7,john xxi474 ,in that rabbinical passage which represents ,abraham as tempted by the devil in person1 the patriarch parries three thrusts from him2 in which particular1 as well as in the manner in which ,old ,testament texts are bandied by the parties1 the scene is allied to the evangelical one4 #fif ,the second temptation 7in ,matthew7 was not determined by its relation to the preceding2 hence its presentation seems abrupt1 and the choice fortuitous or capricious4 ,this may be true with respect to its form1 but its substantial meaning is in close connexion with the foregoing temptation1 since it also has reference to the conduct of the ,jewish people in the wilderness4 ,to them the warning was given in ,deut vi4 #af to tempt ,god no more as they had tempted him at ,massah2 a warning which was reiterated #a ,cor4 x4 #i to the members of the new covenant1 though more in allusion to ,num4 xxi4 #d4 ,to this crying sin1 therefore1 under which the ancient people of ,god had fallen1 must the ,messiah be incited1 that by resisting the incitement he might compensate1 as it were1 for the transgression of the people4 ,now the conduct which was condemned in them as a tempting of the ,lord1 1 was occasioned by a dearth of water1 and consisted in their murmurs at this deprivation4 ,this1 to later tradition1 did not seem fully to correspond to the terms2 something more suitable was sought for1 and from this point of view there could hardly be a more eligible choice than the one we actually find in our history of the temptation1 for nothing can be more properly called a tempting of ,god than so audacious an appeal to his extraordinary succour1 as that suggested by ,satan in his second temptation4 ,the reason why a leap from the pinnacle of the temple was named as an example of such presumption1 is put into the mouth of ,satan himself4 ,it occurred to the originator of this feature in the narrative1 that the passage ,ps4 xci4 #aa was capable of perversion into a motive for a rash act4 ,it is there promised to one dwelling under the protection of ,jehovah 7a designation under which the ,messiah was pre-eminently understood71 that angels should bear him up in their hands1 lest at any time he should dash his foot against a stone4 ,bearing up in their hands to prevent a fall1 seemed to imply a precipitation from some eminence1 and this might induce the idea that the divinely-protected ,messiah might hurl himself from a height with impunity4 ,but from what height8 ,there could be no hesitation on this point4 ,to the pious man1 and therefore to the head of all the pious1 is appropriated1 according to ,ps4 xv4 #a1 xxiv4 #c1 the distinction of going up to ,jehovah's holy hill1 and standing within his holy place3 hence the pinnacle of the temple1 in the presumptuous mode of inference supposed1 might be regarded as the height whence the ,messiah could precipitate himself unhurt4 ,the third temptation which ,jesus underwent--to worship the devil--is not apparent among the temptations of ,god's ancient people4 ,but one of the most fatal seductions by which the ,israelites were led astray in the wilderness was that of idolatry2 and the apostle ,paul adduces it as admonitory to ,christians4 ,not only is this sin derived immediately from the devil in a passage above quoted2 #fig but in the later ,jewish idea1 idolatry was identical with the worship of the devil 7,baruch iv4 #g2 #a ,cor4 x4 #bj74 ,how1 then1 could the worship of the devil be suggested to the ,messiah in the form of a temptation8 ,the notion of the ,messiah as he who1 being the ,king of the ,jewish people1 was destined to be lord of all other nations1 and that of ,satan as the ruler of the heathen world #fih to be conquered by the ,messiah1 were here combined4 ,that dominion over the world which1 in the christianized imagination of the period1 the ,messiah was to obtain by a long and painful struggle1 was offered him as an easy bargain if he would only pay ,satan the tribute of worship4 ,this temptation ,jesus meets with the maxim inculcated on the ,israelites1 ,deut4 vi4 #ac1 that ,god alone is to be worshipped1 and thus gives the enemy a final dismissal4 ,matthew and ,mark crown their history of the temptation with the appearance of angels to ,jesus1 and their refreshing him with nourishment after his long fast and the fatigues of temptation4 ,this incident was prefigured by a similar ministration to ,elijah after his forty days' fast1 and was brought nearer to the imagination by the circumstance that the manna which appeased the hunger of the people in the wilderness was named1 1 angels' food 7,ps4 lxxviii4 #be1 ,,lxx42 ,wisdom xvi4 #bj74 #fii ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,locality ,,and ,,chronology ,,of ,,the ,,public ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 #eg4 ,,difference ,,between ,,the ,,synoptical ,,writers ,,and ,,john1 ,,as ,,to ,,the ,,customary ,,scene ,,of ,,the ,,ministry ,,of ,,jesus4 ,according to the synoptical writers1 ,jesus1 born indeed at ,bethlehem in ,judea1 but brought up at ,nazareth in ,galilee1 only absented himself from ,galilee during the short interval between his baptism and the imprisonment of the ,baptist2 immediately after which1 he returned thither and began his ministry1 teaching1 healing1 calling disciples1 so as to traverse all ,galilee2 using as the centre of his agency1 his previous dwelling-place1 ,nazareth1 alternately with ,capernaum1 on the north-west border of the lake of ,tiberias 7,matt iv4 #ab-be parall474 ,mark and ,luke have many particulars concerning this ministry in ,galilee which are not found in ,matthew1 and those which they have in common with him are arranged in a different order2 but as they all agree in the geographical circuit which they assign to ,jesus1 the account of the first ,evangelist may serve as the basis of our criticism4 ,according to him the incidents narrated took place in ,galilee1 and partly in ,capernaum down to viii4 #ah1 where ,jesus crosses the ,galilean sea1 but is scarcely landed on the east side when he returns to ,capernaum4 ,here follows a series of scenes connected by short transitions1 such as 7ix4 #i1 #bg71 passing from thence1 7v4 #ad71 then1 7v4 #ah71 while he spake these things2 expressions which can imply no important change of place1 that is1 of one province for another1 which it is the habit of the writer to mark much more carefully4 ,the passage1 ix4 #ce1 -- 1 is evidently only a repetition of iv4 #bc1 and is therefore to be understood merely of excursions in ,galilee4 ,the message of the ,baptist 7chap4 xi47 is also received by ,jesus in ,galilee1 at least such appears to be the opinion of the narrator1 from his placing in immediate connexion the complaints of ,jesus against the ,galilean cities4 ,when delivering the parable in chap4 xiii4 ,jesus is by the sea1 doubtless that of ,galilee1 and1 as there is mention of his house1 7v4 #a71 probably in the vicinity of ,capernaum4 ,next1 after having visited his native city ,nazareth 7xiii4 #ec7 he passes over the sea 7xiv4 #ac71 according to ,luke 7ix4 #aj71 into the country of ,bethsaida 7,julias72 whence1 however1 after the miracle of the loaves1 he speedily returns to the western border 7xiv4 #cd74 ,jesus then proceeds to the northern extremity of ,palestine1 on the frontiers of ,phnicia 7xv4 #ba72 soon1 however1 returned to the sea of ,galilee 7v4 #bi71 he takes ship to the eastern side1 in the coast of ,magdala 7v4 #ci71 but again departs northward into the country of ,csarea ,philippi 7xvi4 #ac71 in the vicinity of ,lebanon1 among the lower ridges of which is to be sought the mount of the transfiguration 7xvii4 #a74 ,after journeying in ,galilee for some time longer with his disciples 7xvii4 #bb71 and once more visiting ,capernaum 7v4 #bd71 he leaves ,galilee 7xix4 #a7 to travel 7as it is most probably explained7 #gjj through ,perea into ,judea 7a journey which1 according to ,luke ix4 #eb1 he seems to have made through ,samaria72 xx4 #ag1 he is on his way to ,jerusalem2 v4 #bi1 he comes through ,jericho2 and xxi4 #a1 is in the neighbourhood of ,jerusalem1 which1 v4 #aj1 he enters4 ,thus1 according to the synoptical writers1 ,jesus1 from his return after being baptized by ,john1 to his final journey to ,jerusalem1 never goes beyond the limits of ,north ,palestine1 but traverses the countries west and east of the ,galilean sea and the upper ,jordan1 in the dominions of ,herod ,antipas and ,philip1 without touching on ,samaria to the south1 still less ,judea1 or the country under the immediate administration of the ,romans4 ,and within those limits1 to be still more precise1 it is the land west of the ,jordan1 and the sea of ,tiberias1 and therefore ,galilee1 the province of ,antipas1 in which ,jesus is especially active2 only three short excursions on the eastern border of the sea1 and two scarcely longer on the northern frontiers of the country1 being recorded4 ,quite otherwise is the theatre of the ministry of ,jesus marked out in the fourth gospel4 ,it is true that here also he goes after his baptism by ,john into ,galilee1 to the wedding at ,cana 7ii4 #a71 and from thence to ,capernaum 7v4 #ab72 but in a few days the approaching passover calls him to ,jerusalem 7v4 #ac74 ,from ,jerusalem he proceeds into the country of ,judea 7iii4 #bb71 and after some time exercising his ministry there 7iv4 #a7 he returns through ,samaria into ,galilee 7v4 #dc74 ,nothing is reported of his agency in this province but a single cure1 and immediately on this a new feast summons him to ,jerusalem 7v4 #a71 where he is represented as performing a cure1 being persecuted1 and delivering long discourses1 until he betakes himself 7vi4 #a7 to the eastern shore of the sea of ,tiberias1 and from thence to ,capernaum 7v4 #ag1 #ei74 ,he then itinerates for some time in ,galilee 7vii4 #a71 but again leaves it1 on occasion of the feast of tabernacles1 for ,jerusalem 7v4 #b1 #aj74 ,to this visit the ,evangelist refers many discourses and vicissitudes of ,jesus 7vii4 #aj1 x4 #ba71 and moreover connects with it the commencement of his public ministry at the feast of dedication1 without noticing any intermediate journey out of ,jerusalem and ,judea 7x4 #bb74 ,after this ,jesus again retires into the country of ,perea1 where he had first been with the ,baptist 7x4 #dj71 and there remains until the death of ,lazarus recalls him to ,bethany1 near ,jerusalem 7xi4 #a71 whence he withdraws to ,ephraim1 in the vicinity of the wilderness of ,judea1 until the approach of the passover1 which he visited as his last 7xii4 #a ff474 ,thus1 according to ,john1 ,jesus was present at four feasts in ,jerusalem1 before the final one3 was besides once in ,bethany1 and had been active for a considerable time in ,judea and on his journey through ,samaria4 ,why1 it must be asked1 have the synoptical writers been silent on this frequent presence of ,jesus in ,judea and ,jerusalem8 ,why have they represented the matter1 as if ,jesus1 before his last fatal journey to ,jerusalem1 had not overstepped the limits of ,galilee and ,perea8 ,this discrepancy between the synoptical writers and ,john was long overlooked in the church1 and of late it has been thought feasible to deny its existence4 ,it has been said1 that ,matthew1 at the commencement1 lays the scene in ,galilee and ,capernaum1 and pursues his narrative without noticing any journey into ,judea until the last2 but that we are not hence to conclude that ,matthew was unacquainted with the earlier ministry of ,jesus in ,judea1 for as with this ,evangelist the local interest is subordinate to the effort at an appropriate arrangement of his events1 many particulars in the former part of his history1 which he narrates without indicating any place1 may have been known1 though not stated by him1 to have occurred in the earlier journeys and residences in ,judea4 #gja ,but this alleged subordination of the local interest in ,matthew1 is nothing more than a fiction of the harmonist1 as ,schneckenburger has recently proved4 #gjb ,matthew very carefully marks 7chap4 iv47 the beginning and 7chap4 xix47 the end of the almost exclusive residence of ,jesus in ,galilee2 all the intervening narration must therefore be regarded as belonging to that residence1 unless the contrary be expressed2 and since the ,evangelist is on the alert to notice the short excursions of ,jesus across the lake and into the north of ,galilee1 he would hardly pass over in silence the more important1 and sometimes prolonged visits to ,judea1 had they been known or credited by him4 ,thus much only is to be allowed1 that ,matthew frequently neglects the more precise statement of localities1 as the designation of the spot or neighbourhood in which ,jesus laboured from time to time3 but in his more general biographical statements1 such as the designation of the territories and provinces of ,palestine1 within the boundaries of which ,jesus exercised his ministry1 he is as accurate as any other ,evangelist4 ,expositors must therefore accommodate themselves to the admission of a difference between the synoptical writers and ,john1 #gjc and those who think it incumbent on them to harmonize the ,gospels must take care lest this difference be found a contradiction2 which can only be prevented by deducing the discrepancy1 not from a disparity between the ideas of the ,evangelists as to the sphere of the ministry of ,jesus1 but from the difference of mental bias under which they severally wrote4 ,some suppose that ,matthew1 being a ,galilean1 saw the most interest in ,galilean occurrences1 and hence confined his narrative to them1 though aware of the agency of ,jesus at ,jerusalem4 #gjd ,but what biographer1 who had himself accompanied his hero into various provinces1 and beheld his labours there1 would confine his narration to what he had performed in his 7the biographer's7 native province8 ,such provincial exclusiveness would surely be quite unexampled4 ,hence others have preferred the supposition that ,matthew1 writing at ,jerusalem1 purposely selected from the mass of discourses and actions of ,jesus with which he was acquainted1 those of which ,galilee was the theatre1 because they were the least known at ,jerusalem1 and required narrating more than what had happened within the hearing1 and was fresh in the memories of its inhabitants4 #gje ,in opposition to this it has been already remarked1 #gjf that there is no proof of ,matthew's gospel being especially intended for the ,christians of ,judea and ,jerusalem3 that even assuming this1 a reference to the events which had happened in the reader's own country could not be superfluous3 and that1 lastly1 the like limitation of the ministry of ,jesus to ,galilee by ,mark and ,luke cannot be thus accounted for1 since these ,evangelists obviously did not write for ,judea 7neither were they ,galileans1 so that this objection is equally valid against the first explanation72 and were not in so servile a relation to ,matthew as to have no access to independent information that might give them a more extended horizon4 ,it is curious enough that these two attempts to solve the contradiction between the synoptical writers and ,john1 are themselves in the same predicament of mutual contradiction4 ,for if ,matthew has been silent on the incidents in ,judea1 according to one1 on account of his proximity1 according to the other1 on account of his remoteness1 it follows that1 two contrary hypotheses being made with equal ease to explain the same fact1 both are alike inadequate4 ,no supposition founded on the local relations of the writers sufficing to explain the difference in question1 higher ground must be taken1 in a consideration of the spirit and tendency of the evangelical writings4 ,from this point of view the following proposition has been given3 ,the cause which determined the difference in the contents of the fourth gospel and that of the synoptical ones1 accounts also for their divergency as to the limits they assign to the ministry of ,jesus2 in other words1 the discourses delivered by ,jesus in ,jerusalem1 and recorded by ,john1 required for their comprehension a more mature development of ,christianity than that presented in the first apostolic period2 hence they were not retained in the primitive evangelical tradition1 of which the synoptical writers were the organs1 and were first restored to the church by ,john1 who wrote when ,christianity was in a more advanced stage4 #gjg ,but neither is this attempt at an explanation satisfactory1 though it is less superficial than the preceding4 ,for how could the popular and the esoteric in the teaching of ,jesus be separated with such nicety1 that the former should be confined to ,galilee1 and the latter to ,jerusalem 7the harsh discourse in the synagogue at ,capernaum alone excepted78 ,it may be said3 in ,jerusalem he had a more enlightened public around him1 and could be more readily understood than in ,galilee4 ,but the ,galileans could scarcely have misunderstood ,jesus more lamentably than did the ,jews from first to last1 according to ,john's representation1 and as in ,galilee he had the most undisturbed communion with his disciples1 we should rather have conjectured that here would be the scene of his more profound instruction4 ,besides1 as the synoptical writers have given a plentiful gleaning of lucid and popular discourses from the final residence of ,jesus in ,jerusalem1 there is no ground whatever for believing that his earlier visits were devoid of such1 and that his converse on these occasions took throughout a higher tone4 ,but even allowing that all the earlier discourses of ,jesus in ,judea and ,jerusalem were beyond the range of the first apostolic tradition1 deeds were performed there1 such as the cure of the man who had had an infirmity thirty-eight years1 the conferring of sight on the man born blind1 and the raising of ,lazarus1 which1 from their imposing rank among the evidences of ,christianity1 must also have necessitated the mention of those early visits of ,jesus to ,judea during which they occurred4 ,thus it is impossible to explain why the synoptical writers1 if they knew of the earlier visits of ,jesus to ,jerusalem1 should not have mentioned them1 and it must be concluded that if ,john be right1 the first three ,evangelists knew nothing of an essential part of the earlier ministry of ,jesus2 if1 on the other hand1 the latter be right1 the author of the fourth gospel1 or of the tradition by which he was guided1 fabricated a large portion of what he has narrated concerning the ministry of ,jesus1 or at least assigned to it a false locality4 ,on a closer examination1 however1 the relation between ,john and the synoptical writers is not simply such1 that the latter might not know what the former records1 but such1 that they must have proceeded from positively opposite data4 ,for example1 the synoptical writers1 ,matthew especially1 as often as ,jesus leaves ,galilee1 from the time that he takes up his abode there after the ,baptist's imprisonment1 seldom neglect to give a particular reason2 such as that he wished to escape from the crowd by a passage across the sea 7,matt4 viii4 #ah71 or that he withdrew into the wilderness of ,perea to avoid the snares of ,herod 7xiv4 #ac71 or that he retired into the region of ,tyre and ,sidon on account of the offence taken by the scribes at his preaching 7xv4 #ba73 ,john1 on the contrary1 generally alleges a special reason why ,jesus leaves ,judea1 and retires into ,galilee4 ,not to contend that his very first journey thither appears to be occasioned solely by the invitation to ,cana1 his departure again into ,galilee after the first passover attended by him in his public character1 is expressly accounted for by the ominous attention which the increasing number of his disciples had excited among the ,pharisees 7iv4 #a ff474 ,his retirement after the second feast1 also1 into the country east of the ,sea of ,tiberias 7vi4 #a71 must be viewed in relation to the 7v4 #ah71 since immediately after1 the ,evangelist assigns as a reason for the continuance of ,jesus in ,galilee1 the malignant designs of his enemies1 which rendered his abode in ,judea perilous to his life 7vii4 #a74 ,the interval between the ,feast of ,tabernacles and the ,feast of the ,dedication seems to have been spent by ,jesus in the capital1 #gjh no unpropitious circumstances compelling him to absent himself 7x4 #bb72 on the other hand1 his journey into ,perea 7x4 #dj7 and that into ,ephraim 7xi4 #ed7 are presented as effects of his persecution by the ,jews4 ,thus precisely the same relation as that which exists between ,matthew and ,luke1 with respect to the original dwelling-place of the parents of ,jesus is found between the first three ,evangelists and the fourth1 with respect to the principal theatre of his ministry4 ,as1 in the former instance1 ,matthew pre-supposes ,bethlehem to be the original place of abode1 and ,nazareth the one subsequently adopted through fortuitous circumstances1 while ,luke gives the contrary representation2 so in the latter1 the entire statement of the synoptical writers turns on the idea that1 until his last journey1 ,galilee was the chosen field of the labours of ,jesus1 and that he only left it occasionally1 from particular motives and for a short time2 while that of ,john1 on the contrary1 turns on the supposition1 that ,jesus would have taught solely in ,judea and ,jerusalem had not prudence sometimes counselled him to retire into the more remote provinces4 #gji ,of these two representations one only can be true4 ,before they were perceived to be contradictory1 the narrative of ,john was incorporated with that of the synoptical writers2 since they have been allowed to be irreconcilable1 the verdict has always been in favour of the fourth ,evangelist2 and so prevalent is this custom1 that even the author of the ,probabilia does not use the difference to the disadvantage of the latter4 ,de ,wette numbers it among the objections to the authenticity of ,matthew's gospel1 that it erroneously limits the ministry of ,jesus to ,galilee1 #gaj and ,schneckenburger has no more important ground of doubt to produce against the apostolic origin of the first canonical gospel1 than the unacquaintance of its author with the extra-,galilean labours of ,jesus4 #gaa ,if this decision be well founded1 it must rest on a careful consideration of the question1 which of the two incompatible narratives has the greater corroboration from external sources1 and the more internal verisimilitude8 ,we have shown in the introduction that the external evidence or testimony for the authenticity of the fourth gospel and of the synoptical ones1 that of ,matthew emphatically1 is of about equal value3 that is1 it determines nothing in either case1 but leaves the decision to the internal evidence4 ,in relation to this1 the following question must be considered3 is it more probable that1 although ,jesus was actually often in ,judea and ,jerusalem previous to his last journey1 yet at the time and place whence the synoptical gospels arose1 all traces of the fact had disappeared3 or that1 on the contrary1 although ,jesus never entered ,judea for the exercise of his public ministry before his last journey thither1 yet at the time and place of the composition of the fourth gospel a tradition of several such visits had been formed8 ,the above critics seek to show that the first might be the case1 in the following manner4 ,the first gospel1 they say1 #gab and more or less the two middle ones1 contain the tradition concerning the life of ,jesus as it was formed in ,galilee1 where the memory of what ,jesus did and said in that province would be preserved with a natural partiality--while1 of that part of his life which was spent out of ,galilee1 only the most critical incidents1 such as his birth1 consecration1 and especially his last journey1 which issued in his death1 would be retained2 the remainder1 including his early journeys to the various feasts1 being either unknown or forgotten1 so that any fragments of information concerning one or other of the previous residences of ,jesus at ,jerusalem would be referred to the last1 no other being known4 ,but ,john himself1 in whom our theologians rest all their confidence1 expressly mentions 7iv4 #de7 that at the first passover visited by ,jesus after his baptism 7and probably at others also7 the ,galileans were present1 and apparently in great numbers1 since as a consequence of their having witnessed his works in ,jerusalem1 ,jesus found a favourable reception in ,galilee4 ,if we add to this1 that most of the disciples who accompanied ,jesus in his early journeys to the feasts were ,galileans 7,john iv4 #bb1 ix4 #b71 it is inconceivable that tidings of the ministry of ,jesus at ,jerusalem should not from the first reach ,galilee4 ,once there1 could time extinguish them8 ,we grant that it is in the nature of tradition to fuse and remodel its materials1 and as the last journey of ,jesus to ,jerusalem was pre-eminently memorable1 it might absorb the recollections of the previous ones4 ,but tradition has also another impulse1 and it is its strongest2 namely to glorify4 ,it may indeed be said that to circumscribe the early ministry of ,jesus by the frontiers of ,galilee would serve the purpose of glorifying that province1 in which the synoptical tradition had its origin4 ,but the aim of the synoptical legend was not to glorify ,galilee1 on which it pronounces severe judgments2--,jesus is the object round which it would cast a halo1 and his greatness is proportionate to the sphere of his influence4 ,hence1 to show that from the beginning of his ministry he made himself known beyond the ,galilean angulus terr1 and that he often presented himself on the brilliant theatre of the capital1 especially on occasions when it was crowded with spectators and hearers from all regions1 was entirely according to the bent of the legend4 ,if1 therefore1 there had historically been but one journey of ,jesus to ,jerusalem1 tradition might be tempted to create more by degrees1 since it would argue--how could so great a light as ,jesus have remained so long under a bushel1 and not rather have early and often placed himself on the lofty stand which ,jerusalem presented8 ,opponents1 too1 might object1 like the unbelieving brethren of ,jesus 7,john vii4 #c1 #d71 that he who is conscious of the power to perform something truly great1 does not conceal himself1 but seeks publicity1 in order that his capabilities may be recognized2 and to these opponents it was thought the best answer to show that ,jesus actually did seek such publicity1 and early obtained recognition in an extended sphere4 ,out of this representation would easily grow the idea which lies at the foundation of the fourth gospel1 that not ,galilee1 but ,judea1 was the proper residence of ,jesus4 ,thus1 viewed from the point of the possible formation of a legend1 the balance inclines in favour of the synoptical writers4 ,but is the result the same when we ascend to the relations and designs of ,jesus1 and from this point of view inquire1 if it be more probable that ,jesus visited ,jerusalem once only or several times during his public life8 ,the alleged difficulty1 that the various journeys to the feasts offer the principal means of accounting for the intellectual development of ,jesus is easily removed4 ,for those journeys alone would not suffice to explain the mental pre-eminence of ,jesus and as the main stress must still be placed on his internal gifts1 we cannot pronounce whether to a mind like his1 even ,galilee might not present enough aliment for their maturing2 besides1 an adherence to the synoptical writers would only oblige us to renounce those journeys to the feasts which ,jesus took after his public appearance1 so that he might still have been present at many feasts previous to his messianic career1 without assuming a conspicuous character4 ,it has been held inconceivable that ,jesus1 so long after his assumption of the messianic character1 should confine himself to ,galilee1 instead of taking his stand in ,judea and ,jerusalem1 which1 from the higher culture and more extensive foreign intercourse of their population1 were a much more suitable field for his labours2 but it has been long remarked1 on the other hand1 that ,jesus could find easier access to the simple and energetic minds of ,galilee1 less fettered by priestcraft and ,pharisaism1 and therefore acted judiciously in obtaining a firm footing there by a protracted ministry1 before he ventured to ,jerusalem1 where1 in the centre of priestly and ,pharisaic domination1 he must expect stronger opposition4 ,there is a graver difficulty in the synoptical statement1 considered in relation to the ,mosaic law and ,jewish custom4 ,the law rigorously required that every ,israelite should appear before ,jehovah yearly at the three principal feasts 7,exod4 xxiii4 #ad ff471 and the reverence of ,jesus for the ,mosaic institutes 7,matt4 v4 #ag ff47 renders it improbable that1 during the whole course of his ministry1 he should have undertaken but one journey of observance4 #gac ,the ,gospel of ,matthew1 however1 be our judgment what it may as to the date and place of its composition1 did certainly arise in a community of ,jewish ,christians1 who well knew what the law prescribed to the devout ,israelite1 and must therefore be aware of the contradiction to the law in which the practice of ,jesus was involved1 when1 during a public ministry of several years' duration1 only one attendance at ,jerusalem was noticed1 or 7in case the synoptical writers supposed but a single year's ministry1 of which we shall speak below7 when he was represented as neglecting two of the great annual feasts4 ,if then1 a circle in close proximity to ,jewish usage found nothing offensive in the opinion that ,jesus attended but one feast1 may not this authority remove all hesitation on the subject from our minds8 ,besides1 on a more careful weighing of the historical and geographical relations1 the question suggests itself1 whether between the distant1 half ,gentile ,galilee1 and ,jerusalem1 the ecclesiastical bond was so close that the observance of all the feasts could be expected from a ,galilean8 ,even according to the fourth gospel1 ,jesus omitted attending one passover that occurred in the period of his public career 7,john vi4 #d74 ,there is1 however1 one point unfavourable to the synoptical writers4 ,that ,jesus in his last visit to ,jerusalem should1 within the short space of the feast day1 have brought himself into such decided hostility to the ruling party in the capital1 that they contrived his arrest and death1 is inexplicable1 if we reject the statement of ,john1 that this hostility originated and was gradually aggravated during his frequent previous visits4 #gad ,if it be rejoined1 that even in ,galilean synagogues there were stationary scribes and ,pharisees 7,matt ix4 #c1 xii4 #ad71 that such as were resident in the capital often visited the provinces 7,matt4 xv4 #a71 and that thus there existed a hierarchical nexus by means of which a deadly enmity against ,jesus might be propagated in ,jerusalem before he had ever publicly appeared there2 we then have precisely that ecclesiastical bond between ,galilee and ,jerusalem which renders improbable on the part of ,jesus the non-observance of a series of feasts4 ,moreover the synoptical writers have recorded an expression of ,jesus which tells strongly against their own view4 ,the words3 ,jerusalem1 ,jerusalem--how often would ,i have gathered thy children together--and ye would not1 have no meaning whatever in ,luke1 who puts them into the mouth of ,jesus before he had even seen ,jerusalem during his public ministry 7xiii4 #cd72 and even from the better arrangement of ,matthew 7xxiii4 #cg7 it is not to be understood how ,jesus1 after a single residence of a few days in ,jerusalem1 could found his reproaches on multiplied efforts to win over its inhabitants to his cause4 ,this whole apostrophe of ,jesus has so original a character1 that it is difficult to believe it incorrectly assigned to him2 hence to explain its existence1 we must suppose a series of earlier residences in ,jerusalem1 such as those recorded by the fourth ,evangelist4 ,there is only one resource1--to pronounce the statement of the synoptical writers unhistorical in the particular of limiting the decisive visit of ,jesus to ,jerusalem to the few days of the feast1 and to suppose that he made a more protracted stay in the capital4 #gae ,it will be seen from the foregoing discussion1 whether1 when so much is to be argued pro and contra1 the unhesitating decision of the critics in favour of the fourth ,evangelist's statement is a just one4 ,for our own part1 we are far from being equally hasty in declaring for the synoptical writers1 and are content to have submitted the actual state of the controversy1 as to the comparative merits of ,john and the synoptical writers1 to further consideration4 #eh4 ,,the ,,residence ,,of ,,jesus ,,at ,,capernaum4 ,during the time spent by ,jesus in ,judea1 the capital and its environs recommended themselves as the most eligible theatre for his agency2 and we might have conjectured that in like manner1 when in ,galilee1 he would have chosen his native city1 ,nazareth1 as the centre of his labours4 ,instead of this we find him1 when not travelling1 domesticated at ,capernaum1 as already mentioned2 the synoptical writers designate this place the of ,jesus 7,matt4 ix4 #a1 comp4 ,mark ii4 #a72 here1 according to them1 was the 1 which ,jesus was accustomed to inhabit 7,mark ii4 #a1 iii4 #bj2 ,matt4 xiii4 #a1 #cf7 probably that of ,peter 7,mark i4 #bi2 ,matt4 viii4 #ad1 xvii4 #be2 ,luke iv4 #ch74 ,in the fourth gospel1 which only mentions very transient visits of ,jesus to ,galilee1 ,capernaum is not given as his dwelling-place1 and ,cana is the place with which he is supposed to have the most connexion4 ,after his baptism he proceeds first to ,cana 7ii4 #a71 on a special occasion1 it is true2 after this he makes a short stay at ,capernaum 7v4 #ab72 and on his return from his first attendance at the passover1 it is again ,cana to which he resorts and in which the fourth ,evangelist makes him effect a cure 7iv4 #df ff471 according to the synoptical writers1 performed at ,capernaum1 and after this we find him once again in the synagogue at ,capernaum 7vi4 #ei74 ,the most eminent disciples1 also1 are said by the writer of the fourth gospel1 not as by the synoptical writers1 to come from ,capernaum1 but partly from ,cana 7xxi4 #b7 and partly from ,bethsaida 7i4 #de74 ,the latter place1 even in the synoptical gospels1 is mentioned1 with ,chorazin1 as one in which ,jesus had been pre-eminently active 7,matt4 xi4 #ba2 ,luke x4 #ac74 ,why ,jesus chose ,capernaum as his central residence in ,galilee1 ,mark does not attempt to show1 but conducts him thither without comment after his return into ,galilee1 and the calling of the two pairs of fishermen 7i4 #ba74 ,matthew 7iv4 #ac ff47 alleges as a motive1 that an ,old ,testament prophecy 7,isa4 viii4 #bc1 ix4 #a71 was thereby fulfilled2 a dogmatical motive1 and therefore of no historical value4 ,luke thinks he has found the reason in a fact1 which is more worthy of notice4 ,according to him1 ,jesus after his return from baptism does not immediately take up his residence in ,capernaum1 but makes an essay to teach in ,nazareth1 and after its failure first turns to ,capernaum4 ,this ,evangelist tells us in the most graphic style how ,jesus presented himself at the synagogue on the sabbath-day1 and expounded a prophetic passage1 so as to excite general admiration1 but at the same time to provoke malicious reflections on the narrow circumstances of his family4 ,jesus1 in reply1 is made to refer the discontent of the ,nazarenes1 that he performed no miracles before them as at ,capernaum1 to the contempt which every prophet meets with in his own country1 and to threaten them in ,old ,testament allusions1 that the divine benefits would be withdrawn from them and conferred on strangers4 ,exasperated by this1 they lead him to the brow of the hill1 intending to cast him down2 he1 however1 passes unhurt through the midst of them 7iv4 #af-cj74 ,both the other synoptical writers are acquainted with a visit of ,jesus to ,nazareth2 but they transfer it to a much later period1 when ,jesus had been long labouring in ,galilee1 and resident in ,capernaum 7,matt4 xiii4 #ed ff42 ,mark vi4 #a ff474 ,to reconcile their narrative with that of ,luke1 it has been customary to suppose that ,jesus1 notwithstanding his first rough reception1 as described by ,luke1 wished to make one more experiment whether his long absence and subsequent fame might not have altered the opinion of the ,nazarenes--an opinion worthy of a petty town3 but the result was equally unfavourable4 #gaf ,the two scenes1 however1 are too similar to be prevented from mingling with each other4 ,in both instances the teaching of ,jesus in the synagogue makes the same impression on the ,nazarenes1--that of amazement at the wisdom of the carpenter's son 7,luke only giving more details73 in both instances there is a lack of miracles on the part of ,jesus1 the first two ,evangelists presenting more prominently its cause1 namely1 the unbelief of the ,nazarenes1 and the third dwelling more on its unfavourable effect3 lastly in both instances1 ,jesus delivers the maxim 7the result of his experience71 that a prophet is the least esteemed in his own country3 and to this ,luke appends a more ample discourse1 which irritates the ,nazarenes to attempt an act of violence1 unnoticed by the other ,evangelists4 ,but the fact which most decisively shows that the two narratives cannot exist in each other's presence1 is that they both claim to relate the first incident of the kind2 #gag for in both1 the ,nazarenes express their astonishment at the suddenly revealed intellectual gifts of ,jesus1 which they could not at once reconcile with his known condition4 #gah ,the first supposition that presents itself is1 that the scene described by ,luke preceded that of ,matthew and ,mark2 but if so1 the ,nazarenes could not wonder a second time and inquire1 whence hath this man this wisdom8 since they must have had proof on that point on the first occasion2 if1 on the contrary1 we try to give the later date to ,luke's incident1 it appears unnatural1 for the same reason that they should wonder at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth1 neither could ,jesus well say1 ,this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears1 without severely reflecting on their former insensibility1 which had retarded that fulfilment4 ,these considerations have led the majority of modern commentators to the opinion1 that ,luke and the other synoptical ,evangelists have here given the same history1 merely differing in the date1 and in the colouring of the facts2 #gai and the only question among them is1 which of the two narrations deserves the preference4 ,with respect to the date1 that of ,luke seems1 at the first glance1 to have the advantage2 it gives the desiderated motive for the change of residence1 and the wonder of the ,nazarenes appears most natural on the supposition that then he first assumed the function of a public teacher2 hence ,matthew's divergency from ,luke has been recently made a serious reproach to him1 as a chronological error4 #gbj ,but there is one particular in all the three narratives which is an obstacle to our referring the incident to so early a period4 ,if ,jesus presented himself thus at ,nazareth before he had made ,capernaum the principal theatre of his agency1 the ,nazarenes could not utter the words which ,jesus imputes to them in ,luke3 ,whatsoever we have heard done in ,capernaum1 do also here in thy country2 nor could they1 according to ,matthew and ,mark1 be astonished at the mighty works of ,jesus1 #gba for as he performed few if any miracles at ,nazareth1 that expression1 notwithstanding its perplexing connexion with the 1 the wisdom1 manifested in that city1 must refer to works performed elsewhere4 ,if1 then1 the ,nazarenes wondered at the deeds of ,jesus at ,capernaum1 or were jealous of the distinction conferred on that city1 ,jesus must have previously resided there1 and could not have proceeded thither for the first time in consequence of the scene at ,nazareth4 ,from this1 it is plain that the later chronological position of the narrative is the original one1 and that ,luke1 in placing it earlier1 out of mere conjecture1 was honest or careless enough to retain the mention of the wonders at ,capernaum1 though only consistent with the later position4 #gbb ,if1 with regard to the date of the incident1 the advantage is thus on the side of ,matthew and ,mark1 we are left in darkness as to the motive which led ,jesus to alter his abode from ,nazareth to ,capernaum2 unless the circumstance that some of his most confidential disciples had their home there1 and the more extensive traffic of the place1 may be regarded as inducements to the measure4 ,the fulness and particularity of ,luke's description of the scene1 contrasted with the summary style in which it is given by the other two ,evangelists1 has generally won for the former the praise of superior accuracy4 #gbc ,let us look more closely1 and we shall find that the greater particularity of ,luke shows itself chiefly in this1 that he is not satisfied with a merely general mention of the discourse delivered by ,jesus in the synagogue1 but cites the ,old ,testament passage on which he enlarged1 and the commencement of its application4 ,the passage is from ,isa4 lxi4 #a1 #b1 where the prophet announces the return from exile1 with the exception of the words to set at liberty them that are bruised1 1 which are from ,isa4 lviii4 #f4 ,to this passage ,jesus gives a messianic interpretation1 for he declares it to be fulfilled by his appearance4 ,why he selected this text from among all others has been variously conjectured4 ,it is known that among the ,jews at a later period1 certain extracts from the ,thorah and the ,prophets were statedly read on particular sabbaths and feast days1 and it has hence been suggested that the above passage was the selection appointed for the occasion in question4 ,it is true that the chapter from which the words 444 are taken1 used to be read on the great ,day of ,atonement1 and ,bengel has made the supposition1 that the scene we are considering occurred on that day1 a main pillar of his evangelical chronology4 #gbd ,but if ,jesus had adhered to the regular course of reading1 he would not merely have extracted from the lesson appointed for this feast a few stray words1 to insert them in a totally disconnected passage2 and after all1 it is impossible to demonstrate that1 so early as the time of ,jesus1 there were prescribed readings1 even from the prophets4 #gbe ,if then ,jesus was not thus circumstantially directed to the passage cited1 did he open upon it designedly or fortuitously8 ,many imagine him turning over the leaves until he found the text which was in his mind3 #gbf but ,olshausen is right in saying that the words do not imply that he found the passage after searching for it1 but that he alighted on it under the guidance of the ,divine ,spirit4 #gbg ,this1 however1 is but a poor contrivance1 to hide the improbability1 that ,jesus should fortuitously open on a passage so well adapted to serve as a motto for his first messianic enterprize1 behind an appeal to the ,spirit1 as deus ex machin4 ,jesus might very likely have quoted this text with reference to himself1 and thus it would remain in the minds of the ,evangelists as a prophecy fulfilled in ,jesus2 ,matthew would probably have introduced it in his own person with his usual form1 1 and would have said that ,jesus had now begun his messianic annunciation1 1 that the prophecy ,isa4 lxi4 #a ff4 might be fulfilled2 but ,luke1 who is less partial to this form1 or the tradition whence he drew his materials1 puts the words into the mouth of ,jesus on his first messianic appearance1 very judiciously1 it is true1 but1 owing to the chances which it is necessary to suppose1 less probably2 so that ,i am more inclined to be satisfied with the indefinite statement of ,matthew and ,mark4 ,the other point in which the description of ,luke merits the praise of particularity1 is his dramatic picture of the tumultuary closing scene2 but this scene perplexes even those who on the whole give the preference to his narrative4 ,it is not to be concealed that the extremely violent expulsion of ,jesus by the ,nazarenes1 seems to have had no adequate provocation3 #gbh and we cannot with ,schleiermacher1 #gbi expunge the notion that the life of ,jesus was threatened1 without imputing to the writer a false addition of the words 7v4 #bi71 and thus materially affecting the credibility of his entire narration4 ,but the still more remarkable clause1 7v4 #cj71 is the main difficulty4 ,it is not to be explained 7at least not in accordance with the ,evangelist's view7 as an effect merely of the commanding glance of ,jesus1 as ,hase supposes2 and ,olshausen is again right when he says1 that the ,evangelist intended to signify that ,jesus passed unharmed through the midst of his furious enemies1 because his divine power fettered their senses and limbs1 because his hour was not yet come 7,john viii4 #bj71 and because no man could take his life from him until he himself laid it down 7,john x4 #ah74 #gcj ,here again we have a display of the glorifying tendency of tradition1 which loved to represent ,jesus as one defended from his enemies1 like ,lot 7,gen4 xix4 #aa71 or ,elisha 7#b ,kings vi4 #ah71 by a heavenly hand1 or better still1 by the power of his own superior nature2 unless there be supposed in this case1 as in the two examples from the ,old ,testament1 a temporary infliction of blindness1 an illudere per caliginem1 the idea of which ,tertullian reprobates4 #gca ,thus in this instance also1 the less imposing account of the first two ,evangelists is to be preferred1 namely that ,jesus1 impeded from further activity by the unbelief of the ,nazarenes1 voluntarily forsook his ungrateful paternal city4 #ei4 ,,divergencies ,,of ,,the ,,evangelists ,,as ,,to ,,the ,,chronology ,,of ,,the ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,duration ,,of ,,his ,,public ,,ministry4 ,in considering the chronology of the public life of ,jesus1 we must distinguish the question of its total duration1 from that of the arrangement of its particular events4 ,not one of our ,evangelists expressly tells us how long the public ministry of ,jesus lasted2 but while the synoptical writers give us no clue to a decision on the subject1 we find in ,john certain data1 which seem to warrant one4 ,in the synoptical gospels there is no intimation how long after the baptism of ,jesus his imprisonment and death occurred3 nowhere are months and years distinguished2 and though it is once or twice said3 ' or 7,matt4 xvii4 #a1 #b71 these isolated fixed points furnish us with no guidance in a sea of general uncertainty4 ,on the contrary1 the many journeys to the feasts by which the narrative of the fourth ,evangelist is distinguished from that of his predecessors1 furnishes us1 so to speak1 with chronological abutments1 as for each appearance of ,jesus at one of these annual feasts1 the ,passover especially1 we must1 deducting the first1 reckon a full year of his ministry4 ,we have1 in the fourth gospel1 after the baptism of ,jesus1 and apparently at a short interval 7comp4 i4 #bi1 #ce1 #dd1 ii4 #a1 #ab71 a passover attended by him 7ii4 #ac74 ,but the next feast visited by ,jesus 7v4 #a7 which is indefinitely designated a feast of the ,jews1 has been the perpetual crux of ,new ,testament chronologists4 ,it is only important in determining the duration of the public life of ,jesus1 on the supposition that it was a passover2 for in this case it would mark the close of his first year's ministry4 ,we grant that 1 ,,the feast of the ,jews1 might very probably denote the ,passover1 which was pre-eminent among their institutions3 #gcb but it happens that the best manuscripts have in the present passage no article1 and without it1 the above expression can only signify indefinitely one of the ,jewish feasts1 which the author thought it immaterial to specify4 #gcc ,thus intrinsically it might mean either the feast of ,pentecost1 #gcd ,purim1 #gce the ,passover1 #gcf or any other2 #gcg but in its actual connection it is evidently not intended by the narrator to imply the ,passover1 both because he would hardly have glanced thus slightly at the most important of all the feasts1 and because1 vi4 #d1 there comes another ,passover1 so that on the supposition we are contesting1 he would have passed in silence over a whole year between v4 #dg1 and vi4 #a4 ,for to give the words1 7vi4 #d71 a retrospective meaning1 is too artificial an expedient of ,paulus1 since1 as he himself confesses1 #gch this phrase1 elsewhere in ,john1 is invariably used with reference to the immediately approaching feast 7ii4 #ac1 vii4 #b1 xi4 #ee71 and must from its nature have a prospective meaning1 unless the context indicate the contrary4 ,thus not until ,john vi4 #d1 do we meet with the second passover1 and to this it is not mentioned that ,jesus resorted4 #gci ,then follow the feast of ,tabernacles and that of the ,dedication1 and afterwards1 xi4 #ee1 xii4 #a1 the last passover visited by ,jesus4 ,according to our view of ,john v4 #a1 and vi4 #d1 therefore1 we obtain two years for the public ministry of ,jesus1 besides the interval between his baptism and the first ,passover4 ,the same result is found by those who1 with ,paulus1 hold the feast mentioned1 v4 #a1 to be a passover1 but vi4 #d1 only a retrospective allusion2 whereas the ancient ,fathers of the ,church1 reckoning a separate ,passover to each of the passages in question1 made out three years4 ,meanwhile1 by this calculation1 we only get the minimum duration of the public ministry of ,jesus possible according to the fourth gospel1 for the writer nowhere intimates that he has been punctilious in naming every feast that fell within that ministry1 including those not observed by ,jesus1 neither1 unless we regard it as established that the writer was the apostle ,john1 have we any guarantee that he knew the entire number4 ,it may be urged in opposition to the calculations1 built on the representations of ,john1 that the synoptical writers give no reasons for limiting the term of the public ministry of ,jesus to a single year3 #gdj but this objection rests on a supposition borrowed from ,john himself1 namely that ,jesus1 ,galilean though he was1 made it a rule to attend every ,passover3 a supposition1 again1 which is overturned by the same writer's own representation4 ,according to him1 ,jesus left unobserved the passover mentioned1 vi4 #d1 for from vi4 #a1 where ,jesus is on the east side of the sea of ,tiberias1 through vi4 #ag and #ei1 where he goes to ,capernaum1 and vii4 #a1 where he frequents ,galilee1 in order to avoid the ,jews1 to vii4 #b and #aj1 where he proceeds to ,jerusalem on occasion of the feast of ,tabernacles1 the ,evangelist's narrative is so closely consecutive that a journey to the ,passover can nowhere be inserted4 ,out of the synoptical gospels1 by themselves1 we gather nothing as to the length of the public ministry of ,jesus1 for this representation admits of our assigning him either several years of activity1 or only one2 their restriction of his intercourse with ,jerusalem to his final journey being the sole point in which they control our conclusion4 ,it is true that several ,fathers of the ,church1 #gda as well as some heretics1 #gdb speak of the ministry of ,jesus as having lasted but a single year2 but that the source of this opinion was not the absence of early journeys to the feasts in the synoptical gospels1 but an entirely fortuitous association1 we learn from those ,fathers themselves1 for they derive it from the prophetic passage ,isa4 lxi4 #a f4 applied by ,jesus 7,luke iv47 to himself4 ,in this passage there is mention of the acceptable year of the ,lord1 1 which the prophet or1 according to the ,evangelical interpretation1 the ,messiah is sent to announce4 ,understanding this phrase in its strict chronological sense1 they adopted from it the notion of a single messianic year1 which was more easily reconcilable with the synoptical gospels than with that of ,john1 after whose statement the calculation of the church soon came to be regulated4 ,in striking contrast with this lowest computation of time1 is the tradition1 also very ancient1 that ,jesus was baptized in his thirtieth year1 but at the time of his crucifixion was not far from his fiftieth4 #gdc ,but this opinion is equally founded on a misunderstanding4 ,the elders who had conversations with ,john the disciple of the ,lord1 in ,asia1 1--on whose testimony ,irenus relies when he says1 such is the tradition of ,john1 1--had given no information further than that ,christ taught1 tatem seniorem habens4 ,that this tas senior was the age of from forty to fifty years is merely the inference of ,irenus1 founded on what the ,jews allege as an objection to the discourse of ,jesus1 ,john viii4 #eg3 ,thou art not yet fifty years old1 and hast thou seen ,abraham8 language which according to ,irenus could only be addressed to one1 qui jam quadraginta annos excessit1 quinquagesimum autem annum nondum attigit4 ,but the ,jews might very well say to a man a little more than thirty1 that he was much too young to have seen ,abraham1 since he had not reached his fiftieth year1 which1 in the ,jewish idea1 completed the term of manhood4 #gdd ,thus we can obtain no precise information from our gospels as to how long the public labours of ,jesus lasted2 all we can gather is1 that if we follow the fourth gospel we must not reckon less than two years and something over4 ,but the repeated journeys to the feasts on which this calculation is founded are themselves not established beyond doubt4 ,opposed to this minimum1 we gain a maximum1 if we understand1 from ,luke iii4 #a ff4 and #bc1 that the baptism of ,jesus took place in the fifteenth year of ,tiberius1 and add to this that his crucifixion occurred under the procuratorship of ,pontius ,pilate4 ,for as ,pilate was recalled from his post in the year of ,tiberius's death1 #gde and as ,tiberius reigned rather more than seven years after the fifteenth year of his reign1 #gdf it follows that seven years are the maximum of the possible duration of the ministry of ,jesus after his baptism4 ,but while one of these data1 namely1 that ,jesus was crucified under ,pilate1 is well attested1 the other is rendered suspicious by its association with a chronological error1 so that in fact we cannot achieve here even a proximate1 still less an accurate solution of our question4 #fj4 ,,the ,,attempts ,,at ,a ,,chronological ,,arrangement ,,of ,,the ,,particular ,,events ,,in ,,the ,,public ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 ,in attempting a chronological arrangement of the particular events occurring in the interval between the baptism of ,jesus and his crucifixion1 the peculiar relation of the synoptical writers to ,john1 renders it necessary to give them both a separate and a comparative examination4 ,as to the latter1 if its result be a reconciliation of the two accounts1 the journeys to the feasts in ,john must form the panels between which the materials of the synoptical writers must be so inserted1 that between each pair of journeys with the incidents at ,jerusalem to which they gave rise1 would fall a portion of the ,galilean history4 ,for this incorporation to be effected with any certainty1 two things would be essential2 first1 a notice of the departure of ,jesus from ,galilee by the first three ,evangelists1 as often as the fourth speaks of a residence in ,jerusalem2 and1 secondly1 on the part of ,john1 an intimation1 if not a narration1 between his accounts of the several feasts1 of the ,galilean occurrences represented by the synoptical writers as an uninterrupted train4 ,but we have seen that the synoptical writers fail in the required notice2 while it is notorious that ,john1 from the baptism of ,jesus to the closing scenes of his life1 is only in two or three instances in coincidence with the other ,evangelists4 ,john says 7iii4 #bd7 that when ,jesus began his ministry1 ,john was not yet cast into prison2 ,matthew makes the return of ,jesus into ,galilee subsequent to the imprisonment of the ,baptist 7iv4 #ab71 hence it has been inferred that that return was from the first passover1 and not from the baptism2 #gdg but it is undeniable that ,matthew places the commencement of the public ministry of ,jesus in ,galilee1 and presupposes no earlier ministry at the feast in ,jerusalem1 so that the two statements1 instead of dovetailing1 as has been imagined1 are altogether incompatible4 ,the next1 but very dubious point of contact1 occurs in the healing of the nobleman's son1 according to ,john iv4 #df ff41 or the centurion's servant1 according to ,matt4 viii4 #e ff41 and ,luke vii4 #a ff41 which ,john places 7v4 #dg7 immediately after the return of ,jesus from his prolonged residence in ,judea and ,samaria1 during and after the first passover4 ,it was to be expected1 then1 that the corresponding narration of the synoptical writers would be preceded by some intimation of the first journey made by ,jesus to a feast4 ,not only is such an intimation wanting--there is not a single aperture to be found for the insertion of this journey1 since1 according to the synoptical writers1 the cure in question was an immediate sequel to the ,sermon on the ,mount1 which ,matthew and ,luke represent as the culminating point1 of an apparently uninterrupted course of teaching and miracles in ,galilee4 ,thus neither at this point is the chronology of the first three ,evangelists to be eked out by that of the fourth1 since they nowhere present a joint on to which the statements of the latter can be articulated4 ,another more decided coincidence between the two parties exists in the associated narratives of the miracle of the loaves1 and that of walking on the sea1 ,john vi4 #a-ba1 ,matt4 xiv4 #ad-cf parall41 which ,john places in the interval immediately preceding the second passover1 unvisited by ,jesus2 but he differs so completely from the synoptical writers in his account of these miracles1 both in their introduction and termination1 that either he or they must inevitably be wrong4 ,for while1 according to ,matthew1 ,jesus retires from ,nazareth probably1 at all events from some part of ,galilee1 to the opposite side of the sea1 where he effects the multiplication of the loaves2 according to ,john he sets out from ,jerusalem4 ,further1 in the first two gospels ,jesus proceeds after the miracle of the loaves into a district where he was less known 7both ,matt4 v4 #ce and ,mark v4 #ed expressly stating that the people knew him71 whereas in ,john he goes directly to ,capernaum1 with which of all places he was the most familiar4 ,we know not here whether to tax the synoptical writers or ,john with a mistake3 and as we cannot pronounce whether he or they have placed this incident too early or too late1 we are equally ignorant how much of the synoptical narratives we are to place before1 and how much after1 the second passover1 which ,john makes nearly cotemporary with the feeding of the five thousand4 ,here1 however1 the points of contact between this ,evangelist and his predecessors are at an end1 until we come to the last journey of ,jesus2 and if they are too uncertain to promise even a simple division of the synoptical materials by the two ,passovers1 how can we hope1 by the journeys of ,jesus to the feast of the ,jews1 1 to the feast of ,tabernacles1 or to the feast of ,dedication1 if that be a separate journey1 to classify chronologically the uninterrupted series of ,galilean occurrences in the first three gospels8 ,nevertheless this has been attempted by a succession of theologians down to the present time1 with an expenditure of acumen and erudition1 worthy of a more fertile subject2 #gdh but unprejudiced judges have decided1 that as the narrative of the first three ,evangelists has scarcely any elements that can give certitude to such a classification1 not one of the harmonies of the gospels yet written has any claim to be considered anything more than a tissue of historical conjectures4 #gdi ,it remains to estimate the chronological value of the synoptical writers1 apart from ,john4 ,they are so frequently at variance with each other in the order of events1 and it is so seldom that one has all the probabilities on his side1 that each of them may be convicted of numerous chronological errors1 which must undermine our confidence in his accuracy4 ,it has been maintained that1 in the composition of their books1 they meditated no precise chronological order1 #gej and this is partially confirmed by their mode of narration4 ,throughout the interval between the baptism of ,jesus and the history of the ,passion1 their narratives resemble a collection of anecdotes1 strung together mostly on a thread of mere analogy and association of ideas4 ,but there is a distinction to be made in reference to the above opinion4 ,it is true that from the purport of their narratives1 and the indecisiveness and uniformity of their connecting phrases1 we can detect their want of insight into the more accurate chronological relations of what they record2 but that the authors flattered themselves they were giving a chronological narration1 is evident from those very connecting phrases1 which1 however indecisive1 have almost always a chronological character1 such as 1 1 1 1 1 1 etc4 #gea ,the incidents and discourses detailed by ,john are1 for the most part1 peculiar to himself2 he is therefore not liable to the same control in his chronology from independent authors1 as are the synoptical writers from each other2 neither is his narration wanting in connectedness and sequence4 ,hence our decision on the merits of his chronological order is dependent on the answer to the following question3 ,is the development and progress of the cause and plan of ,jesus1 as given by the fourth ,evangelist1 credible in itself and on comparison with available data1 drawn from the other gospels8 ,the solution to this question is involved in the succeeding inquiry4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,jesus ,,as ,,the ,,messiah4 #geb #fa4 ,,jesus1 ,,the ,,son ,,of ,,man4 ,in treating of the relation in which ,jesus conceived himself to stand to the messianic idea1 we can distinguish his dicta concerning his own person from those concerning the work he had undertaken4 ,the appellation which ,jesus commonly gives himself in the ,gospels is1 the ,son of man1 4 ,the exactly corresponding ,hebrew expression is in the ,old ,testament a frequent designation of man in general1 and thus we might be induced to understand it in the mouth of ,jesus4 ,this interpretation would suit some passages2 for example1 ,matt4 xii4 #h1 where ,jesus says3 ,the ,son of man is lord also of the ,sabbath day1 1--words which will fitly enough take a general meaning1 such as ,grotius affixes to them1 namely1 that man is lord of the ,sabbath1 especially if we compare ,mark 7ii4 #bg71 who introduces them by the proposition1 ,the ,sabbath was made for man1 and not man for the ,sabbath1 1 4 ,but in the majority of cases1 the phrase in question is evidently used as a special designation4 ,thus1 ,matt4 viii4 #bj1 a scribe volunteers to become a disciple of ,jesus1 and is admonished to count the cost in the words1 ,the ,son of man hath not where to lay his head1 1 3 here some particular man must be intended1 nay1 the particular man into whose companionship the scribe wished to enter1 that is1 ,jesus himself4 ,as a reason for the self-application of this term by ,jesus1 it has been suggested that he used the third person after the oriental manner1 to avoid the ,i4 #gec ,but for a speaker to use the third person in reference to himself1 is only admissible1 if he would be understood1 when the designation he employs is precise1 and inapplicable to any other person present1 as when a father or a king uses his appropriate title of himself2 or when1 if the designation be not precise1 its relation is made clear by a demonstrative pronoun1 which limitation is eminently indispensable if an individual speak of himself under the universal designation man4 ,we grant that occasionally a gesture might supply the place of the demonstrative pronoun2 but that ,jesus in every instance of his using this habitual expression had recourse to some visible explanatory sign1 or that the ,evangelists would not1 in that case1 have supplied its necessary absence from a written document by some demonstrative addition1 is inconceivable4 ,if both ,jesus and the ,evangelists held such an elucidation superfluous1 they must have seen in the expression itself the key to its precise application4 ,some are of opinion that ,jesus intended by it to point himself out as the ideal man--man in the noblest sense of the word2 #ged but this is a modern theory1 not an historical inference1 for there is no trace of such an interpretation of the expression in the time of ,jesus1 #gee and it would be more easy to show1 as others have attempted1 that the appellation1 ,son of ,man1 so frequently used by ,jesus1 had reference to his lowly and despised condition4 #gef ,apart however from the objection that this acceptation also would require the addition of the demonstrative pronoun1 though it might be adapted to many passages1 as ,matt4 viii4 #bj2 ,john i4 #ea1 there are others 7such as ,matt4 xvii4 #bb1 where ,jesus1 foretelling his violent death1 designates himself 7 which demand the contrast of high dignity with an ignominious fate4 ,so in ,matt4 x4 #bc1 the assurance given to the commissioned disciples that before they had gone over the cities of ,israel the ,son of ,man would come1 could have no weight unless this expression denoted a person of importance2 and that such was its significance is proved by a comparison of ,matt4 xvi4 #bh1 where there is also a mention of an 1 a coming of the ,son of man1 but with the addition 4 ,as this addition can only refer to the messianic kingdom1 the must be the ,messiah4 ,how so apparently vague an appellation came to be appropriated to the ,messiah1 we gather from ,matt4 xxvi4 #fd parall41 where the ,son of man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven4 ,this is evidently an allusion to ,dan4 vii4 #ac f4 where after having treated of the fall of the four beasts1 the writer says3 ,i saw in the night visions1 and behold1 one like the ,son of ,man 7 1 ,,lxx47 came with the clouds of heaven1 and came to the ,ancient of days4 ,and there was given him dominion1 and glory1 and a kingdom1 that all people1 nations and languages should serve him3 his dominion is an everlasting dominion4 ,the four beasts 7v4 #ag ff47 were symbolical of the four great empires1 the last of which was the ,macedonian1 with its offshoot1 ,syria4 ,after their fall1 the kingdom was to be given in perpetuity to the ,people of ,god1 the saints of the ,most ,high3 hence1 he who was to come with clouds of heaven could only be1 either a personification of the holy people1 #geg or a leader of heavenly origin under whom they were to achieve their destined triumph--in a word1 the ,messiah2 and this was the customary interpretation among the ,jews4 #geh ,two things are predicated of this personage1--that he was like the ,son of man1 and that he came with the clouds of heaven2 but the former particular is his distinctive characteristic1 and imports either that he had not a superhuman form1 that of an angel for instance1 though descending from heaven1 or else that the kingdom about to be established presented in its humanity a contrast to the inhumanity of its predecessors1 of which ferocious beasts were the fitting emblems4 #gei ,at a later period1 it is true1 the ,jews regarded the coming with the clouds of heaven as the more essential attribute of the ,messiah1 and hence gave him the name ,anani1 after the ,jewish taste of making a merely accessory circumstance the permanent epithet of a person or thing4 #gfj ,if1 then1 the expression necessarily recalled the above passage in ,daniel1 generally believed to relate to the ,messiah1 it is impossible that ,jesus could so often use it1 and in connexion with declarations evidently referring to the ,messiah1 without intending it as the designation of that personage4 ,that by the expression in question ,jesus meant himself1 without relation to the messianic dignity1 is less probable than the contrary supposition1 that he might often mean the ,messiah when he spoke of the ,son of ,man1 without relation to his own person4 ,when1 ,matt4 x4 #bc1 on the first mission of the twelve apostles to announce the kingdom of heaven1 he comforts them under the prospect of their future persecutions by the assurance that they would not have gone over all the cities of ,israel before the coming of the ,son of ,man1 we should rather1 taking this declaration alone1 think of a third person1 whose speedy messianic appearance ,jesus was promising1 than of the speaker himself1 seeing that he was already come1 and it would not be antecedently clear how he could represent his own coming as one still in anticipation4 ,so also when ,jesus 7,matt4 xiii4 #cg ff47 interprets the ,sower of the parable to be the ,son of ,man1 who at the end of the world will have a harvest and a tribunal1 he might be supposed to refer to the ,messiah as a third person distinct from himself4 ,this is equally the case1 xvi4 #bg f41 where1 to prove the proposition that the loss of the soul is not to be compensated by the gain of the whole world1 he urges the speedy coming of the ,son of ,man1 to administer retribution4 ,lastly1 in the connected discourses1 ,matt4 xxiv41 xxv4 parall41 many particulars would be more easily conceived1 if the whose ,jesus describes1 were understood to mean another than himself4 ,but this explanation is far from being applicable to the majority of instances in which ,jesus uses this expression4 ,when he represents the ,son of ,man1 not as one still to be expected1 but as one already come and actually present1 for example1 in ,matt xviii4 #aa1 where he says3 ,the ,son of ,man is come to save that which was lost2 when he justifies his own acts by the authority with which the ,son of ,man was invested1 as in ,matt4 ix4 #f2 when1 ,mark viii4 #ca ff4 comp4 ,matt4 xvi4 #bb1 he speaks of the approaching sufferings and death of the ,son of ,man1 so as to elicit from ,peter the exclamation1 1 this shall not be unto thee2 in these and similar cases he can only1 by the 1 have intended himself4 ,and even those passages1 which1 taken singly1 we might have found capable of application to a messianic person1 distinct from ,jesus1 lose this capability when considered in their entire connexion4 ,it is possible1 however1 either that the writer may have misplaced certain expressions1 or that the ultimately prevalent conviction that ,jesus was the ,son of ,man caused what was originally said merely of the latter1 to be viewed in immediate relation to the former4 ,thus besides the fact that ,jesus on many occasions called himself the ,son of ,man1 there remains the possibility that on many others1 he may have designed another person2 and if so1 the latter would in the order of time naturally precede the former4 ,whether this possibility can be heightened ta a reality1 must depend on the answer to the following question3 ,is there1 in the period of the life of ,jesus1 from which all his recorded declarations are taken1 any fragment which indicates that he had not yet conceived himself to be the ,messiah8 #fb4 ,,how ,,soon ,,did ,,jesus ,,conceive ,,himself ,,to ,,be ,,the ,,messiah1 ,,and ,,find ,,recognition ,,as ,,such ,,from ,,others8 ,jesus held and expressed the conviction that he was the ,messiah2 this is an indisputable fact4 ,not only did he1 according to the ,evangelists1 receive with satisfaction the confession of the disciples that he was the 7,matt4 xvi4 #af f47 and the salutation of the people1 ,hosanna to the ,son of ,david 7xxi4 #ae f472 not only did he before a public tribunal 7,matt4 xxvi4 #fd1 comp4 ,john xviii4 #cg7 as well as to private individuals 7,john iv4 #bf1 ix4 #cg1 x4 #be7 repeatedly declare himself to be the ,messiah2 but the fact that his disciples after his death believed and proclaimed that he was the ,messiah1 is not to be comprehended1 unless1 when living1 he had implanted the conviction in their minds4 ,to the more searching question1 how soon ,jesus began to declare himself the ,messiah and to be regarded as such by others1 the ,evangelists almost unanimously reply1 that he assumed that character from the time of his baptism4 ,all of them attach to his baptism circumstances which must have convinced himself1 if yet uncertain1 and all others who witnessed or credited them1 that he was no less than the ,messiah2 ,john makes his earliest disciples recognise his right to that dignity on their first interview 7i4 #db ff471 and ,matthew attributes to him at the very beginning of his ministry1 in the sermon on the mount1 a representation of himself as the ,judge of the world 7vii4 #ba ff47 and therefore the ,messiah4 ,nevertheless1 on a closer examination1 there appears a remarkable divergency on this subject between the synoptical statement and that of ,john4 ,while1 namely1 in ,john1 ,jesus remains throughout true to his assertion1 and the disciples and his followers among the populace to their conviction1 that he is the ,messiah2 in the synoptical gospels there is a vacillation discernible--the previously expressed persuasion on the part of the disciples and people that ,jesus was the ,messiah1 sometimes vanishes and gives place to a much lower view of him1 and even ,jesus himself becomes more reserved in his declarations4 ,this is particularly striking when the synoptical statement is compared with that of ,john2 but even when they are separately considered1 the result is the same4 ,according to ,john 7vi4 #ae71 after the miracle of the loaves the people were inclined to constitute ,jesus their 7messianic7 ,king2 on the contrary1 according to the other three ,evangelists1 either about the same time 7,luke ix4 #ah f47 or still later 7,matt4 xvi4 #ac f42 ,mark viii4 #bg f47 the disciples could only report1 on the opinions of the people respecting their master1 that some said he was the resuscitated ,baptist1 some ,elias1 and others ,jeremiah or one of the old prophets3 in reference to that passage of ,john1 however1 as also to the synoptical one1 ,matt4 xiv4 #cc1 according to which1 some time before ,jesus elicited the above report of the popular opinion1 the people who were with him in the ship #gfa when he had allayed the storm1 fell at his feet and worshipped him as the ,son of ,god1 it may be observed that when ,jesus had spoken or acted with peculiar impressiveness1 individuals1 in the exaltation of the moment1 might be penetrated with a conviction that he was the ,messiah1 while the general and calm voice of the people yet pronounced him to be merely a prophet4 ,but there is a more troublesome divergency relative to the disciples4 ,in ,john1 ,andrew1 after his first interview with ,jesus1 says to his brother1 we have found the ,messiah1 7i4 #db72 and ,philip describes him to ,nathanael as the person foretold by ,moses and the prophets 7v4 #df72 ,nathanael salutes him as the ,son of ,god and ,king of ,israel 7v4 #ej72 and the subsequent confession of ,peter appears merely a renewed avowal of what had been long a familiar truth4 ,in the synoptical ,evangelists it is only after prolonged intercourse with ,jesus1 and shortly before his sufferings1 that the ardent ,peter arrives at the conclusion that ,jesus is the 1 7,matt4 xvi4 #af1 parall474 ,it is impossible that this confession should make so strong an impression on ,jesus that1 in consequence of it1 he should pronounce ,peter blessed1 and his confession the fruit of immediate divine revelation1 as ,matthew narrates2 or that1 as all the three ,evangelists inform us 7xvi4 #bj1 viii4 #cj1 ix4 #ba71 he should1 as if alarmed1 forbid the disciples to promulgate their conviction1 unless it represented not an opinion long cherished in the circle of his disciples1 but a new light1 which had just flashed on the mind of ,peter1 and through him was communicated to his associates4 ,there is a third equally serious discrepancy1 relative to the declarations of ,jesus concerning his ,messiahship4 ,according to ,john he sanctions the homage which ,nathanael renders to him as the ,son of ,god and ,king of ,israel1 in the very commencement of his public career1 and immediately proceeds to speak of himself under the messianic title1 ,son of ,man 7i4 #ea f473 to the ,samaritans also after his first visit to the passover 7iv4 #bf1 #ci ff471 and to the ,jews on the second 7v4 #df71 he makes himself known as the ,messiah predicted by ,moses4 ,according to the synoptical writers1 on the contrary1 he prohibits1 in the instance above cited and in many others1 the dissemination of the doctrine of his ,messiahship1 beyond the circle of his adherents4 ,farther1 when he asks his disciples1 ,whom do men say that ,i am8 7,matt4 xvi4 #ae7 he seems to wish #gfb that they should derive their conviction of his ,messiahship from his discourses and actions1 and when he ascribes the avowed faith of ,peter to a revelation from his heavenly ,father1 he excludes the possibility of his having himself previously made this disclosure to his disciples1 either in the manner described by ,john1 or in the more indirect one attributed to him by ,matthew in the ,sermon on the ,mount2 unless we suppose that the disciples had not hitherto believed his assurance1 and that hence ,jesus referred the new-born faith of ,peter to divine influence4 ,thus1 on the point under discussion the synoptical statement is contradictory1 not only to that of ,john1 but to itself2 it appears therefore that it ought to be unconditionally surrendered before that of ,john1 which is consistent with itself1 and one of our critics has justly reproached it with deranging the messianic economy in the life of ,jesus4 #gfc ,but here again we must not lose sight of our approved canon1 that in glorifying narratives1 such as our gospels1 where various statements are confronted1 that is the least probable which best subserves the object of glorification4 ,now this is the case with ,john's statement2 according to which1 from the commencement to the close of the public life of ,jesus1 his ,messiahship shines forth in unchanging splendour1 while1 according to the synoptical writers1 it is liable to a variation in its light4 ,but though this criterion of probability is in favour of the first three ,evangelists1 it is impossible that the order in which they make ignorance and concealment follow on plain declarations and recognitions of the ,messiahship of ,jesus can be correct2 and we must suppose that they have mingled and confounded two separate periods of the life of ,jesus1 in the latter of which alone he presented himself as the ,messiah4 ,we find1 in fact1 that the watchword of ,jesus on his first appearance differed not1 even verbally1 from that of ,john1 who professed merely to be a forerunner2 it is the same ,repent1 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand 7,matt4 iv4 #ag7 with which ,john had roused the ,jews 7iii4 #b72 and indicates in neither the one nor the other an assumption of the character of ,messiah1 with whose coming the kingdom of heaven was actually to commence1 but merely that of a teacher who points to it as yet future4 #gfd ,hence the latest critic of the first gospel justly explains all those discourses and actions therein narrated1 by which ,jesus explicitly claims to be the ,messiah1 or1 in consequence of which this dignity is attributed to him and accepted1 if they occur before the manifestation of himself recorded in ,john v41 or before the account of the apostolic confession 7,matt4 xvi471 as offences of the writer against chronology or literal truth4 #gfe ,we have only to premise1 that as chronological confusion prevails throughout1 the position of this confession shortly before the history of the ,passion1 in nowise obliges us to suppose that it was so late before ,jesus was recognised as the ,messiah among his disciples1 since ,peter's avowal may have occurred in a much earlier period of their intercourse4 ,this1 however1 is incomprehensible--that the same reproach should not attach even more strongly to the fourth gospel than to the first1 or to the synoptical writers in general4 ,for it is surely more pardonable that the first three ,evangelists should give us the pre-messianic memoirs in the wrong place1 than that the fourth should not give them at all2 more endurable in the former1 to mingle the two periods1 than in the latter1 quite to obliterate the earlier one4 ,if then ,jesus did not lay claim to the ,messiahship from the beginning of his public career1 was this omission the result of uncertainty in his own mind2 or had he from the first a conviction that he was the ,messiah1 but concealed it for certain reasons8 ,in order to decide this question1 a point already mentioned must be more carefully weighed4 ,in the first three ,evangelists1 but not so exclusively that the fourth has nothing similar1 when ,jesus effects a miracle of healing he almost invariably forbids the person cured to promulgate the event1 in these or similar words1 2 e4g4 the leper1 ,matt4 viii4 #d1 parall42 the blind men1 ,matt4 ix4 #cj2 a multitude of the healed1 ,matt4 xii4 #af2 the parents of the resuscitated damsel1 ,mark v4 #dc2 above all he enjoins silence on the demoniacs1 ,mark i4 #cd1 iii4 #ab2 and ,john v4 #ac1 it is said1 after the cure of the man at the pool of ,bethesda1 ,jesus had conveyed himself away1 a multitude being in that place4 ,thus also he forbade the three who were with him on the mount of the ,transfiguration1 to publish the scene they had witnessed 7,matt4 xvii4 #i72 and after the confession of ,peter1 he charges the disciples to tell no man the conviction it expressed 7,luke ix4 #ba74 ,this prohibition of ,jesus could hardly1 as most commentators suppose1 #gff be determined by various circumstantial motives1 at one time having relation to the disposition of the person healed1 at another to the humour of the people1 at another to the situation of ,jesus3 rather1 as there is an essential similarity in the conditions under which he lays this injunction on the people1 if we discern a probable motive for it on any occasion1 we are warranted in applying the same motive to the remaining cases4 ,this motive is scarcely any other than the desire that the belief that he was the ,messiah should not be too widely spread4 ,when 7,mark i4 #cd7 ,jesus would not allow the ejected demons to speak because they knew him1 when he charged the multitudes that they should not make him known 7,matt4 xii4 #af71 he evidently intended that the former should not proclaim him in the character in which their more penetrative1 demoniacal glance had viewed him1 nor the latter in that revealed by the miraculous cure he had wrought on them--in short1 they were not to betray their knowledge that he was the ,messiah4 ,as a reason for this wish on the part of ,jesus1 it has been alleged1 on the strength of ,john vi4 #ae1 that he sought to avoid awakening the political idea of the ,messiah's kingdom in the popular mind1 with the disturbance which would be its inevitable result4 #gfg ,this would be a valid reason2 but the synoptical writers represent the wish1 partly as the effect of humility2 #gfh ,matthew1 in connexion with a prohibition of the kind alluded to1 applying to ,jesus a passage in ,isaiah 7xlii4 #a f47 where the servant of ,god is said to be distinguished by his stillness and unobtrusiveness3 partly1 and in a greater degree1 as the effect of an apprehension that the ,messiah1 at least such an one as ,jesus1 would be at once proscribed by the ,jewish hierarchy4 ,from all this it might appear that ,jesus was restrained merely by external motives1 from the open declaration of his ,messiahship1 and that his own conviction of it existed from the first in equal strength2 but this conclusion cannot be maintained in the face of the consideration above mentioned1 that ,jesus began his career with the same announcement as the ,baptist1 an announcement which can scarcely have more than one import--an exhortation to prepare for a coming ,messiah4 ,the most natural supposition is that ,jesus1 first the disciple of the ,baptist1 and afterwards his successor1 in preaching repentance and the approach of the kingdom of heaven1 took originally the same position as his former master in relation to the messianic kingdom1 notwithstanding the greater reach and liberality of his mind1 and only gradually attained the elevation of thinking himself the ,messiah4 ,this supposition explains in the simplest manner the prohibition we have been considering1 especially that annexed to the confession of ,peter4 ,for as often as the thought that he might be the ,messiah suggested itself to others1 and was presented to him from without1 ,jesus must have shrunk1 as if appalled1 to hear confidently uttered that which he scarcely ventured to surmise1 or which had but recently become clear to himself4 ,as1 however1 the ,evangelist often put such prohibitions into the mouth of ,jesus unseasonably 7witness the occasion mentioned1 ,matt4 viii4 #d1 when1 after a cure effected before a crowd of spectators1 it was of little avail to enjoin secrecy on the cured71 #gfi it is probable that evangelical tradition1 enamoured of the mysteriousness that lay in this incognito of ,jesus1 #ggj unhistorically multiplied the instances of its adoption4 #fc4 ,,jesus1 ,,the ,,son ,,of ,,god4 ,in ,luke i4 #ce1 we find the narrowest and most literal interpretation of the expression1 2 namely1 as derived from his conception by means of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,on the contrary1 the widest moral and metaphorical sense is given to the expression in ,matt4 v4 #de1 where those who imitate the love of ,god towards his enemies are called the sons of the ,father in heaven4 ,there is an intermediate sense which we may term the metaphysical1 because while it includes more than mere conformity of will1 it is distinct from the notion of actual paternity1 and implies a spiritual community of being4 ,in this sense it is profusely employed and referred to in the fourth gospel2 as when ,jesus says that he speaks and does nothing of himself1 but only what as a son he has learned from the ,father 7v4 #ai1 xii4 #di2 and elsewhere71 who1 moreover1 is in him 7xvii4 #ba71 and notwithstanding his exaltation over him 7xiv4 #bh71 is yet one with him 7x4 #cj74 ,there is yet a fourth sense in which the expression is presented4 ,when 7,matt4 iv4 #c7 the devil challenges ,jesus to change the stones into bread1 making the supposition1 ,if thou be the ,son of ,god2 when ,nathanael says to ,jesus1 ,thou art the ,son of ,god1 the ,king of ,israel 7,john i4 #di72 when ,peter confesses1 ,thou art the ,christ1 the ,son of the living ,god 7,matt4 xvi4 #af2 comp4 ,john vi4 #fi72 when ,martha thus expresses her faith in ,jesus1 ,i believe that thou art the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god 7,john xi4 #bg72 when the high priest adjures ,jesus to tell him if he be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god 7,matt4 xxvi4 #fc73 it is obvious that the devil means nothing more than1 ,if thou be the ,messiah2 and that in the other passages the 1 united as it is with and 1 is but an appellation of the ,messiah4 ,in ,hos4 xi4 #a2 ,exod4 iv4 #bb1 the people of ,israel1 and in #b ,sam1 vii4 #ad2 ,ps4 ii4 #g 7comp4 lxxxix4 #bh71 the king of that people1 are called the son and the first-born of ,god4 ,the kings 7as also the people7 of ,israel had this appellation1 in virtue of the love which ,jehovah bore them1 and the tutelary care which he exercised over them 7#b ,sam4 vii4 #ad72 and from the second psalm we gather the farther reason1 that as earthly kings choose their sons to reign with or under them1 so the ,israelitish kings were invested by ,jehovah1 the supreme ruler1 with the government of his favourite province4 ,thus the designation was originally applicable to every ,israelitish king who adhered to the principle of the theocracy2 but when the messianic idea was developed1 it was pre-eminently assigned to the ,messiah1 as the best-beloved ,son1 and the most powerful vicegerent of ,god on earth4 #gga ,if1 then1 such was the original historical signification of the epithet1 ,son of ,god1 as applied to the ,messiah1 we have to ask3 is it possible that ,jesus used it of himself in this signification only1 or did he use it also in either of the three senses previously adduced8 ,the narrowest1 the merely physical import of the term is not put into the mouth of ,jesus1 but into that of the annunciating angel1 ,luke i4 #ce2 and for this the ,evangelist alone is responsible4 ,in the intermediate1 metaphysical sense1 implying unity of essence and community of existence with ,god1 it might possibly have been understood by ,jesus1 supposing him to have remodelled in his own conceptions the theocratic interpretation current among his compatriots4 ,it is true that the abundant expressions having this tendency in the ,gospel of ,john1 appear to contradict those of ,jesus on an occasion recorded by the synoptical writers 7,mark x4 #ag f42 ,luke xviii4 #ah f471 when to a disciple who accosts him as ,good ,master1 he replies3 ,why callest thou me good8 there is none good but one1 that is ,god4 ,here ,jesus so tenaciously maintains the distinction between himself and ,god1 that he renounces the predicate of 7perfect7 goodness1 and insists on its appropriation to ,god alone4 #ggb ,olshausen supposes that this rejection related solely to the particular circumstances of the disciple addressed1 who1 regarding ,jesus as a merely human teacher1 ought not from his point of view to have given him a divine epithet1 and that it was not intended by ,jesus as a denial that he was1 according to a just estimate of his character1 actually the in whom the one good ,being was reflected as in a mirror2 but this is to take for granted what is first to be proved1 namely1 that the declarations of ,jesus concerning himself in the fourth gospel are on a level as to credibility with those recorded by the synoptical writers4 ,two of these writers cite some words of ,jesus which have an important bearing on our present subject3 ,all things are delivered to me of my ,father3 and no man knoweth the ,son but the ,father3 neither knoweth any man the ,father1 but the ,son1 and he to whomsoever the ,son will reveal him1 ,matt4 xi4 #bg4 ,taking this passage in connexion with the one before quoted1 we must infer that ,jesus had indeed an intimate communion of thought and will with ,god1 but under such limitations1 that the attribute of perfect goodness1 as well as of absolute knowledge 7e4g41 of the day and hour of the last day1 ,mark xiii4 #cb parall47 belonged exclusively to ,god1 and hence the boundary line between divine and human was strictly preserved4 ,even in the fourth gospel ,jesus declares1 ,my ,father is greater than ,i1 7xiv4 #bh71 but this slight echo of the synoptical statement does not remove the difficulty of conciliating the numerous discourses of a totally different tenor in the former1 with the rejection of the epithet in the latter4 ,it is surprising1 too1 that ,jesus in the fourth gospel appears altogether ignorant of the theocratic sense of the expression 1 and can only vindicate his use of it in the metaphysical sense1 by retreating to its vague and metaphorical application4 ,when1 namely 7,john x4 #cd ff471 to justify his assumption of this title1 he adduces the scriptural application of the term to other men1 such as princes and magistrates1 we are at a loss to understand why ,jesus should resort to this remote and precarious argument1 when close at hand lay the far more cogent one1 that in the ,old ,testament1 a theocratic king of ,israel1 or according to the customary interpretation of the most striking passages1 the ,messiah1 is called the ,son of ,jehovah1 and that therefore he1 having declared himself to be the ,messiah 7v4 #be71 might consistently claim this appellation4 ,with respect to the light in which ,jesus was viewed as the ,son of ,god by others1 we may remark that in the addresses of well-affected persons the title is often so associated as to be obviously a mere synonym of 1 and this even in the fourth gospel2 while on the other hand the contentious of this gospel seem in their objections as ignorant as ,jesus in his defence1 of the theocratic1 and only notice the metaphysical meaning of the expression4 ,it is true that1 even in the synoptical gospels1 when ,jesus answers affirmatively the question whether he be the ,christ1 the ,son of the living ,god 7,matt4 xxvi4 #fe1 parall471 the high priest taxes him with blasphemy2 but he refers merely to what he considers the unwarranted arrogation of the theocratic dignity of the ,messiah1 whereas in the fourth gospel1 when ,jesus represents himself as the ,son of ,god 7v4 #ag f41 x4 #cj ff471 the ,jews seek to kill him for the express reason that he thereby makes himself 1 nay even 4 ,according to the synoptical writers1 the high priest so unhesitatingly considers the idea of the ,son of ,god to pertain to that of the ,messiah1 that he associates the two titles as if they were interchangeable1 in the question he addresses to ,jesus3 on the contrary the ,jews in the ,gospel of ,john regard the one idea as so far transcending the other1 that they listen patiently to the declaration of ,jesus that he is the ,messiah 7x4 #be71 but as soon as he begins to claim to be the ,son of ,god1 they take up stones to stone him4 ,in the synoptical gospels the reproach cast on ,jesus is1 that being a common man1 he gives himself out for the ,messiah2 in the fourth gospel1 that being a mere man1 he gives himself out for a divine being4 ,hence ,olshausen and others have justly insisted that in those passages of the latter gospel to which our remarks have reference1 the is not synonymous with ,messiah1 but is a name far transcending the ordinary idea of the ,messiah2 #ggc they are not1 however1 warranted in concluding that therefore in the first three ,evangelists also #ggd the same expression imports more than the ,messiah4 ,for the only legitimate interpretation of the high priest's question in ,matthew makes a synonym of 1 and though in the parallel passage of ,luke1 the judges first ask ,jesus if he be the ,christ 7xxii4 #fg78 and when he declines a direct answer1--predicting that they will behold the ,son of man seated at the right hand of ,god1--hastily interrupt him with the question1 ,art thou the ,son of ,god8 7v4 #gj72 yet1 after receiving what they consider an affirmative answer1 they accuse him before ,pilate as one who pretends to be ,christ1 a king 7xxiii4 #b71 thus clearly showing that ,son of man1 ,son of ,god1 and ,messiah1 must have been regarded as interchangeable terms4 ,it must therefore be conceded that there is a discrepancy on this point between the synoptical writers and ,john1 and perhaps also an inconsistency of the latter with himself2 for in several addresses to ,jesus he retains the customary form1 which associated ,son of ,god with ,christ or ,king of ,israel1 without being conscious of the distinction between the signification which 4 4 must have in such a connexion1 and that in which he used it elsewhere--a want of perception which habitual forms of expression are calculated to induce4 ,we have before cited examples of this oversight in the fourth ,evangelist 7,john i4 #di1 vi4 #fi1 xi4 #bg74 ,the author of the ,probabilia reasonably considers it suspicious that1 in the fourth gospel1 ,jesus and his opponents should appear entirely ignorant of the theocratic sense which is elsewhere attached to the expression 1 and which must have been more familiar to the ,jews than any other1 unless we suppose some of them to have partaken of ,alexandrian culture4 ,to such1 we grant1 as well as to the fourth ,evangelist1 judging from his prologue1 the metaphysical relation of the to ,god would be the most cherished association4 #fd4 ,,the ,,divine ,,mission ,,and ,,authority ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,his ,,pre-,,existence4 ,the four ,evangelists are in unison as to the declaration of ,jesus concerning his divine mission and authority4 ,like every prophet1 he is sent by ,god 7,matt4 x4 #dj2 ,john v4 #bc f41 #ef f471 acts and speaks by the authority1 and under the immediate guidance of ,god 7,john v4 #ai ff471 and exclusively possesses an adequate knowledge of ,god1 which it is his office to impart to men 7,matt xi4 #bg2 ,john iii4 #ac74 ,to him1 as the ,messiah1 all power is given 7,matt4 xi4 #bg72 first1 over the kingdom which he is appointed to found and to rule with all its members 7,john x4 #bi1 xvii4 #f72 next1 over mankind in general 7,john xvii4 #b71 and even external nature 7,matt1 xxviii4 #ah72 consequently1 should the interests of the messianic kingdom demand it1 power to effect a thorough revolution in the whole world4 ,at the future commencement of his reign1 ,jesus1 as ,messiah1 is authorized to awake the dead 7,john v4 #bh71 and to sit as a judge1 separating those worthy to partake of the heavenly kingdom from the unworthy 7,matt4 xxv4 #ca ff42 ,john v4 #bb1 #bi72 offices which ,jewish opinion attributed to the ,messiah1 #gge and which ,jesus1 once convinced of his ,messiahship1 would necessarily transfer to himself4 ,the ,evangelists are not equally unanimous on another point4 ,according to the synoptical writers1 ,jesus claims1 it is true1 the highest human dignity1 and the most exalted relation with ,god1 for the present and future1 but he never refers to an existence anterior to his earthly career3 in the fourth gospel1 on the contrary1 we find several discourses of ,jesus which contain the repeated assertion of such a pre-existence4 ,we grant that when ,jesus describes himself as coming down from heaven 7,john iii4 #ac1 xvi4 #bh71 the expression1 taken alone1 may be understood as a merely figurative intimation of his superhuman origin4 ,it is more difficult1 but perhaps admissible1 to interpret1 with the ,socinian ,crell1 the declaration of ,jesus1 ,before ,abraham was1 ,i am1 1 7,john viii4 #eh71 as referring to a purely ideal existence in the pre-determination of ,god2 but scarcely possible to consider the prayer to the ,father 7,john xvii4 #e7 to confirm the 7glory7 which ,jesus had with ,him before the world was1 1 as an entreaty for the communication of a glory predestined for ,jesus from eternity4 ,but the language of ,jesus1 ,john vi4 #fb1 where he speaks of the ,son of man reascending where he was before 1 is in its intrinsic meaning1 as well as in that which is reflected on it from other passages1 unequivocally significative of actual1 not merely ideal1 pre-existence4 ,it has been already conjectured #ggf that these expressions1 or at least the adaptation of them to a real pre-existence1 are derived1 not from ,jesus1 but from the author of the fourth gospel1 with whose opinions1 as propounded in his introduction1 they specifically agree2 for if the ,word was in the beginning with ,god 7 71 ,jesus1 in whom it was made flesh1 might attribute to himself an existence before ,abraham1 and a participation of glory with the ,father before the foundation of the world4 ,nevertheless1 we are not warranted in adopting this view1 unless it can be shown that neither was the idea of the pre-existence of the ,messiah extant among the ,jews of ,palestine before the time of ,jesus1 nor is it probable that ,jesus attained such a notion1 independently of the ideas peculiar to his age and nation4 ,the latter supposition1 that ,jesus spoke from his own memory of his pre-human and pre-mundane existence1 is liable to comparison with dangerous parallels in the history of ,pythagoras1 ,ennius1 and ,apollonius of ,tyana1 whose alleged reminiscences of individual states which they had experienced prior to their birth1 #ggg are now generally regarded either as subsequent fables1 or as enthusiastic self-delusions of those celebrated men4 ,for the other alternative1 that the idea in question was common to the ,jewish nation1 a presumption may be found in the description1 already quoted from ,daniel1 of the ,son of man coming in the clouds of heaven1 since the author1 possibly1 and1 at all events1 many readers1 imagined that personage to be a superhuman being1 dwelling beforehand with ,god1 like the angels4 ,but that every one who referred this passage to the ,messiah1 or that ,jesus in particular1 associated with it the notion of a pre-existence1 is not to be proved2 for1 if we exclude the representation of ,john1 ,jesus depicts his coming in the clouds of heaven1 not as if he had come as a visitant to earth from his home in heaven1 but1 according to ,matt4 xxvi4 #fe 7comp4 xxiv4 #be71 as if he1 the earth-born1 after the completion of his earthly course1 would be received into heaven1 and from thence would return to establish his kingdom3 thus making the coming from heaven not necessarily include the idea of pre-existence4 ,we find in the ,proverbs1 in ,sirach1 and the ,book of ,wisdom1 the idea of a personified and even hypostasized ,wisdom of ,god1 and in the ,psalms and ,prophets1 strongly marked personifications of the ,divine word2 #ggh and it is especially worthy of note1 that the later ,jews1 in their horror of anthropomorphism in the idea of the ,divine being1 attributed his speech1 appearance1 and immediate agency1 to the ,word 77 or the dwelling place 77 of ,jehovah1 as may be seen in the venerable #ggi ,targum of ,onkelos4 #ghj ,these expressions1 at first mere paraphrases of the name of ,god1 soon received the mystical signification of a veritable hypostasis1 of a being at once distinct from1 and one with ,god4 ,as most of the revelations and interpositions of ,god1 whose organ this personified ,word was considered to be1 were designed in favour of the ,israelitish people1 it was natural for them to assign to the manifestation which was still awaited from ,him1 and which was to be the crowning benefit of ,israel1--the manifestation1 namely1 of the ,messiah1--a peculiar relation with the ,word or ,shechina4 #gha ,from this germ sprang the opinion that with the ,messiah the ,shechina would appear1 and that what was ascribed to the ,shechina pertained equally to the ,messiah3 an opinion not confined to the ,rabbins1 but sanctioned by the ,apostle ,paul4 ,according to it1 the ,messiah was1 even in the wilderness1 the invisible guide and benefactor of ,god's people 7#a ,cor4 x4 #d1 #i72 #ghb he was with our first parents in ,paradise2 #ghc he was the agent in creation 7,col4 i4 #af72 he even existed before the creation1 #ghd and prior to his incarnation in ,jesus1 was in a glorious fellowship with ,god 7,phil4 ii4 #f74 ,as it is thus evident that1 immediately after the time of ,jesus1 the idea of a pre-existence of the ,messiah was incorporated in the higher ,jewish theology1 it is no far-fetched conjecture1 that the same idea was afloat when the mind of ,jesus was maturing1 and that in his conception of himself as the ,messiah1 this attribute was included4 ,but whether ,jesus were as deeply initiated in the speculations of the ,jewish schools as ,paul1 is yet a question1 and as the author of the fourth gospel1 versed in the ,alexandrian doctrine of the 1 stands alone in ascribing to ,jesus the assertion of a pre-existence1 we are unable to decide whether we are to put the dogma to the account of ,jesus1 or of his biographer4 #fe4 ,,the ,,messianic ,,plan ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,indications ,,of ,a ,,political ,,element4 ,the ,baptist pointed to a future individual1 and ,jesus to himself1 as the founder of the kingdom of heaven4 ,the idea of that messianic kingdom belonged to the ,israelitish nation2 did ,jesus hold it in the form in which it existed among his cotemporaries1 or under modifications of his own8 ,the idea of the ,messiah grew up amongst the ,jews in soil half religious1 half political3 it was nurtured by national adversity1 and in the time of ,jesus1 according to the testimony of the gospels1 it was embodied in the expectation that the ,messiah would ascend the throne of his ancestor ,david1 free the ,jewish people from the ,roman yoke1 and found a kingdom which would last for ever 7,luke i4 #cb f41 #fh ff42 ,acts i4 #f74 ,hence our first question must be this4 ,did ,jesus include this political element in his messianic plan8 ,that ,jesus aspired to be a temporal ruler1 has at all times been an allegation of the adversaries of ,christianity1 but has been maintained by none with so much exegetical acumen as by the author of the ,wolfenbttel ,fragments1 #ghe who1 be it observed1 by no means denies to ,jesus the praise of aiming at the moral reformation of his nation4 ,according to this writer1 the first indication of a political plan on the part of ,jesus is1 that he unambiguously announced the approaching messianic kingdom1 and laid down the conditions on which it was to be entered1 without explaining what this kingdom was1 and wherein it consisted1 #ghf as if he supposed the current idea of its nature to be correct4 ,now the fact is1 that the prevalent conception of the messianic reign had a strong political bias2 hence1 when ,jesus spoke of the ,messiah's kingdom without a definition1 the ,jews could only think of an earthly dominion1 and as ,jesus could not have presupposed any other interpretation of his words1 he must have wished to be so understood4 ,but in opposition to this it may be remarked1 that in the ,parables by which ,jesus shadowed forth the kingdom of heaven2 in the ,sermon on the ,mount1 in which he illustrates the duties of its citizens2 and lastly1 in his whole demeanour and course of action1 we have sufficient evidence1 that his idea of the messianic kingdom was peculiar to himself4 ,there is not so ready a counterpoise for the difficulty1 that ,jesus sent the apostles1 with whose conceptions he could not be unacquainted1 to announce the ,messiah's kingdom throughout the land 7,matt4 x474 ,these1 who disputed which of them should be greatest in the kingdom of their master 7,matt1 xviii4 #a2 ,luke xxii4 #bd72 of whom two petitioned for the seats at the right and left of the messianic king 7,mark x4 #ce ff472 who1 even after the death and resurrection of ,jesus1 expected a restoration of the kingdom to ,israel 7,acts i4 #f72--these had clearly from the beginning to the end of their intercourse with ,jesus1 no other than the popular notion of the ,messiah2 when1 therefore1 ,jesus despatched them as heralds of his kingdom1 it seems necessarily a part of his design1 that they should disseminate in all places their political messianic idea4 ,among the discourses of ,jesus there is one especially worthy of note in ,matt4 xix4 #bh 7comp4 ,luke xxii4 #cj74 ,in reply to the question of ,peter1 ,we have left all and followed thee2 what shall we have therefore8 ,jesus promises to his disciples that in the 1 when the ,son of man shall sit on his throne1 they also shall sit on twelve thrones1 judging the twelve tribes of ,israel4 ,that the literal import of this promise formed part of the tissue of the messianic hopes cherished by the ,jews of that period1 is not to be controverted4 ,it is argued1 however1 that ,jesus spoke figuratively on this occasion1 and only employed familiar ,jewish images to convey to the apostles an assurance1 that the sacrifices they had made here would be richly compensated in their future life by a participation in his glory4 #ghg ,but the disciples must have understood the promise literally1 when1 even after the resurrection of ,jesus1 they harboured anticipations of worldly greatness2 and as ,jesus had had many proofs of this propensity1 he would hardly have adopted such language1 had he not intended to nourish their temporal hopes4 ,the supposition that he did so merely to animate the courage of his disciples1 without himself sharing their views1 imputes duplicity to ,jesus2--a duplicity in this case quite gratuitous1 since1 as ,olshausen justly observes1 ,peter's question would have been satisfactorily answered by any other laudatory acknowledgment of the devotion of the disciples4 ,hence it appears a fair inference1 that ,jesus himself shared the ,jewish expectations which he here sanctions3 but expositors have made the most desperate efforts to escape from this unwelcome conclusion4 ,some have resorted to an arbitrary alteration of the reading2 #ghh others to the detection of irony1 directed against the disproportion between the pretensions of the disciples1 and their trivial services1 #ghi others to different expedients1 but all more unnatural than the admission1 that ,jesus1 in accordance with ,jewish ideas1 here promises his disciples the dignity of being his assessors in his visible messianic judgment1 and that he thus indicates the existence of a national element in his notion of the ,messiah's kingdom4 ,it is observable1 too1 that in the ,acts 7i4 #g71 ,jesus1 even after his resurrection1 does not deny that he will restore the kingdom to ,israel1 but merely discourages curiosity as to the times and seasons of its restoration4 ,among the actions of ,jesus1 his last entry into ,jerusalem 7,matt4 xxi4 #a ff47 is especially appealed to as a proof that his plan was partly political4 ,according to the ,fragmentist1 all the circumstances point to a political design3 the time which ,jesus chose1--after a sufficiently long preparation of the people in the provinces2 the ,passover1 which they visited in great numbers2 the animal on which he rode1 and by which1 from a popular interpretation of a passage in ,zechariah1 he announced himself as the destined ,king of ,jerusalem2 the approval which he pronounces when the people receive him with a royal greeting2 the violent procedure which he hazards in the temple2 and finally1 his severe philippic on the higher class of the ,jews 7,matt4 xxiii471 at the close of which he seeks to awe them into a reception of him as their messianic king1 by the threat that he will show himself to them no more in any other guise4 #ff4 ,,data ,,for ,,the ,,pure ,,spirituality ,,of ,,the ,,messianic ,,plan ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,balance4 ,nowhere in our evangelical narratives is there a trace of ,jesus having sought to form a political party4 ,on the contrary1 he withdraws from the eagerness of the people to make him a king 7,john vi4 #ae72 he declares that the messianic kingdom comes not with observation1 but is to be sought for in the recesses of the soul 7,luke xvii4 #bj f472 it is his principle to unite obedience to ,god with obedience to temporal authority1 even when heathen 7,matt4 xxii4 #ba72 on his solemn entry into the capital1 he chooses to ride the animal of peace1 and afterwards escapes from the multitude1 instead of using their excitement for the purposes of his ambition2 lastly1 he maintains before his judge1 that his kingdom is not from hence 1 is not of this world 7,john xvi4 #cf71 and we have no reason in this instance to question either his or the ,evangelist's veracity4 ,thus we have a series of indications to counterbalance those detailed in the preceding section4 ,the adversaries of ,christianity have held exclusively to the arguments for a political1 or rather a revolutionary1 project1 on the part of ,jesus1 while the orthodox theologians adhere to those only which tell for the pure spirituality of his plan3 #gij and each party has laboured to invalidate by hermeneutical skill the passages unfavourable to its theory4 ,it has of late been acknowledged that both are equally partial1 and that there is need of arbitration between them4 ,this has been attempted chiefly by supposing an earlier and a later form of the plan of ,jesus4 #gia ,although1 it has been said1 the moral improvement and religious elevation of his people were from the first the primary object of ,jesus1 he nevertheless1 in the beginning of his public life1 cherished the hope of reviving1 by means of this internal regeneration1 the external glories of the theocracy1 when he should be acknowledged by his nation as the ,messiah1 and thereby be constituted the supreme authority in the state4 ,but in the disappointment of this hope1 he recognised the divine rejection of every political element in his plan1 and thenceforth refined it into pure spirituality4 ,it is held to be a presumption in favour of such a change in the plan of ,jesus1 that there is a gladness diffused over his first appearance1 which gives place to melancholy in the latter period of his ministry2 that instead of the acceptable year of the ,lord1 announced in his initiative address at ,nazareth1 sorrow is the burthen of his later discourses1 and he explicitly says of ,jerusalem1 that he had attempted to save it1 but that now its fall1 both religious and political1 was inevitable1 ,as1 however1 the evangelists do not keep the events and discourses proper to these distinct periods within their respective limits1 but happen to give the two most important data for the imputation of a political design to ,jesus 7namely the promise of the twelve thrones and the public entrance into the capital71 near the close of his life2 we must attribute to these writers a chronological confusion1 as in the case of the relation which the views of ,jesus bore to the messianic idea in general3 unless as an alternative it be conceivable1 that ,jesus uttered during the same period the declarations which seem to indicate1 and those which disclaim1 a political design4 ,this1 in our apprehension1 is not inconceivable2 for ,jesus might anticipate a for himself and his disciples1 not regarding the means of its attainment as a political revolution1 but as a revolution to be effected by the immediate interposition of ,god4 ,that such was his view may be inferred from his placing that judiciary appearance of his disciples in the 2 for this was not a political revolution1 any more than a spiritual regeneration1--it was a resurrection of the dead1 which ,god was to effect through the agency of the ,messiah1 and which was to usher in the messianic times4 #gib ,jesus certainly expected to restore the throne of ,david1 and with his disciples to govern a liberated people2 in no degree1 however1 did he rest his hopes on the sword of human adherents 7,luke xxii4 #ch2 ,matt4 xxvi4 #eb71 but on the legions of angels1 which his heavenly ,father could send him 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ec74 ,wherever he speaks of coming in his messianic glory1 he depicts himself surrounded by angels and heavenly powers 7,matt4 xvi4 #bg1 xxiv4 #cj f41 xxv4 #ca2 ,john i4 #eb72 before the majesty of the ,son of man1 coming in the clouds of heaven1 all nations are to bow without the coercion of the sword1 and at the sound of the angel's trumpet1 are to present themselves1 with the awakened dead1 before the judgment-seat of the ,messiah and his twelve apostles4 ,all this ,jesus would not bring to pass of his own will1 but he waited for a signal from his heavenly ,father1 who alone knew the appropriate time for this catastrophe 7,mark xiii4 #cb71 and he apparently was not disconcerted when his end approached without his having received the expected intimation4 ,they who shrink from this view1 merely because they conceive that it makes ,jesus an enthusiast1 #gic will do well to reflect how closely such hopes corresponded with the long cherished messianic idea of the ,jews1 #gid and how easily1 in that day of supernaturalism1 and in a nation segregated by the peculiarities of its faith1 an idea1 in itself extravagant1 if only it were consistent1 and had1 in some of its aspects1 truth and dignity1 might allure even a reasonable man beneath its influence4 ,with respect to that which awaits the righteous after judgment1--everlasting life in the kingdom of the ,father1--it is true that ,jesus1 in accordance with ,jewish notions1 #gie compares it to a feast 7,matt4 viii4 #aa1 xxii4 #b ff471 at which he hopes himself to taste the fruit of the vine 7,matt4 xxvi4 #bi71 and to celebrate the ,passover 7,luke xxii4 #af72 but his declaration that in the the organic relation between the sexes will cease1 and men will be like the angels 71 ,luke xx4 #ce ff471 seems more or less to reduce the above discourses to a merely symbolical significance4 ,thus we conclude that the messianic hope of ,jesus was not political1 nor even merely earthly1 for he referred its fulfilment to supernatural means1 and to a supermundane theatre 7the regenerated earth73 as little was it a purely spiritual hope1 in the modern sense of the term1 for it included important and unprecedented changes in the external condition of things3 but it was the national1 theocratic hope1 spiritualized and ennobled by his own peculiar moral and religious views4 #fg4 ,,the ,,relation ,,of ,,jesus ,,to ,,the ,,mosaic ,,law4 ,the ,mosaic institutions were actually extinguished in the church of which ,jesus was the founder2 hence it is natural to suppose that their abolition formed a part of his design3--a reach of vision1 beyond the horizon of the ceremonial worship of his age and country1 of which apologists have been ever anxious to prove that he was possessed4 #gif ,neither are there wanting speeches and actions of ,jesus which seem to favour their effort4 ,whenever he details the conditions of participation in the kingdom of heaven1 as in the ,sermon on the ,mount1 he insists1 not on the observance of the ,mosaic ritual1 but on the spirit of religion and morality2 he attaches no value to fasting1 praying1 and almsgiving1 unless accompanied by a corresponding bent of mind 7,matt4 vi4 #a-ah72 the two main elements of the ,mosaic worship1 sacrifice and the keeping of sabbaths and feasts1 he not only nowhere enjoins1 but puts a marked slight on the former1 by commending the scribe who declared that the love of ,god and one's neighbour was more than whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices1 as one not far from the kingdom of ,god 7,mark xii4 #bc f471 #gig and he ran counter in action as well as in speech to the customary mode of celebrating the ,sabbath 7,matt4 xii4 #a-ac2 ,mark ii4 #bc-bh1 iii4 #a-e2 ,luke vi4 #a-aj1 xiii4 #aj ff41 xiv4 #a ff42 ,john v4 #e ff41 vii4 #bb1 ix4 #a ff471 of which in his character of ,son of ,man he claimed to be ,lord4 ,the ,jews1 too1 appear to have expected a revision of the ,mosaic law by their ,messiah4 #gih ,a somewhat analogous sense is couched in the declarations attributed by the fourth ,evangelist to ,jesus 7ii4 #ai72 ,matthew 7xxvi4 #fa7 and ,mark 7xiv4 #eh7 represent him as being accused by false witnesses of saying1 ,i am able to destroy 7,john1 destroy7 the temple of ,god 7,mark1 that is made with hands71 and to build it in three days 7,mark1 ,i will build another made without hands74 ,the author of the ,acts has something similar as an article of accusation against ,stephen1 but instead of the latter half of the sentence it is thus added1 and 7he1 i4e4 ,jesus7 shall change the customs which ,moses delivered us2 and perhaps this may be regarded as an authentic comment on the less explicit text4 ,in general it may be said that to one who1 like ,jesus1 is so far alive to the absolute value of the internal compared with the external1 of the bent of the entire disposition compared with isolated acts1 that he pronounces the love of ,god and our neighbour to be the essence of the law 7,matt4 xxii4 #cf ff471--to him it cannot be a secret1 that all precepts of the law which do not bear on these two points are unessential4 ,but the argument apparently most decisive of a design on the part of ,jesus to abolish the ,mosaic worship1 is furnished by his prediction that the temple1 the centre of ,jewish worship 7,matt4 xxiv4 #b parall471 would be destroyed1 and that the adoration of ,god would be freed from local fetters1 and become purely spiritual 7,john iv4 #ba ff474 ,the above1 however1 presents only one aspect of the position assumed by ,jesus towards the ,mosaic law2 there are also data for the belief that he did not meditate the overthrow of the ancient constitution of his country4 ,this side of the question has been1 at a former period1 and from easily-conceived reasons1 the one which the enemies of ,christianity in its ecclesiastical form1 have chosen to exhibit2 #gii but it is only in recent times that1 the theological horizon being extended1 the unprejudiced expositors of the church #hjj have acknowledged its existence4 ,in the first place1 during his life ,jesus remains faithful to the paternal law2 he attends the synagogue on the sabbath1 journeys to ,jerusalem at the time of the feast1 and eats of the paschal lamb with his disciples4 ,it is true that he heals on the sabbath1 allows his disciples to pluck ears of corn 7,matt4 xii4 #a ff471 and requires no fasting or washing before meat in his society 7,matt4 iv4 #ad1 xv4 #b74 ,but the ,mosaic law concerning the sabbath simply prescribed cessation from common labour1 7,exod4 xx4 #h ff41 xxxi4 #ab ff41 ,deut4 v4 #ab ff471 including ploughing1 reaping 7,exod4 xxxiv4 #ba71 gathering of sticks 7,num4 xv4 #cb ff471 and similar work1 and it was only the spirit of petty observance1 the growth of a later age1 that made it an offence to perform cures1 or pluck a few ears of corn4 #hja ,the washing of hands before eating was but a rabbinical custom2 #hjb in the law one general yearly fast was alone prescribed 7,lev4 xvi4 #bi ff41 xxiii4 #bg ff47 and no private fasting required2 hence ,jesus cannot be convicted of infringing the precepts of ,moses4 #hjc ,in that very ,sermon on the ,mount in which ,jesus exalts spiritual religion so far above all ritual1 he clearly presupposes the continuation of sacrifices 7,matt4 v4 #bc f471 and declares that he is not come to destroy the law and the prophets1 but to fulfil 7,matt4 v4 #ag74 ,even if 1 in all probability1 refers chiefly to the accomplishment of the ,old ,testament prophecies1 must at the same time be understood of the conservation of the ,mosaic law1 since in the context1 perpetuity is promised to its smallest letter1 and he who represents its lightest precept as not obligatory1 is threatened with the lowest rank in the kingdom of heaven4 #hjd ,in accordance with this1 the apostles adhered strictly to the ,mosaic law1 even after the feast of ,pentecost2 they went at the hour of prayer into the temple 7,acts iii4 #a71 clung to the synagogues and to the ,mosaic injunctions respecting food 7x4 #ad71 and were unable to appeal to any express declaration of ,jesus as a sanction for the procedure of ,barnabas and ,paul1 when the judaizing party complained of their baptizing ,gentiles without laying on them the burthen of the ,mosaic law4 ,this apparent contradiction in the conduct and language of ,jesus has been apologetically explained by the supposition1 that not only the personal obedience of ,jesus to the law1 but also his declarations in its favour1 were a necessary concession to the views of his cotemporaries1 who would at once have withdrawn their confidence from him1 had he announced himself as the destroyer of their holy and venerated law4 #hje ,we allow that the obedience of ,jesus to the law in his own person1 might be explained in the same way as that of ,paul1 which1 on his own showing1 was a measure of mere expediency 7#a ,cor4 ix4 #bj1 comp4 ,acts xvi4 #c74 ,but the strong declarations of ,jesus concerning the perpetuity of the law1 and the guilt of him who dares to violate its lightest precept1 cannot possibly be derived from the principle of concession2 for to pronounce that indispensable1 which one secretly holds superfluous1 and which one even seeks to bring gradually into disuse1 would1 leaving honesty out of the question1 be in the last degree injudicious4 ,hence others have made a distinction between the moral and the ritual law1 and referred the declaration of ,jesus that he wished not to abrogate the law1 to the former alone1 which he extricated from a web of trivial ceremonies1 and embodied in his own example4 #hjf ,but such a distinction is not found in those striking passages from the ,sermon on the ,mount2 rather in the and 1 the law and the prophets1 we have the most comprehensive designation of the whole religious constitution of the ,old ,testament1 #hjg and under the most trivial commandment1 and the smallest letter of the law1 alike pronounced imperishable1 we cannot well understand anything else than the ceremonial precepts4 #hjh ,a happier distinction is that between really ,mosaic institutes1 and their traditional amplifications4 #hji ,it is certain that the sabbath cures of ,jesus1 his neglect of the pedantic ablutions before eating1 and the like1 ran counter1 not to ,moses1 but to later rabbinical requirements1 and several discourses of ,jesus turn upon this distinction4 ,matt4 xv4 #c ff41 ,jesus places the commandment of ,god in opposition to the tradition of the elders1 and ,matt4 xxiii4 #bc1 he declares that where they are compatible1 the former may be observed without rejecting the latter1 in which case he admonishes the people to do all that the scribes and ,pharisees enjoin2 where1 on the contrary1 either the one or the other only can be respected1 he decides that it is better to transgress the tradition of the elders1 than the commandment of ,god as given by ,moses 7,matt4 xv4 #c ff474 ,he describes the mass of traditional precepts1 as a burthen grievous to be borne1 which he would remove from the oppressed people1 substituting his own light burthen and easy yoke2 whence it may be seen1 that with all his forbearance towards existing institutions1 so far as they were not positively pernicious1 it was his intention that all these commandments of men1 as plants which his heavenly ,father had not planted1 should be rooted up 7xv4 #i1 #ac74 ,the majority of the ,pharisaical precepts referred to externals1 and had the effect of burying the noble morality of the ,mosaic law under a heap of ceremonial observances2 a gift to the temple sufficed to absolve the giver from his filial duties 7xv4 #e71 and the payment of tithe of anise and cummin superseded justice1 mercy1 and faith 7xxiii4 #bc74 ,hence this distinction is in some degree identical with the former1 since in the rabbinical institutes it was their merely ceremonial tendency that ,jesus censured1 while1 in the ,mosaic law1 it was the kernel of religion and morality that he chiefly valued4 ,it must only not be contended that he regarded the ,mosaic law as permanent solely in its spiritual part1 for the passages quoted1 especially from the ,sermon on the ,mount1 clearly show that he did not contemplate the abolition of the merely ritual precepts4 ,jesus1 supposing that he had discerned morality and the spiritual worship of ,god to be the sole essentials in religion1 must have rejected all which1 being merely ritual and formal1 had usurped the importance of a religious obligation1 and under this description must fall a large proportion of the ,mosaic precepts2 but it is well known how slowly such consequences are deduced1 when they come into collision with usages consecrated by antiquity4 ,even ,samuel1 apparently1 was aware that obedience is better than sacrifice 7#a ,sam4 xv4 #bb71 and ,asaph1 that an offering of thanksgiving is more acceptable to ,god than one of slain animals 7,ps4 #a472 yet how long after were sacrifices retained together with true obedience1 or in its stead6 ,jesus was more thoroughly penetrated with this conviction than those ancients2 with him1 the true commandments of ,god in the ,mosaic law were simply1 ,honour thy father and thy mother1 ,thou shalt not kill1 etc41 and above all1 ,thou shalt love the ,lord thy ,god with all thy heart1 and thy neighbour as thyself4 ,but his deep-rooted respect for the sacred book of the law1 caused him1 for the sake of these essential contents1 to honour the unessential2 which was the more natural1 as in comparison with the absurdly exaggerated pedantry of the traditional observances1 the ritual of the ,pentateuch must have appeared highly simple4 ,to honour this latter part of the law as of ,divine origin1 but to declare it abrogated on the principle1 that in the education of the human race1 ,god finds necessary for an earlier period an arrangement which is superfluous for a later one1 implies that idea of the law as a schoolmaster1 7,gal4 iii4 #bd71 which seems first to have been developed by the ,apostle ,paul2 nevertheless1 its germ lies in the declaration of ,jesus1 that ,god had permitted to the early ,hebrews1 on account of the hardness of their hearts 7,matt4 xix4 #h f471 many things which1 in a more advanced state of culture1 were inadmissible4 ,a similar limitation of the duration of the law is involved in the predictions of ,jesus 7if indeed they were uttered by ,jesus1 a point which we have to discuss71 that the temple would be destroyed at his approaching advent 7,matt4 xxiv4 parall471 and that devotion would be freed from all local restrictions 7,john iv472 for with these must fall the entire ,mosaic system of external worship4 ,this is not contradicted by the declaration that the law would endure until heaven and earth should pass away 7,matt4 v4 #ah71 for the ,hebrew associated the fall of his state and sanctuary with the end of the old world or dispensation1 so that the expressions1 so long as the temple stands1 and so long as the world stands1 were equivalent4 #haj ,it is true that the words of ,jesus1 ,luke xvi4 #af1 1 seem to imply1 that the appearance of the ,baptist put an end to the validity of the law2 but this passage loses its depreciatory sense when compared with its parallel1 ,matt xi4 #ac4 ,on the other hand1 ,luke xvi4 #ag controls ,matt4 v4 #ah1 and reduces it to a mere comparison between the stability of the law1 and that of heaven and earth4 ,the only question then is1 in which of the gospels are the two passages more correctly stated8 ,as given in the first1 they intimate that the law would retain its supremacy until1 and not after1 the close of the old dispensation4 ,with this agrees the prediction1 that the temple would be destroyed2 for the spiritualization of religion1 and1 according to ,stephen's interpretation1 the abolition of the ,mosaic law1 which were to be the results of that event1 were undoubtedly identified by ,jesus with the commencement of the of the ,messiah4 ,hence it appears1 that the only difference between the view of ,paul and that of ,jesus is this3 that the latter anticipated the extinction of the ,mosaic system as a concomitant of his glorious advent or return to the regenerated earth1 while the former believed its abolition permissible on the old1 unregenerated earth1 in virtue of the ,messiah's first advent4 #haa #fh4 ,,scope ,,of ,,the ,,messianic ,,plan ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,gentiles4 ,although the church founded by ,jesus did1 in fact1 early extend itself beyond the limits of the ,jewish people1 there are yet indications which might induce a belief that he did not contemplate such an extension4 #hab ,when he sends the twelve on their first mission1 his command is1 ,go not into the way of the ,gentiles--,go rather to the lost sheep of the house of ,israel 7,matt4 x4 #e f474 ,that ,matthew alone has this injunction1 and not the two other synoptists1 is less probably explained by the supposition that the ,hebrew author of the first gospel interpolated it1 than by the opposite one1 namely1 that it was wilfully omitted by the ,hellenistic authors of the second and third gospels4 ,for1 as the judaizing tendency of ,matthew is not so marked that he assigns to ,jesus the intention of limiting the messianic kingdom to the ,jews2 as1 on the contrary1 he makes ,jesus unequivocally foretell the calling of the ,gentiles 7viii4 #aa f41 xxi4 #cc ff41 xxii4 #a ff41 xxviii4 #ai f473 he had no motive for fabricating this particularizing addition2 but the two other ,evangelists had a strong one for its omission1 in the offence which it would cause to the ,gentiles already within the fold4 ,its presence in ,matthew1 however1 demands an explanation1 and expositors have thought to furnish one by supposing the injunction of ,jesus to be a measure of prudence4 #hac ,it is unquestionable that1 even if the plan of ,jesus comprehended the ,gentiles as well as the ,jews1 he must at first1 if he would not for ever ruin his cause with his fellow-countrymen1 adopt1 and prescribe to the disciples1 a rule of national exclusiveness4 ,this necessity on his part might account for his answer to the ,canaanitish woman1 whose daughter he refuses to heal1 because he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of ,israel 7,matt4 xv4 #bd71 were it not that the boon which he here denies is not a reception into the messianic kingdom1 but a temporal benefit1 such as even ,elijah and ,elisha had conferred on those who were not ,israelites 7#a ,kings xvii4 #i ff42 #b ,kings v4 #a ff47--examples to which ,jesus elsewhere appeals 7,luke iv4 #be ff474 ,hence the disciples thought it natural and unobjectionable to grant the woman's petition1 and it could not be prudential considerations that withheld ,jesus1 for a time1 from compliance4 ,that an aversion to the ,gentiles may not appear to be his motive1 it has been conjectured #had that ,jesus1 wishing to preserve an incognito in that country1 avoided the performance of any messianic work4 ,but such a design of concealment is only mentioned by ,mark 7vii4 #be71 who represents it as being defeated by the entreaties of the woman1 contrary to the inclinations of ,jesus2 and as this ,evangelist omits the declaration of ,jesus1 that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of ,israel1 we must suspect that he was guided by the wish to supply a less offensive motive for the conduct of ,jesus1 rather than by historical accuracy4 ,had ,jesus really been influenced by the motive which ,mark assigns1 he must at once have alleged it to his disciples instead of a merely ostensible one1 calculated to strengthen their already rigid exclusiveness4 ,we should therefore rather listen to the opinion that ,jesus sought1 by his repeated refusal1 to prove the faith of the woman1 and furnish an occasion for its exhibition1 #hae if we could find in the text the slightest trace of mere dissimulation2 and none of a real change of mind4 #haf ,even ,mark1 bent as he was on softening the features of the incident1 cannot have thought of a dissimulation of this kind2 otherwise1 instead of omitting the harsh words and making the inadequate addition1 and would have no man know it1 he would have removed the offence in the most satisfactory manner1 by an observation such as1 he said this to prove her 7comp4 ,john vi4 #f74 ,thus it must be allowed that ,jesus in this case seems to share the antipathy of his countrymen towards the ,gentiles1 nay1 his antipathy seems to be of a deeper stamp than that of his disciples2 unless their advocacy of the woman be a touch from the pencil of tradition1 for the sake of contrast and grouping4 ,this narrative1 however1 is neutralized by another1 in which ,jesus is said to act in a directly opposite manner4 ,the centurion of ,capernaum1 also a ,gentile 7as we gather from the remarks of ,jesus71 has scarcely complained of a distress similar to that of the ,canaanitish woman1 when ,jesus himself volunteers to go and heal his servant 7,matt4 viii4 #e74 ,if1 then1 ,jesus has no hesitation1 in this instance1 to exercise his power of healing in favour of a heathen1 how comes it that he refuses to do so in another quite analogous case8 ,truly if the relative position of the two narratives in the gospels have any weight1 he must have shown himself more harsh and narrow at the later period than at the earlier one4 ,meanwhile1 this single act of benevolence to a ,gentile1 standing as it does in inexplicable contradiction to the narrative above examined1 cannot prove1 in opposition to the command expressly given to the disciples1 not to go to the ,gentiles1 that ,jesus contemplated their admission as such into the messianic kingdom4 ,even the prediction of ,jesus that the kingdom of heaven would be taken from the ,jews and given to the ,gentiles1 does not prove this4 ,in the above interview with the centurion of ,capernaum1 ,jesus declares that many shall come from the east and the west1 and sit down with the patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven1 while the children of the kingdom 7obviously the ,jews71 for whom it was originally designed1 will be cast out 7,matt4 viii4 #aa f474 ,yet more decidedly1 when applying the parable of the husbandmen in the vineyard1 he warns his countrymen that the kingdom of ,god shall be taken from them1 and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof 7,matt4 xxi4 #dc74 ,all this may be understood in the sense intended by the prophets1 in their promises that the messianic kingdom would extend to all nations2 namely1 that the ,gentiles would turn to the worship of ,jehovah1 embrace the ,mosaic religion in its entire form1 and afterwards be received into the ,messiah's kingdom4 ,it would accord very well with this expectation1 that1 prior to such a conversion1 ,jesus should forbid his disciples to direct their announcement of his kingdom to the ,gentiles4 ,but in the discourses concerning his re-appearance1 ,jesus regards the publication of the gospel to all nations as one of the circumstances that must precede that event 7,matt4 xxiv4 #ad2 ,mark xiii4 #aj72 and after his resurrection1 according to the synoptists1 he gave his disciples the command1 ,go ye1 and teach all nations1 baptizing them1 etc4 7,matt4 xxviii4 #ai2 ,mark xvi4 #ae2 ,luke xxiv4 #dg72 i4e4 go to them with the offer of the ,messiah's kingdom1 even though they may not beforehand have become ,jews4 ,not only1 however1 do the disciples1 after the first ,pentecost1 neglect to execute this command1 but when a case is thrust on them which offers them an opportunity for compliance with it1 they act as if they were altogether ignorant that such a direction had been given by ,jesus 7,acts x41 xi474 ,the heathen centurion ,cornelius1 worthy1 from his devout life1 of a reception into the messianic community1 is pointed out by an angel to the ,apostle ,peter4 ,but because it was not hidden from ,god1 with what difficulty the apostle would be induced to receive a heathen1 without further preliminary1 into the ,messiah's kingdom1 he saw it needful to prepare him for such a step by a symbolical vision4 ,in consequence of such an admonition ,peter goes to ,cornelius2 but to impel him to baptize him and his family1 he needs a second sign1 the pouring out of the ,holy ,ghost on these uncircumcised4 ,when1 subsequently1 the ,jewish ,christians in ,jerusalem call him to account for this reception of ,gentiles1 ,peter appeals in his justification solely to the recent vision1 and to the ,holy ,ghost given to the centurion's family4 ,whatever judgment we may form of the credibility of this history1 it is a memorial of the many deliberations and contentions which it cost the apostles after the departure of ,jesus1 to convince themselves of the eligibility of ,gentiles for a participation in the kingdom of their ,christ1 and the reasons which at last brought them to a decision4 ,now if ,jesus had given so explicit a command as that above quoted1 what need was there of a vision to encourage ,peter to its fulfilment8 or1 supposing the vision to be a legendary investiture of the natural deliberations of the disciples1 why did they go about in search of the reflection1 that all men ought to be baptized1 because before ,god all men and all animals1 as his creatures1 are clean1 if they could have appealed to an express injunction of ,jesus8 ,here1 then1 is the alternative3 if ,jesus himself gave this command1 the disciples cannot have been led to the admission of the ,gentiles by the means narrated in ,acts x41 xi42 if1 on the other hand1 that narrative is authentic1 the alleged command of ,jesus cannot be historical4 ,our canon decides for the latter proposition4 ,for that the subsequent practice and pre-eminent distinction of the ,christian ,church1 its accessibility to all nations1 and its indifference to circumcision or uncircumcision1 should have lain in the mind of its founder1 is the view best adapted to exalt and adorn ,jesus2 while that1 after his death1 and through the gradual development of relations1 the church1 which its ,founder had designed for the ,gentiles only in so far as they became ,jews1 should break through these limits1 is in the simple1 natural1 and therefore the probable course of things4 #fi4 ,,relation ,,of ,,the ,,messianic ,,plan ,,of ,,jesus ,,to ,,the ,,samaritans4 ,,his ,,interview ,,with ,,the ,,woman ,,of ,,samaria4 ,there is the same apparent contradiction in the position which ,jesus took1 and prescribed to his disciples1 towards the inhabitants of ,samaria4 ,while in his instructions to his disciples 7,matt4 x4 #e71 he forbids them to visit any city of the ,samaritans1 we read in ,john 7iv47 that ,jesus himself in his journey through ,samaria laboured as the ,messiah with great effect1 and ultimately stayed two days in a ,samaritan town2 and in the ,acts 7i4 #h71 that before his ascension he charged the disciples to be his witnesses1 not only in ,jerusalem and in all ,judea1 but also in ,samaria4 ,that ,jesus did not entirely shun ,samaria1 as that prohibition might appear to intimate1 is evident from ,luke ix4 #eb 7comp4 xvii4 #aa71 where his disciples bespeak lodgings for him in a ,samaritan village1 when he has determined to go to ,jerusalem2 a circumstance which accords with the information of ,josephus1 that those ,galileans who journeyed to the feasts usually went through ,samaria4 #hag ,that ,jesus was not unfavourable to the ,samaritans1 nay1 that in many respects he acknowledged their superiority to the ,jews1 is evident from his parable of the ,good ,samaritan 7,luke x4 #cj ff472 he also bestows a marked notice on the case of a ,samaritan1 who1 among ten cleansed1 was the only one that testified his gratitude 7,luke xvii4 #af72 and1 if we may venture on such a conclusion from ,john iv4 #be1 and subsequent records1 #hah the inhabitants of ,samaria themselves had some tincture of the messianic idea4 ,however natural it may appear that ,jesus should avail himself of this susceptible side of the ,samaritans1 by opportunely announcing to them the messianic kingdom2 the aspect which the four ,evangelists bear to each other on this subject must excite surprise4 ,matthew has no occasion on which ,jesus comes in contact with the ,samaritans1 or even mentions them1 except in the prohibition above quoted2 ,mark is more neutral than ,matthew1 and has not even that prohibition2 ,luke has two instances of contact1 one of them unfavourable1 the other favourable1 together with the parable in which ,jesus presents a ,samaritan as a model1 and his approving notice of the gratitude of one whom he had healed2 ,john1 finally1 has a narrative in which ,jesus appears in a very intimate and highly favourable relation to the ,samaritans4 ,are all these various accounts well founded8 ,if so1 how could ,jesus at one time prohibit his disciples from including the ,samaritans in the messianic plan1 and at another time1 himself receive them without hesitation8 ,moreover1 if the chronological order of the ,evangelists deserve regard1 the ministry of ,jesus in ,samaria must have preceded the prohibition contained in his instructions to his disciples on their first mission4 ,for the scene of that mission being ,galilee1 and there being no space for its occurrence during the short stay which1 according to the fourth ,evangelist1 ,jesus made in that province before the first ,passover 7ii4 #a-ac71 it must be placed after that ,passover2 and1 as the visit to ,samaria was made on his journey1 after that visit also4 ,how1 then1 could ,jesus1 after having with the most desirable issue1 personally taught in ,samaria1 and presented himself as the ,messiah1 forbid his disciples to carry thither their messianic tidings8 ,on the other hand1 if the scenes narrated by ,john occurred after the command recorded by ,matthew1 the disciples1 instead of wondering that ,jesus talked so earnestly with a woman 7,john iv4 #bg71 ought rather to have wondered that he held any converse with a ,samaritan4 #hai ,since then of the two extreme narratives at least1 in ,matthew and ,john1 neither presupposes the other1 we must either doubt the authenticity of the exclusive command of ,jesus1 or of his connexion with the inhabitants of ,samaria4 ,in this conflict between the gospels1 we have again the advantage of appealing to the ,book of ,acts as an umpire4 ,before ,peter1 at the divine instigation1 had received the firstfruits of the ,gentiles into the ,messiah's kingdom1 ,philip the deacon1 being driven from ,jerusalem by the persecution of which ,stephen's death was the commencement1 journeyed to the city of ,samaria1 where he preached ,christ1 and by miracles of all kinds won the ,samaritans to the faith1 and to the reception of baptism 7,acts viii4 #e ff474 ,this narrative is a complete contrast to that of the first admission of the ,gentiles3 while in the one there was need of a vision1 and a special intimation from the ,spirit1 to bring ,peter into communication with the heathens2 in the other1 ,philip1 without any precedent1 unhesitatingly baptizes the ,samaritans4 ,and lest it should be said that the deacon was perhaps of a more liberal spirit than the apostle1 we have ,peter himself coming forthwith to ,samaria in company with ,john1--an incident which forms another point of opposition between the two narratives2 for1 while the first admission of the ,gentiles makes a highly unfavourable impression on the mother church at ,jerusalem1 the report that ,samaria had received the word of ,god meets with so warm an approval there1 that the two most distinguished apostles are commissioned to confirm and consummate the work begun by ,philip4 ,the tenor of this proceeding makes it not improbable that there was a precedent for it in the conduct of ,jesus1 or at least a sanction in his expressions4 ,the narrative in the fourth ,gospel 7iv47 would form a perfect precedent in the conduct of ,jesus1 but we have yet to examine whether it bears the stamp of historical credibility4 ,we do not1 with the author of the ,probabilia1 stumble at the designation of the locality1 and the opening of the conversation between ,jesus and the woman2 #hbj but from v4 #af inclusively1 there are1 as impartial expositors confess1 #hba many grave difficulties4 ,the woman had entreated ,jesus to give her of the water which was for ever to extinguish thirst1 and ,jesus immediately says1 ,go1 call thy husband4 ,why so8 ,it has been said that ,jesus1 well knowing that the woman had no lawful husband1 sought to shame her1 and bring her to repentance4 #hbb ,lcke1 disapproving the imputation of dissimulation to ,jesus1 conjectures that1 perceiving the woman's dulness1 he hoped by summoning her husband1 possibly her superior in intelligence1 to create an opportunity for a more beneficial conversation4 ,but if ,jesus1 as it presently appears1 knew that the woman had not at the time any proper husband1 he could not in earnest desire her to summon him2 and if1 as ,lcke allows1 he had that knowledge in a supernatural manner1 it could not be hidden from him1 who knew what was in man1 that she would be little inclined to comply with his injunction4 ,if1 however1 he had a prescience that what he required would not be done1 the injunction was a feint1 and had some latent object4 ,but that this object was the penitence of the woman there is no indication in the text1 for the ultimate effect on her is not shame and penitence1 but faith in the prophetic insight of ,jesus 7v4 #ai74 ,and this was doubtless what ,jesus wished1 for the narrative proceeds as if he had attained his purpose with the woman1 and the issue corresponded to the design4 ,the difficulty here lies1 not so much in what ,lcke terms dissimulation1--since this comes under the category of blameless temptation 771 elsewhere occurring1--as in the violence with which ,jesus wrests an opportunity for the display of his prophetic gifts4 ,by a transition equally abrupt1 the woman urges the conversation to a point at which the ,messiahship of ,jesus may become fully evident4 ,as soon as she has recognised ,jesus to be a prophet1 she hastens to consult him on the controversy pending between the ,jews and ,samaritans1 as to the place appropriated to the true worship of ,god 7v4 #bj74 ,that so vivid an interest in this national and religious question is not consistent with the limited mental and circumstantial condition of the woman1 the majority of modern commentators virtually confess1 by their adoption of the opinion1 that her drift in this remark was to turn away the conversation from her own affairs4 #hbc ,if then the implied query concerning the place for the true worship of ,god1 had no serious interest for the woman1 but was prompted by a false shame calculated to hinder confession and repentance1 those expositors should remember what they elsewhere repeat to satiety1 #hbd that in the ,gospel of ,john the answers of ,jesus refer not so much to the ostensible meaning of questions1 as to the under current of feeling of which they are the indications4 ,in accordance with this method1 ,jesus should not have answered the artificial question of the woman as if it had been one of deep seriousness2 he ought rather to have evaded it1 and recurred to the already detected stain on her conscience1 which she was now seeking to hide1 in order if possible to bring her to a full conviction and open avowal of her guilt4 ,but the fact is that the object of the ,evangelist was to show that ,jesus had been recognised1 not merely as a prophet1 but as the ,messiah1 and he believed that to turn the conversation to the question of the legitimate place for the worship of ,god1 the solution of which was expected from the ,messiah1 #hbe would best conduce to that end4 ,jesus evinces 7v4 #ag7 an acquaintance with the past history and present position of the woman4 ,the rationalists have endeavoured to explain this by the supposition1 that while ,jesus sat at the well1 and the woman was advancing from the city1 some passer-by hinted to him that he had better not engage in conversation with her1 as she was on the watch to obtain a sixth husband4 #hbf ,but not to insist on the improbability that a passer-by should hold a colloquy with ,jesus on the character of an obscure woman1 the friends as well as the enemies of the fourth gospel now agree1 that every natural explanation of that knowledge on the part of ,jesus1 directly counteracts the design of the ,evangelist4 #hbg ,for1 according to him1 the disclosure which ,jesus makes of his privity to the woman's intimate concerns1 is the immediate cause1 not only of her own faith in him1 but of that of many inhabitants of the city 7v4 #ci71 and he obviously intends to imply that they were not too precipitate in receiving him as a prophet1 on that ground alone4 ,thus in the view of the ,evangelist1 the knowledge in question was an effluence of the higher nature of ,jesus1 and modern supranaturalists adhere to this explanation1 adducing in its support the power which ,john attributes to him 7ii4 #bd f471 of discerning what is in man without the aid of external testimony4 #hbh ,but this does not meet the case2 for ,jesus here not only knows what is in the woman1--her present equivocal state of mind towards him who is not her husband1--he has cognizance also of the extrinsic fact that she has had five husbands1 of whom we cannot suppose that each had left a distinct image in her mind traceable by the observation of ,jesus4 ,that by means of the penetrative acumen with which he scrutinized the hearts of those with whom he had to do1 ,jesus should also have a prophetic insight into his own messianic destiny1 and the fortunes of his kingdom1 may under a certain view of his person appear probable1 and in any case must be deemed in the highest degree dignified2 but that he should be acquainted1 even to the most trivial details1 with the adventitious history of obscure individuals1 is an idea that degrades him in proportion to the exaltation of his prophetic dignity4 ,such empirical knowingness 7not omniscience7 would moreover annihilate the human consciousness which the orthodox view supposes to co-exist in ,jesus4 #hbi ,but the possession of this knowledge1 however it may clash with our conception of dignity and wisdom1 closely corresponds to the ,jewish notion of a prophet1 more especially of the ,messiah2 in the ,old ,testament1 ,daniel recites a dream of ,nebuchadnezzar1 which that monarch himself had forgotten 7,dan4 ii472 in the ,clementine ,homilies1 the true prophet is 1 1 2 #hcj and the rabbins number such a knowledge of personal secrets among the signs of the ,messiah1 and observe that from the want of it1 ,bar-,cocheba was detected to be a pseudo-,messiah4 #hca ,farther on 7v4 #bc7 ,jesus reveals to the woman what ,hase terms the sublimest principle of his religion1 namely1 that the service of ,god consists in a life of piety2 tells her that all ceremonial worship is about to be abolished2 and that he is the personage who will effect this momentous change1 that is1 the ,messiah4 ,we have already shown it to be improbable that ,jesus1 who did not give his disciples to understand that he was the ,messiah until a comparatively late period1 should make an early and distinct disclosure on the subject to a ,samaritan woman4 ,in what respect was she worthy of a communication more explicit than ever fell to the lot of the disciples8 ,what could induce ,jesus to send roaming into the futurity of religious history1 the contemplation of a woman1 whom he should rather have induced to examine herself1 and to ponder on the corruptions of her own heart8 ,nothing but the wish to elicit from her1 at any cost1 and without regard to her moral benefit1 an acknowledgment1 not only of his prophetic gifts1 but of his ,messiahship2 to which end it was necessary to give the conversation the above direction4 ,but so contracted a design can never be imputed to ,jesus1 who1 on other occasions1 exemplifies a more suitable mode of dealing with mankind3 it is the design of the glorifying legend1 or of an idealizing biographer4 ,meanwhile1 continues the narrative 7v4 #bg71 the disciples of ,jesus returned from the city with provisions1 and marvelled that he talked with a woman1 contrary to rabbinical rule4 #hcb ,while the woman1 excited by the last disclosure of ,jesus1 hastens homeward to invite her fellow-citizens to come and behold the ,messiah-like stranger1 the disciples entreat him to partake of the food they have procured2 he answers1 ,i have meat to eat that ye know not of 7v4 #cb74 ,they1 misunderstanding his words1 imagine that some person has supplied him with food in their absence3 one of those carnal interpretations of expressions intended spiritually by ,jesus1 which are of perpetual recurrence in the fourth gospel1 and are therefore suspicious4 ,then follows a discourse on sowing and reaping 7v4 #ce ff471 which1 compared with v4 #cg1 can only mean that what ,jesus has sown1 the disciples will reap4 #hcc ,we admit that this is susceptible of the general interpretation1 that the germ of the kingdom of ,god1 which blossomed and bore fruit under the cultivation of the apostles1 was first deposited in the world by ,jesus3 but it cannot be denied that a special application is also intended4 ,jesus foresees that the woman1 who is hastening towards the city1 will procure him an opportunity of sowing the seed of the gospel in ,samaria1 and he promises the disciples that they at a future time shall reap the fruits of his labours4 ,who is not here reminded of the propagation of ,christianity in ,samaria by ,philip and the apostles1 as narrated in the ,acts8 #hcd ,that1 even abstracting all supernaturalism from our idea of the person of ,jesus1 he might have foreseen this progress of his cause in ,samaria from his knowledge of its inhabitants1 is not to be denied2 but as the above figurative prediction forms part of a whole more than improbable in an historical point of view1 it is equally liable to suspicion1 especially as it is easy to show how it might originate without any foundation in fact4 ,according to the prevalent tradition of the early church1 as recorded in the synoptical gospels1 ,jesus laboured personally in ,galilee1 ,judea1 and ,perea only1--not in ,samaria1 which1 however1 as we learn from the ,acts1 embraced the gospel at no remote period from his death4 ,how natural the tendency to perfect the agency of ,jesus1 by representing him to have sown the heavenly seed in ,samaria1 thus extending his ministry through all parts of ,palestine2 to limit the glory of the apostles and other teachers to that of being the mere reapers of the harvest in ,samaria2 and to put this distinction1 on a suitable occasion1 into the mouth of ,jesus6 ,the result1 then1 of our examination of ,john's ,samaritan narrative is1 that we cannot receive it as a real history3 and the impression which it leaves as a whole tends to the same conclusion4 ,since ,heracleon and ,origen1 #hce the more ancient commentators have seldom refrained from giving the interview of ,jesus with the woman of ,samaria an allegorical interpretation1 on the ground that the entire scene has a legendary and poetic colouring4 ,jesus is seated at a well1--that idyllic locality with which the old ,hebrew legend associates so many critical incidents2 at the identical well1 moreover1 which a tradition1 founded on ,gen4 xxxiii4 #ai1 xlviii4 #bb2 ,josh4 xxiv4 #cb1 reported to have been given by ,jacob to his son ,joseph2 hence the spot1 in addition to its idyllic interest1 has the more decided consecration of national and patriarchal recollections1 and is all the more worthy of being trodden by the ,messiah4 ,at the well ,jesus meets with a woman who has come out to draw water1 just as1 in the ,old ,testament1 the expectant ,eliezer encounters ,rebekah with her pitcher1 and as ,jacob meets with ,rachel1 the destined ancestress of ,israel1 or ,moses with his future wife4 ,jesus begs of the woman to let him drink2 so does ,eliezer of ,rebekah2 after ,jesus has made himself known to the woman as the ,messiah1 she runs back to the city1 and fetches her neighbours3 so ,rebekah1 after ,eliezer has announced himself as ,abraham's steward1 and ,rachel1 after she has discovered that ,jacob is her kinsman1 hasten homeward to call their friends to welcome the honoured guest4 ,it is1 certainly1 not one blameless as those early mothers in ,israel1 whom ,jesus here encounters2 for this woman came forth as the representative of an impure people1 who had been faithless to their marriage bond with ,jehovah1 and were then living in the practice of a false worship2 while her good-will1 her deficient moral strength1 and her obtuseness in spiritual things1 perfectly typify the actual state of the ,samaritans4 ,thus1 the interview of ,jesus with the woman of ,samaria is only a poetical representation of his ministry among the ,samaritans narrated in the sequel2 and this is itself a legendary prelude to the propagation of the gospel in ,samaria after the death of ,jesus4 ,renouncing the event in question as unhistorical1 we know nothing of any connexion formed by ,jesus with the ,samaritans1 and there remain as indications of his views regarding them1 only his favourable notice of an individual from among them 7,luke xvii4 #af72 his unpropitious reception in one of their villages 7,luke ix4 #ec72 the prohibition with respect to them1 addressed to his disciples 7,matt4 x4 #e72 the eulogistic parable 7,luke x4 #cj ff472 and his valedictory command1 that the gospel should be preached in ,samaria 7,acts i4 #h74 ,this express command being subsequent to the resurrection of ,jesus1 its reality must remain problematical for us until we have examined the evidence for that capital fact2 and it is to be questioned whether without it1 and notwithstanding the alleged prohibition1 the unhesitating conduct of the apostles1 ,acts viii41 can be explained4 ,are we then to suppose on the part of the apostolic history1 a cancelling of hesitations and deliberations that really occurred2 or on the part of ,matthew1 an unwarranted ascription of national bigotry to ,jesus2 or1 finally1 on the part of ,jesus1 a progressive enlargement of view8 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,disciples ,,of ,,jesus4 #gj4 ,,calling ,,of ,,the ,,first ,,companions ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,difference ,,between ,,the ,,first ,,two ,,evangelists ,,and ,,the ,,fourth4 ,the first two ,evangelists agree in stating that ,jesus1 when walking by the sea of ,galilee1 called1 first1 the two brothers ,andrew and ,peter1 and immediately after1 ,james and ,john1 to forsake their fishing nets1 and to follow him 7,matt4 iv4 #ah-bb2 ,mark i4 #af-bj74 ,the fourth ,evangelist also narrates 7i4 #ce-ea71 how the first disciples came to attach themselves to ,jesus1 and among them we find ,peter and ,andrew1 and1 in all probability1 ,john1 for it is generally agreed that the nameless companion of ,andrew was that ultimately favourite apostle4 ,james is absent from this account1 and instead of his vocation1 we have that of ,philip and ,nathanael4 ,but even when the persons are the same1 all the particulars of their meeting with ,jesus are variously detailed4 ,in the two synoptical gospels1 the scene is the coast of the ,galilean sea3 in the fourth1 ,andrew1 ,peter1 and their anonymous friend1 unite themselves to ,jesus in the vicinity of the ,jordan2 ,philip and ,nathanael1 on the way from thence into ,galilee4 ,in the former1 again1 ,jesus in two instances calls a pair of brothers2 in the latter1 it is first ,andrew and his companion1 then ,peter1 and anon ,philip and ,nathanael1 who meet with ,jesus4 ,but the most important difference is this3 while1 in ,matthew and ,mark1 the brethren are called from their fishing immediately by ,jesus2 in ,john1 nothing more is said of the respective situations of those who were summoned1 than that they come1 and are found1 and ,jesus himself calls only ,philip2 ,andrew and his nameless companion being directed to him by the ,baptist1 ,peter brought by ,andrew1 and ,nathanael by ,philip4 ,thus the two narratives appear to refer to separate events2 and if it be asked which of those events was prior to the other1 we must reply that ,john seems to assign the earlier date to his incidents1 for he represents them as taking place before the return of ,jesus from the scene of his baptism into ,galilee2 while the synoptists place theirs after that journey1 especially if1 according to a calculation often adopted1 we regard the return into ,galilee1 which they make so important an epoch1 as being that from the first ,passover1 not from the baptism4 ,it is evident1 too1 from the intrinsic nature of the occurrences reported by the fourth ,evangelist1 that they could not have succeeded those in ,matthew and ,mark4 ,for if1 as these writers tells us1 ,andrew and ,john had already followed ,jesus1 they could not again be in the train of the ,baptist1 as we see them in the fourth gospel1 nor would it have been necessary for that teacher to have directed their attention to ,jesus2 neither if ,peter had already been called by ,jesus himself to become a fisher of men1 was there any need for his brother ,andrew to bring him to his already elected master4 ,nevertheless1 expositors with one voice declare that the two narratives are equally adapted to precede1 or follow1 each other4 ,the fourth gospel1 say they1 #hcf recounts merely the first introduction of these men to ,jesus2 they did not forthwith become his constant followers1 but were first installed by ,jesus in their proper discipleship on the occasion which the synoptists have preserved4 ,let us test the justness of their view4 ,in the synoptical narrative ,jesus says to his future disciples1 ,come after me1 1 and the result is that they follow him 7 74 ,if we understand from this that the disciples thenceforth constantly followed ,jesus1 how can we give a different interpretation to the similar expression in the fourth gospel1 ,follow me1 8 ,it is therefore a laudable consistency in ,paulus1 to see1 in both instances1 merely an invitation to a temporary companionship during a walk in the immediate neighbourhood4 #hcg ,but this interpretation is incompatible with the synoptical history4 ,how could ,peter1 at a later period1 say so emphatically to ,jesus1 ,we have left all1 and followed thee3 what shall we have therefore8--how could ,jesus promise to him and to every one who had forsaken houses1 etc41 a hundredfold recompense 7,matt4 xix4 #bg ff471 if this forsaking and following had been so transient and interrupted8 ,from these considerations alone it is probable that the in ,john also denotes the commencement of a permanent connexion2 but there are besides the plainest indications that this is the case in the context to the narrative4 ,precisely as in the synoptical gospels1 ,jesus appears alone before the scene of the vocation1 but after this on every fit occasion the attendance of his disciples is mentioned3 so in the fourth gospel1 from the time of the occurrence in question1 the previously solitary ,jesus appears in the company of his disciples 7ii4 #b1 xii4 #ag1 iii4 #bb1 iv4 #h1 #bg1 etc474 ,to say that these disciples1 acquired in ,pera1 again dispersed themselves after the return of ,jesus into ,galilee1 #hch is to do violence to the gospels out of harmonistic zeal4 ,but even supposing such a dispersion1 they could not1 in the short time which it is possible to allow for their separation from ,jesus1 have become so completely strangers to him1 that he would have been obliged to re-open an acquaintance with them after the manner narrated by the synoptical writers4 ,still less probable is it that ,jesus1 after having distinguished ,simon in the most individual manner by the surname ,cephas on their first interview1 would on a later occasion address to him the summons to be a fisher of men--a destination which was common to all the disciples4 ,the rationalistic commentators perceive a special advantage in their position of the two narratives4 ,it accounts1 say they1 for what must otherwise be in the highest degree surprising1 namely1 that ,jesus merely in passing1 and at the first glance1 should choose four fishermen for his disciples1 and that among them he should have alighted on the two most distinguished apostles2 that1 moreover1 these four men1 actively employed in their business1 should leave it on the instant of their receiving an enigmatical summons from a man with whom they had no intimate acquaintance1 and devote themselves to him as his followers4 ,now on comparing the fourth gospel1 we see that ,jesus had learned to know these men long before1 and that they1 too1 had had demonstration of his excellence1 whence it is easy to understand the felicity of his choice1 and their readiness to follow him4 ,but this apparent advantage is the condemning circumstance in the above position3 for nothing can more directly counteract the intention of the first two ,evangelists1 than to suppose a previous acquaintance between ,jesus and the brethren whom he summons to follow him4 ,in both ,gospels1 great stress is laid on the fact that they immediately left their nets1 resolved to follow ,jesus3 the writers must therefore have deemed this something extraordinary1 which it certainly was not1 if these men had previously been in his train4 ,in relation to ,jesus also1 the point of the narrative lies in his having1 with a prophetic spirit1 and at the first glance1 selected the right individuals1 not needing that any should testify of man1 for he knew what was in man1 according to ,john ii4 #be1 and thus presenting one of the characteristics which the ,jews expected in their ,messiah4 ,if1 then1 each of these two diverse narratives professes to describe the first acquaintance of ,jesus with his most distinguished disciples1 it follows that one only can be correct1 while the other is necessarily erroneous4 #hci ,it is our task to inquire which has the more intrinsic proofs of veracity4 ,with respect to the synoptical representation1 we share the difficulty which is felt by ,paulus1 in regarding it as a true account of the first interview between the parties4 ,a penetration into the character of men at the first glance1 such as is here supposed to have been evinced by ,jesus1 transcends all that is naturally possible to the most fortunate and practised knowledge of mankind4 ,the nature of man is only revealed by his words and actions2 the gift of discerning it without these means1 belongs to the visionary1 or to that species of intuition for which the rabbinical designation of this messianic attribute1 odorando judicare1 #hdj is not at all too monstrous4 ,scarcely less improbable is the unhesitating obedience of the disciples1 for ,jesus had not yet acquired his ,galilean fame2 and to account for this promptitude we must suppose that the voice and will of ,jesus had a coercive influence over minds1 independently of preparation and motives1 #hda which would be to complete the incredibility of the narrative by adding a magical trait to the visionary one already exposed4 ,if these negative arguments are deemed strong enough to annul the pretensions of the narrative to an historical character1 the alternative is to assign to it a mythical interpretation1 if we can show on positive grounds that it might have been constructed in a traditional manner without historical foundation4 ,as adequate inducements to the formation of such a legend1 we may point1 not only to the above cited ,jewish notion of the ,messiah as the searcher of hearts1 but to a specific type of this vocation of the apostles1 contained in the narrative 7#a ,kings xix4 #ai-ba7 of the mode in which the prophet ,elijah summoned ,elisha to become his follower4 ,here ,jesus calls the brethren from their nets and their fishing2 there the prophet calls his future disciple from the oxen and the plough2 in both cases there is a transition from simple physical labour to the highest spiritual office--a contrast which1 as is exemplified in the ,roman history1 tradition is apt either to cherish or to create4 ,further1 the fishermen1 at the call of ,jesus1 forsake their nets and follow him2 so ,elisha1 when ,elijah cast his mantle over him1 left the oxen1 and ran after ,elijah4 ,this is one apparent divergency1 which is a yet more striking proof of the relation between the two narratives1 than is their general similarity4 ,the prophet's disciple entreated that before he attached himself entirely to ,elijah1 he might be permitted to take leave of his father and mother2 and the prophet does not hesitate to grant him this request1 on the understood condition that ,elisha should return to him4 ,similar petitions are offered to ,jesus 7,luke ix4 #ei ff42 ,matt4 viii4 #ba f47 by some whom he had called1 or who had volunteered to follow him2 but ,jesus does not accede to these requests3 on the contrary1 he enjoins the one who wished previously to bury his father1 to enter on his discipleship without delay2 and the other1 who had begged permission to bid farewell to his friends1 he at once dismisses as unfit for the kingdom of ,god4 ,in strong contrast with the divided spirit manifested by these feeble proselytes1 it is said of the apostles1 that they1 without asking any delay1 immediately forsook their occupation1 and1 in the case of ,james and ,john1 their father4 ,could anything betray more clearly than this one feature1 that the narrative is an embellished imitation of that in the ,old ,testament intended to show that ,jesus1 in his character of ,messiah1 exacted a more decided adhesion1 accompanied with greater sacrifices1 than ,elijah1 in his character of ,prophet merely1 required or was authorized to require8 #hdb ,the historical germ of the narrative may be this3 several of the most eminent disciples of ,jesus1 particularly ,peter1 dwelling on the shores of the sea of ,galilee1 had been fishermen1 whence ,jesus during their subsequent apostolic agency may have sometimes styled them fishers of men4 ,but without doubt1 their relation with ,jesus was formed gradually1 like other human relations1 and is only elevated into a marvel through the obliviousness of tradition4 ,by removing the synoptical narrative we make room for that of ,john2 but whether we are to receive it as historical1 can only be decided by an examination of its matter4 ,at the very outset1 it excites no favourable prejudice1 that ,john the ,baptist is the one who directs the first two disciples to ,jesus2 for if there be any truth in the representation given in a former chapter of the relation between ,jesus and the ,baptist1 some disciples of the latter might1 indeed1 of their own accord attach themselves to ,jesus1 formerly their fellow-disciple1 but nothing could be farther from the intention of the ,baptist than to resign his own adherents to ,jesus4 ,this particular seems indebted for its existence to the apologetic interest of the fourth gospel1 which seeks to strengthen the cause of ,jesus by the testimony of the ,baptist4 ,further1 that ,andrew1 after one evening's intercourse with ,jesus1 should announce him to his brother with the words1 ,we have found the ,messiah 7i4 #db72 that ,philip too1 immediately after his call1 should speak of him in a similar manner to ,nathanael 7v4 #df72 is an improbability which ,i know not how to put strongly enough4 ,we gather from the synoptical statement1 which we have above decided to be trustworthy1 that some time was necessary for the disciples to recognise ,jesus as the ,messiah1 and openly confess their belief through their spokesman ,peter1 whose tardy discernment ,jesus would have been incorrect in panegyrizing as a divine revelation1 if it amounted to no more than what was communicated to him by his brother ,andrew at the commencement of his discipleship4 ,equally unnatural is the manner in which ,jesus is said to have received ,simon4 ,he accosts him with the words1 ,thou art ,simon1 the son of ,jona1--a mode of salutation which seems1 as ,bengel has well remarked1 #hdc to imply that ,jesus had a supernatural acquaintance with the name and origin of a man previously unknown to him1 analogous to his cognizance of the number of the ,samaritan woman's husbands1 and of ,nathanael's presence under the fig-tree4 ,jesus then proceeds to bestow on ,simon the significant surname of ,cephas or ,peter4 ,if we are not inclined to degrade the speech of ,jesus into buffoonery1 by referring this appellation to the bodily organization of the disciple1 #hdd we must suppose that ,jesus at the first glance1 with the eye of him who knew hearts1 penetrated into the inmost nature of ,simon1 and discovered not only his general fitness for the apostleship1 but also the special1 individual qualities which rendered him comparable to a rock4 ,according to ,matthew1 it was not until after long intercourse with ,jesus1 and after he had given many manifestations of his peculiar character1 that this surname was conferred on ,simon1 accompanied by an explanation of its meaning 7xvi4 #ah73 evidently a much more natural account of the matter than that of the fourth ,evangelist1 who makes ,jesus discern at the first glance the future value of ,simon to his cause1 an odorando judicare which transcends the synoptical representation in the same ratio as the declaration1 ,thou shalt be called ,cephas1 presupposes a more intimate knowledge1 than the proposal1 ,i will make you fishers of men4 ,even after a more lengthened conversation with ,peter1 such as ,lcke supposes1 #hde ,jesus could not pronounce so decidedly on his character1 without being a searcher of hearts1 or falling under the imputation of forming too precipitate a judgment4 ,it is indeed possible that the ,christian legend1 attracted by the significance of the name1 may have represented ,jesus as its author1 while1 in fact1 ,simon had borne it from his birth4 ,the entire narrative concerning ,nathanael is a tissue of improbabilities4 ,when ,philip speaks to him of a ,messiah from ,nazareth1 he makes the celebrated answer1 ,can any good thing come out of ,nazareth 7v4 #dg78 ,there is no historical datum for supposing that ,nazareth1 when ,jesus began his ministry1 was the object of particular odium or contempt1 #hdf and there is every probability that the adversaries of ,christianity were the first to cast an aspersion on the native city of the ,messiah whom they rejected4 ,in the time of ,jesus1 ,nazareth was only depreciated by the ,jews1 as being a ,galilean city--a stigma which it bore in common with many others3 but in this sense it could not be despised by ,nathanael1 for he was himself a ,galilean 7xxi4 #b74 ,the only probable explanation is that a derisive question1 which1 at the time of the composition of the fourth gospel1 the ,christians had often to hear from their opponents1 was put into the mouth of a cotemporary of ,jesus1 that by the manner in which he was divested of his doubt1 others might be induced to comply with the invitation1 to come and see4 ,as ,nathanael approaches ,jesus1 the latter pronounces this judgment on his character1 ,behold an ,israelite indeed in whom is no guile 7v4 #dh76 ,paulus is of opinion that ,jesus might have previously gathered some intimations concerning ,nathanael at ,cana1 where he had just been attending a marriage of some relations4 #hdg ,but if ,jesus had become acquainted with ,nathanael's character in a natural way1 he must1 in answer to the question ,whence knowest thou me8 either have reminded him of the occasion on which they had had an earlier interview1 or referred to the favourable report of others4 ,instead of this he speaks of his knowledge that ,nathanael had been tarrying under a fig-tree3 a knowledge which from its result is evidently intended to appear supernatural4 ,now to use information1 obtained by ordinary means1 so as to induce a belief that it has been communicated supernaturally1 is charlatanism1 if anything deserve the name4 ,as1 however1 the narrator certainly did not mean to impute such artifice to ,jesus1 it is undeniably his intention to ascribe to him a supernatural knowledge of ,nathanael's character4 ,as little are the words1 ,when thou wast under the fig-tree1 ,i saw thee1 explained by the exclamation of ,paulus1 8,how often one sees and observes a man who is unconscious of one's gaze60 ,lcke and ,tholuck are also of opinion1 that ,jesus observed ,nathanael under the fig-tree in a natural manner2 they add1 however1 the conjecture1 that the latter was engaged in some occupation1 such as prayer or the study of the law1 which afforded ,jesus a key to his character4 ,but if ,jesus meant to imply1 8,how can ,i fail to be convinced of thy virtue1 having watched thee during thy earnest study of the law1 and thy fervent prayer under the fig-tree80 he would not have omitted the word 7praying71 or 7reading71 for want of which we can extract no other sense from his declaration than this3 8,thou mayest be assured of my power to penetrate into thy inmost soul1 from the fact that ,i beheld thee when thou wast in a situation from which all merely human observers were excluded40 ,here the whole stress is thrown not on any peculiarity in the situation of the person seen1 but on the fact that ,jesus saw him1 whence it is necessarily inferred that he did so by no ordinary1 natural means4 ,to imagine that ,jesus possessed such a second sight1 is1 we grant1 not a little extravagant2 but for that very reason1 it is the more accordant with the then existing notions of a prophet1 and of the ,messiah4 ,a like power of seeing and hearing beyond the limits assigned to human organs1 is attributed to ,elisha in the ,old ,testament4 ,when 7#b ,kings vi4 #h1 ff47 the king of ,syria makes war against ,israel1 ,elisha indicates to the king of ,israel every position of the enemy's camp2 and when the king of ,syria expresses his suspicion that he is betrayed by deserters1 he is told that the ,israelitish prophet knows all the words that he1 the king of ,syria1 speaks in his private chamber4 ,thus also 7xxi4 #cb71 ,elisha knows that ,joram has sent out messengers to murder him4 ,how could it be endured that the ,messiah should fall short of the prophet in his powers of vision8 ,this particular1 too1 enables our ,evangelist to form a climax1 in which ,jesus ascends from the penetration of one immediately present 7v4 #db71 to that of one approaching for the first time 7v4 #dh71 and finally1 to the perception of one out of the reach of human eyesight4 ,that ,jesus goes a step farther in the climax1 and says1 that this proof of his messianic second sight is a trifle compared with what ,nathanael has yet to see1--that on him1 the ,son of man1 the angels of ,god shall descend from the opened heavens 7v4 #ea71--;in nowise shows1 as ,paulus thinks1 that there was nothing miraculous in that first proof1 for there is a gradation even in miracles4 ,thus in the narrative of ,john we stumble at every step on difficulties1 in some instances greater than those with which the synoptical accounts are encumbered3 hence we learn as little from the one as the other1 concerning the manner in which the first disciples attached themselves to ,jesus4 ,i cannot agree with the author of the ,probabilia1 #hdh in deriving the divergency of the fourth ,evangelist from his predecessors1 from the wish to avoid mentioning the derided fishing trade of the most distinguished apostles2 since in chap4 xxi41 which ,bretschneider allows to be by the same hand as the rest of the gospel1 he unhesitatingly introduces the obnoxious employment4 ,i rather surmise that the idea of their having received their decisive apostolic call while actually engaged with their fishing-nets1 was not afloat in the tradition from which the fourth ,evangelist drew2 and that this writer formed his scenes1 partly on the probably historical report that some disciples of ,jesus had belonged to the school of the ,baptist1 and partly from the wish to represent in the most favourable light the relation between ,jesus and the ,baptist1 and the supernatural gifts of the former4 #ga4 ,,peter',s ,,draught ,,of ,,fishes4 ,we have hitherto examined only two accounts of the vocation of ,peter and his companions2 there is a third given by ,luke 7v4 #a-aa74 ,i shall not dilate on the minor points of difference #hdi between his narrative and that of the first two ,evangelists2 the essential distinction is1 that in ,luke the disciples do not1 as in ,matthew and ,mark1 unite themselves to ,jesus on a simple invitation1 but in consequence of a plentiful draught of fishes1 to which ,jesus has assisted ,simon4 ,if this feature be allowed to constitute ,luke's narrative a separate one from that of his predecessors1 we have next to inquire into its intrinsic credibility1 and then to ascertain its relation to that of ,matthew and ,mark4 ,jesus1 oppressed by the throng of people on the shore of the ,galilean sea1 enters into a ship1 that he may address them with more ease at a little distance from land4 ,having brought his discourse to a close1 he desires ,simon1 the owner of the boat1 to launch out into the deep1 and let down his nets for a draught4 ,simon1 although little encouraged by the poor result of the last night's fishing1 declares himself willing1 and is rewarded by so extraordinary a draught1 that ,peter and his partners1 ,james and ,john 7,andrew is not here mentioned71 are struck with astonishment1 the former even with awe1 before ,jesus1 as a superior being4 ,jesus then says to ,simon1 ,fear not2 from henceforth thou shalt catch men1 and the issue is that the three fishermen forsake all1 and follow him4 ,the rationalistic commentators take pains to show that what is above narrated might occur in a natural way4 ,according to them1 the astonishing consequence of letting down the net was the result of an accurate observation on the part of ,jesus1 assisted by a happy fortuity4 ,paulus #hej supposes that ,jesus at first wished to launch out farther into the deep merely to escape from the crowd1 and that it was not until after sailing to some distance1 that1 descrying a place where the fish were abundant1 he desired ,peter to let down the net4 ,but he has fallen into a twofold contradiction of the evangelical narrative4 ,in close connexion with the command to launch out into the deep1 ,jesus adds1 ,let down your nets for a draught 7 1 1 44471 as if this were one of his objects in changing the locality2 and if he spoke thus when at a little distance only from the shore1 his hope of a successful draught could not be the effect of his having observed a place abundant in fish on the main sea1 which the vessel had not yet reached4 ,our rationalists must therefore take refuge in the opinion of the author of the ,natural ,history of the ,great ,prophet of ,nazareth1 who says1 ,jesus conjectured on general grounds1 that under existing circumstances 7indicative probably of an approaching storm71 fishing in the middle of the sea would succeed better than it had done in the night4 ,but1 proceeding from the natural point of view1 how could ,jesus be a better judge in this matter than the men who had spent half their life on the sea in the employment of fishing8 ,certainly if the fishermen observed nothing which could give them hope of a plentiful draught1 neither in a natural manner could ,jesus2 and the agreement between his words and the result1 must1 adhering to the natural point of view1 be put down wholly to the account of chance4 ,but what senseless audacity1 to promise at random a success1 which1 judging from the occurrences of the past night1 was little likely to follow6 ,it is said1 however1 that ,jesus only desires ,peter to make another attempt1 without giving any definite promise4 ,but1 we must rejoin1 in the emphatic injunction1 which ,peter's remark on the inauspicious aspect of circumstances for fishing does not induce him to revoke1 there is a latent promise1 and the words1 ,let down your nets1 etc41 in the present passage1 can hardly have any other meaning than that plainly expressed in the similar scene1 ,john xxi4 #f1 ,cast the net on the right side of the ship1 and ye shall find4 ,when1 moreover1 ,peter retracts his objection in the words1 ,nevertheless at thy word ,i will let down the net1 1 though may be translated by command rather than by promise1 in either case he implies a hope that what ,jesus enjoins will not be without result4 ,if ,jesus had not intended to excite this hope1 he must immediately have put an end to it1 if he would not expose himself to disgrace in the event of failure2 and on no account ought he to have accepted the attitude and expressions of ,peter as his due1 if he had only merited them by a piece of lucky advice given at a venture4 ,the drift of the narrative1 then1 obliges us to admit that the writer intended to signalize a miracle4 ,this miracle may be viewed either as one of power1 or of knowledge4 ,if the former1 we are to conceive that ,jesus by his supernatural power1 caused the fish to congregate in that part of the sea where he commanded ,peter to cast in his net4 ,now that ,jesus should be able1 by the immediate action of his will1 to influence men1 in the nature of whose minds his spiritual energy might find a fulcrum1 may to a certain extent be conceived1 without any wide deviation from psychological laws2 but that he could thus influence irrational beings1 and those not isolated animals immediately present to him1 but shoals of fish in the depths of the sea1 it is impossible to imagine out of the domain of magic4 ,olshausen compares this operation of ,jesus to that of the divine omnipotence in the annual migrations of fish and birds2 #hea but the comparison is worse than lame1--it lacks all parallelism2 for the latter is an effect of the divine agency1 linked in the closest manner with all the other operations of ,god in external nature1 with the change of seasons1 etc42 while the former1 even presupposing ,jesus to be actually ,god1 would be an isolated act1 interrupting the chain of natural phenomena2 a distinction that removes any semblance of parallelism between the two cases4 ,allowing the possibility of such a miracle 7and from the supranaturalistic point of view1 nothing is in itself impossible71 did it subserve any apparent object1 adequate to determine ,jesus to so extravagant a use of his miraculous powers8 ,was it so important that ,peter should be inspired by this incident with a superstitious fear1 not accordant with the spirit of the ,new ,testament8 ,was this the only preparation for engrafting the true faith8 or did ,jesus believe that it was only by such signs that he could win disciples8 ,how little faith must he then have had in the force of mind and of truth6 how much too meanly must he have estimated ,peter1 who1 at a later period at least 7,john vi4 #fh71 clung to his society1 not on account of the miracles which he beheld ,jesus perform1 but for the sake of the words of eternal life which came from his lips6 ,under the pressure of these difficulties1 refuge may be sought in the other supposition as the more facile one2 namely1 that ,jesus1 by means of his superhuman knowledge1 was merely aware that in a certain place there was then to be found a multitude of fishes1 and that he communicated this information to ,peter4 ,if by this it be meant that ,jesus1 through the possession of an omniscience such as is commonly attributed to ,god1 knew at all times1 all the fish1 in all seas1 rivers and lakes2 there is an end to his human consciousness4 ,if1 however1 it be merely meant that when he crossed any water he became cognizant of its various tribes of fish1 with their relative position2 even this would be quite enough to encumber the space in his mind that was due to more weighty thoughts4 ,lastly1 if it be meant that he knew this1 not constantly and necessarily1 but as often as he wished2 it is impossible to understand how1 in a mind like that of ,jesus1 a desire for such knowledge should arise1--how he1 whose vocation had reference to the depths of the human heart1 should be tempted to occupy himself with the fish-frequented depths of the waters4 ,but before we pronounce on this narrative of ,luke1 we must consider it in relation to the cognate histories in the first two synoptical gospels4 ,the chronological relation of the respective events is the first point4 ,the supposition that the miraculous draught of fishes in ,luke was prior to the vocation narrated by the two other ,evangelists1 is excluded by the consideration1 that the firm attachment which that miracle awakened in the disciples1 would render a new call superfluous2 or by the still stronger objection1 that if an invitation1 accompanied by a miracle1 had not sufficed to ally the men to ,jesus1 he could hardly flatter himself that a subsequent bare summons1 unsupported by any miracle1 would have a better issue4 ,the contrary chronological position presents a better climax2 but why a second invitation1 if the first had succeeded8 ,for to suppose that the brethren who followed him on the first summons1 again left him until the second1 is to cut the knot1 instead of untying it4 ,still more complicated is the difficulty1 when we take in addition the narrative of the fourth ,evangelist3 for what shall we think of the connexion between ,jesus and his disciples1 if it began in the manner described by ,john2 if1 after this1 the disciples having from some unknown cause separated from their master1 he again called them1 as if nothing of the kind had before occurred1 on the shore of the ,galilean sea2 and if1 this invitation also producing no permanent adherence1 he for the third time summoned them to follow him1 fortifying this final experiment by a miracle8 ,the entire drift of ,luke's narrative is such as to exclude1 rather than to imply1 any earlier and more intimate relation between ,jesus and his ultimate disciples4 ,for the indifferent mention of two ships on the shore1 whose owners were gone out of them to wash their nets1 ,simon being unnamed until ,jesus chooses to avail himself of his boat1 seems1 as ,schleiermacher has convincingly shown1 #heb to convey the idea that the two parties were entire strangers to each other1 and that these incidents were preparatory to a relation yet to be formed1 not indicative of one already existing3 so that the healing of ,peter's mother-in-law1 previously recounted by ,luke1 either occurred1 like many other cures of ,jesus1 without producing any intimate connexion1 or has too early a date assigned to it by that ,evangelist4 ,the latter conjecture is supported by the fact that ,matthew places the miracle later4 ,thus1 it fares with the narrative of ,luke1 when viewed in relation to that of ,matthew and ,mark1 as it did with that of ,john1 when placed in the same light2 neither will bear the other to precede1 or to follow it1--in short1 they exclude each other4 #hec ,which then is the correct narrative8 ,schleiermacher prefers that of the ,evangelist on whom he has commented1 because it is more particular #hed2 and ,sieffert #hee has recently asserted with great emphasis1 that no one has ever yet doubted the superiority of ,luke's narrative1 as a faithful picture of the entire occurrence1 the number of its special1 dramatic1 and intrinsically authenticated details1 advantageously distinguishing it from the account in the first 7and second7 gospel1 which by its omission of the critical incident1 the turning point in the narrative 7the draught of fishes71 is characterized as the recital of one who was not an eye-witness4 ,i have already presented myself elsewhere #hef to this critic1 as one hardy enough to express the doubt of which he denies the existence1 and ,i here repeat the question3 supposing one only of the two narratives to have been modified by oral tradition1 which alternative is more in accordance with the nature of that means of transmission1--that the tangible fact of a draught of fishes should evaporate into a mere saying respecting fishers of men1 or that this figurative expression should be condensed into a literal history8 ,the answer to this question cannot be dubious2 for when was it in the nature of the legend to spiritualize8 to change the real1 such as the story of a miracle1 into the ideal1 such as a mere verbal image8 ,the stage of human culture to which the legend belongs1 and the mental faculty in which it originates1 demand that it should give a stable body to fleeting thought1 that it should counteract the ambiguity and changeableness of words1 by affixing them to the permanent and universally understood symbol of action4 ,it is easy to show how1 out of the expression preserved by the first ,evangelist1 the miraculous story of the third might be formed4 ,if ,jesus1 in allusion to the former occupation of some of his apostles1 had called them fishers of men2 if he had compared the kingdom of heaven to a net cast into the sea1 in which all kinds of fish were taken 7,matt4 xiii4 #dg72 it was but a following out of these ideas to represent the apostles as those who1 at the word of ,jesus1 cast out the net1 and gathered in the miraculous multitude of fishes4 #heg ,if we add to this1 that the ancient legend was fond of occupying its wonder-workers with affairs of fishing1 as we see in the story related of ,pythagoras by ,jamblichus and ,porphyry2 #heh it will no longer appear improbable1 that ,peter's miraculous draught of fishes is but the expression about the fishers of men1 transmuted into the history of a miracle1 and this view will at once set us free from all the difficulties that attend the natural1 as well as the supranatural interpretation of the narrative4 ,a similar miraculous draught of fishes is recorded in the appendix to the fourth gospel1 as having occurred after the resurrection 7ch4 xxi474 ,here again ,peter is fishing on the ,galilean sea1 in company with the sons of ,zebedee and some other disciples1 and again he has been toiling all night1 and has taken nothing4 #hei ,early in the morning1 ,jesus comes to the shore1 and asks1 without their recognising him1 if they have any meat8 ,on their answering in the negative1 he directs them to cast the net on the right side of the ship1 whereupon they have an extremely rich draught1 and are led by this sign to recognise ,jesus4 ,that this history is distinct from the one given by ,luke1 is1 from its great similarity1 scarcely conceivable2 the same narrative has doubtless been placed by tradition in different periods of the life of ,jesus4 #hfj ,let us now compare these three fishing histories1--the two narrated of ,jesus1 and that narrated of ,pythagoras1--and their mythical character will be obvious4 ,that which1 in ,luke1 is indubitably intended as a miracle of power1 is1 in the history of ,jamblichus1 a miracle of knowledge2 for ,pythagoras merely tells in a supernatural manner the number of fish already caught by natural means4 ,the narrative of ,john holds a middle place1 for in it also the number of the fish 7#aec7 plays a part2 but instead of being predetermined by the worker of the miracle1 it is simply stated by the narrator4 ,one legendary feature common to all the three narratives1 is the manner in which the multitude and weight of the fishes are described2 especially as this sameness of manner accompanies a diversity in particulars4 ,according to ,luke1 the multitude is so great that the net is broken1 one ship will not hold them1 and after they have been divided between the two vessels1 both threaten to sink4 ,in the view of the tradition given in the fourth gospel1 it was not calculated to magnify the power of the miraculous agent1 that the net which he had so marvellously filled should break2 but as here also the aim is to exalt the miracle by celebrating the number and weight of the fishes1 they are said to be 7great71 and it is added that the men were not able to draw the net for the multitude of fishes3 instead1 however1 of lapsing out of the miraculous into the common by the breaking of the net1 a second miracle is ingeniously made1--that for all there were so many1 yet was not the net broken4 ,jamblichus presents a further wonder 7the only one he has1 besides the knowledge of ,pythagoras as to the number of the fish73 namely1 that while the fish were being counted1 a process that must have required a considerable time1 not one of them died4 ,if there be a mind that1 not perceiving in the narratives we have compared the finger-marks of tradition1 and hence the legendary character of these evangelical anecdotes1 still leans to the historical interpretation1 whether natural or supernatural2 that mind must be alike ignorant of the true character both of legend and of history1 of the natural and the supernatural4 #gb4 ,,calling ,,of ,,matthew4 ,,connexion ,,of ,,jesus ,,with ,,the ,,publicans4 ,the first gospel 7ix4 #i ff47 tells of a man named ,matthew1 to whom1 when sitting at the receipt of custom1 ,jesus said1 ,follow me4 ,instead of ,matthew1 the second and third gospels have ,levi1 and ,mark adds he that was the son of ,alphus 7,mark ii4 #ad ff42 ,luke v4 #bg ff474 ,at the call of ,jesus1 ,luke says that he left all2 ,matthew merely states1 that he followed ,jesus and prepared a meal1 of which many publicans and sinners partook1 to the great scandal of the ,pharisees4 ,from the difference of the names it has been conjectured that the ,evangelists refer to two different events2 #hfa but this difference of the name is more than counterbalanced by the similarity of the circumstances4 ,in all the three cases the call of the publican is preceded and followed by the same occurrences2 the subject of the narrative is in the same situation2 ,jesus addresses him in the same words2 and the issue is the same4 #hfb ,hence the opinion is pretty general1 that the three synoptists have in this instance detailed only one event4 ,but did they also understand only one person under different names1 and was that person the ,apostle ,matthew8 ,this is commonly represented as conceivable on the supposition that ,levi was the proper name of the individual1 and ,matthew merely a surname2 #hfc or that after he had attached himself to ,jesus1 he exchanged the former for the latter4 #hfd ,to substantiate such an opinion1 there should be some indication that the ,evangelists who name the chosen publican ,levi1 intend under that designation no other than the ,matthew mentioned in their catalogues of the apostles 7,mark iii4 #ah2 ,luke vi4 #ae2 ,acts i4 #ac74 ,on the contrary1 in these catalogues1 where many surnames and double names occur1 not only do they omit the name of ,levi as the earlier or more proper appellation of ,matthew1 but they leave him undistinguished by the epithet1 7the publican71 added by the first ,evangelist in his catalogue 7x4 #c72 thus proving that they do not consider the ,apostle ,matthew to be identical with the ,levi summoned from the receipt of custom4 #hfe ,if then the ,evangelists describe the vocation of two different men in a precisely similar way1 it is improbable that there is accuracy on both sides1 since an event could hardly be repeated in its minute particulars4 ,one of the narratives1 therefore1 is in error2 and the burthen has been thrown on the first ,evangelist1 because he places the calling of ,matthew considerably after the ,sermon on the ,mount2 while according to ,luke 7vi4 #ac ff471 all the twelve had been chosen before that discourse was delivered4 #hff ,but this would only prove1 at the most1 that the first gospel gives a wrong position to the history2 not that it narrates that history incorrectly4 ,it is therefore unjust to impute special difficulties to the narrative of the first ,evangelist3 neither are such to be found in that of ,mark and ,luke1 unless it be thought an inconsistency in the latter to attribute a forsaking of all1 1 to one whom he does not include among the constant followers of ,jesus4 #hfg ,the only question is1 do they not labour under a common difficulty1 sufficient to stamp both accounts as unhistorical8 ,the close analogy between this call and that of the two pairs of brethren1 must excite attention4 ,they were summoned from their nets2 he from the custom-house2 as in their case1 so here1 nothing further is needed than a simple ,follow me2 and this call of the ,messiah has so irresistible a power over the mind of the called1 that the publican1 like the fishermen1 leaves all1 and follows him4 ,it is not to be denied1 that as ,jesus had been for a considerable time exercising his ministry in that country1 ,matthew must have long known him2 and this is the argument with which ,fritzsche repels the accusation of ,julian and ,porphyry1 who maintain that ,matthew here shows himself rash and inconsiderate4 ,but the longer ,jesus had observed him1 the more easily might he have found opportunity for drawing him gradually and quietly into his train1 instead of hurrying him in so tumultuary a manner from the midst of his business4 ,paulus indeed thinks that no call to discipleship1 no sudden forsaking of a previous occupation1 is here intended1 but that ,jesus having brought his teaching to a close1 merely signified to the friend who had given him an invitation to dinner1 that he was now ready to go home with him1 and sit down to table4 #hfh ,but the meal appears1 especially in ,luke1 to be the consequence1 and not the cause1 of the summons2 moreover1 a modest guest would say to the host who had invited him1 ,i will follow thee1 1 not ,follow me1 2 and in fine1 this interpretation renders the whole anecdote so trivial1 that it would have been better omitted4 #hfi ,hence the abruptness and impetuosity of the scene return upon us1 and we are compelled to pronounce that such is not the course of real life1 nor the procedure of a man who1 like ,jesus1 respects the laws and formalities of human society2 it is the procedure of legend and poetry1 which love contrasts1 and effective scenes1 which aim to give a graphic conception of a man's exit from an old sphere of life1 and his entrance into a new one1 by representing him as at once discarding the implements of his former trade1 leaving the scene of his daily business1 and straightway commencing a new life4 ,the historical germ of the story may be1 that ,jesus actually had publicans among his disciples1 and possibly that ,matthew was one4 ,these men had truly left the custom-house to follow ,jesus2 but only in the figurative sense of this concise expression1 not in the literal one depicted by the legend4 ,it is not less astonishing that the publican should have a great feast in readiness for ,jesus immediately after his call4 ,for that this feast was not prepared until the following day1 #hgj is directly opposed to the narratives1 the two first especially4 ,but it is entirely in the tone of the legend to demonstrate the joy of the publican1 and the condescension of ,jesus1 and to create an occasion for the reproaches cast on the latter on account of his intimacy with sinners1 by inventing a great feast1 given to the publicans at the house of their late associate immediately after his call4 ,another circumstance connected with this narrative merits particular attention4 ,according to the common opinion concerning the author of the first gospel1 ,matthew therein narrates his own call4 ,we may consider it granted that there are no positive indications of this in the narrative2 but it is not so clear that there are no negative indications which render it impossible or improbable4 ,that the ,evangelist does not here speak in the first person1 nor when describing events in which he had a share in the first person plural1 like the author of the ,acts of the ,apostles1 proves nothing2 for ,josephus and other historians not less classical1 write of themselves in the third person1 and the we of the pseudo-,matthew in the ,ebionite gospel has a very suspicious sound4 ,the use of the expression1 1 1 which the ,manicheans made an objection1 #hga as they did the above-mentioned circumstance1 is not without a precedent in the writings of ,xenophon1 who in his ,anabasis introduces himself as ,xenophon1 a certain ,athenian1 4 #hgb ,the ,greek1 however1 did not fall into this style from absorption in his subject1 nor from unaffected freedom from egotism1--causes which ,olshausen supposes in the ,evangelist2 but either from a wish not to pass for the author1 as an old tradition states1 #hgc or from considerations of taste1 neither of which motives will be attributed to ,matthew4 ,whether we are therefore to consider that expression as a sign that the author of the first gospel was not ,matthew1 may be difficult to decide3 #hgd but it is certain that this history of the publican's call is throughout less clearly narrated in that gospel than in the third4 ,in the former1 we are at a loss to understand why it is abruptly said that ,jesus sat at meat in the house1 if the ,evangelist were himself the hospitable publican1 since it would then seem most natural for him to let his joy on account of his call appear in the narrative1 by telling1 as ,luke does1 that he immediately made a great feast in his house4 ,to say that he withheld this from modesty1 is to invest a rude ,galilean of that age with the affectation belonging to the most refined self-consciousness of modern days4 ,to this feast at the publican's1 of which many of the same obnoxious class partook1 the ,evangelists annex the reproaches cast at the disciples by the ,pharisees and ,scribes1 because their master ate with publicans and sinners4 ,jesus1 being within hearing of the censure1 repelled it by the well-known text on the destination of the physician for the sick1 and the ,son of ,man for sinners 7,matt4 ix4 #aa ff4 parall474 ,that ,jesus should be frequently taunted by his pharisaical enemies with his too great predilection for the despised class of publicans 7comp4 ,matt4 xi4 #ai71 accords fully with the nature of his position1 and is therefore historical1 if anything be so3 the answer1 too1 which is here put into the mouth of ,jesus1 is from its pithy and concise character well adapted for literal transmission4 ,further1 it is not improbable that the reproach in question may have been especially called forth1 by the circumstance that ,jesus ate with publicans and sinners1 and went under their roofs4 ,but that the cavils of his opponents should have been accompaniments of the publican's dinner1 as the evangelical account leads us to infer1 especially that of ,mark 7v4 #af71 is not so easily conceivable4 #hge ,for as the feast was in the house 7 71 and as the disciples also partook of it1 how could the ,pharisees utter their reproaches to them1 while the meal was going forward1 without defiling themselves by becoming the guests of a man that was a sinner1--the very act which they reprehended in ,jesus8 7,luke xix4 #g74 ,it will hardly be supposed that they waited outside until the feast was ended4 ,it is difficult for ,schleiermacher to maintain1 even on the representation of ,luke taken singly1 that the evangelical narrative only implies1 that the publican's feast was the cause of the ,pharisees' censure1 and not that they were contemporary4 #hgf ,their immediate connexion might easily originate in a legendary manner2 in fact1 one scarcely knows how tradition1 in its process of transmuting the abstract into the concrete1 could represent the general idea that the ,pharisees had taken offence at the friendly intercourse of ,jesus with the publicans1 otherwise than thus3 ,jesus once feasted in a publican's house1 in company with many publicans2 the ,pharisees saw this1 went to the disciples and expressed their censure1 which ,jesus also heard1 and parried by a laconic answer4 ,after the ,pharisees1 ,matthew makes the disciples of ,john approach ,jesus with the question1 why his disciples did not fast1 as they did 7v4 #ad f472 in ,luke 7v4 #cc ff47 it is still the ,pharisees who vaunt their own fasts and those of ,john's disciples1 as contrasted with the eating and drinking of the disciples of ,jesus2 ,mark's account is not clear 7v4 #ah74 ,according to ,schleiermacher1 every unprejudiced person must perceive in the statement of ,matthew compared with that of ,luke1 the confusing emendations of a second editor1 who could not explain to himself how the ,pharisees came to appeal to the disciples of ,john2 whereas1 thinks ,schleiermacher1 the question would have been puerile in the mouth of the latter2 but it is easy to imagine that the ,pharisees might avail themselves of an external resemblance to the disciples of ,john when opposing ,jesus1 who had himself received baptism of that teacher4 ,it is certainly surprising that after the ,pharisees1 who were offended because ,jesus ate with publicans1 some disciples of ,john should step forth as if they had been cited for the purpose1 to censure generally the unrestricted eating and drinking of ,jesus and his disciples4 ,the probable explanation is1 that evangelical tradition associated the two circumstances from their intrinsic similarity1 and that the first ,evangelist erroneously gave them the additional connexion of time and place4 ,but the manner in which the third ,evangelist fuses the two particulars1 appears a yet more artificial combination1 and is certainly not historical1 because the reply of ,jesus could only be directed to ,john's disciples1 or to friendly inquirers3 to ,pharisees1 he would have given another and a more severe answer4 #hgg ,another narrative1 which is peculiar to ,luke 7xix4 #a-aj71 treats of the same relation as that concerning ,matthew or ,levi4 ,when ,jesus1 on his last journey to the feast1 passes through ,jericho1 a chief among the publicans1 named ,zacchus1 that he might1 notwithstanding his short stature1 get a sight of ,jesus among the crowd1 climbed a tree1 where ,jesus observed him1 and immediately held him worthy to entertain the ,messiah for the night4 ,here1 again1 the favour shown to a publican excites the discontent of the more rigid spectators2 and when ,zacchus has made vows of atonement and beneficence1 ,jesus again justifies himself1 on the ground that his office had reference to sinners4 ,the whole scene is very dramatic1 and this might be deemed by some an argument for its historical character2 but there are certain internal obstacles to its reception4 ,we are not led to infer that ,jesus previously knew ,zacchus1 or that some one pointed him out to ,jesus by name2 #hgh but1 as ,olshausen truly says1 the knowledge of ,zacchus that ,jesus here suddenly evinced1 is to be referred to his power of discerning what was in men without the aid of testimony4 ,we have before decided that this power is a legendary attribute2 hence the above particular1 at least1 cannot be historical1 and the narrative is possibly a variation on the same theme as that treated of in connexion with the account of ,matthew's call1 namely1 the friendly relation of ,jesus to the publicans4 #gc4 ,,the ,,twelve ,,apostles4 ,the men whose vocation we have been considering1 namely1 the sons of ,jonas and ,zebedee1 with ,philip and ,matthew 7,nathanael alone being excepted7 form the half of that narrow circle of disciples which appears throughout the ,new ,testament under the name of the twelve1 1 the twelve disciples or apostles1 or 4 ,the fundamental idea of the ,new ,testament writers concerning the twelve1 is that ,jesus himself chose them 7,mark iii4 #ac f42 ,luke vi4 #ac2 ,john vi4 #gj1 xv4 #af74 ,matthew does not give us the history of the choice of all the twelve1 but he tacitly presupposes it by introducing them as a college already instituted 7x4 #a74 ,luke1 on the contrary1 narrates how1 after a night spent on the mountain in vigils and prayer1 ,jesus selected twelve from the more extensive circle of his adherents1 and then descended with them to the plain1 to deliver what is called the ,sermon on the ,mount 7vi4 #ab74 ,mark also tells us in the same connexion1 that ,jesus when on a mountain made a voluntary choice of twelve from the mass of his disciples 7iii4 #ac74 ,according to ,luke1 ,jesus chose the twelve immediately before he delivered the ,sermon on the ,mount1 and apparently with reference to it2 but there is no discoverable motive which can explain this mode of associating the two events1 for the discourse was not specially addressed to the apostles1 #hgi neither had they any office to execute during its delivery4 ,mark's representation1 with the exception of the vague tradition from which he sets out1 that ,jesus chose the twelve1 seems to have been wrought out of his own imagination1 and furnishes no distinct notion of the occasion and manner of the choice4 #hhj ,matthew has adopted the best method in merely presupposing1 without describing1 the particular vocation of the apostles2 and ,john pursues the same plan1 beginning 7vi4 #fg7 to speak of the twelve1 without any previous notice of their appointment4 ,strictly speaking1 therefore1 it is merely presupposed in the gospels1 that ,jesus himself fixed the number of the apostles4 ,is this presupposition correct8 ,there certainly is little doubt that this number was fixed during the lifetime of ,jesus2 for not only does the author of the ,acts represent the twelve as so compact a body immediately after the ascension of their master1 that they think it incumbent on them to fill up the breach made by the apostasy of ,judas by the election of a new member 7i4 #ae ff472 but the ,apostle ,paul also notices an appearance of the risen ,jesus1 specially to the twelve 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #e74 ,schleiermacher1 however1 doubts whether ,jesus himself chose the twelve1 and he thinks it more probable that the peculiar relation ultimately borne to him by twelve from amongst his disciples1 gradually and spontaneously formed itself4 #hha ,we have1 indeed1 no warrant for supposing that the appointment of the twelve was a single solemn act2 on the contrary1 the gospels explicitly narrate1 that six of them were called singly1 or by pairs1 and on separate occasions2 but it is still a question whether the number twelve was not determined by ,jesus1 and whether he did not willingly abide by it as an expedient for checking the multiplication of his familiar companions4 ,the number is the less likely to have been fortuitous1 the more significant it is1 and the more evident the inducements to its choice by ,jesus4 ,he himself1 in promising the disciples 7,matt4 xix4 #bh7 that they shall sit on twelve thrones1 judging the twelve tribes of ,israel1 gives their number a relation to that of the tribes of his people2 and it was the opinion of the highest ,christian antiquity that this relation determined his choice4 #hhb ,if he and his disciples were primarily sent to the lost sheep of the house of ,israel 7,matt4 x4 #f1 xv4 #bd71 it might seem appropriate that the number of the shepherds should correspond to that of the shepherdless tribes 7,matt4 ix4 #cf74 ,the destination of the twelve is only generally intimated in ,john 7xv4 #af72 in ,mark1 on the contrary1 it is particularly1 and without doubt accurately1 stated4 ,he ordained twelve1 it is here said1 that they should be with him1 that is1 that he might not be without companionship1 aid1 and attendance on his journeys2 and accordingly we find them helpful to him in procuring lodgings 7,luke ix4 #cb2 ,matt4 xxvi4 #ag f471 food 7,john iv4 #h71 and other travelling requisites 7,matt4 xxi4 #a ff472 but above all they were in his society to become scribes well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven 7,matt4 xiii4 #eb74 ,to this end they had the opportunity of being present at most of the discourses of ,jesus1 and even of obtaining private elucidations of their meaning 7,matt4 xiii4 #aj ff41 #cf ff472 of purifying their minds by his severe but friendly discipline 7,matt4 viii4 #bf1 xvi4 #bc1 xviii4 #a ff4 #ba ff42 ,luke ix4 #ej1 #ee f42 ,john xiii4 #ab ff4 etc471 and of elevating their souls by the contemplation of his example 7,john xiv4 #ai74 ,another motive of ,jesus in choosing the twelve1 was1 according to ,mark1 that he might send them forth to preach1 that is1 to preach the kingdom of heaven during his life1 according to the immediate meaning of ,mark2 but the promulgation of his cause after his death1 must be supposed as an additional object on the part of ,jesus4 7,mark proceeds to enumerate the powers of healing and of casting out devils2 but on these points we cannot dilate until we reach a future stage of our inquiry47 ,it was this latter destination that won for them the distinguished name of apostles1 7,matt4 x4 #b2 ,mark vi4 #cj2 ,luke vii4 #ac1 etc474 ,it has been doubted whether ,jesus himself conferred this name on the twelve1 according to ,luke vi4 #ac1 and it has been suggested that it was not given them until later1 ex eventu4 #hhc ,but that ,jesus should have called them his envoys cannot be improbable1 if he really sent them on a journey to announce the approaching kingdom of the ,messiah4 ,we grant that it is possible to regard this journey as an event transposed from the period after the death of ,jesus to his lifetime1 in order that a sort of rehearsal of the subsequent mission of the apostles might pass under the eye of ,jesus2 but as it is not improbable that ,jesus1 perhaps even before he had a full conviction of his own ,messiahship1 sent out messengers to announce the ,messiah's kingdom1 we are not warranted to urge such a doubt4 ,john knows nothing of this mission1 recorded by the synoptists4 ,on the other hand1 they are ignorant of a circumstance alleged by ,john1 namely1 that the disciples baptized during the life of ,jesus 7iv4 #b74 ,according to the synoptical ,evangelists1 it was not until after the resurrection1 that ,jesus gave his disciples authority to baptize 7,matt4 xxviii4 #ai1 parall474 ,as1 however1 the rite of baptism was introduced by ,john1 and we have reason to believe that ,jesus1 for a time1 made that teacher his model1 it is highly probable that he and his disciples also practised baptism1 and hence that the positive statement of the fourth gospel is correct4 ,but the negative statement that ,jesus himself baptised not 7iv4 #b71 has the appearance of an after-thought1 intended to correct the import of the previous passages 7iii4 #bb1 iv4 #a71 and is most probably to be accounted for by the tendency of the fourth gospel to exalt ,jesus above the ,baptist1 and by a corresponding dread of making ,jesus exercise the function of the mere forerunner4 ,the question whether ,jesus did not baptize at least the apostles1 afterwards occasioned much demur in the church4 ,with the exception of the mission mentioned above1 the gospels speak of no important separation between ,jesus and his twelve disciples1 for there is nothing certain to be gathered from the resumption of their business after his death 7,john xxi4 #b ff474 ,no one could detect in our gospels any indications of a repeated interruption to the intercourse of ,jesus with his disciples1 but theologians1 whose harmonistic zeal wished to find room for a second and third vocation2 or expositors1 who1 in their unwearied application to details1 cast about for a means of subsistence for so many indigent men1 and thought it necessary to suppose that they were occasionally provided for by a return to their secular labours4 ,as to the subsistence of ,jesus and his disciples1 we have sufficient sources for it in the hospitality of the ,east1 which1 among the ,jews1 was especially available to the rabbins2 in the companionship of rich women who ministered unto him of their substance 7,luke viii4 #b f472 and finally in the 1 mentioned1 it is true1 only by the fourth ,evangelist 7xii4 #f1 xiii4 #bi71 which was ample enough to furnish assistance to the poor1 as well as to supply the wants of the society1 and in which1 it is probable1 presents from wealthy friends of ,jesus were deposited4 ,they who do not hold these means adequate without the labour of the disciples1 or who think1 on more general grounds1 that the total renunciation of their secular employment on the part of the twelve1 is improbable1 must not try to force their opinion on the ,evangelists1 who by the stress which they lay on the expression of the apostles1 we have left all 7,matt4 xix4 #bg ff471 plainly intimate the opposite view4 ,we gather1 as to the rank of the twelve disciples of ,jesus1 that they all belonged to the lower class3 four1 or perhaps more 7,john xxi4 #b71 were fishermen1 one a publican1 and for the others1 it is probable from the degree of cultivation they evince1 and the preference always expressed by ,jesus for the poor 1 and the little ones1 7,matt4 v4 #c1 xi4 #e1 #be71 that they were of a similar grade4 #gd4 ,,the ,,twelve ,,considered ,,individually4 ,,the ,,three ,,or ,,four ,,most ,,confidential ,,disciples ,,of ,,jesus4 ,we have in the ,new ,testament four catalogues of the apostles2 one in each of the synoptical gospels1 and one in the ,acts 7,matt4 x4 #b-d2 ,mark iii4 #f-aj2 ,luke vi4 #ad-af2 ,acts i4 #ac74 ,each of these four lists may be divided into three quaternions2 in each corresponding quaternion the first member is the same2 and in the last1 the concluding member also1 if we except ,acts i4 #ac1 where he is absent3 but the intermediate members are differently arranged1 and in the concluding quaternions there is a difference of names or of persons4 ,at the head of the first quaternion in all the catalogues1 and in ,matthew with the prefix 7the first71 stands ,simon ,peter1 the son of ,jonas 7,matt4 xvi4 #ag72 according to the fourth gospel1 of ,bethsaida 7i4 #de72 according to the synoptists1 resident in ,capernaum #hhd 7,matt4 viii4 #ad1 parall474 ,we hear an echo of the old polemical dispute1 when ,protestant expositors ascribe this position to mere chance1--an assumption which is opposed by the fact that all four of the catalogues agree in giving the precedence to ,peter1 though they differ in other points of arrangement2 or when those expositors allege1 in explanation1 that ,peter was first called1 #hhe which1 according to the fourth gospel1 was not the case4 ,that this invariable priority is indicative of a certain pre-eminence of ,peter among the twelve1 is evident from the part he plays elsewhere in the evangelical history4 ,ardent by nature1 he is always beforehand with the rest of the apostles1 whether in speech 7,matt4 xv4 #ae1 xvi4 #af1 #bb1 xvii4 #d1 xviii4 #ba1 xxvi4 #cc2 ,john vi4 #fh71 or in action 7,matt4 xiv4 #bh1 xxvi4 #eh2 ,john xviii4 #af72 and if it is not seldom the case that the speech and action are faulty1 and that his prompt courage quickly evaporates1 as his denial shows1 yet he is1 according to the synoptical statement1 the first who expresses a decided conviction of the ,messiahship of ,jesus 7,matt4 xvi4 #af1 parall474 ,it is true that of the eulogies and prerogatives bestowed on him on that occasion1 that which is implied in his surname is the only one that remains peculiarly his2 for the authority to bind and to loose1 that is1 to forbid and to permit1 #hhf in the newly-founded ,messianic kingdom1 is soon after extended to all the apostles 7xviii4 #ah74 ,yet more decidedly does this pre-eminence of ,peter among the original apostles appear in the ,acts1 and in the ,epistles of ,paul4 ,next to ,peter1 the catalogue of the first and third gospels places his brother ,andrew2 that of the second gospel and the ,acts1 ,james1 and after him1 ,john4 ,the first and third ,evangelists are evidently guided by the propriety of uniting the couples of brethren2 ,mark and the author of the ,acts1 by that of preferring the two apostles next in distinction to ,peter to the less conspicuous ,andrew1 whom they accordingly put last in the quaternion4 ,we have already considered the manner in which these four apostles are signalized in the ,christian legend by a special history of their vocation4 ,they appear together in other passages of ,mark2 first 7i4 #bi71 where ,jesus1 in company with the sons of ,zebedee1 enters the house of ,simon and ,andrew3 as1 however1 the other ,evangelists only mention ,peter on this occasion1 ,mark may have added the other names inferentially1 concluding that the four fishermen1 so recently called1 would not be apart from ,jesus1 and that ,andrew had a share in his brother's house1 a thing in itself probable4 #hhg ,again1 ,mark xiii4 #c1 our four apostles concur in asking ,jesus privately 7' 7 concerning the time of the destruction of the temple1 and of his second advent4 ,but the parallel passages in the other gospels do not thus particularize any of the disciples4 ,matthew says1 ,the disciples came to him privately 7xxiv4 #c72 hence it is probable that ,mark's limitation is an erroneous one4 ,possibly the words ' 1 being used in the document to which he referred to denote the separation of the twelve from the multitude1 appeared to him1 from association1 an introductory form1 of which there are other examples 7,matt4 xvii4 #a2 ,mark ix4 #b71 to a private conference of ,jesus with ,peter1 ,james and ,john1 to whom he might add ,andrew on account of the fraternity4 ,luke1 on the other hand1 in his account of the miraculous draught of fishes1 and the vocation of the fishermen 7v4 #aj71 omits ,andrew1 though he is included in the corresponding narratives1 probably because he does not elsewhere appear as one of the select apostles2 for except on the occasions already noticed1 he is only mentioned by ,john 7vi4 #i1 xii4 #bb71 and that in no very important connexion4 ,the two sons of ,zebedee are the only disciples whose distinction rivals that of ,peter4 ,like him1 they evince an ardent and somewhat rash zeal 7,luke ix4 #ed2 once ,john is named alone1 ,mark ix4 #ch2 ,luke ix4 #di72 and it was to this disposition1 apparently1 that they owed the surname ,sons of ,thunder1 7,mark iii4 #ag71 #hhh conferred on them by ,jesus4 ,so high did they stand among the twelve1 that either they 7,mark xi4 #ce ff471 or their mother for them 7,matt4 xx4 #bj ff471 thought they might claim the first place in the ,messiah's kingdom4 ,it is worthy of notice that not only in the four catalogues1 but elsewhere when the two brothers are named1 as in ,matt4 iv4 #ba1 xvii4 #a2 ,mark i4 #ai1 #bi1 v4 #cg1 ix4 #b1 x4 #ce1 xiii4 #c1 xiv4 #cc2 ,luke v4 #aj1 ix4 #ed2 with the exception of ,luke viii4 #ea1 ix4 #bh2 ,james is always mentioned first1 and ,john is appended to him as his brother 7 74 ,this is surprising2 because1 while we know nothing remarkable of ,james1 ,john is memorable as the favourite disciple of ,jesus4 ,hence it is supposed that this precedence cannot possibly denote a superiority of ,james to ,john1 and an explanation has been sought in his seniority4 #hhi ,nevertheless1 it remains a doubt whether so constant a precedence do not intimate a pre-eminence on the part of ,james2 at least1 if1 in the apprehension of the synoptists1 ,john had been as decidedly preferred as he is represented to have been in the fourth gospel1 we are inclined to think that they would have named him before his brother ,james1 even allowing him to be the younger4 ,this leads us to a difference between the first three ,evangelists and the fourth which requires a closer examination4 ,in the synoptical gospels1 as we have observed1 ,peter1 ,james1 and ,john1 form the select circle of disciples whom ,jesus admits to certain scenes1 which the rest of the twelve were not spiritually mature enough to comprehend2 as the transfiguration1 the conflict in ,gethsemane1 and1 according to ,mark 7v4 #cg71 the raising of the daughter of ,jairus4 #hij ,after the death of ,jesus1 also1 a ,james1 ,peter and ,john appear as the pillars of the church 7,gal4 ii4 #i72 this ,james1 however1 is not the son of ,zebedee1 who had been early put to death 7,acts xii4 #b71 but ,james1 the brother of the ,lord 7,gal4 i4 #ai71 who even in the first apostolic council appears to have possessed a predominant authority1 and whom many hold to be the second ,james of the apostolic catalogue given in ,acts i44 #hia ,it is observable from the beginning of the ,acts1 that ,james the son of ,zebedee is eclipsed by ,peter and ,john4 ,as1 then1 this ,james the elder was not enough distinguished or even known in the primitive church1 for his early martyrdom to have drawn much lustre on his name1 tradition had no inducement1 from subsequent events1 to reflect an unhistorical splendour on his relation to ,jesus2 there is therefore no reason to doubt the statement as to the prominent position held by ,james1 in conjunction with ,peter and ,john1 among the twelve apostles4 ,so much the more must it excite surprise to find1 in the fourth gospel the triumvirate almost converted into a monarchy3 ,james1 like another ,lepidus1 is wholly cast out1 while ,peter and ,john are in the position of ,antony and ,octavius1 the latter having nearly stripped his rival of all pretensions to an equal rank with himself1 to say nothing of a higher4 ,james is not even named in the fourth gospel2 only in the appendix 7xxi4 #b7 is there any mention of the sons of ,zebedee2 while several narratives of the vocations of different apostles are given1 apparently including that of ,john himself1 no ,james appears in them1 neither is there any speech of his1 as of many other apostles1 throughout this gospel4 ,quite differently does the fourth ,evangelist treat ,peter4 ,he makes him one of the first who enter the society of ,jesus1 and gives him a prominent importance not less often than the synoptists2 he does not conceal that ,jesus bestowed on him an honourable surname 7i4 #db72 he puts in his mouth 7vi4 #fh f47 a confession which seems but a new version of the celebrated one in ,matt4 xvi4 #af2 according to him1 ,peter once throws himself into the sea that he may more quickly reach ,jesus 7xxi4 #g72 at the last supper1 and in the garden of ,gethsemane1 he makes ,peter more active than even the synoptists represent him 7xiii4 #f ff41 xviii4 #aj f472 he accords him the honour of following ,jesus into the high priest's palace 7xviii4 #ae71 and of being one of the first to visit the grave of ,jesus after the resurrection 7xx4 #c ff472 nay1 he even details a special conversation between the risen ,jesus and ,peter 7xxi4 #ae ff474 ,but these advantages of ,peter are in the fourth gospel invalidated in a peculiar manner1 and put into the shade1 in favour of ,john4 ,the synoptists tell us that ,peter and ,john were called to the apostleship in the same way1 and the former somewhat before the latter2 the fourth ,evangelist prefers associating ,andrew with the nameless disciple who is taken for ,john1 and makes ,peter come to him through the instrumentality of his brother4 #hib ,he also admits the honourable interpretation of the surname ,peter1 and the panegyric on ,peter's confession2 but this he does in common with ,mark and ,luke1 while the speeches and the action attributed in the fourth gospel to ,peter during the last supper and in the garden1 are to be classed as only so many mistakes4 ,the more we approach the catastrophe1 the more marked is the subordination of ,peter to ,john4 ,at the last supper1 indeed1 ,peter is particularly anxious for the discovery of the traitor3 he cannot1 however1 apply immediately to ,jesus 7xiii4 #bc ff471 but is obliged to make ,john1 who was leaning on ,jesus' bosom1 his medium of communication4 ,while1 according to the synoptists1 ,peter alone followed ,jesus into the palace of the high priest2 according to the fourth ,evangelist1 ,john accompanied him1 and under such circumstances1 that without him ,peter could not have entered1--,john1 as one known to the high priest1 having to obtain admission for him 7xviii4 #ae f474 ,in the synoptical gospels1 not one of the disciples is bold enough to venture to the cross2 but in the fourth1 ,john is placed under it1 and is there established in a new relation to the mother of his dying master3 a relation of which we elsewhere find no trace 7xix4 #bf f474 ,on the appearance of the risen ,jesus at the ,galilean sea 7xxi471 ,peter1 as the 1 casts himself into the sea2 but it is not until after ,john1 as the 7,euthymius71 has recognized the ,lord in the person standing on the shore4 ,in the ensuing conversation1 ,peter is indeed honoured with the commission1 ,feed my sheep2 but this honour is overshadowed by the dubitative question1 ,lovest thou me8 and while the prospect of martyrdom is held up to him1 ,john is promised the distinction of tarrying till ,jesus came again1 an advantage which ,peter is warned not to envy4 ,lastly1 while1 according to ,luke 7xxiv4 #ab71 ,peter1 first among the apostles1 and alone1 comes to the vacant grave of his risen master1 the fourth gospel 7xx4 #c71 gives him a companion in ,john1 who outruns ,peter and arrives first at the grave4 ,peter goes into the grave before ,john1 it is true2 but it is the latter in whose honour it is recorded1 that he saw and believed1 almost in contradiction to the statement of ,luke1 that ,peter went home wondering in himself at that which was come to pass4 ,thus in the fourth gospel1 ,john1 both literally and figuratively1 outruns ,peter1 for the entire impression which the attentive reader must receive from the representation there given of the relative position of ,peter and ,john1 is that the writer wished a comparison to be drawn in favour of the latter4 #hic ,but ,john is moreover especially distinguished in the gospel which bears his name1 by the constant epithet1 the beloved disciple1 the disciple whom ,jesus loved1 1 or 7xiii4 #bc1 xix4 #bf1 xx4 #b1 xxi4 #g1 #bj74 ,it is true that we have no absolute proof from the contents of the fourth gospel1 whether intrinsically or comparatively considered1 that by the above formula1 or the more indeterminate one1 the other 1 or another disciple1 7x4 #ae f41 xx4 #c1 #d1 #h71 which1 as it appears from xx4 #b f41 is its equivalent1 we are to understand the ,apostle ,john4 ,for neither is the designation in question anywhere used interchangeably with the name of the apostle1 nor is there anything narrated in the fourth gospel of the favourite disciple1 which in the three first is ascribed to ,john4 ,because in xxi4 #b the sons of ,zebedee are named among the assistants1 it does not follow that the disciple mentioned in v4 #g as the one whom ,jesus loved must be ,john2 ,james1 or the one of the two other disciples mentioned in v4 #b1 might be meant4 ,nevertheless1 it is the immemorial tradition of the church that the disciple whom ,jesus loved was ,john1 nor are all reasons for such a belief extinct even to us2 for in the ,greek circle from which the fourth gospel sprang1 there could scarcely be among the apostles whom it leaves unnamed1 one so well known as to be recognized under that description unless it were ,john1 whose residence at ,ephesus is hardly to be rejected as a mere fable4 ,it may appear more doubtful whether the author intended by this title to designate himself1 and thus to announce himself as the ,apostle ,john4 ,the conclusion of the twenty-first chapter1 v4 #bd1 does certainly make the favourite disciple the testifier and writer of the preceding history2 but we may assume it as granted that this passage is an addition by a strange hand4 #hid ,when1 however1 in the genuine text of the gospel 7xix4 #ce71 the writer says of the effect produced by the piercing of the side of ,jesus1 he that saw bare record1 1 no other than the favourite disciple can be intended1 because he alone among all the disciples 7the only parties eligible as witnesses in the case71 is supposed to be present at the cross4 ,the probability that the author here speaks of himself is not at all affected by his use of the third person2 but the preterite annexed to it may well excite a doubt whether an appeal be not here made to the testimony of ,john1 as one distinct from the writer4 #hie ,this mode of expression1 however1 may be explained also in accordance with the other supposition1 #hif which is supported by the circumstance that the author in i4 #ad1 #af1 seems to announce himself as the eye-witness of the history he narrates4 ,was that author1 then1 really the ,apostle ,john1 as he apparently wishes us to surmise8 ,this is another question on which we can only pronounce when we shall have completed our investigation4 ,we will merely allude to the difficulty of supposing that the ,apostle ,john could give so unhistorical a sketch of the ,baptist as that in the fourth gospel4 ,but we ask1 is it at all probable that the real ,john would so unbecomingly neglect the well-founded claims of his brother ,james to a special notice8 and is not such an omission rather indicative of a late ,hellenistic author1 who scarcely had heard the name of the brother so early martyred8 ,the designation1 the disciple whom ,jesus loved1 which in xxi4 #bj has the prolix addition1 who also leaned on his breast at supper1 and said1 ,lord which is he that betrayeth thee8 is not to be considered as an offence against modesty4 #hig ,it is certainly far too laboured and embellished for one who1 without any ulterior view1 wishes to indicate himself1 for such an one would1 at least sometimes1 have simply employed his name3 but a venerator of ,john1 issuing perhaps from one of his schools1 might very naturally be induced to designate the revered apostle1 under whose name he wished to write1 in this half honourable1 half mysterious manner4 #hih #ge4 ,,the ,,rest ,,of ,,the ,,twelve1 ,,and ,,the ,,seventy ,,disciples4 ,the second quaternion in all the four catalogues begins with ,philip4 ,the three first gospels know nothing more of him than his name4 ,the fourth alone gives his birth-place1 ,bethsaida1 and narrates his vocation 7i4 #dd f472 in this gospel he is more than once an interlocutor1 but his observations are founded on mistakes 7vi4 #g1 xiv4 #h72 and he perhaps appears with most dignity1 when the 1 who wish to see ,jesus1 apply immediately to him 7xii4 #ba74 ,the next in the evangelical lists is ,bartholomew2 a name which is nowhere found out of the catalogues4 ,in the synoptical gospels ,bartholomew is coupled with ,philip2 in the history of the vocations given by the fourth ,evangelist 7i4 #df71 ,nathanael appears in company with the latter and 7xxi4 #b7 is again presented in the society of the apostles4 ,nathanael1 however1 finds no place among the twelve1 unless he be identical with one otherwise named by the synoptists4 ,if so1 it is thought that ,bartholomew is the most easily adapted to such an alias1 as the three first gospels couple him with ,philip1 just as the fourth1 which has no ,bartholomew1 does ,nathanael2 to which it may be added that is a mere patronymic1 which must have been accompanied by a proper name1 such as ,nathanael4 #hii ,but we have no adequate ground for such an identification1 since the juxtaposition of ,bartholomew and ,philip is shown to be accidental1 by our finding the former 7,acts i4 #ac71 as well as the latter 7,john xxi4 #b71 linked with different names2 the absence of ,bartholomew from the fourth gospel is not peculiar to him among the twelve2 finally1 second names as surnames were added to proper as well as to patronymic names1 as ,simon ,peter1 ,joseph ,caiaphas1 ,john ,mark1 and the like2 so that any other apostle not named by ,john might be equally well identified with ,nathanael1 and hence the supposed relation between the two appellations is altogether uncertain4 ,in the catalogue given in the ,acts1 ,philip is followed1 not by ,bartholomew1 but by ,thomas1 who in the list of the first gospel comes after ,bartholomew1 in that of the others1 after ,matthew4 ,thomas1 in ,greek 1 appears in the fourth gospel1 on one occasion1 in the guise of mournful fidelity 7xi4 #af72 on another1 in the more noted one of incredulity 7xx4 #bd ff472 and once again in the appendix 7xxi4 #b74 ,matthew1 the next in the series1 is found nowhere else except in the history of his vocation4 ,the third quaternion is uniformly opened by ,james the son of ,alpheus1 of whom we have already spoken4 ,after him comes in both ,luke's lists1 ,simon1 whom he calls ,zelotes1 or the zealot1 but whom ,matthew and ,mark 7in whose catalogues he is placed one degree lower7 distinguish as the ,cannanite 7from 1 to be zealous74 ,this surname seems to mark him as a former adherent of the ,jewish sect of zealots for religion1 #ijj a party which1 it is true1 did not attain consistence until the latest period of the ,jewish state1 but which was already in the process of formation4 ,in all the lists that retain the name of ,judas ,iscariot1 he occupies the last place1 but of him we must not speak until we enter on the history of the ,passion4 ,luke1 in his filling up of the remaining places of this quaternion1 differs from the two other ,evangelists1 and perhaps these also differ from each other2 ,luke has a second ,judas1 whom he styles the brother of ,james2 ,matthew1 ,lebbeus2 and ,mark1 ,thaddeus4 ,it is true that we now commonly read in ,matthew1 ,lebbeus1 whose surname was ,thaddeus2 but the vacillation in the early readings seems to betray these words to be a later addition intended to reconcile the first two ,evangelists2 #ija an attempt which others have made by pointing out a similarity of meaning between the two names1 though such a similarity does not exist4 #ijb ,but allowing validity to one or other of these harmonizing efforts1 there yet remains a discrepancy between ,matthew and ,mark with their ,lebbeus-,thaddeus1 and ,luke with his ,judas1 the brother of ,james4 ,schleiermacher justly disapproves the expedients1 almost all of them constrained and unnatural1 which have been resorted to for the sake of proving that here also1 we have but one person under two different names4 ,he seeks to explain the divergency1 by supposing1 that during the lifetime of ,jesus1 one of the two men died or left the circle of the apostles1 and the other took his place2 so that one list gives the earlier1 the other the later member4 #ijc ,but it is scarcely possible to admit that any one of our catalogues was drawn up during the life of ,jesus2 and after that period1 no writer would think of including a member who had previously retired from the college of apostles2 those only would be enumerated who were ultimately attached to ,jesus4 ,it is the most reasonable to allow that there is a discrepancy between the lists1 since it is easy to account for it by the probability that while the number of the apostles1 and the names of the most distinguished among them1 were well known1 varying traditions supplied the place of more positive data concerning the less conspicuous4 ,luke makes us acquainted with a circle of disciples1 intermediate to the twelve and the mass of the partisans of ,jesus4 ,he tells us 7x4 #a ff47 that besides the twelve1 ,jesus chose other seventy also1 and sent them two and two before him into all the districts which he intended to visit on his last journey1 that they might proclaim the approach of the kingdom of heaven4 ,as the other ,evangelists have no allusion to this event1 the most recent critics have not hesitated to make their silence on this head a reproach to them1 particularly to the first ,evangelist1 in his supposed character of apostle4 #ijd ,but the disfavour towards ,matthew on this score ought to be moderated by the consideration1 that neither in the other gospels1 nor in the ,acts1 nor in any apostolic epistle1 is there any trace of the seventy disciples1 who could scarcely have passed thus unnoticed1 had their mission been as fruitful in consequences1 as it is commonly supposed4 ,it is said1 however1 that the importance of this appointment lay in its significance1 rather than in its effects4 ,as the number of the twelve apostles1 by its relation to that of the tribes of ,israel1 shadowed forth the destination of ,jesus for the ,jewish people2 so the seventy1 or as some authorities have it1 the seventy-two disciples1 were representatives of the seventy or seventy-two peoples1 with as many different tongues1 which1 according to the ,jewish and early ,christian view1 formed the sum of the earth's inhabitants1 #ije and hence they denoted the universal destination of ,jesus and his kingdom4 #ijf ,moreover1 seventy was a sacred number with the ,jewish nation2 ,moses deputed seventy elders 7,num4 xi4 #af1 #be72 the ,sanhedrim had seventy members2 #ijg the ,old ,testament1 seventy translators4 ,had ,jesus1 then1 under the pressing circumstances that mark his public career1 nothing more important to do than to cast about for significant numbers1 and to surround himself with inner and outer circles of disciples1 regulated by these mystic measures8 or rather1 is not this constant preference for sacred numbers1 this assiduous development of an idea to which the number of the apostles furnished the suggestion1 wholly in the spirit of the primitive ,christian legend8 ,this1 supposing it imbued with ,jewish prepossessions1 would infer1 that as ,jesus had respect to the twelve tribes in fixing the number of his apostles1 he would extend the parallel by appointing seventy subordinate disciples1 corresponding to the seventy elders2 or1 supposing the legend animated by the more universal sentiments of ,paul1 it could not escape the persuasion that to the symbol of the relation of his office to the ,israelitish people1 ,jesus would annex another1 significative of its destination for all the kindreds of the earth4 ,however agreeable this class of seventy disciples may have always been to the church1 as a series of niches for the reception of men who1 without belonging to the twelve1 were yet of importance to her1 as ,mark1 ,luke and ,matthew2 we are compelled to pronounce the decision of our most recent critic precipitate1 and to admit that the ,gospel of ,luke1 by its acceptance of such a narrative1 destitute as it is of all historical confirmation1 and of any other apparent source than dogmatical interests1 is placed in disadvantageous comparison with that of ,matthew4 ,we gather1 indeed1 from ,acts i4 #ba f4 that ,jesus had more than the twelve as his constant companions2 but that these formed a body of exactly seventy1 or that that number was selected from them1 does not seem adequately warranted #ijh4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,discourses ,,of ,,jesus ,,in ,,the ,,three ,,first ,,gospels4 #iji #gf4 ,,the ,,sermon ,,on ,,the ,,mount4 ,in reviewing the public life of ,jesus1 we may separate from the events those discourses which were not merely incidental1 but which stand independent and entire4 ,this distinction1 however1 is not precise1 for many discourses1 owing to the occurrences that suggested them1 may be classed as events2 and many events1 from the explanations annexed to them1 seem to range themselves with the discourses4 ,the discourses of ,jesus given in the synoptical gospels1 and those attributed to him in the fourth1 differ widely both in form and matter1 having only a few isolated sentences in common3 they must1 therefore1 be subjected to a separate examination4 ,again1 there is a dissimilitude between the three first ,evangelists3 ,matthew affects long discourses1 and collects into one mass a number of sayings1 which in ,luke are distributed among various places and occasions2 each of these two ,evangelists has also some discourses peculiar to himself4 ,in ,mark1 the element of discourses exists in a very small proportion4 ,our purpose will1 therefore1 be best answered1 if we make ,matthew's comprehensive discourses our starting point2 ascertain all the corresponding ones in the other gospels2 inquire which amongst them has the best arrangement and representation of these discourses2 and1 finally1 endeavour to form a judgment as to how far they really proceeded from the lips of ,jesus4 ,the first long discourse in ,matthew is that known as the ,sermon on the ,mount 7v4-vii474 ,the ,evangelist1 having recorded the return of ,jesus after his baptism into ,galilee1 and the calling of the fishermen1 informs us1 that ,jesus went through all ,galilee1 teaching and healing2 that great multitudes followed him from all parts of ,palestine2 and that for their instruction he ascended a mountain1 and delivered the sermon in question 7iv4 #bc ff474 ,we seek in vain for its parallel in ,mark1 but ,luke 7vi4 #bj-di7 gives a discourse which has the same introduction and conclusion1 and presents in its whole tenor the most striking similarity with that of ,matthew2 moreover1 in both cases1 ,jesus1 at the termination of his discourse1 goes to ,capernaum1 and heals the centurion's servant4 ,it is true that ,luke gives a later insertion to the discourse1 for previous to it he narrates many journeyings and cures of ,jesus1 which ,matthew places after it2 and while the latter represents ,jesus as ascending a mountain1 and being seated there during delivery of his discourse1 ,luke says1 almost in contradiction to him1 that ,jesus came down and stood in the plain4 ,further1 the sermon in ,luke contains but a fourth part of that in ,matthew1 while it has some elements peculiarly its own4 ,to avoid the unpleasant admission that one of two inspired ,evangelists must be in error1--which is inevitable if in relation to the same discourse one of them makes ,jesus deliver it on the mountain1 the other in the plain2 the one sitting1 the other standing2 the one earlier1 the other later2 if either the one has made important omissions1 or the other as important additions2--the ancient harmonists pronounced these discourses to be distinct1 #iaj on the plea that ,jesus must frequently have treated of the essential points of his doctrine1 and may therefore have repeated word for word certain impressive enunciations4 ,this may be positively denied with respect to long discourses1 and even concise maxims will always be reproduced in a new guise and connexion by a gifted and inventive teacher2 to say the least1 it is impossible that any but a very barren mind should repeat the same formal exordium1 and the same concluding illustration1 on separate occasions4 ,the identity of the discourses being established1 the first effort was to conciliate or to explain the divergencies between the two accounts so as to leave their credibility unimpeached4 ,in reference to the different designation of the locality1 ,paulus insists on the of ,luke1 which he interprets to imply that ,jesus stood over the plain1 and therefore on a hill4 ,tholuck1 more happily1 distinguishes the level space1 1 from the plain properly so called1 and regards it as a less abrupt part of the mountain4 ,but as one ,evangelist makes ,jesus ascend the mountain to deliver his discourse1 while the other makes him descend for the same purpose1 these conciliators ought to admit1 with ,olshausen1 that if ,jesus taught in the plain1 according to ,luke1 ,matthew has overlooked the descent that preceded the discourse2 or if1 as ,matthew says1 ,jesus taught seated on the mountain1 ,luke has forgotten to mention that after he had descended1 the pressure of the crowd induced him to reascend before he commenced his harangue4 ,and without doubt each was ignorant of what he omits1 but each knew that tradition associated this discourse with a sojourn of ,jesus on a mountain4 ,matthew thought the mountain a convenient elevation for one addressing a multitude2 ,luke1 on the contrary1 imagined a descent necessary for the purpose3 hence the double discrepancy1 for he who teaches from a mountain is sufficiently elevated over his hearers to sit1 but he who teaches in a plain will naturally stand4 ,the chronological divergencies1 as well as the local1 must be admitted1 if we would abstain from fruitless efforts at conciliation4 #iaa ,the difference as to the length and contents of the discourse is susceptible of three explanations3 either the concise record of ,luke is a mere extract from the entire discourse which ,matthew gives without abridgment2 or ,matthew has incorporated many sayings belonging properly to other occasions2 or1 lastly1 both these causes of variety have concurred4 ,he who1 with ,tholuck1 wishes to preserve intact the fides divina1 or with ,paulus1 the fides humana of the ,evangelists1 will prefer the first supposition1 because to withhold the true is more innocent than to add the false4 ,the above theologians hold that the train of thought in the ,sermon on the ,mount1 as given by ,matthew1 is closely consecutive1 and that this is a proof of its original unity4 ,but any compiler not totally devoid of ability1 can give a tolerable appearance of connectedness to sayings which did not originally belong to each other2 and even these commentators are obliged to admit #iab that the alleged consecutiveness extends over no more than half the sermon1 for from vi4 #ai it is a string of more or less isolated sentences1 some of them very unlikely to have been uttered on the occasion4 ,more recent criticism has therefore decided that the shorter account of ,luke presents the discourse of ,jesus in its original form1 and that ,matthew has taken the licence of incorporating with this much that was uttered by ,jesus at various times1 so as to retain the general sketch--the exordium1 peroration1 and essential train of thought2 while between these compartments he inserted many sayings more or less analogous borrowed from elsewhere4 #iac ,this view is especially supported by the fact that many of the sentences1 which in ,matthew make part of the ,sermon on the ,mount1 are in ,mark and ,luke dispersed through a variety of scenes4 ,compelled to grant this1 yet earnestly solicitous to avert from the ,evangelist an imputation that might invalidate his claim to be considered an eye-witness1 other theologians maintain that ,matthew did not compile the discourse under the idea that it was actually spoken on a single occasion1 but with the clearest knowledge that such was not the case4 #iad ,it is with justice remarked in opposition to this1 that when ,matthew represents ,jesus as ascending the mountain before he begins his discourse1 and descending after its close1 he obviously makes these two incidents the limits of a single address2 and that when he speaks of the impression which the discourse produced on the multitude1 whose presence he states as the inducement to its delivery1 he could not but intend to convey the idea of a continuous harangue4 #iae ,as to ,luke's edition of the sermon1 there are parts in which the interrupted connexion betrays deficiencies1 and there are additions which do not look genuine2 #iaf it is also doubtful whether he assigns a more appropriate connexion to the passages in the position of which he differs from ,matthew2 #iag and hence1 as we shall soon see more fully1 he has in this instance no advantage over his predecessor4 ,the assemblage to whom the ,sermon on the ,mount was addressed1 might from ,luke's account be supposed a narrow circle1 for he states that the choice of the apostles immediately preceded the discourse1 and that at its commencement ,jesus lifted up his eyes on his disciples1 and he does not1 like ,matthew1 note the multitude1 1 as part of the audience4 ,on the other hand1 ,matthew also mentions that before the sermon the disciples gathered round ,jesus and were taught by him2 and ,luke represents the discourse as being delivered in the audience of the people 7vii4 #a72 it is therefore evident that ,jesus spoke to the crowd in general1 but with a particular view to the edification of his disciples4 #iah ,we have no reason to doubt that a real harangue of ,jesus1 more than ordinarily solemn and public1 was the foundation of the evangelical accounts before us4 ,let us now proceed to an examination of particulars4 ,in both editions1 the ,sermon on the ,mount is opened by a series of beatitudes2 in ,luke1 however1 not only are several wanting which we find in ,matthew1 but most of those common to both are in the former taken in another sense than in the latter4 #iai ,the poor1 1 are not specified as in ,matthew by the addition1 in spirit1 2 they are therefore not those who have a deep consciousness of inward poverty and misery1 but the literally poor2 neither is the hunger of the 7hungering7 referred to 7righteousness72 it is therefore not spiritual hunger1 but bodily2 moreover1 the adverb 1 now1 definitely marks out those who hunger and those who weep1 the and 4 ,thus in ,luke the antithesis is not1 as in ,matthew1 between the present sorrows of pious souls1 whose pure desires are yet unsatisfied1 and their satisfaction about to come2 but between present suffering and future well-being in general4 #ibj ,this mode of contrasting the and the 1 the present age and the future1 is elsewhere observable in ,luke1 especially in the parable of the rich man2 and without here inquiring which of the two representations is probably the original1 ,i shall merely remark1 that this of ,luke is conceived entirely in the spirit of the ,ebionites1--a spirit which has of late been supposed discernible in ,matthew4 ,it is a capital principle with the ,ebionites1 as they are depicted in the ,clementine ,homilies1 that he who has his portion in the present age1 will be destitute in the age to come2 while he who renounces earthly possessions1 thereby accumulates heavenly treasures4 #iba ,the last beatitude relates to those who are persecuted for the sake of ,jesus4 ,luke in the parallel passage has1 for the ,son of man's sake2 hence the words for my sake in ,matthew1 must be understood to refer to ,jesus solely in his character of ,messiah4 #ibb ,the beatitudes are followed in ,luke by as many woes 1 which are wanting in ,matthew4 ,in these the opposition established by the ,ebionites between this world and the other1 is yet more strongly marked2 for woe is denounced on the rich1 the full1 and the joyous1 simply as such1 and they are threatened with the evils corresponding to their present advantages1 under the new order of things to be introduced by the ,messiah2 a view that reminds us of the ,epistle of ,james1 v4 #a ff4 ,the last woe is somewhat stiffly formed after the model of the last beatitude1 for it is evidently for the sake of the contrast to the true prophets1 so much calumniated1 that the false prophets are said1 without any historical foundation1 to have been spoken well of by all men4 ,we may therefore conjecture1 with ,schleiermacher1 #ibc that we are indebted for these maledictions to the inventive fertility of the author of the third gospel4 ,he added this supplement to the beatitudes1 less because1 as ,schleiermacher supposes1 he perceived a chasm1 which he knew not how to fill1 than because he judged it consistent with the character of the ,messiah1 that1 like ,moses of old1 he should couple curses with blessings4 ,the ,sermon on the ,mount is regarded as the counterpart of the law1 delivered on ,mount ,sinai2 but the introduction1 especially in ,luke1 reminds us more of a passage in ,deuteronomy1 in which ,moses commands that on the entrance of the ,israelitish people into the promised land1 one half of them shall take their stand on ,mount ,gerizim1 and pronounce a manifold blessing on the observers of the law1 the other half on ,mount ,ebal1 whence they were to fulminate as manifold a curse on its transgressors4 ,we read in ,josh4 viii4 #cc ff4 that this injunction was fulfilled4 #ibd ,with the beatitudes1 ,matthew suitably connects the representation of the disciples as the salt of the earth1 and the light of the world 7v4 #ac ff474 ,in ,luke1 the discourse on the salt is1 with a rather different opening1 introduced in another place 7xiv4 #cd f471 where ,jesus admonishes his hearers to ponder the sacrifices that must be made by those who would follow him1 and rather to abstain from the profession of discipleship than to maintain it dishonourably2 and to this succeeds aptly enough the comparison of such degenerate disciples to salt that has lost its savour4 ,thus the dictum accords with either context1 and from its aphoristical conciseness would be likely to recur1 so that it may have been really spoken in both discourses4 ,on the contrary1 it cannot have been spoken in the sequence in which it is placed by ,mark 7ix4 #ej73 for the idea that every one shall be salted with fire 7in allusion to hell71 has no internal connexion with the comparison of the true disciples of ,jesus to salt1 denoting their superiority3 the connexion is merely external1 resulting from the verbal affinity of and 1--it is the connexion of the dictionary4 #ibe ,the altered sequel which ,mark gives to the apothegm 7have salt in yourselves1 and be at peace with one another7 might certainly be united to it without incongruity1 but it would accord equally well with quite a different train of thought4 ,the apothegm on the light which is not to be hidden1 as the salt is not to be without savour1 is also wanting in the ,sermon on the ,mount as given by ,luke2 who1 however1 omitting the special application to the disciples1 has substantially the same doctrine in two different places4 ,we find it first 7viii4 #af7 immediately after the interpretation of the parable of the sower1 where it also occurs in ,mark 7iv4 #ba71 ,it must be admitted that there is no incoherence in associating the shining of the light with the fructification of the seed2 still1 a judicious teacher will pause on the interpretation of a parable1 and will not disturb its effect by a hasty transition to new images4 ,at any rate there is no intrinsic connexion between the shining of the inward light1 and the declaration appended to it by ,luke1 that all secrets shall be made manifest4 ,we have here a case which is of frequent recurrence with this ,evangelist2 that1 namely1 of a variety of isolated sayings being thrown confusedly together between two independent discourses or narratives4 ,thus between the parable of the sower and the narrative of the visit paid to ,jesus by his mother and brethren1 the apothegm on the light is inserted on account of its internal analogy with the parable2 then1 because in this apothegm there occurs the opposition between concealment and manifestation1 it suggested to the writer the otherwise heterogeneous discourse on the revelation of all secrets2 whereupon is added1 quite irrelevantly to the context1 but with some relation to the parable1 the declaration1 ,whosoever hath1 to him shall be given4 ,in the second passage on the manifestation of the light 7xi4 #cc71 the subject has absolutely no connexion1 unless we interpolate one #ibf with that of the context1 which turns on the condemnation of the cotemporaries of ,jesus by the ,ninevites4 ,the fact is1 that here again1 between the discourses against the demand for signs and those at the ,pharisee's dinner1 we have a chasm filled up with disjointed fragments of harangues4 ,at v4 #ag ff4 follows the transition to the main subject of the sermon2 the assurance of ,jesus that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets1 but to fulfil1 etc4 ,now as ,jesus herein plainly presupposes that he is himself the ,messiah1 to whom was ascribed authority to abolish a part of the law1 this declaration cannot properly belong to a period in which1 if ,matt4 xvi4 #ac ff4 be rightly placed1 he had not yet declared himself to be the ,messiah4 ,luke 7xvi4 #ag7 inserts this declaration together with the apparently contradictory one1 that the law and the prophets were in force until the coming of ,john4 ,these are two propositions that we cannot suppose to have been uttered consecutively2 and the secret of their conjunction in ,luke's gospel lies in the word 1 law1 which happens to occur in both4 #ibg ,it is to be observed that between the parable of the steward and that of the rich man1 we have another of those pauses in which ,luke is fond of introducing his fragments4 ,so little1 it appears from v4 #bj1 is it the design of ,jesus to inculcate a disregard of the ,mosaic law1 that he requires a far stricter observance of its precepts than the ,scribes and ,pharisees1 and he makes the latter appear in contrast to himself as the underminers of the law4 ,then follows a series of ,mosaic commandments1 on which ,jesus comments so as to show that he penetrates into the spirit of the law1 instead of cleaving to the mere letter1 and especially discerns the worthlessness of the rabbinical glosses 7#dh74 ,this section1 in the order and completeness in which we find it in ,matthew1 is wanting in ,luke's ,sermon on the ,mount2 a decisive proof that the latter has deficiencies4 ,for not only does this chapter contain the fundamental thought of the discourse as given by ,matthew1 but the desultory sayings which ,luke gives1 concerning the love of enemies1 mercifulness and beneficence1 only acquire a definite purpose and point of union in the contrast between the spiritual interpretation of the law given by ,jesus1 and the carnal one given by the doctors of the time4 ,the words1 too1 with which ,luke makes ,jesus proceed after the last woe3 ,but ,i say unto you1 and those at v4 #ci1 ,and he spake a parable unto them1 have been correctly pointed out as indicative of chasms4 #ibh ,as regards the isolated parallel passages1 the admonition to a quick reconciliation with an adversary 7v4 #be f471 is1 to say the least1 not so easily brought into connexion with the foregoing matter in ,luke 7xii4 #eh7 as in ,matthew4 #ibi ,it is still worse with the passage in ,luke which is parallel with ,matt4 v4 #cb2 this text 7relative to divorce71 which in ,matthew is linked in the general chain of ideas1 is in ,luke 7xvi4 #ah7 thrust into one of the apertures we have noticed1 between the assurance of the perpetuity of the law and the parable of the rich man4 ,olshausen tries to find a thread of connexion between the passage and the one preceding it1 by interpreting adultery1 1 allegorically1 as faithlessness to the divine law2 and ,schleiermacher #icj attaches it to the succeeding parable by referring it to the adulterous ,herod3 but such interpretations are altogether visionary4 #ica ,probably tradition had apprized the ,evangelist that ,jesus1 after the foregoing declaration as to the perpetuity of the ,mosaic law1 had enunciated his severe principle on the subject of divorce1 and hence he gave it this position1 not knowing more of its original connexion4 ,in ,matt4 xix4 #i1 we find a reiteration of this principle on an occasion very likely to call it forth4 ,the exhortations to patience and submissiveness1 form1 in ,matthew1 the spiritual interpretation of the old rule1 an eye for an eye1 etc41 and are therefore a following out of the previous train of thought4 ,in ,luke 7vi4 #bi71 they are introduced with much less precision by the command concerning love to enemies3 which command is also decidedly better given in ,matthew as the rectification of the precept1 ,thou shalt love thy neighbour1 and hate thine enemy 7#dc ff474 ,again3 the observation that to love friends is nothing more than bad men can do1 is1 in ,matthew1 made1 in order to controvert the traditional perversion of the ,mosaic injunction to love one's neighbour1 into a permission to hate enemies3 in ,luke1 the observation follows the rule1 ,whatsoever ye would that men should do to you1 etc41 which in ,matthew occurs farther on 7vii4 #ab7 without any connexion4 ,on the whole1 if the passage in ,luke from vi4 #b-cf1 be compared with the corresponding one in ,matthew1 there will be found in the latter an orderly course of thought2 in the former1 considerable confusion4 #icb ,the warnings against ,pharisaic hypocrisy 7vi4 #a-f7 are without a parallel in ,luke2 but he has one of the model prayer1 which recent criticism has turned not a little to the disadvantage of ,matthew4 ,the ancient harmonists1 it is true1 had no hesitation in supposing that ,jesus delivered this prayer twice1--in the connexion in which it is given by ,matthew1 as well as under the circumstances narrated by ,luke 7xi4 ff474 #icc ,but if ,jesus had already in the ,sermon on the ,mount given a model prayer1 his disciples would scarcely have requested one afterwards1 as if nothing of the kind had occurred2 and it is still more improbable that ,jesus would repeat the same formulary1 without any recollection that he had delivered it to these disciples long before4 ,hence our most recent critics have decided that ,luke alone has preserved the natural and true occasion on which this prayer was communicated1 and that like many other fragments1 it was interpolated in ,matthew's ,sermon on the ,mount by the writer4 #icd ,but the vaunted naturalness of ,luke's representation1 ,i1 for one1 cannot discover4 ,apart from the improbability1 admitted even by the above critics1 that the disciples of ,jesus should have remained without any direction to pray until the last journey1 in which ,luke places the scene2 it is anything but natural that ,jesus should abstain from giving his disciples the exemplar which was in his mind until they sought for it1 and that then he should forthwith fall into prayer4 ,he had1 doubtless1 often prayed in their circle from the commencement of their intercourse2 and if so1 their request was superfluous1 and must1 as in ,john xiv4 #i1 have produced only an admonition to recollect what they had long seen and heard in his society4 ,the account of ,luke seems to have been framed on mere conjecture2 it was known that the above prayer proceeded from ,jesus1 and the further question as to the motive for its communication1 received the gratuitous answer3 without doubt his disciples had asked him for such an exemplar4 ,without1 therefore1 maintaining that ,matthew has preserved to us the connexion in which this prayer was originally uttered by ,jesus1 we are not the less in doubt whether it has a more accurate position in ,luke4 #ice ,with regard to the elements of the prayer1 it is impossible to deny what ,wetstein says3 tota hc oratio ex formulis ,hebrorum concinnata est2 #icf but ,fritzsche's observation is also just1 that desires of so general a nature might be uttered in the prayers of various persons1 even in similar phraseology1 without any other cause than the broad uniformity of human feeling4 #icg ,we may add that the selection and allocation of the petitions in the prayer are entirely original1 and bear the impress of that religious consciousness which ,jesus possessed and sought to impart to his followers4 #ich ,matthew inserts after the conclusion of the prayer two propositions1 which are properly the corollary of the third petition1 but which seem inaptly placed1 not only because they are severed by the concluding petition from the passage to which they have reference1 but because they have no point of coincidence with the succeeding censures and admonitions which turn on the hypocrisy of the ,pharisaic fasts4 ,mark1 however1 has still more infelicitously appended these propositions to the discourse of ,jesus on the efficacy of believing prayer 7xi4 #be74 #ici ,at vi4 #ai1 the thread of strict connexion is broken1 according to the admission of ,paulus1 and so far all expositors are bound to agree with him4 ,but his position1 that notwithstanding the admitted lack of coherence in the succeeding collection of sentences1 ,jesus spoke them consecutively1 is not equally tenable2 on the contrary1 our more recent critics have all the probabilities on their side when they suppose1 that in this latter half of the ,sermon on the ,mount ,matthew has incorporated a variety of sayings uttered by ,jesus on different occasions4 ,first stands the apothegm on earthly and heavenly treasures 7#ai-ba71 which ,luke1 with more apparent correctness1 inserts in a discourse of ,jesus1 the entire drift of which is to warn his adherents against earthly cares 7xii4 #cc f474 ,it is otherwise with the next sentence1 on the eye being the light of the body4 ,luke annexes this to the apothegm already mentioned on the light that is to be exhibited2 now as the light 1 placed on a candlestick1 denotes something quite distinct from what is intended by the comparison of the eye to a light1 1 the only reason for combining the two apothegms lies in the bare word 3 a rule of association which belongs properly to the dictionary1 and which1 beyond it1 is worse than none4 ,then follows1 also without any apparent connexion1 the apothegm on the two masters1 appended by ,luke to the parable of the steward1 with which it happens to have the word ,mammon1 1 in common4 ,next comes1 in ,matthew v4 #be-cd1 a dissuasion from earthly solicitude1 on the ground that natural objects flourish and are sustained without anxiety on their part2 in ,luke1 this doctrine is consistently united with the parable 7found only in the third gospel7 of the man who1 in the midst of amassing earthly treasures1 is summoned away by death 7xii4 #bb ff474 #idj ,the warning not to be blind to our own faults while we are sharp-sighted and severe towards those of others 7vii4 #a-e71 would1 if we rejected the passage from v4 #ai1 of chap1 vi4 to the end1 form a suitable continuation to the previous admonition against ,pharisaic sanctimoniousness 7vi4 #af-ah71 and might1 therefore1 have belonged to the original body of the discourse4 #ida ,this is the more probable because ,luke has the same warning in his ,sermon on the ,mount 7#cg f41 #da f471 where it happens to assort very well with the preceding exhortation to mercifulness2 but at v4 #ci and #dj1 and part of #ch1 it is interrupted by subjects altogether irrelevant4 ,the text1 ,with what measure ye mete1 etc41 is very inappropriately interposed by ,mark 7iv4 #bd71 in a passage similar in kind to one of ,luke's intermediate miscellanies4 ,v4 #f1 in ,matthew1 is equally destitute of connexion and parallel2 but the succeeding assurances and arguments as to the efficacy of prayer 7v4 #g-aa71 are found in ,luke xi4 #i1 very fitly associated with another parable peculiar to that ,evangelist3 that of the friend awaked at midnight ,the apothegm1 ,what ye would that men should do unto you1 etc41 is quite isolated in ,matthew2 in ,luke1 it has only an imperfect connexion4 #idb ,the following passage 7v4 #ac f47 on the strait gate is introduced in ,luke 7xiii4 #bc7 by the question addressed to ,jesus3 ,are there few that be saved8 2 which seems likely enough to have been conceived by one who knew that ,jesus had uttered such a saying as the above1 but was at a loss for an occasion that might prompt the idea2 moreover1 the image is far less completely carried out in ,luke than in ,matthew1 and is blended with parabolical elements4 #idc ,the apothegm on the tree being known by its fruits 7v4 #af-bj71 appears in ,luke 7vi4 #dc ff471 and even in ,matthew1 farther on 7xii4 #cc ff471 to have a general application1 but in ,matthew's ,sermon on the ,mount1 it has a special relation to the false prophets2 in ,luke1 it is in the last degree misplaced4 ,the denunciation of those who say to ,jesus1 ,lord1 ,lord1 but who1 on account of their evil deeds will be rejected by him at the day of judgment 7#ba-bc71 decidedly presupposes the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 and cannot therefore1 have well belonged to so early a period as that of the ,sermon on the ,mount2 hence it is more appropriately placed by ,luke 7xiii4 #be ff474 ,the peroration of the discourse is1 as we have mentioned1 common to both ,evangelists4 ,the foregoing comparison shows us that the discourses of ,jesus1 like fragments of granite1 could not be dissolved by the flood of oral tradition2 but they were not seldom torn from their natural connexion1 floated away from their original situation1 and deposited in places to which they did not properly belong4 ,relative to this effect1 there is this distinction between the three first ,evangelists2 ,matthew1 like an able compiler1 though far from being sufficiently informed to give each relic in its original connexion1 has yet for the most part succeeded in judiciously associating analogous materials2 while the two other ,evangelists have left many small fragments just where chance threw them1 in the intervals between longer discourses4 ,luke has laboured in some instances to combine these fragments artificially1 but he could not thus compensate for the absence of natural connexion4 #gg4 ,,instructions ,,to ,,the ,,twelve4 ,,lamentations ,,over ,,the ,,galilean ,,cities4 ,,joy ,,over ,,the ,,calling ,,of ,,the ,,simple4 ,the first gospel 7x47 reports another long discourse as having been delivered by ,jesus1 on the occasion of his sending out the twelve to preach the kingdom of heaven4 ,part of this discourse is peculiar to the first gospel2 that portion of it which is common to the two other synoptists is only partially assigned by them to the same occasion1 ,luke introducing its substance in connexion with the mission of the seventy 7x4 #b ff471 and in a subsequent conversation with the disciples 7xii4 #b ff474 ,some portion of the discourse is also found repeated both in ,matthew and the other ,evangelists1 in the prophetic description given by ,jesus of his second advent4 ,in this instance again1 while the older harmonists have no hesitation in supposing a repetition of the same discourse1 #idd our more recent critics are of opinion that ,luke only has the true occasions and the original arrangement of the materials1 and that ,matthew has assembled them according to his own discretion4 #ide ,those expositors who are apologetically inclined1 maintain that ,matthew was not only conscious of here associating sayings uttered at various times1 but presumed that this would be obvious to his readers4 #idf ,on the other hand1 it is justly observed that the manner in which the discourse is introduced by the words3 ,these twelve ,jesus sent forth1 and commanded them 7v4 #e72 and closed by the words3 when ,jesus made an end of commanding his twelve disciples1 etc4 7xi4 #a72 proves clearly enough that it was the intention of the ,evangelist to give his compilation the character of a continuous harangue4 #idg ,much that is peculiar to ,matthew in this discourse1 appears to be merely an amplification on thoughts which are also found in the corresponding passages of the two other synoptists2 but there are two particulars in the opening of the instructions as detailed by the former1 which differ specifically from anything presented by his fellow ,evangelists4 ,these are the limitation of the agency of the disciples to the ,jews 7v4 #e1 #f71 and the commission 7associated with that to announce the kingdom of heaven and heal the sick1 of which ,luke also speaks1 ix4 #b71 to raise the dead3 a surprising commission1 since we know of no instances previous to the departure of ,jesus1 in which the apostles raised the dead2 and to suppose such when they are not narrated1 after the example of ,olshausen1 is an expedient to which few will be inclined4 ,all that the synoptists have strictly in common in the instructions to the twelve1 are the rules for their external conduct2 how they were to journey1 and how to behave under a variety of circumstances 7,matt4 v4 #i-aa1 #ad2 ,mark vi4 #h-aa2 ,luke ix4 #c-e74 ,here1 however1 we find a discrepancy2 according to ,matthew and ,luke1 ,jesus forbids the disciples to take with them1 not only gold1 a scrip1 and the like1 but even shoes1 1 and a staff1 2 according to ,mark1 on the contrary1 he merely forbids their taking more than a staff and sandals1 and 4 ,this discrepancy is most easily accounted for by the admission1 that tradition only preserved a reminiscence of ,jesus having signified the simplicity of the apostolic equipment by the mention of the staff and shoes1 and that hence one of the ,evangelists understood that ,jesus had interdicted all travelling requisites except these2 the other1 that these also were included in his prohibition4 ,it was consistent with ,mark's love of the picturesque to imagine a wandering apostle furnished with a staff1 and therefore to give the preference to the former view4 ,it is on the occasion of the mission of the seventy1 that ,luke 7x4 #b7 puts into the mouth of ,jesus the words which ,matthew gives 7ix4 #cg f47 as the motive for sending forth the twelve1 namely1 the apothegm1 ,the harvest truly is ready1 but the labourers are few2 also the declaration that the labourer is worthy of his hire 7v4 #g1 comp4 ,matt x4 #aj72 the discourse on the apostolic salutation and its effect 7,matt4 v4 #ab f42 ,luke v4 #e f472 the denunciation of those who should reject the apostles and their message 7,matt4 v4 #ae2 ,luke v4 #ab72 and finally1 the words1 ,behold1 ,i send you forth as lambs1 etc4 7,matt4 v4 #af2 ,luke v4 #c74 ,the sequence of these propositions is about equally natural in both cases4 ,their completeness is alternately greater in the one than in the other2 but ,matthew's additions generally turn on essentials1 as in v4 #af2 those of ,luke on externals1 as in v4 #g1 #h1 and in v4 #d1 where there is the singular injunction to salute no man by the way1 which might appear an unhistorical exaggeration of the urgency of the apostolic errand1 did we not know that the ,jewish greetings of that period were not a little ceremonious4 #idh ,sieffert observes that the instructions which ,jesus gave--according to ,matthew1 to the twelve1 according to ,luke1 to the seventy--might1 so far as their tenor is concerned1 have been imparted with equal fitness on either occasion2 but ,i doubt this1 for it seems to me improbable that ,jesus should1 as ,luke states1 dismiss his more confidential disciples with scanty rules for their outward conduct1 and that to the seventy he should make communications of much greater moment and pathos4 #idi ,the above critic at length decides in favour of ,luke1 whose narrative appears to him more precise1 because it distinguishes the seventy from the twelve4 ,we have already discussed this point1 and have found that a comparison is rather to the advantage of ,matthew4 ,the blessing pronounced on him who should give even a cup of cold water to the disciples of ,jesus 7v4 #db71 is at least more judiciously inserted by ,matthew as the conclusion of the discourse of instructions1 than in the endless confusion of the latter part of ,mark ix4 7v4 #da71 where 7if71 and 7whosoever71 seem to form the only tie between the successive propositions4 ,the case is otherwise when we regard those portions of the discourse which ,luke places in his twelfth chapter1 and even later1 and which in ,matthew are distinguishable as a second part of the same discourse4 ,such are the directions to the apostles as to their conduct before tribunals 7,matt4 x4 #ai f42 ,luke xii4 #aa72 the exhortation not to fear those who can only kill the body 7,matt4 v4 #bh2 ,luke v4 #d f472 the warning against the denial of ,jesus 7,matt4 v4 #cb f42 ,luke v4 #h f472 the discourse on the general disunion of which he would be the cause 7,matt4 v4 #cd ff42 ,luke v4 #ea ff472 a passage to which ,matthew1 prompted apparently by the enumeration of the members of a family1 attaches the declaration of ,jesus that these are not to be valued above him1 that his cross must be taken1 etc41 which he partly repeats on a subsequent occasion1 and in a more suitable connexion 7xvi4 #bd f472 further1 predictions which recur in the discourse on the ,mount of ,olives1 relative to the universal persecution of the disciples of ,jesus 7v4 #ag f4 #bb1 comp4 xxiv4 #i1 #ac72 the saying which ,luke inserts in the ,sermon on the ,mount 7vi4 #dj71 and which also appears in ,john 7xv4 #bj71 that the disciple has no claim to a better lot than his master 7v4 #bd f472 lastly1 the direction1 which is peculiar to the discourse in ,matthew1 to flee from one city to another1 with the accompanying consolation 7v4 #bc74 ,these commands and exhortations have been justly pronounced by critics #iej to be unsuitable to the first mission of the twelve1 which1 like the alleged mission of the seventy1 had no other than happy results 7,luke ix4 #aj1 x4 #ag72 they presuppose the troublous circumstances which supervened after the death of ,jesus1 or perhaps in the latter period of his life4 ,according to this1 ,luke is more correct than ,matthew in assigning these discourses to the last journey of ,jesus2 #iea unless1 indeed1 such descriptions of the subsequent fate of the apostles and other adherents of ,jesus were produced ex eventu1 after his death1 and put into his mouth in the form of prophecies2 a conjecture which is strongly suggested by the words1 ,he who taketh not up his cross1 etc4 7v4 #ch74 #ieb ,the next long discourse of ,jesus in ,matthew 7chap4 xi47 we have already considered1 so far as it relates to the ,baptist4 ,from v4 #bj-bd1 there follow complaints and threatenings against the ,galilean cities1 in which most of his mighty works were done1 and which1 nevertheless1 believed not4 ,our modern critics are perhaps right in their opinion that these apostrophes are less suitable to the period of his ,galilean ministry1 in which ,matthew places them1 than to that in which they are introduced by ,luke 7x4 #ac ff472 namely1 when ,jesus had left ,galilee1 and was on his way to ,judea and ,jerusalem1 with a view to his final experiment4 #iec ,but a consideration of the immediate context seems to reverse the probability4 ,in ,matthew1 the description of the ungracious reception which ,jesus and ,john had alike met with1 leads very naturally to the accusations against those places which had been the chief theatres of the ministry of the former2 but it is difficult to suppose1 according to ,luke1 that ,jesus would speak of his past sad experience to the seventy1 whose minds must have been entirely directed to the future1 unless we conceive that he chose a subject so little adapted to the exigencies of those whom he was addressing1 in order to unite the threatened judgment on the ,galilean cities1 with that which he had just denounced against the cities that should reject his messengers4 ,but it is more likely that this association proceeded solely from the writer1 who1 by the comparison of a city that should prove refractory to the disciples of ,jesus1 to ,sodom1 was reminded of the analogous comparison to ,tyre and ,sidon1 of places that had been disobedient to ,jesus himself1 without perceiving the incongruity of the one with the circumstances which had dictated the other4 #ied ,the joy1 1 expressed by ,jesus 7v4 #be-bg7 on account of the insight afforded to babes1 1 is but loosely attached by ,matthew to the preceding maledictions4 ,as it supposes a change in the mental frame of ,jesus1 induced by pleasing circumstances1 ,luke 7x4 #ag1 #ba ff471 would have all the probabilities on his side1 in making the return of the seventy with satisfactory tidings the cause of the above expression2 were it not that the appointment of the seventy1 and consequently their return1 are altogether problematical2 besides1 it is possible to refer the passage in question to the return of the twelve from their mission4 ,matthew connects with this rejoicing of ,jesus his invitation to the weary and heavy laden 7v4 #bh-cj74 ,this is wanting in ,luke1 who1 instead1 makes ,jesus turn to his disciples privately1 and pronounce them blessed in being privileged to see and hear things which many prophets and kings yearned after in vain 7#bc f473 an observation which does not so specifically agree with the preceding train of thought1 as the context assigned to it by ,matthew1 and which is moreover inserted by the latter ,evangelist in a connexion 7xiii4 #af f47 that may be advantageously confronted with that of ,luke4 #gh4 ,,the ,,parables4 ,according to ,matthew 7chap4 xiii471 ,jesus delivered seven parables1 all relating to the 4 ,modern criticism1 however1 has doubted whether ,jesus really uttered so many of these symbolical discourses on one occasion4 #iee ,the parable1 it has been observed1 is a kind of problem1 to be solved by the reflection of the hearer2 hence after every parable a pause is requisite1 if it be the object of the teacher to convey real instruction1 and not to distract by a multiplicity of ill-understood images4 #ief ,it will1 at least1 be admitted1 with ,neander1 that parables on the same or closely-related subjects can only be spoken consecutively1 when1 under manifold forms1 and from various points of view1 they lead to the same result4 #ieg ,among the seven parables in question1 those of the mustard-seed and the leaven have a common fundamental idea1 differently shadowed forth--the gradual growth and ultimate prevalence of the kingdom of ,god3 those of the net and the tares represent the mingling of the good with the bad in the kingdom of ,god2 those of the treasure and the pearl inculcate the inestimable and all-indemnifying value of the kingdom of ,god2 and the parable of the sower depicts the unequal susceptibility of men to the preaching of the kingdom of ,god4 ,thus there are no less than four separate fundamental ideas involved in this collection of parables--ideas which are indeed connected by their general relation to the kingdom of ,god1 but which present this object under aspects so widely different1 that for their thorough comprehension a pause after each was indispensable4 ,hence1 it has been concluded1 ,jesus would not merit the praise of being a judicious teacher1 if1 as ,matthew represents1 he had spoken all the above parables in rapid succession4 #ieh ,if we suppose in this instance1 again1 an assemblage of discourses similar in kind1 but delivered on different occasions1 we are anew led to the discussion as to whether ,matthew was aware of the latter circumstance1 or whether he believed that he was recording a continuous harangue4 ,the introductory form1 ,and he spake many things to them in parables 7v4 #c73 1 and the concluding one1 when ,jesus had finished these parables 7v4 #ec73 1 seem to be a clear proof that he did not present the intermediate matter as a compilation4 ,mark1 indeed1 narrates 7iv4 #aj71 that at the close of the first parable1 the disciples being again1 1 in private1 with ,jesus1 asked him for its interpretation2 and hence it has been contended #iei that there was an interruption of the discourse at this point2 but this cannot serve to explain the account of ,matthew1 for he represents the request of the disciples as being preferred on the spot1 without any previous retirement from the crowd2 thus proving that he did not suppose such an interruption4 ,the concluding form which ,matthew inserts after the fourth parable 7v4 #cd f471 might1 with better reason1 be adduced as intimating an interruption1 for he there comprises all the foregoing parables in one address by the words1 ,all these things spake ,jesus in parables1 etc41 4441 and makes the pause still more complete by the application of an ,old ,testament prophecy2 moreover1 ,jesus is here said 7#cf7 to change his locality1 to dismiss the multitude to whom he had hitherto been speaking on the shore of the ,galilean sea1 and enter the house1 1 where he gives three new parables1 in addition to the interpretation which his disciples had solicited of the second4 ,but that the delivery of the last three parables was separated from that of the preceding ones by a change of place1 and consequently by a short interval of time1 very little alters the state of the case4 ,for it is highly improbable that ,jesus would without intermission tax the memory of the populace1 whose minds it was so easy to overburthen1 with four parables1 two of which were highly significant2 and that he should forthwith overwhelm his disciples1 whose power of comprehension he had been obliged to aid in the application of the first two parables1 with three new ones1 instead of ascertaining if they were capable of independently expounding the third and fourth4 ,further1 we have only to look more closely at ,matthew's narrative1 in order to observe that he has fallen quite involuntarily on the interruption at v4 #cd ff4 ,if it were his intention to communicate a series of parables1 with the explanations that ,jesus privately gave to his disciples of the two which were most important1 and were therefore to be placed at the head of the series1 there were only three methods on which he could proceed4 ,first1 he might make ,jesus1 immediately after the enunciation of a parable1 give its interpretation to his disciples in the presence of the multitude1 as he actually does in the case of the first parable 7#aj-bc74 ,but the representation is beset with the difficulty of conceiving how ,jesus1 surrounded by a crowd1 whose expectation was on the stretch1 could find leisure for a conversation aside with his disciples4 #ifj ,this inconvenience ,mark perceived1 and therefore chose the second resource that was open to him--that of making ,jesus with his disciples withdraw after the first parable into the house1 and there deliver its interpretation4 ,but such a proceeding would be too great a hindrance to one who proposed publicly to deliver several parables one after the other2 for if ,jesus returned to the house immediately after the first parable1 he had left the scene in which the succeeding ones could be conveniently imparted to the people4 ,consequently1 the narrator in the first gospel cannot1 with respect to the interpretation of the second parable1 either repeat his first plan1 or resort to the second2 he therefore adopts a third1 and proceeding uninterruptedly through two further parables1 it is only at their close that he conducts ,jesus to the house1 and there makes him impart the arrear of interpretation4 ,herewith there arose in the mind of the narrator a sort of rivalry between the parables which he had yet in reserve1 and the interpretation1 the arrear of which embarrassed him2 as soon as the former were absent from his recollection1 the latter would be present with its inevitably associated form of conclusion and return homeward2 and when any remaining parables recurred to him1 he was obliged to make them the sequel of the interpretation4 ,thus it befel with the three last parables in ,matthew's narration2 so that he was reduced almost against his will to make the disciples their sole participants1 though it does not appear to have been the custom of ,jesus thus to clothe his private instructions2 and ,mark 7v4 #cc f47 plainly supposes the parables which follow the interpretation of the second1 to be also addressed to the people4 #ifa ,mark1 who 7iv4 #a7 depicts the same scene by the sea-side1 as ,matthew1 has in connexion with it only three parables1 of which the first and third correspond to the first and third of ,matthew1 but the middle one is commonly deemed peculiar to ,mark4 #ifb ,matthew has in its place the parable wherein the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field2 but while men slept1 the enemy came and sowed tares among it1 which grew up with the wheat4 ,the servants know not from whence the tares come1 and propose to root them up2 but the master commands them to let both grow together until the harvest1 when it will be time enough to separate them4 ,in ,mark1 ,jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a man who casts seed into the ground1 and while he sleeps and rises again1 the seed passes1 he knows not how1 from one stage of development to another3 and when it is ripe1 he puts in the sickle1 because the harvest is come4 ,in this parable there is wanting what constitutes the dominant idea in that of ,matthew1 the tares1 sown by the enemy2 but as1 nevertheless1 the other ideas1 of sowing1 sleeping1 growing one knows not how1 and harvest1 wholly correspond1 it may be questioned whether ,mark does not here merely give the same parable in a different version1 which he preferred to that of ,matthew1 because it seemed more intermediate between the first parable of the sower1 and the third of the mustard-seed4 ,luke1 also1 has only three of the seven parables given in ,matt4 xiii42 namely1 those of the sower1 the mustard-seed1 and the leaven2 so that the parables of the buried treasure1 the pearl1 and the net1 as also that of the tares in the field1 are peculiar to ,matthew4 ,the parable of the sower is placed by ,luke 7viii4 #d ff47 somewhat earlier1 and in other circumstances1 than by ,matthew1 and apart from the two other parables which he has in common with the first ,evangelist's series4 ,these he introduces later1 xiii4 #ah-ba2 a position which recent critics unanimously acknowledge as the correct one4 #ifc ,but this decision is one of the most remarkable to which the criticism of the present age has been led by its partiality to ,luke4 ,for if we examine the vaunted connectedness of this ,evangelist's passages1 we find that ,jesus1 having healed a woman bowed down by a spirit of infirmity1 silences the punctilious ruler of the synagogue by the argument about the ox and ass1 after which it is added 7v4 #ag71 ,and when he had said these things1 all his adversaries were ashamed2 and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him4 ,surely so complete and marked a form of conclusion is intended to wind up the previous narrative1 and one cannot conceive that the sequel went forward in the same scene2 on the contrary1 the phrases1 then said he1 and again he said1 by which the parables are connected1 indicate that the writer had no longer any knowledge of the occasion on which ,jesus uttered them1 and hence inserted them at random in this indeterminate manner1 far less judiciously than ,matthew1 who at least was careful to associate them with analogous materials4 #ifd ,we proceed to notice the other evangelical parables1 #ife and first among them1 those which are peculiar to one ,evangelist4 ,we come foremost in ,matthew to the parable of the servant 7xviii4 #bc ff47 who1 although his lord had forgiven him a debt of ten thousand talents1 had no mercy on his fellow-servant who owed him a hundred2 tolerably well introduced by an exhortation to placability 7v4 #ae71 and the question of ,peter1 ,how oft shall my brother sin against me1 and ,i forgive him8 ,likewise peculiar to ,matthew is the parable of the labourers in the vineyard 7xx4 #a ff471 which suitably enough forms a counterpoise to the foregoing promise of a rich recompense to the disciples4 ,of the sentences which ,matthew appends to this parable 7v4 #af71 the first1 ,so the last shall be first1 and the first last1 by which he had also prefaced it 7xix4 #cj71 is the only one with which it has any internal connexion2 the other1 for many are called1 but few chosen1 rather gives the moral of the parable of the royal feast and the wedding garment1 in connexion with which ,matthew actually repeats it 7xxii4 #ad74 ,it was well adapted1 however1 even torn from this connexion1 to circulate as an independent apothegm1 and as it appeared fitting to the ,evangelist to annex one or more short sentences to the end of a parable1 he might be induced1 by some superficial similarity to the one already given1 to place them in companionship4 ,farther1 the parable of the two sons sent into the vineyard1 is also peculiar to ,matthew 7xxi4 #bh ff471 and is not ill-placed in connexion with the foregoing questions and retorts between ,jesus and the ,pharisees2 its anti-,pharisaic significance is also well brought out by the sequel 7#ca f474 ,among the parables which are peculiar to ,luke1 that of the two debtors 7vii4 #da ff472 that of the good ,samaritan 7x4 #cj ff472 that of the man whose accumulation of earthly treasure is interrupted by death 7xii4 #af ff4 comp4 ,wis4 xi4 #ag ff472 and also the two which figure the efficacy of importunate prayer 7xi4 #e ff41 xviii4 #b ff472 have a definite1 clear signification1 and with the exception of the last1 which is introduced abruptly1 a tolerably consistent connexion4 ,we may learn from the two last parables1 that it is often necessary entirely to abstract particular features from the parables of ,jesus1 seeing that in one of them ,god is represented by a lukewarm friend1 in the other by an unjust judge4 ,to the latter is annexed the parable of the ,pharisee and ,publican 7#i-ad71 of which only ,schleiermacher1 on the strength of a connexion1 fabricated by himself between it and the foregoing1 can deny the antipharisaic tendency4 #iff ,the parables of the lost sheep1 the piece of silver1 and the prodigal son 7,luke xv4 #c-cb71 have the same direction4 ,matthew also has the first of these 7xviii4 #ab ff471 but in a different connexion1 which determines its import somewhat differently1 and without doubt1 as will presently be shown1 less correctly4 ,it is easy to imagine that these three parables were spoken in immediate succession1 because the second is merely a variation of the first1 and the third is an amplification and elucidation of them both4 ,whether1 according to the opinion of modern criticism1 the two succeeding parables also belong with the above to one continuous discourse1 #ifg must be determined by a closer examination of their contents1 which are in themselves noteworthy4 ,the parable of the unjust steward1 notoriously the crux interpretum1 is yet without any intrinsic difficulty4 ,if we read to the end of the parable1 including the moral 7v4 #i71 we gather the simple result1 that the man who without precisely using unjust means to obtain riches1 is yet in the sight of ,god an unprofitable servant1 7,luke xvii4 #aj71 and1 in the employment of the gifts intrusted to him by ,god1 a steward of injustice1 1 may best atone for this pervading unfaithfulness by lenity and beneficence towards his fellow-men1 and may by their intervention procure a place in heaven4 ,it is true that the beneficence of the fictitious steward is a fraud2 but we must abstract this particular1 as1 in the case of two previous parables1 we have to abstract the lukewarmness of the friend1 and the injustice of the judge3 nay1 the necessity for such an abstraction is intimated in the narrative itself1 for from v4 #h we gather that what the steward did in a worldly spirit is1 in the application1 to be understood in a more exalted sense of the children of light4 ,certainly1 if we suppose the words1 ,he that is faithful in that which is least1 etc4 7#aj-ab7 to have been uttered in their present connexion1 it appears as if the steward were set forth as a model1 deserving in some sense or other the praise of faithfulness2 and when 7v4 #ac7 it is said that no servant can serve two masters1 the intended inference seems to be that this steward had held to the rightful one4 ,hence we have expositions such as that of ,schleiermacher1 who under the master understands the ,romans2 under the debtors1 the ,jewish people2 under the steward1 the publicans1 who were generous to the latter at the expense of the former2 thus1 in the most arbitrary manner1 transforming the master into a violent man1 and justifying the steward4 #ifh ,olshausen carries the perversion of the parable to the extreme1 for he degrades the master1 who1 by his judicial position evidently announces himself as the representative of ,god1 into 1 the prince of this world1 while he exalts the steward into the image of a man who applies the riches of this world to spiritual objects4 ,but as in the moral 7v4 #i7 the parable has a consistent ending2 and as inaccurate association is by no means unexampled in ,luke2 it is not admissible to concede to the following verses any influence over the interpretation of the parable1 unless a close relation of idea can be made manifest4 ,now the fact is1 that the very opposite1 namely1 the most perplexing diversity1 exists4 ,moreover1 it is not difficult to show what might have seduced ,luke into a false association4 ,in the parable there was mention of the mammon of unrighteousness1 2 this suggested to him the saying of ,jesus1 that he who proves faithful in the 1 the unrighteous mammon1 as that which is least1 may also have the true riches committed to his trust4 ,but the word mammon having once taken possession of the writer's mind1 how could he avoid recollecting the well-known aphorism of ,jesus on ,god and ,mammon1 as two incompatible masters1 and adding it 7v4 #ac71 however superfluously1 to the preceding texts8 #ifi ,that by this addition the previous parable was placed in a thoroughly false light1 gave the writer little concern1 perhaps because he had not seized its real meaning1 or because1 in the endeavour completely to disburthen his evangelical meaning1 he lost all solicitude about the sequence of his passages4 ,it ought1 in general1 to be more considered1 that those of our ,evangelists who1 according to the now prevalent opinion1 noted down oral traditions1 must1 in the composition of their writings1 have exerted their memory to an extent that would repress the activity of reflection2 consequently the arrangement of the materials in their narratives is governed by the association of ideas1 the laws of which are partly dependent on external relations2 and we need not be surprised to find many passages1 especially from the discourses of ,jesus1 ranged together for the sole cause that they happen to have in common certain striking consonant words4 ,if from hence we glance back on the position1 that the parable of the unjust steward must have been spoken in connexion with the foregoing one of the prodigal son1 we perceive that it rests merely on a false interpretation4 ,according to ,schleiermacher1 it is the defence of the publicans against the ,pharisees1 that forms the bond2 but there is no trace of publicans and ,pharisees in the latter parable4 ,according to ,olshausen1 the compassionate love of ,god1 represented in the foregoing parable1 is placed in juxtaposition with the compassionate love of man1 represented in the succeeding one2 but simple beneficence is the sole idea on which the latter turns1 and a parallel between this and the manner in which ,god meets the lost with pardon1 is equally remote from the intention of the teacher and the nature of the subject4 ,the remark 7v4 #ad7 that the ,pharisees heard all these things1 and1 being covetous1 derided ,jesus1 does not necessarily refer to the individuals mentioned xv4 #b1 so as to imply that they had listened to the intermediate matter as one continuous discourse2 and even if that were the case1 it would only show the view of the writer with respect to the connectedness of the parables2 a view which1 in the face of the foregoing investigation1 cannot possibly be binding on us4 #igj ,we have already discussed the passage from v4 #ae to #ah2 it consists of disconnected sayings1 and to the last1 on adultery1 is annexed the parable of the rich man1 in a manner which1 as we have already noticed1 it is attempted in vain to show as a real connexion4 ,it must1 however1 be conceded to ,schleiermacher1 that if we separate them1 the alternative1 namely1 the common application of the parable to the penal justice of ,god1 is attended with great difficulties4 #iga ,for there is no indication throughout the parable1 of any actions on the part of the rich man and ,lazarus1 that could1 according to our notions1 justify the exaltation of the one to a place in ,abraham's bosom1 and the condemnation of the other to torment2 the guilt of the one appears to lie in his wealth1 the merit of the other in his poverty4 ,it is indeed generally supposed of the rich man1 that he was immoderate in his indulgence1 and that he had treated ,lazarus unkindly4 #igb ,but the latter is nowhere intimated2 for the picture of the beggar lying at the door of the rich man1 is not intended in the light of a reproach to the latter1 because he might easily have tendered his aid1 and yet neglected to do so2 it is designed to exhibit the contrast1 not only between the earthly condition of the two parties1 but between their proximity in this life1 and their wide separation in another4 ,so the other particular1 that the beggar was eager for the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table1 does not imply that the rich man denied him this pittance1 or that he ought to have given him more than the mere crumbs2 it denotes the deep degradation of the earthly lot of ,lazarus compared with that of the rich man1 in opposition to their reversed position after death1 when the rich man is fain to entreat for a drop of water from the hand of ,lazarus4 ,on the supposition that the rich man had been wanting in compassion towards ,lazarus1 the ,abraham of the parable could only reply in the following manner3 8,thou hadst once easy access to ,lazarus1 and yet thou didst not relieve him2 how then canst thou expect him to traverse a long distance to give thee alleviation80 ,the sumptuous life of the rich man1 likewise1 is only depicted as a contrast to the misery of the beggar2 for if he had been supposed guilty of excess1 ,abraham must have reminded him that he had taken too much of the good things of this life1 not merely that he had received his share of them4 ,equally groundless is it1 on the other hand1 to suppose high moral excellencies in ,lazarus1 since there is no intimation of such in the description of him1 which merely regards his outward condition1--neither are such ascribed to him by ,abraham2 his sole merit is1 the having received evil in this life4 ,thus1 in this parable the measure of future recompense is not the amount of good done1 or wickedness perpetrated1 but of evil endured1 and fortune enjoyed1 #igc and the aptest motto for this discourse is to be found in the ,sermon on the ,mount1 according to ,luke's edition3 ,blessed be ye poor1 for yours is the kingdom of ,god6 ,woe to you that are rich6 for ye have received your consolation2 a passage concerning which we have already remarked1 that it accords fully with the ,ebionite view of the world4 ,a similar estimation of external poverty is ascribed to ,jesus by the other synoptists1 in the narrative of the rich young man1 and in the aphorisms on the camel and the needle's eye 7,matt4 xix4 #af ff42 ,mark x4 #ag ff42 comp4 ,luke xviii4 #ah ff474 ,whether this estimation belong to ,jesus himself1 or only to the synoptical tradition concerning him1 it was probably generated by the notions of the ,essenes4 #igd ,we have hitherto considered the contents of the parable down to v4 #bg3 from whence to the conclusion the subject is1 the writings of the ,old ,testament as the adequate and only means of grace4 ,in conclusion1 we turn to a group of parables1 among which some1 as relating to the death and return of ,christ1 ought1 according to our plan1 to be excepted from the present review2 but so far as they are connected with the rest1 it is necessary to include them4 ,they are the three parables of the rebellious husbandmen in the vineyard 7,matt4 xxi4 #cc ff4 parall471 of the talents or min 7,matt4 xxv4 #ad ff42 ,luke xix4 #ab ff471 and the marriage feast 7,matt4 xxii4 #b;ff42 ,luke xiv4 #af ff474 ,of these the parable of the husbandmen in all the accounts1 that of the talents in ,matthew1 and that of the marriage feast in ,luke1 are simple parables1 unattended with difficulty4 ,not so the parable of the min in ,luke1 and of the marriage feast in ,matthew4 ,that the former is fundamentally the same with that of the talents in ,matthew1 is undeniable1 notwithstanding the many divergencies4 ,in both are found the journey of a master2 the assembling of the servants to entrust them with a capital1 to be put into circulation2 after the return of the master1 a reckoning in which three servants are signalized1 two of them as active1 the third as inactive1 whence the latter is punished1 and the former rewarded2 and in the annunciation of this issue the words of the master are nearly identical in the two statements4 ,the principal divergency is1 that besides the relation between the master who journeys into a far country and his servants1 in ,luke there is a second relation between the former and certain rebellious citizens2 and accordingly1 while in ,matthew the master is simply designated 1 a man1 in ,luke he is styled 1 a nobleman1 and a kingdom is assigned to him1 the object of his journey being to receive for himself a kingdom3 an object of which there is no mention in ,matthew4 ,the subjects of this personage1 it is further said1 hated him1 and after his departure renounced their allegiance4 ,hence at the return of the lord1 the rebellious citizens1 as well as the slothful servant1 are punished2 but in their case the retribution is that of death3 the faithful servants1 on the other hand1 are not only rewarded generally by an entrance into the joy of their ,lord1 but royally1 by the gift of a number of cities4 ,there are other divergencies of less moment between ,luke and ,matthew2 such as1 that the number of servants is undetermined by the one1 and limited to ten by the other2 that in ,matthew they receive talents1 in ,luke min2 in the one unequal sums1 in the other equal2 in the one1 they obtain unequal profits from unequal sums by an equal expenditure of effort1 and are therefore equally rewarded2 in the other1 they obtain unequal profits from equal sums by an unequal expenditure of effort1 and are therefore unequally rewarded4 ,supposing this parable to have proceeded from the lips of ,jesus on two separate occasions1 and that ,matthew and ,luke are right in their respective arrangements1 he must have delivered it first in the more complex form given by ,luke1 and then in the simple one given by ,matthew2 #ige since the former places it before1 the latter after the entrance into ,jerusalem4 ,but this would be contrary to all analogy4 ,the first presentation of an idea is1 according to the laws of thought1 the most simple2 with the second new relations may be perceived1 the subject may be viewed under various aspects1 and brought into manifold combinations4 ,there is1 therefore1 a foundation for ,schleiermacher's opinion1 that contrary to the arrangement in the ,gospels1 ,jesus first delivered the parable in the more simple form1 and amplified it on a subsequent occasion4 #igf ,but for our particular case this order is not less inconceivable than the other4 ,the author of a composition such as a parable1 especially when it exists only in his mind and on his lips1 and is not yet fixed in writing1 remains the perfect master of his materials even on their second and more elaborate presentation2 the form which he had previously given to them is not rigid and inflexible1 but pliant1 so that he can adapt the original thoughts and images to the additional ones1 and thus give unity to his production4 ,hence1 had he who gave the above parable the form which it has in ,luke1 been its real author1 he would1 after having transformed the master into a king1 and inserted the particulars respecting the rebellious citizens1 have intrusted arms to the servants instead of money 7comp4 ,luke xxii4 #cf71 #igg and would have made them show their fidelity rather by conflict with the rebels1 than by increasing their capital2 or in general would have introduced some relation between the two classes of persons in the parable1 the servants and the citizens2 instead of which1 they are totally unconnected throughout1 and form two ill-cemented divisions4 #igh ,this shows very decisively that the parable was not enriched with these additional particulars by the imagination of its author1 but that it was thus amplified by another in the process of transmission4 ,this cannot have been effected in a legendary manner1 by the gradual filling up of the original sketch1 or the development of the primitive germ2 for the idea of rebellious citizens could never be evolved from that of servants and talents1 but must have been added from without1 and therefore have previously existed as part of an independent whole4 ,this amounts to the position that we have here an example of two originally distinct parables1 the one treating of servants and talents1 the other of rebellious citizens1 flowing together in consequence of their mutually possessing the images of a ruler's departure and return4 #igi ,the proof of our proposition must depend on our being able easily to disentangle the two parables2 and this we can effect in the most satisfactory manner1 for by extracting v4 #ab1 #ad1 #ae1 and #bg1 and slightly modifying them1 we get in a rather curtailed but consistent form1 the parable of the rebellious citizens1 and we then recognise the similarity of its tendency with that of the rebellious husbandmen in the vineyard4 #ihj ,a similar relation subsists between the form in which the parable of the marriage feast is given by ,luke 7xiv4 #af ff471 and that in which it is given by ,matthew 7xxii4 #b ff472 only that in this case ,luke1 as in the other1 ,matthew1 has the merit of having preserved the simple original version4 ,on both sides1 the particulars of the feast1 the invitation1 its rejection1 and the consequent bidding of other guests1 testify the identity of the two parables2 but1 on the other hand1 the host who in ,luke is merely a certain man1 1 is in ,matthew a king1 1 whose feast is occasioned by the marriage of his son2 the invited guests1 who in ,luke excuse themselves on various pleas to the messenger only once sent out to them1 in ,matthew refuse to come on the first invitation1 and on the second more urgent one some go to their occupations1 while others maltreat and kill the servants of the king1 who immediately sends forth his armies to destroy those murderers1 and burn up their city4 ,nothing of this is to be found in ,luke2 according to him1 the host merely causes the poor and afflicted to be assembled in place of the guests first invited1 a particular which ,matthew also appends to his fore-mentioned incidents4 ,luke closes the parable with the declaration of the host1 that none of the first bidden guests shall partake of his supper2 but ,matthew proceeds to narrate how1 when the house was full1 and the king had assembled his guests1 one was discovered to be without a wedding garment1 and was forthwith carried away into outer darkness4 ,the maltreatment and murder of the king's messengers are features in the narrative of ,matthew which at once strike us as inconsistent--as a departure from the original design4 ,disregard of an invitation is sufficiently demonstrated by the rejection of it on empty pretexts such as ,luke mentions2 the maltreatment and even the murder of those who deliver the invitation1 is an exaggeration which it is less easy to attribute to ,jesus than to the ,evangelist4 ,the latter had immediately before communicated the parable of the rebellious husbandmen2 hence there hovered in his recollection the manner in which they were said to have used the messengers of their lord1 beating one1 killing and stoning others 7 1 1 71 and he was thus led to incorporate similar particulars into the present parable 7 71 overlooking the circumstance that what might have been perpetrated with sufficient motive against servants who appeared with demands and authority to enforce them1 had in the latter case no motive whatever4 ,that hereupon1 the king1 not satisfied with excluding them from the feast1 sends out his armies to destroy them and burn up their city1 necessarily follows from the preceding incidents1 but appears1 like them1 to be the echo of a parable which presented the relation between the master and the dependents1 not in the milder form of a rejected invitation1 but in the more severe one of an insurrection2 as in the parable of the husbandmen in the vineyard1 and that of the rebellious citizens1 which we have above separated from the parable of the min4 ,yet more decidedly does the drift of the last particular in ,matthew's parable1 that of the wedding garment1 betray that it was not originally associated with the rest4 ,for if the king had commanded that all1 both bad and good1 who were to be found in the highways1 should be bidden to the feast1 he could not wonder that they had not all wedding attire4 ,to assume that those thus suddenly summoned went home to wash1 and adjust their dress1 is an arbitrary emendation of the text4 #iha ,little preferable is the supposition that1 according to oriental manners1 the king had ordered a caftan to be presented to each guest1 and might therefore justly reproach the meanest for not availing himself of the gift2 #ihb for it is not to be proved that such a custom existed at the period1 #ihc and it is not admissible to presuppose it merely because the anger of the king appears otherwise unfounded4 ,but the addition in question is not only out of harmony with the imagery1 but with the tendency of this parable4 ,for while hitherto its aim had been to exhibit the national contrast between the perversity of the ,jews1 and the willingness of the ,gentiles3 it all at once passes to the moral one1 to distinguish between the worthy and the unworthy4 ,that after the ,jews had contemned the invitation to partake of the kingdom of ,god1 the heathens would be called into it1 is one complete idea1 with which ,luke very properly concludes his parable2 that he who does not prove himself worthy of the vocation by a corresponding disposition1 will be again cast out of the kingdom1 is another idea1 which appears to demand a separate parable for its exhibition4 ,here again it may be conjectured that the conclusion of ,matthew's parable is the fragment of another1 which1 from its also referring to a feast1 might in tradition1 or in the memory of an individual1 be easily mingled with the former1 preserved in its purity by ,luke4 #ihd ,this other parable must have simply set forth1 that a king had invited various guests to a wedding feast1 with the tacit condition that they should provide themselves with a suitable dress1 and that he delivered an individual who had neglected this observance to his merited punishment4 ,supposing our conjectures correct1 we have here a still more compound parable than in the former case3 a parable in which1 #astly1 the narrative of the ungrateful invited parties 7,luke xiv47 forms the main tissue1 but so that1 #bndly1 a thread from the parable of the rebellious husbandmen is interwoven2 while1 #crdly1 a conclusion is stitched on1 gathered apparently from an unknown parable on the wedding garment4 ,this analysis gives us an insight into the procedure of evangelical tradition with its materials1 which must be pregnant with results4 #gi4 ,,miscellaneous ,,instructions ,,and ,,controversies ,,of ,,jesus4 ,as the discourses in ,matthew xv4 #a-bj have been already considered1 we must pass on to xviii4 #a ff41 ,mark ix4 #cc ff41 ,luke ix4 #df ff41 where various discourses are connected with the exhibition of a little child1 occasioned by a contention for pre-eminence among the disciples4 ,the admonition to become as a little child1 and to humble one's self as a little child1 in ,matthew1 forms a perfectly suitable comment on the symbolical reproof 7v4 #c1 #d172 but the connexion between this and the following declaration of ,jesus1 that whosoever receives one such little child in his name1 receives him1 is not so obvious4 ,for the child was set up to teach the disciples in what they were to imitate it1 not how they were to behave towards it1 and how ,jesus could all at once lose sight of his original object1 it is difficult to conceive4 ,but yet more glaring is the irrelevance of the declaration in ,mark and ,luke2 for they make it follow immediately on the exhibition of the child1 so that1 according to this1 ,jesus must1 in the very act1 have forgotten its object1 namely1 to present the child to his ambitious disciples as worthy of imitation1 not as in want of reception4 #ihe ,jesus was accustomed to say of his disciples1 that whosoever received them1 received him1 and in him1 the ,father who had sent him 7,matt4 x4 #dj ff42 ,luke x4 #af2 ,john xiii4 #bj74 ,of children he elsewhere says merely1 that whosoever does not receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child cannot enter therein 7,mark x4 #ae2 ,luke xviii4 #ag74 ,this declaration would be perfectly adapted to the occasion in question1 and we may almost venture to conjecture that 1 was the original passage1 and that the actual one is the result of its confusion with ,matthew x4 #dj1 4 ,closely connected by the word 1 answering1 with the sentences just considered1 ,mark 7ix4 #ch f47 and ,luke 7ix4 #di f47 introduce the information which ,john is said to give to ,jesus1 that the disciples having seen one casting out devils in the name of ,jesus1 without attaching himself to their society1 had forbidden him4 ,schleiermacher explains the connexion thus3 because ,jesus had commanded the reception of children in his name1 ,john was led to the confession1 that he and his associates had hitherto been so far from regarding the performance of an act in the name of ,jesus as the point of chief importance1 that they had interdicted the use of his name to one who followed not with them4 #ihf ,allowing this explanation to be correct1 we must believe that ,john1 arrested by the phrase1 in my name 7which yet is not prominent in the declaration of ,jesus1 and which must have been thrown still further into the background by the sight of the child set up in the midst71 drew from it the general inference1 that in all actions the essential point is to perform them in the name of ,jesus2 and with equal rapidity1 leaped to the remote reflection1 that the conduct of the disciples towards the exorcist was in contradiction with this rule4 ,but all this supposes the facility of combination which belongs to a ,schleiermacher1 not the dulness which still characterized the disciples4 ,nevertheless1 the above critic has unquestionably opened on the true vein of connexion between the preceding apothegm and this of ,john2 he has only failed to perceive that this connexion is not intrinsic and original1 but extrinsic and secondary4 ,it was quite beyond the reach of the disciples to apply the words in my name1 by a train of deductions1 to an obliquely connected case in their own experience2 but1 according to our previous observations1 nothing could be more consistent with the habit of association that characterizes the writer of the evangelical tradition in the third gospel1 whence the second ,evangelist seems to have borrowed1 than that he should be reminded by the striking phrase1 in my name1 in the preceding discourse of ,jesus1 of an anecdote containing the same expression1 and should unite the two for the sake of that point of external similarity alone4 #ihg ,to the exhortation to receive such little children1 ,matthew annexes the warning against offending one of these little ones1 1 an epithet which1 in x4 #db1 is applied to the disciples of ,jesus1 but in this passage1 apparently1 to children4 #ihh ,mark 7v4 #db7 has the same continuation1 notwithstanding the interruption above noticed1 probably because he forsook ,luke 7who here breaks off the discourse1 and does not introduce the admonition against offences until later1 xvii4 #a f41 and apart from any occasion that might prompt it71 and appealed to ,matthew4 #ihi ,then follows in ,matthew 7v4 #h f47 and ,mark 7v4 #dc f47 a passage which alone ought to open the eyes of commentators to the mode in which the synoptists arrange the sayings of ,jesus4 ,to the warning against the offending1 1 of the little ones1 and the woe pronounced on those by whom offences come1 1 they annex the apothegm on the offending1 1 of the hand1 eye1 etc4 ,jesus could not proceed thus1--for the injunctions3 ,mislead not the little ones6 and1 ,let not your sensuality mislead you6 have nothing in common but the word mislead4 ,it is easy1 however1 to account for their association by the writer of the first gospel4 #iij ,the word recalled to his mind all the discourses of ,jesus containing a similar expression that had come to his knowledge1 and although he had previously presented the admonitions concerning seduction by the members1 in a better connexion1 as part of the ,sermon on the ,mount1 he could not resist the temptation of reproducing them here1 for the sake of this slight verbal affinity with the foregoing text4 ,but at v4 #aj he resumes the thread which he had dropped at v4 #g1 and adds a further discourse on the little ones1 4 ,matthew makes ,jesus confirm the value of the little ones by the declaration1 that the ,son of man was come to seek the lost1 and by the parable of the lost sheep 7v4 #aa-ad74 ,it is not1 however1 evident why ,jesus should class the with the 7lost72 and both the declaration and the parable seem to be better placed by ,luke1 who introduces the former in the narrative of the calling of ,zaccheus 7xix4 #aj71 and the latter1 in a reply to the objections of the ,pharisees against the amity of ,jesus with the publicans 7xv4 #c ff474 ,matthew seems to have placed them here1 merely because the discourse on the little ones reminded him of that on the lost--both exemplifying the mildness and humility of ,jesus4 ,between the moral of the above parable 7v4 #ad7 and the following rules for the conduct of ,christians under injuries 7v4 #ae ff471 there is again only a verbal connexion1 which may be traced by means of the words1 1 should perish1 and 1 thou hast gained2 for the proposition3 ,god wills not that one of these little ones should perish1 might recall the proposition3 ,we should endeavour to win over our brother1 by showing a readiness to forgive4 ,the direction to bring the offender before the church1 1 is generally adduced as a proof that ,jesus intended to found a church4 ,but he here speaks of the as an institution already existing3 hence we must either refer the expression to the ,jewish synagogue1 an interpretation which is favoured by the analogy of this direction with ,jewish precepts2 or if1 according to the strict meaning of the word and its connexion1 must be understood as the designation of the ,christian community1 which did not then exist1 it must be admitted that we have here1 at least in the form of expression1 an anticipation of a subsequent state of things4 #iia ,the writer certainly had in view the new church1 eventually to be founded in the name of ,jesus1 when1 in continuation1 he represented the latter as imparting to the body of the disciples the authority to bind and to loose1 previously given to ,peter1 and thus to form a messianic religious constitution4 ,the declarations concerning the success of unanimous prayer1 and the presence of ,jesus among two or three gathered together in his name1 accord with this prospective idea4 #iib ,the next discourse that presents itself 7,matt4 xix4 #c-ab1 ,mark x4 #b-ab71 though belonging1 according to the ,evangelists1 to the last journey of ,jesus1 is of the same stamp with the disputations which they1 for the most part1 assign to the last residence of ,jesus in ,jerusalem4 ,some ,pharisees propose to ,jesus the question1 at that time much discussed in the ,jewish schools1 #iic whether it be lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause4 ,to avoid a contradiction between modern practice and the dictum of ,jesus1 it has been alleged that he here censures the species of divorce which was the only one known at that period1 namely1 the arbitrary dismissal of a wife2 but not the judicial separation resorted to in the present day4 #iid ,but this very argument involves the admission1 that ,jesus denounced all the forms of divorce known to him2 hence the question still remains whether1 if he could have had cognizance of the modern procedure in dissolving matrimony1 he would have held it right to limit his general censure4 ,of the succeeding declaration1 prompted by a question of the disciples1 #iie namely1 that celibacy may be practised for the kingdom of heaven's sake1 ,jesus himself says1 that it cannot be understood by all1 but only by those to whom it is given 7v4 #aa74 ,that the doctrine of ,jesus may not run counter to modern opinion1 it has been eagerly suggested1 that his panegyric on celibacy had relation solely to the circumstances of the coming time1 or to the nature of the apostolic mission1 which would be impeded by family ties4 #iif ,but there is even less intimation of this special bearing in the text1 than in the analogous passage #a ,cor4 vii4 #be ff41 #iig and1 adhering to a simple interpretation1 it must be granted that we have here one of the instances in which ascetic principles1 such as were then prevalent1 especially among the ,essenes1 #iih manifest themselves in the teaching of ,jesus1 as represented in the synoptical gospels4 ,the controversial discourses which ,matthew1 almost throughout in agreement with the other synoptists1 places after the entrance of ,jesus into ,jerusalem 7xxi4 #bc-bg2 xxii4 #ae-df71 #iii are certainly pre-eminently genuine fragments1 having precisely the spirit and tone of the rabbinical dialectics in the time of ,jesus4 ,the third and fifth among them are particularly worthy of note1 because they exhibit ,jesus as an interpreter of ,scripture4 ,with respect to the former1 wherein ,jesus endeavours to convince the ,sadducees that there will be a resurrection of the dead1 from the ,mosaic designation of ,god as the ,god of ,abraham1 of ,isaac1 and of ,jacob1 maintaining that he is not the ,god of the dead1 but of the living 7,matt4 xxii4 #ca-cc parall473 ,paulus admits that ,jesus here argues subtilly1 while he contends that the conclusion is really involved in the premises4 ,but in the expression the ,god of ,abraham1 etc41 which had become a mere formula1 nothing more is implied than that ,jehovah1 as he had been the protecting ,deity of these men1 would for ever continue such to their posterity4 ,an individual relation subsisting between ,jehovah and the patriarchs after their death1 is nowhere else alluded to in the ,old ,testament1 and could only be discovered in the above form by rabbinical interpreters1 at a time when it was thought desirable1 at any cost1 to show that the idea of immortality1 which had become prevalent1 was contained in the law2 where1 however1 it is not to be met with by unprejudiced eyes4 ,we find the relation of ,god to ,abraham1 ,isaac1 and ,jacob1 adduced as a guarantee of immortality elsewhere in rabbinical argumentations1 all of which could hardly have been modelled on this one of ,jesus4 #ajjj ,if we look into the most recent commentaries1 we nowhere find a candid confession as to the real character of the argumentation in question4 ,olshausen has wonders to tell of the deep truth contained in it1 and thinks that he can deduce from it1 in the shortest way1 the authenticity and divinity of the ,pentateuch4 ,paulus sees the validity of the proof between the lines of the text2 ,fritzsche is silent4 ,wherefore these evasions8 ,why is the praise of having seen clearly1 and spoken openly1 in this matter1 abandoned to the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist8 #ajja ,what spectres and double-sighted beings1 must ,moses and ,jesus have been1 if they mixed with their cotemporaries without any real participation in their opinions and weaknesses1 their joys and griefs3 if1 mentally dwelling apart from their age and nation1 they conformed to these relations only externally and by accommodation1 while1 internally and according to their nature1 they stood among the foremost ranks of the enlightened in modern times6 ,far more noble were these men1 nay1 they would then only engage our sympathy and reverence1 if1 in a genuinely human manner1 struggling with the limitations and prejudices of their age1 they succumbed to them in a hundred secondary matters1 and only attained perfect freedom in relation to the one point by which each was destined to contribute to the advancement of mankind4 ,a controversial question concerning the ,messiah is proposed 7v4 #da-df7 to the ,pharisees by ,jesus1 namely1 ,how can the same personage be at once the ,lord and the son of ,david8 ,paulus maintains that this is a model of interpretation in conformity with the text2 #ajjb an assertion which is no good augury that his own possesses that qualification4 ,according to him1 ,jesus1 in asking how ,david could call the ,messiah1 ,lord1 when in the general opinion he was his son1 intended to apprise the ,pharisees1 that in this ,psalm it is not ,david who is speaking of the ,messiah1 but another poet who is speaking of ,david as his lord1 so that to suppose this warlike psalm a messianic one1 is a mistake4 ,why1 asks ,paulus1 should not ,jesus have found out this interpretation1 since it is the true one8 ,but this is the grand error of his entire scheme of interpretation--to suppose that what is truth in itself1 or more correctly1 for us1 must1 even to the minutest details1 have been truth for ,jesus and the apostles4 ,the majority of ancient ,jewish interpreters apply this psalm to the ,messiah2 #ajjc the apostles use it as a prophecy concerning ,christ 7,acts ii4 #cd f42 #a ,cor4 xv4 #be72 ,jesus himself1 according to ,matthew and ,mark1 adds to 1 thus plainly giving his approval to the notion that it is ,david who there speaks1 and that the ,messiah is his subject3 how then can it be thought that he held the contrary opinion8 ,it is far more probable1 as ,olshausen has well shown1 that ,jesus believed the psalm to be a messianic one3 while1 on the other hand1 ,paulus is equally correct in maintaining that it originally referred1 not to the ,messiah1 but to some ,jewish ruler1 whether ,david or another4 ,thus we find that ,jesus here gives a model of interpretation1 in conformity1 not with the text1 but with the spirit of his time3 a discovery which1 if the above observations be just1 ought to excite no surprise4 ,the solution of the enigma which ,jesus here proposes to the ,pharisees1 lay without doubt1 according to his idea1 in the doctrine of the higher nature of the ,messiah2 whether he held that1 in virtue of this1 he might be styled the ,lord of ,david1 while1 in virtue of his human nature1 he might also be regarded as his son2 or whether he wished to remove the latter notion as erroneous4 #ajjd ,the result1 however1 and perhaps also the intention of ,jesus with respect to the ,pharisees1 was merely to convince them that he was capable of retaliating on them1 in their own way1 by embarrassing them with captious questions1 and that with better success than they had obtained in their attempts to entrap him4 ,hence the ,evangelists place this passage at the close of the disputations prompted by the ,pharisees1 and ,matthew adds1 ,neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions3 a concluding form which is more suitable here than after the lesson administered to the ,sadducees1 where it is placed by ,luke 7xx4 #dj71 or than after the discussion on the greatest commandment1 where it is introduced by ,mark 7xii4 #cd74 ,immediately before this question of ,jesus1 the first two ,evangelists narrate a conversation with a lawyer1 1 or scribe1 1 concerning the greatest commandment4 7,matt4 xxii4 #cd ff42 ,mark xii4 #bh ff47 ,matthew annexes this conversation to the dispute with the ,sadducees1 as if the ,pharisees wished1 by their question as to the greatest commandment1 to avenge the defeat of the ,sadducees4 ,it is well known1 however1 that these sects were not thus friendly2 on the contrary1 we read in the ,acts 7xxiii4 #g71 that the ,pharisees were inclined to go over to the side of one whom they had previously persecuted1 solely because he had had the address to take the position of an opponent towards the ,sadducees4 ,we may here quote ,schneckenburger's observation1 #ajje that ,matthew not seldom 7iii4 #g1 xvi4 #a7 places the ,pharisees and ,sadducees side by side in a way that represents1 not their real hostility1 but their association in the memory of tradition1 in which one opposite suggested another4 ,in this respect1 ,mark's mode of annexing this conversation to the foregoing1 is more consistent2 but all the synoptists seem to labour under a common mistake in supposing that these discussions1 grouped together in tradition on account of their analogy1 followed each other so closely in time1 that one colloquy elicited another4 ,luke does not give the question concerning the greatest commandment in connexion with the controversies on the resurrection and on the ,messiah2 but he has a similar incident earlier1 in his narrative of the journey to ,jerusalem 7x4 #be ff474 ,the general opinion is that the first two ,evangelists recount the same occurrence and the third1 a distinct one4 #ajjf ,it is true that the narrative of ,luke differs from that of ,matthew and ,mark1 in several not immaterial points4 ,the first difference1 which we have already noticed1 relates to chronological position1 and this has been the chief inducement to the supposition of two events4 ,the next difference lies in the nature of the question1 which1 in ,luke1 turns on the rule of life calculated to insure the inheritance of eternal life1 but1 in the other ,evangelists1 on the greatest commandment4 ,the third difference is in the subject who pronounces this commandment1 the first two synoptists representing it to be ,jesus1 the third1 the lawyer4 ,lastly1 there is a difference as to the issue1 the lawyer in ,luke putting a second1 self-vindicatory1 question1 which calls forth the parable of the good ,samaritan2 while in the two other ,evangelists1 he retires either satisfied1 or silenced by the answer to the first4 ,meanwhile1 even between the narrative of ,matthew and that of ,mark1 there are important divergencies4 ,the principal relates to the character of the querist1 who in ,matthew proposes his question with a view to tempt ,jesus 772 in ,mark1 with good intentions1 because he had perceived that ,jesus had answered the ,sadducees well4 ,paulus1 indeed1 although he elsewhere 7,luke x4 #be7 considers the act of tempting 77 as the putting a person to the proof to subserve interested views1 pronounces that the word in this instance can only be intended in a good sense4 ,but the sole ground for this interpretation lies1 not in ,matthew1 but in ,mark1 and in the unfounded supposition that the two writers could not have a different idea of the character and intention of the inquiring doctor of the law4 ,fritzsche has correctly pointed out the difficulty of conciliating ,matthew and ,mark as lying1 partly in the meaning of the word 1 and partly in the context1 it being inadmissible to suppose one among a series of malevolent questions1 friendly1 without any intimation of the distinction on the part of the writer4 ,with this important diversity is connected the minor one1 that while in ,matthew1 the scribe1 after ,jesus has recited the two commandments1 is silent1 apparently from shame1 which is no sign of a friendly disposition on his part towards ,jesus2 in ,mark1 he not only bestows on ,jesus the approving expression1 ,well1 ,master1 thou hast said the truth1 but enlarges on his doctrine so as to draw from ,jesus the declaration that he has answered discreetly1 and is1 not far from the kingdom of ,god4 ,it may be also noticed that while in ,matthew ,jesus simply repeats the commandment of love1 in ,mark he prefaces it by the words1 ,hear1 ,o ,israel1 the ,lord thy ,god is one ,lord4 ,thus1 if it be held that the differences between the narrative of ,luke1 and that of the two other ,evangelists1 entail a necessity for supposing that they are founded on two separate events2 the no slighter differences between ,mark and ,matthew must in all consistency be made a reason for supposing a third4 ,but it is so difficult to credit the reality of three occurrences essentially alike1 that the other alternative1 of reducing them to one1 must1 prejudice apart1 be always preferred4 ,the narratives of ,matthew and ,mark are the most easily identified2 but there are not wanting points of contact between ,matthew and ,luke1 for in both the lawyer appears as a tempter 771 and is not impressed in favour of ,jesus by his answer2 nor even between ,luke and ,mark1 for these agree in appending explanatory remarks to the greatest commandment1 as well as in the insertion of forms of assent1 such as1 ,thou hast answered right1 ,thou hast said the truth4 ,hence it is evident that to fuse only two of their narratives is a half measure1 and that we must either regard all three as independent1 or all three as identical3 whence again we may observe the freedom which was used by the early ,christian legend1 in giving various forms to a single fact or idea--the fundamental fact in the present case being1 that1 out of the whole ,mosaic code1 ,jesus had selected the two commandments concerning the love of ,god and our neighbour as the most excellent4 #ajjg ,we come now to the great anti-pharisaic discourse1 which ,matthew gives 7xxiii47 as a sort of pitched battle after the skirmishing of the preceding disputations4 ,mark 7xii4 #ch ff47 and ,luke 7xx4 #de ff47 have also a discourse of ,jesus against the scribes1 1 but extending no farther than a few verses4 ,it is however highly probable1 as our modern critics allow1 #ajjh that ,jesus should launch out into fuller invectives against that body of men under the circumstances in which ,matthew places that discourse1 and it is almost certain that such sharp enunciations must have preceded the catastrophe2 so that it is not admissible to control the account of the first ,evangelist by the meagre one of the two other synoptists1 #ajji especially as the former is distinguished by connectedness and unity4 ,it is true that much of what ,matthew here presents as a continuous address1 is assigned by ,luke to various scenes and occasions1 and it would hence follow that the former has1 in this case again1 blended the original elements of the discourse with kindred matter1 belonging to the discourses of various periods1 #ajaj if it could be shown that the arrangement of ,luke is the correct one3 a position which must therefore be examined4 ,those parts of the anti-pharisaic harangue which ,luke has in common with ,matthew1 are1 excepting the couple of verses which he places in the same connexion as ,matthew1 introduced by him as concomitant with two entertainments to which he represents ,jesus as being invited by ,pharisees 7xi4 #cg ff42 xiv4 #a ff47--a politeness on their part which appears in no other gospel4 ,the expositors of the present day1 almost with one voice1 concur in admiring the naturalness and faithfulness with which ,luke has preserved to us the original occasions of these discourses4 #ajaa ,it is certainly natural enough that1 in the second entertainment1 ,jesus1 observing the efforts of the guests to obtain the highest places for themselves1 should take occasion to admonish them against assuming the precedence at feasts1 even on the low ground of prudential considerations2 and this admonition appears in a curtailed form1 and without any special cause in the final anti-pharisaic discourse in ,matthew1 ,mark1 and even in ,luke again 7xx4 #df74 ,but it is otherwise with the discourse which ,luke attaches to the earlier entertainment in the ,pharisee's house4 ,in the very commencement of this repast1 ,jesus not only speaks of the ravening1 1 and wickedness1 1 with which the ,pharisees fill the cup and platter1 and honours them with the title of fools1 1 but breaks forth into a denunciation of woe1 1 against them and the scribes and doctors of the law1 threatening them with retribution for all the blood that had been shed by their fathers1 whose deeds they approved4 ,we grant that ,attic urbanity is not to be expected in a ,jewish teacher1 but even according to the oriental standard1 such invectives uttered at table against the host and his guests1 would be the grossest dereliction of what is due to hospitality4 ,this was obvious to ,schleiermacher's acute perception2 and he therefore supposes that the meal passed off amicably1 and that it was not until its close1 when ,jesus was again out of the house1 that the host expressed his surprise at the neglect of the usual ablutions by ,jesus and his disciples1 and that ,jesus answered with so much asperity4 #ajab ,but to assume that the writer has not described the meal itself and the incidents that accompanied it1 and that he has noticed it merely for the sake of its connexion with the subsequent discourse1 is an arbitrary mode of overcoming the difficulty4 ,for the text runs thus3 ,and he went in and sat down to meat4 ,and when the ,pharisee saw it1 he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner4 ,and the ,lord said unto him1 1 -- 4 ,it is manifestly impossible to thrust in between these sentences the duration of the meal1 and it must have been the intention of the writer to attach he marvelled to he sat down to meat 1 and he said to he marvelled 4 ,but if this could not really have been the case1 unless ,jesus violated in the grossest manner the simplest dictates of civility1 there is an end to the vaunted accuracy of ,luke in his allocation of this discourse3 and we have only to inquire how he could be led to give it so false a position4 ,this is to be discovered by comparing the manner in which the two other synoptists mention the offence of the ,pharisees1 at the omission of the ablutions before meals by ,jesus and his disciples3 a circumstance to which they annex discourses different from those given by ,luke4 ,in ,matthew 7xv4 #a ff71 scribes and ,pharisees from ,jerusalem ask ,jesus why his disciples do not observe the custom of washing before meat8 ,it is thus implied that they knew of this omission1 as may easily be supposed1 by report4 ,in ,mark 7vii4 #a ff471 they look on 717 while some disciples of ,jesus eat with unwashen hands1 and call them to account for this irregularity4 ,lastly1 in ,luke1 ,jesus himself dines with a ,pharisee1 and on this occasion it is observed that he neglects the usual washings4 ,this is an evident climax3 hearing1 witnessing1 taking food together4 ,was it formed1 in the descending gradation1 from ,luke to ,matthew1 or1 in the ascending one1 from ,matthew to ,luke8 ,from the point of view adopted by the recent critics of the first gospel1 the former mode will be held the most probable1 namely1 that the memory of the original scene1 the repast in the ,pharisee's house1 was lost in the process of tradition1 and is therefore wanting in the first gospel4 ,but1 apart from the difficulty of conceiving that this discourse was uttered under the circumstances with which it is invested by ,luke1 it is by no means in accordance with the course of tradition1 when once in possession of so dramatic a particular as a feast1 to let it fall again1 but rather to supply it1 if lacking4 ,the general tendency of the legend is to transform the abstract into the concrete1 the mediate into the immediate1 hearsay into vision1 the spectator into the participator2 and as the offence taken against ,jesus by the ,pharisees referred1 among other things1 to the usages of the table1 nothing was more natural than for legend to associate the origin of the offence with a particular place and occasion1 and for this purpose to imagine invitations given to ,jesus by ,pharisees--invitations which would be historically suspicious1 if for no other reason than that ,luke alone knows anything of them4 ,here1 then1 we again find ,luke in his favourite employment of furnishing a frame to the discourses of ,jesus which tradition had delivered to him2 a procedure much farther removed from historic faithfulness1 than the effort of ,matthew to give unity to discourses gathered from different periods1 without adding matter of his own4 ,the formation of the climax above displayed1 can only be conceived1 in accordance with the general relation between the synoptists1 in the following manner3 ,mark1 who in this instance evidently had ,matthew before him1 enriched his account with the dramatic expression 2 while ,luke1 independent of both1 has added a repast1 1 whether presented to him by a more developed tradition1 or invented by his own more fertile imagination4 ,together with this unhistorical position1 the proportions themselves seem to be disfigured in ,luke 7xi4 #ci-da1 #di71 and the observation of the lawyer1 ,master1 thus saying thou reproachest us also 7xi4 #de71 too much resembles an artificial transition from the philippic against the ,pharisees1 to that against the doctors of the law4 #ajac ,another passage in this discourse has been the subject of much discussion4 ,it is that 7v4 #ce7 in which ,jesus threatens his cotemporaries1 that all the innocent blood shed from that of ,abel to that of ,zacharias1 the son of ,barachias1 slain in the temple1 will be required of their generation4 ,the ,zacharias of whom such an end is narrated #b ,chron4 xxiv4 #bj ff4 was a son1 not of ,barachias1 but of ,jehoiada4 ,on the other hand1 there was a ,zacharias1 the son of ,baruch1 who came to a similar end in the ,jewish war4 #ajad ,moreover1 it appears unlikely that ,jesus would refer to a murder which took place #hej ,b4,c4 as the last4 ,hence it was at first supposed that we have in v4 #ce a prophecy1 and afterwards1 a confusion of the earlier with the later event2 and the latter notion has been used as an accessory proof that the first gospel is a posterior compilation4 #ajae ,it is1 however1 equally probable1 that the ,zacharias1 son of ,jehoiada1 whose death is narrated in the ,chronicles1 has been confounded with the prophet ,zechariah1 who was a son of ,barachias 7,zech4 i4 #a2 ,,lxx42 ,baruch1 in ,josephus1 is not the same name72 #ajaf especially as a ,targum1 evidently in consequence of a like confusion with the prophet who was a grandson of ,iddo1 calls the murdered ,zechariah a son of ,iddo4 #ajag ,the murder of a prophet1 mentioned by ,jeremiah 7xxvi4 #bc71 was doubtless subsequent to that of ,zechariah1 but in the ,jewish order of the canonical books1 ,jeremiah precedes the ,chronicles2 and to oppose a murder revealed in the first canonical book1 to one recorded in the last1 was entirely in the style of ,jewish parlance4 #ajah ,after having considered all the discourses of ,jesus given by ,matthew1 and compared them with their parallels1 with the exception of those which had come before us in previous discussions1 or which have yet to come before us in our examination of single incidents in the public ministry1 or of the history of the passion3 it might appear requisite to the completeness of our criticism1 that we should also give a separate investigation to the connexion in which the two other synoptists give the discourses of ,jesus1 and from this point review the parallels in ,matthew4 ,but we have already cast a comparative glance over the most remarkable discourses in ,luke and ,mark1 and gone through the parables which are peculiar to each2 and as to the remainder of what they offer in the form of discourses1 it will either come under our future consideration1 or if not1 the point of view from which it is to be criticised1 has been sufficiently indicated in the foregoing investigations4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,discourses ,,of ,,jesus ,,in ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel4 #hj4 ,,conversation ,,of ,,jesus ,,with ,,nicodemus4 ,the first considerable specimen which the fourth gospel gives of the teaching of ,jesus1 is his conversation with ,nicodemus 7iii4 #a-ba74 ,in the previous chapter 7#bc-be7 it is narrated1 that during the first passover attended by ,jesus after his entrance on his public ministry1 he had won many to faith in him by the miracles1 1 which he performed1 but that he did not commit himself to them because he saw through them3 he was aware1 that is1 of the uncertainty and impurity of their faith4 ,then follows in our present chapter1 as an example1 not only of the adherents whom ,jesus had found even thus early1 but also of the wariness with which he tested and received them1 a more detailed account how ,nicodemus1 a ruler of the ,jews and a ,pharisee1 applied to him1 and how he was treated by ,jesus4 ,it is through the ,gospel of ,john alone that we learn anything of this ,nicodemus1 who in vii4 #ej f4 appears as the advocate of ,jesus1 so far as to protest against his being condemned without a hearing1 and in xix4 #ci as the partaker with ,joseph of ,arimathea of the care of interring ,jesus4 ,modern criticism1 with reason1 considers it surprising that ,matthew 7with the other synoptists7 does not even mention the name of this remarkable adherent of ,jesus1 and that we have to gather all our knowledge of him from the fourth gospel2 since the peculiar relation in which ,nicodemus stood to ,jesus1 and his participation in the care of his interment1 must have been as well known to ,matthew as to ,john4 ,this difficulty has been numbered among the arguments which are thought to prove that the first gospel was not written by the ,apostle ,matthew1 but was the product of a tradition considerably more remote from the time and locality of ,jesus4 #ajai ,but the fact is that the common fund of tradition on which all the synoptists drew had preserved no notice of this ,nicodemus4 ,with touching piety the ,christian legend has recorded in the tablets of her memory1 the names of all the others who helped to render the last honours to their murdered master--of ,joseph of ,arimathea and the two ,marys 7,matt4 xxvii4 #eg-fa parall472 why then was ,nicodemus the only neglected one--he who was especially distinguished among those who tended the remains of ,jesus1 by his nocturnal interview with the teacher sent from ,god1 and by his advocacy of him among the chief priests and ,pharisees8 ,it is so difficult to conceive that the name of this man1 if he had really assumed such a position1 would have vanished from the popular evangelical tradition without leaving a single trace1 that one is induced to inquire whether the contrary supposition be not more capable of explanation3 namely1 that such a relation between ,nicodemus and ,jesus might have been fabricated by tradition1 and adopted by the author of the fourth gospel without having really subsisted4 ,john xii4 #db1 it is expressly said that many among the chief rulers believed on ,jesus1 but concealed their faith from dread of excommunication by the ,pharisees1 because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of ,god4 #ajbj ,that towards the end of his career many people of rank believed in ,jesus1 even in secret only1 is not very probable1 since no indication of it appears in the ,acts of the ,apostles2 for that the advice of ,gamaliel 7,acts v4 #cd ff47 did not originate in a positively favourable disposition towards the cause of ,jesus1 seems to be sufficiently demonstrated by the spirit of his disciple ,saul4 ,moreover the synoptists make ,jesus declare in plain terms that the secret of his ,messiahship had been revealed only to babes1 and hidden from the wise and prudent 7,matt4 xi4 #be2 ,luke x4 #ba71 and ,joseph of ,arimathea is the only individual of the ruling class whom they mention as an adherent of ,jesus4 ,how1 then1 if ,jesus did not really attach to himself any from the upper ranks1 came the case to be represented differently at a later period8 ,in ,john vii4 #dh f4 we read that the ,pharisees sought to disparage ,jesus by the remark that none of the rulers or of the ,pharisees1 but only the ignorant populace1 believed on him2 and even later adversaries of ,christianity1 for example1 ,celsus1 laid great stress on the circumstance that ,jesus had had as his disciples 1 4 #ajba ,this reproach was a thorn in the side of the early church1 and though as long as her members were drawn only from the people1 she might reflect with satisfaction on the declarations of ,jesus1 in which he had pronounced the poor1 1 and simple1 1 blessed3 yet so soon as she was joined by men of rank and education1 these would lean to the idea that converts like themselves had not been wanting to ,jesus during his life4 ,but1 it would be objected1 nothing had been hitherto known of such converts4 ,naturally enough1 it might be answered2 since fear of their equals would induce them to conceal their relations with ,jesus4 ,thus a door was opened for the admission of any number of secret adherents among the higher class 7,john xii4 #db f474 ,but1 it would be further urged1 how could they have intercourse with ,jesus unobserved8 ,under the veil of the night1 would be the answer2 and thus the scene was laid for the interviews of such men with ,jesus 7xix4 #ci74 ,this1 however1 would not suffice2 a representative of this class must actually appear on the scene3 ,joseph of ,arimathea might have been chosen1 his name being still extant in the synoptical tradition2 but the idea of him was too definite1 and it was the interest of the legend to name more than one eminent friend of ,jesus4 ,hence a new personage was devised1 whose ,greek name seems to point him out significantly as the representative of the dominant class4 #ajbb ,that this development of the legend is confined to the fourth gospel1 is to be explained1 partly by the generally admitted lateness of its origin1 and partly on the ground that in the evidently more cultivated circle in which it arose1 the limitation of the adherents of ,jesus to the common people would be more offensive1 than in the circle in which the synoptical tradition was formed4 ,thus the reproach which modern criticism has cast on the first gospel1 on the score of its silence respecting ,nicodemus1 is turned upon the fourth1 on the score of its information on the same subject4 ,these considerations1 however1 should not create any prejudice against the ensuing conversation1 which is the proper object of our investigations4 ,this may still be in the main genuine2 ,jesus may have held such a conversation with one of his adherents1 and our ,evangelist may have embellished it no further than by making this interlocutor a man of rank4 ,neither will we1 with the author of the ,probabilia1 take umbrage at the opening address of ,nicodemus1 nor complain1 with him1 that there is a want of connexion between that address and the answer of ,jesus4 #ajbc ,the requisition of a new birth 7 71 as a condition of entrance into the kingdom of heaven1 does not differ essentially from the summons with which ,jesus opens his ministry in the synoptical gospels1 ,repent ye1 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand4 ,new birth1 or new creation1 was a current image among the ,jews1 especially as denoting the conversion of an idolater into a worshipper of ,jehovah4 ,it was customary to say of ,abraham1 that when1 according to the ,jewish supposition1 he renounced idolatry for the worship of the true ,god1 he became a new creature 7 74 #ajbd ,the proselyte1 too1 in allusion to his relinquishing all his previous associations1 was compared to a new-born child4 #ajbe ,that such phraseology was common among the ,jews at that period1 is shown by the confidence with which ,paul applies1 as if it required no explanation1 the term new creation1 1 to those truly converted to ,christ4 ,now1 if ,jesus required1 even from the ,jews1 as a condition of entrance into the messianic kingdom1 the new birth which they ascribed to their heathen proselytes1 ,nicodemus might naturally wonder at the requisition1 since the ,israelite thought himself1 as such1 unconditionally entitled to that kingdom3 and this is the construction which has been put upon his question v4 #d4 #ajbf ,but ,nicodemus does not ask1 ,how canst thou say that a ,jew1 or a child of ,abraham1 must be born again8 ,his ground of wonder is that ,jesus appears to suppose it possible for a man to be born again1 and that when he is old4 ,it does not1 therefore1 astonish him that spiritual new birth should be expected in a ,jew1 but corporeal new birth in a man4 ,how an oriental1 to whom figurative speech in general--how a ,jew1 to whom the image of the new birth in particular must have been familiar--how especially a master of ,israel1 in whom the misconstruction of figurative phrases cannot1 as in the apostles 7e4g4 ,matt4 xv4 #ae f42 xvi4 #g71 be ascribed to want of education--could understand this expression literally1 has been matter of extreme surprise to expositors of all parties1 as well as to ,jesus 7v4 #aj74 ,hence some have supposed that the ,pharisee really understood ,jesus1 and only intended by his question to test the ability of ,jesus to interpret his figurative expression into a simple proposition3 #ajbg but ,jesus does not treat him as a hypocrite1 as in that case he must have done--he continues to instruct him1 as one really ignorant 7v4 #aj74 ,others give the question the following turn3 ,this cannot be meant in a physical sense1 how then otherwise8 #ajbh ,but the true drift of the question is rather the contrary3 ,by these words ,i can only understand physical new birth1 but how is this possible8 ,our wonder at the ignorance of the ,jewish doctor1 therefore1 returns upon us2 and it is heightened when1 after the copious explanation of ,jesus 7v4 #e-h71 that the new birth which he required was a spiritual birth1 1 ,nicodemus has made no advance in comprehension1 but asks with the same obtuseness as before 7v4 #i71 ,how can these things be8 ,by this last difficulty ,lcke is so straitened1 that1 contrary to his ordinary exegetical tact1 he refers the continued amazement of ,nicodemus 7as other expositors had referred his original question7 to the circumstance that ,jesus maintained the necessity of new birth even for ,israelites4 ,but1 in that case1 ,nicodemus would have inquired concerning the necessity1 not the possibility1 of that birth2 instead of asking1 ,how can these things be8 he would have asked1 ,why must these things be8 ,this inconceivable mistake in a ,jewish doctor is not then to be explained away1 and our surprise must become strong suspicion so soon as it can be shown1 that legend or the ,evangelist had inducements to represent this individual as more simple than he really was4 ,first1 then1 it must occur to us1 that in all descriptions and recitals1 contrasts are eagerly exhibited2 hence in the representation of a colloquy in which one party is the teacher1 the other the taught1 there is a strong temptation to create a contrast to the wisdom of the former by exaggerating the simplicity of the latter4 ,further1 we must remember the satisfaction it must give to a ,christian mind of that age1 to place a master of ,israel in the position of an unintelligent person1 by the side of the ,master of the ,christians4 ,lastly1 it is1 as we shall presently see more clearly1 the constant method of the fourth ,evangelist in detailing the conversations of ,jesus1 to form the knot and the progress of the discussion1 by making the interlocutors understand literally what ,jesus intended figuratively4 ,in reply to the second query of ,nicodemus1 ,jesus takes entirely the tone of the fourth ,evangelist's prologue 7v4 #aa-ac74 #ajbi ,the question hence arises1 whether the ,evangelist borrowed from ,jesus1 or lent to him his own style4 ,a previous investigation has decided in favour of the latter alternative4 #ajcj ,but this inquiry referred merely to the form of the discourses2 in relation to their matter1 its analogy with the ideas of ,philo1 does not authorize us at once to conclude that the writer here puts his ,alexandrian doctrine of the ,logos into the mouth of ,jesus2 #ajca because the expressions1 ,we speak that we do know1 etc4 4441 and1 ,no man hath ascended up to heaven1 etc4 4441 have an analogy with ,matt4 xi4 #bg2 and the idea of the pre-existence of the ,messiah which is here propounded1 is1 as we have seen1 not foreign to the ,apostle ,paul4 ,v4 #ad and #ae ,jesus proceeds from the more simple things of the earth1 1 the communications concerning the new birth1 to the more difficult things of heaven1 1 the announcement of the destination of the ,messiah to a vicarious death4 ,the ,son of ,man1 he says1 must be lifted up 71 which1 in ,john's phraseology1 signifies crucifixion1 with an allusion to a glorifying exaltation71 in the same way1 and with the same effect1 as the brazen serpent ,num4 xxi4 #h1 #i4 ,here many questions press upon us4 ,is it credible1 that ,jesus already1 at the very commencement of his public ministry1 foresaw his death1 and in the specific form of crucifixion8 and that long before he instructed his disciples on this point1 he made a communication on the subject to a ,pharisee8 ,can it be held consistent with the wisdom of ,jesus as a teacher1 that he should impart such knowledge to ,nicodemus8 ,even ,lcke #ajcb puts the question why1 when ,nicodemus had not understood the more obvious doctrine1 ,jesus tormented him with the more recondite1 and especially with the secret of the ,messiah's death1 which was then so remote8 ,he answers3 it accords perfectly with the wisdom of ,jesus as a teacher1 that he should reveal the sufferings appointed for him by ,god as early as possible1 because no instruction was better adapted to cast down false worldly hopes4 ,but the more remote the idea of the ,messiah's death from the conceptions of his cotemporaries1 owing to the worldliness of their expectations1 the more impressively and unequivocally must ,jesus express that idea1 if he wished to promulgate it2 not in an enigmatical form which he could not be sure that ,nicodemus would understand4 ,lcke continues3 ,nicodemus was a man open to instruction2 one of whom good might be expected4 ,but in this very conversation1 his dulness of comprehension in earthly things1 1 had evinced that he must have still less capacity for heavenly things1 2 and1 according to v4 #ab1 ,jesus himself despaired of enlightening him with respect to them4 ,lcke1 however1 observes1 that it was a practice with ,jesus to follow up easy doctrine which had not been comprehended1 by difficult doctrine which was of course less comprehensible2 that he purposed thus to give a spur to the minds of his hearers1 and by straining their attention1 engage them to reflect4 ,but the examples which ,lcke adduces of such proceeding on the part of ,jesus1 are all drawn from the fourth gospel4 ,now the very point in question is1 whether that gospel correctly represents the teaching of ,jesus2 consequently ,lcke argues in a circle4 ,we have seen a similar procedure ascribed to ,jesus in his conversation with the woman of ,samaria1 and we have already declared our opinion that such an overburthening of weak faculties with enigma on enigma1 does not accord with the wise rule as to the communication of doctrine1 which the same gospel puts into the mouth of ,jesus1 xvi4 #ab4 ,it would not stimulate1 but confuse1 the mind of the hearer1 who persisted in a misapprehension of the well-known figure of the new birth1 to present to him the novel comparison of the ,messiah and his death1 to the brazen serpent and its effects2 a comparison quite incongruous with his ,jewish ideas4 #ajcc ,in the first three ,gospels ,jesus pursues an entirely different course4 ,in these1 where a misconstruction betrays itself on the part of the disciples1 ,jesus 7except where he breaks off altogether1 or where it is evident that the ,evangelist unhistorically associates a number of metaphorical discourses7 applies himself with the assiduity of an earnest teacher to the thorough explanation of the difficulty1 and not until he has effected this does he proceed1 step by step1 to convey further instruction 7e4g4 ,matt4 xiii4 #aj ff41 #cf ff41 xv4 #af1 xvi4 #h ff474 #ajcd ,this is the method of a wise teacher2 on the contrary1 to leap from one subject to another1 to overburthen and strain the mind of the hearer1 a mode of instruction which the fourth ,evangelist attributes to ,jesus1 is wholly inconsistent with that character4 ,to explain this inconsistency1 we must suppose that the writer of the fourth gospel thought to heighten in the most effective manner the contrast which appears from the first1 between the wisdom of the one party and the incapacity of the other1 by representing the teacher as overwhelming the pupil1 who put unintelligent questions on the most elementary doctrine1 with lofty and difficult themes1 beneath which his faculties are laid prostrate4 ,from v4 #af1 even those commentators who pretend to some ability in this department1 lose all hope of showing that the remainder of the discourse may have been spoken by ,jesus4 ,not only does ,paulus make this confession1 but even ,olshausen1 with a concise statement of his reasons4 #ajce ,at the above verse1 any special reference to ,nicodemus vanishes1 and there is commenced an entirely general discourse on the destination of the ,son of ,god1 to confer a blessing on the world1 and on the manner in which unbelief forfeits this blessing4 ,moreover1 these ideas are expressed in a form1 which at one moment appears to be a reminiscence of the ,evangelist's introduction1 and at another has a striking similarity with passages in the first ,epistle of ,john4 #ajcf ,in particular1 the expression1 the only begotten ,son1 1 which is repeatedly 7v4 #af and #ah7 attributed to ,jesus as a designation of his own person1 is nowhere else found in his mouth1 even in the fourth gospel2 this circumstance1 however1 marks it still more positively as a favourite phrase of the ,evangelist 7i4 #ad-ah71 and of the writer of the ,epistles 7#a ,john iv4 #i74 ,further1 many things are spoken of as past1 which at the supposed period of this conversation with ,nicodemus were yet future4 ,for even if the words1 he gave1 1 refer not to the giving over to death1 but to the sending of the ,messiah into the world2 the expressions1 men loved darkness1 1 and1 their deeds were evil1 7v4 #ai71 as ,lcke also remarks1 could only be used after the triumph of darkness had been achieved in the rejection and execution of ,jesus3 they belong then to the ,evangelist's point of view at the time when he wrote1 not to that of ,jesus when on the threshold of his public ministry4 ,in general the whole of this discourse attributed to ,jesus1 with its constant use of the third person to designate the supposed speaker2 with its dogmatical terms only begotten1 light1 and the like1 applied to ,jesus2 with its comprehensive view of the crisis and its results1 which the appearance of ,jesus produced1 is far too objective for us to believe that it came from the lips of ,jesus4 ,jesus could not speak thus of himself1 but the ,evangelist might speak thus of ,jesus4 ,hence the same expedient has been adopted1 as in the case of the ,baptist's discourse already considered1 and it has been supposed that ,jesus is the speaker down to v4 #af1 but that from that point the ,evangelist appends his own dogmatic reflections4 #ajcg ,but there is again here no intimation of such a transition in the text2 rather1 the connecting word for1 7v4 #af71 seems to indicate a continuation of the same discourse4 ,no writer1 and least of all the fourth ,evangelist 7comp4 vii4 #ci1 xi4 #ea f41 xii4 #af1 xxxiii4 #cg ff471 would scatter his own observations thus undistinguishingly1 unless he wished to create a misapprehension4 #ajch ,if then it be established that the evangelist1 from v4 #af to the end of the discourse1 means to represent ,jesus as the speaker1 while ,jesus can never have so spoken1 we cannot rest satisfied with the half measure adopted by ,lcke1 when he maintains that it is really ,jesus who continues to speak from the above passage1 but that the ,evangelist has inwoven his own explanations and amplifications more liberally than before4 ,for this admission undermines all certainty as to how far the discourse belongs to ,jesus1 and how far to the ,evangelist2 besides1 as the discourse is distinguished by the closest uniformity of thought and style1 it must be ascribed either wholly to ,jesus or wholly to the ,evangelist4 ,of these two alternatives the former is1 according to the above considerations1 impossible2 we are therefore restricted to the latter1 which we have observed to be entirely consistent with the manner of the fourth ,evangelist4 ,but not only on the passage v4 #af-ba must we pass this judgment3 v4 #ad has appeared to us out of keeping with the position of ,jesus2 and the behaviour of ,nicodemus1 v4 #d and #i1 altogether inconceivable4 ,thus in the very first sample1 when compared with the observations which we have already made on ,john iii4 #bb ff41 iv4 #a ff41 the fourth gospel presents to us all the peculiarities which characterize its mode of reporting the discourses of ,jesus4 ,they are usually commenced in the form of dialogue1 and so far as this extends1 the lever that propels the conversation is the striking contrast between the spiritual sense and the carnal interpretation of the language of ,jesus2 generally1 however1 the dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse1 in which the writer blends the person of ,jesus with his own1 and makes the former use concerning himself1 language which could only be used by ,john concerning ,jesus4 #ha4 ,,the ,,discourses ,,of ,,jesus1 ,,john ,v4-,,xii4 ,in the fifth chapter of ,john1 a long discourse of ,jesus is connected with a cure wrought by him on the sabbath 7#ai-dg74 ,the mode in which ,jesus at v4 #ag defends his activity on the sabbath1 is worthy of notice1 as distinguished from that adopted by him in the earlier gospels4 ,these ascribe to him1 in such cases1 three arguments3 the example of ,david1 who ate the shew-bread2 the precedent of the sabbatical labours of the priests in the temple1 quoted also in ,john vii4 #bc 7,matt4 xii4 #c ff4 parall472 and the course pursued with respect to an ox1 sheep1 or ass1 that falls into the pit 7,matt4 xii4 #aa1 parall471 or is led out to watering on the sabbath 7,luke xiii4 #ah73 all which arguments are entirely in the practical spirit that characterizes the popular teaching of ,jesus4 ,the fourth ,evangelist1 on the contrary1 makes him argue from the uninterrupted activity of ,god1 and reminds us by the expression which he puts into the mouth of ,jesus1 ,my ,father worketh hitherto1 1 of a principle in the ,alexandrian metaphysics1 viz4 ,god never ceases to act1 3 #ajci a metaphysical proposition more likely to be familiar to the author of the fourth gospel than to ,jesus4 ,in the synoptical gospels1 miracles of healing on the sabbath are followed up by declarations respecting the nature and design of the sabbatical institution1 a species of instruction of which the people were greatly in need2 but in the present passage1 a digression is immediately made to the main theme of the gospel1 the person of ,christ and his relation to the ,father4 ,the perpetual recurrence of this theme in the fourth gospel has led its adversaries1 not without reason1 to accuse it of a tendency purely theoretic1 and directed to the glorification of ,jesus4 ,in the matter of the succeeding discourse there is nothing to create a difficulty1 nothing that ,jesus might not have spoken1 for it treats1 with the strictest coherence1 of things which the ,jews expected of the ,messiah1 or which ,jesus attributed to himself1 according to the synoptists also3 as1 for instance1 the raising of the dead1 and the office of judging the world4 ,but this consistency in the matter only heightens the difficulty connected with the form and phraseology in which it is expressed4 ,for the discourse1 especially its latter half 7from v4 #ca71 is full of the closest analogies with the first epistle of ,john1 and with passages in the gospel in which either the author speaks1 or ,john the ,baptist4 #ajdj ,one means of explaining the former resemblance is to suppose1 that the ,evangelist formed his style by closely imitating that of ,jesus4 ,that this is possible1 is not to be disputed2 but it is equally certain that it could proceed only from a mind destitute of originality and self-confidence1--a character which the fourth ,evangelist in nowise exhibits4 ,further1 as in the other gospels ,jesus speaks in a thoroughly different tone and style1 it would follow1 if he really spoke as he is represented to have done by ,john1 that the manner attributed to him by the synoptists is fictitious4 ,now1 that this manner did not originate with the ,evangelists is plain from the fact1 that each of them is so little master of his matter4 ,neither could the bulk of the discourses have been the work of tradition1 not only because they have a highly original cast1 but because they bear the impress of the alleged time and locality4 ,on the contrary1 the fourth ,evangelist1 by the ease with which he disposes his materials1 awakens the suspicion that they are of his own production2 and some of his favourite ideas and phrases1 such as1 ,the ,father showeth the ,son all that himself doeth1 #ajda and those already quoted1 seem to have sprung from an ,hellenistic source1 rather than from ,palestine4 ,but the chief point in the argument is1 that in this gospel ,john the ,baptist speaks1 as we have seen1 in precisely the same strain as the author of the gospels1 and his ,jesus4 ,it cannot be supposed1 that not only the ,evangelist1 but the ,baptist1 whose public career was prior to that of ,jesus1 and whose character was strongly marked1 modelled his expressions with verbal minuteness on those of ,jesus4 ,hence only two cases are possible3 either the ,baptist determined the style of ,jesus and the ,evangelist 7who indeed appears to have been the ,baptist's disciple72 or the ,evangelist determined the style of the ,baptist and ,jesus4 ,the former alternative will be rejected by the orthodox1 on the ground of the higher nature that dwelt in ,christ2 and we are equally disinclined to adopt it1 for the reason that ,jesus1 even though he may have been excited to activity by the ,baptist1 yet appears as a character essentially distinct from him1 and original2 and for the still more weighty consideration1 that the style of the ,evangelist is much too feeble for the rude ,baptist1--too mystical for his practical mind4 ,there remains1 then1 but the latter alternative1 namely1 that the ,evangelist has given his own style both to ,jesus and to the ,baptist3 an explanation in itself more natural than the former1 and supported by a multitude of examples from all kinds of historical writers4 ,if however the ,evangelist is thus responsible for the form of this discourse1 it is still possible that the matter may have belonged to ,jesus1 but we cannot pronounce to what extent this is the case1 and we have already had proof that the ,evangelist1 on suitable opportunities1 very freely presents his own reflections in the form of a discourse from ,jesus4 ,in chap4 vi41 ,jesus represents himself1 or rather his ,father1 v4 #bg ff41 as the giver of the spiritual manna4 ,this is analogous to the ,jewish idea above quoted1 that the second ,gol1 like the first1 would provide manna2 #ajdb and to the invitation of ,wisdom in the ,proverbs1 ix4 #e1 ,come1 eat of my bread3 1 4 ,but the succeeding declaration1 that he is himself the bread of life that cometh down from heaven1 7v4 #cc and #ce7 appears to find its true analogy only in the idea of ,philo1 that the divine word1 1 is that which nourishes the soul1 4 #ajdc ,from v4 #ea1 the difficulty becomes still greater4 ,jesus proceeds to represent his flesh as the bread from heaven1 which he will give for the life of the world1 and to eat the flesh of the ,son of ,man1 and to drink his blood1 he pronounces to be the only means of attaining eternal life4 ,the similarity of these expressions to the words which the synoptists and ,paul attribute to ,jesus1 at the institution of the ,lord's ,supper1 led the older commentators generally to understand this passage as having reference to the ,sacramental supper1 ultimately to be appointed by ,jesus4 #ajdd ,the chief objection to this interpretation is1 that before the institution of the supper1 such an allusion would be totally unintelligible4 ,still the discourse might have some sense1 however erroneous1 for the hearers1 as indeed it had1 according to the narrator's statement2 and the impossibility of being understood is not1 in the fourth gospel1 so shunned by ,jesus1 that that circumstance alone would suffice to render this interpretation improbable4 ,it is certainly supported by the analogy between the expressions in the discourse1 and the words associated with the institution of the supper1 and this analogy has wrung from one of our recent critics the admission1 that even if ,jesus himself1 in uttering the above expressions1 did not refer to the supper1 the ,evangelist1 in choosing and conveying this discourse of ,jesus might have had that institution in his mind1 and might have supposed that ,jesus here gave a premonition of its import4 #ajde ,in that case1 however1 he could scarcely have abstained from modifying the language of ,jesus2 so that1 if the choice of the expression eat the flesh1 etc41 can only be adequately explained on the supposition of a reference to the ,lord's ,supper1 we owe it1 without doubt1 to the ,evangelist alone4 ,having once said1 apparently in accordance with ,alexandrian ideas1 that ,jesus had described himself as the bread of life1 how could he fail to be reminded of the bread1 which in the ,christian community was partaken of as the body of ,christ1 together with a beverage1 as his blood8 ,he would the more gladly seize the opportunity of making ,jesus institute the supper prophetically1 as it were2 because1 as we shall hereafter see1 he knew nothing definite of its historical institution by ,jesus4 #ajdf ,the discourse above considered1 also bears the form of a dialogue1 and it exhibits strikingly the type of dialogue which especially belongs to the fourth gospel3 that1 namely1 in which language intended spiritually1 is understood carnally4 ,in the first place 7v4 #cd71 the ,jews 7as the woman of ,samaria in relation to the water7 suppose that by the bread which cometh down from heaven1 ,jesus means some material food1 and entreat him evermore to supply them with such4 ,such a misapprehension was certainly natural2 but one would have thought that the ,jews1 before they carried the subject farther1 would have indignantly protested against the assertion of ,jesus 7v4 #cb71 that ,moses had not given them heavenly bread4 ,when ,jesus proceeds to call himself the bread from heaven1 the ,jews in the synagogue at ,capernaum murmur that he1 the son of ,joseph1 whose father and mother they knew1 should arrogate to himself a descent from heaven 7v4 #da72 a reflection which the synoptists with more probability attribute to the people of ,nazareth1 the native city of ,jesus1 and to which they assign a more natural cause4 ,that the ,jews should not understand 7v4 #ec7 how ,jesus could give them his flesh to eat is very conceivable2 and for that reason1 as we have observed1 it is the less so that ,jesus should express himself thus unintelligibly4 ,neither is it surprising that this hard saying1 1 should cause many disciples to fall away from him1 nor easy to perceive how ,jesus could1 in the first instance1 himself give reason for the secession1 and then1 on its occurrence1 feel so much displeasure as is implied in v4 #fa and #fg4 ,it is indeed said1 that ,jesus wished to sift his disciples1 to remove from his society the superficial believers1 the earthly-minded1 whom he could not trust2 but the measure which he here adopted was one calculated to alienate from him even his best and most intelligent followers4 ,for it is certain that the twelve1 who on other occasions knew not what was meant by the leaven of the ,pharisees 7,matt4 xvi4 #g71 or by the opposition between what goes into the mouth1 and what comes out of it 7,matt4 xv4 #ae71 would not understand the present discourse2 and the words of eternal life1 for the sake of which they remained with him 7v4 #fh71 were assuredly not the words of this sixth chapter4 #ajdg ,the further we read in the fourth gospel1 the more striking is the repetition3 of the same ideas and expressions4 ,the discourses of ,jesus during the ,feast of ,tabernacles1 ch4 vii4 and viii4 are1 as ,lcke has remarked1 mere repetitions and amplifications of the oppositions previously presented 7especially in ch4 v471 of the coming1 speaking1 and acting1 of ,jesus1 and of ,god 7vii4 #ag1 #bh f41 viii4 #bh f41 #ch1 #dj1 #db1 compare with v4 #cj1 #dc1 #ch72 of being from above1 1 and from beneath1 7viii4 #bc1 comp4 iii4 #ca72 of bearing witness of one's self1 and receiving witness from ,god 7viii4 #ac-ai1 comp4 v4 #ca-cg72 of light and darkness 7viii4 #ab1 comp4 iii4 #aj1 ff41 also xii4 #ce f472 of true and false judgment 7viii4 #ae f41 comp4 v4 #cj74 ,all that is new in these chapters1 is quickly repeated1 as the mention of the departure of ,jesus whither the ,jews cannot follow him 7vii4 #cc f41 viii4 #ba1 comp4 xiii4 #cc1 xiv4 #b ff41 xvi4 #af ff472 a declaration1 to which are attached1 in the first two instances1 very improbable misapprehensions or perversions on the part of the ,jews1 who1 although ,jesus had said1 ,i go unto him that sent me1 are represented as imagining1 at one time1 that he purposed journeying to the dispersed among the ,gentiles1 at another1 that he meditated suicide4 ,how often1 again1 in this chapter are repeated the asseverations1 that he seeks not his own honour1 but the honour of the ,father 7vii4 #ag f41 viii4 #ej1 #ed72 that the ,jews neither know whence he came1 nor the father who sent him 7vii4 #bh1 viii4 #ad1 #ai1 #ed72 that whosoever believeth in him shall have eternal life1 shall not see death1 while whosoever believeth not must die in his sins1 having no share in eternal life 7viii4 #ba1 #bd1 #ea1 comp4 iii4 #cf1 vi4 #dj74--,the ninth chapter1 consisting chiefly of the deliberations of the ,sanhedrim with the man born blind1 whom ,jesus had restored to sight1 has of course the form of conversation1 but as ,jesus is less on the scene than heretofore1 there is not the usual amount of artificial contrast2 in its stead1 however1 there is1 as we shall presently find1 another evidence of artistic design in the narrator4 ,the tenth chapter commences with the well-known discourse on the ,good ,shepherd2 a discourse which has been incorrectly called a parable4 #ajdh ,even the briefest among the other parables of ,jesus1 such as that of the leaven and of the mustard-seed1 contain the outline of a history that develops itself1 having a commencement1 progress1 and conclusion4 ,here1 on the contrary1 there is no historical development2 even the particulars that have an historical character are stated generally1 as things that are wont to happen1 not as things that once happened1 and they are left without further limitation2 moreover1 the door usurps the place of the ,shepherd1 which is at first the principal image2 so that we have here1 not a parable1 but an allegory4 ,therefore this passage at least--7and we shall find no other1 for the similitude of the vine1 ch4 xv41 comes1 as ,lcke confesses1 under the same category as the one in question7--furnishes no argument against the allegation by which recent critics have justified their suspicions as to the authenticity of the fourth gospel2 namely1 that its author seems ignorant of the parabolic mode of teaching which1 according to the other ,evangelists1 was habitual with ,jesus4 ,it does not however appear totally unknown to the fourth ,evangelist that ,jesus was fond of teaching by parables1 for he attempts to give examples of this method1 both in ch4 x4 and xv41 the first of which he expressly styles a parable1 4 ,but it is obvious that the parabolic form was not accordant with his taste1 and that he was too deficient in the faculty of depicting external things1 to abstain from the intermixture of reflections1 whence the parable in his hand became an allegory4 ,the discourses of ,jesus at the ,feast of ,tabernacles extend to x4 #ah4 ,from v4 #be1 the ,evangelist professes to record sayings which were uttered by ,jesus three months later1 at the ,feast of ,dedication4 ,when1 on this occasion1 the ,jews desire from him a distinct declaration whether he be the ,messiah1 his immediate reply is1 that he has already told them this sufficiently1 and he repeats his appeal to the testimony of the ,father1 as given in the works1 1 done by ,jesus in his name 7as in v4 #cf74 ,hereupon he observes that his unbelieving interrogators are not of his sheep1 whence he reverts to the allegory of the shepherd1 which he had abandoned1 and repeats part of it word for word4 #ajdi ,but ,jesus had not recently abandoned this allegory2 for since its delivery three months are supposed to have elapsed1 and it is certain that in the interim much must have been spoken1 done1 and experienced by ,jesus1 that would thrust this figurative discourse into the background of his memory1 so that he would be very unlikely to recur to it1 and in no case would he be able to repeat it1 word for word4 ,he who had just quitted the allegory was the ,evangelist1 to whom three months had not intervened between the inditing of the first half of this chapter1 and that of the second4 ,he wrote at once what1 according to his statement1 was chronologically separated by a wide interval2 and hence the allegory of the shepherd might well leave so distinct an echo in his memory1 though not in that of ,jesus4 ,if any think that they can solve this difficulty by putting only the verbal similarity of the later discourse to the earlier one to the account of the ,evangelist1 such an opinion cannot be interdicted to them4 ,for others1 this instance1 in connexion with the rest1 will be a positive proof that the discourses of ,jesus in the fourth gospel are to a great extent the free compositions of the ,evangelist4 ,the same conclusion is to be drawn from the discourse with which the fourth ,evangelist represents ,jesus as closing his public ministry 7xii4 #dd-ej74 ,this discourse is entirely composed of reminiscences out of previous chapters1 #ajej and1 as ,paulus expresses it1 #ajea is a mere echo of some of the principal apophthegms of ,jesus occurring in the former part of the gospel4 ,one cannot easily consent to let the ministry of ,jesus close with a discourse so little original1 and the majority of recent commentators are of opinion that it is the intention of the ,evangelist here to give us a mere epitome of the teaching of ,jesus4 #ajeb ,according to our view also1 the ,evangelist is the real speaker2 but we must contend that his introductory words1 ,jesus cried and said1 1 are intended to imply that what follows is an actual harangue1 from the lips of ,jesus4 ,this commentators will not admit1 and they can appeal1 not without a show of reason1 to the statement of the ,evangelist1 v4 #cf1 that ,jesus withdrew himself from the public eye1 and to his ensuing observations on the obstinate unbelief of the ,jews1 in which he seems to put a period to the public career of ,jesus2 whence it would be contrary to his plan to make ,jesus again step forward to deliver a valedictory discourse4 ,i will not1 with the older expositors1 oppose to these arguments the supposition that ,jesus1 after his withdrawal1 returned to pronounce these words in the ears of the ,jews2 but ,i hold fast to the proposition that by the introduction above quoted1 the ,evangelist can only have intended to announce an actual harangue4 ,it is said1 indeed1 that the aorist in and has the signification of the pluperfect1 and that we have here a recapitulation of the previous discourses of ,jesus1 notwithstanding which the ,jews had not given him credence4 ,but to give this retrospective signification there ought to be a corresponding indication in the words themselves1 or in the context1 whereas this is far less the case than e4g4 in ,john xviii4 #bd4 ,hence the most probable view of the question is this3 ,john had indeed intended to close the narrative of the public ministry of ,jesus at v4 #cf1 but his concluding observations1 v4 #cg ff41 with the categories of faith1 1 and unbelief1 1 reminded him of discourses which he had already recorded1 and he could not resist the temptation of making ,jesus recapitulate them with additional emphasis in a parting harangue4 #hb4 ,,isolated ,,maxims ,,of ,,jesus1 ,,common ,,to ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel ,,and ,,the ,,synoptical ,,ones4 ,the long discourses of ,jesus above examined are peculiar to the fourth gospel2 it has only a few brief maxims to which the synoptists present parallels4 ,among the latter1 we need not give a special examination to those which are placed by ,john in an equally suitable connexion1 with that assigned to them by the other ,evangelists 7as xii4 #be1 comp4 with ,matt4 x4 #ci1 xvi4 #be2 and xiii4 #af1 comp4 with ,matt4 x4 #bd72 and as the passage ii4 #ai compared with ,matt4 xxvi4 #fa1 must be reserved until we treat of the history of the ,passion1 there remain to us only three passages for our present consideration4 ,the first of these is iv4 #dd1 where the ,evangelist1 after having mentioned that ,jesus departed from ,samaria into ,galilee1 adds1 ,for ,jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honour in his own country1 4 1 4 ,we find the same idea in ,matthew xiii4 #eg 7,mark vi4 #d2 ,luke iv4 #bd71 ,a prophet is not without honour1 save in his own country and in his own house1 1 4 ,but while in the latter case it stands in a highly appropriate connexion1 as a remark prompted by the ungracious reception which ,jesus met with in his native city1 and which caused him to leave it again3 in ,john1 on the contrary1 it is given as a motive for the return of ,jesus into his own country1 ,galilee1 where1 moreover1 he is immediately said to be warmly received4 ,the experience stated in the above sentence would rather have disinclined than induced ,jesus to undertake a journey into ,galilee2 hence the expedient of translating by although1 is the best adapted to the necessity of the case1 and has even been embraced by ,kuinl1 except that1 unhappily1 it is an open defiance of the laws of language4 #ajec ,unquestionably1 if ,jesus knew that the prophet held this unfavourable position in his native country1 1 it is not probable that he would regard it as a reason for going thither4 ,some expositors1 therefore1 have been induced to understand 1 not as the province1 but in a narrower sense1 as the native city1 and to supply1 after the statement that ,jesus went into ,galilee1 the observation1 which they assume the ,evangelist to have omitted1 that he avoided his native city1 ,nazareth1 for the reason given in the ensuing verse4 ,but an ellipsis such as this explanation requires us to suppose1 belongs not less to the order of impossibilities than the transmutation of into though4 ,the attempt to introduce the desiderated statement that ,jesus did not visit his own into the present passage has been therefore renounced3 but it has yet been thought possible to discover there an intimation that he did not soon return thither2 a delay for which the maxim1 444 might consistently be quoted as a reason4 #ajed ,but to render this interpretation admissible1 the entire period of the absence of ,jesus from ,galilee must have been mentioned immediately before the notice of his return2 instead of this1 however1 only the short time that ,jesus had tarried in ,samaria is given 7v4 #de71 so that in ludicrous disproportion of cause and effect1 the fear of the contempt of his fellow country men would on the above supposition1 be made the reason for delaying his return into ,galilee1 not until after a residence of some months in ,judea1 but until after the lapse of two days spent in ,samaria4 ,so long1 therefore1 as ,galilee and ,nazareth are admitted to be the of ,jesus1 the passage in question cannot be vindicated from the absurdity of representing1 that ,jesus was instigated to return thither by the contempt which he knew to await him4 ,consequently1 it becomes the interest of the expositor to recollect1 that ,matthew and ,luke pronounce ,bethlehem to be the birthplace of ,jesus1 whence it follows that ,judea was his native country1 which he now forsook on account of the contempt he had there experienced4 #ajee ,but according to iv4 #a1 comp4 ii4 #bc1 iii4 #bf ff41 ,jesus had won a considerable number of adherents in ,judea1 and could not therefore complain of a lack of honour1 2 moreover the enmity of the ,pharisees1 hinted at in iv4 #a1 was excited by the growing consequence of ,jesus in ,judea1 and was not at all referable to such a cause as that indicated in the maxim3 444 ,further1 the entrance into ,galilee is not connected in our passage with a departure from ,judea1 but from ,samaria2 and as1 according to the import of the text1 ,jesus departed from ,samaria and went into ,galilee1 because he had found that a prophet has no honour in his own country1 ,samaria might rather seem to be pointed out as his native country1 in conformity with the reproach cast on him by the ,jews1 viii4 #dh2 though even this supposition would not give consistency to the passage1 for in ,samaria also ,jesus is said1 iv4 #ci1 to have had a favourable reception4 ,besides1 we have already seen1 #ajef that the fourth ,evangelist knows nothing of the birth of ,jesus in ,bethlehem1 but on all occasions presupposes him to be a ,galilean and a ,nazarene4 ,from the above considerations we obtain only the negative result1 that it is impossible to discover any consistent relation between the maxim in question and the context4 ,a positive result1--namely1 how the maxim came to occupy its actual position1 notwithstanding this want of relation1 will perhaps be obtained when we have examined the two other passages belonging to the present head of our inquiry4 ,the declaration xiii4 #bj1 ,he that receiveth you receiveth me1 and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me1 has an almost verbal parallel in ,matt4 x4 #dj4 ,in ,john1 it is preceded by the prediction of the betrayal of ,jesus1 and his explanation to his disciples that he had told them this before it came to pass1 in order that when his prediction was fulfilled1 they might believe in him as the ,messiah4 ,what is the connexion between these subjects and the above declaration1 or between the latter and its ensuing context1 where ,jesus recurs to his betrayer8 ,it is said that ,jesus wished to impress on his disciples the high dignity of a messianic missionary1 a dignity which the betrayer thought lightly of losing2 #ajeg but the negative idea of loss1 on which this supposition turns1 is not intimated in the text4 ,others are of opinion that ,jesus1 observing the disciples to be disheartened by the mention of the betrayer1 sought to inspire them with new courage by representing to them their high value2 #ajeh but in that case he would hardly have reverted immediately after to the traitor4 ,others1 again1 conjecture that some intermediate sentences have been omitted by the writer2 #ajei but this expedient is not much happier than that of ,kuinl1 who supposes the passage to be a gloss taken from ,matt4 x4 #dj1 united originally to v4 #af of chap4 xiii4 of ,john1 but by some chance transposed to the end of the paragraph4 ,nevertheless1 the indication of v4 #af is an useful way-mark4 ,this verse1 as well as v4 #bj1 has a parallel in the discourse of instructions in ,matthew 7x4 #bd72 if a few fragments of this discourse had reached the author of the fourth gospel through the medium of tradition1 it is very probable that one of them would bring the others to his recollection4 ,in v4 #af there is mention of the sent1 1 and of him who sent him1 2 so in v4 #bj1 of those whom ,jesus will send1 and of ,him who sent ,jesus4 ,it is true1 that the one passage has a humiliating1 the other an encouraging tendency1 and their affinity lies1 therefore1 not in the sense1 but in the words2 so that as soon as the fourth ,evangelist puts down1 from memory1 traditional sayings of ,jesus1 we see him subject to the same law of association as the synoptists4 ,it would have been the most natural arrangement to place v4 #bj immediately after v4 #af2 but the thought of the traitor was uppermost in the mind of the writer1 and he could easily postpone the insertion of an apophthegm that had only a verbal connexion with his previous matter4 ,our third passage1 xiv4 #ca1 lies yet farther within the domain of the history of the ,passion than the one last examined1 but as1 like this1 it can be viewed quite independently1 we shall not be anticipating if we include it in our present chapter4 ,in the above passage1 the words ,arise1 let us go hence1 1 1 remind us of those by which ,jesus1 ,matt4 xxvi4 #df2 ,mark xiv4 #db1 summons his disciples to join him in encountering the traitor3 ,rise1 let us be going1 4 ,the position of the words in ,john is perplexing1 because the summons to depart has no effect2 ,jesus1 as if he had said nothing of the kind1 immediately continues 7xv4 #a71 ,i am the true vine1 etc41 and does not take his departure with his disciples until after he has considerably prolonged his discourse4 ,expositors of every hue have been singularly unanimous in explaining the above words by the supposition1 that ,jesus certainly intended at the moment to depart and betake himself to ,gethsemane1 but love for his disciples1 and a strong desire to impart to them still further admonition and comfort1 detained him2 that hence1 the first part of the summons1 ,arise1 was executed1 but that1 standing in the room in which he had supped1 he pursued his discourse1 until1 later 7xviii4 #a71 he also put into effect the words1 let us go hence4 #ajfj ,it is possible that the circumstances were such2 it is also possible that the image of this last evening1 with all its details1 might be engraven so deeply and accurately in the memory of a disciple1 that he might narrate how ,jesus arose1 and how touchingly he lingered4 ,but one who wrote under the influence of a recollection thus lively1 would note the particulars which were most apparent2 the rising to depart and the delay1--not the mere words1 which without the addition of those circumstances are altogether unintelligible4 ,here again1 then1 the conjecture arises that a reminiscence of the evangelical tradition presented itself to the writer1 and that he inserted it just where it occurred to him1 not1 as it happened1 in the best connexion2 and this conjecture assumes probability so soon as we discover what might have reminded him of the above expression4 ,in the synoptical parallels the command1 ,rise1 let us be going1 is connected with the announcement1 ,behold the hour is at hand1 and the ,son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners--behold he is at hand that doth betray me2 with the announcement1 that is1 of the hostile power which is approaching1 before which1 however1 ,jesus exhibits no fear1 but goes to encounter the danger with the decision implied in that command4 ,in ,john's gospel1 also1 ,jesus1 in the passage under our notice1 had been speaking of a hostile power when he said1 ,the ,prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me4 ,it makes little difference that in ,john it is the power that dwells in the betrayer1 and in those led by him1 while1 in the synoptical gospels1 it is the betrayer who is impelled by that power1 that is said to approach4 ,if the author of the fourth gospel knew by tradition that ,jesus had united with the announcement of an approaching danger the words1 ,rise1 let us be going1 this expression would be likely to occur to him on the mention of the prince of this world2 and as in that stage of his narrative he had placed ,jesus and his disciples in the city and within doors1 so that a considerable change of place was necessary before they could encounter the enemy1 he added to 7let us go71 7hence74 ,as1 however1 this traditional fragment had intruded itself unawares into the train of thought1 which he designed to put as a farewell discourse into the mouth of ,jesus1 it was immediately lost sight of1 and a free course was given to the stream of valedictory instruction1 not yet exhausted4 ,if1 from the point of view now attained1 we glance back on our first passage1 iv4 #dd1 it is easy to see how the ,evangelist might be led to insert in so unsuitable a connexion the testimony of ,jesus as to the treatment of a prophet in his own country4 ,it was known to him traditionally1 and he appears to have applied it to ,galilee in general1 being ignorant of any unfavourable contact of ,jesus with the ,nazarenes4 ,as1 therefore1 he knew of no special scene by which this observation might have been prompted1 he introduced it where the simple mention of ,galilee suggested it1 apparently without any definite idea of its bearing4 ,the result of the above investigation is this3 the fourth ,evangelist succeeds in giving connectedness to his materials1 when he presents his own thoughts in the form of discourses delivered by ,jesus2 but he often fails lamentably in that particular1 when he has to deal with the real traditional sayings of ,jesus4 ,in the above instances1 when he has the same problem before him as the synoptists1 he is as unfortunate in its solution as they2 nay1 he is in a yet more evil case1 for his narrative is not homogeneous with the common evangelical tradition1 and presented few places where a genuine traditional relic could be inserted4 ,besides1 he was accustomed to cast his metal1 liquid from his own invention1 and was little skilled in the art of adapting independent fragments to each other1 so as to form an harmonious mosaic4 #hc4 ,,the ,,modern ,,discussions ,,on ,,the ,,authenticity ,,of ,,the ,,discourses ,,in ,,the ,,gospel ,,of ,,john4 ,,result4 ,the foregoing examination of the discourses of ,jesus in the fourth gospel1 has sufficiently prepared us to form a judgment on the controversy of which they have recently been the subject4 ,modern criticism views these discourses with suspicion1 partly on account of their internal contexture1 which is at variance with certain generally received rules of historical probability1 and partly on account of their external relation to other discourses and narratives4 ,on the other hand1 this gospel has had numerous defenders4 ,with respect to the internal contexture of the above discourses1 there arises a twofold question3 ,does it correspond to the laws1 first of verisimilitude1 and secondly1 of memory8 ,it is alleged by the friends of the fourth gospel that its discourses are distinguished by a peculiar stamp of truth and credibility2 that the conversations which it represents ,jesus as holding with men of the most diverse disposition and capacity1 are faithful delineations of character1 satisfying the strictest demands of psychological criticism4 #ajfa ,in opposition to this1 it is maintained to be in the highest degree improbable1 that ,jesus should have adopted precisely the same style of teaching to persons differing widely in their degrees of cultivation2 that he should have spoken to the ,galileans in the synagogue at ,capernaum not more intelligibly than to a master of ,israel2 that the matter of his discourses should have turned almost entirely on one doctrine--the dignity of his person2 and that their form should have been such as to seem selected with a view to perplex and repel his hearers4 ,neither1 it is further urged1 do the interlocutors express themselves in conformity with their position and character4 ,the most educated ,pharisee has no advantage in intelligence over a ,samaritan woman of the lowest grade2 the one1 as well as the other1 can only put a carnal interpretation on the discourse which ,jesus intends spiritually2 their misconstructions1 too1 are frequently so glaring1 as to transcend all belief1 and so uniform that they seem to belong to a standing set of features with which the author of the fourth gospel has chosen1 for the sake of contrast1 to depict those whom he brings into conversation with ,jesus4 #ajfb ,hence1 ,i confess1 ,i understand not what is the meaning of verisimilitude in the mind of those who ascribe it to the discourses of ,jesus in the ,gospel of ,john4 ,as to the second point1 regarding the powers of memory1 it is pretty generally agreed that discourses of the kind peculiar to ,john's gospel1--in contradistinction to the apophthegms and parables1 either isolated or strung together1 in the synoptical gospels1--namely1 series of dependent propositions1 or prolonged dialogues1 are among the most difficult to retain and reproduce with accuracy4 #ajfc ,unless such discourses were reduced to writing at the moment of their delivery1 all hope of their faithful reproduction must be abandoned4 ,hence ,dr4 ,paulus once actually entertained the idea1 that in the judgment-halls of the temple or the synagogues at ,jerusalem1 there were stationed a sort of shorthand writers1 whose office it was to draw up verbal processes1 and that from their records the ,christians1 after the death of ,christ1 made transcripts4 #ajfd ,in like manner1 ,bertholdt was of opinion1 that our ,evangelist1 during the lifetime of ,jesus1 took down most of the discourses of ,jesus in the ,araman language1 and made these notes the foundation of his gospel1 composed at a much later period4 #ajfe ,these modern hypotheses are clearly unhistorical2 #ajff nevertheless1 their propounders were able to adduce many reasons in their support4 ,the prophetic declarations of ,jesus relative to his death and resurrection1 said ,bertholdt1 are more indefinite in ,john than in the synoptical gospels1 a sure sign that they were recorded before their fulfilment1 for otherwise the writer's experience of the event would have reflected more clearness on the predictions4 ,to this we may add the kindred argument1 by which ,henke thought it possible to establish the genuineness of the discourses in ,john3 namely1 that the fourth ,evangelist not seldom appends explanatory remarks1 often indeed erroneous1 to the obscure expressions of ,jesus1 thus proving that he was scrupulously conscientious in reporting the discourses1 for otherwise he would have mingled his comments with their original matter4 #ajfg ,but it is with justice objected1 that the obscurity of the predictions in the fourth gospel is in perfect harmony with the mystical spirit that pervades the work1 and as1 besides1 the author1 together with his fondness for the obscure and enigmatical1 indisputably possessed taste1 he must have been conscious that a prophecy would only be the more piquant and genuine-looking1 the more darkly it was delivered3 hence1 though he put those predictions into the mouth of ,jesus long after the events to which they refer1 he might yet choose to give them an indefinite form4 ,this observation helps to explain why the ,evangelist1 when elucidating some obscure expressions of ,jesus1 adds that his disciples did not understand them until after his resurrection1 or after the outpouring of the ,holy ,spirit 7ii4 #bb1 vii4 #ci72 for the opposition of the darkness in which the disciples at one time groped1 to the light which ultimately arose on them1 belongs to that order of contrasts with which this gospel abounds4 ,another argument1 adopted by ,bertholdt and approved by ,tholuck1 is1 that in the discourses of the fourth gospel there sometimes occur observations1 which1 having no precise meaning in themselves1 nor any connexion with the rest of the discourse1 must have been occasioned by some external circumstance1 and can only be accounted for on the supposition of prompt1 nay1 of immediate reduction to writing2 and among their examples the passage1 ,arise1 let us go hence 7xiv4 #ca71 is one of the most important4 #ajfh ,but the origin of such digressive remarks has been above explained in a manner that renders the hypothesis of instantaneous notetaking superfluous4 ,thus commentators had to excogitate some other means of certifying the genuineness of the discourses of ,jesus in the fourth gospel4 ,the general argument1 so often adduced1 founded on what a good memory might achieve1 especially among men of simple lives1 unused to writing1 lies in the region of abstract possibility1 where1 as ,lcke remarks1 #ajfi there may always be nearly as much said against as for a theory4 ,it has been thought more effectual to adopt an argument resting on a narrower basis1 and to appeal to the individual distinctions of the ,apostle ,john1--to his intimate and peculiar relation to ,jesus as the favourite disciple1--to his enthusiasm for his master1 which must surely have strengthened his memory1 and have enabled him to preserve in the most lively recollection all that came from the lips of his divine friend4 #ajgj ,although this peculiar relation of ,john to ,jesus rests on the authority of ,john's gospel alone1 we might1 without reasoning in a circle1 draw from it conclusions as to the credibility of the discourses communicated by him1 were the faults of which his gospel is accused only such as proceed from the inevitable fading of the memory2 because the positive notices of that relation could never flow from this negative cause4 ,as1 however1 the suspicion which has arisen to the prejudice of the fourth ,evangelist has gone far beyond those limits1 even to the extent of taxing him with free invention1 no fact resting on the word of ,john can be used in support of the discourses which he communicates4 ,but neither the above relation1 if admitted1 nor the remark that ,john apparently attached himself to ,jesus in early youth1 when impressions sink deepest1 and from the time of his master's death lived in a circle where the memory of his words and deeds was cherished1 #ajga suffices to render it probable that ,john could retain in his mind long series of ideas1 and complicated dialogues1 until the period in which the composition of his gospel must be placed4 ,for critics are agreed that the tendency of the fourth gospel1 its evident aim to spiritualize the common faith of ,christians into the ,gnosis1 and thus to crush many errors which had sprung up1 is a decisive attestation that it was composed at a period when the church had attained a degree of maturity1 and consequently in the extreme old age of the apostle4 #ajgb ,hence the champions of the discourses in question are fain to bring forward1 as a forlorn hope1 the supernatural assistance of the ,paraclete1 which was promised to the disciples1 and which was to restore all that ,jesus had said to their remembrance4 ,this is done by ,tholuck with great confidence1 #ajgc by ,lcke with some diffidence1 #ajgd which ,tholuck's ,anzeiger severely censures1 but which we consider laudable1 because it implies a latent consciousness of the circle that is made1 in attempting to prove the truthfulness of the discourses in ,john1 by a promise which appears nowhere but in those discourses2 #ajge and of the inadequacy of an appeal1 in a scientific inquiry1 to a popular notion1 such as that of the aid of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,the consciousness of this inadequacy shows itself indirectly in ,tholuck1 for he ekes out the assistance of the ,paraclete by early notes2 and in ,lcke also1 for he renounces the verbal authenticity of the discourses in ,john1 and only contends for their substantial veracity on grounds chiefly connected with the relation which they bear to other discourses4 ,the external relation of the discourses of ,jesus in ,john's gospel is also twofold2 for they may be compared both with those discourses which the synoptists put into the mouth of ,jesus1 and with the manner in which the author of the fourth gospel expresses himself when he is avowedly the speaker4 ,as a result of the former comparison1 critics have pointed out the important difference that exists between the respective discourses in their matter1 as well as in their form4 ,in the first three gospels1 ,jesus closely adapts his teaching to the necessities of his shepherdless people1 contrasting1 at one time1 the corrupt institutions of the ,pharisees with the moral and religious precepts of the ,mosaic law2 at another1 the carnal messianic hopes of the age with the purely spiritual nature of his kingdom1 and the conditions of entrance therein4 ,in the fourth gospel1 on the contrary1 he is perpetually dilating1 and often in a barren1 speculative manner1 on the doctrine of his person and higher nature3 so that in opposition to the diversified doctrinal and practical materials of the synoptical discourses1 we have in ,john a one-sided dogmatism4 #ajgf ,that this opposition does not hold invariably1 and that in the discourses of the synoptical gospels there are passages which have more affinity with those of ,john1 and vice vers1 must be granted to judicious critics2 #ajgg but the important preponderance of the dogmatical element on the one side1 and of the practical on the other1 is a difficulty that demands a thorough explanation4 ,in answer to this requisition1 it is common to adduce the end which ,john is supposed to have had in view in the composition of his gospel3 namely1 to furnish a supplement to the first three gospels1 and to supply their omissions4 ,but if ,jesus taught first in one style1 then in another1 how was it that the synoptists selected almost exclusively the practical and popular1 ,john1 nearly without exception1 the dogmatic and speculative portions of his discourse8 ,this is accounted for in a manner intrinsically probable4 ,in the oral tradition1 it is observed1 on which the first three gospels were founded1 the simple and popular1 the concise and sententious discourses of ,jesus1 being the most easy of retention1 would alone be propagated1 while his more profound1 subtle and diffuse discourses would be lost4 #ajgh ,but according to the above supposition1 the fourth ,evangelist came as a gleaner after the synoptists3 now it is certain that all the discourses of ,jesus having a practical tendency had not been preserved by them2 hence1 that the former has almost invariably avoided giving any relic of such discourses1 can only be explained by his preference for the dogmatic and speculative vein3 a preference which must have had both an objective and a subjective source1 the necessities of his time and circumstances1 and the bent of his own mind4 ,this is admitted even by critics who are favourable to the authenticity of the fourth gospel1 #ajgi with the reservation1 that the preference betrays itself only negatively1 by omission1 not positively1 by addition4 ,there is a further difference between the synoptical gospels and the fourth1 as to the form of teaching adopted by ,jesus2 in the one1 it is aphoristic and parabolic1 in the other1 dialectic4 #ajhj ,we have seen that the parable is altogether wanting in the fourth gospel1 and it is natural to ask why1 since ,luke1 as well as ,matthew1 has many admirable parables peculiar to himself1 ,john has not been able to make a rich gleaning1 even after those two predecessors8 ,it is true that isolated apothegms and sentences1 similar to the synoptical ones1 are not entirely absent from the fourth gospel3 but1 on the other hand1 it must be admitted that the prevailing aphoristic and parabolic form of instruction1 ascribed to ,jesus by the synoptists1 is more suited to the character of a popular teacher of ,palestine1 than the dialectic form which he is made to adopt by ,john4 #ajha ,but the relation of the discourses of ,jesus in the gospel of ,john1 to the ,evangelist's own style of thinking and writing1 is decisive4 ,here we find a similarity1 #ajhb which1 as it extends to the discourses of a third party1 namely1 the ,baptist1 cannot be explained by supposing that the disciple had formed his style on that of the master1 #ajhc but requires us to admit that the ,evangelist has lent his own style to the principal characters in his narrative4 ,the latest commentator on ,john has not only acknowledged this with regard to the colouring of the expression2 he even thinks that in the matter itself he can here and there detect the explanatory amplifications of the ,evangelist1 who1 to use his own phrase1 has had a hand in the composition of the longer and more difficult discourses4 #ajhd ,but since the ,evangelist does not plainly indicate his additions1 what is to assure us that they are not throughout interwoven with the ideas of ,jesus1 nay1 that all the discourses which he communicates are not entirely his own productions8 ,the style furnishes no guidance1 for this is everywhere the same1 and is admitted to be the ,evangelist's own2 neither does the sense1 for in it also there is no essential difference whether the ,evangelist speaks in his own name or in that of ,jesus3 where then is the guarantee that the discourses of ,jesus are not1 as the author of the ,probabilia maintains1 free inventions of the fourth ,evangelist8 ,lcke adduces some particulars1 which on this supposition would be in his opinion inexplicable4 #ajhe ,first1 the almost verbal agreement of ,john with the synoptists in isolated sayings of ,jesus4 ,but as the fourth ,evangelist was within the pale of the ,christian community1 he must have had at his command a tradition1 from which1 though drawing generally on his own resources1 he might occasionally borrow isolated1 marked expressions1 nearly unmodified4 ,another argument of ,lcke is yet more futile4 ,if1 he says1 ,john had really had the inclination and ability to invent discourses for ,jesus1 he would have been more liberal in long discourses2 and the alternation of brief remarks with prolonged addresses1 is not to be explained on the above supposition4 ,but this would follow only if the author of the fourth gospel appeared to be a tasteless writer1 whose perception did not tell him1 that to one occasion a short discourse was suitable1 to another a long one1 and that the alternation of diffuse harangues with concise sentences was adapted to produce the best impression4 ,of more weight is the observation of ,paulus1 that if the fourth ,evangelist had given the rein to his invention in attributing discourses to ,jesus1 he would have obtruded more of his own views1 of which he has given an abstract in his prologue2 whereas the scrupulousness with which he abstains from putting his doctrine of the ,logos into the mouth of ,jesus1 is a proof of the faithfulness with which he confined himself to the materials presented by his memory or his authorities4 #ajhf ,but the doctrine of the ,logos is substantially contained in the succeeding discourse of ,jesus2 and that the form in which it is propounded by the evangelist in his preface1 does not also reappear1 is sufficiently explained by the consideration1 that he must have known that form to be altogether foreign to the teaching of ,jesus4 ,we therefore hold it to be established1 that the discourses of ,jesus in ,john's gospel are mainly free compositions of the ,evangelist2 but we have admitted that he has culled several sayings of ,jesus from an authentic tradition1 and hence we do not extend this proposition to those passages which are countenanced by parallels in the synoptical gospels4 ,in these compilations we have an example of the vicissitudes which befal discourses1 that are preserved only in the memory of a second party4 ,severed from their original connexion1 and broken up into smaller and smaller fragments1 they present when reassembled the appearance of a mosaic1 in which the connexion of the parts is a purely external one1 and every transition an artificial juncture4 ,the discourses of ,jesus in ,john present just the opposite appearance4 ,their gradual transitions1 only rendered occasionally obscure by the mystical depths of meaning in which they lie1--transitions in which one thought develops itself out of another1 and a succeeding proposition is frequently but an explanatory amplification of the preceding1 #ajhg--;are indicative of a pliable1 unresisting mass1 such as is never presented to a writer by the traditional sayings of another1 but such as proceeds from the stores of his own thought1 which he moulds according to his will4 ,for this reason the contributions of tradition to these stores of thought 7apart from the sayings which are also found in the earlier gospels7 were not so likely to have been particular1 independent dicta of ,jesus1 as rather certain ideas which formed the basis of many of his discourses1 and which were modified and developed according to the bent of a mind of ,alexandrian or ,greek culture4 ,such are the correlative ideas of and 7father and son71 and 7light and darkness71 and 7life and death71 and 7above and beneath71 and 7flesh and spirit72 also some symbolical expressions1 as 7bread of life71 7water of life74 ,these and a few other ideas1 variously combined by an ingenious author1 compose the bulk of the discourses attributed to ,jesus by ,john2 a certain uniformity necessarily attending this elemental simplicity4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,events ,,in ,,the ,,public ,,life ,,of ,,jesus1 ,,excluding ,,the ,,miracles4 #hd4 ,,general ,,comparison ,,of ,,the ,,manner ,,of ,,narration ,,that ,,distinguishes ,,the ,,several ,,evangelists4 ,if1 before proceeding to the consideration of details1 we compare the general character and tone of the historical narration in the various gospels1 we find differences1 first1 between ,matthew and the two other synoptists2 secondly1 between the three first evangelists collectively and the fourth4 ,among the reproaches which modern criticism has heaped on the gospel of ,matthew1 a prominent place has been given to its want of individualized and dramatic life2 a want which is thought to prove that the author was not an eye-witness1 since an eye-witness is ordinarily distinguished by the precision and minuteness of his narration4 #ajhh ,certainly1 when we read the indefinite designation of times1 places and persons1 the perpetually recurring 1 then1 1 departing from thence1 1 a man1 which characterize this gospel2 when we recollect its wholesale statements1 such as that ,jesus went through all the cities and villages 7ix4 #ce1 xi4 #a1 comp4 iv4 #bc72 that they brought to him all sick people1 and that he healed them all 7iv4 #bd f41 xiv4 #ce f41 comp4 xv4 #bi ff472 and finally1 the bareness and brevity of many isolated narratives3 we cannot disapprove the decision of this criticism1 that ,matthew's whole narrative resembles a record of events which1 before they were committed to writing1 had been long current in oral tradition1 and had thus lost the impress of particularity and minuteness4 ,but it must be admitted1 that this proof1 taken alone1 is not absolutely convincing2 for in most cases we may verify the remark1 that even an eye-witness may be unable graphically to narrate what he has seen4 #ajhi ,but our modern critics have not only measured ,matthew by the standard of what is to be expected from an eye-witness1 in the abstract2 they have also compared him with his fellow-evangelists4 ,they are of opinion1 not only that ,john decidedly surpasses ,matthew in the power of delineation1 both in their few parallel passages and in his entire narrative1 but also that the two other synoptists1 especially ,mark1 are generally far clearer and fuller in their style of narration4 #ajij ,this is the actual fact1 and it ought not to be any longer evaded4 ,with respect to the fourth ,evangelist1 it is true that1 as one would have anticipated1 he is not devoid of general1 wholesale statements1 such as1 that ,jesus during the feast did many miracles1 that hence many believed on him 7ii4 #bc71 with others of a similar kind 7iii4 #bb1 vii4 #a73 and he not seldom designates persons indecisively4 ,sometimes1 however1 he gives the names of individuals whom ,matthew does not specify 7xii4 #c1 #d1 comp4 with ,matt4 xxvi4 #g1 #h2 and xviii4 #aj with ,matt4 xxvi4 #ea2 also vi4 #e ff4 with ,matt4 xiv4 #af f472 and he generally lets us know the district or country in which an event happened4 ,his careful chronology we have already noticed2 but the point of chief importance is that his narratives 7e4g4 that of the man born blind1 and that of the resurrection of ,lazarus7 have a dramatic and life-like character1 which we seek in vain in the first gospel4 ,the two intermediate ,evangelists are not free from indecisive designations of time 7e4g4 ,mark viii4 #a2 ,luke v4 #ag1 viii4 #bb72 of place 7,mark iii4 #ac2 ,luke vi4 #ab72 and of persons 7,mark x4 #ag2 ,luke xiii4 #bc72 nor from statements that ,jesus went through all cities1 and healed all the sick 7,mark i4 #cb ff41 #ch f42 ,luke iv4 #dj f472 but they often give us the details of what ,matthew has only stated generally4 ,not only does ,luke associate many discourses of ,jesus with special occasions concerning which ,matthew is silent1 but both he and ,mark notice the office or names of persons1 to whom ,matthew gives no precise designation 7,matt4 ix4 #ah2 ,mark v4 #bb2 ,luke viii4 #da2 ,matt4 xix4 #af2 ,luke xviii4 #ah2 ,matt4 xx4 #cj2 ,mark x4 #df74 ,but it is chiefly in the lively description of particular incidents1 that we perceive the decided superiority of ,luke1 and still more of ,mark1 over ,matthew4 ,let the reader only compare the narrative of the execution of ,john the ,baptist in ,matthew and ,mark 7,matt4 xiv4 #c2 ,mark vi4 #ag71 and that of the demoniac or demoniacs of ,gadara 7,matt4 viii4 #bh ff4 parall474 ,these facts are1 in the opinion of our latest critics1 a confirmation of the fourth ,evangelist's claim to the character of an eye-witness1 and of the greater proximity of the second and third ,evangelists to the scenes they describe1 than can be attributed to the first4 ,but1 even allowing that one who does not narrate graphically cannot be an eye-witness1 this does not involve the proposition that whoever does narrate graphically must be an eye-witness4 ,in all cases in which there are extant two accounts of a single fact1 the one full1 the other concise1 opinions may be divided as to which of them is the original4 #ajia ,when these accounts have been liable to the modifications of tradition1 it is important to bear in mind that tradition has two tendencies3 the one1 to sublimate the concrete into the abstract1 the individual into the general2 the other1 not less essential1 to substitute arbitrary fictions for the historical reality which is lost4 #ajib ,if then we put the want of precision in the narrative of the first ,evangelist to the account of the former function of the legend1 ought we at once to regard the precision and dramatic effect of the other gospels1 as a proof that their authors were eye-witnesses8 ,must we not rather examine whether these qualities be not derived from the second function of the legend8 #ajic ,the decision with which the other inference is drawn1 is in fact merely an after-taste of the old orthodox opinion1 that all our gospels proceed immediately from eye-witnesses1 or at least through a medium incapable of error4 ,modern criticism has limited this supposition1 and admitted the possibility that one or the other of our gospels may have been affected by oral tradition4 ,accordingly it maintains1 not without probability1 that a gospel in which the descriptions are throughout destitute of colouring and life1 cannot be the production of an eye-witness1 and must have suffered from the effacing fingers of tradition4 ,but the counter proposition1 that the other gospels1 in which the style of narration is more detailed and dramatic1 rest on the testimony of eye-witnesses1 would only follow from the supposed necessity that this must be the case with some of our gospels4 ,for if such a supposition be made with respect to several narratives of both the above kinds1 there is no question that the more graphic and vivid ones are with preponderant probability to be referred to eye-witnesses4 ,but this supposition has merely a subjective foundation4 ,it was an easier transition for commentators to make from the old notion that all the gospels were immediately or mediately autoptical narratives1 to the limited admission that perhaps one may fall short of this character1 than to the general admission that it may be equally wanting to all4 ,but1 according to the rigid rules of consequence1 with the orthodox view of the scriptural canon1 falls the assumption of pure ocular testimony1 not only for one or other of the gospels1 but for all2 the possibility of the contrary must be presupposed in relation to them all1 and their pretensions must be estimated according to their internal character1 compared with the external testimonies4 ,from this point of view--the only one that criticism can consistently adopt--it is as probable1 considering the nature of the external testimonies examined in our ,introduction1 that the three last ,evangelists owe the dramatic effect in which they surpass ,matthew1 to the embellishments of a more mature tradition1 as that this quality is the result of a closer communication with eye-witnesses4 ,that we may not anticipate1 let us1 in relation to this question1 refer to the results we have already obtained4 ,the greater particularity by which ,luke is distinguished from ,matthew in his account of the occasions that suggested many discourses of ,jesus1 has appeared to us often to be the result of subsequent additions2 and the names of persons in ,mark 7xiii4 #c comp4 v4 #cg2 ,luke viii4 #ea7 have seemed to rest on a mere inference of the narrator4 ,now1 however1 that we are about to enter on an examination of particular narratives1 we will consider1 from the point of view above indicated1 the constant forms of introduction1 conclusion1 and transition1 already noticed1 in the several gospels4 ,here we find the difference between ,matthew and the other synoptists1 as to their more or less dramatic style1 imprinted in a manner that can best teach us how much this style is worth4 ,matthew 7viii4 #af f47 states in general terms1 that on the evening after the cure of ,peter's mother-in-law1 many demoniacs were brought to ,jesus1 all of whom1 together with others that were sick1 he healed4 ,mark 7i4 #cb7 in a highly dramatic manner1 as if he himself had witnessed the scene1 tells1 that on the same occasion1 the whole city was gathered together at the door of the house in which ,jesus was2 at another time1 he makes the crowd block up the entrance 7ii4 #b72 in two other instances1 he describes the concourse as so great1 that ,jesus and his disciples could not take their food 7iii4 #bj1 vi4 #ca72 and ,luke on one occasion states1 that the people even gathered together in innumerable multitudes so that they trode one upon another 7xii4 #a74 ,all highly vivid touches1 certainly3 but the want of them can hardly be prejudicial to ,matthew1 for they look thoroughly like strokes of imagination1 such as abound in ,mark's narrative1 and often1 as ,schleiermacher observes1 #ajid give it almost an apocryphal appearance4 ,in detailed narratives1 of which we shall presently notice many examples1 while ,matthew simply tells what ,jesus said on a certain occasion1 the two other ,evangelists are able to describe the glance with which his words were accompanied 7,mark iii4 #e1 x4 #ba2 ,luke vi4 #aj74 ,on the mention of a blind beggar of ,jericho1 ,mark is careful to give us his name1 and the name of his father 7x4 #df74 ,from these particulars we might already augur1 what the examination of single narratives will prove3 namely1 that the copiousness of ,mark and ,luke is the product of the second function of the legend1 which we may call the function of embellishment4 ,was this embellishment gradually wrought out by oral tradition1 or was it the arbitrary addition of our ,evangelists8 ,concerning this1 there may be a difference of opinion1 and a degree of probability in relation to particular passages is the nearest approach that can be made to a decision4 ,in any case1 not only must it be granted1 that a narrative adorned by the writer's own additions is more remote from primitive truth than one free from such additions2 but we may venture to pronounce that the earlier efforts of the legend are rapid sketches1 tending to set off only the leading points whether of speech or action1 and that at a later period it aims rather to give a symmetrical effect to the whole1 including collateral incidents2 so that1 in either view1 the closest approximation to truth remains on the side of the first gospel4 ,while the difference as to the more or less dramatic style of concluding and connecting forms1 lies chiefly between ,matthew and the other synoptists2 another difference with respect to these forms1 exists between all the synoptists and ,john4 ,while most of the synoptical anecdotes from the public life of ,jesus are wound up by a panegyric1 those of ,john generally terminate1 so to speak1 polemically4 ,it is true that the three first ,evangelists sometimes mention1 by way of conclusion1 the offence that ,jesus gave to the narrow-hearted1 and the machinations of his enemies against him 7,matt4 viii4 #cd1 xii4 #ad1 xxi4 #df1 xxvi4 #c f42 ,luke iv4 #bh f41 xi4 #ec f472 and1 on the other hand1 the fourth ,evangelist closes some discourses and miracles by the remark1 that in consequence of them1 many believed on ,jesus 7ii4 #bc1 iv4 #ci1 #ec1 vii4 #ca1 #dj f41 viii4 #cj1 x4 #db1 xi4 #de74 ,but in the synoptical gospels1 throughout the period previous to the residence of ,jesus in ,jerusalem1 we find forms implying that the fame of ,jesus had extended far and wide 7,matt4 iv4 #bd1 ix4 #bf1 #ca2 ,mark i4 #bh1 #de1 v4 #bj1 vii4 #cf2 ,luke iv4 #cg1 v4 #ae1 vii4 #ag1 viii4 #ci72 that the people were astonished at his doctrine 7,matt4 vii4 #bh2 ,mark i4 #bb1 xi4 #ah2 ,luke xix4 #dh71 and miracles 7,matt4 viii4 #bg1 ix4 #h1 xiv4 #cc1 xv4 #ca71 and hence followed him from all parts 7,matt4 iv4 #be1 viii4 #a1 ix4 #cf1 xii4 #ae1 xiii4 #b1 xiv4 #ac74 ,in the fourth gospel1 on the contrary1 we are continually told that the ,jews sought to kill ,jesus 7v4 #ah1 vii4 #a72 the ,pharisees wish to take him1 or send out officers to seize him 7vii4 #cj1 #cb1 #dd2 comp4 viii4 #bj1 x4 #ci72 stones are taken up to cast at him 7viii4 #ei1 x4 #ca72 and even in those passages where there is mention of a favourable disposition on the part of the people1 the ,evangelist limits it to one portion of them1 and represents the other as inimical to ,jesus 7vii4 #aa-ac74 ,he is especially fond of drawing attention to such circumstances1 as that before the final catastrophe all the guile and power of the enemies of ,jesus were exerted in vain1 because his hour was not yet come 7vii4 #cj1 viii4 #bj72 that the emissaries sent out against him1 overcome by the force of his words1 and the dignity of his person1 retired without fulfilling their errand 7vii4 #cb1 #dd ff472 and that ,jesus passed unharmed through the midst of an exasperated crowd 7viii4 #ei1 x4 #ci2 comp4 ,luke iv4 #cj74 ,the writer1 as we have above remarked1 certainly does not intend us in these instances to think of a natural escape1 but of one in which the higher nature of ,jesus1 his invulnerability so long as he did not choose to lay down his life1 was his protection4 ,and this throws some light on the object which the fourth ,evangelist had in view1 in giving prominence to such traits as those just enumerated3 they helped him to add to the number of the contrasts1 by which1 throughout his works1 he aims to exalt the person of ,jesus4 ,the profound wisdom of ,jesus1 as the divine ,logos1 appeared the more resplendent1 from its opposition to the rude unapprehensiveness of the ,jews2 his goodness wore a more touching aspect1 confronted with the inveterate malice of his enemies2 his appearance gained in impressiveness1 by the strife he excited among the people2 and his power1 as that of one who had life in himself1 commanded the more reverence1 the oftener his enemies and their instruments tried to seize him1 and1 as if restrained by a higher power1 were not able to lay hands on him1--the more marvellously he passed through the ranks of adversaries prepared to take away his life4 ,it has been made matter of praise to the fourth ,evangelist1 that he alone presents the opposition of the pharisaic party to ,jesus1 in its rise and gradual progress3 but there are reasons for questioning whether the course of events described by him1 be not rather fictitious than real4 ,partially fictitious1 it evidently is2 for he appeals to the supernatural for a reason why the ,pharisees so long effected nothing against ,jesus3 whereas the synoptists preserve the natural sequence of the facts by stating as a cause1 that the ,jewish hierarchy feared the people1 who were attached to ,jesus as a prophet 7,matt4 xxi4 #df2 ,mark xii4 #ab2 ,luke xx4 #ai74 ,if then the fourth ,evangelist was so far guided by his dogmatical interest1 that for the escape of ,jesus from the more early snares and assaults of his enemies1 he invented such a reason as best suited his purpose2 what shall assure us that he has not also1 in consistency with the characteristics which we have already discerned in him1 fabricated1 for the sake of that interest1 entire scenes of the kind above noticed8 ,not that we hold it improbable1 that many futile plots and attacks of the enemies of ,jesus preceded the final catastrophe of his fate3--we are only dubious whether these attempts were precisely such as the gospel of ,john describes4 #he4 ,,isolated ,,groups ,,of ,,anecdotes4 ,,imputation ,,of ,a ,,league ,,with ,,beelzebub1 ,,and ,,demand ,,of ,a ,,sign4 ,in conformity with the aim of our criticism1 we shall here confine our attention to those narratives1 in which the influence of the legend may be demonstrated4 ,the strongest evidence of this influence is found where one narrative is blended with another1 or where the one is a mere variation of the other3 hence1 chronology having refused us its aid1 we shall arrange the anecdotes about to be considered according to their mutual affinity4 ,to begin with the more simple form of legendary influence3 ,schulz has already complained1 that ,matthew mentions two instances1 in which a league with ,beelzebub was imputed to ,jesus1 and a sign demanded from him2 circumstances which in ,mark and ,luke happen only once4 #ajie ,the first time the imputation occurs 7,matt4 ix4 #cb ff471 ,jesus has cured a dumb demoniac2 at this the people marvel1 but the ,pharisees observe1 ,he casts out demons through the prince 77 of the demons4 ,matthew does not here say that ,jesus returned any answer to this accusation4 ,on the second occasion 7xii4 #bb ff471 it is a blind and dumb demoniac whom ,jesus cures2 again the people are amazed1 and again the ,pharisees declare that the cure is effected by the help of ,beelzebub1 the of the demons1 whereupon ,jesus immediately exposes the absurdity of the accusation4 ,that it should have been alleged against ,jesus more than once when he cast out demons1 is in itself probable4 ,it is however suspicious that the demoniac who gives occasion to the assertion of the ,pharisees1 is in both instances dumb 7in the second only1 blindness is added74 ,demoniacs were of many kinds1 every variety of malady being ascribed to the influence of evil spirits2 why1 then1 should the above imputation be not once attached to the cure of another kind of demoniac1 but twice to that of a dumb one8 ,the difficulty is heightened if we compare the narrative of ,luke 7xi4 #ad f471 which1 in its introductory description of the circumstances1 corresponds not to the second narrative in ,matthew1 but to the first2 for as there1 so in ,luke1 the demoniac is only dumb1 and his cure and the astonishment of the people are told with precisely the same form of expression3--in all which points1 the second narrative of ,matthew is more remote from that of ,luke4 ,but with this cure of the dumb demoniac1 which ,matthew represents as passing off in silence on the part of ,jesus1 ,luke connects the very discourse which ,matthew appends to the cure of the one both blind and dumb2 so that ,jesus must on both these successive occasions1 have said the same thing4 ,this is a very unlikely repetition1 and united with the improbability1 that the same accusation should be twice made in connexion with a dumb demoniac1 it suggests the question1 whether legend may not here have doubled one and the same incident8 ,how this can have taken place1 ,matthew himself shows us1 by representing the demoniac as1 in the one case1 simply dumb1 in the other1 blind also4 ,must it not have been a striking cure which excited1 on the one hand1 the astonishment of the people1 on the other1 this desperate attack of the enemies of ,jesus8 ,dumbness alone might soon appear an insufficient malady for the subject of the cure1 and the legend1 ever prone to enhance1 might deprive him of sight also4 ,if then1 together with this new form of the legend1 the old one too was handed down1 what wonder that a compiler1 more conscientious than critical1 such as the author of the first gospel1 adopted both as distinct histories1 merely omitting on one occasion the discourse of ,jesus1 for the sake of avoiding repetition4 #ajif ,matthew1 having omitted 7ix4 #cd7 the discourse of ,jesus1 was obliged also to defer the demand of a sign1 which required a previous rejoinder on the part of ,jesus1 until his second narration of the charge concerning ,beelzebub2 and in this point again the narrative of ,luke1 who also attaches the demand of a sign to the accusation1 is parallel with the later passage of ,matthew4 #ajig ,but ,matthew not only has1 with ,luke1 a demand of a sign in connexion with the above charge2 he has also another1 after the second feeding of the multitude 7xvi4 #a ff471 and this second demand ,mark also has 7viii4 #aa f471 while he omits the first4 ,here the ,pharisees come to ,jesus 7according to ,matthew1 in the unlikely companionship of ,sadducees71 and tempt him by asking for a sign from heaven1 4 ,to this ,jesus gives an answer1 of which the concluding proposition1 a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign2 and there shall no sign be given unto it1 but the sign of the prophet ,jonas2 1 1 1 in ,matthew1 agrees word for word with the opening of the earlier refusal4 ,it is already improbable enough1 that ,jesus should have twice responded to the above requisition with the same enigmatical reference to ,jonah2 but the words 7v4 #b1 #c7 which1 in the second passage of ,matthew1 precede the sentence last quoted1 are totally unintelligible4 ,for why ,jesus1 in reply to the demand of his enemies that he would show them a sign from heaven1 should tell them that they were indeed well versed in the natural signs of the heavens1 but were so much the more glaringly ignorant of the spiritual signs of the messianic times1 is so far from evident1 that the otherwise unfounded omission of v4 #b and #c1 seems to have arisen from despair of finding any connexion for them4 #ajih ,luke1 who also has 7xii4 #ed f471 in words only partly varied1 this reproach of ,jesus that his cotemporaries understood better the signs of the weather than of the times1 gives it another position1 which might be regarded as the preferable one2 since after speaking of the fire which he was to kindle1 and the divisions which he was to cause1 ,jesus might very aptly say to the people3 ,you take no notice of the unmistakable prognostics of this great revolution which is being prepared by my means1 so ill do you understand the signs of the times4 #ajii ,but on a closer examination1 ,luke's arrangement appears just as abrupt here1 as in the case of the two parables 7xiii4 #ah74 #aajj ,if from hence we turn again to ,matthew1 we easily see how he was led to his mode of representation4 ,he may have been induced to double the demand of a sign1 by the verbal variation which he met with1 the required sign being at one time called simply a 1 at another a 4 ,and if he knew that ,jesus had exhorted the ,jews to study the signs of the times1 as they had hitherto studied the appearance of the heavens1 the conjecture was not very remote1 that the ,jews had given occasion for this admonition by demanding a sign from heaven1 4 ,thus ,matthew here presents us1 as ,luke often does elsewhere1 with a fictitious introduction to a discourse of ,jesus2 a proof of the proposition1 advanced indeed1 but too little regarded by ,sieffert3 #aaja that it is in the nature of traditional records1 such as the three first gospels1 that one particular should be best preserved in this narrative1 another in that2 so that first one1 and then the other1 is at a disadvantage1 in comparison with the rest4 #hf4 ,,visit ,,of ,,the ,,mother ,,and ,,brethren ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,the ,,woman ,,who ,,pronounces ,,the ,,mother ,,of ,,jesus ,,blessed4 ,all the synoptists mention a visit of the mother and brethren of ,jesus1 on being apprised of which ,jesus points to his disciples1 and declares that they who do the will of ,god are his mother and his brethren 7,matt4 xii4 #df ff42 ,mark iii4 #ca ff42 ,luke viii4 #ai ff474 ,matthew and ,luke do not tell us the object of this visit1 nor1 consequently1 whether this declaration of ,jesus1 which appears to imply a disowning of his relatives1 was occasioned by any special circumstance4 ,on this subject ,mark gives us unexpected information2 he tells us 7v4 #ba7 that while ,jesus was teaching among a concourse of people1 who even prevented him from taking food1 his relatives1 under the idea that he was beside himself1 went out to seize him1 and take him into the keeping of his family4 #aajb ,in describing this incident1 the ,evangelist makes use of the expression1 7they said1 he is beside himself71 and it was merely this expression1 apparently1 that suggested to him what he next proceeds to narrate3 1 444 7the scribes said1 he hath ,beelzebub1 etc41 comp4 ,john x4 #bj74 ,with this reproach1 which however he does not attach to an expulsion of demons1 he connects the answer of ,jesus2 he then recurs to the relatives1 whom he now particularizes as the mother and brethren of ,jesus1 supposing them to have arrived in the meantime2 and he makes their announcement call forth from ,jesus the answer of which we have above spoken4 ,these particulars imparted by ,mark are very welcome to commentators1 as a means of explaining and justifying the apparent harshness of the answer which ,jesus returns to the announcement of his nearest relatives1 on the ground of the perverted object of their visit4 ,but1 apart from the difficulty that1 on the usual interpretation of the accounts of the childhood of ,jesus1 it is not to be explained how his mother could1 after the events therein described1 be thus mistaken in her son1 it is very questionable whether we ought to accept this information of ,mark's4 ,in the first place1 it is associated with the obvious exaggeration1 that ,jesus and his disciples were prevented even from taking food by the throng of people2 and in the second place1 it has in itself a strange appearance1 from its want of relation to the context4 ,if these points are considered1 it will scarcely be possible to avoid agreeing with the opinion of ,schleiermacher1 that no explanation of the then existing relations of ,jesus with his family is to be sought in this addition2 that it rather belongs to those exaggerations to which ,mark is so prone1 as well in his introductions to isolated incidents1 as in his general statements4 #aajc ,he wished to make it understood why ,jesus returned an ungracious answer to the announcement of his relatives2 for this purpose he thought it necessary to give their visit an object of which ,jesus did not approve1 and as he knew that the ,pharisees had pronounced him to be under the influence of ,beelzebub1 he attributed a similar opinion to his relatives4 ,if we lay aside this addition of ,mark's1 the comparison of the three very similar narratives presents no result as it regards their matter2 #aajd but there is a striking difference between the connexions in which the ,evangelists place the event4 ,matthew and ,mark insert it after the defence against the suspicion of diabolical aid1 and before the parable of the sower2 whereas ,luke makes the visit considerably prior to that imputation1 and places the parable even before the visit4 ,it is worthy of notice1 however1 that ,luke has1 after the defence against the accusation of a league with ,beelzebub1 in the position which the two other ,evangelists give to the visit of the relatives of ,jesus1 an incident which issues in a declaration1 precisely similar to that which the announcement calls forth4 ,after the refutation of the ,pharisaic reproach1 and the discourse on the return of the unclean spirit1 a woman in the crowd is filled with admiration1 and pronounces the mother of ,jesus blessed1 on which ,jesus1 as before on the announcement of his mother1 replies2 ,yea1 rather blessed are they who hear the word of ,god and keep it6 #aaje ,schleiermacher here again prefers the account of ,luke3 he thinks this little digression on the exclamation of the woman especially evinces a fresh and lively recollection1 which has inserted it in its real place and circumstances2 whereas ,matthew1 confounding the answer of ,jesus to the ejaculation of the woman1 with the very similar one to the announcement of his relatives1 gives to the latter the place of the former1 and thus passes over the scene with the woman4 #aajf ,but how the woman could feel herself hurried away into so enthusiastic an exclamation1 precisely on hearing the abstruse discourse on the return of the expelled demons1 or even the foregoing reprehensive reply to the ,pharisees1 it is difficult to understand1 and the contrary conjecture to that of ,schleiermacher might rather be established2 namely1 that in the place of the announcement of the relatives1 the writer of the third gospel inserted the scene with the woman1 from its having a like termination4 ,the evangelical tradition1 as we see from ,matthew and ,mark1 whether from historical or merely accidental motives1 had associated the above visit and the saying about the spiritual relatives1 with the discourse of ,jesus on the accusation of a league with ,beelzebub1 and on the return of the unclean spirit2 and ,luke also1 when he came to the conclusion of that discourse1 was reminded of the anecdote of the visit and its point--the extolling of a spiritual relationship to ,jesus4 ,but he had already mentioned the visit2 #aajg he therefore seized on the scene with the woman1 which presented a similar termination4 ,from the strong resemblance between the two anecdotes1 ,i can scarcely believe that they are founded on two really distinct incidents2 rather1 it is more likely that the memorable declaration of ,jesus1 that he preferred his spiritual before his bodily relatives1 had in the legend received two different settings or frames4 ,according to one1 it seemed the most natural that such a depreciation of his kindred should be united with an actual rejection of them2 to another1 that the exaltation of those who were spiritually near to him1 should be called forth by a blessing pronounced on those who were nearest to him in the flesh4 ,of these two forms of the legend1 ,matthew and ,mark give only the first2 ,luke1 however1 had already disposed of this on an earlier occasion2 when1 therefore1 he came to the passage where1 in the common evangelical tradition1 that anecdote occurred1 he was induced to supply its place by the second form4 #hg4 ,,contentions ,,for ,,pre-,,eminence ,,among ,,the ,,disciples4 ,,the ,,love ,,of ,,jesus ,,for ,,children4 ,the three first ,evangelists narrate several contentions for pre-eminence which arose among the disciples1 with the manner in which ,jesus composed these differences4 ,one such contention1 which is said to have arisen among the disciples after the transfiguration1 and the first prediction of the passion1 is common to all the gospels 7,matt4 xviii4 #a ff42 ,mark ix4 #cc ff42 ,luke ix4 #df ff474 ,there are indeed divergencies in the narratives1 but the identity of the incident on which they are founded is attested by the fact1 that in all of them1 ,jesus sets a little child before his disciples as an example2 a scene which1 as ,schleiermacher remarks1 #aajh would hardly be repeated4 ,matthew and ,mark concur in mentioning a dispute about pre-eminence1 which was excited by the two sons of ,zebedee4 ,these disciples 7according to ,mark71 or their mother for them 7according to ,matthew71 petitioned for the two first places next to ,jesus in the messianic kingdom 7,matt4 xx4 #bj ff42 ,mark x4 #ce ff474 #aaji ,of such a request on the part of the sons of ,zebedee1 the third ,evangelist knows nothing2 but apart from this occasion1 there is a further contention for pre-eminence1 on which discourses are uttered1 similar to those which the two first ,evangelists have connected with the above petition4 ,at the last supper of which ,jesus partook with his disciples before his passion1 ,luke makes the latter fall into a 7dispute7 which among them shall be the greatest2 a dispute which ,jesus seeks to quell by the same reasons1 and partly with the same words1 that ,matthew and ,mark give in connexion with the 1 7indignation71 excited in the disciples generally by the request of the sons of ,zebedee4 ,luke here reproduces a sentence which he1 in common with ,mark1 had previously given almost in the same form1 as accompanying the presentation of the child2 and which ,matthew has1 not only on the occasion of ,salome's prayer1 but also in the great anti-pharisaic discourse 7comp4 ,luke xxii4 #bf2 ,mark ix4 #ce2 ,luke ix4 #dh2 ,matt4 xx4 #bf f41 xxiii4 #aa74 ,however credible it may be that with the worldly messianic hopes of the disciples1 ,jesus should often have to suppress disputes among them on the subject of their future rank in the ,messiah's kingdom1 it is by no means probable that1 for example1 the sentence1 ,whosoever will be great among you1 let him be the servant of all3 should be spoken1 #ast1 on the presentation of the child2 #bndly1 in connexion with the prayer of the sons of ,zebedee2 #crdly1 in the anti-pharisaic discourse1 and #dthly1 at the last supper4 ,there is here obviously a traditional confusion1 whether it be 7as ,sieffert in such cases is fond of supposing7 that several originally distinct occurrences have been assimilated by the legend1 i4e4 the same discourse erroneously repeated on various occasions2 or that out of one incident the legend has made many1 i4e4 has invented various occasions for the same discourse4 ,our decision between these two possibilities must depend on the answer to the following question3 ,have the various facts1 to which the analogous discourses on humility are attached1 the dependent appearance of mere frames to the discourses1 or the independent one of occurrences that carry their truth and significance in themselves8 ,it will not be denied that the petition of the sons of ,zebedee1 is in itself too specific and remarkable to be a mere background to the ensuing discourse2 and the same judgment must be passed on the scene with the child3 so that we have already two cases of contention for pre-eminence subsisting in themselves4 ,if we would assign to each of these occurrences its appropriate discourses1 the declarations which ,matthew connects with the presentation of the child3 ,unless ye become as this child1 etc41 and ,whosoever shall humble himself as this child1 etc41 evidently belong to this occasion4 ,on the other hand1 the sentences on ruling and serving in the world and in the kingdom of ,jesus1 seem to be a perfectly suitable comment on the petition of the sons of ,zebedee1 with which ,matthew associates them3 also the saying about the first and the last1 the greatest and the least1 which ,mark and ,luke give so early as at the scene with the child1 ,matthew seems rightly to have reserved for the scene with the sons of ,zebedee4 ,it is otherwise with the contention spoken of by ,luke 7xxii4 #bd ff474 ,this contention originates in no particular occasion1 nor does it issue in any strongly marked scene 7unless we choose to insert here the washing of the disciples' feet1 described by ,john1 who1 for the rest1 mentions no dispute2--of which scene1 however1 we cannot treat until we come to the history of the ,passion74 ,on the contrary1 this contention is ushered in merely by the words1 1--nearly the same by which the first contention is introduced1 ix4 #df1--;and leads to a discourse from ,jesus1 which1 as we have already noticed1 ,matthew and ,mark represent him to have delivered in connexion with the earlier instances of rivalry2 so that this passage of ,luke has nothing peculiarly its own1 beyond its position1 at the last supper4 ,this position1 however1 is not very secure2 for that immediately after the discourse on the betrayer1 so humiliating to the disciples1 pride should so strongly have taken possession of them1 is as difficult to believe1 as it is easy to discover1 by a comparison of v4 #bc and #bd1 how the writer might be led1 without historical grounds1 to insert here a contention for pre-eminence4 ,it is clear that the words 1 1 2 suggested to him the similar ones1 1 2 that is1 the disputes about the betrayer called to his remembrance the disputes about pre-eminence4 ,one such dispute indeed1 he had already mentioned1 but had only connected with it1 one sentence excepted1 the discourses occasioned by the exhibition of the child2 he had yet in reserve those which the two first ,evangelists attach to the petition of the sons of ,zebedee1 an occasion which seems not to have been present to the mind of the third ,evangelist1 whence he introduces the discourses pertaining to it here1 with the general statement that they originated in a contention for pre-eminence1 which broke out among the disciples4 ,meanwhile the chronological position1 also1 of the two first-named disputes about rank1 has very little probability2 for in both instances1 it is after a prediction of the passion1 which1 like the prediction of the betrayal1 would seem calculated to suppress such thoughts of earthly ambition4 #aaaj ,we therefore welcome the indication which the evangelical narrative itself presents1 of the manner in which the narrators were led unhistorically to such an arrangement4 ,in the answer of ,jesus to the prayer of ,salome1 the salient point was the suffering that awaited him and his disciples2 hence by the most natural association of ideas1 the ambition of the two disciples1 the antidote to which was the announcement of approaching trial1 was connected with the prediction of the passion4 ,again1 on the first occasion of rivalry1 the preceding prediction of the passion leads in ,mark and ,luke to the observation1 that the disciples did not understand the words of ,jesus1 and yet feared to ask him concerning them1 whence it may be inferred that they debated and disputed on the subject among themselves2 here1 then1 the association of ideas caused the ,evangelists to introduce the contention for pre-eminence1 also carried on in the absence of ,jesus4 ,this explanation is not applicable to the narrative of ,matthew1 for there1 between the prediction of the passion and the dispute of the disciples1 the anecdote of the coin angled for by ,peter1 intervenes4 ,with the above contentions for pre-eminence1 another anecdote is indirectly connected by means of the child which is put forward on one of those occasions4 ,children are brought to ,jesus that he may bless them2 the disciples wish to prevent it1 but ,jesus speaks the encouraging words1 ,suffer little children to come unto me1 and adds that only for children1 and those who resemble children1 is the kingdom of heaven destined 7,matt4 xix4 #ac ff42 ,mark x4 #ac ff42 ,luke xviii4 #ae ff474 ,this narrative has many points of resemblance to that of the child placed in the midst of the disciples4 ,firstly1 in both1 ,jesus presents children as a model1 and declares that only those who resemble children can enter the kingdom of ,god2 secondly1 in both1 the disciples appear in the light of opposition to children2 and1 thirdly1 in both1 ,mark says1 that ,jesus took the children in his arms 774 ,if these points of resemblance be esteemed adequate ground for reducing the two narratives to one1 the latter must1 beyond all question1 be retained as the nearest to truth1 because the saying of ,jesus1 ,suffer little children1 etc41 which from its retaining this original form in all the narratives1 bears the stamp of genuineness1 could scarcely have been uttered on the other occasion2 whereas1 the sentences on children as patterns of humility1 given in connexion with the contention about rank1 might very well have been uttered under the circumstances above described1 in retrospective allusion to previous contentions about rank4 ,nevertheless1 this might rather be the place for supposing an assimilation of originally diverse occurrences1 since it is at least evident1 that ,mark has inserted the expression in both1 simply on account of the resemblance between the two scenes4 #hh4 ,,the ,,purification ,,of ,,the ,,temple4 ,jesus1 during his first residence in ,jerusalem1 according to ,john 7ii4 #ad ff471 according to the synoptists1 during his last 7,matt4 xxi4 #ab ff4 parall471 undertook the purification of the temple4 ,the ancient commentators thought1 and many modern ones still think1 #aaaa that these were separate events1 especially as1 besides the chronological difference1 there is some divergency between the three first ,evangelists and the fourth in their particulars4 ,while1 namely1 the former1 in relation to the conduct of ,jesus1 merely speak in general terms of an expulsion1 1 ,john says that he made a scourge of small cords1 1 for this purpose3 again1 while according to the former1 he treats all the sellers alike1 he appears1 according to ,john1 to make some distinction1 and to use the sellers of doves somewhat more mildly2 moreover1 ,john does not say that he drove out the buyers1 as well as the sellers4 ,there is also a difference as to the language used by ,jesus on the occasion2 in the synoptical gospels1 it is given in the form of an exact quotation from the ,old ,testament2 in ,john1 merely as a free allusion4 ,but1 above all1 there is a difference as to the result3 in the fourth gospel1 ,jesus is immediately called to account2 in the synoptical gospels1 we read nothing of this1 and according to them1 it is not until the following day that the ,jewish authorities put to ,jesus a question1 which seems to have reference to the purification of the temple 7,matt4 xxi4 #bc ff471 and to which ,jesus replies quite otherwise than to the remonstrance in the fourth gospel4 ,to explain the repetition of such a measure1 it is remarked that the abuse was not likely to cease on the first expulsion1 and that on every revival of it1 ,jesus would feel himself anew called on to interfere2 that1 moreover1 the temple purification in ,john is indicated to be an earlier event than that in the synoptical gospels1 by the circumstance1 that the fourth ,evangelist represents ,jesus as being immediately called to account1 while his impunity in the other case appears a natural consequence of the heightened consideration which he had in the meantime won4 ,but allowing to these divergencies their full weight1 the agreement between the two narratives preponderates4 ,we have in both the same abuse1 the same violent mode of checking it1 by casting out 77 the people1 and overthrowing 77 the tables2 nay1 virtually1 the same language in justification of this procedure1 for in ,john1 as well as in the other gospels1 the words of ,jesus contain a reference1 though not a verbally precise one1 to ,isa4 lvi4 #g2 ,jer4 vii4 #aa4 ,these important points of resemblance must at least extort such an admission as that of ,sieffert1 #aaab namely1 that the two occurrences1 originally but little alike1 were assimilated by tradition1 the features of the one being transferred to the other4 ,but thus much seems clear2 the synoptists know as little of an earlier event of this kind1 as in fact of an earlier visit of ,jesus to ,jerusalem3 and the fourth ,evangelist seems to have passed over the purification of the temple after the last entrance of ,jesus into the metropolis1 not because he presumed it to be already known from the other gospels1 but because he believed that he must give an early date to the sole act of the kind with which he was acquainted4 ,if then each of the ,evangelists knew only of one purification of the temple1 we are not warranted either by the slight divergencies in the description of the event1 or by the important difference in its chronological position1 to suppose that there were two2 since chronological differences are by no means rare in the gospels1 and are quite natural in writings of traditional origin4 ,it is therefore with justice that our most modern interpreters have1 after the example of some older ones1 declared themselves in favour of the identity of the two histories4 #aaac ,on which side lies the error8 ,we may know beforehand how the criticism of the present day will decide on this question3 namely1 in favour of the fourth gospel4 ,according to ,lcke1 the scourge1 the diversified treatment of the different classes of traders1 the more indirect allusion to the ,old ,testament passage1 are so many indications that the writer was an eye and ear witness of the scene he describes2 while as to chronology1 it is well known that this is in no degree regarded by the synoptists1 but only by ,john1 whence1 according to ,sieffert1 #aaad to surrender the narrative of the latter to that of the former1 would be to renounce the certain for the uncertain4 ,as to ,john's dramatic details1 we may match them by a particular peculiar to ,mark1 ,and they would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple 7v4 #af71 which besides has a support in the ,jewish custom which did not permit the court of the temple to be made a thoroughfare4 #aaae ,if1 nevertheless1 this particular is put to the account of ,mark's otherwise ascertained predilection for arbitrary embellishment1 #aaaf what authorizes us to regard similar artistic touches from the fourth ,evangelist1 as necessary proofs of his having been an eye-witness8 ,to appeal here to his character of eye-witness as a recognized fact1 #aaag is too glaring a petitio principii1 at least in the point of view taken by a comparative criticism1 in which the decision as to whether the artistic details of the fourth ,evangelist are mere embellishments1 must depend solely on intrinsic probability4 ,although the different treatment of the different classes of men is in itself a probable feature1 and the freer allusion to the ,old ,testament is at least an indifferent one2 it is quite otherwise with the most striking feature in the narrative of ,john4 ,origen has set the example of objecting to the twisting and application of the scourge of small cords1 as far too violent and disorderly a procedure4 #aaah ,modern interpreters soften the picture by supposing that ,jesus used the scourge merely against the cattle #aaai 7a supposition1 however1 opposed to the text1 which represents all as being driven out by the scourge72 yet still they cannot avoid perceiving the use of a scourge at all to be unseemly in a person of the dignity of ,jesus1 and only calculated to aggravate the already tumultuary character of the proceeding4 #aabj ,the feature peculiar to ,mark is encumbered with no such difficulties1 and while it is rejected1 is this of ,john to be received8 ,certainly not1 if we can only find an indication in what way the fourth ,evangelist might be led to the free invention of such a particular4 ,now it is evident from the quotation v4 #ag1 which is peculiar to him1 that he looked on the act of ,jesus as a demonstration of holy zeal--a sufficient temptation to exaggerate the traits of zealousness in his conduct4 ,in relation to the chronological difference1 we need only remember how the fourth ,evangelist antedates the acknowledgment of ,jesus as the ,messiah by the disciples1 and the conferring of the name of ,peter on ,simon1 to be freed from the common assumption of his pre-eminent chronological accuracy1 which is alleged in favour of his position of the purification of the temple4 ,for this particular case1 however1 it is impossible to show any reason why the occurrence in question would better suit the time of the first than of the last passover visited by ,jesus1 whereas there are no slight grounds for the opposite opinion4 ,it is true that nothing in relation to chronology is to be founded on the improbability that ,jesus should so early have referred to his death and resurrection1 as he must have done1 according to ,john's interpretation of the saying about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple2 #aaba for we shall see1 in the proper place1 that this reference to the death and resurrection1 owes its introduction into the declaration of ,jesus to the ,evangelist alone4 ,but it is no inconsiderable argument against ,john's position of the event1 that ,jesus1 with his prudence and tact1 would hardly have ventured thus early on so violent an exercise of his messianic authority4 #aabb ,for in that first period of his ministry he had not given himself out as the ,messiah1 and under any other than messianic authority1 such a step could then scarcely have been hazarded2 moreover1 he in the beginning rather chose to meet his cotemporaries on friendly ground1 and it is therefore hardly credible that he should at once1 without trying milder means1 have adopted an appearance so antagonistic4 ,but to the last week of his life such a scene is perfectly suited4 ,then1 after his messianic entrance into ,jerusalem1 it was his direct aim in all that he did and said1 to assert his messiahship1 in defiance of the contradiction of his enemies2 then1 all lay so entirely at stake1 that nothing more was to be lost by such a step4 ,as regards the nature of the event1 ,origen long ago thought it incredible1 that so great a multitude should have unresistingly submitted to a single man1--one1 too1 whose claims had ever been obstinately contested3 his only resource in this exigency is to appeal to the superhuman power of ,jesus1 by virtue of which he was able suddenly to extinguish the wrath of his enemies1 or to render it impotent2 and hence ,origen ranks this expulsion among the greatest miracles of ,jesus4 #aabc ,modern expositors decline the miracle1 #aabd but ,paulus is the only one among them who has adequately weighed ,origen's remark1 that in the ordinary course of things the multitude would have opposed themselves to a single person4 ,whatever may be said of the surprise caused by the suddenness of the appearance of ,jesus #aabe 7if1 as ,john relates1 he made himself a scourge of cords1 he would need some time for preparation71 of the force of right on his side #aabf 7on the side of those whom he attacked1 however1 there was established usage72 or1 finally1 of the irresistible impression produced by the personality of ,jesus #aabg 7on usurers and cattle-dealers--on brute men1 as ,paulus calls them873 still1 such a multitude1 certain as it might be of the protection of the priesthood1 would not have unresistingly allowed themselves to be driven out of the temple by a single man4 ,hence ,paulus is of opinion that a number of others1 equally scandalized by the sacrilegious traffic1 made common cause with ,jesus1 and that to their united strength the buyers and sellers were compelled to yield4 #aabh ,but this supposition is fatal to the entire incident1 for it makes ,jesus the cause of an open tumult2 and it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual aversion to everything revolutionary1 or to explain the omission of his enemies to use it as an accusation against him4 ,for that they held themselves bound in conscience to admit that the conduct of ,jesus was justifiable in this case1 is the less credible1 since1 according to a rabbinical authority1 #aabi the ,jews appear to have been so far from taking umbrage at the market in the court of the ,gentiles 7and this is all we are to understand by the word 71 #aacj that the absence of it seemed to them like a melancholy desolation of the temple4 ,according to this1 it is not surprising that ,origen casts a doubt on the historical value of this narrative1 by the expression1 7if it really happened71 and at most admits that the ,evangelist1 in order to present an idea allegorically1 7also borrowed the form of an actual occurrence74 #aaca ,but in order to contest the reality of this history1 in defiance of the agreement of all the four ,evangelists1 the negative grounds hitherto adduced must be seconded by satisfactory positive ones1 from whence it might be seen how the primitive ,christian legend could be led to the invention of such a scene1 apart from any historical foundation4 ,but these appear to be wanting4 ,for our only positive data in relation to this occurrence are the passages cited by the synoptists from ,isaiah and ,jeremiah1 prohibiting that the temple should be made a den of robbers2 and the passage from ,malachi iii4 #a-c1 according to which it was expected that in the messianic times ,jehovah would suddenly come to his temple1 that no one would stand before his appearing1 and that he would undertake a purification of the people and the worship4 ,certainly these passages seem to have some bearing on the irresistible reforming activity of ,jesus in the temple1 as described by our ,evangelists2 but there is so little indication that they had reference in particular to the market in the outer court of the temple1 that it seems necessary to suppose an actual opposition on the part of ,jesus to this abuse1 in order to account for the fulfilment of the above prophecies by him being represented under the form of an expulsion of buyers and sellers4 #hi4 ,,narratives ,,of ,,the ,,anointing ,,of ,,jesus ,,by ,a ,,woman4 ,an occasion on which ,jesus was anointed by a woman as he sat at meat1 is mentioned by all the ,evangelists 7,matt4 xxvi4 #f ff42 ,mark xiv4 #c ff42 ,luke vii4 #cf ff42 ,john xii4 #a ff471 but with some divergencies1 the most important of which lie between ,luke and the other three4 ,first1 as to the chronology2 ,luke places the incident in the earlier period of the life of ,jesus1 before his departure from ,galilee1 while the other three assign it to the last week of his life2 secondly1 as to the character of the woman who anoints ,jesus3 she is1 according to ,luke1 a woman who was a sinner1 2 according to the two other synoptists1 a person of unsullied reputation2 according to ,john1 who is more precise1 ,mary of ,bethany4 ,from the second point of difference it follows1 that in ,luke the objection of the spectators turns on the admission of so infamous a person1 in the other gospels1 on the wastefulness of the woman2 from both1 it follows1 that ,jesus in his defence dwells1 in the former1 on the grateful love of the woman1 as contrasted with the haughty indifference of the ,pharisees1 in the latter1 on his approaching departure1 in opposition to the constant presence of the poor4 ,there are yet the minor differences1 that the place in which the entertainment and the anointing occur1 is by the two first and the fourth ,evangelists called ,bethany1 which according to ,john xi4 #a1 was a 7town71 by ,luke a 7city71 without any more precise designation2 further1 that the objection1 according to the three former1 proceeds from the disciples1 according to ,luke1 from the entertainer4 ,hence the majority of commentators distinguish two anointings1 of which one is narrated by ,luke the other by the three remaining ,evangelists4 #aacb ,but it must be asked1 if the reconciliation of ,luke with the other three ,evangelists is despaired of1 whether the agreement of the latter amongst themselves is so decided1 and whether we must not rather proceed1 from the distinction of two anointings1 to the distinction of three1 or even four8 ,to four certainly it will scarcely extend2 for ,mark does not depart from ,matthew1 except in a few touches of his well-known dramatic manner2 but between these two ,evangelists on the one side1 and ,john on the other1 there are differences which may fairly be compared with those between ,luke and the rest4 ,the first difference relates to the house in which the entertainment is said to have been given2 according to the two first ,evangelists1 it was the house of ,simon the leper1 a person elsewhere unnoticed2 the fourth does not1 it is true1 expressly name the host1 but since he mentions ,martha as the person who waited on the guests1 and her brother ,lazarus as one of those who sat at meat1 there is no doubt that he intended to indicate the house of the latter as the locality of the repast4 #aacc ,neither is the time of the occurrence precisely the same1 for according to ,matthew and ,mark the scene takes place after the solemn entrance of ,jesus into ,jerusalem1 only two days at the utmost before the passover2 according to ,john1 on the other hand1 before the entrance1 as early as six days prior to the passover4 #aacd ,further1 the individual whom ,john states to be that ,mary of ,bethany so intimately united to ,jesus1 is only known to the two first evangelists as a woman1 2 #aace neither do they represent her as being1 like ,mary1 in the house1 and one of the host's family1 but as coming1 one knows not whence1 to ,jesus1 while he reclined at table4 ,moreover1 the act of anointing is in the fourth gospel another than in the two first4 ,in the latter1 the woman pours her ointment of spikenard on the head of ,jesus2 in ,john1 on the contrary1 she anoints his feet1 and dries them with her hair1 #aacf a difference which gives the whole scene a new character4 ,lastly1 the two synoptists are not aware that it was ,judas who gave utterance to the censure against the woman2 ,matthew attributing it to the disciples1 ,mark1 to the spectators generally4 #aacg ,thus between the narrative of ,john1 and that of ,matthew and ,mark1 there is scarcely less difference than between the account of these three collectively1 and that of ,luke3 whoever supposes two distinct occurrences in the one case1 must1 to be consistent1 do so in the other2 and thus1 with ,origen1 hold1 at least conditionally1 that there were three separate anointings4 ,so soon1 however1 as this consequence is more closely examined1 it must create a difficulty1 for how improbable is it that ,jesus should have been expensively anointed three times1 each time at a feast1 each time by a woman1 that woman being always a different one2 that moreover ,jesus should1 in each instance1 have had to defend the act of the woman against the censures of the spectators6 #aach ,above all1 how is it to be conceived that after ,jesus1 on one and even on two earlier occasions1 had so decidedly given his sanction to the honour rendered to him1 the disciples1 or one of them1 should have persisted in censuring it8 #aaci ,these considerations oblige us to think of reductions1 and it is the most natural to commence with the narratives of the two first synoptists and of ,john1 for these agree not only in the place1 ,bethany1 but also1 generally1 in the time of the event1 the last week of the life of ,jesus2 above all1 the censure and the reply are nearly the same on both sides4 ,in connexion with these similarities the differences lose their importance1 partly from the improbability that an incident of this kind should be repeated2 partly from the probability1 that in the traditional propagation of the anecdote such divergencies should have insinuated themselves4 ,but if in this case the identity of the occurrences be admitted1 in consideration of the similarities1 and in spite of the dissimilarities2 then1 on the other hand1 the divergencies peculiar to the narrative of ,luke can no longer hinder us from pronouncing it to be identical with that of the three other ,evangelists1 provided that there appear to be only a few important points of resemblance between the two4 ,and such really exist1 for ,luke now strikingly accords with ,matthew and ,mark1 in opposition to ,john3 now1 with the latter1 in opposition to the former4 ,luke gives the entertainer the same name as the two first synoptists1 namely1 ,simon1 the only difference being1 that the former calls him a ,pharisee1 while the latter style him the leper4 ,again1 ,luke agrees with the other synoptists in opposition to ,john1 in representing the woman who anoints ,jesus as a nameless individual1 not belonging to the house2 and further1 in making her appear with a box of ointment1 1 while ,john speaks only of a pound of ointment1 1 without specifying the vessel4 ,on the other hand1 ,luke coincides in a remarkable manner with ,john1 and differs from the two other ,evangelists1 as to the mode of the anointing4 ,while1 namely1 according to the latter1 the ointment is poured on the head of ,jesus1 according to ,luke1 the woman1 who was a sinner1 as1 according to ,john1 ,mary1 anoints the feet of ,jesus2 and even the striking particular1 that she dried them with her hair1 #aadj is given by both in nearly the same words2 excepting that in ,luke1 where the woman is described as a sinner1 it is added that she bathed the feet of ,jesus with her tears1 and kissed them4 ,thus1 without doubt1 we have here but one history under three various forms2 and this seems to have been the real conclusion of ,origen1 as well as recently of ,schleiermacher4 ,in this state of the case1 the effort is to escape as cheaply as possible1 and to save the divergencies of the several ,evangelists at least from the appearance of contradiction4 ,first1 with regard to the differences between the two first ,evangelists and the last1 it has been attempted to reconcile the discrepant dates by the supposition1 that the meal at ,bethany was held really1 as ,john informs us1 six days before ,easter2 but that ,matthew1 after whom ,mark wrote1 has no contradictory date2 that rather he has no date at all2 for though he inserts the narrative of the meal and the anointing after the declaration of ,jesus1 that after two days is the feast of the ,passover1 1 this does not prove that he intended to place it later as to time1 for it is probable that he gave it this position simply because he wished to note here1 before coming to the betrayal by ,judas1 the occasion on which the traitor first embraced his black resolve1 namely1 the repast at which he was incensed by ,mary's prodigality1 and embittered by the rebuke of ,jesus4 #aada ,but in opposition to this1 modern criticism has shown that1 on the one hand1 in the mild and altogether general reply of ,jesus there could lie nothing personally offensive to ,judas2 and that1 on the other hand1 the two first gospels do not name ,judas as the party who censured the anointing1 but the disciples or the bystanders generally3 whereas1 if they had noted this scene purely because it was the motive for the treachery of ,judas1 they must have especially pointed out the manifestation of his feeling4 #aadb ,there remains1 consequently1 a chronological contradiction in this instance between the two first synoptists and ,john3 a contradiction which even ,olshausen admits4 #aadc ,it has been attempted in a variety of ways to evade the farther difference as to the person of the host4 ,as ,matthew and ,mark speak only of the house of ,simon the leper1 1 some have distinguished the owner of the house1 ,simon1 from the giver of the entertainment1 who doubtless was ,lazarus1 and have supposed that hence1 in both cases without error1 the fourth ,evangelist mentions the latter1 the two first synoptists the former4 #aadd ,but who would distinguish an entertainment by the name of the householder1 if he were not in any way the giver of the entertainment8 ,again1 since ,john does not expressly call ,lazarus the host1 but merely one of the 7those sitting at the table71 and since the inference that he was the host is drawn solely from the circumstance that his sister ,martha served1 2 others have regarded ,simon as the husband of ,martha1 either separated on account of his leprosy1 or already deceased1 and have supposed that ,lazarus then resided with his widowed sister3 #aade an hypothesis which it is more easy to reconcile with the narratives than the former1 but which is unsupported by any certain information4 ,we come next to the divergency relative to the mode of anointing2 according to the two first ,evangelists1 the ointment was poured on the head of ,jesus2 according to the fourth1 on his feet4 ,the old1 trivial mode of harmonizing the two statements1 by supposing that both the head and the feet were anointed1 has recently been expanded into the conjecture that ,mary indeed intended only to anoint the feet of ,jesus 7,john71 but as she accidentally broke the vessel 71 ,mark71 the ointment flowed over his head also 7,matt474 #aadf ,this attempt at reconciliation falls into the comic1 for as we cannot imagine how a woman who was preparing to anoint the feet of ,jesus could bring the vessel of ointment over his head1 we must suppose that the ointment spirted upwards like an effervescing draught4 ,so that here also the contradiction remains1 and not only between ,matthew and ,john1 where it is admitted even by ,schneckenburger1 but also between the latter ,evangelist and ,mark4 ,the two divergencies relative to the person of the woman who anoints ,jesus1 and to the party who blames her1 were thought to be the most readily explained4 ,that what ,john ascribes to ,judas singly1 ,matthew and ,mark refer to all the disciples or spectators1 was believed to be simply accounted for by the supposition1 that while the rest manifested their disapprobation by gestures only1 ,judas vented his in words4 #aadg ,we grant that the word 7they said71 preceded as it is in ,mark by the words 7having indignation within themselves71 and followed1 as in ,matthew1 by the words 7but ,jesus knowing71 does not necessarily imply that all the disciples gave audible expression to their feelings2 as1 however1 the two first ,evangelists immediately after this meal narrate the betrayal by ,judas1 they would certainly have named the traitor on the above occasion1 had he1 to their knowledge1 made himself conspicuous in connection with the covetous blame which the woman's liberality drew forth4 ,that ,john particularizes the woman1 whose name is not given by the synoptists1 as ,mary of ,bethany1 is1 in the ordinary view1 only an example how the fourth ,evangelist supplies the omissions of his predecessors4 #aadh ,but as the two first synoptists attach so much importance to the deed of the woman1 that they make ,jesus predict the perpetuation of her memory on account of it--a particular which ,john has not--they would assuredly have also given her name had they known it2 so that in any case we may conclude thus much3 they knew not who the woman was1 still less did they conceive her to be ,mary of ,bethany4 ,thus if the identity only of the last ,evangelist's narrative with that of the two first be acknowledged1 it must be confessed that we have1 on the one side or the other1 an account which is inaccurate1 and disfigured by tradition4 ,it is1 however1 not only between these1 but also between ,luke and his fellow ,evangelists collectively1 that they who suppose only one incident to be the foundation of their narratives1 seek to remove as far as possible the appearance of contradiction4 ,schleiermacher1 whose highest authority is ,john1 but who will on no account renounce ,luke1 comes in this instance1 when the two so widely diverge1 into a peculiar dilemma1 from which he must have thought that he could extricate himself with singular dexterity1 since he has not evaded it1 as he does others of a similar kind1 by the supposition of two fundamental occurrences4 ,it is true that he finds himself constrained to concede1 in favour of ,john1 that ,luke's informant could not in this case have been an eyewitness2 whence minor divergencies1 as for instance those relative to the locality1 are to be explained4 ,on the other hand1 the apparently important differences that1 according to ,luke1 the woman is a sinner1 according to ,john1 ,mary of ,bethany2 that according to the former1 the host1 according to the latter1 the disciples1 make objections2 and that the reply of ,jesus is in the respective narrations totally different--these1 in ,schleiermacher's opinion1 have their foundation in the fact that the occurrence may be regarded from two points of view4 ,the one aspect of the occurrence is the murmuring of the disciples1 and this is given by ,matthew2 the other1 namely1 the relations of ,jesus with the pharisaic host1 is exhibited by ,luke2 and ,john confirms both representations4 ,the most decided impediment to the reconciliation of ,luke with the other evangelists1 his designation of the woman as a sinner1 1 ,schleiermacher invalidates1 by calling it a false inference of the narrator from the address of ,jesus to ,mary1 ,thy sins are forgiven thee1 4 ,this ,jesus might say to ,mary in allusion to some error1 unknown to us1 but such as the purest are liable to1 without compromising her reputation with the spectators1 who were well acquainted with her character2 and it was only the narrator who erroneously concluded from the above words of ,jesus1 and from his further discourse1 that the woman concerned was a sinner in the ordinary sense of the word1 whence he has incorrectly amplified the thoughts of the host1 v4 #ci4 #aadi ,it is not1 however1 simply of sins1 1 but of many sins1 1 that ,jesus speaks in relation to the woman2 and if this also be an addition of the narrator1 to be rejected as such because it is inconsistent with the character of ,mary of ,bethany1 then has the entire speech of ,jesus from v4 #dj-dh1 which turns on the opposition between forgiving and loving little and much1 been falsified or misrepresented by the ,evangelist3 and on the side of ,luke especially1 it is in vain to attempt to harmonize the discordant narratives4 ,if1 then1 the four narratives can be reconciled only by the supposition that several of them have undergone important traditional modifications3 the question is1 which of them is the nearest to the original fact8 ,that modern critics should unanimously decide in favour of ,john1 cannot surprise us after our previous observations2 and as little can the nature of the reasoning by which their judgment is supported4 ,the narrative of ,john1 say they 7reasoning in a circle71 being that of an eye-witness1 must be at once supposed the true one1 #aaej and this conclusion is sometimes rested for greater security on the false premiss1 that the more circumstantial and dramatic narrator is the more accurate reporter--the eye-witness4 #aaea ,the breaking of the box of ointment1 in ,mark1 although a dramatic particular1 is readily rejected as a mere embellishment2 but does not ,john's statement of the quantity of spikenard as a pound1 border on exaggeration8 and ought not the extravagance which ,olshausen1 in relation to this disproportionate consumption of ointment1 attributes to ,mary's love1 to be rather referred to the ,evangelist's imagination1 which would then also have the entire credit of the circumstance1 that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment8 ,it is worthy of notice1 that the estimate of the value of the perfume at #cjj denarii1 is given by ,john and ,mark alone2 as also at the miraculous feeding of the multitude1 it is these two ,evangelists who rate the necessary food at #bjj denarii4 ,if ,mark only had this close estimate1 how quickly would it be pronounced1 at least by ,schleiermacher1 a gratuitous addition of the narrator6 ,what then is it that1 in the actual state of the case1 prevents the utterance of this opinion1 even as a conjecture1 but the prejudice in favour of the fourth gospel8 ,even the anointing of the head1 which is attested by two of the synoptists1 is1 because ,john mentions the feet instead of the head1 rejected as unusual1 and incompatible with the position of ,jesus at a meal3 #aaeb whereas the anointing of the feet with precious oil was far less usual2 and this the most recent commentator on the fourth gospel admits4 #aaec ,but peculiar gratitude is rendered to the eye-witness ,john1 because he has rescued from oblivion the names1 both of the anointing woman1 and of the censorious disciple4 #aaed ,it has been supposed that the synoptists did in fact know the name of the woman1 but withheld it from the apprehension that danger might possibly accrue to the family of ,lazarus1 while ,john1 writing later1 was under no such restraint2 #aaee but this expedient rests on mere assumptions4 ,our former conclusion therefore subsists1 namely1 that the earlier ,evangelists knew nothing of the name of the woman2 and the question arises1 how was this possible8 ,jesus having expressly promised immortal renown to the deed of the woman1 the tendency must arise to perpetuate her name also1 and if this were identical with the known and oft-repeated name of ,mary of ,bethany1 it is not easy to understand how the association of the deed and the name could be lost in tradition1 and the woman who anointed ,jesus become nameless4 ,it is perhaps still more incomprehensible1 supposing the covetous blame cast upon the woman to have been really uttered by him who proved the betrayer1 that this should be forgotten in tradition1 and the expression of blame attributed to the disciples generally4 ,when a fact is narrated of a person otherwise unknown1 or even when the person being known1 the fact does not obviously accord with his general character1 it is natural that the name should be lost in tradition2 but when the narrated word or work of a person agrees so entirely with his known character1 as does the covetous and hypocritical blame in question with the character of the traitor1 it is difficult to suppose that the legend would sever it from his name4 ,moreover1 the history in which this blame occurs1 verges so nearly on the moment of the betrayal 7especially according to the position given to it by the two first ,evangelists71 that had the blame really proceeded from ,judas1 the two facts would have been almost inevitably associated4 ,nay1 even if that expression of latent cupidity had not really belonged to ,judas1 there must have been a temptation eventually to ascribe it to him1 as a help to the delineation of his character1 and to the explanation of his subsequent treachery4 ,thus the case is reversed1 and the question is whether1 instead of praising ,john that he has preserved to us this precise information1 we ought not rather to give our approbation to the synoptists1 that they have abstained from so natural but unhistorical a combination4 ,we can arrive at no other conclusion with respect to the designation of the woman who anoints ,jesus as ,mary of ,bethany4 ,on the one hand1 it is inconceivable that the deed1 if originally hers1 should be separated from her celebrated name2 on the other1 the legend1 in the course of its development1 might naturally come to attribute to one whose spiritual relations with ,jesus had1 according to the third and fourth gospels1 early obtained great celebrity in the primitive church1 an act of devoted love towards him1 which originally belonged to another and less known person4 ,but from another side also we find ourselves induced to regard the narratives of ,matthew and ,mark1 who give no name to the woman1 rather than that of ,john1 who distinguishes her as ,mary of ,bethany1 as the parent stem of the group of anecdotes before us4 ,our position of the identity of all the four narratives must1 to be tenable1 enable us also to explain how ,luke's representation of the facts could arise4 ,now1 supposing the narrative of ,john to be the nearest to the truth1 it is not a little surprising that in the legend1 the anointing woman should doubly descend from the highly honoured ,mary1 sister of ,lazarus1 to an unknown1 nameless individual1 and thence even to a notorious sinner2 it appears far more natural to give the intermediate position to the indifferent statement of the synoptists1 out of whose equivocal nameless woman might equally be made1 either in an ascending scale1 a ,mary2 or1 in a descending one1 a sinner4 ,the possibility of the first transformation has been already shown3 it must next be asked1 where could be an inducement1 without historical grounds1 gradually to invest the anointing woman with the character of a sinner8 ,in the narrative itself our only clue is a feature which the two first synoptists have not1 but which ,john has in common with ,luke2 namely1 that the woman anointed the feet of ,jesus4 ,to the fourth ,evangelist1 this tribute of feeling appeared in accordance with the sensitive1 devoted nature of ,mary1 whom he elsewhere also 7xi4 #cb71 represents as falling at the feet of ,jesus2 but by another it might be taken1 as by ,luke1 for the gesture of contrition2 an idea which might favour the conception of the woman as a sinner--might favour1 we say1 not cause3 for a cause1 we must search elsewhere4 #ij4 ,,the ,,narratives ,,of ,,the ,,woman ,,taken ,,in ,,adultery1 ,,and ,,of ,,mary ,,and ,,martha4 ,in the ,gospel of ,john 7viii4 #a-aa71 the ,pharisees and scribes bring a woman taken in adultery to ,jesus1 that they may obtain his opinion as to the procedure to be observed against her2 whereupon ,jesus1 by appealing to the consciences of the accusers1 liberates the woman1 and dismisses her with an admonition4 ,the genuineness of this passage has been strongly contested1 nay1 its spuriousness might be regarded as demonstrated1 were it not that even the most thorough investigations on the subject #aaef indirectly betray a design1 which ,paulus openly avows1 of warding off the dangerous surmises as to the origin of the fourth gospel1 which are occasioned by the supposition that this passage1 encumbered as it is with improbabilities1 is a genuine portion of that gospel4 ,for in the first place1 the scribes say to ,jesus3 ,moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned3 now in no part of the ,pentateuch is this punishment prescribed for adultery1 but simply death1 the mode of inflicting it being left undetermined 7,lev4 xx4 #aj2 ,deut4 xxii4 #bb72 nor was stoning for adultery a latter institution of the ,talmud1 for according to the canon3 omne mortis supplicium1 in scriptur absolute positum esse strangulationem1 #aaeg the punishment appointed for this offence in the ,talmud is strangulation4 #aaeh ,further1 it is difficult to discover what there was to ensnare ,jesus in the question proposed to him2 #aaei the scribes quoted to him the commandment of the law1 as if they would warn him1 rather than tempt him1 for they could not expect that he would decide otherwise than agreeably to the law4 ,again1 the decision of ,jesus is open to the stricture1 that if only he who is conscious of perfect purity were authorized to judge and punish1 all social order would be at an end4 ,the circumstance of ,jesus writing on the ground has a legendary and mystical air1 for even if it be not correctly explained by the gloss of ,jerome3 eorum videlicet1 qui accusabant1 et omnium mortalium peccata1 it yet seems to imply something more mysterious than a mere manifestation of contempt for the accusers4 ,lastly1 it is scarcely conceivable that every one of those men who dragged the woman before ,jesus1 zealous for the law1 and adverse to his cause as they are supposed to be1 should have had so tender a conscience1 as on the appeal of ,jesus to retire without prosecuting their design1 and leave the woman behind them uninjured2 this rather appears to belong merely to the legendary or poetical embellishment of the scene4 ,yet however improbable it may appear1 from these observations1 that the occurrence happened precisely as it is here narrated1 this1 as ,bretschneider justly maintains1 #aafj proves nothing against the genuineness of the passage1 since it is arguing in a circle to assume the apostolic composition of the fourth gospel1 and the consequent impossibility that a narrative containing contradictions should form a portion of it1 prior to an examination of its several parts4 ,nevertheless1 on the other hand1 the absence of the passage in the oldest authorities is so suspicious1 that a decision on the subject cannot be hazarded4 ,in any case1 the narrative of an interview between ,jesus and a woman of the above character must be very ancient1 since1 according to ,eusebius1 it was found in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews1 and in the writings of ,papias4 #aafa ,it was long thought that the woman mentioned in the ,hebrew gospel and by ,papias was identical with the adulteress in ,john2 but against this it has been justly observed1 that one who had the reproach of many sins1 must be distinct from her who was detected in the one act of adultery4 #aafb ,i wonder1 however1 that no one has1 to my knowledge1 thought1 in connexion with the passage of ,eusebius1 of the woman in ,luke of whom ,jesus says that her many sins1 1 are forgiven4 ,it is true that the word does not fully agree with this idea1 for ,luke does not speak of actual expressions of the ,pharisee in disparagement of the woman1 but merely of the unfavourable thoughts which he had concerning her2 and in this respect the passage in ,eusebius would agree better with the narrative of ,john1 which has an express denunciation1 a 4 ,thus we are led on external grounds1 by the doubt whether an ancient notice refer to the one or the other of the two narratives1 to a perception of their affinity1 #aafc which is besides evident from internal reasons4 ,in both we have a woman1 a sinner1 before ,jesus2 in both1 this woman is regarded with an evil eye by ,pharisaic sanctimoniousness1 but is taken into protection by ,jesus1 and dismissed with a friendly 1 go4 ,these were precisely the features1 the origin of which we could not understand in the narrative of ,luke1 viewed as a mere variation of the history of the anointing given by the other ,evangelists4 ,now1 what is more natural than to suppose that they were transferred into ,luke's history of the anointing1 from that of the forgiven sinner8 ,if the ,christian legend possessed1 on the one side1 a woman who had anointed ,jesus1 who was on this account reproached1 but was defended by ,jesus2 and on the other side a woman who was accused before him of many sins1 but whom he pardoned2 how easily1 aided by the idea of an anointing of the feet of ,jesus1 which bears the interpretation of an act of penitence1 might the two histories flow together--the anointing woman become also a sinner1 and the sinner also an anointer8 ,then1 that the scene of the pardon was an entertainment1 was a feature also drawn from the history of the anointing3 the entertainer must be a ,pharisee1 because the accusation of the woman ought to proceed from a ,pharisaic party1 and because1 as we have seen1 ,luke has a predilection for ,pharisaic entertainments4 ,lastly1 the discourse of ,jesus may have been borrowed1 partly from the original narrative of the woman who was a sinner1 partly from analogous occasions4 ,if these conjectures be correct1 the narratives are preserved unmixed1 on the one hand1 by the two first ,evangelists2 on the other1 by the fourth1 or whoever was the author of the passage on the adulteress2 for if the latter contains much that is legendary1 it is at least free from any admixture of the history of the anointing4 ,having thus accounted for one modification of the narrative concerning the anointing woman1 namely1 her degradation into a sinner1 by the influence of another and somewhat similar anecdote1 which was current in the first age of ,christianity1 we may proceed to consider1 experimentally1 whether a like external influence may not have helped to produce the opposite modification of the unknown into ,mary of ,bethany3 a modification which1 for the rest1 we have already seen to be easy of explanation4 ,such an influence could only proceed from the sole notice of ,mary 7with the exception of her appearance at the resurrection of ,lazarus7 which has been preserved to us1 and which is rendered memorable by the declaration of ,jesus1 ,one thing is needful1 and ,mary hath chosen1 etc4 7,luke x4 #ch ff474 ,we have1 in fact1 here as well as there1 ,martha occupied in serving 7,john xii4 #b1 2 ,luke x4 #dj1 72 here1 ,mary sitting at the feet of ,jesus1 there1 anointing his feet2 here1 blamed by her sister1 there by ,judas1 for her useless conduct1 and in both cases1 defended by ,jesus4 ,it is surely unavoidable to say1 if once the narrative of the anointing of ,jesus by a woman were current together with that of ,mary and ,martha1 it was very natural1 from the numerous points of resemblance between them1 that they should be blended in the legend1 or by some individual1 into one story2 that the unknown woman who anointed the feet of ,jesus1 who was blamed by the spectators1 and vindicated by ,jesus1 should be changed into ,mary1 whom tradition had depicted in a similar situation2 the task of serving at the meal with which the anointing was connected attributed to ,mary's sister1 ,martha2 and finally1 her brother ,lazarus made a partaker of the meal3--so that here the narrative of ,luke on the one side1 and that of the two synoptists on the other1 appear to be pure anecdotes1 that of ,john a mixed one4 ,further1 in ,luke's narrative of the visit of ,jesus to the two sisters1 there is no mention of ,lazarus1 with whom1 however1 according to ,john 7xi4 and xii471 ,mary and ,martha appear to have dwelt2 nay1 ,luke speaks precisely as if the presence or existence of this brother1 whom indeed neither he nor either of the other synoptists anywhere notices1 were entirely unknown to him4 ,for had he known anything of ,lazarus1 or had he thought of him as present1 he could not have said3 ,a certain woman1 named ,martha1 received him into her house2 he must at least have named her brother also1 especially as1 according to ,john1 the latter was an intimate friend of ,jesus4 ,this silence is remarkable1 and commentators have not succeeded in finding a better explanation of it than that given in the ,natural ,history of the ,prophet of ,nazareth1 where the shortly subsequent death of ,lazarus is made available for the supposition that he was1 about the time of that visit of ,jesus1 on a journey for the benefit of his health4 #aafd ,not less striking is another point relative to the locality of this scene4 ,according to ,john1 ,mary and ,martha dwelt in ,bethany1 a small town in the immediate vicinity of ,jerusalem2 whereas ,luke1 when speaking of the visit of ,jesus to these sisters1 only mentions a certain town1 1 which is thought1 however1 to be easily reconciled with the statement of ,john1 by the observation1 that ,luke assigns the visit to the journey of ,jesus to ,jerusalem1 and to one travelling thither out of ,galilee1 ,bethany would lie in the way4 ,but it would lie quite at the end of this way1 so that the visit of ,jesus must fall at the close of his journey1 whereas ,luke places it soon after the departure out of ,galilee1 and separates it from the entrance into ,jerusalem by a multitude of incidents filling eight entire chapters4 ,thus much then is clear3 the author or editor of the third gospel was ignorant that that visit was paid in ,bethany1 or that ,mary and ,martha dwelt there1 and it is only that ,evangelist who represents ,mary as the anointing woman1 who also names ,bethany as the home of ,mary3 the same place where1 according to the two first synoptists1 the anointing occurred4 ,if ,mary were once made identical with the anointing woman1 and if the anointing were known to have happened in ,bethany1 it would naturally follow that this town would be represented as ,mary's home4 ,hence it is probable that the anointing woman owes her name to the current narrative of the visit of ,jesus to ,martha and ,mary1 and that ,mary owes her home to the narrative of the meal at ,bethany4 ,we should thus have a group of five histories1 among which the narrative given by the two first synoptists of the anointing of ,jesus by a woman1 would form the centre1 that in ,john of the adulteress1 and that in ,luke of ,mary and ,martha1 the extremes1 while the anointing by the sinner in ,luke1 and that by ,mary in ,john1 would fill the intermediate places4 ,it is true that all the five narratives might with some plausibility be regarded as varied editions of one historical incident2 but from the essential dissimilarity between the three to which ,i have assigned the middle and extreme places1 ,i am rather of opinion that these are each founded on a special incident1 but that the two intermediate narratives are secondary formations which owe their existence to the intermixture of the primary ones by tradition4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,miracles ,,of ,,jesus4 #ia4 ,,jesus ,,considered ,,as ,a ,,worker ,,of ,,miracles4 ,that the ,jewish people in the time of ,jesus expected miracles from the ,messiah is in itself natural1 since the ,messiah was a second ,moses and the greatest of the prophets1 and to ,moses and the prophets the national legend attributed miracles of all kinds3 by later ,jewish writings it is rendered probable2 #aafe by our gospels1 certain4 ,when ,jesus on one occasion had 7without natural means7 cured a blind and dumb demoniac1 the people were hereby led to ask3 ,is not this the son of ,david8 7,matt4 xii4 #bc71 a proof that a miraculous power of healing was regarded as an attribute of the ,messiah4 ,john the ,baptist1 on hearing of the works of ,jesus 771 sent to him with the inquiry1 ,art thou he that should come 778 ,jesus1 in proof of the affirmative1 merely appealed again to his miracles 7,matt4 xi4 #b ff4 parall474 ,at the ,feast of ,tabernacles1 which was celebrated by ,jesus in ,jerusalem1 many of the people believed on him1 saying1 in justification of their faith1 ,when ,christ cometh1 will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done8 7,john vii4 #ca74 ,but not only was it predetermined in the popular expectation that the ,messiah should work miracles in general1--the particular kinds of miracles which he was to perform were fixed1 also in accordance with ,old ,testament types and declarations4 ,moses dispensed meat and drink to the people in a supernatural manner 7,exod4 xvi4 #ag73 the same was expected1 as the rabbins explicitly say1 from the ,messiah4 ,at the prayer of ,elisha1 eyes were in one case closed1 in another1 opened supernaturally 7#b ,kings vi473 the ,messiah also was to open the eyes of the blind4 ,by this prophet and his master1 even the dead had been raised 7#a ,kings xvii42 #b ,kings iv473 hence to the ,messiah also power over death could not be wanting4 #aaff ,among the prophecies1 ,isa4 xxxv4 #e1 #f 7comp4 xlii4 #g7 was especially influential in forming this portion of the messianic idea4 ,it is here said of the messianic times3 ,then shall the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped2 then shall the lame man leap as a hart1 and the tongue of the dumb shall sing4 ,these words1 it is true1 stand in ,isaiah in a figurative connexion1 but they were early understood literally1 as is evident from the circumstance that ,jesus describes his miracles to the messengers of ,john 7,matt4 xi4 #e7 with an obvious allusion to this prophetic passage4 ,jesus1 in so far as he had given himself out and was believed to be the ,messiah1 or even merely a prophet1 had to meet this expectation when1 according to several passages already considered 7,matt4 xii4 #ch1 xvi4 #a1 parall471 his ,pharisaic enemies required a sign from him2 when1 after the violent expulsion of the traders and money-changers from the temple1 the ,jews desired from him a sign that should legitimate such an assumption of authority 7,john ii4 #ah72 and when the people in the synagogue at ,capernaum1 on his requiring faith in himself as the sent of ,god1 made it a condition of this faith that he should show them a sign 7,john vi4 #cj74 ,according to the gospels1 ,jesus more than satisfied this demand made by his cotemporaries on the ,messiah4 ,not only does a considerable part of the evangelical narratives consist of descriptions of his miracles2 not only did his disciples after his death especially call to their own remembrance and to that of the ,jews the 7miracles7 7signs7 and 7wonders7 wrought by him 7,acts ii4 #bb2 comp4 ,luke xxiv4 #ai73 but the people also were1 even during his life1 so well satisfied with this aspect of his character that many believed on him in consequence 7,john ii4 #bc2 comp4 vi4 #b71 contrasted him with the ,baptist who gave no sign 7,john x4 #da71 and even believed that he would not be surpassed in this respect by the future ,messiah 7,john vii4 #ca74 ,the above demands of a sign do not appear to prove that ,jesus had performed no miracles1 especially as several of them occur immediately after important miracles1 e4g4 after the cure of a demoniac1 ,matt4 xii4 #ch2 and after the feeding of the five thousand1 ,john vi4 #cj4 ,this position indeed creates a difficulty1 for how the ,jews could deny to these two acts the character of proper signs it is not easy to understand2 the power of expelling demons1 in particular1 being rated very highly 7,luke x4 #ag74 ,the sign demanded on these two occasions must therefore be more precisely defined according to ,luke xi4 #af 7comp4 ,matt xvi4 #a2 ,mark viii4 #aa71 as a sign from heaven1 1 and we must understand it to be the specifically messianic sign of the ,son of ,man in heaven1 7,matt4 xxiv4 #cj74 ,if however it be preferred to sever the connexion between these demands of a sign and the foregoing miracles1 it is possible that ,jesus may have wrought numerous miracles1 and yet that some hostile ,pharisees1 who had not happened to be eyewitnesses of any of them1 may still have desired to see one for themselves4 ,that ,jesus censures the seeking for miracles 7,john iv4 #dh7 and refuses to comply with any one of the demands for a sign1 does not in itself prove that he might not have voluntarily worked miracles in other cases1 when they appeared to him to be more seasonable4 ,when in relation to the demand of the ,pharisees1 ,mark viii4 #ab1 he declares that there shall be no sign given to this generation 1 or ,matt xii4 #ci f41 xvi4 #d2 ,luke xi4 #bi f41 that there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of ,jonah the prophet1 it would appear that by this generation1 1 which in ,matthew and ,luke he characterizes as evil and adulterous1 he could only mean the ,pharisaic part of his cotemporaries who were hostile to him1 and that he intended to declare1 that to these should be granted either no sign at all1 or merely the sign of ,jonas1 that is1 as he interprets it in ,matthew1 the miracle of his resurrection1 or as modern expositors think1 the impressive manifestation of his person and teaching4 ,but if we take the words in the sense that his enemies were to obtain no sign from him1 we encounter two difficulties3 on the one hand1 things must have chanced singularly if among the many miracles wrought by ,jesus in the greatest publicity1 not one fell under the observation of ,pharisees 7moreover ,matt4 xii4 #bd f4 parall4 contradicts this1 for there ,pharisees are plainly supposed to be present at the cure of the blind and dumb demoniac73 on the other hand1 if signs personally witnessed are here intended1 the enemies of ,jesus certainly did not see his resurrection1 or his person after he was risen4 ,hence the above declaration cannot well mean merely that his enemies should be excluded from an actual sight of his miracles4 ,there is yet another expedient1 namely1 to suppose that the expression refers to a sign which should conduce to the good of the subject of which it is predicated3 but all the miracles of ,jesus happened equally with his original mission and his resurrection at once for the benefit of that subject and the contrary1 namely1 in their object for its benefit1 in their result not so4 ,nothing therefore remains but to understand the of the cotemporaries of ,jesus generally1 and the to refer to observation generally1 mediate or immediate3 so that thus ,jesus would appear to have here repudiated the working of miracles in general4 ,this is not very consistent with the numerous narratives of miracles in the gospels1 but it accords fully with the fact that in the preaching and epistles of the apostles1 a couple of general notices excepted 7,acts ii4 #bb1 x4 #ch f471 the miracles of ,jesus appear to be unknown1 and everything is built on his resurrection3 on which the remark may be ventured that it could neither have been so unexpected nor could it have formed so definite an epoch1 if ,jesus had previously raised more than one dead person1 and had wrought the most transcendent miracles of all kinds4 ,this then is the question3 ,ought we1 on account of the evangelical narratives of miracles1 to explain away that expression of ,jesus1 or doubt its authenticity2 or ought we not1 rather1 on the strength of that declaration1 and the silence of the apostolic writings1 to become distrustful of the numerous histories of miracles in the gospels8 ,this can only be decided by a close examination of these narratives1 among which1 for a reason that will be obvious hereafter1 we give the precedence to the expulsions of demons4 #ib4 ,,the ,,demoniacs1 ,,considered ,,generally4 ,while in the fourth gospel1 the expressions to have a demon1 and 1 being a demoniac1 appear nowhere except in the accusations of the ,jews against ,jesus1 and as parallels to 1 to be mad 7viii4 #dh f41 x4 #bj f42 comp4 ,mark iii4 #bb1 #cj2 ,matt4 xi4 #ah71 the synoptists may be said to represent demoniacs as the most frequent objects of the curative powers of ,jesus4 ,when they describe the commencement of his ministry in ,galilee1 they give the demoniacs #aafg a prominent place among the sufferers whom ,jesus healed 7,matt iv4 #bd2 ,mark i4 #cd71 and in all their summary notices of the ministry of ,jesus in certain districts1 demoniacs play a chief part 7,matt4 viii4 #af f42 ,mark i4 #ci1 iii4 #aa f42 ,luke vi4 #ah74 ,the power to cast out devils is before anything else imparted by ,jesus to his disciples 7,matt4 x4 #a1 #h2 ,mark iii4 #ae1 vi4 #g2 ,luke ix4 #a71 who to their great joy succeed in using it according to their wishes 7,luke x4 #ag1 #bj2 ,mark vi4 #ac74 ,besides these summary notices1 however1 several cures of demoniacs are narrated to us in detail1 so that we can form a tolerably accurate idea of their peculiar condition4 ,in the one whose cure in the synagogue at ,capernaum is given by the ,evangelists as the first of this kind 7,mark i4 #bc ff42 ,luke iv4 #cc ff471 we find1 on the one hand1 a disturbance of the self-consciousness1 causing the possessed individuals to speak in the person of the demon1 which appears also in other demoniacs1 as for example1 the ,gadarenes 7,matt4 viii4 #bi f4 parall472 on the other hand1 spasms and convulsions with savage cries4 ,this spasmodic state has1 in the demoniac who is also called a lunatic 7,matt4 xvii4 #ad ff4 parall471 reached the stage of manifest epilepsy2 for sudden falls1 often in dangerous places1 cries1 gnashing of the teeth1 and foaming1 are known symptoms of that malady4 #aafh ,the other aspect of the demoniacal state1 namely1 the disturbance of the self-consciousness1 amounts in the demoniac of ,gadara1 by whose lips a demon1 or rather a plurality of these evil spirits1 speaks as a subject1 to misanthropic madness1 with attacks of maniacal fury against himself and others4 #aafi ,moreover1 not only the insane and epileptic1 but the dumb 7,matt4 ix4 #cb2 ,luke xi4 #ad2 ,matt4 xii4 #bb1 the dumb demoniac is also blind7 and those suffering from a gouty contraction of the body 7,luke xiii4 #aa ff471 are by the evangelists designated more or less precisely as demoniacs4 ,the idea of these sufferers presupposed in the gospels and shared by their authors1 is that a wicked1 unclean spirit 71 71 or several have taken possession of them 7hence their condition is described by the expressions 1 1 to have a demon1 to be a demoniac71 speak through their organs 7thus ,matt4 viii4 #ca1 71 and put their limbs in motion at pleasure 7thus ,mark ix4 #bj1 71 until1 forcibly expelled by a cure1 they depart from the patient 71 74 ,according to the representation of the ,evangelists1 ,jesus also held this view of the matter4 ,it is true that when1 as a means of liberating the possessed1 he addresses the demons within them 7as in ,mark ix4 #be2 ,matt4 viii4 #cb2 ,luke iv4 #ce71 we might with ,paulus #aagj regard this as a mode of entering into the fixed idea of these more or less insane persons1 it being the part of a physical physician1 if he would produce any effect1 to accommodate himself to this idea1 however strongly he may in reality be convinced of its groundlessness4 ,but this is not all2 ,jesus1 even in his private conversations with his disciples1 not only says nothing calculated to undermine the notion of demoniacal possession1 but rather speaks repeatedly on a supposition of its truth2 as e4g4 in ,matt4 x4 #h1 where he gives the commission1 ,cast out devils2 in ,luke x4 #ah ff42 and especially in ,matt4 xvii4 #ba1 parall41 where he says1 ,this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting4 ,again1 in a purely theoretical discourse1 perhaps also in the more intimate circle of his disciples1 ,jesus gives a description quite accordant with the idea of his cotemporaries of the departure of the unclean spirit1 his wandering in the wilderness1 and his return with a reinforcement 7,matt4 xii4 #dc ff474 ,with these facts before us1 the attempt made by generally unprejudiced inquirers1 such as ,winer1 #aaga to show that ,jesus did not share the popular opinion on demoniacal possession1 but merely accommodated his language to their understanding1 appears to us a mere adjustment of his ideas by our own4 ,a closer examination of the last-mentioned passage will suffice to remove every thought of a mere accommodation on the part of ,jesus4 ,it is true that commentators have sought to evade all that is conclusive in this passage1 by interpreting it figuratively1 or even as a parable1 #aagb in every explanation of which 7if we set aside such as that given by ,olshausen #aagc after ,calmet71 the essential idea is1 that superficial conversion to the cause of ,jesus is followed by a relapse into aggravated sin4 #aagd ,but1 ,i would fain know1 what justifies us in abandoning the literal interpretation of this discourse8 ,in the propositions themselves there is no indication of a figurative meaning1 nor is it rendered probable by the general style of teaching used by ,jesus1 for he nowhere else presents moral relations in the garb of demoniacal conditions2 on the contrary1 whenever he speaks1 as here1 of the departure of evil spirits1 e4g4 in ,matt4 xvii4 #ba1 he evidently intends to be understood literally4 ,but does the context favour a figurative interpretation8 ,luke 7xi4 #bd ff47 places the discourse in question after the defence of ,jesus against the ,pharisaic accusation1 that he cast out devils by ,beelzebub3 a position which is undoubtedly erroneous1 as we have seen1 but which is a proof that he at least understood ,jesus to speak literally--of real demons4 ,matthew also places the discourse near to the above accusation and defence1 but he inserts between them the demand of a sign1 together with its refusal1 and he makes ,jesus conclude with the application1 ,even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation4 ,this addition1 it is true1 gives the discourse a figurative application to the moral and religious condition of his cotemporaries1 but only thus3 ,jesus intended the foregoing description of the expelled and returning demon literally1 though he made a secondary use of this event as an image of the moral condition of his cotemporaries4 ,at any rate ,luke1 who has not the same addition1 gives the discourse of ,jesus1 to use the expression of ,paulus1 as a warning against demoniacal relapses4 ,that the majority of theologians in the present day1 without decided support on the part of ,matthew1 and in decided contradiction to ,luke1 advocate the merely figurative interpretation of this passage1 appears to be founded in an aversion to ascribe to ,jesus so strongly developed a demonology1 as lies in his words literally understood4 ,but this is not to be avoided1 even leaving the above passage out of consideration4 ,in ,matt4 xii4 #be f4 #bi1 ,jesus speaks of a kingdom and household of the devil1 in a manner which obviously outsteps the domain of the merely figurative3 but above all1 the passage already quoted1 ,luke x4 #ah-bj1 is of such a nature as to compel even ,paulus1 who is generally so fond of lending to the hallowed personages of primitive ,christian history the views of the present age1 to admit that the kingdom of ,satan was not merely a symbol of evil to ,jesus1 and that he believed in actual demoniacal possession4 ,for he says very justly1 that as ,jesus here speaks1 not to the patient or to the people1 but to those who themselves1 according to his instructions1 cured demoniacs1 his words are not to be explained as a mere accommodation1 when he confirms their belief that the spirits are subject unto them1 and describes their capability of curing the malady in question1 as a power over the power of the enemy4 #aage ,in answer also to the repugnance of those with whose enlightenment a belief in demoniacal possession is inconsistent1 to admit that ,jesus held that belief1 the same theologian justly observes that the most distinguished mind may retain a false idea1 prevalent among his cotemporaries1 if it happen to lie out of his peculiar sphere of thought4 #aagf ,some light is thrown on the evangelical conception of the demoniacs1 by the opinions on this subject which we find in writers more or less cotemporary4 ,the general idea that evil spirits had influence on men1 producing melancholy1 insanity1 and epilepsy1 was early prevalent among the ,greeks #aagg as well as the ,hebrews2 #aagh but the more distinct idea that evil spirits entered into the human body and took possession of its members was not developed until a considerably later period1 and was a consequence of the dissemination of the ,oriental1 particularly the ,persian pneumatology among both ,hebrews and ,greeks4 #aagi ,hence we find in ,josephus the expressions 1 #aahj #aaha 7demons entering into the living1 settling themselves there71 and the same ideas in ,lucian #aahb and ,philostratus4 #aahc ,of the nature and origin of these spirits nothing is expressly stated in the gospels1 except that they belong to the household of ,satan 7,matt4 xii4 #bf ff4 parall471 whence the acts of one of them are directly ascribed to ,satan 7,luke xiii4 #af74 ,but from ,josephus1 #aahd ,justin ,martyr1 #aahe and ,philostratus1 #aahf with whom rabbinical writings agree1 #aahg we learn that these demons were the disembodied souls of wicked men2 and modern theologians have not scrupled to attribute this opinion on their origin to the ,new ,testament also4 #aahh ,justin and the rabbins more nearly particularize1 as spirits that torment the living1 the souls of the giants1 the offspring of those angels who allied themselves to the daughters of men2 the rabbins further add the souls of those who perished in the deluge1 and of those who participated in building the tower of ,babel2 #aahi and with this agree the ,clementine ,homilies1 for1 according to them also1 these souls of the giants1 having become demons1 seek to attach themselves1 as the stronger1 to human souls1 and to inhabit human bodies4 #aaij ,as1 however1 in the continuation of the passage first cited1 ,justin endeavours to convince the heathens of immortality from their own ideas1 the opinion which he there expresses1 of demons being the souls of the departed in general1 can scarcely be regarded as his1 especially as his pupil ,tatian expressly declares himself against it2 #aaia while ,josephus affords no criterion as to the latent idea of the ,new ,testament1 since his ,greek education renders it very uncertain whether he presents the doctrine of demoniacal possession in its original ,jewish1 or in a ,grecian form4 ,if it must be admitted that the ,hebrews owed their doctrine of demons to ,persia1 we know that the ,deves of the ,zend mythology were originally and essentially wicked beings1 existing prior to the human race2 of these two characteristics1 ,hebraism as such might be induced to expunge the former1 which pertained to ,dualism1 but could have no reason for rejecting the latter4 ,accordingly1 in the ,hebrew view1 the demons were the fallen angels of ,gen4 vi41 the souls of their offspring the giants1 and of the great criminals before and immediately after the deluge1 whom the popular imagination gradually magnified into superhuman beings4 ,but in the ideas of the ,hebrews1 there lay no motive for descending beyond the circle of these souls1 who might be conceived to form the court of ,satan4 ,such a motive was only engendered by the union of the ,grco-roman culture with the ,hebraic3 the former had no ,satan1 and consequently no retinue of spirits devoted to his service1 but it had an abundance of ,manes1 ,lemures1 and the like1--all names for disembodied souls that disquieted the living4 ,now1 the combination of these ,grco-roman ideas with the above-mentioned ,jewish ones1 seems to have been the source of the demonology of ,josephus1 of ,justin1 and also of the later rabbins2 but it does not follow that the same mixed view belongs to the ,new ,testament4 ,rather1 as this ,grcised form of the doctrine in question is nowhere positively put forth by the evangelical writers1 while on the contrary the demons are in some passages represented as the household of ,satan3 there is nothing to contravene the inference to be drawn from the unmixedly ,jewish character of thought which reigns in the synoptical gospels on all other subjects 7apart from ,christian modifications72 namely1 that we must attribute to them the pure and original ,jewish conception of the doctrine of demons4 ,it is well known that the older theology1 moved by a regard for the authority of ,jesus and the ,evangelists1 espoused the belief in the reality of demoniacal possession4 ,the new theology1 on the contrary1 especially since the time of ,semler1 #aaib in consideration of the similarity between the condition of the demoniacs in the ,new ,testament and many naturally diseased subjects of our own day1 has begun to refer the malady of the former also to natural causes1 and to ascribe the evangelical supposition of supernatural causes to the prejudices of that age4 ,in modern days1 on the occurrence of epilepsy1 insanity1 and even a disturbance of the self-consciousness resembling the condition of the possessed described in the ,new ,testament1 it is no longer the custom to account for them by the supposition of demoniacal influence3 and the reason of this seems to be1 partly that the advancement in the knowledge of nature and of mind has placed at command a wider range of facts and analogies1 which may serve to explain the above conditions naturally3 partly that the contradiction1 involved in the idea of demoniacal possession1 is beginning to be at least dimly perceived4 ,for--apart from the difficulties which the notion of the existence of a devil and demons entails--whatever theory may be held as to the relation between the self-consciousness and the bodily organs1 it remains absolutely inconceivable how the union between the two could be so far dissolved1 that a foreign self-consciousness could gain an entrance1 thrust out that which belonged to the organism1 and usurp its place4 ,hence for every one who at once regards actual phenomena with enlightened eyes1 and the ,new ,testament narratives with orthodox ones1 there results the contradiction1 that what now proceeds from natural causes1 must in the time of ,jesus have been caused supernaturally4 ,in order to remove this inconceivable difference between the conditions of one age and another1 avoiding at the same time any imputation on the ,new ,testament1 ,olshausen1 whom we may fairly take as the representative of the mystical theology and philosophy of the present day1 denies both that all states of the kind in question have now a natural cause1 and that they had in the time of ,jesus invariably a supernatural cause4 ,with respect to our own time he asks1 if the apostles were to enter our mad-houses1 how would they name many of the inmates8 #aaic ,we answer1 they would to a certainty name many of them demoniacs1 by reason of their participation in the ideas of their people and their age1 not by reason of their apostolic illumination2 and the official who acted as their conductor would very properly endeavour to set them right3 whatever names therefore they might give to the inmates of our asylums1 our conclusions as to the naturalness of the disorders of those inmates would not be at all affected4 ,with respect to the time of ,jesus1 this theologian maintains that the same forms of disease were1 even by the ,jews1 in one case held demoniacal1 in another not so1 according to the difference in their origin3 for example1 one who had become insane through an organic disorder of the brain1 or dumb through an injury of the tongue1 was not looked on as a demoniac1 but only those1 the cause of whose condition was more or less psychical4 ,of such a distinction in the time of ,jesus1 ,olshausen is manifestly bound to give us instances4 ,whence could the ,jews of that age have acquired their knowledge of the latent natural causes of these conditions--whence the criterion by which to distinguish an insanity or imbecility originating in a malformation of the brain1 from one purely psychical8 ,was not their observation limited to outward phenomena1 and those of the coarsest character8 ,the nature of their distinctions seems to be this3 the state of an epileptic with his sudden falls and convulsions1 or of a maniac in his delirium1 especially if1 from the reaction of the popular idea respecting himself he speaks in the person of another1 seems to point to an external influence which governs him2 and consequently1 so soon as the belief in demoniacal possession existed among the people1 all such states were referred to this cause1 as we find them to be in the ,new ,testament3 whereas in dumbness and gouty contraction or lameness1 the influence of an external power is less decidedly indicated1 so that these afflictions were at one time ascribed to a possessing demon1 at another not so4 ,of the former case we find an example in the dumb persons already mentioned1 ,matt4 ix4 #cb1 xii4 #bb1 and in the woman1 who was bowed down1 ,luke xiii4 #aa2 of the latter1 in the man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech1 ,mark vii4 #cb ff41 and in the many paralytics mentioned in the gospels4 ,the decision for the one opinion or the other was however certainly not founded on an investigation into the origin of the disease1 but solely on its external symptoms4 ,if then the ,jews1 and with them the ,evangelists1 referred the two chief classes of these conditions to demoniacal influence1 there remains for him who believes himself bound by their opinion1 without choosing to shut out the lights of modern science1 the glaring inconsistency of considering the same diseases as in one age natural1 in another supernatural4 ,but the most formidable difficulty for ,olshausen1 in his attempted mediation between the ,judaical demonology of the ,new ,testament and the intelligence of our own day1 arises from the influence of the latter on his own mind--an influence which renders him adverse to the idea of personal demons4 ,this theologian1 initiated in the philosophy of the present age1 endeavours to resolve the host of demons1 which in the ,new ,testament are regarded as distinct individuals1 into a system of emanations1 forming the continuity of a single substance1 which indeed sends forth from itself separate powers1 not1 however1 to subsist as independent individuals1 but to return as accidents into the unity of the substance4 ,this cast of thought we have already observed in the opinions of ,olshausen concerning angels1 and it appears still more decidedly in his demonology4 ,personal demons are too repugnant1 and as ,olshausen himself expresses it1 #aaid the comprehension of two subjects in one individual is too inconceivable to find a ready acceptation4 ,hence it is everywhere with vague generality that a kingdom of evil and darkness is spoken of2 and though a personal prince is given to it1 its demons are understood to be mere effluxes and operations1 by which the evil principle manifests itself4 ,but the most vulnerable point of ,olshausen's opinion concerning demons is this3 it is too much for him to believe that ,jesus asked the name of the demon in the ,gadarene2 since he himself doubts the personality of those emanations of the kingdom of darkness1 it cannot1 he thinks1 have been thus decidedly supposed by ,christ2--hence he understands the question1 ,what is thy name8 7,mark v4 #i7 to be addressed1 not to the demon1 but to the man1 #aaie plainly in opposition to the whole context1 for the answer1 ,legion1 appears to be in no degree the result of a misunderstanding1 but the right answer--the one expected by ,jesus4 ,if1 however1 the demons are1 according to ,olshausen's opinion1 impersonal powers1 that which guides them and determines their various functions is the law which governs the kingdom of darkness in relation to the kingdom of light4 ,on this theory1 the worse a man is morally1 the closer must be the connexion between him and the kingdom of evil1 and the closest conceivable connexion--the entrance of the power of darkness into the personality of the man1 i4e4 possession--must always occur in the most wicked4 ,but historically this is not so3 the demoniacs in the gospels appear to be sinners only in the sense that all sick persons need forgiveness of sins2 and the greatest sinners 7,judas for example7 are spared the infliction of possession4 ,the common opinion1 with its personal demons1 escapes this contradiction4 ,it is true that this opinion also1 as we find for instance1 in the ,clementine ,homilies1 firmly maintains it to be by sin only that man subjects himself to the ingress of the demon2 #aaif but here there is yet scope for the individual will of the demon1 who often1 from motives not to be calculated1 passes by the worst1 and holds in chase the less wicked4 #aaig ,on the contrary1 if the demons are considered1 as by ,olshausen1 to be the actions of the power of evil in its relation to the power of goodness2 this relation being regulated by laws1 everything arbitrary and accidental is excluded4 ,hence it evidently costs that theologian some pains to disprove the consequence1 that according to his theory the possessed must always be the most wicked4 ,proceeding from the apparent contest of two powers in the demoniacs1 he adopts the position that the state of demoniacal possession does not appear in those who entirely give themselves up to evil1 and thus maintain an internal unity of disposition1 but only in those in whom there exists a struggle against sin4 #aaih ,in that case1 however1 the above state1 being reduced to a purely moral phenomenon1 must appear far more frequently2 every violent inward struggle must manifest itself under this form1 and especially those who ultimately give themselves up to evil must1 before arriving at this point1 pass through a period of conflict1 that is of possession4 ,olshausen therefore adds a physical condition1 namely1 that the preponderance of evil in the man must have weakened his corporeal organization1 particularly the nervous system1 before he can become susceptible of the demoniacal state4 ,but since such disorders of the nervous system may occur without any moral fault1 who does not see that the state which it is intended to ascribe to demoniacal power as its proper source1 is thus referred chiefly to natural causes1 and that therefore the argument defeats its own object8 ,hence ,olshausen quickly turns away from this side of the question1 and lingers on the comparison of the 7demoniac7 with the 7wicked72 whereas he ought rather to compare the former with the epileptic and insane1 for it is only by this means that any light can be thrown on the nature of possession4 ,this shifting of the question from the ground of physiology and psychology to that of morality and religion1 renders the discussion concerning the demoniacs one of the most useless which ,olshausen's work contains4 #aaii ,let us then relinquish the ungrateful attempt to modernize the ,new ,testament conception of the demoniacs1 or to judaize our modern ideas2--let us rather1 in relation to this subject1 understand the statements of the ,new ,testament as simply as they are given1 without allowing our investigations to be restricted by the ideas therein presented1 which belonged to the age and nation of its writers4 #abjj ,the method adopted for the cure of the demoniacal state was1 especially among the ,jews1 in conformity with what we have ascertained to have been the idea of its nature4 ,the cause of the malady was not supposed to be1 as in natural diseases1 an impersonal object or condition1 such as an impure fluid1 a morbid excitement or debility1 but a self-conscious being2 hence it was treated1 not mechanically or chemically1 but logically1 i4e4 by words4 ,the demon was enjoined to depart2 and to give effect to this injunction1 it was coupled with the names of beings who were believed to have power over demons4 ,hence the main instrument against demoniacal possession was conjuration1 #abja either in the name of ,god1 or of angels1 or of some other potent being1 e4g4 the ,messiah 7,acts xix4 #ac71 with certain forms which were said to be derived from ,solomon4 #abjb ,in addition to this1 certain roots1 #abjc stones1 #abjd fumigations and amulets #abje were used1 in obedience to traditions likewise believed to have been handed down from ,solomon4 ,now as the cause of the malady was not seldom really a psychical one1 or at least one lying in the nervous system1 which may be acted on to an incalculable extent by moral instrumentality1 this psychological treatment was not altogether illusory6 for by exciting in the patient the belief that the demon by which he was possessed1 could not retain his hold before a form of conjuration1 it might often effect the removal of the disorder4 ,jesus himself admits that the ,jewish exorcists sometimes succeeded in working such cures 7,matt4 xii4 #bg74 ,but we read of ,jesus that without conjuration by any other power1 and without the appliance of any further means1 he expelled the demons by his word4 ,the most remarkable cures of this kind1 of which the gospels inform us1 we are now about to examine4 #ic4 ,,cases ,,of ,,the ,,expulsion ,,of ,,demons ,,by ,,jesus1 ,,considered ,,singly4 ,among the circumstantial narratives which are given us in the three first gospels of cures wrought by ,jesus on demoniacs1 three are especially remarkable3 the cure of a demoniac in the synagogue at ,capernaum1 that of the ,gadarenes possessed by a multitude of demons1 and lastly1 that of the lunatic whom the disciples were unable to cure4 ,in ,john the conversion of water into wine is the first miracle performed by ,jesus after his return from the scene of his baptism into ,galilee2 but in ,mark 7i4 #bc ff47 and ,luke 7iv4 #cc ff47 the cure of a demoniac in the synagogue of ,capernaum has this position4 ,jesus had produced a deep impression by his teaching1 when suddenly1 a demoniac who was present1 cried out in the character of the demon that possessed him1 that he would have nothing to do with him1 that he knew him to be the ,messiah who was come to destroy them--the demons2 whereupon ,jesus commanded the demon to hold his peace and come out of the man1 which happened amid cries and convulsions on the part of the demoniac1 and to the great astonishment of the people at the power thus exhibited by ,jesus4 ,here we might1 with rationalistic commentators1 represent the case to ourselves thus3 the demoniac1 during a lucid interval1 entered the synagogue1 was impressed by the powerful discourse of ,jesus1 and overhearing one of the audience speak of him as the ,messiah1 was seized with the idea that the unclean spirit by which he was possessed1 could not maintain itself in the presence of the holy ,messiah2 whence he fell into a paroxysm1 and expressed his awe of ,jesus in the character of the demon4 ,when ,jesus perceived this1 what was more natural than that he should make use of the man's persuasion of his power1 and command the demon to come out of him1 thus laying hold of the maniac by his fixed idea2 which according to the laws of mental hygiene1 might very probably have a favourable effect4 ,it is under this view that ,paulus regards the occasion as that on which the thought of using his messianic fame as a means of curing such sufferers1 first occurred to ,jesus4 #abjf ,but many difficulties oppose themselves to this natural conception of the case4 ,the demoniac is supposed to learn that ,jesus was the ,messiah from the people in the synagogue4 ,on this point the text is not merely silent1 but decidedly contradicts such an opinion4 ,the demon1 speaking through the man1 evidently proclaims his knowledge of the ,messiahship of ,jesus1 in the words1 4441 not as information casually imparted by man1 but as an intuition of his demoniacal nature4 ,further1 when ,jesus cries1 ,hold thy peace6 he refers to what the demon had just uttered concerning his messiahship2 for it is related of ,jesus that he suffered not the demons to speak because they knew him 7,mark i4 #cd2 ,luke iv4 #da71 or because they made him known 7,mark iii4 #ab74 ,if then ,jesus believed that by enjoining silence on the demon he could hinder the promulgation of his messiahship1 he must have been of opinion1 not that the demoniac had heard something of it from the people in the synagogue1 but contrariwise that the latter might learn it from the demoniac2 and this accords with the fact1 that at the time of the first appearance of ,jesus1 in which the ,evangelists place the occurrence1 no one had yet thought of him as the ,messiah4 ,if it be asked1 how the demoniac could discover that ,jesus was the ,messiah1 apart from any external communication1 ,olshausen presses into his service the preternaturally heightened activity of the nervous system1 which1 in demoniacs as in somnambules1 sharpens the presentient power1 and produces a kind of clear-sightedness1 by means of which such a man might very well discern the importance of ,jesus as regarded the whole realm of spirits4 ,the evangelical narrative1 it is true1 does not ascribe that knowledge to a power of the patient1 but of the demon dwelling within him1 and this is the only view consistent with the ,jewish ideas of that period4 ,the ,messiah was to appear1 in order to overthrow the demoniacal kingdom 7 1 comp4 #a ,john iii4 #h2 ,luke x4 #ah f47 #abjg and to cast the devil and his angels into the lake of fire 7,matt4 xxv4 #da2 ,rev4 xx4 #aj7 #abjh3 it followed of course that the demons would recognize him who was to pass such a sentence on them4 #abji ,this however might be deducted as an admixture of the opinion of the narrator1 without damage to the rest of the narrative2 but it must first be granted admissible to ascribe so extensive a presentient power to demoniacal subjects4 ,now1 as it is in the highest degree improbable that a nervous patient1 however intensely excited1 should recognize ,jesus as the ,messiah1 at a time when he was not believed to be such by any one else1 perhaps not even by himself2 and as on the other hand this recognition of the ,messiah by the demon so entirely agrees with the popular ideas2--we must conjecture that on this point the evangelical tradition is not in perfect accordance with historical truth1 but has been attuned to those ideas4 #abaj ,there was the more inducement to this1 the more such a recognition of ,jesus on the part of the demons would redound to his glory4 ,as when adults disowned him1 praise was prepared for him out of the mouth of babes 7,matt4 xxi4 #af7--;as he was convinced that if men were silent1 the very stones would cry out 7,luke xix4 #dj73 so it must appear fitting1 that when his people whom he came to save would not acknowledge him1 he should have the involuntary homage of demons1 whose testimony1 since they had only ruin to expect from him1 must be impartial1 and from their higher spiritual nature was to be relied on4 ,in the above history of the cure of a demoniac1 we have a case of the simplest kind2 the cure of the possessed ,gadarenes on the contrary 7,matt4 viii4 #bh ff42 ,mark v4 #a ff42 ,luke viii4 #bf ff47 is a very complex one1 for in this instance we have1 together with several divergencies of the ,evangelists1 instead of one demon1 many1 and instead of a simple departure of these demons1 their entrance into a herd of swine4 ,after a stormy passage across the sea of ,galilee to its eastern shore1 ,jesus meets1 according to ,mark and ,luke1 a demoniac who lived among the tombs1 #abaa and was subject to outbreaks of terrific fury against himself #abab and others2 according to ,matthew1 there were two4 ,it is astonishing how long harmonists have resorted to miserable expedients1 such as that ,mark and ,luke mention only one because he was particularly distinguished by wildness1 or ,matthew two1 because he included the attendant who guarded the maniac1 #abac rather than admit an essential difference between the two narratives4 ,since this step has been gained1 the preference has been given to the statement of the two intermediate ,evangelists1 from the consideration that maniacs of this class are generally unsociable2 and the addition of a second demoniac by ,matthew has been explained by supposing that the plurality of the demons spoken of in the narratives became in his apprehension a plurality of demoniacs4 #abad ,but the impossibility that two maniacs should in reality associate themselves1 or perhaps be associated merely in the original legend1 is not so decided as to furnish in itself a ground for preferring the narrative in ,mark and ,luke to that in ,matthew4 ,at least if it be asked1 which of the two representations could the most easily have been formed from the other by tradition1 the probability on both sides will be found equal4 ,for if according to the above supposition1 the plurality of demons might give rise to the idea of a plurality of demoniacs1 it may also be said1 conversely3 the more accurate representation of ,matthew1 in which a plurality of demoniacs as well as of demons was mentioned1 did not give prominence to the specifically extraordinary feature in the case1 namely1 that one man was possessed by many demons2 and as1 in order to exhibit this1 the narrative when reproduced must be so expressed as to make it clear that many demons inhabited one man1 this might easily occasion by degrees the opposition of the demoniac in the singular to the plural number of the demons4 ,for the rest1 the introduction of ,matthew's narrative is concise and general1 that of the two others circumstantially descriptive2 another difference from which the greater originality of the latter has been deduced4 #abae ,but it is quite as probable that the details which ,luke and ,mark have in common1 namely1 that the possessed would wear no clothing1 broke all fetters1 and wounded himself with stones1 are an arbitrary enlargement on the simple characteristic1 exceeding fierce1 which ,matthew gives1 with the consequence that no one could pass by that way1--as that the latter is a vague abridgment of the former4 ,this scene between ,jesus and the demoniac or demoniacs opens1 like the other1 with a cry of terror from the latter1 who1 speaking in the person of the possessing demon1 exclaims that he wishes to have nothing to do with ,jesus1 the ,messiah1 from whom he has to expect only torment4 ,two hypotheses have been framed1 to explain how the demoniac came at once to recognize ,jesus as the ,messiah3 according to one1 ,jesus was even then reputed to be the ,messiah on the ,peran shore2 #abaf according to the other1 some of those who had come across the sea with ,jesus had said to the man 7whom on account of his fierceness no one could come near67 that the ,messiah had just landed at such a spot3 #abag but both are alike groundless1 for it is plain that in this narrative1 as in the former1 the above feature is a product of the ,jewish-,christian opinion respecting the relation of the demons to the ,messiah4 #abah ,here1 however1 another difference meets us4 ,according to ,matthew1 the possessed1 when they see ,jesus1 cry3 ,what have we to do with thee8 ,art thou come to torment us8--according to ,luke1 the demoniac falls at the feet of ,jesus and says beseechingly1 ,torment me not2 and lastly1 according to ,mark1 he runs from a distance to meet ,jesus1 falls at his feet and adjures him by ,god not to torment him4 ,thus we have again a climax3 in ,matthew1 the demoniac1 stricken with terror1 deprecates the unwelcome approach of ,jesus2 in ,luke1 he accosts ,jesus1 when arrived1 as a suppliant2 in ,mark1 he eagerly runs to meet ,jesus1 while yet at a distance4 ,those commentators who here take ,mark's narrative as the standard one1 are obliged themselves to admit1 that the hastening of a demoniac towards ,jesus whom he all the while dreaded1 is somewhat of a contradiction2 and they endeavour to relieve themselves of the difficulty1 by the supposition that the man set off to meet ,jesus in a lucid moment1 when he wished to be freed from the demon1 but being heated by running1 #abai or excited by the words of ,jesus1 #abbj he fell into the paroxysm in which1 assuming the character of the demon1 he entreated that the expulsion might be suspended4 ,but in the closely consecutive phrases of ,mark1 ,seeing--he ran--and worshipped--and cried--and said1 ---- -- -- there is no trace of a change in the state of the demoniac1 and the improbability of his representation subsists1 for one really possessed1 if he had recognized the ,messiah at a distance1 would have anxiously avoided1 rather than have approached him2 and even setting this aside1 it is impossible that one who believed himself to be possessed by a demon inimical to ,god1 should adjure ,jesus by ,god1 as ,mark makes the demoniac do4 #abba ,if then his narrative cannot be the original one1 that of ,luke1 which is only so far the simpler that it does not represent the demoniac as running towards ,jesus and adjuring him1 is too closely allied to it to be regarded as the nearest to the fact4 ,that of ,matthew is without doubt the purest1 for the terror-stricken question1 ,art thou come to destroy us before the time8 is better suited to a demon1 who1 as the enemy of the ,messiah's kingdom1 could expect no forbearance from the ,messiah than the entreaty for clemency in ,mark and ,luke2 though ,philostratus1 in a narrative which might be regarded as an imitation of this evangelical one1 has chosen the latter form4 #abbb ,from the course of the narratives hitherto1 it would appear that the demons1 in this as in the first narrative1 addressed ,jesus in the manner described1 before anything occurred on his part2 yet the two intermediate ,evangelists go on to state1 that ,jesus had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man4 ,when did ,jesus do this8 ,the most natural answer would be3 before the man spoke to him4 ,now in ,luke the address of the demoniac is so closely connected with the word 1 he fell down1 and then again with 1 having cried out1 that it seems necessary to place the command of ,jesus before the cry and the prostration1 and hence to consider it as their cause4 ,yet ,luke himself rather gives the mere sight of ,jesus as the cause of those demonstrations on the part of the demoniac1 so that his representation leaves us in perplexity as to where the command of ,jesus should find its place4 ,the case is still worse in ,mark1 for here a similar dependence of the successive phrases thrusts back the command of ,jesus even before the word 1 he ran1 so that we should have to imagine rather strangely that ,jesus cried to the demon1 1 ,come out1 from a distance4 ,thus the two intermediate ,evangelists are in an error with regard either to the consecutive particulars that precede the command or to the command itself1 and our only question is1 where may the error be most probably presumed to lie8 ,here ,schleiermacher himself admits1 that if in the original narrative an antecedent command of ,jesus had been spoken of1 it would have been given in its proper place1 before the prayer of the demons1 and as a quotation of the precise words of ,jesus2 whereas the supplementary manner in which it is actually inserted1 with its abbreviated and indirect form 7in ,luke2 ,mark changes it after his usual style1 into a direct address71 is a strong foundation for the opinion that it is an explanatory addition furnished by the narrator from his own conjecture4 #abbc ,and it is an extremely awkward addition1 for it obliges the reader to recast his conception of the entire scene4 ,at first the pith of the incident seems to be1 that the demoniac had instantaneously recognized and supplicated ,jesus2 but the narrator drops this original idea1 and reflecting that the prayer of the demon must have been preceded by a severe command from ,jesus1 he corrects his previous omission1 and remarks that ,jesus had given his command in the first instance4 ,to their mention of this command1 ,mark and ,luke annex the question put by ,jesus to the demon3 ,what is thy name8 ,in reply1 a multitude of demons make known their presence1 and give as their name1 ,legion4 ,of this episode ,matthew has nothing4 ,in the above addition we have found a supplementary explanation of the former part of the narrative3 what if this question and answer were an anticipatory introduction to the sequel1 and likewise the spontaneous production of the legend or the narrator8 ,let us examine the reasons that render it probable3 the wish immediately expressed by the demons to enter the herd of swine1 does not in ,matthew presuppose a multitude of demons in each of the two possessed1 since we cannot know whether the ,hebrews were not able to believe that even two demons only could possess a whole herd of swine3 but a later writer might well think it requisite to make the number of the evil spirits equal the number of the swine4 ,now1 what a herd is in relation to animals1 an army or a division of an army is in relation to men and superior beings1 and as it was required to express a large division1 nothing could more readily suggest itself than the ,roman legion1 which term in ,matt4 xxvi4 #ec1 is applied to angels1 as here to demons4 ,but without further considering this more precise estimate of the ,evangelists1 we must pronounce it inconceivable that several demons had set up their habitation in one individual4 ,for even if we had attained so far as to conceive how one demon by a subjection of the human consciousness could possess himself of a human organization1 imagination would still fail us to conceive that many personal demons could at once possess one man4 ,for as possession means nothing else1 than that the demon constitutes himself the subject of the consciousness1 and as consciousness can in reality have but one focus1 one central point3 it is under every condition absolutely inconceivable that several demons should at the same time take possession of one man4 ,manifold possession could only exist in the sense of an alternation of possession by various demons1 and not as here in that of a whole army of them dwelling at once in one man1 and at once departing from him4 ,all the narratives agree in this1 that the demons 7in order1 as ,mark says1 not to be sent out of the country1 or according to ,luke1 into the deep7 entreated of ,jesus permission to enter into the herd of swine feeding near2 that this was granted them by ,jesus2 and that forthwith1 owing to their influence1 the whole herd of swine 7,mark1 we must not ask on what authority1 fixes their number at about two thousand7 were precipitated into the sea and drowned4 ,if we adopt here the point of view taken in the gospel narratives1 which throughout suppose the existence of real demons1 it is yet to be asked3 how can demons1 admitting even that they can take possession of men1--how1 we say1 can they1 being at all events intelligent spirits1 have and obtain the wish to enter into brutal forms8 ,every religion and philosophy which rejects the transmigration of souls1 must1 for the same reason1 also deny the possibility of this passage of the demons into swine2 and ,olshausen is quite right in classing the swine of ,gadara in the ,new ,testament with ,balaam's ass in the ,old1 as a similar scandal and stumbling block4 #abbd ,this theologian1 however1 rather evades than overcomes the difficulty1 by the observation that we are here to suppose1 not an entrance of the individual demons into the individual swine1 but merely an influence of all the evil spirits on the swine collectively4 ,for the expression1 1 to enter into the swine1 as it stands opposed to the expression1 1 to go out of the man1 cannot possibly mean otherwise than that the demons were to assume the same relation to the swine which they had borne to the possessed man2 besides1 a mere influence could not preserve them from banishment out of the country or into the deep1 but only an actual habitation of the bodies of the animals3 so that the scandal and stumbling block remain4 ,thus the prayer in question cannot possibly have been offered by real demons1 though it might by ,jewish maniacs1 sharing the ideas of their people4 ,according to these ideas it is a torment to evil spirits to be destitute of a corporeal envelopment1 because without a body they cannot gratify their sensual desires2 #abbe if therefore they were driven out of men they must wish to enter into the bodies of brutes1 and what was better suited to an impure spirit 1 than an impure animal 1 like a swine8 #abbf ,so far1 therefore1 it is possible that the ,evangelists might correctly represent the fact1 only1 in accordance with their national ideas1 ascribing to the demons what should rather have been referred to the madness of the patient4 ,but when it is further said that the demons actually entered the swine1 do not the ,evangelists affirm an evident impossibility8 ,paulus thinks that the ,evangelists here as everywhere else identify the possessed men with the possessing demons1 and hence attribute to the latter the entrance into the swine1 while in fact it was only the former1 who1 in obedience to their fixed idea1 rushed upon the herd4 #abbg ,it is true that ,matthew's expression 1 taken alone1 might be understood of a mere rushing towards the swine2 not only however1 as ,paulus himself must admit1 does the word in the two other ,evangelists distinctly imply a real entrance into the swine2 but also ,matthew has like them before the word 1 they entered1 the expression 1 the demons coming out 7sc4 out of the men73 thus plainly enough distinguishing the demons who entered the swine from the men4 #abbh ,thus our ,evangelists do not in this instance merely relate what actually happened1 in the colours which it took from the false lights of their age2 they have here a particular1 which cannot possibly have happened in the manner they allege4 ,a new difficulty arises from the effect which the demons are said to have produced in the swine4 ,scarcely had they entered them1 when they compelled the whole herd to precipitate themselves into the sea4 ,it is reasonably asked1 what then did the demons gain by entering into the animals1 if they immediately destroyed the bodies of which they had taken possession1 and thus robbed themselves of the temporary abode for which they had so earnestly entreated8 #abbi ,the conjecture1 that the design of the demons in destroying the swine1 was to incense the minds of their owners against ,jesus1 which is said to have been the actual result1 #abcj is too far-fetched2 the other conjecture that the demoniacs1 rushing with cries on the herd1 together with the flight of their keepers1 terrified the swine and chased them into the water1 #abca--;even if it were not opposed as we have seen to the text1--would not suffice to explain the drowning of a herd of swine amounting to #b1jjj1 according to ,mark2 or only a numerous herd1 according to the general statement of ,matthew4 ,the expedient of supposing that in truth it was only a part of the herd that was drowned1 #abcb has not the slightest foundation in the evangelical narrative4 ,the difficulties connected with this point are multiplied by the natural reflection that the drowning of the herd would involve no slight injury to the owners1 and that of this injury ,jesus was the mediate author4 ,the orthodox1 bent on justifying ,jesus1 suppose that the permission to the demons to enter into the swine was necessary to render the cure of the demoniac possible1 and1 they argue1 brutes are assuredly to be killed that man may live2 #abcc but they do not perceive that they thus1 in a manner most inconsistent with their point of view1 circumscribe the power of ,jesus over the demoniacal kingdom4 ,again1 it is supposed1 that the swine probably belonged to ,jews1 and that ,jesus intended to punish them for their covetous transgression of the law1 #abcd that he acted with divine authority1 which often sacrifices individual good to higher objects1 and by lightning1 hail and inundations causes destruction to the property of many men1 #abce in which case1 to accuse ,god of injustice would be absurd4 #abcf ,but to adopt this expedient is to confound1 in a way the most inadmissible on the orthodox system1 ,christ's state of humiliation with his state of exaltation3 it is to depart1 in a spirit of mysticism1 from the wise doctrine of ,paul1 that he was made under the law1 7,gal4 iv4 #d71 and that he made himself of no reputation 7,phil4 ii4 #g73 it is to make ,jesus a being altogether foreign to us1 since in relation to the moral estimate of his actions1 it lifts him above the standard of humanity4 ,nothing remains1 therefore1 but to take the naturalistic supposition of the rushing of the demoniacs among the swine1 and to represent the consequent destruction of the latter as something unexpected by ,jesus1 for which therefore he is not responsible3 #abcg in the plainest contradiction to the evangelical account1 which makes ,jesus1 even if not directly cause the issue1 foresee it in the most decided manner4 #abch ,thus there appears to attach to ,jesus the charge of an injury done to the property of another1 and the opponents of ,christianity have long ago made this use of the narrative4 #abci ,it must be admitted that ,pythagoras in a similar case acted far more justly1 for when he liberated some fish from the net1 he indemnified the fishermen who had taken them4 #abdj ,thus the narrative before us is a tissue of difficulties1 of which those relating to the swine are not the slightest4 ,it is no wonder therefore that commentators began to doubt the thorough historical truth of this anecdote earlier than that of most others in the public life of ,jesus1 and particularly to sever the connexion between the destruction of the swine and the expulsion of the demons by ,jesus4 ,thus ,krug thought that tradition had reversed the order of these two facts4 ,the swine according to him were precipitated into the sea before the landing of ,jesus1 by the storm which raged during his voyage1 and when ,jesus subsequently wished to cure the demoniac1 either he himself or one of his followers persuaded the man that his demons were already gone into those swine and had hurled them into the sea2 which was then believed and reported to be the fact4 #abda ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt makes the swine-herds go to meet ,jesus on his landing2 during which interim many of the untended swine fall into the sea2 and as about this time ,jesus had commanded the demon to depart from the man1 the bystanders imagine that the two events #abdb stood in the relation of cause and effect4 ,the prominent part which is played in these endeavours at explanation1 by the accidental coincidence of many circumstances1 betrays that maladroit mixture of the mythical system of interpretation with the natural which characterizes the earliest attempts1 from the mythical point of view4 ,instead of inventing a natural foundation1 for which we have nowhere any warrant1 and which in no degree explains the actual narrative in the gospels1 adorned as it is with the miraculous2 we must rather ask1 whether in the probable period of the formation of the evangelical narratives1 there are not ideas to be found from which the story of the swine in the history before us might be explained8 ,we have already adduced one opinion of that age bearing on this point1 namely1 that demons are unwilling to remain without bodies1 and that they have a predilection for impure places1 whence the bodies of swine must be best suited to them3 this does not however explain why they should have precipitated the swine into the water4 ,but we are not destitute of information that will throw light on this also4 ,josephus tells us of a ,jewish conjuror who cast out demons by forms and means derived from ,solomon1 that in order to convince the bystanders of the reality of his expulsions1 he set a vessel of water in the neighbourhood of the possessed person1 so that the departing demon must throw it down and thus give ocular proof to the spectators that he was out of the man4 #abdc ,in like manner it is narrated of ,apollonius of ,tyana1 that he commanded a demon which possessed a young man1 to depart with a visible sign1 whereupon the demon entreated that he might overturn a statue that stood near at hand2 which to the great astonishment of the spectators actually ensued in the very moment that the demon went out of the youth4 #abdd ,if then the agitation of some near object1 without visible contact1 was held the surest proof of the reality of an expulsion of demons3 this proof could not be wanting to ,jesus2 nay1 while in the case of ,eleazar1 the object being only a little 77 removed from the exorciser and the patient1 the possibility of deception was not altogether excluded1 ,matthew notices in relation to ,jesus1 more emphatically than the two other ,evangelists1 the fact that the herd of swine was feeding a good way off 771 thus removing the last remnant of such a possibility4 ,that the object to which ,jesus applied this proof1 was from the first said to be a herd of swine1 immediately proceeded from the ,jewish idea of the relation between unclean spirits and animals1 but it furnished a welcome opportunity for satisfying another tendency of the legend4 ,not only did it behove ,jesus to cure ordinary demoniacs1 such as the one in the history first considered2 he must have succeeded in the most difficult cures of this kind4 ,it is the evident object of the present narrative1 from the very commencement1 with its startling description of the fearful condition of the ,gadarene1 to represent the cure as one of extreme difficulty4 ,but to make it more complicated1 the possession must be1 not simple1 but manifold1 as in the case of ,mary ,magdalene1 out of whom were cast seven demons 7,luke viii4 #b71 or in the demoniacal relapse in which the expelled demon returns with seven worse than himself 7,matt4 xii4 #de72 whence the number of the demons was here made1 especially by ,mark1 to exceed by far the probable number of a herd4 ,as in relation to an inanimate object1 as a vessel of water or a statue1 the influence of the expelled demons could not be more clearly manifested by any means1 than by its falling over contrary to the law of gravity2 so in animals it could not be more surely attested in any way1 than by their drowning themselves contrary to their instinctive desire of life4 ,only by this derivation of our narrative from the confluence of various ideas and interests of the age1 can we explain the above noticed contradiction1 that the demons first petition for the bodies of the swine as a habitation1 and immediately after of their own accord destroy this habitation4 ,the petition grew1 as we have said1 out of the idea that demons shunned incorporeality1 the destruction1 out of the ordinary test of the reality of an exorcism2--what wonder if the combination of ideas so heterogeneous produced two contradictory features in the narrative8 ,the third and last circumstantially narrated expulsion of a demon has the peculiar feature1 that in the first instance the disciples in vain attempt the cure1 which ,jesus then effects with ease4 ,the three synoptists 7,matt4 xvii4 #ad ff42 ,mark ix4 #ad ff42 ,luke ix4 #cg ff47 unanimously state that ,jesus having descended with his three most confidential disciples from the ,mount of the ,transfiguration1 found his other disciples in perplexity1 because they were unable to cure a possessed boy1 whom his father had brought to them4 ,in this narrative also there is a gradation from the greatest simplicity in ,matthew1 to the greatest particularity of description in ,mark2 and here again this gradation has led to the conclusion that the narrative of ,matthew is the farthest from the fact1 and must be made subordinate to that of the two other ,evangelists4 #abde ,in the introduction of the incident in ,matthew1 ,jesus1 having descended from the mountain1 joins the multitude 771 whereupon the father of the boy approaches1 and on his knees entreats ,jesus to cure his child2 in ,luke1 the multitude 77 meet ,jesus2 lastly1 in ,mark1 ,jesus sees around the disciples a great multitude1 among whom were scribes disputing with them2 the people1 when they see him1 run towards him and salute him1 he inquires what is the subject of dispute1 and on this the father of the boy begins to speak4 ,here we have a climax in relation to the conduct of the people2 in ,matthew1 ,jesus appears to join them by accident2 in ,luke1 they come to meet him2 and in ,mark1 they run towards him to salute him4 ,the last ,evangelist has the singular remark3 ,and straightway all the people1 when they saw him1 were greatly amazed4 ,what could there possibly be so greatly to amaze the people in the arrival of ,jesus with some disciples8 ,this remains1 in spite of all the other means of explanation that have been devised1 so thorough a mystery1 that ,i cannot find so absurd as ,fritzsche esteems it1 the idea of ,euthymius1 that ,jesus having just descended from the ,mount of ,transfiguration1 some of the heavenly radiance which had there shone around him was still visible1 as on ,moses when he came down from ,sinai 7,exod4 xxxiv4 #bi f474 ,that among this throng of people there were scribes who arraigned the disciples on the ground of their failure1 and involved them in a dispute1 is in and by itself quite natural2 but connected as it is with the exaggerations concerning the behaviour of the multitude1 this feature also becomes suspicious1 especially as the other two ,evangelists have it not2 so that if it can be shown how the narrator might be led to insert it by a mental combination of his own1 we shall have sufficient warrant for renouncing it4 ,shortly before 7viii4 #aa71 on the occasion of the demand of a sign from ,jesus by the ,pharisees1 ,mark says1 1 they began to question with him1 apparently on the subject of his ability to work miracles2 and so here when the disciples show themselves unable to perform a miracle1 he represents the scribes 7the majority of whom belonged to the ,pharisaic sect71 as 1 questioning with the disciples4 ,in the succeeding description of the boy's state there is the same gradation as to particularity1 except that ,matthew is the one who alone has the expression 7is lunatic71 which it is unfair to make a reproach to him1 #abdf since the reference of periodical disorders to the moon was not uncommon in the time of ,jesus4 #abdg ,mark alone calls the spirit that possessed the dumb boy 7v4 #ag71 and deaf 7v4 #be74 ,the emission of inarticulate sounds by epileptics during their fits1 might be regarded as the dumbness of the demon1 and their incapability of noticing any words addressed to them1 as his deafness4 ,when the father has informed ,jesus of the subject of dispute and of the inability of the disciples to relieve the boy1 ,jesus breaks forth into the exclamation1 ,o faithless and perverse generation1 etc4 ,on a comparison of the close of the narrative in ,matthew1 where ,jesus1 when his disciples ask him why they could not cast out the demon1 answers2 ,because of your unbelief1 and proceeds to extol the power of faith1 even though no larger than a grain of mustard seed1 as sufficient to remove mountains 7v4 #ai ff473 it cannot be doubted that in this expression of dissatisfaction ,jesus apostrophizes his disciples1 in whose inability to cast out the demon1 he finds a proof of their still deficient faith4 #abdh ,this concluding explanation of the want of power in the disciples1 by their unbelief1 ,luke omits3 and ,mark not only imitates him in this1 but also interweaves 7v4 #ba-bd71 a by-scene between ,jesus and the father1 in which he first gives an amplified description of the symptoms of the child's malady1 drawn partly from ,matthew1 partly from his own resources1 and then represents the father1 on being required to believe1 as confessing with tears the weakness of his faith1 and his desire that it may be strengthened4 ,taking this together with the mention of the disputative scribes1 we cannot err in supposing the speech of ,jesus1 ,o faithless generation1 etc41 in ,mark and also in ,luke to refer to the people1 as distinguished from the disciples2 in ,mark1 more particularly to the father1 whose unbelief is intimated to be an impediment to the cure1 as in another case 7,matt4 ix4 #b71 the faith of relatives appears to further the desired object4 ,as however both the ,evangelists give this aspect to the circumstances1 because they do not here give the explanation of the inefficiency of the disciples by their unbelief1 together with the declaration concerning the power of faith to remove mountains3 we must inquire whether the connexion in which they place these discourses is more suitable than this in which they are inserted by ,matthew4 ,in ,luke the declaration3 ,if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed1 etc4 7neither he nor ,mark has1 ,because of your unbelief71 occurs xvii4 #e1 #f1 with only the slight variation1 that instead of the mountain a tree is named2 but it is here destitute of any connexion either with the foregoing or the following context1 and has the appearance of a short stray fragment1 with an introduction1 no doubt fictitious 7of the same kind as ,luke xi4 #a1 xiii4 #bc71 in the form of an entreaty from the disciples3 ,lord1 increase our faith4 ,mark gives the sentence on the faith which removes mountains as the moral of the history of the cursed fig tree1 where ,matthew also has it a second time4 ,but to this history the declaration is totally unsuitable1 as we shall presently see2 and if we are unwilling to content ourselves with ignorance of the occasion on which it was uttered1 we must accept its connexion in ,matthew as the original one1 for it is perfectly appropriate to a failure of the disciples in an attempted cure4 ,mark has sought to make the scene more effective by other additions1 beside this episode with the father2 he tells us that the people ran together that they might observe what was passing1 that after the expulsion of the demon the boy was as one dead1 insomuch that many said1 he is dead2 but that ,jesus1 taking him by the hand1 as he does elsewhere with the dead 7,matt4 ix4 #be71 lifts him up and restores him to life4 ,after the completion of the cure1 ,luke dismisses the narrative with a brief notice of the astonishment of the people2 but the two first synoptists pursue the subject by making the disciples1 when alone with ,jesus1 ask him why they were not able to cast out the demon8 ,in ,matthew the immediate reply of ,jesus accounts for their incapability by their unbelief2 but in ,mark1 his answer is1 ,this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting1 which ,matthew also adds after the discourse on unbelief and the power of faith4 ,this seems to be an unfortunate connexion of ,matthew's2 for if fasting and praying were necessary for the cure1 the disciples1 in case they had not previously fasted1 could not have cast out the demon even if they had possessed the firmest faith4 #abdi ,whether these two reasons given by ,jesus for the inability of the disciples can be made consistent by the observation1 that fasting and prayer are means of strengthening faith2 #abej or whether we are to suppose with ,schleiermacher an association of two originally unrelated passages1 we will not here attempt to decide4 ,that such a spiritual and corporeal discipline on the part of the exorcist should have effect on the possessed1 has been held surprising3 it has been thought with ,porphyry1 #abea that it would rather be to the purpose that the patient should observe this discipline1 and hence it has been supposed that the 1 prayer and fasting1 were prescribed to the demoniac as a means of making the cure radical4 #abeb ,but this is evidently in contradiction to the text4 ,for if fasting and praying on the part of the patient were necessary for the success of the cure1 it must have been gradual and not sudden1 as all cures are which are attributed to ,jesus in the gospels1 and as this is plainly enough implied to be by the words1 1 and the child was cured from that very hour1 in ,matthew1 and the word 1 he cured1 placed between 444 ,jesus rebuked the unclean spirit1 and 444 delivered him again to his father1 in ,luke4 ,it is true ,paulus turns the above expression of ,matthew to his advantage1 for he understands it to mean that from that time forward the boy1 by the application of the prescribed discipline1 gradually recovered4 ,but we need only observe the same form of expression where it elsewhere occurs as the final sentence in narratives of cures1 to be convinced of the impossibility of such an interpretation4 ,when1 for example1 the story of the woman who had an issue of blood closes with the remark 7,matt4 ix4 #bb7 1 this will hardly be translated1 et exinde mulier paulatim servabatur3 it can only mean3 servata est 7et servatam se prbuit7 ab illo temporis momento4 ,another point to which ,paulus appeals as a proof that ,jesus here commenced a cure which was to be consummated by degrees1 is the expression of ,luke1 1 he delivered him again to his father1 which1 he argues1 would have been rather superfluous1 if it were not intended to imply a recommendation to special care4 ,but the more immediate signification of is not to deliver or give up1 but to give back2 and therefore in the above expression the only sense is3 puerum1 quem sanandum acceperat1 sanatum reddidit1 that is1 the boy who had fallen into the hands of a strange power--of the demon--was restored to the parents as their own4 ,lastly1 how arbitrary is it in ,paulus to take the expression 1 goeth out 7,matt4 v4 #ba71 in the closer signification of a total departure1 and to distinguish this from the preliminary departure which followed on the bare word of ,jesus 7v4 #ah76 ,thus in this case1 as in every other1 the gospels present to us1 not a cure which was protracted through days and weeks1 but a cure which was instantaneously completed by one miracle3 hence the fasting and prayer cannot be regarded as a prescription for the patient4 ,with this whole history must be compared an analogous narrative in #b ,kings iv4 #bi ff4 ,here the prophet ,elisha attempts to bring a dead child to life1 by sending his staff by the hands of his servant ,gehazi1 who is to lay it on the face of the child2 but this measure does not succeed1 and ,elisha is obliged in his own person to come and call the boy to life4 ,the same relation that exists in this ,old ,testament story between the prophet and his servant1 is seen in the ,new ,testament narrative between the ,messiah and his disciples3 the latter can do nothing without their master1 but what was too difficult for them1 he effects with certainty4 ,now this feature is a clue to the tendency of both narratives1 namely1 to exalt their master by exhibiting the distance between him and his most intimate disciples2 or1 if we compare the evangelical narrative before us with that of the demoniacs of ,gadara1 we may say3 the latter case was made to appear one of extreme difficulty in itself2 the former1 by the relation in which the power of ,jesus1 which is adequate to the occasion1 is placed to the power of the disciples1 which1 however great in other instances1 was here insufficient4 ,of the other more briefly narrated expulsions of demons1 the cure of a dumb demoniac and of one who was blind also1 has been already sufficiently examined in connexion with the accusation of a league with ,beelzebub3 as also the cure of the woman who was bowed down1 in our general considerations on the demoniacs4 ,the cure of the possessed daughter of the ,canaanitish woman 7,matt4 xv4 #bb ff42 ,mark vii4 #be ff47 has no further peculiarity than that it was wrought by the word of ,jesus at a distance3 a point of which we shall speak later4 ,according to the evangelical narratives1 the attempt of ,jesus to expel the demon succeeded in every one of these cases4 ,paulus remarks that cures of this kind1 although they contributed more than anything else to impress the multitude with veneration for ,jesus1 were yet the easiest in themselves1 and even ,de ,wette sanctions a psychological explanation of the cures of demoniacs1 though of no others4 #abec ,with these opinions we cannot but agree2 for if we regard the real character of the demoniacal state as a species of madness accompanied by a convulsive tendency of the nervous system1 we know that psychical and nervous disorders are most easily wrought upon by psychical influence2--an influence to which the surpassing dignity of ,jesus as a prophet1 and eventually even as the ,messiah himself1 presented all the requisite conditions4 ,there is1 however1 a marked gradation among these states1 according as the psychical derangement has more or less fixed itself corporeally1 and the disturbance of the nervous system has become more or less habitual1 and shared by the rest of the organization4 ,we may therefore lay down the following rule3 the more strictly the malady was confined to mental derangement1 on which the word of ,jesus might have an immediate moral influence1 or in a comparatively slight disturbance of the nervous system1 on which he would be able to act powerfully through the medium of the mind1 the more possible was it for ,jesus by his word 7,matt4 viii4 #af71 and instantly 7,luke xiii4 #ac71 to put an end to such states3 on the other hand1 the more the malady had already confirmed itself1 as a bodily disease1 the more difficult is it to believe that ,jesus was able to relieve it in a purely psychological manner and at the first moment4 ,from this rule results a second3 namely1 that to any extensive psychological influence on the part of ,jesus the full recognition of his dignity as a prophet was requisite2 whence it follows that at times and in districts where he had long had that reputation1 he could effect more in this way than where he had it not4 ,if we apply these two measures to the cures in the gospels1 we shall find that the first1 viz41 that of the demoniac in the synagogue at ,capernaum1 is not1 so soon as we cease to consider the ,evangelist's narrative of it circumstantially correct1 altogether destitute of probability4 ,it is true that the words attributed to the demon seem to imply an intuitive knowledge of ,jesus2 but this may be probably accounted for by the supposition that the widely-spread fame of ,jesus in that country1 and his powerful discourse in the synagogue1 had impressed the demoniac with the belief1 if not that ,jesus was the ,messiah1 as the ,evangelists say1 at least that he must be a prophet3 a belief that would give effect to his words4 ,as regards the state of this demoniac we are only told of his fixed idea 7that he was possessed71 and of his attacks of convulsions2 his malady may therefore have been of the less rooted kind1 and accessible to psychological influence4 ,the cure of the ,gadarenes is attended with more difficulty in both points of view4 ,firstly1 ,jesus was comparatively little known on the eastern shore2 and secondly1 the state of these demoniacs is described as so violent and deep-seated a mania1 that a word from ,jesus could hardly suffice to put an end to it4 ,here therefore the natural explanation of ,paulus will not suffice1 and if we are to regard the narrative as having any foundation in fact1 we must suppose that the description of the demoniac's state1 as well as other particulars1 has been exaggerated by the legend4 ,the same judgment must be passed in relation to the cure of the boy who was lunatic1 since an epilepsy which had existed from infancy 7,mark v4 #ba7 and the attacks of which were so violent and regular1 must be too deeply rooted in the system for the possibility of so rapid and purely psychological a cure to be credible4 ,that even dumbness and a contraction of many years' duration1 which we cannot with ,paulus explain as a mere insane imagination that speech or an erect carriage was not permitted1 #abed--that these afflictions should disappear at a word1 no one who is not committed to dogmatical opinions can persuade himself4 ,lastly1 least of all is it to be conceived1 that even without the imposing influence of his presence1 the miracle-worker could effect a cure at a distance1 as ,jesus is said to have done on the daughter of the ,canaanitish woman4 ,thus in the nature of things there is nothing to prevent the admission1 that ,jesus cured many persons who suffered from supposed demoniacal insanity or nervous disorder1 in a psychical manner1 by the ascendancy of his manner and words 7if indeed ,venturini #abee and ,kaiser #abef are not right in their conjecture1 that patients of this class often believed themselves to be cured1 when in fact the crisis only of their disorder had been broken by the influence of ,jesus2 and that the ,evangelists state them to have been cured because they learned nothing further of them1 and thus knew nothing of their probable relapse74 ,but while granting the possibility of many cures1 it is evident that in this field the legend has not been idle1 but has confounded the easier cases1 which alone could be cured psychologically1 with the most difficult and complicated1 to which such a treatment was totally inapplicable4 #abeg ,is the refusal of a sign on the part of ,jesus reconcilable with such a manifestation of power as we have above defined1--or must even such cures as can be explained psychologically1 but which in his age must have seemed miracles1 be denied in order to make that refusal comprehensible8 ,we will not here put this alternative otherwise than as a question4 ,if in conclusion we cast a glance on the gospel of ,john1 we find that it does not even mention demoniacs and their cure by ,jesus4 ,this omission has not seldom been turned to the advantage of the ,apostle ,john1 the alleged author1 as indicating a superior degree of enlightenment4 #abeh ,if however this apostle did not believe in the reality of possession by devils1 he must have had1 as the author of the fourth gospel1 according to the ordinary view of his relation to the synoptical writers1 the strongest motives for rectifying their statements1 and preventing the dissemination of what he held to be a false opinion1 by setting the cures in question in a true light4 ,but how could the ,apostle ,john arrive at the rejection of the opinion that the above diseases had their foundation in demoniacal possession8 ,according to ,josephus it was at that period a popular ,jewish opinion1 from which a ,jew of ,palestine who1 like ,john1 did not visit a foreign land until late in life1 would hardly be in a condition to liberate himself2 it was1 according to the nature of things and the synoptical accounts1 the opinion of ,jesus himself1 ,john's adored master1 from whom the favourite disciple certainly would not be inclined to swerve even a hair's breadth4 ,but if ,john shared with his cotemporaries and with ,jesus himself the notion of real demoniacal possession1 and if the cure of demoniacs formed the principal part1 nay1 perhaps the true foundation of the alleged miraculous powers of ,jesus3 how comes it that the ,apostle nevertheless makes no mention of them in his gospel8 ,that he passed over them because the other ,evangelists had collected enough of such histories1 is a supposition that ought by this time to be relinquished1 since he repeats more than one history of a miracle which they had already given2 and if it be said that he repeated these because they needed correction1--we have seen1 in our examination of the cures of demoniacs1 that in many a reduction of them to their simple historical elements would be very much in place4 ,there yet remains the supposition that1 the histories of demoniacs being incredible or offensive to the cultivated ,greeks of ,asia ,minor1 among whom ,john is said to have written1 he left them out of his gospel for the sake of accommodating himself to their ideas4 ,but we must ask1 could or should an apostle1 out of mere accommodation to the refined ears of his auditors1 withhold so essential a feature of the agency of ,jesus8 ,certainly this silence1 supposing the authenticity of the three first gospels1 rather indicates an author who had not been an eye-witness of the ministry of ,jesus2 or1 according to our view1 at least one who had not at his command the original tradition of ,palestine1 but only a tradition modified by ,hellenistic influence1 in which the expulsions of demons1 being less accordant with the higher culture of the ,greeks1 were either totally suppressed or kept so far in the background that they might have escaped the notice of the author of the gospel4 #id4 ,,cures ,,of ,,lepers4 ,among the sufferers whom ,jesus healed1 the leprous play a prominent part1 as might have been anticipated from the tendency of the climate of ,palestine to produce cutaneous disease4 ,when1 according to the synoptical writers1 ,jesus directs the attention of the ,baptist's messengers to the actual proofs which he had given of his ,messiahship 7,matt4 ix4 #e71 he adduces among these1 the cleansing of lepers2 when1 on the first mission of the disciples1 he empowers them to perform all kinds of miracles1 the cleansing of lepers is numbered among the first 7,matt4 x4 #h71 and two cases of such cures are narrated to us in detail4 ,one of these cases is common to all the synoptical writers1 but is placed by them in two different connexions3 namely1 by ,matthew1 immediately after the delivery of the ,sermon on the ,mount 7viii4 #a ff472 by the other ,evangelists1 at some period1 not precisely marked1 at the beginning of the ministry of ,jesus in ,galilee 7,mark i4 #dj ff42 ,luke v4 #ab ff474 ,according to the narratives1 a leper comes towards ,jesus1 and falling on his knees1 entreats that he may be cleansed2 this ,jesus effects by a touch1 and then directs the leper to present himself to the priest in obedience to the law1 that he may be pronounced clean 7,lev4 xiv4 #b ff474 ,the state of the man is in ,matthew and ,mark described simply by the word 1 a leper2 but in ,luke more strongly1 by the words1 1 full of leprosy4 ,paulus1 indeed1 regards the being thus replete with leprosy as a symptom that the patient was curable 7the eruption and peeling of the leprosy on the entire skin being indicative of the healing crisis72 and accordingly1 that commentator represents the incident to himself in the following manner4 ,the leper applied to ,jesus in his character of ,messiah for an opinion on his state1 and1 the result being favourable1 for a declaration that he was clean 7 1 71 which might either spare him an application to the priest1 or at all events give him a consolatory hope in making that application4 ,jesus expressing himself ready to make the desired examination 771 stretched out his hand1 in order to feel the patient1 without allowing too near an approach while he was possibly still capable of communicating contagion2 and after a careful examination1 he expressed1 as its result1 the conviction that the patient was no longer in a contagious state 771 whereupon quickly and easily 77 the leprosy actually disappeared4 #abei ,here1 in the first place1 the supposition that the leper was precisely at the crisis of healing is foreign to the text1 which in the two first ,evangelists speaks merely of leprosy1 while the of the third can mean nothing else than the ,old ,testament expression 7,exod4 iv4 #f1 ,num4 xii4 #aj2 #b ,kings v4 #bg71 which1 according to the connexion in every instance1 signifies the worst stage of leprosy4 ,that the word in the ,hebraic and ,hellenistic use of the ,greek language1 might also mean merely to pronounce clean is not to be denied1 only it must retain the signification throughout the passage4 ,but that after having narrated that ,jesus had said1 ,be thou clean1 1 ,matthew should have added 444 in the sense that thus the sick man was actually pronounced clean by ,jesus1 is1 from the absurd tautology such an interpretation would introduce1 so inconceivable1 that we must here1 and consequently throughout the narrative1 understand the word of actual cleansing4 ,it is sufficient to remind the reader of the expressions 1 the lepers are cleansed 7,matt4 xi4 #e71 and 1 cleanse the lepers 7,matt4 x4 #h71 where neither can the latter word signify merely to pronounce clean1 nor can it have another meaning than in the narrative before us4 ,but the point in which the natural interpretation the most plainly betrays its weakness1 is the disjunction of 1 ,i will1 from 1 be thou clean4 ,who can persuade himself that these words1 united as they are in all the three narratives1 were separated by a considerable pause--that was spoken during or more properly before the manipulation1 after1 when all the ,evangelists represent the two words as having been uttered by ,jesus without separation whilst he touched the leper8 ,surely1 if the alleged sense had been the original one1 at least one of the ,evangelists1 instead of the words 1 1 ,jesus touched him1 saying1 ,i will1 be thou clean1 would have substituted the more accurate expression1 4 1 1 ,jesus answered1 ,i will2 and having touched him1 said3 be thou clean4 ,but if was spoken in one breath with 1 so that ,jesus announces the cleansing simply as a result of his will without any intermediate examination1 the former word cannot possibly signify a mere declaration of cleanness1 to which a previous examination would be requisite1 and it must signify an actual making clean4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the word in this connexion is not to be understood of an exploratory manipulation1 but1 as in all other narratives of the same class1 of a curative touch4 ,in support of his natural explanation of this incident1 ,paulus appeals to the rule1 that invariably the ordinary and regular is to be presupposed in a narrative where the contrary is not expressly indicated4 #abfj ,but this rule shares the ambiguity which is characteristic of the entire system of natural interpretation1 since it leaves undecided what is ordinary and regular in our estimation1 and what was so in the ideas of the author whose writings are to be explained4 ,certainly1 if ,i have a ,gibbon before me1 ,i must in his narratives presuppose only natural causes and occurrences when he does not expressly convey the contrary1 because to a writer of his cultivation1 the supernatural is at the utmost only conceivable as a rare exception4 ,but the case is altered when ,i take up an ,herodotus1 in whose mode of thought the intervention of higher powers is by no means unusual and out of rule2 and when ,i am considering a collection of anecdotes which are the product of ,jewish soil1 and the object of which is to represent an individual as a prophet of the highest rank--as a man in the most intimate connexion with the ,deity1 to meet with the supernatural is so completely a thing of course1 that the rule of the rationalists must here be reversed1 and we must say3 where1 in such narratives1 importance is attached to results which1 regarded as natural1 would have no importance whatever1--there1 supernatural causes must be expressly excluded1 if we are not to presuppose it the opinion of the narrator that such causes were in action4 ,moreover1 in the history before us1 the extraordinary character of the incident is sufficiently indicated by the statement1 that the leprosy left the patient immediately on the word of ,jesus4 ,paulus1 it is true1 contrives1 as we have already observed1 to interpret this statement as implying a gradual1 natural healing1 on the ground that 1 the word by which the ,evangelists determine the time of the cure1 signifies1 according to the different connexions in which it may occur1 in one case immediately1 in another merely soon1 and unobstructedly4 ,granting this1 are we to understand the words 1 which follow in close connexion in ,mark 7v4 #dc71 as signifying that soon and without hindrance ,jesus sent the cleansed leper away8 ,or is the word to be taken in a different sense in two consecutive verses8 ,we conclude1 then1 that in the intention of the evangelical writers the instantaneous disappearance of the leprosy in consequence of the word and touch of ,jesus1 is the fact on which their narratives turn4 ,now to represent the possibility of this to one's self is quite another task than to imagine the instantaneous release of a man under the grasp of a fixed idea1 or a permanently invigorating impression on a nervous patient4 ,leprosy1 from the thorough derangement of the animal fluids of which it is the symptom1 is the most obstinate and malignant of cutaneous diseases2 and that a skin corroded by this malady should by a word and touch instantly become pure and healthy1 is1 from its involving the immediate effectuation of what would require a long course of treatment1 so inconceivable1 #abfa that every one who is free from certain prejudices 7as the critic ought always to be7 must involuntarily be reminded by it of the realm of fable4 ,and in the fabulous region of ,oriental and more particularly of ,jewish legend1 the sudden appearance and disappearance of leprosy presents itself the first thing4 ,when ,jehovah endowed ,moses1 as a preparation for his mission into ,egypt1 with the power of working all kinds of signs1 amongst other tokens of this gift he commanded him to put his hand into his bosom1 and when he drew it out again1 it was covered with leprosy2 again he was commanded to put it into his bosom1 and on drawing it out a second time it was once more clean 7,exod4 iv4 #f1 #g74 ,subsequently1 on account of an attempt at rebellion against ,moses1 his sister ,miriam was suddenly stricken with leprosy1 but on the intercession of ,moses was soon healed 7,num4 xii4 #aj ff474 ,above all1 among the miracles of the prophet ,elisha the cure of a leper plays an important part1 and to this event ,jesus himself refers 7,luke iv4 #bg474 ,the ,syrian general1 ,naaman1 who suffered from leprosy1 applied to the ,israelitish prophet for his aid2 the latter sent to him the direction to wash seven times in the river ,jordan1 and on ,naaman's observance of this prescription the leprosy actually disappeared but was subsequently transferred by the prophet to his deceitful servant ,gehazi 7#b ,kings v474 ,i know not what we ought to need beyond these ,old ,testament narratives to account for the origin of the evangelical anecdotes4 ,what the first ,gol was empowered to do in the fulfilment of ,jehovah's commission1 the second ,gol must also be able to perform and the greatest of prophets must not fall short of the achievements of any one prophet4 ,if then1 the cure of leprosy was without doubt included in the ,jewish idea of the ,messiah2 the ,christians1 who believed the ,messiah to have really appeared in the person of ,jesus1 had a yet more decided inducement to glorify his history by such traits1 taken from the ,mosaic and prophetic legend2 with the single difference that1 in accordance with the mild spirit of the ,new ,covenant 7,luke ix4 #ee f47 they dropped the punitive side of the old miracles4 ,somewhat more plausible is the appeal of the rationalists to the absence of an express statement1 that a miraculous cure of the leprosy is intended in the narrative of the ten lepers1 given by ,luke alone 7xvii4 #ab ff474 ,here neither do the lepers expressly desire to be cured1 their words being only1 ,have mercy on us2 nor does ,jesus utter a command directly referring to such a result1 for he merely enjoins them to show themselves to the priests3 and the rationalists avail themselves of this indirectness in his reply1 as a help to their supposition1 that ,jesus1 after ascertaining the state of the patients1 encouraged them to subject themselves to the examination of the priests1 which resulted in their being pronounced clean1 and the ,samaritan returned to thank ,jesus for ,his encouraging advice4 #abfb ,but mere advice does not call forth so ardent a demonstration of gratitude as is here described by the words 1 he fell down on his face2 still less could ,jesus desire that because his advice had had a favourable issue1 all the ten should have returned1 and returned to glorify ,god--for what8 that he had enabled ,jesus to give them such good advice8 ,no3 a more real service is here presupposed2 and this the narrative itself implies1 both in attributing the return of the ,samaritan to his discovery that he was healed 7 71 and in making ,jesus indicate the reason why thanks were to be expected from all1 by the words3 2 ,were there not ten cleansed8 ,both these expressions can only by an extremely forced interpretation be made to imply1 that because the lepers saw the correctness of the judgment of ,jesus in pronouncing them clean1 one of them actually returned to thank him1 and the others ought to have returned4 ,but that which is most decisive against the natural explanation is this sentence3 ,and as they went they were cleansed1 4 ,if the narrator intended1 according to the above interpretation1 merely to say3 the lepers having gone to the priest1 and showed themselves to him1 were pronounced clean3 he must at least have said3 1 having made the journey they were cleansed1 whereas the deliberate choice of the expression 7while in the act of going71 incontestibly shows that a healing effected during the journey is intended4 ,thus here also we have a miraculous cure of leprosy1 which is burdened with the same difficulties as the former anecdote2 the origin of which is1 however1 as easily explained4 ,but in this narrative there is a peculiarity which distinguishes it from the former4 ,here there is no simple cure1 nay1 the cure does not properly form the main object of the narrative3 this lies rather in the different conduct of the cured1 and the question of ,jesus1 were there not ten cleansed1 etc4 7v4 #ag71 forms the point of the whole1 which thus closes altogether morally1 and seems to have been narrated for the sake of the instruction conveyed4 #abfc ,that the one who appears as a model of thankfulness happens to be a ,samaritan1 cannot pass without remark1 in the narrative of the ,evangelist who alone has the parable of the ,good ,samaritan4 ,as there two ,jews1 a priest and a ,levite1 show themselves pitiless1 while a ,samaritan1 on the contrary1 proves exemplarily compassionate3 so here1 nine unthankful ,jews stand contrasted with one thankful ,samaritan4 ,may it not be then 7in so far as the sudden cure of these lepers cannot be historical7 that we have here1 as well as there1 a parable pronounced by ,jesus1 in which he intended to represent gratitude1 as in the other case compassion1 in the example of a ,samaritan8 ,it would then be with the present narrative as some have maintained it to be with the history of the temptation4 ,but in relation to this we have both shown1 and given the reason1 that ,jesus never made himself immediately figure in a parable1 and this he must have done if he had given a narrative of ten lepers once healed by him4 ,if then we are not inclined to relinquish the idea that something originally parabolic is the germ of our present narrative1 we must represent the case to ourselves thus3 from the legends of cures performed by ,jesus on lepers1 on the one hand2 and on the other1 from parables in which ,jesus 7as in that of the compassionate ,samaritan7 presented individuals of this hated race as models of various virtues1 the ,christian legend wove this narrative1 which is therefore partly an account of a miracle and partly a parable4 #ie4 ,,cures ,,of ,,the ,,blind4 ,one of the first places among the sufferers cured by ,jesus is filled 7also agreeably to the nature of the climate #abfd7 by the blind1 of whose cure again we read not only in the general descriptions which are given by the ,evangelists 7,matt4 xv4 #cj f42 ,luke vii4 #ba71 and by ,jesus himself 7,matt4 xi4 #e71 of his messianic works1 but also in some detailed narratives of particular cases4 ,we have indeed more of these cures than of the kind last noticed1 doubtless because blindness1 as a malady affecting the most delicate and complicated of organs1 admitted a greater diversity of treatment4 ,one of these cures of the blind is common to all the synoptical writers2 the others 7with the exception of the blind and dumb demoniac in ,matthew1 whom we need not here reconsider7 are respectively peculiar to the first1 second1 and fourth ,evangelists4 ,the narrative common to all the three synoptical writers is that of a cure of blindness wrought by ,jesus at ,jericho1 on his last journey to ,jerusalem 7,matt4 xx4 #bi parall473 but there are important differences both as to the object of the cure1 ,matthew having two blind men1 the two other ,evangelists only one2 and also as to its locality1 ,luke making it take place on the entrance of ,jesus into ,jericho1 ,matthew and ,mark on his departure out of ,jericho4 ,moreover the touching of the eyes1 by which1 according to the first evangelist1 ,jesus effected the cure1 is not mentioned by the two other narrators4 ,of these differences the latter may be explained by the observation1 that though ,mark and ,luke are silent as to the touching1 they do not therefore deny it3 the first1 relative to the number cured1 presents a heavier difficulty4 ,to remove this it has been said by those who give the prior authority to ,matthew1 that one of the two blind men was possibly more remarkable than the other1 on which account he alone was retained in the first tradition2 but ,matthew1 as an eye-witness1 afterwards supplied the second blind man4 ,on this supposition ,luke and ,mark do not contradict ,matthew1 for they nowhere deny that another besides their single blind man was healed2 neither does ,matthew contradict them1 for where there are two1 there is also one4 #abfe ,but when the simple narrator speaks of one individual in whom something extraordinary has happened1 and even1 like ,mark1 mentions his name1 it is plain that he tacitly contradicts the statement that it happened in two individuals--to contradict it expressly there was no occasion4 ,let us turn then to the other side and1 taking the singular number of ,mark and ,luke as the original one1 conjecture that the informant of ,matthew 7the latter being scarcely on this hypothesis an eye-witness7 probably mistook the blind man's guide for a second blind man4 #abff ,hereby a decided contradiction is admitted1 while to account for it an extremely improbable cause is superfluously invented4 ,the third difference relates to the place2 ,matthew and ,mark have 1 as they departed from1 ,luke1 1 as they came nigh to ,jericho4 ,if there be any whom the words themselves fail to convince that this difference is irreconcilable1 let them read the forced attempts to render these passages consistent with each other1 which have been made by commentators from ,grotius down to ,paulus4 ,hence it was a better expedient which the older harmonists #abfg adopted1 and which has been approved by some modern critics4 #abfh ,in consideration of the last-named difference1 they here distinguished two events1 and held that ,jesus cured a blind man first on his entrance into ,jericho 7according to ,luke71 and then again on his departure from that place 7according to ,matthew and ,luke74 ,of the other divergency1 relative to the number1 these harmonists believed that they had disencumbered themselves by the supposition that ,matthew connected in one event the two blind men1 the one cured on entering and the other on leaving ,jericho1 and gave the latter position to the cure of both4 ,but if so much weight is allowed to the statement of ,matthew relative to the locality of the cure1 as to make it1 in conjunction with that of ,mark1 a reason for supposing two cures1 one at each extremity of the town1 ,i know not why equal credit should not be given to his numerical statement1 and ,storr appears to me to proceed more consistently when1 allowing equal weight to both differences1 he supposes that ,jesus on his entrance into ,jericho1 cured one blind man 7,luke7 and subsequently on his departure two 7,matthew74 #abfi ,the claim of ,matthew is thus fully vindicated1 but on the other hand that of ,mark is denied4 ,for if the latter be associated with ,matthew1 as is here the case1 for the sake of his locality1 it is necessary to do violence to his numerical statement1 which taken alone would rather require him to be associated with ,luke2 so that to avoid impeaching either of his statements1 which on this system of interpretation is not admissible1 his narrative must be equally detached from that of both the other ,evangelists4 ,thus we should have three distinct cures of the blind at ,jericho3 #ast1 the cure of one blind man on the entrance of ,jesus1 #bnd1 that of another on his departure1 and #crd1 the cure of two blind men1 also during the departure2 in all1 of four blind men4 ,now to separate the second and third cases is indeed difficult4 ,for it will not be maintained that ,jesus can have gone out by two different gates at the same time1 and it is nearly as difficult to imagine that having merely set out with the intention of leaving ,jericho1 he returned again into the town1 and not until afterwards took his final departure4 ,but1 viewing the case more generally1 it is scarcely an admissible supposition1 that three incidents so entirely similar thus fell together in a group4 ,the accumulation of cures of the blind is enough to surprise us2 but the behaviour of the companions of ,jesus is incomprehensible2 for after having seen in the first instance1 on entering ,jericho1 that they had acted in opposition to the designs of ,jesus by rebuking the blind man for his importunity1 since ,jesus called the man to him1 they nevertheless repeated this conduct on the second and even on the third occasion4 ,storr1 it is true1 is not disconcerted by this repetition in at least two incidents of this kind1 for he maintains that no one knows whether those who had enjoined silence on going out of ,jericho were not altogether different persons from those who had done the like on entering the town3 indeed1 supposing them to be the same1 such a repetition of conduct which ,jesus had implicitly disapproved1 however unbecoming1 was not therefore impossible1 since even the disciples who had been present at the first miraculous feeding1 yet asked1 before the second1 whence bread could be had for such a multitude8--but this is merely to argue the reality of one impossibility from that of another1 as we shall presently see when we enter on the consideration of the two miraculous feedings4 ,further1 not only the conduct of the followers of ,jesus1 but also almost every feature of the incident must have been repeated in the most extraordinary manner4 ,in the one case as in the other1 the blind men cry1 ,have mercy upon us1 7or me17 thou son of ,david2 then 7after silence has been enjoined on them by the spectators7 ,jesus commands that they should be brought to him3 he next asks what they will that he should do to them2 they answer1 that we may receive our sight2 he complies with their wish1 and they gratefully follow him4 ,that all this was so exactly repeated thrice1 or even twice1 is an improbability amounting to an impossibility2 and we must suppose1 according to the hypothesis adopted by ,sieffert in such cases1 a legendary assimilation of different facts1 or a traditionary variation of a single occurrence4 ,if1 in order to arrive at a decision1 it be asked3 what could more easily happen1 when once the intervention of the legend is presupposed1 than that one and the same history should be told first of one1 then of several1 first of the entrance1 then of the departure8 it will not be necessary to discuss the other possibility1 since this is so incomparably more probable that there cannot be even a momentary hesitation in embracing it as real4 ,but in thus reducing the number of the facts1 we must not with ,sieffert stop short at two1 for in that case not only do the difficulties with respect to the repetition of the same incident remain1 but we fall into a want of logical sequency in admitting one divergency 7in the number7 as unessential1 for the sake of removing another 7in the locality74 ,if it be further asked1 supposing only one incident to be here narrated1 which of the several narratives is the original one8 the statements as to the locality will not aid us in coming to a decision2 for ,jesus might just as well meet a blind man on entering as on leaving ,jericho4 ,the difference in the number is more likely to furnish us with a basis for a decision1 and it will be in favour of ,mark and ,luke1 who have each only one blind man2 not1 it is true1 for the reason alleged by ,schleiermacher1 #abgj namely1 that ,mark1 by his mention of the blind man's name1 evinces a more accurate acquaintance with the circumstances2 for ,mark1 from his propensity to individualize out of his own imagination1 ought least of all to be trusted with respect to names which are given by him alone4 ,our decision is founded on another circumstance4 ,it seems probable that ,matthew was led to add a second blind man by his recollection of a previous cure of two blind men narrated by him alone 7ix4 #bg ff474 ,here1 likewise1 when ,jesus is in the act of departure1--from the place1 namely1 where he had raised the ruler's daughter1--two blind men follow him 7those at ,jericho are sitting by the way side71 and in a similar manner cry for mercy of the ,son of ,david1 who here also1 as in the other instance1 according to ,matthew1 immediately cures them by touching their eyes4 ,with these similarities there are certainly no slight divergencies2 nothing is here said of an injunction to the blind men to be silent1 on the part of the companions of ,jesus2 and1 while at ,jericho ,jesus immediately calls the blind men to him1 in the earlier case1 they come in the first instance to him when he is again in the house2 further1 while there he asks them1 what they will have him to do to them8 here he asks1 if they believe him able to cure them8 ,lastly1 the prohibition to tell what had happened1 is peculiar to the earlier incident4 ,the two narratives standing in this relation to each other1 an assimilation of them might have taken place thus3 ,matthew transferred the two blind men and the touch of ,jesus from the first anecdote to the second2 the form of the appeal from the blind men1 from the second to the first4 ,the two histories1 as they are given1 present but few data for a natural explanation4 ,nevertheless the rationalistic commentators have endeavoured to frame such an explanation4 ,when ,jesus in the earlier occurrence asked the blind men whether they had confidence in his power1 he wished1 say they1 to ascertain whether their trust in him would remain firm during the operation1 and whether they would punctually observe his further prescriptions2 #abga having then entered the house1 in order to be free from interruption1 he examined1 for the first time1 their disease1 and when he found it curable 7according to ,venturini #abgb it was caused by the fine dust of that country71 he assured the sufferers that the result should be according to the measure of their faith4 ,hereupon ,paulus merely says briefly1 that ,jesus removed the obstruction to their vision2 but he also must have imagined to himself something similar to what is described in detail by ,venturini1 who makes ,jesus anoint the eyes of the blind men with a strong water prepared beforehand1 and thus cleanse them from the irritating dust1 so that in a short time their sight returned4 ,but this natural explanation has not the slightest root in the text2 for neither can the faith 77 required from the patient imply anything else than1 as in all similar cases1 trust in the miraculous power of ,jesus1 nor can the word 1 he touched1 signify a surgical operation1 but merely that touch which appears in so many of the evangelical curative miracles1 whether as a sign or a conductor of the healing power of ,jesus2 of further prescriptions for the completion of the cure there is absolutely nothing4 ,it is not otherwise with the cure of the blind at ,jericho1 where1 moreover1 the two middle ,evangelists do not even mention the touching of the eyes4 ,if then1 according to the meaning of the narrators1 the blind instantaneously receive their sight as a consequence of the simple word or touch of ,jesus1 there are the same difficulties to be encountered here as in the former case of the lepers4 ,for a disease of the eyes1 however slight1 as it is only engendered gradually by the reiterated action of the disturbing cause1 is still less likely to disappear on a word or a touch2 it requires very complicated treatment1 partly surgical1 partly medical1 and this must be pre-eminently the case with blindness1 supposing it to be of a curable kind4 ,how should we represent to ourselves the sudden restoration of vision to a blind eye by a word or a touch8 as purely miraculous and magical8 ,that would be to give up thinking on the subject4 ,as magnetic8 ,there is no precedent of magnetism having influence over a disease of this nature4 ,or1 lastly1 as psychical8 ,but blindness is something so independent of the mental life1 so entirely corporeal1 that the idea of its removal at all1 still less of its sudden removal by means of a mental operation1 is not to be entertained4 ,we must therefore acknowledge that an historical conception of these narratives is more than merely difficult to us2 and we proceed to inquire whether we cannot show it to be probable that legends of this kind should arise unhistorically4 ,we have already quoted the passage in which1 according to the first and third gospels1 ,jesus in reply to the messengers of the ,baptist who had to ask him whether he were the 7he that should come71 appeals to his works4 ,now he here mentions in the very first place the cure of the blind1 a significant proof that this particular miracle was expected from the ,messiah1 his words being taken from ,isa4 xxxv4 #e1 a prophecy interpreted messianically2 and in a rabbinical passage above cited1 among the wonders which ,jehovah is to perform in the messianic times1 this is enumerated1 that he oculos ccorum aperiet1 id quod per ,elisam fecit4 #abgc ,now ,elisha did not cure a positive blindness1 but merely on one occasion opened the eyes of his servant to a perception of the supersensual world1 and on another1 removed a blindness which had been inflicted on his enemies in consequence of his prayer 7#b ,kings vi4 #ag-bj74 ,that these deeds of ,elisha were conceived1 doubtless with reference to the passage of ,isaiah1 as a real opening of the eyes of the blind1 is proved by the above rabbinical passage1 and hence cures of the blind were expected from the ,messiah4 #abgd ,now if the ,christian community1 proceeding as it did from the bosom of ,judaism1 held ,jesus to be the messianic personage1 it must manifest the tendency to ascribe to him every messianic predicate1 and therefore the one in question4 ,the narrative of the cure of a blind man at ,bethsaida1 and that of the cure of a man that was deaf and had an impediment in his speech1 which are both peculiar to ,mark 7viii4 #bb ff41 vii4 #cb ff471 and which we shall therefore consider together1 are the especial favourites of all rationalistic commentators4 ,if1 they exclaim1 in the other evangelical narratives of cures1 the accessory circumstances by which the facts might be explained were but preserved as they are here1 we could prove historically that ,jesus did not heal by his mere word1 and profound investigators might discover the natural means by which his cures were effected6 #abge ,and in fact chiefly on the ground of these narratives1 in connexion with particular features in other parts of the second gospel1 ,mark has of late been represented1 even by theologians who do not greatly favour this method of interpretation1 as the patron of the naturalistic system4 #abgf ,in the two cures before us1 it is at once a good augury for the rationalistic commentators that ,jesus takes both the patients apart from the multitude1 for no other purpose1 as they believe1 than that of examining their condition medically1 and ascertaining whether it were susceptible of relief4 ,such an examination is1 according to these commentators1 intimated by the ,evangelist himself1 when he describes ,jesus as putting his fingers into the ears of the deaf man1 by which means he discovered that the deafness was curable1 arising probably from the hardening of secretions in the ear1 and hereupon1 also with the finger1 he removed the hindrance to hearing4 ,not only are the words1 he put his fingers into his ears1 1 interpreted as denoting a surgical operation1 but the words1 he touched his tongue1 1 are supposed to imply that ,jesus cut the ligament of the tongue in the degree necessary to restore the pliancy which the organ had lost4 ,in like manner1 in the case of the blind man1 the words1 when he had put his hands upon him1 1 are explained as probably meaning that ,jesus by pressing the eyes of the patient removed the crystalline lens which had become opaque4 ,a further help to this mode of interpretation is found in the circumstance that both to the tongue of the man who had an impediment in his speech1 and to the eyes of the blind man1 ,jesus applied spittle4 ,saliva has in itself1 particularly in the opinion of ancient physicians1 #abgg a salutary effect on the eyes2 as1 however1 it in no case acts so rapidly as instantaneously to cure blindness and a defect in the organs of speech1 it is conjectured1 with respect to both instances1 that ,jesus used the saliva to moisten some medicament1 probably a caustic powder2 that the blind man only heard the spitting and saw nothing of the mixture of the medicaments1 and that the deaf man1 in accordance with the spirit of the age1 gave little heed to the natural means1 or that the legend did not preserve them4 ,in the narrative of the deaf man the cure is simply stated1 but that of the blind man is yet further distinguished1 by its representing the restoration of his sight circumstantially1 as gradual4 ,after ,jesus had touched the eyes of the patient as above mentioned1 he asked him if he saw aught2 not at all1 observes ,paulus1 in the manner of a miracle-worker1 who is sure of the result1 but precisely in the manner of a physician1 who after performing an operation endeavours to ascertain if the patient is benefited4 ,the blind man answers that he sees1 but first indistinctly1 so that men seem to him like trees4 ,here apparently the rationalistic commentator may triumphantly ask the orthodox one3 if divine power for the working of cures stood at the command of ,jesus1 why did he not at once cure the blind man perfectly8 ,if the disease presented an obstacle which he was not able to overcome1 is it not clear from thence that his power was a finite1 ordinarily human power8 ,jesus once more puts his hands on the eyes of the blind man1 in order to aid the effect of the first operation1 and only then is the cure completed4 #abgh ,the complacency of the rationalistic commentators in these narratives of ,mark1 is liable to be disturbed by the frigid observation1 that1 here also1 the circumstances which are requisite to render the natural explanation possible are not given by the ,evangelists themselves1 but are interpolated by the said commentators4 ,for in both cures ,mark furnishes the saliva only2 the efficacious powder is infused by ,paulus and ,venturini3 it is they alone who make the introduction of the fingers into the ears first a medical examination and then an operation2 and it is they alone who1 contrary to the signification of language1 explain the words 1 to lay the hands upon the eyes1 as implying a surgical operation on those organs4 ,again1 the circumstance that ,jesus takes the blind man aside1 is shown by the context 7vii4 #cf1 viii4 #bf7 to have reference to the design of ,jesus to keep the miraculous result a secret1 not to the desire to be undisturbed in the application of natural means3 so that all the supports of the rationalistic explanation sink beneath it1 and the orthodox one may confront it anew4 ,this regards the touch and the spittle either as a condescension towards the sufferers1 who were thereby made more thoroughly sensible to whose power they owed their cure2 or as a conducting medium for the spiritual power of ,christ1 a medium with which he might nevertheless have dispensed4 #abgi ,that the cure was gradual1 is on this system accounted for by the supposition1 that ,jesus intended by means of the partial cure to animate the faith of the blind man1 and only when he was thus rendered worthy was he completely cured2 #abhj or it is conjectured that1 owing to the malady being deep-seated1 a sudden cure would perhaps have been dangerous4 #abha ,but by these attempts to interpret the evangelical narratives1 especially in the last particular1 the supernaturalistic theologians1 who bring them forward1 betake themselves to the same ground as the rationalists1 for they are equally open to the charge of introducing into the narratives what is not in the remotest degree intimated by the text4 ,for where1 in the procedure of ,jesus towards the blind man1 is there a trace that his design in the first instance was to prove and to strengthen the faith of the patient8 ,in that case1 instead of the expression1 ,he asked him if he saw aught1 which relates only to his external condition1 we must rather have read1 as in ,matt4 ix4 #bh1 ,believe ye that ,i am able to do this8 ,but what shall we say to the conjecture that a sudden cure might have been injurious6 ,the curative act of a worker of miracles is 7according to ,olshausen's own opinion7 not to be regarded as the merely negative one of the removal of a disease1 but also as the positive one of an impartation of new and fresh strength to the organ affected1 whence the idea of danger from an instantaneous cure when wrought by miraculous agency1 is not to be entertained4 ,thus no motive is to be discovered which could induce ,jesus to put a restraint on the immediate action of his miraculous power1 and it must therefore have been restricted1 independently of his volition1 by the force of the deep-seated malady4 ,this1 however1 is entirely opposed to the idea of the gospels1 which represent the miraculous power of ,jesus as superior to death itself2 it cannot therefore have been the meaning of our ,evangelists4 ,if we take into consideration the peculiar characteristics of ,mark as an author1 it will appear that his only aim is to give dramatic effect to the scene4 ,every sudden result is difficult to bring before the imagination3 he who wishes to give to another a vivid idea of a rapid movement1 first goes through it slowly1 and a quick result is perfectly conceivable only when the narrator has shown the process in detail4 ,consequently a writer whose object it is to assist as far as may be the imagination of his reader1 will wherever it is possible exhibit the propensity to render the immediate mediate1 and when recording a sudden result1 still to bring forward the successive steps that led to it4 #abhb ,so here ,mark1 or his informant1 supposed that he was contributing greatly to the dramatic effect1 when he inserted between the blindness of the man and the entire restoration of his sight1 the partial cure1 or the seeing men as trees1 and every reader will say1 from his own feeling1 that this object is fully achieved4 ,but herein1 as others also have remarked1 #abhc ,mark is so far from manifesting an inclination to the natural conception of such miracles1 that he1 on the contrary1 not seldom labours to aggrandize the miracle1 as we have partly seen in the case of the ,gadarene1 and shall yet have frequent reason to remark4 ,in a similar manner may also be explained why ,mark in these narratives which are peculiar to him 7and elsewhere also1 as in vi4 #ac1 where he observes that the disciples anointed the sick with oil71 mentions the application of external means and manifestations in miraculous cures4 ,that these means1 the saliva particularly1 were not in the popular opinion of that age naturally efficacious causes of the cure1 we may be convinced by the narrative concerning ,vespasian quoted above1 as also by passages of ,jewish and ,roman authors1 according to which saliva was believed to have a magical potency1 especially against diseases of the eye4 #abhd ,hence ,olshausen perfectly reproduces the conception of that age when he explains the touch1 saliva1 and the like1 to be conductors of the superior power resident in the worker of miracles4 ,we cannot indeed make this opinion ours1 unless with ,olshausen we proceed upon the supposition of a parallelism between the miraculous power of ,jesus and the agency of animal magnetism3 a supposition which1 for the explanation of the miracles of ,jesus1 especially of the one before us1 is inadequate and therefore superfluous4 ,hence we put this means merely to the account of the ,evangelist4 ,to him also we may then doubtless refer the taking aside of the blind man1 the exaggerated description of the astonishment of the people1 7 1 vii4 #cg17 and the strict prohibition to tell any man of the cure4 ,this secrecy gave the affair a mysterious aspect1 which1 as we may gather from other passages1 was pleasing to ,mark4 ,we have another trait belonging to the mysterious in the narratives of the cure of the deaf man1 where ,mark says1 ,and looking up to heaven he sighed 7vii4 #cd74 ,what cause was there for sighing at that particular moment8 ,was it the misery of the human race1 #abhe which must have been long known to ,jesus from many melancholy examples8 ,or shall we evade the difficulty by explaining the expression as implying nothing further than silent prayer or audible speech8 #abhf ,whoever knows ,mark will rather recognise the exaggerating narrator in the circumstance that he ascribes to ,jesus a deep emotion1 on an occasion which could not indeed have excited it1 but which1 being accompanied by it1 had a more mysterious appearance4 ,but above all1 there appears to me to be an air of mystery in this1 that ,mark gives the authoritative word with which ,jesus opened the ears of the deaf man in its original ,syriac form1 1 as on the resuscitation of the daughter of ,jairus1 this ,evangelist alone has the words 7v4 #da74 ,it is indeed said that these expressions are anything rather than magical forms2 #abhg but that ,mark chooses to give these authoritative words in a language foreign to his readers1 to whom he is obliged at the same time to explain them1 nevertheless proves that he must have attributed to this original form a special significance1 which1 as it appears from the context1 can only have been a magical one4 ,this inclination to the mysterious we may now retrospectively find indicated in the application of those outward means which have no relation to the result2 for the mysterious consists precisely in the presentation of infinite power through a finite medium1 in the combination of the strongest effect with apparently inefficacious means4 ,if we have been unable to receive as historical the simple narrative given by all the synoptical writers of the cure of the blind man at ,jericho1 we are still less prepared to award this character to the mysterious description1 given by ,mark alone1 of the cure of a blind man at ,bethsaida1 and we must regard it as a product of the legend1 with more or less addition from the evangelical narrator4 ,the same judgment must be pronounced on his narrative of the cure of the deaf man who had an impediment in his speech 2 for1 together with the negative reasons already adduced against its historical credibility1 there are not wanting positive causes for its mythical origin1 since the prophecy relating to the messianic times1 -- 1 the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped1 the tongue of the dumb shall sing 7,isa4 xxxv4 #e1 #f71 was in existence1 and according to ,matt4 xi4 #e1 was interpreted literally4 ,if the narratives of ,mark which we have just considered1 seem at the first glance to be favourable to the natural explanation1 the narrative of ,john1 chap4 ix41 must1 one would think1 be unfavourable and destructive to it2 for here the question is not concerning a blind man1 whose malady having originated accidentally1 might be easier to remove1 but concerning a man born blind4 ,nevertheless1 as the expositors of this class are sharp-sighted1 and do not soon lose courage1 they are able even here to discover much in their favour4 ,in the first place1 they find that the condition of the patient is but vaguely described1 however definite the expression1 blind from his birth1 may seem to sound4 ,the statement of time which this expression includes1 ,paulus1 it is true1 refrains from overthrowing 7though his forbearance is unwilling and in fact incomplete73 hence he has the more urgent necessity for attempting to shake the statement as to quality4 is not to signify total blindness1 and as ,jesus tells the man to go to the pool of ,siloam1 not to get himself led thither1 he must have still had some glimmering of eye-sight1 by means of which he could himself find the way thither4 ,still more help do the rationalistic commentators find for themselves in the mode of cure adopted by ,jesus4 ,he says beforehand 7v4 #d7 he must work the works of him that sent him while it is day1 1 for in the night no man can work2 a sufficient proof that he had not the idea of curing the blind man by a mere word1 which he might just as well have uttered in the night--that1 on the contrary1 he intended to undertake a medical or surgical operation1 for which certainly daylight was required4 ,further1 the clay1 1 which ,jesus made with his spittle1 and with which he anointed the eyes of the blind man1 is still more favourable to the natural explanation than the expression having spit1 in a former case1 and hence it is a fertile source of questions and conjectures4 ,whence did ,john know that ,jesus took nothing more than spittle and dust to make his eye-salve8 ,was he himself present1 or did he understand it merely from the narrative of the cured blind man8 ,the latter could not3 with his then weak glimmering of sight1 correctly see what ,jesus took3 perhaps ,jesus while he mixed a salve out of other ingredients accidentally spat upon the ground1 and the patient fell into the error of supposing that the spittle made part of the salve4 ,still more3 while or before ,jesus put something on the eyes1 did he not also remove something by extraction or friction1 or otherwise effect a change in the state of these organs8 ,this would be an essential fact which might easily be mistaken by the blind man and the spectators for a merely accessory circumstance4 ,lastly1 the washing in the pool of ,siloam which was prescribed to the patient was perhaps continued many days--was a protracted cure by means of the bath--and the words he came seeing1 do not necessarily imply that he came thus after his first bath1 but that at a convenient time after the completion of his cure1 he came again seeing4 #abhh ,but1 to begin at the beginning1 the meaning here given to and is too shallow even for ,venturini1 #abhi and especially clashes with the context 7v4 #e71 which throughout demands an interpretation of the words with reference to the speedy departure of ,jesus4 #abij ,as to the conjecture that the clay was made of medicinal ingredients of some kind or other1 it is the more groundless1 since it cannot be said here1 as in the former case1 that only so much is stated as the patient could learn by his hearing or by a slight glimmering of light1 for1 on this occasion1 ,jesus undertook the cure1 not in private1 but in the presence of his disciples4 ,concerning the further supposition of previous surgical operations1 by which the anointing and washing1 alone mentioned in the text1 are reduced to mere accessories1 nothing more is to be said1 than that by this example we may see how completely the spirit of natural explanation despises all restraints1 not scrupling to pervert the clearest words of the text in support of its arbitrary combinations4 ,further1 when1 from the circumstance that ,jesus ordered the blind man to go to the pool of ,siloam1 it is inferred that he must have had a share of light1 we may remark1 in opposition to this1 that ,jesus merely told the patient whither he should go 772 how he was to go1 whether alone or with a guide1 he left to his own discretion4 ,lastly1 when the closely connected words he went his way1 therefore1 and washed and came seeing1 7v4 #g2 comp4 v4 #aa7 are stretched out into a process of cure lasting several weeks1 it is just as if the words veni1 vidi1 vici1 were translated thus3 ,after my arrival ,i reconnoitred for several days1 fought battles at suitable intervals1 and finally remained conqueror4 ,thus here also the natural explanation will not serve us1 and we have still before us the narrative of a man born blind1 miraculously cured by ,jesus4 ,that the doubts already expressed as to the reality of the cures of the blind1 apply with increased force to the case of a man born blind1 is self-evident4 ,and they are aided in this instance by certain special critical reasons4 ,not one of three first ,evangelists mentions this cure4 ,now1 if in the formation of the apostolic tradition1 and in the selection which it made from among the miracles of ,jesus1 any kind of reason was exercised1 it must have taken the shape of the two following rules3 first1 to choose the greater miracles before those apparently less important2 and secondly1 those with which edifying discourses were connected1 before those which were not thus distinguished4 ,in the first respect1 it is plain that the cure of a man blind from his birth1 as the incomparably more difficult miracle1 was by all means to be chosen rather than that of a man in whom blindness had supervened1 and it is not to be conceived why1 if ,jesus really gave sight to a man born blind1 nothing of this should have entered into the evangelical tradition1 and from thence into the synoptical gospels4 ,it is true that with this consideration of the magnitude of the miracles1 a regard to the edifying nature of the discourses connected with them might not seldom come into collision1 so that a less striking1 but from the conversations which it caused1 a more instructive miracle1 might be preferred to one more striking1 but presenting less of the latter kind of interest4 ,but the cure of the blind man in ,john is accompanied by very remarkable conversations1 first1 of ,jesus with the disciples1 then1 of the cured man with the magistrates1 and lastly of ,jesus with the cured man1 such as there is no trace of in the synoptical cures of the blind2 conversations in which1 if not the entire course of the dialogue1 at least some aphoristic pearls 7as v4 #d1 #e1 #ci71 were admirably suited to the purpose of three first ,evangelists4 ,these writers1 therefore1 could not have failed to introduce the cure of the man born blind into their histories1 instead of their less remarkable and less edifying cures of the blind1 if the former had made a part of the evangelical tradition whence they drew4 ,it might possibly have remained unknown to the general ,christian tradition1 if it had taken place at a time and under circumstances which did not favour its promulgation--if it had been effected in a remote corner of the country1 without further witnesses4 ,but ,jesus performed this miracle in ,jerusalem1 in the circle of his disciples2 it made a great sensation in the city1 and was highly offensive to the magistracy1 hence the affair must have been known if it had really occurred2 and as we do not find it in the common evangelical tradition1 the suspicion arises that it perhaps never did occur4 ,but it will be said1 the writer who attests it is the ,apostle ,john4 ,this1 however1 is too improbable1 not only on account of the incredible nature of the contents of the narrative1 which could thus hardly have proceeded from an eyewitness1 but also from another reason4 ,the narrator interprets the name of the pool1 ,siloam1 by the ,greek 7v4 #g72 a false explanation1 for one who is sent is called 1 whereas according to the most probable interpretation signifies a waterfall4 #abia ,the ,evangelist1 however1 chose the above interpretation1 because he sought for some significant relation between the name of the pool1 and the sending thither of the blind man1 and thus seems to have imagined that the pool had by a special providence received the name of ,sent1 because at a future time the ,messiah1 as a manifestation of his glory1 was to send thither a blind man4 #abib ,now1 we grant that an apostle might give a grammatically incorrect explanation1 in so far as he is not held to be inspired1 and that even a native of ,palestine might mistake the etymology of ,hebrew words1 as the ,old ,testament itself shows2 nevertheless1 such a play upon words looks more like the laboured attempt of a writer remote from the event1 than of an eye-witness4 ,the eye-witness would have had enough of important matters in the miracle which he had beheld1 and the conversation to which he had listened2 only a remote narrator could fall into the triviality of trying to extort a significant meaning from the smallest accessory circumstance4 ,tholuck and ,lcke are highly revolted by this allegory1 which1 as the latter expresses himself1 approaches to absolute folly1 hence they are unwilling to admit that it proceeded from ,john1 and regard it as a gloss4 ,as1 however1 all critical authorities1 except one of minor importance1 present this particular1 such a position is sheer arbitrariness1 and the only choice left us is either with ,olshausen1 to edify ourselves by this interpretation as an apostolic one1 #abic or1 with the author of the ,probabilia1 to number it among the indications that the fourth gospel had not an apostolic origin4 #abid ,the reasons which might prevent the author of the fourth gospel1 or the tradition whence he drew1 from resting contented with the cures of the blind narrated by the synoptical writers1 and thus induce the one or the other to frame the history before us1 are already pointed out by the foregoing remarks4 ,the observation has been already made by others1 that the fourth ,evangelist has fewer miracles than the synoptical writers1 but that this deficiency in number is compensated by a superiority in magnitude4 #abie ,thus while the other ,evangelists have simple paralytics cured by ,jesus1 the fourth gospel has one who had been lame thirty-eight years2 while1 in the former1 ,jesus resuscitates persons who had just expired1 in the latter1 he calls back to life one who had lain in the grave four days1 in whom therefore it might be presumed that decomposition had begun2 and so here1 instead of a cure of simple blindness1 we have that of a man born blind1--a heightening of the miracle altogether suited to the apologetic and dogmatic tendency of this gospel4 ,in what way the author1 or the particular tradition which he followed1 might be led to depict the various details of the narrative1 is easily seen4 ,the act of spitting1 1 was common in magical cures of the eyes2 clay1 1 was a ready substitute for an eye-salve1 and elsewhere occurs in magical proceedings2 #abif the command to wash in the pool of ,siloam may have been an imitation of ,elisha's order1 that the leper ,naaman should bathe seven times in the river ,jordan4 ,the conversations connected with the cure partly proceed from the tendency of the ,gospel of ,john already remarked by ,storr1 namely1 to attest and to render as authentic as possible both the cure of the man1 and the fact of his having been born blind1 whence the repeated examination of the cured man1 and even of his parents2 partly they turn upon the symbolical meaning of the expressions1 blind and seeing1 day and night1--a meaning which it is true is not foreign to the synoptical writers1 but which specifically belongs to the circle of images in favour with ,john4 #if4 ,,cures ,,of ,,paralytics4 ,,did ,,jesus ,,regard ,,diseases ,,as ,,punishments8 ,an important feature in the history of the cure of the man born blind has been passed over1 because it can only be properly estimated in connexion with a corresponding one in the synoptical narratives of the cure of a paralytic 7,matt4 ix4 #a ff42 ,mark ii4 #a ff42 ,luke v4 #ag ff471 which we have in the next place to consider4 ,here ,jesus first declares to the sick man3 1 thy sins are forgiven thee1 and then as a proof that he had authority to forgive sins1 he cures him4 ,it is impossible not to perceive in this a reference to the ,jewish opinion1 that any evil befalling an individual1 and especially disease1 was a punishment of his sins2 an opinion which1 presented in its main elements in the ,old ,testament 7,lev4 xxvi4 #ad ff42 ,deut4 xxviii4 #ae ff42 #b ,chron4 xxi4 #ae1 #ah f47 was expressed in the most definite manner by the later ,jews4 #abig ,had we possessed that synoptical narrative only1 we must have believed that ,jesus shared the opinion of his cotemporary fellow-countrymen on this subject1 since he proves his authority to forgive sins 7as the cause of disease7 by an example of his power to cure disease 7the consequence of sin74 ,but1 it is said1 there are other passages where ,jesus directly contradicts this ,jewish opinion2 whence it follows1 that what he then says to the paralytic was a mere accommodation to the ideas of the sick man1 intended to promote his cure4 #abih ,the principal passage commonly adduced in support of this position1 is the introduction to the history of the man born blind1 which was last considered 7,john ix4 #a-c74 ,here the disciples1 seeing on the road the man whom they knew to have been blind from his birth1 put to ,jesus the question1 whether his blindness was the consequence of his own sins1 or of those of his parents8 ,the case was a peculiarly difficult one on the ,jewish theory of retribution4 ,with respect to diseases which attach themselves to a man in his course through life1 an observer who has once taken a certain bias1 may easily discover or assume some peculiar delinquencies on the part of this man as their cause4 ,with respect to inborn diseases1 on the contrary1 though the old ,hebraic opinion 7,exod4 xx4 #e2 ,deut4 v4 #i2 #b ,sam4 iii4 #bi71 it is true1 presented the explanation that by these the sins of the fathers were visited on their posterity3 yet as1 for human regulations1 the ,mosaic law itself ordained that each should suffer for his own sins alone 7,deut4 xxiv4 #af2 #b ,kings xiv4 #f72 and as also1 in relation to the penal justice of the ,divine ,being1 the prophets predicted a similar dispensation 7,jer4 xxxi4 #cj2 ,ezek4 xviii4 #ai f472 rabbinical acumen resorted to the expedient of supposing1 that men so afflicted might probably have sinned in their mother's womb1 #abii and this was doubtless the notion which the disciples had in view in their question1 v4 #b4 ,jesus says1 in answer1 that neither for his own sin nor for that of his parents1 did this man come into the world blind2 but in order that by the cure which he1 as the ,messiah1 would effect in him1 he might be an instrument in manifesting the miraculous power of ,god4 ,this is generally understood as if ,jesus repudiated the whole opinion1 that disease and other evils were essentially punishments of sin4 ,but the words of ,jesus are expressly limited to the case before him2 he simply says1 that this particular misfortune had its foundation1 not in the guilt of the individual1 but in higher providential designs4 ,the supposition that his expressions had a more general sense1 and included a repudiation of the entire ,jewish opinion1 could only be warranted by other more decided declarations from him to that effect4 ,as1 on the contrary1 according to the above observations1 a narrative is found in the synoptical gospels which1 simply interpreted1 implies the concurrence of ,jesus in the prevalent opinion1 the question arises3 which is easier1 to regard the expression of ,jesus in the synoptical narratives as an accommodation1 or that in ,john as having relation solely to the case immediately before him8--a question which will be decided in favour of the latter alternative by every one who1 on the one hand1 knows the difficulties attending the hypothesis of accommodation as applied to the expressions of ,jesus in the gospels1 and on the other1 is clear-sighted enough to perceive1 that in the passage in question in the fourth gospel1 there is not the slightest intimation that the declaration of ,jesus had a more general meaning4 ,it is true that according to correct principles of interpretation1 one ,evangelist ought not to be explained immediately by another1 and in the present case it is very possible that while the synoptical writers ascribe to ,jesus the common opinion of his age1 the more highly cultivated author of the fourth gospel may make him reject it3 but that he also confined the rejection of the current opinion on the part of ,jesus to that single case1 is proved by the manner in which he represents ,jesus as speaking on another occasion4 ,when1 namely1 ,jesus says to the man who had been lame thirty-eight years 7,john v47 and had just been cured1 1 7v4 #ad71 ,sin no more1 lest a worse thing come unto thee2 this is equivalent to his saying to the paralytic whom he was about to cure1 1 thy sins are forgiven thee3 in the one case disease is removed1 in the other threatened1 as a punishment of sin4 ,but here again the expositors1 to whom it is not agreeable that ,jesus should hold an opinion which they reject1 find a means of evading the direct sense of the words4 ,jesus1 say they1 perceived that the particular disease of this man was a natural consequence of certain excesses1 and warned him from a repetition of these as calculated to bring on a more dangerous relapse4 #acjj ,but an insight into the natural connexion between certain excesses and certain diseases as their consequence1 is far more removed from the mode of thinking of the age in which ,jesus lived1 than the notion of a positive connexion between sin in general and disease as its punishment2 hence1 if we are nevertheless to ascribe the former sense to the words of ,jesus1 it must be very distinctly conveyed in the text4 ,but the fact is that in the whole narrative there is no intimation of any particular excess on the part of the man2 the words relate only to sin in general1 and to supply a conversation of ,jesus with the sick man1 in which he is supposed to have acquainted the former with the connexion between his sufferings and a particular sin1 #acja is the most arbitrary fiction4 ,what exposition6 for the sake of evading a result which is dogmatically unwelcome1 to extend the one passage 7,john ix47 to a generality of meaning not really belonging to it1 to elude the other 7,matt4 ix47 by the hypothesis of accommodation1 and forcibly to affix to a third 7,john v47 a modern idea2 whereas if the first passage be only permitted to say no more than it actually says1 the direct meaning of the other two may remain unviolated6 ,but another passage1 and that a synoptical one1 is adduced in vindication of the superiority of ,jesus to the popular opinion in question4 ,this passage is ,luke xiii4 #a ff41 where ,jesus is told of the ,galileans whom ,pilate had caused to be slain while they were in the act of sacrificing1 and of others who were killed by the falling of a tower4 ,from what follows1 we must suppose the informants to have intimated their opinion that these calamities were to be regarded as a divine visitation for the peculiar wickedness of the parties so signally destroyed4 ,jesus replied that they must not suppose those men to have been especially sinful2 they themselves were in no degree better1 and unless they repented would meet with a similar destruction4 ,truly it is not clear how in these expressions of ,jesus a repudiation of the popular notion can be found4 ,if ,jesus wished to give his voice in opposition to this1 he must either have said3 you are equally great sinners1 though you may not perish bodily in the same manner2 or3 do you believe that those men perished on account of their sins8 ,no6 the contrary may be seen in you1 who1 notwithstanding your wickedness1 are not thus smitten with death4 ,on the contrary1 the expressions of ,jesus as given by ,luke can only have the following sense3 that those men have already met with such calamities is no evidence of their peculiar wickedness1 any more than the fact that you have been hitherto spared the like1 is an evidence of your greater worth1 on the contrary1 earlier or later1 similar judgments falling on you will attest your equal guilt3--whereby the supposed law of the connexion between the sin and misfortune of every individual is confirmed1 not overthrown4 ,this vulgar ,hebrew opinion concerning sickness and evil1 is indeed in contradiction with that esoteric view1 partly ,essene1 partly ,ebionite1 which we have found in the introduction to the ,sermon on the ,mount1 the parable of the rich man1 and elsewhere1 and according to which the righteous in this generation are the suffering1 the poor and the sick2 but both opinions are clearly to be seen in the discourses of ,jesus by an unprejudiced exegesis1 and the contradiction1 which we find between them authorizes us neither to put a forced construction on the one class of expressions1 nor to deny them to have really come from ,jesus1 since we cannot calculate how he may have solved for himself the opposition between two ideas of the world1 presented to him by different sides of the ,jewish culture of that age4 ,as regards the above-mentioned cure1 the synoptical writers make ,jesus in his reply to the messengers of the ,baptist1 appeal to the fact that the lame walked 7,matt4 xi4 #e71 and at another time the people wonder when1 among other miracles1 they see the maimed to be whole and the lame to walk 7,matt4 xv4 #ca74 ,in the place of the lame1 1 paralytics1 are elsewhere brought forward 7,matt4 iv4 #bd71 and especially in the detailed histories of cures relating to this kind of sufferers 7as ,matt4 ix4 #a ff4 parall41 viii4 #e1 parall471 1 and not 1 are named4 ,the sick man at the pool of ,bethesda 7,john v4 #e7 belongs probably to the spoken of in v4 #c2 there also 1 withered1 are mentioned1 and in ,matt4 xii4 #i ff4 parall4 we find the cure of a man who had a withered hand4 ,as however the three last named cures will return to us under different heads1 all that remains here for our examination is the cure of the paralytic ,matt4 ix4 #a ff4 parall4 ,as the definitions which the ancient physicians give of paralysis1 though they all show it to have been a species of lameness1 yet leave it undecided whether the lameness was total or partial2 #acjb and as1 besides1 no strict adherence to medical technicalities is to be expected from the ,evangelists1 we must gather what they understand by paralytics from their own descriptions of such patients4 ,in the present passage1 we read of the paralytic that he was borne on a bed 1 and that to enable him to arise and carry his bed was an unprecedented wonder 1 whence we must conclude that he was lame1 at least in the feet4 ,while here there is no mention of pains1 or of an acute character of disease1 in another narrative 7,matt4 viii4 #f7 these are evidently presupposed when the centurion says that his servant is sick of the palsy1 grievously tormented1 --1 2 so that under paralytics in the gospels we have at one time to understand a lameness without pain1 at another a painful1 gouty disease of the limbs4 #acjc ,in the description of the scene in which the paralytic 7,matt4 ix4 #a ff4 parall47 is brought to ,jesus1 there is a remarkable gradation in the three accounts4 ,matthew says simply1 that as ,jesus1 after an excursion to the opposite shore1 returned to ,capernaum1 there was brought to him a paralytic1 stretched on a bed4 ,luke describes particularly how ,jesus1 surrounded by a great multitude1 chiefly ,pharisees and scribes1 taught and healed in a certain house1 and how the bearers1 because on account of the press they could not reach ,jesus1 let the sick man down to him through the roof4 ,if we call to mind the structure of oriental houses1 which had a flat roof1 to which an opening led from the upper story2 #acjd and if we add to this the rabbinical manner of speaking1 in which to the via per portum 7 7 was opposed the via per tectum 7 7 as a no less ordinary way for reaching the upper story or chamber1 #acje we cannot under the expression 1 to let down through the tiling1 understand anything else than that the bearers--who1 either by means of stairs leading thither directly from the street1 or from the roof of a neighbouring house1 gained access to the roof of the house in which ,jesus was1--let down the sick man with his bed1 apparently by cords1 through the opening already existing in the roof4 ,mark1 who1 while with ,matthew he places the scene at ,capernaum1 agrees with ,luke in the description of the great crowd and the consequent ascent to the roof1 goes yet further than ,luke1 not only in determining the number of the bearers to be four1 but also in making them1 regardless of the opening already existing1 uncover the roof and let down the sick man through an aperture newly broken4 ,if we ask here also in which direction1 upwards or downwards1 the climax may most probably have been formed1 the narrative of ,mark1 which stands at the summit1 has so many difficulties that it can scarcely be regarded as nearest the truth4 ,for not only have opponents asked1 how could the roof be broken open without injury to those beneath8 #acjf but ,olshausen himself admits that the disturbance of the roof1 covered with tiles1 partakes of the extravagant4 #acjg ,to avoid this1 many expositors suppose that ,jesus taught either in the inner court1 #acjh or in the open air in front of the house1 #acji and that the bearers only broke down a part of the parapet in order to let down the sick man more conveniently4 ,but both the phrase1 1 in ,luke1 and the expressions of ,mark1 render this conception of the thing impossible1 since here neither can mean parapet1 nor the breaking of the parapet1 while can only mean the breaking of a hole4 ,thus the disturbance of the roof subsists1 but this is further rendered improbable on the ground that it was altogether superfluous1 inasmuch as there was a door in every roof4 ,hence help has been sought in the supposition that the bearers indeed used the door previously there1 but because this was too narrow for the bed of the patient1 they widened it by the removal of the surrounding tiles4 #acaj ,still1 however1 there remains the danger to those below1 and the words imply an opening actually made1 not merely widened4 ,but dangerous and superfluous as such a proceeding would be in reality1 it is easy to explain how ,mark1 wishing further to elaborate the narrative of ,luke1 might be led to add such a feature4 ,luke had said that the sick man was let down1 so that he descended in the midst before ,jesus1 4 ,how could the people precisely hit upon this place1 unless ,jesus accidentally stood under the door of the roof1 except by breaking open the roof above the spot where they knew him to be 7 78 #acaa ,this trait ,mark the more gladly seized because it was adapted to place in the strongest light the zeal which confidence in ,jesus infused into the people1 and which was to be daunted by no labour4 ,this last interest seems to be the key also to ,luke's departure from ,matthew4 ,in ,matthew1 who makes the bearers bring the paralytic to ,jesus in the ordinary way1 doubtless regarding the laborious conveyance of the sick man on his bed as itself a proof of their faith1 it is yet less evident wherein ,jesus sees their faith4 ,if the original form of the history was that in which it appears in the first gospel1 the temptation might easily arise to make the bearers devise a more conspicuous means of evincing their faith1 which1 since the scene was already described as happening in a great crowd1 might appear to be most suitably found in the uncommon way in which they contrived to bring their sick man to ,jesus4 ,but even the account of ,matthew we cannot regard as a true narrative of a fact4 ,it has indeed been attempted to represent the result as a natural one1 by explaining the state of the man to be a nervous weakness1 the worst symptom of which was the idea of the sick man that his disease must continue as a punishment of his sin2 #acab reference has been made to analogous cases of a rapid psychical cure of lameness2 #acac and a subsequent use of long-continued curative means has been supposed4 #acad ,but the first and last expedients are purely arbitrary2 and if in the alleged analogies there may be some truth1 yet it is always incomparably more probable that histories of cures of the lame and paralytic in accordance with messianic expectation1 should be formed by the legend1 than that they should really have happened4 ,in the passage of ,isaiah already quoted 7xxxv4 #f71 it was promised in relation to the messianic time3 then shall the lame man leap as a hart1 1 and in the same connexion1 v4 #c1 the prophet addresses to the feeble knees the exhortation1 ,be strong1 1 which1 with the accompanying particulars1 must have been understood literally1 of a miracle to be expected from the ,messiah1 since ,jesus1 as we have already mentioned1 among other proofs that he was the adduced this3 1 the lame walk4 #ig4 ,,involuntary ,,cures4 ,occasionally in their general statements concerning the curative power of ,jesus1 the synoptical writers remark1 that all kinds of sick people only sought to touch ,jesus1 or to lay hold on the hem of his garment1 in order to be healed1 and that immediately on this slight contact1 a cure actually followed 7,matt4 xiv4 #cf2 ,mark iii4 #aj1 vi4 #ef2 ,luke vi4 #ai74 ,in these cases ,jesus operated1 not1 as we have hitherto always seen1 with a precise aim towards any particular sufferer1 but on entire masses1 without taking special notice of each individual2 his power of healing appears not here1 as elsewhere1 to reside in his will1 but in his body and its coverings2 he does not by his own voluntary act dispense its virtues1 but is subject to have them drawn from him without his consent4 ,of this species of cure again a detailed example is preserved to us1 in the history of the woman who had an issue of blood1 which all the synoptical writers give1 and interweave in a peculiar manner with the history of the resuscitation of the daughter of ,jairus1 making ,jesus cure the woman on his way to the ruler's house 7,matt4 ix4 #bj ff42 ,mark v4 #be ff42 ,luke viii4 #dc ff474 ,on comparing the account of the incident in the several ,evangelists1 we might in this instance be tempted to regard that of ,luke as the original1 because it seems to offer an explanation of the uniform connexion of the two histories4 ,as1 namely1 the duration of the woman's sufferings is fixed by all the narrators at twelve years1 so ,luke1 whom ,mark follows1 gives twelve years also as the age of the daughter of ,jairus2 a numerical similarity which might be a sufficient inducement to associate the two histories in the evangelical tradition4 ,but this reason is far too isolated by itself to warrant a decision1 which can only proceed from a thorough comparison of the three narratives in their various details4 ,matthew describes the woman simply as 1 which signifies that she had for twelve years been subject to an important loss of blood1 probably in the form of excessive menstruation4 ,luke1 the reputed physician1 shows himself here in no degree favourable to his professional brethren1 for he adds that the woman had spent all her living on physicians without obtaining any help from them4 ,mark1 yet more unfavourable1 says that she had suffered many things of many physicians1 and was nothing bettered1 but rather grew worse4 ,those who surround ,jesus when the woman approaches him are1 according to ,matthew1 his disciples1 according to ,mark and ,luke1 a thronging multitude4 ,after all the narrators have described how the woman1 as timid as she was believing1 came behind ,jesus and touched the hem of his garment1 ,mark and ,luke state that she was immediately healed1 but that ,jesus1 being conscious of the egress of curative power1 asked who touched me8 ,the disciples1 astonished1 ask in return1 how he can distinguish a single touch amidst so general a thronging and pressure of the crowd4 ,according to ,luke1 he persists in his assertion2 according to ,mark1 he looks inquiringly around him in order to discover the party who had touched him3 then1 according to both these ,evangelists1 the woman approaches trembling1 falls at ,his feet and confesses all1 whereupon ,jesus gives her the tranquillizing assurance that her faith has made her whole4 ,matthew has not this complex train of circumstances2 he merely states that after the touch ,jesus looked round1 discovered the woman1 and announced to her that her faith had wrought her cure4 ,this difference is an important one1 and we need not greatly wonder that it induced ,storr to suppose two separate cures of women afflicted in the same manner4 #acae ,to this expedient he was yet more decidedly determined by the still wider divergencies in the narrative of the resuscitation of the daughter of ,jairus1 a narrative which is interlaced with the one before us2 it is1 however1 this very interlacement which renders it totally impossible to imagine that ,jesus1 twice1 on both occasions when he was on his way to restore to life the daughter of a ,jewish ruler 771 cured a woman who had had an issue of blood twelve years4 ,while1 on this consideration1 criticism has long ago decided for the singleness of the fact on which the narratives are founded1 it has at the same time given the preference to those of ,mark and ,luke as the most vivid and circumstantial4 #acaf ,but1 in the first place1 if it be admitted that ,mark's addition 1 but rather grew worse1 is merely a finishing touch from his own imagination to the expression ' neither could be healed of any1 which he found in ,luke2 there seems to be the same reason for regarding this particular of ,luke's as an inference of his own by which he has amplified the simple statement 1 which ,matthew gives without any addition4 ,if the woman had been ill twelve years1 she must1 it was thought1 during that period have frequently had recourse to physicians3 and as1 when contrasted with the inefficiency of the physicians1 the miraculous power of ,jesus1 which instantaneously wrought a cure1 appeared in all the more brilliant a light2 so in the legend1 or in the imagination of the narrators1 there grew up these additions4 ,what if the same observation applied to the other differences8 ,that the woman according to ,matthew also1 only touched ,jesus from behind1 implied the effort and the hope to remain concealed2 that ,jesus immediately looked round after her1 implied that he was conscious of her touch4 ,this hope on the part of the woman became the more accountable1 and this consciousness on the part of ,jesus the more marvellous1 the greater the crowd that surrounded ,jesus and pressed upon him2 hence the companionship of the disciples in ,matthew is by the other two ,evangelists changed into a thronging of the multitude 7 74 ,again1 ,matthew mentions that ,jesus looked round after the woman touched him2 on this circumstance the supposition might be founded that he had perceived her touch in a peculiar manner2 hence the scene was further worked up1 and we are shown how ,jesus1 though pressed on all sides1 had yet a special consciousness of that particular touch by the healing power which it had drawn from him2 while the simple feature 1 he turned him about1 and when he saw her1 in ,matthew1 is transformed into an inquiry and a searching glance around upon the crowd to discover the woman1 who then is represented as coming forward1 trembling1 to make her confession4 ,lastly1 on a comparison of ,matt xiv4 #cf1 the point of this narrative1 even as given in the first gospel1 appears to lie in the fact that simply to touch the clothes of ,jesus had in itself a healing efficacy4 ,accordingly1 in the propagation of this history1 there was a continual effort to make the result follow immediately on the touch1 and to represent ,jesus as remaining1 even after the cure1 for some time uncertain with respect to the individual who had touched him1 a circumstance which is in contradiction with that superior knowledge elsewhere attributed to ,jesus4 ,thus1 under every aspect1 the narrative in the first gospel presents itself as the earlier and more simple1 that of the second and third as a later and more embellished formation of the legend4 ,as regards the common substance of the narratives1 it has in recent times been a difficulty to all theologians1 whether orthodox or rationalistic1 that the curative power of ,jesus should have been exhibited apart from his volition4 ,paulus and ,olshausen agree in the opinion1 #acag that the agency of ,jesus is thus reduced too completely into the domain of physical nature2 that ,jesus would then be like a magnetiser who in operating on a nervous patient is conscious of a diminution of strength1 or like a charged electrical battery1 which a mere touch will discharge4 ,such an idea of ,christ1 thinks ,olshausen1 is repugnant to the ,christian consciousness1 which determines the fulness of power resident in ,jesus to have been entirely under the governance of his will2 and this will to have been guided by a knowledge of the moral condition of the persons to be healed4 ,it is therefore supposed that ,jesus fully recognized the woman even without seeing her1 and considering that she might be spiritually won over to him by this bodily succour1 he consciously communicated to her an influx of his curative power2 but in order to put an end to her false shame and constrain her to a confession1 he behaved as if he knew not who had touched him4 ,but the ,christian consciousness1 in cases of this kind1 means nothing else than the advanced religious culture of our age1 which cannot appropriate the antiquated ideas of the ,bible4 ,now this consciousness must be neutral where we are concerned1 not with the dogmatical appropriation1 but purely with the exegetical discovery of the biblical ideas4 ,the interference of this alleged ,christian consciousness is the secret of the majority of exegetical errors1 and in the present instance it has led the above named commentators astray from the evident sense of the text4 ,for the question of ,jesus in both the more detailed narratives 2 who touched me8 repeated as it is in ,luke1 and strengthened as it is in ,mark by a searching glance around1 has the appearance of being meant thoroughly in earnest2 and indeed it is the object of these two ,evangelists to place the miraculous nature of the curative power of ,jesus in a particularly clear light by showing that the mere touching of his clothes accompanied by faith1 no previous knowledge on his part of the person who touched1 nor so much as a word from him1 being requisite1 was sufficient to obtain a cure4 ,nay1 even originally1 in the more concise account of ,matthew1 the expressions having come behind him1 she touched1 and he turned him about1 and when he saw her1 clearly imply that ,jesus knew the woman only after she had touched him4 ,if then1 it is not to be proved that ,jesus had a knowledge of the woman previous to her cure and a special will to heal her2 nothing remains for those who will not admit an involuntary exhibition of curative power in ,jesus1 but to suppose in him a constant general will to cure1 with which it was only necessary that faith on the part of the diseased person should concur1 in order to produce an actual cure4 ,but that1 notwithstanding the absence of a special direction of the will to the cure of this woman on the part of ,jesus1 she was restored to health1 simply by her faith1 without even touching his clothes1 is assuredly not the idea of the ,evangelists4 ,on the contrary1 it is their intention to substitute for an individual act of the will on the part of ,jesus1 the touch on the part of the sick person2 this it is which1 instead of the former1 brings into action the latent power of ,jesus3 so that the materialistic character of the representation is not in this way to be avoided4 ,a step further was necessary to the rationalistic interpretation1 which not only with modern supranaturalism regards as incredible the unconscious efflux of curative power from ,jesus1 but also denies in general any efflux of such power1 and yet wishes to preserve unattainted the historical veracity of the ,evangelists4 ,according to this system1 ,jesus was led to ask who touched him1 solely because he felt himself held back in his progress2 the assertion that consciousness of a departure of power1 1 was the cause of his question1 is a mere inference of the two narrators1 of whom the one1 ,mark1 actually gives it as his own observation2 and it is only ,luke who incorporates it with the question of ,jesus4 ,the cure of the woman was effected by means of her exalted confidence1 in consequence of which when she touched the hem of ,jesus she was seized with a violent shuddering in her whole nervous system1 which probably caused a sudden contraction of the relaxed vessels2 at the first moment she could only believe1 not certainly know that she was cured1 and only by degrees1 probably after the use of means recommended to her by ,jesus1 did the malady entirely cease4 #acah ,but who can represent to himself the timid touch of a sick woman whose design was to remain concealed1 and whose faith rendered her certain of obtaining a cure by the slightest touch1 as a grasp which arrested the progress of ,jesus1 pressed upon as he was1 according to ,mark and ,luke1 by the crowd8 ,further1 what a vast conception of the power of confidence is demanded by the opinion1 that it healed a disease of twelve years' duration without the concurrence of any real force on the part of ,jesus6 ,lastly1 if the ,evangelists are supposed to have put into the mouth of ,jesus an inference of their own 7that healing efficacy had gone out of him7--if they are supposed to have described a gradual cure as an instantaneous one2 then1 with the renunciation of these particulars all warrant for the historical reality of the entire narrative falls to the ground1 and at the same time all necessity for troubling ourselves with the natural interpretation4 ,in fact1 if we only examine the narrative before us somewhat more closely1 and compare it with kindred anecdotes1 we cannot remain in doubt as to its proper character4 ,as here and in some other passages it is narrated of ,jesus1 that the sick were cured by the bare touch of his clothes3 so in the ,acts we are told that the handkerchiefs and aprons of ,paul cured all kinds of sick persons to whom they were applied 7xix4 #aa f471 and that the very shadow of ,peter was believed to have the same efficacy 7v4 #ae72 while the apocryphal gospels represent a mass of cures to have been wrought by means of the swaddling bands of the infant ,jesus1 and the water in which he was washed4 #acai ,in reading these last histories1 every one knows that he is in the realm of fiction and legend2 but wherein are the cures wrought by the pocket-handkerchiefs of ,paul to be distinguished from those wrought by the swaddling bands of ,jesus1 unless it be that the latter proceeded from a child1 the former from a man8 ,it is certain that if the story relative to ,paul were not found in a canonical book1 every one would deem it fabulous1 and yet the credibility of the narratives should not be concluded from the assumed origin of the book which contains them1 but on the contrary1 our judgment of the book must be founded on the nature of its particular narratives4 ,but again1 between these cures by the pocket-handkerchiefs and those by the touch of the hem of the garment1 there is no essential distinction4 ,in both cases we have the contact of objects which are in a merely external connexion with the worker of the miracle2 with the single difference1 that this connexion is with regard to the pocket-handkerchiefs an interrupted one1 with regard to the clothes a continuous one2 in both cases again1 results which1 even according to the orthodox view1 are only derived from the spiritual nature of the men in question1 and are to be regarded as acts of their will in virtue of its union with the divine1 are reduced to physical effects and effluxes4 ,the subject thus descends from the religious and theological sphere to the natural and physical1 because a man with a power of healing resident in his body1 and floating as an atmosphere around him1 would belong to the objects of natural science1 and not of religion4 ,but natural science is not able to accredit such a healing power by sure analogies or clear definitions2 hence these cures1 being driven from the objective to the subjective region1 must receive their explanation from psychology4 ,now psychology1 taking into account the power of imagination and of faith1 will certainly allow the possibility that without a real curative power in the reputed miracle-worker1 solely by the strong confidence of the diseased person that he possesses this power1 bodily maladies which have a close connexion with the nervous system may be cured3 but when we seek for historical vouchers for this possibility1 criticism1 which must here be called to aid1 will soon show that a far greater number of such cures has been invented by the faith of others1 than has been performed by the parties alleged to be concerned4 ,thus it is in itself by no means impossible1 that through strong faith in the healing power residing even in the clothes and handkerchiefs of ,jesus and the apostles1 many sick persons on touching these articles were conscious of real benefit2 but it is at least equally probable1 that only after the death of these men1 when their fame in the church was ever on the increase1 anecdotes of this kind were believingly narrated1 and it depends on the nature of the accounts1 for which of the two alternatives we are to decide4 ,in the general statement in the ,gospels and the ,acts1 which speak of whole masses having been cured in the above way1 this accumulation at any rate is traditional4 ,as to the detailed history which we have been examining1 in its representation that the woman had suffered twelve years from a very obstinate disease1 and one the least susceptible of merely psychical influence1 and that the cure was performed by power consciously emitted from ,jesus1 instead of by the imagination of the patient3 so large a portion betrays itself to be mythical that we can no longer discern any historical elements1 and must regard the whole as legendary4 ,it is not difficult to see what might give rise to this branch of the evangelical miraculous legend1 in distinction from others4 ,the faith of the popular mind1 dependent on the senses1 and incapable of apprehending the divine through the medium of thought alone1 strives perpetually to draw it down into material existence4 ,hence1 according to a later opinion1 the saint must continue to work miracles when his bones are distributed as relics1 and the body of ,christ must be present in the transubstantiated host2 hence also1 according to an idea developed much earlier1 the curative power of the men celebrated in the ,new ,testament must be attached to their body and its coverings4 ,the less the church retained of the words of ,jesus1 the more tenaciously she clung to the efficacy of his mantle1 and the further she was removed from the free spiritual energy of the apostle ,paul1 the more consolatory was the idea of carrying home his curative energy in a pocket-handkerchief4 #ih4 ,,cures ,,at ,a ,,distance4 ,the cures performed at a distance are1 properly speaking1 the opposite of these involuntary cures4 ,the latter are effected by mere corporeal contact without a special act of the will2 the former solely by the act of the will without corporeal contact1 or even local proximity4 ,but there immediately arises this objection3 if the curative power of ,jesus was so material that it dispensed itself involuntarily at a mere touch1 it cannot have been so spiritual that the simple will could convey it over considerable distances2 or conversely1 if it was so spiritual as to act apart from bodily presence1 it cannot have been so material as to dispense itself independently of the will4 ,since we have pronounced the purely physical mode of influence in ,jesus to be improbable1 free space is left to us for the purely spiritual1 and our decision on the latter will therefore depend entirely on the examination of the narratives and the facts themselves4 ,as proofs that the curative power of ,jesus acted thus at a distance1 ,matthew and ,luke narrate to us the cure of the sick servant of a centurion at ,capernaum1 ,john that of the son of a nobleman 1 at the same place 7,matt4 viii4 #e ff42 ,luke vii4 #a ff42 ,john iv4 #df ff472 and again ,matthew 7xv4 #bb ff471 and ,mark 7vii4 #be ff471 that of the daughter of the ,canaanitish woman4 ,of these examples1 as in the summary narration of the last there is nothing peculiar1 we have here to consider the two first only4 ,the common opinion is1 that ,matthew and ,luke do indeed narrate the same fact1 but ,john one distinct from this1 since his narrative differs from that of the two others in the following particulars3 firstly1 the place from which ,jesus cures1 is in the synoptical gospels the place where the sick man resides1 ,capernaum1--in ,john a different one1 namely1 ,cana2 secondly1 the time at which the synoptists lay the incident1 namely1 when ,jesus is in the act of returning home after his ,sermon on the ,mount1 is different from that assigned to it in the fourth gospel1 which is immediately after the return of ,jesus from the first passover and his ministry in ,samaria2 thirdly1 the sick person is according to the former the slave1 according to the latter the son of the suppliant2 but the most important divergencies are those which relate1 fourthly1 to the suppliant himself1 for in the first and third gospels he is a military person 7an 71 in the fourth a person in office at court 771 according to the former 7,matt4 v4 #aj ff471 a ,gentile1 according to the latter without doubt a ,jew2 above all1 the synoptists make ,jesus eulogize him as a pattern of the most fervent1 humble faith1 because1 in the conviction that ,jesus could cure at a distance1 he prevented him from going to his house2 whereas in ,john1 on the contrary1 he is blamed for his weak faith which required signs and wonders1 because he thought the presence of ,jesus in his house necessary for the purpose of the cure4 #acbj ,these divergencies are certainly important enough to be a reason1 with those who regard them from a certain point of view1 for maintaining the distinction of the fact lying at the foundation of the synoptical narratives from that reported by ,john3 only this accuracy of discrimination must be carried throughout1 and the diversities between the two synoptical narratives themselves must not be overlooked4 ,first1 even in the designation of the person of the patient they are not perfectly in unison2 ,luke calls him 1 a servant who was dear to the centurion2 in ,matthew1 the latter calls him 1 which may equally mean either a son or a servant1 and as the centurion when speaking 7v4 #i7 of his servant1 uses the word 1 while the cured individual is again 7v4 #ac7 spoken of as 1 it seems most probable that the former sense was intended4 ,with respect to his disease1 the man is described by ,matthew as a paralytic grievously tormented2 ,luke is not only silent as to this species of disease1 but he is thought by many to presuppose a different one1 since after the indefinite expression 1 being ill1 he adds1 1 was ready to die1 and paralysis is not generally a rapidly fatal malady4 #acba ,but the most important difference is one which runs through the entire narrative1 namely1 that all which according to ,matthew the centurion does in his own person1 is in ,luke done by messengers1 for here in the first instance he makes the entreaty1 not personally1 as in ,matthew1 but through the medium of the ,jewish elders1 and when he afterwards wishes to prevent ,jesus from entering his house1 he does not come forward himself1 but commissions some friends to act in his stead4 ,to reconcile this difference1 it is usual to refer to the rule3 quod quis per alium facit1 etc4 #acbb ,if then it be said1 and indeed no other conception of the matter is possible to expositors who make such an appeal1--,matthew well knew that between the centurion and ,jesus everything was transacted by means of deputies1 but for the sake of brevity1 he employed the figure of speech above alluded to1 and represented him as himself accosting ,jesus3 ,storr is perfectly right in his opposing remark1 that scarcely any historian would so perseveringly carry that metonymy through an entire narrative1 especially in a case where1 on the one hand1 the figure of speech is by no means so obvious as when1 for example1 that is ascribed to a general which is done by his soldiers2 and where1 on the other hand1 precisely this point1 whether the person acted for himself or through others1 is of some consequence to a full estimate of his character4 #acbc ,with laudable consistency1 therefore1 ,storr1 as he believed it necessary to refer the narrative of the fourth gospel to a separate fact from that of the first and third1 on account of the important differences2 so1 on account of the divergencies which he found between the two last1 pronounces these also to be narratives of two separate events4 ,if any one wonder that at three different times so entirely similar a cure should have happened at the same place 7for according to ,john also1 the patient lay and was cured at ,capernaum71 ,storr on his side wonders how it can be regarded as in the least improbable that in ,capernaum at two different periods two centurions should have had each a sick servant1 and that again at another time a nobleman should have had a sick son at the same place2 that the second centurion 7,luke7 should have heard the history of the first1 have applied in a similar manner to ,jesus1 and sought to surpass his example of humility1 as the first centurion 7,matthew71 to whom the earlier history of the nobleman 7,john7 was known1 wished to surpass the weak faith of the latter2 and lastly1 that ,jesus cured all the three patients in the same manner at a distance4 ,but the incident of a distinguished official person applying to ,jesus to cure a dependent or relative1 and of ,jesus at a distance operating on the latter in such a manner1 that about the time in which ,jesus pronounced the curative word1 the patient at home recovered1 is so singular in its kind that a threefold repetition of it may be regarded as impossible1 and even the supposition that it occurred twice only1 has difficulties2 hence it is our task to ascertain whether the three narratives may not be traced to a single root4 ,now the narrative of the fourth ,evangelist which is most generally held to be distinct1 has not only an affinity with the synoptical narratives in the outline already given2 but in many remarkable details either one or the other of the synoptists agrees more closely with ,john than with his fellow synoptist4 ,thus1 while in designating the patient as 1 ,matthew may be held to accord with the of ,john1 at least as probably as with the of ,luke2 ,matthew and ,john decidedly agree in this1 that according to both the functionary at ,capernaum applies in his own person to ,jesus1 and not as in ,luke by deputies4 ,on the other hand1 the account of ,john agrees with that of ,luke in its description of the state of the patient2 in neither is there any mention of the paralysis of which ,matthew speaks1 but the patient is described as near death1 in ,luke by the words 1 in ,john by 1 in addition to which it is incidentally implied in the latter1 v4 #eb1 that the disease was accompanied by a fever1 4 ,in the account of the manner in which ,jesus effected the cure of the patient1 and in which his cure was made known1 ,john stands again on the side of ,matthew in opposition to ,luke4 ,while namely1 the latter has not an express assurance on the part of ,jesus that the servant was healed1 the two former make him say to the officer1 in very similar terms1 the one1 1 1 ,go thy way1 and as thou hast believed so shall it be done unto thee1 the other1 1 1 ,go thy way1 thy son liveth2 and the conclusion of ,matthew also1 1 has at least in its form more resemblance to the statement of ,john1 that by subsequent inquiry the father ascertained it to be 1 at the same hour in which ,jesus had spoken the word that his son had begun to amend1 than to the statement of ,luke1 that the messengers when they returned found the sick man restored to health4 ,in another point of this conclusion1 however1 the agreement with ,john is transferred from ,matthew again to ,luke4 ,in both ,luke and ,john1 namely1 a kind of embassy is spoken of1 which towards the close of the narrative comes out of the house of the officer2 in the former it consists of the centurion's friends1 whose errand it is to dissuade ,jesus from giving himself unnecessary trouble2 in the latter1 of servants who rejoicingly meet their master and bring him the news of his son's recovery4 ,unquestionably where three narratives are so thoroughly entwined with each other as these1 we ought not merely to pronounce two of them identical and allow one to stand for a distinct fact1 but must rather either distinguish all1 or blend all into one4 ,the latter course was adopted by ,semler1 after older examples1 #acbd and ,tholuck has at least declared it possible4 ,but with such expositors the next object is so to explain the divergencies of the three narratives1 that no one of the ,evangelists may seem to have said anything false4 ,with respect to the rank of the applicant1 they make the in ,john a military officer1 for whom the of the two others would only be a more specific designation2 as regards the main point1 however1 namely1 the conduct of the applicant1 it is thought that the different narrators may have represented the event in different periods of its progress2 that is1 ,john may have given the earlier circumstance1 that ,jesus complained of the originally weak faith of the suppliant1 the synoptists only the later1 that he praised its rapid growth4 ,we have already shown how it has been supposed possible1 in a yet easier manner1 to adjust the chief difference between the two synoptical accounts relative to the mediate or immediate entreaty4 ,but this effort to explain the contradictions between the three narratives in a favourable manner is altogether vain4 ,there still subsist these difficulties3 the synoptists thought of the applicant as a centurion1 the fourth ,evangelist as a courtier2 the former as strong1 the latter as weak in faith2 ,john and ,matthew imagined that he applied in his own person to ,jesus2 ,luke1 that out of modesty he sent deputies4 #acbe ,which then represents the fact in the right way1 which in the wrong8 ,if we take first the two synoptists by themselves1 expositors with one voice declare that ,luke gives the more correct account4 ,first of all1 it is thought improbable that the patient should have been1 as ,matthew says1 a paralytic1 since in the case of a disease so seldom fatal the modest centurion would scarcely have met ,jesus to implore his aid immediately on his entrance into the city3 #acbf as if a very painful disease such as is described by ,matthew did not render desirable the quickest help1 and as if there were any want of modesty in asking ,jesus before he reached home to utter a healing word4 ,rather1 the contrary relation between ,matthew and ,luke seems probable from the observation1 that the miracle1 and consequently also the disease of the person cured miraculously1 is never diminished in tradition but always exaggerated2 hence the tormented paralytic would more probably be heightened into one ready to die1 1 than the latter reduced to a mere sufferer4 ,but especially the double message in ,luke is1 according to ,schleiermacher1 a feature very unlikely to have been invented4 ,how if1 on the contrary1 it very plainly manifested itself to be an invention8 ,while in ,matthew the centurion1 on the offer of ,jesus to accompany him1 seeks to prevent him by the objection3 ,lord1 ,i am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof1 in ,luke he adds by the mouth of his messenger1 wherefore neither thought ,i myself worthy to come unto thee1 by which we plainly discover the conclusion on which the second embassy was founded4 ,if the man declared himself unworthy that ,jesus should come to him1 he cannot1 it was thought1 have held himself worthy to come to ,jesus2 an exaggeration of his humility by which the narrative of ,luke again betrays its secondary character4 ,the first embassy seems to have originated in the desire to introduce a previous recommendation of the centurion as a motive for the promptitude with which ,jesus offered to enter the house of a ,gentile4 ,the ,jewish elders1 after having informed ,jesus of the case of disease1 add that he was worthy for whom he should do this1 for he loveth our nation and has built us a synagogue3 a recommendation the tenor of which is not unlike what ,luke 7,acts x4 #bb7 makes the messengers of ,cornelius say to ,peter to induce him to return with them1 namely1 that the centurion was a just man1 and one that feareth ,god1 and in good report among all the nation of the ,jews4 ,that the double embassy cannot have been original1 appears the most clearly from the fact1 that by it the narrative of ,luke loses all coherence4 ,in ,matthew all hangs well together3 the centurion first describes to ,jesus the state of the sufferer1 and either leaves it to ,jesus to decide what he shall next do1 or before he prefers his request ,jesus anticipates him by the offer to go to his house1 which the centurion declines in the manner stated4 ,compare with this his strange conduct in ,luke3 he first sends to ,jesus by the ,jewish elders the request that he will come and heal his servant1 but when ,jesus is actually coming1 repents that he has occasioned him to do so1 and asks only for a miraculous word from ,jesus4 ,the supposition that the first request proceeded solely from the elders and not from the centurion #acbg runs counter to the express words of the ,evangelist1 who by the expressions3 ---- 1 he sent--the elders--beseeching him1 represents the prayer as coming from the centurion himself2 and that the latter by the word meant only that ,jesus should come into the neighbourhood of his house1 but when he saw that ,jesus intended actually to enter his house1 declined this as too great a favour1--is too absurd a demeanour to attribute to a man who otherwise appears sensible1 and of whom for this reason so capricious a change of mind as is implied in the text of ,luke1 was still less to be expected4 ,the whole difficulty would have been avoided1 if ,luke had put into the mouth of the first messengers1 as ,matthew in that of the centurion1 only the entreaty1 direct or indirect1 for a cure in general2 and then after ,jesus had offered to go to the house where the patient lay1 had attributed to the same messengers the modest rejection of this offer4 ,but on the one hand1 he thought it requisite to furnish a motive for the resolution of ,jesus to go into the ,gentile's house2 and on the other1 tradition presented him with a deprecation of this personal trouble on the part of ,jesus3 he was unable to attribute the prayer and the deprecation to the same persons1 and he was therefore obliged to contrive a second embassy4 ,hereby1 however1 the contradiction was only apparently avoided1 since both embassies are sent by the centurion4 ,perhaps also the centurion who was unwilling that ,jesus should take the trouble to enter his house1 reminded ,luke of the messenger who warned ,jairus not to trouble the master to enter his house1 likewise after an entreaty that he would come into the house2 and as the messenger says to ,jairus1 according to him and ,mark1 1 trouble not the master 7,luke viii4 #di71 so here he puts into the mouth of the second envoys1 the words1 1 ,lord1 trouble not thyself1 although such an order has a reason only in the case of ,jairus1 in whose house the state of things had been changed since the first summons by the death of his daughter1 and none at all in that of the centurion whose servant still remained in the same state4 ,modern expositors are deterred from the identification of all the three narratives1 by the fear that it may present ,john in the light of a narrator who has not apprehended the scene with sufficient accuracy1 and has even mistaken its main drift4 #acbh ,were they nevertheless to venture on a union1 they would as far as possible vindicate to the fourth gospel the most original account of the facts2 a position of which we shall forthwith test the security1 by an examination of the intrinsic character of the narratives4 ,that the suppliant is according to the fourth ,evangelist a 1 while according to the two others he is an 1 is an indifferent particular from which we can draw no conclusion on either side2 and it may appear to be the same with the divergency as to the relation of the diseased person to the one who entreats his cure4 ,if1 however1 it be asked with reference to the last point1 from which of the three designations the other two could most easily have arisen8 it can scarcely be supposed that the of ,john became in a descending line1 first the doubtful term 1 and then 2 and even the reverse ascending order is here less probable than the intermediate alternative1 that out of the ambiguous 7 7 there branched off in one direction the sense of servant1 as in ,luke2 in the other1 of son1 as in ,john4 ,we have already remarked1 that the description of the patient's state in ,john1 as well as in ,luke1 is an enhancement on that in ,matthew1 and consequently of later origin4 ,as regards the difference in the locality1 from the point of view now generally taken in the comparative criticism of the gospels1 the decision would doubtless be1 that in the tradition from which the synoptical writers drew1 the place from which ,jesus performed the miracles was confounded with that in which the sick person lay1 the less noted ,cana being absorbed in the celebrated ,capernaum2 whereas ,john1 being an eye-witness1 retained the more correct details4 ,but the relation between the ,evangelists appears to stand thus only when ,john is assumed to have been an eye-witness2 if the critic seeks1 as he is bound to do1 to base his decision solely on the intrinsic character of the narratives1 he will arrive at a totally different result4 ,here is a narrative of a cure performed at a distance1 in which the miracle appears the greater1 the wider the distance between the curer and the cured4 ,would oral tradition1 in propagating this narrative1 have the tendency to diminish that distance1 and consequently the miracle1 so that in the account of ,john1 who makes ,jesus perform the cure at a place from which the nobleman does not reach his son until the following day1 we should have the original narrative1 in that of the synoptists on the contrary1 who represent ,jesus as being in the same town with the sick servant1 the one modified by tradition8 ,only the converse of this supposition can be held accordant with the nature of the legend1 and here again the narrative of ,john manifests itself to be a traditional one4 ,again1 the preciseness with which the hour of the patient's recovery is ascertained in the fourth gospel has a highly fictitious appearance4 ,the simple expression of ,matthew1 usually found at the conclusion of histories of cures3 he was healed in the self-same hour1 is dilated into an inquiry on the part of the father as to the hour in which the son began to amend1 an answer from the servants that yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him1 and lastly the result1 that in the very hour in which ,jesus had said1 ,thy son liveth1 the recovery took place4 ,this is a solicitous accuracy1 a tediousness of calculation1 that seems to bespeak the anxiety of the narrator to establish the miracle1 rather than to show the real course of the event4 ,in representing the as conversing personally with ,jesus1 the fourth gospel has preserved the original simplicity of the narrative better than the third2 though as has been remarked1 the servants who come to meet their master in the former seem to be representatives of ,luke's second embassy4 ,but in the main point of difference1 relative to the character of the applicant1 it might be thought that1 even according to our own standard1 the preference must be given to ,john before the two other narrators4 ,for if that narrative is the more legendary1 which exhibits an effort at aggrandizement or embellishment1 it might be said that the applicant whose faith is in ,john rather weak1 is in ,luke embellished into a model of faith4 ,it is not1 however1 on embellishment in general that legend or the inventive narrator is bent1 but on embellishment in subservience to their grand object1 which in the gospels is the glorification of ,jesus2 and viewed in this light1 the embellishment will in two respects be found on the side of ,john4 ,first1 as this ,evangelist continually aims to exhibit the pre-eminence of ,jesus1 by presenting a contrast to it in the weakness of all who are brought into communication with him1 so here this purpose might be served by representing the suppliant as weak rather than strong in faith4 ,the reply1 however1 which he puts into the mouth of ,jesus1 ,unless ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe1 has proved too severe1 for which reason it reduces most of our commentators to perplexity4 ,secondly1 it might seem unsuitable that ,jesus should allow himself to be diverted from his original intention of entering the house in which the patient was1 and thus appear to be guided by external circumstances2 it might be regarded as more consistent with his character that he should originally resolve to effect the cure at a distance instead of being persuaded to this by another4 ,if then1 as tradition said1 the suppliant did nevertheless make a kind of remonstrance1 this must have had an opposite drift to the one in the synoptical gospels1 namely1 to induce ,jesus to a journey to the house where the patient lay4 ,in relation to the next question1 the possibility and the actual course of the incident before us1 the natural interpretation seems to find the most pliant material in the narrative of ,john4 ,here1 it is remarked1 ,jesus nowhere says that he will effect the patient's cure1 he merely assures the father that his son is out of danger 7 71 and the father1 when he finds that the favourable turn of his son's malady coincides with the time at which he was conversing with ,jesus1 in no way draws the inference that ,jesus had wrought the cure at a distance4 ,hence1 this history is only a proof that ,jesus by means of his profound acquaintance with semeiology1 was able1 on receiving a description of the patient's state1 correctly to predict the course of his disease2 that such a description is not here given is no proof that ,jesus had not obtained it2 while further this proof of knowledge is called a 7v4 #ed7 because it was a sign of a kind of skill in ,jesus which ,john had not before intimated1 namely1 the ability to predict the cure of one dangerously ill4 #acbi ,but1 apart from the misinterpretation of the word 1 and the interpolation of a conversation not intimated in the text2 this view of the matter would place the character and even the understanding of ,jesus in the most equivocal light4 ,for if we should pronounce a physician imprudent1 who in the case of a patient believed to be dying of fever1 should even from his own observation of the symptoms1 guarantee a cure1 and thus risk his reputation3 how much more rashly would ,jesus have acted1 had he1 on the mere description of a man who was not a physician1 given assurance that a disease was attended with no danger8 ,we cannot ascribe such conduct to him1 because it would be in direct contradiction with his general conduct1 and the impression which he left on his cotemporaries4 ,if then ,jesus merely predicted the cure without effecting it1 he must have been assured of it in a more certain manner than by natural reasoning1--he must have known it in a supernatural manner4 ,this is the turn given to the narrative by one of the most recent commentators on the gospel of ,john4 ,he puts the question1 whether we have here a miracle of knowledge or of power2 and as there is no mention of an immediate effect from the words of ,jesus1 while elsewhere in the fourth gospel the superior knowledge of ,jesus is especially held up to our view1 he is of opinion that ,jesus1 by means of his higher nature1 merely knew that at that moment the dangerous crisis of the disease was past4 #accj ,but if our gospel frequently exhibits the superior knowledge of ,jesus1 this proves nothing to the purpose1 for it just as frequently directs our attention to his superior power4 ,further1 where the supernatural knowledge of ,jesus is concerned1 this is plainly stated 7as i4 #di1 ii4 #be1 vi4 #fd71 and hence if a supernatural cognizance of the already effected cure of the boy had been intended1 ,john would have made ,jesus speak on this occasion as he did before to ,nathanael1 and tell the father that he already saw his son on his bed in an ameliorated state4 ,on the contrary1 not only is there no intimation of the exercise of superior knowledge1 but we are plainly enough given to understand that there was an exercise of miraculous power4 ,when the sudden cure of one at the point of death is spoken of1 the immediate question is1 ,what brought about this unexpected change8 and when a narrative which elsewhere makes miracles follow on the word of its hero1 puts into his mouth an assurance that the patient lives1 it is only the mistaken effort to diminish the marvellous1 which can prevent the admission1 that in this assurance the author means to give the cause of the cure4 ,in the case of the synoptical narratives1 the supposition of a mere prediction will not suffice1 since here the father 7,matt4 v4 #h7 entreats the exercise of healing power1 and ,jesus 7v4 #ac71 accedes to this entreaty4 ,hence every way would seem to be closed to the natural interpretation 7for the distance of ,jesus from the patient made all physical or psychical influence impossible71 if a single feature in the narrative had not presented unexpected help4 ,this feature is the comparison which the centurion institutes between himself and ,jesus4 ,as he need only speak a word in order to see this or that command performed by his soldiers and servants1 so1 he concludes1 it would cost ,jesus no more than a word to restore his servant to health4 ,out of this comparison it has been found possible to extract an intimation that as on the side of the centurion1 so on that of ,jesus1 human proxies were thought of4 ,according to this1 the centurion intended to represent to ,jesus1 that he need only speak a word to one of his disciples1 and the latter would go with him and cure his servant1 which is supposed to have forthwith happened4 #acca ,but as this would be the first instance in which ,jesus had caused a cure to be wrought by his disciples1 and the only one in which he commissions them immediately to perform a particular cure1 how could this peculiar circumstance be silently presupposed in the otherwise detailed narrative of ,luke8 ,why1 since this narrator is not sparing in spinning out the rest of the messenger's speech1 does he stint the few words which would have explained all--the simple addition after 1 speak the word1 of 1 to one of thy disciples1 or something similar8 ,but1 above all1 at the close of the narrative1 where the result is told1 this mode of interpretation falls into the greatest perplexity1 not merely through the silence of the narrator1 but through his positive statement4 ,luke1 namely1 concludes with the information that when the friends of the centurion returned into the house1 they found the servant already recovered4 ,now1 if ,jesus had caused the cure by sending with the messengers one or more of his disciples1 the patient could only begin gradually to be better after the disciples had come into the house with the messengers2 he could not have been already well on their arrival4 ,paulus indeed supposes that the messengers lingered for some time listening to the discourse of ,jesus1 and that thus the disciples arrived before them2 but how the former could so unnecessarily linger1 and how the ,evangelist could have been silent on this point as well as on the commission of the disciples1 he omits to explain4 ,whether instead of the disciples1 we hold that which corresponds on the side of ,jesus to the soldiers of the centurion to be demons of disease1 #accb ministering angels1 #accc or merely the word and the curative power of ,jesus2 #accd in any case there remains to us a miracle wrought at a distance4 ,this kind of agency on the part of ,jesus is1 according to the admission even of such commentators as have not generally any repugnance to the miraculous1 attended with special difficulty1 because from the want of the personal presence of ,jesus1 and its beneficial influence on the patient1 we are deprived of every possibility of rendering the cure conceivable by means of an analogy observable in nature4 #acce ,according to ,olshausen1 indeed1 this distant influence has its analogies2 namely1 in animal magnetism4 #accf ,i will not directly contest this1 but only point out the limits within which1 so far as my knowledge extends1 this phenomenon confines itself in the domain of animal magnetism4 ,according to our experience hitherto1 the cases in which one person can exert an influence over another at a distance are only two3 first1 the magnetizer or an individual in magnetic relation to him can act thus on the somnambule1 but this distant action must always be preceded by immediate contact1--a preliminary which is not supposed in the relation of ,jesus to the patient in our narrative2 secondly1 such an influence is found to exist in persons who are themselves somnambules1 or otherwise under a disordered state of the nerves3 neither of which descriptions can apply to ,jesus4 ,if thus such a cure of distant persons as is ascribed to ,jesus in our narratives1 far outsteps the extreme limits of natural causation1 as exhibited in magnetism and the kindred phenomena2 then must ,jesus have been1 so far as the above narratives can lay claim to historical credit1 a supernatural being4 ,but before we admit him to have been so really1 it is worth our while as critical inquirers1 ta examine whether the narrative under consideration could not have arisen without any historical foundation2 especially as by the very fact of the various forms which it has taken in the different gospels it shows itself to contain legendary ingredients4 ,and here it is evident that the miraculous cures of ,jesus by merely touching the patient1 such as we have examples of in that of the leper1 ,matt4 viii4 #c1 and in that of the blind men1 ,matt4 ix4 #bi1 might by a natural climax rise1 first into the cure of persons when in his presence1 by a mere word1 as in the case of the demoniacs1 of the lepers1 ,luke xvii4 #ad1 and other sufferers2 and then into the cure even of the absent by a word2 of which there is a strongly marked precedent in the ,old ,testament4 ,in #b ,kings v4 #i ff4 we read that when the ,syrian general ,naaman came before the dwelling of the prophet ,elisha that he might be cured of his leprosy1 the prophet came not out to meet him1 but sent to him by a servant the direction to wash himself seven times in the river ,jordan4 ,at this the ,syrian was so indignant that he was about to return home without regarding the direction of the prophet4 ,he had expected1 he said1 that the prophet would come to him1 and calling on his ,god1 strike his hand over the leprous place2 that without any personal procedure of this kind1 the prophet merely directed him to go to the river ,jordan and wash1 discouraged and irritated him1 since if water were the thing required1 he might have had it better at home than here in ,israel4 ,by this ,old ,testament history we see what was ordinarily expected from a prophet1 namely1 that he should be able to cure when present by bodily contact2 that he could do so without contact1 and at a distance1 was not presupposed4 ,elisha effected the cure of the leprous general in the latter manner 7for the washing was not the cause of cure here1 any more than in ,john ix41 but the miraculous power of the prophet1 who saw fit to annex its influence to this external act71 and hereby proved himself a highly distinguished prophet3 ought then the ,messiah in this particular to fall short of the prophet8 ,thus our ,new ,testament narrative is manifested to be a necessary reflection of that ,old ,testament story4 ,as1 there1 the sick person will not believe in the possibility of his cure unless the prophet comes out of his house2 so here according to one edition of the story the applicant likewise doubts the possibility of a cure1 unless ,jesus will come in to his house2 according to the other editions1 he is convinced of the power of ,jesus to heal even without this2 and all agree that ,jesus1 like the prophet1 succeeded in the performance of this especially difficult miracle4 #ii4 ,,cures ,,on ,,the ,,sabbath4 ,jesus1 according to the gospels1 gave great scandal to the ,jews by not seldom performing his curative miracles on the sabbath4 ,one example of this is common to the three synoptical writers1 two are peculiar to ,luke1 and two to ,john4 ,in the narrative common to the three synoptical writers1 two cases of supposed desecration of the sabbath are united2 the plucking of the ears of corn by the disciples 7,matt4 xii4 #a parall471 and the cure of the man with the withered hand by ,jesus 7v4 #i ff4 parall474 ,after the conversation which was occasioned by the plucking of the corn1 and which took place in the fields1 the two first ,evangelists continue as if ,jesus went from this scene immediately into the synagogue of the same place1 to which no special designation is given1 and there1 on the occasion of the cure of the man with the withered hand1 again held a dispute on the observance of the sabbath4 ,it is evident that these two histories were originally united only on account of the similarity in their tendency2 hence it is to the credit of ,luke1 that he has expressly separated them chronologically by the words 1 on another ,sabbath4 #accg ,the further inquiry1 which narrative is here the more original8 we may dismiss with the observation1 that if the question which ,matthew puts into the mouth of the ,pharisees1 ,is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days8 is held up as a specimen of invented dialogue2 #acch we may with equal justice characterize in the same way the question lent to ,jesus by the two intermediate ,evangelists2 while their much praised #acci description of ,jesus calling to the man to stand forth in the midst1 and then casting reproving glances around1 may be accused of having the air of dramatic fiction4 ,the narratives all agree in representing the affliction under which the patient laboured1 as a 1 or 4 ,indefinite as this expression is1 it is treated too freely when it is understood1 as by ,paulus1 to imply only that the hand was injured by heat1 #acdj or even by a sprain1 according to ,venturini's supposition4 #acda ,for when1 in order to determine the signification in which this term is used in the ,new ,testament we refer1 as it is proper to do1 to the ,old ,testament1 we find 7#a ,kings xiii4 #d7 a hand which1 on being stretched out1 771 described as incapable of being drawn back again1 so that we must understand a lameness and rigidity of the hand2 and on a comparison of ,mark ix4 #ah1 where the expression to be withered or wasted away is applied to an epileptic1 a drying up and shrinking of that member4 #acdb ,now from the narrative before us a very plausible argument may be drawn in favour of the supposition1 that ,jesus employed natural means in the treatment of this and other diseases4 ,only such cures1 it is said1 were prohibited on the sabbath as were attended with any kind of labour2 thus1 if the ,pharisees1 as it is here said1 expected ,jesus to transgress the sabbatical laws by effecting a cure1 they must have known that he was not accustomed to cure by his mere word1 but by medicaments and surgical operations4 #acdc ,as1 however1 a cure merely by means of a conjuration otherwise lawful1 was forbidden on the sabbath1 a fact which ,paulus himself elsewhere adduces2 #acdd as moreover there was a controversy between the schools of ,hillel and ,schammai1 whether it were permitted even to administer consolation to the sick on the sabbath2 #acde and as again1 according to an observation of ,paulus1 the more ancient rabbins were stricter on the point of sabbatical observance than those whose writings on this subject have come down to us2 #acdf so the cures of ,jesus1 even supposing that he used no natural means1 might by captious ,pharisees be brought under the category of violations of the sabbath4 ,the principal objection to the rationalistic explanation1 namely1 the silence of the ,evangelists as to natural means1 ,paulus believes to be obviated in the present case by conceiving the scene thus3 at that time1 and in the synagogue1 there was indeed no application of such means2 ,jesus merely caused the hand to be shown to him1 that he might see how far the remedies hitherto prescribed by him 7which remedies however are still a bare assumption7 had been serviceable1 and he then found that it was completely cured2 for the expression 1 used by all the narrators1 implies a cure completed previously1 not one suddenly effected in the passing moment4 ,it is true that the context seems to require this interpretation1 since the outstretching of the hand prior to the cure would appear to be as little possible1 as in #a ,kings xiii4 #d1 the act of drawing it back3 nevertheless the ,evangelists give us only the word of ,jesus as the source of the cure2 not natural means1 which are the gratuitous addition of expositors4 #acdg ,decisive evidence1 alike for the necessity of viewing this as a miraculous cure1 and for the possibility of explaining the origin of the anecdote1 is to be obtained by a closer examination of the ,old ,testament narrative already mentioned1 #a ,kings xiii4 #a ff44 ,a prophet out of ,judah threatened ,jeroboam1 while offering incense on his idolatrous altar1 with the destruction of the altar and the overthrow of his false worship2 the king with outstretched hand commanded that this prophet of evil should be seized1 when suddenly his hand dried up so that he could not draw it again towards him1 and the altar was rent4 ,on the entreaty of the king1 however1 the prophet besought ,jehovah for the restoration of the hand1 and its full use was again granted4 #acdh ,paulus also refers to this narrative in the same connexion1 but only for the purpose of applying to it his natural method of explanation2 he observes that ,jeroboam's anger may have produced a transient convulsive rigidity of the muscles and so forth1 in the hand just stretched out with such impetuosity4 ,but who does not see that we have here a legend designed to glorify the monotheistic order of prophets1 and to hold up to infamy the ,israelitish idolatry in the person of its founder ,jeroboam8 ,the man of ,god denounces on the idolatrous altar quick and miraculous destruction2 the idolatrous king impiously stretches forth his hand against the man of ,god2 the hand is paralyzed1 the idolatrous altar falls asunder into the dust1 and only on the intercession of the prophet is the king restored4 ,who can argue about the miraculous and the natural in what is so evidently a mythus8 ,and who can fail to perceive in our evangelical narrative an imitation of this ,old ,testament legend1 except that agreeably to the spirit of ,christianity the withering of the hand appears1 not as a retributive miracle1 but as a natural disease1 and only its cure is ascribed to ,jesus2 whence also the outstretching of the hand is not1 as in the case of ,jeroboam1 the criminal cause of the infliction1 continued as a punishment1 and the drawing of it back again a sign of cure2 but1 on the contrary1 the hand which had previously been drawn inwards1 owing to disease1 can after the completion of the cure be again extended4 ,that1 in other instances1 about that period1 the power of working cures of this kind was in the ,east ascribed to the favourites of the gods1 may be seen from a narrative already adduced1 in which1 together with the cure of blindness1 the restoration of a diseased hand is attributed to ,vespasian4 #acdi ,but this curative miracle does not appear independently and as an object by itself3 the history of it hinges on the fact that the cure was wrought on the ,sabbath1 and the point of the whole lies in the words by which ,jesus vindicates his activity in healing on the ,sabbath against the ,pharisees4 ,in ,luke and ,mark this defence consists in the question1 ,is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days1 or to do evil1 to save life or to destroy it8 in ,matthew1 in a part of this question1 together with the aphorism on saving the sheep which might fall into the pit on the sabbath4 ,luke1 who has not this saying on the present occasion1 places it 7varied by the substitution of 1 an ass or an ox for sheep1 and of 1 well or pit for 1 ditch7 in connexion with the cure of an a man who had the dropsy 7xiv4 #e72 a narrative which has in general a striking similarity to the one under consideration4 ,jesus takes food in the house of one of the chief ,pharisees1 where1 as in the other instance in the synagogue1 he is watched 7here1 1 there1 74 ,a dropsical person is present2 as1 there1 a man with a withered hand4 ,in the synagogue1 according to ,matthew1 the ,pharisees ask ,jesus1 2 ,is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days8 ,according to ,mark and ,luke1 ,jesus asks them whether it be lawful to save life1 etc43 so1 here1 he asks them1 2 ,is it lawful to heal on the sabbath8 whereupon in both histories the interrogated parties are silent 7in that of the withered hand1 ,mark3 2 in that of the dropsical patient1 ,luke3 74 ,lastly1 in both histories we have the saying about the animal fallen into a pit1 in the one as an epilogue to the cure1 in the other 7that of ,matthew7 as a prologue4 ,a natural explanation1 which has not been left untried even with this cure of the dropsy1 #acej seems more than usually a vain labour1 where1 as in this case1 we have before us no particular narrative1 resting on its own historical basis1 but a mere variation on the theme of the sabbath cures1 and the text on the endangered domestic animal1 which might come to one 7,matthew7 in connexion with the cure of a withered hand1 to another 7,luke7 with the cure of a dropsical patient1 and to a third in a different connexion still2 for there is yet a third ,story of a miraculous cure with which a similar saying is associated4 ,luke1 namely1 narrates 7xiii4 #aj ff47 the cure of a woman bowed down by demoniacal influence1 as having been performed by ,jesus on the sabbath2 when to the indignant remonstrance of the ruler of the synagogue1 ,jesus replies by asking1 whether every one does not loose his ox or ass from the stall on the sabbath1 and lead him away to watering8 a question which is undeniably a variation of the one given above4 ,so entirely identical does this history appear with the one last named1 that ,schleiermacher comes to this conclusion3 since in the second there is no reference to the first1 and since consequently the repetition is not excused by confession1 the two passages ,luke xiii4 #aj1 and xiv4 #e1 cannot have been written one after the other by the same author4 #acea ,thus we have here1 not three different incidents1 but only three different frames in which legend has preserved the memorable and thoroughly popular aphorism on the domestic animal1 to be rescued or tended on the sabbath4 ,yet1 unless we would deny to ,jesus so original and appropriate an argument1 there must lie at the foundation a cure of some kind actually performed by him on the sabbath2 not1 however1 a miraculous one4 ,we have seen that ,luke unites the saying with the cure of a demoniacal patient3 now it might have been uttered by ,jesus on the occasion of one of those cures of demoniacs of which1 under certain limitations1 we have admitted the natural possibility4 ,or1 when ,jesus in cases of illness among his followers applied the usual medicaments without regard to the sabbath1 he may have found this appeal to the practical sense of men needful for his vindication4 ,or lastly1 if there be some truth in the opinion of rationalistic commentators that ,jesus1 according to the oriental and more particularly the ,essene custom1 occupied himself with the cure of the body as well as of the soul1 he may1 when complying with a summons to the former work on the sabbath1 have had occasion for such an apology4 ,but in adopting this last supposition1 we must not1 with these commentators1 seek in the particular supernatural cures which the gospels narrate1 the natural reality2 on the contrary1 we must admit that this is totally lost to us1 and that the supernatural has usurped its place4 #aceb ,further1 it cannot have been cures in general with which that saying of ,jesus was connected2 but any service performed by him or his disciples which might be regarded as a rescuing or preservation of life1 and which was accompanied by external labour1 might in his position with respect to the ,pharisaic party1 furnish an occasion for such a defence4 ,of the two cures on the sabbath narrated in the fourth gospel1 one has already been considered with the cures of the blind2 the other 7v4 #a ff47 might have been numbered among the cures of paralytics1 but as the patient is not so designated1 it was admissible to reserve it for our present head4 ,in the porches of the pool of ,bethesda in ,jerusalem1 ,jesus found a man who1 as it subsequently appears1 had been lame for thirty-eight years2 this sufferer he enables by a word to stand up and carry home his bed1 but1 as it was the sabbath1 he thus draws down on himself the hostility of the ,jewish hierarchy4 ,woolston #acec and many later writers have thought to get clear of this history in a singular manner1 by the supposition that ,jesus here did not cure a real sufferer but merely unmasked a hypocrite4 #aced ,the sole reason which can with any plausibility be urged in favour of this notion1 is that the cured man points out ,jesus to his enemies as the one who had commanded him to carry his bed on the sabbath 7v4 #ae2 comp4 #aa ff471 a circumstance which is only to be explained on the ground that ,jesus had enjoined what was unwelcome4 ,but that notification to the ,pharisees might equally be given1 either with a friendly intention1 as in the case of the man born blind 7,john ix4 #aa1 #be71 or at least with the innocent one of devolving the defence of the alleged violation of the sabbath on a stronger than himself4 #acee ,the ,evangelist at least gives it as his opinion that the man was really afflicted1 and suffered from a wearisome disease1 when he describes him as having had an infirmity thirty-eight years1 7v4 #e73 for the forced interpretation once put on this passage by ,paulus1 referring the thirty-eight years to the man's age1 and not to the duration of his disease1 he has not even himself ventured to reproduce4 #acef ,on this view of the incident it is also impossible to explain what ,jesus says to the cured man on a subsequent meeting 7v4 #ad73 ,behold thou art made whole2 sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee4 ,even ,paulus is compelled by these words to admit that the man had a real infirmity1 though only a trifling one3--in other words he is compelled to admit the inadequacy of the idea on which his explanation of the incident is based1 so that here again we retain a miracle1 and that not of the smallest4 ,in relation to the historical credibility of the narrative1 it may certainly be held remarkable that so important a sanative institution as ,bethesda is described to be by ,john1 is not mentioned either by ,josephus or the rabbins1 especially if the popular belief connected a miraculous cure with this pool3 #aceg but this affords nothing decisive4 ,it is true that in the description of the pool there lies a fabulous popular notion1 which appears also to have been received by the writer 7for even if v4 #d be spurious1 something similar is contained in the words 1 v4 #c1 and 1 v4 #g74 ,but this proves nothing against the truth of the narrative1 since even an eye-witness and a disciple of ,jesus may have shared a vulgar error4 ,to make credible1 however1 such a fact as that a man who had been lame eight-and-thirty years1 so that he was unable to walk1 and completely bed-ridden1 should have been perfectly cured by a word1 the supposition of psychological influence will not suffice1 for the man had no knowledge whatever of ,jesus1 v4 #ac2 nor will any physical analogy1 such as magnetism and the like1 serve the purpose3 but if such a result really happened1 we must exalt that by which it happened above all the limits of the human and the natural4 ,on the other hand1 it ought never to have been thought a difficulty #aceh that from among the multitude of the infirm waiting in the porches of the pool1 ,jesus selected one only as the object of his curative power1 since the cure of him whose sufferings had been of the longest duration was not only particularly adapted1 but also sufficient1 to glorify the miraculous power of the ,messiah4 ,nevertheless1 it is this very trait which suggests a suspicion that the narrative has a mythical character4 ,on a great theatre of disease1 crowded with all kinds of sufferers1 ,jesus1 the exalted and miraculously gifted physician1 appears and selects the one who is afflicted with the most obstinate malady1 that by his restoration he may present the most brilliant proof of his miraculous power4 ,we have already remarked that the fourth gospel1 instead of extending the curative agency of ,jesus over large masses and to a great variety of diseases1 as the synoptical gospels do1 concentrates it on a few cases which proportionately gain in intensity3 thus here1 in the narrative of the cure of a man who had been lame thirty-eight years1 it has far surpassed all the synoptical accounts of cures performed on persons with diseased limbs1 among whom the longest sufferer is described in ,luke xiii4 #aa1 only as a woman who had had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years4 ,without doubt the fourth ,evangelist had received some intimation 7though1 as we have gathered from other parts of his history1 it was far from precise7 of cures of this nature performed by ,jesus1 especially of that wrought on the paralytic1 ,matt4 ix4 #b ff4 parall41 for the address to the patient1 and the result of the cure are in this narrative in ,john almost verbally the same as in that case1 especially according to ,mark's account4 #acei ,there is even a vestige in this history of ,john1 of the circumstance that in the synoptical narrative the cure appears in the light of a forgiveness of sins3 for as ,jesus in the latter consoles the patient1 before the cure1 with the assurance1 thy sins are forgiven thee1 so in the former1 he warns him1 after the cure1 in the words1 sin no more1 etc4 ,for the rest1 this highly embellished history of a miraculous cure was represented as happening on the sabbath1 probably because the command to take up the bed which it contained appeared the most suitable occasion for the reproach of violating the sabbath4 #ajj4 ,,resuscitations ,,of ,,the ,,dead4 ,the ,evangelists tell us of three instances in which ,jesus recalled the dead to life4 ,one of these is common to the three synoptists1 one belongs solely to ,luke1 and one to ,john4 ,the instance which is common to the three first ,evangelists is the resuscitation of a girl1 and is in all the three gospels united with the narrative of the woman who had an issue of blood 7,matt4 ix4 #ah f42 #bc-bf2 ,mark v4 #bb ff42 ,luke viii4 #da ff474 ,in the more precise designation of the girl and her father1 the synoptical writers vary4 ,matthew introduces the father generally as a certain ruler1 without any name2 the two others as a ruler of the synagogue named ,jairus3 the latter moreover describe the girl as being twelve years old1 and ,luke states that she was the only child of her father2 particulars of which ,matthew is ignorant4 ,a more important difference is1 that according to ,matthew the ruler in the first instance speaks of his daughter to ,jesus as being dead1 and intreats him to restore her to life2 whereas according to the two other ,evangelists1 he left her while yet living1 though on the point of death1 that he might fetch ,jesus to avert her actual decease1 and first when ,jesus was on the way with him1 people came out of his house with the information that his daughter had in the meantime expired1 so that to trouble ,jesus further was in vain4 ,the circumstances of the resuscitation also are differently described1 for ,matthew knows not that ,jesus1 as the other ,evangelists state1 took with him only his three most confidential disciples as witnesses4 ,some theologians1 ,storr for example1 have thought these divergencies so important1 that they have supposed two different cases in which1 among other similar circumstances1 the daughter1 in one case of a civil ruler 7,matthew71 in the other1 of a ruler of the synagogue named ,jairus 7,mark and ,luke71 was raised from the dead by ,jesus4 #acfj ,but that1 as ,storr supposes1 and as it is inevitable to suppose on his view1 ,jesus not only twice resuscitated a girl1 but also on both these occasions1 healed a woman with an issue immediately before1 is a coincidence which does not at all gain in probability by the vague observation of ,storr1 that it is quite possible for very similar things to happen at different times4 ,if then it must be admitted that the ,evangelists narrate only one event1 the weak attempt to give perfect agreement to their narratives should be forborne4 ,for neither can the expression of ,matthew mean1 as ,kuinl maintains1 #acfa est morti proxima1 nor can that of ,mark1 1 or of ,luke 1 imply that death had already taken place3 not to mention that according to both1 the fact of the death is subsequently announced to the father as something new4 #acfb ,our more modern critics have wisely admitted a divergency between the accounts in doing which they have unanimously given the palm of superior accuracy to the intermediate ,evangelists4 ,some are lenient towards ,matthew1 and only attribute to his mode of narration a brevity which might belong even to the representation of an eye-witness2 #acfc while others regard this want of particularity as an indication that the first gospel had not an apostolic origin4 #acfd ,now that ,mark and ,luke give the name of the applicant1 on which ,matthew is silent1 and also that they determine his rank more precisely than the latter1 will just as well bear an unfavourable construction for them1 as the usual favourable one2 since the designation of persons by name1 as we have before remarked1 is not seldom an addition of the later legend4 ,for example1 the woman with the issue first receives the name of ,veronica in the tradition of ,john ,malala2 #acfe the ,canaanitish woman that of ,justa in the ,clementine ,homilies3 #acff and the two thieves crucified with ,jesus1 the names of ,gestas and ,demas in the ,gospel of ,nicodemus4 #acfg ,luke's 7one only daughter7 only serves to make the scene more touching1 and the twelve years of age1 he1 and after him ,mark1 might have borrowed from the history of the woman with the issue4 ,the divergency that1 according to ,matthew1 the maiden is spoken of in the first instance as dead1 according to the two others as only dying1 must have been considered very superficially by those who have thought it possible to turn it in accordance with our own rule to the disadvantage of ,matthew1 on the ground that his representation serves to aggrandize the miracle4 ,for in both the other gospels the death of the girl is subsequently announced1 and its being supposed in ,matthew to have occurred a few moments earlier is no aggrandizement of the miracle4 ,nay1 it is the reverse2 for the miraculous power of ,jesus appears greater in the former1 not indeed objectively1 but subjectively1 because it is heightened by contrast and surprise4 ,there1 where ,jesus is in the first instance intreated to restore the dead to life1 he does no more than what was desired of him2 here1 on the contrary1 where supplicated only for the cure of a sick person1 he actually brings that person to life again1 he does more than the interested parties seek or understand4 ,there1 where the power of awaking the dead is presupposed by the father to belong to ,jesus1 the extraordinary nature of such a power is less marked than here1 where the father at first only presupposes the power of healing the sick1 and when death has supervened1 is diverted from any further hope4 ,in the description of the arrival and the conduct of ,jesus in the house where the corpse lay1 ,matthew's brevity is at least clearer than the diffuse accounts of the two other ,evangelists4 ,matthew tells us that ,jesus1 having reached the house1 put forth the minstrels already assembled for the funeral1 together with the rest of the crowd1 on the ground that there would be no funeral there2 this is perfectly intelligible4 ,but ,mark and ,luke tell us besides that he excluded his disciples also1 with the exception of three1 from the scene about to take place1 and for this it is difficult to discover a reason4 ,that a greater number of spectators would have been physically or psychologically an impediment to the resuscitation1 can only be said on the supposition that the event was a natural one4 ,admitting the miracle1 the reason for the exclusion can only be sought in the want of fitness in the excluded parties1 whom1 however1 the sight of such a miracle would surely have been the very means to benefit4 ,but we must not omit to observe that the two later synoptists1 in opposition to the concluding statement of ,matthew that the fame of this event went abroad in the whole land1 represent ,jesus as enjoining the strictest silence on the witnesses3 so that on the whole it rather appears that ,mark and ,luke regarded the incident as a mystery1 to which only the nearest relatives and the most favoured disciples were admitted4 ,lastly1 the difference on which ,schulz insists as favourable to the second and third ,evangelists1 namely1 that while ,matthew makes ,jesus simply take the maiden by the hand1 they have preserved to us the words which he at the same time uttered1 the former even in the original language2--can either have no weight at all1 or it must fall into the opposite scale4 ,for that ,jesus1 if he said anything when recalling a girl to life1 made use of some such words as 1 maiden1 ,i say unto thee1 arise1 the most remote narrator might imagine1 and to regard the of ,mark as an indication that this ,evangelist drew from a peculiarly original source1 is to forget the more simple supposition that he translated these words from the ,greek of his informant for the sake of presenting the life giving word in its original foreign garb1 and thus enhancing its mysteriousness1 as we have before observed with reference to the in the cure of the deaf man4 ,after what we have seen we shall willingly abstain from finding out whether the individual who originally furnished the narrative in ,luke were one of the three confidential disciples1 and whether the one who originally related it1 also put it into writing3 a task to which only the acumen of ,schleiermacher is equal4 #acfh ,in relation to the facts of the case1 the natural interpretation speaks with more than its usual confidence1 under the persuasion that it has on its side the assurance of ,jesus himself1 that the maiden was not really dead1 but merely in a sleep-like swoon2 and not only rationalists1 like ,paulus1 and semi-rationalists1 like ,schleiermacher1 but also decided supranaturalists1 like ,olshausen1 believe1 on the strength of that declaration of ,jesus1 that this was no resuscitation of the dead4 #acfi ,the last-named commentator attaches especial importance to the antithesis in the speech of ,jesus1 and because the words 1 is not dead1 are followed by 1 but sleepeth1 is of opinion that the former expression cannot be interpreted to mean merely1 she is not dead1 since ,i have resolved to restore her to life2 strange criticism1--for it is precisely this addition which shows that she was only not dead1 in so far as it was in the power of ,jesus to recall her to life4 ,reference is also made to the declaration of ,jesus concerning ,lazarus1 ,john xi4 #ad1 1 ,lazarus is dead1 which is directly the reverse of the passage in question1 1 the damsel is not dead4 ,but ,jesus had before said of ,lazarus1 1 this sickness is not unto death 7v4 #d71 and 1 our friend ,lazarus sleepeth 7v4 #aa74 ,thus in the case of ,lazarus also1 who was really dead1 we have just as direct a denial of death1 and affirmation of mere sleep1 as in the narrative before us4 ,hence ,fritzsche is undoubtedly right when he paraphrases the words of ,jesus in our passage as follows3 puellam ne pro mortua habetote1 sed dormire existimatote quippe in vitam mox redituram4 ,moreover1 ,matthew subsequently 7xi4 #e7 makes ,jesus say1 1 the dead are raised up2 and as he mentions no other instance of resuscitation by ,jesus1 he must apparently have had this in his mind4 #acgj ,but apart from the false interpretation of the words of ,jesus1 this view of the subject has many difficulties4 ,that in many diseases conditions may present themselves which have a deceptive resemblance to death1 or that in the indifferent state of medical science among the ,jews of that age especially1 a swoon might easily be mistaken for death is not to be denied4 ,but how was ,jesus to know that there was such a merely apparent death in this particular case8 ,however minutely the father detailed to him the course of the disease1 nay1 even if ,jesus were acquainted beforehand with the particular circumstances of the girl's illness 7as the natural explanation supposes73 we must still ask1 how could he build so much on this information as1 without having seen the girl1 and in contradiction to the assurance of the eye-witnesses1 decidedly to declare that she was not dead1 according to the rationalistic interpretation of his words8 ,this would have been rashness and folly to boot1 unless ,jesus had obtained certain knowledge of the true state of the case in a supernatural way3 #acga to admit which1 however1 is to abandon the naturalistic point of view4 ,to return to the explanation of ,paulus2 between the expressions1 1 he took her by the hand1 and 1 the maid arose1 expressions which are closely enough connected in ,matthew1 and are still more inseparably linked by the words and in the other two gospels1 he inserts a course of medical treatment1 and ,venturini can even specify the different restoratives which were applied4 #acgb ,against such arbitrary suppositions1 ,olshausen justly maintains that in the opinion of the evangelical narrator the life-giving word of ,jesus 7and we might add1 the touch of his hand1 furnished with divine power7 was the means of restoring the girl to life4 ,in the case of resuscitation narrated by ,luke alone 7vii4 #aa ff47 the natural explanation has not such a handle as was presented by the declaration of ,jesus in the narrative just considered4 ,nevertheless1 the rationalistic commentators take courage1 and rest their hopes mainly on the circumstance that ,jesus speaks to the young man lying in the coffin 7v4 #ad74 ,now1 say they1 no one would speak to a dead person1 but only to such an one as is ascertained or guessed to be capable of hearing4 #acgc ,but this rule would prove that all the dead whom ,christ will raise at the last day are only apparently dead1 as otherwise they could not hear his voice1 which it is expressly said they will do 7,john v4 #bh2 comp4 #a ,thess4 iv4 #af72 it would therefore prove too much4 ,certainly one who is spoken to must be supposed to hear1 and in a certain sense to be living2 but in the present instance this holds only in so far as the voice of him who quickens the dead can penetrate even to the ears from which life has departed4 ,we must indeed admit the possibility that with the bad custom which prevailed among the ,jews of burying their dead a few hours after their decease1 a merely apparent corpse might easily be carried to the grave2 #acgd but all by which it is attempted to show that this possibility was here a reality1 is a tissue of fictions4 ,in order to explain how ,jesus1 even without any intention to perform a miracle1 came to join the funeral procession1 and how the conjecture could occur to him that the individual about to be buried was not really dead1 it is first imagined that the two processions1 that of the funeral and that of the companions of ,jesus1 met precisely under the gate of the city1 and as they impeded each other1 halted for a while3--directly in opposition to the text1 which makes the bearers first stand still when ,jesus touches the bier4 ,affected by the peculiar circumstances of the case1 which he had learned during the pause in his progress1 ,jesus1 it is said1 approached the mother1 and not with any reference to a resurrection which he intended to effect1 but merely as a consolatory address1 said to her1 ,weep not4 #acge ,but what an empty1 presuming comforter would he be1 who1 when a mother was about to consign her only son to the grave1 should forbid her even the relief of tears1 without offering to her either real help by recalling the departed one1 or ideal1 by suggesting grounds for consolation6 ,now the latter ,jesus does not attempt3 hence unless we would allow him to appear altogether heartless1 he must be supposed to have resolved on the former1 and for this he in fact makes every preparation1 designedly touching the bier1 and causing the bearers to stand still4 ,here1 before the reanimating word of ,jesus1 the natural explanation inserts the circumstance that ,jesus observed some sign of life in the youth1 and on this1 either immediately or after a previous application of medicaments1 #acgf spoke the words1 which helped completely to awake him4 ,but setting aside the fact that those intervening measures are only interpolated into the text1 and that the strong words3 1 1 1 ,young man1 ,i say unto thee arise6 resemble rather the authoritative command of a miracle worker than the attempt of a physician to restore animation2 how1 if ,jesus were conscious that the youth was alive when he met him1 and was not first recalled to life by himself1 could he with a good conscience receive the praise which1 according to the narrative1 the multitude lavished on him as a great prophet on account of this deed8 ,according to ,paulus1 he was himself uncertain how he ought to regard the result2 but if he were not convinced that he ought to ascribe the result to himself1 it was his duty to disclaim all praise on account of it2 and if he omitted to do this1 his conduct places him in an equivocal light1 in which he by no means appears in the other evangelical histories1 so far as they are fairly interpreted4 ,thus here also we must acknowledge that the ,evangelist intends to narrate to us a miraculous resuscitation of the dead1 and that according to him1 ,jesus also regarded his deed as a miracle4 #acgg ,in the third history of a resurrection1 which is peculiar to ,john 7chap4 xi471 the resuscitated individual is neither just dead nor being carried to his grave1 but has been already buried several days4 ,here one would have thought there was little hope of effecting a natural explanation2 but the arduousness of the task has only stimulated the ingenuity and industry of the rationalists in developing their conception of this narrative4 ,we shall also see that together with the rigorously consequent mode of interpretation of the rationalists1--which1 maintaining the historical integrity of the evangelical narrative throughout1 assumes the responsibility of explaining every part naturally1 there has appeared another system1 which distinguishes certain features of the narrative as additions after the event1 and is thus an advance towards the mythical explanation4 ,the rationalistic expositors set out here from the same premises as in the former narrative1 namely1 that it is in itself possible for a man who has lain in a tomb four days to come to life again1 and that this possibility is strengthened in the present instance by the known custom of the ,jews2 propositions which we shall not abstractedly controvert4 ,from this they proceed to a supposition which we perhaps ought not to let pass so easily1 #acgh namely1 that from the messenger whom the sisters had sent with the news of their brother's illness1 ,jesus had obtained accurate information of the circumstances of the disease2 and the answer which he gave to the messenger1 ,this sickness is not unto death 7v4 #d71 is said to express1 merely as an inference which he had drawn from the report of the messenger1 his conviction that the disease was not fatal4 ,such a view of his friend's condition would certainly accord the best with his conduct in remaining two days in ,pera after the reception of the message 7v4 #f72 since1 according to that supposition1 he could not regard his presence in ,bethany as a matter of urgent necessity4 ,but how comes it that after the lapse of these two days1 he not only resolves to journey thither 7v4 #h71 but also has quite a different opinion of the state of ,lazarus1 nay1 certain knowledge of his death1 which he first obscurely 7v4 #aj7 and then plainly 7v4 #ad7 announces to his disciples8 ,here the thread of the natural explanation is lost1 and the break is only rendered more conspicuous by the fiction of a second messenger1 #acgi after the lapse of two days1 bringing word to ,jesus that ,lazarus had expired in the interim4 ,for the author of the gospel at least cannot have known of a second messenger1 otherwise he must have mentioned him1 since the omission to do so gives another aspect to the whole narrative1 obliging us to infer that ,jesus had obtained information of the death of ,lazarus in a supernatural manner4 ,jesus1 when he had resolved to go to ,bethany1 said to the disciples1 ,lazarus sleepeth1 but ,i go that ,i may awake him out of sleep 7----v4 #aa72 this the naturalists explain by the supposition that ,jesus must in some way have gathered from the statements of the messengers who announced the death of ,lazarus1 that the latter was only in a state of lethargy4 ,but we can as little here as in the former case impute to ,jesus the foolish presumption of giving1 before he had even seen the alleged corpse1 the positive assurance that he yet lived4 #achj ,from this point of view1 it is also a difficulty that ,jesus says to his disciples 7v4 #ae7 ,i am glad for your sakes that ,i was not there1 to the intent ye may believe 7 74 ,paulus explains these words to imply that ,jesus feared lest the death1 had it happened in his presence1 might have shaken their faith in him2 but1 as ,gabler #acha has remarked1 cannot mean merely the negative3 not to lose faith1 which would rather have been expressed by a phrase such as3 1 that your faith fail not 7see ,luke xxii4 #cb72 and moreover we nowhere find that the idea which the disciples formed of ,jesus as the ,messiah was incompatible with the death of a man1 or1 more correctly1 of a friend1 in his presence4 ,from the arrival of ,jesus in ,bethany the evangelical narrative is somewhat more favourable to the natural explanation4 ,it is true that ,martha's address to ,jesus 7v4 #ba f471 ,lord1 if thou hadst been here1 my brother had not died1 but ,i know that even now1 whatsoever thou wilt ask of ,god1 he will give it thee1 1 1 1 1 appears evidently to express the hope that ,jesus may be able even to recall the dead one to life4 ,however1 on the assurance of ,jesus which follows1 ,thy brother shall rise again1 1 she answers despondingly1 ,yes1 at the last day4 ,this is certainly a help to the natural explanation1 for it seems retrospectively to give to the above declaration of ,martha 7v4 #bb7 the general sense1 that even now1 although he has not preserved the life of her brother1 she believes ,jesus to be him to whom ,god grants all that he desires1 that is1 the favourite of the ,deity1 the ,messiah4 ,but the expression which ,martha there uses is not but 1 and the turn of phrase3 ,i know that this will happen if thou only willest it to be so1 is a common but indirect form of petition1 and is here the more unmistakable1 because the object of the entreaty is clearly indicated by the foregoing antithesis4 ,martha evidently means1 ,thou hast not indeed prevented the death of our brother1 but even now it is not too late1 for at thy prayer ,god will restore him to thee and us4 ,martha's change of mind1 from the hope which is but indirectly expressed in her first reply 7v4 #bd7 to its extinction in the second1 cannot be held very surprising in a woman who here and elsewhere manifests a very hasty disposition1 and it is in the present case sufficiently explained by the form of the foregoing assurance of ,jesus 7v4 #bc74 ,martha had expected that ,jesus would reply to her indirect prayer by a decided promise of its fulfilment1 and when he answers quite generally and with an expression which it was usual to apply to the resurrection at the last day 771 she gives a half-impatient half-desponding reply4 #achb ,but that general declaration of ,jesus1 as well as the yet more indefinite one 7v4 #be f471 ,i am the resurrection and the life1 is thought favourable to the rationalistic view3 ,jesus1 it is said1 was yet far from the expectation of an extraordinary result1 hence he consoles ,martha merely with the general hope that he1 the ,messiah1 would procure for those who believed in him a future resurrection and a life of blessedness4 ,as however ,jesus had before 7v4 #aa7 spoken confidently to his disciples of awaking ,lazarus1 he must then have altered his opinion in the interim--a change for which no cause is apparent4 ,further1 when 7v4 #dj7 ,jesus is about to awake ,lazarus1 he says to ,martha1 ,said ,i not unto thee that if thou wouldst believe thou shouldst see the glory of ,god8 evidently alluding to v4 #bc1 in which therefore he must have meant to predict the resurrection which he was going to effect4 ,that he does not declare this distinctly1 and that he again veils the scarcely uttered promise in relation to the brother 7v4 #be7 in general promises for the believing1 is the effect of design1 the object of which is to try the faith of ,martha1 and extend her sphere of thought4 #achc ,when ,mary at length comes out of the house with her companions1 her weeping moves ,jesus himself to tears4 ,to this circumstance the natural interpretation appeals with unusual confidence1 asking whether if he were already certain of his friend's resurrection1 he would not have approached his grave with the most fervent joy1 since he was conscious of being able to call him again living from the grave in the next moment8 ,in this view the words 7v4 #cc7 and 7v4 #ch7 are understood of a forcible repression of the sorrow caused by the death of his friend1 which subsequently found vent in tears 774 ,but both by its etymology1 according to which it signifies fremere in aliquem or in se1 and by the analogy of its use in the ,new ,testament1 where it appears only in the sense of increpare aliquem 7,matt4 ix4 #cj2 ,mark i4 #dc1 xiv4 #e71 is determined to imply an emotion of anger1 not of sorrow2 where it is united1 not with the dative of another person1 but with and 1 it must be understood of a silent1 suppressed displeasure4 ,this sense would be very appropriate in v4 #ch1 where it occurs the second time2 for in the foregoing observation of the ,jews1 ,could not this man1 who opened the eyes of the blind1 have caused that even this man should not have died8 there lies an intimation that they were scandalized1 the prior conduct of ,jesus perplexing them as to his present demeanour1 and vice vers4 ,but where the word is first used v4 #cc1 the general weeping seems to have been likely to excite in ,jesus a melancholy1 rather than an angry emotion3 yet even here a strong disapproval of the want of faith 77 which was manifested was not impossible4 ,that ,jesus then himself broke out into tears1 only proves that his indignation against the faithless generation around him dissolved into melancholy1 not that melancholy was his emotion from the beginning4 ,lastly1 that the ,jews 7v4 #cf7 in relation to the tears which ,jesus shed1 said among themselves1 ,behold1 how he loved him6 appears to be rather against than for those who regard the emotion of ,jesus as sorrow for the death of his friend1 and sympathy with the sisters2 for1 as the character of the narrative of ,john in general would rather lead us to expect an opposition between the real import of the demeanour of ,jesus1 and the interpretation put upon it by the spectators1 so in particular the ,jews in this gospel are always those who either misunderstand or pervert the words and actions of ,jesus4 ,it is true that the mild character of ,jesus is urged1 as inconsistent with the harshness which displeasure on his part at the very natural weeping of ,mary and the rest would imply2 #achd but such a mode of thinking is by no means foreign to the ,christ of ,john's gospel4 ,he who gave to the 1 when preferring the inoffensive request that he would come to his house and heal his son1 the rebuke1 ,except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe2 he who1 when some of his disciples murmured at the hard doctrines of the sixth chapter1 assailed them with the cutting question1 ,doth this offend you8 and ,will ye also go away8 7vi4 #fa1 #fg72 he who repulsed his own mother1 when at the wedding at ,cana she complained to him of the want of wine1 with the harsh reply1 ,what have ,i to do with thee1 ,woman8 7ii4 #d7--who thus was always the most displeased when men1 not comprehending his higher mode of thought or action1 showed themselves desponding or importunate1--would here find peculiar reason for this kind of displeasure4 ,if this be the true interpretation of the passage1 and if it be not sorrow for the death of ,lazarus which ,jesus here exhibits1 there is an end to the assistance which the natural explanation of the entire event is thought to derive from this particular feature2 meanwhile1 even on the other interpretation1 a momentary emotion produced by sympathy with the mourners is quite reconcilable with the foreknowledge of the resurrection4 #ache ,and how could the words of the ,jews v4 #cg1 serve1 as rationalistic commentators think1 to excite in ,jesus the hope that ,god would now perhaps perform something extraordinary for him8 ,the ,jews did not express the hope that he could awake the dead1 but only the conjecture that he might perhaps have been able to preserve his friend's life2 ,martha therefore had previously said more when she declared her belief that even now the ,father would grant him what he asked2 so that if such hopes were excited in ,jesus from without1 they must have been excited earlier1 and especially before the weeping of ,jesus1 to which it is customary to appeal as the proof that they did not yet exist4 ,even supranaturalists admit that the expression of ,martha when ,jesus commanded that the stone should be taken away from the grave1 1 7v4 #ci71 is no proof at all that decomposition had really commenced1 nor consequently that a natural resuscitation was impossible1 since it may have been a mere inference from the length of time since the burial4 #achf ,but more weight must be attached to the words with which ,jesus1 repelling the objections of ,martha1 persists in having the tomb opened 7v4 #dj73 ,said ,i not unto thee that if thou wouldst believe thou shouldst see the glory of ,god8 ,how could he say this unless he was decidedly conscious of his power to resuscitate ,lazarus8 ,according to ,paulus1 this declaration only implied generally that those who have faith will1 in some way or other1 experience a glorious manifestation of the divinity4 ,but what glorious manifestation of the divinity was to be seen here1 on the opening of the grave of one who had been buried four days1 unless it were his restoration to life8 and what could be the sense of the words of ,jesus1 as opposed to the observation of ,martha1 that her brother was already within the grasp of decay1 but that he was empowered to arrest decay8 ,but in order to learn with certainty the meaning of the words in our present passage we need only refer to v4 #d1 where ,jesus had said that the sickness of ,lazarus was not unto death1 1 but for the glory of ,god1 4 ,here the first member of the antithesis1 not unto death1 clearly shows that the signifies the glorification of ,god by the life of ,lazarus1 that is1 since he was now dead1 by his resurrection3 a hope which ,jesus could not venture to excite in the most critical moment1 without having a superior assurance that it would be fulfilled4 #achg ,after the opening of the grave1 and before he says to the dead man1 ,come forth6 he thanks the ,father for having heard his prayer4 ,this is adduced1 in the rationalistic point of view1 as the most satisfactory proof that he did not first recall ,lazarus to life by those words1 but on looking into the grave found him already alive again4 ,truly1 such an argument was not to be expected from theologians who have some insight into the character of ,john's gospel4 ,these ought to have remembered how common it is in this gospel1 as for example in the expression glorify thy son1 to represent that which is yet to be effected or which is only just begun1 as already performed2 and in the present instance it is especially suited to mark the certainty of obtaining fulfilment1 that it is spoken of as having already happened4 ,and what invention does it further require to explain1 both how ,jesus could perceive in ,lazarus the evidences of returning life1 and how the latter could have come to life again6 ,between the removal of the stone1 says ,paulus1 and the thanksgiving of ,jesus1 lies the critical interval when the surprising result was accomplished2 then must ,jesus1 yet some steps removed from the grave1 have discerned that ,lazarus was living4 ,by what means8 and how so quickly and unhesitatingly8 and why did he and no one else discern it8 ,he may have discerned it by the movements of ,lazarus1 it is conjectured4 ,but how easily might he deceive himself with respect to a dead body lying in a dark cavern2 how precipitate was he1 if without having examined more nearly1 he so quickly and decidedly declared his conviction that ,lazarus lived6 ,or1 if the movements of the supposed corpse were strong and not to be mistaken1 how could they escape the notice of the surrounding spectators8 ,lastly1 how could ,jesus in his prayer represent the incident about to take place as a sign of his divine mission1 if he was conscious that he had not effected1 but only discovered1 the resuscitation of ,lazarus8 ,as arguments for the natural possibility of a return of life in a man who had been interred four days1 the rationalistic explanation adduces our ignorance of the particular circumstances of the supposed death1 the rapidity of interment among the ,jews1 afterwards the coolness of the cave1 the strong fragrance of the spices1 and lastly1 the reanimating draught of warm air1 which on the rolling away of the stone streamed into the cave4 ,but all these circumstances do not produce more than the lowest degree of possibility1 which coincides with the highest degree of improbability3 and with this the certainty with which ,jesus predicts the result must remain irreconcilable4 #achh ,these decided predictions are indeed the main hindrance to the natural interpretation of this chapter2 hence it has been sought to neutralize them1 still from the rationalistic position1 by the supposition that they did not proceed from ,jesus1 but may have been added ex eventu by the narrator4 ,paulus himself found the words 7v4 #aa7 quite too decided1 and therefore ventured the conjecture that the narrator1 writing with the result in his mind1 had omitted a qualifying perhaps1 which ,jesus had inserted4 #achi ,this expedient has been more extensively adopted by ,gabler4 ,not only does he partake the opinion of ,paulus as to the above expression1 but already in v4 #d1 he is inclined to lay the words for the glory of ,god1 to the account of the ,evangelist3 again v4 #ae1 he conjectures that in the words ' 1 1 1 ,i am glad for your sakes that ,i was not there1 to the intent ye may believe1 there is a slight exaggeration resulting from ,john's knowledge of the issue2 lastly1 even in relation to the words of ,martha v4 #bb1 444 he admits the idea of an addition from the pen of the writer4 #acij ,by the adoption of this expedient1 the natural interpretation avows its inability by itself to cope with the difficulties in ,john's narrative4 ,for if1 in order to render its application possible1 it is necessary to expunge the most significant passages1 it is plain that the narrative in its actual state does not admit of a natural explanation4 ,it is true that the passages1 the incompatibility of which with the rationalistic mode of explanation is confessed by their excision1 are very sparingly chosen2 but from the above observations it is clear1 that if all the features in this narrative which are really opposed to the natural view of the entire event were ascribed to the ,evangelist1 it would in the end be little short of the whole that must be regarded as his invention4 ,thus1 what we have done with the two first narratives of resuscitations1 is with the last and most remarkable history of this kind1 effected by the various successive attempts at explanation themselves1 namely1 to reduce the subject to the alternative3 that we either receive the event as supernatural1 according to the representation of the evangelical narrative2 or1 if we find it incredible as such1 deny that the narrative has an historical character4 ,in order1 in this dilemma1 to arrive at a decision1 with respect to all the three narratives1 we must refer to the peculiar character of the kind of miracles which we have now before us4 ,we have hitherto been ascending a ladder of miracles2 first1 cures of mental disorders1 then1 of all kinds of bodily maladies1 in which1 however1 the organization of the sufferer was not so injured as to cause the cessation of consciousness and life2 and now1 the revivification of bodies1 from which the life has actually departed4 ,this progression in the marvellous is1 at the same time1 a gradation in inconceivability4 ,we have indeed been able to represent to ourselves how a mental derangement1 in which none of the bodily organs were attacked beyond the nervous system1 which is immediately connected with mental action1 might have been removed1 even in a purely psychical manner1 by the mere word1 look1 and influence of ,jesus3 but the more deeply the malady appeared to have penetrated into the entire corporeal system1 the more inconceivable to us was a cure of this kind4 ,where in insane persons the brain was disturbed to the extent of raging madness1 or where in nervous patients the disorder was so confirmed as to manifest itself in periodical epilepsy2 there we could scarcely imagine how permanent benefit could be conferred by that mental influence2 and this was yet more difficult where the disease had no immediate connection with the mind1 as in leprosy1 blindness1 lameness1 etc4 ,and yet1 up to this point1 there was always something present1 to which the miraculous power of ,jesus could apply itself2 there was still a consciousness in the objects1 on which to make an impression--a nervous life to be stimulated4 ,not so with the dead4 ,the corpse from which life and consciousness have flown has lost the last fulcrum for the power of the miracle worker2 it perceives him no longer--receives no impression from him2 for the very capability of receiving impressions must be conferred on him anew4 ,but to confer this1 that is1 to give life in the proper sense1 is a creative act1 and to think of this as being exercised by a man1 we must confess to be beyond our power4 ,but even within the limits of our three histories of resurrections1 there is an evident climax4 ,woolston has remarked with justice1 that it seems as if each of these narratives were intended to supply what was wanting in the preceding4 #acia ,the daughter of ,jairus is restored to life on the same bed on which she had just expired2 the youth of ,nain1 when already in his coffin1 and on his way to interment2 lastly1 ,lazarus1 after four days' abode in the tomb4 ,in the first history1 a word was the only intimation that the maiden had fallen under the powers of the grave2 in the second1 the fact is imprinted on the imagination also1 by the picture of the young man being already carried out of the city towards his grave2 but in the third1 ,lazarus1 who had been some time inclosed in the grave1 is depicted in the strongest manner as an inhabitant of the nether world3 so that1 if the reality of the death could be doubted in the first instance1 this would become more difficult in the second1 and in the third1 as good as impossible4 #acib ,with this gradation1 there is a corresponding increase in the difficulty of rendering the three events conceivable2 if1 indeed1 when the fact itself is inconceivable1 there can exist degrees of inconceivableness between its various modifications4 ,if1 however1 the resurrection of a dead person in general were possible1 it must rather be possible in the case of one just departed1 and yet having some remains of vital warmth1 than in that of a corpse1 cold and being carried to the grave2 and again1 in this1 rather than in the case of one who had already lain four days in the grave1 and in which decay is supposed to have commenced1 nay1 with respect to which1 this supposition1 if not confirmed1 is at least not denied4 ,but1 setting aside the miraculous part of the histories in question1 each succeeding one is both intrinsically more improbable1 and externally less attested1 than the foregoing4 ,as regards the internal improbability1 one element of this1 which indeed lies in all1 and therefore also in the first1 is especially conspicuous in the second4 ,as a motive by which ,jesus was induced to raise the young man at ,nain1 the narrative mentions compassion for the mother 7v4 #ac74 ,together with this we are to include1 according to ,olshausen1 a reference to the young man himself4 ,for1 he observes1 man as a conscious being can never be treated as a mere instrument1 which would be the case here1 if the joy of the mother were regarded as the sole object of ,jesus in raising the youth4 #acic ,this remark of ,olshausen demands our thanks1 not that it removes the difficulty of this and every other resuscitation of the dead1 but that it exhibits that difficulty in the clearest light4 ,for the conclusion1 that what in itself1 or according to enlightened ideas1 is not allowable or fitting1 cannot be ascribed to ,jesus by the ,evangelists1 is totally inadmissible4 ,we should rather 7presupposing the purity of the character of ,jesus7 conclude that when the evangelical narratives ascribe to him what is not allowable1 they are incorrect4 ,now that ,jesus1 in his resuscitations of the dead1 made it a consideration whether the persons to be restored to life might1 from the spiritual condition in which they died1 derive advantage from the restoration or the contrary1 we find no indication2 that1 as ,olshausen supposes1 the corporeal awakening was attended with a spiritual awakening1 or that such a result was expected1 is nowhere said4 ,these resuscitated individuals1 not excepting even ,lazarus1 recede altogether from our observation after their return to life1 and hence ,woolston was led to ask why ,jesus rescued from the grave precisely these insignificant persons1 and not rather ,john the ,baptist1 or some other generally useful man4 ,is it said1 he knew it to be the will of ,providence that these men1 once dead1 should remain so8 ,but then1 it should seem1 he must have thought the same of all who had once died1 and to ,woolston's objection there remains no answer but this3 as it was positively known concerning celebrated men1 that the breach which their deaths occasioned was never filled up by their restoration to life1 legend could not annex the resurrections which she was pleased to narrate to such names1 but must choose unknown subjects1 in relation to which she was not under the same control4 ,the above difficulty is common to all the three narratives1 and is only rendered more prominent in the second by an accidental expression3 but the third narrative is full of difficulties entirely peculiar to itself1 since the conduct of ,jesus throughout1 and1 to a considerable extent1 that of the other parties1 is not easily to be conceived4 ,when ,jesus receives the information of the death of ,lazarus1 and the request of the sisters implied therein1 that he would come to ,bethany1 he remains still two days in the same place1 and does not set out toward ,judea till after he is certain of the death4 ,why so8 ,that it was not because he thought the illness attended with no danger1 has been already shown2 on the contrary1 he foresaw the death of ,lazarus4 ,that indifference was not the cause of the delay1 is expressly remarked by the ,evangelist 7v4 #e74 ,what then8 ,lcke conjectures that ,jesus was then occupied with a particularly fruitful ministry in ,pera1 which he was not willing to interrupt for the sake of ,lazarus1 holding it his duty to postpone his less important call as a worker of miracles and a succouring friend1 to his higher call as a teacher4 #acid ,but he might here have very well done the one1 and not have left the other undone2 he might either have left some disciples to carry forward his work in that country1 or remaining there himself1 have still cured ,lazarus1 whether through the medium of a disciple1 or by the power of his will at a distance4 ,moreover1 our narrator is entirely silent as to such a cause for the delay of ,jesus4 ,this view of it1 therefore1 can be listened to only on the supposition that no other motive for the delay is intimated by the ,evangelist1 and even then as nothing more than a conjecture4 ,now another motive is clearly indicated1 as ,olshausen has remarked1 in the declaration of ,jesus1 v4 #ae1 that he is glad he was not present at the death of ,lazarus1 because1 for the object of strengthening the faith of the disciples1 the resurrection of his friend would be more effectual than his cure4 ,thus ,jesus had designedly allowed ,lazarus to die1 that by his miraculous restoration to life1 he might procure so much the more faith in himself4 ,tholuck and ,olshausen on the whole put the same construction on this declaration of ,jesus2 but they confine themselves too completely to the moral point of view1 when they speak of ,jesus as designing1 in his character of teacher1 to perfect the spiritual condition of the family at ,bethany and of his disciples2 #acie since1 according to expressions1 such as 4 4 7v4 #d71 his design was rather the messianic one of spreading and confirming faith in himself as the ,son of ,god1 though principally1 it is true1 within that narrow circle4 ,here ,lcke exclaims3 by no means6 never did the ,saviour of the needy1 the noblest friend of man1 act thus arbitrarily and capriciously2 #acif and ,de ,wette also observes1 that ,jesus in no other instance designedly brings about or increases his miracles4 #acig ,the former1 as we have seen1 concludes that something external1 preoccupation elsewhere1 detained ,jesus2 a supposition which is contrary to the text1 and which even ,de ,wette finds inadequate1 though he points out no other expedient4 ,if then these critics are correct in maintaining that the real ,jesus cannot have acted thus2 while1 on the other hand1 they are incorrect in denying that the author of the fourth gospel makes his ,jesus act thus3 nothing remains but with the author of the ,probabilia1 #acih from this incongruity of the ,christ in ,john's gospel with the ,christ alone conceivable as the real one1 to conclude that the narrative of the fourth ,evangelist is unhistorical4 ,the alleged conduct of the disciples also1 v4 #ab f41 is such as to excite surprise4 ,if ,jesus had represented to them1 or at least to the three principal among them1 the death of the daughter of ,jairus as a mere sleep1 how could they1 when he said of ,lazarus1 he sleeps1 ,i will awake him1 1 think that he referred to a natural sleep8 ,one would not awake a patient out of a healthy sleep2 hence it must have immediately occurred to the disciples that here sleep 77 was spoken of in the same sense as in the case of the maiden4 ,that1 instead of this1 the disciples understand the deep expressions of ,jesus quite superficially1 is entirely in the fourth ,evangelist's favourite manner1 which we have learned to recognise by many examples4 ,if tradition had in any way made known to him1 that to speak of death as a sleep was part of the customary phraseology of ,jesus1 there would immediately spring up in his imagination1 so fertile in this kind of antithesis1 a misunderstanding corresponding to that figure of speech4 #acii ,the observation of the ,jews1 v4 #cg1 is scarcely conceivable1 presupposing the truth of the synoptical resuscitations of the dead4 ,the ,jews appeal to the cure of the man born blind 7,john ix471 and draw the inference1 that he who had restored sight to this individual1 must surely have been able to avert the death of ,lazarus4 ,how came they to refer to this heterogeneous and inadequate example1 if there lay before them1 in the two resuscitations of the dead1 miracles more analogous1 and adapted to give hope even in this case of actual death8 ,it is certain that the ,galilean resuscitations were prior to this of ,lazarus1 since ,jesus after this period went no more into ,galilee2 neither could those events remain unknown in the capital1 #adjj especially as we are are expressly told that the fame of them went abroad into all that land1 throughout all ,juda1 and throughout all the country round about4 ,to the real ,jews therefore these cases must have been well known2 and as the fourth ,evangelist makes his ,jews refer to something less to the point1 it is probable that he knew nothing of the above events3 for that the reference belongs to him1 and not to the ,jews themselves1 is evident from the fact1 that he makes them refer to the very cure which he had last narrated4 ,a formidable difficulty lies also in the prayer which is put into the mouth of ,jesus1 v4 #da f4 ,after thanking the ,father for hearing his prayer1 he adds1 that for himself he knew well that the ,father heard him always1 and that he uttered this special thanksgiving only for the sake of the people around him1 in order to obtain their belief in his divine mission4 ,thus he first gives his address a relation to ,god1 and afterwards reduces this relation to a feigned one1 intended to exist only in the conceptions of the people4 ,nor is the sense of the words such as ,lcke represents it1 namely1 that ,jesus for his own part would have prayed in silence1 but for the benefit of the people uttered his prayer aloud 7for in the certainty of fulfilment there lies no motive for silent prayer72 they imply that for himself he had no need to thank the ,father for a single result1 as if surprised1 since he was sure beforehand of having his wish granted1 so that the wish and the thanks were coincident2 that is1 to speak generally1 his relation to the ,father did not consist in single acts of prayer1 fulfilment1 and thanks1 but in a continual and permanent interchange of these reciprocal functions1 in which no single act of gratitude in and by itself could be distinguished in this manner4 ,if it may be admitted that in relation to the necessities of the people1 and out of sympathy with them1 such an isolated act could have taken place on the part of ,jesus2 yet1 if there be any truth in this explanation1 ,jesus must have been entirely borne away by sympathy1 must have made the position of the people his own1 and thus in that moment have prayed from his own impulse1 and on his own behalf4 #adja ,but1 here1 scarcely has he begun to pray when the reflection arises that he does this from no need of his own2 he prays therefore from no lively feeling1 but out of cold accommodation1 and this must be felt difficult to conceive1 nay1 even revolting4 ,he who in this manner prays solely for the edification of others1 ought in no case to tell them that he prays from their point of view1 not from his own2 since an audible prayer cannot make any impression on the hearers1 unless they suppose the speaker's whole soul to be engaged4 ,how then could ,jesus make his prayer ineffective by this addition8 ,if he felt impelled to lay before ,god a confession of the true state of the case1 he might have done this in silence2 that he uttered the confession aloud1 and that we in consequence read it1 could only happen on a calculation of advantage to later ,christendom1 to the readers of the gospel4 ,while the thanksgiving was1 for obvious reasons1 needful to awake the faith of the spectators1 the more developed faith which the fourth gospel presupposes1 might regard it as a difficulty2 because it might possibly appear to proceed from a too subordinate1 and more particularly1 a too little constant relation between the ,father and the ,son4 ,consequently the prayer which was necessary for the hearers1 must be annulled for readers of a later period1 or its value restricted to that of a mere accommodation4 ,but this consideration cannot have been present in the mind of ,jesus3 it could belong only to a ,christian who lived later4 ,this has been already felt by one critic1 who has hence proposed to throw v4 #db out of the text1 as an unauthenticated addition by a latter hand4 #adjb ,but as this judgment is destitute of any external reason1 if the above passage could not have been uttered by ,jesus1 we must conclude that the ,evangelist only lent the words to ,jesus in order to explain the preceding1 v4 #da2 and to this opinion ,lcke has shown himself not altogether disinclined4 #adjc ,assuredly we have here words1 which are only lent to ,jesus by the ,evangelist3 but if it be so with these words1 what is our security that it is so only with these8 ,in a gospel in which we have already detected many discourses to be merely lent to the alleged speakers--in a narrative which presents historical improbabilities at all points1--the difficulty contained in a single verse is not a sign that that verse does not belong to the rest1 but that the whole taken together does not belong to the class of historical compositions4 #adjd ,as regards the gradation in the external testimony to the three narratives1 it has already been justly observed by ,woolston1 that only the resurrection of the daughter of ,jairus1 in which the miraculous is the least marked1 appears in three ,evangelists2 the two others are each related by one ,evangelist only3 #adje and as it is far less easy to understand the omission in the other gospels in relation to the resurrection of ,lazarus1 than in relation to the raising of the youth at ,nain1 there is here again a complete climax4 ,that the last-named event is mentioned by the author of ,luke's gospel alone2--especially that ,matthew and ,mark have it not instead of the resuscitation of the daughter of ,jairus1 or together with that narrative1--is a difficulty in more than one respect4 #adjf ,even viewed generally as a resuscitation of a dead person1 one would have thought1 as there were few of such miracles according to our gospels1 and as they are highly calculated to carry conviction1 it could not have been too much trouble to the ,evangelists to recount it as a second instance2 especially as ,matthew has thought it worth while1 for example1 to narrate three cures of blindness1 which nevertheless were of far less importance1 and of which1 therefore1 he might have spared two1 inserting instead of them either one or the other of the remaining resuscitations of the dead4 ,but admitting that the two first ,evangelists had some reason1 no longer to be discovered1 for not giving more than one history of a resurrection1 they ought1 one must think1 to have chosen that of the youth at ,nain far rather than that of the daughter of ,jairus1 because the former1 as we have above observed1 was a more indubitable and striking resurrection4 ,as nevertheless they give only the latter1 ,matthew at least can have known nothing of the others2 ,mark1 it is true1 probably had it before him in ,luke1 but he had1 as early as iii4 #g1 or #bj1 leaped from ,luke vi4 #ab 7#ag7 to ,matt4 xii4 #ae2 and only at iv4 #ce 7#ba ff47 returns to ,luke viii4 #bb 7#af ff472 #adjg thus passing over the resurrection of the youth 7,luke vii4 #aa ff474 ,but now arises the second question3 how can the resurrection of the youth1 if it really happened1 have remained unknown to the author of the first gospel8 ,even apart from the supposition that this gospel had an apostolic origin1 this question is fraught with no less difficulty than the former4 ,besides the people1 there were present many of his disciples1 2 the place1 ,nain1 according to the account which ,josephus gives of its position relative to ,mount ,tabor1 cannot have been far from the ordinary ,galilean theatre of the ministry of ,jesus2 #adjh lastly1 the fame of the event1 as was natural1 was widely disseminated 7v4 #ag74 ,schleiermacher is of opinion that the authors of the first sketches from the life of ,jesus1 not being within the apostolic circle1 did not generally venture to apply to the much occupied apostles1 but rather sought the friends of ,jesus of the second order1 and in doing so they naturally turned to those places where they might hope for the richest harvests1--to ,capernaum and ,jerusalem2 events which1 like the resuscitation in question1 occurred in other places1 could not so easily become common property4 ,but first1 this conception of the case is too subjective1 making the promulgation of the most important deeds of ,jesus1 dependent on the researches of amateurs and collectors of anecdotes1 who went about gleaning1 like ,papias1 at a later period2 secondly1 7and these two objections are essentially connected17 there lies at its foundation the erroneous idea that such histories were fixed1 like inert bodies once fallen to the ground1 in the places to which they belonged1 guarded there as lifeless treasures1 and only exhibited to those who took the trouble to resort to the spot3 instead of which1 they were rather like the light-winged inhabitants of the air1 flying far away from the place which gave them birth1 roaming everywhere1 and not seldom losing all association with their original locality4 ,we see the same thing happen daily2 innumerable histories1 both true and false1 are represented as having occurred at the most widely different places4 ,such a narrative1 once formed1 is itself the substance1 the alleged locality1 the accident3 by no means can the locality be the substance1 to which the narrative is united as the accident1 as it would follow from ,schleiermacher's supposition4 ,since then it cannot well be conceived that an incident of this kind1 if it really happened1 could remain foreign to the general tradition1 and hence unknown to the author of the first gospel3 the fact of this author's ignorance of the incident gives rise to a suspicion that it did not really happen4 ,but this ground of doubt falls with incomparably greater weight1 on the narrative of the resurrection of ,lazarus in the fourth gospel4 ,if the authors or collectors of the three first gospels knew of this1 they could not1 for more than one reason1 avoid introducing it into their writings4 ,for1 first1 of all the resuscitations effected by ,jesus1 nay1 of all his miracles1 this resurrection of ,lazarus1 if not the most wonderful1 is yet the one in which the marvellous presents itself the most obviously and strikingly1 and which therefore1 if its historical reality can be established1 is a pre-eminently strong proof of the extraordinary endowments of ,jesus as a divine messenger2 #adji whence the ,evangelists1 although they had related one or two other instances of the kind1 could not think it superfluous to add this also4 ,but1 secondly1 the resurrection of ,lazarus had1 according to the representation of ,john1 a direct influence in the development of the fate of ,jesus2 for we learn from xi4 #dg ff41 that the increased resort to ,jesus1 and the credit which this event procured him1 led to that consultation of the ,sanhedrim in which the sanguinary counsel of ,caiaphas was given and approved4 ,thus the event had a double importance--pragmatical as well as dogmatical2 consequently1 the synoptical writers could not have failed to narrate it1 had it been within their knowledge4 ,nevertheless1 theologians have found out all sorts of reasons why those ,evangelists1 even had the fact been known to them1 should refrain from its narration4 ,some have been of opinion that at the time of the composition of the three first gospels1 the history was still in every mouth1 so that to make a written record of it was superfluous2 #adaj others1 on the contrary1 have conjectured that it was thought desirable to guard against its further publication1 lest danger should accrue to ,lazarus and his family1 the former of whom1 according to ,john xii4 #aj1 was persecuted by the ,jewish hierarchy on account of the miracle which had been preformed in him2 a caution for which there was no necessity at the later period at which ,john wrote his gospel4 #adaa ,it is plain that these two reasons nullify each other1 and neither of them is in itself worthy of a serious refutation2 yet as similar modes of evading a difficulty are still more frequently resorted to than might be supposed1 we ought not to think some animadversion on them altogether thrown away4 ,the proposition1 that the resurrection of ,lazarus was not recorded by the synoptists because it was generally known in their circle1 proves too much2 since on this rule1 precisely the most important events in the life of ,jesus1 his baptism1 death1 and resurrection1 must have remained unwritten4 ,moreover1 writings1 which like our gospels1 originate in a religious community1 do not serve merely to make known the unknown2 it is their office also to preserve what is already known4 ,in opposition to the other explanation1 it has been remarked by others1 that the publication of this history among those who were not natives of ,palestine1 as was the case with those for whom ,mark and ,luke wrote1 could have done no injury to ,lazarus2 and even the author of the first gospel1 admitting that he wrote in and for ,palestine1 could hardly have withheld a fact in which the glory of ,christ was so peculiarly manifested1 merely out of consideration to ,lazarus1 who1 supposing the more improbable case that he was yet living at the time of the composition of the first gospel1 ought not1 ,christian as he doubtless was1 to refuse to suffer for the name of ,christ2 and the same observation would apply to his family4 ,the most dangerous time for ,lazarus according to ,john xii4 #aj1 was that immediately after his resurrection1 and a narrative which appeared so long after1 could scarcely have heightened or renewed this danger2 besides1 in the neighbourhood of ,bethany and ,jerusalem whence danger was threatened to ,lazarus1 the event must have been so well-known and remembered that nothing was to be risked by its publication4 #adab ,it appears then that the resurrection of ,lazarus1 since it is not narrated by the synoptists1 cannot have been known to them2 and the question arises1 how was this ignorance possible8 ,hase gives the mysterious answer1 that the reason of this omission lies hid in the common relations under which the synoptists in general were silent concerning all the earlier incidents in ,juda2 but this leaves it uncertain1 at least so far as the expressions go1 whether we ought to decide to the disadvantage of the fourth gospel or of its predecessors4 ,the latest criticism of the gospel of ,matthew has cleared up the ambiguity in ,hase's answer after its usual manner1 determining the nature of those common relations which he vaguely adduces1 thus3 ,every one of the synoptists1 by his ignorance of a history which an apostle must have known1 betrays himself to be no apostle4 #adac ,but this renunciation of the apostolic origin of the first gospel1 does not by any means enable us to explain the ignorance of its author and his compeers of the resurrection of ,lazarus4 ,for besides the remarkable character of the event1 its occurrence in the very heart of ,juda1 the great attention excited by it1 and its having been witnessed by the apostles1--all these considerations render it incomprehensible that it should not have entered into the general tradition1 and from thence into the synoptical gospels4 ,it is argued that these gospels are founded on ,galilean legends1 i4e4 oral narratives and written notices by the ,galilean friends and companions of ,jesus2 that these were not present at the resurrection of ,lazarus1 and therefore did not include it in their memoirs2 and that the authors of the first gospels1 strictly confining themselves to the ,galilean sources of information1 likewise passed over the event4 #adad ,but there was not such a wall of partition between ,galilee and ,juda1 that the fame of an event like the resurrection of ,lazarus could help sounding over from the one to the other4 ,even if it did not happen during a feast time1 when 7,john iv4 #de7 many ,galileans might be eye-witnesses1 yet the disciples1 who were for the greater part ,galileans1 were present 7v4 #af71 and must1 so soon as they returned into ,galilee after the resurrection of ,jesus1 have spread abroad the history throughout this province1 or rather1 before this1 the ,galileans who kept the last passover attended by ,jesus1 must have learned the event1 the report of which was so rife in the city4 ,hence even ,lcke finds this explanation of ,gabler's unsatisfactory2 and on his own side attempts to solve the enigma by the observation1 that the original evangelical tradition1 which the synoptists followed1 did not represent the history of the ,passion mainly in a pragmatical light1 and therefore gave no heed to this event as the secret motive of the murderous resolve against ,jesus1 and that only ,john1 who was initiated into the secret history of the ,sanhedrim1 was in a condition to supply this explanatory fact4 #adae ,this view of the case would certainly appear to neutralize one reason why the synoptists must have noticed the event in question1 namely1 that drawn from its pragmatical importance2 but when it is added1 that as a miracle regarded in itself1 apart from its more particular circumstances1 it might easily be lost among the rest of those narratives from which we have in the three first gospels a partly accidental selection1--we must reply1 that the synoptical selection of miracles appears to be an accidental one only when that is at once assumed which ought first to be proved3 namely1 that the miracles in the fourth gospel are historical3 and unless the selection be casual to a degree inconsistent with the slightest intelligence in the compilers1 such a miracle cannot have been overlooked4 #adaf ,it has doubtless been these and similar considerations1 which have led the latest writers on the controversy concerning the first gospel1 to complain of the one-sidedness with which the above question is always answered to the disadvantage of the synoptists1 especially ,matthew1 as if it were forgotten that an answer dangerous to the fourth gospel lies just as near at hand4 #adag ,for our own part1 we are not so greatly alarmed by the fulminations of ,lcke1 as to be deterred from the expression of our opinion on the subject4 ,this theologian1 even in his latest editions1 reproaches those who1 from the silence of the synoptical writers1 conclude that this narrative is a fiction and the gospel of ,john not authentic1 with an unparalleled lack of discernment1 and a total want of insight into the mutual relations of our gospels 7that is1 into those relations viewed according to the professional conviction of theologians1 which is unshaken even by the often well-directed attacks of the author of the ,probabilia74 ,we1 nevertheless1 distinctly declare that we regard the history of the resurrection of ,lazarus1 not only as in the highest degree improbable in itself1 but also destitute of external evidence2 and this whole chapter1 in connexion with those previously examined1 as an indication of the unauthenticity of the fourth gospel4 ,if it is thus proved that all the three evangelical histories of resuscitations are rendered more or less doubtful by negative reasons3 all that is now wanting to us is positive proof1 that the tradition of ,jesus having raised the dead might easily be formed without historical foundation4 ,according to rabbinical1 #adah as well as ,new ,testament passages 7e4g4 ,john v4 #bh f41 vi4 #dj1 #dd2 #a ,cor4 xv42 #a ,thess4 iv4 #af71 the resuscitation of the dead was expected of the ,messiah at his coming4 ,now the 1 the appearance of the ,messiah ,jesus on earth1 was in the view of the early church broken by his death into two parts2 the first comprised his preparatory appearance1 which began with his human birth1 and ended with the resurrection and ascension2 the second was to commence with his future advent on the clouds of heaven1 in order to open the 1 the age to come4 ,as the first appearance of ,jesus had wanted the glory and majesty expected in the ,messiah1 the great demonstrations of messianic power1 and in particular the general resurrection of the dead1 were assigned to his second1 and as yet future appearance on earth4 ,nevertheless1 as an immediate pledge of what was to be anticipated1 even in the first advent some fore-splendours of the second must have been visible in single instances2 ,jesus must1 even in his first advent1 by awaking some of the dead1 have guaranteed his authority one day to awake all the dead2 he must1 when questioned as to his messiahship1 have been able to adduce among other criteria the fact that the dead were raised up by him 7,matt4 xi4 #e71 and he must have imparted the same power to his disciples 7,matt4 xi4 #h1 comp4 ,acts ix4 #dj1 xx4 #aj72 but especially as a close prefiguration of the hour in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice1 and shall come forth 7,john v4 #bh f471 he must have cried with a loud voice1 ,come forth6 to one who had lain in the grave four days 7,john xi4 #ag1 #dc74 ,for the origination of detailed narratives of single resuscitations1 there lay1 besides1 the most appropriate types in the ,old ,testament4 ,the prophets ,elijah and ,elisha 7#a ,kings xvii4 #ag ff42 #b ,kings iv4 #ah ff47 had awaked the dead1 and to these instances ,jewish writings appealed as a type of the messianic time4 #adai ,the object of the resuscitation was with both these prophets a child1 but a boy1 while in the narrative common to the synoptists we have a girl2 the two prophets revived him while he lay on the bed1 as ,jesus does the daughter of ,jairus2 both entered alone into the chamber of death1 as ,jesus excludes all save a few confidential friends2 only1 as it is fitting1 the ,messiah needs not the laborious manipulations by which the prophets attained their object4 ,elijah in particular raised the son of a widow1 as ,jesus did at ,nain2 he met the widow of ,zarephath at the gate 7but before the death of her son7 as ,jesus met the widow of ,nain1 under the gate of the city 7after the death of her son72 lastly1 it is in both instances told in the same words how the miracle-worker restored the son to the mother4 #adbj ,even one already laid in his grave1 like ,lazarus1 was restored to life by the prophet ,elisha2 with this difference1 however1 that the prophet himself had been long dead1 and the contact of his bones reanimated a corpse which was accidentally thrown upon them 7#b ,kings xiii4 #ba74 ,there is yet another point of similarity between the resuscitations of the dead in the ,old ,testament and that of ,lazarus2 it is that ,jesus1 while in his former resuscitation he utters the authoritative word without any preliminary1 in that of ,lazarus offers a prayer to ,god1 as ,elisha1 and more particularly ,elijah1 are said to have done4 ,while ,paulus extends to these narratives in the ,old ,testament1 the natural explanation which he has applied to those in the ,new1 theologians of more enlarged views have long ago remarked1 that the resurrections in the ,new ,testament are nothing more than mythi1 which had their origin in the tendency of the early ,christian church1 to make her ,messiah agree with the type of the prophets1 and with the messianic ideal4 #adba #aja4 ,,anecdotes ,,having ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,sea4 ,as in general1 at least according to the representations of the three first ,evangelists the country around the ,galilean sea was the chief theatre of the ministry of ,jesus2 so a considerable number of his miracles have an immediate reference to the sea4 ,one of this class1 the miraculous draught of fishes granted to ,peter1 has already presented itself for our consideration2 besides this1 there are the miraculous stilling of the storm which had arisen on the sea while ,jesus slept1 in the three synoptists2 ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,john2 the summary of most of those1 the walking of ,jesus on the sea1 likewise during a storm1 in incidents which the appendix to the fourth gospel places after the resurrection2 and lastly1 the anecdote of the coin that was to be angled for by ,peter1 in ,matthew4 ,the first-named narrative 7,matt4 viii4 #bc ff4 parall47 is intended1 according to the ,evangelist's own words1 to represent ,jesus to us as him whom the winds and the sea obey1 4 ,thus1 to follow out the gradation in the miraculous which has been hitherto observed1 it is here presupposed1 not merely that ,jesus could act on the human mind and living body in a psychological and magnetic manner2 or with a revivifying power on the human organism when it was forsaken by vitality2 nay1 not merely as in the history of the draught of fishes earlier examined1 that he could act immediately with determinative power1 on irrational yet animated existences1 but that he could act thus even on inanimate nature4 ,the possibility of finding a point of union between the alleged supernatural agency of ,jesus1 and the natural order of phenomena1 here absolutely ceases3 here1 at the latest1 there is an end to miracles in the wider and now more favoured sense2 and we come to those which must be taken in the narrowest sense1 or to the miracle proper4 ,the purely supranaturalistic view is therefore the first to suggest itself4 ,olshausen has justly felt1 that such a power over external nature is not essentially connected with the destination of ,jesus for the human race and for the salvation of man2 whence he was led to place the natural phenomenon which is here controlled by ,jesus in a relation to sin1 and therefore to the office of ,jesus4 ,storms1 he says1 are the spasms and convulsions of nature1 and as such the consequences of sin1 the fearful effects of which are seen even on the physical side of existence4 #adbb ,but it is only that limited observation of nature which in noting the particular forgets the general1 that can regard storms1 tempests1 and similar phenomena 7which in connexion with the whole have their necessary place and beneficial influence7 as evils and departure from original law3 and a theory of the world in which it is seriously upheld1 that before the fall there were no storms and tempests1 as1 on the other hand1 no beasts of prey and poisonous plants1 partakes--one does not know whether to say1 of the fanatical1 or of the childish4 ,but to what purpose1 if the above explanation will not hold1 could ,jesus be gifted with such a power over nature8 ,as a means of awakening faith in him1 it was inadequate and superfluous3 because ,jesus found individual adherents without any demonstration of a power of this kind1 and general acceptance even this did not procure him4 ,as little can it be regarded as a type of the original dominion of man over external nature1 a dominion which he is destined to reattain2 for the value of this dominion consists precisely in this1 that it is a mediate one1 achieved by the progressive reflection and the united efforts of ages1 not an immediate and magical dominion1 which costs no more than a word4 ,hence in relation to that part of nature of which we are here speaking the compass and the steam-vessel are an incomparably truer realization of man's dominion over the ocean1 than the allaying of the waves by a mere word4 ,but the subject has another aspect1 since the dominion of man over nature is not merely external and practical1 but also immanent or theoretical1 that is1 man even when externally he is subjected to the might of the elements1 yet is not internally conquered by them2 but1 in the conviction that the powers of physical nature can only destroy in him that which belongs to his physical existence1 is elevated in the self-certainty of the spirit above the possible destruction of the body4 ,this spiritual power1 it is said1 was exhibited by ,jesus1 for he slept tranquilly in the midst of the storm1 and when awaked by his trembling disciples1 inspired them with courage by his words4 ,but for courage to be shown1 real danger must be apprehended3 now for ,jesus1 supposing him to be conscious of an immediate power over nature1 danger could in no degree exist3 therefore he could not here give any proof of this theoretical power4 ,in both respects the natural explanation would find only the conceivable and the desirable attributed to ,jesus in the evangelical narrative2 namely1 on the one hand1 an intelligent observation of the state of the weather1 and on the other1 exalted courage in the presence of real peril4 ,when we read that ,jesus commanded the winds 1 we are to understand simply that he made some remark on the storm1 or some exclamations at its violence3 and his calming of the sea we are to regard only as a prognostication1 founded on the observation of certain signs1 that the storm would soon subside4 ,his address to the disciples is said to have proceeded1 like the celebrated saying of ,csar1 from the confidence that a man who was to leave an impress on the world's history1 could not so lightly be cut short in his career by an accident4 ,that those who were in the ship regarded the subsidence of the storm as the effect of the words of ,jesus1 proves nothing1 for ,jesus nowhere confirms their inference4 #adbc ,but neither does he disapprove it1 although he must have observed the impression which1 in consequence of that inference1 the result had made on the people2 #adbd he must therefore1 as ,venturini actually supposes1 have designedly refrained from shaking their high opinion of his miraculous power1 in order to attach them to him the more firmly4 ,but1 setting this altogether aside1 was it likely that the natural presages of the storm should have been better understood by ,jesus1 who had never been occupied on the sea1 than by ,peter1 ,james1 and ,john1 who had been at home on it from their youth upwards8 #adbe ,it remains then that1 taking the incident as it is narrated by the ,evangelists1 we must regard it as a miracle2 but to raise this from an exegetical result to a real fact1 is1 according to the above remarks extremely difficult3 whence there arises a suspicion against the historical character of the narrative4 ,viewed more nearly however1 and taking ,matthew's account as the basis1 there is nothing to object to the narrative until the middle of v4 #bf4 ,it might really have happened that ,jesus in one of his frequent passages across the ,galilean sea1 was sleeping when a storm arose2 that the disciples awaked him with alarm1 while he1 calm and self-possessed1 said to them1 ,why are ye fearful1 ,o ye of little faith8 ,what follows--the commanding of the waves1 which ,mark1 with his well-known fondness for such authoritative words1 reproduces as if he were giving the exact words of ,jesus in a ,greek translation 71 67--might have been added in the propagation of the anecdote from one to another4 ,there was an inducement to attribute to ,jesus such a command over the winds and the sea1 not only in the opinion entertained of his person1 but also in certain features of the ,old ,testament history4 ,here1 in poetical descriptions of the passage of the ,israelites through the ,red ,sea1 ,jehovah is designated as he who rebuked the ,red ,sea1 7,psa4 cvi4 #i2 ,,lxx4 comp4 ,nahum i4 #d71 so that it retreated4 ,now1 as the instrument in this partition of the ,red ,sea was ,moses1 it was natural to ascribe to his great successor1 the ,messiah1 a similar function2 accordingly we actually find from rabbinical passages1 that a drying up of the sea was expected to be wrought by ,god in the messianic times1 doubtless through the agency of the ,messiah1 as formerly through that of ,moses4 #adbf ,that instead of drying up the sea ,jesus is said only to produce a calm1 may be explained1 on the supposition that the storm and the composure exhibited by ,jesus on the occasion were historical1 as a consequence of the mythical having combined itself with this historical element2 for1 as according to this1 ,jesus and his disciples were on board a ship1 a drying up of the sea would have been out of place4 ,still it is altogether without any sure precedent1 that a mythical addition should be engrafted on the stem of a real incident1 so as to leave the latter totally unmodified4 ,and there is one feature1 even in the part hitherto assumed to be historical1 which1 more narrowly examined1 might just as probably have been invented by the legend as have really happened4 ,that ,jesus1 before the storm breaks out1 is sleeping1 and even when it arises1 does not immediately awake1 is not his voluntary deed1 but chance2 #adbg it is this very chance1 however1 which alone gives the scene its full significance1 for ,jesus sleeping in the storm is by the contrast which he presents1 a not less emblematical image than ,ulysses sleeping when1 after so many storms1 he was about to land on his island home4 ,now that ,jesus really slept at the time that a storm broke out1 may indeed have happened by chance in one case out of ten2 but in the nine cases also1 when this did not happen1 and ,jesus only showed himself calm and courageous during the storm1 ,i am inclined to think that the legend would so far have understood her interest1 that1 as she had represented the contrast of the tranquillity of ,jesus with the raging of the elements to the intellect1 by means of the words of ,jesus1 so she would depict it for the imagination1 by means of the image of ,jesus sleeping in the ship 7or as ,mark has it1 #adbh on a pillow in the hinder part of the ship74 ,if then that which may possibly have happened in a single case1 must certainly have been invented by the legend in nine cases2 the expositor must in reason prepare himself for the undeniable possibility1 that we have before us one of the nine cases1 instead of that single case4 #adbi ,if then it be granted that nothing further remains as an historical foundation for our narrative1 than that ,jesus exhorted his disciples to show the firm courage of faith in opposition to the raging waves of the sea1 it is certainly possible that he may once have done this in a storm at sea2 but just as he said3 if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed1 ye may say to this mountain1 ,be thou removed1 and cast into the sea 7,matt4 xxi4 #ba71 or to this tree1 ,be thou plucked up by the root1 and be thou planted in the sea 7,luke xvii4 #f71 and both shall be done 7 1 ,luke73 so he might1 not merely on the sea1 but in any situation1 make use of the figure1 that to him who has faith1 winds and waves shall be obedient at a word 7 1 1 ,luke74 ,if we now take into account what even ,olshausen remarks1 and ,schneckenburger has shown1 #adcj that the contest of the kingdom of ,god with the world was in the early times of ,christianity commonly compared to a voyage through a stormy ocean2 we see at once1 how easily legend might come to frame such a narrative as the above1 on the suggestions afforded by the parallel between the ,messiah and ,moses1 the expressions of ,jesus1 and the conception of him as the pilot who steers the little vessel of the kingdom of ,god through the tumultuous waves of the world4 ,setting this aside1 however1 and viewing the matter only generally1 in relation to the idea of a miracle-worker1 we find a similar power over storms and tempests1 ascribed1 for example1 to ,pythagoras4 #adca ,we have a more complicated anecdote connected with the sea1 wanting in ,luke1 but contained in ,john vi4 #af ff41 as well as in ,matt4 xiv4 #bb ff41 and ,mark vi4 #de ff41 where a storm overtakes the disciples when sailing by night1 and ,jesus appears to their rescue1 walking towards them on the sea4 ,here1 again1 the storm subsides in a marvellous manner on the entrance of ,jesus into the ship2 but the peculiar difficulty of the narrative lies in this1 that the body of ,jesus appears so entirely exempt from a law which governs all other human bodies without exception1 namely1 the law of gravitation1 that he not only does not sink under the water1 but does not even dip into it2 on the contrary1 he walks erect on the waves as on firm land4 ,if we are to represent this to ourselves1 we must in some way or other1 conceive the body of ,jesus as an ethereal phantom1 according to the opinion of the ,docet2 a conception which the ,fathers of the ,church condemned as irreligious1 and which we must reject as extravagant4 ,olshausen indeed says1 that in a superior corporeality1 impregnated with the powers of a higher world1 such an appearance need not create surprise3 #adcb but these are words to which we can attach no definite idea4 ,if the spiritual activity of ,jesus which refined and perfected his corporeal nature1 instead of being conceived as that which more and more completely emancipated his body from the psychical laws of passion and sensuality1 is understood as if by its means the body was exempted from the physical law of gravity3--this is a materialism of which1 as in a former case1 it is difficult to decide whether it be more fantastical or childish4 ,if ,jesus did not sink in the water1 he must have been a spectre1 and the disciples in our narrative would not have been wrong in taking him for one4 ,we must also recollect that on his baptism in the river ,jordan1 ,jesus did not exhibit this property1 but was submerged like an ordinary man4 ,now had he at that time also the power of sustaining himself on the surface of the water1 and only refrained from using it8 and did he thus increase or reduce his specific gravity by an act of his will8 or are we to suppose1 as ,olshausen would perhaps say1 that at the time of his baptism he had not attained so far in the process of subtilizing his body1 as to be freely borne up by the water1 and that he only reached this point at a later period8 ,these are questions which ,olshausen justly calls absurd3 nevertheless they serve to open a glimpse into the abyss of absurdities in which we are involved by the supranaturalistic interpretation1 and particularly by that which this theologian gives of the narrative before us4 ,to avoid these1 the natural explanation has tried many expedients4 ,the boldest is that of ,paulus1 who maintains that the text does not state that ,jesus walked on the water2 and that the miracle in this passage is nothing but a philological mistake1 since is analogous to the expression 1 ,exod4 xiv4 #b1 and signifies to walk1 as the other to encamp1 over the sea1 that is1 on the elevated sea-shore4 #adcc ,according to the meaning of the words taken separately1 this explanation is possible3 its real applicability in this particular instance1 however1 must be determined by the context4 ,now this represents the disciples as having rowed twenty-five or thirty furlongs 7,john71 or as being in the midst of the sea 7,matthew and ,mark71 and then it is said that ,jesus came towards the ship1 and so near that he could speak to them1 4 ,how could he do this if he remained on the shore8 ,to obviate this objection1 ,paulus conjectures that the disciples in that stormy night probably only skirted the shore2 but the words 1 in the midst of the sea1 though not1 we grant1 to be construed with mathematical strictness1 yet1 even taken according to the popular mode of speaking1 are too decidedly opposed to such a supposition for it to be worth our further consideration4 ,but this mode of interpretation encounters a fatal blow in the passage where ,matthew says of ,peter1 that having come down out of the ship he walked on the water1 7v4 #bi72 for as it is said shortly after that ,peter began to sink 771 walking merely on the shore cannot have been intended here2 and if not here1 neither can it have been intended in the former instance relating to ,jesus1 the expressions being substantially the same4 #adcd ,but if ,peter1 in his attempt to walk upon the waters1 1 began to sink1 may we not still suppose that both he and ,jesus merely swam in the sea1 or waded through its shallows8 ,both these suppositions have actually been advanced4 #adce ,but the act of wading must have been expressed by 1 and had that of swimming been intended1 one or other of the parallel passages would certainly have substituted the precise expression for the ambiguous one3 besides1 it must be alike impossible either to swim from twenty-five to thirty furlongs in a storm1 or to wade to about the middle of the sea1 which certainly was beyond the shallows2 a swimmer could not easily be taken for a spectre2 and1 lastly1 the prayer of ,peter for special permission to imitate ,jesus1 and his failure in it from want of faith1 point to something supernatural4 #adcf ,the reasoning on which the natural mode of interpretation rests here1 as elsewhere1 has been enunciated by ,paulus in connexion with this passage in a form which reveals its fundamental error in a particularly happy manner4 ,the question1 he says1 in such cases is always this3 which is more probable1 that the evangelical writer should use an expression not perfectly exact1 or that there should be a departure from the course of nature8 ,it is evident that the dilemma is falsely stated1 and should rather be put thus3 ,is it more probable that the author should express himself inaccurately 7rather1 in direct contradiction to the supposed sense71 or that he should mean to narrate a departure from the course of nature8 ,for only what he means to narrate is the immediate point of inquiry2 what really happened is1 even according to the distinction of the judgment of a writer from the fact that he states1 on which ,paulus everlastingly insists1 an altogether different question4 ,because according to our views a departure from the course of nature cannot have taken place1 it by no means follows1 that a writer belonging to the primitive age of ,christianity could not have credited and narrated such a case2 #adcg and therefore to abolish the miraculous1 we must not explain it away from the narrative1 but rather inquire whether the narrative itself1 either in whole or in part1 must not be excluded from the domain of history4 ,in relation to this inquiry1 first of all1 each of our three accounts has peculiar features which in an historical light are suspicious4 ,the most striking of these features is found in ,mark v4 #dh1 where he says of ,jesus that he came walking on the sea towards the disciples1 and would have passed by them1 1 but that he was constrained by their anxious cries to take notice of them4 ,with justice ,fritzsche interprets ,mark's meaning to be1 that it was the intention of ,jesus1 supported by divine power1 to walk across the whole sea as on firm land4 ,but with equal justice ,paulus asks1 ,could anything have been more useless and extravagant than to perform so singular a miracle without any eye to witness it8 ,we must not however on this account1 with the latter theologian1 interpret the words of ,mark as implying a natural event1 namely1 that ,jesus1 being on the land1 was going to pass by the disciples who were sailing in a ship not far from the shore1 for the miraculous interpretation of the passage is perfectly accordant with the spirit of our ,evangelist4 ,not contented with the representation of his informant1 that ,jesus1 on this one occasion1 adopted this extraordinary mode of progress with special reference to his disciples1 he aims by the above addition to convey the idea of walking on the water being so natural and customary with ,jesus1 that without any regard to the disciples1 whenever a sheet of water lay in his road1 he walked across it as unconcernedly as if it had been dry land4 ,but such a mode of procedure1 if habitual with ,jesus1 would presuppose most decidedly a subtilization of his body such as ,olshausen supposes2 it would therefore presuppose what is inconceivable4 ,hence this particular of ,mark's presents itself as one of the most striking among those by which the second ,evangelist now and then approaches to the exaggerations of the apocryphal gospels4 #adch ,in ,matthew1 the miracle is in a different manner1 not so much heightened as complicated2 for there1 not only ,jesus1 but ,peter also makes an experiment in walking on the sea1 not indeed altogether successful4 ,this trait is rendered suspicious by its intrinsic character1 as well as by the silence of the two other narrators4 ,immediately on the word of ,jesus1 and in virtue of the faith which he has in the beginning1 ,peter actually succeeds in walking on the water for some time1 and only when he is assailed by fear and doubt does he begin to sink4 ,what are we to think of this8 ,admitting that ,jesus1 by means of his etherealized body1 could walk on the water1 how could he command ,peter1 who was not gifted with such a body1 to do the same8 or if by a mere word he could give the body of ,peter a dispensation from the law of gravitation1 can he have been a man8 and if a ,god1 would he thus lightly cause a suspension of natural laws at the caprice of a man8 or1 lastly1 are we to suppose that faith has the power instantaneously to lessen the specific gravity of the body of a believer8 ,faith is certainly said to have such a power in the figurative discourse of ,jesus just referred to1 according to which the believer is able to remove mountains and trees into the sea1--and why not also himself to walk on the sea8 ,the moral that as soon as faith falters1 power ceases1 could not be so aptly presented by either of the two former figures as by the latter1 in the following form3 as long as a man has faith he is able to walk unharmed on the unstable sea1 but no sooner does he give way to doubt than he sinks1 unless ,christ extend to him a helping hand4 ,the fundamental thought1 then1 of ,matthew's episodical narrative is1 that ,peter was too confident in the firmness of his faith1 that by its sudden failure he incurred great danger1 but was rescued by ,jesus2 a thought which is actually expressed in ,luke xxii4 #ca f41 where ,jesus says to ,simon3 ,satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat2 but ,i have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not4 ,these words of ,jesus have reference to ,peter's coming denial2 this was the occasion when his faith1 on the strength of which he had just before offered to go with ,jesus to prison and to death1 would have wavered1 had not the ,lord by his intercession1 procured him new strength4 ,if we add to this the above-mentioned habit of the early ,christians to represent the persecuting world under the image of a turbulent sea1 we cannot fail1 with one of the latest critics1 to perceive in the description of ,peter courageously volunteering to walk on the sea1 soon1 however1 sinking from faintheartedness1 but borne up by ,jesus1 an allegorical and mythical representation of that trial of faith which this disciple who imagined himself so strong1 met so weakly1 and which higher assistance alone enabled him to surmount4 #adci ,but the account of the fourth gospel also is not wanting in peculiar features1 which betray an unhistorical character4 ,it has ever been a cross to harmonists1 that while according to ,matthew and ,mark1 the ship was only in the middle of the sea when ,jesus reached it3 according to ,john1 it immediately after arrived at the opposite shore2 that while1 according to the former1 ,jesus actually entered into the ship1 and the storm thereupon subsided3 according to ,john1 on the contrary1 the disciples did indeed wish to take him into the ship1 but their actually doing so was rendered superfluous by their immediate arrival at the place of disembarkation4 ,it is true that here also abundant methods of reconciliation have been found4 ,first1 the word 1 they wished1 added to 1 to receive1 is said to be a mere redundancy of expression2 then1 to signify simply the joyfulness of the reception1 as if it had been said1 2 then1 to describe the first impression which the recognition of ,jesus made on the disciples1 his reception into the ship1 which really followed1 not being mentioned4 #addj ,but the sole reason for such an interpretation lies in the unauthorized comparison with the synoptical accounts3 in the narrative of ,john1 taken separately1 there is no ground for it1 nay1 it is excluded4 ,for the succeeding sentence3 1 1 immediately the ship was at the land whither they went1 though it is united1 not by but by 1 can nevertheless only be taken antithetically1 in the sense that the reception of ,jesus into the ship1 notwithstanding the readiness of the disciples1 did not really take place1 because they were already at the shore4 ,in consideration of this difference1 ,chrysostom held that there were two occasions on which ,jesus walked on the sea4 ,he says that on the second occasion1 which ,john narrates1 ,jesus did not enter into the ship1 in order that the miracle might be greater 4 #adda ,this view we may transfer to the ,evangelist1 and say3 if ,mark has aggrandized the miracle1 by implying that ,jesus intended to walk past the disciples across the entire sea2 so ,john goes yet farther1 for he makes him actually accomplish this design1 and without being taken into the ship1 arrive at the opposite shore4 #addb ,not only1 however1 does the fourth ,evangelist seek to aggrandize the miracle before us1 but also to establish and authenticate it more securely4 ,according to the synoptists1 the sole witnesses were the disciples1 who saw ,jesus come towards them1 walking on the sea3 ,john adds to these few immediate witnesses1 a multitude of mediate ones1 namely1 the people who were assembled when ,jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes4 ,these1 when on the following morning they no longer find ,jesus on the same spot1 make the calculation1 that ,jesus cannot have crossed the sea by ship1 for he did not get into the same boat with the disciples1 and no other boat was there 7v4 #bb72 while1 that he did not go by land1 is involved in the circumstance that the people when they have forthwith crossed the sea1 find him on the opposite shore 7v4 #be71 whither he could hardly have arrived by land in the short interval4 ,thus in the narrative of the fourth gospel1 as all natural means of passage are cut off from ,jesus1 there remains for him only a supernatural one1 and this consequence is in fact inferred by the multitude in the astonished question which they put to ,jesus1 when they find him on the opposite shore3 ,rabbi1 when camest thou hither8 ,as this chain of evidence for the miraculous passage of ,jesus depends on the rapid transportation of the multitude1 the ,evangelist hastens to procure other boats for their service 7v4 #bc74 ,now the multitude who take ship 7v4 #bb1 #bf ff47 are described as the same whom ,jesus had miraculously fed1 and these amounted 7according to v4 #aj7 to about #ejjj4 ,if only a fifth1 nay1 a tenth of these passed over1 there needed for this1 as the author of the ,probabilia has justly observed1 a whole fleet of ships1 especially if they were fishing boats2 but even if we suppose them vessels of freight1 these would not all have been bound for ,capernaum1 or have changed their destination for the sake of accommodating the crowd4 ,this passage of the multitude1 therefore1 appears only to have been invented1 #addc on the one hand1 to confirm by their evidence the walking of ,jesus on the sea2 on the other1 as we shall presently see1 to gain an opportunity for making ,jesus1 who according to the tradition had gone over to the opposite shore immediately after the multiplication of the loaves1 speak yet further with the multitude on the subject of this miracle4 ,after pruning away these offshoots of the miraculous which are peculiar to the respective narratives1 the main stem is still left1 namely1 the miracle of ,jesus walking on the sea for a considerable distance1 with all its attendant improbabilities as above exposed4 ,but the solution of these accessory particulars1 as it led us to discover the causes of their unhistorical origin1 has facilitated the discovery of such causes for the main narrative1 and has thereby rendered possible the solution of this also4 ,we have seen1 by an example already adduced1 that it was usual with the ,hebrews and early ,christians1 to represent the power of ,god over nature1 a power which the human spirit when united to him was supposed to share1 under the image of supremacy over the raging waves of the sea4 ,in the narrative of the ,exodus this supremacy is manifested by the sea being driven out of its place at a sign1 so that a dry path is opened to the people of ,god in its bed2 in the ,new ,testament narrative previously considered1 the sea is not removed out of its place1 but only so far laid to rest that ,jesus and his disciples can cross it in safety in their ship3 in the anecdote before us1 the sea still remains in its place as in the second1 but there is this point of similarity to the first1 that the passage is made on foot1 not by ship1 yet as a necessary consequence of the other particular1 on the surface of the sea1 not in its bed4 ,still more immediate inducements to develop in such a manner the conception of the power of the miracle-worker over the waves1 may be found both in the ,old ,testament1 and in the opinions prevalent in the time of ,jesus4 ,among the miracles of ,elisha1 it is not only told that he divided the ,jordan by a stroke of his mantle1 so that he could go through it dry shod 7#b ,kings ii4 #ad71 but also that he caused a piece of iron which had fallen into the water to swim 7#b ,kings vi4 #f72 an ascendancy over the law of gravitation which it would be imagined the miracle-worker might be able to evince in relation to his own body also1 and thus to exhibit himself1 as it is said of ,jehovah1 ,job ix4 #h1 ,,lxx41 ' 1 walking upon the sea as upon a pavement4 ,in the time of ,jesus much was told of miracle-workers who could walk on the water4 ,apart from conceptions exclusively ,grecian1 #addd the ,greco-oriental legend feigned that the hyperborean ,abaris possessed an arrow1 by means of which he could bear himself up in the air1 and thus traverse rivers1 seas1 and abysses1 #adde and popular superstition attributed to many wonder-workers the power of walking on water4 #addf ,hence the possibility that with all these elements and inducements existing1 a similar legend should be formed concerning ,jesus1 appears incomparably stronger1 than that a real event of this kind should have occurred3--and with this conclusion we may dismiss the subject4 ,the manifestation of ,jesus at the sea of ,tiberias narrated ,john xxi4 has so striking a resemblance to the sea anecdotes hitherto considered1 that although the fourth gospel places it in the period after the resurrection1 we are induced1 as in an earlier instance we brought part of it under notice in connexion with the narrative of ,peter's draught of fishes1 so here to institute a comparison between its other features1 and the narrative of ,jesus walking on the sea4 ,in both cases1 ,jesus is perceived by the disciples in the twilight of early morning2 only in the latter instance he does not1 as in the former1 walk on the sea1 but stands on the shore1 and the disciples are in consternation1 not because of a storm1 but because of the fruitlessness of their fishing4 ,in both instances they are afraid of him2 in the one1 they take him for a spectre1 in the other1 not one of them ventures to ask him who he is1 knowing that it is the ,lord4 ,but especially the scene with ,peter1 peculiar to the first gospel1 has its corresponding one in the present passage4 ,as1 there1 when ,jesus walking on the sea makes himself known to his disciples1 ,peter entreats permission to go to him on the water3 so here1 as soon as ,jesus is recognized standing on the shore1 ,peter throws himself into the water that he may reach him the shortest way by swimming4 ,thus1 that which in the earlier narrative was the miraculous act of walking on the sea1 becomes in the one before us1 in relation to ,jesus1 the simple act of standing on the shore1 in relation to ,peter1 the natural act of swimming2 so that the latter history sounds almost like a rationalistic paraphrase of the former3 and there have not been wanting those who have maintained that at least the anecdote about ,peter in the first gospel1 is a traditional transformation of the incident in ,john xxi4 #g into a miracle4 #addg ,modern criticism is restrained from extending this conjecture to the anecdote of ,jesus walking on the sea1 by the fact that the supposed apostolic fourth gospel itself has this feature in the earlier narrative 7vi4 #af ff474 ,but from our point of view it appears quite possible1 that the history in question either came to the author of this gospel in the one form1 and to the author of the appendix in the other2 or that it came to the one author of both in a double form1 and was inserted by him in separate parts of his narrative4 ,meanwhile1 if the two histories are to be compared1 we ought not at once to assume that the one1 ,john xxi41 is the original1 the other1 ,matt4 xiv4 parall41 the secondary2 we must first ask which of the two bears intrinsic marks of one or the other character4 ,now certainly if we adhere to the rule that the more miraculous narrative is the later1 that in ,john xxi4 appears1 in relation to the manner in which ,jesus approaches the disciples1 and in which ,peter reaches ,jesus1 to be the original4 ,but this rule is connected in the closest manner with another2 namely1 that the more simple narrative is the earlier1 the more complex one the later1 as the conglomerate is a later formation than the homogeneous stone2 and according to this rule1 the conclusion is reversed1 and the narrative in ,john xxi4 is the more traditional1 for in it the particulars mentioned above are interwoven with the miraculous draught of fishes1 while in the earlier narrative they form in themselves an independent whole4 ,it is indeed true1 that a greater whole may be broken up into smaller parts2 but such fragments have not at all the appearance of the separate narratives of the draught of fishes and the walking on the sea1 since these1 on the contrary1 leave the impression of being each a finished whole4 ,from this interweaving with the miracle of the draught of fishes1--to which we must add the circumstance that the entire circle of events turns upon the risen ,jesus1 who is already in himself a miracle1--it is apparent how1 contrary to the general rule1 the oft-named particulars could lose their miraculous character1 since by their combination with other miracles they were reduced to mere accessories1 to a sort of natural scaffolding4 ,if then the narrative in ,john xxi4 is entirely secondary1 its historical value has already been estimated with that of the narratives which furnished its materials4 ,if1 before we proceed further1 we take a retrospect of the series of sea-anecdotes hitherto examined1 we find1 it is true1 that the two extreme anecdotes are altogether dissimilar1 the one relating mainly to fishing1 the other to a storm2 nevertheless1 on a proper arrangement1 each of them appears to be connected with the preceding by a common feature4 ,the narrative of the call of the fishers of men 7,matt4 iv4 #ah ff4 par47 opens the series2 that of ,peter's draught of fishes 7,luke v4 #a ff47 has in common with this the saying about the fishers of men1 but the fact of the draught of fishes is peculiar to it2 this fact reappears in ,john xxi41 where the circumstances of ,jesus standing on the shore in the morning twilight1 and the swimming of ,peter towards him1 are added2 these two circumstances are in ,matt4 xiv4 #bb ff4 parall4 metamorphosed into the act of walking on the sea on the part of ,jesus and of ,peter1 and at the same time a storm1 and its cessation on the entrance of ,jesus into the ship1 are introduced2 lastly1 in ,matt4 viii4 #bc ff4 parall41 we have an anecdote single in its kind1 namely1 that of the stilling of the storm by ,jesus4 ,we come to a history for which a place is less readily found in the foregoing series1 in ,matt4 xvii4 #bd ff4 ,it is true that here again there is a direction of ,jesus to ,peter to go and fish1 to which1 although it is not expressly stated1 we must suppose that the issue corresponded3 but first1 it is only one fish which is to be caught1 and with an angle2 and secondly1 the main point is1 that in its mouth is to be found a piece of gold to serve for the payment of the temple tribute for ,jesus and ,peter1 from the latter of whom this tax had been demanded4 ,this narrative as it is here presented has peculiar difficulties1 which ,paulus well exhibits1 and which ,olshausen does not deny4 ,fritzsche justly remarks1 that there are two miraculous particulars presupposed3 first1 that the fish had a coin in its mouth2 secondly1 that ,jesus had a foreknowledge of this4 ,on the one hand1 we must regard the former of these particulars as extravagant1 and consequently the latter also2 and on the other1 the whole miracle appears to have been unnecessary4 ,certainly1 that metals and other valuables have been found in the bodies of fish is elsewhere narrated1 #addh and is not incredible2 but that a fish should have a piece of money in its mouth1 and keep it there while it snapped at the bait--this even ,dr4 ,schnappinger #addi found inconceivable4 ,moreover1 the motive of ,jesus for performing such a miracle could not be want of money1 for even if at that time there was no store in the common fund1 still ,jesus was in ,capernaum1 where he had many friends1 and where consequently he could have obtained the needful money in a natural way4 ,to exclude this possibility1 we must with ,olshausen confound borrowing with begging1 and regard it as inconsistent with the decorum divinum which must have been observed by ,jesus4 ,nor after so many proofs of his miraculous power1 could ,jesus think this additional miracle necessary to strengthen ,peter's belief in his messiahship4 ,hence we need not wonder that rationalistic commentators have attempted to free themselves at any cost from a miracle which even ,olshausen pronounces to be the most difficult in the evangelical history1 and we have only to see how they proceed in this undertaking4 ,the pith of the natural explanation of the fact lies in the interpretation of the word 1 thou shalt find1 in the command of ,jesus1 not of an immediate discovery of a stater in the fish1 but of a mediate acquisition of this sum by selling what was caught4 #adej ,it must be admitted that the above word may bear this signification also2 but if we are to give it this sense instead of the usual one1 we must in the particular instance have a clear intimation to this effect in the context4 ,thus1 if it were said in the present passage3 ,take the first fine fish1 carry it to the market1 1 and there thou shall find a stater1 this explanation would be in place2 as however instead of this1 the word is preceded by 1 when thou hast opened his mouth1--as1 therefore1 no place of sale1 but a place inside the fish1 is mentioned1 as that on the opening of which the coin is to be obtained1--we can only understand an immediate discovery of the piece of money in this part of the fish4 #adea ,besides1 to what purpose would the opening of the fish's mouth be mentioned1 unless the desideratum were to be found there8 ,paulus sees in this only the injunction to release the fish from the hook without delay1 in order to keep it alive1 and thus to render it more saleable4 ,the order to open the mouth of the fish might indeed1 if it stood alone1 be supposed to have the extraction of the hook as its object and consequence2 but as it is followed by 1 thou shalt find a stater1 it is plain that this is the immediate end of opening the mouth4 ,the perception that1 so long as the opening of the fish's mouth is spoken of in this passage1 it will be inferred that the coin was to be found there1 has induced the rationalistic commentators to try whether they could not refer the word 1 mouth1 to another subject than the fish1 and no other remained than the fisher1 ,peter4 ,but as appeared to be connected with the fish by the word 1 which immediately followed it1 ,dr4 ,paulus1 moderating or exaggerating the suggestion of a friend1 who proposed to read instead of--1 --allowed to remain1 but took it adverbially1 and translated the passage thus3 thou hast then only to open thy mouth to offer the fish for sale1 and thou wilt on the spot 77 receive a stater as its price4 ,but1 it would still be asked1 how could a single fish fetch so high a price in ,capernaum1 where fish were so abundant8 ,hence ,paulus understands the words1 1 take up the fish that first cometh up1 collectively thus3 continue time after time to take the fish that first comes to thee1 until thou hast caught as many as will be worth a stater4 ,if the series of strained interpretations which are necessary to a natural explanation of this narrative throw us back on that which allows it to contain a miracle2 and if this miracle appear to us1 according to our former decision1 both extravagant and useless1 nothing remains but to presume that here also there is a legendary element4 ,this view has been combined with the admission1 that a real but natural fact was probably at the foundation of the legend3 namely1 that ,jesus once ordered ,peter to fish until he had caught enough to procure the amount of the temple tribute2 whence the legend arose that the fish had the tribute money in its mouth4 #adeb ,but1 in our opinion1 a more likely source of this anecdote is to be found in the much-used theme of a catching of fish by ,peter1 on the one side1 and on the other1 the well-known stories of precious things having been found in the bodies of fish4 ,peter1 as we learn from ,matt4 iv41 ,luke v41 ,john xxi41 was the fisher in the evangelical legend ta whom ,jesus in various forms1 first symbolically1 and then literally1 granted the rich draught of fishes4 ,the value of the capture appears here in the shape of a piece of money1 which1 as similar things are elsewhere said to have been found in the belly of fishes1 is by an exaggeration of the marvel said to be found in the mouth of the fish4 ,that it is the stater1 required for the temple tribute1 might be occasioned by a real declaration of ,jesus concerning his relation to that tax2 or conversely1 the stater which was accidentally named in the legend of the fish angled for by ,peter1 might bring to recollection the temple tribute1 which amounted to that sum for two persons1 and the declaration of ,jesus relative to this subject4 ,with this tale conclude the sea anecdotes4 #ajb4 ,,the ,,miraculous ,,multiplication ,,of ,,the ,,loaves ,,and ,,fishes4 ,as1 in the histories last considered1 ,jesus determined and mitigated the motions of irrational and even of inanimate existences2 so1 in the narratives which we are about to examine1 he exhibits the power of multiplying not only natural objects1 but also productions of nature which had been wrought upon by art4 ,that ,jesus miraculously multiplied prepared articles of food1 feeding a great multitude of men with a few loaves and fishes1 is narrated to us with singular unanimity by all the ,evangelists 7,matt4 xiv4 #ac ff42 ,mark vi4 #cj ff42 ,luke ix4 #aj ff42 ,john vi4 #a ff474 ,and if we believe the two first1 ,jesus did not do this merely once2 for in ,matt4 xv4 #cb ff42 ,mark viii4 #a ff4 we read of a second multiplication of loaves and fishes1 the circumstances of which are substantially the same as those of the former4 ,it happens somewhat later2 the place is rather differently described1 and the length of time during which the multitude stayed with ,jesus is differently stated2 moreover1 and this is a point of greater importance1 the proportion between the stock of food and the number of men is different1 for1 on the first occasion1 five thousand men are satisfied with five loaves and two fishes1 and1 on the second1 four thousand with seven loaves and a few fishes2 on the first twelve baskets are filled with the fragments1 on the second only seven4 ,notwithstanding this1 not only is the substance of the two histories exactly the same--the satisfying of a multitude of people with disproportionately small means of nourishment2 but also the description of the scene in the one1 entirely corresponds in its principal features to that in the other4 ,in both instances1 the locality is a solitary region in the vicinity of the ,galilean sea2 ,jesus is led to perform the miracle because the people have lingered too long with him2 he manifests a wish to feed the people from his own stores1 which the disciples regard as impossible2 the stock of food at his disposal consists of loaves and fishes2 ,jesus makes the people sit down1 and1 after giving thanks1 distributes the provisions to them through the medium of the disciples2 they are completely satisfied1 and yet a disproportionately great quantity of fragments is afterwards collected in baskets2 lastly1 in the one case as in the other1 ,jesus after thus feeding the multitude1 crosses the sea4 ,this repetition of the same event creates many difficulties4 ,the chief of these is suggested by the question3 ,is it conceivable that the disciples1 after they had themselves witnessed how ,jesus was able to feed a great multitude with a small quantity of provision1 should nevertheless on a second occasion of the same kind1 have totally forgotten the first1 and have asked1 ,whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to feed so great a multitude8 ,to render such an obliviousness on the part of the disciples probable1 we are reminded that they had1 in just as incomprehensible a manner1 forgotten the declarations of ,jesus concerning his approaching sufferings and death1 when these events occurred2 #adec but it is equally a pending question1 whether after such plain predictions from ,jesus1 his death could in fact have been so unexpected to the disciples4 ,it has been supposed that a longer interval had elapsed between the two miracles1 and that during this there had occurred a number of similar cases1 in which ,jesus did not think fit to afford miraculous assistance3 #aded but1 on the one hand1 these are pure fictions2 on the other1 it would remain just as inconceivable as ever1 that the striking similarity of the circumstances preceding the second feeding of the multitude to those preceding the first1 should not have reminded even one of the disciples of that former event ,paulus therefore is right in maintaining1 that had ,jesus once already fed the multitude by a miracle1 the disciples1 on the second occasion1 when he expressed his determination not to send the people away fasting1 would confidently have called upon him for a repetition of the former miracle4 ,in any case then1 if ,jesus on two separate occasions fed a multitude with disproportionately small provision1 we must suppose1 as some critics have done1 that many features in the narrative of the one incident were transferred to the other1 and thus the two1 originally unlike1 became in the course of oral tradition more and more similar2 the incredulous question of the disciples especially having been uttered only on the first occasion1 and not on the second4 #adee ,it may seem to speak in favour of such an assimilation1 that the fourth ,evangelist1 though in his numerical statement he is in accordance with the first narrative of ,matthew and ,mark1 yet has1 in common with the second1 the circumstances that the scene opens with an address of ,jesus and not of the disciples1 and that the people come to ,jesus on a mountain4 ,but if the fundamental features be allowed to remain1--the wilderness1 the feeding of the people1 the collection of the fragments1--it is still1 even without that question of the disciples1 sufficiently improbable that the scene should have been repeated in so entirely similar a manner4 ,if1 on the contrary1 these general features be renounced in relation to one of the histories1 it is no longer apparent1 how the veracity of the evangelical narratives as to the manner in which the second multiplication of loaves and fishes took place can be questioned on all points1 and yet their statement as to the fact of its occurrence be maintained as trustworthy1 especially as this statement is confined to ,matthew and his imitator ,mark4 ,hence later critics have1 with more #adef or less #adeg decision1 expressed the opinion1 that here one and the same fact has been doubled1 through a mistake of the first ,evangelist1 who was followed by the second4 ,they suppose that several narratives of the miraculous feeding of the multitude were current which presented divergencies from each other1 especially in relation to numbers1 and that the author of the first gospel1 to whom every additional history of a miracle was a welcome prize1 and who was therefore little qualified for the critical reduction of two different narratives of this kind into one1 introduced both into his collection4 ,this fully explains how on the second occasion the disciples could again express themselves so incredulously3 namely1 because in the tradition whence the author of the first gospel obtained the second history of a miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes1 it was the first and only one1 and the ,evangelist did not obliterate this feature because1 apparently1 he incorporated the two narratives into his writing just as he read or heard them4 ,among other proofs that this was the case1 may be mentioned the constancy with which he and ,mark1 who copied him1 not only in the account of the events1 but also in the subsequent allusion to them 7,matt4 xvi4 #i f42 ,mark viii4 #ai f471 call the baskets in the first feeding1 1 in the second 4 #adeh ,it is indeed correctly maintained1 that the ,apostle ,matthew could not possibly take one event for two1 and relate a new history which never happened3 #adei but this proposition does not involve the reality of the second miraculous feeding of the multitude1 unless the apostolic origin of the first gospel be at once presupposed1 whereas this yet remains to be proved4 ,paulus further objects1 that the duplication of the history in question could be of no advantage whatever to the design of the ,evangelist2 and ,olshausen1 developing this idea more fully1 observes that the legend would not have left the second narrative as simple and bare as the first4 ,but this argument1 that a narrative cannot be fictitious1 because if it were so it would have been more elaborately adorned1 may very properly be at once dismissed1 since its limits being altogether undefined1 it might be repeated under all circumstances1 and in the end would prove fable itself not sufficiently fabulous4 ,but1 in this case particularly1 it is totally baseless1 because it presupposes the narrative of the first feeding of the multitude to be historically accurate2 now1 if we have already in this a legendary production1 the other edition of it1 namely1 the second history of a miraculous feeding1 needs not to be distinguished by special traditionary features4 ,but not only is the second narrative not embellished as regards the miraculous1 when compared with the first2 it even diminishes the miracle1 for1 while increasing the quantity of provision1 it reduces the number of those whom it satisfied3 and this retrogression in the marvellous is thought the surest proof that the second feeding of the multitude really occurred2 for1 it is said1 he who chose to invent an additional miracle of this kind1 would have made it surpass the first1 and instead of five thousand men would have given1 not four1 but ten thousand4 #adfj ,this argument1 also1 rests on the unfounded assumption that the first narrative is of course the historical one2 though ,olshausen himself has the idea that the second might with probability be regarded as the historical basis1 and the first as the legendary copy1 and then the fictitious would have the required relation to the true--that of exaggeration4 ,but when in opposition to this1 he observes1 how improbable it is that an unscrupulous narrator would place the authentic fact1 being the less imposing1 last1 and eclipse it beforehand by the false one1--that such a writer would rather seek to outdo the truth1 and therefore place his fiction last1 as the more brilliant1--he again shows that he does not comprehend the mythical view of the biblical narratives1 in the degree necessary for forming a judgment on the subject4 ,for there is no question here of an unscrupulous narrator1 who would designedly surpass the true history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes1 and least of all is ,matthew pronounced to be such a narrator3 on the contrary1 it is held that with perfect honesty1 one account gave five thousand1 another four1 and that1 with equal honesty1 the first ,evangelist copied from both2 and for the very reason that he went to work innocently and undesignedly1 it was of no importance to him which of the two histories stood first and which last1 the more important or the less striking one2 but he allowed himself to be determined on this point by accidental circumstances1 such as that he found the one connected with incidents which appeared to him the earlier1 the other with such as he supposed to be the later4 ,a similar instance of duplication occurs in the ,pentateuch in relation to the histories of the feeding of the ,israelites with quails1 and of the production of water out of the rock1 the former of which is narrated both in ,exod4 xvi4 and ,num4 xi41 the latter in ,exod4 xvii4 and again in ,num4 xx41 in each instance with an alteration in time1 place1 and other circumstances4 #adfa ,meanwhile1 all this yields us only the negative result that the double narratives of the first gospels cannot have been founded on two separate events4 ,to determine which of the two is historical1 or whether either of them deserves that epithet1 must be the object of a special inquiry4 ,to evade the pre-eminently magical appearance which this miracle presents1 ,olshausen gives it a relation to the moral state of the participants1 and supposes that the miraculous feeding of the multitude was effected through the intermediation of their spiritual hunger4 ,but this is ambiguous language1 which1 on the first attempt to determine its meaning1 vanishes into nothing4 ,for in cures1 for example1 the intermediation here appealed to consists in the opening of the patient's mind to the influence of ,jesus by faith1 so that when faith is wanting1 the requisite fulcrum for the miraculous power of ,jesus is also wanting3 here therefore the intermediation is real4 ,now if the same kind of intermediation took place in the case before us1 so that on those among the multitude who were unbelieving the satisfying power of ,jesus had no influence1 then must the satisfaction of hunger here 7as1 in the above cases1 the cure7 be regarded as something effected by ,jesus directly in the body of the hungry persons1 without any antecedent augmentation of the external means of nourishment4 ,but such a conception of the matter1 as ,paul us justly remarks1 and as even ,olshausen intimates1 is precluded by the statement of the ,evangelists1 that real food was distributed among the multitude2 that each enjoyed as much as he wanted2 and that at the end the residue was greater than the original store4 ,it is thus plainly implied that there was an external and objective increase of the provisions1 as a preliminary to the feeding of the multitude4 ,now1 this cannot be conceived as effected by means of the faith of the people in a real manner1 in the sense that that faith co-operated in producing the multiplication of the loaves4 ,the intermediation which ,olshausen here supposes1 can therefore have been only a teleological one1 that is1 we are to understand by it1 that ,jesus undertook to multiply the loaves and fishes for the sake of producing a certain moral condition in the multitude4 ,but an intermediation of this kind affords me not the slightest help in forming a conception of the event2 for the question is not why1 but how it happened4 ,thus all which ,olshausen believes himself to have done towards rendering this miracle more intelligible1 rests on the ambiguity of the expression1 intermediation2 and the inconceivableness of an immediate influence of the will of ,jesus on irrational nature1 remains chargeable upon this history as upon those last examined4 ,but there is another difficulty which is peculiar to the narrative before us4 ,we have here not merely1 as hitherto1 a modification or a direction of natural objects1 but a multiplication of them1 and that to an enormous extent4 ,nothing1 it is true1 is more familiar to our observation than the growth and multiplication of natural objects1 as presented to us in the parable of the sower1 and the grain of mustard seed1 for example4 ,but1 first1 these phenomena do not take place without the co-operation of other natural agents1 as earth1 water1 air1 so that here1 also1 according to the well-known principle of physics1 there is not properly speaking an augmentation of the substance1 but only a change in the accidents2 secondly1 these processes of growth and multiplication are carried forward so as to pass through their various stages in corresponding intervals of time4 ,here1 on the contrary1 in the multiplication of the loaves and fishes by ,jesus1 neither the one rule nor the other is observed3 the bread in the hand of ,jesus is no longer1 like the stalk on which the corn grew1 in communication with the maternal earth1 nor is the multiplication gradual1 but sudden4 ,but herein1 it is said1 consists the miracle1 which in relation to the last point especially1 may be called the acceleration of a natural process4 ,that which comes to pass in the space of three quarters of a year1 from seed-time to harvest1 was here effected in the minutes which were required for the distribution of the food2 for natural developments are capable of acceleration1 and to how great an extent we cannot determine4 #adfb ,it would1 indeed1 have been an acceleration of a natural process1 if in the hand of ,jesus a grain of corn had borne fruit a hundred-fold1 and brought it to maturity1 and if he had shaken the multiplied grain out of his hands as they were filled again and again1 that the people might grind1 knead1 and bake it1 or eat it raw from the husk in the wilderness where they were2--or if he had taken a living fish1 suddenly called forth the eggs from its body1 and converted them into full-grown fish1 which then the disciples or the people might have boiled or roasted1 this1 we should say1 would have been an acceleration of a natural process4 ,but it is not corn that he takes into his hand1 but bread2 and the fish also1 as they are distributed in pieces1 must have been prepared in some way1 perhaps1 as in ,luke xxiv4 #db1 comp4 ,john xxi4 #i1 broiled or salted4 ,here then1 on both sides1 the production of nature is no longer simple and living1 but dead and modified by art3 so that to introduce a natural process of the above kind1 ,jesus must1 in the first place1 by his miraculous power have metamorphosed the bread into corn again1 the roasted fish into raw and living ones2 then instantaneously have effected the described multiplication2 and lastly1 have restored the whole from the natural to the artificial state4 ,thus the miracle would be composed1 #ast1 of a revivification1 which would exceed in miraculousness all other instances in the gospels2 secondly1 of an extremely accelerated natural process2 and thirdly1 of an artificial process1 effected invisibly1 and likewise extremely accelerated1 since all the tedious proceedings of the miller and baker on the one hand1 and of the cook on the other1 must have been accomplished in a moment by the word of ,jesus4 ,how then can ,olshausen deceive himself and the believing reader1 by the agreeably sounding expression1 accelerated natural process1 when this nevertheless can designate only a third part of the fact of which we are speaking8 #adfc ,but how are we to represent such a miracle to ourselves1 and in what stage of the event must it be placed8 ,in relation to the latter point1 three opinions are possible1 corresponding to the number of the groups that act in our narrative2 for the multiplication may have taken place either in the hands of ,jesus1 or in those of the disciples who dispensed the food1 or in those of the people who received it4 ,the last idea appears1 on the one hand1 puerile even to extravagance1 if we are to imagine ,jesus and the apostles distributing1 with great carefulness1 that there might be enough for all1 little crumbs which in the hands of the recipients swelled into considerable pieces3 on the other hand1 it would have been scarcely a possible task1 to get a particle1 however small1 for every individual in a multitude of five thousand men1 out of five loaves1 which1 according to ,hebrew custom1 and particularly as they were carried by a boy1 cannot have been very large2 and still less out of two fishes4 ,of the two other opinions ,i think1 with ,olshausen1 the one most suitable is that which supposes that the food was augmented under the creative hands of ,jesus1 and that he time after time dispensed new quantities to the disciples4 ,we may then endeavour to represent the matter to ourselves in two ways3 first we may suppose that as fast as one loaf or fish was gone1 a new one came out of the hands of ,jesus1 or secondly1 that the single loaves and fishes grew1 so that as one piece was broken off1 its loss was repaired1 until on a calculation the turn came for the next loaf or fish4 ,the first conception appears to be opposed to the text1 which as it speaks of fragments 1 of the five loaves 7,john vi4 #ac71 can hardly be held to presuppose an increase of this number2 thus there remains only the second1 by the poetical description of which ,lavater has done but a poor service to the orthodox view4 #adfd ,for this miracle belongs to the class which can only appear in any degree credible so long as they can be retained in the obscurity of an indefinite conception3 #adfe no sooner does the light shine on them1 so that they can be examined in all their parts1 than they dissolve like the unsubstantial creations of the mist4 ,loaves1 which in the hands of the distributors expand like wetted sponges1--broiled fish1 in which the severed parts are replaced instantaneously1 as in the living crab gradually1--plainly belong to quite another domain than that of reality4 ,what gratitude then do we not owe to the rationalistic interpretation1 if it be true that it can free us1 in the easiest manner1 from the burden of so unheard-of a miracle8 ,if we are to believe ,dr4 ,paulus1 #adff the ,evangelists had no idea that they were narrating anything miraculous1 and the miracle was first conveyed into their accounts by expositors4 ,what they narrate is1 according to him1 only thus much3 that ,jesus caused his small store of provisions to be distributed1 and that in consequence of this the entire multitude obtained enough to eat4 ,here1 in any case1 we want a middle term1 which would distinctly inform us1 how it was possible that1 although ,jesus had so little food to offer1 the whole multitude obtained enough to eat4 ,a very natural middle term however is to be gathered1 according to ,paulus1 out of the historical combination of the circumstances4 ,as1 on a comparison with ,john vi4 #d1 the multitude appear to have consisted for the greater part of a caravan on its way to the feast1 they cannot have been quite destitute of provisions1 and probably a few indigent persons only had exhausted their stores4 ,in order then to induce the better provided to share their food with those who were in want1 ,jesus arranged that they should have a meal1 and himself set the example of imparting what he and his disciples could spare from their own little store2 this example was imitated1 and thus the distribution of bread by ,jesus having led to a general distribution1 the whole multitude were satisfied4 ,it is true that this natural middle term must be first mentally interpolated into the text2 as1 however1 the supernatural middle term which is generally received is just as little stated expressly1 and both alike depend upon inference1 the reader can hardly do otherwise than decide for the natural one4 ,such is the reasoning of ,dr4 ,paulus3 but the alleged identity in the relation of the two middle terms to the text does not in fact exist4 ,for while the natural explanation requires us to suppose a new distributing subject 7the better provided among the multitude71 and a new distributed object 7their provisions71 together with the act of distributing these provisions3 the supranatural explanation contents itself with the subject actually present in the text 7,jesus and his disciples71 with the single object there given 7their little store71 and the described distribution of this2 and only requires us to supply from our imagination the means by which this store could be made sufficient to satisfy the hunger of the multitude1 namely its miraculous augmentation under the hands of ,jesus 7or of his disciples74 ,how can it be yet maintained that neither of the two middle terms is any more suggested by the text than the other8 ,that the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes is not expressly mentioned1 is explained by the consideration that the event itself is one of which no clear conception can be formed1 and therefore it is best conveyed by the result alone4 ,but how will the natural theologian account for nothing being said of the distribution1 called forth by the example of ,jesus1 on the part of those among the multitude who had provisions8 ,it is altogether arbitrary to insert that distribution between the sentences1 ,he gave them to the disciples1 and the disciples to the multitude 7,matt4 xiv4 #ai71 and1 they did all eat and were filled 7v4 #bj72 while the words1 1 and the two fishes divided he among them all 7,mark vi4 #da71 plainly indicate that only the two fishes--and consequently only the five loaves--were the object of distribution for all4 #adfg ,but the natural explanation falls into especial embarrassment when it comes to the baskets which1 after all were satisfied1 ,jesus caused to be filled with the fragments that remained4 ,the fourth ,evangelist says3 1 1 1 therefore they gathered them together1 and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves1 which remained over and above unto them that had eaten 7vi4 #ac74 ,this seems clearly enough to imply that out of those identical five loaves1 after five thousand men had been satisfied by them1 there still remained fragments enough to fill twelve baskets1--more1 that is1 than the amount of the original store4 ,here1 therefore1 the natural expositor is put to the most extravagant contrivances in order to evade the miracle4 ,it is true1 when the synoptists simply say that the remnants of the meal were collected1 and twelve baskets filled with them1 it might be thought from the point of view of the natural explanation1 that ,jesus1 out of regard to the gift of ,god1 caused the fragments which the crowd had left from their own provisions to be collected by his disciples4 ,but as1 on the one hand1 the fact that the people allowed the remains of the repast to lie1 and did not appropriate them1 seems to indicate that they treated the nourishment presented to them as the property of another2 so1 on the other hand1 ,jesus1 when1 without any preliminary1 he directs his disciples to gather them up1 appears to regard them as his own property4 ,hence ,paulus understands the words 4441 of the synoptists1 not of a collection first made after the meal1 of that which remained when the people had been satisfied1 but of the overplus of the little store belonging to ,jesus and the disciples1 which the latter1 after reserving what was necessary for ,jesus and themselves1 carried round as an introduction and inducement to the general repast4 ,but how1 when the words 1 they did all eat and were filled1 are immediately followed by 1 and they took up1 can the latter member of the verse refer to the time prior to the meal8 ,must it not then have necessarily been said at least 1 for they took up8 ,further1 how1 after it had just been said that the people did eat and were filled1 can 1 that which remained1 especially succeeded as it is in ,luke by 1 to them1 mean anything else than what the people had left8 ,lastly1 how is it possible that out of five loaves and two fishes1 after ,jesus and his disciples had reserved enough for themselves1 or even without this1 there could in a natural manner be twelve baskets filled for distribution among the people8 ,but still more strangely does the natural explanation deal with the narrative of ,john4 ,jesus here adds1 as a reason for gathering up the fragments1 1 that nothing be lost2 hence it appears impossible to divest the succeeding statement that they filled twelve baskets with the remains of the five loaves1 of its relation to the time after the meal2 and in this case1 it would be impossible to get clear of a miraculous multiplication of the loaves4 ,paulus therefore1 although the words 4441 therefore they gathered them together and filled twelve baskets1 etc41 form a strictly coherent whole1 chooses rather to detach 1 and1 by a still more forced construction than that which he employed with the synoptical text1 makes the narrative pass all at once1 without the slightest notice1 into the pluperfect1 and thus leap back to the time before the meal4 ,here1 then1 the natural explanation once more fails to fulfil its task3 the text retains its miracle1 and if we have reason to think this incredible1 we must inquire whether the narrative of the text deserves credence4 ,the agreement of all the four ,evangelists is generally adduced in proof of its distinguished credibility3 but this agreement is by no means so perfect4 ,there are minor differences1 first between ,matthew and ,luke2 then between these two and ,mark1 who in this instance again embellishes2 and lastly1 between the synoptists collectively and ,john1 in the following points3 according to the synoptists1 the scene of the event is a desert place1 according to ,john1 a mountain2 according to the former1 the scene opens with an address from the disciples1 according to ,john1 with a question from ,jesus 7two particulars in which1 as we have already remarked1 the narrative of ,john approaches that of the second feeding in ,matthew and ,mark72 lastly1 the words which the three first ,evangelists put into the mouth of the disciples indefinitely1 the fourth in his individualizing manner ascribes to ,philip and ,andrew1 and the same ,evangelist also designates the bearer of the loaves and fishes as a boy 774 ,these divergencies however may be passed over as less essential1 that we may give our attention only to one1 which has a deeper hold4 ,while1 namely1 according to the synoptical accounts1 ,jesus had been long teaching the people and healing their sick1 and was only led to feed them by the approach of evening1 and the remark of the disciples that the people needed refreshment3 in ,john1 the first thought of ,jesus1 when he lifts up his eyes and sees the people gathering round him1 is that which he expresses in his question to ,philip3 ,whence shall we buy bread that these may eat8 or rather1 as he asked this merely to prove ,philip1 well knowing himself what he would do1 he at once forms the resolution of feeding the multitude in a miraculous manner4 ,but how could the design of feeding the people arise in ,jesus immediately on their approach8 ,they did not come to him for this1 but for the sake of his teaching and his curative power4 ,he must therefore have conceived this design entirely of his own accord1 with a view to establish his miraculous power by so signal a demonstration4 ,but did he ever thus work a miracle without any necessity1 and even without any inducement1--quite arbitrarily1 and merely for the sake of working a miracle8 ,i am unable to describe strongly enough how impossible it is that eating should here have been the first thought of ,jesus1 how impossible that he could thus obtrude his miraculous repast on the people4 ,thus in relation to this point1 the synoptical narrative1 in which there is a reason for the miracle1 must have the preference to that of ,john1 who1 hastening towards the miracle1 overlooks the requisite motive for it1 and makes ,jesus create instead of awaiting the occasion for its performance4 ,an eye-witness could not narrate thus2 #adfh and if1 therefore1 the account of that gospel to which the greatest authority is now awarded1 must be rejected as unhistorical2 so1 with respect to the other narratives1 the difficulties of the fact itself are sufficient to cast a doubt on their historical credibility1 especially if in addition to these negative grounds we can discover positive reasons which render it probable that our narrative had an unhistorical origin4 ,such reasons are actually found both within the evangelical history itself1 and beyond it in the ,old ,testament history1 and the ,jewish popular belief4 ,in relation to the former source1 it is worthy of remark1 that in the synoptical gospels as well as in ,john1 there are more or less immediately appended to the feeding of the multitude by ,jesus with literal bread1 figurative discourses of ,jesus on bread and leaven3 namely1 in the latter1 the declarations concerning the bread of heaven1 and the bread of life which ,jesus gives 7,john vi4 #bg ff472 in the former1 those concerning the false leaven of the ,pharisees and ,sadducees1 that is1 their false doctrine and hypocrisy4 #adfi 7,matt4 xvi4 #e ff42 ,mark viii4 #ad ff42 comp4 ,luke xii4 #a72 and on both sides1 the figurative discourse of ,jesus is erroneously understood of literal bread4 ,it would not then be a very strained conjecture1 that as in the passages quoted we find the disciples and the people generally1 understanding literally what ,jesus meant figuratively2 so the same mistake was made in the earliest ,christian tradition4 ,if1 in figurative discourses1 ,jesus had sometimes represented himself as him who was able to give the true bread of life to the wandering and hungering people1 perhaps also placing in opposition to this1 the leaven of the ,pharisees3 the legend1 agreeably to its realistic tendency1 may have converted this into the fact of a miraculous feeding of the hungry multitude in the wilderness by ,jesus4 ,the fourth ,evangelist makes the discourse on the bread of heaven arise out of the miracle of the loaves3 but the relation might very well have been the reverse1 and the history owe its origin to the discourse1 especially as the question which introduces ,john's narrative1 ,whence shall we buy bread that these may eat8 may be more easily conceived as being uttered by ,jesus on the first sight of the people1 if he alluded to feeding them with the word of ,god 7comp4 ,john iv4 #cb ff471 to appeasing their spiritual hunger 7,matt4 v4 #f71 in order to exercise 77 the higher understanding of his disciples1 than if he really thought of the satisfaction of their bodily hunger1 and only wished to try whether his disciples would in this case confide in his miraculous power4 ,the synoptical narrative is less suggestive of such a view2 for the figurative discourse on the leaven could not by itself originate the history of the miracle4 ,thus the gospel of ,john stands alone with reference to the above mode of derivation1 and it is more agreeable to the character of this gospel to conjecture that it has applied the narrative of a miracle presented by tradition to the production of figurative discourses in the ,alexandrian taste1 than to suppose that it has preserved to us the original discourses out of which the legend spun that miraculous narrative4 ,if then we can discover1 beyond the limits of the ,new ,testament1 very powerful causes for the origination of our narrative1 we must renounce the attempt to construct it out of materials presented by the gospels themselves4 ,and here the fourth ,evangelist1 by putting into the mouth of the people a reference to the manna1 that bread of heaven which ,moses gave to the fathers in the wilderness 7v4 #ca71 reminds us of one of the most celebrated passages in the early history of the ,israelites 7,exod4 xvi471 which was perfectly adapted to engender the expectation that its antitype would occur in the ,messianic times2 and we in fact learn from rabbinical writings1 that among those functions of the first ,gol which were to be revived in the second1 a chief place was given to the impartation of bread from heaven4 #adgj ,if the ,mosaic manna presents itself as that which was most likely to be held a type of the bread miraculously augmented by ,jesus2 the fish which ,jesus also multiplied miraculously1 may remind us that ,moses gave the people1 not only a substitute for bread in the manna1 but also animal food in the quails 7,exod4 xvi4 #h1 xii4 #ac2 ,num4 xi4 #d ff474 ,on comparing these ,mosaic narratives with our evangelical ones1 there appears a striking resemblance even in details4 ,the locality in both cases is the wilderness2 the inducement to the miracle here as there1 is fear lest the people should suffer from want in the wilderness1 or perish from hunger2 in the ,old ,testament history1 this fear is expressed by the people in loud murmurs1 in that of the ,new ,testament1 it results from the shortsightedness of the disciples1 and the benevolence of ,jesus4 ,the direction of the latter to his disciples that they should give the people food1 a direction which implies that he had already formed the design of feeding them miraculously1 may be paralleled with the command which ,jehovah gave to ,moses to feed the people with manna 7,exod4 xvi4 #d71 and with quails 7,exod4 xvi4 #ab2 ,num4 xi4 #ah-bj74 ,but there is another point of similarity which speaks yet more directly to our present purpose4 ,as1 in the evangelical narrative1 the disciples think it an impossibility that provision for so great a mass of people should be procured in the wilderness1 so1 in the ,old ,testament history1 ,moses replies doubtingly to the promise of ,jehovah to satisfy the people with flesh 7,num4 xi4 #ba f474 ,to ,moses1 as to the disciples1 the multitude appears too great for the possibility of providing sufficient food for them2 as the latter ask1 whence they should have so much bread in the wilderness1 so ,moses asks ironically whether they should slay the flocks and the herds 7which they had not74 ,and as the disciples object1 that not even the most impoverishing expenditure on their part would thoroughly meet the demand1 so ,moses1 clothing the idea in another form1 had declared1 that to satisfy the people as ,jehovah promised1 an impossibility must happen 7the fish of the sea be gathered together for them72 objections which ,jehovah there1 as here ,jesus1 does not regard1 but issues the command that the people should prepare for the reception of the miraculous food4 ,but though these two cases of a miraculous supply of nourishment are thus analogous1 there is this essential distinction1 that in the ,old ,testament1 in relation both to the manna and the quails1 it is a miraculous procuring of food not previously existing which is spoken of1 while in the ,new ,testament it is a miraculous augmentation of provision already present1 but inadequate2 so that the chasm between the ,mosaic narrative and the evangelical one is too great for the latter to have been derived immediately from the former4 ,if we search for an intermediate step1 a very natural one between ,moses and the ,messiah is afforded by the prophets4 ,we read of ,elijah1 that through him and for his sake1 the little store of meal and oil which he found in the possession of the widow of ,zarephath was miraculously replenished1 or rather was made to suffice throughout the duration of the famine 7#a ,kings xvii4 #h-af74 ,this species of miracle is developed still further1 and with a greater resemblance to the evangelical narrative1 in the history of ,elisha 7#b ,kings iv4 #db ff474 ,as ,jesus fed five thousand men in the wilderness with five loaves and two fishes1 so this prophet1 during a famine1 fed a hundred men with twenty loaves1 7which like those distributed by ,jesus in ,john1 are called barley loaves17 together with some ground corn 71 ,,lxx4 72 a disproportion between the quantity of provisions and the number of men1 which his servant1 like the disciples in the other instance1 indicates in the question3 ,what6 should ,i set this before a hundred men8 ,elisha1 like ,jesus1 is not diverted from his purpose1 but commands the servant to give what he has to the people2 and as in the ,new ,testament narrative great stress is laid on the collection of the remaining fragments1 so in the ,old ,testament it is specially noticed at the close of this story1 that notwithstanding so many had eaten of the store1 there was still an overplus4 #adga ,the only important difference here is1 that on the side of the evangelical narrative1 the number of the loaves is smaller1 and that of the people greater2 but who does not know that in general the legend does not easily imitate1 without at the same time surpassing1 and who does not see that in this particular instance it was entirely suited to the position of the ,messiah1 that his miraculous power1 compared with that of ,elisha1 should be placed1 as it regards the need of natural means1 in the relation of five to twenty1 but as it regards the supernatural performance1 in that of five thousand to one hundred8 ,paulus indeed1 in order to preclude the inference1 that as the two narratives in the ,old ,testament are to be understood mythically1 so also is the strikingly similar evangelical narrative1 extends to the former the attempt at a natural explanation which he has pursued with the latter1 making the widow's cruse of oil to be replenished by the aid of the scholars of the prophets1 and the twenty loaves suffice for one hundred men by means of a praiseworthy moderation2 #adgb a mode of explanation which is more practicable here than with the ,new ,testament narrative1 in proportion as1 by reason of the greater remoteness of these anecdotes1 they present fewer critical 7and1 by reason of their merely mediate relation to ,christianity1 fewer dogmatical7 motives for maintaining their historical veracity4 ,nothing more is wanting to complete the mythical derivation of this history of the miraculous feeding of the multitude1 except the proof1 that the later ,jews also believed of particularly holy men1 that by their means a small amount of provision was made sufficient1 and of this proof the disinterested industry of ,dr4 ,paulus as a collector1 has put us in possession4 ,he adduces a rabbinical statement that in the time of a specially holy man1 the small quantity of shew-bread more than sufficed for the supply of the priests4 #adgc ,to be consequent1 this commentator should try to explain this story also naturally1--by the moderation of the priests1 for instance3 but it is not in the canon1 hence he can unhesitatingly regard it as a fable1 and he only so far admits its striking similarity to the evangelical narrative as to observe1 that in consequence of the ,jewish belief in such augmentations of food1 attested by that rabbinical statement1 the ,new ,testament narrative may in early times have been understood by judaizing ,christians in the same 7miraculous7 sense4 ,but our examination has shown that the evangelical narrative was designedly composed so as to convey this sense1 and if this sense was an element of the popular ,jewish legend1 then is the evangelical narrative without doubt a product of that legend4 #adgd #ajc4 ,,jesus ,,turns ,,water ,,into ,,wine4 ,next to the history of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes1 may be ranged the narrative in the fourth gospel 7ii4 #a ff471 of ,jesus at a wedding in ,cana of ,galilee turning water into wine4 ,according to ,olshausen1 both miracles fall under the same category1 since in both a substratum is present1 the substance of which is modified4 #adge ,but he overlooks the logical distinction1 that in the miracle of the loaves and fishes1 the modification is one of quantity merely1 an augmentation of what was already existing1 without any change of its quality 7bread becomes more bread1 but remains bread72 whereas at the wedding in ,cana the substratum is modified in quality--out of a certain substance there is made not merely more of the same kind1 but something else 7out of water1 wine72 in other words1 a real transubstantiation takes place4 ,it is true there are changes in quality which are natural results1 and the instantaneous effectuation of which by ,jesus would be even more easy to conceive1 than an equally rapid augmentation of quantity2 for example1 if he had suddenly changed must into wine1 or wine into vinegar1 this would only have been to conduct in an accelerated manner the same vegetable substratum1 the vinous juice1 through various conditions natural to it4 ,the miracle would be already heightened if ,jesus had imparted to the juice of another fruit1 the apple for instance1 the quality of that of the grape1 although even in this his agency would have been within the limits of the same kingdom of nature4 ,but here1 where water is turned into wine1 there is a transition from one kingdom of nature to another1 from the elementary to the vegetable2 a miracle which as far exceeds that of the multiplication of the loaves1 as if ,jesus had hearkened to the counsel of the tempter1 and turned stones into bread4 #adgf ,to this miracle1 as to the former1 ,olshausen1 after ,augustine1 #adgg applies his definition of an accelerated natural process1 by which we are to understand that we have here simply the occurrence1 in an accelerated manner1 of that which is presented yearly in the vine in a slow process of development4 ,this mode of viewing the matter would have some foundation1 if the substratum on which ,jesus operated had been the same out of which wine is wont to be naturally produced2 if he had taken a vine in his hand1 and suddenly caused it to bloom1 and to bear ripe grapes1 this might have been called an accelerated natural process4 ,even then indeed we should still have no wine1 and if ,jesus were to produce this also from the vine which he took into his hand1 he must add an operation which would be an invisible substitute for the winepress1 that is1 an accelerated artificial process2 so that on this supposition the category of the accelerated natural process would already be insufficient4 ,in fact1 however1 we have no vine as a substratum for this production of wine1 but water1 and in this case we could only speak with propriety of an accelerated natural process1 if by any means1 however gradual1 wine were ever produced out of water4 ,here it is urged1 that certainly out of water1 out of the moisture produced in the earth by rain and the like1 the vine draws its sap1 which in due order it applies to the production of the grape1 and of the wine therein contained2 so that thus yearly1 by means of a natural process1 wine does actually come out of water4 #adgh ,but apart from the fact that water is only one of the elementary materials which are required for the fructification of the vine1 and that to this end1 soil1 air1 and light1 must concur2 it could not be said either of one1 or of all these elementary materials together1 that they produce the grape or the wine1 nor1 consequently1 that ,jesus1 when he produced wine out of water1 did the same thing1 only more quickly1 which is repeated every year as a gradual process3 on the contrary1 here again there is a confusion of essentially distinct logical categories4 ,for we may place the relation of the product to the producing agent1 which is here treated of1 under the category of power and manifestation1 or of cause and effect3 never can it be said that water is the power or the cause1 which produces grapes and wine1 for the power which gives existence to them is strictly the vegetable individuality of the vine-plant1 to which water1 with the rest of the elementary agencies1 is related only as the solicitation to the power1 as the stimulus to the cause4 ,that is1 without the co-operation of water1 air1 etc1 grapes certainly cannot be produced1 any more than without the vine plant2 but the distinction is1 that in the vine the grape1 in itself or in its germ1 is already present1 and water1 air1 etc41 only assist in its development2 whereas in these elementary substances1 the grape is present neither actu nor potenti2 they can in no way produce the fruit out of themselves1 but only out of something else--the vine4 ,to turn water into wine is not then to make a cause act more rapidly than it would act in a natural way1 but it is to make the effect appear without a cause1 out of a mere accessory circumstance2 or1 to refer more particularly to organic nature1 it is to call forth the organic product without the producing organism1 out of the simple inorganic materials1 or rather out of one of these materials only4 ,this is about the same thing as to make bread out of earth without the intervention of the corn plant1 flesh out of bread without a previous assimilation of it by an animal body1 or in the same immediate manner1 blood out of wine4 ,if the supranaturalist is not here contented with appealing to the incomprehensibleness of an omnipotent word of ,jesus1 but also endeavours1 with ,olshausen1 to bring the process which must have been contained in the miracle in question nearer to his conception1 by regarding it in the light of a natural process2 he must not1 in order to render the matter more probable1 suppress a part of the necessary stages in that process1 but exhibit them all4 ,they would then present the following series3 #ast1 to the water1 as one only of the elementary agents1 ,jesus must have added the power of the other elements above named2 #bndly 7and this is the chief point71 he must have procured1 in an equally invisible manner1 the organic individuality of the vine2 #crdly1 he must have accelerated1 to the degree of instantaneousness1 the natural process resulting from the reciprocal action of these objects upon one another1 the blooming and fructification of the vine1 together with the ripening of the grape2 #dthly1 he must have caused the artificial process of pressing1 and so forth1 to occur invisibly and suddenly2 and lastly1 he must again have accelerated the further natural process of fermentation1 so as to render it momentary4 ,thus1 here again1 the designation of the miracle as an accelerated natural process1 would apply to two stages only out of five1 the other three being such as cannot possibly be brought under this point of view1 though the two first1 especially the second1 are of greater importance even than belonged to the stages which were neglected in the application of this view to the history of the miraculous feeding3 so that the definition of an accelerated natural process is as inadequate here as there4 #adgi ,as1 however1 this is the only1 or the extreme category1 under which we can bring such operations nearer to our conception and comprehension2 it follows that if this category be shown to be inapplicable1 the event itself is inconceivable4 ,not only1 however1 has the miracle before us been impeached in relation to possibility1 but also in relation to utility and fitness4 ,it has been urged both in ancient #adhj and modern #adha times1 that it was unworthy of ,jesus that he should not only remain in the society of drunkards1 but even further their intemperance by an exercise of his miraculous power4 ,but this objection should be discarded as an exaggeration1 since1 as expositors justly observe1 from the words after men have well drunk1 7v4 #aj71 which the ruler of the feast uses with reference to the usual course of things at such feasts1 nothing can with certainty be deduced with respect to the occasion in question4 ,we must however still regard as valid an objection1 which is not only pointed out by ,paulus and the author of the ,probabilia1 #adhb but admitted even by ,lcke and ,olshausen to be at the first glance a pressing difficulty3 namely1 that by this miracle ,jesus did not1 as was usual with him1 relieve any want1 any real need1 but only furnished an additional incitement to pleasure2 showed himself not so much helpful as courteous2 rather1 so to speak1 performed a miracle of luxury1 than of true beneficence4 ,if it be here said that it was a sufficient object for the miracle to confirm the faith of the disciples1 #adhc which according to v4 #aa was its actual effect2 it must be remembered that1 as a general rule1 not only had the miracles of ,jesus1 considered with regard to their form1 i4e4 as extraordinary results1 something desirable as their consequence1 for instance1 the faith of the spectators2 but also1 considered with regard to their matter1 i4e4 as consisting of cures1 multiplications of loaves1 and the like1 were directed to some really beneficent end4 ,in the present miracle this characteristic is wanting1 and hence ,paulus is not wrong when he points out the contradiction which would lie in the conduct of ,jesus1 if towards the tempter he rejected every challenge to such miracles as1 without being materially beneficent1 or called for by any pressing necessity1 could only formally produce faith and astonishment1 and yet in this instance performed a miracle of that very nature4 #adhd ,the supranaturalist was therefore driven to maintain that it was not faith in general which ,jesus here intended to produce1 but a conviction entirely special1 and only to be wrought by this particular miracle4 ,proceeding on this supposition1 nothing was more natural than to be reminded by the opposition of water and wine on which the miracle turns1 of the opposition between him who baptized with water 7,matt4 iii4 #aa71 who at the same time came neither eating nor drinking 7,luke i4 #ae2 ,matt4 xi4 #ah71 and him who1 as he baptized with the ,holy ,ghost and with fire1 so he did not deny himself the ardent1 animating fruit of the vine1 and was hence reproached with being a wine-bibber 7,matt4 xi4 #ai72 especially as the fourth gospel1 in which the narrative of the wedding at ,cana is contained1 manifests in a peculiar degree the tendency to lead over the contemplation from the ,baptist to ,jesus4 ,on these grounds ,herder1 #adhe and after him some others1 #adhf have held the opinion1 that ,jesus by the above miraculous act intended to symbolize to his disciples1 several of whom had been disciples of the ,baptist1 the relation of his spirit and office to those of ,john1 and by this proof of his superior power1 to put an end to the offence which they might take at his more liberal mode of life4 ,but here the reflection obtrudes itself1 that ,jesus does not avail himself of this symbolical miracle1 to enlighten his disciples by explanatory discourses concerning his relation to the ,baptist2 an omission which even the friends of this interpretation pronounce to be surprising4 #adhg ,how needful such an exposition was1 if the miracle were not to fail of its special object1 is evident from the fact1 that the narrator himself1 according to v4 #aa1 understood it not at all in this light1 as a symbolization of a particular maxim of ,jesus1 but quite generally1 as a manifestation of his glory4 #adhh ,thus if that special lesson were the object of ,jesus in performing the miracle before us1 then the author of the fourth gospel1 that is1 according to the supposition of the above theologians1 his most apprehensive pupil1 misunderstood him1 and ,jesus delayed in an injudicious manner to prevent this misunderstanding2 or if both these conclusions are rejected1 there still subsists the difficulty1 that ,jesus1 contrary to the prevailing tendency of his conduct1 sought to attain the general object of proving his miraculous power1 by an act for which apparently he might have substituted a more useful one4 ,again1 the disproportionate quantity of wine with which ,jesus supplies the guests1 must excite astonishment4 ,six vessels1 each containing from two to three 1 supposing the ,attic 1 corresponding to the ,hebrew bath1 to be equivalent to #a ,roman amphor1 or twenty-one ,wirtemberg measures1 #adhi would yield #beb-cgh measures4 #adij ,what a quantity for a company who had already drunk freely6 ,what enormous vessels6 exclaims ,dr4 ,paulus1 and leaves no effort untried to reduce the statement of measures in the text4 ,with a total disregard of the rules of the language1 he gives to the preposition a collective meaning1 instead of its proper distributive one1 so as to make the six water pots 77 contain1 not each1 but altogether1 from two to three 2 and even ,olshausen consoles himself1 after ,semler1 with the fact1 that it is nowhere remarked that the water in all the vessels was turned into wine4 ,but these are subterfuges2 they to whom the supply of so extravagant and dangerous a quantity of wine on the part of ,jesus is incredible1 must conclude that the narrative is unhistorical4 ,peculiar difficulty is occasioned by the relation in which this narrative places ,jesus to his mother1 and his mother to him4 ,according to the express statement of the ,evangelist1 the turning of water into wine was the beginning of the miracles of ,jesus1 2 and yet his mother reckons so confidently on his performing a miracle here1 that she believes it only necessary to point out to him the deficiency of wine1 in order to induce him to afford supernatural aid2 and even when she receives a discouraging answer1 she is so far from losing hope1 that she enjoins the servants to be obedient to the directions of her son 7v4 #c1 #e74 ,how is this expectation of a miracle on the part of the mother of ,jesus to be explained8 ,are we to refer the declaration of ,john1 that the metamorphosis of the water was the first miracle of ,jesus1 merely to the period of his public life1 and to presuppose as real events1 for his previous years1 the apocryphal miracles of the ,gospels of the ,infancy8 ,or1 believing that ,chrysostom was right in regarding this as too uncritical1 #adia are we rather to conjecture that ,mary1 in consequence of her conviction that ,jesus was the ,messiah1 a conviction wrought in her by the signs that attended his birth1 expected miracles from him1 and as perhaps on some earlier occasions1 so now on this1 when the perplexity was great1 desired from him a proof of his power8 #adib ,were only that early conviction of the relatives of ,jesus that he was the ,messiah somewhat more probable1 and especially the extraordinary events of the childhood1 by which it is supposed to have been produced1 better accredited6 ,moreover1 even presupposing the belief of ,mary in the miraculous power of her son1 it is still not at all clear how1 notwithstanding his discouraging answer1 she could yet confidently expect that he would just on this occasion perform his first miracle1 and feel assured that she positively knew that he would act precisely so as to require the assistance of the servants4 #adic ,this decided knowledge on the part of ,mary1 even respecting the manner of the miracle about to be wrought1 appears to indicate an antecedent disclosure of ,jesus to her1 and hence ,olshausen supposes that ,jesus had given his mother an intimation concerning the miracle on which he had resolved4 ,but when could this disclosure have been made8 ,already as they were going to the feast8 ,then ,jesus must have foreseen that there would be a want of wine1 in which case ,mary could not have apprised him of it as of an unexpected embarrassment4 ,or did ,jesus make the disclosure after her appeal1 and consequently in connexion with the words3 ,what have ,i to do with thee1 woman1 etc48 ,but with this answer1 it is impossible to conceive so opposite a declaration to have been united2 it would therefore be necessary1 on ,olshausen's view1 to imagine that ,jesus uttered the negative words aloud1 the affirmative in an undertone1 merely for ,mary3 a supposition which would give the scene the appearance of a comedy4 ,thus it is on no supposition to be understood how ,mary could expect a miracle at all1 still less precisely such an one4 ,the first difficulty might indeed be plausibly evaded1 by maintaining that ,mary did not here apply to ,jesus in expectation of a miracle1 but simply that she might obtain her son's advice in the case1 as she was wont to do in all difficult circumstances3 #adid his reply however shows that he regarded the words of his mother as a summons to perform a miracle1 and moreover the direction which ,mary gave to the servants remains on this supposition totally unexplained4 ,the answer of ,jesus to the intimation of his mother 7v4 #d7 has been just as often blamed with exaggeration #adie as justified on insufficient grounds4 ,however truly it may be urged that the ,hebrew phrase1 1 to which the ,greek corresponds1 appears elsewhere as an expression of gentle blame1 e4g4 #b ,sam4 xvi4 #aj2 #adif or that with the entrance of ,jesus on his special office his relation to his mother as regarded his actions was dissolved3 #adig it nevertheless remains undeniable1 that it was fitting for ,jesus to be modestly apprised of opportunities for the exercise of his miraculous power1 and if one who pointed out to him a case of disease and added an entreaty for help1 did not deserve reprehension1 as little and even less did ,mary1 when she brought to his knowledge a want which had arisen1 with a merely implied entreaty for assistance4 ,the case would have been different had ,jesus considered the occasion not adapted1 or even unworthy to have a miracle connected with it2 he might then have repelled with severity the implied summons1 as an incitement to a false use of miraculous power 7instanced in the history of the temptation72 as1 on the contrary1 he immediately after showed by his actions that he held the occasion worthy of a miracle1 it is absolutely incomprehensible how he could blame his mother for her information1 which perhaps only came to him a few moments too soon4 #adih ,here again it has been attempted to escape from the numerous difficulties of the supranatural view1 by a natural interpretation of the history4 ,the commentators who advance this explanation set out from the fact1 that it was the custom among the ,jews to make presents of oil or wine at marriage feasts4 ,now ,jesus1 it is said1 having brought with him five new disciples as uninvited guests1 might foresee a deficiency of wine1 and wished out of pleasantry to present his gift in an unexpected and mysterious manner4 ,the 7glory7 which he manifested by this proceeding1 is said to be merely his humanity1 which in the proper place did not disdain to pass a jest2 the 1 7faith7 which he thereby excited in his disciples1 was a joyful adherence to a man who exhibited none of the oppressive severity which had been anticipated in the ,messiah4 ,mary was aware of her son's project1 and warned him when it appeared to her time to put it in execution2 but he reminded her playfully not to spoil his jest by over-haste4 ,his causing water to be drawn1 seems to have belonged to the playful deception which he intended2 that all at once wine was found in the vessels instead of water1 and that this was regarded as a miraculous metamorphosis1 might easily happen at a late hour of the night1 when there had already been considerable drinking2 lastly1 that ,jesus did not enlighten the wedding party as to the true state of the case1 was the natural consequence of his wish not himself to dissipate the delusion which he had playfully caused4 #adii ,for the rest1 how the plan was effected1 by what arrangements on the part of ,jesus the wine was conveyed in the place of the water1 this1 ,paulus thinks1 is not now to be ascertained2 it is enough for us to know that all happened naturally4 ,as however1 according to the opinion of this expositor1 the ,evangelist was aware1 in a general manner1 that the whole occurrence was natural1 why has he given us no intimation to that effect8 ,did he wish to prepare for the reader the same surprise that ,jesus had prepared for the spectators8 still he must afterwards have solved the enigma1 if he did not intend the delusion to be permanent4 ,above all1 he ought not to have used the misleading expression1 that ,jesus by this act manifested forth his glory 7 1 v4 #aa71 which1 in the phraseology of this gospel1 can only mean his superior dignity2 he ought not to have called the incident a sign 771 by which something supernatural is implied2 lastly1 he ought not1 by the expression1 the water that was made wine 7 1 v4 #i71 and still less by the subsequent designation of ,cana as the place where he made the water wine 7 71 to have occasioned the impression1 that he approved the miraculous conception of the event4 #aejj ,the author of the ,natural ,history sought to elude these difficulties by the admission1 that the narrator himself1 ,john1 regarded the event as a miracle1 and meant to describe it as such4 ,not to mention1 however1 the unworthy manner in which he explains this error on the part of the ,evangelist1 #aeja it is not easy to conceive of ,jesus that he should have kept his disciples in the same delusion as the rest of the guests1 and not have given to them at least an explanation concerning the real course of the event4 ,it would therefore be necessary to suppose that the narrator of this event was not one of the disciples of ,jesus3 a supposition which goes beyond the sphere of this system of interpretation4 ,but even admitting that the narrator himself1 whoever he may have been1 was included in the same deception with those who regarded the affair as a miracle1 in which case his mode of representation and the expressions which he uses would be accounted for2 still the procedure of ,jesus1 and his mode of acting1 are all the more inconceivable1 if no real miracle were on foot4 ,why did he with refined assiduity arrange the presentation of the wine1 so that it might appear to be a miraculous gift8 ,why1 in particular1 did he cause the vessels in which he intended forthwith to present the wine1 to be filled beforehand with water1 the necessary removal of which could only be a hindrance to the secret execution of his plan8 unless indeed it be supposed1 with ,woolston1 that he merely imparted to the water the taste of wine1 by pouring into it some liquor4 ,thus there is a double difficulty2 on the one hand1 that of imagining how the wine could be introduced into the vessels already filled with water2 on the other1 that of freeing ,jesus from the suspicion of having wished to create the appearance of a miraculous transmutation of the water4 ,it may have been the perception of these difficulties which induced the author of the ,natural ,history entirely to sever the connexion between the water which was poured in1 and the wine which subsequently appeared1 by the supposition that ,jesus had caused the water to be fetched1 because there was a deficiency of this also1 and ,jesus wished to recommend the beneficial practice of washing before and after meals1 but that he afterwards caused the wine to be brought out of an adjoining room where he had placed it3--a conception of the matter which requires us either to suppose the intoxication of all the guests1 and especially of the narrator1 as so considerable1 that they mistook the wine brought out of the adjoining room1 for wine drawn out of the water vessels2 or else that the deceptive arrangements of ,jesus were contrived with very great art1 which is inconsistent with the straightforwardness of character elsewhere ascribed to him4 ,in this dilemma between the supranatural and the natural interpretations1 of which1 in this case again1 the one is as insufficient as the other1 we should be reduced1 with one of the most recent commentators on the fourth gospel1 to wait 8until it pleased ,god1 by further developments of judicious ,christian reflection1 to evolve a solution of the enigma to the general satisfaction20 #aejb did we not discern an outlet in the fact1 that the history in question is found in ,john's gospel alone4 ,single in its kind as this miracle is1 if it were also the first performed by ,jesus1 it must1 even if all the twelve were not then with ,jesus1 have yet been known to them all2 and even if among the rest of the ,evangelists there were no apostle1 still it must have passed into the general ,christian tradition1 and from thence into the synoptical memoirs3 consequently1 as ,john alone has it1 the supposition that it arose in a region of tradition unknown to the synoptists1 seems easier than the alternative1 that it so early disappeared out of that from which they drew2 the only question is1 whether we are in a condition to show how such a legend could arise without historical grounds4 ,kaiser points for this purpose to the extravagant spirit of the oriental legend1 which has ever been so fertile in metamorphoses3 but this source is so wide and indefinite1 that ,kaiser finds it necessary also to suppose a real jest on the part of ,jesus1 #aejc and thus remains uneasily suspended between the mythical and the natural explanations1 a position which cannot be escaped from1 until there can be produced points of mythical connexion and origin more definite and exact4 ,now in the present case we need halt neither at the character of eastern legend in general1 nor at metamorphoses in general1 since transmutations of this particular element of water are to be found within the narrower circle of the ancient ,hebrew history4 ,besides some narratives of ,moses procuring for the ,israelites water out of the flinty rock in the wilderness 7,exod4 xvii4 #a ff42 ,num4 xx4 #a ff47--a bestowal of water which1 after being repeated in a modified manner in the history of ,samson 7,judges xv4 #ah f471 was made a feature in the messianic expectations2 #aejd--the first transmutation of water ascribed to ,moses1 is the turning of all the water in ,egypt into blood1 which is enumerated among the so-called plagues 7,exod4 vii4 #ag ff474 ,together with this mutatio in deterius1 there is in the history of ,moses a mutatio in melius1 also effected in water1 for he made bitter water sweet1 under the direction of ,jehovah 7,exod4 xiv4 #bc ff4 #aeje72 as at a later era1 ,elisha also is said to have made unhealthy water good and innoxious 7#b ,kings ii4 #ai ff4 #aejf74 ,as1 according to the rabbinical passage quoted1 the bestowal of water1 so also1 according to this narrative in ,john1 the transmutation of water appears to have been transferred from ,moses and the prophets to the ,messiah1 with such modifications1 however1 as lay in the nature of the case4 ,if namely1 on the one hand1 a change of water for the worse1 like that ,mosaic transmutation into blood--if a miracle of this retributive kind might not seem well suited to the mild spirit of the ,messiah as recognised in ,jesus3 so on the other hand1 such a change for the better as1 like the removal of bitterness or noxiousness1 did not go beyond the species of water1 and did not1 like the change into blood1 alter the substance of the water itself1 might appear insufficient for the ,messiah2 if then the two conditions be united1 a change of water for the better1 which should at the same time be a specific alteration of its substance1 must almost of necessity be a change into wine4 ,now this is narrated by ,john1 in a manner not indeed in accordance with reality1 but which must be held all the more in accordance with the spirit of his gospel4 ,for the harshness of ,jesus towards his mother is1 historically considered1 incredible2 but it is entirely in the spirit of the fourth gospel1 to place in relief the exaltation of ,jesus as the divine ,logos by such demeanour towards suppliants 7as in ,john iv4 #dh71 and even towards his mother4 #aejg ,equally in the spirit of this gospel is it also1 to exhibit the firm faith which ,mary maintains notwithstanding the negative answer of ,jesus1 by making her give the direction to the servants above considered1 as if she had a preconception even of the manner in which ,jesus would perform his miracle1 a preconception which is historically impossible4 #aejh #ajd4 ,,jesus ,,curses ,a ,,barren ,,fig-,,tree4 ,the anecdote of the fig-tree which ,jesus caused to wither by his word1 because when he was hungry he found no fruit on it1 is peculiar to the two first gospels 7,matt4 xxi4 #ah ff42 ,mark xi4 #ab ff471 but is narrated by them with divergencies which must affect our view of the fact4 ,one of these divergencies of ,mark from ,matthew1 appears so favourable to the natural explanation1 that1 chiefly in consideration of it1 a tendency towards the natural view of the miracles of ,jesus has been of late ascribed to this ,evangelist2 and for the sake of this one favourable divergency1 he has been defended in relation to the other rather inconvenient one1 which is found in the narrative before us4 ,if we were restricted to the manner in which the first ,evangelist states the consequence of the curse of ,jesus3 and immediately the fig-tree withered away 1 it would be difficult here to carry out a natural explanation2 for even the forced interpretation of ,paulus1 which makes the word 7immediately7 only exclude further human accession to the fact1 and not a longer space of time1 rests only on an unwarranted transference of ,mark's particulars into the narrative of ,matthew4 ,in ,mark1 ,jesus curses the fig-tree on the morning after ,his entrance into ,jerusalem1 and not till the following morning the disciples remark1 in passing1 that the tree is withered4 ,through this interim1 which ,mark leaves open between the declaration of ,jesus and the withering of the tree1 the natural explanation of the whole narrative insinuates itself1 taking its stand on the possibility1 that in this interval the tree might have withered from natural causes4 ,accordingly1 ,jesus is supposed to have remarked in the tree1 besides the lack of fruit1 a condition from which he prognosticated that it would soon wither away1 and to have uttered this prediction in the words3 ,no one will ever again gather fruit from thee4 ,the heat of the day having realized the prediction of ,jesus with unexpected rapidity1 and the disciples remarking this the next morning1 they then first connected this result with the words of ,jesus on the previous morning1 and began to regard them as a curse3 an interpretation which1 indeed1 ,jesus does not confirm1 but impresses on the disciples1 that if they have only some self-reliance1 they will be able1 not only to predict such physiologically evident results1 but also to know and effect things far more difficult4 #aeji ,but even admitting ,mark's statement to be the correct one1 the natural explanation still remains impossible4 ,for the words of ,jesus in ,mark 7v4 #ad73 1 ,no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever1 if they had been meant to imply a mere conjecture as to what would probably happen1 must necessarily have had a potential signification given to them by the addition of 2 and in the expression of ,matthew3 1 ,let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever1 the command is not to be mistaken1 although ,paulus would only find in this also the expression of a possibility4 ,moreover the circumstance that ,jesus addresses the tree itself1 as also the solemn 1 for ever1 which he adds1 speaks against the idea of a mere prediction1 and in favour of a curse2 ,paulus perceives this fully1 and hence with unwarrantable violence he interprets the words he saith to it1 as if they introduced a saying merely in reference to the tree1 while he depreciates the expression 1 by the translation3 in time to come4 ,but even if we grant that the ,evangelists1 owing to their erroneous conception of the incident1 may have somewhat altered the words of ,jesus1 and that he in reality only prognosticated the withering of the tree2 still1 when the prediction was fulfilled1 ,jesus did nevertheless ascribe the result to his own supernatural influence4 ,for in speaking of what he has done in relation to the fig-tree1 he uses the verb 7v4 #ba ,matt472 which cannot except by a forced interpretation1 be referred to a mere prediction4 ,but more than this1 he compares what he has done in relation to the fig-tree1 with the removal of mountains2 and hence1 as this1 according to every possible interpretation1 is an act of causation1 so the other must be regarded as an influence on the tree4 ,in any case1 when ,peter spoke of the fig-tree as having been cursed by ,jesus 7v4 #ba ,mark71 either the latter must have contradicted the construction thus put on his words1 or his silence must have implied his acquiescence4 ,if then ,jesus in the issue ascribes the withering of the tree to his influence1 he either by his address to it designed to produce an effect1 or he ambitiously misused the accidental result for the sake of deluding his disciples2 a dilemma1 in which the words of ,jesus1 as they are given by the ,evangelists1 decidedly direct us to the former alternative4 ,thus we are inexorably thrown back from the naturalistic attempt at an explanation1 to the conception of the supranaturalists1 pre-eminently difficult as this is in the history before us4 ,we pass over what might be said against the physical possibility of such an influence as is there presupposed2 not1 indeed1 because1 with ,hase1 we could comprehend it through the medium of natural magic1 #aeaj but because another difficulty beforehand excludes the inquiry1 and does not allow us to come to the consideration of the physical possibility4 ,this decisive difficulty relates to the moral possibility of such an act on the part of ,jesus4 ,the miracle he here performs is of a punitive character4 ,another example of the kind is not found in the canonical accounts of the life of ,jesus2 the apocryphal gospels alone1 as has been above remarked1 are full of such miracles4 ,in one of the synoptical gospels there is1 on the contrary1 a passage often quoted already 7,luke ix4 #ee f471 in which it is declared1 as the profound conviction of ,jesus1 that the employment of miraculous power in order to execute punishment or to take vengeance1 is contrary to the spirit of his vocation2 and the same sentiment is attributed to ,jesus by the ,evangelist1 when he applies to him the words of ,isaiah3 ,he shall not break a bruised reed1 etc4 7,matt4 xii4 #bj74 ,agreeably to this principle1 and to his prevalent mode of action1 ,jesus must rather have given new life to a withered tree1 than have made a green one wither2 and in order to comprehend his conduct on this occasion1 we must be able to show reasons which he might possibly have had1 for departing in this instance from the above principle1 which has no mark of unauthenticity4 ,the occasion on which he enunciated that principle was when1 on the refusal of a ,samaritan village to exercise hospitality towards ,jesus and his disciples1 the sons of ,zebedee asked him whether they should not rain down fire on the village1 after the example of ,elijah4 ,jesus replied by reminding them of the nature of the spirit to which they belonged1 a spirit with which so destructive an act was incompatible4 ,in our present case ,jesus had not to deal with men who had treated him with injustice1 but with a tree which he happened not to find in the desired state4 ,now1 there is here no special reason for departing from the above rule2 on the contrary1 the chief reason which in the first case might possibly have moved ,jesus to determine on a judicial miracle1 is not present in the second4 ,the moral end of punishment1 namely1 to bring the punished person to a conviction and acknowledgment of his error1 can have no existence in relation to a tree2 and even punishment in the light of retribution is out of the question when we are treating of natural objects destitute of volition4 #aeaa ,for one to be irritated against an inanimate object1 which does not happen to be found just in the desired state1 is with reason pronounced to be a proof of an uncultivated mind2 to carry such indignation to the destruction of the object is regarded as barbarous1 and unworthy of a reasonable being2 and hence ,woolston is not wrong in maintaining1 that in any other person than ,jesus1 such an act would be severely blamed4 #aeab ,it is true that when a natural object is intrinsically and habitually defective1 it may very well happen1 that it may be removed out of the way1 in order to put a better in its place2 a measure1 however1 for which1 in every case1 only the owner has the adequate motive and authority 7comp4 ,luke xiii4 #g74 ,but that this tree1 because just at that time it presented no fruit1 would not have borne any in succeeding years1 was by no means self-evident3--nay1 the contrary is implied in the narrative1 since the form in which the curse of ,jesus is expressed1 that fruit shall never more grow on the tree1 presupposes1 that without this curse the tree might yet have been fruitful4 ,thus the evil condition of the tree was not habitual but temporary2 still further1 if we follow ,mark1 it was not even objective1 or existing intrinsically in the tree1 but purely subjective1 that is1 a result of the accidental relation of the tree to the momentary wish and want of ,jesus4 ,for according to an addition which forms the second feature peculiar to ,mark in this narrative1 it was not then the time of figs 7v4 #ac72 it was not therefore a defect1 but1 on the contrary1 quite in due order1 that this tree1 as well as others1 had no figs on it1 and ,jesus 7in whom it is already enough to excite surprise that he expected to find figs on the tree so out of season7 might at least have reflected1 when he found none1 on the groundlessness of his expectation1 and have forborne so wholly unjust an act as the cursing of the tree4 ,even some of the fathers stumbled at this addition of ,mark's and felt that it rendered the conduct of ,jesus enigmatical2 #aeac and to descend to later times1 ,woolston's ridicule is not unfounded1 when he says that if a ,kentish countryman were to seek for fruit in his garden in spring1 and were to cut down the trees which had none1 he would be a common laughing-stock4 ,expositors have attempted to free themselves from the difficulty which this addition introduces1 by a motley series of conjectures and interpretations4 ,on the one hand1 the wish that the perplexing words did not stand in the text1 has been turned into the hypothesis that they may probably be a subsequent gloss4 #aead ,on the other hand1 as1 if an addition of this kind must stand there1 the contrary statement1 namely1 that it was then the time of figs1 were rather to be desired1 in order to render intelligible the expectation of ,jesus1 and his displeasure when he found it deceived2 it has been attempted in various ways to remove the negative out of the proposition4 ,one expedient is altogether violent1 being read instead of 1 a point inserted after 1 and a second supplied after 1 so that the translation runs thus3 ubi enim tum versabatur 7,jesus71 tempus ficuum erat2 #aeae another expedient1 the transformation of the sentence into an interrogatory one1 nonne enim1 etc41 is absurd4 #aeaf ,a third expedient is to understand the words as implying the time of the fig-gathering1 and thus to take ,mark's addition as a statement that the figs were not yet gathered1 i4e4 were still on the trees1 #aeag in support of which interpretation1 appeal is made to the phrase 7,matt4 xxi4 #cd74 ,but this expression strictly refers only to the antecedent of the harvest1 the existence of the fruits in the fields or on the trees2 when it stands in an affirmative proposition1 it can only be understood as referring to the consequent1 namely1 the possible gathering of the fruit1 in so far as it also includes the antecedent1 the existence of the fruits in the field3 hence can only mean thus much3 the 7ripe7 fruits stand in the fields1 and are therefore ready to be gathered4 ,in like manner1 when the above expression stands in a negative proposition1 the antecedent1 the existence of the fruits in the field1 on the trees1 etc41 is primarily denied1 that of the consequent only secondarily and by implication2 thus 1 means3 the figs are not on the trees1 and therefore not ready to be gathered2 by no means the reverse3 they are not yet gathered1 and therefore are still on the trees4 ,but this unexampled figure of speech1 by which1 while according to the words the antecedent is denied1 according to the sense only the consequent is denied1 and the antecedent affirmed1 is not all which the above explanation entails upon us2 it also requires the admission of another figure which is sometimes called synchisis1 sometimes hyperbaton4 ,for1 as a statement that the figs were then still on the trees1 the addition in question does not show the reason why ,jesus found none on that tree1 but why he expected the contrary2 it ought therefore1 say the advocates of this explanation1 to stand1 not after he found nothing but leaves1 but after he came1 if haply he might find any thing thereon2 a transposition1 however1 which only proves that this whole explanation runs counter to the text4 ,convinced1 on the one hand1 that the addition of ,mark denies the prevalence of circumstances favourable to the existence of figs on that tree1 but1 on the other hand1 still labouring to justify the expectation of ,jesus1 other expositors have sought to give to that negation1 instead of the general sense1 that it was not the right season of the year for figs1 a fact of which ,jesus must unavoidably have been aware1 the particular sense1 that special circumstances only not necessarily known to ,jesus1 hindered the fruitfulness of the tree4 ,it would have been a hindrance altogether special1 if the soil in which the tree was rooted had been an unfruitful one2 hence1 according to some1 the words actually signify a soil favourable to figs4 #aeah ,others with more regard to the verbal meaning of 1 adhere it is true to the interpretation of it as favourable time1 but instead of understanding the statement of ,mark universally1 as referring to a regular1 annual season1 in which figs were not to be obtained1 they maintain it to mean that that particular year was from some incidental causes unfavourable to figs4 #aeai ,but the immediate signification of is the right1 in opposition to the wrong season1 not a favourable season as opposed to an unfavourable one4 ,now1 when any one1 even in an unproductive year1 seeks for fruits at the time in which they are wont to be ripe1 it cannot be said that it is the wrong season for fruit2 on the contrary1 the idea of a bad year might be at once conveyed by the statement1 that when the time for fruit came1 1 there was none to be found4 ,in any case1 if the whole course of the year were unfavourable to figs1 a fruit so abundant in ,palestine1 ,jesus must almost as necessarily have known this as that it was the wrong season2 so that the enigma remains1 how ,jesus could be so indignant that the tree was in a condition which1 owing to circumstances known to him1 was inevitable4 ,but let us only remember who it is to whom we owe that addition4 ,it is ,mark1 who1 in his efforts after the explanatory and the picturesque1 so frequently draws on his own imagination2 and in doing this1 as it has been long ago perceived1 and as we also have had sufficient opportunities of observing on our way1 he does not always go to work in the most considerate manner4 ,thus1 here1 he is arrested by the first striking particular that presents itself1 namely1 that the tree was without fruit1 and hastens to furnish the explanation1 that it was not the time for figs1 not observing that while he accounts physically for the barrenness of the tree1 he makes the conduct of ,jesus morally inexplicable4 ,again1 the above-mentioned divergency from ,matthew in relation to the time within which the tree withered1 far from evincing more authentic information1 #aebj or a tendency to the natural explanation of the marvellous on the part of ,mark1 is only another product of the same dramatising effort as that which gave birth to the above addition4 ,the idea of a tree suddenly withering at a word1 is difficult for the imagination perfectly to fashion2 whereas it cannot be called a bad dramatic contrivance1 to lay the process of withering behind the scenes1 and to make the result be first noticed by the subsequent passers by4 ,for the rest1 in the assertion that it was then 7a few days before ,easter7 no time for figs1 ,mark is so far right1 as it regards the conditions of climate in ,palestine1 that at so early a time of the year the new figs of the season were not yet ripe1 for the early fig or boccore is not ripe until the middle or towards the end of ,june2 while the proper fig1 the kermus1 ripens only in the month of ,august4 ,on the other hand1 there might about ,easter still be met with here and there1 hanging on the tree1 the third fruit of the fig-tree1 the late kermus1 which had remained from the previous autumn1 and through the winter3 #aeba as we read in ,josephus that a part of ,palestine 7the shores of the ,galilean sea71 more fruitful1 certainly1 than the country around ,jerusalem1 where the history in question occurred1 produces figs uninterruptedly during ten months of the year1 4 #aebb ,but even when we have thus set aside this perplexing addition of ,mark's1 that the tree was not really defective1 but only appeared so to ,jesus in consequence of an erroneous expectation3 there still subsists1 even according to ,matthew1 the incongruity that ,jesus appears to have destroyed a natural object on account of a deficiency which might possibly be merely temporary4 ,he cannot have been prompted to this by economical considerations1 since he was not the owner of the tree2 still less can he have been actuated by moral views1 in relation to an inanimate object of nature2 hence the expedient has been adopted of substituting the disciples as the proper object on which ,jesus here intended to act1 and of regarding the tree1 and what ,jesus does to it1 as a mere means to his ultimate design4 ,this is the symbolical interpretation1 by which first the fathers of the church1 and of late the majority of orthodox theologians among the moderns1 have thought to free ,jesus from the charge of an unsuitable action4 ,according to them1 anger towards the tree which presented nothing to appease his hunger1 was not the feeling of ,jesus1 in performing this action2 his object not simply the extermination of the unfruitful plant3 on the contrary1 he judiciously availed himself of the occasion of finding a barren tree1 in order to impress a truth on his disciples more vividly and indelibly than by words4 ,this truth may either be conceived under a special form1 namely1 that the ,jewish nation which persisted in rendering no pleasing fruit to ,god and to the ,messiah1 would be destroyed2 or under the general form1 that every one who was as destitute of good works as this tree was of fruit1 had to look forward to a similar condemnation4 #aebc ,other commentators however with reason maintain1 that if ,jesus had had such an end in view in the action1 he must in some way have explained himself on the subject2 for if an elucidation was necessary when he delivered a parable1 it was the more indispensable when he performed a symbolical action1 in proportion as this1 without such an indication of an object lying beyond itself1 was more likely to be mistaken for an object in itself2 #aebd it is true that1 here as well as elsewhere1 it might be supposed1 that ,jesus probably enlarged on what he had done1 for the instruction of his disciples1 but that the narrators1 content with the miracle1 have omitted the illustrative discourse4 ,if however ,jesus gave an interpretation of his act in the alleged symbolical sense1 the ,evangelists have not merely been silent concerning this discourse1 but have inserted a false one in its place2 for they represent ,jesus1 after his procedure with respect to the tree1 not as being silent1 but as giving1 in answer to an expression of astonishment on the part of his disciples1 an explanation which is not the above symbolical one1 but a different1 nay1 an opposite one4 ,for when ,jesus says to them that they need not wonder at the withering of the fig-tree1 since with only a little faith they will be able to effect yet greater things1 he lays the chief stress on his agency in the matter1 not on the condition and the fate of the tree as a symbol3 therefore1 if his design turned upon the latter1 he would have spoken to his disciples so as to contravene that design2 or rather1 if he so spoke1 that cannot have been his design4 ,for the same reason1 falls also ,sieffert's totally unsupported hypothesis1 that ,jesus1 not indeed after1 but before that act1 when on the way to the fig-tree1 had held a conversation with his disciples on the actual condition and future lot of the ,jewish nation1 and that to this conversation the symbolical cursing of the tree was a mere key-stone1 which explained itself3 for all comprehension of the act in question which that introduction might have facilitated1 must1 especially in that age when there was so strong a bias towards the miraculous1 have been again obliterated by the subsequent declaration of ,jesus1 which regarded only the miraculous side of the fact4 ,hence ,ullmann has judged rightly in preferring to the symbolical interpretation1 although he considers it admissible1 another which had previously been advanced3 #aebe namely1 that ,jesus by this miracle intended to give his followers a new proof of his perfect power1 in order to strengthen their confidence in him under the approaching perils4 ,or rather1 as a special reference to coming trial is nowhere exhibited1 and as the words of ,jesus contain nothing which he had not already said at an earlier period 7,matt4 xvii4 #bj2 ,luke xvii4 #f71 ,fritzsche is more correct in expressing the view of the ,evangelists quite generally1 thus3 ,jesus used his displeasure at the unfruitfulness of the tree1 as an occasion for performing a miracle1 the object of which was merely the general one of all his miracles1 namely to attest his ,messiahship4 #aebf ,hence ,euthymius speaks entirely in the spirit of the narrators1 as described by ,fritzsche1 #aebg when he forbids all investigation into the special end of the action1 and exhorts the reader only to look at it in general as a miracle4 #aebh ,but it by no means follows from hence that we too should refrain from all reflection on the subject1 and believingly receive the miracle without further question2 on the contrary1 we cannot avoid observing1 that the particular miracle which we have now before us1 does not admit of being explained as a real act of ,jesus1 either upon the general ground of performing miracles1 or from any peculiar object or motive whatever4 ,far from this1 it is in every respect opposed both to his theory and his prevailing practice1 and on this account1 even apart from the question of its physical possibility1 must be pronounced more decidedly1 than any other1 to be such a miracle as ,jesus cannot really have performed4 ,it is incumbent on us1 however1 to adduce positive proof of the existence of such causes as1 even without historical foundation1 might give rise to a narrative of this kind4 ,now in our usual source1 the ,old ,testament1 we do1 indeed1 find many figurative discourses and narratives about trees1 and fig-trees in particular2 but none which has so specific an affinity to our narrative1 that we could say the latter is an imitation of it4 ,but we need not search long in the ,new ,testament1 before we find1 first in the mouth of the ,baptist 7,matt4 iii4 #aj71 then in that of ,jesus 7vii4 #ai71 the apothegm of the tree1 which1 because it bears no good fruit1 is cut down and cast into the fire2 and further on 7,luke xiii4 #f ff47 this theme is dilated into the fictitious history of a man who for three years in vain seeks for fruit on a fig-tree in his vineyard1 and on this account determines to cut it down1 but that the gardener intercedes for another year's respite4 ,it was already an idea of some fathers of the church1 that the cursing of the fig-tree was only the parable of the barren fig-tree carried out into action4 #aebi ,it is true that they held this opinion in the sense of the explanation before cited1 namely1 that ,jesus himself1 as he had previously exhibited the actual condition and the approaching catastrophe of the ,jewish people in a figurative discourse1 intended on the occasion in question to represent them by a symbolical action2 which1 as we have seen1 is inconceivable4 ,nevertheless1 we cannot help conjecturing1 that we have before us one and the same theme under three different modifications3 first1 in the most concentrated form1 as an apothegm2 then expanded into a parable2 and lastly realized as a history4 ,but we do not suppose that what ,jesus twice described in words1 he at length represented by an action2 in our opinion1 it was tradition which converted what it met with as an apothegm and a parable into a real incident4 ,that in the real history the end of the tree is somewhat different from that threatened in the apothegm and parable1 namely1 withering instead of being cut down1 need not amount to a difficulty4 ,for had the parable once become a real history1 with ,jesus for its subject1 and consequently its whole didactic and symbolical significance passed into the external act1 then must this1 if it were to have any weight and interest1 take the form of a miracle1 and the natural destruction of the tree by means of the axe must be transformed into an immediate withering on the word of ,jesus4 ,it is true that there seems to be the very same objection to this conception of the narrative which allows its inmost kernel to be symbolical1 as to the one above considered2 namely1 that it is contravened by the words of ,jesus which are appended to the narrative4 ,but on our view of the gospel histories we are warranted to say1 that with the transformation of the parable into a history1 its original sense also was lost1 and as the miracle began to be regarded as constituting the pith of the matter1 that discourse on miraculous power and faith1 was erroneously annexed to it4 ,even the particular circumstance that led to the selection of the saying about the removal of the mountain for association with the narrative of the fig-tree1 may be shown with probability4 ,the power of faith1 which is here represented by an effectual command to a mountain3 ,be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea1 is elsewhere 7,luke xvii4 #f7 symbolized by an equally effectual command to a species of fig-tree 773 ,be thou plucked up by the root1 and be thou planted in the sea4 ,hence the cursing of the fig-tree1 so soon as its withering was conceived to be an effect of the miraculous power of ,jesus1 brought to mind the tree or the mountain which was to be transported by the miraculous power of faith1 and this saying became appended to that fact4 ,thus1 in this instance1 praise is due to the third gospel for having preserved to us the parable of the barren 1 and the apothegm of the to be transplanted by faith1 distinct and pure1 each in its original form and significance2 while the two other synoptists have transformed the parable into a history1 and have misapplied the apothegm 7in a somewhat altered form7 to a false explanation of that pretended history4 #aecj ,,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,transfiguration ,,of ,,jesus1 ,,and ,,his ,,last ,,journey ,,to ,,jerusalem4 #aje4 ,,the ,,transfiguration ,,of ,,jesus ,,considered ,,as ,a ,,miraculous ,,external ,,event4 ,the history of the transfiguration of ,jesus on the mountain could not be ranged with the narratives of miracles which we have hitherto examined2 not only because it relates to a miracle which took place in ,jesus instead of a miracle performed by him2 but also because it has the character of an epoch in the life of ,jesus1 which on the score of resemblance could only be associated with the baptism and resurrection4 ,hence ,herder has correctly designated these three events as the three luminous points in the life of ,jesus1 which attest his heavenly mission4 #aeca ,according to the impression produced by the first glance at the synoptical narrative 7,matt4 xvii4 #a ff42 ,mark ix4 #b ff42 ,luke ix4 #bh ff47--for the history is not found in the fourth gospel--we have here a real1 external1 and miraculous event4 ,jesus1 six or eight days after the first announcement of his passion1 ascends a mountain with his three most confidential disciples1 who are there witnesses how all at once his countenance1 and even his clothes1 are illuminated with supernatural splendour2 how two venerable forms from the realm of spirits1 ,moses and ,elias1 appear talking with him2 and lastly1 how a heavenly voice1 out of the bright cloud1 declares ,jesus to be the ,son of ,god1 to whom they are to give ear4 ,these few points in the history give rise to a multitude of questions1 by the collection of which ,gabler has done a meritorious service4 #aecb ,in relation to each of the three phases of the event--the light1 the apparition of the dead1 and the voice--both its possibility1 and the adequacy of its object1 may be the subject of question4 ,first1 whence came the extraordinary light with which ,jesus was invested8 ,let it be remembered that a metamorphosis of ,jesus is spoken of 7 73 now this would appear to imply1 not a mere illumination from without1 but an irradiation from within1 a transient effulgence1 so to speak1 of the beams of the divine glory through the veil of humanity4 ,thus ,olshausen regards this event as an important crisis in the process of purification and glorification1 through which he supposes the corporeality of ,jesus to have passed1 during his whole life up to the time of his ascension4 #aecc ,but without here dilating further on our previous arguments1 that either ,jesus was no real man1 or the purification which he underwent during his life1 must have consisted in something else than the illumination and subtilization of his body2 it is in no case to be conceived how his clothes1 as well as his body1 could participate in such a process of transfiguration4 ,if1 on this account1 it be rather preferred to suppose an illumination from without1 this would not be a metamorphosis1 which however is the term used by the ,evangelists3 so that no consistent conception can be formed of this scene1 unless indeed we choose1 with ,olshausen1 to include both modes1 and think of ,jesus as both radiating1 and irradiated4 ,but even supposing this illumination possible1 there still remains the question1 what purpose could it serve8 ,the answer which most immediately suggests itself is3 to glorify ,jesus2 but compared with the spiritual glory which ,jesus created for himself by word and deed1 this physical glorification1 consisting in the investing of his body with a brilliant light1 must appear very insignificant1 nay1 almost childish4 ,if it be said that1 nevertheless1 such a mode of glorifying ,jesus was necessary for the maintenance of weak faith3 we reply that in that case1 it must have been effected in the presence of the multitude1 or at least before the entire circle of the disciples1 not surely before just the select three who were spiritually the strongest2 still less would these few eye-witnesses have been prohibited from communicating the event precisely during the most critical period1 namely1 until after the resurrection4--,these two questions apply with enhanced force to the second feature in our history1 the apparition of the two dead men4 ,can departed souls become visible to the living8 and if1 as it appears1 the two men of ,god presented themselves in their former bodies1 only transfigured1 whence had they these--according to biblical ideas--before the universal resurrection8 ,certainly in relation to ,elijah1 who went up to heaven without laying aside his body1 this difficulty is not so great2 ,moses1 however1 died1 and his corpse was buried4 ,but further1 to what end are we to suppose that these two illustrious dead appeared8 ,the evangelical narrative1 by representing the forms as talking with ,jesus1 41 seems to place the object of their appearance in ,jesus2 and if ,luke be correct1 it had reference more immediately to the approaching sufferings and death of ,jesus4 ,but they could not have made the first announcement of these events to him1 for1 according to the unanimous testimony of the synoptists1 he had himself predicted them a week before 7,matt4 xvi4 #ba parall474 ,hence it is conjectured1 that ,moses and ,elias only informed ,jesus more minutely concerning the particular circumstances and conditions of his death3 #aecd but1 on the one hand1 it is not accordant with the position which the gospels assign to ,jesus in relation to the ancient prophets1 that he should have needed instruction from them2 and on the other hand1 ,jesus had already foretold his passion so circumstantially1 that the more special revelations from the world of spirits could only have referred to the particulars of his being delivered to the ,gentiles1 and the spitting in his face1 of which he does not speak till a subsequent occasion 7,matt4 xx4 #ai2 ,mark x4 #cd74 ,if1 however1 it be suggested1 that the communication to be made to ,jesus consisted not so much in information1 as in the conferring of strength for his approaching sufferings3 we submit that at this period there is not yet any trace of a state of mind in ,jesus1 which might seem to demand assistance of this kind2 while for his later sufferings this early strengthening did not suffice1 as is evident from the fact1 that in ,gethsemane a new impartation is necessary4 ,thus we are driven1 though already in opposition to the text1 to try whether we cannot give the appearance a relation to the disciples2 but first1 the object of strengthening faith is too general to be the motive of so special a dispensation2 secondly1 ,jesus1 in the parable of the rich man1 must on this supposition have falsely expounded the principle of the divine government in this respect1 for he there says that he who will not hear the writings of ,moses and the prophets1--and how much more he who will not hear the present ,christ8--would not be brought to believe1 though one should return to him from the dead3 whence it must be inferred that such an apparition1 at least to that end1 is not permitted by ,god4 ,the more special object1 of convincing the disciples that the doctrine and fate of ,jesus were in accordance with ,moses and the prophets1 had been already partly attained2 and it was not completely attained until after the death and resurrection of ,jesus1 and the outpouring of the ,spirit3 the transfiguration not having formed any epoch in their enlightenment on this subject4--,lastly1 the voice out of the bright cloud 7without doubt the ,shechinah7 is1 like that at the baptism1 a divine voice3 but what an anthropomorphic conception of the ,divine ,being must that be1 which admits the possibility of real1 audible speech on his part6 ,or if it be said1 that a communication of ,god to the spiritual ear1 is alone spoken of here1 #aece the scene of the transfiguration is reduced to a vision1 and we are suddenly transported to a totally different point of view4 #ajf4 ,,the ,,natural ,,explanation ,,of ,,the ,,narrative ,,in ,,various ,,forms4 ,it has been sought to escape from the difficulties of the opinion which regards the transfiguration of ,jesus as not only a miraculous1 but also an external event1 by confining the entire incident to the internal experience of the parties concerned4 ,in adopting this position1 the miraculous is not at once relinquished2 it is only transferred to the internal workings of the human mind1 as being thus more simple and conceivable4 ,accordingly it is supposed1 that by divine influence the spiritual nature of the three apostles1 and probably also of ,jesus himself1 was exalted to a state of ecstasy1 in which they either actually entered into intercourse with the higher world1 or were able to shadow forth its forms to themselves in the most vivid manner2 that is1 the event is regarded as a vision4 #aecf ,but the chief support of this interpretation1 namely1 that ,matthew himself1 by the expression 1 vision 7v4 #i71 describes the event as merely subjective and visionary1 gives way so soon as it is remembered1 that neither is there anything in the signification of the word which determines it to refer to what is merely mental1 nor is it exclusively so applied even in the phraseology of the ,new ,testament1 for we also find it1 as in ,acts vii4 #ca1 used to denote something perceived externally4 #aecg ,as regards the fact itself1 it is improbable1 and at least without scriptural precedent1 that several persons1 as1 here1 three or four1 should have had the same very complex vision2 #aech to which it may be added1 that on this view of the subject also1 the whole difficult question recurs concerning the utility of such a miraculous dispensation4 ,to avoid the above difficulty1 others1 still confining the event to the internal experience of the parties1 regard it as the product of a natural activity of soul1 and thus explain the whole as a dream4 #aeci ,during or after a prayer offered by ,jesus1 or by themselves1 in which mention was made of ,moses and ,elias1 and their advent as messianic forerunners desired1 the three disciples1 according to this interpretation1 slept1 and 7the two names mentioned by ,jesus yet sounding in their ears7 dreamed that ,moses and ,elias were present1 and that ,jesus conversed with them3 an illusion which continued during the first confused moments after their awaking4 ,as the former explanation rests on the of ,matthew1 so it is alleged in support of this1 that ,luke describes the disciples as heavy with sleep1 1 and only towards the end of the scene as fully awake1 7v4 #cb74 ,the hold which the third ,evangelist here presents to the natural explanation1 has been made a reason for assigning to his narrative an important superiority over that of the two other ,evangelists2 recent critics pronouncing that by this and other particulars1 which bring the event nearer to natural possibility1 the account in ,luke evinces itself to be the original1 while that of ,matthew1 by its omission of those particulars1 is proved to be the traditionary one1 since with the eagerness for the miraculous which characterized that age1 no one would fabricate particulars calculated to diminish the miracle1 as is the case with the sleepiness of the disciples4 #aedj ,this mode of conclusion we also should be obliged to adopt1 if in reality the above features could only be understood in the spirit of the natural interpretation4 ,but we have only to recollect how in another scene1 wherein the sufferings1 which according to ,luke were announced at the transfiguration1 began to be accomplished1 and wherein1 according to the same ,evangelist1 ,jesus likewise held communication with a heavenly apparition1 namely1 in ,gethsemane1 the disciples1 in all the synoptical gospels1 again appear asleep1 7,matt4 xxvi4 #dj parall474 ,if it be admitted1 that the merely external1 formal resemblance of the two scenes1 might cause a narrator to convey the trait of the slumber into the history of the transfiguration1 there is a yet stronger probability that the internal import of the trait might appear to him appropriate to this occasion also1 for the sleeping of the disciples at the very moment when their master was going through his most critical experience1 exhibits their infinite distance from him1 their inability to attain his exalted level2 the prophet1 the recipient of a revelation1 is among ordinary men like a watcher among the sleeping3 hence it followed1 of course1 that as in the deepest suffering1 so here also in the highest glorification of ,jesus1 the disciples should be represented as heavy with sleep4 ,thus this particular1 so far from furnishing aid to the natural explanation1 is rather intended by a contrast to heighten the miracle which took place in ,jesus4 ,we are1 therefore1 no longer warranted in regarding the narrative in ,luke as the original one1 and in building an explanation of the event on his statement2 on the contrary1 we consider that addition1 in connexion with the one already mentioned 7v4 #ca71 a sign that his account is a traditionary and embellished one1 #aeda and must rather adhere to that of the two other ,evangelists4 ,not only1 however1 does the interpretation which sees in the transfiguration only a natural dream of the apostles1 fail as to its main support1 but it has besides a multitude of internal difficulties4 ,it presupposes only the three disciples to have been dreaming1 leaving ,jesus awake1 and thus not included in the illusion4 ,but the whole tenor of the evangelical narrative implies that ,jesus as well as the disciples saw the appearance2 and what is still more decisive1 had the whole been a mere dream of the disciples1 he could not afterwards have said to them3 ,tell the vision to no man1 since by these words he must have confirmed in them the belief that they had witnessed something special and miraculous4 ,supposing however that ,jesus had no share in the dream1 it still remains altogether unexampled1 that three persons should in a natural manner have had the same dream at the same time4 ,this the friends of the above interpretation have perceived1 and hence have supposed that the ardent ,peter1 who indeed is the only speaker1 alone had the dream1 but that the narrators1 by a synecdoche attributed to all the disciples what in fact happened only to one4 ,but from the circumstance that ,peter here1 as well as elsewhere1 is the spokesman1 it does not follow that he alone had the vision1 and the contrary can by no figure of speech be removed from the clear words of the ,evangelists4 ,but the explanation in question still more plainly betrays its inadequacy4 ,not only does it require1 as already noticed1 that the audible utterance of the name of ,moses and ,elias on the part of ,jesus1 should be blended with the dream of the disciples2 but it also calls in the aid of a storm1 which by its flashes of lightning is supposed to have given rise in them to the idea of supernatural splendour1 by its peals of thunder1 to that of conversation and heavenly voices1 and to have held them in this delusion even for some time after they awaked4 ,but1 according to ,luke1 it was on the waking of the disciples 7 4447 that they saw the two men standing by ,jesus3 this does not look like a mere illusion protracted from a dream into waking moments2 hence ,kuinl introduces the further supposition1 that1 while the disciples slept1 there came to ,jesus two unknown men1 whom they1 in awaking1 connected with their dream1 and mistook for ,moses and ,elias4 ,by giving this turn to the circumstances1 all those occurrences which on the interpretation based on the supposition of a dream1 should be regarded as mere mental conceptions1 are again made external realities3 for the idea of supernatural brilliancy is supposed to have been produced by a flash of lightning1 the idea of voices1 by thunder1 and lastly1 the idea of two persons in company with ,jesus1 by the actual presence of two unknown individuals4 ,all this the disciples could properly perceive only when they were awake2 and hence the supposition of a dream falls to the ground as superfluous4 ,therefore1 since this interpretation1 by still retaining a thread of connexion between the alleged character of the event and a mental condition1 has the peculiar difficulty of making three partake in the same dream1 it is better entirely to break this thread1 and restore all to the external world3 so that we now have a natural external occurrence before us1 as in the first instance we had a supernatural one4 ,something objective presented itself to the disciples2 thus it is explained how it could be perceived by several at once3 they deceived themselves when awake as to what they saw2 this was natural1 because they were all born within the same circle of ideas1 were in the same frame of mind1 and in the same situation4 ,according to this opinion1 the essential fact in the scene on the mountain1 is a secret interview which ,jesus had preconcerted1 and with a view to which he took with him the three most confidential of his disciples4 ,who the two men were with whom ,jesus held this interview1 ,paulus does not venture to determine2 ,kuinl conjectures that they were secret adherents of the same kind as ,nicodemus2 according to ,venturini1 they were ,essenes1 secret allies of ,jesus4 ,before these were arrived1 ,jesus prayed1 and the disciples1 not being invited to join1 slept2 for the sleep noticed by ,luke1 though it were dreamless1 is gladly retained in this interpretation1 since a delusion appears more probable in the case of persons just awaking4 ,on hearing strange voices talking with ,jesus1 they awake1 see ,jesus1 who probably stood on a higher point of the mountain than they1 enveloped in unwonted brilliancy1 proceeding from the first rays of morning1 which1 perhaps reflected from a sheet of snow1 fell on ,jesus1 but were mistaken by them in the surprise of the moment for a supernatural illumination2 they perceive the two men1 whom1 for some unknown reasons1 the drowsy ,peter1 and after him the rest1 take for ,moses and ,elias2 their astonishment increases when they see the two unknown individuals disappear in a bright morning cloud1 which descends as they are in the act of departing1 and hear one of them pronounce out of the cloud the words3 4441 which they under these circumstances unavoidably regard as a voice from heaven4 #aedb ,this explanation1 which even ,schleiermacher is inclined to favour1 #aedc is supposed1 like the former1 to find a special support in ,luke1 because in this ,evangelist the assertion that the two men are ,moses and ,elias1 is much less confidently expressed than in ,matthew and ,mark1 and more as a mere notion of the drowsy ,peter4 ,for while the two first ,evangelists directly say3 7there appeared unto them ,moses and ,elias71 ,luke more warily1 as it seems1 speaks of 1 7two men1 who were ,moses and ,elias71 the first designation being held to contain the objective fact1 the second its subjective interpretation4 ,but this interpretation is obviously approved by the narrator1 from his choice of the word 1 instead of 2 that he first speaks of two men1 and afterwards gives them their names1 cannot have been to leave another interpretation open to the reader1 but only to imitate the mysteriousness of the extraordinary scene1 by the indefiniteness of his first expression4 ,while this explanation has thus as little support in the evangelical narratives as those previously considered1 it has at the same time no fewer difficulties in itself4 ,the disciples must have been so far acquainted with the appearance of the morning beams on the mountains of their native land1 as to be able to distinguish them from a heavenly glory2 how they came to have the idea that the two unknown individuals were ,moses and ,elias1 is not easy to explain on any of the former views1 but least of all on this2--why ,jesus1 when ,peter1 by his proposal about the building of the three tabernacles1 gave him to understand the delusion of the disciples1 did not remove it1 is incomprehensible1 and this difficulty has induced ,paulus to resort to the supposition1 that ,jesus did not hear the address of ,peter2--the whole conjecture about secret allies of ,jesus has justly lost all repute2 and lastly1 the one of those allies who spoke the words to the disciples out of the cloud1 must have permitted himself to use an unworthy mystification4 #ajg4 ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,transfiguration ,,considered ,,as ,a ,,mythus4 ,thus here1 as in every former instance1 after having run through the circle of natural explanations1 we are led back to the supernatural2 in which1 however1 we are precluded from resting by difficulties equally decisive4 ,since then the text forbids a natural interpretation1 while it is impossible to maintain as historical the supernatural interpretation which it sanctions1 we must apply ourselves to a critical examination of its statements4 ,these are indeed said to be especially trustworthy in the narrative before us1 the fact being narrated by three ,evangelists1 who strikingly agree even in the precise determination of the time1 and being moreover attested by the ,apostle ,peter 7#b ,pet4 i4 #ag74 #aedd ,the agreement as to the time 7the eight days of ,luke meaning1 according to the usual reckoning1 the same as the six days of the other ,evangelists7 is certainly striking2 and besides this1 all the three narrators concur in placing immediately after the transfiguration the cure of the demoniacal boy1 which the disciples had failed to effect4 ,but both these points of agreement may be accounted for1 by the origin of the synoptical gospels from a fixed fund of evangelical tradition1 in relation to which1 we need not be more surprised that it has grouped together many anecdotes in a particular manner without any objective reason1 than that it has often preserved expressions in which it might have varied1 through all the three editions4 #aede ,the attestation of the history by the three synoptists is1 however1 very much weakened1 at least on the ordinary view of the relation which the four gospels bear to each other1 by the silence of ,john2 since it does not appear why this ,evangelist should not have included in his history an event which was so important1 and which moreover accorded so well with his system1 nay1 exactly realized the declaration in his prologue 7v4 #ad73 ,we beheld his glory1 the glory as of the only begotten of the ,father4 ,the worn-out reason1 that he might suppose the event to be sufficiently known through his predecessors1 is1 over and above its general invalidity1 particularly unavailable here1 because no one of the synoptists was in this instance an eye-witness1 and consequently there must be many things in their narratives which one who1 like ,john1 had participated in the scene1 might rectify and explain4 ,hence another reason has been sought for this and similar omissions in the fourth gospel2 and such an one has been supposed to be found in the anti-gnostic1 or1 more strictly1 the anti-docetic tendency which has been ascribed to the gospel1 in common with the epistles1 bearing the name of ,john4 ,it is1 accordingly1 maintained that in the history of the transfiguration1 the splendour which illuminated ,jesus1 the transformation of his appearance into something more than earthly1 might give countenance to the opinion that his human form was nothing but an unsubstantial veil1 through which at times his true1 superhuman nature shone forth2 that his converse with the spirits of ancient prophets might lead to the conjecture1 that he was himself perhaps only a like spirit of some ,old ,testament saint revisiting the earth2 and that1 rather than give nourishment to such erroneous notions1 which began early to be formed among gnosticising ,christians1 ,john chose to suppress this and similar histories4 #aedf ,but besides that it does not correspond with the apostolic plainness of speech 77 to suppress important facts in the evangelical history1 on account of their possible abuse by individuals4 ,john1 if he were guided by the above consideration must at least have proceeded with some consistency1 and have excluded from the circle of his accounts all narratives which1 in an equal degree with the one in question1 were susceptible of a docetic misinterpretation4 ,now1 here1 every one must at once be reminded of the history of the walking of ,jesus on the sea1 which is at least equally calculated with the history of the transfiguration1 to produce the idea that the body of ,jesus was a mere phantom1 but which ,john nevertheless records4 ,it is true that the relative importance of events might introduce a distinction2 so that of two narratives with an equally strong docetic aspect1 ,john might include the one on account of its superior weight1 while he omitted the less important4 ,but no one will contend that the walking of ,jesus on the sea surpasses1 or even equals1 in importance the history of the transfiguration4 ,john1 if he were intent on avoiding what wore a docetic appearance1 must on every consideration have suppressed the first history before all others4 ,as he has not done so1 the above principle cannot have influenced him1 and consequently can never be advanced as a reason for the designed omission of a history in the fourth gospel2 rather it may be concluded1 and particularly in relation to the event in question1 that the author knew nothing1 or at least nothing precise1 of that history4 #aedg ,it is true that this conclusion can form an objection to the historical character of the narrative of the transfiguration1 to those only who suppose the fourth gospel to be the work of an apostle2 so that from this silence we cannot argue against the truth of the narrative4 ,on the other hand1 the agreement of the synoptists proves nothing in its favour1 since we have already been obliged to pronounce unhistorical more than one narrative in which three1 nay1 all four gospels agree4 ,lastly1 as regards the alleged testimony of ,peter1 from the more than doubtful genuineness of the second ,epistle of ,peter1 the passage which certainly refers to our history of the transfiguration is renounced as a proof of its historical truth even by orthodox theologians4 #aedh ,on the other hand besides the difficulties previously enumerated1 lying in the miraculous contents of the narrative1 we have still a further ground for doubt in relation to the historical validity of the transfiguration3 namely1 the conversation which1 according to the two first ,evangelists1 the disciples held with ,jesus immediately after4 ,in descending from the mountain1 the disciples ask ,jesus3 1 2 ,why then say the scribes that ,elias must first come8 7,matt4 v4 #aj74 ,this sounds just as if something had happened1 from which they necessarily inferred that ,elias would not appear2 and not in the least as if they were coming directly from a scene in which he had actually appeared2 for in the latter case they would not have asked a question1 as if unsatisfied1 but must rather have indicated their satisfaction by the remark1 444 ,truly then do the scribes say1 etc4 #aedi ,hence1 expositors interpret the question of the disciples to refer1 not to the absence of an appearance of ,elias in general1 but to the absence of a certain concomitant in the scene which they had just witnessed4 ,the doctrine of the scribes1 namely1 had taught them to anticipate that ,elias on his second appearance would exert a reforming influence on the life of the nation2 whereas in the appearance which they had just beheld he had presently vanished again without further activity4 #aeej ,this explanation would be admissible if the words 7will restore all things7 stood in the question of the disciples2 instead of this1 however1 it stands in both narratives 7,matt4 v4 #aa2 ,mark v4 #ab7 only in the answer of ,jesus3 so that the disciples1 according to this supposition1 must1 in the most contradictory manner1 have been silent as to what they really missed1 the restoration of all things1 and only have mentioned that which after the foregoing appearance they could not have missed1 namely1 the coming of ,elias4 ,as1 however1 the question of the disciples presupposes no previous appearance of ,elias1 but1 on the contrary1 expresses the feeling that such an appearance was wanting1 so the answer which ,jesus gives them has the same purport4 ,for when he replies3 the scribes are right in saying that ,elias must come before the ,messiah2 but this is no argument against my ,messiahship1 since an ,elias has already preceded me in the person of the ,baptist1--when he thus seeks to guard his disciples against the doubt which might arise from the expectation of the scribes1 by pointing out to them the figurative ,elias who had preceded him1--it is impossible that an appearance of the actual ,elias can have previously taken place2 otherwise ,jesus must in the first place have referred to this appearance1 and only in the second place to the ,baptist4 #aeea ,thus the immediate connexion of this conversation with that appearance cannot be historical1 but is rather owing solely to this point of similarity2--that in both mention is made of ,elias4 #aeeb ,but not even at an interval1 and after the lapse of intermediate events1 can such a conversation have been preceded by an appearance of ,elias2 for however long afterwards1 both ,jesus and the three eye-witnesses among his disciples must have remembered it1 and could never have spoken as if such an appearance had not taken place4 ,still further1 an appearance of the real ,elias cannot have happened even after such a conversation1 in accordance with the orthodox idea of ,jesus4 ,for he1 too1 explicitly declares his opinion that the literal ,elias was not to be expected1 and that the ,baptist was the promised ,elias2 if therefore1 nevertheless1 an appearance of the real ,elias did subsequently take place1 ,jesus must have been mistaken2 a consequence which precisely those who are most concerned for the historical reality of the transfiguration1 are the least in a position to admit4 ,if then the appearance and the conversation directly exclude each other1 the question is1 which of the two passages can better be renounced8 ,now the purport of the conversation is so confirmed by ,matt4 xi4 #ad1 comp4 ,luke i4 #ag1 while the transfiguration is rendered so improbable by all kinds of difficulties1 that there cannot be much doubt as to the decision4 ,according to this1 it appears here as in some former cases1 that two narratives proceeding from quite different presuppositions1 and having arisen also in different times1 have been awkwardly enough combined3 the passage containing the conversation proceeding from the probably earlier opinion1 that the prophecy concerning ,elias had its fulfilment in ,john2 whereas the narrative of the transfiguration doubtless originated at a later period1 when it was not held sufficient that in the messianic time of ,jesus1 ,elias should only have appeared figuratively1 in the person of the ,baptist1--when it was thought fitting that he should also have shown himself personally and literally1 if in no more than a transient appearance before a few witnesses 7a public and more influential one being well known not to have taken place74 #aeec ,in order next to understand how such a narrative could arise in a legendary manner1 the first feature to be considered1 on the examination of which that of all the rest will most easily follow1 is the sun-like splendour of the countenance of ,jesus1 and the bright lustre of his clothes4 ,to the oriental1 and more particularly to the ,hebrew imagination1 the beautiful1 the majestic1 is the luminous2 the poet of the ,song of ,songs compares his beloved to the hues of morning1 to the moon1 to the sun 7vi4 #i72 the holy man supported by the blessing of ,god1 is compared to the sun going forth in his might 7,judg4 v4 #ca72 and above all the future lot of the righteous is likened to the splendour of the sun and the stars 7,dan4 xii4 #c2 ,matt4 xiii4 #dc74 #aeed ,hence1 not only does ,god appear clothed in light1 and angels with resplendent countenances and shining garments 7,ps4 l4 #b1 #c2 ,dan4 vii4 #i f41 x4 #e1 #f2 ,luke xxiv4 #d2 ,rev4 i4 #ac ff471 but also the pious of ,hebrew antiquity1 as ,adam before the fall1 and among subsequent instances1 more particularly ,moses and ,joshua1 are represented as being distinguished by such a splendour2 #aeee and the later ,jewish tradition ascribes celestial splendour even to eminent rabbins in exalted moments4 #aeef ,but the most celebrated example of this kind is the luminous countenance of ,moses1 which is mentioned1 ,exod4 xxxiv4 #bi ff41 and as in other points1 so in this1 a conclusion was drawn from him in relation to the ,messiah1 a minori ad majus4 ,such a mode of arguing is indicated by the ,apostle ,paul1 #b ,cor4 iii4 #g ff41 though he opposes to ,moses1 the minister of the letter1 1 not ,jesus1 but1 in accordance with the occasion of his epistle1 the apostles and ,christian teachers1 ministers of the spirit1 1 and the glory1 1 of the latter1 which surpassed the glory of ,moses1 is an object of hope1 1 to be attained only in the future life4 ,but especially in the ,messiah himself1 it was expected that there would be a splendour which would correspond to that of ,moses1 nay1 outshine it2 and a ,jewish writing which takes no notice of our history of the transfiguration1 argues quite in the spirit of the ,jews of the first ,christian period1 when it urges that ,jesus cannot have been the ,messiah1 because his countenance had not the splendour of the countenance of ,moses1 to say nothing of a higher splendour4 #aeeg ,such objections1 doubtless heard by the early ,christians from the ,jews1 and partly suggested by their own minds1 could not but generate in the early church a tendency to introduce into the life of ,jesus an imitation of that trait in the life of ,moses1 nay1 in one respect to surpass it1 and instead of a shining countenance that might be covered with a veil1 to ascribe to him a radiance1 though but transitory1 which was diffused even over his garments4 ,that the illumination of the countenance of ,moses served as a type for the transfiguration of ,jesus1 is besides proved by a series of particular features4 ,moses obtained his splendour on ,mount ,sinai3 of the transfiguration of ,jesus also the scene is a mountain2 ,moses1 on an earlier ascent of the mountain1 which might easily be confounded with the later one1 after which his countenance became luminous1 had taken with him1 besides the seventy elders1 three confidential friends1 ,aaron1 ,nadab1 and ,abihu1 to participate in the vision of ,jehovah 7,exod4 xxiv4 #a1 #i-aa72 so ,jesus takes with him his three most confidential disciples1 that1 so far as their powers were adequate1 they might be witnesses of the sublime spectacle1 and their immediate object was1 according to ,luke v4 #bh1 to pray1 3 just as ,jehovah calls ,moses with the three companions and the elders1 to come on the mountain1 that they might worship at a distance4 ,as afterwards1 when ,moses ascended ,sinai with ,joshua1 the glory of the ,lord1 1 covered the mountain as a cloud1 7v4 #ae f4 ,,lxx472 as ,jehovah called to ,moses out of the cloud1 until at length the latter entered into the cloud 7v4 #af-ah73 so we have in our narrative a bright cloud1 1 which overshadows ,jesus and the heavenly forms1 a voice out of the cloud1 1 and in ,luke an entering1 1 of the three into the cloud4 ,the first part of the address pronounced by the voice out of the cloud1 consists of the messianic declaration1 composed out of ,ps4 ii4 #g1 and ,isa4 xlii4 #a1 which had already sounded from heaven at the baptism of ,jesus2 the second part is taken from the words with which ,moses1 in the passage of ,deuteronomy quoted earlier 7xviii4 #ae71 according to the usual interpretation1 announces to the people the future ,messiah1 and admonishes them to obedience towards him4 #aeeh ,by the transfiguration on the mount ,jesus was brought into contact with his type ,moses1 and as it had entered into the anticipation of the ,jews that the messianic time1 according to ,isa4 lii4 #f ff41 would have not merely one1 but several forerunners1 #aeei and that among others the ancient lawgiver especially would appear in the time of the ,messiah3 #aefj so no moment was more appropriate for his appearance than that in which the ,messiah was being glorified on a mountain1 as he had himself once been4 ,with him was then naturally associated the prophet1 who1 on the strength of ,mal4 iii4 #bc1 was the most decidedly expected to be a messianic forerunner1 and1 indeed1 according to the rabbins1 to appear contemporaneously with ,moses4 ,if these two men appeared to the ,messiah1 it followed as a matter of course that they conversed with him2 and if it were asked what was the tenor of their conversation1 nothing would suggest itself so soon as the approaching sufferings and death of ,jesus1 which had been announced in the foregoing passage1 and which besides1 as constituting emphatically the messianic mystery of the ,new ,testament1 were best adapted for the subject of such a conversation with beings of another world3 whence one cannot but wonder how ,olshausen can maintain that the mythus would never have fallen upon this theme of conversation4 ,according to this1 we have here a mythus1 #aefa the tendency of which is twofold3 first1 to exhibit in the life of ,jesus an enhanced repetition of the glorification of ,moses2 and secondly1 to bring ,jesus as the ,messiah into contact with his two forerunners1--by this appearance of the lawgiver and the prophet1 of the founder and the reformer of the theocracy1 to represent ,jesus as the perfecter of the kingdom of ,god1 and the fulfilment of the law and the prophets2 and besides this1 to show a confirmation of his messianic dignity by a heavenly voice4 #aefb ,before we part with our subject1 this example may serve to show us with peculiar clearness1 how the natural system of interpretation1 while it seeks to preserve the historical certainty of the narratives1 loses their ideal truth--sacrifices the essence to the form3 whereas the mythical interpretation1 by renouncing the historical body of such narratives1 rescues and preserves the idea which resides in them1 and which alone constitutes their vitality and spirit4 ,thus if1 as the natural explanation would have it1 the splendour around ,jesus was an accidental1 optical phenomenon1 and the two appearances either images of a dream or unknown men1 where is the significance of the incident8 where the motive for preserving in the memory of the church an anecdote so void of ideas1 and so barren of inference1 resting on a common delusion and superstition8 ,on the contrary1 while according to the mythical interpretation1 ,i do not1 it is true1 see in the evangelical narrative any real event1--,i yet retain a sense1 a purpose in the narrative1 know to what sentiments and thoughts of the first ,christian community it owes its origin1 and why the authors of the gospels included so important a passage in their memoirs4 #aefc #ajh4 ,,diverging ,,accounts ,,concerning ,,the ,,last ,,journey ,,of ,,jesus ,,to ,,jerusalem4 ,shortly after the transfiguration on the mountain1 the ,evangelists make ,jesus enter on the fatal journey which conducted him to his death4 ,with respect to the place from whence he set out on this journey1 and the route which he took1 the evangelical accounts differ4 ,the synoptists agree as to the point of departure1 for they all represent ,jesus as setting out from ,galilee 7,matt4 xix4 #a2 ,mark x4 #a2 ,luke ix4 #ea2 in this last passage1 ,galilee is not indeed expressly named1 but we necessarily infer it to be the supposed locality from what precedes1 in which only ,galilee and districts in ,galilee are spoken of1 as well as from the journey through ,samaria1 mentioned in the succeeding passage73 #aefd but concerning the route which ,jesus chose from thence to ,juda1 they appear to be at variance4 ,it is true that the statements of two of them on this point are so obscure1 that they might appear to lend some aid to the harmonizing exegesis4 ,mark says in the clearest and most definite manner that ,jesus took his course through ,pera2 but his statement1 ,he came into the coasts of ,juda on the further side of ,jordan1 1 is scarcely anything more than the mode in which he judged it right to explain the hardly intelligible expression of ,matthew1 whom he follows in this chapter4 ,what it precisely is which the latter intends by the words1 ,he departed from ,galilee1 and came into the coasts of ,juda beyond ,jordan1 1 is in fact not at all evident4 ,for if the explanation3 he came into that part of ,juda which lies on the opposite side of the ,jordan1 #aefe clashes alike with geography and grammar1 so the interpretation to which the comparison of ,mark inclines the majority of commentators1 namely1 that ,jesus came into ,juda through the country on the farther side of the ,jordan1 #aeff is1 even as modified by ,fritzsche1 not free from grammatical difficulty4 ,in any case1 however1 thus much remains3 that ,matthew1 as well as ,mark1 makes ,jesus take the most circuitous course through ,pera1 while ,luke1 on the other hand1 appears to lead him the more direct way through ,samaria4 ,it is true that his expression1 xvii4 #aa1 where he says that ,jesus1 on his journey to ,jerusalem1 passed through the midst of ,samaria and ,galilee1 is scarcely clearer than the one just cited from ,matthew4 ,according to the customary meaning of words1 he seems to state that ,jesus first crossed ,samaria1 and then ,galilee1 in order to arrive at ,jerusalem4 ,but this is an inversion of the true order2 for if he set out from a place in ,galilee1 he must first traverse the rest of ,galilee1 and not until then could he enter ,samaria4 ,hence the words 444 have been interpreted to mean a progress along the boundary between ,galilee and ,samaria1 #aefg and ,luke has been reconciled with the two first ,evangelists by the supposition1 that ,jesus journeyed along the ,galilean-,samarian frontier1 until he reached the ,jordan1 that he then crossed this river1 and so proceeded through ,pera towards ,juda and ,jerusalem4 ,but this latter supposition does not agree with ,luke ix4 #ea ff42 for we learn from this passage that ,jesus1 after his departure from ,galilee1 went directly to a ,samaritan village1 and here made an unfavourable impression1 because his face was as though he would go to ,jerusalem1 4 ,now this seems clearly to indicate that ,jesus took his way directly from ,galilee1 through ,samaria1 to ,juda4 ,we shall therefore be on the side of probability1 if we judge this statement to be an artificial arrangement of words1 to which the writer was led by his desire to introduce the narrative of the ten lepers1 one of whom was a ,samaritan2 #aefh and consequently admit that there is here a divergency between the synoptical gospels4 #aefi ,towards the end of the journey of ,jesus1 they are once more in unison1 for according to their unanimous statement1 ,jesus arrived at ,jerusalem from ,jericho 7,matt4 xx4 #bi1 parall472 a place which1 we may observe1 lay more in the direct road for a ,galilean coming through ,pera1 than for one coming through ,samaria4 ,thus there is indeed a difference between the synoptists with regard to the way taken by ,jesus2 but still they agree as to the first point of departure1 and the last stage of the road2 the account of ,john1 however1 diverges from them in both respects4 ,according to him1 it is not ,galilee from whence ,jesus sets out to attend the last passover1 for so early as before the feast of tabernacles of the previous year1 he had left that province1 apparently for the last time 7vii4 #a1 #aj72 that between this feast and that of the dedication 7x4 #bb7 he had returned thither1 is at least not stated2 after the latter feast1 however1 he betook himself to ,pera1 and remained there 7x4 #dj7 until the illness and death of ,lazarus recalled him into ,juda1 and into the immediate vicinity of ,jerusalem1 namely1 to ,bethany 7xi4 #h ff474 ,on account of the machinations of his enemies1 he quickly withdrew from thence again1 but1 because he intended to be present at the coming ,passover1 he retired no further than to the little city of ,ephraim1 near to the wilderness 7xi4 #ed72 and from this place1 no mention being made of a residence in ,jericho 7which1 besides1 did not lie in the way from ,ephraim1 according to the situation usually assigned to the latter city71 he proceeded to ,jerusalem to the feast4 ,so total a divergency necessarily gave unwonted occupation to the harmonists4 ,according to them1 the departure from ,galilee mentioned by the synoptists1 is not the departure to the last ,passover1 but to the feast of dedication2 #aegj though ,luke1 when he says1 when the time came that he should be received up1 7ix4 #ea71 incontrovertibly marks it as the departure to that feast on which the sufferings and death of ,jesus awaited him1 and though all the synoptists make the journey then begun end in that triumphal entry into ,jerusalem which1 according to the fourth gospel also1 took place immediately before the last passover4 #aega ,if1 according to this1 the departure from ,galilee narrated by the synoptists is regarded as that to the feast of dedication1 and the entrance into ,jerusalem which they mention as that to the subsequent passover2 they must have entirely passed over all which1 on this supposition1 lay between these two points1 namely1 the arrival and residence of ,jesus in ,jerusalem during the feast of dedication1 his journey from thence into ,pera1 from ,pera to ,bethany1 and from ,bethany to ,ephraim4 ,if from this it should appear to follow that the synoptists were ignorant of all these particulars3 our harmonists urge1 on the contrary1 that ,luke makes ,jesus soon after his journey out of ,galilee1 encounter scribes1 who try to put him to the proof 7x4 #be ff472 then shows him in ,bethany in the vicinity of ,jerusalem 7x4 #ch ff472 hereupon1 removes him to the frontiers of ,samaria and ,galilee 7xvii4 #aa72 and not until then1 makes him proceed to the passover in ,jerusalem 7xix4 #bi ff473 all which plainly enough indicates1 that between that departure out of ,galilee1 and the final entrance into ,jerusalem1 ,jesus made another journey to ,juda and ,jerusalem1 and from thence back again4 #aegb ,but1 in the first place1 the presence of the scribes proves absolutely nothing2 and in the second1 ,luke makes no mention of ,bethany1 but only of a visit to ,mary and ,martha1 whom the fourth ,evangelist places in that village3 from which1 however1 it does not follow that the third also supposed them to dwell there1 and consequently imagined ,jesus when at their home1 to be in the vicinity of ,jerusalem4 ,again1 from the fact that so very long after his departure 7ix4 #ea-xvii4 #aa71 ,jesus first appears on the frontier between ,galilee and ,samaria1 it only follows that we have before us no orderly progressive narrative4 ,but1 according to this harmonizing view1 even ,matthew was aware of those intermediate events1 and has indicated them for the more attentive reader3 the one member of his sentence1 he departed from ,galilee1 1 intimates the journey of ,jesus to the feast of dedication1 and thus forms a separate whole2 the other1 and came into the coasts of ,juda beyond ,jordan1 1 refers to the departure of ,jesus from ,jerusalem into ,pera 7,john x4 #dj71 and opens a new period4 ,in adopting this expedient1 however1 it is honourably confessed that without the data gathered from ,john1 no one would have thought of such a dismemberment of the passage in ,matthew4 #aegc ,in opposition to such artifices1 no way is open to those who presuppose the accuracy of ,john's narrative1 but that adopted by the most recent criticism2 namely1 to renounce the supposition that ,matthew1 who treats of the journey very briefly1 was an eye-witness2 and to suppose of ,luke1 whose account of it is very full1 that either he or one of the collectors of whose labours he availed himself1 mingled together two separate narratives1 of which one referred to the earlier journey of ,jesus to the feast of dedication1 the other to his last journey to the passover1 without suspecting that between the departure of ,jesus out of ,galilee1 and his entrance into ,jerusalem1 there fell yet an earlier residence in ,jerusalem1 together with other journeys and adventures4 #aegd ,we may now observe how in the course of the narrative concerning the last journey or journeys to ,jerusalem1 the relation between the synoptical gospels and that of ,john is in a singular manner reversed4 ,as in the first instance1 we discovered a great blank on the side of the former1 in their omission of a mass of intermediate events which ,john notices2 so now1 towards the end of the account of the journey1 there appears on the side of the latter1 a similar1 though smaller blank1 for he gives no intimation of ,jesus having come through ,jericho on his way to ,jerusalem4 ,it may indeed be said1 that ,john might overlook this passage through ,jericho1 although1 according to the synoptists1 it was distinguished by a cure of the blind1 and the visit to ,zacchus2 but1 it is to be asked1 is there in his narrative room for a passage through ,jericho8 ,this city does not lie on the way from ,ephraim to ,jerusalem1 but considerably to the eastward2 hence help is sought in the supposition that ,jesus made all kinds of minor excursions1 in one of which he came to ,jericho1 and from hence went forward to ,jerusalem4 #aege ,in any case a remarkable want of unity prevails in the evangelical accounts of the last journey of ,jesus2 for according to the common1 synoptical tradition1 he journeyed out of ,galilee by ,jericho 7and1 as ,matthew and ,mark say1 through ,pera1 as ,luke says1 through ,samaria72 while according to the fourth gospel1 he must have come hither from ,ephraim3 statements which it is impossible to reconcile4 #aji4 ,,divergencies ,,of ,,the ,,gospels1 ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,point ,,from ,,which ,,jesus ,,made ,,his ,,entrance ,,into ,,jerusalem4 ,even concerning the close of the journey of ,jesus--concerning the last station before he reached ,jerusalem1 the ,evangelists are not entirely in unison4 ,while from the synoptical gospels it appears1 that ,jesus entered ,jerusalem on the same day on which he left ,jericho1 and consequently without halting long at any intervening place 7,matt4 xx4 #cd1 xxi4 #a ff4 parall473 the fourth gospel makes him go from ,ephraim only so far as ,bethany1 spend the night there1 and enter ,jerusalem only on the following day 7xii4 #a1 #ab ff474 ,in order to reconcile the two accounts it is said3 we need not wonder that the synoptists1 in their summary narrative1 do not expressly touch upon the spending of the night in ,bethany1 and we are not to infer from this that they intended to deny it2 there exists1 therefore1 no contradiction between them and ,john1 but what they present in a compact form1 he exhibits in detail4 #aegf ,but while ,matthew does not even name ,bethany1 the two other synoptists mention this place in a way which decidedly precludes the supposition that ,jesus spent the night there4 ,they narrate that when ,jesus came near to ,bethphage and ,bethany1 1 he caused an ass to be fetched from the next village1 and forthwith rode on this into the city4 ,between events so connected it is impossible to imagine a night interposed2 on the contrary1 the narrative fully conveys the impression that immediately on the message of ,jesus1 the ass was surrendered by its owner1 and that immediately after the arrival of the ass1 ,jesus prepared to enter the city4 ,moreover1 if ,jesus intended to remain in ,bethany for the night1 it is impossible to discover his motive in sending for the ass4 ,for if we are to suppose the village to which he sent to be ,bethany1 and if the animal on which he purposed to ride would not be required until the following morning1 there was no need for him to send forward the disciples1 and he might conveniently have waited until he arrived with them in ,bethany2 the other alternative1 that before he had reached ,bethany1 and ascertained whether the animal he required might not be found there1 he should have sent beyond this nearest village to ,bethphage1 in order there to procure an ass for the following morning1 is altogether destitute of probability2 and yet ,matthew1 at least1 says decidedly that the ass was procured in ,bethphage4 ,to this it may be added1 that according to the representation of ,mark1 when ,jesus arrived in ,jerusalem1 the evening 1 had already commenced 7xi4 #aa71 and consequently it was only possible for him to take a cursory survey of the city and the temple1 after which he again returned to ,bethany4 ,it is not1 certainly1 to be proved that the fourth gospel lays the entrance in the morning2 but it must be asked1 why did not ,jesus1 when he only came from so near a place as ,bethany1 set out earlier from thence1 that he might have time to do something worth speaking of in ,jerusalem8 ,the late arrival of ,jesus in the city1 as stated by ,mark1 is evidently to be explained only by the longer distance from ,jericho thither2 if he came from ,bethany merely1 he would scarcely set out so late1 as that after he had only looked round him in the city1 he must again return to ,bethany1 in order on the following day to set out earlier1 which nothing had hindered him from doing on this day4 ,it is true that1 in deferring the arrival of ,jesus in ,jerusalem until late in the evening1 ,mark is not supported by the two other synoptists1 for these represent ,jesus as undertaking the purification of the temple on the day of his arrival1 and ,matthew even makes him perform cures1 and give answers to the high priests and scribes 7,matt4 xxi4 #ab ff473 but even without this statement as to the hour of entrance1 the arrival of ,jesus near to the above villages1 the sending of the disciples1 the bringing of the ass1 and the riding into the city1 are too closely consecutive1 to allow of our inserting in the narrative of the synoptists a night's residence in ,bethany4 ,if then it remains1 that the three first ,evangelists make ,jesus proceed directly from ,jericho1 without any stay in ,bethany1 while the fourth makes him come to ,jerusalem from ,bethany only1 they must1 if they are mutually correct1 speak of two separate entrances2 and this has been recently maintained by several critics4 #aegg ,according to them1 ,jesus first 7as the synoptists relate7 proceeded directly to ,jerusalem with the caravan going to the feast1 and on this occasion there happened1 when he made himself conspicuous by mounting the animal1 an unpremeditated demonstration of homage on the part of his fellow-travellers1 which converted the entrance into a triumphal progress4 ,having retired to ,bethany in the evening1 on the following morning 7as ,john relates7 a great multitude went out to meet him1 in order to convey him into the city1 and as he met with them on the way from ,bethany1 there was a repetition on an enlarged scale of the scene on the foregoing day1--this time preconcerted by his adherents4 ,this distinction of an earlier entrance of ,jesus into ,jerusalem before his approach was known in the city1 and a later1 after it was learned that he was in ,bethany1 is favoured by the difference1 that according to the synoptical narrative1 the people who render homage to him are only going before 1 and following 7,matt4 v4 #i71 while according to that of ,john1 they are meeting him 7v4 #ac1 #ah74 ,if however it be asked3 why then among all our narrators1 does each give only one entrance1 and not one of them show any trace of a second8 ,the answer in relation to ,john is1 that this ,evangelist is silent as to the first entrance1 probably because he was not present on the occasion1 having possibly been sent to ,bethany to announce the arrival of ,jesus4 #aegh ,as1 however1 according to our principles1 if it be assumed of the author of the fourth gospel1 that he is the apostle named in the superscription1 the same assumption must also be made respecting the author of the first3 we ask in vain1 whither are we then to suppose that ,matthew was sent on the second entrance1 that he knew nothing to relate concerning it8 since with the repeated departure from ,bethany to ,jerusalem1 there is no conceivable cause for such an errand4 ,in relation to ,john indeed it is a pure invention2 not to insist1 that even if the two ,evangelists were not personally present1 they must yet have learned enough of an event so much talked of in the circle of the disciples1 to be able to furnish an account of it4 ,above all1 as the narrative of the synoptists does not indicate that a second entrance had taken place after the one described by them3 so that of ,john is of such a kind1 that before the entrance which it describes1 it is impossible to conceive another4 ,for according to this narrative1 the day before the entrance which it details 7consequently1 according to the given supposition1 on the day of the synoptical entrance71 many ,jews went from ,jerusalem to ,bethany1 because they had heard of the arrival of ,jesus1 and now wished to see him and ,lazarus whom he had restored to life 7v4 #i1 comp4 #ab74 ,but how could they learn on the day of the synoptical entrance1 that ,jesus was at ,bethany8 ,on that day ,jesus did indeed pass either by or through ,bethany1 but he proceeded directly to ,jerusalem1 whence1 according to all the narratives1 he could have returned to ,bethany only at so late an hour in the evening1 that ,jews who now first went from ,jerusalem1 could no longer hope to be able to see him4 #aegi ,but why should they take the trouble to seek ,jesus in ,bethany1 when they had on that very day seen him in ,jerusalem itself8 ,surely in this case it must have been said--not merely1 that they came not for ,jesus' sake ,,only1 but that they might see ,lazarus also1 ' 1--but rather that they had indeed seen ,jesus himself in ,jerusalem1 but as they wished to see ,lazarus also1 they came therefore to ,bethany3 whereas the ,evangelist represents these people as coming from ,jerusalem partly to see ,jesus2 he cannot therefore have supposed that ,jesus might have been seen in ,jerusalem on that very day4 ,further1 when it is said in ,john1 that on the following day it was heard in ,jerusalem that ,jesus was coming 7v4 #ab71 this does not at all seem to imply that ,jesus had already been there the day before1 but rather that the news had come from ,bethany1 of his intention to enter on this day4 ,so also the reception which is immediately prepared for him1 alone has its proper significance when it is regarded as the glorification of his first entrance into the metropolis2 it could only have been appropriate on his second entrance1 if ,jesus had the day before entered unobserved and unhonoured1 and it had been wished to repair this omission on the following day--not if the first entrance had already been so brilliant4 ,moreover1 on the second entrance every feature of the first must have been repeated1 which1 whether we refer it to a preconceived arrangement on the part of ,jesus1 or to an accidental coincidence of circumstances1 still remains improbable4 ,with respect to ,jesus1 it is not easy to understand how he could arrange the repetition of a spectacle which1 in the first instance significant1 if acted a second time would be flat and unmeaning2 #aehj on the other hand1 circumstances must have coincided in an unprecedented manner1 if on both occasions there happened the same demonstrations of homage on the part of the people1 with the same expressions of envy on the part of his opponents2 if1 on both occasions1 too1 there stood at the command of ,jesus an ass1 by riding which he brought to mind the prophecy of ,zechariah4 ,we might therefore call to our aid ,sieffert's hypothesis of assimilation1 and suppose that the two entrances1 originally more different1 became thus similar by traditional intermixture3 were not the supposition that two distinct events lie at the foundation of the evangelical narratives1 rendered improbable by another circumstance4 ,on the first glance1 indeed1 the supposition of two entrances seems to find support in the fact1 that ,john makes his entrance take place the day after the meal in ,bethany1 at which ,jesus was anointed under memorable circumstances2 whereas the two first synoptists 7for ,luke knows nothing of a meal at ,bethany in this period of the life of ,jesus7 make their entrance precede this meal3 and thus1 quite in accordance with the above supposition1 the synoptical entrance would appear the earlier1 that of ,john the later4 ,this would be very well1 if ,john had not placed his entrance so early1 and the synoptists their meal at ,bethany so late1 that the former cannot possibly have been subsequent to the latter4 ,according to ,john1 ,jesus comes six days before the passover to ,bethany1 and on the following day enters ,jerusalem 7xiii4 #a1 #ab72 on the other hand1 the meal at ,bethany1 mentioned by the synoptists 7,matt4 xxvi4 #f ff4 parall471 can have been at the most but two days before the passover 7v4 #b72 so that if we are to suppose the synoptical entrance prior to the meal and the entrance in ,john1 there must then have been after all this1 according to the synoptists1 a second meal in ,bethany4 ,but between the two meals thus presupposed1 as between the two entrances1 there would have been the most striking resemblance even to the minutest points2 and against the interweaving of two such double incidents1 there is so strong a presumption1 that it will scarcely be said there were two entrances and two meals1 which were originally far more dissimilar1 but1 from the transference of features out of the one incident into the other by tradition1 they have become as similar to each other as we now see them3 on the contrary1 here if anywhere1 it is easier1 when once the authenticity of the accounts is given up1 to imagine that tradition has varied one incident1 than that it has assimilated two4 #aeha #aaj4 ,,more ,,particular ,,circumstances ,,of ,,the ,,entrance4 ,,its ,,object ,,and ,,historical ,,reality4 ,while the fourth gospel first makes the multitude that streamed forth to meet ,jesus render him their homage1 and then briefly states that ,jesus mounted a young ass which he had obtained2 the synoptists commence their description of the entrance with a minute account of the manner in which ,jesus came by the ass4 ,when1 namely1 he had arrived in the neighbourhood of ,jerusalem1 towards ,bethphage and ,bethany1 at the ,mount of ,olives1 he sent two of his disciples into the village lying before them1 telling them that when they came there they would find--,matthew says1 an ass tied1 and a colt with her2 the two others1 a colt whereon never man sat--which they were to loose and bring to him1 silencing any objections of the owner by the observation1 the ,lord hath need of him 7or them74 ,this having been done1 the disciples spread their clothes1 and placed ,jesus--on both the animals1 according to ,matthew2 according to the two other synoptists1 on the single animal4 ,the most striking part of this account is obviously the statement of ,matthew1 that ,jesus not only required two asses1 though he alone intended to ride1 but that he also actually sat on them both4 ,it is true that1 as is natural1 there are not wanting attempts to explain the former particular1 and to do away with the latter4 ,jesus1 it is said1 caused the mother animal to be brought with the colt1 on which alone he intended to ride1 in order that the young and still sucking animal might by this means be made to go more easily2 #aehb or else the mother1 accustomed to her young one1 followed of her own accord3 #aehc but a young animal1 yet unweaned1 would scarcely be given up by its owner to be ridden4 ,a sufficient motive on the part of ,jesus in sending for the two animals1 could only be that he intended to ride both1 which ,matthew appears plainly enough to say2 for his words imply1 not only that the clothes were spread1 but also that ,jesus was placed on the two animals 7 74 ,but how are we to represent this to ourselves8 ,as an alternate mounting of the one and the other1 ,fritzsche thinks3 #aehd but this1 for so short a distance would have been a superfluous inconvenience4 ,hence commentators have sought to rid themselves of the singular statement4 ,some1 after very weak authorities1 and in opposition to all critical principles1 read in the words relative to the spreading of the clothes1 ' 7 71 upon it 7the colt71 instead of 1 upon them2 and then in the mentioning that ,jesus placed himself thereon1 refer the to the clothes which were spread on one of the animals4 #aehe ,others1 thinking to escape the difficulty without an alteration of the reading1 characterize ,matthew's statement as an enallage numeri1 #aehf by which1 according to ,winer's explanation1 it is meant that the ,evangelist1 using an inaccurate mode of expression1 certainly speaks of both the animals1 but only in the sense in which we say of him who springs from one of two horses harnessed together1 that he springs from the horses4 #aehg ,admitting this expedient to be sufficient1 it again becomes incomprehensible why ,jesus1 who according to this only meant to use one animal1 should have sent for two4 ,the whole statement becomes the more suspicious1 when we consider that it is given by the first ,evangelist alone2 for in order to reconcile the others with him it will not suffice to say1 as we ordinarily read1 that they name only the foal as being that on which ,jesus rode1 and that while omitting the ass as an accessory fact1 they do not exclude it4 ,but how was ,matthew led into this singular statement8 ,its true source has been pointed out1 though in a curious manner1 by those who conjecture1 that ,jesus in his instructions to the two disciples1 and ,matthew in his original writing1 following the passage of ,zechariah 7ix4 #i71 made use of several expressions for the one idea of the ass1 which expressions were by the ,greek translator of the first gospel misconstrued to mean more than one animal4 #aehh ,undoubtedly it was the accumulated designations of the ass in the above passage3 1 1 ,,lxx4 which occasioned the duplication of it in the first gospel2 for the and which in the ,hebrew was intended in an explanatory sense1 was erroneously understood to denote an addition1 and hence instead of3 an ass1 that is1 an ass's foal1 was substituted3 an ass together with an ass's foal4 #aehi ,but this mistake cannot have originated with the ,greek translator1 who1 if he had found throughout ,matthew's narrative but one ass1 would scarcely have doubled it purely on the strength of the prophetic passage1 and as often as his original spoke of one ass1 have added a second1 or introduced the plural number instead of the singular2 it must rather have been made by one whose only written source was the prophetic passage1 out of which1 with the aid of oral tradition1 he spun his entire narrative1 i4e4 the author of the first gospel2 who hereby1 as recent criticism correctly maintains1 irrecoverably forfeits the reputation of an eye-witness8 #aeij ,if the first gospel stands alone in this mistake1 so1 on the other hand1 the two intermediate ,evangelists have a feature peculiar to themselves1 which it is to the advantage of the first to have avoided4 ,we shall merely point out in passing the prolixity with which ,mark and ,luke 7though they1 as well as ,matthew1 make ,jesus describe to the two disciples1 how they would find the ass1 and wherewith they were to satisfy the owner71 yet do not spare themselves or the reader the trouble of almost verbally repeating every particular as having occurred 7,mark v4 #d ff42 ,luke v4 #cb ff472 whereas ,matthew1 with more judgment1 contents himself with the observation1 and the disciples went and did as ,jesus commanded them4 ,this1 as affecting merely the form of the narrative1 we shall not dwell on further4 ,but it concerns the substance1 that1 according to ,mark and ,luke1 ,jesus desired an animal whereon yet never man sat1 ' 3 a particular of which ,matthew knows nothing4 ,one does not understand how ,jesus could designedly increase the difficulty of his progress1 by the choice of a hitherto unridden animal1 which1 unless he kept it in order by divine omnipotence 7for the most consummate human skill would not suffice for this on the first riding71 must inevitably have occasioned much disturbance to the triumphal procession1 especially as we are not to suppose that it was preceded by its mother1 this circumstance having entered into the representation of the first ,evangelist only4 ,to such an inconvenience ,jesus would assuredly not have exposed himself without a cogent reason3 such a reason however appears to lie sufficiently near in the opinion of antiquity1 according to which1 to use ,wetstein's expression1 animalia1 usibus humanis nondum mancipata1 sacra habebantur2 so that thus ,jesus1 for his consecrated person1 and the high occasion of his messianic entrance1 may have chosen to use only a sacred animal4 ,but regarded more closely1 this reason will appear frivolous1 and absurd also2 for the spectators had no means of knowing that the ass had never been ridden before1 except by the unruliness with which he may have disturbed the peaceful progress of the triumphal train4 #aeia ,if we are thus unable to comprehend how ,jesus could seek an honour for himself in mounting an animal which had never yet been ridden2 we shall1 on the contrary1 find it easy to comprehend how the primitive ,christian community might early believe it due to his honour that he should ride only on such an animal1 as subsequently that he should lie only in an unused grave4 ,the authors of the intermediate gospels did not hesitate to receive this trait into their memoirs1 because they indeed1 in writing1 would not experience the same inconvenience from the undisciplined animal1 which it must have caused to ,jesus in riding4 ,the two difficulties already considered belong respectively to the first ,evangelist1 and the two intermediate ones3 another is common to them all1 namely1 that which lies in the circumstance that ,jesus so confidently sends two disciples for an ass which they would find in the next village1 in such and such a situation1 and that the issue corresponds so closely to his prediction4 ,it might here appear the most natural1 to suppose that he had previously bespoken the ass1 and that consequently it stood ready for him at the hour and place appointed2 #aeib but how could he have thus bespoken an ass in ,bethphage1 seeing that he was just come from ,jericho8 ,hence even ,paulus in this instance finds something else more probable3 namely1 that about the time of the feasts1 in the villages lying on the high road to ,jerusalem1 many beasts of burden stood ready to be hired by travellers2 but in opposition to this it is to be observed1 that ,jesus does not at all seem to speak of the first animal that may happen to present itself1 but of a particular animal4 ,hence we cannot but be surprised that ,olshausen describes it as only the probable idea of the narrator1 that to the ,messiah making his entrance into ,jerusalem1 the providence of ,god presented everything just as he needed it2 as also that the same expositor1 in order to explain the ready compliance of the owners of the animal1 finds it necessary to suppose that they were friends of ,jesus2 since this trait rather serves to exhibit the as it were magical power which resided in the name of the ,lord1 at the mention of which the owner of the ass unresistingly placed it at his disposal1 as subsequently the inhabitant of the room gave it up at a word from the ,master 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ah parall474 ,to this divine providence in favour of the ,messiah1 and the irresistible power of his name1 is united the superior knowledge by means of which ,jesus here clearly discerns a distant fact which might be available for the supply of his wants4 ,now admitting this to be the meaning and design of the ,evangelists1 such a prediction of an accidental circumstance might certainly be conceived as the effect of a magnetic clairvoyance4 #aeic ,but1 on the one hand1 we know full well the tendency of the primitive ,christian legend to create such proofs of the superior nature of her ,messiah 7witness the calling of the two pairs of brethren2 but the instance most analogous has been just alluded to1 and is hereafter to be more closely examined1 namely1 the manner in which ,jesus causes the room to be bespoken for his last supper with the twelve72 on the other hand1 the dogmatic reasons drawn from prophecy1 for displaying the far-seeing of ,jesus here as precisely the knowledge of an ass being tied at a certain place1 are clearly obvious2 so that we cannot abstain from the conjecture1 that we have here nothing more than a product of the tendency which characterized the ,christian legend1 and of the effort to base ,christian belief on ancient prophecy4 ,in considering1 namely1 the passage quoted in the first and fourth gospels from ,zechariah1 where it is merely said that the meek and lowly king will come riding on an ass1 in general2 it is usual to overlook another prophetic passage1 which contains more precisely the tied ass of the ,messiah4 ,this passage is ,gen4 xlix4 #aa1 where the dying ,jacob says to ,judah concerning the ,shiloh1 1 ,binding his foal unto the vine1 and his ass's colt unto the choice vine1 4 ,justin ,martyr understands this passage also1 as well as the one from ,zechariah1 as a prediction relative to the entrance of ,jesus1 and hence directly asserts that the foal which ,jesus caused to be fetched was bound to a vine4 #aeid ,in like manner the ,jews not only held the general interpretation that the ,shiloh was the ,messiah1 as may be shown already in the ,targum1 #aeie but also combined the passage relative to the binding of the ass with that on the riding of it into ,jerusalem4 #aeif ,that the above prophecy of ,jacob is not cited by any one of our ,evangelists1 only proves1 at the utmost1 that it was not verbally present to their minds when they were writing the narrative before us3 it can by no means prove that the passage was not an element in the conceptions of the circle in which the anecdote was first formed4 ,the transmission of the narrative through the hands of many who were not aware of its original relation to the passage in ,genesis1 may certainly be argued from the fact that it no longer perfectly corresponds to the prophecy4 ,for a perfect agreement to exist1 ,jesus1 after he had1 according to ,zechariah1 ridden into the city on the ass1 must on dismounting1 have bound it to a vine1 instead of causing it to be unbound in the next village 7according to ,mark1 from a door by the way-side7 as he actually does4 ,by this means1 however1 there was obtained1 together with the fulfilment of those two prophecies1 a proof of the supernatural knowledge of ,jesus1 and the magical power of his name2 and in relation to the former point1 it might be remembered in particular1 that ,samuel also had once proved his gifts as a seer by the prediction1 that as ,saul was returning homeward1 two men would meet him with the information that the asses of ,kis his father were found 7#a ,sam4 x4 #b74 ,the narrative in the fourth gospel1 having no connection with the ,mosaic passage1 says nothing of the ass being tied1 or of its being fetched by the disciples1 and merely states with reference to the passage of ,zechariah alone3 ,jesus1 having found a young ass1 sat thereon 7v4 #ad74 #aeig ,the next feature that presents itself for our consideration1 is the homage which is rendered to ,jesus by the populace4 ,according to all the narrators except ,luke1 this consisted in cutting down the branches of trees1 which1 according to the synoptists1 were strewed in the way1 according to ,john 7who with more particularity mentions palm branches71 were carried by the multitude that met ,jesus2 further1 according to all except ,john1 in the spreading of clothes in the way4 ,to this were added joyous acclamations1 of which all have1 with unimportant modifications1 the words 1 ,blessed be he that cometh in the name of the ,lord2 all except ,luke the 1 ,hosanna2 and all1 the greeting as ,king1 or ,son of ,david4 ,the first1 from ,ps4 cxviii4 #bf1 1 was1 it is true1 a customary form of salutation to persons visiting the feasts1 and even the second1 1 taken from the preceding verse of the same psalm1 was a usual cry at the feast of tabernacles and the passover2 #aeih but the addition 1 to the ,son of ,david1 and 1 the ,king of ,israel1 shows that the people here applied these general forms to ,jesus especially as the ,messiah1 bid him welcome in a pre-eminent sense1 and wished success to his undertaking4 ,in relation to the parties who present the homage1 ,luke's account is the most circumscribed1 for he so connects the spreading of the clothes in the way 7v4 #cf7 with the immediately preceding context1 that he appears to ascribe it1 as well as the laying of the clothes on the ass1 solely to the disciples1 and he expressly attributes the acclamations to the whole multitude of the disciples only 7 72 whereas ,matthew and ,mark make the homage proceed from the accompanying mass of people4 ,this difference1 however1 can be easily reconciled2 for when ,luke speaks of the multitude of the disciples1 1 this means the wider circle of the adherents of ,jesus1 and1 on the other hand1 the very great multitude in ,matthew1 only means all those who were favourable to him among the multitude4 ,but while the synoptists remain within the limits of the company who were proceeding to the feast1 and who were thus the fellow-travellers of ,jesus1 ,john1 as above noticed1 makes the whole solemnity proceed from those who go out of ,jerusalem to meet ,jesus 7v4 #ac71 while he represents the multitude who are approaching with ,jesus as testifying to the former the resurrection of ,lazarus1 on account of which1 according to ,john1 the solemn escort of ,jesus into ,jerusalem was prepared 7v4 #ag f474 ,this cause we cannot admit as authentic1 inasmuch as we have found critical reasons for doubting the resurrection of ,lazarus3 but with the alleged cause1 the fact itself of the escort is shaken2 especially if we reflect1 that the dignity of ,jesus might appear to demand that the inhabitants of the city of ,david should have gone forth to bring him in with all solemnity1 and that it fully harmonizes with the prevailing characteristics of the representation of the fourth gospel1 to describe1 before the arrival of ,jesus at the feast1 how intently the expectations of the people were fixed upon him 7vii4 #aa ff41 xi4 #ef74 ,the last trait in the picture before us1 is the displeasure of the enemies of ,jesus at the strong attachment to him1 exhibited by the people on this occasion4 ,according to ,john 7v4 #ai71 the ,pharisees said to each other3 we see from this that the 7lenient7 proceedings which we have hitherto adopted are of no avail2 all the world is following him 7we must interpose1 with forcible measures74 ,according to ,luke 7v4 #ci f471 some ,pharisees addressed ,jesus as if they expected him to impose silence on his disciples2 on which he answers1 that if these were silent1 the stones would cry out4 ,while in ,luke and ,john this happens during the progress1 in ,matthew it is only after ,jesus has arrived with the procession in the temple1 and when the children1 even here1 continue to cry1 ,hosanna to the ,son of ,david1 that the high priests and scribes direct the attention of ,jesus to the impropriety1 as it appears to them1 whereupon he repulses them with a sentence out of ,ps4 viii4 #c4 7,out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise7 7v4 #ae f472 a sentence which in the original obviously relates to ,jehovah1 but which ,jesus thus applies to himself4 ,the lamentation of ,jesus over ,jerusalem1 connected by ,luke with the entrance1 will come under our consideration further on4 ,john1 and more particularly ,matthew by his phrase 1 4441 ,all this was done that it might be fulfilled1 etc4 7v4 #d71 unequivocally express the idea that the design1 first of ,god1 inasmuch as he ordained this scene1 and next of the ,messiah1 as the participant in the ,divine counsels1 was1 by giving this character to the entrance1 to fulfil an ancient prophecy4 ,if ,jesus saw in the passage of ,zechariah 7ix4 #i71 #aeii a prophecy concerning himself as the ,messiah1 this cannot have been a knowledge resulting from the higher principle within him2 for1 even if this prophetic passage ought not to be referred to an historical prince1 as ,uzziah1 #afjj or ,john ,hyrcanus1 #afja but to a messianic individual1 #afjb still the latter1 though a pacific1 must yet be understood as a temporal prince1 and moreover as in peaceful possession of ,jerusalem--thus as one altogether different from ,jesus4 ,but it appears quite possible for ,jesus to have come to such an interpretation in a natural way1 since at least the rabbins with decided unanimity interpret the passage of ,zechariah of the ,messiah4 #afjc ,above all1 we know that the contradiction which appeared to exist between the insignificant advent here predicted of the ,messiah1 and the brilliant one which ,daniel had foretold1 was at a later period commonly reconciled by the doctrine1 that according as the ,jewish people showed themselves worthy or the contrary1 their ,messiah would appear in a majestic or a lowly form4 #afjd ,now even if this distinction did not exist in the time of ,jesus1 but only in general a reference of the passage ,zech4 ix4 #i to the ,messiah3 still ,jesus might imagine that now1 on his first appearance1 the prophecy of ,zechariah must be fulfilled in him1 but hereafter1 on his second appearance1 the prophecy of ,daniel4 ,but there is a third possibility2 namely1 that either an accidental riding into ,jerusalem on an ass by ,jesus was subsequently interpreted by the ,christians in this manner1 or that1 lest any messianic attribute should be wanting to him1 the whole narrative of the entrance was freely composed after the two prophecies and the dogmatic presupposition of a superhuman knowledge on the part of ,jesus4 ,,third ,,part4 ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,passion1 ,,death ,,and ,,resurrection ,,of ,,jesus4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,relation ,,of ,,jesus ,,to ,,the ,,idea ,,of ,a ,,suffering ,,and ,,dying ,,messiah2 ,,his ,,discourses ,,on ,,his ,,death1 ,,resurrection1 ,,and ,,second ,,advent4 #aaa4 ,,did ,,jesus ,,in ,,precise ,,terms ,,predict ,,his ,,passion ,,and ,,death8 ,according to the gospels1 ,jesus more than once1 and while the result was yet distant1 #afje predicted to his disciples that sufferings and a violent death awaited him4 ,moreover1 if we trust the synoptical accounts1 he did not predict his fate merely in general terms1 but specified beforehand the place of his passion1 namely1 ,jerusalem2 the time1 namely1 the approaching passover2 the persons from whom he would have to suffer1 namely1 the chief priests1 scribes and ,gentiles2 the essential form of his passion1 namely1 crucifixion1 in consequence of a judicial sentence2 and even its accessory circumstances1 namely1 scourging1 reviling1 and spitting 7,matt4 xvi4 #ba1 xvii4 #ab1 #bb f41 xx4 #ag ff41 xxvi4 #ab with the parall41 ,luke xiii4 #cc74 ,between the synoptists and the author of the fourth gospel1 there exists a threefold difference in relation to this subject4 ,firstly and chiefly1 in the latter the predictions of ,jesus do not appear so clear and intelligible1 but are for the most part presented in obscure figurative discourses1 concerning which the narrator himself confesses that the disciples understood them not until after the issue 7ii4 #bb74 ,in addition to a decided declaration that he will voluntarily lay down his life 7x4 #ae ff471 ,jesus in this gospel is particularly fond of alluding to his approaching death under the expressions 1 1 to lift up1 to be lifted up1 in the application of which he seems to vacillate between his exaltation on the cross1 and his exaltation to glory 7iii4 #ad1 viii4 #bh1 xii4 #cb72 he compares his approaching exaltation with that of the brazen serpent in the wilderness 7iii4 #ad71 as1 in ,matthew1 he compares his fate with that of ,jonah 7xii4 #dj72 on another occasion1 he speaks of going away whither no man can follow him 7vii4 #cc ff41 viii4 #ba f471 as1 in the synoptists1 of a taking away of a bridegroom1 which will plunge his friends into mourning 7,matt4 ix4 #ae parall471 and of a cup1 which he must drink1 and which his disciples will find it hard to partake of with him 7,matt4 xx4 #bb parall474 ,the two other differences are less marked1 but are still observable4 ,one of them is1 that while in ,john the allusions to the violent death of ,jesus run in an equal degree through the whole gospel2 in the synoptists1 the repeated and definite announcements of his death are found only towards the end1 partly immediately before1 partly during1 the last journey2 in earlier chapters there occurs1 with the exception of the obscure discourse on the sign of ,jonah 7which we shall soon see to be no prediction of death71 only the intimation of a removal 7doubtless violent7 of the bridegroom4 ,the last difference is1 that while according to the three first ,evangelists1 ,jesus imparts those predictions 7again with the single exception of the above intimation1 ,matt4 ix4 #ae7 only to the confidential circle of his disciples2 in ,john1 he utters them in the presence of the people1 and even of his enemies4 ,in the critical investigation of these evangelical accounts1 we shall proceed from the special to the general1 in the following manner4 ,first we shall ask3 ,is it credible that ,jesus had a foreknowledge of so many particular features of the fate which awaited him8 and next3 ,is even a general foreknowledge and prediction of his sufferings1 on the part of ,jesus1 probable8 in which inquiry1 the difference between the representation of ,john and that of the synoptists1 will necessarily come under our consideration4 ,there are two modes of explaining how ,jesus could so precisely foreknow the particular circumstances of his passion and death2 the one resting on a supernatural1 the other on a natural basis4 ,the former appears adequate to solve the problem by the simple position1 that before the prophetic spirit1 which dwelt in ,jesus in the richest plenitude1 his destiny must have lain unfolded from the beginning4 ,as1 however1 ,jesus himself1 in his announcements of his sufferings1 expressly appealed to the ,old ,testament1 the prophecies of which concerning him must be fulfilled in all points 7,luke xviii4 #ca1 comp4 xxii4 #cg1 xxiv4 #be ff42 ,matt4 xxvi4 #ed73 so the orthodox view ought not to despise this help1 but must give to its explanation the modification1 that ,jesus continually occupied with the prophecies of the ,old ,testament1 may have drawn those particularities out of them1 by the aid of the spirit that dwelt within him4 #afjf ,according to this1 while the knowledge of the time of his passion remains consigned to his prophetic presentiment1 unless he be supposed to have calculated this out of ,daniel1 or some similar source2 ,jesus must have come to regard ,jerusalem as the scene of his suffering and death1 by contemplating the fate of earlier prophets as a type of his own1 the ,spirit telling him1 that where so many prophets had suffered death1 there1 fortiori1 must the ,messiah also suffer 7,luke xiii4 #cc72 that his death would be the sequel of a formal sentence1 he must have gathered from ,isa4 liii4 #h1 where a judgment is spoken of as impending over the servant of ,god1 and from v4 #ab1 where it is said that he was numbered with the transgressors1 7comp4 ,luke xxii4 #cg72 that his sentence would proceed from the rulers of his own people1 he might perhaps have concluded from ,ps4 cxviii4 #bb1 where the builders1 who reject the corner-stone1 are1 according to apostolic interpretation 7,acts iv4 #aa71 the ,jewish rulers2 that he would be delivered to the ,gentiles1 he might infer from the fact1 that in several plaintive psalms1 which are susceptible of a messianic interpretation1 the persecuting parties are represented as 1 i4e4 heathens2 that the precise manner of his death would be crucifixion1 he might have deduced1 partly from the type of the brazen serpent which was suspended on a pole1 ,num4 xxi4 #h f4 7comp4 ,john iii4 #ad71 partly from the piercing of the hands and feet1 ,ps4 xxii4 #ag1 ,,lxx42 lastly1 that he would be the object of scorn and personal maltreatment1 he might have concluded from passages such as v4 #g ff4 in the ,psalm above quoted1 ,isa4 l4 #f1 etc4 ,now if the spirit which dwelt in ,jesus1 and which1 according to the orthodox opinion1 revealed to him the reference of these prophecies and types to his ultimate destiny1 was a spirit of truth3 this reference to ,jesus must admit of being proved to be the true and original sense of those ,old ,testament passages4 ,but1 to confine ourselves to the principal passages only1 a profound grammatical and historical exposition has convincingly shown1 for all who are in a condition to liberate themselves from dogmatic presuppositions1 that in none of these is there any allusion to the sufferings of ,christ4 ,instead of this1 ,isa4 l4 #f1 speaks of the ill usage which the prophets had to experience2 #afjg ,isa4 liii4 of the calamities of the prophetic order1 or more probably of the ,israelitish people2 #afjh ,ps4 cxviii4 of the unexpected deliverance and exaltation of that people1 or of one of their princes2 #afji while ,ps4 xxii4 is the complaint of an oppressed exile4 #afaj ,as to the #agth verse of this ,psalm1 which has been interpreted as having reference to the crucifixion of ,christ1 even presupposing the most improbable interpretation of by perfoderunt1 this must in no case be understood literally1 but only figuratively1 and the image would be derived1 not from a crucifixion1 but from a chase1 or a combat with wild beasts2 #afaa hence the application of this passage to ,christ is now only maintained by those with whom it would be lost labour to contend4 ,according to the orthodox view1 however1 ,jesus1 in a supernatural manner1 by means of his higher nature1 discovered in these passages a pre-intimation of the particular features of his passion2 but1 in that case1 since such is not the true sense of these passages1 the spirit that dwelt in ,jesus cannot have been the spirit of truth1 but a lying spirit4 ,thus the orthodox expositor1 so far as he does not exclude himself from the light dispensed by an unprejudiced interpretation of the ,old ,testament1 is driven1 for the sake of his own interest1 to adopt the natural opinion2 namely1 that ,jesus was led to such an interpretation of ,old ,testament passages1 not by divine inspiration1 but by a combination of his own4 ,according to this opinion1 #afab there was no difficulty in foreseeing that it would be the ruling sacerdotal party to which ,jesus must succumb1 since1 on the one hand1 it was pre-eminently embittered against ,jesus1 on the other1 it was in possession of the necessary power2 and equally obvious was it that they would make ,jerusalem the theatre of his judgment and execution1 since this was the centre of their strength2 that after being sentenced by the rulers of his people1 he would be delivered to the ,romans for execution1 followed from the limitation of the ,jewish judicial power at that period2 that crucifixion was the death to which he would be sentenced1 might be conjectured from the fact that with the ,romans this species of death was a customary infliction1 especially on rebels2 lastly1 that scourging and reviling would not be wanting1 might likewise be inferred from ,roman custom1 and the barbarity of judicial proceedings in that age4--,but viewing the subject more nearly1 how could ,jesus so certainly know that ,herod1 who had directed a threatening attention to his movements 7,luke xiii4 #ca71 would not forestall the sacerdotal party1 and add to the murder of the ,baptist1 that of his more important follower8 ,and even if he felt himself warranted in believing that real danger threatened him from the side of the hierarchy only 7,luke xiii4 #cc72 what was his guarantee that one of their tumultuary attempts to murder him would not at last succeed 7comp4 ,john viii4 #ci1 x4 #ca71 and that he would not1 as ,stephen did at a later period1 without any further formalities1 and without a previous delivery to the ,romans1 find his death in quite another manner than by the ,roman punishment of crucifixion8 ,lastly1 how could he so confidently assert that the very next plot of his enemies1 after so many failures1 would be successful1 and that the very next journey to the passover would be his last8--,but the natural explanation also can call to its aid the ,old ,testament passages1 and say3 ,jesus1 whether by the application of a mode of interpretation then current among his countrymen1 or under the guidance of his own individual views1 gathered from the passages already quoted1 a precise idea of the circumstances attendant on the violent end which awaited him as the ,messiah4 #afac ,but if in the first place it would be difficult to prove1 that already in the lifetime of ,jesus all these various passages were referred to the ,messiah2 and if it be equally difficult to conceive that ,jesus could independently1 prior to the issue1 discover such a reference2 so it would be a case undistinguishable from a miracle1 if the result had actually corresponded to so false an interpretation2 moreover1 the ,old ,testament oracles and types will not suffice to explain all the particular features in the predictions of ,jesus1 especially the precise determination of time4 ,if then ,jesus cannot have had so precise a foreknowledge of the circumstances of his passion and death1 either in a supernatural or a natural way3 he cannot have had such a foreknowledge at all3 and the minute predictions which the ,evangelists put into his mouth must be regarded as a vaticinium post eventum4 #afad ,commentators who have arrived at this conclusion1 have not failed to extol the account of ,john1 in opposition to that of the synoptists1 on the ground that precisely those traits in the predictions of ,jesus which1 from their special character1 he cannot have uttered1 are only found in the synoptists1 while ,john attributes to ,jesus no more than indefinite intimations1 and distinguishes these from his own interpretation1 made after the issue2 a plain proof that in his gospel alone we have the discourses of ,jesus unfalsified1 and in their original form4 #afae ,but1 regarded more nearly1 the case does not stand so that the fourth ,evangelist can only be taxed with putting an erroneous interpretation on the otherwise unfalsified declarations of ,jesus3 for in one passage1 at least1 he has put into his mouth an expression which1 obscurely1 it is true1 but still unmistakably1 determines the manner of his death as crucifixion2 and consequently1 he has here altered the words of ,jesus to correspond with the result4 ,we refer to the expression 1 to be lifted up3 in those passages of the fourth gospel where ,jesus speaks in a passive sense of the ,son of ,man being lifted up1 this expression might possibly mean his exaltation to glory1 although in iii4 #ad1 from the comparison with the serpent in the wilderness1 which was well known to have been elevated on a pole1 even this becomes a difficulty2 but when1 as in viii4 #bh1 he represents the exaltation of the ,son of ,man as the act of his enemies 7 4 471 it is obvious that these could not lift him up immediately to glory1 but only to the cross2 consequently1 if the result above stated be admitted as valid1 ,john must himself have framed this expression1 or at least have distorted the ,araman words of ,jesus1 and hence he essentially falls under the same category with the synoptical writers4 ,that the fourth ,evangelist1 though the passion and death of ,jesus were to him past events1 and therefore clearly present to his mind1 nevertheless makes ,jesus predict them in obscure expressions1--this has its foundation in the entire manner of this writer1 whose fondness for the enigmatical and mysterious here happily met the requirement1 to give an unintelligible form to prophecies which were not understood4 ,there were sufficient inducements for the ,christian legend thus to put into the mouth of ,jesus1 after the event1 a prediction of the particular features of his passion1 especially of the ignominious crucifixion4 ,the more the ,christ crucified became to the ,jews a stumbling-block1 and to the ,greeks foolishness 7#a ,cor4 i4 #bc71 the more need was there to remove this offence by every possible means2 and as1 among subsequent events1 the resurrection especially served as a retrospective cancelling of that shameful death2 so it must have been earnestly desired to take the sting from that offensive catastrophe beforehand also1 and this could not be done more effectually than by such a minute prediction4 ,for as the most unimportant fact1 when prophetically announced1 gains importance1 by thus being made a link in the chain of a higher knowledge3 so the most ignominious fate1 when it is predicted as part of a divine plan of salvation1 ceases to be ignominious2 above all1 when the very person over whom such a fate impends1 also possesses the prophetic spirit1 which enables him to foresee and foretell it1 and thus not only suffers1 but participates in the divine prescience of his sufferings1 he manifests himself as the ideal power over those suffering4 ,but the fourth ,evangelist has gone still farther on this track2 he believes it due to the honour of ,jesus to represent him as also the real power over his sufferings1 as not having his life taken away by the violence of others1 but as resigning it voluntarily 7x4 #ag f473 a representation which indeed already finds some countenance in ,matt4 xxvi4 #ec1 where ,jesus asserts the possibility of praying to the ,father for legions of angels1 in order to avert his sufferings4 #aab4 ,,the ,,predictions ,,of ,,jesus ,,concerning ,,his ,,death ,,in ,,general2 ,,their ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,jewish ,,idea ,,of ,,the ,,messiah3 ,,declarations ,,of ,,jesus ,,concerning ,,the ,,object ,,and ,,effects ,,of ,,his ,,death4 ,if in this manner we subtract from the declarations of ,jesus concerning his approaching fate1 attributed to him in the gospels1 all which regards the particular circumstances of this catastrophe2 there still remains on the part of ,jesus the general announcement1 that suffering and death awaited him1 and also that this part of his career was a fulfilment of the ,old ,testament prophecies relative to the ,messiah4 ,as1 however1 the principal passages cited from the ,old ,testament1 which treat of suffering and death1 are only by mistake referred to the ,messiah1 while others1 as ,dan4 ix4 #bf2 ,zech4 xii4 #aj1 have not this signification3 #afaf the orthodox1 above all1 must again beware of attributing so false an interpretation of these prophecies1 to the supernatural principle in ,jesus4 ,that instead of this1 ,jesus might possibly1 by a purely natural combination1 have educed the general result1 that since he had made the hierarchy of his nation his implacable enemies1 he had1 in so far as he was resolved not to swerve from the path of his destination1 the worst to fear from their revenge and authority 7,john x4 #aa ff472 that from the fate of former prophets 7,matt4 v4 #ab1 xxi4 #cc ff42 ,luke xiii4 #cc f471 and isolated passages bearing such an interpretation1 he might prognosticate a similar end to his own career1 and accordingly predict to his followers that earlier or later a violent death awaited him--this it would be a needless overstraining of the supranaturalistic view any longer to deny1 and the rational mode of considering the subject should be admitted4 #afag ,it may appear surprising if1 after this admission1 we still put the question1 whether1 according to the ,new ,testament representation1 it be probable that ,jesus actually uttered such a prediction8 since1 certainly1 a general announcement of his violent death is the least which the evangelical accounts appear to contain1 but our meaning in the question is this3 is the sequel1 especially the conduct of the disciples1 so described in the gospels1 as to be reconcilable with a prior disclosure of ,jesus relative to the sufferings which awaited him8 ,now the express statements of the ,evangelists do not merely tend to show that the disciples did not understand the discourses of ,jesus on his coming death1 in the sense that they did not know how to adjust these facts in their own minds1 or to make them tally with their preconceived ideas concerning the ,messiah1--a difficulty which drew from ,peter the first time that ,jesus announced his death1 the exclamation3 ,be it far from thee1 ,lord1 this shall not be unto thee2--for we find the words of ,mark 7ix4 #cb71 ,but they understood not that saying1 1 thus amplified in ,luke3 and it was hid from them1 that they perceived it not1 ' 7ix4 #de72 and the latter ,evangelist on another occasion says3 and they understood none of these things1 and this saying was hid from them1 neither knew they the things that were spoken1 1 ' 1 7xviii4 #cd73 expressions which appear to imply that the disciples absolutely did not understand what the words of ,jesus meant4 ,in accordance with this1 the condemnation and execution of ,jesus fall upon them as a blow for which they are entirely unprepared1 and consequently annihilate all the hopes which they had fixed on him as the ,messiah 7,luke xxiv4 #bj f41 ,the chief priests and our rulers have crucified him4 ,but we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed ,israel74 ,but had ,jesus spoken of his death to the disciples with such perfect openness 71 ,mark viii4 #cb71 they must necessarily have understood his clear words and detailed discourses1 and had he besides shown them that his death was foreshadowed in the messianic prophecies of the ,old ,testament1 and was consequently a part of the ,messiah's destination 7,luke xviii4 #ca1 xxii4 #cg71 they could not1 when his death actually ensued1 have so entirely lost all belief in his messiahship4 ,it is true that the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist is wrong in his attempt to show in the conduct of ,jesus1 as described by the ,evangelists1 indications that his death was unexpected even to himself2 but1 looking merely at the conduct of the disciples1 it is difficult to avoid the conclusion which that writer draws1 namely1 that to judge by that conduct1 ,jesus cannot have made any antecedent disclosure to his disciples concerning his death2 on the contrary1 they appear to the very last moment to have held the common opinion on this matter1 and only to have adopted the characteristics of suffering and death into their conception of the ,messiah1 after the death of ,jesus had unexpectedly come upon them4 #afah ,at all events we have before us the following dilemma3 either the statements of the ,evangelists as to the inability of the disciples to understand the predictions of ,jesus1 and their surprise at his death1 are unhistorically exaggerated2 or the decided declarations of ,jesus concerning the death which awaited him1 were composed ex eventu1 nay1 it becomes doubtful whether he even in general predicted his death as a part of his messianic destiny4 ,on both sides1 the legend might be led into unhistorical representations4 ,for the fabrication of a prediction of his death in general1 there were the same reasons which we have above shown to be an adequate motive for attributing to him a prognostication of the particular features of his passion3 to the fiction of so total a want of comprehension in the disciples1 an inducement might be found1 on the one hand1 in the desire to exhibit the profoundness of the mystery of a suffering ,messiah revealed by ,jesus1 through the inability of the disciples to understand it2 on the other1 in the fact that in the evangelical tradition the disciples were likened to unconverted ,jews and heathens1 to whom anything was more intelligible than the death of the ,messiah4 ,in order to decide between these alternatives1 we must first examine whether1 prior to the death of ,jesus1 and independently of that event1 the messianic ideas of the age included the characteristics of suffering and death4 ,if already in the lifetime of ,jesus it was the ,jewish opinion that the ,messiah must die a violent death1 then it is highly probable that ,jesus imbibed this idea as a part of his convictions1 and communicated it to his disciples2 who1 in that case1 could so much the less have remained uninstructed on this point1 and overwhelmed by the actual result1 in the degree alleged by the ,evangelists4 ,if1 on the contrary1 that idea was not diffused among his countrymen before the death of ,jesus1 it still remains possible that ,jesus might arrive at that idea by his private reflection2 but it is a prior possibility that the disciples were the first to adopt the characteristics of suffering and death into their conception of the ,messiah1 after they had been taught by the issue4 ,the question whether the idea of a suffering and dying ,messiah was already diffused among the ,jews in the time of ,jesus1 is one of the most difficult points of discussion among theologians1 and one concerning which they are the least agreed4 ,and the difficulty of the question does not lie in the interests of party1 so that it might be hoped that with the rise of impartial investigation1 the subject would cease to be perplexed2 for1 as ,studlin has aptly shown1 #afai both the orthodox and the rationalistic interest may alternately tend in each direction1 and we in fact find theologians of both parties on both sides4 #afbj ,the difficulty lies in the deficiency of information1 and in the uncertainty of that which we do possess4 ,if the ,old ,testament contained the doctrine of a suffering and dying ,messiah1 it might certainly thence be inferred with more than mere probability1 that this doctrine existed among the ,jews in the time of ,jesus3 as1 however1 according to the most recent researches1 the ,old ,testament1 while it does indeed contain the doctrine of an expiation of the sins of the people to take place at the messianic era 7,ezek4 xxxvi4 #be1 xxxvii4 #bc2 ,zech4 xiii4 #a2 ,dan4 ix4 #bd71 has no trace of this expiation being effected by the suffering and death of the ,messiah #afba3 there is no decision of the question before us to be expected from this quarter4 ,the apocryphal books of the ,old ,testament lie nearer to the time of ,jesus2 but as these are altogether silent concerning the ,messiah in general1 #afbb there can be no discussion as to their containing that special feature4 ,again1 if we turn to ,philo and ,josephus1 the two authors who wrote soonest after the period in question1 we find the latter silent as to the messianic hopes of his nation2 #afbc and though the former does indeed speak of messianic times1 and a messiah-like hero1 he says nothing of sufferings on his part4 #afbd ,thus there remain1 as sources of information on this point1 only the ,new ,testament and the later ,jewish writings4 ,in the ,new ,testament1 almost everything is calculated to give the impression1 that a suffering and dying ,messiah was unthought-of among the ,jews who were contemporary with ,jesus4 ,to the majority of the ,jews1 we are told1 the doctrine of a crucified ,messiah was a 1 and the disciples were at a loss to understand ,jesus in his repeated and explicit announcements of his death4 ,this does not look as if the doctrine of a suffering ,messiah had been current among the ,jews of that period2 on the contrary1 these circumstances accord fully with the declaration which the fourth ,evangelist puts into the mouth of the ,jewish multitude1 7xii4 #cd71 namely1 that they had heard in the law 77 that ,christ abideth for ever1 4 #afbe ,indeed1 for a general acceptation of the idea of a suffering ,messiah among the ,jews of that period1 even those theologians who take the affirmative side in this argument do not contend2 but1 admitting that the hope of a worldly ,messiah whose reign was to endure for ever1 was the prevalent one1 they only maintain 7and herein the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist agrees with them7 #afbf1 that a less numerous party1--according to ,studlin1 the ,essenes2 according to ,hengstenberg1 the better and more enlightened part of the people in general--held the belief that the ,messiah would appear in a humble guise1 and only enter into glory through suffering and death4 ,in support of this they appeal especially to two passages2 one out of the third1 and one out of the fourth gospel4 ,when ,jesus is presented as an infant in the temple at ,jerusalem1 the aged ,simeon1 among other prophecies1 particularly concerning the opposition which her son would have to encounter1 says to ,mary3 ,yea1 a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also 7,luke ii4 #ce72 words which seem to describe her maternal sorrow at the death of her son1 and consequently to represent the opinion1 that a violent death awaited the ,messiah1 as one already current before ,christ4 ,still more plainly is the idea of a suffering ,messiah contained in the words which the fourth gospel makes the ,baptist utter on seeing ,jesus3 ,behold the ,lamb of ,god which taketh away the sin of the world 7i4 #bi76 ,this1 viewed in its relation to ,isa4 liii41 would in the mouth of the ,baptist likewise tend to prove1 that the idea of expiatory suffering on the part of the ,messiah was in existence before the time of ,jesus4 ,but both these passages have been above shown to be unhistorical1 and from the fact that the primitive ,christian legend was led1 a considerable time after the issue1 to attribute to persons whom it held divinely inspired1 a foreknowledge of the divine decree with respect to the death of ,jesus1 it can by no means be concluded1 that this insight really existed prior to the death of ,jesus4 ,in conclusion1 it is urged1 that at least the ,evangelists and apostles refer to the idea of a suffering and dying ,messiah in the ,old ,testament2 whence it is thought warrantable to conclude1 that this interpretation of the ,old ,testament passages connected with our present subject1 was not unprecedented among the ,jews4 ,certainly ,peter 7,acts iii4 #ah f42 #a ,pet4 i4 #aa f47 and ,paul 7,acts xxvi4 #bb f42 #a ,cor4 xv4 #c7 appeal to ,moses and the prophets as annunciators of the death of ,jesus1 and ,philip1 in his interview with the ,ethiopian eunuch1 interprets a passage in ,isa4 liii4 of the sufferings of the ,messiah3 but as those teachers of the church spoke and wrote all this after the event1 we have no assurance that they did not assign to certain ,old ,testament passages a relation to the sufferings of the ,messiah1 solely in consequence of that event1 and not by adopting a mode of interpretation previously current among their ,jewish cotemporaries4 #afbg ,if1 according to this1 the opinion that the idea in question already existed among the countrymen of ,jesus during his lifetime1 has no solid foundation in the ,new ,testament2 we must proceed to inquire whether that idea may not be found in the later ,jewish writings4 ,among the earliest writings of this class now extant1 are the ,chaldee paraphrases of ,onkelos and ,jonathan2 and the ,targum of the latter1 who1 according to rabbinical tradition1 was a pupil of ,hillel the elder1 #afbh is commonly cited as presenting the idea of a suffering ,messiah1 because it refers the passage1 ,isa4 lii4 #ac-liii4 #ab1 to the ,messiah4 ,but with respect to the interpretation of this passage in the ,targum of ,jonathan1 it is the singular fact1 that while the prophecies which it contains are in general interpreted messianically1 yet so often as suffering and death are spoken of1 either these ideas are avoided with marked design1 and for the most part by some extremely forced expedient1 or are transferred to a different subject1 namely1 the people of ,israel3 a significant proof that to the author1 suffering and violent death appeared irreconcilable with the idea of the ,messiah4 #afbi ,but this1 we are told1 is the commencement of that aberration from the true sense of the sacred text1 into which the later ,jews were seduced by their carnal disposition1 and their hostility to ,christianity3 the more ancient interpreters1 it is said1 discovered in this passage of ,isaiah a suffering and dying ,messiah4 ,it is true that ,abenezra1 ,abarbanel and others1 testify that many ancient teachers referred ,isa4 liii4 to the ,messiah3 #afcj but some of their statements leave it by no means clear that those more ancient interpretations are not as partial as that of ,jonathan2 and in relation to all of them it remains uncertain1 whether the interpreters of whom they speak reach as far back as the age of ,jonathan1 which is highly improbable with respect to those parts of the book ,sohar1 wherein the passage in question is referred to a suffering ,messiah4 #afca ,the writing which1 together with that of ,jonathan1 may be regarded as the nearest to the time of ,jesus1 namely1 the apocryphal fourth book of ,esdras1 drawn up1 according to the most probable computation1 shortly after the destruction of ,jerusalem under ,titus1 #afcb does indeed mention the death of the ,messiah3 not however as a painful one1 but only as a death which1 after the long duration of the messianic kingdom1 was to precede the general resurrection4 #afcc ,the idea of great calamities1 the birth-throes1 as it were1 of the ,messiah 7 1 comp4 1 ,matt4 xxiv4 #h71 which would usher in the messianic times1 was undoubtedly disseminated before ,christ2 #afcd and equally early there appears to have been placed in the front of these ills1 which were to press upon the people of ,israel in particular1 the ,antichrist1 1 whom the ,christ1 would have to oppose 7#b ,thess4 ii4 #c ff473 #afce but since he was to annihilate this adversary in a supernatural manner1 with the spirit of his mouth1 1 this involved no suffering for the ,messiah4 ,nevertheless1 there are to be found passages in which a suffering of the ,messiah is spoken of1 and in which this suffering is even represented as vicarious1 on behalf of the people3 #afcf but first1 this is only a suffering1 and no death of the ,messiah2 secondly1 it befals him either before his descent into earthly life1 in his pre-existence1 #afcg or during the concealment in which he keeps himself from his birth until his appearance as ,messiah3 #afch lastly1 the antiquity of these ideas is doubtful1 and according to certain indications1 they could only be dated after the destruction of the ,jewish state by ,titus4 #afci ,meanwhile1 ,jewish writings are by no means destitute of passages1 in which it is directly asserted that a ,messiah would perish in a violent manner3 but these passages relate1 not to the proper ,messiah1 the offspring of ,david1 but to another1 from among the posterity of ,joseph and ,ephraim1 who was appointed to hold a subordinate position in relation to the former4 ,this ,messiah ben ,joseph was to precede the ,messiah ben ,david1 to unite the ten tribes of the former kingdom of ,israel with the two tribes of the kingdom of ,judah1 but after this to perish by the sword in the battle with ,gog and ,magog3 a catastrophe to which ,zech4 xii4 #aj was referred4 #afdj ,but of this second1 dying ,messiah1 any certain traces are wanting before the ,babylonian ,gemara1 which was compiled in the fifth and sixth centuries after ,christ1 and the book ,sohar1 the age of which is extremely doubtful4 #afda ,although1 according to this1 it cannot be proved1 and is even not probable1 that the idea of a suffering ,messiah already existed among the ,jews in the time of ,jesus3 it is still possible that1 even without such a precedent1 ,jesus himself1 by an observation of circumstances1 and a comparison of them with ,old ,testament narratives and prophecies1 might come to entertain the belief that suffering and death were a part of the office and destination of the ,messiah2 and if so1 it would be more natural that he should embrace this conviction gradually in the course of his public ministry1 and that he should chiefly have confined his communications on the subject to his intimate friends1 than that he should have had this conviction from the beginning1 and have expressed it before indifferent persons1 nay enemies4 ,the latter is the representation of ,john2 the former1 of the synoptists4 ,in relation also to the declarations of ,jesus concerning the object and effects of his death1 we can1 as above in relation to the announcement of the death itself1 distinguish a more natural1 from a more supranatural point of view4 ,when ,jesus in the fourth gospel likens himself to the true shepherd1 who lays down his life for the sheep 7x4 #aa1 #ae73 this may have the perfectly natural sense1 that he is determined not to swerve from his office of shepherd and teacher1 even though1 in the prosecution of it1 death should threaten him 7the moral necessity of his death72 #afdb the foreboding expression in the same gospel 7xii4 #bd71 that except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die1 it abideth alone1 but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit1 admits of an equally rational explanation1 as a figurative representation of the victorious power which martyrdom gives to an idea and conviction 7the moral efficacy of his death72 #afdc lastly1 that which is so often repeated in the ,gospel of ,john1--namely1 that it is good for the disciples that ,jesus should go away1 for without his departure the comforter1 will not come to them1 who will glorify him in them1--may be supposed to express the perfectly natural consideration of ,jesus1 that without the removal of his sensible presence1 the hitherto so material ideas of his disciples would not be spiritualized 7the psychological efficacy of his death74 #afdd ,the words of ,jesus at the institution of the sacramental supper1 belong more to the supranaturalistic mode of view4 ,for if that which the intermediate ,evangelists make him say on this occasion--that the cup presented is the blood of the new testament1 7,mark xiv4 #bd71 and the new testament in his blood1 7,luke xxii4 #bj71--might appear to signify no more than that1 as by the bloody sacrifice at ,sinai was sealed the covenant of this ancient people with ,god1 so by his 7the ,messiah's7 blood would be sealed in a higher sense the community of the new covenant1 gathering round him3 in the account of ,matthew1 on the contrary1 when he makes ,jesus add1 that his blood will be shed for many for the remission of sins1 1 the idea of the covenant sacrifice is blended with that of expiatory sacrifice3 and also in the two other ,evangelists by the addition3 which is shed for many1 or for you1 1 1 the transition is made from the covenant sacrifice to the expiatory sacrifice4 ,further1 when in the first gospel 7xx4 #bh7 ,jesus says1 he must give his life a ransom for many1 1 this is doubtless to be referred to ,isa4 liii41 where1 according to a notion current among the ,hebrews 7,isa4 xliii4 #c2 ,prov4 xxi4 #ah71 the death of the servant of ,god is supposed to have a propitiatory relation to the rest of mankind4 ,thus ,jesus might by psychological reflection come to the conviction that such a catastrophe would be favourable to the spiritual development of his disciples1 and that it was indispensable for the spiritualizing of their messianic ideas1 nay1 in accordance with national conceptions1 and by a consideration of ,old ,testament passages1 even to the idea that his messianic death would have an expiatory efficacy4 ,still1 what the synoptists make ,jesus say of his death1 as a sin offering1 might especially appear to belong rather to the system which was developed after the death of ,jesus2 and what the fourth ,evangelist puts into his mouth concerning the ,paraclete1 to have been conceived ex eventu3 so that1 again1 in these expressions of ,jesus concerning the object of his death1 there must be a separation of the general from the special4 #aac4 ,,precise ,,declarations ,,of ,,jesus ,,concerning ,,his ,,future ,,resurrection4 ,according to the evangelical accounts1 ,jesus predicted his resurrection in words not less clear than those in which he announced his death1 and also fixed the time of its occurrence with singular precision4 ,as often as he said to his disciples1 the ,son of ,man will be crucified1 he added3 ,and the third day he shall rise again1 1 or 7,matt4 xvi4 #ba1 xvii4 #bc1 xx4 #ai parall4 comp4 xvii4 #i1 xxvi4 #cb parall474 ,but of this announcement also it is said1 that the disciples understood it not2 so little1 that they even debated among themselves what the rising from the dead should mean1 7,mark ix4 #aj72 and in consistency with this want of comprehension1 they1 after the death of ,jesus1 exhibit no trace of a recollection that his resurrection had been foretold to them1 no spark of hope that this prediction would be fulfilled4 ,when the friends of ,jesus had taken down his body from the cross1 and laid it in the grave1 they undertook 7,john xix4 #dj7--or the women reserved to themselves 7,mark xvi4 #a2 ,luke xxiii4 #ef7--the task of embalming him1 which is only performed in the case of those who are regarded as the prey of corruption2 when1 on the morning which1 according to the mode of reckoning in the ,new ,testament1 opened the day which had been predetermined as that of the resurrection1 the women went to the grave1 they were so far from thinking of a predicted resurrection1 that they were anxious about the probable difficulty of rolling away the stone from the grave 7,mark xvi4 #c72 when ,mary ,magdalene1 and afterwards ,peter1 found the grave empty1 their first thought1 had the resurrection been predicted1 must have been1 that it had now actually taken place3 instead of this1 the former conjectures that the body may have been stolen 7,john xx4 #b71 while ,peter merely wonders1 without coming to any definite conjecture 7,luke xxiv4 #ab72 when the women told the disciples of the angelic apparition which they had witnessed1 and discharged the commission given them by the angel1 the disciples partly regarded their words as idle tales1 7,luke xxiv4 #aa71 and were partly moved to fear and astonishment 7 1 ,luke xxiv4 #bb ff472 when ,mary ,magdalene1 and subsequently the disciples going to ,emmaus1 assured the eleven1 that they had themselves seen the risen one1 they met with no credence 7,mark xvi4 #aa1 #ac71 and ,thomas still later did not believe even the assurance of his fellow-apostles 7,john xx4 #be72 lastly1 when ,jesus himself appeared to the disciples in ,galilee1 all of them did not even then cast off doubt 7 1 ,mark xxviii4 #ag74 ,all this we must1 with the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 #afde find incomprehensible1 if ,jesus had so clearly and decidedly predicted his resurrection4 ,it is true1 that as the conduct of the disciples1 after the death of ,jesus1 speaks against such a prediction on the part of ,jesus1 so the conduct of his enemies appears to speak for it4 ,for when1 according to ,matt4 xxvii4 #fb ff41 the chief priests and ,pharisees entreat ,pilate to set a watch at the grave of ,jesus1 they allege as a reason for their request1 that ,jesus while yet alive had said3 ,after three days ,i will rise again1 4 ,but this narrative of the first gospel1 which we can only estimate at a future point in our investigation1 at present decides nothing1 but only falls to one side of the dilemma1 so that we must now say3 if the disciples really so acted after the death of ,jesus1 then neither can he have decidedly foretold his resurrection1 nor can the ,jews in consideration of such a prediction have placed a watch at his grave2 or1 if the two latter statements be true1 the disciples cannot have so acted4 ,it has been attempted to blunt the edge of this dilemma1 by attributing to the above predictions1 not the literal sense1 that the deceased ,jesus would return out of the grave1 but only the figurative sense that his doctrine and cause1 after having been apparently crushed1 would again expand and flourish4 #afdf ,as the ,old ,testament prophets1 it was said1 represent the restoration of the ,israelitish people to renewed prosperity1 under the image of a resurrection from the dead 7,isa4 xxvi4 #ai2 ,ezek4 xxxvii472 as they mark the short interval within which1 under certain conditions1 this turn of things was to be expected1 by the expression3 in two or three days will ,jehovah revive the smitten one1 and raise the dead 7,hos4 vi4 #b71 #afdg a statement of time which ,jesus also uses indefinitely for a short interval 7,luke xiii4 #cb73 so by the declaration that he will rise on the third day after his death1 1 he intends to say no more than that even though he may succumb to the power of his enemies and be put to death1 still the work which he has begun will not come to an end1 but will in a short time go forward with a fresh impetus4 ,these merely figurative modes of speaking adopted by ,jesus1 the apostles1 after ,jesus had actually risen in the body1 understood literally1 and regarded them as prophecies of his personal resurrection4 ,now that in the prophetic passages adduced1 the expressions and have only the alleged figurative sense1 is true2 but these are passages the whole tenor of which is figurative1 and in which1 in particular1 the depression and death which precede the revivification are themselves to be understood only in a figurative sense4 ,here1 on the contrary1 all the foregoing expressions3 1 1 1 444 7to be delivered1 condemned1 crucified1 killed1 etc47 are to be understood literally2 hence all at once1 with the words and 1 to enter on a figurative meaning1 would be an unprecedented abruptness of transition2 not to mention that passages such as ,matt4 xxvi4 #cb1 where ,jesus says3 ,after ,i am risen again ,i will go before you into ,galilee1 1 can have no meaning at all unless be understood literally4 ,in this closely consecutive series of expressions1 which must be taken in a purely literal sense1 there is then no warrant1 and even no inducement1 to understand the statement of time which is connected with them1 otherwise than also literally1 and in its strictly etymological meaning4 ,thus if ,jesus really used these words1 and in the same connexion in which they are given by the ,evangelists1 he cannot have meant to announce by them merely the speedy victory of his cause2 his meaning must have been1 that he himself would return to life in three days after his violent death4 #afdh ,as however ,jesus1 judging from the conduct of his disciples after his death1 cannot have announced his resurrection in plain words3 other commentators have resigned themselves to the admission1 that the ,evangelists1 after the issue1 gave to the discourses of ,jesus a definiteness which1 as uttered by him1 they did not possess2 that they have not merely understood literally1 what ,jesus intended figuratively1 of the revival of his cause after his death1 but in accordance with their erroneous interpretation1 have so modified his words that1 as we now read them1 we must certainly understand them in a literal sense2 #afdi yet that not all the discourses of ,jesus are altered in this manner2 here and there his original expressions still remain4 #aad4 ,,figurative ,,discourses1 ,,in ,,which ,,jesus ,,is ,,supposed ,,to ,,have ,,announced ,,his ,,resurrection4 ,according to the fourth gospel1 ,jesus1 at the very commencement of his ministry1 in figurative language1 referred his enemies1 the ,jews1 to his future resurrection 7ii4 #ai ff474 ,on his first messianic visit to ,jerusalem1 and when1 after the abuse of the market in the temple had provoked him to that exhibition of holy zeal of which we have formerly spoken1 the ,jews require a sign from him1 by which he should legitimatize his claim to be considered a messenger of ,god1 who had authority to adopt such violent measures1 ,jesus gives them this answer1 ,destroy this temple1 and after three days ,i will raise it up1 1 4 ,the ,jews took these words in the sense1 which1 since they were spoken in the temple1 was the most natural1 and urged1 in reply to ,jesus1 that as it had taken forty years to build this temple1 he would scarcely be able1 if it were destroyed1 to rebuild it in three days2 but the ,evangelist informs us1 that this was not the meaning of ,jesus1 and that he here spoke 7though indeed the disciples were not aware of this until after his resurrection71 of the temple of his body1 3 i4e4 under the destruction and rebuilding of the temple1 he alluded to his death and resurrection4 ,even if we admit1 what however the most moderate expositors deny1 #afej that ,jesus could properly 7as he is also represented to have done in ,matthew xii4 #ci ff47 when the ,jews asked him for a visible and immediate sign1 refer them to his resurrection as the greatest1 and for his enemies the most overwhelming miracle in his history3 still he must have done this in terms which it was possible for them to understand 7as in the above passage of ,matthew1 where he expresses himself quite plainly74 ,but the expressions of ,jesus1 as here given1 could not possibly be understood in this sense4 ,for when one who is in the temple1 speaks of the destruction of this temple1 every one will refer his words to the building itself4 ,hence ,jesus1 when he uttered the words1 this temple1 1 must have pointed to his body with his finger2 as1 indeed1 is generally presupposed by the friends of this interpretation4 #afea ,but1 in the first place1 the ,evangelist says nothing of such a gesture1 notwithstanding that it lay in his interest to notice this1 as a support of his interpretation4 ,in the second place1 ,gabler has with justice remarked1 how ill-judged and ineffective it would have been1 by the addition of a mere gesture to give a totally new meaning to a speech1 which verbally1 and therefore logically1 referred to the temple4 ,if1 however1 ,jesus used this expedient1 the motion of his finger could not have been unobserved2 the ,jews must rather have demanded from him how he could be so arrogant as to call his body the temple1 2 or even if not so1 still1 presupposing that action1 the disciples could not have remained in the dark concerning the meaning of his words1 until after the resurrection4 #afeb ,by these difficulties modern exegetists have felt constrained to renounce ,john's explanation of the words of ,jesus1 as erroneous and made ex eventu1 and to attempt to penetrate1 independently of the ,evangelist's explanation1 into the sense of the enigmatical saying which he attributes to ,jesus4 #afec ,the construction put upon it by the ,jews1 who refer the words of ,jesus to a real destruction and rebuilding of the national sanctuary1 cannot be approved without imputing to ,jesus an extravagant example of vain-glorious boasting1 at variance with the character which he elsewhere exhibits4 ,if on this account search be made for some figurative meaning which may possibly be assigned to the declaration1 there presents itself first a passage in the same gospel 7iv4 #ba ff47 where ,jesus announces to the woman of ,samaria1 that the time is immediately coming1 in which the ,father will no longer be worshipped exclusively in ,jerusalem 7 71 but will1 as a ,spirit1 receive spiritual worship4 ,now in the present passage also1 the destruction of the temple might1 it is said1 have signified the abolition of the temple-service at ,jerusalem1 supposed to be the only valid mode of worship4 ,this interpretation is confirmed by a narrative in the ,acts 7vi4 #ad74 ,stephen1 who1 as it appears1 had adopted the above expressions of ,jesus1 was taxed by his accusers with declaring1 that ,jesus of ,nazareth shall destroy this place1 and shall change the customs which ,moses delivered1 1 1 3 in which words a change of the ,mosaic religious institutions1 without doubt a spiritualization of them1 is described as a sequel to the destruction of the temple4 ,to this may be added a passage in the synoptical gospels4 ,nearly the same words which in ,john are uttered by ,jesus himself1 appear in the two first gospels 7,matt4 xxvi4 #fj f42 ,mark xiv4 #eg f47 as the accusation of false witnesses against him2 and here ,mark1 in addition1 designates the temple which is to be destroyed1 as one made with hands1 1 and the new one which is to be built1 as another1 made without hands1 1 1 whereby he appears to indicate the same contrast between a ceremonial and a spiritual religious system4 ,by the aid of these passages1 it is thought1 the declaration in ,john may be explained thus3 the sign of my authority to purify the temple1 is my ability in a short time to introduce in the place of the ,jewish ceremonial worship1 a spiritual service of ,god2 i4e4 ,i am authorized to reform the old system1 in so far as ,i am qualified to found a new one4 ,it is certainly a trivial objection to this explanation1 that in ,john the object is not changed1 as in ,mark1 where the temple which is to be built is spoken of as another 771 but instead of this1 is indicated by the word 1 as the same with the one destroyed2 #afed since1 indeed1 the ,christian system of religion in relation to the ,jewish1 may1 just as the risen body of ,jesus in relation to the dead one1 be conceived as at once identical and different1 inasmuch as in both cases the substance is the same1 while the transitory accidents only are supposed to be removed4 ,but it is a more formidable objection which attaches itself to the determination of time1 4 ,that this expression is also used indefinitely and proverbially1 in the sense of a short interval of time in general1 is not adequately proved by the two passages which are usually appealed to with this view2 for in them the third day1 by being placed in connexion with the second and first 7,hos4 vi4 #b3 2 ,luke xiii4 #cb3 7 is announced as a merely relative and proximate statement1 whereas in our passage it stands alone1 and thus presents itself as an absolute and precise determination of time4 #afee ,thus alike invited and repelled by both explanations1 #afef theologians take refuge in a double sense1 which holds the middle place either between the interpretation of ,john and the symbolical one last stated1 #afeg or between the interpretation of ,john and that of the ,jews2 #afeh so that ,jesus either spoke at once of his body which was to be killed and again restored to life1 and of the modification of the ,jewish religion which was to be effected1 chiefly by means of that death and resurrection2 or1 in order to repel the ,jews1 he challenged them to destroy their real temple1 and on this condition1 never to be fulfilled1 promised to build another1 still1 however1 combining with this ostensible sense for the multitude1 an esoteric sense1 which was only understood by the disciples after the resurrection1 and according to which denoted his body4 ,but such a challenge addressed to the ,jews1 together with the engagement appended to it1 would have been an unbecoming manifestation of petulance1 and the latent intimation to the disciples1 a useless play on words2 besides that1 in general1 a double meaning either of the one or the other kind is unheard of in the discourse of a judicious man4 #afei ,as1 in this manner1 the possibility of explaining the passage in ,john might be entirely despaired of1 the author of the ,probabilia appeals to the fact that the synoptists call the witnesses1 who allege before the judgment seat that ,jesus had uttered that declaration1 1 false witnesses2 whence he concludes1 that ,jesus never said what ,john here attributes to him1 and thus gains an exemption from the explanation of the passage1 since he regards it as a figment of the fourth ,evangelist1 whose object was both to explain the calumniations of the accusers1 and also to nullify them by a mystical interpretation of his words4 #affj ,but1 on the one hand1 it does not follow1 from the fact that the synoptists call the witnesses false1 that1 in the opinion of the ,evangelists1 ,jesus had never said anything whatever of that whereof they accused him2 for he might only have said it somewhat differently 71 not 71 or have intended it in a different sense 7figuratively instead of literally73 on the other hand1 if he said nothing at all of this kind1 it is difficult to explain how the false witnesses should come to choose that declaration1 and especially the remarkable phrase1 4 ,if1 according to this1 on every interpretation of the expression1 except the inadmissible one relative to the body of ,jesus1 the words form a difficulty3 a resource might be found in the narrative of the ,acts1 as being free from that determination of time4 ,for here ,stephen is only accused of saying1 4 4 7 71 4 ,what is false in this allegation 7for the witnesses against ,stephen also are described as 71 might be the second proposition1 which speaks in literal terms of a changing of the institutes of ,moses1 and instead of this1 ,stephen1 and before him ,jesus1 may very probably have said in the figurative signification above developed1 7--7 1 or 77 7--74 ,meanwhile1 this expedient is not at all needful1 so far as any insurmountable difficulty in the words 1 is concerned4 ,as the number #c is used proverbially1 not only in connexion with #b or #d 7,prov4 xxx4 #ae1 #ah1 #ba1 #bi2 ,wis4 xxiii4 #ba1 xxvi4 #be71 but also by itself 7,wis4 xxv4 #a1 #c72 so the expression1 in three days1 if it were once1 in combination with the second and first day1 become common as an indefinite statement of time1 might probably at length be applied in the same sense when standing alone4 ,whether the expression should signify a long or a short period would then depend on the connexion3 here1 in opposition to the construction of a great and elaborate building1 to the real1 natural erection of which1 as the ,jews directly remark1 a long series of years was required1 the expression can only be understood as denoting the shortest time4 #affa ,a prediction1 or even a mere intimation of the resurrection1 is therefore not contained in these words4 ,as1 here1 ,jesus is said to have intimated his resurrection beforehand1 by the image of the destroying and rebuilding of the temple1 so1 on another occasion1 he is supposed to have quoted the type of the prophet ,jonah with the same intention 7,matt4 xii4 #ci ff41 comp4 xvi4 #d2 ,luke xi4 #bi ff474 ,when the scribes and ,pharisees desired to see a sign from him1 ,jesus is said to have repulsed their demand by the reply1 that to so evil a generation no sign shall be given1 but the sign of the prophet ,jonah1 1 which1 in the first passage of ,matthew1 ,jesus himself explains thus3 as ,jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale1 1 so also the ,son of man will pass three days and three nights in the heart of the earth1 4 ,in the second passage1 in which ,matthew attributes this declaration to ,jesus1 he does not repeat the above interpretation2 while ,luke1 in the parallel passage1 explains it simply thus3 ,for as ,jonah was a sign to the ,ninevites1 so shall also the ,son of man be to this generation4 ,now against the possibility of ,jesus having himself given the interpretation of the sign of ,jonah which ,matthew puts into his mouth1 v4 #dj1 a variety of objections may be urged4 ,it is indeed scarcely a tenable argument1 that ,jesus cannot have spoken of three days and three nights1 which he would pass in the heart of the earth1 because he only lay in the grave one day and two nights3 #affb since the phraseology of the ,new ,testament decidedly has the peculiarity of designating the abode of ,jesus in the grave as of three days' duration1 because it touched upon the evening of the day before the ,sabbath1 and the morning of the day after it2 and if this one day1 together with two nights1 were once taken for three whole days1 it would only be a round way of expressing this completeness1 to add to the days the nights also1 which1 besides1 would naturally follow in the comparison with the three days and three nights of ,jonah4 #affc ,but if ,jesus gave the explanation of the sign of ,jonah which ,matthew attributes to him1 this would have been so clear a prediction of his resurrection1 that for the same reasons which1 according to the above observations1 are opposed to the literal predictions of that event1 we must conclude that ,jesus cannot have given this explanation4 ,at all events it must have led the disciples who1 according to v4 #di1 were present1 to question ,jesus1 and in that case it is not to be understood why he did not make the subject perfectly clear1 and thus announce his resurrection in plain words4 ,but if he cannot have done this1 because then the disciples could not have acted after his death as they are said to have done in the evangelical accounts3 neither can he1 by that comparison of the fate which awaited him with that of ,jonah1 have called forth from his disciples a question1 which1 if proposed to him1 he must have answered2 but which1 judging from the sequel1 he cannot have answered4 ,on these grounds1 modern critics have pronounced the explanation of the in ,matthew to be an interpretation made post eventum by the ,evangelist1 and by him falsely attributed to ,jesus4 #affd ,according to them1 ,jesus indeed directed the attention of the ,pharisees to the sign of ,jonah1 but only in the sense in which ,luke makes him explain it3 namely1 that as ,jonah himself1 by his mere appearance and preaching of repentance1 without miracles1 had sufficed as a sign from ,god to the ,ninevites2 so his own cotemporaries1 instead of craving for miracles1 should be satisfied with his person and preaching4 ,this interpretation is the only one which accords with the tenor of the discourse of ,jesus--even in ,matthew1 and more particularly with the parallel between the relation of the ,ninevites to ,jonah1 and that of the queen of the south to ,solomon4 ,as it was the wisdom of ,solomon1 1 by which the latter felt herself attracted from the ends of the earth3 so1 in ,jonah1 even according to the expression of ,matthew1 it was solely his preaching1 1 which brought the ,ninevites to repentance4 ,it might be supposed that the future tense in ,luke3 4 4 771 ,so shall also the ,son of ,man be to this generation 7a sign71 cannot be referred to ,jesus and his preaching as manifested at that moment1 but only to something future1 as his resurrection3 but this in reality points either to the future judgment 1 in which it will be made manifest1 that as ,jonah was reckoned a sign to the ,ninevites1 so was the ,son of ,man to the ,jews then living2 or to the fact that when ,jesus spoke these words1 his appearance had not yet attained its consummation1 and many of its stages lay yet in futurity4 ,nevertheless1 it must have been at an early period1 as we see from the first gospel1 that the fate of ,jonah was placed in a typical relation to the death and resurrection of ,jesus1 since the primitive church anxiously searched through the ,old ,testament for types and prophecies of the offensive catastrophe which befel their ,messiah4 ,there are still some expressions of ,jesus in the fourth gospel1 which have been understood as latent prophecies of the resurrection4 ,the discourse on the corn of wheat1 xii4 #bd1 it is true1 too obviously relates to the work of ,jesus as likely to be furthered by his death1 to be here taken into further consideration4 ,but in the farewell discourses in ,john there are some declarations1 which many are still inclined to refer to the resurrection4 ,when ,jesus says3 ,i will not leave you comfortless1 ,i will come unto you2 yet a little time1 and the world sees me no more1 but ye see me2 a little while1 and ye shall not see me1 and again a little while and ye shall see me1 etc4 7xiv4 #ah ff41 xvi4 #af ff472 many believe that these expressions--with the relation between 1 a little while1 and again a little while2 the opposition between 7 7 1 manifest to you 7the disciples7 and not to the world2 the words and 1 ,i shall see you again1 and ye shall see1 which appear to indicate a strictly personal interview--can be referred to nothing else than the resurrection1 which was precisely such a reappearance after a short removal1 and moreover a personal reappearance granted to the friends of ,jesus alone4 #affe ,but this promised reappearance is at the same time described by ,jesus in a manner which will not suit the days of the resurrection4 ,if the words because ,i live1 7xiv4 #ai71 denote his resurrection1 we are at a loss to know what can be meant by the succeeding clause1 ye shall live also1 4 ,again1 ,jesus says that on that reappearance his disciples will know his relation to the ,father1 and will no more need to ask anything of him 7xiv4 #bj1 xvi4 #bc73 yet even on the very last day of their intercourse with him after the resurrection1 they ask a question of him 7,acts i4 #f71 and one which from the point of view of the fourth gospel is altogether senseless4 ,lastly1 when he promises that to him who loves him1 he and the ,father will come1 and make their abode with him1 it is perfectly clear that ,jesus here speaks not of a corporeal return1 but of his spiritual return1 through the 4 #afff ,nevertheless1 even this explanation has its difficulties1 since1 on the other hand1 the expressions ye shall see me1 1 and ,i shall see you1 1 will not entirely suit that purely spiritual return3 hence we must defer the solution of this apparent contradiction until we can give a more complete elucidation of the discourses in which these expressions occur4 ,in the meantime we merely observe1 that the farewell discourses in ,john1 being admitted1 even by the friends of the fourth gospel1 to contain an intermixture of the ,evangelist's own thoughts1 are the last source from which to obtain a proof on this subject4 ,after all1 there might seem to be a resource in the supposition1 that though ,jesus did not indeed speak of his future resurrection1 it was not the less foreknown by him4 ,now if he had a foreknowledge of his resurrection1 either he obtained it in a supernatural manner1 by means of the prophetic spirit1 the higher principle that dwelt within him--by means of his divine nature1 if that be preferred3 or he knew it in a natural manner1 by the exercise of his human reason4 ,but a supernatural foreknowledge of that event1 as well as of his death1 is inconceivable1 owing to the relation in which ,jesus places it to the ,old ,testament4 ,not merely in passages such as ,luke xviii4 #ca 7which1 as prophecies1 can no longer have an historical value for us after the result of our last inquiry71 does ,jesus represent his resurrection1 together with his passion and death1 as a fulfilment of all things that are written by the prophets concerning the ,son of man1 2 but even after the issue1 he admonishes his disciples that they ought to believe all that the prophets have spoken1 1 namely1 that ,christ ought to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory1 1 7,luke xxiv4 #be f474 ,according to the sequel of the narrative1 ,jesus forthwith expounded to these disciples 7going to ,emmaus7 all the passages of scripture relating to himself1 beginning at ,moses and all the prophets1 1 to which farther on 7v4 #dd7 the psalms are added2 but no single passage is given us as having been interpreted by ,jesus of his resurrection1 except that it would follow from ,matt4 xii4 #ci f41 that he regarded the fate of the prophet ,jonah as a type of his own2 and regarding the subsequent apostolic interpretation as an echo of that of ,jesus1 it might be concluded1 that he1 as afterwards the apostles1 found such prophecies chiefly in ,ps4 xvi4 #h ff4 7,acts ii4 #be ff41 xiii4 #ce72 ,isa4 liii4 7,acts viii4 #cb ff472 ,isa4 lv4 #c 7,acts xiii4 #cd71 and possibly also in ,hos4 vi4 #b4 ,but the fate of ,jonah has not even an external similarity to that of ,jesus2 and the book which narrates his history carries its object so completely in itself1 that whoever may ascribe to it or to one of its particulars1 a typical relation to events in futurity1 assuredly mistakes its true sense and the design of its author4 ,isa4 lv4 #c is so obviously irrelevant that one can scarcely conceive how the passage could be brought into special connexion with the resurrection of ,jesus4 ,isa4 liii4 refers decidedly to a collective subject perpetually restored to life in new members4 ,hosea vi4 has a figurative reference1 not to be mistaken1 to the people and state of ,israel4 ,lastly1 the principal passage1 ,ps4 xvi4 can only be interpreted of a pious man1 who by the help of ,jehovah hopes to escape from the danger of death1 not in the sense that he1 like ,jesus1 would rise again from the grave1 but that he would not be laid there--that is1 obviously1 not for the present1 and with the understanding1 that when his time should come1 he must pay the tribute of nature3 #affg which1 again1 will not apply to ,jesus4 ,thus if a supernatural principle in ,jesus--a prophetic spirit--caused him to discover a pre-intimation of his resurrection in these ,old ,testament histories and passages2 then1 as no one of them really contained such a pre-intimation1 the spirit in him cannot have been the spirit of truth1 but must have been a lying spirit1 the supernatural principle in him1 not a divine1 but a demoniacal principle4 ,if1 in order to avoid this consequence1 supranaturalists who are accessible to a rational interpretation of the ,old ,testament1 resort to their only remaining expedient1 of regarding the foreknowledge of ,jesus concerning his resurrection as purely natural and human3 we must reply1 that the resurrection1 conceived as a miracle1 was a secret of the divine counsels1 to penetrate into which1 prior to the issue1 was an impossibility to a human intelligence2 while viewed as a natural result1 it was a chance the last to be calculated upon1 apart from the supposition of an apparent death planned by ,jesus and his colleagues4 ,thus the foreknowledge1 as well as the prediction of the resurrection1 was attributed to ,jesus only after the issue2 and in fact1 it was an easy matter1 with the groundless arbitrariness of ,jewish exegesis1 for the disciples and the authors of the ,new ,testament to discover in the ,old1 types and prophecies of the resurrection4 ,not that they did this with crafty design1 according to the accusation of the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 and others of his class3 but as he who has looked at the sun1 long sees its image wherever he may turn his gaze2 so they1 blinded by their enthusiasm for the new ,messiah1 saw him on every page of the only book they read1 the ,old ,testament1 and in the conviction that ,jesus was the ,messiah1 founded in the genuine feeling that he had satisfied their deepest need--a conviction and a feeling which we also still honour--they laid hold on supports which have long been broken1 and which can no longer be made tenable by the most zealous efforts of an exegesis which is behind the age4 #aae4 ,,the ,,discourses ,,of ,,jesus ,,on ,,his ,,second ,,advent4 ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,different ,,interpretations4 ,not only did ,jesus1 according to the evangelical accounts1 predict that he should return to life three days after his death2 but also that at a later period1 in the midst of the calamities which would issue in the destruction of the temple in ,jerusalem1 he should come in the clouds of heaven1 to close the present period of the world1 and by a general judgment1 open the future age 7,matt4 xxiv4 and xxv42 ,mark4 xiii42 ,luke xvii4 #bb-cg1 xxi4 #e-cf74 ,as ,jesus for the last time went out of the temple 7,luke has not this circumstance71 and his disciples 7,luke says indefinitely1 some7 admiringly drew his attention to the magnificent building1 he assured them that all which they then looked on1 would be destroyed from its foundations 7,matt4 xxiv4 #a1 #b1 parall474 ,on the question of the disciples1 when this would happen1 and what would be the sign of the ,messiah's coming1 which in their idea was associated with such a crisis 7v4 #c71 ,jesus warns them not to be deceived by persons falsely giving themselves out to be the ,messiah1 and by the notion that the expected catastrophe must follow immediately on the first prognostics2 for wars and rumours of war1 risings of nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom1 famine1 pestilence1 and earthquakes in divers places1 would be only the beginning of the sorrows which were to precede the advent of the ,messiah 7v4 #d-h74 ,they themselves1 his adherents1 must first suffer hatred1 persecution1 and the sword2 perfidy1 treachery1 deception by false prophets1 lukewarmness and general corruption of morals1 would prevail among men2 but at the same time the news of the ,messiah's kingdom must be promulgated through the whole world4 ,only after all this1 could the end of the present period of the world arrive1 until when1 he who would partake of the blessedness of the future must endure with constancy 7v4 #i-ad74 ,a nearer presage of this catastrophe would be the fulfilment of the oracle of ,daniel 7ix4 #bg71 the standing of the abomination of desolation in the holy place 7according to ,luke xxi4 #bj1 the encompassing of ,jerusalem with armies74 ,when this should take place1 it would be high time for the most precipitate flight 7according to ,luke1 because the devastation of ,jerusalem would be at hand1 an event which he more nearly particularizes in the address of ,jesus to the city1 xix4 #dc f43 thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee1 and compass thee round1 and keep thee in on every side1 and shall lay thee even with the ground1 and thy children within thee2 and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another74 ,at this juncture1 all who should have hindrances to rapid departure would be deserving of compassion1 and it would be in the highest degree desirable that the recommended flight should not fall in an unfavourable season2 for then would commence unexampled tribulation 7according to ,luke1 v4 #bd1 consisting chiefly in many of the people of ,israel perishing by the sword1 in others being carried away captive1 and in ,jerusalem being trodden down of the ,gentiles for a predetermined period73 a tribulation which only the merciful abridgment of its duration by ,god1 for the sake of the elect1 could render supportable 7v4 #ae-bb74 ,at this time would arise false prophets and ,messiahs1 seeking to delude by miracles and signs1 and promising to show the ,messiah in this or that place3 whereas a ,messiah who was concealed anywhere1 and must be sought out1 could not be the true one2 for his advent would be like the lightning1 a sudden and universal revelation1 of which the central point would be ,jerusalem1 the object of punishment on account of its sin 7v4 #bc-bh74 ,immediately after this time of tribulation1 the darkening of the sun and moon1 the falling of the stars1 and the shaking of all the powers of heaven would usher in the appearance of the ,messiah1 who1 to the dismay of the dwellers on the earth1 would come with great glory in the clouds of heaven1 and immediately send forth his angels to gather together his elect from all the corners of the earth 7v4 #bi-ca74 ,by the fore-named signs the approach of the described catastrophe would be as certainly discernible as the approach of summer by the budding of the fig-tree2 the existing generation would1 by all that was true1 live to witness it1 though its more precise period was known to ,god only 7v4 #cb-cf74 ,but1 after the usual manner of mankind 7what follows1 ,mark and ,luke partly have not at all1 partly not in this connexion71 they would allow the advent of the ,messiah1 as formerly the deluge1 to overtake them in thoughtless security 7v4 #cg-ci73 and yet it would be an extremely critical period1 in which those who stood in the closest relation to each other1 would be delivered over to entirely opposite destinies 7v4 #dj1 #da74 ,hence watchfulness would be requisite1 as in all cases where the period of a decisive issue is uncertain3 an admonition which is then illustrated by the image of the master of the house and the thief 7v4 #dc1 #dd72 of the servant to whom his lord1 when about to travel1 entrusted the rule of his house 7v4 #de-ea72 of the wise and foolish virgins 7xxv4 #a-ac73 and lastly1 of the talents 7v4 #ad-cj74 ,hereupon follows a description of the solemn judgment1 which the ,messiah would hold over all nations1 and in which1 according as the duties of humanity were observed or neglected1 he would award blessedness or misery 7v4 #ca-df74 #affh ,thus in these discourses ,jesus announces that shortly 71 xxiv4 #bi71 after that calamity1 which 7especially according to the representation in ,luke's gospel7 we must identify with the destruction of ,jerusalem and its temple1 and within the term of the cotemporary generation 7 1 v4 #cd71 he would visibly make his second advent in the clouds1 and terminate the existing dispensation4 ,now as it will soon be eighteen centuries since the destruction of ,jerusalem1 and an equally long period since the generation cotemporary with ,jesus disappeared from the earth1 while his visible return and the end of the world which he associated with it1 have not taken place3 the announcement of ,jesus appears so far to have been erroneous4 ,already in the first age of ,christianity1 when the return of ,christ was delayed longer than had been anticipated1 there arose1 according to #b ,peter iii4 #c f41 scoffers1 asking3 where is the promise of his coming8 for since the fathers fell asleep1 all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation4 ,in modern times1 the inference which may apparently be drawn from the above consideration1 to the disadvantage of ,jesus and the apostles1 has been by no one more pointedly expressed than by the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist4 ,no promise throughout the whole scriptures1 he thinks1 is on the one hand more definitely expressed1 and on the other1 has turned out more flagrantly false1 than this1 which yet forms one of the main pillars of ,christianity4 ,and he does not see in this a mere error1 but a premeditated deception on the part of the apostles 7to whom1 and not to ,jesus himself1 he attributes that promise1 and the discourses in which it is contained72 a deception induced by the necessity of alluring the people on whose contributions they wished to subsist1 by the promise of a speedy reward3 and discernible by the boldness of their attempts to evade the doubts springing from the protracted delay of the return of ,christ3 ,paul1 for example1 in the second epistle to the ,thessalonians1 sheltering himself in obscure phrases2 and ,peter1 in his second epistle1 resorting to the preposterous expedient of appealing to the divine mode of reckoning time1 in which a thousand years are equal to one day4 #affi ,such inferences from the discourse before us would inflict a fatal wound on ,christianity2 hence it is natural that exegetists should endeavour by all means to obviate them4 ,and as the whole difficulty consists in ,jesus having apparently placed an event now long past1 in immediate chronological connexion with one still future1 three expedients are possible3 either to deny that ,jesus in part spoke of something now past1 and to allege that he spoke solely of what is still future2 or to deny that a part of his discourse relates to something still future1 and thus to refer the entire prediction to what is already lying in the past2 or lastly1 to admit that the discourse of ,jesus does indeed partly refer to something which is still future to us1 but either to deny that he places the two series of events in immediate chronological succession1 or to maintain that he has also noticed what is intermediate4 ,some of the ,fathers of the ,church1 as ,irenus and ,hilary--yet living in the primitive expectation of the return of ,christ1 and at the same time not so practised in regular exegesis1 as to be incapable of overlooking certain difficulties attendant on a desirable interpretation--referred the entire prediction1 from its commencement in ,matt4 xxiv4 to its end in ,matt4 xxv41 to the still future return of ,christ to judgment4 #afgj ,but as this interpretation admits that ,jesus in the commencement of his discourse uses the destruction of ,jerusalem as a type of the final catastrophe1 it virtually nullifies itself4 ,for what does that admission signify1 but that the discourse of ,jesus1 in the first instance1 produces the impression that he spoke of the destruction of ,jerusalem1 i4e4 of something now past1 and that only more extended reflection and combination can give it a relation to something still lying in futurity8 ,to modern rationalism1 based as it was on naturalistic principles1 the hope of the second advent of ,christ was in every form annihilated4 ,hence1 not scrupling at any exegetical violence for the sake of removing from scripture what was discordant with its preconceived system1 it threw itself on the opposite side1 and hazarded the attempt to refer the discourses in question1 in their entire tenor1 solely to the destruction of ,jerusalem1 and the events which immediately preceded and followed it4 #afga ,according to this interpretation1 the end spoken of is only the cessation of the ,judeo-,gentile economy of the world2 what is said of the advent of ,christ in the clouds1 is only a figurative description of the promulgation and triumph of his doctrine2 the assembling of the nations to judgment1 and the sending of some into blessedness1 and others into condemnation1 is an image of the happy consequences which would result from embracing the doctrine and cause of ,jesus1 and the evil consequences attendant on indifference or hostility to them4 ,but in this explanation there is a want of similarity between the symbols and the ideas represented1 which is not only unprecedented in itself1 but particularly inconceivable in this case2 since ,jesus is here addressing minds of ,jewish culture1 and must therefore be aware that what he said of the ,messiah's advent in the clouds1 of the judgment1 and the end of the existing period of the world1 would be understood in the most literal sense4 ,it thus appears that the discourse of ,jesus will not as a whole1 admit of being referred either to the destruction of the ,jewish state1 or to the events at the end of the world2 it would therefore be necessarily referred to something distinct from both1 if this twofold impossibility adhered alike to all its parts4 ,but the case is not so2 for while1 on the one hand1 what is said ,matt4 xxiv4 #b1 #c1 #ae ff4 of the devastation of the temple1 cannot be referred to the end of the world3 on the other hand1 what is predicted xxv4 #ca ff4 of the judgment to be held by the ,son of ,man1 will not suit the destruction of ,jerusalem4 ,as1 according to this1 in the earlier part of the discourse of ,jesus1 the destruction of ,jerusalem is the predominant subject1 but in the subsequent part1 the end of all things3 it is possible to make a division1 so as to refer the former to the more proximate event1 the latter to the more remote one4 ,this is the middle path which has been taken by the majority of modern exegetists1 and here the only question is3 where is the partition to be made8 ,as it must present a space of time within which the whole period from the destruction of ,jerusalem to the last day may be supposed to fall1 and which therefore would include many centuries1 it must1 one would think1 be plainly indicated1 so as to be easily and unanimously found4 ,it is no good augury for the plan1 that this unanimity does not exist1--that1 on the contrary1 the required division is made in widely different parts of the discourse of ,jesus4 ,thus much on the one hand appeared to be decided3 that at least the close of the #beth chapter1 from v4 #ca1 with its description of the solemn tribunal which the ,messiah1 surrounded by his angels1 would hold over all nations1 cannot be referred to the time of the destruction of ,jerusalem4 ,hence many theologians believed that they could fix the boundary here1 retaining the relation to the end of the ,jewish state until xxv4 #cj1 and at this point making the transition to the end of the world4 #afgb ,on the very first glance at this explanation1 it must appear strange that the great chasm which it supposes to exist between v4 #cj and #ca1 is marked simply by a 4 ,moreover1 not only are the darkening of the sun and moon1 earthquakes1 and falling of the stars1 understood as a mere image of the subversion of the ,jewish state and worship2 but when xxiv4 #ca1 it is said of the ,messiah1 that he will come in the clouds1 this is supposed to mean1 invisibly2 with power--only observable by the effects he produces2 with great glory--with such as consists in the conclusions which may be drawn from those effects2 while the angels who gather together the nations by the sound of the trumpet1 are supposed to represent the apostles preaching the gospel4 #afgc ,quite erroneously1 appeal is made1 in support of this merely figurative meaning1 to the prophetic pictures of the divine day of judgment1 ,isa4 xiii4 #i ff41 xxiv4 #ah ff42 ,jer4 iv4 #bc f42 ,ezek4 xxxii4 #g ff42 ,joel iii4 #c ff42 ,amos viii4 #i2 farther1 to descriptions #afgd such as ,judges v4 #bj2 ,acts ii41 xvii4 ff4 ,in those prophetic passages1 real eclipses of the sun and moon1 earthquakes1 and the like1 are intended1 and are described as prodigies which will accompany the predicted catastrophe2 the song of ,deborah1 again1 celebrates a real participation of heaven in the battle against ,sisera1 a participation which in the narrative1 iv4 #ae1 is ascribed to ,god himself1 in the song1 to his heavenly hosts2 lastly1 ,peter expects1 that the outpouring of the spirit will be succeeded by the appearances in the heavens1 promised among the signs of the great day of the ,lord4 ,the attempt to effect a division near the end of the discourse1 at xxv4 #cj1 failing1 from its rendering much that goes before incapable of explanation2 the next expedient is to retreat as far towards the commencement as possible1 by considering how far it is inevitable to recognise a relation to the immediate future4 ,the first resting place is after xxiv4 #bh2 for what is said1 up to this point1 of war and other calamities1 of the abomination in the temple1 of the necessity for speedy flight1 in order to escape unprecedented misery1 cannot be divested of a reference to the destruction of ,jerusalem without the greatest violence3 while what follows concerning the appearance of the ,son of ,man in the clouds1 etc41 just as imperatively demands an application to the last day4 #afge ,but in the first place1 it appears incomprehensible how the enormous interval1 which on this explanation also is supposed to fall between the one portion of the discourse and the other1 can be introduced between two verses1 of all others1 which ,matthew connects by an adverb expressive of the shortest possible time 774 ,it has been sought to remove this inconvenience by the assertion that does not here signify the quick succession of the one incident on the other1 but only the unexpected occurrence of an event1 and that consequently1 what is here said amounts merely to this3 suddenly1 at some period 7how distant is undetermined7 after the calamities attendant on the destruction of ,jerusalem1 the ,messiah will visibly appear4 ,such an interpretation of is1 as ,olshausen correctly perceives1 merely a desperate resource3 but even were it otherwise1 it would afford no real aid1 since not only does ,mark in his parallel passage1 v4 #bd1 by the words1 in those days1 after that tribulation1 1 place the events which he proceeds to mention in uninterrupted chronological succession with those which he had before detailed2 but also1 shortly after this point in each of the narratives 7,matt4 v4 #cd parall471 we find the assurance that all this will be witnessed by the existing generation4 ,as thus the opinion1 that from v4 #bi1 everything relates to the return of ,christ to judge the world1 was threatened with annihilation by v4 #cd2 the word 1 as the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist #afgf complains1 was put to the torture1 that it might cease to bear witness against this mode of division4 ,at one time it is made to signify the ,jewish nation2 #afgg at another the adherents of ,jesus2 #afgh and of both the one and the other ,jesus is supposed to say that it will 7how many generations hence being left uncertain7 be still in existence on the arrival of that catastrophe4 ,so to explain the verse in question1 that it may not contain a determination of time1 is even maintained to be necessary on a consideration of the context1 v4 #ce3 for as in this ,jesus declares it impossible to determine the period of that catastrophe1 he cannot immediately before have given such a determination1 in the assurance that his cotemporaries would yet live to see all of which he had been speaking4 ,but this alleged necessity so to interpret the word 1 has long been dissipated by the distinction between an inexact indication of the space of time1 beyond which the event will not be deferred 771 and the precise determination of the epoch 7 7 at which it will occur2 the former ,jesus gives1 the latter he declares himself unable to give4 #afgi ,but the very possibility of interpreting in the above manner vanishes1 when it is considered1 that in connexion with a verb of time1 and without anything to imply a special application1 cannot have any other than its original sense3 i4e4 generation1 age2 that in a passage aiming to determine the signs of the ,messiah's advent1 it would be very unsuitable to introduce a declaration which1 instead of giving any information concerning the arrival of that catastrophe1 should rather treat of the duration of the ,jewish nation1 or of the ,christian community1 of which nothing had previously been said2 that1 moreover1 already at v4 #cc1 in the words 1 4441 ,ye1 when ye shall ,,see all these things1 know1 etc41 it is presupposed that the parties addressed would witness the approach of the event in question2 and lastly1 that in another passage 7,matt4 xvi4 #bh parall47 the certainty of living to see the coming of the ,son of man is asserted not simply of this generation1 1 but of some standing here1 1 whereby it is shown in the most decisive manner1 that in the present passage also1 ,jesus intended by the above expression the race of his cotemporaries1 who were not to have become extinct before that catastrophe should occur4 #afhj ,unable to deny this1 and yet anxious to separate as widely as possible the end of the world here announced1 and the age of ,jesus1 others would find in the declaration before us nothing more than this3 the events hitherto described will begin to be fulfilled in the present age1 though their complete fulfilment may yet be deferred many centuries4 #afha ,but when already at v4 #h the subject is said to be the beginning of the tribulation1 while from v4 #ad we have a description of the end of the present period of the world1 which that tribulation would introduce1 and it is here 7v4 #cd7 said1 the existing generation shall not pass away1 1 until all these things be fulfilled3 we must inevitably understand by 1 all these things1 not merely the beginning1 but also the last-mentioned events at the end of the world4 ,thus there is still at v4 #cd something which must be referred to an event very near to the time of ,jesus3 hence the discourse of ,jesus cannot from so early a point as v4 #bi1 refer to the end of the world1 an epoch so far distant2 and the division must be made somewhat farther on1 after v4 #ce or #db4 #afhb ,but on this plan1 expressions are thrown into the first part of the discourse1 which resist the assigned application to the time of the destruction of ,jerusalem2--the glorious advent of ,christ in the clouds1 and the assembling of all nations by angels 7v4 #cj f47 must be regarded as the same extravagant figures1 which formerly forbade our acceptance of another mode of division4 ,thus the declaration v4 #cd which1 together with the preceding symbolical discourse on the fig tree 7v4 #cb f471 and the appended asseveration 7v4 #ce71 must refer to a very near event1 has1 both before and after it1 expressions which can only relate to the more distant catastrophe3 hence it has appeared to some as a sort of oasis in the discourse1 having a sense isolated from the immediate context4 ,schott1 for instance1 supposes that1 up to v4 #bf1 ,jesus had been speaking of the destruction of ,jerusalem2 that at v4 #bg he does indeed make a transition to the events at the end of the present period of the world2 but that at v4 #cb1 he reverts to the original subject1 the destruction of ,jerusalem2 and only at v4 #cf proceeds again to speak of the end of the world4 #afhc ,but this is to hew the text in pieces1 out of desperation4 ,jesus cannot possibly have spoken with so little order and coherence2 still less can he have so linked his sentences together as to give no intimation of such abrupt transitions4 ,nor is this imputed to him by the most recent critics4 ,according to them1 it is the ,evangelist who has joined together1 not in the best order1 distinct and heterogeneous declarations of ,jesus4 ,matthew1 indeed1 admits ,schulz1 imagined that these discourses were spoken without intermission1 and only arbitrariness and violence can in this respect sever them from each other2 but hardly did ,jesus himself deliver them in this consecutive manner1 and with this imprint of unity4 #afhd ,the various phases of his coming1 thinks ,sieffert1 his figurative appearance at the destruction of ,jerusalem1 and his literal appearance at the last day1 though they may not have been expressly discriminated1 were certainly not positively connected by ,jesus2 but subjects which he spoke of in succession were1 from their obscurity1 confused together by the ,evangelist4 #afhe ,and as in this instance there recurs the difference between ,matthew and ,luke1 that what ,matthew represents as being spoken on a single occasion1 ,luke distributes into separate discourses2 to which it is also to be added1 that much of what ,matthew gives1 ,luke either has not1 or has it in a different form3 therefore ,schleiermacher #afhf believed himself warranted to rectify the composition of ,matthew by that of ,luke1 and to maintain that while in ,luke the two separate discourses1 xvii4 #bb ff4 and xxi4 #e ff41 have each their appropriate connexion and their indubitable application1 in ,matthew 7chap4 xxiv4 and xxv471 by the blending of those two discourses1 and the introduction of portions of other discourses1 the connexion is destroyed1 and the application obscured4 ,according to this1 the discourse1 ,luke xxi41 taken alone1 contains nothing which outsteps the reference to the capture of ,jerusalem and the accompanying events4 ,yet here also 7v4 #bg7 we find the declaration1 ,then shall they see the ,son of ,man coming in a cloud1 2 and when ,schleiermacher explains this as a mere image representing the revelation of the religious significance of the political and natural events before described1 he falls into a violence of interpretation which overturns his entire opinion as to the mutual relation of these accounts4 ,if1 then1 in the connexion of the end of all things with the destruction of ,jerusalem1 ,matthew by no means stands alone1 but is countenanced by ,luke--to say nothing of ,mark1 whose account in this instance is an extract from ,matthew3 we may1 it is true1 conclude1 that as in other discourses of ,jesus1 so perhaps in this also1 many things which were uttered at different times are associated2 but there is nothing to warrant the supposition1 that precisely what relates to the two events1 which in our idea are so remote from each other1 is the foreign matter1 especially since we see1 from the unanimous representation of the remaining ,new ,testament writings1 that the primitive church expected1 as a speedy issue1 the return of ,christ1 together with the end of the present period of the world 7#a ,cor4 x4 #aa1 xv4 #ea2 ,phil4 iv4 #e2 #a ,thess4 iv4 #ae ff42 ,james v4 #h2 #a ,pet4 iv4 #g2 #a ,john ii4 #ah2 ,rev4 i4 #a1 #c1 iii4 #aa1 xxii4 #g1 #aj1 #ab1 #bj74 ,thus it is impossible to evade the acknowledgment1 that in this discourse1 if we do not mutilate it to suit our own views1 ,jesus at first speaks of the destruction of ,jerusalem1 and farther on and until the close1 of his return at the end of all things1 and that he places the two events in immediate connexion4 ,there remains1 therefore1 but one expedient for vindicating the correctness of his announcement1 namely1 on the one hand1 to assign the coming of which he speaks to the future1 but1 on the other hand1 to bring it at the same time into the present--instead of a merely future1 to make it a perpetual coming4 ,the whole history of the world1 it is said1 since the first appearance of ,christ1 is an invisible return on his part1 a spiritual judgment which he holds over mankind4 ,of this1 the destruction of ,jerusalem 7in our passage until v4 #bh7 is only the first act2 in immediate succession 71 v4 #bi ff47 comes the revolution effected among mankind by the publication of the gospel2 a revolution which is to be carried on in a series of acts and epochs1 until the end of all things1 when the judgment gradually effected in the history of the world1 will be made known by an all-comprehending1 final revelation4 #afhg ,but the famous utterance of the poet1 #afhh spoken from the inmost depth of modern conviction1 is ill-adapted to become the key of a discourse1 which more than any other has its root in the point of view proper to the ancient world4 ,to regard the judgment of the world1 the coming of ,christ1 as something successive1 is a mode of conception in the most direct opposition to that of the ,new ,testament4 ,the very expressions by which it designates that catastrophe1 as that day or the last day1 or 1 show that it is to be thought of as momentary2 the 1 end of the age 7v4 #c71 concerning the signs of which the apostles inquire1 and which ,jesus elsewhere 7,matt4 xiii4 #ci7 represents under the image of the harvest1 can only be the final close of the course of the world1 not something which is gradually effected during this course2 when ,jesus compares his coming to lightning 7xxiv4 #bg71 and to the entrance of the thief in the night 7v4 #dc71 he represents it as one sudden event1 and not as a series of events4 #afhi ,if we consider in addition to this the extravagant figures1 which it is not less necessary to suppose on this interpretation1 than on the above-mentioned reference of the #bdth chapter to the destruction of ,jerusalem1 #afij it will appear necessary to abstain from this expedient1 as from all the previous ones4 ,thus the last attempt to discover in the discourse before us the immense interval which1 looking from our position in the present day1 is fixed between the destruction of ,jerusalem and the end of all things1 having failed2 we are taught practically that that interval lies only in our own conception1 which we are not justified in introducing into the text4 ,and when we consider that we owe our idea of that interval only to the experience of many centuries1 which have elapsed since the destruction of ,jerusalem3 it cannot be difficult to us to imagine how the author of this discourse1 who had not had this experience1 might entertain the belief that shortly after the fall of the ,jewish sanctuary1 the world itself1 of which1 in the ,jewish idea1 that sanctuary was the centre1 would also come to an end1 and the ,messiah appear in judgment4 #aaf4 ,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,discourses ,,on ,,the ,,second ,,advent4 ,the result just obtained involves a consequence1 to avoid which has been the object of all the futile attempts at explanation hitherto examined3 if1 namely1 ,jesus conceived and declared that the fall of the ,jewish sanctuary would be shortly followed by his visible return and the end of the world1 while it is now nearly #ahjj years since the one catastrophe1 and yet the other has not arrived2 it follows that in this particular he was mistaken4 ,hence expositors1 who so far yield to exegetical evidence1 as to agree with us in the above conclusion concerning the meaning of the discourse before us1 seek from dogmatical considerations to evade this legitimate consequence4 ,hengstenberg1 as is well known1 has advanced1 in relation to the history of the ,hebrew prophets1 the following theory1 which has met with approval from other expositors4 ,to the spiritual vision of these men1 he says1 future things presented themselves not so much through the medium of time as of space--as it were1 in great pictures2 and thus1 as is the case in paintings or perspective views1 the most distant object often appeared to them to stand immediately behind the nearest1 foreground and background being intermingled with each other3 and this theory of a perspective vision we are to apply to ,jesus1 especially in regard to the discourse in question4 #afia ,but we may here cite the appropriate remark of ,paulus1 #afib that as one1 who in a perspective externally presented1 does not know how to distinguish distances1 labours under an optical delusion1 i4e4 errs3 so likewise in an internal perspective of ideas1 if such there be1 the disregard of distances must be pronounced an error2 consequently this theory does not show that the above men did not err1 but rather explains how they easily might err4 ,even ,olshausen considers this theory1 which he elsewhere adopts1 insufficient in the present case to remove all appearance of error on the part of ,jesus2 and he therefore seeks to derive special grounds of justification1 from the particular nature of the event predicted4 #afic ,in the first place he regards it as indispensable to the full moral influence of the doctrine of ,christ's return1 that this catastrophe should be regarded as possible1 nay probable1 at any moment4 ,this consideration may indeed justify such enunciations as ,matt4 xxiv4 #cg ff41 where ,jesus admonishes to watchfulness1 because no one can know how soon the decisive moment may arrive2 but by no means such as xxiv4 #cd1 where he declares that within the term of the existing generation1 all will be fulfilled4 ,for one whose mind is in a healthy state1 conceives the possible as possible1 the probable as probable2 and if he wishes to abide by the truth1 he so exhibits them to others3 he1 on the contrary1 by whom the merely possible or probable is conceived as the real1 is under a mistake2 and he who1 without so conceiving it himself1 yet for a moral or religious object1 so represents it to others1 permits himself to use a pious fraud4 ,olshausen further avails himself of a position already noticed1 namely1 that the opinion that the advent of ,christ is at hand1 is a true one1 inasmuch as the entire history of the world is a coming of ,christ2 though not so as to exclude his final coming at the end of all things4 ,but if it is proved that ,jesus represented his literal1 final coming as near at hand1 while1 in fact1 only his figurative perpetual coming occurred in the period indicated3 he has confused these two modes of his coming4 ,the last argument which ,olshausen adduces--that because the acceleration or delay of the return of ,christ depends on the conduct of men1 consequently on their free-will1 his prophecy is only to be understood conditionally--stands or falls with the first2 for to represent something conditional as unconditional is to create a false impression4 ,sieffert1 likewise1 regards the grounds on which ,olshausen seeks to free the assertions of ,jesus concerning his return from the imputation of error1 as inadequate2 nevertheless he holds it an impossibility to the ,christian consciousness1 to ascribe an erroneous expectation to ,jesus4 #afid ,in no case would this furnish a warrant1 arbitrarily to sever from each other those elements in the discourse of ,jesus which refer to the nearer event1 from those which in our view refer to the more remote one3 rather1 if we had reasons for holding such an error on the part of ,jesus inconceivable1 we must deny in general that the discourses on the second advent1 in which those two sets of materials are so inextricably interwoven1 originated with him4 ,but1 looking from the orthodox point of view1 the question is not3 what will it satisfy the ,christian consciousness of the present day to believe or not to believe concerning ,christ8 but1 what stands written concerning ,christ8 and to this the above consciousness must accommodate itself as it best may4 ,considering the subject rationally1 however1 a feeling resting on presuppositions1 such as the so-called ,christian consciousness1 has no voice in matters of science2 and as often as it seeks to intermeddle with them1 is to be reduced to order by the simple reprimand3 mulier taceat in ecclesi6 #afie ,but have we no other grounds for questioning that ,jesus really uttered the predictions contained in ,matt xxiv4 and xxv4 parall48 ,in pursuing this inquiry1 we may first take our stand on the assertion of supranaturalistic theologians1 that what ,jesus here predicts1 he could not know in the natural way of reasonable calculation1 but only in a supernatural manner4 #afif ,even the main fact1 that the temple would be destroyed and ,jerusalem laid waste1 could not1 according to this opinion1 be so certainly foreknown4 ,who could conjecture1 it is asked1 that the ,jews would carry their frantic obstinacy so far as to render such an issue inevitable8 ,who could calculate1 that precisely such emperors1 would send such procurators1 as would provoke insurrection by their baseness and pusillanimity8 ,still more remarkable is it1 that many particular incidents which ,jesus foretold actually occurred4 ,the wars1 pestilence1 earthquakes1 famines1 which he prophesied1 may be shown in the history of the succeeding times2 the persecution of his followers really took place2 the prediction that there would be false prophets1 and even such as would1 by promises of miracles1 allure the people into the wilderness 7,matt4 xxiv4 #aa1 #bd ff4 parall471 may be compared with a strikingly similar passage from ,josephus1 describing the last times of the ,jewish state2 #afig the encompassing of ,jerusalem with armies1 mentioned by ,luke1 with the trench1 1 which he elsewhere 7xix4 #dc f47 speaks of as being cast about the city1 may be recognized in the circumstance recorded by ,josephus1 that ,titus caused ,jerusalem to be enclosed by a wall2 #afih lastly it may also excite astonishment that the declarations1 there shall not be left one stone upon another1 1 in relation to the temple1 and they shall lay thee even with the ground1 1 7,luke xix4 #dd71 in relation to the city1 were fulfilled to the letter4 #afii ,when on the orthodox point of view1 from the impossibility of foreseeing such particulars in a natural manner1 it is concluded that ,jesus had a supernatural insight into the future2 this conclusion is here attended not only with the same difficulty as above1 in connection with the announcement of his death and resurrection1 but with another also4 ,in the first place1 according to ,matthew 7xxiv4 #ae71 and ,mark 7xiii4 #ad71 ,jesus represented the first stage of the catastrophe as a fulfilment of the prophecy of ,daniel concerning an abomination of desolation1 and consequently referred ,dan4 ix4 #bg 7comp4 xi4 #ca1 xii4 #aa7 to an event at the destruction of ,jerusalem by the ,romans4 ,for what ,paulus maintains1--namely1 that ,jesus here only borrows an expression from ,daniel1 without regarding that declaration of the prophet as a prophecy concerning something which in his time 7the time of ,jesus7 was still future--is here rendered especially inconceivable by the addition3 let him that readeth understand4 ,now it may be regarded as an established point in the modern criticism and explanation of the ,old ,testament1 that the above passages in ,daniel have reference to the desecration of the temple by ,antiochus ,epiphanes2 #agjj consequently1 the interpretation of them which the ,evangelists here lend to ,jesus is a false one4 ,but to proceed to the difficulty which is peculiar to the prophecy in ,matt4 xxiv41 xxv43 only one side of it1 that relating to ,jerusalem1 has been fulfilled2 the other1 that relating to the return of ,jesus and the end of the world1 remains unfulfilled4 ,such a half-true prophecy as this cannot have been drawn by ,jesus from his higher nature1 and he must have been left in this matter to his human faculties4 ,but that he should be able1 by means of these1 to foresee a result1 dependent on so many fortuities as was the destruction of ,jerusalem1 with its particular circumstances1 appears inconceivable2 and hence the conjecture arises1 that these discourses1 in the definiteness which they now possess1 were not uttered prior to the issue1 consequently not by ,jesus1 but that they may have been put into his mouth as prophecies after the issue4 ,thus ,kaiser1 for example1 is of opinion that ,jesus threatened a terrible fate to the temple and the nation by means of the ,romans1 conditionally1 in case the nation did not accept salvation from the ,messiah1 and described this fate in prophetic types2 but that the unconditional form and the more precise delineations were given to his discourse post eventum4 ,credner also infers1 from the circumstances1 that incidents accompanying the destruction of ,jerusalem are put into the mouth of ,jesus as prophecies1 that the three first gospels cannot have been composed before this event4 #agja ,it must certainly be supposed that the prophecy1 as we have it in the two first gospels1 was formed immediately after or even during the issue1 since here the appearance of the ,messiah is predicted as an event that would immediately succeed the fall of ,jerusalem1 which in later years could no longer be the expectation4 ,as this immediate chronological connexion of the two catastrophes is not so expressly made by ,luke1 it has been supposed that this ,evangelist gives the prophecy as it was modified by experience1 that the ,messiah's advent and the end of the world had in nowise followed close on the destruction of ,jerusalem4 #agjb ,in opposition to these two opinions1 that the prophecy in question had a supernatural source1 and that it was only made after the issue2 it is sought1 in a third quarter1 to show that what is here predicted1 ,jesus might really have known in a natural way4 #agjc ,while1 on the one hand1 it is held in the highest degree astonishing that the result should have so closely corresponded with the most minute features of the prophecy of ,jesus2 on the other hand1 there are expositors by whom this correspondence is called in question4 ,the encompassing of ,jerusalem with armies1 say they1 is precisely what ,titus1 according to ,josephus1 pronounces impossible to be effected2 #agjd it is predicted that a trench would be cast about the city1 while ,josephus informs us1 that after the first attempt at forming an embankment had been rendered useless1 by an act of incendiarism on the part of the besieged1 #agje ,titus desisted from his scheme2 of false ,messiahs1 arising in the interval between the death of ,jesus and the destruction of ,jerusalem1 history says nothing2 the commotions among nations1 and the natural phenomena1 in that period1 are far from being so important as they are here represented2 but above all1 in these prophecies1 especially as they are given in ,matthew and ,mark1 it is not the destruction of ,jerusalem which is predicted1 but solely that of the temple3 plain divergencies of the prophecy from the result1 which would not exist1 if either a supernatural glance into the future1 or a vaticinium post eventum were concerned4 ,according to these theologians1 we are on the wrong track in seeking the counterpart of these prophecies forwards1 in the result2 since it was backwards1 on types presented in the past1 that the authors looked4 ,a mass of such types was furnished by the ,jewish conception of the circumstances which would precede the advent of the ,messiah4 ,false prophets and ,messiahs1 war1 famine and pestilence1 earthquakes and commotions in the heavens1 prevalent corruption of manners1 persecution of the faithful servants of ,jehovah1 were held to be the immediate harbingers of the messianic kingdom4 ,moreover1 in the prophets there are descriptions of the tribulation which would presage and accompany the day of the coming of ,jehovah 7,isa4 xiii4 #i ff42 ,joel i4 #ae1 ii4 #a ff41 #aj ff41 iii4 #c ff41 iv4 #ae f42 ,zeph4 i4 #ad ff42 ,hagg4 ii4 #g2 ,zech4 xiv4 #a ff42 ,mal4 iii4 #a ff471 or which would precede the messianic kingdom of the saints 7,dan4 vii4-xii471 as also expressions in later ,jewish writings1 #agjf so analogous with our evangelical prediction1 as to put it beyond question1 that the description which it gives of the time of the ,messiah's advent is drawn from a circle of ideas which had long been current among the ,jews4 ,another question is1 whether the principal feature in the picture before us1 the destruction of the temple and the devastation of ,jerusalem1 as introductory to the coming of the ,messiah1 may also be shown to have made part of the popular conception in the time of ,jesus4 ,in ,jewish writings we find the notion1 that the birth of the ,messiah would coincide with the destruction of the sanctuary3 #agjg but this idea was obviously first formed after the fall of the temple1 in order that a fountain of consolation might spring out of the lowest depth of misery4 ,josephus finds in ,daniel1 together with what relates to ,antiochus1 a prophecy of the annihilation of the ,jewish state by the ,romans3 #agjh but as this is not the primary object in any of the visions in ,daniel1 ,josephus might first make this interpretation after the issue1 in which case it would prove nothing as to the time of ,jesus4 ,nevertheless1 it is conceivable1 that already in the time of ,jesus1 the ,jews might attribute to the prophecies of ,daniel a reference to events yet future1 although these prophecies in fact related to a far earlier period2 and they might do so on the same grounds as those on which the ,christians of the present age still look forward to the full realization of ,matt4 xxiv4 and xxv4 ,as immediately after the fall of the kingdom made of iron mixed with clay1 and of the horn that speaks blasphemies and makes war against the saints1 the coming of the ,son of man in the clouds1 and the commencement of the everlasting kingdom of the saints1 is prophesied1 while this result had not by any means succeeded the defeat of ,antiochus3 there was an inducement still to look to the future1 not only for the heavenly kingdom1 but also1 since they were made immediately to precede it1 for the calamities caused by the kingdom of iron and clay2 among which calamities1 by analogy with what was predicted of the horn1 the desecration of the temple was conspicuous4 ,but while the prophecy in ,daniel includes only the desecration of the temple and the interruption of the worship1 together with 7the partial #agji7 destruction of the city3 in the discourse before us complete destruction is predicted to the temple--and likewise to the city1 not merely in ,luke1 where the expressions are very marked1 but undoubtedly in the two other ,evangelists also1 as appears to be indicated by the exhortation to hasty flight from the city2--which prediction of total destruction1 as it is not contained in the type1 can apparently have been gathered only from the result4 ,but in the first place1 the description in ,daniel with the expressions and 7ix4 #bf f41 xii4 #aa71 which the ,,lxx4 translates by 1 desolation1 and 1 ,i destroy1 may easily be also understood of a total destruction2 and secondly1 if once1 in connexion with the sins of the nation1 the temple and city had been destroyed and the people carried away captive1 every enthusiastic ,israelite1 to whom the religious and moral condition of his fellow-countrymen appeared corrupt and irremediable1 might thenceforth expect and predict a repetition of that former judgment4 ,according to this1 even those particulars in which1 as we have seen in the foregoing section1 ,luke surpasses his fellow-narrators in definiteness1 are not of a kind to oblige us to suppose1 either a supernatural foreknowledge1 or a vaticinium post eventum3 on the contrary1 all may be explained by a close consideration of what is narrated concerning the first destruction of ,jerusalem in #b ,kings xxv42 #b ,chron4 xxxvi42 and ,jer4 xxxix4 #eb4 ,there is only one point which ,jesus1 as the author of this discourse1 could not have gathered from any types1 but must have drawn entirely from himself3 namely1 the declaration that the catastrophe which he described would arrive within the present generation4 ,this prediction we must hesitate to derive from a supernatural knowledge1 for the reason1 already noticed1 that it is only half fulfilled3 while the other side of the fact1 the striking fulfilment of at least the one half of the prophecy1 might incline us to distrust the supposition of a merely natural calculation1 and to regard this determination of time as a feature introduced into the discourse of ,jesus after the issue4 ,meanwhile1 it is clear from the passages cited at the conclusion of the last section1 that the apostles themselves expected the return of ,christ to take place within their lifetime2 and it is not improbable that ,jesus also believed that this event1 together with the ruin of the city and temple1 which according to ,daniel was to precede it1 was very near at hand4 ,the more general part of the expectation1 namely1 the appearing at some future time in the clouds of heaven1 to awake the dead1 to sit in judgment1 and to found an everlasting kingdom1 would necessarily1 from a consideration of ,daniel1 where such a coming is ascribed to the ,son of man1 be contemplated by ,jesus as a part of his own destiny1 so soon as he held himself to be the ,messiah2 while1 with regard to the time1 it was natural that he should not conceive a very long interval as destined to elapse between his first messianic coming in humiliation1 and his second1 in glory4 ,one objection to the genuineness of the synoptical discourses on the second advent1 is yet in reserve2 it has1 however1 less weight in our point of view than in that of the prevalent criticism of the gospels4 ,this objection is derived from the absence of any detailed description of the second advent of ,jesus in the ,gospel of ,john4 #agaj ,it is true that the fundamental elements of the doctrine of ,christ's return are plainly discoverable in the fourth gospel also4 #agaa ,jesus therein ascribes to himself the offices of the future judgment1 and the awaking of the dead 7,john v4 #ba-cj72 which last is not indeed numbered among the concomitants of the advent of ,christ in the synoptical gospels1 but not seldom appears in that connexion elsewhere in the ,new ,testament 7e4g4 #a ,cor4 xv4 #bc2 #a ,thess4 iv4 #af74 ,when ,jesus1 in the fourth gospel1 sometimes denies that he is come into the world for judgment 7iii4 #ag1 viii4 #ae1 xii4 #dg71 this refers only to his first presence on earth1 and is limited by opposite declarations1 in which he asserts that he is come into the world for judgment 7ix4 #ci1 comp4 viii4 #af71 to the sense that the object of his mission is not to condemn but to save1 and that his judgment is not individual or partial2 that it consists1 not in an authoritative sentence proceeding subjectively from himself1 but in an objective act proceeding from the intrinsic tendency of things1 a doctrine which is significantly expressed in the declaration1 that him who hears his word without believing he judges not1 but the word1 which he has spoken1 shall judge him in the last day 7 1 1 1 xii4 #dh74 ,further1 when the ,jesus of ,john's gospel says of the believer3 1 he is not judged1 1 he shall not come into judgment 7iii4 #ah1 v4 #bd71 this is to be understood of a judgment with a condemnatory issue2 when on the contrary1 it is said of the unbeliever3 1 he is judged already 7iii4 #ah71 this only means that the assigning of the merited lot to each is not reserved until the future judgment at the end of all things1 since each one in his inward disposition bears within himself the fate which is his due4 ,this does not exclude a future solemn act of judgment1 wherein that which has at present only a latent existence will be made matter of awful revelation2 for in the very passage last quoted we find the consignment to condemnation1 and elsewhere the awarding of future blessedness 7v4 #bh f41 vi4 #ci f41 #ed71 associated with the last day and the resurrection4 ,in like manner1 ,jesus says in ,luke also1 in the same connexion in which he describes his return as a still future1 external catastrophe1 xvii4 #bj f43 ,the kingdom of ,god cometh not with observation2 neither shall they say1 lo here6 or1 lo there6 for behold the kingdom of ,god is within you4 ,a certain interpretation of the words uttered by the ,jesus of ,john's gospel1 supposes him even to intimate that his return was not far distant4 ,the expressions already mentioned in the farewell discourses1 in which ,jesus promises his disciples not to leave them comfortless1 but1 after having gone to the ,father1 shortly 7xvi4 #af7 to come again to them 7xiv4 #c1 #ah71 are not seldom understood of the return of ,christ at the last day2 #agab but when we hear ,jesus say of this same return1 that he will therein reveal himself only to his disciples1 and not to the world 7xiv4 #ai1 comp4 #bb71 it is impossible to think of it as the return to judgment1 in which ,jesus conceived that he should reveal himself to good and bad without distinction4 ,there is a particularly enigmatical allusion to the coming of ,christ in the appendix to the fourth gospel1 chap4 xxi44 ,on the question of ,peter as to what will become of the apostle ,john1 ,jesus here replies1 ,if ,i will that he tarry till ,i come1 what is that to thee8 7v4 #bb7 whence1 as it is added1 the ,christians inferred that ,john would not die1 since they supposed the coming 77 here spoken of1 to be the final return of ,christ1 in which those who witnessed it were to be changed1 without tasting death 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #ea f474 ,but1 adds the author correctively1 ,jesus did not say1 the disciple would not die1 but only1 if he willed that he should tarry till he came1 what was that to ,peter8 ,hereby the ,evangelist may have intended to rectify the inference in two ways4 ,either it appeared to him erroneous to identify the remaining until ,jesus came1 with not dying1 i4e4 to take the coming of which ,jesus here spoke for the last1 which would put an end to death2 and in that case he must have understood by it an invisible coming of ,christ1 possibly in the destruction of ,jerusalem3 #agac or1 he held it erroneous that what ,jesus had only said hypothetically--even if he willed the given case1 that was no concern of ,peter's--should be understood categorically1 as if such had really been the will of ,jesus2 in which case the would retain its customary sense4 #agad ,if1 according to this1 all the main features of the doctrine of the second advent are put into the mouth of ,jesus in the fourth gospel also1 still we nowhere find anything of the detailed1 graphic description of the external event1 which we read in the synoptical gospels4 ,this relation between the two representations1 creates no slight difficulty on the ordinary view of the origin of the gospels1 and especially that of the fourth4 ,if ,jesus really spoke of his return so fully and solemnly as the synoptists represent him to have done1 and treated of the right knowledge and observation of the signs as something of the highest importance2 it is inconceivable that the author of the fourth gospel could pass over all this1 if he were an immediate disciple of ,jesus4 ,the usual mode of accounting for such an omission1 by the supposition that he believed this part of the teaching of ,jesus to be sufficiently known from the synoptical gospels1 or from oral tradition1 is the more inadequate here in proportion as all which bears a prophetic character1 especially when relating to events at once so much longed for and dreaded1 is exposed to misinterpretation2 as we may see from the rectification just noticed1 which the author of ,john xxi4 found it necessary to apply to the opinion of his contemporaries concerning the promise given by ,jesus to ,john4 ,thus1 in the present case1 an explanatory word would have been highly seasonable and useful1 especially as the representation of the first gospel1 which made the end of all things follow immediately on the destruction of ,jerusalem1 must be the more an occasion of doubt and offence the nearer the latter event came1 and in a still greater degree when it was past4 ,and who was more capable of affording such enlightenment than the favourite disciple1 particularly if1 according to ,mark xiii4 #c1 he was the only ,evangelist who had been present at the discourse of ,jesus on this subject8 ,hence1 here again1 a special reason for his silence is sought in the alleged destination of his gospel for non-judaical1 idealizing ,gnostics1 whose point of view those descriptions would not have suited1 and were therefore omitted4 #agae ,but precisely in relation to such readers1 it would have been a culpable compliance1 a confirmation in their idealizing tendency1 had ,john1 out of deference to them1 suppressed the real side of the return of ,christ4 ,the apostle must rather have withstood the propensity of these people to evaporate the external1 historical part of ,christianity1 by giving due prominence to it2 as1 in his epistle1 in opposition to their ,docetism1 he lays stress on the corporeality of ,jesus3 so1 in opposition ta their idealism1 he must have been especially assiduous to exhibit in the return of ,christ the external facts by which it would be signalized4 ,instead of this1 he himself speaks nearly like a ,gnostic1 and constantly aims1 in relation to the return of ,christ1 to resolve the external and the future into the internal and the present4 ,hence there is not so much exaggeration1 as ,olshausen supposes1 in the opinion of ,fleck1 that the representation of the doctrine of ,jesus concerning his return in the synoptical gospels1 and that given in the fourth1 exclude each other2 #agaf for if the author of the fourth gospel be an apostle1 the discourses on the second advent which the three first ,evangelists attribute to ,jesus1 cannot have been so delivered by him1 and vice vers4 ,we1 however1 as we have said1 cannot avail ourselves of this argument1 having long renounced the pre-supposition that the fourth gospel had an apostolic origin4 ,but1 on our point of view1 we can fully explain the relation which the representation of the fourth gospel bears to that of the synoptists4 ,in ,palestine1 where the tradition recorded by the three first gospels was formed1 the doctrine of a solemn advent of the ,messiah which was there prevalent1 and which ,jesus embraced1 was received in its whole breadth into the ,christian belief3 whereas in the ,hellenistic-theosophic circle in which the fourth gospel arose1 this idea was divested of its material envelopment1 and the return of ,christ became the ambiguous medium between a real and an ideal1 a present and a future event1 which it appears in the fourth gospel4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,machinations ,,of ,,the ,,enemies ,,of ,,jesus2 ,,treachery ,,of ,,judas2 ,,last ,,supper ,,with ,,his ,,disciples4 #aag4 ,,development ,,of ,,the ,,relation ,,of ,,jesus ,,to ,,his ,,enemies4 ,in the three first gospels the principal enemies of ,jesus are the ,pharisees and scribes1 #agag who saw in him the most ruinous opponent of their institutions2 together with the chief priests and elders1 who1 as the heads of the external temple-worship and the hierarchy founded upon it1 could have no friendly feeling towards one who on every opportunity represented as the main point1 the internal service of ,god with the devotion of the mind4 ,elsewhere we find among the enemies of ,jesus the ,sadducees 7,matt4 xvi4 #a1 xxii4 #bc ff4 parall4 comp4 ,matt4 xvi4 #f ff4 parall471 to whose materialism much in his opinions must have been repugnant2 and the ,herodian party 7,mark iii4 #f2 ,matt4 xxii4 #af parall47 who1 having been unfavourable to the ,baptist1 were naturally so to his successor4 ,the fourth gospel1 though it sometimes mentions the chief priests and ,pharisees1 the most frequently designates the enemies of ,jesus by the general expression3 1 the ,jews2 an expression which proceeds from a later1 ,christian point of view4 ,the four ,evangelists unanimously relate1 that the more defined machinations of the ,pharisaic-hierarchical party against ,jesus1 took their rise from an offence committed by the latter against the prevalent rules concerning the observation of the sabbath4 ,when ,jesus had cured the man with the withered hand1 it is said in ,matthew3 the ,pharisees went out1 and held a council against him1 how they might destroy him 7xii4 #ad1 comp4 ,mark iii4 #f2 ,luke vi4 #aa72 and in like manner ,john observes1 on the occasion of the ,sabbath cure at the pool of ,bethesda3 therefore did the ,jews persecute ,jesus1 and after mentioning a declaration of ,jesus1 proceeds thus3 therefore the ,jews sought the more to kill him 7v4 #af1 #ah74 ,but immediately after this commencing point1 the synoptical account of the relation in question diverges from that of ,john4 ,in the synoptists1 the next offence is given by the neglect of washing before meals on the part of ,jesus and his disciples1 with the sharp invectives which1 when called to account on the subject1 he launched forth against the spirit of petty observance1 and the hypocrisy and spirit of persecution with which it was united in the ,pharisees and lawyers2 after all which it is said1 that the latter conceived a deep animosity against him1 and tried to sift him and entrap him by dangerous questions1 in order to obtain grounds of accusation against him 7,luke xi4 #cg-ed1 comp4 ,matt4 xv4 #a ff42 ,mark vii4 #a ff474 ,on his last journey to ,jerusalem1 the ,pharisees gave ,jesus a warning against ,herod 7,luke xiii4 #ca71 which apparently had no other object than to induce him to leave the country4 ,the next important cause of offence to the hierarchical party1 was the striking homage paid to ,jesus by the people on his entrance into ,jerusalem1 and the purification of the temple which he immediately undertook3 but they were still withheld from any violent measures towards him by the strength of his interest with the people 7,matt4 xxi4 #ae f42 ,mark ix4 #ah2 ,luke xix4 #ci1 #dg f471 which was the sole reason why they did not possess themselves of his person1 after the severe manner in which he had characterized them1 in the parable of the husbandmen of the vineyard 7,matt4 xxi4 #de f4 parall474 ,after these events1 it scarcely needed the anti-,pharisaic discourse ,matt4 xxiii4 to make the chief priests1 the scribes and elders1 i4e4 the ,sanhedrim1 assemble in the palace of the high priest1 shortly before the passover1 for a consultation1 that they might take ,jesus by subtlety and kill him 7,matt4 xxvi4 #c ff4 parall474 ,in the fourth gospel1 also1 the great number of the adherents of ,jesus among the people is sometimes1 it is true1 described as the reason why his enemies desired to seize him 7vii4 #cb1 #dd1 comp4 iv4 #a ff471 and his solemn entrance into ,jerusalem embitters them here also 7xii4 #ai72 sometimes their murderous designs are mentioned without any motive being stated 7vii4 #a1 #ai1 #be1 viii4 #dj73 but the main cause of offence in this gospel1 lies in the declarations of ,jesus concerning his exalted dignity4 ,even on the occasion of the cure of the lame man on the ,sabbath1 what chiefly irritated the ,jews was that ,jesus justified it by appealing to the uninterrupted agency of ,god as his ,father1 which in their opinion was a blasphemous making of himself equal with ,god1 7v4 #ah72 when he spoke of his divine mission1 they sought to lay hold on him 7vii4 #cj1 comp4 viii4 #bj72 on his asserting that he was before ,abraham1 they took up stones to cast at him 7viii4 #ei72 they did the same when he declared that he and the ,father were one 7x4 #ca71 and when he asserted that the ,father was in him and he in the ,father1 they again attempted to seize him 7x4 #ci74 ,but that which1 according to the fourth gospel1 turns the scale1 and causes the hostile party to take a formal resolution against ,jesus1 is the resuscitation of ,lazarus4 ,when this act was reported to the ,pharisees1 they and the chief priests convened a council of the ,sanhedrim1 in which the subject of deliberation was1 that if ,jesus continued to perform so many signs1 1 all would at length adhere to him1 and then the ,roman power would be exerted to the destruction of the ,jewish nation2 whereupon the high priest ,caiaphas pronounced the momentous decision1 that it was better for one man to die for the people than for the whole nation to perish4 ,his death was now determined upon1 and it was enjoined on every one to point out his abode1 that he might be arrested 7xi4 #df ff474 ,with regard to this difference modern criticism observes1 that we should not at all comprehend the tragical turn of the fate of ,jesus from the synoptical accounts1 and that ,john alone opens to us a glance into the manner in which1 step by step1 the breach between the hierarchical party and ,jesus was widened2 in short1 that in this point also the representation of the fourth gospel shows itself a pragmatical one1 which that of the other gospels is not4 #agah ,but what it is in which the ,gospel of ,john exhibits superiority in gradation and progress1 it is difficult to see1 since the very first definite statement concerning the incipient enmity 7v4 #ah7 contains the extreme of the offence 7 1 making himself equal with ,god7 and the extreme of the enmity 7 1 they sought to kill him72 so that all which is narrated further concerning the hostility of the ,jews is mere repetition1 and the only fact which presents itself as a step towards more decided measures is the resolution of the ,sanhedrim1 chap4 xi44 ,this species of gradation1 however1 is not wanting in the synoptical account also3 here we have the transition from the indefinite laying wait for ,jesus1 and the communing what might be done to him 7,luke xi4 #ed1 vi4 #aa71 or as it is more precisely given in ,matthew 7xii4 #ad71 and in ,mark 7iii4 #f71 the taking counsel how they might destroy him1 to the definite resolve as to the manner 77 and the time 7 ,matt4 xxvi4 #d f4 parall74--,but it is especially made a reproach to three first ,evangelists1 that in passing over the resurrection of ,lazarus1 they have omitted that incident which gave the final impulse to the fate of ,jesus4 #agai ,if we1 on the contrary1 in virtue of the above result of our criticism of this miraculous narrative1 must rather praise the synoptists1 that they do not represent as the turning point in the fate of ,jesus1 an incident which never really happened3 so the fourth ,evangelist1 by the manner in which he relates the murderous resolve to which it was the immediate inducement1 by no means manifests himself as one whose authority can be held by us a sufficient warrant for the truth of his narrative4 ,the circumstance that he ascribes to the high priest the gift of prophecy 7without doubt in accordance with a superstitious idea of his age #agbj71 and regards his speech as a prediction of the death of ,jesus1 would certainly not by itself prove that he could not have been an apostle and eye-witness4 #agba ,but it has with justice been held a difficulty1 that our ,evangelist designates ,caiaphas as the high priest of that year1 7xi4 #di71 and thus appears to suppose that this dignity1 like many ,roman magistracies1 was an annual one2 whereas it was originally held for life1 and even in that period of ,roman ascendancy1 was not a regular annual office1 but was transferred as often as it pleased the arbitrariness of the ,romans4 ,to conclude on the authority of the fourth gospel1 in opposition to the general custom1 and notwithstanding the silence of ,josephus1 that ,annas and ,caiaphas1 by a private agreement1 held the office for a year by turns1 #agbb is an expedient to which those may resort whom it pleases2 to take indefinitely for 1 #agbc is1 from the twofold repetition of the same expression1 v4 #ea and xviii4 #ac1 inadmissible2 that at that period the high priesthood was frequently transferred from one to another1 and some high priests were not allowed to remain in their office longer than a year1 #agbd did not justify our author in designating ,caiaphas as the high priest of a particular year1 when in fact he filled that post for a series of years1 and certainly throughout the duration of the public agency of ,jesus2 lastly1 that ,john intended to say that ,caiaphas was high priest in the year in which ,jesus died1 without thereby excluding earlier and later years1 in which he also held the office1 #agbe is an equally untenable position4 ,for if the time in which an incident occurs is described as a certain year1 this mode of expression must imply1 that either the incident the date of which is to be determined1 or the fact by which that date is to be determined1 is connected with the term of a year4 ,thus either the author of the fourth gospel must have been of the opinion1 that from the death of ,jesus1 to which this decision of ,caiaphas was the initiative step1 a plenitude of spiritual gifts1 including the gift of prophecy to the high priest of that period1 was dispensed throughout that particular year1 #agbf and no longer2 or1 if this be a far-fetched explanation1 he must have imagined that ,caiaphas was high priest for the term of that year only4 ,lcke concludes that as1 according to ,josephus1 the high priest of that period held his office for ten years successively1 therefore ,john cannot have meant1 by the expression 1 that the office of high priest was an annual one2 whereas the author of the ,probabilia1 on the ground that the evidence of this meaning in the words of the gospel1 is far more certain than that ,john is its author1 reverses this proposition1 and concludes1 that as the fourth gospel here presents an idea concerning the duration of the office of high priest which could not be entertained in ,palestine1 therefore its author cannot have been a native of ,palestine4 #agbg ,of the further statements also1 as to the points in which ,jesus gave offence to the hierarchy of his nation1 those which the synoptists have alone1 or in common with ,john1 are credible2 those which are peculiar to the latter1 not so4 ,among those which are common to both sides1 the solemn entrance of ,jesus into ,jerusalem1 and the strong attachment of the people to him1 were equally natural causes of offence with his discourses and actions in opposition to the sabbatical institutions1 in whatever the latter may have consisted3 on the contrary1 the manner in which1 according to the fourth gospel1 the ,jews take offence at the declarations of ,jesus concerning himself as the ,son of ,god1 is1 according to our earlier analysis1 #agbh as inconceivable1 as it is consistent with the common order of things that the polemical tone towards the ,pharisees which the first ,evangelists all lend to ,jesus1 should irritate the party attacked4 ,thus no new or more profound insight into the causes and motives of the reaction against ,jesus1 is to be obtained from the fourth gospel3 but the information which the synoptists have preserved to us fully suffices to make that fact intelligible4 #aah4 ,,jesus ,,and ,,his ,,betrayer4 ,although it had been resolved in the council of the chief priests and elders1 that the feast time should be allowed to pass over before any measures were taken against ,jesus1 because any act of violence against him in these days might easily excite an insurrection1 on the part of his numerous adherents among the visitants to the feast 7,matt4 xxvi4 #e2 ,mark xiv4 #b73 yet this consideration was superseded by the facility with which one of his disciples offered to deliver him into their hands4 ,judas1 surnamed 1 doubtless on account of his origin from the ,jewish city of ,kerioth #agbi 7,josh4 xv4 #be71 went1 according to the synoptists1 a few days before the passover1 to the heads of the priesthood1 and volunteered to deliver ,jesus quietly into their hands1 for which service they promised him money1 according to ,matthew1 thirty pieces of silver 71 ,matt xxvi4 #ad ff4 parall474 ,of such an antecedent transaction between ,judas and the enemies of ,jesus1 the fourth gospel not only says nothing1 but appears moreover to represent the matter as if ,judas had not formed the determination of betraying ,jesus to the priesthood1 until the last supper1 and had then promptly put it into execution4 ,the same entering 77 of ,satan into ,judas1 which ,luke 7xxii4 #c7 places before his first interview with the chief priests1 and before any preparation had been made for ,jesus and his disciples to eat the passover together1 is represented by the author of the fourth gospel as occurring at this meal1 before ,judas left the company 7xiii4 #bg73 a proof1 as it appears1 that in the opinion of this ,evangelist1 ,judas now made his first traitorous visit4 ,he does indeed observe1 before the meal 7xiii4 #b71 that the devil had put it into the heart of ,judas to betray ,jesus1 and this is commonly regarded as the parallel of ,luke's 7,satan entered into him71 being understood to imply the formation of the treacherous resolve1 in consequence of which ,judas went to the chief priests3 but if he had previously been in treaty with them1 the betrayal was already completed1 and it is then not easy to perceive what can be meant by the words on the occasion of the last meal1 since the summoning of those who were to seize ,jesus was no new diabolical resolution1 but only the execution of that which had already been embraced4 ,the expression in ,john v4 #bg only obtains an entirely consistent sense in distinction from v4 #b1 when the ' in the latter1 is understood of the rising of the thought1 the in the former1 of the ripening of this thought into resolution1 the supposition that ,judas had pledged himself to the chief priests before the meal being thus excluded4 #agcj ,in this manner1 however1 the statement of the synoptists that ,judas1 some time before the perpetration of his treacherous act1 made a bargain with the enemies of ,jesus1 stands in contradiction with that of ,john1 that he only put himself in league with them immediately before the deed2 and here ,lcke decides in favour of ,john1 maintaining it to be after his departure from the last supper 7xiii4 #cj71 that ,judas made that application to the chief priests which the synoptists 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ad f4 parall47 place before the meal4 #agca ,but this decision of ,lcke's is founded solely on deference to the presupposed authority of ,john2 for even if1 as he remarks1 ,judas could very well obtain an interview with the priests when night had commenced3 still1 regarding the matter apart from any presuppositions1 the probability is beyond comparison stronger on the side of the synoptists1 who allow some time for the affair1 than on that of ,john1 according to whom it is altogether sudden1 and ,judas1 truly as if he were possessed1 rushes out when it is already night to treat with the priests1 and immediately hurry to the deed4 ,concerning the motives which induced ,judas to league himself with the enemies of ,jesus1 we learn from the three first gospels no more than that he received money from the chief priests4 ,this would indicate that he was actuated by covetousness1 especially according to the narrative in ,matthew1 where ,judas1 before he promises to betray ,jesus1 puts the question1 ,what will ye give me8 ,clearer light is thrown on this subject by the statement of the fourth gospel 7xii4 #d ff471 that on the occasion of the meal in ,bethany1 ,judas was indignant at the anointing1 as an unnecessary expenditure1--that he carried the purse1 and acted the thief in that office2 whence it might be supposed that the avarice of ,judas1 no longer satisfied by his peculations on the funds of the society1 hoped to reap a more considerable harvest by betraying ,jesus to the rich and powerful sacerdotal party4 ,we must hold ourselves under obligation to the author of the fourth gospel1 that by the preservation of these particulars1 which are wanting in the other ,evangelists1 he has made the act of ,judas somewhat more comprehensible1--so soon as his statements are shown to have an historical foundation4 ,we have shown above1 however1 how improbable it is that1 had that censure really proceeded from ,judas1 the legend should have lost this trait2 #agcb how probable1 on the other hand1 a legendary origin of it1 it is easy to discern4 ,the meal at ,bethany stood in the evangelical tradition near to the end of the life of ,jesus1 an end brought about by the treachery of ,judas2--how easily might the thought arise in some one1 that the narrow-minded censure of a noble prodigality could only come from the covetous ,judas8 ,that the censure at the same time turned upon the propriety of selling the ointment for the benefit of the poor1 could in the mouth of ,judas be only a pretext1 behind which he concealed his selfishness3 but advantage to himself from the sale of the ointment could not be expected by him1 unless he allowed himself to purloin some of the money saved2 and this again he could not do unless he were the purse-bearer4 ,if it thus appear possible for the statement that ,judas was a thief and had the bag1 to have had an unhistorical origin3 we have next to inquire whether there are any reasons for supposing that such was actually the case4 ,here we must take into consideration another point on which the synoptists and ,john differ1 namely1 the foreknowledge of ,jesus that ,judas would betray him4 ,in the synoptical gospels1 ,jesus first manifests this knowledge at the last supper1 consequently at a time in which the deed of ,judas had virtually been perpetrated2 and apparently but a short time before1 ,jesus had so little presentiment that one of the twelve would be lost to him1 that he promised them all1 without exception1 the honour of sitting on twelve thrones of judgment in the palingenesia 7,matt4 xix4 #bh74 ,according to ,john1 on the contrary1 ,jesus declares shortly before the time of the last passover but one1 consequently a year before the result1 that one of the twelve is a devil1 1 meaning1 according to the observation of the ,evangelist1 ,judas1 as his future betrayer 7vi4 #gj72 for1 as it had been observed shortly before 7v4 #fd71 ,jesus knew from the beginning1--who should betray him4 ,according to this1 ,jesus knew from the commencement of his acquaintance with ,judas1 that this disciple would prove a traitor2 and not merely did he foresee this external issue1 but also1 since he knew what was in man 7,john ii4 #be71 he must have penetrated the motives of ,judas1 namely1 covetousness and love of money4 ,and1 if so1 would he have made him purse-bearer1 i4e4 placed him in a position in which his propensity to seek gain by any means1 even though dishonest1 must have had the most abundant nourishment8 ,would he have made him a thief by giving him opportunity1 and thus1 as if designedly1 have brought up in him a betrayer for himself8 ,considered simply in an economical point of view1 who entrusts a purse to one of whom he knows that he robs it8 ,then1 in relation to the idea of ,jesus as a moral teacher1 who places the weak in a situation which so constantly appeals to his weak point1 as to render it certain that he will sooner or later give way to the temptation8 ,no truly3 ,jesus assuredly did not so play with the souls immediately entrusted to him1 did not exhibit to them so completely the opposite of what he taught them to pray for1 lead us not into temptation 7,matt4 vi4 #ac71 as to have made ,judas1 of whom he foreknew that he would become his betrayer out of covetousness1 the purse-bearer of his society2 or1 if he gave him this office1 he cannot have had such a foreknowledge4 ,in order to arrive at a decision in this alternative1 we must consider that foreknowledge separately1 and inquire whether1 apart from the treasurership of ,judas1 it be probable or not8 ,we shall not enter on the question of the psychological possibility1 because there is always freedom of appeal to the divine nature of ,jesus2 but with regard to the moral possibility it is to be asked1 whether presupposing that foreknowledge1 it be justifiable in ,jesus to have chosen ,judas among the twelve1 and to have retained him within this circle8 ,as it was only by this vocation that his treachery as such could be rendered possible2 so ,jesus appears1 if he foresaw this treachery1 to have designedly drawn him into the sin4 ,it is urged that intercourse with ,jesus afforded ,judas the possibility of escaping that abyss3 #agcc but ,jesus is supposed to have foreseen that this possibility would not be realized4 ,it is further said that even in other circles the evil implanted in ,judas would not the less have developed itself in a different form3 a proposition which has a strong tinge of fatalism4 ,again1 when it is said to be of no avail to a man that the evil1 the germ of which lies within him1 should not be developed1 this appears to lead to consequences which are repudiated by the apostle ,paul1 ,rom4 iii4 #h1 vi4 #a f4 ,and regarding the subject in relation to feeling merely1--how could ,jesus endure to have a man1 of whom he knew that he would be his betrayer1 and that all instruction would be fruitless to him1 as his constant attendant throughout the whole period of his public life8 ,must not the presence of such a person have every hour interfered with his confidential intercourse with the rest of the twelve8 ,assuredly they must have been weighty motives1 for the sake of which ,jesus imposed on himself anything so repugnant and difficult4 ,such motives or objects must either have had relation to ,judas1 and thus have consisted in the design to make him better--which however was precluded by the decided foreknowledge of his crime2 or they must have had relation to ,jesus himself and his work1 i4e4 ,jesus had the conviction that if the work of redemption by means of his death were to be effected1 there must be one to betray him4 #agcd ,but for the purpose of redemption1 according to the ,christian theory1 the death of ,jesus was the only indispensable means3 whether this should be brought about by a betrayal1 or in any other way1 was of no moment1 and that the enemies of ,jesus must1 earlier or later1 have succeeded in getting him into their power without the aid of ,judas1 is undeniable4 ,that the betrayer was indispensable in order to bring about the death of ,jesus exactly at the passover1 which was a type of himself #agce--with such trivialities it will scarcely be attempted to put us off in these days4 ,if then we are unable to discover any adequate motive which could induce ,jesus advertently to receive and retain in his society his betrayer in the person of ,judas3 it appears decided that he cannot beforehand have known him to be such4 ,schleiermacher1 in order that he may not infringe on the authority of ,john by denying this foreknowledge1 prefers doubting that ,jesus chose the twelve purely by his own act1 and supposes that this circle was rather formed by the voluntary adherence of the disciples3 since it would be more easy to justify the conduct of ,jesus1 if he merely refrained from rejecting ,judas when he spontaneously offered himself than if he drew him to himself by free choice4 #agcf ,but hereby the authority of ,john is still endangered1 for it is he who makes ,jesus say to the twelve3 ,ye have not chosen me1 but ,i have chosen you 7xv4 #af1 comp4 vi4 #gf72 moreover1 even dismissing the idea of a decided act of election1 still for any one to remain constantly with ,jesus there needed his permission and sanction1 and even these he could not1 acting humanly1 give to a man of whom he knew that1 by means of this relation to himself1 he would be enabled to mature the blackest crime4 ,it is said1 however1 that ,jesus put himself entirely into the ,divine point of view1 and admitted ,judas into his society1 for the sake of the possibility of reformation which he yet foreknew would never be realised2 but this would be a ,divine inhumanity1--not the conduct of the ,god-man4 ,if1 according to this1 it is extremely difficult to maintain as historical the statement of the fourth gospel1 that ,jesus from the beginning knew ,judas to be his betrayer3 so it is equally easy to discern what even without historical foundation might lead to such a representation4 ,it would be natural to suppose1 that the fact of ,jesus being betrayed by one of his own disciples1 would be injurious to him in the eyes of his enemies1 even if we did not know that ,celsus1 in the character of a ,jew1 reproached ,jesus that he was betrayed by one of those whom he called his disciples1 ' 1 as a proof that he was less able to attach his followers to himself than every robber-chief4 #agcg ,now as the injurious consequences to be drawn from the ignominious death of ,jesus1 appeared to be most completely obviated by the assertion that he had long foreknown his death3 so1 the arguments against ,jesus derived from the treachery of ,judas1 might seem to be most effectually repelled by the statement1 that he had penetrated into the character of the traitor from the first1 and could have escaped what his treason prepared for him2 since this would involve the inference that he had exposed himself to the effects of his faithlessness by his own free will1 and out of higher considerations4 #agch ,this method included a second advantage1 which attaches to the enunciator of every prediction alleged to be fulfilled1 and which the fourth ,evangelist naively makes his ,jesus express1 when1 after the exposure of the betrayer1 he puts into his mouth the words3 ,now ,i tell you before it come1 that when it is come to pass1 ye may believe that ,i am he 7xiii4 #ai7--;,in fact1 the best motto for every vaticinium post eventum4 ,these two objects were the more completely attained1 the earlier the period in the life of ,jesus to which this foreknowledge was referred2 whence it is to be explained why the author of the fourth gospel1 not satisfied with the ordinary representation1 that ,jesus predicted his betrayal by ,judas at the last supper1 placed his knowledge on this subject in the commencement of the connexion between him and ,judas4 #agci ,this early knowledge on the part of ,jesus concerning the treachery of ,judas being dismissed as unhistorical1 there would be room for the statement that ,judas carried the purse of the society2 since this particular only appeared incompatible with the above foreknowledge1 while1 if ,jesus was in general mistaken in ,judas1 he might1 under this error1 have entrusted the funds to him4 ,but by the proof that the representation of ,john1 in relation to the knowledge of ,jesus concerning his betrayer1 is a fictitious one1 its credibility in this matter is so shaken1 that no confidence can be placed in the other statement4 ,if the author of the fourth gospel has embellished the relation between ,jesus and ,judas on the side connected with ,jesus1 he can scarcely have left the side of ,judas unadorned2 if he has introduced the fact1 that ,jesus was betrayed1 by making ,jesus foresee this part of his destiny1 his other statement1 that ,judas had beforehand exhibited his avarice by a dishonest use of the common purse1 may easily be only an introduction to the fact1 that ,jesus was betrayed by ,judas4 ,but even though we renounce the information given by ,john concerning the character and motives of ,judas3 we still retain1 in the forementioned statement of the synoptists1 the most decided intimation that the chief motive of his deed was covetousness4 #aai4 ,,different ,,opinions ,,concerning ,,the ,,character ,,of ,,judas1 ,,and ,,the ,,motives ,,of ,,his ,,treachery4 ,from the earliest to the latest times there have been persons1 who have held opinions at issue with this view of the ,new ,testament writers concerning the motives of ,judas1 and with their entirely reprobatory judgment upon them 7comp4 ,acts i4 #af ff472 and this divergency has arisen partly out of an exaggerated supranaturalism1 and partly out of a rationalistic bias4 ,an over-strained supranaturalism1 proceeding from the point of view presented in the ,new ,testament itself1 namely1 that the death of ,jesus1 decreed in the ,divine plan of the world for the salvation of mankind1 might even regard ,judas1 by whose treachery the death of ,jesus was brought about1 as a blameless instrument in the hand of ,providence1 a co-operator in the redemption of mankind4 ,he might be placed in this light by the supposition that he had knowledge of that ,divine decree1 and that its fulfilment was the object at which he aimed in betraying ,jesus4 ,we actually find this mode of viewing the subject on the part of the gnostic sect of the ,cainites1 who1 according to the ancient writers on heresies1 held that ,judas had liberated himself from the narrow ,jewish opinions of the other disciples and attained to the gnosis1 and accordingly betrayed ,jesus because he knew that by his death the kingdom of the inferior spirits who ruled the world would be overthrown4 #agdj ,others in the early church admitted that ,judas betrayed ,jesus out of covetousness2 maintaining1 however1 that he did not anticipate the death of ,jesus as a consequence of his betrayal1 but supposed that he would1 as he had often previously done1 escape from his enemies by an exertion of his supernatural power3 #agda an opinion which forms the transition to the modern methods of justifying the traitor4 ,as the above mentioned supranaturalistic exaltation of ,judas by the ,cainites immediately proceeded from their antagonistic position with respect to ,judaism1 in virtue of which they had made it a principle to honour all who were blamed by the ,jewish authors of the ,old ,testament1 and the judaizing authors of the ,new1 and vice vers3 so ,rationalism especially in its first indignation at the long subjection of the reason to the fetters of authority1 felt a certain delight both in divesting of their nimbus those biblical personages who according to its views had been too zealously deified by orthodoxy1 and also in defending and elevating those who were condemned or depreciated by the latter4 ,hence1 in the ,old ,testament1 the exaltation of ,esau over ,jacob1 of ,saul over ,samuel2 in the ,new1 of ,martha over ,mary1 the eulogiums on the doubting ,thomas1 and now the apology even for the traitor ,judas4 ,according to some1 he became a criminal out of injured honour3 the manner in which ,jesus reproved him at the meal at ,bethany1 and1 in general1 the inferior degree of regard which he experienced in comparison with other disciples1 converted his love for his teacher into hatred and revenge4 #agdb ,others have preferred the conjecture preserved by ,theophylact1 that ,judas may have hoped to see ,jesus this time also escape from his enemies4 ,some have taken up this idea in the supranaturalistic sense1 supposing it to be the expectation of ,judas that ,jesus would set himself at liberty by an exertion of his miraculous power2 #agdc others consistently with their point of view have supposed that ,judas may probably have expected that if ,jesus were taken prisoner the people would raise an insurrection in his favour and set him at liberty4 #agdd ,these opinions represent ,judas as one who1 in common with the other disciples1 conceived the messianic kingdom as an earthly and political one1 and hence was discontented that ,jesus so long abstained from availing himself of the popular favour1 in order to assume the character of the messianic ruler4 ,instigated either by attempts at bribery on the part of the ,sanhedrim1 or by the rumour of their plan to seize ,jesus in secret after the feast1 ,judas sought to forestall this project1 which must have been fatal to ,jesus1 and to bring about his arrest before the expiration of the feast time1 in which he might certainly hope to see ,jesus liberated by an insurrection1 by which means he would be compelled at last to throw himself into the arms of the people1 and thus take the decisive step towards the establishment of his dominion4 ,when he heard ,jesus speak of the necessity of his being captured1 and of his rising again in three days1 he understood these expressions as an intimation of the concurrence of ,jesus in his plan2 under this mistake1 he partly failed to hear1 and partly misinterpreted1 his additional admonitory discourse2 and especially understood the words3 ,what thou doest1 do quickly1 as an actual encouragement to the execution of his design4 ,he took the thirty pieces of silver from the priests either to conceal his real intentions under the appearance of covetousness1 and thus to lull every suspicion on their part2 or1 because1 while he expected an exaltation to one of the first places in the kingdom of his master1 he was not unwilling to combine with it even that small advantage4 ,but ,judas had miscalculated in two points3 first1 in not considering that after the feasting of the paschal night1 the people would not be early on the alert for an insurrection2 secondly1 in overlooking the probability1 that the ,sanhedrim would hasten to deliver ,jesus into the hands of the ,romans1 from whom a popular insurrection would hardly suffice to deliver him4 ,thus ,judas is supposed to be either an honest man misunderstood1 #agde or a deluded one1 who however was of no common character1 but exhibited even in his despair the wreck of apostolic greatness2 #agdf or1 he is supposed1 by evil means1 indeed1 to have sought the attainment of an object1 which was nevertheless good4 #agdg ,neander imagines the two opposite opinions concerning ,jesus1 the supernatural and the natural1 to have presented themselves to the mind of ,judas in the form of a dilemma1 so that he reasoned thus3 if ,jesus is the ,messiah1 a delivery into the hands of his enemies will1 owing to his supernatural power1 in no way injure him1 but will1 on the contrary1 serve to accelerate his glorification3 if1 on the other hand1 he is not the ,messiah1 he deserves destruction4 ,according to this1 the betrayal was merely a test1 by which the doubting disciple meant to try the messiahship of his master4 #agdh ,among these views1 that which derives the treachery of ,judas from wounded ambition1 is the only one which can adduce a positive indication in its favour3 namely1 the repulse which the traitor drew on himself from ,jesus at the meal in ,bethany4 ,but against such an appeal to this reproof we have already1 on another occasion1 applied the remark of the most recent criticism1 that its mildness1 especially as compared with the far more severe rebuke administered to ,peter1 ,matt4 xvi4 #bc1 must forbid our attributing to it such an effect as the rancour which it is supposed to have engendered in ,judas2 #agdi while that in other instances he was less considered than his fellow-disciples1 we have nowhere any trace4 ,all the other conjectures as to what was properly the motive of the deed of ,judas1 can only be supported by negative grounds1 i4e4 grounds which make it improbable in general that his project had a bad aim1 and in particular1 that his motive was covetousness2 a positive proof1 that he intended to further the work of ,jesus1 and especially that he was actuated by violent political views of the ,messiah's kingdom1 is not to be discovered4--,that ,judas had in general no evil designs against ,jesus is argued chiefly from the fact1 that after the delivery of ,jesus to the ,romans1 and the inevitableness of his death had come to his knowledge1 he fell into despair2 this being regarded as a proof that he had expected an opposite result4 ,but not only does the unfortunate result of crime1 as ,paulus thinks1 but also its fortunate result1 that is1 its success1 8exhibit that which had before been veiled under a thousand extenuating pretexts1 in all the blackness of its real form40 ,crime once become real1 once passed into act1 throws off the mask which it might wear while it remained merely ideal1 and existed in thought alone2 hence1 as little as the repentance of many a murderer1 when he sees his victim lie before him1 proves that he did not really intend to commit the murder2 so little can the anguish of ,judas1 when he saw ,jesus beyond rescue1 prove that he had not beforehand contemplated the death of ,jesus as the issue of his deed4 ,but1 it is further said1 covetousness cannot have been the motive of ,judas2 for if gain had been his object1 he could not be blind to the fact that the continued charge of the purse in the society of ,jesus1 would yield him more than the miserable thirty pieces of silver 7from #bj to #be thalers1 #agej of our money71 a sum which among the ,jews formed the compensation for a wounded slave1 being four months' wages4 ,but these thirty pieces of silver are in vain sought for in any other narrator than ,matthew4 ,john is entirely silent as to any reward offered to ,judas by the priests2 ,mark and ,luke speak indefinitely of money 1 which they had promised him2 and ,peter in the ,acts 7i4 #ah7 merely mentions a reward1 1 which ,judas obtained4 ,matthew1 however1 who alone has that definite sum1 leaves us at the same time in no doubt as to the historical value of his statement4 ,after relating the end of ,judas 7xxvii4 #i f471 he cites a passage from ,zechariah 7xi4 #ab f42 he ascribes it by mistake to ,jeremiah71 wherein likewise thirty pieces of silver appear as a price at which some one is valued4 ,it is true that in the prophetic passage the thirty pieces of silver are not given as purchase money1 but as hire2 he to whom they are paid is the prophet1 the representative of ,jehovah1 and the smallness of the sum is an emblem of the slight value which the ,jews set upon the divine benefits so plentifully bestowed on them4 #agea ,but how easily might this passage1 where there was mention of a shamefully low price 7ironically a goodly price 71 at which the ,israelites had rated the speaker in the prophecy1 remind a ,christian reader of his ,messiah1 who1 in any case1 had been sold for a paltry price compared with his value1 and hence be led to determine by this passage1 the price which was paid to ,judas for betraying ,jesus4 #ageb ,thus the thirty pieces of silver1 1 present no support to those who would prove that it could not be the reward which made ,judas a traitor2 for they leave us as ignorant as ever how great or how small was the reward which ,judas received4 ,neither can we1 with ,neander1 conclude that the sum was trifling from ,matt xxvii4 #f ff42 ,acts i4 #ah1 where it is said that a field1 or 1 was purchased with the reward assigned to the treachery of ,judas2 since1 even apart from the historical value of that statement1 hereafter to be examined1 the two expressions adduced may denote a larger or a smaller piece of land1 and the additional observations of ,matthew1 that it was destined to bury strangers in1 will not allow us to think of a very small extent4 ,how the same theologian can discover in the statement of the two intermediate ,evangelists1 that the ,jewish rulers had promised ,judas money1 1 an intimation that the sum was small1 it is impossible to conceive4--,far more weighty is the observation above made with a different aim1 that ,jesus would scarcely have appointed and retained as purse-bearer one whom he knew to be covetous even to dishonesty2 whence ,neander directly infers that the fourth ,evangelist1 when he derived the remark of ,judas at the meal in ,bethany from his covetousness1 put a false construction upon it1 in consequence of the idea which ultimately prevailed respecting ,judas1 and especially added the accusation1 that ,judas robbed the common fund1 out of his own imagination4 #agec ,but in opposition to this it is to be asked1 whether in ,neander's point of view it be admissible to impute to the apostle ,john1 who is here understood to be the author of the fourth gospel1 so groundless a calumny--for such it would be according to ,neander's supposition2 and1 in our point of view1 it would at least be more natural to conclude1 that ,jesus indeed knew ,judas to be fond of money1 but did not until the last believe him to be dishonest1 and hence did not consider him unfit for the post in question4 ,neander observes in conclusion3 if ,judas could be induced by money to betray ,jesus1 he must have long lost all true faith in him4 ,this indeed follows of necessity1 and must be supposed in every view of the subject2 but this extinction of faith could of itself only lead him to go back1 7,john vi4 #ff72 in order to prompt him to meditate treachery there must be a further1 special incitement1 which1 intrinsically1 might just as well be covetousness1 as the views which are attributed to him by ,neander and others4 ,that covetousness1 considered as such an immediate motive1 suffices to explain the deed of ,judas1 ,i will not maintain2 ,i only contend that any other motives are neither stated nor anywhere intimated in the gospels1 and that consequently every hypothesis as to their existence is built on the air4 #aged #abj4 ,,preparation ,,for ,,the ,,passover4 ,on the first day of unleavened bread1 in the evening of which the paschal lamb was to be slain1 consequently1 the day before the feast properly speaking1 which however commenced on that evening1 i4e4 the #adth of ,nisan1 ,jesus1 according to the two first ,evangelists1 in compliance with a question addressed to ,him by the disciples1 sent--,matthew leaves it undecided which and how many1 ,mark says1 two disciples1 whom ,luke designates as ,peter and ,john--to ,jerusalem 7perhaps from ,bethany71 to bespeak a place in which he might partake of the passover with them1 and to make the further arrangements 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ag ff4 parall474 ,the three narrators do not altogether agree as to the directions which ,jesus gave to these disciples4 ,according to all1 he sends them to a man of whom they had only to desire1 in the name of their master 1 a place in which to celebrate the passover1 in order at once to have their want supplied3 but first1 this locality is more particularly described by the two intermediate ,evangelists than by ,matthew1 namely as a large upper room1 which was already furnished and prepared for the reception of guests2 and secondly1 the manner in which they were to find the owner1 is described by the former otherwise than by the latter4 ,matthew makes ,jesus merely say to the disciples1 that they were to go to such a man1 3 the others1 that1 being come into the city1 they would meet a man bearing a pitcher of water1 whom they were to follow into the house which he should enter1 and there make their application to the owner4 ,in this narrative there have been found a multitude of difficulties1 which ,gabler has assembled in a special treatise4 #agee ,at the very threshold of the narrative it occasions surprise1 that ,jesus should not have thought of any preparation for the passover until the last day1 nay1 that he should even then have needed to be reminded of it by the disciples1 as the two first ,evangelists tell us3 for owing to the great influx of people at the time of the passover 7#b1gjj1jjj1 according to ,josephus71 #agef the accommodations in the city were soon disposed of1 and the majority of the strangers were obliged to encamp in tents before the city4 ,it is the more remarkable1 then1 that1 notwithstanding all this the messengers of ,jesus find the desired chamber disengaged1 and not only so1 but actually kept in reserve by the owner and prepared for a repast1 as if he had had a presentiment that it would be bespoken by ,jesus4 ,and so confidently is this reckoned on by ,jesus that he directs his disciples to ask the owner of the house1--not whether he can obtain from him a room in which to eat the passover1 but merely--where the guest-chamber appropriated to this purpose may be8 or1 if we take ,matthew's account1 he directs them to say to him that he will eat the passover at his house2 to which it must be added that1 according to ,mark and ,luke1 ,jesus even knows what kind of chamber will be assigned him1 and in what part of the house it is situated4 ,but the way in which1 according to these two ,evangelists1 the two disciples were to find their way to the right house1 is especially remarkable4 ,the words in ,matthew 7v4 #ah71 sound as if ,jesus had named the person to whom the disciples were to go1 but that the narrator either would not or could not repeat it3 whereas in the two other ,evangelists1 ,jesus indicates the house into which they were to enter1 by means of a person whom they would meet carrying a vessel of water4 ,now how could ,jesus in ,bethany1 or wherever else he might be1 foreknow this accidental circumstance1 unless1 indeed1 it had been pre-concerted that at this particular time a servant from the house should appear with a vessel of water1 and thus await the messengers of ,jesus8 ,to the rationalistic expositors everything in our narrative appeared to point to a preconcerted arrangement2 and this being presupposed1 they believed that all its difficulties would at once be solved4 ,the disciples1 dispatched so late1 could only find a room disengaged if it had been previously bespoken by ,jesus2 he could only direct them to address the owner of the house so categorically1 if he had already previously made an arrangement with him2 this would explain the precise knowledge of ,jesus as to the locality1 and1 lastly1 7the point from which this explanation sets out71 his certainty that the disciples would meet a man carrying water from that particular house4 ,this circumlocutory manner of indicating the house1 which might have been avoided by the simple mention of the owner's name1 is supposed to have been adopted by ,jesus1 that the place where he intended to keep the passover might not be known before the time to the betrayer1 who would otherwise perhaps have surprised him there1 and thus have disturbed the repast4 #ageg ,but such is not at all the impression produced by the evangelical narrative4 ,of a preconcerted arrangement1 of a previous bespeaking of the apartment1 it says nothing2 on the contrary1 the words1 they found as he had said unto them1 in ,mark and ,luke1 seem intended to convey the idea that ,jesus was able to predict everything as they afterwards actually found it2 a solicitous foresight is nowhere indicated1 but rather a miraculous foreknowledge4 ,here1 in fact1 as above in the procuring of the animal for the entrance into ,jerusalem1 we have a twofold miracle3 first1 the fact that everything stands ready to supply the wants of ,jesus1 and that no one is able to withstand the power of his name2 secondly1 the ability of ,jesus to take cognizance of distant circumstances1 and to predict the merest fortuities4 #ageh ,it must create surprise that1 forcibly as this supranaturalistic conception of the narrative before us urges itself upon the reader1 ,olshausen himself seeks to elude it1 by arguments which would nullify most of the histories of miracles1 and which we are accustomed to hear only from rationalists4 ,to the impartial expositor1 he says1 #agei the narrative does not present the slightest warrant for a miraculous interpretation 7we almost fancy ourselves transported into the commentary of ,paulus72 if the narrators intended to recount a miracle1 they must have expressly observed that no previous arrangement had been made 7precisely the rationalistic demand--if a cure were meant to be recognised as a miracle1 the application of natural means must have been expressly denied72 moreover the object of such a miracle is not to be discerned1 a strengthening of the faith of the disciples was not then necessary1 nor was it to be effected by this unimportant miracle1 after the more exalted ones which had preceded it3--grounds on which the thoroughly similar narrative of the procuring of the ass for the entrance1 which ,olshausen upholds as a miracle1 would be equally excluded from the sphere of the supernatural4 ,the present narrative1 indeed1 is so strikingly allied to the earlier one just mentioned1 that in relation to their historical reality1 the same judgment must be passed on both4 ,in the one as in the other1 ,jesus has a want1 the speedy supply of which is so cared for by ,god1 that ,jesus foreknows to the minutest particular the manner in which it is to be supplied2 in the one he needs a guest chamber1 as in the other an animal on which to ride2 in the one as in the other1 he sends out two disciples1 to bespeak the thing required2 in the one he gives them as a sign by which to find the right house--a man carrying water whom they are to meet1 as in the other they have a sign in the circumstance of the ass being tied where two roads meet2 in the one as in the other1 he directs his disciples simply to mention him to the owner1 in the one case as the master1 1 in the other1 as the lord1 1 in order to ensure unhesitating compliance with his demand2 in both instances the result closely corresponds to his prediction4 ,in the narrative more immediately under our consideration1 as in the earlier one1 there is wanting an adequate object1 for the sake of which so manifold a miracle should have been ordained2 while the motive which might occasion the development of the miraculous narrative in the primitive ,christian legend is obvious4 ,an ,old ,testament narrative1 to which we have already had occasion to refer in connexion with the earlier miracle1 is still more strikingly recalled by the one before us4 ,after disclosing to ,saul that he was destined to be ,king of ,israel1 ,samuel1 as a sign of the truth of this more remote announcement1 foretells whom ,saul will meet on his return homewards3 namely1 first two men with the information that his father's asses are found2 then three others1 who will be carrying animals for sacrifice1 bread and wine1 and will offer him some of the bread1 etc4 7#a ,sam4 x4 #a ff473 whence we see by what kind of predictions the ,hebrew legend made its prophets attest their inspiration4 ,as regards the relation of the gospels to each other1 the narrative of ,matthew is commonly placed far below that of the two other synoptists1 and regarded as the later and more traditional4 #agfj ,the circumstance of the man carrying water1 especially1 is held to have belonged to the original fact1 but to have been lost in tradition before the narrative reached ,matthew1 who inserted in its place the enigmatical 1 go to such a man4 ,but we have seen1 on the contrary1 that the presents no difficulty2 while the circumstance of the water-bearer is in the highest degree enigmatical4 #agfa ,still less is the omission of ,matthew to designate the two commissioned disciples as ,peter and ,john1 an indication that the narrative of the third gospel is the more original one4 ,for when ,schleiermacher says that this trait might easily be lost in the course of transmission through several hands1 but that it could scarcely have been added by a later hand1--the latter half of his proposition1 at least1 is without foundation4 ,there is little probability that ,jesus should have assigned so purely economical an office to the two most eminent disciples2 whereas it is easy to conceive that in the first instance it was simply narrated1 as by ,matthew1 that ,jesus sent the disciples or some disciples1 that hereupon the number was fixed at two1 perhaps from the narrative of the procuring of the ass1 and that at length1 as the appointment had relation to a task which was ultimately of high importance1--the preparing of the last meal of ,jesus1--these places were filled by the two chief apostles1 so that in this instance even ,mark appears to have kept nearer to the original fact1 since he has not adopted into his narrative the names of the two disciples1 which are presented by ,luke4 #aba4 ,,divergent ,,statements ,,respecting ,,the ,,time ,,of ,,the ,,last ,,supper4 ,not only does the fourth ,evangelist omit all mention of the above arrangements for the paschal meal2 he also widely diverges from the synoptists in relation to the meal itself4 ,independently of the difference which runs throughout the description of the scene1 and which can only be hereafter considered1 he appears1 in regard to the time of the meal1 to represent it as occurring before the passover1 as decidedly as it is represented by the synoptists to be the paschal meal itself4 ,when we read in the latter1 that the day on which the disciples were directed by ,jesus to prepare for the meal1 was already the first day of unleavened bread1 1 when the passover must be killed1 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ag parall473 we cannot suppose the meal in question to have been any other than the paschal2 further1 when the disciples ask ,jesus1 ,where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover8 2 when it is hereupon said of the disciples1 that they made ready the passover1 7,matt4 v4 #ai parall471 and of ,jesus1 that when evening was come1 he sat down with the twelve1 7v4 #bj73 the meal to which they here sat down appears to be marked out even to the superfluity as the paschal1 even if ,luke 7xxii4 #ae7 did not make ,jesus open the repast with the words3 ,with desire ,i have desired to eat this passover with you1 ' 4--,when1 on the other hand1 the fourth gospel commences its narrative of the last meal with the statement of time3 before the feast of the passover1 1 7xiii4 #a72 the supper1 1 which is mentioned immediately after 7v4 #b71 appears also to happen before the passover2 especially as throughout ,john's description of this evening1 which1 especially in relation to the discourses accompanying the meal1 is very ample1 there is not any notice or even allusion1 to indicate that ,jesus was on this occasion celebrating the passover4 ,further1 when ,jesus after the meal addresses the traitor with the summons1 what thou doest1 do quickly1 this is misunderstood by the rest of the disciples to mean1 ,buy those things that we have need of against the feast1 7v4 #bi74 ,now the requirements for the feast related chiefly to the paschal meal1 and consequently the meal just concluded cannot have been the paschal4 ,again1 it is said1 xviii4 #bh1 that on the following morning1 the ,jews would not enter the ,gentile prtorium1 lest they should be defiled2 but that they might eat the passover1 1 ' 1 3 whence it would seem that the paschal meal was yet in prospect4 ,to this it may be added that this same succeeding day1 on which ,jesus was crucified1 is called the preparation of the passover1 1 i4e4 the day on the evening of which the paschal lamb was to be eaten2 moreover1 when it is said of the second day after the meal in question1 being that which ,jesus passed in the grave3 that sabbath day was an high day1 7xix4 #ca72 this peculiar solemnity appears to have proceeded from the circumstance1 that on that sabbath fell the first day of the passover1 so that the paschal lamb was not eaten on the evening on which ,jesus was arrested1 but on the evening of his burial4 ,these divergencies are so important1 that many expositors1 in order to prevent the ,evangelists from falling into contradiction with each other1 have here also tried the old expedient of supposing that they do not speak of the same thing--that ,john intends to describe an altogether different repast from that of the synoptists4 ,according to this view1 the of ,john was an ordinary evening meal1 doubtless in ,bethany2 on this occasion ,jesus washed the disciples' feet1 spoke of the betrayer1 and after ,judas had left the company1 added other discourses of a consoling and admonitory tendency1 until at length1 on the morning of the #adth of ,nisan1 he summoned the disciples to depart from ,bethany and proceed to ,jerusalem1 in the words3 ,arise1 let us go hence 7xiv4 #ca74 ,here the synoptical account may be interposed1 since it represents the two disciples as being sent forward to ,jerusalem to prepare for the paschal meal1 and then records its celebration1 concerning which ,john is silent1 and only takes up the thread of the narrative at the discourses delivered after the paschal meal 7xv4 #a ff474 #agfb ,but this attempt to avoid contradiction by referring the respective narratives to totally different events1 is counteracted by the undeniable identity of many features in the two meals4 ,independently of isolated particulars which are found alike in both accounts1 it is plain that ,john1 as well as the synoptists1 intends to describe the last meal of which ,jesus partook with his disciples4 ,this is implied in the introduction to ,john's narrative2 for the proof which is there said to be given of ,jesus having loved his own unto the end1 1 may be the most suitably referred to his last moments of companionship with them4 ,in like manner1 the discourses after the meal point to the prospect of immediate separation2 and the meal and discourses are1 in ,john also1 immediately followed by the departure to ,gethsemane and the arrest of ,jesus4 ,it is true that1 according to the above opinion1 these last-named incidents are connected only with those discourses which were delivered on the occasion of the later meal1 omitted by ,john 7xv4 #ag73 but that between xiv4 #ca and xv4 #a the author of the fourth gospel intentionally omitted the whole incident of the paschal meal1 is a position which1 although it might appear to explain with some plausibility the singular 1 1 ,arise1 let us go hence1 no one will now seriously maintain4 ,but even admitting such an ellipsis1 there still remains the fact that ,jesus 7xiii4 #ch7 foretells to ,peter his denial with this determination of time3 1 the cock shall not crow1 which he could only make use of at the last meal1 and not1 as is here presupposed1 at an earlier one4 #agfc ,thus this expedient must be relinquished1 and it must be admitted that all the ,evangelists intend to speak of the same meal1 namely1 the last of which ,jesus partook with his disciples4 ,and in making this admission1 the fairness which we owe to every author1 and which was believed to be due in a peculiar degree to the authors of the ,bible1 appeared to demand an enquiry whether1 although they represent one and the same event with great divergencies in several respects1 yet nevertheless both sides may not be correct4 ,to obtain an affirmative result of this inquiry it must be shown1 as regards the time1 either that the three first ,evangelists1 as well as the fourth1 do not intend to describe a paschal meal1 or that the latter1 as well as the former1 does so intend4 ,in an ancient ,fragment #agfd it is sought to solve the problem in the first method1 by denying that ,matthew places the last meal of ,jesus at the proper time for the paschal meal1 the evening of the #adth of ,nisan1 and his passion on the first day of the feast of the passover1 the #aeth of ,nisan2 but one does not see how the express indications respecting the passover in the synoptists can be neutralized4 ,hence it has been a far more general attempt in recent times1 to draw ,john to the side of the other ,evangelists4 #agfe ,his expression before the feast of the passover1 7xiii4 #a71 was thought to be divested of its difficulty by the observation that it is not immediately connected with the supper 1 but only with the statement that ,jesus knew that his hour was come1 and that he loved his own unto the end2 it is only in the succeeding verse that there is any mention of the meal1 to which therefore that determination of time does not refer4 ,but to what then can it refer8 to the knowledge that his hour was come8 this is only an incidental remark2 or to the love which endured to the end8 but to this so special a determination of time can only refer1 if an external proof of love be intended1 and such an one is presented in his conduct at the meal1 which consequently remains the point to which that determination of the day must apply4 ,it is therefore conjectured further that the words were used out of accommodation to the ,greeks for whom ,john wrote3 since that people did not1 like the ,jews1 begin their day with the evening1 the meal taken at the beginning of the first day of the passover1 would appear to them to be taken on the evening before the passover4 ,but what judicious writer1 if he supposes a misconstruction possible on the part of the reader1 chooses language which can only serve to encourage that misconstruction8 ,a still more formidable difficulty is presented by xviii4 #bh1 where the ,jews1 on the morning after the imprisonment of ,jesus1 will not enter the judgment hall lest they should be defiled1 but that they may eat the passover1 ' 4 ,nevertheless it was supposed that passages such as ,deut4 xvi4 #a1 #b1 where all the sacrifices to be killed during the time of the passover are denoted by the expression 1 authorise the interpretation of in this place of the remaining sacrifices to be offered during the paschal week1 and especially of the ,chagiga1 which was to be consumed towards the end of the first feast day4 ,but as ,mosheim has correctly remarked1 from the fact that the paschal lamb1 together with the rest of the sacrifices to be offered during the feast of the passover was designated 1 it by no means follows that these can be so designated with the exclusion of the paschal lamb4 #agff ,on the other hand1 the friends of the above view have sought to show the necessity of their mode of interpretation1 by observing that for the eating of the passover which was celebrated late in the evening1 consequently at the commencement of the succeeding day1 the entering of a ,gentile house in the morning1 being a defilement which lasted only through the current day1 would have been no disqualification2 but that it would have been such for the partaking of the ,chagiga1 which was eaten in the afternoon1 consequently on the same day on which the defilement was contracted2 so that only this1 and not the passover1 can have been intended4 ,but first1 we do not know whether entrance into a ,gentile house was a defilement for the day merely2 secondly1 if such were the case1 the ,jews1 by a defilement contracted in the morning1 would still have disqualified themselves from participating in the preparatory proceedings1 which fell on the afternoon of the #adth of ,nisan2 as1 for example1 the slaying of the lamb in the outer court of the temple4 ,lastly1 in order to interpret the passage xix4 #ad in consistency with their own view1 the harmonists understand the preparation of the passover1 1 to mean the day of preparation for the sabbath in the ,easter week2 a violence of interpretation which at least finds no countenance in xix4 #ca1 where the is said to be the preparation for the sabbath1 since from this passage it only appears1 that the ,evangelist conceived the first day of the passover as occurring that year on the sabbath4 #agfg ,these difficulties1 which resist the reference of the narrative in ,john to a real paschal meal1 appeared to be obviated by a presupposition derived from ,lev4 xxiii4 #e2 ,num4 ix4 #c2 and a passage in ,josephus2 #agfh namely1 that the paschal lamb was eaten1 not on the evening from the #adth to the #aeth1 but on that from the #acth to the #adth of ,nisan1 so that between the paschal meal and the first feast day1 the #aeth of ,nisan1 there fell a working day1 the #adth4 ,on this supposition1 it would be correct that the day following the last paschal meal taken by ,jesus1 should be called1 as in ,john xix4 #ad1 the preparation of the passover1 1 because it was actually a day of preparation for the feast day2 it would also be correct that the following sabbath should be called 7xix4 #ca71 since it would coincide with the first day of the feast4 #agfi ,but the greatest difficulty1 which lies in ,john xviii4 #bh1 remains unsolved2 for on this plan the words1 that they might eat the passover1 1 must1 since the paschal meal would be already past1 be understood of the unleavened bread1 which was eaten also during the succeeding feast days3 an interpretation which is contrary to all the usages of language4 ,if to this it be added1 that the supposition of a working day falling between the passover and the first feast day1 has no foundation in the ,pentateuch and ,josephus1 that it is decidedly opposed to later custom1 and is in itself extremely improbable2 this expedient cannot but be relinquished4 #aggj ,perceiving the impossibility of effecting the reconciliation of the synoptists with ,john by this simple method1 other expositors have resorted to a more artificial expedient4 ,the appearance of the ,evangelists having placed the last meal of ,jesus on different days1 is alleged to have its truth in the fact1 that either the ,jews or ,jesus celebrated the passover on another than the usual day4 ,the ,jews1 say some1 in order to avoid the inconvenience arising from the circumstance1 that in that year the first day of the passover fell on a ,friday1 so that two consecutive days must have been solemnized as a sabbath1 deferred the paschal meal until the ,friday evening1 whence on the day of the crucifixion they had still to beware of defilement2 ,jesus1 however1 adhering strictly to the law1 celebrated it at the prescribed time1 on the ,thursday evening3 so that the synoptists are right when they describe the last meal of ,jesus as an actual celebration of the passover2 and ,john also is right when he represents the ,jews as1 the day after1 still looking forward to the eating of the paschal lamb4 #agga ,in this case1 ,mark would be wrong in his statement1 that on the day when they killed the passover1 7v4 #ab71 ,jesus also caused it to be prepared2 but the main point is1 that though in certain cases the passover was celebrated in a later month1 it was still on the #aeth day2 there is nowhere any trace of a transference to a later day of the same month4--,it has therefore been a more favourite supposition that ,jesus anticipated the usual time of eating the passover4 ,from purely personal motives1 some have thought1 foreseeing that at the proper time of the paschal supper he should be already lying in the grave1 or at least not sure of life until that period1 he1 like those ,jews who were prevented from journeying to the feast1 and like all the ,jews of the present day1 without a sacrificed lamb1 and with mere substitutes for it1 celebrated a commemorative passover1 4 #aggb ,but in the first place1 ,jesus would not then1 as ,luke says1 have kept the passover on the day on which the passover must be killed1 2 and secondly1 in the merely commemorative celebration of the passover1 though the prescribed locality 7,jerusalem7 is dispensed with1 the regular time 7the evening from the #adth to the #aeth ,nisan7 is inviolably observed3 whereas in the case of ,jesus the reverse would hold1 and he would have celebrated the passover at the usual place1 but at an unusual time1 which is without example4 ,to shield the alleged transposition of the passover by ,jesus from the charge of being unprecedented and arbitrary1 it has been maintained that an entire party of his cotemporaries joined in celebrating the passover earlier than the great body of the nation4 ,it is known that the ,jewish sect of the ,caraites or ,scripturalists differed from the ,rabbinites or ,traditionalists especially in the determination of the new moon1 maintaining that the practice of the latter in fixing the new moon according to astronomical calculation was an innovation1 whereas they1 true to the ancient1 legal practice1 determined it according to an empirical observation of the phase of the new luminary4 ,now in the time of ,jesus1 we are told1 the ,sadducees1 from whom the ,caraites are said to have sprung1 determined the time of the new moon1 and with it that of the festival of the passover1 which was dependent upon it1 differently from the ,pharisees2 and ,jesus1 as the opponent of tradition and the friend of scripture1 favoured their practice in this matter4 #aggc ,but not to insist that the connexion of the ,caraites with the ancient ,sadducees is a mere conjecture2 it was a well-founded objection put forth by the ,caraites1 that the determination of the new moon by calculation did not arise until after the destruction of the temple by the ,romans2 so that at the time of ,jesus such a difference cannot have existed2 nor is there besides any indication to be discovered that at that time the passover was celebrated on different days by different parties4 #aggd ,supposing1 however1 that the above difference as to the determining of the new moon already prevailed in the time of ,jesus1 the settling of it according to the phase1 which ,jesus is supposed to have followed1 would rather have resulted in a later than an earlier celebration of the passover2 whence some have actually conjectured that more probably ,jesus followed the astronomical calculation4 #agge ,besides what may thus be separately urged against every attempt at an amicable adjustment of the differences between the ,evangelists1 as to the time of the last supper2 there is one circumstance which is decisive against all1 and which only the most recent criticism has adequately exposed4 ,with respect1 namely1 to this contradiction1 the case is not so that among passages for the most part harmonious1 there appear only one or two statements of an apparently inconsistent sense1 of which it might be said that the author had here used an inaccurate expression1 to be explained from the remaining passages3 but1 that all the chronological statements of the synoptists tend to show that ,jesus must have celebrated the passover1 all those of ,john1 on the contrary1 that he cannot have celebrated it4 #aggf ,thus there stand opposed to each other two differing series of evangelical passages1 which are manifestly based on two different views of the fact on the part of the narrators3 hence1 as ,sieffert remarks1 to persist in disputing the existence of a divergency between the ,evangelists1 can no longer be regarded as scientific exposition1 but only as unscientific arbitrariness and obstinacy4 ,modern criticism is therefore constrained to admit1 that on one side or the other there is an error2 and1 setting aside the current prejudices in favour of the fourth gospel1 it was really an important reason which appeared to necessitate the imputation of this error to the synoptists4 ,the ancient ,fragment attributed to ,apollinaris1 mentioned above1 objects to the opinion that ,jesus suffered on the great day of unleavened bread1 1 that this would have been contrary to the law 2 and in recent times also it has been observed1 that the day following the last meal of ,jesus is treated on all sides so entirely as a working day1 that it cannot be supposed the first day of the passover1 nor1 consequently1 the meal of the previous evening1 the paschal meal4 ,jesus does not solemnize the day1 for he goes out of the city1 an act which was forbidden on the night of the passover2 nor do his friends1 for they begin the preparations for his burial1 and only leave them unfinished on account of the arrival of the next day1 the sabbath2 still less do the members of the ,sanhedrim keep it sacred1 for they not only send their servants out of the city to arrest ,jesus1 but also personally undertake judicial proceedings1 a trial1 sentence1 and accusation before the ,procurator2 in general1 there appears1 throughout1 only the fear of desecrating the following day1 which commenced on the evening of the crucifixion1 and nowhere any solicitude about the current one3 clear signs that the synoptical representation of the meal as a paschal one1 is a later error1 since in the remaining narrative of the synoptists themselves1 there is evidence1 not easy to be mistaken1 of the real fact1 that ,jesus was crucified before the passover4 #aggg ,these observations are certainly of weight4 ,it is true that the first1 relative to the conduct of ,jesus1 might perhaps be invalidated by the contradiction existing between the ,jewish decisions as to the law cited2 #aggh while the last and strongest may be opposed by the fact1 that trying and giving sentence on the sabbaths and feast days was not only permitted among the ,jews1 but there was even a larger place for the administration of justice on such days1 on account of the greater concourse of people2 so1 also1 according to the ,new ,testament itself1 the ,jews sent out officers to seize ,jesus on the great day of the ,feast of ,tabernacles 7,john vii4 #dd f471 and at the ,feast of ,dedication they were about to stone him 7,john x4 #ca71 while ,herod caused ,peter to be imprisoned during the days of unleavened bread2 though indeed he intended to defer the public sentencing and execution until after the passover 7,acts xii4 #b f474 ,in proof that the crucifixion of ,jesus might take place on the feast of the passover1 it is urged that the execution was performed by ,roman soldiers2 and that moreover1 even according to ,jewish custom1 it was usual to reserve the execution of important criminals for a feast time1 in order to make an impression on a greater multitude4 #aggi ,but only thus much is to be proved3 that during the feast time1 and thus during the passover1 on the five intermediate and less solemn days1 criminals were tried and executed1--not that this was admissible also on the first and last days of the passover1 which ranked as sabbaths2 #aghj and thus we read in the ,talmud that ,jesus was crucified on the 1 i4e4 the evening before the passover4 #agha ,it would be another thing if1 as ,dr4 ,baur strives to prove1 the execution of criminals1 as a sanguinary expiation for the people1 belonged to the essential significance of the passover1 as a feast of expiation1 and hence the custom1 noticed by the ,evangelists1 of liberating a prisoner at the feast had been only the reverse side to the execution of another1 presenting the same relation as that between the two goats and the two sparrows in the ,jewish offerings of atonement and purification4 #aghb ,it is certainly very possible that the primitive ,christian tradition might be led even unhistorically to associate the last supper of ,jesus with the paschal lamb1 and the day of his death with the feast of the passover4 ,as the ,christian supper represented in its form1 the passover1 and in its import1 the death of ,jesus3 it was natural enough to unite these two points--to place the execution of ,jesus on the first day of the passover1 and to regard his last meal1 at which he was held to have founded the ,christian supper1 as the paschal meal4 ,it is true that presupposing the author of the first gospel to have been an apostle and a participator in the last meal of ,jesus1 it is difficult to explain how he could fall into such a mistake4 ,at least it is not enough to say1 with ,theile1 that the more the last meal partaken with their master transcended all paschal meals in interest to the disciples1 the less would they concern themselves as to the time of it1 whether it occurred on the evening of the passover1 or a day earlier4 #aghc ,for the first ,evangelist does not leave this undetermined1 but speaks expressly of a paschal meal1 and to this degree a real participator1 however long he might write after that evening1 could not possibly deceive himself4 ,thus on the above view1 the supposition that the first ,evangelist was an eye-witness must be renounced1 and he must be held1 in common with the two intermediate ones1 to have drawn his materials from tradition4 #aghd ,the difficulty arising from the fact1 that all the synoptists1 and consequently all those writers who have preserved to us the common evangelical tradition1 agree in such an error1 #aghe may perhaps be removed by the observation1 that just as generally as in the ,judo-,christian communities1 in which the evangelical tradition was originally formed1 the ,jewish passover was still celebrated1 so generally must the effort present itself to give that feast a ,christian import1 by referring it to the death and the last meal of ,jesus4 ,but it is equally easy1 presupposing the correctness of the synoptical determination of time1 to conceive how ,john might be led erroneously to place the death of ,jesus on the afternoon of the #adth of ,nisan1 and his last meal on the previous evening4 ,if1 namely1 this ,evangelist found in the circumstance that the legs of the crucified ,christ were not broken1 a fulfilment of the words ,not a bone of him shall be broken1 7,exod4 xii4 #df73 this supposed relation between the death of ,jesus and the paschal lamb might suggest to him the idea1 that at the same time in which the paschal lambs were killed1 on the afternoon of the #adth of ,nisan1 ,jesus suffered on the cross and gave up the ghost2 #aghf in which case the meal taken the evening before was not the paschal meal4 #aghg ,thus we can conceive a possible cause of error on both sides1 and since the internal difficulty of the synoptical determination of time1 namely1 the manifold violations of the first day of the passover1 is in some degree removed by the observations above cited1 and is counterpoised by the agreement of three ,evangelists3 our only course is to acknowledge an irreconcilable contradiction between the respective accounts1 without venturing a decision as to which is the correct one4 #abb4 ,,divergencies ,,in ,,relation ,,to ,,the ,,occurrences ,,at ,,the ,,last ,,meal ,,of ,,jesus4 ,not only in relation to the time of the last meal of ,jesus1 but also in relation to what passed on that occasion1 there is a divergency between the ,evangelists4 ,the chief difference lies between the synoptists and the fourth gospel3 but1 on a stricter comparison1 it is found that only ,matthew and ,mark closely agree1 and that ,luke diverges from them considerably1 though on the whole he is more accordant with his predecessors than with his successor4 ,besides the meal itself1 the following features are common to all the accounts3 that1 during the meal1 the coming betrayal by ,judas is spoken of2 and that1 during or after the meal1 ,jesus predicts to ,peter his denial4 ,as minor differences we may notice1 that in ,john1 the mode of indicating the traitor is another and more precise than that described by the other ,evangelists1 and has a result of which the latter are ignorant2 and that1 further1 in the fourth gospel the meal is followed by prolonged farewell discourses1 which are not found in the synoptists3 but the principal difference is1 that while according to the synoptists ,jesus instituted the ,lord's supper at this final meal1 in ,john he instead of this washes the disciples' feet4 ,the three synoptists have in common the instituting of the ,lord's supper1 together with the announcement of the betrayal1 and the denial2 but there exists a divergency between the two first and the third as to the order of these occurrences1 for in the former the announcement of the betrayal stands first1 in the latter1 the instituting of the ,supper2 while the announcement of ,peter's denial1 in ,luke1 apparently takes place in the room in which the repast had been held1 in the two other ,evangelists1 on the way to the ,mount of ,olives4 ,again1 ,luke introduces some passages which the two first ,evangelists either do not give at all1 or not in this connexion3 the contention for pre-eminence and the promise of the twelve thrones1 have in their narratives a totally different position2 while what passes in ,luke on the subject of the swords is in them entirely wanting4 ,in his divergency from the two first ,evangelists1 ,luke makes some approximation to the fourth4 ,as ,john1 in the washing of the disciples' feet1 presents a symbolical act having reference to ambitious contention for pre-eminence1 accompanied by discourses on humility3 so ,luke actually mentions a contention for pre-eminence1 and appends to it discourses not entirely without affinity with those in ,john2 further1 it is in common with ,john that ,luke makes the observations concerning the betrayer occur at the opening of the repast1 and after a symbolical act2 and lastly1 that he represents the announcement of ,peter's denial as having been delivered in the room where the repast had been held4 ,the greatest difficulty here naturally arises from the divergency1 that the institution of the ,lord's supper1 unanimously recorded by the synoptists1 is wanting in ,john1 who in its stead relates a totally different act of ,jesus1 namely1 the washing of the disciples' feet4 ,certainly1 by those who1 in similar cases1 throughout the whole previous course of the evangelical narrative1 have found a sufficient resource in the supposition1 that it was the object of ,john to supply the omissions of the earlier gospels1 the present difficulty is surmounted as well1 or as ill1 as any other4 ,john1 it is said1 saw that the institution of the ,supper was already narrated in the three first ,evangelists in a way which fully agreed with his own recollection2 hence he held a repetition of it superfluous4 #aghh ,but if1 among the histories already recorded in the three first gospels1 the fourth ,evangelist really intended to reproduce only those in the representation of which he found something to rectify or supply3 why does he give another edition of the history of the miraculous feeding1 in which he makes no emendation of any consequence1 and at the same time omit the institution of the ,lord's supper8 ,for here the divergencies between the synoptists in the arrangement of the scene1 and the turn given to the words of ,jesus1 and more especially the circumstance that they1 according to his representation1 erroneously1 make that institution occur on the evening of the passover1 must have appeared to him a reason for furnishing an authentic account4 ,in consideration of this difficulty1 the position that the author of the fourth gospel was acquainted with the synoptical writings1 and designed to complete and rectify them1 is now1 indeed1 abandoned2 but it is still maintained that he was acquainted with the common oral tradition1 and supposed it known to his readers also1 and on this ground1 it is alleged he passed over the institution of the ,supper as a history generally known4 #aghi ,but that it should be the object of an evangelical writing to narrate only the less known1 omitting the known1 is an idea which cannot be consistently entertained4 ,written records imply a mistrust of oral tradition2 they are intended not merely as a supplement to this1 but also as a means of fixing and preserving it1 and hence the capital facts1 being the most spoken of1 and therefore the most exposed to misrepresentation1 are precisely those which written records can the least properly omit4 ,such a fact is the founding of the ,lord's supper1 and we find1 from a comparison of the different ,new ,testament accounts1 that the expressions with which ,jesus instituted it must have early received additions or mutilations2 consequently1 it is the last particular which ,john should have omitted4 ,but1 it is further said1 the narrating of the institution of the ,lord's supper was of no importance to the object of the fourth gospel4 #agij ,how so8 ,with regard to its general object1 the convincing of its readers that ,jesus is the ,christ the ,son of ,god 7xx4 #ca71 was it of no importance to communicate a scene in which he appears as the founder of a new covenant1 8 and in relation to the special object of the passage in question1 namely1 the exhibiting of the love of ,jesus as a love which endured unto the end 7xiii4 #a71 would it have contributed nothing to mention how he offered his body and blood as meat and drink to his followers1 and thus realized his words in ,john vi48 ,but1 it is said1 ,john here as elsewhere1 only concerns himself with the more profound discourses of ,jesus1 for which reason he passes over the institution of the ,supper1 and begins his narrative with the discourse connected with the washing of the disciples' feet4 #agia ,nothing1 however1 but the most obdurate prejudice in favour of the fourth gospel1 can make this discourse on humility appear more profound than what ,jesus says of the partaking of his body and blood1 when instituting the ,lord's supper4 ,but the main point is that harmonists should show us in what part of ,john's narrative1 if we are to believe that he presupposed ,jesus to have instituted the ,supper at this last meal1 he can have made the alleged omission--that they should indicate the break at which that incident may be suitably introduced4 ,on looking into the different commentaries1 there appears to be more than one place excellently adapted to such an insertion4 ,according to ,olshausen1 the end of the #acth chapter1 after the announcement of ,peter's denial1 presents the interval in which the institution of the ,supper must be supposed to occur2 herewith the repast closed1 and the succeeding discourses from xiv4 #a were uttered by ,jesus after the general rising from table1 and while standing in the chamber4 #agib ,but1 here1 it appears as if ,olshausen1 for the sake of obtaining a resting place between xiii4 #ch and xiv4 #a1 had resigned himself to the delusion of supposing that the words ,arise1 let us go hence1 at which he makes ,jesus rise from table and deliver the rest of his discourse standing1 are found at the end of the #acth chapter1 whereas they do not occur until the end of the #adth4 ,jesus had been speaking of going whither his disciples could not follow him1 and had just rebuked the rashness of ,peter1 in volunteering to lay down life for his sake1 by the prediction of his denial3 here1 at xiv4 #a ff41 he calms the minds of the disciples1 whom this prediction had disturbed1 exhorting them to faith1 and directing their attention to the blessed effects of his departure4--,repelled by the firm coherence of this part of the discourse1 other commentators1 e4g4 ,paulus1 retreat to xiii4 #cj1 and are of opinion that the institution of the ,supper may be the most fitly introduced after the withdrawal of ,judas1 for the purpose of putting his treachery into execution1 since this circumstance might naturally excite in ,jesus those thoughts concerning his death which lie at the basis of the institution4 #agic ,but even rejecting the opinion of ,lcke and others1 that 1 when he went out1 should be united to 1 ,jesus said1 it is unquestionable that the words of ,jesus v4 #ca1 ,now is the ,son of man glorified1 etc41 and what he says farther on 7v4 #cc7 of his speedy departure1 have an immediate reference to the retiring of ,judas4 ,for the verb in the fourth gospel always signifies the glorification of ,jesus1 to which he is to be led by suffering2 and with the departure of the apostate disciple to those who brought suffering and death on ,jesus1 his glorification and his speedy death were decided4--,the verses #ca-cc being thus inseparably connected with v4 #cj2 the next step is to carry the institution of the ,supper somewhat lower1 and place it where this connexion may appear to cease3 accordingly1 ,lcke makes it fall between v4 #cc and #cd1 supposing that after ,jesus 7v4 #ca-cc7 had composed the minds of the disciples1 disturbed and shocked by the departure of the traitor1 and had prepared them for the sacred meal1 he1 at v4 #cd f41 annexes to the distribution of the bread and wine the new commandment of love4 ,but1 as it has been elsewhere remarked1 #agid since at v4 #cf ,peter asks ,jesus1 in allusion to v4 #cc1 whither he will go1 it is impossible that the ,supper can have been instituted after the declaration of ,jesus v4 #cc2 for otherwise ,peter would have interpreted the expression ,i go1 1 by the body given and the blood shed 1 or in any case would rather have felt prompted to ask the meaning of these latter expressions4--,acknowledging this1 ,neander retreats a verse1 and inserts the ,supper between v4 #cb and #cc2 #agie but he thus violently severs the obvious connexion between the words shall straightway glorify him in the former verse1 and the words ' yet a little while ,i am with you in the latter4--,it is1 therefore1 necessary to retreat still farther than ,neander1 or even ,paulus3 but as from v4 #cj up to v4 #ah1 the discourse turns uninterruptedly on the traitor1 and this discourse again is inseparably linked to the washing of the disciples' feet and the explanation of that act1 there is no place at which the institution of the ,supper can be inserted until the beginning of the chapter4 ,here1 however1 according to one of the most recent critics1 it may be inserted in a way which perfectly exonerates the author of the gospel from the reproach of misleading his reader by an account which is apparently continuous1 while it nevertheless passes over the ,supper4 ,for1 says this critic1 from the very commencement ,john does not profess to narrate anything of the meal itself1 or what was concomitant with it1 but only what occurred after the meal2 inasmuch as the most natural interpretation of is3 after the meal was ended1 while the words 1 he riseth from supper1 plainly show that the washing of the disciples' feet was not commenced until after the meal4 #agif ,but after the washing of the feet is concluded1 it is said of ,jesus1 that he sat down again 7 v4 #ab71 consequently the meal was not yet ended when he commenced that act1 and by the words he riseth from supper1 it is meant that he rose to wash the disciples' feet from the yet unfinished meal1 or at least after the places had been taken preparatory to the meal4 ,again1 does not mean3 after a meal was ended1 any more than the words 4 7,matt4 xxvi4 #f7 mean3 after ,jesus had been in ,bethany3 as the latter expression is intended by ,matthew to denote the time during the residence of ,jesus in ,bethany1 so the former is intended by ,john to denote the course of the meal itself4 #agig ,hence he thereby professes to inform us of every remarkable occurrence connected with that meal1 and in omitting to mention the institution of the ,lord's supper1 which was one of its features1 he incurs the reproach of having given a deficient narrative1 nay of having left out precisely what is most important4--,instead of this highest extremity of ,john's account1 ,kern has recently taken the lowest1 and has placed the institution of the ,supper after the words1 ,arise1 let us go hence1 xiv4 #ca2 #agih whereby he assigns to it the improbable and indeed unworthy position1 of an act only occurring to ,jesus when he is preparing to depart4 ,thus1 viewing the subject generally1 there is no conceivable motive why ,john1 if he spoke of this last evening at all1 should have omitted the institution of the ,lord's supper2 while1 on descending to a particular consideration1 there is in the course of his narrative no point where it could be inserted3 hence nothing remains but to conclude that he does not mention it because it was unknown to him4 ,but as a means of resisting this conclusion1 theologians1 even such as acknowledge themselves unable to explain the omission of the institution1 rely on the observation1 that a rite so universally prevalent in the primitive church as was the ,lord's supper1 cannot possibly have been unknown to the fourth ,evangelist1 whoever he may have been4 #agii ,certainly1 he knew of the ,lord's supper as a ,christian rite1 for this may be inferred from his #fth chapter1 and unavoidably he must have known of it2 it may1 however1 have been unknown to him under what circumstances ,jesus formally instituted this observance4 ,the referring of so revered an usage to the authority of ,jesus himself was an object of interest to this ,evangelist2 but from unacquaintance with the synoptical scene1 and also from a partiality for the mysterious1 which led him to put into the mouth of ,jesus expressions unintelligible at the moment1 and only to be explained by the issue1 he effected this purpose1 not by making ,jesus actually institute the rite1 but by attributing to him obscure expressions about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood1 which1 being rendered intelligible only by the rite of the ,lord's supper introduced into the church after his death1 might be regarded as an indirect institution of that rite4 ,as ,john omits the institution of the ,lord's supper1 so the synoptists omit the washing of the disciples' feet3 but it cannot be maintained with equal decision that they were therefore ignorant of this incident2 partly on account of its inferior importance and the more fragmentary character of this part of the synoptical narrative2 and partly because1 as has been above remarked1 the contention for pre-eminence in ,luke v4 #bd ff4 has appeared to many expositors to be connected with the washing of the disciples' feet1 as the inducement to that action on the part of ,jesus4 #ahjj ,but as regards this contention for pre-eminence1 we have shown above1 that being unsuited to the tenor of the scene before us1 it may owe its position only to a fortuitous association of ideas in the narrator3 #ahja while the washing of the disciples' feet1 in ,john1 might appear to be a legendary development of a synoptical discourse on humility4 ,in ,matthew 7xx4 #bf ff47 ,jesus admonishes his disciples that he among them who would be great must be the minister of the others1 just as he himself came not to be ministered unto but to minister 1 2 and in ,luke 7xxii4 #bg7 he expresses the same thought in the question3 ,whether is greater1 he that sitteth at meat or he that that serveth8 2 1 2 and adds1 but ,i am among you as he that serveth1 4 ,now it is certainly probable that ,jesus might see fit to impress this lesson on the disciples through the medium of their senses1 by an actual serving among them1 while they played the part of those sitting at meat 772 but it is equally probable1 since the synoptists are silent respecting such a measure1 that either the legend1 before it reached the fourth ,evangelist1 or this writer himself1 spun the fact out of the dictum4 #ahjb ,nor is it necessary to suppose that the above declaration came to him as having been uttered at the last meal of ,jesus1 in accordance with the representation of ,luke2 for it naturally resulted from the expressions 7to recline at meat71 and 7to serve71 that this symbolizing of the relation which they denote should be attached to a meal1 and this meal might on easily conceivable grounds appear to be the most appropriately represented as the last4 ,according to ,luke's representation1 ,jesus on this occasion addresses the disciples as those who had continued with him in his temptations1 and as a reward for this fidelity promises them that they shall sit with him at table in his kingdom1 and seated on thrones1 judge the twelve tribes of ,israel 7v4 #bh-cj74 ,this appears incongruous with a scene in which he had immediately before announced his betrayal by one of the twelve1 and in which he immediately after predicted his denial by another2 at a time1 moreover1 in which the temptations properly so called1 were yet future4 ,after what we have already observed in relation to the entire character of the scene in ,luke1 we can hardly seek the reason for the insertion of this fragment of a discourse1 in anything else than a fortuitous association of ideas1 in which the contention about rank among the disciples might suggest the rank promised to them by ,jesus1 and the discourse on sitting at table and serving1 the promise that the disciples should sit at table with ,jesus in his messianic kingdom4 #ahjc ,in the succeeding conversation ,jesus says to his disciples figuratively1 that now it will be necessary to buy themselves swords1 so hostilely will they be met on all sides1 but is understood by them literally1 and is shown two swords already in the possession of the society4 ,concerning this passage ,i am inclined to agree with ,schleiermacher1 who is of opinion that ,luke introduced it here as a prelude to ,peter's use of the sword in the ensuing narrative4 #ahjd ,the other divergencies in relation to the last meal will come under review in the course of the following investigations4 #abc4 ,,announcement ,,of ,,the ,,betrayal ,,and ,,the ,,denial4 ,in the statement that ,jesus from the beginning knew who would be his betrayer1 the fourth gospel stands alone2 but all four of the ,evangelists concur in testifying that at his last meal he predicted his betrayal by one of his disciples4 ,but in the first place there is this difference3 while according to ,matthew and ,mark the discourse respecting the betrayer opens the scene1 and in particular precedes the institution of the ,lord's supper 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ba ff42 ,mark xiv4 #ah ff472 ,luke represents ,jesus as not speaking of the betrayer until after the commencement of the meal1 and the institution of the commemorative rite 7xxii4 #ba ff472 and in ,john what relates to the betrayer goes forward during and after the washing of the disciples' feet 7xiii4 #aj-cj74 ,the intrinsically trivial question1 which ,evangelist is here right1 is extremely important to theologians1 because its decision involves the answer to another question1 namely1 whether the betrayer also partook of the ritual ,supper4 ,it neither appeared consistent with the idea of that supper as a feast of the most intimate love and union1 that a virtual alien like ,judas should participate in it1 nor did it seem to accord with the love and compassion of the ,lord1 that he should have permitted an unworthy disciple by this participation to aggravate his guilt4 #ahje ,so undesirable a view of the facts was believed to be avoided by following the arrangement of ,matthew and ,mark1 and making the designation of the betrayer precede the institution of the ,supper3 for as it was known from ,john1 that as soon as ,judas saw himself detected and exposed1 he withdrew from the company1 it would thence appear that ,jesus did not institute the ,supper until after the retirement of the traitor4 #ahjf ,but this expedient is founded on nothing but an inadmissible incorporation of the narrative of ,john with that of the synoptists4 ,for the withdrawal of ,judas is mentioned only by the fourth ,evangelist2 and he alone needs the supposition of such a circumstance1 because1 according to him1 ,judas now first entered into his transactions with the enemies of ,jesus1 and thus1 in order to come to terms with them1 and obtain the requisite force1 needed a somewhat longer time4 ,in the synoptists there is no trace of the betrayer having left the company2 on the contrary1 everything in their narrative appears to imply that ,judas1 first on the general departure from the room in which the repast had been taken1 instead of going directly to the garden1 went to the chief priests1 of whom he at once1 the agreement having been made beforehand1 received the necessary force for the arrest of ,jesus4 ,thus whether ,luke or ,matthew be right in the arrangement of the scene1 all the synoptists intimate that ,judas did not leave the company before the general departure1 and consequently that he partook of the ritual ,supper4 ,but also as to the manner in which ,jesus pointed out his betrayer1 there exists no slight divergency between the ,evangelists4 ,in ,luke ,jesus only makes the brief remark that the hand of his betrayer is with him on the table1 whereupon the disciples ask among themselves1 who it can be that is capable of such a deed8 ,in ,matthew and ,mark he says1 first1 that one of those1 who are present will betray him2 and when the disciples individually ask him1 ,lord1 is it ,i8 he replies3 he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish2 until at last1 after a woe has been denounced on the traitor1 according to ,matthew1 ,judas also puts that question1 and receives an affirmative answer4 ,in ,john1 ,jesus alludes to the betrayer during and after the washing of the disciples' feet1 in the observations1 that not all the disciples present are clean1 and that on the contrary the scripture must be fulfilled3 he that eateth bread with me1 hath lifted up his heel against me4 ,then he says plainly1 that one of them will betray him2 the disciples look inquiringly at each other1 wondering of whom he speaks1 when ,peter prompts ,john1 who is lying next to ,jesus1 to ask who is the traitor8 ,jesus replies1 he to whom he shall give a sop1 which he immediately does to ,judas1 with an admonition to hasten the execution of his project2 whereupon ,judas leaves the company4 ,here again the harmonists are at once ready to incorporate the different scenes with each other1 and render them mutually consistent4 ,according to them1 ,jesus1 on the question of each disciple whether he were the traitor1 first declared aloud that one of his companions at table would betray him 7,matthew72 hereupon ,john asked in a whisper which of them he meant1 and ,jesus also in a whisper made the answer1 he to whom he should give the sop 7,john72 then ,judas1 likewise in a whisper1 asked whether it were he1 and ,jesus in the same manner replied in the affirmative 7,matthew72 lastly1 after an admonition from ,jesus to be speedy1 the betrayer left the company 7,john74 #ahjg ,but that the question and answer interchanged between ,jesus and ,judas were spoken in a whisper1 ,matthew1 who alone communicates them1 gives no intimation1 nor is this easily conceivable without presupposing the improbable circumstance1 that ,judas reclined on the one side of ,jesus1 as ,john did on the other3 if1 however1 the colloquy were uttered aloud1 the disciples could not1 as ,john narrates1 have so strangely misunderstood the words1 what thou doest1 do quickly1--and the supposition of a stammering question on the side of ,judas1 and a low-toned answer from ,jesus1 cannot be seriously held a satisfactory explanation4 #ahjh ,nor is it probable that ,jesus1 after having already made the declaration3 he who dippeth with me in the dish will betray me1 would for the more precise indication of the traitor have also given him a sop2 it is rather to be supposed that these are but two different modes of reporting the same particular4 ,but when once this is admitted1 as it is by ,paulus and ,olshausen1 so much is already renounced either in relation to the one narrative or the other1 that it is inconsistent to resort to forced suppositions1 in order to overcome the difficulty involved in the explicit answer which ,matthew makes ,jesus give to the traitor2 and it should rather be allowed that we have before us two divergent accounts1 of which the one was not so framed that its deficiencies might be supplied by the other4 ,having1 with ,sieffert and ,fritzsche1 attained this degree of insight1 the only remaining question is3 to which of the two narratives must we give the preference as the original8 ,sieffert has answered this question very decidedly in favour of ,john2 not merely1 as he maintains1 because he shares in the prejudice which attributes to that ,evangelist the character of an eye-witness2 but also because his narrative is in this part1 by its intrinsic evidence of truthfulness1 and the vividness of its scenes1 advantageously distinguished from that of ,matthew1 which presents no indications of an autoptical origin4 ,for example1 while ,john is able to describe with the utmost minuteness the manner in which ,jesus indicated his betrayer3 the narrative of the first gospel is such as to induce the conjecture that its author had only received the general information1 that ,jesus had personally indicated his betrayer4 #ahji ,it certainly cannot be denied1 that the direct answer which ,jesus gives to ,judas in ,matthew 7v4 #be7 has entirely the appearance of having been framed1 without much fertility of imagination1 to accord with the above general information2 and in so far it must be regarded as inferior to the more indirect1 and therefore more probable mode of indicating the traitor1 in ,john4 ,but in relation to another feature1 the result of the comparison is different4 ,in the two first ,evangelists ,jesus says3 he who has dipped or who dippeth with me1 or ' 3 in ,john1 he to whom ,i shall give a sop when ,i have dipped it1 2 a difference in which the greater preciseness of the indication1 and consequently the inferior probability1 is on the side of the fourth gospel4 ,in ,luke1 ,jesus designates the traitor merely as one of those who are sitting at meat with him2 and as regards the expression 444 in ,matthew and ,mark1 the interpretation given of it by ,kuinl and ,henneberg1 #ahaj who suppose it to mean one of the party at table1 leaving it uncertain which1 is not so mistaken as ,olshausen represents it to be4 ,for1 first1 to the question of the several disciples1 is it ,i8 ,jesus might see fit to return an evasive answer2 and secondly1 the above answer1 as ,kuinl has correctly remarked1 stands in the relation of an appropriate climax to the previous declaration3 one of you shall betray me 7v4 #ba71 since it presents that aggravating circumstance of the betrayal1 fellowship at table4 ,even if the authors of the two first gospels understood the expression in question to imply1 that ,judas in particular dipped his hand in the dish with ,jesus1 and hence supposed this second declaration to have indicated him personally3 still the parallel passage in ,luke1 and the words 1 one of the twelve1 which in ,mark precede 1 show that originally the second expression was merely an amplification of the former1 though from the wish to have a thoroughly unequivocal designation of the betrayer on the part of ,jesus1 it was early interpreted in the other more special sense4 ,when1 however1 a legendary exaggeration of the preciseness of the indication is once admitted1 the manner in which the fourth gospel describes that indication must be included in the series of progressive representations1 and according to ,sieffert1 it must have been the original from which all the rest proceeded4 ,but if we beforehand renounce the affirmative reply to ,judas1 1 thou hast said1 in ,matthew1 the mode of designation in ,john is the most definite of all2 for the intimation3 one of my companions at table1 is comparatively indefinite1 and even the expression3 he who dippeth with me in the dish1 is a less direct sign of the traitor1 than if ,jesus had himself dipped the morsel and presented it to him4 ,now is it in the spirit of the ancient legend1 if ,jesus really gave the more precise designation1 to lose its hold of this1 and substitute one less precise1 so as to diminish the miracle of the foreknowledge exhibited by ,jesus8 ,assuredly not2 but rather the very reverse holds true4 ,hence we conclude that ,matthew1 together with the unhistorically precise1 has yet at the same time preserved the historically less precise2 whereas ,john has entirely lost the latter and has retained only the former4 ,alter thus renouncing what is narrated of a personal designation of the traitor by ,jesus1 as composed post eventum1 there yet remains to us the general precognition and prediction on the part of ,jesus1 that one of his disciples and companions at table would betray him4 ,but even this is attended with difficulties4 ,that ,jesus received any external notification of treason brooding against him in the circle of his confidential friends1 there is no indication in the gospels3 he appears to have gathered this feature of his destiny also out of the scriptures alone4 ,he repeatedly declares that by his approaching betrayal the scripture will be fulfilled 7,john xiii4 #ah1 xvii4 #ab2 comp4 ,matt4 xxvi4 #bd parall471 and in the fourth gospel 7xiii4 #ah71 he cites as this scripture1 1 the words3 ,he that eateth bread with me1 hath lifted up his heel against me1 ' 1 from ,ps4 xli4 #aj4 ,this passage in the ,psalms refers either to the well-known perfidious friends of ,david1 ,ahithophel and ,mephibosheth1 or1 if the ,psalm be not the composition of ,david1 to some unknown individuals who stood in a similar relation to the poet4 #ahaa ,there is so little trace of a messianic significance1 that even ,tholuck and ,olshausen acknowledge the above to be the original sense4 ,but according to the latter1 in the fate of ,david was imaged that of the ,messiah2 according to the former1 ,david himself1 under a divine impulse often used expressions concerning himself1 which contained special allusions to the fate of ,jesus4 ,when1 however1 ,tholuck adds3 ,david himself1 under the influence of inspiration1 did not always comprehend this more profound sense of his expressions2 what is this but a confession that by the interpretation of such passages as relating to ,christ there is given to them another sense than that in which their author originally intended them8 ,now that ,jesus deduced from this passage of the #dast ,psalm1 that it would be his lot to be betrayed by a friend1 in the way of natural reflection1 is the more inconceivable1 because there is no indication to be discovered that this ,psalm was interpreted messianically among the ,jews3 while that such an interpretation was a result of the divine knowledge in ,jesus is impossible1 because it is a false interpretation4 ,it is rather to be supposed1 that the passage in question was applied to the treachery of ,judas only after the issue4 ,it is necessary to figure to ourselves the consternation which the death of the ,messiah must have produced in the minds of his first adherents1 and the solicitous industry with which they endeavoured to comprehend this catastrophe2 and to remember that to a mind of ,jewish culture1 to comprehend a fact or doctrine was not to reconcile it with consciousness and reason1 but to bring it into harmony with scripture4 ,in seeking such a result1 the primitive ,christians found predicted in the oracles of the ,old ,testament1 not only the death of the ,messiah1 but also his falling by means of the perfidy of one of his friends1 and even the subsequent fate and end of this traitor 7,matt4 xxvii4 #i f42 ,acts i4 #bj72 and as the most striking ,old ,testament authority for the betrayal1 there presented itself the above passage from ,ps4 xli41 where the author complains of maltreatment from one of his most intimate friends4 ,these vouchers from the ,old ,testament might be introduced by the writers of the evangelical history either as reflections from themselves or others by way of appendix to their narrative of the result1 as is done by the authors of the first gospel and the ,acts1 where they relate the end of ,judas3 or1 what would be more impressive1 they might put them into the mouth of ,jesus himself before the issue1 as is done by the author of the fourth gospel in the present instance4 ,the ,psalmist had meant by one who generally was accustomed to eat bread with him3 but this expression might easily come to be regarded as the designation of one in the act of eating bread with the subject of the prophecy3 and hence it seemed appropriate to choose as the scene for the delivery of the prediction1 a meal of ,jesus with his disciples1 and for the sake of proximity to the end of ,jesus to make this meal the last4 ,for the rest1 the precise words of the psalm were not adhered to1 for instead of ' 1 he who eateth bread with me1 was substituted either the synonymous phrase ' 1 with me on the table1 as in ,luke2 or1 in accordance with the representation of the synoptists that this last was a paschal meal1 an allusion to the particular sauce used on that occasion3 1 he who dippeth with me in the dish1 as in ,mark and ,matthew4 ,this1 at first entirely synonymous with the expression 4441 as a designation of some one of his companions at table1 was soon1 from the desire for a personal designation1 misconstrued to mean that ,judas accidentally dipped his hand into the dish at the same moment with ,jesus1 and at length the morsel dipped into the dish by ,judas at the same time with ,jesus1 was by the fourth ,evangelist converted into the sop presented by ,jesus to his betrayer4 ,there are other parts also of this scene in ,john1 which1 instead of having a natural character1 as ,sieffert maintains1 must rather be pronounced artificial4 ,the manner in which ,peter has to use the intervention of the disciple leaning on ,jesus' bosom1 in order to obtain from the latter a more definite intimation concerning the betrayer1 besides being foreign to the synoptists1 belongs to that unhistorical colouring which1 as we have above shown1 the fourth gospel gives to the relation of the two apostles4 ,moreover1 to disguise an indication of ,judas in the evil character of the traitor1 beneath an action of friendliness1 as that of giving him the sop1 must retain something untruthful and revolting1 whatever may be imagined of objects which ,jesus might have in view1 such as the touching of the traitor with compunction even at that hour4 ,lastly1 the address1 ,what thou doest1 do quickly1 after all that can be done to soften it1 #ahab is still harsh1--a kind of braving of the impending catastrophe2 and rather than resort to any refinements in order to justify these words as spoken by ,jesus1 ,i prefer agreeing with the author of the ,probabilia1 who sees in them the effort of the fourth ,evangelist to improve on the ordinary representation1 according to which ,jesus foreknew the betrayal and refrained from preventing it1 by making him even challenge the traitor to expedite his undertaking4 #ahac ,besides the betrayal1 ,jesus is said to have predicted the denial by ,peter1 and to have fixed the precise time of its occurrence1 declaring that before the cock should crow 7,mark says twice7 on the following morning1 ,peter would deny him thrice 7,matt4 xxvi4 #cc ff4 parall473 which prediction1 according to the gospels1 was exactly accomplished4 ,it is here observed on the side of ,rationalism1 that the extension of the prophetic gift to the cognizance of such merely accessory circumstances as the crowing of cocks1 must excite astonishment2 as also that ,jesus1 instead of warning1 predicts the result as inevitable3 #ahad a feature which calls to mind the ,fate of the ,greek tragedy1 in which a man1 in spite of his endeavour to avoid what the oracle has predicted of him1 nevertheless fulfils its inexorable decree4 ,paulus will not admit either 1 or 1 or 1 to have been spoken in their strict verbal signification1 but gives to the entire speech of ,jesus only this indecisive and problematical sense3 so easily to be shaken is the imagined firmness of this disciple1 that between the present moment and the early morning1 events may arise which would cause him more than once to stumble and be unfaithful to his master4 ,but this is not the right mode of removing the difficulty of the evangelical narrative4 ,the words attributed to ,jesus so closely agree with the subsequent event1 that the idea of a merely fortuitous coincidence is not to be here entertained4 ,occurring as they do in a tissue of prophecies post eventum1 we must rather suppose that after ,peter had really denied ,jesus more than once during that night1 the announcement of such a result was put into the mouth of ,jesus1 with the common marking of time by the crowing of the cock1 #ahae and the reduction of the instances of denial to three4 ,that this determination of time and number was permanent in the evangelical tradition 7except that ,mark1 doubtless arbitrarily1 for the sake of balancing the thrice denying by another number1 speaks of the twice crowing of the cock71 appears to be explained without any great difficulty by the familiarity of the expressions early chosen1 and the ease with which they could be retained in the memory4 ,just as little claim to be regarded as a real prophecy has the announcement of ,jesus to the rest of his disciples that they will all of them be offended because of him in the coming night1 that they will forsake him and disperse 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ca parall41 comp4 ,john xvi4 #cb72 especially as the ,evangelists themselves1 in the words3 ,for it is written1 ,i will smite the shepherd1 and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad1 point out to us the ,old ,testament passage 7,zech4 xiii4 #g71 which1 first sought out by the adherents of ,jesus for the satisfaction of their own difficulties as to the death of their master1 and the melancholy consequences which immediately ensued1 was soon put into the mouth of ,jesus as a prophecy of these consequences4 #abd4 ,,the ,,institution ,,of ,,the ,,lord',s ,,supper4 ,it was at the last meal1 according to the synoptists1 with whom the ,apostle ,paul also agrees 7#a ,cor4 xi4 #bc ff471 that ,jesus gave to the unleavened bread and the wine which1 agreeably to the custom of the paschal feast1 #ahaf he1 as head of the family1 had to distribute among his disciples1 a relation to his speedily approaching death4 ,during the repast1 we are told1 he took bread1 and after giving thanks1 broke it and gave it to his disciples with the declaration3 ,this is my body1 1 to which ,paul and ,luke add3 which is given or broken for you1 or 2 in like manner1 according to ,paul and ,luke after supper1 he presented to them a cup of wine with the words3 ,this is my blood of the new testament1 1 1 or1 according to ,paul and ,luke3 the new testament in my blood1 which is shed for many1 or for you1 1 or 1 1 to which ,matthew adds3 for the remission of sins1 1 and ,paul1 what he and ,luke previously give in reference to the bread3 ,do this1 7,paul1 with the wine1 as oft as ye drink it1 71 in remembrance of me1 4 ,the controversy between the different confessions as to the meaning of these words1--whether they signify a transmutation of bread and wine into the body and blood of ,christ1 or a presence of the body and blood of ,christ with and beneath those elements1 or lastly1 the symbolizing of the body and blood of ,christ by bread and wine1--may be pronounced obsolete1 and ought not to be any longer pursued1 at least exegetically1 because it is founded on a misplaced distinction4 ,it is only when transmitted to a modern age1 and to the occidental mind1 in which the forms of thought are more abstract1 that what the ancient oriental understood by the words1 1 divides itself into the above variety of possible significations2 and if we would obtain a correct conception of the idea which originally suggested the expression1 we must cease to discriminate thus4 ,to explain the words in question as implying a transmutation of the substance1 is to go too far1 and to be too definite2 to understand them of an existence cum et sub specie1 etc41 is too much of a refinement2 while to translate them3 this signifies1 is too limited and meagre an interpretation4 ,to the writers of our gospels1 the bread in the commemorative supper was the body of ,christ3 but had they been asked1 whether the bread were transmuted1 they would have denied it2 had they been spoken to of a partaking of the body with and under the form of bread1 they would not have understood it2 had it been inferred that consequently the bread merely signified the body1 they would not have been satisfied4 ,thus to dispute farther on this point is a fruitless labour3 it is a more interesting question1 whether ,jesus merely intended this peculiarly significant distribution of bread and wine as a parting demonstration of attachment to his disciples1 or whether he designed that it should be celebrated by his disciples in memory of him after his departure4 ,if we had only the account of the two first ,evangelists1--this is admitted even by orthodox theologians1 #ahag--there would be no solid ground for the latter supposition2 but the words1 ,do this in remembrance of me1 which are added by ,paul and ,luke1 appear decisive of the fact that ,jesus purposed the founding of a commemorative meal1 which1 according to ,paul1 the ,christians were to celebrate1 until he should come1 4 ,concerning this very addition1 however1 it has been of late conjectured that it may not have been originally uttered by ,jesus1 but that in the celebration of the ,lord's supper in the primitive church1 the presiding member of the community1 in distributing the elements1 may have exhorted the rest to continue the repetition of this meal in remembrance of ,christ1 and that from this primitive ,christian ritual the above words were added to the address of ,jesus4 #ahah ,this conjecture should not be opposed by an exaggerated estimate of the authority of the ,apostle ,paul1 such as that of ,olshausen1 who infers from the words1 ,i have received of the ,lord1 1 that he here delivers an immediate revelation from ,christ1 nay1 that ,christ himself speaks through him3 since1 as even ,sskind has admitted1 and as ,schulz has recently shown in the most convincing manner1 #ahai the phrase cannot signify an immediate reception1 but only a mediate transmission from the individual specified4 ,if1 however1 ,paul had not that addition from ,jesus himself1 still ,sskind thinks himself able to prove that it must have been communicated1 or at least confirmed1 by an apostle1 and is of opinion1 in the manner of his school1 that by a series of abstract distinctions1 he can define certain boundary lines which must in this case prevent the intrusion of an unhistorical tradition4 ,but the severe attention to evidence which characterizes our own day1 ought not to be expected from an infant religious society1 between the distant portions of which there was not yet any organized connexion1 or for the most part any other than oral communication4 ,on the other hand1 however1 we must not be induced to regard the words 444 as a later addition to the address of ,jesus1 on false grounds1 such as1 that it would have been repugnant to the humility of ,jesus to found a rite in remembrance of himself2 #ahbj nor must we rate too highly the silence of the two first ,evangelists1 in opposition to the testimony of ,paul4 ,perhaps this point may be decided by means of another more general question1 namely1 what led ,jesus to make this peculiarly significant distribution of bread and wine among his disciples8 ,orthodox theologians seek to remove as far as possible from the person of ,jesus1 as divine1 all progress1 and especially a gradual or sudden origination of plans and resolutions not previously present in his mind3 hence1 according to them1 there lay in ,jesus from the beginning1 together with the foreknowledge of his destiny1 and his entire plan1 the design to institute this supper1 as a commemorative rite to be observed by his church2 and this opinion may at least appeal for support1 to the allusions implying that he already contemplated the institution a year beforehand1 attributed to ,jesus in the sixth chapter of the fourth gospel4 ,this is certainly an insecure support1 for1 as a previous enquiry has shown1 those allusions1 totally unintelligible before the institution of the ,supper1 cannot have proceeded from ,jesus1 but only from the ,evangelist4 #ahba ,further1 as1 viewing the subject generally1 it appeared to annul the reality of the human nature in ,jesus1 to suppose that all lay foreseen and prepared in him from the first1 or at least from the commencement of his mature age2 ,rationalism has maintained1 on the contrary1 that the idea of the symbolical act and words in question did not arise in ,jesus until the last evening4 ,according to this view1 at the sight of the broken bread and the outpoured wine1 ,jesus had a foreboding of his near and violent death2 he saw in the former an image of his body which was to be put to death1 and in the latter of his blood which was to be shed2 and this momentary impression was communicated by him to his disciples4 #ahbb ,but such a tragical impression could only be felt by ,jesus if he contemplated his death as a near event4 ,that he did so with a greater distinctness at the last meal1 is thought to be proved by the assurance which1 according to all the synoptists1 he gave to his disciples1 that he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine until he drank it new in the kingdom of his ,father2 whence1 as there is no ground for supposing a vow of abstinence on his part1 he must have foreseen that his end would arrive within the next few days4 ,if1 however1 we observe how in ,luke this assurance in relation to the wine is preceded by the declaration of ,jesus1 that he will no more eat the passover until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of ,god1 it appears probable that originally the fruit of the vine also was understood not as wine in general1 but as specially the beverage of the passover2 of which a trace may perhaps be discovered in the expression of ,matthew and ,mark--this fruit of the vine1 4 ,meals in the messianic kingdom were1 in accordance with the ideas of the age1 often spoken of by ,jesus1 and he may have expected that in that kingdom the ,passover would be observed with peculiar solemnity4 ,when therefore he declares that he will no more partake of this meal in the present age1 1 but only in the future2 first1 this does not apply to eating and drinking in general1 and hence does not mean that his sojourn in this pre-messianic world was to have an end within the next few days1 but only within the space of a year2 nor1 secondly1 does it necessarily involve the idea that this change was to be introduced by his death1 for he might even yet expect that the kingdom of the ,messiah would commence during his life4 ,meanwhile1 to deny every presentiment of his end on the part of ,jesus in these last days of his life1 is on the one hand1 not warranted by our previous examination2 and on the other1 would compel us to doubt the institution of the ritual ,supper by ,jesus1 which we can hardly do in opposition to the testimony of ,paul4 ,it is moreover easily conceivable1 that the continually increasing involvement of his relation to the ,jewish hierarchy1 might at length bring to ,jesus the conviction that his death was inevitable1 and that in a moment of emotion he might even fix the next passover as the term which he should not survive4 ,thus each of the supposed cases appears possible3 either that1 owing to a thought suggested by the impressiveness of the moment1 at the last passover which he celebrated with his disciples1 he made bread and wine the symbols of his body which was to be slain and his blood which was to be shed2 or that for some time previously he had embraced the design of bequeathing such a commemorative meal to his adherents1 in which case he may very probably have uttered the words preserved by ,paul and ,luke4 ,but before this intimation of the death of ,jesus had been duly appropriated by the disciples1 and received into their conviction1 they were overtaken by the actual catastrophe1 for which1 therefore1 they might be regarded as wholly unprepared4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,retirement ,,to ,,the ,,mount ,,of ,,olives1 ,,arrest1 ,,trial1 ,,condemnation ,,and ,,crucifixion ,,of ,,jesus4 #abe4 ,,agony ,,of ,,jesus ,,in ,,the ,,garden4 ,according to the synoptical narratives1 ,jesus1 immediately after the conclusion of the meal and the singing of the ,hallel1 it being his habit during this feast time to spend the night out of ,jerusalem 7,matt4 xxi4 #ag2 ,luke xxii4 #ci71 went to the ,mount of ,olives1 into a garden 7in ,john1 7 called ,gethsemane 7,matt4 xxvi4 #cj1 #cf parall474 ,john1 who gives the additional particular that the garden lay over the brook ,kedron1 does not represent him as departing thither until after a long series of valedictory discourses 7xiv4-xvii471 of which we shall hereafter have to speak again4 ,while ,john makes the arrest of ,jesus follow immediately on the arrival of ,jesus in the garden1 the synoptists insert between the two that scene which is usually designated the agony of ,jesus4 ,their accounts of this scene are not in unison4 ,according to ,matthew and ,mark1 ,jesus takes with him his three most confidential disciples1 ,peter and the sons of ,zebedee1 leaving the rest behind1 is seized with tearfulness and trembling1 tells the three disciples that he is sorrowful even unto death1 and admonishing them to remain wakeful in the mean time1 removes to a distance from them also1 that he may offer a prayer for himself1 in which1 with his face bent to the earth1 he entreats that the cup of suffering may pass from him1 but still resigns all to the will of his ,father4 ,when he returns to the disciples1 he finds them sleeping1 again admonishes them to watchfulness1 then removes from them a second time1 and repeats the former prayer1 after which he once more finds his disciples asleep4 ,for the third time he retires to repeat the prayer1 and returning1 for the third time finds the disciples sleeping1 but now awakes them1 in order to meet the coming betrayer4 ,of the number three1 which thus doubly figures in the narrative of the two first ,evangelists1 ,luke says nothing2 according to him1 ,jesus retires from all the disciples1 after admonishing them to watch1 for the distance of about a stone's cast1 and prays kneeling1 once only1 but nearly in the same words as in the other gospels1 then returns to the disciples and awakes them1 because ,judas is approaching with the multitude4 ,but1 on the other hand1 ,luke in his single scene of prayer1 has two circumstances which are foreign to the other narrators1 namely1 that while ,jesus was yet praying1 and immediately before the most violent mental struggle1 an angel appeared to strengthen him1 and that during the agony which ensued1 the sweat of ,jesus was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground4 ,from the earliest times this scene in ,gethsemane has been a stumbling-block1 because ,jesus therein appears to betray a weakness and fear of death which might be considered unworthy of him4 ,celsus and ,julian1 doubtless having in their minds the great examples of a dying ,socrates and other heathen sages1 expressed contempt for the fear of death exhibited by ,jesus2 #ahbc ,vanini boldly extolled his own demeanour in the face of execution as superior to that of ,jesus2 #ahbd and in the ,evangelium ,nicodemi1 ,satan concludes from this scene that ,christ is a mere man4 #ahbe ,the supposition resorted to in this apocryphal book1 that the trouble of ,jesus was only assumed in order to encourage the devil to enter into a contest with him1 #ahbf is but a confession of inability to reconcile a real truth of that kind with the ideal of ,jesus4 ,hence appeal has been made to the distinction between the two natures in ,christ2 the sorrowfulness and the prayer for the removal of the cup having been ascribed to the human nature1 the resignation to the will of the ,father1 to the divine4 #ahbg ,as however1 in the first place1 this appeared to introduce an inadmissible division in the nature of ,jesus2 and in the second place1 even a fear experienced by his human nature in the prospect of approaching bodily sufferings appeared unworthy of him3 his consternation was represented as being of a spiritual and sympathetic character--as arising from the wickedness of ,judas1 the danger which threatened his disciples1 and the fate which was impending over his nation4 #ahbh ,the effort to free the sorrow of ,jesus from all reference to physical suffering1 or to his own person1 attained its highest pitch in the ecclesiastical tenet1 that ,jesus by substitution was burthened with the guilt of all mankind1 and vicariously endured the wrath of ,god against that guilt4 #ahbi ,some have even supposed that the devil himself wrestled with ,jesus4 #ahcj ,but such a cause for the trouble of ,jesus is not found in the text2 on the contrary1 here as elsewhere 7,matt4 xx4 #bb f4 parall471 the cup for the removal of which ,jesus prays1 must be understood of his own bodily sufferings and death4 ,moreover1 the above ecclesiastical opinion is founded on an unscriptural conception of the vicarious office of ,jesus4 ,it is true that even in the conception of the synoptists1 the suffering of ,jesus is a vicarious one for the sins of many2 but the substitution consists1 according to them1 not in ,jesus having immediately borne these sins and the punishment due to mankind on account of them1 but in a personal suffering being laid upon him on account of those sins1 and in order to remove their punishment4 ,thus1 as on the cross1 it was not directly the sins of the world1 and the anger of ,god in relation to them1 which afflicted him1 but the wounds which he received1 and his whole lamentable situation1 wherein he was indeed placed for the sins of mankind3 so1 according to the idea of the ,evangelists1 in ,gethsemane also1 it was not immediately the feeling of the misery of humanity which occasioned his dismay1 but the presentiment of his own suffering1 which1 however1 was encountered in the stead of mankind4 ,from the untenable ecclesiastical view of the agony of ,jesus1 a descent has in more modern times been made to coarse materialism1 by reducing what it was thought hopeless to justify ethically1 as a mental condition1 to a purely physical one1 and supposing that ,jesus was attacked by some malady in ,gethsemane2 #ahca an opinion which ,paulus1 with a severity which he should only have more industriously applied to his own explanations1 pronounces to be altogether unseemly and opposed to the text1 though he does not regard as improbable ,heumann's hypothesis1 that in addition to his inward sorrow1 ,jesus had contracted a cold in the clayey ground traversed by the ,kedron4 #ahcb ,on the other hand1 the scene has been depicted in the colours of modern sentimentalism1 and the feelings of friendship1 the pain of separation1 the thoughts of parting1 have been assigned as the causes which so lacerated the mind of ,jesus3 #ahcc or a confused blending of all the different kinds of sorrow1 selfish and sympathetic1 sensual and spiritual1 has been presupposed4 #ahcd ,paulus explains 1 7if it be possible1 let this cup pass from me7 as the expression of a purely moral anxiety on the part of ,jesus1 as to whether it were the will of ,god that he should give himself up to the attack immediately at hand1 or whether it were not more accordant with the ,divine pleasure1 that he should yet escape from this danger3 thus converting into a mere inquiry of ,god1 what is obviously the most urgent prayer4 ,while ,olshausen falls back on the ecclesiastical theory1 and authoritatively declares that the supposition of external corporeal suffering having called forth the anguish of ,jesus1 ought to be banished as one which would annihilate the essential characteristics of his mission2 others have more correctly acknowledged that in that anguish the passionate wish to be delivered from the terrible sufferings in prospect1 the horror of sensitive nature in the face of annihilation1 are certainly apparent4 #ahce ,with justice also it is remarked1 in opposition to the reproach which has been cast on ,jesus1 that the speedy conquest over rebellious nature removes every appearance of sinfulness2 #ahcf that1 moreover1 the shrinking of physical nature at the prospect of annihilation belongs to the essential conditions of life2 #ahcg nay1 that the purer the human nature in an individual1 the more susceptible is it in relation to suffering and annihilation2 #ahch that the conquest over suffering intensely appreciated is greater than a stoical or even a ,socratic insensibility4 #ahci ,with more reason1 criticism has attacked the peculiar representation of the third gospel4 ,the strengthening angel has created no little difficulty to the ancient church on dogmatical grounds1--to modern exposition on critical grounds4 ,an ancient scholium on the consideration1 that he who was adored and glorified with fear and trembling by all the celestial powers1 did not need the strengthening of the angel1 1 interprets the ascribed to the angel as a declaring strong1 i4e4 as the offering of a doxology2 #ahdj while others1 rather than admit that ,jesus could need to be strengthened by an angel1 transform the into an evil angel1 who attempted to use force against ,jesus4 #ahda ,the orthodox also1 by founding a distinction between the state of humiliation and privation in ,christ and that of his glorification1 or in some similar way1 have long blunted the edge of the dogmatical difficulty3 but in place of this a critical objection has been only so much the more decidedly developed4 ,in consideration of the suspicion which1 according to our earlier observations1 attaches to every alleged angelic appearance1 it has been sought to reduce the angel in this narrative first into a man1 #ahdb and then into an image of the composure which ,jesus regained4 #ahdc ,but the right point in the angelic appearance for criticism to grapple with1 is indicated by the circumstance that ,luke is the only ,evangelist from whom we learn it4 #ahdd ,if1 according to the ordinary presupposition1 the first and fourth gospels are of apostolic origin2 why this silence as to the angel on the part of ,matthew1 who is believed to have been in the garden1 why especially on the part of ,john1 who was among the three in the nearer neighbourhood of ,jesus8 ,if it be said3 because sleepy as they were1 and at some distance1 and moreover under cover of the night1 they did not observe him3 it must be asked1 whence are we to suppose that ,luke received this information8 #ahde ,that1 assuming the disciples not to have themselves observed the appearance1 ,jesus should have narrated it to them on that evening1 there is1 from the intense excitement of those hours and the circumstance that the return of ,jesus to his disciples was immediately followed by the arrival of ,judas1 little probability2 and as little1 that he communicated it to them in the days after the resurrection1 and that nevertheless this information appeared worthy of record to none but the third ,evangelist1 who yet received it only at second hand4 ,as in this manner there is every presumption against the historical character of the angelic appearance2 why should not this also1 like all appearances of the same kind which have come under our notice1 especially in the history of the infancy of ,jesus1 be interpreted by us mythically8 ,gabler has been before us in advancing the idea1 that in the primitive ,christian community the rapid transition from the most violent mental conflict to the most tranquil resignation1 which was observable in ,jesus on that night1 was explained1 agreeably to the ,jewish mode of thought1 by the intervention of a strengthening angel1 and that this explanation may have mingled itself with the narrative3 ,schleiermacher1 too1 finds it the most probable that this moment1 described by ,jesus himself as one of hard trial1 was early glorified in hymns by angelic appearances1 and that this embellishment1 originally intended in a merely poetical sense1 was received by the narrator of the third gospel as historical4 #ahdf ,the other feature peculiar to ,luke1 namely1 the bloody sweat1 was early felt to be no less fraught with difficulty than the strengthening by the angel4 ,at least it appears to have been this more than anything else1 which occasioned the exclusion of the entire addition in ,luke1 v4 #dc and #dd1 from many ancient copies of the gospels4 ,for as the orthodox1 who according to ,epiphanius #ahdg rejected the passage1 appear to have shrunk the most from the lowest degree of fear which is expressed by the bloody sweat3 so to the docetic opinions of some who did not receive this passage1 #ahdh this was the only particular which could give offence4 ,thus in an earlier age1 doubts were raised respecting the fitness of the bloody sweat of ,jesus on dogmatical considerations3 while in more modern times this has been done on physiological grounds4 ,it is true that authorities are adduced for instances of bloody sweat from ,aristotle #ahdi down to the more recent investigators of nature2 #ahej but such a phenomenon is only mentioned as extremely rare1 and as a symptom of decided disease4 ,hence ,paulus points to the 7as it were71 as indicating that it is not directly a bloody sweat which is here spoken of1 but only a sweat which might be compared to blood3 this comparison1 however1 he refers only to the thick appearance of the drops1 and ,olshausen also agrees with him thus far1 that a red colour of the perspiration is not necessarily included in the comparison4 ,but in the course of a narrative which is meant as a prelude to the sanguinary death of ,jesus1 it is the most natural to take the comparison of the sweat to drops of blood1 in its full sense4 ,further1 here1 yet more forcibly than in relation to the angelic appearance1 the question suggests itself3 how did ,luke obtain this information8 or to pass by all questions which must take the same form in this instance as in the previous one1 how could the disciples1 at a distance and in the night1 discern the falling of drops of blood8 ,according to ,paulus indeed it ought not to be said that the sweat fell1 for as the word 1 falling1 refers not to 1 sweat1 but to the 1 drops of blood1 which are introduced merely for the purpose of comparison1 it is only meant that a sweat as thick and heavy as falling drops of blood stood on the brow of ,jesus4 ,but whether it be said3 the sweat fell like drops of blood to the earth1 or3 it was like drops of blood falling to the earth1 it comes pretty much to the same thing2 at least the comparison of a sweat standing on the brow to blood falling on the earth would not be very apt1 especially if together with the falling1 we are to abstract also the colour of the blood1 so that of the words1 as it were drops of blood falling on the ground1 1 only 1 as it were drops1 would properly have any decided meaning4 ,since then we can neither comprehend the circumstance1 nor conceive what historical authority for it the narrator could have had1 let us1 with ,schleiermacher1 rather take this feature also as a poetical one construed historically by the ,evangelist1 or better still1 as a mythical one1 the origin of which may be easily explained from the tendency to perfect the conflict in the garden as a prelude to the sufferings of ,jesus on the cross1 by showing that not merely the psychical aspect of that suffering was fore-shadowed in the mental trouble1 but also its physical aspect1 in the bloody sweat4 ,as a counterpoise to this peculiarity of ,luke1 his two predecessors have1 as we have said1 the twofold occurrence of the number three1--the three disciples taken apart1 and the three retirements and prayers of ,jesus4 ,it has indeed been contended that so restless a movement hither and thither1 so rapid an alternation of retirement and return1 is entirely suited to the state of mind in which ,jesus then was1 #ahea and also1 that in the repetition of the prayer there is correctly shown an appropriate gradation2 a more and more complete resignation to the will of the ,father4 #aheb ,but that the two narrators count the retirements of ,jesus1 marking them by the expressions and 1 at once shows that the number three was a point of importance to them2 and when ,matthew1 though he certainly gives in the second prayer an expression somewhat different from that of the first1 in the third makes ,jesus only repeat the same words1 1 and when ,mark does this even the second time1--this is a significant proof that they were embarrassed how to fill up the favourite number three with appropriate matter4 ,according to ,olshausen1 ,matthew1 with his three acts of this conflict1 must be right in opposition to ,luke1 because these three attacks made on ,jesus through the medium of fear1 correspond to the three attacks through the medium of desire1 in the history of the temptation4 ,this parallel is well founded2 it only leads to an opposite result to that deduced by ,olshausen4 ,for which is more probable2 that in both cases the threefold repetition of the attack had an objective ground1 in a latent law of the kingdom of spirits1 and hence is to be regarded as really historical2 or that it had merely a subjective ground in the manner of the legend1 so that the occurrence of this number here1 as certainly as above in the history of the temptation1 points to something mythical8 #ahec ,if then we subtract the angel1 the bloody sweat1 and the precisely threefold repetition of the retirement and prayer of ,jesus1 as mythical additions1 there remains so far1 as an historical kernel1 the fact1 that ,jesus on that evening in the garden experienced a violent access of fear1 and prayed that his sufferings might be averted1 with the reservation nevertheless of an entire submission to the will of ,god3 and at this point of the inquiry1 it is not a little surprising1 on the ordinary view of the relation between our gospels1 that even this fundamental fact of the history in question1 is wanting in the ,gospel of ,john4 #abf4 ,,relation ,,of ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel ,,to ,,the ,,events ,,in ,,gethsemane4 ,,the ,,farewell ,,discourses ,,in ,,john1 ,,and ,,the ,,scene ,,following ,,the ,,announcement ,,of ,,the ,,greeks4 ,the relation of ,john to the synoptical narratives just considered has1 when regarded more closely1 two aspects3 first1 he has not what the synoptists present2 and secondly1 instead of this he has something which it is difficult to reconcile with their statements4 ,as regards the first and negative side1 it has to be explained how1 on the ordinary supposition concerning the author of the fourth gospel and the correctness of the synoptical account1 it happens that ,john1 who according to the two first gospels was one of the three whom ,jesus took with him1 to be the more immediate witnesses of his conflict1 passes in silence over the whole event8 ,it will not suffice to appeal to his sleepiness during the scene2 for1 if this was a hindrance to its narration1 all the ,evangelists must have been silent on the subject1 and not ,john alone4 ,hence the usual expedient is tried here also1 and he is said to have omitted the scene because he found it already presented with sufficient care in the writings of the synoptists4 #ahed ,but between the two first synoptists and the third there is here so important a divergency1 as to demand most urgently that ,john1 if he took their accounts into consideration1 should speak a mediating word in this difference4 ,if however1 ,john had not the works of his predecessors lying before him1 he might still1 it is said1 suppose that history to be sufficiently familiar to his readers as a part of evangelical tradition4 #ahee ,but as this tradition was the source of the divergent representations of the synoptists1 it must itself have early begun to exhibit variations1 and to narrate the fact first in one way1 then in another3 consequently on this view also there was a call on the author of the fourth gospel to rectify these wavering accounts4 ,hence of late an entirely new supposition has been adopted1 namely1 that ,john omits the events in ,gethsemane lest1 by the mention of the strengthening angel1 he should give any furtherance to the ,ebionitish opinion that the higher nature in ,christ was an angel1 which united itself with him at baptism2 and now as it might be inferred1 again departed from him before the hour of suffering4 #ahef ,but--not to urge that we have already found any hypothesis of this nature inadequate to explain the omissions in the ,gospel of ,john--if this ,evangelist wished to avoid any indication of a close relation between ,jesus and angels1 he must also have excluded other passages from his gospel3 above all1 as ,lcke remarks1 #aheg the declaration concerning the ascending and descending of angels upon him1 i4 #eb2 and also the idea1 given indeed only as the conjecture of some bystanders1 that an angel spake to him1 1 xii4 #bi4 ,if1 however1 he on any ground whatever1 found special matter of hesitation in the appearance of the angel in the garden3 this would only be a reason for omitting the intervention of the angel1 with ,matthew and ,mark1 and not for excluding the whole scene1 which was easily separable from this single particular4 ,if the mere absence of the incident from the narrative of ,john is not to be explained1 the difficulty increases when we consider what this ,evangelist communicates to us instead of the scene in the garden1 concerning the mental condition of ,jesus during the last hours previous to his arrest4 ,in the same place which the synoptists assign to the agony in the garden1 ,john1 it is true1 has nothing1 for he makes the capture of ,jesus follow at once on his arrival in the garden3 but immediately before1 at and after the last meal1 he has discourses inspired by a state of mind1 which could hardly have as a sequel scenes like those which according to the synoptical narratives occurred in the garden4 ,in the farewell discourses in ,john1 namely1 xiv4-xvii41 ,jesus speaks precisely in the tone of one who has already inwardly triumphed over approaching suffering2 from a point of view in which death is quenched in the beams of the glory which is to come after2 with a divine peace which is cheerful in the certainty of its immovability3 how is it possible that immediately after1 this peace should give place to the most violent mental emotion1 this tranquillity1 to a trouble even unto death1 and that from victory achieved he should sink again into doubtful contest1 in which he needed strengthening by an angel8 ,in those farewell discourses1 he appears throughout as one who from the plenitude of his inward serenity and confidence1 comforts his trembling friends3 and yet he now seeks spiritual aid from the drowsy disciples1 for he requests them to watch with him2 there1 he is so certain of the salutary effects of his approaching death1 as to assure his followers1 that it is well for them that he should go away1 else the ,comforter would not come to them3 here1 he again doubts whether his death be really the will of the ,father2 there1 he exhibits a consciousness which under the necessity of death1 inasmuch as it comprehends that necessity1 recovers freedom1 so that his will to die is one with the divine will that he should die3 here1 these two wills are so at variance1 that the subjective1 submissively indeed1 but painfully1 bows to the absolute4 ,and these two opposite states of mind are not even separated by any intervening incident of an appalling character1 but only by the short space of time which elapsed during the walk from ,jerusalem to the ,mount of ,olives1 across the ,kedron3 just as if1 in that brook1 as in another ,lethe1 ,jesus had lost all remembrance of the foregoing discourses4 ,it is true that we are here referred to the alternation of mental states1 which naturally becomes more rapid in proportion as the decisive moment approaches2 #aheh to the fact that not seldom in the life of believers there occurs a sudden withdrawal of the higher sustenance of the soul1 an abandonment of them by ,god1 which alone renders the victory nevertheless achieved truly great and admirable4 #ahei ,but this latter opinion at once betrays its unintelligent origin from a purely imaginative species of thought 7to which the soul can appear like a lake1 ebbing or flowing according as the floodgates of the conducting canals are opened or closed71 by the contradictions in which it is on all sides involved4 ,the triumph of ,christ over the fear of death is said only to appear in its true magnitude1 when we consider1 that while a ,socrates could only conquer because he remained in the full possession of his mental energies1 ,christ was able to triumph over all the powers of darkness1 even when forsaken by ,god and the fulness of his spirit1 by his merely human soul 3--but is not this the rankest ,pelagianism1 the most flagrant contradiction of the doctrine of the church1 as of sound philosophy1 which alike maintain that without ,god1 man can do no good thing1 that only by his armour can man repel the shafts of the wicked one8 ,to escape from thus contradicting the results of sober reflection1 the imaginative thinker is driven to contradict himself1 by supposing that in the strengthening angel 7which1 incidentally1 contrary to the verbal significance of the text1 is reduced to a merely internal vision of ,jesus7 there was imparted to ,jesus1 when wrestling in the extremity of his abandonment1 an influx of spiritual strength2 so that he thus would not1 as it was at first vaunted1 have conquered without1 but only with ,divine aid2 if1 in accordance with ,luke1 the angel be supposed to have appeared prior to the last1 most violent part of the conflict1 in order to strengthen ,jesus for this ultimate trial4 ,but rather than fall into so evident a self-contradiction1 ,olshausen prefers covertly to contradict the text1 and hence transposes the order of the incidents1 assuming1 without further preliminary1 that the strengthening came after the third prayer1 consequently after the victory had been already gained1 whence he is driven to the extreme arbitrariness of interpreting the phrase3 1 and being in an agony he prayed1 as the pluperfect--he had prayed4 ,but setting aside this figurative representation of the cause which produced the sudden change of mood in ,jesus2 such a change is in itself burthened with many difficulties4 ,correctly speaking1 what here took place in ,jesus was not a mere change1 but a relapse of the most startling kind4 ,in the so-called sacerdotal prayer1 ,john xvii4 especially1 ,jesus had completely closed his account with the ,father2 all fear in relation to what awaited him lay so far behind the point which he had here attained1 that he spent not a single word on his own suffering1 and only spoke of the afflictions which threatened his friends2 the chief subject of his communion with the ,father was the glory into which he was about to enter1 and the blessedness which he hoped to have obtained for his followers3 so that his departure to the scene of his arrest has entirely the character of an accessory fact1 merely consummating by external realization what was already inwardly and essentially effected4 ,now if ,jesus after this closing of his account with ,god1 once more opened it2 if after having held himself already victor1 he once more sank into anxious conflict3 must he not have laid himself open to the remonstrance3 why didst thou not1 instead of indulging in vain anticipations of glory1 rather occupy thyself betimes with earnest thoughts of the coming trial1 that by such a preparation1 thou mightest spare thyself perilous surprise on its approach8 why didst thou utter the words of triumph before thou hadst fought1 so as to be obliged with shame to cry for help at the on-coming of the battle8 ,in fact after the assurance of already achieved victory expressed in the farewell discourses1 and especially in the final prayer1 the lapse into such a state of mind as that described by the synoptists1 would have been a very humiliating declension1 which ,jesus could not have foreseen1 otherwise he would not have expressed himself with so much confidence2 and which1 therefore1 would prove that he was deceived in himself1 that he held himself to be stronger than he actually found himself1 and that he had given utterance to this too high self-valuation1 not without a degree of presumption4 ,those who regard this as inconsistent with the equally judicious and modest character which ,jesus manifests on other occasions1 will find themselves urged to the dilemma1 that either the farewell discourses in ,john1 at least the final prayer1 or else the events in ,gethsemane1 cannot be historical4 ,it is to be regretted that in coming to a decision in this case1 theologians have set out rather from dogmatical prejudices than from critical grounds4 ,usteri's assertion1 at least1 that the representation given in ,john of the state of mind of ,jesus in his last hours is the only correct one1 while that of the synoptists is unhistorical1 #ahfj is only to be accounted for by that author's then zealous adherence to the paragraphs of ,schleiermacher's ,dogmatik1 wherein the idea of the impeccability of ,jesus is carried to an extent which excludes even the slightest degree of conflict2 for that1 apart from such presuppositions1 the representation given in ,john of the last hours of ,jesus1 is the more natural and appropriate1 it might be difficult to prove4 ,on the contrary1 ,bretschneider might rather appear to be right1 when he claims the superiority in naturalness and intrinsic evidence of truth for the synoptists3 #ahfa were it not that our confidence in the decisions of this writer is undermined1 by his dislike for the dogmatical and metaphysical purport of the discourses assigned to this period in ,john--a dislike which appears to indicate that his entire polemic against ,john originated in the discordance between his own critical philosophy of reflection1 and the speculative doctrine of the fourth gospel4 ,john1 indeed1 as even the author of the ,probabilia remarks1 has not wholly passed over the anxiety of ,jesus in relation to his approaching death2 he has only assigned to it an earlier epoch1 ,john xii4 #bg ff4 ,the scene with which ,john connects it takes place immediately after the entrance of ,jesus into ,jerusalem1 when certain ,greeks1 doubtless proselytes of the gate1 who had come among the multitude to the feast1 wished to have an interview with him4 ,with all the diversity of the circumstances and of the event itself1 there is yet a striking agreement between what here occurs and what the synoptists place in the last evening of the life of ,jesus1 and in the seclusion of the garden4 ,as ,jesus here declares to his disciples1 my soul is troubled even unto death1 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ch73 so there he says3 ,now is my soul troubled1 7,john xii4 #bg72 as he here prays1 that if it be possible1 this hour may pass from him1 1 1 ' 7,mark xiv4 #ce73 so there he entreats3 ,father1 save me from this hour1 1 7,john xii4 #bg72 as here he calms himself by the restriction3 nevertheless1 not as ,i will1 but as thou wilt1 ' 1 7,mark xiv4 #cf73 so there1 by the reflection3 but for this cause came ,i to this hour1 7,john xii4 #bg72 lastly1 as here an angel appears strengthening ,jesus1 7,luke xxii4 #dc73 so there something happens which occasions the bystanders to observe that an angel spake to him1 7,john xii4 #bi74 ,this similarity has induced many of the more modern theologians to pronounce the incident in ,john xii4 #bg ff41 and that in ,gethsemane identical2 and after this admission the only question was1 on which side the reproach of inaccurate narration1 and more especially of erroneous position1 ought to fall4 ,agreeably to the tendency of the latest criticism of the gospels1 the burthen of error in this matter has been more immediately cast on the synoptists4 ,the true occasion of the mental conflict of ,jesus is said to be found only in ,john1 namely1 in the approach of those ,greeks who intimated to him through ,philip and ,andrew their wish for an interview with him4 ,these persons doubtless wished to make the proposal that he should leave ,palestine and carry forward his work among the foreign ,jews2 such a proposal held out to him the enticement of escape from the threatening danger1 and this for some moments placed him in a state of doubt and inward conflict1 which however ended by his refusing to admit the ,greeks to his presence4 #ahfb ,here we have the effects of a vision rendered so acute by a double prejudice1 both critical and dogmatical1 as to read statements between the lines of the text2 for of such an intended proposal on the part of the ,greeks1 there is no trace in ,john2 and yet1 even allowing that the ,evangelist knew nothing of the plan of the ,greeks from these individuals themselves1 there must have been some intimation in the discourse of ,jesus that his emotion had reference to such a proposal4 ,judging from the context1 the request of the ,greeks had no other motive than that the solemn entrance of ,jesus1 and the popular rumour concerning him1 had rendered them curious to see and know the celebrated man2 and this desire of theirs was not connected with the emotion which ,jesus experienced on the occasion1 otherwise than that it led ,jesus to think of the speedy propagation of his kingdom in the ,gentile world1 and of its indispensable condition1 namely1 his death4 ,here1 however1 the idea of his death is only mediately and remotely presented to the soul of ,jesus2 hence it is the more difficult to conceive how it could affect him so strongly1 as that he should feel himself urged to beseech the ,father for delivery from this hour2 and if he were ever profoundly moved by the presentiment of death1 the synoptists appear to place this fear in a more suitable position1 in immediate proximity to the commencement of his sufferings4 ,the representation of ,john is also deficient in certain circumstances1 presented by the synoptists1 which appear to vindicate the trouble of ,jesus4 ,in the solitude of the garden and the gloom of night1 such an ebullition of feeling is more conceivable2 and its unrepressed utterance to his most intimate and worthy friends is natural and justifiable4 ,but according to ,john that agitation seized ,jesus in the broad daylight1 in a concourse of people2 a situation in which it is ordinarily more easy to maintain composure1 or in which at least it is usual1 from the possibility of misconstruction1 to suppress the more profound emotions4 ,hence it is more easy to agree with ,theile's opinion1 that the author of the fourth gospel has inserted the incident1 correctly placed by the synoptists1 in a false position4 #ahfc ,jesus having said1 as an introduction to the answer which he returned to the request of the ,greeks1 that they might see the man who had been so glorified by his entrance into the city3 ,yes1 the hour of my glorification is come1 but of glorification by death 7xii4 #bc f473 this led the narrator astray1 and induced him1 instead of giving the real answer of ,jesus to the ,greeks together with the result1 to make ,jesus dilate on the intrinsic necessity of his death1 and then almost unconsciously to interweave the description of the internal conflict which ,jesus had to experience in virtue of his voluntary sacrifice1 whence he subsequently1 in its proper place1 omits this conflict4 ,there is nothing strange in ,theile's opinion1 except that he supposes it possible for the ,apostle ,john to have made such a transposition4 ,that the scene in ,gethsemane1 from his having been asleep while it was passing1 was not deeply imprinted on his mind1 and that it was besides thrust into the background of his memory by the crucifixion which shortly followed1 might have been considered explanatory of an entire omission1 or a merely summary account of the scene on his part1 but by no means of an incorrect position4 ,if notwithstanding his sleepiness at the time1 he had taken any notice of the event1 he must at least have retained thus much--that that peculiar state of mind in ,jesus befel him close upon the commencement of his sufferings1 in the night and in privacy3 how could he ever so far belie his memory as to make the scene take place at a much earlier period1 in the open day1 and among many people8 ,rather than thus endanger the authenticity of the ,gospel of ,john1 others1 alleging the possibility that such a state of mind might occur more than once in the latter part of the life of ,jesus1 deny the identity of the two scenes4 #ahfd ,certainly1 between the synoptical representation of the mental conflict of ,jesus and that given in ,john1 besides the external difference of position1 there exist important internal divergencies2 the narrative in ,john containing features which have no analogy with anything in the synoptical account of the events in ,gethsemane4 ,it is true that the petition of ,jesus in ,john for deliverance from this hour1 is perfectly in unison with his prayer in the synoptists3 but1 on the other hand1 there is no parallel to the additional prayer in ,john3 ,father1 glorify thy name1 1 7xii4 #bh73 further1 though in both accounts an angel is spoken of1 yet there is no trace in the synoptists of the heavenly voice which in the fourth gospel occasions the belief that an angel is concerned4 ,such heavenly voices are not found in the three first gospels elsewhere than at the baptism and again at the transfiguration2 of which latter scene the prayer of ,jesus in ,john3 ,father1 glorify thy name1 may remind us4 ,in the synoptical description of the transfiguration1 it is true the expressions 1 glory and 1 to glorify1 are not found3 but the ,second ,epistle to ,peter represents ,jesus as receiving in the transfiguration honour and glory1 1 and the heavenly voice as coming from the excellent glory1 7i4 #ag f474 ,thus in addition to the two narratives already considered1 there presents itself a third as a parallel2 since the scene in ,john xii4 #bg ff4 is on the one side1 by the trouble of spirit and the angel1 allied to the occurrences in ,gethsemane1 while on the other side1 by the prayer for glorification and the confirmatory voice from heaven1 it has some affinity with the history of the transfiguration4 ,and here two cases are possible3 either that the narrative of ,john is the simple root1 the separation of which into its constituent elements has given rise in a traditional manner to the two synoptical anecdotes of the transfiguration and the agony in the garden2 or that these last are the original formations1 from the fusing and intermingling of which in the legend the narrative of ,john is the mixed product3 between which cases only the intrinsic character of the narratives can decide4 ,that the synoptical narratives of the transfiguration and the agony in the garden are clear pictures1 with strongly marked features1 can by itself prove nothing2 since1 as we have sufficiently shown1 a narrative of legendary origin may just as well possess these characteristics as one of a purely historical nature4 ,thus if the narrative in ,john were merely less clear and definite1 this need not prevent it from being regarded as the original1 simple sketch1 from which the embellishing hand of tradition had elaborated those more highly coloured pictures4 ,but the fact is that the narrative in ,john is wanting not only in definiteness1 but in agreement with the attendant circumstances and with itself4 ,we have no intimation what was the answer of ,jesus to the ,greeks1 or what became of those persons themselves2 no appropriate motive is given for the sudden anguish of ,jesus and his prayer for glorification4 ,such a mixture of heterogeneous parts is always the sign of a secondary product1 of an alluvial conglomeration2 and hence we seem warranted to conclude1 that in the narrative of ,john the two synoptical anecdotes of the transfiguration and the agony in the garden are blended together4 ,if1 as is apparently the case1 the legend when it reached the fourth ,evangelist presented these two incidents in faded colours1 #ahfe and in indistinct outline3 it would be easy for him1 since his idea of glorification 77 had the double aspect of suffering and exaltation1 to confuse the two2 what he gathered from the narrative of the agony in the garden1 of a prayer of ,jesus to the ,father1 he might connect with the heavenly voice in the history of the transfiguration1 making this an answer to the prayer2 to the voice1 the more particular import of which1 as given by the synoptists1 was unknown to him1 he gave1 in accordance1 with his general notion of this incident as a glory conferred on ,jesus1 the import3 ,i have both glorified and will glorify again1 1 1 and to make it correspond with this divine response1 he had to unite with the prayer of ,jesus for deliverance that for glorification also2 the strengthening angel1 of which the fourth ,evangelist had perhaps also heard something1 was included in the opinion of the people as to the source of the heavenly voice2 in regard to the time1 ,john placed his narrative about midway between the transfiguration and the agony in the garden1 and from ignorance of the original circumstances the choice in this respect was infelicitous4 ,if we here revert to the question from which we set out1 whether we are rather to retain the farewell discourses in ,john as thoroughly historical1 and renounce the synoptical representation of the scene in ,gethsemane1 or vice vers3 we shall be more inclined1 considering the result of the inquiry just instituted1 to embrace the latter alternative4 ,the difficulty1 that it is scarcely conceivable how ,john could accurately remember these long discourses of ,jesus1 ,paulus has thought to solve1 by the conjecture1 that the apostle1 probably on the next ,sabbath1 while ,jesus lay in the grave1 recalled to his mind the conversations of the previous evening1 and perhaps also wrote them down4 #ahff ,but in that period of depression1 which ,john also shared1 he would be scarcely in a condition to reproduce these discourses without obscuring their peculiar hue of unclouded serenity2 on the contrary1 as the author of the ,wolfenbttel fragments observes1 had the narrative of the words and deeds of ,jesus been committed to writing by the ,evangelists in the couple of days after the death of ,jesus1 when they had no longer any hope1 all promises would have been excluded from their gospels4 #ahfg ,hence even ,lcke1 in consideration of the mode of expression in the farewell discourses1 and particularly in the final prayer1 being so peculiarly that of ,john1 has relinquished the position that ,jesus spoke in the very words which ,john puts into his mouth1 i4e4 the authenticity of these discourses in the strictest sense2 but only to maintain the more firmly their authenticity in the wider sense1 i4e4 the genuineness of the substantial thoughts4 #ahfh ,even this1 however1 has been attacked by the author of the ,probabilia1 for he asks1 with especial reference to chap4 xvii41 whether it be conceivable that ,jesus in the anticipation of violent death1 had nothing of more immediate concern than to commune with ,god on the subject of his person1 the works he had already achieved1 and the glory to be expected8 and whether it be not rather highly probable that the prayer flowed only from the mind of the writer1 and was intended by him as a confirmation of his doctrine of ,jesus as the incarnate word 1 and of the dignity of the apostles8 #ahfi ,this representation is so far true that the final prayer in question resembles not an immediate outpouring of soul1 but a product of reflection--is rather a discourse on ,jesus than a discourse from him4 ,it presents everywhere the mode of thought of one who stands far in advance of the circumstances of which he writes1 and hence already sees the form of ,jesus in the glorifying haze of distance2 an illusion which he heightens by putting his own thoughts1 which had sprung from an advanced development of the ,christian community1 into the mouth of its ,founder prior to its actual existence4 ,but in the preceding farewell discourses also there are many thoughts which appear to have taken their shape from an experience of the event4 ,their entire tone may be the most naturally explained by the supposition1 that they are the work of one to whom the death of ,jesus was already a past event1 the terrors of which had melted away in its blessed consequences1 and in the devotional contemplation of the church4 ,in particular1 apart from what is said of the return of ,christ1 that era in the ,christian cause which is generally called the outpouring of the ,holy ,spirit1 is predicted in the declarations concerning the ,paraclete1 and the judgment which he would hold over the world 7xiv4 #af ff4 #be1 xv4 #bf1 xvi4 #g ff4 #ac ff471 with a distinctness which seems to indicate light borrowed from the issue4 ,in relation1 however1 to the fact that the farewell discourses involve the decided foreknowledge of the immediately approaching result1 the sufferings and death of ,jesus 7xiii4 #ah ff41 #cc1 #ch1 xiv4 #cj f4 xvi4 #e ff4 #af1 #cb f471 the narrative of ,john stands on the same ground with the synoptical one1 since this also rests on the presupposition of the most exact prescience of the hour and moment when the sufferings will commence4 ,it was not only at the last meal and on the departure to the ,mount of ,olives1 that this foreknowledge was shown1 according to the three first gospels1 for in them as well as in ,john1 ,jesus predicts that the denial of ,peter will take place before the cock crow2 not only does the agony in the garden rest on the foreknowledge of the impending sufferings1 but at the end of this conflict ,jesus is able to say that now1 at this very minute1 the betrayer is in the act of approaching 7,matt4 xxvi4 #de f474 ,paulus1 it is true1 maintains that ,jesus saw from a distance the troop of guards coming out of the city1 which1 as they had torches1 was certainly possible from a garden on the ,mount of ,olives3 but without being previously informed of the plans of his enemies1 ,jesus could not know that he was the object of pursuit2 and at any rate the ,evangelists narrate the words of ,jesus as a proof of his supernatural knowledge4 ,but if according to our previous inquiry1 the foreknowledge of the catastrophe in general could not proceed from the higher principle in ,jesus1 neither could that of the precise moment when it would commence2 while that he in a natural way1 by means of secret friends in the ,sanhedrim1 or otherwise1 was apprised of the fatal blow which the ,jewish rulers with the help of one of his disciples were about to aim at him in the coming night1 we have no trace in our ,evangelical accounts1 and we are therefore not authorized to presuppose anything of the kind4 ,on the contrary1 as the above declaration of ,jesus is given by the narrators as a proof of his higher knowledge1 either we must receive it as such1 or1 if we cannot do this1 we must embrace the negative inference1 that they are here incorrect in narrating such a proof2 and the positive conclusion on which this borders is1 not that that knowledge was in fact only a natural one1 but1 that the evangelical narrators must have had an interest in maintaining a supernatural knowledge of his approaching sufferings on the part of ,jesus2 an interest the nature of which has been already unfolded4 ,the motive also for heightening the prescience into a real presentiment1 and thus for creating the scene in ,gethsemane1 is easy of discovery4 ,on the one hand1 there cannot be a more obvious proof that a foreknowledge of an event or condition has existed1 than its having risen to the vividness of a presentiment2 on the other hand1 the suffering must appear the more awful1 if the mere presentiment extorted from him who was destined to that suffering1 anguish even to bloody sweat1 and prayer for deliverance4 ,further1 the sufferings of ,jesus were exhibited in a higher sense1 as voluntary1 if before they came upon him externally1 he had resigned himself to them internally2 and lastly1 it must have gratified primitive ,christian devotion1 to withdraw the real crisis of these sufferings from the profane eyes to which he was exposed on the cross1 and to enshrine it as a mystery only witnessed by a narrow circle of the initiated4 ,as materials for the formation of this scene1 besides the description of the sorrow and the prayer which were essential to it1 there presented itself first the image of a cup 1 used by ,jesus himself as a designation of his sufferings 7,matt4 xx4 #bb f472 and secondly1 ,old ,testament passages1 in ,psalms of lamentation1 xlii4 #f1 #ab1 xliii4 #e1 where in the ,,lxx4 the 7soul exceeding sorrowful7 occurs1 and in addition to this the expression 7unto death7 the more naturally suggested itself1 since ,jesus was here really about to encounter death4 ,this representation must have been of early origin1 because in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews 7v4 #g7 there is an indubitable allusion to this scene4--,thus ,gabler said too little when he pronounced the angelic appearance1 a mythical garb of the fact that ,jesus in the deepest sorrow of that night suddenly felt an accession of mental strength2 since rather1 the entire scene in ,gethsemane1 because it rests on presuppositions destitute of proof1 must be renounced4 ,herewith the dilemma above stated falls to the ground1 since we must pronounce unhistorical not only one of the two1 but both representations of the last hours of ,jesus before his arrest4 ,the only degree of distinction between the historical value of the synoptical account and that of ,john is1 that the former is a mythical product of the first era of traditional formation1 the latter of the second1--or more correctly1 the one is a product of the second order1 the other of the third4 ,the representation common to the synoptists and to ,john1 that ,jesus foreknew his sufferings even to the day and hour of their arrival1 is the first modification which the pious legend gave to the real history of ,jesus2 the statement of the synoptists1 that he even had an antecedent experience of his sufferings1 is the second step of the mythical2 while1 that although he foreknew them1 and also in one instance had a foretaste of them 7,john xii4 #bg ff471 he had yet long beforehand completely triumphed over them1 and when they stood immediately before him1 looked them in the face with unperturbed serenity--this representation of the fourth gospel is the third and highest grade of devotional1 but unhistorical embellishment4 #abg4 ,,arrest ,,of ,,jesus4 ,in strict accordance with the declaration of ,jesus that even now the betrayer is at hand1 ,judas while he is yet speaking approaches with an armed force 7,matt4 xxvi4 #dg parall41 comp4 ,john xvii4 #c74 ,this band1 which according to the synoptists came from the chief priests and elders1 was according to ,luke led by the captains of the temple 1 and hence was probably a detachment of the soldiers of the temple1 to whom1 judging from the word 1 and from staves being mentioned among the weapons1 was apparently joined a tumultuous crowd3 according to the representation of ,john1 who1 together with the servants or officers of the chief priests and ,pharisees1 1 speaks of a band 1 and a captain 1 without mentioning any tumultuary force1 it appears as if the ,jewish magistrates had procured as a support a detachment of ,roman soldiery4 #ahgj ,according to the three first ,evangelists1 ,judas steps forth and kisses ,jesus1 in order by this preconcerted sign to indicate him to the approaching band as the individual whom they were to seize3 according to the fourth gospel1 on the contrary1 ,jesus advances apparently out of the garden 77 to meet them1 and presents himself as the person whom they seek4 ,in order to reconcile this divergency1 some have conceived the occurrences thus3 ,jesus1 to prevent his disciples from being taken1 first went towards the multitude1 and made himself known2 hereupon ,judas stepped forth1 and indicated him by the kiss4 #ahga ,but had ,jesus already made himself known1 ,judas might have spared the kiss2 for that the people did not believe the assertion of ,jesus that he was the man whom they sought1 and still waited for its confirmation by the kiss of the bribed disciple1 is a supposition incompatible with the statement of the fourth gospel that the words ,i am he1 made so strong an impression on them that they went backward and fell to the ground4 ,hence others have inverted the order of the scene1 imagining that ,judas first stepped forward and distinguished ,jesus by the kiss1 and that then1 before the crowd could press into the garden1 ,jesus himself advanced and made himself known4 #ahgb ,but if ,judas had already indicated him by the kiss1 and he had so well understood the object of the kiss as is implied in his answer to it1 ,luke v4 #dh3 there was no need for him still to make himself known1 seeing that he was already made known2 to do so for the protection of the disciples was equally superfluous1 since he must have inferred from the traitor's kiss1 that it was intended to single him out and carry him away from his followers2 if he did so merely to show his courage1 this was almost theatrical3 while1 in general1 the idea that ,jesus1 between the kiss of ,judas1 and the entrance of the crowd1 which was certainly immediate1 advanced towards the latter with questions and answers1 throws into his demeanour a degree of hurry and precipitancy so ill suited to his circumstances1 that the ,evangelists can scarcely have meant such an inference to be drawn4 ,it should therefore be acknowledged that neither of the two representations is designed as a supplement to the other1 #ahgc since each has a different conception of the manner in which ,jesus was made known1 and in which ,judas was active in the affair4 ,that ,judas was guide to them that took ,jesus1 7,acts i4 #af71 all the ,evangelists agree4 ,but while according to the synoptical account the task of ,judas includes not only the pointing out of the place1 but also the distinguishing of the person by the kiss1 ,john makes the agency of ,judas end with the indication of the place1 and represents him after the arrival on the spot as standing inactive among the crowd 7 --' 1 v4 #e74 ,why ,john does not assign to ,judas the task of personally indicating ,jesus1 it is easy to see3 because1 namely1 he would have ,jesus appear1 not as one delivered up1 but as delivering himself up1 so that his sufferings may be manifested in a higher degree as undertaken voluntarily4 ,we have only to remember how the earliest opponents of ,christianity imputed the retirement of ,jesus out of the city into the distant garden1 as an ignominious flight from his enemies1 #ahgd in order to find it conceivable that there arose among the ,christians at an early period the inclination to transcend the common evangelical tradition in representing his demeanour on his arrest in the light of a voluntary self-resignation4 ,in the synoptists the kiss of ,judas is followed by the cutting question of ,jesus to the traitor2 in ,john1 after ,jesus has uttered the 1 ,i am he1 it is stated that under the influence of these commanding words1 the multitude who had come out to seize him went backward and fell to the ground1 so that ,jesus had to repeat his declaration and as it were encourage the people to seize him4 ,of late it has been denied that there was any miracle here3 the impression of the personality of ,jesus1 it is said1 acted psychologically on those among the crowd who had already often seen and heard ,jesus2 and in support of this opinion reference is made to the examples of this kind in the life of ,marius1 ,coligny1 and others4 #ahge ,but neither in the synoptical account1 according to which there needed the indication of ,jesus by the kiss1 nor in that of ,john1 according to which there needed the declaration of ,jesus1 ,i am he1 does ,jesus appear to be known to the crowd1 at least in such a manner as to exercise any profound influence over them2 while the above examples only show that sometimes the powerful impression of a man's personality has paralyzed the murderous hands of an individual or of a few1 but not that a whole detachment of civil officers and soldiers has been made1 not merely to draw back1 but to fall to the ground4 ,it answers no purpose for ,lcke to make first a few fall down and then the whole crowd1 except that of rendering it impossible to imagine the scene with gravity4 ,hence we turn to the old theologians1 who here unanimously acknowledge a miracle4 ,the ,christ who by word of his mouth cast down the hostile multitude1 is no other than he who according to #b ,thess4 ii4 #h1 shall consume the ,antichrist with the spirit of his mouth1 i4e4 not the historical ,christ1 but the ,christ of the ,jewish and primitive ,christian imagination4 ,the author of the fourth gospel especially1 who had so often remarked how the enemies of ,jesus and their creatures were unable to lay hands on him1 because his hour was not yet come 7vii4 #cj1 #cb1 #dd ff41 viii4 #bj71 had an inducement1 now1 when the hour was come1 to represent the ultimately successful attempt as also failing at the first in a thoroughly astounding manner2 especially as this fully accorded with the interest by which he is governed throughout the description of this whole scene--the demonstrating that the capture of ,jesus was purely an act of his own free will4 ,when ,jesus lays the soldiers prostrate by the power of his word1 he gives them a proof of what he could do1 if to liberate himself were his object2 and when he allows himself to be seized immediately after1 this appears as the most purely voluntary self-sacrifice4 ,thus in the fourth gospel ,jesus gives a practical proof of that power1 which in the first he only expresses by words1 when he says to one of his disciples3 ,thinkest thou that ,i cannot now pray to my ,father1 and he shall presently give me twelve legions of angels 7v4 #ec78 ,after this1 the author of the fourth gospel very inappropriately holds up the solicitude which ,jesus manifested that his disciples should not be taken captive with him1 as a fulfilment of the declaration of ,jesus 7xvii4 #ab71 that he had lost none of those intrusted to him by the ,father2 a declaration which was previously more suitably referred to the spiritual preservation of his disciples4 ,as the next feature in the scene1 all the ,evangelists agree1 that when the soldiers began to lay hands on ,jesus1 one of his disciples drew his sword1 and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant1 an act which met with a reproof from ,jesus4 ,still ,luke and ,john have each a peculiar trait4 ,not to mention that both particularize the ear as the right ear1 while their two predecessors had left this point undetermined2 the latter not only gives the name of the wounded servant1 but states that the disciple who wounded him was ,peter4 ,why the synoptists do not name ,peter1 it has been sought to explain in different ways4 ,the supposition that they wished to avoid compromising the apostle1 who at the time of the composition of their gospels was yet living1 #ahgf belongs to the justly exploded fictions of an exegesis framed on the false principle of supplying conjecturally all those links in the chain of natural causation which are wanting in the gospels4 ,that these ,evangelists elsewhere for the most part omit names1 #ahgg is too sweeping an accusation as regards ,matthew1 though he does indeed leave unnamed indifferent persons1 such as ,jairus1 or ,bartimus2 but that the real ,matthew1 or even the common evangelical tradition1 thus early and generally should have lost the name from an anecdote of ,peter1 so thoroughly accordant with the part played by this apostle1 can scarcely be considered very probable4 ,to me1 the reverse would be much more conceivable1 namely1 that the anecdote was originally current without the mention of any name 7and why should not a less distinguished adherent of ,jesus--for from the synoptists it is not necessarily to be inferred that it was one of the twelve--whose name was therefore the more readily forgotten1 have had courage and rashness enough to draw his sword at that crisis871 but a later narrator thought such a mode of conduct particularly suited to the impetuous character of ,peter1 and hence ascribed it to him by a combination of his own4 ,on this supposition1 we need not appeal1 in support of the possibility that ,john could know the servant's name1 to his acquaintance with the household of the high priest1 #ahgh any more than to a peculiar acquaintance of ,mark with some inhabitants of ,jericho1 in explanation of his obtaining the name of the blind man4 ,the distinctive trait in ,luke's account of this particular is1 that ,jesus heals the servant's ear1 apparently by a miracle4 ,olshausen here makes the complacent remark1 that this circumstance best explains how ,peter could escape uninjured--astonishment at the cure absorbed the general attention3 while according to ,paulus1 ,jesus by touching the wounded ear 77 only meant to examine it1 and then told what must be done for the purpose of healing 7 72 had he cured it by a miracle there must have been some notice of the astonishment of the spectators4 ,such pains-taking interpretations are here especially needless1 since the fact that ,luke stands alone in giving the trait in question1 together with the whole tenor of the scene1 tells us plainly enough what opinion we are to form on the subject4 ,should ,jesus1 who had removed by his miraculous power so much suffering of which he was innocent1 leave uncured suffering which one of his disciples out of attachment to him1 and thus indirectly he himself1 had caused8 ,this must soon have been found inconceivable1 and hence to the stroke of the sword of ,peter was united a miraculous cure on the part of ,jesus--the last in the evangelical history4 ,here1 immediately before he is led away1 the synoptists place the remonstrance which ,jesus addressed to those who had come to take him prisoner3 that though1 by his daily public appearance in the temple he had given the best opportunity for them to lay hands upon him1 yet--a bad augury for the purity of their cause--they came to a distance to seek him with as many preparations1 as against a thief8 ,in the fourth gospel1 he is made to say something similar to ,annas1 to whose inquiries concerning his disciples and his doctrine1 he replies by referring him to the publicity of his entire agency1 to his teaching in the temple and synagogue 7xviii4 #bj f474 ,luke1 as if he had gathered from both1 that ,jesus had said something of this kind to the high priest1 and also at the time of his arrest1 represents the chief priests and elders themselves as being present in the garden1 and ,jesus as here speaking to them in the above manner1 which is certainly a mere blunder4 #ahgi ,according to the two first ,evangelists1 all the disciples now fled4 ,here ,mark has the special particular1 that a young man with a linen cloth cast about his naked body1 when he was in danger of being seized1 left the linen cloth and fled naked4 ,apart from the industrious conjectures of ancient and even modern expositors1 as to who this young man was2 this information of ,mark's has been regarded as a proof of the very early origin of this gospel1 on the ground that so unimportant an anecdote1 and one moreover to which no name is attached1 could have no interest except for those who stood in close proximity to the persons and events4 #ahhj ,but this inference is erroneous2 for the above trait gives even to us1 at this remote distance of time1 a vivid idea of the panic and rapid flight of the adherents of ,jesus1 and must therefore have been welcome to ,mark1 from whatever source he may have received it1 or how late soever he may have written4 #abh4 ,,examination ,,of ,,jesus ,,before ,,the ,,high ,,priest4 ,from the place of arrest the synoptists state ,jesus to have been led to the high priest1 whose name1 ,caiaphas1 is1 however1 only mentioned by ,matthew2 while ,john represents him as being led in the first instance to ,annas1 the father-in-law of the existing high priest2 and only subsequently to ,caiaphas 7,matt4 xxvi4 #eg ff4 parall42 ,john xviii4 #ab ff474 ,the important rank of ,annas renders this representation of ,john as conceivable as the silence of the synoptists is explicable1 on the ground that the ex-high priest had no power of deciding in this cause4 ,but it is more surprising that1 as must be believed from the first glance1 the fourth ,evangelist merely gives some details of the transaction with ,annas1 and appears entirely to pass by the decisive trial before the actual high priest1 except that he states ,jesus to have been led away to ,caiaphas4 ,there was no more ready expedient for the harmonists than the supposition1 which is found e4g4 in ,euthymius1 that ,john1 in consistency with the supplementary character of his gospel1 preserved the examination before ,annas as being omitted by the synoptists1 while he passed by that before ,caiaphas1 because it was described with sufficient particularity by his predecessors4 #ahha ,this opinion1 that ,john and the synoptists speak of two entirely distinct trials1 has a confirmation in the fact that the tenor of the respective trials is totally different4 ,in that which the synoptists describe1 according to ,matthew and ,mark1 the false witnesses first appear against ,jesus2 the high priest then asks him if he really pretends to be the ,messiah1 and on receiving an affirmative answer1 declares him guilty of blasphemy1 and worthy of death1 whereupon follows maltreatment of his person4 ,in the trial depicted by ,john1 ,jesus is merely questioned concerning his disciples and his doctrine1 he appeals to the publicity of his conduct1 and after having been maltreated for this reply by an attendant 771 is sent away without the passing of any sentence4 ,that the fourth ,evangelist should thus give no particulars concerning the trial before ,caiaphas is the more surprising1 since in the one before ,annas1 if it be this which he narrates1 according to his own representation nothing was decided1 and consequently the grounds for the condemnation of ,jesus by the ,jewish authorities1 and the sentence itself1 are altogether wanting in his gospel4 ,to explain this by the supplementary object of ,john is to impute to him too irrational a mode of procedure2 for if he omitted facts because the other ,evangelists had already given them1 without intimating that he did so purely for that reason1 he could only reckon on introducing confusion1 and entailing on himself the suspicion of having given a false narrative4 ,he can hardly have had the opinion that the trial before ,annas was the principal one1 and that therefore it was allowable to omit the other1 since he reports no judgment as having been passed in the former2 but if he knew the trial before ,caiaphas to have been the principal one1 and yet gave no more particular information concerning it1 this also was a highly singular course for him to take4 ,thus the very simplest view of the case seems at once to point to the attempt to discover in the account of the fourth gospel indications that it also is to be understood of the trial before ,caiaphas4 ,what affords the strongest presumption of the identity of the two trials is the identity of an incident concomitant with both1 ,john as well as the synoptists making ,peter deny ,jesus during the trial detailed4 ,it is further remarkable that after ,annas has been spoken of1 at v4 #ac1 as the father-in-law of ,caiaphas1 there follows at v4 #ad1 a more precise designation of ,caiaphas as the author of the fatal counsel1 recorded in ,john xi4 #ej1 although apparently the ,evangelist proceeds to narrate a trial held1 not before ,caiaphas1 but before ,annas4 ,moreover in the description of the trial itself1 there is mention throughout of the palace and of questions from the high priest1 a title which ,john nowhere else applies to ,annas1 but only to ,caiaphas4 ,but that in accordance with the above supposition1 the ,evangelist from v4 #ae1 should be describing something which passed before ,caiaphas1 appears impossible from v4 #bd1 for it is there first said that ,annas sent ,jesus to ,caiaphas1 so that he must until then have been before ,annas4 ,with ready thought this difficulty was first met by removing the #bdth verse to the place where it was wanted1 namely1 after v4 #ac1 and laying the blame of its present too late position on the negligence of transcribers4 #ahhb ,as1 however1 this transposition1 being destitute of any critical authority1 must appear an arbitrary and violent expedient for getting rid of the difficulty1 it was next tried whether the statement in v4 #bd1 without being actually moved from its place1 might not receive such an interpretation as to come in point of sense after v4 #ac2 i4e41 the word was taken as a pluperfect1 and it was supposed that ,john intended here to supply retrospectively what he had forgotten to observe at v4 #ac1 namely1 that ,annas immediately sent ,jesus to ,caiaphas1 so that the trial just described was conducted by the latter4 #ahhc ,as the general possibility of such an enallage temporum is admissible1 the only question is whether it be accordant with the style of the present writer1 and whether it be intimated in the context4 ,in the latter respect it is certainly true that if nothing important had occurred in the presence of ,annas1 the ,evangelist1 in annexing to his notice of the relationship of ,annas to ,caiaphas the more precise designation of the latter1 might be drawn on to speak without further preface of the trial before ,caiaphas1 and might afterwards1 by way of appendix1 at some resting place1 as here at the close of the transactions of the high priest with ,jesus1 intimate the transition which he had made4 ,an accurate ,greek writer certainly in this case1 if he did not use the pluperfect1 would at least have made evident the explanatory reference to what had preceded1 by the addition of a to the aorist4 ,our ,evangelist1 however1 in whom the characteristic of the ,hellenistic writers to connect their propositions but loosely1 in accordance with the genius of the ,hebrew language1 is very strongly marked1 might perhaps have introduced that supplementary observation even without a particle1 or1 according to the ordinary reading1 by 1 which is not merely indicative that a subject is continued1 but also that it is resumed4 #ahhd ,if these considerations be held to establish that he also intended to narrate the trial before ,caiaphas3 it is clear from the aspect of his account taken by itself1 as well as from the previous comparison with the synoptical one1 that his narrative cannot be complete4 ,we turn1 therefore1 to the account of the synoptists1 and among them also1 namely1 between the two first and the third1 we find numerous divergencies4 ,according to the former1 when ,jesus was brought into the palace of the high priest1 the scribes and elders were already assembled1 and while it was still night proceeded to hold a trial1 in which first witnesses appeared1 and then the high priest addressed to him the decisive question1 on the answer to which the assembly declared him worthy of death 7in ,john also the trial goes forward in the night1 but there is no intimation of the presence of the great council74 ,according to the representation of the third gospel1 on the other hand1 ,jesus throughout the night is merely kept under guard in the high priest's palace1 and maltreated by the underlings2 and when at the break of day the ,sanhedrim assembles1 no witnesses appear1 but the high priest precipitates the sentence by the decisive question4 ,now1 that in the depth of the night1 while ,judas was gone out with the guard1 the members of the council should have assembled themselves for the reception of ,jesus1 might be regarded as improbable1 and in so far1 the preference might be given to the representation of the third gospel1 which makes them assemble at daybreak only3 #ahhe were it not that ,luke himself neutralizes this advantage by making the high priests and elders present at the arrest2 a zeal which might well have driven them straightway to assemble for the sake of accelerating the conclusion4 ,but in the account of ,matthew and ,mark also there is this singularity1 that after they have narrated to us the whole trial together with the sentence1 they yet 7xxvii4 #a and xv4 #a7 say3 when the morning was come1 they took counsel1 1 thus making it appear1 if not that the members of the ,sanhedrim reassembled in the morning1 which could hardly be1 seeing that they had been together the whole night2 yet that they now first came to a definite resolution against ,jesus1 though1 according to these same ,evangelists1 this had already been done in the nocturnal council4 #ahhf ,it may be said that to the sentence of death already passed in the night1 was added in the morning the resolution to deliver ,jesus to ,pilate3 but according to the then existing state of the law1 this followed as a matter of course1 and needed no special resolution4 ,that ,luke and ,john omit the production of the false witnesses1 is to be regarded as a deficiency in their narrative4 ,for from the coincidence of ,john ii4 #ai and ,acts vi4 #ad with ,matthew and ,mark1 it is highly probable that the declaration about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple was really uttered by ,jesus2 while that that declaration should be used as an article of accusation against him on his trial was an almost necessary result4 ,the absence of this weighty point in ,luke1 ,schleiermacher explains by the circumstance1 that the author of this passage in the third gospel had indeed followed the escort which conducted ,jesus from the garden1 but had with most others been excluded from the palace of the high priest1 and consequently narrated what occurred there merely from hearsay4 ,but1 not to anticipate future points1 the single trait of the cure of the servant's ear suffices to preclude our attributing to the author of this portion of ,luke's gospel so close a proximity to the fact4 ,it rather appears that the above declaration came to the third ,evangelist under the form of an article of accusation against ,stephen1 instead of ,jesus2 while the fourth has it only as a declaration from ,jesus1 and not as an article of accusation against him4 ,this subject having however necessarily come under our observation at an earlier point of our inquiry1 it is needless to pursue it further here4 #ahhg ,when ,jesus made no answer to the allegations of the witnesses1 he was asked1 according to the two first ,evangelists1 by the high priest1--in the third gospel1 without the above cause1 by the ,sanhedrim1--whether he actually maintained that he was the ,messiah 7the ,son of ,god78 ,to this question1 according to the two former1 he at once replies in the affirmative1 in the words 1 thou hast said1 and 1 ,i am1 and adds that hereafter or immediately 7' 7 they would see the ,son of man sitting on the right hand of the divine power1 and coming in the clouds of heaven2 according to ,luke1 on the other hand1 he first declares that his answer will be of no avail1 and then adds that hereafter the ,son of man shall sit on the right hand of the power of ,god2 whereupon all eagerly ask3 ,art thou then the ,son of ,god8 and he replies in the affirmative4 ,thus ,jesus here expresses the expectation that by his death he will at once enter into the glory of sitting as ,messiah at the right hand of ,god1 according to ,ps4 cx4 i1 which he had already1 ,matt4 xxii4 #dd1 interpreted of the ,messiah4 ,for even if he at first perhaps thought of attaining his messianic glorification without the intervention of death1 because this intervention was not presented to him by the ideas of the age2 if it was only at a later period1 and as a result of circumstances1 that the foreboding of such a necessity began to arise and gradually to acquire distinctness in his mind2 now1 a prisoner1 forsaken by his adherents1 in the presence of the rancorously hostile ,sanhedrim1 it must1 if he would retain the conviction of his messiahship1 become a certainty to him1 that he could enter into his messianic glorification by death alone4 ,when1 according to the two first ,evangelists1 ,jesus adds to the sitting on the right hand of power1 the coming in the clouds of heaven1 he predicts1 as on an earlier occasion1 his speedy advent1 and in this instance he decidedly predicts it as a return4 ,olshausen maintains that the ' of ,matthew ought to be referred only to 4441 because it would not suit 4441 since it is not to be conceived that ,jesus could then have represented himself as about to come in the clouds3 a purely dogmatical difficulty1 which does not exist in our point of view1 but which cannot in any point of view warrant such an offence against grammatical interpretation as this of ,olshausen4 ,on the above declaration of ,jesus1 according to ,matthew and ,mark the high priest rends his clothes1 declaring ,jesus convicted of blasphemy1 and the council pronounces him guilty of death2 and in ,luke also1 all those assembled observe that now there is no need of any further witness1 since the criminal declaration has been uttered by ,jesus in their own hearing4 ,to the sentence is then added in the two first ,evangelists the maltreatment of ,jesus1 which ,john1 who here mentions no sentence1 represents as following the appeal of ,jesus to the publicity of his work1 while ,luke places it before the trial2 more probably because it was not any longer precisely known when this maltreatment occurred1 than because it was repeated at various times and under various circumstances4 ,in ,john the maltreatment is said to proceed from an attendant1 in ,luke1 from the men that held ,jesus1 42 in ,mark1 on the contrary1 those who began to spit in the face of ,jesus 7 7 must have been some of those 77 who had just before condemned him1 since he distinguishes the 1 servants1 from them2 and in ,matthew also1 who1 without introducing a new nominative proceeds merely with 1 then began they1 it is plainly the members of the ,sanhedrim themselves who descend to such unworthy conduct3 which ,schleiermacher justly considers improbable1 and in so far prefers the representation of ,luke to that of ,matthew4 #ahhh ,in ,john the maltreatment consists in a blow on the cheek with the palm of the hand1 1 which an attendant gives ,jesus on account of a supposed insolent answer to the high priest2 in ,matthew and ,mark1 in spitting on the face 7 71 and blows on the head and cheek1 to which it is added1 in ,luke also1 that he was blindfolded1 then struck on the face1 and scoffingly asked to attest his messianic second sight by telling who was the giver of the blow4 #ahhi ,according to ,olshausen1 the spirit of prophecy did not scorn to predict these rudenesses in detail1 and at the same time to describe the state of mind which the ,holy ,one of ,god opposed to the unholy multitude4 ,he correctly adduces in relation to this scene ,isa4 l4 #f f42 7,,lxx473 ,i gave my back to the smiters1 and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair3 ,i hid not my face from shame and spitting1 etc41 1 1 444 7comp4 ,mic4 iv4 #ad72 and for the manner in which ,jesus bore all this1 the well-known passage ,isa4 liii4 #g1 where the servant of ,god is represented as enduring maltreatment in silence4 ,but the interpretation of these passages in ,isaiah as prophecies concerning the ,messiah is equally opposed to the context in both instances3 #ahij consequently the agreement of the result with these passages must either have been the effect of human design1 or purely accidental4 ,now it is certain that the servants and soldiers in their maltreatment had not the intention of causing prophecies to be fulfilled in ,jesus2 and it will hardly be chosen to suppose that ,jesus affected silence with this view2 while to deduce from mere chance a coincidence which certainly1 as ,olshausen says1 extends to minuti1 is always unsatisfactory4 ,probable as it is from the rude manners of that age1 that ,jesus was maltreated when a prisoner1 and moreover that amongst other things he received just such insults as are described by the ,evangelists3 it is yet scarcely to be denied1 that their descriptions are modelled on prophecies which1 when once ,jesus appeared as a sufferer and maltreated person1 were applied to him2 and however consistent it may be with the character of ,jesus that he should have borne this maltreatment patiently1 and repelled improper questions by a dignified silence3 the ,evangelists would scarcely have noticed this so often and so solicitously1 #ahia if it had not been their intention thus to exhibit the fulfilment of ,old ,testament oracles4 #abi4 ,,the ,,denial ,,of ,,peter4 ,the two first ,evangelists state1 that at the moment in which ,jesus was led away from the garden1 all the disciples forsook him and fled2 but in their accounts1 as well as in those of ,luke and ,john1 ,peter is said to have followed him at a distance1 and to have obtained admission with the escort into the court of the high priest's palace3 while1 according to the synoptists1 it is ,peter alone who gives this proof of courage and attachment to ,jesus1 which however soon enough issues in the deepest humiliation for him2 the fourth ,evangelist gives him ,john for a companion1 and moreover represents the latter as the one who1 by means of his acquaintance with the high priest1 procures admittance for ,peter into his palace2 a divergency which1 with the whole peculiar relation in which this gospel places ,peter with respect to ,john1 has been already considered4 #ahib ,according to all the ,evangelists1 it was in this court1 1 that ,peter1 intimidated by the inauspicious turn in the fortunes of ,jesus1 and the high priest's domestics by whom he was surrounded1 sought to allay the repeatedly expressed suspicion that he was one of the followers of the arrested ,galilean1 by reiterated asseverations that he knew him not4 ,but1 as we have already intimated1 in relation to the owner of this habitation1 there exists an apparent divergency between the fourth gospel and the synoptists4 ,in ,john1 to judge from the first glance at his narrative1 the first denial 7xviii4 #ag7 happens during the trial before ,annas1 since it stands after the statement that ,jesus was led to ,annas 7v4 #ac71 and before the verse in which he is said to have been sent to ,caiaphas 7v4 #bd71 and only the two further acts of denial 7v4 #be-bg71 in so far as they follow the last-named statement1 and as immediately after them the delivery to ,pilate is narrated 7v4 #bh71 appear in ,john also to have occurred during the trial before ,caiaphas and in his palace4 ,but to this supposition of a different locality for the first denial and the two subsequent ones1 there is a hindrance in the account of the fourth gospel itself4 ,after the mention of the first denial1 which happened at the door of the palace 7of ,annas apparently71 it is said that the night being cold the servants and officers had made a fire of coals1 and ,peter stood with them and warmed himself1 ' 7v4 #ah74 ,now1 when farther on1 the narrative of the second and third denial is opened with nearly the same words3 ,and ,simon ,peter stood and warmed himself1 7v4 #be73 this cannot be understood otherwise than as an allusion to the previously noticed circumstances of the fire of coals1 and of ,peter's standing by it to warm himself1 and hence it must be inferred that the ,evangelist intended to represent the second and third denial as having occurred by the same fire1 consequently1 on the above supposition1 likewise in the house of ,annas4 ,it is true that the synoptists speak of a fire in the court of the palace of ,caiaphas also 7,mark v4 #ed2 ,luke v4 #ee71 at which ,peter warmed himself 7here1 however1 sitting1 as in ,john standing73 but it does not thence follow that ,john also imagined a similar fire to have been in the court of the actual high priest1 and according to the supposition on which we have hitherto proceeded1 he only mentions such a fire in the house of ,annas4 ,they who regard as too artificial an expedient the conjecture of ,euthymius1 that the dwellings of ,annas and ,caiaphas perhaps had a common court1 and that consequently ,peter could remain standing by the same fire after ,jesus had been led away from the former to the latter1 prefer the supposition that the second and third denial occurred1 according to ,john1 not after1 but during the leading away of ,jesus from ,annas to ,caiaphas4 #ahic ,thus on the presupposition that ,john narrates a trial before ,annas1 the difference between the gospels in relation to the locality of the denial remains a total one2 and in this irreconcilable divergency1 some have decided in favour of ,john1 on the ground that the scattered disciples had only fragmentary information concerning this scene1--that ,peter himself being a stranger in ,jerusalem did not know in which palace he had1 to his misfortune1 entered2 but that he1 and after him the first ,evangelists1 supposed the denials to have taken place in the court of ,caiaphas2 whereas ,john1 from his more intimate acquaintance with the city and the high priest's palace1 was able to rectify this mistake4 #ahid ,but even admitting the incredible supposition that ,peter erroneously believed himself to have denied ,jesus in the palace of ,caiaphas1 still ,john1 who in these days was in the society of ,peter1 would certainly at once have corrected his assertion1 so that such an erroneous opinion could not have become fixed in his mind4 ,hence it might be preferred to reverse the attempt1 and to vindicate the synoptists at the expense of ,john3 were it not that the observations contained in the foregoing section 7according to which ,john1 after having merely mentioned that ,jesus was led away to ,annas1 may speak from v4 #ae of what occurred in the palace of ,caiaphas71 present a possible solution of this contradiction also4 ,in relation to the separate acts of denial1 all the ,evangelists agree in stating that there were three of them1 in accordance with the prediction of ,jesus2 but in the description of the several instances they are at variance4 ,first1 as it regards place and persons2 according to ,john the first denial is uttered on the very entrance of ,peter1 to a damsel that kept the door1 7v4 #ag72 in the synoptists1 in the inner court1 where ,peter sat at the fire1 to a damsel1 7,matt4 v4 #fi f4 parall474 ,the second takes place1 in ,john 7v4 #be71 and also in ,luke1 who at least notices no change of position 7v4 #eh71 at the fire3 in ,matthew 7v4 #ga7 and ,mark 7v4 #fh ff471 after ,peter was gone out into the porch4 1 2 further1 in ,john it is made to several persons2 in ,luke1 to one2 in ,matthew to another damsel than the one to whom he made the first denial2 in ,mark1 to the same4 ,the third denial happened1 according to ,matthew and ,mark1 who mention no change of place after the second1 likewise in the porch2 according to ,luke and ,john1 since they likewise mention no change of place1 undoubtedly still in the inner court1 at the fire2 further1 according to ,matthew and ,mark1 to many bystanders1 according to ,luke to one3 according to ,john1 to one who happens to be a relative of the servant who had been wounded in the garden4 ,as regards the conversation which passed on this occasion1 the suspicious queries are at one time addressed to ,peter himself1 at another to the bystanders1 in order to point him out to their observation1 and in the two first instances they are given by the different ,evangelists with tolerable agreement1 as merely expressing the opinion that he appeared to be one of the adherents of the man recently taken prisoner4 ,but in the third instance1 where the parties render a motive for their suspicion1 they according to the synoptists mention his ,galilean dialect as a proof of its truth2 while in ,john the relative of ,malchus appeals to his recollection of having seen ,peter in the garden4 ,now the former mode of accounting for the suspicion is as natural as the second1 together with the designation of the individual who adduced it as a relative of ,malchus1 appears artificial1 and fabricated for the sake of firmly interweaving into the narrative the connexion of the sword-stroke given in the garden with the name of ,peter4 #ahie ,in the answers of ,peter there is the divergency1 that according to ,matthew he already the second time fortifies his denial by an oath1 while according to ,mark this is not the case until the third denial1 and in the two other ,evangelists this circumstance is not mentioned at all2 moreover1 ,matthew1 to preserve a gradation1 adds on the third denial that ,peter began to curse as well as to swear 1 a representation which when compared with the other gospels may appear exaggerated4 ,so to adjust these very differently narrated denials in such a manner that no ,evangelist may be taxed with having given an incorrect or even a merely inexact account1 was no light labour for the harmonists4 ,not only did the older1 supranaturalistic expositors1 such as ,bengel1 undertake this task1 but even recently1 ,paulus has given himself much trouble to bring the various acts of denial recounted by the ,evangelists into appropriate order1 and thus to show that they have a natural sequence4 ,according to him1 ,peter denies the ,lord1 #a4 ,before the portress 7#ast denial in ,john72 #b4 ,before several standing at the fire 7#bnd in ,john72 #c4 ,before a damsel at the fire 7#ast in the synoptists72 #d4 ,before one who has no particular designation 7#bnd in ,luke72 #e4 ,on going out into the porch1 before a damsel 7#bnd in ,matthew and ,mark4 ,out of this denial ,paulus should in consistency have made two1 since the damsel1 who points out ,peter to the bystanders1 is according to ,mark the same as the one in ,no4 #c1 but according to ,matthew another72 #f4 ,before the relative of ,malchus 7#crd in ,john72 #g4 ,before one who professes to detect him by his ,galilean dialect 7#crd in ,luke71 and who forthwith #h4 is seconded by several others1 to whom ,peter yet more strongly affirms that he knows not ,jesus 7#crd in ,matthew and ,mark74 ,meanwhile by such a discrimination of the accounts out of respect to the veracity of the ,evangelists1 there was incurred the danger of impeaching the yet more important veracity of ,jesus2 for he had spoken of a threefold denial3 whereas1 on the plan of discrimination1 according to the more or less consequent manner in which it is carried out1 ,peter would have denied ,jesus from #f to #i times4 ,the old exegesis found help in the canon3 abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogationes facta uno paroxysmo1 pro un numeratur4 #ahif ,but even granting such a mode of reckoning admissible1 still1 as each of the four narrators for the most part notices a greater or less interval between the separate denials which he recounts2 in each instance1 denials related by different ,evangelists1 e4g4 one narrated by ,matthew1 one by ,mark1 and so forth1 must have occurred in immediate succession3 a supposition altogether arbitrary4 ,hence of late it has been a more favourite expedient to urge that the thrice in the mouth of ,jesus was only a round number intended to express a repeated denial1 as also that ,peter1 once entangled in the confusion to a supposed necessity for falsehood1 would be more likely to repeat his asseverations to #f or #g than merely to three inquirers4 #ahig ,but even if1 according to ,luke 7v4 #ei f471 the interval from the first denial to the last be estimated as more than an hour1 still such a questioning from all kinds of people on all sides1 as well as the ultimate impunity of ,peter amid so general a suspicion1 is extremely improbable2 and when expositors describe the state of mind of ,peter during this scene as a complete stupefaction1 #ahih they rather present the condition which befals the reader who has to arrange his ideas in such a crowd of continually repeated questions and answers having an identical meaning--like the incessant and lawless beating of a watch out of order4 ,olshausen has justly discarded the attempt to remove such differences as a fruitless labour3 nevertheless he1 on the one hand1 immediately proceeds to a forced reconciliation of the divergencies at some points of the narrative2 and on the other1 he maintains that there were precisely three denials1 whereas ,paulus again has evinced a more correct discernment in pointing out the premeditated effort of the ,evangelists to show that the denial was threefold4 ,what on that evening happened repeatedly 7not1 however1 eight or nine times71 was represented as having happened precisely three times1 in order to furnish the closest fulfilment to the prediction of ,jesus1 which was understood in its strictest literality4 ,the termination1 and as it were the catastrophe1 of the whole history of the denial is1 in all the narratives1 according to the prediction of ,jesus1 introduced by the crowing of the cock4 ,in ,mark1 it crows after the first denial 7v4 #fh71 and then a second time after the third2 in the other ,evangelists only once1 after the last act of denial4 ,while ,john concludes his account with this particular1 ,matthew and ,mark proceed to tell us that on hearing the cock crow1 ,peter remembered the words of ,jesus and wept2 but ,luke has an additional feature peculiar to himself1 namely1 that on the crowing of the cock ,jesus turned and looked at ,peter1 whereupon the latter1 remembering the prediction of ,jesus1 broke out into bitter weeping4 ,now according to the two first ,evangelists1 ,peter was not in the same locality with ,jesus3 for he is said to have been without 7,matt v4 #fi7 or beneath 7,mark v4 #ff7 in the court 1 and it is thus implied that ,jesus was in an inner or upper apartment of the palace3 it must be asked1 therefore1 how could ,jesus hear the denial of ,peter1 and thereupon turn to look at him8 ,in relation to the latter part of the difficulty1 the usual answer is that ,jesus was at that moment being led from the palace of ,annas to that of ,caiaphas1 and looked significantly at the weak disciple in passing4 #ahii ,but of such a removal of ,jesus ,luke knows nothing2 and his expression1 the ,lord turned and looked on ,peter1 1 would not so well imply that ,jesus looked at ,peter in passing1 as that he turned round to do so when standing2 besides1 the above supposition will not explain how ,jesus became aware that his disciple had denied him1 since in the tumult of this evening he could not well1 as ,paulus thinks1 have heard when in a room of the palace the loud tones of ,peter in the court4 ,it is true that the express distinction of the places in which ,jesus and ,peter were is not found in ,luke1 and according to him ,jesus also might have had to remain some time in the court3 but first1 the representation of the other ,evangelists is here more probable3 secondly1 ,luke's own narrative of the denial does not previously create the impression that ,jesus was in the immediate vicinity4 ,but hypotheses for the explanation of that look of ,jesus might have been spared1 had a critical glance been directed to the origin of the incident4 ,the unaccountable manner in which ,jesus1 who in the whole previous occurrence is kept behind the scene1 here all on a sudden casts a glance upon it1 ought itself1 together with the silence of the other ,evangelists1 to have been taken as an indication of the real character of this feature in ,luke's narrative4 ,when also it is added1 that as ,jesus looked on ,peter the latter remembered the words which ,jesus had earlier spoken to him concerning his coming denial2 it might have been observed that the glance of ,jesus is nothing else than the sensible image of ,peter's remorseful recollection4 ,the narrative of ,john1 which is in this case the simplest1 exhibits the fulfilment of the prediction of ,jesus objectively1 by the crowing of the cock2 the two first ,evangelists add to this the subjective impression1 which this coincidence made on ,peter2 while ,luke renders this again objective1 and makes sorrowful remembrance of the words of the master1 with the force of a penetrating glance1 pierce the inmost soul of the disciple4 #aijj #acj4 ,,the ,,death ,,of ,,the ,,betrayer4 ,on hearing that ,jesus was condemned to death1 ,judas1 according to the first gospel 7xxvii4 #c ff471 was smitten with remorse1 and hastened to the chief priests and elders to return to them the thirty pieces of silver1 with the declaration that he had betrayed an innocent person4 ,when however the latter scornfully retorted that on him alone rested all responsibility for that deed1 ,judas1 after casting down the money in the temple1 impelled by despair1 went away and hanged himself4 ,hereupon the ,sanhedrists1 holding it unlawful to put the money returned by ,judas into the treasury1 since it was the price of blood1 bought with it a potter's field as a burying place for strangers4 ,to this particular the ,evangelist appends two remarks3 first1 that from this mode of purchase1 the piece of ground was called the field of blood up to his time3 and secondly1 that by this course of things an ancient prophecy was fulfilled4--,the rest of the ,evangelists are silent concerning the end of ,judas2 but on the other hand we find in the ,acts of the ,apostles 7i4 #af ff47 some information on this subject which in several points diverges from that of ,matthew4 ,peter1 when about to propose the completion of the apostolic number by the choice of a new colleague1 thinks proper1 by way of preliminary to remind his hearers of the manner in which the vacancy in the apostolic circle had arisen1 i4e4 of the treachery and the end of ,judas2 and in relation to the latter he says1 that the betrayer purchased himself a field with the reward of his crime1 but fell headlong1 and burst asunder in the midst1 so that all his bowels gushed out1 which being known in all ,jerusalem1 the piece of ground was called 1 i4e4 the field of blood4 ,in addition to this1 the narrator makes ,peter observe that these occurrences were a fulfilment of two passages in the ,psalms4 ,between these two accounts there exists a double divergency3 the one pertaining to the manner of the death of ,judas1 the other to the statement when and by whom the piece of ground was bought4 ,as regards the former1 ,matthew declares that ,judas laid violent hands on himself out of remorse and despair3 whereas in the ,acts nothing is said of remorse on the part of the traitor1 and his death has not the appearance of suicide1 but of an accident1 or more accurately1 of a calamity decreed by heaven as a punishment2 further1 in ,matthew he inflicts death on himself by the cord3 according to the representation of ,peter1 it is a fall which puts an end to his life by causing a horrible rupture of the body4 ,how active the harmonists of all times have been in reconciling these divergencies1 may be seen in ,sucer #aija and ,kuinl3 here we need only briefly adduce the principal expedients for this purpose4 ,as the divergency lay chiefly in the words 1 he hanged himself1 in ,matthew1 and 1 falling headlong1 in ,luke1 the most obvious resource was to see whether one of these expressions could not be drawn to the side of the other4 ,this has been tried with in various ways2 this word being interpreted at one time as signifying only the torments of a guilty conscience1 #aijb at another1 a disease consequent on these1 #aijc at another1 any death chosen out of melancholy and despair2 #aijd and to this it has been thought that the statement 444 in the ,acts added the more precise information1 that the kind of death to which ,judas was driven by an evil conscience and despair was precipitation from a steep eminence4 ,others on the contrary have sought to accommodate the meaning of to 1 understanding it merely to express as a circumstance what expresses as an act3 and accordingly maintaining that if the latter should be rendered se suspendit1 the former should be translated by suspensus4 #aije ,from repugnance to the obvious violence of this attempt1 others1 sparing the natural meaning of the expressions on both sides1 have reconciled the divergent accounts by the supposition that ,matthew narrates an earlier1 the author of the ,acts a later1 stage of the events which marked the end of ,judas4 ,some of the ancient commentators indeed separated these two stages so widely as to see in ,matthew's statement 77 only an unsuccessful attempt at self-destruction1 which from the bough whereon he suspended himself having broken1 or from some other cause1 ,judas outlived1 until the judgment of heaven overtook him in the 1 falling headlong4 #aijf ,but since ,matthew evidently intends in his expression to narrate the last moments of the traitor3 the two epochs1 the account of which is supposed to be respectively given by ,matthew and the ,acts1 have in later times been placed in closer proximity1 and it has been held that ,judas attempted to hang himself to a tree on an eminence1 but as the rope gave way or the branch broke1 he was precipitated into the valley over steep cliffs and sharp bushes1 which lacerated his body4 #aijg ,the author of a treatise on the fate of ,judas in ,schmidt's ,bibliothek #aijh has already remarked as a surprising circumstance1 how faithfully according to this opinion1 the two narrators have shared the information between them3 for it is not the case that one gives the less precise statement1 the other the more precise2 but that one of them narrates precisely the first part of the incident without touching on the second1 the other1 the second without intruding on the first2 and ,hase justly maintains that each narrator knew only the state of the fact which he has presented1 since otherwise he could not have omitted the other half4 #aiji ,after thus witnessing the total failure of the attempts at reconciliation in relation to the first difference2 we have now to inquire whether the other1 relative to the acquisition of the piece of ground1 can be more easily adjusted4 ,it consists in this3 according to ,matthew1 it is the members of the ,sanhedrim who1 after the suicide of ,judas1 purchase a field with the money which he had left behind 7from a potter moreover--a particular which is wanting in the ,acts72 whereas1 according to the ,acts1 ,judas himself purchases the piece of ground1 and on this very spot is overtaken by sudden death2 and from this difference there results another1 namely1 that according to the latter account1 it was the blood of the betrayer shed on the piece of ground1 according to the former1 the blood of ,jesus cleaving to the purchase money1 which caused the ground to be named the field of blood1 or 4 ,now here ,matthew's manner of expressing himself is so precise1 that it cannot well be twisted so as to favour the other narrative2 but the word 7he purchased or acquired7 in the ,acts presents inviting facilities for its adaptation to ,matthew4 ,by the reward of treachery1 ,judas acquired a field--such1 it is said1 is the meaning in the ,acts--not immediately1 but mediately2 since by returning the money he gave occasion for the purchase of a piece of ground2 not for himself1 but for the ,sanhedrim or the public good4 #aiaj ,but however numerous the passages adduced in which has the signification3 to acquire for another1 still in such instances it is necessary that the other party for whom one acquires should be specified or intimated1 and when this is not the case1 as in the passage in the ,acts1 it retains the original meaning3 to acquire for one's self4 #aiaa ,this ,paulus felt1 and hence gave the facts the following turn3 the terrible fall of ,judas into a lime pit was the cause of this piece of ground being purchased by the ,sanhedrim1 and thus ,peter might very well say of ,judas ironically1 that in death by the fall of his corpse he had appropriated to himself a fine property4 #aiab ,but in the first place this interpretation is in itself strained2 and in the second1 the passage cited by ,peter from the ,psalms3 let his habitation be desolate1 1 shows that he thought of the piece of ground as the real property of ,judas1 and as being judicially doomed to desolation as the scene of his death4 ,according to this1 neither the one difference nor the other admits of a favourable reconciliation2 indeed the existence of a real divergency was admitted even by ,salmasius1 and ,hase thinks that he can explain this discrepancy1 without endangering the apostolic origin of the two statements1 from the violent excitement of those days1 in consequence of which only the general fact that ,judas committed suicide was positively known1 and concerning the more particular circumstances of the event1 various reports were believed4 ,but in the ,acts nothing is said of suicide1 and that two apostles1 ,matthew and ,peter 7if the first gospel be supposed to proceed from the former1 the discourse in the ,acts from the latter71 should have remained so entirely in the dark concerning the death of their late colleague1 a death which took place in their immediate vicinity1 that one of them represented him as dying by accident1 the other voluntarily1 is difficult to believe4 ,that therefore only one of the two accounts can be maintained as apostolic1 has been correctly perceived by the author of the above-mentioned treatise in ,schmidt's ,bibliothek4 ,and in choosing between the two he has proceeded on the principle that the narrative the least tending to glorification is the more authentic2 whence he gives the preference to the account in the ,acts before that in the first gospel1 because the former has not the glorifying circumstances of the remorse of ,judas1 and his confession of the innocence of ,jesus4 ,but1 it is ever the case with two contradictory narratives1 not only that if one stands it excludes the other1 but also that if one falls it shakes the other3 hence1 if the representation of the facts which is attested by the authority of the ,apostle ,matthew be renounced1 there is no longer any warrant for the other1 which professedly rests on the testimony of the ,apostle ,peter4 ,if then we are to treat the two narratives on the same footing1 namely as legends1 with respect to which it is first to be discovered how far their historical nucleus extends1 and how far they consist of traditional deposits2 we must1 in order to be clear on the subject1 consider the data which form the roots of the two narratives4 ,here we find one which is common to both1 with two others of which each has one peculiarly to itself4 ,the datum common to both narratives is1 that there was in ,jerusalem a piece of ground which was called the field of blood1 or 1 or in the original tongue1 according to the statement of the ,acts1 4 ,as this information is concurrently given by two narratives in other respects totally divergent1 and as1 besides1 the author of the first gospel appeals to the actual practice of his day in proof that the field was called by this name3 we cannot well doubt the existence of a piece of ground so named4 ,that it really had a relation to the betrayer of ,jesus is less certain1 since our two narratives give different accounts of this relation3 the one stating that ,judas himself bought the property1 the other that it was not purchased until after his death1 with the thirty pieces of silver4 ,we can therefore draw no further conclusion than that the primitive ,christian legend must have early attributed to that field of blood a relation to the betrayer4 ,but the reason wherefore this relation took various forms is to be sought in the other datum from which our narratives proceed1 namely1 in the ,old ,testament passages1 which the authors cite 7from different sources1 however71 as being fulfilled by the fate of ,judas4 ,in the passage of the ,acts1 ,ps4 lxix4 #be1 and ,ps4 cix4 #h1 are quoted in this manner4 ,the latter is a psalm which the first ,christians from among the ,jews could not avoid referring to the relation of ,judas to ,jesus4 ,for not only does the author1 alleged to be ,david1 but doubtless a much later individual1 #aiac dilate from the opening of the psalm on such as speak falsely and insidiously against him1 and return him hatred for his love1 but from v4 #f1 where the curses commence1 he directs himself against a particular person1 so that the ,jewish expositors thought of ,doeg1 ,david's calumniator with ,saul1 and the ,christians just as naturally of ,judas4 ,from this psalm is gathered the verse which1 treating of the transfer of one office to another1 appeared perfectly to suit the case of ,judas4 ,the other psalm1 it is true1 speaks more vaguely of such as hate and persecute the author without cause1 yet this also is ascribed to ,david1 and is so similar to the other in purport and style1 that it might be regarded as its parallel1 and if curses might be applied to the betrayer out of the former1 they might be so out of the latter4 #aiad ,now if ,judas had actually bought with the wages of his treachery a piece of land1 which from being the scene of his horrible end1 subsequently remained waste3 it was a matter of course to refer to him precisely those passages in this psalm which denounce on the enemies the desolation of their habitation 4 ,as1 however1 from the divergency of ,matthew1 the fact that ,judas himself bought that piece of ground and came to his end upon it1 is doubtful3 while it can scarcely be supposed that the piece of land on which the betrayer of ,jesus met his end would be so abhorrent to the ,jews that they would let it lie waste as a land of blood2 it is more probable that this name had another origin no longer to be discovered1 and was interpreted by the ,christians in accordance with their own ideas2 so that we must not derive the application of the passage in the ,psalms1 and the naming of that waste piece of land1 from an actual possession of it by ,judas1 but on the contrary1 we must refer to those two causes the existence of the legend1 which ascribes such a possession to ,judas4 ,for if the two psalms in question were once applied to the betrayer1 and if in one of them the desolation of his 7,,lxx47 was denounced1 he must have previously been in possession of such an 1 and this it was thought1 he would probably have purchased with the reward of his treason4 ,or rather1 that out of the above psalms the desolation of the was a particular specially chosen1 appears to have been founded on the natural presupposition1 that the curse would be chiefly manifested in relation to something which he had acquired by the wages of his iniquity2 added to the circumstance that among the objects anathematized in the psalm1 the one most capable of being bought was the 4 ,this conception of the facts was met in the most felicitous manner by the lying near ,jerusalem1 which1 the less was known of the origin of its name and of the horror attached to it1 might the more easily be applied by the primitive ,christian legend to its own purposes1 and regarded as the desolate habitation1 1 of the betrayer4 ,instead of these passages from the ,psalms1 the first gospel cites as being fulfilled by the last acts of ,judas1 a passage which it attributes to ,jeremiah1 but to which nothing corresponding is to be found except in ,zech4 xi4 #ab f41 whence it is now pretty generally admitted that the ,evangelist substituted one name for the other by mistake4 #aiae ,how ,matthew might be led by the fundamental idea of this passage--an unreasonably small price for the speaker in the prophecy--to an application of it to the treachery of ,judas1 who for a paltry sum had as it were sold his master1 has been already shown4 #aiaf ,now the prophetic passage contains a command from ,jehovah to the author of the prophecy1 to cast the miserable sum with which he had been paid1 into the house of the ,lord1 and also 1 which1 it is added1 was done4 ,the person who casts down the money is in the prophecy the same with the speaker1 and consequently with him who is rated at the low price1 because the sum here is not purchase money but hire1 and hence is received by the person so meanly estimated1 who alone can cast it away again3 in the application of the ,evangelist1 on the contrary1 the sum being considered as purchase money1 another than the one so meanly estimated was to be thought of as receiving and casting away the sum4 ,if the one sold for so paltry a price was ,jesus3 he who received the money and finally rejected it could be no other than his betrayer4 ,hence it is said of the latter1 that he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple corresponding to the phrase in the prophetic passage1 although these very words happen to be absent from the extremely mutilated citation of ,matthew4 ,but in apposition to the 1 wherein the money was cast1 there stood besides 4 ,the ,,lxx4 translates3 1 into the melting furnace2 now1 it is with reason conjectured that the pointing should be altered thus3 1 and the word rendered3 into the treasury2 #aiag the author of our gospel adhered to the literal translation by potter4 ,but what the potter had to do here1--why the money should be given to him1 must at first have been as incomprehensible to him as it is to us when we adhere to the common reading4 ,here however there occurred to his recollection the field of blood1 to which1 as we gather from the ,acts1 the ,christian legend gave a relation to ,judas1 and hence resulted the welcome combination1 that it was probably that field for which the thirty pieces of silver were to be given to the potter4 ,as1 however1 it was impossible to conceive the potter as being in the temple when receiving the money1 and yet according to the prophetic passage the pieces of silver were cast into the temple3 a separation was made between the casting into the temple and the payment to the potter4 ,if the former must be ascribed to ,judas1 if he had thus once cast away the money1 he himself could no longer purchase the piece of ground from the potter1 but this must be done by another party1 with the money which ,judas had cast away4 ,who this party must be followed of course3 if ,judas gave up the money1 he would give it up to those from whom he had received it2 if he cast it into the temple1 it would fall into the hands of the rulers of the temple3 thus in both ways it would revert to the ,sanhedrim4 ,the object of the latter in purchasing the ground was perhaps drawn from the use to which that waste place was actually appropriated4 ,lastly1 if ,judas cast away again the reward of his treachery1 this1 it must be inferred1 could only be out of remorse4 ,to make ,judas manifest remorse1 and thus win from the traitor himself a testimony to the innocence of ,jesus1 was as natural to the conception of the primitive ,christian community1 as to convert ,pilate1 and to make ,tiberius himself propose in the ,roman senate the deification of ,christ4 #aiah ,but how would the remorse of ,judas further manifest itself8 ,a return to the right on his part1 was not only unattested by any facts1 but was besides far too good a lot for the traitor3 hence repentance must have become in him despair1 and he must have chosen the end of the well-known traitor in the history of ,david1 ,ahithophel1 of whom it is said1 #b ,sam4 xvii4 #bc3 -- 1 he arose1 and went--and hanged himself1 as of ,judas here3 1 he departed1 and went and hanged himself4 ,a tradition referred to ,papias appears to be allied to the narrative in the ,acts rather than to that of ,matthew4 cumenius1 quoting the above collector of traditions1 says1 that ,judas1 as an awful example of impiety1 had his body distended to such a degree1 that a space where a chariot could pass was no longer sufficiently wide for him1 and that at last being crushed by a chariot1 he burst asunder and all his bowels were pressed out4 #aiai ,the latter statement doubtless arose from a misconstruction of the ancient legend2 for the chariot was not originally brought into immediate contact with the body of ,judas1 but was merely used as a measure of his size1 and this was afterwards erroneously understood as if a chariot in passing had crushed the swollen body of ,judas4 ,hence1 not only in ,theophylact and in an ancient ,scholium1 #aibj without any distinct reference to ,papias1 but also in a ,catena with an express citation of his 1 we actually find the fact narrated without that addition4 #aiba ,the monstrous swelling of ,judas1 spoken of in this passage1 might1 it is supposed1 originally be only an explanation of the displacing and protrusion of the viscera1 and in like manner the dropsy into which ,theophylact represents him as falling might be regarded as an explanation of this swelling3 when1 however1 in ,ps4 cix41 applied in the ,acts to ,judas1 amongst other maledictions1 we read3 77 ,,lxx3 7 7 1 so let it 7cursing7 come into his bowels like water 7v4 #ah73 it appears possible that the dropsical disease1 1 may have been also taken from this passage2 as also one of the features in the monstrous description which ,papias gives of the condition of ,judas1 namely1 that from the enormous swelling of his eyelids he could no longer see the light of day1 might remind us of v4 #bc in the other psalm applied to ,judas1 where1 among the curses this is enumerated3 ,let their eyes be darkened that they see not1 1 a hindrance to sight1 which when once the swollen body of ,judas was presupposed1 must necessarily assume the form of a swelling up of the eyelids4 ,if then the tradition which is allied to the account in ,acts i4 developed its idea of the end of ,judas chiefly in correspondence with the ideas presented in these two psalms2 and if in that passage of the ,acts itself the account of the connexion of ,judas with the piece of ground is derived from the same source3 it is no farfetched conjecture that what is said in the ,acts concerning the end of the betrayer may have had a similar origin4 ,that he died an early death may be historical2 but even if not so1 in ,psalm cix4 in the very same verse 7v4 #h71 which contains the transfer of the office1 1 to another1 an early death is predicted for the betrayer in the words3 ,let his days be few1 1 and it might also be believed that the death by falling headlong also was gathered from ,ps4 lxix4 #bb1 where it is said3 ,let their table become a snare before them1 -- 774 ,thus we scarcely know with certainty concerning ,judas even so much as that he came to a violent and untimely death1 for if1 as was natural1 after his departure from the community of ,jesus1 he retired1 so far as the knowledge of its members was concerned1 into an obscurity in which all historical information as to his further fate was extinguished3 the primitive ,christian legend might without hindrance represent as being fulfilled in him all that the prophecies and types of the ,old ,testament threatened to the false friend of the ,son of ,david1 and might even associate the memory of his crime with a well-known desecrated place in the vicinity of ,jerusalem4 #aibb #aca4 ,,jesus ,,before ,,pilate ,,and ,,herod4 ,according to all the ,evangelists it was in the morning when the ,jewish magistrates1 after having declared ,jesus worthy of death1 #aibc caused him to be led away to the ,roman procurator1 ,pontius ,pilate 7,matt4 xxvii4 #a ff4 parall42 ,john xviii4 #bh74 ,according to ,matthew and ,mark1 ,jesus was bound preparatory to his being conducted before ,pilate1 according to ,john xviii4 #ab1 immediately on his arrest in the garden2 ,luke says nothing of his being bound4 ,to this measure of sending him to ,pilate they were compelled1 according to ,john xviii4 #ca1 by the circumstance that the ,sanhedrim was deprived of the authority to execute the punishment of death 7without the concurrence of the ,roman government73 #aibd but at all events the ,jewish rulers must in this instance have been anxious to call in the agency of the ,romans1 since only their power could afford security against an uproar among the people 1 which the former feared as a result of the execution of ,jesus during the feast time 7,matt4 xxvi4 #e parall474 ,arrived at the ,prtorium1 the ,jews1 according to the representation of the fourth gospel1 remained without1 from fear of ,levitical defilement1 but ,jesus was led into the interior of the building3 so that ,pilate must alternately have come out when he would speak to the ,jews1 and have gone in again when he proceeded to question ,jesus 7xviii4 #bh ff474 ,the synoptists in the sequel represent ,jesus as in the same locality with ,pilate and the ,jews1 for in them ,jesus immediately hears the accusations of the ,jews1 and answers them in the presence of ,pilate4 ,since they1 as well as ,john1 make the condemnation take place in the open air 7after the condemnation they represent ,jesus as being led into the ,prtorium1 ,matt4 xxvii4 #bg1 and ,matthew1 like ,john1 xix4 #ac1 describes ,pilate ascending the judgment seat 1 which according to ,josephus #aibe stood in the open air71 without mentioning any change of place in connexion with the trial3 they apparently conceived the whole transaction to have passed on the outer place1 and supposed1 in divergency from ,john1 that ,jesus himself was there4 ,the first question of ,pilate to ,jesus is according to all the gospels3 ,art thou the king of the ,jews8 1 i4e4 the ,messiah8 ,in the two first ,evangelists this question is not introduced by any accusation on the part of the ,jews 7,matt4 v4 #aa2 ,mark v4 #b72 in ,john1 ,pilate1 stepping out of the ,prtorium1 asks the ,jews what accusation they have to bring against ,jesus 7xviii4 #bi71 on which they insolently reply3 ,if he were not a malefactor1 we would not have delivered him up unto thee3 an answer by which they could not expect to facilitate their obtaining from the ,roman a ratification of their sentence1 #aibf but only to embitter him4 ,after ,pilate1 with surprising mildness1 has rejoined that they may take him and judge him according to their law--apparently not supposing a crime involving death--and the ,jews have opposed to this permission their inability to administer the punishment of death3 the procurator re-enters and addresses to ,jesus the definite question3 ,art thou the king of the ,jews8 which thus here likewise has no suitable introduction4 ,this is the case only in ,luke1 who first adduces the accusations of the ,sanhedrists against ,jesus1 that he stirred up the people and encouraged them to refuse tribute to ,csar1 giving himself out to be ,christ a king1 7xxiii4 #b74 ,if in this manner the narrative of ,luke enables us to understand how ,pilate could at once put to ,jesus the question whether he were the king of the ,jews2 it leaves us in all the greater darkness as to how ,pilate1 immediately on the affirmative answer of ,jesus1 could without any further inquiries declare to the accusers that he found no fault in the accused4 ,he must first have ascertained the grounds or the want of grounds for the charge of exciting the populace1 and also have informed himself as to the sense in which ,jesus claimed the title of king of the ,jews1 before he could pronounce the words3 ,i find no fault in this man4 ,in ,matthew and ,mark1 it is true1 to the affirmation of ,jesus that he is the king of the ,jews is added his silence1 in opposition to the manifold accusations of the ,sanhedrists--a silence which surprises ,pilate3 and this is not followed by a precise declaration that no fault is to be found in ,jesus1 but merely by the procurator's attempt to set ,jesus at liberty by coupling him with ,barabbas2 still what should move him even to this attempt does not appear from the above gospels4 ,on the other hand1 this point is sufficiently clear in the fourth gospel4 ,it is certainly surprising that when ,pilate asks whether he be really the ,king of the ,jews1 ,jesus should reply by the counter-question1 whether he say this of himself or at the suggestion of another4 ,in an accused person1 however conscious of innocence1 such a question cannot be held warrantable1 and hence it has been sought in every possible way to give the words of ,jesus a sense more consonant with propriety3 but the question of ,jesus is too definite to be a mere repulse of the accusation as absurd1 #aibg and too indefinite to be regarded as an inquiry1 whether the ,procurator intended the title in the ,roman sense 7' 7 or in the ,jewish 7 74 #aibh ,and ,pilate does not so understand it1 but as an unwarrantable question to which it is a mark of his indulgence that he replies2--in the first instance1 it is true1 with some impatience1 by the second counter-question1 whether he be a ,jew1 and thus able of himself to have information concerning a crime so specifically ,jewish2 but hereupon he good-naturedly adds that it is the ,jews and their rulers by whom ,jesus has been delivered to him1 and that he is therefore at liberty to speak more particularly of the crime which these lay to his charge4 ,now on this ,jesus gives ,pilate an answer which1 added to the impression of his whole appearance1 might certainly induce in the ,procurator a conviction of his innocence4 ,he replies1 namely1 that his kingdom is not of this world 1 and adduces as a proof of this1 the peaceful1 passive conduct of his adherents on his arrest 7v4 #cf74 ,on the further question of ,pilate1 whether1 since ,jesus has thus ascribed to himself a kingdom1 although no earthly one1 he then claims to be a king8 he replies that certainly he is so1 but only in so far as he is born to be a witness to the truth3 whereupon follows the famous question of ,pilate3 ,what is truth8 2 ,although in this latter reply of ,jesus we cannot but be struck by its presenting the peculiar hue of thought which characterizes the author of the fourth gospel1 in the use of the idea of truth 1 as we were before surprised at the unwarrantable nature of the counter-question of ,jesus2 still this account in ,john renders it conceivable how ,pilate could immediately step forth and declare to the ,jews that he found no fault in ,jesus4 ,but another point might easily create suspicion against this narrative of ,john4 ,according to him the trial of ,jesus went forward in the interior of the ,prtorium1 which no ,jew would venture to enter2 who then are we to suppose heard the conversation of the ,procurator with ,jesus1 and was the informant who communicated it to the author of the fourth gospel8 ,the opinion of the older commentators that ,jesus himself narrated these conversations to his disciples after the resurrection is renounced as extravagant2 the more modern idea that perhaps ,pilate himself was the source of the information concerning the trial1 is scarcely less improbable1 and rather than take refuge1 with ,lcke1 in the supposition that ,jesus remained at the entrance of the ,prtorium1 so that those standing immediately without might with some attention and stillness 787 have heard the conversation1 ,i should prefer appealing to the attendants of the ,procurator1 who would scarcely be alone with ,jesus4 ,meanwhile it is easily conceivable that we have here a conversation1 which owes its origin solely to the ,evangelist's own combination1 and in this case we need not bestow so much labour in ascertaining the precise sense of ,pilate's question3 what is truth8 since this would only be an example of the fourth ,evangelist's favourite form of dialogue1 the contrast of profound communications on the part of ,jesus1 with questions either of misapprehension or of total unintelligence on the part of the hearers1 as xii4 #cd1 the ,jews ask who is this ,son of man8 4 48 so here ,pilate3 what is truth8 8 #aibi ,before the introduction of ,barabbas1 which in all the other ,evangelists comes next in order1 ,luke has an episode peculiar to himself4 ,on the declaration of ,pilate that he finds no guilt in the accused1 the chief priests and their adherents among the multitude persist in asserting that ,jesus stirred up the people by his agency as a teacher from ,galilee to ,jerusalem3 ,pilate notices the word ,galilee1 asks whether the accused be a ,galilean1 and when this is confirmed1 he seizes it as a welcome pretext for ridding himself of the ungrateful business1 and sends ,jesus to the ,tetrarch of ,galilee1 ,herod ,antipas1 at that time in ,jerusalem in observance of the feast2 perhaps also designing as a secondary object1 what at least was the result1 to conciliate the petty prince by this show of respect for his jurisdiction4 ,this measure1 it is said1 gave great satisfaction to ,herod1 because having heard much of ,jesus1 he had long been desirous to see him1 in the hope that he would perhaps perform a miracle4 ,the ,tetrarch addressed various questions to him1 the ,sanhedrists urged vehement accusations against him1 but ,jesus gave no answer2 whereupon ,herod with his soldiers betook themselves to mockery1 and at length1 after arraying him in a gorgeous robe1 sent him back to ,pilate 7xxiii4 #d ff474 ,this narrative of ,luke's1 whether we consider it in itself or in its relation to the other gospels1 has much to astonish us4 ,if ,jesus as a ,galilean really belonged to the jurisdiction of ,herod1 as ,pilate1 by delivering the accused to him1 appears to acknowledge3 how came ,jesus 7and the question is equally difficult whether we regard him as the sinless ,jesus of the orthodox system1 or as the one who in the history of the tribute-penny manifested his subjection to the existing authorities7 to withhold from him the answer which was his due8 and how was it that ,herod1 without any further procedures1 sent him away again from his tribunal8 ,to say1 with ,olshausen1 that the interrogation before ,herod had elicited the fact that ,jesus was not born in ,nazareth and ,galilee1 but in ,bethlehem1 and consequently in ,juda1 is on the one hand an inadmissible appeal to the history of the birth of ,jesus1 of the statements in which there is no further trace in the whole subsequent course of ,luke's gospel2 and on the other hand1 a totally accidental birth in ,juda1 such as that represented by ,luke1 the parents of ,jesus1 and even ,jesus himself1 being both before and after resident in ,galilee1 would not have constituted ,jesus a ,judan2 but above all we must ask1 through whom was the ,judan origin of ,jesus brought to light1 since it is said of ,jesus that he gave no answer1 while according to all the information we possess1 that origin was totally unknown to the ,jews8 ,it would be preferable to explain the silence of ,jesus by the unbecoming manner of ,herod's interrogation1 which manifested1 not the seriousness of the judge1 but mere curiosity2 and to account for his being sent back to ,pilate by the fact1 that not only the arrest1 but also a part of the ministry of ,jesus had occurred within the jurisdiction of ,pilate4 ,but why do the rest of the ,evangelists say nothing of the entire episode8 ,especially when the author of the fourth gospel is regarded as the ,apostle ,john1 it is not easy to see how this omission can be explained4 ,the common plea1 that he supposed the fact sufficiently known from the synoptists1 will not serve here1 since ,luke is the sole ,evangelist who narrates the incident1 and thus it does not appear to have been very widely spread2 the conjecture1 that it may probably have appeared to him too unimportant1 #aicj loses all foundation when it is considered that ,john does not scorn to mention the leading away to ,annas1 which nevertheless was equally indecisive2 and in general1 the narrative of these events in ,john is1 as ,schleiermacher himself confesses1 so consecutive that it nowhere presents a break in which such an episode could be inserted4 ,hence even ,schleiermacher at last takes refuge in the conjecture that possibly the sending to ,herod may have escaped the notice of ,john1 because it happened on an opposite side to that on which the disciple stood1 through a back door2 and that it came to the knowledge of ,luke because his informant had an acquaintance in the household of ,herod1 as ,john had in that of ,annas3 the former conjecture1 however1 is figuratively as well as literally nothing more than a back door2 the latter1 a fiction which is but the effort of despair4 ,certainly if we renounce the presupposition that the author of the fourth gospel was an apostle1 we lose the ground of attack against the narrative of ,luke1 which in any case1 since ,justin knows of the consignment to ,herod1 #aica is of very early origin4 ,nevertheless1 first1 the silence of the other ,evangelists in a portion of their common history1 in which1 with this exception1 there prevails an agreement as to the principal stages in the development of the fate of ,jesus2 and secondly1 the internal difficulties of the narrative1 remain so suspicious1 that it must still be open to us to conjecture1 that the anecdote arose out of the effort to place ,jesus before all the tribunals that could possibly be gathered together in ,jerusalem2 to make every authority not hierarchical1 though treating him with ignominy1 still either explicitly or tacitly acknowledge his innocence2 and to represent him as maintaining his equable demeanour and dignity before all4 ,if this be probable with respect to the present narrative1 in which the third ,evangelist stands alone1 a similar conjecture concerning the leading away to ,annas1 in which we have seen that the fourth ,evangelist stands alone1 would only be warded off by the circumstance that this scene is not described in detail1 and hence presents no internal difficulties4 ,after ,jesus1 being sent back by ,herod1 was returned upon his hands1 ,pilate1 according to ,luke1 once more called together the ,sanhedrists and the people1 and declared1 alleging in his support the judgment of ,herod as accordant with his own1 his wish to dismiss ,jesus with chastisement2 for which purpose he might avail himself of the custom of releasing a prisoner at the feast of the passover4 #aicb ,this circumstance1 which is somewhat abridged in ,luke1 is more fully exhibited in the other ,evangelists1 especially in ,matthew4 ,as the privilege to entreat the release of a prisoner belonged to the people1 ,pilate1 well knowing that ,jesus was persecuted by the rulers out of jealousy1 sought to turn to his advantage the better disposition of the people towards him2 and in order virtually to oblige them to free ,jesus1 whom1 partly out of mockery of the ,jews1 partly to deter them from his execution as degrading to themselves1 he named the ,messiah or ,king of the ,jews1 he reminded them that their choice lay between him and a notable prisoner1 1 ,barabbas1 #aicc whom ,john designates as a robber1 1 but ,mark and ,luke as one who was imprisoned for insurrection and murder4 ,this plan however failed1 for the people1 suborned1 as the two first ,evangelists observe1 by their rulers1 with one voice desired the release of ,barabbas and the crucifixion of ,jesus4 ,as a circumstance which had especial weight with ,pilate in favour of ,jesus1 and moved him to make the proposal relative to ,barabbas as urgently as possible1 it is stated by ,matthew that while the procurator sat on his tribunal1 his wife1 #aicd in consequence of a disturbing dream1 sent to him a warning to incur no responsibility in relation to that just man 7xxvii4 #ai74 ,not only ,paulus1 but even ,olshausen1 explains this dream as a natural result of what ,pilate's wife might have heard of ,jesus and of his capture on the preceding evening2 to which may be added as an explanatory conjecture1 the notice of the ,evangelium ,nicodemi1 that she was pious1 1 and judaizing1 4 #aice ,nevertheless1 as constantly in the ,new ,testament1 and particularly in the ,gospel of ,matthew1 dreams are regarded as a special dispensation from heaven1 so this assuredly in the opinion of the narrator happened non sine numine2 and hence it should be possible to conceive a motive and an object for the dispensation4 ,if the dream were really intended to prevent the death of ,jesus1 taking the orthodox point of view1 in which this death was necessary for the salvation of man1 we must be led to the opinion of some of the ancients1 that it may have been the devil who suggested that dream to the wife of the procurator1 in order to hinder the propitiatory death2 #aicf if on the contrary1 the dream were not intended to prevent the death of ,jesus1 its object must have been limited to ,pilate or his wife4 ,but as far as ,pilate was concerned1 so late a warning could only aggravate his guilt1 without sufficing to deter him from the step already half taken2 while that his wife was converted by means of this dream1 as many have supposed1 #aicg is totally unattested by history or tradition1 and such an object is not intimated in the narrative4 ,but1 as the part which ,pilate himself plays in the evangelical narrative is such as to exhibit the blind hatred of the fellow-countrymen of ,jesus in contrast with the impartial judgment of a ,gentile2 so his wife is made to render a testimony to ,jesus1 in order that1 not only out of the mouth of babes and sucklings 7,matt4 xxi4 #af71 but also out of the mouth of a weak woman1 praise might be prepared for him2 and to increase its importance it is traced to a significant dream4 ,to give this an appearance of probability1 similar instances are adduced from profane history of dreams which have acted as presentiments and warnings before a sanguinary catastrophe3 #aich but the more numerous are these analogous cases1 the more is the suspicion excited that as the majority of these1 so also the dream in our evangelical passage1 may have been fabricated after the event1 for the sake of heightening its tragical effect4 ,when the ,jews1 in reply to the repeated questions of ,pilate1 vehemently and obstinately demand the release of ,barabbas and the crucifixion of ,jesus1 the two intermediate ,evangelists represent him as at once yielding to their desire2 but ,matthew first interposes a ceremony and a colloquy 7xxvii4 #bd ff474 ,according to him ,pilate calls for water1 washes his hands before the people1 and declares himself innocent of the blood of this just man4 ,the washing of the hands1 as a protestation of purity from the guilt of shedding blood1 was a custom specifically ,jewish1 according to ,deut4 xxi4 #f f4 #aici ,it has been thought improbable that the ,roman should have here intentionally imitated this ,jewish custom1 and hence it has been contended1 that to any one who wished so solemnly to declare his innocence nothing would more readily suggest itself than the act of washing the hands4 #aidj ,but that an individual1 apart from any allusion to a known usage1 should invent extemporaneously a symbolical act1 or even that he should merely fall in with the custom of a foreign nation1 would require him to be deeply interested in the fact which he intends to symbolize4 ,that ,pilate1 however1 should be deeply interested in attesting his innocence of the execution of ,jesus1 is not so probable as that the ,christians should have been deeply interested in thus gaining a testimony to the innocence of their ,messiah3 whence there arises a suspicion that perhaps ,pilate's act of washing his hands owes its origin to them alone4 ,this conjecture is confirmed1 when we consider the declaration with which ,pilate accompanies his symbolical act3 ,i am innocent of the blood of this just man1 4 ,for that the judge should publicly and emphatically designate as a just man1 1 one whom he was nevertheless delivering over to the severest infliction of the law1--this even ,paulus finds so contradictory that he here1 contrary to his usual mode of exposition1 supposes that the narrator himself expresses in these words his own interpretation of ,pilate's symbolical act4 ,it is surprising that he is not also struck by the equal improbability of the answer which is attributed to the ,jews on this occasion4 ,after ,pilate has declared himself guiltless of the blood of ,jesus1 and by the addition3 see ye to it1 has laid the responsibility on the ,jews1 it is said in ,matthew that all the people 1 cried3 ,his blood be on us and on our children1 ' 4 ,but this is obviously spoken from the point of view of the ,christians1 who in the miseries which shortly after the death of ,jesus fell with continually increasing weight on the ,jewish nation1 saw nothing else than the payment of the debt of blood which they had incurred by the crucifixion of ,jesus3 so that this whole episode1 which is peculiar to the first gospel1 is in the highest degree suspicious4 ,according to ,matthew and ,mark1 ,pilate now caused ,jesus to be scourged1 preparatory to his being led away to crucifixion4 ,here the scourging appears to correspond to the virgis cdere1 which according to ,roman usage preceded the securi percutere1 and to the scourging of slaves prior to crucifixion4 #aida ,in ,luke it has a totally different character4 ,while in the two former ,evangelists it is said3 ,when he had scourged ,jesus1 he delivered him to be crucified1 4 3 in ,luke1 ,pilate repeatedly 7v4 #af and #bb7 makes the proposal3 having chastised him ,i will let him go1 3 i4e4 while there the scourging has the appearance of a mere accessory of the crucifixion1 here it appears to be intended as a substitute for the crucifixion3 ,pilate wishes by this chastisement to appease the hatred of the enemies of ,jesus1 and induce them to desist from demanding his execution4 ,again1 while in ,luke the scourging does not actually take place1--because the ,jews will in nowise accede to the repeated proposal of ,pilate3 in ,john the latter causes ,jesus to be scourged1 exhibits him to the people with the purple robe and the crown of thorns and tries whether his pitiable aspect1 together with the repeated declaration of his innocence1 will not mollify their embittered minds3 this1 however1 proving also in vain 7xix4 #a ff474 ,thus there exists a contradiction between the ,evangelists in relation to the scourging of ,jesus1 which is not to be conciliated after the method of ,paulus1 namely by paraphrasing the words 4 in ,matthew and ,mark thus3 ,jesus1 whom he had already before scourged in order to save him1 suffered this in vain1 since he was still delivered over to crucifixion4 ,but1 acknowledging the difference in the accounts1 we must only ask1 which of the two has the advantage as regards historical probability8 ,although it is certainly not to be proved that scourging before crucifixion was a ,roman custom admitting no exception3 still1 on the other hand1 it is a purely harmonistic effort to allege1 that scourging was only made to precede crucifixion in cases where the punishment was intended to be particularly severe1 #aidb and that consequently ,pilate1 who had no wish to be cruel to ,jesus1 can only have caused him to be scourged with the special design which ,luke and ,john mention1 and which is also to be understood in the narratives of their predecessors4 ,it is far more probable that in reality the scourging only took place as it is described by the two first ,evangelists1 namely1 as an introduction to the crucifixion1 and that the ,christian legend 7to which that side of ,pilate's character1 in virtue of which he endeavoured in various ways to save ,jesus1 was particularly welcome as a testimony against the ,jews7 gave such a turn even to the fact of the scourging as to obtain from it a new attempt at release on the part of ,pilate4 ,this use of the fact is only incipient in the third gospel1 for here the scourging is a mere proposal of ,pilate3 whereas in the fourth1 the scourging actually takes place1 and becomes an additional act in the drama4 ,with the scourging is connected in the two first gospels and the fourth1 the maltreatment and mockery of ,jesus by the soldiers1 who attired him in a purple robe1 placed a crown of thorns on his head1 #aidc put1 according to ,matthew1 a reed in his hand1 and in this disguise first greeted him as ,king of the ,jews1 and then smote and maltreated him4 #aidd ,luke does not mention any derision on the part of the soldiers here1 but he has something similar in his narrative of the interrogation of ,jesus before ,herod1 for he represents this prince with his men of war1 1 as mocking ,jesus1 and sending him back to ,pilate in a gorgeous robe1 4 ,many suppose that this was the same purple robe which was afterwards put on ,jesus by the soldiers of ,pilate2 but it must rather have been thrice that ,jesus had to wear this disguise1 if we take the narrative of ,john into the account and at the same time refuse to attribute error to any of the synoptists3 first in the presence of ,herod 7,luke72 secondly1 before ,pilate brought ,jesus forth to the ,jews1 that he might excite their compassion with the words3 ,behold the man1 7,john72 thirdly1 after he was delivered to the soldiers for crucifixion 7,matthew and ,mark74 ,this repetition is as improbable as it is probable that the one disguising of ,jesus1 which had come to the knowledge of the ,evangelists1 was assigned by them to different places and times1 and ascribed to different persons4 ,while in the two first gospels the process of trial is already concluded before the scourging1 and in the third1 on the rejection of his proposal to scourge and release ,jesus by the ,jews1 ,pilate forthwith delivers him to be crucified3 in the fourth ,evangelist the scene of the trial is further developed in the following manner4 ,when even the exhibition of ,jesus scourged and disguised avails nothing1 but his crucifixion is obstinately demanded1 the procurator is incensed1 and cries to the ,jews1 that they may take him and crucify him themselves1 for he finds no fault in him4 ,the ,jews reply that according to their law he must die1 since he had made himself the ,son of ,god 2 a remark which affects ,pilate with a superstitious fear1 whence he once more leads ,jesus into the ,prtorium1 and inquires concerning his origin 7whether it be really heavenly71 on which ,jesus gives him no answer1 and when the procurator seeks to alarm him by reminding him of the power which he possesses over his life1 refers to the higher source from whence he had this power4 ,pilate1 after this reply1 seeks 7yet more earnestly than before7 to release ,jesus2 but at last the ,jews hit upon the right means of making him accede to their will1 by throwing out the intimation that1 if he release ,jesus who has opposed himself to ,csar as an usurper1 he cannot be ,csar's friend4 ,thus1 intimidated by the possibility of his being calumniated to ,tiberius1 he mounts the tribunal1 and1 since he cannot prosecute his will1 betakes himself to derision of the ,jews in the question1 whether they then wish that he should crucify their king8 ,whereupon they1 keeping to the position which they had last taken with such evident effect1 protest that they will have no king but ,csar4 ,the procurator now consents to deliver ,jesus to be crucified1 for which purpose1 as the two first ,evangelists remark1 the purple mantle was removed1 and he was again attired in his own clothes4 #acb4 ,,the ,,crucifixion4 ,even concerning the progress of ,jesus to the place of crucifixion there is a divergency between the synoptists and ,john1 for according to the latter ,jesus himself carried his cross thither 7xix4 #ag71 while the former state that one ,simon a ,cyrenian bore it in his stead 7,matt4 xxvii4 #cb parall474 ,the commentators indeed1 as if a real agreement were assumed as a matter of course1 reconcile these statements thus3 at first ,jesus himself endeavoured to bear the cross1 but as the attempt made it obvious that he was too much exhausted1 it was laid on ,simon4 #aide ,but when ,john says3 ,and he bearing his cross went forth into--,golgotha1 where they crucified him1 -- 3 he plainly presupposes that the cross was borne by ,jesus on the way thither4 #aidf ,but the statement so unanimously given by the synoptists respecting the substitution of ,simon appears the less capable of being rejected1 the more difficult it is to discover a motive which might lead to its fabrication4 ,on the contrary1 this individual trait might very probably have remained unknown in the circle in which the fourth gospel had its origin1 and the author might have thought that1 according to the general custom1 ,jesus must have carried his cross4 ,all the synoptists designate this ,simon as a ,cyrenian1 i4e4 probably one who had come to ,jerusalem to the feast1 from the ,libyan city of ,cyrene1 where many ,jews resided4 #aidg ,according to all1 the carrying of the cross was forced upon him1 a circumstance which can as little be urged for as against the opinion that he was favourable to ,jesus4 #aidh ,according to ,luke and ,mark1 the man came directly out of the country1 ' 1 and as he attempted to pass by the crowd advancing to the place of crucifixion1 he was made use of to relieve ,jesus4 ,mark designates him yet more particularly as the father of ,alexander and ,rufus1 who appear to have been noted persons in the primitive church 7comp4 ,rom4 xvi4 #ac2 ,acts xix4 #cc 7872 #a ,tim4 i4 #bj 7872 #b ,tim4 iv4 #ad 78774 #aidi ,on the way to the place of execution1 according to ,luke1 there followed ,jesus1 lamenting him1 a great company1 consisting especially of women1 whom he however admonished to weep rather for themselves and their children1 in prospect of the terrible time1 which would soon come upon them 7xxiii4 #bg ff474 ,the details are taken partly from the discourse on the second advent1 ,luke xxi4 #bc2 for as there it is said1 1 1 1 so here ,jesus says1 that the days are coming in which 1 1 1 will be pronounced blessed2 partly from ,hosea x4 #h1 for the words 444 7then shall they begin to say to the mountains1 etc47 are almost exactly the ,alexandrian translation of that passage4 ,the place of execution is named by all the ,evangelists ,golgotha1 the ,chaldaic 1 and they all interpret this designation by the place of a skull1 or a skull 7,matt4 v4 #cc parall474 ,from the latter name it might appear that the place was so called because it resembled a skull in form2 whereas the former interpretation1 and indeed the nature of the case1 renders it probable that it owed its name to its destination as a place of execution1 and to the bones and skulls of the executed which were heaped up there4 ,where this place was situated is not known1 but doubtless it was out of the city2 even that it was a hill1 is a mere conjecture4 #aiej ,the course of events after the arrival at the place of execution is narrated by ,matthew 7v4 #cd ff47 in a somewhat singular order4 ,first1 he mentions the beverage offered to ,jesus2 next1 he says that after they had nailed him to the cross1 the soldiers shared his clothes among them2 then1 that they sat down and watched him2 after this he notices the superscription on the cross1 and at length1 and not as if supplying a previous omission1 but with a particle expressive of succession in time 771 the fact that two thieves were crucified with him4 ,mark follows ,matthew1 except that instead of the statement about the watching of the cross1 he has a determination of the time at which ,jesus was crucified3 while ,luke more correctly relates first the crucifixion of the two malefactors with ,jesus1 and then the casting of lots for the clothes2 and the same order is observed by ,john4 ,but it is inadmissible on this account to transpose the verses in ,matthew 7#cd1 #cg1 #ch1 #ce1 #cf71 as has been proposed2 #aiea and we must rather abandon the author of the first gospel to the charge1 that in his anxiety not to omit any of the chief events at the crucifixion of ,jesus1 he has neglected the natural order of time4 #aieb ,as regards the mode of the crucifixion there is now scarcely any debated point1 if we except the question1 whether the feet as well as the hands were nailed to the cross4 ,as it lay in the interest of the orthodox view to prove the affirmative3 so it was equally important to the rationalistic system to maintain the negative4 ,from ,justin ,martyr #aiec down to ,hengstenberg #aied and ,olshausen1 the orthodox find in the nailing of the feet of ,jesus to the cross a fulfilment of the prophecy ,ps4 xxii4 #ag1 which the ,,lxx4 translates3 1 but it is doubtful whether the original text really speaks of piercing1 and in no case does it allude to crucifixion3 moreover the passage is nowhere applied to ,christ in the ,new ,testament4 ,to the rationalists1 on the contrary1 it is at once more easy to explain the death of ,jesus as a merely apparent death1 and only possible to conceive how he could walk immediately after the resurrection1 when it is supposed that his feet were left unwounded2 but the case should rather be stated thus3 if the historical evidence go to prove that the feet also of ,jesus were nailed1 it must be concluded that the resuscitation and the power of walking shortly after1 either happened supernaturally or not at all4 ,of late there have stood opposed to each other two learned and profound investigations of this point1 the one by ,paulus against1 the other by ,bhr1 in favour of--the nailing of the feet4 #aiee ,from the evangelical narrative1 the former opinion can principally allege in its support1 that neither is the above passage in the ,psalms anywhere used by the ,evangelists1 though on the presupposition of a nailing of the feet it was so entirely suited to their mode of accounting for facts1 nor in the history of the resurrection is there any mention of wounds in the feet1 together with the wounds in the hands and side 7,john xx4 #bj1 #be1 #bg74 ,the other opinion appeals not without reason to ,luke xxiv4 #ci1 where ,jesus invites the disciples to behold his hands and his feet 7 73 it is certainly not here said that the feet were pierced1 but it is difficult to understand how ,jesus should have pointed out his feet merely to produce a conviction of the reality of his body4 ,the fact that among the fathers of the church1 those who1 living before ,constantine1 might be acquainted with the mode of crucifixion from personal observation1 as ,justin and ,tertullian1 suppose the feet of ,jesus to have been nailed1 is of weight4 ,it might indeed be concluded from the remark of the latter3 ,qui 7,christus7 solus a populo tam insigniter crucifixus est1 #aief that for the sake of the passage in the ,psalms these fathers supposed that in the crucifixion of ,christ his feet also were pierced by way of exception2 but1 as ,tertullian had before called the piercing of the hands and feet the propria atrocia crucis1 it is plain that the above words imply1 not a special manner of crucifixion1 but the special manner of death by crucifixion1 which does not occur in the ,old ,testament1 and by which therefore ,jesus was distinguished from all the characters therein celebrated4 ,among the passages in profane writers1 the most important is that of ,plautus1 in which1 to mark a crucifixion as extraordinarily severe1 it is said3 offigantur bis pedes1 bis brachia4 #aieg ,here the question is3 does the extraordinary feature lie in the bis1 so that the nailing of the feet as well as of the hands only once is presupposed as the ordinary usage2 or was the bis offigere of the hands1 i4e4 the nailing of both the hands1 the usual practice1 and the nailing of the feet an extraordinary aggravation of the punishment8 ,every one will pronounce the former alternative to be the most accordant with the words4 ,hence it appears to me at present1 that the balance of historical evidence is on the side of those who maintain that the feet as well as the hands of ,jesus were nailed to the cross4 ,it was before the crucifixion1 according to the two first ,evangelists1 that there was offered to ,jesus a beverage1 which ,matthew 7v4 #cd7 describes as vinegar mingled with gall1 1 ,mark 7v4 #bc7 as wine mingled with myrrh1 1 but which1 according to both1 ,jesus 7,matthew says1 after having tasted it7 refused to accept4 ,as it is not understood with what object gall could be mixed with the vinegar1 the of ,matthew is usually explained1 by the aid of the of ,mark1 as implying bitter vegetable ingredients1 especially myrrh2 and then either wine is actually substituted for vinegar1 or the latter is understood as sour wine2 #aieh in order that the beverage offered to ,jesus may thus appear to have been the stupefying draught consisting of wine and strong spices1 which1 according to ,jewish usage1 was presented to those about to be executed1 for the purpose of blunting their susceptibility to pain4 #aiei ,but even if the text admitted of this reading1 and the words of this interpretation1 ,matthew would assuredly protest strongly against the real gall and the vinegar being thus explained away from his narrative1 because by this means he would lose the fulfilment of the passage in the psalm of lamentation elsewhere used messianically3 7,,lxx47 1 1 they gave me also gall for my meat1 and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink 7,ps4 lxix4 #ba74 ,matthew incontestably means1 in accordance with this prophecy1 real gall with vinegar1 and the comparison with ,mark is only calculated to suggest the question1 whether it be more probable that ,mark presents the incident in its original form1 which ,matthew has remodelled into a closer accordance with the prophecy2 or that ,matthew originally drew the particular from the passage in the ,psalm1 and that ,mark so modified it as to give it an appearance of greater historical probability8 ,in order to come to a decision on this question we must take the two other ,evangelists into consideration4 ,the presentation to ,jesus of a drink mingled with vinegar is mentioned by all four1 and even the two who have the vinegar mingled with gall1 or the myrrhed wine1 as the first drink offered to ,jesus1 mention afterwards the offering of simple vinegar4 ,according to ,luke1 this offering of vinegar 1 was an act of derision committed by the soldiers not very long after the crucifixion1 and before the commencement of the darkness 7v4 #cf f472 according to ,mark1 shortly before the end1 three hours after the darkness came on1 one of the bystanders1 on hearing the cry of ,jesus3 my ,god1 my ,god1 etc41 presented vinegar to him1 likewise in derision1 by means of a sponge fixed on a reed 7v4 #cf72 according to ,matthew1 one of the bystanders1 on the same cry1 and in the same manner1 presented vinegar to him1 but with a benevolent intention1 as we gather from the circumstance that the scoffers wished to deter him from the act 7v4 #dh f472 #aifj whereas in ,john it is on the exclamation3 ,i thirst1 that some fill a sponge with vinegar from a vessel standing near1 and raise it on a stem of hyssop to the mouth of ,jesus 7v4 #bi74 ,hence it has been supposed that there were three separate attempts to give a beverage to ,jesus3 the first before the crucifixion1 with the stupefying drink 7,matthew and ,mark72 the second after the crucifixion1 when the soldiers in mockery offered him some of their ordinary beverage1 a mixture of vinegar and water called posca #aifa 7,luke72 and the third1 on the complaining cry of ,jesus 7,matt41 ,mark and ,john74 #aifb ,but if the principle of considering every divergent narrative as a separate event be once admitted1 it must be consistently carried out3 if the beverage mentioned by ,luke must be distinguished from that of ,matthew and ,mark on account of a difference in the time1 then must that of ,matthew be distinguished from that of ,mark on account of the difference in the design2 and1 again1 the beverage mentioned by ,john must not be regarded as the same with that of the two first synoptists1 since it follows a totally different exclamation4 ,thus we should obtain in all five instances in which a drink was offered to ,jesus1 and we should at least be at a loss to understand why ,jesus after vinegar had already been thrice presented to his lips1 should yet a fourth time have desired to drink4 ,if then we must resort to simplification1 it is by no means only the beverage in the two first gospels1 and that in the fourth1 which1 on account of the agreement in the time and manner of presentation1 are to be understood as one2 but also that of ,mark 7and through this the others7 must be pronounced identical with that of ,luke1 on account of their being alike offered in derision4 ,thus there remain two instances of a drink being offered to ,jesus1 the one before the crucifixion1 the other after2 and both have a presumptive support from history1 the former in the ,jewish custom of giving a stupefying draught to persons about to be executed1 the other in the ,roman custom1 according to which the soldiers on their expeditions1--and the completing an execution was considered as such1--were in the habit of taking with them their posca4 ,but together with this possible historical root1 there is a possible prophetic one in ,ps4 lxix41 and the two have an opposite influence3 the latter excites a suspicion that the narrative may not have anything historical at its foundation2 the former throws doubt on the explanation that the whole story has been spun out of the prophecies4 ,on once more glancing over the various narratives1 we shall at least find that their divergencies are precisely of a nature to have arisen from a various application of the passage in the ,psalms4 ,the eating of gall and the drinking of vinegar being there spoken of1 it appears as if in the first instance the former particular had been set aside as inconceivable1 and the fulfilment of the prophecy found in the circumstance 7very possibly historical1 since it is mentioned by all the four ,evangelists71 that ,jesus had vinegar presented to him when on the cross4 ,this might either be regarded as an act of compassion1 as by ,matthew and ,john1 or of mockery1 with ,mark and ,luke4 ,in this manner the words3 they gave me vinegar to drink1 1 were indeed literally fulfilled1 but not the preceding phrase3 in my thirst1 2 hence the author of the fourth gospel might think it probable that ,jesus actually complained of thirst1 i4e4 cried1 ,i thirst1 1 an exclamation1 which he expressly designates as a fulfilment of the scripture1 1 by which we are doubtless to understand the above passage in the ,psalms 7comp4 ,ps4 xxii4 #af72 nay1 since he introduces the 1 that the scripture might be fulfilled1 by 1 1 ,jesus1 knowing that all things were now accomplished1 he almost appears to mean that the fulfilment of the prophecy was the sole object of ,jesus in uttering that exclamation3 but a man suspended on the cross in the agonies of death is not the one to occupy himself with such typological trifling--this is only the part of his biographer who finds himself in perfect ease4 ,even this addition1 however1 only showed the fulfilment of one half of the messianic verse1 that relating to the vinegar3 there still remained what was said of the gall1 which1 as the concentration of all bitterness1 was peculiarly adapted to be placed in relation to the suffering ,messiah4 ,it is true that the presentation of the gall1 1 as meat1 1 which the prophecy strictly taken required1 was still suppressed as inconceivable3 but it appeared to the first ,evangelist1 or to the authority which he here follows1 quite practicable to introduce the gall as an ingredient in the vinegar1 a mixture which ,jesus might certainly be unable to drink1 from its unpalatableness4 ,more concerned about historical probability than prophetic connexion1 the second ,evangelist1 with reference to a ,jewish custom1 and perhaps in accordance with historical fact1 converted the vinegar mingled with gall1 into wine mingled with myrrh1 and made ,jesus reject this1 doubtless from a wish to avoid stupefaction4 ,as however the narrative of the vinegar mingled with gall reached these two ,evangelists in company with the original one of the presentation of simple vinegar to ,jesus2 they were unwilling that this should be excluded by the former1 and hence placed the two side by side4 ,but in making these observations1 as has been before remarked1 it is not intended to deny that such a beverage may have been offered to ,jesus before the crucifixion1 and afterwards vinegar also1 since the former was apparently customary1 and the latter1 from the thirst which tormented the crucified1 natural3 it is merely intended to show1 that the ,evangelists do not narrate this circumstance1 and under such various forms1 because they knew historically that it occurred in this or that manner1 but because they were convinced dogmatically that it must have occurred according to the above prophecy1 which however they applied in different ways4 #aifc ,during or immediately after the crucifixion ,luke represents ,jesus as saying3 ,father1 forgive them1 for they know not what they do 7v4 #cd72 an intercession which is by some limited to the soldiers who crucified him1 #aifd by others1 extended to the real authors of his death1 the ,sanhedrists and ,pilate4 #aife ,however accordant such a prayer may be with the principles concerning love to enemies elsewhere inculcated by ,jesus 7,matt4 v4 #dd71 and however great the internal probability of ,luke's statement viewed in this light3 still it is to be observed1 especially as he stands alone in giving this particular1 that it may possibly have been taken from the reputed messianic chapter1 ,isa4 liii41 where in the last verse1 the same from which the words3 he was numbered with the transgressors1 are borrowed1 it is said3 7he made intercession for the transgressors71 which the ,,lxx4 erroneously translate 1 he was delivered for their transgressions1 but which already the ,targum ,jonathan renders by pro peccatis 7it should be peccatoribus7 deprecatus est4 ,all the ,evangelists agree in stating that two malefactors 7,matthew and ,mark call them thieves7 were crucified1 one on each side of ,jesus2 and ,mark1 if his #bhth verse be genuine1 sees in this a literal fulfilment of the words3 he was numbered with the transgressors1 which1 according to ,luke xxii4 #cg1 ,jesus had the evening before quoted as a prophecy about to be accomplished in him4 ,of the further demeanour of these fellow-sufferers1 ,john says nothing2 the two first ,evangelists represent them as reviling ,jesus 7,matt4 xxvii4 #dd2 ,mark xv4 #cb73 whereas ,luke narrates that only one of them was guilty of this offence1 and that he was rebuked by the other 7xxiii4 #ci ff474 ,in order to reconcile this difference1 commentators have advanced the supposition1 that at first both criminals reviled ,jesus1 but that subsequently one of them was converted by the marvellous darkness2 #aiff more modern ones have resorted to the supposition of an enallage numeri3 #aifg but without doubt those only are right who admit a real difference between ,luke and his predecessors4 #aifh ,it is plain that the two first ,evangelists knew nothing of the more precise details which ,luke presents concerning the relation of the two malefactors to ,jesus4 ,he narrates1 namely1 that when one of them derided ,jesus by calling upon him1 if he were the ,messiah1 to deliver himself and them1 the other earnestly rebuked such mockery of one with whom he was sharing a like fate1 and moreover as a guilty one with the guiltless1 entreating for his own part that ,jesus would remember him when he should come into his kingdom 3 whereupon ,jesus gave him the promise that he should that very day be with him in ,paradise 4 ,in this scene there is nothing to create difficulty1 until we come to the words which the second malefactor addresses to ,jesus4 ,for to expect from one suspended on the cross a future coming to establish the messianic kingdom1 would presuppose the conception of the whole system of a dying ,messiah1 which before the resurrection the apostles themselves could not comprehend1 and which therefore1 according to the above representation of ,luke1 a thief must have been beforehand with them in embracing4 ,this is so improbable1 that it cannot excite surprise to find many regarding the conversion of the thief on the cross as a miracle1 #aifi and the supposition which commentators call in to their aid1 namely1 that the man was no common criminal1 but a political one1 perhaps concerned in the insurrection of ,barabbas1 #aigj only serves to render the incident still more inconceivable4 ,for if he was an ,israelite inclined to rebellion1 and bent on liberating his nation from the ,roman yoke1 his idea of the ,messiah was assuredly the most incompatible with the acknowledgment as such1 of one so completely annihilated in a political view1 as ,jesus then was4 ,hence we are led to the question1 whether we have here a real history and not rather a creation of the legend8 ,two malefactors were crucified with ,jesus3 thus much was indubitably presented by history 7or did even this owe its origin to the prophecy1 ,isa4 liii4 #ab874 ,at first they were suspended by the side of ,jesus as mute figures1 and thus we find them in the narrative of the fourth ,evangelist1 into whose region of tradition only the simple statement1 that they were crucified with ,jesus1 had penetrated4 ,but it was not possible for the legend long to rest contented with so slight a use of them3 it opened their mouths1 and as only insults were reported to have proceeded from the bystanders1 the two malefactors were at first made to join in the general derision of ,jesus1 without any more particular account being given of their words 7,matt4 and ,mark74 ,but the malefactors admitted of a still better use4 ,if ,pilate had borne witness in favour of ,jesus2 if shortly after1 a ,roman centurion--nay1 all nature by its miraculous convulsions--had attested his exalted character3 so his two fellow-sufferers1 although criminals1 could not remain entirely impervious to the impression of his greatness1 but1 though one of them did indeed revile ,jesus agreeably to the original form of the legend1 the other must have expressed an opposite state of feeling1 and have shown faith in ,jesus as the ,messiah 7,luke74 ,the address of the latter to ,jesus and his answer are besides conceived entirely in the spirit of ,jewish thought and expression2 for according to the idea then prevalent1 paradise was that part of the nether world which was to harbour the souls of the pious in the interval between their death and the resurrection3 a place in paradise and a favourable remembrance in the future age were the object of the ,israelite's petition1 to ,god1 as here to the ,messiah2 #aiga and it was believed concerning a man distinguished for piety that he could conduct those who were present at the hour of his death into paradise4 #aigb ,to the cross of ,jesus was affixed1 according to the ,roman custom1 #aigc a superscription 7,mark and ,luke71 or a title 7,john7 which contained his accusation 7,matthew and ,mark71 consisting according to all the ,evangelists in the words3 1 the ,king of the ,jews4 ,luke and ,john state that this superscription was couched in three different tongues1 and the latter informs us that the ,jewish rulers were fully alive to the derision which this form of superscription reflected on their nation1 and on this account entreated ,pilate1 but in vain1 for an alteration of the terms 7v4 #ba f474 ,of the soldiers1 according to ,john four in number1 who crucified ,jesus1 the ,evangelists unanimously relate that they parted the clothes of ,jesus among themselves by lot4 ,according to the ,roman law de bonis damnatorum #aigd the vestments of the executed fell as spolia to the executioners1 and in so far that statement of the ,evangelists has a point of contact with history4 ,but1 like most of the features in this last scene of the life of ,jesus1 it has also a point of contact with prophecy4 ,it is true that in ,matthew the quotation of the passage ,ps4 xxii4 #ah is doubtless an interpolation2 but on the other hand the same quotation is undoubtedly genuine in ,john 7xix4 #bd73 7verbally after the ,,lxx47 1 1 that the scripture might be fulfilled which saith1 ,they parted my raiment among them1 and for my vesture they did cast lots4 ,here also1 according to the assertion of orthodox expositors1 ,david the author of the psalm1 under divine guidance1 in the moments of inspiration chose such figurative expressions as had a literal fulfilment in ,christ4 #aige ,rather we must say1 ,david1 or whoever else may have been the author of the psalm1 as a man of poetical imagination used those expressions as mere metaphors to denote a total defeat2 but the petty1 prosaic spirit of ,jewish interpretation1 which the ,evangelists shared without any fault of theirs1 and from which orthodox theologians1 by their own fault however1 have not perfectly liberated themselves after the lapse of eighteen centuries1 led to the belief that those words must be understood literally1 and in this sense must be shown to be fulfilled in the ,messiah4 ,whether the ,evangelists drew the circumstance of the casting of lots for the clothes more from historical information which stood at their command1 or from the prophetic passage which they variously interpreted1 must be decided by a comparison of their narratives4 ,these present the divergency1 that while according to the synoptists all the clothes were parted by lot1 as is evident from the words3 1 1 they parted his garments1 casting lots1 in ,matthew 7v4 #ce71 and the similar turn of expression in ,luke 7v4 #cd71 but still more decidedly from the addition of ,mark3 1 what every man should take 7v4 #bd73 in ,john it is the coat or tunic1 1 alone for which lots are cast1 the other garments being parted equally 7v4 #bc f474 ,this divergency is commonly thought of much too lightly1 and is tacitly treated as if the synoptical representation were related to that of ,john as the indefinite to the definite4 ,kuinl in consideration of ,john translates the words of ,matthew thus3 partim dividebant1 partim in sortem conjiciebant3 but the meaning is not to be thus distributed1 for the 1 they parted1 states what they did1 the 1 casting lots1 how they did it3 besides ,kuinl passes in total silence over the words 1 because they undeniably imply that lots were cast for several articles3 while according to ,john the lots had reference only to one garment4 ,if it be now asked1 which of the two contradictory narratives is the correct one1 the answer given from the point of view to which the comparative criticism of the gospels has at present attained is1 that the eye-witness ,john gives the correct particulars1 but the synoptists had merely received the indefinite information1 that in parting the clothes of ,jesus the soldiers made use of the lot1 and this1 from unacquaintance with the more minute particulars1 they understood as if lots had been cast for all the garments of ,jesus4 #aigf ,but not only does the circumstance that it is ,john alone who expressly cites the passage in the ,psalms prove that he had an especial view to that passage3 but1 in general1 this divergency of the ,evangelists is precisely what might be expected from a difference in the interpretation of that supposed prophecy4 ,when the psalm speaks of the parting of the garments and a casting of lots for the vesture3 the second particular is1 according to the genius of the ,hebrew language which abounds in parallelism1 only a more precise definition of the first1 and the synoptists1 correctly understanding this1 make one of the two verbs a participle4 ,one however who did not bear in mind this peculiarity of the ,hebrew style1 or had an interest in exhibiting the second feature of the prophecy as specially fulfilled1 might understand the and1 which in reality was indicative only of more precise definition1 as denoting addition1 and thus regard the casting of lots and the distribution as separate acts4 ,then the 77 which was originally a synonyme of 77 must become a distinct garment1 the closer particularization of which1 since it was not in any way conveyed in the word itself1 was left to choice4 ,the fourth ,evangelist determined it to be the 1 tunic1 and because he believed it due to his readers to show some cause for a mode of procedure with respect to this garment1 so different from the equal distribution of the others1 he intimated that the reason why it was chosen to cast lots for the tunic rather than to divide it1 probably was that it had no seam 77 which might render separation easy1 but was woven in one piece 7 ' 74 #aigg ,thus we should have in the fourth ,evangelist exactly the same procedure as we have found on the side of the first1 in the history of the entrance into ,jerusalem3 in both cases the doubling of a trait originally single1 owing to a false interpretation of the in the ,hebrew parallelism2 the only difference being that the first ,evangelist in the passage referred to is less arbitrary than the fourth is here1 for he at least spares us the tracing out of the reason why two asses must then have been required for one rider4 ,the more evident it thus becomes that the representation of the point in question in the different ,evangelists is dependent on the manner in which each interpreted that supposed prophecy in the ,psalms3 the less does a sure historical knowledge appear to have had any share in their representation1 and hence we remain ignorant whether lots were cast on the distribution of the clothes of ,jesus1 nay whether in general a distribution of clothes took place under the cross of ,jesus2 confidently as ,justin appeals in support of this very particular to the ,acts of ,pilate1 which he had never seen4 #aigh ,of the conduct of the ,jews who were present at the crucifixion of ,jesus1 ,john tells us nothing2 ,luke represents the people as standing to look on1 and only the rulers and the soldiers as deriding ,jesus by the summons to save himself if he were the ,messiah1 to which the latter adds the offer of the vinegar 7v4 #ce ff472 ,matthew and ,mark have nothing here of mockery on the part of the soldiers1 but in compensation they make not only the chief priests1 scribes1 and elders1 but also the passers by1 1 vent insults against ,jesus 7v4 #ci ff41 #bi ff474 ,the expressions of these people partly refer to former discourses and actions of ,jesus2 thus1 the sarcasm3 ,thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it again in three days1 save thyself 7,matt4 and ,mark71 is an allusion to the words of that tenor ascribed to ,jesus2 while the reproach3 he saved others1 himself he cannot save1 or save thyself 7in all three71 refers to his cures4 ,partly however the conduct of the ,jews towards ,jesus on the cross1 is depicted after the same psalm of which ,tertullian justly says that it contains totam ,christi passionem4 #aigi ,when it is said in ,matthew and ,mark3 ,and they that passed by reviled him1 wagging their heads and saying3 1 7,luke says of the rulers they derided him 71 this is certainly nothing else than a mere reproduction of what stands in ,ps4 xxii4 #h 7,,lxx473 ,all they that see me laugh me to scorn1 they shoot out the lip and shake the head3 1 1 2 and the words which are hereupon lent to the ,sanhedrists in ,matthew3 ,he trusted in ,god2 let him deliver him now if he will have him1 1 1 1 are the same with those of the following verse in that ,psalm3 ,he trusted in the ,lord that he would deliver him3 let him deliver him1 seeing he delighted in him1 1 1 4 ,now though the taunts and shaking of the head on the part of the enemies of ,jesus may1 notwithstanding that the description of them is drawn according to the above ,old ,testament passage1 still very probably have really happened3 it is quite otherwise with the words which are attributed to these mockers4 ,words which1 like those above quoted1 are in the ,old ,testament put into the mouth of the enemies of the godly1 could not be adopted by the ,sanhedrists without their voluntarily assuming the character of the ungodly3 which they would surely have taken care to avoid4 ,only the ,christian legend1 if it once applied the ,psalm to the sufferings of ,jesus1 and especially to his last hours1 could attribute these words to the ,jewish rulers1 and find therein the fulfilment of a prophecy4 ,the two first ,evangelists do not tell us that any one of the twelve was present at the crucifixion of ,jesus3 they mention merely several ,galilean women1 three of whom they particularize3 namely1 ,mary ,magdalene2 ,mary the mother of ,james the ,less and of ,joses2 and1 as the third1 according to ,matthew1 the mother of the sons of ,zebedee1 according to ,mark1 ,salome1 both which designations are commonly understood to relate to the same person 7,matt4 v4 #ee f42 ,mark v4 #dj f473 according to these ,evangelists the twelve appear not yet to have reassembled after their flight on the arrest of ,jesus4 #aihj ,in ,luke1 on the contrary1 among all his acquaintance1 1 whom he represents as beholding the crucifixion 7v4 #di7 the twelve would seem to be included3 but the fourth gospel expressly singles out from among the disciples the one whom ,jesus loved1 i4e4 ,john1 as present1 and among the women1 together with ,mary ,magdalene and the wife of ,cleopas1 names instead of the mother of ,james and ,john1 the mother of ,jesus himself4 ,moreover1 while according to all the other accounts the acquaintances of ,jesus stood afar off1 1 according to the fourth gospel ,john and the mother of ,jesus must have been in the closest proximity to the cross1 since it represents ,jesus as addressing them from the cross1 and appointing ,john to be his substitute in the filial relation to his mother 7v4 #be ff474 ,olshausen believes that he can remove the contradiction which exists between the synoptical statement and the presupposition of the fourth gospel as to the position of the friends of ,jesus1 by the conjecture that at first they did indeed stand at a distance1 but that subsequently some approached near to the cross3 it is to be observed1 however1 in opposition to this1 that the synoptists mention that position of the adherents of ,jesus just at the close of the scene of crucifixion and death1 immediately before the taking down from the cross1 and thus presuppose that they had retained this position until the end of the scene2 a state of the case which cannot but be held entirely consistent with the alarm which filled the minds of the disciples during those days1 and still more with feminine timidity4 ,if the heroism of a nearer approach might perhaps be expected from maternal tenderness3 still1 the total silence of the synoptists1 as the interpreters of the common evangelical tradition1 renders the historical reality of that particular doubtful4 ,the synoptists cannot have known anything of the presence of the mother of ,jesus at the cross1 otherwise they would have mentioned her as the chief person1 before all the other women2 nor does anything appear to have been known of a more intimate relation between her and ,john3 at least in the ,acts 7i4 #ab f47 the mother of ,jesus is supposed to be with the twelve in general1 his brothers1 and the women of the society4 ,it is at least not so easy to understand how the memory of that affecting presence and remarkable relation could be lost1 as to conceive how the idea of them might originate in the circle from which the fourth gospel proceeded4 ,if this circle be imagined as one in which the ,apostle ,john enjoyed peculiar veneration1 on which account our gospel drew him out of the trio of the more confidential associates of ,jesus1 and isolated him as the beloved disciple3 it will appear that nothing could be more strikingly adapted to confirm this relation than the statement that ,jesus bequeathed1 as it were1 the dearest legacy1 his mother 7in reference to whom1 as well as to the alleged beloved disciple1 it must have been a natural question1 whether she had left the side of ,jesus in this last trial71 to ,john1 and thus placed this disciple in his stead1--made him vicarius ,christi4 ,as the address of ,jesus to his mother and the favourite disciple is peculiar to the fourth gospel3 so1 on the other hand1 the exclamation1 ,my ,god1 my ,god1 why hast thou forsaken me8 1 1 2 is only found in the two first gospels 7,matt4 v4 #df2 ,mark v4 #cd74 ,this exclamation1 with the mental state from which it proceeded1 like the agony in ,gethsemane1 constitutes in the opinion of the church a part of the vicarious suffering of ,christ4 ,as however in this instance also it was impossible to be blind to the difficulties of the supposition1 that the mere corporeal suffering1 united with the external depression of his cause1 overwhelmed ,jesus to such a degree that he felt himself forsaken by ,god1 while there have been both before and after him persons who1 under sufferings equally severe1 have yet preserved composure and fortitude3 the opinion of the church has here also1 in addition to the natural corporeal and spiritual affliction1 supposed as the true cause of that state of mind in ,jesus1 a withdrawal of ,god from his soul1 a consciousness of the divine wrath1 which it was decreed that he should bear in the stead of mankind1 by whom it was deserved as a punishment4 #aiha ,how1 presupposing the dogma of the church concerning the person of ,christ1 a withdrawal of ,god from his soul is conceivable1 it is the part of the defenders of this opinion themselves1 to decide4 ,was it the human nature in him which felt so forsaken8 ,then would its unity with the divine have been interrupted1 and thus the very basis of the personality of ,christ1 according to the above system1 removed4 ,or the divine8 ,in that case the second person in the ,godhead would have been separated from the first4 ,as little can it have been the ,god-man1 consisting of both natures1 that felt forsaken by ,god1 since the very essence of this is the unity and inseparableness of the divine and the human4 ,thus urged by the self-contradiction of this supranaturalistic explanation1 to fall back on the natural mode of accounting for the above exclamation by the sense of external suffering1 and yet repelled from the idea that ,jesus should have been so completely subdued by this1 commentators have attempted to mollify the sense of the exclamation4 ,it consists of the opening words of ,ps4 xxii41 a passage which is classical for this last scene in the life of ,jesus4 ,now this psalm begins with a complaining description of the deepest suffering1 but in the course of its progress soars into joyful hope of deliverance2 hence it has been supposed that the words which ,jesus immediately utters do not give his entire experience1 and that in thus reciting the first verse he at the same time quotes the whole psalm and especially its exulting close1 just as if he meant to say3 ,it is true that ,i1 like the author of this psalm1 appear now forsaken of ,god1 but in me1 as in him1 the divine succour will only be so much the more glorified4 #aihb ,but if ,jesus uttered this exclamation with a view to the bystanders1 and in order to assure them that his affliction would soon be merged in triumph1 he would have chosen the means the least adapted to his purpose1 if he had uttered precisely those words of the ,psalm which express the deepest misery2 and instead of the first verse he would rather have chosen one from the #ajth to the #abth1 or from the #bjth to the end4 ,if however in that exclamation he meant merely to give vent to his own feeling1 he would not have chosen this verse if his actual experience in these moments had been1 not what is there expressed1 but what is described in the succeeding verses4 ,now if this experience was his own1 and if1 all supernatural grounds of explanation being dismissed1 it proceeded from his external calamities2 we must observe that one who1 as the gospels narrate of ,jesus1 had long included suffering and death in his idea of the ,messiah1 and hence had regarded them as a part of the divine arrangements1 could scarcely complain of them when they actually arrived as an abandonment by ,god2 rather1 on the above supposition1 we should be led to think that ,jesus had found himself deceived in the expectations which he had previously cherished1 and thus believed himself forsaken by ,god in the prosecution of his plan4 #aihc ,but we could only resort to such conjectures if the above exclamation of ,jesus were shown to have an historical foundation4 ,in this respect the silence of ,luke and ,john would not1 it is true1 be so serious a difficulty in our eyes1 that we should take refuge in explanations like the following3 ,john suppressed the exclamation1 lest it should serve to countenance the ,gnostic opinion1 by admitting the inference that the on which was insusceptible of suffering1 departed from ,jesus in that moment4 #aihd ,but the relation of the words of ,jesus to the #bbnd ,psalm does certainly render this particular suspicious4 ,if the ,messiah was once conceived of as suffering1 and if that psalm was used as a sort of programme of his suffering--for which it was by no means necessary as an inducement that ,jesus should have really quoted one of its verses on the cross3--the opening words of the psalm which are expressive of the deepest suffering must appear singularly adapted to be put into the mouth of the crucified ,messiah4 ,in this case the derisive speech #aihe of the bystanders1 he calleth for ,elias1 etc41 can have had no other origin than this--that the wish for a variety of taunts to complete this scene after the model of the psalm1 was met by the similarity of sound between the in the exclamation lent to ,jesus1 and the name of ,elias which was associated with the ,messiah4 ,concerning the last words which the expiring ,jesus was heard to utter1 the ,evangelists differ4 ,according to ,matthew and ,mark1 it was merely a loud voice1 1 with which he departed 7v4 #ej1 #cg72 according to ,luke it was the petition3 ,father1 into thy hands ,i commend my spirit1 1 7v4 #df72 while according to ,john it was on the brief expression3 it is finished1 1 that he bowed his head and expired 7v4 #cj74 ,here it is possible to reconcile the two first ,evangelists with one or other of the succeeding ones by the supposition1 that what the former describe indefinitely as a loud cry1 and what according to their representation might be taken for an inarticulate expression of anguish1 the others1 with more particularity1 give in its precise verbal form4 ,it is more difficult to reconcile the two last gospels4 ,for whether we suppose that ,jesus first commended his soul to ,god1 and hereupon cried3 it is finished2 or vice vers2 both collocations are alike opposed to the intention of the ,evangelists1 for the expression of ,luke cannot be rendered1 as ,paulus would have it1 by3 soon after he had said this1 he expired2 and the very words of the exclamation in ,john define it as the last utterance of ,jesus2 the two writers forming different conceptions of the closing words4 ,in the account of ,luke1 the common form of expression for the death of ,jesus3 7he delivered up his spirit7 appears to have been interpreted as an actual commending of his soul to ,god on the part of ,jesus1 and to have been further developed with reference to the passage ,ps4 xxxi4 #e3 7,lord7 into thy hands ,i commend my spirit1 77 7,,lxx471--a passage which from the strong resemblance of this ,psalm to the #bbnd would be apt to suggest itself4 #aihf ,whereas the author of the fourth gospel appears to have lent to ,jesus an expression more immediately proceeding from his position in relation to his messianic office1 making him express in the word it is finished the completion of his work1 or the fulfilment of all the prophecies 7with the exception1 of course1 of what could only be completed and fulfilled in the resurrection74 ,not only these last words1 however1 but also the earlier expressions of ,jesus on the cross1 will not admit of being ranged in the succession in which they are generally supposed4 ,the speeches of ,jesus on the cross are commonly reckoned to be seven2 but so many are not mentioned by any single ,evangelist1 for the two first have only one3 the exclamation my ,god1 my ,god1 etc4 1 1 444 ,luke has three2 the prayer of ,jesus for his enemies1 the promise to the thief1 and the commending of his spirit into the hands of the ,father2 ,john has likewise three1 but all different3 the address to his mother and the disciple1 with the exclamations1 ,i thirst and ,it is finished 4 ,now the intercessory prayer1 the promise and the recommendation of ,mary to the care of the disciple1 might certainly be conceived as following each other3 but the and the come into collision1 since both exclamations are followed by the same incident1 the offering of vinegar by means of a sponge on a reed4 ,when to this we add the entanglement of the with the 4441 it should surely be seen and admitted1 that no one of the ,evangelists1 in attributing words to ,jesus when on the cross1 knew or took into consideration those lent to him by the others2 that on the contrary each depicted this scene in his own manner1 according as he1 or the legend which stood at his command1 had developed the conception of it to suit this or that prophecy or design4 ,a special difficulty is here caused by the computation of the hours4 ,according to all the synoptists the darkness prevailed from the sixth hour until the ninth hour1 7in our reckoning1 from twelve at midday to three in the afternoon72 according to ,matthew and ,mark1 it was about the ninth hour that ,jesus complained of being forsaken by ,god1 and shortly after yielded up the ghost2 according to ,mark it was the third hour 7nine in the morning7 when ,jesus was crucified 7v4 #be74 ,on the other hand1 ,john says 7xix4 #ad7 that it was about the sixth hour 7when according to ,mark ,jesus had already hung three hours on the cross7 that ,pilate first sat in judgment over him4 ,unless we are to suppose that the sun-dial went backward1 as in the time of ,hezekiah1 this is a contradiction which is not to be removed by a violent alteration of the reading1 nor by appealing to the 7about7 in ,john1 or to the inability of the disciples to take note of the hours under such afflictive circumstances2 at the utmost it might perhaps be cancelled if it were possible to prove that the fourth gospel throughout proceeds upon another mode of reckoning time than that used by the synoptists4 #aihg ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,death ,,and ,,resurrection ,,of ,,jesus4 #acc4 ,,prodigies ,,attendant ,,on ,,the ,,death ,,of ,,jesus4 ,according to the evangelical accounts1 the death of ,jesus was accompanied by extraordinary phenomena4 ,three hours before1 we are told1 a darkness diffused itself1 and lasted until ,jesus expired 7,matt4 xxvii4 #de parall472 in the moment of his death the veil of the temple was torn asunder from the top to the bottom1 the earth quaked1 the rocks were rent1 the graves were opened1 and many bodies of departed saints arose1 entered into the city1 and appeared to many 7,matt4 v4 #ea ff4 parall474 ,these details are very unequally distributed among the ,evangelists3 the first alone has them all2 the second and third merely the darkness and the rending of the veil3 while the fourth knows nothing of all these marvels4 ,we will examine them singly according to their order4 ,the darkness which is said to have arisen while ,jesus hung on the cross1 cannot have been an ordinary eclipse of the sun1 caused by the interposition of the moon between his disc and the earth1 #aihh since it happened during the ,passover1 and consequently about the time of the full moon4 ,the gospels however do not directly use the terms 7eclipse of the sun71 the two first speaking only of darkness in general2 and though the third adds with somewhat more particularity3 1 and the sun was darkened1 still this might be said of any species of widely extended obscuration4 ,hence it was an explanation which lay near at hand to refer this darkness to an atmospheric1 instead of an astronomical cause1 and to suppose that it proceeded from obscuring vapours in the air1 such as are especially wont to precede earthquakes4 #aihi ,that such obscurations of the atmosphere may be diffused over whole countries1 is true2 but not only is the statement that the one in question extended or 1 i4e41 according to the most natural explanation1 over the entire globe1 to be subtracted as an exaggeration of the narrator3 #aiij but also the presupposition1 evident in the whole tenor of their representation1 that the darkness had a supernatural cause1 appears destitute of foundation from the want of any adequate object for such a miracle4 ,since then1 with these accessory features the event does not in itself at once carry the conviction of its credibility1 it is natural to inquire if it have any extrinsic confirmation4 ,the fathers of the church appeal in its support to the testimony of heathen writers1 among whom ,phlegon especially in his is alleged to have noticed the above darkness3 #aiia but on comparing the passage preserved by ,eusebius1 which is apparently the one of ,phlegon alluded to1 we find that it determines merely the ,olympiad1 scarcely the year1 and in no case the season and day of this darkness4 #aiib ,more modern apologists appeal to similar cases in ancient history1 of which ,wetstein in particular has made a copious collection4 ,he adduces from ,greek and ,roman writers the notices of the eclipses of the sun which occurred at the disappearance of ,romulus1 the death of ,csar1 #aiic and similar events2 he cites declarations which contain the idea that eclipses of the sun betoken the fall of kingdoms and the death of kings2 lastly he points to ,old ,testament passages 7,isa4 l4 #c2 ,joel iii4 #bj2 ,amos viii4 #i2 comp4 ,jer4 xv4 #i7 and rabbinical dicta1 in which either the obscuring of the light of day is described as the mourning garb of ,god1 #aiid or the death of great teachers compared with the sinking of the sun at mid-day1 #aiie or the opinion advanced that at the death of exalted hierarchical personages1 if the last honours are not paid to them1 the sun is wont to be darkened4 #aiif ,but these parallels1 instead of being supports to the credibility of the evangelical narrative1 are so many premises to the conclusion1 that we have here also nothing more than the mythical offspring of universally prevalent ideas1--a ,christian legend1 which would make all nature put on the weeds of mourning to solemnize the tragic death of the ,messiah4 #aiig ,the second prodigy is the rending of the veil of the temple1 doubtless the inner veil before the ,holy of ,holies1 since the word 1 used to designate this1 is generally rendered in the ,,lxx4 by 4 ,it was thought possible to interpret this rending of the veil also as a natural event1 by regarding it as an effect of the earthquake4 ,but1 as ,lightfoot has already justly observed1 it is more conceivable that an earthquake should rend stationary fixed bodies such as the rocks subsequently mentioned1 than that it should tear a pliant1 loosely hung curtain4 ,hence ,paulus supposes that the veil of the temple was stretched and fastened not only above but also below and at the sides4 ,but first1 this is a mere conjecture3 and secondly1 if the earthquake shook the walls of the temple so violently1 as to tear a veil which even though stretched1 was still pliant3 such a convulsion would rather have caused a part of the building to fall1 as is said to have been the case in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews3 #aiih unless it be chosen to add1 with ,kuinl1 the conjecture that the veil was tender from age1 and might therefore be torn by a slight concussion4 ,that our narrators had no such causes in their minds is proved by the fact that the second and third ,evangelists are silent concerning the earthquake1 and that the first does not mention it until after the rending of the veil4 ,thus if this event really happened we must regard it as a miracle4 ,now the object of the divine ,providence in effecting such a miracle could only have been this3 to produce in the ,jewish cotemporaries of ,jesus a deep impression of the importance of his death1 and to furnish the first promulgators of the gospel with a fact to which they might appeal in support of their cause4 ,but1 as ,schleiermacher has shown1 nowhere else in the ,new ,testament1 either in the apostolic epistles or in the ,acts1 or even in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 in connexion with the subject of which it could scarcely fail to be suggested1 is this event mentioned3 on the contrary1 with the exception of this bare synoptical notice1 every trace of it is lost2 which could scarcely have been the case if it had really formed a ground of apostolical argument4 ,thus the divine purpose in ordaining this miracle must have totally failed2 or1 since this is inconceivable1 it cannot have been ordained for this object--in other words1 since neither any other object of the miracle1 nor yet a mode in which the event might happen naturally can be discovered1 it cannot have happened at all4 ,in another way1 certainly1 a peculiar relation of ,jesus to the veil of the temple is treated of in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews4 ,while before ,christ1 only the priests had access into the holy place1 and into the ,holy of ,holies only the high priest might enter once in the year with the blood of atonement2 ,christ as the eternal high priest1 entered by his own blood into the holy place within the veil1 into the ,holy of ,holies in heaven1 whereby he became the forerunner1 1 of ,christians1 and opened access to them also1 founding an eternal redemption1 7vi4 #ai f41 ix4 #f1 #ab1 x4 #ai f474 ,even ,paulus finds in these metaphors so close an affinity to our narrative1 that he thinks it possible to number the latter among those fables which according to ,henke's definitions are to be derived e figurato genere dicendi2 #aiii at least the event1 even if it really happened1 must have been especially important to the ,christians on account of its symbolical significance1 as interpreted by the images in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews3 namely1 that by ,christ's death the veil of the ,jewish worship was rent asunder1 and access to ,god opened to all by means of worship in the ,spirit4 ,but if1 as has been shown1 the historical probability of the event in question is extremely weak1 and on the other hand1 the causes which might lead to the formation of such a narrative without historical foundation very powerful2 it is more consistent1 with ,schleiermacher1 entirely to renounce the incident as historical1 on the ground that so soon as it began to be the practice to represent the office of ,christ under the images which reign throughout the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 nay1 in the very earliest dawn of this kind of doctrine1 on the first reception of the ,gentiles1 who were left free from the burthen of ,jewish observances1 and who thus remained without participation in the ,jewish sacrifices1 such representations must have entered into the ,christian hymns 7and the evangelical narratives74 #bjjj ,on the succeeding particulars of the earthquake and the rending of the rocks1 we can only pronounce a judgment in connexion with those already examined4 ,an earthquake by which rocks are disparted1 is not unprecedented as a natural phenomenon3 but it also not seldom occurs as a poetical or mythical embellishment of the death of a distinguished man2 as1 for example1 on the death of ,csar1 ,virgil is not content with eclipsing the sun1 but also makes the ,alps tremble with unwonted commotion4 #bjja ,now as we have only been able to view the prodigies previously mentioned in the latter light1 and as1 besides1 the historical validity of the one before us is weakened by the fact that it rests solely on the testimony of ,matthew2 we must pronounce upon this also in the words of ,fritzsche3 ,messi obitum atrocibus ostentis1 quibus1 quantus vir quummaxime exspirsset1 orbi terrarum indicaretur1 illustrem esse oportebat4 #bjjb ,the last miraculous sign at the death of ,jesus1 likewise peculiar to the first ,evangelist1 is the opening of the graves1 the resurrection of many dead persons1 and their appearance in ,jerusalem4 ,to render this incident conceivable is a matter of unusual difficulty4 ,it is neither in itself clear how it is supposed to have fared with these ancient ,hebrew saints1 1 #bjjc after their resurrection2 #bjjd nor is anything satisfactory to be discovered concerning a possible object for so extraordinary a dispensation4 #bjje ,purely in the resuscitated themselves the object cannot apparently have lain1 for had it been so1 there is no conceivable ground why they should be all awaked precisely in the moment of the death of ,jesus1 and not each at the period prescribed by the course of his own development4 ,but if the conviction of others was the object1 this was still less attained than in the miracle of the rending of the veil1 for not only is any appeal to the apparition of the saints totally wanting in the apostolic epistles and discourses1 but also among the ,evangelists1 ,matthew is the only one by whom it is recorded4 ,a special difficulty arises from the position which the determination of time3 after his resurrection1 1 occupies between the apparently consecutive stages of the event4 ,for if we connect these words with what precedes1 and thus suppose that at the moment of the death of ,jesus1 the deceased saints were only reanimated1 and did not come out of their graves until after his resurrection1--this would have been a torment for the damned rather than a guerdon for the holy2 if1 on the contrary1 we unite that determination of time to what follows1 and thus interpret the ,evangelist's meaning to be1 that the resuscitated saints did indeed come out of their graves immediately on their being reanimated at the moment that ,jesus died1 but did not go into the city until after his resurrection1--any reason for the latter particular is sought in vain4 ,it is but an inartificial way of avoiding these difficulties to pronounce the whole passage an interpolation1 without any critical grounds for such a decision4 #bjjf ,a more dexterous course is pursued by the rationalistic expositors1 when they endeavour to subtract the miraculous from the event1 and by this means indirectly to remove the other difficulties4 ,here1 as in relation to the rending of the veil1 the earthquake is regarded as the chief agent3 this1 it is said1 laid open several tombs1 particularly those of some prophets1 which were found empty1 because the bodies had either been removed by the shock1 or become decomposed1 or fallen a prey to wild beasts4 ,after the resurrection of ,jesus1 those who were friendly to him in ,jerusalem being filled with thoughts of resurrection from the dead1 these thoughts1 together with the circumstance of the graves being found empty1 excited in them dreams and visions in which they believed that they beheld the pious ancestors who had been interred in those graves4 #bjjg ,but the fact of the graves being found empty would scarcely1 even united with the news of the resurrection of ,jesus1 have sufficed to produce such visions1 unless there had previously prevailed among the ,jews the expectation that the ,messiah would recall to life the departed saints of ,israel4 ,if however this expectation existed1 it would more probably give birth to the legend of a resurrection of the saints coincident with the death of ,jesus than to dreams2 whence ,hase wisely discards the supposition of dreams1 and attempts to find a sufficient explanation of the narrative in the emptiness of the graves on the one hand1 and the above ,jewish expectation on the other4 #bjjh ,but on a nearer view it appears that if once this ,jewish idea existed there needed no real opening of the graves in order to give rise to such a mythus3 accordingly ,schneckenburger has left the emptiness of the graves out of his calculation4 #bjji ,when1 however1 he yet speaks of visionary appearances which were seen by the adherents of ,jesus in ,jerusalem1 under the excitement produced by his resurrection1 he is not less inconsequent than ,hase1 when he omits the dreams and yet retains the laying open of the graves2 for these two particulars being connected as cause and effect1 if one of them be renounced as unhistorical so also must the other4 ,in opposition to this view it is remarked1 not without an appearance of reason1 that the above ,jewish expectation does not suffice to explain the origin of such a mythus4 #bjaj ,the actual expectation may be more correctly stated thus4 ,from the epistles of ,paul 7#a ,thess4 iv4 #af2 comp4 #a ,cor4 xv4 #bb f47 and more decidedly from the ,apocalypse 7xx4 #d f471 we gather that the first ,christians anticipated1 as a concomitant of the return of ,christ1 a resurrection of the saints1 who would thenceforth reign with ,christ a thousand years2 only at the end of this period1 it was thought1 would the rest of the dead arise1 and from this second resurrection the former was distinguished as the first resurrection 1 or the resurrection of the just 7,luke xiv4 #ad871 in place of which ,justin has the holy resurrection 4 #bjaa ,but this is the ,christianized form of the ,jewish idea2 for the latter referred1 not to the return1 but to the first advent of the ,messiah1 and to a resurrection of ,israelites only4 #bjab ,now in the statement of ,matthew likewise1 that resurrection is assigned to the first appearance of the ,messiah2 for what reason1 however1 it is there connected with his death1 there is certainly no indication in the ,jewish expectation taken in and by itself1 while in the modification introduced by the adherents of ,jesus there would appear rather to have lain an inducement to unite the resurrection of the saints with his own2 especially as the connecting of it with his death seems to be in contradiction with the primitive ,christian idea elsewhere expressed1 that ,jesus was the first-begotten from the dead1 7,col4 i4 #ah2 ,rev4 i4 #e71 the first fruits of them that sleep1 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #bj74 ,but we do not know whether this idea was universal1 and if some thought it due to the messianic dignity of ,jesus to regard him as the first who rose from the dead1 there are obvious motives which might in other cases lead to the representation that already at the death of ,jesus there was a resurrection of saints4 ,first there was an external motive3 among the prodigies at the death of ,jesus an earthquake is mentioned1 and in describing its violence it was natural to add to the rending of the rocks another feature which appears elsewhere in accounts of violent earthquakes1 #bjac namely1 the opening of the graves3 here then was an inviting hinge for the resurrection of the saints4 ,but there was also an internal motive3 according to the ideas early developed in the ,christian community1 the death of ,jesus was the specially efficacious point in the work of redemption1 and in particular the descent into ,hades connected with it 7#a ,pet4 iii4 #ai f47 was the means of delivering the previously deceased from this abode2 #bjad hence from these ideas there might result an inducement to represent the bonds of the grave as having been burst asunder for the ancient saints precisely in the moment of the death of ,jesus4 ,besides1 by this position1 yet more decidedly than by a connexion with the resurrection of ,jesus1 the resuscitation of the righteous was assigned to the first appearance of the ,messiah1 in accordance with the ,jewish idea1 which might very naturally be echoed in such a narrative1 in the ,judaizing circles of primitive ,christendom2 while at the same time ,paul and also the author of the ,apocalypse already assigned the first resurrection to the second and still future advent of the ,messiah4 ,it was then apparently with reference to this more developed idea1 that the words after his resurrection were added as a restriction1 probably by the author of the first gospel himself4 ,the synoptists conclude their description of the events at the death of ,jesus1 with an account of the impression which they made more immediately on the ,roman centurion whose office it was to watch the crucifixion4 ,according to ,luke 7v4 #dg7 this impression was produced by 7what was done71 i4e41 since he had beforehand mentioned the darkness1 by the departure of ,jesus with an audible prayer1 that being the particular which he had last noticed2 indeed ,mark1 as if expounding ,luke1 represents the exclamation3 truly this man was the ,son of ,god as being called forth from the centurion by the circumstance that ,jesus so cried out1 and gave up the ghost1 7v4 #ci74 ,now in ,luke1 who gives a prayer as the last utterance of ,jesus1 it is possible to conceive that this edifying end might impress the centurion with a favourable opinion of ,jesus3 but how the fact of his expiring with a loud cry could lead to the inference that he was the ,son of ,god1 will in no way appear4 ,matthew however gives the most suitable relation to the words of the centurion1 when he represents them as being called forth by the earthquake and the other prodigies which accompanied the death of ,jesus3 were it not that the historical reality of this speech of the centurion must stand or fall with its alleged causes4 ,in ,matthew and ,mark this officer expresses the conviction that ,jesus is in truth the ,son of ,god1 in ,luke1 that he is a righteous man4 ,the ,evangelists in citing the former expression evidently intend to convey the idea that a ,gentile bore witness to the ,messiahship of ,jesus2 but in this specifically ,jewish sense the words cannot well have been understood by the ,roman soldier3 we might rather suppose that he regarded ,jesus as a son of ,god in the heathen sense1 or as an innocent man unjustly put to death1 were it not that the credibility of the whole synoptical account of the events which signalized the death of ,jesus being shaken1 this1 which forms the top stone as it were1 must also be of doubtful security2 especially when we look at the narrative of ,luke1 who besides the impression on the centurion adds that on the rest of the spectators1 and makes them return to the city with repentance and mourning--a trait which appears to represent1 not so probably what the ,jews actually felt and did1 as what in the opinion of the ,christians they ought to have felt and done4 #acd4 ,,the ,,wound ,,by ,a ,,spear ,,in ,,the ,,side ,,of ,,jesus4 ,while the synoptists represent ,jesus as hanging on the cross from the 1 i4e4 three in the afternoon1 when he expired1 until the 1 i4e4 probably about six in the evening1 without anything further happening to him3 the fourth ,evangelist interposes a remarkable episode4 ,according to him1 the ,jews1 in order to prevent the desecration of the coming sabbath1 which was a peculiarly hallowed one1 by the continued exposure of the bodies on the cross1 besought the ,procurator that their legs might be broken and that they might forthwith be carried away4 ,the soldiers1 to whom this task was committed1 executed it on the two criminals crucified with ,jesus2 but when they perceived in the latter the signs of life having already become extinct1 they held such a measure superfluous in his case1 and contented themselves with thrusting a spear into his side1 whereupon there came forth blood and water 7xix4 #ca-cg74 ,this event is ordinarily regarded as the chief voucher for the reality of the death of ,jesus1 and in relation to it the proof to be drawn from the synoptists is held inadequate4 ,according to the reckoning which gives the longest space of time1 that of ,mark1 ,jesus hung on the cross from the third to the ninth hour1 that is1 six hours1 before he died2 if1 as to many it has appeared probable1 in the two other synoptists the commencement of the darkness at the sixth hour marks also the commencement of the crucifixion1 ,jesus1 according to them1 hung only three hours living on the cross2 and if we presuppose in ,john the ordinary ,jewish mode of reckoning the hours1 and attribute to him the same opinion as to the period of the death of ,jesus1 it follows1 since he makes ,pilate pronounce judgment on him only about the sixth hour1 that ,jesus must have died after hanging on the cross not much more than two hours4 ,but crucifixion does not in other cases kill thus speedily4 ,this may be inferred from the nature of the punishment1 which does not consist in the infliction of severe wounds so as to cause a rapid loss of blood1 but rather in the stretching of the limbs1 so as to produce a gradual rigidity2 moreover it is evident from the statements of the ,evangelists themselves1 for according to them ,jesus1 immediately before the moment which they regard as the last1 had yet strength to utter a loud cry1 and the two thieves crucified with him were still alive after that time2 lastly1 this opinion is supported by examples of individuals whose life has lasted for several days on the cross1 and who have only at length expired from hunger and similar causes4 #bjae ,hence fathers of the church and older theologians advanced the opinion1 that the death of ,jesus1 which would not have ensued so quickly in a natural way1 was accelerated supernaturally1 either by himself or by ,god2 #bjaf physicians and more modern theologians have appealed to the accumulated corporeal and spiritual sufferings of ,jesus on the evening of the night prior to his crucifixion2 #bjag but they also for the most part leave open the possibility that what appeared to the ,evangelists the supervention of death itself1 was only a swoon produced by the stoppage of the circulation1 and that the wound with the spear in the side first consummated the death of ,jesus4 ,but concerning this wound itself1 the place1 the instrument1 and the manner of its infliction--concerning its object and effects1 there has always been a great diversity of opinion4 ,the instrument is called by the ,evangelist a 1 which may equally signify either the light javelin or the heavy lance2 so that we are left in uncertainty as to the extent of the wound4 ,the manner in which the wound was inflicted he describes by the verb 1 which sometimes denotes a mortal wound1 sometimes a slight scratch1 nay1 even a thrust which does not so much as draw blood2 hence we are ignorant of the depth of the wound3 though since ,jesus1 after the resurrection1 makes ,thomas lay only his fingers in the print of the nails1 but1 in or even merely on the wound in the side1 his hand 7,john xx4 #bg71 the stroke of the spear seems to have made a considerable wound4 ,but the question turns mainly on the place in which the wound was made4 ,this ,john describes as the side1 and certainly if the spear entered the left side between the ribs and penetrated into the heart1 death must inevitably have ensued3 but the above expression may just as properly imply the right side as the left1 and in either side any spot from the shoulder to the hip4 ,most of these points indeed would be at once decided1 if the object of the soldier had been to kill ,jesus1 supposing he should not be already dead2 in this case he would doubtless have pierced ,jesus in the most fatal place1 and as deeply as possible1 or rather1 have broken his legs1 as was done to the two thieves3 but since he treated ,jesus otherwise than his fellow sufferers1 it is evident that in relation to him he had a different object1 namely1 in the first place to ascertain by this stroke of the spear1 whether death had really taken place--a conclusion which he believed might securely be drawn from the flowing of blood and water out of the wound4 ,but this result of the wound is in fact the subject on which there is the least unanimity4 ,the fathers of the ,church1 on the ground that blood no longer flows from corpses1 regarded the blood and water1 1 which flowed from the corpse of ,jesus as a miracle1 a sign of his superhuman nature4 #bjah ,more modern theologians1 founding on the same experience1 have interpreted the expression as a hendiadys1 implying that the blood still flowed1 and that this was a sign that death had not yet1 or not until now taken place4 #bjai ,as1 however1 blood is itself a fluid1 the water added to the blood cannot signify merely the fluid state of the latter1 but must denote a peculiar admixture which the blood flowing from the side of ,jesus contained4 ,to explain this to themselves1 and at the same time obtain the most infallible proof of death1 others have fallen on the idea that the water mixed with the blood came out of the pericardium1 which had been pierced by the spear1 and in which1 especially in such as die under severe anguish1 a quantity of fluid is said to be accumulated4 #bjbj ,but--besides that the piercing of the pericardium is a mere supposition--on the one hand1 the quantity of such fluid1 where no dropsy exists1 is so trifling1 that its emission would not be perceptible2 and on the other hand1 it is only a single small spot in front of the breast where the pericardium can be so struck that an emission outward is possible3 in all other cases1 whatever was emitted would be poured into the cavity of the thorax4 #bjba ,without doubt the idea which was present in the ,evangelist's mind was rather the fact1 which may be observed in every instance of blood-letting1 that the blood1 so soon as it has ceased to take part in the vital process1 begins to divide itself into placenta and serum2 and he intended by representing this separation as having already taken place in the blood of ,jesus1 to adduce a proof of his real death4 #bjbb ,but whether this outflow of blood and water in perceptible separation be a possible proof of death1--whether ,hase and ,winer be right when they maintain that on deep incisions in corpses the blood sometimes flows in this decomposed state2 or the fathers1 when they deem this so unprecedented that it must be regarded as a miracle in ,jesus1--this is another question4 ,a distinguished anatomist has explained the state of the fact to me in the following manner3 #bjbc ,ordinarily1 within an hour after death the blood begins to coagulate in the vessels1 and consequently no longer to flow on incisions2 only by way of exception in certain species of death1 as nervous fevers1 or suffocation1 does the blood retain its fluidity in the corpse4 ,now if it be chosen to place the death on the cross under the category of suffocation--which1 however1 from the length of time that crucified persons have often remained alive1 and in relation to ,jesus especially1 from his being said to have spoken to the last1 appears impracticable2 or if it be supposed that the wound in the side followed so quickly on the instant of death that it found the blood still fluid1--a supposition which is discordant with the narratives1 for they state ,jesus to have been already dead at three in the afternoon1 while the bodies must have been taken away only at six in the evening3 then1 if the spear struck one of the larger blood vessels1 blood would have flowed1 but without water2 if1 however1 ,jesus had already been dead about an hour1 and his corpse was in the ordinary state3 nothing at all would have flowed4 ,thus either blood or nothing3 in no case blood and water1 because the serum and placenta are not separated in the vessels of the corpse as in the basin after blood-letting4 ,hardly then had the author of this trait in the fourth gospel himself seen the flowing out of the side of ,jesus1 as a sign that his death had taken place2 rather1 because after blood-letting he had seen the above separation take place in the blood as it lost its vitality1 and because he was desirous to show a certain proof of the death of ,jesus1 he represented those separate ingredients as flowing out of his wounded corpse4 ,the ,evangelist assures us1 with the most solicitous earnestness1 that this really happened to ,jesus1 and that his account is trustworthy1 as being founded on personal observation 7v4 #ce74 ,according to some1 he gives this testimony in opposition to docetic ,gnostics1 who denied the true corporeality of ,jesus3 #bjbd but wherefore then the mention of the water8 ,according to others1 on account of the noteworthy fulfilment of two prophecies by that procedure with respect to the body of ,jesus4 #bjbe ,but1 as ,lcke himself says1 though ,john does certainly elsewhere1 even in subordinate points1 seek a fulfilment of prophecy1 he nowhere attaches to it so extraordinary a weight as he would here have done according to this supposition4 ,hence it appears the most natural supposition that the ,evangelist intended by those assurances to confirm the truth of the death of ,jesus1 #bjbf and that he merely appended the reference to the fulfilment of ,scripture as a secondary illustrative addition4 ,the absence of an historical indication1 that so early as the period of the composition of the fourth gospel1 there existed a suspicion that the death of ,jesus was only apparent1 does not suffice1 in the paucity of information at our command concerning that period1 to prove that a suspicion so easy of suggestion had not actually to be combated in the circle in which the above gospel arose1 and that it may not have given occasion to the adduction of proofs not only of the resurrection of ,jesus1 but also of his death4 #bjbg ,even in the ,gospel of ,mark a similar effort is visible4 ,when this ,evangelist1 in narrating ,joseph's entreaty for the body of ,jesus1 says3 ,and ,pilate marvelled if he were already dead 7v4 #dd73 this suggests the idea that he lent to ,pilate an astonishment which he must have heard expressed by many of his cotemporaries concerning the rapidity with which the death of ,jesus had ensued2 and when he proceeds to state that the procurator obtained from the centurion certain information that ,jesus had been some time dead1 3 it appears as if he wished1 in silencing the doubt of ,pilate1 to silence that of his cotemporaries also2 but in that case he can have known nothing of a wound with a spear1 and its consequences1 otherwise he would not have left unnoticed this securest warrant of death having really taken place3 so that the representation in ,john has the appearance of being a fuller development of a tendency of the legend already visible in ,mark4 ,this view of ,john's narrative is further confirmed by his citation of ,old ,testament passages1 as fulfilled in this event4 ,in the stroke of the spear he sees the fulfilment of ,zech4 xii4 #aj 7better translated by ,john than by the ,,lxx471 where ,jehovah says to the ,israelites they shall look on him whom they have pierced1 in the sense1 that they will one day return to him whom they had so grievously offended4 #bjbh ,the word 1 to pierce1 understood literally1 expresses an act which appears more capable of being directed against a man than against ,jehovah3 this interpretation is supported by the variation in the reading 2 and it must have been confirmed by the succeeding context1 which proceeds in the third person thus3 and they shall mourn for him1 as one mourneth for his only son1 and shall be in bitterness for him1 as one that is in bitterness for his first-born4 ,hence the ,rabbins interpreted this passage of the ,messiah ben ,joseph1 who would be pierced by the sword in battle1 #bjbi and the ,christians might refer it1 as they did so many passages in ,psalms of lamentation1 to their ,messiah1 at first understanding the piercing either figuratively or as implying the nailing of the hands 7and feet7 in crucifixion 7comp4 ,rev4 i4 #g72 until at last some one1 who desired a more decisive proof of death than crucifixion in itself afforded1 interpreted it as a special piercing with the spear4 ,if then this trait of the piercing with the spear proceeded from the combined interests of obtaining a proof of death1 and a literal fulfilment of a prophecy3 the rest must be regarded as merely its preparatory groundwork4 ,the piercing was only needful as a test of death1 if ,jesus had to be early taken down from the cross1 which according to ,jewish law 7,deut4 xxi4 #bb2 ,josh4 viii4 #bi1 x4 #bf1 f4--an exception occurs in #b ,sam4 xxi4 #f ff4 #bjcj7 must in any case be before night2 but in particular in the present instance 7a special circumstance which ,john alone notes71 before the commencement of the passover4 ,if ,jesus died unusually soon1 and if the two who were crucified with him were yet to be taken down at the same time1 the death of the latter must be hastened by violent means4 ,this might be done likewise by means of a stroke of the spear3 but then the piercing1 which in ,zech4 xii4 #aj was predicted specially of the ,messiah1 would equally happen to others4 ,thus in their case it would be better to choose the breaking of the legs1 which would not1 indeed1 instantaneously superinduce death1 but which yet made it ultimately certain as a consequence of the mortification produced by the fracture4 ,it is true that the crurifragium appears nowhere else in connexion with crucifixion among the ,romans1 but only as a separate punishment for slaves1 prisoners of war1 and the like4 #bjca ,but it was not the less suitable in a prophetic point of view2 for was it not said of the ,paschal lamb with which ,jesus was elsewhere also compared 7#a ,cor4 v4 #g73 not a bone of him shall be broken 7,exod4 xii4 #df78 so that both the prophecies were fulfilled1 the one determining what should happen exclusively to ,jesus1 the other what should happen to his fellow-sufferers1 but not to him4 #ace4 ,,burial ,,of ,,jesus4 ,according to ,roman custom the body of ,jesus must have remained suspended until consumed by the weather1 birds of prey1 and corruption2 #bjcb according to the ,jewish1 it must have been interred in the dishonourable burying place assigned to the executed3 #bjcc but the evangelical accounts inform us that a distinguished adherent of the deceased begged his body of the procurator1 which1 agreeably to the ,roman law1 #bjcd was not refused1 but was immediately delivered to him 7,matt4 xxvii4 #eg parall474 ,this man1 who in all the gospels is named ,joseph1 and said to be derived from ,arimathea1 was according to ,matthew a rich man and a disciple of ,jesus1 but the latter1 as ,john adds1 only in secret2 the two intermediate ,evangelists describe him as an honourable member of the high council1 in which character1 ,luke remarks1 he had not given his voice for the condemnation of ,jesus1 and they both represent him as cherishing messianic expectations4 ,that we have here a personal description gradually developed into more and more preciseness is evident4 ,in the first gospel ,joseph is a disciple of ,jesus--and such must have been the man who under circumstances so unfavourable did not hesitate to take charge of his body2 that1 according to the same gospel1 he was a rich man already reminds us of ,isa4 liii4 #i1 where it is said which might possibly be understood of a burial with the rich1 and thus become the source at least of this predicate of ,joseph of ,arimathea4 ,that he entertained messianic ideas1 as ,luke and ,mark add1 followed of course from his relation to ,jesus2 that he was a counsellor1 1 as the same ,evangelists declare1 is certainly a new piece of information3 but that as such he could not have concurred in the condemnation of ,jesus was again a matter of course2 lastly1 that he had hitherto kept his adherence to ,jesus a secret1 as ,john observes1 accords with the peculiar position in relation to ,jesus which this ,evangelist gives to certain exalted adherents1 especially to ,nicodemus1 who is subsequently associated with ,joseph4 ,hence it must not be at once supposed that the additional particulars which each succeeding ,evangelist gives1 rest on historical information which he possessed over and above that of his predecessors4 ,while the synoptists represent the interment of ,jesus as being performed by ,joseph alone1 with no other beholders than the women1 ,john1 as we have observed1 introduces ,nicodemus as an assistant2 a particular1 the authenticity of which has been already considered in connexion with the first appearance of ,nicodemus4 #bjce ,this individual brings spices for the purpose of embalming ,jesus2 a mixture of myrrh and aloes1 in the quantity of about a hundred pounds4 ,in vain have commentators laboured to withdraw from the word 1 which ,john here uses1 the signification of the ,latin libra1 and to substitute a smaller weight3 #bjcf the above surprising quantity is1 however1 satisfactorily accounted for by the remark of ,olshausen1 that the superfluity was a natural expression of the veneration of those men for ,jesus4 ,in the fourth gospel the two men perform the office of embalming immediately after the taking down of the body from the cross1 winding it in linen clothes after the ,jewish practice2 in ,luke the women1 on their return home from the grave of ,jesus1 provide spices and ointments1 in order to commence the embalming after the sabbath 7xxiii4 #ef1 xxiv4 #a72 in ,mark they do not buy the sweet spices until the sabbath is past 7xvi4 #a72 while in ,matthew there is no mention of an embalming of the body of ,jesus1 but only of its being wrapped in a clean linen cloth 7xxvii4 #ei74 ,here it has been thought possible to reconcile the difference between ,mark and ,luke in relation to the time of the purchase of the spices1 by drawing over one of the two narrators to the side of the other4 ,it appeared the most easy to accommodate ,mark to ,luke by the supposition of an enallage temporum2 his verb 1 they bought1 used in connexion with the day after the sabbath1 being taken as the pluperfect1 and understood to imply1 in accordance with the statement of ,luke1 that the women had the spices in readiness from the evening of the burial4 #bjcg ,but against this reconciliation it has already been remarked with triumphant indignation by the ,fragmentist1 that the aorist1 standing between a determination of time and the statement of an object1 cannot possibly signify anything else than what happened at that time in relation to that object1 and thus the words 1 they bought sweet spices1 placed between 1 ,the sabbath being past1 and 1 that they might come and anoint him1 can only signify a purchase made after the sabbath had elapsed4 #bjch ,hence ,michaelis1 who undertook to vindicate the histories of the burial and resurrection from the charge of contradiction urged by the ,fragmentist1 betook himself to the opposite measure1 and sought to conform ,luke to ,mark4 ,when ,luke writes3 1 and they returned1 and bought sweet spices and ointments1 he does not1 we are told1 mean that they had made this purchase immediately after their return1 and consequently on the evening of the burial3 on the contrary1 by the addition 1 and rested the sabbath day1 according to the commandment1 he himself gives us to understand that it did not happen until the sabbath was past1 since between their return from the grave and the commencement of the sabbath at six in the evening1 there was no time left for the purchase4 #bjci ,but when ,luke places his 7they prepared7 between 7being returned7 and 7they rested71 this can as little signify something occurring after the rest of the sabbath1 as in ,mark the similarly placed word can signify something which had happened before the sabbath4 ,hence more recent theologians have perceived that each of these two ,evangelists must be allowed to retain the direct sense of his words2 nevertheless they have believed it possible to free both the one and the other from the appearance of error by the supposition that the spices prepared before the sabbath were not sufficient1 and that the women1 agreeably to ,mark's statement1 really bought an additional stock after the sabbath4 #bjdj ,but there must have been an enormous requirement of spices if first the hundred pounds weight contributed by ,nicodemus had not sufficed1 and on this account the women on the evening before the sabbath had laid ready more spices1 and then these too were found insufficient1 so that they had to buy yet more on the morning after the sabbath4 ,thus however1 in consistency1 it is necessary to solve the second contradiction which exists between the two intermediate ,evangelists unitedly and the fourth1 namely1 that according to the latter ,jesus was embalmed with a hundred weight of ointment before being laid in the grave1 while according to the former the embalming was deferred until after the sabbath4 ,but as far as the quantity was concerned1 the hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes were more than enough3 that which was wanting1 and had to be supplied after the sabbath1 could only relate to the manner1 i4e4 that the spices had not yet been applied to the body in the right way--because the process had been interrupted by the arrival of the sabbath4 #bjda ,but1 if we listen to ,john1 the interment of ,jesus on the evening of his death was performed 1 as the manner of the ,jews is to bury1 i4e4 rit1 in due form1 the corpse being wound in the linen clothes with the spices 7v4 #dj71 which constituted the whole of ,jewish embalming1 so that according to ,john nothing was wanting in relation to the manner2 #bjdb not to mention that if the women1 as ,mark and ,luke state1 bought fresh spices and placed them in readiness1 the embalming of ,nicodemus must have been defective as to quantity also4 ,thus in the burial of ,jesus as narrated by ,john nothing objective was wanting3 nevertheless1 it has been maintained that subjectively1 as regarded the women1 it had not been performed1 i4e4 they were ignorant that ,jesus had already been embalmed by ,nicodemus and ,joseph4 #bjdc ,one is astonished that such a position can be advanced1 since the synoptists expressly state that the women were present at the interment of ,jesus1 and beheld1 not merely the place 7 1 ,mark71 but also the manner in which he was interred 7 1 ,luke74 ,there is a third divergency relative to this point between ,matthew and the rest of the ,evangelists1 in so far as the former mentions no embalming either before or after the sabbath4 ,this divergency1 as it consists merely in the silence of one narrator1 has been hitherto little regarded1 and even the ,fragmentist admits that the wrapping of the body in a clean linen cloth1 mentioned by ,matthew1 involves also the ,jewish method of embalming4 ,but in this instance there might easily be drawn an argument ex silentio4 ,when we read in the narrative of the anointing at ,bethany the declaration of ,jesus1 that the woman by this deed had anointed his body for burial 7,matt4 xxvi4 #ab parall473 this has indeed its significance in all the narratives1 but a peculiarly striking one in ,matthew1 according to whose subsequent narrative no anointing took place at the burial of ,jesus1 #bjdd and this fact appears to be the only sufficient explanation of the special importance which the ,evangelical tradition attached to the action of the woman4 ,if he who was revered as the ,messiah did not1 under the pressure of unfavourable circumstances1 receive at his burial the due honour of embalmment3 then must the thoughts of his adherents revert with peculiar complacency to an event in the latter part of his life1 in which a humble-minded female votary1 as if foreboding that this honour would be denied to him when dead1 rendered it to him while yet living4 ,viewed in this light the different representation of the anointing in the other ,evangelists would have the appearance of a gradual development of the legend4 ,in ,mark and ,luke it still remains1 as in ,matthew1 that the corpse of ,jesus is not really embalmed3 but1 said the legend1 already outstepping the narrative of the first gospel1 the embalming was designed for him1--this intention was the motive for the resort of the women to his grave on the morning after the sabbath1 and its execution was only prevented by the resurrection4 ,in the fourth gospel1 on the other hand1 this anointing1 from being first performed on him by anticipation while he was yet living1 and then intended for him when dead1 resolved itself into an actual embalming of his body after death3 in conjunction with which1 however1 after the manner of legendary formations1 the reference of the earlier anointing to the burial of ,jesus was left standing4 ,the body of ,jesus1 according to all the narrators1 was forthwith deposited in a tomb hewn out of a rock1 and closed with a great stone4 ,matthew describes this tomb as 1 new2 an epithet which ,luke and ,john more closely determine by stating that no man had yet been laid therein4 ,we may observe in passing1 that there is as much reason for suspicion with respect to this newness of the grave1 as with respect to the unridden ass in the history of the entrance of ,jesus1 since here in the same way as there1 the temptation lay irresistibly near1 even without historical grounds1 to represent the sacred receptacle of the body of ,jesus as never having been polluted by any corpse4 ,but even in relation to this tomb the ,evangelists exhibit a divergency4 ,according to ,matthew it was the property of ,joseph1 who had himself caused it to be hewn in the rock2 and the two other synoptists also1 since they make ,joseph unhesitatingly dispose of the grave1 appear to proceed on the same presupposition4 ,according to ,john1 on the contrary1 ,joseph's right of property in the grave was not the reason that ,jesus was laid there2 but because time pressed1 he was deposited in the new sepulchre1 which happened to be in a neighbouring garden4 ,here again the harmonists have tried their art on both sides4 ,matthew was to be brought into agreement with ,john by the observation1 that a manuscript of his gospel omits the 7his own7 after 2 while an ancient translation read1 instead of 7which he had hewn71-- 7which was hewn73 #bjde as if these alterations were not obviously owing already to harmonizing efforts4 ,hence the opposite side has been taken1 and it has been remarked that the words of ,john by no means exclude the possibility that ,joseph may have been the owner of the tomb1 since both reasons--the vicinity1 and the fact that the grave belonged to ,joseph--may have co-operated4 #bjdf ,but the contrary is rather the truth3 namely1 that the vicinity of the grave when alleged as a motive1 excludes the fact of possession3 a house in which ,i should take shelter from a shower1 because it is near1 would not be my own2 unless indeed ,i were the owner of two houses1 one near and one more distant1 of which the latter was my proper dwelling3 and in like manner a grave1 in which a person lays a relative or friend who does not himself possess one1 because it is near1 cannot be his own1 unless he possess more than one1 and intend at greater leisure to convey the deceased into the other2 which however in our case1 since the near grave was from its newness adapted above all others for the interment of ,jesus1 is not easily conceivable4 ,if according to this the contradiction subsists1 there does not appear in the narratives themselves any ground for decision in favour of the one or of the other4 #bjdg #acf4 ,,the ,,watch ,,at ,,the ,,grave ,,of ,,jesus4 ,on the following day1 the ,sabbath1 #bjdh the chief priests and ,pharisees1 according to ,matthew 7xxvii4 #fb ff47 came to ,pilate1 and with reference to the prediction of ,jesus1 that he should rise again after three days1 requested him to place a watch by his grave1 lest his disciples should take occasion from the expectation which that prediction had awakened1 to steal his body and then spread a report that he was risen again4 ,pilate granted their request1 and accordingly they went away1 sealed the stone1 and placed the watch before the grave4 ,the subsequent resurrection of ,jesus 7we must here anticipate so far71 and the angelic appearances which accompanied it1 so terrified the guards1 that they became as dead men1 1--forthwith1 however1 hastened to the city and gave an account of the event to the chief priests4 ,the latter after having deliberated on the subject in an assembly with the elders1 bribed the soldiers to pretend that the disciples had stolen the body by night2 whence1 the narrator adds1 this report was disseminated1 and was persisted in up to his time 7xxviii4 #d1 #aa ff474 ,in this narrative1 peculiar to the first gospel1 critics have found all kinds of difficulties1 which have been exposed with the most acumen by the author of the ,wolfenbttel ,fragments1 and after him by ,paulus4 #bjdi ,the difficulties lie first of all in this3 that neither the requisite conditions of the event1 nor its necessary consequences1 are presented in the rest of the ,new ,testament history4 ,as regards the former1 it is not to be conceived how the ,sanhedrists could obtain the information1 that ,jesus was to return to life three days after his death3 since there is no trace of such an idea having existed even among his disciples4 ,they say3 ,we remember that that deceiver said1 while he was yet alive1 etc4 ,if we are to understand from this that they remembered to have heard him speak to that effect2 ,jesus1 according to the evangelical accounts1 never spoke plainly of his resurrection in the presence of his enemies2 and the figurative discourses which remained unintelligible to his confidential disciples1 could still less be understood by the ,jewish hierarchs1 who were less accustomed to his mode of thought and expression4 ,if1 however1 the ,sanhedrists merely intend to say1 that they had heard from others of his having given such a promise3 this intelligence could only have proceeded from the disciples2 but as these had not1 either before or after the death of ,jesus1 the slightest anticipation of his resurrection1 they could not have excited such an anticipation in others2--not to mention that we have been obliged to reject as unhistorical the whole of the predictions of the resurrection lent to ,jesus in the gospels4 ,equally incomprehensible with this knowledge on the part of the enemies of ,jesus1 is the silence of his friends1 the ,apostles and the other ,evangelists besides ,matthew1 concerning a circumstance so favourable to their cause4 ,it is certainly applying too modern a standard to the conduct of the disciples to say with the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 that they must have entreated from ,pilate a letter under his seal in attestation of the fact that a watch had been set over the grave3 but it must be held surprising that in none of the apostolic speeches is there anywhere an appeal to so striking a fact1 and that even in the gospels1 with the exception of the first1 it has left no discoverable trace4 ,an attempt has been made to explain this silence from the consideration1 that the bribing of the guards by the ,sanhedrim had rendered an appeal to them fruitless3 #bjej but truth is not so readily surrendered to such obvious falsehoods1 and at all events1 when the adherents of ,jesus had to defend themselves before the ,sanhedrim1 the mention of such a fact must have been a powerful weapon4 ,the cause is already half given up when its advocates retreat to the position1 that the disciples probably did not become acquainted with the true cause of the event immediately1 but only later1 when the soldiers began to betray the secret4 #bjea ,for even if the guards in the first instance merely set afloat the tale of the theft1 and thus admitted that they had been placed by the grave1 the adherents of ,jesus could already construe for themselves the real state of the case1 and might boldly appeal to the guards1 who must have been witnesses of something quite different from the theft of a corpse4 ,but lest we be told of the invalidity of an argument drawn from the merely negative fact of silence1 there is something positive narrated concerning a part of the adherents of ,jesus1 namely1 the women1 which is not reconcilable with the fact of a watch being placed at the grave4 ,not only do the women who resort to the grave on the morning after the ,sabbath1 intend to complete the embalming which they could not hope to be permitted to do1 if they knew that a watch was placed before the grave1 and that this was besides sealed3 #bjeb but according to ,mark their whole perplexity on their way to the grave turns upon the question1 who will roll away the stone for them from the grave2 a clear proof that they knew nothing of the guards1 since these either would not have allowed them to remove the stone1 however light1 or if they would have allowed this1 would also have helped them to roll away a heavier one2 so that in any case the difficulty as to the weight of the stone would have been superfluous4 ,but that the placing of the watch should have remained unknown to the women is1 from the attention which everything relative to the end of ,jesus excited in ,jerusalem 7,luke xxiv4 #ah71 highly improbable4 ,but within the narrative also1 every feature is full of difficulties1 for1 according to the expression of ,paulus1 no one of the persons who appear in it1 acts in accordance with his character4 ,that ,pilate should have granted the request of the ,jewish magistrates for a watch1 ,i will not say without hesitation1 but so entirely without ridicule1 must be held surprising after his previous conduct2 #bjec such minor particulars might however be merely passed over by ,matthew in his summary mode of recounting the incidents4 ,it is more astonishing that the guards should have been so easily induced to tell a falsehood which the severity of ,roman discipline made so dangerous1 as that they had failed in their duty by sleeping on their post2 especially as1 from the bad understanding which existed between the ,sanhedrim and the procurator1 they could not know how far the mediation promised by the former would avail4 ,but the most inconceivable feature is the alleged conduct of the ,sanhedrim4 ,the difficulty which lies in their going to the heathen procurator on the ,sabbath1 defiling themselves by approaching the grave1 and placing a watch1 has certainly been overstrained by the ,fragmentist2 but their conduct1 when the guards1 returning from the grave1 apprised them of the resurrection of ,jesus1 is truly impossible4 ,they believe the assertion of the soldiers that ,jesus had arisen out of his grave in a miraculous manner4 ,how could the council1 many of whose members were ,sadducees1 receive this as credible8 ,even the ,pharisees in the ,sanhedrim1 though they held in theory the possibility of a resurrection1 would not1 with the mean opinion which they entertained of ,jesus1 be inclined to believe in his resurrection2 especially as the assertion in the mouth of the guards sounded just like a falsehood invented to screen a failure in duty4 ,the real ,sanhedrists1 on hearing such an assertion from the soldiers1 would have replied with exasperation3 ,you lie6 you have slept and allowed him to be stolen2 but you will have to pay dearly for this1 when it comes to be investigated by the procurator4 ,but instead of this1 the ,sanhedrists in our gospel speak them fair1 and entreat them thus3 ,tell a lie1 say that you have slept and allowed him to be stolen3 moreover1 they pay them richly for the falsehood1 and promise to exculpate them to the procurator4 ,this is evidently spoken entirely on the ,christian presupposition of the reality of the resurrection of ,jesus2 a presupposition however which is quite incorrectly attributed to the members of the ,sanhedrim4 ,it is also a difficulty1 not merely searched out by the ,fragmentist1 but even acknowledged by orthodox expositors1 #bjed that the ,sanhedrim1 in a regular assembly1 and after a formal consultation1 should have resolved to corrupt the soldiers and put a lie into their mouths4 ,that in this manner a college of seventy men should have officially decided on suggesting and rewarding the utterance of a falsehood1 is1 as ,olshausen justly observes1 too widely at variance with the decorum1 the sense of propriety1 inseparable from such an assembly4 ,the expedient of supposing that it was merely a private meeting1 since only the chief priests and elders1 not the scribes1 are said to have embraced the resolution of bribing the soldiers1 #bjee would involve the singularity1 that in this assembly the scribes were absent1 while in the shortly previous interview with the procurator1 where the scribes are represented by the ,pharisees who formed their majority1 the elders were wanting3 whence it is evident rather that1 it being inconvenient invariably to designate the ,sanhedrim by a full enumeration of its constituent parts1 it was not seldom indicated by the mention of only some or one of these4 ,if it therefore remains that according to ,matthew the high council must in a formal session have resolved on bribing the guards3 such an act of baseness could only be attributed to the council as such1 by the rancour of the primitive ,christians1 among whom our anecdote arose4 ,these difficulties in the present narrative of the first gospel have been felt to be so pressing1 that it has been attempted to remove them by the supposition of interpolation2 #bjef which has lately been moderated into the opinion1 that while the anecdote did not indeed proceed from the ,apostle ,matthew himself it was not however added by a hand otherwise alien to our gospel1 but was inserted by the ,greek translator of the ,hebrew ,matthew4 #bjeg ,against the former supposition the absence of all critical authority is decisive2 the appeal of those who advance the other opinion to the unapostolic character of the anecdote1 would not warrant its separation from the context of the main narrative1 unless that narrative itself were already proved to be of apostolic origin2 while the anecdote is so far from presenting any want of connexion with the rest1 that1 on the contrary1 ,paulus is right in his remark that an interpolator 7or inserting translator7 would scarcely have given himself the trouble to distribute his interpolation in three different places 7xxvii4 #fb-ff2 xxviii4 #d1 #aa-ae71 but would have compressed it into one passage1 or at most two4 ,neither can the question be settled so cheaply as ,olshausen imagines1 when he concludes that the entire narrative is apostolic and correct1 save that the ,evangelist erred in representing the corruption of the guards as being resolved on in full council1 whereas the affair was probably managed in secret by ,caiaphas alone3 as if this assembly of the council were the sole difficulty of the narrative1 and as if1 when errors had insinuated themselves in relation to this particular1 they might not extend to others also4 #bjeh ,paulus correctly points out how ,matthew himself1 by the statement3 and this saying is commonly reported among the ,jews to this day1--indicates a calumnious ,jewish report as the source of his narrative4 ,but when this theologian expresses the opinion that the ,jews themselves propagated the story1 that they had placed a watch at the grave of ,jesus1 but that the guards had permitted his body to be stolen3 this is as perverted a view as that of ,hase1 when he conjectures that the report in question proceeded first of all from the friends of ,jesus1 and was afterwards modified by his enemies4 ,for as regards the former supposition1 ,kuinl has already correctly remarked1 that ,matthew merely designates the assertion respecting the theft of the corpse as a ,jewish report1 not the entire narrative of the placing of a watch2 neither is there any reason to be conceived why the ,jews should have fabricated such a report as that a watch was set at the grave of ,jesus3 ,paulus says1 it was hoped thereby to render the assertion that the body of ,jesus was stolen by his disciples more easy of acceptation with the credulous3 but those must indeed have been very credulous who did not observe1 that the placing of the watch was the very thing to render a furtive removal of the body of ,jesus improbable4 ,paulus appears to represent the matter to himself thus3 the ,jews wished to obtain witnesses as it were to the accusation of a theft1 and for this purpose fabricated the story of the guard being placed by the grave4 ,but that the guards with open eyes quietly beheld the disciples of ,jesus carry away his body1 no one could credit3 while1 if they saw nothing of this1 because they slept1 they gave no testimony1 since they could then only by inference arrive at the conclusion1 that the body might have been stolen3 a conclusion which could be drawn just as well without them4 ,thus in no way can the watch have belonged to the ,jewish basis of the present narrative2 but the report disseminated among the ,jews consisted1 as the text also says1 merely in the assertion that the disciples had stolen the body4 ,as the ,christians wished to oppose this calumny1 there was formed among them the legend of a watch placed at the grave of ,jesus1 and now they could boldly confront their slanderers with the question3 how can the body have been carried away1 since you placed a watch at the grave and sealed the stone8 ,and because1 as we have ourselves proved in the course of our inquiry1 a legend is not fully convicted of groundlessness until it has been shown how it could arise even without historical grounds3 it was attempted on the side of the ,christians1 in showing what was supposed to be the true state of the case1 to expose also the origin of the false legend1 by deriving the falsehood propagated among the ,jews from the contrivance of the ,sanhedrim1 and their corruption of the guards4 ,thus the truth is precisely the reverse of what ,hase says1 namely1 that the legend probably arose among the friends of ,jesus and was modified by his enemies3--the friends first had an inducement to the fiction of the watch1 when the enemies had already spoken of a theft4 #bjei #acg4 ,,first ,,tidings ,,of ,,the ,,resurrection4 ,that the first news of the grave of ,jesus being opened and empty on the second morning after his burial1 came to the disciples by the mouth of women1 is unanimously stated by the four ,evangelists3 but in all the more particular circumstances they diverge from each other1 in a way which has presented the richest material for the polemic of the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 and on the other hand has given abundant work to the harmonists and apologists1 without there having been hitherto any successful attempt at a satisfactory mediation between the two parties4 #bjfj ,leaving behind the difference which is connected with the divergencies in the history of the burial1 as to the object of the women in resorting to the grave1--namely1 that according to the two intermediate ,evangelists they intended to embalm the body of ,jesus1 according to the two others merely to pay a visit to the grave1--we find1 first1 a very complicated divergency relative to the number of the women who made this visit4 ,luke merely speaks indefinitely of many women2 not alone those whom he describes xxiii4 #ee1 as having come with ,jesus from ,galilee1 and of whom he mentions by name1 ,mary ,magdalene1 ,joanna1 and ,mary the mother of ,james1 but also certain others with them1 7xxiv4 #a74 ,mark has merely three women2 two of those whom ,luke also names1 but as the third1 ,salome instead of ,joanna 7xvi4 #a74 ,matthew has not this third woman1 respecting whom the two intermediate ,evangelists differ1 but merely the two ,maries concerning whom they agree 7xxviii4 #a74 ,lastly1 ,john has only one of these1 ,mary ,magdalene 7xx4 #a74 ,the time at which the women go to the grave is likewise not determined with uniformity2 for even if the words of ,matthew1 ,in the end of the sabbath1 as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week1 1 1 make no difference1 #bjfa still the addition of ,mark3 at the rising of the sun1 1 are in contradiction with the expressions when it was yet dark1 1 in ,john1 and very early in the morning1 1 in ,luke4--,in relation to the circumstances in which the women first saw the grave there may appear to be a difference1 at least between ,matthew and the three other ,evangelists4 ,according to the latter1 as they approach and look towards the grave1 they see that the stone has already been rolled away by an unknown hand3 whereas the narrative of the first ,evangelist has appeared to many to imply that the women themselves beheld the stone rolled away by an angel4--,manifold are the divergencies as to what the women further saw and learned at the grave4 ,according to ,luke they enter into the grave1 find that the body of ,jesus is not there1 and are hence in perplexity1 until they see standing by them two men in shining garments1 who announce to them his resurrection4 ,in ,mark1 who also makes them enter into the grave1 they see only one young man in a long white garment1 not standing1 but sitting on the right side1 who gives them the same intelligence4 ,in ,matthew they receive this information before they enter into the grave1 from the angel1 who after rolling away the stone had sat upon it4 ,lastly1 according to ,john1 ,mary ,magdalene1 as soon as she sees the stone taken away1 and without witnessing any angelic appearance1 runs back into the city4--,moreover the relation in which the disciples of ,jesus are placed with respect to the first news of his resurrection is a different one in the different gospels4 ,according to ,mark1 the women1 out of fear1 tell no one of the angelic appearance which they have beheld2 according to ,john1 ,mary ,magdalene has nothing more to say to ,john and ,peter1 to whom she hastens from the grave1 than that ,jesus is taken away2 according to ,luke1 the women report the appearance to the disciples in general1 and not merely to two of them2 while according to ,matthew1 as they were in the act of hastening to the disciples1 ,jesus himself met them1 and they were able to communicate this also to the disciples4 ,in the two first gospels nothing is said of one of the disciples himself going to the grave on hearing the report of the women2 according to ,luke1 ,peter went thither1 found it empty and returned wondering1 and from ,luke xxiv4 #bd it appears that other disciples besides him went thither in a similar manner2 according to the fourth gospel ,peter was accompanied by ,john1 who on this occasion was convinced of the resurrection of ,jesus4 ,luke says that ,peter made his visit to the sepulchre after he had already been informed by the women of the angelic appearance2 but in the fourth gospel the two disciples go to the grave before ,mary ,magdalene can have told them of such an appearance2 it was only when she had proceeded a second time to the grave with the two disciples1 and when they had returned home again1 that1 stooping into the sepulchre1 she saw1 according to this gospel1 two angels in white1 sitting1 the one at the head and the other at the feet1 where the body of ,jesus had lain1 by whom she was asked1 why she wept8 and on turning round she beheld ,jesus himself2 a particular of which there is a fragmentary notice in ,mark v4 #i1 with the additional remark1 that she communicated this news to his former companions4 ,it has been thought possible to reconcile the greater part of these divergencies by supposing1 instead of one scene variously described1 a multiplicity of different scenes2 for which purpose the ordinary grammatical and other artifices of the harmonists were pressed into the service4 ,that ,mark might not contradict the while it was yet dark of ,john1 the apologists did not scruple to translate the words by orituro sole2 #bjfb the contradiction between ,matthew and the rest1 when the former appears to say that the women saw the stone rolled away by the angel1 seemed to be more easy of solution1 not indeed by supposing1 with ,michaelis1 #bjfc that 7and behold67 denotes a recurrence to a previous event1 and that has the signification of a pluperfect 7an expedient which has been justly combated by modern criticism in opposition to ,lessing1 who was inclined to admit it72 #bjfd but by understanding the v4 #a to express a yet unfinished progress of the women towards the grave1 in which case the and what follows may1 in accordance with its proper meaning1 relate something that happened after the departure of the women from their home1 but before their arrival at the grave4 #bjfe ,in relation to the number and the visit of the women1 it was in the first place urged that even according to ,john1 although he mentions only ,mary ,magdalene by name1--several women must have accompanied her to the grave1 since he makes her say after her return to the two disciples3 we know not where they have laid him2 #bjff a plural1 which certainly intimates the presence of other but unspecified persons1 with whom ,mary ,magdalene1 whether at the grave itself or on her return1 had conversed on the subject before she came to the ,apostles4 ,thus1 it is said1 ,mary ,magdalene went to the grave with the other women1 more or fewer of whom are mentioned by the other ,evangelists4 ,as however she returned without having1 like the other women1 seen an angel1 it is supposed that she ran back alone as soon as she saw the stone rolled away3 which is accounted for by her impetuous temperament1 she having been formerly a demoniac4 #bjfg ,while she hastened back to the city1 the other women saw the appearances of which the synoptists speak4--,to all it is maintained1 the angels appeared within the grave2 for the statement in ,matthew that one sat outside on the stone1 is only a pluperfect3 when the women came he had already withdrawn into the sepulchre1 and accordingly1 after their conversation with him1 the women are described as departing from the sepulchre1 7v4 #h73 #bjfh in which observation it is only overlooked that between the first address of the angel and the above expression1 there stands his invitation to the women to come with him into the grave and see the place where ,jesus had lain4 ,in relation to the difference that according to the two first ,evangelists the women see only one angel1 according to the third1 two1 even ,calvin resorts to the miserable expedient of supposing a synecdoche1 namely that all the ,evangelists certainly knew of two angels1 but ,matthew and ,mark mention only the one who acted as speaker4 ,others make different women see different appearances3 some1 of whom ,matthew and ,mark speak1 seeing only one angel2 the others1 to whom ,luke refers1 and who came earlier or perhaps later than the above1 seeing two2 #bjfi but ,luke makes the same two ,maries who1 according to his predecessors1 had seen only one angel1 narrate to the ,apostles an appearance of two angels4 ,it is also said that the women returned in separate groups1 so that ,jesus might meet those of whom ,matthew speaks without being seen by those of ,luke2 and though those of ,mark at first tell no one from fear1 the rest1 and they themselves afterwards1 might communicate what they had seen to the disciples4 #bjgj--,on hearing the report brought by several women1 ,peter1 according to ,luke1 straightway goes to the grave1 finds it empty and turns away wondering4 ,but according to the hypothesis which we are now detailing1 ,mary ,magdalene had run back a considerable time before the other women1 and had brought with her to the grave ,peter and ,john4 ,thus ,peter1 first on hearing the imperfect intelligence of ,mary ,magdalene that the grave was empty1 must have gone thither with ,john2 and subsequently1 on the account of the angelic appearance brought by the other women1 he must have gone a second time alone3 in which case it would be particularly surprising that while his companion arrived at a belief in the resurrection of ,jesus on the very first visit1 he himself had not attained further than wonder even on the second4 ,besides1 as the ,fragmentist has already ably shown1 the narrative in the third gospel of the visit of ,peter alone1 and that in the fourth of the visit of ,peter and ,john1 are so strikingly similar even in words1 #bjga that the majority of commentators regard them as referring to a single visit1 ,luke having only omitted to notice the companion of ,peter3 in support of which opinion they can appeal to ,luke xxiv4 #bd4 ,but if the visit of the two ,apostles1 occasioned by the return of ,mary ,magdalene1 be one and the same with that occasioned by the return of the other women1 then the return of the women is also not a double one2 if however they returned in company with each other1 we have a contradiction4 ,after the two ,apostles are returned without having seen an angel1 ,mary1 who remains behind1 as she looks into the grave1 all at once sees two4 ,what a strange playing at hide and seek must there have been on the part of the angels1 according to the harmonistic combination of these narratives6 ,first only one shows himself to one group of women1 to another group two show themselves2 both forthwith conceal themselves from the disciples2 but after their departure both again become visible4 ,to remove these intermissions ,paulus has placed the appearance presented to ,mary ,magdalene before the arrival of the two disciples3 but by this violent transposition of the order chosen by the narrator1 he has only confessed the impossibility of thus incorporating the various ,evangelists with each other4 ,hereupon1 as ,mary ,magdalene raises herself from looking into the grave and turns round1 she sees ,jesus standing behind her4 ,according to ,matthew1 ,jesus appeared to ,mary ,magdalene and the other ,mary1 when they had already set out on their way to the city1 consequently when they were at some distance from the grave4 ,thus ,jesus would have first appeared to ,mary ,magdalene alone1 close to the grave1 and a second time when she was on her way from thence1 in the company of another woman4 ,in order to avoid the want of purpose attaching to the repetition of an appearance of ,jesus after so short an interval1 commentators have here called in the above supposition1 that ,mary ,magdalene had previously separated herself from the women of whom ,matthew speaks3 #bjgb but in that case1 since ,matthew has besides ,mary ,magdalene only the other ,mary1 it would have been only one woman to whom ,jesus appeared on the way from the grave3 whereas ,matthew throughout speaks of several 7 74 ,to escape from this restless running to and fro of the disciples and the women1 this phantasmagoric appearance1 disappearance1 and reappearance of the angels1 and the useless repetition of the appearances of ,jesus before the same person1 which result from this harmonistic method1 we must consider each ,evangelist by himself3 we then obtain from each a quiet picture with simple dignified features2 one visit of the women to the grave1 or according to ,john1 two2 one angelic appearance2 one appearance of ,jesus1 according to ,john and ,matthew2 and one visit to the grave by one or two of the disciples1 according to ,luke and ,john4 ,but with the above difficulties of the harmonistic method of incorporation as to the substance1 there is associated a difficulty as to form1 in the question1 how comes it1 under the presuppositions of this mode of viewing the gospels1 that from the entire series of occurrences1 each narrator has selected a separate portion for himself1--that of the many visits and appearances not one ,evangelist relates all1 and scarcely one the same as his neighbour1 but for the most part each has chosen only one for representation1 and each again a different one8 ,the most plausible answer to this question has been given by ,griesbach in a special treatise on this subject4 #bjgc ,he supposes that each ,evangelist recounts the resurrection of ,jesus in the manner in which it first1 became known to him3 ,john received the first information from ,mary ,magdalene1 and hence he narrates only what he learned from her2 to ,matthew 7for without doubt the disciples1 as strangers visiting the feast1 resided in different quarters of the city71 the first news was communicated by those women to whom ,jesus himself appeared on their way from the grave1 and hence he relates only what these had experienced4 ,but here this explanation already founders on the facts1 that in ,matthew1 of the women who see ,jesus on their way homeward1 ,mary ,magdalene is one2 and that in ,john1 ,mary ,magdalene1 after her second visit to the grave1 in which ,jesus appeared to her1 no longer went to ,john and ,peter alone1 but to the disciples in general1 and communicated to them the appearance she had seen and the commission she had received3 so that ,matthew in any case must also have known of the appearance of ,jesus to ,mary ,magdalene4 #bjgd ,further1 when1 according to this hypothesis1 ,mark narrates the history of the resurrection as he had learned it in the house of his mother who lived in ,jerusalem 7,acts xii4 #ab72 ,luke1 as he had received it from ,joanna1 whom he alone mentions3 we cannot but wonder at the tenacity with which1 according to this1 each must have clung to the narrative which he had happened first to receive1 since the resurrection of ,jesus must have been the subject of all others on which there was the most lively interchange of narratives among his adherents1 so that the ideas concerning the first tidings of the event must have found their level4 ,to remove these difficulties1 ,griesbach has further supposed1 that the disciples had it in their intention to compare the discordant accounts of the women and reduce them to order2 when1 however1 the resuscitated ,jesus himself appeared in the midst of them1 they neglected this1 because they now no longer founded their faith on the assertions of the women1 but on the appearances which they had themselves witnessed3 but the more the information of the women fell into the background1 the less conceivable is it1 how in the sequel each could so obstinately cling to what this or that woman had chanced first to communicate to him4 ,if then the plan of incorporation will not lead to the desired end1 #bjge we must try that of selection1 and inquire whether we must not adhere to one of the four accounts1 as pre-eminently apostolic1 and by this rectify the others2 in which inquiry here as elsewhere1 from the essential equality of the external evidence1 only the internal character of the separate narratives can decide4 ,from the number of those accounts concerning the first intelligence of the resurrection of ,jesus which have any claim to the rank of autoptical testimonies1 modern criticism has excluded that of the first gospel2 #bjgf and we cannot1 as in other instances1 complain of this disfavour as an injustice4 ,for in many respects the narrative of the first gospel here betrays itself to have been carried a step farther in traditional development than that of the other gospels4 ,first1 that the miraculous opening of the grave is seen by the women--if indeed ,matthew intends to say this--could scarcely1 had it really been the case1 have been so entirely lost from remembrance as it is in the other ,evangelists1 but might very well be formed gradually in tradition2 further1 that the rolling away of the stone was effected by the angel1 evidently rests only on the combination of one who did not know any better means of answering the question1 how the great stone was removed from the grave1 and the guards taken out of the way1 than to use for both purposes the angel presented to him in the current narratives of the appearance witnessed by the women2 to which he added the earthquake as a further embellishment of the scene4 ,but besides this1 there is in the narrative of ,matthew yet another trait1 which has anything but an historical aspect4 ,after the angel has already announced the resurrection of ,jesus to the women1 and charged them to deliver to the disciples the message that they should go into ,galilee1 where they would see the risen one3 ,jesus himself meets them and repeats the message which they are to deliver to the disciples4 ,this is a singular superfluity4 ,jesus had nothing to add to the purport of the message which the angel had given to the women2 hence he could only wish to confirm it and render it more authentic4 ,but to the women it needed no further confirmation1 for they were already filled with great joy by the tidings of the angel1 and thus were believing2 while for the disciples even that confirmation did not suffice1 for they remained incredulous even to the account of those who assured them that they had seen ,jesus1 until they had seen him themselves4 ,thus it appears that two different narrations1 as to the first news of the resurrection1 have here become entangled with each other2 the one representing angels1 the other ,jesus himself1 as the medium by which the women were informed of the event and sent with a message to the disciples3--the latter evidently the later tradition4 ,the pre-eminence in originality denied to the narrative of ,matthew1 is here as elsewhere awarded to that of ,john4 ,traits so characteristic1 says ,lcke1 as that on the visit to the grave the other disciple went faster than ,peter and came to the spot before him1 attest the authenticity of the gospel even to the most sceptical4 ,but the matter has yet another aspect4 ,it has been already remarked1 at an earlier point of our inquiry1 that this particular belongs to the effort1 which the fourth gospel exhibits in a peculiar manner1 to place ,john above ,peter4 #bjgg ,we may now discuss the point with more particularity1 by comparing the account in ,luke already mentioned of the visit of ,peter to the grave1 with the account in the fourth gospel of the visit of the two disciples4 ,according to ,luke 7xxiv4 #ab71 ,peter runs to the grave3 according to ,john 7xx4 #c ff471 ,peter and the favourite disciple go together1 but so that the latter runs faster1 and comes first to the grave4 ,in the third gospel1 ,peter stoops down1 looks into the sepulchre1 and sees the linen clothes3 in the fourth1 ,john does this1 and sees the same4 ,in the third gospel1 nothing is said of an entering into the grave3 but the fourth makes ,peter enter first1 and look more closely at the linen clothes1 then ,john also1 and the latter with the result that he begins to believe in the resurrection of ,jesus4 #bjgh ,that in these two narratives we have one and the same incident1 has been above shown probable from their similarity even in the expressions4 ,thus the only question is3 which is the original narrative1 the one nearest to the fact8 ,if that of ,john3 then must his name have been gradually lost out of the narrative in the course of tradition1 and the visit to the grave ascribed to ,peter only2 which1 since the importance of ,peter threw all others into the shade1 is easily conceivable4 ,we might rest contented with this conclusion1 regarding these two parallel narratives by themselves3 but in connexion with the whole suspicious position which the fourth gospel assigns to ,john in relation to ,peter1 the contrary relation of the two narratives must here again be held the more probable4 ,as in the entrance into the high priest's palace1 so in the visit to the grave of ,jesus1 only in the fourth gospel is ,john given as a companion to ,peter2 as in the former case it is he who gains an entrance for ,peter1 so in the latter he runs before him and casts the first glance into the grave1 a circumstance which is repeatedly mentioned4 ,that afterwards ,peter is the first to enter into the grave1 is only an apparent advantage1 which is allowed him out of deference to the common idea of his position3 for after him ,john also enters1 and with a result of which ,peter could not boast1 namely1 that he believed in the resurrection of ,jesus1 and thus was the first who attained to that degree of faith4 ,from this effort to make ,john the first-born among the believers in the resurrection of ,jesus may also be explained the divergency1 that according to the narrative of the fourth gospel alone1 ,mary ,magdalene hastens back to the two disciples before she has yet seen an angel4 ,for had she beforehand witnessed an angelic appearance1 which she would not any more than the women in ,matthew have mistrusted1 she would have been the first believer1 and would have won the precedence of ,john in this respect2 but this is avoided by representing her as coming to the two disciples immediately after perceiving the emptiness of the grave1 and under the disquietude excited in her by this circumstance4 ,this presupposition serves also to explain why the fourth gospel makes the woman returning from the grave go1 not to the disciples in general1 but only to ,peter and ,john4 ,as1 namely1 the intelligence which1 according to the original narrative1 was brought to all the disciples1 occasioned1 according to ,luke1 only ,peter to go to the grave1 and as moreover1 according to ,mark 7v4 #g71 the message of the women was destined more especially for ,peter3 the idea might easily be formed1 that the news came to this disciple alone1 with whom the object of the fourth ,evangelist would then require that he should associate ,john4 ,only after the two disciples had come to the grave1 and his ,john had attained faith1 could the author of the fourth gospel introduce the appearances of the angel and of ,jesus himself1 which were said to have been granted to the women4 ,that instead of these collectively he names only ,mary ,magdalene--although as has been earlier remarked1 he xx4 #b presupposes at least a subsequent meeting between her and other women--this might certainly1 under other circumstances1 be regarded as the original representation1 whence the synoptical one arose by a process of generalization3 but it might just as well be the case that the other women1 being less known1 were eclipsed by ,mary ,magdalene4 ,the description of the scene between her and ,jesus1 with the non-recognition of him at the first moment1 etc41 certainly does honour to the ingenuity and pathos of the author2 #bjgi but here also there is an unhistorical superfluity similar to that in ,matthew4 ,for here the angels have not1 as in the other ,evangelists1 to announce the resurrection to ,mary ,magdalene1 and to make a disclosure to her2 but they merely ask her1 ,why weepest thou8 whereupon she complains to them of the disappearance of the body of ,jesus1 but1 without waiting for any further explanation1 turns round and sees ,jesus standing4 ,thus as in ,matthew the appearance of ,jesus1 since it is not represented as the principal and effective one1 is a superfluous addition to that of the angel3 so here the angelic appearance is an idle1 ostentatious introduction to the appearance of ,jesus4 ,if we turn to the third account1 that of ,mark1 to ascertain whether he may not perhaps be the nearest to the fact3 we find it so incoherent1 and composed of materials so little capable of being fitted together1 that such a relation is not to be thought of4 ,after it has been already narrated that early in the morning of the day succeeding the ,sabbath the women came to the grave of ,jesus1 and were informed by an angel of his resurrection1 but out of fear said nothing to any one of the appearance which they had seen 7xvi4 #a-h73 at v4 #i1 as if nothing had previously been said either of the resurrection or of the time at which it happened1 the narrator proceeds3 ,now when ,jesus was risen early the first day of the week1 he appeared first to ,mary ,magdalene1 out of whom he had cast seven devils1 4 ,this statement also does not suit the foregoing narrative1 because this is not formed on the supposition of an appearance specially intended for ,mary ,magdalene3 on the contrary1 as she is said to be informed by an angel of the resurrection of ,jesus1 together with two other women1 ,jesus could not have appeared to her beforehand2 while afterwards1 on her way to the city1 she was in company with the other women1 when1 according to ,matthew1 they were all actually met by ,jesus4 ,whether on this account we are to regard the end of the gospel of ,mark1 from v4 #i1 as a later addition1 #bjhj is indeed doubtful1 from the want of decisive critical grounds1 and still more from the abruptness of the conclusion 1 for they were afraid1 which the gospel would then present3 but in any case we have here a narrative which the author1 without any clear idea of the state of the fact and the succession of the events1 hastily compiled out of the heterogeneous elements of the current legend1 which he knew not how to manage4 ,in the narrative of ,luke there would be no special difficulty3 but it has a suspicious element in common with the others1 namely1 the angelic appearance1 and moreover1 in a twofold form4 ,what had the angels to do in this scene8 ,matthew tells us3 to roll away the stone from the grave2 on which it has already been remarked by ,celsus1 that according to the orthodox presupposition1 the ,son of ,god could find no such aid necessary for this purpose3 #bjha he might indeed find it suitable and becoming4 ,in ,mark and ,luke the angels appear more as having to impart information and commissions to the women3 but as1 according to ,matthew and ,john1 ,jesus himself appeared immediately after1 and repeated those commissions1 the delivery of them by angels was superfluous4 ,hence1 nothing remains but to say3 the angels belonged to the embellishment of the great scene1 as celestial attendants who had to open to the ,messiah the door by which he meant to issue forth2 as a guard of honour on the spot from which the once dead had just departed with recovered life4 ,but here occurs the question3 does this species of pomp exist in the real court of ,god1 or only in the childish conception formed of it by antiquity8 ,hence commentators have laboured in various ways to transform the angels in the history of the resurrection into natural appearances4 ,setting out from the account of the first gospel in which the angel is said to have a form or countenance like lightning1 1 and to effect the rolling away of the stone and the prostration of the guards1 while an earthquake is connected with his appearance3 it no longer lay far out of the way to think of a flash of lightning1 which struck the stone with force sufficient to shatter it1 and cast the guards to the earth2 or of an earthquake which1 accompanied by flames bursting out of the ground1 produced the same effect2 in which case the flames and the overwhelming force of the phenomenon were taken by the watching soldiers for an angel4 #bjhb ,but partly the circumstance that the angel seated himself on the stone after it had been rolled away1 partly1 and still more decidedly1 the statement that he spoke to the women1 renders this hypothesis insufficient4 ,hence an effort has been made to complete it by the supposition that the sublime thought1 ,jesus is risen6 which on the discovery that the grave was empty began to arise in the women and gradually to subdue their first doubts1 was ascribed by them1 after the oriental mode of thought and language1 to an angel4 #bjhc ,but how comes it that in all the gospels the angels are represented as clothed in white1 shining garments8 ,is that too an oriental figure of speech8 ,the oriental may indeed describe a good thought which occurs to him as being whispered to him by an angel3 but to depict the clothing and aspect of this angel1 passes the bounds of the merely figurative even among orientals4 ,in the description of the first gospel the supposed lightning might be called to aid1 in the conjecture that the effect thereby produced on the senses of the women was ascribed by them to an angel1 which1 with reference to that lightning1 they depicted as one clothed in shining garments4 ,but1 according to the other ,evangelists1 the rolling away of the stone1 ex hypothesi by the lightning1 was not seen by the women2 on the contrary1 when they went or looked into the grave1 the white forms appeared to them in a perfectly tranquil position4 ,according to this1 it must have been something within the grave which suggested to them the idea of white-robed angels4 ,now in the grave1 according to ,luke and ,john1 there lay the white linen clothes in which the body of ,jesus had been wrapt3 these1 which were recognized simply as such by the more composed and courageous men1 might1 it is said1 by timid and excited women1 in the dark grave and by the deceptive morning twilight1 be easily mistaken for angels4 #bjhd ,but how should the women1 who must have expected to find in the grave a corpse enveloped in white1 be prompted by the sight of these clothes to a thought so strange1 and which then lay so remote from their anticipations1 as that they might be an angel who would announce to them the resurrection of their deceased master8 ,it has been thought in another quarter quite superfluous here to advance so many ingenious conjectures as to what the angels may have been1 since1 among the four narratives1 two expressly tell us what they were3 namely1 natural men1 ,mark calling his angel a young man1 1 ,luke his two angels1 two men1 4 #bjhe ,whom then are we to suppose these men to have been8 ,here again the door is opened for the supposition of secret colleagues of ,jesus1 who must have been unknown even to the two disciples3--these men seen at the grave may have been the same who met him in the so-called ,transfiguration1 perhaps ,essenes1 white being worn by this sect1--or whatever else of the like conjectures the antiquated pragmatism of a ,bahrdt or ,venturini has to offer4 ,or will it rather be chosen to suppose a purely accidental meeting8 or1 lastly1 with ,paulus1 to leave the matter in an obscurity1 from the midst of which1 so soon as it is endeavoured to clear it up by definite thoughts1 the two forms of the secret colleagues invariably present themselves8 ,a correct discernment will here also rather recognize the forms of the ,jewish popular conception1 by which the primitive ,christian tradition held it necessary to glorify the resurrection of its ,messiah3 a recognition1 which at once solves in the most simple manner the differences in the number and modes of appearance of those celestial beings4 #bjhf ,herewith1 however1 it is at the same time acknowledged that we can succeed no better with the plan of selection than with that of incorporation2 but must rather confess1 that in all the evangelical accounts of these first tidings of the resurrection1 we have before us nothing more than traditional reports4 #bjhg #ach4 ,,appearances ,,of ,,the ,,risen ,,jesus ,,in ,,galilee ,,and ,,in ,,judea1 ,,including ,,those ,,mentioned ,,by ,,paul ,,and ,,by ,,apocryphal ,,writings4 ,the most important of all the differences in the history of the resurrection turns upon the question1 what locality did ,jesus design to be the chief theatre of his appearances after the resurrection8 ,the two first gospels make ,jesus1 before his death1 when retiring to the ,mount of ,olives1 utter this promise to his disciples3 ,after ,i am risen again ,i will go before you into ,galilee 7,matt4 xxvi4 #cb2 ,mark xiv4 #bh72 the same assurance is given to the women by the angels on the morning of the resurrection1 with the addition3 there shall ye see him 7,matt4 xxviii4 #g2 ,mark xvi4 #g72 and in ,matthew1 besides all this1 ,jesus in his own person commissions the women to say to the disciples3 that they go into ,galilee1 and there shall they see me 7xxviii4 #aj74 ,in ,matthew the journey of the disciples into ,galilee1 with the appearance of ,jesus which they there witnessed 7the only one to the disciples recorded by this ,evangelist71 is actually narrated in the sequel4 ,mark1 after describing the amazement into which the women were thrown by the angelic appearance1 breaks off in the enigmatical manner already mentioned1 and appends some appearances of ,jesus1 which1--as the first happens immediately after the resurrection1 and therefore necessarily in ,jerusalem1 and no change of place is mentioned before the succeeding ones1 while the earlier direction to go into ,galilee is lost sight of1--must all be regarded as appearances in and around ,jerusalem4 ,john knows nothing of a direction to the disciples to go into ,galilee1 and makes ,jesus show himself to the disciples on the evening of the day of resurrection1 and again eight days after1 in ,jerusalem2 the concluding chapter1 however1 which forms an appendix to his gospel1 describes an appearance by the ,sea of ,galilee4 ,in ,luke1 on the other hand1 not only is there no trace of an appearance in ,galilee1 ,jerusalem with its environs being made the sole theatre of the appearances of ,christ which this gospel relates2 but there is also put into the mouth of ,jesus when1 on the evening after the resurrection1 he appears to the assembled disciples in ,jerusalem1 the injunction3 tarry ye in the city of ,jerusalem 7in the ,acts i4 #d1 more definitely expressed by the negative1 that they should not depart from ,jerusalem71 until ye be endued with power from on high 7xxiv4 #di74 ,here two questions inevitably arise3 #ast1 how can ,jesus have directed the disciples to journey into ,galilee1 and yet at the same time have commanded them to remain in ,jerusalem until ,pentecost8 and #bndly1 how could he refer them to a promised appearance in ,galilee1 when he had the intention of showing himself to them that very day in and near ,jerusalem8 ,the first contradiction which presents itself more immediately between ,matthew and ,luke1 has by no one been more pointedly exhibited than by the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist4 ,if1 he writes1 it be true1 as ,luke says1 that ,jesus appeared to his disciples in ,jerusalem on the day of his resurrection1 and commanded them to remain there1 and not to depart thence until ,pentecost3 then is it false that he commanded them within the same period to journey into ,galilee1 that he might appear to them there1 and vice vers4 #bjhh ,the harmonists indeed affected to regard this objection as unimportant1 and only remarked briefly1 that the injunction to remain in a city was not equivalent to an arrest1 and did not exclude walks and excursions in the neighbourhood2 and that ,jesus merely forbade the removal of residence from ,jerusalem1 and the going out into all the world to preach the gospel1 before the given term should arrive4 #bjhi ,but the journey from ,jerusalem to ,galilee is not a mere walk1 but the longest expedition which the ,jew could make within the limits of his own country2 as little was it an excursion for the apostles1 but rather a return to their home3 while what ,jesus intended to prohibit to the disciples in that injunction cannot have been the going out into all the world to preach the gospel1 since they would have no impulse to do this before the outpouring of the ,spirit2 nor can it have been the removal of residence from ,jerusalem1 since they were there only as strangers visiting at the feast3 rather ,jesus must have meant to deter them from that very journey which it was the most natural for them to take1 i4e4 from the return to their native province ,galilee1 after the expiration of the feast days4 ,besides this--and even ,michaelis confesses himself obliged to wonder here--if ,luke does not mean by that prohibition of ,jesus to exclude the journey into ,galilee1 why is it that he alludes to this by no single word8 and in like manner1 if ,matthew knew that his direction to go into ,galilee was consistent with the command to remain in the metropolis1 why has he omitted the latter1 together with the appearances in ,jerusalem8 ,this is certainly a plain proof that the accounts of the two ,evangelists are based on a different idea as to the theatre on which the risen ,jesus appeared4 ,in this exigency of having to reconcile two contradictory commands given on the same day1 the comparison with the ,acts presented a welcome help by indicating a distinction of the times4 ,here1 namely1 the command of ,jesus that the disciples should not leave ,jerusalem is placed in his last appearance1 forty days after the resurrection1 and immediately before the ascension3 at the close of the gospel of ,luke it is likewise in the last interview1 terminating in the ascension1 that the above command is given4 ,now though from the summary representation of the gospel taken by itself1 it must be believed that all occurred on the very day of the resurrection3 we nevertheless see1 it is said1 from the history of the ,acts by the same author1 that between v4 #dc and #dd in the last chapter of his gospel we must interpose the forty days from the resurrection to the ascension4 ,herewith1 then1 the apparent contradiction between these two commands vanishes3 for one who in the first instance indeed enjoins a journey into ,galilee1 may very well forty days later1 after this journey has been made1 and the parties are once more in the metropolis1 now forbid any further removal from thence4 #bjij ,but as the dread of admitting a contradiction between different ,new ,testament authors is no ground for departing from the natural interpretation of their expressions3 so neither can this be justified by the apprehension that the same author may in different writings contradict himself2 since if the one were written somewhat later than the other1 the author may in the interim have been on many points otherwise informed1 than when he composed his first work4 ,that this was actually the case with ,luke in relation to that part of the life of ,jesus which followed his resurrection1 we shall have reason to be convinced when we come to the history of the ascension3 and this conclusion removes all ground for interposing nearly five weeks between the 1 v4 #dc1 and 1 v4 #dd1 in defiance of their obviously immediate connexion2 at the same time1 however1 it does away with the possibility of reconciling the opposite commands of ,jesus in ,matthew and ,luke by a distinction of times4 ,meanwhile1 even admitting that this contradiction might be in some way or other removed1 still1 even without that express command which ,luke mentions1 the mere facts as narrated by him and his predecessor and successor1 remain irreconcilable with the injunction which ,jesus gives to the disciples in ,matthew4 ,for1 asks the ,fragmentist1 if the disciples collectively twice saw him1 spoke with him1 touched him1 and ate with him1 in ,jerusalem2 how can it be that they must have had to take the long journey into ,galilee in order to see him8 #bjia ,the harmonists1 it is true1 boldly reply3 when ,jesus causes his disciples to be told that they will see him in ,galilee1 it is by no means said that they will see him nowhere else1 still less that they will not see him in ,jerusalem4 #bjib ,but1 the ,fragmentist might rejoin1 after his manner3 as little as one who says to me1 go to ,rome1 there you shall see the ,pope1 can mean that the ,pope will indeed first come through my present place of residence1 so as to be seen by me here1 but afterwards ,i must yet go to ,rome1 in order to see him again there3 so little would the angel in ,matthew and ,mark1 if he had had any anticipation of the appearance in ,jerusalem on the very same day1 have said to the disciples3 go into ,galilee1 there will ,jesus show himself to you2 but rather3 be comforted1 you shall yet see him here in ,jerusalem before evening4 ,wherefore the reference to the more remote event1 when there was one of the same kind close at hand8 wherefore an appointment by means of the women1 for the disciples to meet ,jesus in ,galilee1 if the latter foresaw that he should on the same day personally speak with the disciples8 ,with reason does the latest criticism insist on what ,lessing had previously urged2 #bjic namely1 that no rational person would make an appointment with his friends through a third party for a joyful reunion at a distant place1 if he were certain of seeing them repeatedly on the same day in their present locality4 #bjid ,if thus the angel and ,jesus himself1 when they in the morning by means of the women directed the disciples to go into ,galilee1 cannot yet have known that he would show himself to them on the evening of the same day in and near ,jerusalem3 he must in the morning have still held the intention of going immediately into ,galilee1 but in the course of the day have embraced another purpose4 ,according to ,paulus1 #bjie an indication of such an original intention is found in ,luke1 in the travelling of ,jesus towards ,emmaus1 which lay in the direction of ,galilee2 while the reason for the alteration of plan is supposed by the same expositor1 with whom in this instance ,olshausen agrees1 #bjif to have been the belief of the disciples1 as more particularly manifested to ,jesus on occasion of the journey to ,emmaus4 ,how so erroneous a calculation on the part of ,jesus can consist with the orthodox view of his person1 is ,olshausen's care2 but even regarding him in a purely human character1 there appears no sufficient reason for such a change of mind4 ,especially after ,jesus had been recognised by the two disciples going to ,emmaus1 he might be certain that the testimony of the men would so accredit the assertion of the women1 as to lead the disciples with at least a glimmering ray of faith and hope into ,galilee4 ,but in general1 if a change of mind and a diversity of plan in ,jesus before and after that change1 really existed3 why does no one ,evangelist take any notice of such a retractation8 ,why does ,luke speak as if he knew nothing of the original plan2 ,matthew1 as if he knew nothing of a subsequent alteration2 ,john1 as if the principal theatre of the appearances of the risen ,jesus had been ,jerusalem1 and he had only by way of supplement at length showed himself in ,galilee8 ,lastly1 why does ,mark speak so as to make it evident that1 having gathered the original direction to go into ,galilee from ,matthew1 and the succeeding appearances in ,jerusalem and its environs from ,luke or elsewhere1 he was unable1 nor did he even make the attempt1 in any way to reconcile them2 but placed them together as he found them1 rough hewn and contradictory4 ,according to this we must agree with the latest criticism of the gospel of ,matthew1 in acknowledging the contradiction between it and the rest in relation to the locality of the appearances of ,jesus after the resurrection3 but1 it must be asked1 can we also approve the verdict of this criticism when it at once renounces the representation of the first gospel in favour of that of the other ,evangelists4 #bjig ,if1 setting aside all presuppositions as to the apostolic origin of this or that gospel1 we put the question3 which of the two divergent accounts is the best adapted to be regarded as a traditional modification and development of the other8 we can here refer1 not merely to the general nature of the accounts1 but also to a single point at which the two touch each other in a characteristic manner4 ,this is the address of the angel to the women1 in which according to all the synoptists ,galilee is mentioned1 but in a different way4 ,in ,matthew the angel1 as has been already noticed1 says of ,jesus3 he goeth before you into ,galilee1--lo1 ,i have told you 7xxviii4 #g71 -- 4 ,in ,mark he says the same1 except that instead of the latter addition1 by which in ,matthew the angel seeks to impress his own words on the women1 he has the expression3 as he said unto you1 1 with which he refers to the earlier prediction of ,jesus concerning this circumstance4 ,if we first compare these two representations3 the confirmatory ,i have told you1 1 might easily appear superfluous and nugatory2 while on the other hand the reference to the earlier prediction of ,jesus by he said1 1 might seem more appropriate1 and on this the conjecture might be founded that perhaps ,mark has here the correct and original phrase1 ,matthew a variation not unaccompanied by a misunderstanding4 #bjih ,but if we include the account of ,luke in the comparison1 we find here1 as in ,mark1 the words3 remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in ,galilee1 1 1 a reference to an earlier prediction of ,jesus1 not however referring to ,galilee1 but delivered in ,galilee4 ,here the question occurs3 is it more probable that ,galilee1 from being the designation of the locality in which the prophecy of the resurrection was uttered1 should at a later period be erroneously converted into a designation of the locality where the risen one would appear2 or the contrary8 ,in order to decide this1 we must ascertain in which of the two positions the mention of ,galilee is the more intrinsically suited to the context4 ,now that on the announcement of the resurrection it was an important point whether and where the risen ,jesus was to be seen1 is self-evident2 it was of less moment1 in referring to an earlier prediction1 to specify where this prediction was uttered4 ,hence from this comparison of the passages it might already be held more probable that it was originally said1 the angels directed the disciples to go into ,galilee1 there to see the risen one 7,matt472 but afterwards1 when the narratives of the appearances of ,jesus in ,judea had gradually supplanted those in ,galilee1 a different turn was given to the mention of ,galilee in the address of the angel1 so as to make it imply that already in ,galilee ,jesus had predicted his resurrection 7,luke72 whereupon ,mark appears to have taken a middle course1 since he with ,luke refers the 7changed into 7 to ,jesus1 but with ,matthew retains ,galilee as the theatre1 not of the earlier prediction of ,jesus1 but of the coming appearance4 ,if we next take into consideration the general character of the two narratives and the nature of the case1 there exist the same objections to the supposition that ,jesus after his resurrection appeared several times to his disciples in and near ,jerusalem1 but that the remembrance of this fact was lost1 and the same arguments in favour of the opposite supposition1 as we have respectively applied to the analogous alternatives in relation to the various journeys to the feasts and ,judan residences of ,jesus4 #bjii ,that the appearances of the risen ,jesus in ,jerusalem should undesignedly1 that is1 by a total obliteration of them from the minds of individuals1 have sunk into oblivion in ,galilee1 where according to this presupposition the tradition of ,matthew was formed1 is difficult to conceive1 both from the pre-eminent importance of these appearances1 which1 as for example those before the assembled eleven and before ,thomas1 involved the surest attestations of the reality of his resurrection1 and also from the organizing influence of the community in ,jerusalem2 while that the ,judan appearances of ,jesus were indeed known in ,galilee1 but intentionally suppressed by the author of the first gospel1 in order to preserve the honour for his province alone1 would presuppose an exclusivism1 an opposition of the ,galilean ,christians to the church at ,jerusalem1 of which we have not the slightest historical trace4 ,the other contrary possibility1 that perhaps originally only ,galilean appearances of the risen ,jesus were known1 but that tradition gradually added appearances in ,judea and ,jerusalem1 and that at length these completely supplanted the former1 may on many grounds be heightened into a probability4 ,first1 as respects the time1 the tidings of the resurrection of ,jesus were the more striking1 the more immediately his appearances followed on his burial and resurrection3 if however he first appeared in ,galilee1 such an immediate sequence of the events could not exist2 further1 it was a natural idea that the resurrection of ,jesus must have been attested by appearances in the place where he died2 lastly1 the objection that ,jesus after his pretended resurrection only appeared to his own friends1 and in a corner of ,galilee1 was in some degree repelled when it could be alleged that on the contrary1 he walked as one arisen from the dead in the metropolis1 in the midst of his furious enemies1 though indeed he was neither to be taken nor seen by them4 ,but when once several appearances of ,jesus were laid in ,judea and ,jerusalem1 the appearances in ,galilee lost their importance1 and might thenceforth either be appended in a subordinate position1 as in the fourth gospel1 or even be entirely overlooked1 as in the third4 ,this result1 drawn from the possible mode of legendary formation1 not being opposed1 as in the inquiry concerning the theatre of the ministry of the living ,jesus1 by a contrary one drawn from the circumstances and designs of ,jesus3 we may1 in contradiction to the criticism of the day1 decide in favour of the first gospel1 whose account of the appearance of the risen ,jesus recommends itself as the more simple and free from difficulty4 #bajj ,as regards the appearances of the risen ,jesus taken singly1 the first gospel has two3 one on the morning of the resurrection to the women 7xxviii4 #i f471 and one1 the time of which is undetermined1 before the disciples in ,galilee 7xxviii4 #af f474 ,mark1 in what is indeed a merely summary statement1 enumerates three3 the first1 to ,mary ,magdalene on the morning of the resurrection 7xvi4 #i f472 a second1 to two disciples going into the country 7xvi4 #ab72 and a third1 to the eleven as they sat at meat1 doubtless in ,jerusalem 7xvi4 #ad74 ,luke narrates only two appearances3 that before the disciples going to ,emmaus on the day of the resurrection 7xxiv4 #ac ff471 and the last1 before the eleven and other disciples in ,jerusalem1 according to xxiv4 #cf ff41 on the evening of the same day1 according to the ,acts i4 #d ff4 forty days later2 but when the travellers to ,emmaus1 on rejoining the apostles1 are greeted by them1 before ,jesus has appeared in the midst of them1 with the information3 the ,lord is risen indeed1 and hath appeared to ,simon 7xxiv4 #cd73 here a third appearance is presupposed1 which was granted to ,peter alone4 ,john has four such appearances3 the first1 to ,mary ,magdalene at the grave 7xx4 #ad ff472 the second to the disciples when the doors were shut 7xx4 #ai ff472 the third1 likewise in ,jerusalem1 eight days later1 when ,thomas was convinced 7xx4 #bf ff472 the fourth1 of which the time is unspecified1 at the ,galilean sea 7xxi474 ,but here we have also to take into consideration a statement of the ,apostle ,paul1 who #a ,cor4 xv4 #e ff41 if we deduct the appearance of ,christ granted to himself1 enumerates five appearances after the resurrection1 without however giving any precise description of them3 one to ,cephas2 one to the twelve2 one before more than five hundred brethren at once2 one to ,james2 and lastly1 one before all the apostles4 ,now how shall we make an orderly arrangement of these various appearances8 ,the right of priority is1 in ,john1 and still more expressly in ,mark1 claimed for that to ,mary ,magdalene4 ,the second must have been the meeting of ,jesus with the women returning from the grave1 in ,matthew2 but as ,mary ,magdalene was likewise among these1 and there is no indication that she had previously seen ,jesus1 these two appearances cannot be regarded as distinct1 but rather as one under two different garbs4 ,paul1 who in the above named passage speaks as if he meant to enumerate all the appearances of the resuscitated ,christ1 of which he knew1 omits the one in question2 but it may perhaps be said in explanation of this1 that he did not choose to adduce the testimony of women4 ,as the order in which he enumerates his ,christophanies1 to judge from the succession of and and the conclusion with 1 appears to be the order of time3 #baja according to him the appearance before ,cephas was the first that happened before a man4 ,this would agree well with the representation of ,luke1 in which the journeyers to ,emmaus1 on rejoining the disciples in ,jerusalem1 are met by them with the information that ,jesus is really arisen and has appeared to ,simon1 which might possibly be the case before his interview with those two disciples4 ,as the next appearance1 however1 according to ,luke1 we must number that last named1 which ,paul would not mention1 perhaps because he chose to adduce only those which were seen by apostles1 and from among the rest only those which happened before great masses of witnesses1 or more probably1 because it was unknown to him4 ,mark xvi4 #ab f4 evidently refers to the same appearance2 the contradiction1 that while in ,luke the assembled disciples meet those coming from ,emmaus with the believing exclamation3 the ,lord is risen1 etc41 in ,mark the disciples are said to have remained incredulous even to the account of those two witnesses1 probably proceeds from nothing more than an exaggeration of ,mark1 who will not lose his hold of the contrast between the most convincing appearances of ,jesus and the obstinate unbelief of the disciples4 ,the appearance on the way to ,emmaus is in ,luke immediately followed by that in the assembly of the eleven and others4 ,this is generally held to be identical with the appearance before the twelve mentioned by ,paul1 and with that which ,john narrates when ,jesus on the evening after the resurrection entered while the doors were closed among the disciples1 out of whose number1 however1 ,thomas was wanting4 ,it is not fair to urge in opposition to this identification the eleven of ,luke1 as at variance with the statement of ,john that only ten apostles were present1 any more than the twelve of ,paul1 from which number ,judas at least must be deducted2 moreover the similar manner in which the two ,evangelists describe the entrance of ,jesus by and 1 and the greeting cited in both instances3 1 appear to indicate the identity of the two appearances2 nevertheless1 if we consider that the handling of the body of ,jesus1 which in ,john first happens eight days later1 and the eating of the broiled fish1 which ,john assigns to the still later appearance in ,galilee1 are connected by ,luke with that scene in ,jerusalem on the day of the resurrection3 it is evident that either the third ,evangelist has here compressed several incidents into one1 or the fourth has divided one into several--whichever alternative may be chosen4 ,this appearance before the apostles in ,jerusalem however1 as has been above remarked1 according to ,matthew could not have happened1 since this ,evangelist makes the eleven journey to ,galilee in order to see ,jesus4 ,mark1 and ,luke in his gospel1 annex the ascension to this appearance1 and thus exclude all subsequent ones4 ,as the next appearance1 the apostle ,paul has that before five hundred brethren1 which is generally regarded as the same with the one which ,matthew places on a mountain in ,galilee3 #bajb but at this only the eleven are stated to have been present1 and moreover the discourse of ,jesus on the occasion1 consisting principally of official instructions1 appears more suited to this narrow circle4 ,paul next adduces an appearance to ,james1 of which there is also an apocryphal account1 in the ,hebrew gospel of ,jerome1 according to which however it must have been the first of all4 #bajc ,here there would be space for that appearance in which1 according to the fourth gospel eight days after the resurrection of ,jesus1 ,thomas was convinced2 wherewith ,paul would closely agree1 if his expression1 to all the apostles1 7v4 #g71 which he uses in relation to this appearance1 were really to be understood of a full assembly of the eleven in distinction from the earlier one1 when ,thomas was not present3 which however1 as ,paul1 according to the above presupposition1 had described this also as an appearance before the twelve1 is impossible2 on the contrary1 the apostle intends as well by the 1 twelve1 as by 1 all the apostles1 the collective body of apostles 7whose proper number was then indeed incomplete by one man71 in opposition to the individuals 7,cephas and ,james7 of whom in each case he had just before spoken1 as having witnessed a ,christophany4 ,if however we were nevertheless to regard the fifth appearance of ,jesus according to ,paul as identical with the third in ,john3 it would only be the more clearly evident that the fourth of ,paul1 before the five hundred brethren1 cannot have been the one in ,galilee recorded by ,matthew4 ,for as1 in ,john1 the third took place in ,jerusalem1 the fourth in ,galilee3 ,jesus and the apostles must in that case have gone into ,galilee after the first appearances in ,jerusalem1 and have met on the mountain2 then have returned to ,jerusalem where ,jesus showed himself to ,thomas2 then again have proceeded into ,galilee where the appearance by the sea occurred2 and lastly1 have once more returned to ,jerusalem for the ascension4 ,in order to avoid this useless journeying backwards and forwards1 and yet to be able to combine those two appearances1 ,olshausen lays the appearance before ,thomas in ,galilee3 an inadmissible violence1 since not only is there no mention of a change of place between this and the foregoing1 which is by implication represented as happening in ,jerusalem1 but the place of assembly is in both instances described in the same manner2 nay the addition1 the doors being shut1 will not allow the supposition of any other locality than ,jerusalem1 because in ,galilee1 where there was less excitement against ,jesus from the enmity of the priesthood1 there cannot be supposed to have been the same reason for that precaution1 in the fear of the ,jews4 ,thus1 first where the ,judean appearances close with that happening eight days after the resurrection1 we should obtain room to insert the ,galilean appearances of ,matthew and ,john4 ,but these have the peculiar position1 that each claims to be the first1 and that of ,matthew at the same time the last4 #bajd ,by the tenor of his whole narrative1 and expressly by adding1 after the statement that the disciples went to a mountain in ,galilee1 the words3 where ,jesus had appointed them1 41 ,matthew marks this appearance as the one to which ,jesus had referred on the morning of the resurrection1 first by the angel1 and then in his own person2 but no one concerts a second meeting in a particular place1 leaving the first undetermined3 consequently1 as an unforeseen earlier meeting is incompatible with the evangelical idea of ,jesus1 #baje that meeting1 since it was the concerted one1 was also the first in ,galilee4 ,if thus the appearance at the sea of ,tiberias in ,john1 cannot possibly be placed before that on the mountain in ,matthew3 so the latter will just as little suffer the other to follow it1 since it is a formal leave-taking of ,jesus from his disciples4 ,moreover1 it would be more than ever difficult to understand how the appearance in ,john could be made out1 in accordance with the ,evangelist's own statement1 to be the third of the risen ,christ before his disciples 7xxi4 #ad71 if that of the first gospel must also be supposed to precede it4 ,meanwhile1 even allowing the priority to the former1 this numerical notice of ,john remains sufficiently perplexing4 ,we might1 it is true1 deduct the appearances before the women1 because1 though ,john himself narrates that to ,mary ,magdalene1 he does not take it into his account2 but if we number that to ,cephas as the first1 and that on the way to ,emmaus as the second3 then this ,galilean appearance1 as the third1 would fall between the above and that before the eleven on the evening of the resurrection1 which would presuppose a rapidity of locomotion totally impossible2 nay1 if that appearance before the assembled eleven is the same with the one at which1 according to ,john1 ,thomas was absent1 the third appearance of ,john would fall before his first4 ,perhaps1 however1 when we consider the expression3 showed himself to his disciples1 1 we ought to understand that ,john only numbers such appearances as happened before several disciples at once1 so that those before ,peter and ,james should be deducted4 ,in that case1 we must number as the first1 the appearance to the two disciples going to ,emmaus2 as the second1 that before the assembled eleven on the evening of the resurrection3 and thus in the eight days between this and the one before ,thomas1 the journey into ,galilee would fall somewhat more conveniently1--but also the third appearance of ,john would fall before his second4 ,perhaps1 then1 the author of the fourth gospel held the two disciples whom ,jesus met on the way to ,emmaus too small a number1 to entitle this ,christophany to rank as a 4 ,on this supposition the entrance of ,jesus among the assembled disciples in the evening would be the first appearance2 hereupon the five hundred brethren to whom ,jesus showed himself at once would surely be numerous enough to be taken into the reckoning3 so that the ,galilean appearance of ,john1 that is1 his third1 must be inserted after this1 but then it would still fall before that to ,thomas and all the apostles1 which ,john enumerates as the second4 ,perhaps1 however1 the appearance of ,jesus before the five hundred is to be placed later1 so that after that entrance of ,jesus among the assembled disciples would first follow the scene with ,thomas1 after this the appearance at the sea of ,galilee1 and only then the sight of ,jesus granted to the five hundred4 ,but if the appearance before ,thomas is to be reckoned the same with the fifth in ,paul's enumeration1 this apostle must have reversed the order of his two last appearances1 a transposition for which there was no reason3 on the contrary1 it would have been more natural to place last the appearance before the five hundred brethren1 as the most important4 ,thus nothing remains but to say3 ,john understood under the word merely a greater or a smaller assembly of the apostles2 but among the five hundred there was no apostle2 hence he omitted these also1 and thus correctly numbered the appearance at the sea of ,tiberias as the third3 if indeed this could have happened before the one on the mountain in ,galilee1 which1 we have seen1 to be inconceivable4 ,the above expedients resorted to by way of accommodation are in part ridiculous enough3 but ,kern has lately surpassed them all by a suggestion which he advances with great confidence1 namely1 that ,john here intends to number1 not the appearances1 but the days on which appearances took place1 so that 4 1 this is now the third time that ,jesus showed himself to the disciples1 means3 now had ,jesus already appeared to his disciples on three separate days3 namely1 four times on the day of the resurrection2 then once eight days after2 and now again some days later4 #bajf ,renouncing such expedients1 nothing remains but to acknowledge that the fourth ,evangelist numbers only those appearances of ,jesus to his disciples1 which he had himself narrated2 and the reason of this can scarcely have been that the rest1 from some cause or other1 appeared to him less important1 but rather that he knew nothing of them4 #bajg ,and again1 ,matthew with his last ,galilean appearance1 can have known nothing of the two in ,jerusalem recorded by ,john2 for if in the first of these ten apostles had been convinced of the reality of the resurrection of ,jesus1 and in the second ,thomas also3 it could not have been that at that later appearance on the mountain in ,galilee some of the eleven 7for only these are represented by ,matthew as going thither7 still doubted 7 1 v4 #ag74 ,lastly1 if ,jesus here delivered to his disciples the final command to go into all the world teaching and baptizing1 and gave them the promise to be with them until the end of the existing age1 which is manifestly the tone of one who is taking leave3 he cannot subsequently1 as is narrated in the introduction to the ,acts1 have communicated to them his last commands and taken leave of them at ,jerusalem4 ,according to the conclusion of the gospel of ,luke1 this farewell departure on the contrary occurs much earlier than can be supposed in accordance with ,matthew2 and in the close of the gospel of ,mark1 where ,jesus is represented as parting from his disciples in ,jerusalem on the very day of his resurrection1 partly the same words are put into his mouth as1 according to ,matthew1 are spoken in ,galilee1 and in any case later than on the day of the resurrection4 ,the fact1 that the two books of the same author1 ,luke1 diverge so widely from each other in relation to the time during which ,jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection1 that one determines this time to have been a single day1 the other1 forty days1 cannot be taken into more particular consideration until we have reached a farther point of our inquiry4 ,thus the various evangelical writers only agree as to a few of the appearances of ,jesus after his resurrection2 the designation of the locality in one excludes the appearances narrated by the rest2 the determination of time in another leaves no space for the narratives of his fellow ,evangelists2 the enumeration of a third is given without any regard to the events reported by his predecessors2 lastly1 among several appearances recounted by various narrators1 each claims to be the last1 and yet has nothing in common with the others4 ,hence nothing but wilful blindness can prevent the perception that no one of the narrators knew and presupposed what another records2 that each again had heard a different account of the matter2 and that consequently at an early period1 there were current only uncertain and very varied reports concerning the appearances of the risen ,jesus4 #bajh ,this conclusion1 however1 does not shake the passage in the first ,epistle to the ,corinthians which1 7it being undoubtedly genuine17 was written about the year #ei after ,christ1 consequently not #cj years after his resurrection4 ,on this authority we must believe that many members of the primitive church who were yet living at the time when this epistle was written1 especially the apostles1 were convinced that they had witnessed appearances of the risen ,christ4 ,whether this involves the admission that some objective reality lay at the foundation of these appearances1 will hereafter become the subject of inquiry2 concerning the present point1 the divergencies of the ,evangelists1 especially in relation to the locality1 the passage of ,paul offers nothing decisive1 since he has given no particular description of any of those appearances4 #aci4 ,,quality ,,of ,,the ,,body ,,and ,,life ,,of ,,jesus ,,after ,,the ,,resurrection4 ,but how are we to represent to ourselves this continuation of the life of ,jesus after the resurrection1 and especially the nature of his body in this period8 ,in order to answer this question we must once more cast a glance over the separate narratives of his appearances when risen4 ,according to ,matthew1 ,jesus on the morning of the resurrection meets 77 the women as they are hastening back from the grave2 they recognize him1 embrace his feet in sign of veneration1 and he speaks to them4 ,at the second interview on the ,galilean mountain the disciples see him 771 but some still doubt1 and here also ,jesus speaks to them4 ,of the manner in which he came and went1 we have here no precise information4 ,in ,luke1 ,jesus joins the two disciples who are on their way from ,jerusalem to the neighbouring village of ,emmaus 7 72 they do not recognize him on the way1 a circumstance which ,luke attributes to a subjective hindrance produced in them by a higher influence 7 1 71 and only ,mark1 who compresses this event into few words1 to an objective alteration of his form 7 74 ,on the way ,jesus converses with the two disciples1 after their arrival in the village complies with their invitation to accompany them to their lodging1 sits down to table with them1 and proceeds according to his wont to break and distribute bread4 ,in this moment the miraculous spell is withdrawn from the eyes of the disciples1 and they know him3 #baji but in the same moment he becomes invisible to them 7 ' 74 ,just as suddenly as he here vanished1 he appears to have shown himself immediately after in the assembly of the disciples1 when it is said that he all at once stood in the midst of them 7 71 and they1 terrified at the sight1 supposed that they saw a spirit4 ,to dispel this alarming idea1 ,jesus showed them his hands and feet1 and invited them to touch him1 that by feeling his flesh and bones then might convince themselves that he was no spectre2 he also caused a piece of broiled fish and of honeycomb to be brought to him1 and ate it in their presence4 ,the appearance to ,simon is in ,luke described by the expression 2 ,paul in the first ,epistle to the ,corinthians uses the same verb for all the ,christophanies there enumerated1 and ,luke in the ,acts comprises all the appearances of the risen ,jesus during the forty days under the expressions 7i4 #c7 and 7x4 #dj74 ,in the same manner ,mark describes the appearance to ,mary ,magdalene by 1 and those to the disciples on the way to ,emmaus and to the eleven by 4 ,john describes the appearance at the sea of ,tiberias by 1 and to all the ,christophanies narrated by him he applies the word 4 ,mark and ,luke add1 as the close of the earthly life of the risen ,jesus1 that he was taken away from before the eyes of the disciples1 and 7by a cloud1 according to ,acts i4 #i7 carried up to heaven4 ,in the fourth gospel ,jesus first stands behind ,mary ,magdalene as she is turning away from the grave2 she however1 does not recognize him even when he speaks to her1 but takes him for the gardener1 until he 7in the tone so familiar to her7 calls her by her name4 ,when on this she attempts to manifest her veneration1 ,jesus prevents her by the words3 ,touch me not1 1 and sends her with a message to the disciples4 ,the second appearance of ,jesus in ,john occurred under peculiarly remarkable circumstances4 ,the disciples were assembled1 from fear of the hostile ,jews1 with closed doors3 when all at once ,jesus came and stood in the midst of them1 greeted them1 and presented--apparently to their sight only--his hands and feet1 that they might recognize him as their crucified master4 ,when ,thomas1 who was not present1 refused to be convinced by the account of his fellow disciples of the reality of this appearance1 and required for his satisfaction himself to see and touch the wounds of ,jesus3 the latter1 in an appearance eight days after1 granted him this proof1 making him touch the marks of the nails in his hands and the wound in his side4 ,lastly1 at the appearance by the sea of ,galilee1 ,jesus stood on the shore in the morning twilight1 without being known by the disciples in the ship1 asked them for fish1 and was at length recognized by ,john1 through the rich draught of fishes which he procured them2 still1 however1 the disciples1 when come to land1 did not venture to ask him whether it were really he4 ,hereupon he distributed among them bread and fish1 of which he doubtless himself partook1 and finally held a conversation with ,john and ,peter4 #baaj ,now the general ideas which may be formed of the life of ,jesus after his resurrection are two3 either it was a natural and perfectly human life1 and accordingly his body continued to be subject to the physical and organic laws2 or his life was already of a higher1 superhuman character1 and his body supernatural and transfigured3 and the accounts1 taken unitedly1 present certain traits to which1 on the first view1 each of these two ideas may respectively appeal4 ,the human form with its natural members1 the possibility of being known by means of them1 the continuance of the marks of the wounds1 the human speech1 the acts of walking and breaking bread1--all these appear to speak in favour of a perfectly natural life on the part of ,jesus even after the resurrection4 ,if it were possible still to demur to this1 and to conjecture1 that even a higher1 heavenly corporeality might give itself such an aspect and perform such functions3 all doubts must be quelled by the further statement1 that ,jesus after the resurrection consumed earthly food1 and allowed himself to be touched4 ,such things are indeed ascribed even to higher beings in old myths1 as for example1 eating to the heavenly forms from whom ,abraham received a visit 7,gen4 xviii4 #h71 and palpability to the ,god that wrestled with ,jacob 7,gen4 xxxii4 #bd ff473 but it must nevertheless be insisted that in reality both these conditions can only belong to material1 organized bodies4 ,hence not only the rationalists1 but even orthodox expositors1 consider these particulars as an irrefragable proof that the body and life of ,jesus after the resurrection must be regarded as remaining still natural and human4 #baaa ,this opinion is further supported by the remark1 that in the state of the risen ,jesus there is observable precisely the same progress as might be expected in the gradual1 natural cure of a person severely wounded4 ,in the first hours after the resurrection he is obliged to remain in the vicinity of the grave2 in the afternoon his strength suffices for a walk to the neighbouring village of ,emmaus2 and only later is he able to undertake the more distant journey into ,galilee4 ,then also in the permission to touch his body there exists the remarkable gradation1 that on the morning of the resurrection ,jesus forbids ,mary ,magdalene to touch him1 because his wounded body was as yet too suffering and sensitive2 but eight days later1 he himself invites ,thomas to touch his wounds4 ,even the circumstance that ,jesus after his resurrection was so seldom with his disciples and for so short a time1 is1 according to this explanation1 a proof that he had brought from the grave his natural1 human body1 for such an one would necessarily feel so weak from the wounds and torture of the cross1 as always after short periods of exertion to require longer intervals of quiet retirement4 ,but the ,new ,testament narratives1 as we have seen1 also contain particulars which favour the opposite idea of the corporeality of ,jesus after the resurrection3 hence the advocates of the opinion hitherto detailed must undertake so to interpret these apparently antagonistic features that they may no longer present a contradiction4 ,here it may seem that the very expressions by which the appearances of ,jesus are ordinarily introduced1 as used of the appearance in the burning bush 7,exod4 iii4 #b1 ,,lxx472 1 of the appearance of the angel in ,tobit xii4 #ai2 1 of the angelic appearances in ,matt4 i4 and ii41 may seem already to point to something supernatural4 ,as still more decided indications1 the idea of a natural going and coming which may be presupposed in some scenes1 is contradicted in others by a sudden appearance and disappearance2 the supposition of an ordinary human body is opposed by the frequent non-recognition on the part of friends1 nay1 by the express mention of another form1 2 above all1 the palpability of the body of ,jesus appears to be opposed by the capability which1 according to the first impression from the text1 is lent to him in ,john1 namely1 that of entering through closed doors4 ,but1 that ,mary ,magdalene mistook ,jesus at first for the gardener1 is thought even by commentators who ordinarily are not diffident of the miraculous1 to be most probably accounted for by the supposition that ,jesus had borrowed clothes from the gardener1 who very likely dwelt near to the grave2 moreover1 say these writers1 both in this instance and in the journey to ,emmaus1 the disfiguration of the countenance of ,jesus by the sufferings of crucifixion may have contributed to prevent his being recognized1 and these two circumstances are alone to be understood from the expression 1 another form1 in ,mark4 #baab ,as to the disciples going to ,emmaus1 in the joyful astonishment caused by the sudden recognition of him whom they had believed dead1 ,jesus1 it is said1 may easily have withdrawn from them unobserved in the most natural manner2 which1 however1 they1 to whom the whole fact of the resuscitation of ,jesus was a miracle1 might regard as a supernatural disappearance4 #baac ,nor1 we are told1 do the expressions3 or he stood in the midst of them1 especially in ,john1 where they are accompanied by the ordinary words he came1 and he comes1 imply anything supernatural1 but merely the startling arrival of one who had just been spoken of1 without his being expected2 and the assembled disciples took him for a spirit1 not because he entered in a miraculous manner1 but because they could not believe in the real resuscitation of their deceased master4 #baad ,lastly1 even the trait which is supposed to be decisive against the opinion that the body of the risen ,jesus was a natural and human one1--the coming when the doors were shut in ,john1--has long been interpreted even by orthodox theologians so as no longer to present any obstacle to that opinion4 ,we will not discuss explanations such as that of ,heumann1 according to which the doors were not those of the house in which the disciples were assembled1 but the doors of ,jerusalem in general1 and the statement that they were shut is an intimation of its having been that hour of the night in which it was customary to close the doors1 while the fear of the ,jews represents the motive1 not for the closing of the doors1 but for the assembling of the disciples4 ,apart from these expedients1 ,calvin himself pronounces the opinion that the body of the risen ,jesus passed per medium ferrum et asseres1 to be pueriles arguti1 for which the text gives no occasion1 since it does not say that ,jesus entered per januas clausas1 but only that he suddenly appeared among his disciples1 cum claus essent janu4 #baae ,still ,calvin upholds the entrance of ,jesus of which ,john here speaks as a miracle1 which must consequently be supposed to consist in this1 that ,jesus entered cum fores claus fuissent1 sed qu ,domino veniente subito patuerunt ad nutum divin majestatis ejus4 #baaf ,while more modern orthodox divines only contend for the less definite position1 that in the entrance of ,jesus some miracle took place1 its precise character being unascertained4 #baag ,rationalism has found means entirely to banish the miraculous from the event4 ,the closed doors1 we are told1 were opened to ,jesus by human hands2 which ,john omits to notice1 only because it is understood as a matter of course1 nay1 it would have been absurd of him to say3 they opened the doors for him1 and he went in4 #baah ,but in thus interpreting the words 1 theologians have been by no means unprejudiced4 ,least of all ,calvin2 for when he says1 the papists maintain a real penetration of the body of ,jesus through closed doors in order to gain support for their tenet that the body of ,christ is immense1 and contained in no place1 ut corpus ,christi immensum esse1 nulloque loco contineri obtineant3 it is plain that he combats that interpretation of the words of ,john merely to avoid giving any countenance to the offensive doctrine of the ubiquity of ,christ's body4 ,the more modern expositors1 on the other hand1 were interested in avoiding the contradiction which to our perceptions is contained in the statement1 that a body can consist of solid matter1 and yet pass without hindrance through other solid matter3 but as we know not whether this was also a contradiction in the view of the ,new ,testament writers1 the apprehension of it gives us no authority to discard that interpretation1 providing it be shown to be in accordance with the text4 ,we might certainly1 on a partial consideration1 understand the expression the doors being shut1 1 as an intimation of the anxious state into which the disciples were thrown by the death of ,jesus4 ,but already the circumstance that this particular is repeated on the appearance of ,jesus before ,thomas excites doubts1 since if the above was the only meaning1 it was scarcely worth while to repeat the observation4 #baai ,but as in fact in this second instance the above cause for the closing of the doors no longer exists1 while the words are immediately united with 1 he comes3 what was before the most apparent meaning1 namely1 that they are intended to determine the manner of the coming of ,jesus1 is here heightened into a probability4 #babj ,further1 the repeated statement that ,jesus came when the doors were closed is again followed by the words 1 which even in connexion with 1 to which they are related as a more precise determination1 imply that ,jesus suddenly presented himself1 without his approach having been seen3 whence it is undeniably evident that the writer here speaks of a coming without the ordinary means1 consequently1 of a miraculous coming4 ,but did this miracle consist in passing through the boards of the doors8 ,this is combated even by those who espouse the cause of miracles in general1 and they confidently appeal to the fact1 that it is nowhere said1 he entered through the closed doors 4 #baba ,but the ,evangelist does not mean to convey the precise notion that ,jesus1 as ,michaelis expresses himself1 passed straight through the pores of the wood of which the doors were made2 he merely means that the doors were shut and remained so1 and nevertheless ,jesus suddenly stood in the chamber1--walls1 doors1 in short all material barriers1 forming no obstacle to his entrance4 ,thus in reply to their unjust demand of us1 to show them in the text of ,john a precise determination which is quite away from the intention of this writer1 we must ask them to explain why he has not noticed the 7miraculous7 opening of the doors1 if he presupposed such a circumstance8 ,in relation to this point ,calvin very infelicitously refers to ,acts xii4 #f ff41 where it is narrated of ,peter1 that he came out of the closed prison2 no one1 he says1 here supposes that the doors remained closed1 and that ,peter penetrated through wood and iron4 ,assuredly not2 because here it is expressly said of the iron gate of the prison which led into the city1 that it opened to him of its own accord 7v4 #aj74 ,this observation serves to give so lively and graphic an idea of the miracle1 that our ,evangelist would certainly not1 in two instances1 have omitted a similar one1 if he had thought of a miraculous opening of the doors4 ,thus in this narrative of ,john the supernatural will not admit of being removed or diminished3 nor is the natural explanation more satisfactory in relation to the expressions by which ,luke describes the coming and going of ,jesus4 ,for if1 according to this ,evangelist1 his coming was a standing in the midst of the disciples1 1 his going a becoming invisible to them1 ' 3 the concurrence of these two representations1 taken in connexion with the terror of the disciples and their mistaking him for a spirit1 will hardly allow the supposition of anything else than a miraculous appearance4 ,besides1 if we might perhaps form some idea how ,jesus could enter in a natural manner without being observed into a room filled with men3 we should still be at a loss to imagine how it could be possible for him1 when he sat at table at ,emmaus1 apparently with the two disciples alone1 to withdraw himself from them unobserved1 and so that they were not able to follow him4 #babb ,that ,mark1 under the words understands a form miraculously altered1 ought never to have been denied2 #babc but this is a point of minor importance1 because it involves only the narrator's own interpretation of the circumstance which had been already stated1 but with a different explanation1 by ,luke3 namely1 that the two disciples did not know ,jesus4 ,that ,mary ,magdalene took ,jesus for the gardener1 was hardly1 in the view of the ,evangelist1 the consequence of his having borrowed the gardener's clothes3 rather1 the spirit of the narrative would require us to explain her not knowing him by supposing that her eyes were held 71 ,luke xxiv4 #af71 or that ,jesus had assumed another form2 while her taking him for the gardener might then be simply accounted for by the fact that she met the unknown man in the garden4 ,nor are we authorized by the evangelical narratives to suppose a disfiguration of ,jesus by the sufferings of the cross1 and a gradual healing of his wounds4 ,the words ,touch me not in ,john1 if they were to be regarded as a prohibition of a touch as painful1 would be in contradiction1 not merely with ,matthew1 according to whom ,jesus on the same morning--that of the resurrection--allowed the women to embrace his feet1 but also with ,luke1 according to whom he on the same day invited the disciples to handle him2 and we must then ask1 which representation is correct8 ,but there is nothing at all in the context to intimate that ,jesus forbade ,mary to touch him for fear of pain2 he may have done so from various motives3 concerning which1 however1 the obscurity of the passage has hitherto precluded any decision4 #babd ,but the most singularly perverted inference is this3 that the infrequent and brief interviews of ,jesus with his disciples after the resurrection are a proof that he was as yet too weak for long and multiplied efforts1 and consequently was undergoing a natural cure4 ,on this very supposition of his needing bodily tendance1 he should have been not seldom1 but constantly1 with his disciples1 who were those from whom he could the most immediately expect such tendance4 ,for where are we to suppose that he dwelt in the long intervals between his appearances8 in solitude8 in the open air8 in the wilderness and on mountains8 ,that was no suitable abode for an invalid1 and nothing remains but to suppose that he must have been concealed among secret colleagues of whom even his disciples knew nothing4 ,but thus to conceal his real abode even from his own disciples1 to show himself to them only seldom1 and designedly to present and withdraw himself suddenly1 would be a kind of double dealing1 an affectation of the supernatural1 which would exhibit ,jesus and his cause in a light foreign to the object itself so far as it lies before us in our original sources of information1 and only thrown upon it by the dark lantern of modern1 yet already obsolete1 conceptions4 ,the opinion of the ,evangelists is no other than that the risen ,jesus1 after those short appearances among his followers1 withdrew like a higher being into invisibility1 from which1 on fitting occasions1 he again stept forth4 #babe ,lastly1 on the presupposition that ,jesus by his resurrection returned to a purely natural existence1 what conception must be formed of his end8 ,in consistency he must be supposed1 whether at the end of a longer #babf or a shorter time after his resuscitation1 to have died a natural death2 and accordingly ,paulus intimates that the too intensely affected body of ,jesus1 notwithstanding it had recovered from the death-like rigidity produced by crucifixion1 was yet completely worn out by natural maladies and consuming fever4 #babg ,that this is at least not the view of the ,evangelists concerning the end of ,jesus is evident1 since two of them represent him as taking leave of his disciples like an immortal1 the others as being visibly carried up to heaven4 ,thus before the ascension1 at the latest1 if until then ,jesus had retained a natural human body1 it must have undergone a change which qualified him to dwell in the heavenly regions2 the sediment of gross corporeality must have fallen to the earth1 and only its finest essence have ascended4 ,but of any natural remains of the ascended ,jesus the ,evangelists say nothing2 and as the disciples who were spectators of his ascension must have observed them had there been such1 nothing is left for the upholders of this opinion but the expedient of certain theologians of the ,tbingen school1 who regard as the residuum of the corporeality of ,jesus1 the cloud which enveloped him in his ascension1 and in which what was material in him is supposed to have been dissolved and as it were evaporated4 #babh ,as thus the ,evangelists neither represent to themselves the end of the earthly life of ,jesus after the resurrection as a natural death1 nor mention any change undergone by his body at the ascension1 and moreover narrate of ,jesus in the interval between the resurrection and ascension things which are inconceivable of a natural body3 they cannot have represented to themselves his life after the resurrection as natural1 but only as supernatural1 nor his body as material and organic1 but only as transfigured4 ,in the point of view held by the ,evangelists1 this conception is not contradicted even by those particulars which the friends of the purely natural opinion respecting the life of the risen ,jesus are accustomed to urge in their support4 ,that ,jesus ate and drank was1 in the circle of ideas within which the gospels originated1 as far from presupposing a real necessity1 as the meal of which ,jehovah partook with two angels in the tent of ,abraham3 the power of eating is here no proof of a necessity for eating4 #babi ,that he caused himself to be touched1 was the only possible mode of refuting the conjecture that an incorporeal spectre had appeared to the disciples2 moreover1 divine existences1 not merely in ,grecian1 but also 7according to the passage above quoted1 ,gen4 xxxii4 #bd7 in ,hebrew antiquity1 sometimes appeared palpable1 in distinction from unsubstantial shades1 though they otherwise showed themselves as little bound by the laws of materiality as the palpable ,jesus1 when he suddenly vanished1 and was able to penetrate without hindrance into a room of which the door was closed4 #bacj ,it is quite another question1 whether on our more advanced position1 and with our more correct knowledge of nature1 those two different classes of particulars can be held compatible with each other4 ,here we must certainly say3 a body which consumes visible food1 must itself be visible2 the consumption of food presupposes an organism1 but an organism is organized matter1 and this has not the property of alternately vanishing and becoming visible again at will4 #baca ,more especially1 if the body of ,jesus was capable of being felt1 and presented perceptible flesh and bones1 it thus exhibited the impenetrability of matter1 proper to it as solid3 if on the other hand he was able to pass into closed houses and rooms1 unhindered by the interposition of walls and doors1 he thus proved that the impenetrability of solid matter did not belong to him4 ,since then according to the evangelical accounts he must at the same time have had and not have had the same property3 the evangelical representation of the corporeality of ,jesus after the resurrection is manifested to be contradictory4 ,and this contradiction is not of such a kind that it is divided among the different narrators2 but the account of one and the same ,evangelist includes those contradictory features within itself4 ,the brief account of ,matthew1 it is true1 implies in the embracing of the feet of ,jesus by the women 7v4 #i7 only the attribute of palpability1 without at the same time presenting an opposite one2 with ,mark the case is reversed1 his statement that ,jesus appeared in another form 7v4 #ab7 implying something supernatural1 while on the other hand he does not decidedly presuppose the opposite2 in ,luke1 on the other hand1 the permission to touch his body and the act of eating speak as decidedly in favour of organic materiality1 as the sudden appearance and disappearance speak against it2 but the members of this contradiction come the most directly into collision in ,john1 where ,jesus1 immediately after he has entered into the closed room unimpeded by walls and doors1 #bacb causes the doubting ,thomas to touch him4 #adj4 ,,debates ,,concerning ,,the ,,reality ,,of ,,the ,,death ,,and ,,resurrection ,,of ,,jesus4 ,the proposition3 a dead man has returned to life1 is composed of two such contradictory elements1 that whenever it is attempted to maintain the one1 the other threatens to disappear4 ,if he has really returned to life1 it is natural to conclude that he was not wholly dead2 if he was really dead1 it is difficult to believe that he has really become living4 #bacc ,when we form a correct opinion of the relation between soul and body1 not abstractly separating the two1 but conceiving them at once in their identity1 the soul as the interior of the body1 the body as the exterior of the soul1 we know not how to imagine1 to say nothing of comprehending1 the revivification of a dead person4 ,what we call the soul is the governing centre which holds in combination the powers and operations of the body2 its function1 or rather the soul itself1 consists in keeping all other processes of which the body is susceptible in uninterrupted subjection to the superior unity of the process of organic life1 which in man is the basis of his spiritual nature3 so soon as this regulating power ceases to act1 the supremacy in the various parts of the body is assumed by these other1 inferior principles1 whose work in its prosecution is corruption4 ,when once these have acceded to the dominion1 they will not be inclined to render it back to their former monarch1 the soul2 or rather this is impossible1 because1 quite apart from the question of the immortality of the human spirit 7,geist71 the soul 7,seele7 as such ceases in the same moment with its dominion and activity1 which constitute its existence2 consequently1 in a revivification1 even if resort be had to a miracle1 this must consist in the direct creation of a new soul4 ,only in the dualism which has become popular on the subject of the relation between body and soul1 is there anything to favour the opinion of the possibility of a revivification properly so called4 ,in this system1 the soul in its relation to the body is represented as like a bird1 which1 though it may for a time have flown out of the cage1 can yet be once more caught and replaced in its former abode2 and it is to such figures that an imaginative species of thought cleaves1 in order to preserve the notion of revivification4 ,but even in this dualistic view1 the inconceivability of such an event is rather concealed than really diminished4 ,for in the most abstract separation1 the co-existence of the body and soul cannot be held as indifferent and lifeless as that of a box and its contents2 on the contrary1 the presence of the soul in the body produces effects1 which again are the conditions whereby that presence is rendered possible4 ,thus so soon as the soul has forsaken the body1 there is a cessation in the latter of those activities which according to the dualistic idea were the immediate expressions of the influence of the soul2 at the same time1 the organs of these activities--brain1 blood1 etc41 begin to stagnate2 a change which is coincident with the moment of death4 ,thus if it could occur to the departed soul1 or be imposed on it by another1 to re-enter its former dwelling-place3 it would find this dwelling1 even after the first moments1 uninhabitable in its noblest parts1 and unfit for use4 ,to restore1 in the same way as an infirm member1 the most immediate organs of its activity1 is an impossibility to the soul1 since in order to effect anything in the body it has need of the service of these very organs3 thus the soul1 although remanded into the body1 must suffer it to decay1 from inability to exercise any influence over it2 or there must be added to the miracle of its reconveyance into the body1 the second miracle of a restoration of the lifeless bodily organs3 an immediate interposition of ,god in the regular course of nature1 irreconcileable with enlightened ideas of the relation of ,god to the world4 ,hence the cultivated intellect of the present day has very decidedly stated the following dilemma3 either ,jesus was not really dead1 or he did not really rise again4 ,rationalism has principally given its adhesion to the former opinion4 ,the short time that ,jesus hung on the cross1 together with the otherwise ascertained tardiness of death by crucifixion1 and the uncertain nature and effects of the wound from the spear1 appeared to render the reality of the death doubtful4 ,that the agents in the crucifixion1 as well as the disciples themselves1 entertained no such doubt1 would be explained not only by the general difficulty of distinguishing deep swoons and the rigidity of syncope from real death1 but also from the low state of medical science in that age2 while at least one example of the restoration of a crucified person appeared to render conceivable a resuscitation in the case of ,jesus also4 ,this example is found in ,josephus1 who informs us that of three crucified acquaintances whose release he begged from ,titus1 two died after being taken down from the cross1 but one survived4 #bacd ,how long these people had hung on the cross ,josephus does not mention2 but from the manner in which he connects them with his expedition to ,thekoah1 by stating that he saw them on his return from thence1 they must probably have been crucified during this expedition1 and as this1 from the trifling distance of the above place from ,jerusalem1 might possibly be achieved in a day1 they had in all probability not hung on the cross more than a day1 and perhaps a yet shorter time4 ,these three persons1 then1 can scarcely have hung much longer than ,jesus1 who1 according to ,mark1 was on the cross from nine in the morning till towards six in the evening1 and they were apparently taken down while they still showed signs of life2 yet with the most careful medical tendance only one survived4 ,truly it is difficult to perceive how it can hence be shown probable that ,jesus1 who when taken from the cross showed all the signs of death1 should have come to life entirely of himself1 without the application of medical skill4 #bace ,according to a certain opinion1 however1 these two conditions--some remains of conscious life1 and careful medical treatment--were not wanting in the case of ,jesus1 although they are not mentioned by the ,evangelists4 ,jesus1 we are told1 seeing no other way of purifying the prevalent messianic idea from the admixture of material and political hopes1 exposed himself to crucifixion1 but in doing so relied on the possibility of procuring a speedy removal from the cross by early bowing his head1 and of being afterwards restored by the medical skill of some among his secret colleagues2 so as to inspirit the people at the same time by the appearance of a resurrection4 #bacf ,others have at least exonerated ,jesus from such contrivance1 and have admitted that he really sank into a deathlike slumber2 but have ascribed to his disciples a preconceived plan of producing apparent death by means of a potion1 and thus by occasioning his early removal from the cross1 securing his restoration to life4 #bacg ,but of all this our evangelical sources give no intimation1 and for conjecturing such details we have no ground4 ,judicious friends of the natural explanation1 who repudiate such monstrous productions of a system which remodels history at will1 have hence renounced the supposition of any remains of conscious life in ,jesus1 and have contented themselves1 for the explanation of his revivification1 with the vital force which remained in his still young and vigorous body1 even after the cessation of consciousness2 and have pointed out1 instead of premeditated tendance by the hands of men1 the beneficial influence which the partly oleaginous substances applied to his body must have had in promoting the healing of his wounds1 and1 united with the air in the cave1 impregnated with the perfumes of the spices1 in reawakening feeling and consciousness in ,jesus2 #bach to all which was added as a decisive impulse1 the earthquake and the lightning which on the morning of the resurrection opened the grave of ,jesus4 #baci ,others have remarked1 in opposition to this1 that the cold air in the cave must have had anything rather than a vivifying tendency2 that strong aromatics in a confined space would rather have had a stupefying and stifling influence2 #badj and the same effect must have been produced by a flash of lightning bursting into the grave1 if this were not a mere figment of rationalistic expositors4 ,notwithstanding all these improbabilities1 which are against the opinion that ,jesus came to life after a merely apparent death by the operation of natural causes1 this nevertheless remains so far possible1 that if we had secure evidence of the resuscitation of ,jesus1 we might1 on the strength of such certainty as to the result1 supply the omissions in the narrative1 and approve the opinion above presented1--with the rejection1 however1 of all precise conjectures4 ,secure evidence of the resurrection of ,jesus1 would be the attestation of it in a decided and accordant manner by impartial witnesses4 ,but the impartiality of the alleged witnesses for the resurrection of ,jesus1 is the very point which the opponents of ,christianity1 from ,celsus down to the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 have invariably called in question4 ,jesus showed himself to his adherents only3 why not also to his enemies1 that they too might be convinced1 and that by their testimony posterity might be precluded from every conjecture of a designed fraud on the part of his disciples8 #bada ,i cannot certainly attach much weight to the replies by which apologists have sought to repel this objection1 from that of ,origen1 who says3 ,christ avoided the judge who condemned him1 and his enemies1 that they might not be smitten with blindness2 #badb to the opinions of the modern theologians1 who by their vacillation between the assertion that by such an appearance the enemies of ,jesus would have been compelled to believe1 and the opposite one1 that they would not have believed even on such evidence1--mutually confute one another4 #badc ,nevertheless1 it can still be urged in reply to that objection1 that the adherents of ,jesus1 from their hopelessness1 which is both unanimously attested by the narratives1 and is in perfect accordance with the nature of the case1 here rise to the rank of impartial witnesses4 ,if they had expected a resurrection of ,jesus and we had then been called upon to believe it on their testimony alone3 there would certainly be a possibility and perhaps also a probability1 if not of an intentional deception1 yet of an involuntary self-delusion on their part2 but this possibility vanishes in proportion as the disciples of ,jesus lost all hope after his death4 ,now even if it be denied that any one of the gospels proceeded immediately from a disciple of ,jesus1 it is still certain from the epistles of ,paul and the ,acts that the ,apostles themselves had the conviction that they had seen the risen ,jesus4 ,we might then rest satisfied with the evangelical testimonies in favour of the resurrection1 were but these testimonies in the first place sufficiently precise1 and in the second1 in agreement with themselves and with each other4 ,but in fact the testimony of ,paul1 which is intrinsically consistent and is otherwise most important1 is so general and vague1 that taken by itself1 it does not carry us beyond the subjective fact1 that the disciples were convinced of the resurrection of ,jesus2 while the more fully detailed narratives of the gospels1 in which the resurrection of ,jesus appears as an objective fact1 are1 from the contradictions of which they are convicted1 incapable of being used as evidence1 and in general their account of the life of ,jesus after his resurrection is not one which has connexion and unity1 presenting a clear historical idea of the subject1 but a fragmentary compilation1 #badd which presents a series of visions1 rather than a continuous history4 ,if we compare with this account of the resurrection of ,jesus1 the precise and internally consistent attestation of his death3 we must incline to the other side of the dilemma above stated1 and be induced to doubt the reality of the resurrection rather than that of the death4 ,hence ,celsus chose this alternative1 deriving the alleged appearance of ,jesus after the resurrection1 from the self-delusion of the disciples1 especially the women1 either dreaming or waking2 or from what appeared to him still more probable1 intentional deception3 #bade and more modern writers1 as1 for example1 the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 have adopted the accusation of the ,jews in ,matthew1 namely1 that the disciples stole the body of ,jesus1 and afterwards fabricated1 with slender agreement1 stories of his resurrection and subsequent appearances4 #badf ,this suspicion is repelled by the remark of ,origen1 that a spontaneous falsehood on the part of the disciples could not possibly have animated them to so unflinching an announcement of the resurrection of ,jesus amid the greatest perils2 #badg and it is a just argument of modern apologists that the astonishing revolution from the deep depression and utter hopelessness of the disciples at the death of ,jesus1 to the strong faith and enthusiasm with which they proclaimed him as the ,messiah on the succeeding ,pentecost1 would be inexplicable unless in the interim something extraordinarily encouraging had taken place--something1 in fact1 which had convinced them of his resurrection4 #badh ,but that this cause of conviction was precisely a real appearance of the risen ,jesus--that1 indeed it was necessarily an external event at all--is by no means proved4 ,if we chose to remain on supranatural ground1 we might with ,spinoza suppose that a vision was produced by miraculous means in the minds of the disciples1 the object of which was to make evident to them1 in a manner accordant with their powers of comprehension and the ideas of their age1 that ,jesus by his virtuous life had risen from spiritual death1 and that to those who followed his example he would grant a similar resurrection4 #badi ,with one foot at least on the same ground stands the supposition of ,weisse1 that the departed spirit of ,jesus really acted on the disciples whom he had left behind2 in connexion with which he refers to the apparitions of spirits1 the impossibility of which remains unproved4 #baej ,in order to escape from the magic circle of the supernatural1 others have searched for natural external causes which might induce the belief that ,jesus had risen and had been seen after his resurrection4 ,the first impetus to this opinion1 it has been conjectured1 was given by the circumstance that on the second morning after the burial his grave was found empty1 the linen clothes which lay in it being taken first for angels and then for an appearance of the risen ,jesus himself3 #baea but if the body of ,jesus was not reanimated1 how are we to suppose that it came out of the grave8 ,here it would be necessary to recur to the supposition of a theft3 unless the intimation of ,john1 that ,jesus on account of haste was laid in a strange grave1 were thought available for the conjecture that perhaps the owner of the grave caused the corpse to be removed3 which however the disciples must subsequently have learned1 and which in any case has too frail a foundation in the solitary statement of the fourth gospel4 ,far more fruitful is the appeal to the passage of ,paul 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #e ff471 as the most appropriate starting point in this inquiry1 and the key to the comprehension of all the appearances of ,jesus after his resurrection4 #baeb ,when ,paul there places the ,christophany which occurred to himself in the same series with the appearances of ,jesus in the days after his resurrection3 this authorizes us1 so far as nothing else stands in the way of such an inference1 to conclude that1 for aught the ,apostle knew1 those earlier appearances were of the same nature with the one experienced by himself4 ,now with respect to the latter as narrated to us in the ,acts 7ix4 #a ff41 xxii4 #c ff41 xxvi4 #ab ff471 it is no longer possible1 after the analysis of ,eichhorn #baec and ,ammon1 #baed to retain it as an external1 objective appearance of the real ,christ2 even ,neander #baee does not positively dare to maintain more than an internal influence of ,christ on the mind of ,paul1 only appending in a very beseeching manner the supposition of an external appearance2 and even that internal influence he himself renders superfluous by detailing the causes which might in a natural manner produce such a revolution in the disposition of the man thus3 the favourable impression of ,christianity1 of the doctrine1 life and conduct of its adherents1 which he had here and there received1 especially on the occasion of the martyrdom of ,stephen1 threw his mind into a state of excitement and conflict1 which he might indeed for a time forcibly repress1 perhaps even by redoubled zeal against the new sect1 but which must at last find vent in a decisive spiritual crisis1 concerning which it need not surprise us that in an oriental it took the form of a ,christophany4 ,if according to this we have in the ,apostle ,paul an example1 that strong impressions from the infant ,christian community might carry an ardent mind that had long striven against it1 to a pitch of exaltation which issued in a ,christophany1 and a total change of sentiment3 surely the impression of the sublime personality of ,jesus would suffice to inspire into his immediate disciples1 struggling with the doubts concerning his messiahship which his death had excited in them1 the experience of similar visions4 ,they who think it necessary and desirable in relation to the ,christophany of ,paul to call in the aid of external natural phenomena1 as thunder and lightning1 may also seek to facilitate the explanation of the appearances of the risen ,jesus which his immediate disciples believed themselves to have previously had1 by the supposition of similar incidents4 #baef ,only it must be observed that1 as ,eichhorn's explanation of the event in the life of ,paul proved a failure from his maintaining as historical every single detail in the ,new ,testament narrative1 as the blindness of ,paul and his cure1 the vision of ,ananias1 and so on1 which he could only transform into natural occurrences by a very strained interpretation3 so it would inevitably render impossible the psychological explanation of the appearances of ,jesus1 to acknowledge as historical all the evangelical narratives concerning them1 especially those of the tests which ,thomas applied by touching the wounds of ,jesus1 and which ,jesus himself afforded by taking material nourishment2 and indeed these narratives1 from the contradiction which they are shown to present1 have not the slightest claim to such a character4 ,the two first gospels1 and our chief informant in this matter1 the ,apostle ,paul1 tell us nothing of such tests1 and it is quite natural that the ,christophanies which1 in the actual experience of the women and ,apostles1 may have floated before them as visions of much the same character as that which ,paul had on the way to ,damascus1 when once received into tradition1 should by reason of the apologetic effort to cut off all doubts as to their reality1 be continually more and more consolidated so that the mute appearances became speaking ones1 the ghostlike form was exchanged for one that ate1 and the merely visible body was made palpable also4 ,here however there presents itself a distinction1 which seems at once to render the event in the history of ,paul unavailable for the explanation of those earlier appearances4 ,to the ,apostle ,paul1 namely1 the idea that ,jesus had risen and appeared to many persons was delivered as the belief of the sect which he persecuted2 he had only to receive it into his conviction and to vivify it in his imagination until it became a part of his own experience3 the earlier disciples1 on the contrary1 had before them as a fact merely the death of their ,messiah1--the notion of a resurrection on his part they could nowhere gather1 but must1 according to our conception of the matter1 have first produced it2 a problem which appears to be beyond all comparison more difficult than that subsequently presented to the ,apostle ,paul4 ,in order to form a correct judgment on this subject1 we must transport ourselves yet more completely into the situation and frame of mind into which the disciples of ,jesus were thrown by his death4 ,during several years' intercourse with them he had constantly impressed them more and more decidedly with the belief that he was the ,messiah2 but his death1 which they were unable to reconcile with their messianic ideas1 had for the moment annihilated this belief4 ,now when1 after the first shock was past1 the earlier impression began to revive3 there spontaneously arose in them the psychological necessity of solving the contradiction between the ultimate fate of ,jesus and their earlier opinion of him--of adopting into their idea of the ,messiah the characteristics of suffering and death4 ,as1 however1 with the ,jews of that age to comprehend meant nothing else than to derive from the sacred scriptures3 they turned to these1 to ascertain whether they might not perhaps find in them intimations of a suffering and dying ,messiah4 ,foreign as the idea of such a ,messiah is to the ,old ,testament1 the disciples1 who wished to find it there1 must nevertheless have regarded as intimations of this kind1 all those poetical and prophetic passages which1 like ,isa4 liii41 ,ps4 xxii41 represented the man of ,god as afflicted and bowed down even to death4 ,thus ,luke states as the chief occupation of the risen ,jesus in his interview with the disciples1 that beginning at ,moses and all the prophets1 he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself1 i4e4 that ,christ ought to have suffered such things 7xxiv4 #bf f41 #dd ff474 ,when they had in this manner received into their messianic idea ignominy1 suffering and death1 the ignominiously executed ,jesus was not lost1 but still remained to them3 by his death he had only entered into his messianic glory 7,luke xxiv4 #bf7 in which he was invisibly with them always1 even unto the end of the world 7,matt4 xxviii4 #bj74 ,but how could he fail1 out of this glory1 in which he lived1 to give tidings of himself to his followers8 and how could they1 when their mind was opened to the hitherto hidden doctrine of a dying ,messiah contained in the scriptures1 and when in moments of unwonted inspiration their hearts burned within them 7,luke xxiv4 #cb71--;how could they avoid conceiving this to be an influence shed on them by their glorified ,christ1 an opening of their understanding by him 7v4 #de71 nay1 an actual conversing with him8 #baeg ,lastly1 how conceivable is it that in individuals1 especially women1 these impressions were heightened1 in a purely subjective manner1 into actual vision2 that on others1 even on whole assemblies1 something or other of an objective nature1 visible or audible1 sometimes perhaps the sight of an unknown person1 created the impression of a revelation or appearance of ,jesus3 a height of pious enthusiasm which is wont to appear elsewhere in religious societies peculiarly oppressed and persecuted4 ,but if the crucified ,messiah had truly entered into the highest form of blessed existence1 he ought not to have left his body in the grave3 and if in precisely such ,old ,testament passages as admitted of a typical relation to the sufferings of the ,messiah1 there was at the same time expressed the hope3 thou wilt not leave my soul in hell1 neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption 7,ps4 xvi4 #aj2 ,acts ii4 #bg72 while in ,isa4 liii4 #aj1 he who had been represented as led to the slaughter and buried1 was yet promised a prolongation of his days3 what was more natural to the disciples than to reinstate their earlier ,jewish ideas1 which the death of ,jesus had disturbed1 namely1 that the ,christ remaineth for ever 7,john xii4 #cd71 through the medium of an actual revivification of their dead master1 and1 as it was a messianic attribute one day to call the dead bodily from the grave1 to imagine also as returning to life in the manner of a resurrection8 ,meanwhile1 if the body of ,jesus was interred in a known place1 and could there 7so far as we are not at liberty to suppose a theft1 or an accidental removal7 be sought for and exhibited3 it is difficult to conceive how the disciples in ,jerusalem itself1 and not quite two days after the interment1 could believe and declare that ,jesus was risen1 without refuting themselves1 or meeting with refutation from their adversaries1 7to whom however they appear to have made the first disclosure as to the resurrection of their ,messiah at ,pentecost17 by ocular demonstration at the grave4 #baeh ,now it is here that the narrative of the first gospel1 which has been unjustly placed below the others1 presents an explanatory and satisfactory indication4 ,according to this gospel also the risen ,jesus does indeed appear in ,jerusalem1 but only to the women1 and so entirely as a mere preparation for a succeeding interview1 nay1 so superfluously1 that we have already questioned the truth of this appearance1 and pronounced it to be a later modification of the legend of the angelic appearance1 which ,matthew nevertheless also included in his narrative4 #baei ,the sole important appearance of ,jesus after the resurrection occurs1 according to ,matthew1 in ,galilee1 whither an angel1 and ,jesus himself on the last evening of his life and on the morning of the resurrection1 most urgently directed his disciples1 and where the fourth gospel also1 in its appendix1 places an appearance of the resuscitated ,jesus4 ,that the disciples1 dispersed by their alarm1 at the execution of their ,messiah1 should return to their home in ,galilee1 where they had no need1 as in the metropolis of ,judea1 the seat of the enemies of their crucified ,christ1 to shut the doors for fear of the ,jews1 was natural4 ,here was the place where they gradually began to breathe freely1 and where their faith in ,jesus1 which had been temporarily depressed1 might once more expand with its former vigour4 ,but here also1 where no body lay in the grave to contradict bold suppositions1 might gradually be formed the idea of the resurrection of ,jesus2 and when this conviction had so elevated the courage and enthusiasm of his adherents that they ventured to proclaim it in the metropolis1 it was no longer possible by the sight of the body of ,jesus either to convict themselves1 or to be convicted by others4 ,according to the ,acts1 it is true1 the disciples so early as on the next ,pentecost1 seven weeks after the death of ,jesus1 appeared in ,jerusalem with the announcement of his resurrection1 and were themselves already convinced of it on the second morning after his burial1 by appearances which they witnessed4 ,but how long will it yet be1 until the manner in which the author of the ,acts places the first appearance of the disciples of ,jesus with the announcement of the new doctrine1 precisely on the festival of the announcement of the old law1 be recognized as one which rests purely on dogmatical grounds2 which is therefore historically worthless1 and in no way binds us to assign so short a duration to that time of quiet preparation in ,galilee8 ,as regards the other statement--it might certainly require some time for the mental state of the disciples to become exalted in the degree necessary1 before this or that individual amongst them could1 purely as an operation of his own mind1 make present to himself the risen ,christ in a visionary manner2 or before whole assemblies1 in moments of highly wrought enthusiasm1 could believe that they heard him in every impressive sound1 or saw him in every striking appearance3 but it would nevertheless be conceived1 that1 as it was not possible that he should be held by the bonds of death 7,acts ii4 #bd71 he had passed only a short time in the grave4 ,as to the more precise determination of this interval1 if it be held an insufficient explanation1 that the sacred number three would be the first to suggest itself2 there is a further idea which might occur1--whether or not it be historical that ,jesus was buried on the evening before a sabbath1--namely1 that he only remained in the grave during the rest of the sabbath1 and thus rose on the morning after the sabbath which by the known mode of reckoning might be reconciled with the round number of three days4 #bafj ,when once the idea of a resurrection of ,jesus had been formed in this manner1 the great event could not be allowed to have happened so simply1 but must be surrounded and embellished with all the pomp which the ,jewish imagination furnished4 ,the chief ornaments which stood at command for this purpose1 were angels3 hence these must open the grave of ,jesus1 must1 after he had come forth from it1 keep watch in the empty place1 and deliver to the women1 who 7because without doubt women had had the first visions7 must be the first to go to the grave1 the tidings of what had happened4 ,as it was ,galilee where ,jesus subsequently appeared to them1 the journey of the disciples thither1 which was nothing else than their return home1 somewhat hastened by fear1 was derived from the direction of an angel2 nay1 ,jesus himself must already before his death1 and1 as ,matthew too zealously adds1 once more after the resurrection also1 have enjoined this journey on the disciples4 ,but the further these narratives were propagated by tradition1 the more must the difference between the locality of the resurrection itself and the appearances of the risen one1 be allowed to fall out of sight as inconvenient2 and since the locality of the death and resurrection was not transferable1 the appearances were gradually placed in the same locality as the resurrection1--in ,jerusalem1 which as the more brilliant theatre and the seat of the first ,christian ,church1 was especially appropriate for them4 #bafa ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,ascension4 #ada4 ,,the ,,last ,,commands ,,and ,,promises ,,of ,,jesus4 ,in the last interview of ,jesus with his disciples1 which according to ,mark and ,luke closed with the ascension1 the three first ,evangelists 7the fourth has something similar on the very first interview7 represent ,jesus as delivering testamentary commands and promises1 which referred to the establishment and propagation of the messianic kingdom on earth4 ,with regard to the commands1 ,jesus in ,luke 7xxiv4 #dg f42 ,acts i4 #h7 in parting from his disciples appoints them to be witnesses of his messiahship1 and charges them to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name from ,jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth4 ,in ,mark 7xvi4 #ae f47 he enjoins them to go into all the world and bring to every creature the glad tidings of the messianic kingdom founded by him2 he who believes and is baptized will be saved1 he who believeth not1 will 7in the future messianic judgment7 be condemned4 ,in ,matthew 7xxviii4 #ai f47 the disciples are also commissioned to make disciples of all nations 1 and here baptism is not mentioned incidentally merely1 as in ,mark1 but is made the subject of an express command by ,jesus1 and is besides more precisely described as a baptism in the name of the ,father1 of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 4 ,the impediments to the supposition that ,jesus delivered to his disciples the express command to carry the announcement of the gospel to the ,gentiles1 have been already pointed out in an earlier connexion4 #bafb ,but that this more definite form of baptism proceeded from ,jesus1 is also opposed by the fact1 that such an allocation of ,father1 ,son1 and ,spirit does not elsewhere appear1 except as a form of salutation in apostolic epistles 7#b ,cor4 xiii4 #ad3 the grace of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 etc472 while as a more definite form of baptism it is not to be met with throughout the whole ,new ,testament save in the above passage of the first gospel3 for in the apostolic epistles and even in the ,acts1 baptism is designated as a 1 or baptising in ,christ ,jesus1 or in the name of the ,lord ,jesus1 or their equivalent 7,rom4 vi4 #c2 ,gal4 iii4 #bg2 ,acts ii4 #ch1 viii4 #af1 x4 #dh1 xix4 #e71 and the same threefold reference to ,god1 ,jesus1 and the ,holy ,spirit is only found in ecclesiastical writers1 as1 for example1 ,justin4 #bafc ,indeed the formula in ,matthew sounds so exactly as if it had been borrowed from the ecclesiastical ritual1 that there is no slight probability in the supposition that it was transferred from thence into the mouth of ,jesus4 ,but this does not authorize us to throw the passage out of the text as an interpolation1 #bafd since1 if everything in the gospels which cannot have happened to ,jesus1 or which cannot have been done or spoken by him in the manner there described1 were to be pronounced foreign to the original text1 the interpolations would soon become too numerous4 ,so far it is with justice that others have defended the genuineness of the baptismal formula2 #bafe but their grounds for the assertion that it was delivered in this manner by ,jesus himself are insufficient3 the two opinions then resolve themselves into a third1 namely1 that this more definite form of baptism does indeed belong to the original context of the first gospel1 but without having been so delivered by ,jesus4 #baff ,jesus had1 during his life1 predicted in divers ways the propagation of his kingdom beyond the limits of the ,jewish nation1 perhaps also had intimated the introduction of baptism to be his will2 and--whether it be the fact that1 as we learn in the fourth gospel1 the disciples already practised baptism in the lifetime of ,jesus1 or that they first made this rite a sign of reception into the new messianic society after his death1--in any case it was entirely in the manner of the legend to place the injunction to baptize1 as well as to go out into all the world1 in the mouth of the departing ,christ as a last declaration of his will4 ,the promises which ,jesus gives to his adherents in parting from them1 are in ,matthew1 where they are directed exclusively to the eleven1 limited simply to the assurance that he1 to whom as the exalted ,messiah all power was delivered both in heaven and on earth1 would be invisibly with them during the present age1 1 until at the consummation of this term1 he should enter into permanent visible communion with them3 precisely the expression of the belief which was formed in the first ,christian community1 when the equilibrium was recovered after the oscillations caused by the death of ,jesus4--,in ,mark1 the last promises of ,jesus seem to be gathered from the popular opinion concerning the gifts of the ,christians1 which was current at the period of the composition of this gospel4 ,of the signs1 1 which are here promised to believers in general1 the speaking with 7new7 tongues1 77 in the sense intended #a ,cor4 xiv41 not in the manner described in ,acts ii4 which is a mythical modification1 #bafg actually appeared in the primitive church2 as also the casting out of devils 2 and it may even be conceived that sick persons were cured in a natural manner by faith in the laying on of hands1 by a ,christian3 on the contrary the taking up of serpents 7comp4 ,luke x4 #ai7 and the power of drinking poisons with impunity1 have never had any existence except in the superstitious belief of the vulgar1 and such signs of discipleship would have been the last to which ,jesus would have attached any value4--,in ,luke1 the object of the last promise of ,jesus is the power from on high 1 which according to the promise of the ,father1 1 he would send on the apostles1 and the impartation of which they were to await in ,jerusalem 7xxiv4 #di72 and in ,acts i4 #e ff4 ,jesus more precisely designates this impartation of power as a baptism with the ,holy ,spirit1 1 which in a few days would be granted to the disciples in order to qualify them for the announcement of the gospel4 ,these passages of ,luke1 which place the impartation of the ,holy ,spirit in the days after the ascension1 seem to be in contradiction with the statement of the fourth gospel1 that ,jesus communicated the ,holy ,spirit to his disciples in the days of his resurrection1 nay1 on his very first appearance in the circle of the eleven4 ,in ,john xx4 #bb f4 we read1 that ,jesus1 appearing among the disciples when the doors were closed1 breathed on them and said3 ,receive ye the ,holy ,ghost1 1 wherewith he connected the authority to remit and retain sins4 ,if this were the only passage relating to the impartation of the ,spirit1 every one would believe that the disciples had it communicated to them by ,jesus when he was personally present among them1 and not first after his exaltation to heaven4 ,but in accordance with the harmonizing interest1 it has been concluded1 first by ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 and recently by ,tholuck1 #bafh that the word 1 receive1 in ,john1 must be taken in the sense of 1 ye shall receive1 because according to ,luke the ,holy ,spirit was not imparted to the disciples until later1 at ,pentecost4 ,but as if he wished to preclude such a wresting of his words1 the ,jesus of ,john adds to them the symbolical action of breathing on the disciples1 which unmistakably represents the receiving of the ,holy ,spirit as a present fact4 #bafi ,it is true that expositors have found out a way of eluding even this act of breathing1 by attributing to it the following signification3 as certainly as ,jesus now breathes upon them1 so certainly will they at a future time receive the ,holy ,ghost4 #bagj ,but the act of breathing upon a person is as decided a symbol of a present impartation as the laying on of hands1 and as those on whom the apostles laid their hands were immediately filled with the ,spirit 7,acts viii4 #ag1 xix4 #f71 so1 according to the above narrative1 the author of the fourth gospel must have thought that the ,apostles on that occasion received the ,spirit from ,jesus4 ,in order to avoid the necessity of denying1 in opposition to the clear meaning of ,john1 that an impartation of the ,spirit actually took place immediately after the resurrection1 or of coming into contradiction with ,luke1 who assigns the outpouring of the ,spirit to a later period1 expositors now ordinarily suppose that the ,spirit was granted to the ,apostles both at the earlier and the later period1 the impartation at ,pentecost being only an increasing and perfecting of the former4 #baga ,or more correctly1 since ,matthew x4 #bj speaks of the ,spirit of the ,father as already sustaining the disciples in their first mission3 it is supposed that they were first endowed with some extraordinary power before that mission1 in the lifetime of ,jesus2 that on the occasion in question1 shortly after his resurrection1 he heightened this power2 but that all the fulness of the ,spirit was not poured out upon them until ,pentecost4 #bagb ,what constitutes the distinction between these steps1 and especially in what the increase of the gifts of the ,spirit consisted in the present instance1 is1 however1 as ,michaelis has already remarked1 not easy to discern4 ,if in the first instance the apostles were endowed with the power of working miracles 7,matt4 x4 #a1 #h7 together with the gift of speaking freely 7par7r7si_/a7 before tribunals 7v4 #bj71 it could only be a more correct insight into the spirituality of his kingdom that ,jesus communicated to them by breathing on them2 but of this they were still destitute immediately before the ascension1 when1 according to ,acts i4 #f1 they asked whether1 with the impartation of the ,spirit1 within the next few days1 would be associated the restoration of the kingdom to ,israel4 ,if however it be supposed that each successive impartation of the ,spirit conferred no new powers on the disciples1 but was merely an addition in measure to that which was already present in all its diversified powers3 #bagc it must still be held surprising that no ,evangelist mentions1 together with an earlier impartation1 a later amplification2 but instead of this1 besides an incidental mention of the ,spirit as enabling the disciples to defend themselves before tribunals1 in ,luke 7xii4 #ab71--which1 since it is not here1 as in ,matthew1 connected with a mission1 may be regarded merely as a reference to the time after the later outpouring of the ,spirit1--each of the ,evangelists mentions only one impartation1 and represents this as the first and last4 ,this is1 indeed1 a clear proof that1 to place in juxtaposition three impartations and to regard them as so many different degrees1 is only an effort to harmonize the gospels by introducing into them what is foreign to the text4 ,thus there are in the ,new ,testament three distinct opinions concerning the impartation of the ,spirit to the disciples of ,jesus2 and in two respects they form a climax4 ,as regards the time1 ,matthew places the impartation the earliest--within the period of the natural life of ,jesus2 ,luke1 the latest--in the time after his complete departure from the earth2 ,john in an intermediate position--in the days of the resurrection4 ,as regards the conception of the fact1 it is the simplest in ,matthew1 the least perceptible to the senses1 for he has no special and external act of impartation2 ,john already has such a feature1 in the act of breathing on the disciples2 while with ,luke1 in the ,acts1 the gentle breathing has become a violent storm1 which shakes the house1 and with which other miraculous appearances are united4 ,these two series of gradations stand in opposite relations to historical probability4 ,that the ,spirit 1 which1 whether it be regarded as natural or as supernatural1 is in either case the animating power of the messianic idea in its ,christian modification1 was communicated to the adherents of ,jesus so early as ,matthew narrates1 is contradicted by his own representation1 for according to him1 that ,christian modification--the introduction of the characteristics of suffering and death into the idea of the ,messiah1--was not comprehended by the disciples long after the mission described in ,matt4 x42 and as the discourse of instructions there given contains other particulars also1 which will only suit later times and circumstances3 it is easy to imagine that the promise in question may have been erroneously referred to that earlier period4 ,only after the death and resurrection of ,jesus can we conceive what the ,new ,testament calls the to have been developed in the disciples1 and in so far the representation of ,john stands nearer to reality than that of ,matthew2 but1 as certainly the revolution in the sentiments of the disciples described in the foregoing section1 had not taken place so early as two days after the crucifixion3 the account of ,john does not approach so near to the truth as that of ,luke1 who allows an interval of at least fifty days for the formation of the new opinions in the disciples4 ,the position of the narratives with respect to historical truth is reversed by the other climax4 ,for in proportion as a narrative represents the impartation of a spiritual power as perceptible to the senses1 the formation of a sentiment which might spring from natural causes as miraculous1 the origin of a faculty which can only have been developed gradually1 as instantaneous3 in the same proportion does such a narrative diverge from the truth2 and in this respect1 ,matthew would stand at the least distance from the truth1 ,luke at the greatest4 ,if we therefore recognise in the representation of the latter the most mature product of tradition1 it may be wondered how tradition can have wrought in two opposite ways3 receding from the truth in relation to the determination of the manner and form of the impartation1 approaching the truth in relation to the determination of the time4 ,but this is explained as soon as it is considered1 that in the changes in the determination of the time1 tradition was not guided by critical inquiry after truth--this might well have caused surprise1--but by the same tendency that led to the other alteration1 namely1 to present the impartation of the ,spirit as a single miraculous act4 ,if ,jesus was said to have shed the ,spirit on his disciples by a special act3 it must seem appropriate to assign this act to his state of glorification1 and thus either with ,john to place it after the resurrection1 or with ,luke after the ascension2 indeed the fourth ,evangelist expressly remarks that in the lifetime of ,jesus1 the ,spirit was not yet given1 because ,jesus was not yet glorified 7vii4 #ci74 ,this interpretation of the opinion of the fourth ,evangelist concerning the impartation of the ,spirit to the disciples1 is attested as the correct one by the fact1 that it throws unexpected light on an obscurity in his gospel with respect to which we were previously unable to come to a decision4 ,in relation to the farewell discourses of ,jesus1 it was not possible to settle the dispute1 whether what ,jesus there says of his return is to be referred to the days of his resurrection1 or to the outpouring of the ,spirit1 because the description of that return as a seeing again seemed to speak as decidedly for the former1 as the observation that in that time they would no longer ask him anything1 and would understand him fully1 for the latter3 a dispute which is decided in the most welcome manner1 if it can be shown to be the opinion of the narrator that the impartation of the ,spirit fell in the days of the resurrection4 #bagd ,at first indeed it might be thought1 that this impartation1 especially as in ,john it is connected with the formal appointment of his disciples as his envoys1 and the communication of the authority to remit and retain sins 7comp4 ,matt4 xviii4 #ah71 would have been more appropriate at the close than the commencement of the appearances of the risen ,jesus1 and in a full assembly of the ,apostles than in one from which ,thomas was absent2 but on this account to suppose with ,olshausen that the ,evangelist for the sake of brevity merely appends the impartation of the ,spirit to the first appearance1 though it really belonged to a later interview1 is an inadmissible violence2 and we must rather allow1 that the author of the fourth gospel regarded this first appearance of ,jesus as the principal one1 and the one eight days later as merely supernumerary in favour of ,thomas4 ,the appearance chap4 xxi4 is also a supplement1 which the author1 when he wrote his gospel1 either had not known1 or at least did not recollect4 #adb4 ,,the ,,so-,,called ,,ascension ,,considered ,,as ,a ,,supernatural ,,and ,,as ,a ,,natural ,,event4 ,the ascension of ,jesus is reported to us in the ,new ,testament in three different narratives1 which in point of fulness of detail and picturesqueness of description form a progressive series4 ,mark1 who in the last portion of his gospel is in general very brief and abrupt1 only says1 that after ,jesus had spoken to the disciples for the last time1 he was received up 77 into heaven and sat on the right hand of ,god 7xvi4 #ai74 ,with scarcely more definiteness it is said in the gospel of ,luke that ,jesus led his disciples out as far as ,bethany1 1 and while he here with uplifted hands gave them his blessing1 he was parted from them 771 and carried up into heaven 772 whereupon the disciples fell down and worshipped him1 and forthwith returned to ,jerusalem with great joy 7xxiv4 #ej ff474 ,in the introduction to the ,acts1 ,luke gives more ample details concerning this scene4 ,on the mount of ,olives1 where ,jesus delivered to his disciples his last commands and promises1 he was taken up before their eyes 771 and a cloud received him out of their sight4 ,while the disciples were watching him1 as he went up into heaven on the cloud1 there suddenly stood by them two men in white apparel1 who induced them to desist from thus gazing after him by the assurance1 that the ,jesus now taken from them would come again from heaven in the same manner as he had just ascended into heaven2 on which they were satisfied1 and returned to ,jerusalem 7i4 #a-ab74 ,the first impression from this narrative is clearly this3 that it is intended as a description of a miraculous event1 an actual exaltation of ,jesus into heaven1 as the dwelling-place of ,god1 and an attestation of this by angels2 as orthodox theologians1 both ancient and modern1 correctly maintain4 ,the only question is1 whether they can also help us to surmount the difficulties which stand in our way when we attempt to form a conception of such an event8 ,one main difficulty is this3 how can a palpable body1 which has still flesh and bones1 and eats material food1 be qualified for a celestial abode8 how can it so far liberate itself from the laws of gravity1 as to be capable of an ascent through the air8 and how can it be conceived that ,god gave so preternatural a capability to ,jesus by a miracle8 #bage ,the only possible reply to these questions is1 that the grosser elements which the body of ,jesus still retained after the resurrection1 were removed before the ascension1 and only the finest essence of his corporeality1 as the integument of the soul1 was taken by him into heaven4 #bagf ,but as the disciples who were present at the ascension observed no residuum of his body which he had left behind1 this leads either to the above mentioned absurdity of an evaporation of the body of ,jesus1 or to ,olshausen's process of subtilization which1 still incomplete even after the resurrection1 was not perfected until the moment of the ascension2 a process which must have been conducted with singularly rapid retrograde transitions in these last days1 if the body of ,jesus1 when penetrating into the closed room where the disciples were assembled1 is to be supposed immaterial2 immediately after when ,thomas touched him1 material2 and lastly1 in the ascension1 again immaterial4 ,the other difficulty lies in the consideration1 that according to a just idea of the world1 the seat of ,god and of the blessed1 to which ,jesus is supposed to have been exalted1 is not to be sought for in the upper regions of the air1 nor1 in general1 in any determinate place2--such a locality could only be assigned to it in the childish1 limited conceptions of antiquity4 ,we are well aware that he who would attain to ,god and the circle of the blessed would make a superfluous circuit1 if he thought it necessary for this purpose to soar aloft into the higher regions of the firmament2 and the more intimately ,jesus was acquainted with ,god and divine things1 the farther certainly would he be from making such a circuit1 or from being caused to make it by ,god4 #bagg ,thus there would be no other resource than to suppose a divine accommodation to the idea of the world in that age1 and to say3 ,god in order to convince the disciples of the return of ,jesus into the higher world1 although this world is in reality by no means to be sought for in the upper air1 nevertheless prepared the spectacle of such an exaltation4 #bagh ,but this is to represent ,god as theatrically arranging an illusion4 ,as an attempt to set us free from such difficulties and absurdities1 the natural explanation of this narrative must needs be welcome4 #bagi ,this distinguishes in the evangelical accounts of the ascension1 what was actually beheld1 and what was inferred by reasoning4 ,certainly1 when it is said in the ,acts3 while they beheld1 he was taken up1 3 the exaltation to heaven seems here to be represented as a fact actually witnessed4 ,but the ,rationalists tell us that we are not to understand 1 as signifying an elevation above the earth1 but only that ,jesus1 in order to bless the disciples1 drew up his form and thus appeared more elevated to them4 ,they then bring forward the word 1 he was parted from them1 in the conclusion of ,luke's gospel1 and interpret it to mean that ,jesus in taking leave of his disciples removed himself farther from them4 ,hereupon1 they continue1 in the same way as on the mount of ,transfiguration1 a cloud was interposed between ,jesus and the disciples1 and together with the numerous olive-trees on the mount1 concealed him from their sight2 a result which1 on the assurance of two unknown men1 they regarded as a reception of ,jesus into heaven4 ,but1 when ,luke in the ,acts immediately connects with the statement1 and a cloud received him1 3 he implies that the taking up was an introduction to the being received by the cloud2 which it would not be if it were a mere drawing up of the body1 but only if it were an exaltation of ,jesus above the earth1 since only in this case could a cloud float under1 carry1 and envelop him1 which is the idea expressed by 4 ,again1 in the ,gospel of ,luke1 the fact that he was parted from them is represented as something which took place while he blessed them1 2 now no one when pronouncing a benediction on another1 will remove from him3 whereas it appears very suitable1 that ,jesus while communicating his blessing to the disciples should be carried upward1 and thus1 while rising1 have continued to extend over them his outstretched hand as a symbol of his blessing4 ,thus the natural explanation of the disappearance in the cloud falls to the ground of itself2 while in the supposition that the two individuals clothed in white apparel were natural men1 ,paulus only disguises a final and strongly marked essay of the opinion espoused by ,bahrdt and ,venturini1 that several epochs in the life of ,jesus1 especially after his crucifixion1 were brought about by the agency of secret colleagues4 ,and ,jesus himself--what1 according to this opinion1 must we suppose to have become of him after this last separation from his disciples8 ,shall we1 with ,bahrdt1 dream of an ,essene lodge1 into which he retired after the completion of his work8 and with ,brennecke appeal1 in proof that ,jesus long continued silently to work for the welfare of mankind1 to his appearance for the purpose of the conversion of ,paul8 ,but1 taking the narrative of the ,acts as historical1 this was connected with circumstances and effects which could be produced by no natural man1 even though a member of a secret order4 ,or shall we with ,paulus suppose1 that shortly after the last interview the body of ,jesus sank beneath the injuries it had received8 ,this could not well have happened in the very next moments after he had appeared still active among his disciples1 so that the two men who joined them might have been witnesses of his decease1--who1 even admitting this1 would not have spoken in accordance with the truth2 but if he continued to live for any length of time he must have had the intention to remain for that period in the concealment of a secret society2 and to this must then be supposed to belong the two men clothed in white1 who1 doubtless with his previous sanction1 persuaded the disciples that he had ascended into heaven4 #bahj ,but this is a mode of representation1 from which in this instance as in every other1 a sound judgment must turn away with aversion4 #adc4 ,,insufficiency ,,of ,,the ,,narratives ,,of ,,the ,,ascension4 ,,mythical ,,conception ,,of ,,those ,,narratives4 ,among all the ,new ,testament histories of miracles1 the ascension least demanded such an expenditure of perverted acumen1 since the attestations to its historical validity are peculiarly weak1--not only to us who1 having no risen ,jesus1 can consequently have no ascended one1 but apart from all prior conclusions and in every point of view4 ,matthew and ,john1 who according to the common idea were the two eyewitnesses among the ,evangelists1 do not mention it2 it is narrated by ,mark and ,luke alone1 while in the rest of the ,new ,testament writings decided allusions to it are wanting4 ,but this absence of allusions to the ascension in the rest of the ,new ,testament is denied by orthodox expositors4 ,when1 say they1 ,jesus in ,matthew 7xxvi4 #fd71 declares before the high priest1 that hereafter the ,son of ,man will be seen sitting at the right hand of ,god3 this presupposes an exaltation thither1 consequently an ascension2 when in ,john 7iii4 #ac71 he says1 no one hath ascended into heaven but the ,son of ,man who came from heaven1 and at another time 7vi4 #fb7 tells the disciples that they will hereafter see him ascend where he was before2 further1 when on the morning of the resurrection he declares that he is not yet ascended to his ,father1 implying that he is about to do so 7xx4 #ag73 there could hardly be more explicit allusions to the ascension2 again1 when the apostles in the ,acts so often speak of an exaltation of ,jesus to the right hand of ,god 7ii4 #cc1 v4 #ca1 comp4 vii4 #ef71 and ,paul represents him as ascended up far above all heavens 7,ephes4 iv4 #aj71 ,peter1 as gone into heaven 7#a ,pet4 iii4 #bb73 there can be no doubt that they all knew of his ascension4 #baha ,all these passages1 however1 with the exception perhaps of ,john vi4 #fb1 where a ,,seeing the ,son of ,man ascend1 1 is spoken of1 contain only in general his exaltation to heaven1 without intimating that it was an external1 visible fact1 that took place in the presence of the disciples4 ,rather1 when we find ,paul in #a ,cor4 xv4 #e ff4 ranking the appearance of ,jesus to himself1 which occurred long after the alleged ascension1 with the ,christophanies before this epoch1 so entirely without any pause or indication of a distinction3 we must doubt1 not merely that all the appearances which he enumerates besides his own can have occurred before the ascension1 #bahb but whether the ,apostle can have had any knowledge at all of an ascension as an external fact which closed the earthly life of ,jesus4 ,as to the author of the fourth gospel1--in his metaphorical language1 we are not compelled by the word 1 any more than by the in relation to the angels ascending and descending upon ,jesus1 i4 #eb1 to ascribe to him a knowledge of the visible ascension of ,jesus1 of which he gives no intimation at the conclusion of his gospel4 ,commentators have1 it is true1 taken all possible pains to explain the want of a narrative of the ascension in the first and fourth gospels1 in a way which may not prove inimical either to the authority of the writings1 or to the historical value of the fact4 ,they maintain that the ,evangelists who are silent on the subject1 held it either unnecessary1 or impossible1 to narrate the ascension4 ,they held it unnecessary1 say these expositors1 either intrinsically1 from the minor importance of the event2 #bahc or extrinsically1 on the consideration that it was generally known as a part of the evangelical tradition2 #bahd ,john in particular supposed it to be known from ,mark and ,luke2 #bahe or lastly1 both ,matthew and ,john omitted it as not belonging to the earthly life of ,jesus1 to the description of which their writings were exclusively devoted4 #bahf ,but we must contend1 on the contrary1 that the life of ,jesus1 especially that enigmatical life which he led after his return from the grave1 absolutely required such a close as the ascension4 ,whether it were generally known or not1 whether it were important or unimportant1--the simple sthetic interest which dictates even to an uncultivated author1 that a narrative should be wound up with a conclusion1 must have led every evangelical writer who knew of the ascension to mention it1 though it were but summarily at the end of his history1 in order to avoid the strange impression left by the first gospel and still more by the fourth1 as narratives losing themselves in vague obscurity4 ,hence our apologists resort to the supposition that the first and fourth ,evangelists held it impossible to give an account of the ascension of ,jesus1 because the eyewitnesses1 however long they might gaze after him1 could still only see him hovering in the air and encircled by the cloud1 not entering heaven and taking his place on the right hand of ,god4 #bahg ,but in the ideas of the ancient world1 to which heaven was nearer than to us1 an entrance into the clouds was in itself a real ascent into heaven1 as we see from the stories of ,romulus and ,elijah4 ,thus it is undeniable that the above ,evangelists were ignorant of the ascension3 but the conclusion of the most recent criticism1 that this ignorance is a reproach to the first ,evangelist as a sign of his unapostolic character1 #bahh is the less in place here1 because the event in question is rendered suspicious not merely by the silence of two ,evangelists1 but also by the want of agreement between those who narrate it4 ,mark is at variance with ,luke1 nay1 ,luke is at variance with himself4 ,in the account of the former1 it appears as if ,jesus had ascended into heaven immediately from the meal in which he appeared to the eleven1 consequently from out of a house in ,jerusalem2 for the phrases3 he appeared with the eleven as they sat at meat1 and upbraided them--and he said--,so then after the ,lord had spoken unto them he was received up into heaven1 etc41 -- -- -- 1 1 444 have an immediate dependence on each other1 and it is only by violence that a change of place or a distinction of time can be introduced4 #bahi ,now an ascent into heaven directly out of a room is certainly not easy to imagine2 hence ,luke represents it as taking place in the open air4 ,in his gospel he makes ,jesus immediately before his ascension1 lead out his disciples as far as ,bethany 1 but in the ,acts he places the scene on the mount called ,olivet 2 this1 however1 cannot be imputed to him as a contradiction1 since ,bethany lay in the neighbourhood of the mount of ,olives4 #baij ,but there is a more important divergency in his statement of time2 for in his gospel1 as in ,mark1 we are left to infer that the ascension took place on the same day with the resurrection3 whereas in the ,acts it is expressly remarked1 that the two events were separated by an interval of forty days4 ,it has already been remarked that the latter determination of time must have come to the knowledge of ,luke in the interim between the composition of the gospel and that of the ,acts4 ,the more numerous the narratives of appearances of the risen ,jesus1 and the more various the places to which they were assigned3 the less would the short space of a day suffice for his life on earth after the resurrection2 while the determination of the lengthened period which had become necessary to forty days precisely1 had its foundation in the part which this number is known to have played in the ,jewish1 and already in the ,christian legend4 ,the people of ,israel were forty years in the wilderness2 ,moses was forty days on mount ,sinai2 he and ,elias fasted forty days2 and ,jesus himself previous to the temptation remained the same length of time without nourishment in the wilderness4 ,as1 then1 all these mysterious intermediate states and periods of transition were determined by the number forty3 this number presented itself as especially appropriate for the determination of the mysterious interval between the resurrection and ascension of ,jesus4 #baia ,as regards the description of the event itself1 it might be thought admissible to ascribe the silence of ,mark1 and of ,luke in his gospel1 concerning the cloud and the angels1 purely to the brevity of their narratives2 but since ,luke at the close of his gospel narrates circumstantially enough the conduct of the disciples--how they fell down and worshipped the ascended ,jesus1 and returned to the city with great joy3 so he would doubtless have pointed out the information communicated to them by angels as the immediate source of their joy1 had he known anything of such a particular at the time when he composed his first writing4 ,hence this feature seems rather to have been gradually formed in tradition1 in order to render due honour to this last point also in the life of ,jesus1 and to present a confirmation of the insufficient testimony of men as to his exaltation into heaven by the mouth of two heavenly witnesses4 ,as1 according to this1 those who knew of an ascension of ,jesus1 had by no means the same idea of its particular circumstances3 there must have been in general two different modes of conceiving the close of the life of ,jesus2 some regarding it as a visible ascension1 others not so4 #baib ,when ,matthew makes ,jesus before the tribunal of the high priest predict his exaltation to the right hand of the divine power 7xxvi4 #fd71 and after his resurrection declare that now all power is given to him in heaven and earth 7xxviii4 #ah72 and nevertheless has nothing of a visible ascension1 but on the contrary puts into the mouth of ,jesus the assurance3 ,i am with you alway1 even unto the end of the world1 ' 7v4 #bj73 it is evident that the latent idea1 on which his representation is founded1 is that ,jesus1 doubtless immediately on his resurrection1 ascended invisibly to the ,father1 though at the same time remaining invisibly with his followers2 and that out of this concealment he1 as often as he found it expedient1 revealed himself in ,christophanies4 ,the same view is to be discerned in the ,apostle ,paul1 when in #a ,cor4 xv4 he undistinguishingly places the appearance to himself of the ,christ already ascended into heaven1 in one series with the earlier ,christophanies2 and also the author of the fourth gospel and the rest of the ,new ,testament writers only presuppose what must necessarily be presupposed according to the messianic passage3 ,sit thou at my right hand1 ,ps4 cx4 #a3 that ,jesus was exalted to the right hand of ,god2 without deciding anything as to the manner of the exaltation1 or representing to themselves the ascension as a visible one4 ,the imagination of the primitive ,christians must however have felt a strong temptation to depict this exaltation as a brilliant spectacle4 ,when it was once concluded that the ,messiah ,jesus had arrived at so exalted a position1 it would appear desirable to gaze after him1 as it were1 on his way thither4 ,if it was expected1 in accordance with the prophecy of ,daniel1 that his future return from heaven would be a visible descent in the clouds3 this would naturally suggest that his departure to heaven should be represented as a visible ascent on a cloud2 and when ,luke makes the two white-apparelled angels1 who joined the disciples after the removal of ,jesus1 say3 this same ,jesus1 who is taken up from you into heaven1 shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven 7,acts i4 #aa73 we need only take the converse of this declaration in order to have before us the genesis of the conception of the ascension of ,jesus2 for the mode of conclusion was this3 as ,jesus will at some future time return from heaven in the clouds1 so he must surely have departed thither #baic in the same manner4 ,compared with these primary incentives1 the ,old ,testament precedents which the ascension of ,jesus has in the translation of ,enoch 7,gen4 v4 #bd2 comp4 ,wis4 xliv4 #af1 xlix4 #af2 ,heb4 xi4 #e71 and especially in the ascension of ,elijah 7#b ,kings ii4 #aa2 comp4 ,wis4 xlviii4 #i2 #a ,macc4 ii4 #eh71 together with the ,grecian and ,roman apotheoses of ,hercules and ,romulus1 recede into the background4 ,apart from the question whether the latter were known to the second and third ,evangelists2 the statement relative to ,enoch is too vague2 while the chariot and horses of fire that transported ,elijah were not adapted to the milder spirit of ,christ4 ,instead of this the enveloping cloud and the removal while holding a farewell conversation1 may appear to have been borrowed from the later representation of the removal of ,moses1 which however in other particulars has considerable divergencies from that of ,jesus4 #baid ,perhaps also one trait in the narrative of the ,acts may be explained out of the history of ,elijah4 ,when this prophet1 before his translation1 is entreated by his servant ,elisha that he will bequeath him a double measure of his spirit3 ,elijah attaches to the concession of this boon the condition3 if thou see me when ,i am taken from thee1 it shall be so unto thee2 but if not1 it shall not be so2 whence we might perhaps gather the reason why ,luke 7,acts i4 #i7 lays stress on the fact that the disciples beheld ,jesus as he went up 7 73 namely1 because1 according to the narrative concerning ,elijah1 this was necessary1 if the disciples were to receive the spirit of their master4 ,,concluding ,,dissertation4 ,,the ,,dogmatic ,,import ,,of ,,the ,,life ,,of ,,jesus4 #add4 ,,necessary ,,transition ,,from ,,criticism ,,to ,,dogma4 ,the results of the inquiry which we have now brought to a close1 have apparently annihilated the greatest and most valuable part of that which the ,christian has been wont to believe concerning his ,saviour ,jesus1 have uprooted all the animating motives which he has gathered from his faith1 and withered all his consolations4 ,the boundless store of truth and life which for eighteen centuries has been the aliment of humanity1 seems irretrievably dissipated2 the most sublime levelled with the dust1 ,god divested of his grace1 man of his dignity1 and the tie between heaven and earth broken4 ,piety turns away with horror from so fearful an act of desecration1 and strong in the impregnable self-evidence of its faith1 pronounces that1 let an audacious criticism attempt what it will1 all which the ,scriptures declare1 and the ,church believes of ,christ1 will still subsist as eternal truth1 nor needs one iota of it to be renounced4 ,thus at the conclusion of the criticism of the history of ,jesus1 there presents itself this problem3 to re-establish dogmatically that which has been destroyed critically4 ,at the first glance1 this problem appears to exist merely as a challenge addressed by the believer to the critic1 not as a result of the moral requirements of either4 ,the believer would appear to need no re-establishment of the faith1 since for him it cannot be subverted by criticism4 ,the critic seems to require no such re-establishment1 since he is able to endure the annihilation resulting from his own labours4 ,hence it might be supposed that the critic1 when he seeks to rescue the dogma from the flames which his criticism has kindled1 acts falsely in relation to his own point of view1 since1 to satisfy the believer1 he treats what is valueless for himself as if he esteemed it to be a jewel2 while in relation to the believer1 he is undertaking a superfluous task1 in labouring to defend that which the latter considers in no way endangered4 ,but on a nearer view the case appears otherwise4 ,to all belief1 not built on demonstration1 doubt is inherent1 though it may not be developed2 the most firmly believing ,christian has within him the elements of criticism as a latent deposit of unbelief1 or rather as a negative germ of knowledge1 and only by its constant repression can he maintain the predominance of his faith1 which is thus essentially a re-established faith4 ,and just as the believer is intrinsically a sceptic or critic1 so1 on the other hand1 the critic is intrinsically a believer4 ,in proportion as he is distinguished from the naturalistic theologian1 and the free-thinker1--in proportion as his criticism is conceived in the spirit of the nineteenth century1--he is filled with veneration for every religion1 and especially for the substance of the sublimest of all religions1 the ,christian1 which he perceives to be identical with the deepest philosophical truth2 and hence1 after having in the course of his criticism exhibited only the differences between his conviction and the historical belief of the ,christian1 he will feel urged to place that identity in a just light4 ,further1 our criticism1 though in its progress it treats of details1 yet on becoming part of our internal conviction1 resolves itself into the simple element of doubt1 which the believer neutralizes by an equally simple veto1 and then spreads anew in undiminished luxuriance all the fulness of his creed4 ,but hereby the decisions of criticism are only dismissed1 not vanquished1 and that which is believed is supported by no intermediate proof1 but rests absolutely on its own evidence4 ,criticism cannot but direct itself against this absence of intermediate proof1 and thus the controversy which seemed ended is renewed1 and we are thrown back to the beginning of our inquiry2 yet with a difference which constitutes a step forward in the discussion4 ,hitherto our criticism had for its object the data of ,christianity1 as historically presented in the evangelical records2 now1 these data having been called in question in their historical form1 assume that of a mental product1 and find a refuge in the soul of the believer2 where they exist1 not as a simple history1 but as a reflected history1 that is1 a confession of faith1 a received dogma4 ,against this dogma1 presenting itself totally unsupported by evidence1 criticism must indeed awake1 as it does against all deficiency of proof1 in the character of a negativing power1 and a contender for intermediate proof3 it will1 however1 no longer be occupied with history1 but with doctrines4 ,thus our historical criticism is followed up by dogmatical criticism1 and it is only after the faith has passed through both these trials1 that it is thoroughly tested and constituted science4 ,this second process through which the faith has to pass1 ought1 like the first1 to be made the subject of a distinct work3 ,i shall here merely give a sketch of its most important features1 that ,i may not terminate an historical criticism without pointing out its ultimate object1 which can only be arrived at by dogmatical criticism as a sequel4 #ade4 ,,the ,,christology ,,of ,,the ,,orthodox ,,system4 ,the dogmatic import of the life of ,jesus implicitly received1 and developed on this basis1 constitutes the orthodox doctrine of the ,christ4 ,its fundamental principles are found in the ,new ,testament4 ,the root of faith in ,jesus was the conviction of his resurrection4 ,he who had been put to death1 however great during his life1 could not1 it was thought1 be the ,messiah3 his miraculous restoration to life proved so much the more strongly that he was the ,messiah4 ,freed by his resurrection from the kingdom of shades1 and at the same time elevated above the sphere of earthly humanity1 he was now translated to the heavenly regions1 and had taken his place at the right hand of ,god 7,acts ii4 #cb ff41 iii4 #ae ff41 v4 #cj ff42 and elsewhere74 ,now1 his death appeared to be the chief article in his messianic destination2 according to ,isa4 liii41 he had suffered for the sins of his people and of mankind 7,acts viii4 #cb ff42 comp4 ,matt4 xx4 #bh2 ,john i4 #bi1 #cf2 #a ,john ii4 #b72 his blood poured out on the cross1 operated like that which on the great day of atonement the high priest sprinkled on the mercy-seat 7,rom4 iii4 #be72 he was the pure lamb by whose blood the believing are redeemed 7#a ,pet4 i4 #ah f472 the eternal1 sinless high priest1 who by the offering of his own body1 at once effected that1 which the ,jewish high priests were unable to effect1 by their perpetually repeated sacrifices of animals 7,heb4 x4 #aj ff41 etc474 ,but1 thenceforth1 the ,messiah who was exalted to the right hand of ,god1 could not have been a common man3 not only was he anointed with the divine spirit in a greater measure than any prophet 7,acts iv4 #bg1 x4 #ch72 not only did he prove himself to be a divine messenger by miracles and signs 7,acts ii4 #bb72 but also1 according as the one idea or the other was most readily formed1 either he was supernaturally engendered by the ,holy ,spirit 7,matt4 and ,luke i471 or he had descended as the ,word and ,wisdom of ,god into an earthly body 7,john i474 ,as1 before his appearance on the earth1 he was in the bosom of the ,father1 in divine majesty 7,john xvii4 #e72 so his descent into the world of mortals1 and still more his submission to an ignominious death1 was a voluntary humiliation1 to which he was moved by his love to mankind 7,phil4 ii4 #e ff474 ,the risen and ascended ,jesus will one day return to wake the dead and judge the world 7,acts i4 #aa1 xvii4 #ca72 he even now takes charge of his church 7,rom4 viii4 #cd2 #a ,john ii4 #a71 participating in the government of the world1 as he originally did in its creation 7,matt4 xxviii4 #ah2 ,john i4 #c1 #aj2 ,col4 i4 #af f474 ,in addition to all this1 every trait in the image of the ,messiah as sketched by the popular expectation1 was attributed with necessary or gratuitous modifications to ,jesus2 nay1 the imagination1 once stimulated1 invented new characteristics4 ,how richly fraught with blessing and elevation1 with encouragement and consolation1 were the thoughts which the early ,church derived from this view of the ,christ6 ,by the mission of the ,son of ,god into the world1 by his delivery of himself to death for the sake of the world1 heaven and earth are reconciled 7#b ,cor4 v4 #ah ff42 ,eph4 i4 #aj2 ,col4 i4 #bj72 by this most stupendous sacrifice1 the love of ,god is securely guaranteed to man 7,rom4 v4 #h ff41 viii4 #ca ff42 #a ,john iv4 #i71 and the brightest hopes are revealed to him4 ,did the ,son of ,god become man8 ,then are men his brethren1 and as such the children of ,god1 and heirs with ,christ to the treasure of divine bliss 7,rom4 viii4 #af f41 #bi74 ,the servile relation of man to ,god1 as it existed under the law1 has ceased2 love has taken the place of the fear of the punishment threatened by the law 7,rom4 viii4 #ae2 ,gal4 iv4 #a ff474 ,believers are redeemed from the curse of the law by ,christ's sacrifice of himself1 inasmuch as he suffered a death on which the law had laid a curse 7,gal4 iii4 #ac74 ,now1 there is no longer imposed on us the impossible task of satisfying all the demands of the law 7,gal4 iii4 #aj f47--a task which1 as experience shows1 no man fulfils 7,rom4 i4 #ah-;iii4 #bj71 which1 by reason of his sinful nature1 no man can fulfil 7,rom4 v4 #ab ff471 and which only involves him who strives to fulfil it1 more and more deeply in the most miserable conflict with himself 7,rom4 vii4 #g ff473 whereas he who believes in ,christ1 and confides in the atoning efficacy of his death1 possesses the favour of ,god2 not by works and qualifications of his own1 but by the free mercy of ,god1 is the man who throws himself on that mercy just before ,god1 by which all self-exaltation is excluded 7,rom4 iii4 #ca ff474 ,as the ,mosaic law is no longer binding on the believer1 he being dead to it with ,christ 7,rom4 vii4 #a ff472 as1 moreover1 by the eternal and all-sufficient sacrifice of ,christ1 the ,jewish sacrificial and priestly service is abolished 7,heb472 therefore the partition wall which separated the ,jews and ,gentiles is broken down3 the latter1 who before were aliens and strangers to the theocracy1 without ,god and without hope in the world1 are now invited to participate in the new covenant1 and free access is opened to them to the paternal ,god2 so that the two portions of mankind1 formerly separated by hostile opinions1 are now at peace with each other1 members in common of the body of ,christ--stones in the spiritual building of his ,church 7,eph4 ii4 #aa ff474 ,but to have justifying faith in the death of ,christ1 is1 virtually1 to die with him spiritually--that is1 to die to sin2 and as ,christ arose from the dead to a new and immortal life1 so must the believer in him arise from the death of sin to a new life of righteousness and holiness1 put off the old man and put on the new 7,rom4 vi4 #a ff474 ,in this1 ,christ himself aids him by his ,spirit1 who fills those whom he inspires with spiritual strivings1 and makes them ever more and more free from the slavery of sin 7,rom4 viii4 #a ff474 ,nor alone spiritually1 will the ,spirit of ,christ animate those in whom he dwells1 but corporeally also1 for at the end of their earthly course1 ,god1 through ,christ1 will resuscitate their bodies1 as he did the body of ,christ 7,rom4 viii4 #aa74 ,christ1 whom the bonds of death and the nether world could not hold1 has vanquished both for us1 and has delivered the believer from the fear of these dread powers which rule over mortality 7,rom4 viii4 #ch f42 #a ,cor4 xv4 #ee ff42 ,heb4 ii4 #ad f474 ,his resurrection not only confers atoning efficacy on his death 7,rom4 iv4 #be71 but at the same time is the pledge of our own future resurrection1 of our share in ,christ in a future life1 in his messianic kingdom1 to the blessedness of which he will1 at his second advent1 lead all his people4 ,meanwhile1 we may console ourselves that we have in him an ,intercessor1 who from his own experience of the weakness and frailty of our nature1 which he himself assumed1 and in which he was in all points tempted as we are1 but without sin1 knows how much indulgence and aid we need 7,heb4 ii4 #ag f41 iv4 #ae f474 ,the expediency of describing in compendious forms the riches of their faith in ,christ1 was early felt by his followers4 ,they celebrated him as ,christ that died1 yea rather1 that is risen again1 who is even at the right hand of ,god1 who also maketh intercession for us1 1 1 1 7,rom4 viii4 #cd72 or with more particularity as ,jesus ,christ our ,lord1 who was made of the seed of ,david according to the flesh1 and declared to be the ,son of ,god with power1 according to the ,spirit of holiness1 by the resurrection from the dead1 4 4 1 1 1 7,rom4 i4 #c f472 and as confessedly the great mystery of godliness1 1 the following propositions were presented3 ,god was manifest in the flesh1 justified in the ,spirit1 seen of angels1 preached unto the ,gentiles1 believed on in the world1 received up into glory1 1 1 1 1 1 7#a ,tim4 iii4 #af74 ,the baptismal formula 7,matt4 xxviii4 #ai71 by its allocation of ,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost1 presented a sort of framework in which to arrange the materials of the new faith4 ,on this basis was constructed in the first centuries what was called the rule of faith1 regula fidei1 which in divers forms1 some more concise1 others more diffuse1 some more popular1 others more subtle1 is found in the different fathers4 #baie ,the more popular form at length settled into what is called the creed of the apostles4 ,this symbol1 in that edition of it which is received in the evangelical church1 has in its second and most elaborate article on the ,son1 the following points of belief3 et 7credo7 in ,jesum ,christum1 filium ejus 7,dei patris7 unicum1 ,dominum nostrum2 qui conceptus est de ,spiritu ,sancto1 natus ex ,maria virgine2 passus sub ,pontio ,pilato1 crucifixus1 mortuus et sepultus1 descendit ad inferna2 tertia die resurrexit a mortuis1 ascendit ad clos1 sedet ad dextram ,dei patris omnipotentis2 inde venturus est1 judicare vivos et mortuos4 ,together with this popular form of the confession of faith in relation to ,christ1 there was also framed a more rigorous and minute theological digest1 occasioned by the differences and controversies which early arose on certain points4 ,the fundamental thesis of the ,christian faith1 that the ,word was made flesh1 1 or1 ,god was manifested in the flesh1 1 was endangered on all sides1 one questioning the ,godhead1 another the manhood1 and a third the veritable union of the two natures4 ,it is true that those who1 like the ,ebionites1 denied the ,godhead1 or like that sect of the ,gnostics called ,docet1 the manhood of ,christ1 separated themselves too decidedly from the ,christian community1 which on her part maintained that it was necessary that the mediator of ,god and man should unite both in friendship and harmony by means of a proper relationship to each1 and that while he represented man to ,god1 he should reveal ,god to man1 1 1 4 #baif ,but when it was merely the plenitude of the one nature or the other1 which was contested1--as when ,arius maintained that the being who became man in ,christ was indeed divine1 but created1 and subordinate to the supreme ,god2 when1 while ascribing to ,christ a human body1 he held that the place of the soul was occupied by that superior being2 when ,apollinaris maintained that not only the body of ,jesus was truly human1 but his soul also1 and that the divine being only served in the stead of the third principle in man1 the 7understanding72--these were opinions to which it was easier to give a ,christian guise4 ,nevertheless the ,church rejected the ,arian idea of a subordinate ,god become man in ,jesus1 for this reason among others less essential1 that on this theory the image of the ,godhead would not have been manifested in ,christ2 #baig and she condemned the idea of ,arius and ,apollinaris1 that the human nature of ,christ had not the human 7soul71 or the human 7understanding71 for this reason chiefly1 that only by the union of the divine1 with an entire human nature1 could the human race be redeemed4 #baih ,not only might the one or the other aspect of the nature of ,christ be defaced or put out of sight1 but in relation also to the union of the two1 there might be error1 and again in two opposite directions4 ,the devout enthusiasm of many led them to believe1 that they could not draw too closely the newly-entwined bond between heaven and earth2 hence they no longer wished to distinguish between the ,godhead and manhood in ,christ1 and since he had appeared in one person1 they acknowledged in him only one nature1 that of the ,son of ,god made flesh4 ,others1 more scrupulous1 could not reconcile themselves to such a confusion of the divine and the human3 it seemed to them blasphemous to say that a human mother had given birth to ,god3 hence they maintained that she had only borne the man whom the ,son of ,god selected as his temple2 and that in ,christ there were two natures1 united indeed so far as the adoration of his followers was concerned1 but distinct as regarded their essence4 ,to the ,church1 both these views appeared to encroach on the mystery of the incarnation3 if the two natures were held to be permanently distinct1 then was the union of the divine and human1 the vital point of ,christianity1 destroyed2 if a mixture of the two were admitted1 then neither nature in its individual quality was capable of a union with the other1 and thus again no true unity would be attained4 ,hence both these opinions were condemned1 the latter in the person of ,eutyches1 the former1 not with equal justice1 in that of ,nestorius2 and as the ,nicene creed established the true ,godhead of ,christ1 so that of ,chalcedon established his true and perfect manhood1 and the union of the two natures in one undivided person4 #baii ,when subsequently there arose a controversy concerning the will of ,christ1 analogous to that concerning his nature1 the ,church1 in accordance with its previous decisions1 pronounced that in ,christ1 as the ,god-man1 there were two wills1 distinct but not discordant1 the human will being subordinate to the divine4 #bbjj ,in comparison with the controversies on the being and essence of ,christ1 the other branch of the faith1 the doctrine of his work1 was developed in tranquillity4 ,the most comprehensive view of it was this3 the ,son of ,god1 by assuming the human nature1 gave it a holy and divine character #bbja--;above all he endowed it with immortality2 #bbjb while in a moral view1 the mission of the ,son of ,god into the world being the highest proof of the love of ,god1 was the most efficacious means of awakening a return of love in the human breast4 #bbjc ,to this one great effect of the appearance of ,christ1 were annexed collateral benefits3 his salutary teaching1 his sublime example1 were held up to view1 #bbjd but especial importance was attached to the violent death which he suffered4 ,the idea of substitution1 already given in the ,new ,testament1 was more fully developed3 the death of ,jesus was regarded1 now as a ransom paid by him to the devil for the liberation of mankind1 who had fallen into the power of the evil one through sin2 now as a means devised by ,god for removing guilt1 and enabling him to remit the punishment threatened to the sins of man1 without detriment to his truthfulness1 ,christ having taken that punishment on himself4 #bbje ,the latter idea was worked up by ,anselm1 in his book entitled ,cur ,deus homo1 into the well known theory of satisfaction1 by which the doctrine of ,christ's work of redemption is placed in the closest connexion with that of his person4 ,man owes to ,god perfect obedience2 but the sinner--and such1 are all men--withholds from ,god the service and honour which are ,his due4 ,now ,god1 by reason of his justice1 cannot suffer an offence against his honour3 therefore1 either man must voluntarily restore to ,god that which is ,god's1 nay1 must1 for complete satisfaction1 render to him more than he has hitherto withheld2 or1 ,god must as a punishment take from man that which is man's1 namely1 the happiness for which he was originally created4 ,man is not able to do the former2 for as he owes to ,god all the duties that he can perform1 in order not to fall into sin1 he can have no overplus of merit1 wherewith to cover past sins4 ,on the other hand1 that ,god should obtain satisfaction by the infliction of eternal punishment1 is opposed to his unchangeable goodness1 which moves him actually to lead man to that bliss for which he was originally destined4 ,this1 however1 cannot happen consistently with divine justice1 unless satisfaction be made for man1 and according to the measure of that which has been taken from ,god1 something be rendered to him1 greater than all else except ,god4 ,but this can be none other than ,god himself2 and as1 on the other hand1 man alone can satisfy for man3 it must therefore be a ,god-man who gives satisfaction4 ,moreover this cannot consist in active obedience1 in a sinless life1 because every reasonable being owes this to ,god on his own behalf2 but to suffer death1 the wages of sin1 a sinless being is not bound1 and thus the satisfaction for the sins of man consists in the death of the ,god-man1 whose reward1 since he himself1 as one with ,god1 cannot be rewarded1 is put to the account of man4 ,this doctrinal system of the ancient church concerning the person and work of ,christ1 passed also into the confessions of the ,lutheran churches1 and was still more elaborately developed by their theologians4 #bbjf ,with regard to the person of ,christ1 they adhered to the union of the divine and human natures in one person3 according to them1 in the act of this union1 unitio personalis1 which was simultaneous with the conception1 it was the divine nature of the ,son of ,god which adopted the human into the unity of its personality2 the state of union1 the unio personalis1 was neither essential1 nor yet merely accidental1 neither mystical nor moral1 still less merely verbal1 but a real and supernatural union1 and eternal in its duration4 ,from this union with the divine nature1 there result to the human nature in ,christ certain pre-eminent advantages3 namely1 what at first appears a deficiency1 that of being in itself impersonal1 and of having personality only by its union with the divine nature2 further1 impeccability1 and the possibility of not dying4 ,besides these special advantages1 the human nature of ,christ obtains others also from its union with the divine4 ,the relation of the two natures is not a dead1 external one1 but a reciprocal penetration1 a 2 an union not like that of two boards glued together1 but like that of fire and metal in glowing iron1 or of the body and soul in man4 ,this communion of natures1 communio naturarum1 is manifested by a communication of properties1 communicatio idiomatum1 in virtue of which the human nature participates in the advantages of the divine1 and the divine in the redeeming work of the human4 ,this relation is expressed in the propositions concerning the person1 propositionibus personalibus1 and those concerning the properties1 idiomaticis2 the former are propositions in which the concrete of the one nature1 i4e4 the one nature as conceived in the person of ,christ1 is predicated of the other1 as in #a ,cor4 xv4 #dg3 the second man is the ,lord from heaven2 the latter are propositions in which determinations of one or the other nature1 are referred to the entire person 7genus idiomaticum71 or in which acts of the entire person are referred to one or the other nature 7genus apotelesmaticum71 or lastly1 in which attributes of the one nature are transferred to the other1 which however is only possible from the divine to the human1 not from the human to the divine 7genus auchematicum74 ,in passing through the successive stages of the work of redemption1 ,christ with his person endowed with two natures1 experienced1 according to the expression of the dogmatical theologians1 founded on ,phil4 ii4 #f ff41 two states1 statum exinanitionis1 and statum exaltationis4 ,his human nature in its union with the divine1 participated from the moment of conception in divine properties3 but as during his earthly life ,jesus made no continuous use of them1 that life to the time of his death and burial1 is regarded as a state of humiliation3 whereas1 with the resurrection1 or even with the descent into hell1 commenced the state of exaltation which was consummated by the sessio ad dextram patris4 ,as to the work of ,christ1 the doctrine of our ,church attributes to him a triple office4 ,as prophet1 he has revealed to man the highest truth1 the divine decree of redemption1 confirming his testimony by miracles2 and he still unceasingly controls the announcement of this truth4 ,as high priest1 he has1 on the one hand1 by his irreproachable life1 fulfilled the law in our stead 7obedientia activa72 on the other1 he has borne1 in his sufferings and death1 the punishment which impended over us 7obedientia passiva71 and now perpetually intercedes for us with the ,father4 ,lastly1 as king1 he governs the world1 and more particularly the ,church1 which he will lead from the conflicts of earth to the glory of heaven1 completing its destiny by the general resurrection and the last judgment4 #adf4 ,,objections ,,to ,,the ,,christology ,,of ,,the ,,church4 ,the ,reformed ,church did not go thus far with the ,lutherans in their doctrine of the person of ,christ1 for they did not admit the last and boldest consequence drawn by the latter from the union of the manhood and ,godhead--the communicatio idiomatum1 or communication of properties4 ,the ,lutherans themselves did not hold that the properties of the human nature were communicated to the divine1 nor that all the properties of the divine nature1 eternity for example1 could be communicated to the human2 #bbjg and this gave occasion on the part of the ,reformed ,church1 to the following objection3 the communication of properties must be reciprocal and complete1 or it is none at all2 moreover1 by the communication of the properties of an infinite nature to a finite one1 the latter is not less annihilated as to its essence than an infinite nature would be1 were it to receive the properties of a finite one4 #bbjh ,when the ,lutherans sought shelter in the position1 that the properties of the one nature were only so far shared by the other1 as according to its character is possible1 uti per suam indolem potest1 #bbji they in fact did away altogether with the communicatio idiomatum2 and indeed this doctrine has been explicitly given up even by orthodox theologians since ,reinhard4 ,but the simple root of this complicated exchange of properties1 the union of the divine and human natures in one person1 has also met with contradiction4 ,the ,socinians denied it on the ground that two natures1 each of which alone constitutes a person1 cannot be united to form a single person1 especially when they possess properties so opposite1 as where the one is immortal1 the other mortal1 the one uncreated1 the other created2 #bbaj and the ,rationalists agree with them1 insisting more particularly that the formul of the ,church1 in which the above union is defined1 are almost entirely negative1 thus presenting no conception to the mind1 and that in a ,christ1 who by the aid of a divine nature dwelling within him1 withstood evil and kept himself from sin1 the man who is destitute of such aid can have no true example4 #bbaa ,the essential and tenable points of the rationalistic objections to this doctrine1 have been the most acutely perceived and arranged by ,schleiermacher1 who1 on this subject as on many others1 has brought the negative criticism of the dogmas of the ,church to completeness4 #bbab ,before all else he finds it a difficulty1 that by the expression1 divine nature and human nature1 divinity and humanity are placed under one category1 and what is more1 under the category of nature1 which essentially denotes only a limited being1 conceived by means of its opposite4 ,further1 while ordinarily one nature is common to many individuals or persons1 here one person is supposed to partake of two different natures4 ,now if by person be meant the permanent conscious unity of a living being1 and by nature1 the sum of the laws which govern the conditions of life in that being3 it is not to be conceived1 how two opposite systems of conditions can have but one centre4 ,the absurdity of this doctrine becomes1 according to ,schleiermacher1 especially evident in the supposition of two wills in ,christ1 since1 for consistency1 two wills must be associated with two understandings1 and as the understanding and will constitute the personality1 ,christ would on this supposition be inevitably divided into two persons4 ,it is true that the two wills are supposed always to will in unison3 but1 on the one hand1 there results from this only a moral1 not a personal unity2 on the other hand1 this unison of wills is not possible in relation to the divine and the human will1 since the latter1 which from its very essence can only exercise itself on particulars as they present themselves in succession1 can as little will the same with the former1 whose object is the whole in its development1 as the human understanding1 which acts by reasoning1 can think the same with the divine understanding1 which acts intuitively4 ,hence it evidently follows also that a communication of properties between the two natures is not to be admitted4 ,the doctrine of the work of ,christ did not escape a similar criticism4 ,passing over what has been objected in point of form to the division of this work into three offices1 the ideas of revelation and miracles1 under the head of the prophetic office1 were chiefly called in question4 ,it was argued that these ideas agreed neither objectively with just conceptions of ,god and the world in their reciprocal relation1 nor subjectively with the laws of the human intellect2 that the perfect ,god could not have created a world which from time to time needed the extraordinary interposition of the ,creator1 nor more particularly a human nature which was incapable of attaining its destination by the development of its innate faculties2 that the immutable ,being could not operate on the world first in this manner1 then in that1 at one time mediately1 at another immediately1 but that he must always have operated on it in the same manner1 namely1 in himself and on the whole immediately1 but for us and on individuals mediately2 that to admit an interruption of the order of nature1 and of the development of humanity1 would be to renounce all rational thought1 while1 in the particular case in question1 a revelation or miracle is not confidently to be recognized as such1 since1 in order to be sure that certain results have not proceeded from the powers of nature and the faculties of the human mind1 a perfect knowledge of the resources of both would be requisite1 and of such a knowledge man is not possessed4 #bbac ,but the main difficulty lay in the office of high priest1 attributed to ,jesus--in the doctrine of the atonement4 ,that which especially drew forth objections was the human aspect which in ,anselm's system was given to the relation of ,god to the ,son of man4 ,as it well becomes man to forgive offences without exacting vengeance1 so1 thought ,socinus1 might ,god forgive the offences committed against him by men1 without satisfaction4 #bbad ,to meet this objection ,hugo ,grotius argued1 that not as in consequence of personal injuries1 but to maintain the order of the moral world inviolable1 or in virtue of his justitia rectoria1 ,god cannot forgive sins without satisfaction4 #bbae ,nevertheless1 granting the necessity for satisfaction1 it did not appear to be met by the death of ,jesus4 ,while ,anselm1 and still more decidedly ,thomas ,aquinas1 #bbaf spoke of a satisfactio superabundans1 ,socinus denied that ,christ had even borne as much punishment as men have deserved2 for every individual man having deserved eternal death1 consequently1 as many substitutes as sinners ought to have suffered eternal death2 whereas in this case1 the single ,christ has suffered merely temporal death1 and that as an introduction to the highest glory2 nor did this death attach to his divine nature1 so that it might be said to have infinite value1 but only to his human nature4 ,on the other hand1 ,duns ,scotus1 #bbag in opposition to ,thomas1 and subsequently ,grotius and the ,arminians 7equi-distant from orthodoxy and ,socinianism71 adopted the expedient of maintaining1 that the merit of ,christ was indeed in itself finite like its subject1 his human nature1 and hence was inadequate as a satisfaction for the sins of the world2 but that ,god accepted it as adequate out of his free grace4 ,but from the admission that ,god can content himself with an inadequate satisfaction1 and thus can forgive a part of the guilt without satisfaction1 it follows necessarily1 that he must also be able thus to forgive the whole4 ,besides these more precise definitions1 however1 the fundamental idea of the whole fabric1 namely1 that one individual can take upon himself the punishment due to the sins of another1 has been attacked as an ignorant transference of the conditions of a lower order of relation to a higher4 ,moral transgressions1 it has been said1 are not transmissible obligations2 it is not with them as with debts of money1 which it is immaterial to the creditor who pays1 provided they are paid2 rather it is essential to the punishment of sin1 that it should fall on the guilty only4 #bbah ,if1 according to this1 the so-called passive obedience of ,christ cannot have been vicarious1 still less can his active obedience have been so1 since as man he was bound to render this on his own behalf4 #bbai ,in relation to the kingly office of ,christ1 the hope of his second advent to judge the world lost ground in the sentiment of the ,church1 in proportion as the opinion obtained1 that every individual enters on a state of complete retribution immediately after death1 for this opinion made the general judgment appear superfluous4 #bbbj #adg4 ,,the ,,christology ,,of ,,rationalism4 ,the ,rationalists1 rejecting the doctrine of the ,church concerning ,christ1 his person1 and his work1 as self-contradictory1 useless1 nay1 even hurtful to the true morality of the religious sentiment1 propounded in its stead a system which1 while it avoided all contradictions1 yet in a certain sense retained for ,jesus the character of a divine manifestation1 which even1 rightly considered1 placed him far higher1 and moreover embodied the strongest motives to practical piety4 #bbba ,according to them1 ,jesus was still a divine messenger1 a special favourite and charge of the ,deity1 inasmuch as1 furnished by the disposition of ,providence with an extraordinary measure of spiritual endowment1 he was born in an age and nation1 and guided in a career1 the most favourable to his development into that for which he was destined2 and1 especially1 inasmuch as he was subjected to a species of death that rendered possible his apparent resurrection1 on which depended the success of his entire work1 and was encompassed by a series of circumstances which actually brought that resurrection to pass4 ,the ,rationalists hold that their idea of the ,christ is not essentially below the orthodox one1 as regards his natural endowments and his external destiny1 for in their view also he is the greatest man that ever trod the earth--a hero1 in whose fate ,providence is in the highest degree glorified3 while1 as regards the internal development and free agency of ,jesus1 they believe their doctrine essentially to surpass that of the ,church4 ,the ,christ of the ,church1 they contend1 is a mere automaton1 whose manhood lies under the control of his ,godhead like a lifeless instrument1 which acts with moral perfection because it has no power to sin1 and for this reason can neither have moral merit1 nor be the object of affection and reverence3 according to the rationalistic view1 on the contrary1 ,jesus had implanted in him by ,god the natural conditions only of that which he was ultimately to become1 and his realization of this destiny was the result of his own spontaneity4 ,his admirable wisdom he acquired by the judicious application of his intellectual powers1 and the conscientious use of all the aids within his reach2 his moral greatness1 by the zealous culture of his moral dispositions1 the restraint of his sensual inclinations and passions1 and a scrupulous obedience to the voice of his conscience3 and on these alone rested all that was exalted in his personality1 all that was encouraging in his example4 ,as regards the work of ,jesus1 the rationalistic view is1 that he has endeared himself to mankind by this above all else1 that he has taught them a religion to which for its purity and excellence is justly ascribed a certain divine power and dignity2 and that he has illustrated and enforced this religion by the brilliant example of his own life4 ,this prophetic office of ,christ is with ,socinians and ,rationalists the essence of his work1 and to this they refer all the rest1 especially what the doctrine of the ,church comprehends under the office of high priest4 ,with them the so-called active obedience has value solely as an example2 and the death of ,jesus conduces to the forgiveness of sins1 solely by furthering the reformation of the sinner in one of these two ways3 either1 as a confirmation of his doctrine1 and a type of the devoted fulfilment of duty1 it serves to kindle a zeal for virtue2 or1 as a proof of the love of ,god to man1 of his inclination to pardon the converted sinner1 it invigorates moral courage4 #bbbb ,if ,christ was no more1 and did no more1 than this rationalistic doctrine supposes1 it is not easy to see how piety has come to make him her special object1 or dogmatism to lay down special propositions concerning him4 ,consistent ,rationalists have in fact admitted1 that what the orthodox dogma calls ,christology1 forms no integral part of the rationalistic system1 since this system consists indeed of a religion which ,christ taught1 but not of a religion of which he is the object2 that1 viewing ,christology as the doctrine of the ,messiah1 it is merely an accommodation to the ,jewish mind1--that even taken in a more noble sense1 as the doctrine of the life1 the actions1 and the fate of ,jesus as a divine messenger1 it does not belong to a system of faith1 for the universal truths of religion are as little connected with our ideas concerning the person of him who first enunciated them1 as are the philosophical propositions in the systems of ,leibnitz and ,wolf1 of ,kant1 ,fichte1 and ,schelling1 with the opinions we may happen to form of the persons of their authors2 that what relates to the person and work of ,jesus belongs1 not to religion itself1 but to the history of religion1 and must either be prefixed to a system of religious doctrine as an historical introduction1 or appended to it as an elucidatory sequel4 #bbbc ,accordingly ,henke1 in his ,lineaments1 has removed ,christology from its wonted position as an integral part of systematic theology1 and has placed it as a subdivision under the head of anthropology4 ,thus1 however1 ,rationalism enters into open war with the ,christian faith1 for it seeks to thrust into the background1 nay1 to banish from the province of theology1 that which is its essential point1 and corner-stone4 ,but this very opposition is decisive of the insufficiency of the rationalistic system1 proving that it does not perform what is demanded from every system of religious doctrine3 namely1 first1 to give adequate expression to the faith which is the object of the doctrine2 and secondly1 to place this expression in a relation1 whether positive or negative1 to science4 ,now the ,rationalists1 in the effort to bring the faith into harmony with science1 restrict its expression2 for a ,christ who is only a distinguished man1 creates indeed no difficulty to the understanding1 but is not the ,christ in whom the ,church believes4 #adh4 ,,the ,,eclectic ,,christology ,,of ,,schleiermacher4 ,it is the effort of this theologian to avoid both these ungrateful results1 and without prejudice to the faith1 to form such a conception of the doctrine of the ,christ as may be proof against the attacks of science4 #bbbd ,on the one hand1 he has adopted in its fullest extent the negative criticism directed by ,rationalism against the doctrine of the ,church1 nay1 he has rendered it even more searching2 on the other hand1 he has sought to retain what ,rationalism had lost1 the essential part of positive ,christianity3 and thus he has saved many in these days from the narrowness of ,supranaturalism1 and the emptiness of ,rationalism4 ,this simplification of the faith ,schleiermacher effects in the following manner3 he does not set out1 with the ,protestant1 from the doctrine of ,scripture1 nor with the ,catholic from the decision of the church1 for in both these ways he would have to deal with a precise1 developed system1 which1 having originated in remote centuries1 must come into collision with the science of the present day2 but he sets out from the consciousness of the ,christian1 from that internal experience resulting to the individual from his connexion with the ,christian community1 and he thus obtains a material which1 as its basis is feeling1 is more flexible1 and to which it is easier to give dialectically a form that satisfies science4 ,as a member of the ,christian church--this is the point of departure in the ,christology of ,schleiermacher #bbbe--;,i am conscious of the removal of my sinfulness1 and the impartation of absolute perfection3 in other words1 in communion with the church1 ,i feel operating upon me the influence of a sinless and perfect principle4 ,this influence cannot proceed from the ,christian community as an effect of the reciprocal action of its members on each other2 for to every one of these sin and imperfection are inherent1 and the co-operation of impure beings can never produce anything pure as its result4 ,it must be the influence of one who possessed that sinlessness and perfection as personal qualities1 and who moreover stands in such a relation to the ,christian community1 that he can impart these qualities to its members3 that is1 since the ,christian church could not exist prior to this impartation1 it must be the influence of its founder4 ,as ,christians1 we find something operated within us2 hence1 as from every effect we argue to its cause1 we infer the influence of ,christ1 and from this again1 the nature of his person1 which must have had the powers necessary to the exertion of this influence4 ,to speak more closely1 that which we experience as members of the ,christian church1 is a strengthening of our consciousness of ,god1 in its relation to our sensuous existence2 that is1 it is rendered easier to us to deprive the senses of their ascendancy within us1 to make all our impressions the servants of the religious sentiment1 and all our actions its offspring4 ,according to what has been stated above1 this is the effect wrought in us by ,christ1 who imparts to us the strength of his consciousness of ,god1 frees us from the bondage of sensuality and sin1 and is thus the ,redeemer4 ,in the feeling of the strengthened consciousness of ,god which the ,christian possesses by his communion with the ,redeemer1 the obstructions of his natural and social life are not felt as obstructions to his consciousness of ,god2 they do not interrupt the blessedness which he enjoys in his inmost religious life2 what has been called evil1 and divine chastisement1 is not such for him3 and as it is ,christ who by receiving him into the communion of his blessedness1 frees him therefrom1 the office of expiation is united to that of redemption4 ,in this sense alone is the doctrine of the church concerning the threefold office of ,christ to be interpreted4 ,he is a prophet1 in that by the word--by the setting forth of himself1 and not otherwise1--he could draw mankind towards himself1 and therefore the chief object of his doctrine was his own person2 he is at once a high priest and a sacrifice1 in that he1 the sinless one1 from whose existence1 therefore1 no evil could be evolved1 entered into communion with the life of sinful humanity1 and endured the evils which adhere to it1 that he might take us into communion with his sinless and blessed life3 in other words1 deliver us from the power and consequences of sin and evil1 and present us pure before ,god2 lastly1 he is a king1 in that he brings these blessings to mankind in the form of an organized society1 of which he is the head4 ,from this which ,christ effects1 we gather what he is4 ,if we owe to him the continual strengthening of the consciousness of ,god within us1 this consciousness must have existed in him in absolute strength1 so that it1 or ,god in the form of the consciousness1 was the only operative force within him1 and this is the sense of the expression of the church--,god became man in ,christ4 ,if1 further1 ,christ works in us a more and more complete conquest over sensuality1 in himself there must have been an absolute conquest over it2 in no moment of his life can the sensual consciousness have disputed the victory with his consciousness of ,god2 never can a vacillation or struggle have had place within him3 in other words1 the human nature in him was sinless1 and in the stricter sense1 that1 in virtue of the essential predominance within him of the higher powers over the lower1 it was impossible for him to sin4 ,by this peculiarity of his nature he is the ,archetype1 the actualization of the ideal of humanity1 which his church can only approach1 never surpass2 yet must he1--for otherwise there could be no true fellowship between him and us1--have been developed under the ordinary conditions of human life3 the ideal must in him have been perfectly historical1 each phasis of his actual life must have borne the impress of the ideal2 and this is the proper sense of the church formula1 that the divine and human nature were in him united into one person4 ,only thus far can the doctrine of the ,christ be deduced from the experience of the ,christian1 and thus far1 according to ,schleiermacher1 it is not opposed to science3 whatever in the dogma of the church goes beyond this1--as1 for example1 the supernatural conception of ,jesus1 and his miracles1 also the facts of the resurrection and ascension1 and the prophecies of his second coming to judge the world1--ought not to be brought forward as integral parts of the doctrine of the ,christ ,for he from whose influence upon us comes all the strengthening of our consciousness of ,god1 may have been the ,christ1 though he should not have risen bodily from the dead1 and ascended into heaven1 etc43 so that we believe these facts1 not because they are involved in our internal experience1 but only because they are stated in ,scripture2 not so much1 therefore1 in a religious and dogmatical1 as in an historical manner4 ,this ,christology is undeniably a beautiful effort of thought1 and as we shall presently see1 does the utmost towards rendering the union of the divine and the human in ,christ conceivable2 but if its author supposed that he kept the faith unmutilated and science unoffended1 we are compelled to pronounce that he was in both points deceived4 #bbbf ,science opens its attack on the proposition1 that the ideal man was historically manifested in the person of ,christ4 ,it did not escape ,schleiermacher himself that this was a dangerous point4 ,no sooner has he put forth the above proposition1 than he reflects on the difficulty of supposing that the ideal should be realized in one historical individual2 since1 in other cases1 we never find the ideal realized in a single appearance1 but only in an entire cycle of appearances1 which reciprocally complete each other4 ,it is true that this theologian does not hold the character of ,christ1 as the ideal man1 to extend to the manifold relations of human life1 so as to be the archetype for all the science1 art1 and policy1 that are developed in human society2 he confines it to the domain of the consciousness of ,god4 ,but1 as ,schmid has justly observed1 this does not alter the case1 for the consciousness of ,god also1 being1 in its development and manifestation1 subject to the conditions of finiteness and imperfection2 the supposition that even in this department exclusively1 the ideal was manifested in a single historical individual1 involves a violation of the laws of nature by a miracle4 ,this1 however1 is far from alarming ,schleiermacher2 on the contrary1 he maintains that this is the place1 and the only place1 in which the ,christian doctrine must necessarily admit a miracle1 since the originating of the person of ,christ can only be conceived as the result of a special divine act of creation4 ,it is true1 he limits the miraculous to the first introduction of ,christ into the series of existences1 and allows the whole of his further development to have been subject to all the conditions of finite existence3 but this concession cannot repair the breach1 which the supposition only of one miracle makes in the scientific theory of the world4 ,still less can any help be derived from vague analogies like the following3 as it is still possible that matter should begin to agglomerate and thence to revolve in infinite space2 so science must admit1 that there may be in the domain of spiritual life an appearance1 which in like manner we can only explain as the commencement1 the first point1 in a higher process of development4 #bbbg ,this comparison suggests the observation made by ,braniss1 namely1 that it would be contrary to the laws of all development to regard the initial member of a series as the greatest--to suppose that in ,christ1 the founder of that community1 the object of which is the strengthening of the consciousness of ,god1 the strength of this consciousness was absolute1 a perfection which is rather the infinitely distant goal of the progressive development of the community founded by him4 ,schleiermacher does indeed attribute to ,christianity perfectibility in a certain sense3 not as a capability of surpassing ,christ in his nature1 but solely in the conditions of its manifestation4 ,his view is this3 the limitation1 the imperfection of the relations of ,christ1 the language in which he expressed himself1 the nationality within which he was placed1 modified his thoughts and actions1 but in their form alone2 their essence remained nevertheless the perfect ideal4 ,now if ,christianity in its progressive advancement in doctrine and practice1 rejects more and more of those temporal and national limitations by which the actions and teaching of ,jesus were circumscribed2 this is not to surpass ,christ1 it is rather to give a more perfect expression of his inner life4 ,but1 as ,schmid has satisfactorily shown1 an historical individual is that which appears of him1 and no more2 his internal nature is known by his words and actions1 the condition of his age and nation are a part of his individuality1 and what lies beneath this phenomenal existence as the essence1 is not the nature of this individual1 but the human nature in general1 which in particular beings operates only under the limitations of their individuality1 of time1 and of circumstances4 ,thus to surpass the historical appearance of ,christ1 is to rise nearer1 not to his nature1 but to the idea of humanity in general2 and if we are to suppose that it is still ,christ whose nature is more truly expressed1 when with the rejection of the temporal and national1 the essential elements of his doctrine and life are further developed3 it would not be difficult1 by a similar abstraction1 to represent ,socrates1 as the one who in this manner cannot be surpassed4 ,as neither an individual in general1 nor1 in particular1 the commencing point in an historical series1 can present the perfect ideal3 so1 if ,christ be regarded decidedly as man1 the archetypal nature and development which ,schleiermacher ascribes to him1 cannot be brought to accord with the laws of human existence4 ,impeccability1 in the sense of the impossibility of sinning1 as it is supposed to exist in ,christ1 is a quality totally incompatible with the human nature2 for to man1 in consequence of his agency being liable to guidance by the motives of the senses as well as of the reason1 the possibility of sinning is essential4 ,and if ,christ was entirely free from inward conflict1 from all vacillation of the spiritual life between good and evil1 he could not be a man of like nature with us2 for the action and re-action between the spiritual nature in general and the external world1 and1 in particular1 between the superior religious and moral powers1 and the operations of the mind in subordination to the senses1 necessarily manifests itself as a conflict4 #bbbh ,if1 on the one side1 the ,christology in question is far from satisfying science1 it is equally far1 on the other side1 from satisfying the faith4 ,we will not enter into those points in which1 instead of the decisions of the church1 it at least offers acceptable substitutes 7concerning which1 however1 it may be doubted whether they are a full compensation74 #bbbi ,its disagreement with the faith is the most conspicuous in the position1 that the facts of the resurrection and ascension do not form essential parts of the ,christian faith4 ,for the belief in the resurrection of ,christ is the foundation stone1 without which the ,christian church could not have been built2 nor could the cycle of ,christian festivals1 which are the external representation of the ,christian faith1 now suffer a more fatal mutilation than by the removal of the festival of ,easter3 the ,christ who died could not be what he is in the belief of the church1 if he were not also the ,christ who rose again4 ,thus the doctrine of ,schleiermacher concerning the person and conditions of ,christ1 betrays a twofold inadequacy1 not meeting the requirements either of the faith of the church1 or of science4 ,it is clear1 however1 from his doctrine of the work of ,christ1 that in order to satisfy the former so far as is here done1 such a contradiction of the latter was quite unnecessary1 and an easier course might have been pursued4 ,for resting merely on a backward inference from the inward experience of the ,christian as the effect1 to the person of ,christ as the cause1 the ,christology of ,schleiermacher has but a frail support1 since it cannot be proved that that inward experience is not to be explained without the actual existence of such a ,christ4 ,schleiermacher himself did not overlook the probable objection that the church1 induced merely by the relative excellence of ,jesus1 conceived an ideal of absolute perfection1 and transferred this to the historical ,christ1 from which combination she continually strengthens and vivifies her consciousness of ,god3 but he held this objection to be precluded by the observation1 that sinful humanity1 by reason of the mutual dependence of the will and the understanding1 is incapable of conceiving an immaculate ideal4 ,but1 as it has been aptly remarked1 if ,schleiermacher claims a miracle for the origination of his real ,christ1 we have an equal right to claim one for the origination of the ideal of a ,christ in the human soul4 #bbcj ,meanwhile1 it is not true that sinful human nature is incapable of conceiving a sinless ideal4 ,if by this ideal be understood merely a general conception1 then the conception of the perfect and the sinless is as necessarily co-existent with the consciousness of imperfection and sinfulness as the conception of infinity with that of finiteness2 since the two ideas conditionate one another1 and the one is not possible without the other4 ,if1 on the other hand1 by this ideal be meant a concrete image1 the conception of a character in which all the individual features are portrayed1 it may be admitted that a sinful individual or age cannot depict such an image without blemish2 but of this inability the age or individual itself is not conscious1 not having any superior standard1 and if the image be but slightly drawn1 if it leave room for the modifications of increased enlightenment1 it may continue to be regarded as immaculate even by a later and more clear-sighted age1 so long as this age is inclined to view it under the most favourable light4 ,we may now estimate the truth of the reproach1 which made ,schleiermacher so indignant1 namely1 that his was not an historical1 but an ideal ,christ4 ,it is unjust in relation to the opinion of ,schleiermacher1 for he firmly believed that the ,christ1 as construed by him1 really lived2 but it is just in relation to the historical state of the facts1 because such a ,christ never existed but in idea2 and in this sense1 indeed1 the reproach has even a stronger bearing on the system of the church1 because the ,christ therein presented can still less have existed4 ,lastly1 it is just in relation to the consequence of ,schleiermacher's system1 since to effect what ,schleiermacher makes him effect1 no other ,christ is necessary1 and1 according to the principles of ,schleiermacher respecting the relation of ,god to the world1 of the supernatural to the natural1 no other ,christ is possible1 than an ideal one3--and in this sense the reproach attaches specifically to ,schleiermacher's doctrine1 for according to the premises of the orthodox doctrine1 an historical ,christ is both possible and necessary4 #adi4 ,,christology ,,interpreted ,,symbolically4 ,,kant4 ,,de ,,wette4 ,the attempt to retain in combination the ideal in ,christ with the historical1 having failed1 these two elements separate themselves3 the latter falls as a natural residuum to the ground1 and the former rises as a pure sublimate into the ethereal world of ideas4 ,historically1 ,jesus can have been nothing more than a person1 highly distinguished indeed1 but subject to the limitations inevitable to all that is mortal3 by means of his exalted character1 however1 he exerted so powerful an influence over the religious sentiment1 that it constituted him the ideal of piety2 in accordance with the general rule1 that an historical fact or person cannot become the basis of a positive religion until it is elevated into the sphere of the ideal4 #bbca ,spinoza made this distinction when maintaining1 that to know the historical ,christ is not necessary to felicity1 but only to know the ideal ,christ1 namely1 the eternal wisdom of ,god1 which is manifested in all things1 in the human mind particularly1 and in a pre-eminent degree in ,jesus ,christ--that wisdom which alone teaches man what is true and false1 good and bad4 #bbcb ,according to ,kant1 also1 it ought not to be made a condition of salvation to believe1 that there was once a man who by his holiness and merit gave satisfaction for himself and for all others2 for of this the reason tells us nothing2 but it is the duty of men universally to elevate themselves to the ideal of moral perfection deposited in the reason1 and to obtain moral strength by the contemplation of this ideal4 ,such moral faith alone man is bound to exercise1 and not historical faith4 #bbcc ,taking his stand on this principle1 ,kant proceeds to interpret the doctrines of the ,bible and the church as symbols of the ideal4 ,it is humanity1 or the rational part of this system of things1 in its entire moral perfection1 that could alone make a world the object of divine ,providence1 and the end of creation4 ,this idea of a humanity well-pleasing to ,god1 has existed in ,god from all eternity2 it proceeds from his essence1 and is therefore no created thing1 but his eternal ,son1 the ,word1 through whom1 that is1 for whose sake1 all things were created1 and in whom ,god loved the world4 ,as this idea of moral perfection has not man for its author1 as it has been introduced into him even without his being able to conceive how his nature can have been susceptible of such an idea1 it may be said to have come down to us from heaven1 and to have assumed the human nature1 and this union with us may be regarded as an abasement of the ,son of ,god4 ,this ideal of moral perfection1 so far as it is compatible with the condition of a being dependent on necessities and inclinations1 can only be conceived by us under the form of a man4 ,now just as we can obtain no idea of the amount of a force1 but by calculating the degree of resistance which it can overcome1 so we can form no estimate of the strength of the moral disposition1 but by imagining hard conflicts in which it can triumph3 hence the man who embodies the perfect ideal must be one who would voluntarily undertake1 not only to perform every duty of man on his own behalf1 and by precept and example to disseminate the good and the true around him as extensively as possible2 but also1 though tempted by the strongest allurements1 to submit to all sufferings1 even to the most ignominious death1 for the welfare of mankind4 ,in a practical relation this idea has its reality completely within itself1 and it needed no exemplification in experience in order to become a model binding on us1 since it is enshrined as such in our reason4 ,nay1 this ideal remains essentially confined to the reason1 because it cannot be adequately represented by any example in outward experience1 since such an example would not fully disclose the inward disposition1 but would only admit of our forming dubious inferences thereon4 ,nevertheless1 as all men ought to be conformed to this ideal1 and consequently must be capable of such conformity1 it is always possible in experience that a man may appear1 who in his teaching1 course of life1 and sufferings1 may present an example of a man well-pleasing to ,god3 but even in this manifestation of the ,god-man1 it would not properly be that which is obvious to the senses1 or can be known by experience1 which would be the object of saving faith2 but the ideal lying in the reason1 which we should attribute to this manifestation of the ,god-man1 because he appeared to us to be conformed to it--that is1 indeed1 so far only as this can be concluded from outward experience4 ,inasmuch as all of us1 though naturally generated men1 feel bound1 and consequently able1 ourselves to present such an example1 we have no reason to regard that exemplification of the ideal man as supernaturally generated1 nor does he need the attestation of miracles2 for besides the moral faith in the idea1 nothing further is requisite than the historical conviction that his life was conformed to that idea1 in order to accredit him as its personification4 ,he who is conscious of such a moral disposition1 as to have a well-founded confidence1 that under temptations and sufferings similar to those which are attributed to the ideal man1 as a touchstone of his moral disposition1 he would adhere unalterably to this exemplar1 and faithfully follow his steps1 such a man alone is entitled to consider himself an object of the divine complacency4 ,to elevate himself to such a state of mind1 man must depart from evil1 cast off the old man1 crucify the flesh2 a change which is essentially connected with a series of sorrows and sufferings4 ,these the former man has deserved as a punishment1 but they fall on the new3 for the regenerated man1 who takes them on himself1 though physically and in his empirical character1 as a being determined by the senses1 he remains the former man2 is morally1 as an intellectual being1 with his changed disposition1 become a new man4 ,having by this change taken upon him the disposition of the ,son of ,god1 that which is strictly a substitution of the new man for the old1 may be represented1 by a personification of the idea1 as a substitution of the ,son of ,god1 and it may be said1 that the latter himself1 as a substitute1 bears for man1 for all who practically believe in him1 the guilt of sin2 as a redeemer1 satisfies supreme justice by suffering and death2 and as an intercessor1 imparts the hope of appearing justified before the judge3 the suffering which the new man1 in dying to the old1 must perpetually incur through life1 being conceived in the representative of mankind1 as a death suffered once for all4 #bbcd ,kant1 like ,schleiermacher 7whose ,christology in many respects recalls that of ,kant71 #bbce carries his appropriation of the ,christology of the church no further than the death of ,christ3 of his resurrection and ascension1 he says1 that they cannot be available to religion within the limits of pure reason1 because they would involve the materiality of all existences4 ,still1 in another light1 he employs these facts as symbols of the ideas of the reason2 as images of the entrance into the abode of blessedness1 that is1 into communion with all the good3 while ,tieftrunk has yet more decidedly given it as his opinion1 that without the resurrection1 the history of ,jesus would terminate in a revolting catastrophe2 that the eye would turn away with melancholy and dissatisfaction from an event1 in which the pattern of humanity fell a victim to impious rage1 and in which the scene closed with a death as unmerited as sorrowful2 that the history requires to be crowned with the fulfilment of the expectation towards which the moral contemplations of every one are irresistibly drawn--with the passage into a compensating immortality4 #bbcf ,in the same manner1 ,de ,wette ascribed to the evangelical history1 as to every history1 and particularly to the history of religion1 a symbolical1 ideal character1 in virtue of which it is the expression and image of the human mind and its various operations4 ,the history of the miraculous conception of ,jesus represents the divine origin of religion2 the narratives of his miracles1 the independent force of the human mind1 and the sublime doctrine of spiritual self-reliance2 his resurrection is the image of the victory of truth1 a fore-shadowing of the future triumph of good over evil2 his ascension1 the symbol of the eternal majesty of religion4 ,the fundamental religious ideas which ,jesus enunciated in his teaching1 are expressed with equal clearness in his history4 ,this history is an expression of devoted enthusiasm1 in the courageous ministry of ,jesus1 and in the victorious power of his appearance2 of resignation1 in his contest with the wickedness of men1 in the melancholy of his premonitory discourses1 and above all in his death4 ,christ on the cross is the image of humanity purified by self-sacrifice2 we ought all to crucify ourselves with him1 that we may rise with him to new life4 ,lastly1 the idea of devotion was the key-note in the history of ,jesus1 every moment of his life being dedicated to the thought of his heavenly ,father4 #bbcg ,at an earlier period1 ,horst presented this symbolical view of the history of ,jesus with singular clearness4 ,whether1 he says1 all that is narrated of ,christ happened precisely so1 historically1 is a question indifferent to us1 nor can it now be settled4 ,nay1 if we would be candid with ourselves1 that which was once sacred history for the ,christian believer1 is1 for the enlightened portion of our cotemporaries1 only fable3 the narratives of the supernatural birth of ,christ1 of his miracles1 of his resurrection and ascension1 must be rejected by us as at variance with the inductions of our intellect4 ,let them however only be no longer interpreted merely by the understanding as history1 but by the feelings and imagination1 as poetry2 and it will be found that in these narratives nothing is invented arbitrarily1 but all springs from the depths and divine impulses of the human mind4 ,considered from this point of view1 we may annex to the history of ,christ all that is important to religious trust1 animating to the pure dispositions1 attractive to the tender feelings4 ,that history is a beautiful1 sacred poem of the human race--a poem in which are embodied all the wants of our religious instinct2 and this is the highest honour of ,christianity1 and the strongest proof of its universal applicability4 ,the history of the gospel is in fact the history of human nature conceived ideally1 and exhibits to us in the life of an individual1 what man ought to be1 and1 united with him by following his doctrine and example1 can actually become4 ,it is not denied that what to us can appear only sacred poetry1 was to ,paul1 ,john1 ,matthew and ,luke1 fact and certain history4 ,but it was the very same internal cause which made the narratives of the gospel sacred fact and history to them1 which makes those narratives to us a sacred mythus and poetry4 ,the points of view only are different3 human nature1 and in it the religious impulse1 remains ever the same4 ,those first ,christians needed in their world1 for the animating of the religious and moral dispositions in the men of their time1 history and fact1 of which1 however1 the inmost kernel consisted of ideas3 to us1 the facts are become superannuated and doubtful1 and only for the sake of the fundamental ideas1 are the narratives of those facts an object of reverence4 #bbch ,this view was met immediately on the part of the church by the reproach1 that instead of the riches of divine reality which faith discovers in the history of ,christ1 it palmed upon us a collection of empty ideas and ideals2 instead of a consolatory work effected1 an overwhelming obligation4 ,for the certainty1 that ,god once actually united himself with human nature1 the admonition that man ought to obtain divine dispositions1 offers a poor compensation3 for the peace which the redemption completed by ,christ brings to the believer1 it is no equivalent to put before him the duty of freeing himself from sin4 ,by this system1 man is thrust out of the reconciled world in which ,christianity places him1 into an unreconciled world1 out of a world of happiness into a world of misery2 for where reconciliation has yet to be effected1 where happiness has yet to be attained1 there is at present enmity and unhappiness4 ,and1 in truth1 the hope of entire deliverance from these conditions1 is1 according to the principles of this system1 which only admits an infinite approximation towards the idea1 a deceptive one2 for that which is only to be reached in an endless progression1 is in fact unattainable4 ,but not the faith alone1 science also in its newest development1 has found this system unsatisfactory4 ,science has perceived that to convert ideas simply into an obligatory possibility1 to which no reality corresponds1 is in fact to annihilate them2 just as it would be to render the infinite finite1 to represent it as that which lies beyond the finite4 ,science has conceived that the infinite has its existence in the alternate production and extinction of the finite2 that the idea is realised only in the entire series of its manifestations2 that nothing can come into existence which does not already essentially exist2 and1 therefore1 that it is not to be required of man1 that he should reconcile himself with ,god1 and assimilate his sentiments to the divine1 unless this reconciliation and this assimilation are already virtually effected4 #aej4 ,,the ,,speculative ,,christology4 ,kant had already said that the good principle did not descend from heaven merely at a particular time1 but had descended on mankind invisibly from the commencement of the human race2 and ,schelling laid down the proposition3 the incarnation of ,god is an incarnation from eternity4 #bbci ,but while the former understood under that expression only the moral instinct1 which1 with its ideal of good1 and its sense of duty1 has been from the beginning implanted in man2 the latter understood under the incarnate ,son of ,god the finite itself1 in the form of the human consciousness1 which in its contradistinction to the infinite1 wherewith it is nevertheless one1 appears as a suffering ,god1 subjected to the conditions of time4 ,in the most recent philosophy this idea has been further developed in the following manner4 #bbdj ,when it is said of ,god that he is a ,spirit1 and of man that he also is a ,spirit1 it follows that the two are not essentially distinct4 ,to speak more particularly1 it is the essential property of a spirit1 in the distribution of itself into distinct personalities1 to remain identical with itself1 to possess itself in another than itself4 ,hence the recognition of ,god as a spirit implies1 that ,god does not remain as a fixed and immutable ,infinite encompassing the ,finite1 but enters into it1 produces the ,finite1 ,nature1 and the human mind1 merely as a limited manifestation of himself1 from which he eternally returns into unity4 ,as man1 considered as a finite spirit1 limited to his finite nature1 has not truth2 so ,god1 considered exclusively as an infinite spirit1 shut up in his infinitude1 has not reality4 ,the infinite spirit is real only when it discloses itself in finite spirits2 as the finite spirit is true only when it merges itself in the infinite4 ,the true and real existence of spirit1 therefore1 is neither in ,god by himself1 nor in man by himself1 but in the ,god-man2 neither in the infinite alone1 nor in the finite alone1 but in the interchange of impartation and withdrawal between the two1 which on the part of ,god is revelation1 on the part of man religion4 ,if ,god and man are in themselves one1 and if religion is the human side of this unity3 then must this unity be made evident to man in religion1 and become in him consciousness and reality4 ,certainly1 so long as man knows not that he is a spirit1 he cannot know that ,god is man3 while he is under the guidance of nature only1 he will deify nature2 when he has learned to submit himself to law1 and thus to regulate his natural tendencies by external means1 he will set ,god before him as a lawgiver4 ,but when1 in the vicissitudes of the world's history1 the natural state discloses its corruptions1 the legal its misery2 the former will experience the need of a ,god who elevates it above itself1 the latter1 of a ,god who descends to its level4 ,man being once mature enough to receive as his religion the truth that ,god is man1 and man of a divine race2 it necessarily follows1 since religion is the form in which the truth presents itself to the popular mind1 that this truth must appear1 in a guise intelligible to all1 as a fact obvious to the senses3 in other words1 there must appear a human individual who is recognised as the visible ,god4 ,this ,god-man uniting in a single being the divine essence and the human personality1 it may be said of him that he had the ,divine ,spirit for a father and a woman for his mother4 ,his personality reflecting itself not in himself1 but in the absolute substance1 having the will to exist only for ,god1 and not at all for itself1 he is sinless and perfect4 ,as a man of ,divine essence1 he is the power that subdues nature1 a worker of miracles2 but as ,god in a human manifestation1 he is dependent on nature1 subject to its necessities and sufferings--is in a state of abasement4 ,must he even pay the last tribute to nature8 does not the fact that the human nature is subject to death preclude the idea that that nature is one with the divine8 ,no3 the ,god-man dies1 and thus proves that the incarnation of ,god is real1 that the infinite spirit does not scorn to descend into the lowest depths of the finite1 because he knows how to find a way of return into himself1 because in the most entire alienation of himself1 he can retain his identity4 ,further1 the ,god-man1 in so far as he is a spirit reflected in his infinity1 stands contrasted with men1 in so far as they are limited to their finiteness3 hence opposition and contest result1 and the death of the ,god-,man becomes a violent one1 inflicted by the hands of sinners2 so that to physical degradation is added the moral degradation of ignominy and accusation of crime4 ,if ,god then finds a passage from heaven to the grave1 so must a way be discoverable for man from the grave to heaven3 the death of the prince of life is the life of mortals4 ,by his entrance into the world as ,god-man1 ,god showed himself reconciled to man2 by his dying1 in which act he cast off the limitations of mortality1 he showed moreover the way in which he perpetually effects that reconciliation3 namely1 by remaining1 throughout his manifestation of himself under the limitations of a natural existence1 and his suppression of that existence1 identical with himself4 ,inasmuch as the death of the ,god-man is merely the cessation of his state of alienation from the infinite1 it is in fact an exaltation and return to ,god1 and thus the death is necessarily followed by the resurrection and ascension4 ,the ,god-man1 who during his life stood before his cotemporaries as an individual distinct from themselves1 and perceptible by the senses1 is by death taken out of their sight2 he enters into their imagination and memory3 the unity of the divine and human in him1 becomes a part of the general consciousness2 and the church must repeat spiritually1 in the souls of its members1 those events of his life which he experienced externally4 ,the believer1 finding himself environed with the conditions of nature1 must1 like ,christ1 die to nature--but only inwardly1 as ,christ did outwardly1--must spiritually crucify himself and be buried with ,christ1 that by the virtual suppression of his own sensible existence1 he may become1 in so far as he is a spirit1 identical with himself1 and participate in the bliss and glory of ,christ4 #aea4 ,,last ,,dilemma4 ,thus by a higher mode of argumentation1 from the idea of ,god and man in their reciprocal relation1 the truth of the conception which the church forms of ,christ appears to be confirmed1 and we seem to be reconducted to the orthodox point of view1 though by an inverted path3 for while there1 the truth of the conceptions of the church concerning ,christ is deduced from the correctness of the evangelical history2 here1 the veracity of the history is deduced from the truth of those conceptions4 ,that which is rational is also real2 the idea is not merely the moral imperative of ,kant1 but also an actuality4 ,proved to be an idea of the reason1 the unity of the divine and human nature must also have an historical existence4 ,the unity of ,god with man1 says ,marheineke1 #bbda was really and visibly manifested in the person of ,jesus ,christ2 in him1 according to ,rosenkranz1 #bbdb the divine power over nature was concentrated1 he could not act otherwise than miraculously1 and the working of miracles1 which surprises us1 was to him natural4 ,his resurrection1 says ,conradi1 #bbdc is the necessary sequel of the completion of his personality1 and so little ought it to surprise us1 that1 on the contrary1 we must rather have been surprised if it had not happened4 ,but do these deductions remove the contradictions which have exhibited themselves in the doctrine of the church1 concerning the person and work of ,christ8 ,we need only to compare the structures1 which ,rosenkranz in his ,review has passed on ,schleiermacher's criticism of the ,christology of the church1 with what the same author proposes as a substitute in his ,encyclopdia1 in order to perceive1 that the general propositions on the unity of the divine and human natures1 do not in the least serve to explain the appearance of a person1 in whom this unity existed individually1 in an exclusive manner4 ,though ,i may conceive that the divine spirit in a state of renunciation and abasement becomes the human1 and that the human nature in its return into and above itself becomes the divine2 this does not help me to conceive more easily1 how the divine and human natures can have constituted the distinct and yet united portions of an historical person4 ,though ,i may see the human mind in its unity with the divine1 in the course of the world's history1 more and more completely establish itself as the power which subdues nature2 this is quite another thing1 than to conceive a single man endowed with such power1 for individual1 voluntary acts4 ,lastly1 from the truth1 that the suppression of the natural existence is the resurrection of the spirit1 can never be deduced the bodily resurrection of an individual4 ,we should thus have fallen back again to ,kant's point of view1 which we have ourselves found unsatisfactory3 for if the idea have no corresponding reality1 it is an empty obligation and ideal4 ,but do we then deprive the idea of all reality8 ,by no means3 we reject only that which does not follow from the premises4 #bbdd ,if reality is ascribed to the idea of the unity of the divine and human natures1 is this equivalent to the admission that this unity must actually have been once manifested1 as it never had been1 and never more will be1 in one individual8 ,this is indeed not the mode in which ,idea realizes itself2 it is not wont to lavish all its fulness on one exemplar1 and be niggardly towards all others #bbde--to express itself perfectly in that one individual1 and imperfectly in all the rest3 it rather loves to distribute its riches among a multiplicity of exemplars which reciprocally complete each other--in the alternate appearance and suppression of a series of individuals4 ,and is this no true realization of the idea8 is not the idea of the unity of the divine and human natures a real one in a far higher sense1 when ,i regard the whole race of mankind as its realization1 than when ,i single out one man as such a realization8 is not an incarnation of ,god from eternity1 a truer one than an incarnation limited to a particular point of time4 ,this is the key to the whole of ,christology1 that1 as subject of the predicate which the church assigns to ,christ1 we place1 instead of an individual1 an idea2 but an idea which has an existence in reality1 not in the mind only1 like that of ,kant4 ,in an individual1 a ,god-man1 the properties and functions which the church ascribes to ,christ contradict themselves2 in the idea of the race1 they perfectly agree4 ,humanity is the union of the two natures--,god become man1 the infinite manifesting itself in the finite1 and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude2 it is the child of the visible ,mother and the invisible ,father1 ,nature and ,spirit2 it is the worker of miracles1 in so far as in the course of human history the spirit more and more completely subjugates nature1 both within and around man1 until it lies before him as the inert matter on which he exercises his active power2 #bbdf it is the sinless existence1 for the course of its development is a blameless one1 pollution cleaves to the individual only1 and does not touch the race or its history4 ,it is ,humanity that dies1 rises1 and ascends to heaven1 for from the negation of its phenomenal life there ever proceeds a higher spiritual life2 from the suppression of its mortality as a personal1 national1 and terrestrial spirit1 arises its union with the infinite spirit of the heavens4 ,by faith in this ,christ1 especially in his death and resurrection1 man is justified before ,god2 that is1 by the kindling within him of the idea of ,humanity1 the individual man participates in the divinely human life of the species4 ,now the main element of that idea is1 that the negation of the merely natural and sensual life1 which is itself the negation of the spirit 7the negation of negation1 therefore71 is the sole way to true spiritual life4 #bbdg ,this alone is the absolute sense of ,christology3 that it is annexed to the person and history of one individual1 is a necessary result of the historical form which ,christology has taken4 ,schleiermacher was quite right when he foreboded1 that the speculative view would not leave much more of the historical person of the ,saviour than was retained by the ,ebionites4 ,the phenomenal history of the individual1 says ,hegel1 is only a starting point for the mind4 ,faith1 in her early stages1 is governed by the senses1 and therefore contemplates a temporal history2 what she holds to be true is the external1 ordinary event1 the evidence for which is of the historical1 forensic kind--a fact to be proved by the testimony of the senses1 and the moral confidence inspired by the witnesses4 ,but mind having once taken occasion by this external fact1 to bring under its consciousness the idea of humanity as one with ,god1 sees in the history only the presentation of that idea2 the object of faith is completely changed2 instead of a sensible1 empirical fact1 it has become a spiritual and divine idea1 which has its confirmation no longer in history but in philosophy4 ,when the mind has thus gone beyond the sensible history1 and entered into the domain of the absolute1 the former ceases to be essential2 it takes a subordinate place1 above which the spiritual truths suggested by the history stand self-supported2 it becomes as the faint image of a dream which belongs only to the past1 and does not1 like the idea1 share the permanence of the spirit which is absolutely present to itself4 #bbdh ,even ,luther subordinated the physical miracles to the spiritual1 as the truly great miracles4 ,and shall we interest ourselves more in the cure of some sick people in ,galilee1 than in the miracles of intellectual and moral life belonging to the history of the world--in the increasing1 the almost incredible dominion of man over nature--in the irresistible force of ideas1 to which no unintelligent matter1 whatever its magnitude1 can oppose any enduring resistance8 ,shall isolated incidents1 in themselves trivial1 be more to us than the universal order of events1 simply because in the latter we presuppose1 if we do not perceive1 a natural cause1 in the former the contrary8 ,this would be a direct contravention of the more enlightened sentiments of our own day1 justly and conclusively expressed by ,schleiermacher4 ,the interests of pity1 says this theologian1 can no longer require us so to conceive a fact1 that by its dependence on ,god it is divested of the conditions which would belong to it as a link in the chain of nature2 for we have outgrown the notion1 that the divine omnipotence is more completely manifested in the interruption of the order of nature1 than in its preservation4 #bbdi ,thus if we know the incarnation1 death and resurrection1 the duplex negatio affirmat1 as the eternal circulation1 the infinitely repeated pulsation of the divine life2 what special importance can attach to a single fact1 which is but a mere sensible image of this unending process8 ,our age demands to be led in ,christology to the idea in the fact1 to the race in the individual3 a theology which1 in its doctrines on the ,christ1 stops short at him as an individual1 is not properly a theology1 but a homily4 ,in what relation1 then1 must the pulpit stand to theology1--nay1 how is the continuance of a ministry in the church possible when theology has reached this stage8 ,this is the difficult question which presents itself to us in conclusion4 #aeb4 ,,relation ,,of ,,the ,,critical ,,and ,,speculative ,,theology ,,to ,,the ,,church4 ,schleiermacher has said1 that when he reflected on the approaching crisis in theology1 and imagined himself obliged to choose one of two alternatives1 either to surrender the ,christian history1 like every common history1 as a spoil to criticism1 or to hold his faith in fee to the speculative system2 his decision was1 that for himself1 considered singly1 he would embrace the latter1 but that1 regarding himself as a member of the church1 and especially as one of its teachers1 he should be induced rather to take the opposite course4 ,for the idea of ,god and of man on which1 according to the speculative system1 the truth of the ,christian faith rests1 is indeed a precious jewel1 but it can be possessed only by a few1 and he would not wish to be that privileged individual in the church1 who alone among thousands held the faith on its true grounds4 ,as a member of the church1 he could have no satisfaction but in perfect equality1 in the consciousness that all receive alike1 both in kind and manner1 from the same source4 ,and as a teacher and spokesman to the church1 he could not possibly attempt the task of elevating old and young1 without distinction1 to the idea of ,god and of man3 he must rather attack their faith as a groundless one1 or else endeavour to strengthen and confirm it while knowing it to be groundless4 ,as thus in the matter of religion an impassable gulf would be fixed between two parties in the church1 the speculative theology threatens us with the distinction of an esoteric and exoteric doctrine1 which ill accords with the declaration of ,christ1 that all shall be taught of ,god4 ,the scientific alone have the foundation of the faith3 the unscientific have only the faith1 and receive it only by means of tradition4 ,if the ,ebionitish view1 on the contrary1 leave but little of ,christ1 yet this little is equally attainable by all1 and we are thereby secured from the hierarchy of speculation1 which ever tends to merge itself in the hierarchy of ,rome4 #bbej ,here we see presented1 under the form of thought belonging to a cultivated mind1 the same opinion which is now expressed by many in a less cultivated fashion3 namely1 that the theologian who is at once critical and speculative1 must in relation to the church be a hypocrite4 ,the real state of the case is this4 ,the church refers her ,christology to an individual who existed historically at a certain period3 the speculative theologian to an idea which only attains existence in the totality of individuals2 by the church the evangelical narratives are received as history3 by the critical theologian1 they are regarded for the most part as mere mythi4 ,if he would continue to impart instruction to the church1 four ways are open to him3 ,first1 the attempt already excluded by the above observations of ,schleiermacher1 namely1 to elevate the church to his own point of view1 and for it1 also1 to resolve the historical into the ideal3--an attempt which must necessarily fail1 because to the ,church all those premises are wanting on which the theologian rests his speculative conclusions2 and upon which1 therefore1 only an enthusiast for interpretation would venture4 ,the second and opposite measure would be1 to transport himself to the point of view of the church1 and for the sake of imparting edification ecclesiastically1 to descend from the sphere of the ideal into the region of the popular conception4 ,this expedient is commonly understood and judged too narrowly4 ,the difference between the theologian and the church is regarded as a total one2 it is thought1 that in answer to the question1 whether he believes in the history of ,christ1 he ought to say exactly1 no2 whereas he says1 yes3 and this is a falsehood4 ,it is true1 that if in the discourses and instructions of the spiritual teacher1 the main interest were an historical one1 this would be a correct representation of the case3 but1 in fact1 the interest is a religious one1--it is essential religion which is here communicated under the form of a history2 hence he who does not believe in the history as such1 may yet appreciate the religious truths therein contained1 equally with one who does also receive the history as such3 the distinction is one of form merely1 and does not affect the substance4 ,hence it is an evidence of an uncultivated mind1 to denounce as a hypocrite a theologian who preaches1 for example1 on the resurrection of ,christ1 since1 though he may not believe in the reality of that event as a single sensible fact1 he may1 nevertheless1 hold to be true the representation of the process of spiritual life1 which the resurrection of ,christ affords4 ,strictly considered1 however1 this identity of the substantial truth1 exists only in the apprehension of him who knows how to distinguish the substance from the form of religion1 i4e41 of the theologian1 not of the church1 to whom he speaks4 ,the latter can conceive no faith in the dogmatical truth of the resurrection of ,christ1 for example1 apart from a conviction of its historical reality3 and if it come to discover that the theologian has not this conviction1 and yet preaches on the resurrection1 he must appear in the eyes of the church a hypocrite1 and thus the entire relation between the theologian and the church would be virtually cancelled4 ,in this case1 the theologian1 though in himself no hypocrite1 would appear such to the church1 and would be conscious of this misconstruction4 ,if notwithstanding this1 he should continue to instruct the church under the form of its own conceptions1 he would ultimately appear a hypocrite to himself also1 and would be driven to the third1 desperate course1 of forsaking the ministerial office4 ,it avails nothing to say1 he has only to descend from the pulpit1 and mount the professor's chair1 where he will not be under the necessity of withholding his scientific opinions from such as are destined to science2 for if he1 whom the course of his own intellectual culture has obliged to renounce the ministerial office1 should by his instructions lead many to the same point1 and thus render them also incapable of that office1 the original evil would only be multiplied4 ,on the other hand1 it could not be held good for the church1 that all those who pursue criticism and speculation to the results above presented1 should depart from their position as teachers4 ,for no clergyman would any longer meddle with such inquiries1 if he thus ran the risk of being led to results which would oblige him to abandon the ministerial office2 criticism and philosophy would fall into the hands of those who are not professed theologians1 and to the theologian nothing would remain but the faith1 which then could not possibly long resist the attacks of the critical and speculative laity4 ,but where truth is concerned1 the possible consequences have no weight2 hence the above remark ought not to be made4 ,thus much1 however1 may be maintained in relation to the real question3 he whom his theological studies have led to an intellectual position1 respecting which he must believe1 that he has attained the truth1 that he has penetrated into the deepest mysteries of theology1 cannot feel either inclined or bound just at this point in his career to abandon theology3 on the contrary1 such a step would be unnatural1 nay1 impossible4 ,he will therefore seek another expedient2 and as such there presents itself a fourth1 which is not1 like the two first1 one-sided1 nor like the third1 merely negative1 but which offers a positive mode of reconciling the two extremes--the consciousness of the theologian1 and that of the church4 ,in his discourses to the church1 he will indeed adhere to the forms of the popular conception1 but on every opportunity he will exhibit their spiritual significance1 which to him constitutes their sole truth1 and thus prepare--though such a result is only to be thought of as an unending progress--the resolution of those forms into their original ideas in the consciousness of the church also4 ,thus1 to abide by the example already chosen1 at the festival of ,easter1 he will indeed set out from the sensible fact of the resurrection of ,christ1 but he will dwell chiefly on the being buried and rising again with ,christ1 which the ,apostle himself has strenuously inculcated4 ,this very course every preacher1 even the most orthodox1 strictly takes1 as often as he draws a moral from the evangelical text on which he preaches3 for this is nothing else than the transition from the externally historical to the inward and spiritual4 ,it is true1 we must not overlook the distinction1 that the orthodox preacher builds his moral on the text in such a way1 that the latter remains as an historical foundation2 whereas1 with the speculative preacher1 the transition from the biblical history or the church doctrine1 to the truth which he thence derives1 has the negative effect of annihilating the former4 ,viewed more closely1 however1 the transition of the orthodox preacher from the evangelical text to the moral application1 is not free from this negative tendency2 in proceeding from the history to the doctrine he implies at least thus much3 the history is not enough1 it is not the whole truth1 it must be transmuted from a past fact into a present one1 from an event external to you1 it must become your own intimate experience3 so that with this transition1 the case is the same as with the proof of the existence of ,god1 in which the cosmical existence1 which is the point of departure1 apparently remains as a foundation1 but is in fact negatived as a true existence1 and merged in the absolute4 ,nevertheless1 there remains a marked distinction between these two propositions3 since1 and in so far as1 this has happened1 so and so is your duty and your consolation--and3 this is indeed related as having happened once1 but the truth is1 that it always so happens1 and both in and by you ought to happen4 ,at least1 the community will not receive both as identical2 and thus1 here again1 in every excess or diminution which the more or less spontaneous relation of the teacher to critical theology1 together with the variety in the degrees of culture of the community1 introduces1--the danger is incurred that the community may discover this difference1 and the preacher appear to it1 and consequently to himself1 a hypocrite4 ,in this difficulty1 the theologian may find himself driven either directly to state his opinions1 and attempt to elevate the people to his ideas3 or1 since this attempt must necessarily fail1 carefully to adapt himself to the conception of the community2 or1 lastly1 since1 even on this plan1 he may easily betray himself1 in the end to leave the ministerial profession4 ,we have thus admitted the difficulty with which the critical and speculative views are burthened1 with reference to the relation of the clergyman to the church2 we have exhibited the collision into which the theologian falls1 when it is asked1 what course remains for him in so far as he has adopted such views8 and we have shown that our age has not arrived at a certain decision on this subject4 ,but this collision is not the effect of the curiosity of an individual2 it is necessarily introduced by the progress of time and the development of ,christian theology2 it surprises and masters the individual1 without his being able to guard himself from it4 ,or rather he can do this with slight labour1 if he abstain from study and thought1 or1 if not from these1 from freedom of speech and writing4 ,of such there are already enough in our day1 and there was no need to make continual additions to their number through the calumniation of those who have expressed themselves in the spirit of advanced science4 ,but there are also a few1 who1 notwithstanding such attacks1 freely declare what can no longer be concealed--and time will show whether by the one party or the other1 the ,church1 ,mankind1 and ,truth are best served4 ,,the ,,end4 ,,notes #a ,this passage varies slightly from the original1 a subsequent amplification by ,dr4 ,strauss being incorporated with it4--,tr4 #b ,plato1 de ,republ4 ii4 p4 #cgg4 ,steph42 ,pindar1 ,nem4 vii4 #ca4 #c ,diog4 ,lart4 ,l4 ii4 c4 iii4 ,no4 #g4 #d ,cic4 de ,nat4 ,deor4 i4 #aj4 #ae4 ,comp4 ,athenag4 ,legat4 #bb4 ,tatian1 c4 ,grc4 ,orat4 #ba4 ,clement4 homil4 #f1 #a f4 #e ,diodor4 ,sic4 ,bibl4 ,fragm4 ,l4 vi4 ,cic4 de ,nat4 ,deor4 i4 #db4 #f ,hist4 vi4 #ef4 #g ,dpke1 die ,hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen ,schriftsteller1 s4 #abc4 ff4 #h ,gfrrer4 ,dhne4 #i ,homil4 #e4 in ,levit4 #e4 #aj ,homil4 #b4 in ,exod4 iii43 ,nolite putare1 ut spe jam diximus1 veterum vobis fabulas recitari1 sed doceri vos per hc1 ut agnoscatis ordinem vit4 #aa ,homil4 #e4 in ,levit4 i43 ,hc omnia1 nisi alio sensu accipiamus quam liter textus ostendit1 obstaculum magis et subversionem ,christian religioni1 quam hortationem dificationemque prstabunt4 #ab ,contra ,cels4 vi4 #gj4 #ac ,de principp4 ,l4 iv4 #bj3 77 1 4 #ad ,comm4 in ,joann41 ,tom4 x4 #d3-- 1 1 4 #ae ,de principp4 iv4 #ae3 1 1 1 4 ,de principp4 iv4 #af3 1 1 4 #af ,de principp4 iv4 #af4 #ag ,homil4 #f1 in ,gen4 iii43 ,qu nobis dificatio erit1 legentibus1 ,abraham1 tantam patriarcham1 non solum mentitum esse ,abimelech regi1 sed et pudicitiam conjugis prodidisse8 ,quid nos dificat tanti patriarch uxor1 si putetur contaminationibus exposita per conniventiam maritalem8 ,hc ,judi putent et si qui cum eis sunt liter amici1 non spiritus4 #ah ,de principp4 iv4 #af3 1 '1 1 1 4 #ai ,contra ,celsum1 i4 #dj4 #bj ,comm4 in ,matth41 ,tom4 xvi4 #bf4 #ba ,comm4 in ,joann41 ,tom4 x4 #ag4 #bb ,de principp4 iv4 #ai4 ,after ,origen1 that kind of allegory only which left the historical sense unimpaired was retained in the church2 and where1 subsequently1 a giving up of the verbal meaning is spoken of1 this refers merely to a trope or a simile4 #bc ,in his ,amyntor1 #afih4 ,see ,leland's ,view of the ,deistical ,writers4 #bd ,see ,leland4 #be ,in his work entitled ,the ,moral ,philosopher4 #bf ,posthumous ,works1 #agdh4 #bg ,chubb1 ,posthumous ,works1 i4 #ajb4 #bh ,ibid41 ii4 #bfi4 #bi ,the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,considered1 by a ,moral ,philosopher1 #agdd4 #cj ,six ,discourses on the ,miracles of our ,saviour4 ,published singly1 from #agbg-agbi4 #ca ,schrckh1 ,kirschengesch1 seit der ,reform4 #f ,th4 s4 #aia4 #cb ,fragmente des ,wolfenbttelschen ,ungenannten von ,g4 ,e4 ,lessing herausgegeben4 #cc ,recension der brigen1 noch ungedruckten ,werke des ,wolfenbtteler ,fragmentisten1 in ,eichhorns allgemeiner ,bibliothek1 erster ,band #ates u4 #btes ,stck4 #cd ,paulus's ,commentar ber das neue ,testament4 #ce ,eichhorn's ,urgeschichte1 herausgegeben von ,gabler1 #c ,thl4 s4 #ih4 ff4 #cf ,allgem4 ,biblioth4 #a ,bd4 s4 #ihi1 and ,einleitung in das ,a4 ,t4 #c ,thl4 s4 #hb4 #cg ,religion innerhalb der ,grenzen der blossen ,vernunft1 drittes ,stck4 ,no4 ,,vi43 ,der ,kirchenglaube hat zu seinem hchsten ,ausleger den reinen ,religionsglauben4 #ch ,ad4 ,apollod4 ,athen4 ,biblioth4 not1 p4 #c f4 #ci ,hebraische ,mythologie des alten und neuen ,testaments4 ,g4 ,l4 ,bauer1 #ahjb4 #dj ,institutiones ,theol4 ,chr4 ,dogm4 #db4 #da ,ammon1 ,progr4 quo inquiritur in narrationum de vit ,jesu ,christi primordiis fontes1 etc41 in ,pott's and ,ruperti's ,sylloge ,comm4 theol4 ,no4 #e1 und ,gabler's n4 theol4 ,journal1 #e ,bd4 s4 #hc und #cig4 #db ,ueber ,mythen1 historische ,sagen und ,philosopheme der ltesten ,welt4 ,in ,paulus ,memorabilien1 #e stuck4 #agic4 #dc ,vid4 die ,abhandlung ber ,moses und die ,verfasser des ,pentateuchs1 im #cten4 ,band des ,comm4 ber den ,pent4 s4 #ffj4 #dd ,kritik der ,mosaischen ,geschichte4 ,einl4 s4 #aj4 ff4 #de ,einleit4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #djh4 ff4 #df ,antiquit4 xix4 viii4 #b4 #dg ,die verschiedenen ,rcksichten1 in welchen und fr welche der ,biograph ,jesu arbeiten kann4 ,in ,bertholdt's krit4 ,journal1 #e ,bd4 s4 #bce4 ff4 #dh ,recens-von ,paulus ,commentar1 im neuesten theol4 ,journal #g1 #d1 s4 #cie ff4 7#ahja74 #di ,hebrische ,mythologie4 #a ,thl4 ,einl4 #e4 #ej ,ist es erlaubt1 in der ,bibel1 und sogar im ,n4,t41 ,mythen anzunehmen8 ,im ,journal fr auserlesene theol4 ,literatur1 #b1 #a1 s4 #di ff4 #ea ,ueber den ,tufer ,johannes1 die ,taufe und ,versuchung ,christi1 in ,ullmann's u4 ,umbreit's theol4 ,studien u4 ,kritiken1 #b1 #c1 s4 #def ff4 #eb ,beitrag zur ,erklrung der ,versuchungsgeschichte1 in ders4 ,zeitschrift1 #ahcb1 #d4 ,heft4 #ec ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #dbb ff4 #dec ff4 #ed ,besonders durch ,gieseler1 ber die ,entstehung und die frhsten ,schicksale der schriftlichen ,evangelien4 #ee ,vid4 den ,anhang der ,schulz'schen ,schrift ber das ,abendmahl1 und die ,schriften von ,sieffert und ,schneckenburger ber den ,ursprung des ersten kanonischen ,evangeliums4 #ef ,in den ,probabilien4 #eg ,geschichte der hebrischen ,nation1 ,theil4 i4 s4 #abc4 #eh ,in ,henke's ,magazin1 #eten ,bdes4 #ates ,stck4 s4 #afc4 #ei ,versuch ber die genetische oder formelle ,erklrungsart der ,wunder4 ,in ,henke's ,museum1 i4 #c4 #ahjc4 #fj ,kaiser's biblische ,theologie1 #a ,thl4 #fa ,gabler's ,journal fr auserlesene theol4 ,literatur4 ii4 #a4 s4 #df4 #fb ,gabler's neuestes theolog4 ,journal1 #g ,bd4 #fc ,bertholdt's ,krit4 ,journal1 v4 s4 #bce4 #fd ,ullmann1 ,recens4 meines ,l4 ,j41 in den ,theol4 ,studien u4 ,kritiken #ahcf4 #c4 #fe ,george1 ,mythus und ,sage2 ,versuch einer wissenschaftlichen ,entwicklung dieser ,begriffe und ihres ,verhltnisses zum christlichen ,glauben1 s4 #aa4 ff4 #ajh4 ff4 #ff ,work cited1 #h1 note #d4 ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 #cb4 ,tholuck1 s4 #bjh4 ff4 ,kern1 die ,hauptsachen der evangelischen ,geschichte1 #ast ,article1 ,tbinger ,zeitschrift fr ,theologie1 #ahcf1 ii4 s4 #ci4 #fg ,comp4 ,kuinl1 ,prolegom4 in ,matthum1 #c2 in ,lucam1 #f4 #fh e4g4 ,ammon1 in der ,diss43 ,ascensus ,j4 ,c4 in clum historia biblica1 in seinen ,opusc4 nov4 #fi ,in ,bertholdt's ,krit4 ,journ4 v4 ,bd4 s4 #bdh4 #gj ,gabler's neuestes theol4 ,journal1 ,bd4 vii4 s4 #cie4 #ga ,encyclopdie der theol4 ,wissenschaften1 s4 #afa4 #gb ,in ,gabler's neuestem theolog4 ,journal1 ,bd4 vi4 #dtes ,stck4 s4 #cej4 #gc ,grnzbestimmung dessen1 was in der ,bibel ,mythus1 u4 s4 f41 und was wirkliche ,geschichte ist4 ,in seiner ,bibliothek der heiligen ,geschichte1 ii4 ,bd4 s4 #aee4 ff4 #gd ,meyer1 ,apologie der geschichtlichen ,auffassung der historischen ,bucher des ,a4 ,t41 besonders des ,pentateuchs1 im ,gegensatz gegen die blos mythische ,deutung des letztern4 ,fritzsche4 ,kelle4 #ge ,exegetisches ,handbuch1 i4 a4 s4 #a1 #ga4 #gf ,greiling in ,henke's ,museum1 i4 #d4 s4 #fba4 ff4 #gg ,see the quotations given by ,de ,wette in his 8,einleitung in d4 ,n4 ,t40 #gf4 #gh ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e41 iii4 #ci4 #gi ,ullman1 ,credner1 ,lcke1 ,de ,wette4 #hj ,hieron4 de vir4 illustr4 #c4 #ha ,contra ,celsum1 ii4 #af4 v4 #ef4 #hb ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #ci4 #hc ,this is clearly demonstrated by ,griesbach in his 8,commentatio1 qu ,marci ,evangelium totum e ,matthi et ,luc commentariis decerptum esse demonstratur40 #hd ,chap4 xvi4 #aj-ag2 xx4 #e-ae2 xxi4 #a-ag2 xxvii4 #a-bh2 xxviii4 #aj-af4 #he ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 v4 #bj1 #bd4 #hf ,de ,wette1 ,gieseler4 #hg ,ad4 ,autol4 ii41 #bb4 #hh ,see ,schleiermacher4 #hi ,this same want of distinction has led the ,alexandrians to allegorize1 the ,deists to scoff1 and the ,supernaturalists to strain the meaning of words2 as was done lately by ,hoffmann in describing ,david's behaviour to the conquered ,ammonites4 7,christoterpe auf #ahch1 s4 #ahd47 #ij ,heydenreich1 ber die ,unzulssigkeit1 u4 s4 f4 #a stck4 ,compare ,storr1 doctr4 christ4 #ce4 ff4 #ia ,if the ,supranatural view contains a theological contradiction1 so the new evangelical theology1 which esteems itself raised so far above the old supranatural view1 contains a logical contradiction4 ,to say that ,god acts only mediately upon the world as the general rule1 but sometimes1 by way of exception1 immediately1--has some meaning1 though perhaps not a wise one4 ,but to say that ,god acts always immediately on the world1 but in some cases more particularly immediately1--is a flat contradiction in itself4 ,on the principle of the immanence or immediate agency of ,god in the world1 to which the new evangelical theology lays claim1 the idea of the miraculous is impossible4 ,comp4 my ,streitschriften1 i4 #c1 s4 #df f4 #ib ,in this view essentially coincide ,wegscheider1 instit4 theol4 dogm4 #ab2 ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogm41 ,vorbereitung2 ,schleiermacher1 ,glaubensl4 #df f42 ,marheineke1 ,dogm4 #bfi ff4 ,comp4 ,george1 s4 #gh f4 #ic ,to a freedom from this presupposition we lay claim in the following work2 in the same sense as a state might be called free from presupposition where the privileges of station1 etc41 were of no account4 ,such a state indeed has one presupposition1 that of the natural equality of its citizens2 and similarly do we take for granted the equal amenability to law of all events2 but this is merely an affirmative form of expression for our former negation4 ,but to claim for the biblical history especial laws of its own1 is an affirmative proposition1 which1 according to the established rule1 is that which requires proof1 and not our denial of it1 which is merely negative4 ,and if the proof cannot be given1 or be found insufficient1 it is the former and not the latter1 which is to be considered a presupposition4 ,see my ,streitschriften i4 #c4 s4 #cf ff4 #id ,prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen ,mythologie1 s4 #aaj ff4 ,with this ,ullmann1 and ,j4 ,mller in their reviews of this work1 ,hoffmann1 s4 #aac f41 and others are agreed as far as relates to the heathen mythi4 ,especially compare ,george1 ,mythus und ,sage1 s4 #ae ff4 #ajc4 #ie ,the words of ,baur in his review of ,mller's ,prolegomena1 in ,jahn's ,jahrbchern f4 ,philol4 u4 ,pdag4 #ahbh4 #a ,heft1 s4 #g4 #if ,i4 #ai4 #ig ,midrasch ,koheleth f4 #gc1 #c 7in ,schttgen1 hor hebraic et talmudic1 #b1 ,s4 #bea f474 ,r4 ,berechias nomine ,r4 ,isaaci dixit3 ,quemadmodum ,gol primus 7,moses71 sic etiam postremus 7,messias7 comparatus est4 ,de ,gole primo quidnam scriptura dicit8 ,exod4 iv4 #bj3 et sumsit ,moses uxorem et filios1 eosque asino imposuit4 ,sic ,gol postremus1 ,zachar4 ix4 #i3 pauper et insidens asino4 ,quidnam de ,gole primo nosti8 ,is descendere fecit ,man1 q4 d4 ,exod4 xvi4 #ad3 ecce ego pluere faciam vobis panem de clo4 ,sic etiam ,gol postremus ,manna descendere faciet1 q4 d4 ,ps4 lxxii4 #af3 erit multitudo frumenti in terra4 ,quomodo ,gol primus comparatus fuit8 ,is ascendere fecit puteum3 sic quoque ,gol postremus ascendere faciet aquas1 q4 d4 ,joel iv4 #ah3 et fons e domo ,domini egredietur1 et torrentem ,sittim irrigabit4 #ih ,tanchuma f4 #ed1 #d4 7in ,schttgen1 p4 #gd73 ,r4 ,acha nomine ,r4 ,samuelis bar ,nachmani dixit3 ,qucumque ,deus ,s4 ,b4 facturus est 7tempore ,messiano7 ea jam ante fecit per manus justorum 7seculo ante ,messiam elapso74 ,deus ,s4 ,b4 suscitabit mortuos1 id quod jam ante fecit per ,eliam1 ,elisam et ,ezechielem4 ,mare exsiccabit1 prout per ,mosen factum est4 ,oculos ccorum aperiet1 id quod per ,elisam fecit4 ,deus ,s4 ,b4 futuro tempore visitabit steriles1 quemadmodum in ,abrahamo et ,sar fecit4 #ii ,the ,old ,testament legends have undergone many changes and amplifications1 even without any reference to the ,messiah1 so that the partial discrepancy between the narratives concerning ,jesus with those relating to ,moses and the prophets1 is not a decisive proof that the former were not derived from the latter4 ,compare ,acts vii4 #bb1 #ec1 and the corresponding part of ,josephus ,antiq4 ii4 iii4 with the account of ,moses given in ,exodus4 ,also the biblical account of ,abraham with ,antiq4 i4 #h1 #b2 of ,jacob with i4 #ai1 #f2 of ,joseph with ii4 #e1 #d4 #ajj ,george1 s4 #abe3 ,if we consider the firm conviction of the disciples1 that all which had been prophesied in the ,old ,testament of the ,messiah must necessarily have been fulfilled in the person of their master2 and moreover that there were many blank spaces in the history of ,christ2 we shall see that it was impossible to have happened otherwise than that these ideas should have embodied themselves1 and thus the mythi have arisen which we find4 ,even if a more correct representation of the life of ,jesus had been possible by means of tradition1 this conviction of the disciples must have been strong enough to triumph over it4 #aja ,compare ,o4 ,mller1 ,prolegomena1 s4 #g1 on a similar conclusion of ,grecian poets4 #ajb ,the comparison of the first chapter of this book with the history of ,joseph in ,genesis1 gives an instructive view of the tendency of the later ,hebrew legend and poetry to form new relations upon the pattern of the old4 ,as ,joseph was carried captive to ,egypt1 so was ,daniel to ,babylon 7i4 #b72 like ,joseph he must change his name 7#g74 ,god makes the favourable to him1 as the to ,joseph 7#i72 he abstains from polluting himself with partaking of the king's meats and drinks1 which are pressed upon him 7#h72 a self-denial held as meritorious in the time of ,antiochus ,epiphanes1 as that of ,joseph with regard to ,potiphar's wife2 like ,joseph he gains eminence by the interpretation of a dream of the king1 which his were unable to explain to him 7ii472 whilst the additional circumstance that ,daniel is enabled to give not only the interpretation1 but the dream itself1 which had escaped the memory of the king1 appears to be a romantic exaggeration of that which was attributed to ,joseph4 ,in the account of ,josephus1 the history of ,daniel has reacted in a singular manner upon that of ,joseph2 for as ,nebuchadnezzar forgets his dream1 and the interpretation according to ,josephus revealed to him at the same time1 so does he make ,pharaoh forget the interpretation shown to him with the dream4 ,antiq4 ii4 #e1 #d4 #ajc ,thus ,j4 ,mller1 theol4 ,studien u4 ,kritiken1 #ahcf1 iii4 s4 #hci ff4 #ajd ,it may here be observed1 once for all1 that whenever in the following inquiry the names 8,matthew10 8,luke10 etc41 are used1 it is the author of the several ,gospels who is thus briefly indicated1 quite irrespective of the question whether either of the ,gospels was written by an apostle or disciple of that name1 or by a later unknown author4 #aje ,see ,kuinl ,comm4 in ,luc41 ,proleg41 p4 #bdg4 #ajf ,paulus1 exeget4 ,handbuch1 #a a4 s4 #gh f4 #if4 ,bauer1 hebr4 ,mythol41 #b ,bd4 s4 #bah f4 #ajg ,here ,michael is called one of the chief princes4 #ajh ,here ,raphael is represented as one of the seven angels which go in and out before the glory of the holy ,one2 7,tobit1 xii4 #ae71 almost the same as ,gabriel in ,luke i4 #ai1 excepting the mention of the number4 ,this number is in imitation of the ,persian ,amschaspands4 ,vid4 ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogmatik1 #aga b4 #aji ,hieros4 rosch haschanah f4 lvi4 #d4 7,lightfoot1 hor hebr4 et talmud4 in ,,iv4 ,evangg41 p4 #gbc73 ,r4 ,simeon ben ,lachisch dicit3 nomina angelorum ascenderunt in manu ,isralis ex ,babylone4 ,nam antea dictum est3 advolavit ad me unus ,seraphim1 ,seraphim steterunt ante eum1 ,jes4 vi42 at post3 vir ,gabriel1 ,dan4 ix4 #ba1 ,michal princeps vester1 ,dan4 x4 #ba4 #aaj ,olshausen1 biblischer ,commentar zum ,n4,t41 #a ,thl4 s4 #bi 7#bte ,auflage74 ,comp4 ,hoffmann1 s4 #abd f4 #aaa ,olshausen1 ut sup4 ,hoffmann1 s4 #ace4 #aab ,ut sup4 s4 #gg4 #aac ,geschichte der drei letzten ,lebensjahre ,jesu1 sammt dessen ,jugendgeschichte4 ,tbingen1 #aggi4 #a ,bd4 s4 #ab4 #aad ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #aae4 #aae ,hebr4 ,mythol4 ii4 s4 #bah4 #aaf ,bauer1 ut sup4 i4 s4 #abi4 ,paulus1 exeget4 ,handbuch1 i4 a1 #gd4 #aag ,paulus1 ,commentar1 i4 s4 #ab4 #aah ,bauer1 ut sup4 #aai ,glaubenslehre1 #a ,thl4 #db und #dc 7#bte ,ausgabe74 #abj ,binder1 ,studien der evang4 ,geistlichkeit ,wrtembergs1 ix4 #b1 #e4 #aa ff4 #aba ,compare my ,dogmatik1 i4 #di4 #abb ,bibl4 ,comm41 #a4 ,thl4 s4 #aai4 #abc ,ut sup4 s4 #ib4 #abd ,hess1 ,geschichte der drei letzten ,lebensjahre ,jesu u4 s4 w41 #a4 ,thl4 s4 #ac1 #cc4 #abe ,horst in ,henke's ,museum1 i4 #d4 s4 #gcc f4 ,gabler in seinem neuest4 theol4 ,journal1 vii4 #a4 s4 #djc4 #abf ,briefe ber die ,bibel im ,volkstone 7,ausg4 ,frankfurt und ,leipzig1 #ahjj71 #ates ,bndchen1 #fter ,brief1 s4 #ea f4 #abg ,bahrdt1 ut sup4 s4 #eb4 #abh ,exeget4 ,handb4 #a1 a4 s4 #gd ff4 #abi ,bahrdt1 ut sup4 #gter ,brief1 s4 #fj4--;,e4 ,f4 ber die beiden ersten ,kapitel des ,matthus und ,lukas1 in ,henke's ,magazin1 v4 #a4 s4 #afc4 ,bauer1 hebr4 ,mythol4 #b1 s4 #bbj4 #acj ,exeget4 ,handb4 #a1 a4 s4 #gg-hj4 #aca ,ut sup4 s4 #gc4 #acb ,comp4 ,schleiermacher ber die ,schriften des ,lukas1 s4 #be4 #acc ,hor hebr4 et talmud41 ed4 ,carpzov4 p4 #gbb4 #acd ,ut sup4 s4 #bf4 #ace ,examples borrowed from ,aulus ,gellius1 v4 #i1 and from ,valerius ,maximus1 i4 #h1 are cited4 #acf ,ut sup4 s4 #bf4 #acg ,ut sup4 s4 #gb f4 #ach ,ut sup4 s4 #fi4 #aci ,in ,schmidt's ,bibliothek fr ,kritik und ,exegese1 iii4 #a1 s4 #aai4 #adj ,paulus1 ut sup4 #ada ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a4 #b1 s4 #i4 #adb ber die ,schriften des ,lukas1 s4 #bc4 #adc ,paulus und ,olshausen z4 d4 ,st41 ,heydenreich a4 a4 ,o4 #a1 s4 #hg4 #add ,comp4 ,horst1 in ,henke's ,museum1 i4 #d1 s4 #gje2 ,vater1 ,commentar zum ,pentateuch1 #c1 s4 #eig ff42 ,hase ,l4 ,j41 #ce2 auch ,george1 s4 #cc f4 #ia4 #ade ,e4 ,f4 ber die zwei ersten ,kapitel u4 s4 w4 in ,henke's ,magazin1 v4 #a1 s4 #afb ff41 und ,bauer hebr4 ,mythol41 ii4 #bbj f4 #adf ,the adoption of this opinion is best explained by a passage--with respect to this matter classical--in the ,evangelium de nativitate ,mari1 in ,fabricius codex apocryphus ,n4 ,ti4 #a1 p4 #bb f41 and in ,thilo #a1 p4 #cbb1 8,deus0--it is here said1--cum alicujus uterum claudit1 ad hoc facit1 ut mirabilius denuo aperiat1 et non libidinis esse1 quod nascitur1 sed divini muneris cognoscatur4 ,prima enim gentis vestr ,sara mater nonne usque ad octogesimum annum infecunda fuit8 et tamen in ultim senectutis tate genuit ,isaac1 cui repromissa erat benedictio omnium gentium4 ,rachel quoque1 tantum ,domino grata tantumque a sancto ,jacob amata diu sterilis fuit1 et tamen ,joseph genuit1 non solum dominum gypti1 sed plurimarum gentium fame periturarum liberatorem4 ,quis in ducibus vel fortior ,sampsone1 vel sanctior ,samuele8 et tamen hi ambo steriles matres habuere4--ergo--crede--dilatos diu conceptus et steriles partus mirabiliores esse solere4 #adg ,neuestes theol4 ,journal1 vii4 #a1 s4 #djb f4 #adh ,in ,henke's ,museum1 i4 #d1 s4 #gjb ff4 #adi ,hase in his ,leben ,jesu makes the same admission2 compare #eb with #cb4 #aej ,wetstein zu ,luke i4 #aa1 s4 #fdg f4 adduces passages from ,josephus and from the ,rabbins recording apparitions seen by the high priests4 ,how readily it was presumed that the same thing happened to ordinary priests is apparent from the narrative before us4 #aea ,judges xiii4 #ad 7,,lxx473 ,luc4 i4 #ae43 7al4 1 hebr4 7 4 4 #aeb ,judg4 xiii4 #e3 ,luc4 i4 #ae43 7al4 7 7al4 74 4 #aec ,judg4 xiii4 #bd f43 ,luc4 i4 #hj3 1 ' 7al4 7 1 1 1 4 4 ,comp4 ,gen4 xxi4 #bj4 #aed ,gen4 xvi4 #aa4 7,,lxx473 ,luc4 i4 #ac3 4 4 xvii4 #ai3 -- -- 4 #aee ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,commentar1 #a4 s4 #aaf4 ,hoffmann1 s4 #adf4 #aef ,with this view of the passage compare ,de ,wette1 ,exeg4 ,handbuch zum ,n4 ,t41 #a1 #b1 s4 #ab4 #aeg ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,matth4 ,proleg41 p4 xxvii4 f4 #aeh ,paulus1 p4 #bib4 #aei ,hieron4 in ,daniel4 init4 #afj ,see ,wetstein4 #afa e4g4 ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 p4 #ac4 #afb ,exegt4 ,handbuch1 i4 #a1 s4 #ab f4 #afc ,the expedient of ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,matth4 p4 #c1 to distinguish the ,rahab here mentioned from the celebrated one1 becomes hence superfluous1 besides that it is perfectly arbitrary4 #afd ,hoffmann1 s4 #aed1 according to ,hug1 ,einl41 ii4 s4 #bga4 #afe ,compare ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 p4 #ai2 ,paulus1 exeget4 ,handbuch1 i4 s4 #bhi2 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 in loco4 #aff ,fritzsche in ,matth41 p4 #aa4 #afg ,paulus1 s4 #bib4 #afh ,bibl4 ,comm41 p4 #df1 note4 #afi ,see ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge zur ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t41 s4 #da f41 and the passage cited from ,josephus1 ,b4 j4 vi4 #h4 ,also may be compared the passage cited by ,schttgen1 hor hebr4 et talm4 zu ,matth4 i4 from ,synopsis ,sohar1 p4 #acb1 n4 #ah4 ,ab ,abrahamo usque ad ,salomonem ,,xv4 sunt generationes2 atque tunc luna fuit in plenilunio4 ,a ,salomone usque ad ,zedekiam iterum sunt ,,xv4 generationes1 et tunc luna defecit1 et ,zedeki effossi sunt oculi4 #agj ,de ,wette has already called attention to the analogy between these ,old ,testament genealogies and those of the ,gospels1 with regard to the intentional equality of numbers4 ,kritik der mos4 ,geschichte1 s4 #fi4 ,comp4 s4 #dh4 #aga ,see ,chrysostom and ,luther1 in ,credner1 ,einleitung in d4 ,n4 ,t41 #a1 s4 #adc f4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterbuch1 #a41 s4 #fei4 #agb ,orig4 homil4 in ,lucam #bh4 #agc ,luther1 ,werke1 ,bd4 #ad4 ,walch4 ,ausg4 s4 #h ff4 #agd ,de consensu ,evangelistarum1 ii4 #c1 u4 c4 ,faust41 iii4 #c2 amongst the moderns1 for example1 ,e4 ,f4 in ,henke's ,magazin #e1 #a1 #ahj f4 ,after ,augustine had subsequently become acquainted with the writing of ,africanus1 he gave up his own opinion for that of the latter4 ,retract1 ii4 #g4 #age ,eusebius1 ,h4 ,e4 i4 #g1 and lately e4g4 ,schleiermacher on ,luke1 p4 #ec4 #agf ,s4 #ec4 ,comp4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterbuch1 #a ,bd4 s4 #ffj4 #agg ,comp4 ,michaelis1 ,mos4 ,recht4 ii4 s4 #bjj4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterb4 ii4 s4 #bb f4 #agh ,thus e4g4 ,spanheim1 dubia evang4 p4 #a4 s4 #ac ff4 ,lightfoot1 ,michaelis1 ,paulus1 ,kuinl1 ,olshausen1 lately ,hoffmann and others4 #agi ,epiphanius1 ,grotius4 ,olshausen1 s4 #dc4 #ahj ,testament ,,xii4 ,patriarch41 ,test4 ,simeon c4 #ga4 ,in ,fabric4 ,codex pseudepigr4 ,v4 ,t4 p4 #edb3 7the races of ,levi and ,juda7 4 1 444 #aha ,comp4 ,thilo1 cod4 apocr4 ,n4,t4 #a1 s4 #cgd ff4 #ahb ,thus e4g4 the ,manichan ,faustus in ,augustin4 contra ,faust4 ,l4 xxiii4 #d4 #ahc ,protevangel4 ,jacobi c4 #a f4 u4 #aj4 and evangel4 de nativitate ,mari c4 #a4 ,joachim and ,anna1 of the race of ,david1 are here mentioned as the parents of ,mary4 ,faustus on the contrary1 in the above cited passage1 gives ,joachim the title of ,sacerdos4 #ahd ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #dc4 #ajj4 7,paris1 #agdb47 #ahe ,paulus4 ,the ,jews also in their representation of a ,mary1 the daughter of ,heli1 tormented in the lower world 7see ,lightfoot71 appear to have taken the genealogy of ,luke1 which sets out from ,heli1 for that of ,mary4 #ahf e4g4 ,lightfoot1 hor1 p4 #gej2 ,osiander1 s4 #hf4 #ahg ,juchasin f4 #ee1 #b4 in ,lightfoot s4 #ahc1 and ,bava bathra1 f4 #aaj1 #b4 in ,wetstein s4 #bcj f4 ,comp4 ,joseph4 ,vita1 #a4 #ahh ,thus ,eichhorn1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #a ,dd s4 #dbe4 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bcb4 ,wegscheider1 ,institut4 #abc1 not4 d4 de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogm4 #bgi1 and exeget4 ,handbuch #a1 #b1 s4 #cb4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterb4 #a1 s4 #ffj f4 ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 #cc4 ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matt1 p4 #ce4 ,ammon1 ,fortbildung des ,christenthums zur ,weltreligion #a1 s4 #aif ff4 #ahi ,see ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogm4 and exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #ad2 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 ,eusebius gives a not improbable explanation of this disagreement 7ad4 ,steph4 qust4 iii41 pointed out by ,credner1 #a1 p4 #fh f47 that besides the notion amongst the ,jews1 that the ,messiah must spring from the royal line of ,david1 another had arisen1 that this line having become polluted and declared unworthy of continuing on the throne of ,david 7,jerem4 xxii4 #cj71 by the wickedness of its later reigning members1 a line more pure though less famed was to be preferred to it4 #aij ,the farther considerations on the origin and import of these genealogies1 which arise from their connexion with the account of the miraculous birth of ,jesus1 must be reserved till after the examination of the latter point4 #aia ,fabricius1 ,codex apocryphus ,n4 ,t4 #a1 p4 #ai ff4 #ff ff42 ,thilo1 #a1 p4 #afa ff4 #cai ff4 #aib ,gregory of ,nyssa or his interpolator is reminded of this mother of ,samuel by the apocryphal ,anna when he says of her3 444 ,fabricius1 #a1 p4 #f4 #aic ,evang4 de nativ4 ,mar4 c4 #g3 cunctos de domo et familia ,david nuptui habiles1 non conjugatos4 #aid ,protev4 ,jac c4 #h3 4 #aie ,it is thus in the ,evang4 de nativ4 ,mariae vii4 and viii42 but rather different in the ,protev4 ,jac4 c4 ix4 #aif ,protev4 c4 #i3 4 ,evang4 de nativ4 ,mar4 #h43 grandaevus4 ,epiphan4 adv4 haeres4 #gh1 #h3 1 4 #aig 4 c4 ix4 ,compare with ,evang4 de nativ4 ,mar4 viii4 and x4 #aih ,see the variations in ,thilo1 p4 #bbg1 and the quotations from the ,fathers at p4 #cfe not4 #aii ,numb4 v4 #ah4 #bjj ,protev4 ,jac4 x4-xvi4 ,the account in the ,evang4 de nativ4 ,mar4 is less characteristic4 #bja 8,die natrliche ,geschichte des grossen ,propheten von ,nazaret10 #ater ,band1 s4 #aai ff4 #bjb ,augustin1 de consens4 evangelist4 ii4 #e4 #bjc ,paulus1 ,olshausen1 ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth4 p4 #ef4 #bjd ,comp4 de ,wette's exeg4 ,handbuch1 i4 #a1 s4 #ah4 ,schleiermacher1 ,ueber die ,schriften des ,lukas1 s4 #db ff4 #bje ,protev4 ,jac4 c4 #ab3 4 ,when questioned by ,joseph she assures him with tears3 1 4 c4 #ac4 #bjf ,geschichte der drei letzten ,lebensjahre ,jesu u4 s4 w4 #a4 ,thl4 s4 #cf4 ,comp4 ,hoffmann1 s4 #agf f4 #bjg ,ch4 viii4-x4 #bjh ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a a1 s4 #aba4 #ade4 #bji ,to this opinion ,neander inclines1 ,l4 ,j4 ,ch4 s4 #ah4 #baj ,gen4 xvii4 #ai2 ,,lxx4 7,annunciation of ,matt4 i4 #ba4 ,isaac73 7 --7 1 1 4 ,judg4 xiii4 #e4 7,annunciation of 4 ,samson73 ,luke i4 #cj ff4 4 -- 1 ,gen4 xvi4 #aa ff4 7,annunciation of 1 ,ishmael73 4 4----4 1 4 -- --4 #baa ,comp4 de ,wette1 ,kritik der mos4 ,geschichte1 s4 #hf ff4 #bab ,the vision which1 according to ,matthew1 ,joseph had in his sleep1 had besides a kind of type in the vision by which1 according to the ,jewish tradition related by ,josephus1 the father of ,moses was comforted under similar circumstances1 when suffering anxiety concerning the pregnancy of his wife1 although for a different reason4 ,joseph4 ,antiq4 ,,ii4 ix4 #c4 8,a man whose name was ,amram1 one of the nobler sort of ,hebrews1 was afraid for his whole nation1 lest it should fail1 by the want of young men to be brought up hereafter1 and was very uneasy at it1 his wife being then with child1 and he knew not what to do4 ,hereupon he betook himself to prayer to ,god4444 ,accordingly ,god had mercy on him1 and was moved by his supplication4 ,he stood by him in his sleep1 and exhorted him not to despair of his future favours4444 ,for this child of thine shall deliver the ,hebrew nation from the distress they are under from the ,egyptians4 ,his memory shall be famous while the world lasts40 #bac ,comp4 ,ammon1 ,fortbildung des ,christenthums1 i4 s4 #bjh f4 #bad ,ueber die ,schriften des ,lukas1 s4 #bc4 #bae ,compare ,gesenius and ,hitzig4 ,commentaren zum ,jesaia2 ,umbreit1 ,ueber die ,geburt des ,immanuel durch eine ,jungfrau1 in den theol4 ,studien u4 ,krit41 #ahcj1 #c4 ,heft1 s4 #eda ff4 #baf ,this explanation does away with the importance of the controversy respecting the word 4 ,moreover it ought to be decided by the fact that the word does not signify an immaculate1 but a marriageable young woman 7see ,gesenius74 ,so early as the time of ,justin the ,jews maintained that the word ought not to be rendered by but by 4 ,dial c4 ,tryph4 no4 #dc4 p4 #acj ,e4 ,comp4 ,iren4 adv4 haer4 iii4 #ba4 #bag ,christologie des ,a4 ,t4 s4 #a1 b1 s4 #dg4 #bah ,see ,winer1 ,grammatik des neutest4 ,sprachidioms1 #cte ,aufl4 s4 #chb ff4 ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth4 p4 #di4 #cag und ,excurs4 #a1 p4 #hcf ff4 #bai ,see the ,introduction1 #ad4 #bbj ,see ,bleek in den theol4 ,studien u4 ,kritiken1 #ahce1 #b1 s4 #dda ff4 #bba ,the whole rationalistic interpretation of ,scripture rests upon a sufficiently palpable paralogism1 by which it stands or falls3 ,the ,new ,testament authors are not to be interpreted as if they said something irrational 7certainly not something contrary to their own modes of thinking74 ,now according to a particular interpretation their assertions are irrational 7that is contrary to our modes of thinking74 ,consequently the interpretation cannot give the original sense1 and a different interpretation must be given4 ,who does not here perceive the quaternio terminorum and the fatal inconsequence1 when ,rationalism takes its stand upon the same ground with supernaturalism2 that1 namely1 whilst with regard to all other men the first point to be examined is whether they speak or write what is just and true1 to the ,new ,testament writers the prerogative is granted of this being1 in their case1 already presupposed8 #bbb ,conjugial4 prcept4 ,opp4 ed4 ,hutton1 ,vol4 #g4 s4 #dbh4 #bbc ,irenus1 adv4 haer4 #a1 #bf3 ,cerinthus1 ,jesum subjecit non ex virgine natum1 impossibile enim hoc ei visum est4 #bbd ,in ,henke's neuem ,magazin1 iii4 #c1 s4 #cfi4 #bbe ,homil4 in ,lucam xiv4 ,comp4 my ,streitschriften1 i4 #b1 s4 #gb f4 #bbf ,olshausen1 ,bibl4 ,comm4 s4 #di4 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,ch4 s4 #af f4 #bbg e4g4 by ,eichhorn1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t4 #a4 ,bd4 s4 #djg4 #bbh ,glaubenslehre1 #b ,thl4 #ig4 s4 #gc f4 der zweiten ,auflage4 #bbi ,this side is particularly considered in der ,skiagraphie des ,dogma's von ,jesu bernatrlicher ,geburt1 in ,schmidt's ,bibliothek1 i4 #c1 s4 #djj ff42 in den ,bemerkungen ber den ,glaubenspunkt3 ,christus ist empfangen vom heil4 ,geist1 in ,henke's neuem ,magazin1 iii4 #c1 #cfe ff42 in ,kaiser's bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bca f42 ,de ,wette's bibl4 ,dogmatik1 #bha2 ,schleiermacher's ,glaubenslehre1 #b ,thl4 #ig4 #bcj ,brought to bear upon this point by ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,ch4 s4 #ab4 #bca ,augustinus contra ,faustum ,manichaeum1 ,l4 #bc4 #c4 #d4 #h4 #bcb ,see ,schmidt1 ,schleiermacher1 and ,wegscheider1 ,instit4 #abc 7not4 d74 #bcc ,eichhorn thinks this probable1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t4 i4 s4 #dbe1 ,de ,wette possible1 exeg4 ,handb4 i4 #a1 s4 #g4 #bcd ,justin ,mart4 ,dial4 cum ,tryphone1 #dh2 ,origines contra ,celsum1 ,l4 #e1 #fa4 ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 #c1 #bg4 #bce ,epiphan4 haeres4 #cj1 #ad4 #bcf ,haeres4 #bi1 #i4 #bcg ,credner1 in den ,beitrgen zur ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #ddc4 ,anm4 #bch ,orig4 ut sup4 #bci ,see ,neander1 ,k4 ,g4 #a1 #b1 s4 #fae f4 #bdj ,credner1 ber ,essener1 und einen theilweisen ,zusammenhang beider1 in ,winer's ,zeitschrift f4 wissenschaftliche ,theologie1 #a4 ,bd4 #btes and #ctes ,heft2 see ,baur1 ,progr4 de ,ebionitarum origine et doctrin ab ,essenis repetend1 und christl4 ,gnosis1 s4 #djc4 #bda ,de carne ,christi1 c4 #ad3 ,poterit haec opinio ,hebioni convenire1 qui nudum hominem1 et tantum ex semine ,david1 i4e4 non et ,dei filium1 constituit ,jesum1 ut in illo angelum fuisse edicat4 #bdb ,neander and ,schneckenburger are of the latter1 ,gieseler and ,credner of the former opinion4 #bdc ,i here refer to the account of ,hegesippus in ,eusebius1 ,h4 ,e4 iv4 #bb4 #bdd ,homil4 #c1 #bc-bg4 #bde ,epiphan4 haeres4 #cj1 #ah4 comp4 #ae4 #bdf ,that these were the traits in ,david's character which displeased the ,christian sect in question1 is sufficiently evident from a passage in the ,clementine ,homilies1 though the name is not given3 ,homil4 #c1 #be2 7 7 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 #bdg ,epiphan4 haer4 #cj1 #ad4 #af4 #cd4 #bdh ,homil4 #c1 #ag4 #bdi ,schneckenburger1 ber das ,evang4 der ,aegypter1 s4 #g2 ,baur1 christl4 ,gnosis1 s4 #gfj ff4 ,see on the other side ,credner and ,hoffmann4 #bej ,orig4 ,comm4 in ,matth4 ,t4 #af1 #ab4 ,tertullian1 ,de carne ,christi1 #ad1 s4 ,anm4 #ac 7a passage in which indeed the speculative and ordinary ,ebionites are mingled together74 #bea ,clement1 homil4 #ah1 #ac4 ,they referred the words of ,matth4 xi4 #bg3 1 444 to 1 1 1 and complained that 4 #beb ,haeres4 #cj1 #ad3 ' 7 7 1 4 #bec ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #ajj4 #abj4 #bed ,br4441 die ,nachricht1 dass ,jesus durch den heil4 ,geist und von einer ,jungfrau geboren sei1 aus ,zeitbegriffen erlutert4 ,in ,schmidt's ,bibl4 #a1 #a4 s4 #aja ff4--,horst1 in ,henke's ,museum #a1 #d1 #dig ff41 ber die beiden ersten ,kapitel in ,evang4 ,lukas4 #bee ,bemerkungen ber den ,glaubenspunkt3 ,christus ist empfangen vom heil4 ,geist4 ,in ,henke's neuem ,magazin1 #c1 #c1 #cii4 #bef ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bf f4 #beg ,im neuesten theol4 ,journal1 #g4 ,bd4 #d4 ,stck1 s4 #djg f4 #beh ,antiq4 xviii4 #c1 #d4 #bei ,iter ,theil1 s4 #adj ff4 #bfj ,the legend has undergone various modifications1 but the name of ,panthera or ,pandira has been uniformly retained4 ,vid4 ,origenes c4 ,cels4 #a1 #bh41 #cb4 ,schttgen1 ,hor #b1 #fic ff4 aus ,tract4 ,sanhedrin u4 ,a42 ,eisenmenger1 entdecktes ,judenthum1 #a1 s4 #aje ff4 aus der ,schmhschrift3 ,toledoth ,jeschu2 ,thilo1 cod4 apocr4 s4 #ebh4 ,comp4 my ,abhandlung ber die ,namen ,panther1 ,pantheras1 ,pandera1 in jdischen und patristischen ,erzhlungen von der ,abstammung ,jesu4 ,athenum1 ,febr4 #ahci1 s4 #ae ff4 #bfa ,orig4 c4 ,celsus i4 #cb4 #bfb ,ibid4 vi4 #h4 #bfc ,ibid4 i4 #cg4 #bfd ,gabler1 in seinem neuesten theol4 ,journal1 #g1 #d4 s4 #djh f42 ,eichhorn1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #dbh f42 ,bauer1 hebr4 ,mythol4 #a1 #aib e ff42 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theologie1 #a1 s4 #bca f42 ,wegscheider1 ,instit4 #abc2 ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogmat4 #bha1 und exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #ah f41 ,ammon1 ,fortbildung des ,christenth4 s4 #bja ff42 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #cc2 ,fritzsche1 ,comment4 in ,matth4 s4 #ef4 ,the latter justly remarks in the title to the first chapter3 non minus ille 7,jesus7 ut ferunt doctorum ,judaicorum de ,messi sententi1 patrem habet spiritum divinum1 matrem virginem4 #bfe ,jamblich4 vita ,pythagor4 cap4 #b1 ed4 ,kiessling4 #bff ,adv4 ,jovin4 #a1 #bf4 ,diog4 ,lart41 #c1 #a1 #b4 #bfg ,glaubwrdigkeit1 s4 #fd4 #bfh ,apologie des ,l4 ,j4 s4 #ib4 #bfi ,diog4 ,lart a4 a4 ,o43 7,sororis ,platonis filius1 ,hieron47 ' 1 1 1 444 #bgj ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,ch4 s4 #aj4 #bga ,antiq4 #ae4 #b4 #f4 #bgb ,gen4 xviii41 #ad ,sept4 ,luke i4 #cg4 2 4 #bgc ,de ,wette1 ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #ag4 #bgd ,they are to be found however in the more modern ,rabbins1 s4 ,matthi1 ,religionsgl4 der ,apostel #b1 a4 s4 #eee ff4 #bge ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #dg4 ,also ,daub4 #b a4 s4 #caa f2 ,theile1 #ad4 ,neander1 s4 #i4 #bgf ,diog4 ,lart4 a4 a4 ,o4 ,see ,origenes c4 ,cels4 #a1 #cg4 #bgg ,demonax1 #bi4 #bgh ,s4 ,origenes in ,matthum1 ,opp4 ed4 de la ,rue1 ,vol4 #c4 s4 #dfc4 #bgi ,the ,arian ,eunomius according to ,photius taught 4 ,this was also1 according to ,epiphanius1 the doctrine of those called by him ,dimaerites and ,antidicomarianites1 and in the time of ,jerome1 of ,helvidius and his followers4 ,compare on this point the ,sammlung von ,suicer1 im ,thesaurus ii41 s4 v4 1 fol4 #cje f4 #bhj ,comp4 ,hieron4 adv4 ,helv4 #f1 #g1 ,theophylact and ,suidas in ,suicer1 #a1 s4 v4 1 fol4 #abid f4 #bha ,hieron4 z4 d4 ,st4 #bhb ,see ,orig4 in ,matth4 ,tom4 #aj1 #ag2 ,epiphan4 haeres4 #gh1 #g2 ,historia ,josephi1 c4 #b2 ,protev4 ,jac4 #i4 #ah4 #bhc ,chrysostomus1 hom4 #adb1 in ,suicer1 s4 v4 1 most repulsively described in the ,protev4 ,jac4 xix4 and xx4 #bhd ,hieron4 ad ,matth4 #ab1 und advers4 ,helvid4 #ai4 #bhe ,die ,brder ,jesu4 ,in ,winer's ,zeitschrift fr wissenschaftliche ,theologie1 #a1 #c4 s4 #cfd f4 #bhf ,biblisches ,realwrterbuch1 #a ,bd4 s4 #ffd1 ,anm4 ,de ,wette1 z4 d4 ,st4 ,neander ,l4 ,j4 ,ch41 s4 #cd4 #bhg ,comment4 in ,matth4 s4 #ec ff41 vgl4 auch s4 #hce4 #bhh ,olshausen is exceedingly unhappy in the example chosen by him in support of his interpretation of 4 ,for when it is said1 we waited till midnight but no one came1 certainly this by no means implies that after midnight some one did come1 but it does imply that after midnight we waited no longer2 so that here the expression till retains its signification of exclusion4 #bhi ,on this subject compare in particular ,clemen1 die ,brder ,jesu1 in ,winer's ,zeitschrift fr wiss4 ,theol4 #a1 #c1 s4 #cbi ff42 ,paulus1 ,exeg4 ,handbuch1 #a ,bd4 s4 #eeg ff42 ,fritzsche1 a4 a4 ,o4 s4 #dhj ff42 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterbuch1 in den ,a4 ,a42 ,jesus1 ,jacobus1 ,apostel4 #bij ,see the different names assigned them in the legend in ,thilo1 ,codex apocryphus ,n4,t41 #a4 s4 #cfj note4 #bia ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 #b1 #a4 #bib ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 #c1 #aa4 #bic ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth4 p4 #dhb4 #bid ,theile1 ,biographie ,jesu1 #ah4 #bie ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a4 a1 s4 #abj ff4 #bif ,s4 ,olshausen und de ,wette1 z4 d4 ,st4 #big ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #bf2 ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm4 z4 d4 ,st42 ,hoffmann1 s4 #bbf2 ,lange1 s4 #gf ff4 #bih ,compare ,luke i4 #dg with #a ,sam4 ii4 #a4 11 i4 #di 11 11 ii4 #b4 11 i4 #ea 11 11 ii4 #c1 #d4 11 i4 #eb 11 11 ii4 #h4 11 i4 #ec 11 11 ii4 #e4 ,particularly ,compare ,luke i4 #dh with #a ,sam4 i4 #aa4 ,luke i4 #ej ,deut4 vii4 #i4 11 i4 #eb ,ecclesiasticus x4 #ad4 11 i4 #ed ,ps4 xcviii4 #c4 #bii #e ,band1 #a4 ,stck1 s4 #afa4 f4 #cjj ,in ,henke's ,museum1 #a1 #d1 s4 #gbe4 #cja ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #bc f4 #cjb ,olshausen1 ,paulus1 ,kuinl4 #cjc ,tholuck1 s4 #aid ff4 ,neander1 s4 #ai4 #cjd ,cassiodor4 ,variarum1 #c1 #eb4 ,isidor4 ,orig4 #e1 #cf4 #cje ,to refer here to the ,monumentum ,ancyranum1 which is said to record a census of the whole empire in the year of ,rome #gdf 7,osiander1 p4 #ie71 is proof of the greatest carelessness4 ,for he who examines this inscription will find mention only of three assessments census civium ,romanorum1 which ,suetonius designates census populi1 and of which ,dio ,cassius speaks1 at least of one of them1 as 4 ,see ,ideler1 ,chronol4 #b1 s4 #cci4 #cjf ,in the authoritative citations in ,suidas are the words taken from ,luke1 4 #cjg ,hoffmann1 s4 #bca4 #cjh ,joseph4 ,antiq4 #ag1 #ac1 #b4 ,b4 j4 #b1 #g1 #c4 #cji ,antiq4 #ag1 #ac1 #e4 #ah1 #a1 #a4 ,b4 j4 #b1 #h1 #a4 #caj ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 a1 s4 #aga4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterbuch4 #caa ,tacit4 ,annal4 #a1 #aa4 ,sueton4 ,octav4 #aia4 ,but if in this document opes public continebantur3 quantum civium sociorumque in armis2 quot classes1 regna1 provinci1 tributa aut vectigalia1 et necessitates ac largitiones3 the number of troops and the sum which the ,jewish prince had to furnish1 might have been given without a ,roman tax being levied in their land4 ,for ,judea in particular ,augustus had before him the subsequent census made by ,quirinus4 #cab 1 1 4 ,joseph4 ,antiq4 #af1 #i1 #c4 ,but the difference was adjusted long before the death of ,herod4 ,antiq4 #af1 #aj1 #i4 #cac ,joseph4 ,ant4 #ag1 #b1 #d4 ' 4 ,that this oath1 far from being a humiliating measure for ,herod1 coincided with his interest1 is proved by the zeal with which he punished the ,pharisees who refused to take it4 #cad ,tholuck1 s4 #aib f4 ,but the insurrection which the after the depositions of ,archelaus actually occasioned--a fact which outweighs all ,tholuck's surmises--proves it to have been the first ,roman measure of the kind in ,judea4 #cae ,antiq4 #ag1 #i1 #aj1 #a ff4 ,b4 j4 #b4 #b4 #b4 ,his oppressions however had reference only to the fortresses and the treasures of ,herod4 #caf ,antiq4 #ah1 #a1 #a4 #cag ,bell4 jud4 #b1 #h1 #a4 #i4 #a4 ,antiq4 #ag1 #ac1 #e4 #cah ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,luc4 p4 #cbj4 #cai ,winer4 #cbj ,adv4 ,marcion4 #d1 #ai4 #cba ,storr1 opusc4 acad4 #c1 s4 #abf f4 ,sskind1 vermischte ,aufstze1 s4 #fc4 ,tholuck1 s4 #ahb f4 #cbb ,michaelis1 ,anm4 z4 d4 ,st4 und ,einl4 in d4 ,n4,t4 #a1 #ga4 #cbc ,mnter1 ,stern der ,weisen1 s4 #hh4 #cbd ,paulus4 ,wetstein4 #cbe ,credner4 #cbf ,in ,schmidt's ,bibliothek fr ,kritik und ,exegese1 #c1 #a4 s4 #abd4 ,see ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bcj2 ,ammon1 ,fortbildung1 #a1 s4 #aif2 ,credner1 ,einleitung1 in d4 ,n4,t4 #a1 s4 #aee2 ,de ,wette1 exeget4 ,handbuch4 #cbg ,chap4 #ag4 ,compare ,historia de nativ4 ,mariae et de infanti ,servatoris1 c4 #ac4 #cbh ,fabricius1 im ,codex ,apocryph4 ,n4,t4 #a1 s4 #aje1 not4 y4 #cbi ,ambrosius and ,jerome4 ,see ,gieseler1 ,k4 ,g4 #a1 s4 #eaf4 #ccj ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #gh4 #cca ,c4 ,cels4 #a1 #ea4 #ccb ,hess1 ,olshausen1 ,paulus4 #ccc ,paulus4 #ccd ,chap4 #ad4 #cce ,chap4 #d in ,thilo1 s4 #fi4 #ccf ,in seinem ,versuch ber die ,wundergeschichten des ,n4 ,t4 ,see ,gabler's ,neuestes theol4 ,journal1 #g1 #d1 s4 #daa4 #ccg ,exeg4 ,handb4 s4 #ahj ff4 ,as ,paulus supposes an external natural phenomenon so ,matthi imagines a mental vision of angels4 ,synopse der vier ,evangelien1 s4 #c4 #cch ,hebrische ,mythologie1 #b4 ,thl4 s4 #bbc ff4 #cci ,recension von ,bauer's hebr4 ,mythologie in ,gabler's ,journal fr auserlesene theol4 ,literatur1 #b1 #a1 s4 #eh f4 #cdj ,neuestes theol4 ,journal1 #g1 #d1 s4 #dab f4 #cda ,in ,luc4 #b4 in ,suicer1 #b1 p4 #ghi4 #cdb ,servius ad ,verg4 ,ecl4 #aj1 #bf4 #cdc ,liban4 progymn4 p4 #ach1 in ,wetstein1 s4 #ffb4 #cdd ,thus ,cyrus1 see ,herod4 #a1 #aaj ff4 ,romulus1 see ,livy1 #a1 #d4 #cde ,thilo1 ,codex ,apocr4 ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #chc not4 #cdf ,vid4 ,schttgen1 #b1 s4 #eca4 #cdg ,sota1 #a1 #dh3 ,sapientes nostri perhibent1 circa horam nativitatis ,mosis totam domum repletam fuisse luce 7,wetstein74 #cdh ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #bi4 f4 ,with whom ,neander and others now agree4--,l4 ,j4 ,ch4 s4 #ba f4 #cdi ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ,kritik der mosaischen ,geschichte1 s4 #aaf2 ,george1 ,mythus u4 ,sage1 s4 #cc f4 #cej ,gen4 xxxvii4 #aa 7,,lxx473 ,luc4 #b1 #ah f43 -- -- 1 4--,schttgen1 1 4 horae1 #a1 #bfb4 #b1 #ea3 4 #cea ,see ,introduction4 #ceb ,perhaps as a precautionary measure to obviate objections on the part of the ,jews4 7,ammon1 ,fortbildung1 #a1 s4 #bag47 #cec ,pirke ,r4 ,elieser1 #cc3 ,sex hominum nomina dicta sunt1 antequam nascerentur3 ,isaaci nempe1 ,ismalis1 ,mosis1 ,salomonis1 ,josi et nomen regis ,messi4 ,bereschith rabba1 sect4 #a1 fol4 #c1 #c4--7,schttgen1 horae1 #b1 s4 #dcf73 ,sex res prvenerunt creationem mundi3 qudam ex illis creat sunt1 nempe lex et thronus glori2 ali ascenderunt in cogitationem 7,dei7 ut crearentur1 nimirum ,patriarch1 ,isral1 templum1 et nomen ,messi4 #ced ,comp4 ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten kanonischen ,evangeliums1 s4 #fi ff4 #cee ,joseph4 ,b4 ,j4 vi4 vi4 #d3 ,tacit4 ,histor4 v4 #ac2 ,sueton4 ,vespas4 #d4 ,all the extant allusions to the existence of such a hope at the era of ,christ's birth1 relate only in an indeterminate manner to a ruler of the world4 ,virg4 ,eclog4 #d2 ,sueton4 ,octav4 #id4 #cef ,in saying that it is inadmissible to suppose a divine intervention directly tending to countenance superstition1 ,i refer to what is called immediate intervention4 ,in the doctrine of mediate intervention1 which includes the co-operation of man1 there is doubtless a mixture of truth and error4 ,neander confuses the two4 ,l4 ,j4 ,ch41 s4 #bi4 #ceg ,paulus and ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 in loc4 #ceh ,according to ,hoffmann 7p4 #bef71 that he might control the assertion of the magi by inquiring of his own astrologers1 whether they had seen the star at the same time4 ,this is not merely unsupported by the text--it is in direct contradiction to it1 for we are there told that ,herod at once gave terrified credence to the magi4 #cei ,fritzsche1 in loc4 aptly says--comperto1 quasi magos non ad se redituros statim scivisset1 orti sideris tempore1 etc4 #cfj ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt1 exeg4 ,beitrge1 #a1 s4 #aej f4 ,comp4 ,fritzsche and ,de ,wette in loc4 #cfa ,hoffman thinks that ,herod shunned this measure as a breach of hospitality2 yet this very ,herod he represents as a monster of cruelty1 and that justly1 for the conduct attributed to the monarch in chap4 ii4 of ,matthew is not unworthy of his heart1 against which ,neander superfluously argues 7p4 #cj f471 but of his head4 #cfb ,schmidt1 ut sup4 p4 #aee f4 #cfc ,stark1 ,synops4 bibl4 exeg4 in ,n4 ,t41 p4 #fb4 #cfd ,this was the opinion of some of the ,fathers1 e4g4 ,euseb4 ,demonstr4 evang4 #i1 ap4 ,suicer1 #a1 s4 #eei2 ,joann4 ,damasc4 de fide orthod4 ii4 #g4 #cfe ,chrysostomus and others ap4 ,suicer1 ut sup4 and the ,evang4 infant4 arab4 c4 vii4 #cff ,see ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 p4 #bc4 #cfg ,vermischte ,aufstze1 s4 #h4 #cfh ,bibl4 ,comm4 in loc1 ,hoffmann1 s4 #bfa4 #cfi ,schmidt1 exeg4 ,beitrge1 #a1 #aeb ff4 #cgj ,this is shown in opposition to ,olshausen by ,steudel in ,bengel's ,archiv4 vii4 ii4 #dbe f4 viii4 iii4 #dhg4 #cga ,schmidt1 ut sup4 p4 #aef4 #cgb ,babylon4 ,sanhedr4 f4 cvii4 #b1 ap4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #bjg4 ,comp4 ,schttgen1 ii4 p4 #ecc4 ,according to ,josephus ,antiq4 xiii4 xiii4 #e1 xiv4 #b1 they were ,jews of each sex and of all ages1 and chiefly ,pharisees4 #cgc ,joseph4 ,b4 ,j4 i4 xxx4 #c4 ,comp4 ,antiq4 xvii4 iv4 #a4 #cgd ,macrob4 ,saturnal4 ii4 #d3 ,quum audisset 7,augustus7 inter pueros1 quos in ,syri ,herodes rex ,judorum intra bimatum jussit interfici1 filium quoque ejus occisum1 ait3 melius est1 ,herodis porcum 77 esse quam filium 774 #cge ,vid4 ,wetstein1 ,kuinl1 ,olshausen in loc4 ,winer d4 ,a4 ,herodes4 #cgf ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matt41 p4 #ic f4 #cgg ,chrysostom and others4 #cgh ,vid4 ,gratz1 ,comm4 zum ,ev4 ,matth4 #a1 s4 #aae4 #cgi ,kuinl1 ad ,matth4 p4 #dd f4 #chj ,wetstein1 in loc4 #cha ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge zur ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t41 s4 #db4 #chb ,gieseler1 ,studien und ,kritiken1 #ahca1 #c4 ,heft1 s4 #ehh f4 ,fritzsche1 s4 #ajd4 ,comp4 ,hieron4 ad ,jesai4 xi4 #a4 #chc ,for both these explanations1 see ,kuinl1 in loc4 #chd ,kepler1 in various treatises2 ,mnter1 der ,stern der ,weisen2 ,ideler1 ,handbuch der mathemat4 und technischen ,chronologie1 #b4 ,bd4 s4 #cii ff4 #che ,olshausen1 s4 #fg4 #chf ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #bjb1 #bba4 #chg ,bengel's ,archiv4 vii4 ii4 p4 #dbd4 #chh ,at a later period1 it is true1 this journey of ,jesus was the occasion of calumnies from the ,jews1 but those were of an entirely different nature1 as will be seen in the following chapter4 #chi ,ueber formelle oder genetische ,erklrungsart der ,wunder4 ,in ,henke's ,museum1 #a1 #c1 #cii ff4 ,similar essays see in the ,abhandlungen ber die beiden ersten ,kapitel des ,matthus u4 ,lukas1 in ,henke's ,magazin1 #e1 #a1 #aga ff41 and in ,matthi1 ,religionsgl4 der ,apostel1 #b1 s4 #dbb ff4 #cij ,l4 ,j4 ,ch41 s4 #bi ff4 #cia ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 i4 #fj4 ,auctor1 op4 imperf4 in ,matth4 ap4 ,fabricius ,pseudepigr4 ,v4 ,t41 p4 #hjg ff4 #cib ,schmidt's ,bibliothek1 #c1 #a1 s4 #acj4 #cic ,in loc4 ,num4 7,schttgen1 hor1 ii4 p4 #aeb73 ,multi ,interpretati sunt hc de ,messi4 #cid ,justin1 ,hist4 #cg4 #cie ,sueton4 ,jul4 ,cs4 #hh4 #cif ,jalkut ,rubeni1 f4 xxxii4 #c 7ap4 ,wetstein73 qu hor natus est ,abrahamus1 pater noster1 super quem sit pax1 stetit quoddam sidus in oriente et deglutivit quatuor astra1 qu erant in quatuor cli plagis4 ,according to an ,arabic writing entitled ,maallem1 this star1 prognosticating the birth of ,abraham1 was seen by ,nimrod in a dream4 ,fabric4 ,cod4 pseudepigr4 ,v4 ,t4 i4 s4 #cde4 #cig ,testamentum ,,xii4 ,patriarcharum1 test4 ,levi1 #ah 7,fabric4 ,cod4 pseud4 ,v4 ,t4 p4 #ehd f473 7of the ,messianic 7 1-- 444 ,pesikta ,sotarta1 f4 xlviii4 #a 7ap4 ,schttgen1 ii4 p4 #eca73 ,et prodibit stella ab oriente1 qu est stella ,messi1 et in oriente versabitur dies ,x ,v4 ,comp4 ,sohar ,genes4 f4 #gd4 ,schttgen1 ii4 #ebd1 and some other passages which are pointed out by ,ideler in the ,handbuch der ,chronologie1 #b ,bd4 s4 #dji1 ,anm4 #a1 and ,bertholdt1 ,christologia ,judorum1 #ad4 #cih ,compare with the passages cited ,note #g4 ,protevang4 ,jac4 cap4 xxi43 1 4 ,still more exaggerated in ,ignat4 ep4 ad ,ephes4 #ai4 ,see the collection of passages connected with this subject in ,thilo1 cod4 apocr4 i4 p4 #cij f4 #cii ,exeg4 ,beitrge1 i4 s4 #aei ff4 #djj ,fritzsche in the paraphrase of chap4 ii4 ,etiam stella1 quam judaica disciplina sub ,messi natale visum iri dicit1 quo ,jesus nascebatur tempore exorta est4 #dja ,as in ,matt4 ii4 #aa it is said of the magi -- 3 so in ,isa4 lx4 #f 7,,lxx473 1 1 4 ,the third present is in ,matt4 1 in ,isa4 4 #djb ,v4 #a4 und #c3 7,,lxx3 7 3-- #djc neid1 ii4 #fic ff4 #djd ,wetstein1 in loc4 #dje ,herod1 i4 #ajh ff4 ,liv4 i4 #d4 #djf ,octav4 #id3--;ante paucos quam nasceretur menses prodigium ,rom factum publice1 quo denuntiabatur1 regem populi ,romani naturam parturire4 ,senatum exterritum1 censuisse1 ne quis illo anno genitus educaretur4 ,eos1 qui gravidas uxores haberent1 quo ad se quisque spem traheret1 curasse1 ne ,senatus consultum ad rarium deferretur4 #djg ,bauer 7ber das ,mythische in der frheren ,lebensper4 des ,moses1 in the n4 ,theol4 ,journ4 #ac1 #c7 had already compared the marvellous deliverance of ,moses with that of ,cyrus and ,romulus2 the comparison of the infanticides was added by ,de ,wette1 ,kritik der ,mos4 ,geschichte1 s4 #agf4 #djh ,joseph4 ,antiq4 ii4 ix4 #b4 #dji ,jalkut ,rubeni 7cont4 of the passage cited in ,note #f73 dixerunt sapientes ,nimrodi3 natus est ,thar filius hc ips hor1 ex quo egressurus est populus1 qui hreditabit prsens et futurum seculum2 si tibi placuerit1 detur patri ipsius domus argento auroque plena1 et occidat ipsum4 ,comp4 the passage of the ,arabic book quoted by ,fabric4 ,cod4 pseudepigr4 ut sup4 #daj ,protev4 ,jacobi1 c4 xxii4 f4 #daa ,ex4 iv4 #ai1 ,,lxx3 ,matt4 ii4 #bj3 1 1 -- 4 4 ,we may remark that the inappropriate use of the plural in the evangelical passage1 can only be explained on the supposition of a reference to the passage in ,exod4 ,see ,winer1 ,n4 ,t4 ,gramm4 s4 #adi4 ,comp4 also ,exod4 iv4 #bj with ,matt4 ii4 #ad1 #ba4 #dab ,vide e4g4 ,schttgen1 ,hor1 ii4 p4 #bji4 #dac ,theile1 zur ,biographie ,jesu1 #ae1 ,anm4 #i4 ,hoffmann1 s4 #bfi4 #dad ,comp4 my ,streitschriften1 i4 #a1 s4 #db f42 ,george1 s4 #ci4 #dae ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,ch4 s4 #bg4 #daf ,schleiermacher 7,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #dg71 explains the narrative concerning the magi as a symbolical one2 but he scorns to take into consideration the passages from the ,o4 ,t4 and other writings1 which have a bearing on the subject1 and by way of retribution1 his exposition at one time rests in generalities1 at another1 takes a wrong path4 #dag ,lightfoot1 ,hor1 p4 #bjb4 #dah ,schneckenburger1 ,ueber den ,ursprung des ersten kanonischen ,evangeliums1 s4 #fi ff4 #dai ,thus1 e4g4 ,augustin de consensu evangelistarum1 ii4 #e4 ,storr1 opusc4 acad4 iii4 s4 #if ff4 ,sskind1 in ,bengel's ,archiv4 i4 #a1 s4 #baf ff4 #dbj ,e4g4 ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #ea ff4 ,paulus1 ,olshausen1 in loc4 #dba ,sskind1 ut sup4 s4 #bbb4 #dbb ,the same difference as to the chronological relation of the two incidents exists between the two different texts of the apocryphal book3 ,historia de nativitate ,mari et de inf4 ,serv41 see ,thilo1 p4 #che1 not4 #dbc ,this incompatibility of the two narratives was perceived at an early period by some opponents of ,christianity4 ,epiphanius names one ,philosabbatius1 together with ,celsus and ,porphyry 7hres4 li4 #h74 #dbd ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,ch4 s4 #cc1 ,anm4 #dbe ,schleiermacher1 ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #dg4 ,schneckenburger1 ut sup4 #dbf ,antiq4 xiv4 ix4 #d1 xv4 i4 #a and x4 #d4 #dbg ,the ,evang4 ,nicodemi indeed calls him1 c4 xvi4 1 and the ,protev4 ,jacobi1 c4 xxiv4 makes him a priest or even high priest1 vid4 ,varr4 ap4 ,thilo ,cod4 ,apocr4 ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #bga1 comp4 #bjc4 #dbh #a ,th4 s4 #bje ff4 #dbi ,cap4 vi4 ,viditque illum ,simeon senex instar column lucis refulgentem1 cum ,domina ,maria virgo1 mater ejus1 ulnis suis eum gestaret1--et circumdabant eum angeli instar circuli1 celebrantes illum1 etc4 ,ap4 ,thilo1 p4 #ga4 #dcj ,thus ,e4 ,f4 in the treatise1 on the two first chapters of ,matth4 and ,luke4 ,in ,henke's ,mag4 #e bd4 s4 #afi f4 ,a similar half measure is in ,matthi1 ,synopse der #d ,evan4 s4 #c1 #e f4 #dca ,with the words of ,simeon addressed to ,mary3 7v4 #ce7 comp4 the words in the messianic psalm of sorrow1 xxii4 #ba3 4 #dcb ,schleiermacher1 ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #cg4 ,compare on the other hand the observations in #ah1 with those of the authors there quoted1 ,note #ai4 #dcc ,neander here 7s4 #bd f47 mistakes the apocryphal for the mythical1 as he had before done the poetical4 #dcd ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm4 #a4 s4 #adb f4 #dce ,dial4 c4 ,trypho1 #gh3 ,joseph came from ,nazareth1 where he lived1 to ,bethlehem1 whence he was1 to be enrolled1 77 1 1 1 1 4 ,the words might however be understood as signifying merely the place of his tribe1 especially if ,justin's addition be considered3 ,for his race was of the tribe of ,judah1 which inhabits that land1 4 #dcf ,beitrge zur ,einleit4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #a4 s4 #bag4 ,comp4 ,hoffmann1 s4 #bch f4 #bgg ff4 #dcg ,c4 ,i4 #h4 #aj4 #dch ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 a1 s4 #agh4 #dci ,ueber die ,unzulssigkeit der mythischen ,auffassung u4 s4 f4 #a1 s4 #aja4 #ddj ,l4 ,j4 ,ch4 s4 #cc4 #dda ,tertull4 adv4 ,marcion iv4 #h4 ,epiphan4 hr4 xxix4 #a4 #ddb ,comp ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt1 in ,schmidt's ,bibliothek1 #c1 #a1 s4 #abc f42 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bcj4 #ddc ,on this ,heydenreich rests his defence1 ,ueber die ,unzulssigkeit4 #a4 s4 #ii4 #ddd ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #di4 ,there is a similar hesitation in ,thelte1 ,biographie ,jesu1 #ae4 #dde ,ueber den ,ursprung u4 s4 w41 s4 #fh f4 u4 s4 #aeh4 #ddf ,comp4 ,ammon4 ,fortbildung1 #a1 s4 #aid ff42 ,de ,wette1 exeget4 ,handb4 #a1 #b1 s4 #bd f42 ,george1 s4 #hd ff4 ,that different narrators may give different explanations of the same fact1 and that these different explanations may afterwards be united in one book1 is proved by many examples in the ,o4 ,t4 ,thus in ,genesis1 three derivations are given of the name of ,isaac2 two of that of ,jacob 7xxv4 #bf41 xxvii4 #af71 and so of ,edom and ,beersheba 7xxi4 #ca41 xxvi4 #cc74 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ,kritik der mos4 ,gesch41 s4 #aaj4 #aah ff4 and my ,streitschriften1 ,i1 #a1 s4 #hc ff4 #ddg ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #aaj4 #ddh ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #ade f4 #ddi ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #a4 #aej4 #dej ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 #cg4 #dea ,heydenreich1 ber die ,unzulssigkeit u4 s4 f4 #a1 s4 #ajc4 #deb ,megillah1 f4 #ba1 apud ,lightfoot1 in loc4 #dec ,vid4 ,kuinl1 in ,luc4 p4 #cec4 #ded ,evang4 ,thom1 c4 vi4 ff4 ,ap4 ,thilo4 p4 #bhh ff4 and ,evang4 infant1 arab4 c4 xlviii4 p4 #abc1 ,thilo4 #dee ,ibid4 #def ,evang4 infant1 arab4 c4 l4 #deg ,ibid4 c4 l4 and li42 comp4 ev4 ,thom1 c4 xix4 #deh ,olshausen confesses this1 s4 #aea4 #dei ,for proofs 7e4g4 ,hieros4 ,taanith1 lxvii4 #d7 see ,wetstein and ,lightfoot1 in loc4 #dfj ,lightfoot1 ,hor1 p4 #gdb4 #dfa ,paulus1 s4 #bgi4 #dfb ,kuinl1 s4 #cec f4 #dfc ,hor1 ii4 p4 #hhf4 #dfd ,bibl4 ,comm4 p4 #aea4 #dfe ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #aab4 #dff ,in the similar account also which ,josephus gives us of himself when fourteen1 it is easy to discern the exaggeration of a self-complacent man4 ,life1 #b3 ,moreover1 when ,i was a child1 and about fourteen years of age1 ,i was commended by all for the love ,i had to learning1 on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came there frequently to me together1 in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law4 #dfg #a ,sam4 ii4 #bf 7,,lxx73 ,luc4 ii4 #eb3 1 1 4 4 ,compare also what ,josephus says ,antiq4 ii4 ix4 #f of the of ,moses4 #dfh ,gabler neuest4 theol4 ,journal #c1 #a1 s4 #ci4 #dfi ,joseph4 ,antiq4 ii4 ix4 #f4 #dgj ,philo1 de vita ,mosis1 ,opp4 ed4 ,mangey1 ,vol4 #b4 p4 #hc f4 --' 1 1 4 ' 1 1 -- 1 4 #dga ,chagiga1 ap4 ,wetstein1 in loc4 ,a ,,xii anno filius censetur maturus4 ,so ,joma f4 lxxxii4 #a4 ,berachoth f4 xxiv4 #a2 whereas ,bereschith ,rabba lxiii4 mentions the #acth year as the critical one4 #dgb ,schemoth ,r4 ap4 ,wetstein3 ,dixit ,r1 ,chama3 ,moses duodenarius avulsus est a domo patris sui etc4 #dgc ,joseph4 ,antiq4 v4 x4 #d3 1 4 #dgd ,ignat4 ep4 7interpol47 ad ,magnes4 c4 iii43 -- 1 4-- 1 4 ,but ,solomon1 444 being king at the age of twelve years1 gave that terrible and profound judgment between the women with respect to the children4444 ,daniel1 the wise man1 when twelve years old1 was possessed by the divine spirit1 and convicted those calumniating old men who1 carrying gray hairs in vain1 coveted the beauty that belonged to another4 ,this1 it is true1 is found in a ,christian writing1 but on comparing it with the above data1 we are led to believe that it was drawn from a more ancient ,jewish legend4 #dge ,this ,kaiser has seen1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 #bcd4 #dgf ,neither do we learn what ,hase 7,leben ,jesu #cg7 supposes to be conveyed in this narrative1 namely1 that as it exhibits the same union with ,god that constituted the idea of the later life of ,jesus1 it is an intimation that his later excellence was not the result of conversion from youthful errors1 but of the uninterrupted development of his freedom4 #dgg ,ueber die ,unzulssigkeit u4 s4 f4 #a1 s4 #ib4 #dgh ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #ci f4 #dgi ,cap4 v4 ,in the ,greek text also the more probable reading is 1 vid4 ,thilo1 p4 #bhg4 #dhj ,hence the title of an ,arabian apocryphal work 7according to the ,latin translation in ,thilo1 #a1 p4 #c73 historia ,josephi1 fabri lignarii4 #dha ,vid4 ,thilo1 ,cod4 ,apocr4 ,n4 ,t4 p4 #cfh f4 not4 #dhb ,justin4 ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #hh4 ,according to him ,jesus makes these implements1 doubtless under the direction of ,joseph4 ,in the ,evang4 ,thom c4 xiii4 ,joseph is the workman4 #dhc ,cap4 xxxviii4 ap4 ,thilo1 p4 #aab ff4 #dhd ,c4 ix4 and xiii4 #dhe ,c4 ,cels4 vi4 #cf4 #dhf ,fritzsche1 in ,marc4 p4 #bjj4 #dhg ,vid4 ,wetstein and ,paulus1 in loc42 ,winer1 ,realwrterbuch1 #a1 s4 #ffe4 ,note2 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #df f4 ,note4 #dhh ,ut sup43 1 4 1 4 #dhi ,cap4 xxxviii4 #dij ,theodoret4 ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #bc4 #dia ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 #gj2 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realw4 #a1 s4 #ffe4 #dib ,winer1 ut sup4 #dic ,this is done by both the above-named theologians4 #did ,paulus1 exeget4 ,handb4 #a1 a1 s4 #bgc ff4 #die ,such1 however1 are the arguments of ,paulus1 ut sup4 #bge ff4 #dif ,comp4 ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 #ch2 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #de f4 #dig ,paulus1 ut sup4 #dih ,to this ,schttgen appeals1 ,christus rabbinorum summus1 in his hor1 ii4 p4 #hij f4 #dii ,as e4g4 ,reinhard does1 in his ,plan ,jesu4 #ejj ,evang4 infant4 arab4 c4 i4 p4 #fj f4 ap4 ,thilo1 and the passages quoted #dj out of the same ,gospel and the ,evang4 ,thom4 #eja ,cap4 ii4 p4 #bgh1 ,thilo4 #ejb ,cap4 x4 ff4 #ejc ,e4g4 ,evang4 ,thom1 c4 iii4-v4 ,evang4 infant4 arab4 c4 xlvi4 f4 ,evang4 ,thom1 c4 ii4 ,evang4 inf4 arab4 c4 xxxvi4 #ejd ,yet some isolated instances occur1 vid4 ,semler1 ,baumgarten's ,glaubenslehre1 #a1 s4 #db1 ,anm4 #h4 #eje ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 #a4 #bh3 77 7 7 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' 4 #ejf ,sanhedr4 f4 cvii4 #b3 ,r4 ,josua f4 ,perachja et ,alexandrian ,aegypti profecti sunt -- -- ex illo tempore magiam exercuit1 et ,isralitas ad pessima quvis perduxit4 7,an important anachronism1 as this ,josua ,ben ,perachja lived about a century earlier4 ,see ,jost1 ,geschichte des ,isr41 #b1 s4 #hj ff4 and #adb of the ,appendices47 ,schabbath f4 civ4 #b3 ,traditio est1 ,r4 ,elieserem dixisse ad viros doctos3 annon f4 ,satdae 7i4e4 ,jesus7 magiam ex ,aegypto adduxit per incisionem in carne su factam8 vid4 ,schttgen1 hor1 ii4 p4 #fig ff4 ,eisenmenger1 entdecktes ,judenthum1 #a1 s4 #adi f4 #ejg ,e4g4 ,des ,ctes1 ,schutzschrift fr ,jesus von ,nazaret1 s4 #abh ff4 #ejh ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #ci ff4 #eji ,vid4 ,joseph4 ,b4 j4 ii4 viii4 #b-ac4 ,antiq4 xviii4 i4 #e4 ,comp4 ,philo1 quod omnis probus liber and de vita contemplativa4 #eaj ,this opinion is judiciously developed by ,studlin1 ,geschichte der ,sittenlehre ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #egj ff42 and in a romantic manner in the ,geschichte des ,grossen ,propheten von ,nazaret1 #a4 ,band4 #eaa ,h4 ,e4 ii4 #af f4 #eab ,comp4 ,bengel1 ,bemerkungen ber den ,versuch4 das ,christenthum aus dem ,essismus abzuleiten1 in ,flatt's ,magazin1 #g1 s4 #abf ff42 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #da ff4 #eac ,this is stated with exaggeration by ,bahrdt1 ,briefe ber die ,bibel1 zweites ,bndchen1 #ahter1 #bjster ,brief ff4 #dtes ,bndchen1 #dister ,brief4 #ead ,comp4 ,paulus ut sup4 #a1 a1 #bgc ff4 ,planck1 ,geschichte des ,christenthums in der ,periode seiner ersten ,einfhrung #a1 s4 #hd4 ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogm4 #bab4 ,hase ,l4 ,j4 #ch4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realw4 s4 #fgg f4 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #ch ff4 #eae ,exeget4 ,handbuch4 #a a1 s4 #df4 ,schneckenburger agrees with him1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten kanon4 ,evang41 s4 #cj4 #eaf ,vermischte ,aufstze1 s4 #gf ff4 ,compare ,schneckenburger1 ut sup4 #eag ,de ,wette and ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #eah ,see ,paulus1 ut sup41 s4 #ccf4 #eai ,i here collect all the passages in ,josephus relative to ,lysanias1 with the parallel passages in ,dion ,cassius4 ,antiq4 xiii4 xvi4 #c1 xiv4 iii4 #b1 vii4 #h4--;,antiq4 xv4 iv4 #a4 ,b4 j4 i4 xiii4 #a 7,dio ,cassius xlix4 #cb74 ,antiq4 xv4 x4 #a-c4 ,b4 j4 i4 xx4 #d 7,dio ,cass4 liv4 #i74 ,antiq4 xvii4 xi4 #d4 ,b4 j4 ii4 vi4 #c4 ,antiq4 xviii4 vi4 #aj4 ,b4 j4 ii4 ix4 #f 7,dio ,cass4 lix4 #h74 ,antiq4 xix4 v4 #a4 ,b4 j4 ii4 xi4 #e4 ,antiq4 xx4 v4 #b1 vii4 #a4 ,b4 j4 ii4 xii4 #h4 #ebj ,sskind1 vermischte ,aufstze1 s4 #ae ff4 #ic ff4 #eba ,tholuck thinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in ,tacitus4 ,when this historian1 ,annal4 ii4 #db 7,a4,d4 #ag71 mentions the death of an ,archelaus1 king of ,cappadocia1 and yet1 ,annal4 vi4 #da 7,a4,d4 #cf71 cites an ,archelaus1 also a ,cappadocian1 as ruler of the ,clit1 the same historical conjecture1 says ,tholuck1 is necessary1 viz41 that there were two ,cappadocians named ,archelaus4 ,but when the same historian1 after noticing the death of a man1 introduces another of the same name1 under different circumstances1 it is no conjecture1 but a clear historic datum1 that there were two such persons4 ,it is quite otherwise when1 as in the case of ,lysanias1 two writers have each one of the same name1 but assign him distinct epochs4 ,here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons2 a conjecture so much the less historical1 the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the like-named men1 had such an one existed4 #ebb ,michaelis1 ,paulus1 in loc4 ,schneckenburger1 in ,ullmann's und ,umbreit's ,studien1 #ahcc1 #d ,heft1 s4 #ajef ff4 ,tholuck1 s4 #bja ff4 #ebc ,for1 on the authority of a single manuscript to erase1 with ,schneckenburger and others1 the second 1 is too evident violence4 #ebd ,compare with this view1 ,allgem4 ,lit4 ,ztg41 #ahjc1 ,no4 #cdd1 s4 #eeb3 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handbuch1 in loc4 #ebe ,see ,paulus1 s4 #bid4 #ebf ,see ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #fb4 #ebg ,bengel was also of this opinion4 ,ordo temporum1 s4 #bjd f4 ed4 #b4 #ebh ,antiq4 xviii4 v4 #b4 #ebi ,so ,cludius1 ber die ,zeit und ,lebensdauer ,johannis und ,jesu4 ,in ,henke's ,museum1 ii4 iii4 #ejb ff4 #ecj ,cludius1 ut sup4 #eca ,studlin1 ,geschichte der ,sittenlehre ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #ehj4 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a a1 s4 #acf4 ,comp4 also ,creuzer1 ,symbolik1 #d1 s4 #dac ff4 #ecb ,ut sup4 p4 #cdg4 #ecc ,bell4 jud4 iii4 x4 #g4 #ecd ,see ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterbuch1 ,a4 ,wste4 ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten kanonischen ,evangeliums1 s4 #ci4 #ece ,schneckenburger1 ut sup41 s4 #ch f4 #ecf ,winer1 ut sup41 s4 #fia4 #ecg ,paulus1 ut sup41 s4 #cja4 #ech ,schneckenburger1 ber das ,alter der ,jdischen ,proselytentaufe4 #eci ,sanhedr4 f4 xcvii4 #b3 ,r4 ,elieser dixit3 si ,isralit pnitentiam agunt1 tunc per ,golem liberantur2 sin vero1 non liberantur4 ,schttgen1 hor1 #b1 p4 #ghj ff4 #edj ,antiq4 xviii4 v4 #b4 #eda ,thus ,paulus1 ut sup41 s4 #cad and #cfa1 ,anm4 #edb ,fragment von dem ,zwecke ,jesu und seiner ,jnger1 herausgegeben von ,lessing1 s4 #acc ff4 #edc ,so thinks ,semler in his answer to the above ,fragments1 in loc42 so think most of the moderns2 ,plank1 ,geschichte des ,christenthums in der ,periode seiner ,einfhrung1 #a1 ,k4 #g4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterbuch1 #a1 s4 #fia4 #edd ,let the reader judge for himself whether ,neander's arguments be not forced3 8,even if the ,baptist could have expected0 7say rather must necessarily have known7 8from the circumstances of the birth of ,jesus1 that he was the ,messiah1 the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony1 and compared with this divine illumination1 all previous knowledge would seem ignorance40 p4 #fh4 #ede ,lcke1 ,commentar zum ,evang4 ,johannis #a1 s4 #cfb4 #edf ,osiander1 in despair1 answers1 that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for--keeping the two youths apart6 s4 #abg4 #edg ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #aag f4 ,paulus1 ut sup41 s4 #cff4 #edh ,comp4 the ,fragmentist1 ut sup4 #edi ,hres1 xxx4 #ac3 1 1 444 444 1 1 1 2 444 1 1 1 4 ,and when he came from the water1 the heavens were opened1 and he saw the holy spirit of ,god in the form of a dove1 etc41 and a voice was heard1 etc41 and immediately a great light illuminated the place2 seeing which1 ,john said to him1 ,who art thou1 ,lord8 and again a voice1 etc4 ,and then1 ,john falling at his feet1 said to him1 ,i beseech thee1 ,lord1 baptize me4 #eej ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten kanonischen ,evangeliums1 s4 #aba f42 ,lcke1 ,comm4 z4 ,ev4 ,joh41 #a1 s4 #cfa4 ,usteri1 ber den ,tufer ,johannes u4 s4 w41 ,studien1 #b1 #c4 s4 #ddf4 #eea ,tertull4 adv4 ,marcion1 iv4 #ah4 ,comp4 ,bengel1 historico-exegetical remarks in ,matt4 xi4 #b-ai1 in his ,archiv4 #a1 iii4 p4 #ged ff4 #eeb ,see ,paulus1 ,kuinl1 in loc4 ,bengel1 ut sup41 p4 #gfc4 #eec ,calvin1 ,comm4 in harm4 ex4 ,matth41 ,marc4 et ,luc4 in loc4 #eed ,we agree with ,schleiermacher1 7ber den ,lukas1 s4 #ajf f47 in thus designating the narrative of the third evangelist1 first1 on account of the idle repetition of the ,baptist's words1 ver4 #bj2 secondly1 on account of the mistake in ver4 #ah and #ba1 of which we shall presently treat1 and to which ver4 #bi1 #cj1 seem to betray a similar one4 #eee ,compare ,calvin in loc4 and ,bengel ut sup41 s4 #gec ff4 #eef ,thus most recent commentators3 ,paulus1 ,kuinl1 ,bengel1 ,hase1 ,theile1 and even ,fritzsche4 #eeg ,this difficulty occurred to ,bengel also1 ut sup41 p4 #gfi4 #eeh ,the gospel writers1 after what they had narrated of the relations between ,jesus and the ,baptist1 of course understood the question to express doubt1 whence probably v4 #f 7,matt47 and v4 #bc 7,luke7 came in this connection4 ,supposing these passages authentic1 they suggest another conjecture2 viz4 that ,jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles1 and that the ,baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones4 ,the 4 4 must then be set down to the writer's misapprehension of the expressions of ,jesus4 #eei ,gabler and ,paulus4 #efj ,de ,wette1 de morte ,christi expiatoria1 in his ,opusc4 theol41 s4 #gg ff4 ,lcke1 ,comm4 zum ,ev4 ,joh4 #a1 s4 #cdg ff4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterb4 #a1 s4 #fic1 ,anm4 #efa ,gabler and ,paulus4 ,de ,wette4 #efb ,de ,wette1 ut sup41 p4 #gf4 #efc ,paulus1 ,leben ,jesu1 #b a1 die bers41 s4 #bi4 #ca4 #efd ,tholuck and ,lcke1 in loc4 #efe ,lcke1 ut sup4 #eff ,see ,bertholdt1 ,christologia ,judorum ,jesu apostolorumque tate1 #bc-be4 #efg ,probabilia1 p4 #da4 #efh ,see ,gfrrer1 ,philo und die ,alexandr4 ,theosophie1 part ii4 p4 #ahj4 #efi ,lcke1 ut sup41 p4 #ejj4 #egj ,compare especially3 ,joh4 iii4 #aa 7,jesus to ,nicodemus73 ,joh4 iii4 #cb 7the ,baptist73 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 ,v4 #ah3 ,v4 #cf3 1 1 1 1 ' 4 ' 4 ,comp4 also the words of the ,baptist v4 #ca1 with ,joh4 iii4 #f4 #ab f4 viii4 #bc2 v4 #cb with viii4 #bf2 v4 #cc with vi4 #bg2 v4 #cd with xii4 #di1 #ej2 v4 #ce with v4 #bb1 #bg1 x4 #bh f4 xvii4 #b4 #ega ,bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 p4 #aje4 #egb ,paulus1 ,olshausen1 in loc4 #egc ,e4g4 here1 v4 #cb1 it is said3 1 but in the ,prolog4 v4 #aa3 4 ,comp4 ,lcke1 s4 #eja4 #egd ,ut sup4 #ege ,de ,wette1 de morte ,christi expiatoria1 in s4 ,opusc4 theol4 p4 #ha2 biblische ,dogmatik1 #bji2 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterbuch #a1 s4 #fib4 #egf ,neander1 p4 #ge4 ,this author erroneously supposes that there is an indication of the ,baptist having directed his disciples to ,jesus in ,acts xviii4 #be1 where it is said of ,apollos3 1 4 ,for on comparing the following chapter1 we find that ,paul had to teach the disciples of ,john1 that by the announced by their master1 they were to understand ,jesus2 whence it is clear that the things of the ,lord expounded by ,apollos1 consisted only in the messianic doctrine1 purified by ,john into an expectation of one who was to come1 and that the more accurate instruction which he received from the ,christians1 ,aquila and ,priscilla1 was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person of ,jesus4 #egg ,gesenius1 ,probeheft der ,ersch und ,gruber'schen ,encyclopdie1 d4 ,a4 ,zabier4 #egh ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 s4 #df f42 comp4 ,lcke1 s4 #dic f42 ,de ,wette1 ,opusc a4 a4 ,o4 #egi ,greiling1 ,leben ,jesu von ,nazaret1 s4 #acb f4 #ehj #b ,sam4 iii4 #a4 ,john iii4 #cj4 4 3 4 #eha ,schulz1 die ,lehre vom ,abendmahl1 s4 #ade4 ,winer1 ,realwrterbuch1 #a1 s4 #fic4 #ehb ,commentar1 s4 #chj4 #ehc ,the passage above quoted from the ,acts gives us also some explanation1 why the fourth ,evangelist of all others should be solicitous to place the ,baptist in a more favourable relation to ,jesus1 than history allows us to conceive4 ,according to v4 #a ff4 there were persons in ,ephesus who knew only of ,john's baptism1 and were therefore rebaptized by the ,apostle ,paul in the name of ,jesus4 ,now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in ,ephesus 7,irneus adv4 hr4 iii4 #a74 ,if we accept this 7and it is certainly correct in assigning a ,greek locality for the composition of this ,gospel71 and presuppose1 in accordance with the intimation in the ,acts1 that ,ephesus was the seat of a number of the ,baptist's followers1 all of whom ,paul could hardly have converted2 the endeavour to draw them over to ,jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth ,evangelist on the 4 ,storr has very judiciously remarked and discussed this1 ber den ,zweck der ,evangelischen ,geschichte und der ,briefe ,johannis1 s4 #e ff4 #bd f4 ,compare ,hug1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t41 s4 #aij #cte ,ausg4 #ehd ,antiq4 xviii4 v4 #b4 #ehe ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #aji4 #ehf ,ibid4 p4 #ajf4 #ehg ,ueber den ,ursprung u4 s4 w4 s4 #gi4 #ehh ,the expression is thus interpreted by the most learned exegetists4 ,comp4 ,paulus1 ,lcke1 ,tholuck in loc4 #ehi ,lcke1 ,commentar1 s4 #cbg4 #eij ,lcke1 s4 #cci4 #eia ,whether the dialogue between ,john and his complaining disciples 7,john iii4 #be ff47 be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding scene1 ,matt4 ix4 #ad f41 as ,bretschneider seeks to show1 must remain uncertain4 ,probab41 p4 #ff ff4 #eib ,that ,jesus1 as many suppose1 assigns a low rank to the ,baptist1 because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by external violence1 is not to be detected in the gospels4 #eic ,for a different explanation see ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #dh ff4 #eid ,antiq4 xviii4 v4 #b4 #eie ,this former husband of ,herodias is named by the ,evangelists1 ,philip1 by ,josephus1 ,herod4 ,he was the son of the high priest's daughter1 ,mariamne1 and lived as a private person4 ,v4 ,antiq4 xv4 ix4 #c2 xviii4 v4 #a4 #d4 ,b4 j4 i4 xxix4 #b1 xxx4 #g4 #eif ,antiq4 xviii4 v4 #d4 #eig ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 s4 #hh4 #eih ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth4 in loc4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterb4 #a1 s4 #fid4 #eii ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 a1 s4 #cfa2 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #aji4 #fjj ,vergl4 ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,marc41 p4 #bbe4 #fja ,e4g4 ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten kanonischen ,evangeliums1 s4 #hf f4 ,that the of ,matthew1 v4 #i1 is not contradictory to his own narrative1 see ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #fjb ,s4 ,winer1 b4 ,realwrterb4 d4 ,a4 ,herodes ,antipas4 #fjc ,fritzsche1 ,commentar4 in ,matt41 p4 #dia4 #fjd ,antiq4 xviii4 v4 #a4 #fje ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #h1 s4 #aaj4 der ,mauriner ,ausg4 #fjf ,hess4 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a ,bd4 s4 #aah4 #fjg ,paulus1 ut sup41 s4 #cfb ff4 #ccg4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 s4 #dh1 erste ,ausg4 #fjh ,hieron4 adv4 ,pelagian4 iii4 #b3 ,in ,evangelio juxta ,hebros--narrat historia3 ,ecce mater ,domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei3 ,joannes baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum2 eamus et baptizemur ab eo4 ,dixit autem eis3 quid peccavi ut vadam et baptizer ab eo8 nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi1 ignorantia est4 #fji ,the author of the ,tractatus de non iterando baptismo in ,cyprian's works1 ,rigalt41 p4 #aci1 says 7the passage is also found in ,fabric4 ,cod4 apocr4 ,n4,t41 s4 #gii f473 ,est--liber1 qui inscribitur ,pauli prdicatio4 ,in quo libro1 contra omnes scripturas et de peccato proprio confitentem invenies ,christum1 qui solus omnino nihil deliquit1 et ad accipiendum ,joannis baptisma pne invitum matre su ,mari esse compulsum4 #faj ,justin4 ,mart4 dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #hh3 1 1 4444 ,epiphan4 hres4 #cj1 #ac 7after the heavenly voice73 4 #faa ,see ,usteri1 ber den ,tufer ,johannes1 die ,taufe und ,versuchung ,christi1 in the theolog4 ,studien und ,kritiken1 #b ,bd4 #c ,heft1 s4 #ddb ff41 and ,bleek1 in the same periodical1 #ahcc1 #b1 s4 #dbh ff4 #fab ,bauer1 hebr4 ,mythologie1 #b s4 #bbe f4 ,comp4 ,gratz1 ,comm4 zum ,evang4 ,matt4 i4 s4 #agb ff4 #fac ,these are ,theodore's words1 in ,mnter's ,fragmenta patr4 grc4 ,fasc4 #a1 s4 #adb4 ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 i4 #dh4 ,basil4 ,m4 in ,suicer's ,thesaurus1 #b1 p4 #adgi4 #fad ,as even ,lcke confesses1 ,comm4 zum ,evang4 ,joh4 i41 s4 #cgj1 and ,bleek1 ut sup41 s4 #dcg4 #fae ,comp4 ,eusebius1 ,h4 ,e4 vi4 #bi4 #faf ,see ,paulus1 ,bauer1 ,kuinl1 ,hase and ,theile4 #fag ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogmatik1 #bjh4 ,anm4 #f1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #cd f4 #a1 #c1 s4 #bi f4 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #eh f4 ,usteri1 ,bleek1 ,hase1 ,kern1 ,neander4 #fah ,according to ,bava ,mezia1 f4 lix4 #a 7in ,wetstein1 p4 #dbg71 ,r4 ,elieser appealed to a heavenly sign1 in proof that he had tradition in his favour3 tum personuit echo clestis3 quid vobis cum ,r4 ,eliesere8 nam ubivis secundum illum obtinet traditio4 #fai ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #hh4 #fbj ,hres4 xxx4 #ac4 #fba ,pdagog4 i4 #f4 #fbb ,de consens4 ,evangg4 ii4 #ad4 #fbc ,s4 ,wetstein in loc4 des ,lukas1 and ,de ,wette1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t41 s4 #ajj4 #fbd ,s4 ,rosenmller's ,schol4 in ,psalm ii4 #fbe ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #eg4 #fbf ,tibull4 ,carm4 ,l4 #a1 eleg4 #h1 v4 #ag f4 ,see the remark of ,broeckhuis on this passage2 ,creuzer1 ,symbolik1 ii4 s4 #gj f42 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 a1 s4 #cfi4 #fbg ,creuzer1 ,symbolik1 ii4 s4 #hj4 #fbh ,chagiga c4 ii43 ,spiritus ,dei ferebatur super aquas1 sicut columba1 qu fertur super pullos suos nec tangit illos4 ,ir ,gibborim ad ,genes4 #a1 #b1 ap4 ,schttgen1 hor1 i4 p4 #i4 #fbi ,targum ,koheleth1 ii4 #ab1 vox turturis is interpreted as vox spiritus sancti4 ,to regard this1 with ,lcke1 as an arbitrary interpretation1 seems itself like arbitrariness1 in the face of the above data4 #fcj ,bereschith rabba1 s4 #b1 f4 #d1 #d1 ad ,genes4 ,t4 #b 7ap4 ,schttgen ut sup473 intelligitur spiritus regis ,messi1 de quo dicitur1 ,jes4 xi4 #b3 et quiescet super illum spiritus ,domini4 #fca ,sohar4 ,numer4 f4 #fh4 col4 #bga f4 7in ,schttgen1 hor1 #b1 p4 #ecg f474 ,the purport of this passage rests on the following cabalistic conclusion3 ,if ,david1 according to ,ps4 lii4 #aj1 is the olive tree2 the ,messiah1 a scion of ,david1 is the olive leaf3 and since it is said of ,noah's dove1 ,gen4 viii4 #aa1 that it carried an olive leaf in its mouth2 the ,messiah will be ushered into the world by a dove4--,even ,christian interpreters have compared the dove at the baptism of ,jesus to the ,noachian one2 see ,suicer1 ,thesaurus1 #b1 ,art4 1 p4 #fhh4 ,it has been customary to cite in this connection1 that the ,samaritans paid divine honours to a dove under the name of ,achima1 on ,mount ,gerizim2 but this is a ,jewish accusation1 grounded on a wilful misconstruction4 ,see ,studlin's and ,tzschirner's ,archiv4 fr ,k4 ,g4 #a1 #c1 s4 #ff4 ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #cfg4 #fcb ,see ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matt41 p4 #adh4 #fcc ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #abj4 #fcd ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #age f4 #fce ,comm4 zum ,evang4 ,joh4 #a1 s4 #cgh f4 #fcf ,from the orthodox point of view1 it cannot be consistently said1 with ,hoffmann 7p4 #cja71 that for the conviction of his messiahship and the maintenance of the right position1 amid so many temptations and adverse circumstances1 an internally wrought certainty did not suffice ,jesus1 and external confirmation by a fact was requisite4 #fcg ,epiphan4 hres4 xxx4 #ad3 1 1 4443--,they maintain that ,jesus was really man1 but that that which descended from heaven in the form of a dove became ,christ in him4 #fch ,epiphan4 hres4 xxviii4 #a4 #fci ,epiphan4 hres4 xxx4 #ac3-- 3--of a dove descending and entering into him4 #fdj ,see the passage above1 #dh1 note #g4 #fda ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten kanonischen ,evang41 s4 #ci4 #fdb ,comm4 z4 ,ev4 ,joh4 #a1 s4 #cdd4 #fdc ,comp4 de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #bg4 #fdd ,compare ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,marc1 s4 #bc ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #b1 s4 #cc4 #fde ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,luc41 s4 #cgi4 #fdf ,lightfoot1 hor1 p4 #bdc4 #fdg ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten kan4 ,evang41 s4 #df4 #fdh ,ibid4 #fdi ,thus ,euthymius1 ,kuinl1 and others4 #fej ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #fea ,beitrag zur ,erklrung der ,versuchungsgeschichte1 in ,ullmann's and ,umbreit's ,studien1 #ahcd1 #d1 s4 #ghi4 #feb ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #ef4 #fec ,compare ,schneckenburger1 ut sup41 s4 #df f4 #fed ,exegetische ,beitrge1 #a1 s4 #bgg ff4 #fee ,comm4 in ,matth4 s4 #agb ff4 #fef ,in the ,essay quoted1 s4 #gfh4 #feg ,thus1 e4g41 ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 p4 #hd4 ,comp4 ,gratz1 ,comm4 zum ,matth41 #a1 s4 #bbi4 ,hoffmann1 p4 #cae4 #feh ,usteri1 ber den ,tufer ,johannes1 die ,taufe und ,versuchung ,christi4 ,in den theol4 ,studien und ,kritiken1 zweiten ,jahrgangs 7#ahbi71 drittes ,heft1 s4 #dej4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #ch4 #fei ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogmatik1 #aga4 ,gramberg1 ,grundzge einer ,engellehre des ,a4 ,t41 #e1 in ,winer's ,zeitschrift f4 wissenschaftliche ,theologie1 #a ,bd4 s4 #ahb f4 #ffj ,glaubenslehre1 #a1 ss4 #dd1 #de1 der zweiten ,ausg4 #ffa ,schmidt1 exeg4 ,beitrge4 ,kuinl1 in ,matt4 #ffb ,in a fragment of ,theodore of ,mopsuestia in ,mnter's ,fragm4 ,patr4 ,grc4 ,fasc4 #a1 p4 #ii f4 #ffc ,paulus4 #ffd ,hoffmann thinks that the devil1 in his second temptation1 designedly chose so startling an example as the leap from the temple roof1 the essential aim of the temptation being to induce ,jesus to a false use of his miraculous power and consciousness of a divine nature4 ,but this evasion leaves the matter where it was1 for there is the same absurdity in choosing unfit examples as unfit temptations4 #ffe ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #abd4 #fff ,see the author of the discourse de jejunio et tentationibus ,christi1 among ,cyprian's works4 #ffg ,compare ,joseph4 ,b4 ,j4 v4 v4 #f1 vi4 v4 #a4 ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 s4 #afd4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #dj4 #ffh ,the one proposed by ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #ij2 the other by ,fritzsche1 p4 #afh4 #ffi ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 ut sup4 p4 #ajg1 maintained against ,julian that the devil had made the image of a mountain1 1 and according to the author of the discourse1 already cited1 de jejunio et tentationibus ,christi1 the first temptation it is true passed localiter in deserto1 but ,jesus only went to the temple and the mountain as ,ezekiel did from ,chaboras to ,jerusalem--that is1 in spiritu4 #fgj ,paulus1 s4 #cgi4 #fga ,see for the former1 ,h4 ,farmer1 ,gratz1 ,comm4 zum ,ev4 ,matth4 #a1 s4 #bag2 for the latter1 ,olshausen in loc41 and ,hoffmann 7s4 #cbf f47 if ,i rightly apprehend him4 #fgb ,paulus1 s4 #cgg ff4 #fgc ,fritzsche1 in ,matth4 #aee f4 ,usteri1 ,beitrag zur ,erklrung der ,versuchungsgeschichte1 s4 #ggd f4 #fgd ,ullmann1 ber die ,unsndlichkeit ,jesu1 in his ,studien1 #a1 #a1 s4 #ef4 ,usteri1 ut sup41 s4 #gge4 #fge ,usteri1 s4 #ggf4 #fgf #a ,bd4 s4 #eab ff4 #fgg ,the former in ,henke's n4 ,magazin #d1 #b1 s4 #ceb2 the latter in the natrlichen ,geschichte1 #a1 s4 #eia ff4 #fgh ,this view is held by ,ullmann1 ,hase1 and ,neander4 #fgi ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #ed4 ,usteri1 ut sup41 s4 #ggg4 #fhj ,if something really experienced by ,jesus is supposed as the germ of the parable1 this opinion is virtually the same as the preceding4 #fha ,j4 ,e4 ,c4 ,schmidt1 in seiner ,bibliothek1 #a1 #a1 s4 #fj f4 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #ed f4 ,usteri1 ber den ,tufer ,johannes1 die ,taufe und ,versuchung ,christi1 in den theol4 ,studien1 #b1 #c1 s4 #def ff4 #fhb ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt1 exeg4 ,beitrge1 #a1 s4 #cci4 #fhc ,hasert1 ,bemerkungen ber die ,ansichten ,ullmann's und ,usteri's von der ,versuchungsgesch41 ,studien1 #c1 #a1 s4 #gd f4 #fhd ,hasert1 ut sup41 s4 #gf4 #fhe ,zur ,biographie ,jesu1 #bc4 #fhf ,see ,zech4 iii4 #a1 where ,satan resists the high priest standing before the angel of the ,lord2 farther ,vajikra rabba1 f4 cli4 #a 7in ,bertholdt1 ,christol4 ,jud41 p4 #ahc71 where1 according to ,rabbi ,jochanan1 ,jehovah said to 7i4e4 to ,satan1 comp4 ,heb4 ii4 #ad and ,lightfoot1 hor1 p4 #ajhh73 ,feci quidem te 1 at vero cum populo fderis negotium nulla in re tibi est4 #fhg ,see the passages quoted by ,fabricius in ,cod4 pseudepigr4 ,v4 ,t41 p4 #cie1 from ,gemara ,sanhedrin4 #fhh ,the same1 p4 #cif4 ,as ,abraham went out to sacrifice his son in obedience to ,jehovah1 antevertit eum ,satanas in via1 et tali colloquio cum ipso habito a proposito avertere eum conatus est1 etc4 ,schemoth1 ,r4 #da 7ap4 ,wetstein in loc4 ,matth473 ,cum ,moses in altum adscenderet1 dixit ,israli3 post dies ,,xl hora sexta redibo4 ,cum autem ,,xl illi dies elapsi essent1 venit ,satanas1 et turbavit mundum1 dixitque3 ubi est ,moses1 magister vester8 mortuus est4 ,it is worthy of remark that here also the temptation takes place after the lapse of #dj days4 #fhi ,thus ,fritzsche1 in ,matt4 p4 #agc4 ,his very title is striking1 p4 #aed3 ,quod in vulgari ,judorum opinione erat1 fore1 ut ,satanas salutaribus ,messi consiliis omni modo1 sed sine effectu tamen1 nocere studeret1 id ipsum ,jesu ,messi accidit4 ,nam quum is ad exemplum illustrium majorum quadraginta dierum in deserto loco egisset jejunium1 ,satanas eum convenit1 protervisque atque impiis-- --consiliis ad impietatem deducere frustra conatus est4 #fij ,schttgen1 hor1 ii4 #ech1 adduces from ,fini ,flagellum ,judorum1 iii4 #ce1 a passage of ,pesikta3 ,ait ,satan3 ,domine1 permitte me tentare ,messiam et ejus generationem8 ,cui inquit ,deus3 ,non haberes ullam adversus eum potestatem4 ,satanas iterum ait3 ,sine me1 quia potestatem habeo4 ,respondit ,deus3 ,si in hoc diutius perseverabis1 ,satan1 potius 7te7 de mundo perdam quam aliquam animam generationis ,messi perdi permittam4 ,this passage at least proves that a temptation of the ,messiah undertaken by the devil1 was not foreign to the circle of ,jewish ideas4 ,although the author of the above quotation represents the demand of ,satan to have been denied1 others1 so soon as the imagination was once excited1 would be sure to allow its completion4 #fia ,deut4 viii4 #b 7,,lxx47 the people are thus addressed3 1 1 1 4 #fib ,ziegler1 in ,gabler's n4 theol4 ,journ41 #e1 #bja2 ,theile1 zur ,biogr4 ,j41 #bc4 #fic ,see ,wetstein1 s4 #bgj2 ,de ,wette1 ,kritik der mos4 ,geschichte1 s4 #bde2 the same in ,daub's and ,creuzer's ,studien1 #c1 s4 #bde2 v4 ,bohlen1 ,genesis1 s4 #fc f4 #fid ,deut4 viii4 #c1 1 444 #fie ,s4 ,fabricius1 ,cod4 pseudepigr4 ,v4 ,t41 p4 #cih ff4 #fif ,gemara ,sanh41 as in note #c4 ,the colloquy between ,abraham and ,satan is thus continued3 #a4 ,satanas3 ,annon tentare te 7,deum7 in tali re gre feras8 ,ecce erudiebas multos--labantem erigebant verba tua--quum nunc advenit ad te 7,deus taliter te tentans7 nonne gre ferres 7,job iv4 #b-e78 ,cui resp4 ,abraham3 ,ego in integritate mea ambulo 7,ps4 xxvi4 #aa74 #b4 ,satanas3 ,annon timor tuus1 spes tua 7,job iv4 #f78 ,abraham3 ,recordare quso1 quis est insons1 qui perierit 7v4 #g78 #c4 ,quare1 quum videret ,satanas1 se nihil proficere1 nec ,abrahamum sibi obedire1 dixit ad illum3 et ad me verbum furtim ablatum est 7v4 #ab71 audivi--pecus futurum esse pro holocausto 7,gen4 xxii4 #g71 non autem ,isaacum4 ,cui resp4 ,abraham3 ,hc est pna mendacis1 ut etiam cum vera loquitur1 fides ei non habeatur4 ,i am far from maintaining that this rabbinical passage was the model of our history of the temptation2 but since it is impossible to prove1 on the other side1 that such narratives were only imitations of the ,new ,testament ones1 the supposed independent formation of stories so similar shows plainly enough the ease with which they sprang out of the given premises4 #fig ,note #a4 #fih ,bertholdt1 ,christolog4 ,judorum ,jesu tate1 #cf1 not4 #a and #b2 ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 s4 #afi f4 #fii ,compare with the above statement the deductions of ,schmidt1 ,fritzsche1 and ,usteri1 as given #ed1 notes #a-c1 and of ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handbuch1 #a1 #a1 s4 #da ff4 #gjj ,fritzsche1 p4 #eia4 #gja ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm41 #a1 s4 #ahi f4 #gjb ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #ch f42 ber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #g f4 #gjc ,de ,wette1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t41 #ih u4 #ajf4 #gjd ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 a1 s4 #ci4 #gje ,guerike1 ,beitrge zur ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t41 s4 #cc2 ,tholuck1 ,glaubwrdigkeit1 s4 #cjc4 #gjf ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung u4 s4 w41 s4 #i4 #gjg ,kern1 ber den ,ursprung des ,evang4 ,matthi1 in der ,tbinger ,zeitschrift1 #ahcd1 #btes ,heft1 s4 #aih ff4 ,comp4 ,hug1 ,einleit4 in d4 ,n4 ,t41 #b1 s4 #bje ff4 7#cte ,ausg474 #gjh ,tholuck1 ,comm4 zum ,evang4 ,joh41 p4 #bjg4 #gji ,comp4 ,lcke1 ut sup41 s4 #edf4 #gaj ,de ,wette1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t41 #ih4 #gaa ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #g42 ,beitrge u4 s4 f41 s4 #ch ff4 #gab ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #bjg4 ,comp4 ,gabler's ,treatise on the ,resurrection of ,lazarus1 in his ,journal fr auserlesene theol4 ,literatur1 #c1 #b4 #gac ,hug1 ,einleit4 in das ,n4 ,t41 #b1 s4 #baj4 #gad ,hug1 ut supra1 s4 #baa4 f4 #gae ,compare ,weisse1 die evang4 ,geschichte #a1 s4 #bi ff4 #gaf ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #f1 s4 #dfc4 #gag ,this ,schleiermacher has made evident1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #fc4 #gah ,sieffert1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten kanonischen ,evangeliums1 s4 #hi4 #gai ,olshausen1 ,fritzsche1 in loc4 ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 #fb4 ,sieffert1 ut supra4 #gbj ,sieffert1 ut supra4 #gba ,what these mighty works were can only be made clear when we come to the chapter on the ,miracles4 #gbb ,schleiermacher1 ut supra1 s4 #fd4 #gbc ,schleiermacher1 ut supra1 s4 #fc f4 #gbd ,ordo temporum1 p4 #bbj ff4 ed4 #b4 #gbe ,paulus1 ut supra1 #a1 b1 s4 #djg4 #gbf ,paulus1 ut supra4 ,lightfoot1 hor1 p4 #gfe4 #gbg ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 #dgj4 #gbh ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 #fb4 #gbi ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #ic4 #gcj ,ut supra1 #dgi2 comp4 #b1 p4 #bad4 #gca ,adv4 ,marcion1 iv4 #h4 #gcb ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #ghh f4 #gcc ,lcke1 ,comm4 zum ,evang4 ,joh41 #b1 s4 #f4 #gcd ,bengel1 ordo temporum1 p4 #bai f4 #gce ,hug1 ,einleit4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #b1 s4 #bbi ff4 #gcf ,paulus1 ,comm4 zum ,ev4 ,joh41 s4 #bgi f4 ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #ghd ff4 #gcg ,summaries of the different opinions are given by ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #ec2 and by ,lcke1 ,comm4 z4 ,ev4 ,joh41 #b1 s4 #b ff4 #gch ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #ghe4 #gci ,see ,storr1 ber den ,zweck der evang4 ,gesch4 und der ,briefe ,johannis1 s4 #ccj4 #gdj ,winer1 b4 ,realw4 #a1 s4 #fff4 #gda ,clem4 ,alex4 ,stromat4 #a1 p4 #agd1 ,wrzb4 ed41 #cdj ,sylburg2 ,orig4 de principp4 iv4 #e1 comp4 homil4 in ,luc4 #cb4 #gdb ,iren4 adv4 hr4 i4 #a1 #e4 ii4 #ce1 #ch1 on the ,valentinians4 ,clem4 hom4 xvii4 #ai4 #gdc ,iren4 ii4 xxii4 #e f4 ,comp4 ,credner1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #bae4 #gdd ,lightfoot and ,tholuck in loc4 #gde ,joseph4 ,antiq4 xviii4 iv4 #b4 #gdf ,sueton4 ,tiber4 c4 lxxiii4 ,joseph4 ,antiq4 xviii4 vi4 #aj4 #gdg ,comp4 ,paulus1 ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 #bad f4 #gdh ,see especially the labours of ,paulus in the ,chronological ,excursus of his ,commentary and his exegetical ,manual2 of ,hug1 in the ,einl4 z4 ,n4 ,t4 #b1 s4 #b1 #bcc ff42 and others1 given by ,winer in his bibl4 ,realwrterbuch #a1 s4 #ffg4 #gdi ,winer1 ut sup42 comp4 ,kaiser1 biblische ,theologie1 #a1 s4 #bed4 ,anm42 die ,abhandlung ber die verschiedenen ,rcksichten u4 s4 w41 in ,bertholdt's krit4 ,journal1 #e1 s4 #bci4 #gej ,olshausen #a1 s4 #bd ff4 #gea ,schneckenburger's ,beitrge1 s4 #be ff4 #geb ,all that relates to the idea of the ,messiah as suffering1 dying1 and rising again1 is here omitted1 and reserved for the history of the ,passion4 #gec ,paulus1 exeget4 ,handb4 #a1 #f1 s4 #dfe2 ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #cbj4 #ged ,thus after ,herder1 ,kster e4g4 in ,immanuel1 s4 #bfe4 #gee ,lcke1 ,comm4 zum ,joh41 #a1 s4 #cig f4 #gef e4g4 ,grotius4 #geg ,abenesra1 see ,hvernick1 ut sup4 ,comm4 zum ,daniel1 s4 #bdd4 #geh ,schttgen1 hor1 ii4 s4 #fc1 #gc2 ,hvernick1 ut sup41 s4 #bdc f4 #gei ,see for the most important opinions1 ,hvernick1 ut sup41 s4 #bdb f4 #gfj ,let the reader bear in mind the designation of ,david's elegy1 #b ,sam4 i4 #ag ff4 as and the denomination of the ,messiah as 4 ,had ,schleiermacher considered the nature of ,jewish appellatives1 he would not have called the reference of 4 to the passage in ,daniel1 a strange idea4 7,glaubensl41 #ii1 s4 #ii1 ,anm47 #gfa ,that the expression includes more than the disciples1 vid4 ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #gfb ,there is a difficulty involved in the form of the question1 put by ,jesus to his disciples3 1 2 i4e4 what opinion have the people of me1 the ,messiah8 ,this1 when compared with the sequel1 seems a premature disclosure2 hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its prim facie meaning4 ,some 7e4g4 ,beza7 understand the subordinate clause1 not as a declaration of ,jesus concerning his own person1 but as a closer limitation of the question3 ,for whom do the people take me8 for the ,messiah8 ,but this would be a leading question1 which1 as ,fritzsche well observes1 would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title1 not elsewhere discernible in ,jesus4 ,others1 therefore1 7as ,paulus and ,fritzsche17 give the expression 4 4 a general signification1 and interpret the question thus3 ,whom do men say that ,i1 the individual addressing you1 am8 ,but this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section4 ,if1 then1 we reject the opinion that the 4 4 is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous connexion1 we are restricted to ,de ,wette's view 7exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #hf f471 namely1 that the expression1 4 4 was indeed an appellation of the ,messiah1 but an indirect one1 so that it might convey that meaning1 as an allusion to ,daniel1 to ,jesus and those already aware of his ,messiahship1 while to others it was merely the equivalent of1 this man4 #gfc ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #bh f4 #gfd ,this distinction of two periods in the public life of ,jesus is also made by ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 s4 #bac4 #ecf1 and ,schneckenburger ut sup4 #gfe ,schneckenburger1 ut sup41 s4 #bi4 #gff ,fritzsche1 in ,matth4 p4 #cji1 comp4 #ceb4 ,olshausen1 s4 #bfe4 #gfg ,fritzsche1 p4 #ceb4 ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #gfh ,the opposite view is held by the ,fragmentist1 who thinks the prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness4 #gfi ,fritzsche1 s4 #cji4 #ggj ,comp4 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #gd4 #gga ,comp4 the excellent treatise of ,paulus on the following question in the ,einl4 zum ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 s4 #bh ff4 #ggb ,even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage in ,matthew 7xix4 #af f471 it must remain questionable whether his statement deserves the preference to that of the two other ,evangelists4 #ggc ,bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #acj1 #bec4 #ggd ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #a1 s4 #ajh ff4 #gge ,bertholdt1 ,christol4 ,judor4 #h4 #ce1 #db4 #ggf ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 p4 #ei4 #ggg ,porphyr4 ,vita ,pythag41 #bf f4 ,jamblich4 #ad1 #fc4 ,diog4 ,laert4 viii4 #d f4 #ad4 ,baur1 ,apollonius von ,tyana1 pp4 #fd f4 #ih f4 #ahe f4 #ggh ,see a notification and exposition of the passages in ,lcke1 ,comm4 zum ,ev4 ,joh41 #a1 s4 #baa ff4 #ggi ,winer1 de ,onkeloso1 p4 #aj4 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ,einleit4 in das ,a4 ,t41 #eh4 #ghj ,bertholdt1 ,christol4 ,judor41 #bc-be4 ,comp4 ,lcke ut sup41 s4 #bdd1 note4 #gha ,schttgen1 ii4 s4 #f f4 #ghb ,targ4 ,jes4 xvi #a3 ,iste 7,messias7 in deserto fuit rupes ecclesi ,zionis4 ,in ,bertholdt1 ut sup4 p4 #ade4 #ghc ,sohar chadasch f4 lxxxii4 #d1 ap4 ,schttgen1 ii4 s4 #ddj4 #ghd ,nezach ,isral c4 xxxv4 f4 xlviii4 #a4 ,schmidt1 ,bibl4 fr ,kritik u4 ,exegese1 #a1 s4 #ch3 4 ,sohar ,levit4 f4 xiv4 #ef4 ,schttgen1 ii4 s4 #dcf3 ,septem 7lumina condita sunt1 antequam mundus conderetur71 nimirum 444 et lumen ,messi4 ,here we have the pre-existence of the ,messiah represented as a real one3 for a more ideal conception of it1 see ,bereschith ,rabba1 sect4 #a1 f4 iii4 #c 7,schttgen74 #ghe ,von dem ,zweck ,jesu und seiner ,jnger1 s4 #ajh-aeg4 #ghf ,comp4 ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 s4 #aad4 #ghg ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,matt41 p4 #eah4 ,olshausen also1 p4 #gdd1 understands the discourse symbolically1 though he attaches to it a different meaning4 #ghh ,paulus1 exeget4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #fac f4 #ghi ,liebe1 in ,winer's exeg4 ,studien1 #a1 #ei ff4 #gij ,so ,reinhard1 ber den ,plan1 welchen der ,stifter der christlichen ,religion zum ,besten der ,menschheit entwarf1 s4 #eg ff4 7#dte ,aufl474 #gia ,paulus1 ,leben ,jesu #a1 b1 s4 #he1 #id1 #ajf ff42 ,venturini1 #b1 s4 #caj f42 ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu #a ed4 #fh1 #hd4 ,hase has modified this opinion in his #bnd edition1 #di1 #ej 7comp4 theol4 ,streitschrift1 #a1 s4 #fa ff471 though with apparent reluctance1 and he now maintains that ,jesus had risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his public appearance4 #gib ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #fjf f4 #gic ,de ,wette1 ,bibl4 ,dogm41 #baf4 #gid ,bertholdt1 ,christol4 ,judor41 #cj ff4 #gie ,ibid41 #ci4 #gif ,e4g4 ,reinhard1 ,plan ,jesu1 s4 #ad ff4 #gig ,for an exaggeration in the ,ebionite ,gospel1 vid4 ,epiphanius1 hres4 xxx4 #af4 #gih ,bertholdt1 ut sup4 #ca4 #gii ,this is done the most concisely in the ,wolfenbttel ,fragments1 von dem ,zweck u4 s4 f41 s4 #ff ff4 #hjj ,especially ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 s4 #bad ff4 #hja ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterb4 #b1 s4 #djf ff4 #hjb ,comp4 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #bgc4 #hjc ,winer1 b4 ,realw41 #a ,bd4 s4 #dbf4 #hjd ,fritzsche1 s4 #bad ff4 #hje ,reinhard1 s4 #ae ff4 ,planck1 ,geschichte des ,christenthums in der ,periode seiner ,einfhrung1 #a1 s4 #age ff4 #hjf ,de ,wette1 ,bibl4 ,dogm41 #baj4 #hjg ,fritzsche1 s4 #bad4 #hjh ,vid4 the ,fragmentist1 s4 #fi4 #hji ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #fjj f4 ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 s4 #bif1 #cab4 #haj ,comp4 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #eih f4 #haa ,comp4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 s4 #hd4 ,rabbinical notions of the abrogation of the ,law in ,schttgen1 ii4 s4 #faa ff4 #hab ,thus the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 ut sup4 s4 #gb ff4 #hac ,reinhard2 ,planck1 ,geschichte des ,christenthums in der ,per4 seiner ,einfhrung1 #a1 s4 #agi ff4 #had ,paulus1 ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 s4 #chj f4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #ajb4 #hae ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #ejg4 #haf ,hase1 ut sup4 #hag ,antiq4 xx4 vi4 #a4 ,for some rabbinical rules not quite in accordance with this1 see ,lightfoot1 p4 #iia4 #hah ,bertholdt1 ,christol4 ,judor41 #g4 #hai ,some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question2 see in ,lcke #a1 s4 #ecc4 #hbj ,bretschneider1 ut sup4 s4 #dg ff4 #ig f4 #hba ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #ebj ff4 #hbb ,tholuck1 in loc4 #hbc ,lcke and ,tholuck1 in loc4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #fg4 #hbd ,e4g4 ,tholuck1 in many passages4 #hbe ,comp4 ,schttgen1 hor1 i4 s4 #igj f4 ,wetstein1 s4 #hfc4 #hbf ,paulus1 ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 #ahg2 ,comment4 #d1 in loc4 #hbg ,comp4 ,olshausen in loc41 and ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 s4 #ej4 #hbh ,olshausen1 ,lcke1 in loc4 #hbi ,comp4 ,bretschneider1 ut sup4 s4 #di f4 #hcj ,homil4 ii4 #f1 comp4 iii4 #ab4 #hca ,schttgen1 hor1 ii4 p4 #cga f4 #hcb ,lightfoot1 p4 #ajjb4 #hcc ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #edb4 #hcd ,lcke1 s4 #edj1 note4 ,bretschneider1 s4 #eb #hce ,comm4 in ,joan1 tom4 #ac4 #hcf ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 s4 #ajj2 ,lcke1 ,comm4 z4 ,joh4 #a1 s4 #chh2 ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #aig2 ,hase1 ,leben ,jesu1 #ef1 #fa4 #hcg ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 s4 #bab4 #hch ,paulus1 ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 s4 #bac2 ,sieffert1 ber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #gb4 #hci ,see ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #ahi4 #hdj ,schttgen1 hor1 ii4 p4 #cgb4 #hda ,paulus1 ut sup4 #hdb ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #dfd4 #hdc ,gnomon1 in loc4 #hdd ,paulus1 ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 s4 #afh4 #hde ,s4 #che4 #hdf ,vid4 ,lcke1 s4 #chi f4 #hdg ,ut sup4 #hdh ,p4 #ada4 #hdi ,storr1 eber den ,zweck der ev4 ,gesch4 und der ,br4 ,joh41 s4 #cej4 #hej ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #ddi4 #hea ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 p4 #bhc4 #heb ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #gj4 #hec ,this1 with the legendary character of both narratives1 is acknowledged by ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #cg1 #a1 #b1 s4 #ch f4 #hed ,neander is of the same opinion1 ,l4 ,j41 s4 #bdi f4 #hee ,uber den ,ursprung des ersten kan4 ,ev41 s4 #gc4 #hef ,berliner ,jahrbcher fr wissenschaftliche ,kritik1 #ahcd ,nov42 now in the ,charakteristiken u4 ,kritiken1 s4 #bfd f4 #heg ,according to ,de ,wette1 the copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle1 typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic ministry4 #heh ,porphyr4 vita ,pythagor1 no4 #be1 ed4 ,kiessling2 ,jamblich4 v4 ,p4 no4 #cf4 ders4 ,ausg4 ,it is fair to adduce this history1 because1 being less marvellous than the gospel narrative1 it can hardly be an imitation1 but must have arisen independently1 and hence it evinces a common tendency of the ancient legend4 #hei ,luke v4 #e3 ' 4 ,john xxi4 #c3 4 #hfj ,comp4 de ,wette1 exeg ,handb41 #a1 #c1 s4 #bac4 #hfa ,vid4 ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #bee4 #hfb ,sieffert1 ut sup4 p4 #ee4 #hfc ,kuinl1 ut sup4 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 b1 s4 #eac4 ,l4 ,j41 #a1 a1 #bdj4 #hfd ,bertholdt1 ,einleitung1 #c1 s4 #abee f4 ,fritzsche1 s4 #cdj4 #hfe ,sieffert1 s4 #ef2 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #ia4 #hff ,sieffert1 s4 #fj4 #hfg ,de ,wette1 ut sup4 #hfh ,exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 b1 s4 #eaj4 ,l4 ,j41 #a1 a1 #bdj4 #hfi ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #gf4 #hgj ,grtz1 ,comm4 z4 ,matth4 #a1 s4 #dgj4 #hga ,augustin c4 ,faust4 ,manich4 xvii4 #a4 #hgb iii4 i4 #d4 #hgc ,plutarch4 de gloria ,atheniens41 at the beginning4 #hgd ,schulz1 ,ueber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cjh4 #hge ,comp4 de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #b1 p4 #acd4 #hgf ,ut sup41 p4 #gg4 #hgg ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 ,i1 #a1 p4 #ic4 #hgh ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #c1 a1 s4 #dh4 ,kuinl1 in ,luc41 p4 #fcb4 #hgi ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #he4 #hhj ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #he4 #hha ,ut sup41 s4 #hh4 #hhb ,ep4 ,barnab4 #h1 and the ,gospel of the ,ebionites ap4 ,epiphanius1 hr4 xxx4 #ac4 #hhc ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #hg4 #hhd ,if 1 ,john i4 #de1 mean the same as 1 ,matth4 ix4 #a1 that is1 the place where they were resident1 there exists a contradiction on this point between ,john and the synoptists4 #hhe ,comp4 ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #ceh4 #hhf ,comp4 ,lightfoot1 in loc4 #hhg ,comp4 ,saunier1 ber die ,quellen des ,markus1 s4 #ee f4 #hhh ,comp4 de ,wette1 in loc4 #hhi ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #eef4 #hij ,this is probably a mere inference of ,mark4 ,because ,jesus excluded the multitude1 and forbade the publication of the event1 the ,evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes1 to which ,jesus was accustomed to admit only the three favoured apostles4 #hia ,in the ancient church it was thought that ,jesus had communicated to these three individuals the 1 to be mysteriously transmitted4 ,vid4 in ,gieseler1 ,k4 ,g4 #a1 s4 #bcd4 #hib ,even ,paulus1 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #afg f41 remarks that the fourth ,evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance4 #hic ,this has not escaped the acumen of ,dr4 ,paulus4 ,in a review of the first volume of the second ed4 of ,lcke's ,comm4 zum ,johannes1 in ,lt4 ,bl4 zur allg4 ,kirchenzeitung1 ,febr41 #ahcd1 no4 #ah1 s4 #acg f41 he says3 8,the gospel of ,john has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with ,peter 7excepting vi4 #fh71 such as place him in marked subordination to ,john here the passages above considered are cited4 ,an adherent of ,peter can hardly have had a hand in the ,gospel of ,john40 ,we may add that it seems to have proceeded from an antagonist of ,peter1 for it is probable that he had such of the school of ,john1 as well as of ,paul4 #hid ,vid4 ,lcke1 ,comm4 zum ,joh4 #b1 s4 #gjh4 #hie ,paulus1 in his review of ,bretschneider's ,probabilien1 in the ,heidelberger ,jahrbchern1 #ahba1 no4 #i1 s4 #ach4 #hif ,lcke1 ut sup4 s4 #ffd4 #hig ,bretschneider1 ,probabilia1 p4 #aaa f4 #hih ,comp4 ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #acg4 #hii ,thus most of the expositors1 ,fritzsche1 ,matth41 s4 #cei2 ,winer1 ,realwrterb4 #a1 s4 #afc f4 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #ih4 #ijj ,joseph41 bell4 jud4 iv4 iii4 #i4 #ija ,comp4 ,credner1 ,einleitung #a1 s4 #fd2 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #ih f4 #ijb ,de ,wette1 ut sup4 #ijc ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #hh f4 #ijd ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cjg2 ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung1 s4 #ac f4 #ije ,tuf haarez1 f4 xix4 c4 iii42 ,clem4 hom4 xviii4 #d2 ,recognit4 ,clement4 ii4 #db2 ,epiphan4 hr4 i4 #e4 #ijf ,schneckenburger1 ut sup42 ,gieseler1 ber ,entstehung der schriftl4 ,evangelien1 s4 #abg f4 #ijg ,lightfoot1 p4 #ghf4 #ijh ,de ,wette1 exeget4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #ii f4 #a1 #b1 s4 #fa4 #a1 #c1 s4 #bbj2 ,theile1 zur ,biogr4 ,j41 #bd4 ,for the contrary opinion1 see ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #dih f4 #iji ,all that relates to the sufferings1 death1 and resurrection of ,jesus is here excluded4 #iaj ,augustin1 de consens4 ev4 ii4 #ai2 ,storr1 ber den ,zweck des ,evang4 u4 d4 ,br4 ,joh41 s4 #cdg ff4 ,for further references see ,tholuck's ,auslegung der ,bergpredigt1 ,einl41 #a4 #iaa ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #dg ff4 #a1 #b1 s4 #dd4 #iab ,tholuck1 s4 #bd2 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 b1 s4 #ehd4 #iac ,schulz1 vom ,abendmahl1 s4 #cac f42 ,sieffert1 s4 #gd ff42 ,fritzsche1 s4 #cja4 #iad ,olshausen1 ,bibl4 ,comm41 #a1 s4 #aig2 ,kern1 in der ,tb4 ,schrift1 #ahcd1 #b1 s4 #cc4 #iae ,schulz1 ut sup4 s4 #cae2 ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #bf2 ,credner1 ,einleit41 #a1 s4 #fi4 #iaf ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #hi f4 #iag ,tholuck1 p4 #aa1 and my ,review of the writings of ,sieffert and others in the ,jahrbuch f4 wiss4 ,kritik1 ,nov4 #ahcd2 now in my ,charakteristiken u4 ,kritiken1 s4 #beb ff4 #iah ,comp4 ,tholuck1 ut sup4 s4 #be ff42 ,de ,wette1 exeget4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #di4 #iai ,storr1 ,ueber den ,zweck u4 s4 w41 s4 #cdh f4 ,olshausen4 #ibj ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #b1 s4 #dd f42 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #aee f41 ,anm4 #iba ,homil4 xv4 #g2 comp4 ,credner in ,winer's ,zeitschrift f4 wiss4 ,theologie1 #a1 s4 #bih f42 ,schneckenburger1 ber das ,evangelium der ,aegyptier1 #f4 #ibb ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung1 s4 #bi4 #ibc ,ut sup4 s4 #ij1 ,neander agrees with him1 ut sup4 #ibd ,the ,rabbins also attached weight to these ,mosaic blessings and curses1 vid4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #bee4 ,as here we have eight blessings1 they held that ,abraham had beenblessed benedictionibus septem 7,baal ,turim1 in ,gen4 xii4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #bef72 ,david1 ,daniel with his three companions1 and the ,messiah1 benedictionibus sex4 7,targ4 ,ruth4 #c1 ibid47 ,they also counted together with the twenty beatitudines in the ,psalms1 as many v in ,isaiah4 7,midrasch ,tehillim in ,ps4 i4 ib474 #ibe ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #eh4 ,neander tries to show1 very artificially1 a real connection of thought1 s4 #aeg1 ,anm4 #ibf ,olshausen in loc4 ,the true reading is indicated by ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #eh2 ,tholuck1 ut sup4 s4 #aa4 #ibg ,this cause is overlooked by ,schleiermacher1 s4 #bje2 comp4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ibh ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #ij4 ,tholuck1 s4 #ba4 #ibi ,tholuck1 s4 #ab1 #ahg2 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #icj ,ut sup4 #bjf f4 #ica ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #b1 s4 #hf4 #icb ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #dh4 #icc ,orig4 de orat4 xviii4 and ,hess1 ,gesch4 ,jesu1 #b1 s4 #dh f4 #icd ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #agc2 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #bce2 ,sieffert1 s4 #gh ff4 ,neander1 s4 #bce f4 note4 #ice ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #fi4 #a1 #b1 s4 #fe4 #icf ,n4,t4 #a1 #cbc4 ,the parallels may be seen in ,wetstein and ,lightfoot4 #icg ,comm4 in ,matt41 p4 #bfe4 #ich ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 #a1 #a1 s4 #fi ff42 ,neander1 s4 #bcg ff4 #ici ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 #a1 #b1 s4 #agf4 #idj ,from vi4 #ai to the end of the chapter even ,neander finds no orderly association1 and conjectures that the editor of the ,greek ,gospel of ,matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse 7p4 #afi1 note74 #ida ,neander1 ut sup42 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #idb ,de ,wette1 #a1 #b1 s4 #de4 #idc ,de ,wette in loc4 des ,lukas4 #idd ,e4g4 ,hess1 ,gesch4 ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #ede4 #ide ,schulz1 ut sup4 s4 #cjh1 #cad2 ,sieffert1 s4 #hj ff4 #idf ,olshausen1 in loc4 ,the latter bold assertion in ,kern1 ber den ,ursprung des ,evang4 ,matth41 s4 #fc4 #idg ,schulz1 s4 #cae4 #idh ,vid4 ,de ,wette1 ,archol41 #bfe1 and in loc4 #idi ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #ii4 #iej ,schulz1 s4 #cjh2 ,sieffert1 s4 #hb ff4 #iea ,the satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds throughout the #abth chap4 of ,luke1 ,i am as little able to discover as ,tholuck1 ,auslegung der ,bergpredigt1 s4 #ac f41 who has strikingly exposed the partiality of ,schleiermacher for ,luke1 to the prejudice of ,matthew4 #ieb ,vid4 ,de ,wette in loc4 #iec ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #afi f42 ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #cb f4 #ied ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #aaj4 #a1 #b1 s4 #fb4 #iee ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cad4 #ief ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #dcg4 #ieg ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #age4 #ieh ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #cc4 #iei ,olshausen1 s4 #dch4 #ifj ,schleiermacher1 s4 #abj4 #ifa ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,marc41 s4 #abj1 #abh1 #acd2 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ifb ,comp4 ,saunier1 ber die ,quellen des ,markus1 s4 #gd2 ,fritzsche ut sup42 ,de ,wette in loc4 #ifc ,schleiermacher1 ut4 sup4 s4 #aib2 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #dca2 ,schneckenburger1 ut sup4 s4 #cc4 #ifd ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #b1 s4 #gc f4 #ife ,analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the rabbinical literature by ,wetstein1 ,lightfoot1 and ,schttgen1 in loc4 #iff ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #bbj4 #ifg ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #bjb ff4 ,olshausen in loc4 #ifh ,ut sup4 #ifi ,schneckenburger has decided1 ,beitrge1 ,no4 ,v4 where he refutes ,olshausen's interpretation of the parable1 that this verse does not really belong to its present position1 while with respect to the preceding verses from v4 #i1 he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion4 ,de ,wette also considers that v4 #ac is the only one decidedly out of place4 ,he thinks it possible1 by supplying an intermediate proposition1 which he supposes the writer to have omitted1 and which led from the prudent use of riches to faithfulness in preserving those entrusted to us1 to give a sufficient connexion to v4 #i and #aj-ab1 without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct of the steward4 ,the numerous attempts1 both ancient and modern1 to explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of the associated passages1 are only so many proofs that it is absolutely requisite to a satisfactory interpretation4 #igj ,comp4 de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #b1 s4 #hj4 #iga ,ut sup4 s4 #bjh4 #igb ,vid4 ,kuinl1 in loc4 #igc ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 #a1 #b1 s4 #hf f4 #igd ,on the ,essenes as contemners of riches 7 71 comp4 ,joseph41 b4 j4 ii4 viii4 #c2 ,credner1 ber ,essener und ,ebioniten1 in ,winer's ,zeitschrift1 #a1 s4 #bag2 ,gfrrer1 ,philo1 #b1 s4 #caa4 #ige ,thus ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,luc41 p4 #fce4 #igf ,ueber den ,lukas1 #bci f4 ,neander agrees with him1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 p4 #ahh4 #igg ,this is a reply to ,neander's objection1 p4 #aia1 note4 #igh ,how ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 p4 #gf1 can pronounce the more complex form of the parable in ,luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up1 ,i am at a loss to understand4 #igi ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ,i1 ,i1 s4 #bjh f4 #ihj ,v4 #ab4 1 1 4 #ad4 1 1 ' 4 #ae4 1 --7 7 #bg4 -- 1 ' 1 4 #iha ,fritzsche1 p4 #fef4 ,this remark serves to refute ,de ,wette's vindication of the above particular in his exeg4 ,handb4 #ihb ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb #c1 a1 s4 #baj2 ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #haa4 #ihc ,vid4 ,fritzsche1 ut sup4 #ihd ,from the appendix to ,schneckenburger's ,beitrgen1 ,i see that a reviewer in the ,theol4 ,literaturblatt1 #ahca1 ,no4 #hh1 has also conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct parables4 #ihe ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 #a1 #a1 s4 #aeb4 #ihf ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #aec f4 #ihg ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ihh ,vid4 ,fritzsche and ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ihi ,saunier1 ber die ,quellen des ,markus1 s4 #aaa4 #iij ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 in loc41 ,matt4 #iia ,vid4 de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 p4 #aee4 #iib ,analogous passages from ,jewish writings are given in ,wetstein1 ,lightfoot1 ,schttgen1 in loc4 #iic ,bemidbar ,r4 ad4 ,num4 v4 #cj1 in ,wetstein1 p4 #cjc4 #iid ,e4g4 ,paulus1 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #df4 #iie ,for probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of ,jesus1 vid4 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #ebe1 ,anm4 #iif ,paulus1 ib4 s4 #ej1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #eii4 #iig ,in this passage1 it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good for the present distress2 but the ,apostle does not rest there2 for at v4 #cb ff4 he adds1 ,he that is unmarried careth for the things of the ,lord--he that is married for the things of the world3--a motive to celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances1 and which affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of ,paul's views4 ,comp4 ,rckert's ,commentary in loc4 #iih ,vid4 ,gfrrer1 ,philo1 #b1 s4 #caj f4 #iii ,a concise elucidation of them may be found in ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #abi4 #ajjj ,vid4 ,gemara ,hieros4 ,berac4 f4 v4 #d1 in ,lightfoot1 p4 #dbc1 and ,r4 ,manasse ,ben ,isr4 in ,schttgen1 i4 p4 #ahj4 #ajja ,see his #dth ,fragment1 ,lessing's #dten ,beitrag1 s4 #dcd ff4 #ajjb ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #aae ff4 #ajjc ,vid4 ,wetstein1 in loc4 ,hengstenberg1 ,christol4 #a1 a1 s4 #adj f42 also ,paulus himself1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #bhc f4 #ajjd ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ajje ,ueber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #de1 #dg4 #ajjf ,paulus and ,olshausen1 in loc4 #ajjg ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #ahf4 #ajjh ,sieffert1 ber den ,ursprung des ersten ,ev41 s4 #aag f4 #ajji ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 #a1 #a4 s4 #ahi4 #ajaj ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cac f42 ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung1 s4 #ed4 #ajaa ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #ahb1 #aif f42 ,olshausen1 in loc41 and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note4 #ajab ,ut sup4 #ahj4 #ajac ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #ahi1 #a1 #b1 s4 #fg1 #gf4 #ajad ,joseph41 b4 j4 iv4 v4 #d4 #ajae ,eichhorn1 ,einleitung in das ,n4,t41 #a1 s4 #eaj ff42 ,hug1 ,einl4 in das ,n4,t41 #b1 s4 #aj ff42 ,credner1 ,einl41 #a1 s4 #bjg4 #ajaf ,vid4 ,theile1 ber ,zacharias ,barachias ,sohn1 in ,winer's und ,engelhardt's neuem krit4 ,journ41 #b1 s4 #dja ff42 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ajag ,targum ,thren4 ii4 #bj1 in ,wetstein1 s4 #dia4 #ajah ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ajai ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cba4 #ajbj ,this 8secret information0 is very welcome to ,dr4 ,paulus1 because it gives a useful hint 8as to many occurrences in the life of ,jesus1 the causes of which are not obvious0 7,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #ada72 that is ,paulus1 like ,bahrdt and ,venturini1 though less openly1 is fond of using such secret and influential allies as deus ex machin1 for the explanation of much that is miraculous in the life of ,jesus 7the transfiguration1 residence after the resurrection1 etc474 #ajba ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 i4 #fb4 #ajbb ,let the reader bear in mind the kindred names ,nicolaus and ,nicolaitans4 #ajbc ,prob41 p4 #dd4 ,bretschneider is right1 however1 in declaring against ,kuinl's method of supplying a connexion between the discourses in ,john1 by the insertion of propositions and intermediate discourses1 supposed to have been omitted4 ,lcke judiciously admits 7#a1 p4 #ddf7 that if1 in ,john1 something appears to be wanting between two consecutive expressions of ,jesus1 we are yet to suppose that there was an immediate connexion between them in the mind of the ,evangelist1 and it is this connexion which it is the task of exegesis to ascertain4 ,in truth the discourses in the fourth gospel are never entirely wanting in connexion 7apart from the exceptions to be noticed in #ha71 though that connexion is sometimes very latent4 #ajbd ,bereschith ,r41 sect #ci f4 xxxviii4 #b4 ,bammidbar ,r41 s4 #aa f4 ccxi4 #b4 ,tanchuma f4 v4 #b1 in ,schttgen1 i4 s4 #gjd4 ,something similar is said of ,moses1 from ,schemoth ,r41 ib4 #ajbe ,jevamoth f4 lxii4 #a1 xcii4 #a1 in ,lightfoot1 p4 #ihd4 #ajbf ,e4g4 ,knapp1 comm4 in colloq4 ,christi cum ,nicod4 in loc4 #ajbg ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #ahc4 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #agf4 #ajbh ,lcke and ,tholuck1 in loc4 #ajbi ,,iii4 #aa3 ,i4 #ah3 4 #ac3 4 1 1 4 1 4 #aa3 -- 4 #ajcj ,sup4 #df4 #ajca ,this is informed in the ,probabilia1 p4 #df4 #ajcb ,ut sup4 p4 #dgf4 #ajcc ,comp4 ,bretschneider1 ut sup4 #ajcd ,de ,wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part of ,jesus in the synoptical gospels1 ,matt4 xix4 #ba1 xx4 #bb f4 ,but these two cases are of a totally different kind from the one under consideration in ,john4 ,we have here to treat of a want of comprehension1 in the face of which it is surprising that ,jesus instead of descending to its level1 chooses to elevate himself to a still less attainable altitude4 ,in the passages quoted from the synoptists1 on the other hand1 we have examples of an excessive self-valuation1 too high an estimate of their ability to promote the cause of ,jesus1 on the part of the rich young man and of the sons of ,zebedee1 and ,jesus with perfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt presentation of a higher demand4 ,these instances could only be parallel with that of ,nicodemus1 if the latter had piqued himself on his enlightenment1 and ,jesus1 by a sudden flight into a higher region1 had sought to convince him of his ignorance4 #ajce ,bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #if4 #ajcf ,,iii4 #ai3 1 ,i4 #i3 1 1 1 4 #e3 4 1 4 ,,iii4 #af3 1 #a ,john iv4 #i3 1 1 1 ' 4 1 ' 4 #ajcg ,paulus and ,olshausen1 in loc4 #ajch ,tholuck 7,glaubwrdigkeit1 s4 #cce7 adduces as examples of a similar unobserved fusion of a discourse quoted from a foreign source1 with the writer's own matter1 ,gal4 ii4 #ad ff4 ,euseb41 ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #a1 #ci4 ,hieron4 ,comm4 in ,jes4 #ec4 ,but such instances in an epistle1 a commentary or an historical work interspersed with reasoning and criticism are not parallel with those in an historical narrative of the nature of our fourth gospel4 ,in works of the former kind1 the reader expects the author to reason1 and hence1 when the discourse of another party has been introduced1 he is prepared at the slightest pause to see the author again take up the argument4 ,it is quite different with a work like our fourth gospel4 ,the introduction1 it is true1 is put forth as the author's own reasoning1 and it is there quite natural that after a brief quotation from the discourse of another1 v4 #ae1 he should1 at v4 #af1 resume the character of speaker without any express intimation4 ,but when once he has entered on his narrative1 which is strictly a recital of what has been done1 and what has been said1 all that he annexes without any mark of distinction 7as e4g4 xii4 #cg7 to a discourse explicitly ascribed to another1 must be considered as a continuation of that discourse4 #ajci ,philo4 ,opp4 ed4 ,mang4 i4 #dd4 apud ,gfrrer1 i4 p4 #abb4 #ajdj ,joh4 v4 #bj3 ,john iii4 #ce 7the ,baptist73 1 4 4 #bd3 #a ,joh4 iii4 #ad3 1 -- 4 4 #cb3 1 ,joh4 xix4 #ce3 1 4 1 1 4 ,comp4 xxi4 #bd4 #a #cd3 ,joh4 #c1 #ab4 4 #a ,joh4 v4 #i3 #cf3 1 4 1 1 #cg3 1 4 4 ,joh4 i4 #ah3 ,ib43 4 ,comp4 #a ,joh4 iv4 #ab4 1 4 #a ,joh4 i4 #aj3 4 #ch3 4 #a ,joh4 v4 #ab3 4 #dj3 1 4 #a ,joh4 ii4 #ae3 4 #db3 4 ,joh4 xi4 #dc3 1 #dd3 1 4 1 #ajda ,vid4 the passages compared by ,gfrrer1 #a1 s4 #aid1 from ,philo1 de linguarum confusione4 #ajdb ,sup4 #ad4 #ajdc ,de profugis1 ,opp4 ,mang41 i4 s4 #eff1 ,gfrrer1 #a1 s4 #bjb4 ,what is farther said of the 3 ' may be compared with ,john iv4 #ad1 vi4 #ce1 vii4 #ch4 #ajdd ,see ,lcke's ,history of the interpretation of this passage in his ,comm4 #b1 ,appendix ,b1 p4 #gbg ff4 #ajde ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #ii4 #ajdf ,comp4 ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 pp4 #ef1 #hh ff4 #ajdg ,in relation to this chapter1 ,i entirely approve the following remark in the ,probabilia 7p4 #ef73 videretur--,jesus ipse studuisse1 ut verbis illuderet ,judis1 nec ab iis intelligeretur1 sed reprobaretur4 ,ita vero nec egit1 nec agere potuit1 neque si ita docuisset1 tanta effecisset1 quanta illum effecisse historia testatur4 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #c1 s4 #f4 #ajdh ,e4g4 by ,tholuck and ,lcke4 ,the latter1 however1 allows that it is rather an incipient than a complete parable4 ,olshausen also remarks1 that the discourses of the ,shepherd and the ,vine are rather comparisons than parables2 and ,neander shows himself willing to distinguish the parable presented by the synoptists as a species1 under the genus similitude1 to which the of ,john belong4 #ajdi x4 #bg3 x4 #c3 1 4 #ad3 #bh3 4 #d3 4 ,also corresponds to 1 1 v4 #aj1 and is the counterpart of what is said v4 #ab of the hireling who allows the sheep to be scattered4 #ajej ,comp4 v4 #dd with vii4 #ag2 v4 #df with viii4 #ab2 v4 #dg with iii4 #ag2 v4 #dh with iii4 #ah1 v4 #de2 v4 #di with viii4 #bh2 v4 #ej with vi4 #dj1 vii4 #ag1 viii4 #bh4 #ajea ,l4 ,j41 b1 s4 #adb4 #ajeb ,lcke1 ,tholuck1 ,paulus1 in loc4 #ajec ,cyril1 ,erasmus4 ,tholuck's expedient1 which ,olshausen approves1 is to give the signification of the pluperfect1 and to understand as an explicative4 ,but ,i do not see how this can be of any avail1 for and 7v4 #de7 would still form a relation of agreement between two propositions1 which one would have expected to be opposed to each other by and 4 #ajed ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #bea1 #ef4 #ajee ,this idea is so entirely in the spirit of the ancient harmonists1 that ,i can scarcely believe ,lcke to be the first to whom it had occurred 7,comm4 #a1 s4 #ede f474 #ajef ,vid4 sup4 #ci4 #ajeg ,paulus1 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #aeh4 #ajeh ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #dgh4 #ajei ,tholuck1 in loc4 #ajfj ,paulus1 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #age2 ,lcke1 ,tholuck1 ,olshausen1 in loc42 ,hug1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #b1 s4 #bji4 #ajfa ,wegscheider1 ,einl4 in das ,evang4 ,joh41 s4 #bga2 ,tholuck1 ,comm4 s4 #cg f4 #ajfb ,thus ,eckermann1 theol4 ,beitrge1 #e1 #b1 s4 #bbh2 7,vogel7 der ,evangelist ,johannes und seine ,ausleger vor dem jngsten ,gericht1 #a1 s4 #bh ff42 ,wegscheider1 s4 #bha2 ,bretschneider1 ,probabil41 #cc1 #de1 apud ,wegscheider1 ut sup4 s4 #bha2 ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 p4 #cc1 #de4 #ajfc ,de ,wette1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t41 #aje2 ,tholuck1 ,comm4 z4 ,joh41 s4 #ch f42 ,glaubwrdigkeit1 s4 #cdd ff42 ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #aih f4 #ajfd ,commentar1 #d1 s4 #bge f4 #ajfe ,verosimilia de origine evangelii ,joannis1 opusc4 p4 #a ff41 ,einleit4 in das ,n4 ,t41 s4 #acjb ff4 ,this opinion is approved by ,wegscheider1 ut sup4 p4 #bgj ff4 and also ,hug1 #b4 #bfc f41 and ,tholuck1 ,comm4 p4 #ch1 think the supposition of early notes not to be altogether rejected4 #ajff ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #aib f4 #ajfg ,henke1 programm4 quo illustratur ,johannes apostolus nonnullorum ,jesu apophthegmatum et ipse interpres4 #ajfh ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 p4 #ad f4 #ajfi ,ut sup4 p4 #aii4 #ajgj ,wegscheider1 p4 #bhf2 ,lcke1 p4 #aie f4 #ajga ,wegscheider1 p4 #bhe2 ,lcke1 ut sup4 #ajgb ,lcke1 s4 #abd f4 #age4 ,kern1 ber den ,ursprung des ,evang4 ,matthi1 in der ,tb4 ,zeitschrift1 #ahcd1 #b1 s4 #aji4 #ajgc ,s4 #ci4 #ajgd ,s4 #aig4 8,but lastly1 why should we fear to adduce10 etc4 #ajge ,the aid promised to the disciples when brought before rulers and tribunals1 ,matt4 x4 #ai f41 is quite distinct from a bringing to remembrance of the discourses of ,jesus 7,john xiv4 #bf74 #ajgf ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 p4 #b1 #c1 #ca ff4 #ajgg ,de ,wette1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t41 #ajc2 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #g4 #ajgh ,lcke1 ut sup4 pp4 #ccf1 #ccg4 ,kern1 ut sup4 #ajgi ,tholuck1 ut sup4 #ajhj ,bretschneider1 ut sup4 #ajha ,de ,wette1 ut sup4 #aje4 #ajhb ,comp4 ,schulze1 der schriftst4 ,charakter und ,werth des ,johannes4 #ahjc4 #ajhc ,stronck--de doctrin et dictione ,johannis apostoli1 ad ,jesu magistri doctrinam dictionemque exacte composita4 #agig4 #ajhd ,lcke1 ,comm4 z4 ,joh4 #a1 p4 #bjj4 #ajhe ,ut4 sup4 p4 #aii4 #ajhf ,in his review of the #bnd ,ed4 of ,lcke's ,commentar41 in the ,litt4 ,blatt der allgem4 ,kirchenzeitung #ahcd1 no4 #ah4 #ajhg ,this peculiarity of the discourses in ,john cannot be better described than by ,erasmus in his ,epist4 ad ,ferdinandum1 prefatory to his ,paraphrase3 habet ,johannes suum quoddam dicendi genus1 ita sermonem velut ansulis ex sese cohrentibus contexens1 nonnunquam ex contrariis1 nonnunquam ex similibus1 nonnunquam ex iisdem1 subinde repetitis1----ut orationis quodque membrum semper excipiat prius1 sic ut prioris finis sit initium sequentis1 etc4 #ajhh ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cjc ff42 ,sieffert1 ber den ,urspr4 des ersten kanon4 ,evang4 s4 #eh1 #gc1 u4 s42 ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,urspr4 s4 #gc4 #ajhi ,olshausen1 b4 ,comm4 #a4 s4 #ae4 #ajij ,see the above named critics1 passim2 and ,hug1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #b1 s4 #bab4 #ajia ,comp4 ,saunier1 ber die ,quellen des ,markus1 s4 #db ff4 #ajib ,kern1 ber den ,urspr4 des ,ev4 ,matt4 ut sup4 s4 #gj f4 #ajic ,i say1 examine whether--not1 consider it decided that--so that the accusation of opponents1 that ,i use both the particularity and the brevity of narratives as proofs of their mythical character1 falls to the ground of itself4 #ajid ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #gd1 and elsewhere4 #ajie ,ut sup4 s4 #caa4 #ajif ,schleiermacher 7s4 #age7 does not perceive the connexion of the discourse on the blasphemy against the ,holy ,ghost1 in ,matthew 7xii4 #ca f471 though it links on excellently to the foregoing expression1 7v4 #bh74 ,it is more easy1 however1 to understand this difficulty1 than that he should think 7s4 #ahe f47 that discourse better introduced in ,luke 7xii4 #aj74 ,for here1 between the preceding proposition1 that whosoever denies the ,son of ,man before men1 shall be denied before the angels of ,god1 and the one in question1 the only connexion is that the expression brought to the writer's recollection the words 4 ,one proof of this is that between the latter passage and the succeeding declaration1 that the necessary words would be given to the disciples1 when before the tribunal1 by the 1 the connexion consists just as superficially in the expression 4 ,what follows in ,matthew 7v4 #cc-cg71 had been partly given already in the ,sermon on the ,mount1 but stands here in a better connexion than ,schleiermacher is willing to admit4 #ajig ,luke makes the demand of a sign follow immediately on the accusation1 and then gives in succession the answers of ,jesus to both4 ,this representation modern criticism holds to be far more probable than that of ,matthew1 who gives first the accusation and its answer1 then the demand of a sign and its refusal2 and this judgment is grounded on the difficulty of supposing1 that after ,jesus had given a sufficiently long answer to the accusation1 the very same people who had urged it would still demand a sign 7,schleiermacher1 s4 #age2 ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,urspr4 s4 #eb f474 ,but on the other hand1 it is equally improbable that ,jesus1 after having some time ago delivered a forcible discourse on the more important point1 the accusation concerning ,beelzebub1 and even after an interruption which had led him to a totally irrelevant declaration 7,luke xi4 #bg f471 should revert to the less important point1 namely1 the demand of a sign4 ,the discourse on the departure and return of the unclean spirit1 is in ,matthew 7v4 #dc-de7 annexed to the reply of ,jesus to this demand2 but in ,luke 7xi4 #bd ff47 it follows the answer to the imputation of a league with ,beelzebub1 and this may at first seem to be a more suitable arrangement4 ,but on a closer examination1 it will appear very improbable that ,jesus should conclude a defence1 exacted from him by his enemies1 with so calm and purely theoretical a discourse1 which supposes an audience1 if not favourably prepossessed1 at least open to instruction2 and it will be found that here again there is no further connexion than that both discourses treat of the expulsion of demons4 ,by this single feature of resemblance1 the writer of the third gospel was led to sever the connexion between the answer to the oft-named accusation1 and that to the demand of a sign1 which accusation and demand1 as the strongest proofs of the malevolent unbelief of the enemies of ,jesus1 seem to have been associated by tradition4 ,the first ,evangelist refrained from this violence1 and reserved the discourse on the return of the unclean spirit1 which was suggested by the suspicion cast on the expulsion of demons by ,jesus1 until he had communicated the answer by which ,jesus parries the demand of a sign4 #ajih ,vid4 ,griesbach1 ,comm4 crit4 in loc4 #ajii ,comp4 ,schleiermacher1 s4 #aij f4 #aajj ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #aci4 #aaja ,ueber den ,urspr4 s4 #aae4 #aajb ,for the proof of this interpretation1 see ,fritzsche1 comm4 in ,marc4 p4 #ig ff4 #aajc ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #aba4 #aajd ,schneckenburger 7ber den ,ur4 s4 #ed7 finds an attempt at dramatic effect in the 1 and the of ,matthew1 as compared with the and of ,mark4 ,this is a remarkable proof of the partial acumen which plays so distinguished a part to the disadvantage of ,matthew in modern criticism4 ,for who does not see that if ,matthew had 1 it would be numbered among the proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life8 ,as for the words 1 there is nothing to be discovered in them which could give to them more than to the of ,mark1 the stamp of artificiality2 we might as well attribute the latter expression to ,mark's already discovered fondness for describing the action of the eyes1 and consequently regard it as an addition of his own4 #aaje ,answer to the announcement1 viii4 ,answer to the woman1 xi4 #bh3 #ba3 7sc4 1 '7 4 4 #aajf ,ut sup s4 #agg f4 #aajg ,that which decided the ,evangelist to place the visit after the parable of the sower1 was probably not1 as ,schleiermacher thinks1 a real chronological connexion4 ,on the contrary1 we recognize the usual characteristic of his arrangement1 in the transition from the concluding sentence in the explanation of the parable3 these are they who having heard the word1 keep it1 and bring forth fruit with patience1 to the similar expression of ,jesus on the occasion of the visit3 those who hear the word of ,god and do it4 #aajh ,ut sup4 s4 #aeb4 #aaji ,schulz 7b4 d4 ,abendm4 s4 #cbj7 speaks consistently with the tone of the recent criticism on ,matthew when he asserts1 that he does not doubt for a moment that every observant reader will1 without hesitation1 prefer the representation of ,mark1 who1 without mentioning the mother1 confines the whole transaction to ,jesus and the two apostles4 ,but so far as historical probability is concerned1 ,i would ask1 why should not a woman1 who was one of the female companions of ,jesus 7,matt4 xxvii4 #ef71 have ventured on such a petition8 ,as regards psychological probability1 the sentiment of the church1 in the choice of the passage for ,st4 ,james's day1 has usually decided in favour of ,matthew2 for so solemn a prayer1 uttered on the spur of the moment1 is just in character with a woman1 and more especially a mother devoted to her sons4 #aaaj ,compare ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #bhc4 #aaaa ,paulus and ,tholuck1 in loc42 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #chh1 ,anm4 #aaab ,ueber den ,urspr4 s4 #ajh ff4 #aaac ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #dce ff42 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #agd f42 i4 #c1 s4 #dj4 #aaad ,ut sup4 s4 #aji2 comp4 ,schneckenburger1 s4 #bf f4 #aaae ,lightfoot1 s4 #fcb1 from ,bab4 ,jevamoth1 f4 vi4 #b4 #aaaf ,lcke1 s4 #dch4 #aaag ,lcke1 s4 #dcg2 ,sieffert1 s4 #aaj4 #aaah ,comm4 in ,joh4 tom4 #aj1 #ag2 ,opp4 #a1 p4 #cbb1 ed4 ,lommatzsch4 #aaai ,kuinl1 in loc4 #aabj ,bretschneider1 ,probab4 p4 #dc4 #aaba ,english ,commentators1 ap4 ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #dce f41 ,anm4 #aabb ,eng4 ,comm4 ap4 ,lcke4 ,according to ,neander 7s4 #chg1 ,anm471 ,jesus1 after his last entrance into ,jerusalem1 when the enthusiasm of the populace was on his side1 must have shunned every act that could be interpreted into a design of using external force1 and thus creating disturbances4 ,but he must equally have shunned this at the beginning1 as at the end1 of his career1 and the proceeding in the temple was rather a provocation of external force against himself1 than a use of it for his own purposes4 #aabc ,comm4 in ,joh4 ,tom4 #aj1 #af1 p4 #cba f41 ed4 ,lommatzsch4 #aabd ,lcke1 in loc4 #aabe ,lcke1 s4 #dac4 #aabf ,ib4 and ,tholuck1 in loc4 #aabg ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #ghe4 #aabh ,comm4 #d1 s4 #afd4 #aabi ,hieros4 ,joh4 tobh4 f4 lxi4 #c1 ap4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #daa4 #aacj ,lcke1 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #daj4 #aaca ,ut sup41 comp4 also ,woolston1 ,disc4 #a4 #aacb ,thus ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #gff2 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #bib2 ,tholuck1 ,lcke1 ,olshausen1 in loc42 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #if1 ,anm4 #aacc ,this difference struck ,origen1 who has given a critical comparison of these four narratives1 to which1 in point of acumen1 there is no parallel in more modern commentaries4 ,see his in ,matth4 ,commentarior4 series1 ,opp4 ed4 de la ,rue1 #c1 s4 #hib ff4 #aacd ,origenes1 ut sup4 #aace ,ib4 #aacf ,ib4 #aacg ,ib4 #aach ,comp4 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #aaa4 #aaci ,origenes and ,schleiermacher4 ,winer1 ,n4 ,t4 ,gramm41 s4 #adi4 #aadj ,luke vii4 #ch3 -- ,john xii4 #c3 4 4 #aada ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,matt41 p4 #fhg4 #aadb ,sieffert1 ber den ,ursprung1 s4 #abe f4 #aadc ,bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #bgg4 #aadd ,vid4 ,kuinl1 ut sup4 p4 #fhh2 also ,tholuck1 s4 #bbh4 #aade ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #ehb2 #c1 b1 s4 #dff4 #aadf ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung1 u4 s4 f41 s4 #fj4 ,there is no trace in ,mark's account that the words signify an accidental fracture2 nor1 on the other hand can they1 without the harshest ellipsis1 be understood to imply merely the removal of that which stopped the opening of the vessel1 as ,paulus and ,fritzsche maintain4 ,interpreted without violence1 they can only mean a breaking of the vessel itself4 ,is it asked with ,paulus 7,ex4 ,handb4 #c4 b4 s4 #dga73 ,to what purpose destroy a costly vessel8 or with ,fritzsche 7in ,marc4 p4 #fjb73 ,to what purpose risk wounding her own hand1 and possibly the head of ,jesus also8 ,these are questions which have a bearing on the matter considered as the act of the woman1 but not as a narrative of ,mark2 for that to him1 the destruction of a precious vessel should appear suited to the noble prodigality of the woman1 is in perfect accordance with the exaggerating style which we have often observed in him4 #aadg ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #fhi4 #aadh ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #dff1 and many others4 #aadi ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #aaa ff4 #aaej ,sieffert1 ut sup4 s4 #abc f4 #aaea ,schulz1 ut sup4 s4 #cbj f4 #aaeb ,schneckenburger1 ut sup4 s4 #fj4 #aaec ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #dag2 comp4 ,lightfoot1 hor1 p4 #dfh1 #ajha4 #aaed ,schulz1 ut sup4 #aaee ,thus ,grotius and ,herder4 #aaef ,ap4 ,wetstein1 ,paulus1 ,lcke1 in loc4 #aaeg ,maimonides on ,sanhedr4 #g1 #a4 #aaeh ,mischna1 tr4 ,sanhedr4 c4 #aj4 #aaei ,for a thorough discussion of this and the following points1 vid4 ,paulus and ,lcke in loc4 #aafj ,probab41 p4 #gb ff4 #aafa ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 iii4 #ci3 7 7 1 ' 4 #aafb ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #bag4 ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #daj4 #aafc ,elsewhere also the two were confounded1 vid4 ,fabricii ,cod4 apocryph4 ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #ceg1 not4 #aafd #c1 s4 #cgi f4 #aafe ,see the passages quoted in the first volume1 ,introd4 #ad1 notes #i1 #aj1 to which may be added #d ,esdr4 xiii4 #ej 7,fabric4 ,cod4 pseudepigr4 ,v4 ,t4 ii4 p4 #bhf71 and ,sohar ,exod4 fol4 iii4 col4 #ab 7,schttgen1 hor1 ii4 p4 #eda1 also in ,bertholdt's ,christol4 #cc1 note #a74 #aaff ,see the rabbinical passages quoted in the #ast vol4 ut sup4 #aafg ,that the associated with them by ,matthew are only a particular species of demoniacs1 whose malady appeared to be governed by the changes of the moon1 is proved by ,matt4 xvii4 #ad ff4 where a is expelled from a 4 #aafh ,compare the passages of ancient physicians1 ap4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterb4 #a1 s4 #aia4 #aafi ,rabbinical and other passages1 ap4 ,winer1 ut sup4 s4 #aib4 #aagj ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #dge2 comp4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 s4 #fj4 #aaga ,ut sup4 s4 #aia4 #aagb ,grtz1 ,comm4 z4 ,matth4 #a1 s4 #fae4 #aagc ,b4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #dbd4 ,according to this1 the passage relates to the ,jewish people1 who before the exile were possessed by the devil in the form of idolatry1 and afterwards in the worst form of ,pharisaism4 #aagd ,thus ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #ddg4 #aage ,exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #eff4 #aagf ,ut sup4 #a1 b1 s4 #dhc2 #b1 s4 #if4 #aagg ,hence the words 1 were used as synonymous with 4 ,hippocrates had to combat the opinion that epilepsy was the effect of demoniacal influence4 ,vid4 ,wetstein1 s4 #bhb ff4 #aagh ,let the reader compare the 1 which made ,saul melancholy1 #a ,sam4 xvi4 #ad4 ,its influence on ,saul is expressed by 4 #aagi ,vid4 ,creuzer1 ,symbolik1 #c1 s4 #fi f42 ,baur1 ,apollonius von ,tyana und ,christus1 s4 #add4 #aahj ,bell4 jud4 vii4 vi4 #c4 #aaha ,antiq4 vi4 xi4 #b4 ,on the state of ,saul4 #aahb ,philopseud41 #af4 #aahc ,vit ,apollon4 iv4 #bj1 #be1 comp4 ,baur1 ut sup4 s4 #ch f4 #db4 ,even ,aristotle speaks of 4 de mirab4 #aff1 ed4 ,bekk4 #aahd ,ut sup41 bell4 j43 -- 1 4 #aahe ,apoll4 i4 #ah4 #aahf ,ut sup4 iii4 #ch4 #aahg ,vid4 ,eisenmenger1 entdecktes ,judenthum1 #b1 s4 #dbg4 #aahh ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #ci2 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #bag4 ,he appeals in support of this to ,matt4 xiv4 #b1 where ,herod1 on hearing of the miracles of ,jesus1 says3 ,it is ,john the ,baptist1 he is risen from the dead4 ,in this expression ,paulus finds the rabbinical opinion of the 1 which is distinct from that of the 1 or transmigration of souls properly so called1 7that is1 the passage of disembodied souls into the bodies of infants1 while in the process of formation71 and according to which the soul of a dead person might unite itself to that of a living one1 and add to its power 7vid4 ,eisenmenger #b1 s4 #he ff47 ,but1 as ,fritzsche and others have shown1 the word refers to an actual resurrection of the ,baptist1 and not to this rabbinical notion2 which1 moreover1 even were it implied1 is totally different from that of demoniacal possession4 ,here it would be a good spirit who had entered into a prophet for the strengthening of his powers1 as according to a later ,jewish idea the soul of ,seth was united to that of ,moses1 and again the souls of ,moses and ,aaron to that of ,samuel 7,eisenmenger1 ut sup472 but from this it would by no means follow1 that it was possible for wicked spirits to enter into the living4 #aahi ,justin1 ,apol4 ii4 #e41 ,eisenmenger1 ut sup4 #aaij ,homil4 viii4 #ah f41 ix4 #i f4 #aaia ,orat4 contra ,grcos1 #af4 #aaib ,see his ,commentatio de dmoniacis quorum in ,n4 ,t4 fit mentio1 and his minute consideration of demoniacal cases4 ,so early as the time of ,origen1 physicians gave natural explanations of the state of those supposed to be possessed4 ,orig4 in ,matth4 xvii4 #ae4 #aaic ,b4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #bif1 ,anm4 #aaid ,s4 #bie f4 #aaie ,s4 #cjb1 after the example of ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #dgd4 #aaif ,homil4 viii4 #ai4 #aaig ,thus ,asmodeus chooses ,sara and her husband as objects of torment and destruction1 not because either the former or the latter were particularly wicked1 but because ,sara's beauty attracted him4 ,tob4 vi4 #ab-ae4 #aaih ,s4 #bid4 #aaii ,it fills s4 #bhi-bih4 #abjj ,i have endeavoured to present helps towards a scientific conception of the states in question in several essays1 which are now incorporated in my ,charakteristiken u4 ,kritiken4 ,comp4 ,wirth1 ,theorie des ,somnambulismus4 ,s4 #caa ff4 #abja ,see note #af1 the passage quoted from ,lucian4 #abjb ,joseph41 ,antiq4 viii4 ii4 #e4 #abjc ,joseph41 ut sup4 #abjd ,gittin1 f4 lxvii4 #b4 #abje ,justin ,mart4 dial4 c4 ,tryph4 lxxxv4 #abjf ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #f1 s4 #dbb2 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #abh4 #abjg ,bibl4 ,comm4 i4 #bif4 #abjh ,comp4 ,bertholdt1 ,christol4 ,jud4 #cf-da4 #abji ,according to ,pesikta in ,jalkut ,schimoni ii4 f4 lvi4 #c 7s4 ,bertholdt1 p4 #ahe74 ,satan recognizes in the same manner the pre-existing ,messiah at the foot of the throne of ,god with terror1 as he qui me et omnes gentiles in infernum prcipitaturus est4 #abaj ,fritzsche1 in ,marc41 p4 #ce3 ,in multis evangeliorum locis homines legas a pravis dmonibus agitatos1 quum primum conspexerint ,jesum1 eum ,messiam esse1 a nemine unquam de hac re commonitos1 statim intelligere4 ,in qua re hac nostri scriptores ducti sunt sententia1 consentaneum esse4 ,satan satellites facile cognovisse ,messiam1 quippe insignia de se supplicia aliquando sumturum4 #abaa ,a favourite resort of maniacs1 vid4 ,lightfoot and ,schttgen1 in loc41 and of unclean spirits1 vid4 rabbinical passages1 ap4 ,wetstein4 #abab ,the notion that the cutting himself with stones which ,mark ascribes to the demoniac1 was an act of penance in lucid moments1 belongs to the errors to which ,olshausen is led by his false opinion of a moral and religious point of view in relation to these phenomena4 ,it is well known1 however1 that the paroxysms of such disorders are precisely the occasions on which a self-destructive fury is manifested4 #abac ,vid4 the collection of such explanations1 ap4 ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #cbg4 #abad ,thus ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cji2 ,paulus1 in loc4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #ge4 #abae ,schulz1 ut sup4 #abaf ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #abg4 #abag ,paulus1 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #bcb4 #abah ,vid4 ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #cbi4 #abai ,natrliche ,geschichte1 #b1 #agd4 #abbj ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #dgc2 ,olshausen1 s4 #cjb4 #abba ,this even ,paulus1 s4 #dgd1 and ,olshausen1 s4 #cjc1 find surprising4 #abbb ,it is the narrative of the manner in which ,apollonius of ,tyana unmasked a demon 7empusa71 vit4 ,ap4 iv4 #ce2 ap4 ,baur1 s4 #ade4 #abbc ,ut sup4 s4 #abh4 ,when1 however1 he accounts for this incorrect supplement of ,luke's by supposing that his informant1 being engaged in the vessel1 had remained behind1 and thus had missed the commencement of the scene with the demoniac1 this is too laboured an exercise of ingenuity1 and presupposes the antiquated opinion1 that there was the most immediate relation possible between the evangelical histories and the facts which they report4 #abbd ,s4 #cje1 ,anm4 #abbe ,clem4 ,horn4 ix4 #aj4 #abbf ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #ccb4 ,according to ,eisenmenger1 #b1 #ddg ff41 the ,jews held that demons generally had a predilection for impure places1 and in ,jalkut ,rubeni f4 x4 #b4 7,wetstein7 we find this observation3 ,anima idololatrarum1 qu venit a spiritu immundo1 vocatur porcus4 #abbg ,ut sup4 s4 #dgd1 #dhe4 ,winer1 b4 ,realw4 #a1 s4 #aib4 #abbh ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 s4 #ccj4 #abbi ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #dge f4 #abcj ,olshausen1 s4 #cjg4 #abca ,paulus1 s4 #dgd4 #abcb ,paulus1 s4 #dhe2 ,winer1 ut sup4 #abcc ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #abcd ,ibid4 #abce ,ullmann1 ber die ,unsndlichkeit ,jesu1 in seinen ,studien1 #a1 #a1 s4 #ea f4 #abcf ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #abcg ,paulus4 #abch ,ullmann4 #abci ,e4g4 ,woolston1 ,disc4 #a1 p4 #cb ff4 #abdj ,jamblich4 vita ,pythag4 no4 #cf4 ed4 ,kiessling4 #abda ,in the ,abhandlung ber genetische oder formelle ,erklrungsart der ,wunder in ,henke's ,museum1 #a1 #c1 s4 #daj ff4 #abdb ,exeg4 ,beitrge1 #b1 #aji ff4 #abdc ,antiq4 viii4 ii4 #e4 #abdd ,philostr4 v4 ,ap4 iv4 #bj2 ap4 ,baur1 ut sup4 s4 #ci4 #abde ,schulz4 s4 #cai4 #abdf ,as ,schulz appears to do1 ut sup4 #abdg ,see the passages quoted by ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #efi1 and by ,winer1 #a1 s4 #aia f4 #abdh ,thus ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #abdi ,schleiermacher1 s4 #aej4 #abej ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #aig2 ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #abea ,de abstinent4 ii4 p4 #bjd and #dag f42 ,vid4 ,winer1 #a1 s4 #aia4 #abeb ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #dga f4 #abec ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #dch2 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #bbc2 ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogm4 #bbb1 ,anm4 c4 #abed ,exeg4 ,handb4 in loc4 #abee ,natrliche ,geschichte1 #b1 s4 #dbi4 #abef ,bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #aif4 #abeg ,among the transient disorders on which ,jesus may have acted psychologically1 we may perhaps number the fever of ,peter's mother-in-law1 which ,jesus is said to have cured1 ,matt4 viii4 #ad ff4 parall4 #abeh ,it is so more or less by ,eichhorn1 in the allg4 ,bibliothek1 #d1 s4 #dce2 ,herder1 von ,gottes ,sohn u4 s4 f41 s4 #bj2 ,wegscheider1 ,einl4 in das ,evang4 ,joh41 s4 #cac2 ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogm41 #bfi4 #abei ,exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 b1 s4 #fih ff4 #abfj ,ut sup4 s4 #gje1 and elsewhere4 #abfa ,compare ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #hf4 #abfb ,paulus1 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #fh4 #abfc ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bae4 #abfd ,vid4 ,winer1 ,realw41 ,art4 ,blinde4 #abfe ,gratz1 ,comm z4 ,matth4 #b1 s4 #cbc4 #abff ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #dd4 #abfg ,schulz1 ,anmerkungen zu ,michaelis1 #b1 s4 #aje4 #abfh ,sieffert1 ut sup4 s4 #ajd4 #abfi ,ueber den ,zweck der evang4 ,geschichte und der ,briefe ,joh41 s4 #cde4 #abgj ,ut sup4 s4 #bcg4 #abga ,paulus1 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #bdi4 #abgb ,natrl4 ,gesch4 des ,propheten von ,naz4 #b1 s4 #baf4 #abgc ,vid4 vol4 i4 p4 #ha1 note4 #abgd ,elsewhere also we find proof that in those times the power of effecting miraculous cures1 especially of blindness1 was commonly ascribed to men who were regarded as favourites of the ,deity4 ,thus ,tacitus1 ,hist4 iv4 #ha1 and ,suetonius1 ,vespas4 vii4 tell us1 that in ,alexandria a blind man applied to ,vespasian1 shortly after he was made emperor1 alleging that he did so by the direction of the god ,serapis1 with the entreaty that he would cure him of his blindness by wetting his eyes with his spittle4 ,vespasian complied1 and the result was that the blind man immediately had his sight restored4 ,as ,tacitus attests the truth of this story in a remarkable manner1 ,paulus is probably not wrong in regarding the affair as the contrivance of adulatory priests1 who to procure for the emperor the fame of a miracle-worker1 and by this means to secure his favour on behalf of their god1 by whose counsel the event was occasioned1 hired a man to simulate blindness4 ,ex4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #ef f4 ,however this may be1 we see from the narrative what was expected1 even beyond the limits of ,palestine1 of a man who1 as ,tacitus here expresses himself concerning ,vespasian1 enjoyed favor e clis and an inclinatio numinum4 #abge ,these are nearly the words of ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #cab1 #cia4 #abgf ,de ,wette1 ,beitrag zur ,charakteristik des ,evangelisten ,markus1 in ,ullmann's und ,umbreit's ,studien1 #a1 #d1 #ghi ff4 ,comp4 ,kster1 ,immanuel1 f4 #gb4 ,on the other hand3 comp4 ,de ,wette's exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #b1 s4 #adh f4 #abgg ,pliny1 ,h4 ,n4 xxviii4 #g1 and other passages in ,wetstein4 #abgh ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #cab f4 #cib ff42 ,natrliche ,geschichte1 #c1 s4 #ca ff4 #baf f42 ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #ahh ff4 #abgi ,for the former explanation1 ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #a1 s1 #cij f42 for the latter1 ,olshausen1 b1 ,comm4 #a4 s4 #eaj4 #abhj ,kuinl1 in ,marc41 p4 #aaj4 #abha ,olshausen1 s4 #eji4 #abhb ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ,kritik der ,mosaischen ,geschichte1 s4 #cf f4 #abhc ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,marc41 p4 xliii4 #abhd ,vid4 ap4 ,wetstein and ,lightfoot1 ,john ix4 #f4 #abhe ,thus ,fritzsche1 after ,euthymius1 in ,marc41 p4 #cjd4 #abhf ,the former is the supposition of ,kuinl1 the latter of ,schott4 #abhg ,hess1 ,gesch4 ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #cia1 ,anm4 #a4 #abhh ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #dgb4 #abhi ,natrliche ,gesch4 #c1 s4 #bae4 #abij ,vid4 ,tholuck and ,lcke1 in loc4 #abia ,vid4 ,paulus and ,lcke1 in loc4 #abib ,thus ,euthymius and ,paulus1 in loc4 #abic ,b4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #bcj1 where1 however1 he refers the to the outflow of the spirit proceeding from ,god4 #abid ,s4 #ic4 #abie ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #gi2 ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 s4 #abb4 #abif ,wetstein1 in loc4 #abig ,nedarim f4 xli4 #a4 7,schttgen1 #a1 p4 #ic73 ,dixit ,r4 ,chija fil4 ,abba3 nullus grotus a morbo suo sanatur1 donec ipsi omnia peccata remissa sint4 #abih ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #gc4 ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #cce4 #abii ,sanhedr4 f4 xci4 #b1 and ,bereschith ,rabba f4 xxxviii4 #a4 7,lightfoot1 p4 #ajej73 ,antonius interrogavit ,rabbi 7,judam73 a quonam tempore incipit malus affectus prvalere in homine8 an a tempore formationis ejus 7in utero71 an a tempore processionis ejus 7ex utero78 ,dicit ei ,rabbi3 a tempore formationis ejus4 #acjj ,paulus ,comm4 #d1 s4 #bfd2 ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #bb4 #acja ,this is done by ,tholuck1 in loc4 #acjb ,see the examples in ,wetstein1 ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #bhd1 and in ,wahl's ,clavis4 #acjc ,comp4 ,winer1 ,realw41 and ,fritzsche1 in ,matt4 p4 #aid4 #acjd ,winer1 ut sup4 ,art4 ,dach4 #acje ,lightfoot1 p4 #fja4 #acjf ,woolston1 ,disc4 #d4 #acjg #a1 s4 #caj f4 #acjh ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #aff1 ,anm4 #ff4 #acji ,this appears to be the meaning of ,paulus1 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #bch4 ,otherwise exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #eje4 #acaj ,thus ,lightfoot1 ,kuinl1 ,olshausen1 in loc4 #acaa ,vid4 ,fritzsche1 in ,marc41 p4 #eb4 #acab ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #dih1 #eja4 #acac ,bengel1 ,gnomon1 #a1 #bde1 ed4 #b4 ,paulus1 s4 #ejb1 again takes an obvious fable in ,livy ii4 #cf for a history1 capable of a natural explanation4 #acad ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #eja4 #acae ,ueber den ,zweck der evang4 ,geschichte und der ,briefe ,joh41 s4 #cea f4 #acaf ,schulz1 ut sup4 s4 #cag2 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #cbb4 #acag ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #ebd f42 bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #cbd f42 comp4 ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #bja ff4 #acah ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #ebd f4 #ecj4 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #bdd f42 ,venturini1 #b1 s4 #bjd ff42 ,kster1 ut sup4 #acai ,vid4 ,evangelium infanti arabicum1 ap4 ,fabricius and ,thilo4 #acbj ,see the observations of ,paulus1 ,lcke1 ,tholuck1 and ,olshausen1 in loc4 #acba ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #ib4 #acbb ,augustin1 de consens4 evang4 i4 #bj2 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #gji2 ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #fc4 #acbc ,ueber den ,zweck ,jesu1 u4 s4 f41 s4 #cea4 #acbd ,vid4 ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #eeb4 #acbe ,fritzsche1 in ,matth4 p4 #caj3 discrepat autem ,lucas ita a ,matthi narratione1 ut centurionem non ipsum venisse ad ,jesum1 sed per legatos cum eo egisse tradat2 quibus dissidentibus pacem obtrudere1 boni nego interpretis esse4 #acbf ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #ib f4 #acbg ,kuinl1 in ,matt41 p4 #bba f4 #acbh ,tholuck1 in loc42 ,hase #fh1 ,anm4 #b4 #acbi ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #bec f42 ,venturini1 #b1 s4 #adj ff42 comp4 ,hase1 #fh4 #accj ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #eej f4 #acca ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #gaj f42 ,natrliche ,geschichte1 #b1 s4 #bhe ff4 #accb ,clem4 homil4 ix4 #ba2 ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 #cac4 #accc ,wetstein1 ,n4 ,t4 #a1 p4 #cdi2 comp4 ,olshausen1 in loc4 #accd ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #aie1 ,anm4 #acce ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #eej4 #accf ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #bfh4 #accg ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #hj f4 #acch ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung1 u4 s4 f41 s4 #ej4 #acci ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 #acdj ,exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #dh ff4 #acda ,natrliche ,geschichte1 #b1 s4 #dba4 #acdb ,winer1 b4 ,realw4 #a1 s4 #gif4 #acdc ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #di1 #ed2 ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #ahe f4 #acdd ,ut sup4 s4 #hc1 ex ,tract4 ,schabbat4 #acde ,schabbat1 f4 #ab1 ap4 ,schttgen1 i4 p4 #abc4 #acdf ,see the passage last cited4 #acdg ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #dbg2 in ,mar41 p4 #gi4 #acdh #a ,kings xiii4 #d1 ,,lxx3 ,matth4 xii4 #aj3 4 7,mark1 47 #f3 1 #ac3 4 4 #acdi ,tacit4 ,hist4 iv4 #ha4 #acej ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #cda f4 #acea ,ut sup4 s4 #aif4 #aceb ,winer 7bibl4 ,realw4 #a1 s4 #gif7 says3 ,we should be contented to refrain from seeking a natural explanation in individual cases 7of the cures of ,jesus71 and ever bear in mind that the banishment of the miraculous out of the agency of ,jesus can never be effected so long as the gospels are regarded historically4 #acec ,disc4 #c4 #aced ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #bfc ff4 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #bih4 #acee ,vid4 ,lcke and ,tholuck1 in loc4 #acef ,comp4 with ,comm4 #d1 s4 #bij1 his ,leben ,jesu1 #a1 a1 s4 #bih4 #aceg ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 s4 #fi4 #aceh ,as by ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #ib4 #acei ,mark ii4 #i3 7 1 1 ,john v4 #h3 1 ----7 1 1 4 2 #aa3-- #i3 4 1 #ab3 1 4 4 #acfj ,ueber den ,zweck des ,evang4 und der ,briefe ,joh41 s4 #cea ff4 #acfa ,comm4 in ,matth4 p4 #bfc4 ,observe his argumentation3 verba ,n4,b4 ,matthaei3 1 non possunt latine reddi3 jam mortua est3 nam1 auctore ,n4,b4 ,luca patri adhuc cum ,christo colloquenti nuntiabat servus1 filiam jam exspirasse2 ergo auctore ,matthaeo8 nondum mortua erat1 cum pater ad ,jesum accederet4 #acfb ,compare1 on the subject of these vain attempts at reconciliation1 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #acb1 and ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #cdg f4 #acfc ,olshausen1 in loc4 #acfd ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #aca ff42 ,schulz1 ber d4 ,abendmahl1 s4 #caf f4 #acfe ,vid4 ,fabricius1 ,cod4 ,apocr4 ,n4 ,t4 #b1 p4 #ddi ff4 #acff ,homil4 ii4 #ai4 #acfg ,cap4 x4 #acfh ,ut sup4 s4 #abi4 #acfi ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #ebf1 #ca f42 ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #acb2 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #cbg4 ,even ,neander does not express himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of ,jesus2 while with regard to the girl's real condition1 he thinks the supposition of a merely apparent death probable4 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #cdc4 ,comp4 #cch f4 #acgj ,comp4 de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #ie2 ,weisse1 die ev4 ,geschichte1 #a1 s4 #ejc4 #acga ,comp4 ,neander4 ,l4 ,j41 s4 #cdb4 #acgb ,natrliche ,geschichte1 #b1 s4 #bab4 #acgc ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 b1 s4 #gaf1 ,anm4 and #gai f4 #acgd ,ibid1 ut sup4 s4 #gbc4 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #b1 s4 #dg4 #acge ,thus ,hase also1 ,l4 ,j4 #hg4 #acgf ,venturini1 #b1 s4 #bic4 #acgg ,comp4 ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #ajc f4 #acgh ,paulus1 ,comp4 #d1 s4 #ece ff42 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #ee ff4 #acgi ,im the translation of the text in his ,leben ,jesu1 #b1 b1 s4 #df1 ,paulus appears to suppose1 beside the message mentioned in the gospel1 three subsequent messages4 #achj ,comp4 ,c4 ,ch4 ,flatt1 etwas zur ,vertheidigung des ,wunders der ,wiederbelebung des ,lazarus1 in ,sskind's ,magazin1 #adtes ,stck1 s4 #ic ff4 #acha ,journal fr auserlesene theol4 ,literatur1 #c1 #b1 s4 #bfa1 ,anm4 #achb ,flatt1 ut sup4 #ajb f42 ,de ,wette1 in loc42 ,neander1 s4 #cea f4 #achc ,flatt1 ut sup42 ,lcke1 ,tholuck and ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #achd ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #chh4 #ache ,flatt1 ut sup4 s4 #ajd f42 ,lcke1 ut sup4 #achf ,flatt1 s4 #ajf2 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #bfi4 #achg ,flatt1 s4 #ig f4 #achh ,compare on this subject1 especially ,flatt and ,lcke4 #achi ,comm4 #d1 s4 #dcg2 in the ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #eg1 and #b1 b1 s4 #df1 this conjecture is no longer employed4 #acij ,ut sup4 s4 #bgb ff4 ,even ,neander shows himself not disinclined to such a conjecture as far as regards v4 #d 7s4 #cdi74 ,as ,gabler believes that these expressions cannot have come from ,jesus1 but only from ,john1 so ,dieffenbach1 in ,bertholdt's ,krit4 ,journal1 #e1 s4 #g ff41 maintains that they cannot have proceeded from ,john1 and as he holds that the rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle1 he pronounces those passages to be interpolations4 #acia ,disc4 #e4 #acib ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 s4 #fa4 #acic #a1 s4 #bgf f4 #acid ,comm4 #b1 s4 #cgf4 ,also ,neander1 s4 #cdf4 #acie ,tholuck1 s4 #bjb2 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #bfj4 #acif ,ut sup4 #acig ,andachtsbuch1 #a1 s4 #bib f4 ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #acd4 #acih ,s4 #ei f4 #gi4 #acii ,comp4 de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #ace4 #adjj ,this is what ,neander maintains1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #ced4 ,he objects that the fourth ,evangelist must in any case have known of resuscitations of the dead by ,jesus1 even supposing the narrative in question to be an unhistorical exaggeration4 ,but this objection is refuted by the observation1 that1 as an inducement to the formation of such a narrative1 the general tradition that ,jesus had raised the dead would be sufficient1 and an acquaintance with particular instances as exemplars was not at all requisite4 #adja ,this argument applies also to ,de ,wette1 who1 while acknowledging that such an idea would be unsuitable in the mouth of ,jesus1 supposes nevertheless that it was really in his mind4 #adjb ,dieffenbach1 ber einige wahrscheinliche ,interpolationen im ,evangelium ,johannis1 in ,bertholdt's krit4 ,journal1 #e1 s4 #h f4 #adjc ,comm4 z4 ,joh41 #ate ,aufl41 #b1 s4 #caj4 #adjd ,thus the author of the ,probabilia also argues1 p4 #fa4 #adje ,disc4 #e4 #adjf ,comp4 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #ajc ff4 #adjg ,saunier1 ber die quellen des ,markus1 s4 #ff ff4 #adjh ,comp4 ,winer bibl4 ,realw4 d4 ,a4 #adji ,let the reader recollect the well-known expression of ,spinoza4 #adaj ,whitby1 ,annot4 in loc4 #adaa ,thus ,grotius and ,herder2 ,olshausen also adopts this explanation under the form of conjecture1 #b1 s4 #bef f41 ,anm4 #adab ,see these arguments dispersed in ,paulus and ,lcke on this chapter2 in ,gabler1 ut sup4 p4 #bch ff42 and ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #aai4--;,a new reason why ,matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of ,lazarus1 has been excogitated by ,heydenreich 7ber die ,unzulssigkeit der mythischen ,auffassung1 #btes ,stck1 s4 #db74 ,the ,evangelist1 he says1 omitted it1 because it required to be represented and treated with a tenderness and liveliness of feeling1 of which he did not think himself capable4 ,hence1 the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration1 of its proper pathos and sublimity4--,idle modesty truly6 #adac ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,urspr41 s4 #aj4 #adad ,gabler1 ut sup4 s4 #bdj f42 also ,neander1 s4 #ceg4 #adae ,comm4 z4 ,joh4 #b1 s4 #djb4 #adaf ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #aci4 ,in ,schleiermacher's ,lectures on the ,life of ,jesus 7if ,i may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed71 the silence in question is explained in the following manner4 ,the synoptical ,evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of ,jesus with the family of ,bethany1 because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to pass into the general tradition1 from which those ,evangelists drew2 and ignorance of the relations of ,jesus with the family in general1 of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them4 ,but what motive could the apostles have for such reserve8 ,are we to infer secret1 or even1 with ,venturini1 tender ties8 ,must not such a private relation in the case of ,jesus have presented much to edify us8 ,the intimations which ,john and ,luke afford us on this subject contain in fact much of this description1 and from the narrative which the latter gives of the visit of ,jesus to ,martha and ,mary1 we see also that the apostles1 in furnishing their accounts1 were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear1 so far as they could retain a general interest4 ,now in this light1 the resurrection of ,lazarus1 as a pre-eminent miracle1 was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism 8,one thing is needful10 and involved less of the private relations of ,jesus with the family of ,bethany2 the supposed effort to keep these secret1 could not therefore have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of ,lazarus4 #adag ,kern1 ber den ,ursprung des ,evang4 ,matth41 ,tbing4 ,zeitschrift1 #ahcd1 #b1 s4 #aaj4 #adah ,bertholdt4 ,christol4 ,jud4 #ce4 #adai ,see the passages quoted from ,tanchuma1 ,vol4 ,i4 #ad4 #adbj #a ,kings xvii4 #bc1 ,,lxx4 1 ,luke vii4 #ae3 4 #adba ,thus the author of the ,abhandlung ber die verschiedenen ,rcksichten1 in welchen der ,biograph ,jesu arbeiten kann1 in ,bertholdt's krit4 ,journ41 #e1 s4 #bcg f41 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bjb4--;,a resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at ,nain is narrated by ,philostratus1 of ,apollonius of ,tyana4 8,as according to ,luke1 it was a young man1 the only son of a widow1 who was being carried out of the city2 so1 in ,philostratus1 it is a young maiden already betrothed1 whose bier ,apollonius meets4 ,the command to set down the bier1 the mere touch1 and a few words1 are sufficient here1 as there1 to bring the dead to life0 7,baur1 ,apollonius v4 ,tyana und ,christus1 s4 #ade74 ,i should like to know whether ,paulus1 or any other critic1 would be inclined to explain this naturally2 if1 however1 it ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative 7a conclusion which can hardly be avoided71 we must have a preconceived opinion of the character of the books of the ,new ,testament1 to evade the consequence1 that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain are only less designed imitations of those in the ,old ,testament2 which are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity1 that a victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods 7,hercules1 ,esculapius1 etc71 and more immediately1 from the ,jewish idea of a prophet4 #adbb ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #bhg4 #adbc ,thus ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 b1 s4 #dfh ff42 ,venturini1 #b1 s4 #aff ff42 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol41 #a1 s4 #aig4 ,hase1 also1 #gd1 thinks this view probable4 #adbd ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #cfc1 who for the rest here offers but a weak defence against the natural explanation4 #adbe ,hase1 ut sup4 #adbf ,vid4 ,vol4 #a1 #ad1 note #i4 #adbg ,neander alters the fact1 when he describes ,jesus as falling asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves1 and thus manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could disturb 7s4 #cfb74 ,luke says expressly1 as they sailed he fell asleep3 and there came down a storm1 etc41 4441 and according to the representation of the other ,evangelists also1 the sleeping of ,jesus appears to have preceded the breaking out of the storm1 since otherwise the timorous disciples would not have awaked him--they would rather not have allowed him to go to sleep4 #adbh ,comp ,saunier1 ber die ,quellen des ,markus1 s4 #hb4 #adbi ,this may serve as an answer to ,tholuck's accusation1 ,glaubwrdigkeit1 s4 #aaj4 #adcj ,ueber den ,ursprung1 u4 s4 f41 s4 #fh f4 #adca ,according to ,jamblich4 vita ,pyth1 #ace1 ed4 ,kiessling1 there were narrated of ,pythagoras1 1 instantaneous tranquillizings of violent winds and hailstorms1 and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas1 to afford easy transit to his companions4 ,comp4 ,porphyr4 v4 p4 #bi same ed4 #adcb ,ut sup4 s4 #dia4 #adcc ,paulus1 ,memorabilien1 #f1 ,stuck1 ,no4 ,v42 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #bch ff4 #adcd ,against the extremely arbitrary expedient which ,paulus has here adopted1 see ,storr1 ,opusc4 acad4 #c1 p4 #bhh4 #adce ,the former by ,bolten1 ,bericht des ,matthus1 in loc2 the latter in ,henke's neuem ,magazin1 #f1 #b1 s4 #cbg ff4 #adcf ,comp4 ,paulus and ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #adcg ,see the excellent passage in ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 p4 #eje4 #adch ,mark's inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his concluding sentence1 v4 #ea1 7comp4 vii4 #cg73 and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure and wondered2 which will scarcely be understood to import1 as ,paulus supposes 7#b1 s4 #bff71 a disapproval of the excessive astonishment4 #adci ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #fh f42 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,geschichte1 #a1 s4 #eba4 #addj ,vid4 ,lcke and ,tholuck4 #adda ,homil4 in ,joann4 #dc4 #addb ,in ,de ,wette's objection1 that the opinion of an exaggeration of the miracle in ,john1 is discountenanced by the addition that they were immediately at the land 7ex4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #gi71 there appears to me only a misunderstanding2 but his assertion that in ,john the manner in which ,jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle 7s4 #gh71 is to me thoroughly incomprehensible4 #addc ,bretschneider1 ,probab41 p4 #ha4 #addd ,see the passages in ,wetstein1 p4 #dag f4 #adde ,jamblich1 vita ,pythagor1 #acf2 comp4 ,porphyr4 #bi4 #addf ,lucian1 ,philopseudes1 #ac4 #addg ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,urspr41 s4 #fh4 #addh ,see the examples in ,wetstein1 in loc4 #addi ,die h4 ,schrift des n4 ,bundes1 #a1 s4 #cad1 #bte ,aufl4 #adej ,paulus1 ex4 ,handb4 #b1 #ejb ff4 ,comp4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #aaa4 #adea ,comp4 ,storr1 in ,flatt's ,magazin1 #b1 s4 #fh ff4 #adeb ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bjj4 ,comp4 ,hase1 ut sup4 #adec ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #eab4 ,this theologian1 in the note on the same page1 observes1 that according to the words1 ,we have taken no bread1 ,matt4 xvi4 #g1 the disciples1 even after the second feeding1 were not alive to the fact1 that there was no necessity for providing themselves with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the ,son of ,man4 ,but this instance is not to the point1 for the circumstances are here altogether different4 ,that from the miraculous feeding of the people when they were accidentally belated in the wilderness1 the disciples did not draw the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator1 can only redound to their honour4 #aded ,ibid4 #adee ,gratz1 ,comm4 z4 ,matth4 #b1 s4 #ij f42 ,sieffert1 ber den ,ursprung1 s4 #ig4 #adef ,thiesz1 ,krit4 ,commentar1 #a1 s4 #afh ff42 ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #caa4 ,comp4 ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #ebc4 #adeg ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #ade2 ,sieffert1 ut sup4 s4 #ie ff42 ,hase1 #ig4 ,neander is undecided1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #cgb ff41 ,anm4 #adeh ,comp4 ,saunier1 ut sup4 s4 #aje4 #adei ,paulus1 ex4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #cae2 ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #adfj ,olshausen1 s4 #eac4 #adfa ,see the proof in ,de ,wette1 ,kritik der mos4 ,gesch41 s4 #bbj ff41 #cad ff4 #adfb ,thus ,olshausen1 in loc4 after ,pfenninger4 ,comp4 ,hase1 #ig4 #adfc ,this lamentable observation of mine1 according to ,olshausen1 has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity1 namely1 in my total disbelief in a living ,god3 otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the ,divine causality should have superseded human operations 7s4 #dgi1 der #cten ,aufl474 #adfd ,jesus ,messias1 #b1 ,bd4 ,no4 #ad1 #ae and #bj4 #adfe ,for this reason ,neander 7s4 #cgg7 passes over the miracle with a few entirely general remarks4 #adff ,exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #bje ff4 #adfg ,olshausen1 in loc4 #adfh ,against ,neander's attempt at reconciliation1 compare ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #gg4 #adfi ,this indication has been recently followed up by ,weisse4 ,he finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves1 in the question addressed by ,jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the ,pharisees and ,sadducees4 ,he asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven loaves1 and then adds1 ,how is it that ye do not understand that ,i spake it not to you concerning bread1 etc4 7,matt4 xvi4 #aa74 ,now1 says ,weisse1 the parallel which ,jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven1 and the history of the feeding of the multitude1 shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically 7s4 #eaa ff474 ,but the form of the question of ,jesus3 77 2 how many baskets ye took up1 presupposes a real event2 we can form no conception1 as we have already remarked in relation to the history of the temptation1 of a parable in which ,jesus and his disciples would have played a principal part2 moreover1 the inference which ,jesus would convey is1 according to the text1 not that because the present narrative was figurative1 so also must be the interpretation of the subsequent discourse1 but that after the earlier proof how superfluous was any solicitude about physical bread where ,jesus was at hand1 it was absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such4 #adgj ,vid4 ,vol4 ,i4 #ad4 #adga #b ,kings iv4 #dc1 ,,lxx43 ,john vi4 #i3 2 2 ,ibid4 v4 #dd3 1 ,matt4 xiv4 #bj3 1 4 1 1 444 #adgb ,exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #bcg f4 #adgc ,joma f4 #ci1 #a3 ,tempore ,simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos panes pentecostales et super decem panes 1 ut singuli sacerdotes1 qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem oliv1 ad satietatem comederent1 imo ut adhuc reliqui superessent4 #adgd ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ex ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #acc f4 #adge ,bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #gd4 #adgf ,neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves--in the mineral springs1 the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies1 that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water1 and in part resemble those of wine6 7s4 #cfi47 #adgg ,in ,joann4 tract4 #h3 ,ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis1 qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus4 #adgh ,thus ,augustine1 ut sup4 approved by ,olshausen3 sicut enim1 quod miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere ,domini1 sic et quod nubes fundunt1 in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere ,domini4 #adgi ,even ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #dje1 thinks the analogy with the above natural process deficient and unintelligible1 and does not know how to console himself better than by the consideration1 that a similar inconvenience exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves4 #adhj ,chrysost4 hom4 in ,joann4 #ba4 #adha ,woolston1 ,disc4 #d4 #adhb ,p4 #db4 #adhc ,tholuck1 in loc4 #adhd ,comm4 #d1 s4 #aea f4 #adhe ,von ,gottes ,sohn u4 s4 f4 nach ,johannes ,evangelium1 s4 #aca f4 #adhf ,c4 ,ch4 ,flatt1 ber die ,verwandlung des ,wassers in ,wein1 in ,sskind's ,magazin1 #ad4 ,stck1 s4 #hf f42 ,olshausen1 ut sup4 s4 #ge f42 comp4 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #cgb4 #adhg ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #adhh ,lcke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too far-fetched1 and too little supported by the tone of the narrative1 s4 #djf4 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ex4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #cg4 #adhi ,a ,wirtemberg wine ,maas1 or measure1 is equal to about #c pints ,english1 or more exactly #ccb4--,tr4 #adij ,wurm1 de ponderum1 mensurarum etc4 rationibus1 ap4 ,rom4 et ,grc41 p4 #abc1 #abf4 ,comp4 ,lcke1 in loc4 #adia ,homil4 in ,joann4 in loc4 #adib ,tholuck1 in loc4 #adic ,this argument is valid against ,neander also1 who appeals to the faith of ,mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism 7s4 #cgj74 #adid ,hess1 ,gesch4 ,jesu1 #a1 s4 #ace4 ,comp4 also ,calvin1 in loc4 #adie ,e4g4 by ,woolston1 ut sup4 #adif ,flatt1 ut sup4 s4 #ij2 ,tholuck1 in loc4 #adig ,olshausen1 in loc4 #adih ,comp4 also the ,probabilia1 p4 #da f4 #adii ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #aej ff42 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #afi ff42 ,natrliche ,gesch4 #b1 s4 #fa ff4 #aejj ,compare on this point1 ,flatt1 ut sup4 s4 #gg ff4 and ,lcke1 in loc4 #aeja ,he makes the word 1 v4 #aj1 refer to ,john also4 #aejb ,lcke1 s4 #djg4 #aejc ,bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bjj4 #aejd ,in the passages cited ,vol4 ,i4 #ad1 out of ,midrasch ,koheleth1 it is said among other things3 ,gol primus--ascendere fecit puteum3 sic quoque ,gol postremus ascendere faciet aquas1 etc4 #aeje ,a natural explanation of this miracle is given by ,josephus in a manner worthy of notice1 ,antiq4 iii4 #a1 #b4 #aejf ,we may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into oil1 which ,eusebius 7,h4 ,e4 vi4 #i47 narrates of a ,christian bishop4 #aejg ,compare the ,probabilia1 ut sup4 #aejh ,de ,wette thinks the analogies adduced from the ,old ,testament too remote2 according to him1 the metamorphosis of wine into water by ,bacchus1 instanced by ,wetstein1 would be nearer to the subject1 and not far from the region of ,greek thought1 out of which the gospel of ,john arose4 ,the most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of bread1 and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last supper4 ,but1 he continues1 the mythical view is opposed1 #a1 by the not yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel2 #b1 by the fact that the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress1 by the obscurity that rests upon it1 and its want of one presiding idea1 together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of ,jesus which it embodies4 ,by these observations ,de ,wette seems to intimate his approval of a natural explanation1 built on the self-deception of ,john2 an explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed4 #aeji ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #aeg ff4 #aeaj ,l4 ,j4 #abh4 #aeaa ,augustin4 de verbis ,domini in ev4 sec4 ,joann41 sermo #dd3 ,quid arbor fecerat1 fructum non afferendo8 qu culpa arboris infcunditas8 #aeab ,disc4 #d4 #aeac ,orig4 ,comm4 in ,matt41 ,tom4 xvi4 #bi3 1 1 1 -- 4-- 1 4 4 2 comp4 ,augustin ut sup4 ,mark1 in relating this event1 adds something which seems not to tally well with his statement1 when he observes that it was not the season for figs4 ,it might be urged3 if it was not the season for figs1 why should ,jesus go and look for fruit on the tree1 and how could he1 with justice1 say to it1 ,let no man eat fruit of thee for ever8 #aead ,toupii emendd4 in ,suidam1 #a1 p4 #ccj f4 #aeae ,heinsius and others1 ap4 ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #aeaf ,maji ,obs41 ib4 #aeag ,dahme1 in ,henke's n4 ,magazin1 #b4 ,bd4 #b4 ,heft1 s4 #beb4 ,kuinl1 in ,marc1 p4 #aej f4 #aeah ,vid4 ,kuinl1 in loc4 #aeai ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #c1 a1 s4 #age2 ,olshausen1 b1 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #ghb4 #aebj ,as ,sieffert thinks1 ,ueber den ,urspr41 s4 #aac ff4 ,compare my reviews1 in the ,charakteristiken und ,kritiken1 s4 #bgb4 #aeba ,vid4 ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #afh f42 ,winer1 b4 ,realw4 d4 ,a4 ,feigenbaum4 #aebb ,bell4 ,jud4 ,,iii4 x4 #h4 #aebc ,ullman1 ber die ,unsndlichkeit ,jesu1 in his ,studien1 #a1 s4 #ej2 ,sieffert1 ut sup4 s4 #aae ff42 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #ghc f42 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #cgh4 #aebd ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #agj2 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #abh2 also ,sieffert1 ut sup4 #aebe ,heydenreich1 in the ,theol4 ,nachrichten1 #ahad1 ,mai41 s4 #aba ff4 #aebf ,comm4 in ,matt4 p4 #fcg4 #aebg ,comm41 in ,marc4 p4 #dha3 ,male--vv4 dd4 in eo hserunt1 quod ,jesus sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur1 mirisque argutiis usi sunt1 ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent4 ,nimirum apostoli1 evangelist et omnes primi temporis ,christiani1 qua erant ingeniorum simplicitate1 quid quantumque ,jesus portentose fecisse diceretur1 curarunt tantummodo1 non quod ,jesu in edendo miraculo consilium fuerit1 subtiliter et argute qusi verunt4 #aebh 1 1 4 #aebi ,ambrosius1 ,comm4 in ,luc1 in loc4 ,neander adopts this opinion1 ut sup4 #aecj ,conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that here given1 may be found in ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #agf f42 #a1 #b1 s4 #agd f41 and ,weisse1 die evang4 ,gesch41 #a1 s4 #egf f4 #aeca ,vom ,erlser der ,menschen nach unsern drei ersten ,evangelien1 s4 #aad4 #aecb ,in a treatise on the history of the ,transfiguration1 in his neuesten theol4 ,journal1 #a4 ,bd4 #e4 ,stck1 s4 #eag ff4 ,comp4 ,bauer1 hebr4 ,mythol4 #b1 s4 #bcc ff4 #aecc ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #ecd f4 #aecd ,olshausen1 ut sup4 s4 #ecg4 #aece ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #eci2 comp4 s4 #agh4 #aecf ,thus ,tertull4 adv4 ,marcion1 iv4 #bb2 ,herder1 ut sup4 #aae f41 with whom also ,gratz agrees4 ,comm4 z4 ,matth4 #b1 s4 #afc f41 #afi4 #aecg ,comp4 ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #eeb2 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #ebc4 #aech ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #aeci ,rau1 symbola ad illustrandam ,evv4 de metamorphosi ,j4 ,chr4 narrationem2 ,gabler1 ut sup4 s4 #eci ff42 ,kuinl1 ,comm4 z4 ,matth4 p4 #dei ff42 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #dgd f4 #aedj ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cai2 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #adh f42 comp4 also ,kster1 ,immanuel1 s4 #fj f4 #aeda ,bauer has discerned this1 ut sup4 s4 #bcg2 ,fritzsche1 p4 #eef2 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #b1 s4 #ef f42 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,gesch4 #a1 s4 #ecf2 and ,paulus also partly1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #ddg f4 #aedb ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #b1 #dcf ff42 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #g ff42 ,natrliche ,geschichte1 #c1 s4 #bef ff4 #aedc ,ut sup4 #aedd ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 s4 #ddf2 ,gratz1 #b1 s4 #afe f4 #aede ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t4 #gi4 #aedf ,thus ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #fb ff4 #aedg ,neander1 because he considers the objective reality of the transfiguration doubtful1 also finds the silence of the fourth ,evangelist a difficulty in this instance 7s4 #dge f474 #aedh ,olshausen1 s4 #ecc1 ,anm4 #aedi ,vid4 ,rau1 in the ,programme quoted in ,gabler1 neuestes theolog4 ,journal1 #a1 #c1 s4 #ejf2 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 ,matth4 #aeej ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #eec2 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #eda4 ,still less satisfactory expedients in ,gabler1 ut sup4 and in ,matthi1 ,religionsgl4 der ,apostel1 #b1 s4 #eif4 #aeea ,this even ,paulus admits1 #b1 s4 #ddb4 #aeeb ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #adi4 #aeec ,this is an answer to ,weisse's objection1 s4 #eci4 #aeed ,comp4 ,jalkut ,simeoni1 p4 #b f4 x4 #c1 7ap4 ,wetstein1 p4 #dce73 ,facies justorum futuro tempore similes erunt soli et luna1 clo et stellis1 fulguri1 etc4 #aeee ,bereschith ,rabba1 xx4 #bi1 7ap4 ,wetstein73 ,vestes lucis vestes ,adami primi4 ,pococke1 ex ,nachmanide 7ibid473 ,fulgida facta fuit facies ,mosis instar solis1 ,josu instar lun2 quod idem affirmarunt veteres de ,adamo4 #aeef ,in ,pirke ,elieser1 ii4 there is1 according to ,wetstein1 the following statement3 inter docendum radios ex facie ipsius1 ut olim e ,mosis facie1 prodiisse1 adeo ut non dignosceret quis1 utrum dies esset an nox4 #aeeg ,nizzachon vetus1 p4 #dj1 ad ,exod4 xxxiv4 #cc 7ap4 ,wetstein73 ,ecce ,moses magister noster felicis memori1 qui homo merus erat1 quia ,deus de facie ad faciem cum eo locutus est1 vultum tam lucentem retulit1 ut ,judi vererentur accedere3 quanto igitur magis de ipsa divinitate hoc tenere oportet1 atque ,jesu faciem ob uno orbis cardine ad alterum fulgorem diffundere conveniebat8 ,at non prditus fuit ullo splendore1 sed reliquis mortalibus fuit simillimus4 ,qua propter constat1 non esse in eum credendum4 #aeeh ,from this parallel with the ascent of the mountain by ,moses may perhaps be derived the interval--the --by which the two first ,evangelists separate the present event from the discourses detailed in the foregoing chapter4 ,for the history of the adventures of ,moses on the mountain begins with a like statement of time1 it being said that after the cloud had covered the mountain six days1 ,moses was called to ,jehovah 7v4 #af74 ,although the point of departure was a totally different one1 this statement of time might be retained for the opening of the scene of transfiguration in the history of ,jesus4 #aeei ,vide ,bertholdt1 ,christologia ,judorum1 #ae1 s4 #fj ff4 #aefj ,debarim ,rabba1 iii4 7,wetstein73 ,dixit ,deus ,s4 ,b4 ,mosi3 per vitam tuam1 quemadmodum vitam tuam posuisti pro ,israelitis in hoc mundo1 ita tempore futuro1 quando ,eliam prophetam ad ipsos mittam1 vos quo eodem tempore venietis4 ,comp4 ,tanchuma f4 xlii4 #a1 ap4 ,schttgen #a1 s4 #adi4 #aefa ,this narrative is pronounced to be a mythus by ,de ,wette1 ,kritik der mos4 ,gesch4 s4 #bej2 comp4 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #adf f42 ,bertholdt1 ,christologia ,jud4 #ae1 not4 #ag2 ,credner1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #bda2 ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cai1 at least admits that there is more or less of the mythical in the various evangelical accounts of the transfiguration1 and ,fritzsche1 in ,matt4 p4 #ddh f4 and #def adduces the mythical view of this event not without signs of approval4 ,compare also ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #dei1 and ,gratz1 #b1 s4 #afa ff4 #aefb ,plato also in the ,symposion 7p4 #bbc1 ,b4 ff4 ,steph471 glorifies his ,socrates by arranging in a natural manner1 and in a comic spirit1 a similar group to that which the ,evangelists here present in a supernatural manner1 and in a tragic spirit4 ,after a bacchanalian entertainment1 ,socrates outwatches his friends1 who lie sleeping around him3 as here the disciples around their master2 with ,socrates there are awake two noble forms alone1 the tragic and the comic poet1 the two elements of the early ,grecian life1 which ,socrates united in himself3 as1 with ,jesus1 the lawgiver and prophet1 the two pillars of the ,old ,testament economy1 which in a higher manner were combined in ,jesus2 lastly1 as in ,plato both ,agathon and ,aristophanes at length sleep1 and ,socrates remains alone in possession of the field3 so in the gospel1 ,moses and ,elias at last vanish1 and the disciples see ,jesus left alone4 #aefc ,weisse1 not satisfied with the interpretation found by me in the mythus1 and labouring besides to preserve an historical foundation for the narrative1 understands it as a figurative representation in the oriental manner1 by one of the three eye-witnesses1 of the light which at that time arose on them concerning the destination of ,jesus1 and especially concerning his relation to the ,old ,testament theocracy and to the messianic prophecies4 ,according to him1 the high mountain symbolizes the height of knowledge which the disciples then attained2 the metamorphosis of the form of ,jesus1 and the splendour of his clothes1 are an image of their intuition of the spiritual messianic idea2 the cloud which overshadowed the appearance1 signifies the dimness and indefiniteness in which the new knowledge faded away1 from the inability of the disciples yet to retain it2 the proposal of ,peter to build tabernacles1 is the attempt of this apostle at once to give a fixed dogmatical form to the sublime intuition4 ,weisse is fearful 7s4 #edc7 that this his conception of the history of the transfiguration may also be pronounced mythical3 ,i think not2 it is too manifestly allegorical4 #aefd ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #afj4 #aefe ,kuinl and ,gratz1 in loc4 #aeff ,thus e4g4 ,lightfoot1 in loc4 #aefg ,wetstein1 ,olshausen1 in loc41 ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #afd1 #bad4 #aefh ,vid4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #aefi ,fritzsche1 in ,marc4 p4 #dae3 ,marcus ,matthi1 xix4 #a1 se auctoritati h4 l4 adstringit1 dicitque1 ,jesum e ,galila 7cf4 ix4 #cc7 profectum esse per ,peraeam4 ,sed auctore ,luca1 xvii4 #aa1 in ,judam contendit per ,samariam itinere brevissimo4 #aegj ,paulus1 #b1 s4 #bic1 #eed4 ,comp4 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #ehc4 #aega ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #aei4 #aegb ,paulus1 #b1 s4 #bid ff4 #aegc ,paulus1 ut sup4 #bie f41 #ehd f4 #aegd ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 s4 #afa f42 ,sieffert1 ber den ,urspr41 s4 #ajd ff4 ,with the former agrees1 in relation to ,luke1 ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #aege ,tholuck1 ,comm4 z4 ,joh41 s4 #bbg2 ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #gga f4 #aegf ,tholuck and ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #aegg ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #ib ff41 #ih ff42 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bdd f4 #aegh ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 #aegi ,comp4 ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #dcb1 ,anm4 #aehj ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #abd4 #aeha ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #agb4 #aehb ,paulus1 #c1 a1 s4 #aae2 ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #eda4 #aehc ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #ggf4 #aehd ,comm4 in ,matth41 p4 #fcj4 ,his expedient is approved by ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #agc4 #aehe ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #adc f4 #aehf ,glassius1 phil4 sacr41 p4 #agb4 ,thus also ,kuinl and ,gratz1 in loc4 #aehg ,n4 ,t4 ,gramm41 s4 #adi4 #aehh ,eichhorn1 allgem4 ,bibliothek1 #e1 s4 #hif f42 comp4 ,bolten1 ,bericht des ,matthus1 s4 #cag f4 #aehi ,vide ,fritzsche1 in loc4 ,this is admitted by ,neander also1 s4 #eej1 ,anm4 #aeij ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #caj f42 ,sieffert1 ber den ,urspr41 s4 #ajg f4 #aeia ,that the above motive will not suffice to explain the conduct of ,jesus1 ,paulus has also felt2 for only the despair on his part of finding a more real and special motive1 can account for his becoming in this solitary instance mystical1 and embracing the explanation of ,justin ,martyr1 whom he elsewhere invariably attacks1 as the author of the perverted ecclesiastical interpretations of the ,bible4 ,according to ,justin1 the ass designated 7that is under the yoke71 is a symbol of the ,jews2 the ass never yet ridden1 of the ,gentiles 7,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #ec72 and ,paulus1 adopting this idea1 endeavours to make it probable that ,jesus1 by mounting an animal which had never before been ridden1 intended to announce himself as the founder and ruler of a new religious community4 ,exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #aaf ff4 #aeib ,natrliche ,gesch4 #c1 s4 #eff f42 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #eej1 ,anm4 #aeic ,weisse1 s4 #egc4 #aeid ,apol4 i4 #cb3 -- ' 4 444 ,binding his colt to a vine--was a symbol indicative of what would happen to ,christ2 for there stood at the entrance of a certain village1 bound to a vine1 an ass's colt1 which he ordered them to bring to him1 etc4 #aeie ,vid4 ,schttgen1 hor1 ii4 p4 #adf4 #aeif ,midrasch ,rabba1 f4 xcviii4 #aeig ,on account of this silence of the fourth ,evangelist1 even ,neander 7ut sup47 is in this instance inclined to admit1 that a more simple event1 owing to the disproportionate importance subsequently attached to it1 was unhistorically modified4 #aeih ,comp4 ,paulus1 in loc4 #aeii ,the citation given by ,matthew is a combination of a passage from ,isaiah with that of ,zechariah4 ,for the words ,tell ye the daughter of ,zion1 1 are from ,isa4 lxii4 #aa2 the rest from ,zechariah ix4 #i1 where the ,,lxx4 has with some divergency3 4 #afjj ,hitzig1 ber die ,abfassungszeit der ,orakel1 ,zach4 ix4-xiv4 in the ,theol4 ,studien1 #ahcj1 #a1 s4 #cf ff4 refers the preceding verse to the warlike deeds of this king1 and the one in question to his pacific virtues4 #afja ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #aba ff4 #afjb ,rosenmller1 ,schol4 in ,v4 ,t4 #g1 #d1 s4 #bgd ff4 #afjc ,in the passage cited ,introd41 #ad1 from ,midrasch ,coheleth1 the description1 pauper et insidens asino in ,zechariah1 is in the very first instance referred to the ,gol postremus4 ,this ass of the ,messiah was held identical with that of ,abraham and ,moses1 vid4 ,jalkut ,rubeni f4 lxxix4 #c1 #d1 ap4 ,schttgen1 i4 s4 #afi2 comp4 ,eisenmenger1 entdecktes ,judenthum1 #b1 s4 #fig f4 #afjd ,sanhedrin f4 xcviii4 #a 7ap4 ,wetstein73 ,dixit ,r4 ,alexander3 ,r4 ,josua f4 ,levi duobus inter se collatis locis tanquam contrariis visis objecit3 scribitur ,dan4 vii4 #ac3 et ecce cum nubibus cli velut filius hominis venit4 ,et scribitur ,zach4 ix4 #i3 pauper et insidens asino4 ,verum hc duo loca ita inter se conciliari possunt3 nempe1 si justitia sua mereantur ,isralit1 ,messias veniet cum nubibus cli3 si autem non mereantur1 veniet pauper1 et vehetur asino4 #afje ,his predictions concerning particular circumstances of his passion1 uttered shortly before its occurrence1 in the last days of his life1 can only be considered farther on1 in the history of those days4 #afjf ,comp4 ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm41 #a1 s4 #ebh4 #afjg ,gesenius1 ,jesaias1 iii4 #acg ff42 ,hitzig1 ,comm4 zu ,jes41 s4 #eej4 #afjh ,gesenius1 ut sup4 s4 #aeh ff42 ,hitzig1 s4 #egg ff42 ,vatke1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #ebh ff4 #afji ,de ,wette1 ,comm4 zu den ,psalmen1 s4 #ead ff42 #cte ,aufl4 #afaj ,ibid4 s4 #bbd ff4 #afaa ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #fgg ff41 and ,de ,wette in loc4 #afab ,see this view developed by ,fritzsche1 ,comm4 in ,marc1 p4 #cha f4 #afac ,vid4 ,fritzsche1 ut sup4 #afad ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #dae ff42 ,ammon1 bibl4 ,theol4 #b1 s4 #cgg f42 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bdf4 ,fritzsche also1 ut sup4 and ,weisse1 #a1 s4 #dbc1 partly admit this4 #afae ,bertholdt1 ,einleitung in d4 ,n4 ,t4 #acje ff42 ,wegscheider1 ,einl4 in das ,evang4 ,johannis1 s4 #bga f4 #afaf ,daniel1 bersetzt und erklrt von ,bertholdt1 #b1 s4 #eda ff41 #ffj ff42 ,rosenmller1 ,schol4 in ,v4 ,t4 #g1 #d1 p4 #cci ff4 #afag ,de ,wette1 de morte ,christi expiatoria1 in his ,opusc4 ,theol41 p4 #acj2 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #jf4 #afah ,vom ,zweck ,jesu und seiner ,junger1 s4 #aad ff4 #aec f4 #afai ,ueber den ,zweck und die ,wirkungen des ,todes ,jesu1 in the ,gttingischen ,bibliothek1 #a1 #d1 s4 #beb ff4 #afbj ,see the list in ,de ,wette1 ut sup4 s4 #f ff4 ,the most important voices for the existence of the idea in question in the time of ,jesus1 have been noticed by ,studlin in the above treatise1 #a1 s4 #bcc ff41 and by ,hengstenberg1 ,christologie des ,a4 ,t41 #a1 a1 s4 #bgj ff41 b1 s1 #bij ff2 for the opposite opinion1 by ,de ,wette1 ut sup4 p4 #a ff4 #afba ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogm1 #bja f42 ,baumgarten ,crusius1 bibl4 ,theol4 #ed4 #afbb ,vid4 ,de ,wette1 ut sup4 #ahi ff4 #afbc ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 ut sup4 #aic4 #afbd ,gfrrer1 ,philo1 #a1 s4 #die ff4 #afbe ,a passage to this effect out of the law 77 properly so called1 would be difficult to find3 ,de ,wette1 de morte1 p4 #gb1 refers to ,isa4 ix4 #e2 ,lcke1 in loc4 to ,ps4 cx4 #d2 ,dan4 vii4 #ad1 ii4 #dd4 #afbf ,vom ,zweck ,jesu und seiner ,jnger1 s4 #agi f4 #afbg ,vid4 ,de ,wette1 de morte ,chr4 p4 #gc f4 #afbh ,comp4 ,gesenius1 ,jesaias #b1 ,th4 s4 #ff2 ,de ,wette1 ,einleitung in das ,a4 ,t4 #ei1 #cte ,ausg4 #afbi ,literal translation according to ,targum of ,jonathan3 ,quemadmodum ,hitzig1 lii4 #ad3--;,as many were per multos dies ipsum exspectrunt amazed at him1 so disfigured1 not ,isralitae1 quorum contabuit inter human1 was his appearance1 and his gentes adspectus et splendor 7et form not that of the children of evanuit7 e filiis hominum1 etc4 men1 etc4 liii4 #d3--;,but he bore our ,idcirco pro delictis nostris ipse infirmities1 and charged himself deprecabitur1 et iniquitates with our sorrows1 and we esteemed nostr propter eum condonabuntur1 him stricken1 smitten of ,god and licet nos reputati simus contusi1 afflicted4 plagis affecti et afflicti4 ,origen also relates1 c4 ,celsus1 i4 #ee1 how a person esteemed a wise man among the ,jews1 1 maintained1 in opposition to his ,christian interpretation of the passage in ,isaiah1 that this was prophesied concerning the whole nation1 which had been dispersed and afflicted1 in order that many might become proselytes1 1 1 1 4 #afcj ,vid4 ,schttgen1 #b1 s4 #ahb f42 ,eisenmenger1 entdecktes ,judenthum1 #b1 s4 #geh4 #afca ,ap4 ,schttgen1 #b s4 #aha f4 #afcb ,de ,wette1 de morte ,chr4 expiatoria1 ut sup4 s4 #ej4 #afcc vii4 #bi4 #afcd ,schttgen1 #b1 s4 #eji ff42 ,schmidt1 ,christologische ,fragmente1 in his ,bibliothek1 #a1 s4 #bd ff42 ,bertholdt1 ,christol4 ,jud41 #ac4 #afce ,schmidt1 ut sup42 ,bertholdt1 ut sup41 #af4 #afcf ,pesikta in ,abkath ,rochel1 ap4 ,schmidt1 s4 #dh f4 #afcg ,sohar1 ,p4 ,,ii4 lxxxv4 #b1 ap4 ,schmidt1 #dg f4 #afch ,gemara ,sanhedrin1 f4 xcviii4 #a2 ap4 ,de ,wette1 de morte ,chr41 p4 #ie f41 and ap4 ,hengstenberg1 s4 #bib4 #afci ,sohar1 ,p4 ,,ii4 f4 lxxx4 ii4 #b2 ap4 ,de ,wette1 s4 #id3 ,cum ,isralit essent in terra sancta1 per cultus religiosos et sacrificia qu faciebanto1 omnes illos morbos et pnas e mundo1 sustulerunt2 nunc vero ,messias debet auferre eas ab hominibus4 #afdj ,vid4 ,bertholdt1 ut sup4 #ag4 #afda ,de ,wette1 de morte ,chr41 p4 #aab2 comp4 #ec ff4 #afdb ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #ajh4 #afdc ,ibid4 #afdd ,ibid4 and #aji4 #afde ,see his animated and impressive treatise1 vom ,zweck1 u4 s4 f41 s4 #aba ff4 ,comp4 ,briefe ber den ,rationalismus1 s4 #bbd ff41 and ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #adc4 #afdf ,thus especially ,herder1 vom ,erlser der ,menschen1 s4 #acc ff4 ,briefe ber den ,rationalismus1 s4 #bbg4 ,comp4 ,kuinl1 ,comm4 in ,matth41 p4 #ddd f4 #afdg ,,lxx43 1 4 #afdh ,comp4 ,sskind1 einige ,bemerkungen ber die ,frage1 ob ,jesus seine ,auferstehung bestimmt vorhergesagt habe8 in ,flatt's ,magazin1 #g1 s4 #bjc ff4 #afdi ,paulus1 ut sup4 #b1 s4 #dae ff42 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #aji4 #afej ,e4g4 ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #dbf2 comp41 on the contrary1 ,tholuck1 in loc4 #afea ,vid4 ,tholuck1 ut sup4 #afeb ,henke1 ,joannes apostolus nonnullorum ,jesu apophthegmatum in evang4 suo et ipse interpres4 ,in ,pott's and ,ruperti's ,sylloge ,comm4 theol4 #a1 s4 #i2 ,gabler1 ,recension des ,henke'schen ,programms im neuesten theol4 ,journal1 #b1 #a1 s4 #hh2 ,lcke1 in loc4 #afec ,thus1 besides ,henke in the above ,programm1 ,herder1 von ,gottes ,sohn nach ,johannes ,evang41 s4 #ace f42 ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #afe f42 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 a1 s4 #agc f42 ,lcke1 and ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #afed ,storr1 in ,flatt's ,magazin1 #d1 s4 #aii4 #afee ,tholuck and ,olshausen1 in loc4 #afef ,hence ,neander remains suspended in indecision between the two1 s4 #cie f4 #afeg ,thus ,kern1 die ,hauptthatsachen der evang4 ,gesch41 ,tb4 ,zeitschrift1 #ahcf1 #b1 s4 #abh4 #afeh ,thus ,olshausen4 #afei ,kern says1 indeed1 that a similar doubleness of meaning is found elsewhere in significant discourse2 but he refrains from adducing an example4 #affj ,probab41 p4 #bc ff4 #affa ,comp4 ,neander1 s4 #cif1 ,anm4 #affb ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 in loc4 #affc ,comp4 ,fritzsche and ,olshausen1 in loc4 #affd ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #b1 s4 #ig ff4 ,schulz1 ber das ,abendm41 s4 #cag f4 #affe ,sskind1 ut sup4 s4 #ahd ff4 #afff ,vid4 ,lcke1 in loc4 #affg ,vid4 de ,wette1 ,comm4 ber die ,psalmen1 s4 #agh4 #affh ,compare1 on the import and connexion of this discourse1 ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #fie ff2 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #aig ff2 ,weizel1 die unchristliche ,unsterblichkeitslehre1 in the theol4 ,studien und ,kritiken1 #ahcf1 s4 #eii ff4--,in agreement with these commentators ,i append the following division of the passage in ,matthew3 ,i4 ,signs of the end1 1 xxiv4 #d-ad4 a4 ,more remote signs1 the beginning of sorrows1 1 #d-h4 b4 ,more immediate signs1 the actual sorrows1 #i-ad4 ,,ii4 ,the end1 1 itself1 xxiv4 #ae-be1 #df4 a4 ,its commencement with the destruction of ,jerusalem1 and the great tribulation which accompanies it1 #ae-bh4 b4 ,its culminating point3 the advent of the ,messiah1 together with the assembling of his elect1 #bi-ca4 7,here follow retrospective observations and warnings1 xxiv4 #cb-xxv4 #cj47 c4 ,close of the with the messianic judgment1 #ca-df4 #affi ,vom ,zweck ,jesu und seiner ,jnger1 s4 #ahd1 #bja ff41 #bjg ff4 #afgj ,the former adv4 hres4 v4 #be2 the latter1 ,comm4 in ,matth4 in loc4 ,compare on the different interpretations of this passage the list in ,schott1 ,commentarius in eos ,j4 ,chr4 sermones1 qui de reditu ejus ad judicium--agunt1 p4 #gc ff4 #afga ,bahrdt41 ,uebersetzung des ,n4 ,t41 #a1 s4 #aajc1 #cte ,ausg42 ,eckermann1 ,handb4 der ,glaubenslehre1 #b1 s4 #egi1 #c1 s4 #dbg1 #dcg1 #gji ff2 and others in ,schott1 ut sup4 #afgb ,this is the opinion of ,lightfoot1 in loc41 ,flatt1 ,comm4 de notione vocis 1 in ,velthusen's und ,a4 ,sammlung #b1 #dfa ff42 ,jahn1 ,erklrung der ,weissagungen ,jesu von der ,zerstrung ,jerusalems u4 s4 w41 in ,bengel's ,archiv4 #b1 #a1 s4 #gi ff41 and others1 cited in ,schott1 s4 #ge f4 #afgc ,thus especially ,jahn1 in the treatise above cited4 #afgd ,kern1 ,hauptthatsachen der evang4 ,geschichte1 ,tb4 ,zeitschr4 #ahcf1 #b1 s4 #adj ff4 #afge ,thus ,storr1 ,opusc4 acad4 #c1 s4 #cd ff42 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #cdf f4 #djb f4 #afgf ,ut sup4 s4 #ahh4 #afgg ,storr1 ut sup4 s4 #ci1 #aaf ff4 #afgh ,paulus1 in loc4 #afgi ,vid4 ,kuinl in ,matt41 s4 #fdi4 #afhj ,comp4 the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 ut sup4 s4 #aij ff4 ,schott1 ut sup4 s4 #abg ff4 #afha ,kern1 ut sup4 s4 #ada f4 ,that ,jesus conceived the epoch at which he spoke to be separated from the end of the world by a far longer interval than would elapse before the destruction of ,jerusalem1 ,kern thinks he can prove in the shortest way from v4 #ad1 of the #bdth chapter of ,matthew1 where ,jesus says1 ,and this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations1 and then shall the end come4 ,for such a promulgation of ,christianity1 he thinks1 it is 8beyond contradiction0 that a far longer space of time than these few lustrums would be requisite4 ,as it happens1 the apostle ,paul himself presents the contradiction1 when he represents the gospel as having been already preached to that extent before the destruction of ,jerusalem1 e4g4 ,col4 i4 #e3 1 7#f7 -- --7#bc7-- 4 ,comp4 ,rom4 x4 #ac4 #afhb ,the former is chosen by ,sskind1 vermischte ,aufstze1 s4 #ij ff42 the latter by ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #fec ff4 #afhc ,see his ,commentarius1 in loc4 #afhd ,ueber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cae f4 #afhe ,ueber den ,ursprung des ersten kanon4 ,evangel41 s4 #aai ff4 ,also ,weisse1 ut sup4 #afhf ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #bae ff41 #bfe ff4 ,here also his opinion is approved by ,neander1 s4 #efb4 #afhg ,olshausen1 bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #hfe2 ,kern1 ut sup4 s4 #ach ff4 ,comp4 ,steudel ,glaubensl4 s4 #dgi ff4 #afhh 8,die ,weltgeschichte ist das ,weltgericht30 ,schiller4 ,tr4 #afhi ,comp4 especially ,weizel1 die ,zeit des jngsten ,tags u4 s4 f4 in den ,studien der evang4 ,geistlichkeit ,wrtembergs1 #i1 #b1 s4 #adj ff41 #aed ff4 #afij ,according to ,kern1 the appearing of the ,son of ,man in the clouds1 signifies 8the manifestation of everything which forms so great an epoch in the development of the history of mankind1 that from it1 the agency of ,christ1 who is the governing power in the history of mankind1 may be as clearly recognised as if the sign of ,christ were seen in the heavens4 ,the mourning of all the tribes of the earth is to be understood of the sorrow with which men will be visited1 owing to the judgment1 1 which accompanies the propagation of the kingdom of ,christ1 as consisting in an expulsion of ungodliness out of the world1 and the annihilation of the old man40 ,still further does ,weisse allow himself to be carried away by the allegorizing propensity3 ,christ 8commiserates those who are with child and who give suck1 i4e4 those who would still labour and produce in the old order of things2 he further pities those whose flight falls in the winter1 i4e4 in a rude1 inhospitable period1 which bears no fruit for the spirit40 7,die evang4 ,gesch4 #b1 s4 #eib47 #afia ,hengstenberg1 ,christologie des ,a4 ,t41 #a1 a1 s4 #cje ff4 #afib ,exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #djc4 ,comp4 also ,kern1 ,hauptthatsachen1 ut sup4 s4 #acg4 #afic ,bibl4 ,comm4 #a1 s4 #hfe ff4 #afid ,ueber den ,ursprung u4 s4 f41 s4 #aai4 ,weisse advances a similar opinion1 ut sup4 #afie ,compare also my ,streitschriften1 #a1 #a1 conclusion4 #afif ,comp4 e4g4 ,gratz1 ,comm4 zum ,matth4 #b1 #ddd ff4 #afig ,antiq4 xx4 viii4 #f 7comp4 bell4 jud4 ii4 xiii4 #d473 ,and now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness1 and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs that should be performed by the providence of ,god4 ,and many that were prevailed on by them1 suffered the punishments of their folly2 for ,felix brought them back1 and then punished them4 #afih ,bell4 jud4 v4 xii4 #a1 #b4 #afii ,more ample comparisons of the results mentioned by ,josephus and others1 with the prophecy1 see in ,credner1 ,einleit4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #bjg4 #agjj ,bertholdt1 ,daniel bersetzt und erklrt1 #b1 s4 #ffh ff42 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s1 #cdj f42 ,de ,wette1 ,einleit4 in das ,a4 ,t41 #bed ff4 #agja ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bdg2 ,credner1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #bjf f4 #agjb ,de ,wette1 ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t41 #ig1 #aja4 ,exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #bjd1 #a1 #b1 s4 #ajc4 #agjc ,paulus1 ,fritzsche1 ,de ,wette in loc4 #agjd ,b4 j4 ,v4 xii4 #a3 ,to encompass the whole city round with his army1 was not very easy1 by reason of its magnitude and the difficulty of the situation2 and on other accounts dangerous4 #agje ,b4 j4 ,v4 xi4 #a ff1 xii4 #a4 #agjf ,vid4 ,schttgen1 #b1 s4 #eji ff42 ,bertholdt1 #ac2 ,schmidt1 ,biblioth4 #a1 s4 #bd ff4 #agjg ,vid4 ,schttgen1 #b1 s4 #ebe f4 #agjh ,antiq4 ,x4 xi4 #g4 ,after having interpreted the little horn of ,antiochus1 he briefly adds3 ,in the very same manner ,daniel also wrote concerning the government of the ,romans1 and that our country should be made desolate by them4 ,he doubtless supposed that the fourth1 iron monarchy1 ,dan4 ii4 #dj1 represented the ,romans1 since1 besides attributing it to a dominion over all the earth1 he explains its destruction by the stone as something still future1 ,ant4 ,x4 x4 #d3 ,daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the ,king2 but ,i do not think proper to relate it1 since ,i have only undertaken to describe things past or things present1 but not things that are future4 ,now ,daniel ii4 #dd interprets the stone to mean the heavenly kingdom1 which would destroy the iron one1 but would itself endure for ever1--a messianic particular1 on which ,josephus does not choose to dilate4 ,but that1 correctly interpreted1 the iron legs of the image signify the ,macedonian empire1 and the feet of iron mixed with clay1 the ,syrian empire which sprang out of the ,macedonian1 see ,de ,wette1 ,einleit4 in das ,n4 ,t41 #bed4 #agji ,vid4 ,joseph41 ,antiq4 xii4 v4 #agaj ,vid4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #acj4 #agaa ,the passages bearing on this subject are collected and explained in ,schott1 ,commentarius1 etc41 p4 #cfd ff4 ,comp4 ,lcke1 in loc4 and ,weizel1 urchristl4 ,unsterblichkeitslehre1 in the ,theol4 ,studien1 #ahcf1 s4 #fbf ff4 #agab ,vid4 ,tholuck1 in loc4 #agac ,comp4 ,tholuck1 ut sup4 #agad ,thus ,lcke1 and also ,tholuck1 in loc42 ,schott1 p4 #dji4 #agae ,olshausen1 #a1 s4 #hgj4 #agaf ,fleck1 de regno divino1 p4 #dhc4 #agag ,winer's bibl4 ,realwrterb4 #agah ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,urspr41 s4 #i f4 ,lcke1 #a1 s4 #acc1 #aei1 #b1 s4 #djb4 #agai ,comp4 besides the critics above cited1 ,hug1 ,enleit4 in das ,n4 ,t4 #b1 s4 #bae4 #agbj ,for the most correct views on this point see ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #djg ff4 #agba ,as the author of the ,probabilia thinks1 s4 #id4 #agbb ,hug1 ut sup4 s4 #bba4 #agbc ,kuinl1 in loc4 #agbd ,paulus1 ,comm4 #d1 s4 #egi f4 #agbe ,lcke1 in loc4 #agbf ,lightfoot1 in loc4 #agbg ,probabil4 ut sup4 #agbh ,vol4 ,,ii4 #fb4 #agbi ,olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor1 when he says 7bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #deh ,anm473 8,perhaps the passage1 ,gen4 xlix4 #ag1 ,dan shall be a serpent1 an adder in the path1 that biteth the horse's heels1 so that his rider shall fall backward1 is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of ,judas1 whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of ,dan40 #agcj ,that1 according to the account in ,john1 ,judas first went to the chief priests from the meal1 is acknowledged by ,lightfoot also 7hor1 p4 #dfe71 but he on this account regards the meal described by ,john as earlier than the synoptical one4 #agca ,comm4 z4 ,joh4 #b1 s4 #dhd4 #agcb ,vol4 ,,ii4 #hi4 #agcc ,see these and the following reasons in ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #deh ff4 #agcd ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #agce ,such an argument may be gathered from what ,olshausen says1 #b1 s4 #chg1 #chh4 #agcf ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #hh4 #agcg ,orig4 c4 ,cels41 ii4 #aa f4 #agch ,comp4 ,probabil41 p4 #aci4 #agci ,still farther back we find1 not the knowledge of ,jesus concerning his betrayer1 but an important meeting between them1 in the apocryphal ,evangelium infanti arabicum1 c4 xxxv4 ap4 ,fabricius #a1 p4 #aig f41 ap4 ,thilo1 #a1 p4 #ajh f4 ,here a demoniacal boy1 who in his attacks bit violently at everything around him1 is brought to the child ,jesus1 attempts to bite him1 and because he cannot reach him with his teeth gives him a blow on the right side1 whereupon the child ,jesus weeps1 while ,satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog4 ,hic autem puer1 qui ,jesum percussit et ex quo ,satanas sub forma canis exivit1 fuit ,judas ,ischariotes1 qui illum ,judis prodidit4 #agdj ,iren4 adv4 hr4 ,i4 #ce3 ,judam proditorem--solum pr ceteris cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium1 per quem et terrena et clestia omnia dissoluta dicunt4 ,epiphan4 xxxviii4 #c3 ,some ,cainites say1 that ,judas betrayed ,jesus because he regarded him as a wicked man 1 who meant to destroy the good law3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 ' 4 #agda ,theophylact1 in ,matth4 xxvii4 #d4 #agdb ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bdi4 ,klopstock gives a similar representation in his ,messias4 #agdc ,k4 ,ch4 ,l4 ,schmidt1 exeg4 ,beitrge1 #a1 ,thl4 #bter ,versuch1 s4 #ah ff42 comp4 ,schmidt's ,bibliothek1 #c1 #a1 s4 #afc ff4 #agdd ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #dea ff4 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #adc ff42 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #acb4 ,comp4 ,theile1 zur ,biographie ,jesu1 #cc4 #agde ,schmidt1 ut sup4 #agdf ,hase4 #agdg ,paulus4 #agdh ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #egh f4 #agdi ,vol4 ,,ii4 #hh2 comp4 ,hase1 ut sup4 #agej ,the ,german ,thaler 7,rixthaler7 is equivalent to about three shillings4 ,tr4 #agea ,rosenmller1 ,schol4 in ,v4 ,t4 #g1 #d1 s4 #cah ff4 #ageb ,even ,neander thinks this a possible origin of the above statement in the first gospel1 s4 #egd1 ,anm4 #agec ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #egc4 #aged ,comp4 also ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #gei f4 #agee ,ueber die ,anordnung des letzten ,paschamahls ,jesu1 in his neust4 theol4 ,journal1 #b1 #e1 s4 #dda ff4 #agef ,bell4 jud4 vi4 ix4 #c4 #ageg ,thus ,gabler1 ut sup42 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #c1 b1 s4 #gha2 ,kern1 ,hauptthatsachen1 ,tb4 ,zeitschr4 #ahcf1 #c1 s4 #c f42 ,neander1 s4 #ehc4 #ageh ,beza1 in ,matth4 xxvi4 #ah1 correctly1 save that he supposes too special a reference to the approaching sufferings of ,jesus1 thus represents the object of this prediction3 ut magis ac magis intelligerent discipuli1 nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum1 sed qu ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet4 #agei ,bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #che f4 ,comp4 in opposition to this ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #agfj ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cba2 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bhj2 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,gesch41 s4 #fjj f4 #agfa ,vid4 ,theile1 ber die letzte ,mahlzeit ,jesu1 in ,winer's and ,engelhardt's neuem krit4 ,journal1 #b1 s4 #afi1 ,anm41 and zur ,biographie ,jesu1 #ca4 #agfb ,thus ,lightfoot1 hor1 p4 #dfc ff42 ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #b1 s4 #bgc ff42 also ,venturini #c1 s4 #fcd ff4 #agfc ,an insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by ,lightfoot1 p4 #dhb f4 #agfd ,fragm4 ex ,claudii ,apollinaris libro de ,paschate1 in ,chron4 ,paschal1 ed4 du ,fresne4 ,paris1 #afhh1 p4 #f f4 prf4 #agfe ,see especially ,tholuck and ,olshausen1 in loc42 ,kern1 ,hauptthatsachen1 ,tb4 ,zeitschr4 #ahcf1 #c1 s4 #e ff4 #agff ,diss4 de ver notione cn ,domini1 annexed to ,cudworth1 syst4 intell41 p4 #bb1 not4 #a4 #agfg ,see these counter observations particularly in ,lcke and de ,wette1 in loc42 in ,sieffert ber den ,ursprung1 s4 #abg ff41 and ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterb4 #b1 s4 #bch ff4 #agfh ,antiq4 ,,ii4 xiv4 #af4 #agfi ,fritzsche1 vom ,osterlamm2 more recently1 ,rauch1 in the theol4 ,studien und ,kritiken1 #ahcb1 #c1 s4 #ecg f4 #aggj ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 theol4 ,studien und ,krit4 #ahcd1 #d1 s4 #ici f42 ,tholuck1 ,comm4 z4 ,joh4 s4 #bde f42 ,winer1 ut sup4 #agga ,calvin1 in ,matth4 xxvi4 #ag4 #aggb ,grotius1 in ,matth4 xxvi4 #ah4 #aggc ,iken1 ,diss4 philol4 theol41 vol4 #b1 p4 #daf ff4 #aggd ,vid4 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 a1 s4 #dhf ff4 #agge ,michaelis1 ,anm4 zu ,joh4 #ac4 #aggf ,sieffert1 ut sup42 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #abd2 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #adi ff2 ,theile1 zur ,biographie ,jesu1 #ca4 #aggg ,theile1 in ,winer's ,krit4 ,journal1 #b1 s4 #aeg ff42 ,sieffert and ,lcke1 ut sup4 #aggh ,pesachin f4 lxv4 #b1 ap4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #fed3 ,paschate primo tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem4 ,gloss43 ,paschatizans tenetur ad pernoctandum in ,hierosolyma nocte prima4 ,on the other hand1 ,tosaphoth ad tr4 ,pesachin #h3 ,in ,paschate ,aegyptiaco dicitur3 nemo exeat--usque ad mane4 ,sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus1--quibus comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio4 ,comp4 ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #i4 #aggi ,tract4 ,sanhedr4 f4 lxxxix4 #a1 ap4 ,schttgen1 i4 p4 #bba2 comp4 ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #dib4 #aghj ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #gfc f42 comp4 #gee2 ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #fad4 #agha ,sanhedr4 f4 xliii4 #a1 ap4 ,schttgen1 ii4 p4 #gjj4 #aghb ,ueber die ursprngliche ,bedeutung des ,passahfestes u4 s4 w41 ,tbinger ,zeitschrift f4 ,theol4 #ahcb1 #a1 s4 #ij ff4 #aghc ,ut sup4 s4 #afg ff4 #aghd ,sieffert1 ut sup4 s4 #add ff42 ,lcke1 s4 #fbh ff42 ,theile1 zur ,biogr4 ,jesu1 #ca2 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #adi ff42 comp4 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #ehj ff4 ,anm4 #aghe ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #gfc2 ,kern1 ber den ,urspr4 des ,ev4 ,matth4 in der ,tb4 ,zeitschrift1 #ahcd1 #b1 s4 #ih4 #aghf ,comp4 ,suicer1 thesaur4 #b1 s4 #fac4 #aghg ,another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel is given in the ,probabilia1 s4 #ajj ff42 comp4 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,gesch4 #a1 s4 #ddf f4 ,anm4 #aghh ,paulus1 #c1 b1 s4 #dii2 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #bid4 #aghi ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #dhd f42 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #ehc1 ,anm4 #agij ,olshausen1 ut sup4 #agia ,sieffert1 ber den ,urspr41 s4 #aeb4 #agib ,bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #caj1 #cha f4 #agic ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #dig4 #agid ,meyer1 ,comm4 ber den ,joh41 in loc4 #agie ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #ehg1 ,anm4 #agif ,sieffert1 s4 #aeb ff4 #agig ,comp4 ,lcke1 s4 #dfh4 #agih ,die ,hauptthatsachen der evang4 ,gesch4 ,tb4 ,zeitschr4 #ahcf1 #c1 s4 #ab4 #agii ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #acc2 ,kern1 ,hauptthatsachen1 s4 #aa2 ,theile1 zur ,biographie ,jesu1 #ca4 #ahjj ,sieffert1 s4 #aec2 ,paulus and ,olshausen1 in loc4 ,for the opposite opinion comp4 ,de ,wette1 #a1 #a1 s4 #bbb1 #a1 #b1 s4 #ajg4 #ahja ,vol4 ,,ii4 #hc4 #ahjb ,the conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the ,probabilia1 s4 #gj f4 is too far-fetched4 #ahjc ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ahjd ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #bge4 #ahje ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #chj4 #ahjf ,thus ,lcke1 ,paulus1 ,olshausen4 #ahjg ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #gjg4 #ahjh ,this is ,olshausen's expedient1 #b1 s4 #djb4 ,against it see ,sieffert1 s4 #adh4 f4 #ahji ,ut sup4 s4 #adg ff4 #ahaj ,comm4 ber die ,gesch4 des ,leidens und ,todes ,jesu1 in loc4 #ahaa ,see ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #ahab ,vid4 ,lcke and ,tholuck1 in loc4 #ahac ,p4 #fb3 reliqui quidem narrant evangelist servatorem scivisse proditionis consilium1 nee impedivisse2 ipsum vero excitsse ,judam ad proditionem nemo eorum dicit1 neque convenit hoc ,jesu4 #ahad ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #ech4 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #aib4 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #acg4 #ahae ,comp4 ,lightfoot and ,paulus1 in loc4 #ahaf ,comp4 on this subject especially1 ,lightfoot1 hor1 p4 #dgd ff41 and ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #eaa ff4 #ahag ,sskind1 in the treatise3 ,hat ,jesus das ,abendmahl als einen mnemonischen ,ritus angeordnet8 in his ,magazin #aa1 s4 #a ff4 #ahah ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #ebg4 #ahai ,ueber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #bag ff4 #ahbj ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #b1 a1 s4 #ci2 ,stephani1 das h4 ,abendmahl1 s4 #fa4 #ahba ,vol4 ,,ii4 #ha4 #ahbb ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #eai ff42 ,kaiser1 ut sup4 s4 #cg ff4 #ahbc ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 ii4 #bd3 7 7 1 1 1 4443 ,he says 7i4e4 ,celsus73 ,why then does he supplicate help1 and bewail himself1 and pray for escape from the fear of death1 saying1 etc4 ,julian1 in a ,fragment of ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 ap4 ,mnter1 ,fragm4 ,patr4 grc4 ,fasc4 #a1 p4 #aba3 1 1 41 1 1 ' 1 1 4 ,jesus1 says he1 also presents such petitions as a wretched mortal would offer1 when unable to bear a calamity with serenity2 and although divine1 he is strengthened by an angel4 #ahbd ,gramond4 hist4 ,gall4 ab4 exc4 ,henr4 ,,iv4 ,l4 iii4 p4 #baa3 ,lucilius ,vanini--dum in patibulum trahitur--,christo illudit in hc eadem verba3 illi in extremis pr timore imbellis sudor3 ego imperterritus morior4 #ahbe ,evang4 ,nicod4 c4 xx4 ap4 ,thilo1 #a1 s4 #gjb ff43 1 1 4 #ahbf ,ibid4 s4 #gjf4 ,hades replies to ,satan3 1 1 1 1 4 #ahbg ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 ii4 #be4 #ahbh ,hieron4 ,comm4 in ,matth4 in loc43 ,contristabatur non timore patiendi1 qui ad hoc venerat1 ut pateretur1 sed propter infelicissimum ,judam1 et scandalum omnium apostolorum1 et rejectionem populi ,judorum1 et eversionem miser ,hierusalem4 #ahbi ,calvin1 ,comm4 in harm4 evangg4 ,matth4 xxvi4 #cg3 ,non--mortem horruit simpliciter1 quatenus transitus est e mundo sed quia formidabile ,dei tribunal illi erat ante oculos1 judex ipse incomprehensibili vindicta armatus1 peccata vero nostra1 quorum onus illi erat impositum1 sua ingenti mole eum premebant4 ,comp4 ,luther's ,hauspostille1 die erste ,passionspredigt4 #ahcj ,lightfoot1 p4 #hhd f4 #ahca ,thiess1 ,krit4 ,comm4 s4 #dah ff4 #ahcb ,ut sup4 s4 #edi1 #eed f41 ,anm4 #ahcc ,schuster1 zur ,erluterung des ,n4 ,t41 in ,eichhorn's ,biblioth4 #i1 s4 #ajab ff4 #ahcd ,hess1 ,gesch4 ,jesu1 #b1 s4 #cbb ff42 ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #gai4 #ahce ,ullmann1 ber die ,unsndlichkeit ,jesu1 in his ,studien1 #a1 s4 #fa4 ,hasert1 ib4 #c1 #a1 s4 #ff ff4 #ahcf ,ullmann1 ut sup4 #ahcg ,hasert1 ut sup4 #ahch ,luther1 in der ,predigt vom ,leiden ,christi im ,garten4 #ahci ,ambrosius in ,luc41 ,tom4 x4 #ef4 #ahdj ,in ,matthaei's ,n4 ,t41 p4 #ddg4 #ahda ,lightfoot1 ut sup4 #ahdb ,venturini1 #c1 #fgg1 and conjecturally ,paulus also1 s4 #efa4 #ahdc ,eichhorn1 allg4 ,bibl4 #a1 s4 #fbh2 ,thiess1 in loc4 #ahdd ,comp4 on this subject and the following1 ,gabler1 neust4 theol4 ,journal1 #a1 #b1 s4 #aji ff4 #c1 s4 #bag ff4 #ahde ,comp4 ,julian1 ap4 ,theod4 of ,mopsuestia in ,mnter's ,fragm4 ,patr4 #a1 p4 #aba f4 #ahdf ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #bhh2 comp4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 and ,theile1 zur4 ,biogr4 ,jesu1 #cb4 ,neander also appears willing silently to abandon this trait and the following one4 #ahdg ,ancoratus1 #ca4 #ahdh ,vid4 ,wetstein1 s4 #hjg4 #ahdi ,de part4 animal4 iii4 #ae4 #ahej ,vid4 ap4 ,michaelis1 not4 in loc41 and ,kuinl1 in ,luc41 p4 #fia f4 #ahea ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #edi4 #aheb ,theile1 in ,winer's and ,engelhardt's krit4 ,journal1 #b1 s4 #cec2 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #faf f4 #ahec ,comp4 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,gesch4 #a1 s4 #faa4 #ahed ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #dbi4 #ahee ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #eia4 #ahef ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #fe f4 #aheg ,comm4 #a1 s4 #agg f4 #aheh ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #cib ff4 #ahei ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #dbi f4 #ahfj ,commentatio critica1 qua ,evangelium ,joannis genuinum esse--ostenditur1 p4 #eg ff4 #ahfa ,probab4 p4 #cc ff4 #ahfb ,goldhorn1 ber das ,schweigen des ,joh4 ,evangeliums ber den ,seelenkampf ,jesu in ,gethsemane1 in ,tzschirner's ,magazin4 f4 christl4 ,prediger1 #a1 #b1 s4 #a ff4 #ahfc ,vid4 the ,review of ,usteri's ,comm4 crit41 in ,winer's and ,engelhardt's n4 krit4 ,journal1 #b1 s4 #cei ff4 #ahfd ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #acd2 ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #eia f41 ,anm4 #ahfe ,against the offence which it has pleased ,tholuck 7,glaubw4 s4 #da7 to take at this expression 7,verwischen71 comp4 the ,aphorismen zur ,apologie des ,dr4 ,strauss und seines ,werkes1 s4 #fi f4 #ahff ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #afe f4 #ahfg ,vom ,zweck ,j4 und seiner ,jnger1 s4 #abd4 #ahfh #b1 s4 #ehh f4 #ahfi ,ut sup4 #ahgj ,vid4 ,lcke1 in loc42 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #ace4 #ahga ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #efg4 #ahgb ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #eii2 ,hase1 ut sup42 ,olshausen1 #b4 s4 #dce4 #ahgc ,how can ,lcke explain the omission of the kiss of ,judas in the ,gospel of ,john from its having been too notorious a fact8 and how can he adduce as an analogous instance the omission of the transaction between the betrayer and the ,sanhedrim by ,john8 for this1 as something passing behind the scenes1 might very well be left out1 but by no means an incident which1 like that kiss1 happened so conspicuously in the foreground and centre of the scene4 #ahgd ,so says the ,jew of ,celsus1 ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 ii4 #i3 1 4 ,when we1 having convicted and condemned him1 had determined that he should suffer punishment2 concealing himself1 and endeavouring to escape1 he experienced a most shameful capture4 #ahge ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #eig f42 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #dce2 ,tholuck1 s4 #bii4 ,the reference to the murderer of ,coligny is1 however1 unwarranted1 as any one will find who will look into the book incorrectly cited by ,tholuck3 ,serrani commentatorium de statu religionis et reip4 in regno ,galli1 ,l4 x4 p4 #cb1 b4 ,the murderer was not in the least withheld from the prosecution of his design by the firmness of the noble old man4 ,comp4 also ,schiller1 ,werke1 #af ,bd4 s4 #chb f41 #chd2 ,ersch and ,gruber's ,encyclopdie1 #g ,band1 s4 #deb f4 ,such inaccuracies in the department of modern history cannot indeed excite surprise in a writer who elsewhere 7,glaubwrdigkeit1 s4 #dcg7 speaks of the duke of ,orleans1 ,louis ,philippe's father1 as the brother of ,louis ,,xvi4 ,how can a knowledge so diversified as that of ,dr4 ,tholuck be always quite accurate4 #ahgf ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #egj4 #ahgg ,ibid4 #ahgh ,as ,lcke1 ,tholuck and ,olshausen1 in loc4 #ahgi ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bij4 #ahhj ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #egf4 #ahha ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #egg2 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #bdd4 #ahhb ,thus e4g4 ,erasmus1 in loc4 #ahhc ,thus ,winer1 ,n4 ,t4 ,gramm41 #da1 #e2 ,tholuck and ,lcke1 in loc4 #ahhd ,winer1 ,gramm41 #eg1 #d4 #ahhe ,thus ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bie4 #ahhf ,schleiermacher1 ut sup42 comp4 ,fritzsche1 in loc4 ,matth4 #ahhg ,vol4 ,,ii4 #fg4 ,vol4 ,,iii4 #aad4 #ahhh ,ut sup4 #ahhi ,matthew does not mention the blindfolding1 and appears to imagine that ,jesus named the person who maltreated him1 whom he saw1 but did not otherwise know4 #ahij ,vid4 ,gesenius1 in loc4 #ahia ,matth4 xxvi4 #fc2 comp4 ,mark xiv4 #fa3 4 4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #ab3 4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #ad2 comp4 ,mark xv4 #e3 1 4 ,luke xxiii4 #i3 4 ,john xix4 #i3 4 4 #ahib ,vol4 ,,ii4 #gd4 #ahic ,thus ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bhi2 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #dde4 #ahid ,thus ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #egg f4 #ahie ,comp4 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,geschichte1 #a1 s4 #fji4 #ahif ,bengel1 in the ,gnomon4 #ahig ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #egh4 #ahih ,hess1 ,geschichte ,jesu1 #b1 s4 #cdc4 #ahii ,paulus and ,olshausen1 in loc42 ,schleiermacher1 ut sup4 #bhi2 ,neander1 s4 #fbb1 ,anm4 #aijj ,comp4 de ,wette1 in loc4 #aija ,thesaurus1 vid4 4 #aijb ,grotius4 #aijc ,heinsius4 #aijd ,perizonius4 #aije ,thus the ,vulgate and ,erasmus4 ,see in opposition to all these interpretations1 ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #dgc ff4 #aijf cumenius1 on the ,acts1 ,i43 1 ' 1 4 ,comp4 ,theophylact1 on ,matth4 xxvii4 and a ,schol4 ap4 ,matthi4 #aijg ,thus1 after ,casaubon1 ,paulus1 #c1 b1 s4 #deg f42 ,kuinl1 in ,matth4 #gdg f42 ,winer1 b4 ,realw4 ,art4 ,judas1 and with some indecision ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #dee f4 ,even ,fritzsche is become so weary on the long way to these last chapters of ,matthew1 that he contents himself with this reconciliation1 and1 on the presupposition of it1 maintains that the two accounts concur amicissime4 #aijh #b ,band1 #b ,stck1 s4 #bdh f4 #aiji ,l4 ,j41 #acb4 ,comp4 ,theile1 zur ,biographie ,jesu1 #cc4 #aiaj ,vid4 ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #gdh4 #aiaa ,vid4 ,schmidt's ,biblioth41 ut sup4 s4 #bea f4 #aiab ,paulus1 #c1 b1 s4 #deg f42 ,fritzsche1 p4 #gii4 #aiac ,vid4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #aiad ,in other parts of the ,n4 ,t4 also we find passages from this psalm messianically applied3 as v4 #d1 ,john xv4 #be1 v4 #i2 ,john ii4 #ag2 and ,john xix4 #bh f41 probably v4 #ba4 #aiae ,still for other conjectures see ,kuinl1 in loc4 #aiaf #aai4 #aiag ,hitzig1 in ,ullmann's and ,umbreit's ,studien1 #ahcj1 #a1 s4 #ce2 ,gesenius1 ,wrterbuch2 comp4 ,rosenmller's ,scholia in ,v4 ,t4 #g1 #d1 s4 #cbj ff4 #aiah ,tertull4 ,apologet4 c4 xxi43 ,ea omnia super ,christo ,pilatus1 et ipse jam pro sua conscientia ,christianus1 ,csari tum ,tiberio nunciavit4 c4 v43 ,tiberius ergo1 cujus tempore nomen ,christianum in seculum introit1 annunciatum sibi ex ,syria ,palstina1 quod illic veritatem illius ,divinitatis revelaverat1 detulit ad ,senatum cum prrogativa suffragii sui4 ,senatus1 quia non ipse probaverat1 respuit4 ,for further details on this subject1 see ,fabricius1 ,cod4 ,apocr4 ,n4 ,t4 #a1 p4 #bad ff41 #bih ff42 comp4 #b1 p4 #eje4 #aiai cumen4 ad ,act4 i43 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 #aibj ,vid4 sup4 #aiba ,in ,mnter's ,fragm4 ,patr4 #a1 p4 #ag ff4 ,for the rest the passage is of very similar tenor with that of cumenius1 and is partly an exaggeration of it3 1 1 1 1 1 7,cod4 ,venet43 1 7 444 1 1 4444 ,papias1 the disciple of ,john1 gives a clearer account of this 7in the fourth section of his exegesis of our ,lord's words7 as follows3 ,judas moved about in this world a terrible example of impiety1 being swollen in body to such a degree that where a chariot could easily pass he was not able to find a passage1 even for the bulk of his head4 ,his eyelids1 they say1 were so swelled out that he could not see the light1 nor could his eyes be made visible even by the physician's dioptra1 etc4 ,after suffering many torments and judgments1 dying1 as they say1 in his own field1 etc4 #aibb ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #bca f42 #a1 #d1 s4 #aj f4 #aibc ,according to ,babl4 ,sanhedrin1 ap4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #dhf1 this mode of procedure would have been illegal4 ,it is there said3 ,judicia de capitalibus finiunt eodem die si sint ad absolutionem2 si vero sini ad damnationem1 finiuntur die sequente4 #aibd ,besides this passage of ,john3 1 ,it is not lawful for us to put any man to death1 there is no other authority for the existence of this state of things than an obscure and variously interpreted tradition1 ,avoda ,zara f4 viii4 #b 7,lightfoot1 p4 #aabc f473 ,rabh ,cahna dicit1 cum grotaret ,r4 ,ismal bar ,jose1 miserunt ad eum1 dicentes3 dic nobi1 ,domine1 duo aut tria1 qu aliquando dixisti nobis nomine patris tui4 ,dicit iis ---- quadraginta annis ante excidium templi migravit ,synedrium et sedit in tabernis4 ,quid sibi vult hc traditio8 ,rabh ,isaac1 bar ,abdimi dicit3 non judicrunt judicia mulctativa4 ,dixit ,r4 ,nachman bar ,isaac3 ne dicat1 quod non judicrunt judicia mulctativa1 sed quod non judicrunt judicia capitalia4 ,with this may be compared moreover the information given by ,josephus1 ,antiq4 xx4 ix4 #a1 that it was not lawful for ,ananus 7the high priest7 to assemble the ,sanhedrim without the consent of the procurator4 ,on the other hand the execution of ,stephen 7,acts vii47 without the sanction of the ,romans might seem to speak to the contrary2 but this was a tumultuary act1 undertaken perhaps in the confidence that ,pilate was absent4 ,compare on this point ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #fca ff4 #aibe ,de bell4 ,jud4 ,,ii4 ix4 #c4 #aibf ,as ,lcke supposes1 s4 #fca4 #aibg ,calvin1 in loc4 #aibh ,lcke and ,tholuck1 in loc4 #aibi ,comp4 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #beb4 #aicj ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bia4 #aica ,dial4 cum ,tryph4 #ajc4 #aicb ,it is doubted whether this custom1 of which we should have known nothing but for the ,n4 ,t41 was of ,roman or ,jewish origin2 comp4 ,fritzsche and ,paulus1 in loc1 and ,baur1 ber die ursprungliche ,bedeutung des ,passahfestes1 u4 s4 f41 ,tb4 ,zeitschr4 f4 ,theol4 #ahcb1 #a1 s4 #id4 #aicc ,according to one reading1 the full name of this man was ,jesus ,barabbas1 which we mention here merely because ,olshausen finds it 8remarkable40 ,bar ,abba meaning ,son of the father1 ,olshausen exclaims3 ,all that was essential in the ,saviour appears in the murderer as caricature6 and he quotes as applicable to this case the verse3 ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus4 ,for our own part1 we can only see in this idea of ,olshausen's a lusus human impotenti4 #aicd ,in the ,evang4 ,nicodemi and in later ecclesiastical historians she is called ,procula 4 ,comp4 ,thilo4 ,cod4 ,apocr4 ,n4 ,t41 p4 #ebb1 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #b1 b1 s4 #fdj f4 #aice ,cap4 ,,ii4 s4 #ebj1 ap4 ,thilo4 #aicf ,ignat4 ad ,philippens4 iv43 1 4 7,the devil7 terrifies the woman1 troubling her in her dreams1 and endeavours to put a stop to the things of the cross4 ,the ,jews in the ,evang4 ,nicodemi1 c4 ,,ii4 p4 #ebd1 explain the dream as a result of the magic arts of ,jesus3 -- 1 ,he is a magician--see1 he has sent messages in a dream to thy wife4 #aicg ,e4g4 ,theophylact1 vid4 ,thilo1 p4 #ebc4 #aich ,vid4 ,paulus and ,kuinl1 in loc4 ,they especially adduce the dream of ,csar's wife the night before his assassination4 #aici ,comp4 ,sota1 viii #f4 #aidj ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #hjh4 #aida ,comp4 in particular the passages cited by ,wetstein1 on ,matth4 xxvii4 #bf4 #aidb ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #fdg4 #aidc ,from the explanation of ,paulus1 s4 #fdi f41 it appears highly probable that the was not a crown of sharp thorns1 but one taken from the nearest hedge1 in order to deride ,jesus by the vilissima corona1 spineola 7,plin4 ,h4 ,n4 xxi4 #aj74 #aidd ,a similar disguising of a man1 in derision of a third party1 is adduced by ,wetstein1 7p4 #ecc f47 from ,philo1 in ,flaccum4 #aide ,thus ,paulus1 ,kuinl1 ,tholuck and ,olshausen in their ,commentaries2 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #fcd4 #aidf ,fritzsche1 in ,marc4 #fhd3 ,significat ,joannes1 ,jesum suam crucem portavisse1 donec ad ,calvari locum pervenisset4 #aidg ,joseph41 ,antiq4 xiv4 vii4 #b4 #aidh ,it is used in the former way by ,grotius2 in the latter1 by ,olshausen1 #b4 s4 #dha4 #aidi ,comp4 ,paulus1 ,fritzsche1 and ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #aiej ,vid4 ,paulus and ,fritzsche1 in loc4 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realw4 art4 ,golgotha4 #aiea ,wassenbergh1 ,diss4 de trajectionibus ,n4 ,t4 in ,balcknaer's schol in #aa4 quosdam ,n4 ,t4 #b1 p4 #ca4 #aieb ,comp4 ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bie2 ,winer1 ,n4 ,t4 ,gramm41 s4 #bbf1 and ,fritzsche1 in ,matt41 p4 #had4 #aiec ,apol4 i4 #ce4 ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 xcvii4 #aied ,christologie des ,a4 ,t4 #a1 a1 s4 #ahb ff4 #aiee ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handbuch #c1 b1 s4 #ffi-ged2 ,bhr1 in ,tholuck's liter4 ,anzeiger fr christl4 ,theol4 #ahce1 ,no4 #a-f4 ,comp4 also ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr41 s4 #fcf1 ,anm4 #aief ,adv4 ,marcion1 iii4 #ai4 #aieg ,mostellaria1 ii4 #a4 #aieh ,vid4 ,kuinl1 ,paulus1 in loc4 #aiei ,sanhedrim1 f4 xliii4 #a1 ap4 ,wetstein1 p4 #fce3 ,dixit ,r4 ,chaja1 f4 ,r4 ,ascher1 dixisse ,r4 ,chasdam3 exeunti1 ut capite plectatur1 dant bibendum granum turis in poculo vini1 ut alienetur mens ejus1 sec4 d4 ,prov4 xxxi4 #f3 date siceram pereunti et vinum amaris anima4 #aifj ,vid4 ,fritzsche1 in loc4 #aifa ,comp4 ,paulas1 in loc4 #aifb ,thus ,kuinl1 in ,luc41 p4 #gaj f42 ,tholuck1 s4 #caf4 #aifc ,comp4 also ,bleek1 ,comm4 zum ,hebrerbrief1 #b1 s4 #cab1 ,anm42 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #aih4 #aifd ,kuinl1 in ,luc4 p4 #gaj4 #aife ,olshausen1 p4 #dhd2 ,neander1 s4 #fcg4 #aiff ,thus ,chrysostom and others4 #aifg ,beza and ,grotius4 #aifh ,paulus1 s4 #gfc2 ,winer1 ,n4 ,t4 ,gramm41 s4 #adc2 ,fritzsche1 in ,matth41 p4 #hag4 #aifi ,vid4 ,thilo1 ,cod4 apocr4 #a1 s4 #adc4 ,further apocryphal information concerning the two malefactors crucified with ,jesus is to be found in the evang4 infant4 arab4 c4 xxiii4 ap4 ,thilo1 p4 #ib f42 comp4 the note p4 #adc2 in the evang4 ,nicod4 c4 ix4 #aj1 ,thilo1 p4 #eha ff42 c4 xxvi4 p4 #gff ff4 #aigj ,paulus and ,kuinl1 in loc4 #aiga ,confessio ,judi groti1 ap4 ,wetstein1 p4 #hbj3--;da portionem meam in horto ,edenis1 et memento mei in seculo futuro1 quod absconditum est justis4 ,other passages are given1 ib41 p4 #hai4 #aigb ,cetuboth1 f4 ciii4 ap4 ,wetstein1 p4 #hai3 ,quo die ,rabbi moriturus erat1 venit vox de clo1 dixitque3 qui prsens aderit morienti ,rabbi1 ille intrabit in paradisum4 #aigc ,vid4 ,wetstein1 in loc4 ,matth4 #aigd ,quoted in ,wetstein1 p4 #ecf2 compare1 however1 the correction of the text in ,paulus1 ex4 handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #gea4 #aige ,tholuck1 in loc4 #aigf ,e4 ,g4 ,theile1 zur ,biographie ,jesu1 #cf1 ,anm4 #ac4 #aigg ,expositors observe in connexion with this particular1 that the coat of the ,jewish high priest was also of this kind4 ,jos4 ,antiq4 iii4 vii4 #d--,the same view of the above difference nas been already presented in the ,probabilia1 p4 #hj f4 #aigh ,apol4 i4 #ce4 #aigi ,adv4 ,marcion1 ut sup4 #aihj ,justin1 ,apol4 i4 #ej1 and elsewhere1 even speaks of apostacy and denial on the part of all the disciples after the crucifixion4 #aiha ,vid4 ,calvin1 ,comm4 in harm4 evv4 in ,matth4 xxvii4 #df2 ,olshausen1 in loc4 #aihb ,thus ,paulus1 ,gratz1 in loc4 ,schleiermacher1 ,glaubenslehre1 #b1 s4 #aed1 ,anm4 #aihc ,such is the inference drawn by the author of the ,wolfenbttel ,fragments1 von ,zweck ,jesu und seiner ,jnger1 s4 #aec4 #aihd ,schneckenburger1 ,beitrge1 s4 #ff f4 #aihe ,according to ,olshausen1 s4 #die1 there is no syllable in this speech by which such a meaning is intimated2 on the contrary1 a secret horror had already diffused itself over the minds of the scoffers1 and they trembled at the thought that ,elias might appear in the storm4 ,but when one who attempts to give a beverage to ,jesus is dissuaded under the pretext of waiting to see if ,elias would come to save him1 1 1 this pretext is plainly enough shown to be meant in derision1 and hence the horror and trembling belong only to the unscientific animus of the biblical commentator1 which makes him contemplate the history of the passion above all else1 as a mysterium tremendum1 and causes him to discover even in ,pilate a depth of feeling which is nowhere attributed to this ,roman in the gospels4 #aihf ,credner1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #aih4 #aihg ,thus ,rettig1 exegetische ,analekten1 in ,ullmann's und ,umbreit's ,studien1 #ahcj1 #a1 s4 #ajf ff42 ,tholuck1 ,glaubwrdigkeit1 s4 #cjg ff42 comp4 on the various attempts at reconciliation ,lcke and ,de ,wette1 in loc4 ,joh4 #aihh ,the ,evang4 ,nicodemi makes the ,jews very absurdly maintain3 there happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary course 1 c4 xi4 p4 #eib1 ap4 ,thilo4 #aihi ,thus ,paulus and ,kuinl1 in loc42 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #adc2 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #fci f4 #aiij ,comp4 ,fritzsche and ,de ,wette1 in loc4 ,matth4 #aiia ,tertull4 ,apologet4 c4 xxi42 ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 ii4 #cc1 #ei4 #aiib ,euseb4 can4 chron4 ad4 ,ol4 #bjb1 ,anm4 #d2 comp4 ,paulus1 s4 #gfe ff4 #aiic ,serv4 ad ,virgil4 ,georg4 i4 #dfe ff43 ,constat1 occiso ,csare in ,senatu pridie ,idus ,martias1 solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque ad noctem4 #aiid ,echa ,r4 iii4 #bh4 #aiie ,r4 ,bechai ,cod4 ,hakkema3 ,cum insignis ,rabbinus fato concederet1 dixit quidam3 iste dies gravis est ,israli1 ut cum sol occidit ipso meridie4 #aiif ,succa1 f4 xxix4 #a3 ,dixerunt doctores3 quatuor de causis sol deficit3 prima1 ob patrem domus judicii mortuum1 cui exequi non fiunt ut decet1 etc4 #aiig ,vid4 ,fritzsche1 in loc42 comp4 also ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #bch2 ,theile1 zur ,biogr4 ,jesu1 #cf4 #aiih ,hieron4 ad ,hedib4 ep4 cxlix4 #h 7comp4 his ,comm4 in loc473 ,in evangelio autem1 quod hebraicis literis scriptum est1 legimus1 non velum templi scissum1 sed superliminare templi mir magnitudinis corruisse4 #aiii ,the possibility of this is admitted by ,neander also1 but with the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork 7s4 #fdj f474 #bjjj ,ueber den ,lukas1 s4 #bic4 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb41 #a1 #a1 s4 #bdj4 #bjja ,georg4 i4 #dfc ff4 #bjjb ,when ,hase1 #adc1 writes3 8,the earth trembled1 mourning for her greatest ,son10 we see how the historian in speaking of this feature1 which he maintains to be historical1 involuntarily becomes a poet2 and when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the addition of an 8as it were30 it is further evident that his historical conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license4 #bjjc ,only such must be here thought of1 and not sectatores ,christi1 as ,kuinl maintains4 ,in the ,evang4 ,nicodemi1 c4 xvii41 there are indeed adherents of ,jesus1 namely1 ,simeon 7,luke ii47 and his two sons1 among those who come to life on this occasion2 but the majority in this apocryphal book also1 and as well in the 7,thilo1 p4 #haj71 according to ,epiphanius1 orat4 in sepulchrum ,chr4 #bge1 ,ignat4 ad ,magnes4 ,,ix4 and others 7comp4 ,thilo1 p4 #ghj ff471 are ,old ,testament persons1 as ,adam and ,eve1 the patriarchs and prophets4 #bjjd ,comp4 the various opinions in ,thilo1 p4 #ghc f4 #bjje ,comp4 especially ,eichhorn1 ,einl4 in d4 ,n4 ,t4 #a1 s4 #ddf ff4 #bjjf ,stroth1 von ,interpolationen im ,evang4 ,matth4 ,in ,eichhorn's ,repertorium1 #i1 s4 #aci4 ,it is hardly a preferable expedient to regard the passage as an addition of the ,greek translator4 ,see ,kern1 ,ueber den ,urspr4 des ,evang4 ,matth4 s4 #be and #ajj4 #bjjg ,thus ,paulus and ,kuinl1 in loc4 ,the latter calls this explanation a mythical one4 #bjjh ,leben ,jesu1 #adh4 #bjji ,ueber den ,urspr4 s4 #fg4 #bjaj ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #c1 b4 s4 #gih4 #bjaa ,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 cxiii4 #bjab ,see the collection of passages relative to this subject in ,schttgen1 #b1 p4 #egj ff42 and in ,bertholdt's ,christologia1 #ce4 #bjac ,see the passages collected by ,wetstein4 #bjad ,see this idea further developed in the ,evang4 ,nicod4 c4 xviii4 ff4 #bjae ,the instances are collected in ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb41 #c1 b4 s4 #gha ff42 ,winer1 bibl4 ,realwrterb4 #a1 s4 #fgb ff42 and ,hase1 #add4 #bjaf ,according to ,tertullian by the former1 according to ,grotius by the latter2 see ,paulus1 s4 #ghd1 ,anm4 #bjag ,thus ,gruner and others ap4 ,paulus1 s4 #ghb ff42 ,hase1 ut sup42 ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #fdg4 #bjah ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 ii4 #cf3 1 1 4 ,comp4 ,euthymius in loc4 1 1 4 1 1 4 #bjai ,schuster1 in ,eichhorn's ,bibl4 #i1 s4 #ajcf ff4 #bjbj ,gruner1 ,comm4 de morte ,j4 ,chr4 vera1 p4 #dg2 ,tholuck1 ,comm4 z4 ,joh4 s4 #cah4 #bjba ,comp4 ,hase1 ut sup4 #bjbb ,winer1 ut sup4 #bjbc ,comp4 the similar statement of an anatomist in ,de ,wette1 in loc4 and ,tholuck ut sup4 #bjbd ,wetstein and ,olshausen1 in loc42 comp4 ,hase1 ut sup4 #bjbe ,lcke1 in loc4 #bjbf ,thus ,less1 ,auferstehungsgeschichte1 s4 #ie f42 ,tholuck1 in loc4 ,according to ,weisse 7die evang4 ,gesch4 #a1 s4 #ajb1 #b1 s4 #bcg ff47 the ,evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle1 under a misapprehension of its meaning1 namely1 to #a ,john v4 #f3 1 4 4 1 ' 4 #bjbg ,comp4 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bec4 #bjbh ,rosenmller1 ,schol4 in ,v4 ,t4 #g1 #d1 p4 #cdj4 #bjbi ,vid4 ap4 ,rosenmller1 in loc42 ,schttgen1 #b1 p4 #bba2 ,bertholdt1 #ag1 not4 #ab4 #bjcj ,comp4 ,joseph1 b4 j4 iv4 v4 #b4 ,sanhedrin1 vi4 #e1 ap4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #dii4 #bjca ,vid4 ,lipsius1 de cruce1 ,l4 ,,ii4 cap4 #ad4 #bjcb ,comp4 ,winer1 #a1 s4 #hjb4 #bjcc ,sanhedrin1 ap4 ,lightfoot1 p4 #dii4 #bjcd ,ulpian1 xlviii4 #bd1 #a ff4 #bjce ,vol4 ,,ii4 #hj4 #bjcf ,michaelis1 ,begrbniss- und ,auferstehungsgeschichte1 s4 #fh ff4 #bjcg ,thus ,grotius2 ,less1 ,auferstehungsgeschichte1 s4 #afe4 #bjch ,see the fifth ,fragment1 in ,lessing's viertem ,beitrag zur ,geschichte und ,literatur1 s4 #dfg f4 ,comp4 concerning these differences also ,lessing's ,duplik4 #bjci ,michaelis1 ut sup4 s4 #ajb ff4 #bjdj ,kuinl1 in ,luc4 p4 #gba4 #bjda ,thus ,tholuck1 in loc4 #bjdb ,see the ,fragments1 ut sup4 s4 #dfi ff4 #bjdc ,michaelis1 ut sup4 s4 #ii f42 ,kuinl and ,lcke leave open the choice between this expedient and the former4 #bjdd ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 in loc4 ,matth4 #bjde ,michaelis1 ut sup4 s4 #de ff4 #bjdf ,kuinl1 in ,matth4 p4 #ghf2 ,hase1 #ade2 ,tholuck1 ,comm4 s4 #cbj4 #bjdg ,a confusion of the garden near to the place of execution1 where according to ,john ,jesus was buried1 with the garden of ,gethsemane1 where he was taken prisoner1 appears to have given rise to the statement of the ,evang4 ,nicodemi1 that ,jesus was crucified 1 in the garden where he was apprehended1 ,c4 ix4 p4 #ehj1 ap4 ,thilo4 #bjdh 1 7the next day1 that followed the day of the preparation71 is certainly a singular periphrasis for the sabbath1 for it is a strangely inappropriate mode of expression to designate a solemn day1 as the day after the previous day3 nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are unable to evade it in a more natural manner than ,schneckenburger in his chronology of the ,passion week1 ,beitrge1 s4 #c ff4 #bjdi ,the former1 ut sup4 s4 #dcg ff42 the latter in the exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #hcg ff4 ,comp4 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bec4 #bjej ,michaelis1 ,begrbniss- und ,auferstehungsgeschichte1 s4 #bjf2 ,olshausen #b1 s4 #ejf4 #bjea ,michaelis1 ut sup4 #bjeb ,olshausen overlooks the latter point when he 7ut sup47 says the watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the interment4 #bjec ,olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe1 that he supposes ,pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling of dread on hearing this communication from the ,sanhedrists1 s4 #eje4 #bjed ,olshausen1 s4 #ejf4 #bjee ,michaelis1 ut sup4 s4 #aih f4 #bjef ,stroth1 in ,eichhorn's ,repertorium1 #i1 s4 #ada4 #bjeg ,kern1 ber den ,ursprung des ,ev4 ,matth4 ,tb4 ,zeitschrift1 #ahcd1 #b1 s4 #ajj f42 comp4 #abc4 ,compare my ,review1 ,jahrbcher f4 wiss4 ,kritik1 ,nov4 #ahcd2 now in the ,charakteristiken u4 ,kritiken1 s4 #bhj4 #bjeh ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #ade4 #bjei ,comp4 ,theile1 zur ,biogr4 ,jesu1 #cg2 ,weisse1 die ,evang4 ,gesch4 #b1 s4 #cdc f4 #bjfj ,comp4 ,theile1 ut sup4 #bjfa ,comp4 ,fritzsche1 in loc41 and ,kern1 ,tb4 ,zeitschr4 #ahcd1 #b1 s4 #ajb f4 #bjfb ,kuinl1 in ,marc4 p4 #aid f4 #bjfc ,michaelis1 ut sup4 s4 #aab4 #bjfd ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,urspr4 des ersten kanon4 ,evang41 s4 #fb f4 ,comp4 the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist in ,lessing's viertem ,beitrag1 s4 #dgb ff4 ,on the other hand1 ,lessing's ,duplik1 ,werke1 ,donausch4 ,ausg4 #f4 ,thl4 s4 #cid f4 #bjfe ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #bjff ,michaelis1 s4 #aej ff4 #bjfg ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #hbe4 #bjfh ,michaelis1 s4 #aag4 #bjfi ,michaelis1 s4 #adf4--;,celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels1 and ,origen replied that the ,evangelists mean different angels3 ,matthew and ,mark the one who had rolled away the stone1 ,luke and ,john those who were commissioned to give information to the women1 c4 ,cels4 v4 #ef4 #bjgj ,paulus1 in loc4 ,matth4 #bjga ,i subjoin the table sketched by the ,fragmentist 7ut sup4 s4 #dgg f47 8#a4 ,luke xxiv4 #ab3 ,peter ran to the grave1 4 ,john xx4 #d3 ,peter and ,john ran1 4 #b4 ,luke v4 #ab3 ,peter looked in1 4 ,john v4 #e3 ,john looked in1 4 #c4 ,luke v4 #ab3 ,peter saw the clothes lying alone1 4 ,john v4 #f1 #g3 ,peter saw the clothes lie1 and the napkin not lying with the clothes3 1 4 #d4 ,luke v4 #ab3 ,peter went home1 4 ,john v4 #aj3 ,peter and ,john went home again1 40 #bjgb ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #hjj f4 #bjgc ,progr4 de fontibus1 unde ,evangelist suas de resurrectione ,domini narrationes hauserint4 ,opusc4 acad4 ed4 ,gabler1 ,vol4 #b1 p4 #bda ff4 #bjgd ,comp4 ,schneckenburger1 ut sup4 s4 #fd f41 ,anm4 #bjge ,on this subject comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #bde2 ,ammon1 ,fortbildung des ,christenthums zur ,weltreligion1 #b1 #a1 s4 #f2 ,theile1 zur ,biogr4 ,jesu1 #cg4 #bjgf ,schulz1 ber das ,abendmahl1 s4 #cba f42 ,schneckenburger1 ut sup4 s4 #fa ff4 #bjgg ,vol4 ,,ii4 #gd4 #bjgh ,concerning this sense of 1 and its not being contradicted by 444 7v4 #i71 see the correct view in ,lcke1 in loc4 #bjgi ,weisse is of a different opinion1 ut sup4 s4 #cee1 ,anm4 #bjhj ,as ,paulus1 ,fritzsche1 ,credner1 ,einleitung1 #a1 #di4 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #b1 s4 #aii f4 ,a middle view in ,hug1 ,einl4 in d4 ,n4 ,t4 #b1 #fi4 #bjha ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 v4 #eb3 1 4 1 ' 4 #bjhb ,schuster1 in ,eichhorn's allg4 ,biblioth4 #i1 s4 #ajcd ff43 ,kuinl1 in ,matth41 p4 #ggi4 #bjhc ,friedrich1 ber die ,engel in der ,auferstehungsgeschichte4 ,in ,eichhorn's allg4 ,bibl4 #f1 s4 #gjj ff4 ,kuinl1 ut sup4 #bjhd ,thus a treatise in ,eichhorn's allg4 ,bibl4 #h1 s4 #fbi ff41 and in ,schmidt's ,bibl4 #b1 s4 #ede f42 also ,bauer1 hebr4 ,myth4 #e1 s4 #bei4 #bjhe ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #hbi1 #ee1 #fj1 #fb4 #bjhf ,fritzsche1 in ,marc4 in loc41 ,nemo--quispiam primi temporis ,christianis tam dignus videri poterat1 qui de ,messia in vitam reverso nuntium ad homines perferret1 quam angelus1 ,dei minister1 divinorumque consiliorum interpres et adjutor4 ,then on the differences in relation to the number of the angels1 etc43 ,nimirum insperato ,jesu ,messi in vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia1 qu ,evangelist religiose1 quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant1 literis mandrunt4 #bjhg ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bed ff4 #bjhh ,in ,lessing's ,beitrgen1 ut sup4 s4 #dhe4 #bjhi ,michaelis1 s4 #bei f42 ,kuinl1 in ,luc41 p4 #gdc4 #bjij ,schleiermacher1 ber den ,lukas1 s4 #bii f42 ,paulus1 s4 #iaj4 #bjia ,ut sup4 s4 #dhf4 #bjib ,griesbach1 ,vorlesungen ber ,hermeneutik des ,n4 ,t41 mit ,anwendung auf die ,leidens- und ,auferstehungsgeschichte ,christi1 herausgegeben von ,steiner1 s4 #cad4 #bjic ,duplik1 ,werke1 #f ,bd4 s4 #ceb4 #bjid ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,urspr4 des ersten kanon4 ,evang41 s4 #ag f4 #bjie ,exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b4 s4 #hce4 #bjif ,bibl4 ,comm4 #b1 s4 #ebd4 #bjig ,this is done by ,schulz1 ber das ,abendm4 s4 #cba2 ,schneckenburger1 ut sup4 #bjih ,on which account ,michaelis1 s4 #aah f41 is of opinion that was the original reading in ,matthew also4 ,comp4 ,weisse1 die ,evang4 ,gesch4 #b1 s4 #cdg f4 #bjii ,vol4 ,i4 #eg4 #bajj ,the opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the risen ,jesus before the disciples was ,galilee1 is concurred in by ,weisse1 #b1 s4 #ceh ff42 but in accordance with his fundamental supposition concerning the synoptical gospels1 he gives the preference to the narrative of ,mark before that of ,matthew4 #baja ,vid ,billroth's ,commentar1 in loc4 #bajb ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b4 s4 #hig2 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #eda4 #bajc ,hieron4 de viris illustr4 ii43 ,evangelium quoque1 quod appellatur secundum ,hebros1--post resurrectionem ,salvatoris refert3 ,dominus autem1 postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis 7apparently in relation to the watch at the grave1 which is here represented as a sacerdotal instead of a ,roman guard2 vid4 ,credner1 ,beitrge zur ,einl4 in das ,n4 ,t4 s4 #djf f471 ivit ad ,jacobum et apparuit ei4 ,juraverat enim ,jacobus1 se non comesturum panem ab illa hora1 qua biberat calicem ,domini1 donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus 7on the inconceivableness of such a vow1 despairing as the disciples were1 comp4 ,michaelis1 s4 #abb74 ,rursusque post paululum3 ,afferte1 ait ,dominus1 mensam et panem4 ,statimque additur ,tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit1 et dedit ,jacobo justo et dixit ei3 frater mi1 comede panem tuum1 quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus4 #bajd ,lessing1 ,duplik1 s4 #ddi ff4 #baje ,as ,kern admits1 ,hauptthats4 ,tb4 ,zeitschr4 #ahcf1 #c1 s4 #eg4 #bajf ,hauptthatsachen1 ut sup4 s4 #dg4 #bajg ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #c1 s4 #bje1 #baj2 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,gesch4 #b1 s4 #dji4 #bajh ,comp4 ,kaiser1 bidl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #bed ff42 ,de ,wette ut sup42 ,ammon1 ,fortbildung1 #b1 #a1 ,kap4 #a2 ,weisse1 die ,evang4 ,gesch41 #b1 #g tes ,buch4 #baji ,that it was the marks of the nails in the hand1 which became visible in the act of breaking bread1 by which ,jesus was recognized 7,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b4 s4 #hhb2 ,kuinl1 in ,luc4 p4 #gcd47 is without any intimation in the text4 #baaj ,the part of this conversation which relates to ,john1 has already 7 #aaf7 been considered4 ,in that relating to ,peter1 the thrice repeated question of ,jesus3 ,lovest thou me8 has reference1 according to the ordinary opinion1 to his as often repeated denial2 but to the words3 ,when thou wast young1 thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest1 but when thou shalt be old1 thou shalt stretch forth thy hands1 and another shalt gird thee1 and carry thee whither thou wouldest not1 1 1 7v4 #ah f471 the ,evangelist himself gives the interpretation1 that ,jesus spoke them to ,peter1 signifying by what death he should glorify ,god4 ,he must here have alluded to the crucifixion1 which1 according to the ecclesiastical legend 7,tertull4 de prescr4 her4 xxxvi4 ,euseb4 ,h4 ,e4 ii4 #be7 was the death suffered by this apostle1 and to which in the intention of the ,evangelist the words ,follow me1 v4 #bj and #bb 7i4e4 follow me in the same mode of death7 also appear to point4 ,but precisely the main feature in this interpretation1 the stretching forth of the hands1 is here so placed as to render a reference to crucifixion impossible1 namely1 before the leading away against the will2 on the other hand1 the girding1 which can only signify binding for the purpose of leading away1 should stand before the stretching forth of the hands on the cross4 ,if we set aside the interpretation which1 as even ,lcke 7s4 #gjc7 admits1 is given to the words of ,jesus ex eventu by the narrator3 they appear to contain nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted with the activity of youth1 for even the phrase1 shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not1 does not outstep this comparison4 ,but the author of ,john xxi41 whether the words were known to him as a declaration of ,jesus or otherwise1 thought them capable of being applied in the manner of the fourth gospel1 as a latent prophecy of the crucifixion of ,peter4 #baaa ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b4 s4 #hcd ff42 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b4 s4 #bfe ff42 ,ammon1 ut sup42 ,hase1 ,l4 ,j4 #adi2 ,michaelis1 ut sup41 s4 #bea f4 ,comp4 also ,neander1 ,l4 ,j4 ,chr4 s4 #fej4 #baab ,tholuck1 in loc41 comp4 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b4 s4 #hff1 #hha4 ,a similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by ,lcke1 from ,hug4 #baac ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #hhb4 #baad ,paulus1 ut sup4 #hhc1 #ic2 ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #fhd f4 #baae ,calvin1 ,comm4 in ,joh4 in loc41 p4 #cfc f4 ed4 ,tholuck4 #baaf ,thus ,suicer1 ,thes4 s4 v4 2 comp4 ,michaelis1 s4 #bfe4 #baag ,tholuck and ,olshausen1 in loc4 #baah ,griesbach1 ,vorlesungen ber ,hermeneutik1 s4 #cje2 ,paulus1 s4 #hce4 ,comp4 ,lcke1 #b1 s4 #fhc ff4 #baai ,vid4 ,tholuck and ,de ,wette1 in loc4 #babj ,comp4 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #eca1 ,anm4 #baba ,thus1 besides ,calvin1 ,lcke1 ut sup42 ,olshausen1 #ecj f4 #babb ,olshausen1 ut sup4 s4 #ecj4 #babc ,comp4 ,fritzsche1 in ,marc4 p4 #gbe4 #babd ,see the various explanations in ,tholuck and ,lcke1 of whom the latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary4 ,even ,weisse's interpretation of the words 7#b1 s4 #cie ff471 although ,i agree with the general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part1 ,i must regard as a failure4 #babe ,comp4 on this subject especially ,weisse1 ut sup4 s4 #cci ff4 #babf ,brennecke1 biblischer ,beweis1 dass ,jesus nach seiner ,auferstehung noch #bg ,jahre leibhaftig auf ,erden gelebt1 und zum ,wohle der ,menschheit in der ,stille fortgewirkt habe4 #ahai4 #babg ,ut sup4 s4 #gic1 #ibe4 ,comp4 ,briefe ber den ,rationalismus1 s4 #bdj4 #babh ,noch etwas ber die ,frage3 warum haben die ,apostel ,matthus und ,johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei ,evangelisten ,markus und ,lukas die ,himmelfahrt ausdrcklich erzhlt8 ,in ,sskind's ,magazin1 #ag1 s4 #afe ff4 #babi ,joann4 ,damasc4 de f4 orth4 #d1 #a3 1 ' 1 4 #bacj ,the vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of the evangelical accounts is well expressed by ,origen1 when he says of ,jesus3 1 4 ,after the resurrection1 he existed in a form which held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion1 and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body 7c4 ,cels4 ii4 #fb74 #baca ,hence even ,kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that particular in ,luke with the rest1 and regards it as of later1 traditional origin 7,hauptthats41 ut sup4 s4 #ej74 ,but what does this admission avail him1 since he still has1 from the narrative of ,john1 the quality of palpability1 which equally with the act of eating belongs to the 8conditions of earthly life1 the relations of the material world10 to which the body of the risen ,jesus1 according to ,kern's own presupposition1 8was no longer subjected08 #bacb ,many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the capability thus exhibited by ,jesus of penetrating through closed doors1 not altogether reconcileable with the representation1 that for the purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave1 and hence maintained3 resurrexit ,christus clauso sepulchro1 sive nondum ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide4 ,quenstedt1 theol4 didact4 polem4 #c1 p4 #edb4 #bacc ,comp4 ,schleiermacher's ,weihnachtsfeier1 s4 #aag f4 #bacd ,joseph4 vita1 #ge3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 ' 4 1 4 ,and when ,i was sent by ,titus ,csar with ,cerealius and #a1jjj horsemen1 to a certain village called ,thecoa1 in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp1 as ,i came back1 ,i saw many captives crucified2 and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance4 ,i was very sorry at this in my mind1 and went with tears in my eyes to ,titus1 and told him of them2 so he immediately commanded them to be taken down1 and to have the greatest care taken of them1 in order to their recovery2 yet two of them died under the physician's hands1 while the third recovered4 ,for the arguments of ,paulus on this passage1 see exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #ghf2 and in the ,appendix1 s4 #ibi ff4 #bace ,bretschneider1 ber den angeblichen ,scheintod ,jesu am ,kreuze1 in ,ullmann's und ,umbreit's ,studien1 #ahcb1 #c1 s4 #fbe ff42 ,hug1 ,beitrge zur ,geschichte des ,verfahrens bei der ,todesstrafe der ,kreuzigung1 ,freiburger ,zeitschr4 #g1 s4 #add ff4 #bacf ,bahrdt1 ,ausfhrung des ,plans und ,zwecks ,jesu4 ,comp4 on the other hand1 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 #gic f4 #bacg ,xenodoxien1 in der ,abh43 ,joseph und ,nikodemus4 ,comp4 on the other hand ,klaiber's ,studien der wrtemberg4 ,geistlichkeit1 #b1 #b1 s4 #hd ff4 #bach ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #ghe ff4 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #bha ff4 #baci ,schuster1 in ,eichhorn's allg4 ,biblioth4 #i1 s4 #ajec4 #badj ,winer1 bibl4 ,realw4 #a1 s4 #fgd4 #bada ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 ii4 #fc3 1 1 1 41 4--#fg3 -- ' 1 4 ,comp4 the ,wolfenbttel ,fragmentist1 in ,lessing1 s4 #dej1 #fj1 #ib ff42 ,woolston1 ,disc #f4 ,spinoza1 ep4 #bc1 ad ,oldenburg1 p4 #eeh f4 ed4 ,gfrrer4 #badb ,ut sup4 #fg3 1 4 #badc ,comp4 ,mosheim1 in his translation of the work of ,origen against ,celsus1 on the passage above quoted2 ,michaelis1 ,anm4 zum fnften ,fragment1 s4 #djg4 #badd ,hase1 ,l4 ,j41 #adi2 ,diss43 librorum sacrorum de ,j4 ,chr4 a mortuis revocato atque in clum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus illa tate ,judorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus est ,c4 ,a4 ,frege1 p4 #ab f42 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,gesch4 #b1 s4 #cfb ff4 #bade ,orig4 c4 ,cels4 ii4 #ee3 7the pierced hands of ,jesus1 and1 in general1 his appearances after the resurrection71 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 #badf ,the #eth ,fragment1 in ,lessing's #dth ,beitrag4 ,woolston1 ,disc4 #h4 #badg ,ut sup4 #ef4 #badh ,ullmann1 ,was setzt die ,stiftung der ,christlichen ,kirche durch einen ,gekreuzigten voraus8 ,in his ,studien1 #ahcb1 #c1 s4 #ehi f4 7,rhr72 ,briefe ber den ,rationalismus1 s4 #bh1 #bcf4 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #hbf f42 ,hase1 #adf4 #badi ,spinoza1 ut sup43 ,apostolos omnes omnino credidisse1 quod ,christus a morte resurrexerit1 et ad clum revera ascenderit--ego non nego4 ,nam ipse etiam ,abrahamus credidit1 quod ,deus apud ipsum pransus fuerit--cum tamen hc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu revelationes fuerint1 captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodat1 quibus ,deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit4 ,concludo itaque ,christi a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem1 et solis fidelibus ad eorum captum revelata fuisse1 nempe quod ,christus ternitate donatus fuit1 et a mortuis 7mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu1 quo ,christus dixit3 sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos7 surrexit1 simul atque vita et morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit1 et eatenus discipulos suos a mortuis suscitat1 quatenus ipsi hoc vit ejus et mortis exemplum sequuntur4 #baej ,die evang4 ,gesch4 #b1 s4 #dbf ff4 #baea ,versuch ber die ,auferstehung ,jesu1 in ,schmidt's ,bibliothek1 #b1 #d1 s4 #ede ff4 #baeb ,ibid41 s4 #ecg2 ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #beh f42 ,frege1 ut sup4 p4 #ac4 #baec ,in his allg4 ,bibliothek1 #f1 #a1 s4 #a ff4 #baed ,comm4 exeg4 de repentina ,sauli--conversione4 ,in his opusc4 theol42 ,fortbildung des ,christenth4 #b1 #a1 ,kap4 #c4 ,comp4 also my ,streitschriften1 #btes ,heft1 s4 #eb ff4 #baee ,gesch4 der ,pflanzung und ,leitung der ,christl4 ,kirche durch die ,apostel1 #a1 s4 #ge ff4 #baef ,this is done in the treatise in ,schmidt's ,bibliothek1 and by ,kaiser1 ut sup4 #baeg ,comp4 ,weisse1 ut sup4 p4 #cih ff4 #baeh ,comp4 ,friedrich1 in ,eichhorn's ,biblioth4 #g1 s4 #bbc4 #baei ,comp4 also ,schmidt's ,biblioth4 #b1 s4 #edh4 #bafj ,may the three days' abode of ,jonah in the whale have had any influence on this determination of time8 or the passage in ,hosea quoted above1 #aaa1 note #c8 ,the former is indeed only placed in this connexion in one gospel1 and the latter is nowhere used in the ,n4 ,t4 #bafa ,compare with this explanation the one given by ,weisse1 in the #gth chapter of his work above quoted4 ,he agrees with the above representation in regarding the death of ,jesus as real1 and the narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications2 the point in which he diverges is that above mentioned--that in his view the appearances of the risen ,jesus are not merely psychological and subjective1 but objective magical facts4 #bafb ,vol4 ,,ii4 #fh4 #bafc ,apol4 i4 #fa4 #bafd ,as is done by ,teller1 im excurs4 #b1 ad ,burneti ,i4 de fide et offic4 ,christ1 p4 #bfb4 #bafe ,the work of ,beckhaus1 ber die ,aechtheit der sog4 ,taufformel1 #agid1 met with general approval4 #baff ,comp4 ,de ,wette4 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #bdf4 #bafg ,comp4 ,baur1 in the ,tbinger ,zeitschrift fur ,theologie1 ,jahrgang #ahcj1 #b1 s4 #ge ff4 #bafh ,comm4 z4 ,joh41 s4 #ccb4 #bafi ,lcke1 ,comm4 z4 ,joh4 #b1 s4 #fhf2 ,de ,wette1 s4 #bjd4 #bagj ,less1 ,auferstehungsgeschichte1 s4 #bha2 ,kuinl1 in loc4 #baga ,lcke1 s4 #fhg4 #bagb ,vid4 ap4 ,michaelis1 ,begrbniss- und ,auferstehungsgeschichte1 s4 #bfh2 ,olshausen1 #b1 s4 #ecc4 #bagc ,this is ,tholuck's opinion1 ut sup4 #bagd ,comp4 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,geschichte1 #b1 s4 #dah4 #bage ,gabler1 in the neuesten theol4 ,journal #c1 s4 #dag1 and in the ,vorrede zu ,griesbach's opusc4 acad4 p4 xcvi4 comp4 ,kuinl1 in ,marc41 p4 #bbb4 #bagf ,seiler1 ap4 ,kuinl1 ut sup4 s4 #bbc4 #bagg ,comp4 ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b1 s4 #iba2 ,de ,wette1 ,religion und ,theologie1 s4 #afa4 #bagh ,kern1 ,hauptthatsachen1 ,tb4 ,zeitschrift1 #ahcf1 #c1 s4 #eh1 ,comp4 ,steudel 7,glaubenslehre1 s4 #cbc71 who supposes the ascension to have been a vision which ,god produced in the disciples4 ,against this comp4 my ,streitschriften1 #a1 s4 #aeb ff4 #bagi ,see especially ,paulus1 ut sup4 s4 #iaj ff42 ,l4 ,j4 #a1 b1 s4 #cah ff4 #bahj ,briefe ber den ,rationalismus1 s4 #adf1 ,anm4 #bh4 #baha ,seiler1 ap4 ,kuinl1 ut sup4 s4 #bba2 ,olshausen1 s4 #eia f4 ,comp4 ,griesbach1 locorum ,n4 ,t4 ad ascensionem ,christi in clum spectantium sylloge4 ,in his opusc4 acad4 ed4 ,gabler1 vol4 #b1 s4 #dhd ff4 #bahb ,schneckenburger1 ber den ,urspr4 u4 s4 f41 s4 #ai4 #bahc ,olshausen1 s4 #eic f4 #bahd ,even ,fritzsche1 weary at the conclusion of his labour1 writes in ,matth41 p4 #hce3 ,matthus ,jesu in clum abitum non commemoravit1 quippe nemini ignotum4 #bahe ,michaelis1 ut sup4 #ceb4 #bahf ,the treatise3 ,warum haben nicht alle ,evangelisten die ,himmelfahrt ,jesu ausdrcklich miterzhlt8 in ,flatt's ,magazin1 #h1 s4 #fg4 #bahg ,the above-named ,treatise in ,flatt's ,magazin4 #bahh ,schneckenburger1 ut sup4 s4 #ai f4 #bahi ,as by ,kuinl1 p4 #bjh f41 #bag4 #baij ,nevertheless comp4 ,de ,wette on the ,acts1 i4 #ab4 #baia ,vid4 ,vol4 i41 #ef1 and the authors there cited4 ,the reference to a reckoning in ,daniel1 in ,paulus1 exeg4 ,handb4 #c1 b4 s4 #ibc1 appears to me too artificial4 #baib ,on this subject comp4 especially ,ammon1 ,ascensus ,j4 ,c1 in clum historia biblica4 ,in his opusc4 nov4 p4 #dc ff4 ,fortbildung des ,christenth4 #b1 #a1 s4 #ac ff42 also ,kaiser1 bibl4 ,theol4 #a1 s4 #hc ff42 de ,wette1 exeg4 ,handb4 #a1 #a1 s4 #bdg2 ,weisse1 die evang4 ,gesch4 #b1 p4 #cge ff4 #baic ,this is also ,hase's opinion1 ,l4 ,j4 #aej4 #baid ,joseph4 ,antiq4 iv41 viii4 #dh1 it is said of ,moses3 ,and as he was going to embrace ,eleazar and ,joshua1 and was still discoursing with them1 a cloud stood over him on a sudden1 and he disappeared in a certain valley1 although he wrote in the holy books that he died1 which was done out of fear1 lest they should venture to say that because of his extraordinary virtue1 he went to ,god4 ,philo1 however1 vita ,mosis1 opp4 ed4 ,mangey1 vol4 ii4 p4 #agi1 makes the soul only of ,moses ascend into heaven4 #baie ,iren4 adv4 hr4 i4 #aj4 ,tertull4 de prscr4 hr4 xiii4 adv4 ,prax4 ii4 de veland4 virg4 i4 ,orig4 de principp4 proem4 iv4 #baif ,iren4 adv4 hr4 iii4 xviii4 #g4 #baig ,athanas4 contra ,arianos1 orat4 #b1 #cc4 #baih ,gregor4 ,naz4 ,or4 #ea1 p4 #gdj1 ,b43 4 1 4 #baii -- 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 4 4 #bbjj ,the #fth cumenical ,synod of ,constantinople declared3 1--' -- 4 #bbja ,athanas4 de incarn4 #ed3 1 4 ,greg4 ,nyt4 ,orat4 cass4 #ce3 1 4 ,joann4 ,damasc4 de f4 orth4 iii4 #bj3 7 47 4 ,greg4 ,naz4 or4 ii4 #bc f4 ,hilar4 ,pictav4 de trin4 ii4 #bd3 humani generis causa ,dei filius natus ex virgine est--ut homo factus ex virgine naturam in se carnis acciperet perque hujus admixtionis societatem sanctificatum in eo universi generis humani corpus existeret4 ,for other expressions of the kind1 see ,mnscher1 ,dogmengesch41 herausg4 von ,clln1 #a1 #ig1 ,anm4 #aj4 #bbjb ,mnscher1 #if1 ,anm4 #e1 s4 #dbc f4 #bbjc ,augustin1 de ,catechiz4 rudib4 #g4 #bbjd ,vid4 ,mnscher1 #if4 #bbje ,ibid4 #ig4 #bbjf ,comp4 ,form4 ,concord41 ,epit4 und ,sol4 decl4 ,,viii4 p4 #fje ff4 and #gfa ff4 ed4 ,hase4 ,chemniz1 de duabus naturis in ,christo libellus1 and loci theol41 loc4 #b1 de filio2 ,gerhard4 ,,ii4 th4 #a1 p4 #fdj ff4 7ed4 #afae72 ,quenstedt1 theol4 didact4 polem4 ,p4 #c1 c4 #c4 ,comp4 ,de ,wette1 bibl4 ,dogm4 #fd ff4 #bbjg ,see the ,oratio appended to the locus de pers4 et offic4 ,chr4 ,gerhard1 ut sup4 p4 #gai ff4 #bbjh ,vid4 ,gerhard1 ,,ii4 th4 #a1 p4 #fhe ff42 ,marheineke1 ,instit4 symb4 #ga f4 #bbji ,reinhard1 ,vorles4 ber die ,dogm4 s4 #ced1 conformably to the proposition urged by the ,reformed against the ,lutherans3 ,nulla natura in se ipsam recipit contradictoria1 ,planck1 ,gesch4 des protest4 ,lehrbegriffs1 ,bd4 #f1 s4 #ghb4 #bbaj ,fausti ,socini de ,christi natura disputatio4 ,opp4 ,bibl4 ,fr4 ,pol4 #a1 p4 #ghd2 ,catech4 ,racov4 ,q4 #if ff4 ,comp4 ,marheineke1 ,instit4 symb4 #if4 ,spinoza1 also1 ep4 #ba1 ad ,oldenburg1 ,opp4 ed4 ,gfrrer1 p4 #eef1 says3 ,quod qudam ecclesi his adduut1 quod ,deus naturam humanam assumpserit1 monui expresse1 me1 quid dicant1 nescire2 imo1 ut verum fatear1 non minus absurde mihi loqui videntur1 quam si quis mihi diceret1 quod circulus naturam quadrati induerit4 #bbaa 7,rhr7 ,briefe ber den ,rationalismus1 s4 #cgh ff42 ,wegscheider ,inst4 theol4 #abh2 ,bretschneider1 ,handb4 der ,dogm4 #b1 #acg ff42 also ,kant1 ,relig4 innerhalb der ,grnzen der blossen ,vernunft4 #btes ,st4 #bter ,absch4 b4 #bbab ,glaubenslehre1 #b1 #if-ih4 #bbac ,spinoza1 tract4 theol4 polit4 c4 vi4 p4 #acc4 ed4 ,gfrrer1 and ep4 #bc1 ad ,oldenburg1 p4 #eeh f4 ,briefe ber den ,rat41 #dter1 #eter1 #fter1 #abter4 ,wegscheider1 #aa1 #ab4 ,schleiermacher1 #ad1 #dg4 #bbad ,prlect4 theol4 c4 xv4 #bbae ,in the work3 defensio fidei cath4 de satisfactione ,chr4 adv4 ,f4 ,socinum4 #bbaf ,summa1 ,p4 #c1 ,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #b4 #bbag ,comm4 in ,sentt4 ,l4 #c1 ,dist4 #ai4 #bbah ,see1 besides ,socinus1 ,kant1 ,relig4 innerhalb der ,grenzen der blossen ,vernunft1 #btes ,stck1 #ater ,abschn41 c4 #bbai ,tllner1 ,der thtige ,gehorsam ,christi untersucht4 #agfh4 #bbbj ,wegscheider1 #aii4 #bbba ,compare with what follows especially the ,briefe ber den ,rationalismus1 s4 #cgb ff42 ,wegscheider1 #abh1 #acc1 #adj4 #bbbb ,for the different views1 see ,bretschneider1 ,dogm4 #b1 s4 #cec1 systematische ,entwicklung1 #ajg4 #bbbc ,rhr1 ,briefe1 s4 #cf1 #dje ff4 #bbbd ,schleiermacher1 on his ,glaubenslehre1 to ,dr4 ,lcke1 #btes ,sendschreiben1 ,studien1 #b1 #c1 s4 #dha ff4 #bbbe ,glaubenslehre1 #b1 #ib-aje4 #bbbf ,this opinion has been already put forth in the most noted reviews of ,schleiermacher's system2 comp4 ,braniss1 ber ,schleiermacher's ,glaubenslehre2 ,h4 ,schmid1 ber ,schl4 ,glaubensl4 s4 #bfc ff42 ,baur1 die christl4 ,gnosis1 s4 #fbf ff41 and the ,review of ,rosenkranz1 ,jahrb4 fur wiss4 ,kritik1 #ahca4 #bbbg #bter ,sendschreiben4 #bbbh ,schmid1 ut sup4 #bbbi ,comp4 ,rosenkranz1 ut sup4 s4 #ice ff4 #bbcj ,baur1 ut sup4 s4 #fec4 #bbca ,thus ,schmid1 ut sup4 s4 #bfg4 #bbcb ,ep4 #ba1 ad ,oldenburg4 ,opp4 ed4 ,gfrrer1 p4 #eef3--;dico1 ad salutem non esse omnino necesse1 ,christum secundum carnem noscere2 sed ed terno illo filio ,dei1 h4 e4 ,dei terna sapientia1 qu sese in omnibus rebus1 et maxime in mente humana1 et omnium maxime in ,christo ,jesu manifestavit1 longe aliter sentiendum4 ,nam nemo absque hac ad statum beatitudinis potest pervenire1 utpote qu sola docet1 quid verum et falsum1 bonum et malum sit4 #bbcc ,religion innerhalb der ,grnzen der blossen ,vernunft4 drittes ,stck1 #ate ,abthl4 vii4 #bbcd ,ut sup4 #btes ,stck1 #ater ,abschn4 #ctes ,stck1 #ate ,abthlg4 #bbce ,this is shown by ,baur1 christl4 ,gnosis1 s4 #ffj ff4 #bbcf ,censur des christl4 protestantischen ,lehrbegriffs1 #c1 s4 #ahj4 #bbcg ,religion und ,theologie1 #bter ,abschnitt1 ,kap4 #c2 comp4 bibl4 ,dogmatik1 #bee2 kirchliche1 #fd ff4 #bbch ,ideen ber ,mythologie u4 s4 w4 in ,henke's neuer ,magazin1 b4 s4 #ded ff4 ,comp4 ,henke's ,museum1 #c1 s4 #dee4 #bbci ,vorlesungen ber die ,methode des akademischen ,studiums1 s4 #aib4 #bbdj ,hegel's ,phnomenologie des ,geistes1 s4 #efa ff42 ,vorlesungen ber die ,philos4 der ,relig4 #b1 s4 #bcd ff4 ,marheineke1 ,grundlehren der christl4 ,dogmatik4 s4 #agd ff4 ,rosenkranz1 ,encyklopdie der theol4 ,wissenschaften1 s4 #ch ff41 #adh ff42 comp4 my ,streitschriften1 #ctes ,heft1 s4 #gf ff4 #bbda ,dogmatik1 #cbf4 #bbdb ,encyklopdie1 s4 #afj4 #bbdc ,selbstbewusstsein und ,offenbarung1 s4 #bie f4 ,comp4 ,bauer1 ,recens4 des ,l4 ,j41 ,jahrbcher f4 wiss4 ,kritik1 #ahcf1 ,mai1 s4 #fii ff4 #bbdd ,compare with this my ,streitschriften1 #c ,heft1 s4 #fh ff4 #abe4 #bbde ,with this should be compared the explanation in the ,streitschriften1 ut sup4 s4 #aai4 #bbdf ,of this also there is an explanation in the ,streitschriften1 #c1 s4 #aff f4 #bbdg ,herein lies the answer to the objection which ,schaller 7der historische ,christus und die ,philosophie1 s4 #fd ff47 has made to the above view2 namely1 that it teaches only a substantial1 not a personal unity of man with ,god4 ,that unity which exists in the determination of the race has already been present in individuals separately1 according to the different measure of their religious development1 and thus the substantial unity has become1 in different degrees1 a personal unity4 #bbdh ,vorlesungen ber die ,philosophie der ,religion1 #b1 s4 #bfc ff4 ,compare the collection of the several propositions of ,hegel on the person of ,christ and the evangelical history1 in my ,streitschriften1 #c4 ,heft1 s4 #gf4 #bbdi ,glaubenslehre1 #a1 s4 #dg4 #bbej ,in the #bten ,sendschreiben on his ,glaubenslehre4