LIBRARY 
 
 
 OP THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. ' 
 
 Case, 
 
 Division. ^S^^ri. 2X).. 
 
 Shelf, 
 
 Section. ..OtT^vJ.-.. .. 
 No, 1 
 
 Bookf. 
 
 
fA- 
 
THE ENGLISH LIFE OF JESUS. 
 
THE 
 
 ENGLISH LIFE OF JESUS, 
 
 T H M A S ^ C T T 
 
 <^^J^% 
 
 N EW EDITION. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, 
 
 NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, 
 UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. 
 
 1872. 
 
TO ALL 
 
 WHO SEEK RATHER TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF FACTS THAN 
 
 TO LOOK ON EDIFYING BUT UNHISTORICAL 
 
 PICTURES, 
 
 ^hese ^^ages ai^e addijessed, 
 
 IN THE HOPE THAT THEY MAT SERVE TO LIGHTEN THE TOIL 
 
 OF THAT SEARCH, 
 
 AND ENxUBLE THEM TO DETERMINE 
 
 WHETHER THE INCIDENTS RECORDED IN THE GOSPELS TOOK PLACE 
 
 AS THEY ARE RELATED, 
 
 OR WHETHER THEY DID NOT. 
 
40 Clarendon Road, Notting Hill, London, W. 
 November ith, 1871. 
 
 My Dear Sir, 
 
 I am glad to hear that you are preparing a 
 new edition of the "English Life of Jesus." The 
 publication will be just now very opportune; for in it 
 are mooted some of the most important questions 
 which are agitated in the great religious movement of 
 the day. 
 
 A free and fair discussion of these questions cannot 
 be much longer evaded ; and the result of such a dis- 
 cussion cannot but be good. If the reasoning on any, or 
 all of the topics, can be fairly shown to be fallacious, 
 none, I am confident, will be more ready than you to 
 accept the refutation ; if the contrary, I hope and 
 trust that honest and conscientious inquirers, at all 
 events, will exhibit the same candour. I am the 
 more anxious about the result, as I am free to confess, 
 that I find myself unable, however much I may desire 
 it, to impugn the validity of the arguments by which 
 the main conclusions are arrived at. 
 
 If the book is to be published by subscription I 
 would beg you to put down my name for ten copies. 
 
 You are at liberty to make any use yotl may tliink 
 fit of this letter. — Yours very truly, 
 
 S. Hinds, 
 
 (^Formerly Bishop of Norwich. ) 
 Thomas Scott, Esq. 
 
 I insert this letter with a feeling of gratitude to 
 which I am glad of having this opportunity of giving 
 
[ viii ] 
 
 expression, and of confidence that the opinion here 
 expressed of the " English Life of Jesus," must rouse 
 the serious thought of all who feel that the defence 
 of any system must be of little use, unless it be sucoess- 
 ful. The whole career of Bishop Hinds utterly pre- 
 cludes even the insinuation of any secondary or inter- 
 ested motives : and if he was brought to see that of 
 the incidents set forth as the foundation of traditional 
 Christianity, not a few are either hopelessly uncertain 
 or manifestly fictitious, this conclusion was forced 
 upon him in sj^ite of earlier leanings and prepossessions. 
 But amongst Bishops belonging to the English or 
 Irish bench, Bishop Hinds stood alone in the sincer- 
 ity which refuses to allow such prepossessions to dis- 
 tort evidence or warp the judgment. In the words of 
 a well known writer, (Presbyter Anglicanus,) in the 
 Theological EevieW; (July, 1871, p. 362,) "of Bishop 
 Hinds alone can it be said that the liberalism which 
 became stereotyped or petrified at a certain stage in 
 Whately, has not been stunted or arbitrarily crushed, 
 — that he alone has lived to maintain the uselessness 
 of all tests or lestrictions, articles and subscriptions 
 — to regard clergy and laity alike as all learners in 
 the great school of the world, and to look on all 
 dogmas as on materials which further thought and 
 wider knowledge may render it needful hereafter to 
 mould into a difi"erent shape. Of him alone can it 
 be said that he had a definite point of dei)arture from 
 the opinions of predominant parties, and that from 
 this point he has advanced fearlessly in search of the 
 truth of fiicts, without regard to consequences or any 
 secondary considerations." 
 
 Probably no one will venture to question that the 
 opinion expressed in this letter by Bishop Hinds was 
 expressed because he believed it to be true ; and 
 the inference seems not unwarrantable that but for 
 certain constraining influences not altogether favour- 
 able to honesty of thought and utterance, we should 
 
[ ix ] 
 
 have similar opinions not unfrequently expressed by 
 the Bishops and clergy generally of the Church of 
 England. The one object which Bishop Hinds set be- 
 fore himself, was the ascertainment of the truth; and 
 I can have no greater encouragement, than his ap- 
 proval of this attempt to examine the truth of the 
 incidents related in the narratives of the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 Thomas Scott. 
 
 1 Dover Place, Clifton, Bristol, 
 November 2^rd, 1871. 
 
 My dear Scott, 
 
 I am truly glad that you are about to repub- 
 lish your "English Life of Jesus." It has the great 
 excellence of common sense, displayed in always re- 
 fusing to undertake building a house without the 
 needful materials. When you have shown that a 
 current story is unworthy of belief, you stoutly refuse 
 the very unreasonable demand, so lightly and so gener- 
 ally made, that you shall replace the fiction by some 
 true history. Lost history cannot be rewritten. In 
 some cases Ave may make reasonable conjectures, and 
 hold provisional opinions : that is all. 
 
 I have no doubt that you will improve the book on 
 revising it. Especially the opening was not, I believe, 
 originally intended as the first chapter of a larger book ; 
 and I think you will find advantage in reconsidering 
 some small matters. 
 
 I have no doubt that the republication will be a 
 good work, in the present state of the public mind. 
 I am, very truly yours, 
 
 r. W. Newivian, 
 Emeritus Professor. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 Although the letters of Bishop Hinds and Professor 
 Ne^v^Ilan, as given in the preceding pages, speak of 
 this work as a new edition, it should be stated that 
 its claims to the notice and examination of the press 
 are those of a new hook. 
 
 Treating a subject, confessedly of the greatest 
 moment, it appeared first, from the necessity of cir- 
 cumstances, in six separate portions ; and the form 
 thus given to the book furnished to editors of journals 
 a reason for putting it aside as a series of pamphlets. 
 To some, this reason may have been welcome ; and 
 by such, the publication of that which is nominally a 
 new edition, may be regarded as a not less welcome 
 excuse for continued silence. 
 
 It is in no spirit of egotism that I assert the claim 
 of my work to the criticism of the public press. The 
 supreme importance of the subject, and the conscious- 
 ness that the method in which it is handled furnishes 
 results which cannot be ignored, justify me in re- 
 peating to Reviewers the challenge which I have 
 more than once made to the Christian Evidence 
 Society, and in regarding the silence of those who 
 are plainly bound to notice the book, as an admission 
 of defeat. 
 
 Of the first edition, Dr Inman, in his second volume 
 of " Ancient Faiths embodied in Ancient Names," 
 says — *' Of the ' English Life of Jesus,' it is impossible 
 
xii Advertisement, 
 
 for a philosopher to speak too highly ; and it is a 
 matter for regret, that JVIr Thomas Scorr's publica- 
 tions are not as well known as ' Household Words.' " 
 Dr Davidson, in the Preface to his " Introduction to 
 the Study of the New Testament," speaking of various 
 " Lives of Jesus," and including the " English Life 
 of Jesus," says : " Since the appearance of these 
 works the Gospels can no longer be studied from 
 the old point of view." 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 NOT many words are needed at the present time by 
 way of preface to a volume which must necessar- 
 ily speak for itself, and which is designed to furnish 
 the reader with complete materials for forming his 
 own judgment on the question at issue. 
 
 This question is, not at all the truth of Christianity 
 or of the religion of Jesus, not at all the reasonable- 
 ness or unreasonableness of any form of belief in itself ; 
 but simply whether the accounts on which certain dog- 
 mas of traditional Christianity are based be or be not 
 real events in the history of the world. It is of the first 
 consequence to know whether the narratives which 
 are admitted to be the foundation of popular Christian- 
 ity are or are not narratives of real events, or whether 
 and how far they contain elements of fiction. It will 
 be allowed by all that if there be no proof whatever 
 for the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mary, for 
 the coming of the wise men, for the manifestation of 
 the angels to the shepherds, for the massacre of the 
 innocents and the journey to Egypt, for the miracle 
 at Cana or the resurrection of Lazarus, for the visible 
 rising of Jesus himself from the grave, and for the 
 visible ascension from Mount Olivet, then the histori- 
 cal basis for certain cardinal dogmas of Christendom 
 is gone, and the books which contain these narratives 
 cannot be considered to carry weight as histories. 
 
xiv Preface. 
 
 It is precisely this question which has been lately 
 brought into increased prominence by the speakers and 
 writers of the Christian Evidence Society ; and it is to 
 precisely this issue that I am bound to confine them. 
 How pertinaciously they have striven to raise a false 
 issue, and to diverge to that false issue at every 
 turn, will be manifest to the readers of my 
 Challenge to the members of that society, and of 
 my second paper intitled the " Tactics and Defeat of 
 the Christian Evidence Society." I have there said, 
 that the one task, to be performed by all honest men 
 is to take the alleged facts of the gospel narratives, 
 and to ascertain whether they be facts or not. With 
 theories as to the origin of these narratives, or with 
 assertions in their favour by later ecclesiastical 
 writers, we have nothing whatever to do. The great 
 test of truth is consistency ; and if a series of narra- 
 tives fail in this particular, it is useless to seek from 
 other quarters, an authority for them of Avhich they 
 are destitute themselves. If a narrative be in itself 
 incredible, the attestations (so called) of a thousand 
 Origen's or Gregory's can never alter its nature. 
 
 To this task, and to this task alone, of sifting the 
 evidence of the Gospel histories, do I now address 
 myself, fearlessly awaiting the result of that impartial 
 examination which is the indispensable condition for 
 the ascertainment of historical truth. 
 
 But the strength of popular beliefs and the influence 
 of time-honoured associations makes it necessary to 
 begin from the beginning, although it may be said 
 that many positions which a few years ago were _ 
 strenuously defended, have now, at least amongst 
 educated men, been either tacitly surrendered or 
 ojienly abandoned. 
 
 I must, therefore, at starting deal with the trust- 
 worthiness of the witnesses to the gospel histories, 
 which is still alleged by many as a conclusive reason 
 for accepting these stories. 
 
Preface. xv 
 
 " The Apostles were thoroughly veracious men ; and 
 they tell us that they saw the things which are 
 recorded in the Gospels ; therefore the Gospels are 
 historically true." 
 
 To this argument of Paley and other writers on 
 Evidences it might be enough to reply, that of some 
 at least of the events they do not even profess to be 
 witnesses. 
 
 Among the events not witnessed by them, the most 
 important are the incidents preceding, attending, and 
 consequent on the birth of Christ, as related in the 
 first and third Gospels. 
 
 But of these witnesses all will admit that we have 
 no knowledge, (or but the slightest knowledge,) if it 
 cannot be derived from the Book of the Acts of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 If, therefore, it can be shown that this book, which 
 ought to be the most thoroughly historical of all 
 Biblical writings, is really full of doubtful and even 
 false narrative, the credibility of the witnesses is gone ; 
 for we cannot be said to know anything of the wit- 
 nesses themselves. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Need of historical inquiry. The narrative of the Acts 
 of the Apostles. The narrative of Paul. Contradictions 
 between these two narratives. Journey of Paul to 
 Jerusalem. Statements of the Acts. Paul in the Acts. 
 And in his own letters. Paul and Peter. Alleged cere- 
 monialism of Paul. Inferences from the statements of 
 Paul. Extent of contradictions between the Acts and 
 the genuine Pauline Epistles. Value of the history of the 
 Acts. The death of Judas. The gift of tongues. Com- 
 munity of goods. Ananias and Sapphira. Historical re- 
 siduum in the Acts. Contradictions between the life of 
 Paul as related by himself, and as given in the Acts of the 
 Apostles. Results of these contradictions. Their effect on 
 the credibility of the Acts of the Apostles. The degi-ee in 
 which they affect the authority of the Evangelists. The 
 testimony of the twelve Apostles. The testimony of the four 
 Evangelists. The fourth Gospel. Characteristics of inde- 
 pendent narratives. The four Gospels contain only two 
 independent narratives. Contradictions between the Sjaiop- 
 tics and the fourth Gospel. The evidences of traditional 
 Christianity. The true nature of the inquiry. The truth of 
 facts, as affecting human duty. . . . 1-18 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS OF JESUS. 
 
 THE GENEALOGIES. 
 
 The sense of the Gospels. The Davidic descent of Jesus 
 
 The genealogy of Matthew. The admissions of Jerome. 
 
 The quibbles of Augustine. The symbolism of Remigius. 
 
 The genealogy of Matthew tested by statements in the 
 
xviii Contents. 
 
 Old Testament. The genealogy of Luke. Attempts at 
 explanation. The genealogy of Mary. Signs of fal)rica- 
 tion. Artificial pedigrees. The genealogies as affected by 
 the claims of Jesus himself. Origin of the genealogies. 
 Their context. ..... 19-.30 
 
 THE NARRATIVES OF THE CONCEPTION, BIRTH, AND INFANCY. 
 
 The narrative of Matthew. Inferences from this narra" 
 tive. Justification of astrology. Interpretation of prophecy- 
 Motives of Herod. The star of the wise men. The jjrophecy 
 of Jeremiah. The prophecy of Isaiah. The prophecy of 
 Hosea. The influence of dreams. Comparative mythology. 
 The narrative of the third Gosi^el. Inferences from this 
 naiTative. The chronology and geography of the first and 
 third Gospels. The home of .Joseph and Mary. The an- 
 nunciation. The silence of Mary. The visit of Mary to 
 Elizabeth. The conception and birth of the Bajitist. The 
 birth at Bethlehem. Place of the birth of Jesus. The time 
 of his birth. The taxing of Cyrenius. The second and 
 fourth Gospels. Theories of Messiahship . . 31-57 
 
 THE CANON OF THE NEW TEST^XJMENT. 
 
 Distinct series of legends. Apocryphal Gospels. The 
 authority of the Canon. Admissions of Mr Westcott. Con- 
 sequences of these admissions. Testimonies in favour of the 
 Canon. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Credulity 
 of Irenteus and Eusebius. The definition of the Canon. Dr 
 Irons on "The Bible and its Interpreters." His destructive 
 criticism. ...... 58-G5 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 THE MISSIONS OF JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 THE FIRST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE. 
 
 The journey to Jerusalem. The search for the child 
 Jesus. Forgetfulness, or unbelief, of Mary and Joseph. 
 Slender practical results of miracles. The astonishment of 
 the doctors. The acquisition of learning by Jesus. The 
 relation of this conversation with the doctors to the later 
 history of Jesus. The inability of Mary to understand her 
 sun's question. The narrative not historical. Parallels in 
 earlier Jewish tradition. .... 66-71 
 
Contents^ xix 
 
 THE MISSION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 Traditions respecting tlie early occupations of Jesus. The 
 relation of Jesus to the Sadducees. His relation to the 
 Pharisees, the Essenes, and to the foreign Jews. Date of 
 the mission of John the Baptist. Notes of time in the 
 Synoptic Gospels. Date of the Baptist's imprisonment. 
 Relative ages of John and Jesus. The narrative of the 
 Baptist's mission un-historical. . . . 72-76 
 
 JOHN AS THE FORERUNNER OF THE MESSIAH. 
 
 Crucial importance of the relation of John to Jesus. The 
 baptismal initiation. Alleged affinity between John and 
 Jesus. Opportunities of intercourse. The signs in the 
 Synoptics and in the fourth Gospel. Attempted solutions of 
 the difficulty. No evidence for the affinity of John and 
 Jesus. ...... 77-79 
 
 THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS BY 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 The Synoptic Gospels do not represent John as announcing 
 Jesus to be the Messiah. John's ignorance of Jesus in the 
 fourth Gosfiel. Dean Milman's comment on the testimony of 
 John to Jesus. Inconsistencies of his view. Conception of 
 the Messiahship attributed to John in the fourth Gospel. 
 The sufiering Messiah and the Lamb of God. In the fourth 
 Gospel John acknowledges the pre -existence of Jesus as the 
 Logos. The mission of the two disciples of John to Jesus. 
 Motives for the Mission. Hypothesis of a wavering faith in 
 the Baptist. Alleged historical parallels. Hypothesis of 
 unbelief on the part of John's disciples. Interpretation of 
 the question by Jesus. Alleged estimate by John of Jesus. 
 The question could not be meant as an encouragement to 
 Jesus. The Gospel accounts of the relations between John 
 and Jesus not historical. Attempts to explain the growth of 
 the legend. ...... 79-91 
 
 THE DEPUTATION FROM JERUSALEM TO THE BAPTIST. 
 
 Questions put to John in the Synoptics and in the fourth 
 Gospel. Inconsistency of the narratives. Offence given by 
 John to the Sanhedrim. The narrative of the deputation 
 not historical. . . . . • 91-93 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. 
 
 Incidents attending the baptism of Jesus. Eelation of this 
 narrative to the narratives of his birth and infancy. The 
 
XX Contents. 
 
 Messianic consciousness of Jesus. The miraculous signs. 
 Explicit statements of the third Gospel. Dean Milnian's 
 explanatiiins. Uationalistic comments of the writer of " Ecce 
 Homo." Impression produced by marvels in a marvel-loving 
 age. The nan-atives of the Baptism not historical. At- 
 tempts to explain the growth of the legend. Successive 
 theories as to the time at which the Alessiahship of Jesus 
 commenced. ..... 93-99 
 
 THE EXECUTION OF JOHN THE BAPTI.ST. 
 
 Contradictory motives assigned for the death of the Baptist. 
 Account of Jostphus. The place of the execution. The ac- 
 count of the first Gospel partially historical. General sum- 
 mary of historical results . . . 09-101 
 
 THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 
 
 The Synoptic narratives of the temptation. The narrative 
 of the fourth Gospel. Their contradictions. Tlie narratives 
 un-historical. The forty days' fast. The personal and visible 
 devil. The temptation as described in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. The Epistle of James on human temj)tation. 
 Origin of the idea of a devil. Zoroastrian dualism. Nation- 
 alistic interpretations. Comments of Dean Milman. ♦The 
 transitions in the temptation. The character of the several 
 temptations. Parallels in the Old Testament nai-rative and 
 in Greek and other legends . : . 102-110 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CALLING OF THE DISCIPLES AND THE DIS- 
 COURSES IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 
 
 SCENE AND DURATION OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS. 
 
 The Synoptics represent Galilee as the scene of the Ministry. 
 The fourth Gospel i)laces it in Jerusalem. Notes of time. 
 Movements of .Jesus in the Synoj)tics and in the fourth 
 Gospel. Contradictions between' the dill'erent accounts. 
 Differences in the synojitic versions. Jesus in the synagogue 
 at Nazareth. Self-contradictions of Matthew. Self-contra- 
 dictions of Luke. Su2>posed age of Jesus. The duration of 
 his ministry unknown .... 111-116 
 
 THE CALLING OF THE DISCIPLES. 
 
 Contradictory sequences of events in the Gospel narratives. 
 The salutations of the Baptist. The transference of the 
 Baptist's disciples to Jesus unhistorical. The calling of 
 
Contents. xxi 
 
 Anrlrew and Peter in the fourth Gospel. Their distinct 
 knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus. The call of Philip 
 and Nathanael. Historical inconsistencies and impossibilities 
 in the narrative. ISIoral difficulties. The narrative unhis- 
 torical. The calling of Andrew and 8imon and of the sons of 
 Zebedee in the first Gospel. The account in every particular 
 inconsistent with that of the fourth Gospel. These narratives 
 exclude each other. They are all unhistorical. Parallel to 
 Old Testament legends. The calling of Simon in the third 
 Gospel. The miraculous draught of fishes. The calling of 
 Matthew and Levi. The number and rank of the Apostles. 
 The primacy of Peter. The precedence of James over John. 
 The Mission of the seventy disciples. This mission unknown 
 to the other Evangelists. . . . .117-127 
 
 THE MESSIANIC MISSION OF JESUS. 
 
 Jesus regarded himself as ]Messiah. Language of Jesus re- 
 specting his mission, as given in the Synoijtics and in the 
 fourth Gospel. The two accounts altogether incompatible. 
 The pre-existence of Jesus. Political elements in ideas of the 
 Messiah. Jesus never sought to form a political party. Keal 
 position of Jesus. Relation of Jesus to the Mosaic law and to 
 the Gentiles. Dilemma in refei-ence to the conversion of 
 Cornelius. Relations of Jesus to the Samaritans 127-132 
 
 DISCOURSES IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 
 
 Range of the ministry of Jesus. 1. The sermon on the 
 mount. Identity of this discourse with the so-called sermon 
 on the plain. The discourse not delivered at one time. The 
 assertion, that it was so delivered mihistorical. The physi- 
 cal beatitudes of the third Gospel. The maledictions of the 
 third Gospel. Relations of Jesus to the Levitical law. The 
 Lord's prayer. Its historical character. 2. Discourses of 
 Jesus on sending for the twelve and the seventy. Contradic- 
 tions between these discourses. 3. The parabolic teaching of 
 Jesus, its character, and objects. The statement, that they 
 were uttered in the form of a connected discourse, unhistorical. 
 Interpretation of the parables. The connection of the parables 
 unhistorical. Theparableof the richmanand Lazarus. Ebionite 
 view of poverty and wealth. The parables of the talents. Per- 
 versions resulting from oral tradition. Parables of the mar- 
 riage feast and wedding garment. 4. Miscellaneous discourses 
 of Jesus. Discourses concerning little children. Verbal 
 connexions in the synoptic Gospels. Precepts on celibacy 
 and marriage. Controversial discourses with the Jews. 
 Jesus as an interpreter of Scripture. The dispute respect- 
 
xxii Contents. 
 
 ing the son of David. Relations of the Pharisees and 
 Sadduces. Anti-Pharisaic discourses of Jesus. Misstate- 
 ments of the Evangelists respecting them. The murder of 
 Zachariah ..... 132-151 
 
 CHAPTEH IV. 
 
 THE DISCOURSES IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 
 AND THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 
 
 THE JOHANNINE DISCOUESES OF JESUS. 
 
 Contrast between the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic 
 Gospels and that of the fourth Gospel. Vital importance of 
 this question. The teaching of Jesus in John has scarcely 
 any feature in connection with his teaching in the other 
 Gospels. The discourses in the fourth Gospel are throughout 
 imaginary. 1. Conversation with the woman of Samaria. 
 Its incomjjatibility with statements in the Synoptic Gospels. 
 Abrupt transitions and carnal interpretations. Grotesque 
 stupidity attributed to the woman. Sup])ose(l attemjits at 
 evasion. Improbabilities in the sequel of the story. The 
 whole nari-ative unhistorical. 2. The conversation with 
 Nicodemus. Its iusupera1)le difficulties relating to the Mes- 
 siahship of Jesus. Nicodemus unknown to the Synoptics. 
 His mysterious slowness of apprehension. Prediction relat- 
 ing to the Crucifixion. The conversation unhistorical. .3. 
 Discourse after the cure at the pool of Bethesda. Arguments 
 for doing good on the Sabbath. Style of the writer of the 
 fourth Gospel. John the Baptist and .lesus speak in the 
 same st3de. Insuperable difficulties involved in this fact. 
 All the discoui'ses in the fourth Gosftel fictitious. 4- 
 Discourse on the Living Bread. Carnal misumlerstand- 
 ings of the Jews. Their strange stupidity. 5. Discourses 
 on the person of Christ. Pointing of contrasts. Irritating 
 modes of speech. Contradictions in terms. 6. The so-called 
 
 E arable of the Good Shepherd. 7. Discourse at the feast of 
 'edication. 8. Detaclied sayings of Jesus in the fourth 
 Gosj^el. The prophet's honour in his own country. General 
 summary of historical results . . . 152-171 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 
 
 Are any of the Evangelists eye-witnesses ? Minuteness of 
 detail in Mark and Luke. Characteristics of oral tradition. 
 Contrast between the Sj^noptics and the fourth Gospel. I. 
 Modification of materials by tradition. The kinsfolk of Jesus. 
 
Contents. xxiii 
 
 Forgetfulness of wonderful events. II. Disputes for pre- 
 cedency. III. The purification of the temple. Predicted 
 destruction of the temple. Did Jesus twice jiurify the temple ? 
 Dr Milmau's account of the event The Johannine version 
 wholly unhistorical. IV. The anointing of Jesus. Contradic- 
 tions in the several accounts. Were there two anointings ? 
 Eeasons for thinking that all the narratives relate to one and 
 the same event. V. The woman taken in adultery. General 
 summary of historical results . . .171-189 
 
 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 
 
 Contradictions on ordinary matters of fact. Their bearing 
 on narratives of extraordinary incidents. Typical narratives 
 in the Old Testament. Claim of Jesus to miraculous power. 
 His thoughts on demoniacal possession. I. The fii'st miracle 
 of Jesus. The demoniac at Capernaum. II. The demoniacs 
 at Gadara. The legion of devils. Confusion of ideas shown 
 in the destruction of the swine. III. The cure of the lunatic 
 after the transfiguration. Classification of devils. IV. Cures 
 of lepers. Suddenness of the cures. Difficulties arising out 
 of this suddenness. V. Cases of the blind. The blind man 
 in John ix. VI. Connexion of disease with sin. Did Jesus 
 accept the fact of this connexion ? The tower in Siloam. 
 Ebioiiite view of poverty and misfortunes. VII. Involuntary 
 cures. Physical character of the process. The moving cause 
 in such cases not the will of Jesus. VIII. Cures wrought at 
 a distance. This class of cure excludes the preceding. The 
 centurion at Capernaum. The nobleman at Cana. The 
 narratives are all unhistorical versions of one and the same 
 incident. IX. Cures wrought on the Sabbath day. X. The 
 raising of the dead. The number of such resuscitations. The 
 ruler's daughter. The hypothesis of a swoon untenable. 
 The widow's son at Nain. The raising of Lazarus. Insignifi- 
 cance of the persons raised. The conduct of Jesus in the 
 raising of Lazarus. Contradictions between the fourth and 
 the Synoptic Gospels. The raising of Lazarus unknown to the 
 Synoptics. Insuperable difficulties involved in this circum- 
 stance. Historical conclusions. XL Miracles connected with 
 the sea. Action of Jesus on inanimate nature. Jesus walk- 
 ing on the sea. The narrative unhistorical. The miracle of 
 the tribute-money. Pationalistic explanations untenable. 
 
 XII. The feeding of the multitudes. " The various versions of 
 the story. The story unhistorical. Propositions involved in 
 the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. Absurdity of 
 rationalistic interpretations. Origination of such stories. 
 
 XIII. The marriage feast in Cana. Historical difficulties 
 in the narrative. The- part borne by Mary in the scene. 
 
xxiv Contents. 
 
 Prescience of Mary. Attempts to escape the metaphysical 
 difficulty. Scientific difficulties involved in the story. Pur- 
 pose of the miracle. Profane absurdity of rationalistic expla- 
 nations. The narrative unhistorical. XIV. The cursing 
 of the barren fig-tree. Primitive character of the miracle. 
 Historical difficulties of the narrative. The narratives un- 
 historical. Summary of historical results . 189-227 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE CLOSE OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS. 
 
 THE TRANSFIGURATION. 
 
 Dean Milman on the closing scenes in the ministry of Jesus. 
 His method of dealing with the Gospels. His accounts of the 
 Transfiguration. It is contradicted by the Evangelists. The 
 dilemma respecting the announcement of the Messiahship of 
 Jesus. The appearance of Moses and Elias. The whole 
 scene treated by Dean Milman as a vision. The conversation 
 on the way down the mountain. The Johannine account of 
 the Transfiguration unhistorical. The Synoptic accounts. 
 The explanations of the so-called rationalistic school. The 
 Synoptic narrative contradicted by other statements in the 
 same narrative. The narrative has no historical Vjasis. 
 Theological difficulties. Possible origin of the story 228-240 
 
 CLOSING SCENES OF THE MINISTRY. 
 
 The Synoptic journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. The 
 accounts irreconcileable. The Johannine narrative a fabrica- 
 tion. The sojourn at Bethany. The progress from Jericho 
 to Jerusalem. The miraculous finding of the ass. Hyi^othesis 
 of two Iriunqjhal entries. The supposition untenable. Diffi- 
 culties in the narrative of the first Gosjjel. The crowd of 
 followers; The details of the story not to be trusted 24U-245 
 
 PREDICTIONS OF JESUS RESPECTING HIS DEATH. 
 
 Predictions of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Fatal contra- 
 dictions brought out by a comparison of these predictions with 
 the narrative of the fourth Gosiiel. The inevitable alterna- 
 tive. These predictions were not uttered. The idea of a 
 suffering Messiah a mistake. No evidence that such an idea 
 was entertained by the Jews . . . 246-248 
 
Contents. xxv 
 
 PREDICTIONS OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 
 
 The Synoptic version of these predictions. Contradicted by 
 the conduct of the disciples after the apprehension of Jesus. 
 It is also contradicted by the conduct of the women. Impos- 
 sibilities in the narratives. The metaphorical discourses 
 unhistorical. Interpretations of prophecy . . 248-251 
 
 PREDICTIONS RESPECTING THE SECOND ADVENT OF JESUS. 
 
 The idea of the great Messianic judgment. The discourses 
 on the Advent in the first Gospel. Analysis of this discourse. 
 Clear statement of time in this discourse. Historical falsifica- 
 tions. Attempts to meet the difficulty. Impossibility of 
 severing the various portions of the discourse. Interpretation 
 of the word generation. Apparent conviction of Jesus respect- 
 ing the second Advent. The Synoptic discourses not noticed 
 in the fourth Gospel. Dilemma. Possible origin of these 
 discourses. Composition of the Johannine Gospel 251-259 
 
 THE ENEMIES OF JESUS. 
 
 Effects of the ministry of Jesus as described by the Synoptic 
 and the Johannine Evangelists. Fatal contradictions through- 
 out the two accounts. Complete dissimilarity of the two 
 stories. The Johannine account impossible ; the Synoptic 
 narrative, in the main, true . . . 260-263 
 
 THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS. 
 
 Was Jesus aware beforehand that Judas would betray him ? 
 Formation of the design of Judas. The Johannine account. 
 Judas the purse-bearer. This description unhistorical. His- 
 torical conclusions. Theological and moral difficulties. 
 Nothing more known than the bare fact that there was a 
 betrayal. The motives of Judas. Contradictions in the 
 accounts of the betrayal. Possible origin of the narrative. 
 The alleged death of Judas. The narrative of the Acts irre- 
 concilable with that of the Synoptics. The potter's field and 
 the field of blood. The maledictions in the Psalms. Nothing 
 known of the last days of Judas . . . 264-272 
 
 THE PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER. 
 
 The narrative of the preparation is one of miracle. Theo- 
 logical difficulties. Historical difficulties. Did Jesus die 
 before or after the Paschal feast? The last passover cele- 
 brated with the disciples. The Johannine last supper. Vital 
 contradictions. Vain attempts to evade the difficulty. The 
 Johannine Judas. The constitution of the Eucharist. The 
 Synoptic narrative corroborated by St Paul. . 272-279 
 
xxvi Contents. 
 
 THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN. 
 
 The agony of Jesus not noticed in the fourth Gospel. The 
 Synoptic narratives contradict themselves in the details of 
 this incident. The strengthening angel. Historical con- 
 clusions. Eeason of the Johannine silence on this subject. 
 The prayer in John xvii. unhistorical. The embassy of the 
 Greeks. ...... 279-283 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION. RESURRECTION, AND ASCEN- 
 SION OF JESaS. 
 
 THE ARREST IN THE GARDEN. 
 
 The attendants of Judas in the Synoptics and in the fourth 
 Gospel. The accounts irreconcileable. Plan of the fourth 
 Gospel. The Johannine narrative a wdlful fabrication. The 
 smiting of Malchus. The personal conduct of the priests and 
 elders. The young man with the linen Garment. The flight 
 of the disciples. Historical inferences from this fact. In- 
 evitable alternative. ..... 284-289 
 
 JESCJ.S BEFORE THE CHIEF PRIESTS. 
 
 ^Vhere was the examination of Jesus held ? The Johannine 
 account impossible. The Synoptic narratives inconsistent. 
 The false witnesses. The denial of Peter. . . 289-294 
 
 THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE. 
 
 The Synoptic narrative of this trial in the main true. The 
 charges brought against Jesus. The Johannine narrative. 
 The ajjpearances of Jesus before Herod Antijms. The account 
 unhistorical. The message of Pilate's wife. The sentence of 
 Pilate and his conduct. Impossibilities in the narrative. 
 The disguising and mocking of Jesus. . . 294-299 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION. 
 
 The bearing of the Cross. Mode of crucifixion. The 
 wounds in the hands and feet of Jesus. Interpretations of 
 prophecy. The vinegar and gall. The vinegar and water. 
 The exclamation of despair. The words on the Cross. The 
 two malefactors. The penitent thief. The superscription. 
 The division of the garments. The lots cast for the seamless 
 robe. The conduct of the spectators. The absence of the 
 Apostles. Mary and the beloved disciple. Notes of time in 
 the narrative. ..... 299-307 
 
Contents. xxvii 
 
 THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF JESUS. 
 
 The rending of the temple veil. The rising of the saints 
 from the open graves. The earthquake. The centurioii's 
 testimony. The spear wound in the side of Jesus. The 
 flowing of blood and water. The petition of Joseph of Ari- 
 mathea. The co-operation of Nicodemus. The grave 307-312 
 
 THE WATCH AT THE GRAVE OF JESUS. 
 
 The narrative of the watch found only in the first 
 Gospel. Analysis of the story. Propositions involved in 
 the tale. Origin of the narrative. Dr Tischendorf on the 
 Gospels ...... 312-316 
 
 THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 The narrative of Matthew. The narrative of Mark. The 
 narrative of Luke. The narrative of .John. The Johannine 
 and Synoptic narratives mutually exclude each other. Results 
 of attempts to evade difficulties . . . 31(5-321 
 
 APPEARANCES OF JESUS AFTER THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 The narrative of Matthew. The narrative of Mark. The 
 narrative of Luke. Difficulties relating to the scene of the 
 Christophanies. The narrative of the fourth Gospel. The 
 appendix to the fourth Gospel. The miraculous draught of 
 fishes. The threefold questioning of Peter. All the four 
 narratives of the period following the resurrection are through - 
 out contradictory. The great forty days. The ascension. 
 The return to judgment. Astronomical difficulties. The 
 narrative unhistorical. The return into Galilee. The growth 
 of the tradition. The belief of the disciples and of Paul. 
 Contradiction between the accounts of Paul and that of 
 the Acts of the Apostles. Dilemma. The Pauline idea of 
 Christophanies. The body of Jesus after the resurrection. 
 M. Renan on the Resurrection. The formula of baptism as 
 given in the Gospels and as employed in the Acts. Growth 
 of the tradition. ..... 321-344 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The actual teaching of Jesus. Contradictory testimony. 
 Dr Pusey on the powers of the priesthood. Dr Tischendorf 
 on the composition of the four Gospels. Ptesults of his 
 argument, if successful. The final issue of historical in- 
 quiry. ...... 344-349 
 
INTEODUCTIOK 
 
 TO form a right estimate of the statements, opinions, 
 and doctrines, Avhich challenge acceptance on the 
 authority of a revelation contained in the Bible, we 
 must, if it be possible, test the accuracy., of some one 
 of the alleged historical narratives of the Bible by 
 comparison with some documents acknowledged to be 
 the genuine work of an author, whose life the Biblical 
 narrative professes to set forth. 
 
 Until we can institute such a comparison, we may 
 do much in the way of a merely negative criticism ; 
 but we cannot lay our hands on any definite passage 
 and say, — " This is an entire misrepresentation of cer- 
 tain acts of a man who has himself left us his own ac- 
 count, — an account utterly subversive of the other." 
 
 The means for making such a comparison are 
 furnished by the Acts of the Apostles, and the 
 Epistles of Paul to the Komans, Corinthians, and 
 Galatians. 
 
 According to Paul's own account, (in his Epistle to 
 the Galatians, which all allow to be genuine) his 
 mission and apostleship were direct from Heaven ; 
 there is no point on which he lays more stress. In the 
 Acts (ix. 17) he receives the Holy Spirit by the laying 
 on of the hands of one Ananias,— a disciple not else- 
 where heard of This might appear to make his 
 mission subordinate, not to the chief apostles merely, 
 but to a private disciple. If it cannot be called a 
 plain contradiction to Paul's statement, yet it becomes 
 A 
 
2 Introduction. 
 
 liighly suspicious, wlien we perceive the earnestness 
 of his asseveration, which is that of a man who is 
 aAvare that reports are abroad, disparaging the origin- 
 ality and independence of his mission. He goes so 
 far as (most needlessly, many might think) to take a 
 solemn oath, that what he says is true : " behold, 
 before God ! I lie not." "When it pleased God to re- 
 veal his Son in me, immediately I conferred not with 
 flesh and blood ;" i. e. he received nothing of spiritual 
 power, authority, counsel, or aid from any Ananias. 
 He proceeds to say that he did not go up to Jerusalem 
 to the apostles for three years ; but meanwhile, went 
 into Arabia and returned to Damascus. — The book of 
 Acts keeps him many days in Damascus, and thence 
 sends him to Jerusalem ; but says nothing of his 
 journeying into Arabia, which may mean MesoiDotamia. 
 The Avriter apparently knew nothing of this journey, 
 nor of the exact time, three years. — He further repre- 
 sents that when Paul reached Jerusalem, the disciples 
 there " were afraid of him, and believed not that he 
 was a disciple," until Barnabas vouched for his pious 
 zeal. Can we believe that in three years they had 
 not learned of so eminent a convert? This in itself is 
 somewhat hard to harmonize ; but the difficulty is 
 increased when Paul tells us, that he went u\:> to Jeru- 
 salem to see Pete}- and abode with him fifteen days, and 
 thence went into Syria and Cilicia, and remained per- 
 sonally unknown to the churches of Judsea. In Acts 
 xxvi. 20, Paul is made to say, that at this time he 
 preached in all the coasts of Judma. The journey to 
 Sp-ia and Cilicia is limited in Acts ix. 30, to the 
 Syrian city of Cassarea and the Cilician city of Tarsus. 
 It is not easy to reconcile Paul's " fourteen years 
 after" with the received chronology of the Acts ; but 
 the main and important contrariety is in the moral 
 colouring. Paul insists anxiously on his independence 
 of the other apostles ; and in asserting it, is almost 
 rude towards them. The three chief men among 
 
Introduction. 3 
 
 them, Peter, James, and John, are called by him, 
 first, " those who seemed to be Pillars," and next, 
 " those who seemed to be somewhat," adding, " What- 
 soever they were, it matters not to me." This is 
 hardly the tone of friendship. But in the Acts, not 
 only is every appearance of disagreement carefully 
 smoothed over, and no allusion made to the very 
 blunt and vehement rebuke to Peter narrated by 
 Paul himself (Galat. ii.), but the narrative manages 
 to make it appear that Paul is acting in complete 
 subordination to, and not merely co-operating with, the 
 Jerusalem apostles. Barnabas presents him to them; 
 the disciples convey him to Tarsus. Barnabas brings 
 him from Tarsus to Antioch. Paul and Barnabas 
 receive submissively the " dogmas " or decrees of the 
 Jerusalem Church, who use the celebrated formula, 
 " It has seemed good to [It has been decreed by] us 
 AND THE Holy Spirit, to lay on you no greater 
 burden, &c." Here a First Council of the Church 
 utters " decrees " to the disciples, — a notion of the 
 second century — and feels itself competent to lay 
 burdens on them, or to take burdens off ; and actually 
 sends Paul to contradict Paul's own teaching about 
 things strangled and blood, and meat offered to idols. 
 Moreover, in the Council, Peter and James speak, but 
 of Paul's speaking no word is said. 
 
 How contrary is this to the tone in Paul's own 
 epistle ! He evidently felt himself in strong collision 
 vnih. the Jerusalem Church, for (and in this we have a 
 perfect facsimile of modern times) he treats the doctrine 
 of those who come from it as another gospel than his 
 gospel ; and breathes against them such defiance as 
 to say, that if they were angels from heaven preaching 
 some other gospel than his first gospel, let them be 
 accursed ! The preachers, at whom his invective is 
 directed, are " brethren who come from James;" and all 
 commentators, without exception, have understood the 
 doctrine to be that oi.Judaizing Ghxhimns,, then power- 
 
4 Introduction. 
 
 fill and apparently predominant in Jerusalem. Paul 
 proudly avows, that he gave place not for one hour to 
 these "false brethren," as he harshly styles them, 
 who wished to have Titus circumcised. It would 
 seem that James and Peter agreed with Paul, — per- 
 haps were convinced by him, — and ojjposed the more 
 ardent Judaizers, who were .certainly too active 
 and earnest to be kept in control by James, and 
 ten-ified Peter into unworthy compromises. But no 
 one can reasonably maintain that Paul acted the 
 dutiful and subordinate part which the Book of Acts 
 assigns to him. In fact he plainly boasts of his very 
 stinging rebuke to Peter himself. 
 
 Further, it must be noted, that in the Epistle to 
 the Galatians, Paul charges Peter with cowardice 
 resulting from a culpable fear of the zealots for the 
 law. He speak s of circumcision and the ordinances of 
 the laAv generally, as things which he has destroyed, 
 (Gal. ii.,) and solemnly avers that if he builds again 
 the things which he destroyed, he makes himself a 
 transgressor ; and, again, still more earnestly, speak- 
 ing not merely after his return from Jerusalem, and 
 after the alleged Council of the Acts, but after Peter's 
 disastrous sojourn at Antioch, he charges the Galatians 
 to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ (not the 
 Apostolic College) had made them free ; and then, in- 
 stead of appealing to the judicial decision of the 
 Apostles, (to which, if it had existed, he must have 
 aj)pealed,) he simply adds, " Behold, I Paul say 
 unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit 
 you nothing," (Gal. v. 2,) thus wholly ignoring any 
 decree of the Church at Jerusalem, and settling the 
 matter on his own sole responsibility, while he dis- 
 tinctly states that he could not deviate from this prac- 
 tice without giving the lie to his whole preaching. 
 
 In short, we find in the Acts and in the Epistle 
 to the Galatians, two narratives of different moral 
 colour. In the Epistle the Church is split into 
 
Introduction. 5 
 
 two bitter factions, in the Acts all is harmony and 
 subordination. This suffices to warn us that Ave 
 must not trust to the book of the Acts. But other 
 arg'uments remain. 
 
 On the version, given in the first chapter, of events 
 following the resurrection, we need only remark here, 
 that while the first and the fourth Gospels make no 
 mention of the Ascension, and while that of Luke 
 speaks of the Ascension as taking place on the same 
 day with the Eesurrection, the "Acts" interposes 
 forty days between the two events, and says nothing 
 of tlae injunction that the disciples should go to Gali- 
 lee, there to meet their Lord. 
 
 The contradictions in the case of Judas are, if pos- 
 sible, still more signal. Of the remorse and death of 
 the traitor the second, third, and fourth Gospels say 
 nothing. In the first, Judas, horror-stricken at the 
 condemnation of Jesus, appears hurriedly before the 
 chief priests and elders, as though seeking to lessen 
 his guilt by asserting the innocence of the Master 
 whom he had betrayed. On receiving their contemp- 
 tuous reply that this was his concern, not theirs, he 
 throws down the thirty pieces of silver in the temple 
 and departs and hangs himself. Judas had therefore 
 done nothing with the money, and his death was not 
 a death of blood; moreover it was self-caused. But in 
 the Acts there is no sign that Judas ever felt any re- 
 morse. He is described as quietly purchasing a field, 
 and holding it until his life is cut short, not by suicide, 
 but by sudden judgment singularly like that which is 
 said to have smitten the heresiarch Arius. Here, 
 then, his death was not his own act, and it was a 
 death of blood, this blood being needed, according to 
 the writer, to account for the name Akeldama (or 
 field of blood,) — a name which the Gospel narrative 
 altogether fails to explain. 
 
 It is of more importance to examine the narrative 
 of the descent of Tongues in the second chapter, be- 
 
6 Introduction. 
 
 cause it brings us again to a subject treated by Paul 
 in his genuine Epistles. 
 
 Nothing can be more marked than the contrast 
 which Paul draws, (1 Cor. xiv,) between what he terms 
 prophesying and the gift of tongues, and the great su- 
 periority which he assigns to the former over the latter. 
 
 The former edifies the whole Church, i.e., all the 
 hearers ; the latter edifies the speaker alone, — as 
 being a collection of sounds not belonging to any 
 articulate existing language, but needing for explana- 
 tion the special gift of " Interpreters." 
 
 Hence, if an unbeliever enter the building while the 
 process of speaking with tongues is going on, the inevit- 
 able impression must be that the Christians are mad ; 
 whereas the intelligible prophesying or teaching will 
 lead him to confess that God is with them of a truth. 
 
 Hence, according to Paul, these tongues were not 
 the known speech of Rome or Persia, of Gaul or 
 Hindustan, of the Celt or the Teuton, but the inarti- 
 culate utterances of devotional frenzy. 
 
 But in the Acts, the unlearned and ignorant 
 apostles are instantaneously endowed with the power 
 of speaking Latin, Arabic, Persian, Egyptian, and a 
 number of other languages of foreign Jews then 
 present in Jerusalem for the feast. 
 
 These strangers express their astonishment at hear- 
 ing Galilseans speak, " every man in our own tongue 
 wherein we were born, the wonderful works of God." 
 They understood, then, precisely both the words and 
 the matter of the discourse, (ii. 11). 
 
 But the narrator is not consistent in his fiction. 
 
 While the foreign Jews understood the several 
 languages spoken, others charged the apostles, not 
 with madness, but with drunkenness. 
 
 Yet, what is Peter's defence ] 
 
 Nothing could be easier and more obvious than to 
 appeal to the foreign Jews and proselytes, and silence 
 the foul calumny by conclusive proof that the sup- 
 
Introduction. 7 
 
 posed babbling of drunkards was the actual spt ech of 
 Mesopotamia, Elam, Phrygia, and Cyrene. 
 
 Yet all that Peter can say in reply is, that the 
 men are not drunk, as was supposed, seeing it was 
 but the third hour of the day. 
 
 In other words, Peter in his answer assumes that 
 the i^henomena are those described in the Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, and not those which the writer of 
 the Acts has imagined in his desire to match the 
 confusion of tongues at Babel and the fiery mani- 
 festations on Sinai with a wonder at once more 
 astounding and more merciful. 
 
 The description which follows of the first condition 
 of the converts is the ideal picture of a golden age of 
 faith which has no proper historical confirmation, and 
 which is shown to be exaggerated by the details only 
 a few chapters later : for the story of Ananias and 
 Sapphira refers to precisely the same period of com- 
 munity of goods spoken of in ii. 44, and iv. 34, 35 ; 
 and yet at a time when, according to the strict letter 
 of the previous account, not one member of the 
 Church retained any property, in houses, lands, or 
 moveable goods, the reply of Peter to Ananias for 
 keeping back part of purchase moneys is, that whilst 
 it remained it was his own, and after it was sold, the 
 price was still in his own ]power ; — in other words, his 
 guilt lay not in departing from the practice of com- 
 munion of goods, but in representing the produce of 
 the sale as less than it really was. 
 
 \Vliat are we to say of the probability that the 
 secret was so strictly preserved for three hours, that 
 his wife, at the end of that time, had heard nothing 
 of his burial, or his death % 
 
 And most of all, what are we to say to the infatu- 
 ated imbecility of the chief priests and rulers in not 
 availing themselves of so golden an opportunity for 
 crushing men whom, according to the tale, they both 
 feared and hated ] 
 
8 IntroducUon. 
 
 A previous chapter had related how, for curing a 
 lame man, the apostles had been seized, shut up in 
 prison, threatened, and charged to speak no more in the 
 name of Christ ; and again in the immediate sequel 
 of the narrative, (v. 16-18,) the priests and rulers 
 again lay hands on the apostles for performing cer- 
 tain works, which, if really done, were unquestionably 
 beneficent ; but when, after a miraculous deliverance 
 from the prison, the apostles are again brought 
 before the Sanhedrim, although Ave do hear some- 
 thing of an intention of the disciples to bring the 
 blood of Christ, (v. 28,) on men who, according to the 
 Gospel narrative, had cheerfully taken it on them- 
 selves and on their children, not one word is said 
 about the mysterious disappearance of a man of 
 landed property and his wife, persons not so utterly 
 insignificant, it would seem, as to be so unceremon- 
 iously passed by. 
 
 Where was the animosity of the priests and scribes'? 
 Where was the police of the Roman governor % 
 
 If the mere celebration of the Eucharist sufficed, a 
 little later, as a ground for charges of cannibalism, 
 are we to suppose that nothing Avas said of an event 
 which they might, nay, must have characterized as a 
 double murder, and which would certainly be investi- 
 gated as such, if it took place at a revival meeting, or 
 in Mr Spurgeon's Tabernacle at the present day ; an 
 event, moreover, which struck terror into the hearts 
 of the disciples, and was freely talked about in the 
 city'? (Acts V. 11). 
 
 Our astonishment, however, at the tale, vanishes 
 when we see that the Avriter was intent, not on 
 enforcing morality, but on magnifying Peter, whose 
 supremacy, after his miserable denial of his Master, 
 must be vindicated by a signal act of poAver. 
 
 But this supremacy must not clash with the system 
 of Paul, and the radical oj^position between the 
 tAvo must be softened by representing the Apostle of 
 
introduction. 9 
 
 the Gentiles as receiving from the Council at Jeru- 
 salem the decrees which regulated the life of Gentile 
 converts, and acting in a subordinate capacity, not 
 merely to the Apostles themselves but also to their 
 legates ; then by exhibiting one who considered him- 
 self not a whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles, 
 who disdained to receive commands from mortal 
 mouth, and scrupled not to withstand Peter to his 
 face, as ready to cheat his opponents by the profession 
 of legal observances which he abhorred and had 
 destroyed, and as finally contented at Eome to ad- 
 dress himself in the first instance to Jews who, in 
 the midst of constant intercourse between Judaea and 
 Eome, had never heard of him from the time of his 
 conversion, more than thirty years before. 
 
 Paul's epistle to the Komans was evidently written 
 before he had been at Rome. After they had received 
 it, he could not possibly be a stranger to them. Nay, 
 he writes as knowing that they already know him 
 well, and counts that they will desire his coming to 
 them, and will strive with him in prayer. Is it 
 credible that Paul afterwards on reaching Eome, did 
 not go straight to the Eoman Christians to whom he 
 wrote with so much affection, but to the chiefs of the 
 Jews there ; and, until they had rejected him, did not 
 preach to the Gentiles 1 Even then the book of Acts 
 gives no hint that a Christian church had already 
 long existed there, " whose faith was spoken of 
 through the whole world." (Eom. i. 8.) 
 
 The writer had reached his goal. 
 
 He had brought Paul to a final disputation with 
 the Jews, and on their doubt or disbelief he remains 
 free to preach to the Gentiles, without let or hindrance 
 on the part of the Judaizers. 
 
 The two schools are reconciled, or may go each its 
 own way in peace ; and the curtain falls on a history 
 which the writer had no motive to carry further. 
 
 Such, then, are a few of the contradictions of this 
 
lo Introduction. 
 
 narrative, — the only professedly historical document 
 of the New Testament which we can submit to a 
 comparison with genuine writings iDelonging to the 
 time described in it, and included in the same Canon of 
 Scripture ; and the opposition of the two narratives is 
 complete. If the story in the Acts be true, the narra- 
 tive of Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians contains a 
 series of statements skilfully put together to deceive 
 his Galatian converts. 
 
 Nor can we stop here. The express statements of 
 Paul not only invalidate the testimony of the writer 
 of the Acts on all points which concern that apostle, 
 but destroy all confidence in him when he relates any 
 other events. Wlien he has been convicted of de- 
 liberately misrepresenting the great Apostle of the 
 Gentiles, the remainder of his naiTative is scarcely 
 authoritative, even if it be thoroughly self-consistent, 
 thoroughly free from contradictions, and borne out 
 by the direct or incidental statements of writers 
 known to be contemporary with the events recorded. 
 But as though the compiler of the Acts had been 
 smitten by a judicial blindness, the human sequence, 
 which on the whole characterizes his narrative of 
 Paul's labours, gives place to an atmosphere of incon- 
 gruous and superfluous miracle, whenever he speaks 
 of the acts of others. Handkerchiefs heal diseases ; 
 prison doors fly open to set free prisoners who are 
 brought back again the next day, or to deliver an 
 apostle whose escape is followed by the slaughter of 
 the keepers, who had nothing to do with his flight. 
 (Acts xii. 19). Yet the miracles, of which there is no 
 lack while they are not urgently wanted, fail to deliver 
 Stephen from the stones of the Jews, or James, the 
 brother of John, from the sword of Herod. 
 
 Thus, then, we lose all warrant for giving credence 
 to any statement in the Acts on the authority of the 
 writer himself If we believe that Paul laboured at 
 Antioch and Ephesus, or journeyed throughout Asia 
 
Introduction. 1 1 
 
 Minor, we do so not because the author of the Acts 
 tells us that he did, but because we have the state- 
 ments from Paul himself. Thus the book of the Acts 
 possesses no credit which may be transferred or 
 extended to other writings j and statements in the 
 Gospels would therefore receive no corroboration, 
 even if they were in harmony with statements in the 
 Acts. But they are not in harmony. " The Acts " 
 mentions the Ascension of Christ and the death of 
 Judas, and in both instances, as we have seen, con- 
 tradicts the narratives in the Gospels, inconsistent 
 though these may be with each other. 
 
 It is obvious, then, that from a book which, de- 
 scribing the events of a later time, is found to be 
 throughout untrustworthy, no authority can be de- 
 rived for other writings which, like the Gospels, go 
 back to a much earlier period. If the latter are to be 
 credited, it must be because they are self-consistent, or 
 borne out by the statements of contemporary writers, 
 or in general agreement with the known history of the 
 age. But they are not ; and the whole argument of 
 Paley, which has hoodwinked thousands and cheated 
 them into regarding a house of sand as a rock-built 
 castle, receives its death blow. The testimony of the 
 twelve independent witnesses, who have no motive to 
 deceive, who persist in their testimony in the face of 
 tortures, imprisonment, and death, who also by their 
 labours seal the doom of heathenism, vanishes into thin 
 air : indeed it will presently appear, that we have not 
 the testimony of even one of them. In their place, we 
 have the allegations of some unknown writer, who is 
 more than inaccurate if Paul be even ordinarily truth- 
 ful, and who, for his o^vn purposes, deliberately misre- 
 presents the character not only of Paul but of Peter 
 also. In the Acts these two Apostles alone have any 
 substantive existence. The rest are mere shadows, 
 that flit across the scene when their presence is needed 
 at a council, or for public worship. So far as this 
 
1 2 Introduction. 
 
 book is concerned, of their real lives and characters we 
 know nothing ; and therefore it becomes a mere work 
 of supererogation to refute Paley's arguments by 
 showing that these Apostles lived in an atmosphere 
 of prejudice and credulity, that they knew nothing of 
 a natural order, and saw in everything the signs of 
 supernatural or miraculous action. It is indeed need- 
 less to show that they believed the most astounding 
 interference Avith the sequence of phenomena as un- 
 concernedly and as calmly as we should hear of a 
 division in the House of Commons; for we do not 
 approach near enough to the witnesses to be sure of 
 their existence, much less to discern their character- 
 istic features. 
 
 But if the testimony of a complete twelve cannot 
 be had, there still remains, it may be urged, the testi- 
 mony of four independent Evangelists, two of these 
 being of the number of the twelve, while the writer of 
 "the second Gospel was the personal attendant of Peter, 
 and the author of the third an esteemed comjDanion of 
 Paul. The reply is plain. Peter may have had a 
 coadjutor, Mark ; and Paul a coadjutor, Luke ; but 
 this does not show that that Mark and that Luke 
 wrote the two Gospels. Li fact, it is Cj[uite clear that 
 the three first Gospels are founded on one or more com- 
 mon documents. Internal evidence proves that none of 
 the three are •writing from personal knowledge ; nor, 
 in fact, had Paul himself any personal knowledge 
 of the human life of Jesus to communicate to Luke, 
 and Mark adds little or nothing to Matthew, or Mat- 
 thew to Mark. The tliree synoptic Gospels are mani- 
 festly not three independent narratives, but merely 
 different versions flowing out of a common tradition. 
 Hei-e, then, the subject divides into two streams. The 
 matter of the fourth Gospel may be regarded as sub- 
 stantially diff"erent from that of the other tkree. There 
 is throughout it the exjiression of a distinct authorship, 
 except in the comparatively few passages which relate 
 
Introduction. 1 3 
 
 to events which are also recorded in some or all of the 
 other Gospels. We have then before us two inquiries, 
 — one which must determine the time at which the 
 fourth Gospel was written, and another which must 
 settle whether the other Gospels are really three 
 narratives, or varying forms of the same narra- 
 tive. If for the former it be proved that the time of 
 composition could not be earlier than the middle of 
 the second century, and that it may be later, the 
 testimony of one more witness is lost, for it cannot in 
 that case be the work of John, the son of Zebedee. 
 At best, it can but exhibit the impression made by 
 the teaching and conversation of John on the mind of 
 some familiar disciple ; and we are left, finally, to 
 determine whether in the other Gospels we have the 
 testimony of three several persons, each speaking from 
 his own knowledge, and writing of events which had 
 occurred during his own life-time, and from the infor- 
 mation of men whom he knew to have taken part in 
 those events, and whose trustworthiness he had tested. 
 Now nothing is more certain than that any number 
 of persons, speaking of events which they have seen, 
 will describe them each in his own way. The mode 
 of regarding them will vary, the turn of thought and 
 the language will be different in each case ; and the 
 narrative will give full play to the associations and 
 the prejudices, the intellect, wisdom, or folly of the 
 speaker or writer. There are, of course, certain cases 
 in which we should expect them to use the same, or 
 nearly the same words. If they quote from a published 
 document or proclamation they will quote alike, in 
 proportion to their general accuracy of thought. If 
 they record a speech which they may have heard, their 
 reports will agree in proportion to the strength and 
 fidelity of their memory ; but if we found that the 
 letters of three or four correspondents of newspapers, 
 describing the aspect of political affairs in Lisbon, 
 Paris, or Vienna, contained here and there a sentence 
 
14 Introduction. 
 
 couched in precisely the same words, we should regard 
 the circumstance as singular and suspicious. If we 
 found two or three consecutive sentences in each 
 exactly alike, we should conclude that all had copied 
 from some common document, or that the original 
 VTiting of one of them had been plagiarized by all the 
 rest. If, in addition to this, we found event after 
 event described, and question after question discussed 
 in precisely the same phrases by each, we should dis- 
 miss the matter as too clear for an instant's thought. 
 And yet this is the phenomenon which comes before 
 us in the passages which are common to two or more 
 of the four Gospels ; such passages being, of course, 
 far more numerous in those which have received the 
 name of Synoptic Gospels, to distinguish them from 
 the fourth. No fact could well be more momentous. 
 The supplement to the fourth Gospel informs us that 
 if all the unrecorded acts of Jesus were reported, the 
 world would not contain the books which should be 
 written. The wealth of materials then was infinite. 
 Yet the Synoptists relate but a few, and, for the most 
 part, the same events, often (we may add) in precisely 
 the same words. On this point no room is left for 
 doubt. Down to the subtlest turns of thought and 
 the nicest details in expression, there is a substantial 
 identity, which proves that the narratives alleged to 
 be those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are in the main 
 one and the same tale, garnished with a few ad- 
 ditional phrases according to the taste or judgment 
 of the copyists.* 
 
 * This fact has been pointed out with admirable clearness and 
 force by Mr Froude, in an article on " Criticism and the Gospel 
 History," Short Studies on. Great Subjects. Admitting that "the 
 tnith of the Gospel history is now more widely doubted in Europe 
 than at any time since the conversion of Constantino, " Mr Froude 
 fights for no theory, and seeks not to upset any belief, but to obtain 
 a simple, straightforward, and sufficient answer to the difficulties 
 involved in this substantial identity of expression in documents 
 which are asserted to be the composition of independent writers. 
 He urges that " every other miraculous history is discredited as 
 
Introduction. 1 5 
 
 Thus, tlien, the witness of the four independent 
 Evangelists is reduced at once to the testimony of two 
 unauthenticated narratives, the one supposed to ex- 
 hibit the thoughts and convictions of John, the other 
 forming the nucleus of the Synoptic Gospels. In 
 neither case have we adequate evidence that the 
 testimony is that of eye-witnesses. Hence, except on 
 the assumptions which insure the victory of Biblio- 
 laters and Sacerdotalists, it is impossible to feel in 
 those narratives the confidence which we feel in hand- 
 ling the work of a strictly contemporary historian. 
 
 But, further, the Synoptic Gospels, as well as the 
 
 legend, however exalted the authority on which it seems to be 
 rested," and craves to have good reason shown "for maintaining 
 still the one great exception." The whole paper isaco»cioafZc^e)-!(m, an 
 appeal for an answer "to the most serious of questions" from "those 
 who are able to give it." Irony has its uses. Yet the writer, per- 
 haps, pressed hard on the clergy while he described them as able to 
 give an answer, when they simply professed to be bound to be able 
 to give it. Nearly seven years have since passed away, and although 
 one or two journals have denounced the article as mischievous or 
 demoralising, not one of the clergy or laity has come forward with 
 an answer which does not assume every point in question. We 
 must insist, therefore, again and again, on this identity of expres- 
 sion in the Gospel narratives, untU either it be satisfactorily ac- 
 counted for, or the admission made that they are not the narratives 
 of independent witnesses. In the case of any modern writers there 
 could be no doubt. To quote from Mr Froude, " the sworn 
 testimony of eye-witnesses who had seen the letters so com- 
 posed would add nothing to the weight of a proof which, 
 without their evidence, would be overwhelming ; and were the 
 writers themselves with their closest friends and companions to 
 swear that there had been no intercommunication, and no story 
 pre-existing of which they had made use, and that each had written 
 hona fide from his own original observation, an English jury would 
 sooner believe the whole party perjured than persuade themselves 
 that so extraordinary a coincidence had occurred." It is signifi- 
 cant, as the same wi'iter remarks, "that, whereas our Lord must 
 have spoken in the ordinary language of Palestine, the resemblance 
 between the Evangelists is in the Greek translation of them (the 
 parables and discourses) ; and how unlikely it is that a number of 
 persons, in translating from one language into another, should hit 
 by accident on the same expressions, the simplest experiment will 
 .show." He urges, as the necessary conclusion, that although the 
 sjaioptists may have had no communication with each other, they 
 " were supplementing, each of them from other sources of informa- 
 tion, a central narrative which all alike had before them." 
 
1 6 Introduction. 
 
 fourth, contain matter which has been either added 
 by the copyists, or derived from yet other sources, 
 of Avhich we know that there existed a practically 
 inexhaustible abundance. It is, then, to say the 
 least, singular, that in the matter so introduced the 
 Synoptists should generally contradict each other, 
 while the fourth Gospel in the parts pecuhar to itself 
 should be hopelessly at variance with the other three. 
 The first and third Gospels give an account of the 
 baptism of Christ by John the Baptist ; the second 
 and fourth Gospels are silent about this event ; but 
 the latter describes the Baptist in terms which are 
 altogether opposed to the expressions of the Synop- 
 tists. These, again, know nothing more than the 
 name of Lazarus; the fourth Gospel gives the narra- 
 tive of his death and resurrection, and asserts that 
 this event led immediately to the crucifixion, — a cause 
 of which the Synoptists are profoundly ignorant, and 
 the truth of which their ignorance sufficiently dis- 
 proves. Of Nicodemus the Synoptists know not even 
 the name ; of the woman of Samaria they have seem- 
 ingly never heard; while the discourses of Christ in 
 the fourth Gospel Avith these persons, as well as with 
 the Jews, are quite opposed in spirit to his treatment 
 of Samaritans and Gentiles in the other Gospels. 
 
 So far, then, from having (in favour of traditional 
 Christianity, as based on miracles and culminating in 
 mysteries) the testimony of twelve independent wit- 
 nesses, fortified by the witness of four trustworthy 
 Evangelists, we have seen them vanish one by one 
 from our sight, like the fading colours of a dream. 
 Of the twelve witnesses we know nothing; and the 
 one writer, Avho challenges and receives our confidence, 
 is, as Ave have seen, absolutely opposed to the utter- 
 ances of the author avIio professes to record the Acts 
 of the Apostles. The witness of John (so called) Avill be 
 shown to be nothing more than the unsupported asser- 
 tion of some unknown writer living, i')erhaps late, in 
 
introduction. 1 7 
 
 the second century, and desirous of blending the 
 Alexandrine philosophy of the Logos with a modified 
 Paulinism. The other Evangelists lose their person- 
 ality, and are broken up into the unknsAvn elements 
 from which their narratives have been compiled. Hence, 
 of the personal companions of Jesus we know nothing 
 with certainty; for Paul, it would seem, had never seen 
 him during his ministry, and reckons his appearances 
 to the other disciples, as precisely similar In kind to 
 the vision vouchsafed to himself (1 Cor. xv. 1-8). 
 
 If we regarded such a conclusion as affecting our 
 faith in God, as the righteous and merciful Fathar of 
 all mankind, the result would be mournful indeed. If 
 we are to be swayed by the thought of consequences, 
 it is, in truth, time to stay our hands, and to turn our 
 feet backward. Yet, if we do, we must go on our 
 way, conscious, more or less, that in our creed are dark 
 holes and corners, into which we dare not pry, diffi- 
 culties which we cannot venture fairly to encounter, 
 facts for which we are wholly unable to account, and 
 theories which we feel to be false, revolting, and im- 
 moral. But this evasion cannot last for ever.. Ques- 
 tions, constantly recurring, must be answered in the 
 end j and high above all considerations of expediency, 
 or social order, or political or religious calculations, 
 rises that supreme and most momentous of all ques- 
 tions — Are these things facts, or are they not 1 Did 
 they take place as they have been narrated, or did 
 they not] Am I to receive them, like all other facts 
 of ordinary history, or am I not 1 
 
 The examination, which has laid open the un- 
 trustworthiness of the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 proved that the Canonical Gospels have grown up 
 round a common narrative which reappears more or 
 less in Gospels not accounted Canonical, Aviil at least 
 enable us to enter on this question with that impar- 
 tiality which is the indispensable condition of historical 
 truth. If we have any reservations, our intellect has 
 
i§ Introduction. 
 
 not undergone that " purification," without Avhich we 
 can never hope to see anything clearly ; and if we re- 
 fuse to admit in the case of the Gospels conclusions 
 which on the same or less evidence Ave should unhesi- 
 tatingly accept in the case of the Vedas or the 
 Koran, we show at once that the truth of facts is not 
 our fii'st concern, and that our spirit is not in unison 
 with those principles of impartial philosophy which 
 hold sway in science. Though the inquisitorial 
 judges of Galileo would have it otherwise, the world 
 still moved ; and although the Bishop of Ely demands 
 that, on the strength of a mmiadous element, we 
 should receive the large numbers of the Exodus, in 
 spite of inordinate exaggeration, because, hmianly 
 speaking, the events can be accounted for in no other 
 way, the old c[uestion recurs, " Is all this true in fact, 
 or is it not 1 " As, then, Ave believe that God is a God 
 of truth, and that the representation of anything as a 
 fact Avhich is no fact, must be hateful to him, it is our 
 business to handle the Gospel narratives as Ave Avould 
 handle chronicles from Avhich Ave Avish to learn Avhe- 
 ther Harold fell at Hastings or lived to confront 
 Henry the First in Normandy. The process may in- 
 deed be in some sense distasteful ; but it Avill soon 
 cease to be so to all Avho have no prejudices Avhich 
 they are determined not to part Avith, and no second- 
 ary purposes Avhich they are resolved at all hazards to 
 subserve. If any or all of the alleged facts of the 
 Gospel histories be not facts, this A'ery conclusion is a 
 lesson that our trust must be placed, not in them, but 
 in the unseen yet ever present and loving Father, Avho 
 has shoAvn to us the Avorthlessness of the foundation 
 on Avhicli men have reared the fabric of a Sacer- 
 dotalism or Bibliolatry alike oppressive and demoral- 
 izing. 
 
ENGLISH LIFE OF JESUS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 BIRTH AND EARLY YEARS OF JESUS. 
 
 THE GENEALOGIES. 
 
 The precise nature of the Gospel narratives cannot 
 be ascertained except by the simplest and clearest 
 analysis and comparison of the statements in each, 
 according to the plain meaning of the words. 
 
 The first and third Gospels contain each a genea- 
 logy, which is designed to establish the descent of 
 Christ from David. It seems superfluous to remark 
 that this descent must be strictly natural, and that 
 any interference with this strictly natural character 
 would deprive it of all value. Such a belief seems to 
 be countenanced by the genealogy of MattheAV itself, 
 which makes use of the word expressive of ordinary 
 generation (lymrjffB) in every case from Abraham 
 down to Joseph; and that such was the conviction of 
 the writer of the Acts is placed beyond doubt by the 
 clear statement (ii. 30) that " David being a prophet, 
 and knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath 
 that from the fruit of his loins according to the flesh. 
 He would raise up the Christ, spoke of his resurrec- 
 tion." The same belief seems to have been shared by 
 Paul, who lays great stress (Gal. iii. 16) on the cir- 
 cumstance that the promise given to Abraham was 
 
20 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 made, not to his seeds as of many, but to his " seed 
 which is Christ." To whatever passage in the Psalms 
 or elsewhere Peter may be supposed to refer, to the 
 Jews unquestionably the words meant what they ap- 
 pear to mean. That such anticipations could be ful- 
 filled by a preternatural birth, without any known 
 father, from a Virgin, of whose Davidic descent there 
 is the slenderest possible evidence, or rather no evi- 
 dence at all, is a conclusion which can be acceptable 
 to those only who believe in alleged historical narra- 
 tives on no other grounds than that they -wish them 
 to be true, and dare not call them into question. 
 
 But the AATiter of the first gospel declares it to be 
 an historical fact, not only that Jesus Christ (Matt. 
 i. 1) is the Son of David, but that all the generations 
 from David to Abraham amount to fourteen, the 
 generations from David to the Babylonish captivity 
 and again from the captivity down to Christ inclusive 
 being also in each case fourteen. Thus three sets 
 of fourteen generations are said to give all the links 
 in the chain between Abraham and Jesus. The 
 assertion is of the greatest importance, for, if we 
 confine our attention to the genealogy itself, we find 
 that the generations in the third stage, including 
 Jesus, amount only to thirteen. Among the attempts 
 to get over this difficulty we may reckon the insertion 
 of the name of Jehoiakim between Josiah and 
 Jeconiah, the latter being the grandson and not the 
 son (as Alatthew states) of Josiah. This, however, 
 only makes the second set of generations fifteen ; it 
 does not supply the link necessary to complete the 
 even number of the third set. But so long as people 
 will patiently suffer dust to be thrown into their eyes, 
 interpreters will be at no loss to find what they are 
 pleased to call explanations. These explanations 
 consist in ignoring facts, or substituting one fact for 
 another, or in treating facts as mere vehicles for the 
 conveyance of a spiritual meaning. The allegorical 
 
The Genealogies. 21 
 
 interpretations of the fathers may be extravagant; 
 but, none the less, they show a disregard for facts as 
 facts, which is exhibited by commentators like Dean 
 Alford only in less degree than by Ambrose, Augus- 
 tine, or Remigius. 
 
 It is a favourite saying with those who seek to 
 defend the history of the Pentateuch against the 
 scrutiny of modern criticism, that the objections 
 urged against it were known long ago. The objections 
 to the genealogy were known long ago, indeed ; and 
 perhaps nothing shows more conclusively than this 
 knowledge the disgraceful dishonesty and wilful 
 deception of the most illustrious of Christian doctors. 
 Far beyond the others in learning, Jerome is the on^ 
 who does least violence to our sense of honesty ; but 
 his admissions are such as would gain little favour with 
 Mr Burgon, the Bishop of Oxford, or Dr Pusey. Of 
 his suggestion that the Jeconias in i. 11 is Jehoiakim, 
 while the Jeconias of the following verse is Jehoiachin, 
 we need say no more than that it reflects no great 
 credit on the mental powers of the genealogist Avho 
 clearly describes them as one and the same person. 
 Augustine, perfectly aware that a link is left out in 
 the second set of generations, and that the number 
 of the third set is deficient, resorts to the favourite 
 expedient of counting Jeconiah twice, on the ground 
 that " wherever a series turns out of the right line 
 to go in any other direction there is an angle made, 
 and that part that is in the angle is reckoned twice."* 
 This, then, is a general principle. But the Exodus 
 is surely as great an angle as the carrying away to 
 Babylon ; yet neither Salmon nor Naasson is reckoned 
 twice. Do what we will, then, we cannot, confining 
 ourselves to Matthew's genealogy, make up the num- 
 ber of forty-two generations ; but Augustine is ready 
 with a quibble which does credit to the man who, 
 
 * De Cons. Evang. ii. 4., quoted in the Catena Aurea of Aquinas 
 in Matt. i. 17. 
 
22 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 because he engages himself to marry a Milanese lady, 
 sends away the heartbroken mother of his son, and 
 takes another concubine because his betrothed is not 
 of a marriageable age.* Had Matthew stated 
 explicitly that the three sets taken together amount 
 to forty-two generations, he would, Augustine thinks, 
 have been telling a lie ; but Matthew " does not sum 
 them all up and say, — The sum of the whole is forty- 
 and-two, because one of those fathers, i.e., Jeconiah, 
 is reckoned twice. . . . Matthew, therefore, Avhose 
 purpose was to draw out Christ's Kingly character, 
 counts forty successions in the genealogy exclusive of 
 Christ. This number denotes the time for which we 
 must be governed by Christ in this world. . . . That 
 this number should denote our temporal life, a reason 
 offers at hand, in this, that the seasons of the year 
 are four, and that the Avorlcl itself is bounded by four 
 sides. But forty contains ten four times ; moreover, 
 ten itself is made up by a number proceeding from 
 one to four." After this conclusive argument, we feel 
 that Remigius may be indulged in his pleasant fancy, 
 when he tells us that, if we take the generations as 
 being forty-two, " we then shall say that the Holy 
 Church is signified, for this number is the product of 
 seven and six ; the six denotes labour, and the seven 
 rest." 
 
 But, without referring yet to the genealogy of the 
 third gospel, we have to compare that of Matthew 
 with statements in the Old Testament, by which it 
 may be tested down to the Babylonish captivity (for 
 after that time it passes altogether beyond our con- 
 trol, and, therefore, out of verification). The time 
 from Abraham to David agrees with the genealogies 
 of Genesis and the latter books ; but in v. 8 we meet 
 Avith the formidable statement that Joram begat 
 Ozias — this Ozias being also known as Uzziah and 
 Azariah. But Matthew has here struck out three 
 * Confessions vi. 15, 
 
The Genealogies. 23 
 
 generations, for Joram (1 Kings xxii. 50), (son of 
 Jehoshapliat, the friend and ally of Ahab, of Israel), 
 is in the Old Testament the father of Ahaziah, 
 (2 Kings viii. 25, ix. 27) who was slain by order of 
 Jehu when the latter conspired against and slew the 
 sons of Ahab. Ahaziah again was the father of 
 Joash, who is said to have reigned well during all the 
 days of Jehoiada the priest, (2 Kings xii. 1) and he 
 was succeeded by his son Amaziah, (2 Kings xii. 21) 
 in whom at last we have the father of Uzziah 
 (2 Kings xiv. 21). These omissions, astounding in 
 any writer with the least claim to the historical sense, 
 are easily explained by the eagerness of a mystical 
 mind to repeat in subsequent divisions the number of 
 the generations in the first marked stage between 
 Abraham and David. As these amounted to fourteen, 
 the genealogist had no scruple in laying the rest on 
 the bed of Procrustes, and lengthening or shortening 
 them at his will. But this explanation is not less 
 fatal to the historical authority of the writer than the 
 spiritual objects attributed to him by Christian inter- 
 preters. Either Joram was the father of Uzziah, or 
 he was not. Either all the generations between 
 David and Jeconiah were fourteen, or they were not. 
 The goodness or badness of the persons forming the 
 links in the chain cannot possibly modify these facts. 
 Yet, with Titanic assurance, Augustine can tell us 
 that " Ochozias, Joash, and Amasias were excluded 
 from the number, because their wickedness was con- 
 tinuous and Avithout interval." To be sure, Solomon 
 had fallen into wicked ways ; " but he was suffered 
 to hold the kingdom for his father's deserts," 
 " Rehoboam for those of his son." Augustine, how- 
 ever, means probably that Rehoboam was sp'ared for 
 the deserts of his good grandson, Asa, not of his 
 wicked son Abijam. The discrepancy would be of 
 no importance in the Augustinian view of history ; 
 but the anticipation of Asa's goodness, years before 
 
24 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 his birth, throws a cnrioixs light on the Augustinian 
 theory of ijreilestinatioii. But here, as in the case of 
 the angles or turning points already mentioned, 
 Augustine makes it a matter of i:>rinciple. Ahaziah, 
 Joash, and Amaziah, were struck out because they 
 were successively evil. " This, then, is an example 
 how a race is cut off when wickedness is sho^^^l therein 
 in i^erpetual succession." There is a slight obstacle 
 in the way of this theory in the statement (2 Kings 
 xiv. 3) that Amaziah " did that which was right in 
 the sight of the Lord;" and even the Chronicler 
 (with Avhom Amaziah is evidently no favourite) does 
 not warrant the summary sentence of Augustine. 
 But the constant wickedness of Amaziah was neces- 
 sary for the Bishop of Hippo, and what should hinder 
 him from creating it % In striking contrast Avith all 
 this is the admission of Jerome* that " according to 
 historical truth there were three intervening Kings 
 who are omitted by the Evangelist," "because it was 
 his imrpose to blvke each of the tliree periods consist 
 of fourteen generations," while the particular omission 
 of the three immediate descendants of Joram is said 
 to have been suggested by the fact that " Joram had 
 connected himself with Jezebel's most impious race." 
 With the theory we have nothing to do; but the 
 inference from Jerome's admission wholly destroys 
 the credit of the Evangelist as a historian. After 
 such a manipulation of facts, it seems almost needless 
 to remark that Matthew makes Zorobabel (12) a son 
 of Salathiel, wliile in 1 Chronicles iii. 19, he is a 
 nephew of Salathiel, being the son of his brother 
 Pedaiah ; or that the name of Abiud is not to be 
 found among the sons of Zorobabel in the same pas- 
 sage of the Chronicles. 
 
 When we turn to the genealogy of tlie third 
 Gospel, difficulties come crowding on us thick as 
 falling leaves in autumn. In Matthew Zorobabel is 
 * Quoted by Aquinas in Matt. i. 8, 
 
Ihe Genealogies. 25 
 
 the Son of Salathiel, in the Chronicles he is the 
 son of Pedaiah, in Luke he is the son of quite a 
 new person named Neri. In JNIatthew the son 
 of Zorobabel is Abiud, whose name, as we have 
 seen, is not found in the Old Testament ; but in 
 Luke the son of Zorobabel is Rhesa, who is also un- 
 known to the Chronicles, while in these two names 
 (Salathiel and Zorobabel) alone, between David and 
 Joseph the husband of Mary, do these two genealo- 
 gies agi'ee. From Abraham to David the succession 
 is in both the same ; but from David onwards, with 
 the two exceptions just mentioned, the pedigrees, 
 which agree in deriving the lineage of Jesus through 
 Joseph to Abraham, trace the descent through a 
 totally different set of names. Joseph's father in 
 Matthew is called Jacob, in Luke Heli ; in the former 
 Jesus is descended from David through Solomon, in 
 the latter through Nathan. In Matthew the line 
 comes through the known series of Kings, in the 
 latter (except in Zorobabel and Salathiel) through a 
 succession of unknown persons. 
 
 This difficulty respecting the jjarentage of Joseph 
 is commonly explained on the ground of a Levirate 
 marriage, and that the genealogy of Matthew gives 
 the natural, that of Luke the legal descent. But it 
 is obvious that if the two fathers of Joseph were 
 brothers, sons of the same father, they had one and 
 the same lineage, and this would involve no difference 
 of genealogy beyond Heli and Jacob. Hence has 
 arisen the further notion that they were half-brothers, 
 sons of the same mother, but of different fathers, 
 and that another Levirate marriage had taken place 
 in the case of this mother of the real and putative 
 fathers of Joseph. This same complicated arrange- 
 ment is brought in to account for the appearance of 
 Salathiel and Zorobabel, Neri in Luke and Jeclionias 
 in Matthew standing to Salathiel in the relations of 
 Jacob and Heli to Joseph. This is conceivably j^os- 
 
i6 English Life of yesus. 
 
 sible ; but the fact, in the case of Salathiel, is dis- 
 proved by the statements of the Chronicles. 
 
 The attempt to avoid the difficulty by regarding 
 one of the genealogies as that of Mary, is not more 
 successful.* Both the Evangelists profess to give the 
 genealogy of Joseph ; while neither of them gives 
 any support to the Davidic descent of Mary, for the 
 phrase " house of David," in Luke i. 27, refers to 
 Joseph, and not to the more remote word " virgin," 
 while the pointed expression that Joseph went with 
 Mary to Bethlehem, "because he ivas (not, they were) 
 of the house and lineage of David " (ii. 4), seems to 
 exclude the idea. 
 
 The frequent recurrence of the same names in the 
 genealogy of Luke gives still more strength to the 
 suspicion that the list is in great part factitious. But 
 here, again, Eusebius, as cpioted in the " Catena 
 Aurea " of St Thomas Aquinas,t comes forward with 
 a bit of special pleading not unlike that by which 
 Augustine seeks to save the veracity of Matthew. 
 If Luke, he says, had asserted that Joseph was the 
 son of Heli, in like manner as Matthew affirmed him 
 to be the son of Jacob, " there would be some dis- 
 pute. But seeing the case is that Matthew gives his 
 opinion, Luke repeats the common opinion of many, 
 
 * For those who may like such food, a farrago of symbolical 
 interpretations of these genealogical lists may be found in Mr 
 Isaac Williams's volume on "The Nativity." With these inter- 
 pretations we are not here concerned ; but it may be worth while 
 to notice his reason for the absence of Mary's genealogy. It 
 was not customary, he says, to give the genealogy of the woman ; 
 but " as Joseph was of the house and lineage of David, and it 
 was not lawful for them to marry out of their tribe, and a.s 
 Joseph was a just man and keei^er of the law, it would be 
 equivalent to her genealogy." In other words, because Joseph 
 was a just man himself, therefore all his ancestors had likewise 
 kept the law. Still more wonderful is the assertion that one and 
 the same genealogy ^vill do for all the men and women of a tribe. 
 While educated men are found to talk such nonsense, English- 
 men are scareelyjustified in expressing contempt for the fanatical 
 ignorance of Hindu Fakirs. 
 On Luke iii. 23-38, 
 
The Genealogies . iy 
 
 not his own, .... for since there were among the 
 Jews different opinions of the genealogy of Christ, 
 and yet all traced him up to David, because to him 
 were the promises made, while many affirmed that 
 Christ would come through Solomon and the other 
 kings : some shunned this opinion because of the 
 many crimes recorded of their kings, and because 
 Jeremiah said of Jechonias, that ' a man should not 
 rise of his seed to sit on the throne of David.' 
 This last vieio Luke takes, though conscious that 
 Matthew gives the real truth of the genealogy. This 
 is the first reason : the next is a deeper one ; for 
 Matthew, when he began to "write of the things be- 
 fore the conception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus 
 in the flesh, very fitly, as in a history, commences 
 with the ancestry in the flesh, and descending from 
 thence, deduces his generation from those who went 
 before. For when the Word of God became flesh, 
 he descended. But Luke hastens forward to the re- 
 generation Avhich takes place in Baptism, and then 
 gives another succession of families, and rising up 
 from the lowest to the highest, hee])s out of sight those 
 sinners of whom Matthew makes mention (because he 
 who is born again in God is separated from his guilty 
 parents, being made the son of God), and relates those 
 who have led a virtuous life in the sight of God. . . . 
 To 'him, therefore, who is born in God, he ascribes 
 parents who are according to God on account of this 
 resemblance in character." 
 
 This singular passage may perhaps justify a doubt 
 as to the wholesome influence of the dogma of bap- 
 tismal regeneration on a man's sense of truthfulness ; 
 but it is at least remarkable as admitting that Jere- 
 miah's prophecy about Jechoniah was not fulfilled; 
 that Luke hieio that it had not been fulfilled ; that, 
 knowing this, he gave deliberately an opinion which 
 was not his oivn, although he knew further that the 
 genealogy of Matthew was right ; that he did this 
 
28 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 because he -wanted to have only good men in the 
 genealogy of one Avho had been baptized, and that to 
 serve his purpose he framed a list of saints, dwellers 
 in Nephelokokkygia, children of the mist, to the dis- 
 comfiture of Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, and the 
 rest, who are cast aside as *' sinners," although his 
 charity was large enough to take in Judah, the son 
 of Jacob. It would be unfair to pass over the com- 
 ment of Origen, that the lineage of Jesus in Luke is 
 traced, not through Solomon, but through Nathan, 
 because the latter reproved David for the death of 
 Uriah and the birth of Solomon. 
 
 It is however, of greater moment to determine, if 
 we can, whether any countenance was given by Jesus 
 himself to that idea of his Davidic descent (in any 
 except a spiritual sense), which it is clearly the object 
 of both these genealogies to uphold. So far as we 
 may see, the question must be answered in the nega- 
 tive. The dilemma into Avhich he brings the Pharisees 
 by asking who the Christ is, and how David, being 
 his father, could in such case speak of him as Lord, 
 implies a rejection of the idea; nor does the title 
 " Jesus of Nazareth," tend to any other conclusion. 
 If the Synoptic stories are true, the birth of Jesus 
 had been notorious ; it had been marked by the 
 ajDpearance of a star, and the visit of mysterious 
 strangers ; by the slaughter of cliildren throughout a 
 whole district ; by the presentation of the child in the 
 Temple, as Avell as by all the marvellous circumstances 
 attendant on the birth of his precursor, John the 
 Baptist. According to these traditions, there was no 
 man living about whose birth and early history there 
 could be less doubt. Eastern Magi had knelt before 
 him as he lay in the manger; the shepherds of Beth- 
 lehem had crowded round him after they heard the 
 angels singing in the heavens ; aged saints had received 
 him into their arms in the Temple with thankful joy, 
 and with the explicit warning that the child was set 
 
The Genealogies. ig 
 
 for the rising and falling of many in Israel. At the 
 age of tAvelve the child himself had disputed with 
 the greatest doctors of Jerusalem, and left them aston- 
 ished at his vmderstanding and answers. Yet all 
 these traditions of his Davidic descent are seemingly 
 forgotten, when he comes to enter on his ministry. 
 In Capernaum he is known simply as the carpenter's 
 son. In Nazareth the people wonder whence he had 
 obtained his wisdom. But no reference is made to 
 the circumstances of his birth, either by his hearers, 
 by his mother, who pondered all those things, and 
 kept them in her heart, or by himself The fourth 
 Gospel, which makes Jerusalem and not Galilee the 
 chief scene of his labours, betrays the same forgetful- 
 ness. The Jews assert positively his want of educa- 
 tion (John vii. 15), in the very temple where he had 
 astonished the doctors some twenty years before ; and 
 their assertion that they knew whence he came, is not 
 only not denied, but admitted by Jesus himself. Yet 
 this assertion was accompanied by the declaration 
 that when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence 
 he is, although, thirty years before, on the inquiry 
 of Herod, they were ready with the answer that he 
 must be of the lineage of David, and must be born in 
 Bethlehem. 
 
 These are facts patent on the face of the Gospel 
 histories. It is no part of the critic's office to account 
 for the growth of traditions, which he proves to be 
 self-contradictory. Yet there is nothing strange in 
 the conclusion that the idea of a natural descent from 
 David may have followed the application of the title 
 " Son of David " in a spiritual sense, and that genea- 
 logies may have been framed in accordance with this 
 idea. However this may be, the manifest evidences 
 of fabrication, with the tangled mass of contradictions 
 which are the necessary result of fabrication, deprive 
 both these genealogies of all historical value and 
 authority. 
 
30 English Life of yesus. 
 
 The genealogy in Matthew is followed, while that 
 in Luke is preceded, by a narrative which denies the 
 descent of Jesus from David through Joseph by a 
 natural order. Yet if these genealogies are not taken 
 as asserting the natural parentage of Jesus through 
 Joseph, they are absolutely meaningless. When the 
 Manichpean Faustus protested against the absurdity of 
 tracing the line through Joseph on the reservation 
 that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, Augustine 
 could only urge the necessity of so tracing it on 
 account of the superior dignity of the masculine 
 gender. But it is unnecessary to remark that any 
 one who disbelieved the paternity of Joseph would 
 have traced the pedigree through Mary, if he believed 
 that Mary also was of the seed of David. The fact 
 that both genealogies traced it through Joseph seems 
 to be conclusive evidence that at the time when they 
 were drawn up, an opinion prevailed which regarded 
 Jesus as the son of Joseph by natural descent. It 
 would follow from this fact, that the genealogies were 
 greedily adopted by the compilers of these Gospels, 
 in order to establish the Davidic descent of Jesus ; 
 Luke at least, perceived them to be out of harmony • 
 with his narrative, and therefore inserted that Jesus 
 was su'pjjosed to he the son of Joseph ; as though a false 
 supposition could make an alien genealogy apposite. 
 
 Thus these lists, although of no value as pedigrees, 
 acquire no slight significance as illustrating the growth 
 of Christian theology.* 
 
 * It is notable that Dean Milman is wholly silent on the subject 
 of these genealogies and of the difficulties involved in them. 
 
 For some remarks on Dean Alford's mode of dealing with these 
 genealogies, the reader is referred to " Commentators and 
 Hierophants," Part I. ]}. 15, ct seq. 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 3! 
 
 THE NARRATIVES OF THE CONCEPTION, BIRTH 
 AND INFANCY. 
 
 If a reader, taking up the first Gospel without any 
 knowledge of the third, or of any later Christian 
 literature bearing on the subject, should confine him- 
 self strictly to the statements of Matthew, he would 
 conclude that Joseph the betrothed husband of Mary, 
 discovering that his future wife was with child not 
 by himself thought of privately putting her away ; 
 that the only intimation of the true cause of Mary's 
 pregnancy was received by] him in a dream, in which 
 he thought that the angel of the Lord announced to 
 him that the child had been conceived by the Holy 
 Ghost, and that he should be called Jesus the Saviour, 
 in order to fulfil a prophecy of Isaiah (i. 22-23) that 
 the Messiah should be boi'n of a Virgin ; that on the 
 strength of this dream, and of this alone, he took to 
 him Mary his wife, without availing himself of his 
 rights as a husband until after the birth of her first- 
 born : that after his birth some wise men, or Magi, 
 from the East, who had seen his star, came to Jeru- 
 salem, to see if they could find him ; that Herod, 
 hearing of their errand, was troubled, and all the 
 people were thrown into alarm ; that the chief priests, 
 when questioned as to the birthplace of Messiah 
 or Christ, answered at once that it must be Bethle- 
 hem in accordance with a prophecy of Micah (ii. 6) ; 
 that Herod (7) having ascertained the time at which 
 the Magi had seen the star, sent them to look for the 
 child, bidding them to return to him that he too 
 might go ancl worship him ; that as soon as they set 
 out from Jerusalem, the star which they had once be- 
 fore seen reappeared, and guiding them forwards, 
 stood at last over the very spot Avhere the child was, 
 that after presenting to him in the presence of his 
 mother, Mary, their gifts of gold, frankincense, and 
 myrrh, they were warned in a dream not to return to 
 
3 2 EjigUsh Life of yesus. 
 
 Herod ; while Joseph and Mary were in hke mannei- 
 warned to take the child away secretly into Eg}^)t, 
 and that accordingly, in order to fulfil a prophecy of 
 Hosea (15), Joseph took the child and his mother 
 straight from Bethlehem into Egypt, leaving Herod, 
 when he discovered that he had been cheated by the 
 Magi, to command a general massacre of the children 
 in Bethlehem and its neighbourhood, in order to fulfil 
 another prophecy by Jeremiah ; that on the death of 
 Herod, Joseph, again taught by an angel in a dream, 
 returned with the child from Egypt, but being afraid 
 to go to Jerusalem, went by a side route to Galilee, 
 and took up his abode at Nazareth (23) to fulfil some 
 other prophecies. 
 
 On trying to expound " In those days " (Matt. iii. 1), 
 the reader would infer that until John's baptism, 
 Jesus was present only in Bethlehem, Egypt, and 
 Nazareth. To Jerusalem he was not taken even 
 after the death of Herod, while his reputed father 
 Joseph learns nothing of the circumstances of the 
 conception from his mother Mary, who is wholly 
 silent throughout the narrative. The reader might 
 further mark that the first tidings of the birth of 
 Jesus are brought to Jerusalem by the Magi ; that a 
 star, visible to the Magi on their journey from Jeru- 
 salem to Bethlehem, must also have been visible to 
 the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and have impressed still 
 more deeply on their minds the birth of the Messiah 
 or Christ ; and that the slaughter of the Innocents 
 would still further mark, by a painful memory not 
 soon effaced from the hearts of mothers, the circum- 
 stances attendant on the visit of the mysterious Magi. 
 
 But before scrutinizing the alleged astronomical 
 phenomenon, he might perhaps remark that the whole 
 tenor of the narrative is the most complete justifica- 
 tion of the science of astrology ; that the first intima- 
 tion of the birth of the Son of God was given to the 
 worshippers of Ahuramasda (Ormuzd), who have the 
 
Narratives of the Conception. ^^ 
 
 power of distinguishing with certainty his peculiar 
 star ; that from these heathen the first tidings of his 
 birth are received by the Jews at Jerusalem ; and 
 therefore that the theory must be right which connects 
 great events in the life of men with phenomena 
 in the starry heavens. If this Divine sanction of 
 astrology is contested on the ground that this was an 
 exceptional event, in which, simply to bring the Magi 
 to Jerusalem, God caused the star to appear in ac- 
 cordance with their superstitious science, the difficulty 
 is only pushed one degree backwards ; for in this case 
 God, it is asserted, Avrought an event which was 
 perfectly certain to strengthen the belief of the Magi, 
 of Herod, of the Jewish priests, and of the Jews 
 generally, in the truth of astrology. If, to avoid this 
 alternative, recourse be had to the notion that the 
 star appeared by chance, and that this chance or accident 
 directed the Magi aright, is the position really im- 
 proved 1 Is chance consistent with any notion of 
 supernatural interposition 1 
 
 A similar difficulty recurs in the application of the 
 alleged prophecy that the Messiah should be born in 
 Bethlehem. The passage in the . book of Micah says 
 nothing about his birth, in Bethlehem ; it merely 
 asserts that some expected governor should come out 
 of (not be born in) Bethlehem,* and save Judah from 
 
 * The expectations (whatever they may have been) of a Deliverer 
 looked for by the Jews cannot be taken as accrediting an alleged 
 prediction, unless we can show that the prediction and the antici- 
 pation were both clear and definite. General expectations of a like 
 kind have been entertained among all depressed and conquered 
 peoples. It is not always easy to understand Dean Milman's 
 meaning, when he speaks of subjects transcending human ex- 
 perience ; and therefore it might be rash to affirm that he interprets 
 of Christ the saying about the sceptre of Judah and the star of 
 Jacob. But to this expectation among the Jews at the time of 
 the birth of Christ, Tacitus, he says, "as is well known, bears 
 witness." But in the passage which Dr Milman quotes from his 
 Histories V. 13, Tacitus is speaking of the time of the deMrvctlon of 
 Jerusalem, and states that al that j'i'cctse time the .Jews looked for 
 the rising of a great deliverer, and interprets the prophecy of 
 Vespasian and Titus. If there could be a doubt on this point (and 
 C 
 
34 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 the Assyrians. It follows, therefore, that as astrological 
 science or chance directed the Magi rightly to Jeru- 
 salem, so a vjromj interpretation of alleged prophecy 
 guided the chief priests right to the birth-place of the 
 Messiah. Here again, then, this result must have been 
 brought about by Divine interposition (which on this 
 hypothesis caused an errw to lead to truth), or by 
 accident. The alternative must be left to those who 
 choose to take either horn of the dilemma. 
 
 But the difficulties are as yet only begun. Herod's 
 first anxious question to the Magi is to ascertain the 
 time of the appearance of the star. He "inquires 
 diligently," (ii. 7) ; and he must have had a motive 
 for so doing. What was this motive % Could he 
 have any other purpose than that of determining the 
 age under which no infants in the neighbourhood of 
 Bethlehem should be allowed to live 1 But, according 
 to the narrative, Herod never conceived the idea of 
 slaughtering the children till he found that he had 
 been " mocked of the wise men ; " and the mythical 
 nature of the story is betrayed by this anticipation of 
 motives which at the time spoken of could have no 
 existence. Yet further, Herod, who, though in a 
 high degree cruel, unjust, and unscrupulous, is repre- 
 sented as a man of no slight sagacity, clearness of 
 purpose, and strength of will, and Avho feels a deadly 
 jealousy of an infant whom he hxoics to have been 
 recently born in Bethlehem, a place only a few miles 
 distant from Jerusalem, is here described not as 
 sending his own emissaries privately to put him to 
 
 there is none), the way in which Tacitus speaks of Christ makes it 
 antecedently extremely improbable that he would regard such 
 anticipations as being directed to him. Of the prophecy of Micah, 
 the Dean simply says that "no prediction in the Old Testament 
 appears more distinct than that which assigns for the nativity of the 
 gi-eat prince, who was born to'perjjetuate the line of David, the same 
 town wliich had given birth to his royal ancestor." It is enough to 
 reply that the passage of Micah says nothing about any nativity. 
 And did Christ perpetuate the line of Da\nd ? If the word be taken 
 in a spiritual sense, surely Bethlehem may be sjjiritualized also. 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 2>5 
 
 dedth, or despatching them Avith the Magi or detain- 
 ing the Magi at Jerusalem, until he had ascertained 
 the truth of their tale and the correctness of the 
 answer of the priests and scribes, but as simply 
 suffering the Magi to go by themselves, at the same 
 time charging them to return with the information 
 for which he had shown himself so feverishly 
 anxious. * 
 
 This strange conduct can be accounted for only on 
 the ground of a judicial blindness ; but they who 
 resort to such an explanation must suppose that it 
 was inflicted in order to save the new-born Christ 
 from the death thus threatened ; and if they adopt 
 this hypothesis, they must further believe that this 
 arrangement likewise insured the death of a large 
 number of infants instead of one. A natural reluc- 
 tance to take up such a notion might prompt the 
 question. Why were the Magi brought to Jerusalem at 
 all? If they knew that the star was the star of Christ 
 (ii. 2), and were by this knowledge conducted to 
 Jerusalem, why did it not suffice to guide them 
 straight to Bethlehem, and thus prevent the slaughter 
 of the Innocents 1 Why did the star desert them after 
 its first appearance, not to be seen again till they 
 issued from Jerusalem ? or, if it did not desert 
 them, why did they ask of Herod and the priests the 
 road which they should take, when, by the hypothesis, 
 the star was ready to guide them 1 As far as the 
 Evangelist is concerned, these last incidents were so 
 arranged only to enable him to Ijring in the alleged 
 prophecy of Micah, which we have seen to be 
 thoroughly inapplicable. 
 
 On the nature of the star it seems idle to waste 
 
 * Dean Milman alleges certain atrocities committed by Herod on 
 the discovery of the plot of Bagoas as a fitting jirelude for the 
 slanghter of the innocents ; but he says nothing of the silence of 
 Josephus both on this event and on the visit of the Magi and tho 
 other incidents which preceded it. 
 
36 English Life of yesus. 
 
 many words.* In a nari'ative involved in such a web 
 of contradictions, it is a throwing away of time to 
 inquire whether at or about this time there was or 
 was not some conjunction or transit of stars, or some 
 appearance of a comet. We may give all due weight 
 to the assertion of Kepler that a remarkable transit 
 took place much about this time ; and yet we may 
 affirm that neither that transit nor any comet could 
 be this phenomenon. We know well that the con- 
 junction of planets is by comparison only a momentary 
 phenomenon, and that comets, like other bodies in 
 the heavens, will not ajjpear to point to or to stand over 
 any definite spot, as Ave move from place to place, 
 but will appear to go forward with our movement ; 
 and that the phenomenon here recorded, if it is to be 
 explained at all by human experience, could only 
 have been a body far within the reach of the earth's 
 attraction ; and in this case its light would have been 
 extinguished in a much shorter time than that which 
 
 * Dean Milman ('History of Christianity' I. iii.) deprecates the 
 rigidity of intei-pretation which identifies this phenomenon with a 
 conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, and asks for the same latitude 
 of expression in the New Testament which is allowed for the old. 
 We may fairly ask, in the first place, what is the latitude of expres- 
 sion allowed in the Old Testament ; and, secondly, what, if this 
 latitude be granted, Dean IMilman takes this phenomenon to have 
 been ? It was either something or nothing. But it is useless to talk 
 of "persons awestnick under such extraordinary events," when he 
 has himself asserted that they lived in an age in which events the 
 most astounding in our judgment might "pass off as little more 
 than ordinary occurrences." Of the sanction which this legend of 
 the star gives to the protended science of astrology, the Dean, as 
 usual in cases of real diflficultj', says nothing. 
 
 It would, however, he most unfair to withhold the fact that the 
 ' History of Christianity ' was published more than thirty years ago, 
 and that we may therefore be criticising opinions which the autlior 
 had long since abandoned. But as he never formally withdrew his 
 words, they lie oj^en to sober and impartial criticism : and the 
 remarks which may here be made upon them must not be taken a.s 
 implying any disparagement of the earnest and conscientious 
 labours of a writer who strove zealously and successfully to remove 
 prejudice and dispel fallacies, and did a great work in his 
 generation. 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 37 
 
 must have been spent in a night* journey from 
 Jerusalem to Bethlehem. 
 
 We have already seen that the passage adduced 
 from Micah to prove the birth of Christ in Bethlehem 
 has been misapplied. The same remark must be made 
 on the prophecy cited from Jeremiah in reference to 
 the slaughter of the Innocents, and indeed on all pas- 
 sages cited from the prophetical books, whether in 
 this Gospel or in any other books of the New Testa- 
 ment. The sentence of Jeremiah (xxxi. 15), refers 
 not to children slaughtered at Bethlehem hundreds of 
 years after his death, but to persons taken captive at 
 Rama in the tribe of Benjamin near the tomb of 
 Rachel, who is thus represented as weeping for her 
 children; but these, the prophet adds, shall return, 
 and her sorrow shall be turned into joy. At Bethle- 
 hem, Leah should weep, not Rachel, for Leah was the 
 mother of Judah and his descendants. 
 
 The passage cited (i. 23) from Isaiah to prove the 
 birth of Christ from a Virgin is (if possible) still more 
 violently forced. The chapter in Isaiah explains it- 
 self The confederate armies of Rezin, King of Syria, 
 and Pekah, King of Israel, had marched against Jeru- 
 salem, to the consternation of King Ahaz, who is 
 warned by Isaiah to keep quiet, and not to heed the 
 two tails of these smoking firebrands, Rezin and 
 Pekah. Isaiah further bids him ask for a sign, and 
 when Ahaz refuses, tells him that a damsel shall con- 
 ceive and bear a son, whose name shall be called Im- 
 manuel, and who should eat butter and honey, and 
 that before this child should know to refuse the evil 
 and choose the good, the land abhorred by Ahaz 
 
 * Nothing is said of the hour at which they left Jerusalem ; but 
 we may give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose that tliey 
 journeyed by night, for, if they travelled by day, the star would 
 necessarily be invisible. 
 
 For the equivocations and shufflings of Dean Alford on 'the whole 
 subject of the visit of the Magi, see " Commentators and Hiero- 
 phants," Part I. pp. 17-26. 
 
38 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 should be forsaken of both her Kings. The words of 
 Isaiah thus referred to events which Avere to take 
 place during the lifetime of Ahaz ; nor do they inti- 
 mate that the conception of this child was to be in any- 
 way extraordinary^ or that the young woman should 
 be a virgin in our sense of the word. This child again 
 was to be called Immanuel : but Mary was bidden to call 
 her child Jesus, and the meaning of the two words is 
 not the same. Yet more, in what way were butter 
 and honey especially the food of Jesus; and how 
 could an event Avhich was not to take place for seven 
 centuries, be by any possibility a sign to Ahaz ] Re- 
 ferring the words, however, to events in his OAvn day, 
 we see that Isaiah is represented as saying that before 
 this child should have ceased to be an infant, the land 
 which he abhorred {i.e., Syria and Israel) should be 
 forsaken of both her Kings {i.e., Rezin should be slain 
 and Pekah taken captive). Whether Isaiah foretold 
 even these events is another question. The narrative 
 in one casual phrase seems to betray the fact that he 
 did not. The refusal of Aliaz to ask a sign or to tempt 
 the Lord is followed by words of blame on the very 
 ground that he had been thus not only wearying men, 
 but tempting God also ; and an expostulation so in- 
 congruous seems to be the result of a modification of 
 the original narrative. At the least, we have here no 
 evidence that Isaiah had any foreknowledge of events 
 beyond that which may be the fruit of long experience 
 added to great natural powers of discernment. 
 
 The misapplication (ii. 15) of the passage of Hosea 
 to the return of Joseph and Mary with the young 
 child from Egypt is scarcely less extravagant. The 
 prophetical writings are full of denunciations against 
 any dealings with that country, or its inhabitants ; and 
 Hosea (xi. 1) far from speaking of things to come, re- 
 fers only to the past history of the Israelites in the 
 words, " ^^^len Israel was a child, then I loved him, 
 and called my son out of Eg}T3t." But this call was 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 39 
 
 answered only by rebellion. " I taught Ephraim also 
 to go, taking them by their arms : but they knew not 
 that I healed them. T drew them with the bands of 
 love, and I was to them as they that take off the yoke 
 on their jaws." One clause alone will serve the pur- 
 pose of the Evangelist, and that one clause, in defiance 
 of the plainest context, he takes out from a series of 
 sentences which he would have shuddered to apply to 
 Jesus. In these instances he has forced passages to 
 suit his objects ; in the last verse of the second chap- 
 ter he invents a prophecy. There is no prediction in 
 any part of the Old Testament that any one shall be 
 called a Nazarene. They who please may adopt the 
 explanation of Jerome that if MattheAV had meant to 
 quote a particular text, he would not have written 
 Prophets but the prophet, and that by thus using the 
 plural, he evidently means to take the general sense 
 of all Scripture which indisputably testifies that the 
 Lord shall be (Nazar) holy. 
 
 But the motives which in this Gospel animate the 
 living are not less mysterious than the interpretations 
 assigned to the words of prophets in former ages. A 
 dream, or rather, as it is said, an angel in a dream, 
 bids Joseph return with the child and his mother into 
 the land of Israel. Herod is dead; but Archelaus, 
 his son, still reigns in Judsea. Fearing his Avrath, 
 Joseph shrinks from going to Jerusalem, and warned 
 again in a dream,* "turns aside into the parts of 
 
 * Dean Milman, in an appendix on the " Influence of the more 
 imaginative incidents of the early Evangelic History on the pro- 
 pagation and maintenance of the religion," traces the rapid pro- 
 gress and wide acceptance of the traditional Christianity to the 
 Thaumaturgy which runs through the Gospel narratives. The pas- 
 sages which relate these marvellous interpositions and prodigies, 
 and which " cannot accord with the more subtle and fastidious 
 intelligence of the present times," are precisely those which were 
 " dearest to the believers of an imaginative age ; " by this " super- 
 natural agency " the doctrines of Christianity were implanted on 
 the mind, and the reverential feeling, thus excited, most powerfully 
 contributed to maintain the efficacy of the religion for at least 
 seventeen centuries. In theg© considerations the Dean sees "an 
 
40 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 Galilee," as though the change of plan involved little 
 more of toil and difficulty, and takes up his abode in 
 a city called Nazareth, which, the Evangehst clearly 
 means, he now entered for the first time. Yet to go 
 from Egjq:»t to Galilee it is absolutely necessary to 
 pass through the Avhole of Judsea, or else to go through 
 the deserts on the East and North of the Dead Sea, 
 as well as the country of Moab, and then to cross the 
 Jordan into Samaria or the Lake of Gennesareth into 
 
 argiiment of considerable weight." The passages relating these 
 wonders (lae makes an exception in favour of the Resurrection, 
 ' Histoi-y of Christianitj',' I. 131) "are not the vital and essential 
 truths of Christianity, but the vehicle by which these truths are 
 communicated ; a kind of language by which opinions were con- 
 veyed and sentiments infused." Unfortunately in a previous pas- 
 sage (p. 117) he had .spoken of a belief in these supernatural events 
 as the foundation of the religion, as something which the religion 
 could not have invented, and as being indispensable to its existence. 
 It is true that here, too, he specifies the Resurrection ; but if this 
 event, together perhaps with the Incarnation and Ascension, be 
 alone left, the Thaumaturgy of the Gospels as a whole is destroyed; 
 and this cannot be the Dean's meaning. He must therefore mean 
 that a belief in these wonders generally was the indispensable 
 foundation of the religion ; and it is preciselj"^ this proposition 
 which he contradicts by speaking of these prodigies simply as a kind 
 of language for convoying opinions and infusing sentiments, in other 
 words, as a mere dressing or embellishment to which there are no 
 corresponding historical facts. But from the fact " that this mode 
 of communication \yrih. mankind was for so long a period so effec- 
 tive," he thinks that we may "not unreasonably infer its original 
 adoption bj' DiTOie Wisdom." Thus "this language of poetic in- 
 cident becomes part of the Divine Order ; " Vnit the language alone 
 is the fact, the incidents belonging to the Cloud-land. The Dean 
 is, however, anxious to guard against the charge " of carrying the 
 idea of "accommodation" to an unprecedented length, and urges 
 that "from the necessitj' of the case there must be some departure 
 from the pure and essential spirituality of the Deity, in order to 
 communicate with the human race ; some kind of condescension 
 from the infinite and inconceivable state of Godhead, to become 
 cognizable, or to enter into any kind of relation with material and 
 dimly-mental man." This is dangerous reasoning, as justifjnng 
 logically a system of unquestioning belief ; and as such it has been 
 pushed home by Dean Mansel. The fallacy lies in the use of the 
 ambiguous and undefined terms, "absolute" and " infinite ;" and 
 the groundlessness of the whole ai'gument js conclusively shown by 
 Mr J. S. Mil! in the memoroble " seventh " chapter of his ' Exami- 
 nation of Sir W. Hamilton's Philosophy.' 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 41 
 
 Galilee, before Nazareth could be reached. And when 
 he had done all this, he would still be in the lion's 
 mouth, if a dread of the family of Herod was the 
 real motive to his journey. If Archelaus was to be 
 feared in Jerusalem, his brother Antipas would be 
 scarcely less formidable in Galilee. 
 
 Such are some (but by no means all) of the diffi- 
 culties involved in the narrative of the first Gospel, 
 considered strictly by itself. These difficulties are 
 certainly not lessened, when we compare the traditions 
 here recorded with others in the Old Testament, or with 
 the legendary narratives of other nations. The idea 
 of birth from a Virgin was by no means new.* Dean 
 Milmant cites the instances of Bouddha, and the 
 Chinese Fohi; and to those may be added such 
 legends as those of -^sculapius, Pythagoras, Chandra- 
 gupta, Moses, and, above all, of Plato. The tyrant, who 
 
 * The points of likeness have a still wider range. "There is, 
 indeed," says Mr Mahaffy (Prolegomena to Ancient History p. 416), 
 "hardly a great and fruitful idea in the Jewish or Christian 
 systems which has not its analogy in the Egyptian faith. The 
 development of the one God into a Trinity ; the incarnation of the 
 mediating Deity in a ^drgin, and without a father ; his conflict and 
 his momentary defeat by the jjowers of darkness ; his partial 
 victory (for the enemy is not desti'oj'ed) ; his resurrection and 
 reign over an eternal kingdom with his justified saints ; his dis- 
 tinction from, and j'et identity with, the uncreate, incomi^rehensible 
 Father, whose form is unknown, and who dwelleth not in temples 
 made with hands, — all these theological conceptions pervade the 
 oldest religion of Egypt. So, too, the contrast and even the 
 apparent inconsistencies between our moral and theological beliefs 
 — the vacillating attribution of sin and guilt partly to moral weak- 
 ness, partly to the interference of evil spirits, and likewise of 
 righteousness to moral worth, and again to the help of good genii 
 or angels ; the immortality of the soul and its final judgment ; the 
 purgatorial fire, the tortures of the damned, — all these things have 
 met us in the Egyptian Ritual and moral treatises. So, too, the 
 purely human tide of morals, and the catalogue of virtues and vices, 
 are by natural consequence as like as are the theoretical systems." 
 Well may Mr Mahaffy add, " I recoil from opening this great subject 
 now ; it is enough to have lifted the veil and shown the scene of 
 many a future contest." Prolegomena to Ancient History, p. 417. 
 t ' History of Chiistianity,' I. 99. 
 
42 English Life of 'Jesus. 
 
 seeks the life of these virgin-born children, is seldom 
 wanting. They are all delivered, and all grow up to be 
 powerful, Avise, or good ; but their deliverance gener- 
 ally involves the death of many in their stead. The 
 decree of Pharaoh seals the doom of all new-born male 
 children of the Hebrews : that of Herod cuts off all the 
 infants of two years old and under in Bethlehem. 
 Later Jewish legends transferred the same idea to the 
 history of Abraham, and spoke of Nimrod as warned 
 by a star, that Terah would have a son who should 
 become the father of a mighty people. Moses, too, is 
 taken away to a distant land, like the mythical heroes 
 already mentioned, and like a multitude of others 
 whose names it might be tedious to cite, while the 
 narrative of the Presentation presents a close parallel 
 to the story of Bouddha the pure, who, virgin-born, as 
 Dean Milman remarks, is presented in the temple and 
 blessed by an aged Saint, Avho takes him in his arms, 
 — Bouddha, who said, "Let all the sins that were 
 committed in this world fall on me, that the world 
 may be delivered."* It needs all the diligence and all 
 the strength of those who regard the old tradition as 
 genuine history, to prove that these Hindu legends 
 were directly suggested by statements in the Synoptic 
 Gospels. 
 
 But when from the first we turn to the third 
 Gospel, we are confronted with an entirely different 
 narrative. Without noticing the events which are 
 stated to have preceded and accompanied the birth of 
 the Baptist, we have an account of the nativity of 
 Jesus, which presents a singular contrast to that of 
 the first Gospel. Any one who confined himself 
 strictly to this account would learn that the angel 
 Gabriel appeared in Nazareth to the Virgin Mary wlio 
 was espoused to Joseph, and told her that she should 
 
 • Kumarila, quoted by Professor Max Miiller, ' History of San- 
 skrit Literature,' p. 80, 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 43 
 
 become the mother of a child, conceived not by ordinary 
 generation but by the Holy Ghost, that his name should 
 be called Jesus, and that he should receive the throne 
 of his father David ; that Mary, having heard these 
 tidings, went in haste to the city where Zacharias and 
 Elizabeth were living ; that the babe in Elizabeth's 
 womb leaped at the approach of Mary, who broke out 
 into a song of thanksgiving for the providence which 
 fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich 
 empty away ; that Mary, after remaining there three 
 months, returned to Nazareth ; and that the birth of 
 John the Baptist, following in due time, caused great 
 excitement, and the circumstances attending it " were 
 noised abroad throughout all the hill country of 
 Judaea." He would further learn that these things 
 took place at the time of the taxing carried out by 
 Quirinus (Cyrenius, ii. 2), governor of Syi'ia ; that for 
 the purposes of enrolment Joseph with Mary goes from 
 Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born in a 
 stable ; that his birth was announced by angels sing- 
 ing in the sky, to shepherds who watched their flocks 
 by night ; that the shepherds found the child, as they 
 had been directed, and in great astonishment spread 
 everywhere (ii. 17) the tidings of all that they had 
 seen and heard ; that on the eighth day the child was 
 circumcised, and that after the days of purification 
 (i.e., after forty days) Joseph and Mary presented him 
 in the Temple at Jerusalem, where Simeon proclaimed 
 that the child was set for the rising and falling again 
 of many in Israel, and where Anna both blessed him 
 and spoke of him to all who looked for redemption in 
 Jerusalem ; and lastly, that, after a peaceable perform- 
 ance of all things ordered in the law of the Lord, they 
 returned from Jerusalem to their own city, Nazareth. 
 According to this narrative, then, the child Jesus 
 spends the first forty days of his life in Bethlehem, 
 and after a few days spent in Jerusalem, is then 
 
44 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 carried to his permanent home in Nazaretli. The 
 appearance of Gabriel to Mary, and her visit to Eliza- 
 beth, may possibly be taken as events anterior to, and 
 supplementary of, the narrative of Matthew ; but as 
 in the first Gospel Joseph receives the intimation of 
 Mary's pregnancy not from Mary herself but in a 
 dream, so here "vve are not told that Mary imparted 
 her knoAvledge to Joseph, who is seemingly left to dis- 
 cover the fact as best he may. In Luke, however, 
 there is no trace of Joseph's intention to put his 
 espoused Avife away privily. In all other respects the 
 two narratives altogether oppose and exclude each 
 other. Not a word is there in the third Gospel of the 
 star, or of the wise men ; not a word of the jealousy 
 of Herod, or of the questions put to the chief priests 
 and scri]:)es ; not a Avord of the presentation of the 
 gifts ; of the sudden journey into Egypt ; of the 
 slaughter of the innocents ; of the secret and circuit- 
 ous return into Galilee after the death of Herod {i.e., 
 it Avould seem, in the following year). 
 
 Instead of this, according to the third Gospel, the 
 child, after a few days spent at Jerusalem, is, within 
 a few weeks after his birth, safely lodged in Nazareth.* 
 In the first Gospel, Jesus never appears in Jerusalem 
 
 * Equivocation can scarcely go to greater lengths than in the 
 passage in which Mr Isaac Williams tries to " harmonize " this part 
 of the narratives of Matthew and Luke. 
 
 " The words of Luke," he says, " after the account of what took 
 place at the Purification, seem to indicate an intentio)i of returning 
 to Nazareth after that event ; and the custom of the Jews of going 
 up to Jerusalem for religious services, and again returning to dis- 
 tant parts of the country, occurs so frequently and so incidentally 
 throughout the Gospels, that it is natiu-al to suppose it may have 
 heea their intention to do so. For, alluding to that ceremony, he 
 ]iroceeds, ' And when they had jDerformed all things according to 
 the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee to their own city, 
 Nazareth. . . . Here, therefore, ice must Jix the slaughter of the 
 infants and the flight into Egypt, at a time when they tfere returii- 
 ing or intending to return to Galilee, or, indeed, possibly after they 
 had returned ; for S. Chiysostom seems to think that they returned 
 to Nazareth before they went to Egypt. . . . But it is, of coui-se, 
 very possible that Luke may merely introduce the mention of the 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 45 
 
 at all till the last year of his ministry (xxi. 1). In 
 Luke he is described as being taken quietly and openly 
 into the temple, at a time when Matthew's Gospel 
 represents him as being hidden away in Egypt, the 
 facts of the circumcision and the purification not being 
 mentioned at all. In Luke, there is no fear of Herod, 
 who seems never to trouble himself about the child, 
 or even to have any knowledge of him. There is no 
 trouble or misery at Bethlehem, and certainly no 
 mourning for children slain. Far from flying hur- 
 riedly away by night, his parents celebrate openly, 
 and at the usual time, the circumcision of the child ; 
 and when he is presented in the temple, there is not 
 only no sign that enemies seek his life, but the devout 
 saints give pviblic thanks for the manifestation of the 
 Saviour.* The events are talked about everywhere ; 
 they are noised abroad, in a way likely to excite the 
 greatest present wonder, and leave the deepest per- 
 manent impression. Expressions of astonishment run 
 through the narratives. The shepherds at Bethlehem, 
 
 return to Nazareth, in order to connect it with the incident which 
 he is about to introduce in our Lord's subsequent childhood." 
 
 If it was not one thing, it was some other thing ; and whichever 
 it be, this is what was the fact, because it ought to be the fact. 
 On this method, it would be both an easy and an edifying task to 
 "harmonize" the exploits of the mythical Charlemagne withthe 
 Charlemagne of Eginhard. Extremes meet ; and the utmost irre- 
 verence of scepticism cannot exceed the irreverence of devout com- 
 mentators, who convert the express statement of a return to Na- 
 zareth into an intention of returning thither. Of the dishonesty of 
 such statements we say nothing. The Decalogue contains no pre- 
 cept against falsehood. 
 
 * In speaking of the Infancy, Dean Milinan barely notices the 
 fact, that there are dilRculties in the Chronology of the presenta- 
 tion and the flight into Egypt (History of Ckristianity, I. 110). 
 He refers to certain improbabilities, and bids us remember that 
 Bethlehem was only six miles from Jerusalem. He forgets, appar- 
 entlj', that the Gospel narrative fixes the time. The Circumcision 
 takes place on the eighth day, the presentation immediately after 
 the fulfilment of the legal period of piu-ification ; in the one case 
 they go for a long sojourn into Egj'pt, in the other they return 
 straight to Nazareth. But it is needless to tell the tale of contra- 
 dictions twice, although the hai-monizers seem never _ weary of 
 repeating the vagaie phrases which are intended to explain them. 
 
46 English Life of yesus. 
 
 the kinsfolk of Zacharias, the people at Jerusalerri, 
 Mary herself, are full of wonder, and Mary ponders 
 all these things in her heart. Yet each event is fol- 
 lowed by the same blank astonishment, without seem- 
 ingly imparting any real knowledge. Although she 
 had had from the angel the announcement of an 
 astounding event, Avhich had come to pass, Mary again 
 wonders when the shepherds crowd around the man- 
 ger ; and yet, when the child at twelve years of age 
 is found in the temple, she asks him reproachfully, why 
 he had so dealt with them as to make them seek him 
 sorrowing. After the experience of nearly thirteen 
 years, Mary has still to be taught by her Son that he 
 must be about his Father's business. 
 
 In the one story, then, we have a birth (implying 
 the ordinary residence of the parents) at Bethlehem ; 
 a hurried flight (almost immediately after the birth) 
 from that village into Egypt, and a journey, after 
 many months, from Egyj)t to Nazareth in Galilee. In 
 the other the parents, who have lived in Nazareth, 
 come to Bethlehem only for business of the state ; and 
 the casual birth in the stable is followed by a quiet 
 sojourn during which the child is circumcised, and 
 by a leisurely journey to Jerusalem ; whence, every- 
 thing having gone off" peaceably and happily, they 
 return naturally to their own former place of abode, 
 full, it is said again and again, of wonder at the things 
 which had happened, and deeply impressed with the 
 conviction that their child had a special work to do, 
 and was specially gifted for it. 
 
 A closer analysis reveals still more curious contra- 
 dictions. In Matthew no annunciation is made to 
 Mary, who (according to the letter of the narrative) 
 finds herself Avith child, not knowing how or to what 
 purpose. On the supposition that the two narratives 
 are but diiferent versions of the same event, Mary 
 must either have told Joseph of the apparition of 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 47 
 
 Gabriel to herself in her waking hours, instead of 
 leaving him to learn the coming event for the first 
 time in a dream ; or in some unaccountable way she 
 must have forgotten the occurrences herself. This 
 absurd hypothesis seems to have prompted the writer 
 of the " Protevangelion of James the less," to main- 
 tain that Mary, when asked by Joseph how she came 
 to be with child, answered, " As the Lord thy God 
 liveth, I know not by what means." But in truth 
 the idea underlying the tale is in each case radically 
 different. In Matthew the angel who appears to the 
 sleeping Joseph (the action in the first Gospel being 
 mainly induced by apparitions during sleep) announces 
 to him an event of which, till then, he had evidently 
 known nothing: he even tells him the name of the child 
 who is to be born, when, according to the third Gospel, 
 it had been imparted to Mary by Gabriel nine months 
 before his birth. But the announcement of Gabriel 
 is clearly designed to prevent all offence by explain- 
 ing clearly, before the fact, the manner in which it 
 was to be brought about ; in the first Gospel there is 
 no sign of such purpose or of its accomplishment. 
 The evidence of the conception troubles Joseph, yet 
 he hears nothing from Mary,* nor is he set right by 
 the angel until he has resolved to put his betrothed 
 wife away privily. The expression that " she xoas 
 found with child " is conclusive proof that, in the 
 
 * Of this momentous difficulty Dr Milman takes no notice. In- 
 deed it may fairly be said that he has woven together a semi- 
 plausible narrative by taking the statements of each Gospel 
 separately, without comparing them with the statements relating 
 to the same time in the other Gospels ; and thus he can speak of 
 the purification and presentation, as preceding or following the 
 flight into Egypt, as his plan enables him to leave out of sight 
 the notes of time and place which in each narrative are of the 
 essence of the story. Of Joseph's intention to put his wife away, 
 Dean Milman merely says, that on discovering the conception of 
 his betrothed he wished, by a private dismissal, to save her from 
 rigorous punishment, — forgetting that this implies the fact of 
 Mary's total silence on the subject of the Annunciation. This 
 is not a fair way of treating a very grave matter. 
 
48 English Life' ofjesus. 
 
 opinion of the Evangelist, the discovery was made 
 without any announcement on Mary's part, and in- 
 deed in spite of her silence. This silence is in itself 
 inexplicable on other grounds. Is it possible to sup- 
 pose that a really pure-minded woman, Avhen told by 
 a visible messenger from heaven that she was to be- 
 come a mother in a way wholly beyond or out of the 
 course of nature, would not have hastened at once 
 with the tidings to her future husband, but would have 
 suffered him by her silence to entertain for months 
 suspicions intolerable from their injustice % Is it 
 worth while to notice the vain attempts to reconcile 
 these flagrant inconsistencies or impossibilities by 
 notions such as that Joseph was at a distance, when 
 both the Gospels represent him and Mary as both in 
 the same place ; or that Mary, in deep perplexity, 
 reserved her intelligence till she had' taken council 
 with Elizabeth, when the motive assigned to her 
 visit in the third Gospel is not anxiety or doubt 
 as to her duty, but simply to assure herself of the 
 sign given to her by the angel (viz., the pregnancy of 
 Elizabeth), an assurance given almost before she 
 crosses the threshold, and followed by an immediate 
 outburst of exultant thanksgiving % Is it Avorth 
 while to waste words on the supposition that Mary 
 did tell Joseph, but that he refused to believe her % 
 Are Ave to suppose that a man, thus incredulous about 
 the message of an angel who had spoken with Mary 
 while she was awake, should have his scruples in- 
 stantly removed by phantasms in a dream % And, in 
 such case, would the angel Avho appears to Joseph in 
 Matthew have failed to reprove him for such mis- 
 placed incredulity'? The analysis may be extended 
 indefinitely. No announcement from Mary infonns 
 Elizabeth of the mercies vouchsafed to her ; no 
 astonishment or excitement on the part of Elizabeth 
 causes a movement of the child in her womb. At 
 the approach of Mary, and before a word is uttered, 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 49 
 
 the child, of its own accord, leaps in the womb for 
 joy {i.e., in perfect consciousness of the reason of its 
 moving), and the movement of the child is followed, 
 not preceded, by the excitement of the mother.* 
 This beginning is followed, not by the dialogue of 
 ordinary conversation, but by a hymn expressive of 
 Mary's thankfulness, made up of phrases from the 
 Old Testament, more especially from the song put 
 into the mouth of Hannah after the birth of Samuel. 
 Not only the circumstances, however, of this visit, but 
 the visit itself, are excluded by the narrative in the 
 first Gospel, as well as deprived of all credit by the 
 self-contradictions of the third ; and hence no evi- 
 dence is furnished by the third Gospel for the alleged 
 facts that John the Baptist was only six months older 
 than Jesus, that there was any kindred between the 
 two mothers, or any intimacy between the two 
 families. 
 
 In truth, the narrative of the events preceding the 
 birth of the Baptist is not less full of difficulty than 
 those which have been already examined. An angel 
 appears (Luke i. 11), and informs Zacharias that he 
 is the angel Gabriel, " who stands before God ;" that 
 Zacharias's prayer is heard, and that his wife Eliza- 
 beth, (though past age, like Sarah,) shall bear a son, 
 who shall be called John, and be a Nazarene from his 
 mother's womb, and become a second Elijah, and a 
 successful preacher of righteousness. After this, 
 announcing the Baptist's birth, the angel smites 
 Zacharias with dumbness because he asked for a 
 
 * Dean Milman (History of Christianity, p. 101), says that on 
 this visit the joy occasioned by the miraculous conception seemed 
 to communicate itself to the child of which the latter was pregnant. 
 The statement of the third Gospel, which is unmistakably clear, 
 is precisely the reverse of this. The hymn-writer is thus far more 
 faithful than the Dean : — 
 
 " That Son, that Royal Son she bore, 
 Whom Gabriel's voice had told afore ; 
 Whom, in his mother yet concealed, 
 The infant Baptist had revealed."^ 
 D 
 
50 English Life of yes us. 
 
 sigii to assure his faith. This severity is singularly 
 unlike the treatment of Abraham, Hannah, and others 
 under similar cu'cumstances in the earlier traditions 
 of the Old Testament, as well as of Joseph in the first 
 Gospel. Zacharias then comes out of the sanctuary 
 dumb, and stands beckoning. He afterwards finds 
 means to tell his vrde. (we suppose, by wi-iting) the 
 purport of the angel's message. After months are 
 complete, the child is born, and is brought to be cir- 
 cumcised and named. Elizabeth names it John, to 
 the displeasure of the neighbours or kinsfolk. Appeal 
 is made to the father, who at last by an act of faith 
 (if faith it can be called) makes an effort, pronounces 
 the name John, and is rewarded by the restoration 
 of his speech. These things also are noised abroad 
 throughout the whole region (65), like the incidents 
 which accompanied the birth of Jesus, and are appar- 
 ently as soon forgotten. 
 
 Thus, then, we have two narratives, both of which 
 agree in placing the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem 
 in Judaea, while the first gospel describes that place 
 as also the place of his parents' abode. In that gospel 
 marvellous signs accompany his birth. A star guides 
 the wise men from Jerusalem ; and the terrible 
 slaughter of the Innocents still more marks the 
 momentous event. In the third gospel the signs are 
 of a different kind, but they are still more extensively 
 known. Angels are heard by shepherds, singing in 
 the heavens ; the shepherds find the child, and noise 
 abroad all that they had seen and heard. The babe 
 is seen openly in the Temple at Jerusalem, and spoken 
 of as the Messiah to all who looked for redemption. 
 Never was a fact which should have been more cleei^ly 
 impressed on the mind of the people than that of the 
 birth of Jesus at Bethlehem.* Yet this fact is never 
 
 * Dean Milman, who seems to shrink unconsciously from a real 
 comparison of the narratives of the Synoptists, adduces in one 
 place the political convixlsion of the time as a reason for the slender 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 51 
 
 asserted either by Jesus himself or by others, although 
 the statement was most of all necessary to remove 
 misconceptions, to disarm opposition, and to win 
 acceptance. In truth (if we take the gospel narratives 
 as they stand), all knowledge of the fact seems utterly 
 lost, although a vivid conviction remained that the 
 Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, the inference 
 being that Jesus could not be that Messiah or Christ. 
 This conviction is betrayed by Nathanael's inquiry 
 (John i. 46) whether anything good can come out of 
 Nazareth, and by the plain assertion, with which the 
 rulers reject the claim of Jesus, that out of Galilee 
 
 hold which these astounding facts had on the popular remembrance. 
 (History of Clu'istianity, I. 87.) But the more wondei-ful thing- 
 is that they seem to have passed away as completely from the 
 remembrance of Mary herself. Nor is there any sign in the narra- 
 tives that the actors and spectators of these events wei'e affected 
 by the political agitation of the time. Dr Milman also speaks of a 
 common incredulity, which is also not known to the Evangelists, 
 for in their narratives all who see the events believe in the Child's 
 mission. But in another passage he asserts that in spite of all 
 these commotions the circumstances of the Baptist's birth "might 
 be expected to excite the public attention in no ordinary degree." 
 But they did not, and Dr Milman is content to pass over the 
 difficulty without a word of comment, although, a little later, he 
 says that the vision of Zacharias was apparently not communicated 
 to the people (p. 92) ; and if it was not communicated to them, it 
 is not easy to see how it could have made any impression upon 
 them. We are, therefore, the more surprised at being told (p. 102) 
 that the Baptist's birth "excited the attention of the whole of 
 Southern Judsea to the fulfilment of the rest of the prediction." 
 In truth, it seems impossible to gather from Dr Milman's pages 
 whether any given event excited or did not excite attention. In 
 another place he says that the Jews of that age were so habituated 
 to marvels, that events astounding to us "might pass off as little 
 more than ordinary occurrences." (p. 88.) Yet almost in the same 
 breath (p. 96) he sees the most cogent reason for accepting the 
 truth of the whole narrative, in the fact that the gospels "relate 
 in the same calm and equable tone the most extraordinary and 
 most trivial events." If his former assertion be true, the other 
 is an inevitable consequence, and furnishes a fatal argument against 
 their general credibility. The view, such as it is, would tell equally 
 well in favour of the Homeric poems and the Saxon Chronicle, of 
 Herodotus, of Jeffrey of Monmouth, and a host of others who also 
 relate in the same calm and equable tone the most extraordinary 
 and most trivial events. 
 
52 English Life of yes us. 
 
 there arises no prophet (vii. 41-52).* In all the 
 Gospels he is Jesus of Nazareth, which the third 
 Gospel names as the usual abode of Joseph and Mary. 
 He is saluted as such by the unclean spirits (Mark i. 
 24) : he is sent as such by Pilate to Herod, as 
 belonging to his Galilrean jurisdiction. As such, his 
 aid is implored by the blind man at Jericho (Mark 
 X. 46) : as such he is described by the servants of 
 the High Priest at the denial by Peter. Jesus of 
 Bethlehem he is never called, although the simple 
 assertion of a fact so notorious at the time was alone 
 needed to heal bitter divisions and soften a ground- 
 less antagonism. Even to Nathanael, with his deep 
 faith, the fact is not impai'ted any more than to the 
 unbelieving Jews. He is not told that he is mistaken 
 in thinking that Jesus was really of Nazareth, but he 
 is asked to come and see ; the issue being his convic- 
 tion that a good thing may come out of Nazareth. 
 So far, then, as we have any indications, we may con- 
 clude that he was born at Nazareth : we have no 
 ground whatever for thinking that he was born at 
 Bethlehem. These flagrant inconsistencies suggest, 
 that the general narrative comes from one source, the 
 two diverse tales of the Infancy from other sources ; 
 and that each compiler has patched them together 
 with blind carelessness. Such is the composition of 
 Gospels, which an age wholly unversed in literary 
 criticism received as divine certainties, and has passed 
 on to later ages as the work of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Nor is there any greater consistency as to the time of 
 Jesus' birth. In the first Gospel it is of course placed 
 during the reign of Herod the Great ; for otherwise 
 Herod could not be the slayer of the children in 
 order to destroy Jesus, who had been carried away 
 by Joseph and Mary. In the third Gospel, also, 
 
 * The rulers must have known better, for the prophets Jonah 
 and Nahum were both of Gahlee. 
 
Narratives of the Conception. ^2) 
 
 Zacharias receives the announcement of the Baptist's 
 birth from Gabriel " in the days of Herod the King," 
 and the birth of Jesus follows that of the Baptist 
 after an interval of six months only. But in the 
 second chapter it is defined more closely as taking 
 place while P. Sulpicius Quirinus (Cyrenius) was 
 governor of Syria.* This Quirinus, we are told, had 
 been ordered to carry out an imperial decree for 
 taxing " all the world •" and in obedience to this 
 decree Joseph and Mary came up from Nazareth to 
 Bethlehem, where the child was born. According to 
 this narrative the taxing extended to the whole world 
 — the orhis Romanus ; but of such a general census at 
 this time there is no evidence. Hence efforts have 
 been made to prove that the phrase denoted Judaea 
 only; but even if it could be proved that Jewish 
 writers thus absurdly exaggerated the importance of 
 their own small country, it is ridiculous to suppose 
 that the Koman Caesar would so fall in with their 
 whims as to frame imperial decrees to suit them. 
 But no such census was possible in Judaea during 
 the reign of Herod or of his son Archelaos, because 
 
 * Dean Milman, who seems to think the introduction of Quirinus 
 ten years before his time a trifling discrepancy which would be 
 easily pardoned in any ordinary historian, contents himself chiefly 
 wth the remark that he cannot "imagine a myth in such a plain 
 prosaic sentence" as that which tells of the taxing. Whether such 
 a mistake would be overlooked in an ordinary historian depends 
 on his general accuracy ; but the character of the EvangeUsts for 
 general accuracy must first be estabhshed. The prosaic character of 
 a passage, however, is no evidence of the absence of mjrth. Nothing 
 can be more prosaic than the opening chapters of the history of 
 Herodotus which speak of the abduction of lo, Medeia, and Helen. 
 Every incident there described may have taken place and might 
 take place any day, and yet we do not beheve one of them. Why? 
 Because we know them on other grounds to be mythical. That a 
 plain prosaic style is the best possible vehicle for plausible fictions 
 was curiously shown by the success of De Foe's plain narrative of 
 the apparition of Mrs Veale at Canterbury, which led to the imme- 
 diate sale of a whole edition of "Drelincourt on Death," which 
 cumbered the booksellers' shelves. If plausibility of style could 
 prove sincerity in a narrator, yet it can certainly never prove 
 truth of facts. 
 
54 English Life of jfesus. 
 
 sucli " allied princes" (reges socii) collected their own 
 taxes, paying simply a tribute to Rome. The pre- 
 tence that this taxing was an extraordinary measure 
 resorted to by Augustus during the reign of Arche- 
 laos, and before the reduction of Judaea to the form 
 of a province, is set at rest by the plain assertion of 
 the third Gospel that it took place during the 
 governorship of Quirinus, who was not appointed to 
 this office till long after the death of Herod, and 
 whose census did not take place till about ten years 
 after the time at which, according to the two Gospels, 
 Jesus was born. Yet it will not do to say that he 
 really was born at this later time, for this supposition 
 completely upsets the whole narrative as given in the 
 first Gospel ; nor can the census of Quirinus be al- 
 leged as a sufficient reason for bringing Joseph and 
 Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The object of 
 the measure, according to Josephus, was solely for 
 the estimation of property; and this object would be 
 wholly defeated if the inhabitants of one place were 
 allowed, at their will, to tranfer themseh^es to another. 
 Some, indeed, have been bold enough to say that 
 Mary went as being an heiress of property at Beth- 
 lehem ; but the Gospel speaks of the motive as affect- 
 ing Joseph alone (ii. 4), and the way in which they 
 are thrust into the cave-stable scatters the dream of 
 Mary's wealth to the winds.* 
 
 * Dean Milman complains (yet why complain ?) that " no cross- 
 examination in an English court of law was ever so severe as 
 that to which every word and shade of expression in the Evan- 
 gelists is submitted." It is not easy to determine what he 
 intended to convey by these words ; but in their ordinary accepta- 
 tion the proposition may be met by a complete denial. The early 
 history of Rome has been submitted to a scrutiny, certainly not 
 less severe, and probably far more rigid ; and until the assaults of 
 modern critics on the narratives of Livy, Dionysius, Diodorus, 
 Cicero, &c., can be repelled, it is utterly useless to resort to the 
 " argumentum ad misericordiam" on behalf of the Gospel nari'a- 
 tives. We admit at once that if the Evangelists are to be regarded 
 as ordinary historians, we " have no right to requii*e more than 
 ordinary historic accuracy." The gist of the charge against the 
 
Narratives of the Conception. ^^ 
 
 We have already seen that the genealogies in the 
 fu'st and third Gospels could have been draAvn up 
 only by men avIio believed that Jesus was the son of 
 Joseph by natural descent, and that they were 
 adopted by the Evangelists, only as coming down to 
 them among other materials which they found ready 
 to their hands. Perhaps the same conclusions may 
 be forced upon us on a comparison of the second and 
 fourth Gospels with the narratives of the birth and 
 
 Evangelists is that we nowhere find such accuracy in their writings, 
 and that we see absolutely no symptom of that "inflexible love of 
 truth, which, being inseparable from the spirit of Christianity, 
 would of itself be a sufficient gxiarantee for fidelity and honesty." 
 If by truth be meant only certain foregone dogmatic conclusions, 
 their love may perhaps have been inflexible ; but if we mean by 
 the term simply a determination to know whether certain alleged 
 events took place or did not take place, we may be much more 
 nearly justified in saying that very seldom have writers shown 
 themselves so devoid of regard for truth as such. 
 
 Dean Milman seemsto enter on perilous ground, when, [admitting 
 the existence of a mythical belief in certain stages of human his- 
 tory, he asserts that whether certain alleged angelic manifestations, 
 or other prodigies, " were actual appearances or impressions pro- 
 duced on, the minds of those who witnessed them, is of slight 
 importance. In either case they are real historical facts." 
 ('History of Christianity,' I. 131.) They are not necessarily any- 
 thing of the kind. Herodotus tells us that, before setting outon 
 his expedition against the Greeks, Xerxes di'eamt a dream which 
 assured him of victory, and that the incredulous Artabamis was 
 conquered by the same di'eam visiting himself. Here, we have 
 first to determine whether the narrative be a fiction of Herodotus 
 — if it be, we cast it aside at once, and there is an end of the 
 matter. But if we decline to do this, we may conclude (1) that 
 Xerxes actually saw the di-eam of God, and heard his voice, and 
 in this case the vision is as much a historical faict as the repeal of 
 the corn laws, although from its very nature it is impossible to 
 verify the fact, which therefore loses all value for us ; or (2) we 
 may say that by some means or other, impressions favourable to 
 the result of the expedition were produced on the mind of Xerxes 
 and his uncle. In this case the impression (which we are likevrise 
 unable to verify, and which therefore has no value for us) is an 
 historical fact, but the dream or vision is not an historical fact ; 
 and nothing can set aside this distinction, which at once severs all 
 narratives of facts which may be verified from fictitious tales or 
 from possible incidents, of the actual occurrence of which we can 
 never satisfy ourselves. To treat the latter in any other way is to 
 do violence to our sense of truth, and to impax't a fictitious strength 
 to subterfuge and falsehood. 
 
^6 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 infancy of Jesus contained in the other two. In Mark, 
 although nothing is said of his earlier years, the 
 Baptism of Christ is noticed, as the starting point of 
 his ministry ; nor can there be any doubt even from 
 the wording of the accounts as they have been trans- 
 mitted to us, that the writers who drew up tlie 
 original narrative of the Baptism, regarded that event 
 as the bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus, and as 
 his consecration to his Messiahship. In the Synoptic 
 Gospels it is immediately followed by the temptation, 
 as though he were now placed in a different relation 
 to the Avorld from that which he had held before. 
 But in the fourth Gospel neither the miraculous con- 
 ception, nor the birth, infancy, baptism, or temptation, 
 of Jesus, receives any notice. John the Baptist is 
 indeed mentioned, but it is only to confess his 
 ignorance of Jesus (John i. 31) until he saw the 
 Spirit descending from the heavens like a dove and 
 lighting upon him, whereas in the other Gospels he 
 knows Jesus as soon as he approaches and meets him, 
 by the acknowledgment of his unworthiness to baptize 
 him. The reason for this singular silence in contrast 
 with the method of the Synoptists may be found in 
 theories of the Messiahshii? entertained in the first 
 and second centuries. In the account of the Baptism 
 quoted by Justin Martyr, from the "Memorials of 
 the Apostles" (aTO/ic^j/zoi'si/Aara ruv ' A'^oaroXuv), the 
 voice from heaven at the moment of the alighting of 
 the Spirit in form of a dove is said to have uttered 
 the words, " Thou art my beloved Son, this day have 
 I begotten thee." This exact quotation from the 
 second Psalm, clearly marking that only at that 
 moment he received his consecration as Messiah, 
 became inappropriate, when this belief had given place 
 to the idea that his consecration dated from the 
 moment of his conception in his mothei''s womb, as 
 announced to Joseph in the first Gosjiel, and to Mary 
 in the third. It became necessary, therefore, so to 
 
Narratives of the Conception. 57 
 
 modify the account of the Baptism, that it should not 
 clash with the new theory ; and the words of the voice 
 are changed into the general expression, " Thou art my 
 beloved Son : in thee I am well pleased." But when 
 this belief had in its turn given way to the idea of 
 the Logos co-existing from all eternity Avith the 
 Father, and only taking upon him a covering of flesh 
 (l(S%ri]i(^(Si]i John i. 14), in order to manifest himself to the 
 world, and when his Messiahship had thus become the 
 inalienable prerogative of the Eternal " Wisdom," the 
 idea of his consecration to the Messiahship by baptism, 
 or even by the miraculous conception, became both 
 inadequate and incongruous. No consecration could 
 be needed for the true light which lighteth every man 
 that cometh into the world ; and anything which 
 drew attention to events in his earthly life as mark- 
 ing the moment of his call to the Messiahship Avas 
 felt to be an interference with the higher view Avhich 
 the writer of the fourth Gospel manifestly held to be 
 the only true one. Hence of the opening narrative of 
 the first and third Gospels he could make no use, nor 
 had he any further need of John the Baj^tist than to 
 introduce him as a witness to the transcendant glory 
 of the Eternal " "Word." John comes in, therefore, 
 simply to deliver this testimony, and the narratives 
 of the Baptism, the Nativity, and the Conception are 
 dispensed with altogether.* 
 
 * It is useless to disguise the fact that the writer of the fourth 
 Gospel is thus charged with composing an artificial history — a 
 charge than which none can be more grave, according to the mor- 
 ality of the present day, but which, as applied to that writer, must 
 be considered from the view taken in an age in which it was com- 
 mon and creditable to write under a false name for pious purposes. 
 And if it be so regarded, much of the reasoning employed by Dean 
 Milman on the subject of the Gospel narratives falls to the ground. 
 For he assumes, in the first place, that the belief in the super- 
 natural events recorded in them "is indispensable to the existence 
 of the religion" ('History of Christianity,' I. 117), and that these 
 marvels were "integral parts of the religion from its earliest origin. ' 
 This assumption is at once set aside by a denial of the fact. The 
 existence of the genealogies points to a time during which Jesus 
 
58 English Life o/jfesus. 
 
 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Thus, then, in the Gospel narratives of the Concep- 
 tion, Birth, and Infancy of Jesus, we find two distinct 
 sets of legends, which, except in the one idea of 
 representing his birth as not preceded by ordinary 
 generation, can scarcely be said to have a single point 
 of agreement. Nay, more, the one set excludes the 
 other, by making the actors present at distant places 
 at the same time, by introducing conflicting motives, 
 and sequences of events to suit those conflicting motives, 
 while in the few references made to really historical 
 characters the writers fall into contradictions Avhich 
 betray the nature of their materials. The need of 
 accounting for the presence of Joseph and Mary at 
 Bethlehem leads the writer of the third Gospel to 
 speak of the census of Quirinus, and so to antedate it 
 by ten years, while he represents Herod the Great as 
 either knowing nothing of, or as giving no heed to, 
 the birth of the king whom in the first Gospel he 
 
 was supposed to be, by natural generation, the son of Joseph. The 
 words quoted by Justin Martyr, in describing the baptism of 
 Christ, indicate a belief which did not involve the idea of an im- 
 maculate and supernatural conception. In the next place, Dean 
 Milman seems to forget that if of a hundred difficulties one half or 
 two-thirds be satisfactorily explained, the remaining portion must 
 still be accounted for just as much as if the others had never been 
 enunciated. But further, it may bo said that of the difficulties 
 which are said to have been explained, few, if any, have been 
 faii'ly met. Thus, in the case of miracles, it matters little whether 
 Dr Strauss puts them all aside on the ground that wherever they 
 occur, we may presume a myth. The first thing to be proved con- 
 cerning any given miraculous narrative, is, that it is real authentic 
 history. When Dean Milman asserts that belief in some super- 
 natural events is essential to the existence of the i-eligion, he makes 
 an assumption, which is not only invalidated, as we have seen, by 
 the statements of the Evangelists and early Christian vn-iters, but 
 is rejected by himself with emphatic earnestness. In the closing 
 sentences of his admirable and most valuable History of Latin 
 Christianity, he expresses his conviction "that the words of Christ, 
 and his words alone (the primal indefeasible truths of Chi'istianity), 
 shall not pass away," that "all else is transient and mutable, these 
 only etenial and universal." It is impossible to reckon among these 
 "words of Christ," the apparitions of Gabriel to Mary and 
 
The Canon of the New Testament. 59 
 
 strains every effort to discover and to destroy. The 
 falsification is precisely the same in kind as that 
 which led the wiiter of the Gospel of Nicodemus to 
 throw the narrative of the Crucifixion into the form 
 of a report from Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius. 
 
 But this apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus was one 
 of a large family. The preface to the third Gospel 
 itself teUs us that the name of such writings was 
 legion, while the author, claiming for himself greater 
 diligence in the sifting and arrangement of his mater- 
 ials, no more claims for himself the authority of an 
 eye-witness or of an inspired man than he concedes it 
 to the writers whose Gospels he seeks to supersede. 
 
 Yet, when the contradictions running through the 
 narratives of the Birth and Infancy of Jesus are fully 
 laid bare ; when it is shown that Ave have the testi- 
 mony neither of twelve independent witnesses nor of 
 four independent Evangelists ; that a series of events 
 described in precisely the same words cannot possibly 
 have been so described by different wiiters; that 
 
 Zacharias, the Magi and their star, the slaughter of the Innocents 
 and the manifestation of the angels to the shepherds at Bethlehem. 
 
 In short, it is unnecessary to lay down any general position as 
 to the possibility or impossibility of miracles. It is enough to say 
 that miracles cannot be received on the authority of narratives 
 which contradict themselves, or fail under the tests of histoi-ical 
 credibility. When it has been proved that the Gospel narratives 
 do not contradict themselves, and that they can successfully 
 undergo the tests of historical credibility, we may then discuss 
 the further question whether the belief in certain wonders is an 
 essential part of Christianity. 
 
 Until this is done, it is merely waste of time to affirm that 
 " Christianity will survive the criticism of Dr Strauss." (History 
 of Christianity, I. 116). If by Christianity be meant its primal 
 indefeasible truths, assuredly it will sur\'ive, for the simple reason 
 that Strauss's criticisms were never directed against it. 
 
 Although, then, we cannot say that " the religion " (the term is 
 undefined, and therefore arabigaious) could not have invented the 
 miracles which were the foundation of the religion, we can at once 
 deny that "these things mmt have been the belief of the first 
 Christian communities." The genealogies of the first and third 
 Gospels supply evidence in the other direction which is indefinitely 
 strengthened by the silence of the fourth Gospel on the Conception, 
 Infancy, and Baptism of Chi-ist. 
 
6o English Life of yesus. 
 
 there is a system in some of the omissions or variations 
 in the story, and that thus the narratives of the Con- 
 ception and Bii'th find no place in the fourth Gospel, 
 — the last resort of those who Avould maintain the 
 authority of these records is to the Canon. These 
 Gosj^els, they say, have been selected out of the vast 
 number of spurious writings, and for them we have 
 the irrefragable testimony of an uninterrupted line of 
 witnesses from the Apostolic ages itself. 
 
 A sufficient reply is, The Church of the second cen- 
 tury, in preferring one Gospel to another, did not act 
 the part of literary critic, to Avhich it was quite in- 
 competent ; but looked to the moral worth of precepts 
 and to spiritual stimulus. But we may here content 
 ourselves Avith the admissions of orthodox champions. 
 "It is certainly remarkable," says MrWestcott, "that 
 in the controversies of the second century, which often 
 turned upon disputed readings of the Scripture, no 
 appeal was made to the Apostolic Writings," while 
 " it does not appear that any special care was taken in 
 the first age to preserve the books of the New Testa- 
 ment from the various injmies of time or to insure 
 perfect accuracy of transcription. They were given as 
 a heritage to man, and it was some time before men 
 felt the full value of the gift. The original copies 
 seem to have soon perished."* 
 
 , The admissions are fatal. If no appeal was made 
 to the Apostolic originals of the Gospels, it is equally 
 true that not a word is said about the existence oi 
 those originals. If it appears that no special care was 
 taken to preserve the books of the New Testament 
 intact, the assertion is justified that, so far as we know, 
 no care was taken at all. To say that " the original 
 
 * Mr Westcott's admissions have been admirably treated in the 
 second edition of 'Thoughts on Religion and the Bible,' by a 
 Layman, M.A., of Triiuty College, Dublin, one of the pamphlets 
 in this series. The writer has exhibited with great clearness the 
 existence of constant protests against the assumptions of the self- 
 styled Catholic controversialists. 
 
The Canon of the New Testament. 6i 
 
 copies seem soon to have perished," is to confess that 
 we know nothing even of the existence of the originals, 
 and are therefore still less able to say when they 
 perished or whether they ever perished at all. Things 
 non-existent cannot disappear.* 
 
 * Dean Milman maintains (' History of Christianity,' I. 119) that 
 "no religion is in its origin mythic." As he does not define the 
 term mythic, while yet he seems to use it in many senses, the at- 
 tempt to interpret such a sentence might argue some rashness. 
 But if by mythology be meant the growth of personal deities and 
 heroes from phrases originally denoting phenomena of the outward 
 world, then it may in one sense be maintained that all religions are 
 in their origin mythic, while it would also follow that these myth- 
 ical phrases would at all times and in aU places constitute a body of 
 floating legend, ready to crystallise itself on any given point, and 
 that this process may take place around pex'sons and in periods 
 which are strictly historical. The truth of this position may be 
 tested by a comparison of the life of Charlemagne by Eginhard, and 
 of his exploits as given in the Carolingian Epic cycle. Dean Mil- 
 man professes his inability to discerfl anything mythic in Hebrew 
 tradition. What are we to make of Samson, whose strength lies 
 in his locks ? What are we to make of the fiery chariot of Elijah 
 and his mystic robe ? What of the miracle-working bones of 
 Elisha ? 
 
 Dean Milman says indeed, and most truly, that the best answer 
 to all questioners is "to show that a clear, consistent, and probable 
 narrative can be formed out of that of the four Gospels without 
 more violence than any historian ever found necessary to harmonize 
 four contemporary chronicles of the same events." It is possible, 
 however, that the idea of framing a history oiU of many narratives 
 may involve a fallacy. If the several narratives themselves furnish 
 one and the same connected history, there is nothing more to be 
 said : but if we make up a history out of a given set of materials, 
 by taking any portion of those materials separately without seeing 
 that the employment of the one logically precludes the employment 
 of the other, there is obviously no end to the process of fabricating 
 history on which we thus enter. But in point of fact we do not 
 deal with contemporary chronicles in this way. If four chroniclers 
 give four contradictory accounts of the battle of Hastings, we do 
 not make one narrative out of all by altering the sequence of the 
 events in each story ; but if they all contradict other narratives 
 which we know to be contemporary and which carry greater credit, 
 we reject them all ; and whether in the Saxon Chronicle, in Bede, 
 William of Malmesbury, or others, we at once reject incidents 
 which are manifestly beyond the range of human experience, or, in 
 other words, are said to be miraculous. But when Dean Milman has 
 expressed himself with so much uncertainty on many incidents, 
 such as those of the vision of Zacharias, the taxing of Quirinus, the 
 presentation in the temple, it is not easy to understand his expres- 
 
62 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 The last position of the defenders of the Canonical 
 books is that we have a series of testimonies from 
 trustworthy writers in their favour. Testimonies in 
 their favour may certainly be produced ; but Mr 
 Westcott interposes a momentous reservation. " Ex- 
 press statements of readings which are found in some 
 of the most ancient Christian Avriters are indeed the 
 FIRST EVIDENCE which we have, and are consequently 
 of the highest importance. But until the last quarter of 
 the second century this source of information fails us." 
 The alleged quotations from writings which belong, or 
 are said to belong, to an earlier time, are of such a 
 kind that, in the words of the well-known Dr Herbert 
 Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough, "the authors might 
 have written them, though they had never seen the 
 book or books to which they are supposed to allude." 
 Some of these quotations are clearly made from ■writ- 
 ings or traditions which indicate an earlier stage of 
 thought than that of either of the four Gospels. The 
 words said by Justin Martja' to have been uttered by 
 the voice from Heaven at the Baptism indicate, as we 
 have seen, a belief which was not that of any of the 
 Four Evangelists of the New Testament. But neither 
 Justin nor the so-called Apostolic Fathers (Clement, 
 Ignatius, Barnabas, &c.), make reference to any of the 
 GosjDcls by name ; and the writings of these fathers 
 themselves, just as the fourth Gospel, are not free 
 from the suspicion of forgery. It is needless to 
 
 sion that the Gospel narratives furnish him with " the firm ground 
 of historical evidence." He has not the testimony of twelve inde- 
 pendent witnesses or of four independent Evangelists ; he does not 
 know who wrote these Gospels, or when they were written, while he 
 admits unreservedly that they were not compiled by eye-witnesses, 
 but by persons instructed " by the primitive teacher, or commun- 
 icator of the history of the life and death of Jesus." (History of 
 Chi'istianity, I. 126.) Who this instructor was he does not say ; 
 but even in him we may not have reached the actual eye-witness of 
 the facts ; and of many of these facts there were of necessity no 
 eye-witnesses at all. Such are the annunciation to Mary and the 
 dream revelations to Joseph. On whose authority are we to be- 
 lieve that these were ever made at all ? 
 
The Canon of the New Testament. 6t^ 
 
 enter further into the question of their genuineness, 
 as few are eager in their defence, and. as their autho- 
 rity, even if undisputed, might furnish some slight 
 evidence for the existence of writings bearing an 
 indefinite resemblance to our Gospels, but none for 
 the existence of those Gospels in their present form. 
 
 From the close of the second century there is no 
 dearth of testimony in favour of the four Gospels. 
 But they come from men who, Hke Irenaeus, main- 
 tained that by no possibility could there be more than 
 four, because there are four quarters of the earth, and 
 four principal winds, and the Church, which is the 
 central pillar of the truth, must send forth her quicken- 
 ing breath to the north and the south, to the east and 
 to the west. They come from men who were eager 
 to welcome the most clumsy forgeries ; who, like 
 Eusebius, could put faith in the letter of Jesus to 
 Abgaros of Edessa, who received as indisputably 
 genuine the Sibylline rhapsodies which modern 
 critics, with one voice declare to be unscrupulous 
 fabrications of pious fraud. But the testimony even 
 of Sibyls in the days of Tarquin was not without its 
 value; and Christian fathers scrupled not to make 
 use of forged verses, as they scrupled not to say that 
 Luke, knowing himself to be in the wrong and Mat- 
 thew in the right, invented a series of links in his 
 genealogv to suit theories of moral propriety, which 
 objected to the paternity of sinners. 
 
 But, it may be pleaded, we have surely the authority 
 of those who, winnowing the wheat from the chaff, 
 separated the Apocryphal from the Canonical Gospels. 
 It is for those who appeal to such authority to show 
 us who these men were, not by bare assertions but by 
 clear and cogent evidence ; the task of so doing seems 
 to be given up as desperate even by those who would 
 most heartily desire to accomplish it. When a zealous 
 defender of the Canonical writings feels compelled 
 to say that the authority attributed to the New 
 
64 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 Testament " seems to have grown up without any one 
 being able to place his finger upon the place or 
 moment when adhesion to it was first yielded," we 
 may be sure that the air of semblance veils a hard and 
 significant fact. 
 
 There are some for whom the playing with edged 
 tools has a strange fascination. Yet it betrays a 
 temerity beyond that of ordinary mortals to allege the 
 worthlessness of the Canon as a conclusive reason for 
 submitting ourselves to an infallible external authority. 
 Such, however, is the argument employed by Dr Irons, 
 Vicar of Brompton, in his work on " The Bible and its 
 Interpreters." Admitting, or rather boldly maintain- 
 ing, that we know nothing of the Evangelists, of the 
 time when or of the place in which their Gospels were 
 written ; that their narratives cannot be harmonized, 
 or their text relied on, he has worked himself into the 
 conviction that we can and ought to trust ourselves to 
 the authority of the Church, which insists on our 
 acceptance of those narratives and of the teachings 
 built upon them. Your Canon, he says, is worthless : 
 your sacred books contradict each other and them- 
 selves ; you can never appeal to them with success in 
 the battle against historical criticism ; but you must 
 believe ; without faith or trust you can have no peace ; 
 the belief in the Bible as a series of consistent records 
 is gone, never to return ; but you can believe the 
 Church, and on her authority you can accept that 
 which as critics you are bound to reject. 
 
 With Dr Irons's premisses we have little reason 
 to quarrel. He has carried the work of destruction 
 much further than it has been carried by the Bishop 
 of Natal, almost as far, perhaps, as it has been carried 
 by Strauss. Yet the prospect is but a dreary one for 
 Dr Irons, or for those who come after him, when they 
 find that the house in which he bids us take refuge is 
 not only (like the house which they have left) a house 
 of sand, but a sepulchre scantily veiling the unseemli- 
 
7 he Canon of the New Testament. 6^ 
 
 ness within. We must go further. Trust and peace 
 have not forsaken the earth ; but the peace can flow 
 only from trust in the righteousness and tender meixy 
 of God ; not from belief in a phantom, whose reality 
 has been asserted only to terrify and degrade mankind. 
 Dr Irons v/ill have done a good work, if in a sense 
 higher than his own he teaches us to trust in the 
 Father who loves all the children of men, and who, as 
 He seeks for all their highest good, will assuredly 
 bring them to it. It is no sign of wisdom to resort to 
 broken cisterns for water, only because in our life here 
 we see as through a glass darkly. The acceptance of 
 contradictory narratives on the authority of a " vague 
 abstraction" can scarcely fill us more deeply with the 
 spirit of truth, or hasten the time when the darkness 
 shall be scattered. 
 
66 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE MISSIONS OF JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 THE FIRST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE. 
 
 The obscurity of the early life of Jesus was first 
 broken, according to the narrative of the third Gos- 
 pel, by an incident which marked a visit to Jerusalem 
 at the time of the Passover, when he was twelve years 
 old. At this age (at which a child, it is said, became 
 capable of taking part in public religious services) he 
 was brought to Jerusalem by his parents, Avho, on 
 their return, set off without him, and completed a 
 day's journey without looking after him, being under 
 the impression that he must be with kinsfolk or friends 
 in the caravan. When, however, they fail to see him 
 in the company, they return in great anxiety, and 
 after a sorrowful search find him three days later dis- 
 coursing Avith the doctors in the temple. On being 
 informed of their distress he expresses his wonder at 
 their seeking him, and asks them how they came to 
 show themselves so unconscious of his divine mission. 
 The question was perfectly pertinent, and it brings 
 before us one of the difficulties inherent in the narra- 
 tive. If the writer of the third Gospel is to be trusted, 
 Mary had been distinctly told at the time of the 
 Annunciation that she was to be the mother of a child 
 who, as being the Son of the highest, should have the 
 throne of his father David, and reign over the house 
 of Jacob for ever. This plain declaration was, as we 
 
First Visit to the Temple. 67 
 
 have already seen (Chapter I. p. 46, &c.), either for- 
 gotten by Mary, or ignored. The former hypothesis 
 charges her with gross stupidity, the latter with direct 
 unbelief, for if she had been firmly convinced that 
 what the angel Gabriel told her was absolutely true, 
 no room would have been left for the wonder ex- 
 pressed by her at the words of Simeon when he came 
 into the temple at the time of the presentation (Luke 
 ii. 33). In this instance the wonder was shared by 
 Joseph, who, we might suppose, must have learnt 
 from Mary the circumstances of the angel's visit and 
 the general tenor of his message. But even if he did 
 not, we are told in the first Gospel (i. 21) that, in a 
 vision specially vouchsafed to himself he was told of 
 the high destiny of his reputed son. Yet so weak is 
 his memory or belief, and so little do either Mary or 
 their kinsfolk or their friends bear in mind the events 
 attending his birth at Bethlehem, the coming of the 
 wise men and the slaughter of the children, that none 
 could speak decisively (or at all) of his birthplace at a 
 time when it was of vital importance that it should 
 be ascertained and generally known. (Chapter I. p. 
 51.) The whole story, in short, seems to have passed 
 clean out of mind, and Jesus himself does not correct 
 that erroneous impression of his birth at Nazareth, 
 which interfered with the acceptance of his Messi- 
 anic character by the Jews. 
 
 From the narrative of the conversation with the 
 doctors we learn that this forgetfulness was as com- 
 plete in his twelfth year as ever it Avas in his thirtieth. 
 Far from dismissing all anxious thoughts at the ab- 
 sence of the child (whom according to our modern 
 notions they ought not thus to have lost sight of), they 
 not only give no sign of thinking that they regard him 
 as different from other children, but do not seek him 
 in the temple until they have despaired of finding 
 him anywhere else. And yet to the temple they 
 should have gone, not only if they had the slightest 
 
68 English Life of 'Jesus. 
 
 faith in his mission <and the faintest remembrance of 
 past years, but because the temple was the most likely 
 place in which a child of the disposition ascribed to 
 him would be found. Instead of this we have the 
 plain avowal of their distress, and the assertion, re- 
 peated on every occasion, that his mother pondered 
 in her heart sayings which appear never to have pro- 
 duced any result. 
 
 There remain other difficulties, scarcely less serious. 
 Jesr.s Avas found, according to Dean Milman (History 
 of Christianity, Book I. chap, iii.), in one of the cham- 
 bers within the precincts of the temple, set apart for 
 public instruction. "Jesus was seated, as the scho- 
 lars usually were, and at his fjimiliarity with the law, 
 and the depth and subtilty of his questions, the learned 
 men were in the utmost astonishment ; the phrase may 
 perhaps bear the stronger sense, they were in an 
 ecstasy of admiration." It may be set down as carp- 
 ing, if we refer to the tradition that the scholars stood, 
 while receiving instruction, until after the death of 
 Gamaliel: but unquestionably it must have been a 
 singular display of learning which could thus excite 
 the astonishment of the wisest of Jewish Rabbis. 
 Whence, then, had this learning been obtained] If 
 by miracle, or by any supernatural means, or by vir- 
 tue of his omniscience as the Incarnate God, the 
 assertion is self-contradictory, for omniscience excludes 
 all advancement or degrees in knowledge, while it 
 ignores the express statement that Jesus advanced in 
 wisdom and stature as well as in favour with God and 
 man. Dean Milman, however, is not one of those 
 who would ascribe the learning of Jesus to an extra- 
 ordinary source : yet he fails to throw any light on 
 the matter. Certainly, according to the Gospels, 
 neither Joseph nor Mary had any large stores of legal 
 erudition; and Dean Milman states that the putting 
 of these questions presupposes a wide acquaintance 
 " with the sacred writings and the institutes of the 
 
First Visit to the Temple. 69 
 
 country." This implies either instruction by others, 
 or a marvellous self-application ; in either case it must 
 have been perfectly well known that Jesus was a 
 young man, not only (as the author of 'Ecce Homo' 
 phrases it), "of great promise," but of great learning, 
 acquired in the ordinary way by reading books as 
 well as by serious thought. 
 
 Here, then, we have the alleged historical fact that 
 twelve years after the birth at Bethlehem, the great 
 Rabbis of Jerusalem were filled with astonishment 
 not merely at the genius but at the learning of Jesus. 
 Some of these men must have been alive when, 
 scarcely twenty years later, Jesus appeared in the 
 temple on the occasion described in the seventh 
 chapter of the fourth Gospel. The identity of the 
 name, and his advent from Galilee, where they knew 
 that his reputation was growing, must have recalled 
 to their minds the incidents of that day on which the 
 distressed Galilsean parents came in quest of the 
 child whose wisdom was so astonishing them. Yet 
 all that they can do is to ask, " How knoweth this 
 man letters, having never learned 1 " If it be urged 
 in reply that they were mistaken, it may be answered 
 that Jesus says not a word to correct their erroneous 
 impression, and that his kinsfolk and friends all 
 labour under the same delusion. At the end of the 
 series of parables, given in Matt, xiii., the same ques- 
 tion is asked by those who are quite familiar with his 
 lineage and kindred, and who seem to assume that 
 the sons of carpenters have no great opportunities for 
 acquiring deep learning. It is asked again, in Mark 
 vi. 2 (and in the same words), after the raising of 
 Jairus' daughter, and in a modified form in the same 
 Gospel which relates his astonishing discourse in the 
 temple (Luke iv. 22). 
 
 But great as is the learning of Jesus, his obedience 
 to his parents is unhesitating. This, perhaps, might 
 be expected. Yet, if the parents had been recalled by 
 
yo English Life of Jesus. 
 
 his reply to the memory of the very plain words 
 spoken by Gabriel, and of the marvellous events at- 
 tending his birth, it is strange that they should have 
 summarily withdrawn him from a spot where he 
 might have been about his heavenly Father's business, 
 to the obscure retirement of Nazareth. 
 
 We may, if Ave please, attribute weakness of brain 
 rather than want of faith to Mary and Joseph ; but 
 this will scarcely be done by any who accept the 
 popular tradition. Yet if they reject this alternative 
 they are confronted by a grave historical difficulty ; 
 for if Mary had really heard the words put into the 
 mouth of Gabriel, if Joseph had really learnt in a 
 dream the character of his real or reputed son, if they 
 had believed the shepherds of Bethlehem and the 
 wise men of the East, or Simeon, or Anna, if they 
 had journeyed in haste and secrecy into Egypt, and 
 had returned privately to Nazareth, it is impossible 
 that they could have failed to understand the ques- 
 tion put to them by Jesus in the temple. (Luke ii. 
 50.) But we are told plainly that they did not under- 
 stand it ; and thus one of two conclusions is forced 
 upon us, either (1) that they were unable to under- 
 stand because those earlier events had not happened, 
 or (2) that those events had happened, and therefore 
 that the Evangelist is mistaken in saying that his 
 question was unintelligible to them. 
 
 In this story, then, we have a narrative which can- 
 not be reconciled with the earlier or later portions of 
 the history, and is, in fact, completely contradicted 
 by them. Hence, without committing ourselves to 
 the statement that no such incident ever took place, 
 we are driven to the conclusion that, if it did take 
 place, certain later recorded incidents must be false, 
 or that if the latter be true, the conversation in the 
 temple is a fiction. In either case, we have before 
 us a narrative which is not historical ; and thus our 
 knowledge of the boyhood of Jesus becomes as 
 
First Visit to the Temple. 71 
 
 shadowy as our knowledge of the events which are 
 said to have occurred at the time of his birth. 
 
 Here, then, (as after the examination of each inci- 
 dent we shall be compelled to repeat) our task in 
 reference to this narrative is ended. We have shown 
 that it is not trustworthy ; it is no part of our office 
 to determine how the legend came into existence. 
 The so-called mythical theory may or may not account 
 for the result; but the historical critic declines to 
 commit himself to any theory, however plausible or 
 probable that theory may appear to him. It may, 
 however, be worth while to note the parallels fur- 
 nished in earlier Jewish history. The growth of 
 Jesus in wisdom and goodness is described in words 
 almost identical with those which are applied to 
 Samuel (1 Sam. ii. 26), and not unlike those which 
 describe the early youth of Samson. The precocity 
 of Moses answers to the marvellous wisdom of Jesus. 
 As the latter at a time of gay festival is found among 
 grave doctors, so Moses, according to Philo, eschews 
 all amusements, and surpasses all his tutors in genius 
 and learning. Later tradition spoke of Samuel as 
 prophesying from his twelfth year ; and the (so-called) 
 Ignatius, in the epistle to the Magnesians, relates 
 that the wise judgments of Solomon and Daniel were 
 given when each was twelve years old. Greek 
 legend furnishes a similar instance in Minos, who, 
 at the age of nine years, became King of Crete, 
 and displayed the profound wisdom of Menu and 
 Zoroaster. (Odyssey T. 179.) 
 
 These national legends may account for the growth 
 of a similar tale to illustrate the boyhood of Jesus ; 
 but whether they do so or not, the narrative itself 
 remains unhistorical. 
 
72 English Life of Jlsus. 
 
 THE MISSION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 That the name of Jesus of Nazareth is intimately 
 associated witli a great change both of thought and 
 practice in the Western as well as in the Eastern 
 world, cannot be disputed. Nor will the most rigid 
 imi)artiality interfere with the natural wish to know 
 all that can be known of one to whom so mighty a 
 revolution has been attributed. Especially natural is 
 the desire to gather up every detail which seems likely 
 to throw lio-ht on the various influences to which, in 
 his earlier years, he may have been subjected. Now, 
 although contradictory reasons are given in the first 
 and third Gospels for the birth in Bethlehem, yet all 
 agree in making Nazareth his permanent abode, and 
 in representing him as the son, or the reputed son, 
 of Joseph the carpenter. If this tradition l:)e correct 
 (and there seems to be no reason for calling it into 
 question), his opportunities for learning would be 
 those of an artisan's family in the remote district of 
 Galilee ; and if, further, we accept the hypothesis of 
 Joseph's poverty, an additional drawback is i)resented 
 in his position. The notion that Joseph and Mary 
 went to Bethlehem because the latter was an heiress, 
 holding landed property in that village, finds little 
 countenance in the Gospel narratives. 
 
 At Jerusalem however, on the yearly recurrence of 
 the Passover and other festivals, Jesus would obtain 
 some knowledge of the intellectual and religious move- 
 ments of the age.* With the .Sadducees he would 
 have, perhaps, no great acquaintance. The members 
 of this sect belonged chiefly to the higher and more 
 wealthy classes ; and although, from the absence of 
 invectives against them similar to those which were 
 directed against the Pharisees, it might be supposed 
 
 * The tales which traced liis mii-aculous powers to magical lore 
 acquired during tlie sojourn in Egypt may be dismissed without 
 comment. 
 
Mission of yobn the Baptist. 73 
 
 that he had a friendly feeling for this school, their 
 unbelief in a future lite may seem to forbid the idea. 
 With the Pharisees, in spite of his vehement antagon- 
 ism, he had much more in common. Their belief in 
 purely si^iritual existences, in human immortality, and 
 in a progressive development of Judaism from the 
 days of Moses, furnished the groundwork of a faith 
 similar to that Avhich was taught by Jesus : and the 
 dissipation of Pharisaic prejudices at once converted 
 Saul of Tarsus into the most devoted of Christian 
 missionaries. 
 
 With the Essenes many have supposed that he had 
 a still closer connexion. Both alike favoured a com- 
 munity of goods, prohibited oaths, enjoined obedience 
 to constituted authority, and insisted on the duty of 
 despising riches, and of travelling without resources. 
 But points of difference, still more numerous and im- 
 portant, may be found in the contracted spirit of the 
 Essenes, their rigid ol)servance of the Sabbath, and 
 their constant purifications. This sect, it may be 
 added, is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. 
 
 But if the influence exercised by these sects on the 
 mind of Jesus may not have been great, and although 
 we have no means for measuring that of the foreign 
 Jews, as of Alexandria and Cyrene, Avith whom he 
 may have been brought into contact at Jerusalem, one 
 most important person at the threshold of his ministry 
 Is brought before us in John the Baptist. 
 
 The date of John's first appearance as a preacher 
 is fixed by the third Evangelist to the fifteenth year 
 of the reign of Tiberius, when Pilate was governor of 
 Judsea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother 
 Philip tetrarch of Itursea and Trachonitis. Whether 
 John really began to preach at this time is another 
 question ; but at this time Pilate, Herod (Antipas), 
 and Philip held the offices here assigned to them. 
 But there can be little doubt that the Evangelist 
 has been misled, by notices which spoke of an Abi- 
 
74 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 lene of Lysanias, into thinking that a Lysanias 
 was tetrarch at this time. No such person is men- 
 tioned by Josephus. 
 
 The other Gospels furnish no help towards fixing 
 the date of John's mission. The expression of the 
 first Gospel (iii. 1), if taken strictly, would imply that 
 he appeared in the wilderness at the time of the return 
 of Joseph and Mary from Egypt, i.e., when Jesus and 
 Jolin himself were little more than infants. But it 
 may he stated, once for all, that no chronology what- 
 ever can be obtained from the first and second Gospels. 
 Like beads strung on a necklace, these narratives have 
 a certain sequence, but there is no reason why most 
 of the events should be given in one connexion rather 
 than in another ; and accordingly, an incident which 
 comes first in one Gospel is put in the second or 
 third place in another. From such chronology as " in 
 those days John came preaching" (Matt. iii. 1), "then 
 Cometh Jesus to be baptized" (iii. 13), " then He was 
 led up to be tempted" (iv. 1), and the like, we can 
 learn nothing. It is, however, not unimportant to 
 note, that in the first and second Gospels Jesus is not 
 described as having so much as entered Jerusalem 
 until he came to it for the Passover, which imme- 
 diately preceded the Crucifixion. Nor is anything 
 said in any of the Synoptics which would render it 
 necessary to suppose that the ministry of Jesus ex- 
 tended over more than a single year. The arrange- 
 ment which lengthens his public life to three years is 
 obtained from the fourth Gospel ; but this Gospel pre- 
 sents a fatal contradiction to the rest, by describing 
 the Crucifixion as preceding the Passover, whereas in 
 the Synoptics Jesus had already kept the Passover 
 with his disciples on the evening before he suffered.* 
 
 * This contradiction (together with the fact that Polj'crates, of 
 Ephesiis, and the Asiatic Bishops appealed to the personal authority 
 of J ohn as their reason for not adopting the Western rule for the 
 celebration of Easter), furnishes a powerful argument (among many 
 
Mission of yobn the Baptistr y^ 
 
 Of the chronology of the Baptist's life we learn nothing 
 with certainty from the Gospels. 
 
 But the narrative is contradicted by incidental state- 
 ments which cannot be overlooked. There can be no 
 doubt that the elaborate notes of time given in Luke 
 iii. 1 are designed to fix the date of the public ministry 
 of Jesus almost more than that of John. The first 
 and second Gospels, as we have remarked, tell us 
 nothing about the time ; but they all imply that the 
 Baptism of Jesus took place soon after the beginning 
 of John's preaching ; and they are still more explicit 
 in closing the Baptist's career soon after that event. 
 The Gospels of Matthew (iv. 12) and Mark (i. 14) 
 imply that John was arrested during the forty days 
 of Christ's temptation, and the mission of the two 
 disciples (Matt, xi.) is described as taking place 
 during his imprisonment.* The perplexity of Herod 
 at the popularity of Jesus, and his question whether 
 Jesus could be John the Baptist risen from the dead, 
 indicate a reference to an event which had taken place 
 some time before. 
 
 Thus, according to all the Gospels (unless, possibly, 
 the third .is to be excepted), the public career of the 
 Baptist seems to be bounded within a few months. 
 But, on the other hand, John is represented not 
 merely as baptizing, but as teaching his disciples, and 
 imparting to them forms of prayer (Luke xi. 1). He 
 is also described (Acts xviii. 25 — xix. 3) as leaving 
 behind him a definite school which adhered to his 
 baptism long after the conversion of Paul. The lan- 
 guage of Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5, 2) can apply only to 
 a man who has made a profound impression on his 
 contemporaries. This is not done in a day, and hence 
 have arisen many expedients for reconciling the Gospel 
 
 others) for the post-apostolic authorship of the fourth Gospel. 
 Mackay's 'Tubingen School,' 264, &c. 
 
 * In Luke vii. 18, the disciples are apparently sent by John while 
 he was still at large. 
 
y6 ' English Life ofyesiis. 
 
 narratives with a more extended careei' for the Baptist. 
 They are all fliiiisy enough; for if it be suggested that 
 Jesus after his baptism remained for a long time a 
 follower of John, or went again into retirement, it 
 may be answered that such a notion contradicts the 
 statements of the Gospels, which plainly describe the 
 temptation as immediately consequent on the baptism, 
 and the ministry as beginning immediately after the 
 temptation. The first chapter of the Acts {v. 22) 
 gives the baptism by John as the beginning of the 
 ministry of Jesus. If, on the other hand, it be urged 
 that Jesus deferred his baptism to a later period of 
 John's ministry, the reply is, that this hypothesis is 
 contradicted by express statements of the third Gospel, 
 which represent Jesus and John as both beginning 
 their public career in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, 
 and further describe John as only six months older 
 than Jesus. 
 
 Thus, then, we have marks of time which are hope- 
 lessly inconsistent Avith the work which the Baptist is 
 said to have performed, and the establishment of the 
 school which adhered to his particular rite of initia- 
 tion. With the pointing out of this inconsistency, 
 and therefore of the unhistorical character of the 
 narrative, our task is on this topic ended. The 
 Gospel versions of the facts may, perhaps, be fairly 
 accounted for by the necessities imposed on writers 
 who wished to represent the Baptist not as the 
 founder of a school or an independent reformer, but 
 as a mere forerunner of the Messiah. But whether 
 this explanation be accepted or rejected, the narrative 
 as given to us in the Gospels remains untrustworthy; 
 in other words, it must, like the rest, be set down as 
 unhistorical. 
 
'John as the Forerunner of the Messiah, yy 
 
 JOHN AS THE FORERUNNER OF THE MESSIAH. 
 
 A far more important subject is involved in the 
 inquiry whether John ever regarded Jesus as the 
 Messiah. Indeed, this question may be regarded as 
 the crucial test of the traditional belief, for if the 
 relation of John to Jesus was not that which it is 
 described to have been, all that has been built on the 
 fulfilment of Messianic jDredictions, which speak of 
 Elias as preceding the great day of the Lord, on his 
 testimony to Jesus as the Lamb of God, and on the 
 subordination of the Jewish to the Christian dispen- 
 sation in the person of the Baptist, falls to the ground. 
 
 In the Gospels, John is represented as baptizing 
 with water to repentance ; and it may be admitted at 
 once that the fact of his using baptism as his rite of 
 initiation is historical. Thus much is expressly stated 
 by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5, 2), who, however, does not 
 connect the ministry of John with the Messianic idea. 
 But perhaps this silence may be sufficiently accounted 
 for by the position of a writer who for political reasons 
 wished to keep in the background all that related to the 
 Messianic dreams and expectations of his countrymen. 
 
 Further, in the Gospels Jesus and John are described 
 as belonging to the same family. They are cousins ; 
 and then- mothers were in each case informed dis- 
 tinctly, before the birth of the children, how great 
 the work was which they would have to do. On the 
 approach of Mary, the unborn Baptist leaped in his 
 mother's womb : and the two parents gave thanks 
 together for the high privileges vouchsafed to them. 
 They were thus perfectly conscious of the relation 
 in which their sons were to stand to each other ; and 
 it is absolutely inconceivable that they should not 
 impart to their children the knowledge thus super- 
 naturally bestowed on themselves. It is true that 
 according to the first Gospel they were separated for 
 a few months, perhaps for a year, during the sojourn 
 
78 English Life of yesus. 
 
 in Egypt ; but at Nazareth the opportunities of inter- 
 course became just what they had been before,* and 
 according to Luke there was not even the interruption 
 of the Egyptian exile, for at the ordinary time the 
 child is taken quietly to Jerusalem for presentation 
 in the temple, and is thence conveyed as quietly to 
 Nazareth. Thus, then, John and Jesus were from the 
 first well acquainted Avith each other, and the relation 
 of John to his master was acknowledged long before 
 the baptism in Jordan. The answer of John in the 
 Synoptics is quite in accordance with this predeter- 
 mined subordination. Jesus is hailed as the Messiah 
 on his first appearance ; and the signs at the time of 
 the baptism have nothing to do with the convictions 
 of the Baptist. In the fourth Gospel we have a AvhoUy 
 diff"erent narrative. There John has no previous 
 knowledge of Jesus. He says expressly, " I knew 
 him not, but he that sent me to baptise with water, 
 said to me. On whom thou shalt see the spirit 
 descending and remaining on him, the same is he 
 which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost." Thus the 
 signs which followed the baptism were for him the 
 first intimation that he stood face to face with the 
 Messiah. When he saw these signs, then (and not 
 before) he bare record that this is the Son of God 
 (John i. 34). 
 
 To get rid of the grave difficulty thus caused, some 
 have suggested that John's alleged ignorance relates 
 not to the person of Christ, but solely to his Messiah- 
 ship. In other words, he was perfectly aware that 
 Jesus was his cousin, but had no idea that he was 
 more than any ordinary person. From this it would 
 
 * Some have not scrupled to allege the distance which separated 
 them as a reason for the discontinuance of the intercourse between 
 the two families. But it has been well asked how, if Mary'should 
 have been able to perform the journey while she was with child, the 
 task should deter two youths fast growing- into manhood, and how 
 indifference on this point could spring from anything but utter un- 
 belief or ignorance ot promises made to Mary, Joseph, and Zacharias, 
 
yohn as the Forerunner of the Messiah. 79 
 
 follow, (1) that neither of them had heard from his 
 mother the story of the incidents which preceded 
 and attended their birth ; or (2) that, if they had 
 heard them, they did not believe them. The up- 
 holders of the traditional belief may be left to choose 
 that horn of the dilemma which they may prefer. 
 The former supposition is seemingly inconceivable ; 
 the latter is fatal to the ordinary theories of the 
 Incarnation. 
 
 It follows that we have no historical grounds for 
 thinking that there was any genealogical connexion be- 
 tween John and Jesus. No such connexion is stated 
 or even hinted in the first two or the fourth Gospels. 
 The first Gospel wholly excludes the visit of Mary to 
 Elizabeth, while the narrative of the third Gospel is 
 not credible. The announcement of Gabriel is 
 clearly designed to remove all possible cause of off'ence 
 at the discovery that Mary was with child ; yet Mary 
 says not a word, but leaves Joseph to find out the 
 true state of a case which a pure-minded woman 
 would have been most eager to explain. We have, 
 therefore, no historical warrant for believing that John 
 Avas only six months older than Jesus, that there was 
 any kindred between the two families, or any inti- 
 macy between the two mothers. In other words, the 
 narratives relating to these alleged facts are unhistor- 
 ical ; and we have nothing to do with explaining 
 how these narratives came into existence. 
 
 THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MESSIAHSHIP 
 OF JESUS BY JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 The fact that the Baptist acknowledged Jesus to be 
 the Messiah is not distinctly asserted in any of the 
 synoptic Gospels. It might be remarked further that 
 the words ascribed to him in those Gospels have no 
 necessary reference to Jesus. All that is implied in 
 
8o English Life of yes us. 
 
 his preacliing is that his baptism of water Avas 
 designed as a preparation for the Messianic Kingdom, 
 and that the Messiah who shouhl follow him would 
 baptize Avith fire ; but although he is represented 
 as avowing his conviction that the Kingdom of 
 Heaven was nigh at hand, there is nothing to show 
 that he regarded the advent of the Messiah as an 
 event which he should live to_see, still less that he 
 looked upon Jesus as the Messiah of whom he was 
 the ajipointed forerunner. 
 
 Nothing more than this can be extracted from the 
 Synoptics (for the vague expression of unworthiness 
 on John's part (Matt. iii. 14) falls very far short of 
 the declarations contained in the fourth G()S})el, and 
 in the fourth Gospel only). Hence, so far as the first 
 three Gospels are concerned, it is left quite an open 
 question Avhether, after the commencement of the 
 public ministry of Jesus, John began to think that 
 his expectations might be realized in the Son of 
 Joseph and Mary ; whether, in consequence of ex- 
 pressions uttered by John to this effect, some of his 
 disciples attached themselves to Jesus ; or whether, 
 on the other hand, his school retained its independence 
 and failed to be convinced by the works or the teach- 
 ing of Jesus that he was the Messianic King expected 
 by the Baptist. This latter conclusion receives a 
 striking support from the facts mentioned in the 
 Acts of the Apostles (xviii. 25, xix. 2, 3), if that 
 narrative is to be regarded as having any historical 
 basis. 
 
 The fourth Gospel, it is true, brings before us a 
 wholly different i^icture. The difficulties involved in 
 the Johannine statement of John's ignorance of the 
 person of Jesus, until after the time of the Baptism, 
 we have noticed in the last section. We have now to 
 point out those Avhich are presented by the words 
 which the fourth Gospel puts into the mouth of the 
 Baptist. 
 
Acknowledgment of the Messiahsbip. 8 1 
 
 Dean Milman ('History of Christianity,' Ch. iii.) 
 considers it emphatically " a remarkable fact in the 
 history of Christianity, that from the very first ap- 
 pearance of Jesus on the shores of the Jordan, 
 unquestionably before he had displayed his powers 
 or openly asserted his title to the higher place, John 
 should invariably retain his humbler relative position. 
 Such was his uniform language from the commence- 
 ment of his career. Such it- continued to the end. 
 .... This has always appeared to me one of the 
 most striking incidental arguments for the truth of 
 the Evangelic narrative, and, consequently, of the 
 Christian faith. The recognition appears to have 
 been instant and immediate. Hitherto the Baptist 
 had insisted on the purification of all who had 
 assembled around him, and with the commanding 
 dignity of a heaven-commissioned teacher, had re- 
 buked without distinction the sins of all classes and 
 all sects. In Jesus alone, by his refusal to baptize 
 him, he acknowledges the immaculate purity, while 
 his deference assumes the tone of homage, almost of 
 adoration." 
 
 Of Dean Milman we are bound to speak with the 
 respect and gratitude to which he has earned a lasting 
 title at the hands of all who desire absolute freedom 
 in the discussion of historical questions. But Dean 
 Milman would have been the last to wish that defer- 
 ence to his authority should lead any one to gloss over 
 inconsistencies or contradictions into which he may 
 have fallen. In the passage just cited the Dean seems 
 to have formed his idea by confusing the narrative of 
 the Synoptic Gospels with the account of the fourth 
 Gospel, and by interpreting the former in the light 
 thrown on it by his own religious prepossessions. The 
 hypothesis of " an instant and immediate recognition" 
 is not only not upheld, it is pointedly excluded by 
 the statements in John i. 32, 33 ; and the recognition 
 in the Synoptic Gospels is the result, not of superna- 
 
82 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 tural signs, but (apparently) of previous knowledge. 
 But an acknowledgment of " immaculate purity" can 
 be inferred from John's general admission of compara- 
 tive inferiority, only by those who have received 
 that idea from other sources (as from the fourth Gos- 
 pel in contradistinction to the other three) ; nor can 
 the utmost straining convert the deference of his tone 
 into anything approaching adoration. 
 
 Two serious difficulties, not yet noticed, are in- 
 volved in Dean Milman's assertion, that John inva- 
 riably from the first retained his humble position, and 
 that his language in reference to Jesus was uniform 
 throughout his whole career. The former of these 
 concerns Dean Milman's consistence with himself ; the 
 latter affects the credibility of the Gospel narratives. 
 If the Baptist's language was uniform, and if his lan- 
 guage was that which is attributed to him in the 
 fourth Gospel, then John was as thoroughly convinced 
 of the Messiahship of Jesus as any Christian of the 
 present day could possibly be. Nay more, he rises 
 altogether beyond the thicker mental atmosphere of 
 the Apostles during the whole of Christ's ministry, to 
 that transcendental region which was reached after- 
 wards by the writer of the fourth Gospel. Not one 
 of the disciples, before the Crucifixion, had attained 
 to the idea of a suffering Messiah ; the notion, when 
 first propounded, was simply a cause of offence. But 
 the Lamb of God (John i. 3G) is pre-eminently the 
 image of patience, and the idea immediately connected 
 with it, by the language of the Old Testament, is not 
 merely that of suffering, but of vicarious suffering. 
 And further still, John acknowledges not only his 
 Messiah«liip, but his pre-existence as the Eternal 
 Logos (John i. 30). Precedence in early age by a 
 few weeks cannot possibly be the meaning attached 
 to the words, " He is preferred before me, because he 
 was before me," by that writer in whose belief the 
 Word v/hich was in the beginning with God and was 
 
Acknowledgment of the Messiahship. 83 
 
 God, took up its tabernacle and became flesh in the 
 person of Jesus Christ. This, then, was the idea of 
 the Messiahship of Jesus which the fourth Gospel em- 
 phatically attributes to the Baptist. It was an idea 
 not merely entertained by him in secret, but openly 
 and repeatedly imparted to his disciples ; and thus 
 John was in the habit of insisting on statements which, 
 when made by Peter in much feebler form and with 
 far narrower meaning, called down on him a special 
 eulogium as the recipient of a Divine revelation (Matt. 
 xvi. 16, 17). This, then, unless Dean Milman is pre- 
 pared to reject the narrative of the fourth Gospel, 
 must have been the uniform language of John respect- 
 ing Jesus. It is strange that the Synoptics should not 
 drop so much as the faintest hint to this effect ; but 
 apart from this, it is obvious that such convictions 
 cannot admit of degrees. No man can regard another 
 as the tabernacle in which the Eternal Logos has 
 taken up his personal abode, and then speak of him 
 in words which imply uncertainty or want of faith in 
 his mission. The concejition is clear and distinct as 
 the lines of Alpine mountain forms against a cloud- 
 less sky. But, in spite of all this. Dean Milman makes 
 the following remarkable statement : — " It is assumed, 
 I think without warrant, that John himself must have 
 had a distinct or definite notion of the Messiahship of 
 Jesus ; he may have applied some of the prophetic or 
 popular sayings supposed to have reference to the Mes- 
 siah, without any precise notion of their meaning ; 
 and his conception of the Messiah's character, and of 
 Jesus himself, may have varied during different pas- 
 sages of his own life." But Dean Milman has him- 
 self insisted most strongly that John's language re- 
 specting Jesus never varied, that it was uniform from 
 the commencement of his career to the end. And as 
 his language, so was his practice ; he retained " invar- 
 iably his humbler relative position." If, then, his 
 language never varied, and if his practice, as the ex- 
 
84 English Life of Jesus . 
 
 ponent of his belief, never altered ; if, moreover, his 
 language was that which the fourth Gospel asserts it 
 to have been, how can it be said that his conceptions 
 may have varied, or that the Baptist could be at any- 
 time without precise notions as to the character of the 
 Christ 1 The views of Athanasius or Augustine could 
 not be more dogmatically clear. 
 
 We have now to see, in the second place, how far this 
 notion of a uniform testimony is corroborated or re- 
 futed by the statements of the Evangelists. In Matt, 
 xi. 2 (after the narrative of the mission of the Twelve), 
 we are told that from his prison John sent two of his 
 disciples to Jesus, charging them to ask, " Art thou 
 he that should come, or do we look for another 1 " 
 An account of the same incident, with some important 
 modifications, is given in the seventh chapter of 
 Luke. 
 
 Such a mission as this would be prompted only 
 by one of two motives. Either the faith of John 
 himself was wavering, or, being fully convinced 
 himself, he wished to overcome the disbelief of his 
 disciples. 
 
 Did he, then, send them from the former motive 1 
 Put in another form, this question is equivalent to 
 the inquiry whether his faith could fail or even waver, 
 although he had known from his infancy (p. 77) his 
 own position in relation to Jesus ; although he had been 
 taught by his father and his mother the events which 
 preceded and accompanied his own birth and that of 
 Jesus ; although he was well acquainted with his father's 
 hymn, which told him that he should be the prophet of 
 the Highest as going before the face of Messiah to 
 prepare his ways ; although he had heard of Gabriel's 
 announcement to Mary that Jesus should possess the 
 throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob for 
 ever ; and, still more, although he had himself inter- 
 preted these predictions in a sense more spiritual than 
 any to which the disciples of J esus attained until long 
 
Acknowledgment of the Messiahship. 85 
 
 after the Crucifixion ; altliough he had spoken of him 
 as the pure and suftering Lamb of God, and acknow- 
 ledged his eternal pre-existence as the Incarnate 
 Word. Such a lapse may fairly be considered psycho- 
 logically impossible ; and the ascription of such doubt 
 makes John indeed as "a reed shaken by the wind," 
 an imputation summarily rejected by Jesus himself* 
 
 If it be urged, as some have thought, that these 
 doubts were caused in the mind of John by his own 
 loss of liberty, it may be rej^lied that this involves a 
 still graver imputation on the solidity of his cha- 
 racter. Wliatever might be his anticipations of the 
 temporal (as well as spiritual) kingship of the Christ, 
 his character must have been weak indeed if mere 
 imprisonment thus enfeebled his deepest convictions. 
 John knew, as well as any others, what had been the 
 recompense of prophets and righteous men in past 
 ages ; and he must have known that so it would be 
 still, until the Messiah actually appeared in his in- 
 vincible majesty. If the synoptic narratives may be 
 trusted, he must further have known that he had a 
 friend in the tetrarch himself, and may therefore have 
 reasonably hoped to be set at liberty by him in the end.+ 
 
 If the text of the first and third Gospels is correct, 
 John sent his disciples because he had heard from 
 them of the works which were being done by Jesus. 
 These works are manifestly his miracles ; in Luke 
 
 * Hence, perhaps, the anxiety of Dean Milman to show that 
 John had no distmct, definite, or precise notion of the Messiah- 
 ship, in spite of the emphatic declarations of the fourth Gospel to 
 the contrary. 
 
 t Nothing is gained by comparing John to Galileo, Cranmer, 
 and others who have recanted opinions previously avowed, in order 
 to secure their freedom. In all such cases men express thehi- 
 eelves shaken in those jmrticular opinions which led to then* im- 
 prisonment, and not in any others. Thus Galileo was shut up for 
 asserting the motion of the earth round the sun ; by denying that 
 motion he hoped to regain his liberty. On this principle, the 
 Baptist should have expressed misgivings, not as to the Messiah- 
 6hip of Jesus, which had nothing whatever to do with his imprison- 
 ment, but as to the justice of his reproof of Herod for his alleged 
 incestuous marriage with his brother Philip's wife. 
 
86 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 (vii. 18) their report distinctly refers, among other 
 works, to the raising of the widow's dead son at 
 Nain. But these works were precisely those which 
 would confirm his faith instead of suggesting doubts ; 
 and therefore, if John had really regarded Jesus as 
 the Messiah, the report brought by his disciples 
 would simply have tallied with his own expectations. 
 In the alleged fact that this report is made the occa- 
 sion of a mission of inquiry we have one of the 
 grounds which warrant the conclusion that John had 
 not hitherto (i.e., at any time before his imprisonment) 
 acknowledged the Messiahship of Jesus.* 
 
 If, then, he did not send his disciples because his 
 own faith wavered, did he send them for the removal 
 of their doubts (doubts which he did not himself 
 share) 1 In this case we must suppose that he had 
 done what he could to overcome the disbelief of these 
 disciples, and failing to do so by the expression of 
 his convictions and by a narrative of the incidents 
 which took place at the Baptism of Jesus, hoped, to 
 convince them by proofs similar to those which he 
 had himself witnessed. On this hypothesis it was 
 indispensable that the disciples should witness the 
 performance of such works ; and he could not there- 
 fore have told them to ask a question Avhich might 
 be answered by mere words, nor could he have been 
 sure that the disciples would find Jesus in the per- 
 formance of such works. In the first Gospel they do 
 not so find him, and Jesus only refers them to former 
 works and to the testimony of those in whose pre- 
 
 • The difficulty is increased, if we think that John beHeved 
 Jesus to be Messiah before he had performed any miraculous 
 works, bxit began to doubt only when he received the report of 
 such works. The difficulty is so great as to lend some colour to 
 the suggestion that, far from, sending his discii:)lcs because he had 
 heard of these works, he sent them because he had not heard of 
 them, and thus began to waver in the expectations which he had 
 indulged in earlier days. This may be plausible ; but as the 
 negative is not found in the text, nothing can be raised on thi.s 
 foundation. 
 
Acknowledgment of the Messiah ship. 87 
 
 sence he had Avrought them. The Avriter of the third 
 Gospel (vii. 21) clearly assumes the necessity of their 
 seeing the works, and therefore he makes Jesus, on 
 receipt of the question, perform the works required 
 before making any reply. But in both Gospels Jesus 
 understands the inquiry to come from John on his 
 own account, and not for the sake of his disciples, 
 for his answer, when given, is, " Go and tell John 
 what things ye hear and see," and he adds a rebuke 
 to his inconstancy or want of faith in the words, 
 " Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me." 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to notice the last desperate 
 resort of commentators who see in the doubting 
 inquiry of the Baptist a substantial encouragement 
 to Jesus, as though he had said, " Why keep us so 
 long waiting for the great manifestation % The 
 mission of the Messiah is thine ; we have not to look 
 for another. Put on, then, the garments of thy 
 royalty, strike dismay into thine enemies, and open 
 my prison doors." To such interpretations it is 
 enough to answer that what is actually said is very 
 different ; that the Messianic conceptions of the 
 Baptist, expressed in the fii'st chapter of the fourth 
 Gospel, imply no such dreams of earthly greatness 
 and good fortune, and that if he had really retained 
 his faith in Jesus as the Messiah, he would never 
 have presumed to prescribe the times and seasons for 
 actions which Jesus would fitly regulate in the pleni- 
 tude of his wisdom. 
 
 Thus, again, we are brought to the conclusion that 
 this question was suggested by doubts on the part of 
 the Baptist himself; and it is possible that these 
 doubts (together, perhaps, with his asceticism, and 
 the formal character of his religion), led Jesus to 
 speak of him as less than the least in the Kingdom 
 of Heaven, although he might l^e a prophet, and more 
 than a prophet. It is also possible that no such 
 words were ever spoken by Jesus ; but if they were 
 
88 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 spoken, it seems impossible to regard the narrative 
 of John i. as in any degree historical. Simon, the 
 son of Jonas, is said to have received his name of 
 Peter, and to have been especially pronounced blessed, 
 because he acknoAvledged Jesus to be the Christ, the 
 son of the living God, an acknoAvledgment in no 
 way inconsistent with the supposition that his exis- 
 tence began Avith his life on earth. To the idea of 
 a suffering Messiah, Peter, according to the narrative, 
 never attained before the Crucifixion. The Baptist 
 alone pronounced him to be the Lamb of God, who 
 bears our sins and carries our sorrows, and asserted 
 his existence before all worlds as the Eternal Logos 
 of God. How, then, could he, whose faith was in- 
 finitely more true, more exalted, and more spiritual 
 than that of the disciples of Jesus, be regarded as 
 not within the pale of the Kingdom of Heaven 1 It 
 follows, then, either that the statements of the fourth 
 gospel are true, and, in that case, Jesus never said 
 what is attributed to him in Luke vii. 28, and Matthew 
 xi. 11; or that he did speak thus disparagingly of the 
 Baptist, and in that case the narrative of John i. 
 29-36 is a fiction.* 
 
 We may ask further how it came about that one 
 whose spiritual discernment was ranked so low as to 
 place him below the least in the Heavenly Kingdom 
 should be enabled to perceive the true character of 
 the Messiah as a vicarious sufferer at a time when the 
 notion was simply offensive to all others. If we 
 
 * In relating this mission of the two disciples Dean Milman 
 adduces a number of motives which may have led John to the act ; 
 but he inclines to the conclusion that John, like the rest of the 
 people, was not yet exalted above those hopes which were insepar- 
 able from the national mind, as though he had said, " If thou art 
 indeed the Messiah, proclaim thyself at once ; assume thy state ; 
 aiTay thyself in majesty ; discomfit the enemies of holiness and of 
 God. My prison dijors will at once burst open ; my trembling 
 persecutors will cease from oppressions. Herod himself will yield 
 up his usurped authority, and even the power of Rome will cease 
 to affect the redeemed people of the Almighty." 
 
 On this view enough has been already said in the text. 
 
Acknowledgment of the Mcssiabship. 89 
 
 conclude (as, after what we have already seen, we 
 must conclude) that he had no such discernment, his 
 alleged testimony in the Johannine Gospel (iii. 27-36) 
 must be set aside as unhistorical, if its unreal character 
 were not evident from that Gospel itself. According 
 to John i. 31, the baptism of John was instituted 
 especially for the purpose of the manifestation of 
 Jesus as the Messiah to Israel ; it follows that as 
 soon as this purpose was accomplished, his rite was 
 no longer of any use, and, as being useless, should at 
 once have been given up. Indeed, after his distinct 
 admission that Jesus was the Lamb of God, and that 
 he who believes on him has everlasting life, while he 
 who does not believe on him shall not see life, he 
 would, by continuing to baptize and retain disciples 
 about himself, be doing a wrong to every one so 
 drawn from the Christ.* With this wrong he alone 
 would be chargeable, for while he told them verbally 
 that Jesus was he that should come with the fiery 
 baptism of the Spirit, he contradicted his own words 
 by still continuing to administer his merely sym- 
 bolical rite of baptism by water. If he really said 
 what he is thus reported to have said, or if he believed 
 what he said, it is simply inconceivable that he could 
 have left behind him a school of followers who, years 
 after the Crucifixion, knew only his baptism, and had 
 never so much as heard whether there be any Holy 
 Ghost.t With such convictions he must have at- 
 tached himself to Jesus, or sent all who came to him 
 to Jesus. As he did neither, we can only conclude 
 that he <lid not entertain any such convictions. 
 
 On the historical doubts, involved in John's power 
 
 * Thus the two disciples who hear him so speak (John i. 37) 
 immediately leave the Baptist and follow Jesus ; and it was, by 
 his own confession, his manifest duty to urge all others to do as 
 these had done. 
 
 t If we are to take these words of the Acts (xix. 2, 3) as historical 
 it would follow that John, when he spoke of him who should come, 
 never spoke of baptism uith the Holy Ghost, although he may have 
 mentioned the baptism of fire. 
 
po English Life of fesiis, 
 
 to dispatch disciples from his ])lace of confinement, 
 we need say but little here. If the mairiage of Anti- 
 pas with Herodias was the cause of his imprisonment, 
 some of the disciples might still be allowed access to 
 their master; The difficulty arises on comparing the 
 Gospel narratives with that of Josephus, which wo 
 shall have occasion to notice presently. 
 
 On the whole — we have no evidence that John, 
 although he baptized Jesus, acknowledged him as 
 the Messiah, — that he used a uniform language about 
 him (still less that he used the language imputed to 
 him in the fourth Gospel), or, indeed, that he applied 
 to Jesus any Messianic phrases whatsoever. In 
 addition to this, we have to take into account the 
 contradictions on the whole subject between the 
 fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, and the fact that 
 a school of his followers preserved their independence 
 as late as the conversion of Apollos. We are thus 
 brought to the conclusion that the Gospel accounts 
 of the relations between John and Jesus are not 
 trustworthy, or, to put it otherwise, are not historical ; 
 and, as before, we must add that, having shown this, 
 we are not bound to show further how they came into 
 existence. 
 
 Explanations, more or less plausible, are not 
 wanting. Some have urged that the Messianic 
 claims of Jesus Avere not advanced until a time long 
 subsequent to his baptism in Jordan ; and that thus 
 the question which he asked through his disciples was 
 one, not of growing doubt, but of growing faith ; that, 
 whereas he had thought of Jesus hitherto only as one 
 like himself, the report of his wonderful works led 
 him now to think that Jesus might be the Messiah 
 whose advent he had announced as drawing near ; 
 that, after the Messianic character of Jesus was 
 announced, his followers applied to him personally 
 all those phrases by which John intended only to 
 designate a Messiah not personally known to him ; 
 
Deputation from 'Jerusalem to the Baptist. 91 
 
 that, as Jesus was among the number of those whom 
 John baptized, it became necessary to represent John 
 as admitting his own inferiority to Jesus ; and that, 
 this ground-work being obtained, the existing narra- 
 tives were readily developed with the gradual forma- 
 tion of Christian theology. 
 
 But if all such explanations are cast aside, the 
 narratives now examined are not thereby rendered 
 historical ; and the only fact which we may regard as 
 historically ascertained is that Jesus received baptism 
 at the hands of John in Jordan, and remained for 
 some time among the number of his disciples. 
 
 THE DEPUTATION FROM JERUSALEM 
 TO THE BAPTIST. 
 
 In the third Gospel (iii. 15) the preaching of John 
 the Baptist rouses in the hearts of all who heard him 
 a musing that he might perhaps himself be the Mes- 
 siah whose Kingdom he proclaimed as nigh. In this 
 account the inquiry, whether he is the Christ, pro- 
 ceeds from those who are well disposed to him, and 
 who would gladly have their doubts solved in the 
 affirmative. In his reply, John tells them simply that 
 he baptizes them with water, but that one should 
 come after them (he does not say ivho, or when) who 
 should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with 
 fire. 
 
 In the fourth Gospel (i. 19) this question is put to 
 him not by the people, but by deputies from the 
 Sanhedrim at Jerusalem ; and the inquiry assumes a 
 threefold form. To the questions, whether he is the 
 Christ or Messiah, or whether he is Elijah or the 
 prophet {i.e., Jeremiah X), he answers directly in the 
 negative. But when, having described himself as the 
 voice of one crying in the wilderness, he is asked by 
 
92 English Life of yesus. 
 
 what authority he presumes to baptize, he answers, 
 not as in the third Gospel, by saying indefinitely that 
 the Messiah would one day come, but with the state- 
 ment that he was actually standing among them, 
 although they knew him not ; and on the following 
 day he points out Jesus as that unknown Christ, 
 adding at the same time an admission of his pre- 
 existence as the Divine Logos or Word. 
 
 If these two narratives refer to the same subject 
 (and there is no ground for thinking otherwise), they 
 are inconsistent. The crowds who accepted the 
 teaching of John might readily in their enthusiasm 
 regard him as the Messiah. To the Pharisees and 
 Sadducees John had already given deep offence by 
 calling them a generation of vipers ; and they must, 
 therefore, have decided that he was neither Messiah 
 nor Elijah nor Jeremiah ; and even if they admitted 
 the lesser claim, a more vehement resistance would be 
 reserved for the higher. The reproaches addressed 
 to them by Jesus invariably increase their oppo- 
 sition ; there is not the faintest evidence that they 
 received the stinging rebuke of the Baptist in any 
 better spirit. Hence, if they sent any deputation at 
 all, their purpose must have been simply to have 
 put to him a question similar to that Avhich they are 
 described as afterwards putting to Jesus. (Matt. 
 xxi. 23.) Instead of this they are represented in the 
 fourth Gospel as coming to John under the full per- 
 suasion that he really was the Messiah, as astonished 
 on hearing him reply in the negative, and as then 
 offering him the subordinate titles with an apparent 
 desire that he should accept one or other of them. 
 
 Either, then, the Sanhedrim felt no opposition to 
 John, or they did not put to him the questions which 
 they are said to have put in the fourth Gospel. But 
 they were opposed to him, and therefore this narra- 
 tive is not historical. 
 
The Baptism of ycsus. 93 
 
 What the motives were which led to the framing 
 of this story we are in no way called on to explain. 
 It is possible that the writer, who wished to lay stress 
 on their acceptance of John as a prophet, by repre- 
 senting Jesus as referring his enemies to the testimony 
 of the Baptist, desired to have for this testimony a 
 magisterial sanction. Such a sanction could not be 
 imparted by the mere favour of the people ; and 
 hence the formal putting of the questions by the 
 deputed elders. 
 
 The rejection of this explanation, it must be again 
 noted, cannot add to the trustworthiness of an incon- 
 sistent and improbable narrative. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. 
 
 A comparison of the passages which relate the mis- 
 sion of the two disciples of John to Jesus with the 
 first chapter of the fourth Gospel, has led to the 
 conclusion that the Baptist did not see in Jesus the 
 coming Messiah when first they met on the banks of 
 Jordan. This conclusion at once throws the gravest 
 doubt on the incidents which are said to have marked 
 the baptism of Jesus. If John had indeed seen the 
 Holy Spirit descending in bodily shape like a dove 
 and abiding on him (Luke iii. 22), if he had heard 
 the voice from heaven which declared Jesus to be the 
 beloved son, it is impossible that from that time 
 forth his faith could have been for an instant shaken. 
 If, again, these incidents did not take place, and the 
 narrative of the baptism be consequently unhistorical, 
 the accounts of the conception, and birth, and early 
 years of Jesus become still more doubtful and suspic- 
 ious. If the history of later events cannot be trusted, 
 far less can credit be given to legends relating to an 
 earlier time. But these earlier narratives have been 
 shown (Chap, i.) to be full of hopeless contradictions 
 
94 English Life ofyesus. 
 
 ami impossibilities, that, in short, they are made up 
 of two different accounts wliich have scarcely a feature 
 ill common. 
 
 It follows, that if the angelic annunciation never 
 occurred, and if Joseph and Mary had no marvels to 
 tell him respecting his birth and his high mission, 
 then Jesus could have no consciousness of his Mes- 
 siahship during his earlier years ; and we have no 
 right to assume that he had arrived at this conscious- 
 ness when he asked for baptism at John's hands, 
 unless we have distinct historical evidence to that 
 effect. 
 
 On this hypothesis we can readily understand that 
 he should be attracted by the preaching of John, and 
 ask for baptism in expectation of the Messiah, even 
 though he advanced afterwards to the conviction that 
 he was himself that coming one. 
 
 On any other supposition we are confronted by many 
 difficulties. If we suppose with Justin that baptism 
 {i.e. an anointing by Elias) was necessary to point 
 out the unknown Messiah to his countrymen, the 
 answer is that in this case John, far from showing 
 reluctance to baptize, would have been eager to per- 
 form the rite. If we suppose that Jesus, conscious of 
 his Messiahship, approached the Baptist, who was 
 unconscious of it, how, it may be asked, could he 
 receive that rite as signifying his expectation of the 
 future coming of Messiah, when he knew himself to 
 be the Messiah then present 1 How, again, could he 
 receive a baptism of repentance which was either 
 preceded by confession of sins, or followed by ad- 
 dresses which assumed the need of repentance on the 
 part of the recipient % Suggestions of " accommoda- 
 tion " on the part of Jesus are unworthy of a subject 
 so serious ; and all such accommodation would inflict 
 a grave moral injury on those before whom he might 
 afterwards appear as a sinless Christ. 
 
 The incidents of the baptism introduce us to diffi- 
 
The Baptism of yesits. 95 
 
 culties of another kind. The fourtli Gospel asserts, 
 (John i. 32), that Jesus was not known to John 
 until he saw the predetermined sign, viz., the spirit 
 descending like a dove from heaven and abiding upon 
 him. The first Gospel, which states that Jesus was 
 recognized by John on their first meeting, adds that 
 as soon as Jesus ascended up from the Jordan after 
 the baptism, the heavens were opened, and that the 
 spirit of God descended like a dove and alighted upon 
 him, while a voice was heard announcing him as the 
 beloved son in whom God is well pleased. But the 
 wording of this passage does not absolutely determine 
 whether the vision was seen and the voice heard by 
 John as well as by Jesus, although it seems to indi- 
 cate that both saw and heard. The same remark 
 applies to the narrative in Mark i. 10, 11. The third 
 Gospel contains the more important and categorical 
 statement (not of subjective visions, but of the ob- 
 jective facts) that the heavens were opened, and that 
 the Holy Ghost descended like a dove, while a voice 
 came announcing the beloved son of God, and that 
 these events happened in the presence of all the 
 people (Luke iii. 21, 22). 
 
 This statement must be taken in its strict literal 
 meaning, if the veracity of the Gospel narratives is 
 to be maintained. Any attempts to explain it away 
 by allegorical or symbolical interpretations involve 
 the admission that the narrative is not historically 
 accurate; and this admission deprives of their autho- 
 rity all similar narratives, including those of the 
 Eesurrection and the Ascension. If one may be 
 modified, or tampered with, or accommodated, so 
 may the rest ; and the giving up of one is virtually 
 tlie abandonment of all narratives of supernatural 
 incidents without exception. Yet there are compara- 
 tively few to be found who will maintain that the 
 heaven was cloven, as a curtain may be cloven, that 
 the infinite and all-pervading Spirit descended in the 
 
96 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 figure of a dove, and that sounds were uttered from 
 heaven in an articulate human dialect. 
 
 When, therefore. Dean Mihnan (' History of Chris- 
 tianity,' ch. iii.) tells us that as Jesus went up out of 
 the water "a light shone around with the rapid and 
 undulating motion of a dove, typifying the descent of 
 the Holy Spirit on the Son of Man," Ave may say, if 
 we please, that he believes something which may 
 possibly represent the true state of the case, but we 
 cannot say that he believes the narrative of the fourth 
 Gospel or those of the Synoptics. Luke speaks not of 
 a light shining with the rapid motion of a dove,* nor 
 of anything tyinfijing the descent of the Spirit, but 
 of the visible descent of that Spirit, " in bodily 
 shape." 
 
 Of Euemeristic or Rationalistic explanations Ave 
 might have thought it unnecessary to speak, had 
 not the author of ' Ecce Homo ' chosen to adopt the 
 method of Paulus, by asserting roundly (in the teeth 
 of the statement in Luke) that " there is nothing 
 necessarily miraculous in the appearance of the doA^e, 
 and a peal of thunder might be shaped into intelligible 
 Avords by the excited imagination of men accustomed 
 to consider thunder as the Voice of God.'' Thus the 
 dove becomes a common pigeon Avhich happened to 
 fly that Avay, and the light and voice a flash of light- 
 ning and a peal of thunder caused by the fortuitous 
 concurrence of tAvo clouds at that instant. This is, in 
 truth, on any vieAv of the traditional belief, to charge 
 Almighty God Avith jugglery of a most contemptible 
 kind, or, if not this, Avith suff"ering men to ground 
 their faith in his Eternal Son on a series of mere 
 hallucinations, Avhich expressed the Divine Will 
 about as much as the auguries of Romulus and Remus. 
 The method adopted by such champions of traditional 
 Christianity cannot be thought happy. 
 
 • There is nothing peculiar in the flight of a dove to account for 
 the comparison. 
 
The Baptism ofjesus. 97 
 
 Dean Milman adds that " this light could scarcely 
 have been seen or the voice heard by more than the 
 Baptist and the Son of Mary himself, as no immediate 
 sensation appears to have been excited among the 
 multitudes, such as must have followed this public 
 and miraculous proclamation of his sacred character." 
 The answer is, that Luke speaks distinctly of the 
 heavens being opened, of the Spirit descending, and 
 the articulate words being uttered in the presence of 
 all the people ; and that unless their eyes and ears 
 WQXQ preternafuralbj closed, they must have seen visible 
 phenomena and heard audi))le sounds. Unless Luke's 
 account is to be Euemerized, Dean Milman's hypothesis 
 only substitutes one miracle in place of another. The 
 reason which he assigns for maintaining this position 
 is scarcely consistent with opinions advanced by him 
 elsewhere. In an age greedy of marvels, wonders 
 astound for a moment, and are after a moment for- 
 gotten. The appearance of Gabriel to Mary and 
 Zacharias, the manifestation of the star, the coming 
 of the wise men, the angelic harmonies heard by the 
 shepherds, are all "astounding events" which, we are 
 told, Mary pondered over, but which seem for all 
 practical purposes to be immediately forgotten both 
 by herself and by every one else. 
 
 When, by Avay of an additional reason. Dean 
 Milman states that " at a subsequent period Jesus 
 seems to have appeared among the followers of John, 
 unrecognized, or at least unhonoured, until he was 
 pointed out by the Baptist and announced as having 
 been proclaimed from heaven at his baptism," he only 
 adds another to the many difficulties involved in the 
 narrative, for another contradiction is thus furnished 
 to the express statement of Luke that the dove was 
 seen and the voice heard by all. 
 
 But of a writer so truthful and candid as Dean 
 Milman, we may fairly ask why, if the sight and 
 sounds, were seen and heard only by Jesus and John, 
 G 
 
9 8 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 they should be vouchsafed at all. Being thus confined 
 to them alone, the Dean admits, they made no 
 impression on the minds of the people, and hence 
 •were of no use to them whatever. To Jesus and to 
 the Baptist they were, on any orthodox hypothesis, 
 superfluous. They had from the first been conscious, 
 each of his respective mission. 
 
 Thus, in the accounts given of the Baptism, as in 
 those which have preceded them, we have narratives 
 which are untrustworthy and unhistorical. With this 
 negative conclu.sion our proper task is brought to an 
 end. The growth of the legend may be accounted 
 for more or less satisfactorily ; but even if our inability 
 to account for it were demonstrably proved, the story 
 would gain nothing in point of historical value. 
 Hence we are but little concerned with the attempts 
 of writers who seek to show that the less marvellous 
 account of the fourth Gospel furnished the ground- 
 work for the more developed thaumaturgy of the 
 8ynoptics. The statement itself may be questioned ; 
 for in the fourth Gospel, as in the rest, the Spirit 
 descends visibly like a dove, and the multiplication of 
 wonders, where one wonder is introduced, does not 
 alter the character of the tale. 
 
 It may, however, be remarked that the idea of 
 audible voices from heaven was familiar to later 
 Jewish tradition, and was readily adopted by the 
 early Christians in conformity with the Messianic 
 theories of the Jcavs ; that the declaration at the 
 Baptism, which in the report of Justin is quoted 
 precisely from the second Psalm, is addressed to 
 Jesus in the second person, and would thus readily 
 suggest the notion of a voice from heaven. Through- 
 out the Old Testament, again, the Holy Spirit is 
 denoted in phrases whicli suggest as readily the idea 
 of a bird. In the opening sentences of Genesis the 
 Spirit of God broods upon the waters ; and the idea 
 being once suggested, the choice of the dove, as a 
 
Execution ofjohn the Baptist. 99 
 
 sacred bird in the East, became natural. Accord- 
 ing to Rabbinical interpretations the voice of the 
 turtle was the voice of the Holy Spirit, and the dove 
 from the Noachian ark announced that the submerged 
 world had again become fit for human habitation. 
 To complete the outline of the existing narrative, it 
 remained only to provide a way for the descent of the 
 Spirit in the form of the dove. This was done by 
 visibly cleaving the material vault of heaven. We 
 may note, finally, that, although the fourth Gospel 
 does not expressly mention the voice from heaven, a 
 Divine speech is not wanting (John i. 33). 
 
 On the form of declaration made at the Baptism, 
 little needs to be said here. While the fourth Gospel, 
 which perhaps implies a baptism, yet makes no men- 
 tion of the fact, the Synoptic narratives accord more 
 closely with those views, afterwards stigmatized as 
 heretical, which dated the Messiahship of Jesus from 
 the moment of his Baptism.* This view, the earliest 
 (so far as we may judge) to find acceptance in the 
 Christian Church, speedily gave way before the theory 
 which threw back his consecration as Messiah to the 
 moment of his conception in the womb, but was 
 finally displaced by the more developed theology of 
 the Incarnate Logos or Word. 
 
 THE EXECUTION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, 
 
 The narrative of the Baptist's death involves 
 no miracle, while it is the closing scene in the life 
 of a person undoubtedly historical. Here, then, it 
 might have been supposed we should have a real 
 agreement in the several Gospels. Yet it is strange 
 
 * Some existing manuscripts of the third Gospel retain the 
 phrase, "This day have I begotten thee," along with the declara- 
 tion that in Christ God was well pleased. 
 
I oo English Life of fesus. 
 
 that even this event is attributed to two motives 
 which fairly exchide each other. The Gospel of Mat- 
 thew (xiv. 5) distinctly states that Herod was anxious 
 to put John to death, but was restrained solely by 
 fear of the people, who counted him as a prophet. In 
 the second Gospel (vi. 19, 20) we are informed that 
 Herod treated John with the greatest respect, asking 
 his counsel and acting gladly and readily on his advice, 
 while the hatred for John Avas confined to Herodias. It 
 is true that, in the first as well as in the third Gospel, 
 the King is represented as sorry when he finds himself 
 obliged to assent to the request urged by the daughter 
 of Herodias ; but in Matthew his sorrow must mean 
 merely regret at the way in which he had been tricked 
 into giving sentence for his death, rather than sorrow 
 for the sudden cutting short of his life. It is worthy 
 of remark that the narrative of Josephus (Ant. xviii. 
 V. 2) makes not the •slightest reference to the jealousy 
 of Herodias, and ascribes the Baptist's death entirely 
 to Herod's apprehension of danger Avhich might arise 
 from John's popularity. Tliis expression, in spite of 
 his pointed assertions that the Baptism of John had 
 no reference to confession of sins but was symbolical 
 of purity already acquired, shows that Herod's fears 
 were more closely connected with the Messianic ideas 
 than Josephus would have us believe. So great, we are 
 told, was John's influence, that Herod thought it more 
 prudent to anticipate all dangers by putting him to 
 death at once, rather than to allow the evil to come to 
 a head. 
 
 The dramatic character of the incidents which 
 represent the daughter of Herodias as asking for the 
 immediate presentation of the Baptist's head in a 
 charger, can be explained only on the suj^position that 
 Herod was at that moment holding his court at the 
 fortress of Machserus, in which John was confined; 
 and as Josephus mentions that he was then at war 
 with the Arabian king Aretas, this explanation may 
 
Execution of John the Baptist. i o i 
 
 perhaps be correct. Otherwise, two days at least 
 must have passed before his head could have been 
 brought from Machserus to Herod's usual residence at 
 Tiberias. 
 
 Thus, in the narrative which relates the death of 
 the Baptist, we have an undoubtedly historical event 
 attributed to two entirely different motives ; and 
 although we conclude that the account of the first 
 Gospel is the nearest to the truth, we do so, not so 
 much because it is found in a document, which, like 
 the other Gospels, is full of contradictions and impos- 
 sibilities, but because it is substantially borne out by 
 the history of Josephus. 
 
 But this historical character extends to the relations 
 between John and Jesus, only so far as these are con- 
 fined to the simple fact that the latter received bap- 
 tism at the hands of the former, and was for some 
 time reckoned among the number of his disciples. 
 
 So far, then, as we have hitherto advanced, all that 
 we can be said to know historically is, that towards 
 the close of the reign of Herod the Great, or perhaps 
 in the reign of his successor, Jesus, the son of Joseph 
 and Mary, was born (probably at Nazareth) ; that in 
 his earlier years he followed his father's occupation as 
 a carpenter ; that, having reached manhood, he became 
 a disciple of John the Baptist, who, having continued 
 to work in independence of Jesus, and without acknow- 
 ledging him as the Messiah, founded a school which 
 maintained its separate existence: and that John was 
 at length imprisoned and put to death by Herod An- 
 tipas from political motives, which may liave been 
 connected with Messianic agitations. 
 
 Thus far the picture of Jesus himself is colourless. 
 We have simply to state the fact, and to ascertain 
 whether his later history throws a clearer light on his 
 actions and his words. 
 
102 English Life of Jesus . 
 
 THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 
 
 The Synoptic Gospels agree in saying that the 
 temptation of Jesus followed immediately upon his 
 baptism ; but there are important differences even in 
 their naiTatives of the facts. 
 
 The Gospel of Mark (i. 13.) states that Jesus 
 underwent the temptations during the whole period 
 of the forty days, adding a feature not found in the 
 rest, viz., that he Avas with the wild beasts. It also 
 represents the ministry of the Angels as extending 
 over the forty days. 
 
 The Gospel of Matthew asserts that the fast of 
 forty days preceded the temptation, for the tempter 
 is represented as coming to make his first suggestion 
 only when Jesus felt the hunger which is described 
 (iv. 2.) as not felt until the end of the forty days. 
 This Gospel then proceeds to describe three tempta- 
 tions, the first being an inducement to turn stones 
 into bread, the second, to throw himself down from 
 the roof of the temple, the third, to offer direct wor- 
 ship to the devil. 
 
 The Gospel of Luke asserts in the words of the 
 second, that the fast of forty days was accompanied 
 throughout by temptations of Satan (iv. 2.) ; but it 
 agrees with the first Gospel, in describing the hunger 
 as beginning only at the end of the forty days, and 
 then proceeds to give the three temptations of the 
 first Gospel, reversing the order of the second and 
 third. Thus the account of the third GosjdcI appears 
 at first sight as if made ujd by combining the notices 
 in the first and second ; but if the narrative of Luke 
 be regarded as an independent record, then the three 
 temptations of Matthew do not sum up the whole, nor 
 are they the first in the series, but the last. 
 
 Without referring for the present to the character 
 of the incidents, we have here three narratives incon- 
 
The Tcinptation of Jesits. 103 
 
 sistent in points of no slight significance ; but the 
 difficulties become insuperable when we compare the 
 Synoptic Gospels with the fourth. This Gospel not 
 only makes no mention of the temptation : it leaves 
 no room for it. We have already noticed that the 
 fourth Gospel does not state explicitly that Jesus 
 received baptism at all. The whole scheme of the 
 Gospel, setting forth Jesus as the eternal Logos, led 
 the writer to keep as far in the background as possible 
 an incident which had once been regarded as marking 
 the commencement of his Messiahship ; and his 
 expressions (i. 28-33.) seem designed accordingly to 
 lead the reader to suppose that, while John was 
 baptizing on the banks of Jordan, he saw a preter- 
 natural light in the heavens, and witnessed the 
 descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove on 
 the head of one in the multitude around him, and 
 thus at once recognised the Master whose baptism of 
 fire was to render superfluous his own baptism to 
 repentance. It may perhaps be possible to insert the 
 incident of the baptism between verses 28 and 29 ; 
 but the notes of time leave it manifest that he wished 
 to exclude the tale of the temptation from the cycle 
 of Christian tradition. Otherwise we must suppose 
 that he was unacquainted with it, a circumstance far 
 from likely. 
 
 The order of events in the fourth Gospel is as 
 follows. The deputation from the Priests and Levites 
 of Jerusalem draws from the Baptist the assertion 
 that the Messiah stands among them, as yet unknown. 
 On the next day John points out Jesus as the suff'ering 
 Messiah or Lamb of God ; and as he adds that he 
 knew him to be so only by the evidence of supernatural 
 signs, it seems reasonable to suppose that he had seen 
 those signs at some time subsequent to the return of 
 the deputies from the Sanhedrim {i.e., within the 
 last twenty-four hours). On the next day ( 35) John 
 walking with two of his disciples again points out 
 
I04 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 Jesus as the Lamb of God, and the two disciples, 
 leaving him, follow the Messiah. On the next day 
 (43), ((' .e., the third day after John's conference with 
 the deputies) occurs the calling of Philip and Nath- 
 anael; and in the first verse of the second chapter we 
 are told that on the third day (it would seem, three 
 days after the call of Philip and Nathaiiael) there 
 was a marriage in Cana of Galilee at which Jesus 
 was present with his disciples. Thus within a week 
 after his baptism Jesus is described as surrounded by 
 disciples in Galilee, whereas in the Synoptics he is 
 undergoing his forty days' fast in the wilderness, 
 having not yet a single disciple. 
 
 Thus, without noticing the character of the incidents, 
 and even if we allow the possibility of any or all of 
 them, we reach the conclusion that the narratives 
 of the temiitation are unhistorical ; and hence the 
 task of the historical critic is at this point ended. 
 
 But these narratives involve difficulties of other 
 kinds which must not be left unnoticed. Among 
 these difficulties that of the forty days' fast is one of 
 the slightest. Still it is a difficulty, that so long a 
 fast could be endured without a feeling of hunger 
 until its close, inasmuch as the human frame cannot 
 endure for more than a few days the total abstinence 
 from food described in Luke iv. 2. The crucial 
 difficulty is the personal appearance of the devil 
 in visible form, and using the articulate language of 
 men. 
 
 It may be worth while here to remark, that this 
 notion of a visible tempter found little favour with 
 the writers of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the 
 Epistle of James. The former states expressly (iv. 15.) 
 that Jesus was in all points tempted as we are, 
 yet without sin. Now without entering into the 
 psychology of human action, it will be admitted that 
 men are not tempted by visible devils, putting direct 
 suggestions to commit certain specified acts ; and 
 
The Temptation of yesus. 1 05 
 
 that if this was the course of the temptation of Jesus, 
 it was in all respects unlike our own. But the Epistle 
 of James (i. 13.) entering into the question philo- 
 sophically, declares that men are tempted only when 
 they are drawn away of their own lust and enticed : 
 for from the expression that " Every man is tempted 
 when he is so drawn away," the inference is fairly 
 warranted that none are tempted in any other Avay ; 
 and thus temptations are not to be ascribed either to 
 God, or even to any diabolical origin. 
 
 If, then, Jesus was tempted in all points as we are 
 (save only without sin) and if human temptation 
 follows in all cases the course described in James i. 
 13-15, then on grounds furnished by writers in the 
 New Testament itself we come to the conclusion that 
 the Synoptic narratives of the Temptation are not 
 only unhistorical but impossible. 
 
 The truer philosophy of James is itself evidence 
 that the notion of a devil becomes, when the nature of 
 human action is even approximately understood, as 
 superfluous as the idea of angelic agencies to carry 
 on the movements of the heavenly bodies, when the 
 laws which regulate those movements have been 
 ascertained. 
 
 The fact is that the notion of the devil was not alto- 
 gether congenial to the Jewish mind. It was received 
 by them during their exile in Babylon, and is the fruit 
 of Brahmanic mythology and Zoroastrian dualism. 
 In the earliest Vedic hymns the God of the heaven, 
 Indra, wages a long conflict with the snake or 
 dragon who has shut up the waters, and striking him 
 with his invincible spear, lets loose the floods which 
 are needed to supply the wants of men. But this 
 dragon enemy, Vritra, becomes on Zend soil the moral 
 enemy of the Creator or Principle of Good, and the 
 conflict of Indra with his dragon foe is translated 
 into the spiritual conflict between Ormuzd and 
 Ahriman, and still finds its expression in Christian 
 
io6 English Life of yes us. 
 
 symbolism in the battle between St. George and the 
 Dragon. 
 
 This later introduction of the idea becomes manifest 
 on a comparison of passages which attribute certain 
 temptations directly to God (2 Sam. xxiv. i. ; 1 Kings 
 xxii. 23), Avith other passages where the same temp- 
 tations are ascribed to the devil (1 Chron. xxi. 1). In 
 the book of Job the character of Satan is still very 
 unformed ; he is there still one of the angels of 
 God, and appears from time to time before His 
 throne. 
 
 The unhistorical nature of the narrative being 
 proved, we are in no way bound to examine the 
 almost conntless explanations by which commentators 
 seek to soften down, or slur over, or evade the moral 
 and psychological difficulties involved in it. Inter- 
 preters who see in the story simply a tale of ordinary 
 retirement at the end of which Jesus is refreshed by 
 mountain breezes or by a passing caravan which 
 supplies him with the food brought in the Gospels 
 by angels, may be left to exercise at their own 
 pleasure their power of making anything out of any- 
 thing. The same remark applies to writers who, like 
 the author of ' Ecce Homo,' maintain that " what is 
 called Christ's Temptation is the excitement of his 
 mind which was caused by the nascent consciousness 
 of supernatural power." It is enough to say that the 
 Gospels say nothing about any excitement, and that 
 they give a series of incidents, which are either his- 
 torical or not historical, but out of which we are not 
 at liberty to frame something else to suit our own 
 fancies. When such a writer further asserts that 
 from the invitation of the devil to Jesus to offer him 
 direct worship, we are " to understand that he was 
 tempted to do something which on reflexion appeared 
 to him to be equivalent to an act of homage to the 
 evil spirit," it is enough to say that on this principle, 
 from the Tale of Troy, as given in the cyclic poems, 
 
The Temptation of Jesus. 107 
 
 it was just and right for Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 
 and those like him, to work out a prose history. 
 
 Dean Mihnan (' History of Christianity,' ch. iii.), 
 although he evidently does not accept the narrative 
 as a record of facts which took place as they are said 
 to have taken place, yet expresses no distinct judg- 
 ment of his own, and leaves the reader to choose 
 between a number of alternatives. Thus when he 
 says that " according to the common literal interpre- 
 tation " the Temptation was " actually urged by the 
 Principle of Evil in his own proper person," we are 
 not justified in ascribing to Dean Milman the belief 
 that there is a Principle of Evil, and that this prin- 
 ciple has a visible body ; but we learn on his authority 
 the fact that the majority of Christians are Dualists or 
 believers in two gods, one good, the other evil. It is 
 of the essence of Monotheism to maintain that there 
 can be no principle (apx^) ^"^ Glod ; and if any 
 originating power be granted to any other being, 
 there is no escape from the dualism of Zoroaster. 
 
 So far as he may be said to express any opinion, 
 Dean Milman inclines to side with those who think 
 that " even in the New Testament much allowance is 
 to be made for the allegoric character of Oriental 
 narrative," and that " some, not less real, though less 
 preternatural, transaction, is related, either from some 
 secret motive, or according to the genius of Eastern 
 narrative, in this figurative style." Of these plausible 
 theories Dean Milman examines that which sees in 
 the tempter not Satan but the high priest or one of the 
 Sanhedrim, delegated by their authority to discover 
 the real pretensions of Jesus. This person, follow- 
 ing Jesus in the wilderness, demanded as the price 
 of his acknowledgment by the public authorities 
 some display of preternatural powers corresponding 
 to those ascribed to Moses. In reply to this view Dean 
 Milman urges the improbability that at so early a 
 period in his career Jesus would be thought of so 
 
to8 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 much importance hy tlie ruling powers, or that, even 
 if Matthew had some motive for \\Tapping up such 
 a transaction under a veil of allegory, this motive 
 would have any weight with the writer of the third 
 Gospel ; " nor," he adds, " does it appear easily re- 
 concilable Avith the cautious distance at which the 
 authorities appear to have watched the conduct of 
 Jesus, thus, as it were, at once to have committed 
 themselves, and almost placed themselves within his 
 power." 
 
 But we may further remark that if the faintest 
 memory of the incidents attending the Nativity of 
 Jesus had survived, if they had remembered anything 
 of the Star and the coming of the Magi, of the 
 slaughter of the Innocents, of the Angelic Song in 
 the sky over Bethlehem, still more if they had thought 
 of the Galitean child who astonished them in the 
 temple at twelve years of age with his understanding 
 and answers, they would have been in no doubt 
 as to his character and his claims ; and thus the 
 deputations to John and to Jesus become alike 
 superfluous. 
 
 Further, it may be remarked that the ruling powers 
 seem to have cared very little for supernatural mani- 
 festations ; and it is impossible that men even moder- 
 ately well read in the Pentateuch could forget the 
 cautions given in Dent. xiii. against workers of 
 miracles which may be false, and so pledge their 
 adherence to one who might possibly be deceiving 
 them, or that men who promised to follow Jesus on 
 such grounds at the beginning of his ministry should 
 reject him at its close for working a miracle (in the 
 resurrection of Lazarus), the reality of which they 
 allowed. 
 
 We may pass by, with slight notice, the difficulties 
 involved in the transitions from the scene of one 
 temptation to that of another. The Synoptic Gospels 
 distinctly assert that these transitions were effected 
 
The Temptation of Jesus. 109 
 
 by the devil, who takes Jesus, and places him on the 
 temple roof and the mountain summit. It follows 
 that he carried Jesus through the air ; and this magi- 
 cal notion has naturally been disagreeable even to 
 many who accept the idea of a personal devil. 
 
 The character of the suggestions demands from us 
 only a few words. If there is a certain natural force 
 in the temptation addressed to hunger, there is none 
 in the suggestion to fall from a pinnacle, while the 
 inducement to pay worship to the devil would at 
 once be rejected with horror by every true Israelite. 
 Feeling this, commentators have been driven to adopt 
 the hypothesis of allegory, on which enough has been 
 already said. 
 
 How the narrative came into existence, we are not 
 in any way called on to explain. Our task was ended 
 when it was shown to be not historical. Still it may 
 be remarked that such temptations as those of Abra- 
 ham and Job might suggest the idea of temptations 
 to be undergone and overcome by the Messiah, while 
 the wilderness was regarded as the special abode of 
 evil spirits, like the Asmodeus of the book of Tobit. 
 In the wilderness, Moses was awakened to the con- 
 sciousness of his high calling : iia the wilderness, the 
 Messiah should awaken to the consciousness of his far 
 higher mission. The forty days' fast of Moses and 
 Elijah may have fixed the time assigned to the fast of 
 Jesus ; and a further parallel is furnished in the forty 
 years' wanderings in the wilderness, the dreary time 
 during which the chosen people underwent their temp- 
 tation. As hunger was the chief temptation of the 
 Israelites, so should hunger be the first temptation of 
 the Messiah. As they were induced to tempt God in 
 the desert, so should the Messiah be moved to tempt 
 God by asking for a preternatural rescue from self- 
 incurred danger; and as the Israelites yielded to 
 idolatry, so should the Messiah reject idolatry, which 
 
no English Life of Jesus. 
 
 later Jewish notions regarded as identical witlx the 
 worship of the devil. 
 
 The same idea of temptation at the beginning of 
 their career is seen in the legends of Buddha, Her- 
 cules, and other mythical benetactors of mankind. 
 
 But if these suggestions are rejected as of no A'alue, 
 the narratives still remain devoid of all historical 
 authority. 
 
Public Ministry of "Jesus. ill 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CALLINCt of THE DISCIPLES, AND THE 
 DISCOURSES IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 
 
 SCENE AND DURATION OF THE 
 PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS. 
 
 The popular idea, derived from some patristic writ- 
 ings, regards the public ministry of Jesus as extend- 
 ing over three years. How far such a notion is war- 
 ranted by facts, will be seen on a comparison of the 
 fourth Gospel with the Synoptic narrative. 
 
 In the latter, Jesus is represented as labouring 
 altogether in Galilee, from the time immediately suc- 
 ceeding the temptation to the period of the journey 
 to Jerusalem which led to the Crucifixion. In the 
 former, Jesus is described as performing his chief 
 works and delivering his principal discourses in Jeru- 
 salem, and departing into Galilee only for some speci- 
 fied reasons. 
 
 According to Matthew iv. 12, Jesus, having re- 
 turned from Judsea into Galilee, first went to Nazareth, 
 which he immediately left for Caj^ernaum. This city 
 is henceforth the centre from which he visits various 
 parts of Northern Palestine, but chiefly the region 
 to the west of Jordan and the lake of Tiberias, which 
 formed the province of Herod Antipas. 
 
 But neither from this Gospel, nor from those of 
 Mark and Luke, are we able to determine the dura- 
 tion of the ministry. From the expressions used, it 
 seems likely that the Evangelists imagined themselves 
 
112 English Life of ycsus. 
 
 to be drawing up a definite chronological narrative ; 
 but the notes of time given by them are genenillv con- 
 fined to such phra^^es as '" then,"' " at that time," 
 '• after two days.'" '" in those days,"' and the like. On 
 the hypothesis that Jesus regularly kept the Paschal 
 feast at Jerusalem, his whole public career, according 
 to the Synoptics, would be limited to a period of less 
 than twelve months, as oidy one Passover is mentioned 
 by them. If it was extended over a longer time, it 
 ■would follow that Jesus was not a regular attendant 
 at Jerusalem during the Paschal feast, — a supposition 
 not altogether disproved even by the fourth Gospel, 
 for there is no indication that Jesus himself attended 
 the feast mentioned in John vi. -t. In either case, it 
 is obvious that the Synoptists were either ignorant of, 
 or had forgotten, or took no interest in, the discourses 
 and works which the fourth Gospel ivssigns to the 
 several visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before the last Pass- 
 over. All these suppositions seem equally incredible. 
 According to the fourth Gospel, Jesus was attended 
 at each of the festivals by Galilieans, who crowded to 
 Jerusalem in great numbers ; and it is not to be cre- 
 dited that they would carry away to Galilee no 
 remembrance of such events as the cure of the man 
 with his infirmity of nearly forty years at the pool of 
 Bethesda, or the restoration of the blind man to sight, 
 or the raising of Lazarus. — to none of which do the 
 Svnoptists make the slightest reference. Forgetful- 
 ness of such things presumes a grosser stupidity than 
 we have a right to impute even to Galilieans : and if 
 it be urged that a Galila?an writer would dwell chiefly 
 on incidents likely to glorify his own country, the 
 answer is, that the Synoptic Gospels are clearly de- 
 sio'ned to glorify not Galilee, but Jesus. He is the 
 central figure, on which the brightest light is shed 
 throughout, while the cities of Galilee are frequently 
 reproved with the utmost severity for their hardness 
 of heart and unbelief. 
 
Public Ministry of yesus. i 1 3 
 
 In the fomlli Gospel Jesus, after his last interview 
 with John, departs not into the Wiklerness for the 
 temptation, but to Cana of Galilee (ii. 1), and from 
 thence to Capernaum (ii. 12). A few days later 
 (ii. 13) he departs to Jerusalem for the passover, and 
 after having spent some time in Judsea (iii. 22, iv. 1) 
 he returns through Samaria into Galilee (iv. 43). 
 Nothing is recorded of his stay in this region at this 
 time but the cure of the nobleman's son at Caper- 
 naum, after which he is summoned to Jerusalem for 
 the feast (whatever this was) which was marked by 
 the miracle at the pool of Bethesda (v. 1). In the 
 following chapter it is stated that .he went over the 
 Sea of Galilee (vi. 1), where he remained for some 
 time, chiefly at Capernaum (vi. 59), until he went 
 up in secret to the feast of tabernacles (vii. 1 0). To 
 this visit belong all the discourses which extend to 
 ch. X. 21; and these are followed immediately (x. 22) 
 by the mention of the feast of dedication, the inference 
 being that Jesus had remained in the Holy Citj^ dur- 
 ing the whole interval between the two feasts. After 
 this Jesus retires (x. 40) into Persea or the country be- 
 yond Jordan, where he remains down to the death of 
 Lazarus and the beginning of the journey which 
 immediately preceded the Crucifixion. 
 
 Of all these events the Synoptists know nothing, 
 and their ignorance presents seemingly an insuperalile 
 difficulty. They are careful to note not only the time 
 at which he returns to Galilee and that at which he 
 leaves it, but the various excursions across the lake 
 of Tiberias. It is incredible that they should have 
 said nothing of the astonishing events attending his 
 visits to Jerusalem, if they had been acquainted with 
 them. If it be urged that the omission is accounted 
 for by the fact that the discourses at Jerusalem 
 required a far higher spiritual discernment than his 
 discourses in Galilee, the answer is, that the former 
 are far more miserably misunderstood than the latter. 
 H 
 
i 14 English Life of fcsus. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we take the silence of the 
 Synoptists as an argument that these events never 
 took place, it follows that the author of the fourth 
 Gospel fabricated a series of the most momentous 
 events and discourses, Avhich he h;is further assigned 
 to a place not visited by Jesus till the close of his 
 ministry. 
 
 A further contradiction becomes apparent when we 
 note that the Synoptists in every case give a special 
 reason for his leaving Galilee, while the fourth Gospel 
 is equally careful in specifying the reasons for his 
 leaving Jerusalem. According to the former, Jesus 
 would not have left Galilee if he could have avoided 
 it ; according to the latter, he would liave remained 
 at Jerusalem if he could have done so with safety. 
 The inconsistency is glaring. The two statements 
 cannot both be true, and the question arises Avhether 
 we have any reason for preferring one to the other. 
 
 If there be, it is not a reason of any great strength. 
 For, with the synoptical version, it is not easy to 
 understand how one visit of two or three days to 
 Jerusalem should rouse an antagonism so vehement 
 as to lead to the capture and death of Jesus. If it be 
 said that he was denounced by scribes and Pharisees 
 who were resident in the towns of Galilee, then it 
 can no longer be said that he absented himself from 
 Jerusalem because in Galilee he was free from all such 
 ecclesiastical supervision. The motive of prudence 
 being thus taken away, there was no reason why he 
 should not regularly go up to the temjile for every 
 feast. 
 
 But although the Synoptists agree in making Galilee 
 the scene of the ministry, they agree in little more. 
 Matthew takes him to Capernaum, to fulfil a supposed 
 prophecy of Isaiah (iv. 1 4) ; Luke represents him as 
 fir.st making an attempt to establish himself at " his 
 own city," Nazareth. In the synagogue on the 
 Sabbath day he announces that a Messianic predic- 
 
Public Ministry of yesus. 1 1 5 
 
 tion of Isaiah is fulfilled in his own person, and his 
 fellow-townsmen marvel at hearing such words from 
 the lips of the carpenter's son (Luke iv. 22). On his 
 quoting to them the proverb that prophets are with- 
 out honour only in their own country, they are so 
 enraged that they press on him and hurry him to the 
 brow of the hill on which their city was built, intend- 
 ing to hurl him down over it ; but by a mysterious 
 restraining power Jesus withdraws himself from the 
 midst of them, and escapes. 
 
 A visit to Nazareth, which is evidently the same as 
 the one just described, is found in Matthew and Mark 
 in a very different connexion and at a much later time. 
 It is true that no attempt is made to put Jesus to 
 death ; but Jesus quotes to them the same proverb in 
 answer to the same expressions of disparagement or 
 unbelief on their part (Matt. xiii. 57). Here, also, 
 as in Mark vi. 1-4, a pointed reference is made to 
 mighty works wrought by Jesus, as well as to his 
 wisdom, thus proving that the visit to Nazareth could 
 not have occurred immediately after his return from 
 Jordan into Galilee. This fact is incidentally betrayed 
 by the narrative in the third Gospel, which, while it 
 describes the visit as the first incident in the ministry 
 of Jesus, represents him as telling the Nazarenes, "Ye 
 will surely say to me this proverb. Physician, heal 
 thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Caper- 
 naum, do also here in thy country." The Evangelist 
 thus summarily contradicts his own statement that the 
 visit to Nazareth preceded any ministrations in Caper- 
 naum. If it be urged that the account of Luke 
 belongs to a later incident than that mentioned in 
 the other Gospels, the answer is that in this case the 
 Nazarenes would have been quite well acquainted with 
 his wisdom, and needed not to have asked the same 
 question and received the same reply a second time ; 
 but the self-contradiction of the third Evangelist shows 
 the thoroughly unhistorical nature of the narrative. 
 
ll6 English Life of Jesus . 
 
 The remaining incidents of his public life are 
 described, with no greater accuracy. The same events 
 and the same discourses are given in very different 
 sequences, and ascribed to different places. Hence 
 some orthodox theologians have held that the idea of 
 giving a correct chronological order of events was 
 foreign to the mind of the Synoptists. Thej'' are pro- 
 bably right, but their hypothesis makes it impossible 
 for us to determine how and when the events took 
 place, or whether they ever took place at all. 
 
 While, then, in these Gospels the ministry seems to 
 be limited to a few months, in the fourth it is extended 
 ajiparently to two years. But in truth all the opinions 
 entertained on this subject rest on a fanciful basis. 
 Some who regard his ministry as begun and ended 
 within twelve months, have supposed that this period 
 is indicated by " the acceptable year of the Lord," 
 while Irenaeus and others, who extended it to twenty 
 years, relied on the expression, " Thou art not yet 
 fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham]" as 
 proving that he had passed the fourth, and had nearly 
 completed the fifth decade of his life. 
 
 Finally, if we accept Luke's statement as meaning 
 that Jesus was baptized in the fifteenth year of 
 Tiberius, it Avould follow that the ministry may have 
 extended over seven years, for Pilate was recalled in 
 the year of the emperor's death, and the reign of 
 Tiberius extended over twenty-two years. But the 
 passage of Luke is rendered suspicious (as we have 
 seen, page 73) by some grave chronological errors, and 
 we are left only with the well-attested fact that 
 Jesus Avas crucified under Pontius Pilate. 
 
 Thus, then, we cannot profess to have any certain 
 knowledge either of the duration of his ministry, or 
 of the principal scenes of his labours. All that is seen 
 clearly is that the Synoptist and Johannine narra- 
 tives mutually exclude each other. Their relative 
 trustworthiness will be more apparent in the sequel. 
 
The Calling of the Disciples. 1 1 7 
 
 THE CALLING OF THE DISCIPLES. 
 
 The scanty and contradictory notes of time which, 
 as we have seen in the last section, are given for the 
 several incidents in the ministry of Jesus, as well as 
 for its general duration, render it impossible for us 
 to do more than to take in the most convenient order 
 events, almost all of which appear in the several 
 Gospels in a different sequence and relation. 
 
 By all the Evangelists Jesus is represented as alone 
 at the beginning of his ministry, but as being after- 
 wards attended by a band of disciples. Here, however, 
 their agreement ends. 
 
 In the fourth Gospel, Jesus, twice seen by the 
 Baptist walking alone, is twice hailed by him as the 
 Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. 
 On the second of the two occasions the Baptist is 
 attended by two of his disciples who, on hearing their 
 master's address, forsake him and follow Jesus. 
 (i. 29, 35). 
 
 This statement at once throws us back on all the 
 difficulties involved in the relations of the Baptist to 
 Jesus. (Chapter ii., p. 77, &c.) If the former so 
 clearly recognised his high Messianic character, if he 
 saw in Jesus that mighty One who was to baptize 
 with the Holy Ghost and with fire, it was eminently 
 consistent with such a conviction that he should sur- 
 render his own disciples to the Christ; but it is 
 inconsistent that he should retain any, or that he 
 should continue any longer to administer his own rite 
 of Baptism. But he does continue to baptize even in 
 the fourth Gospel (iii. 23), while in the Synoptic 
 Gospels he is described as not recognising the high 
 spiritual character of Jesus, and he is characterized 
 accordingly as less than the least in the kingdom of 
 heaven. We have also to remember that, if the 
 history of the Acts is to be credited, there existed to 
 a much later date a body of believers who knew no 
 
1 1 8 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 baptism but that of John, and avIio had not even heard 
 of the existence of a Holj Ghost. (Acts xix. 2). 
 
 At once, then, this account of tlie transference of the 
 Baptist's disciples must be set aside as unhistoricah 
 
 Of the two discijiles thus transferred one is said to 
 have been Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. The 
 other, who is nameless, has been generally regarded 
 as the favourite disciple who lay on Jesus' breast at 
 supper, and is further identified with John, the son of 
 Zebedee. 
 
 Thus, then, according to the fourth Gospel, Andrew, 
 after abiding with Jesus for a single night, is con- 
 vinced of his Messiahship, and thereupon summons 
 his brother Peter, who is now brought before Jesus 
 for the first time, and receives from him the surname 
 of Cephas, the stone. Peter, therefore, is introduced 
 to Jesus as to the Messiah, and both brothers are as 
 distinctly conscious of his mission as the Baptist is 
 represented to have been. But in the synoptic ac- 
 counts none of the disciples for a long time rise to 
 this conviction, and when they do arrive at it, it is 
 Peter who first puts it into words, and no hint is 
 given that Andrew had long ago given utterance to 
 the same belief.* 
 
 On the next day (John i. 43), Jesus gives his first 
 distinct call; but this call is given to Philip, described 
 as of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip 
 is called on the road to Galilee, and having found his 
 brother Nathanael, brings him also to Jesus as to the 
 Messiah. It is scarcely necessary to notice the opinion 
 which in Nathanael sees the Apostle Bartholomew. 
 It is more to the purpose to note his incredulity 
 when told that the Messiah belonged to Nazareth. 
 There is not the slightest evidence that at this time 
 any stigma attached to that city more than to any 
 other in Galilee ; and in the general contempt for the 
 
 * For a more detailed examination of this subject, see ' Com- 
 montatore and Hierophants,' Part ii. pages 14-20. 
 
The Calling of the Disciples. 1 1 9 
 
 whole province of Galilee, Nathanael, as being himself 
 a Galilaean, was not very likely to concur. 
 
 But every incident in the narrative of this call is 
 the gravest tax on our powers of belief. As Na- 
 thanael approaches, Jesus at once greets hira as an 
 Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile ; and 
 when Nathanael expresses his surprize that Jesus 
 should know him, the answer is, " Before that 
 Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig- 
 tree, I saw thee." We will not waste time on ex- 
 planations which assert that Jesus had already been 
 informed of the character of Nathanael, as the words 
 of Jesus are thus degraded into a piece of gross 
 trickery. It is indubitable that the writer meant to 
 describe this knowledge as supernatural, and as such 
 it is regarded by Nathanael. The idea that Jesus 
 saw Nathanael reading the law under a fig-tree and 
 thus had a clue to his character, is not less con- 
 temptible. Hypocrites may read the law under fig- 
 trees, and a diligent student of Deuteronomy (xiii.) 
 must have remembered the solemn warnings against 
 being led astray by any mere outward sign. For- 
 getting, however, all that is there said about wonders 
 which may possibly be false, Nathanael, without 
 waiting for any moral proof, at once acknowledges 
 Jesus as Son of God and King of Israel ; and Jesus, 
 without rebuking him for believing on the score of a 
 mere sign, promises that he shall see greater tokens 
 of his power and knowledge hereafter. 
 
 How this tradition (which must be dismissed as 
 not belonging to the domain of history) grew up, we 
 are not called upon to determine. It is possible that 
 the groundwork may have been furnished by the 
 second sight attributed to Elisha, and, at his prayer, 
 conferred on others (2 Kings v. 26, vi. 17) in the 
 Old Testament ; but the rejection of this explanation 
 adds nothing to the trustworthiness of the Johannine 
 narrative. 
 
I20 Eiiglish Life of yes us. 
 
 Thus before the arrival of Jesus in Galilee the 
 fourth Gospel represents him as attended by four 
 disciples, Andrew, the nameless one who may be 
 John, Philip, and Nathanael. 
 
 But in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus walking alone, finds 
 Andrew and Simon Peter, for the first time, on the 
 shore of the Galila^an sea, and promising to make 
 them fishers of men, bids them follow him. (Matt. 
 iv. 18). The call is instantly obeyed, and their 
 fisherman's occupation abandoned. 
 
 (roing onwards, he summons in like manner James 
 and John, the two sons of Zebedee, who likewise 
 leave their ships and their father at his command. 
 
 Thus the places and the incidents of these calls are 
 wholly contradictory. 
 
 The commentators who have wished to reconcile 
 these statements have generally taken refuge in the 
 notion that the two Evangelists describe separate 
 calls many times repeated. 
 
 The hypothesis does but substitute one difficulty 
 for another. If it be supposed that the calls in the 
 fourth Gospel succeeded those recorded in the Synop- 
 tics, then AndreAv and John, having already followed 
 Christ, could not have been found afterwai'ds among 
 the disciples of the Baptist ; and if Peter had already 
 been summoned to be a fisher of men hy the Mes- 
 siah, there would have been no need of his brother 
 Andrew's telling him at a later time that they had 
 found the Messiah. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we suppose that the calls in 
 the fourth Gospel preceded those of the synoptic 
 Gospels, it is not easy to see how Philip and the rest 
 could have deserted Christ after receiving his com- 
 mand to follow him. Wherever else this phrase is 
 used, it is used as expressing an injunction whicli is 
 to be rigidly comjdied with ; and it is construed by 
 the disciples accordingly. " Lo, M^e have left all and 
 have followed thee. What shall we have, therefore 1" 
 
The Call'mg of the Disciples. 1 2 1 
 
 is not the exclamation of men who think that they 
 may follow Christ for a day and then return to their 
 former vocations. But even if we suppose that they 
 could so leave him, is it possible that in the course of 
 a few days or weeks they could so have forgotten all 
 that had passed as to need in Galilee a summons 
 which was addressed to them evidently as to 
 strangers ? For nothing is more clear than that 
 the synojitic writers intend to describe a first call in 
 each given instance. Why, again, if Jesus had already 
 given to Peter that surname of Cephas which marked 
 his special rank among the apostles, should he after- 
 wards invite him to become with other disciples simply 
 a fisher of men ] 
 
 We cannot, then, suppose that the synoptic calls 
 preceded those of the Johannine Gospel, or that the 
 latter went before the former. Unless, then, we have 
 some special warrant for regarding either of the two 
 as more trustworthy than the other, we must reject 
 both as unhistorical. 
 
 It ought to be on all sides admitted, that so com- 
 plete a knowledge of the characters of men displayed 
 by Jesus at the first glance is quite inconsistent with 
 the idea of mere human natural ability, nor can the 
 instant obedience of those who are called be accounted 
 for on any other hypothesis than that of a super- 
 natural constraining force in the voice and bearing of 
 Jesus. According to the narrative, they had not seen, 
 and perhaps never heard of him before ; in any case, 
 as Jesus was alone, he was unannounced, and if they 
 had heard of him it implies a divining power on their 
 part to connect what they had heard with the stranger 
 then present before them. 
 
 Here again, although we are in no way bound to 
 explain the origin of these or any other traditions, 
 we may reasonably recur to the Old Testament legends 
 respecting Elijah. Whether, after the traditionary 
 fashion, we choose to call them types or give them 
 
122 English Life of yes US. 
 
 any other name, still the fact remains that in both we 
 have incidents of precisely the same kind. Ploughing 
 in the case of Elisha answers to the fisherman's craft 
 in the case of Peter and the sons of Zebedee ; and 
 the voice of Elijah summons the son of Shaphat to a 
 high spiritual office with a power as irresistible as 
 that of Jesus. In one respect only they differ. 
 Elisha suffers his new disciple to go and bid farewell 
 to those in his father's house ; similar requests made 
 to Jesus provoke the reply that the dead may be left 
 to bury the dead. It was necessary to find some 
 point on which tlie Messiah rose above the prophet, 
 and that point was found here. 
 
 But, further, if the Johannine account of the calling 
 of Andrew and Nathanael be true, then all those nar- 
 ratives in the synojDtic Gospels which represent the 
 disciples as unaware of the Messianic mission of 
 Jesus and as utterly unable to comprehend its nature 
 are convicted of falsehood. According to the former 
 these disciples, together with the Baptist, understood 
 it as clearly as ever it was understood by Paul ; and 
 it is impossible to believe that a faith so clear could 
 become so clouded and dull as that of the Apostles 
 is represented to have been during the whole of the 
 ministry. 
 
 In the case of Peter we find not only the summons 
 in the fourth Gospel by Andrew, who distinctly tells 
 him that Jesus is the Messiah, and the call in Matthew 
 iv., but also another call in Luke v. 1 — 11, which is 
 either another account of the incident recorded in 
 Matthew, or a wholly different story. If it be the 
 former, then all that can be said is that any one event 
 may be identified with any other event. In Matthew 
 Jesus simply walks by the sea, and bidding Peter and 
 his brother follow him, is instantly obeyed. In Luke 
 he bids them push out into the sea, and, sitting down 
 in the boat, he teaches the people who stand on the 
 shore. In the former there is a bare command, in. 
 
The Calling of the Disciples. 123 
 
 the latter there is a miraculous draught of fishes. If, 
 however, we regard it as a separate incident, we at 
 once find ourselves at a loss to determine where it is 
 to be placed. It cannot come before the call in John, 
 because that occurs in Judaea, while that of Luke 
 belongs to the shore of Gennesareth, — to say nothing 
 of the difficulty arising from the circumstance that 
 any subsequent calls should be needed by one who 
 had been distinctly informed of his Messiahship. 
 It cannot be placed before that in Matthew, because 
 if by the miracle Peter had been so convinced of his 
 own sinfulness and the holiness of Jesus, a second 
 call would have been quite unnecessary. If it be 
 placed later, then we have before us this ijhenomenon, 
 that a disciple, who had received such a call as that 
 described in John i., deliberately leaves his master ; 
 that, having been called again in Galilee, he again 
 leaves him, and is finally induced the third time by 
 an outward manifestation of power to attach himself 
 permanently to Jesus. There repains also the 
 difficulty that each time he is invited as an utter 
 stranger. Nor is the difficulty lessened if we suppose 
 that the healing of Peter's wife's mother preceded the 
 miraculous draught, as it is said to have done by 
 Luke (iv. 38), for this would only show still more 
 how little Peter would be influenced by the signs and 
 wonders. In Matthew (viii. 14) this healing is 
 narrated in a later connexion. Thus, then, in place 
 of an advance from a lower faith to a higher, we have 
 a most singular retrogression. 
 
 If, then, these narratives exclude each other, is 
 either to be preferred 1 Are we to suppose that the 
 tale of the miraculous draught of fishes has dropped 
 out of the account of Matthew or Mark, or that the 
 promise that they should become fishers of men 
 (which is common to all the accounts) was in Luke 
 worked out into a literal history ] We cannot doubt 
 which is the more natural course. Popular tradition 
 
124 English Life ofyesus. 
 
 never spiritualizes, and all ecclesiastical history is full 
 of marvellous stories which have had some metapho- 
 rical saying as their basis. When a mediaeval saint, 
 pointing to his crucifix, said that it was thence he 
 derived all his inspiration, the saying soon grew into 
 the tale that he had a speaking crucifix ; hut the 
 legend would never have resolved itself into the 
 metaphorical phrase. Here, also, we must call to 
 mind the miraculous draught of fishes mentioned in 
 the last chapter of the fourth Go.spel. This narrative 
 by Origen and other writers is regarded as a mere 
 piece of symbolism, indicating by the definite number 
 and the soundness of the net the Church triumphant 
 in heaven, Avhile the great multitude breaking the net 
 in Luke represents the imperfection caused by the 
 mingling of good and bad, of tares and wheat in the 
 Church militant on earth. 
 
 We have, therefore, no warrant for regarding the 
 narrative of Peter's calling, given in the third Gospel, 
 as historical. 
 
 On the calling of Matthew a few words may suffice. 
 In the first Gospel (ix. 9) it is stated that some time 
 after the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus, 
 having called Matthew from the receipt of custom, was 
 immediately followed by the "publican" and enter- 
 tained in his house. In Mark ii. 14 it is stated that 
 after the healing of the palsied man at Capernaum, 
 Jesus called Levi, the son of Alphgeus, from the receipt 
 of custom, the remainder of the narrative being the 
 same. In Luke v. 27 we have the same name, Levi : 
 but the incident is placed before the Sermon on the 
 mount or plain. That in all three instances we have 
 the same tale, we cannot doubt ; but it is far from 
 certain that the same person is denoted by the names 
 Levi and Matthew. The lists of apostles in Mark 
 and Luke contain the name of Matthew, but they do 
 not call him a tax-gatherer, nor do they mention that 
 he also bore the name of Levi. All that we can say 
 
The Calling of the Disciples. 125 
 
 then, is, that we have here the calling of two tax- 
 gatherers, which is paralleled by the story of Zac- 
 chseus, who likewise obeys instantly the call of Jesus 
 and makes him a feast in his house, exciting similar 
 murmurs among the orthodox Pharisees. 
 
 We have thus before us the callings of six of that 
 band of twelve who received the name of Apostles. 
 That the choice of this number had reference to the 
 Messianic idea, is expressly asserted in writings as 
 ancient as the Epistle of Barnabas ; and we may, 
 perhaps, regard as historical the promise that they 
 should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes 
 of Israel. Their position of life is also sufficiently 
 ascertained ; none apparently above the rank of the 
 fishermen and publicans (tax-gatherers) were enrolled 
 among their number. 
 
 The relation in which the twelve stand to each 
 other is not the same in all the Gospels. All four 
 catalogues place the name of Peter first, which can 
 scarcely be the result of chance, or. because he was 
 first called, since in the fourth Gospel he is called 
 after Andrew and John. Throughout the Synoptics, 
 also, Peter is always the most promiuent, and is the 
 first to acknowledge the Messiahship, — a statement 
 quite irreconcilable, as we have seen, with the fourth 
 Gospel. 
 
 A fact far more noteworthy is that in the Synoptics, 
 not only does the name of James take precedence of 
 that of John, but the order in which the three most 
 intimate disciples are mentioned is always that of 
 Peter, James, John. James, therefore, took precedence 
 of his brother, as Peter stood higher than James. 
 In the fourth Gospel the case is very differently 
 represented. Peter, it is true, is still in a certain 
 sense foremost; but it is only in a physical sense. 
 Peter follows Jesus into the high priest's house, 
 but he gains admission only through the influence of 
 John. He is the first to run to the tomb ; even so, he 
 
126 English Life of yes us. 
 
 is outrun by John ; he is first also to enter the tomb, 
 but John is the first to see and believe. He is the 
 first to cast himself into the sea when, after the 
 Resurrection, Jesus appears to them on the shores of 
 the lake of Tiberias, but John is the first to see that 
 " It is the Lord." In other ways also, John is 
 exalted. In the Synoptics no disciples are witnesses 
 of the Crucifixion : in the fourth the beloved disciple 
 stands by the Cross Avith the motlier of Jesus. If, 
 again, Peter receives a command to feed Christ's 
 sheep, it is preceded by the upbraiding question, 
 "Lovest thou mel" while a promise is seemingly 
 given to John that he shall continue on earth until 
 the second Advent of Messiah. But in this Gospel 
 it must further be noticed that James has wholly 
 disappeared. No speech is put into his mouth. Not 
 even his name is mentioned ; nor is his calling 
 specified in the passage which indicates that of the 
 beloved disciple. These singular differences fairly 
 justify a doubt whether by the beloved disciple we 
 are to understand John the son of Zebedee, and still 
 more whether this John is the writer of the Gospel. 
 If he be, why does he thus studiously keep out of 
 sight the brother who takes precedence of him in the 
 Synoptic Gospels 1 
 
 It remains only to notice the mission of the seventy 
 disciples, which is recorded in Luke alone (x. 1). 
 No notice is taken elsewhere of any results produced 
 by them, and yet in Luke these results are des- 
 cribed as greater than any produced by the twelve. 
 This circumstance not only throws doubt on the mis- 
 sion of the seventy as a historical fact, but betrays 
 the purpose which lies at the root of the story. That 
 purpose cannot be better described than in the words 
 of Mr Mackay : 
 
 " Luke's Gospel manifests, like John's, a strong tendency to 
 depreciate the twelve ; and a comparison of the ninth and 
 tenth chapters especially shows a marked intention to place 
 
Messianic Mission of Jesus. 127 
 
 them in a position of inferiority in comparison with the mis- 
 sionary seventy representing the apostleship of the Gentiles. 
 Thus they are shown to be spiritually dull and uuprolific 
 (ix. 32, 45), faithless and perverse, insensible even to the 
 glories of the transfiguration, moreover, as childishly ambi- 
 tious (46), jealous (49), revengeful, and ignorant of the true 
 spirit of the Gospel (54) ; while all expressions of triumphant 
 success and congratulation, as well as the special instructions 
 given in Matthew to the twelve, are here reserved for the 
 seventy. Several of these instructions agree exactly with St 
 Paul's ; the honorary titles of ' Salt of the Earth,' and ' Light 
 of the World,' specially applied to the apostles in Matthew, 
 are diverted from their original intent by being made general 
 or hypothetical."* 
 
 If the mission of the seventy be historical, it is 
 strange that no other book of the New Testament 
 should take the slightest notice of it. If it be not, 
 what confidence can we place in writers who can 
 thus construct events to suit their purposes 1 
 
 The parallel furnished to the seventy disciples by 
 the seventy elders of Moses, the seventy translators 
 of the Old Testament, and the seventy members of 
 the Sanhedrim is obvious. 
 
 THE MESSIANIC MISSION OF JESUS. 
 
 We have seen that according to the fourth Gospel 
 Jesus was distinctly recognized as the Messiah, and 
 even as the Divine Logos co-existing with the Father 
 from all eternity. We have seen him recognized as 
 such by the Baptist, by Andrew and the Beloved 
 Disciple, by Peter and Nathanael ; and the difficulties 
 connected with this recognition have been examined 
 already. But the question now occurs, How did 
 Jesus himself regard his mission, and did he always 
 make use of the same language in speaking-of it 1 
 
 That he at length claimed to be Messiah cannot be 
 
 * Tubingen School, p. 319. 
 
128 English Life of yesus. 
 
 (lonhtcd. He heard with delight the declaration that 
 he was the Christ (Matt. xvi. IG) ; and the belief in 
 his Messiahship could scai'cely have been held by his 
 disciples after his death, if during his life-time he 
 had never himself professed it. 
 
 The synoptic Gospels represent his Baptism as 
 accompanied by signs which were conclusive proofs 
 of his high mission ; and without I'everting now to 
 the statements of John, we may note that in the 
 Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vii. 21) Jesus distinctly 
 claims the character of Messiah as the Judge of the 
 world. Yet the historical value of this passage can 
 be determined only by an examination of that dis- 
 course. 
 
 But there is a marked difference between the lan- 
 guage of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels and that wliich 
 is ascribed to him throughout the whole of the fourth 
 Gospel. In the latter he is everywhere the Divine 
 Logos, who has taken up his tabernacle in human 
 flesh, and who retui^ns to the glory which he had with 
 the Father before the world was. In the former the 
 colours are more variable. Far from proclaiming 
 himself, as to the woman of Samaria, to Nicodemus, 
 and even to the hostile Jews at Jerusalem, he is more 
 commonly anxious to withhold this knowledge ; nor 
 can the blessing bestowed on Peter for recognizing 
 him as the Christ (accompanied as it is by a charge 
 to keep it secret) be regarded as historical, if the 
 narrative of John i. is to be regarded as true. Nor 
 can we well understand why he should seek in the 
 Synoptics to ascertain by questions what the disciples 
 thought of him if, as in the fourth Gospel, he had 
 already proclaimed even to his enemies that he had 
 existed long before the days of Abraham. 
 
 If any conclusion can be drawn from the sentence 
 with which Jesus is said to have commenced his 
 ministry, the precept, "Repent ye for the Kingdom 
 of Heaven is at hand," being identical with the an- 
 
Messianic Mission of yesiis. 129 
 
 nouncement of the Baptist, would point to the ex- 
 pectation of another, rather than to the conviction 
 that he was himself the Messiah. On the other 
 hand, the frequent charges to keep silence on the sub- 
 ject seem to indicate a consciousness of his Messianic 
 character, over which, for prudential reasons, he 
 wished to throw a veil. But, as we have already 
 remarked,' of this wish the fourth Gospel exhibits not 
 the slightest trace, and its absence raises an insuper- 
 able difficulty, inasmuch as of two contradictory nar- 
 ratives both cannot possibly be true, although both 
 may possibly be false. 
 
 Nor can it be denied that from the synoptic Gospels 
 we cannot infer any consciousness of pre-existence 
 on the part of Jesus. This is found only in the fourth 
 Gospel, but it is there prominent throughout, — a 
 necessary result of the Logos doctrine ; and hence we 
 have no historical warrant for holding that he ex- 
 pressed this conviction himself. The silence of the 
 synoptic Gospels on this subject some have sought to 
 explain by asserting that the minds of ignorant Gali- 
 Iseans were too dull to understand such truths if they 
 should be set before them. The reply is, that the 
 Jews, before whom they are propounded in the fourth 
 Gospel, misunderstand them as thoroughly and per- 
 sistently as it is possible for any to do. 
 
 The same contradictions are manifest when we 
 seek to determine how far his ideas of Messiahship 
 involved any political element. It is certain that this 
 element entered largely into the Messianic conceptions 
 of his disciples to a time far later than that of the 
 Crucifixion ; hence, when he sent forth the twelve to 
 preach in his name, Jesus knew to what kind of hopes 
 and longings they would assuredly give utterance. 
 Nor is it easy to see how the promise of the twelve 
 thrones could be interpreted without some political 
 bias by men in the mental condition attributed to the 
 Apostles. 
 
 I 
 
130 English Life of fesus. 
 
 On the other hand, there is not the faintest evi- 
 dence that Jesus ever sought to forna a political party. 
 What evidence there is tends strongly to prove that 
 he most carefully avoided everything of the kind ; 
 nor is there the slightest reason to doubt the his- 
 torical character of his assertion that his kingdom 
 vv^as not of this world. 
 
 Fastening on one side of the synoptic statements, 
 some have maintained that his schemes were decidedly 
 political ; fixing their eyes on the other side, many 
 more have denied that there is any colour for such an 
 insinuation. 
 
 It is possible that the truth may lie in the mean 
 between these tAvo opinions. It is possible that at 
 the beginning of his ministry he may have been ani- 
 mated by theocratic hopes, which at a later stage he 
 found it necessary to abandon. This conclusion, how- 
 ever, involves this difficulty, that the two incidents 
 which have most of a political character (viz. the 
 public entry into Jerusalem, and the promise of the 
 twelve thrones) are assigned by the Evangelists to a 
 late date in his ministry ; but, unless we are to suppose 
 that Jesus at one and the same time gave utterance 
 to political hopes and purely spiritual aspirations, we 
 can but infer a chronological disaixangement on the 
 part of the Evangelists. 
 
 But although there is no doubt that Jesus looked 
 to no earthly means for the triumph of his kingdom, 
 he did look for a wholly new society on a regenerated 
 earth ; and his language respecting this new condition 
 of things is quite consistent with the sujiposition that, 
 far from desiring the subversion of the Mosaic code, 
 he anticipated the submission of the whole Gentile 
 world to that law. This submission would at once 
 be a passing away of the heaven and the earth, and 
 with it should pass away that ancient system, of 
 which, before that consummation, no jot or tittle 
 should be allowed to fail. 
 
Messianic Mission of yes us. 131 
 
 This expectation may to some extent explain the 
 charge given to the twelve that, avoiding the way of 
 the Gentiles, they should go rather to the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel. This charge is given only in 
 the first Gospel (x. 5), and naturally finds no place in 
 the Gospel which, for reasons already stated, exalted 
 the seventy at the expense of the twelve. After the 
 Resurrection indeed Jesus is represented as bidding 
 them go and teach all nations ; but (apart from the 
 difficulties arising from the use, at that time, of the 
 formula of baptism in the name of the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost) we have here to reconcile 
 with such a command the whole tone of thought 
 which characterizes the Apostolic College in the Acts 
 of the Apostles. If the very slightest dependence 
 can be placed on any statements in that book, it is 
 clear that the idea of preaching to the Gentiles as 
 such was among the furthest from their minds. When 
 Cornelius is to be baptized, Peter is prepared for it 
 not by being made to remember the express injunc- 
 tions of Jesus, l)ut by a vision, which shows him that 
 he is not to call any man common or unclean. After 
 the baptism has taken place, Peter justifies himself 
 not by saying plainly (as if he had heard such a com- 
 mand he must have said) that he was but obeying the 
 bidding of his Lord, but by recounting his vision and 
 informing them of the spiritual gifts bestowed on the 
 centurion and his family. Either then Jesus gave this 
 command, and then the whole history of Cornelius in 
 the Acts is false; or that history is true, and then 
 these words of Jesus are unhistorical. There is no 
 escape from the dilemma. 
 
 But the Book of the Acts, which represents them 
 as so averse to any intercourse with the Gentile 
 world as such, exhibits a very different state of feel- 
 ing towards the Samaritans. On the jiersecution 
 which attended the death of Stephen, Philip the 
 deacon went, it is said, to the Samaritans ; and the 
 
132 English Life of yes us. 
 
 tidings that lie had preached to them successfully 
 were received with so much gladness by the Apostles 
 at Jeiusalem, that Peter and John Avere at once sent 
 down to confirm them in the faith. Hence it may 
 not unreasonaljly be inferred that towards the Sama- 
 ritans Jesus had employed a different language from 
 that in which he spoke of the Gentiles. The state- 
 ments of the four Gospels do not enable us to deter- 
 mine this with any certainty. On the one hand we 
 have the plain declarations to the woman of Samaria; 
 but these cannot be accepted as historical until the 
 authenticity of the conversation has first been proved. 
 There is also the parable of the good Samaritan, and 
 the incident of the Samaritan who returned to give 
 him thanks for his cure from leprosy, as well as the 
 command to preach the Gospel in Samaria (Acts i.). 
 On the other hand, there is the charge to the twelve 
 that they were to avoid the villages of the Samaritans 
 not less carefully than the way of the Gentiles. 
 Either then some of these passages are unhistorical; 
 or the later words of Jesus have a wider scope than 
 those which he uttered in the earlier portions of his 
 ministry. 
 
 DISCOURSES IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 
 
 In the Gospel of Matthew (iv. 23) we are told 
 that Jesus Avent about Galilee teaching and healing, 
 and then seeing the multitude that followed him 
 he went up into a mountain, and there preached the 
 sermon Avhich is contained in the fifth and the two 
 following chapters. But whether this sermon was 
 preached at the beginning of this circuit, or to what 
 time it is to be assigned, we are not distinctly in- 
 formed. 
 
 L The sermon itself is manifestly a summary of 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. i^^ 
 
 the whole system which Jesus sought to establish. 
 It enters fully into the relation of the Mosaic code to 
 the dispensation now to be brought in, and it propounds 
 a system of ethics which is of universal application, 
 and which admits apparently of no exception. But 
 Avith the theology or the morality of this discourse we 
 are not for the present concerned. Our task is to 
 determine whether it was spoken at this time, or 
 whether it was ever spoken at all in the form in 
 which it has come down to us. 
 
 It is a trite, yet scarcely superfluous, remark that 
 of this sermon not one word is to be found, in the 
 fourth Gospel, just as of the discourses in that Gospel 
 the Synoptics exhibit no trace. Neither do we find 
 it in Mark ; but to this it may be answered that that 
 Gospel scarcely takes notice of any of the discourses 
 of Jesus. But in Luke vi. 20 there is a discourse 
 which amidst many points of unlikeness exhibits 
 many more of such complete similarity that these 
 two discourses may safely be identified. Both begin 
 with beatitudes, both end with precisely the same 
 similes, while the intervening portions in the third 
 Gospel are little more than condensations of matter 
 given at more length in the first. If the one is 
 delivered from a mountain, it is scarcely correct to 
 say that the other Avas preached from a plain. The 
 level place (roVoj inhivoc) on which Jesus stood may 
 more reasonably be interpreted as a sort of ledge or 
 standing-place in a steep hillside. In each case, also, 
 after the discourse Jesus goes to Capernaum and 
 there heals the centurion's servant. 
 
 All these circumstances can scarcely have occurred 
 twice ; nor can it be successfully maintained that a 
 teacher, propounding a new faith, would be likely to 
 use the same words many times. Verbatim repeti- 
 tions are never found in the discourses of any devoted 
 missionary ; and the recurrence of the same sentences 
 argues rather a poverty of intellect than energy of 
 
134 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 purpose. It may further be urged that the discourse 
 could not in any case have been all given at one 
 time, as the multitude of topics would bewilder any 
 hearers, and would have made it wholly unintelli- 
 gible to the ignorant crowds of Jews and Galilseans. 
 Nor can it be said that the topics are throughout 
 connected. If from beginning of chapter v. to verse 
 19 of chapter vi., the links may be traced without 
 much difficulty, there is after this pwint no reason 
 why the subjects throughout the remainder of the 
 sermon should be given in one order rather than in 
 another. But the assertion that Jesus went up into 
 the mountain before he began it and came down at 
 its close, shows that the Evangelist regarded it as one 
 consecutive speech. The idea that the sermon is 
 a collection of fragments from many discourses is 
 hereby excluded ; and if the discourse be one which 
 could not be delivered at one time, the statement 
 that it was so delivered must be set aside as unhis- 
 torical. 
 
 It is quite possible, however, that of the two reports 
 one may be more trustworthy. If we assign this 
 higher character to the sermon as given in Matthew, 
 then we can scarcely avoid the conclusion that the 
 writer of the third Gospel has twisted many portions 
 and perverted their meaning to suit a purpose. For, 
 whereas in Matthew the beatitudes refer wholly to 
 spiritual conditions, to the poor in spirit, the meek, 
 the hungerers after righteousness, the merciful, the 
 pure, and the peacemakers, in the third they are 
 eulogies on certain physical states, as temporal poverty 
 and bodily hunger. To leave no doubt on the 
 subject, some words are added which have no place 
 in Matthew's sermon, and which are directed against 
 those who are rich in this world's goods, whose 
 bodies are filled, who are merry and well-spoken of. 
 Of these opposite conditions the future life is repre- 
 sented as being a complete reversal. All this is in 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 135 
 
 strict accordance with the Ebionite philosophy which 
 re-appears in a very glaring form in the parable of 
 the rich man and Lazarus, and which lies at the root 
 both of Eastern and Western monachism. 
 
 If, then, the woes in Luke vi. are not historical 
 (and from their total absence in Matthew it seems 
 impossible that they should be so), they must be dis- 
 missed as deliberate fabrications. Whether the 
 Evangelist added the maledictions because he thought 
 that the Gospel, like the Mosaic code, should be 
 sanctioned by curses as well as blessings, is a question 
 which we are not called upon to answer. 
 
 In Matthew the beatitudes are followed by a liken- 
 ing of all his hearers to the salt of the earth and the 
 light of the world. In Luke (xiv. 34) the metaphor 
 from salt is introduced in quite another connexion ; 
 in Mark ix. it is connected by a mere play upon 
 words with the fire of hell. But such comparisons as 
 these might be introduced at any time, and nothing 
 can be built on their insertion in one place rather 
 than in another. 
 
 They are followed by the most important topic in 
 the sermon, the relation, namely, of Jesus to the 
 Levitical law. He here speaks professedly as the 
 Messiah, as he does when he afterwards denounces 
 the hypocrisy and vanity of addressing him as Lord 
 without fulfilling his commands. But according to 
 Matthew xvi. 13, he had not declared himself as 
 Messiah at a much later period. How then can he 
 have spoken these words at the beginning of his 
 ministry ? If he did, he could not then have asked 
 his disciples whom they, or men in general, took him 
 to be ; if he asked the question, then this portion 
 of the Sermon on the Mount is unhistorical or mis- 
 placed. 
 
 The following paragraph {v. 21-44) on the spirit 
 in which the law is to be kept, as contrasted with the 
 carnal interpretations of the doctors, is altogether 
 
136 English Life ofjes us. 
 
 wanting in Luke, in whose discourse the 27th and 
 39th verses clearly point to omissions. 
 
 These injunctions are followed by the promulgation 
 of a i^rayer (Matt. vi. 9), commonly known as the 
 Lord's prayer, as a model after which his disciples 
 were to frame their devotions. We here encounter a 
 considerable difficulty. Li Luke xi. 1, long after the 
 mission not only of the twelve, but also of the seventy, 
 one of the disci2)les is represented as asking Jesus to 
 teach them to pray as John had taught his disciples. 
 Li reply, Jesus gives them the same passage which he 
 had recited in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. 
 The incident is scarcely credible. That a teacher, 
 introducing a wholly new order of things, should give 
 to his disciples a model of j^rayer at the very com- 
 mencement of his labours is perfectly natural ; that 
 he should continue to preach to them without think- 
 ing of the other duty, or without even praying with 
 them, until they ask him to do so, is in the highest 
 degree improbable. If he had already taught them 
 the prayer, could they have asked the question % or 
 if they did, could he have failed to upbraid them 
 for the shortness of their memory and the coldness 
 of their hearts % When, in the fourth Gospel (xiv. 9), 
 Philip is represented as saying, " Lord, show us the 
 Father," the terse reproof is, " Hast thou been so 
 long with me, Philip, and yet sayest thou, Show us 
 the Father r' 
 
 Either, then, this prayer formed no portion of the 
 Sermon on the Mount, or in Luke it is dislocated 
 from its right connexion. 
 
 Of the prayer itself it has been said that every 
 phrase may be found in Hebrew formulae, but it is 
 none the less true that their combination is thoroughly 
 original, and the prayer may be accepted as the 
 genuine expression of the mind of Jesus and as the 
 historical embodiment of his religion. 
 
 At this point the connected sequence of subjects 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 137 
 
 ends, and the fact that some of the precepts which 
 follow reappear in other Gospels in a different con- 
 nexion may, perhaps, tend to prove that they are 
 fragments of the teaching of Jesus, which floated 
 about on the surface of tradition. Thus the warnings 
 on the subject of earthly and heavenly treasure (Matt. 
 vi. 19-21) are found in Luke (xii. 33) in a discourse 
 directed altogether against temporal care. The pas- 
 sage, Avhich in Matthew (vii. 21) immediately precedes 
 the closing comparisons, cannot, as we have seen, have 
 been spoken at the beginning of the ministry, if the 
 statement in ch. xvi. be true, that at a much later 
 date Jesus had not revealed himself as Messiah. 
 
 II. If in several books, which profess to record the 
 speeches or discourses of any given person, we find 
 not only that speeches reported at great length in 
 one are presented in a very mutilated form in 
 another, but that portions of them are introduced into 
 other discourses, or appended to incidents quite dif- 
 ferent from those to which they are attached elsewhere, 
 we at once conclude that in some of these reports the 
 sequence is unhistorical, Avhile it is possible that it 
 may be incorrect in all. 
 
 That this remark applies to all the discourses and 
 almost all the parables given in the synoptic Gospels, 
 will be readily seen on a brief examination of them. 
 
 The tenth chapter of Matthew contains the address 
 of Jesus on sending forth the twelve to preach the 
 advent of the Kingdom of Heaven. Of this address 
 Luke X. 1-12 gives a part, modified slightly to suit a 
 purpose already mentioned, as the charge of Jesus to 
 the seventy disciples ; of the rest those sentences 
 which are given in Matthew x. 26-33, reappear in 
 Luke xii. 2-9 in a totally diff"erent connexion. Other 
 portions again are found in the final discourses of 
 Jesus relating to the second advent (Luke xxi. &c.). 
 Hence it is plain either that the arrangement in 
 Luke is unhistorical, or that Matthew has gathered 
 
138 English Life of yes us. 
 
 into a connected address utterances which were origi- 
 nally distinct. 
 
 But there is no question at all that he intended to 
 set forth the whole address as one, for in x. 5 we 
 have the beginning of the charge, " These twelve 
 Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying," &c., 
 and in the first verse of the following chapter we have 
 the announcement that when Jesus had made an end of 
 commanding the twelve disciples he departed to teach 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Yet although the verbal agreement between the 
 Evangelists seems to indicate the identity of these ad- 
 dresses, there are differences between them, some of 
 which have been already noticed. In the case of the 
 twelve the mission is limited strictly to the Jews ; the 
 charge to the seventy is framed on the larger view 
 which belongs to the third Gospel. The former also 
 bids the twelve to raise the dead, a command not 
 found elsewhere, and of the fulfilment of which not 
 an instance is recorded until after the Ascension of 
 Jesus. The Apostles thus received a charge which 
 during their master's life-time they do not execute. 
 
 There are diff'erences also in the precise directions 
 given for their conduct. In Matthew and Luke they 
 are to have neither gold nor silver, staves nor shoes ; 
 in Mark they may have the staves and sandals, but 
 nothing more. 
 
 So again the reason given in Matthew ix. 37 for 
 sending out the twelve is the reason siven in Luke 
 X. 2 for commissioning the seventy. But a difficulty 
 arises in the warnings given of persecution and 
 treachery. Both these missions, according to the 
 Synoptics, were carried out happily : and the sen- 
 tences which speak of these troubles seem to refer 
 to a much later time. But in Luke x. 21 it is dis- 
 tinctly stated that Jesus thanked God for revealing 
 himself to babes and not to the wise, in the hour 
 when the seventy returned with joy, saying that the 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 139 
 
 very devils had been subject to them in his name. 
 The connexion of the words with the incident 
 recorded is eminently natural } in Matthew xi. 25 
 the same words occur without any apparent connexion 
 whatever. Hence we might be tempted to assert the 
 higher ti-ustworthiness of the third Gospel in this 
 respect, were it not that the mission of the seventy 
 is, as we have seen, a subject involved in the gravest 
 doubt. If there was no band of seventy commis- 
 sioned, and if we cannot look on the address to the 
 twelve as a consecutive discourse, we are thrown back 
 on the conclusion that historical materials have been 
 overlaid and perverted by oral tradition. 
 
 III. Among the most remarkable discourses of 
 Jesus in the synoptic Gospels are the parables. 
 These have in every case the same object, — that, 
 namely, of rousing minds hitherto quite unaccus- 
 tomed to think, and of quickening natures hitherto 
 in a state of great degradation. They are clear and 
 forcible illustrations drawn from the most familiar 
 objects of the outward world, or from the commonest 
 incidents of every-day life. They are susceptible 
 therefore of the readiest explanation, and they are 
 calculated to suggest trains of thought which cannot 
 fail to be of the highest benefit to all who are so exer- 
 cised. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that 
 such narratives occupied a prominent place in the 
 teachings of Jesus, and that many of the parables 
 have come down to us in their genuine form. This 
 circumstance and the general character of the para- 
 bolic teaching must be carefully borne in mind, as 
 throwing light on the character of the discourses con- 
 tained in the fourth Gospel. 
 
 It remains to be seen whether all the parables have 
 this historical character, and whether all were spoken 
 at the time and in the places to which they are 
 severally assigned. 
 
 The first series of parables, seven in number, are 
 
140 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 contained in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew, and 
 the Evangelist clearly means us to understand that 
 they were delivered at the same time and in immediate 
 succession. There is, it is true, an interruption in 
 order to explain the parable of the sower, and another 
 interruption at the end of the fourth parable, and 
 these points will be noticed presently. But the notes 
 of time are distinct. In v. 1 Jesus sits down by the 
 sea side, and in v. 3 begins to speak many things in 
 parables ; in v. 53 we are told that when Jesus had 
 finished these parables, he departed thence. Hence 
 we are to suppose that all these j^arables were put 
 forth in one day or one morning. Is this likely, 
 or even credible 1 The j^arables Avere addressed to 
 persons with the weakest spiritual and moral discern- 
 ment, and their mea:).ing Avas to be reached by their 
 own reflexion ; if this wholesome exertion were ren- 
 dered superfluous by an immediate interpretation, the 
 benefit of the process must be lessened or lost. It is 
 clear, then, that this method of instruction must de- 
 pend for success on the scantiness with which the 
 mental food is doled out. Each parable has one lead- 
 ing idea; and the minds of the uneducated are unable 
 to take in with profit more than one idea at a time. 
 How then are we to suppose that Jesus should put 
 before such hearers as the Galilseans a number of 
 images, which could not fail to bewilder them, and 
 from which they would turn away with indiff"erence 
 or aversion % 
 
 Now of these parables, that of the sower and the 
 seed represents the various capacities of men for 
 spiritual life and growth ; those of the wheat and tares 
 and of the net which gathered of every kind denote 
 the commingling of good and bad in the church on 
 earth, while by those of the mustard seed and the 
 leaven is shadowed forth the silent growth and final 
 esta1)lishment of the divine Kingdom. The treasure 
 hid in a field and the goodly pearl indicate the price- 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 141 
 
 less value of the gift of eternal life. Here, then, we 
 have four distinct ideas, all having indeed a common 
 centre, but so far divergent that a mind unfamiliar 
 with all of them could not be expected to take in 
 more than one at once. That Jesus expected nothing 
 more, seems to be amply proved by the interruptions 
 to the discourse; and here the contradictions between 
 the several Gospels begin. In Matthew xiii. 10 the 
 disciples come and ask Jesus Avhy he speaks to others 
 in parables, and Jesus, giving them the reason, proffers 
 voluntarily the explanation for which they do not ask. 
 In Mark iv. 10 they request him to interpret the 
 parable for their own benefit, and receive the very 
 natural reproof that, if they cannot discover the 
 meaning themselves, other parables can scarcely be 
 of much use for them. In Matthew a2;ain the dis- 
 ciples ask him at once before the multitude, and 
 the interpretation seems to be given to them aside; 
 in Mark they reserve their inquiry until they are 
 alone. But as the former professed to be giving a 
 connected series of parables in a single discourse, it 
 would not agree with his design to interrupt his nar- 
 rative for comments at the end of the second parable. 
 He therefore adds three, and not till then do the dis- 
 ciples ask him to interpret the parable of the tares of 
 the field. This interpretation is given not on the sea 
 shore but in the house; and hence, as verse 53 repre- 
 sents all these parables as belonging to a single dis- 
 course, it is made to appear that the last three parables 
 are spoken not to the multitudes but to the disciples, 
 in opposition to the method which we are told was 
 without exception adopted by Jesus. Nor is it easy 
 to see, except on this supposition, why, instead of 
 ascertaining whether the disciples understood the 
 third and fourth parables, he should add three more 
 to burden their memory and tax their powers of 
 discernment. 
 
 Hence we conclude that, although these parables 
 
142 English Life of yesm. 
 
 may safely be regarded as genuine, the connexion in 
 which they arc i^iven must be rejected as unhistorical. 
 
 But this genuineness cannot be predicated of all 
 the parables contained in the synojitic Gospels. 
 
 If we regard the beatitudes at the beginning of 
 the Sermon on the Mount as truly expressing the 
 mind of Jesus, and if we take the whole sermon as 
 embodying the general character of his teaching, 
 the genuineness of the parable of the rich man and 
 Lazarus in Luke xvi. 19 becomes exceedingly ques- 
 tionable. Like the beatitudes in the same Gospel, 
 the parable has a purely physical application, and is 
 essentially Ebionite in i^s view. There is not the 
 slightest hint that the rich man made a wrong use 
 ci his riches, cr that Lazarus was a man ol great 
 piety. The cftence ot the former is that he had 
 riches, and the claim oi the latter is grounded on his 
 poverty. It is not suggested that the rich man, 
 knowing that Lazarus lay at his gate, failed to suc- 
 cour him, for in this case the reply of Abraham 
 would have been, " Thou would' st not go but a little 
 way to help him : how can I suffer him to go a long 
 way to help thee?" So, again, if the rich man had 
 taken too much of the good things of this life, he 
 might have been told that he had so done ; but the 
 assertion is only that he had the good things, and 
 Lazarus evil things. Hence the positions are to be 
 reversed, in agreement with the woes pronounced on 
 the rich, in Luke vi. 24. Whether this Ebionite 
 view was held by Jesus himself it is less easy to 
 determine- If the general tenor of his teaching in 
 the first Gospel seems to discountenance the idea, 
 there are other passages, like that of the camel going 
 through the needles eye, which seem to propound a 
 doctrine not unlike it. A more definite conclusion 
 cannot be reached without determining whether these 
 passages are genuine ; but for such a decision the 
 materials arc apparently not forthcoming. 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 143 
 
 But, again, there are parables of which all the 
 parts are probably genuine, but in which portions 
 have become dislocated, and images from other 
 parables have been introduced, the result being some- 
 times an incongruous medley. Among these must 
 be placed the parables of the talents as given in 
 Matt. XXV. 14 and Luke xix. 12. In both we have a 
 master who goes away ; but in the former we have 
 simply a rich man who intrusts his servants with 
 capital to be laid out at interest ; in the latter, it is a 
 nobleman Avho goes away to receive a kingdom. In 
 both cases there is a reckoning on his return, and in 
 each case one servant is found unfaithful, the sequel 
 peculiar to Luke being the destruction of the subjects 
 who would not have the nobleman to reign over 
 them. The question naturally arises, Why should 
 this sequel be rendered necessary by a parenthetical 
 statement in Luke xix. 14, which has nothing to do 
 with the leading idea of the parable 1 The differences 
 manifest in the equal distribution of the money in 
 Luke, and in the unequal sums distributed in Mat- 
 thew, are of very slight consequence ; but it is of 
 more importance to note that if the Avriter gave to 
 the parable in Luke the form in which it has come 
 down to us, he would, after recording the mutiny of 
 the citizens, have intrusted to the servants not 
 money but arms, and would in the end have connec- 
 ted the recompense of the servants Avith that of their 
 enemies. This strange inconsistency, which cannot 
 be attributed to the imagination of the Evangelist, 
 must be regarded as the result of oral transmission. 
 The idea of the rebellious citizens must have belonged 
 to another parable, and this parable is at once restored 
 if we read verses 12, 14, 15, and 27 of Luke xix. to- 
 gether, and we see at once that this tale belongs to 
 the same class with the parable of the rebellious hus- 
 bandmen in the vineyard. 
 
 A similar confusion is made manifest on a com- 
 
144 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 parison of the parable of the marriage-feast in Matt, 
 xxii. 2 with the version given in Luke xiv. 16. In 
 the former the guests wlio are bi(hlen not only refuse 
 to come, but maltreat and murder the servants who 
 invite them. The king therefore sends his armies, 
 destroys them, and burns up their city ; he then sends 
 his servants into the highways and hedges and 
 gathers in both bad and good, until the wedding is 
 furnished with guests. Of these guests one is found 
 without a wedding garment, and is cast forth into the 
 outer darkness. The version in Luke is far simpler. 
 The guests all make excuses, and the host sends forth 
 and brings in the poor, maimed, halt and blind, none 
 of those who were originally invited being allowed 
 to taste of the supper. It can scarcely be doubted 
 that this parable is genuine ; but we are driven to 
 ask whence comes the mention of personal violence 
 and its forcible punishment in the parable of ]\Iat- 
 tliew 1 The servants appear not with any demand 
 for tribute or taxes, but simply with an invitation to 
 a banquet, while the language of the Evangelist points 
 to an insurrection. Now such an insurrection conse- 
 quent on such a demand is found in the parable 
 which in Matthew immediately precedes that of 
 the marriage-feast ; and the writer, Avho had just 
 spoken of the husbandmen who refused to yield up 
 the fruits of the vineyard, carried on the same idea 
 into the subsequent tale, and thus introduced an 
 image which altogether disagrees with the main 
 story. A further departure from the original narra- 
 tive is seen in the incident of the ai edding garment, 
 for if both good and bad were to be brought in, there 
 was no room for surprise that some of them should 
 be unfitly clad. That it was the custom at that time 
 to distribute wedding-garments to all guests cannot 
 be proved ; and further, the parable having pointed 
 thus far to the rejection of the Jews and the readi- 
 ness of the Gentiles to share the feast spurned by 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 145 
 
 the others, passes thus by an abrupt transition to the 
 separation of the worthy from the unworthy. 
 
 It is possible that this incident may belong to 
 some lost paralile which represented a king as invit- 
 ing guests to his feast on condition that they should 
 provide themselves each with the proper dress, the 
 failure to do so calling down on them a not unde- 
 served punishment. But however this may be, the 
 conclusion can scarcely be avoided that these parables 
 have not come down to us in their original and 
 genuine form. 
 
 IV. A similar confusion of materials originally dis- 
 tinct is seen in some of the miscellaneous discourses 
 of Jesus in the Synoptics. Disputes for precedency 
 among the disciples led Jesus, it is said, to put before 
 them a little child as the model for their imitation in 
 things spiritual. In Matthew xviii. 3 the disciples 
 are told that except they be humble as little children 
 they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The 
 injunction has a clear and obvious force ; but we do 
 not so readily understand the transition in v. 5 to 
 precepts not about imitating children but about re- 
 ceiving them in the name of Jesus, in other words, 
 about the mode of behaving towards them. In Mark 
 ix. 33, Luke ix. 46, the precepts of Jesus become 
 perfectly irrelevant. There is no connexion between 
 disputes for precedence, which are to be avoided by 
 imitating little children, and injunctions as to the way 
 in which the latter should be received. Jesus is thus 
 made in the first Gospel to branch off suddenly from 
 tlie main subject of his reproof, and in the second 
 and third to forget it altogether between the moment 
 of setting up the child and opening his lips to speak. 
 There can be very little doubt that we have here a 
 confusion caused by the Evangelists' memory recall- 
 ing those sentences in which Jesus had spoken of the 
 reception which ought to be given to his disciples in 
 his name. 
 
146 Eyiglish Life of Jesus. 
 
 The connexion with what follows, Matthew xviii. 
 7, Mark ix. 43, is, like many others in the synoptic 
 Gospels, purely verbal. The woes which precede are 
 pronounced against those which offend or mislead 
 little children ; and these are succeeded by warnings 
 not to allow our vices to mislead (scandalize) us. It 
 is obvious that the only link betAveen the two is the 
 idea of misleading, and thus Ave have a mere verbal 
 string on Avhicli any number of topics Avith nothing 
 in common may be strung together. Nor can it be 
 said that they are strung together Avith much care, for 
 in xviii. 10, Matthew recurs again to precepts concern- 
 ing the little ones, Avho are pure, humble, and guile- 
 less, and the reason for not offending them, given in 
 the folloAving verse, is that the Son of Man is come to 
 seek and save that ichich ivas lost. It is, hoAvever, 
 scarcely necessary to multiply examples of similar 
 confusions, for even the most orthodox critics have 
 admitted that the Evangelists are in the habit of 
 weaving into connected discourses fragments Avhich 
 belonged to distinct speeches. But the Avriter Avho 
 will introduce such scattered fragments Avith the for- 
 mula, " Then Jesus said," &c., and close Avith some 
 such form as " When Jesus had ended all these say- 
 ings he departed thence," cannot be regarded as a 
 historian, nor can any of his statements be received 
 as trustAvorthy Avithout the most stringent scrutiny. 
 Yet it may be added that another merely verbal con- 
 nexion is seen betAveen verses 14 and 15 of MatthcAV 
 xviii. The former asserts that the Father Avills none 
 of the little ones to perish ; the latter asserts that we 
 are to try to regain our offending brother by concilia- 
 tory means : the link is thus the verbal contrast be- 
 tAveen the loss and the gain. 
 
 The precepts regarding divorce and celibaqy (Matt, 
 xix. 3-12) must be noticed here only in reference to 
 the historical question Avhether the opinions of Jesus 
 coincide Avith those of modern society on the subject 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 147 
 
 That Jesus pronounced against all forms of divorce 
 known at the time, is denied by none ; but many- 
 refuse to admit that his teaching had any element of 
 Ebionite asceticism. In like manner it is asserted 
 that Paul's precepts on celibacy were designed to 
 be only local and temporary " during the present 
 troubles/' Yet the reason which the Apostle gives is 
 one of univei'sal application. The unmarried, he says 
 (1 Cor. vii. 32), care for the things of the Lord, the 
 married are taken up with the earthly care of pleasing 
 their spouses. It is clear that the man who could so 
 speak was thoroughly in accord with Bernard, Hilde- 
 brand, and Peter Damiani ; nor is it much less un- 
 certain that Jesus approved the same asceticism, if we 
 accept as genuine his declaration in Matthew xix. 11, 
 12, that some only are fitted for celibate life, the 
 natural inference being that for such it becomes a 
 duty. 
 
 In Matthew xxi. 23-27., xxii. 15-46, we have a 
 series of controversial discourses with the Jews after 
 the final entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. These may 
 be accepted as thoroughly genuine, being in the closest 
 accordance with the spirit of Hebrew dialectics in 
 that day. Of these the third (the answer, namely, to 
 the Sadducees resj^ecting the woman who had had 
 seven husbands), exhibits Jesus as an interpreter of 
 Scripture. The validity of the argument for immor- 
 tality here given depends on the correctness of the 
 meaning attached to the words " God of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob." It is certain, however, that the 
 phrase had become a mere formula, from which noth- 
 ing more could be inferred than that as God had aided 
 and succoured them so would he help and comfort 
 their faithful descendants. But whether valid, or not, 
 the argument is apparently not original ; it is said to 
 be found in rabbinical discourses, for which this pas- 
 sage could not possibly have furnished the model. 
 
 The next controversy relating to the interpretation 
 
148 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 of Psalm ex. 1 (Matt, xxii, 41) is worthy of note, 
 historically, in two respects only. It looks like an 
 enigma ; most probably it was neither meant nor 
 understood as such. There is no doubt (if the pas- 
 sage be genuine, and there is no reason for question- 
 ing this) (1) that Jesus regarded this Psalm as Mes- 
 sianic, and that from it he inferred the higher, 
 character of the Messiah as being lord of David 
 rather than his Son ; but (2) he may possibly have 
 been actuated by the wish to remove the notion that 
 Messiah was to be the Son of David, and thus that he 
 must belong to his lineage, or be born at Bethlehem. 
 The answer thus alights on the same topics as the ac- 
 counts of the nativity in the first and third Gospels, 
 but it does so only to weaken their testimony by 
 silently countenancing the assertion that Jesus was 
 born at Nazareth. 
 
 In Matthew xxii. 34, we are told that the defeat of 
 the Sadducees provoked the Pharisees also to try Jesus 
 with some subtle question. This statement implies a 
 friendly feeling between the two sects, for men are not 
 prone to avenge the defeats of their adversaries. But 
 if the history of the Acts be accepted, the enmity 
 between them was so great that Paul had only to 
 declare himself a Pharisee in order to produce a com- 
 plete schism in the ranks of his accusers. If the 
 account in the Gospel be true, Paul Avould have failed 
 in his attempt ; but if his attempt was historical and 
 successful, then this statement in Matthew must be 
 set aside as unhistorical. 
 
 A comparison of the great anti-pharisaic discourse 
 in Matthew xxiii. with the other Synoptics involves 
 more serious difficulties. In the former it is given 
 as one continuous speech ; in Mark xii. 38 a mere 
 fragment is given as a reproof of the scribes. In 
 Luke XX. 46 the same isolated sentences occur in the 
 same connexion ; but it is important to note that some 
 of the most vehement rebukes contained in Matthew's 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 149 
 
 discourse are given by Luke in the form of reproofs 
 uttered at feasts to which Jesus had been invited in 
 the house of a Pharisee. The host's wonder (Luke 
 xi. 38) that his guests should sit down without wash- 
 ing, calls forth the stern reply that, though Pharisees 
 may be outwardly clean, they were inwardly full of 
 all wickedness. This rebuke rouses, it is said, the 
 anger of the Lawyers ; and the Evangelist, forgetting 
 apparently the reason of the gathering, describes the 
 sequel as a scene of mere tumult. The rebukes given 
 at the next feast recorded in Luke xiv. are far more 
 mild, and, indeed, of a character which might under 
 certain circumstances be uttered by a venerated guest 
 without causing any deep offence. It must be noted 
 that these invitations to feasts in the houses of 
 Pharisees are found only in the third Gospel. 
 
 The question now arises, is the discourse as given 
 in Matthew, to be regarded as historical 1 Li other 
 words, are we to suppose that it was spoken con- 
 tinuously in the presence of the multitude in Jerusalem 
 after the final entry of Jesus into the city 1 or are we 
 to believe that some of the severest portions of it had 
 been uttered in the houses of Pharisees in Galilee 1 
 or that here, as elsewhere, Matthew has strung 
 together into one address sentences which are found 
 isolated in other Gospels'? The character of dis- 
 courses in Matthew already examined furnishes a 
 good warrant for answering the last question in the 
 affirmative ; but if so, the statement that this dis- 
 course was spoken before the multitude must be re- 
 jected as untrue. 
 
 But was any part of it spoken in the house and at 
 the table of a Pharisee who was the host of Jesus ] 
 It is incredible (it has been felt to be incredible even 
 by orthodox commentators), that Jesus, on being 
 asked by his entertainer why he had not washed 
 before sitting down to meat, should instantly charge 
 him and the whole body of Pharisees with ravening 
 
150 English Life gJ Jesus. 
 
 and impurity, should call them fools, hypocrites, 
 murderers of the prophets whose sepulchres they 
 garnished, and guilty of the blood of all the martyrs 
 from Abel down to Zacharks. Such a requital of 
 hospitality, it may safel3be said, was never experienced 
 in any country, the inhabitants of which had risen 
 above the habits of savages. It is perfectly possible 
 that all these reproofs were thoroughly deserved, quite 
 possible also that Jesus may have uttered every one 
 of them ; but is impossible that he could have uttered 
 them at the place and time to which they are assigned 
 here. 
 
 But if for a moment we suppose that they were 
 so uttered, the statement with M'hich the eleventh 
 chapter of the third Gospel ends becomes quite super- 
 fluous. There was no need to watch and wait for 
 words which might justify an accusation. He had 
 already said more than enough ; and it is incredible 
 that a bod}^ of men, holding the highest rank in 
 Jewish society, should allow such language to be 
 personally addressed to them, and then should allow 
 Jesus to repeat the whole, with additions, before the 
 multitude in Jerusalem. 
 
 Thus the accounts in Luke must be rejected as 
 unhistorical, and it becomes therefore, far more pro- 
 bable that these denunciations were not uttered until 
 Jesus had entered Jerusalem for the last time, and 
 that in this instance the account of Matthew is 
 historical. But it is the penalty paid by writers wlio 
 are convicted of inaccuracy, misrepresentation, and 
 credulity, that they cannot be trusted even ivhere their 
 narrative appears to be correct. 
 
 On the reference to the murder of Zacharias, the 
 son of Barachias, we need some remarks. If we insit^t 
 on attributing to Jesus these precise words, we must 
 understand him as referring to an event which did 
 not take place until more than forty years after the 
 crucifixion. The reader should be informed that three 
 
Discourses in the Synoptic Gospels. 151 
 
 different persons bear nearly the same patronymic as 
 well as the same name, viz., Zechariah son of Jebere- 
 chiah, in Isaiah viii. 2, — the prophet Zechariah son of 
 Berechiah ; and Zachariah son of Bariich, of whom we 
 learn in Josephus' Jewish War, IV., 5, 4. Of these 
 the third, according to Josephus, was killed for his 
 virtue ; we do not know anything to this effect con- 
 cerning the others. But besides, there is in 2 Chron- 
 icles xxiv. 21 a Zechariah who is wickedly killed by 
 king Joash " in the court of the Lord's house." He 
 might seem to be alluded to when it says, " whom ye 
 slew between the temple and the altar." But he was 
 son of Jehoiada, not of Barachiah, and he was not the 
 last of the martyrs ; yet evidently the sentence attri- 
 buted to Jesus means, " from the first martyr to one 
 very recent." Now Zachariah son of Baruch was slain 
 in the temple, during the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, 
 A.D. 71 ; and the compiler, whom we call Matthew, 
 seems to have blundered as to the chronology, and so 
 put these words into the mouth of Jesus. He must 
 have written many years later still, to make such a 
 mistake. 
 
1 5 2 English Life of Jesus, 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE DISCOURSES IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 
 AND THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 
 
 THE JOHANNINE DISCOURSES OF JESUS. 
 
 We have seen that the teaching of Jesus, as generally 
 given in the Synoptic Gospels, is characterized by a 
 simplicity appropriate to the intellectual as well as 
 the moral or spiritual condition of his hearers. We 
 find in it no play upon words, no abrupt transitions 
 founded on a subtle and hidden connexion of ideas, 
 nothing perplexing, nothing metaphysical. Through- 
 out we have the language of one who seeks, not to 
 excite mysterious feeling or astonishment, but by line 
 on line, by precept on precept, here a little and there 
 a little, to waken men of dull minds and cold hearts 
 to a consciousness of their spiritual faculties and 
 duties. Throughout, his hearers might well feel that 
 the teacher was j^ractical, and was earnestly bent on 
 directing action. 
 
 The discourses in the fourth Gospel present a 
 marvellous contrast to the simple and single-minded 
 addresses in the Synoptics. There is little in the 
 Sermon on the Mount which the least instructed 
 Galilsean could find serious difficulty in understand- 
 ing ; there is scarcely a step in the Johannine argu- 
 ments which is not calculated to irritate or bafile 
 even a well-skilled dialectician. There is no trace in 
 the Synoptics of any attempt to confound his hearers, 
 or to involve them in mist : there is not one discourse 
 
The yohannine Discourses ofjesus. 153 
 
 in the fourth Gospel which is not designed to glorify 
 Jesus by exhibiting those who converse with him as 
 wholly unable to apprehend his high spiritual meaning. 
 Indeed, the special characteristic of these discourses 
 is, that words intended to convey a recondite spiritual 
 truth are in every case carnally interpreted, and the 
 misunderstanding so created is heightened by utter- 
 ances still more mysterious, the end being, in the case 
 of all the discourses addressed to the Jews, severe 
 denunciations on the one side and loud defiance, with 
 attempts at violence, on the other. 
 
 Historically, this contrast is of the utmost impor- 
 tance. Is it possible that two modes of teaching so 
 utterly antagonistic should characterize the same 
 teacher % Is it possible also that one who had put 
 forth in the Sermon on the Mount a seemingly com- 
 plete summary of his faith and a complete code of 
 moral practice, should in that sermon make not the 
 slightest reference to any of those great topics which 
 form the burden of the Johannine discourses 1 To 
 these questions the reply ordinarily furnished is (1), 
 that the Synoptic Evangelists were incapable of 
 appreciating or recollecting the higher teaching which 
 fastened itself on the memory only of John ; and (2) 
 that the persons to whom these Johannine discourses 
 Avere addressed were better fitted to follow his mean- 
 ing than were the rude and untaught peasantry of 
 Galilee. Both pleas are inconclusive. It is quite 
 possible that among the hearers of a great teacher or 
 an eloquent orator there will be some who will follow 
 him more fully, and give shape to the highest elements 
 in his teaching ; but probably it is impossible to pro- 
 duce a single instance in which the reports, even from 
 men of the duller sort, would lead us to suppose that 
 the higher elements never existed. Xenophon was a 
 man intellectually by no means the equal of Plato. 
 Nevertheless it is supposed that his account of 
 Socrates is far more historical than the picture drawn 
 
154 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 by Plato, though even from the narrative of Xeno- 
 phon we should be quite prepared to say that there 
 could be and must have been a more abstruse and 
 metaphysical side to the teaching of Socrates. But 
 from the Synoptic Gospels we should never be led 
 to expect the mysterious doctrines which form almost 
 exclusively the topics of the fourth Gospel. We have 
 nothing in the former about the Eternal Logos, or the 
 new birth ; nothing about life flowing from God to 
 believers in his Son and through the Son only; nothing 
 of his pre-existence in glory before the world was. 
 And while these high doctrines are absent from the 
 former, it is singular that they should closely corres- 
 pond with the philosophy which, before the lifetime 
 of Jesus, had sprung up on the soil of Alexandria. It is 
 also singular that the Evangelist, who thus exhibits 
 Jesus in an aspect unknown to the others, should also 
 assign to him works and actions, of most of which the 
 rest have seemingly never so much as heard. 
 
 But, further, we cannot allow the plea Avhich rests 
 on the intellectual superiority of the Jews to Gali- 
 Iseans, for the very simple reason that it is nowhere 
 manifest in the Gospel. The Rabbi Nicodemus is as 
 dull and carnal as any of those who listened to Jesus 
 on the shores of Tiberias ; and the multitude of the 
 "Jews" in the fourth Gospel misunderstand him far 
 more persistently than the Galilaeans. 
 
 If we conclude that Jesus did not employ both 
 these modes of teaching, then one of them must be 
 rejected as unhistorical. Which of the two then 
 are we to regard as really belonging to him ] Surely 
 not that of the fourth Gospel. To dwell on mystical 
 doctrines is not the way to rouse the attention or 
 enlist the sympathies of ordinary men ; and without 
 making an impression on these no new religion was 
 ever established. The teaching in the Synoptic 
 Gospels is consistent with itself in all three, as to 
 tone, style, and native genius; original, racy, with 
 
The yohannine Discourses of yesus. 155 
 
 something of the national rabbinism, but nothing 
 foreign or scholastic. The very different style of 
 composition in the fourth Gospel must be set down 
 as a fabrication, with some slight basis possibly of 
 historical truth, but in all its main characteristics a 
 mere imaginary picture. 
 
 I. But in addition to this great difficulty the 
 Johannine discourses are at issue Avith professedly 
 historical statements in the other Gospels. Thus in 
 the conversation with the woman of Samaria Jesus 
 declares himself distinctly to be the Messiah. As 
 such the woman speaks of him to her fellow-towns- 
 men ; as such they invite him to tarry in the city ; 
 and at the end of his two days' sojourn they express 
 their conviction, grounded now not on the saying of 
 the woman, but on their own knowledge and insight, 
 that he was " indeed the Christ, the Saviour of 
 the World" (John iv. 42). Thus the fact of his 
 Messiahship was well known in Samaria from the 
 beginning of his ministry. There is no attempt at 
 concealment, no injunction of secrecy, uo reason why 
 the many who believed in him should not invite many 
 more to accept the same faith. But in his solemn 
 charge to the Twelve, given in Matthew x. 5, the 
 apostles are specially commanded not to enter any 
 Samaritan city, either because the Samaritans would 
 certainly reject the proffered Gospel or because they 
 lay beyond the circle within which it was to be 
 preached. But both these reasons are conclusively 
 set aside by the narrative in John. The Samaritans 
 do not reject the good tidings, and Jesus does not 
 refuse to hold intercourse with them. Both these 
 statements, therefore, cannot be historical, and one 
 of them must be untrue. Whether the Synoptic 
 statement is trustworthy is not so easily determined, 
 owing to the niunber of passages some of which 
 describe Jesus as holding aloof from the Samaritans, 
 while others represent him a,s kindly disposed towards 
 
15^ English Life of yes us. 
 
 them. Of these contradictions some notice has already 
 been taken (chapter iii. p. 132). 
 
 The abrupt transitions which mark the Johannine 
 discourses abound in the conversation with the woman 
 of Samaria. To the request of Jesus for water the 
 woman replies by asking how he, a Jew, can address 
 her at all ; and the answer is that if the woman 
 had known Avhat spiritual gifts he would bestow upon 
 her, she Avould have asked and obtained from him 
 living water. Here at once we have a method of dis- 
 course for which we shall search the other Gospels in 
 vain. In Luke no one will misunderstand, " How 
 often would I have gathered thy children together, as 
 a hen gatliereth [her chickens], &c." In JNIatthew no 
 one will misuuderstand, when he bids the weary 
 and heav}^ laden come to him for rest. But here, 
 as throughout the fourth Gospel, his reply is mis- 
 understood, and the woman construes his words as 
 referring to water from the very well by Avhich he 
 was sitting, and asks him how, having nothing to draw 
 with, he proposes to get at that water, — her mean- 
 ing being, that water drawn by him would be different 
 from water drawn by herself out of the same well, 
 a notion savouring slightly of magic. When Jesus 
 has again sjioken she takes him to promise water from 
 some other spring, whicli, once tasted, Avould render 
 it unnecessary for her to drink again, and so save her 
 the trouble of coming to the well to draw. To speak 
 plainly, such stupidity as this is a grotesque absurdity. 
 Any one not an idiot would have known that the man 
 who had tasted of water which rendered thirst 
 impossible would never ask her to give him to drink, 
 and must therefore have seen that he was speaking 
 metaphorically. To her request Jesus answers by 
 abruptly bidding her go and fetch her husband. Why 
 was this command given % In order to bring her to 
 repentance and to a confession of her guilt, as some 
 have urged. But no confession is extorted, and the 
 
The yohannine Discourses of yes us. 157 
 
 issue of the story is not her repentance, but faith in 
 Jesus as the Messiah. To the woman's reply that 
 she had no husband, Jesus answers by informing her 
 of matters which he must eitlier have learnt from 
 others, or which he knew of himself The Evangelist 
 clearly means to exclude the former notion, and to 
 ascribe to Jesus a superhuman and mysterious know- 
 ledge of human events. On being thus reminded 
 of her past life, the woman, addressing him as a pro- 
 phet, puts to him a question on the national controversy 
 between the Jews and Samaritans. But that a 
 woman of so poor a mental capacity and such dubious 
 moral character should feel so deep an interest in this 
 ancient and well-worn controversy as to seize every 
 opportunity for obtaining an answer, has appeared 
 to many incongruous and scarcely credible. So much 
 has this difficulty pressed on many interpreters that 
 they have represented this answer as an effort to 
 turn away the attention of Jesus from her own per- 
 sonal history to a more general subject. But inas- 
 much as in this fourth Gospel the answers of Jesus 
 are addressed generally not so much to the actual 
 words of a question as to the hidden meaning of the 
 speaker, Jesus, refusing to be thus diverted, should 
 have brought her back to the subject over which she 
 wished to throw a veil. Such, however, was not the 
 object of the Evangelist in a discourse which was 
 designed to exhibit the Messianic character of Jesus. 
 For this purpose the woman is made to ask a question 
 concerning the place where worship should be offered, 
 and Jesus replies by announcing the advent of a 
 time when God should be worshipped in spirit and in 
 truth without the trammels of local boundaries. To 
 this announcement the woman replies barely and 
 bluntly that she knows the Messiah is coming, and 
 that when he comes " he will tell us all things." 
 Here, again, if she had not been more than usually 
 dull, she would have felt either that Jesus had already 
 
158 English Life of yesus. 
 
 told her all things, or that one thing only marred his 
 answer, this being the superiority still claimed for 
 the Jews {v. 22). But it was necessary that she 
 should name the Messiah, in order that Jesus might 
 announce himself as such, and thus the discourse is 
 brought to the desired conclusion, — a conclusion, it 
 must be remembered, which, according to the Synop- 
 tics, not one of the Apostles reached until long after- 
 wards, and which was never so clearly and explicitly 
 forced upon them. If it be asked why Jesus should 
 choose a woman with such a history as the recipient 
 of such a communication, or why he should carr}^ her 
 mind into a distant future instead of fixing it on her 
 own defects and sins, it is hard indeed to give an 
 answer. 
 
 The same method pervades the sequel of the his- 
 tory. The disciples, returning to the Avell, marvel 
 first that Jesus should be talking with a Avoman, and 
 then beseech him to eat of the food which they had 
 brought. Jesus replied that he has food to eat that 
 they know not of, and, precisely like the Avoman 
 who had just left them, they conchide that some one 
 else has brought him meat during their absence. But, 
 if we suppose that this mode of conversing and teach- 
 ing was habitual to Jesus, the disciiDles in their familiar 
 intercourse Avith him must have been perfectly aAvare of 
 the fact, and they could not possi))]y have spent their 
 time in daily and hourly misunderstanding his words, 
 unless they were far more dull and far more degraded 
 than even this woman of Samaria. Their misconstruc- 
 tion is made to give occasion to a discourse on the har- 
 vest which the disciples were to reap on ground where 
 he had sown the seed. These words may, of course, re- 
 fer to the general development of the Divine king- 
 dom; but they may also refer, and with greater point, 
 to those who should believe on him in that city now, 
 and to the greater harvest which should be reaped in 
 Samaria hereafter, and thus these sentences connect 
 
The yohannine Discourses of yes us. 159 
 
 themselves directly with the narrative in Acts viii. 
 5, 14. It is not stated in the Synoptics that Jesus 
 ever preached in Samaria. Did it possibly suit the 
 plan of the fourth Gospel to assert that he did, and 
 so to represent the labours of Philip the deacon and 
 the Apostles as a reaping of the harvest which Jesus 
 had sown during his ministry ? 
 
 This examination has apparently divested the con- 
 versation with the Samaritan woman of all historical 
 character. How the story was suggested or framed 
 we are in no way called on to inquire or to decide. 
 It is possible that the groundwork may have been 
 furnished by those striking Old Testament narratives 
 with which the Evangelist had been long familiar, 
 those graphic tales of Eliezer greeting Rebekah and 
 Jacob saluting Rachel by the well side — the greetings 
 being followed by the departure of Rebekah and 
 Rachel, like that of the Samaritan woman, to summon 
 their friends and kinsfolk. The explanation may be 
 taken for what it is worth ; but its rejection leaves the 
 narrative, as it was, throughout unhistorical. 
 
 II. The conversation with Nicodemus is in no res- 
 pect more trustworthy. It occurs at even an earlier 
 stage in the ministry than the conversation with the 
 Samaritan woman ; and in this also, unless we are to 
 suppose that the address to Nicodemus ends with 
 verse 1 2 of chap. iii. (and there is nothing to warrant 
 any such conclusion), Jesus declares himself to be the 
 Son of God given for the life of the world, who has 
 come down from heaven, all who do not believe in 
 him being condemned already. 
 
 Thus then in the first four chapters of this Gospel 
 we have a knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus, and 
 of his eternal generation as the Divine Logos, possessed 
 by the Baptist, by Andrew and the beloved disciple, 
 by Peter and Nathanael, by Nicodemus, and by the 
 woman of Samaria with her fellow townsmen, whereas 
 in the Synoptics none attained to the fulness of this 
 
1 60 English Life of yesus. 
 
 knowledge before the Crucifixion, or even arrived at any 
 consciousness of his Messiahship until a late period of 
 his ministry. Indeed, of the knowledge of his pre- 
 existence as the Logos there is no sign in any part 
 even of the Acts of the Apostles. The knowledge of 
 the one, and the ignorance of the other, cannot be 
 reconciled. 
 
 But, further, the writers of the Synoptic Gospels 
 know nothing of Nicodemus. This is the more sur- 
 prising, not only because Nicodemus is a Rabbi of 
 high reputation, and because as a member of the San- 
 hedrim he stands alone in seeking to get a fair hearing 
 for Jesus (vii. 50), but because he shares with Joseph 
 of Arimathaea the task of preparing the body of Jesus 
 for burial (xix. 39). The part taken by Joseph is 
 well known to Matthew (xxvii. 57) ; nor is it easy to 
 see how, if he had ever heard of the facts, he could 
 have forgotten to mention that Nicodemus was at 
 the least as zealous as Joseph. 
 
 At once, then, the nnhistorical character of Nico- 
 demus throws a grave doubt on the genuineness of the 
 conversation. How the idea of such a conversation 
 was suggested, we are in no way bound to explain. 
 
 The conversation itself presents many difficulties 
 similar to those involved in that Avith the Samaritan 
 woman. Nicodemus is made (iii. 4) to express his 
 surprise at the need of a new birth for those who are 
 to enter the Kingdom of God. This is incredible in 
 a " master of Israel." The Rabbis were perfectly 
 familiar with the phrase as denoting the conversion 
 of heathen to the worship of Jehovah. To make the 
 narrative harmonize with this fact, Nicodemus should 
 have been represented as expressing wonder, not at 
 the idea of a new birth, but at the necessity of this 
 new creation for an Israelite who regarded himself as 
 possessed of an inalienable right to the Divine King- 
 dom. But, utterly forgetting that metaphorical sense 
 of the words with which he was familiar, Nicodemus 
 
The yohannlne Discourses of yes us. i5i 
 
 construes the words as denoting the need of a physical 
 new birth, with an absurdity even greater than that 
 displayed by the misconstructions of the Samaritan 
 woman. And so when Jesus heightens the mystery 
 by a still more transcendental utterance, Nicodemus 
 asks again, " Hoio can these things hel" — when, if he 
 had been true to his Jewish knowledge and belief, he 
 should only have said, " PFliy must these things be 1 
 Why do you impose on tis that necessity of a change 
 which is needful only for those who are not within 
 the circle of the covenant made with Abraham 1" 
 Thus, then, every answer of Jesus tends more and 
 more to convict Nicodemus of stupidity and folly, and 
 to glorify Jesus at the expense of his hearer. The 
 method and purpose are alike wholly different from 
 those which mark the Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 In answer to the last question of Nicodemus, Jesus, 
 having told him that he cannot expect to understand 
 heavenly things if he fails rightly to apprehend earthly 
 things, then proceeds to declare to him the mode and 
 purpose of his own death. The Son of Man, like the 
 brazen serpent, is to be lifted up upon the Cross for 
 the salvation of the world ; and thus we have Jesus 
 revealing to one who was not even among the number 
 of his disciples, knowledge which, according to the 
 Synoptics, he did not impart to any of the Apostles 
 until a much later period. Whether Nicodemus, who 
 had misunderstood every word thus far addressed to 
 him, would understand a reference to an event still 
 future, is a question which we need scarcely ask ; 
 and the startling contrast between this method and 
 that earnest simplicity which marks the teaching of 
 Jesus in the other Gospels, renders further comment 
 superfluous. 
 
 It is not made clear that Jesus informed Nicodemus 
 who this Son of Man was who had come down from 
 heaven, and at the same time was in heaven. The 
 Evangelist apparently assumes that Nicodemus would 
 
 L 
 
iGi English Life ofjesus. 
 
 understand of himself that the sj^eaker was this 
 heavenly and ( nniiproscnt Son of Man. But from 
 v. IG onward Jesus proceeds to tell of a mysterious 
 only begotten Irion whom God gave in his love to the 
 world, — a topic familiar to the writer of John's 
 epistles, but surely anachronistic where it stands. 
 
 III. The discourse delivered after the healing of 
 the impotent man at the pool of Ecthesda contains 
 the defence of Jesus for working that cure on the 
 Sabbath day. Here too the arguments are entirely 
 different from any em])loyed in the Synoptic Gospels. 
 In the latter they are all practical, and refer to the 
 taking of animals to water, or pulling them out of 
 pits on the Sabbath day, as Avell as to the eating of the 
 showbread by David. But in John v. 1 7, instead of 
 these practical pleas we have a mystical argument 
 based on the divine nature. The Father is unceas- 
 ingly working in his creation, and the Eternal Son 
 must, therefore, ahvays be Avorking also. This prin- 
 ciple of Alexandrian metajdiysics was familiar, doubt- 
 less, to Philo, but we may fairly question whether it 
 would be appreciated by any of those who heard 
 Jesus at Jerusalem. Here then, as elsewhere in the 
 fourth Gospel, the answer of Jesus is made to run 
 immediately into a discussion on his own person and 
 on his eternal relation to God the Father. The utter 
 absence of such discussions from the other Gospels is 
 a circumstance Avhich must be accounted for, and 
 which, if unexplained, destroys all claims of the 
 Johannine Gosj^el to historical authority. 
 
 We are here brought face to face with the question 
 of style and form of thought, — a question of vital 
 imi^ortance on such a subject as the present. Who- 
 ever may have been the author of the fourth Gospel, 
 we know what his tone of thought and his modes of 
 expi ession were. Not many doubt that the prologue 
 to the fourth Gospel and the so-called first epistle of 
 John cume from the same hand, nor Avill any deny 
 
The yohannine Discourses of yesi/s. 163 
 
 that the most prominent characteristic of the style of 
 this writing is the pointing of contrasts. With laudable 
 persistency or wearisome monotony the writer dwells 
 on the opposite ideas of light and darkness, of life and 
 death, of him who is from above and those who are 
 from beneath, of spirit and flesh, of living bread and 
 the meat that perisheth. And the point is this, that 
 not only Jesus but John the Baptist draw the same 
 contrasts, and use precisely the same modes of expres- 
 sion. How is so astonishing a phenomenon to be 
 accounted for 1 All the ideas just noted belong 
 indisputably to Alexandrine Hellenism, and it is not 
 pretended that this philosophy owes its origin or its 
 principles to the teaching of Josus. Hence it follows 
 that, if the fourth Gospel is historical, both the Bap- 
 tist and Jesus did not speak as they are said to have 
 spoken in the ether Gospels; and further, that if 
 they did not, then the accounts of the Synoptics are 
 fictitious. But this it is impossible to admit for 
 reasons in part already given ; and it is needless to 
 add to these : for we have to deal with the further 
 difficulty, that, if the Johannine version be correct, the 
 Baptist modelled his style on that of Jesus, or Jesus 
 on that of the Baptist, while the Evangelist servilely 
 imitated both. But it is impossible that the Baptist 
 could have copied Jesus, for he is represented as his 
 forerunner, and as having in great part completed his 
 ministry before the baptism of Jesus. If it be said, 
 that the writer of John's epistles copied the style of 
 Jesus in the fourth gospel, this leaves the diversity of 
 the style from the other three gospels wholly unac- 
 counted for. The conclusion seems to be irresist- 
 ible, that the Evangelist has made the Baptist and 
 Jesus speak in his own style and express his own 
 thoughts, — in other words, that all the discourses in 
 the fourth Gospel are fictitious. It is, of course, 
 possible that some of the matter, thus clothed in 
 another dress, may have been derived from actual 
 
1 64 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 words spoken by Jesus ; but in the absence of any 
 evidence by which we may test it, we cannot say 
 what parts, or whether any passages are genuine. 
 
 IV. The sixth chapter of John contains the well- 
 known discourse on the bread of life, in which Jesus 
 affirms that none can have life except those who eat 
 his flesh and drink his blood. These words have 
 been commonly referred to the institution of the 
 Eucharist, but it must be noted that of the historical 
 fixct of its institution by Jesus the fourth Evangelist 
 had apparently no clear knowledge ; and if these 
 words had reference to that rite as a future institu- 
 tion, they would add another to the number of those 
 topics which would inevitably bewilder and irritate 
 his hearers. Like those which have preceded it, this 
 discourse is throAvn into the form of dialogue : and 
 here also, as there, every spiritual metaphor employed 
 by Jesus is understood carnally by the Jews. Thus 
 when Jesus spoke of the bread which cometh down 
 from heaven, his hearers ask him evermore to give 
 them that bread, evidently attaching to the words 
 the same sense in which the Samaritan woman 
 understood the promise of living water. There is no 
 doubt of this, for Avlien Jesus in his next reply suc- 
 ceeds in convincing them that the bread is spiritual, 
 they murmur at him (41) for describing himself as 
 come from heaven to be the living bread. Yet by an 
 oversight the Evangelist represents them as asking 
 fur this bread (34) when Jesus (33) had already 
 identified himself with the bread from heaven. Still 
 more, it is strange that the Jews should have raised 
 no protest against the assertion that Moses gave them 
 not bread from heaven. The statement contradicts 
 passages in the Pentateuch and in the Psalms with 
 which they must have been familiar. They could at 
 once have cited the passage (put into the mouth of 
 Jesus himself during the temptation) which distinctly 
 contains the very idea of a spiritual and life- 
 
The yohannine Discourses ofyesus. 165 
 
 giving bread, "Man shall not live by bread alone, 
 but by every word of God ;" and if they preferred a 
 more literal meaning, they might have reminded him 
 that God had opened for their forefathers the doors of 
 heaven and fed them vv^ith angel's food; nay, that, in 
 the very words used by Jesus, he had rained down 
 manna and given them of the corn or bread of heaven 
 (Ps. Ixxviii. 24). Thus far they might have followed 
 him ; and if he had so addressed them, they probably 
 would have followed him. The case is altered when 
 he converts the metaphor into the eating of his flesh 
 and the drinking of his blood. Here it was certain 
 that they would not understand him : and in complete 
 contrast to his method in the other Gospels, he pro- 
 ceeds deliberately to quench the smoking flax (for 
 they had prayed him to give them living bread) by 
 uttering still harder sayings, until many even of his 
 disciples ask who can hear them. Where in all this 
 do we see the earnest teacher who by his graphic 
 and vivid parables, by images drawn from the most 
 familiar objects, leads the dull and ignorant onward 
 like little children, until they feel themselves breath- 
 ing a purer atmosphere and catch some glimpse, how- 
 ever faint, of the light that streams from heaven % 
 V. The discourses given in the succeeding chapters 
 are so similar in character to the one just examined, 
 that they may be dismissed with a few words. They 
 contain the same language respecting the person of 
 Christ, of his descent from heaven (vii. 18, 28), of 
 living water (38), of light and darkness (viii. 12), of 
 witness received from men and witness borne from 
 above (13-19), of those who are from beneath, and 
 him who is from above (23), of freedom and bondage 
 (32, 33). All these ideas, as we might expect, are 
 thoroughly misunderstood ; nor can we say that any 
 eff'ort is made to remove the misapprehension. It 
 is quite certain that such a method applied to an 
 average English audience at the present day would 
 
1 66 English Life of yes us. 
 
 very soon exasperate them. No other result, indeed, 
 was possible ; for when the Jews (vii. 27) say that 
 they know whence Jesus is (meaning that he was born 
 and bred in Nazareth), Jesus answers, that they know 
 him, and also whence he is (using the words, not in 
 a geographical or historical, but in a metaphysical 
 sense), and immediately goes on to use language 
 which, without explanation, could not fail to be 
 offensive to them. But the whole of the discourse 
 in the next cliai)ter turns upon the express asseilion 
 that ih('!/ ciO not know him (viii. 14, 19); and here again 
 (viii. 38), Jesus suddenly draws a contrast between 
 his Father and their father, by whom the Jews 
 suppose that Abraham is meant, nor is it until 
 after two or three more reproofs are given that 
 it turns out (in v. 44) that their father is the devil. 
 Could any mode be devised more effectual for rousing 
 a spirit of obstinate resistance, and repressing all the 
 better feelings of their nature 1 Having brought 
 them to a point which seemingly made it useless to 
 say anything more, Jesus adds another enigmatical 
 phrase, that he who keeps his sayings shall never 
 taste of death. This, of course, is by the plan of this 
 Gospel construed into an exemption from physical 
 death, and the reply is, that Abraham and all other 
 good men have died like every one else. Even now, 
 instead of telling them plainly that he was not, and 
 had not been, speaking of physical accidents, and 
 that such gross misconstructions were very unseemly 
 in the handling of purely spiritual truths, Jesus 
 merely says that Abraham had seen his day, and thus 
 leads to the crowning misapprehension that Jesus 
 (as man) was contemporary with Abraham. This brings 
 Jesus to assert distinctly his ] ire-existence, and the 
 dialogue ends with a tumult. The result would have 
 raised no surprize in any indiflerent spectator who 
 had heard Jesus speak of going his way whither the 
 Jews could not follow him, and had listened to the 
 
The 'Johannine Discourses ofyssus. 167 
 
 surmise of the Jews that Jesus must intend to kill 
 himself (viii. 22). 
 
 VI. The tenth chapter of John contains the illus- 
 tration of the Good Shepherd, which (in v. G) is called 
 a paralde. This statement seems to show that the 
 Evangelist was aware of the parabolic character of 
 the teaching of Jesus. But the passage relating to 
 the good Shepherd is not a parable, for from the 
 image of the Shepherd Jesus goes on to speak of him- 
 self as the door by Avhich the sheep may go in and oat. 
 Every one who reads the parables in the Synoptics 
 must feel the entire difference in th.^if genius. They 
 are replaced in the fourth gospel by metaphor or alle- 
 gory, always directed to the person of Jesus. He is 
 the She})lierd, he is the door, he is the vine, &c. 
 
 VII. At the twenty-fifth ver.5e of the tenth chapter 
 begins a discourse delivered by Jesus at the feast of 
 dedication, three months later than the discourse 
 which ends at v. 18. As no intimation is given that 
 Jesus had been absent from Jerusalem in the mean- 
 time, we must understand the Evangelst to mean 
 that Jesus was making a stay of several months in 
 Jerusalem. How completely this is at variance with 
 the history of the Synoptics we have already seen 
 (Chapter iii. p. Ill &c.). But another difficulty is 
 presented in the fact that Jesus, after a very few 
 words on his own Person and his relation to the 
 Father (25) recurs to the image of the sheep and 
 shepherd, and repeats part of the allegory ahnost 
 word for vvord. It is impossible to understand this 
 abrupt transition and sudden resumption of an address 
 uttered more than three months previously. The 
 allegory would probably not be prominent in the 
 speaker's mind at such a distance of time, and would 
 certainly have faded from the minds of his hearers. 
 But it would not so have faded from the mind of the 
 Evangelist who had just written down the parable or 
 allegory ; and the connexion of ideas in his own mind 
 
i68 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 has led him to ascribe the repetition to Jesus. The 
 inference is unavoidable that the Evangelist was com- 
 posing his discourses as he went on. 
 
 VIII. All the discourses hitherto noticed are 
 peculiar to the fourth Gospel. A few detached 
 sayings here and there furnish a parallel to sayings 
 in the Synoptics ; but they are generally given in a 
 wrong connexion, or in a way which shows that the 
 Evangelist misunderstood their meaning. 
 
 Thus in chapter iv. (44:) we are told that Jesus 
 himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in 
 his oAVTi country. This is given as a reason for his 
 going into Galilee, and it is added that the Galilaeans 
 welcomed him, and Jesus heals by his word at Cana 
 a nobleman's son who was sick at Capernaum. All 
 this assumes that Galilee was not the country of 
 Jesus, for if it had been, then, according to his testi- 
 mony, he should have been dishonoured there. But 
 Galilee was his country, and accordingly the Synoptic 
 writers say that he %va& dishonoured there, at least in 
 his own town. Thus, in Matt. xiii. 57, these words 
 are spoken by Jesus as a reason, not for going among 
 a people who will not receive him, but for not doing 
 his mighty works there. In Mark vi. 4 they serve 
 likeAvise as an answer to the contemptuous words of 
 his kinsfolk and acquaintance. The contradiction 
 between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel is here 
 so great that some have insisted on substituting 
 although in place of for in verse 44, and so have held 
 that Jesus went into Galilee, although he knew that 
 he would be dishonoured there. But, in the first 
 place, the translation although is wholly inadmissible, 
 and indeed ridiculous; and, in the next place, if 
 admitted, it would prove that Jesus was mistaken, 
 for the very next statement is that the Galila^ans 
 welcomed him. Hence some have fallen back on the 
 narrative of the Nativity given in the third Gospel, 
 and, affirming that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, 
 
The yohannine Discourses ofjesus. 169 
 
 assert that these words give his reason for departing 
 from Judaea, where he had been dishonoured ; but 
 the fourth Gospel itself precludes any such explana- 
 tion, for that Gospel states (ii. 23) that many 
 believed on him in Jerusalem at the first passover 
 after the beginning of his ministry, and chapter iv. 1 
 records the fact that the number of persons baptized 
 by Jesus and his disciples exceeded the number bap- 
 tized by John the Baptist. 
 
 At the end of the fourteenth chapter we find 
 the words " Arise, let us go hence." They occur 
 also in Matt. xxvi. 46, and in Mark xiv. 42. In both 
 they are spoken in the garden of Gethsemane, imme- 
 diately before the arrival of the betrayer, when Jesus, 
 on coming to the disciples for the third time, finds 
 them all asleep. • Thus it is in the Synoptics a com- 
 mand to wake up out of sleep. Here it is spoken in 
 the same room in which he had partaken with them 
 of the supper described at the beginning of the thir- 
 teenth chapter ; and they are followed by no result, 
 for, instead of going away, Jesus remains where he 
 was, and continues his discourse during chapters xv. 
 and xvi. and not until after the prayer contained in 
 chapter xvii. are we told that Jesus went over the 
 brook Cedron. Hence it has been argued that we 
 have the testimony of an eye-witness who heard his 
 master pronounce the command, and saw him rise 
 and continue standing while he spoke some more 
 parting words of peace and love. But in this case 
 the fact of the delay would in all probability have 
 been noted by the Evangelist instead of merely con- 
 tinuing the discourse. However this may be, it is 
 still certain that the words occur in the Synoptics in 
 a wholly different connexion, and again we are led to 
 infer that the Johannine discourses were not spoken 
 by Jesus. 
 
 On the whole, then, we have in the Synoptics 
 methods of teaching not alien to the character of an 
 
1 yo English Life of yesiis. 
 
 unlearned but intelligent Oalil?ean peasant, anrl, oven 
 when they aie obscured by meta})hor or hyperbole, 
 driving straight at a moral mark. We have dis- 
 courses which throughout are practical, Avhicli teach 
 the people how they are to regard the Mosaic 
 law, in what relation they stand to God, and how 
 they may do His will. In the fourth Gospel we 
 have a series of mystical addresses grounded on 
 principles established by the Alexandrine philosophy, 
 turning chiefly on the Person of Christ, the pre- 
 existence of the Eternal Logos and his relation 
 to the Father, and presenting the series of recur- 
 ring contrasts already noted. These discourses, far 
 from tending to instruct and enlighten the hearers, 
 are calculated to irritate and repel them. The con- 
 nexion of the topics is chiefly verbal ; and they are 
 so arranged as to exhibit most forcibly the dulness 
 and folly of all with whom Jesus is brought into 
 contact. When his hearers misunderstand him, Jesus 
 immediately utters some saying more enigmatical 
 and obscure than those which have preceded it ; and 
 the Rabbi Nicodemus is described as no more able to 
 fathom his meaning than the Samaritan woman or 
 the rude Galil^ean peasantry. 
 
 Nor must it be forgotten that long dialogues 
 are amongst the most difficult things to remem- 
 ber. Nay, it may be safely said that, unless they 
 are taken down immediately, it is absolutely certain 
 that they Avill not be correctly re])orted. But 
 there is not the faintest evidence that the dis- 
 courses of Jesus were so taken down ; and, as if 
 this were not enough to show how unhistorical the 
 Johannine discourses are, we are confronted with 
 the further and crowning difficulty already noticed, 
 that the Baptist, and Jesus, and the writer of John's 
 epistles all x'.se precisely the same language, and think 
 in precisely the same way. It would be hard, indeed, 
 to imagine more conclusive proof of the fact that 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 1 7 1 
 
 the discourses generally are the work of the Evan- 
 gelist, and not of the speakers to whom they are 
 ascribed. 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 
 
 The close agreement of the Gospels which bear 
 the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, an agree- 
 ment extending frequently to the actual words of 
 whole sentences, paragraphs, and discourses, is signi- 
 fied in the title Synoptic by which they are com- 
 monly designated. 
 
 It cannot, however, be denied, that with these 
 points of large agreement, there are other points of 
 minute difference, which have led many to luppose 
 that tiiey are not all equally the work of eye-wit- 
 nesses. The preference is generally given to Mark 
 and Luke, and of these two more particularly to 
 Mark. The notes of time in the first Gospel are very 
 faint and indefinite, and the other Gospels frequently 
 supply details and names which are not found in 
 Matthew. 
 
 But, although a vague and pointless narrative may 
 show that we are not reading the testimony of an 
 eye-witness, it does not follow that a Avork is genuine 
 because it contains vivid and picturesque detail. 
 Oral tradition especially, which tends for the most 
 part to blot out details, will, on the spur of some ex- 
 ceptional motive, add to or invent them. This ten- 
 dency IS chiefly conspicuous when it treats of any 
 subject Avhich it wishes to bring into unusual promi- 
 nence, or of a person whom it has a strong desire 
 to glorify. These two objects were in a remarkable 
 degree present to the minds of the early Christians. 
 Thus in Matthew viii. IG, we are told simply that at 
 eventide many demoniacs were brought to Jesus, 
 
172 Efiglisb Life o/yesus. 
 
 and that he healed them all ; in Mark i. 33., we are 
 told that all the city was gathered together at his 
 door. On another occasion Mark (ii. 2.) represents 
 the crowd as leaving no room even about the door, 
 while Luke (xii. 1) represents the crowd as treading 
 on one another. But although these touches may 
 impart an apparent reality to the tale, they do not 
 do so really, and they are just such details as might 
 be added by any one who wished to embellish a 
 story. The mention of a blind beggar in Jericho 
 leads Mark (x. 4G.) to give us his name and that of 
 his father. As therefore all the details added by 
 Mark and Luke are precisely of this kind, no in- 
 ference can be fairly drawn in their favour to the dis- 
 paragement of the first Evangelist. 
 
 But a comparison of these three Gospels tends 
 greatly to disparage the fourth. In the former the 
 multitudes are generally highly favourable to Jesus ; 
 in John he commonly rouses their anger. In the for- 
 mer they are astonished at the authority of his teach- 
 ing ; in the latter they commonly try to stone him. In 
 the former his fame is spread rapidly and noisily abroad j 
 in the latter the Evangelist is careful to say that all 
 his words and works produced no impression. In the 
 former the people follow him from all parts ; in the 
 latter the Jews send out officers to seize him. In the 
 one his discourses generally elicit enthusiastic ap- 
 proval ; in the latter they provoke curses and 
 maledictions. But all this enmity and all these 
 machinations are frustrated in the fourth Gospel not 
 by any caution or reserve or prudence on the part 
 of Jesus, but for the supernatural reason that his 
 hour was not yet come. Jesus is thus enabled to move 
 • about unharmed until the hour arrives when he must 
 make the final sacrifice. This miraculous repression 
 is seemingly the only reason for describing a state of 
 things so utterly different from that which is depicted 
 in the Synoptic Gospels ; and thus from another path 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 173 
 
 we are brought back to the conchision that the fourth 
 Gospel is not historical. 
 
 I. But a comparison of the Synoptic Gospels 
 among themselves exhibits in some cases with sin- 
 gular clearness the mode in which oral tradition 
 modified the materials submitted to it. In Matthew 
 xii. 46., after the controversy provoked by the Pha- 
 risaic accusation that Jesus cast out devils by 
 Beelzebub the prince of the devils, we are told that 
 the mother and brethren of Jesus desired to speak 
 with him, and that Jesus, on being informed of the 
 fact, declared that his true kinsfolk were not those 
 who were so according to the flesh, but they who did 
 the will of his heavenly Father. In Luke the same 
 story is related (viii. 19) ; but it is related not, as in 
 Matthew, before the delivery of any of the parables, 
 but after the parable of the sower and the seed, some 
 sentences (respecting the lighting of a candle), which 
 in Matthew occur in the Sermon on the Mount, being 
 inserted between the parable and this anecdote. This 
 of itself would suffice to show (if abundant evidence 
 had not already been furnished of the fact) that the 
 Evangelists were utterly heedless of historical order, 
 and that no trust can be placed in their sequences of 
 events, unless they are strengthened by adequate 
 collateral testimony. In Mark (iii. 31.) also this nar- 
 rative comes before the parable of the seed ; but the 
 passage which precedes it puts the matter in a very 
 difl"erent light. With the love of minute detail which 
 characterises the second Gospel, the Evangelist had 
 stated that after the mission of the twelve the crowd 
 was so great that they could not so much as eat 
 bread. He then goes on to say that the kinsfolk of 
 Jesus were convinced that he was mad and accord- 
 ingly wished to get possession of his person. At this 
 point he inserts the charge of the Pharisees, that Jesus 
 worked with the aid of Beelzebub (the connexion of 
 ideas, which led him to state this here, being furnished 
 
1 74 English Life of fesus. 
 
 hy tlie notion of insanity), and then adds that his 
 mother and l)rcthren sent the message expressing their 
 wish to see him. The inference forced on us is, that 
 their real wish was to put him under restraint, and 
 hence there is nothing surprizing in the circumstance 
 that their request should be refused. Many commen- 
 tators, accordingly, have insisted on the historical 
 accuracy of ]\fark, as explaining and justifying this 
 appai^ent harshness in the answer of Jesus. But if 
 we grant that the mother of Jesus as Avell as his 
 kindred thought him mad, what becomes of the truth 
 of the narratives which record the events of the 
 Nativity whether in the first or third Gospels 1 We 
 have already had to notice more than once the mar- 
 vellous apathy or forgetfulness of all the actors and 
 spectators in those wonderful scenes. Events of the 
 most astonishing nature leave on their memory no 
 impression whatever. The mother of Jesus Avho has 
 heard from the lips of Gabriel that her child should 
 sit for ever on the throne of David, as well as Joseph 
 who is taught in a dream that the child to l)e born shall 
 save his people from their sins, can on the coming of 
 the Magi, or the visit of the Shepherds, or the bene- 
 diction of Simeon and Anna in the temple, do no 
 more than express anew her astonishment at the 
 things which Avere done or spoken of him. As time 
 goes on, they seem to forget even the place of his 
 birth. He is now Jesus the Nazarene, and neither 
 they nor Jesus himself can declare, on occasions 
 when such a declaration was urgently called for, that 
 in fiict he had been born in Bethlehem. AVhen in his 
 twelfth year the child, tariying in Jerusalem, is found 
 by his parents in the temple, they are wholly at a 
 loss to understand words which ought to have been 
 superfluous. Far, again, apparently from telling their 
 children of the marvellous incidents which had pre- 
 ceded and accompanied their birth, Mary and Eliza- 
 beth allow them to grow up strangers to each other, 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 175 
 
 so that, according to the fourth Gospel, the Baptist 
 declares that he had no knowledge of Jesus until he 
 saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove alighting 
 upon him. The astonishment of the doctors shows in 
 like manner the most complete oblivion of events 
 which had troubled Herod and all Jerusalem only- 
 twelve years previously, and had led to the slaughter 
 of all infant children throughout a whole district ; 
 and when not twenty years later Jesus taught pub- 
 licly at Jerusalem, not one apparently could remem- 
 ber that, as a boy, he had astonished them with his 
 understanding and answers, while all regard him as an 
 unlettered man (John vii. 15.) All this, however, is as 
 nothing beside the narrative of Mark. Here not only 
 has his mother forgotten, as before, every incident in 
 the long series of events which begins with the angelic 
 Salutation, but she has arrived definitely at the 
 conclusion that her son is out of his senses, that his 
 Messianic claims are idle fancies, and that enforced 
 privacy is the best mode of drawing a veil over his 
 delusions. 
 
 Of these several narratives, all but one must be 
 not only unhistorical, but gratuitous fabrications, 
 without the slightest foundation in fact. Whatever 
 be our conclusion, it is abundantly clear that the 
 Gospels cannot be regarded as history in any legiti- 
 mate sense of the Avord, while at the same time it is 
 quite possible that the colour thus thrown on the 
 transaction in the second Gospel may be due entirely 
 to the imagination of the Evangelist. 
 
 It is singular also that after the defence of Jesus 
 against the charge of complicity with Beelzebub, 
 Luke also (xi. 27) inserts an anecdote which leads to 
 precisely the same answer which in the other Gospels 
 Jesus gives to his mother and his brethren. This 
 reply is made to a certain woman in the company 
 who pronounced the womb that bore Jesus to be 
 blessed ; but it is not easy to see why this enthusiasm 
 
176 English Life of yesus. 
 
 on her part should be roused by the discourse on the 
 return of the unclean spirits or by the condemnation 
 of the Pharisees which had preceded it. It is scarcely 
 unreasonable to suppose that the Evangelist inserted 
 the story at this point as involving an answer similar 
 to that given elsewhere to the kinsfolk of Jesus. 
 
 II. The various narratives of disputes for precedency 
 among the disciples involve historical difficulties of 
 the same kind. Of the versions given in Matt, xviii. 
 1, Mark ix. 33, Luke ix. 46, something has already 
 been said. In addition to these (which relate to the 
 setting up of a child as a model for the disciples' 
 imitation), Matthew mentions (xx. 20) the indignation 
 excited in the minds of the Apostles by the request 
 of the mother of Zebedee's children. The same inci- 
 dent is mentioned by Mark (x. 35), but it is not 
 found in any part of the third Gospel. Finally, there 
 is the dispute for pre-eminence which occurs at the 
 last supper (Luke xxii. 24), and which is stilled by 
 
 . Jesus with a reply which is almost word for word the 
 same as that which had been given after the request 
 of Salome on behalf of James and John. It deserves 
 particular remark that the words " Whosoever will be 
 
 ,,great among you, let him be servant of all," should 
 have been uttered not only when Jesus set up the 
 child before the disciples, and when he refused the 
 request of Zebedee's wife, but also in the great dis- 
 course against the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 11), and, 
 finally, at the last supper. In the incident recorded 
 in Luke xxii. 24 there is no motive whatever for any 
 such controversy. The dispute, we are told, followed 
 immediately on the announcement that Jesus was to be 
 betrayed — an announcement which, according to Matt, 
 xxvi. 22, made them "exceedingly sorrowful ;" and 
 surely this was not a time at which any such trifling 
 and angry thoughts would occupy their minds. But 
 here, as in so many other cases, although there is no 
 practical motive, the verbal connexion is clear. The 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels^ lyy 
 
 Evangelist had just mentioned that the disciples began 
 to inquire {au^ririrj) who should do this thing, and the 
 word which denotes dispute as well as search led him 
 to introduce a statement which he had already given 
 in another connexion. 
 
 III. The difficulties connected with the purification 
 of the temple are far more serious. In Matt. xxi. 12 
 we are informed that after his triumphant entry into 
 Jerusalem Jesus went into the temple and cast out 
 all who sold and bought there, overthrowing the seats 
 of the money-changers and of those who sold doves. 
 Mark (xi. 11) merely states that he looked round on 
 all things in the temple. Luke (xix. 45) agrees with 
 the first Gospel, except in the omission of any refer- 
 ence to the seats, the money-changers, and the sellers 
 of doves. In the Synoptics, then, this incident occurs 
 very shortly before the crucifixion, and by rousing the 
 "sore displeasure" of the chief priests and scribes it 
 tends to bring to a head the opposition already ex- 
 hibited by them towards Jesus. In the fourth Gospel 
 (ii. 13) it is a.ssigned, not to the passover of the cruci- 
 fixion, but to the first visit of Jesus to Jerusalem after 
 the commencement of his ministry. The story is also 
 told with some most important points of difference, 
 for yvQ are informed (1) that Jesus, having made a 
 scourge of small cords, drove out not only the buyers 
 and sellers but the sheep and the oxen ; and (2) 
 that when asked for a " sign" as a Avarrant for thus 
 acting, Jesus replied by saying that if they destroyed 
 the temple he would raise it up again in three days. 
 The Evangelist here states that Jesus meant in these 
 words not the temple of Solomon, Nehemiah, or 
 Herod, but his own body, which would rise in three 
 days from the grave. Like Nicodemus and the 
 woman of Samaria, and indeed like all who converse 
 with Jesus in this Gospel, the Jews utterly misunder- 
 stand him ; but strangely enough, instead of being 
 exasperated, as they are by his later discourses, they 
 M 
 
178 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 apparently take no notice, nor is anything else in the 
 fourth Go?pel made to depend upon this declaration. 
 It is otherwise with tlie Synoptics, who mention that 
 part of the false witness borne against Jesus was the 
 assertion that he would in three days build up the 
 temple if it were thrown down (Matt. xxvi. 61, Mark 
 xiv. 58) ; the inference from these statements being 
 that Jesus had never uttered the words, for, if he had 
 spoken them, the testimony, though possibly mistaken, 
 could not have been false, nor could they be blamed 
 for misapprehending words Avhich related to a still 
 future event. But according to the fourth Gospel 
 Jesus had spoken the words, and therefore the witness 
 mentioned by the other Evangelists was not false. 
 We may take whichever alternative we please, but in 
 either case the conclusion remains that the accounts of 
 the closing days as well as of the beginning of the 
 ministry contain some false statements. Nor must it 
 be forgotten that when, on the day after this casting 
 forth of the crowd, the priests and elders, in the 
 Synoptics, ask him his reason for this summary action, 
 in words closely resembling those of John ii. 18, 
 Jesus makes a reply which has nothing in common 
 with the mysterious saying respecting the overthrow 
 and rebuilding of the temple. 
 
 If, then, the narrative as given in the fourth Gospel 
 be true, nothing is more certain than that Jesus with 
 his scourge drove out sellers, buyers, and victims all 
 together, and that he did this by himself, for no hint 
 is breathed that any took part with him in the work. 
 Indeed such co-operation would not have suited well 
 with the plan of this Gospel, for, throughout, Jesus 
 by his own inherent majesty keeps back his enemies, 
 and frustrates all their attempts "until his hour is 
 come ;" and even when it is come, the persons who 
 are sent to seize him go back and fall to the ground 
 at his simple question — "Whom seek ye?" And 
 thus the conclusion is that one man, and that one a 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 179 
 
 stranger (for it is described as his first public act in 
 Jerusalem) interferes with a legal traffic, and expels 
 from the temple-yard the beasts needed for sacrifice. 
 
 Were there then two purifications of the temple, 
 one at the beginning, the other at the close of the 
 ministry 1 The Synoptics clearly know nothing of 
 the first one ; the fourth Gospel takes no notice of 
 the last ; and it must be allowed that the whole 
 weight of probability lies in favour of the former. 
 The Johannine Gospel runs counter to the whole 
 sequence of events in the Synoptics, and more par- 
 ticularly as we have seen, represents the Messiahship 
 of Jesus as fully known to the Baptist, to Andrew, 
 Peter, Nathanael, and the beloved disciple, to Nico- 
 demus, the Samaritan woman, and the Jews in 
 general, at a time when in the other Gospels even 
 the Apostles are described as profoundly ignorant of 
 the fact. 
 
 There remains the exceeding unlikelihood of the 
 transaction as recorded by John. At the last jjass- 
 over Jesus, coming from Galilee with a body of en- 
 thusiastic followers, might not impossibly be count- 
 enanced by them in this forcible expulsion ; but at the 
 first passover such aid could not be looked for, and 
 the Evangelist seems expressly to preclude the idea. 
 These difficulties have led Dean Milman to assert 
 ('History of Christianity,' vol. 1., chap. 3.) that the 
 traffic in the Court of the Gentiles (for it was nothing 
 more), was regarded with general disapprobation by 
 the Jews. There is no evidence of such a fact. 
 It was indubitably approved by the priesthood, and 
 it is certain that those who conducted the traffic 
 would have been supported hj them against any 
 attempts at violent suppression. The absence of this 
 traffic is mentioned also in rabbinical writings, not as 
 adding to the solemnity of the place, but as a 
 mournful token of desolation. Hence it is not at all 
 ' clear/' as Dean Milman affirms it to be, " that this 
 
i8o English Life ofycsus. 
 
 assertion of the Sanctity of tlie Temple must have 
 been a popular act with the majority of the worship- 
 pers." But it is dear that the fourth Gospel assumes 
 the absence of all resistance ; the buyers and sellers 
 depart abashed, as the officers, sent on another occa- 
 sion to seize him, excuse the failure of their mission, 
 by saying that never man spake like this man. This, 
 however, is improbable ; and Dean Milman maintains 
 theiefore, that there was a resistance, while he also 
 lessens greatly the share which Jesus himself took 
 in the transaction. 
 
 " Though Jesus," we are told, " is said personally 
 to have exerted himself, assisting with a light scourge 
 probably in driving out the cattle, it is not likely 
 that if he had stood alone, either the calm and com- 
 manding dignity of his manner, or even his appeal 
 to the authority of the Sacred writings which fory)ade 
 the profanation of the Temple as a place of mer- 
 chandise, would have overpowered the sullen obstinacy 
 of men, engaged in a gainful traffic sanctioned by 
 ancient usage." 
 
 In other words, Dr Milman has not the slightest 
 scruple in flatly contradicting the statements of 
 Evangelists when historical probability calls on him 
 to do so. Where then is the essential difference in 
 the character of his method from that of the most 
 destructive critic, except that the latter are more 
 systematic in applying it 1 The act itself. Dean Mil- 
 man thinks, was " no more than a courageous zealot 
 for the law might have done ;" but it is an act 
 which would have called forth vehement opposition. 
 Fully convinced of this, Origen attributed the sub- 
 mission of the buyers and sellers to the superhuman 
 majesty of Jesus, and hence counted this among the 
 greatest of his miracles. According to Dr Milman, 
 it is not a miracle at all ; nor is it easy to see why 
 the speech about the destruction and rebuilding of 
 the temple should have jarred on the religious sensi- 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 1 8 i 
 
 billties of the Jews. As the destruction was coupled 
 with its restoration in three days, there seems to be 
 no reason why they should be displeased at all, more 
 especially as, if so restored, it might be raised in far 
 more than its former grandeur. 
 
 There is, however, a dignity in the Evangelical 
 narrative which, reluctant as we are to say it. Dean 
 Milman has lowered almost to the level of comedy. 
 The image of Jesus, helping with a light scourge to 
 drive out a ponderous mass of unwieldy cattle, has 
 little of majesty or beauty ; while the supposition 
 that others, taking his side, were aiding in expelling 
 the men converts the whole scene into a wild tumult, 
 which must have called for the interference of the 
 Roman police. And, lastly, the speech about the 
 temple was, as Dr Milman asserts, completely mis- 
 understood j the plan of the fourth Gospel required 
 that it should be; but Dean Milman cannot with- 
 hold some explanation. '"The gesture," he asserts, 
 " by which Jesus probably confined his meaning 
 to the temple of his body which, though destroyed, 
 was to be raised up again in three days, was seen 
 indeed by his disciples, yet even by them but 
 imperfectly understood." There is not the slightest 
 indication that any gesture was seen by any one, 
 or that it was ever made ; and the notion that 
 Jesus deliberately uttered words relating to future 
 and distant events, privately signifying to his disciples 
 that the apparent meaning of his speech was not the 
 real one, degrades his act to a piece of undignified 
 mockery. 
 
 That some such act marked the last appearance 
 of Jesus in Jerusalem is in no way unlikely ; he had 
 then openly broken with the ruling clisses, and 
 nothing would be lost in the event of failure. But 
 its occurrence at the outset of his ministry is so 
 improbable that we may well side with Origen in 
 thinking that it never took place at all Origen is 
 
1 82 English Life of yesus. 
 
 probably right also in adding that the Evangelist has 
 travestied some real incident. 
 
 However this may be, the Johannine account of 
 the jDurification of the temple must be dismissed as 
 altogether unhistorical. 
 
 IV. It is mentioned in all the four Gospels that 
 Jesus was anointed by a woman as he sat at meat ; 
 but the accounts are more or less inconsistent and 
 contradictory throughout. 
 
 In ]\Iatt. xxvi. 6 it is recorded as taking place at 
 Bethany in the house of Simon the leper ; the woman 
 is of blameless reputation, and the objection, taken 
 by the disciples, is on the ground of wastefulness. 
 The account in Mark xiv. 3 is substantially the same, 
 the chief difference being that he does not specify 
 the persons who raised the objection. In Luke 
 vii. 36 the incident is described as taking place in 
 Galilee early in the ministry of Jesus ; here the 
 woman is a sinner, and she anoints not his head, but 
 his feet, which she Avipes with the hair of her head. 
 The objection in this case is taken not by the dis- 
 ciples, but by the Pharisee in whose house the incident 
 occurred ; and the reply of Jesus has no reference 
 to his approaching death and the power of always 
 doing good to the poor, but turns on the contrast 
 between the niggardly welcome of the Pharisee and 
 the overflowing love of the sinful woman. In John 
 xii. 1 the woman who anoints is not only not a sinner, 
 but she is Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus. 
 The house in which Jesus was entertained is not 
 named, but Lazarus, it is added, was here, after his 
 resurrection from the dead, among those who sat 
 at meat. Like the sinful woman in Luke, Mary 
 anoints his feet and wipes them with her hair, and 
 the objection is raised in this instance not by all 
 the disciples, but only by Judas Iscariot. Jesus, in 
 liis reply, merely bids them leave her alone, making 
 no reference to the memorial which should be pre- 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 183 
 
 served of this event wherever the Gospel should be 
 preached. 
 
 These contradictions are so great that the suppo- 
 sition of two anointings has been commonly adopted ; 
 but if we assume that there were two, must we not 
 allow that there were more? Apart from the cha- 
 racter of the Avoman who anointed him, the enter- 
 tainment, according to the first two Gospels, was 
 given in the house of Simon the leper ; the fourth 
 Gospel clearly implies that it took place in that of 
 Lazarus. In the former again it preceded the pass- 
 over only by two days, in the latter by six ; and what 
 is more singular is, that the former do not know the 
 woman's name. Other points of difference already 
 noted need not be again mentioned here ; but enough 
 has been said to show that the accounts in Matthew 
 and Mark differ from the narrative of John almost 
 as much as all the three differ from that of Luke. 
 Hence many have held with Origen that thare were 
 three anointings, and we are surprized at the regu- 
 larity with which, in each case, objections are raised 
 against the work of the woman, and the sameness of 
 the arguments by which Jesus defends her. 
 
 But inasmuch as Matthew, Mark, and John all 
 place the incident in the last week of the ministry, 
 it may, perhaps, be conceded that all speak of the 
 same event ; and on this hypothesis there would be 
 only two anointings. On a further scrutiny, other 
 points of resemblance come out which seem to show 
 that after all Luke is giving only another version of 
 the same event, for he also states that the meal was 
 in the house of Simon, only he calls him a Pharisee 
 instead of a leper. Like the other Synoptics, Luke 
 makes the woman a stranger who comes in, not one 
 belonging to the house ; and on the other hand, the 
 mode of anointing in Luke is the same as in John. 
 The conclusion must be that we have here three 
 different versions of the same event, and fresh proof is 
 
184 English Life of ycsus. 
 
 forced upon us of the slender trast wliicli can be placed 
 upon any part of the Gospels as liistorical narratives. 
 
 In the present instance, it must not ha forgotten 
 that the features introduced into the narrative of 
 John have been rendered necessary by the plan of 
 the fourth Gospel. The Evangelist Avished to mark 
 the point at which the treachery of Judas betrayed 
 itself to the disciples ; but it is scarcely credible that, 
 if the objection had been raised by Judas only, the 
 Synoptics should not have stated the fact ; and it is 
 still more strange that they should not mention that 
 the brother of the woman was one whom Jesus had 
 raised from the dead. We thus encounter one of the 
 numy points which show the complete ignorance of 
 the ISynoptics of the most stupendous miracle ever 
 wrought by Jesus. In this case, indeed, we may fairly 
 argue from their silence that they did not know the 
 woman, far less know that she was Mary of Bethany. 
 
 Clearly, then, we have here narratives which have 
 passed througli the crucible of oral tradition, and 
 have come out with forms and colours very different 
 from those which originally belonged to them. But 
 it is scarcely worth while to inquire which of the 
 Gospel narratives is nearest to the truth. We have 
 seen that mere vividness of detail is no proof that 
 the narrator was an eye-witness, and wc have had 
 abundant evidence that none of the Evangelists cared 
 much for notes of either time or place. fStill here, 
 as elsewhere, the balance inclines in favour of the 
 Synoptics. If the incidents occurred as related by 
 John, it seems incredible that tradition should have 
 converted Mary of Bethany into a sinner, and have 
 transfernjd to all the disciples an objection on the 
 score of wastefulness which was raised only by the 
 traitor Judas. 
 
 V. The tale of the woman taken in adultery, given 
 in the eighth chapt(!r of the fourth Gospel, is so beset 
 with difficulties that the most orthodox commentators 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 185 
 
 have thankfully availed themselves of its absence 
 from the earliest manuscripts to declare that it formed 
 no portion of the original Johannine document. 
 They are probably right ; but the mere strangeness 
 of the narrative is not in itself a valid reason for 
 asserting that it is spurious. Nothing can be more 
 incoherent or more intrinsically improbable than the 
 discourses with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, 
 and more especially with the Jews. 
 
 The narrative may be speedily dismissed. Jesus is 
 represented as sorely perplexed, although it is hard 
 to see why he should be. The reply which he is said 
 to have made after a long pause seems to imply that no 
 magistrates have any business to inflict punishment 
 for any offence, unless they feel themselves guiltless of 
 all offences whatsoever, — a doctrine which would end 
 in complete anarchy. Nor is it likely that all of those 
 who heard him would have been so weak or ignoi-ant 
 as to be entrapped by such a fallacy. Some of them 
 surely would have said, " I am not sinless, but I have 
 yet to learn that only the unsinful may interfere to 
 put down gross vice or crimes. My business now is 
 to vindicate the law, and I am prepared to do so." 
 
 Whatever may be the origin of the tale, it is cer- 
 tainly old, for either this narrative or one substan- 
 tially the same is mentioned by Eusebius as being 
 found in the Gospel of the Hebrews ; indeed, the 
 only difference seems to have been that in this case 
 the woman was charged not with one, but with many 
 sins. But this very diversity at once carries us to 
 Luke's narrative of the woman whose many sins 
 were forgiven because she loved mi\ch ; and some 
 ground is thus furnished for the surmise that the 
 two stories are intimately connected, the idea of 
 anointing as an act of love and as an act of penance 
 serving to link the two together, and thus to turn 
 the sinful woman into the one who anointed him, 
 and the latter into a sinful woman. 
 
1 86 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 Thus far then, we have examined a series of nar- 
 ratives, not one of which can be accepted as really 
 historical, although there are some which have un- 
 questionably a historical basis. In most cases, the 
 inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities are so 
 glaring, that we have been enabled after no long 
 scrutiny to dismiss them as utterly untrustworthy, 
 while in not a few we have traced the progress of 
 the transition and the extent to which pure fable has 
 overlaid the slight substratum of fact. 
 
 The amount of historical information thus far ob- 
 tained is small indeed. We do not know whether the 
 ministry was confined to a single year, or whether it 
 extended over two or three ; we do not knoAv whether 
 Jesus appeared in Jerusalem as a teacher until his 
 last passover, or whether he taught there publicly 
 two or three times a year. We do not know in short 
 whether his ministry belonged exclusively to Galilee, 
 or was primarily addressed to the men of Judsea. 
 Even those narratives in which the Synoptics agree 
 are found in very different connexions ; and in such 
 narratives the verbal agreement is so close as to force 
 us to the conclusion that they are not independent 
 accounts at all, but one and the same tale which each 
 Evangelist has embodied in his work just where it 
 might be most convenient to him to do so. If the 
 Synoptic account of the calling of the twelve is cor- 
 rect, the narrative in the fourth Gospel must be 
 thoroughly false ; and in every case we have seen 
 that the balance of probabilities is strongly in favour 
 of the former. 
 
 Reasoning from this basis, we should come to the 
 conclusion, warranted by express statements of the 
 Synoptics, that Jesus did not exhibit himself dis- 
 tinctly as Messiah until a very late period of his 
 ministry, and that he never exhibited himself as 
 Messiah in the sense of the Johannine Gospel, namely 
 as the eternal Logos who took up his tabernacle 
 
Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 187 
 
 in human flesh. To the same conckision the book of 
 Acts and the epistle of James may most justly lead 
 us. Of the character of his disciples and the time 
 of their respective callings we can say little. The 
 accounts are contradictory throughout, and it is simply 
 impossible that they can all be true, while they may 
 all be false. But if we know not much about the 
 twelve, we know nothing about the seventy, who 
 seem to have been invented for the same ecclesiastical 
 purpose which characterises the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 It seems, however, to be fairly established that not 
 Jesus only, but his disciples also, began their teaching 
 with the same announcement of the nearness of the 
 Divine Kingdom which had already been made by 
 John the Baptist, and hence that no claim was at 
 that time advanced for the Messiahship of Jesus, 
 How far his ideas, after he had advanced the claim, 
 had a political colouring, we cannot tell. In like 
 manner, some doubt hangs over his relations to the 
 Mosaic law and to the Samaritans (the conversation 
 with the woman of Samaria being manifestly an im- 
 possibility). To the Gentiles it seems to be clear that 
 he did not extend his mission. 
 
 Of his method of teaching we seem to have 
 authentic accounts in the Synoptic Gospels, which 
 affirm that he taught either by direct precepts in the 
 simj^lest and most unambiguous style, or by parables 
 of an oriental cast, adapted to rouse their intellec- 
 tual and moral state. But in the fourth Gospel we 
 find him speaking riddles which in every case be- 
 wilder his heai'ers, and in many instances rouse the 
 fiercest wrath and opposition ; and we have seen that 
 if the former representation has any element of truth, 
 the latter must be a mere fabrication. 
 
 Of the order of his discourses and of the several 
 incidents mentioned in the Synoptics we have no 
 definite knowledge, inasmuch as between many 
 
l88 English Life o/yesus. 
 
 passages there is no connexion whatever, while in 
 others the connexion is purely verbal. 
 
 Again, although parables occupied a prominent 
 place in his teaching, and some of them have come 
 to us in a historical form, yet many of them have 
 been strangely perverted, and portions of two or more 
 parables have been blended or twisted together, while 
 it is quite certain that six and seven parables were not 
 uttered in rapid succession as they are said to have 
 been in the Syno})tics. This element of i)arables we 
 have seen to be wholly lacking to the fourth Gospel, 
 and the want is a corroborative argument for the 
 unhistorical character of that Gospel. The ascetic 
 element in the teaching of Jesus has been noticed 
 already (Chapter iii., p. 142). 
 
 But further, although we may accept as genuine 
 the accounts of some short disputations with the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees, on the subject of the Mes- 
 siahship and the immortality of the soul, the gravest 
 doubts rest on the anti-Pharisaic denunciations as 
 given in the third Gospel in a private house. 
 
 With regard to the Juhaunine discourses, we may 
 sum up briefly by saying that for not one of them is 
 there the slightest historical evidence forthcoming, 
 while even the facts of this Gospel are commonly in 
 direct contradiction with the other Gospels, and alto- 
 gether exclude them. Moreover, inasmuch as the 
 Evangelist, the Baptist, and Jesus express themselves 
 in precisely the same language, we have irresistible 
 evidence that the Avriter of the Gospel composed all 
 the <liscourses in it, as he went along. 
 
 Finally, a comparison of the Synoptic Gospels has 
 exhibited a certain amount of inconsistency and con- 
 tradiction on almost every point which they have in 
 connnon ; and we have seen that such variations are 
 precisely those which we should expect to find in 
 narratives handed down by oral traditions. Thus we 
 can affirm little more than, — that Jesus taught at 
 
The Miracles of yes us. 189 
 
 first <as the Baptist had taught before him, — that his 
 precepts were earnestly practical, often hyperbolical 
 and ascetic ; and that he spoke chiefly in parables, 
 exhibiting in his work qualities which commanded 
 the admiration of his hearers, and led them to place 
 an enthusiastic trust in one who addressed them with 
 the authority of Truth, and not according to the 
 stereotyped traditions of a priestly order. 
 
 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 
 
 Thus far we have been able to glean from the 
 Gospel narratives only a few isolated facts, some of 
 them indeed of great importance as throwing light on 
 the real character and teaching of Jesus, and exhibit- 
 ing in clearer contrast the exaggerations and fictions 
 with which they are mingled. We have found incon- 
 sistencies, contradictions, and impossibilities almost 
 everywhere ; but the point on which it is necessary to 
 lay the utmost stress is this, that the events which we 
 have thus far examined, do not turn on antj niarvdlous 
 circumstances, and are not set forth as supernatural or 
 miraculous. We do not speak now of the narratives 
 of the Conception, Nativity, and Childhood of Jesus ; 
 for these stand by themselves as full of a gratuitous 
 thaumaturgy which finds a fitting parallel in that of 
 the Acts of the Apostles. But in the narratives of the 
 Ministry the contradictions hitherto laid bare relate 
 to the commonest matters of fact. Either the Baptist 
 knew Jesus from his infancy, or he did not. After 
 the Baptism he either knew Jesus to be the Eternal 
 Logos, or he did not. Either Peter was summoned 
 by Andrew distinctly to find in Jesus the Messiah, or 
 he was not. Either Jesus drove out the traffickers 
 from the temple at the beginning of his ministry, or 
 he did not. Either a fevr days after his baptism he 
 
190 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 was at a marriage feast in Galilee, or he was not. On 
 all these, as on many other points, the Gospel narra- 
 tives completely contradict each other or themselves. 
 The inevitable conclusion is, that in the most ordinary 
 matters of fact the Evangelists are not trusticorthy his- 
 torians, and could not have been eye-witnesses of the 
 events which they relate. 
 
 But their accounts are not confined to matters 
 which fall within the ordinary range of human expe- 
 rience. They abound in incidents which are astound- 
 ing or abnormal, and which run counter to all 
 impressions derived from an observation of natural 
 phenomena. At once, therefore, and before examining 
 any one of these narratives, we are hound distinctly to 
 affirm, that whether as witnesses or as historians of such 
 alleged events, the Evangelists are utterly unworthy of 
 credit. We are not called upon to show how these 
 narratives came into existence, although explanations 
 apparently adequate may not be wanting ; we need 
 not to concern ourselves with theories of absolute or 
 relative miracle, although we have striven to do 
 justice to those who hold either of those theories.* 
 The fact that the Gospels are unhistorical in common 
 things renders an examimttion of alleged miraculous narra- 
 tives a work of supererogation. We need not say that 
 miracles are impossible ; it is enough to have shown 
 that in these Gospels there is scarcely a single story 
 which would stand the test of a judicial scrutiny in an 
 English court of justice. 
 
 On the miracles, then, we need not dwell long ; 
 yet it may not be useless to show that in all the 
 narratives which relate them Ave have contradictions 
 and mistakes precisely similar in kind to those which 
 run through the narratives of ordinary events. 
 
 Although we have persistently disclaimed the duty 
 of accounting for the growth of the Evangelic stories, 
 
 * These theories will form the subject of a separate paper, to be 
 pubUshed shortly. 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 191 
 
 we may yet fairly remark that the most orthodox 
 theology sees in the miracles of the Old Testament 
 the types of greater wonders to be wrought by the 
 Messiah, nor will orthodox controversialists feel any 
 wish to deny the generic similarity of the latter to the 
 former. As Moses fed the Israelites with manna 
 which fell from heaven, so Jesus fed thousands with 
 food which he had preternaturally multiplied. As 
 Moses brought them water out of the stony rock, so 
 Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast 
 of Cana. As Elisha prevented men who were not 
 blind from seeing, or gave them a marvellously 
 extended vision, so Jesus healed even those who had 
 been born blind. As Elijah raised from death the 
 widow's son at Zarephath, and Elisha restored the 
 dead child of the Shunammite woman, so Jesus raised 
 from the grave one who had been dead four days. 
 
 There is throughout a generic agreement, the chief 
 difference being that the miracles of Jesus are more 
 complex and detailed. It can scarcely be denied, 
 then, that the narratives of miracle in the Old Testa- 
 ment might furnish the germ and determine the 
 character of similar narratives in the New. Of course 
 the popular answer is, that both the Old and the New 
 Testament miracles are equally facts ; but an examina- 
 tion of the Gospel narratives has already shown that 
 we can place no sure dependence on any of their 
 assertions ; and while we set aside both the former 
 and the latter series as equally uuhistorical, the Old 
 Testament narratives undeniably existed, and might 
 not impossibly excite the inventive powers of the 
 writers of the New. 
 
 Hence the important question to be answered is 
 not so much whether Jesus worked miracles, as 
 whether he said that he had worked them or laid 
 claim to the power of working them. 
 
 It is noteworthy that after witnessing or hearing of 
 many of his miracles the Pharisees still demand of 
 
192 English Life of ycsus, 
 
 him a sign. How they could refuse this character to 
 tlie events just Avitnessed it is hard to imagine. Hence 
 we seem almost justified in doubting whether they 
 had witnessed them ; and if we say that they asked 
 for a sign only because they had not seen any of his 
 mighty works, then it is singular that they should 
 have Ijeen strangers to events which were happening 
 constantly in the eyes of all the people. 
 
 Uut, further, Jesus is said to have answered this 
 demand for a sign by saying that no sign should be 
 given to so evil a generation (Mark viii. 12). In 
 another version it is added that the sign should be 
 that of the prophet Jonas (Luke xi. 29). In the 
 former case we have on the part of Jesus what looks 
 like a formal disclaimer of miraculous power, or of 
 the will to exercise it; in the latter we have a refer- 
 ence to an event yet future, and which, when it came, 
 was in no way a sign to the scribes or Pharisees. 
 Nothing is or can be a sign to those who do not see 
 it ; and even if we accept the accounts of the resur- 
 rection as historical, it cannot be maintained that the 
 enemies of Jesus Avere witnesses of it. We are told 
 expressly that God when he raised Jesus showed him 
 not to all the people but only to certain Avitnesses 
 chosen of God. If, then, we cannot suppose that 
 Jesus spoke in a Avay which must have been Avholly 
 unintelligible to the Jews, and Avas designed to be so, 
 we are again brought to the conclusion that Jesus did 
 not profess to give any "sign" at all. If, again, any 
 value is to be attached to the history of the Acts, it 
 may be added that no reference is there made to any 
 miracles as Avrought by Jesus, excepting those of 
 healing, the arguments being based entiiely on the 
 resurrection as an event beyond all conception un- 
 expected and astonishing. But if they had been 
 accustomed to frequent raisings of the dead, if they 
 had sat at meat with one who had been dead in his 
 
The Miracles ofjesus. 19J 
 
 grave four clays, how could the resurrection of Jesus 
 be a wonder so unparallelled, even if it had been 
 unexpected. 
 
 It is unnecessary in this country to take any special 
 notice of the so-called rationalistic interpretations, 
 which by a process of ingenious and unscrupulous 
 twisting reduce all the miraculous incidents of the 
 Gospels to the level of ordinary occurrences. Such 
 efforts have never found much favour at the hands of 
 English readers, and are apt to provoke laughter or 
 contempt. The question Avhether Jesus claimed to 
 possess the power of working miracles, or whether 
 he believed in the theory of demoniacal possession, 
 is to be answered, not by paring down narratives until 
 they square with our notions, but by honestly taking 
 the words of the Evangelists in their manifest and 
 intended meaning. That Jesus is said to have con- 
 ferred on his disciples the power of casting out devi]s 
 {Matt. X. 1 ; Mark iii. 15; Luke ix. 1) none will deny; 
 nor does valid reason appear for doubting that, when 
 they returned exulting that the very devils had been 
 subject to them in his name, Jesus gave thanks, as 
 having seen Satan like lightning fall from heaven 
 (Luke X. 18). Here, then, we have what looks like 
 an unequivocal assertion of the existence of devils and 
 of the possibility of their acting in the way popularly 
 attributed to them. Attempts to prove that in using 
 such language Jesus simply accommodated himself to 
 notions which he did not share, must be regarded as 
 so much labour lost. Any such idea is excluded by 
 the plainest expressions in the Gospels. If in address- 
 ing patients he had bidden the devils come out, only 
 because it was necessary to humour the whims of the 
 sufferers in order to insure and hasten their recovery, 
 then he must before his disciples have expressed him- 
 self in a way which would give no countenance to the 
 popular superstition. But this is not tlu' case. On 
 K 
 
1 ()4 English Life of "Jesus. 
 
 this subject Jesus speaks in privcate precisely as he 
 speaks to the demoniacs themselves, and when in one 
 particular case they complained of their inability to 
 cast out the devil, he told them that this kind went 
 not out but by prayer and fasting. Elsewhere (Matt, 
 xii. 43) he describes, as a statement of actual fact, the 
 condition of a man out of whom devils have departed, 
 who after long wandering return to their deserted 
 house, and render their victim's state far Avorse than 
 it was at first. Thus, then, his words countenance 
 not merely the belief in possession, but in the classi- 
 fication of devils according to their obstinacy and 
 malignity. 
 
 "We may therefore assume it as conceded on all 
 hands that Jesus thought and spoke on the subject of 
 demoniacal action as the Jews of the day thought and 
 spoke ai'ound him. Whether the fact of his having 
 so spoken is evidence that the opinion is true, is 
 another cjuestion, which must be settled on its own 
 merits, and which experience does not tend to answer 
 in the affirmative. For those who never care to clear 
 up their notions on the nature of human consciousness 
 the subject may present but little difficulty; but for 
 all who feel that the very idea of this consciousness 
 implies a strict individuality (so that even in the 
 madman it is the mind which still acts, although by 
 an intellectual effort the thinker may identify himself 
 with other real or imaginary jDersons), these narra- 
 tives of demoniacal possession became intrinsically 
 incredible. For they require us to believe nothing 
 less than this, — that the devil has for the time thrust 
 out the consciousness of the man and taken the place 
 of his mind ; and thus the bodily form of the sufferer 
 is a mere case or husk with which the evil spirit may 
 disport himself at will. The weakened sense of indi- 
 viduality in lunatics is generally accounted for on 
 natural grounds; either then the instances mentioned 
 
The Miracles of yesus. 1 95 
 
 in the Gospels may be similarly explained, or we must 
 produce a reason for thinking that the agency in those 
 cases was supernatural. 
 
 It is then a mere waste of time to draw distinctions 
 between congenital defects as natural results, and 
 acquired diseases as the handiwork of the devil. 
 There is no evidence whatever that the Jews ever 
 admitted any such distinctions, and we may therefore 
 confine ourselves to a brief examination of one or two 
 of these narratives. 
 
 I. In the fourth Gospel the first miracle of Jesus 
 is the conversion of the water into wine at Cana. In 
 Mark i. 23 and Luke iv. 33 it is the silencing and 
 expulsion of an evil spirit at Capernaum. The con- 
 tradiction is direct, but we have become so used to 
 such contradictions that we may pass them by with- 
 out comment. We may note, however, that the latter 
 narrative throws light on two subjects. It is first a 
 proof that Jesus had not at this time proclaimed his 
 Messiahship, as the fourth Gospel asserts, for the devil 
 is bidden not to speak of him as the Holy One of God. 
 But still more, it furnishes evidence of the mode in 
 which Jesus viewed the question. The devil is re- 
 garded not only as usurping the consciousness of the 
 man but as possessing a distinct personality, and as 
 endowed with poAvers of discernment far beyond 
 those of mortal men. If so-called rationalistic inter- 
 preters have chosen to think that the devil's assertion 
 of knowledge (Mark i. 24) is only another way of 
 saying that the madman had learnt from hearsay the 
 real character of Jesus, it is not the less a fact that 
 Jesus is represented as fearing that the bystanders 
 might receive that knowledge from the devil, not as 
 thinking that the devil had received it from them. 
 Here, then, we have these alleged facts, — that no 
 human being at the time knew Jesus as the Messiah, 
 that Jesus had not revealed the fact but wished 
 
i g6 English Life of Jesui. 
 
 to conceal it, but that nevertheless the devils knew 
 it as clearly as the Baptist is said to have known 
 it in the first chapter of the fourth Gospel. Was 
 the knowledge derived from God ] and if it came 
 from the devil, is he not thus made another God 
 in perfect accordance with the spirit of Iranian 
 dualism 1 
 
 II. In the cure of the demoniacs of Gadara the 
 Synoptic narratives are not altogether consistent. 
 According to Mark v. 1 and Luke viii. 26 there was 
 only one solitary lunatic ; in Matthew viii. 28 there 
 are two. Here too, as elsewhere, Mark's love of detail 
 is prominent. In the first Gospel the demoniacs 
 shrink from the approach of Jesus ; in the third the 
 sufferer falls at his feet, entreating that he may not 
 be tormented ; in the second he runs from a distance 
 to meet him. But Avhy should a demon do this who 
 hated the sight and voice of the Messiah 1 In Mat- 
 thew again there is nothing to show that the number 
 of the possessing demons was large ; the name 
 " Legion " is found only in Mark and Luke, and, far 
 from proving that we have here the testimony of 
 eyewitnesses, it may be a mere contrivance to 
 explain their subsequent action on the herd of 
 swine. The earlier writer probably supposed that 
 two devils might possess the whole; the latter 
 seemingly thought that there must be one demon 
 to each brute. 
 
 If once we have so far muddled our brains as to 
 think that an individual being may consist of two 
 agents, conscious or unconscious, the additional tax 
 on our faith may be small when we are asked to 
 believe that the number of agents is indefinitely 
 multiplied, as in the seven devils of Mary Magdalene 
 and the Legion of the Gadarenes. Still, even on this 
 hypothesis, it is not easy to see why intelligent spirits, 
 however iijipure, should wish to enter into bnite 
 forms or ■s'^iy, Avhen they have done so, they should 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 197 
 
 hurry the beasts to instant destruction. It is clearly 
 not a case of collective action of the spirits on the 
 herd generally : the demons as clearly enter into the 
 swine as they come out of the men. It is also clear 
 that the demons pray to be allowed to enter them in 
 order to find an abode in them, but instead of this 
 they immediately destroy their chosen habitation. 
 AVe may laugh at rationalistic interpreters who tell 
 us that this destruction was caused by the madmen 
 rushing on the pigs with loud cries while the keepers 
 fled away ; but a natural indignation is roused when 
 we are informed that the cure could not be complete 
 in the men unless the spirits were permitted to enter 
 the brutes. The former is a story of which the Gos- 
 pels know nothing ; the latter plea involves an utter 
 unbelief in Jesus as a divine worker. If the healing 
 was the miraculous work of God, it is impossible that 
 it should be imperfect or involve a risk of injury to 
 the patient merely because it was suddenly effected. 
 The argument becomes ludicrous as well as profane 
 when we remember that all devils did not entreat to 
 go into brutes, and that the necessity of their enter- 
 ing them is nowhere stated as an indispensable con- 
 dition for their leaving the human body. The nar- 
 rative thus betrays a confusion of thought, for which 
 it is not difficult to account. The devils sought an 
 abiding-place, and on this view the swine should 
 have remained alive ; but soine visible effect was 
 called for in order to show the reality of the exor- 
 cism. This feature, which is common to most of the 
 mediaeval legends, is seen in the story told of Apol- 
 lonius of Tyana, who caused a devil, after leaving 
 the body of a young man, to overturn a statue which 
 stood near. Hence it became necessary to destroy 
 the swine, and a piece of incongruous patchwork is the 
 result. 
 
 Of the indignation felt by the owners of the herd 
 
1 98 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 at the loss of their property we need say little. It 
 may be right enough that violators of the Mosaic law 
 should be punished for their delinquencies, although 
 it is not proved that these men were bound to observe 
 that law ; but it still remains a fact that Jesus, if 
 this narrative be true, inflicts a serious and wanton 
 mischief If we justify this on the same grounds on 
 Avhich we explain natural visitations of drought, 
 plague or flood, we at once annihilate the human 
 consciousness of Jesus, and betray our disbelief in the 
 truth that he was very Man. 
 
 III. In the story of the cure of the lunatic imme- 
 diately after the transfigm-ation, Mark (ix. 14), a^ 
 compared with the otlier Synoptics, exhibits the 
 same climax as in the last instance, for he makes 
 the crowd run towards Jesus to salute him, and re- 
 presents them as greatly amazed ; — although it is not 
 easy to see why they should be so, except on the 
 hypothesis that the face of Jesus, like Moses, retained 
 some extraordinary brilliance ; — in Luke ix. 37 we 
 are merel);- told that the people meet him, Avhile in 
 Matt. xvii. 14, Jesus, with the three disciples, advances 
 to meet the multitudes. 
 
 In this instance, however, Mark has avoided an 
 inconsistency into Avliich the others have fjillen. In 
 this Gospel the Avhole matter turns on faith, faith in 
 the recipient not less than in those who are in- 
 strumental in imparting the gift ; in the others the 
 disciples are told that this particular kind of devil 
 could not be expelled Init by or after prayer and 
 fasting. Thus then, if they had not been fasting, the 
 greatest possible amount of faith would have been of 
 no avail ; and the prominence given to faith becomes 
 on this view incomprehensible. But the story, if it 
 be in any way true to character, exhibits still more 
 clearly the conviction of Jesus not only in the per- 
 
The Miracles of yes lis. 199 
 
 sonality of demons, but in a classification based on 
 their dispositions. 
 
 How far the sufferers in these instances were 
 oppressed by maladies which are still exj)erienced, 
 there is little profit in inc|uiring. It is possible that 
 these possessed persons may have been simply mad, 
 or dumb, or epileptic ; possible also that the personal 
 influence of Jesus working on their sympathies may 
 have efi"ected a permanent or a temporary cure ; but 
 as the possibility of such things cannot be denied, 
 so neither on the evidence before us can their reality 
 be affirmed. We have before us only the certainty 
 that the Evangelists contradict themselves and each 
 other on the commonest matters of fact, and that 
 hence they are incapacitated as Avitnesses when they 
 come to speak of marvellous or preternatural occur- 
 rences. Until we have some fresh evidence which 
 may justify us in giving belief to any of their asser- 
 tions, all such narratives may be dismissed by the 
 historical critic as unworthy of consideration. 
 
 IV. With the alleged cures of lepers we may deal 
 more summarily. A volume might be filled with 
 details of difficulties and impossibilities, which, in 
 substance the same, yet varjdng more or less in fact, 
 crop out with Avearisome monotony in every narratiA'e. 
 It is enough to mark that in each case the suddenness 
 of the cure is the point on Avhich these stories turn. 
 As the hand of Aaron passed from health into 
 thorough leprosy and back again, in the course of a 
 few seconds, so Jesus cures by his word men Avho are 
 described as full of leprosy (Matt. viii. 3 ; Mark i. 42 ; 
 Luke V. 12). NoAv it is a known fact that confirmed 
 leprosy is among the most obstinate and malignant of 
 diseases, and that it is so as resulting from a thorough 
 •satiation of all the fluids of the body. For the same 
 reason it is a disease over Avhich the imagination has 
 no control. No effort of will on the part of the 
 
2O0 Englis/j Life of yesus. 
 
 sufferer, no sudden impulse or excitement, will enable 
 him to throw off his burden even for a moment. 
 Hence such narratives, if they are to be credited, need 
 far greater corroboration than do cures of (what may 
 have been) nervous affections ; and no such corro- 
 borative evidence is forthcoming. 
 
 V. The same difficulty applies with full force to 
 all the narrati-s'es which relate the cure of blind men. 
 Healings of men partially blind, by the emplojanent 
 of natural means or instruments, are in no sense 
 miracles, and it is quite certain that the Evangelists 
 do not intend to describe any such natural cures. 
 But blindness, not less than leprosy, is a disease or 
 defect utterly bej^ond the influence of imagination ; 
 and the slender trust Avhich can be placed in the 
 ordinary narratives of the Gospels does not justify 
 us in taking their word when they speak of things 
 opposed to all scientific experience. 
 
 It is strange (or, rather, if we remember the whole 
 character of the Gospel, it is not strange) that the 
 fourth EA^angelist, in relating the cure of a man born 
 blind, should append to it a momentous conversation 
 (John ix.), of which the Synoptic Avriters know abso- 
 lutely nothing. Indeed, it is but a slight exaggera- 
 tion to say that, no matter Avhat may be the subject 
 in hand, the one set of writers are profoundly igno- 
 rant of everything stated by the other. But it must 
 be admitted that the conversations to which such 
 incidents lead are far more important than the 
 incidents themselves, and that, if the Synoptics had 
 ever heard of such discourses, they must have taken 
 some notice of them, however slight, more especially 
 as the miracle was iiublicly wrought and the words 
 spoken in the presence of the multitude at Jerusalem. 
 But they have not noticed them, and thus the pre- 
 sumption, if not the certain conclusion, is that these 
 discourses are altogether unhistorical. 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 201 
 
 VI. A far more serious, and indeed a vital, question 
 is brought before us in those narratives, which exhibit, 
 or seem to exhibit, the rehation of diseases to sins. 
 Are the several evils to which flesh is heir direct 
 inflictions by Avay of punishment for secret or open 
 misdeeds, whether of the sufferer himself or of his 
 fathers ] It Avas undoubtedly the Jewish belief that 
 they were so. This belief pervades the whole Pen- 
 tateuch, and is exhibited in glaring prominence 
 by the friends of Job. It is seen not less unmis- 
 takably in the question of the disciples, " Hath this 
 man sinned or his parents, that he was born blind '?" 
 — a question Avhich clearly points to the notion that 
 a man may sin in his mother's Avomb, and so come 
 maimed into the world. 
 
 Modern morality revolts against such ideas, and 
 gladly seizes on everything which discountenances 
 the conclusion that Jesus entertained them. The 
 evidence needed to disprove this assertion is found, 
 as many have thought, in the answer of Jesus given 
 in John ix. 3. These words, Avhich say that neither 
 the man nor his parents had sinned, are taken as 
 asserting the general proposition that bodily defects 
 are not necessarily consequences of sin. Yet it is 
 abundantly clear that they lay down no such proposi- 
 tion. Jesus is speaking simply of the particular case 
 before him, and in this instance he says that the man 
 was born blind, not l^y reason of sin, but in order 
 that the works of God (i.e., a miracle of healing) 
 should be shown forth in him. No conclusion, there- 
 fore, can be draAvn from these Avords in reference to 
 those AAdio Ave re not to be the subjects of miraculous 
 cures ; and in other passages (if they are to be 
 receiA'^ed as authentic) there is unequivocal proof that 
 Jesus shared the ordinary belief of his countrymen. 
 The man avIio lay for thirty-eight years at the pool of 
 Bethesda is told to sin no more lest a Avorse thing 
 
202 English Life ofjesits. 
 
 should happen to him (John v. 14), the inference being 
 that there was a direct connexion between previous 
 sins and his bodily infirmity. The attempt to evade 
 this issue by supposing that the man had brought on 
 his disease by sensual excess does violence to the 
 wording of the narrative, Avhicli gives no intimation 
 of anything of the kind. On the same ground pro- 
 bably we must explain those declarations of sins 
 forgiven which precede so many of the cures wrought 
 by Jesus. 
 
 The other passage (Luke xiii. 1, 5) on which much 
 stress is laid, as showing that Jesus rose far above 
 the popular notions of the day, proves, in fact, the 
 reverse. His assertion is distinct that the Galilseans 
 who had perished were not to be held sinners above 
 all others, but that if his hearers did not repent they 
 would bring upon themselves a similar destruction. 
 In other words, their sin had sealed their doom, and 
 a similar result would follow in the case of those who 
 heard him. If this had not been his meaning, he 
 must have said, " They did not die for their sins, 
 because you Avho are equally sinful have not been 
 punished in the same way, or may not be so visited 
 hereafter." On the hyiDothesis that these statements 
 are deserving of credit, it follows as a historical 
 conclusion that Jesus regarded bodily afflictions as 
 evidence of the sins of the sufferers. 
 
 It is true, indeed, that the beatitudes (given in 
 Luke vi. 20.) on the poor and the hungry of this 
 world, and such parables as that of the rich man and 
 Lazarus, affirm that misfortunes are to be regarded 
 as tokens of righteousness, or as furnishing grounds 
 for a summary compensation hereafter. The two 
 ideas are inconsistent ; but we must accept the facts 
 as they are, and the fact of inconsistency of teaching 
 is no proof, of itself, that the teaching in question is 
 not historical. On the one side, there was the old 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 203 
 
 Jewish notion of chastisements for sin in the form of 
 bodily maladies ; on the other, the more modern idea, 
 which especially marked the Essenes, that God's 
 favour was accorded more 2)articularly, or even exclu- 
 sively to those who were sick, poor, and needy. 
 These two ideas are found in the teaching of Jesus, 
 in all their mutual exclusiveness ; and Ave have seen 
 similar inconsistency in the narrative of the demoniacs 
 at Gadara. 
 
 VII. In the narratives of cure hitherto examined, 
 Jesus is exhibited as acting entirely by his own will, 
 using his power only in the case of those who had 
 faith to be healed, or for whom the miraculous healing 
 would be spiritually beneficial. There is another 
 class of cures which represent his action as involun- 
 tary and even unconscious ; and the more stress must 
 be laid on such cures, because, as they cannot be 
 taken as evidence for a revelation, so neither do they 
 belong to that region of supernatural operations to 
 which some Avriters wish to consign all miracles.* 
 When we have an effluence of power from the per- 
 son of Jesus, with virtue to heal those who avail 
 themselves of it, Ave are confronted with a fact Avhich, 
 if true, is eminently natural ; and we feel that 
 Ave are dealing Avith phenomena precisely akin to 
 the influence of herbs or specifics of any sort, or of 
 magnetism and electricity. This is proved beyond 
 dispute by the not A^ery consistent accounts given of 
 the cure of the Avoman Avith the issue of blood (Matt. 
 ix. 20 ; Mark v. 25 ; Luke viii. 43). In this case, 
 according to one version, Jesus knoAvs not who has 
 touched him, and becomes conscious of the fact that 
 he had been touched only by experiencing a sense of 
 loss of poAver ; he is, further, obliged to ask Avho it 
 was that had touched him, in singular contrast Avith 
 the preternatural knowledge Avhich he had displayed 
 
 * A pamphlet on recent theories on the subject of Miracles \vill 
 be published shortly. 
 
204 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 at the calling of Natlianael, and in the conversation 
 with the woman of Samaria. Nay, more, the moving 
 cause in this case is not the will of Jesus, but the 
 deed of the sick woman. 
 
 For reasons already many times repeated (the 
 persistency of the self-styled orthodox interpreters 
 renders the repetition indispensable) we are not bound 
 to examine this narrative historically, although the 
 scrutiny would exhibit the same kind of difficulties 
 which we find in other similar narratives ; but it is 
 necessary to note the connexion of this story with 
 sundry tales in the Acts of the Apostles, in which 
 handkerchiefs and aprons Avhich had touched the 
 body of Paul heal sick persons, and that, too, at a 
 distance. Hence while in the Gospels the touch of 
 the clothes is effectual Avhile they are worn by the 
 person in whom the power is supposed to lie, in the 
 Acts they retain their influence long after they have 
 been removed from the bodies of the Apostles. Dr J. 
 Newman might well say (Essay on Miracles prefixed 
 to the Oxford Translation of Fleury's ' Ecclesiastical 
 History') that such narratives are precisely parallel 
 to a host of mediaeval legends which are not a whit 
 less or more credible. 
 
 Vni. If in these stories we have an action as 
 purely physical and involuntary as that of the flower 
 when it emits its perfume, but depending at the same 
 time on actual contact, we find others which represent 
 Jesus as Avorking cures at a distance by a mere act of 
 the will or the expression of a supreme command. 
 These two classes of legend altogether exclude each 
 other. If the influence was so material that any one 
 could extract it by a mere touch, it could not be so 
 spiritual as to be wafted by the will to any distance ; 
 if it Avas the latter, the limitations of the former 
 hypothesis become inconceivable. The contradiction 
 is thorough, and proves at once that we are reading 
 narratives which are not historical. 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 20$ 
 
 But these are not the only contradictions manifest 
 on an analysis of these narratives. In Matthew viii. 
 5., it is a centurion who at Capernaum prays Jesus to 
 heal his servant, and admitting himself to be un- 
 worthy to receive Jesus under his roof, is praised as 
 exhibiting a faith which Jesus had not found any- 
 where in Israel. The centurion therefore was a 
 Gentile. In Luke vii. 2, he does not go himself, but 
 sends the elders of the Jews to Jesus, and makes 
 them utter in the form of a message the words which 
 the centurion in the first Gospel had spoken in 
 person. In John iv. 46, it is not a centurion, but 
 a nobleman or officer of the royal household, and 
 seemingly a Jew, and he finds Jesus not at Caper- 
 naum, but at Cana. Far, however, from saying that 
 he will come and heal his son, Jesus reproaches him 
 for want of faith. " Except ye see signs and wonders 
 ye will not believe." On being told that his son 
 should live, the man goes away and ascertains on 
 reaching home that the fever had left him at the very 
 moment when Jesus assured him of his I'ecovery. 
 
 These contradictions are so great that many com- 
 mentators have resorted to the usual device of assert- 
 ing that these are narratives of three separate events : 
 and thus, to save the consistency of the Evangelists, 
 we are called upon to believe that three persons in 
 Galilee had a son or servant sick, that in all three 
 instances the sufferer was healed at a distance, that 
 two of them declared their unworthiness in precisely 
 the same words, and that Jesus praised their faith in 
 precisely the same phrase. In truth, we need docu- 
 mentary evidence far more self-consistent than any 
 to be found in the Gospels, before we can be war- 
 ranted in giving credence to so astounding a recur- 
 rence of events. No valid reason then, can be urged 
 for regarding them as independent narratives ; and as 
 a narrative of one and the same event, it cannot from 
 its self-contradictions come from the Spirit of God. 
 
2o6 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 It is possible, and perliaps not improbable, that 
 sucli stories may haA' e been produced as complements 
 to the Old Testament legends, which speak of pro- 
 phets, like Elisha, curing lepers without coming 
 into contact with them, and simply by making their 
 recovery dependent on the perforaiance of some defi- 
 nite condition. But the rejection of such an 
 explanation adds nothing to the credibility of self- 
 contradictory narratives. 
 
 IX. The cures said to have been Avrought on the 
 Sabbath day are remarkable chiefly as indicating the 
 position taken by Jesus in reference to the Mosaic 
 law, a subject on which something has already 
 been said, (chap. iii. p. 130). Whether Old Testa- 
 ment tales furnished the starting point for the higher 
 marvels of the New, is a question which Ave are not 
 called on to decide ; but the parallel is, nevertheless, 
 striking betAveen the Avithered arm of Jeroboam (1 
 Kings xiii. 4) and the Avithered hand of the man 
 healed on the Sabbath day (Matt. xii. 10). 
 
 The most striking of these cures is unquestionably 
 the cure Avrought on the infirm man at the pool of 
 Bethesda. This incident has been already noticed; 
 but Ave may fairly add the expression of Avonder that 
 an institution like tliat of the pool Avith its periodical 
 angelic disturbances should be unknown, not only to 
 Josephus and the JeA\dsh Rabbis, but to all the other 
 Evangelists. The authority of the fourth Gospel 
 must be indeed transcendent, if it can bear the strain 
 13ut ujion it by countless imi)robabilities and contra- 
 dictions. 
 
 X. Thus far Ave have dealt Avith a number of narra- 
 tives, all recording supernatural or miraculous 
 incidents ; but in every one of them Ave have in the 
 subjects of the miracle at least the poAver of expe- 
 riencing sensations and receiving impressions. The 
 nervous organization of the leper, the deaf, the blind, 
 the dumb, though more or less defective or diseased, 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 207 
 
 still remained a living system, capable (in whatever 
 measure) of responding actively to external forces. 
 On a further' scrutiny we found, that of the maladies 
 alleged to have been cured by Jesus some were 
 entirely nervous ; and in these it may be either pos- 
 sible or likely that a sudden cure might be effected 
 through excitement or enthusiasm provoked by the 
 glance and voice of a dearly loved or venerated 
 teacher ; others again there were which we saw to be 
 removed altogether from the province of the ima- 
 gination. No effort of the mind or will could, it was 
 evident, suddenly remove diseases which lay in a 
 vitiated state of the bodily fluids, or in the total 
 absence of certain organs, as in cases of congenital 
 blindness. That any cures of this latter class were 
 ever effected we have no historical evidence what- 
 ever; and physis Avill not help us towards a be- 
 lief in them. That some cures (whether permanent 
 or temporary) belonging to the former class may 
 have been wrought through the medium of an intense 
 emotion, it would be foolish to deny, although we 
 have but slight warrant for affirming the facts posi- 
 tively. All that can be said is, that such incidents do 
 not lie beyond the range of human experience, and 
 that the narratives of the New Testament must, like 
 all others, have some nucleus, whether historical or 
 mythical, round which they have grown. 
 
 But when we come to narratives recording the 
 resurrection of the dead, we come to stories ot cjuite 
 another class. Here the dead body, even according 
 to the most orthodox theologians, is a mass of inert 
 matter, which can no longer answer to any except 
 chemical influences. It can no longer feel the touch 
 or hear the voice of him who is to work the miracle. 
 Hence we are impelled to scrutinize the evidence for 
 such alleged events with far greater minuteness than 
 that which is offered for other miraculous stories, and 
 
2o8 English Life of jfesu^. 
 
 unless we find the evidence far more conclusive, we 
 can but reject them as undeserving of belief 
 
 That the resuscitation of the dead would be the 
 most marvellous and the most conclusive token of a 
 Divine Mission, no one will deny. Hence, on Mr 
 Mozley's hypothesis, it is precisely that exhibition 
 which we might suppose would be most frequently 
 vouchsafed. It is strange therefore that three only 
 should be ascribed to Jesus, that of these one only 
 should be common to the three Synoptic Gospels, 
 that one should be narrated only in Luke, and the 
 third only in John. 
 
 With the first (Matt, ix., Mark v., Luke viii.) the 
 narrative of the woman with the issue of blood is 
 interwoven in all the three Synoptics ; hence they 
 must all be taken as relating one and the same inci- 
 dent. But here, as elsewhere, there is no lack of 
 contradictions. In Matthew the person raised is the 
 daughter of a certain ruler, and the fame of the 
 miracle goes abroad throughout the land. In Mark 
 the ruler's name is given as Jairus ; but when the 
 miracle is wrought Jesus charges them straitly that 
 no man should know it. In this case, the resuscita- 
 tion follows almost instantly on the death ; and feel- 
 ing the enormous pressure put on their powers of 
 belief by such narratives, the naturalistic school of 
 interpreters have struggled vehemently to show that 
 in all these instances the miracle Avas simply the 
 recovery of a sick and exhausted person from a 
 swoon. 
 
 This school lias never found much favour in this 
 country, and hence it is not worth while to combat 
 their assertions in detail. But it may without in- 
 justice be said that their method is dishonest, as 
 doing the grossest and most systematic violence to 
 the plainest statements of the books in question ; that 
 it is generally contemptible and not seldom ludicrous 
 and profane. In this tale at the outset it becomes 
 
The Miracles of Jesus . 209 
 
 necessary, if their point is to be proved, to change 
 "She is lately dead " into "She is at the point of 
 death," and to force the meaning of the Avords " She 
 is not dead, but sleepeth," and make them overbear 
 the clear assertion of the bystanders that the girl was 
 really dead. The absurdity of such comments is 
 shown in this, that if Jesus was not exerting a super- 
 natural power but was merely affirming that an 
 apparent was not a real death, he is convicted of 
 great rashness ; for how, not having seen the patient, 
 could he be absolutely certain that his impression 
 was right *? It is vain to urge that Jesus would not 
 speak to her or to the widow's son at Nain, and bid 
 the girl or the young man arise, if they were actually 
 dead and thus unable to hear ; for w^e are told that 
 the hour is coming in which all that are in their 
 graves shall hear the voice of Jesus and come forth 
 at his summons. But it is simply profane to argue 
 that Jesus did no more than divine the real state of 
 the case and raise the maiden from a heavy swoon. 
 This is to degrade Jesus with a vengeance. Having 
 at best made a clever guess, he allows the people to 
 shout his praises as a great prophet, and to assign 
 him credit for a stupendous miracle Avhich he knew to 
 be no miracle at all. The notion is too monstrous to 
 deserve a moment's thought. Jesus may have shared 
 the popular beliefs of his age, but he was not a pom- 
 pous pretender or a hypocritical charlatan, as these 
 apologists would make him out to be. 
 
 These remarks apply equally to the raising of the 
 Avidow's son at Nain. The only new point in this 
 tale is the longer time introduced between the death 
 and the resuscitation, — a time which is still further 
 lengthened in that story of Lazarus which furnishes 
 the turning point for the truth or the utter worth- 
 lessness of the Johannine history. The naturalistic 
 explanations we may leave on one side. It is patent 
 on the face of the narrative that Lazarus is described 
 
2 1 o English Life of Jesus. 
 
 first as dying, then as dead, tliat Jesus delayed to go 
 to him precisely because he intended to restore him 
 to life, and that he expresses this intention as soon as 
 he sees the sisters. To say that, when he told Martha 
 that if only she believed she should see the glory of 
 God, he meant only to say that the pure in heart 
 should see God, is again to make Jesas ridiculous. 
 What showing forth of glory could there be in the 
 sight of a corpse in the grave, unless the body Avas 
 to be again endowed with life 1 The notion that 
 Lazarus had been four days in a swoon, out of which 
 he waked precisely at the instant when Jesus com- 
 manded the door of the tomb to be opened, and that 
 Jesus, happening to see that he was alive, called out 
 to him to come forth, simply covers Jesus with 
 infamy, and must be rejected with indignation and 
 abhorrence. Because we wish to show that in some 
 paltry measure this narrative is historical, we are, 
 forsooth, to paint Jesus as a solemn deceiver, who 
 arrogates to himself a divine power, while he knows 
 himself to be, at best, nothing more than a religious 
 adventurer. It is but justice to M. R(^nan, Avho has 
 put forth an hypothesis not unlike this, to add that 
 he has somewhat modified its most repulsive features ; 
 but this he has done only by rejecting almost all the 
 narrative which precedes the actual resurrection ; and 
 M. E^nan must demonstrate his right to do this and 
 retain the rest before his conclusion can deserve any 
 serious consideration. It is, indeed, astonishing that 
 any one professing to analyze the Gospels historically 
 should affirm the genuineness of this tale and of the 
 Gospel in which it occurs, before he has shown that it 
 can be assigned to its proper place even in the cycle 
 of Christian tradition. 
 
 With regard to these instances of resuscitation, 
 generally, we may fairly ask why the persons raised 
 should be always so insignificant, and Avhy, after their 
 resurrection, they should never be heard of again ? 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 2 i i 
 
 How comes it that none have ever been raised who in 
 their previous lives had done something to make them 
 known % Is it not because it was manifest on the 
 face of the thing that Caisar or Socrates, John the 
 Baptist and Isaiah, if raised again, must say or do 
 something in accordance with their former character, 
 and hence it became more convenient to limit these 
 miracles to persons, about whom, as being utterly 
 unknown, no such annoying difficulties could arise ? 
 
 But in the special instance of Lazarus the frigid 
 attitude of Jesus has excited no little discussion ; and 
 this perplexity is certainly not surprizing. Accord- 
 ing to the story, Jesus, of set purpose, allows Lazarus 
 to die, in order that the sight of his resurrection 
 might insure more believers in his own mission, 
 while in the prayer which he offers up iiear the grave 
 he plainly states that he prays solely on account of the 
 bystanders, not his own. He is thus made to act a 
 part which could not fail to be offensive to those who 
 heard him. Of this prayer " in which he informs the 
 Deity that although fully aware of the uselessness of 
 praying on his own account, he nevertheless thinks it 
 right to pray in order to make an impression" on the 
 minds of others, Mr Mackay has well said that it " is 
 not the language of true history or genuine feeling." 
 (' Tubingen School,' p. 293.) 
 
 Nor is this all. The disciples had long been 
 familiar with the figurative mode of speech employed 
 by Jesus ; yet, when he tells them that their friend 
 Lazarus sleeps, they immediately misunderstand him 
 after the fashion of the Jews, of Nicodemus, and 
 the Samaritan woman. The Johannine Evangelist 
 could not forego the opportunity of pointing one of 
 his favourite contrasts. 
 
 It must, further, be admitted that either this 
 Evangelist knows nothing of the resuscitations of the 
 dead recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, or he is very 
 little careful to write as though he had heard of them. 
 
212 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 All that lie makes the Jews ask (xi 37) is " Could 
 not he who gave sight to the blind have prevented 
 tliis man's death 1 " If he had known of the raising 
 of Jairus' daughter or the widow's son, must he not 
 have made them say, " Why does not the man who 
 has already raised the dead restore his friend to 
 life ■? " Those events, we are told, Avere bruited 
 abroad through all Galilee and Judaea and all the 
 country round about ; and no dweller at Jerusalem 
 could possibly plead ignorance of them. But this 
 silence on the -wi'iter's part and this question of the 
 Jews imply that the fourth Evangelist knew nothing 
 of them, and the inference is that the one set of 
 narratives is unhistorical, or that the narrative in 
 the fourth Gospel is a fiction. 
 
 It is strange, indeed, how little is known by the 
 Gospel Avriters of a class of miracles which should 
 have been recorded with the utmost care. Matthew 
 speaks only of one, and hence we may fairly conclude 
 that he knew of no more, for, if he had, surely he 
 would have found room for the recital, even if it had 
 been at the cost of rejecting some other things which 
 he had inserted. 
 
 But if it is strange that Matthew should know 
 nothing of the raising of the widow's son at Nain, it 
 is inconceivable that the raising of Lazarus, if true, 
 should not have been known to the Synoptics. It is 
 the greatest and the most dramatic of the miracles 
 attributed to Jesus, and, more particularly, it is 
 represented as the point on Avhich the subsequent 
 catastrophe turned. It was this which brought about 
 the secret meeting of the Sanhedrim, and led to the 
 sanguinary saying of Caiaphas, that one man, namely 
 Jesus, must die for the benefit of the nation. It was 
 this Avhich drove them to plot and scheme for his 
 apprehension, and to plan also the destruction of 
 Lazarus. How then are we to account for the igno- 
 rance shown by the Synoptics of an event which, as 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 2 1 3 
 
 exciting such indignation, must have been more 
 talked of and more generally knoAvn than any other 
 in the whole career of Jesus ? The task might well 
 appear hopeless, but it has been attempted, and the 
 result is a laughable failure. By one we are told 
 that they said nothing about it because the event was 
 too well known to everyone to need any record, — an 
 argument which would have furnished to the Evan- 
 gelists an excellent justification for saying nothing 
 whatever about the Crucifixion as being an incident 
 too notorious to need comment. By another Ave are 
 told that they pass it in silence, as not wishing to 
 bring Lazarus into trouble ; but such advocates forget 
 that the Gospels were not, on any hypothesis, written 
 a few weeks or months after his resurrection, when 
 alone there would be any risk of persecution ; that if 
 they had been then Avritten, this Avould be no reason 
 for supijressing a narrative, for the truth of which 
 Lazarus, as a true Christian, ought to have been glad, 
 if need were, to bear testimony and to suffer ; and, 
 thirdly, that the event was, on any showing, so well 
 known at the time, that the risk to Lazarus could 
 not be increased by publishing a narrative of it. 
 Nor can it be urged that the Synoptic writers, being 
 Galilaeans, would not be likely to hear of it, for the 
 notion is in itself absurd, and we are expressly 
 assured that all the Apostles were with Jesus at the 
 time. 
 
 The silence of the Synoptics, therefore, implies 
 their ignorance, and their ignorance is proof conclu- 
 sive, that the event never occurred. The resuscitation 
 of Lazarus must thus be dismissed as being entirely 
 unhistorical, and as having not the slightest founda- 
 tion in fact. 
 
 Whether any 'traditional basis can be found for 
 the story is a question which we are in no way called 
 upon to answer. Yet it may be worth while to 
 remark again that the raising of the dead formed 
 
214 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 part of the popular notions respecting the Messiah, 
 and that this power is ascribed in the Old Testament 
 to Elijah and Elisha. The raising of Lazarus, it is 
 true, exceeds in degree the miracles wrought by those 
 prophets in their lifetime ; but then we have already 
 seen that the miracles of the fourth Gospel present a 
 climax to those in the other three, and that the 
 resuscitation of the dead Moabite merely on touching 
 the bones of Elisha is, if impossibilities can admit of 
 degrees, more astounding even than that of Lazarus. 
 It is quite possible, therefore, that such narratives 
 may have given rise to those of the New Testament ; 
 but whether this was so or not the latter remain 
 unhistorical.* 
 
 XL The rejection of the narratives which record 
 the resuscitation of dead men renders it almost a 
 superfluous task to examine the narratives of miracles 
 connected with the sea. In one sense they are a 
 step above those already noticed, for they exhibit 
 Jesus as able to act, not only on the human mind, 
 or on irrational beings, but even on inanimate 
 nature. They are in no way necessary to the history, 
 and can have no claim to acceptance as occurring in 
 self-contradictory and irreconcilable documents. In 
 themselves, as relating to operations on inanimate 
 things, they are not miracles, in the sense for which 
 even all orthodox schools now show a preference j 
 they are mere marvels and prodigies precisely akin 
 to the fictions of the " Arabian Nights," which Dr 
 
 * The attempt to explain the story of Lazarus on astronomical 
 grounds is, to say the least, ingenious^ and demands a fair con- 
 sideration. But however surprising may be the closeness with 
 which the several parts may be made to square with this hypothesis, 
 our present task is simply to show that the alleged event did not 
 take place historically during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate ; 
 and we have, all along, disclaimed emphatically the duty of ac- 
 counting for the origin of documents which are to be rejected as 
 untnistworthy. It is enough to repeat that Bentley would have 
 altogether declined to determine when or by whom the epistles of 
 Phalaris were written. 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 215 
 
 Newman (' Apologia pro Vita Sua,' 56) has some- 
 times wished might be true. 
 
 Of these miracles one is the sudden stilling of a 
 storm by the word of Jesus. It is impossible not to 
 be reminded of the rebuking of the Red Sea, which 
 was dried up, the very phrase which reappears in the 
 rebuking of the waters of Gennesareth ; but even if 
 the two are not connected together nothing is gained 
 for the New Testament miracle. 
 
 (1.) The story of Jesus walking on the sea (Matt, 
 xiv. 25) exhibits his body as exempt from the opera- 
 tion of the law of gravitation. Far from sinking 
 beneath the water, his feet do not even dip beneath 
 the surface, and he walks as on dry ground. Either, 
 then, the body of Jesus was, as the Docetse asserted, 
 a phantom, and in this case he was no true man ; or 
 he had the power of altering at will the specific gravity 
 of his body ; and not only this, but he could suspend 
 the operation of the law in the bodies of other men as 
 well as his own, for Peter is bidden to walk on the 
 water, and does so walk until his faith fails him. 
 Whence the conclusion seems to be that faith may 
 alter the specific gravity of human bodies. That this 
 power was exercised by Jesus only at will must be 
 conceded, because at his baptism he is submerged 
 in the water as much as any who were baptized by 
 John. Either, then, the action was arbitrary, or sub- 
 sequently to his baptism he acquired a power which 
 he did not then possess. These are but a few of the 
 absurdities involved in an acceptance of this narrative 
 as historical. We have seen that there is no reason 
 for so accepting it ; and here too, as elsewhere, we 
 may refer to Old Testament narratives which may, 
 possibly or probably, have furni.shed the germ for 
 such tales. Elisha does not indeed walk on the 
 water, but he divides Jordan, and passes through it 
 dryshod, while he also makes an iron axe-head swim, 
 thus directly overcoming its specific weight. But in 
 
2i6 English Life of Jesus, 
 
 the Herodian age stories of this kind were multiplied 
 over the whole liuman world. The parallelism of 
 such miracles with the stories of the Hyijerborean 
 Abaris, of Perseus, and Achilles, may be taken for 
 what it is worth, l^ut its rejection proves nothing for 
 the truth of the narratives in c[uestion. 
 
 This story reappears apparently in a modified form 
 in the last chapter (or appendix 1) to the fourth Gosi^el. 
 In both Jesus appears early in the morning. In the 
 former the disciples take him for a spirit ; in the latter 
 they are afraid to ask Avho he is, and in both, as soon 
 as Jesus makes himself known, Peter hastens to join 
 him by casting himself into the water. 
 
 (2.) The next narrative relating to the sea is that 
 of the tribute money which is found in the mouth of 
 the fish (Matt. xvii. 27). This story is indubital^ly 
 put forth as a miracle. The money is to be found, 
 not, like the ring of Polycrates (Herodotus iii. 42), 
 in the body of the fish, but in its mouth ; and all 
 attempts to regard it as a natural occurrence lead com- 
 mentators into a perfect bog of absurdities. Such 
 writers, naturally perplexed by the statement that the 
 fish retained the piece of money in its mouth even 
 while it snapped at the bait, venture desperately on 
 the assertion that Jesus told Peter to go and sell the 
 fish, for Avhich he would receive (find) a stater. It 
 is enough to reply that the Evangelist represents the 
 piece of money as found not in the market-place, but 
 on opening the mouth of the fish. But even if we 
 accept this exiilanation, the price realized by a single 
 fish becomes incredible, and, accordingly, such inter- 
 preters are driven to twist the bidding to take 
 the fish that came up into a command to keej) on 
 taking as many fish as came up until he had as many 
 as might be equivalent in Avorth to the stater. Such 
 a method adds no value to the narrative, but it reduces 
 the value of language until it remains not much better 
 than the lowin.u's of cattle. 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. i i 7 
 
 XII. The miraculous feedings of the multitude 
 involve difficulties of another kind. If we follow the 
 Synoptics, there were two such incidents, each differ- 
 ing slightly in the numbers fed, and in the amount 
 of food which furnished the basis of the feast, but 
 resembling each other in all other respects. They 
 both occur in a lonely place, not far from the sea of 
 Galilee; the motive which animates Jesus (viz., com- 
 passion for the crowd who had lingered too long with 
 him) is in each case the same ; each time he wishes 
 to feed the people from his own stores, each time the 
 disciples object that this is impossible ; each time the 
 food forthcoming is bread and fish ; each time Jesus 
 disregards the unbelieving objections of his followers; 
 and each time the fragments exceed in quantity the 
 food originally provided. Events do not thus repeat 
 themselves in their minutest features, and hence, in 
 all probability, the two narratives have grown out of 
 one by a process Avhich we have seen at Avork in the 
 reports of the parables of Jesus. In any case, if the 
 disciples had seen one miraculous feeding, it is im- 
 possible that they would have expressed unbelief 
 when a second became necessary; rather, they would 
 have intreated him to do again that which he had 
 already shown himself able to do. The whole story 
 is, therefore, unhistorical. 
 
 We are thus not called on to discuss the other 
 difficulties involved in it, although these are of an 
 appalling kind. In all probability not one of those 
 who believe the mii'acle are aware of the propositions 
 to which that belief commits them. For this is no 
 instance of the acceleration of a natural process. 
 Jesus does not take corn and make it grow and 
 ripen in a moment ; he does not take the ova from 
 fish and make them develope instantaneously into 
 their full groAvth; he does far more. He takes bread, 
 an artificial substance, and fish, which has undergone 
 the artificial process of cooking, and in both of which 
 
2 1 8 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 all capacity for reproduction has been destroyed. The 
 work wrought by Jesus is, therefore, nothing less than 
 this : he brings into sudden existence — he actually 
 creates out of nothing — great quantities of real fish 
 ready cooked, and corn ground and baked. Will the 
 most vehement believers in these narratives of miracle 
 assert plainly that they accept all this 1 If they Avill 
 not, then they must resolve the miracle into a mere 
 delusion, by saying that what was given to the multi- 
 tude was neither bread nor fish, but something which 
 looked like them ; and thus they charge on the Evan- 
 gelists an amount of wilful falsehood, which the 
 method of the historical critic does not require him 
 to impute to them. 
 
 The shifts to which commentators are driven who 
 seek to explain the incident as a natural occurrence, 
 are scarcely less jDitiable and ludicrous than those 
 which have been already noticed in the story of the 
 tribute money. Jesus, we are told, commanded his 
 disciples to produce their provisions, and his bene- 
 ficent example led others to bring forth their hidden 
 hoards, and thus enough was provided, not only for 
 those who had brought food, but for those also who 
 had uone. To such contemptible evasions it is enough 
 to reply that they reduce the Evangelists to the level 
 of idiots or parrots. Are we to suppose that they 
 were bereft of reason, that, instead of telling us what 
 these commentators hold to be the true state of the 
 case, they should say not a word about any other 
 food, while they do say most distinctly that the five 
 loaves and the two fishes were divided among the multi- 
 tude 1 Are we to suppose, further, that they, knowing 
 the real facts which passed before their eyes, so related 
 them as to give them the appearance of miracle, and, 
 still more, that they represented Jesus afterwards as 
 insisting on the distinctly miraculous character of 
 the event 1 
 
 That such miracles would be attributed to Jesus, 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 2 1 9 
 
 whether they occurred or not, may with tolerable 
 safety be maintained. Dean Milman ('History of 
 Christianity,' vol. i. ch. 5) cites the Rabbinical belief 
 that in the days of Messiah Israel shall sit down and 
 eat in the garden of Eden, and satiate themselves 
 all the days of the world. This belief is, of course, 
 founded on the Mosaic traditions which told of manna 
 and quails as bestowed on the hungry multitude ; and 
 it must further be admitted that to these traditions 
 the Gospel narratives furnish a very close parallel. 
 In both, the crowds are fed in the wilderness ; in both 
 there are murmurs of unbelief as to the possibility of 
 providing food. In the former Jehovah, in the latter 
 Jesus, disregards these objections, and Moses is bidden 
 to announce the coming food to the people, just as 
 the disciples are commanded to distribute the loaves 
 and fishes. 
 
 In the Mosaic narratives the food is brought, not 
 multiplied ; but the miraculous increase in bulk of 
 food already provided is found in the story of the 
 widow of Zarephath (1 Kings xvii), and of the feed- 
 ing of a hundred prophets by Elisha with twenty 
 loaves (2 Kings iv.). In this instance, Elisha's servant 
 gives utterance to precisely the same objection which 
 is urged by the disciples of Jesus. According to 
 Jewish legend, this power of multiplication was a 
 prerogative of good men. So great, we are told, was 
 the blessing shed on the two Pentecostal loaves and 
 the ten loaves of show bread in the days of Simeon 
 the righteous, that all the priests ate as much as they 
 desired, and left fragments remaining. 
 
 To many these earlier legends may appear to fur- 
 nish a sufficient basis for similar narratives in the 
 Gospels. Whether they do so or not is a matter 
 with which we are not concerned ; but the rejection 
 of this hypothesis leaves the narratives where they 
 were — unhistorical throughout. 
 
 XIII. The miracle of the marriage feast in Cana is 
 
220 English Life of fesus. 
 
 certainly not less transcendental than the miraculous 
 feeding of the multitude. 
 
 Here Ave have to notice, first, that this is one of 
 the many miracles knoAvn only to the writer of the 
 fourth Gospel, and that it occurs at a time during 
 which the Spioptics descril)e Jesus as Avithstanding 
 tlie temptations of the devil alone in the Avilderness. 
 In John the least of Cana takes place five days after 
 the Baptist's testimony that he saw the Holy Ghost 
 in the form of a dove on the banks of Jordan ; 
 in the other Gospels Jesus is fasting in the desert for 
 forty days. The tAvo accounts cannot be true, Avhile 
 both may be false ; but the writer of the fourth 
 Gospel has noAA'here established a claim to be ac- 
 cepted as a more credible Avitness. 
 
 But, further, this incident is described in John 
 as the beginning of the miracles of Jesus: in the 
 Synoptics the first recorded miracle takes place at 
 Capernaum, and belongs to a diff"erent class of Avonders 
 (Matt. viii. 5). 
 
 The part taken by Mary in the matter is almost as 
 mysterious as the other incidents of the story. Ac- 
 cording to the Evangelist, she went to the feast, evi- 
 dently aAvare that her sou Avould perform this miracle. 
 Even this is astonishing enough. If Ave can put the 
 slightest trust in Luke and the other Synoptics, she must 
 have forgotten Avith singular rapidity each marvellous 
 occurrence in the great series of Avonders Avhich fol- 
 loAved the annunciation. Although told that she Avas 
 to become the mother of the Messiah Avho should reign 
 for ever on the throne of David, she never informs 
 her husband of the fact. When the child is born, and 
 the Avise men and she2:)herds come to do him honour, 
 she only expresses Avonder at things for Avhich, if she 
 had believed the Avords of Gabriel, she Avould have 
 been perfectly prepared. When Simeon and Anna 
 bless her in the temple, she is again astonished. 
 When at a later time Jesus tarries behind in Jeru- 
 
The Miracles of yes us. 221 
 
 salem, the temple is the last, as it should have been 
 the first, place where she seeks her son, and she can 
 only feel wonder at the words which tell her that he 
 must be about his Father's business. Later still she 
 seems to have forgotten that her son was born at 
 Bethlehem, for she does nothing to correct the impres- 
 sion that he was by birth a Nazarene. Nay, if we 
 follow the story, it would seem that she never spoke 
 to her son of the marvellous events which had attended 
 and followed his conception and birth, never told him 
 of the preordained relation existing between himself 
 and John the Baptist, never dwelt on the marvels 
 which attended the birth of the precursor of the 
 Messiah. Yet more, we are expressly told that the 
 kinsfolk of Jesus regarded him as mad, and wished 
 to put him under restraint ; and we saw that this 
 intimation appears in close and ominous connexion 
 with the story of the repulse of the mother and 
 brethren of Jesus, Avhen they send a message that 
 they wish to see him (p. 174). The inference seems 
 to be, that at that time she had no faith in his 
 mission, and a strong conviction that he was deluded. 
 Nor is there anything in the Synoptic Gospels which 
 is inconsistent with this conclusion. Those Gospels 
 therefore are in direct contradiction Avith this chapter 
 in John, which implies that she came to the marriage 
 expecting her son to perform a miracle. 
 
 But, although faith in his mission might convince 
 her of his power to work miracles, even at a time 
 when he had not yet Avrought any, it could not possibly 
 teach her beforehand that a miracle would be needed 
 at this particular feast ; and hence this narrative 
 ascribes to Mary a preternatural or superhuman pre- 
 science. She is, in fact, made to foresee that on this 
 day he would perform his first miracle, that he would 
 need the help of the servants in the doing of it, and 
 also that the guests would drink so much -svine as to 
 exhaust the whole store of the entertainer, and render 
 a further supply necessary. 
 
222 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 To escape from this difficulty some have even 
 ventured to assert that Jesus imparted to her before- 
 hand his intention to Avork this miracle, but they have 
 done so only to plunge from one morass into another. 
 That Jesus should foreknow the excessive drinking of 
 the guests is in harmony with other statements in the 
 fourth Gospel; but the assertion that he imparted 
 this foreknowledge to his mother, converts the whole 
 scene at the marriage into a comedy. For the retort 
 of Jesus to Mary (in v. 4) becomes thus a mere pre- 
 tence, and Mary (in v. 5) merely obeys instructions 
 already received. If, on the other hand, we suppose 
 that without expecting any miracle she only prayed 
 for her son's advice, her command to the servants 
 becomes altogether unintelligible. Hence we are 
 thrown back on the conclusion, which the Evangelist 
 clearly designed to convey, that Mary foreknew the 
 performance of the first miracle of Jesus on this day. 
 
 Thus the time and place of this event, and the part 
 which Mary plays in it, are of themselves enough to 
 warrant the rejection of the story as incoherent. We 
 are not therefore called on to discuss the scientific 
 difficulties of the narrative. Yet we feel ourselves 
 fully justified in remarking, that whereas in the feed- 
 ing of the multitude, Jesus multiplied substances 
 without changing their quality, here there is a com- 
 plete change of quality, by the conversion of water 
 into wine. No rationalizing can pare this doAvn into 
 anything but a direct annihilation and creation by 
 the divine fiat. 
 
 To these difficulties must be added others of a 
 moral kind. All the other miracles of Jesus (with 
 one exception presently to be noticed) are wrought 
 for a beneficent end, which may subserve the spiritual 
 interests of the recipients or the witnesses. Here no 
 poverty is lessened, no sickness removed. All that 
 is done is to minister to a i^leasure which cannot be 
 styled necessary, and thus to work a miracle of 
 
The Miracles of 'Jesus. 11 2> 
 
 luxury, which in the narrative of the temptation he 
 distinctly refuses to do. Nay, he would not work a 
 miracle to relieve his hunger (Matt. iv. 4). Nor 
 is the quantity of wine supplied less surprising. 
 The measure translated by the word firkin contained 
 somewhat more than thirty pints ; and thus the six 
 stone water pots, containing two or three such firkins, 
 would hold not less than 135 gallons of wine, and the 
 servants filled them up to the brim. What must be 
 the eff"ects of such a supply at a time when the guests 
 are described as having already received a fair share 
 of wine [v. 10) 1 
 
 Lastly, the reproof of Mary by Jesus is not easily 
 to be understood. To the words by which it is con- 
 veyed, he immediately adds a practical contradiction, 
 for the directions to the serva;nts, given almost in the 
 same breath, show that his time had come, or that she 
 had anticipated it at the utmost only by a few 
 moments. 
 
 In every part, therefore, this narrative is self-con- 
 tradictory and incredible. The subterfuges employed 
 by some who wish to prove its possibility might raise 
 our indignation, if they were not _deserving rather 
 of a contemptuous pity. Such writers have resolved 
 the whole affair into a joke playfully palmed off by 
 Jesus on the guests, in order to show that even in its 
 lighter aspects he shared the feelings of our common 
 humanity. According to this notable discovery, it 
 seems that Jesus had brought the wine to the feast 
 and rebuked Mary for spoiling his jest through over 
 haste ; that he ordered the servants to fill the vessels 
 with water in order to make the guests believe that 
 the water had been changed into wine ; and that the 
 wine was meanwhile brought in to the guests who 
 were too much intoxicated to perceive the trick 
 which had been played on them. Probably in all the 
 chronicles of profanity few more mournful absurdities 
 could be pointed out. Jesus, then, allows his host, 
 
2 24 English Life of "Jesus. 
 
 the guests, the servants, and his disciples, to remain 
 under the impression that he had performed a stu- 
 pendous miracle, he alone witli his mother being con- 
 scious that it had been only a merry jest. Nay, the 
 Evangelist was not less cheated than the disciples, for 
 he too speaks of it as a miracle, and refers again to 
 Cana as the place not where Jesus had played off a 
 joke but where he had turned the water into wine. 
 Thus the attempt to account for the occurrence as a 
 natural event issues simply in exhibiting Jesus as a 
 hypocrite and profane man. The narrative must there- 
 fore be regarded as one of miracle; and if on account 
 of historical and other contradictions, the rejection of 
 the story calls into question the veracity of Christian 
 tradition, still no defiling touch is laid on the character 
 of Jesus. 
 
 With the origination of the story we are not con- 
 cerned. Yet the transformation in the tale exhibits 
 an afl&nity to the older traditions which spoke of 
 Moses as bringing water from the rock, as turning the 
 river of Egypt into blood, and as making the bitter 
 waters sweet. The same power is ascribed also to 
 Elisha; it must therefore be attributed in more ample 
 measure to the Messiah. But whether there be or be 
 not a connexion between these several traditions, the 
 narrative of the miracle of Cana still remains untrust- 
 worthy and unhistorical, while the ignorance which 
 the Synoptic writers betray of a miracle wrought in 
 Galilee seems to warrant the conclusion that the story 
 was fabricated by the Evangelist who has evoked 
 Nicodemus, Lazarus, and the Samaritan woman from 
 the resources of his imagination. 
 
 XIV, The last miracle which we have to notice, 
 the cursing, namely, of the barren fig-tree, stands by 
 itself as the only punitive miracle ascribed to Jesus, 
 and, as such, it has caused very serious perplexity 
 even to those who are anxious to believe without 
 questioning. Here, as elsewhere, all natural explana- 
 
The Miracles of Jesus. 225 
 
 tions are useless. The withering of the tree is traced 
 immediately to an influence which passed over it from 
 Jesus, who (Matt. xxi. 21) speaks to the disciples of 
 the result as a thing done to the fig-tree, words which 
 could not have been used, if a mere natural decay 
 was alone to be indicated. The same conviction is 
 expressed by the Avords put into the mouth of Peter. 
 " Lord, behold the fig-tree Avhich thou cursedst is 
 withered away." Had the eff"ect been purely natural, 
 Jesus must have corrected the erroneous impression 
 on the mind of his disciple. 
 
 With the metaphysical difficulties of the subject 
 we have no immediate concern. That Jesus should 
 appear to pass judgment on an inanimate object, 
 applied to which the words " punishment " and 
 " retribution " have no meaning, still more that he 
 should exhibit anger against a lifeless tree, and indulge 
 it to the destruction of the tree, may be, and doubt- 
 less is, bewildering, if not inconceivable. Hence we 
 need not dwell on the further difficulties connected 
 with the time for gathering figs, or the weather of 
 that particular season in Avhicli the incident is said 
 to have taken place, or the temporary or permanent 
 barrenness of the fig-tree. 
 
 The difficulty on which we lay stress is the per- 
 sonal inconsistency. When the people of a certain 
 Samaritan town refused to receive Jesus, some of 
 the disciples are said to have asked him, " Lord, wilt 
 thou that we call down fire from Heaven upon them, 
 as Elias did?" (Luke ix. 55). The reply of Jesus, 
 that they knew not what manner of spirit they were 
 of, is an emphatic protest against the idea that super- 
 natural power might be exercised for the gratification 
 of resentment and ill-will. Yet this narrative ascribes 
 to him precisely such an exercise of purely arbitrary 
 power. So again, if the Evangelist (Matt. xii. 20), 
 was right in applying to him the phrase, " He shall 
 not break the bruised reed or quench the smoking 
 p 
 
226 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 flax," Jesus should have healed the fig-tree or rendered 
 it fruitful rather than have smitten it with a curse. 
 Hence some who have felt the force of this difficulty- 
 have urged that the miracle had no moral reference 
 to the fig-tree, and that it was simply a symbolical 
 action, designed to imj)ress on the disciple's mind 
 that " every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit 
 shall be hewn down and cast into the fire." But in 
 the first place the Evangelists nowhere .state that it 
 was a symbolical action, and Mark assigns for the 
 disappointment of Jesus the fact that it was not yet 
 the time for figs, — a reason which should have dis- 
 armed his anger against the tree, and which could 
 leave no room for anger against men in a like con- 
 dition, for how can anger be rightly felt against men 
 whose time for producing good Avorks has not yet 
 come 1 But, further, the remarks which Jesus makes 
 immediately after the event have no reference to this 
 symbolical character of the act, but treat entirely of 
 the power of faith which shall enable the disciples to 
 do more than Jesus had done to the fig-tree. 
 
 Hence, as this narrative ascribes to Jesus a spirit 
 which is found nowhere else in the four canonical 
 Gospels (although it is singularly prominent in the 
 Apocryphal Gospels), and as it cannot be made to 
 fit in with other accounts of the teaching of Jesus, 
 it must be set aside at once as altogether unhistorical. 
 
 For the origin of this tale some of the Fathers 
 accounted by saying that the cursing of the fig-tree 
 was simply the parable of the barren fig-tree (given 
 in Luke xiii. 6) carried into action. Whether they 
 were right or Avrong, or how the story took its 
 present shape, Ave are not bound to determine. All 
 that needs to be said is, that Ave have first the saying 
 of John the Baptist respecting unfruitful bi'anches, 
 then the parable, and, lastly, the parable draAvn out 
 as a history. The general character of tradition 
 renders it all but absolutely certain that the saying 
 
The Miracles ofjesus. 227 
 
 furnished the germ of the parable, while the 
 parable was crystallized in the history, and not that 
 the history, being forgotten, dwindled into the 
 parable, while the parable left its last faint trace in 
 the saying. 
 
 We have thus gone through all the classes into 
 which the Gospel miracles can be subdivided, and 
 have examined the chief (in some cases, all the) 
 instances of miracles in each class. For none of 
 them have we any historical evidence whatever ; and 
 the frequency with which the narratives contradict 
 themselves and each other leads to the conclusion 
 that the alleged supernatural incidents never took 
 place at all. 
 
228 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE CLOSE OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS. 
 
 THE TRANSFIGURATION. 
 
 To all who have at heart the real interests of 
 historical study there must be something especially 
 saddening in the narrative which Dean Milman 
 has set forth as the history of the closing scenes in 
 the life of Jesus. The disappointment of the reader 
 is intensified Avhen he remembers that this narrative 
 is tlie Avork of one who has told with consummate 
 skill and singular judgment the story of Gregory the 
 Great and Ilildebrand, of Berenger and Peter 
 Abelard. There is indeed a wide difference between 
 the strong man free and the strong man fettered. In 
 dealing Avith the pontiffs, monks, and kings of the 
 middle ages. Dean Milman was under no unconscious 
 obligation to suppress or misrepresent the truth of 
 facts ; and he has therefore exhibited in a magnificent 
 picture the struggle between the Christianity Avhich 
 insists on unquestioning acceptance of dogma and the 
 Christianity which asserts the paramount authority 
 of reason and conscience. The case was very differ- 
 ent when he had to deal Avith the alleged facts of the 
 New Testament. There, if he wished his book to be 
 received with any patience by dominant religious 
 parties, he had only to AveaA^e together a plausible 
 narrative by leaving out of sight all statements which 
 
the Transfiguration. 229 
 
 clashed with or ignored the statements ajiproved by 
 himself, so that the reader might, if he pleased, 
 imagine that no such difficulties or contradictions 
 were to be found. The task Avas not a formidable 
 one. It has been done many times on other materials, 
 and any one who cares to do so may put together out 
 of Livy, Diouysius, and Diodorus, narratives in 
 which, taken singly, every one of the incidents may 
 have happened, but which when compared with 
 each other will appear scarcely to relate to the same 
 events. 
 
 And certainly when we take up almost any por- 
 tion of Dean Milman's History of Christianity, it is 
 hard to convince ourselves that, in the very docu- 
 ments from which his narrative is compiled, any 
 statements can be found which point in quite another 
 direction. Nor would it be possible for a reader who 
 perused his account of the Transfiguration without 
 any previous acquaintance with the Gospels, to dis- 
 cover that these Gospels themselves contradict many, 
 if not most, of the statements advanced by the 
 historian. 
 
 Thus, to prepare the way for the story of the 
 Transfiguration, Dean Milman sketches the intellectual 
 condition of the disciples at the time, and refers to 
 the commendation of Peter for his avowal that Jesus 
 was the Christ (Matt. xvi. 18), and then adds that 
 " The transport of the Apostles at this open and dis- 
 tinct avowal of his character, although at present 
 confined to the circle of his more immediate adhe- 
 rents, no doubt before long to be publicly proclaimed 
 and asserted with irresistible power, is almost instan- 
 taneously checked." 
 
 These words involve three distinct assertions, (1) 
 that at this juncture Peter for the first time awoke to 
 the consciousness of the Messiahship of Jesus, (2) that 
 none of the disciples had recognized or spoken of 
 this character of Jesus at an earlier time, and (3) 
 
230 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 that it had never before been proclaimed by Jesus 
 either to the disciples or to any others. 
 
 To each of these statements the fourth Gospel 
 furnishes tlie most emphatic contradiction. In John i. 
 41, we are distinctly told that when Peter first ap- 
 peared before Jesus, he stood before one of whom his 
 own brother AndreAv had expressly spoken to him as 
 the Messiah ; and then, without going further, we 
 learn, not only that Peter was from the first fully 
 informed of the office of Jesus, but that this know- 
 ledge was imparted to others also. Certain words, 
 which implied the power of second sight, convinced 
 Nathanael that Jesus was the Son of God, the King 
 of Israel (John i. 49), while, in words of Avhich the 
 meaning could not possibly be mistaken, the Baptist 
 had proclaimed him publicly to his disciples as the 
 Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. 
 Not less false is it to say that Jesus himself had not 
 disclosed the secret. Throughout the Avhole of the 
 Johannine Gospel it cannot be regarded as a secret 
 at all. Jesus speaks of himself to Nicodemus as one 
 who came down from heaven (John iii. 13); and if 
 the phrases here used leave room for any doubt, the 
 last uncertainty is removed Avhen we find Jesus 
 plainly telling the Samaritan woman that he is 
 Messiah the Christ. Nor was this knowledge confined 
 to the woman. After a sojourn of Jesus in the city, 
 her fellow-townsmen avow openly their conviction 
 that he is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world 
 (John iv. 42). Nor can it be said that Jesus imparted 
 the secret of his mission to those only who would 
 receive it with meekness and in a spirit of ready 
 faith. His claims are urged publicly at Jerusalem, 
 before multitudes who are exasperated by phrases 
 which to them appear simply blasphemous. He is 
 the bread of life (vi. 48) ; he has the power of raising 
 all men up at the last day (vi. 44). His claims are 
 generally known and freely discussed. Some said 
 
The Transfiguration. 231 
 
 that he was the Christ ; others scoffed at his Galilaean 
 origin. The distinct assertion of his pre-existence as 
 an eternal fact before the days of Abraham or any 
 human generations impels the unbelieving Jews to 
 take up stones to stone him (viii. 58) ; and the same 
 effect is produced by the statement that Jesus and 
 his Father are one (x. 30). Thus, throughout 
 the whole ministry of Jesus, his Messianic character 
 was set forth with the most uncompromising clearness ; 
 and yet Dean Milman can gravely inform us that 
 almost to the end of his life the knowledge of it was 
 *' confined to the secret circle of his more immediate 
 adherents." Was it possible that it could be pro- 
 claimed more widely 1 It had been propounded not 
 merely to individual men, as to Andrew, Peter, 
 Nathanael, and Nicodemus, but to the population of 
 Samaritan cities and the promiscuous crowd of wor- 
 shippers at the Paschal and other feasts in Jerusalem. 
 Being thus proclaimed, it was, in fact, published to 
 the whole world; for the Parthians, and Medes, and 
 Elamites, and others who heard the Apostles speak 
 in foreign dialects at the feast of Pentecost after the 
 Crucifixion were likewise present at Jerusalem when 
 Jesus told them that Abraham rejoiced to see his 
 day. 
 
 These are diametrical contradictions on a vital 
 point. Either the Messiahship of Jesus was pro- 
 claimed to Samaritans, Jews, and foreigners, or it was 
 not. Either it was a secret imparted to the Disciples 
 only at a late period in the ministry, or it was not. 
 Dean Milman asserts that not one of the Apostles 
 knew or confessed Jesus to be the Messiah until the 
 time immediately preceding the Transfiguration, and 
 thus he virtually sets aside the reiterated and solemn 
 statements of the fourth Gospel as absolute falsehoods. 
 This is the practical result. Of course it cannot be 
 said that Dean Milman purposely does this. His 
 m;ethod requires him only to put together a coherent 
 
232 English Life of^esus. 
 
 narrative ; and content with performing this task, he 
 simply ignores all that is said in the fourth Gospel. 
 But it cannot be ignored, and thus we are brought to 
 the conclusion that, by the tacit admission of Dean 
 JMihnan, of the two Gospel narratives one, at least, is 
 false, and that this ftdse narrative must be a -wilful 
 fabrication. For if the Messianic character of Jesus 
 was kept profoundly secret until the eve of the Trans- 
 figuration, it is false to say that it was made known 
 not only to the Baptist, to Andrew, Peter, Nathanael, 
 and the woman of Samaria, but to the whole concourse 
 of Jews and strangers, friends and enemies, believers 
 and scoffers, at the great festivals in Jerusalem. If, 
 again, it was so widely revealed, the narrative which 
 asserts that it was, during the greater part of the 
 ministry, kept secret from all, must be set aside as in 
 every particular untrustworthy. But Dean Milman 
 can scarcely take either alternative, and hence he is 
 obliged to make a profession of accepting two wholly 
 contradictory narratives, Avhile he virtually rejects 
 one as mere fiction. This is the inevitable inference. 
 Any one who questions this may, with ec^ual logic, 
 assert in the same Ijreath that a triangle is a three- 
 sided figure and that it is a figure with four sides. 
 
 When we turn to the Transfiguration itself, it is 
 difficult, if not impossible, to discover what "Dean 
 Milman thinks of the event, or whether he cares to 
 reach any clear conclusions in the matter. Yet 
 nothing can be more certain than that the events 
 either did or did not take place as they are recorded 
 in the New Testament. If they did not, there is 
 nothing more to be said than that the narratives are 
 not to be trusted, and that all attempts to construct a 
 correct account are labour thrown away. The 
 Synoptic Gospels make certain unecjuivocal state- 
 ments. AVe may reject these as inconsistent or 
 untrue, but we have no right to put them aside and 
 to foist into their place certain other statements of 
 
The Transfiguration. 233 
 
 our own. There is, therefore, no justification for 
 Dean Mihnan, when he says that Moses and Elias 
 " seemed to pay homage to Jesus," or when he treats 
 the sounds heard at the close of the scene as either 
 articulate voices or thunder ''which appcarrecl to give 
 the divine assent to their o^vn preconceived notions 
 of the Messiah." (Vol. I. ch. vi.) This is to treat 
 the Gospels as documents which may be made to bear 
 any meaning at our will. But they speak distinctly 
 of an articulate utterance ; and if we choose to resolve 
 this into the rumljlings of thunder, we do not believe 
 the Synoptic narratives, and it would be better at 
 once to avow our disbehef. To leave it open to doubt 
 " whether the incidents of this majestic and mys- 
 terious scene were presented as dreams before their 
 sleeping, or as visions before their waking senses," is 
 really to pour contempt upon the Gospel narratives. 
 In the third Gospel only is any reference made to the 
 sleep of the three disciples ; but the Evangelist adds 
 expressly that not until they were thoroughly awakened 
 (Luke ix. 32) did they see his glory and the two men 
 standing wdth him. We may also ask what Dean 
 Mihnan means by a vision presented to their waking- 
 senses 1 If he means that it was a hallucination 
 Avithout any corresponding reality, this is only to ex- 
 hibit the Apostles as deluded dreamers, fancying that 
 they saw Avhat, in fact, they did not see. But the 
 Synoptics say clearly that they did see two men, and 
 that these men were Moses and Elias. 
 
 With the same apparent unconsciousness that he 
 is walking in thorny paths, Dean Milman speaks of 
 the " vision " as tending " to elevate still higher their 
 already exalted notions of their master." Here again, 
 we have the confusion between the two portraits given 
 in the Synoptic and Johannine narratives. According 
 to the former, the disciples never had any spiritual 
 notions of the character of the Messiah. DoAvn to 
 the moment of the Ascension, they give utterance only 
 
234 English Life of yesus. 
 
 or chiefly to carnal and material ideas of the Christ 
 and his office ; nor does the transfiguration apparently 
 tend to raise them into a more wholesome atmosphere. 
 According to Dean Milman himself, they have a 
 marvellous power of forgetting whatever they see or 
 hear. The Avords of Jesus " appear to pass away and 
 to leave no impression upon their minds," and "in a 
 short time they are fiercely disputing among them- 
 selves their relative rank in the instantaneously ex- 
 pected kingdom of the Messiah." Such admissions in 
 nan-atives which are manifestly self-contradictory may 
 fairly justify the suspicion that either the disputes 
 did not take place because the teaching of Jesus had 
 produced its proper effect, or that the words at- 
 tributed to Jesus were not spoken by him, because 
 the disciples exhibited so mean and earthbound a 
 spirit. 
 
 Nor does Dean Milman take any notice of the fact 
 that the conversation -which is said to have been held 
 between Jesus and the disciples on their way down 
 the mountain on which he had been transfigured, 
 excludes the idea that any personal or bodily appear- 
 ance of Elijah had taken place or Avas to be expected. 
 But the singular contradiction thus immediately 
 given to the historical character of the transfigura- 
 tion itself points unmistakably to the existence of 
 two different states of feeling among the early Chris- 
 tians, one demanding visible manifestations, the other 
 contented Avith spiritual realities, just as the refusal 
 of Jesus to perform signs and wonders points to a 
 very different tradition from that which has multi- 
 plied narratives of miracles. 
 
 We are thus compelled to turn from Dean Milman's 
 pages to the account of the transfiguration as given in 
 the Synoptic Gospels; and we start Avith the import- 
 ant fact that by his virtual admission that narrative 
 is throughout contradicted by statements Avhich are 
 
The Transfiguration. 235 
 
 interwoven with the whole fabric of the Johannine 
 Gospel. Thus the thoroughly unhistorical character 
 of that Gospel is more strikingly displayed, and we 
 have only to see whether the Synoptic narrative is 
 self-consistent or credible. 
 
 The existence of plan in the fourth Gospel is 
 betrayed by the fact that the narrative of the Trans- 
 figuration is not found in it. It was impossible for 
 the Evangelist to introduce narratives which implied 
 that the Messiahship of Jesus had been studiously 
 kept secret, not only from the nation, but from the 
 disciples also. That he Avas induced to omit it from 
 a reluctance to encourage the Docetic notions which 
 were coming into vogue, and which treated Jesus as 
 a phantasm, cannot for a moment be admitted ; for 
 the fourth Gospel contains the narrative of Jesus 
 walking on the sea, Avliich more than all others 
 invests him with a phantom character. 
 
 As little can it be thought, (as many have supposed,) 
 that the Synoptic writers do not relate the event as 
 miraculous. The instances of so-called rationalistic 
 interpretations, already given, have made us suffi- 
 ciently familiar with a method which can make any- 
 thing mean anything. Yet it is marvellous that men, 
 who do not wish to bring the Gospels into utter con- 
 tempt, can turn the whole scene into an optical illu- 
 sion, and gravely maintain that the three disciples, 
 waking up from a heavy sleep, find a thunderstorm 
 going on, and seeing the form of Jesus revealed by a 
 flash of lightning, fancy that his person and raiment 
 are transfigured, and intrinsically invested with a 
 preternatural light, while they mistake for Moses and 
 Elias two strangers, probably Esseues, who have 
 come, during the storm or the sleep of the disciples, 
 to converse with Jesus, and one of whom is so 
 impressed with him as to say, when he takes his 
 departure, " This is the beloved son in whom God is 
 well pleased." These words, overheard through the 
 
236 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 mist by the scarcely awakened disciples, sound in 
 their ears as a voice from heaven. 
 
 A fearful penalty is paid for such attempts to bring 
 incidents manifestly miraculous (if they ever occurred 
 at all) Avithin the range of events belonging to 
 ordinary experience. The result is to make the 
 disciples fools and Jesus a knave. Can anything less 
 be said, when these persons, half stupified "with sleep, 
 will have it that two Essenes are JNIoses and Elias, 
 and when Jesus treats what he knows to be the visit 
 of two living men as a return of men who have 
 been dead for centuries 1 " Tell the \dsiou to no 
 man," he says ; and are we to suppose that such a 
 thought would ever have entered into his mind, if all 
 that he referred to was a conversation with two 
 strangers Avho sought to speak with him on certain 
 religious questions 1 If he did so speak of such an 
 incident, he was aiding to keep up what he knew to 
 be a delusion, and thus proving himself to be an 
 impostor. 
 
 But all such interpretations do violence to the 
 plain meaning of the Evangelists. It may be true 
 that Luke alone speaks of the disciples as having 
 slept ; but none of them says a word about any 
 thunderstorm, while Luke asserts jjositively that they 
 were thoroughly awake Avhen they saw the two forms 
 Avhich stood on either side of Jesus ; and all these 
 state distinctly, not that these forms answered to the 
 traditional representations or porti-aits of Moses and 
 Elias, but that they actually were Moses and Elias in 
 person. Still less do they say that three different 
 men had precisely the same dream at the same 
 moment of time. If, again, these strangers, knowing 
 the superstitious fanaticism of the disciples, enacted 
 a farce which they knew that those disciples would 
 take as solemn earnest, we can only say that greater 
 rogues could not easily be found in any land. But 
 surely it is enough not only that the disciples remain 
 
The Transfiguration. 237 
 
 convinced of the actual apparition of Moses and Elias, 
 but that Jesus himself shares their conviction, so far 
 as the narrative of the Transfiguration is concerned ; 
 and hence we insist that that narrative relates a 
 nairaculous event, in which Moses and Elias are said 
 to have borne a personal share. 
 
 The honesty of the writer who drew up this ac- 
 count is not necessarily called into question by the 
 fact that the conversation immediately subsequent 
 ignores the details narrated. The contradiction, 
 fatal as it is to the hypothesis that we are dealing 
 with genuine history, proves only that the two pas- 
 sages come to us from different sources. But it does 
 reflect very seriously on the compiler of the fourth 
 Gospel, if he be John the son of Zebedee, that he 
 should make no mention of an event which he alone 
 of the Evangelists witnessed. The Transfiguration 
 is surely an incident of sufficient importance to call 
 for a record from one whose memory must have re- 
 tained many particulars which Avould scarcely be 
 preserved in reports received at second hand. 
 
 The truth is that we have here another reason for 
 concluding that no such incident as the Transfigura- 
 tion described by the Synoptics ever took place ; and 
 a further proof is furnished by the Synoptic writers 
 themselves. No sooner apparently do they descend the 
 mountain than the disciples ask Jesus to explain 
 why the Scribes assert that Elias must first come. 
 (Matt. xvii. 10. ; Mark ix. 11). Beyond all doubt this 
 question involves the fact that thus far Elias had not 
 come in person as a forerunner or a witness to the 
 Messiah ; and therefore it is absolutely impossible 
 that they could have asked such a question a few 
 minutes after they had actually seen him. Driven to 
 desperation by this difficulty, some commentators 
 would fain have us believe that the disciples speak 
 not of the mere appearance of Elias, but of a great 
 moral and spiritual reformation to be effected by that 
 
238 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 prophet, whereas the apparition on the mount had 
 come and gone without leaving any effects behind it. 
 This hypothesis, if it Avere allowed to pass, would 
 only prove that the disciples were imbecile persons 
 who could not put their thoughts into intelligible 
 language, or rather who had no thoughts to put into 
 words at all. For in this case they must have asked 
 not "Why do the Scribes say that Elias must come 1" 
 but " Why do they say that he must first restore all 
 things'?" Yet on the latter point, which on this 
 notion must have greatly perplexed them, they are 
 silent, and they speak only about his coming, which, 
 if they had just seen him, they must have known to 
 be an accomplished fact. But not only do their 
 words imply that Elias had not come, but the reply 
 of Jesus asserts distinctly, that he was not even 
 coming, if his advent was to be regarded literally. 
 " Elias," he told them, " has come already in the per- 
 son of the Baptist, and the Jews have done to him 
 whatsoever they listed, and will treat the Son of 
 Man in the same way." It is impossible that Jesus 
 should have converted into a metaphor an event 
 which had only just occurred, or even one which 
 had taken place at any time within his or their recol- 
 lection ; and if the ordinary conceptions about Jesus 
 are to be retained, it is impossible that Elias should 
 come at any later period, for as, according to 
 the words of Jesus himself, the Baptist was the 
 promised Elias (Matt. xi. 14 ; Luke i. 17), Jesus 
 would be mistaken if the Elijah who opposed Ahab 
 should afterwards make his appearance. 
 
 Here, then, we have a narrative of facts, followed 
 by a conversation which ignores those facts and pre- 
 cludes their possibility, just as the declaration that 
 no sign should be given to the evil and adulterous 
 generation of the Jews runs counter to the idea of 
 constant miracles wrought by Jesus. Of these pas- 
 sages the conversation is indubitably the earlier, and 
 
The Transjigiiration. 239 
 
 is not improbably historical, while the narrative of 
 the external Transfiguration sprung up when the 
 need of a literal interpretation of the words of 
 Malachi began to be felt. It is, therefore, a mere 
 invention, without the least historical basis. 
 
 On this tradition, then, we are in no way bound to 
 say anything more. It is no part of our task or our 
 duty to explain how the narrative came into exist- 
 ence. We have shown it be unhistorical, and it 
 is unnecessary therefore to show further that it has 
 no object and that it serves no purpose. We need 
 not trouble ourselves to ask how, even if his counte- 
 nance was suffused with an unearthly glory, his gar- 
 ments also should undergo a similar change. Yet 
 these are difiiculties which all who accept the narra- 
 tive as a fact are surely bound to meet. It is for 
 them to explain how Moses could, according to 
 Biblical and traditional theology, appear with his 
 body before the general resurrection, or why the 
 vision should be vouchsafed to the three who were 
 spiritually the strongest among the disciples and 
 sedulously kept secret from all the rest, or how 
 such a mere outward brightness could possibly tend 
 so much to the glorification of Jesus as the effulgence 
 of his spiritual purity, and the heavenly character of 
 his acts and teaching. 
 
 It may be more or less probable that the germ of 
 this tradition is to be sought in the earlier story told 
 of Moses, whose face, after his descent from the 
 Mount, is said to have dazzled the eyes of all be- 
 holders (Exodus xxxiv. 29), as well as in the frequent 
 comparisons of righteous men to the sun when he 
 goes forth in his might, and to the stars as they 
 glisten in the firmament of heaven. When, further, we 
 find that the absence of such visible splendour in the 
 face of Jesus is urged in Hebrew writings as an argu- 
 ment against his Messiahship, we begin to under- 
 stand the feeling which found a natural vent in a 
 
-240' English Life ofjesus. 
 
 narrative that attributed to Jesus a glory surpassing 
 that of Moses. The same feeling may have laid the 
 scene on a mountain, as Moses was transfigured on 
 Mount Sinai ; and the idea of the three discijiles 
 chosen as witnesses may have been suggested by the 
 special mention of Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, before 
 the seventy elders (Ex. xxiv. 9). The summons of 
 Moses that he might worship may have led to the 
 statement that Jesus went up into the mountain to 
 pray, while the declaration Avith which the scene 
 closes is in part a repetition of the words said to have 
 been heard at his Baptism, and partly a reference to 
 the passage in which Moses is represented as ex- 
 horting his people to obey the prophet who should 
 come after him (Deut. xviii. 15). 
 
 Whether this be the case or not, is a matter of 
 very small importance. It is enough that we have 
 analyzed the narrative and discovered it to be in 
 every particular impossible. 
 
 CLOSING SCENES OF THE MINISTRY. 
 
 According to the Synoptic Gospels Jesus set out 
 from Galilee to keep his last passover in Jerusalem 
 (Matt. xix. 1 ; Mark x. 1 ; Luke ix. 51). But 
 although they agree in the points of departure and 
 arrival, these Gospels are not otherwise consistent. 
 The statement of Matthew is almost unintelligible ; 
 but if we may receive the interpretation put upon it 
 in the second Gospel, both Matthew and Mark may 
 be taken to mean that Jesus found his way to Jeru- 
 salem from Galilee through the country beyond 
 Jordan — in other Avords, that he crossed the Jordan 
 twice in the course of his journey. According to Luke 
 (xi. 51), he never crossed the Jordan at all, for the 
 writer of this Gospel states distinctly twice that he 
 reached Juclsea through Samaria. It is true that his 
 
Closing Scefies of the Ministry. 241 
 
 way of putting it (in ch. xvii. 11) is that Jesus went 
 through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, whereas 
 if he started from any place in Galilee, he must have 
 journeyed first through the rest of Galilee before he 
 set foot on Samaritan ground ; but both here and in 
 ix. 51 he clearly asserts that Jesus kept to the western 
 side of Jordan. The very reason why the people of 
 a certain Samaritan village Avould not receive him is 
 that " his face was as though he would go to Jerusa- 
 lem," an objection which certainly could not have 
 been taken if he had manifested only the intention of 
 crossing to the country on the other side of Jordan. 
 
 On the further difficulty that any Samaritans 
 should decline to receive him after the conviction 
 expressed by the citizens of Sychar (John iv. 42), we 
 need lay but little stress. The narrative of the fourth 
 Gospel implies that no inconsiderable body of the 
 Samaritans had almost from the beginning of the 
 ministry been convinced from personal experience 
 that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the 
 world, and it is impossible to suppose that this con- 
 viction would have been kept a secret from other 
 cities of that not extensive territory ; and hence in 
 the disinclination shown by the Samaritans in the 
 third Gospel to receive Jesus on his last journey to 
 Jerusalem we find only another proof of the unhis- 
 torical character of the Johannine narrative. In 
 plain truth, so utterly destitute is this fourth Gospel 
 of all internal credibility, so completely is it at variance 
 with the accounts given in the Synoptic Gospels, that 
 we might be fairly justified in dismissing its version 
 of the closing scenes in the ministry of Jesus without 
 further notice ; and the temptation to do so would 
 be strong, if we remembered the very painful 
 shade which this version casts on the character and 
 teaching of him Avhom he describes as the only 
 begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. As 
 this topic must come before us hereafter, it may be as 
 
242 English Life of yesus. 
 
 well to mark here that according to the fourth Gospel 
 Jesus does not journey from Galilee to Jerusalem 
 before the last festival, and that his crucifixion takes 
 place before the passover, which, according to the other 
 Gospels, he hacl, on the eve of his sufferings, cele- 
 brated with his disciples. In this Gospel Jesus had 
 quitted Galilee many months earlier (vii. 1-10); he 
 had been present at Jerusalem at a passover (accord- 
 ing to the Synoptics his first passover after the begin- 
 ning of his ministry was also the last), he was present 
 at the ensuing Feast of Dedication (x. 22), and not a 
 liint is given that in the interval he had been any 
 further from the city than the Mount of Olives. 
 After the latter feast he went into the country beyond 
 Jordan, or Persea (x. 40), from which he returns to 
 Bethany on hearing of the sickness and death of 
 Lazarus. From Bethany he retires only to the city 
 of Ephraim, near the wilderness (xi. 54), and, return- 
 ing from Ephraim to Bethany (xii. i.) finally enters 
 the Holy City. 
 
 Thus Ave have another contradiction betAveen the 
 Johannine and the Synoptic narratives, for whereas 
 they bring Jesus to Jerusalem from Galilee, John 
 carries him from Jerusalem to Peraea and back to 
 Jerusalem without going to Galilee ; moreover in the 
 other Gospels his road lies quite in another direction 
 through Jericho. All attempts to reconcile these con- 
 tradictions liave been vain. It is useless to seek to 
 extort from Luke x. 38 an admission that Jesus 
 Avas at Bethany. It is true that John speaks of 
 Bethany as the city of Mary and Martha, but it is 
 equally true that Luke makes no mention of Bethany, 
 and speaks only of "a certain village" Avhere Martha 
 received him into her house, while Mary sat at his 
 feet and heard his Avords, and that he does not so 
 much as name Lazarus as their brother. 
 
 Yet more, in the Sj-noptic Gospels Jesus passes in 
 one day from Jericho to Jerusalem (Matt. xx. 34, 
 
Closing Scenes of the Ministry. 243 
 
 xxi. 1). In the fourth Gospel he goes from Ephraim 
 to Bethany, and on the following day makes the easy 
 journey from Bethany to Jerusalem (xii. 1, 12). 
 Here, again, the contradiction is fatal. In the fourth 
 Gospel Jesus sleeps at Bethany : in the Synoptics, 
 " as soon as he came near to Bethphage and Bethany/' 
 he does not take up his lodging there, but merely 
 sends his disciples for the ass on which he makes 
 his triumphant entry. On the supposition that he 
 spent the night before the entry in Bethany the 
 whole Synoptic narrative becomes unintelligible. 
 In the first three Gospels the charge to go for the ass 
 is followed by immediate obedience, and the animal 
 is at once brought, and Jesus placed thereon. Then 
 follows the narrative of the triumphal entry. Ac- 
 cording to Mark xi. 11, Jesus makes his triumphal 
 entry so late in the day, that he has only time to give 
 a hasty glance round the city and goes hack to 
 Bethany for the night — the reason being that the 
 journey from Jericho had occupied the whole day; 
 from Bethany there was no reason why he should not 
 have reached the city at a much earlier hour. But as 
 though these contradictions were not enough, we 
 are told in the first Gospel (xxi. 12, &c.), that from 
 Jericho Jesus reached Jerusalem early enough in the 
 day to purify the temple (an incident which we have 
 already seen (chapter iv. p. 182), to be altogether un- 
 historical) to perform cures on the lame and blind, and 
 to rebuke the Scribes and Pharisees who asked him to 
 repress the acclamations of the little children. 
 
 To avoid this difiiculty, it has been maintained by 
 some that the Evangelists speak of two entrances ; 
 and we are at once driven to ask, How is it- that 
 John says nothing of the entrance mentioned by the 
 Synoptics, and that the Synoptics say nothing of the 
 entrance related by John 1 With the marvellous as- 
 surance which takes for granted that the Evangelists 
 related chiefly those events of which they were eye- 
 
244 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 witnesses, such interpreters tell us that John was not 
 present at the first entrance because he had been sent 
 to Bethany to announce the coming of Jesus to that 
 village. The Gospel says nothing of this, and we 
 ask, was MattheAV sent anyAvhere, so that he Avas not 
 present at the second entry 1 But is it credible that 
 those who were present only at one entrance never 
 heard a word spoken about the other 1 Still more, 
 is it credible that on two successiA^e days Jesus 
 entered Jerusalem in precisely the same AA'ay, greeted 
 by the same acclamations, and saluted with the same 
 suspicious remarks of his enemies, and that on both 
 occasions there stood an ass Avaiting for Jesus, the 
 incidents attending this part of the scene being in 
 both cases the same 1 
 
 But, in truth, the fourth Evangelist is clearly de- 
 scribing an entry Avhich he regards as the first. If 
 Jesus had already been in Jerusalem on the previous 
 day, it is impossible that the people could have gone 
 out to meet him on the ground that as yet they had 
 not seen him; yet this is asserted in xii. 9, Avhen they 
 are said to come for the purpose of seeing both Jesus 
 and Lazarus. And, again, if the Synoptic entry had 
 taken place on the day before that which is men- 
 tioned in the fourth Gospel, then the tidings that. 
 Jesus was at hand Avould be no neAvs to the people, 
 and Avould in fact be superfluous. But in xii. 12 the 
 Johannine EA-angelist distinctly represents the tidings 
 of the ad\'ent of Jesus as being brought to Jerusalem 
 on the morning of the day on Avhich he entered it 
 from Bethany. 
 
 But, further, the first Gospel speaks, not merely 
 of an animal Avhich had never been ridden, but of 
 an ass tied, and a colt with her, and represents the 
 disciples as placing Jesus on both the animals (xxi. 7). 
 The English translators seem to have been aAvare of 
 this difficulty, for they slur it over by discreetly 
 using the ambiguous thereon instead of u^on them. 
 
Predictions respecting his Death. 245 
 
 But the blunder in Matthew is instructive. He is 
 careful to quote Zachariah, " Behold, thy king conieth, 
 sitting upon an ass and a colt, the foal of an ass." 
 It is evident, that what he quotes as corroboration, 
 was really the sole ground for his statement. He is 
 inaking his narrative out of prophecij, and unluckily 
 mistook the poetical amplification of a single young 
 ass for two animals — an ass and its colt. 
 
 Further still, the Synoptics represent the acclama- 
 tions on the entry of Jesus as proceeding wholly 
 from the multitude of persons journeying to Jeru- 
 salem for the feast ; nothing is said of any coming 
 out of the city to meet Jesus. But in the fourth 
 Gospel the greeting comes altogether from those who 
 leave the city expressly to meet Jesus, while his 
 followers or attendants testify to the people of Jeru- 
 salem the resurrection of Lazarus, an event which 
 we have already seen to be altogether unhistorical. 
 
 Of this event, then, we can say no more than that 
 the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem for his last pass- 
 over may have been attended by an outburst of en- 
 thusiasm on the part of the people, and especially of 
 the Galilaean visitors, but that no trust whatever can 
 be placed in the narrative of the Synoptic Gospels, 
 while that of the fourth Gospel betrays a deliberate 
 twisting of materials to suit a special purpose. 
 
 PREDICTIONS OF JESUS RESPECTING HIS 
 DEATH. 
 
 In all the Gosj^els Jesus is represented as predict- 
 ing that his ministry Avill be brought to an abrupt 
 end by a violent deatli. But here, as in almost all 
 other instances, their agreement ends. In the Syn- 
 optic Gospels thfe announcements of his sufferings 
 are not made till a late period of his ministry (Matt. 
 xvi. 21) ; and when they are made, they are drawn 
 
246 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 out in minute detail. The death is to be violent 
 (Matt. xvii. 12); it is to be preceded by a betrayal 
 (22) ; he should be mocked, scourged, and crucified, 
 by the Gentiles (xx. 19) ; he should be buried 
 (xxvi. 12) and rise again on the third clay. 
 
 In the fourth Gospel, just as the Messiahship of 
 Jesus (which, in the Synoptics, is kept a profound 
 secret from all until a period shortly preceding the 
 crucifixion) is proclaimed to the disciples, Samaritans, 
 Jews, and foreigners, throughout the whole period 
 of his ministry, so the predictions of his death are 
 scattered through the whole narrative, beginning 
 with the purification of the temple (John ii. 13) and 
 the conversation held with the Pharisee Nicodemus. 
 But they nowhere descend to the details of the 
 Synoptics, and are couched for the most part in 
 ambiguous language. In the former, the disciples 
 catch the general drift of the words of Jesus : in that 
 of John, they fail altogether to apprehend their 
 meaning. By an equivocal play on the word temple, 
 Jesus is described as predicting the death and resui'- 
 rection of his body (John ii. 21), on the occasion of 
 his first visit to Jerusalem after the beginning of his 
 ministry ; but the significance of the phrase was 
 lost on the disciples until after Jesus had risen from 
 the dead. Still less does Nicodemus understand the 
 announcement that the Son of man must be "lifted 
 up " as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. 
 Nor are these predictions made only in the ears of 
 the well-disposed like Nicodemus ; they are pro- 
 claimed before the mingled concourse of friends and 
 foes. The general throng of worshippers hear the 
 words in which Jesus compares himself to the good 
 shepherd who gives his life for his sheep, and de- 
 clares that of his own will he lays down his life which 
 no man can take from him, and Afhich by his own 
 will he again takes up (John x. 14-18). 
 
 Now, either Jesus predicted his sufterings and 
 
Predictions respecting his Death. 247 
 
 death from the beginning of his ministry, or he did 
 not. Either he entered into the details of the closing 
 scene, or he did not. Either he kejDt them secret 
 from his disciples, or he did not. Either' he pro- 
 claimed them before his enemies, or he did not. 
 Either he "used ambiguous phrases, or he did not. 
 Either he expressed himself in unequivocal language, 
 or he did not. He cannot possibly have done both 
 the one and the other. Yet the Synoptics represent 
 him as doing the one, the Johannine Gospel as doing 
 the other. Here, then, we have a diametrical con- 
 tradiction on a vital point, and are compelled accord- 
 ingly to reject the whole narrative as unhistorical, 
 unless we choose to say that the Synoptic account is to 
 be received at the expense of the Johannine version. 
 
 AVe have, therefore, to see whether the Synoptic 
 accounts are coherent and credible. The instant we 
 look into details, Ave find that the disciples, without 
 a single exception, act as if they had never heard 
 any such predictions. Far from being prepared for 
 his death, they are unable to realize even the fact 
 that he is to fall into the hands of his enemies, for 
 no sooner is their master seized than they all forsake 
 him and flee (Matt. xxvi. 56 ; Mark xiv. 50). Hence 
 the several phrases that they did not understand his 
 Avords (Luke ix. 45, xviii. 34, &c.) look much like 
 sentences introduced to account for facts Avhicli did 
 not square well Avith the conceptions of a later age. 
 The Avords put into the mouths of the disciples 
 journeying to Emmaus (" The chief priests and our 
 rulers have crucified him ; but Ave trusted that it had 
 been he Avho should have redeemed Israel," Luke 
 xxiv. 21) point in the same direction, and could not 
 possibly have been uttered if Jesus had repeatedly 
 told them in plain terms that a violent death Avould 
 be his recompense at the hands of the JeAVS. 
 
 Hence it is incredible that Jesus predicted his oAvn 
 death to the disciples. This makes it superfluous to 
 
248 English Life of yesus. 
 
 enter into the question, whether in the Old Testament 
 a suffering Messiah is predicted, or whether as the 
 Jews say, and as the most learned Hebraists in Ger- 
 many say, that is an entire mistake. In the New 
 Testament narrative itself it is prominent that the 
 Hel^rew doctors of that day found notliing of the 
 kind in their prophets. But for us it suffices if we 
 show that the narratives before us are intrinsically 
 incoherent. 
 
 PREDICTIONS OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 
 
 According to all the Gospels, Jesus foretold to his 
 disciples, not only his sufferings and death, but also 
 the fact of his resurrection ; and, according to the 
 fourth Gospel, this announcement was made, not only 
 to his followers, but to friends and enemies alike at 
 Jerusalem. As Jonah had been three days and three 
 nights in the whale's belly, so should the son of man 
 be three days and three nights in the earth, and then 
 he should rise again (Matt. xvi. 21, xvii. 23. &c., &c.) 
 
 Now it is on the face of things indisputably clear, 
 that even if such plain announcements might have 
 been forgotten (which is in the last degree unlikely), 
 yet their verification could not possibly have been 
 treated with contempt when the tidings of their accom- 
 plishment were first brought to those who had heard 
 them. Yet this is the astounding phenomenon exhib- 
 ited in all the Gospel narratives. The disciples are 
 all simply incredulous, until by an irresistible weight 
 of ocular evidence they are convinced of a fact the 
 conception of which had never before dawned upon 
 their minds. It is useless to cite all the passages 
 which may be adduced in proof of this, and it is 
 scarcely necessary to do so, as the general unbelief of 
 the disciples is not denied by any one. But the 
 
Predictions of Resurrection of Jesus. 249 
 
 effects of this admission are most momentous. When, 
 immediately after the Transfiguration, Jesus warns 
 his disciples not to reveal what they have seen until 
 he was risen from the dead, we are told that they cjues- 
 tioned among themselves what the rising from the 
 dead should mean (Mark ix. 10) ; and yet this won- 
 der is expressed by men who, according to this same 
 Gospel, had already witnessed the raising of the 
 daughter of Jakus (Mark v. 42), and who, according 
 to the other Gospels, had seen other instances also. 
 Either then, they never spoke these words, or those 
 miracles never took place. If they did, it was im- 
 possible for them to remain ignorant of the meaning 
 of the phrase " rising from the dead." If they had 
 read or believed the miracle recorded of the dead 
 body of Elisha, they must been familiar with the idea 
 from their childhood ; and as they must in this case 
 have associated it with ordinary men, so must they 
 have been in an eminent degree prepared for the same 
 result in the person of the Messiah. 
 
 In spite of all this, no sooner is the body of Jesus 
 taken clown and laid in the grave than the women 
 undertake the task of embalming it. — a task, which 
 shows that they at least had never heard of his com- 
 ing resurrection ; and Avhen on the third day they 
 come to the grave, their fears are only that their 
 strength should not suffice to roll away the stone 
 from the entrance. If again Mary Magdalene had 
 ever heard of these predictions, it is clear that when 
 she saw that the body was not where it had been 
 laid she must have concluded that the promised 
 resurrection had taken place ; instead of which, all 
 that she can think of is that the body had been 
 stolen (John xx. 2.) Still more when the women 
 announce the fact to the disciples, the latter treat their 
 words with profound contempt as idle " romance, 
 humbug, and trumpery" (Liddell and Scott, see Xrjpog). 
 
 It is absolutely impossible that they could have 
 
i^o English Life of Jesus. 
 
 thought and spoken thus, if they had even once 
 heard from the lips of Jesus that he should assuredly 
 rise again, far less if they had heard him say this 
 repeatedly, before friends and enemies, for several 
 months or (as in the fourth Gospel) years. 
 
 Hence either the predictions were made, and in 
 that case the disciples did not speak and act as they 
 are said to have done ; or they did so speak and act, 
 and in that case these predictions Avere never made. 
 
 In either case, both narratives, as occurring in the 
 same set of documents, are convicted of being unhis- 
 torical. 
 
 To bring the difficulty to an almost ludicrous cli- 
 max, Avhile the disciples are represented as not even 
 cbeaming of such a result, the Scribes and Pharisees 
 are said to have been perfectly aware that Jesus had 
 predicted his resurrection. The words are wholly 
 forgotten by the disciples ; but his enemies "remem- 
 ber that that deceiver said, after three days I will 
 rise again," and ask Pilate accordingly that a watch 
 may be kept over the grave by a body of Eoman sol- 
 diers. Hence this narrative must also be dismissed 
 as wholly without foundation. 
 
 It is unnecessary to dwell on the efforts of some 
 writers to avoid this difficulty by giving to his words 
 a merely metaphorical interpretation, — t-hat, although 
 Jesus himself should die, yet his work would not 
 perish with him but be carried on more effectually 
 by his followers. For if this had been the case, the 
 Jews would never have asked for a guard of soldiers, 
 but would have insisted on a forcible repression of the 
 disciples, as they are afterwards said to have done Avhen 
 the Apostles began their work of preaching in public. 
 
 Since then it is not credible that Jesus predicted 
 his resurrection in plain terms, all those discourses in 
 which he is said to have signified it under figure 
 fall under the gravest suspicion. The metaphorical 
 announcement made on the purification of the temple, 
 
Predictions of Second Advent of Jesus. 251 
 
 according to the fourth Gospel (ii. 19), has been 
 sufficiently discussed already. The sign of Jonah, 
 like the other incidents referred to in the Old Testa- 
 ment, has in itself nothing to do with Messianic 
 ideas ; and it is significant, that in one version it is 
 not the submersion of Jonah but merely his preach- 
 ing to the Ninevites Avhich is adduced as the sign to 
 be given to the evil Jewish generation (Luke xi. 
 29-32). 
 
 Hence also we conclude further that all the pas- 
 sages which are cited from various parts of the Old 
 Testament as pointing to the resurrection of Jesus 
 (Luke xviii. 31, xxiv. 25 ; Acts ii. 25, xiii. 35, &c.,) 
 are simply interpretations put after the alleged event 
 on passages which have not in themselves any such 
 signification. 
 
 PREDICTIONS RESPECTING THE SECOND ADVENT 
 OF JESUS. 
 
 It might be a rash thing to assert that, because 
 Jesus did not predict either the mode or the particu- 
 lars of his death or his resurrection, therefore he 
 said nothing of his return to judge the world at the 
 time of the consummation of all things. It is quite 
 possible that a Messiah who anticipated no deadly 
 opposition from earthly rulers, and who looked for- 
 ward to a quiet acceptance of his claims from the 
 great body of the people, might still declare that to 
 him- was committed the office of judging the world 
 when the day of the great assize Avas come. In exact 
 proportion to the weakening of the old notions which 
 (as in the philosophy of the three friends of Job) 
 imagined that all wickedness had its retribution 
 in this present life, the conviction would be 
 strengthened that when the fields were ready to the 
 
252 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 harvest, the great Lord of the universe ■would send 
 forth his angels, who should gather the wheat into 
 his barn and cast the chaff into the unquenchable fire. 
 Over this mighty Avork who could so worthily preside 
 as the chosen Messiah, who had once appeared in 
 lowly form to preach to the poor and meek in spirit 
 the acceptable year of the Lord 1 
 
 Hence, before we can say whether these predictions 
 were or were not made by Jesus, we have to submit 
 them to a critical analysis. 
 
 These predictions form the subject of the great 
 discourse which fills Matthew xxiv., xxv., and which 
 is given in a shortened form in Mark xiii., and in a 
 more fragmentary shape in Luke xvii. and xxi. 
 
 According to Matthew, as Jesus went out from 
 the temple for the last time, his disciples call his 
 attention to the magnificence of its structure, and 
 receive for answer the announcement that the days 
 should come when this temple should be razed to its 
 foundations, and not one stone be left upon another. 
 To their second demand for the time of these events, 
 and the signs of their fulfilment, Jesus replies by 
 warning them against false Christs, and against 
 tliinking that the wars, famines, pestilences, and 
 earthquakes, which should j)recede the great catas- 
 trophe, were the immediate tokens of the final con- 
 summation. These are but the beginnings of sorrows 
 (xxiv. 8). They were, however, to be sure that the 
 destruction predicted was about to fixll on the temple, 
 when they should see the abomination of desolation 
 stand in the holy place (15), or, as the third Gospel 
 puts it (xxi. 20), when they see Jerusalem encom- 
 passed about Avith armies. Then it would be time for 
 all who wished to escape the great ruin to flee from 
 the city, and well Avould it be for those Avho Avere not 
 then with child, or mothers of young infants, or if 
 this wretched time came not during the winter. Li 
 those days the false Christs would again appear 
 
Predictions of Second Advent of Jesus, i^t, 
 
 (Matt. xxiv. 24), but they should produce no effect on 
 all who remembered that the coming of the Son of 
 Man would be sudden and abrupt as the flash of 
 lightning which gleams accross the heaven (27). 
 Following immediately on this fearful tribulation (29) 
 the sun and moon should be darkened, and the stars 
 should fall and the sign of the Son of Man should be 
 seen in the heaven, and all mankind should be sum- 
 moned to stand before his great tribunal. On seeing 
 these things they might be as sure that the end Avas 
 come as they know that summer may be looked for 
 when the fig-tree puts out its leaves. As to the time, 
 thus much was determined, that the generation then 
 living should not pass away until all had been ful- 
 filled (34). Thus much was surer than the established 
 order of the universe (35): all that was left uncertain 
 was the exact day and hour (36), which was unknown 
 even to the angels of heaven or to the Messiah himself. 
 Hence, although all should be accomplished within the 
 space of some thirty years, yet the uncertainty as to the 
 precise period would leave room for all the Avorldli- 
 ness, sensuality, and carelessness which marked the 
 generation of Noah, and thus the advent of the 
 Messiah would come upon them as unexpectedly as 
 if they had been told that it might take place at any 
 time Avithin a thousand years. Hence the paramount 
 need of incessant Avatchfulness for all who would win 
 their Lord's approval at his coming. 
 
 This discourse, as given in MattheAV and Mark, 
 is to all appearance eminently coherent ; but if so, 
 it asserts positively, not only that the temple and 
 city should be destroyed within a few years, but that 
 the existing order of the world should be brought 
 to an end, and the final judgment of all mankind 
 be comi^leted Avithin the life-time of the then 
 present generation. But, although the destruction of 
 Jerusalem Avas accomplished very closely in the 
 manner described (so closely as to make the predic- 
 
154 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 tions read like a lii.stoiy of past events), yet after the 
 lapse of 1800 years tlie -world continues much as it 
 was in the days of Themistocles or Nebuchadnezzar. 
 Hence it follows that, in so thinking, Jesus was mis- 
 taken ; and, therefore, Ave are brought to this dilemma. 
 Either he announced the destruction of Jerusalem 
 and the end of the Avorld as events which would come 
 to pass within thirty years, and in this case his words 
 have been falsified, or he did not make this announce- 
 ment, and in this case these discourses are a fabrica- 
 tion after the destruction of the city but before the 
 time when the idea of an immediate advent was seen 
 to be a mistake. 
 
 In a strictly historical analysis like the present all 
 consideration of the effects which our conclusions 
 may have on our conceptions of Jesus in his moral 
 and spiritual character must be rigidly set aside. 
 All that we have to determine is, did he, as a matter 
 of fact, deliver the discourse in Matt, xxiv., xxv., or 
 did he not. Yet we may be pardoned for saying that, 
 even if we decide in the negative, no harm is thereby 
 inflicted on Christianity unless we assume that 
 Christianity is an indivisible phenomenon, the same in 
 the days of Hildebrand and Innocent and Pio 
 Nono as it Avas in the first century after the ministry 
 of Jesus. These predictions have nothing to do with 
 those " primal and indefeasible truths " Avhich alone 
 shall never pass aAvay, and of which, to adopt Dean 
 Milman's Avords ('Latin Christianity,' Book iA\ ch. x.) 
 " men may attain to a clearer, more full, compre- 
 hensive, and balanced sense then has as yet been 
 generally received in the Christian Avorld." If any 
 A\'ill have it that their Christianity is imperilled by 
 the laying bare of historical contradictions, the fault 
 must be Avith them and not with the unchanging laAv 
 of Him Avho is the same yesterday and to-day and 
 for ever. 
 
 To those Avho seek to reconcile the phenomena of 
 
Predictions of Second Advent of "Jems. 2^^ 
 
 the Gospel with the popular ideas respecting the 
 Messiahsliip of Jesus, the inconsistency of these dis- 
 courses with the subsequent history of the world 
 presents the gravest difficulty. Efforts have ac- 
 cordingly been made to prove either that Jesus 
 spoke wholly of events now still future or of events 
 all of Avhich are past, or that in different parts of his 
 discourse he referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 and to the final judgment of all mankind. Of the 
 first two pleas we need take no notice, l^ecause neither 
 opinion finds acceptance with any religious bodies or 
 schools in this country : of the third, Avhich is received 
 by all self-styled orthodox persons, it is enough to 
 say that tlie theory stands or falls with the presence 
 or absence of definite notes of time assigning the 
 several parts of the discourse to the two different 
 events of which it treats. 
 
 These marks of time are not to be found ; and the 
 commentators move at random, parcelling out the 
 various portions of the discourse to one or other 
 event much at their own convenience. The first 
 attempt to assign all to the destruction of Jerusalem 
 until we reach Matt. xxv. 31, is utterly untenable 
 and indeed absurd. No words can be plainer than 
 those of Matt. xxiv. 29, 30, 31. If they do not 
 denote the visible coming of the Son of man in heaven 
 to exercise judgment over all the tribes of earth, no 
 words whatever suffice to enunciate this doctrine. 
 Nothing but the extreme stress of the difficulty, 
 extreme reluctance to admit the ignominious failure 
 of prophecy, could ever drive a sensible man to pre- 
 tend that these three verses mean nothing but the 
 overthrow of one city — the dissolution of one nation. 
 
 This attempt having failed, the next eftbrt is to 
 throw back the point of transition, and it has thus 
 been maintained that the destruction of the city and 
 temple is spoken of only to the end of the 28th verse 
 of ch. xxiv., the remainder referring altogether to the 
 
256 English Life of yesus. 
 
 yet future judgment at the end of the world. The 
 answer is that even in the first Gospel the final 
 consummation is announced as coming "immediately 
 after" the former tribulation (ixidiui di (ura rriv ^Xi-^iv 
 rojv r,ixipuv vKiivuv) ; and to avoid this difficulty 
 it is stated that the word translated immediately 
 implied not chronological sequence, but the abrupt 
 or unexpected occurrence of an event indefinitely 
 distant. Thus Matthew is taken to mean, " "When 
 the tribulation of the days in Avhich Jerusalem shall 
 be destroyed shall have passed away, then after some 
 indefinite interval, which may amount to myriads of 
 years, all of a sudden the great consummation will 
 fall like a thunderbolt upon mankind." To this the 
 reply is (1) that the interpretation is ungrammatical, 
 and that if this be the meaning of the words trans- 
 lated immediately (ivd'sug 6s), any words may be made 
 to mean anything ; (2) that the parallel passage in 
 Mark (xiii. 24) states distinctly that the signs of the 
 final consummation shall be seen in the very days 
 which follow the former tribulation (dXX' sv ixsivai? 
 raig rj/j^B^a/g /JLsrd rrjv ^Xi-^iv i-/.ii\i7iv) ; and (3) that 
 Jesus himself is described as saying that everything 
 should be accomplished Avithin the limits of the 
 existing generation. 
 
 Driven to bay, yet not altogether despairing, such 
 writers have sought to show that the word (jencration 
 {yiv'm) does not mean that which is popularly 
 denoted by it, but either a " nation," or a " dispen- 
 sation." Some try to interpret it of the Jewish nation. 
 The answer is that Jesus, speaking to those who had 
 asked him for the signs which should precede the 
 destruction of the city and the second coming of 
 Messiah, tells them (after speaking of the darkening 
 of the sun and moon and the sending forth of the 
 angels, 29-31), " Likewise ye, Avhen ye see all these 
 thincjs, knoAv that it is near, even at the doors (33)" ; 
 and then follows the solemn assurance that that 
 
Prediction of Second Advent of yes us. i^y 
 
 generation should not pass away till all be fulfilled. 
 By referring to another passage (Matt. xvi. 28) not 
 only do we find that the great consummation would 
 come during that period, but that some standing 
 before Jesus should " nof taste of death till they see 
 the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom." 
 
 It follows that in these discourses Jesus is described 
 as placing in the closest connexion the fall of Jeru- 
 salem, the destruction of the temple, and the end of 
 the world ; and that this connexion has been falsified 
 by subsequent history. The efforts made to resolve 
 the signs of the last judgment into a series of figures 
 and metaphors, referring to the general education of 
 mankind, are not worth noticing. It may be enough 
 to say that the words could not possibly have been 
 understood in this sense by any who heard them ; 
 and that if they had suspected this to be their mean- 
 ing they would have turned away with the painful 
 conviction that they had been cheated and cajoled. 
 The idea that Jesus could thus in one and the same 
 discourse pass without sign or notice from one sub- 
 ject to another, using throughout ambiguous and 
 equivocal phrases, while he knew that they would not 
 be understood, would go far towards exhibiting him 
 as an impostor. We need only add that this igno- 
 miny would be put upon him solely and wholly by 
 oi'thodox theologians. 
 
 On these grounds we might be compelled to say 
 that Jesus in thus coupling the final judgment chro- 
 nologically with the destruction of Jerusalem, ex- 
 pressed his own sincere conviction, and that this 
 conviction was a delusion. But the fact that we have 
 not the slightest warrant for affirming that Jesus 
 predicted either his sufferings, his death, or his resur- 
 rection, at once brings the historical character of 
 these discourses into the gravest suspicion : and to 
 those who believe the fourth Gospel to be the work 
 of the apostle John, this suspicion ought to be 
 
 B 
 
258 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 heightened by the comliination of certain phenomena. 
 For in the second Gospel (xiii. 3) these discourses are 
 delivered, not before the general body of the disciples, 
 but privately to Peter, James, John, and Andrew : 
 hence John was the only Evangelist who heard them, 
 and lie is the only Evangelist who takes not the slightest notice 
 of them. Is it then possible to believe that these 
 discourses were ever uttered at all ? The desperate 
 exigencies of the case have indeed driven some to say 
 that John was purposely silent on the subject, because 
 he wished to give no encouragement to a Gnostic or 
 Docetic philosophy ; but as we have already seen 
 (Chapter iv. p. 215) the fourth Gospel relates the most 
 Docetic of all these miracles, the walking on the sea ; 
 and the Evangelist would have poured disgrace on 
 his calling and office if he had suppressed what he 
 must have felt to be vital truth merely Ijecause he feared 
 that the consequences might be not quite what he 
 should Avish them to be. Hence, if the writer of the 
 fourth Gospel was the apostle John, that is, was the 
 only Evangelist who heard the question and reply 
 about the fall of the temple, no reasonable ground 
 remains for believing that Jesus spoke the discourse 
 about that event and the second advent which the 
 Synoptics put into his mouth. 
 
 For the origin of these discourses we are in no way 
 bound to account. It is enough to have shown that 
 they are utterly unhistorical. Yet it may be worth 
 while to note the singular exactness with which every 
 particular relating to the destruction of the city and 
 temple was realized in the overthrow of the city by 
 Titus. Thus one portion of the prophecy has been as 
 signally verified as the other has been contradicted 
 by later history. This exact correspondence between 
 one prophecy and its fulfilment, coupled with the 
 complete failure in the further predictions, makes it 
 a matter of certainty that the utterances respecting 
 the fall of Jerusalem are pictures drawn after the 
 
The EneJiiies of yes us. 259 
 
 events which they are said to foretell, and that the 
 predictions respecting the final judgment belong to 
 that period during which the conviction of the 
 immediate return of the Messiah was present with an 
 overpowering force to the little society of Christians. 
 Thus we see that these discourses were composed 
 while the incidents of the destruction of Jerusalem 
 were fresh in the minds of the writers, and before 
 the anticipations of an immediate general judgment 
 had been shaken by the lapse of time. May we not 
 infer that these discourses were drawn up before the 
 writer of 2 Thessalonians ii. 2 found it needful to 
 inform his disciples that they were not necessarily to 
 expect the return of Jesus as the judge within their 
 own lifetime, and before the writer of 2 Peter iii. 8, 
 was constrained to affirm that with God one day 
 might be a thousand years ^ 
 
 ¥oY those who are not hampered by the traditional 
 notions respecting the authorship of the fourth Gos- 
 pel it is easy to account for its silence on this vital 
 topic. It was written not by an apostle, nor in the 
 circle of those who in the early ages of Christianity 
 looked for an immediate visible return of Jesus ; 
 but after the scoffers had arisen who said that in 
 spite of all prophecies to the contrary everything 
 continued as it had been long ago. In short it was 
 the expression of a later mode of thought, which for 
 visible and palpable signs had substituted a spiritual 
 presence. In this Gospel also there is a judgment, 
 but it is in no way connected Avith the fall of the 
 Jewish polity; nor is the judgment heralded by por- 
 tentous phenomena on the earth or in the heavens. 
 
 THE ENEMIES OF JESUS. 
 
 By some singular fatality the writer of the fourth 
 Gospel seems incapable of describing any one incident 
 
2 6o English Life of Jesus. 
 
 in the life of Jesus, as the Synoptics have described 
 it. It might have been thought that, if about one 
 fact more than another there could be no difference 
 of opinion, it would be the nature of the opposition 
 made to his ministry and the source from which 
 that opposition came. Yet in these two narratives 
 (the Synoptic and Johannine) the causes of the offence 
 and the persons who take offence differ altogether. 
 In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is pre-eminently the 
 righteous teacher who insists that a merely formal 
 religion or a mere lip-service is simply abominable in 
 the sight of God, and who accordingly opposes him- 
 self unshrinkingly to all who inforce the paramount 
 necessity of outward rites and ceremonies. Hence he 
 naturally arouses the fiercest passions of the Scribes 
 and Pharisees Avhom he in his turn stigmatizes in the 
 severest terms. It is felt on both sides that the land 
 has not room for both, and that the struggle is one 
 for life and death. On the one side are the tradi- 
 tionally orthodox who sitting on the seat and inherit- 
 ing the authority of Moses, are so eager for cere- 
 monies as to forget the substantial and paramount 
 demands of mercy and justice ; on the other we see a 
 teacher, who, however aware that the minor things of 
 the law are not to be neglected, yet insists on their 
 neglect when they come into competition with greater 
 sanctities. AVith him there is no iron rule of tra- 
 ditional ceremonies ; with him it is no sin to sit 
 down to meat with unwashed hands, or to pluck the 
 ears of corn as he walks through the fields on the 
 Sabbath day. For these offences they denounce him 
 as a friend of publicans and sinners, as a gluttonous 
 man, and a winebibber ; nor does Jesus hold any 
 measured language as he upbraids them for cleansing 
 the outside of platters while their inward parts are 
 full of ravening and wickedness. Hence in the Syn- 
 optic Gospels the cause of offence is purely moral. 
 It is the assertion of a higher morality against the 
 yoke of a narrow ceremonialism. 
 
The Enemies of Jesus. 261 
 
 Of all this there is not a trace in the fourth. Gos- 
 pel. In the others his enemies are confined almost 
 wholly to the ruling class ; in the fourth Gospel they 
 are chiefly found in the great body of the people. Of 
 any infraction of ceremonial ordinance we hear no- 
 thing. They are off'ended not by breaches of the 
 Sabbath but hj assertions of the Logos doctrine, and 
 of the pre-eminent dignity which for that reason at- 
 taches to the person of the Christ. They are roused 
 to wrath, not because Jesus justifies himself for healing 
 on the Sabbath day, but because he defends himself 
 in a way which asserts his equality with God (John 
 V. 18). They cannot tolerate the expression that, 
 in a way which cannot be predicated of other men, 
 he and his Father are one, or that before Abraham 
 lived, Jesus was. They are offended, not because he 
 upbraids them for rejecting prophets and righteous 
 men, but because he speaks of himself as the Living 
 Bread which cometh down from heaven (vi. 41). 
 And finally while in the Synoptics the opposition is 
 brought to a height by the parable of the husbandmen 
 and the vineyard (Matt. xxi. 45), in John that which 
 precipitates the enmity of Caiaphas and his adherents 
 is the raising of Lazarus. Here they are not stung 
 by any personal rebuke ; all that they fear is the 
 growing popularity of Jesus, which may draw down 
 upon them the vengeance of their Roman masters. 
 
 It is hard to believe that we are reading narratives 
 which profess to relate the life of the same person. 
 In the Synoptic Gospels, the opposition, slight at 
 first, gains strength as Jesus assumes a more uncom- 
 promising tone ; and it is only after a long series of 
 controversies that they form the design of putting 
 him to death. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus gives 
 them from the first a ground of offence which could 
 not possibly be increased, and his opponents accord- 
 ingly from the first seek to kill him, the expressions 
 in V. 18 implying clearly that this wish was not then 
 
262 English Life of yes us. 
 
 roused for the first time, but only intensified by the 
 claims put forth by Jesus. 
 
 In the Synoptics, although at Nazareth he awakens 
 a fierce storm of indignation chiefly because as a 
 prophet he rebukes the men of his own country or 
 his own house, the common people hear him gladly ; 
 in the fourth Gospel they discover only irritation or 
 hatred. It is the croAvd of common people (vi. 24) 
 who murmur (41) because he spoke of himself as 
 having come down from heaven, and as being 
 endowed with power to raise iip at the last day all 
 who believed in him. It is among the mass of the 
 people that the conversations are held on the 
 sincerity or the imposture of Jesus (vii. 12). True, 
 there are other passages in this Gospel which exhibit 
 some of the people as well disposed towards him 
 (vii. 31-40) , but the many among the people who 
 believe on him are only a set-off to the many of the 
 rulers who were secretly his adherents, and of whom 
 apparently not one adhered to him according to the 
 Synojitic Evangelists. But if anything were needed to 
 show the looseness of the plan which the writer of the 
 fourth Gospel proposed to himself, it would be found 
 in the fact that the whole of the terrible denunciations 
 contained in John viii. 34-50, are said to be addressed 
 "to those Jews who believe on him" (31) Not a sign 
 is there of transition from believers to unbelievers. 
 When he tells these faithful Jews, that if they con- 
 tinue in his word, the truth would make them free, 
 they reply by calling themselves the seed of 
 Abraham and denying that they were ever in bondage. 
 Then follow the questions which lead at last to the 
 plain statement that they are children, not of 
 Abraham, but of the devil, like whom they are liars 
 and murderers (44). 
 
 If then in these particulars, the Synoptic Gospels 
 are correct, the Johanniue version of the events is pure 
 fiction ; and if the latter be taken as the true account, 
 
The Treachery of Judas. iS;^ 
 
 no dependence whatever can be placed upon the 
 former. The two exchide each the other ; and the 
 probabilities lie altogether in favour of the Synoptic 
 statements, which represent Jesus throughout as a 
 practical teacher of righteousness, not as a theologian 
 propounding deep and unintelligible verities. Hence, 
 until we can show that the whole Logos theory was 
 familiar to the Jews and Galilaeans of the days of 
 Jesus, the Johannine account of his enemies is not 
 entitled to the slightest consideration, while the 
 Synoptics represent probably the true state of the 
 case ; and thus it becomes almost a superfluous task to 
 show that the writer of the fourth Gospel blunders in 
 making the office of high priest at this time an annual 
 one (xviii. 13). It had originally been held for life ; 
 it was now held at the will of their Roman masters, 
 who, like the Turkish Sultans of a later day, set up 
 and deposed pontiff's as it might suit their humour to 
 do the one or the other. 
 
 THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS. 
 
 According to the first Gospel (xxvi. 14) Judas 
 formed or first conceived distinctly the design of be- 
 traying Jesus into the hands of his enemies, imme- 
 diately after the incident which took place in the 
 house of Simon the leper. When the woman poured 
 the ointment from the alabaster box on the head of 
 Jesus, the disciples, we are told, were indignant at the 
 waste. Jesus, in reply, merely bids them not to 
 trouble the woman, because she was anointing him for 
 his burial, and the poor they had always with them. 
 "Then "the narrative goes on, " one of the twelve, 
 called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests," 
 and having made a covenant for thirty pieces of silver, 
 from that time sought opportunity to betray him. 
 
264 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 The two incidents arc placed in close sequence ; but 
 there is no apparent connexion. Nor is any supplied 
 by either of the other Synoptics. In Mark the forma- 
 tion of the design follows the incident of the anoint- 
 ing at Bethany ; in Luke xxii. 3, we are merely in- 
 formed that Satan entered into Judas as the feast of 
 unleavened bread drew nigh. 
 
 The fourth Gospel supplies a distinct motive. 
 Here, as we have seen already (Chapter iv. p. 182) the 
 unknown anointer becomes Mary of Bethany, the 
 sister of Lazarus ; and the indignation at her waste- 
 fulness, which in the Synoptics is expressed by the 
 disciples generally, is here confined to Judas, who 
 specifies the sum of three hundred pence as the money 
 Avasted and so withdrawn from the support of the 
 poor. This speech we are told (xii. 6.) was pi'ompted 
 not by any love for the poor, but because he was at 
 once a thief and the purse-bearer of the society which 
 had gathered round Jesus. 
 
 Yet more, while the Synoptics represent Judas as 
 seeking through several days to betray Jesus, the 
 fourth Gospel distinctly dates the formation of the 
 design at the end of the last supper which Jesus ate 
 with his disciples {xiii. 2). At this moment he had 
 held no conference with the chief priests and Phari- 
 sees, but he is set free to seek them out when Jesus 
 bids him do quickly that which he purposed to do 
 (27). On his departure, which some of the disciples 
 attributed to the need of purchasing things necessary 
 for the feast, or to a dole among the poor, Jesus 
 delivers his farewell discourses which fill the four 
 following chapters ; but before they are finished 
 Judas has concocted his scheme with the chief priests, 
 and received from them a band of men and officers. 
 
 Can any credit be given to the Johannine state- 
 ment that Judas was entrusted with the funds of the 
 society? Nothing is said about any such arrange- 
 ment in any of the other Gospels ; and hence it can 
 
The Treachery of Judas. 265 
 
 be accepted only on the authority of the writer of 
 the fourth Gospel. But we have already seen that 
 the whole sequence of events and all the motives of 
 the actors in this Gospel are altogether different from 
 those which we find in the Synoptic narratives, and, 
 therefore, no internal authority can be pleaded on 
 behalf of this particular statement. But we are told 
 in all the Synoptics that Judas agreed to betray Jesus 
 for money, Matthew alone specifying the precise 
 sum ; hence it would seem that his motive, in part at 
 least, was covetousness. This idea might with the 
 utmost ease grow into the story that Judas through- 
 out exhibited an avaricious spirit, and as he could not 
 do this except in reference to property, it would be 
 natural to represent him as the common purse-bearer, 
 and then to fasten on him that objection to wasteful- 
 ness which all the disciples are said in the Sjaioptics 
 to have urged against the woman who anointed Jesus. 
 Thus we are led at once to suspect that this statement 
 in the fourth Gospel is not historical. 
 
 But there remain still graver difficulties. In the 
 Synoptics Jesus apparently has not, until a very short 
 time before the occurrence, any anticipation that one 
 of his Apostles would prove unfaithful to him. In 
 Matt. xix. 28, Jesus, speaking after the commence- 
 ment of his last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, 
 assures all the twelve then present before him that 
 they shall hereafter sit on twelve thrones judging the 
 twelve tribes of Israel. It is the fashion to get out 
 of this difficulty by saying that all the promises of 
 God are conditional ; but all that we care to urge in 
 reply is that in the text of Matthew this promise is 
 not conditional. Hence, so far as the Synoptics are 
 concerned, Jesus within a few days of the event did 
 not know who should be his betrayer. But according 
 to the fourth Gospel (vi. 70) Jesus, more than a year 
 before this time, had declared that one of the chosen 
 twelve was a devil, and this prediction he made 
 
2 66 English Life of yes us. 
 
 from his general and absolute foreknowledge from the 
 beginning as to who they were who believed not, and 
 who should betray him. This assertion involves a 
 grave immorality, for it implies, in fact, that Jesus, 
 perfectly knowing what the result would be, knoAving 
 not only that one of the twelve was pointed out by 
 ancient Scriptures as the son of perdition, but wlio 
 should be this wretched person, singled him out with 
 the eleven from the larger body of his followers, and 
 then, knowing that he was a thief and that ultimately 
 he would betray his master for a handful of silver, 
 placed him in that precise post which would involve 
 for him a constant and overwhelming temptation. 
 The one thief, known to be a thief, is selected to 
 handle the funds of the little company in preference 
 to eleven honest men whom he knew to be faithful to 
 their trust. When we remember that in his own 
 prayers he bade his disciples ask of God that He 
 would not lead them into temptation, but that he 
 should set them free from the evil within them and 
 around them, when we remember the universal prin- 
 ciple laid down by one who was, at least, a very early 
 writer in the Christian Church, that God tempts no 
 man (James i. 13), we may most safely pronounce all 
 this to be incredible and impossible. 
 
 Hence then we are driven to the conclusion that 
 if Jesus had the foreknowledge ascribed to him, he 
 would not have placed Judas in precisely that posi- 
 tion which must be fatal to him, or that if he did 
 place him in this position, he did not anticipate the 
 result ; in other words, he had not this foreknow- 
 ledge, and the Synoptic writers do not say that he had. 
 
 Thus far, all that we can make out to be probable 
 or lik(?ly is that Jesus was betrayed by one of his dis- 
 ciples for money, that for some little time previously 
 he had a suspicion that Judas would be the traitor, 
 and that Judas was in part moved by covetousness, 
 whether this was the sole motive or not. 
 
The Treachery of yudas. 267 
 
 This subject has been discussed by a whole host of 
 writers ; but for our present purpose (since we have 
 shown that the historical evidence indicates no more 
 than the fact of a betrayal for money), the topic is 
 one of very slight importance. The apologies which 
 some have urged for Judas, that his treachery was 
 absolutely necessary for the carrying out of the great 
 scheme of salvation, that but for this act Christ 
 would not have died, and man would not have been 
 redeemed or forgiven, are purely theological in their 
 nature ; and they may be dismissed with the remark 
 that they who can urge such pleas are far on the 
 road to the thought that in betraying Jesus Judas 
 acted wisely and well. On this we may take as con- 
 clusive the comment of a child of three years old, 
 who asked her mother whether, as Jesus must die to 
 save men, we should not be " very much obliged to 
 Judas" for bringing about that issue. It is, of course, 
 quite possible that Judas, sharing the common notions 
 of a Messiah who would reign as a temporal king, 
 may have intended to bring Jesus into a position 
 which would make it necessary for him to throw off 
 the garments of his humiliation, and smite his ene- 
 mies with the breath of his mouth. It is, in fact, the 
 easiest of tasks to multiply imaginary motives, — and 
 thus to say that Judas expected a popular insurrection 
 against the chief priests, and that he was discoiicerted 
 when he found that the latter had immediately de- 
 livered him over to the Roman governor. We may, if 
 we please, think that Judas wished to get out of a 
 dilemma which presented itself thus: "Either Jesus is 
 the Messiah, and in this case the bonds which his 
 enemies may lay on him will fall oif like the withs 
 from the limbs of Samson, or he is not the Messiah, 
 and in this case he will deserve his doom of death." 
 All these are possible but useless conjectures. None 
 of the Gospels tell us that Judas took a more 
 political view of Messiah than did the other dis- 
 
2 68 English Life ofyesus. 
 
 ciples ; and thus if worldliness was not the sole motive 
 of his act, Ave do not knoAv what the other induce- 
 ments were. 
 
 When we turn to the narratives of the betrayal, 
 we find ourselves in the same web of contradictions. 
 According to the Synoptics, Judas never leaves the 
 company after Jesus had sat down to eat the last 
 passover with his disciples until his treachery has 
 been consummated. He had no need to do so. His 
 plan had been already concocted with the rulers, and 
 his business was to keep as near Jesus as he possibly 
 could. According to the fourth Gospel he never 
 formed the design of betrayal until the actual eve of 
 the crucifixion, and hence it became necessary for 
 him to go out (John xiii. 30) in order to arrange his 
 action with the chief priests. Hence theologians 
 have, with some eagerness, fastened on this statement 
 as showing that the traitor was not present at the 
 institution of the Eucharist ; but to this it is enough 
 to reply that the fourth Gospel makes no mention of 
 this institution, that the Synoptics say nothing about 
 the exit of Judas, and that we are not at liberty to 
 dovetail inconsistent and contradictory narratives. 
 If the Synoptics are correct in their narratives, Judas 
 remained with the eleven through the evening, and 
 was present at the ritual supper. 
 
 How the several details of a narrative which has 
 been shown to be generally unhistorical, grew up, it 
 is in no way our duty to explain. If it be possible 
 or likely that the narrative of the triumphal entry of 
 Jesus into Jerusalem was suggested by passages in 
 the Old Testament (Matt. xxi. 9), it is not less likely 
 that the details of the betrayal may have been 
 derived from Psalms which spoke of the treachery 
 of familiar friends who lifted up their heels against 
 those who had eaten l)read with them (Psalm xli. 9). 
 Like others adduced for a similar purpose, this pas- 
 sage has no Messianic signification, and if it be a 
 
The Treachery of Judas. 269 
 
 psalm of David's age, it may refer to the treachery of 
 Ahitophel, but in its vague generality, it is ajDplicable 
 to all traitors in all ages. 
 
 On the circumstances attending the death of Judas 
 enough has perha^js been already said, while the 
 general credibility of the Acts and the Gospels were 
 under discussion.* It will suffice here to repeat that 
 in the First Gospel (xxvii. 3) Judas, being seized 
 with remorse, throws down the pieces of silver in the 
 Temple, and goes away and hangs himself. Accord- 
 ing to this narrative, he makes no use of the money ; 
 and the other three Gospels say nothing about his 
 death. In the Acts we are informed that Judas him- 
 self purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity, 
 and some time afterwards (how long we are not told) 
 " he feU headlong and burst asunder in the midst 
 and all his bowels gushed out " (Acts 1. 18). Ac- 
 cording to this tale his death accounted for the 
 field being named the field of blood (19). In 
 Matthew the field, which is there called the Potter's 
 Field, is purchased not by Judas but by the priests 
 and scribes. 
 
 These two narratives absolutely exclude each 
 other ; and that of the Acts is at once rejected as 
 the less credible, when it has been proved that that 
 book systematically misrepresents the relations be- 
 tween Paul and the Apostolic College at Jerusalem 
 (Introduction). We will not pour such scorn on 
 these narratives as to dwell on those attempts at re- 
 concilement which urge that they relate to diff'erent 
 parts of the same transaction, viz., that Judas tried 
 to hang himself, but that the rope broke, and that 
 his sudden fall ruptured his fat or dropsical body. 
 Surely such treatment of Writ called Holy finds no 
 warrant in the fact that Matthew says nothing about 
 the bursting, and the Acts nothing about the hanging, 
 while the expression of Matthew (dT^jygaro) strangled 
 * Introduction, p. 5. 
 
270 English Life of yesus. 
 
 himself, asserts not the attempt only but the full ac- 
 complishment of his purpose. 
 
 Hence we are not warranted in saying more than 
 that there Avas probably a piece of ground which in 
 early Christian tradition became associated with 
 the betrayer of Jesus. How it came to be so asso- 
 ciated, we cannot in the absence of all historical 
 evidence determine, nor is it our business to do so. 
 Yet if a verse from Psalm xli. might suggest in 
 the narrative the details of the betrayal, the maledic- 
 tions on the treacherous enemy in Psalm Ixix. might 
 with equal, perhaps with greater, ease be embodied 
 in the narrative of the Acts. His habitation was to 
 be desolate and none were to dwell in his tents ; 
 hence the accursed money is in Matthew devoted to 
 buying a restiug place for the dead, and in Acts it 
 becomes a place of horror as the field of blood. All 
 this is possible ; but \ve cannot affirm it positively. 
 Thus much, however, is clear that the jjassage for 
 which the first Gospel (xxvii. 9) refers us to Jere- 
 miah is not to be found in the book which bears the 
 name of that prophet, while in the margin of the 
 English Bible the reference is to Zechariah xi. 12, 13, 
 and even this passage is not exactly quoted ; yet 
 even if it were, it would be quoted to no purpose, for 
 the prophet is speaking of no act of treachery what- 
 soever. He has broken the staff", called Beauty, as a 
 token of the breaking of the covenant with all the 
 people ; and lie then asks that he may be paid his 
 price, which they to whom he speaks may withhold 
 if they wish it. For his price they weighed him thirty 
 pieces of silver which he casts unto the potter (1) 
 in the house of the Lord. Potter's clay has much to 
 do with a field ; but what has a potter to do with 
 the temple ? The melting place or foundry is pro- 
 bably the sense. Yet here we seem to have the germs 
 of both narratives. The thirty pieces of silver 
 are the thirty pieces received by Judas for his 
 
The Treachery ofjudas. 271 
 
 treachery, and the payment in the house of the Lord 
 is the purchase of the field by the priests before 
 ■whom Judas had thrown down the reward of his 
 iniquity. But in Zechariah, as we see, the person 
 who pays the money is neither the traitor nor 
 the priests, but the prophet himself; and thus 
 we have here another sjDecimen of that mere play 
 upon words which, as we liave seen, marks the 
 interpretations of prophecy given by the Evangelists 
 (Chapter i. p. 33). Hence we do not even know 
 whether the association of ideas which connected 
 Akeldama (if that really was the name of the field) 
 with the name of Judas, had the slightest foundation 
 in fact ; and of the history of Judas we know nothing 
 more than that, apparently, he betrayed Jesus into 
 the power of his enemies. The stories told by 
 (Ecumenius, that the body of Judas was so distended 
 that it could not pass along a road which was in 
 itself quite wide enough for a chariot, are manifestly 
 mere attempts to explain the statement that his 
 bowels gushed forth as he fell headlong in the field. 
 It might perhaps be more to the purpose to adduce 
 the fact that other great sinners are said to have 
 perished in the same way. Herod (Acts xii. 23) is 
 eaten of worms, and the bowels of Arius gush forth 
 at the critical moment when he ought to appear 
 before Athanasius. A death not unlike these over- 
 takes Galerius also, the persecuting colleague of Con- 
 stantine. 
 
 Hence, as to Judas himself, we do not even know 
 that he died a violent death at all ; and all that can 
 be said with any degree of probability is, that Judas, 
 having been one of the followers of Jesus, betrayed 
 him (from whatever motive) into the hands of his 
 enemies, and then disappeared from the observation 
 of those who afterwards styled themselves or were 
 known as Christians. But even this becomes per 
 haps a rash assertion, when we remember that Paul 
 
272 English Life of yesus. 
 
 speaks of Jesus as being seen by the Twelve in the 
 interval between his resurrection and ascension, thus 
 apparently rejecting the story of the betrayal alto- 
 gether,* or shewing his ignorance of it. 
 
 THE PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER. 
 
 For English readers it can scarcely be necessary to 
 remark that the narrative of the incidents which pre- 
 cede the last meal of Jesus Avith the Apostles is 
 essentially one of miracle. The proposition in this 
 country has rarely, if ever, been denied. Hence Ave 
 may regard the directions given by Jesus to the dis- 
 ciples (that going into the city they should accost a 
 man bearing a pitcher of water, who would lead them 
 to an upper room prepared beforehand for the Master), 
 as not less distinctly prophetic than the command 
 given before his triumphal entry that at the crossing 
 of two roads they Avould find an ass and her foal tied 
 awaiting their arrival. 
 
 Thus, this narrative implies that Jesus foreknew 
 the passing of the water-carrier at the precise moment 
 when his disciples should reach that part of the road 
 and also that some particular person in the city had 
 made ready a chamber for his use without receiving 
 any orders to that effect. The attempts to reduce 
 these incidents to the level of ordinary events are so 
 absurd that they may be dismissed with the passing 
 remark that the Evangelists themselves assert his fore- 
 knowledge to be superhuman. Mark and Luke both 
 think it necessary to state that the disciples " found 
 even as he had said uiito them " (Luke xix. 32), a 
 statement which they would never have made if the 
 whole thing had been preconcerted ; and both in this 
 
 * See Tactics and Defeat of the Christian E\'idence Society, 
 pp. 14, 15. 
 
Preparation for the Passover. 273 
 
 case and in that of the triumphant entry, we have 
 assertions of the miraculous power of the name of 
 Jesus. The owner of the beast instantly obeys the 
 behest of the Master ; the householder immediately 
 ushers his disciples into his room, as soon as they tell 
 him from whom they come. 
 
 The historical diiSculties in this narrative begin 
 with the passage which relates the mission of the 
 disciples. The first Gospel (xxvi. 18) leaves the 
 number indefinite ; the second (xiv. 13) states that 
 two were sent : the third (xxii. 8) specifies these two 
 as Peter and John. The directions given are not in 
 all the same, Matthew saying nothing about the man 
 bearing the water-pitcher. It is thus stated that John 
 was, with Peter, charged with the special mission ; and 
 we naturally look to the fourth Gospel to find the 
 account of the one Evangelist who was an eye-witness : 
 for if that Gospel was written by John the son of 
 Zebedee, it seems strange indeed that we should not 
 have from him a careful account of the several inci- 
 dents which marked the last days of his Master's min- 
 istry. Yet on all these arrangements for the pass- 
 over the fourth Gospel is wholly silent, while it 
 excludes the idea that Jesus kept this passover with 
 his disciples. In other words, the Synoptics represent 
 Jesus as pai'taking with them of the Paschal Lamb, 
 while the fourth Gospel asserts that he was crucified 
 on the morning of the day on which the Paschal 
 Lamb was to be slain. In the one case Jesus died 
 after observing the Mosaic ordinance : in the other he 
 was himself the Paschal Lamb, and his death super- 
 seded and abolished the Jewish passover. 
 
 This positive contradiction has a real theological 
 basis ; and it may perhaps safely be asserted that 
 this portion of the Johannine Gospel cculd not 
 have been written until after the time when at 
 length Pauline Christianity had cast off all relations 
 to the Mosaic law. It is the work of one for whom 
 
274 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 that law was dead, not of one by whom its precepts 
 would be observed in conjunction with certain other 
 precepts given to them by Jesus. Our present task, 
 however, is not to trace out the theological animus of 
 the writer, but to point out the contradictions Avhich 
 his narrative presents with that of the Synoptic 
 Evangelists. 
 
 The latter leave no doubt whatever as to the cha- 
 racter of the meal. The disciples are sent to the 
 owner of the chamber in the city with the special 
 message that Jesus willed to eat the passover at his 
 house (Matt. xxvi. 18) ; and they make ready the 
 passover accordingly (19). Hence the meal mentioned 
 in the verse immediately following cannot possibly be 
 any other than the passover ; but, as if to make as- 
 surance doubly sure, Jesus, in the third Gospel (xxii. 
 15), is described as saying, "With desire I have 
 desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer ;" 
 and the Evangelist (7) himself states that the meal 
 took place " on the day of unleavened bread, Avhen it 
 was necessary (^ihi) that the passover should be killed." 
 
 Not less clearly does the fourth Gospel speak of a 
 meal which occurred on the day preceding the Paschal 
 feast. The washing of the disciples' feet and the 
 discourses which fill chapters xiv., &c., are all as- 
 signed to a meal which took place " before the feast 
 of the passover" (xiii. 1). Immediately after these 
 discourses and the prayer which follows them 
 (xviii. 1), Jesus crosses the brook Kedron, and is in 
 a few moments arrested by " a band of men and 
 officers." When in the course of this meal Jesus 
 bids Judas do quickly that which he had to do, some 
 of the disciples understood him to mean that Judas 
 was to buy the things that they had " need of against 
 the feast " (xiii. 29), a mistake which they could not 
 have made if they were at that moment celebrating 
 the passover. Yet more, the Jews on the morning of 
 the crucifixion refuse to enter the judgment-hall of 
 
Preparation for the Passover. iy^ 
 
 Pilate, on the ground that a defilement so con- 
 tracted would disqualify them from keeping the 
 feast (xviii. 28). A few hours later they beg that 
 the bodies of the crucified may be taken down and 
 buried, as it was the " preparation " for the passover 
 (xix. 31), the Sabbath which began on that evening 
 being " a high day" because the first day of the feast 
 happened to fall upon it. 
 
 Sorely pressed by these fatal contradictions, some 
 commentators have striven hard to show that the 
 meal described in the fourth Gospel is an earlier one 
 than the one described in the Synoptics, and accord- 
 ingly they find a place for inserting the omitted por- 
 tions at the end of ch. xiv. When Jesus says " Arise, 
 let us go hence," this indicates that at this point the 
 disciples (one of whom, it must be repeated, is said 
 to have been John himself) are sent to prepare the 
 passover for Jesus, and here follow the incidents re- 
 corded in the Synoptics, the discourses in John xv., 
 xvi., being delivered after the institution of the 
 Eucharist, of tvhich the fourth Evangelist takes no 
 notice whatever. But it is manifest that all the Evan- 
 gelists intended to describe the last meal of which 
 Jesus partook with his disciples. The washing of 
 the disciples' feet is introduced as a proof that Jesus 
 had loved them "unto the end" (xiii. 1); and at 
 this very meal (38) he warns Peter that the cock 
 shall not crow (in other words, that another morning 
 shall not dawn) before he has thrice denied his 
 master. 
 
 Here then, we have to take our choice between 
 these two narratives. It is impossible that both can 
 be true ; but the balance of probabilities inclines 
 in this instance strongly to the side of the Synoptics, 
 while the examination of all the earlier portions of 
 the fourth Gospel has long since shown us that in 
 no instance can its statements be relied upon, and 
 that in almost every instance they are in direct and 
 
•276 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 flagrant contradiction with the plain assertions as 
 well as with the general spirit of the other Gospels. 
 
 Hence any efforts to get oiit of the difficulty by 
 maintaining that in this particular year the passover 
 fell on a Friday, and that the Jews, not wishing to 
 have two consecutive days solemnized as a Sabbath, 
 postponed the eating of the lamb from the Thursday 
 to the Friday, are mere labour lost. It is obviously 
 useless to seek for modes of reconciliation when one 
 of the writers in question has been proved to have 
 twisted his materials throughout to suit his special 
 purpose. But if we do, Avhat is the result % This 
 only, tliat Mark (xiv. 12) would be wrong in assert- 
 ing that Jesus sat down to his last meal with his 
 disciples on the day " when the Jews killed the pass- 
 over," and Luke wrong in asserting that this final 
 meal took place on the day " when the passover must 
 be killed." But in fact, this is not a case for recon- 
 ciling two narratives which in some subordinate 
 points are inconsistent with each other ; we are deal- 
 ing with two stories in one of which every statement 
 identifies this last meal with the paspover, while in 
 the other every statement shows that it was held before 
 the passover. 
 
 Others have objected that the meal cannot have 
 been the passover, and that Jesus could not have 
 suffered on the great day of unleavened bread, be- 
 cause it would be against the law so to treat a solemn 
 feast day. The reply is ready. The Jews did not 
 regard the sentencing and punishment of criminals 
 as a desecration of feast days. On the great day of 
 the feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 44) they sent out 
 officers to seize Jesus, and at the Dedication feast 
 (x. 31) they tried to stone him. In truth, on these 
 occasions the places for administering justice were 
 naturally more densely thronged, owing to the con- 
 course of strangers in Jerusalem. But, again, even 
 if we allow that these objections are valid, what is 
 
Preparation for the Passover. lyy 
 
 the result ? This only, that the orthodox or popular 
 notion of Biblical inspiration must be given up : for 
 Matthew is said to have been present at this last 
 meal, and if he be the author of the first Gospel, 
 then, if the tradition be wrong that it occurred on 
 the passover day, Matthew is himself wrong in 
 placing it on that day. On such a point as this the 
 memory of an eye-witness can never deceive him, 
 however weak it may have grown on subordinate 
 details. Hence the writer of this Gospel could not 
 have been an eye-witness, and cannot have been the 
 Apostle Matthew, nor can his narrative carry any 
 weight. 
 
 There remain other contradictions. Although all 
 the Gospels represent Jesus as referring to his be- 
 trayer in the course of the last meal, the way of 
 pointing him out in the fourth Gospel is far more 
 minute than in the other Gospels, and the announce- 
 ment is followed by the sudden departure of Judas, 
 of which the Synoptics know nothing. The latter, 
 again, represent, as the most prominent feature of 
 the meal, the institution of the Eucharist, in place of 
 which the fourth Gospel introduces the washing of 
 the disciples' feet. 
 
 But neither do the Synoptics agree among them- 
 selves. In Matthew and Mark Jesus foretells the 
 treachery of Judas before he institutes the Christian 
 supper ; in Luke he institutes the supper before he 
 announces that one of them is to betray him (xxii. 
 21). The contradictions as to the disputes of the dis- 
 ciples for pre-eminence have been already noticed, 
 and we need only remark further here that the inci- 
 dent mentioned in Luke (xxii. 38) about the two 
 swords is not found in the others. 
 
 These may, perhaps, be regarded as minor matters. 
 It is, however, a subject of more serious moment when 
 we ask how the fourth Gospel came to be silent about 
 the institution of the Eucharist, It is useless to 
 
278 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 urge that this Gospel was designed simply to supple- 
 ment the rest, for it gives, with but slight variations, 
 the narrative of the miraculous feeding of the multi- 
 tude ; useless also to maintain that it omits narratives 
 which might seem to countenance Docetic errors, for 
 it relates the story of Jesus walking on the sea ; and 
 most of all useless to argue that the Evangelist 
 related only what seemed to him of most impor- 
 tance. Was it possible that the Evangelist who 
 had introduced into his Gospel discourses in which 
 Jesus speaks of giving his flesh as meat and his 
 blood as drink to all who believe in him (John vi. 
 53) should say nothing about the solemn act in which 
 he bade the Apostles eat his body and drink his 
 blood as he sat with them at the table 1 Can we 
 avoid the conclusion, that if John the Apostle wrote 
 the fourth Gospel, and in describing the last supper, 
 represented it as not the feast of the Passover, and 
 made no allusion to the Eucharistic feast as then and 
 there established, — his evidence must overweigh that 
 of the Synoptics and of Paul 1 But in such reason- 
 ing, we invent our own difficulties. The simple 
 reply is, that John the Apostle was not the writer. 
 
 The reader is of course aware that Paul (1 Cor. xi. 
 23, &c.) gives an account which agrees substantially 
 with that of the Synoptics. This agreement convinces 
 most persons, rightly or wrongly, that Jesus at this last 
 meal distributed among his Apostles the unleavened 
 bread and wine, giving to those substances a relation 
 to his approaching death, and that hereby he designed 
 to found a commemorative rite. In the grave un- 
 certainty how much may have been at a later time 
 put into the mouth of Jesus, we cannot here pre- 
 tend to any fixed knowledge. The statements of 
 Paid on the subject are scarcely conclusive. His 
 phrase, '* that which I received from the Lord " 
 (1 Cor. xi. 23), is most naturally interpreted of a 
 vision to him, which is not to us authority for his- 
 
The Agony in the Garden. 279 
 
 torical fact. In the first churches "the Lord's 
 Supper" was a lovefeast, i.e. a communistic reUgious 
 meal. Paul, because of its abuse, tried to divest it 
 of that character. His vision may be the sole source 
 of the modern Eucharist. 
 
 THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN. 
 
 After the several indications (already pointed out) 
 of a fixed plan and a settled theological purpose in 
 the fourth Gospel, it can scarcely appear unfair to 
 remark that the Johannine Evangelist has designedly 
 omitted all reference to the agony of Jesus in the garden 
 of Gethsemane. But virhether this be so or not, the fact 
 remains, that we learn this incident only from the 
 Synoptics. In John Jesus no sooner enters the 
 garden than he is surrounded by officers to whom he 
 surrenders himself without any salute or kiss on the 
 part of Judas who stands inactive among the crowd 
 (xviii. 5). 
 
 To speak in detail, the first two Gospels represent 
 Jesus as taking with him Peter, James, and John, 
 apart from the other disciples, and charging them to 
 keep watch while he departs to pray by himself The 
 reason assigned for this charge is, that Jesus was 
 " exceeding sorrowful even unto death " (Matt, xxvi, 
 38) ; and the sequel is, that Jesus twice offers up the 
 same prayer, that the cup of suff'ering may, if possible, 
 be taken from him without his tasting it, and twice 
 on his return finds the three Apostles heavy with 
 sleep. Departing the third time, he ofi'ers once more 
 the same petition, and then coming back bids them 
 rise up and go with him, because the traitor was now 
 nigh at hand. Luke improves the story into miracle. 
 There (xxii, 42) we have only one prayer, while we 
 have in the vision of the angel strengthening Jesus, 
 
28 o English Life of Jesus. 
 
 and in the sweat like great drops of blood, two cir- 
 cumstances not found in either of the otlier Synoptics. 
 
 With the moral and theological considerations 
 involved in this narrative we need not concern our- 
 selves. It has been urged that this scene exhibits a 
 depression and fear of bodily suffering not altogether 
 consistent with the dignity and character of Jesus ; 
 but our task is ended when we have pointed out that 
 the narrative on which these arguments are based is 
 historical only in its general outlines. For the appa- 
 rition of the angel in Luke we must demand the evi- 
 dence of documents proved to be contemporary with 
 the events related and found to be trustworthy in the 
 narrative of ordinary events, and an amount of evi- 
 dence far stronger than that on which we receive 
 incidents which fall within the range of human expe- 
 rience. But the Gospels are not proved to be the 
 work of contemporary writers ; they are not trust- 
 worthy in their accounts of the most ordinary in- 
 cidents, and the evidence which they ofter for extra- 
 ordinary events is even less than that which they 
 offer for very ordinary occurrences. 
 
 In the present instance we are driven to ask how 
 it is that Matthew and Mark make no mention of 
 this strengthening angel. If the narrative be true, 
 Matthew and John were in the garden, and John was 
 one of the tlnee whom Jesus kept nearest to himself. 
 If it be said that they are represented as heavy with 
 sleep and unable therefore to discern the heavenly 
 visitant, the difficulty is only changed, not removed, 
 for if these remained ignorant of the fact, from whom 
 did Luke receive his information 1 The Gospels fur- 
 nish not the slightest warrant for the absurd idea 
 that Jesus in the course of that fearful night informed 
 his disciples of what had occurred, or tliat he spoke 
 to them of it after his resurrection ; still less do they 
 explain why the two who were on the spot did not 
 care to record it in their Gospels, and that the 
 
The Agony in the Garden. 
 
 2S1 
 
 stranger, Luke, alone thought it worth while to do so. 
 So, again, we may ask how the bloody sweat on the 
 person of Jesus could be known to the disciples who 
 were on the spot, if they were asleep, and if they 
 were not (which yet they are said to have been) 
 how they could have discerned it through the dark- 
 ness of the night, for that, though at the full moon, 
 it was a dark night, is plain from the assertion (if it 
 be historical) that the officers who took him were 
 lighted with lanterns and torches (John xviii. 3). 
 
 The narratives then of the Synoptics are shown 
 to be inconsistent and untrustworthy, although by no 
 means untrue in every particular. But having thus 
 shown how slight is the confidence which may 
 reasonably be placed in them, we are not bound to 
 account for the legendary character which they ex- 
 hibit. It is quite possible that the threefold conflict 
 in the temptation following on tlie baptism may have 
 suggested the idea that the ministry of Jesus should 
 likewise close with a threefold conflict, the three 
 prayers in the latter case answering to the three 
 rebukes to Satan in the former. 
 
 But however this may be, we have before us in the 
 Synoptics a narrative which is historical only in the 
 circumstances that Jesus on the evening of the arrest 
 was distressed by great fear, and prayed earnestly that 
 he might be spared his impending trials, if, and only 
 if, it should be the will of God so to spare him. 
 
 Why then does the fourth Evangelist make no 
 mention of this agony % Certainly not merely because 
 he with his fellow disciples was asleep during its occur- 
 rence (for in this case it could never have been re- 
 corded at all), nor because the story of the Synoptics 
 was sufficiently consistent to render further corrobora- 
 tion superfluous (for this is not the case), nor because 
 he took it for granted that his readers would learn 
 the incident sufficiently from other sources (for if the 
 traditions were already various, he was the more 
 
282 
 
 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 bound from his personal knowledge to give the true 
 version), nor because he dreaded to countenance 
 Docetic or Ebionitic fancies (for he does not hesitate 
 to insert the anecdote of the walking on the sea). 
 
 The truth is that the plan of this Gospel would not 
 allow him to mention it. The Synoptics represent 
 Jesus as in great mental conflict and agony immedi- 
 ately before his apprehension ; in John there is 
 throughout no conflict. Long before the last meal, 
 Jesus has risen into a far higher atmosphere which 
 cannot be troubled by vague fears of persecution, suf- 
 fering, and death. In the long discourses which pre- 
 cede his final prayer (John xiv.-xvi.), Jesus comforts 
 his disciples, and seeks to prevent them from being 
 dismayed when the hour of trial comes; in the Syn- 
 optic narrative, Jesus at a time subsequent to that of 
 the Johannine discourses seeks the aid of his friends, 
 and implores them to watch with him. In the former, 
 Jesus speaks of tlie victory as already won, and the in- 
 tervention of a strengthening angel becomes both use- 
 less and distasteful to the writer. In short, here, as else- 
 where, the Jesus of the Synoptics has the least possible 
 resemblance (we might almost say has no resemblance) 
 to the Jesus of the Johannine Gospel. With the 
 thrice-repeated brief prayer of the former it is abso- 
 lutely impossible to reconcile the mediatorial prayer in 
 the latter (chap. xvii.). In this prayer Jesus says 
 nothing of his own sufferings, while he speaks much of 
 the sorrow of his disciples. 
 
 And thus again, if we take the Synoptic account 
 as having here a basis in historical fact, we are driven 
 to the conclusion that the prayer in John xvii. is as 
 unhistorical as the discourses which precede it. It 
 is, therefore, unnecessary to draw out in greater 
 detail other arguments in support of this proposition. 
 Yet so glaring is the contradiction, that we cannot 
 pass by in silence the contrast which it furnishes in 
 its general spirit to that of the Jesus whom we see in 
 
The Agony in the Garden. 283 
 
 the Synoptic narratives. In John xvii. Jesus is the 
 Ecclesiastical Eecleemer, whose spiritual horizon is 
 bounded by the circle of the faithful. As in the 
 Epistle of John (1, v. 19), so here, the outer world 
 lies all in wickedness, and for this world the Johan- 
 nine Jesus asserts distinctly that he has no prayer to 
 offer (xvii. 9). Others, it is true, yet remain to be 
 called, but they are the sheep who are ready to hear 
 his voice and who will believe on him through the 
 word of his disciples (20). Of the loving care of a 
 righteous Father, who sends his rain on the just and 
 on the unjust, on the unthankful and the evil, we 
 have here not the faintest indication. 
 
 On the desperate attempt to identify the agony in 
 the garden Avith the reply of Jesus (John xii. 23) to 
 Philip and Andrew when they wish to introduce 
 certain Greeks into his presence, it is surely needless 
 to waste words. If the idea be correct, then the 
 Synoptics were utterly deluded ; if the scene took 
 place, as they record it, at night and after the last 
 meal, how came John to place it in the open day and 
 before that meal % The germ of the Johannine nar- 
 rative may, perhaps, be found in the Synoptic state- 
 ment that Jesus for some little time foreknew his 
 approaching sufferings ; and this idea may have sug- 
 gested that complete conquest of the natural affec- 
 tion of fear which marks the concluding discourses 
 and prayer of the fourth Gospel. But the rejection 
 of this hypothesis adds nothing to the historical 
 value of either. 
 
284 English Life of j^esus. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION, RESURRECTION, AND 
 ASCENSION OF JESUS. 
 
 THE ARREST IN THE GARDEN. 
 
 Jesus unquestionably fell, or was betrayed, into the 
 hands of his enemies, and was by them, probably 
 after much barbarous usage, put to death. Of the cir- 
 cumstances attending his arrest, trial, and death, we 
 have no harmonious or reasonably consistent accounts. 
 A brief examination will show that almost every inci- 
 dent is variously related, and that, as usual, there is a 
 complete contradiction between the Synoptic and 
 Johannine narratives. 
 
 According to Matthew (xxvi. 47, &c.) Judas enters 
 the garden, attended by "a great multitude with 
 swords, and staves, from the chief priests and elders 
 of the peoi)le," these being, of course, all Jews. Then, 
 kissing Jesus, he points him out to those who would 
 otherwise have been unable to distinguish him. 
 Jesus receives his traitorous salute with the question, 
 " Friend, wherefore art thou come 1 " — an inquiry 
 which might seem superfluous if he had already known 
 by a superhuman prescience that he had come to 
 betray him. The emissaries of the Sanhedrim then 
 seize Jesus without any other incident and lead him 
 
The Arrest in the Garden. 285 
 
 away. The account of Mark (xiv. 43) is almost ver- 
 batim the same : but according to the third Gospel 
 (xxii. 47,) the kiss is apparently not given, for when 
 Judas approaches him Jesus asks him, not why he 
 had come, but " Betrayest thou the Son of Man with 
 a kiss 1 " thus implying some foreknowledge of the 
 reason of his coming. In John xviii. 2-.5, Judas is 
 a mere bystander or spectator : he neither kisses Jesus 
 nor points him out, for as soon as his attendants 
 enter the garden, Jesus himself advances and asks 
 whom they seek. On their replying that they are sent 
 to seize Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus answers, "I am he ;" 
 and his voice at once has such an effect on them that 
 they all go backward and fall to the ground ; nor are 
 they roused from their stupor or dismay until Jesus 
 again tells them that he is the object of their search, 
 and demands that his disciples should be allowed to 
 go their way. Upon this they take courage, and, 
 having bound Jesus, lead him away. 
 
 It is scarcely worth while to notice the attempts 
 made to reconcile these flagrant contradictions by the 
 notion that when Judas entered the garden Jesus ad- 
 vanced and announced himself, as related in the 
 fourth Gospel, and that Judas then went up to him 
 and kissed him. It is not to be supposed that Judas 
 had any abstract love of giving traitorous kisses, — • 
 that it was an end with him, and not a means ; but if 
 Jesus had already made himself known, if at his words 
 the whole crowd is thrown prostrate, and if they are 
 roused only by the second announcement which Jesus 
 makes, then in going through the vain ceremony of a 
 kiss Judas acts the part of a mere simpleton. Jesus 
 was already known : what need was there of anything 
 further 1 The truth is, that the two accounts cannot 
 be reconciled : and the whole of our scrutiny has 
 shown us that where the fourth Gospel contradicts 
 the others it is always unhistorical. 
 
 In fact, the fixed purpose of the Johannine narra- 
 
2 86 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 live comes out in glaring prominence throughout this 
 part of the story. The Evangelist had described 
 Jesus as long since saying that his death would be a 
 voluntary sacrifice : it would be the death of the 
 Good Shepherd, who was willing to lay down his life 
 for the sheep ; and to prevent all chance of misappre- 
 hension, it is added (John x. 18), " No man taketh it 
 from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power 
 to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." 
 With these sayings the Synoptic narrative, which 
 represents the captors as seizing Jesus at once without 
 any announcement on his part, could not be made to 
 fit ; and thus Jesus is described not only as anticipat- 
 ing and rendering superfluous the betrayal of Judas, 
 but as working a miracle by the mere sound of his 
 voice; for that a miracle is wrought it is impossible 
 to deny. If one or two men have, like Thomas of 
 Canterbury and Coligny, made a momentary impres- 
 sion on two or three assassins, no instances are on 
 record in which a man, by uttering a few words, so 
 dismays a whole multitude to whom he is unknown 
 as to make them fall to the ground in utter dismay. 
 Nay more, to bring the difficulty to a climax, the 
 Johannine Gospel represents Judas as accompanied 
 not merely by emissaries from the great Jewish council, 
 but by a military band and a chiliarch, or captain 
 of a thousand, who must clearly have formed part of 
 the Roman garrison of the city ; and these men, who 
 knew nothing and cared nothing about Jesus or any 
 Messiah, are sent reeling backwards not less than the 
 Jews. But in truth the Evangelist could not help 
 himself. He had already represented the enemies of 
 Jesus as on more than one occasion unable to seize 
 him because his hour was not yet come ; he had 
 spoken of the officers of the chief priests returning 
 baffled, with the excuse that no man ever spake like 
 Jesus, (vii. 44, &c.) ; and he could not now describe 
 the arrest as the ordinary capture of a suspected 
 
The Arrest in the Garden. 287 
 
 person, which in the Synoptic Gospels it undoubtedly 
 is. All that can be said is, that the germ of the 
 Johannine idea is found in the assertion made by 
 Matthew (xxvi. 53), " Thinkest thou that I cannot 
 now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give 
 me more than twelve legions of angels % " It may be 
 further noted (although historically the statement has 
 not the least importance) that the fourth Gospel gives 
 an impotent conclusion to the matter by seeing in 
 the demand of Jesus for the free departure of his dis- 
 ciples (xviii. 8) a fulfilment of the assertion made in his 
 last prayer: " Those that thou gavest me I have kept, 
 and none of them is lost but the son of perdition." 
 
 The Johannine narrative of the betrayal is thus a 
 fabrication to suit a particular purpose : the Synoptic 
 account may be received as in substance true. 
 
 As to the smiting of the high priest's servant by 
 one of the disciples of Jesus immediately after the 
 arrest, all the Gospels are agreed : but Luke (xxii, 50) 
 and John (xviii 10) alone specify that the ear cut off 
 was the right ear, while the latter adds that it was 
 Peter who smote him, and that the servant's name 
 was Malchus. It is, at the least, strange that the Synop- 
 tics should not have coupled the name of Peter with 
 so marked an action ; but there is nothing strange in 
 the idea that a later writer might attach the name of 
 a prominent and impetuous disciple to an anecdote 
 which had hitherto floated about without one. From 
 the third Gospel alone we receive the information 
 
 that the servant was miraculously healed by Jesus 
 
 clearly in one or other of two ways, for as all repre- 
 sent the ear as " cut off"' Jesus either fastened on the 
 ear and made it adhere to the head, or created a 
 new ear in the place of that which had been cut off". 
 For the mere stanching of blood by his touch the 
 servant would probably have felt no very deeji grati- 
 tude, nor, in all likelihood, would the Evangelist have 
 cared to record an incident so trifling. 
 
288 English Life of "jfesus. 
 
 The statement in Luke xxii. 52, that the chief 
 priests and elders came in person to seize Jesus, 
 completes the list of contradictions in this narrative. 
 In all the other accounts, only their emissaries enter 
 the garden ; but we have here, possibly, a mingling 
 of two traditions,— one of which Luke followed him- 
 self Avhen he represents Jesus as uttering to the chief 
 priests the words which Matthew (xxvi. 55) makes 
 him speak to the multitudes, and the other, which led 
 the fourth Evangelist to describe him as making the 
 statement to Annas (xviii. 20). 
 
 Of the incident of the young man, mentioned by 
 Mark, Avho fled away naked, leaving his garment 
 behind him, it is scarcely necessary to take any 
 notice. The incident is so pointless that many have 
 conjectured that the young man must have been the 
 Evangelist himself, — a proposition which can neither be 
 denied nor affirmed; but why he should have thought 
 it worth while to record the fact, it seems impossible 
 to determine. It adds perhaps to the vividness of 
 the narrative ; and, like the incident of the people 
 crowding about the door, &c. (ii. 2), it is just one of 
 those touches Avliich a later writer might safely intro- 
 duce without fear of contradiction, the insertion being 
 in each case utterly insignificant. The point of vital 
 importance is the fact, if it be a fact, that at this 
 juncture " all the disciples forsook Jesus and fled." 
 
 If they fled, then the repeated forewarnings of Jesus 
 throughout the fourth Gospel, as also his assurances 
 that the battle was to be fought out by himself, and 
 that after his seeming defeat he would rise in a few 
 hours from the grave, were all thrown away upon 
 them. Nay, more, as even according to the Synoptics 
 he had laboured earnestly to convince them that the 
 true Messiah must be a suff"ering Messiah who should 
 fall into the hands of his enemies and suffer an igno- 
 minious death, it is impossible that the disciples, if 
 they attached the slightest credit to his words, could 
 
yesus before the Chief Priests. 289 
 
 have been taken by surprize. To abandon him wliile 
 they were not themselves in danger, was indeed 
 dastardly. If they are not to be stigmatized as 
 either cowards or fools, then not only is the whole 
 Johannine narrative a fabrication, but the Synoptic 
 writers must greatly exaggerate the distinctness with 
 which Jesus anticipated and announced his future 
 sufferings. If indeed the disciples had only heard 
 some vague and passing remark that the Messiah 
 might possibly be a suffering one, the mode being 
 left unspecified, they might then be appalled at his 
 sudden capture by the ofiicers of the high priests, 
 headed by one of their own number. 
 
 If they did not flee, then the statement that they 
 did is an untruth. 
 
 From this dilemma there is no escape : and one 
 portion or other of the narrative is, therefore, unhis- 
 torical. All that we need to add is, that the alleged 
 behaviour of the Apostles, before they were convinced 
 of the resurrection of Jesus, tallies well in the utter 
 hopelessness of their depression with the statement 
 that they abandoned their master in the garden. 
 
 JESUS BEFORE THE CHIEF PRIESTS. 
 
 From the garden of Gethsemane Jesus was led 
 away, it is said, into the presence of the chief priests 
 and elders of the great council. But the Synoptics 
 describe the scene as an examination before Caiaphas, 
 while the fourth Gospel places the trial in the house 
 of Annas. Yet, as it states that Annas sent him to 
 Caiaphas,* some might be tempted to fancy that 
 
 * We feel bound to enter here an emphatic protest against the 
 disgraceful mistranslation, in the authorised English Version, of 
 John xviii. 24. The words " dTre'crTetXe;' avrbv 6 "Avvas Sede/x^ov,'* 
 do not and cannot mean " Now Annas had sent him bound," &c. 
 There is no conjunction now, and an aorist cannot mark a definite 
 time. If a hiatus is suspected, it may be indicated by an asterisk j 
 T 
 
2^0 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 thei-e were two examinations, one before Annas, the 
 other before Caiaphas, Avere it not that John ascribes 
 to the trial before Annas those incidents which the 
 Synoptics attribute to the trial before Caiaphas. 
 
 At once then, if we regard the fourth Gospel as on 
 an equality with the other three, we should say that 
 we do not know where this examination was held ; 
 but it does not stand on a level with them. The 
 Gospel is throughout unhistorical, and we have seen 
 that in the matter of the high priesthood the Evan- 
 gelist was under the mistaken impression that the 
 office was noAv a yearly one. Hence we are justified 
 in concluding that the Johannine Avriter has trans- 
 ferred to the house of Annas events which took 
 place in that of Caiaphas. The result is a lame one, 
 for on the examination in the fourth Gospel nothing 
 is made to turn, and there is neither condemnation 
 nor sentence ; but the transference of incidents can 
 scarcely be questioned. The denials of Peter in the 
 Synoptics occur in the house of Caiaphas ; in John 
 they are uttered in that of Annas. Why the Evan- 
 gelist should take him first to Annas, " the father-in- 
 law of Caiaphas," and then afterwards (xviii. 14) 
 mention Caiaphas as the giver of the fatal counsel that 
 Jesus must be put to death, we are left to conjecture. 
 If he gave the counsel, and if he really was high 
 priest, Jesus must have been tried before him and not 
 before Annas ; and thus again the Johannine version 
 is set aside as unhistorical. 
 
 But neither are the Synoptics agreed among them- 
 selves. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus is 
 led from the garden straight to the council chamber 
 where the members of the Sanhedrim are assembled 
 although it is night. There then follows a formal 
 
 but to insert words and alter tlie force of a tense in order to get 
 over a grave historical difficulty is sheer dishonesty. Perhaps not 
 many passages could be pointed out which reflect greater discredit 
 for wilful manipulation of the text on the part of translators 
 th in this (>!ie. 
 
Jesus before the Chief Priests. 291 
 
 trial, with accusation, witnesses, condemnation, and 
 sentence. In Luke (xxii. 5-1-63) Jesus during the 
 night is guarded in the high priest's house, and the 
 council does not assemble before it is day (xxii. 66). 
 This makes a difficulty with regard to the denials of 
 Peter ; for according to Matthew they take place 
 while the trial of Jesus is going on or after it is 
 ended ; though in Luke, indeed, they occur during the 
 night and before the trial. If Jesus was arrested in 
 the early hours of the night and the trial was not 
 held till the following morning, the cocks must have 
 crowed many times in the interval, and hence Jesus 
 would be mistaken in saying that before the cock 
 should crow Peter would thrice deny him. Further, 
 if, as Luke says (xxii. 52), the members of the 
 council went in person to arrest Jesus, it is not 
 easy to see why, having done the less dignified thing, 
 they should not proceed to act in their usual capacity 
 as judges simply because it was not yet day. There is, 
 in fact, no reason whatever for delaying the trial ; and 
 accordingly in the other Synoptics it is not delayed. 
 
 It may be worth while once again to note, that even 
 according to the Johannine version not more than 
 about twenty years had passed away since Jesus in the 
 temple astonished the doctors with his understanding 
 and answers. How that incident bears upon his 
 previous history and future career, we have seen 
 already (Chapter ii. p. 69). Of those who then 
 heard Jesus put and answer questions, not a few 
 must have been among the judges. Is it conceivably 
 possible that they could have forgotten this circum- 
 stance, and forgotten further, that he who at twelve 
 years of age had astounded them by his wisdom, was 
 one whose birth had been pointed out to all Jeru- 
 salem by the appearance of a star and the coming of 
 the Magi, that over his birth-place the heavenly 
 host had been seen and heard , singing Hallelujahs 
 in the sky, and that miracles preceded and accom- 
 
292 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 panied the birth of his forerunner the Baptist? 
 And now that Jesus stood before them on a criminal 
 charge, could they fail to remember that memor- 
 able scene, Avhen in the broad day and in the midst 
 of the temple, Simeon, the aged, had foretold the 
 coming sorrows which should jiierce like a sword 
 through the heart of his mother Mary 1 For all that 
 we hear, these things might have happened in Spain 
 or Thule. They have floated away like clouds scat- 
 tered by the sun, and have passed out of mind as 
 though they had never been. Is tliis either credible 
 or possible 1 
 
 On the evidence of the so-called false witnesses 
 enough has perhaps been said already (Chapter iv. p. 
 178) ; nor need we say much about the ill-treatment 
 which Jesus is said to have undergone before this 
 ecclesiastical tribunal. According to John the iU- 
 usage came from a servant (xviii. 22) ; in Mark, some 
 out of the whole number of those who had condemned 
 him, i.e. the judges, spit upon and revile Jesus (xiv. 
 65) ; and in Matthew, there is nothing to distinguish 
 those who thus disgrace themselves from the members 
 of the council. In Luke, Jesus is ill-treated by his 
 guards before the trial. 
 
 We have thus a vague picture of some injurious 
 treatment ; but of the mode or the time Ave know 
 nothing with certainty. 
 
 The same, or greater, doubts hang over the denials 
 by Peter. In the Synoptics Peter alone follows 
 Jesus at some distance to the high prie-st's house ; in 
 the fourth Gospel, the beloved disciple goes with him, 
 and it is through his influence as a personal acquaint- 
 ance that he is admitted. The various discrepancies 
 in the rest of the story it would be tedious to trace 
 out at length. It may suffice to say that in each 
 Gospel the denial is said to be uttered thrice ; yet the 
 circumstances so vary, that if the several accounts are 
 to be regarded as trustworthy, Peter must have denied 
 
Jesus before the Chief Priests. 293 
 
 his Master some seven or eight times. The narrative 
 of the fourth Gospel implies in portions that the first 
 denial took place in the house of Annas, the last two 
 in the house of Caiaphas ; yet verses 18, 25, chapter 
 xviii., taken together, imply that all these belong to 
 the same place, for in the former of these tAvo verses 
 we are told that as it was cold the servants had made 
 a fire of coals, before which Peter and others stood 
 warming themselves ; then in verse 24 we have the 
 statement that Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas, 
 after which Ave are again informed that Peter stood 
 and warmed himself, the conclusion being necessarily 
 that it Avas at the fire before mentioned in the house 
 of Annas. We are then told by (1) John (xviii. 17) 
 that Peter, being questioned as soon as he entered by 
 a damsel ^\\\o kept the door, then and there denied 
 Jesus ; (2) by the Synoptics the first denial is in 
 ansAver to a maiden as Peter sits in the court of the 
 palace (Matthew xxvi. 69 ; Mark xiv. 66 ; Luke xxii. 
 55) ; (3) in the fourth Gospel the second denial is 
 made while Peter remains in the same position, and 
 with this Luke (xxii. 58) agrees ; but (4) Matthew 
 (xxvi. 71) and Mark (xiv. 68) place it after Peter's 
 departure into the porch, and say that it Avas made 
 before one person ; in John it is uttered before seA^eral ; 
 (5) MattheAv and Mark assign the third denial to the 
 same spot Avith the second, i.e. in the porch and be- 
 fore many persons ; in Luke and John, it is still by 
 the fire, and the latter describes it as an ansAver to a 
 person Avho Avas related to Malchus Avhom Peter had 
 mutilated. The attempt to receiA^e all these denials as 
 true AAdll, unless by an eclectic process Ave accept 
 or reject details at our pleasure, have the disagreeable 
 result of exhibiting not less than eight different 
 denials. Hence Ave conclude that the details are all 
 untrustworthy, although the fact of the denial can 
 scarcely be questioned. That the Avord thrice used by 
 Jesus, in reference to these denials, is to be taken 
 
2 94 English Life of yes us. 
 
 literally as denoting that number cannot be doubted ; 
 in each Gospel the denials are numerically three, and 
 the question thrice repeated, " Simon, son of Jonas, 
 lovest thoii me 1 " in the supplement to the fourth 
 Gospel, is clearly designed as a parallel to the thrice 
 repeated offence. 
 
 Finally, even the incident of the cock-croAving is 
 variously reported. In one version the cock crows 
 once, in the other twice. 
 
 THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE. 
 
 The Synoptic narratiA^e of the trial before Pilate 
 may be regarded as in the main true. Each Gospel 
 has indeed some inconsistencies and one or two cir- 
 cumstances which appear very suspicious, but as usual 
 it is the Johannine story which is most thoroughly in 
 contradiction with the others. According to Matthew 
 xxvii. 2, who is followed by Mark, Jesus is not bound 
 until he is sent to Pilate ; in John he is bound in the 
 garden ; in Luke he is apparently not bound at all. 
 Again, in the fourth Gospel, xviii. 28, Jesus is led into 
 the judgment hall, while his accusers remain outside, 
 and thus at each stage of the trial Pilate has to pass 
 from the prisoner to the Jews, who will not enter for 
 fear of defilement before the passover meal, which 
 the Synoptics describe as already eaten on the pre- 
 ceding evening. But in the Synoptic account the 
 judge, the accusers, and the prisoner, all stand in the 
 same place, in the open air, where, according to Jose- 
 phus, the judgment seat (or Bema) was placed. 
 
 In Matthew xxvii. 11, Pilate begins the trial by 
 asking Jesus whether he is the King of the Jews ; 
 and the charge of his accusers is made after this 
 question is put. In John xviii. 29, Pilate asks, in the 
 ftrst instance, the reason of his being Ijrought before 
 
The Trial before Pilate. 295 
 
 him, and is curtly infomied that if Jesus had not 
 been a malefactor, he would not have been brought 
 at all — an answer which Ave may safely say no Roman 
 governor would be likely to put up with, and which 
 would certainly have tended to defeat the purpose of 
 the accusers. The reason why Pilate puts to Jesus 
 (whom probably he had never seen) this particular 
 question comes out only in Luke, who (xxiii. 2) states 
 that Jesus was charged with forbidding the payment of 
 tribute to the Eoman Caesar. 
 
 If this charge was made, Pilate must necessarily 
 have wished to know whether Jesus called himself 
 King of the Jews as being a temporal potentate ; and 
 as Jesus is said to have answered the question in the 
 affirmative, Pilate, construing the words in the only 
 sense in which he could attach a meaning to them, 
 must have concluded that Jesus designed to set his 
 own authority in opposition to that of Tiberius. But 
 if this be so, it is impossible to understand how Pjlate 
 (Luke xxiii. 4) could possibly tell the Jews without 
 further explanation from Jesus that he found no fault 
 in him. In Matthew (xxvii. 11-17) and Mark (xv. 3) 
 Jesus, after answering the first questions, keeps silence 
 when accused by the Jews, and Pilate instead of pro- 
 nouncing him guiltless is perplexed by his refusal to 
 plead, and tries to deliver Jesus by suggesting that 
 they should receive him instead of Barabbas as the 
 criminal who should be set free at that feast. But 
 even this step on Pilate's part is in the Synoptic nar- 
 rative not easily accounted for ; though we may 
 assume that he thought Jesus a victim of mere 
 bigotry. But in the fourth Gospel, (xviii. 36) Jesus 
 is made to state plainly that his Kingdom is not 
 of this world, and that if it were, his servants would 
 be fighting for him.* But here arises a difficulty of 
 another kind. According to the Johannine narrative, 
 Jesus was within the preetorium, while his accusers 
 
 * The Evangelist, probably feeling that spiritual obligations and 
 
296 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 stood outside ; who, then, reported to the Evangelist 
 the conversation which passed privately between 
 Jesus and Pilate 1 Surely not Pilate himself ; and 
 there is something very unpersuasive, and, to say the 
 least, wholly unhistorical, in the idea that Jesus may, 
 after his resurrection to the life which he had with the 
 Father before the world was, have communicated 
 verbally with the apostles, and reported his conver- 
 sation with Pilate. 
 
 The transfer of Jesus from Pilate to Herod Antipas, 
 who is represented as being then in Jerusalem to keep 
 the feast, is mentioned only in the third Gospel. 
 The story briefly is, that Pilate sent him, on learning 
 that Jesus as a Galiltean belonged to Herod's jurisdic- 
 tion ; that Herod, on seeing him, strove by questions 
 to induce him to work some miracle ; and that, on the 
 refusal of Jesus, the tetrarch and his officers disguised 
 him in a gorgeous dress, and after mocking him, 
 sent> him back to Pilate, with whom Herod was now 
 reconciled after some squabble. 
 
 This is certainly not history. If Jesus belonged to 
 Herod's jurisdiction, then Herod should have been 
 left to deal with him altogether ; but in truth this 
 was not the case for offences Avhich had been com- 
 mitted in Judea as well as in Galilee. Hence Pilate 
 had no right to transfer to another a duty which was 
 strictly his o^\rv ; and surely Herod must have had a 
 somewhat better notion of the nature of judicial pro- 
 ceedings than to think that they were consistent Avith 
 putting a prisoner into a ridiculous disguise, and dis- 
 missing him after gross and ribald abuse. So, again, 
 there is no reason why Jesus should refuse to answer 
 a ruler to whose jurisdiction he is described as be- 
 longing, and further we may ask how it was that 
 
 convictions should have a more constraining power than merely 
 temporal engagements, does not mention the desertion of Jesus by 
 all the disciples, and by saying that the beloved disciple introduced 
 Peter into the high priest's house, wishes, apparently, to keep that 
 fact as much out of sight as possible. 
 
The Trial before Pilate. 297 
 
 this incident should be unknown to the other Syn- 
 optics, cand more especially to the author of the fourth 
 Gospel, if he was the beloved disciple. 
 
 If Luke stands alone in recording this episode, 
 Matthew (xxvii. 19) has likewise another peculiar to 
 himself in the message sent to Pilate by his wife, 
 while he is still on the judgment seat. She, it seems, 
 had dreamt a dream, and accordingly warns her hus- 
 band to have nothing to do with that just man. 
 Was then this dream designed for the liberation of 
 Jesus 1 The credulity which generated and receives 
 belief in useless half miracles, tending only to heighten 
 tragedy, is a very familiar fact to us ; but certainly 
 its marks do not accredit a narrative. 
 
 In like manner Matthew alone of the Evangelists 
 goes on to relate a piece of conduct which is inexpli- 
 cable in a Eoman governor. Pilate (he says), seeing 
 that all his efforts to rescue Jesus were useless, calls 
 for water, and, going through a symbolical ceremony 
 which was not Roman, and which for a Roman would 
 have neither force nor meaning, solemnly pronounces 
 Avholly innocent a person whom he immediately pro- 
 ceeds to scourge, and then delivers over to suffer 
 crucifixion, a penalty which could be inflicted only 
 by Roman officers. Whatever may have been Pilate's 
 shortcomings, and however much he may have feared 
 the transmission to Rome of hostile reports concern- 
 ing him, it seems impossible to believe that a 
 Roman governor could pour such complete contempt 
 on Roman judicial processes. Verres Avas indubitably 
 a Avorse man than Pilate, and Cicero brings against 
 him some astounding charges of cruelty and injustice ; 
 but then Verres, like Appius Claudius in the legend 
 of Virginia, or like Henry VIII. of England, con- 
 tented himself with \ATesting the forms of justice to 
 his own purposes, and professed to regard as guilty 
 persons whom he knew to be guiltless. Pilate does 
 
298 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 tlie reverse, and sentences to an ignominious death a 
 man Avliom in the same breath he describes as wholly 
 innocent and righteous. The incident is impossible. 
 And here we may note that while in Matthew xxvii. 
 26, actual scourging is inflicted, in Luke (xxiii. 22) 
 Pilate is represented as saying that he Avill scourge 
 Jesus and then let him go, and thus the scourging is 
 not inflicted, because the people insist on the cruci- 
 fixion. In John, Pilate scourges not as a preliminary 
 to crucifixion, but in the hope that by exhibiting him 
 after scourging in the purple robe and with the 
 thorny crown on his head he may excite the pity of 
 the multitude, and so defeat the schemes of his 
 accusers : and in this also Pilate fails. 
 
 Thus we have before us already two instances in 
 which Jesus is disguised in a dress which was not 
 his own, — the first being the gorgeous robe put 
 round him by Herod and his officers, and the second 
 the purple robe which, according to the fourth 
 Gospel (xix. 2), the soldiers put upon him before the 
 ending of the trial. To these must be added, there- 
 fore, as a third instance, the disguising which Matthew 
 xxvii. 28 and Mark xv. 17, place after tJie sentence of 
 condemnation is passed. In the last two instances we 
 have specified not merely the purple robe, but the 
 crown of thorns and the reed sceptre. But as it is 
 not to be supposed that all these incidents were thus 
 exactly repeated, the conclusion is that the Gospel 
 accounts are here, as elseAvhere, contradictory, and that 
 the Job an nine version is worthless, tliough there 
 was probably some unseemly treatment, of the nature 
 of which we have not sufficient historical evidence. 
 
 Hence it is not worth while to examine the final 
 statement of the fourth Gospel, that Pilate when he 
 found himself unable to deliver Jesus relieved him- 
 self by asking the Jews derisively whether he should 
 crucify their King, and on hearing from the Jews an 
 expression of loyal devotion to Csesar, which must 
 
The Crucifixion. 299 
 
 have been to him at least as unexpected as it was 
 welcome, gave Jesus over to their will. 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION. 
 
 The innumerable instances in which the fourth 
 Gospel is at variance with the Synoptic narratives 
 must surely have convinced the reader that that 
 Gospel was written by one Avho lived in a very 
 different condition -of thought and society from the 
 compilers of the Synoptic accounts. They have, in 
 details, next to nothing in common : and we feel, there- 
 fore, no surprize when we find that in the fourth 
 Gospel (xix. 17) Jesus bears his cross himself to the 
 place of execution, whereas the Synoptics (Matt. 
 xxvii. 32 ; Mark xv. 21 ; Luke xxiii. 2G) tell us that 
 it was carried by one Simon, a Jew from Gyrene, 
 who was compelled to perform that office. 
 
 The precise mode in which crucifixion was carried 
 out is a matter of controversy. Probably the practice 
 was not invariable, and hence we cannot determine 
 with certainty whether the feet as well as the hands 
 of Jesus were nailed to the Cross. The matter has 
 been fiercely contested by disputants both on the 
 orthodox and rationalizing sides, the former insisting 
 on the fact as proving that the ability of Jesus to 
 walk after the resurrection was supernatural, the latter 
 as strongly denying it, because, if the feet were un- 
 wounded, there was nothing wonderful in his power 
 of motion and thus the way appeared more open for 
 denying also the reality of his death. It is purely a 
 question of evidence. Now in the fourth Gospel (xx. 
 20) when Jesus appears to the disciples, he shows them 
 his hands and his side, clearly to point out the marks 
 of the wounds, but nothing is said of the feet. But, 
 as we have seen, no statement of the fourth Gospel 
 
300 English Life of Jesus . 
 
 can of itself carry the smallest weight ; and in Luke 
 xxiv. 39, the risen Jesus invites the disciples to handle 
 his hands and his feet, thus indicating that in Luke's 
 belief both hands and feet had been wounded. We 
 might thus be disposed to accept the Synoptic ac- 
 count as historical, were it not that we are referred to 
 a Psalm (xxii. 16) in which a piercing of hands and 
 feet is spoken of, but where nothing is said about 
 nailing, and where certainly no reference exists to 
 the subject of crucifixion; and therefore, knowing the 
 peculiar method of interpreting Old Testament passages 
 adopted by the Evangelists, we may very reasonably 
 suspect that this piece of detail was suggested by the 
 wording of this Psalm, which has likewise supplied in 
 all probability very many other incidents in this closing 
 scene. 
 
 According to] Matthew xxvii. 33, the soldiers Avho 
 led Jesus had no sooner reached Golgotha than they 
 offered him a beverage of vinegar and gall, Avhich 
 he tasted, but refused to drink. In Mark xv. 23, the 
 drink offered at the same time is wine mingled with 
 mp'rh, a totally different coinpound. Here, again, 
 we are referred back to Psalm Ixix. 21, where it is 
 said, " They gave me gall to eat, and in my thirst 
 they gave me vinegar to drink ; " and at once we see 
 that the phrase may have suggested the wliole scene, 
 and must have suggested some of its features, for the 
 Psalm sjieaks of eating gall, and this j^art of it was 
 certainly not fulfilled. Thus we cannot tell whether in 
 the wine and myrrh of Mark Ave have a piece of histori- 
 cal detail, or Avhether, having the narrative of Matthew 
 before him, and conscious of its improbability, the 
 writer sul)stituted another drink to give the narrative 
 a more plausible colouring. 
 
 This, however, is not the only instance in which a 
 drink is said to have been offered to Jesus. In Mat- 
 thew xxvii. 48. when Jesus utters the cry, " Eli, Eli, 
 Lama Sabachthani," some of the bystanders, prompted 
 
The Crucifixion. 301 
 
 by ca kindly feeling, put a sponge filled with vinegar 
 to his lips, while others seek to prevent them. In 
 Mark xv. 36, the person who at this juncture offers 
 the vinegar does so, not from sympathy, but in 
 derision. In Luke xxiii. 36, the only occasion on 
 which any drink is presented to Jesus is after the 
 crucifixion when the soldiers, mocking him, offer him 
 vinegar (doubtless the posca, or vinegar and water, 
 commonly given to Roman soldiers). In John xix. 
 29. vinegar is offered to Jesus, but the circumstances 
 are wholly different. It is presented not on his des- 
 pairing cry, " My God, my God, why hast thou for- 
 saken me 1" but when Jesus, apparently with the 
 express purpose of fulfilling a prophecy, exclaims, 
 " I thirst." 
 
 These contradictions are irreconcilable, and the 
 Johannine narrative, as usual, must at once be set 
 aside. Hence, even if we accept the offering of some 
 kind of liquor to Jesus at some time or other as an 
 historical fact, we can advance to nothing more definite : 
 and can have no confidence but that the narrators state 
 it, not because they know it to have so happened his- 
 torically, but because they feel that it must have so 
 happened in order to fulfil what was in their eyes a 
 Messianic prophecy. 
 
 The inconsistencies in reference to the vinegar or 
 wine bring us to other and more important contra- 
 dictions relating to the sayings of Jesus upon the 
 cross. According to Matthew (xxvii. 50), and Mark 
 (xv. 37), Jesus yielded up the ghost merely after 
 uttering a loud cry ; in Luke (xxiii. 46) the story is 
 made more pious and touching by the exclamation, 
 " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. " In 
 John xix. 30, his last words are as usual mysterious : 
 " It is finished." Here, again, the contradictions are 
 irreconcilable ; nor is it of the least avail to gather up 
 all the exclamations in all the Gospels, and make 
 them up into seven, or any other number, because it 
 
202 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 is impossible that more than one set of words can be 
 the last words uttered by a dying person. 
 
 Hence we cannot tell which of these exclamations, 
 or whether any of them, were really uttered by Jesus. 
 The beautiful words given by Luke, " Father, forgive 
 them," &c., may have been suggested by the expression 
 of Isaiah liii. 12, that "he Avas numbered with the 
 transgi'essors, and made intercession for them." 
 
 That two other prisoners were crucified with Jesus 
 is asserted in all the Gospels ; but here their agree- 
 ment ends. In Matthew{xxvii. 38), and Mark (xv. 27), 
 they are robbers ; and the latter Evangelist, as if 
 wishing to make even this circumstance suspicious, 
 adds that thus the prophecy respecting the number- 
 ing with the transgressors was literally fulfilled. 
 According to Luke one of these prisoners [both of whom 
 revile Jesus in Matthew and Mark), not only does 
 not revile but points out to his fellow sufferer that 
 Jesus is wholly guiltless, and then turning to Jesus 
 he beseeches him to remember him when he comes 
 into his kingdom, and receives from him the assurance 
 that he should that day be Avith him in Paradise. 
 Here, then, at a time when all the disciples of Jesus 
 are described as smitten with overpowering dismay, 
 a criminal, styled a robber, in the agonies of death, is 
 enabled to apprehend the idea of a suffering Messiah 
 and a purely spiritual kingdom. What is this but 
 a pathetic fabrication 1 Not one of the disciples had 
 thus far risen to this high spiritual level : not one of 
 them, if the narrative of the Acts is to be trusted, 
 reached it for many weeks subsequent to the crucifixion. 
 Hence the assertion has been hazarded that this was 
 no common criminal, but had prohaUy been numbered 
 among the seventy disciples ! It must, however, be 
 noticed, that of the behaviour of these men John says 
 nothing; in Matthew and Mark they simply revile 
 Jesus ; in Luke alone does one of them recognize his 
 real character. The silence of John may, perhaps, be 
 
The Crucifixion. 303 
 
 imputed to ignorance ; the account of Luke may be 
 not unfairly ascribed to tlie natural growth of tradi- 
 tion, which sought to find throughout the whole scene 
 parallels to the favourable testimony borne to Jesus 
 both by Pilate and by the Roman centurion who, as 
 soon as Jesus died, exclaimed, according to one 
 account (Luke xxiii. 47), truly this was a righteous 
 man ; and according to another {Matt, xxvii. 54, 
 Mark xv. 39) that he was the Son of God. 
 
 The title put up over the cross of Jesus is perhaps 
 historical ; that it was inscribed in three languages 
 (John xix. 20) is more questionable. We are not 
 justified in accepting this as fact on the strength of 
 a statement in the fourth Gospel. 
 
 So, again, with the division of the garments worn 
 by Jesus, we are at a loss to determine how far the 
 account is historical, and how far the details owe 
 their origin to interpretations of supposed Messianic 
 prophecies. That the clothes of prisoners were a 
 perquisite of the executioners is not to be disputed ; 
 but in Matthew xxvii. 35, Mark xv. 24, and Luke 
 xxiii. 34, the soldiers are described as casting lots 
 for all his garments ; and Mark is careful to add that 
 they did so in order to know what every man should 
 take, no room being thus left for any exceptions. 
 In John xix. 23, we have a wholly different story. 
 Far from casting lots for all the clothes, they do so 
 only for one ; and whereas the Synoptic narratives 
 imply that the number of soldiers was considerable, 
 the Johannine version limits them to four men, who 
 divide the rest of his raiment into four portions, and 
 then, not knowing how to deal with one garment, 
 agree to cast lots for it. With the incident the 
 Evangelist also invents the reason, that this garment 
 was a seamless robe, woven from the top throughout. 
 The many proofs we have of this writer's easy faith, 
 justify us in tracing the account to a literal inter- 
 pretation of the passage (Psalm xxii. 18), "They 
 
304 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 parted my garments among tlieni, and for my vesture 
 they did cast lots." Want of acquaintance with the 
 system of Hebrew parallelism led the Evangelist to 
 distinguish between the garments and the vesture ; 
 and his narrative of alleged facts is the result of his 
 mistake. We saw the same error with the ass and 
 the colt. 
 
 Of the conduct of the spectators we are left in the 
 same uncertainty. In Matthew (xxvii. 39-41), and 
 Mark (xv. 29, &c.), the passers-by revile Jesus, and 
 the chief priests, scribes, and soldiers, mock him in 
 like manner. To these details Luke xxiii. 35 adds, 
 that he was also insulted by the elders ; but on this 
 whole topic the fourth Gospel is silent. 
 
 That his enemies may have made a mock of the 
 dying agonies of Jesus is quite possible and even 
 likely; but as we cannot deny the fact, so neither 
 can we affirm it. All that can be said is, that they 
 could not have said many of the things which are put 
 into their mouth. The words which they are made 
 to utter are taken straight from Psalm xxii. in 
 which they are said to be uttered by the ungodly. 
 The very gestures are borrowed. From writers so very 
 inaccurate the whole imputation is incredible. The 
 scribes and Pharisees cei"tainly did not professedly 
 range themselves among the enemies of God, and 
 they were not likely to make use of language Avhich 
 would infallibly give the impression that they did so 
 account themselves. Hence the words Avhich the 
 Psalmist ascribes to the blasphemers are just the 
 very last words which they, being perfectly acquainted 
 with the Psalm, would have used. If for a moment 
 we try to imagine the chief priests and Sanhedrim as 
 deliberately adopting the ribaldry of profane scoffers, 
 the ludicrous absurdity of the scene is at once forced 
 upon us : and we see clearly that the Pharisees are 
 made to speak not as they would have spoken in real 
 life, but as the Christian legend of a later day required 
 that they should speak. 
 
^ he Crucijixion. 305 
 
 According to Matthew {xxvi. 50) and Mark (xiv. 50) 
 it would not appear that any of the Apostles were 
 witnesses of the crucifixion. Some Galilfean women 
 only are mentioned, and among these they name 
 Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and 
 Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, who 
 may be the same as Salome. In Luke (xxiii. 49) we 
 are told that he was followed by all who knew him, 
 and in this number the Apostles would certainly be 
 included. The tales are discordant ; and here, as 
 elsewhere, we find the fourth Gospel at variance with 
 all the others. In this version we find the beloved 
 disciple present, with the mother of Jesus himself, at 
 the foot of the cross (the other women present being 
 Mary Magdalene and the wife of Cleopas). Thus, 
 not only the persons vary, but the positions in which 
 they stand are different. In the Synoptics they 
 remain afar off ; in John Jesus looks down on the 
 beloved disciple standing near him, and commends 
 his mother to his care. Of this striking incident it 
 is strange indeed that the Synoptics should know 
 nothing. If they had heard of it, is it possible that 
 they could pass by in silence the farewell charge of 
 Jesus respecting his mother, whose heart was pierced 
 through with the sword of her son's agony ] So 
 again, as we read the plain statement that from this 
 hour the beloved disciple took Mary to his own home, 
 we may ask not merely why the Synoptics should not 
 record the fact, but why the writer of the Acts of the 
 Apostles should record cjuite a different fact % In 
 Acts i. 12-14, she is spoken of not as dwelling in the 
 house of John, but as forming one in the assembly of 
 the twelve Apostles and the other disciples. 
 
 The exclamation of despair uttered by Jesus on the 
 cross introduces us to theological difficulties on which 
 we may touch lightly. Psychically, it has seemed 
 strange to many that Jesus should be thus over- 
 whelmed by sufferings certainly not so severe as many 
 U 
 
3o6 English Life of "Jesus. 
 
 which have been bravely borne by not the most noble 
 or heroic of mankind ; and hence the incident has 
 been generally accounted for on the ground that Jesus 
 was now bearing the whole burden of the world's ini- 
 quity from the first sin committed to the last, and that 
 the pressure of this burden was intensified by the fact 
 that God had at tfliiis moment forsaken him. We may 
 reasonably ask the meaning of the phrase. If Jesus 
 Avas indeed the Eternal Logos or Word, existing from 
 the beginning with God, and being himself God, how 
 could God forsake him ] If his human nature was 
 forsaken, then it is not true to say, as the second 
 Article of the Church of England says, that in the 
 womb of the Virgin two whole and perfect natures, 
 the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in 
 one person never to be divided ; for if they were not 
 divided at the moment when Jesus uttered this cry, 
 then it was not forsaken. If, on the other hand, he 
 felt himself forsaken in his divine nature, then God 
 the Son was separated from God the Father. To say 
 that he felt forsaken in his compound nature as God 
 and man, is again to talk nonsense, for that compound 
 nature involves the idea of the insejiarableness of the 
 Godhead and manhood in his person. 
 
 Regarding the subject historically, we need only 
 say that this incident is absent not only from the 
 fourth but also from the third Gospel ; that it 
 cannot possibly have been the last, and at the same 
 time not the last, exclamation uttered by Jesus on 
 the Cross ; and that the narrative becomes still more 
 suspicious Avhen we note that the expression is 
 merely a quotation from that Psalm (xxii.) which, as 
 we have already seen, probably supplied a great part 
 of the imagery of the crucifixion. 
 
 When no two narratives of the crucifixion agree, we 
 cannot be surprized to find the notes of time contradic- 
 tory. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus gave 
 Vip the ghost about the ninth hour (3 ixm.), the 
 
Death and Burial of Jesus. 307 
 
 darkness having been on the land since noon, whilei 
 Mark states definitely that Jesus was crucified about 
 the third hour (9 a.m.) In the fourth Gospel Pilate 
 at midday is sitting in judgment at the trial of Jesus^ 
 Avho, according to Mark, had now been three hours oil 
 the Cross. Yet more, if Mark is right in the state- 
 ment of time, it is not easy to see how the rest of his 
 narrative, or that of Luke can stand ; for in Luke, as 
 we have seen (xxii. 66), the Sanhedrim is not assem- 
 bled until the morning following the evening on 
 which Jesus Avas arrested, and how between, let us 
 say, the hours of 5 and 9 a.m., there would be time 
 for the examination before the Sanhedrim, for the 
 transfer of Jesus from the great council to the prse- 
 torium of Pilate, and thence to the house where Herod 
 was staying, as well as for the return from Herod to 
 the Eoman judgment hall, and lastly for the journey 
 thence to Golgotha, it is hard (we may very fairly 
 say, impossible) to conceive. 
 
 1\\ the narrative of the crucifixion then, regarded 
 as a Avhole, Ave have a number of possil^le and many 
 likely incidents ; but about none can Ave speak Avith 
 that certainty Avhich Ave feel about the events of any 
 well authenticated history. Our knoAvledge is con- 
 fined to the fact, that " Jesus Avas crucified under 
 Pontius Pilate." 
 
 THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF JESUS. 
 
 Many marvels are said to have accompanied and 
 folloAved the crucifixion and death of Jesus. But 
 here as elseAvhere, the Johannine Gospel is utterly 
 opposed to the Synoptic narratives ; the AATiter appa- 
 rently knoAvs nothing of all these prodigies, at least 
 he has not cared to notice them. In Mark (xv. 33) Avith 
 Avhom Luke agrees, Ave are told that from the sixth 
 to the ninth hour, there A\'as a thick darkness ovei." 
 
308 English Life of yesus. 
 
 all the land, and (38) that when Jesus gave up the 
 ghost the veil of the temple Avas rent in twain from 
 the top to the bottom ; but no physical cause is 
 assigned for this phenomenon. In Matthew xxvii. 51, 
 we are told further that, as Jesus died, not only was 
 the temple veil rent, but the earth quaked, and rent 
 the rocks and opened the graves. Out of these 
 opened graves " many bodies of the saints which 
 slept arose, and came out of the graves after his 
 resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared 
 unto many." 
 
 It Avill be enough if we range in their order the 
 propositions which are involved in this astounding 
 passage. 
 
 In the first place, the darkness was not the result 
 of an ordinary eclipse which (as was known to Thu- 
 cydides (ii. 28) four hundred years before), can take 
 place only at the new moon; yet the Gospel of Nico- 
 demus absurdly attributes to the Jews the opinion 
 that this darkness occurring at the Paschal full moon 
 was an ordinary event. But an incident so marked as 
 the enveloping of a wholeMand in darkness must have 
 made a profound impression, must have been also duly 
 recordecl. Hence much toil has been bestowed on 
 verifying this extraordinary incident ; but nothing 
 better has been obtained than an extract in Eusebius 
 from Phlegon, which at most fixes only the Olympiad, 
 i.e., brings the event within a limit of four years. 
 The attempt to corroborate the narrative by reference 
 to eclipses which took place at the death of C?esar 
 or Eomulus is mere folly. As for Romulus, we might 
 as well bring forward an eclipse at the death of Her- 
 cules, or on the chaining up of Prometheus ; and at 
 the death of Caesar, not only did the sun, according 
 to Virgil, grow pale, but the Alps were shaken to 
 their base — events which we know did not take 
 place. The truth of one statement cannot be proved 
 by bringing forward another which is false. The 
 
Death and Burial ofjesus. 309 
 
 comparison is forced on us that as all nature is de- 
 scribed as agitated when Caesar falls, so also in the 
 Gospels it mourns when the Messiah dies. 
 
 Matthew, it is true, has supplied in the earthquake 
 a force quite adequate to the rending of a veil : but 
 even orthodox commentators have admitted that an 
 earthquake which rent asunder a flexible substance 
 like a curtain, would most assuredly have thrown 
 down no small part of the solid building. How 
 much more if it even rent the solid rocks % But no 
 one pretends that the temple was then overthrown. 
 At once, then, the Avhole account must be dismissed 
 as unhistorical. At the same time we may add that, 
 if this incident did take place, it must have been 
 constantly referred to by the Apostles as among the 
 strongest proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus. In 
 point of fact, if the narrative of the Acts is at all to 
 be credited, it was clean forgotten ; and although the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews draws a pointed inference 
 from the temple veil in reference to the priesthood 
 of Jesus, it says not one word about its being rent 
 when that High Priest offered up his one great 
 sacrifice. 
 
 The resurrection of the Saints from the opened 
 graves is found only in the first Gospel ; and as we 
 have already seen that the narratives of the raising, 
 not only of Lazarus, but also of the daughter of 
 Jairus and of the widow's son at Nain, are unhisto- 
 rical, not less feeble is the support for this pre-eminent 
 marvel. After reaching this conclusion, we may ask 
 further the purpose of such a prodigy. If they 
 awoke to consciousness as soon as Jesus died — i.e., 
 if they rose on the Friday evening, but did not go 
 into Jerusalem till the following week, "after his 
 resurrection," where were they in the interval % and 
 again to what life were they raised % When Lazarus 
 and the centurion's daughter are raised, they need 
 food and they receive it ; they return, in short, to the 
 
3IO English Life of Jesus. 
 
 ordinary conditions of human life. In this case, these 
 risen Saints must have needed hospitality : if they 
 did not need it, they were mere phantasms, or in other 
 •words, this was not a resurrection of dead persons at 
 all. Finally, we may ask, what became of this large 
 body of men who had returned to life from the dead ? 
 
 An ansAver is scarcely needed. The tale is a mere 
 legend, which has grown up from that association of 
 ideas which linked the image of the Messiah Avith 
 the notion of a resurrection of the just. 
 
 It is perhaps scarcely worth while to remark that 
 Luke, by making Jesus expire after commending his 
 spirit into his Father's hands, supplies an adequate 
 reason for the exclamation of the centurion, 
 "Certainly this was a righteous man" (xxiii. 47), 
 Avhile Mark represents him as saying that Jesus Avas 
 the son of God, merely because he cried out Avith a 
 loud voice immediately before his death (xv. 39). 
 Hence we might be disposed to accept the account 
 of Luke as more credible, if the details of the narra- 
 tiA^e had not l^een already shoAvn to be untrustAvorthy, 
 and if the Evangelist had not represented all the 
 spectators as returning to Jerusalem Aveeping and 
 beating their breasts — a fact of Avhicli Ave have else- 
 Avhere not the faintest trace, and Avhich may be traced 
 to the Clii-istian sentiment of a later generation. 
 
 Neither is it necessary to dAvell long on the spear 
 Avound in the side of Jesus. It is recorded only in 
 the fourth Gospel, and may therefore Avithout ado 
 be justly neglected. But the passage Avhich relates 
 it is ambiguous. We do not knoAv Avhether the 
 Aveapon used AA^as the light javelin or the heavy 
 spear, and the word used (e'h^Ie) may denote either a 
 mere scratch or a mortal wound. From the later 
 passage, however, Avhere Jesus is described as bidding 
 Thomas thrust his hand into his side, it Avould seem 
 to have made a large opening. Nor does the Avord 
 translated side determine Avhether the AVOund Avas 
 
Death and Burial of yes us. 3 1 1 
 
 inflicted in a vital part ; and all that medical 
 science attests is the fact that if the lance pierced the 
 body -within a few minutes after death, while the 
 blood is still fluid, blood would have flowed without 
 water ; if at a later time nothing Avould have flowed, 
 but in no case would blood and water have been 
 poured out. Finally, Ave have here one of those 
 Messianic interpretations of prophecy which, in every 
 case, lead us away from the region of fact to that of 
 fiction. The passage in Zechariah (xii. 10), is a mere 
 figure or metaphor, which is here resolved into a 
 visible incident. 
 
 The accounts]of the burial place of Jesus are scarcely 
 more harmonious. According to Matthew (xxvii. 57), 
 a rich man named Joseph, of Arimathsea, Avent alone 
 to Pilate, who gave an order that the body should be 
 delivered to him. Joseph then wrapped the body in 
 a clean linen cloth, and having laid it in his own new 
 tomb hewn out of the solid rock, rolled a great stone 
 to the door and departed. Here then we see that 
 the strength of one man suffices apparently to move 
 the stone. The account of Mark xv. 42, and Luke 
 xxiii. 50, is much the same, the act of Joseph being 
 described by Mark as a bold one. In the fourth 
 Gospel Ave haA'e, as usual, a A'^ery diff"erent version. 
 Far from going boldly, Joseph, " for fear of the Jews," 
 xix. 38, goes secretly, and after he receives the body 
 he is joined by Nicodemus, Avho brings about a 
 hundred Aveight of myi'rh and aloes, and helps him 
 to Avrap the body in linen clothes and to place it in 
 a sepulchre never yet used, in a garden. 
 
 The Johannine narrative may be soon dismissed. 
 We have seen already that the conversation Avith 
 Nicodemus (Chapter iv. p. 159) is unhistorical, and 
 that Nicodemus himself is a questionable person ; hence 
 the introduction of his name must inspire suspicion of 
 the story as a fiction. In the other Gospels there is 
 no actual embalming, although there is an intentiori 
 
3 1 2 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 to embalm the body. In Luke xxiii. 56, xxiv. 1, the 
 v'omen set about preparing spices on their return 
 from the grave ; in Mark xvi. 1 , they do not buy the 
 spices until the Sabbath is ended. Matthew alone 
 has no reference to an embalming, and in this 
 Gospel we have manifestly the earliest form of a 
 legend which grew up while it was still remembered 
 that the embalming of the body of Jesus really 
 preceded his death, Avlien the woman at Bethany 
 " anointed his body for the burial." 
 
 As to the grave itself, according to the Synoptics, 
 it is the property of Joseph, who had constructed it 
 for himself, and in it lays the body with all delibera- 
 tion. In the fourth Gospel we have a garden of 
 Avhich the other narratives make no mention, and the 
 sepulchre is not stated to be the property of Joseph, 
 but is chosen simply from its proximity, and because 
 the immediate approach of the Sabbath rendered 
 urgent haste necessary {xix. 42). 
 
 The inconsistencies of the Johannine story are as 
 complete as usual ; and in the narrative of the death 
 and burial of Jesus, the synoptic gospels are scarcely 
 more trustworthy. 
 
 THE WATCH AT THE GRAVE OF JESUS. 
 
 According to a story given only in the first Gospel 
 (xxvii. 62) the chief priests and Pharisees went to 
 Pilate and informed him that Jesus the deceiver had 
 announced that after three days he would rise again 
 from the dead. They demanded, accordingly, that the 
 sepulchre should be made sure till the third day, lest 
 the disciples should come by night and steal the body, 
 and say to the people. He is risen from the dead, and 
 thus the last error would be worse than the first. 
 Pilate, without further comment, says, "You have a 
 watch; go and make it as sure as. you can." The 
 
The Watch at the Grave of Jesus. 3 1 3 
 
 guards, thus placed, were astonished on the following 
 morning at seeing an angel of the Lord descend from 
 heaven and roll back the stone from the door of the 
 sepulchre. This sight made them shake and become 
 as dead men. The angel then told the two Marys, 
 who had come to the sepulchre, to go and announce 
 to the disciples that Jesus Avas going before them 
 into Galilee. As they depart on this errand, some of 
 the watch, getting the better of their terror, go into 
 the city and show the chief priests all the things that 
 were done. Upon this the chief priests assemble the 
 Sanhedrim, and after taking solemn counsel together, 
 bribe the soldiers to say that the disciples came 
 by night and stole the body away while tliey slept, 
 promising that if the matter should come to the 
 governor's ears, they would persuade Pilate and 
 secure the guards against all punishment. 
 
 Of this notable tale the other Gospels know 
 nothing. Let us see the several propositions stated 
 or implied in it. 
 
 (L) It asserts that the Jewish Sanhedrim had a 
 perfect knoAvledge that Jesus had foretold his resur- 
 rection from the dead on the third day. But accord- 
 ing to Matthew and the other Synoptic Evangelists, 
 Jesus had not announced either his Messiahship or 
 his sufferings, death, and resurrection even to the 
 disciples until a very late period in his ministry, and 
 it is expressly stated that they did not in the least 
 understand the meaning of his words, when he spoke 
 of these coming events. Thus we have the astounding 
 phenomenon that the enemies of Jesus are perfectly 
 acquainted with the meaning of exjDressions used by 
 him which his Apostles altogether failed to under- 
 stand. But if so, Avhence did they derive their know- 
 ledge 1 Surely not from inspiration or intuition : 
 and if not from Jesus himself, then also surely not 
 from the disciples, who, if the Gospel narratives 
 deserve any credit, never expected any resurrection. 
 
314 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 (2.) We infer, further, that the fears of the two 
 Marys, whose one perplexity is as to the weight of 
 the stone before the sepulchre, are quite ill directed, 
 for if the soldiers were faithful to their trust, they 
 would not have allowed the women to touch the 
 stone, and if they were ready to connive at this, they 
 were quite able to remoA^e it for them. Joseph of 
 Arimathsea, it would seem, was able to move it him- 
 self. 
 
 (3.) The story also implies that the guards believed 
 in the power of the Sanhedrim to persuade Pilate not 
 to punish soldiers who had committed the grave 
 military offence of sleeping on their post. But every 
 Roman soldier in Jerusalem must have been perfectly 
 aware that the Sanhedrim and the governor lived in 
 a state of chronic and cordial enmity, and would have 
 set a very low price on the intercessory powers of 
 Scribes and Pharisees, for an offence all but unpardon- 
 able. 
 
 (4.) But (the most astonishing circumstance of all) 
 the story asserts that the priests and scribes believe 
 the report of the guards. Being up to that moment 
 convinced that Jesus was a deceiver, and that the 
 predictions of his resurrection were mere falsehoods, 
 they now believe at once that he has actually risen 
 from the dead. This is more than Midsummer mad- 
 ness. Unless they Avere all bereft of their senses 
 (and the history of Acts, if at all trustworthy, does 
 not exhibit them in quite so poor a light) they must 
 in their turn have charged the soldiers with wilful 
 and impudent lying, and have instantly informed 
 Pilate of their infamous breach of trust. Their con- 
 clusion must inevitably have been that the guard had 
 allowed the body to be stolen, and that the story 
 about the angel was simply a lie with a circumstance. 
 Instead of this, the whole Sanhedrim, after solemn 
 debate, agree to bribe the soldiers, as convinced 
 of the perfect truth of their story, and as only 
 
The Watch at the Grave of Jesus. 315 
 
 anxious to keep up the idea that a man was still dead 
 whom they thoroughly well knew to be alive, forget- 
 ting altogether that God alone could have raised him. 
 Who can have a right to bid us believe such ab- 
 surdities, from an anonymous writer, of unknown 
 date ? 
 
 (5.) It further implies that these things did not 
 come to the governor's ears. The reader may judge 
 for himself of the likelihood of Pilate's remaining 
 ignorant that a prisoner Avhom he had crucified a few 
 hours before, Avas again alive, and that a college of 
 seventy men had, in solemn conclave, bribed his guards 
 to cheat him with a preconcerted story. The reader 
 may further judge whether, on learning this, Pilate 
 would have been inclined to deal more gently Avith 
 the soldiers, or whether these circumstances would 
 have placed his relations with the Sanhedrim on a 
 more friendly footing.'^ 
 
 The Evangelist himself supplies the clue to the 
 growth of this strange fiction, when he tells us that 
 a certain saying connected with this tale was com- 
 monly reported among the Jews down to his day. 
 This saying was that the disciples of Jesus had stolen 
 away his body ; but this very saying implies clearly 
 that no guard was set, that no guard saw an angel, 
 or returned to announce the resurrection, or was 
 bribed by the great council. It implies, further, a 
 thorough disbelief in the fact of the resurrection, 
 whereas the narrative of Matthew is based on an 
 absolute belief The legend is thus traced unmis- 
 takably to a Christian source ; and the details are 
 just those which would suggest themselves to believers 
 fervent in their faith and Avholly innocent of all dis- 
 crimination of character. 
 
 In this narrative we have, beyond all doubt, a tale 
 which could not have grown up for a considerable 
 time after the period of which it professes to speak ; 
 
 * See further, Commentators and Hierophants, Part II. pp. 33-42. 
 
3 1 6 English Life of fesus. 
 
 and hence it is unnecessary to impute any wilful false- 
 liood to those "vvho helped to give it shai)e. Dr Ti- 
 schendorf, in his recent tract, "When were our Gospels 
 written 1" would have us believe that the Gospels are 
 all of them the work of eye-witnesses ; let us grant 
 that he has proved his point, and the result is that 
 Matthew was a Avilful cheat and a conscious liar. But 
 we think better of the Christians of the first century, 
 and Ave accept neither the arguments of Dr Tischen- 
 doif nor his inferences. 
 
 THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 The narratives of the Resurrection exhibit, if pos- 
 sible, even greater inconsistencies and contradictions 
 than those which have preceded them. 
 
 In Matthew (xxviii. 1, &c.) we read that Mary 
 Magdalene and the other Mary (/. e., hco women) 
 came to the sepulchre, as the day hegan to daivn; that 
 there was an earthquake, and that the angel [one 
 angel) of the Lord came down, and, rolling away the 
 stone from the door of the sepulchre, sat upon it, and, 
 bidding the women not to be afraid, told them that 
 Jesus Avas I'isen, and that his disciples should see him 
 in Galilee, whither he had preceded them ; that as 
 they dejDart on this errand, Jesus himself appears to 
 them, and tells them just what the angel had said to 
 them a few minutes before, thus making the appa- 
 rition and message of the angel quite superfluous. 
 
 In ]\rark (xvi.) three Avomen, Mary Magdalene, 
 Mary the mother of James, and Salome, come to the 
 sepulchre, for the pux'pose of anointing the body of 
 Jesus, after the sun had risen. As in MatthcAv, they 
 are at a loss to knoAv hoAV they shall remove the stone 
 from the door; but Avhen they reach the spot, instead of 
 seeing an angel sitting on the stone, they simply see 
 
The Resurrection. 3 1 7 
 
 it rolled on one side, and it is only when they enter 
 the sepulchre (which the women in Matthew do not 
 enter) that they see a young man sitting on the right 
 side and clothed in a long white garment, who gives 
 them the same message which the angel gives to the 
 two Marys in the first Gospel. Then, at verse 9, 
 the story seems to begin afresh by stating that the 
 risen Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, just as 
 though a narrative of the resurrection had not been 
 given already. There is no mention of any earthquake 
 in this account. 
 
 In Luke (xxiv.) we are told that the women (seem- 
 ingly a great number) -^vho came with Jesus from 
 Galilee visited the sej)ulchre very early in the morning, 
 bringing spices for the purpose of embalming the 
 body, they, like the women in the other Gospels, 
 having not the slightest expectation that he would 
 rise again. These also find the stone rolled away, 
 and, entering the sepulchre, they see two men in 
 shining garments, who ask them why they seek the 
 living among the dead, and remind them (of what 
 every one of them had utterly forgotten) that Jesus 
 had distinctly forewarned them of his sufferings, 
 death, and resurrection ; but no message is given that 
 the disciples are to seek Jesus in Galilee, nor does 
 Jesus appear to them himself as he does in the other 
 Synoptics. The Evangelist then adds that they went 
 and told all these things to the eleven and all the rest, 
 and that the Apostles especially received their infor- 
 mation from Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the 
 mother of James, the names being for the third time 
 different. Far from believing their report, the Apostles 
 deride them as babblers of nonsense (Liddell and 
 Scott, s. V. "kripog, Luke xxiv. 11). Still Peter, incre- 
 dulous as he is, has curiosity enough to go to the 
 tomb, where, stooping do"svn, he beholds the linen 
 clothes laid by themselves, and, fully convinced by 
 this somewhat slight evidence, departs, "wondering 
 in himself at that which was come to pass." 
 
3 1 8 English Life of fesUs. 
 
 In John (xx. 1, &c.), Mary Magdalene comes alone 
 "early, when it was yet dark" (in Mark the sun has 
 risen), and sees the stone taken away from the sepul- 
 chre (where then was the guard, who thus suffered 
 her to approach near enough to find out in the dark 
 that the sepulchre was open) ? Instead of entering 
 the tomb, as the women do in the second and third 
 Gospels, or seeing any angel or man as they do in 
 all the Synoptics, Mary Magdalene at once hastens 
 back to Peter, James, and the Beloved Disciple, and 
 informs them not that Jesus is risen, but that "they 
 have taken away the Lord from the sepulchre, and tee 
 know not where they have laid him," thus implying 
 that she had not gone thither alone, as stated appa- 
 rently in verse 1. On hearing this Peter and the 
 other disciple hasten to the tomb, both running, but 
 the other disciple outruns him, and stooping down 
 at the sepulchre door, looks in and sees the linen 
 clothes lying, but does not go in. Peter then comes 
 up, and going in, sees further that the napkin which 
 had been about the head of Jesus was not lying with 
 the linen clothes, but was wrapped together in a 
 place by itself. The other disciple then goes in, sees, 
 and believes. (This visit is related in Avords which 
 are almost verbatim the same with those in which 
 Luke records the visit of Peter, the only difference 
 being that the credit of being the first believer in the 
 resurrection is here transferred to the beloved dis- 
 ciple). Without waiting for anything further, the 
 two disciples go home again ; but Mary lingers, weep- 
 ing, not having reached their assurance of conviction. 
 Stooping as she wept, and looking into the sepulchre, 
 she sees two angels in white who, as they came since 
 Mary and the two disciples stood at the door, must 
 have entered through the solid rock or earth. These 
 angels are seated, the one at the head and the other at 
 the feet, Avhere the body of Jesus had lain. (In Mark 
 the "young man" is seated on the right side). When 
 
The Resurrection. 31^ 
 
 they ask Mary the cause of her sorroAv, she replies 
 that it is because she knows not where the body of 
 Jesus has been laid. Without waiting for any fur- 
 ther words from the angels, of whose real nature she 
 seems to have no notion, Mary turns herself back 
 and sees Jesus standing, but fails to recognize him. 
 (In the Synoptics the women know him at once, at 
 the mere sound of his voice, and as in Matt, xxviii. 9, 
 hold him by the feet and worship him). The question 
 of Jesus " Why weepest thou 1 Whom seekest 
 thou V sounds to her as coming from no familiar 
 voice, and as she looks at him she sees apparently 
 nothing especially spiritual or remarkable about his 
 person, for, supposing him to be the gardener, she be- 
 seeches him, if he has taken the body away, to tell 
 her where he has placed it. Jesus answers by simply 
 calling her by her name ; and the spell which had 
 thus far held her is dissolved. Mary, turning round, 
 greets him as Rabboni, her Master, and seemingly 
 seeks to touch him. But whereas in the Synoptics 
 Jesus on his first appearance allows the women to 
 embrace his feet, here he says to Mary Magdalene, 
 " Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my 
 Father," and then he gives her a message for his 
 " brethren," which, however, is not a charge (as in 
 the other Gospels) that they should go to Galilee in 
 order to meet him, but the announcement, " I ascend 
 unto my Father and your Father, and to my God 
 and your God." 
 
 This story is in almost every particular a totally 
 different story, which excludes the Synoptic narra- 
 tives ; and the latter again differ from each other in 
 most important particulars. Hence even if the writers 
 were all contemporary with the events and ordinarily 
 accurate, of the historical resurrection of Jesus we have 
 no evidence whatever.* 
 
 * The theological questions involved in the term Resurrection we 
 are not called on to discuss ; and any minute examination of 
 
320 E?2glis/j Life of yes us. 
 
 Beyond this point we are in no way obliged to ad- 
 vance. Volumes might be filled Avitli an examination 
 of the absurdities propounded by harmonists who 
 refuse to grapple with the real point at issue, namely, 
 the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the 
 reports of what are cleai'ly intended to be the same 
 incidents. It is enough to say, that, if the separate 
 features in each narrative are to be retained as attested 
 by the authority of inspired witnesses, and if narra- 
 tives which differ from each other are to be regarded 
 as independent stories, then we shall have a crowd of 
 visitants, a series of angelic apparitions, and of mani- 
 festations of Jesus, a singular hurrying of the actors 
 to and fro, and a marvellous lack of all seemliness 
 and dignity. Taking each Gospel by itself we have 
 (without any reference to the truth or falsehood of 
 the tale) a scene of religious quiet and beauty, bringing 
 before us one visit of the women to the sepulchre, 
 one angelic visitation, one appearance of Jesus, and 
 one visit to the tomb by one or two of the disciples. 
 The attempt to harmonize the several contradictory 
 narratives can produce only a ridiculous medley, 
 which may be best compared to attempts to mingle 
 oil and vinegar.* 
 
 them in a historical iuquirj' would be obviously out of place. It 
 may suffice to remark that nothing is gained in the way of histori- 
 cal testimony from the belief which Paul expresses in a risen 
 Christ. He nowhere speaks of the resurrection as corporeal ; and 
 although he enumerates certain instances in which Jesus had ap- 
 peared to disciples, he places all those manifestations in the same 
 class with the appearance which he had himself seen on the road to 
 Damascus ; — in other words, with a mere vision. We may further 
 note that the term resurrection is ambiguous. Mr Maurice (' Theo- 
 logical Essays,' viii. ), believing firmly in a resurrection, denies dis- 
 tinctly that the material particles deposited in the grave are ever 
 reanimated. Bishop Butler, in his 'Analogy,' maintains seemingly 
 the same position. According to him the body is a living power, 
 and living powers cannot be destroyed. Hence the moment of the 
 change which we call death is the moment of Anastasis, or rising 
 up from the dead. It is strange that the Analogy of Butler should 
 have been for perhaps half a century used familiarly in the Schools 
 of Oxford, without any marked attention being called to thi:3 
 most significant fact. 
 * iEschylus, Agani, 323. 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 321 
 
 The attempt to account for the discrepancies in 
 these narratives by asserting that each Evangelist 
 adhered to the account which he had first received 
 from those who reported the events to him, or to 
 the impression which at the time those events left on 
 his mind, is a desperate one. If the resurrection 
 occurred at all (in their sense of the word) it must 
 have been an event more than all others discussed, 
 more earnestly dAvelt upon, most carefully recorded. 
 But in the Acts (granting it for a moment to be a 
 genuine history) we have no reference to any of 
 these incidents, nor is any to be found in any other 
 part of the New Testament. 
 
 APPEARANCES OF JESUS AFTER THE 
 RESURRECTION. 
 
 In the first Gospel (xxvi. 32) Jesus is described as 
 saying to his disciples that after he is I'isen again, 
 he will go before them into Galilee, nor does he say 
 anything to them about appearances elsewhere. In 
 accordance with this the angel of the Lord is repre- 
 sented as bidding the women go quickly and tell the 
 disciples, that " he goeth before you into Galilee ; 
 there shall ye see him ; lo, I have told you." These 
 words imply with the utmost clearness that they were 
 not to see him except in Galilee, or at the least until 
 they had returned into Galilee ; and in further 
 accordance with this idea we are informed (after the 
 episode about the Roman guard and the Sanhedrim) 
 that the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, 
 where, it would also appear, he had pointed out a par- 
 ticular mountain as the place of meeting (Matt, xx^'iii. 
 16). The Gospel closes with the statement that Jesus 
 appeared to them and charged them to go and teach 
 all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father^ 
 
 X 
 
322 English Life of yes us. 
 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Nothing is 
 said about the ascension of Jesus, or about any other 
 later appearances in Galilee or elsewhere. 
 
 Thus taking verses 6-8 with verses 16-20 we have 
 a coherent nairative; but in verses 9, 10, we have 
 what looks like a later insertion. Wlaether it be 
 so or not, this much is certain, that they inform 
 us of an apparition of Jesus, who simjDly repeats the 
 message just given to the women by the angel ; and 
 we may fairly ask the purpose of this manifestation. 
 It certainly Avas not needed to remove any disbelief 
 on the part of the women, for they are described as 
 running to bear to the disciples the tidings which 
 they had received from the angel. 
 
 In Mark (xvi.) we have no notes of place, and are 
 merely informed that Jesus was thrice seen, — first by 
 Mary Magdalene; after that, in another form (12), 
 he appeared to two of the disciples as they w\alked ancl 
 went into the country ; and after this, again, to the 
 eleven as they sat at meat. At this third inter- 
 view he upbraided them for their unbelief, and 
 bidding them go and preach the Gospel to every 
 creature, told them that all baptized believers should 
 be saved, but that all who believed not should be 
 damned, and that the former should be enabled to 
 cast out devils and speak with new tongues, to take 
 up serpents, to drink any deadly thing with impunity, 
 and to heal the sick by laying on of hands. 
 
 Now as Jesus is here said to have appeared to 
 Mary Magdalene early on the first day of the week, 
 and as Mary Avith the other disciples is certainly 
 described as being at this time in Jerusalem, it would 
 follow, as no change of place is noted, that the two 
 subsequent appearances were also in Jerusalem, and 
 seemingly on the same day. 
 
 This Gospel further adds (19, 20) that after Jesus 
 had ended his charge to the eleven as they sat at 
 meat (l-i), he was received up into heaven and sat on 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 323 
 
 the right hand of God, — thus implying that the 
 Ascension, which is not noticed by Matthew, took 
 place on the day of the Resurrection. The concluding 
 statement is that they went forth and preached every- 
 where, the Lord working with them and confirming 
 the word with signs following, — thus implying that 
 there was no Pentecostal outpouring of the spirit, 
 and that the Apostolic College was scattered in all 
 parts of the world, a statement expressly denied by 
 the whole narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. But 
 it must be remembered that all after v. 8 in the last 
 chapter of Mark is wanting in all the best MSS., and 
 is regarded as a later addition by first-rate critics. 
 
 In the third Gospel we are informed distinctly that 
 on the very day of the resurrection (Luke xxiv. 13) 
 two of them went to the village called Emmaus, about 
 seven miles distant from Jerusalem, that while they 
 were discussing recent events Jesus drew near to 
 them but their eyes were holden (i.e., a supernatural 
 power held them) so that they could not recognize 
 him. When Jesus asks the subject of their sorrow- 
 ful conversation, they express their surprize at his 
 ignorance, and add that in the crucified Jesus they 
 had hoped to find " him who should have redeemed 
 Israel," thus clearly implying the extinction of their 
 belief in Jesus as the Messiah. They then tell him 
 of the report of the women and of Peter, as some- 
 thing to Avliich they attached no credence, Jesus 
 then, it is said, rebuked them as fools and slow of 
 heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken, 
 and pointed out to them that Christ must suffer these 
 things and then enter into his glory, and then, 
 " beginning at Moses and all the prophets," expounded 
 to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning 
 himself Still they make no sign either of recognition 
 or even of surprize : and yet, if they were at all like 
 other men, they must have had many things to 
 answer to him. Is it possible that they could fail to 
 
324 English Life ofyesus. 
 
 express their wonder that the stranger who was thus 
 learned in Messianic interpretation should profess 
 ignorance (19) of the events which had within the 
 last week occurred in Jerusalem 1 Is it possible that 
 they could fail to retort, "Who art thou, that knowest 
 all these things so well, and hast reached a faith far 
 bej^ond that which Ave have been able to attain ? Thou 
 art a believer in Jesus more fervent and thorough 
 than we have been ; whence did thy conviction 
 come 1 " Instead of this, all that we are told is that 
 they journeyed on together (28), and that on reach- 
 ing the village Jesus made as though he would 
 have gone further, but at their entreaty he Avent into 
 a house to tarry Avith them. There as he sat at meat 
 with them, he Avas made knoAvn to them in breaking 
 of bread and " vanished out of their sight " (31.) 
 
 Leaving for a Avhile the narrative in itself, we may 
 note particularly that the two disciples rose up the 
 same hour, 33 (the day being still that of the resurrec- 
 tion, 13), and returned to Jerusalem, Avhere they 
 found the eleA'en gathered together and heard that 
 Jesus had been seen by Simon. They then told their 
 OAvn tale ; and as they thus spolce (i.e. still on the day 
 of the Resurrection), Jesus himself stood in the midst, 
 and greeted them Avith the salutation of peace. Then 
 seeing that they took him for a spectre, he bade them 
 handle him and see, and shoAved them his hands and 
 his feet, thus implying distinctly that his feet had 
 been nailed as Avell as his hands. He then ate before 
 them a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb ; 
 after Avhich, opening their understandings that they 
 might understand the Scriptures, he spoke to them 
 in the same tone of thought which had marked his 
 words to the tAvo disciples on the road to Emmaus. 
 Here, as in the previous G-ospels, repentance and 
 remission of sins are to be preached among all 
 nations ; but nothing is said of baptism, or of the 
 baptismal formula given in J^IattheAV ; and instead of 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 'T)'^^ 
 
 a command enjoining immediate departure, the dis- 
 ciples are bidden to tarry in Jerusalem until they are 
 endued with power from on high. The Evangelist 
 then adds that Jesus led them out as far as Bethany 
 (clearly still on the day of the Resurrection), and thence 
 ascended up to heaven. The disciples, we are told, 
 worshipped him, and returning to Jerusalem with 
 great joy were continually in the temple praising and 
 blessing God. 
 
 Here we have to remark especially that all refer- 
 ence to manifestations in Galilee has vanished. The 
 angels (6, 7), do not tell the women to inform the 
 disciples that Jesus is going before them into Galilee ; 
 and, as in Mark, the appearances to Simon, to the 
 two disciples, and to the eleven, are either in Jeru- 
 salem or in its immediate neighbourhood. The 
 journey of the eleven to Galilee, Matthew xxviii. 16, 
 is altogether excluded, and the disciples are even 
 commanded expressly to remain in the Holy City. 
 
 Thus, at once, we have before us two wholly con- 
 tradictory narratives, one of which must and both of 
 which may be false. It is undeniably certain that 
 if the eleven journeyed into Galilee, according to the 
 bidding of Jesus before his passion, and of the angel 
 after his resurrection, they did not at the same time 
 remain in Jerusalem, which in Luke they are said to 
 have done. 
 
 In the fourth Gospel we have (as we have already 
 in part seen), a narrative wholly irreconcilable with 
 that of either of the Synoptics, in which the women, 
 to whom be first appears, embrace and hold him by 
 the feet. Here Mary Magdalene is charged not to 
 touch him, because he has not yet ascended to his 
 Father. But as Jesus bids her go and say that he is 
 ascending (dm(3a!vci)) to his Father and their Father, 
 to his God and their God (xx. 17), and as in a sub- 
 sequent interview (27) he allows Thomas to handle 
 him, it seems to follow irresistibly that the ascension 
 
326 English Life of yes us. 
 
 must have taken place at some time between these mani- 
 festations ; or, in other words, that some of the several 
 Christophanies took place after the ascension. 
 
 The scene described in John xx. 19, is apparently 
 the same as that which is described in Mark xvi. 14 
 and Luke xxiv. 36, the time being the same in each, 
 viz., the evening of the day of the resurrection. 
 But the expression in the Johannine narrative that 
 " when the dooi"s were shut, where the disciples were 
 assembled, Jesus came and stood in the midst," im- 
 plies, seemingly, that Jesus entered through the closed 
 doors. At this visit Jesus gives his apostles, as in 
 the Synoptics, certain final commands and endows 
 them with certain powers, but the mode in which 
 they are given differs altogether. There is no com- 
 mand to go into all the world and j^reach the gospel 
 to every creature ; not the least hint that they are 
 to exercise the power of working physical or palpable 
 miracles, and even the third gospel tells us only 
 that repentance and remission of sins must be 
 preached in the name of Jesus. In the fourth Gospel 
 this announcement of remission has grown into the 
 power of the keys, and the apostles are distinctly told 
 that " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
 unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are 
 retained." Nor is anything said in the other Gospels 
 of the gesture or sign which accompanies the im- 
 parting of their power in the Johannine story. It 
 cannot, indeed, be too carefully noted that, according 
 to this Evangelist, the apostles as Jesus breathes on 
 them then and thereby receive all the affluence of the 
 Holy Spirit which they need for their exalted office ; 
 and thus the fourth Gospel virtually excludes that 
 story of the Pentecostal outpouring which we have 
 only in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 It must further be remarked that as in Luke, so 
 here, all the manifestations of Christ take place at 
 Jerusalem, and not a word is mentioned about jour- 
 
yes us after the Resurrection. 327 
 
 neys to or appearances in Galilee ; and thus we are 
 brought to the question of the genuineness of the 
 twenty-first chapter of John. For us this question 
 resolves itself into the simple inquiry whether it was 
 written by the author Avho drew up the preceding 
 chapters ; and the topic is certainly one of very slight 
 significance or interest. The utterly unhistorical char- 
 acter of the whole Gospel has been amply shown, and 
 it matters little whether a few more unhistorical 
 statements are or are not appended, whether by the 
 same or by another hand. 
 
 Nor must it be forgotten, that our task was virtu- 
 ally ended when we found that the accounts given of 
 the resurrection were throughout irreconcilable, and 
 that in such tales as that of the Sanhedrim and the 
 guard we have to deal with transparent fictions. If 
 we have no evidence whatever for the carnal or 
 physical resurrection there described, it is manifestly 
 a work of supererogation to examine accounts which 
 describe appearances after that event. This super- 
 fluous task we have undertaken, and the result is only 
 to shew that the later stories are as shadowy and self- 
 contradictory as any that have preceded them. 
 
 We are, then, in no way bound to examine the so- 
 called appendix to the Johannine Gospel. Yet it is 
 in itself curious as a storehouse for the symbolical 
 theology of later ages, and as exhibiting the growth 
 of a tone of thought which marks the more complete 
 development of the Christian Church. We have first 
 the parallelism between the incidents here described 
 and the first calling of Peter in Luke v. ; but as there 
 the number of fishes in the miraculous draught was 
 indefinite, and the net broke, here they are one hun- 
 dred and fifty and three, and in spite of their size the 
 net is not broken, — a favourite topic with those who 
 wish to draw a contrast between the Church triumph- 
 ant and the Church as militant here, with the meshes 
 of its net broken by the crowd of good and bad fish 
 
328 English Life of yesus. 
 
 inclosed within it. It is scarcely worth while to re- 
 mark that here, as in the Synoptics, Jesus asks for food 
 and eats it before his disciples. 
 
 The nnnainder of the chapter from verse 15 is taken 
 up with a nanative of the three questions put to Peter, 
 demanding a three-fold assertion of his love and loyalty, 
 to compensate his three-fold denial in the house of the 
 high priest, and also with a reference to the future for- 
 tunes of Peter and the Beloved Disciple. The idea of 
 the almost immediate return of Christ to judgment 
 still so far retains its force that the Beloved Disciple 
 is represented as probably living to see it, — in perfect 
 agreement with the assertion that the generation alive 
 during the Ministry of Jesus should not pass away till 
 all be fulfilled. Whether the words, which describe 
 the closing scenes in the life of Peter, refer to his 
 alleged death by crucifixion, or whether (as is not less, 
 and perhaps even more, probable) to the mere weak- 
 ness of old age which needs the support of a guide, is 
 a matter of very little consequence and very slight 
 interest. When the whole story is apocryphal, it 
 matters little Avhat becomes of subordinate details. 
 
 We ha^e thus already three contradictory narratives 
 of the peiiod following the crucifixion of Jesus. To 
 these must be added the story in Acts i., which differs 
 from all of them. Into the question of the authorship 
 of the Acts Ave have no intention of entering ; it may 
 be enough to say that the only reason of any force for 
 attributing it to the writer of the third Gospel is the 
 fact that it has a preface which is directly connected 
 with the preface to that Gospel. But to assume iden- 
 tity of authorship from the similarity of two prefaces 
 in an age when pseudonymous Avritings were as numer- 
 ous as falling leaves in autumn, is an excess of credu- 
 lity. The Gospel of Luke bears no resemblance in 
 point of style to the preface to that Gospel, and the 
 preface to the Acts is not much in harmony with the 
 anguage of the book which follows it. A conclusion 
 
ycsus after the Resurrection. 329 
 
 quite as plausible (if not more reasonable), would be 
 that some writer quite distinct from the author of 
 Luke and Acts, has prefixed some verses of his own 
 before two books which up to that time exhibited no 
 signs of identity of authorship. However this may 
 be, when two alleged histories are proved to be not 
 histories, it matters nothing whether they are said to 
 come from one or from two authors. 
 
 In the Acts, then, we are informed that the period 
 over which the Christophanies were extended was 
 limited precisely to forty days, that during this period 
 Jesus was seen to be alive by many infallible proofs 
 (these proofs, as we are elsewhere (Acts x. 41) told, being 
 vouchsafed not to all the people, but to certain chosen 
 witnesses); and that at the end of this time, while 
 they still expected the immediate restoration of the 
 temporal Kingdom of Israel (i. 6), he led them out 
 as far as Mount Olivet (12), and there, having charged 
 them that they should not depart from Jerusalem 
 until the promise of the Father had been fulfilled, was 
 taken up even as they looked on him, and a cloud re- 
 ceived him out of their sight. 
 
 In this narrative, as in that of Mark and Luke, all 
 reference to Galilee is pointedly excluded, and Jeru- 
 salem is the one theatre of all the Christophanies. 
 But the account of the Acts is, further, the only one 
 which relates in detail a visible ascension from the 
 ground to a celestial abode supposed to be raised 
 above it. In Mark we have merely the statement 
 that, " after the Lord had sjDoken to them, he was 
 received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of 
 God ;" in Luke we are told that Jesus was parted 
 from them in the very act of blessing them ; while 
 in Matthew and John there is no reference to any 
 ascension. But the writer of the Acts has learnt 
 that as the disciples stood gazing up into heaven 
 after Jesus, two men came and stood by them in 
 white apparel (whence they came we are not told, 
 
^^o English Life of yes us. 
 
 but nothing is said of a visible descent from heaven 
 or of an aerial apparition, as in the case of the angelic 
 hosts seen in the sky over Bethlehem). These men 
 told the disciples, " this same Jesus which is taken 
 up from you into heaven shall so come in like man- 
 ner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Without 
 further questioning these men, the disciples returned 
 to Jerusalem, and there Avaited until the Spirit was 
 poured out upon them on the feast of Pentecost. 
 
 The comparative lateness of this composition seems 
 to be indicated by the fact that, although it is still 
 asserted that the Messiah Avill return, visibly descend- 
 ing from heaven, it is not stated (i. 11) that this event 
 will take place during the life-time of any then living. 
 The writer of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians 
 (accepted as Paul) is under the impression (iv. 15) 
 that some, at least, of those to whom he wrote 
 would be alive at the second advent of Jesus, and 
 would be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 
 This drawing upwards from the earth will be the 
 lot, it is said, of all saints who may then be living 
 throughout the Avhole Avorld ; and Ave are thus brought 
 at once to the astronomical difficulty Avhich renders 
 these passages Avorthless for those Avho have even but 
 a slight tincture of modern scientific knoAvledge. As 
 long as the earth Avas regarded as a flat surface, and 
 the heaA^en Avas conceived as a solid firmament in 
 Avhich the stars Avere fixed, and beneath Avhich the 
 planets moved as in grooved courses, it Avas quite 
 possible to imagine that the inhabitants of the earth, 
 if draAvn up from it, might converge to a focus in the 
 upper air ; but when the earth is known to be spheri- 
 cal, when it is perceived that the idea of a solid 
 firmament is a delusion, and that height and depth, 
 in reference to the stars or the earth, are purely 
 relative terms, it becomes the merest absurdity to 
 speak of the heaven as placed in some definite spot 
 above the earth, or of the inhabitants of a sphere 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 331 
 
 rising at the same time from all parts of that sphere 
 to a common centre placed at some distance above 
 it. The Copernican system implies that such a draw- 
 ing up of people from all parts of the earth at the 
 same time would result in an infinite divergence. 
 It follows that such a convening of the saints as is 
 described in this Ej^istle to the Thessalonians is im- 
 possible, hence that the theory of the Last Day in 
 the New Testament is without foundation, for there 
 is clearly no warrant whatever for saying that, al- 
 though the visible manifestation in the clouds and 
 the visible converging to a common centre in the 
 upper air cannot take place, yet the great truth of a 
 collective judgment of mankind remains untouched. 
 It is not so. These features are of the very essence 
 of the early Christian idea ; and if we reject them 
 the whole notion falls to the ground. It may be true, 
 and it is true, that the rejection of this ancient imagi- 
 nation cannot affect the righteous judgment of God, 
 as exercised whether in this life or in any other ; but 
 assuredly it destroys the idea of that visible spectacle 
 which the Latin Church has imaged in its splendid 
 hymn, the Dies Irce. 
 
 If for this reason only, we are absolved from 
 the necessity of examining the narrative of the 
 Acts historically. If there be no solid heaven, if 
 there be no one particular spot where God 
 immediately dwells, if the bare idea of such a 
 thing is absurd, it follows irresistibly that the visible 
 ascent of Jesus from Mount Olivet is as impossible 
 as the great gathering spoken of in the Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians. Any further scrutiny is thus doubly 
 superfluous. The Gospel narratives of the resurrection 
 being shown to be unhistorical, the narrative of events 
 in the life of Jesus later than the resurrection loses 
 at once all historical value. We do not care, there- 
 fore, to waste many words on the attempts to present, 
 in the form of a coherent narrative, the contradictory 
 
^2"^ English Life ofjesus. 
 
 accounts of the Christophanies. The assertion that 
 when Jesus, according to Luke's account, charged the 
 disciples to remain at Jerusalem, he did not mean to 
 exclude slight walks or excursions (such as the jour- 
 ney to Galilee), is a desperate effort to evade an 
 insurmountable difficulty. Far from being a slight 
 walk or excursion, the journey from Jerusalem to 
 Galilee was nearly the longest which a Jcav could 
 undertake within the limits of his own country ; and 
 it is demonstrably certain that if Jesus had intended 
 his disciples to remain in Jerusalem till after Pente- 
 cost, he could not possibly have enjoined them to go 
 to Galilee in order to see him for the first time after 
 the resurrection. 
 
 By commanding them to return to Galilee, Jesus 
 was, in fact, commanding them to return home ; and 
 there can be no doubt whatever that the tradition 
 embodied in Matthew xxviii. (excluding verses 9-15) 
 is the oldest. This tradition assigned the Christophany 
 (for at this stage there was seemingly but one) to Gali- 
 lee ; and as nothing is said of any ascension, it would 
 appear that the disciples at first sought only for evi- 
 dence which might justify the conviction that Jesus 
 was still alive. The belief in his spiritual resurrection 
 was weak enough to need the support of ocular 
 manifestation. But if Galilee, removed furthest from 
 the hostile forces which had been arrayed against 
 Jesus in Jerusalem, was the likeliest ground on which 
 a belief in his carnal or material existence might 
 spring up, it was not less natural that, as time went 
 on, the disciples should become anxious to show that 
 Jesus had manifested his victory over death in the 
 very place where he had appeared to be overcome by 
 it \ and when the Church at Jerusalem became more 
 developed and consolidated, it was natural to put 
 into the mouth of Jesus words which would describe 
 that city as the centre from which the various Chris- 
 tian missions should radiate. In Matthew xxviii. 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 333 
 
 16-20 it is clearly /rowi Galilee that the Apostles are 
 charged to set out on their journey for the conversion 
 of the Gentiles. We should thus have two sets of 
 Christophanies, for those in Galilee would not neces- 
 sarily be superseded by the manifestations in or near 
 Jerusalem. They might, indeed, be multiplied indefi- 
 nitely, and, accordingly, we have in the appendix to 
 the Johannine Gospel the account of a Galileo.u 
 Christophauy not found in any of the Synoptic 
 narratives. 
 
 It would be easy to point out other difiiculties ; 
 but the task is superfluous. In Matthew the angel of 
 the Lord distinctly charges the women to bid the dis- 
 ciples journey into Galilee in order that they may see 
 Jesus. If these words have any meaning, they imply 
 that they would not see him until they reached 
 Galilee. Who sends to a friend in England a message 
 that he should join him weeks hence in Italy, if he in- 
 tends on the same day on which he sends his message 
 to call at that friend's house in London? The com- 
 mand enjoining the journey into Galilee clearly excludes 
 the idea of any earlier Christophauy in Jerusalem, and 
 belongs to an earlier time than that in which a belief 
 in other manifestations sjiraug up. No human in- 
 genuity can show that the two ideas could have grown 
 up side by side. If Jesus was to appear to the dis- 
 ciples in Jerusalem on the first day of the week the 
 very day of the resurrection, the angel must have told 
 them not that they must go into Galilee to meet him, 
 but that they should see him where they then were 
 before the sun went down. 
 
 Yet that some contemporaries of Jesus, and amon^ 
 these ol course his disciples, were convinced tha!: 
 they had seen him with their bodily eyes, can noi 
 be doubted. In an epistle, the genuineness of which 
 has never been questioned, Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5), 
 enumerates certain Christophanies, beginning with 
 one vouchsafed to Cephas (Peter), which may be the 
 
334 English Life of yes us. 
 
 one mentioned in Luke (xxiv. 34). The appearance 
 to the twelve, which he next mentions, may be the 
 one spoken of in Mark and Luke as occurring on the 
 evening of the day of the Resurrection. The next 
 manifestation, to above 500 brethren at once, is not 
 mentioned in any of the Gospels, or in the Acts, 
 for this cannot be the manifestation which according 
 to Acts i. ended in the Ascension, for of that event 
 only the twelve are said to have been witnesses. But 
 this number of 500 cannot be reconciled with the 
 history of Acts i., for in verse 15 of that chapter it is 
 distinctly stated that the whole number of the dis- 
 ciples (and this, too, at a time later than the Ascension'), 
 was about 120. If then the statement in the Acts 
 is to be credited, then the manifestation to the 500 
 must have taken place at a considerably later time 
 when the number of believers far exceeded 500 (for 
 if the 500 had at the time of which Paul speaks 
 constituted the whole Christian society, he would 
 most assuredly have said that Jesus was then seen by 
 the whole body of the faithful at once). It follows, 
 further, that the appearances first to James, and then 
 to all the Apostles, which he places after the mani- 
 festation to the 500, must, if the story of the Acts be 
 true, belong to a time long subsequent to the Ascen- 
 sion ; and thus the narrative of the Acts receives yet 
 another contradiction, for the words of the angels 
 (or men, i. 11), distinctly affirm that the next ai:)pear- 
 ance of Jesus will be when he comes again from 
 heaven, as they had seen him go up, for the great 
 Messianic judgment. To have spoken thus, when he 
 was still, and soon, to be seen by the bodily eyes of 
 500 brethren, and then by James, and then by all 
 the Apostles, would have been to say that which was 
 not true. 
 
 Hence we have this dilemma. Either Paul's state- 
 ment in an undoubtedly genuine epistle is delusive ; or 
 the narrative in Acts i. is a credulous imagination j 
 and from this dilemma there is no escape. 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 't^'^'^ 
 
 But Paul goes on to say that after these Christo- 
 phanies, Jesus was last of all seen by himself also. 
 He thus places all these manifestations on the same 
 level, and seems to regard them as all of precisely the 
 same kind with the appearance vouchsafed to him- 
 self. But this appearance, if we are to trust the nar- 
 rative of Acts ix., was a vision and not a palpable or 
 sensible fact ; and thus we are justified in inferring 
 that all the other manifestations may have been 
 of the same kind. The historical evidence has, as 
 we have seen, entirely broken down ; and now we 
 have the most prominent actor in the first Christian 
 age using language Avhich reduces all the Christo- 
 phanies to impressions made on the minds of enthu- 
 siastic believers. 
 
 Whether the language of the Evangelists can be 
 reconciled with this conclusion, is a matter of the 
 very slightest importance. The whole narrative has 
 been shown to be unhistorical, and further discus- 
 sions are in strictness of speech superfluous. It may, 
 however, be worth while to remark that the notions 
 of the Evangelists betray a supreme carelessness as 
 to the laws and conditions which regulate all mate- 
 rial things. They know nothing about them, and 
 manifestly they wish to know nothing about them. 
 The body of Jesus after his resurrection may be em- 
 braced and handled ; it has flesh and bones, and it 
 can eat and drink ; but it passes also through closed 
 doors, or rather appears in a room of which the doors 
 are closed, and doing this, it can vanish instan- 
 taneously, at his will. Space is for him no barrier ; 
 and time is not needed for the prosecution of jour- 
 neys over the tangible earth. The truth is that we 
 are dealing with conceptions precisely similar in 
 kind with those of angelic visitants in Genesis and 
 other books of the Old Testament. These visitants 
 may be seen walking, and may also be seen to eat 
 as though they were men, yet are not trammelled by 
 
2^6 English Life ofjesus. 
 
 the conditions of human life. Eating and locomotion are 
 for them no necessities, but merely visionary operations 
 performed for the benefit of mortal men. With this 
 conclusion one whole class of expressions used in the 
 Gospels corresponds with singular closeness. The 
 appearances of Jesus after his resurrection are all 
 spoken of, strictly, as visions. The phrase in Acts i. 
 3 {h'xrawijjivog) is just one which would be used to 
 describe any phantasy or mere optical impression as 
 distinguished from the sight of a real object in the 
 material woi'ld. The verb used in Luke xxiv. 34 and 
 by Paul (1 Cor. xv.) is w^^?), a word of the same 
 kind, with which we must class the Jpai'jj and 
 t<pavspu)dr) of Mark. 
 
 Thus we have a number of phrases which point 
 only to visionary manifestations, and with these a 
 number of statements which apply to all living men. 
 These two notions are antagonistic ; but the Evange- 
 lists were manifestly unaware of the conflict, and we 
 must take their ideas and statements as we find them. 
 
 Of the so-called Rationalistic methods applied by 
 some to these narratives we should have taken no 
 notice, but for the fact that M. Renan (' Vie de Jesus,' 
 and 'Les Apotres') has revived some of the many 
 hypotheses put forth long before by Paulus and other 
 writers of the like sort. There is something not 
 merely absurd but revolting in suppositions that 
 Jesus was only apparently dead, and that, brought to 
 consciousness by the warmth of the spices which 
 according to one account were placed about his body, 
 he was enabled to crawl out of his grave, and to 
 show himself to the disciples from time to time, as 
 his strength permitted. This is only to exhibit Jesus 
 and all who believed on him as either knaves or fools. 
 If he survived the crucifixion, what became of him 1 
 "Where did he go 1 Where did he die ? A precon- 
 certed arrangement is the ready resource of commen- 
 tators in difficulty. Received by some ascetic dis- 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 2>Z7 
 
 ciples, he was conducted to an Essene lodge, where, 
 after having given directions which led the Apostles 
 to suppose that he had gone to heaven, he spent the 
 remainder of his days, few or many, in strict retire- 
 ment. Thus we have Jesus represented as doubly 
 duping others, and the whole company of Apostles 
 as cheated by some secret consjjii'ators who knew 
 perfectly well that the faith which the Apostles were 
 now gradually sj^reading was based on an imposture. 
 
 The result is just as bad, if we adopt M. E6nan's 
 hypothesis that some of the disciples carried away the 
 body to Galilee, and that in this absence the belief in 
 the Kesurrection was enabled to spring up in Jeru- 
 salem. But we have seen that, so far as the Gospels 
 warrant any conclusion, Galilee was the first, and 
 Jerusalem the last place where such a belief was likely 
 to come into existence. There is no room for trickery 
 on the part of the women who are said to have been 
 assembled on the first day of the week ; and thus M. 
 Eenan's fabric is shattered. The radical fault of his 
 picture is the assumption that the disciples became 
 convinced before the event actually took place, that 
 Jesus must rise again and be seen visibly among 
 them. 
 
 This assumption has been pointed out in an article 
 on M. Kenan's " Apostles," in the JFestminster Review 
 for October, 1866, and we avail ourselves of the refu- 
 tation there given of the last phase that we are likely 
 to see of so-called (but sadly misnamed) rationalistic 
 interpretations of the events from the crucifixion to 
 the alleged outpouring of the Spirit on the Feast of 
 Pentecost. 
 
 " In M. Kenan's opinion, the resurrection was practically 
 achieved on the Sabbath day which followed the day of the 
 crucifixion. On that day the disciples did no work, 'but uever 
 was a season of repose more fruitful : the Christian conscience 
 had on that day one object only, — the master who lay in the 
 tomb.' On that day any keen-sighted man might have fore- 
 told that Jesus would live again. ' The little society of Chris- 
 
 Y 
 
^^S English Life of 'Jesus. 
 
 tians on that clay wrouglit the true miracle : it raised Jesus in 
 its heart by the intense love which it bore for him : it decided 
 that Jesus should not die.' If tliese phrases have any mean- 
 ing, they affirm that on that Sabbath day the general body of 
 the disciples had attained to the conviction either that Jesus 
 had not died, or that he must rise again : in other words, they 
 were all prepared to believe the first tidings which might an- 
 nounce that he had risen from the grave. M. Honan says as 
 much when he adds, ' As soon as an inskjnificant material fact 
 shall have enabled them to believe that his body is no longer 
 on the earth, the dogma of the resurrection will have been 
 placed on an imperishaljle basis.' This insignificant fact is the 
 disapjjearance of the body from the tomb, about which M. 
 Ktiuan merely says, that they who were in the secret discreetly 
 held their peace, or happened not to be at hand when their 
 words might have nipped in the bud ' a most fruitful mis- 
 apprehension.' This is simjjly incredible. The whole story 
 of the tomb is surrounded by a maze of difficulties, not one of 
 which M. Kenan condescends to notice : and it is worse than 
 idle to discuss the probability of the removal of the body from 
 the tomb, when that which we seek is evidence for the fact 
 that it was ever laid within the tomb, or that there was any 
 cave in which it might be laid. But M. Eenan is determined 
 to paint a striking picture, and, accordingly, he colours it with 
 as many assumptions as may be called for. In the ' most 
 authentic ' accounts he discerns the circumstance that on the 
 resurrection morning ' Mary Magdalene played her part alone 
 and bore for a whole hour the travail of tlie Christian con- 
 science.' For this fact, as for the resurrection of Lazarus, M. 
 Renan relies on the fourth Gosjiel, to which for tlie events of 
 the last days he assigns ' a vast superiority ' over the rest. 
 Still the story is comjjosed only by material departures from 
 the text of that Gospel which does not represent Mary Mag- 
 dalene as playing any solitary part. In the words of Strauss, 
 ' According to John, although he mentions only Mary Mag- 
 •dalene by name, several women must have accompanied 
 her to the grave, since he makes her say, after her return, to 
 the discii^les, We know not where they have laid him.' But 
 here, as elsewhere, M. Renan smites his own idol. In his 
 volume on ' The Apostles,' he states it as a fact that ' after 
 their return from Jerusalem the principal disciples, Peter, 
 Thomas, Nathanael, and the sons of Zebedee, met on the 
 banks of the lake of Gennesareth, and thenceforth lived 
 together, having resumed their former occupation as fishermen 
 either at Bethsaida or Capernaum.' In his ' Life of Jesus,' 
 M. Bcnan denies that the last chajjter of the fourth Gospel is 
 the work of that Evangelist. But if the Gospel fails to show, 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 339 
 
 and certainly it does not assert, that it was written by John 
 himself, and if materials siipi:)lied by John to the first writer 
 have been tampered with by a later compiler for the special 
 purpose of rendering homage to the Apostle Peter, what 
 becomes of the evidence that the disciples ever met at the 
 lake of Tiberias at all 1 Yet again, in the fourth Gospel John 
 is the one who first believes, whilst Mary Magdalene sees two 
 angels before she sees Jesus ; according to M. Renan, Mary 
 believes first and she sees no angel at all. By such a method 
 as this anjrthing can be made of anjrthing ; and as we turn 
 from the fourth Gospel, which tells us that, when Mary had 
 answered the angels' question, she at once turned herself back 
 and saw Jesus, we regard with resignation, if not with 
 approval, M. Renan's discovery, that she turned back be- 
 cause ' she heard a slight noise behind her. ' But the matter 
 becomes more serious when we are told, ' A man stood before 
 her.' This is a simple statement of fact. Yet when Mary 
 sought to touch him, M. Renan asserts that ' the vision 
 stepped aside and bade her touch him not. By degrees the 
 phabtom disappeared ; but the miracle of love was effected.' 
 Does M. Renan believe that the object seen was a man or a 
 phantom ? It could not be both at once. 
 
 On her return to the disciples, far from finding that implicit 
 belief in the resixrrection which, according to M. Renan, had 
 sprung up in the society generally the day before, Mary is 
 charged with folly, and the contradiction is heightened by the 
 statement that even when Peter bore out the statements of the 
 women, his words were received with but a scantily hidden 
 unbelief. Either these statements are unhistorical, or M. Re- 
 nan's picture of the Sabbath day is untrue. Such things, how- 
 ever, cause him no disqiiietude. He asks us to believe that on 
 the day of the resuri-ection many of the disciples had already 
 set out for Galilee, the sole evidence for this fact being the 
 predictions put into the mouth of Jesus that after his death 
 they would be scattered every man to his own home. Was 
 he afraid to add that, according to Justin, the crucifixion was 
 followed by the complete apostasy of all the disciples ? We 
 are wholly at a loss to imagine how svich a notioji could ever 
 have sprung up, if M. Renan's miracle of love had really been 
 accomplished in the whole society on the Sabbath day pre- 
 ceding the resurrection. M. Renan is still more candid. The 
 Gospels are contradictory ; the miracles related in them are 
 impossibilities ; and the witnesses or actors are utterly untrust^ 
 worthy. They bebeved in apparitions and fancied themselves 
 surrounded by an atmosphere of marvels. " Palestine was 
 one of the countries most in arrear in the science of the day ; 
 the Galilfeans were the most ignorant of all the inhabitants of 
 
340 English Life of 'Jesus. 
 
 Palestine, and the disciples of Jesus might be reckoned among 
 the most stupid of the Galihrans." Assuredly this hypothesis 
 can alone bear out M. Kenan's version of the incidents in the 
 journey to Enimaus. The unknown companion who joins the 
 two disciples on the road is "a pious man, well read in the 
 Scri^jturcs, and able to quote Moses and the prophets. " Pleased 
 with liis kindly talk, they constrain him to take with them his 
 evening meal. 
 
 " How often at this hour had they seen their well-loved 
 Master lay aside the burden of the day in the ease of a care- 
 less gaiety, and, cheered by a draught of generous wuie, speak 
 to them of that fruit of the Vine which he should drink anew 
 with them in his Father's Kijigdom. His gesture in breaking 
 the bread and in offering it to them, like the master of a Jewish 
 household, was deeply graven in their memory. Full of sweet 
 sadness, they forgot the stranger : it is Jesus himself who 
 holds the bread, who breaks it and offers it to them. So ab- 
 sorbed are they in their recollections that they do not mark 
 the departure of the stranger, who had been obliged to con- 
 tinue his journey." 
 
 We may well ask, after such a recital, what grounds we have 
 for condemning Euemerus, when he assei-ted that Zeus was a 
 great leader of men, whose inscriptions he had seen in various 
 parts of the world. In this strange system probabilities become 
 certainties and certainties become probabilities. The imme- 
 diate departure of many disciples to Galilee is mentioned in 
 the first chapter as a fact, in the second as a likelihood ; the 
 motive for their journey (a home-sickness for the lake and the 
 beautiful mountains where they had wandered witli Jesus) is a 
 part of that scene-painting which, without a particle of evi- 
 dence, represents Jesus himself as profoundly impressed with 
 the natural beauties and features of Galilee. But while the 
 disciples at Jerusalem are troubled and perplexed, and even 
 the two friends at Emmaus are filled Avith a sweet sadness, 
 " never was a jotirney more joyous " than that of the Galilaaans 
 to their northern home. They were prepared to see Jesus, and 
 they saw him. 
 
 But while these visions were multiplied both in Jerusalem 
 and in Galilee, " where," asks M. R^nan, "were the worms 
 consiiniing the lifeless body which had been placed in the 
 sepulchre ? " This, he answers, we shall never know. 
 
 " It is possible that it may have been taken away by some 
 of the discii^les and carried on to Galilee. They who remained 
 at Jerusalem would know nothing of this, while they who took 
 it to Galilee would have heard no tidings of the resurrection, 
 the belief in which had been formed after their departure. 
 This belief they would not gainsay ;" if they had, their words 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 341 
 
 would have been of no avail. When miracles are credited, 
 attempts to explain the fact are of no use. 
 
 If not taken by these, it may have been removed by the 
 Jews, from the wish to prevent either any possible tumult or 
 the performance of any funeral rites over the body ; or the 
 deed may have been done by the owner of the garden, who did 
 not relish the use to which his cave had been put. This last 
 supposition, M. Renan admits, is scarcely consistent with the 
 alleged ai-rangement of the cloths and napkins in the sepul- 
 chre ; but here we have what looks like the handiwork of a 
 woman, and there is room for suspicion that Mary Magdalene 
 may have so arranged them in order to lend greater plausibility 
 to her tale. ' ' The female mind, when swayed by j^assion, ia 
 liable to the strangest illusions, and is frequently the accom- 
 plice of its own dreams. No one wilfully deceives himself 
 in order to bring about incidents of a marvellous character ; 
 but every one, without thinking of it, is led to connive at 
 them. " 
 
 These gi-atuitous, and, in part, unworthy assumptions are 
 caused by a shirking of the real difficulty. If the tale of 
 Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemiis is not strictly historical, 
 there is no evidence that the body was ever laid in the cave, 
 or even received back from the custody of the executioners. 
 This is the capital question, but instead of facing it, M. Rinnan 
 bids us " draw a veil over these mysteries," which in part, at 
 least, are of his own creating. 
 
 From these apparitions of Jesus we turn finally to the miracle 
 of Pentecost, which in the hands of M. Renan undergoes a 
 transformation not unlike that of the mjiih of Salmoneus in 
 the hands of the Euemerists. The early Christian society was 
 no stranger to " descents of the Holy Spirit," analogous to 
 those of Quakers, Jumpers, Shakers, of Camp-meetings and 
 Revivals. But among such descents ' ' there was one which 
 left in the infant Church a profound impression. One day, 
 while the brethren were assembled, a storm broke out ; a 
 strong wind broke the windows open ; the heavens were on 
 fire. Storms in Judea are accompanied by immense dis- 
 charges of electric fluid, and the air seems as if it were 
 ploughed up into ridges of flame. Whether the fluid actually 
 .penetrated the building, or whether a blinding flash lit up the 
 faces of all there assembled, they were convinced that the 
 Spirit had entered, and had been poured on their heads in the 
 shape of tongues of flame." 
 
 The simplicity even of Jews or Galileans must have been 
 severely tested before they could draw this conclusion from a 
 phenomenon with which all the inhabitants of Palestine must 
 have been perfectly familiar. But M, R^nan's story iavolvea 
 
34^ English Life of fesus. 
 
 a conclusion which seems to be fatal to the whole theory. If 
 his hypothesis be true, then this legend of the Pentecostal 
 miracle was in existence within a few weeks or months of the 
 crucifixion : and if so, it seems almost incredible that an 
 event described by M. Eenan as being so profoundly impressive 
 should be passed by ■without even a passing notice, not only in 
 all the Gospels but in all the so-called Ai)Ostolic Epistles. The 
 absence of all allusion to any such event in any other part of 
 the New Testament points surely to the fact that the whole 
 Btory is of late growth, and renders it unnecessary to examine 
 M. Kenan's strange notion that the wonder lay not in the dis- 
 cijiles speaking a new language, but in their uttering unintelli- 
 gible sounds which struck on the ears of the foreign Jews and 
 proselytes like words in their several dialects. Nay, his sup- 
 position that the miracle implies the growth of a liberal idea 
 involving the spread of Christianity throughout the world, 
 almost suffices of itself to prove that the story did not come 
 into vogue during the period to which he assigns it." 
 
 After all that lias been already said, it seems almost 
 useless to advert to other difficulties in these narra- 
 tives, Avhich yet may be multiplied almost indefinitely. 
 We can but notice in passing the fact that the palling 
 commands of Jesus differ widely in the several narra- 
 tives. In one we have a charge to preach repentance 
 and remission of sins in the, name of Jesus, in another 
 a charge to baptize all nations in the navie of the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost, a formula which is ap- 
 parently unheeded in the Acts, where the Apostles 
 are represented as baptizing always " into the name 
 of the Lord Jesus," not into the Trinitarian formula. 
 In the same way we have, as we have already seen, an 
 imparting of the Spirit by the breath of Jesus in the 
 Johannine Oospel, while in the Acts this has grown 
 into a separate incident subsequent to the ascension, 
 and his breathing has become "a rushing mighty 
 wind." 
 
 How these narratives, unhistorical as they have 
 been shown to be, came into existence, it is not our 
 business to explain ; and once again at the end of the 
 task, as at the beginning and throughout, we must 
 emphatically disclaim the obligation. Whether a 
 
Jesus after the Resurrection. 343 
 
 reasonable hypothesis may be advanced to explain 
 their growth, or whether it may not, the narratives 
 are still no narratives of historical fact. It is possible 
 or even likely that in Galilee, when the disciples were 
 removed from the depressing influences of Jerusalem, 
 the idea may have dawned on their minds that 
 Jesus could not be holden of death, and that for the 
 idea thus awakened they would immediately seek con- 
 firmation in the Old Testament Scriptures. These 
 might tell them of one whose soul was not left in hell, 
 of*a saint who was not permitted to see corrup- 
 tion. With such words they would link those in 
 which the Messiah was, as they supposed, bidden to 
 sit at the right hand of God, until lie had made his 
 enemies his footstool. The earlier forms of the tra- 
 dition give no precise period during which Christo- 
 phanies were vouchsafed ; but as they were multi- 
 plied, it was natural to extend them to the period which 
 was suggested apparently by the fast of the forty days 
 immediately succeeding his baptism. But if he once 
 appeared among his disciples as a conqueror over 
 death and the grave, he must either vanish vmseen, 
 or depart from them visibly to resume his majesty in 
 heaven. The Gospels give us chiefly the former 
 notion ; the latter is found in the Acts, and carries 
 us at once to the ascent of Elijah on the fiery chariot. 
 As in that narrative the descent of his prophetical 
 powers on Elisha is made to depend on Elisha's see- 
 ing his master taken up, so here the disciples are 
 represented as standing with Jesus at the moment 
 when he is parted from them. 
 
 If we credit the Gospel narratives at all, it took 
 long to convince the disciples that the true Messiah 
 must win his victory through suff"ering ; rather, they 
 are described -as wholly incapable of understanding 
 this truth, until the fact came upon them in its stern 
 reality. From the fact itself there was no escape ; 
 but their minds would revert all the more to the 
 
344 English Life of yam. 
 
 wliole of his previous teaching, — a teaching which 
 had been designed, above all 'things else, to show 
 them that the life of the righteous should know no 
 end. All his self-sacrifice and devotion, all his high 
 faith and his unfailing conviction of the absolute 
 goodness and boundless love of God, would come back 
 with tenfold force to their hearts, and there remain as 
 an indelible image. But these never die ; and as in 
 their Galilean home they shook oflF all doubts which 
 may have ojipressed them in the neighbourhood of 
 their enemies at Jerusalem, the fervour of their con- 
 viction that Jesus had indeed sjioken to them the 
 words of eternal life, might lead them to remember 
 what he had said to them about the life which shall 
 follow this present one. 
 
 All this is possible or likely ; but full of interest 
 as the subject may be, it is out of place in a strictly 
 historical analysis. Our task has been to show 
 whether and how far the Ncav Testament narratives 
 are ci'edible ; and this task we have endeavoured to 
 accomj^lish without misrepresenting, distorting, or 
 suppressing the evidence. It is for the reader to 
 satisfy himself, by a jDatient and rigorous scrutiny, 
 whether these things are as we have stated them to 
 be, or whether they are not. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Here ends our great inquiry. The results obtained 
 at the end of each stage in the process have been 
 specified with sufficient care, it is hoped, to render 
 any further recapitulation superfluous. We have 
 written in the sole interests of historicjtl truth, which 
 must in the long run prove fatal to all theological 
 systems not in harmony with it ; and our scrutiny has 
 shown us, that, while the traditions at the beginning 
 
yesKs after the Resurrection. 345 
 
 and end of the story are altogether unhistorical, — 
 while of the nativity and infancy and of the events 
 following the crucifixion we have no knowledge what- 
 ever ; there runs an element of historical truth through 
 the Synoptic narratives of the Ministry. We have 
 before us in outlines sufficiently distinct the picture 
 of one who in a highly artificial society dared to 
 propound truths unwelcome to a dominant hierarchy, 
 and to condemn a traditional ceremonial system 
 which placed barriers between God and man. We 
 have every reason to believe that the sincerity and 
 boldness with which he announced the absolute right- 
 eousness and unfailing love of God impressed the 
 multitudes who heard him with the sense of an 
 authority wholly diff"erent from that of the Scribes 
 and Pharisees, and that in the long series of his dis- 
 courses he sought to convince his hearers that God 
 cared for every one of them and willed to bring them 
 all to their highest good. The very taunt that he 
 was the friend of publicans and sinners is proof, were 
 other proof Avanting, that the gist of his teaching may 
 be found in the sentence of Origen, " Nihil imj)ossibile 
 omnipotenti et nihil insanahile fadori suo. " The care 
 with which in his many parables he strove by the 
 most familiar images to kindle in dull and deadened 
 minds the faint embers of a higher life, is evidence 
 that he regarded none as beyond the healing power of 
 the great Maker. The gentleness with which, while 
 sacrificing no truth and weakening no Divine Law, he 
 treated those whom a sacerdotal society despised or 
 hated, attests his sympathy for all suffering, and his 
 yearning to rescue all men from moral and spiritual 
 degradation. But every reason which constrains us 
 to admit the substantial fidelity of this picture, com- 
 pels us to reject the whole of the fourth Gospel as not 
 only unhistorical, but as betraying a set theological 
 and ecclesiastical purpose. If we hold that the 
 Synoptic narratives have any truth, we cannot believe 
 
44^ English Life of yesus. 
 
 that he who in them speaks only to comfort, to teach, 
 and to purify, speaks in the other only to confuse, 
 perplex, and exasperate ; we cannot believe that he 
 who throughout the one speaks only of the love of 
 God for men, speaks in the other only or chiefly of 
 the nature of his own office and the dignity of his 
 own person. We cannot believe that he who in the 
 one never divulged his Messiahship even to any of his 
 disciples until towards the close of his Ministry had, 
 as the fourth Gospel represents him, announced the 
 fact freely from the beginning, not only to Andrew, 
 Peter, and Nathanael, l)ut to the whole population of 
 Samaritan cities and to crowds of indifferent and even 
 hostile Jews. 
 
 But if the whole of the fourth Gospel is cast aside 
 as utterly untrustworthy, and if portions of the others 
 are rejected for the same reason, this conclusion is 
 reached not nearly so much (we might fairly say, not 
 at all), by inferences drawn from the later Christian 
 literature of the first three centuries, as from a strict 
 comparison of the several documents themselves. 
 AVitnesses who contradict themselves and each other 
 in a court of justice, are worthily dismissed as false; 
 and we have seen that on a vast nuiliber of subjects 
 the Synoptic and Johannine narratives are in direct 
 and flagrant contradiction Avith each other, while 
 each narrative is frequently inconsistent with itself 
 For the most part, if not in every case, the specific 
 reasons for rejecting wliatever has been thrown aside 
 have been given carefully and minutely ; and thus we 
 have solid historical grounds for asserting that Jesus 
 never uttered those distinctive sentences Avhich have 
 served as a basis for the great fabric of sacerdotal and 
 traditional theology. 
 
 We have heard much of late from Dr Pusey about 
 the mysterious powers of absolution and retention 
 conferred by Jesus on his Apostles, as proved by 
 statements in the fourth Gospel. But to what pur- 
 
yesus after the Resurrection. 347 
 
 pose are such arguments, when the history of that 
 Gospel has been shown throughout to be fictitious 1 
 Of what use is it to allege an isolated passage from 
 the Synoptics, when we have conclusive proof that it 
 does not express the mind of Jesus, and that it con- 
 tradicts other portions of the Synoptic narrative 1 
 We hear much of the precept to baptize all men in 
 the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
 but we have no evidence that Jesus ever uttered it ; 
 we hear much of the penalty, that all who believe not 
 shall be damned, but we have no proof that these were 
 among the words which fell from his gracious lips. 
 
 But while Dr Pusey has thus been striving to ex- 
 hibit the whole system of Catholic dogma as the 
 veritable embodiment of the teaching of Jesus in the 
 Gospels, Dr Tischendorf (in his pamphlet, " AA^ien 
 were our Gospels written 1 "), has been toiling to 
 l^rove that these documents belong to the Apos- 
 tolic age and were written by the Apostles and 
 Evangelists whose names they bear. If we say that 
 he has undertaken an impossible task, time Avill in 
 all likelihood prove that we are justified in so speak- 
 ing. But let it be as Dr Tischendorf wishes. Let 
 us grant it to be, as he puts it, "transparently clear, 
 that our collective Gospels are to be referred back at 
 least to the beginning of the second century or the 
 end of the first. " Let us grant, further, that the 
 variations of text discernible even in that early age 
 point to " a rich history of text, " even before the 
 end of the first century, and carry back, not merely 
 the origin of the Gospels, but the history of the Canon 
 far back into that first century : — and what is the 
 result ] Not a single inconsistency is softened by all 
 this toil, not a single contradiction is removed, not 
 one impossible thing rendered credible. What would 
 it avail to shoAv that within some twenty years after 
 the death of Jesus, men were to be found who had 
 been his followers and intimate friends, capable of 
 
348 English Life of Jesus. 
 
 writing down nan-atives which profess to give the 
 same history, but which relate a history as different 
 as that of Portugal and England ? men who could 
 represent the teaching of Jesus as being at the same 
 time parabolic and philosophic, simple and confus- 
 ing, soothing and exasperating — men who could say 
 that he kept his Messiahship secret till down almost 
 to the eve of the crucifixion, and that he proclaimed 
 it aloud from the first to friends and enemies alike. 
 All this textual criticism fails to reconcile the story of 
 the Magi and the slaughter of the innocents with 
 the quiet presence of Mary and Joseph at Jeru- 
 salem, or to explain their abode in Nazareth at a time 
 when the first Gospel speaks of them as sojourning in 
 Egypt. All it can do, is, to jirove that the Evangel- 
 ists were wilfully and consciously dishonest, and 
 that as writers they are deserving of the severest 
 censure for deliberately deceiving their readers about 
 events of which they profess themselves eye-witnesses. 
 
 Dr Tischendorf can scarcely be awai'e what havoc 
 his conclusions must cause in our conceptions of the 
 personal character of the Evangelists. It is one thing 
 to say that the Gospels embody a story which has 
 grown up gradually through the medium of oral 
 tradition and another to say that they were written 
 by eye-witnesses, no two of which can be found to 
 agree with each other or with themselves. 
 
 If Dr Tischendorf be right, the Evangelists were 
 knaves ; but we do not believe that they were, and 
 we utterly reject his inferential reasoning. This is, 
 however, not the place for a textual discussion, and 
 for our purpose such a discussion is wholly irrele- 
 vant. Our aim has been simply to test the historical 
 value of the Gospel narratives, and the process has 
 drawn out the image of one, of the facts of whose 
 life we know indeed but little, but who stands out in 
 himself, pure, loving, gentle, and merciful to all men. 
 We see before us one who embraced all the suffering 
 
jfesus after the Resurrection. 349 
 
 and heavy-laden in the wide circle of his love, and 
 who spoke of his mission specially as a charge to 
 seek out and save that which was lost. It is no wish 
 of ours to tarnish a picture so fair and true ; that 
 unworthy office is performed by theologians who pro- 
 claim him as the head of a hard ecclesiastical system, 
 which has heaven for those who accept, and endless 
 tortures in hell for all who reject it. The criti- 
 cism which proves that this system has no historical 
 basis does but tend to bring out the real colours of 
 that soiled and dust-laden picture ; and time, as it 
 glides by, Avill bring them out still more. The world 
 must undergo yet a long training, before it is con- 
 vinced, as Jesus sought to convince men, that God is 
 loving unto every man, and that his truth must in 
 the end win the victory over every rebellious will. 
 That victory will indeed be the extinction of all 
 resistance, because all that has opposed itself to him 
 will have been brought into conformity Avith his abso- 
 lute righteousness. Of that victory the Catholic and 
 popular theology of Christendom seems to know 
 nothing. It looks forward at best to a conquest of 
 Ormuzd over Ahriman who continues to reign over 
 the countless -inhabitants of his dreary realm ; but 
 the kingdom of heaven which Jesus preached is the 
 kingdom in which every rebel will be conquered by 
 Divine Love, and God shall be all in all. 
 
 TUENBULL AND SPEAKS, PRINTERS, EDINBOEGH. 
 
The folloioing Pamphlets and Papers may he had on addressing 
 a letter end OS mg the price in postage stamps to Mr THOMAS 
 SCOTT, No. 11, The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood, 
 London, S.E. 
 
 Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the Church of 
 
 England. By "Presbyter Anglicanus." Price 6d. 
 Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman of the Chdrch of England. Price 6d. 
 Science and Theology. By R. D. Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South Australia. Price 4d. 
 Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly requestegto give Answers. 
 Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M.A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. Price 6d 
 The Opinions of Professor David F. .Strauss. Price 6d. 
 A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post. 
 Against IIkko-Making in Religion. By Prof. F. VV. Newman. Price 6d. 
 Ritualism in the Church of England. By "Presbyter Anglicanus." Price 6d. 
 The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 7d., post free 
 The Difficulties and Discouragemknts which attend the Study of the Scriptures. By 
 
 the Riglit Rev. Francis Hare, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. Price 6d. 
 The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed Clergy- 
 man of the Church of England. Price Is. Id., post free. 
 The "Chukcu AND ITS Reform." A Reprint. Price Is. 
 
 "The Church of England Catechism Examined." By Bentham. A Reprint. Price Is. 
 Original Sin. Price 6d. 
 
 Redemption, Imput-vhon, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price Gd. 
 Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d. 
 Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d. 
 
 The Church: the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d. 
 Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price Gd. 
 The Gospel of the Kingdom. Bt a Beneficed Clergyman. Price 6d. 
 "J AMES and Paul." A Tract by Enier. Prof. V. W. Newman. Price 6d 
 Law and the Creeds. Price 6d. 
 GENESIS Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductoiy Remarks. By 
 
 Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price Is. 
 A Confutation of the Diabolarchy. By Rev. John Oxleb. Price 6d. 
 The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d. 
 Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R S., &c.. Rector 
 
 of Croft, WaiTington. Price Is. 
 Practical Remarks on "The Lord's Prayer." By a Layman. With Annotations by a 
 
 Dignitary of the Church of England. , Price 6d 
 The Analogy of Nature and i{ELiGi0N — Good and Evil. By a Clergyman of the Church 
 
 of England. Price fid. 
 Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christian Coninieiitatois. In Two 
 
 Parts. Price 6d. each Part. 
 Free Discu.ssion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich 
 
 Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d. 
 The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman. Price Is. 
 The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds, — Their Sense and their Non-sense. By a 
 
 Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price 6d each part. 
 A Reply to the Question, "What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot Rely on the 
 
 Bible? " By Professor F. W. Newman. 
 The Dean of Canerbury on Science and Revelation. A Letter by M.P. Price 6d. 
 Another Rf.ply to the Question, " What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot rely on 
 
 the Bible ? " By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich Price 6d. 
 The Utilization of the Church Establishment. By the Author of "The Pilgrim a\\d the 
 
 Slirine," "The Jleaning of the Age," &c. &c. Piice 6d. 
 The True Temptation of Jesus. By Professor F. W. Newman. With Portrait. Price 6d. 
 On Public Worshif. Price 3d. 
 
 Modern Protestantism. By the Author of "The Philosophy of Necessity.' Price 6d. 
 A Reply to the Question, "Apart from Supernatural Revelation. What is the Pros- 
 pect OF SIan's Living after Death? By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of 
 
 Norwich. Price 6d. 
 TEEa and Serpent Worship. Price 6d. 
 
List of Publications — continued. 
 
 A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, "The Prf.sext Dangers of the Church of England 
 
 By W. G. Clakk, M.A.. Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridf;e. Price Cd. 
 Thf. Twelve Ai'ostlks. Price (irl. 
 
 The Hible for Man, not M vx for the Bible. By a Country Vicar. Price Cd. 
 Is Death the end of all tiiinus for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher. Price 6d. 
 On the Infidelitt of Orthodoxy. By the P^ev. T. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S. 3 Parts, 6d. each 
 "The Finding of the Book." By John Robertson, Coupar-Angus. Price 2s. 
 On JIoral Evil. By Rev. Charles Vovsev, Price 6d. 
 The Claims of Christianity to the Cuaractek of a Divine Revelation, considered 
 
 By W. Jevons. Price 6d. 
 Sacred History as a Branch of Elementakt Education. Part I. Its Influence on thb 
 
 Intellect. Price fid. Part II. Its Influence on the Develofment of thh 
 
 Conscience. Price 6d. 
 On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price Sixpence. 
 The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the Established Church 
 
 Price 6d. 
 The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel IIinds, D.D., late 
 
 Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price Sixpence. 
 A. I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Three Parts, 6d each. 
 The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edward Maitland. Price Sixpence. 
 Reason versus Authority. By W. 0. Carr Brook. Price 3d. 
 
 An appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel Brown. Price 3d. 
 The Voysey Case. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d. 
 " Realities." By P. A. Taylor, M.P. 
 
 On the Causes of .\theism. By F. W. Newman. With Portrait. Price Gd. 
 The Bible; Is it "The Word of God?" By T. L. Strange, late Judge of the High Court 
 
 of Madras. Price fid. 
 A Woman's Letter. Price 3d. 
 An Episode in the History of Religious Liberty. By Rev. Charles Voysey. With 
 
 Portrait. Price fid. 
 Thirty-nine Questions on the Thirty-nine Articles. By Rev. J. Page Hopps. With 
 
 Portrait. Price 3d. 
 Intellectual Liberty. By John Robertson. Pnce fid. 
 
 The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. By M. D. Conway. With Portrait. Price fid. 
 Theology of the Past and the Future. By M. Kalisch, Ph.D. Reprinted from Part I. of 
 
 his Commentary on Leviticus. With Portrait. Price Is. 
 The Doctrine of Immortality in its Beaking on Education. By Presbyter Anglicanus. 
 
 Price fid. 
 The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 3d. 
 The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of Mr. Voysey. Some remarks 
 
 by J. D. La Tocche, Vicar of Stokesay, Salop. Price 3d. 
 A Challenge to the Members of the Cheistian Evidence Society. By Thomas Scott. 
 On the Formation of Religious Opinions. By the late Rev. Jas. Ckanbrook. Price 3d. 
 The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought. By the late Rev. Jas. Cranbrook. Price 3d. 
 The Collapse of the Faith. Edited by Rev. W. G. Carroll, A.M., Dublin. Price fid. 
 A Reply to the Question — "Shall 1 seek Ordination in the Church of England?" 
 
 By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bisliop of Norwich. Price fid. 
 A Lecture on Rationalism. By Rev. Charles Voysey. Price fid. 
 A Lecture on the Bible. By Rev. Charles Voysey. Price fid. 
 Pleas for Free Inquiry. Parts I. and II. By " M. A.," Trin. Col., Cam. 6d. each. 
 On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology. By the late Rev. Jas. Cranbrook. Price 3d. 
 Jewish Literature and Modern Education: or the Use and Misuse of the Bible is 
 
 the School-room. By Edward Maitland. Price Is. fid. 
 The Speaker's Commentary Reviewed, by T. L. Strange, late a Judge of the High Couit 
 
 of Madras. Price i's. fid. 
 On Church Pedigrees. By Rev. T. P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S. Portrait. Two Parts, fid. each. 
 The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society. By Thomas Scott 
 
 Price fid. 
 Notes on Bishop Mager's Pleadings for Christ. By a Barrister. Price fid. 
 How TO Complete the Reformation. By Edward Maitland. With Portrait. Price Gd. 
 Does Morality depend on Longevity? By Ed. Vansittart Neale. Price 6d. 
 
 .\ 
 
List of Publications — continued. 
 
 A Dialogue bt way of Catechism, — Religious, Mokal, and Philosophical. By a 
 
 Physician. Parts I. and II. Price 6d. each. 
 Sunday Lyrics by Gamaliel Brown. 
 Christianity and Education in India. A Lecture delivered at St George's Hall, London, 
 
 November ll', 1S71. By A. Jyram Row, of Mysore. Price Sixpence. 
 On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism, and on the Galla Religion. By Piofe.ssor 
 
 F. W. Newman. Price 6d. 
 An Examination of some Recent Writings about Immortality. By W. E. B. Price 6d. 
 The Impeachment of Christianity. By F. E. Abbot. With Letters from Miss F. P. Cobbe 
 
 and Prof. Newman, giving tlieir reasons for not calling themselves Christians. Price 3d. 
 On Faith. By A. D. Graham and F. H, Price 3d. 
 
 Scepticism and Social Justice. By Thomas Hoklock Bastard. Price 3d. 
 A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and defended by Thomas 
 
 Lumisden Strange. Price Sixpence. 
 Rational Theology. By F. R. Statham. Price 3d. 
 
 The English Life of Jesus. New Edition. By Thomas Scott. Price 4s. Postage 4d. extra 
 The Living God. By Rev. E. M. Geldart. Price 3d. 
 Spiritual Pantheism. By F. H. I. Price 6d. 
 The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the Present Age. By Wm. 
 
 Jevons. Price 6d. 
 The Prayer Book Adapted to the Age. By William Jevons. Price 3d. 
 The Mythos of the Ark. By J. W. Lake. Price 6d. 
 The New Doxology. By Gamaliel Brown. Price 3d. 
 Truths for the Times. By Francis E. Abbot. Price 3d. 
 Clerical Integrity. By T. L. Strange. Price 3d. 
 
 Thoughts on the Existence of Evil. By Professor F. W. Newman. Price 3d. 
 Origin of the Legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. By A. Bernstein. Price Is. 
 The De.\n of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jbsus, in its bearing on the 
 
 Truth of Christianity. By Thomas Scott. Price 6d. 
 Communion with God. By T. L. Strange. Price 3d. 
 
4r