// , '^ci. -^^ N^ 3Fr0m X\\t Kibrarg of l?queatl|e& h^ I|tm to ttyp ICtbrarg nf 5prtttretoit SHi^nb^tral g>fmtnar^ 352555 ^;^^eg^^ CLARK'S FOKEIGN ,/ A an cJ^ THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. VOLUME XIX. (KbrartJ'iS ©o^pcl f^istorp. EDINBURGH : T. AND T. CLARK, 3 8, GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXIX. THE GOSPEL HISTORY: COMPENDIUM OF CRITICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE mSTOEICAL CHAEACTEE OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. DE J. H. a/eBEARD. PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN. TRANSLATED BY JAMES MARTIN, B.A., NOTTINGHAJI. REVISED AND EDITED BY ALEXANDER B. BRUCE, CARDROSS. EDINBURGH: T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. MDCCCLXIX. EDITOE'S PKEFACE. HE work, of which a translation is here offered to the public, has passed through two editions in Germany ; the first of which appeared in 1841-42, and the second in 1850. The translation is made from the Second Edition, and con- sequently presents the Author's more mature views on the subject of which it treats. The object of this work, in the Author's ovm words, is " to put into the hands of students and ministers a book in which they can find information respecting the present position and the history of the Criticism of the Gospels, and from which they can supply themselves with the necessary weapons of defence against the attacks upon the Holy Scriptures which are becoming more and more noised abroad." It is only what was to be expected, that, in carrying out this design, the Author should keep in view principally the wants of his own counti-jTuen. Accordingly, the reader will find that Strauss and Baur, and others belonging to their school, have a very prominent place in the following pages. But he will also find, if we mistake not, that the gi'eat bulk of the work is of general, and not merely national interest and utihty. The work, as stated in the Translator's Preface, has been to some extent abridged in the translation. It is well that readers should understand that the abridgment has been effected by omission of less important portions, not by systematic condensation of the whole. AVhat is omitted is chiefly matter of local or passing interest ; e.g., some of the foot-notes, which would only have encumbered the pages, and elaborate refutations of the wild speculations of the more reckless members of the Negative School. Some of these speculations, like extravagant tales, have too little probability, and are too entirely desti- tute of sobriety and common sense, to interest the mind. They are dreary and tiresome, and one is impatient to get through them. The reader's impatience has been consulted, especially where it was most necessary to do so, viz., in the Second Part of the work, which deals EDITOR'S PREFACE. with the Criticism of the Gospel Writings. The first chapter, particu- larly, of that Part, which contains the negative hypotheses to account for the origin of the Gospels, has been considerably abbreviated. How- ever, what remains will give the reader a perfectly clear idea of the nature of these hypotheses, and of the Author's mode of refuting them. Speaking of the work as a whole, it is believed, in the words of the Translator, that " nothing has been omitted which could possess interest and importance to the reader." It has been thought proper, in publishing this translation, to bring under the notice of students the principal contributions to the literature of the subject that have appeared since the publication of the original work. This has been done in a few foot-notes inserted at the appro- priate places. ^ ^ A.B. B. TEANSLATOE'S PEEPACE, ["BRAED is already well known in this country from his admirable Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistles of John. The present work is one of the many vindications of the New Testament History, and the groundwork of our faith, which the attacks of negative theologians have called forth from men " valiant for the truth." It would have been presented before this to English readers, but for the feeling that it was undesirable to publish objections for the purpose of showing how they could be, and had been met. But the day for such caution is past; and the very same assaults are now made on English ground, and by English theologians, which have been both made and met in our sister Church in Germany. As Ebrard's work was intended to be polemical, it might be supposed that to present, as an antidote to English objections, replies to those of German critics, would be simply "beating the air." But though writing with the attacks of negative critics in his mind, and giving as he passes direct answers to various objections, the plan which Ebrard has pursued, is to examine and strengthen the defences of positive theology, so as to present a critical bulwark to critical assaults, rather than to exhaust his own strength and his readers' patience Avith minute replies to trivial objectors. For this reason, as well as from the fact that the negative criticism of England is for the most part a reproduction of the cast-off criticism of Germany, the work, we hope, will have the same worth here as in the land of its birth. Ebrard's method, as described by himself, is the following : — " We shall seek first of all to settle the question, in the case of each Evan- gelist, whether the arrangement he adopted was based upon chrono- logical sequence, or upon some topical classification. To this end we shall look first at the form in which the Gospels are written, and secondly at their contents. The latter will require a careful description of the various incidents, a comparison of the synoptical accounts, and a 10 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. notice of the objections of negative critics. We shall not commence, however, with a refutation of individual objections, but with a posi- tive statement of the case as it actually stands, which shall contain within itself a reply to all objections. In every instance, therefore, we shall begin with the facts themselves, as gathered from an exami- nation of the different narratives ; and then, in support of the results obtained, adduce both psychological and exegetical proofs that, assum- ing the fact M to have occurred, it was possible for the different accounts ^I', M", M'", to be written, without any one of them containing an error. — -We shall then proceed to the refutation of special objec- tions." It has been thought desirable to condense, to some extent, in the process of translation. But we believe that nothing has been omitted Avhich could possess either interest or importance to the reader. The work itself is essentially unaltered. It is, doubtless, well for the Church, and above all for " ministers and students," for whom this work is chiefly intended, that the foun- dations of our faith should be often tried, whether by acknowledged enemies, or by " false brethren unawares brought in ;" if only that we may be compelled to test their strength for ourselves, and so " be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of the hope that is in us." The result of such a season of trial in Ger- many has been unquestionably to strengthen belief, to quicken spiritual life, and to give an impulse to evangelical preaching. And it would betray a want of faith in the Spirit of God and the Great Head of the Church, to doubt that this will also be the effect of the fullest and most unfettered inquiry here. This translation is offered, in the hope that, in common with the works of English theologians aiming at the same result, though occupying somewhat different ground, it may help to lead back some who " have erred concerning the faith," and quell the fears of others who have begun to " tremble for the ark of God." J. M. TABLE OF CONTENTS, INTRODUCTION. ; 1. Criticism a Necessity, ! 2. Critical Problems, i 3. History of Modern Criticism, i 4. Apologetics (History and Method), Page 17 19 20 38 PAET I. EXAMINATION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. DIVISION I. THE GOSPELS AS TO THEIR FORM. Chapter I. Preliminary Remarks. § 5. Peculiarities of Composition. Style ; Plan ; Chronology, § 6. Chronology and Order of Sequence, § 7. Sequence and Synopsis. Harmony, § 8. History of Harmony, .... § 9. Method, ...... § 10. Principles of Synopsis, § 11. Principles appUcable to Sequence, . Chapter II. Matthew. 12. Plan, 13. Arrangement of Materials, . 14. Data relative to Sequence, . 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page 78 81 86 87 Chapter III. Mark. § 15. Plan and Arrangement, ..... § 16. Data relative to Sequence, . . • • • § 17. Synoptical Comparison of Mattlie-w and Mark, § 18. Comparison of the Sequence in Matthew and Mark, Chapter IV. Luke. §19-P1^°' • • 99 § 20. Arrangement, . • • • • • ' i n« § 21. Data relative to Sequence, ...••• 108 §22. Synoptical Comparison of Luke with Matthew and Mark, . . 116 § 23. Comparison of the Sequence in Luke with that in Matthew and Mark, 117 Chapter V. John. 24. Plan and Arrangement, . . _ • 25. Synoptical Comparison with the Synoptists, 26-27. Comparison of John and Synoptists in regard to Sequence, 28. Collective Result of the Investigation relative to Sequence, 118 123 124 132 Chapter VI. Chronology of the Gospels. 29. The Taxing of Quirinius, . 30. Lysanias of Abilene, 31. Chronology of the Gospel History, 136 143 146 DIVISION II. the contents of the gospels considered in relation to their matter. Chapter I. The Youth of Christ. § 32. The Genealogies, . . . • § 33. Birth of John, . • • • § 34. The Annunciation of the Birth of Christ, . § 35. The Birth of the Lord, § 36. Presentation in the Temple, § 37. The AVise Men from the East, § 38. Joseph's Home, . . • • § 39. Jesus in the Temple, 149 163 167 173 175 176 186 189 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 13 Chapter II. Christ and John the Baptist. § 40. Preaching and Baptism of John, § 41. The Baptism of Jesus, .... § 42. Temptation of Jesus, .... § 43. Testimony of John to the Person and Work of Jesus, § 44. Jesus goes into Galilee, .... Chapter III. Jesus in His Parents^ Home. § 45. The Marriage at Cana, ..... § 46. First Journey to the Passover. Jesus Purifies the Temple, § 47. Conversation -with Nicodemus, .... § 48. Jesus and John the Baptist at the Jordan, § 49. The "Woman of Samaria, ..... § 50. The Nobleman's Son. Jesus in the Synagogue at Nazareth, Pago 192 196 201 208 210 214 217 221 223 226 229 Chapter IV. Jesus in Capernaum. §51. Call of Two Pair of Brothers, ..... 234 § 62. First Accusation of League with. Beelzebub. The "Woman's Exclama- tion. First Demand for a Sign. His Mother and Brethren desire to see Him, ....... 240 § 53. Departure to Gadara. — A Scribe wishes to follow. Similitudes. The Tempest stilled, ....... 243 § 54. The Demoniac of Gadara, ...... 247 § 55. Return. — Question about Fasting. Jairus' Daughter, and "Woman with Issue of Blood, ...... 255 § 56. After His Return. — Two Blind Men. Dumb Man Possessed. Para- lytic let through the Roof, ..... 262 § 57. Call of Levi, and Meal at his House. The Question : " Is not this the Carpenter's Son?" ...... 264 § 58. Choice of Disciples, and Sermon on the Mount, . . . 267 § 59. Cure of a Leper. Jesus in a Friend's House, . . . 277 § 60. Return to Capernaum. — The Centurion's Servant. Possessed Man in the Synagogue. Peter's Mother-in-Law, . . . 280 § 61. The Widow's Son at Nain, ...... 282 § 62. John sends his Disciples, ...... 283 Chapter "V. Two Journeys to Jerusalem. § 63. Feast of Tabernacles in the Third Year. Sick Man at the Pool of Bethesda, .,.,... 288 § 64. Mission and Return of the Twelve Disciples. Death of John the Baptist, ...... .293 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS. § G5. The Five Thousand fed. Jesus walks upon the Sea. Discourse about the Bread of Life, ...... § 66. Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles in the Fourth Year. The Woman taken in Adultery, ...... § 67. The Man born Blind. Parable of the Good Shepherd, Page 296 304 315 Chapter VI. Unconnected Passac/es. § 68. Cures effected on the Sabbath, and other Miracles, § 69. Minor Occurrences, § 70. Mission of the Seventy, § 71. Interviews with Scribes and Pharisees, Parables, Discourses, 319 320 321 324 327 330 Chapter VII. Last Stay in Galilee. 74. Scribes from Jerusalem. Journey to Phoenicia, and thence to Decapolis. Deaf and Dumb Man, 75. Feeding of the Four Thousand. Second Demand for a Sign. Dis courses, ....... 76. Blind Man at Bethsaida, ..... 77. The Transfiguration, ..... 78. Return to Capernaum. — The Stater. Discourses, . 332 334 338 339 345 Chapter VIII. Jesus between Judsea and Peraea. 79. Journey to the Feast of Dedication, 80. Jesus by the Jordan, 81. Raising of Lazarus, 82. Consultation about putting Jesus to Death, 83. Journey from Ephraim to Jericho, . 84. Jesus in Jericho, .... 348 350 351 359 360 362 Chapter IX. The Saviour^s Last Sufferings. § 85. The Anointing in Bethany, § 86. Entry into Jerusalem, .... § 87. The Fig-tree Cursed. Second Purification of the Temple, § 88. Jesus vindicates His Authority. Parables, § 89. Captious Questions, .... § 90. Denunciatory Discourse. Widow's Mite, . § 91. Discourse on the Second Advent, . § 92. Time of the Last Supper, .... 366 369 373 380 381 385 386 395 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 15 § 93. The Lord's Supper, § 94. Jesus in Gethsemane, § 95. Trial in the Ecclesiastical Court, § 96. Trial in the Civil Court, § 97. The Crucifixion, § 98. The Burial, Pago 406 415 420 428 433 443 Chapter X. Resurrection and Ascension ofJei § 99. The Resurrection Morning, § 100. Sunday Evening ; and the Sunday following, § 101. Two Appearances in Galilee, § 102. The Ascension, .... 447 456 460 463 PART II. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL WRITINGS AND GOSPEL HISTORY. DIVISION I. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. Chapter I. The Negative Hypotheses. § 103. The Mythical Hypothesis of Strauss, .... § 104. The Hypotheses of TYeisse and Gfrorer, .... § 105. Bruno Bauer, ....... CHiVPTER II. Reliable Historical Data concerning the Gospel History. A. Data concerning the Expectation of a Messiah. § 106. The Expectation of a Messiah in the Times before and after Christ, § 107. The Hope of a Messiah in the Time of Christ, B. Data concerning the Person and Life of Jesus. § 108. Data of the Apostolic Epistles, ..... C. Data concerning the Early Ministry of the Apostles. § 109. Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles, .... § 110. The '-We" Passages, ...... § 111. Harmony of the Acts of the Apostles and the Apostolic Epistles in relation to the Journeys of Paul, .... § 112. Historical Data in the Acts of the Apostles on the Early History of the Church, ...... 473 482 484 485 490 492 497 507 512 519 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS. DIVISION II. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL WRITINGS. CUAPTER I. The Synoptical Gospels. § 113. Data on the Origin of Matthew, § 114. Hypotheses as to the Origin of Matthew, § 115. Date of Matthew, . § 116. Origin and Date of Mark, . § 117. Integrity of Mark, . § 118. Origin of Luke, § 119. Place and Date of Composition, Age and Credibility of Luke, § 120. Relation of the Synoptists to one another, . Page 623 634 639 544 646 649 652 664 Chapter II. The Gospel of John. 121. Its Origin as indicated by Data in the Gospel itself, 122. Data from the Fathers, ..... 123. Data on the Life of John. His Banishment. The Apocalypse, 124. Statements of the Fathers as to the Origin and Design of the Gospel of John, ...... 125. Attacks upon the Genuineness of the Gospel of John, ■ 126. Internal Objections, .... 127. External Objections, . ■ .. 128. The Easter Controversy, .... 129. Conclusion, ...... 660 667 670 579 581 582 685 589 598 CnRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE EVENTS OF THE ApOSTOLIC AgE, 602 INTRODUCTION. §!■ CRITICISM A NECESSITY. HE very nature of Christianity involves the introduction of criticism into the sphere of theology. For if it be truly the redemption, ordained by God from all eternity, but brought to completion at a certain time and in a certain place ; though the need of redemption must exist in every man, and therefore the postulate of redemption develop itself with more or less purity apart from the historical fact, yet this fact could never be made known to distant nations or succeeding ages in any other way than through the ordinary channels, — viz., oral tradition or written records. But those writings, together with their contents, necessarily come within the scope of the same historical criticism as every other monument of history. And the same questions must be asked and answered respecting authenticity, credibility, integrity, and age. These questions, we are told, should be investigated without lias. The only meaning which we can attach to these words is, that there should be an entire absence of critical and historical assumptions ; in other words, that the point in question should not be treated as if it were an axiom. But if it be really intended that tlie mind should be kept free from religious bias, we rejjly, that such freedom as this is impossible. Every man necessarily assumes a religious attitude of some kind, either positive or negative. He either believes in a living God, or in an unconscious process. He either feels a need of redemp- tion based upon the fear of God ; or he has no such feeling, because he does not charge himself with sin. Tertium nan datur. Now it is nothing but superstition to pretend that a positive religious attitude exerts a decisive influence upon criticism, but not a negative. It is only to the man who feels his need of redemption that the fact of 2 18 INTltODUCTION. redemption can possibly be clear ; to every other man it will be sure to present itself in a distorted form. Hence a proper religious bias will tend rather to give freedom to the mind. And where, even before entering upon any critical investigation whatever, there is an intuitive religious certainty of the divine character of the biblical books, there will be all the greater calmness and impartiality, and consequently all the greater ability to maintain the desired freedom from histoi-ical or critical prejudice. It is well known that, even in cases where the materials at command have been insufficient, at least for the time, to establish the authenticity of a biblical book, this critical uncertainty has not in the least affected the religious certainty which existed before. And as the Christian Church does not need to suspend its calm believing use of the Holy Scriptures until critics have brought their investigations into their genuineness to a close (in fact, in a good sense they ought never to be closed), the Christian theologian may pursue his critical labours without the least impatience. His aim, therefore, so far as both kinds of impartiality are concerned, should be, — first of all, instead of aftecting an impossible freedom from religious bias to please the folly of the age, to confess openly and honestly how far his views and interpretations of the sacred history are conditioned and determined by his religious bearing ; and secondly, in the critical operations themselves, to look closely and mark well how far the process is carried on by purely historical and critical methods, and at what point the religious or dogmatical bias necessarily begins to exert an influence (and this in the case of the negative, quite as much as of the positive critic). In the older period of theology the genuineness of the biblical books was not attacked ; there was therefore no special reason for defending it (the hand of the apologetic critic wanted the requisite stimulus). Hence religious-dogmatic presuppositions and critical proofs met in immediate unity in the theological mind of that age. They were not required to distinguish how much could be proved on purely historical grounds, and how far religious bias influenced the process of proof. Then wdth Semler and J. D. ^Michaelis arose a school which brought to the task other religious and dogmatic presuppositions. This school, with its broader culture, rightly discerned the weakness of the older school ; but, with great ignorance of themselves, assumed that the re- ligious and doctrinal position of the critic influenced criticism only in these older theologians. The problem was only to cut away all in- fluence of a positive religious point of view, and that they called being free from bias. That they themselves were influenced by a religious bias of a negative kind, they had not the least idea. § 2. CRITICAL PROBLEMS. 19 CRITICAL PROBLEMS. It is a matter of gi'eat importance to keep the two branches of critical study perfectly distinct : viz., the criticism of the Gosj^el icvitings ; and the criticism of the Gospel history. The fornjer is occupied witli the origin and authenticity of the four Gospels. It is the task of the latter to inquire Avhether the events recorded in the Gospels can have occurred, and I'eally did occur. Before noticing the course already pursued in relation to these two branches of criticism, let us observe more particularly the prob- lems which had to be solved. Tlie criticism of the Gospel writings has to deal with the follow- ing data. — 1. With reference to the origin of the four Gospels, we have different external accounts. Matthew, according to not a few testimonies, is the Greek translation of a Hebrew work composed by the Apostle ^Matthew. The authenticity of John is supported chiefly by early quotations, the validity of which has sometimes been dis- puted. Of the two apostolical Gospels, therefore, neither can be said to be supported by undoubted external testimony. — 2. With regard to the internal relation of the four Gospels to one another, it is well known that John coincides with the rest only in a few points. The synoptical Gospels, on the contrary, have many incidents from Christ's life, and many of His Avords, in common. Yet even they differ as to the order and position of the same occurrences. The same incident is also narrated with variations of more or less importance ; and words which are placed in one connection by one Evangelist are introduced by another on a totally different occasion. Nevertheless, there is very often even a verbal agreement between Matthew and !Mark, not in- frequently between Matthew and Luke, and in some passages between Mark and Luke as well. What opinion, then, can we form as to the origin of the Gospels ? Did one writer make use of another ? And if so, did he do this from memory, or with the writing itself in his hand ? In what order was it done ? And are the variations uninten- tional ; or did they arise from a desire to colored ? Or had they all a common source ? Or, lastly, did the writers all draw from a common tradition, the stability of which in certain particulars is sufficient to explain the verbal agreement ? These are the problems to be solved by a criticism of the writings. The criticism of the history is more simple. The influence of Jesus 20 INTRODUCTION. upon the world's history, and tlie formation and history of the Chris- tian Church, are fully established by those Pauline Epistles alone, of whose genuineness there can be no doubt. But from the middle of the last century it has been the constant endeavour of certain theo- logians to retain the moral influence of Jesus (which could not be doubted, and the finest proof of which is to be found in the spirit of the Gospels), and at the same time to sweep away the historical character of the miraculous events which the Gospels record. At the outset, therefore, the particular miracles alone were attacked, the authenticity of the writings being left untouched. But ere long the authenticity of the Gospels was disputed, though without any attempt to question the moral character of their authors. At length, however, it was clearly seen that the two were inseparable, and hence views were propounded which involved the most unmeasured attacks upon the m.oral character of the New Testament writers. At the same time however a genuine critical work was being carried forward ; though the question as to the possibility of reconciling the apparent or real discrepancies that occur in the Gospels — the problem of harmony — was variously answered according to the dogmatic tendency, — one party attempting to remove the differences by artificial means, another refusing assent to even the most natural solutions. §3. HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM. The progressive development of criticism, particularly of negative criticism, may be conveniently divided into the ioWoWmg four periods : I. First Period. — Separation of the criticism of the history itself from that of the historical books. — The first effort of negative critics was to eliminate miracles exegetically, by means of natural explanations (Paulus, Venturini, Thiess). That is to say, it was either maintained that the Evangelist never intended to relate a miracle (thus, in John ix. 7, Paulus asserts that John simply intended to mention the occur- rence as an ordinary hydropathic cure) ; or that the Evangelist mistook a natural phenomenon for a miraculous one, in which case it is the task of the expositor to separate the fact itself from the judgment of the Evangelist with reference to the fact. So long as this was the object in view, and the work was pursued with a well-meant purpose, — viz., to rescue the honour of the Gospel history from the attacks of English infidels, and to reconcile it with the views of subjective rationalists, — it was of little doctrinal importance how the accounts § 3. HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM. 21 contained in the Gospels were supposed to have originated. Various liyj)otheses were started. Corrodi, Lessing, Weber, and others, re- garded the so-called Gosj^el of the Ilehreios as the source of all the rest. After Herder, Elchhorn and Marsh supposed the three synoptical Gospels to liave arisen in different ways from some orirjinal Gospel in Aramcean, which no longer exists. Eichhorn assumes a certain Ai-a- raaean original Gospel to have undergone revision (this revised edition he calls A), and so to have formed the foundation of Matthew. Another revision forms the basis of Luke, B. A third, C, originat- ing in a collation of A and B, formed the basis of Mark. Finally, Mark and Luke used in addition a fourth revision, D, which was unknown to Matthew. But as, according to Eichhorn's assumption. A, B, C, D v;ere all Aramcpan, the coincidence of the different Gospels in particular Greek expressions remained unexplained. This difficulty Marsh sought to get over by a hypothesis, in comparison with which the foregoing is an innocent child. Marsh assumed, 1. an Aramaean original writing, K ; 2. a Greek translation of it, ^ ; 3. a translation with additions {^■\-A + a)\ 4. another ditto (}^ -f B + /3) ; 5. a union of 3 and 4 as basis of Mark {^-{- A-{-B -\- a-\- j3) \ 6. No. 3 with other additions {^-\-A-\-T-\-a-\- Mark, „ 3. Mark, ?? Matt., J7 Luke, „ 4. Mark, J) Luke, }j Matt., „ 5. Luke, 5) Matt., J? Mark, „ 6. Luke, JJ Mark, 5) Matt., „ 1 was maintained by August. (De consensu Evv.), Grotius (annot. ad Matt. i. 1, et Luc. i. 1), Mill. (Nov. Testam. prolegg.), Wetstein (Nov. Test, prgef. in Matt, et pr. in Luc), Townson (Treatise on the Four Gospels), Hug, Introduction. 2 by Owen (observ. on Four Gospels), Stroth, Ammon, Griesbach. 3 by Storr (iiber den Zweck der Evang. Gesch. on the Design of the Gosp. Hist.). 4 by Wilke, Bauer, see p. 25. 5. Biisching (die 4 Evang. mit ihren eigenen Worten zusammen- gesetzt^) ; Edward Evanson, The Dissonance of the four generally received Gospels. 6. Vogel (Abhandlung iiber die Entstehung der 3 ersten Evv. in Gabler s Journal — Treatise on the Origin of the three first Gospels).^ Thus the criticism of the writings was separated into a multitude of different results, all of them equally indifferent so far as the criti- cism of the history is concerned. II. Second Period. — When it became perfectly obvious that the natural explanation of the miracles was untenable, the desire to remove from the Gospels whatever was doctrinally unpalatable took another direction, and attacked the authenticity of every one of the Gospels. The criticism of the writings was thus brought into the closest connec- tion with the criticism of the history, though in many different ways. A great step in advance was made, when Gieseler after Eckerman, suggested, that all the cases of convergence and divergence in the ^ " The Four Gospels put side by side in their own words." [2 To the names given above the following may be added, of recent advocates of one or other of the above schemes in our own country : — 1. Matt., Mark, Luke. — Birks (Horse Evangelicse. London, 1852) ; Greswell (Dissertations on a Harmony of the Gospels. Oxford, 1830) ; Da Costa (Four Witnesses : A translation from the Dutch by David Dundas Scott, Esq. London, 1851). 3. Mark, Matt., Luke. — Smith of Jordanhill (Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels. Edinburgh and London, 1853). Ed.] § 3. HISTORY OF MODEKN CRITICISM. 23 different Gospels may be explained on the simple, and by no means improbable assumption, that during the first few years after the death of Christ, when the Apostles were for the most part assembled in Jerusalem, from the frecpient repetition of different incidents in the life of Christ, many of the narratives would gradually assume a fixed and definite shape ; and therefore that there was no necessity at all to suppose that one Evangelist made use of the writings of another. The only matters for dispute now were, whether Mark made use of Matthew only (from memory, that is to say), and Luke (who certainly had neither of them in his possession, though he may possibly have read ^latthew) drew his mateiials from tradition alone ; or whether Mark availed himself, from recollection, both of Matthew and Luke. The latter opinion gradually gained the upper hand. A tolerable agreement being thus arrived at, as to the concurrences and divergences of the Gospels, the question arose, what was to be done with their authenticity and historical credibility. The doctrinal objections were still the same. The ^^ natural exegesis''^ was not satis- factory; for De Wettes^ whole endeavour was to find out the exact meaning which the Evangelists themselves attached to their words. There remained no other course open, therefore, than to set down all occurrences which were doctrinally objectionable as imhistorical, — as myths in fact, which had grown up spontaneously out of the prevail- ing desire to do honour to Jesus, and which, instead of being kept distinct from the history, had been admitted into the Gospels them- selves. This view was theoretically expanded by Gabler and others ; and practically applied by Schleiermacher, Hase, and De Wette to particular portions of the Gospel history. It was impossible to sustain such a theory as this, however, by the side of the fact that two of the Gospels had Apostles for their authors. An attempt was therefore made, on the part of those who were neither prepared to accept the resurrection of Jesus as a fact, nor to explain it away as a vision of the disciples, and who were also at a loss to know how to dispose of the other miracles recorded in John, to over- throw the genuineness of the Gospel of John. The question in the meantime was held in suspense. But with regard to Matthew, ever since the investigations made by Michaelis, the opinion that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Aramsean, and that we possess merely a version made at second hand, had met with increasing support. One of the apostolical Gospels being thus set on one side, and the other at any rate deprived of unconditional historical authority, all ^ "We mention De TVette, as being the head and representative of this school, which numbers Lucke, RUckert, and Meyer among its members. 24 INTRODUCTION. that was still required, was to find a way of explaining the origin, not of Marh, for this was regarded as resting on ]\Iatthew and Lnke, but of LuJce, which contains so much of a distinctive and peculiar character. The most important work on this subject was that of Schleiermacher, who came to the conclusion, both from the pruoemium (Luke i. 1-4) and from internal criticism of the Gospel itself, that Luke availed himself of certain shorter accounts {Diegeses), which had come into his possession, and having made some slight alterations in the style, incorporated them in his own work. He thus stood so far from the events, that myths might easily have found their way into his Gospel. m. Third Period. — At such results as these had the criticism of the Gospels arrived, when Strauss appeared, and erected upon the vague conclusions of his predecessors his well-known hypothesis with regard to the Gospel Idstory, of which the following is the general drift. In the first score years after the death of the Rabbi Jesus, who had made such an impression upon his disciples that they took him for the Messiah, whose advent the Old Testament Scriptures had led them to anticipate, and who had eventually formed the same opinion of himself, a very natural desire arose to magnify their departed master, by attributing to him all the characteristics ascribed to the Messiah in the Old Testament ; and this was done with the pious feeling " that they could not have been wanting in the case of Jesus." They brought themselves to believe this ; and thus compact circles of myths arose, some being pure inventions, and others growing out of actual sayings or deeds of Jesus himself. Of these, some have been preserved, with their natural divergences and convergences, by the four Evangelists. To sustain this daring positive result, with nothing in its favour but the secret wish to get rid of the supernatural, and with the whole aspect of the history against it, Strauss had recourse to internal criticism alone. In his method we find the criticism of the history completely isolated from that of the writings. The results at which the latter had arrived he left in their conveniently indefinite state ; but with regard to the former, his main endeavour was " to show that the doctrinal difficulties are far from being the only difficulties in the Gospels, but that there is such a mass of contradictions, anachronisms, psychological incredibilities, etc., that even apart from any doctrinal objections, it is impossible to accept the Gospels as authentic, and their contents as history." In carrying out this intention Strauss displays throughout an unmistakeable //-iuoZiV^. Of the elevating, heart-stirring effect, which § 3. HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM. 25 the Gospels produce in every pure mind, not the sh'ghtest trace is to be found. Under the name of the " supernatural view" (by whicli he always designates the only view which coincides with the Evangelists' meaning) he assails the Evangelists themselves with more than the ridicule of Voltaire, and finds in every line of every naiTative impossi- bilities, and even absurdities, crowded together. Is thei'e anything in the discourses of Jesus which surpasses the standpoint of the most contracted Jew of that age, he pronounces it impossible that Jesus could have uttered it. And by such means as these the Gospel narra- tives are corroded by the acid of a heartless understanding, in order that it may be impossible for the reader to return to the supernatural view, and he may be compelled to throw himself into the arms of the mythical hypothesis. IV. Transition to the Fourth Period. — This did not long continue to be the only loophole for such as had made up their minds to flee from supernaturalism. By Strauss the criticism of the history had been completely severed from that of the writings ; and his mythical hypothesis, which rested solely upon historical uncertainty, though it might have some plausibility in the hazy twilight in which it was presented, vanished into thin air when the light increased, or when more closely scrutinized. It was to be expected, therefore, that fresh hypotheses would soon be sought, that the criticism of the history would be brought again into connection with that of the writings, in order that more definite results might be obtained in more definite forms. The criticism of the writings now entered the field with an unex- pected result, especially in relation to the synoptical Gospels. Wilke showed, in direct opposition to the opinion which had hitherto pre- vailed, that Mark was the oldest of the Evangelists ; that Luke fol- lowed Mark; and Matthew, Luke. With regard to John, Liitzelberger, Weisse, B. Bauer, and Schweitzer endeavoured to prove from internal, and partly from external grounds, that it was wanting in authenticity, or at any rate in integrity. With these results the criticism of the history was combined in the following manner. Weisse sought to exalt the Synoptists at the expense of John. His philosophically constructed Christ he could only discover in the former. The latter, in his opinion, was com- posed by the Ephesian presbyters, who wrote down after the death of John such of the discourses of Christ as he had preserved, inter- spersing, for the most part in an unskilful way, other memorials of the life of Jesus; and then, feeling the defectiveness of their work, 26 INTRODUCTION. appended xxi. 24, 25, in order to increase the credibility of the whole. But it was impossible that cither the hypothesis itself, or such a gentle u\^ie of treating with the Synoptists, could long hold its ground ; and a fresh step was taken by Bruno Bauer. Starting from the assump- tion that all the discrepancies discovered by Strauss, which rendered H historical interpretation of the Gospels impossible, were thoroughly established ; and that Wilkes hypothesis in reference to the Gospels was unanswerable, ho yet maintained, in opposition to Strauss, that his mythical hypothesis was a castle in the air resting on utter un- certainty, and sure to vanish as soon as an attempt Avas made to bring it out more distinctly to view. He also sought to demonstrate, in opposition to Strauss''s distortions, that this or that synoptical Gospel (Luke especially) was not a conglomerate of discordant frag- ments carelessly thrown together, but a beautiful and harmoniotis whole ; thus fully acknowledging the superior glory of the Gospels at least from an asthetic point of view. — But just because there is such poetic truth in everything contained in the Gospels, therefore, he says, there can be no empirical reality. — Hence, as there is no empirical reality in the Gospel history, and yet it does not consist of myths, Bruno Bauer undertakes to explain its origin by showing that the Evangelists composed (invented) their Gospels "with free con- sciousness" (init Jreiein Bewusstserjn). That this is psychologically conceivable, without the writers themselves being impostors, he tries to ])rove from the so-called Hegelian philosophy, that is to say, from the form which this philosophy had assumed in himself. V. FouiiTii Period. — Weisse, Gfrorer, Wilke, nxxd Bruno Bauer had merely prepared the way for a new phase of criticism. Their groping, and one might say, clumsy efforts, merely betrayed a con- sciousness that a criticism of the Gospel history a la Strauss was impossible, without some regard being paid to the criticism of the writings tiiemselves. It was very soon demonstrated (in the first edition of the present work among others) that the results of Strauss's criticism could not be sustained, so long as we had, on the one hand, the fact that the four canonical Gospels were written in the first century, and on the other, the early history of the Christian Church, as handed down in the Acts of the Apostles, and other sources which have liitherto been undisputed. There was a fatal necessity, therefore, that the school which had sent out Strauss as a kind of pioneer, should diligently take both these points in hand. It was, at the same time, also a fatal necessity, that the desired task could never be ac- jr 3. HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM 27 complished, that is to say, that it could not be proved that the Gospels and several others of the New Testament writings were composed in the second century, without the authors of some of these writings being condemned, as men who purposely and with calm, reflection gave themselves out as other than they really were, and wrote of things as having occurred, which to their own knowledge never did occur, — in other words, as simple impostors. In our first edition we expressed our conviction, that this would be the course taken ; and luhingen soon verified our prediction. The course which negative criticism was obliged to take to reach its goal was the following : — First of all, the Gospels had to be removed to the second century. In the case of Mark and Luke no great difficulty was experienced. ^lark was allowed to pass as being relatively the earliest canonical Gospel ; since one must necessarily be the oldest, and it was most convenient to fix upon Mark ; more especially because Wilke had given an appearance of scientific importance to this view. Luke was assigned to the second century, and said to have had its source in the Gospel of Marcion. The age of the Greek translation of the Aramaean Matthew, which rests so firmly on the testimony of Papias, is passed over in perfect silence. — John gives the greatest trouble. And one portion of the critical work is concentrated entirely upon this Gospel. To be able to dismiss it as the production of a pious impostor of the second century, it is not sufficient to take the many passages and quotations which unite to prove its genuineness, and with indescribable pains to rob them one by one of all their force. This would not effect the desired object. The most that could be done in this N^ay, would be to show, that these quotations do not fur- nish a mathematical demonstration of the age of the Gospel of John, but that in the case of every quotation there is still a loophole to be found. It would contribute nothing, therefore, towards a convincing or mathematical proof of the later origin of the fourth Gospel, which was so confidently maintained. The attempt to diminish the weight of the testimony to the Gospel of John by taking them piecemeal did not answer ; and nothing was left, but to seek for some positive evi- dence of the manner in which this Gospel came into existence as a spurious work. But it is far easier to demolish than to build. To obtain the required evidence, a second task had to be undertaken, viz., to recon- struct tlie whole of the.earhj history of the Church. This work fell to Schwegler.^ But no basis could possibly be found for such an under- ^ Uobcr den Montanismus und die cLristlicLe Kirche dcs 2ter Jalirbunderts. 28 INTRODUCTION. taking, so long as the Acts of the Aj)Ostles continued to be accepted as a historical document. Consequently, the third task to be taken in hand, was to overthrow the autlienticity and credibility of the Acts of the Apostles, partly by a purely internal criticism of its contents, and partly by comparing it with the Epistle to the Galatians and other Pauline Epistles ; whilst the a priori construction of the post-apostolic era needed to be accompanied with a reconstruction of the apostolic age as well. It was but right that it should be left to Baur, the father and founder of the whole school, to set this top-stone upon the work. Thus at length the result was happily attained, that Christianity is a purely human jirocess of development, which is nothing more than the doctrinal assumption with which the inquiry was commenced. AVe must here look somewhat more minutt.'ly at the second and third of the three leading divisions of the Tubingen criticism, especially as our proposal to give mainly a criticism of the Gospels will not per- mit us afterwards to go into these matters at any length (with the exception of a digression on the Acts of the Apostles). AVe shall exhibit Schwegler's construction of the history in its opposition to the historical results which are derived from the Acts of the Apostles and the oldest of the Fathers. According to the Acts of the Apostles, the twelve Apostles at first embraced the N. T. revelation in its immediate identity with that of the Old, regarding Christianity as the fulfilment of the Old Testa- ment prophecy, and Christ as the promised Messi'ah. They under- stood from the O. T. that all nations of the earth would flow to the Messianic kingdom, and submit to the Messiah of Israel. But the form of submission was supposed to be that of circumcision. Chris- tianity was regarded as given for the sake of the promises, and con- sequently as the peculiar prerogative of Israel ; and reception into the national community of Israel, into the covenant of circumcision, was thought to be the necessary condition of all participation in the King of Israel and His salvation. It followed as a matter of course, that the first Christian Church still observed the law and adhered to the temple. — This was evidently the natural standpoint from which to commence, and remained so as long as the Sadducees alone opposed the Christians, and their hostility was simply directed against the re- surrection of Christ. — Differences which arose between the Jewish Christians who were born in Palestine and spoke Aramaean (E/SpaloL), and the Jewish Christians who were born in the Diaspora (mostly in Alexandria and the surrounding countries) and spoke in Greek (EX- \T)vicrat,), led to the appointment of deacons, and furthered the de- velopment of Christian doctrine in the mind of the deacon Stephen. § 3. HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM. 29 In his discussions Avith the Alexandrians, it became more and more obvious to him, tliat there was a phase of Christianity wliich was in marked contrast with the O. T. revelation. He boldly affirmed that the law was indeed a revelation of the Father of Jesus Christ, but neither the earliest nor the highest and the last ; and that the temple was a place chosen by God in which to reveal Himself, but that it also was neither the earliest nor the highest and only one. As yet, indeed, there was no indication in this of a practical separa- tion from the temple and the law, but merely a recognition of the relative character of the two as compared with the absolute revela- tion in Christ. But whilst the promise was the earliest and highest form of the O. T. revelation, the conclusion was a simple one, that the promise existed for the sake of the fulfilment, and not vice versa. When the Pharisees united with the Sadducees for the first time in opposition to Stephen, and the first persecution broke out, it could scarcely fail that this aspect of the distinction between the Old and New Testament revelations would be brought out with great clear- ness, and especially that the contrast between the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifices of the Old Testament would be more prominently brought out to view. This was not a new and second doctrine, but the expansion of a germ which had existed from the very beginning (Acts ii. 38, iii. 18). But the Lord had selected Saul as the real representative of this advance, a man who, in the midst of a restless and fanatical conflict between irresistible truth and old un- truth with which he was loth to part, had grown ripe for conversion through such testimony of the risen Saviour as he could not withstand, and now at length, in the clearest and most decided way, had inwardly conquered Phariseeisra. To all the Apostles it became increasingly clear (Acts x.), that Judaism existed for the sake of Christianity, aud this for the sake of all sinners ; that Christ, therefore, belonged to all ; that repentance aud faith alone were necessary for the enjoyment of the N. T. salva- tion ; and that there was no necessity for first of all becoming a Jew. But at different times there were not wanting false teachers, and ^^ false hretliren unawares crept in" (Gal. ii. 4), who had not passed through the same inward conflict as Paul, and had brought over in their hearts the pharisaic righteousness of works. These Avished to impose upon the Gentile Christians the necessity of first becoming Jews, by circumcision and the observance of the law. But Paul con- ferred with the Christians at Jerusalem (Acts xv. ; Gal. ii. 2), and "privately with them which were of reputation" (Gal. ii. 2 and 7 sqq.); and it was agreed that nothing should be imposed upon the Gentile 30 INTRODUCTION. Christians, except the observance of particular measures adapted to facilitate fraternal intercourse and hospitality between Jewish and Gentile Cliristians. There was perfect agreement in doctrine, there- fore, between Paul and Peter (as Gal. ii. 11 shows, where Paul calls it hjpocrian in Peter not to eat with Gentile Christians), and be- tween the Jewish and Gentile Christians. But the former continued to observe the law and the temple worship, because these institutions, which God first gave to the nation of Israel, had not yet been abro- gated by God Himself. But it was not long before this took place. Judaism assumed a growingly hostile attitude. The Jews excommunicated the Christians from tiie temple (cf. Acts xxi. 28 and Ileb. xiii. 13) ; and in the Epistle to the IJelreics (a work written by a man whose standpoint, as well as that of his readers, was the inmiediate unity of the New Testament and the Old, and Christ the Messiah given to the seed of Abraham and the \a6'lDn or Nrr^'k^'D. And it is Matthew's intention to trace the genea- logy of the historical person Jesus, who was the Anointed One. Now it was as the son of David and so7i of Abraham that He was the Anointed One, the promised and expected Messiah. In the Old Testament we find throughout, that on every fresh turn in the history of Israel, whether prosperous or adverse, the people and the propliets looked forward to a future, in which they would receive deliverance, and something still more glorious than they already possessed. And as the Old Testament Codex lay open before the Evangelist, he found in it such promises as these : That in the 68 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. U. seed of Abraham all nations of the earth should be blessed ; and that a King should sit upon the throne of David, who should reign in righteousness and peace, and whom all the ends of the earth should serve (Gen. xii. 3, xv. 5, xvii. 7 sqq. ; 2 Sam. vii. 12 sqq.). That Jesus was this seed of Abraham, this heir and successor to the throne of David, is what Matthew sets himself to prove. The conclusion of his book confirms us in this opinion ; for the first Gospel is brought to a close by Jesus declaring, that " to Him all power in heaven and earth is given," and thus claiming to be the Second David ; by His also giving commandment that by baptism His kingdom was to be established on earth ; and by His promising protection to His kingdom to tlie end of the world, thus announcing Himself as the promised Seed of Abraham in whom all nations were to be blessed. — All that lies between the commencement and the close, therefore, must be regarded as furnishing proofs, first, that Jesus was really the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, the theo- cratically legitimate successor to the throne of Davdd ; and, secondly, that in this capacity Jesus had founded a kingdom, not circumscribed by the contracted forms of the ancient theocracy, but a kingdom of faith and of the Spirit, comprehending all nations, and fulfilling the promise given to Abraham. The agreement with the Old Testament prophecy, and the breaking down of the limits of the Israelitish nation in accordance with this prophecy, had both to be exhibited. Hence, at the very outset, what we have reason to expect, is not a hiography, with the events of Jesus' life recorded day by day in chronological order, but a doctrinal treatise rather ; — not purely doc- trinal indeed, but historically doctrinal. For, looking more parti- cularly at the second point, the new form of the kingdom of Christ, by which it is distinguished from the O. T. prophecies and types, it was necessary to show in what way Jesus proceeded step by step to make this manifest : how lie wove the new into the old ; how He introduced the former to His followers, and accustomed them to it ; and w^e naturally expect, therefore, not indeed that the events should all be narrated in their actual sequence, but that some regard should be paid to chronology. §13. ARRANGEMENT OF MATERIALS. If we take a general survey of the order in which the different mcidents are arranged, we neither find a logical, abstract classification, with the different portions bearing upon some one particular doctrine CHAP. II ] § 13. ARRANGEMENT OF MATERIALS. 69 classed together in a scholastic form, nor a continuous narrative. But the whole is divided into sections in a manner the most simple and unconstrained. 1. T\\(i early history (chaps, i.-ii.) relates how Joseph, to whom the right of Davidic descent belonged, and who was therefore either the lawful successor, or at least eligible to the throne of the theocracy, acknowledged Jesus as his son and heir, notwithstanding His super- natural conception ; and then, how Jesus, on the occasion of the visit of the Magi, was brought in the most innocent way into conflict with the ruling dynasty, which placed Ilis life in the most imminent danger. Here we see at once, on the one hand, the theocratic rights of the Anointed one of the N. T., and, on the other, the great difference between His situation and that of the kings of the Old. 2. Chaps, iii.— iv. relate to us how Jesus had a forerunner in John the Baptist, who proclaimed Him to the people as the promised King, and at the same time declared that lineal descent from Abraham ivas in itself of no u'orth at all. (The same antithesis as before.) Jesus, by submitting to baptism, placed Himself on the same level with those who had tran.sgressed the Old Testament law, but was declared by God to be His beloved Son. — Then follows the history of the tempta- tion. In this also Jesus is presented first of all as a man, the son of David ; but the son of David proves Himself to be also the Son of God by overcoming the temptation. In this section, again, the prominent feature is the contrast be- tween the son of David, as the Son of God, and David himself, as well as the rest of the Old Testament saints. 3. In chap. iv. 12-25 we have a general description of the place and mode in which Jesus commenced his public ministry, and of the manner in which He gathered some followers about Him. In accord- ance with the Old Testament prophecies. He laboured in despised Galilee. But in the mighty, soul-penetrating, irresistible call, with which He collected His disciples, He appeared in all His majesty as the Son of God. 4. The Sermon on the Mount (chaps, v.-vii.) is, strictly speaking, a comparison drawn by Jesus Himself between the Old Covenant and the New, and an explanation of the difference between them, and also of the manner in which the former is fulfilled in the latter. 5. In chaps, viii.-ix. thQ first miracles of Jesus are related in chro- nological order, and this section is closed with a general formula (chap. ix. 35). 6. Then follows a section, which is introduced with a reflection on the necessity for disciples, and in which the names of the disciples, and 70 PAKT FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. II. other matters connected with them, are introduced (chaps, x.-xl.). Among other things, we find a comparison drawn between the dis- ciples of Jesus and those of John ; and in this, again, another contrast between the Old and New Testaments. The section is closed by a praifer of Jesus for His disciples. 7. liitherto the disciples of Jesus alone have been considered ; henceforth the narrative passes to another circle. The relation in which Jesus stood to the sect of the Pharisees is more minutely de- scribed (in separate conversations, chaps, xii.-xiii.). Hitherto the dif- ferent features of the Old and New Testaments had been exhibited theoretically only, and therefore in perfect harmony. Now, we have a desci-iption of the manner in which an active conflict gradually arose, until the events which occurred at length compelled the disciples of Jesus to a separation from the Old Testament form. 8. Jesus unfolds the positive doctrine of His kingdom to the dis- ciples in a number of similitudes (parables, chap. xiii.). 9. After a notice of the beheading of John the Baptist (chap, xiv.), we have an account of the rising and ever-increasing conflict between Jesus and the authorities at Jerusalem (chaps, xv.-xxi.), arranged in the order of sequence ; namely, — a. the first collisions (chaps, xv.-xvi. 12) ; b. a notice of the fact that although Jesus is acknowledged by His disciples as the Messiah and Son of God, He will not declare Himself openly to be so, but rather proceeds to make known to them the depth of His approaching humiliation ; whilst, again. He is rewarded for His resolution to give Himself up to suffering, — i.e., is transfigured by the Father (chaps, xvi. 13-xvii. 9) ; c. His last acts and words on the way to Jerusalem (chaps, xvii. 10-xx.) ; d. His entrance (chap. xxi.). 10. We have the final catastrophe itself. 11. The resuri'ection of Jesus, and the founding of the Church. We can see from this how far Matthew writes in the order of sequence. The sections 1-5 belong to the earliest period of the public works of Jesus; 9—11 to their close. With regard to the sections 6-8, on the contrary, since they are distinguished from one another purely by their subject-matter, it is to be assumed that the chronological sequence is disturbed for the sake of the classification. In other words, it is not at all probable that Jesus, in the first place, spent a certain time ex- clusively with His disciples, then occupied a second period in conver- sations with the Pharisees, and so forth ; but here, if anywhere, we are xoarranted in adopting the method formerly announced, viz., to assxime a chronological sequence onhj in cases where it is distinctly indicated by clear and definite data. CHAP. II..1 14. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. 71 §14. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. A tabular statement will present the matter in the clearest light. In one column (second in the table) we give the titles of the different incidents or conversations {Pericopce). In another (fourth in table) we place the formula by which one pericope is linked to the next. In a third column we indicate by general signs w^hat the nature of the connection is. Thus, immediate connection {yid. § 11) is indicated by ) ; mediate connection by ]] ; indefinite by ] ; loose by — ; and a general concluding formula by =. In the first and fifth columns we show the numerical order, contents, and length of the chains thus formed. Chains- Titles of the Pericopse. Connecting Formulas. Chapters. Call of Peter, Andrew, James, and John. Sermon on the Mount. Centurion's servant. Peter's mother-in-law. ]] ]] (General introductory state- ment. After the imprison- ment of John the Baptist, Jesus went into Galilee, and took up His abode not in Na- zareth, but in Capernaum. From that time forth He began to preach.) irepiTTctTcoi/ oi. " And walking by the sea." Vers. 23-25. General notices. loau OS roil; 6'x,'>^ovg. " And seeing the multitudes." Kxroifioivri Ze ctiirZ, x.r.'h. " When He was come down from the mountain, great multi- tudes followed Him, and be- hold." tiasT^dovTi Bs uvTU it; Kx-Trep- vetoiifi -Trpoar/T^dev. " And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto Him a centurion." Kxl eXduu^ K.r.'K. " And when Jesus was come into Peter's house." ihuu "hi 6 ' Imoi; Tro'K'hov; oyif^ov; TTtpl xin-ou. Ver. 18. " Now when Jesus saw great multitudes alx)ut Him." IV. (ver. 12.) 72 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. II. Chains. Titles of the Pericopae. Jesus crosses the lake. Scribe Avishing to follow. Also another disciple. Jesus stills the tem- pest. Gergesenes. One sick of the palsy brought in a bed. " "Whether is easier?" Call of Matthew. Question why Jesus eats with publicans. (The question was not asked during the nioal, but in all probability directly after, as Jesus was leaving the house with His disciples. Question put by John's disciples, why the disciples of Jesus did not fast. The ruler's daughter, Connecting Formulae. (This cannot have been in the evening referred to in ver. 16 ; it must, therefore, have been at some other time: conse- quently the connection is in- definite.) ■,ccl i/xlixvl diiru iii to ■Tr'Ko'iov. 'And when He was entered into the ship." '.ot,\ I'hdovTi ai/ra ilg to Tripxv. ' And when He was come to the other side." ',»! ifi/ictg . . . "hti-TVipxai. Kul ?l7^6iv . . . Kxl iZov. ' And He entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into His own city, and behold." " And as Jesus passed forth from thence." ;ocl syiuSTO xurov rn qIkix. •.VCtmil^iVOV iU ' And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house" (ac- cording to Mark and Luke, in Matthew's house). Then." Tcaka. etvTOv XotXoDi/TO? «yTO?;, ioov. " While He spake these things unto them, behold." Chapters. CHiVP. II.] 14. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. MATTHEW. 73 Chains. Titles of the Pericopse. and woman -with issue of blood. Two blind men (Jesus goes home, ver. 28). Dumb man possessed with a devil. (Ac- cusation, " He cast- eth out devils through the prince of the devils.") Call of the disciples ; their names ; their commission. John sends his dis- ciples to Christ. " Woe unto thee, Cho- razin." Prayer : "I thank Thee, 0 Father." Rubbing the ears of corn. Discourse on the Sabbath. "Withered hand. (Plot of the Pharisees.) Blind and dumb. Fresh charge of cast- Connectinp: Formulae. 'And when Jesus departed thence." etiiruv Is i^ipxo,uhu!/, ilou. " As they went out, behold." Ver. 35. General statement. Ver. 36. Jesus laments the want of shepherds. xxl iyivsTO ore IrtMaiv . . . fcsTS/^Yi iiciiSiv . . . (o Ss ' laoiv- "Hf.) " And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding His twelve dis- ciples, He departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities. "Now, when John had heard ... he sent." iv sxstuu ra Kxiptj. " At that time." IV (KSIVU TU KCttpU. " At that time." Kctl ff,irx(ioi; ty-ukv ^'hhv. " And when He was departed thence. He went into their synagogue." Vers. 15-21. General descrip- tion. ToV£. " Then." Chapters. XI. 1. XI. 2. 74 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. II. Chains. Titles of the Pericopse. 10. ing out devils by- Beelzebub. Christ's reply. Pharisees desire a sign. The mother and bre- tliren of Jesus want to see Him. Jesus goes to the sea- side. Parable of the Parable of the tares. Parable of leaven. Hid- den treasure. Net. Explanation of the parable of the tares. " Is this not the car- pcnter'a son ?" Connecting Formulae. ]] TOTS dTrtXpld/KTXU, " Then certain . . . answered." STI Bs XVTOU XstXoSl/TOJ . . . iZoV. " While He yet talked to the people, behold." " The same day." oL'K'hyiu 'Tra.pxlioh.Viv TTctpi^^KSi/ ai/- TOif, Xiyvv. " Another parable put He forth unto them, saying" (according to ver. 3, apparently on the same day). " Another parable put He forth unto them."^ ■ire cKpeig roi/g oxhovg ^'hdiv tig ZVjU olx,ixv. ' Then J esus sent the multitude away, and went into the house" (inn). x,x\ lyiviTO on Irk'Kiaiu . . . fce- rvipsu IKsWlV Kxl iXduv iU T^" " And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence. And when He was come into His own country (Nazareth)." Here follows a general descrip- tion of the relation in which Jesus stood to His coimtry- men. " At that time." Chapters. • Whether Matthew has grouped together here several little parables spoken at different times, or whether Jesus spoke them one after another, is of no importance for sequence. CUAP. 11.] U. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. MATTHEW. 75 Titles of the Pericopre. Connecting Formulas. Chapters. 12. Herod's anxiety. (Sup- plementary : execu- tion of John.) Jesus goes into the desert. Feeding of the five thousand. Jesus returns. He walks upon the sea. Scribes and Pharisees come from Jeru- salem. Discourses of Jesus. Jesus goes to Phoe- nicia. "\Toman of Canaan. Jesus goes to the Sea of Galilee. Feeding of four thousand. Jesus comes to Mag- dala. Pharisees and Sadducees seek a sign. " Leaven of the Pharisees." Peter's confession. First words of Jesus concerning His suf- ferings and what would follow. ]] ]] >ansfiguration. ]] Kxl ocKOtitTx; 6 ' l/iaovg. " And when Jesus heard" (either how Herod watched Hira, or how John had been put to death, or both). " And straightway.' Jesus goes into the land of Gennesaret. General descrip- tion. TOTS. "Then." x«2 i^iK^uv ixSiSiv. " Then Jesus went thence." Kx) f*irx(ixs ix,ei6iv. "And Jesus departed thence." from >cx] x-TTo'hviTxg rov; o^^Xot/; luifin tig TO tt'aoIou XXI. " And He sent the multitude away, and took ship, and came," etc. eX^iji/ Be 0 'Irjffot/j ilg rii /^epn YLxiaxpilxg. " When Jesus came into the coasts of Csesarea PMlippi. Kxl [z,iS iifiipxg 'i^. " And after six days.' 70 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. II. Chains. 13. Titles of the PericopsB. Lunatic boy. Jesus' second allusion to His sufferings. Tribute money. Dispute -who should be the greatest. Words of Jesus about offences ; the hun- dred sheep ; the power of the keys ; forgiveness ; the un- merciful servant.^ Jesus goes into the border country of Judaea and Persea. Conversation on di- vorce. Little children brought. ' Good I^raster." " We have forsaken all." Labourers in thp vineyard. Connecting Formulae. aal i>,96vTuv avTuv vpos rov "And when they were come down to the multitude." " And while they abode {dua- crpsipofjt.ivuv') in Galilee." " And when they were come to Capernaum " (evidently re- ferring to their return, after the stay in GaUlee). iv ex.sivf] rfi upx. " At the same time." KCt] iyiViTO OTB iri'hiiJiV . . . fiS- T^piV. " And it came to pass, that, when Jesus had finished these sayings, He departed from Galilee." The general formula, ver. 2, points to R prolonged. stay there. At all events, the occurrence related in ver. 3 sqq. did not happen previously, but while He was there ; consequently after His journey thither. to't6. "Then." ivopevSn iKiiS-i/, Kxl /Soy. " And He departed thence. And, behold." • From chap. xix. 1, it is evident that Matthew intends to represent these words of Jesus as following one another in direct succession. CHAP. II.J 14. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. MATTUEW. 77 Chains. Titles of the Pericopaa. Connecting FormuleB. Chapters. Jesus' third allusion to His sufferings. Mother of Zebedee's children. Two blind men of Jericho. Entrance into Jeru- salem. ] ] ] x.xl eii>*/3etivav ' Iyktovs tig ' Itpo- aoAvfix. " And Jesus going up to Jeru- salem" (evidently from Peraea). TOTS 'TrpOd'^KdiV CtVTU. " Them came to Him." Kxl iKTropivofiivav ctvTcJu cctto "And as tliey departed from Jericho." x.x\ ors Viy/iaa,]) iig' \iDoa6'Kv[/-(X,. " And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem." Note 1. The difficulties in the chronological sequence of the early history, and the history of the sufferings of Jesus, are of a totally dif- ferent character from the rest. In the public life of Jesus there ai'e many separate facts, which might have occurred at any time ; and when we set ourselves to discover their chronological order, the difficulty arises from the want of sufficient data. In the early history and the history of the Passion, on the contrary, there is no lack of data, and the difficulty lies not in deficiency, but in discrepancies. These do not concern the order of occurrence, however, but the subject-matter, and will therefore come under consideration in connection with the history itself. Note 2. Bleek disputes my conclusion, that the connecting formulae in Matt. viii. 5, 14, 23, 28, ix. 1, 14, are to be regarded as mediate. But he has evidently mistaken, or else forgotten my use of the term mediate. For example, when we read in Matt. viii. 28, " And when He was come to the other side," the arrival at the other side did not follow immediately upon setting sail from the western shore, in my sense of the word immediate, — that is, so as to preclude the intervention of con- versations or incidents during the voyage, the whole of which must have lain between. 78 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. III. CHAPTER III. MARK. § 15. PLAN AND AERANGEMENT. Here, again, we look first of all at the work itself, to see what it purports to be. The superscription reads thus : — ap^V '^ov euay- yeXiov 'Irjaov Xptcnov, vlov rov ©eov (" Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of Goer). Commentators have again raised the question, whether these words are merely the heading to the account contained in vers. 4—8 (the appearance of John), and to be construed with iyevero, ver. 4, as Lachmann maintains ; or whether they are the superscription to the whole book, as Erasmus supposed. The former view is untenable, both grammatically and from the very nature of the case. Lachmamis construction is monstrous. Who would ever think of commencing a book with a sentence broken up by so long a parenthesis ? JDe Wette completes the sentence by insert- ing the words "is as follows ;" but he forgets that if this were understood, the article would stand before ap')(r]. Both, however, are 0})posed to the meaning of evayyeXiov, which can be proved to be neither announcement nor Gospel history, but good (joyful) tidings. It is evident, on the central y, that ver. 1 is the superscription to the whole book. But what does ap-^rj mean ? Wh}^ not simply evayyiXcov ^Irjaov Xpiarov ? This may be explained on the supposition that Mark does not intend it as an ordinary title, descriptive of the plan and contents of the work ; but throws it rhetorically into the form of a proclamation, so as to make ver. 1 an integral part of the work itself. ^^ Here begin the good tidings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God:^^ with these concise, pithy, comprehensive words, he introduces his subject, and at once presents to his readers, as a richly suggestive whole, the undeveloped fulness of what he is about to unfold. Here, then, we have before us at the very outset the most import- ant element in Mark's ^Zan. He commences with a rhetorical ai^peal; and so he continues. The whole work evidently bears the same character. He has to deliver a message ; he preaches with the voice of a messenger. We neither expect, nor find, the calm logfcal dis- position of Matthew, who undertook, as a writer living in Israel, to cnAr. HI] § 15. plan and arraxgejient of mark 79 draw up in the form of a treatise a proof of tlie harmony between the New Covenant and the Old. We have before us, on tlie contrary, the assistant of Apostles, accustomed to stand in the market-places of cities, to arouse the unexpecting heathen with appeals that bore with them the power of a God, producing first amazement, then attention, from this alarm, and lastly conviction. His purpose is to set forth Jesus as the So7i of God. Not as the son of Abraham and David, who must of necessity, in order to realize absolutely such a relationship, be also the Son of God ; but simply and solely as the Son of God. In this way he at once confronted the heathen loith their sons of God (for it is acknowledged that Mark wrote for Gentiles). But how is he to bring his proofs ? The Greeks saw in their gods the noble, the exalted. It was necessary, therefore, that at the very outset they should receive a direct impression of some- thing glorious and sublime. They had no Old Testament in their possession to which Mark could appeal.^ Hence he causes the ajy- pearance of Jesus to pass before them. The whole Gospel is dramatic. This thoroughly expresses its true character. To justify what has been said, we appeal not merely to the well- known peculiarity of Mark, who depicts much more fully than the others the details of events connected with the life of Christ, and even aims to present them to the eye, but to the manner in which he proceeds in the second and following verses of the first chapter. After the announcement, " A beginning of the good tidings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" he adds, " as it is written in the prophets," and cites two passages, Mai. iii. 1, and Isa. xl. 3. The words co? 'yi'ypainai (" as it is written") are connected with the preceding verse with the greatest rhetorical freedom. The entire quotation is evidently introduced with the double purpose, first, to show how the preparatory call was uttered centuries before, and secondly, to give expression to the thought that the coming one was himself " the Lord." Again, in a most abrupt manner, he introduces the description of John the Baptist. One picture embraces both the Baptist and his ministry (vers. 4, 5, and so on to ver. 8). You see him standing by the Jordan, preaching and baptizing in his haiiy garment. At the same time he announces one [la-'^vpoTepo';) mightier than himself. A fresh scene is then opened. Jesus comes to the Jordan. Who He is, when and where He was born, we are not told. His supernatural ^ Not that the Gentile Christians, to whom he wrote, knew nothing at all of the Old Testament. The second and following verses of the very first chapter prove the contrary. But they had received it for the first time u-illi Christianity, and in its train. For them, therefore, it was not, as for the Jews, the higher appall. 80 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. III. birth would have furnished a most important demonstration of His divinity ; but demonstrations he has no intention to give. It is not by reflection, but by direct impressions, that the reader is to be con- vinced of the divinity of Christ. And how could Mark attain this object better, than by making Jesus appear suddenly and be baptized, and then describing how the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended, and the voice of the Father sounded down upon the Son from heaven? Even the refusal of John to baptize Jesus is passed silently by ; and the Evangelist hastens on to the loftiest and most glorious scenes that he has to depict, or describe. With the same haste he now proceeds to another picture. Jesus is " driven " (to irvevfjia avTov eK/daXkei,) into the wilderness. He is there forty days among the beasts, tempted by Satan ; and after the temptation, angels come and serve Him. 'Jliis may suffice to explain the plan and method of Mark. We might proceed to dissect the wdiole of the Gospel in the same manner. For we find, from beginning to end, the same peculiarity — the same liking for pictures, detached tableaux, rather than a continuous history spun out by reflection, or a line of argument well thought out and carefully arranged. Hence this delineation of details; hence also all the other minute peculiarities, by which, as we shall afterwards see, Mark is distinguished from Matthew and Luke in the different synoptical accounts. Any artistic disposition of the materials, or classification into sections, — in a word, any such arrangement accord- ing to subjects as we find in Matthew, we cannot, with the greatest care, discover. It is true, we sometimes meet with general descriptions (e.g., i. 39, iii. 10, 11, vi. 6 and 56, ix. 30) of the same kind as we so frequently meet with in Matthew, at the close of a section devoted to some special subject (viz., the parables, conversations with the Phari- sees, the account of the disciple-circle, etc.). But in Mark they seem to have no such connection. He proceeds in the same unvaried course with a series of separate accounts, which do not admit of classification. Picture follows picture; and as we should naturally expect, with this absence of arrangement according to subjects, and with his general plan of describing the appearance of Jesus, that Mark would keep to the chronological order of events, so far as it was known to him, so we actually find that he not unfrequently links passages together in their order of sequence;^ and that in cases where he intro- ^ Chaps, ii.-iii. are exceptions. Compare the following table. When we come to the history of tlie Pas.^ion, we shall see, on comparing Matthew and Mark, that the latter is frequently most careful to give exact notices as to time, in cases where the former passes them by altogether. CHAP. Ill ] § 16. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. MAKK. 81 duces the general formulae, to which reference has just been made, it is rather from the loant of definite data, than for the purpose of bring- ing particular sections to a close. §16. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. Chains. Titles of the Pericopae. Connecting Formulae. Chapters. ]] MtT» 8e TO votpet^odyivctt tov "Now after that John was put in prison." 1.14. 1. Jesus goes into Gali- lee, preaching. Call of four disciples. ] -TTipi-Troiruv li votooi tiji/ du.'Kxaaa.v. " Now as He walked by the Sea of Galilee " (consequently, after the fact just mentioned). General statement that Jesus was in the habit of going into the synagogue on the Sabbath. 2. 1 1 Man possessed, in the synagogue at Caper- naum. Peter's mother -in-law. Jesus goes into the desert. The people seek for Him. ) ) netl ivdiag Ik rijs avvoiyw/rig i^s'Kdovre;, tJ'KSov, k.t.T^. "And forthwith, when they were come out of the syna- gogue, they entered into the house of Simon." KCcl 'jrpu']' 'ivvvxoy "Kiav dvuarois l|^A^£, X.T.A. "And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, He went out," etc. Ver. 39. General description. 6. Leper.. — KXt TU.'hlU . . .Ql ijUipZu. n. "And again, . . . after some days (3r' ^^spii/).— (It is evi- i dent that the exact relation of this event to tlie previous one, in fact its precise position, was not known to Mark.) 4. Man sick of the palsy let through the roof. 1 ~ KXt iZ,r^6i 7r«X/y "rxpoi rr,v 6»- "Kuaaxu. 82 PAET FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. in. Titles of the Pericopse. Connecting Formulse. Call of Levi. Jesus blamed for eat- ing -with publicans and sinners. Discourse on fastinar. Rubbing the ears of corn. The withered hand. Jesus goes to the sea. Choice of the twelve disciples. The friends of Jesus want to lay hands on Him. "And He went forth again by the sea-side."^ xccl eyiusro iv tu KctrctKUadott h Trj o'lKIX CCVTOV. "And it came to pass, that as Jesus sat at meat in the house." (Evidently afterwards, though it is not stated Jiow long after- wards.) xxl ijaxv of. " And the disciples of John . . . come and say unto Him." Kctl iyivtro ■7rcipx7iropsi'S(T6cii etii- TOV. "And it came to pass, that He went through the corn-fields." y.x\ stavi'hh TTx'Kiv. "And He entered again into the synagogue." " And Jesus withdrew Himself ... to the sea." General statement, vers. 10-12, but merely parenthetical. Ver. 7, " He withdrew;" ver. 9, " And He spake ;" and ver. 13, "And He goeth up," are evidently closely connected. Ver. 19. XXI spxo'JTXt d; oTkov. " And they went into a house." Ver. 22. Kxi. "And the scribes said." (The following inci- dent appears to be introduced here, on account of the subject to which it alludes, for the purpose of embracing in one picture all the accusations brought against Jesus.) ' This formula, too, can only be regarded as a loose connection, although from Matthew it certainly appears that the events did so follow one another. CHAP. III.] 16. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. MARK. 83 Chains. Titles of the Pericop®. Couuocting Formulas. Chapters. 10. 11. 12. 13. Jesiis accused of hav- ing Beelzebub. His mother and bre- thren come. Parables : the sower, the candlestick, the corn-field, the mus- tard-seed. Sail to Persea. Still- ing the tempest. The Gadarenes. Daughter of Jairus, and woman with issue of blood. ' Is not this the car- penter?" The Twelve sent out. Herod's alarm (John was already behead- ed). Jesus goes into the desert. Feeding of the five thousand. Jesus walks upon the sea. Ver. 31. "There came {olu^ in like manner)." " And He began again to teach. Ver. 35. Iv tKshij rri i]f/,ipx. " And the same day." (Vers. 33, 34 are parenthetical.) Kxl yiT^Sov ilg to "Trspxv. "And they came over unto the other side." Kxl OiocTspxaxvTo;, k.t.'K. " And when Jesus was over again by ship." rviv TTctTpiOoc uuTOV . . . Kccl yi- vofiivciv actfiiSuTOv. ' And He went out from thence, and came into His own coun- try. . . . And when the Sab- bath-day was come." >cxt -TrepiYiys . . . 'hihxax.uu. "And He went round about the villages teaching, and . . . Ver. 14. Kxl '/jKovoiv 6, x.t.A. "And king Herod heard of Him" (afterwards, therefore, and in consequence of what has just been narrated). Return of the disciples, ver. 30. x.x\ ivdiug. "And straightway." Ver. 5G. General description. — 84 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. III. Chains. Titles of the Pericopae. Connecting Formula. Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem. Dis- course on traditions. Jesus goes to the Phoe- nician frontier. Ca- naanitish woman. Jesus goes to Decapo- lis. The dumb man. Feeding of the 4000. Jesus goes to Dalma- nutha. The Phari- sees seek a sign. Conversation on the leaven of the Phari- Man born blind. Peter's confession. Je- sus foretells His suf- ferings. Transfiguration. Boy possessed. , Chapter "Then came together unto Him." >cxl avvxyouToci 'vpog xvrou. X.XI SKsldei/ dvxaroig dvyfkSiv. "And from thence He arose and went." "And again departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, He came." iv SKtivciig ruig ti/xepxig. "In those days the multitude being very great " (evidently on the same journey). KMi svdiu; ijufixs ilg to '7r7\oh» . . . ^A^£J/. " And straightway He entered into a ship with His disciples, and came." " And He left them, and, enter- ing into the ship again, de- parted to the other side." not,] 'ipxiTctt £(? 'Rn^aoi'i^xu. " And He cometh to Bethsaida." x,a.\ t^iiK6iv 6 . . . ilg roig KUfiXS . . . >Ccil iU Tfi o'S^. " And Jesus went out and His disciples into the towns of Caesarea PhiUppi ; and by the way." [4,i$ il/nipct; s'|. " And after six days." Ver. 30. Koti tKsUiv il^^oWfj vctfi'TiropivovTO B<» T^f VctK. CHAP. III.] 16. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. MARK. 85 Chains. 15. Titles of the Pericopse. Second announcement of His sufferings. Conversation among the disciples who should be the great- est. Child placed in the midst of the disci- ples.— One who was casting out devils iu the name of Jesus. Conversation on of- fences. Jesus goes to the fron- tier between Judgea and Peraea. Con- versation on divorce. Children brought. 'Good Master." "We have left all." Third announcement of His sufferings. Request of the sons of Zebedee. Blind Bartimeus. Entry into Jerusalem. Connecting FormulsB. 'And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee." " And He came to Capernaum." xxxsiOiv ctvxarxg sp^STXi. "And He arose from thence, and cometh." Kccl iv rri oiKict . . . Ver. 13. Kxi vrpoffiipepov. "And inthe house" (ver. 10) . . . "And they brought" (ver. 13). K»i iKVopsvo/nivov otvrov ilg ohou. " And when He was gone forth into the way." l^aotv Ss iv cho) dvoc^ctivovng ilg 'isp. " And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem." "And James and John . . . come to Him" (evidently in close connection). x.ct\ 'ipxirxi tli 'lipi^u' Kx\ iK,- TTOpeVOfAiVOV. "And they came to Jericho; and as He went out." Kxl ere iyyi^ovaiv. "And when they came nigh to Jerusalem." CLaptei-8. 86 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST [CHAP. III. §17. SYNOPTICAL COMPAKISON OF MATTHEW AND MARK. We regard as synoptical (i.e., as accounts of the same event), — 1. Tlie call of Peter, Andrew, James, and John (Matthew No. 1 ; Mark No, 1^), both because the names are the same, and also on ac- count of the perfect agreement in the occurrence itself. 2. The healing of Peters mother-in-law : Matt. No. 2 ; Mark No. 2. For the same reasons, 3. The stilling of the tempest : Matt. No. 3 ; Mark No. 12. On the same ground, 4. The Gergesenes : Matt. 3 ; Mark 12. — Decisive on this point are the close connection with the stilling of the tempest, and the agreement in other leading circumstances. The differences are, that Matthew mentions two men possessed, Mark one, and that the former speaks of Gergesenes (Gerasenes ?), the latter of Gadarenes. We shall show by and by how these and other minor differences are to be explained. In the meantime, we assume that the two accounts are identical. 5. ^lan sick of the palsy upon a bed : Matt. 3 ; Mark 4 ; on account of the sameness in the circumstances and in the words of Jesus. — Difference : Matthew does not mention that he was let down through the roof. 6. Call of Matthew (Levi) : Matt. 3; Mark 5. Similarity in the cir- cumstances, including the following meal, and the conversation there. 7. Jairus' daughter, and the woman with the issue of blood. The harmon}'- of the two narratives. The question about fasting in Matt. 4, we also regard as identical with that in Mark 6. The reasons we shall give by and by. 8. The call of the disciples : Matt. 5 ; Mark 9. 9. Their mission : Matt. 5 ; Mark 13. 10. The ears of corn : Matt. 8 ; Mark 7. 11. The withered hand : Matt. 8 ; Mark 8. 12. Accusation respecting Beelzebub : Matt. 9 ; Mark 10. Same- ness in the answer given by Christ. — Difference: Mark does not men- tion any particular occasion. This of course is not a difference in the event, but simply in the manner of narrating it. (The similai' charge in Matt. No. 4 was made on a different occasion.) 13. The mother and brethren of Jesus come to seek Him : Matt. 9 ; Mark 11. The events and the words spoken are the same. ^ These numbers relate to the different chains. CHAP. III.] § 18. COMPARISON OF THE SEQUENCE IN MATTHEW AND MARK. 87 U. The parables : Matt. 9 ; :Mark 12. 15. Herod's alarm : Matt. 10 ; Mark 13. The occasion just the same. 16. Feeding of the five thousand. Walking on the sea : ]Matt. 10 ; Mark 13. The circumstances and the relative position are the same. 17. The Pharisees from Jerusalem. Journey to Phoenicia and back. Feeding of the four thousand. Pharisees seek a sign : Matt. 11 ; Mark 14. (The Pharisees who seek a sign in Matt. 9 are different persons altogether.) — Idem. 18. Peter's confession. First announcement of suffering. Trans- figuration. The boy possessed : Matt. 12 ; Mark 14. — Idem. 19. Second announcement of suffering : Matt. 13; Mark 15. — Similarity in the place and words. 20. Conversation on offences : Matt. 14 ; Mark 15. 21. Journey to the Peraean frontier of Judaea : conversation on divorce. Children brought. " Good Master," " We have forsaken all." Third announcement of suffering. Petition of the sons of Zebedee: Matt. 14 ; Mark 15. Obviously. 22. Blind man (men) of Jericho. — Similarity in the relative posi- tion and leading circumstances. The difference, that Matthew men- tions two, and Mark only one. On comparing the two, we find that on more than one occasion Matthew mentions hco persons, when ]\Iark has but one. This prac- tice of Matthew, viz., his grouping similar events in classes or pairs, will be explained afterwards, when we consider how he speaks of the thieves. We find also, that from the feeding of the five thousand onwards, the identity in the different narratives is demonstrated, not only by the internal resemblance in the events narrated, but by their occupying the same relative position. §18. COMPARISION OF THE SEQUENCE IN MATTHEW AND MARK. On account of the circumstance just mentioned, we shall do well to commence our comparison at the end, so as at the very outset to gain a good starting-point, from which we may direct our course upwards. The fifteenth chain in Mark is parallel to the thirteenth in Mat- thew. But whereas Matthew merely says, that " at the same time" in which the second announcement of the sufferings occurred and the ti-ibute money was paid, the dispute " xcho should be the greatest" also 88 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. III. took place ; Mark says that this dispute happened on the road to Caj pernaum, and that the words of Jesus in rehation to this dispute were spoken after their arrival in Capernaum (no doubt immediately after). The affair of the tribute money, on the other hand, which took place, according to Matthew, iXdovTav ek Kairepvaovfi, happened on the way into the city, but while they were still by the sea-shore. From this point to the entrance into Jerusalem, the two histories perfectly agree, except that Matthew introduces the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, which is not given by Mark. Hence we have already a series, of tolerable length, in the order of historical sequence. And this series may be traced still further up. For it is most distinctly evident from the formulas in Mark ix. 30, Matt. xvii. 22, that the twelfth chain in Matthew comes before, and in fact a very short time before, the thirteenth ; and in the same way, that in Mark the 14th preceded the 15th. From which we obtain the following result : — The transfiguration and the circumstances connected with it hap- pened before Matt. 13 and Mark 15. Before the transfiguration, again, came the events under Mark No. 14 (bringing us up to the time when the Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem). These events coincide with Matthew No. 12 and the last part of No. 11. That is to say, we find from Mark that Peter s confession followed almost immediately upon the conversation on the leaven of the Phari- sees (only the healing of the man born blind coming in between ; and that precisely at the place where Matthew has a general formula; without the least contradiction therefore). The chain is here broken at both ends ; and we call the series of events thus obtained Syndesm T. (from the transfiguration). Matthew. Chain 11. Chain 12. Syndesm T. Scribes from Jerusalem. Discourses" of Jesus. Jesus goes to Phoenicia. Canaanitish woman. Jesus goes to De- capolis. (Dumb man, in Mark.) Feed- ing of the four thousand. Pharisees seek a sign. Conversation on leaven. (Man born blind, in Mark.) Peter's confession. First announcement of suffering. Six days after. Transfiguration. Boy Mark. Chain 14. CHAP. III.] § 18. COMPARISON OF TEE SEQUENCE IN MATTHEW AND MARK. 89 Matthew. Chain 13. \ Followed by Journey through Galilee. Second an- nouncement of suffering. Dispute who was the greatest. (Tribute money, in Matthew). Discourses on ambition, offences, etc. Jesus goes to Penea. Divorce. Children brought. " Good Master." " Forsaken all." Labourers in the vineyard. Third announcement of suffering. Bequest of the sons of Zebedee. Blind man (men) of Jericho. Entrance into Jerusalem. Mark, Chain 15. But we may ascend still further. The 10th chain in Matthew, which reaches as far as Herod's alarm, corresponds to the latter (and larger) half of the 13th chain in Mark. But in Mark this chain extends as far up as the mission of the disciples. And this answers to the 5th chain in Matthew. — That is to say, we learn from !Mark that Ilerod^s alarm followed the mission of the disciples ; and this we should not discover from ^Matthew, who introduces the latter without any clue to the period at which it occurred. At this point the chains are broken off in both the Evangelists, so that the order of occurrence cannot be traced any further. We have a second Syndesm therefore, which we will call D. (from the mission of the disciples). Matthew. Chain 5. Chain 10. Syndesm D. Mission of the disciples, r Herod's alarm. J Jesus goes into the desert. I the five thousand. [^Walking on the sea. Feed in XT of Mark. Chain 13. Thus far, then, we have succeeded in linking together several chains from Matthew, with others taken from Mark. That is to say, where one is silent as to the historical sequence, the other comes to our aid.'^ ^ Strauss would probably ask, whether it was probable that the Evangelists would divide the labour of preserving the succession, just as if it had been a pre- 90 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST [CHAP. III. Having thus obtained, in a manner both reliable and unconstrained, the order of the events which occurred in the latter part of the public Irfe of Jesus, we now proceed to the earlier part; and in doing so, shall first of all select as our starting-point some striking event which is common to the Evangelists. Let us fix, then, upon the stilling of the tempest ; which occurs in the 3d chain of events in Matthew, and in the 12th in Mark. Matthew states that this was preceded by the " scribe who would follow Jesus," and was followed by the " Gergesenes," the " mail sich of the pals I/, " the call of Matthew, and the meal in Matthew s house. — Let us look first of all at the events which followed the stilling of the tempest. They correspond to Mark's 12th chain. But Mark only mentions the stilling of the tempest, and the Gadarenes; and then states definitely, that on their return from this particular journey, there occurred the raising of Jairus daughter, the healing of the woman with the issue of blood, and the talk about "the carpenters son." — Now Matthew has placed these in the 4th chain ; and mentions the fact, that immediately before Jairus came to Jesus, the question Avas raised by the disciples of John, why the disciples of Jesus did not fast. — Matthew still further informs us, that immediately after the raising of Jairus' daughter, etc., there followed the healing of the two blind men, and the dumb man possessed with a devil. Now, although Mark connects the question, " Is not this the car- penter's son?" with the raising of Jairus' daughter by a copulative formula, there is no discrepancy whatever ; for the formula in his case is an a mediate one (Jesus came into His own country ; and when the Sabbath-day was come), whereas in Matthew's case it is immediate ("And when Jesus departed thence"). Here, then, we have an in- stance in which one Evangelist (Mark) links two facts together by a mediate formula, and another (Matthew) supplies a third fact (or rather, two or three facts), which must be introduced between the two. It must be observed here, that although Mark does not place the " healing of the paralytic," " the call of Matthew," and " the meal in his house," in his 12th chain after the Gadarenes, yet there is no dis- crepancy between him and Matthew. For Matthew furnishes the following mediate data : — • a. The healing of the man sick of the palsy occurred after Jesus concerted plan. But it is a very probaMe thing, that if two men communicate different facts from the life of a third, the one will have recollected the relative position of cortain incidents, and the other of others ; whilst it is very improbable, that when relating the same facts, neither of them will say anything as to the period of their occurrence. CHAP. Ill] § 18. COMPARISON OF THE SEQUENCE IN MATTHEW AND MARK. 91 liacl returned home from the journey to the Gadarenes ; but wlicther on the same day or not, we are not informed. h. The call of Levi took place in one of the excursions ^ which Jesus made during His stay in Capernavim. The meal occurred shortly after. c, Matthew does not state when the dmigliter of Jairus was re- stored. He merely introduces the fact with a loose " then " (rore, chap. ix. 14). d. On the other hand, he says that the healing of the two blind men was performed directly after the restoration of Jairus daiigJiter, on His return home ; and that, as they went out of the house, the dumb man possessed was brought in. Mark, on the other hand, states that the restoration of Jairus' daughter occurred on the return from Gadara. Matthew's 4th chain, therefore, must stand within his own 3d. The entrance into the house (Matt. ix. 28) took place on the return " into His own city " (chap. ix. 1). Jairus' daughter and the two blind men come between the Ger- gesenes and the man sick of the palsy. The order, therefore, is the followincf : Occasion. Matthew. No. 4. No. 3. Mark. No. 12. General Eesult Journey to Gadara. Eeturn. , Question about ( fasting. \ Jairus' daugh- ter. Two blind { Stilling the tem- ^ pest Gadarenes. /Stilling the tempest. ^ Gadarenes. Jairus' ' daughter. Stilling the tempest Gadarenes. Question about fast- ting. Jairus' daughter. . Two blind men. men. Dumb man possessed. At home. Excursion. Sabbath. ^ Man with palsv. Call of Matthew. " Is not this Dumb man pos- sessed. Man with palsy. Call of Matthew. " Is not this, etc. ? " the carpen- ter's sou ?" It will be seen that Mark pases from the raising of Jairus daughter to the question about the carpenter s son, without mentioning the healing of the man with the palsy and the call of Levi. He had al- ^ That it is an excursion, not a journey, which is spoken of here, is evident from the meal which followed. According to Mark ii. 13, it was a walk by the eea-side. 92 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. 11/. ready placed these in liis 4th chain, connecting them together as oc- curring in one after the other, but not noticing their relation to the other events. There is nothing surprising in this. It must be borne in mind, that both events occurred during a prolonged stay which Jesus made in His native place. Now it is natural enough to remember the order and connection of things which happen upon a journey, as the mind in this case associates events with localities ; whereas the precise order of evei-.ts which occur at home, in the very same place, is scarcely ever remembered. Thus Mark knew very well that tlie healing of the man with the palsy, and the call of Matthew, took place when Jesus was in Capernaum. But whether before or after a particular journey, had not been impressed upon his mind. If we proceed upwards from the stilling of the tempest, we find from IMark (No. 12), that immediately before the stormy voyage, Jesus delivered i\\e parables of the sower, etc., and. from Matthew (No. 3), that it was on the way to the lake that the scribe came to Jesus and ex- pressed a wish to follow Him. From ]\Iatthew, again (No. 9), we learn that before Jesus prepared for the journey with which these parables are connected. He healed a man who was blind and dumb, and was accused of doing this through Beelzebub ; that some Pharisees sought a sign ; and that His mother and brethren came and desired to speak loith Him. We also find, that at the close of this journey the question was raised, whether Jesus was not the carpenters son. But according to Mark, the journey on wdiich the parables of the sower, etc., were delivered, was no other than the journey to Gadara ; so that we have here a coincidence unlooked for, but "just on that account the more important. Matthew says nothing about the parables of the sower, etc., being delivered on the way to Gadara (this we learn from Mark), but he remembers that the question about the carpenter' s son was asked shortly after the delivery of the parables ; and Mark records the fact, that the question was asked on the return of Jesus from the Gadarene journey. We will now sum up the whole, and complete the third Syndesm (which wo will call G., from the journey to Gadara) : — Syndesm G. No. 4. Matthew. No, 3. No. 9. Mark. No. 12. - Jesus in Capernaum. Blind and dumb. Accusation about Beelzebub. Pharisees seek a sign. Mother and brethren. CHAP III.l § 18. COMPARISON OF THE SEQUENCE IN MATTHEW AND MAIHC. 93 Matthew. Murk. No. 4. No. 3. No. 9. No. 12. Gadarene Journey. — Scribe wishes to follow. — Parables. — Stilling the tempest. — — Gadareues. Question about fasting. — Juirus' daughter, and ■woman with issue of blood. " Two bhud men. Return to Capernaum. " — Dumb man possessed. Man with palsy. Call of Levi, and meal in his house. — " Is he not the carpenter's son? " — Here, then, we find that there is not the least contradiction in the order. Where one chain has to be broken to admit the introduction of something from another, the connection is merely indejinite or mediate, never immediate. Thus we have already succeeded in arranging the following chains in their proper order : — Matt. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Mark „ 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. There still remain of Matthew, Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and of Mark, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9. The Syndesms T. and D. we constructed by proceeding upwards from the entrance into Jerusalem ; the Syndesm G. by selecting a prominent starting-point. We will now commence with Matthew No. 1, and Mark No. 1. — The call of the four disciples (Alatt. No. 1, and Mark No. 1) is so closely connected Avith the removal of Jesus to Galilee, that we should necessarily regard it as certain that Matthew No. 2 could not have happened before Mark No. 1, even if this were not apparent from the account of Peter s mother-in-laio, which sup- poses a previous acquaintance between Jesus and Peter. But ISIark No. 2 corresponds to Mattliew No. 2. We shall start, again, from a fixed point, viz., — the healing of Peter^s mother-in-laio, and proceed both upwards and downwards. Going upwardsjVfe find that, immediately before Jesus went into Peter's house, there occun'ed (according to Mark) the casting out of the unclean spirit in the synagogue. Earlier still, the healing of the centurion^ s servant took place, which is loosely connected in Matthew. It occurred when Jesus " was entering into Capernaum," namely, before the Sermon on the Mount. Between the Sermon on the Mount and the centurion, Matthew 94 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. III. places the healing of the leper (:Mark No. 3).— Going dowmoards, the chain ends, in both the Evangelists, immediately after the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. ^latthew uses a formula, which we found was merely a loose link of connection, just serving to introduce the Gada- rene Syndesm. ^lark says, that the next morning, early, Jesus went into the desert, and was there sought by the people. He then concludes with a general formula. This syndesm, then, which we call S. on ac- count of the Sermon on the Mount, is as follows : — Matthew. Mark. Removal to Galilee and entrance into No. 1. -l Capernaum. V- No. 1. Call of the four disciples. Sermon on the Mount. Healing the leper. No. 2. -I The centurion's servant. Man possessed in the synagogue. "^ Peter's mother-in-law. > No. 2. Jesus in the desert. ) There are still four smaller pieces left, which can hardly be as- signed to their proper position. a. Mark No. 9. — Jesus goes to the sea. Choice of the disciples, The friends of Jesus want to take Him. h. Matthew No. 7.— Prayer : " I thank Thee, 0 Father." This is quite indefinite. c. Matthew No. 8, Mark Nos. 7, 8. — Rubbing the ears of corn. TJie withered hand (evidently after the choice of the disciples). d. Matthew No. 6. — The disciples of John sent (after the choice of the disciples, but before the death of John, therefore before D, vide p. 89). We shall find from Luke No. 6 that a belongs to the middle of S. ; that is to say, that the choice of the disciples occurred im- mediately before the Sermon on the Mount, and consequently that the events took place in the following order : — Choice of the four dis- ciples ; choice of the tivelve and Sermon on the Mount ; healing the leper (on coming down from the mountain) ; the people xoant to take Jesus (in an inn) ; the centurion (on the return to Capernaum), and so forth. The relative position of the syndesms, therefore, would be the following : S. and a together form the commencement. G. stands before D., because in D. all the twelve are sent out, and the call of Levi, occurs in G. But according to the notice in Luke, that Jesus chose the twelve before the Sermon on the Mount, G. should stand before the Sermon on the Mount, and therefore before the greater part of S. CHAP. IV.] § 19. PLAN OF LUKE. 95 To this, however, we shall come below. In any case the series ends with T. And the following is the result at present obtained : — S., a, G., h, D., c, d, T. CHAPTER IV. LUKE. §19. In an elaborate prooemium, Luke gives us a more precise account of his plan than any other Evangelist (chap i. 1-4). Our first task, therefore, would properly be, to enter into a minute exegesis of this prooemium. But as it contains, in addition to many allusions to Luke's own work, a reference to Gospel Avritings already in existence, which some regard as laudatory, others as depreciatory ; as, consequently, the confusion in the exegesis of the prooemium is great, and that in regard to points which do not concern us here ; we shall postpone our examination till the Second Part, with the exception of two questions, which are of some importance at this stage. In the Jii'st place, Luke informs us ivhat he proposes to write, viz., Trepl twv '7reTr\ripo(^opnf]fjLevu>v iv i)fuv irpaj/xdroyv. Now, whether TreTrXrjp. means " ivhich have been fulfilled (i.e., have happened)," — a rendering which seems to be precluded by the fact, that Luke does not reckon himself among the eye-witnesses, — or " which have become matters of complete certainty in us" (vid. Rom. iv. 12 ; xiv. 5, and De Wetle on the passage), — in either case the TrpdyfiaTa are precisely the same. But there is something vague in this description of the contents of the Gospel as Trpdyfiara ireifX.rjp., the exact meaning of which can only be learned from the Gospel itself. So that in this direction nothing is gained. But in the second place, the Evangelist tells us how he intends to write. Now, whether he means vers. 3, 4 as a tacit reproof of the earlier efforts mentioned in the first verse or not, it is enough for us, that so far as he himself is concerned, he promises to write Ka6e^?]<;. Here, then, everything depends upon the meaning of the critical word Kad€^P]), Kade^rj<; can only refer to that style of composition, in which one member is linhed to another, where there is a close connection therefore, a definite order of succession in the different sections or members. Thus, a writer on philosophy, for example, who follows out a logical train of thought, and deduces one idea from another, writes /ca^ef ^9, in contrast with one who intro- duces new thoughts abruptly, and without any connection. The author of a biography or monograph, again, writes Ka6e^rjj e|^?. Young man at Nain. Arrival of the disciples of John. Anointed by a woman in Simon's house. ] "And it came 'to pass the day after." General formula, ver. 17. (Ver. 18 is so connected, that what follows appears to have hap- pened afterwards.) " And." (Be.) ~" x,«\ iyiutro iv tw x.x6s^Yji. "And it came to pass after- vm. CHAP. IV.] 21. DATA EELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. LUKE. Ill 5.^ Titles of PericopaB. Parable of the sower. Mother and brethren. Stilling the tempest. Gadarenes. Jairus' daughter. Mission of the Twelve. Herod's alarm. Jesus in the desert near Bethsaida. Feeding of the 6000. Peter's confession. FormulsB of Connection. Transfiguration. Boy possessed. Dispute who should bo greatest. ]] ]] CLap. wards." (General formula.) " And when much people were gathered together." . . . 06. " And." aetl iyivero kv fii» ruv iif^-epuv. " Now it came to pass on a cer- tain day." Kdl KXTt'TrT^svtTXu e!g . . . " And they arrived at the coun- try" . . . iyiviro §i ill Tu v'7roarpi-\pxi. " And it came to pass that when Jesus was returned." "Then He called His twelve disciples together." «5XOV(7£ Zi . . . TO. yiuofiivx . . . "Now Herod the tetrarch heard." Kxl vTToarpiipxvreg o/ xToaroT^ot. " And the Apostles, when they Avere returned." 'Tirpoaivy^ii/.ivou x,ot,T0LiA.6vot.;. "And it came to pass, as He was alone praying." iyiviro Gi /asToi tov; 'hoyovg tov- rovg udil Vjf^iput oktu. "And it came to pass, about eight days after these say- ings." Koci iyiviro Be ev tTi £|ijf ijf^ipx. " And it came to pass that, on the next day, when they were come down from the hill." IL • Then." iyiuiTo'hi iUTwavff.'z'hnpoiKjSxiTXg il^ipxg TJjf dux'A^ypioy; oti/TOV. " And it came to pass, when the time was come that He should be received up." 112 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. IV. Titles of Pericopae. Samaritans refuse to receive Him. The scribe, who wishes to follow. Mission and return of the Seventy. Lawyer ("What must I do ? ")— Parable of the good Samaritan. Mary and Martha. The Lord's prayer. Discourse on prayer. Charge of connection with Beelzebub. Exclamations of a wo- man : " Blessed is the Avomb that bare Thee." FormulaB of Conuection. iyivero di ■xoptvof^iuuu ctvzuv tv " And it came to pass that as they went in the way." ^ f<,£roc rxvrcc. " After these things" (i. e., after the mission of the Twelve, chap. ix. 1, not after what is related in chap. ix. 57-62, as the words x,xi i-ripovs clearly prove). Kul /Soy . . . dviarri. "And behold a certain lawyer stood up." x,cii lyivsro sv rZ TropsviaSat otv- Toiig. " Now it came to pass as they went." x,»\ iyiviro iu ru fJvxi ui/Tov iv rOTTU Tivl. " And it came to pass that as He was praying in a certain place." Kul ijv ix./ixT^'Kav . . . iysviTO ^£ Tov "hxif/,. i^i'hdovTOg. "And He was casting out a devil, and it was dumb." iyhiro'hi Ivtu "hiynv xvtovtxvtx. " And it came to pass as He spake these things." • This apparently refers to tbo same journey. But the topical arrangement, the subse- quent account of tlie mission of the seventy, wliich certainly cannot have occurred on a journey from Samaria to Jerusalem, and the number of unconnected incidents which follow (cf. xi. 1), load decidedly to ihe conclusion that in this place, as in so many others, all that Luke intends to say is, " On one occasion, when they were on their way." It is particularly worthy of observation, that in chap. xvii. 11 we iind the statement again, " It came to pass, &a He went to Jerusalem, that Ho passed through Samaria." CHAP. IV.] •21. DATA RELATIVE TO SEQUENCE. LUKE. 113 Chains. Titles of Pericopaa. Formulas of Counection. Chap. Christ reproaches that generation. - ran li Sy(,>.u'j 'f7rx6pot^of4,ivav Ijp- |«T0 "htynv. "And -when the people were gathered thick together, He began to say." iv 3s TW 'Ka.'K'iiaBU^ not iu tw ?i£- yiiv Bivrov retinoc^ "while He was saying these things," but while He was engaged in con- versation,— a perfectly general remark. Meal in the Pharisee's house. ) Ver. 63. ^piavTO, " they be- gan," is the commencement 9.^ Addresses to the dis- of a longer period ; but the opening of chap. xii. forms a definite connection. XII. ciples. Jesus asked to adjudi- cate. Discourses. Address to the people. - Is. "And." Ver. 13. 'i'hS'/i 0£ x.ctl. "And He said, Go." 'TTotpyjauv Oi rivi; iv o-vtu rZ KxipS. "There were present at that season." XIII. Report of the massacre of the Gahleans. — ijv 0- OlOXOKUV iv fUCt . . . iU TO i\6eip avrov ei? oIkov tcvo<;, — Kol iyevero iv tm elvai avTov cv TOTTft) Tivt, — etTre Be koI, — irpoaecpepov Se koI), it is obvious that it was scarcely a matter of the smallest concern to him to search out and exhibit the order of succession. Here and there, Avhen he had either heard it, or found it clearly indicated in the source from which he drew, he does give the chronological order ; but in general there can be no question as to the fact, of which proofs arise on every hand, and which both Calvin and Bengel discovered, that LiiJce has preserved less of the clironological order than any of the other Evangelists. The ex- pression, ad^^arov hevrepoirpwrov, of which Krafft has given the best and simplest explanation, deserves to be specially mentioned here. According to the analogy of TrpcoToroKo^, Trporoyevrj'^, etc., SevrepoTrpo)- T09 ought to denote the second of two first Sabbaths. Wieseler sup- poses it to be the first Sabbath of the second year of a time of jubilee, Krafft points much more naturally to the fact, that the Passover week actually included three Sabbaths, unless the 15th of Nisan fell upon a Sabbath or a Sunday ; viz., 1. the 15th of Nisan itself, which was kept as a Sabbath ; 2. the ordinary Sabbath which fell in the Passover week ; 3. the last Passover Sabbath (the 21st of Nisan ni^-j;). Now, in relation to the 21st of Nisan, the 15th was the first Sabbath of the feast; and in relation to the 15th, the 21st was the second. And these two Sabbaths occurred universally, and without any exception. But it was only occasionally that another (ordinary) Sabbath intervened ; and when this was the case, rather than call the 21st of Nisan the "third" Sabbath, and so place the ordinary Sabbath on a level with the others, they preferred to designate the ordinary Sabbath by the title of the second first. — It is true we do not obtain a chronological datum from this, since the account given at Luke vi. 1 is not directly connected with either the preceding or following account. But it furnishes 110 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. IV. a ground for the conclusion, that the life of Jesus may possibly have included one more Passover than we find mentioned in the Gospel of John. (See § 28.) §22. SYNOPTICAL COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE WITH THOSE OF MATTHEW AND MARK. Luke has much which is found in his Gospel alone. With regard to the remainder, all that we would assume at the outset may be briefly summed up as follows : — 1. The following accounts are unquestionably identical, both from the coincidence in all their leading features, and also from the simi- larity in their chronological position : The casting out of the devil in Capernaum, and healing of Peter's mother-in-law. The man let down through the roof, and the call of Levi and meal in his house. The Sermon on the Mount, and centurion's servant. The stilling of the tempest, the Gadarenes, and raising of Jairus' daughter. The mission of the twelve, Herod's alarm, and the feeding of the five thousand. Peter's confession, the transfiguration, and the boy possessed. 2. The following are identical on account of the agreement in the leading circumstances : The man sick of the palsy (Luke v., Matt, viii., Mark i.) ; the rubbing of the ears of corn, and the withered hand ; the mission of the disciples of John ; the parable of the sower ; the arrival of the mother and brethren of Jesus ; the contention who should be the greatest (Luke ix.. Matt, xviii., Mark ix.) ; the scribe who wishes to follow Jesus (Luke ix. 57-62, Matt, viii.) ; the charge of being in league with Beelzebub, and the subsequent discourse in Luke xi. 29 sqq. and Matt. xii. 38 sqq. (not Matt. v. 15, 16, for the pro- verbial saying about the candlestick was of a nature to be frequently repeated) ; the simile of the hundred sheep (Luke xv. 1 sqq.. Matt, xviii. 12 sqq.) ; the children coming to Jesus ; " Good Master." Also the draught of fishes, and call of Peter. 3. The following are not identical, in spite of similarities in the attendant circumstances : (1) The scribe who asks what he must do to obtain eternal life (Luke x.) ; and the Pharisee who asks which is the great commandment, for the purpose of tempting Jesus (Matt, xxii., Mark xii.). — (2) The discourse at the Pharisee's meal, and the similar discourse. Matt, xxiii. For the leading points in such a discourse are very likely to have been repeated, and the time and place are both different : the one was at a meal, the other in the temple ; the latter during the Passion week, which was certainly not the time of the CHAP. IV.] § 23. LUKE'S SEQUENCE, AND THAT OF MATTHEW AND MARK. 117 Pliai'isee's entertainment. — (3) The warning to beware of the lca\en of the Pharisees (Luke xii. 1), and the similar warning (Matt. xvi. G, Mark viii. 15). The occasions were different, tliough both were per- fectly appropriate ; and the saying itself was well fitted for repetition. — (4) The words of Jesus in Luke xii. 2, 3, and the similar words in Matt. X. 26 sqq. — And lastly, (5) certain gnomic sentences in the dis- course contained in Luke xiii. 22 sqq., which ai'e also found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vii. 13 and 21, viii. 11, etc.). 4. The words, " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, etc.," do not seem likely to have been repeated ; and as Matthew gives the precise time and occasion, w^e may conclude that Luke attached them to the previous discourse on account of the subject-matter alone. §23. COMPAEISON OF THE SEQUENCE IN LUKE ^VITH THAT OF MATTHEW AND MARK. As Luke gives very little information respecting the order of oc- currence, and what he gives is also found in Matthew and Mark, we learn but little new from him. His 1st and 3d chains belong to the Syndesm S., his 2d, 4th, and 8th to G., his 5th to D., his Gth to T. ; his 7th, 9th, and 10th remaining unattached. From the addition of the 1st and 3d to S. we obtain the following results : — 1. The occurrence in the synagogxie at Nazareth took place before Jesus removed to Capernaum. 2. The raising of the young man at Nain occurred the day after the healing of the ruler's servant (probably on the way to the desert). 3. The choice of the disciples preceded the Sermon on the Mount ; and the short section a (vide p. 94) is therefore to be added to the Syndesm S. 4. The short section d (mission of the disciples of John) comes after the raising of the young man at Nain, and closes the Syn- desm S. The Syndesm S. will therefore assume the following form : — Jesus in the synagogue at Xazareth. Removal to Capernaum. Call of four disciples. Choice of the twelve. Sermon on the Mount. Man with the palsy healed on descending from the Mount. The housemates of Jesus try to take Him (Mark — in the inn). Jesus goes to Capernaum. The centurion's servant. The man possessed in the synagogue. 118 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V Peter's mother-in-law. Joiirney into the desert the following day. The young man of Nain (on the road). Shortly afterwards, the mission of John's disciples. But the Synclesm G. must come before the Sermon on the Mount and the selection of the twelve, since it contains the call of Levi ; consequently, S. and G. together form but one syndesm. This we will call A., viz. : — Syndesm A. S. Jesus goes to Nazareth. Removes to Capernaum. (Call of the four.) G. His stay there. (Blind and dumb. Charge of league with Beelzebub. Pharisees ask for signs. Mother and brethren.) Journey to Gadara. (Scribe, who wishes to follow. Parables. Tempest. Gadarenes. Discourse on fasting. Jairus' daughter, etc. Blind men. Dumb man possessed.) F7'esh stay in Capernaum. (Man with palsy. Call of Levi. "Is not this the carpenter's son I") S. Sermon on the Mount, preceded by the selection of the twelve disciples.^ (Leper. Centurion's servant. Man possessed. Peter's mother-in-law. Jesus goes into the desert.) There is also the mass of unconnected passages, peculiar to Luke, which we call L. CHAPTER V. GOSPEL OF JOHN. § 24. PLAN AND ARRANGEMENT. In John too we seek for a plan. There is an excellent earlier work treating of this subject by Fromraann (on the Genuineness and In- ^ There ia nothing surprising in the fact that previous to the choice of the twelve, viz., at the stilling of the tempest, and the meal in Levi's house, " His dis- ciples" should be referred to. There must naturally have been disciples, before Jesus could select the more intimate circle of twelve from their number. The call of six different disciples (John i. and Matt, iv.) actually took place before the still- ing of the storm. — The expression, " the twelve," does not occur in any one of the accounts which, according to our conclusion, jyrecede the selection of the twelve. CHAP, v.] § 24. PLAN AND ARRANGEMENT OF JOHN. 119 tegi'ity of the Gospel of John, in Ullm. Stud, und Krit. 40-4). Frommann properly starts with the supposition that the 1st Epistle of John accompanied the Gospel and introduced it to the readers. In fact, if we once admit that the Gospel and the 1st Epistle were the productions of the same author, it is much more natural to inter- pret the first three verses of the Epistle as relating to the account which the Gospel contains of what the writer had " seen and heard and handled," than to regard them as relating to the (doctrinal) contents of the 1st Epistle itself. We may gather, then, from this Epistle, that John wi'ote to churches in which the true faith did not universally exist,^ but which he was desirous of leading to the faith in the same manner in which he had himself been brought to it, namely, by looking at the "Word made flesh. We obtain essentially the same result if we look altogether away from the question, wdiether the Gospel and the 1st Epistle of John liad the same author, and confine ourselves to the Gospel alone. For in chap. xx. 31 the circle of readers is described as one to which the author writes, that they might believe, and believing, might have life ; and hence the right faith did not yet exist among them. The manner in which he hopes to excite the faith, which he knew to be wanting, is evident from chap. i. 1-18, and especially from vers. 14-16. He speaks of the Logos, which was with God and was God, through whom all things were made, who was from the beginning the life of men and the light of men, but was not comprehended (accepted) by the darkness into which it shone. Of this Logos he says, that it had become flesh, and had been seen by him, as one in whom the Sofa of the Father had appeared, full of grace and truth. He also says (ver. 16), that he had felt in himself the life-giving power of the Logos. He then (vers. 17, 18) finishes the paragraph with two parallel clauses : — (1.) The laio was given by Moses : grace and truth became (geworden, iyevero) through Christ. (2.) God (as He is directly contrasted with man, on the footing of the law, in which the light was thoroughly kept back by the darkness) is invisible. " No man hath seen God at any ^ The arguments are confessedly directed chiefly against Docetism and Gnos- ticism on the one hand, and against the want of love (which is so often connected with fruitless speculation) on the other. The writer has evidently Docetism in view in John i. 14 and xix. 34. It cannot be proved that he alluded to any par- ticular Gnostics, such as those of the second century, with their elaborate systems. Thiersch has shown that the writings of John are unquestionably directed against the first wild, demoniac, form of Gnosticism, such as we find alluded to in the 2d Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, the pastoral Epistles, and the Revelation,— a form which is only conceivable in the first century. 120 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V. time:" the Son has for the first time revealed His essential nature. The design of the Evangelist, then, can have been no other than this : to set before his hearers the incarnate Logos, the illuminating, quickening light, just as He had appeared to him, that they also might receive Him (cf. ver. 12) ; in other words, to set Jesus forth, as the manifestation of the 86^a of the Father. Here lies, then, the essential distinction between John and the Synoptists. The latter had to do with opponents outside the Church, the former with those within. Matthew exhibits the New Testament revelation in its identity with the Old ; Mark, in its simple exalted contrast with the follies of Heathenism. Luke, indeed, appears to have had in view the conflict between apostolical Christianity (Acts XV.) and the false teachers among the Jewish Christians, or, at all events, the form of Christian doctrine as developed by the Apostle Paul. John, on the other hand, in opposition to the unbridled sub- jectivity and antinomianism of the first Gnostics, upholds the ob- jective reality of the incarnation of God in Christ. He has conse- quently a more artistic and conscious plan than the Synoptists. He not merely places the figure of Christ in His ho^a before the view of his readers, as Mark has done ; but carries through the conception and idea of the eternal So^a made truly visible in the historical Jesus in conscious opposition to the erroneous ideas of the Gnostics with regard to the relation between the eternal Logos and the temporal appearance of Jesus. To him the glory of Christ is not an object of phantasy, but of speculation. And since the object to be set forth by him "is the relation between the history of Jesus Christ and the eter- nal existence of the Logos with the Father, he passes beyond the his- torical appearance, and introduces the super-terrestrial and super- historical opposition between the Father and kingdom of light, and the father and kingdom of darkness. He sets out, therefore, with de- finite speculative momenta ; and by these his arrangement is consciously determined. What are these momenta f In the prooemium we find three leading thoughts : a. In Jesus the So^a of the Father, or Jesus the Logos ; b. The conflict between the light and the darkness ; c. The testimony of John.^ In carrying this out, the testimony of John had naturally to ' The last appears to stand in a very isolated position by the side of the other two ; a purely historical element in association with others of a speculative cha- racter. But ver. 8 must not bo overlooked. John the Baptist was not the light, but simply bore ivitness of the light. Compare ver. 17, and it becomes perfectly obvious that the author has in his mind the contrast between the standpoint of the CHAP, v.] § 24. PLAN AND ARRANGEMENT OF JOHN. 121 be placed first, on account of its position in the order of time. In the subsequent course of the actual life of Jesus, the two other points (the manifestation of the glory, and the conflict) might be brought out side by side. Only so much is evident, that John would necessarily select such events as served to illustrate clearly some one of these points. Frommann is, therefore, perfectly correct, when he assigns as the reason why John chiefly confined himself to the visits to Jeru- salem and the journeys thither, the fact that his design was to depict the conflict between Jesus and the ''darkness," and His ultimate victory through apparent defeat. It was in Jerusalem that the power of the darkness was concentrated ; and the appearance of Jesus there had ten times the importance that it had in Galilee. In Jerusalem all was at stake. The three journeys to the Passover, especially, form three leading epochs in the advancing conflict. We know, therefore, at the outset, what we have to expect in relation to chronological order. From John's design alone it is clear enough, that he intended the different journeys to the feasts to be regarded as occurring in succession. And this is also apparent from the manner in which occurrences are linked together. For example, we do not find in John a number of short, loosely connected, and separable incidents ; he gives for the most part long and elaborate accounts. He never omits to mention the place {e.g., " He remained in Galilee ; " " But when His brethren w^ere gone up, then went He also up to the feast ; " " In the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple;" "Jesus went to the Mount of Olives;" "He came again into the temple ;" "He went out of the temple." Chap. vii. 9, 10, 14 ; viii. 1, 2, 59). Thus all the events which occmTcdupon one particular journey are linked together by distinct notices of the way in which Jesus proceeded from place to place. — The simple question, therefore, is. Law and that of the Gospel. John, the Israelitish prophet, like Moses, the Israelitish lawgiver, had merely the commission to bear witness of the light. The Old Testa- ment theocracy was merely preliminary, not an essential part. (The same thought occurs in Gal. iii. 24, in another form ; in Paul psychological, in John speculative and historical.) The connection between vers. 5 and 6 is now perfectly clear. Ver. 5 relates to a time before the Logos became flesh. It shone in the darkness, but as something altogether distinct and foreign. The Logos, therefore, was present in the Old Covenant : the truth was there, but as something rigid, foreign, un- attained, as laiv only ; whilst the hope of future mediation was given in prophecij. John passes, therefore, quite naturally from ver. 5 to the crowning point of tlic Old Testament development, viz., to John the IJaptist : to his person and testi- mony.— Vers. 9 sqq. contain a totally different thought from ver. 5. In ver. 5 we have the shining of the light into darkness, which rejects it ; in vers. 9 sqq., the coming of the light into the world, tig tx i'hct, by which it is 7wt received. 122 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V. whether the different journeys are arranged without regard to chrono- logical order, and Avhether some journeys may not be omitted altogether. Both are improbable ; first, because John is accustomed to notice the time and place with such great exactness ; and again, because he gives not only links of connection, but chronological data also. The different journeys too are hnked together by marks of their consecu- tive order (cf. v. 1, " After this ; " vi. 1, " After these things ;" vii. 1, "After these things." Vide also the close connection ; John x. 39, after which follows the last catastrophe). The most decisive, however, are such passages as chaps, iv. 46, vii. 1, where John notices changes of place without recording any particular events. From this it is obvious that local and chronological data were regarded by him as possessing an importance of their own ; and that his design was to write in the order of sequence. These two questions, therefore, only remain : 1. Is the chronological order, as given by John, at variance with that of the Synoptists ? 2. Can the latter be dovetailed into the former ? There is no necessity, here, for us to construct a table similar to that which we have drawn up in the case of each of the Synoptists, as there are no loose chains to be found in John. At the same time, for convenience in comparing them, we shall give a chronological table of the contents of the Gospel. Chap. Time. Place. Event. I. Bethania (Beth- The priests' question to abara). John. The next day. " Behold the T,amb of God." The next day. Two disciples follow Jesus, and stay with Him till the (Shortly after.) evsniiiQ. Simon comes to Jesus. The next day. On the journey Jesus finds Philip, and to Galilee, i. 43. Philip Nathaiia,el. n. The third day (after setting out), ver. 44 ; the second, therefore, after the last incident. Cana. Marrio^e at Cana. After this. Capernaum. Jesus goes to Capernaum for a short time (ver. 12). Passover. Jerusalem. Purification of the temple. in. Nicodemus. John the Baptist not yet Land of Judaea. Jesus travels about in cast into prison (ver. 24). Judaea ; His disciples baptize. Question put to Jolm by his disciples. IV. Journey to Gali- lee, iv. 3 and Samaritan woman. 45, CHAP, v.] § 25. COMPARISON OF JOHN AND THE SYNOPTISTS. 123 Chap. Tinu.. Place. EvTUt. After two days. Cana. Nobleman from Caper- naum. V. A Feast of the Jews. Jerusalem. Sick man at Bethesda. VI. Passover near. Over the sea. Feeding the five thousand. Jesus walks upon the The next clay? Capernaum. sea. Discourse on the bread of heaven. VII. Passover. Jesus travels about in Gali- lee. Feast of Tabernacles near. Jerusalem. Discourses of Jesus in the temple. VIII. (Woman taken in adultery.) IX. ^[an born blind. X. " The good shepherd." Feast of Dedication. Solomon's Porch. Place, -where Discourses of Jesus. John had bap- Jesus remains there. tized. XI. Bethany. Lazarus raised. Pharisees' counsel, to put Jesus to death. XII. Six days before the Again in Beth- Mary anoints Jesus. Passover. any. The next day. Entrance into Jerusalem. Passover. §25. SYNOPTICAL COMPARISON OF JOHN AND THE SYNOPTISTS. In reference to the question, which of these events are to be re- garded as identical with similar ones in the Synoptists, we hold pre- sumptively, the introduction of Peter, etc., to the acquaintance of Jesus (John i.) as not identical with the call of the four disciples. Matt, iv. De Wette and Strauss do indeed (in spite of the difference of place) maintain the identity of the two facts in this way, that, ac- cording to De Wette, John has given the fact in its original form ; and according to Strauss, both are myths. De Wette should have shown it to be impossible that Jesus, after becoming acquainted in a slight occasional way with four of John's disciples, could have called them to be His own disciples and permanent attendants when He met them afterwards at home. Strauss does indeed assist us to see clearly the impossibility of this. He maintains it is not true that John speaks only of a passing acquaintance. " Since, if we are to understand the Bevre oirlaw fiov in the synoptical narrative and the rjKoXovOriaav avrcp as referring to a permanent following, it is surprising how any one 124 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V. can take the similar uKoXovdec fxoi in another sense." We reply: it is surprising that a man who writes a life of Jesus has never read the 40th verse. For there it stands plainly written : These disciples remained that Avhole day with Jesus ; from which any ordinary under- standing would conclude that they went away the next day again, and that the uKoXovdelv is here used only of a momentary following. We shall defer to the Second Division the discussion of the ques- tion, whether a repetition of the cleansing of the temple was probable. We have already shown the non-identity of the nobleman (John iv.) with the centurion and that the occurrence of both events involves nothing impossible {vide pp. 60-61). The anointing by Mary we regard as identical with the anointing recorded by Matthew and Mark, specially on account of the time when it is said to have occurred. The justification of this view will be found in Division Second. The feeding of the five thousand, and the walking on the sea, appear to us identical with the similar occurrences in the Synoptists, because of the connection of events. §26. SYNOPTICAL COMPARISON OF JOHN AND THE SYNOPTISTS WITH REGAED TO SEQUENCE. (The first Syndesm. — The Journeys to Feasts. The Feast, John v. 1.) The syndesms already obtained from the Synoptists may be fitted into John's arrangement in the following manner, with perfect ease and without distortion : — 1. The Syndesm A. conmiences after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and shows, that after a short stay in Nazareth (Luke), Jesus removed to Capernaum. — Now, where can this be placed in John ? Evidently not after chap. i. 43 ; for, in the first place, we find from chap. iii. 24* that John was not yet cast into prison ; and we also learn from chap ii. 12, that, although Jesus did go to Capernaum for a short time before the first Passover, it was only for a short time. — The removal to Galilee, related in Matt. iv. etc., is rather identical with the journey described in John iv. 3 and 45, which happened after the first Passover. — This will explain the statement of John, that the miracle at Cana and the healing of the nobleman's servant were tlie first two miracles that Jesus performed (John ii. 11, iv. 54). The course of events, therefore, was the following. After the temptation (which occurred, according to the Synoptists, immediately after His baptism), Jesus went into Galilee with two disciples, Philip CHAP, v.] § -26. COMPARISON OF JOffi!? AND THE SYNOPTISTS — SEQUENCE. 125 and Nathanael, and remained at first for a short time with Ilis mother (John ii. 1 and 12). On the Jiy'st Passover He returned to Judffia, and travelled about there for some time (chap. iii. 22 sqq.). After that, He removed first of all to Nazareth, and then to Capernaum.^ The first brief sojourn of Jesus in Galilee (John i. 43-ii. 13) is passed over by the Synoptists. But when they relate (Matt. iv. 12, etc.), that after John was cast into prison, Jesus went into Galilee, since the time of his imprisonment is evidently adduced as a fixed point, assumed to be familiar to their readers, they give us to under- stand that, up to that time, Jesus must have been living in Judcea. Consequently, they hint as distinctly as John at a stay which Jesus made in Judcea, but which was baiTen of remarkable events (John iii. 22 sqq.). John, on his side, evidently keeps the Synoptists in view, and takes care to avoid even apparent discrepancies. Thus, in chap. ii. 12, when relating the fact that Jesus Avent down to Capernaum, lie expressly mentions that He did not stay there long, lest the reader should confound this brief visit with the longer stay narrated in ^fatt. iv. 12 and the parallel passages, and the journey noticed in chap. i. 43 with that described by Matthews For the same reason, he states in chap. iii. 24, " John was not yet cast into prison," which says in other words, the facts mentioned in chaps, ii. iii. occurred before the imprisonment of John. But many critics, instead of inferring from the difference in the times a difference in the journeys mentioned in Matt. iv. 12 and John i. 43, take for granted that the journeys are the same, and then from the discrepancies as to time infer contradictions. They even go so far as to attribute to John a distinct intention to contradict the Synoptists (yid. De Wette, p. 54). The only apparent groimd for such an assertion is that adduced by De Wette, and adopted by Strmiss, Bruno Bauer, GfrOrer, and Bleel', — viz., that, " according to John ii., Jesus commenced His public ministry in Judoaa, whereas ^Matthew (iv. 12) says that He commenced it in Capernaum." It is not ajffirmed, however, in Matt. ^ The healing of the nobleman's son must have taken place while Jesus was living at Nazareth. Jesus went over from Nazareth to Cana (John iv. 46), and there the nobleman, who may have become acquainted with Him during His first stay there (ii. 12), came and presented his request. It can hardly have taken place after Jesus had taken up His fixed abode at Capernaum ; in wliich case the nobleman would have merely sent after Him to Cana. The former is sujiported by the expression, " when he heard," etc. (ver. 47), and especially by the words, " after two days," in ver. 43. 126 TART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V. iv. 12 tliat Jesus commenced His ministry after the imprisonment of the Baptist, but merely that He then removed to Galilee and Caper- naum. Bleek appeals to Matt. iv. 17 ; but even there it is not stated that Jesus began to preach for the first time in Capernaum, but that He then began in Capernaum " to jyreach, and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" With this kind of preaching, therefore, — viz., a direct announcement that the fulfilment of the prophecies of the establishment of the kingdom of Jehovah was close at hand, and a direct appeal to rally round Himself as the founder of this kingdom, — Jesus certainly cannot previously have commenced in Judaea. That is to say. He cannot have appeared in Judsea as a Rahhi, collecting a circle of disciples publicly and expressly for such a purpose as this. But even John says nothing about any public ministry of this kind in Judaea. A public ministry in another sense, John certainly does say that Jesus had already commenced in Judsea. It is true, the first sign which Jesus gave, occurred in a family circle ; and even the disciples that He gathered round Him (John i. 37 sqq.) were attracted in the unpretending form of private friendship; they did not remain constantly with Him, but merely accompanied Him from time to time, particularly on the two journeys mentioned in John ii. 1 and iii. 22. But on the second of these journeys, Jesus did step forward publicly in Jerusalem, when He purified the temple ; though even then not with a public ministry as Rabbi, calling men to enter into the kingdom of God, and commencing an independent Messianic work ; but with an act of zeal, such as any unofficial individual might have performed. And we need nothing more than this one act, to explain how it was that the attention of the ruler Nicodemus had been attracted to Jesus. Nothing further remains, therefore, than the two passages, John iii. 22, and iv. 1 sqq., where Jesus is said to have collected a large circle of disciples. Yet even this public mini- stry at the Jordan (not in Jerusalem) undoubtedly bore the same rela- tion to that which Matthew says He commenced at Capernaum, as the call of the first disciples in Judaea (John i.) to that of the same disciples in Galilee (Matt. iv.). A sufficient clue to this is given in John iv. 2 : " Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples," It was the disciples of Jesus, who had formerly been John the Baptist's dis- ciples, who here began to baptize in the neighbourhood of the Baptist himself. They evidently considered it their duty to work for their Lord in the same manner as he did. At all events, they worked in the same form as the Baptist. And as those whom the latter baptized returned to their homes, and did not continue with him ; so, no doubt, did those whom the disciples of Jesus baptized go back to their homes. CHAP, v.] § 26. COMPARISON OF JOHN AND THE SVNOPTISTS— SEQUENCE. 127 And, like the Baptist, the disciples of Jesus also contented themselves \vith pointing once for all to the Lamb of God. Even here, therefore, no allusion is made to a public ministry of the same kind as that whicli Jesus is said by Matthew to have commenced in Capernaum. The disciples followed implicitly the Baptist's form, and Jcsns suffered this for a while, but only till it was in danger of growing into a positive public ministry, in the full sense of the word, independent of John (John iv. 1 sqq.). Such a ministry it was His purpose to commence in His own loay, and first of all in Galilee; and He had no wish to be drawn into a publicity at variance with His plans, by the well intended zeal of His disciples. — Thus John iv. 1 sqq. and Matt. iv. 17 are in perfect harmony with each other. The Synoptists pass over these earlier events, and commence their narrative at the point where Jesus enters upon His independent public ministry in Capernaum ; that is to say, when He comes forward as Kabbi, having collected around Him a permanent circle of disciples, who live entirely with Him, and making a direct appeal to the people to connect themselves with His work. — The conclusion, therefore, is firmly established, that Matt. iv. 12 is parallel to John iv. 3 and 45. De Wette is inconsistent when he regards John ii. 12 as identical with Matt. iv. 12, and yet as involving no contradiction. He should by right find hei-e also a discrepancy between the sliort stay in Caper- naum and the permanent settlement. — De Wette pronounces it arbi- traiy in Kuinol to find in this diversity a new proof that John ii. 12, like John i. 43, cannot be identical with Matt. iv. 12. But is it not arbitrary, when one historian says the fact A happened before the point of time m, and another says the fact B happened after m, for a critic to say A and B are one, therefore the two authors contra- dict one another in respect of the time ? — The observation in John ii. 12, as also in iii. 24, is at least as luell explained from a desire to avoid contradiction with the Synoptists, as from an intention to " correct" them. The manner in which Jesus calls the four disciples, Matt. iv. 18, is explained by the earlier brief acquaintance noticed in John i. The " contradiction" that the Synoptists knew nothing of Jesus being at Jerusalem disappears, so far as the beginning of the life of Jesus is concerned, when we observe that by the words, ^^ after John was put in prison, Jesus went to stay in Galilee," the Synoptists hint that before that time He had been in Judsea. 2. To settle this latter question, — whether the Synoptists knew of Christ's journeys to the feasts, — we shall (before proceeding to the remaining syndesms) recall to mind the following passages, already noticed in part by De Wette and Tholuck. 128 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V. a. Matt, xxiii. 37, and Luke xiii. 34 : " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children !" b. Matt, xxvii. 57 ; Luke xix. 38 : Joseph of Arimathea, who lived at Jerusalem (for he had a sepulchre there), was a disciple of Jesus. c. Luke X. 38 sqq. : Jesus is on the most intimate terms with a family residing at Bethany, near to Jerusalem. d. Matt. iv. 25; Mark iii. 7: "Then followed Him great multi- tudes from Galilee, and Decapolis, and Jerusalem, and Judaea." How came the inhabitants of Judasa and Jerusalem to follow Jesus, if He never came to Judaea and Jerusalem ? Is it probable that the mere rumour induced a great multitude to set out on a pilgrimage to Gali- lee, without knowing where He might be found, first to seek Him out and then to follow Him farther ? Or, do not the general formulae employed by Matthew and Mark much rather imply, that Jesus occasionally passed through the places mentioned ? e. Luke occasionally gives as vague indication of time, "It came to pass, as He went to Jerusalem" (compare chap. ix. 51 with xvii. 11). In the former passage, the journey is expressly referred to as the last. In the latter, on the other hand, the "going to Jerusalem" is alluded to in an indefinite manner, and without fiarther explanation, as some- thing that was altogether a matter of course. 3. The most important question is, whether in John v. 1, eo/or?; tmv "'lovhalwv denotes a feast of the Passover. This was the opinion ol Calovius, Lightfoot, Chemnitz, and others, after the example of Iren- aeus and Luther. It is now almost antiquated. In chap. iv. 35 we read,- that when Jesus was on His way to Galilee, there wanted four months to the harvest. The first question that arises here is, Avhether the harvest intended is that of the winter or the summer fruits. The former began in May, the latter in September. Three cases may be supposed, a. We may imagine that the harvest intended is that of the winter fruits in the same year in which the first Passover, mentioned in chap. ii. 13, occurred. But this is altogether out of the question. However early the Passover may have fallen, the journey cannot pos- sibly have taken place before the end of March. What becomes, then, of the four months between the journey and the beginning of May? — h. The harvest of summer fruits in the same year may be the one alluded to. Four months before that time would be the end of April. But we find from chap. iii. 22, that Jesus went to Judaea, tarried there and baptized. And according to John iv. 1, He remained there long enough to baptize "more disciples than John." What becomes of all this time, if He returned at the end of April or beginning of CIIAr. v.] § 2G. COMPARISON OF JOHN AND THE SVNOPTISTS — SEQUENCE. 120 May? Moreover, at tliat time the harvest of winter fruits would liave just commenced ; and would it have been a natural thing to pass this over altogether, and say with reference to the later harvest of summer fruits, "There are yet four months, and then cometh {the) harvest?" And would it have been possible for Jesus to add, with any hope of effect, " Lift up your eyes and look on the fields, for they are white already to harvest," — a paradox to be understood of the spiritual har- vest, and which had no meaning except as a paradox ? — c. The harvest referred to might have been the harvest of winter fruits which fell in t\\Q foUoxoinrj spring (the time of the second Passover). Jesus must in this case have remained in Jerusalem (Judaea ?) till the end of December or beginning of January. In January He would have come into Galilee ; and in that month the healing of the nobleman's son would have occurred. The feast, therefore, which followed shortly after might have been either a Passover or a feast of Purim, but not a feast of Dedication. Against the supposition that it was a feast of the Passover, we mav adduce not merely the fact that another feast of the Passover is men- tioned directly^ afterward (chap. vi. 4), but the term applied to it, koprrj Ttov 'lovSaicov, without the article. Not the slightest reason can be given wdiy a Passover should ever have been spoken of in this way, and especially why John should have departed from his usual mode of speaking of it in this particular place. ^ The most probable con- clusion, then, is, that the feast referred to was the feast of Purim, which happened about a month before the Passover ; not, however, for the reason assigned by Hug, that eopr^ tS)v ^lovBaicov means the feast of the Jews, the one feast which peculiarly affected the Jews and their deliverance, but because no other feast occurred between January and March of comparatively minor importance. Still a second question has to be disposed of : Does John iv. 35 furnish a chronological datum at all ? Krafft refers to the analogous \eyeT€ in Matt. xvi. 2, and maintains the possibility, and probability, that the words quoted by Jesus may have been a common proverbial f;aying, which could only be used in ordinary cases at seed-time {^^ yet four months"), but which Jesus might apply in a figurative sense to any other time of the year. The common saying ran thus : " There are four months from seed-time to harvest;" Jesus says (alluding to the rapid conversion of the Samaritans), " In My spiritual field there ^ Though it would be by no means impossible that John, who passes over tho events which happened in Galilee almost without exception, should have passed hv a whole year spent in Galilee. * Vid. John ii. 13, 23, vi. 4, xi. 55, xii. 1, xiii. 9 130 TART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V, is a far shorter interval between the seed-time and the harvest." In this case it still remains a possible thing, that the feast alluded to may have been a feast of Tabernacles ; a conclusion which Krafft defends on internal grounds that are well deserving of consideration. The feast of Tabernacles was a humiliating memorial of the thirty-eight years spent as a punishment in the desert. There was certainly a typical parallel between the thirty-eight years' disease wdiich sin had brought upon the impotent man (chap. v. 14) and the thirty-eight years of punishment in the desert, even as between the deliverer Joshua and the deliverer Jesus. And the vparning given by Jesus in chap. v. 14 was a warning addressed to the whole of Israel, not to reject Him, the true Joshua, lest a worse judgment should come upon them. But if the feast mentioned in chap. v. 1 was the feast of Taber- nacles, it could not have been the one which followed i\\Q first Pass- over (John ii. 13) ; for the large Syndesm A. cannot possibly be placed between the Passover and feast of Tabernacles of the same year. It embraces a lengthened stay in Judaea, a journey to Galilee, a sojourn in Nazareth, a removal to Capernaum, and a prolonged stay there broken up by several journeys. There must, therefore, have been another feast of the Passover, betw^een the two mentioned in John ii. 13 and John vi. 4. And in Luke vi. 1 there is an evident allusion to such a feast {yid. p. 115). § 27. THE REMAINING SYNDESMS. The Syndesm A., then, is to be placed immediately after the return of Jesus from the first Passover. If we call the year in which this Passover occurred (taking the year in our sense, from January to December) the first year, the Syndesm A. will occupy from January to September of the second year. — (Jesus, having returned to Galilee, lives in Nazareth. When paying a visit to Cana, the nobleman comes to him with his petition. The occurrence in the synagogue, related by Luke, induces Him to go to Capernaum. Thence He takes a journey to Gadara, and, after travelling about, delivers the Sermon on the Mount.) 2. The Syndesm D. comes after the feast of Purim, and embraces the Passover of the third year (John the Baptist had been beheaded before this). — (Jesus sends out His disciples, awaits their return, goes into the desert, feeds the 5000, walks upon the sea.) 3. This is followed in a short time by the journey to the feast oi CHAP, v.] § 27. THE REMAINING SYNDESMS. 131 Tabernacles, and the journey to the feast of Dedication in the Decem- ber of the same year. After this, as we learn from John, Jesus went no more into Galilee, but to Peraa, where He remained (with the solitary exception of His journey to Bethany to the raising of Lazarus) till the fourth and last Passover. From the Synoptists also (Syndesm T.) we learn, that before His last sufferings, Jesus went to that part of Pera3a which borders upon the land of Judaea, and there remained. In this way, then, the two would harmonize most perfectly, were it not that, according to John, Jesus went to Peraea from Jerusalem (from the feast of Dedication), and according to the Synoptists, from Galilee. There are two ways of solving this difficulty. "We may assume either that John omits to state that Jesus went first into Galilee once more, or that the Synoptists omit the journey to tlie feast of Dedication between the discourses on ambition, etc., and the journey to Persea. The former assumption appears at the very first sight to be extremely forced. Is it likely that John, who is accustomed to describe so minutely the places which Jesus visited, and how often He returned to Galilee, should have completely passed over so long a stay as that which occupies the first half of the Syndesm T. ? But is the second assumption less constrained? — It is true, Matthews says (chap. xix. 1), " When Jesus had finished these sayings. He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan." But the apparent harshness and constraint vanish when we look into the matter more closely. It is evident from John, that after the feast of Dedication Jesus did not return any more to Galilee, but spent the whole of the last four months previous to His sufferings in the border country between Peraea and Judaea (John x. 40, xi. 54). Is it so very incredible that Matthew and the rest of the Synoptists, who have not mentioned any of the journeys up to Jerusalem to the feasts, should have omitted also to notice the fact, that on His journey to the northern extremity of the Dead Sea, Jesus passed through Jerusalem, for the purpose of being present at the feast of Dedication ? Is it strange, that he should simply have stated generally, that Jesus left Galilee, went to the border country between Judaea and Peraea, and there remained ? — The joui'ney to Phoenicia, then, the journey to Decapolis, with the feeding of the 4000, the transfiguration, and the last tour through Galilee, occui'red in the autumn of the third year. Thus we see that, notwithstanding all the freedom with which the Evangelists treat the subordinate question of the time when the events occurred, so many separate notices are found, indicative of the order in which different occurrences took place, that whoever applies him- 132 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V. self to the task with an honest mind, interpolating nothing, but con- fining himself simply to the definite data which lie before him, may arrive at a perfectly satisfactory result, as to the course of the life of Jesus. And whoever is not ashamed to believe m a living God, ^Adll also not be ashamed to acknowledge the finger of God Himself in this feature of the Gospels, in the possibility of restoring so com- pletely the true order in which the events occurred. And even with reo-ard to the j^ureli/ historical credibility of the Gospels, important conclusions may be drawn from this fact. Strauss had his dreams about four writers, every one of whom " flattered himself " that he was writincT in chronological order, and who nevertheless fell into innumer- able contradictions of one another. But we have found four writers, three of whom had no intention of writing in chronological order, but yet who have put us in a position, by means of the perfectly natural and unconnected notices which they have scattered here and there, to restore the proper order : an order whose correctness can be thoroughly discerned by the scrutinizing glance of internal criticism alone. And in making this assertion, we fearlessly challenge those leaders in scepticism, who affirm that the facts narrated by the Synop- tists cannot possibly be made to harmonize with the order of events given by John, and who have made no attempt whatever to accom- plish this result, to point out a single instance in which we have failed to adhere closely to the chronological data which the text supplies, or in which we have introduced data that are not to be found in the text itself. §28. COLLECTIVE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION RELATIVE TO ORDER OF SEQUENCE. The following is the collective result of our investigation, and shows the order in which the whole will be arranged in the Second Division : Time and Place. Events. Source. First Yeau. I. Jesus and John the Baptist. (Judaea.) Preaching of John. Synoptists and John. Baptism of Jesus. Synoptists. Temptation. ,, Testimony of the Baptist. John. First meeting with future disciples. „ JHAP. v.] 28. RESULT RELATIVE TO ORDER OF SEQUENCE. 133 1 Time and Tlace. | Events. Soofce. (Galilee.) II. Jesus still in His Parents' Home. Second Year. Marriage at Cana. Jesus a short time in Caper- naum. John. Pa&sover First Passover journey. Purification of the temple. ,, (Judsea.) Conversation with Nicodemus. Longer stay in Judaea. Jesus and John the Bap- tist at the Jordan. ". Third Year. Journey to Galilee (after the imprisonment of the Baptist). Samaritan woman. n (Samaria.) (Nazareth.) Jesus in Nazareth. Excursion to Cana. The nobleman. Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth. n Luke. III. Jesus in Capernaum. (Capernaum.) Call of two pair of brethren. (Peter's draught of fishes.) Healing of a blind and dumb man. Charge of Synd. G. " alhance with Beelzebub. Exclamations of a woman. )? Pharisees require a sign. The motlier and bretlu-en of Jesus want to see Him. Gadarene journey. Scribe wishes to follow. Parables. ^^ The storm allayed. ,, (Gadara.) Gadarenes. 11 (Capernaum.) Question about fasting. Jairus' daugliter, and woman with issue of blood. Two bhnd men. Dumb man possessed. ^^ Man with palsy let down through the roof. ,, Call of Levi, and meal in his house. ^^ (Nazareth.) Question, " Is not this the carpenter's son?" ^, Excursion to the scene of the Serrnon on the Mount. Synd. S. Choice of the twelve disciples. ^^ Sermon on the Mount. ^j (GaUlee.) Leper. 11 The people in the inn want to take Jesus. (Mark.) (Capernaum.) The centurion's servant. S. The man possessed in the synagogue. ,, Peter's mother-in-law. ^j (Nain.) Jesus goes into the desert. ^, Young man at Nain. (Luke.) Disciples sent by John. d. Prayer of Jesus. h. IV. Two Journeys to Jerusalem. (Jerusalem.) Journey to the feast of Tabernacles. Sick man at Bethcsda. John. Fourth Year. " 1 Passover. The Twelve sent out. D. and ! John. 1 134 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. V. Time and Place. Events. Source. (Galilee.) Fear of Herod. Return of the Twelve. D. (Lake of Gen- Feeding of the five thousand. 11 1 nesareth.) Jesus walks on the sea. 11 (Capernaum.) Discourse on the bread of life. John. September. Journey to the feast of Tabernacles. (Jerusalem.) Discourses in the temple (the woman taken in adultery). 11 The man born blind. 11 " The good shepherd." September to V. Last Stay in Galilee. December. Scribes come from Jerusalem. Discourses. T. (Phoenicia.) Canaanitish woman. „ (Decapolis.) The deaf and dumb man. ,, Feeding of the four thousand. 11 Pharisees require a sign. Conversation about leaven. ,, (Bethsaida.) The man born bhnd. „ (Caesarea Peter's confession. First announcement of suf- „ Philippi.) fering. (GaUlee.) Transfiguration. The boy possessed. Wanderings through Galilee. 11 Second announcement of suffering. 11 (Capernaum.) Conversation, who is the greatest. Return. The temple-money. " Discourses on ambition and offences. 11 \l. Jesus in the Border Country between Judaea AND PeRJSA. (Jerusalem.) Feast of Dedication. Discourses in Solomon's Porch. John. (Jordan.) Conversation on divorce. Little children brought. T. Fifth Year. (Bethany.) Raising of La/axus. John. (Jordan.) Journey to Jerusalem. " Good Master." Parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Words of Peter : " Lord, we have forsaken all." Third announcement of suffering. Request of the sons of Zebedee. T. (Jericho.) Blind men of Jericho. Zacchaeus. Entrance into Jerusalem.' " ' T}ie incidents which we find, particularly in Luke, without any data indicative of their relation to one another and to the other accounts, must bo placed somewhere between IV. and V. They are the following': — The rubbing of the ears of corn: the withered hand: the anointing by the woman that was a sinner: the incident in Samaria: the mission and return of the seventy disciples : the scribe (Luke x.) : the good Samaritan : Mary and Martha : discourse on prayer : the meal in the Pharisee's house : discourse in Luke xi. 7 sqq. : Jesus asked to arbitrate, consequent discourse : report of the massacre of the Galileans : the impo- tent man : similitudes of the kingdom of heaven (Luke xiii.): "the strait gate:" warning against Herod : man with dropsy, and subsequent discourse : parables and discourses, Luko xvi.-xvii. : ten lepers : eschatological discourses : the unjust judge : Pharisee and publican. CHAP, v.] § 28. RESULT RELATIVE TO ORDER OF SEQUENCE. 135 Before passing from this subject, we must just call attention to the internal fitness of this result, the order and unity which it gives to the work of Christ. From His removal to Capei-naum onwards, the whole may be divided into three periods. In the first period (from the autumn of the second year to the autumn of the third), Jesus manifests Himself in Galilee as Rabbi, announces that the kingdom of God has come, and seeks to make men disciples, or members of that kingdom. He invites them, by their own conversion (ixeTdvota), to render the establishment of the long-promised kingdom of God a possible event. This has its culminating point (not its starting point^ in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus did not commence in this majestic manner, with His royal edict, without further preparation. He waited till His unassuming ministry had collected a large numbec round Him, and then promulgated the fundamental law of His king- dom. Then also, when a separation between those who had been converted and those who had not, could no longer be delayed. He iovin3i\\y organized His attendants and His labours, by selecting tioelvc from the whole number of His followers, to be His special messengers. — From this point we enter the second period of His ministry, which extends to the autumn of the fourth year. He now comes forward with power and energy among the people, and enters thoroughly into the spiritual ivar with the nation. He formally sends out His disciples into the towns ; He repeatedly appears in Jerusalem, and proclaims Himself as Messiah. By a series of the most stupendous miracles. He seeks to arouse the people. In a word. He endeavours to win by con- quest the conversion of Israel. But Israel hardens itself en masse ; and its opposition is concentrated and organized. This second period is concluded with the transfiguration, in which the lawgiver and the prophet offer to Him the homage and the recognition which the hard- ened nation has refused. — In the third period, from the harvest of the fourth year till the Passover of the fifth, He retires into solitude (with the single exception of the feast of Dedication, at which He makes a last attempt to convert the people), and directs all His energies to the preparation of His disciples for their future calling as witnesses to Israel. His hour being now come. He places Himself freely in the hands of His enemies. We now pass to the Chronology of the Gospels, from which we shall gain a significant confirmation of the results at which we have arrived on the subject of Sequence. 136 PAET FIRST. DIVISION FIBST. [CELYP. VL CHAPTER VI. CHROXOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. §29. THE TAXING OF QUIRINIUS. The first chronological datum furnished in the New Testament (for the purpose of determining the time when Christ was born), is the taxing of Qidrlnlus (Luke ii. 1 sqq.). The second and more compli- cated one serves to indicate the year in which John the Baptist com- menced his ministry. The difficulties raised from time immemorial respecting the taxing of Quirinius, and lately revived by Strauss and Bruno Bauer, may be resolved into the four following questions : 1. Did Augustus ever issue an a7roypa(f)7] embracing the whole empire ? 2. Could Judaea be taxed under Herod? 3. Has Luke confounded the taxing under Herod with the later one by Quii'inius ? 4. How did it happen that Joseph and Mary had to travel to their native place on account of the taxing I The first question has reference to the fact, that no contempora- neous author gives any account of an edict issued by Augustus for the taxation of the whole empire. The second relates to the circumstance, that in countries not yet reduced in formam provincice, but governed by regibus sociis (as Judaea was under Herod the Great), the right of taxation belonged to these regibus sociis, and not to the Romans. The third difficulty arises from the fact, that, according to Josephus (Ant. 18, 1, 1, cf. Acts v. 37), Quirinius did not take a census in Judasa till the year 11 of the Dionysian era,^ after the banishment of Archelaus ; whereas in the passage in question Luke evidently intends to say, that the census took place in the year 5 B.C. according to the same era. The fourth rests upon the fact, that, according to the Roman custom, it was neither necessary for men to travel to their native place, nor for women to appear in person at all. Before proceeding to examine these difficulties more minutely, w? would make two preliminary remarks. The first is, that Luke wa». very well acquainted with the Quirinian census {vid. Acts v. 37) . the second, that aTroypdcjieadai, is used both for taking a census (i.f , [' T7(/. note 1, p. 147— Ed.] CHAP. VI.] § 29. THE T.\XLNG OF QUIRINIUS. 137 au account of the different inhabitants and their property) and for imposing a tax (on the basis of such a census). For the latter, the Greeks also used the word d7roTi/jbr)(n<;. So far as the Jirst question is concenied, we will neither evade it by the forced exegesis still retained by Bug, that Trdaa t) olKovfievq means the land of Judoea, nor by Lange's view, that "as the taxino- edicts, though issued to different provinces at different times, were essentially one and the same, Luke may have had in his mind the taxing which took place at that period here and there throughout the Roman empire;" for Luke speaks too distinctly of a 807/ia which was issued in those days, enjoining one single uTroypacpt] for the whole orhis. We are also willing to grant to Strauss and Bruno Bauer, that the traces of a general census of the empire, which Savigny thought he had discovered in Cassiodorus and Suidas, furnish no certain historical basis ; since it is but too probable that the accounts on which the allu- sions referred to were based, were originally drawn from Luke ii. itself. Nevertheless, we maintain that there is nothing in the way of the assumption, that Augustus did issue a command to take a census of the whole orhis. In support of this, we appeal to nothing but the hreviaHum imperii spoken of in Tacitus (Ann. 1, 11) and Suetonius (Octav. 101), and so often adduced in this discussion. After the death of Augustus, Tiberius ordered a Uhellus to be read to the Senate, in which opes puhliccB cojitinebantur, quantum civium SOCIORUMQUE in armis ; quot classes, regno, provincial, tributa aut vectigalia et necessitates ac largitiones QU^ cuncta sua manu perscripsekat Augustus. — Strauss thinks, indeed, that "Augustus might have as- certained the number of troops and the amount of money which the Jewish princes had to contribute, without a Roman census." But who says anything about a Roman census? When the question arises. Why was Joseph obliged to go to Bethlehem ? Strauss says, no reason can be discovered ; for it was not required by the Roman form of taking a census. So that in one place he says that a Roman census was unnecessary in Palestine, and in another that it was incredible. Very good ; the census was 7Wt a Roman one, so far as Judaea was concerned, but a Jewish one, enjoined by the Emperor iipon the rex socius. For some kind of census must have been taken in the different provinces and social states of the Roman empire, if Augustus was to ascertain the tributa aut vectigalia and the quantum sociorum in armis. ^ But when Strauss says, " For Juda3a, Augustus had the ^ Cf. Winer, Realwbrterbuch ii. p. 470 seq. " The Emperor Augustus pos- Fpssed a breviarium imp., in ■which was stated quantum sociorum in armis, and Palestine can hardly have been omitted." It is against Winer, then, that Bkek 138 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. VI. later Quirinian census in his possession," we simply ask, whetlier an emperor who attached such importance to the order with which the affairs of the empire were administered, and particularly to this Ubellus, that he wrote out the latter with his own hand, would be likely to wait till one state after another had been reduced in formam provincice f or whether it is probable that, so far as Judsea especially was concerned, he contented himself to govern for two and forty years without a census, until in the 43d year an Archelaus happened to be banished ? It is certainly far more probable, that if Augustus wished to know the number of the cives and socii in armis, etc., he immediately made his wishes known to the proconsuls and allied kings throughout the empire. And this is what Luke says he did in the year 5 B.C. of the Dionysian era, i.e., in the 27th or 28th yean of his reign. " But no contemporaneous author makes any allusion to the fact." The reason why Joseplius is silent, has been satisfactorily explained by Hug. Apart from him, with the exception of Suetonius, who writes with the utmost brevity, we have no other history of this particular period ; since there is a gap in Dio Cassius at this very point, of no less than ten years. But without laying stress upon this, is it so general a custom with historians to record such purely administrative proceedings, — we might almost say, such police regulations? If it liad been the imposition of a tax, this might also have had a political aspect ; it would have been an important step towards the annihilation of a social state ; but we know that airoypa^r] may, and does mean a census. A command to draw up an account of the population, and the" persons liable to taxation, could be issued with a stroke of the pen. It would cause so little excitement, and appear to a Roman author a matter of such trifling importance, that the silence of ten authors would not be surprising, much less that of one compendious bio- grapher. The foregoing remarks also furnish a reply to the second question, whether Augustus could take such a census in the country of a rex socius ? We have already answered the objection that a Roman taxa- tion was impossible in the country of a rex socius, by the repeated remark, that nothing in the world compels us to think of taxation, but that it is to a simple census that reference is made. Moreover, as Winer has said, " the institution of such an a7ror) was by no means at variance with the political relation in which Herod stood to should direct his remark, that " it was not necessary to number the whole of the inhabitants in order to ascertain quantum civium in armis.'''' But what does Bleek do with the tributa el vecti(jaUa ? Was it the soldiers only who paid taxes? CHAP. VI.] § 29. THE TAXING OF QUICIXIUS. 139 the empire ;" and even if the census had hccn ordered for the purpose of a future Roman taxation, " the possibility of such a census could not be absolutely denied." ' — But lastly, we remark that the journey of Joseph to Bethlehem is sufficient of itself to prove that the census was taken in the Jeioish form. This also sets at rest one part of the foiirtli difficulty, viz., that Joseph went to Bethlehem, which was not necessary according to the Koman custom. The difficulties are all solved by the same assump- tion, that so far as Judsea was concerned, the census was taken in the Jewish form. This explains both how such a census could be taken in Herod's country and yet by order of Augustus, and also why Joseph should go to Bethlehem. — Passing on to the second part of the foxirth question, viz., why Marij was obliged to go xoith Joseph to Beth- lehem, it seems strange that, after Tholuck has defended the Jewish form as explanatory of Joseph's journey, he should explain Marys journey by conceding to his opponents the Roman form, " which required the attendance of women." ^ For only one of the two forms can have been adopted ; not the Jewish for Joseph, and the Roman for Mary. Let us keep, therefore, to the Jewish. And so far as Mary's journey is concerned, all necessity for conjecture is removed, if we simply read what Luke has so plainly written. After assigning the reason for Joseph's journey, " because he was of the house and lineage of David," he adds, that he went with Mary ovar) ijKva). It was not on account of the census, therefore, that Mary went ; but Joseph went to Bethlehem, and took Mary with him, because she was with child. No explanation, certainly, is needed of the fact, that in such agitated times, in the midst of a census, when confusion and disturbance might well be apprehended, Joseph should prefer to tak& Mary with him, rather than leave her among strangers when so near to her confinement ; especially as he could not know beforehand that he should find no lodgings in Bethlehem. The third difficulty only remains. Luke says, " This census was taken, as the first, when Quirinius was proconsul of Syria," and yet the well-known taxation under Quirinius did not take place till a.d. 11. Now, it is evident from Acts v. 37, as compared with Josephus, Ant. ^ Among the passages cited by Wi7>er (Josephus, Ant. 16, 4, 1 ; 17, 5, 8 ; 17, 2, 4; 16, 9, 3), see especially the last. Augustus ypx(pu ^rpos t6u 'llpuo/}", oV/ vecy^xt xP^f^ii/o; xi/Tu (pi'hoi vX>-j vttyikou ^pyiffirxi. (Wrote to Herod that whcrei^s of old he had used him as a friend he should now use him as a subject.) 2 Winer has correctly pointed out, that from what Dionysius Halic. has said (Ant. Rom. 4, 15), it merely follows that the women icere included^ not that they had to appear in person. 140 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. VI. 18, 1, 1 ; 20, 5, 2 ; B. J. 2, 9, 1, that Luke was not only acquainted with this latter taxation, but knew all the circumstances attending it ; and it is perfectly inconceivable, therefore, that he should have been ignorant of the tinie, especially as in Acts v. 37 he calls it 17 aiTO'ypa^r], " the taxing," — the one, notorious taxing, the taxing /car' For this reason, Winer assumes, as Casaubon, Grotius, and others had done, that Quirinius, who was at that very time (5 B.C.) in the East as a magistratus extraordinarius (Tac. Ann. 3, 48), took a census in Judsea by the express command of Augustus. But he guards himself against the false exegesis of his predecessors, who have endeavoured to explain 'q'yejioveveiv, as indicating an extraordinary magistracy of this description. " ' Hye/jioveveLv rr]<; ^vp/a?," he says, " can only mean to rule over Syria, not to hold a superior office in Syria;" — and we might add, how is it credible that Luke, who was acquainted with the later census taken under the proconsulate of Quirinius, should have failed to distinguish it from a former one taken by Quirinius, but not as proconsul ; and still more, that he should have used the ambiguous misleading word rjyefioveveLv'^. Winer, therefore, is not disinchned to adopt the conclusion, that Quirinius had already taken a census as magistratus extraordinarius; but he also assumes that Luke was mistaken as to the r/yefxavevecv, and thought that Quiri- nius was proconsul when he took the earlier census.-^ But it is still as inconceivable as ever that Luke, who was so thoroughly acquainted with the minute details of the later taxing, should have been ignorant of the time when Quirinius was proconsul, and should have added nothing to distinguish the first unknown and fruitless census from the later and more celebrated taxing. And had he really thought that Quirinius was proconsul when the first diroypatf^t] was made, he would have written axjrr] 97 aTrcypacjir] r}v r] Trpcorr] rev Kvprjviov rov T179 ^vpta<; riyefMevevovTa. Winer's supposition, therefore, does not meet the difficulty. The contradiction would still remain, that in Acts v. 37 Luke shows that he was acquainted with the "taxing" by Quirinius in the year 11 A.D., and therefore ought to make some distinction between this and the census taken before ; ^ [There is good reason to believe that Quirinius really was proconsul at the time of our Saviour's birth as well as at the subsequent period. The reader will find a full discussion of the point in a work by Aug. Wilhelm Zumpt, Commenta- tionum Epir/raphicarum ad antiqidtates Romanas pertinentium., vol. ii., Berolini 1854. It is there shown (pp. 88-107) that there occurs a blank in the succession of Syrian proconsuls at that period, and a variety of proofs are adduced that the blank should be filled up by the name of Quirinius. — Ed.] CHAP. VI.] § 29. THE TAXING OF QUIRINIUS. 141 and nevertheless he speaks in the Gospel, chap. ii. 2, of the census taken 5 B.C. as happening in the , proconsulate of Quirinius, as if the two were perfectly identical. We do not stop to discuss the various perversions of the text, by which it has been attempted to bring a different sense out of Luke ii. 2, such as taking Trpoorrj rjy€fjLov€vovTo<; for tt/oo tov rjye/jLoveveiv, etc., etc. They are quite unnecessary, as the simplest and easiest solution lies close at hand. We have already pointed out (p. 100, 101) that Luke added the word irpdiri], for the purpose of showing that at the very time when Christ "svas born, the first steps were taken towards a 7ieiv and unheard-of humiliation of the people of the theocracy. " The census took place (and that as i\\Q first) when Quirinius," etc. If TrpcoTT] is disposed of in this manner, the question arises. How are we to explain the rest? Two inferences may be drawn, as we have seen, from Acts v. 37 : first, that since the third Gospel and the Acts were written by the same author, it is certain that Luke cannot have fallen into an anachronism, and ante-dated the Quirinian census taken in 11 a.d. ; and secondly, that when Luke speaks of a census which was taken at the time of Christ's birth, he must have made a distinction between this and the later Quirinian census, which he calls in Acts V. 37 r] airoypa^rj, the census Kar e^oyr^v. The true explana- tion must be one which is in harmony with these two propositions. Paulus has given it already. He does not " alter " avTi] into avT-q, as Winer says, — for there was no alteration required, since Luke's auto- graph read, not aim} or avrrj, but ATTH ; but he accentuates the indefinite ATTH as avrrj : " The taxing itself took place when Quiri- nius," etc. In this way, then, Luke indicates the relation between the u7roypa(J37j in Luke ii. 1 and the Quirinian census. The following was the simple state of the case. Augustus issued an edict (affecting the administration), that throughout the whole empire, and in the allied states, accounts should be taken of the num- ber of the inhabitants, and (what might easily be connected with them) of the property and liability to taxation. Although in allied states like Judjea the accounts were taken by the allied rulers ac- cording to the national custom, the simplest politician could easily foresee, that Augustus was keeping quietly in the background an intention to reduce these states gradually, as occasion might offer, into the condition of provinces, and to enforce the Roman taxation. In Judaea, as is well known, this was accomplished through Quirinius, on the banishment of Archelaus.^ ^ There were three distinct events, therefore : 1. The publication of the edict, that a census should be taken by degrees throughout the entire orhis terrarum; 2. 142 PACT FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. VI The design of Luke was to show how the birth of the Messiah and the spiritual deliverance of Israel coincided with the time of their political bondage. And he had certainly a perfect right to regard the census as essentially one with the Quirinian taxation (which was unquestionably based upon the census), and to treat the census as the first step towards the taxation. It was only in this light that the census, which was taken according to the Jewish form, could be regarded as the commencement of the bondage of Israel. But he wishes the reader to look at it in the same light. Hence he adds a parenthesis to the notice of " the Emperor's dogma," to the effect that "the uTToypacpTj itself took place — as the first — under the proconsulate of Quirinius." In Luke's view, therefore, the Quirinian taxation bore the same relation to the census of Augustus, as " the occurrence of the airoypa^i] itself" to the "issuing of the edict for an aTroypacj)')].'" Now an a'7ro'ypd<^ea6ai (in the form of a census) occurred at the time of Jesus' birth. But as airoypacj)^ has also the fuller meaning of a tax, Luke could employ it in this double sense, to show that the aTroypa^r} which commenced in the census of Augustus was completed in the Quirinian taxation. And for the very same reason, it would not have done to use the word dTroTifjbrjaif;, since his direct intention was to show, that the census was one and the same act with the sub- sequent taxation. — In this way Trpwrrj receives a meaning ; the con- struction becomes clear ; the whole design of the passage is obvious ; the lexicon signification of the words and the grammatical construc- tion are retained ; the history is perfectly harmonious ; and, above all, the discrepancy which Strauss and others point out, viz., that what Luke knew perfectly well when he wrote Acts v. 37, he did not know when he wrote Luke ii. 1 sqq., is entirely removed.'^ the taking of this census in Judaea under Herod; 3. the enforcement of a tax throughout the whole empire (in Judssa, about the year 11), for which the edict had prepared the way. — In ver. 2, Luke merely distinguishes the third (not the second) from the first. — The objection brought against me by Wieseler may easily be disposed of. The edict mentioned in ver. 1 I regard as one affecting the entire orbis ten-arum. But there is nothing at variance with this, in the fact that Luke should regard the subsequent and gradual enforcement of a Roman tax as the final result of the edict previously issued, enjoining a census alone ; and it seems to me perfectly natural that, in stating the time when the tax was enforced, he should mention Judaea alone. ^ If ver. 1 does not refer to a census taken under Herod the Great, Joseph's journey to Bethlehem is simply incomprehensible. A Galilean, living under the Galilean tetrarch Herod Antipas, even though Bethlehem were his native place, would certainly not have been required to travel into the land of Judaea, which was under another ruler. CUAP. VI.] § 30. LYSANIAS OF ABILENE. 14-3 §30. LYSANIAS OF ABILENE. The time in which John the Baptist commenced his ministry is described very minutely in Luke iii. 1, viz. : — 1. AVhen Pontius Pilate was governor in Judaea. 2. During the tetrarchy of Ilerod (Antipas) in Galilee. 3. During the tetrarchy of Philip in Itura'a and Trachonitis. 4. During the tetrarchy of Lysanias in Abilene. 5. Dui'ing the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. 6. In the loth year of Tiberius. Apart from No. 4, it is admitted that all these data perfectly coin- cide. Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaja fi'om about the year a.d. 25 to 36/ i.e., from the 12th to the 23d year of Tiberius. Herod Antipas' was tetrarch of Galilee from the year 1 (Dionysian era) to the death of the Emperor Tiberius (i.e., during the whole of his i-eign and some time previously). Philip reigned from the year 1 (Diony- sian era) to the 19th year of Tiberius (a.d. 33). — On account of his influence, Annas was regarded as high priest, as well as Caiaphas, even after his deposition.^ Caiaphas had been created high priest by Valerius Gratus, A.D. 25 (the 11th year of Tiberius'*), and con- tinued so till the year 36, when he was deposed by the proconsul Vitellius.^ So far, the data all agree. But this does not appear to be the case with iysa?«'as of Abilene. Strauss informs us that "Josephus speaks of an 'A^lXa r) Avaavtov ; and mentions a Lysanias, who was governor of Chalcis in the Lebanon, in the vicinity of which the dis- trict of Abila is to be sought, and who was therefore ivithout doubt the governor of Abila also. But this Lysanias was put to death by com- mand of Cleopatra 34 years before Christ. No other Lysanias is mentioned by Josephus, or by any other writer of that age." In proof of all this, he cites a number of passages from Josephus and Bio Cassius^ most of which are to be found in Winers Realworterbuch, pp. 9, 10. We will look closely at these citations. 1. From the Antiquities (14, 7, 4) we learn that a Ptolemy, son of Mennoius, I'uled over Chalcis (in the Lebanon) : " Ptolemy the ' Vide Josephus, Ant. 18, 4, 1, and 2 and 3. 2 Cf. the passages from Josephus in Kaumer's Palastina, pp. 290 sqq. lilem for Philip. ^ Cf. John xviii. 13 ; Acts iv. 6. * Josephus, Ant. 18, 2, 2. « Josephus, Ant. 18, 4, 3. 144 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. VI. son of ]\rennreus, who was the ruler of Chalcis, under Mount Li- banus." ^ 2. From the Wars of the Jews (1, 13, 1) we learn that the son and successor of this Ptolemy the son of Mennseus was named Lysanias : " Lysanias had already succeeded to the government, upon the death of his father (and he was Ptolemy the son of Mennseus)." 3. In Ant. 15, 4, 1, we read that this veiy Lysanias of Chalcis was put to death by Antony (34 B.C.), at the request of Cleopatra : " She hurried Antony on perpetually to deprive others of their pos- sessions and give them to her. And, as she went over Syria with him, she contrived to get it into her possession ; so he slew Lysanias the son of Ptolemy, accusing him of his bringing the Parthians upon those countries. She also petitioned Antony to give her Judaea." 4. In Ant. 19, 5, 1, Josephus states that, 75 years afterwards (viz., 41 A.D.), Agrippa L was reinstated by Claudius in his ancestral kingdom, and received in addition an " Abila of Lysanias." " Now when Claudius had taken out of the way all those soldiers whom he suspected, which he did immediately, lie published an edict, and therein confirmed that kingdom to Agrippa which Canis had given him, and therein commended the king highly. He also made an addition to it of all that country over which Herod, who was his grandfather, had reigned, that is, Juda3a and Samaria. This he re- stored to him as due to his family. But for Abila of Lysanias, and all that lay at Mount Libanus, he bestowed them upon him, as out of his own territories." Also in the Wars of the Jews (2, 11, 5) : " Moreover he bestowed on Agrippa his whole paternal kingdom im- mediately, and added to it, besides those countries that had been given by Augustus to Herod, Trachonitis and Auranitis; and still besides these, that kingdom which was called the kingdom of Lysanias." Compare the similar gift conferred upon Agrippa II. (Wars of the Jews, 2, 12, 8). Caesar "removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom ; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonc;ed to Philip, which contained Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis : he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias, and that province which Varus had governed." Let us now examine Strauss's positions. If we had not the im- portant passage from the Wars of the Jews (2, 12, 8), and another, to Avhich we shall refer presently, from Antiq. 20, 5, 2, the matter ^ [Our author always quotes Josephus in the original Greek. For the conveni- ence of general readers, his quotations are given in this translation in English (rid. Whiston's Josephus). — Ed.] CHAP. VI.] § 30. LYSAXIAS OF ABILENE. 145 would stand as Winer and Tholuck put it. Wi7iers conjecture would be a possible one, that " the Lysanias mentioned in No. 4 is the same l>erson as the son of Ptolemy mentioned in Nos. 2 and 3." But what would follow from this ? Nothing else than what Winer infers : Josephus mentions an earlier Lysanias, who died 34 B.C. ; Luke a later on6 : there must therefore have been tico men of that name. Or, more exactly, — it is very possible that Augustus gave back to the descendants of the old Lysanias a part of his possessions ; against which, the silence of Josephus, who gives only occasional notices of this extra- Palestine district, is not a valid argument. Therefore, Winer's con- jecture, that although the Lysanias in 2 and 3 be identical with the one mentioned in 4, yet a later Lysanias may have existed, is not re- futed thereby, that Josephus in No. 4 does not give express notice, that when he names that district /SaaiXeia tov Avaaviov, he does not do it on account of Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, who died 34 B.C., but in reference to a certain later Lysanias. But on closer examination, the identity imagined by Wine?' turns out to be very improbable. In the first place, the conclusion is far too rashly draA\'n, that " because Chalcis, over which Lysanias the son of Ptolemy ruled,- was in the Lebanon, and according to Josephus (Ant. 19, 5, 1), Abila, which was called in his time the kingdom of Lysanias, was there also, therefore the kingdoms were the same, and the princes also." In Ant. 19, 5, 1, Abila is distinguished by a koX from the oTToaa iv tm Al^clvw opei, so that it may have been far away from Lebanon, and at all events distinct from Abilene. There is another circumstance also which makes us suspicious of TFz«^?''s conjecture. Does not Josephus, in the Wars of the Jews (2, 12, 8), speak without reserve of the kinsdom of Lvsanias alono; with Trachonitis and Gaulonitis, as if he intended to say that the '^kingdom of Lysanias" was in existence still? Who in the world would think of calling a province, that for 70 years had had no ruler of the name of Lysanias, and before these 70 years, only for six years, "the kingdom of Lysanias"? Tholuck, therefore, is not wrong when he says that Josephus himself, in the passages cited under No. 4, refers to a second Lysanias ; for, though he does not expressly call him second, it fol- lows as a matter of course that he could not be the one alluded to in the passages quoted in Nos. 2, 3. But there is no necessity even for this conjecture. Thank God, we need no possibilities, and no probabilities, where we have certainty. Agrippa 11. ruled over Chalcis, before Claudius enlarged his territoiy- In the Wars of the Jews (2, 12, 8) we read tnat Ca3sar "removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom, for he gave him the 10 14G PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. VL tetrarcliy ... he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias ;" and in Antiq. 20, 5, 2, " Herod, king of Chalcis," is mentioned in connection with an event which occurred when the procurator Tiberius Alexander entered upon his office in the year 48 A.D. Agrippa, therefore, must- have ruled over Chalcis from 47 A.D. onwards. Now it was not till the year 52 that he exchanged Chalcis for the tetrarchy of Philip, and received in addition the kingdom of Lysanias, or Abila of Lysanias} But the kingdom of the earlier Lysanias, whom Cleopatra put to death, consisted of Chalcis. Consequently, if the Lysanias referred to by Josephus in the passages quoted in No. 4 was the ruler of Chalcis slain by Cleopatra, he would say in so many words, Agrippa lost Chalcis, and received in the place of it, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Chalcis also. Strauss may now decide for himself, whether Josephus meant the kingdom of the Lysanias of Cleopatra's time, when he spoke of that of the Lysanias of the time of Christ; whether, that is, he can have been thinking of one Lysanias when speaking of another. At the same time, we would advise him, in future, to read his quotations before writing them down. The result to which we are brovight is this. Even Josephus was aware of the existence of a later Lysanias. The chronological state- ments of Luke are perfectly correct and extremely exact, and exhibit a remarkable acquaintance with the history of Judaea, which was at that time extremely involved. § 3L i CHRONOLOGY OF GOSPEL HISTORY. The datum furnished in Luke iii. 1, and already discussed in the preceding section, gives us a safe starting point in our attempt to discover the exact position which the Gospel history occupied in rela- tion to the general history of the world.^ John the Baptist com- menced his ministry in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, which ^ As a passing remark, we may be allowed to observe, tliat Abila of Lysaniaa is distinguished by this very epithet from"A/3/A« x«t« t^j/ JJipxixu (Wars of the Jews, 2, 13, 2), which Agrippa first received in the year 54, along with Julias, Taricbaa, and Tiberias. * The reason why we cannot start from the year of Christ's birth is very obvi- ous. The length of time which intervened between the birth of Jesus and His public appearance is nowhere given with chronological exactness. At the same time, we shall see as we proceed, that it is possible to arrive at a tolerably proba- ble result even with regard to the year of Christ's birth. CHAP. VI.] § 31. CHRONOLOGY OF GOSPEL HISTORY. 147 was the year 28-29 of the Dionysian era^ (August 781 to August 782 ; cf. Wiesele7', chron. Syii. p. 172). We are therefore justified in placing the public appearance of the Baptist in the summer of 29. For John is hardly likely to have commenced his baptismal work in the September of 28, just before the season of the early rain ; much less in winter. In all probability, he waited till after the latter rain (March and April). Another chronological link is the imprisonment- of the Baptist. With reference to this, Wieseler has conclusively demonstrated, — 1. that the war between Herod Antipas and his father-in-law, the elder Aretas, was not immediately connected with the divorce of the daugh- ter of Aretas, and therefore furaishes no chronological datum avail- able for our purpose. — 2. Antipas was married to Herodias before Agrippa I. returned from Rome to Palestine (Josephus, Ant. 18, 6, 1 sqq.). But Agrippa returned after Tiberius had heard of the murder of his son Drusus by Sejanus, which took place in the year 23 of the Dionysian era,' and the tidings of which were received a few days after the execution of Sejanus by the widow, in Nov. 31.^ Shortly after this, though hardly during the stormy season of the latter end of the autumn, but in all probability in the commencement of 32, Agrippa I. returned to Palestine. In the beginning of 32, therefore, Antipas was already married to Herodias. — 3. According to Josephus (Ant. 18, 5, 1), it was when on a journey to Rome that Antipas planned his marriage with Herodias ; and before his return, his first wife, the daughter of Aretas, heard of it and fled. This journey cannot have taken place after the death of Sejanus (in the autumn of 31), for it was on his return that Antipas was accused of having concluded a secret treaty with Sejanus {Jos. Ant. 18, 7, 2). Wieseler has shown that it was very probably the death of Livia (29) which was the occasion of the journey. In this case, the return of Antipas may be placed in the spring of the year 30. In the summer of the year 30, the marriage with Herodias took place ; and shortly after this, John was imprisoned. This imprisonment lasted for some considerable time. It must have been about Easter of the year 32, therefore, that his death took place. Wieseler^ in fact, has shown that the yeveaia of ^ [The Dionysian era is the common Christian era : so called after Dionysius Exiguus, a Roman abbot of the sixth century, who was the first to propose that Christians should use the time of Christ's birth as their era. In this era the birth of Christ is fixed from three to five years too late. — Ed.] 2 "With Suetonius, Tib. 52, and Tacitus, Ann. 4, 8 and 13, compare Dio Cassins 58, 11, and Suetonius, Tib. 62. 3 Tacitus 4, 8 ; 6, 25. 148 PART FIRST. DIVISION FIRST. [CHAP. VI. Herod was in all probability the commemoration of his ascent of the throne, and was held shortly before the Passover. 3. This chronological result is in perfect harmony with tho results of our inquiries on the subject of sequence. The appearance ot John occurred in the summer of 29. The baptism and temptation of Jesus, and His first meeting with His future disciples, must also have taken place during the same summer; so that Jesus went to Capernaum before the commencement of the early rain (i.e., before November). At the Passover of 30, He went up to the feast at Jerusalem, purified the temple, and remained for some time in Judsea. His retm-n to Galilee came after the imprisonment of the Baptist, which took place in the course of the year 30 (certainly not before the autumn, since Jesus had met with John in the summei', when baptizing in the Jordan). The sojourn of Jesus in Nazareth will fall in the autumn or winter. Jesus went thence to Capernaum, and we gain for the Syndesm A. the interval between the commencement of the year 31 and the feast of Tabernacles of the same year. (During this time the Baptist Avas in prison.) Before the Passover of 32, after an imprisonment of about a year and a half, John was beheaded. It was in this year 32 that the feeding of the 5000, the (second) journey to the feast of Taber- nacles, the last stay in Galilee, and the feast of Dedication, occurred. The death of Christ took place at the Passover of the year 33. The last result is confirmed by the fact, that in the year 33 of the Dionysian era, the 15th of Nisan fell upon a Saturday (Wieseler, chr. Syn. p. 446). At the proper time, we shall be able to show that the Friday on which Jesus died, was really the day before the 15th of Nisan. The following, therefore, is the result of our chronological inquiries, viz. : that tho first year was the year 29 ; the second, the year 30 ; the third, the year 31 ; the fourth, the year 32 ; the fifth, the year 33, of the Dionysian era. According to this chronology, more ample room is provided for the ministry of the Baptist, which lasted, according to the Gospels, a considerable time, and also for his imprisonment, than is given by Wieseler, who refers Luke iii. 1 to the appearance of Christ instead of the Baptist, that he may gain a longer time for the ministry of the latter, and leaves only three weeks — viz., from March 19th, 29, to April 11th of the same year — for his imprisonment. How does Mark vi. 20 agree with this 1 And how does it harmonize with the mission of the disciples of John ? It can hardly have been less than a week before his death that the disciples were sent ; and if he had been only a fortnight in prison, can it possibly have been such sur- prising news, that Jesus was working miracles and teaching? How much more completely is all this in harmony with the result CHAP. I.] PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. 149 at which we have anived ? according to wliich Jesus did not enter upon His peculiar and perfectly independent ministry till after the imprisonment of John, whereas all the events of the second and third years (includinfr the whole of the Syndesm A.) occurred between the imprisonment of John and the mission of his disciples. DIVISION 11. THE CONTENTS OF THE GOSPELS, CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THEIR IklATTER. CHAPTER I. THE YOUTH OF CHRIST. §32. THE GENEALOGIES. Matthew. Luke. Adam. 1. Ahraliam. Abraham, 2. Isaac. Isaac. 3. Jacob. Jacob. 4. Judah and his bretl Iiren. Judah. 5. Pharez and Zara by Thamar. Pharez. G. Esrom. Esrom. 7. Aram. Aram. 8. Aminadah. Aminadah* 9. Naasson. Naasson. 10. Salmon. Salmon. 11. Boaz hy Rahab. Boaz. 12. Obedhy Ruth. Obed. 13. Jesse. Jesse. 14. King David. David. 1, . Nathan. 2, . Mattatha. 1. Solomon, by the ^ kvife of 3, . Hainan. Uriah. 2. Roboam. 4. , Melea. 150 ) PART FIRST, DIVISION SECOND. Matthew, Luke. 3. Ahia. 5. EUakim. 4, Assa. 6. Jonan. f). Josaphat. 7. Joseph. 6. Joram. 8. Jwc^a. 7. Ozias. 9. Symeon. 8. Jotham. 10. Zem. 9. Achaz. 11. Matthat. 10. Ezekias. 12. Jorim. 11. Manasse. 13. Eliezer. 12. ylmon. 14. Jose. 13. Josias. 15. Er. 14. Jeclionias and his brethren 16. Ehnodara. at the Babylonian Cap- 17. Kosam. tivity. 18. Addi. 19. Melchi. 20. Neri. 1. Salatldel 1. Salathiel 2. Zorohahel. 2. Zorohahel. 3. ^^»iW. 3. Eesa. 4. ^/ia)^im. 4. Joanna. 5. ^^^or. 5. Juda. 6. Sadoc. 6. Joseph. 7. Achim. 7. Semei, 8. J5;/m(7. 8. Mattathias. . 9. Eleazar. 9. Maath. 10. Matthan. 10. Naggai. 11. Jacob. 11. Esli. 12. Joseph J husband of 12. Nau7n. 13. Mary. 13. Amos. 14. Christ. 14. Mattathias. 15. Joseph. 16. Janna. 17. Melchi. 18. Levi. 19. Matthat. 20. Eli. 21. Joseph (Maiy). 22. Jesus. [CHAP. L 1. Matthew's Genealogy.— In ver. IG it is described as tliat of Joseph. From this circumstance, as well as from the fact that it CHAP. I.] § 32. THE GENEALOGIES. 151 commences with Abraham; from the stress laid upon " King David ;" from the frequent reference made to persons or events of theocratic importance; and lastly, from the division into three periods, the central one being that of the theocratic line of kings, — we may clearly discern the intention of the author : not to give the natural pedigree of Jesus, but to prove that lie had a light to claim the theocratic crown^ — an intention in perfect harmony with the general character of tlie Gospel. We have here also the true key to all the supposed difficulties. The principal questions to be answered are the following: 1. What did Matthew mean by the 3 X 14 members ? — 2. How are they to be reckoned? — 3. How are the omissions (e.g., Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, — Jehoiakim and Zedekiah) to be explained ? A very common assumption is, that the author thought he had given a complete genealogy ; and that he either made mistakes when compiling it, or found the genealogy, and placed it in his Gospel with- out observing the errors it contained (e.g., either Matthew or the ori- ginal genealogist is supposed to have confounded Ahaziah with Uzziah, and Jehoiakim with Jehoiachin). But this is impossible. He has prepared the genealogy with such care (as we may see from the intro- duction of Thamar, Rahab, etc.), and has taken so much trouble to compare one part with another (as the three distinct series of fourteen sufficiently prove), that we cannot imagine it possible for a man so well versed in the Old Testament to leave out five kings without no- ticing the omission. (Fancy any one confounding Charlemagne with Charles le Gros!) Moreover, a work which betrayed such ignorance at the very outset would never have commended itself to Jewish Christians, or obtained any currency among them. Others suppose that he wished to bring out 3 times 14, and there- fore moulded the genealogy to suit his purpose. But why should he attach so much value to 3 X 14 ? And even if he really did wish to make the reader believe that the three series, from Abraham to David, from David to Jechonias, and from him to Jesus, were (strange to say) exactly equal, how could he even hope that a curiosity which rested upon a simple perversion would be accepted without examina- tion?— The only conclusion to which we can come, therefore, is, that the three series, of fourteen each, were not the end the author sought, but means which he employed. Undoubtedly he intentionally made the three periods equal: not, however, for the purpose of having 6X7 names, or of conveying to the readers the idea that these periods were really all of the same length ; but to invite the reader to a closer and more careful examination of the genealogy, and to help him to the dis- covery of all thehiddcn references, and allusive hints which it contained. 152 fAET FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. What would be the questions of chief importance to the reader ? In the first place, he would examine whether there really were 3 X 14 members. And if he did so, he would discover that in the third period there were only 13, unless Maty xoas reckoned as one. But how could Mary and Joseph both reckon as members ? For this simple reason, that the pedigree is juridical, and not strictly genealogical. The title to the theocratic throne was inherited by Jesus, not directly from Joseph, but through the marriage of Joseph to His mother Mary. Secondly, when the reader had discovered the theocratic nature of the genealogy, he would be sure, on further reading, to be struck with the fact that five kings were omitted, and so be led to consider the cause. A reader versed in the Mosaic law could not be long in ignorance as to the reason why Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were left out. According to Deut. vii. 2-4, it was so great a sin to marry a heathen wife, that the penalty of destruction was attached to it. And as the Decalogue expressly declared that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children to the fourth generation, we need not be surprised — considering that Joram, who had married the daughter of Jezebel (2 Kings viii. 18), and " walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab," deserved to be punished to the fourth generation, and Judah was spared " for David's sake" alone (ver. 19) — to find that the author has regarded this as a sufficient reason for leaving out the descendants of the heathen Jezebel to the fourth genera- tion, and thus declaring them unworthy to pccupy the theocratic throne. — A similar reason may be assigned for the omission of Jehoia- kim. It was under him that the land passed completely under foreign dominion (2 Kings xxiv. 1-4), and under him, therefore, that the theocratic sovereignty became virtually extinct. But for this reason Jehoiachin has, strictly speaking, no proper place in the theocratic line of succession. He and Jehoiakim together form one link in the chain. The fact that the second, Jehoiachin, is selected as the repre- sentative of this link, may be explained on the ground that Jehoiakim was the more umoortliy of the two. He who had thoroughly forfeited the royal office by his guilt — he under whom sin had reached the unpardonable point — he of whom it is said, " He filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon" (2 Kings xxiv. 4), was, compared with Jechoniah, manifestly the more unworthy to stand as ancestor to Him who shed His own innocent blood for others, not the innocent blood of others for Himself. — Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin shared between them, as it were, the guilt and punishment of the loss of the national throne ; and the one who had to bear the punishment — Jeehonias — required to be named, on account of the theocratically CHAP. I.] § 32. THE GEKEALOGIES. 153 important event, the Babylonish captivity, the main part of which look place under him. (3.) An attentive reader would also hardly fail to be struck with the parallelism between " Judah and his brethren," and " Jechoniah and his brethren." In both cases, a migration into a foreign land along with all the brethren, i.e., with the ichole theocratic family. This is sufficient of itself to explain the much controverted expression, brethren of Jechoniah. They w^ere " brethren" in a theocratic sense = relations, fellow-countrymen. (In this use of the word in both the Old and New Testaments, cf. Exod. ii. 11, iv. 18; Num. xx. 3; Acts iii. 22, vii. 23.) — At the same time, there is no foundation whatever for the assertion, that " Jechoniah had no brethren in the strict sense of the word." De Wette says, that "in 1 Chron. iii. 16 Zedekiah is called a son of Jechoniah, and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10 a brother; whereas it is evident from 2 Kings xxiv. 17, and Jer. xxxvii. 1, that he was neither brother nor son, but tcncle to Jechoniah, and a son of Josiah." Let us look first at 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10. It is there stated that Nebuchadnezzar " made Zedekiah, his (Jechoniah's) brother, king over Judah." The reference, therefore, is to King Zedekiah, of whom it is expressly stated in 2 Kings xxiv. 17, that he was Jechoniah's uncle. According, therefore, to the w^ell-known wide sense of the word ns, he is here called his brother. But what is the case with 1 Chron. iii. 16 ? According to De \Yette, Zedekiah is there called a son of Jechoniah. The words run thus : \33i iJ3 7\'>p^)i iJ2 n>:D> D^p>in>._Now who would ever think of referring the suffix in the last word to Jechoniah ? The sons of Jechoniah are named in ver. 17, and introduced as sons of Jechoniah. The suffix refers in both instances to Jehoiakim, and therefore Zedekiah and Jechoniah are brothers. — But we must not allow ourselves to take 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10 as a proof that the writer imagined that Zedekiah was a brother of Jechoniah, and was ignorant of the fact that he had an uncle of the same name. For in ver. 15 we actually find a Zedekiah mentioned among Josiah's sons. He knew of two Zedekiahs therefore, — the more celebrated one (son of Josiah, brother of Jehoiakim, and uncle of Jechoniah, ver. 15, called ns in the wider sense in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10), and one less known (son of Jehoiakim, and brother of Jechoniah, ver. 16). Jechoniah therefore had a brother} 1 This is not the only instance in which De Wette has cited the very passages, in which ^fatthew exhibits the moxt remarknhle accuracy, as proofs of carelessness and error. For example, at ver. 12 he says, Phadaiah is omitted between Salathiel and Zorobabel, and appeals to 1 Chron. iii. 19. But he has evidently overlooked the fact, that in Ezra v. 2. and Hag. i. 1, Zerubbabel is called a " son of Shealticl ; " and 154 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I, (4.) The three series have also another important signification. The liistory of Israel shaped itself into three periods. It was revealed to Abraham (Gen. xv.) that his seed should be in bondage in a foreign land, and should be set free in the fourth generation. The descendants of Abraham were actually kept in servitude in Egypt, and were set free by Moses ; but only partially : Moses did not bring them into the promised land. Joshua brought them in, but did not completely conquer the land. After another period of servitude (Judg. xiii. 1 cf. 1 Sam. iv. 2, vii. 2, 13), Israel aroused itself, and hoped to strengthen and secure its position by the choice of a king. But Saul did not realize its hopes. It was David who first secured the triumph and glory foretold to Abraham, for which the nation had ever longed. From Abraham to David the history of Israel moves downivards for a time, and then ascends. — The vision of Abraham was fulfilled. Through humiliation (from the time of Abraham to that of Aram, the 7th mem- ber) it had passed onwards to eminence (from Aminadab to David). But in the counsel of God this was not its true exaltation. What had taken place in the earthly sphere was to be repeated in the spiritual. This first period, therefore, was followed by two others, which were analogous to the two halves of the first. The outward glory of the kingdom of David fell into ruin. The kingdom was divided. The fear of God fled more and more, and carried prosperity with it. During this period (from Solomon to the captivity) the prophets fore- told with ever increasing clearness, on the one hand, a new period of servitude (the captivity), on the other, a second David (Micah iv.; Isa. xi., etc.), who should rescue the nation from its bondage. — Seventy years afterwards, Israel was delivered from the captivity, but not from the servitude. It was not till after seventy weeks of years that the latter was to be secured. There followed, therefore, a third leading period, at the end of which, though outwardly the nation was as power- less as ever, yet inwardly the " election (eKXoyr]) " prepared for the reception of the spiritual Redeemer was fully mature. — It is to this internal development of the revelation of God in the Old Testament that Matthew chiefly points. This is his ultimate purpose. To attain because, in the passage cited from Chronicles, Zerubbabel is called a son of Pedaiah, he concludes that Pedaiah came between the two. It appears, therefore, as though he supposed Pedaiah to be a son of Shealtiel. But can he have been ignorant of the fact that Pedaiah was a brother of Shealtiel (cf. 1 Chron. iii. 17, 18, with ver. 19), and consequently that Shealtiel and Malchiram must have died without chil- dren ? The position of Zerubbabel as the iiephew and next male heir of Shealtiel is a sufficient explanation of Matt. i. 12. It is a very natural inference, however, which Hug draws from Hag. i. 1 and Ezra v. 2, that Zerubbabel was begotten by Pedaiah to the deceased Shealtiel in a Levirate marriage. CHAP. 1.] § 32. THE GENEALOGIES. 155 this end, he adopts the simple method of constructing three numeri- cally equal sei'ies, and forming them in such a way that even the intentional omissions in the second series contain delicate suggestions of various subordinate thoughts. (5.) Among other points {e.g., the fact that David alone is called 0 ^acnXev<;, " the king"), a very striking feature is the introduction of Thamar, Bahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. It is certainly not for the pur- pose of defending Jesus from the Jewish reproach of illegitimacy, that they are mentioned, as Wetstein supposes. This would have been the strangest method that could have been thought of. Besides, it is not till a late period that this reproach can be proved to have been cast upon Christians.^ De Wette's is certainly the correct view: "These women were types of Mary, through the distinguished position assigned them in the Old Test, history." The constant rule in the theocracy was, that the Lord showed Himself mighty in those that were weak. And it was certainly the writer's intention, to prepare the reader beforehand to fix his attention upon the peculiar position of Mary in ver. 16. — Thus the whole genealogy is a well devised and carefully executed work of art. We shall now see how thoroughly the hypo- thesis, which lies at the basis of our interpretation (viz., that the author's object was not to show the lineal descent of Jesus, but to demonstrate His title to the throne), is confirmed by a comparison of the genealogy of Matthew, with that which we find in Luke. 2. Genealogy given by Luke. — When the author of the third Gospel commences his genealogy with the statement, that Jesus was, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, and immediately adds tov 'H\l, it cannot have been his meaning or intention to give Joseph's genealogy.* In the Gospel of Luke there is no theocratic interest to be discovered at all. Writing as he did for Gentile Christians, he traced the descent of Jesus from the common father of all nations ; and therefore, even * Vide Matt. xiii. 55, and Nitzsch's treatise on the " Son of the Virgin," in the Studien und Kriliken, 1840. 2 Modern critics (Gfrorer, for example) have drawn very remarkable conclu- sions. "Who would give seventy-six successive links in a pedigree," he says, "and then finish up (!) by saying, this all rests upon a mistake ?" Consequently, as he thinks, the author of the genealogy supposed Jesus to be the son of Joseph ; but when Luke adopted the genealogy which was already drawn up, he inserted the words 0); ivof/,ii^iTo, " as was supposed." (Bleek takes the same view.) — In my opinion, it would be much more logical to take the fact of Luke having distinctly stated at the bef/inninr/ (not at the close) of the genealogy, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, as a proof that the genealogy which he gives, after making this statement, is introduced as that of Mary and not of Jose^^h. 156 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. if lie had found the genealogy already prepared, as that of Joseph, he could not have introduced it, after such a statement as &)9 ivo/M^eTO, without giving his readers good reason to think that it was both superfluous and unmeaning. There is evidently a pre- sumption, therefore, that the author intended to give the genealogy of Mary. No internal difficulties had been observed in the genealogy given by Luke, till Bruno Bauer made the desperate discovery, that four of the names of the sons of Jacob (Joseph, Judah, Simeon, and Levi) occur in succession, and that the names of the prophets Nahum and Amos are introduced, from which he infers, with his usual readiness, that the genealofry is fabricated. — I should like to look into the mind of the man, who thought it possible to do Jesus honour by numbering among His ancestors sons of Jacob in the time of Joram and Uzziah, and the prophets Nahum and Amos, twelve generations after the captivity, or by merely repeating the echo of their names among the ancestors of Jesus. Which is the more probable, that there should have been such a man as this before the days of Bruno Bauer, or that in the compara- tively small number of Hebrew names, a Judah, Joseph, Simeon, and Levi should actually have followed one another? In Jewish families of the present day, you might find a dozen instances in which four of the patriarchs' names follow one after the other. — Another happy discovery has also forced itself upon B. Bauer. Matthew mentions Ahiud, and Luke Rlieza, as sons of Zerubbabel ; whereas the Chroni- cles notice neither one nor the other, but give totally different names. " That is the fact," says B. Bauer : " the author has never even thought of the account in the Chronicles of the descendants of Zerubbabel, and hence the marvellous result, that Luke and Matthew, each in his own way, provide a posterity for Zerubbabel, of which the Chronicles have not the most remote idea." For a second time, it would have been as well if modern critics had examined the passage in the Chronicles a little more carefully. Let us do it for them. In 1 Chron. iii. 19 sqq. we read : — " And son of Zerubbabel : Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelo- mith, their sister " (we need not be surprised to find p instead of '•jn ; it recurs in the case of Hananiah and Neariah), " and Hashuha, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah jushab chesed, five. " And son of Hananiah : Pelatiah and Jesaiah. " Sons of Rephaiah, sons of Arnan, sons of Obadiah, sons of Shechaniah. " And sons of Shechaniah : Shemaiah. CHAP. I.] § 32. THE GENEALOGIES. 157 " And sons of Shemaiali : Ilaftiish, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six. " And son of Ncarlah : Elioenai, and Ilezehiah, and Azrikam, three. "And sons of Elioenai : llodaiah and Eliashib, etc., seven." In the first place, nothing is more remarkable than the passage "sons of Rephaiah," etc. (ver. 21). Is this in apposition to Pelatiali and Jesaiali? But they were sons of Hananiah. It would in that case be necessary to assume that there was a Levirate marriage (Rephaiah being the physical father) ; from which, we may remark in passing, it would follow that the mention of the physical father would not be without example. Or we might assume that Rephaiah was named as the maternal grandfather. But what then? " Sonsoi Arnan" would then be in apposition to Rephaiah (sing.), and thus the line would ascend to Shechaniah. From this point it would move downwards again by a different line. The following would then be the pedigree : — Shechaniah. Zerubbabel. Hananiah. Obadiah. Arnan. Rephaiah. Shemaiah. Neariah. Hattush, Elioenai. etc. Hodaiah. etc. Pelatiah. Jeshaiah. But such a supposition is precluded, in the first place, by the dilS- caity arising from the fact that the sing. Rephaiah has a plural noun in apposition, ^^ sons of Arnan," and that this is repeated three times. Moreover, it is a striking fact, that in Ezra viii. 2, a Hattush is men- tioned as one of the descendants of David among the contemporaries of Ezra, nearly a hundred years after Zerubbabel ; and that in Neh. x. there is also a Hattush mentioned in connection with an Obadiah. If these two, Hattush and Obadiah, are identical with those in 1 Chron. iii. 21, 22, which is very probable, this confirms the opinion, that from Rephaiah the line moves, not upwards, but downwards. But to what does this lead ? Simply to the conclusion, that the genealogy is faulty throughout. A rash hypothesis if we had no proofs. But is it not stated that Shemaiah had six sons, and yet only five are given ! — The construct, " sons of Rephaiah," and so forth, appear to us to be separate headings, which there were no means of completing. As far as Phelatiah and Jeshaiah, the chronicler had traced the line through Solomon and Zerubbabel ; but from this point he possessed only fragments of branch lines, headings not completed, 158 FART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I, with the sole exception of Shechaniah. And he gave them just in the fragmentary state in which he found them. If this be admitted, we need not be surprised to find the Hst of Zerubbabers sons incomplete and confused. These are said to he five. But we cannot tell how they are to be counted. It is very evident that it will not be correct to commence with Hashubah. And the absence of Vav is just as clear a proof that Jushab-chezed is merely a cognomen of Hasadiah. But even then there are six sons left'instead of five, unless we take Hashubah, which is evidently the same name as we meet with in Ezra viii. 24 and Neh. iii. 17, to be the name of a daughter, notwithstand- ing its occurring without qualification among the names of men. We may see, therefore, that at this very point there was some obscurity in the mind of the chronicler himself. He had an account of five sons. Among them were unquestionably Meshullam and Hananiah. But the other names, which are separated from them by the sister Shelo- mith, are very likely those of near relations. To this we may add, that Ahiud was very probably a cognomen, as its formation with Abi seems to indicate. Hofmann has also pointed out the probability, that the Hananiah of the Chronicles may be the same person as the Joanna the son of Rheza mentioned by Luke. In any case so much as this is certain, that after Zerubbabel, the gene- alogies of the Chronicles are defective and obscure ; and there is not the slightest difficulty in the supposition, that a more complete gene- alogy may have been handed down as the private heirloom of some particular family. 3. Comparison of the two Genealogies. — That Luke has six more names than Matthew between David and Salathiel, is ex- plained by the simple fact, that Matthew has left out four names : the remaining difference of two in a period of 370 years is not of the slightest importance. From Salathiel to Jesus, again, Matthew gives 12 links (Mary must not be counted as one generation) ; Luke, on the con- trary, 21. But 12 links are obviously not enough to fill up 600 years ; and it is evident that Matthew has omitted several names for the pur- pose of keeping to the convenient form of fourteens, which he adopted as an index to the illusions obscurely hinted at in the genealogy itself. The divergences observable as we ascend from Joseph to Zerub- babel, may be very simply explained from the fact, that Luke is giving the pedigree of Mary, and Matthew that of Joseph. Consequently, both Joseph and Mary sprang from Zerubbabel. The further diver- gence as we ascend from Salathiel to David, may be explained by a CHAP. I.] § 32. THE GENEALOGIES. 159 Levirate marriage, which we should be obliged to assume, apart alto- gether from the genealogies, after Jechoniah's early captivity.^ Matthew, who was only concerned with the succession to the throne, mentions the legal father of Salathiel ; Luke, on the other hand, his natural progenitor. And here again we have a fresh confirmation of the conclusion to which we have already been brought as to the character of the two genealogies. Many weak objections have been offered to the hypothesis, that LnJce gives the pedigree of Mary. De Wette, for example, opposes it on the ground, that " in Jewish genealogies no account was taken of the female line." As if Mary's father was a female ! Her father must certainly have had a pedigree. — Strauss again objects, that " as rov throughout the entire series invariably denotes the relation of son, it cannot in this particular instance be applied to that of a son-in- law." In reply to this, Hoffmann pleads the possibility of other sons- in-law, step-sons, etc., being included, unknown to us, in this list of 55. But there is no need to speak of possibilities, when we have at least one proof. Zerubbabel is called rov SaTuiOirjX, and yet he was Salathiel's nephew. — Lastly, the hypothesis, supported by Schleier- macher (Luke, p. 26), that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and there- fore could not belong to David's line, cannot be founded upon Luke i. 36, where Elisabeth is called 77 avjyevT]^ aov. For even if it should be maintained that in this passage something more than mere affinity must be understood, notwithstanding such passages as Luke i. 61 and Acts vii. 14, where avjyeveia is evidently not restricted to blood-rela- tions, and notwithstanding the etymology and the usage elsewhere ; yet Mary may have been a relation of Elisabeth's on the mother's side, and on the father's side have belonged to the tribe of Judah. Moreover, the words of Heb. vii. 13, 14, absolutely preclude the pos- Bibility of Mary being a Levite. Assuming, tlien, that there is no reason why the genealogy given by Luke should not be accepted as that of Mary, a second question of importance suggests itself. Are the Salathiel and Zerubbabel mentioned here the same as those in the genealogy in Matthew ? The supposition is a very natural one, as they stand in both instances mid- way between David and Jesus." No objection can be brought against ^ Ilug himself perceived the general fact, though he connected with it some untenable hypotheses (vid. his Introduction to the New Testament, ii. 268 sqq.). * Olshavsen (in loco) has completely overlooked this. He confines himself to the fact, that in Luke tliere are 17 links between Zerubbabel and Joseph, and in JIatthew 9 ; but overlooks the analogy in the two genealogies between David and Zerubbabel. IGO PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. it ; and the explanation of the divergence between David and Sala- thiel (which has hitherto been generally regarded as a difficulty) establishes the identity. In 2 Kings xxiv. 8, we read that " Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months." Now a king of eighteen years of age, who only reigned three months, and, according to ver. 15, had already a harem, is not likely to have been blessed witli chiklren. And even if the dissolute youth really had had chiklren, it must have been a matter of importance both to Nebuchad- nezzar and Zedekiah, either to put them to death, or conceal them as dangerous pretenders, — a matter of no great difficulty at so tender an age as theirs. But, as Hug has already inferred from the fact that no children are mentioned in 2 Kings xxiv. 12 sqq. along with the mother and wives, in all probability there were no chiklren at all. Now, accoi'ding to ver. 12, Jehoiachin was taken away into captivity along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his eunuchs. After Jehoiachin was taken prisoner, Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon all his treasures and those of the temple, all the princes, the mighty men, and the artificers ; and, lastly (ver. 17), " he carried into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon" the king's mother (men- tioned here again), the mighty men, the wives, and the eunuchs. Now it is very certain that he would not allow the dethroned king to retain his court, and still less his harem. — From chap. xxv. 27, it appears that Jechoniah was thrown into a prison, where he jnned, in the strict sense of the word, for 37 years ; and from a comparison of 1 Kings xxii. 27, Jer. xxxvii. 15 (cf. ver. 15, the exegetical inn n''3), and more especially from Isa. xlii. 7, it is evident that lib:> r\''2, the prison in which he was confined, was of the worst de- scription— a black hole. Now, if ever occasion arose for a Levirate marriage, surely it was in such a case as this, when the line of suc- cession to the theocratic throne was in danger of extinction, and when the captivity had excited to the utmost the theocratic feelings of the nation. A close relation of Jechoniah could not have been selected without awakening suspicion. Nor was there one at hand (vide Hug) ; but it was necessary that it should be some one belonging to the family of David, and that he should take one of the wives who had been separated from the king. In 1 Chron. iii. 17, 18, we actually find, in the first place, that Jechoniah had seve7i children. It is impossible that they should have been born during the three months of his reign. They are, in fact, de- scribed as the sons of Jechoniah-Assir (Jechoniah a prisoner) ; so that they cannot have been begotten towards the end of his life, after CHAP. I.J § 32. THE GENEALOGIES. IGl Evil-Merodach had taken him out of the dungeon, when 5G years old, and placed him in circumstances of greater comfort ; to say nothing of the improbability of liis having seven sons during the short time that he lived after this (for he does not appear to have outlived Evil- -Merodach, who only reigned two years : vid. Hdvertiiclc, Introduction). On the other hand, the assumption of Hoffmann is altogether unten- able, that it was "as a prisoner" that Jechoniah begat these sons. The expression N73 n^3 precludes this idea, and also the entire pas- sage 2 Kings XXV. 27, from which it is obvious that Jechoniah was kept in close confinement during the whole of the 37 years. We also find, in the second place, that the genealogies receive as much light as they throw. The Levirate marriage was effected through a certain Neri, a descendant of David in the hne of Nathan, the nearest related to the royal line (Hug I.e.). We can also explain the difficulty pointed out by He Wette, that " it was contrary to the legally established custom of the Jews for the natural father to be mentioned in the genealogy." In this case it was of importance that Xeri and his descendants should constantly give themselves out as Nathanidce, partly on account of their lower rank, and partly to avert attention ; and it was also of especial importance that they should not lose sight of the proofs of their descent from Nathan, that they might afterwards be able to establish the legitimacy of the Levirate marriage, which was of such great theocratic import- ance. We are thus eventually brought to a conclusion in perfect accordance with the character of the first and third Gospels, that Matthew gives the theocratic ancestors of Salathiel, Luke his natural progenitors. It is hardly necessary to say a word on the other hA^potheses for the solution of the difficulty.^ The assumption of two Levii'ate mar- riages (Joseph and Sealthiel) in a space of 600 years is not impos- sible ; but that both times these mamages should be contracted by men who were not brothers is difficult. In the case of Jechoniah there ' The various attempts at solution may be thus classified : — A. Sealth. and Zerub. not identical in Matt, and Luke. • 1. Luke gives the gen. of Mary. 2. In case of Jacob, a Lev. mar. by a cousin or step-brother. 3. Do., an adoption. B. Sealth. and Zerub. identical in Matt, and Luke. 1. Diverg. at Jacob solved by assumption that Luke gives Mary's genealogy, that at Jechoniah by a Lev. mar. ; or 2. former as above, latter through adoption ; .'). both through Lev. mar. ; 4. both by adoption ; 5. former, Lev. mar., latter, adoj)- tion ; 6. reverse of 5. A. seems to me untenable ; B. 2, 4, 5, untenable ; 1, 6, con- ceivable. 11 162 PART FIRST, DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. either assume here (with ISIichaehs, Mos. Recht) a step-brother, or a cousin on the mother's side, in order to explain the divergences in the forefathers of Jacob and Eli. The assumption of two cases of adoption is in itself less likely, and adoption in the case of Jechoniah is impossible. On the other hand, the assumption of the non-identity of Sealthiel and Zerubbabel in Matthew and Luke appears to me veiy forced. But what is the use of resorting to hypotheses, when we have sure data for theses ? By our investigation we have succeeded not only in removing all the difficulties, but also in proving the careful and artistic construc- tion of the genealogy in Matthew, and the perfect harmony of the divergence in the two genealogies with the facts of history. By these means we have obtained a convincing proof that there is no founda- tion for the hypothesis of Strauss and Bruno Bauer, that the genealo- gies were constructed at a time when it was generally believed that Joseph was the father of Jesus, and that Matthew and Luke inserted the clauses, " the husband of Mary," etc., and " being as was supposed ;" a hyiJothesis that has no other support than the pium desiderium of negative critics to overthrow the supernatural conception on historical grounds. The following, we maintain, are the just conclusions of criticism : In the first place, it is in the higliest degree improbable that two Christians of the first century, who believed in the supernatural con- ception of Jesus, should each have discovered a genealogy in which He was represented as the son of Joseph, without being stimulated by such a discovery to honest, historical research. If there had been Josephites and non-Josephites, the former would certainly have been condemned by the latter as heretics : the 1st Epistle of John is proof enough of this. But the former would also, as the more honest of the two, and as those who really possessed the truth, have brought all the power of truth to bear upon the others ; and it is just as in- credible, that in such a conflict fanaticism should triumph over modest faith, as that all the New Testament writers, whose (wn-fanatical) works are in our possession, should have taken their stand on the side of the former. — And in the second place, the belief that the genealogies are strictly historical (i.e., that they were composed from the chroni- cles, family pedigrees, etc., by ]\Iatthew and Luke themselves ; that the words, " the husband of Mary," and " being as was supposed," were always there, and consequently furnish no evidence of the pre- vious supremacy of Josephism), is not affected hy a single historical difficulty. On the contrary, the abundant traces of extreme care and exactness which are to be found in the genealogies, furnish a CH.fP. 1.] § 33. BIHTH OF JOHN. 163 very powerful proof of the diligence and historical fidelity of their authors ^ §33. bieth of john. Luke i. In the reigu of King Ilerod there was a devout priest, named Zacharias, of the order of Abia, who had passed a long life with his wife Elisabeth, of the family of Aaron, but hithei'to without children. One day, however, when the lot fell to him to offer incense, while the people were standing outside praying, there appeared to him in the holy place an angel of the Lord, who announced to him that he would have a son, and instructed him to call him John. His birth would cause joy to him and to the people ; for, being full of the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, and living as a Nazarite, with the power of an Elias he would turn the people of Israel to God, and prepare a people for the Lord. When Zacharias, unmindful of similar O. T. occurrences, and unconvinced by the appearance of the angel, asked for a sign, it was gi-anted. But, as a just and yet gentle chastisement, and at the same time to excite the attention of the people, the sign granted was dumbness, which was to continue till the prophecy was fulfilled. It took place immediately, and did not cease till the child was bom. On the day of circumcision, the mother, to whom Zacharias must have communicated in writing both what had occurred and the name prescribed, expressed her wish that the child should be called John. Zacharias supported her. wish; and immediately his tongue was loosed, and he gave utterance to a song of praise to the Lord, who had visited once more His long-forsaken people, and sent to tliem a jyrojyhet. ^ [The subject of the genealogies has been discussed, in a very elaborate manner recently in this country, by Mill (^on the Descent and Parentage of the Saviour, forming the second chapter of a work entitled, On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, Cambridge 1861), and by Lord Arthur Hcrvey (The Genealogies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Cambridge 1853). It would be impossible here to give an account of the views of these authors, who are agreed on all leading points. Suffice it to say, that they both differ from Ebrard's view, that one genea- logy is that of Joseph, the other (Luke's) that of Mary. They hold both genea- logies are those of Joseph ; the one (Matthew's) being intended to exhibit the legal descent of Christ from David and Solomon, the other (tliat of Luke), His natural descent through Nathan ; and the object of their works is to show how the genea- logies can be reconciled on that assumption. Both the works referred to will be found well worthy of perusal by the student. — Ed.] 164 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. 1. The preservation of the account of the appearance of the angel is the more easily explained, since the dumbness of Zacharias compelled him to communicate it to the priests in writing ; and, according to vers, 60 sqq., he had made a communication in this manner to Elisabeth.^ And not only was the hymn, which is so truly full of originality and point, notwithstanding its natural Old Testament ring, of a nature to be retained by the hearers, and, through the inspiration which filled him, by Zacharias himself ; but the reality of the occurrence was a sufficient reason, and the previous record of the appearance of the ano-el furnished a fitting occasion, for committing it at once to writing, 2. In this instance negative criticism finds itself without any his- torical means of attack whatever. The objections are entirely limited to doctrinal doubts. In accordance with our principle, therefore, of confining ourselves to the proof that doctrinal doubts find no support in historical difiiculties, we might declare the question settled. At any rate, we need do nothing more than give a brief resume of the objections that have been expressed. a. That there are no angels, and, consequent!}^, that angels cannot appear, is a conclusion sometimes drawn {e.g., by Schleiermacher) from the premiss, that nothing is a dogma which cannot be shown to be an element of Christian consciousness ; — a false conclusion, apart alto- gether from the correctness or incorrectness of the premiss, since a thing may be historically true without forming part of a system of Christian doctrine ; — at other times, from the fact that angels, if they do exist, are supersensual beings, and therefore unable to appear. To this we reply, first, that the category of sensual and supersensual is uhphilosophical and unmeaning — that the simple distinction should be between corporeal and incorporeal ; and secondly, that it is unphilo- sophical to conceive of a finite object as absolutely incorporeal. — Another objection is, that we cannot think of any purpose which the angels can fulfil. They are not required for the production of natural phenomena, since "we are now able to account for all these from natural causes." To this Hofi'maim replies, that God certainly does not require the angels, unless it be in the same sense as He requires the rain to moisten the earth, and husbandmen to till it. There is a great difference between uti and indigere. — Nor are they needed, it is said, for the education of humanity ; otherwise the angels would be "just as busy now on the smallest occasions," as they were in the old world. But when education has to be carried on, different appliances are needed at different stages, not for the tutor, but for the scholar 1 Previous to the birth, to Elisabeth, ver. 60 ; as well as after the birth, to the friends, ver. G3. CHAP. I.] § 33. BIRTH OF JOHN. 165 (vide Hoffmann, 129 ; Olshausen, ad loc.)- — Lastly, we are told, tliat as God is immanent, they cannot be needed in connection with His operations in the world. But this says nothing ; for, according to the thoroughly philosophical doctrine of believers themselves, it is not supposed that there was a chasm between God and the world, across which God Himself could not come, and that this was the reason why He sent His angels as messengers. We admit most fully, in agree- ment with all true philosophers, that the course of the world, which consists partly of the regular course of nature, and partly of the spontaneous action of free subjects,^ is willed, and therefore arranged and determined, in its beginning, its development, and its results, so far as both its laws and particular events are concerned, by the eternal (immanent) will of a personal God ; but we do not restrict the course of the world to the mere surface of the planet Tellus. And as the limits of the course of the world have not yet been discovered, we find no difficulty in regarding it as j^ossible, that unusual orders of intelligent creatures should sometimes appear. To pretend to decide that such an appearance was unnecessary for the development of our race, and in the history of our planet, and therefore, that even if tliere are angels, God cannot have sent them, is nothing less than attempting to determine, with the presumption of a priori intuition, all that is necessary for the course of the world. And to say, that "if God be immanent in the world. He needs no intervention of angels," is just as wise as saying, " He needed no Columbus to en- sure the discovery of America." If God be immanent. He works both in and through His creatures. And it has yet to be proved that there can be no such creatures as angels. The possibility of angels must be granted. 3. It is also argued that the name Gabriel (ver. 19) was derived from the Parsic angelology; and therefore, that either the Parsees preceded the Israelites in the discovery of religious truths, or the angel is chargeable with accommodation to an error. But this rests upon the assumption that the book of Daniel, in which Gabriel is mentioned, is not genuine. The charge of spuriousness, however, rests upon no other foundation than doctrinal objections to the possibility of prophecy in genei'al, and so special a prophecy in particular. The historical and philological arguments have been sufficiently refuted by Hengstenberg and Ildcernick. A thorough examination of the history of the cap- tivity must establish the genuineness of the book of Daniel. Such greatness of character as Daniel himself possessed, the Maccabean age ^ The latter is either ignored in Schleiermacher's " Glaubcuslehre " when the "connection of nature" is spoken of, or this exj^rossion is a very unsuitable one. 166 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. T could neither have invented nor understood. So noble a combination of the most unfettered accommodation to heathen customs, in every- thing that did not affect the conscience ; of warm affection and close attachment to heathen kings (Dan. iv. 16); and, on the other hand, of firm and energetic resistance to everything heathen that did violence to the conscience, is the very opposite of that fanatical hatred to the heathen which prevailed in the Maccabean age. — This is not the place to follow out the evidence of the purely Israelitish origin of the belief in the existence of angels. 4. In reply to the objection of Paulus and Strauss, which is re- peated with jocular scurrility by Bruno Bauer, that the infliction of dumbness as a punishment was severe, not angelic, and, when com- pared with the impunity of Abraham and Sarah in similar circum- stances, unjust, there is no necessity to take so much trouble as Hess and Olshausen have taken, to prove that it was needed for the moral training of Zacharias (this was just as much needed in the case of Abraham and Sarah), nor to argue, as Calvin does, that God can look into the heart, and may have discovered greater sin in Zacharias' heart than in those of Abraham and Sarah. Nor should I like to adopt Hoffmanns suggestion, that the greater sin may be attributable to the fact that Zacharias was a younger man. The whole objection may certainly be completely neutralized by the simple argument, that if, in the ordinary course of the world, God may sometimes inflict chastisement for faults, and at other times leave the same faults un- punished. He must possess the right to do the same where miraculous events are concerned. Whether the particular temporal chastisement be effected in the course of nature or by a miracle, is a question of as little moment as, in the former case, would be the question, whether it was effected by a fire or by disease.^ To attempt to explain why God should have inflicted the punishment of dumbness in one instance and not in the other, is as foolish as to attempt to explain why God should have caused the heathen A^ero to be put to death by violence, when Duke Alba, whose guilt was- so much greater, died a natural death. In this account, then, there are no historical difficulties whatever ; and it stands harmonious thi'oughout, exposed only to feeble and futile objections on the ground of doctrinal scruples.'^ ^ Lange has some excellent observations on this subject in his Lehen Jesu, ii. pp. 63 sqq. 2 The Old Testament style of the hymn, on which Strauss lays stress, is, even on the supposition of the liistorical reality of tlie account, so natural, that no ob- jections can be drawn therefrom ayaihst its historical reality. CU.Vr. 1.] § 34. .ANNUNCIATION OF THE BIETU OF CHRIST. 167 §34. ANNUNCIATION OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. Luke i. 35-56 ; Matt. i. 20 sqq. Six months after Elisabeth's conception, the angel Gabriel was sent to Nazareth, to a virgin named ^lary, who was betrothed to a carpenter named Joseph, of the house of David. Startled at the angel's greet- ing, "Blessed art thou among women" (for such a sight and such a greeting were enough to fill a humble maiden with astonishment and alarm), she asked what it could mean. And the angel told her she had found favour with God, and should conceive and bear a son, " Jeshua," " Saviour," who should be called " Son of the Highest (Eljon)," and God would give Him a title to the throne of David, and eternal dominion upon that throne. The clearer it became to ^lary loho the Jesus to be born would be, the more incomprehensi- ble it became, how she, a poor and obscure maiden, should be selected as His mother. It was evident to her mind who w^as intended ; for (1) the name Jesus, (2) the title " -Son of the Highest," (3) the evi- dent allusion to the successor anticipated by David in the Psalms, whose dominion should be boundless, and to the shoot of David pre- dicted with ever increasing distinctness by the prophets, and (4) the fact that, whilst it was declared that God would give to Him to sit upon the throne of David, she was actually betrothed to a descendant of David (possibly the oldest representative of the royal line), and consequently that, through her expected marriage with Joseph, a son born to her would possess a title to the throne, could hardly fail to present the truth with sufficient clearness to her mind. But just on that account was it the more incomprehensible to her, that she should have been selected for such an honour. .It is true, the angel had as yet said nothing about her bearing a son before her marriage with Joseph, but had simply spoken of it as an event that would one day occur. Yet Mary felt directly that he was not speak- ing of a child of which Joseph was to be ■ the father. Holding firmly to this on the one hand, and yet on the other hand having no clear idea of a miraculous conception of the Son of God (of one not begotten, but simply passing from eternity into the limits of time), and in her humility being utterly unable to soar to such a height as this, she gave utterance to the words which we find in Luke i. 34, — words indicative of her inward perplexity, whose psychological truth can hardly be sufficiently recognised. It is not by Joseph — she feels — that 1G8 ■ PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. L the child was to be begotten. But is it to be by another man ? As a proof that she has no such thought as this, she takes for granted, not that the child will be begotten by another, but that the child, of whose conception she can form no more definite idea, must be conceived already. This is the direction taken by her thoughts ; but here again she is at a loss, " for she knows not a man." The angel now comes to her help with the explanation, that the Holy Ghost will come upon her, and the poiver of the Most High will overshadow her. Is it, then, a work of the Holy Ghost that is announced, all anxiety necessarily vanishes. Through the Holy Ghost her virgin purity and innocence can receive no injury. Rather is she thereby summoned to, and strengthened, in the purest modesty of thought and feeling. And so with the devotion of the most childlike, yet the firmest faith, she replies, " Be it unto me according to thy word." As a sign of the omnipotence of God, she is told by the angel, that her relative Elisabeth, notwithstanding her age, is with child. The announcement induces her to set off from Nazareth to a city of Judgea, where Zacharias and Elisabeth dwell. As she entered their house, the babe leapt in Elisabeth's womb, and she herself, filled with the Holy Ghost, greeted Mary as " blessed among women ;" and expressed her surprise that the mother of her Lord should come to her, telling her at the same time how the babe has leapt in her womb. Mary then gives utterance to her feelings of gratitude, humility, and faith. She pours forth a song of praise, the leading topics of which are, that God, with His grace and strong delivering aid, is near to those who, conscious of their poverty, put all their trust in Him, and that "in this way the promises given to the patriarchs will now be all fulfilled. After a stay of three months in Judaea, ISIary returned to Nazareth. When her pregnancy began to be apparent (even before her journey to Elisabeth), Joseph had resolved to leave her secretly, and not to expose her by openly putting her away. But an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and enlightened him as to the cause of Mary's pregnancy, and as to the name and future prospects of the child, reminding him also of the ancient prophecy in Isa. vii., that the Messiah should be born of a virgin. 1. Let us for the present assume, that the facts really occurred as related here, and inquire whether, if this were the case, it woukl be possible for two Evangelists, in loriting the history, so to " divide" themselves (as modern critics call it), that the one should give only the annunciation to Mary, the other Joseph's dream. Strauss and CHAP. I.] §31. ANNUNCIATION OF THE BIUTII OF CHRIST. IGO Bruno Bauer not only take for granted the impossibility of this, hut even maintain that the account in Matthew excludes that given by Luke. Matthew's intention was to furnish a proof that Jesus was the son of Abraham and David, i.e., the seed of Abraham in whom all nations were to be blessed, and the successor to David's throne. At the close of the genealogy, he had already traced the title to the throne, from Joseph through Mary to Christ. The words, " the hus- band of Mary, of whom was born Jesus," in the place of the words they would naturally expect, " and Joseph begat Jesus," would strike every reader. They therefore needed an explanation. In the history itself there were two incidents that would serve to explain them — GahrieVs anmmciation, and JoseplUs dream. In both the matter was explained, but each in a different way. The fact that Jesus was supernatu rally conceived, and the manner in which this took place, were shown with peculiar clearness in the annunciation ; and the account of ]\Iary's doubts would be sufficient to banish from the mind of any reader whatever doubts lie might himself have had as to the possibility of conception through the power of God. But this simply brings out the general, doctrinal point, " Christ is the So7i of God." The relation in which Joseph, from whom Jesus inherited the title to the theocratic throne, stood to the whole affair, is only shown in the explanation of the manner in which Joseph was brought to take ]\lary as his lawful wife, after her pregnancy had commenced, and to acknowledge Jesus before the world as his own child. This point, the mai7i point in Mattheiv, could be most clearly exhibited by a simple narration of Joseph's dream. — If this really was the case, and if the assurance of the supernatural conception of Jesus was hereby im- plicitly given, any further or more special account of the way in which ^Mary received the first annunciation, would appear super- fluous to a writer whose intention was not to relate all the details and specialities Avith which he was acquainted, but only what might enter as a necessary element into his own plan. While we have here a sufficient reason why Matthew should select and content himself Avith the account of Joseph's dream, it is also easy to see why Luke should have selected the two other events. If we simply consider the history itself, the annunciation of the birth of Jesus to the woman who was to be His mother was evidently a more important point than the discoveiy made to Joseph on the subject. It A\*as on special grounds alone that Joseph's actions Avere the more important to ^latthew. Luke, on the other hand, who Avrote for Gentiles, paid far less regard to the theocratical relation ; though he 170 * PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. naturally reported the words of the angel, that God would give to Jesus to sit upon the throne of David, and showed in the simplest and clearest manner that it was not unknown to him (the writer) that the right was given, through adoption on the part of Joseph, by the fact, that in ver. 27 it is of Joseph that he states first of all that he was of the house of David.^ But to Luke the main point was the miraculous hirth of Jesus, apart from theocratic considerations altogether. Since Heathenism had thought to satisfy its need of redemption by imagi- nary sons of the gods, there was already existing (in the minds of the Gentile readers of Luke) a receptivity, as well as a need, for the doctrine of the Son of God. — The parallel which Luke draws be- tween Jesus and John the Baptist, naturally furnished an occasion for introducing the account of this visit paid by Mary to Elisabeth. 2. Let us now examine the position that the narrative in Luke excludes that of Matthew. Strauss sees in the conduct of the angel that appeared to Joseph a contradiction to that of the angel that appeared to Mary, as the angel in Matthew speaks as if his appear- ance were the first in this matter. This is not the case, however. The angel only speaks as if the message brought by him to Joseph was the first which Joseph for his part had received ; in other words, as if Joseph knew nothing of the appearance of the angel to Mary. Bauer accordingly gives up this objection, and only insists on the other objection made by Strauss, founded on the conduct of the two betrothed persons towards one another. To the two critics mentioned, it seems inconceivable that Mary made no communication to Joseph respecting the cause of her pregnancy. But Mary's conduct is easily explained by the nature of the case. She was not required to speak of the matter in the way of confession, for she had nothing to confess. She could not in propriety speak of it in a tone of triumph. But, more particularly, speaking of it to Joseph would not serve the purpose of satisfying him. Such a wonder as the miraculous conception of the Son of God could only be ac- credited by a miracle. Mary saw that her testimony alone could not satisfy Joseph's mind. It was at once a necessity and her duti/ to trust in God for that. As God had chosen her without any action ^ In this way, in conjunction with the results already obtained, § 32, we arrive at a solution of this verse which Strauss regards as a demonstrative proof, that Luke knew nothing of the descent of Mary from David, and therefore had no intention to give the genealogy of Manj in chap. iii. — On the similar verse in chap. ii. 4, vid. p. 139. Mary's descent from David coidd not be mentioned there, since this was not the reason for the journey. Neither as a descendant of David, nor on account of the census, did Mary travel with Joseph, but because she was with child. CHAP. I.J §.^4. ANNUXCIATION OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. 171 on her part to be the mother of the Messias, it was not her part by forethouo;lit and manao;enient to brinfif other thino-s into am-eement with that divine act. And she could not but expect that God would undertake to make the matter known to Joseph. And we shall find that she did not require to keep the secret long. Thus we see that, dogmatic difficulties in reference to miracles apart, the history is perfectly self-consistent and harmonious. 3. Two great difficulties have been discovered by negative critics, in connection with Mary's visit to Elisabeth : the leaping of the babe in the womb, and the songs of praise. The former, however, has tirst of all to be distorted and magnified, before any difficulty can be made apparent. The simple statement of the Gospel narrative is, that when Mary entered and saluted Elisabeth, as soon as the latter heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb ; and Elisabeth, who was already informed of the approaching birth of a Messiah, was now " filled with the Holy Ghost " (that is, in scriptural phraseology, thrown into a, prophetic state), and having saluted Mary as the mother of the Saviour, mentioned the leaping of the babe as something surprising to herself. — It is certainly wrong to resort to the ex- planation given by Hoffmann, that the leaping of the babe was simply the physical consequence of the mother's excitement, and attributable to some peculiarity in the salutation which is unknown to us. The meaning of the Gospel narration is evidently, that the same ope- ration, proceeding direct from God, which called forth the prophetic vision in Elisabeth's soul, produced this shock in her bodily organism — a spontaneous movement of the unconscious embryo. It is a natural suggestion to explain this movement of the embryo, symholically, as a salutation of the unborn infant Jesus. But there is no need of symbolical interpretation, when we have the simple fact, that the Spirit of the Lord produced this aKiprdv, with distinct reference to the arrival of the mother of Christ. There is nothing more un- reasonable in the thought, that an organism, as yet unconscious, should contain or receive in almost indistinguishable o;erms those hiah impulses which are afterwards to waken into consciousness, than in the impulse of the plant to seek the light, or the preformation of dis- tinct moral failings inherited from parents. — There is nothing to create offence, therefore, in the Gospel account. Strauss may call it '' fabulous," and " purposeless," for the " Holy Spirit to be com- municated directly to a being without spirit.'' But not a word is said about any communication of the Holy Spirit, much less about any direct communication. We have simply an account of an ecstatic operation upon the bodily organism. 172 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOMD. [CHAP. I. The songs, or more correctly, song, of praise (for vers. 42-46 are simply a brief salutation), are objected to on the ground, that such poetical utterances are to be regarded as the consequence of being filled with the Holy Spirit ; and the Holy Spirit would not have suggested so many reminiscences of the Old Testament. — But are we to lay down laws for the Holy Spirit ? We need only call to mind, how in the Old Testament Micah links his prophecy to the words of the earlier jSIicah (cf. Micah i. 2, c. 1 Kings xxii. 28) ; how the benedictions of the patri- archs seem to be spun, as it were, the one out of the other ; how in the New Testament also the Revelation is full of reminiscences of Old Testament prophecies ; and how in this instance the scattered elements of the ^lessianic hopes naturally coalesced, since this song of praise is, strictly speaking, the closing psalm of the Old Testament. The Hebrew language adapted itself most easily to the form of hymns ; the limits between prose and poetry being less rigid than elsewhere. Given short pregnant sentences, the natural movement of parallelism, an abundance of Old Testament types, and the ecstatic condition pro- duced by the Holy Spirit, — and the hymn is explained ; so that there is not left the slightest residuum of physical, psychological, or historical difficulty. But there still remains a chronological objection, which Schleier- macJie?', I believe, was the first to offer. It was not till after the fifth month of Elisabeth's pregnancy that Mary visited her ; and it is " very improbable," he says, that notwithstanding her own approaching mar- riage, she should have stayed with her three months. — Hug has refuted this objection with his accustomed thoroughness. He shows how (ac- cording to Fhilo, de legg. spec. ii. p. 550, and Mischna Ketuboth, c. vii. sel. 6) virgins were never allowed to travel ; so that it must have been after her marriage that the journey was made. The order of events was as follows : — As betrothed, Mary lived entirely secluded from Joseph, and could only correspond with him through the medium of nim^ty (pronuhas). The angel then appeared to her. She waited in silence to see what else the Lord would do. But as soon as the first symptoms of her pregnancy appeared, these women, with natural sur- prise and suspicion, brought word to Joseph. The angel then appeared to him, and he immediately took Mary to his home. A period of fourteen days at the most would be amply sufficient for all this to occur. And immediately after her marriage, Mary set out on her journey with Joseph's consent (cf. Matt. i. 25). — Now, according to Luke i. 26, the annunciation to Mary took place at the commencement of the sixth month after Elisabeth's conception ; and if Mary's visit was paid " in those days," say fourteen days after — i.e., before the end of CHAP. I.} § 35. THE Biniii of the loud. 173 the sixth montli — her return home, reckoninrr three full months, would occur before the birth of John. Every part, therefore, hangs together in the best possible manner. — The critics, who reckon three months exactly from the sixth month to the ninth, and find no time for the rest, have forgotten that, from the beginning of the sixth month to the end of the ninth, there are not three months, but four. § 35. the birth of the lord. Luke ii. 1-20. The appointment of a census by Augustus having rendered it necessaiT that Joseph should travel to Bethlehem, his ancestral town,' he took Maiy with him. During her stay in Bethlehem the time for her delivery arrived. As there was no other place in the house, they had to lay the infant in a manger. But whilst the new-boni infant, Jesus, was thus brought to so low a stage of humiliation ; outside, in the darkness, the Lord sent His angel to announce to the shepherds in the fields, that in the city of David the Saviour, the Messiah, was born. The shepherds came, and found the child, and told Mary all that had occurred ; and she kept the words in her heart. 1. There is scarcely any other portion of sacred history that abounds more richly in religious and aesthetic truth than the section before us. Luke is an eminent artist in the delicate arrangement of con- trasts ; and here he has set forth in more than classic, in truly heavenly simplicity, this the most striking of all contrasts, — which is speculatively developed in the 1st chapter of John, and which contained in the germ all the further developments of the life of Jesus, of His sufferings, His victory, and the essential characteristics of His Church. The Son of God is born ; and His very first bed is a trough, a manger from which cattle fed. The Evangelist does not tell us hoio it liajijjened that there was no other place to put the child: whether Mary was taken so suddenly ill that she was obliged to find refuge in the nearest stable; or whether ^ Ilnffmann accounts for Joseph's journey on the ground that he was either born in Bethlehem, or a citizen there. And yet Luke says so clearly, Itx to iluxi uvtov i% oi'kov x,xi 'xxrptcis A»vt'o. The right of ciiizenship is by no means needed as an explanation. Joseph certainly seems to have been born in Bethleiiem, since he is said to have been ix, vxTpix; (croXewj) Aocvio. But from the Jewish mode of taking the census, the fact that he was of the oho; (gens) rendered it necessary that he should go to Bethlehem. 17-4 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. the house at wliich she was lodging was completely filled with other strangers ; or, what seems the most proBable and natural, whether it was with very poor people that Joseph and Mary (who were them- selves poor, of. Luke ii. 24) were staying, so that, having no super- abundance of furniture, they brought out the best trough which was nearest hand, that the infant might not have to be laid upon the ground. And this infant, of which no emperor or king takes notice, lying out there in a hut on the outskirts of the village, is the Son of God. But whilst hidden from the eyes of the world. He is revealed to those who fear the Lord and wait for His salvation. Israelitish shepherds, who took no part in the bustle of the town, were that same night in the field with their flocks. And there appeared to them the glory of the Lord, and an angel of the Lo7xl ; the mediators of all the Old Testament, theocratic revelation. The substance of their angelic message is, that the Saviour, the Messiah, is born, and horn in the city of David. And immediately there is heard the jubilant song of the heavenly hosts. One question now arises : Are there internal discrepancies and incongruities, even on the assumption that Jesus was the Son of God, or are there not ? For when Strauss asks for an object, and concludes that it was to announce the birth of Jesus, or to reward the piety of the shepherds, being unable to think of any higher object than such external ones as these ; it is evident that he starts with the assumption, that Jesus was not the Son of God, and that these things could not have taken place in his honour.^ For if Christ was the Son of God, what other object could be desired than that which the event contains within itself, the sacredness of divine fitness? Is there any truth in Sophocles or Goethe ? What is all their aesthetic truth when compared with this (even regarding it from an cesthetic point of view alone), that the incarnate Son of God, who lay there in the manger, was pro- claimed in the night by the angels of God to pious shepherds watching in the fields ? Such beauty as this, — the glory of God hiding itself in such quiet seclusion, and yet revealing itself in spite of external humiliation, — would be object enough, even though there had been beauty only, and not truth and necessity as well. ^ Perverse as it is to try and find out an external object for every act of the divine power, and every resolution of the divine will ; yet there are many cases in which, besides that free divine necessity which has its object in itself alone, a special purpose may be discerned in special consequences. Thus, just when IMary with her natural maternal feelings was looking doicn upon the child to which she had given birth, and could therefore so easily be led into error thi'ough the weakness of the flesh, and forget the Son of God, there came as the necessary counterpoise the intelhgence brought by the shepherds. CIIAF. I.J § 36. PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE. 175 For the supernatural standpoint of the New Testament, thehistoiy is perfectly harmonious. Only against this dogmatic standpoint can scepticism be directed. § 36. presentation in the temple. Luke ii. 21-40. When the infant was eight days old, it was circumcised, and the name Jesus given to it, as the angel had commanded. Forty days after His birth, the legal close of the period of purification, Mary and Joseph took Him to the temple, as He was the first-born, to dedicate Him to the Lord (Exod. xiii. 2 ; Num. viii. 16), and to present the offer- ings prescribed in the law. When the Son of God was thus presented for the first time in His Father's house, as one consecrated to the Lord, it came to pass that a devout old man, named Simeon, to whom the Lord had given an inward revelation that he should live till the New Covenant was introduced, and see the Anointed of the Lord with his own eyes, entered the temple full of the Spirit, and recognising the child by prophetic intuition, took it in his arms as soon as it caught his eye, and declared who the child was, and what conflicts it would have to endure. Here, in the temple at Jerusalem, was Christ for the first time called the Saviour of the Gentiles. And here too, in the temple at Jerusalem, was the first announcement made in myste- rious words, of a division of the Old Testament covenant nation into two parts, of the hostility of Israel according to the flesh, and of the conflict and death which awaited the Son of God from the servants of the Lord's house. — A prophetess also, named Anna, came in, and spoke of the child to all those who were truly and in spirit waiting for Him. 1. These accounts are so simple and clear, that even Strauss and Bruno Bauer can find no discrepancies or difficulties in them. The former, therefore, takes refuge in his teleology. " Apart altogether," he says, " from the general objections to the admissibility of any miracles whatever, it is peculiarly difficult to admit that there Avas any miracle in this case, seeing that no sufficient end can be imagined." Either, he says, it was to spread faith in that child, " of which there is no trace" (vide ver. 38), or it was for the sake of Simeon and Anna alone, which would be unworthy of Providence. He again twists the assertion " miracles are impjossihle^'' into another, mii'acles are very 17t) pai:t first, division second. [chap. i. difficult, and give "Providence" amazing trouble. But either they are altogether inadmissible, and then it is superfluous and absurd to say that " it is peculiarly difficult " to admit them in this instance ; or they are possible, — that is to say, above the natural and psychological laws that are known to regulate both our earth and our nature, Avhich have been disturbed by sin, there exists a kingdom of greater free- dom and ghuy. And if this be the case, the streams of grace that emanate from that kingdom do not flow down with difficulty, in the most indispensable cases alone ; but, on the contrary, wherever it is j)ossihle, and no determined resistance is offered on the part of sinful humanity. At such a time as that of Christ, when a neio work was about to commence, which was to be historical on the one hand, and yet on the other of eternal importance for every age, these streams of grace shaped themselves into gifts of prophecy and miracle ; but when the end to be realized is the preservation and further develop- ment of something already given, they appear as the ordinary gifts of the Spirit. 2. The cause of Mary's astonishment at Simeon's words has been disputed. " His statement as to the sword," says Strauss, " could not have been the occasion, for Mary had already been amazed ; nor his allusion to the relation of Jesus to the heathen, for that had been pre- dicted in the Old Testament. There remains, therefore, only the Messiahship of the child, that could have been a ground of amaze- ment ; but if this was the case, it follows that the earlier communications of the angels to Joseph and Mary could not have taken place." But S. had evidently no wish to think of another and far simpler explana- tion of her amazement. Mary was astonished that Simeon should so immediately recognise as the Messiah, a child of which he had never lieard before ; and that the words of the old man should consequently agree wdth those of the angel, and thus so thoroughly confirm them. This was the caiise of her joyous amazement. The account, therefore, is free from any historical difficulties; and nothing can be said against it, unless "prophecy and prophetic intuition are absolutely impossible." §37. THE WISE MEN FROM THE EAST. ]\Iatt. II. Some time after the birth of Jesus, there came Chaldeans (Astro- logers) from the East to Jerusalem, and asked for a " King of the CIIAr. I.] § 37. THE WISE MEN FROM THE EAST. 177 Jews" who was to be bom ; because they had seen " Ilis star" rise.^ Not only Herod, who, as a tyrant, had good reason to tremble on every occasion, but all the inhabitants of the capital, who were as much afraid of new revolutions as of the wrath of the kiiiij^ were alarmed at this amazing account. Herod immediately called together the priests and scribes, to inqnire of them where, according to pro- phecy, the Messiah was to be born ; and was told that, according to the prophecy of !Micah, Bethlehem was the place. He then sent quietly for the Chaldeans, and elicited from them the most precise information as to the whole sidereal phenomenon, and chiefly as to the time of its appearance. When the man, who had in all probability resolved that if such a child should be found it should be put to death, had thus informed himself as to its age and the place where it was to be sought for, he ordered the Chaldeans to search for the child in Bethlehem, and on their return to bring him word, that he might go and " worship Plim also." The wise men went to Bethlehem, and again the star stood before them the whole way. When they had found the child, they worshipped Him, and presented Plim with royal gifts. But God warned them in a dream not to return by Jerusalem. Herod was enraged that they did not come, and lost no time in using the little information he had already received, as to the age and dwelling-place of the child, for' the purpose of executing a plan by which he hoped with certainty to accomplish his design. He there- fore issued the barbarous command, that all the children in Bethlehem who were under two years of age should be put to death. But Joseph had been warned by an angel in a dream ; and was already on his way to Egypt with Mary and her child. 1. There is no other account whose credibility is attested by such remarkable and convincing proofs as this. We will place all the data side by side. a. On the 20th May 747 u.C. (the year in which, according to Idelers thorough and unquestionable calculations, Christ was born), the two largest of the superior planets, Jupiter and Saturn, came so nearly into conjunction in the sign of Pisces, that they would be seen ^ 'Ev rri ecvxToXyj (rendered "in the East") would probably be correctly ren- dered " in the rising," or " we saw it rise." For in ver. 1 " the East" is described as «/ dvccroT^cci in the plural. According to Mejer and Kuincil, h rf, «w«toXw is opposed to iTrxua in ver. 9, — its rising in opposition to its culmination. The point of importance was evidently that a new star had risen or ascended. A mere burst- ing forth, high up in the heavens, would have been meteoric and unimportant. Beside this, the explanation of eiyxTo^vj is of no consequence whatever for tlie further understanding of the event itself. 178 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. in the morning sky not more than one degree asunder. On the 27th of October they were again not more than one degree from absolute conjunction in the 16th degree of Pisces, and would be seen at mid- night in the southern sky. On the 12th of November a third con- junction took place in the 15th degree of Pisces; and, according to Kepler, this time Mars was also near. b. The Jew Abarbanel, who knew notJnng of such a conjunction in the year 747 U.C, states that there was a tradition, that no con- junction of the planets had been of greater importance than that of Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred in Pisces in the year 2365, three years before the birth of Moses. He also states that the sign of Pisces was the most important of the signs of the Zodiac for the Israelites ; and draws the conclusion from the fact that a similar conjunction had taken place in his own day (1463 aer. Dion.), that the birth of the Messiah must be near at hand. — From all this it may at all events be safely concluded, tliat from time immemorial the Jews had regarded conjunctions in the sign of Pisces as possessing peculiar importance.^ And as the Israelites were not the inventors of astrology, but received it from the Chaldeans, the latter must also have recognised the signi- ficance of such a conjunction. c. On the 17th Dec. 1603, Kepler first observed a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of Capricornus (the constellation Ser- pentarius), to which there was added in the spring of 1604 the planet Mars, and in the autumn an entirely new star, resembling in brilliancy a star of t\\Q first magnitude, which disappeared again in 1605. From all these data we may draw the following conclusions. Though it cannot be regarded as a fixed law, that new stars appear in con- nection with the conjunction of great planets ; it cannot, on the other hand, be denied that there was something very remarkable in the fact, that the new star which ai^peared in 1604 coincided with the con- junction of Jupiter and Saturn, and the close approximation of Mars. Without attempting to explain it either optically or cosmically, we simply ask, whether it is not a very significant fact, that we should hear of another new star just at a time when, according to astronomi- cal reckoning, another perfectly similar conjunction occurred? More- over, the new star appeared twice; first in the eastern sky, then some months later (after its heliacal setting) in the southern sky; and this agi'ees most remarkably with the calculations of Ideler, that there were two conjunctions, first in the eastern, then in the southern sky. — According to Ideler ii. p. 401-2, and Kepler (de stella nova 1606), to later astro- logers also. The reason is to be found in the regular periodical return of the " conjunctions — the fiery Trigon," which occur about every 794 years. CHAP. I.] § 37. TUE WISE MEN FROM THE EAST. 179 It will be obvious that by acm'jp I understaiul not the conjunction itself j though even that is not grammatically impossible, but (with Kepler) a new star, which may have appeared at that time along with the con- junction, as it certainly did in 1604. The following objections to my argument arc to be found in Zellers Jahrhuch (1847). a. "If, notwithstanding Kabbi Abarbauel, there is no peculiar cosmical connection between the sign of Pisces and Israel, what appears in that sign can have no actual reference to the nation of Israel." Nor do we maintain that it has any such refer- ence. We merely appeal to the tradition of Abarbauel as a proof that the Chaldean and Jewish astrologers nmst have assumed in their astrology that there was some connection between this constellation and the Israelitish nation ; and from this we have explained how the Chaldeans might arrive at the conclusion, that the phenomenon in ques- tion had reference to au Israelitish king. In addition to this, however, they were unquestionably also influenced by tlie prophecies of Balaam and Daniel, which were well known in the East. — b. " If such a con- junction of the superior planets recurs at certain intervals (and was not merely an event that took place at that particular time), without a Christ being born each time, then the conjunction at that time could not really have signified the birth of Christ." But what are we to under- stand by the words "really have signified'"? I have given no occasion to saddle me with the foolish opinion, that such a conjunction in objec- tive reality draws after it always the birth of a distinguished man, or that that particular conjunction was the cause of the birth of Christ. All that I have said is, that according to the views which prevailed at that time among the Chaldeans, a phenomenon of this kind might have appeared to them to be a sign that the birth of a king of Israel, which they were anticipating according to the prophecies of Balaam and Daniel, was now about to take place. Whether it was a thing worthy of God to turn to account the erroneous opinions which were current at any particular time in order to accomplish Ilis purposes, is a question which we shall consider by and by. — c. " If Kepler, in 1G04, saw a new fixed star appear in the same constellation, but this time in the sign of Capricornus, and the star subsequently disappeared, why should not the Magi have seen it also, and have regarded this parti- cular star as that of the Messiah also ?" But my argument does not run thus: " In 1604 a new star appeared in connection with the con- junction of the planets, ergo (apart from the account given by Mat- thew) there is reason to suppose that in 747 u.C. a new star also appeared in connection with a similar conjunction ; but a new star denotes the Messiah, therefore the Messiah must have been born in 180 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. 747." I merely say, INIatthew gives an account of a new star which appeared at the time of Christ's birth ; and astronomical calculations show that at the time when, according to Luke i. and Matt, ii., Jesus was actually born, an unusual conjunction of the planets occurred, and one in connection with the recui-rence of which in 1604 a new star again appeared. And from this unsought coincidence between the account in Matthew and the facts connected with the two conjunc- tions of 747 U.C. and 1604 a.d., I draw the conclusion, that what Matthew says of the new star cannot be a myth, since it would be utterly incredible that the account of a new star appearing along with a conjunction which really did take place in 747 U.C, should so re- markably coincide with an analogous Fact of the year 1604, and yet be nothing but a myth after all. Now, if we bear in mind the prophecy of Balaam, which, whether the negative critic accepts it as historical or not, was at any rate in existence along with the Pentateuch at the time of the captivity, and had penetrated into the countries of the East ; if we remember, again, that, whether the book of Daniel be regarded as genuine or not, it proves most conclusively that an attachment on the part of the Jewish exiles to the Chaldean astrology must have been conceivable, or rather certain ; and if, lastly, we keep in mind the fact that there were thousands of Jews still living in Chaldea '} it will be easy enough to understand, how Chaldean Magi, to whom a conjunction of the planets in the sign of Pisces would in itself be a memorable event, who regarded this sign as specially connected with Judaea, and who were acquainted with the prophecy of a star that was to rise out of Jacob, and to rule and conquer, should have been led, by this remarkable phenomenon of a conjunction of two planets in the sign of Pisces, with a third planet close by, and an entirely new star by their side, to adopt the conclusion, that a King must be born, a King of Judcea, and in fact the long-promised Kiiig? Is it probable that an ^ Vide Josephus, Ant. 15, 3, 1. The kings of the Ilimyarides (from 100 B.C.), and those of Adiabene, Northern Chaldea, were Jews. I am hardly prepared to agree with Kepler and Hoffmann, that the wise men themselves were Jews. In ver. 2 they speak of " the Jews " in the third person ; and throughout ajjpear as foretf;ne7-s. 2 They did not understand the prophecy of Balaam to refer to a literal star (as Bleek erroneously supposes), but to a King. It was not from reading Num. xxiv., but from the Chaldean astrology, that they derived the view that a real star would be the forerunner of the King. Hug's opinion (Gutachtcn, p. 114), that the Magi set out upon their journey on speculation, to see whether anything important really had occurred, and therefore whether the phenomenon they had observed denoted anything or not, does not appear to me to be either natural or supernatural. CHAP. I] § 37. THE WISE MEN IROM THE EAST. 181 account, wliicli agrees so remarkably with the results of the most modern astronomical science, is an invention or a myth ? It must have been a singularly " clairvoyant " myth, which could shape itself so perfectly to the discoveries which would be made eighteen centuries afterwards ! 2 The account of the manner in which the star appeared to the wise men, and the service it did them, has been exposed to two classes of objections, — first exegetical, and secondly doctrinal. Yet if we read the narrative given by Matthew, just as we have it, hardly a difficulty is to be found. "What the Chaldeans saw was an d(TT7]p, i.e., a star like any other, — no meteor or falling star, but belonging either to the fixed stars, or the comets, or the new stars. That it was a new star, is evident from the fact that they call it the " star of the Messiah." It was in itself prophetic of the Messiah ; and did not merely become so, through its position among the rest of the stars. — In their own country they had seen it in the east. It was not by its position in the heavens, therefore, that they were led to- wards the west ; so that we cannot think of it as o;oinff before them. It was, on the contrary, as we have said, its appearance in a certain sign of the Zodiac, which in their astrology represented Judaea, and possibly also Balaam's prophecy, which moved them to visit the capital of Judaea.^ From Jerusalem they went to Bethlehem, not because the star moved along in front of them (for, as Lange correctly observes, it was not till they were on the road that the star appeared), but because Herod himself had directed them to go to Bethlehem (vide ver. 8). On the way, they saw the star again ; and this time it stood in the south, not merely moving by cosmical motion from north to south, or in the oi'dinary way from east to west, but, according to the well- known optical laio, which any one may observe on a clear evening, appearing to go with them or before them. And when ^latthew says it " went before them (Trpoijyev) till it came and stood (earr]) over where the young child was," the going and the standing are to be regarded, not as the cause, but as the consequence of their going and of their arrival. The intention of the writer is to desciibe how, when they had reached at length the desired end of their journey, and stood upon the edge of the table land which separates Jerusalem from the valley of Bethlehem, high up above the village they saw the star shin- ing and twinkling in the heavens. That this is the meaning of ver. 0, and not that the star is described as a guide, is very clearly shown in ver. 10, where, instead of reading that they entered the house, we read that they rejoiced exceedingly on account of the star. That they ^ It is hardly necessary to recall the well-known fact, that people in the East prefer travelling in the night, especially on short journeys. 182 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. then made some inquiry (cf. ver. 8) respecting tlie child and its present abode, is such a matter of course, that it would have been as unmean- ing on the part of Matthew to mention it, as it is on the part of Strauss to expect it. We know, therefore, what opinion to form of the exposition, which forces upon the text the absurdity of saying that the star " danced along the road in front of the Chaldeans, and then planted itself firmly over the roof of the house." And yet even Bleek (p. 21) says that in our explanation the text is put upon the rack in the old ration- alistic fashion. I think not. In Matthew's whole account, there is not the slightest trace of any topographical difficulty on the part of the Magi in finding the high road to Bethlehem. The intention of Matthew, therefore, cannot have been to represent the star as a topographical guide; but rather to exhibit it as a sign from God, that the Magi (when on the road to Bethlehem) were in the right way to the Messiah, whereas previously, when seeking Him in Jerusalem, they had been in the wrong. Therefore they rejoice on account of the star ; and not be- cause it went before them like a lantern, keeping a few steps in ad- vance. At least I can find no trace of anything of this kind in the text. One remark may be allowed as to the time of year at which the star appeared. According to Idelers reckoning, it is probable that it was seen the first time in the spring of 747, and that the arrival of the Chaldeans took place in October. Herod, assuming that the first appearance of the star coincided with the birth of the child, and in order to make quite sure, gave orders that every child under two years of age should be killed. • 3. Before passing on to the dogmatic objections, we will just briefly notice one or two historical objections with reference to Herod's con- duct.— The first question started is, why did Herod make his inquiry secretly ; and why such minute inquiries ? The answer is this : Secretly, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem might not know that the matter disturbed his mind ; for were they once to know this, they might warn the Chaldeans not to betray the child to a king who was sure to have mischief in his mind. Moreover, Herod wanted to put the child out of the way before it was known, and therefoi-e dangerous. Possibly, if Bauer had been in Herod's place, he would have made a proclama- tion, " This afternoon, at three o'clock, I shall examine the Chaldean strangers as to the infant Messiah." — The inquiry was minute, because it is customaiy to inquire minutely about so important a matter as the existence of a pretender was to Herod. Hoffmanns remark ap- pears to me to be well founded, that Herod inquired about the time when the star appeared, not merely for the purpose of learning the age CHAP. 1.] § 37. THE WISE MEN FROM THE EAST. 183 of the child, but also with the intention of asking his o^^^^ astrologers, whcthei- such a stai* really had appeai-ed, so as to find out whether the visit of the Chaldeans might not be, after all, merely one part of a plot. This serves to remove another objection, viz., " As Ilerod did not determine upon his murderous plan till he found that the Chaldeans were not returning, why did he ask them about the age of the child?" — It is true that Herod did not determine to kill all the children in Bethlehem till he found that the Chaldeans were not returning, and it was impossible, therefore, to make any further inquiry about this particular child ; but from the very first, he had evidently had in his mind the design of killing this child, or making away with it in some other way. {Vide Satirin, disc, histor. critiq. etc., torn. ix. p. 225.) Does Strauss think Herod really meant to loorsldp the child (ver. 8)? Saurin (p. 226) also suggests, what is quite possible, that when Herod considered the suspicious natux'e of the whole affair, and the failure of the !Magi to return, he may easily have imagined that there was some plot against him on the part of the inhabitants of Bethlehem ; — a thought, wdiich would be still more likely to lead him to the deter- mination to murder all the children in Bethlehem. The objection, that no allusion is made by other historians to the horrors of the infant-murder at Bethlehem, is sufficiently met by simply calling to mind how small the number would be of children under two years of age, in a little place like Bethlehem. The murder of a few children vanished like a drop in the ocean, amidst the other far greater cruelties of Herod.^ ^ Compare, among others, Hoffmann, 262, and Josephiis, "Wars of the Jews, 1, 33, 6. Before he died, Herod had the most distinguished men of the whole nation shut up in the race-course, and gave orders that they should all be murdered at the moment of his death, " that all Judaea and every house may weep, though involun- tarily, for me." — See also the complaint of the Jewish ambassadors to Rome, in Josej^hus, Ant. 17, 11,2: " There were a great many who perished by that destruc- tion he brought upon them, — so many, indeed, as no other history relates ; and they that survived were far more miserable than those that suffered under him. . . . They would say nothing of the corruption of their virgins, and reproach brought upon their wives, and those things acted after an insolent and inhuman manner. .... Herod had put such abuses upon them as a wild beast would not have put upon them, if he had power given him to rule." — A still more detailed account is given in Hurfs Gutachten, p. Ill : " Confessions forced out by torture ; executions, including those of his own two sons, who were perhaps the best men in his whole family ; the punishment of death inflicted upon such of the Pharisees as had not taken the oath ; the buriiing alive of the youths who pulled down the golden eagle in the temple, along witli their leaders : and, immediately after, the assa-ssination of the nominated successor to the throne This string of murders at the court were enough to lead any historian to overlook the slaugiiter of a few infanta in a little country town." 184 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. Stress has also been laid upon the fact, that Matthew does not say a single word about the Chaldeans having expressed astonishment at finding the King so poor. But from the time when they learned that the child was neither the son of Herod, nor of a prince, but was to be found in a village, they must have been prepared to find him poor. And this was not too great a demand upon the faith which had under- taken so long a journey. 4. We pass on now to the doctrinal objections. To many it is inconceivable that God should have supported the erroneous opinion, that the birth of great men is attended by signs in the heavens. But both the biblical history and daily experience afford convincing evi- dence, that the providence of God makes not error only, but even sin, subservient to the accomplishment of its designs. It would have been incomprehensible, if God had occasioned the rise of the Chaldean astrology througli the appearance of this star. But the Chaldean astrology was in existence before. And, in addition to this, there was also a well-known prediction of the coming of a celebrated King of the Jews. Now, if the overruling providence of God did so order events, that, according to the previous premises of the Chaldean astrology, the conjunction and the appearance of the star led the Magi to seek at the right moment the new-born King of the Jews, this would be in perfect analogy to the standing law of divine revelation, that God mercifully stoops to the weakness of men, that He may lead them onward step by step. Thus the first revelations of a coming Messiah were linked on to the political desires of Israel, and it was not till a later period that they were more clearly explained ; whilst the full explanation was reserved for Christ Himself. Thus Paul, again, took as his starting point the altar and worship of the unknown God. Ought God to have given the Chaldeans a revelation, attested by signs and wonders, and thus to have refuted their astrological hypotheses, whilst He sent them direct information of the birth of Jesus ? Negative critics would justly enough have taken offence at this. In the case of the shep- herds, God used the Israelitish form — the Shechinah and vision of angels ; and with the Chaldeans a Chaldean form — astrology. This was the true method, and one worthy of divine wisdom, to cure the Chaldeans of their astrology, by leading them, through their astrology, to Christianity, which bore within itself the power to conquer astro- logy.— But (it may perhaps be asked) was this really the case ? Do we not meet with astrology in connection with Christianity, and did it not take its stand upon this very passage ? Had not the star, there- fore, this injurious effect, of confirming men in their astrological errors, and thus of increasing the difficulty of effecting the overthrow of CHAP. I.J § 37. THE WISE MEN FROM THE EAST. 185 astrology? No doubt the star has really produced this effect in the case of persons who have taken the same view of the whole occurrence as the negative critics themselves do, namely, without regard to the law of true divine accommodation. But God is not responsible for this abuse. It was only amidst the corrupt Christianity of the ^Middle Ages that it took its rise, and it was soon swept away again by the Refor- mation. Moreover, if any one maintains that it would have been im- proper for God to allow this star to appear, when it was sure to be so abused, I go still further, and maintain that we have an equal right to say that it was improper for God to allow the account of the star to be written, since it was hy this ijrimarily that the astrology of the Middle Ages was occasioned or confirmed. And if, even with the danger of such abuses, it was right for the providence of God to allow the account to be written, it was equally right for the providence of God to let the star itself coincide with the erroneous opinions of the Chal- deans, so as to lead them to the source from which the power to conquer all such errors was henceforth to flow. It was a great mistake, in Strauss s opinion, for God to permit the murder of the infants, as [Matthew says He did. He even goes so far as to explain how it might have been avoided. — But if we were to ask Strauss why God permitted Bartholomew's night, he would not keep us waiting for an answer. He would show, that whatever suffering occurs in the ordinary course of things, is the result of necessary development, of an iron necessity ; in other words, that he has no wish whatever to believe in the determination of the ordinary course of things by the will of a personal God. In contrast with this machinery of the universe, the sphere of miraculous interference is regarded by him as a sphere in which God acts as a single individual, and therefore has all the responsibility of a single individual. Consequently God is not responsible for St Bartholomew's night, because, in his opinion, this was not connected with the will of a personal God ; but for the murders at Bethlehem He is, because they were occasioned by Him, as much as a conflagration by a careless boy. — We come to a totally different conclusion. We also believe in an "immanence" of God in the Avorld. And in the course of events, which is determined partly by a prearranged necessity of nature, and partly by a permitted freedom of finite crea- tures, we see the working out of the eternal, but free and self-con- scious will of God. But for that very reason we maintain that this will possesses the right of concursus ad malum ; the right, that is to say, of causing moral evil — which exists independently of God and through the caprice of man — to result in physical ill (which leads again 186 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. to good as its ultimate result). And to us it makes no difference by what means this realization of evil in physical ill is effected, whether through the ordinary course of events, or by the intervention of higher laws. In the latter case, as in the former, God is not an individual responsible to a presumptuous man ; but in both, — Bethlehem, as well as St Bartholomew's night, — God is the eternal, personal Lord, who causes evil to work itself out, when, and where, and how He Mall, in order that the evil may thereby destroy itself, and good, the absolute purpose of God, be thereby secured. — But it would be folly to attempt to prove, in any particular instance, that this end had been secured, whether in Bethlehem, the destruction of Magdeburg, or the massacre of St Bartholomew. § 38. Joseph's dwelling-place. It cannot be inferred with certainty, from the words " into his own city" (Luke ii. 3), that Joseph was born in Bethlehem, or even descended from the Bethlehemites ; since we find in ver. 4 his descent from David assigned as the special reason why he went to Bethlehem. So much is certain, at any rate, that he was not settled at Bethlehem (cf. Luke ii. 7). — If the census did not oblige him to go to Bethlehem, yet, as a member of the family of David, he certainly would wish to go there. And this having once furnished an occasion for his leaving Nazareth, there were reasons enough why he should remain at Beth- lehem: viz., Mary's approaching confinement, which rendered it neces- sary that he should stay there for some time ; the peculiar relation in which he stood to Mary, of which both Matthew and Luke have given an account ; and lastly, his poverty, which rendered it easy for him to settle wherever he could find work, whilst neither property nor business called him back to Nazareth. Consequently, in Matt. ii. 11, we find him in a "house" (oiKia). — But his stay in Bethlehem was speedily interrupted by the flight into Egypt ; and on their return from Egypt, though Herod was no longer alive, the reign of his cruel ^ ' Josephus, Ant. 17, 11, 2: " (Archelaus) seemed to be afraid lest he should not be deemed Herod's own son ; and so, without any delay, he let the nation understand his meaning, and this before his dominion was well established, since the power of disposing of it belonged to Caesar, who could either give it to him or not, as he pleased. He had given a specimen of his future virtue to his subjects, and with what kind of moderation and good administration he would govern them, by that his first action, which concerned them, his own citizens, and God also, when he made the slawjhter of three thousaml of his own countrymen at the temple." CHAP. I.] § 38. JOSEPH'S DWELLING-PLACE. 187 son Archelaus was a sufficient reason for their preferrinfr to wend their way back to Nazareth. 1. Assuming all this, the question arises, 7s it probable that two writers would so diverge from one another, that one would describe Nazareth as the actual abode, and the stay in Bethlehem as merely transitory, and therefore, treating the return to Nazareth as a matter of course, merely record it without giving any further motive, while the other speaks as if Bethlehem was the original dwelling-place, and so assigns special reasons for the removal to Nazareth ? In my opinion it is ; and even on the supposition that the authors of the first and third Gospels were fully acquainted with the entire objective course of the history, an unconditional answer ought not to be given in the negative . Even in this case it would neither be unnatural nor impossible for each of the authors to write as he has written. We must not forget that such a question as, Which was Joseph's real home? cannot have had any very marked importance either for the Evangelists or their readers. Their attention was directed to totally different things. And if it can be shown that each of the two writers may have been naturally led by his own peculiar standpoint to narrate the account as he has, the rela- tive inaccuracy or incompleteness of the two accounts is fully explained. Now this can really be shown, and without forcing the narratives. Lxike had already mentioned Nazareth as Clary's dwelling-place, when describing the preliminary preparations for the birth of Jesus (chap, i.), and therefore was naturally induced to state (what appeared almost inevitably to follow from chap, i.) that Josej^h also had lived in Nazareth previous to the journey mentioned in chap. ii. 1 sqq. — Now, as the stay in Bethlehem cannot have continued more than a few months, and Luke does not relate the account of the Chaldeans^ and the ensuing journey to Egypt, which was only a brief interlude, as Herod died a few months after, nothing was more natural than that he should just give in a formula, which bears the impress of a general utatement, the brief notice, that Joseph and Mary did not remain in Bethlehem, but returned again to Galilee. Matthew, on the contrary, to whom the birth in Bethlehem was unquestionably of impoi'tance, as the fulfilment of a prophecy (chap, ii. 5, 6), and who saw no reason for mentioning the circumstances which occasioned the jouraey thither, represents Joseph (and, as we have seen, rightly so) as living in Bethlehem (chap. ii. 11); and not naving made any previous allusion to Nazareth at all, he cannot speak of the journey to Nazareth simply as a "return." On the other hand, ' It bore no necessary relation to his plan. 188 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. the more important it appeared to him to record the fact, that by the residence of Jesus in despised Gahlee a prophecy was fulfilled (chap, ii. 23), the more occasion had he to describe the peculiar leadings of God by which the removal to Nazareth was occasioned. And though he simply mentions the fact, that Joseph chose Nazareth as his dwelling- place, it is certainly implied that he must have had some special reason for going to that particular place ; all which is in perfect harmony with Luke's account, that Joseph had lived there before. The following, then, are the results which we obtain : — 1. The stay in Bethlehem was something more than 2i journey. Joseph would have settled there but for the circumstance related in ]\Iatt. ii. 22. Matthew is correct, therefore, in speaking of a dioelling (oIklo) in Bethlehem. — 2. The stay in Bethlehem was actually so short and transitory, that Luke was perfectly right in describing the removal to Nazareth as a return. In the manner, therefore, in which Matthew and Luke relate the occurrences, there is not the slightest contradiction. If the tioo events occurred as described, it is perfectly conceivable that two writers, giving prominence to different facts, and concerned more about the suhstayice of the narrative than about topographical notices, should have such divergences as these in their accounts. The possibility of this must be conceded by any negative critic, even assuming that the authors of the Gospels were fully acquainted with every point in the objective course of events. Even then, the fact of Matthew having so written that, if we had not Luke as well, we should necessarily regard Bethlehem as Joseph's original abode, and Luke so, that if we had not Matthew, we should have no suspicion of any lengthened stay in Bethlehem, does not by any means show that the two accounts are founded upon a variable myth, and not upon one real objective fact. But the supposition itself is by no means necessary. Luke was not an eye-witness of the life of Jesus ; and Matthew was, at all events, not an eye-witness of His infancy. Both must have derived their knowledge from oral or written accounts. And as their inform- ants were, from the very nature of the case, not concerned to relate historical investigations into Joseph's abode, but particular occurrences connected with the infancy of Jesus, it is perfectly conceivable that the different accounts should be imperfect, so that Matthew should not hear of Joseph's original residence in Nazareth, nor Luke of Joseph's determination to remain in Bethlehem until peculiar circumstances decided him to return to his first abode. There is nothing, therefore, in the apparent discrepancy which affords the slightest evidence of there being anything mythical in the two accounts ; whilst, on the other hand, the fact that the Aramean Matthew, even in the time of CHAP. I.] § 39. JESUS IN THE TEMPLE. 189 Jerome, contained the sections coiTesponding to tlie two first chapters of ^Matthew, and therefore that tlic Apostle Matthew did write this account, is proof enough of the utter fallacy of any such hypothesis. §39. jesus in the temple. Luke ii. 41-52. When Jesus was twelve years old, He was taken by Joseph and Mary for the first time to the feast of the Passover ; and on their return, He remained behind in Jerusalem, without the knowledge of His parents, who were already on their way back. They had no doubt that Jesus had joined the caravan ; and therefore the first ground of uneasiness arose, when they encamped for the night, and found that He was, not there, and had not been seen by any of their fellow- travellers for the whole day. With well-founded anxiety for the child, who was left behind in the capital alone, they returned the following day to Jerusalem, and sought for Him the whole evening of this second day, and the whole of the third day, among all their acquaint- ances, in all the inns, and in all the streets ; until at last they found Him, where they least expected, in a room of the temple, sitting in the midst of a circle of teachers, listening to them, asking them ques- tions, and, when questions were addressed to Him, exciting astonishment through the answers which He gave. To the natural inquir}' of His mother, " Son, why hast Thou thus dealt with us?" He replied, with a feeling of the purest innocence (since it seemed to Him for His part quite as natural, and as much a matter of course), that He belonged to the house of Him, whom in the fulness of His own immediate consciousness He recognised as His Father. Into this feeling Joseph and Mary were unable to enter ; and therefore they could not under- stand His reply. But Maiy kept the occun-ence in her heart. 1. Critics have proved, in their treatment of this account, what mastery in distortion can do. In the first place, this dilemma is pre- sented to us : Either the parents of Jesus must have had so much confidence in Him, that they could pass a whole day without looking for Him, and in that case it is difficult to understand why they should have been anxious in the evening ; or, if there was cause for the latter, it is incredible that they should have remained calm all day. — But if the parents of Jesus had always been accustomed to the most strict obedience from their child, it is conceivable that, travelling as 190 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. I. they did with " kinsfolk and acquaintances," and having told Jesus of the time of their departure, they liad every reason to suppose that Jesus would start along with them ; and though He was not in their company, they naturally thought that He was with some of their relations. But when evening came, and they found that no one had seen Him, the very fact that they were so accustomed to obedience from Him would cause them the greater anxiety, as they would feel sure that some misfortune must have occurred to detain Him. And this natural parental feeling would not be suppressed by the reflection that " the Messianic career had been ensured by angels to the child." (Zeller's Jahrb. 1847.) What contradiction there can be between those promises and the present anxiety, I cannot imagine. The thought that the child was dead, would unquestionably have been irreconcil- able with the angels' words, were it not the very nature of anxiety to leave no time for reflection, or for calm meditation upon consolatory truths. Though even granting that Mary remembered those words, might she not still be afraid lest some other accident had befallen Him, lest perchance He had been waylaid ; and would she not regard it as the most sacred duty imposed upon her, to rescue a child whose destiny she knew from possible danger, and to devote herself to the task with the greatest energy and care ? Every attack of this kind, that may be made upon the sacred history, however wise in its own esteem, turns out to be the most glaring folly. 2. Several objections rest upon studiously false exegesis. Strauss mentions the custom, that the scholars of the Rabbis in the consessus were wont to stand. But this notice is doubly worthless ; as, in the first place, Strauss himself is obliged to admit that the sources from which he (or rather his vade-mecum Lightfoot) has taken the notice are doubtful ; and, in the second place, it is not a regular consessus, a constituted assembly of doctors, that is referred to in the passage. Jesus sits not along with other scholars beside one or more teachers, but as a single scholar in the midst of the doctors. The boy has not forced Himself into a constituted consessus, but through occasional confidential intercourse with single doctors, He has led more and still more of them to gather about Him. When Strauss finds in the words ev fxeao) rwv . . . the meaning that Jesus sat at least on equal terms with, if not in a place of honour among, the teachers, we must bear with him in this idiosyncrasy. To us the expression simply points to the remarkable circumstance, that a boy of twelve years old should be found, not among other boys, but among grave elderly persons. The sharp-witted man has made much also out of the "asking CHAP. I.] § 39. JESUS IN THE TEMPLE. 191 and answering questions." He calls to mind, in a most unnecessary way, the account of some apocrypha, in which Jesus is said to have " taught in all the faculties." Yet he admits that, according to Luke's meaning, the questions spoken of may have been, not questions ad- dressed by a catechist to his pupils, but questions, on the contrary, addressed by an inquiring pupil to his instructors. But though he has no objection to offer, he tries to throw obstacles in the way of this natural explanation of the text (" hearing and asking them questions "), by adducing a peculiar opinion from Olshausen, and the view held by Hess, that Jesus gradually and indirectly brought the Eabbins to see how untenable were the views they held. But what in the world could lead to the conclusion, that the conversation turned upon rab- binical opinions, and had for its object the conversion of the Rabbins to Christianity? Surely a dispute about rabbinical eccentricities would not have chained Jesus to the spot, or have given Him such inward peace and joy as to make Him feel that " He was in His Father's (home)." What if, on the contrary, Jesus had just heard some pas- sages from the prophets read, had asked for an explanation, put some questions, and from the fulness of His own innate knowledge had given answers Himself, which were so striking as to leave eveiything that the teachers said far behind, and therefore to excite the greatest astonishment ! Thus deeply absorbed in the Old Testament revelation, and in everything that He heard read, and recognising Avith joy His Father's holy nature and His own ; not only could He forget the journey home, but feel, this absorption in the eternal wisdom is my own element, and every other employment is as nothing compared with this, the necessaiy occupation of my soul. When His parents came in, Jesus said to them, " How is it that ye sought Me ? wist ye not that I must be iv Tolpaerfectly heterogeneous thought, " Slay Me, and in three days I will rise again." But as Jesus neither can have given utter- ance to the thought thus forced upon Him, that He would abolish the ceremonial law (what He was now contending for was, that it should be maintained in its purity ; and what He contended against was, not the ceremonial law, but the traffic in cattle), nor was speaking of Himself at all (for He brings an accusation against the Jews, that they are destroying the temple through their frivolity) ; and as such an explanation of the words, " in three days," is utterly untenable ; we adhere to the explanation which we have given above, as the only one which is in perfect accordance with the text. Jesus accused the Jews, that they were inwardly desecrating the temple, and would soon com- pletely destroy it. At the same time, He told them that He could, and would raise it up again in three days. In making the latter announcement. He had in mind a mode of destroying and raising up again, with which the Jews were as yet utterly unacquainted. He was not trifling with them therefore, as Gfrorer supposes, but telling them sometliing which should serve as a subject of constant thought, and an occasion of immediate reperdance, and which became after His resurrection an important witness for Himself. This enigma, therefore, was the reply of Jesus to their request for a sign ; and bore precisely the same relation to that request as Isa. vii. 14 sqq. to ver. 11 ; Ex. iii. 12 to ver. 11 ; and Matt. xii. 39 to ver. 38 (cf. Matt, xvi. 4 and Luke xi. 29). To those who desired an immediate miracu- lous sign, there was given instead an obscure, enigmatical prediction, pointing to a distant future. Even Baur acknowledges this. CHAP. III.] § 47. CONVEBSATION WITH NICODEMUS. 221 §47. conversation with nicodemus. John hi. 1-21. Jesus remained in Jerusalem till the feast was over, and worked miracles there. And many believed on Him, though only externally, on account of the miracles. There came to Him on one occasion, a Pharisee, named Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrim, on whom Jesus had made a deep impression. His heart was divided between the pharisaic disposition to seek righteousness before God and distinc- tion among men through outward actions, and an inward voice which compelled him to recognise something divine in Jesus. That he might not lower himself in the estimation of the people, he came Z>y night, and sought to commence a conversation by an evidently rather flattering acknowledgment of His miraculous power and divine calling. He certainly was desirous of learning something from Jesus, of which he stood in need ; though he did not know himself either ivhat or how. Jesus, taking no notice of the compliment, proceeded at once to meet the want, and commenced by showing him what it really was. " Thou canst not enter into the kingdom of heaven, unless thou art bora again." Thus He attacked severely the whole pharisaic trust in righteousness by works, and demanded a new heart ,- couching the de- mand, however, in a most expressive figure. Nicodemus was puzzled by these few brief words. He knew well that something was intended by being bora again, but he could not tell ichat. In such cases, one naturally begins to speak about the words in their immediate and literal sense, if only to show how unsuitable this is, and thus indirectly to induce the other to explain its deeper meaning. This is what Nico- demus does in John iii. 4. " A new birth," he says, " is surely impossible in a physical sense." Jesus then reminds him of the baptism of John, which cannot have been unknown to Nicodemus, and at the same time of the demand for repentance which was associated with it, and the promise of one who was to baptize witli the Spirit (ver. 5). He shows him that the time for the baptism of the Spirit has arrived, and that the latter, the new birth of a man by the Spirit, is essential to sal- vation (vei-. 6) ; at the same time, He tells him that this new birth is not like the natural birth, outward and visible, but like the blowing of the earthly rrn, the wind, irresistible in its effects, yet in its coming and going quiet, unnoticeable, and sudden. Nicodemus, who now perceives to what Christ refers, but does not 222 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. III. know by what means this spiritual renovation is to be secured, in- quires how this can take place — how it is possible to attain to such a result. The Lord does not describe the means, but employs them. He does not tell him he must repent, but brings him to repentance. For He condemns without reserve a mind decided only to what is earthly, which neither will (ver. 11) nor can (ver. 12) embrace the heavenly ; and yet only a heavenly mind, which springs from heaven, is fitted to come to heaven (ver. 13). At the same time, He points out the positive means of escaping from the acknowledged misery. Men are all born of the flesh ; one only, the Son, has sprung from heaven. He has come down from heaven (ver. 13), and has been set forth and exalted by God as the deliverer of man, in the same way as the brazen serpent was exhibited for the deliverance of the Jews, namely, that men may put confidence in Him, that they may no longer seek salva- tion in themselves, but in Him only, and for His sake alone hope to be saved.^ — Jesus could not have selected a more striking illustration by which to explain to a Jew the thoroughly inward nature of the New Testament redemption, through faith (vers. 15, 16). — Once more (vers. 17, 18), Jesus expressly opposes the fundamental characteristic of Pharisaism, which asks to be judged, not saved ; and then proceeds to show (vers. 19-21) what is the real essence and criterioii of true judgment, viz., the question, whether a man loves or hates Jesus, the light that has come into the world ; whether he yields himself up to Him to be chastened and sanctified, or hardens his heart. He then finishes by pointing to that internal Kpicn<; which results from faith, and to the necessity for that decision, which does not shun the light (of day). 1. With this exposition we can only pity those who " can find no connection," and must pronounce it a complete perversion, to say that " the Evangelist intentionally makes Nicodemus talk foolishly, for the purpose of exalting by the contrast the wisdom of Jesus." The foolishness is all introduced by Strauss himself. In Baurs opinion, as the Synoptists do not mention Nicodemus either here or in connection with the burial of Jesus, the whole is an invention of the fourth Evangelist. Such arguments are not worth refuting. ^ The brazen serpent was Ajif/ure of the poisonous serpents, and yet was not itself poisonous but healing. And so the Lord on the cross was a, figure of a trans- gressor and ill-doer, and yet was the Saviour. In this respect also, the words of Jesus contained a deep enigmatical sense, which could not till a later period become perfectly clear to the hearer's mind. CHAP. III.I § 48. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST AT THE JORDAN. §48. jesus and john the baptist at the jordan. John hi. 22-36. After the feast of Passover Jesus still remained in Judfea, and let His disciples baptize (John iv. 2) ; thus continuing, like John, to sum- mon those who heard to give the old life up to death, and to commence a new life. John the Baptist was baptizing at the same time in .^non, near to Salem (not in Judaea, therefore, but higher up, probably on the Samaritan border). About this time, as some of the Jews began to dispute with some disciples of John nrepl KaOapiafiov (probably declaring their OAvn washings quite sufficient, and John's baptism unnecessary), the latter imagined that Jesus might be the cause of the diminution in the respect entertained by the people for John, and complained to their master that all were flocking to Jesus. But John replied to this complaint in words, which the Evangelist interprets. In his own diminution, and the increase of Jesus, he recognises the leading of God, which is in perfect accordance with their respective personality and work. He even expresses his joy at the increasing activity of Jesus, acknowledges once more the divinity of Christ, and points to the necessity of faith in Him. 1. Chronological difficulties are said to exist in the fact, that in so short a time so many disciples should have gathered round John the Baptist. Some time must have elapsed before it was known that a John had appeared in the desert ; still more, before any had gone out to him ; still more, before his doctrine was embraced ; and a very long time before he had gained any notoriety. Hug has met these objec- tions successfully (Gutachten, p. 137 sqq.). In the first place, several months had passed since John first appeared (vide § 31) ; and there still remained a whole year for him to collect disciples. In the second place, as Hug has shown, it is not true that John baptized " in a dis- tant and unknown place." Thirdly, according to the account in the Gospels, and from the very nature of the case, it was not gradually, but suddenly, that the rush to John took place. His appearance at- tracted all the world to the Jordan so long as it was new. And lastly, his doctrine was not a complicated system, which required a triennial course to comprehend, but a simple, convincing demand, " Repent'' This was done at once, or not at all. Penitent disciples, deeply im- pressed by the preaching and personal character of John, attached 224 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. III. themselves immediately to him. The objection, therefore, is tin grand rien. Nor is there any greater force in the difficulty discovered in the fact, that John should have continued to baptize after the appearance of Jesus. Bruno Bauer objects that " he should have baptized with reference to Jesus" (did he baptize, then, with reference to himself?), and " ought to have submitted immediately to Him." But could he have done this in any better way than by continuing to call fresh disciples to repentance, and so preparing them for Jesus ? Baur repeats the question. Why did the Baptist "not lay down his herald's office after so distinctly recognising the pre-emMjence of Christ ? " Because the teachers in a gymnasium do not lay down their office as soon as a new university is founded. 2. The words of John the Baptist (vers. 27-36) are adduced as a leading proof that the discourses contained in the fourth Gospel are not historical, but composed by the Evangelist, on account of their similarity in form and train of thought to his own. — Now, we might say without hesitation, unquestionably the Evangelist reproduces the thoughts of the Baptist (and the same might be said of discourses of Jesus) ; and as he did not remember the whole, word for word, he gave them, in the most free and open manner, in his own style. If the Baptist had said, " I am nothing but a man, but Christ is the Son of God, and came to declare the counsel of God,", the Evangelist might have expressed the same thought in his own way thus : " He that is of the earth is of the earth, and speaketh of the earth ; but he that Cometh from heaven is above all." Or if the Baptist had said, "Jesus is mightier than I ; He has the Spirit of God, and will give it to you; but ye are not willing. And God has given a fan into His hand, and He will cleanse His floor," — the Evangelist might have expressed the same thought by saying: " And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth, and no man receiveth his testimony. . . . The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth," etc. Now, as the Evangelists were concerned, not about documentary literality, but about the thoughts and subject-matter, such an assump- tion might be admitted without the slightest difficulty, and without impugning the credibility of John. But ice refuse even this help. We will come closer, and look the spectre in the face. Whence did John derive the distinctive peculiarities of his style, and forms of thought ? What if it was from John the Baptist him- self! He had been his disciple.^ In this light, therefore, it was quite 1 We are assuming for the present that John the Apostle was the author of the fourth Gospel. CHAP. III.] § 48. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST AT THE JORDAN. 225 possible. But we will look more closely at these peculiarities. It is admitted that in the wi'itings of John no trace can be found of those Jlne dialectic links, by which the Indo-Germanijc languages, especially the Hellenic branch, are so peculiarly distinguished, and which we find not only in the writings of Luke and Paul, but in a far higher degree even in those of Matthew and Mark. In this respect the style of John has a thoroxigldy Semitic colouring. The thoughts stand like arrows, side by side, without links, and easily separable. Look, too, at his peculiar modes of thought and expression. With regard to the \0709, it is well known that the Evangelist does not put this term into the mouth of any one whom he introduces as speaking. The distinction of light and darkness is also a philosophical one, to which his mind may have been led by a speculative road, though it occurs elsewhere {e.g., Acts xxvi. 18; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Eph. v. 8 and 13), is eveJi to be met with in the Old Testament (Eccl. ii. 13), and on a fitting occasion was used by Christ Himself (John iii. 20, 21). So far as the ex- pressions on which Strauss lays such stress are concerned, — e.g., (T(f)pap/L^€iv, /xapTvpia, avcodev, eK T7] i3 o ask who were right, the Catholics or the Protestants. On the other hand, it is equallj^ true, that the question, however seriously meant. CHAP. III.] § 50. THE NOBLEMAN'S SON, ETC. . 229 was put, not so much for its own sake, as for the purpose of giving a different turn to the conversation. And so Ave see that, after a brief rej)ly (ver. 22), Jesus returned directly to the leading topic again, 2. In the conversation of Jesus with Ilis disciples, ver. 31, Bauer finds fault with the " indefiniteness with which people speak who think themselves wise and elevated above others, and talk with an air of mystery from their higher position." To Strauss, on the other hand, the words of Jesus appear so definite, that he sees in the answer of the disciples, again, an incomprehensible misunderstanding. It seems never to have occurred to either, that a man speaks of a matter which inwardly fills him with that inward joy that does not prosaically ex- press its full contents, but first gently hints at it, and lets the hearer know a little, and puts him in a state of expectancy, in order to com- municate to him gradually more and still more, and so lead him stej) by step to an ever increasing sympathy with his fulness of joy. In this way Jesus prepared the disciples — vers. 32-38 — till that which rejoiced Jesus met them as a surprise. THE nobleman's SON. JESUS IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT NAZAllETH. John iv. 43-54; Luke iv. 16-31 ; :Matt. iv. 12-17 ; ^Iark 1. 14, 15. Two days afterwards, Jesus returned from Samaria to Galilee, and was heartily welcomed by His countrymen, who had seen His public appearance in Jerusalem (the purification of the temple). During a visit which Jesus paid to Cana (probably to the family already mentioned), an officer of the court, who resided in Capernaum, and had no doubt hitherto lived, like the rest of the courtiers, without troubling himself about either John the Baptist or the carpenter's son, was brought to Christ by bitter sorrow, in which no one could render him the slightest aid. His son was lying ill Avith an incurable disease. When the father heard of Jesus, and liis return to Galilee, he came to Cana to seek for Him, and when he had found Him, entreated Him to come down to Capernaum and restore his son. In order that he might not merely rejoice in the bodily cure of his child, and then forget Christ again, but that this occurrence might lead to a change of heart in the man himself, Jesus at first answered him reprovingly : " Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe."' These words of the Lord, with which He blamed the former indiffer- ence of the courtier, who was first induced to come to Him by the 230 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. III. want of a miraculous cure, and by which He sought to prevent him from resting in the simple recognition of the benefactor, and to lead him to acknowledge in Jesus one in whom, apart from miracles, it was necessary to believe, were listened to with humility, and a silent acknowledgment of their truth. But the new faith which was born of affliction still pressed forward, and uttered itself in the simple repe- tition of the earnest entreaty, " Lord, come with me, before my child dies." The Lord granted his request; but, in doing so. He put his faith once more to the test. He did not go with him, but said to him, " Thy son liveth." The nobleman believed this word of Jesus, and went away. (Such faith in a word naturally presupposed that he had previously yielded himself up in a believing manner to the im- pression made by the person of Jesus, and formed the point of transi- tion from belief on account of miracles seen, to belief in Jesus " be- cause of His word," ver. 41.) As he was returning to Capernaum, his servants met him to announce the child's recovery ; and, on mak- ing inquiry into all the circumstances, especially as to the time of his recovery, he found that it took place in the very moment at which Jesus had spoken the word. Jesus then travelled about Galilee, preaching on the Sabbaths in the synagogues. One Sabbath, when He was in the synagogue in Nazareth, and stood up to read, the prophecies of Isaiah were handed to Him ; and He opened them at chap. Ixi. 1, which was fulfilled, He told them, in Himself. Listead of taking this discourse to heart, the hearers looked only at His outward descent, and were astonished that the carpenter's son should preach in such a way as that. This injuri- ous habit of evading the point of a discourse, and making it merely the subject of an everyday conversation (a practice of weekly occur- rence even among ourselves), was reproved by Jesus, who told them that the only good they looked for from Him was, that He should glorify their town, or contribute to their temporal advantage, by working many miracles ; whilst it never occurred to them to acknow- ledge His divine commission. This had been the case with all the prophets : strangers had welcomed them gladly, whilst their own countrymen had failed to discern their divine and sacred character. Embittered by this repi'oof, they forced Him out of the town to a precipitous place in the hill on which Nazareth stood, for the purpose of stoning Him (or throwing Him over). But He passed through the midst of them, and came to Capernaum, where He henceforth took up His abode. (In the meantime, John the Baptist had been put in prison.) 1. If we cast a cursory glance at the chronological and topographi- CHAP. III.] § 50. THE NOBLEMAN'S SON, ETC. 231 cal notices, we find that Matthew, who has ah'eady mentioned Nazareth as the dweUing-place of Jesus (chap, ii. 23), states, in chap. iv. 12, that after John had been cast into prison, Jesus returned to Gahlee ; and tiiat He went this time and dwelt, not in Nazareth, but in Capernaum, ^[ark also says that, after John loas put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee. Now, though John says nothing about the imprisonment of the Baptist, but simply assigns the danger that had arisen as the motive for the departure of Jesus to Galilee, there is no discrepancy in this. The Evangelist John, who was well acquainted with the fact of the Baptist's imprisonment {vid. ch. iii. 24), and took for granted that his readers were the same, and who seems to intimate in this very passage that it took place shortly after the occurrences described in chap. iii. 22-36, saw no necessity for giving another circumstantial account of his arrest, but thought it better to point out as clearly as possible the precise reason for Christ's removal to Galilee. As the Synoptists had mentioned in a general way that the arrest of John the Baptist was the cause, the question put by modern critics would \QYy naturally suggest itself, why should Jesus go straight into the territory of his persecutor ? John therefore explains the real connec- tion between the arrest of the Baptist and the removal of Jesus to Galilee. (We assume John kneio the Synoptists. This will be proved in Part II.) He points out the middle term. Was John taken pri- soner by Herod because he baptized at JEnoyi, and, as it appeared, had collected a dangerous band of followers *? ^ Jesus was exposed to the very same danger on the part of the Sanhedrim, for He was baptizing in Judaea, and had " made more disciples than John." 2. We will now look at the different passages which mention the journey of Jesus to Galilee. It is very commonly regarded as a diffi- culty, that in John iv. 44 the motive assigned for the journey is, that " Jesus Himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country" (iv ttj Ihla. TrarplSi). The majority of commentators express no doubt that by 7raTpi<; is to be understood Nazareth, or Galilee in general. But what could this possibly mean : Jesus went to Galilee because He had no honour there ? To meet this difficulty, Gfrorer thinks it would be necessary to supply one or two " covered" clauses, e.g., Jesus went to Galilee, but very sloioly, for, etc. ; Krafft and others supply, Jesus went to Galilee, though not to Nazareth, but to the other parts of Galilee, for, etc. In TholucJcs opinion, ver. 44 does not point back to ver. 43, but forward to ver. 45 : " The Gali- ^ TVe shall show, at § G4, that one of the principal reasons for his imprisonment ■vvas the apparent danger arising from any political infiuence that might be exerted by John, who did not spare the nnbridled licentiousness of any rank. 232 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND, [CHAP. III. leans, namely, had given Jesus at other times a bad reception ; but now, when He came, they received Him well." De Wette makes very simple work of it ; the 7ap, he says, is "merely introductory," though we cannot tell what it is intended to introduce. Amidst all these disputes, Bnmo Bauer is perfectly right when he says that the passage can have no meaning, so long as hy iraTpl'; loe understand anytliing hut Judcea. Jesus is persecuted in His native country, therefore He flies to Galilee. {Liiche gives the same explanation.) But Bruno Bauer himself will not allow that Judaea is called the 7raTpire all the chronological data which the Evangelists have supplied ? §53. DEPARTURE TO GADARA. (The Scribe who wishes to follow. Similitudes. The Tempest stilled.) Matt. viii. 18-22, xiii. 1-53, viii. 23-27 ; Mark iv. 35-40, 1-20, 30-34; Luke ix. 57-60, viii. 22-25 and 1-15, xiii. 18-21. ' The same day Jesus went down to the shore of the lake, with the intention of crossing over to the opposite side. On the way there came a scribe, who offered to follow Him wherever He went. Jesus told him that this was no light matter, for the Son of man had not where to lay His head. To another man Jesus said, " Follow Me." He was quite willing, but wanted first of all to bury his father. Jesus did not permit this, but said, "Let the dead bury their dead;" come thou and help to preach the kingdom of God. — A crowd of people was collected together on the sea-shore ; Jesus therefore sat down in a ship which was lying close to the shore, and taught them in parables. He commenced with the parable of the sower, in which He showed in what different w^ays the preaching of the kingdom of God may be received. When He had finished this parable, the disciples came and asked Him why He taught in parables. In reply, He explained to them that the whole nation was not yet in a condition to understand the doctrine of the kingdom of God ; and that He selected the form of parables, that His preaching might be unintelligible to those who were not yet mature, and so act as a stimulus and provocative to further inquiry ; whilst to the disciples, to whom He explained the parables, it was a revelation of saving truth. — The design of preach- ing (He continued in loosely connected sentences, Mark iv. 21 sqq.) was to make things clear. But in every case the clearness depended upon the measure of the capacity and willingness possessed. To him that hath some inward point of attachment, more is given. But from him that hath not this point within, even that which he hath is taken away (what he has received in the form of parables is perfectly uuin- 244 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. IV. telligible). Jesus then explained to the disciples the parable of the sower. He also added other parables, in which Pie compared the progress of the kingdom of God to the growth of a field of corn, and to a grain of mustard-seed (Mark iv. 26 sqq.), (Matthew, whose plan led him to group together all the parables respecting the kingdom of God, and who has taken the parables already mentioned entirely out of their connection with the Gadarene journey, introduces some others, which were no doubt uttered on different occasions :^ viz., the parable of the enemy who sows tares, which tares the master of the field will not have removed until the harvest ; the parable of the leaven which leavens the whole lump ; the explanation of the former of these ; and the comparison of the king- dom of heaven to a treasure and a pearl, and of the final separation between the true and false members of that kingdom to a net cast into the sea.) After these discourses, Jesus directed the disciples to proceed across the lake. During the passage, there arose so violent a storm that the waves beat over the little ship. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples then came and awoke Him, saying, " Lord, save us : we perish." But Jesus blamed them for their little faith, and rebuked the tempest and the sea, and there followed a complete calm. At this they were amazed, and said, " What manner of man is this ; for He commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey Him ?" 1. The expression applied by Matthew (viii. 21) to the second of the men, " another of the disciples," is an example of a very common construction, which we even meet vnth in Homer, and which does not necessarily imply that the scribe was also a disciple of Jesus. The narrative itself does not show whether he followed Jesus after all, or was deterred by His words. The event is recorded as an illustra- tion of the conscientiousness with which Jesus at the very outset laid before any who were disposed to follow Him, the difficulties which they would have to encounter. — The second might be described as a ^ Mark says that Jesus crossed the lake immediately after the parable of the grain of mustard-seed. And Matthew states (chap. xiii. 36) that Jesus explained the parable of the tares when He went home. But this parable, and the parables of the treasure^ the pearl, and the net, which are connected with it in a summary form, were evidently spoken on a different occasion from that referred to in Matt. xiii. 1, as we may see from the venj chapter itself, where Matthew speaks of Jesus returning to His own country (dg rv\v vocTpllx) after finishing these parables (ver. 53) ; evidently showing that the expression in ver. 36, Jesus " went ii; tviu oUlxu," relates to the parable of the tares alone, and therefore that it must have been spoken on a different occasion. CHAP. IV.] § 53. DEPARTURE TO GADARA. 245 " disciple," called by Jesus Himself, if lie obeyed the words of Jesus (Luke ix. 60), and immediately followed Ilim. That he did this, may be inferred from the fact, that he made his going to bury his father dependent upon Jesus' permission. The demand that he should henceforth go and preach the king- dom of God (Luke ix. GO), is regarded by Bruno Bauer as denoting an immediate mission, and therefore as inappropriate. All that Jesus says, liowever, is that the preaching of the kingdom of God is more important and necessary than burying a corpse. But according to Bauer, this is " a collision of abstract cruelty ;" and even Weisse con- siders the occurrence " more than doubtful." As if it could have hurt the deceased father to be buried by other hands than those of his son. But what sentimentality ! Grief for his father's death had just prepared the son for listening to the preaching of the Lord. His broken heart was open to the seed of grace, and this was the very moment to decide for Jesus. Therefore Jesus called him just now ; therefore, too, the moment must not be allowed to pass by, lest inter- course with other acquaintances should divert his attention, and draw the young man away. In all probability his mind was pained for the moment, at the thought that he could not bury his father. But this was the way in which he was called to show immediate decision, and his passing grief was quieted by eternal consolation. 2. It has been thought unnatural that so many parables should be spoken at one time. Think only : first, the parable of the sower about the various ways of receiving the word of God, then a con- versation, then an explanation of the parable, then a comparison of tlie growth of the kingdom to seed in a field, and then to a grain of mustard; and for all that, only three or four hours! — Strauss is un- certain whether the parable of the seed-field (Mark) and of the tares (Matt.) are identical or not. The state of the case appears to be simply this : On the journey to Gadara, Jesus spake the parable of the seed-field ; later, and on another occasion, He altered this parable into that of the tairs, by giving it a new point and introducing a new- thought. ^Matthew, who here gives all the parables spoken at dif- ferent times concerning the kingdom of heaven (and among the rest that of the tares), did not feel it necessary to give the simpler form of the latter, as the thought contained in tlie simpler form was already given in the parable of the grain of mustard-seed. — The statement in Matt. xiii. 34, that Jesus spake not to the multitude %ft)/3t? irapa- ^oXrj^, is said to contradict Matt, v.-vii. This alleged contradiction, liowever, arises from overlooking the fact, that that statement has re- ference only to that day. Christ's words that day were parabolical. 246 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. IV. Any other sense would imply a forgetfulness, on the part of the writer, of the contents of the chapter immediately preceding. 3. With regard to the stilling of the tempest, we might expect at the outset to find Strauss asking what was the object of this miracle. — We need not look far. The object was to save all that were in the ship from danger and from death. It might indeed be said, that if at the present time a ship were in danger, we could only hope, and therefore pray for deliverance in a natural way. That is veiy true. But if it be correct, that with our ordinary powers we must still trust in the help and blessing of God, this is no reason why Jesus could not, or should not, make use of the higher powers which He possessed. It is the duty of every one to trust in God ; but it is also the duty of every one to make use of whatever means he has at his command. Now this ship contained the Christian Church ; i.e., its corner-stone and future pillars. — But did Jesus really possess such powers? To Strauss, the control over nature which we obtain by means of a thorough study of mechanics, control by " the compass and steamer," is something far worthier than " the magical power which costs only a word." With his view of the universe, which recognises no other relation of spirit to matter than that of servitude, in which we now stand, and which discerns the highest works of the purely immanent so-called " God" in the ever increasing activity of the human mind, in logarithms, the differential calculus, steam-engin-e establishments, and railway stations, this is perfectly correct. But we still reserve to our- selves the doctrinal standpoint of the Bible ; and from this standpoint there are no internal difficulties whatever. And here again objectors must acknowledge that, apart from doctrinal questions, there are no historical difficulties which lead to the conclusion, that the account before us is mythical. In his notes on Matt. viii. 27, and the parallel passages, Bauer asks the following questions. _ According to Matthew, it was the men who inquired "What manner of man is this?" but where did these men come from ? According to ISIark, it was the disciples ; but was not Jesus already known to them as the Messiah? — It is evident from Matt. viii. 23, where the disciples are said to \\n,v& folloioed Jesus into the ship, and also from Mark iv. 36, where Jesus is described as sail- ing away in the same ship into which He had casually entered, that the ship did not belong to ariy one of the disciples. At least there is nothing to show that it did. In any case, therefore, it must be ad- mitted that there may have been other men in the ship besides the disciples. Perhaps Matthew ought in this case to have drawn up a list of the crew (intended expressly for critics). — The exclamation, CHAP. IV. J § 54. rnE DEMONIAC OF GADAUA. 247 " Who (what manner of man) is this?" is a burst of astonishment, not an inquiry of uncertainty. That the disciples knew Jesus before as the Son of God, and believed in His power to help, is obvioiis from the fact, that they cried to Him, "Lord, save us." Nevertheless they also might exclaim with the other men, " What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him ? " §54. the demoniac of gadara. Matt. viii. 28-34; Mark v. 1-20; Luke viii. 26-39. When Jesus landed at the south-east end of Gennesareth, in the country of the so-called Decapolis, there was a man there possessed of devils, perfectly raving, who lived in the tombs, would wear no clothes, and had burst the strongest fetters, and whom no one durst approach on account of his ferocity. As soon as he saw Jesus, he rushed to- wards Him with his usual vehemence. But Jesus went to meet him, and said, " Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit." The man then fell down before Jesus, and the unclean spirit cried out of him with a loud voice, " What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure Thee by God that Thou torment me not." Jesus asked, "What is thy name?" He answered, "Legion; for we are many." The unclean spirit then entreated not to be sent away from the earth into the abyss, but to be allow^ed to enter into a herd of swine, wdiich was feeding at some distance off. Jesus gave permission ; the devils entered into the swine, and the whole herd rushed into the lake. The swine-herds then fled, and reported in the city what had occurred. The people immediately came out, and saw the demoniac sitting by Jesus, clothed and cured. When they had heard further particulars, they requested Jesus to leave their country. The man that was healed, however, entreated to be allowed to follow Him ; but Jesus told him to return to his own tow^n, and there to make known what good had been done to him. He went away, there- fore, and published it throughout all Decapolis. 1. According to Ids usual custom, Matthew groups together two similar incidents, so as to form a pair ; namely, the healing of the man with a devil in Gadara, and a later one, possibly the similar^ occur- rence in the synagogue at Capernaum, the time of which is given by * There, too, the man with a devil cries out ; and there, too, he knows Jesus as the Holy One of God, and s:iys, l«, ri ijfitv kxI aoi. 248 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. IV. Mark (viz., immediately before the healing of Peter's mother-in-law). — It would be presumptuous to attempt to explain the statement in Matthew, that there were two men possessed, Avere it not that on two other occasions we find Matthew grouping two similar occurrences together so as to form a pair. An " inaccuracy," as Bleek calls it, no doubt this is ; but the simple explanation is, that Matthew occupied himself, not with the details of each particular event, but with the most essential of the leading characteristics of the life of Jesus. 2. So far as regards i\\Q place at which the event occurred, De Weite has not improperly called attention to the fact, that Matthew not only differs from Mark and Luke in calling it the " country of the Ger- gesenes," but speaks of a place which we meet with nowhere else. For, among the " ten cities," Pliny and Ptolemy mention Gadara, and also a Gerasa, but no Gergesa. According to tlie result of BleeKs inquiries, however, FepaarjvMV is the original reading in Matthew (hardly in Luke and Mark) ; and Origen, who may probably have known something about a place called Gergesa, was the first to correct Fepaarjvcov into repyearjvcop. Luke and Mark have Gadara instead. {Bleek supposes that Gerasa was also the original reading here ; but this appears to me extremely improbable. Can we imagine that Origen altered this Gerasa on one occasion into Gergesa, and on another into Gadara?) — But even the account given by Mark and Luke, both of whom mention Gadara, is regarded by De Wette as not without difficulty. " According to ver. 34, the city is alluded to as being close at hand, certainly nearer than Gadara appears to be upon the maps." But that is the fault of the maps themselves. — Even Haumer, it is true, follows Seetzen and Burhhardt in their conjecture, that the present Om Keis, which is situated upon a limestone rock two or three miles to the south of Hieromax, is the same as the ancient Gadara. But how is this to be reconciled with Plhii/s statement (v. 15): ^^ Gadava llieromace prceterjlueiite ;'^ and with that of Jijromg, "Gadara urbs trans Jordanem contra Scythopolin et TiheriademV^ For Scythopolis, which may still be distinguished by the ruins of a theatre, was only four hours' journey from Tiberias. Tiberias, which is still known by its hot sulphur springs, was a few hours' journey to the north of the southern extremity of the lake. Gadara, therefore, which was opposite to tlie two, must have been about the same distance from the southern end of the lake. But it was also situated on the Hieromax, which flows into the Jordan about an hour's journey to the south of the lake. The situation may therefore be pretty accurately determined. The Mandhur, which winds through the mountains, flows, for some distance before it enters the Jordan, from north-east to CHAP. IV.] § 54. THE DEMONIAC OF GADARA. 240 south-west, and approaches so near to tlie shore of the lake, that on an average it is not more than an liour's journey away. Now Gadara must liave been situated upon tlie mountain range which separates the two, and compels the Mandhur to empty its waters to the south of the lake. The distance between the lake and Gadara, therefore, can- not have been more than an hour's journey. One difficulty is thus removed. Mark and Luke relate nothing impossible. But how does it stand with Matthew? The notion that the rending Tahaprjvwv, which we find in certain codices and versions (of which B, C, M, and Ital. are the most important), is genuine, has been very properly given up. For it is impossible to conceive how the reading repaaTqvMv, which substitutes an unknown place for one well known, can })ossibly have originated;^ whereas the introduction of the reading Tahaprjvwv in the place of TepaaT)vwv may easily be explained as an attempt to bring Matthew into harmony with the other two. — The diflficulty still remains, therefore, that Matthew mentions one place, Mark and Luke another. But this difficulty may easily be solved. Matthew, who wrote for Jewish readers, to whom the country was well known, mentions the less known place Gerasa, which stood close by, upon the coast. Luke and Mark, on the other hand, mention the "metropolis of Persea,"^ of world-wide notoriety, which was a little farther away. Now, if the readers of ^latthew were acquainted with Gerasa as a village situated in the vicinity of Gadara, they would also understand that the TroXt? mentioned in Matt. viii. 33 was Gadara itself. Or if that seem too " precarious" (as Bleek says), we may admit that by the TroXt? Matthew sim])ly means Gerasa. This involves no contradiction ; for, according to Mark and Luke, the swine-herds proclaim the occurrence not merely in Gadara, but also eh tov<; dypov^, in the places round about. 3. Further contradictions are said to lie in the occurrence itself. Matthew, says Strauss, describes " a terrified resistance to Jesus, whose coming was undesired ;" Luke, " a supplicatory approach to Him;" Mark, " haste to seek Him while He was still in the distance." We congratulate the man who, after reading the description of raging madness given by Mark (vers. 3-5), can find in the word eBpufie, " haste to seek Jesus." The three Evangelists give just the same ' The .luthority of Oriycu, who defends " Gergcseue.s," would not be sufficient, .-us Cvieshach correctly observes, to alter a text which was generally received before. "We might also ask, how it happens that li, C, and M, the very codices which, were most under the influences of tlie Egypto-Syriau churches, should not have adopted an emendation which originated in Alexandria? For they all read YciCicipn-j^t). '^ Josfj^Jms, B. J. 4, 7, 3. 250 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. IV. account. The moment the madman saw Jesus, he screamed wildly (Luke), and rushed upon Jesus (Mark). (Matthew gives a summary of the whole, and merely relates briefly the words which he uttered, without minutely describing the whole affair.) Mark and Luke then relate how he threw himself down before Jesus, complaining bitterly ; and they explain the change in his demeanour as caused by the command given by Jesus to the devil to come out of him. — Strauss says there is no place for this command, and conjectures that Jesus must have addressed the madman in the words reported by Mark (ver. 8), while he was still at a distance off, and before he ran to meet Him, — an act which he very justly pronounces unsuitable. But if we only look at the matter naturally, we shall find that it took place in a much simpler way. When the madman rushed upon Jesus, the latter met him in His divine power with the command, " Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit," and immediately the man fell down. It is simply to bring out the whole proceeding in the most striking form, that ]\Iark and Luke first group together the running (the shouting) and the falling down, and then describe the cause of the sudden change. The first command must have been " ineffective," says Bruno Bauer ; for the devils did not come out directly, notwithstanding. Ineffective it was not ; for they tremble and are afraid, and take for granted that they ivill be compelled. — The words spoken by the possessed ma,n, as related by the three Synoptists, are said not to agree ; but I cannot see this. Mark and Luke give them verbatim, as an adjuration that Jesus will not torment them; Matthew, as a complaiid : why should He torment them ? The meaning is the same ; the form as given by Mark and Luke, is no doubt the more exact of the two. But was this a matter of importance for any Christian reader ? For Strauss and Bruno Bauer it is. The former says that a devil could not have adjured Jesus " by God." But where has he found this fable ? He seems to be particularly well acquainted with what a devil can, and what he cannot do. It is true, the devils in our children's tales run away as soon as they hear the name of God ; but the fallen angels of the Bible take both the name and word of God with impious daring into their mouths. Would these demons have expected to effect any- tliing by petitioning Jesus "for Satan's sake?" The devils wish not to be driven "ouf of the country^' (Mark v. 10), simply because they still hope to do some harm there. They do not want to go into the abyss, or into a desert. In this Bauer finds the notion, that " beings of this kind are sometimes confined to certain localities as spirits of the place." But if they had been from their very nature confined to these districts, tliey could not have been driven CH.VP. IV.] § 54. THE DEMONIAC OF GADAR.V. 251 away. !Mark seems to take for granted, therefore, that they were 7iot confined to the locality, but had a wish to do still more injury there, and for that reason did not want to be banished into either a desert or the abyss. — " How did Mark ascertain the number of the swine ? " It is not very difficult to estimate the number of a herd at a simple glance. Moreover, when the swine-herds complained of their loss, they may have mentioned the number. — Gfrorer objects that the com- mand which ISIark and Luke represent Jesus as giving to the man, to go and proclaim his recovery in Gadara, was contrary to His usual habit. But Jesus had no "habit." He had definite reasons for every act that He performed. In Galilee and Judsea He frequently prohibited attempts to attract attention ; because in both these parts there was very great danger of confirming the people in their carnal expectations of the Messiah, and even of producing disorder. In Peraja, on the contrary, which Jesus left immediately afterwards, there was no such danger, but rather a reason why the people should be made acquainted in some degree with the person of Jesus, and their atten- tion called to His coming. 4. There still remain half a dozen dogmatic objections : (1) There are no possessed persons ; (2) if there were, they could not have been acquainted with the divinity of Jesus ; (3) there could not be several devils in the same man ; (4) they could not enter into beasts (at least not into swine, though Bruno Bauer thinks they might into horses) ; (5) they would have been very foolish to drive the beasts at once into the sea ; and (6) it was an immoral act to deprive the Gadarenes of their swine. Two arguments are adduced in support of the first objection. (1.) It is said to be a pHori inconceivable, that the connection between soul and body should be so loose, that a foreign self-consciousness should be able to force itself between them. (2.) It is also said to be historically established, that on the one hand the symptoms of the pos- session mentioned in the New Testament bear a remarkable resem- blance to those of certain psychical or nervous maladies (insanity and epilepsy, for example), and on the other we find similar descriptions to those described in the New Testament in other Jewish works of that age {e.g., Jos. Wars of the Jews, 7, 63, Ant. 6, 11, 2), whilst the science of medicine Avas very low ; from which it may be inferred that these diseases were just the same as are met with now, and that Jesus simply shared the opinions of His contemporaries. " Certainly," says Strauss, " the Apostles would call many of the insane persons of the present day 'possessed,' according to the mode of thinking that prevailed in their time and country, so that they would be liable to 252 PART FIRST, DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. IV. correction from the professional man." Well spoken, indeed ! — Let no one imagine that I would explain all similar diseases occurring at present as cases of possession. On the contrary, I maintain the fol- lowing points : — ■ a. There are, no doubt, many of the outward symptoms of posses- sion, as described in the New Testament, which correspond to those of insanity and epilepsy ; but there are also other symptoms connected with possession, which we no longer meet with at the present day. Those who were possessed (thus far they resembled madmen^), knew and said tliat there was a devil within them, and distinguished between the devil and themselves ; and a mere ordinary madman may also have some such fixed idea (cases of this kind have occurred here and there, chiefly occasioned, however, by a mistaken and fanatical inter- pretation of the New Testament, so-called dcemonomayiia) ; but how can we conceive of all the madmen in a country having one fixed idea, however different the other symptoms might be ? — The p)ossessed recognised Jesus as the Son of God ; madmen display no such theo- logical knowledge. — So much remains true therefore : possession, as described in the New Testament, bears so far a resemblance to modern psychical and nervous affections, that it was also accompanied (as it inevitably must be) by disturbances of the nerve-life which manifested themselves in a variety of symptoms ; but it was also accompanied by other things, which are not found in the case of modern diseases. h. So far as the so-called mental disorders are concerned, modern psychiatry has arrived at a result which finds increasing acceptance, that such disorders are not diseases of the mind or of the soul, but of the body (the brain, the spine, the bowels, etc.), — in other words, diseases of tlie bodily organs of the souTs life. A reflex action takes place of the bodily organs upon the conscious life within. Intoxication, fever, etc., produce a temporary disturbance of consciousness ; other causes produce a permanent disturbance. These disturbances manifest themselves in various ways, as delirium, monomania, madness, idiocy, melancholy, and so forth. The efficient cause is always bodily. Moral offences and sins may certainly induce such " diseases of the soul," but only in the same way as they produce other (ordinary) diseases of the body. Sins, that is to say, never produce madness in a directly spiritual way, but certain excesses do lead at times to disorders of the brain and other bodily diseases connected with a disturbance of the ^ Even in the case of the dumb, the dumbness must have manifested itself in some way as a psychical mahvdy ; for the Jews by no means regarded all the dumb as possessed, but distinguished those who had organic defects from such as were possessed. Cf. Matt. ix. 32 with Mark vii. 32. CHAP. IV.] § 54. THE DEMONIAC OF GADARA. 253 consciousness ; and even these, only when there are signs of natural ])redisposition. — Possession, then, as described in the N. T., bears un- doubtedly a certain analogy to other so-called '* diseases of the soul." It had nothing to do with " making oneself the subject of self-con- sciousness," or with a possession of the spirit or the Ego by a foreign subject.^ This would be the most absurd idea that could possibly be conceived. Nor did it result from a naturally crippled condition of the faculties of the mind. It proceeded from a pernicious influence exerted by fallen angels upon the nerve-and-hrain-life of certain indi- viduals, which issued in a distiu'bance of the bodily organs of con- sciousness, analogous to insanity. It was not his spirit, but his nerve-life, which the demoniac felt to be in the grasp of another. c. That one subject can exert upon the nerve-life of another an in- fluence of which ice can give no further explanation, is a fact to which an analogon presents itself in another department of nature with which we are acquainted, namely, in the sphere of animal magnetism. Think, for example, of the rapport, in which two individuals stand. This may also explain the fact, that in the case of the demoniacs of the N. T., we meet not only with symptoms of mania and insanity, but even with symptoms of clairvoyance {e.g., the perception of the Messiahship of Jesus). d. The possibility of possession being thus in general established, it can by no means be denied that certain previous conditions were necessary to render it possible in the case of any particular individual. Individual predisposition, which exists in the case of both insanity and magnetism, was certainly also a preliminary to possession. And as in cases where predisposition is found, immorality may cause the out- break of that disease of the brain to which there was simply a tendency before, there were, no doubt, instances in Avhich immoral conduct first opened the way for a foreign pernicious influence to be exerted upon a nerve-life, in which this general predisposition existed already. (This furnishes a better explanation of Matt. xii. 43 sqq. than Langes supposition, that the possession referi'ed to there is merely a similitude of moral possession by the devil.) But just as we can never conclude, in any particular case of insanity, that it resulted from immoral conduct, inasmuch as it may have originated in p>urely bodily causes (e.g., a wound in the head, checked perspiration, milk fever) ; so possession may have occurred without being induced by immorality or irreligion (cf. Mark ix. 21). ^ In an ethico-religious sense, i.e., so far as his spirit was concerned, Judas was possessed by Satan (John xiii. 27). Rut that is altogether different from the de- moniacs of the New Testament. 254 PART FIRST. DIVISION SECOND. [CHAP. IV. e. The analogy presented to clairvoyance accounts for the possessed being acquainted with the number of fallen angels which were at work upon their nerve-life within. And from what has been observed under letter b, there is no difficulty whatever in supposing that many might operate upon the same organism. /. To adduce conclusive evidence that the demoniacs of the N. T. were really demoniacs, and not persons merely diseased in their minds, is impossible, in spite of the remarks made under letter a, so long as the attempt is made to furnish such evidence apart from the rest of the Gospel history. When Jesus is once proved to have been the Sou of God, and His word to have been okiqQua 6e6'Kvevcno