m

//

CLARK'S

FOREIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

NEW SEEIE8.
YOL. XIY.

€l)t Htfe of Christ—
YOL. I.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1883.

PRINTED BY MOKEISON AND GIBB,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, .... GEO. HERBERT.
NEW YORK, . . . SCR1BNER AND WELFOKD.

THE

LIFE OF CHRIST.

BY
DR. BERNHARD WEISS,
COUNSELLOR OF THE CONSISTOEY, AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN BERLIN.

SCransIatett BY
JOHN WALTER HOPE, M.A.

t

VOL I.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
18 83.
[Thi3 Translation is Copyright, by arrangement with the Author.]

TO
THE FEIEND OF MY YOUTH,
Dr. GEORGE VOIGT,

PROFESSOR OF HISTOR/V IN LEIPSIC,
I WITH HEARTFELT GREETINGS
FROM
THE AUTHOR.

DEDICATION.

Dear Eriend,
I have long cherished the thought of estab
lishing a memorial of our youthful friendship in presenting
you with one fruit of my studies. The wish, cherished in our
early years, when we were at school together, that we might
be able to have constant intercourse in our intellectual life
and effort, has never been fulfilled. Completed works only
have been passed from one to another, and afford proof that
the desire for scientific progress is still unenfeebled, and the
capacity for pleasurable production is not yet impaired.
This work does not then come to you unexpected. You
are aware that for more than twenty years I have occupied
myself with the investigation of sources in the field of gospel
history, that I have not avoided the most laborious labour as
regards the details of the comparison of texts, and have tested
in all directions the methods of criticism, which are often so
intricate, until I forced my way to perfect clearness regarding
the history and the character of our evangelical tradition.
But the work of criticizing the sources cannot be an end in
itself: its object must be found in the historical construction
of the life of Jesus ; and this alone can be the final test of
the correctness of the results of criticism. Knowing me as
you do, you have long been aware that I would ultimately
begin a work of this character ; indeed, it has hardly been
work to me : rather a gladsome fashioning of the matured
fruit of long years of study ; an expression, satisfying an
internal want, of something of which the heart is full. Just
because it is the outcome of a life entirely devoted to theology,
ought it to be dedicated to you.

Vlll DEDICATION.
Not in spite of your being a profane historian, but for that
very reason, do I present you with this book. It is high time
that even those who are not theologians should begin to make
unbiassed investigations into the condition and historical pro
duct of our evangelical tradition. For this, however, it is neces
sary that they should listen to other voices than those which
hitherto have alone sought for acceptance in wider circles as
the advocates of an historical criticism in the field of the New
Testament, and have proclaimed their views, often only those
of individuals, as the results of the latest theological science.
Into the book which deals with the sources I have interwoven
so- much of the history of the investigations on these sub
jects, as to make it clear how unjustifiable such assumptions
are. Even in the delineation of the life of Christ I was
obliged to deny myself the pleasure of fashioning the results
of my investigation of sources into a picture complete in
itself, which carries its own justification in the fact of its
being a unity and true to life. It has been necessary for me
at every step to reckon with the various views which are
the outcome of the differences in theological and critical
fundamental assumptions ; those I have illustrated here and
there by the citation of well-known names. Tedious dis
cussions of details I have tried to avoid, or have relegated
them to the notes. It was no part of my plan to celebrate
an easy victory over individual errors ; I have tried rather to
give the fairest possible representation of the views which
were in sharpest contradiction to my own, and to refute them
by means of the testimony of the sources. It was open to me
to do this in a freer form, and one accessible to every educated
person, because I believed that in my previous works on the
Gospels I had given sufficiently, and in a severely scientific
way, the basis on which rest my critical views.
The fact that my book deals with the historical origin of
our religion constitutes what claim it has on your interest
and on that of every educated person. Indeed, on the very
first pages you will find the unconcealed avowal that reli
gious faith, as regards certainty of itself, is and must remain
independent of the results of historical investigation. But
these results are not, on this account, by any means indifferent.
There is no doubt that many among our people take up a

DEDICATION. ix
position of coldness towards, and waning interest in, real evan
gelical preaching, because in educated circles the suspicion
was long ago awakened, that the facts on which it rests
are, on account of the manner in which our evangelical
tradition was dealt with in the Gospels, quite unreliable
and indeed untrustworthy. That onesided critical school in
theology which claims for itself alone the glory of being
scientific, has in recent times asserted its ability to erect a
genuinely historical structure upon the ruins it has left
behind : but the meagreness of the materials which remain
can only be concealed by the gaudy tinselling of the fruits
of historical studies, and by very dubious additions in the
shape of private hypotheses ; their conclusions also must
necessarily be very different from the presuppositions on
which the evangelical Church rests. People certainly comfort
themselves and others by holding the traditionary evangelical
history to be still the transparent vesture of genuine Christian
ideas; but what, perhaps, is sufficient for the philosophy of
religion does not satisfy the religious need. Christianity, as it
exists as an historical fact, and is defended by the evangelical
Church on the ground of its historical records, is not a sum
of new religious or ethical ideas, but a belief in the religious
significance of historical facts which, because God Himself
revealed by them salvation to the world, are in a position to
awaken a new religious life, and to make it fruitful in the
moral reformation of humanity. The methodical collecting
and scientific presentation of those facts from the sources
should not and can not produce belief in their religious
importance ; but they may remove prejudices, and open hearts
for the operation of the evangelical proclamation of salvation
resting on these facts.
The first volume, which I now lay before you, is of a
somewhat preparative description. It only goes as far as the
point where the historical movement of Jesus' life commences
— its dramatic complication, so to speak. As to whether I
have succeeded in sketching a really lifelike picture of this
greatest drama the history of the world has seen, I beg of you
to suspend your judgment till the second volume appears,
which is now in manuscript. I can say, at least, that I did
not enter upon this work until, through frequent scrutiny of

X DEDICATION.
the sources, this picture had been more and more distinctly
unveiled to me, had attained sharper outlines, and been more
plastically finished before my eyes. In this, my methods are
certainly far separated from those of the criticism which
alone lays claim to the name " historical." I believe I have
shown that that picture, moreover, cannot be gained from the
older tradition only, but requires the aid of John's Gospel,
whose historicity is unanimously rejected by that criticism on
grounds which, as I venture to indicate, are untenable for an
unprejudiced historical view. For this as well as for my
whole position towards modern criticism on the one hand,
and current apologetics on the other, the first volume is of
fundamental importance. The entire fashion of Jesus' human
personality, and the characteristics of His historical ministry,
are there made sufficiently prominent. Even men of the most
divergent standpoints will not be able to refuse the acknow
ledgment of my having endeavoured everywhere to state the
questions vividly and tersely, and to answer them by systematic
employment of the sources. Experience certainly teaches that
people are only too ready — and this refers not alone to the
party which repels all criticism of the evangelical sources — to
complain of arbitrary treatment of the sources, while it is not
in every case possible to justify in detail the view of the
sources upon which the criticism is based. On this account,
notwithstanding the justification of my view of the sources
contained in the first book,! venture once more to refer to my
earlier exegetico-critical labours on the details. In spite of
renewed and most careful tests, I have only found it necessary
to modify the views, verified there, in respect to unimportant
items. Do not be surprised if, in the midst of the warm contro
versies of theological schools and ecclesiastical parties, my
book meets with anything but a favourable reception !
Because I have never been able to identify myself with one
of them, and because there is a common inclination to impose
upon every theological work the etiquette of a theological
standpoint, it will be easy to characterize ,my book as a
production of the mediation school of theology, the very name
of which, in the case of many both on the right and left,
means condemnation. For my own part, I too must repel

DEDICATION. xi
this title entirely, because of its being utterly misleading.
Between a supranaturalism which believes in the actuality
of an objective divine revelation and of miracle in the proper
sense, and the standpoint which regards both as inadmissible,
there can be as little historical mediation as between the
conception of Christ as a mere man — although the greatest
and most unattainable, who possessed clearer ideas of God
and of divine things, and lived a new and typical religious
life — and the Christ worshipped by the Christian Church from
the beginning as her Divine Mediator and Redeemer. In
respect to this alternative, there is no doubt as to my
position, either in this book or the others ; I have never
attempted to mediate between these opposites, because I am
acquainted with their radical principles, and my scientific
labours have only confirmed me afresh in joyous assurance
of the faith which I did not gain from them, and to which
no one can attain by scientific demonstration. Whether, on
this account, my standpoint be an unscientific one, full of
preconceived opinions, and my endeavour to represent the
life of Jesus according to historico-critical methods be doomed
to failure, concerning that I have expressed myself distinctly
in the closing chapter of my introductory book. I know
that what is said there will make no impression on the
followers of modern theology, so called ; what their verdict
as to my book will be is certain, for it contradicts too flatly
many of their principal dogmas and favourite opinions. But
to you and the many others who, truly unprejudiced, are
ready to listen to the other side before judging, I trust to be
able to prove that honourable scientific endeavour can go
hand in hand with orthodox faith.
It would be a mistake if you thought that on this account
I hope to deserve the thanks of those whose faith I not
only share, but for whose highest and holiest convictions I
come forward with my scientific work. It is because I do
this that I can only treat the Gospels as historical records,
and must therefore employ historical criticism. But even yet,
among the circles of the professional associates who share my
opinions, there is a fear that for us this would be to attack
and indeed to destroy the sacredness of the New Testament
and its binding authority. In the very first chapter you will

XU DEDICATION.
see how I deal with this prejudice. I cannot assume that
the question as to how far the details in the tradition regarding
the earthly life of Jesus may or may not be credible, touches
religious belief in Christ's person and work. I think it is a
mistake to suppose that historical inquiry into the origin and
character of our Gospels must either exclude the religious
esteem which is their due, or every kind of historical criticism.
For myself, the sacredness of the New Testament Scriptures
and their binding authority do not rest upon a dogmatic
construction of the doctrine of inspiration, which has in
principle been given up even by the strictest scientific school
of theology, although with its consequences they cannot
resolve to break. In regard to these things, I have gone too
much into detail in order not to be troubled perpetually with
an unavoidable alternative. The only thing I claim towards
the settling of the evangelical sources, is what I believe with
perfect assurance can be inferred from an historical investiga
tion as to their origin. But I hope that even the believing
Churchman, though not a theologian, will be less offended by
my manner of treating the Gospels, although it at first seem
strange to him, than the theologian who lightly draws
consequences from it, which I do not acknowledge. Whoever
follows my investigations without prejudice will, I hope, be
convinced that the love and reverence of Holy Writ will not
be endangered by them.
I know right well that many will disagree not only with
my method of treating Scripture, but also with the inferences
I have drawn, because these contradict many widespread
notions, and were not gained from finished dogmatic opinions,
but from unprejudiced testing of the sources, and because
they do not exhibit the picture of Christ agreeably to the
Church's believing adoration of her exalted Redeemer, but
as it appears from the standpoint of His earthly-historical
life. I must be prepared for many finding my view tinged
with the spirit of rationalism or of modern criticism, although
I have contested it step by step. But I decline beforehand
having this laid before any kind of dogmatic tribunal, and
appeal to the sources, not, indeed, according to their actual
words, but according to the treatment which I believe I have
demonstrated corresponds alone to their origin and character.

DEDICATION. xiii
I am far from thinking that I have discovered the last
word in the solution of so many difficult questions ; but I
hope to have shown the way by which it may be found.
Much as I desire my book to arouse interest outside theo
logical circles, and to stimulate inquiry as to the historical
form of the life of Jesus, yet it is not written for him
who thereby finds his simple faith in the representations of
the Gospels disturbed, and who feels no necessity for this.
The Gospels, as they are, satisfy religious requirement, not
only its barest necessities, but because according to the counsel
of God they have received the form most suitable for that
purpose. To many, however, in whom has been aroused at
the present time an inquiry and questioning as to the holy
things of our faith, I trust that my representation will prove
a guide — not to my theological views, but to the Scriptures,
which, if God will, shall in this way be apprehended and
valued from another side.
Excuse the relapse of my letter into theology; but I do
not desire that your impartial testing of my book should be
disturbed by the condemnatory judgments to which it is
exposed from right and left. I am well aware that from you
there is nothing to fear, but you yourself must admit how in
you I am addressing many to whom, by this book, I would
willingly offer the hand of agreement as to the important
questions which are discussed there. The conflicts which
agitate this present time are very serious, and every earnest
examination into their ultimate principles can only be a
means of peace. In respect of the subject treated of here,
however, these ultimate principles are not a species of specu
lative questions, but they are historical. This age has turned
from a onesided preference of idealistic speculation, and longs
for the realities of history. To it I would wish to render
some service, and will rejoice if you can bear witness that to
this end I have striven with seriousness and sincerity. The
result is in the hand of God, who alone grants fulfilment to
the desire.
With this I return to the starting-point of my dedication.
As of old we, the historian and the theologian, were united by
the friendship of youth, so this book will show you that with
me and my efforts the theologian and the historian go hand in

XIV DEDICATION.
hand. You know best how so much is owing to what we
gained for all time in that youthful life and work together.
Accept it kindly, and permit me to commend it to your
indulgent criticism. The book does not require to begin by
uniting what has never been broken since those beautiful
days of our youth — the bond of affectionate love and mutual
recognition. This offering, however, shall tell you that that
remains the same, although the years may come of which we
say, " I have no pleasure in them." — In old love and fidelity,
your BERNHARD "WEISS,
Berlin, March 31, 1882.

CONTENTS.

FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
The Gospel of Christ and the Gospels, ..... 3
CHAPTER II.
Discovery of the Oldest Source, ...... 25
CHAPTER III.
Memoirs of Peter, ....... 40
CHAPTER IV.
The Gospel of the Jewish Christians, ..... 55
CHAPTER V.
The Gospel of the Gentile Christians, ..... 71
CHAPTER VI.
The Johannine Question, ...... 90
CHAPTER VII.
Historicity of the Gospel of John, ..... 108

132

CHAPTER VIII.

, Eye-witness and Tradition,

CHAPTER IX.

Legend and Myth,

CHAPTER X.
Fiction and Truth,
15
148
164
XVI CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XI.
The "Tendenz-Kritik,"  175

PACK

CHAPTER XII.
The Historical Representation of the Life of Jesus, . . ,190

SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
CHAPTER I.
Home and Father's House, ...... 211
CHAPTER II.
The Immaculate Conception, ...... 222
CHAPTER III.
The Sign in the Hill Country of Judea, . . . . .234
CHAPTER IV.
The Nativity in Bethlehem and Salutation in the Temple, . . 247
CHAPTER V.
Danger and Deliverance, ....... 263
CHAPTER VI.
In the Days of His Youth, ...... 275
CHAPTER VII.
The Messianic Calling, ....... 294
CHAPTER VIII.
The Prophet at the Jordan, ...... 307
CHAPTER IX.
The Baptism of the Spirit, . . . . . .319
CHAPTER X.
Temptation and Approbation, ...... 337
CHAPTER XI.
Formation of the Earliest Discipleships, ..... 355
CHAPTER XII.
At the Marriage in Cana, ...... 377

FIRST BOOK.

THE SOURCES.

WEISS. — t

CHAPTER I
THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPELS.
IT is recorded in history that the founder of the Christian
sect suffered the punishment of death under the Pro
curator Pontius Pilate (Tac. Ann. xv. 44). It was during the
feast of Passover that the Council took action against Jesus
for blasphemy, and induced the Roman governor to permit
His crucifixion. Fifty days later, on the Jews' weekly holy
day, the disciples of the crucified One appeared for the first
time publicly in Jerusalem, with the announcement that their
Master had risen again on the third day after His burial, and
that now, having been exalted to heaven and installed in the
divine sovereignty of the Messiah, He had poured out, as an
earnest of the approaching completion of redemption, the Holy
Ghost, promised for the Messianic time. There did, in fact,
appear in them and in all believers the marks of quite an
exceptional religious inspiration, which they knew to be
directly wrought in them by God. They accused not only
the popular leaders, but the whole people who by their
concurrence had rendered themselves accomplices in the
murder of their God-given Messiah, and demanded a penitent
conversion. All must submit themselves, in proof of this, to
baptism in the name of Jesus, and make an open confession
of belief in the Messiahship of the Crucified, in order that
they might have part in that completed salvation which He
was to bring on His speedy return, and so escape the judg
ment which would be associated with it. In addition, there
is promised to them the forgiveness of their sins : they are to
share in the Spirit from on high, in order to have assured
to them the salvation brought by the Messiah, which was
presently to be perfected.
Thus there arose in Jerusalem a company of Jews who
believed in the Messiah. Not a few, also, of the many who

4 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
came up to the feast were baptized, and carried the tidings
of the crucified and risen One to every Jewish community
scattered over the whole world. It was no new religion that
was founded in Jerusalem ; the newly-won disciples of Jesus,
who among themselves called each other brethren, were and
remained Jews. As in the temple-service, so in the dispersion :
they took part as hitherto in the synagogue worship ; with
methodistical strictness they held fast to the law of Moses,
and sought to fulfil it in the sense of their Master, by exem
plary piety, severe morality, and the exercise of self-sacrificing
love. They felt themselves to be born anew. The announce
ment of the exaltation of Jesus, and of His speedy return in
divine glory, which was to bring about the fulfilment of all
prophetic promises, bestowed on them a power never known
till now, and manifestly from on high, which enabled them
to live according to the commands of God ; to profess their
belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, even under the reproach
and persecution of those of their fellow - countrymen who
remained unbelieving ; and even to labour for the spread
among them of faith in the Messiah. In their common meals
they celebrated the remembrance of the last -supper Jesus
partook of with His chosen disciples ; they broke the bread
as Jesus did that evening, and drank from the sacred cup,
repeating the words by which Jesus had then pointed out the
significance to them of His approaching death. In His blood
shed on the cross they beheld the presentation of an expiatory
offering, which cleansed them from all the guilt of their past
life and fitted them for the new covenant-relationship with
their Father in heaven, which they enjoyed in having the peace
of a conscience free from guilt, and the hope of a glorious
future. A document, however, like the Epistle of James, shows
completely how the full consciousness of possessing God's love
and forgiveness subordinated to itself all reflection upon the
means by which they were obtained.
The new Messianic Church enjoyed for a time the favour
of the whole nation ; and while, from the very beginning, the
leaders of the people naturally regarded with malignant feel
ings this resuscitation of the movement which they imagined
they had for ever put an end to by the shameful death of its
originator, they could take no steps against the confessors of

THE MOTHER CHURCH AND CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES. 5
Jesus' Messiahship in face of their exemplary piety. It was
when Stephen renewed, against the section of the people which
remained unbelieving, the threatenings of Jesus, saying, that
through such persistence in unbelief the destruction of the
temple and of the existing theocracy would be brought on,
that they surmised that the Messianic sect did in its ultimate
consequences threaten the holy places of Israel ; and this they
knew how to make comprehensible to the people. Stephen
fell victim to a popular tumult, and there at once began an
eager persecution of the followers of Jesus, which collapsed of
itself after many a deed of violence had proved the absolute
impossibility of establishing anything valid or demonstrable
against the members of the sect of the Nazarene. A young
enthusiast of the Pharisaical party, Saul of Tarsus, who had
been the real soul of the persecution, did. himself, after seeing,
on the way to Damascus, the appearance of the exalted Messiah,
pass over into the Christian community, and begin to preach
the new faith with the same fiery zeal which he had hitherto
shown in its persecution. He found a centre of operations in
Syrian Antioch, where, before this, there had not only been
formed a considerable Messianic Church in the midst of the
Judaism of the place, but through this Church the first
Gentiles were won to faith in the Messiah. Antioch was
the starting-point of the first regularly organized mission.
Barnabas, one of the most prominent men of the primitive
Church, and Saul, who henceforth called himself Paul,
traversed as missionaries Cyprus and the south-eastern pro
vinces of Asia Minor ; while the synagogues, growing in
hostility to their tidings of the Messiah, were closed to them,
in one city after another they succeeded in gathering together
from among the Gentiles communities of Messianic believers.
Paul returned to Antioch with the full consciousness that he
wag called by God to be an apostle, and one especially to the
Gentiles. As he related his experiences, this was recognised
by the apostles originally chosen by Jesus, and they handed
over to him the abundant harvest-field of the Gentile mission,
in order that, on their part, they might put forth the utmost
efforts for the conversion of Israel. In Jerusalem, also, was
the question discussed, whether the Mosaic law, with all its
regulations for the life and worship of the Israelitish people,

6 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
should be laid upon the newly-won Gentiles. But although
this was regarded by many as the self-evident condition if the
Gentiles desired to share in the salvation promised to Israel,
and brought, or still to be brought by its Messiah ; the first
apostles, and, guided by them, the primitive Church as a
whole, declined to settle the matter, leaving it to the soon-
expected Messiah to arrange these things in the communities
which confessed His name, and in the glorious kingdom that
He was to establish. So first was begun the Apostle Paul's
independent mission to the Gentiles, during which, both in
east and west, particularly among the Gentiles, he founded
and fostered very considerable churches. Paul's preaching
was originally very simple. Among the Gentiles, he could
not, of course, begin by proclaiming the impending fulfilment
of all the promises made by the prophets to Israel, but only
with the announcement that the judgment with which it
was to be accompanied would come upon the Gentile peoples
who were enemies of God.
That this world, steeped in idolatry and immorality, might
escape the judgment, the announcement of which startled it
out of its sleep of sin, God has in grace sent the glad tidings
of His Son Jesus Christ, whom after His resurrection from
the dead He clothed with divine glory, and appointed judge
of the world, in order that every one who believes in Him
and leads a life devoted to God, may be saved from the
judgment. The power for this God works through the
preaching and exhortation of His messengers, as well as
through the Spirit, whom He imparts to those who are called
in baptism to salvation. The more that Paul learned to
know everywhere only the hostility of the synagogues, the
more did every hope disappear of the realization of God's
kingdom in Israel, and there was still left only the glory of
the heavenly kingdom, to which Christ on His return would
lead His faithful ones, along with those already dead, who
would then be raised to a heavenly life as He Himself had
been. But it was soon made necessary for the apostle to
extend the basis of his original preaching, and to settle its
principles, and this partly because of his natural endowment
and his literary education, and partly by reason of the
contest in which he was soon involved with a Jewish-

PAULINE GOSPEL. 7
Christian party, which wished to admit the Gentile-
Christian Churches, only under the conditions of Jewish
proselytism, to participation in the salvation to be brought
by the Messiah. Thus, to him, the sending of God's Son)
became an act of grace by which God had prepared a new
way of salvation for a world sunk in sin and unable to do
His will. The death of Christ on the cross was now the
appointed means by which God had reconciled the world)
unto Himself, and acquitted it of the guilt of sin, in order to
declare those who believed in it justified, and adopt them &s)
His children ; and the Spirit of Christ, the Son of God, which
is bestowed on believers, was the specific method of assuring
them of their salvation, and fitting them for a new life well-
pleasing to God : the faith, however, God produces in those
whom He has recognised and chosen as suitable, through the
preaching of the gospel. Thus every attempt to assure
oneself of salvation by fulfilling the Mosaic law, was regarded^
as a contravention of God's new gracious arrangement; as
viewed by the inability of the natural man to carry out its
requirements, it could only remain ineffectual; and every
necessity had vanished for regulating by the law the new
life of believers, because the Spirit taught them to know and
perform perfectly the divine will. Finally, there was in the
primitive apostolic preaching no doubt at all upon this point,
that the Christ who ascended to God had been clothed with )
divine power and lordship ; thus to the apostle who had not
seen Christ's earthly human life, to whom Christ first appeared
in His divine glory, it was from the, beginning a settled
thing, that He had on His ascension resumed an existence \
originally divine as Son of God, which He first quitted for
the earthly human life in order to undertake the work of
redemption. It was at a later period of his life, when the
apostle was opposing a theosophic tendency within' the
bounds of Jewish Christianity, that, in order to establish
that salvation is through Christ felone, the opportunity was
first given him of further developing the view as to Christ's
originally divine elevation, th,e position of the world as
conditioned by that, as well as the original admission of the
work of salvation into God's world-plan.
How soon also, within the primitive apostolic circles, the

8 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
necessity arose of developing the originally most elementary
form of the preaching of Christ, is shown very clearly by the
Epistle to the Hebrews, with its doctrine of the high-priestly
sin-offering of Christ and of the divine Son, who, as the
reflection of the divine glory, has carried out from eternity
the creation and preservation of the world ; as well as by the
Revelation of John, which, in the picture of the slain Lamb,
beholds the foundation of the work of salvation ; and in the
Messiah, who returns for its completion, a pre-existent Divine
Being. This document brings us to the threshold of that
event, which actually and definitively set Christianity loose
from its relations to the Jewish nationality, in the bosom of
which, according to the divine ordering of the history of
redemption, it had grown up, although already this had in
theory been accomplished by Paul. Along with the destruc
tion of the Jewish state and the fall of the temple, which
were at the same time God's judgments on the people that
persisted in its unbelief of the message of salvation, there
fell every hope of the realization of God's kingdom in the
form of any Israelitish theocracy, as well as every possibility
of still holding fast by the law which had been given to it.
The hope to which the author of the Apocalypse still clings —
of a temporal earthly realization of the kingdom of Christ — is
nothing else than the perfected heavenly kingdom of God,
ideally a fulfilment of the promise made to the twelve tribes,
but which is actually being set up among the faithful from
all peoples, languages, and tongues. In the oldest teaching
of the primitive apostles, the salvation brought by Christ
appears ever more and more as the preparation for what was
to be wrought out for Israel by the returning Messiah ; thus
even the First Epistle of Peter shows how, in the community
of believers in Israel, the highest religio-ethical ideal of the
perfected theocracy could be seen already wrought out as to
its principles, even if the heavenly realization, which was
made sure through it, could only be grasped by an ardent
hope. With Paul, the religio-ethical ideal, as such, seems to
be already wrought out in actuality in the believer's con
sciousness of sonship, and in his possession of the Holy Spirit,
as also, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in holiness and perfec
tion through the blood of the new covenant. But in the

PERFECTING OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. 9
proportion in which, with both Peter and Paul, the heavenly
realization — now, as the glory of the risen ones in God's eternal
kingdom ; now, as the Sabbath rest, in which the covenant
promise of the Old Testament fulfils itself — is considered as
being close at hand, in the same proportion does the life blessed
through the fulfilment of that ideal reveal itself ever prepon-
deratingly as a preparation for this last goal of hope ; and even
a nature so strenuous as Paul's was only very gradually
brought to contemplate seriously an ethical reorganization of
the existing regulations for the conduct of life, and a more
permanent readjustment of the whole life of the Christian
community, in accordance with the new religious standpoint.
It was when the last decision regarding the fate of the Jewish
people had taken effect without the intervention of the
returning Christ, that the hope of this return, and of the
accompanying heavenly final realization, was not indeed
abandoned, but by means of it the impulse was given to seek
and find even in present salvation the full possession of that
which, though in another and a higher form, that redemptive
future would realize. In the vision of God in His eternal
image; in Jesus Christ, the Word become flesh; in the
mystical communion with God, which is made possible
through being and remaining in Christ, and which is only
maintained and promoted by the Spirit and His operations ;
in the relation of Sonship to God, which by the necessary
operation of the full revelation of God in Christ is ever
coming nearer to moral oneness with God, — in all these has
John, at the close of the apostolic age, found eternal life,
even in this present time.
On this gospel of Christ rests the faith of the Christian
Church ; what it advances as its doctrine can never be aught
else than the unified summary of this gospel, or the indica
tion of its necessary assumptions and deductions. Whatever
variation this gospel shows, even in the New Testament, in
respect of the degree of its development, or in respect of the
manner of its conception and expression, all forms of it agree
in this, that it is not concerned with a doctrine communicated
by Jesus, nor again with a command given by Him ; because
where occasionally something of this kind is spoken of, it is
always assumed that Jesus only taught the perfect fulfilment

10 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
of the will of God written on the hearts of men or revealed
in the Old Testament. This gospel of Christ is invariably
concerned with the questions — how man attains to salvation ;
to a relation to God, bringing with it perfect peace ; to the
actual performance of God's will; to the certainty of present
and future blessedness, i.e. to the realization in its fullest
extent of the religio-ethical ideal. This is always the burden
of the glad tidings which the apostles proclaim, that by the
sending of Christ, His sufferings and death, His heavenly
elevation, and the sending of the .Spirit, which has been
brought about by Him, this realization has begun, and its
perfection is secured by the certainty of His approaching
return. Strictly speaking, it is never once a doctrine regard
ing Christ which the apostles proclaim ; for if it had been this,
it would have discussed more directly the questions regarding
the inner and divine relation of the Father and the Son ; the
right view to be taken of the Son's transition from an eternal
and divine existence to a human and temporal one ; the
position of the Son in relation to the Father in the perfected
kingdom of God, — questions with which the ecclesiastical
development of doctrine has with justice largely occupied
itself. It is rather to certain historical facts that the
apostles bear witness ; only they are not facts which can be
reached or established by a scientific method, but facts which
must be laid hold of in faith, and which must accredit
themselves to religious experience ; the central point of all
these — but one to be grasped by faith — is certainly formed
by the unique elevation of the person of Christ and the
abiding religious significance of His work. Their message
claims to be a message from God, which must be received in
faith; they are conscious of being enlightened and impelled by
the Spirit of God when they make known this message, and
of possessing in that Spirit the guarantee for the inviolability
of the same; In the last analysis, however, there is no proof
forthcoming for the justification of this claim other than their
special experience of the truth of their proclamation, the
renewal and strengthening of the religio-ethical life gained on
the ground of that, along with peace of soul and assurance of
future blessedness.
/This of itself passes judgment upon the modern idea, which

THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST AND THE LIFE OF JESUS. 11
lies for the most part at the foundation of recent delineations '
of the life of Jesus. In order, it is said, rightly to compre- i
hend the essence of Christianity, it is necessary to fall back \
from the teaching of the apostles regarding Christ, to what
Christ Himself taught ; from a historical scrutiny of the life
of Jesus, a new point of view can be gained for the survey of
what Christ was and had willed, in order that thus it may
be separated from that which took shape in the apostolic
doctrine under the contemporary influence of views regarding
the person and work of Christ. Clearly a true historico-
critical view must soon make manifest the utter ineptness of (
this undertaking. What we possess of traditions of the,1
life of Jesus — regarding His words and deeds — is all entirely
dependent upon the testimony of the apostles, who, during ,
His earthly life, were in constant attendance upon Him. If,*
within this circle, erroneous conceptions of the person and
work of Christ established themselves from the very first, it
is quite inconceivable that these should not have largely
influenced their representations of what they had seen and
heard ; and where, between our written tradition and recollec
tions, there enters the medium of oral tradition, these could
only be remodelled in accordance with descriptions derived
from the apostolic preaching. We are, however, without
any fixed standard for marking off these influences and
these remodellings ; and this is not to be wondered at, for
that process of demarcation is undertaken in accordance with
completely subjective points of view, and with philosophical
assumptions which are totally foreign to historical inquiry.
One thing in particular has been overlooked. (At the basis of
the whole apostolic preaching, lies the assumption that the
work of Christ was by no means completed during His earthly
life, that this was rather the antecedent condition and the
beginning of a work which will be carried on by the risen
Christ through means entirely new and with all-embracing'
success, and which will be completed only in the future.
From the commencement, there was also contained in it the
further assumption, that Christ by His heavenly exaltation has
become something quite different from what He was in His
earthly life ; and the more that the knowledge was matured
of the eternally divine existence of Christ, the more self-

12 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
evident did it become that the human earthly life of this
Being was a condition of self-emptying and humiliation, which
Christ assumed in order to the carrying out of His work, and
from which, not till after His exaltation, did He return to
full divine glory. Hence it necessarily follows that the
element in which the apostolic preaching finds the peculiar
significance of this person and work cannot, for the most part,
be given full expression to in His earthly-human life; and
only so can it be explained how so little reference is made
to the earthly life of Jesus and its details. When there is
no trace in the traditions of Jesus' life of what the apostles
assert regarding His person and work, it may well be inferred,
that in accordance with the conditions of His earthly life and
with the stages of the development of His work, which then
occurred, this could not yet be delineated. And so we lose
every standard for criticizing, on the basis of these traditions,
the apostolic preaching.
/ Indeed, the fundamental facts in Christ's gospel can neither
I be contested nor established from the facts of the life of Jesus.
The central point of the apostolic preaching always remains
this, that the -expiatory significance of His death forms the
fundamental presupposition for the new relation of the believer
to God ; that the abiding communion with the exalted Christ,
which is brought about by the communication of His Spirit,
fits the believers for a new religio-ethical life ; that His rising
from the dead is the pledge of our resurrection, and His
approaching return the condition of the heavenly completion
of salvation. These statements, however, are and remain
quite independent of the historical question, whether and how
far Jesus asserted or predicted these ; for the fact that here
future events are being dealt with which were totally foreign
to the companions of Jesus' earthly life, placed manifold limits
to their receptiveness of instruction as to the significance of
the same. Were we not, on other grounds, justified in receiv
ing as trustworthy the apostolic message regarding them, this
belief could not be extorted by the method of historical proof ;
because the possibility could, by this method, never be
excluded, that the views in question of the apostles were, at
an earlier or later period, introduced into the speeches of
Jesus, and because the hypothesis, that the assertions of^Jesus

BELIEF IN CHRIST AND HIS EARTHLY-HUMAN HISTORY. 13
Himself regarding these matters were influenced by popular
or contemporary ideas, can never be escaped by a purely
historical treatment independent of the faith generated by the
apostolic preaching. <^When the apostolic preaching bases the
permanent significance of Christ on the divine Lordship of the
exalted One, and ultimately on His original divine existence,
the trustworthiness of this assertion cannot depend upon
whether and how far Jesus, subject to the conditions of His
human life and His earthly activity, was able to express
Himself in regard to it, or considered it serviceable to and
comprehensible by the understanding of His disciples. The
more, however, that statements of this kind were found with
unmistakeable clearness and dogmatic precision in our tradi
tion, the more irresistibly would the question force itself upon
the purely historical treatment, whether these sayings really
belong to the oldest oral tradition or were introduced from
the didactic standpoints of a later time ; for the fact is
established beyond dispute, that in the apostolic Church the '
full knowledge of Christ's divine elevation was only gradually
matured, and was first perfectly developed by Paul, who was
not an ear-witness of the speeches of Jesus. The apologetic
voracity, which imagines that it cannot establish the faith
better than by having as imposing an array as possible of the
ipsissima verba of Jesus, into which it often naively introduces
what has still to be proved, has frequently been only too
active in preparing the way for criticism.* '3 ) Naturally the
same thing holds good in regard to the miracles performed on
Jesus or by Him ; for not one -of these affords proof of what
current apologetic, confident of victory, infers from them as,
to the divine existence of Christ. This with marvellous.
credulity is repeated by criticism, only, indeed, that from the
standpoint of the historical treatment to which that proof of
the miraculous is serviceable, the obvious and indisputable
conclusion may be drawn, that the presupposition of a repre
sentation of the person of Christ, however originated, which
appeared indispensable, could very easily come to be assumed
as having actually occurred, and so would be introduced into
a representation of the course of the history of Jesus. Nowhere,
however, in the apostolic preaching is the assertion of Christ's
divine existence based upon His miracles, or on His

14 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
miraculous birth, which is never even referred to, or on His
miraculous acts, which are only employed to prove His divine
commission and His preparation by the Spirit, or on His
resurrection, which appears exclusively as proof of His Messiah-
ship and of the significance for salvation of His death as a
stage in the performance of His Messianic functions.
There must be special note taken of one thing. The
progress in the development of the apostolic preaching shows
how the special significance of the manifestation of Jesus for
the Jewish people and its destiny, which necessarily con
ditioned the view taken of His ministry, became gradually
subordinate, in that preaching, to its universal and permanent
significance ; it shows how the latter was placed in the
clearest light by Paul, who was not an eye-witness, and by
the original disciples of Jesus only in proportion as the
historical development excluded the nation, which, as such,
remained unbelieving, from the blessings of Christ's appearing.
For the historical treatment it is a necessary consequence of
this, that Christ's earthly ministry must, for the most part,
have borne a character that was unable clearly and fully to
express its permanent religio-historical significance, because
in form it was determined by the historical conditions of His
appearance. Here is opened a wide field, on which, from its
historical form, that universal significance of His life can
T neither be contested nor established. Taken by itself, a view
of the significance and ministry of Jesus, however limited and
conditioned by popular and contemporary prejudices, may
just as probably have dimmed the picture of His life in
handing it down, as the later tradition, which was, besides,
directed exclusively to the permanent and universally availing
significance of His appearance, may have obliterated the
characteristically historical features of His ministry. Down
to the present day, > indeed, the representation of Jesus' life
has always remained more or less dominated by contradictory
dogmatic presuppositions, and certainly the conception of the
historical form and development of His ministry has not
seldom been made subordinate to the standpoints, so laboured
\ for, as to His permanent significance. In order to make way
^"for an unfettered and really impartial treatment of the life of
Jesus, it will not do to take up a lower position in regard to

ETERNAL SIGNIFICANCE AND HISTORICAL FORM OF JESUS' LIFE. 15
personal faith, an act which is equally impossible andj
unnecessary. But it will answer to recognise that that position
towards the religious significance of Christ can ultimately be
gained only from the apostolic preaching, whether or not it is
there substantiated. The attempt of criticism to bring the
historical inquiry into the life of Jesus into the field against
the faith which has grown up from the basis of the apostolic
preaching, is just as unjustifiable and impracticable as that of
apologetics to gain from it support for that faith, which must
have a firmer and deeper foundation if it is not to stand[
trembling before any and every justifiable blow of historical
criticism. The Christian faith would have remained just as
it is, and lost no part of what is its deepest foundation, had
it pleased God to leave us only the apostolic teaching as it
lies before us in the Epistles of the New Testament, and
along with the Gospels, to deprive us of all information from
which we might have wrought out for ourselves a detailed
picture of Jesus' earthly life. Whoever, indeed, is won by
means of the apostolic announcement to faith in Christ's
person and work, as both are there presented, will certainly
never believe that the picture of His historical life, which the
apostles carried with them, and which Paul formed for him
self, can have been one blurred throughout by subjective
presuppositions, or that the Gospels, which are preserved to
us as the sole records regarding this life, contain what is but
a falsified picture, whether it be through the fault of that
earliest tradition or in consequence of their distance from it. i
But when a scientific ascertainment and representation of the
life of Jesus is concerned, it is self-evident that a start cannot
be made -from this assumption, it must be tested by an inquiry
into the origin and formation of our sources. The final source)
is and ever remains the oral apostolic tradition.
Although the apostolic preaching, which was intended to
awaken faith, and the apostolic letters, the aim of which was
the promotion and purification of the religio-ethical life of
the Churches, proceeded in scarcely the slightest degree upon
the details of the life of Jesus,- still it by no means self-
evidently follows — though marvellously this has been inferred
— that those who had been eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus
had no inducement or reason for giving testimony regarding

16 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
that which they had seen and heard in His society. In the
separate assemblies of Messianic believers, which were to them
from the beginning a necessity next to that of participation in
the worship of the temple and the synagogue, there must and
would be continual reference to the reminiscences of the life
of Jesus, in whose name they had bound themselves into a
distinct company within the great community of the nation.
Here it was naturally the sayings of Jesus which were
brought back to recollection, as need arose for instruction and
warning, for strengthening and consolation. In Jerusalem,
where during long years the greater number of those who had
formed the inner circle of the constant companions of Jesiis
lived and worked together, it was possible to attempt recall
ing to mind full discussions regarding this or that important
question, or the speeches delivered by Jesus on various
occasions, for the, recollections of one supplemented and
corrected those of the others. Now it was a conversation with
opponents or friends, now a special experience or the per
formance of a cure which had given occasion for an important
utterance of Jesus, and these were now recounted in order to
lead up to this utterance. Some of the specially noteworthy-
events of the life of Jesus, and, above all, examples of His
miraculous deeds, of themselves gave occasion for repetition.
It is never, however, the historical details, the conditions of
place or time, or the circumstances of the persons who, apart
from Jesus, had played a part in this or that event, that
attracted interest, and formed the subject of the rehearsal ; it
would always be the words or deeds of Jesus, around which
these were grouped, and for which everything else only
formed an outlined framework. These narrations do not
serve for the gratification of curiosity or of historical investi
gation, but for the strengthening and quickening of faith, for
edification in its widest sense. They confined themselves,
therefore, to the public life of Jesus, of which the disciples
had been witnesses, and in which Jesus had gained His
significance for the people. Researches into the history of
His childhood or youth, attempts to represent the inner
connection of His history, or the course of development of
His ministry, were plainly excluded.
However large was the number of those among the people

ORAL TRADITION. 1 7
who had beheld individual acts of Jesus, and heard individual
sayings and speeches, or had witnessed some specially memor
able events of a life, the most important part of which was
spent in the full glare of publicity, still the limited circle of
the primitive Church in Jerusalem long remained the centre
where the recollections of this life were most carefully pre
served. Here the principal witnesses of this life lived side by
side, their reminiscences and accounts could be amplified and
assimilated, and thus there soon arose a number of addresses
and narratives, on which the memory fell back with special
predilection. It was here that the language was spoken which
Jesus Himself had employed ; and the poverty of the Aramaic,
dialect, which admitted of no great variation of expression, con- ;
tributed to the early establishment of a fixed type of narration, \
which became the more settled even in details the oftener that
the same subject was referred to. The main points in the
utterances of Jesus, the principal junctures in the narration of
the events in connection with which they were spoken, or
which memory associated with them, — these took more and
more a permanent form, from which there was, in their sub
sequent recital, an ever diminishing deviation. This form
stamped itself on the memory of hearers who had not them
selves been eye- and ear-witnesses, and was borne by them to
wider circles where the apostles were not present in person.
In so far as they dealt with Palestine, these notices might
here and there be enriched by the recollections of isolated eye-
and ear- witnesses ; but the above-mentioned type of narration
always formed the foundation on which anything further was
based, and to which, in form and contents, these additions
adapted themselves.
The idea of written memoranda was long excluded. To]
whom could they have been of service ? There was no future '
for which men would have desired to preserve in writing these
priceless reminiscences ; for the Lord's immediate coming was ,'
expected, and with it the commencement of the longed-for
completion of redemption. Those who bore the seeds of the'
gospel to the Dispersion had been themselves to a great extent
eye- and ear-witnesses, or they conveyed in vivid recollection
the lifelike tradition of the first witnesses. For the establish
ing of faith in Christ, for the fostering of the new religio-
WE1SS. — I. B

18 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
ethical life, the apostolic preaching was sufficient, being, as we
have learned to know it, the gospel of Christ, which has but
little in common with the details of the earthly-historical life
of Jesus. In the communities of Messianic believers which
were formed among the Gentiles, there was often lacking even
the first conditions of comprehension for details which were
displayed on so thoroughly peculiar a historical background,
and to supply the deficiency there existed neither occasion nor
inducement. Even afterwards, when, owing to special circum
stances, an evangelical literature had arisen and had rapidly
developed itself, the oral tradition continued to be regarded as
of equal value. During the first half of the second century,
when the words of Jesus are referred to by the Apostolic
Fathers, it is by no means everywhere the very expressions
used in our historical Gospels which they cite. It was indeed
only a portion of this much richer oral tradition which became
^ fixed in writing. Even a Papias of Hierapolis says that he
did not find himself able to derive so much advantage
\from the books as from the oral tradition. It was in the time
of Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century, that
we first hear of the Gospels being read in the Sabbath services.1
Manifestly it was only after the generation had died out which
had itself heard the narratives of eye- and ear-witnesses, that it
first became necessary to rehabilitate, by the written tradition,
the oral, which now gradually disappeared and became even
more unreliable.
We see from the writings of Justin, who, for his, part, does
not confine himself entirely to the written Gospels, least of
all to their exact words, that already it was our four Gospels
which were employed as sources of information regarding the
history of Jesus. At a later period it was established beyond
doubt by his pupil Tatian, that the latter had himself com
piled a harmony of our four canonical Gospels, manifestly for
the use of the Church;2 and towards the end of the century,
Irenaeus refers to the fourfold form of the Gospels current in
1 Comp. the quotation from Papias' introduction to his Exposition of the
Sayings of our Lord, in Euseb. Oh. Hist. iii. 39, and in Justin's first Apology,
chapter 67.
2 Comp. A. Harnack, Tatian's Diatessaron, in Brieger's Zeitschrifl fur
Kirchengeschkhte, iv. 4, p. 471 f.

DOCUMENTARY GOSPELS. 19
the Church as being a long-established fact, and one which he
seeks to prove to be an arrangement of divine providence.1 To
these sources we are exclusively directed for the life of Jesus.
The occasional references to it in the other New Testament
writings must be mentioned and considered in their place, but
on the grounds above stated they are so few and so fragment
ary that they cannot come into consideration as independent
sources. We have heard the information given by Tacitus
regarding Christ ; the most contested passage of the Jewish
writer Josephus, even if its authenticity were more certain
than it is, has absolutely nothing essential to impart to us ;
the last remnants of the oral tradition which are preserved here
and there in the oldest Church Fathers are equally unreliable ;
and in the proper place we shall have to estimate at their,
utter uselessness the so-called apocryphal Gospels. An inquiry,!
then, into the origin of our four Gospels, and their significance
for the history of Jesus, must precede any delineation of the
history itself.
Such an inquiry would be indeed superfluous if it were
certain from the first that our four Gospels, just because they
form constituent parts of the New Testament canon, had arisen
in a plainly supernatural way, and through the method of
their production had assured to them absolute infallibility
and literal trustworthiness. There has been a time in our
evangelical Church when it was thought that the permanent
stability of the documentary factor, on which she herself is
based, could not be securely established otherwise than by
the assumption of some such divine miracle, by which to the
sacred writers there was given directly from God, .not only
the impulsion to write, but also the form and matter of
everything which was to be written ; and so it remained quite
undecided whether what was thus imparted was known from
other sources or could have been heard of in other ways. Thus
it is quite the same whether these writings proceed from those
who were eye-witnesses or from those who were not, whether
authors stood close to or at a distance from the events related,
or whether their purpose was historical or didactic. This view
is, for the most part, consistent with only one delineation of
the life of Jesus, that which, in a truly remarkable way, pieces
1 Comp. Iren. Adv. Hatreses, iii. 11 8, 9.

20 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
together the manifestly complete descriptions from the life of
Jesus given us in four separate books, so that not a word is
lost of the Gospels dictated by the Holy Spirit Himself. An
attempt to form such a harmony of the Gospels was at the
time of the Reformation made by Andreas Osiander, and was
carried out to its ultimate consequences, so that whenever
our Gospels in their report of events, or of the utterances of
Jesus, differed as to the order, or even in the most insignificant
details, he assumed that they were dealing, not with the same,
but with different events and sayings. It was this attempt,
however, at a logical carrying out of that view of the rise of
the Gospels, which brought into clearest light the intolerably
artificial and unnatural character of the subsidiary assumptions
of which it stood in need. Even to the Wurtemberg prelate
Bengel, the miracle that Jesus wrought upon the mother-in-law
of Peter appeared greater if lasting health followed it, than
if she had still required to have one or two relapses, in
order to be able to make two or three out of one miraculous
cure. Sooner or later, however, and even with the most
persistent disregard of these consequences, this attempt must
have made shipwreck. Not only did there always remain
plenty of discrepancies, which did not permit of being ex
plained in this way, but it soon became established that every
one of our Gospels offers, both in contents and form, peculiarities
which remain unintelligible if the human authors in the com
position of their writings acted, without independence, as
the instruments of the Holy Ghost. It was but a miserable
subterfuge to say that the Holy Ghost accommodated Himself
to the peculiarities of these authors or the necessities of the
readers, because any such accommodation would plainly have
proved but an obstruction to the sole aim of such a divine
miracle, which was to hand down the utterances of Jesus and
the events of His life in a manifestly reliable and universally
intelligible manner. But the facts contained in the Gospels
themselves entered from the first a protest against this view.
John does not refer to an impulsion from the Holy Ghost as
necessitating him to write, but he speaks of the object with
which he has written (John xx. 31); he does not lay stress
upon matter communicated by the Holy Ghost, but upon what
he himself has seen (John i. 14), and upon the truthfulness

HUMAN ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 21
of his testimony (John xix. 35, comp. xxi. 24). Still more
definitely does Luke speak of his literary motives ; he expressly
puts his work in the same category with others which had a
literary origin ; he points to the sources from which he has
drawn material (Luke i. 1-4). But even apart from their
express statements, the construction of these writings shows
that we have here to do with no original productions, every
one of which can be referred to an independent impulsion of
the Holy Ghost. Verbal coincidences are to be found
which can only originate in the dependence of one upon
another, or in their common dependence upon written or oral
tradition; and, on the other hand, discrepancies frequent
enough to betray literary motive so clearly, that here we must
be looking very directly upon the conditions of human
authorship. It was not dogmatic prepossessions on which that old view
of the origin of the Scriptures, and especially of the Gospels,
made hopeless shipwreck, but on facts lying undeniably in
our Gospels, and always challenging the attention of every
unprejudiced method of treatment. At this time of day hardly
any one would venture to contest this. People, however,
content themselves with the admission, that in the details of
the Gospel history there are certainly discrepancies and even
mistakes, but they hold that these concern only unimportant
points; so that, however you establish the compatibility of
these with the plainly supernatural origin of those writings,
still their thorough and equal trustworthiness and infallibility
suffer- no injury. An artificial harmony and apologetical
special pleading are always striving to represent these discre
pancies as really such only in appearance, and to brand
any hesitation that arises as to this or that representation
in the Gospels as pure scepticism or as the product of
unbelief. The attacks of criticism do not do more than this
artifice to bring the credibility of the Gospels into suspicion
among unbiassed men, and to discredit the efforts of apologetics.
Our concern is not with individual discrepancies in the
representation which admit of being reconciled in one way or
another, or with certain perfectly unimportant differences in
the accounts of the sayings of Jesus or the details of the
events, but with this, that these facts, however industriously

22 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the attempt may be made to minimize them, irresistibly
eliminate the old view of the origin of the Gospels ; because
the most insignificant of these facts, in respect of matter and
form, stands in contradiction with any such direct inspiration,
and because even after the supposititious solution of this kind
of difficulty, there always remain, as has been shown, phenomena
enough plainly to exclude that idea. Much more pressing is
the question, What would justify us in entertaining such a
conception of the origin of our Gospels ? All inferences from
New Testament passages which have no references to the
Scriptures but to the oral preaching of the apostles, by which,
strangely enough, through means of a circle of proof, it has
been attempted to demonstrate that divine miracle, which is
with injustice often exclusively designated inspiration, could,
even in the most favourable circumstances, bear upon the
apostolic writings only. Two, however, of our Gospels have
never professed to be the work of apostles ; and the apostolic
origin of the two others is only guaranteed to us by ecclesiastical
J tradition. We know for certain, that since the middle of the
( second century the Church has always used exclusively our
four Gospels, but we know absolutely nothing regarding the
motif of their choice ; we have unconditioned certainty only
of this, that they were not made canonical because it was
known that they had originated in the way in which the
Protestant theology of the sixteenth century, in order to estab
lish their credibility, believed they had originated. Did we
wish to make our faith in the Gospels absolutely independent
of the decision of the Church of the second century, we should
not have the slightest guarantee for their origination in that
plainly supernatural way.
^ A historical inquiry into the life of Jesus, then, must hold
itself perfectly aloof from this view regarding the origin of
Ithe Gospels. It must treat them as human productions, the
jorigin of which it inquires into by historical methods, and the
'significance of which, for the representation of the life of Jesus,
it endeavours to settle by what it ascertains regarding the
circumstances and object of their composition. There is only
this alternative: all attempts to find a via media between
the old Protestant view of the Gospels and this one
must come to grief through the fundamental antagonism of

CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPELS. 23
the two conceptions. When not only the believing method of
handling Scripture, but also theological science in widespread
schools, continually rises in opposition to this acknowledg
ment, it is owing to the fear that the credibility of the Gospel
history, and even faith in Christ Himself, are thereby im
perilled. Our faith in Christ, however, is based upon the
apostolic message of salvation, and is quite independent of
the question, How much or how little we can, with historical
certainty, ascertain as to the earthly history of Jesus from the
information regarding His life which has been handed down to
us. It is indeed the privilege of the very simplest intuitive
faith to be sure of this, that when historical information
regarding the life of Jesus is preserved ' for us, it cannot, in
accordance with the conditions of its origin, be altogether
untrustworthy, or give rise in our minds to a false picture of the
life of Jesus. But what circumstances they were by which,
in accordance with the decree of God, there was assured to us
the essential credibility of the picture of Christ contained in
the Gospels, is not to be decided by a dogmatic dictum, the
terms of which are notoriously in contradiction to the existing
fact-basis, but is only to be established through a historical
investigation. Independently of all more minute investiga
tion, the fact that in the middle of the second century these
writings were regarded as the most trustworthy memorials of
the apostolic age, guarantees to us this, that at this time they
were in existence, and thus for us they share, from the first,
the general character of this epoch of Christianity. As the
apostolic message advanced the claim to having been announced
under the impulsion and enlightenment of the Holy Ghost, —
and in case of its being received as credible, it can only be
accepted under the recognition of this claim, — so also the
delineations of the life of Jesus, which date from this time,
whether they originated with the apostles or with the scholars
of the apostles, could only be written under the direction of
the Spirit, which everywhere gives believers assurance of the
salvation which has appeared in Christ, and teaches them to
understand it rightly. Every essentially erroneous view
of the earthly life of Jesus would be incompatible with a
true knowledge of the salvation which is in Christ ; and in
this sense the inspiration of the writers of the Gospels gives

24 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
security for the real trustworthiness of their delineation of the
life of Jesus, for the elimination from it of all obscurities
affecting the essence of the Christian faith, without our needing
for this that special miracle. But for the historical accuracy
and reliability in details of this delineation, the enlighten
ment and leading of the Spirit neither can nor will give any
guarantee, because salvation and faith in the salvation brought
by Christ are absolutely independent of historical acquaintance
with the earthly life of Jesus. In accordance with this
tendency, a decision regarding the character of the individual
Gospels, and their value for investigating the life of Jesus, can
only be formed from an historical inquiry into their origin and
constitution.

CHAPTER II.
DISCOVERY OF THE EARLIEST SOURCE.
IN earlier times, men only exerted themselves to explain
and remove the patent contradictions of the Gospels, to
reconcile their discrepancies, and so establish full harmony
between them; their points of agreement appeared quite
natural, issuing as they did from the same author, being
inspired by the one Holy Ghost. The more, however, that
regard began to be paid to the human origin of the Gospels,
the more were men struck by this, that our first three Gospels,
those called the synoptic, show an extent of agreement in
the choice of material, in its arrangement, and even in the
smallest details of expression, which can only be explained by
the circumstances of their origin. There was, indeed, an idea
derived from the patristic period, that our Gospels had made
use of one another in the order in which, according to tradi
tion, they had originated and were located in the canon.
Augustine especially thought he noticed that Mark follows
Matthew step by step, and really only abbreviates him (comp.
de cons, evang. 1. 4) ; and this view remained dominant till
about the middle of the eighteenth century. Easy as it was
to explain in this way the coincidences of the Gospels, their
discrepancies still offered as great difficulties. When the
measure of human authorship began to be fixed, it remained
quite incomprehensible how the later writers deviated so
greatly from the work of an apostle, the eye-witness Matthew,
whose name was borne by the first, and, according to tradition,
the oldest Gospel, and neglected so much of its valuable
material. Indeed, in his introduction Luke appears to exercise
criticism upon his predecessors, at least to pronounce inade
quate their work, whether it was at first hand or not (Luke i. 3).
Although after this the hypothesis rather commended itself
that Luke is the oldest of our synoptic Gospels, and that in
25

26 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
many respects it underwent revision or was made more pre
cisely exact, first by Mark and then especially by the eye
witness Matthew, still the old tradition as to the order of the
Gospels, which found its justification on many obvious and
relevant grounds, contradicted this assumption too categorically
for it to gain wider acceptance. On the other hand, when
tradition was disregarded and attention fixed upon the relations
of our four Gospels to each other, the hypothesis appeared
much more natural, that the shortest of these had formed
the starting-point, and had only been enriched by those which
followed it by means of new additions. But this hypothesis
of Storr's made it appear very extraordinary that the eye
witness Matthew should have placed himself for the most part
in a position of dependence upon the writing of one who was
not an eye-witness ; and manifestly there can with equal
justice be brought against it this consideration, that this
shortest Gospel, looked at in itself, could just as well be an
abridgment of the two of larger and ampler contents, as
their common root. Thus it was that the eighteenth century,
dissatisfied with these various combinations, which were subject
to perpetual modification and yet left the same difficulties un
solved, turned rather to the attempt to explain the coincidences
of our Synoptists not through the use of one by the others,
but through their common dependence upon an older source.
I It was Lessing who first gave expression to the thought
that this common root of our synoptic Gospels was to be
(Sought in the so-called Hebrew Gospel, a document which, in
ithe second century, was in use among the Jewish-Christian
factions who had separated themselves from the Church. At
the period of the rising Rationalism, which preferred to
exercise its criticism on ecclesiastical tradition, the idea com
mended itself with quite exceptional force, that a document
which had up to this time been regarded as heretical, was
the older, our canonical Gospels the younger, and that they
depended upon it. But the meagre remnants of this Hebrew
Gospel which are preserved for us, when subjected to more
searching scientific investigation, proved to bear a too mani
festly secondary character in comparison with our Gospels.
Thus this hypothesis also was soon given up, and an attempt
was made to construct a primitive Hebrew Gospel out of our

THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL AND TRADITION. 27
Gospels themselves, embracing those portions which are common
to our first three Gospels, and by the advancing of a whole
series of amplifications, together with the translations belonging
to them, to gain an abundance of evangelical information; while
from the different combinations of these additions, both the
agreements of any two of our Gospels and the differentiating
characteristics of each could be explained. That was the
well-known hypothesis of Eichhorn regarding a primitive i
Gospel, which appeared at the beginning of this century and
excited the utmost sensation; but after one decade, during
which all manner of attempts were made to correct and
modify it, it fell into disrepute. The hypothesis of a series
of sources of which not one trace has been preserved in our
tradition, even where they would necessarily be expected to
appear, is shown to be historically untenable by the fact that
slavish dependence on the part of the evangelists upon a
model, the value of which must, besides, have been destroyed
by all these revisions and enlargements, is in direct contra
diction to the spirit of primitive Christianity ; as well as by
the fact that the philological conditions of the time utterly
discredit the idea of a contradictory employment of auxiliary
translations by the first translators. The characteristics of
each of our three Gospels asserted themselves in opposition to
the hypothesis of their purely mechanical compilation from
that hypothetical anterior work.
In the year 1818 the Church historian Gieseler appeared)
with the most strenuous opposition to this hypothesis, and1
substituted for it the view based upon an idea of Herder's,1
that the~ foundation of our written Gospels is formed by the
oral type of narration in Aramaic, as it had been developed
in Jerusalem within the circle of the first apostles. In order,
however, to explain by means of this undoubtedly right thought
(comp. p. 17) the actually existing coincidences of our
Greek Gospels, it must be enlarged to embrace the idea of a
complete oral primitive Gospel and of its translation into
Greek, — a supposition which is contradicted by every natural
view of the limits within which oral tradition, as regards form
or contents, establishes itself, and so, ultimately, this hypothesis
in artificiality and arbitrariness comes but little behind that
of Eichhorn. Notwithstanding, the advance toward truth

28 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
made in this view has been very generally appreciated in the
criticism of the Gospels, and has been turned to account in the
solution of the synoptic problem. But only an apologetic
which is intent upon keeping free of the literary dependence
of our Gospels on one another or on older sources, in order
that by acquiescence in this it may not be compelled too
abruptly to admit the thoroughly human mode of origination
of our four Gospels, and the intentional deviations of one from
the others, will willingly take refuge in this haze of oral
tradition, that therewith it may at least cover over a problem
which it is not able and does not desire to solve. For a
scientific treatment of the subject, there can be no doubt that
the similarity of the order in long series of narratives, which
is in no way necessitated by the chronological sequence, and
the numerous verbal coincidences, not only in the- main
points of the sayings of Jesus and of the narratives, but also
in the slightest turns of expression, even indeed in conjunc
tions and connecting particles, can never be explained by the
oral tradition, and that the discrepancies which appear in
juxtaposition with these coincidences do not usually bear
the character of accidental variations as they arise in oral
tradition, but the constant type of intentional literary modifica
tions. Upon closer inspection, it further appears that even
the extent to which the oldest oral model of narration has
actually influenced our historical Gospels could not be reached
till somehow it had been fixed in writing; but the freedom
with which the oral tradition, as it descended from near the
beginnings of the Gospel literature, constantly made new varia
tions in the details of the picture on the basis of the given,
fixed kernel, was what first gave to the writers of the Gospels
the free impulsion by which they could remodel what lay before
them in written form. Thus the hypothesis as to tradition,
which refers the written Gospels to their root in oral tradition,
not only required amplification by means of the hypothesis of
the primitive Gospel, but it also made possible the combina
tion of this with one form of the hypothesis that the Gospels
made use of each other, with the result that many difficulties
which the latter, in all forms of it, had hitherto manifested,
were through this combination for the first time removed.
The circle of possibilities seemed for the present pretty

ARAMAIC WORK OF THE APOSTLE MATTHEW. 29
well exhausted, and even the outlook for new combinations
appeared only to be repeating a fruitless creation of hypotheses,
by which it was impossible to attain an established scientific
result, when, in the year 1820, the criticism of the Gospels,
which had hitherto been confined to the three Synoptics,
turned against the Gospel of John, which up to this time had
been generally treated as unassailable. The attack which
Bretschneider in his Probabilia opened upon its genuineness
had only this result, that theology in all its schools felt com
pelled to defend it energetically, and that the originator of the
attack himself confessed that the genuineness of John's Gospel
had by the recent investigations been only the more firmly
established. He had laid special emphasis upon the differences
between the fourth Gospel and the older ones ; and the line of |
defence was now to prove, that where a deviation existed!
John's representation was the absolutely accurate one; thus in:
the course of discussion it became abundantly clear that in
the synoptical Gospels not everything is exactly and correctly
depicted, and that certain obscurations of the original are
visible which could have crept in only during the process of
handing down the oral tradition. It was then impossible for <
any one of our three Gospels to have originated directly with i
an apostle; not even the first, which had hitherto been impar
tially regarded as a writing of the Apostle Matthew, as in it
especially the points of difference with John receive more
emphatic accentuation. The results of these investigations
were collected with great acumen and perspicacity by Sieffert
in his work on the first canonical Gospels (1832). At the
same time he pointed out with equal clearness, that to refer
this Gospel directly to the apostle does not correspond with
the tradition, for this speaks only of an Aramaic writing of
Matthew. The older Protestantism, hampered by dogmatic
presuppositions, attempted on the strangest grounds to prove
this assertion of the Fathers to be an ancient error. During
the period of Rationalism it gradually began to gain juster
appreciation ; but through its implication in the often extra
ordinary hypotheses which here dispoited themselves, it was
rather discredited than commended. Sieffert pointed out that
we have no longer any right to speak of a work of the Apostle
Matthew, unless, at the same time, we are willing to accept

30 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the statement that Matthew wrote in Aramaic, which in all
ecclesiastical antiquity went hand in hand with this. It was
then clear that our Greek Gospel of Matthew can in no sense
be directly that oldest document. It was inevitable that the
attempt of Sieffert to distinguish purely on internal grounds
those portions of it which belonged to the original apostolic
document should miscarry. In the same year in which his
work appeared, Schleiermacher had, in his theological Studien
und Kritiken (1832, 4), undertaken a more minute examina
tion of the oldest testimony, to which our whole tradition as
to Matthew's writing is to be referred, an assertion of Papias of
Hierapolis (in Euseb. Church History, iii. 39), and proved that
this assertion, according to which the Apostle Matthew presented
a collection of the sayings of the Lord, is not at all relevant
to the contents of our first Gospel. Schleiermacher may have
gone too far in saying that this assertion makes the document
to have contained exclusively statements and speeches of the
Lord, because there are many of these which could not have
been introduced without an explanatory historical addition.
But that a Gospel which begins with a detailed history of a
childhood, and ends with a continuous account of sufferings
and of a resurrection, and which in its historical representation
as well as in its pragmatical reflections manifestly pursues a
doctrinal aim, could not be characterized as a collection of the
sayings of the Lord, can only be denied by those committed to
a foregone conclusion. By this there was given, however, if
only in respect of form, a hint towards the distinguishing of
our first Gospel from the oldest apostolic document.
Is it possible to gain a more definite picture of that
document ? Can these priceless sources be restored either in
I whole or in part from our Gospels ? Weisse has pointed out
the way to attain this in his Gospel History (1838) ; we
owe to him the discovery of this oldest source. There
are two things which, through his acute investigation of
the literary relations of our Gospels, he has established beyond
all doubt— that the first Gospel is dependent upon the second,
and that the third is independent of the first. The first fact
could not be admitted so long as it was maintained that the
first Gospel was directly composed by Matthew ; but when
ever it was recognised that it could only be an elaboration of

DISCOVERY OF THE EARLIEST SOURCE. 31
the old apostolic document, a reliable standard was obtained
by which to mark off its secondary additions. All those
portions in which the text of the first Gospel indicated depen
dence upon Mark, could originate only with the evangelist,
and not with the apostolic document redacted by him. The
establishment of the second fact was not less important. Since
a dependence of the first Gospel on the third, in accordance
with the universal tradition respecting the order of the Gospels
and with what is clearly apparent, cannot properly be dis
cussed, and since it had further been proved that the third
evangelist did not know our Matthew, so neither of them
could have borrowed anything from the other. If it is found
that, apart from what they had, in like manner, borrowed from
the second Gospel, and in which they therefore coincide, both
have in common large sections and especially speeches, often
down to the minutest details of expression, then these can
only be borrowed from a source common to the two Gospels.
But if it were established by unanimous tradition that our
first Gospel must preserve essentially the work of the Apostle
Matthew, this would form a common source for only the first
and third Gospels ; and the fact that it was principally por
tions containing speeches which gave proof of having been
taken from this source, plainly establishes this result, for that
apostolic document would consist principally of a collection of
the speeches of Jesus.
Unfortunately, the criticism of the Gospels has not quietly
built further upon the foundation laid in such an exemplary
manner by Weisse. In the fourth and fifth decades of the cen
tury it was absorbed in the contest with the Tubingen school,
which, quitting the tried method of a purely literary criticism
of sources, dealt with the Gospels only from the standpoint of
its peculiar construction of history, and by its pertinacious
representation of the Gospels as dogmatic tendency writings,
hindered rather than helped the understanding of them. All
those who, like Ewald, Reuss, and Meyer, set their face against
this mode of conceiving them, had always in some way to
connect themselves with Weisse ; and in the sixth decade
there at last began a successful carrying forward of the
structure upon the foundation laid by him. There was indeed
a twofold need for a structure of this kind. It had the

32 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
appearance of greater simplicity to treat our second Gospel,
and that oldest source which besides it lay at the foundation
of the first and third Gospels, as two perfectly independent
works. From this view it was that Weisse started. But
the hypothesis that the second Gospel was a source of our
Matthew, was not without reason always confronted with the
observation, that in many sections, especially where it deals
with speeches of Jesus, its text is, as opposed to that of our
first Gospel, a secondary one, and that even in individual
narrative portions the fact of this appearance can only be
contested in a very artificial manner, and therefore not com
pletely. The simplest explanation of this was given after the
beginning of the sixth decade, and was at a later period carried
out in regard to all the details of the comparison of texts. If
the second evangelist had known and employed the oldest
apostolic document, but redacted it in a freer manner
wherever the first evangelist has preserved its text more
faithfully, his representation must appear as the original, that
of the second Gospel the secondary. Hence it is that the
work of criticism became in many portions a more involved
one, because the first evangelist did often allow himself to be
influenced by the free handling which the oldest source
receives in the second Gospel. But if there are present in
all our three synoptic Gospels various redactions of that
oldest source, it must be possible to obtain with all the greater
certainty the original text of the latter. Against this view,
the only one that could settle the long-standing dispute
regarding the connection between the first and third Gospels,
in which each side derives from contradictory evidence a
certain amount of justification, were ranged the defenders of
an unconditioned originality of the second Gospel. They
knew no other way of solving the difficulties antagonistic to
their view, than by the hypothesis that our second Gospel is
only the relatively most original redaction of a foundation
document which lay at the basis of our three synoptic
Gospels, and is sometimes preserved in our first and third in a
more original form. This hypothesis of an original Mark, first
thrown out by Holtzmann in his Synoptic Gospels of 1863,
notwithstanding the approval given it by Wittichen, Schenkel,
and many others, and so far even by Weizsacker in his

THE FIRST GOSPEL AND THE SECOND. 33
Investigations into the Gospel History (1864), required
fundamental readjustment. Indeed, after it had been re
peatedly demonstrated how in every form it corresponded less
and less with the obvious facts, and was constantly being
involved in new and insoluble difficulties, ¦ it has lately, at
least by its author, been given up in every shape.
The opposition to the simplest solution of the difficulties
here presented had still one ground other than the presupposed
originality of the second Gospel. The appearance which the
text of the latter sometimes presents, of being a secondary
one in comparison with the text of our Matthew, shows itself
by no means only in the speeches, but also in the narrative
sections ; and when Holtzmann tried, as far as possible, to
contest this fact, even Weizsacker was obliged to admit it to
a large extent. The admission, however, that even in those
sections the first evangelist has preserved more faithfully the
delineation of the older source, is hindered by the presumption
that, according to the statement of Papias, that source con
tained exclusively utterances of the Lord. Now it is that
aid is sought from the hypothetical primitive Gospel of Mark,
which here and there would be preserved more faithfully in
the first and third Gospels than in the redaction of it which
is presented to us in the second Gospel. This leads directly
to the second point on which an advance has to be made
upon the position of Weisse, who himself shared in this
assumption, because the method pointed out by him for
the discovery of that oldest source made it necessary to break
with the assumption that it could only contain utterances of
the Lord. By this means it was shown that portions such
as the words of the Baptist, the three temptations in the
wilderness, the healing .of the centurion's son, and at least
one exorcism of devils, had a place there, because they are
common to the first and third Gospels exclusively. But if
certain narrative portions cannot from their nature be excluded
from this source, it may be established from a comparison of
the text of the first Gospel with that of the second, which of
the narratives contained in the latter in a more free and
ample version are embodied in the original source in a simpler
form. It was of importance not only to determine with pre
cision the extent of this source, but also to fix more definitely
WEISS.— L C

34 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the form which it had originally in its authenticated portions.
At an earlier period a start had been made from the assump
tion that this form was most faithfully preserved in the first
Gospel, and a " collection of speeches ''' was spoken of, which
consisted substantially of the long addresses contained in
Matthew's Gospel. On the other hand, Holtzmann pointed
out with perfect justice that it was impossible for the third
evangelist almost wantonly to break these long speeches into
"fragments ; that he must rather have preserved as purely as
possible the original form in which many groups of sayings,
detached from one another, had been handed down ; and that
since this evangelist, as his very perspicuous construction
shows, had made use of the oldest source in continuous
sections, their very order even could frequently be re
covered from him. When Holtzmann thought to reconstruct
the form of this collection of sayings essentially from the
third Gospel, that was not less one-sided than the earlier
mode of starting entirely from the longer speeches of the first ¦
Gospel. Here a result could be reached only by a critical
comparison of texts, dealing with the minutest particulars,
and an ever deeper penetration into the diversity of the
methods followed by the first and third evangelists in their
use of the oldest source, in accordance with the conditions
and the purpose of their composition.1
We must then abandon the hope of ever possessing the
work of the Apostle Matthew, because it has been lost through
the carelessness which ecclesiastical antiquity, enjoying as it
did the rich possession of the oral tradition, showed towards
the earliest documentary information after it had been sub
stantially transferred to our first Gospel, and had received
there a considerably developed form. That which was most
1 After I had, in the Theologischen Studien und Kritihen for 1861, and in the
Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie for 1864-65, expounded my attempt to
improve and develop the idea thrown out by Weisse regarding the sources of
the first and third Gospels, and had reckoned with all the divergent views, I
proceeded in my works upon the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (1872 and 1876)
to carry through and establish in particulars my views by means of the explana
tion of details and the comparison of texts. For the following picture of the
oldest source, and the substantiating of it in the delineation of the life of Jesus,
I refer once for all to these works. There is no word said about it in one place,
and no use made of it in another, the particular grounds of which will not be
found in these treatises.

CONTENTS OF THE MATTHEW-DOCUMENT. 35
valuable in it, the reproduction of the utterances of Jesus in
the language which He Himself spoke, was, apart from that,
soon lost, for the Greek-speaking Christians early required a
Greek translation, which alone was widely disseminated. It
is something of this kind which as a common source lies at
' the foundation of our Greek Gospels. Large portions of this
can be reconstructed with a great degree of certainty on the
ground of the employment and redaction of it, accomplished
from various points of view, in our three Gospels, and the
knowledge gained from them of its accidence, which, not only
in its general peculiarity, but also in many particulars, reveals
clearly the Aramaic basis, forms another important point of
vantage from which to pick out with greater certainty those
portions which are derived from this source. Thus the extent
of this original source can in substance be fixed with great
probability, whatever doubt may remain regarding the origin
of one or another portion ; and in many places so distinct a
picture may be formed even of its plan and construction, that'
where in individual instances this is not possible, yet this
furnishes no invalidation of the profitable rehabilitating of
this oldest source. We have found in it that documentary!
primitive Gospel after which the older speculative criticism'
vainly groped, and the methodical employment of which j
forms the firm starting-point for the solution of the synoptic i
problem, as well as a firm foundation and standard for the
establishment of the most important deeds and speeches of
Jesus. It is still true, indeed, that this oldest Gospel is not
a complete history of the life of Jesus, nor is it in general a
continuous narrative, but, as the express testimony of Papias
affirms, its chief aim was to be regarded mainly as a collec
tion of the sayings of the Lord ; and from this it is clear that
it can in substance have only been the committal to writing
of that oral type of narration as it had taken shape in
Jerusalem in the circle of the primitive apostles. Hence,
besides an abundance of larger or smaller collections of the
utterances of Jesus regarding a variety of subjects, there may
have been preserved in it also, with greater fulness and
accuracy, a number of longer 'speeches which He delivered on
some more special occasions. What it contained of individual
narratives of healing or of events, prominent on other grounds,

36 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
in the life of Jesus, formed for the most part only the merest
framework for separate specially important sayings of Jesus.
The thoroughly polished form of the representation of the
speeches of Jesus, as well as of the narratives of His life,
point to the origination of this source from that oral type of
narration. The fact of its having that origin implied that
the document confined itself entirely to the public ministry
of Jesus, and that the whole history of the Passion remained
excluded. For this could only have been given in the form
of a continuous narrative; and as it had taken place in
Jerusalem before the eyes of all, there was in that circle no
need whatever for it to be recounted. The local origin of the
oldest tradition embodied in this document proved of itself
that in it there were communicated almost exclusively events
and speeches belonging to the Galilean ministry.
Certain as it is that the chief design of this document, on
account of its essential dependence on the words of the Lord,
was substantially didactic, and certain as it is that through
its origin in oral tradition every tendency to a historical
pragmatism remained excluded, yet the first attempt at a
literary memorandum must have necessitated the effort to
give a certain organization to the formless body of tradition.
It is clearly a mistaken idea to regard this document as a
perfectly amorphous collection of materials. In the fact that
the attempt was made by an eye- and ear-witness, points of
departure for such an organization were from the beginning
afforded. Little as it could be known regarding every
separate saying of Jesus, or every briefer speech, when and
where it was spoken, and little as a writing which had no
proper historical environment afforded the opportunity of
giving a chronological arrangement of the particulars, yet for
the ear-witness there could be no doubt regarding the date
of certain of the longer speeches. That the Sermon on the
Mount, the speech on the occasion of the message- of the
Baptist, the great parable speech, and even the speech at the
sending forth of His disciples, belong to the relatively earlier
period ; that the thorough instruction of the disciples, -the
warm disputations with his opponents, the speeches of
warning delivered to the people, and especially the speeches of
Jesus regarding His return, belong to the later period, was so

FORM OF THE OLDEST APOSTOLIC DOCUMENT. 37
firmly established that this of itself gave rise to a certain
mode of grouping. But, above all, there can be used for the '
settling of the chronology individual important occurrences,
such as His departure for the eastern shore, the story of the
feeding of the multitudes, or of the transfiguration, of which
the relations in time to one another and to many of the
speeches which have been imparted could not well be .
forgotten. The order of itself implied that the speech
portions were collected together in larger groups, which were
marked off from one another by narrative portions intercalated
between them, and it is possible to point out the transition
formulae which in a ster-eotyped manner led from one thing
to another. For the most part there could only be placed
together in those groups speech portions which were somehow
connected' in accordance with topical points of view ; and this
is made very clear in those sections which belong properly to
the history of the Passion, such as the prophecy regarding
the fate of the disciples, and the last reprimand to the
Pharisees and the teachers of the law, the position of which
is therefore strikingly anachronistic. In like manner, much
that is found in the narrative portions could only have been
arranged in accordance with topical standpoints, as is shown,
for example, in the collocation of the healing of the leper
with the Sermon on the Mount. But the numerous arrange
ments and connections of the speech portions among them
selves, or of speech with narrative portions, in the case of
which such a topical standpoint is plainly indemonstrable,
afford important indications of what was the original chrono
logical sequence of events.
This oldest source is no more without an introduction and
an appropriate conclusion than it is, as to the arrangement of
its principal contents, without a plan. The words of the
Baptist formed of themselves the most suitable subject for
the former, as well as the history of the baptism and the
temptation; and the latter was most naturally formed by the
last narrative portion which can be traced in the source, the
story of the anointing at Bethany, the main point of which
consisted in a reference made by Jesus to His immediately
approaching death. It corresponds entirely with the character
which this source has of being concerned especially with the

38 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
utterances of Jesus, that the only reference to the historical
issue of the life of Jesus is that made in this saying.
Finally, it is possible to fix with great probability the time
at which the Apostle Matthew wrote. If recollections at all
accurate lie at the foundation of the statements of the Fathers
regarding the time at which the Gospel of Matthew was drawn
up, these can only refer to that original apostolic document,
although from their statements they are already erroneously
thinking of our Greek Gospel. That something of this kind
did form their basis, is made probable by the fact that their
statements, though quite independent of one another, yet
coincide perfectly in their contents. When Irenseus says
that Matthew wrote when Peter and Paul were preaching the
gospel and founding the Church in Rome (Adv. Hcer. iii.
1. 1), he can only be thinking of the second half of the
sixth decade ; for if the apostles were in Rome together,
this can only have been the case after the burning of Rome,
during the last years of Nero, and thus between the years 65
and 68. But when Eusebius says that Matthew, when he
quitted Palestine, bequeathed his Gospel to the Hebrews as a
substitute for his oral preaching (Ch. Hist. iii. 24), this brings
us to the same time ; because Matthew, like the other apostles,
would only leave the country when, along with the outbreak
of the revolutionary war in the year 66, the fall of the Jewish
State, which was regarded as the judgment of God against
those who did not believe in the true Messiah, had already
been definitely sealed (comp. Euseb. op. cit. iii. 5). The fact
of this conjunction receives remarkable confirmation from a
striking indication in our source. In the section occupied by
the important speeches regarding his return, where Jesus is
warning His disciples, in view of the signs foretold by Him
of the final catastrophe, to quit the country districts, there
are inserted these words, " Let him that readeth understand "
(Matt. xxiv. 15). These words can only have been written
when the apostle saw in process of fulfilment the signs
which Jesus had foretold, and by these his readers would be
reminded that the time had come which Jesus had indicated
for flight. When, then, Eusebius speaks of a revelation
through which the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem were
induced to flee to Pella (op. cit. iii. 5), this can only be the

DATE OF THE ARAMAIC MATTHEW. 39
legendary echo of the fact that in the year 67 the work of
the Apostle Matthew appeared, and during this historical
crisis that interjected portion gave the warning for flight.
There is thus made clearly manifest the inestimable signifi
cance of this oldest source. Some seven -and -thirty years
after the death of Jesus, a personal witness put on record His
most important utterances and deeds, as well as a large
number of the more significant events of His life.

CHAPTER III.
MEMOIRS OF PETER.
JUSTIN MARTYR, who designates our Gospels memoirs
of the apostles, written partly by themselves and partly
by their disciples, makes a quotation found only in Mark
(iii. 17), and expressly asserts that it is found in the memoirs
of Peter (comp. Dial. 106). What he means by this we gather
from the universal later tradition since the end of the second
century, which ascribes our second Gospel to a certain Mark,
who, as the companion and assistant of Peter, had written on
the basis of his communications. Now we know from the
New Testament a John Mark, who was a near relative of
Barnabas of Cyprus (Col. iv. 10), and accompanied him when
he, along with Paul, undertook the first missionary journey,
but quickly separated himself from them ; and when, on that
account, Paul at a later period did not wish to take him as a
companion, he went with Barnabas to Cyprus (Acts xii. 25,
xiii. 13, xv. 37-39). After some years, in Csesarea we find
him again beside the imprisoned Paul, on the point of
journeying to Asia Minor (Philem. 24; Col. iv. 10), and
hear, moreover, that he had been summoned by the latter to
come to him in Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11). But besides these
occasional relations with Paul, there is always room enough
left for that relation to Peter so expressly emphasized in the
tradition, which also finds its points of connection in the New
! Testament. For in the First Epistle of Peter (v. 13) Mark is
i called a son of the apostle, which must plainly be taken in
|the spiritual sense of his having been converted through the
instrumentality of Peter ; and in fact we learn from the
apostolic history that he was the son of a certain Mary, in
whose household in Jerusalem Peter must have been especially
well known and trusted (xii. 12 f.). The son of this house was
not a disciple during the lifetime of Jesus, and has had nothing
• 40

THE SECOND GOSPEL. 41
substantial to recount from his own eye- and ear-witness —
he could only relate what he heard from his master Peter.
This tradition regarding the origin of our second Gospel
had long to suffer great disfavour on the part of criticism.
Certainly the supposition that it is allied with the circle of
myths which at a later period surrounded Peter's residence at
Rome was one perfectly untenable, for it was Eusebius who first
actually brought the two things into conjunction ; and, besides,
even the assertion which transfers the origin of the Gospel to
Rome, and only assumes the facts which are well established
regarding the residence of Peter, is by no means borne out by
the oldest witnesses. The presupposition that it is only the
necessity for giving to the second Gospel apostolic sanction
which has given rise to this tradition, is one also quite ground
less, because, before Eusebius, there is no mention of any
such sanction; and still more expressly is this excluded by
the oldest tradition, which asserts that the Gospel was first
committed to writing after the death of Peter. But that
tradition would be on internal grounds altogether untenable,
even if our second Gospel should prove to be a mere compila
tion from the first and third. This hypothesis, first brought
. forward by the Englishman Owen, was widely disseminated
in Germany through the authority of the great textual critic
John James Griesbach' and there were repeated attempts made,
with great acumen, to establisb it ; for a long time, especially
in the second decade of the century, it was to such an extent
the dominant view, that even men like Sieffert and Bleek,
carried away with it, found it an insurmountable barrier to a
profitable carrying on of their investigations on the field of gospel
criticism, which were in many respects so serviceable. In fact,
this hypothesis forms in the history of gospel criticism — which
otherwise, in spite of its extraordinary aberrations, is always
making a real advance, and gaining gradual acceptance for its
results — the sole instance of a pure blunder, one which for
long but delayed a real understanding of our second Gospel.
It has indeed been thought possible to point out in a few
instances how the evangelist used the first and third Gospels
alternately, and combined their texts. But on closer investi
gation these points of vantage for the hypothesis were seen to
be a mere mirage ; rather was it directly proved that this

42 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
hypothesis must inevitably be wrecked through the perfectly
inexplicable arbitrariness with which the evangelist followed
now one, now the other, and also through the way in which
— while even in those sections where he ought to follow one
of the two, he shows by omission and interpolation his depend
ence on the other — he has collated both of them with the
greatest care. It remained just as unintelligible how the
evangelist should have omitted so much important matter
present in each of his sources, as, on the other hand, how he
should often have employed the most insignificant material
gained from one of them to amplify the other. If, from the
standpoint of this hypothesis, one considers in detail the rise
of the text of the Gospel, it is seen to be such a wonderful
mosaic, formed from the text of both sources, that often in the
same verse there appear in regular interchange some words
taken from one source and some from another, to which he
on his part could have made none but the most trifling and
unimportant additions. Unnatural as such a constant com
parison and combination of the two gospel texts must have
appeared, just as inexplicable did it remain how, notwith
standing, a document should have arisen which displayed
throughout one style, and that with a definiteness of character
such as is hardly possessed by any other of our Gospels. The
thoroughly perspicuous construction of our Gospel could, in
short, be only completely misunderstood from the standpoint
of a hypothesis according to which the evangelist has done
nothing but make a meagre compilation from two fully-
informed gospel books, and add to what was taken from these
two brief stories of acts of healing and a few additional details
which appear purely as marvels. This unfortunate hypothesis
would long ago have been consigned to neglect had it not been
seized upon by the Tubingen school, in order, by means of their
" tendency " conception, to inspire it for a short time with a
new appearance of life. Through it there appeared at least
to be won a new step towards the explanation of this unin
telligible constitution, concerned as it was with the reduction
to a neutral representation through a mediating tendency of
the Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian Gospels. But this
attempt also was wrecked, not only on the arbitrariness which
was soon sufficiently proved to belong to this tendency theory

HYPOTHESIS OF GRIESBAOH. 43
as a whole, but also on the fact that the contradictions in the
Gospel requiring reconciliation no longer existed in the other
Gospels, but in them had already been reconciled. When
Keim, however, tried to lay this hypothesis actually at the
foundation of a representation of the life of Jesus, in spite
of his incessant mockery of this, the youngest of the three
synoptic Gospels, which does not at all touch our Mark, but
only the inverted image which criticism has formed of its
origin, he saw himself necessitated to prefer in many cases
Mark's representation as being the more original ; and in this
way the whole hypothesis, according to which Mark must be
throughout secondary and devoid of independence, was proved
to be untenable.
Although apart from this hypothesis our second Gospel is,
according to the view held by the primitive Church, treated
as merely dependent upon our first, still it could not have
arisen upon the ground of what was independently com-i
municated by Peter, because all in it by which alone it'
exceeded the first Gospel was too little to be referred to a
special source. Had it only been acknowledged that our
first Gospel is frequently dependent in considerable portions
upon our second, then the latter would have shown a great
abundance of independent material first reduced to writing
by its author, and the origin of which was, in fact, explained
by tradition in an exceedingly credible manner. It would
then be possible to consider attentively how the Gospel
begins its representation of the Life of Jesus with the moment
when Jesus summoned Peter to a permanent companionship
with Himself, as well as how the whole of the first portion
turns on a visit of Jesus to the place of residence and the
house of Peter, which is related with details that could only
remain in the memory of one who had a special share in the r
incident. It must then be full of significance- that the life of
Jesus with His inner circle of disciples, in its various phases,
and the comprehension of it, which under the training of
Jesus slowly ripened, has found here an especially minute
delineation; that repeatedly events are recorded at which
only the three trusted followers of Jesus, of whom Peter
was one, were present; that Peter's acknowledgment of
Jesus, and his humiliating reprimand (viii. 29, 33), form a

44 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
main feature of the whole delineation, and that especially in
the history of the Passion he plays so strikingly prominent a
part ; that, indeed, the whole Gospel ends with instructions
given to him (xvi. 7). It is now manifest that what
appeared to be insignificant sketches so long as there was
ascribed to the author of the second Gospel only that which
in it went beyond the first or third, do, when taken along
with many similar traits which from it alone had passed over
to the other Gospels, betray a pervading effort towards a
vivid clearness and a highly coloured painting of details such
as could have been found only in one who was either himself
an eye-witness, or had often heard an eye-witness relate the
experiences which he had in the company cf Jesus. The
more that this Gospel is treated as an independent work, and
not, as has hitherto almost exclusively happened, with con
tinual reference to its supposed dependence upon the first or
on both the other Gospels, the more it is recognised that we
have here to do with lifelike delineations, which, unless they
are to be referred to artificial fabrication, can only be explained
by the relation in which the evangelist stood to an eye-witness.
The question is only as to how far the patristic tradition,
according to which the Gospel of Mark is based upon what
was communicated by Peter, can be considered trustworthy,
or in what direction we are to look for its ultimate source.
Now this same Papias of Hierapolis, from the preface to
whose Exposition of the Words of the Lord Eusebius has
preserved to us that valuable reference to the oldest writing
of Matthew .(comp. p. 29), has, according to the latter, in
that very place given information regarding a writing of
Mark, in support of which he refers to statements of the
presbyter, that is, of the last of the circle of that generation
which had seen Jesus, by which we know that Papias himself
¦had intercourse with and derived information from him. It
/ was he who related that Mark, having become the recorder 1 of
Peter's words, wrote down accurately, though without regular
i order, what he recollected of the sayings and deeds of Christ.
Papias, on his part, saw in this plainly a certain defect
(which the presbyter had admitted to exist in the Mark-
document), and he explains it by the fact that the author
1 [Played "Boswell" to Peter's "Johnson."— Tit.]

MEMOIRS OF PETER. 45
was not himself an ear- witness, but had only heard Peter, who1
from time to time communicated in his discourses the utter
ances of the Lord, without having any idea of arranging them
in their proper order. On this, account no blame attaches to
Mark if he, in the reproduction of his recollections, attended
only to faithfulness and completeness. Since the time of
Schleiermacher it has often been called in question whether
this is applicable to a writing like our second Gospel; rather
was it thought that here we have intelligence of Mark's
unarranged memoranda, which perhaps lay at the foundation
of our second Gospel in just such a way as the work of
Matthew, attested by Papias, underlies our first Gospel. In
this way, however, it was partly omitted to distinguish the
original statements of the presbyter from the remarks of
Papias upon them, and partly the judgment of both had been
estimated by the impression which the second Gospel makes
upon us, instead of asking according to what standard these
men could alone have formed their judgment regarding the
Mark-document. For we know that Papias, relying probably
on the same source, speaks at the same time of a work of the
Apostle Matthew which had the utterances of Jesus arranged
in their original sequence, and thus it is clear that they'
can have judged the Mark-document only in accordance with
the arrangement of this document; the presbyter, without
doubt, directly ; Papias, perhaps, only in accordance with the
manner in which he believed that this writing was reproduced
in our first Gospel. This judgment of theirs, is most com
pletely confirmed by the constitution of our second Gospel.
If we compare this latter with the picture of that oldest
apostolic document which we can now gain from our first
and third Gospels, it is clear that not only do the narrative,
sections in our second Gospel appear largely in another order,
but especially that often the individual sayings of the Lord,
which we there find in their original connection, are here, as
occasion serves, thrown together with topically allied utter-
ancestor are grouped together in new arrangements. There
is no doubt that Papias is quite right in referring this to the
fact that Mark had so often heard Peter in his discourses
employ the individual utterances of the Lord, and make new
combinations as suited his purpose. And when the presbyter

46 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
praises his accuracy, and Papias his faithfulness and ampli
tude, this corresponds perfectly with the way in which, in
the second Gospel, many narratives that in the oldest apostolic
document form the merest framework to detached significant
utterances of Jesus, are related with vivid colouring and a
series of additional details.
If there be no doubt that in the second Gospel we have
before us that Mark-document which received as early and
reliable an attestation as possible, it is a false conclusion
which has been drawn from that old account, that this writing
must have been exclusively based upon what Peter communi
cated. Even were it dubious whether or not the presbyter
and Papias only desired to entertain this view, as it is only
from this point that both make a start in defining and
explaining the deviations of it from the oldest Matthew-
document, still the correctness of their assertion could thereby
by no means be disproved, even if they themselves had
remained unaware of the fact, that while Mark was committing
to writing his recollections of what had been communicated
by Peter, that Matthew-document was already known to, and
had on various occasions been employed by him. That this
was the case is placed beyond doubt by the fact that a speech
of ample dimensions, such as that regarding the second advent
in chap, xiii., cannot possibly have been handed' down orally
by Peter ; and so, if it was not an entirely free composition of
Mark's, which would be against all analogy, it must have been
shaped out of the written memoranda of the ear-witness. That
this was so is proved by the fact that fragments of other
speeches, and many individual sayings of the Lord contained
in it here and there, do, in spite of the great freedom of their
reproduction, still show so manifest a relationship with the
literary version of them in that source, that it cannot have
been unknown to the evangelist, and by the fact that even
in its so much ampler reproduction of individual narratives
the representation always attaches itself again to the oldest
form of narration, even in cases where its own course is by
this visibly interfered with. It is proved in my Gospel of
Mark, by a most minute analysis of the method of narration
observed in the Gospel, that often, in spite of its originality,
that work shows itself on the whole to be conditioned in

GOSPEL OF MARK AND THE OLDEST SOURCE. 47
particulars by an older form of delineation, and that, on the I
background of the Gospel's pervading peculiarity of expression, j
those points are all the more clearly visible where distinctive
modes of expression derived from the oldest source make their
appearance in it. It cannot be assumed that in such instances
a proper collating and literary employment of the oldest
Matthew-document has always found a place ; but it must be
remembered that Mark, whose family belonged to Jerusalem,
had long known and been accustomed to the oldest type of
narration as it had taken shape there, before it was fixed in j
the Matthew-document, and before Mark, in his attendance on
Peter, found the opportunity of hearing and appropriating the
narratives of this eye-witness, after the characteristic fashion
of his distinctive peculiarity. It could not then fail to prove
true, that the memoranda which were undertaken on the basis
of what Peter communicated were enriched by the oldest type
of narrative underlying the Matthew-document, and were in
their conception frequently conditioned by it.
That oldest intelligence already assumes without question
what Irenssus expressly says, that Mark first wrote after the
death of Peter ; and when the later Church Fathers are found
generally assuming or declaring the opposite, they are in this
case influenced by their concern to provide, through the
apostle, an express authorization for his work or a guarantee
of its credibility. If it is beyond dispute that Peter never
intended to draw up a connected picture of the life of Jesus,
but only related, as his discourses gave opportunity, detached
particulars from that life so full of incident, and communi
cated individual utterances of Jesus, it was impossible for
Mark to occupy himself with noting down his reminiscences
without making the attempt to arrange them into a picture of
this kind. Towards the accomplishment of this, however, the
Matthew-document, owing to its special characteristics, afforded
him but feeble points of connection. It is true that the con
nected delineation of the Passion, which is in this work quite
awanting, could easily have been put together by him from
what was told by Peter, or from what he had already heard of
it in Jerusalem, perhaps partially even from his own personal
experiences. For a beginning he could utilize the facts, known
to all, regarding the appearing of the prophet, the favourite of

48 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the people, while the oldest source would supply him with
everything he required in connection with the baptism and
temptation of Jesus ; but as regards a connected survey of the
public activity of Jesus, there was an utter absence of well-
established points of connection. With reference to the date
and location of individual events, he could gather much from
the Matthew-document ; but as to their inner connection and
course of development, he found there just as little as he
could learn directly from his recollections of what Peter had
said. In order to obtain this he was driven to start solely
from the facts themselves as such ; and if here and there
he made mistakes in his combinations, that was almost
i unavoidable. Nothing can be more uncritical than for new
(delineations of the life of Jesus — as, for instance, that of
Schenkel — to be founded as to their plan upon Mark exclu
sively, as if he had related each incident in exact historical
order, and as if from this order the pragmatical conjunction of
all events could be directly deduced. This one-sided over
estimate of the Mark-document is indeed only the recoil from
its earlier depreciation by the Owen-Griesbach hypothesis, but
is none the less untenable on that account.
Every more careful analysis of the Gospel of Mark shows
that the evangelist does himself least of all make any claim
i to an estimation of this kind. It is clear that his intention
was to group the materials given by tradition in accordance
with certain topical points of view. Thus we meet in the
second section with a number of narratives which bring before
us the beginning and rapid development of the hostility which
Jesus found among the dominant classes (ii. 1—3, 6). The
evangelist has, by his manner of delineating, made it very
clear indeed that he does not present a chronological order of
events, but throws light upon this side of the life of Jesus
through a purposely selected series of narratives. This is
not less clearly shown by the section which describes the
training of the disciples (viii. 27-x. 45), for that is not only
brought into obvious connection with the thrice repeated
prophecy of His death, but especially in chaps, ix. and x. the
exhortations to humility towards one another, as well as the
instructions regarding marriage and children, as to property
and its sacrifice, appear to be arranged in a purely topical

COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 49
fashion. Also in the section devoted to Jerusalem (x. 46-
xiii. 37) this artificial grouping is quite manifest, particularly
from chap. xii. onwards, in which the high priests, the Phari
sees, Sadducees, scribes, and finally the disciples, follow each
other in succession, in order to show the relation in which
Jesus stood to all the various forces and classes among the
people. It cannot be by chance when the narrative in which
Jesus points out His jealously attentive hearers as His true
relatives (iii. 20-35) is put alongside of the parable speech,,1
in which Jesus reveals to this circle the secret of the kingdom!
of God, which was to remain hidden from the obdurate people)
(chap, iv.); or when alongside of the narrative of the expedition '
to the eastern shore, where Jesus was for the first time rejected,
is placed the raising from the dead, at which He along with
His bold utterance was laughed to scorn (chap, v.) ; and then
follows the story of His rejection in His native city (vi.
1—6). When we see that this whole section has immediately
before and after it the narratives of the choosing and the
sending forth of the disciples, there can be no doubt that
there is here an artificial grouping. It is only this that can!
account for the fact that the section which follows is concerned
with the two feasts ; that the first is followed by the dispute
regarding the washing of hands, and the second by the one as
to the giving of a sign ; that each of these sections contains
an example of the disciples' defective comprehension, and each
of them is brought to a conclusion by a strictly analogous
description of an act of healing (vi. 14-viii. 26). The par
ticular analysis makes this topical grouping all the more
manifest, as, for instance, when the journey into the land of
the Gentiles, where Jesus did not shrink from crossing the
threshold of an unclean Gentile dwelling (vii. 24), is connected
with the conversation regarding what was clean and unclean, j
But it is also apparent how the groups thus formed have been
arranged by the evangelist according to a method which brings
to expression his view of the course of development of the
public activity of Jesus. For the first section, which turns on
the first visit of Jesus to the town of the earliest called
disciples and on His first tour, plainly gives us a picture of the
earliest successful activity of Jesus, when it found every
where undivided and ever increasing admiration (i. 14-45).
WEISS. — I. D

50 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
As a counterpart to this, there is that section in which
the quickly developing conflict with the dominant classes
among . the people caused opposition to grow into deadly
enmity (ii. 1 — iii. 6). In the third, we see also in His
popular activity the separation being completed between the
acceptance and the lack of appreciation which His teaching
and deeds of healing met with (iii. 7-vi. 13); in the fourth,
we find Jesus at the culminating point of His popular activity ;
but we see as well the conflict with opponents growing more
keen, while the continually renewed proofs of the still as
defective comprehension of Him on the part of those whose
selection was recorded in the previous section, as well as on
that of those disciples sent forth for the first time, made it
necessary for Him gradually to retire from His popular activity
(vi. 14-viii. 26), until, in the following section, He devotes
Himself exclusively to their instruction (viii. 2 7— x. 25). While
in the first three sections the activity of Jesus is confined to
Galilee, indeed principally to the environs of Capernaum, in
the last two we see Him undertaking extended journeys to
the different regions of the Holy Land, and even beyond its
borders, until in the sixth His activity concentrates itself
upon Jerusalem (x. 46— xiii. 37), there to find a close in the
history of the Passion (chaps, xiv. and xv.), which- finally, in
the scene at the open grave, opens a perspective that reaches
to the appearance of the Risen One (xvi. 1-8).1 Certain
as it is that these points of view, in accordance with which
the Gospel was written, will be regarded as correct views as
to the course of development of the life of Jesus, gained by
. Mark from the facts communicated by Peter, it is just as
plain that these by themselves will afford us no sufficiently
reliable picture of the order of events and their pragmatic
connection ; that, indeed, important crises which have deter
mined that course of development, have quite possibly failed
as yet to be assigned here their due weight. On the other
hand, it is clear that this perspicuous construction of the
Gospel allows the points to be brought clearly into view
1 That the present conclusion of the Gospel (xvi. 9-xx.), according to the
testimony of the Codices as well as from its peculiarity of idiom and method of
delineation, did not belong to the original Gospel, may be regarded now as
universally granted. ,

TENDENCY OF MARK'S GOSPEL. 51
where connections establish themselves which do not appear
to be accounted for by them, and which then can only have
been given to the evangelist in oral tradition or in that oldest
Matthew-document. .
Although the Gospel of Mark manifests the intention of
giving a picture of the life of Jesus, that was assuredly not
the sole motive for its composition. A Gospel which announced
itself as the glad tidings of Jesus Christ the Son of God
(i. 1), which in the introduction brings Jesus forward as the
Son of God, who was heralded by the forerunner, appeared
in conformity with prophecy, and was anointed in baptism
and sustained in temptation (i. 2-13), can only have had[
the didactic object of strengthening and establishing faith
in the Messiahship of Jesus through the delineation of the
course of His life. It is not without a purpose that its
culminating point is found in the confession of Peter as to
His Messiahship, which was confirmed in the period spent
at Jerusalem by the Messianic demonstration on the part of
the people, as well as by His own assertions, which became
more and more explicit up to the time of His confession
before the Council (xii. 6-10 f., xiv. 62); and, finally, in a
certain way even by the Gentile captain at the foot of the
cross (xv. 39). When we consider how significantly the
divinely necessitated fate of Jesus forms the central point in
the training of the disciples till the significance for salva
tion of His death was given expression to by Him with
increasing clearness (x. 45, xiv. 24), how it was always being
pointed out in the history of the Passion that the individual
stages of this had been predicted by Jesus Himself or by the
Scriptures, and how the Gospel closes with an allusion to His
resurrection, — it is clear that this delineation forms at the
same time an apology for the Messiahship of Him who died
on the cross. What, after all, was the special motif of this"^
establishment and defence of belief in His Messiahship, will
be clear to us only When we see that the one long speech
with which the Gospel presents us is that uttered by Jesus
regarding His second coming (chap, xiii.), the first announce
ment of which (viii. 38) received its attestation in the sense
of the Second Epistle of Peter (i. 16-18) through the trans
figuration on the Mount, and to which Jesus triumphantly.

52 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
referred at the commencement of His deepest humiliation
(xiv. 62). It was manifestly the delay of the second coming
of Jesus, expected immediately on the ground of expressions
like i ix. 1, which led to the search in His earthly life, apart
altogether from this last decisive proof of His Redeemership,
for those elements which might afford a guarantee of it for
combating pressing doubt, and for strengthening anew the
certainty of His second coming. This didactic aim, however,
was nowhere consciously brought to the front ; the facts are
allowed, as in an epic poem, to tell their own tale ; the main
interest is formed by the narratives as such, concern for the
subject-matter and its details, and the effort to attain a vivid,
distinct picture and description. On this account the didactic
element in the speeches of Jesus retires into the background ;
apart from the long speech on the second coming, only say
ings and groups of sayings have been communicated, and
these are in vital connection with the whole situation, or are
woven into animated conversations. Indeed, even in the
minutiae of the style there is visible this literary peculiarity
of our bright-colouring, vividly-depicting evangelist.
The Gospel of Mark certainly does not possess exactly the
same value as a source that the oldest apostolic writing does ;
but while any critical reconstruction that we can make of the
latter is only partial, we have the former lying before us in
its perfect form ; for the hypothesis that our second Gospel is
only a redaction of this other source, has been proved to be
in all its forms untenable. The Mark -document, however,
always remains a source of the first rank, because it reflects
with perfect directness the impression produced by the nar
ratives of the eye-witness of the life of Jesus. As a guarantee
for the literal authenticity of the utterances of Jesus, it is far
behind the Matthew- document; but while the picture which
the latter presents of many events, in connection with which
this or that word so full of significance was spoken, is only
an outline, and hence often an incorrect picture ; and while
the representations which it makes, as to the circumstances
in which these events occurred, are never vivid, the Mark-
document does, in this particular, amply supplement for us
the want which attaches to our oldest source from the con
ditions and object of its composition. Even where there is

DATE AND VALUE OF THE SOURCES OF MARK'S GOSPEL. 53
ground for the assumption that the evangelist developed in a
wider and freer way a single narrative hot directly founded
upon the information of his eye-witness, and where he plainly
indulges in descriptions which merely express his idea of the
course of events, without basing it on the explicit evidence of
an individual case, his representation is of invaluable signifi
cance to us. For we are here listening to a native of
Palestine, who, in the circumstances of which he is treating,
is quite at home, and who, from the descriptions of the eye
witness of the incidents of this life, had at his disposal such
an amplitude of details, and at any rate preserved such a
lifelike impression of them that his descriptions, even where
they do not in particulars quite correctly reproduce what
actually occurred, can in a higher sense claim to be thoroughly
faithful to reality. It is indeed conceivable that a criticism
which, in accordance with its philosophical presuppositions,
must aim at resolving the material of the evangelical tradition
into a shapeless collection of legends, was interested in regard
ing as the valueless ornamentation of an artificial writer, the
rich historical detail which our source affords, and which
opposes the most strenuous resistance to this resolving pro
cess. Towards the attainment of this end a welcome handle
is afforded by the Griesbach hypothesis, which sees in our
Gospel only an artificial compilation adorned with the appear
ance of a certain independence. But before an impartial
criticism of the sources, those attempts, which are based not
so much on a solid foundation as on airy conjecture, cannot
endure, as is shown in a special way in Keim's Life of Jesus.
Clement of Alexandria is the first to inform us that Mark
wrote in Rome and for Romans; and this much is at once
obvious, that a Gospel which is largely occupied in explaining
to its readers Jewish customs, localities in Palestine, and
Aramaic expressions, cannot have been written for natives of
Palestine. When we see how the evangelist expressly con
nects what Jesus said about marrying again with the circum
stances of the Roman law of divorce (x. 12) ; how in the story
of the widow's alms he reduces the coins to Roman money
(xii. 42), and assumes the official position of Pilate to be
sufficiently well known to his readers (xv. 1) ; how even his
style, through its frequent Latinisms, points to an author who

54 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
wrote amid Latin surroundings, — we can only explain the
tradition by regarding it as adequately established. With
regard to the date, Irenseus informs us that Mark wrote
after the death of Peter and Paul, about the end of the sixth
decade. It is of more importance that there is in the Gospel
no reference to the period after the destruction of Jerusalem,
although the later Gospels show how inevitably the powerful
impression made by this appalling deed must have left its
mark upon them. Even the prophecy of the fall of the
temple (xiii. 2) does not give the slightest indication of the
manner in which that did historically come to pass ; and if
the second coming of Jesus appears to some degree involved
in a direct connection with the catastrophe in Judea (xiii. 24),
it only follows from this, and what we gather in addition from
the didactic tendency of the work, that men were now begin
ning to settle themselves in view of a delay of the second
coming, as appears also in the Apocalypse, which was
undoubtedly written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Indeed, the reproduction of an expression like ii. 26 seems to
point expressly to this, that the shew-bread, the enjoyment of
which was reserved for the priests, was still, at the time
when the writer lived, presented in the temple. During the
latter years of the sixth decade the work of the Apostle
Matthew, which appeared in the year 67, could easily enough
have been known in Rome in a Greek translation ; and thus
there arose about the year 69 the work which along with
that forms the foundation of our evangelical tradition, and for
us a source of the life of Jesus in many respects of equal
value.

CHAPTER IV.
THE GOSPEL OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS.
SINCE Ireneeus, ecclesiastical tradition is unanimous in
ascribing our first canonical Gospel to the Apostle
Matthew. This tradition is, in the form in which it presents
itself, untenable, and even in contradiction with itself, inas-j
much as it is unanimous also in holding that Matthew wrote \
in Aramaic,, while our first Gospel is without doubt an original
Greek document. Still this tradition cannot be destitute of a
foundation in fact, for the remotest ecclesiastical antiquity /
, speaks of a work of this apostle (comp. p. 29) ; and this work,
through the ample use which, since the first half of the second
century, has been made of written evangelical information,,
cannot possibly have been completely lost. Its early_dis_-'
appearance is rather to be explained by the fact that the
essence of its contents had found its way into other evangelical
writings, and that it thus lost all value in the eyes of a genera
tion whose sole interest was in the facts recorded, and which
did not in the least occupy our standpoint of estimating the
comparative values of sources of information. The fact that
our first Gospel passed current in the Church as the work of
the apostle, gives ground for the conjecture that that apostolic
document has been in its most complete form incorporated in
this Gospel, and that here we may rightly be regarded as
possessing its essential contents. This conjecture is established
in its fullest extent by the analysis of the first Gospel.
A comparison of the first and second Gospels shows that
they must be in close relationship to each other in respect of
authorship, for they are at one as to contents, arrangement,
and expression to a degree which cannot possibly be fully
explained from the oral tradition. So long as the assumption
that the first Gospel is a directly apostolic document was
proceeded upon, this relationship could only be thought of as

56 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
consisting in this, that Mark, the pupil of an apostle, used
that work of Matthew's. But this assumption contradicts the
whole older tradition, which refers our Gospel of Mark to the
reminiscences of Peter, contradicts the distinctive peculiarity
running all through it of plan, method of narration, and
linguistic expression ; and makes shipwreck on the perfect
impossibility of discovering any plan or method according to
which Mark must have abridged our first Gospel. If our first
Gospel can, even apart from that, be proved to be not a directly
apostolic document, it is not difficult to attempt to explain
that relationship through the employment by its author of
the Mark-document. And it can actually be shown that
the entire contents of the second Gospel — with the perfectly
insignificant exceptions of a few unimportant fragments,
the omission of which can very easily and clearly be
explained — have been transferred to our first Gospel. On
the other side there is the fact that the whole plan of the
first Gospel is not only essentially conditioned by that of
Mark, but that it represents itself as only a carrying out of
the latter on a larger scale. When Mark began the delinea-j
tion of the public activity of Jesus with a picture of His work
of teaching and healing belonging to the first and as yet
untroubled period of His ministry, which connects itself with
especially fond reminiscences of Peter's, our first Gospel, by
means of a partial repetition of the heading (iv. 2 3, comp. ix. 35),
incorporates, in its first and most distinctly defined principal
portion, in the longest of His speeches (chaps, v.— vii.) a picture
of the method of teaching employed by Jesus, and in a long
series of narratives of cures (chap. viii. 9) introduces a picture
of His ministry of healing, of both of which that heading, had
already given intimation. When Mark gave, in the second
part, a picture of the rising enmity towards Jesus, and, in the
third, a picture of the separation between those among the
people who received Him and those who did not, the first .
evangelist, in the second chief portion beginning with the new
heading (ix. 35), gives a picture on a larger scale of the
insensibility and hostility met with by Jesus (chaps, x.-xiii.).
Only in these two portions does a certain independence show
itself in its composition, in accordance with the motifs of
which all deviations from Mark can be amply explained ; just

EMPLOYMENT OF MARK IN THE FIRST GOSPEL. 57
as, on the other hand, the individual points where this per
spicuous composition appears to have been subjected to inter
ference are susceptible of explanation from the regard paid to
the order preserved by Mark, and from the dependence upon
him. From chap. xiv. onwards the first evangelist followsA
without any deviation, the order of Mark, although thel
way in which he frequently treats the narrative portions,
which are arranged by the latter in accordance with purely
topical motifs, as if they followed one another in chronological
order, shows that to him these motifs are no longer obvious,
and that that arrangement can have originated only with
Mark. He shows himself the redactor with special clearness
in the section which describes Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem,
because those portions which are arranged by Mark in a purely,
topical fashion he seeks to bind together and form into a
continuous dramatic plot. On the detailed comparison of his
delineation with that of Mark, there is met at every step the
effort to indicate more precisely the chronological and topical
connection, and pragmatically to account for it : to decide
with greater accuracy localities and persons, to elucidate the
subject-matter or give it a form more lifelike and vivid.
Finally, his whole text, when treated solely with regard to the
language, proves itself to be a redaction of the text of Mark
to such an extent, that even a number of the most striking
linguistic peculiarities of Mark have been transferred to our
first Gospel.1 In consequence of this dependence for its forms
of expression upon a Greek Gospel, it is impossible for our
first Gospel to be only a translation of the Hebrew Matthew ;
and on account of its obvious employment of the second
Gospel, originating as that does from one who was not an
apostle, it cannot possibly be directly the work of an eye
witness. It is evident that the dependence of our first Gospel upon\
Mark is insufficient of itself to explain its composition ; what
was taken from that forms only the framework in which an
abundance of material, in part wholly new, was inserted.
The sketch of. the early history, which was borrowed from
1 The proof of this was led in my work on the Gospels of Mark and Matthew,
in the exegesis of details, by means of an accurate analysis of their constitution
and a thorough comparison of the parallel passages in all their particulars.

58 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
Mark, appears here significantly extended by the Baptist's
preaching of repentance, and by the interchanged utterances
at the baptism and temptation of Jesus. In the first main
part, Christ's method of preaching is exemplified by the great
Sermon on the Mount, of which Mark has nothing ; and in the
descriptions of His deeds of healing there appears a group
of narratives — the lepers, the visit to the eastern shore, the
healing of the lame man, and the raising from the dead — which
Mark introduces in another place in a form so brief and frag
mentary, yet withal so decided and moulded, that they must
have originated in another source ; and in addition there is the
healing of the centurion's son, of the two blind men, and an
expulsion of demons, none of which are to be found in Mark.
The second part opens with the commission-speech, and of
this Mark has preserved only a few expressions ; then follow
the rich speech-portions of chap, xi., which are connected
with the message of the Baptist, and are quite awanting in
Mark. In chap. xii. the evangelist introduces in its circum
stantial connection the speech of defence against the calumnies
of the Pharisees, of which Mark again contributes only a
few sentences, and joins to it the speech against those who
demanded a sign, which in the former is entirely awanting ;
in chap. xiii. he substantially enlarges the parable-speech. He
follows Mark altogether in chaps, xiv— xvii ; then chap, xviii.
is occupied with a variety of speech-material which were
introduced here plainly because they were found in Mark
(ix. 33—50), but are given in much greater fulness than by
him. In the portion immediately succeeding, a parable (xx.
1-16) is joined to a conversation taken from Mark, and the
similitude of the rebellious workers in the vineyard is enlarged
to a great trilogy of parables (xxi. 28-xxii. 14); then follow
the denunciations of chap, xxiii., which occupy the place of a
brief warning in Mark (xii. 38-40); and in chap. xxiv. not
only does the speech on the second coming, as found in Mark,
appear supplemented with entirely new material, but it is
continued through the whole of chap. xxv.
That these new materials are borrowed from a second
source, is proved by what is made to appear very clearly
in the constitution of our Gospel. It is frequently the case
that sayings and groups of sayings, which the evangelist

COMPOSITION OF THE WORK OF MATTHEW. 59
has taken from Mark in the connection in which he had
them, and in harniony with his view of them, are repeated
in quite another connection and in a light to some degree
modified, and this is only to be explained by the fact that hei
found them in this connection, and looked at in this light, in
a second source. This source must mainly have contained
speech-portions, and when it did give narratives these were
unlike the others, being in a simpler and briefer form ; for it is
only in this way that it can be explained why it is principally
in speech-portions that the first evangelist has supplemented
the foundation gained from Mark, and how it is that in those
narrative-portions, where he presents, us with an independent
delineation, this distinguishes itself as being simpler and
more original from the ampler and freer representation of
Mark. This agrees exactly with the picture of the work
of the Apostle Matthew, which we, in accordance with the
oldest tradition, were required to form ; and only because it
depended upon this early evangelist to make this oldest source
accessible in a newer form to his readers, do we understand
how he would frequently turn back from the unequal though
more ample representation of Mark to the simpler delineation
of this his main source. There is here disclosed to us very
clearly the foundation-thought of its constitution. The form
of the oldest apostolic document, which was really only a
collection of material, was no longer adequate for the later
period. A complete representation of the life of Jesus was
desired, and to the evangelist who was not himself an eye
witness of the life of Jesus, nothing presented itself as being
such but the oldest attempt in this direction as it is given to
us by the Mark-document. The latter is laid by him at the
foundation, and affords the historical background for his
delineation, and more especially there- is borrowed from it the
whole history of the Passion. Within the framework thus
granted, he tries to place the material derived from the apos
tolic source, partly introducing particular passages into suitable
places to supplement what is there already, partly inserting
these in larger masses, as they are now found deposited in
chaps, v.-vii., x., xi., xviii., xxiii.-xxv.
When, however, we make a closer examination of these
speech-groups, it is clear that in their present form they are

60 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
not directly drawn from the source. In the Sermon on the
Mount, the Lord's prayer (vi. 7-15) evidently interrupts the
course of the definitely arranged polemic against the three
examples of the Pharisaic practice of virtue ; and the whole
section about anxiety and the amassing of treasure (vi. 19-34)
not only has nothing to do with what is most manifestly the
definite subject of the speech (v. 17-20), but it severs the
connection between that polemic and what is plainly a con
tinuation of the same (vii. 1-5), to which there is added, after
a fresh interruption (vii. 6-11), first the conclusion (vii. 12),
then a glance back towards the commencement of the speech
(v. 17). In the commission- speech, the interpolation con
taining the prophecy of the fate of the disciples (x. 16-39)
evidently severs the connection of the threatening (x. 14 f.)
with the promise (x. 40-42), and brings in groups of sayings
which are plainly out of harmony with the historical situation,
and a main section of which (x. 17-22) is given by Mark
(xiii. 9-13) in quite another connection, and is also repeated
in this place by our evangelist in a somewhat modified form
(xxiv. 9-14). In chap, xxiii. the parenetic section (xxiii.
8-12) plainly interrupts the course, throughout polemical, of
the speech, by the denunciations pronounced against the ruling
classes among the people ; and the middle of chap. xxiv. is so
plainly the conclusion of a speech on the second coming (xxiv.
32-36), that all that follows this can only have been added
by the evangelist. These examples make it evident that in
the large groups of speeches of the first Gospel, there have
been collected together into larger wholes many groups of
sayings retained in an unconnected form in the oldest apostolic
writing ; and this observation is established in the clearest
manner by the fact that we find these collected and preserved
in the third Gospel in this original state of separation. The
evangelist has sought not only to arrange the materials of the
apostolic source within the framework of the Mark-narrative,
but also to form them into larger and more comprehensive
groups. In this attempt, some portions, which he did not
succeed in arranging in either of these ways, may have gone
amissing ; but all that we can ascertain from an analysis of
the third Gospel, regarding the condition of this source, shows ,
us that apart from a few parables, which are extremely difficult

MATERIALS OF THE FIRST EVANGELIST. 61
to fit into the speech- construction of our evangelist, there
must have been extremely little of anything of this kind. In
like manner, not only does the comparison of texts of parallel
passages in the first and third Gospels show us in how much
more faithful and original a form the speech-portions of the
oldest source are contained in the former than in the latter,
but it is only the faithfulness with which it reproduces, which
makes it possible for us very often, in spite of the interpola
tions, to perceive clearly the connection which was interfered
with by them, and in spite of the changes in their connections
and in the view taken of them, which the interpolated sayings
undergo in the position awarded them by the evangelist, to
establish with certainty their original meaning and connection.
Accordingly, tradition has with perfect right always believed!
that in our first Gospel it possessed the old apostolic writing!
according to its real contents. It was only a new, more
comprehensive form, and one enlarged by the ample material
of the Mark Gospel, for which the old original was willingly
forgotten and allowed to perish.
Besides both these sources, the evangelist was not entirely
without oral tradition, as is shown especially by the narratives
from the early history in the first two chapters; but apart
from the story of the temptation (xvii. 24-27), of the end of
Judas (xxvii. 3—8), and of the watchers at the grave (xxvii.
62—66, xxviii. 11-15), Mark's representation is enriched!
only by a few maxims spoken by Jesus, and some uncon
nected details. The separation of these portions succeeds
all the more easily as there appears in them the distinctly
marked characteristics of the evangelist's language, by which
it is clearly distinguished from the linguistic peculiarities of
the apostolic source, as well as from those of the Mark repre
sentation which is for the most part embraced in the Gospel.
There are, in addition, some explanations of parables and a
number of pragmatic reflections interwoven with the delinea
tion, that more than anything else indicate the points of view
from which the evangelist himself regards the history which
he relates. Throughout the whole Gospel these are always
employed to indicate that in the individual events of the life
of Jesus, and in His activity, the Messianic prophecy of the
Old Testament has been fulfilled. Indeed, these indications

62 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
are exceedingly instructive for the understanding of the whole
construction of our GospeL So often as the indications of
this foretold in the Old Testament — such as the healing of the
sick by Jesus (viii. 17), His attitude towards His enemies
(xii. 17-21), His parable-discourses — are not found about the
end of the sections which treat of the corresponding branch of
His activity, but strangely enough in the middle of them, this
is explained by a glance at Mark, where all these passages
appear as eddies in the current of his representation, and
which the evangelist employed as points of attachment for
these reflections. Just as important is another phenomenon.
The current Greek translation of the oldest apostolic document
does not offer an independent translation of the Old Testament
expressions which the latter contained of course in Aramaic,
but, with the exception of one quotation (Matt, xi 1 0 ; comp.
Luke vii. 27) where this translation did not correspond with
the original nor with the application made of it, it reproduces
the translation of the Septuagint, which was relied on by
Greek-speaking Jews. And Mark, too, has rendered the Old
Testament expressions, which occur in the speeches of Jesus,
according to this translation with also but one exception (xiv.
27), which has the same ground. Where our evangelist
derives from Mark or from the apostolic source, his quotations
follow simply the version of the Septuagint; but where he
inserts independent quotations into his delineation, he does
indeed for the most part employ the Septuagint, which was
commonly used by himself and his readers, but being a learned
Jew who knew and understood the original text, he goes
many times directly to it ; indeed, there are some statements
which he could only have gained from the original text, for
what he extracted from it is not at all the sense given by the
Septuagint. From these pragmatic proofs of the fulfilment of Old Testa
ment prophecy in the history of Jesus, it is now clear that
although we have here to do with a complete biography of
Jesus, which begins with a narrative of Hi3 birth, introduced
by a genealogical table, and closes with the farewell on the
( hill in Galilee, the tendency of this work is throughout not
' biographical, but essentially didactic. The attempt is per
petually being made to establish that there is in it this didactic

OCCASION OF THE FIRST GOSPEL. 63
tendency, and that the author desired to prove to Jewish"!
Christians the Messiahship of Jesus. But the Jewish Chris-/
tians as such already believed in the Messiahship of Jesus ; so
there must have been, just as in the Gospel of Mark, a special
occasion present which made the strengthening of their faith
appear a necessity. This occasion was no longer merely the
delay of the second coming ; for our Gospel, which already
uses the Gospel of Mark, introduces us to a later period.
Many coincidences show that its author had already become
acquainted with the Apocalypse (comp. especially xxiv. 30),
which was written after the beginning of the year 70; and
the allusion, introduced into a simile of Jesus, to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem (xxii. 7), shows that this event lay already
behind him, even if the prophecy as to the second coming
(xxiv. 29 f.), which is reproduced quite without change, proves
that it can have been written only immediately after the event.
The promise might still be fulfilled by the Lord's return im
mediately after the catastrophe. But along with the fall of the
Jewish state and its capital, all national hopes, which for the
Jewish Christians always connected themselves with the
Messiahship of Jesus, were for ever shattered. Whatever they
had found in Jesus or had understood regarding Him, the
Messiah of Israel as He was promised by the prophets it
appeared that He could not be, for He had certainly not made
Israel, through the completion of its theocracy, the divine rally
ing point of all the nations of the earth. The fact was obvious
that the Gospel was being preached to all nations, and was
finding its place among them, while Israel had forfeited its
blessings. Indeed, the catastrophe which happened to them,
showing as it did Israel forsaken by God and trampled under
foot by the Gentiles, was much more in immediate connection',
with the appearance of Jesus. An earthly realization of the j
kingdom of God in the form of a national theocracy, such as
prophecy held out hopes of, had not taken place, and after
this catastrophe never could. There remained now only the
hope of the final completion in the world to come— the
heavenly kingdom. With the fall of the Jewish state and of
the temple at Jerusalem, fell also for ever a large portion of
the legal ordinances of the Old Testament, and thus the
development of a new epoch which began with the appearance

64 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
of Jesus seemed to be involved in the destruction of the
sanctuaries of Israel, which the Messiah was to come to
establish for all time and make perfect.
It was these circumstances which prepared the severest
^shock for the faith of the Jewish Christians, and to remove
/this stumbling-block was the didactic aim of a Gospel in
which the old apostolic document, with the help of the
, Gospel of Mark and individual oral traditions, was worked
up into a comprehensive picture of the life of Jesus. It
begins with a genealogical table, the aim of which throughout
is to show that Jesus is the legitimate heir of David's kingly
house, in whom, according to the divine direction of His
destiny, the kingdom should be again set up in Israel ; for
though born of a virgin, in conformity with the promise, He
received valid adoption (chap, i.) at the hands of Joseph, one
of the Davidic line, who in obedience to the divine command
had taken to his home the woman with child. But the
single incident which is recorded of His infancy makes
significant allusion to the fact that Gentiles coming from a
distance paid homage to the Messiah child, but that the king
in Israel pursued it with deadly hatred, so that it had to be
saved through a marvellous dispensation (chap, ii.), which
contributed also to the fulfilment of the prophecy. It is not
without design that the evangelist brings forward in the early
history the fact that the Baptist had already directed severe
rebukes towards the dominant parties among the people
(iii. 7). With a plainly apologetic purpose, he remarks that
the rearing of Jesus in despised Nazareth (instead of in the
ancient royal residence) is already indicated by prophecy
(ii. 23); and with a like purpose does he refer to an Old
Testament prophetic word as fulfilled in the fact that Jesus
first began to declare His message of salvation among the
inhabitants of northern Galilee, of whom Gentiles formed a
large element ; and soon afterwards it is stated that the
inhabitants of the surrounding Gentile countries came to Him
and' sought for help at His hand (iv. 24). Thus at the very
beginning of the Gospel intimations are not awanting that it
was thoroughly in accordance with prophecy that Jesus
appeared as the Messiah of Israel, but that from the first the
leaders of the people showed themselves hostile to the cause

HISTORICAL SITUATION OF THE FTRST GOSPEL. 65
of the Messiah's kingdom, while, on the contrary, Gentiles
were inclined to accept Him.
That Jesus did not attack the sanctuaries of Israel, is
shown by the evangelist's choosing the great speech as the
first example of His teaching, and by his enlarging it to a
comprehensive legislation for the kingdom of God, in which
Jesus recognises the Old Testament legal revelation in its
fullest extent and to its every tittle, though teaching that it
should be understood and fulfilled in quite a different way
from that in which the scribes and Pharisees understood and
fulfilled it (chaps, v.-vii.). In an expression inserted by him
into the conclusion of the speech, the evangelist expressly
represents Jesus as excluding from His discipleship those
who acted lawlessly (vii. 22 f.). Into one of the first narra
tives of healing, too, in which Jesus laments over those
among His people who were unbelieving, he does not omit
to insert a prophecy of Jesus which refers to the rejection of
Israel and the participation of the Gentiles in salvation
(viii. 11 f.). Still the speech at the sending forth of the
disciples, with which the evangelist opens his second main
section, and which in his representation appears as a prophecy
regarding the later mission of the apostles, shows that Jesus
originally appointed the Twelve exclusively for the mission
within Israel, intending therefore salvation for His own people
(x. 5 f.). But the prophecies of the fate of the disciples
interwoven into this speech already give rise to a foreboding
as to the reception which they would meet with among their
own people. Chap, xi., in the speeches collected together
there, shows directly how even the Baptist was in error as to
Jesus ; how the people, in their childish self-will, desired only
an immediate perfecting of the Messiah's kingdom ; how the
towns in which Jesus had performed the most of His miracles
remained impenitent ; and how the truth which brings salva
tion remained concealed from the wise and prudent in the
nation. From the twelfth chapter we learn that it was the
Pharisees who persecuted Jesus with relentless hostility, and
sought by means of calumnies and testing questions to turn
away from Him the people, on whom then the judgment on
account of obduracy, foretold by prophecy, is through the
parable-speech of Jesus accomplished. It is not without a
WEISS.  1. £

66 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
purpose that the evangelist here in a prophetic word again
refers to the ultimate participation of the Gentiles in salvation
(xii. 21). But he expressly points out that Jesus Himself
did not yet place His foot upon Gentile soil, and that He only
fulfils the request for help of the Canaanitish woman with a
most emphatic reservation of His exclusive destination for
the people of Israel (xv. 21-29). In the dispute regarding
the laws as to purification he expressly inserts a statement,
according to which Jesus desires the abrogation only of the
Pharisaic tradition, while He explicitly recognises (xv. 13)
the law which His Father has planted, just as on a subsequent
occasion, in spite of this keen polemic against the scribes, He
expressly recognises them as far as they are only emphasizing
the law of Moses (xxiii. 2 f.).
After the malignity of the ruling parties has once more
been confirmed, of whose erroneous teaching Jesus had to
warn His disciples (xvi. 1, 12), and it has been shown that
the people, as a whole, have no capacity for perceiving the
significance of His appearance (xvi. 14), the evangelist intro
duces the promise made to Peter, which makes it clear that
Jesus had to give up hope of the establishment of the kingdom
of God in the community at large, and look forward to the
gathering of a narrower Messianic Church within the circle of
His own people (xvi. 18). With this is connected the fact
that the only narrative which he inserts into the section,
taken wholly from Mark, points to a future in which the
children of God are free from the temple tribute, and when
the whole constitution of the temple worship is called in
question (xvii. 24-27). The intimations, which are now
beginning and always growing clearer, regarding the destined
sufferings of Jesus, were already furnished to the evangelist by
Mark. But the way in which he places in the foreground of
the section devoted to Jerusalem an important disputation of
Jesus with the chief priests and the ruling parties among the
people, makes it very prominent that this result was through
their own fault, and that in consequence of this the kingdom
of God is passing over from the Jews to the Gentiles (xxi. 43),
and the rebellious capital is to be handed over to destruction
(xxii. 7). Notwithstanding this there is distinct and repeated
reference made in the history of the Passion to the fact that

DOCTRINAL IDEAS OF THE FIRST GOSPEL. 67
each individual incident has come to us precisely as it was
foretold by the prophets. Finally, our evangelist alone makes
special mention of the fact that the Gentile governor disclaims
participation in the guilt of His death ; that the people, incited
by their leaders, but with mad infatuation, call down upon
their heads the punishment for the deed (xxvii. 24 f.). But,
above all, what is recorded of the watchers by the grave
shows how the chief men among the people, who seduced
them to hostility towards Jesus, at last attempt to destroy by
a monstrous fraud the impression made by the miracle of the
resurrection, and so to discredit it that the message of the
risen One would be rejected by the people (xxviii. 15).
In the thoroughly characteristic closing section of our
Gospel (xxviii. 16-20), He who had been elevated to the,
right hand of God appears to His disciples on the hill of
Galilee, and proclaims Himself as the King of heaven and of
earth. He who was born heir of the kingdom in Israel has
not ascended the throne of His Father as He should have
done, because His people, led away by those in authority,
rejected and killed Him ; but He has become, by the hand
and power of God, the Messianic Ruler of the world. No
more to Israel does He send His commands, as He purposed
at first, but to all peoples, because, through the fault of the
people of Israel, the kingdom of God was taken from them
and given to the heathen. No longer does He direct to the
law for instruction, but to His commandments, in which,
indeed, the will of God, revealed in the law, is perfectly
fulfilled, only in a form other than that which was once
looked forward to for the theocracy in Israel. No more does
He promise that Jehovah will make the temple His dwelling-
place among His people, for the temple has fallen in ruinous
heaps. But He promises to His disciples His abiding divine
and gracious presence. That is the sum of what the Gospel
proclaims to the faithful in Israel ; by which it aims at
removing every stumbling-block and strengthening their faith
anew till the approaching day of the second coming.
According to the traditional hypothesis, the Gospel was
written by a Palestinian for Palestinians. This hypothesis is
obviously incorrect. Readers who require to have interpreted
to them the names Immanuel (i. 23) and Golgotha (xxvii. 33),

68 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the passage from a psalm which Jesus used as a prayer on
the cross, cannot possibly have been Palestinians, the language
of whom is Aramaic, even if, according to i. 21, they know
the meaning of the name Jesus, which was in common use
among the Jews in all places. The Jewish customs connected
with purification and the Passover were certainly familiar to
them, for the evangelist omits the relevant explanations given
in Mark ; because these would be observed as carefully in the
dispersion as in Palestine, and every pious Jew learns to
know them, because he once at least makes his pilgrimage
to Jerusalem, or hears what others have to say about it, in
addition to what he has, apart from this, learned regarding
them from the reading of the Old Testament in the synagogue.
A custom, however, like that of the yearly amnesty at Easter
appears to be unknown to them (xxvii. 1 5) ; and the way in
which Nazareth and Capernaum, or places like Gethsemane
and Golgotha, are introduced, shows that it was not written
for readers who were familiar with the geography of their
fatherland. That Antinomian libertinism on which the evan
gelist repeatedly makes sayings of Jesus to bear (vii. 22 f.,
xiii. 41, xxiv. 11 f.), in order to do battle with it as being
something which seriously threatened the Christian life of
his readers, can have made its appearance only in Gentile-
Christian circles, where Paul's doctrine of freedom was mis
understood and abused ; and this points us to the dispersion,
where we, according to the other writings of the New Testa
ment, meet with this phenomenon.
, Of greater importance for us is the fact that the author
' cannot be a native of Palestine. He is certainly a learned
Jew, who reads the Old Testament in the original ; he knows
the names of the Roman procurator and of the high priest at
the time of Jesus ; he reverences Jerusalem as the Holy City
(iv. 5, xxvii. 53) ; in more than one place, however, the
accuracy of his knowledge of Palestinian localities and cir
cumstances is more than doubtful, and the way in which
he speaks of "that land" (ix. 26, 31) shows incontestably
that he himself was no Palestinian. It is only thus that the
construction of the whole work can be explained. In the
year 70 there must have been so many eye-witnesses living
in Palestine, as well as others who, through what was related

AUTHOR AND READERS OF THE FIRST GOSPEL. 69
by eye-witnesses, were acquainted with the life of Jesus as a
whole, that an author who desired to form the materials of
the oldest apostolic writing into a connected history of Jesus
did not require to have recourse to a work which, like the
Gospel of Mark, is by one who was not an eye-witness. But
above all, he must have had to deal with quite another body
of traditions — the testimony of eye-witnesses ; while all that
our evangelist adds to his source is not only extremely scanty,!
but bears manifold and distinct traces of not being formed at1,
first-hand. Then, too, the way in which he tries at one time
to adjust the representation of his main narrative-source, att
another to explain more definitely how it arose, or even to
develope it, shows that here purely literary motifs are brought
into play, and that he has not at his disposal an independent
tradition regarding these matters. It is only in this way that
it was possible for him to adopt from Mark the whole historical
background of his narrative, even when that plainly rests on
the unreliable compilation of one who was not an eye-witness,
and when we are obliged to correct it from other sources, or
by means of historical criticism, and also that it was practic
able for him to build further on the same basis, without regard
to the literary motif of the Mark-document. All this is com
prehensible only of a Jew who lived in the Dispersion, within
the circles of which detached traditions of the history of Jesus
were certainly circulating, but who sees that for this history
he must direct himself substantially to documentary sources.
At a distance, in the countries of the Gentiles, where the')
pious Jew, as well as the believer in the Messiah, always felt
himself a stranger, and whence he looked with a yearning
that was never at rest towards the Holy City, the metropolis
of his own country, awaiting with redoubled and eager longing
the time when the commencement of the Messianic realization
should, according to the ancient prophetic promise, gather
together again the scattered children of Israel to the hill of
Zion: it is there that the catastrophe of the year 70, which
destroyed all these hopes, would be felt the hardest blow. It
is there that the gospel, which in this fateful moment estab
lished anew faith in the Messiah, solving as it did the dark
riddle of this destiny, must have been a labour of faith, which
carried these rich blessings to Jewish Christians who were

70 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
farther afield. It must have been this gospel of the Jewish
Christians, with its allusions to what had taken place through
the fault of the people, and to the transference which Jesus
had full in view of the kingdom of God from the Jews to the
Gentiles, which chiefly contributed to bring about an ever
more thorough union of the believers in Israel with the great
Gentile Church. Not without reason the second century, and,
resting on its authority, the universal Christian Church, have
always heard in this Gospel Matthew himself speaking, whose
original work is irrevocably lost to us, but whose invaluable
memoranda are there preserved, and are of value to us in the
proportion in which discernment of the historical origin and
literary construction of this Gospel of the Jewish Christians
teaches us how to restore these in their original form.

CHAPTER V.
THE GOSPEL OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
OUR third canonical Gospel, as well as its continuation, the
Acts of the Apostles, has, since the time of Irenseus,
been unanimously ascribed by tradition to Luke, a Greek
physician, whom we first find mentioned by Paul in the letters
written during his imprisonment (Col. iv. 14 ; Philem. 24 ;
comp. 2 Tim. iv. 11). From the Acts of the Apostles, how
ever, it is clear that his acquaintance with Paul began at a
much earlier date ; that he accompanied him when he crossed
for the first time from Asia to Europe ; at a later period he
was with him on his last journey to Jerusalem, as well as
when he was being transported to Rome, and was a sharer in
the shipwreck at Malta. That the record of these journeyings
originates with Luke is now admitted even by those critics
who hold that the Acts of the Apostles is the work of a
later writer, who only made use of these memoranda of Luke,
as it is otherwise extremely difficult to explain how tradition
should have come to ascribe the authorship of the book to a
companion of Paul, whom he very seldom mentions. But
without the hypothesis of an intentional deception, criticism
has not yet succeeded in giving an explanation of any degree
of probability of the way in which the narrator includes him
self among the dramatis personce in those portions which ought
to consist of the memoranda of some one else ; and the mani
fest relationship between those portions which are written in
good Greek, and the preface to the Gospel, which forms a
truly classical period, leads to the conclusion that the com
panion of Paul, who there relates events in which he had a
personal share, was, as tradition assumes, the author of both
works. At a later date the view prevalent in regard to it
was, that it bestowed apostolic authority on a Gospel written
by one who was not an eye-witness ; but it is Origen who
71

72 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
first appears to found it upon a plainly erroneous interpreta
tion of a Pauline passage (2 Cor. viii. 1 8), and it is Eusebius
who first tells us that the passages in which Paul speaks
of his Gospel were held to refer to the Gospel of Luke ; for
the custom which belonged to a later time of calling the
writings containing narratives regarding Christ, Gospels, now
extended to the New Testament, in which only the tidings
of salvation which He proclaimed were designated by this
expression. It was only a later period, which had lost every historical
conception of the circumstances of the apostolic age, which
could dream of wishing to draw a parallel between the relation
in which the Gospel of Luke stood to Paul, and that in
which the Gospel of Mark stood to Peter. That the author
of the third Gospel was a follower of Paul can be demon
strated, quite apart from the proof afforded by the construc
tion of its continuation, the Acts of the Apostles. It is not
so much individual coincidences with peculiarities of Pauline
expression, or isolated allusions to passages in the Pauline
Epistles, that are here to be considered. Too much _ stress
ought not to be laid on the fact that the appearance of the Risen
One to Peter, mentioned by Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5), is attested
by Luke only (xxiv. 34). Perfectly decisive, however, is the
fact that the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper,
given in the third Gospel, in proportion as it deviates from
the older tradition, comes more and more into accurate agree-
( ment with the Pauline account (1 Cor. xi.). That for his
| special information as to the life of Jesus, Luke was indebted
( to Paul to the same degree as Mark was for his to Peter, cannot
i be thought of. Paul had not himself been an eye-witness of the
life of Jesus ; and the perfect silence in his Epistles regard
ing the details of this life, makes it sufficiently plain that
what information he had gained from the first apostles was
far from being of such extent and significance as to enable
or incline him to supply a follower with material for a
picture of this life. Indeed, Irenseus, with whom our tradi
tion regarding the Gospel of Luke begins, shows himself
"perfectly conscious of the fact that information as to the
source from which Luke borrowed his information is only
to be derived from the preface to his Gospel (i. 1-4), and

PREFACE OF LUKE'S GOSPEL. 73
that this leads us back directly to the primitive apostolic
tradition. In this preface Luke gives us, in the first place, to under
stand that he himself had not been an eye-witness of the life/
of Jesus, but that he had followed with the very greatest care/
the tradition of the eye-witnesses. Whether he means by
this oral or written tradition, his expression does not determine.
But as we know of the work of one eye-witness which is
certainly older than our Gospel, the supposition is probable
that in his researches this one would not escape him. He
expressly draws a parallel between his undertaking and the
works of others, who likewise, on the basis of the tradition
of eye-witnesses, have attempted to arrange in an orderly
way the events of the life of Jesus. He does not actually
say that he has used these attempts in his own ; but the idea
of the Church Fathers, that he found fault with and placed
his own in opposition to them, is quite untenable. Certainly
they cannot have proved sufficient for him, or he would not
have undertaken a new one ; but attesting, as he did, the fact
that they rested upon the tradition of eye-witnesses, it is
impossible that in his inquiries concerning these he should
pass over those sources, secondary though they might be. Of
such attempts, of which there were several in his time, we are
acquainted with at least one that corresponds completely to
his description, our Gospel of Mark ; and the fact that before
this, a short time after its origination, it had been made use
of in the composition of our first Gospel, attests the extent of
its dissemination and the value set upon it, and it may there
fore be taken for granted that Luke was acquainted with andl
used it. This hypothesis is confirmed with the utmost clear
ness by the comparison of the third with the second Gospel.
Only the unfortunate hypothesis of Griesbach has been able
to shut its eyes to the fact that throughout large sections
Luke shows himself dependent upon Mark for his arrange
ment and his mode of delineation ; that often in these sections .
•his text presents itself in form and matter simply as an
elucidation, amplification, adjustment, and simplification of
the text of Mark ; that the narrative of the third Gospel often
presupposes characteristic traits in Mark which are passed
over by the redactor ; that even the linguistic peculiarities of

74 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the second Gospel are in many cases adopted, and in contrast
with the radically different style of Luke clearly prove them
selves to be an element originally foreign to him.1
We know of still another attempt to represent on the basis
of the tradition of eye-witnesses the events of the life of
Jesus in an orderly manner, — one, however, which, unlike
the Gospel of Mark, does not depend mainly upon the oral
tradition of an eye-witness, but on the written tradition of the
Apostle Matthew ; and that is our first Gospel. But certainly
as it can be demonstrated that Luke employed the Gospel
lof Mark, so certainly can it be proved that he was not
acquainted with our canonical Matthew. In those passages
where the peculiarities of both evangelists are brought forward
most strikingly, in the story of the Nativity and the various
appearances of the Risen One, there is not the slightest trace
of their being connected with one another ; indeed, their reports
are so thoroughly mutually exclusive, that it is impossible
that the one evangelist can have been acquainted with the
work of the other. Even where Mark's Gospel has been
made use of by both, it has been done in a, perfectly indepen
dent manner. Luke has not accepted one of the alterations
on the order of the narratives as given by Mark which the
first evangelist made in his first two parts, in consequence of
the construction of his work being here possessed of a relative
independence, while admitting some deviations the motif of
which was perfectly different ; and in the account of the dis
sensions at Jerusalem, in which the first evangelist completes
most fully the report of Mark, Luke holds firmly by the
simple sequence of events as given by Mark. He has the
brief warning to the scribes instead of the fearful denunciations
of woe which close the scene in Matthew, although he intro
duces this in another — if historically unlikely — place, and
ends with Mark's innocent narrative of the widow's mite, which
the first Gospel must have eliminated as disturbing the dramatic
movement. Where in individual sections both reproduce
Mark's narratives, Luke as seldom gives the interpolations
characteristic of the first Gospel as does the first .evangelist
those characteristic of Luke. This is brought forward in a
1 The proofs of this, by means of a thorough comparison of texts, are given
in all their details in my Gospel of Mark. '

RELATION.OF THE THIRD TO THE FIRST GOSPEL. 75
highly characteristic' fashion in the history of the Passion,
where the first Gospel follows Mark exclusively. It is
abundantly evident that each has in a different manner
appropriated and interpreted the representation of Mark ; and
where both elucidate, explain, and adjust his text, it is done
by each in a way all his own. On the other hand, a number
of examples has been pointed out where, in their treatment of
Mark's idiomatic mode of expression, or in their omission of
single phrases of his, both evangelists are certainly in striking
agreement ; but, in these extremely rare instances, the coinci
dences arise from the identity of the subjects.1 When at a
later period the desire has again been shown to admit on this
account an acquaintance on the part of Luke with the first
Gospel, the fact is overlooked that it is absolutely impossible to
explain how — these quite unimportant idiomatic coincidences
apart — it has not exercised a more all-pervading influence
on the composition of his Gospel.
Indeed, it is the fact that Luke was not acquainted with
our first Gospel, and yet has a great quantity of material in
common with it, which has led to the discovery, so decisive
for the criticism of the Gospels, that this source which the
first evangelist has combined with Mark's narrative was !
employed by Luke also, along with the second Gospel (comp.
p. 30). This only confirms what even apart from this we
should have gathered from his preface, viz. : That the oldest
apostolic document formed for him a second source, from
1 They may be explained in different ways, and several do of themselves afford
points of contact. Further, it must not be forgotten how easily the text of the
second Gospel, in an age which was far removed from that of our witnesses to
the text, and in which the farther distant it was the less was it protected by the
idea of a meaning which should itself provide a law for it, or even by sanctity,
may have had additions made to it, or have been changed in expression, without
its being necessary to reckon with an original Mark (comp. p. 32), and how
easily a comprehensive law of uniformity may he enforced in the case of the text
of our first and third Gospels as actually appears in our various readings. Even
if they remain unexplained and inexplicable, the evidence which is here afforded
by so many facts of quite unequal importance can by no means be discredited.
This is apparently all the more confirmed by the fact that not only did none of
the pragmatical reflections of the first evangelist, particularly his proofs of the
fulfilment of Scripture, find their way into the Gospel of Luke, but none even
of his peculiar idioms and turns of expression, although otherwise the latter
shows itself to have been very largely influenced by its sources in idiomatic
expression.

76 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
which he derived the tradition of eye-witnesses. Just as in
the first Gospel, so here it not unfrequently happens that
sayings which Luke at one time introduces in the connection
in which Mark has them, are repeated by him in another
place in the connection in which they are found in his other
source. Only thus is it possible to explain the recurrence in
chap. x. of the speech on the sending forth of the disciples,
which is given in chap. ix. as it is in Mark. But the way in
which he has combined the material of the oldest source with
the narrative of Mark in quite a different manner from that
in which the first evangelist has done so, only establishes anew
the fact that he does not know our first Gospel. Of the great
groups of speeches of the latter there is not a trace ; rather has
he retained in their original independence the various series
of sayings which by the first evangelist are pieced together
into larger wholes, and not seldom in cases where the first
evangelist has interpolated them into Mark's narrative, or has
brought them into connection with the fragments contained
in Mark. It is only so that there can be explained the
peculiar phenomenon, that while in other respects the first
evangelist has preserved the speeches of the apostolic source
with greater faithfulness than Luke, who often gives them in
the form of a free redaction, yet where the first evangelist
introduces such material in addition to Mark, he allows
himself to be largely influenced by the very free version of
the latter, while they are found in a still more original form
in Luke, who introduces them in the connection in which they
were in the oldest source. In the case, too, of the narrative
portions of the oldest source, Luke not infrequently falls back,
from the highly coloured picture given by Mark, on the simpler
version of the oldest source, and thus connects himself with
the first Gospel not only through like omissions, but sometimes
also through the use of the same expressions. But the fact
that this occurs only sporadically makes it plain that it is not
acquaintance with the first Gospel, but the employment of a
common source, which has given rise to these coincidences.
Where both employ materials which are not found in Mark,
their mutual independence is shown by this, that they try
in very different ways to elucidate, explain, and interweave
them.

LUKE'S EMPLOYMENT OF MARK AND THE APOSTOLIC SOURCE. 77
It is decisive for this conclusion that the whole construction /
of Luke's Gospel is very clearly explained on the supposition t
of the employment of these two sources. There is not found !
here any formation of topically arranged groups of narra
tives such as those on which the construction of the Gospel
of Mark depends, and which have been partly transferred
to our first Gospel. In a more historical manner the whole i
public activity of Jesus is divided simply into His ministry in j
Galilee and Jerusalem ; and between these, the first and third
divisions, is inserted a second, which depicts the extra-Galilean
ministry, which the evangelist not incorrectly represents as a
life of continuous journeying outside of Galilee, the final goal
of which was Jerusalem. The first of these divisions rests
simply on Mark, whom, with the exception of a single
transposition explicable from its didactic aim (comp. p. 86 f.),
Luke follows unbrokenly up to the choice of the apostles
(iv. 14-vi. 19). Luke finds that the oldest source has placed *
the so-called Sermon on the Mount immediately after that
incident ; and now not only does he insert this speech, but
he introduces along with it a variety of materials from the
same source in the order in which they stood there, as far as
the great parable-speech, from which he takes only the parable
of the sower (vi. 20-viii. 8), because by means of the con
versation which Mark connects with that he returns again
into the current of this source in order to follow it without
variation on to the end of the Galilean ministry (viii. 9-
ix. 50). There is certainly a number of narratives omitted
here (Mark vi. 45 -viii. 26), partly because they took place
outside Galilee, partly because they concern circumstances
which had lost their significance for his Gentile-Christian
readers, partly because the evangelist, embarrassed already by
the abundance of material, was, of two related narratives, wont
to adopt only one. But as for the rest, there is in this
narrative, apart from the repetition of the anecdote of the
visit of the relatives of Jesus (viii. 19-21), neither any
variation from the sequence of Mark, nor the introduction of
anything new. In contrast to this, the second division begins
with a great interpolation (ix. 51-xviii. 14), in which materials
from the apostolic source are actually employed. It is plain
that Luke inferred from the contents of the commission-

78 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
speech, contained in this source, and which forms the first
important part in the division which is taken from it,
that it presupposed the conclusion of the connected Galilean
ministry of Jesus ; and under the assumption, not altogether
justifiable, that in that source the materials were arranged
in chronological order, he considered himseK able to allocat*
all that followed to this activity carried on at a distance
from Galilee, or to the journeys of Jesus. It is just the
interpolation which is of such incomparable importance to
us, because we can gather with greater certainty what was
the order preserved in that source, and can with perfect
certainty decide what was the original form of a large por
tion of it. Luke returns to Mark in order to glean from
him what he states regarding the ministry of Jesus in Perea
and Judea (xviii. 15-xix. 27). Here also there is very little
omitted, and that on grounds we have already learned to
recognise, while an occasional parable is inserted from the
apostolic source. In the third division (xix. 28— xxiii. 56),
which contains the ministry in Jerusalem with the addition
of the history of the Passion, Luke was, of course, quite
dependent on Mark, from whom he borrows the single
incident which he contains regarding the history of the
resurrection (xxiv. 1-11).
The preface of Luke's Gospel speaks, however, of many
/attempts to arrange the facts of the Gospel history, although up
(to this time we have discovered only one which Luke had lying
before him. It is, indeed, by no means asserted that all the
writings which the evangelist has in view were comprehensive
representations of the life of Jesus ; it can only have been the
public life of Jesus, or a single view of it, His teachings, His
works of healing, His contests with the Pharisees, which were
represented in such writings ; and the very fragmentary
character of these documents may have brought it about, that
owing to the existence of our more complete Gospels they
were quickly forgotten, and have disappeared without leaving
a trace. No doubt Luke has incorporated in his Gospel
everything essential which he found in these sources, and it
thus exhibits a wealth of new material supplementary to what
was derived from Mark and the apostolic source. Since in the
preface he expressly claims to be acquainted with all that

MATTER PECULIAR TO LUKE'S GOSPEL. 79'
had happened from the first, we need not be surprised at his
finding a work, the special object of which was to relate the
history of the birth of Jesus and that of His forerunner,
from which he borrows the rich contents of his first two
chapters, and perhaps the genealogical table in the third.
This source is doubtless to be referred to a Jewish Christian
of Palestine; for the whole manner of narrating is of set
purpose manifestly formed after the model of the sacred
history of the Old Testament, and the strongly Hebraic
character of the language contrasts so strangely with the
faultless period of the preface, that it can only have been
written by one who was at home in the Old Testament, and
-whose native speech was the dialect of Palestine. In the
preliminary history of the Baptist there is combined not only
the portion supplied by Mark and the apostolic source, but
also a call to repentance by the Baptist to the various classes
of the people (iii 10-14), and this must have been derived
from a special source. In the history of the public activity
of Jesus we find a number of narratives of which Luke must
have found a representation quite sui generis in the sources
which are peculiar to himself, such as the calling of Peter
(v. 1-11), the appearance of Jesus in Nazareth (iv. 16-30),
the healing of the centurion's son (vii. 2—10), and the dispute
concerning the greatest commandment (x. 25—37). As he
interwove both of the former in the first portion of his first
section) which he borrowed from Mark, and has combined
them harmoniously with the representation of Mark, so has
he introduced the two latter in the interpolations from the
apostolic source, and combined them with his representation.
Other narratives belonging to special sources only connect
themselves after a fashion with the similar narratives of
Mark and the oldest Matthew - document, without being
identical with either of them. Thus he borrows from them
a raising from the dead (vii. 11-17), the story of an anointing
(vii. 36-50), a healing on the Sabbath (xiii. 10-17), and
the story of the woman who blessed the mother of Jesus
(xi. 27, 28); but also some singular incidents, like that of
the rejection of Jesus in Samaria (ix. 52-56), the story of
Martha and Mary (x. 38-42), the grateful Samaritan (xvii
11-19), and Zacchseus (xix. 1-10). As regards speeches

80 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
only a few parables appear to have been borrowed from this
source, such as the prodigal son (chap, xv.), the rich man
and Lazarus (chap, xvi.), the Pharisee and the publican
(chap, xviii.), perhaps also the prophecy regarding Jerusalem
(xix. 39-44).
His sources must also have included the history of the
Passion ; for here we see Luke deviating so thoroughly from
Mark, that this can only be explained by his having had
before him quite an independent representation of the same
subjects. In the history of the last Supper he takes for the
most part a course peculiar to himself. Even if the narrative
of the institution of the Lord's Supper rests on the Pauline
tradition, still the unmasking of the traitors and the presump- •
tuous saying of Peter are related here so differently and in
such a peculiar connection, that our author must have had
before him the representation of another source. This is so
in the case of the prayer in Gethsemane and the proceedings
in the Council The scene before Herod is peculiar to him
(xxiii. 4-16), and a series of incidents in the details of the
crucifixion, especially the word to the daughters of Jerusalem
(xxiii. 27—31), and the conversation of Jesus with the two
malefactors (xxiii. 39-43), as well as in the history of the
resurrection, the narrative of the disciples belonging to Emmaus,
with that of the appearance on Easter-eve (xxiv. 13—43).
Since the materials peculiar to Luke extend over the whole
1 range of the life of Jesus, from the announcement of His birth
and that of His forerunner to the appearances of the Risen
One, and since there is almost no side of this life, which is readily
handled by tradition, that is not represented by some narrative
or another, the call of the disciples, intercourse with publicans
and sinners, conflict with the scribes, cures on the Sabbath,
contact with Gentiles and Samaritans, the raising of a dead
man, the parable-speeches and prophecies regarding the future,
the supposition is ever suggesting itself, that besides Mark's
Gospel there lay before the evangelist another comprehensive
delineation of the whole life of Jesus, even if his assertions
regarding the many men, to whose attempts he already refers,
will scarcely permit of all the materials peculiar to himself
being allotted to this source. True, we are in no position
to ascertain the construction or date of composition of that

SOURCES PECULIAR TO LUKE'S GOSPEL. 81
original source, or of anything else used by him. It is only
certain that they were not the accounts of eye-witnesses, buu
such as repeated, and perhaps not at first hand, the tradition)
of eye-witnesses ; this is made clear by the fact that these\
sources do not, apart from a few parables and isolated sayings,
offer anything really new in the form of speeches. It is very
remarkable that in a large number of these narratives there
are coincidences with Johannine traditions, although in m'any
places these appear to be introduced by the evangelist into
his material in accordance with oral tradition ; and as at least
the principal source, which begins with the nativity, originated
in Palestine, we are warranted in assuming that in these other
sources there were embodied many traditions of the greatest
value, derived from the circles of eye-witnesses, if not, in the
strictest sense, of apostles.
Just as little can it with perfect certainty be established/
that Luke used exclusively documentary sources. Since he',
at all events, came to Palestine in Paul's company, the possi
bility must not be excluded of his becoming acquainted there
with oral tradition ; for even his account of the Lord's Supper
does by no means necessarily depend upon what is given as
known regarding it in the Epistle to the Corinthians, but
rather on the mode in which Paul, according to this Epistle,
was wont to recount the institution of the Lord's Supper, and
to repeat it at the ceremony of breaking of bread. Apart
from isolated notices, such as that of the ministering women
(viii. 2 f.), it is less individual portions of material peculiar
to him, than the way in which he sometimes reproduces the
material taken from his sources, which leads back to the oral
tradition. Certain as it is that he was acquainted with and
made literary use of the oldest Matthew-document, still,
many coincidences in expression with that document, which
are found in places where he has made literary use of
Mark, less suggest reminiscences of these expressions, than
the way in which he was involuntarily influenced by the
oldest type of narration, which really obtained fixation in
it, and thus became more stereotyped. In like manner also,
many striking deviations from the representation of Mark's
Gospel are to be referred, not so much to literary motif, as to
the way in which events, which were related with especial
WEISS. — I. F

82 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
frequency, came to be represented, both as to form and matter,
in oral tradition. In this way will be perhaps most easily
explained those coincidences with the expression and repre
sentation of the first Gospel, which have lately been leading
men into error as to the indubitable fact of the independence
of each other of the first and third Gospels (comp. p. 75).
For as the first evangelist rests more designedly and compre
hensively upon the oldest Matthew-document, while Luke is
influenced only by the type of narration found in it and fixed
by its means, and as both are already affected by a free and,
in certain points, constantly progressive oral tradition, coin
cidences between them might be discovered which did not
owe their origin to any literary accommodation.
I It is, after all, certain that Luke compiled his Gospel mainly
from documentary sources. Only so can it be explained why
the style of the preface to the Gospel, showing as it does the
hand of a practised Greek writer, never occurs again, but gives
place to the Hebraic style of his sources. It has, indeed, been
attempted to prove that a style peculiar to Luke does not fail
to characterize the whole Gospel, and from this the inference
has been drawn of a thoroughgoing redaction of his sources;
but in doing this, expressions which, recurring with great
frequency, are designated as Luke's, do demonstrably originate
with his sources. In truth, the peculiarities belonging specially
to the author are really confined to certain preferences in lexical
expression, alongside of which the portions borrowed from his
sources appear all the more distinct through the preservation
of grammatical niceties of the Greek tongue; but this does
not extend to the style throughout. Much more is a
sound literary appreciation shown when the evangelist, in
places where he is plainly giving an independent remodelling
of the representation of his sources, does not do this in the
smooth, perfectly Greek, periodic style, of which the preface
is an example ; but rather, in order to preserve the unity of
the representation, in the manner of expression and delineation
which was stamped, by his Jewish-Christian sources, as the
specific form for the delineation of the sacred, history. It
may be on this account that he has preferred to employ certain
strongly Hebraic modes of expression found in his sources,
through which the separation from his literary additions of

LITERARY PECULIARITY OF LUKE. 83
what was taken directly from the documentary sources is made
considerably more difficult.
The way in which Luke gives information regarding the
origin and aim of his work dedicated to Theophilus, indicates
that he is already addressing himself to his undertaking with
the consciousness of being an historian. The manner in which
he tries to find sure ground in regard to the date of the birth
of Jesus (ii. 2), and the fact that he not only speaks of the
important year with which the gospel history begins, but
characterizes it by means of the political circumstances of
Palestine, shows that he already feels the necessity of bringing
his narrative into relation with the great events and prominent
circumstances of the world. We cannot tell whether the
artistic manner in which, in the prefatory history, the narra- ;
tives of the annunciation and birth of Jesus and His forerunner |
are interwoven with one another, is to be ascribed to Luke
or to his source. While, however, the other evangelists on
occasion naively refer to and describe the arrest of the
Baptist, Luke closes the narrative regarding the Baptist
with its announcement, so that with the express mention
of the age at which Jesus began His public ministry he
might pass on to give its history. Luke's whole fiianner of
dividing this public activity into that exercised in Galilee,
beyond Galilee, and in Jerusalem, shows that he is trying to
enable himself and his readers to gain the historical point of
view from which to survey it. It is only attachment to al
sham method of harmonizing which could enable any one to
assert that Luke arranges his materials in accordance with
topical standpoints. He expressly says in the preface that
he is about to relate everything in order, by which, as he
is concerned with a history, only the historical sequence
can have been meant ; and we have already seen that he
commences the extra-Galilean activity at the point where the
retrospect of Jesus upon His Galilean ministry seemed to
indicate the close of it, and to refer all that followed to the
latter period. In doing this he certainly assumes that the
sequence observed in his sources is a chronological one, which
is not altogether the case in the apostolic source, and still less
so in Mark; but that he tries to group the materials of these
two sources of his according to the chronological order which,

84 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
as he believed, could be deduced from them, permits of no
doubt. It is self-evident that much could only approximately
be assigned its place in a period, and that only when the
indications given in his sources yielded presumptions regard
ing individual events allocated by him. On what principles
he proceeded in trying to combine the materials borrowed
from other sources with those contained in his two main ones,
it is impossible for us in any way to ascertain, for we have
no acquaintance with those sources; but the way, often so
difficult to understand, in which they are inserted between
the portions borrowed from Mark and those from the oldest
apostolic document, proves that he was not led in this case
by an idea of topical arrangement, as is so common in the
older Gospel-documents. Even throughout chaps, xv. and xvi.
the point of view of a collection of parables is not the main
one. The way, too, in which he abbreviates the older delinea
tions, and avoids the repetition of similar events, shows an
effort to give a more artistic form to the narrative as a
whole. The historical standpoints followed by him explain
his attempts to discover, through comparison, an historical
background for speeches which were given in his source with
out any definite statement as to what gave occasion for them ;
a background which then sometimes for the first time made
possible the linking together in a definite connection of what
his sources had contained in aphoristic form. Here belong the
numerous remarks in preparation for something coming after,
or in reflection upon what is past, by which he links together
not only individual groups of narratives, but also the large
divisions of history ; also the frequently-occurring rectifications
of the older representation, plainly based on reflection on the
course of development of the history, and numerous embellish
ments of the same, which rest solely on his conception of the
presuppositions and consequences of the events related. It
is the latter which often gave to his manner of narrating a
warmer tone, and here and there the first traces of a more
subjective colouring, such as the older Gospels were entirely
without. In these alterations there has sometimes been traced
a movement towards criticism by which he had attempted
to effect a choice among his various sources. But the means
for such a criticism were awanting to the Gentile Christians,

READERS OF LUKE'S GOSPEL, 85
the age, besides, being entirely without this faculty. He
certainly claims in his preface to surpass his predecessors
in accuracy as well as in completeness ; but that relates
undoubtedly to the fact that, from the varied representa
tions of his sources, he chooses the most vivid, or seeks by
harmonizing them to supplement one by another. There is
here no reference to historical criticism in our sense of the
word, which separates the reliable from what is in any degree
uncertain. It is especially to be considered, that in spite of the strong)
emphasis laid on the historical intention and capability of the
Gospel, it is not a biography in the purely historical sense.!
The preface declares unequivocally that the author pursues!
the didactic aim of convincing Theophilus by his narrative of )
the trustworthiness of the doctrines in which he had been
instructed. Luke himself is a Pauline Gentile Christian ; and
so, too, Theophilus and the wider circle of readers, among
whom the Gospel was closely associated with his person, are
to be sought for on the soil of Gentile Christianity, where the
Pauline doctrine was dominant. Confirmation is thus plainly
given to the fact that not only are places in Palestine expressly
introduced as being unknown to the readers, but at the close
of the Acts of the Apostles particularly, Italian localities of
subordinate rank appear to be known to the readers (comp.
xxviii. 13, 15) to a degree which can only be assumed in
the case of Roman Gentile Christians. Above all, it is only
reference to this circle of readers that can explain the fact,
that from the rich materials given by tradition, which relate
to the position taken up by Jesus towards the law and. the
traditions of the Pharisees, only so much is taken in general,
or in its original form, as is indispensable for understanding
the contest of Jesus with the dominant class among the
people. For the Gentile Christians were expressly declared
by Paul to be free from the law as such ; and they had no
minute view of the details of Jewish customs, to which those
Pharisaic traditions had reference; indeed, here and there
indications are not awanting that to the evangelist himself
they were no longer quite intelligible.
It is thus the Pauline doctrine of which Luke desires to give
his readers confirmation from the history of Jesus Himself;

86 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
and here, doubtless, there comes first of all into consideration
the decreeing of salvation for the Gentiles, of which indications
have been seen in the evangelist's introducing a genealogical
table, which represents Jesus not only as the son of Abraham
and of David, but by carrying back His genealogy to Adam
signifies His destination for the whole human race. It was
certainly the retrospect towards this Pauline fundamental
doctrine which induced him rather to omit altogether passages
of the oldest source, like Matt. vii. 6, x. 5 f., or the history
of the Canaanitish woman with its main burden in Matt. xv.
24, which without any more precise exposition might easily
have been explained as being contradictory of this doctrine.
As the Acts plainly has the tendency to demonstrate and
justify the course of history, through which the salvation,
destined in the first instance for Israel and offered to her, did,
under manifestly divine guidance, gradually pass over to the
Gentiles ; so the narrative of the Gospel seeks to prepare the
way for this course of development. The single demonstrable
\case in which Luke has arranged a narrative according to a
purely topical, as opposed to the chronological order, although
with indications sufficient to make the chronological position
iquite clear, is the placing of the rejection of Jesus in His
(native town at the beginning of His Galilean ministry, which,
plainly foretelling the treatment which Jesus was to meet
with afterwards at the hands of His people, refers to the fact,
which is expressly explained in the representation which he
selects from his sources, that the Gentiles instead of Israel
were to partake of salvation. It is just as worthy of notice
that the extra-Galilean ministry of Jesus also begins with
His rejection in a Samaritan village, even if the evangelist
was able to suppose that in this case he had given it its
proper chronological position. Criticism, indeed, in a number
of parables and even of histories, which it really regards as
fabrications, has found introduced the theme of the rejection
of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles; although in regard
to the one there is no intimation given, and' in regard to the
other a perfectly different reference is indicated by the
evangelist. But at least one expression (xiii. 30) has, through
the connection in which it was placed by Luke, been put into
a relation to it which it did not originally possess, and in the

DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF LUKE'S GOSPEL. 87
parable of the banquet (xiv. 16-24) there is introduced by
his allegorizing embellishments, the Pauline thought that the
Gentiles are destined to fill in the kingdom of God the gap
left by the rejection of Israel. Here again it is clearly shown
that our Gospel is independent of the first, for of the more
definite way in which the latter accentuates, in the parable,
the rejection and punishment of Israel, there is nothing to
be found in Luke ; while at the close of his Gospel there is
nothing regarding the solemn sending forth of the apostles to
the heathen, but instead there is in the speeches of the Risen
One (xxiv. 4) a more general reference to the salvation
destined for the Gentiles.
It is self-evident that the main doctrines of the Pauline
system, which had already been formulated, could not be
given expression to in the speeches of Jesus without intro
ducing into them an entirely foreign element ; for even in the
single passage where the idea of justification is to be found
(xviii. 14), it is by no means of so distinctly Pauline a stamp
that it must needs have been introduced by Luke. On the
other hand, the didactic aim of the Paulinist is ,seen in this,
that there is an evident preference for relating such histories
as bring into the foreground God's love for sinners, the coming
of Jesus for the salvation of sinners, and, above all, the
forgiveness of sins which is brought by Him, and also such
as are directed against self-justifying pride or seeking for
reward, while, as opportunity offers, that significance of faith
on which salvation is based is there expressly defended or
emphasized. It may also be remembered how Luke, in an
expression originally of a much more general purport, intro
duces the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost (xi. 1 3), which
in the Pauline system first obtained its full, comprehensive
significance, as well as how, in a thoroughly Pauline
fashion, he gives a model for and exhortation to prayer.
Throughout it is not indeed specially Pauline, although
not in antagonism with Pauline conceptions, and it was cer
tainly regarded by Luke as a consequence of Paul's doctrine,
when he brings forward so readily and with such emphasis
the danger of riches and the blessings of poverty. But where
he allows no opportunity to slip of giving an exhortation to
beneficence, and, indeed, of enjoining the sacrifice of all worldly

88 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
goods for the sake of love to your neighbour, he has whetted
the sayings of Jesus to a one-sided pointedness, which would
appear to his teacher Paul scarcely prudent. It has, indeed,
been often assumed that this ascetic view of the world was
peculiar to one of his sources ; but since it dominates for the
most part the character and the reproduction of the materials
which are taken from Mark and the apostolic source, and
since its after effects are manifest in the narratives of the
Acts, they must be ascribed to the author of the Gospel
himself. Tradition gives us no kind of sure data for determining
the date of composition of the Gospel. From the fact that
the Acts of the Apostles breaks off with the year 6 3, it has
often been inferred that it was written at this time, and that the
Gospel which precedes it was written still earlier, though this
assumption makes the employment of the apostolic source and
of Mark's Gospel perfectly impossible. The definite indication
given by the prophecy of the fate of Jerusalem (xix. 43, 44),
puts it beyond doubt that the Gospel, if not its source, was
written after the destruction of Jerusalem. In the speech
on the second coming, it is distinctly asserted that the
persecutions foretold by Jesus were already begun before
the other particularly mentioned signs of the end (xxi. 12),
and that Jerusalem had been for a time trodden' under
foot by the Gentiles, People now had accustomed themselves
to the thought that, out of regard to the winning of the
heathen world, Christ's return, which originally was to com
mence in direct connection with the catastrophe in Judea,
was still for a time delayed (xxi. 24). But as the evangelist
holds firmly to the prediction, that the generation which had
witnessed Jesus' appearance would also see the end, the
prognostications of which the evangelist saw fulfilled in his
own time, it is difficult for us to set down the composition
of the Gospel as having taken place much later than the first
decade after the year 70.
The Gentile Church founded by Paul probably received
her Gospel shortly after 80 a.d. But with the destruction
of the Jewish state and temple, the reasons had vanished
which in earlier times served to maintain the state of
separation between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians,

SYNOPTICS IN THE CHURCH. 89
and early in the second century we see how the Gospel of
the Jewish Christians, together with that of the Gentile
Christians, and along with the Mark-Gospel, which lies at the
foundation of both, were a common possession of the great
collective Church.

CHAPTER VI.
THE JOHANNINE QUESTION.
THE rapid development of the literature of the Gospels
during the last sixty years shows that it met a ciying
want in the Church. For nearly a century the oral tradition
was preserved in conjunction with it, but this came to be
more and more influenced by the written testimony; and
where, in the writers of the first half of the second century,
we meet with words of the Lord, which at that time formed,
next to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the canon, so to
speak, of the Church, they bear everywhere the stamp of the
Synoptists, without connecting themselves exclusively with any
one of our three evangelists. Moreover, it is only now and
then that, in the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers,
I such as Barnabas, Hermas, or Ignatius, we come upon more
'or less explicit points of harmony with the peculiar mode of
' expression, and the speeches of Christ, of our Fourth Gospel
We find introduced in Polycarp a passage from the First
Epistle of John, which doubless originated at the same time
and from the same author as our Fourth Gospel ; and a similar
use of this Epistle by Papias of Hierapolis is credibly attested
, (in Euseb. Ch. Hist. iii. 39). It is, however, about the middle
of the century, and in Justin Martyr, — of whose ample quota
tions from the Memoirs of the Apostles.a, preponderating number
are to be referred to the synoptic type, — that there is found
an indubitable allusion to the history of Nicodemus contained
in the Fourth Gospel, along with other detached correspond
ences with the version there given of the history and the words
of the Lord. His whole Christology is already influenced by
the conceptions of the Fourth Gospel, and is by him referred
to his Memoirs and to the doctrine proclaimed by Christ in a
fashion which can only hold good of this Gospel and the
90

FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 91
speeches of Christ contained in it.1 The so-called Clemen- ;
tine homilies, which took their rise within Jewish- Christian
circles, contain indubitable allusions to the narratives and
sayings of the' Lord given in the Gospel (comp. xix. 22 with
John ix. 2, 3; iii. 52 with John x. 9, 27); and the whole
doctrine of aeons of the Valentinian Gnosticism visibly rests \
on the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, in Gnostic circles there seems
to have been a prepossession in favour of employing this
Gospel in a more comprehensive manner much earlier than it
was so employed within the Church; but the darkness which
envelopes the rise of Gnosticism, and the confounding of
earlier and later which often appears in our meagre sources,
hinder its being established with complete certainty how
early it began to be used in this way.
Along with the three others, our Fourth Gospel had already
been woven into a whole by Justin's pupil Tatian, in his
Harmony of the Gospels (comp. p. 18); and a century after
the rise of our synoptic Gospels (circa 170) he quotes, in his
apologetic work, a sentence from the prologue of the Gospel
just as if it were a passage from the Holy Scriptures of the
Old Testament (comp. Orat. ad Grcec. 13 with John i. 5).
Towards the last quarter of the second century the historical
narratives of the Fourth Gospel began actually to be employed
in the ecclesiastical circles, which up to this time had been
dominated almost exclusively, in their view of the history of
Jesus, by the synoptic record. Melito of Sardis speaks of a
ministry of Jesus extending over three years, which he can only
assume on the authority of the Fourth Gospel ; Apollinaris of
Hierapolis alludes to the incident of the spear-thrust, and
explains the older Gospels by the statements of the Fourth
regarding the day of the death of Jesus ; Polycrates of Ephesus
describes the Apostle John as the disciple who lay on the
breast of the Lord, a statement which would be derivable
from the Fourth Gospel only if it originated with this apostle. \
Theophilus of Antioch, who died about the year 181, is the |
first expressly to quote the Gospel as Johannine ; but towards '
the close of the century we see it acknowledged and made use
of in all sections of the Church as a work of the Apostle
1 Comp. Justin, Apol. i. 61 with John iii. 3-5 ; i. 6 with John iv. 24 ; Dial. 88
with John i. 20. In addition to the last-named, see especially Dial. 105. 48.

92 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
John, and the fourfold number of our Gospels is regarded as
having been handed down from antiquity. The most important
witness belonging to this period is unquestionably Irenseus,
bishop of Lyons, who died at the beginning of the third
century. His family belonged to Asia Minor ; he had been a
pupil of Polycarp of Smyrna, and had had much intercourse
with the presbyters of Asia Minor, who had themselves seen
the Apostle John, because, as we learn from the Apocalypse,
he had, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem, removed
his residence to Asia Minor. From Irenseus we know that
the Apostle John lived in Ephesus till towards the end of the
century, being -the last of the apostles, and thus of great age. An
attempt has lately been made, in the interests of opposition to
the Gospel of John, to cast doubt on this tradition, men trying
to render it credible that Irenseus had confounded with the
apostle another pupil of the Lord's living in Ephesus, and
whose name was John. But the way in which he reminds a
companion of his youth of what had been imparted to them
by their common teacher Polycarp regarding his relations with
the Apostle John, and points out to the Roman bishop that
Polycarp, in opposition to one of his predecessors, had appealed
to the mode of observing the Passover shared by the apostle,
excludes any confusion of this kind just as effectually as is
done by what he says about that which he heard from the
presbyters of Asia Minor who were contemporaries of John,
e.g. a statement of his about the age of Jesus, which can only
be inferred from the Fourth Gospel, or a tradition in which
direct appeal is made to a sentence of this Gospel.1 We
know, in addition, that before him Polycrates of Ephesus, who
during his manhood had intercourse with Polycarp, appealed,
in opposition to the Romish Bishop Victor, to the John who
was buried in Ephesus, as being a defender of the mode
of keeping the Passover observed in Asia Minor, and
undoubtedly indicates him as the beloved disciple of the
Fourth Gospel. Contemporaneously with, but quite indepen
dently of him, Clement of Alexandria drew up a history of the
activity of John in Ephesus; and there is in Apollonius a
much earlier and quite similar tradition. But if John lived
1 Comp. Iren. Ep. ad Florinum, in Euseb. v. 20 ; Euseb. v. 24 ; Adv. Hcer.
ii. 22. 5, comp. with John viii. 57 ; v. 36. 2, comp. with John xiv. 2.

ORIGINATION WITH THE APOSTLE JOHN. 93
till towards the close of the first century in Ephesus, it is in
conceivable that, in the circles in Asia Minor (which possessed
at first hand the tradition regarding the apostles), in which
during the seventh decade the Fourth Gospel was the influen
tial one, and which supplied Irenseus at a much earlier period
with his information as to its origin, a Gospel could have been
accepted as Johannine of which the contemporaries of the
apostles had known or related nothing. Such a one, through
the acceptance which it gained in heretical circles, would
rather lay itself under suspicion than be recommended to the
Church teachers in the severe conflict with this same jealous
and dexterous Gnosticism. I
Our Fourth Gospel, however, claims from the beginning to
be written by the Apostle John. The older Gospels give us
no clear intimation regarding the person of their author ; it is
only tradition which ascribes them to this one or that. Our
evangelist claims to be one of those among whom the Word
become Flesh lived and made His glory manifest (i. 14) ; in
regard to one specially important event he appeals to his
testimony as being that of an eye-witness (xix. 34, 35). He
does not indeed say who he is ; but at the very beginning of
the Gospel he introduces two disciples (i. 35), of whom only
one is named, the other remaining unnamed, and of whom
things are told which only for those who had a share in the
incidents could have an interest de.ep enough to make them
worth while recording. Thus at the last meal (xiii. 23, 24),
in the entrance-hall of the high priest's palace (xviii. 15, 16),
and at the open grave (xx. 2-8), there appears in close
proximity to Peter just such an unnamed disciple, and he is
expressly designated as he whom the Lord had loved, and who
lay on His breast at the last meal. This beloved disciple is
particularly indicated as standing at the foot of the cross
(xix. 26) ; and when immediately thereafter the apostle
appeals to the witness of his own eyes (xix. 35), he cannot
but desire to be identified with this beloved disciple. Apart
from Peter, there were only the two sons of Zebedee forming
the innermost circle of those who enjoyed familiarity with
Jesus, and of these James died at far too early a period to
come into consideration as the author of the Gospel, therefore
this beloved disciple can only be the Apostle John.

94 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
There was certainly in antiquity a pseudonymous literature,
which cannot be criticized from the standpoint of the literary
customs of our own day, or judged as forgery. For it is just
the na'iveU with which the author strives to find a higher
authority for his words by laying them in the mouth of one
of the celebrated men of the past, in whose spirit he desires
to speak, which justifies this literary form. Quite otherwise
is it in this case ; the author mentions no name ; he only
gives it to be understood that it is the unnamed disciple so
repeatedly introduced who is writing here from his own
personal knowledge; he leaves it to be inferred from the
comparison of one passage with another that this eye-witness
cannot be any one but John. It was Renan who, before the
face of modern criticism, said that it was not a case of
pseudonymous authorship such as was known to antiquity, it
was either truth or refined forgery — plain deception. There
is still, however, one thing to be considered. The Gospel
closes with a statement, made in the most formal manner,
regarding its object (xx. 30, 31). It has been disputed
whether the concluding chapter is an addition made by the
'author himself, or the work of another hand. But the simi
larity which exists between it and the Johannine method of
narration proves only that its- contents are intimately con
nected with the Johannine tradition; there is no lack of
indications which betray a strange hand, and at the conclusion
it is clear that the addition was really made with the design
of correcting the erroneous comprehension of a word spoken
by Jesus to the beloved disciple (xxi. 23). The necessity for
this correction would first occur when the hope, built on the
words that John should live till the second coming of Jesus,
remained unfulfilled. The addition was then made to the
Gospel immediately after the death of John; for it never
appears without the addition even when it first gains
publicity. The author of the supplement explains in the
most formal and unequivocal manner that the beloved
disciple, mentioned immediately before (xxi. 20), has attested
and written down the facts which were related in the Gospel ;
while, at the same time, in the name of several, it ratifies the
truth of his testimony (xxi. 24). Thus the hypothesis is
categorically excluded, by means of which concession was

WITNESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO ITSELF. 95
being made to critical doubt as against our Gospel, and
which had otherwise much to recommend it, — that the Gospel
only bears the name of the Apostle John as far as it is
founded on the Johannine tradition. There is but one
alternative. Either we have here a refined forgery, which j
intentionally and by means of an unveracious witness claims j
for the Apostle John a writing of the second century, in
which case it is inconceivable how that unnamed number/ :
for the sake of whose understanding the author writes the
supplement, could assume that their testimony would have
any weight whatever with readers, or else we have actually
speaking here the Johannine circle in Ephesus, in which)
other followers of the Lord lived, and in which the facts
of the Gospel history were well enough known to give
attestation to a Gospel that in many points does not agree,-
with the older tradition. One member of this circle has in
its name added this closing word to the final chapter as it
was about to pass away from this circle to the Church,
which, of course, knew quite well from whose hands it
received it, and who those were who spoke here. Thus we i
have in it a witness to the origin of the Gospel as ancient
and reliable as we could ever wish to possess. So we under
stand how, within the circle of the presbyters of Asia Minor,
who had themselves known these witnesses, there reigned the
most indubitable certainty regarding the origin of this Gospel,
and how through it the apostolic origin of the Gospel was so
firmly established that an Irenseus who had himself much
intercourse with the members of this circle, and the other
Fathers at the end of the second century and beginning
of the third, who received the Gospel from that circle, were
so absolutely certain of the apostolic origin of the Gospel,!
that, in spite of the abuse of it by heretics, no doubt regarding!
it ever prevailed in the Church.
The pure Greek of the Gospel was at one time thought not/
likely to have been used by the fishermen of the Lake ofl
Gennesareth. No one doubts now that the lower classes
in Galilee, coming as they did into daily contact with the
Greek influence which surrounded them, and which had
already penetrated the peculiar people, may have had a
thorough knowledge of the Greek language. If John had

96 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
already lived for some score of years with Greek surroundings,
he must have attained a certain proficiency in the use of the
Greek tongue, and there is, in fact, through the Greek vesture
of this Gospel everywhere visible the style of a Pales
tinian. This non-periodic form of the sentence ; this simple
manner of connecting events, which makes no use, for the
explanation of their logical relations, of the rich store of
Greek particles ; this liking for antitheses and parallelisms ;
this circumstantiality of the narrative and poverty of language
in expression ; this entirely Hebrew collocation of words
show — more than individual violations of Greek idiom, although
these are not altogether awanting — that the Gospel, although
written in Greek, was thought out in Hebrew. The inclination
to introduce Aramaic expressions, the etymological explanation
of a Hebrew name (ix. 7), allow us plainly to recognise the
Palestinian, to whom even the primary text of the Holy
Scriptures seems, from some of his quotations, not to have
been wholly unknown. He shows himself everywhere
very accurately acquainted with the topography of Pales
tine. He knows the extent of the Lake of Tiberias (vi. 19),
and the distance of Bethany from Jerusalem (xi. 1 8) ;
he distinguishes expressly the insignificant Cana of Galilee
from another place of the same name, and knows that one
descends in going from there to Capernaum on the shore of
the lake (ii. 12, iv. 47). The locality in which Jacob's Well
is situated stands most vividly before his eyes, and he knows
the traditions which are connected with it ; he knows the
names of perfectly insignificant places ; he is thoroughly
acquainted with every spot in Jerusalem and the temple.
He mentions the names of the most unimportant Jewish feasts,
and measures time according to the Jewish reckoning ; he is
well acquainted with the ritual ceremony of circumcision and
the feast of the Passover, with the punishment of the bann of
the synagogue, with the domestic customs of the Jews at
marriage and burial ; he knows the time at which the restoration
of the temple by Herod was begun. He is acquainted with
the relations between Jews and Samaritans, the position of
the party of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim ; he gives the
relation of Annas to Caiaphas, and the limits which the re
served right of the Roman governor put to the power of the

PALESTINIAN CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 97
Sanhedrim. He distinguishes in the most accurate way the
mass of the Galilean pilgrims to the feast from the populace
of the capital ; he characterizes very strikingly the darkness
in the minds of the Jewish doctors ; he introduces us, as no
other of the evangelists does, to the manifold forms of the
Jewish expectation of the Messiah.
It has, indeed, been said that the way in which the author,
in the prologue to his Gospel, establishes a connection with I
Philo's doctrine of the Logos, argues at least an Alexandrian/
Jew and not a Palestinian. But when in this way it)
has been attempted to prove the spuriousness of the Gospel,
it is overlooked that this mode of reasoning revolves in a
circle. If, indeed, it has been demonstrated that the Gospel
does not originate with an eye-witness, that, in the speeches
of Christ, the author is only developing his own dogmatic
system, then it is a justifiable question to ask where he got
this system, and in that case the Alexandrian philosophy of
religion offers a convenient point of connection. But even
then one would expect that the essential peculiarity of Philo's
doctrine, more especially the dissipating of the Old Testament
idea of God by means of Hellenic philosophy, would be reflected
in our Gospel, while the very opposite is everywhere mani
fest. But if the author has obtained his conception of the
eternal and divine Being of Christ through the sayings of
Jesus and through the impression made by His life ; even if it
was first through the light which fell on His earthly life from
the contemplation of the exalted Christ, there is no ground
for regarding it as borrowed from Philo, and indeed there is \
no possibility of its being so. The question, whether he chose
to designate the eternal Being of Christ by "Word" in con
formity with a practice which had, through the Alexandrian
philosophy of religion, become current in Asia Minor, or
whether he formed it directly from the Old Testament or the
Palestinian Targums, is, then, relatively indifferent, and must
be decided by historical considerations, which are by no means
so favourable to the first hypothesis as is commonly thought.
[What the evangelist teaches regarding the Eternal Word is at
all events not shaped out of contemporary conceptions, but
/ is the result of his theological meditation, which sought and
found in the Old Testament the key to the explanation of
WEISS. — I. G

98 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
what he had perceived to be loftiest and unique in the life of
Jesus. In all this there is certainly no occasion for the raising
of a Johannine question. Criticism has torn to shreds the
external evidence for the Gospel. Baur would find no trace
of the Fourth Gospel before the last quarter of the second
century. His followers have gradually had to concede one
after another of the testimonies which he impugned ; all that
has been discovered since then, the Philosophoumena with
their ample quotations of John from the Gnostic writings, the
ending of the Clementines with the history of the man born
blind, the Syrian commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, has
positively refuted assertions of criticism long and obstinately
clung to. The last energetic opponent of the genuineness
of the Gospel has latterly been compelled, by the external
evidence, to push back the origination of the Gospel to
the second decade of the second century, and the obvious
impossibility of conceiving a forgery of the Gospel taking
place so soon after the death of the apostle, has made it
necessary for him to contest the tradition of the apostle's
residence at Ephesus, a position regarded as untenable hyper-
criticism by all prudent representatives of the Tubingen
school, ever since Liitzelberger first played this trump. Even
the most unfettered handling of the history of the Fourth
Gospel in the second century must lead to the admission that
it is not unfavourable to its authorship being apostolic. The
witness of the Gospel to itself is certainly, now here, now there,
contested ; but its disintegration makes shipwreck on the
simplest historical facts. The supposition that the Gospel, in
accordance with the direction of its tendency, subordinates
Peter, who in the synoptic Gospels is the uncontested head of
the apostolic circle, to the beloved disciple, and that this proves
it to be a forgery, rests upon a forced interpretation of per
fectly natural details, — such as, that Peter, through the instru
mentality of the disciple who lay on the breast of Jesus, asked
who it was whom He referred to as His betrayer, that it was
John who ushered him into the hall of the high priest, and as
the younger ran before him to the grave, all of Which have
self-evidently nothing to do with a primacy of Peter or of the
beloved disciple. A Gospel which represents Jesus as con-

THE JOHANNINE QUESTION. 99
ferring on Peter, at their first meeting, the name of " the man
of stone ; " which, more significantly than the Synoptics,
emphasizes the great confession of Peter ; which represents
him, along with John, as attaining at the open grave to
undoubting belief in the resurrection (xx. 8, 9), and in the
supplementary chapter expressly reinstates him into his office
of shepherd after his serious fall, which is related by the
Synoptists as well, — cannot certainly have the object of de
grading Peter. It comes then to this, that the testimony
of the Gospel to itself leaves us only the choice between a
refined forgery and a decisive attestation of its apostolic origin. I
In view of the numerous facts which indicate accurate
acquaintance on the part of the author with Palestinian
localities and circumstances, condemnation appears to be from
the very first passed upon the miserable attempts of criticism
to establish the existence of individual error and instances of
the confounding of one thing with another, which are shown
by the context itself to be impossible, or to father upon it
the idea that in Israel the office of high priest fell vacant
annually. That the Fourth Gospel is the work of a Palestinian,
would be certain even if we had no occasion to ascribe it to
the Apostle John.
The Johannine question is an outcome of the critical school
founded by Ferdinand Christian Baur; it is, moreover, the
vital question for the Tubingen school. We have not to do
here with new considerations brought forward by it, or new
grounds of doubt of the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel,
which, after it was first contested by Bretschneider (comp. p. 29),
seems to have taken firm root among all theological schools.
With this question there stands or falls the whole view of the
school as to the course of development of the apostolic and
post-apostolic age. The Tubingen school cannot, without break
ing with all its presuppositions, admit the genuineness of the
Johannine Gospel. It starts from this, that the first apostles,
fettered by legal and particularistic views, from the very begin
ning took up an attitude of hostility to the Apostle Paul,
who had been called at a later period, refused to recognise his
apostleship, turned aside, by their legal pretensions and their
attacks on his person, his Gentile-Christian churches, and in
opposition to his higher views held fast to the end their elemen-

100 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
tary conceptions of Christ's person and work. It was in the
second century that there began gradually to form, partly
from the Pauline side, partly from that of the primitive
apostles, an approximation between the two opposed ten
dencies, which, about the middle of the century, in the
common strife with the heretical Gnosticism, led to the unity
of the Catholic Church. In this case our Fourth Gospel,
which in its conceptions is far superior to the alleged con
tradictory views of the apostolic age, cannot originate with a
primitive apostle, but only with a Gentile Christian of the
second century, who was the originator or the representative
of the final complete reconciliation of all antagonisms in a
higher universalistic view. If John, at a later period of his
life, entered the Pauline field of operations in Asia Minor, he
can, according to the view of this school, only have done so
in order to reform in a Judaistic sense the work of the Apostle
Paul. This is attested by the Apocalypse at the end of the
sixth decade, which, with its severely legal and particularistic
tendency, gives documentary evidence of the hostile position
taken up towards Paul by the primitive apostles. Witness
also the contests as to the Passover in the second century,
in which the Judaizing tendency of the members of the
Church in Asia Minor led them to observe the feast of the
14th Nisan in conformity with the Jewish rite ; while the
Westerns opposed this, appealing to the Fourth Gospel, which
represented Christ, the true Paschal Lamb, as on the 14th
Nisan already dead, in order to render it for ever impossible
to bring it into connection with the Jewish Passover. The
spiritual elevation, indeed, the thoroughly apostolic character
of the Fourth Gospel, which has made it from antiquity the
Gospel beloved by the Church, the Tubingen school has no
desire to dispute ; it has given it very high praise, and cannot
place high enough its historical significance for ecclesiastical
development. How it came to pass that the author of this
[work, this greatest spirit of the second century, standing as
/he does head and shoulders above the figures which we recog
nise as belonging to that primitive time, has remained name
less and unknown, that he chose to father his profound
remodelling of the whole older record upon one among the
apostles so little mentioned in that record as John, with whose

THE APOSTLE JOHN AND THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL. 101
Apocalypse he must have been in the very highest degree out
of sympathy, the Tubingen school has hardly attempted, and <-
certainly cannot, explain.
That view of history taken by the Tubingen school is, ;
however, based on a misconception, often enough corrected,
of the Pauline Epistles. They certainly give token of a
severe struggle on the part of the apostle against a Jewish
Christian tendency in the Church, but expressly testify
regarding the first apostles, that they recognised, as being for
the Gentiles, his peculiar Gospel, freed as it was from the law,
and in taking his hand had made themselves one with him
by the bond of a common enterprise (Gal. ii.). In order thatf
this view may be carried through, it demands the establishing
of the spuriousness of most of the Pauline Epistles, and of j
all the other documents issuing from the circle of the first j
apostles, with the exception of the Apocalypse and documents
like the First Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of James, which,
rightly expounded in the light of their whole historical posi
tion, carry in themselves the seal of their genuineness ; it is
entirely without support from the older evangelical literature,
which, as we have seen and shall show in detail later on (see
chap, xi.), nowhere reveals any trace of that antagonism. No
doubt the Apostle John, like all the first apostles, held
fast for himself personally and for the believers in Israel to
the law of the Patriarchs, and down to the outbreak of the
Jewish revolutionary war was labouring for the conversion of
his people in order that they, as such, might participate in
the Messianic blessings. This, indeed, assumes that none of
the sayings of Jesus were known to him, which released Israel
from the obligation, undergone along with circumcision, to
fulfil the law, and which discarded the Holy Scriptures of the
Old Testament, and invalidated the position which Israel
occupied in the history of salvation. But the view that the \
Fourth Gospel represents an Antinomian and anti-Jewish I
standpoint, is in the clearest contradiction with very abundant j
facts. The evangelist everywhere sees in the appearance of
Christ the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, and refers,
hardly less fully than our first evangelist, to the express
explanations of Jesus, to the effect that Scripture in this
connection as the distinctive law could not be broken (John

102 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
x. 34 f.) ; He reprimands transgression of the law, and argues
on the assumption of the binding authority of circumcision
(vii. 19, 22); He goes up to the feasts at Jerusalem — this
is more frequently mentioned here than by the Synoptists ;
He cleanses the temple as being His Father's house (ii. 16, 17) ;
and along with the requirement of prayer in spirit and truth,
it is expressly stated that worship in Jerusalem is shut out
for the future and not for the present (iv. 21, 23). In direct
contradiction to these facts, criticism points out, as showing
that He did not acknowledge their law, certain passages in
which Jesus designated the law as their law in order to
combat them with their own highest authority. The evangelist
further designates Israel as the peculiar people of the Logos
(i. 11), and the Baptist openly acknowledges Him as the
Messiah for Israel (i. 31). Jesus is here represented as stating
that salvation comes from the Jews (iv. 22) ; as leaving
Samaria after a brief activity, and one which, as is expressly
stated, was not directly proposed by Him, and as looking for
His glorification in the heathen world first after His death
(xii. 23, 24). He is about to collect under the sway of
His shepherd's staff all the scattered children of God belong
ing to the Gentile world (x. 16 ; comp. xi. 52) ; but neither
is the transference of the kingdom from the Jews to the
Gentiles so expressly foretold as in the Synoptics, nor are the
apostles so expressly entrusted with the mission to the Gen
tiles. The Gospel, then, does not represent the position of
Jesus towards the law and towards His people in such a
way that it could not have originated with one of the first
apostles. ' That John in Asia Minor still celebrated the Jewish Pass-
, over, as 1 Cor. v. 7, 8 plainly shows that Paul still did, is
strongly attested and in itself probable, only, it is true, that a
Christian significance came very early to underlie the celebra
tion, which consisted essentially in a solemn participation in
the Lord's Supper after a preceding fast. This is in contra
diction with the Fourth Gospel only if this celebration rests
on the assertion that it was on the 14th Nisan that Jesus
kept His last Passover and instituted the Lord's Supper;
for, according to the latter Gospel, He held the last supper
with His disciples a day earlier, and died on the 14th

THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 103
Nisan. But the day of celebration was undoubtedly deter
mined by its correspondence with the Jewish festival, and
the modern view of its being a memorial of the historical
institution of the Lord's Supper is very far-fetched.
It is now acknowledged by several recent scholars, that the
meaning of the Christian Passover was originally a celebration
of the day of the death of Jesus, and it can therefore only
have proceeded from a tradition such as is contained in the
Fourth Gospel ; for, according to the representation of the
Synoptics, the 15 th Nisan was the first day on which Jesus
could have been crucified. That the Fourth Gospel has the
tendency to represent Jesus as the true Paschal Lamb, and
thus as the abrogation of the Jewish Passover, is, emphatically
as it is asserted by criticism, perfectly indemonstrable. For
the word of the Baptist regarding the Lamb of God which
bears the sins of the world (i. 29) certainly does not point
out Jesus as being the Paschal Lamb, and at the very least
it cannot be certainly demonstrated whether or not the
evangelist does so (xix. 36). But even if the Gospel has
this tendency, it would by no means be an indication that its
author was a supporter of the Western observance, but that
he reconciled it perfectly with the Eastern, if the latter were
intended directly as a celebration of the day of death, or if
there was seen in the Lord's Supper the Christian analogue
of the Jewish feast of Passover. In the last quarter of the
second century we see the defenders of the Eastern observance
freely employing the Fourth Gospel.
It was certainly an error for the older criticism to start
from the dilemma that either the Gospel or the Apocalypse,
but not both, could be referred to the Apostle John, and,
from predilection in favour of the former, to ascribe the latter
to another John. The Tubingen criticism was not wrong in
urging against it the fact that the Apocalypse, with its
glowing descriptions of the divine wrath and judgments, with
its fervent longing for the 'second coming of the Lord, with
its vivid pictures of the glory of the perfected kingdom of
God, answers quite manifestly to the picture in the older
evangelists of the intolerant son of thunder, who would have
had fire rained from heaven upon the Samaritan village
which did not receive the Lord, and who eagerly sought for

104 FTRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the place of honour on the right hand of the throne of
Messiah. That the Apocalypse is of earlier date than the
Gospel, has been directly attested by Justin, as well as by
the presbyters of Irenseus, who, regarding a reading in one
passage of it, were able to give him authentic information.
But the conception which the Tubingen criticism has formed
of the Apocalypse, as being a severely legal work, revelling
in sensuous particularistic Messianic hopes, and inspired by
hostility to Paul, is one thoroughly opposed to the letter and
spirit of the book. The Apocalypse knows of only one
Church of God, gathered out of all languages, peoples, and
tongues, and which is but a typical copy of that of the Old
Testament ; it nowhere imposes upon it the Jewish law, but
goes beyond Paul in urging on the whole Church abstinence
from meat offered to idols, which Paul called for only on
account of the circumstances of the weaker brethren. It still
hopes for a kingdom of Christ which is to exist on earth a
thousand years, but this kingdom bears no longer a national
Jewish character ; above it is lying the heavenly realization,
the bright pictures of which only describe the eternal life in
the perfected fellowship with God. It has no contest with
Paul, but with a Gentile-Christian Libertinism, and uses, in
regard to the Judaism which was unbelieving and hostile to
Christ, much stronger language than Paul does, calling it a
synagogue of Satan. The alleged fundamental antagonism
between the Apocalypse and the Gospel springs not only
from a one-sided misconception of the former, but also from
an equally one-sided spiritualizing conception of the latter,
by means of which the older criticism prepared the way for
that of Tubingen. That the Gospel no longer contemplates a
second coming of Christ, but substitutes for that a second
coming in the Spirit ; that in place of the general resurrection
and judgment at the last day, it puts the raising from the
dead and the judgment, which has already taken place through
the ministry of Jesus ; that it indicates in general an author
who has loosed the last links connecting Christianity in its
origin with the Old Testament Judaism, — these are assertions
which contradict the letter of the Fourth Gospel as well as
its spirit, especially when the Epistle, which is certainly
contemporary with the Gospel, is treated as a commentary on

FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN. 105
the latter. Along with this false view of the Gospel there
disappears the most important obstacle to its being regarded
as the work of the same author as the Apocalypse.
In comparing the two documents, it ought not to be
forgotten how entirely they differ in respect both of form
and contents. In the one are visions of the future ; in the
other, histories of the past : in the one, designed correspond
ence with the language of the Old Testament prophets, and
a form which was once the current one for the delineation
of such visions; in the other, an unfettered and confident
resting on sacred recollections which, after a generation, formed
the animating centre for the whole spiritual life of the author.
The one contains, after consolation and power to overcome in
the midst of overwhelming crises, an effort for himself and the
Christian community; the other, in the tranquillity of age,
has the sole object of making the brethren sharers in the
blessedness which the evangelist enjoyed in the contemplation
of the highest revelation of God. Certainly two such docu
ments offer few points of connection or comparison, and the
grounds must be very unreal by which it is sought to justify
the dilemma, that only the one or the other could originate with
an apostle. A straightforward critic, like the Church historian
Hase, has had the candour, we might almost say the courage,
to doubt the existence of this dilemma, up to this time
regarded as indisputable. The second step towards the
undermining of it was taken by no less a man than his
opponent Baur, against whom Hase directed his famous
letters on the Johannine question, in which he too declared
war against this hypothesis which Baur had borrowed from
his critical opponents, only turning it against the Gospels as
they turned it against the Apocalypse. Baur has shown how
many points of connection the two writings have in addition
to a common fundamental idea. The author of the Gospel and
of the Epistles is certainly not a disciple of love such as a
certain modern view regards John as being ; he is altogether
the son of thunder, who knows no mean between love and
hatred, truth and falsehood, light and darkness, between
children of God and children of the devil. It is, in short,
nothing else than the conflict of these irreconcilable contra
dictions, the contest between God and His adversary Satan,

106 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the commencement of which he indicates in the history of
Jesus, having beheld its last phases and victorious result in
the Apocalypse. Baur has called the Gospel the spiritualized
Apocalypse, and that is truly more accurate than, the effort
one of his followers is at present making to construct out of
it an anti-Apocalypse. For we have seen that here are no
antagonisms, although we do not wish to deny that there are
great differences between the two writings, which imply a
corrresponding diversity in the fundamental conceptions.
But we do deny that a John could not have experienced this
metamorphosis. In the midst of the terrible lightnings accompanying the
judgment of the year 70, which fell upon Jerusalem and
the Jewish people, was the Apocalypse written, and between
twenty and five-and-twenty years afterwards the Gospel. At
that time the apostle had exchanged his home in Palestine for
a residence with a Greek environment, Jewish-Christian circles
for Gentile- Christian, primitive apostolic for Pauline. Could
he have spent so long a period in such new surroundings
without experiencing a corresponding mental transformation ?
In his view also the divine judgment for the obduracy of his
nation was completed along with its political downfall. Wonder
has often been felt that he so frequently speaks of Jews in an
objective manner, when all the time he was a Jew himself.
But Paul has done that, and so have the first and second
evangelists, and these were all Jews. But there is a peculiarity
in the way in which he speaks of the Jews when he desires
to characterize the malignant opposition to Jesus; and it is
perfectly comprehensible how he should do this when the
historical fact was before his eyes that the Jews as a people
had, through unbelief, rejected their Messiah, and were on this
account rejected by God after these events had, certainly not
without a severe struggle on his part, cut him off from his
people. With the fall of the temple there was pronounced
the judgment of God upon the continuance of the Old Testa
ment law in its historical form; the time had arrived of
which Jesus spoke within sight of the hill of Gerizim ; it was
no longer possible to worship at Jerusalem. John spent
decades on Gentile-Christian ground, where the Christian
communities were, according to Paul's doctrine, made free

SOLUTION OF THE JOHANNINE QUESTION. 107
from the Jewish law, and where all that belonged to Jewish
customs could only be admitted in an entirely fresh Christian
form. No wonder that he speaks of the Jewish purification
and of the Jewish feasts with an objectivity which shows
that these things had become strange to himself and his
readers. He had once hoped to be allowed to sit on the right
hand of his Master in the glory of the Messianic kingdom.
Along with the fall of the Jewish state, there was buried for
ever every thought of the establishment of the kingdom of
God in the form of an Israelitish theocracy. The highest
place of honour, which in the fire of his youth he longed for,
he has found in his old age in the place which the love of
the Master once gave him on His breast. The hoped-for
blessedness of Messiah's kingdom, he has found in the faith
which even now lays hold on eternal life, in the blessed sinking
of self in the depths of God's revelation, which in Jesus is
becoming clearer to him the longer he lives, in that religious
mysticism which cannot rest till it finds repose in direct
personal communion with God in Christ. Yes, indeed, the
Gospel is the spiritual Apocalypse, but not because a spiritual
hero of the second century imitated the writer, but because
the son of thunder of the Apocalypse became, through the
training of the Spirit and divine guidance, refined and matured
into a mystic in whom the flames of youth had died down
into the glow of a holy love.
This is the simple solution of the Johannine question, so
far as it relates to the person of the apostle. But there is still
another side, and that is the peculiarity of this Gospel in
comparison with the older Gospels — the question regarding
its historicity. In the criticism of the Gospels on the side
of their trustworthiness and historicity will be found the
final solution of the Johannine question.

CHAPTER VII.
THE HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
WHEN one passes from the first three Gospels to the
Fourth, the impression given of transplantation into a
new world cannot be dispelled. Impressive sentences, full of
profound meditation on the eternal and temporal being and
activity of Christ, serve to introduce the work instead of the
genealogies and birth-histories of the first and third Gospels.
There is no word of the appearance of the Baptist and of
his popular activity as described by the older Gospels ; there
are instead new, significant words spoken before priests and
Levites, with whom formerly we have never seen him coming
into contact, or before his disciples, of whom we had heard
previously only once, and that incidentally. Jesus appears,
but there is no notice of His baptism and His temptation in
the wilderness ; He assembles followers at the Jordan, He
changes water into wine at the marriage-feast in Cana. We
meet here with new names of persons and of places. His
public "ministry begins, but the setting of it, as it was at first
fixed by Mark and preserved with modifications by those who
took his Gospel as the basis of their work, is totally neglected.
It is at a Passover in Jerusalem that Jesus for the first time
attracts to Himself the attention of the people ; He abides for
some months in Judea near the place where the Baptist was
carrying on His ministry. At last He journeys through
Samaria on His way back to the province where His home
was, and here we expect to see the evangelist fall into the
track of the older narrative. But scarcely is a single inci
dent of His ministry there communicated to us, when we
again see Jesus journeying up to Jerusalem for the feast ; and
so soon as He returns to Galilee we find Him at the summit
of the activity He exercised there, and the deciding die is
cast. Now follows the ministry in Jerusalem ; but while in
108

PECULIARITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 109
the older Gospels this embraces only the last Passover week,
here it extends over half a year ; it is interrupted by the visits
to Perea and to the province, and is occupied with perfectly
new incidents of His intercourse with the people, and with occa
sions of conflict and persecutions. We constantly meet with
new personages, localities, situations, and incidents. Now and
again there certainly do emerge reminiscences of events with
which we were made acquainted by the older tradition ; but
they appear in another light, with new surroundings, and with
modifications for the most part new. These points of contact
become more numerous the nearer we approach to the history
of the Passion ; but the new materials and the remodelling of
the old are seen all the more strikingly on the background of
an identical narrative. The anointing in Bethany, the prelude
in the older narratives to the history of the Passion, now
precedes that last entry into Jerusalem which here becomes a
ceremonious introduction. The last supper with the disciples
appears no longer as a festive Passover-feast, but as a Christian
love-feast ; instead of the institution of the Lord's Supper, the
evangelist relates the incident of the washing of feet ; instead
of the last prophecies regarding the fall of Judea, he introduces
long farewell speeches and conversations. We find ourselves
in Gethsemane, but there is no mention of the last severe
conflicts of Jesus ; we see Him standing before the high
priests, but nothing is said of the official sentence of the
Sanhedrim. The proceedings before Pilate are detailed in
scenes which constantly undergo fresh changes. Even from
the cross we do not hear the well-known words of Jesus;
regarding the death and burial, new details are furnished, new
figures present themselves ; at the open grave new incidents
are met with, and new appearances of the Risen One form
the conclusion.
It is by no means merely the narratives of the Gospel
which strike us as strange ; the very speech of Jesus appears
transformed. It proceeds no longer in the popular form of
Eastern sententious wisdom ; there are no longer those series of
sayings which are connected together like a string of pearls,
every pearl by itself, and only joined together by a thought
common to all ; there are long developed speeches full of
profound irltimations, and not seldom extending to abstract

110 FTRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
discussions ; there are long conversations, full, not of short,
telling answers, but of obscure enigmas, the misunderstandmg
of which often only provokes to new paradoxes, and full of
dialectical terms which tend' more to make one marvel at the
acumen of the disputants than hope for any advance in com
prehension. There is no lack of pictures, but they are not
the pithy, plastic word pictures of the older Gospels ; there
is a perspicuous symbolical language which always returns
again to certain favourite figures. That which was most
characteristic of Christ's mode of teaching — the circumstantial
parable narrative — has altogether vanished ; where the form
of parable remains, it is extended to an allegory in an often
wonderful mixture of picture and interpretation. The short,
striking gnomes of the older tradition are not entirely omitted,
but they stand in new sets of connections, and have a new
application and significance. Certainly the varying of the
situations explains much of the variation in the mode of
teaching. All that great field of the activity of Jesus in
Galilee as teacher of the people, which fills so large a part
of the older Gospels, is here scarcely touched ; attention is
mainly given to contests with the people, and particularly
with their leaders. But the older tradition is also cognizant
of the scenes of conflict with the latter, and both contain
speeches to the disciples, although in the Gospel of John
these are mainly grouped round the history of the last supper.
Still more striking is the difference in the contents of the
speeches. The central point of the older Gospels is formed
by the tidings of the kingdom of God, the discussion of its
foundation and development, the conditions of participation in
/it. The preaching of the righteousness of the kingdom of God
and its relation to the law, what it says regarding earthly dis
positions and striving after the kingdom of God ; the exhorta
tions to repentance growing ever stronger, and the preaching
of the forgiveness of sins, the warnings of the danger of riches,
and directions as to the right use of them; the exhortations
to humility and self-denial, to forgiveness and compassionate
love, which bore on every relation of active life ; the vivid
limning of all the classes among the people, of Pharisees and
Sadducees, of the prevailing practice of virtue and of the
calumnies of opponents ; the prophecies regarding the fate of

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND CRITICISM. Ill
Jerusalem and the temple, the rejection of Israel and the
calling of the Gentiles, the signs of the last days and the
end of the world, — all these form what is most striking in
the speeches of these older Gospels. But in the speeches
of Christ, in the Gospel of John, there is nothing of all
these, or as good as nothing. This Person and the salvation
which He brings, temporal as well as eternal, is their one
great theme.
This wonderful individuality of the Gospel, which distin
guishes it from the older Gospels, is the innermost core of j1,'
the Johannine question. It is this which has ever won
the hearts of believers. The new world into which it
transfers us is a higher, more ideal one ; the variegated
details of the ministry, the popular and historical colouring
of this life, seem to vanish, we gaze into new depths of the
revelation of God which open up to us, we breathe the air of
a higher life which rests only on the eternal and unchangeable,
and even the pictures of contest and death are glorified by
new victories and triumphs. The old Alexandrian Fathers
called it, indeed, the spiritual Gospel; to them its indi
viduality was only the natural supplement of the older
delineation. The dogmatic age, which entirely lacked the
historical sense, had no perception of that difference ; it had
regard to the narratives and speeches of the older Gospels
and of John only in so far as they supplied it with proof texts
or dicta prdbantia for doctrine ; and the latter Gospel was
more acceptable as it appeared to supply these in richer
measure. Its harmonists had no difficulty in adjusting the
synoptic materials to the Johannine, and the Johannine
materials to the plan of the Synoptics ; where a variation
made its appearance, it was explained as being the description
of quite a different event. It found no stumbling-block in
any peculiarity in the speeches of Christ, for their literal
accuracy had been established a priori, and nothing was
farther from the whole school than to reflect upon the human
form of the word of God spoken by Jesus. When criticism
pitilessly rent the veil which this naive method of treatment
had thrown over the Johannine problem, there seemed to
be nothing left, except to take up one of two sides in the suit
of John versus the Synoptists. We have already seen how

112 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the first attempt of Bretschneider to contest the apostolicity
of the Fourth Gospel ended in a brilliant triumph of the
Gospel of John. It continued to be the favourite Gospel of the
school of Schleiermacher, and there was an inclination to give
it at once the advantage in the contest with the Synoptists.
It was clear that this ought not to be done but with great
hesitation. The synoptic Gospels represent a tradition from
twenty to thirty years older, their local and historical colouring
speaks for their historical trustworthiness, and it was undoubted
that, whether m a narrower or in a wider sense, they were
connected with the tradition of eye-witnesses. The Johannine
question, then, only required to be opened up afresh and in
vestigated with more searching criticism, and the cause of the
Fourth Gospel was apparently lost.
This step was taken by the Tubingen school. Baur placed
in the foreground, not the question as to the author, but
that as to historical credibility. Instead of starting from
the highest value to be set on the spiritual, ideal, and dog
matic contents of the Fourth Gospel, he changed the question
to one as to whether a document which so manifestly followed
a purely didactic purpose could be a historical work, in our
sense of the term, or whether, indeed, it professed to be this.
He came to the conclusion that it concerns itself solely
with a remodelling and reconstruction of the synoptic tradi
tion in accordance with new dogmatic points of view, that
often enough the synoptic materials are disfigured beyond
recognition, that they are often enriched with materials re
cently drawn up in accordance with ideal standpoints, that the
so-called speeches of Christ in the Gospel are really nothing
else than expositions of the dogmatic system of the author.
There was no call for a historical estimate of the Gospel,— of
such there could henceforth be no mention, — but there was a
call for an understanding of the evangelist's composition, ideas,
object, and method. It must be acknowledged that in many
respects Baur saw deeper into the peculiar character of the
Gospel than the exegesis which had hitherto prevailed ; that
he went farther towards the comprehension of it than the
older view, which, in the most naive way, regarded and handled
it as a simple biography, and believed that it understood
the construction when portioning it off in accordance with

THE HYPOTHESIS OF A PURELY IDEAL COMPOSITION. 113
chronological and geographical points of sight. It is also
clear that his conception of the Gospel was affected by the
colourlessness of the modern philosophical construction. But
the newer apologetic did not act wisely when it thought to
overcome his view by the discovery of these errors, an achieve
ment of no great difficulty. His followers have long retained
his fundamental conception while modifying the first form of
its expression, which certainly presented not a few weak
points. It was still more unwise for apologetics to accept
Baur's idea of an ideal composition, and carry it through
with a still more refined artificiality, although from new
standpoints, and these also more biblical than philosophical ;
while holding fast all the time, with indomitable credulity, to
apostolic origin and literal historicity. A history, however,
which in its plan and its carrying out into details is but the
expression of a profound thought, is no real history, but an
intellectual fancy picture, which might well be constructed by
a Gentile Christian in the middle of the second century, but
could not be elaborated by any apostle from the history of his
Master. Indeed, the precision and clearness with which the
Tubingen school put the decisive question was the only way
really to solve it. If our Gospel is an ideal composition
drawn up from synoptic materials and new accretions, in
accordance with exclusively didactic points of view, it cannot
originate with the apostle ; if it is proved that its resources
are formed by independent historical reminiscences by which,
through it, the whole older tradition is at one time supple
mented, at another corrected, it must originate with an eye
witness ; and according to its own witness to itself, as well as
according to the testimony of tradition, this eye-witness can
only be the Apostle John.
It is evident that the author knows the older evangelical
tradition which .long before had gained in the Church a fixed
form and universal acceptance. That he was acquainted with
our written Gospels is at least highly probable, and is now
admitted by the opposing schools of criticism and apologetics,
although it is only with the Gospel of Mark that direct
literary points of connection can be shown to exist. He
assumes that the facts of the Gospel history are, as a whole,
known to his readers ; he does not begin by informing them of
WEISS. — L H

114 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
these, he proceeds upon them, or represents Jesus as proceed
ing upon them, without having to recount them ; and many
of his remarks are intelligible only when considered in rela
tion to the form of the older tradition. It is certainly
only with full consciousness and intention that he ever
deviates from it. An attempt has, with a certain justifica
tion, been made to prove that, here and there, the motifs of
these deviations lie in actual or supposititious thoughts and
tendencies of the evangelist ; but all the genius of the critics
has not succeeded in making even a little bit of this tolerably
intelligible, even when there was provisionally granted the
validity of that especially favourite category of a growth of
the marvellous, which we shall have to examine in another
place, and which has often been abused in a way that borders
on the comic. This holds good of the new materials of the
Gospel, which from their abundance, and the peculiarities
which they manifest, must necessarily have remodelled the
traditional form of the events or circumstances with which
they were in connection. If one or another may be admitted
to be an explanation in form of a thought of the evangelist,
the majority offer a most stubborn opposition to any such
•explanation, because for them it is quite meaningless, often
^rather it appears to stand in contradiction with them. It is
'no less an authority than Renan, who has pointed out to
modern German criticism, and proved not without acumen,
that it is impossible to resolve all these materials into ideal
formations, and construct them out of the ideas of the evangelist.
Think of the parts played by Philip and Andrew in the story
of the feeding of the multitude, by Mary and Judas in that
of the anointing, by Peter and Malchus in the taking of Jesus
-prisoner. The higher and more ideal the points of view of
the evangelist are thought to be, the less can it be understood
where, in the circles to which he belonged, this abundance of
new names, of new localities, not connected with the synoptic
tradition or otherwise of any importance, this enumeration of
days and accuracy as to hours can have been attained. People
can say what they choose against its trustworthiness, but no
wit of the critics will succeed in bringing into harmony with
the ideas which dominate the Gospel, details like the whip of
cords at the cleansing of the temple, the little boy with the

HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF MATERIALS FOR NARRATIVE. 115
loaves in the history of the feeding of the people, the torches
and lamps at the taking of Jesus prisoner, the coat without
seam in the partition of the garments at the foot of the cross.
It is not seldom the case that, in places where a " tendency "
has been supposed to modify the synoptic materials, the
original form of it would have been amply consistent with the
design of the evangelist ; and this modification is all the less
comprehensible because the author, through such wilful
deviations from what was known and traditional, must have
brought his changes into suspicion, and thrown the Christian
community out of sympathy with him. -f
Every isolated point, however, which does not lend itself to
the view of the Tubingen school is fatal to the whole hypo
thesis. A narrator who is engaged on an interesting narrative
can ornament his picture with new details, can enliven it by
the invention of names and persons, by determinations of place
and time, by vivid descriptions of various situations. But our
evangelist, who is remodelling the older tradition in accordance
with higher ideas, can only deviate from or enrich it with new
details either when this serves his " tendency," or when the
immediate recollection of the events makes these deviations
necessary for him, and the introduction of these details
involuntary. But here it is not a question merely as to
particulars. The main thing is, that the whole picture of the
life of Jesus is, in John, fashioned in quite another way than
in the Synoptists. It may be conceded to criticism, although
to us it has proved thoroughly impracticable, that the evangelist
was interested in antedating the calling of the disciples or
the conflicts of Jesus with the hierarchy. But it is impossible
to explain in this way how he came to place those incidents
at the Jordan before the period of His public activity, — inci
dents which, besides particular portions full of significance for his
conception of Christ, contained also not a little which, to say the
least, had nothing to do with that. It is inexplicable, too, how he
came to ascribe to Jesus journeys to the feasts, which run directly
counter to the critical conception of the standpoint of the author,
or to preface His public activity in Galilee with a baptismal
ministry of a month's duration in Judea, which, from the
standpoint of his higher conception of Jesus, is very difficult to
understand, and which was mainly employed by him in order

116 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
to afford opportunity for a testimony from the Baptist, while
the fundamental thoughts which were essential to him had
nothing to do with this opportunity. It may be said that he
required new scenery for his newly-formed material, and thus
transferred to Jerusalem a large part of the activity of Jesus,
in which He engaged in conflicts with the people and opponents.
But if it were credence for this which he hoped to gain,
surely it was quite the same, or would have facilitated his
intention, to enter them in the existent framework of the
Galilean ministry where opponents to Jesus had not been
wanting, especially as he gives no occasion for identifying with
these opponents only the hierarchy in Jerusalem. In con
junction with criticism, it may be accepted that, in order to
represent Jesus, as the true Paschal Lamb, he was obliged
to fix His death on the 14th Nisan, even although this
" tendency " and its consequence cannot easily be demon
strated; also, that it occurred to him to roll the guilt of
Jesus' death from Pilate on to the Jews, though this had
already been distinctly done by the Synoptists. But that,
in addition, he substituted for the institution of the Lord's
Supper, the washing of feet ; or for the condemnation by the
council, the fruitless proceedings before Annas; that he invented
the proceedings before Pilate, which are often scarcely intelli
gible ; or the story of the spear-thrust, — these are suppositions
the worthlessness of which is apparent. Under the general
form of the life of Jesus, as of its details, we strike against
,the hard rock of historical recollection, which offers insuperable
opposition to the disintegrating process of criticism which
would resolve it into ideal formations.
It is the representation of the life of Jesus Himself which
can first bring forward proof that, in almost every place where
actual differences between John and the Synoptists fall to he
dealt with, the representation of the first has every historical
probability in its favour ; that in the most striking differences,
such as the chronological extent of the public activity of
Jesus, the repeated visits to the feasts, the early date of the
last supper, undesigned indications in the synoptic tradition
itself establish the statements of John; that, finally, it is
not seldom through the adjustments and the peculiar con
tributions of our Gospel that the events related by the

JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE OLDER TRADITION. 117
older Gospels, and their connection with each other, first
become intelligible to us. It has often been objected to
the representation given in our Gospel, that there is a lack
of any historical development in it, that everything is from
the first complete and settled, the evangelist at the end
employing artificial means to bring forward the final cata
strophe, that a " leaden monotony " pervades his narrative.
But how little the evangelist thought of representing Jesus as
proclaiming Himself directly and without reserve as the
Messiah, is shown by the simple fact that He was, towards the
end, urged by the Jews to make at least an open declaration
regarding His Messiahship (x. 24). In truth, it is only certain,
false views of the inner development of Jesus and the external
course of His history, formed on the basis of the synoptic ¦
Gospels or imported into them, which are excluded by the
Gospel of John. On the other hand, his representation is not
only not lacking in historical movement and development, but
it is the first that places in our hands the means for clearly
establishing the pragmatic connection of the events recorded
in the Synoptics, and for comprehending the profoundest
motif in the course of development of Jesus' public activity,
especially the crisis in Galilee and the final catastrophe in
Jerusalem. This can remain unacknowledged only so long as there is
believed to be among the older Gospels one directly apostolic.
Even now a critic like Keim, when treating of the historical
depreciation of the Fourth Gospel, is found appealing with
great pathos to the fact that all the three older Gospels do
here and there bear witness against it. But we know that
these are not three independent witnesses ; that, especially as
concerns the whole historical structure of the life of Jesus, and
the whole conception of its historical movement and develop-
ment, the representation of the first and third Gospels is
exclusively dependent on Mark, who was not an eye-witness,
and whose first attempt to put together a connected full-length
picture of the life of Jesus out of the isolated aphoristic
reminiscences which lived in his memory, could not succeed
in being free from flaws and mistakes. Only on the supposi
tion of a miracle of inspiration in the strictest sense, would it
be conceivable that the memoranda of an eye-witness could

118 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
find nothing here to supplement or correct, as our evangelist
not seldom intentionally does (comp. e.g. iii. 24). There is
also connected with the history of the older Gospels the fact
that their basis is always formed by the circle of narratives
and speeches which, as being especially significant for the
Church, were most often repeated in the apostolic circle in
Jerusalem, and so attained to a permanent form ; for it was
substantially this material which afterwards was fixed in
writing in the oldest GospeL We saw how very considerably
this circle of tradition could be enlarged by Mark from recol
lections of what was imparted by Peter, how much of what
was new both in contents and form Luke introduced from his
sources. It would only be the decisive proof that our Gospel
could not have originated with an eye-witness, if it were not
able to contribute an abundance of perfectly new materials
from the recollection of the author himself. In the repre
sentation of individual events, it is the narrative of the oldest
source which mainly lies at the foundation of the version of
the Synoptics, which is plainly so much of an outline, and
often of so inaccurate a character, that it can well afford to be
supplemented and corrected by means of a second eye-witness;
and even the vivid narratives of Mark are only fashioned out
of reminiscences of what was imparted by an eye-witness, and
may thus be mistaken as to particulars. If, however, we
found points of connection between the Johannine circle of
tradition and Luke, on the basis of the oral or written sources
peculiarly belonging to the latter, that would only be a proof
that there is here no compilation by a later writer, but
reminiscences which had gained currency before their fixation
in our Gospel, and had become operative in the more restricted
circles. All this does not preclude the possibility of the
recollections of an eye-witness becoming colourless from the
distance in time at which he wrote, and being influenced by
the new points of view from which he treated these events.
Even if the representation of the Fourth Gospel should require
an amplification or correction by means of the older tradition,
that would prove nothing against its originating with an eye
witness (comp. in chap. viii.).
It is otherwise in the case of the speeches of the Fourth
GospeL The assertion that the speeches of Christ in this

THE SPEECHES OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 119
Gospel are only an exposition of the doctrine of the Logos held
by the evangelist, is based on a perfectly arbitrary interpretation
of them, and an attempt at justification has never been made
by carrying it out to particulars, for it would be hopelessly
shipwrecked on a thorough handling of details. Indeed, the
clearness with which the evangelist states, in his Prologue, the
doctrine peculiar to himself, and the certitude with which we
can educe still more exactly the same doctrine from the con
temporary Epistles, make it plain that he in no way introduced
actual portions of this into the speeches of Christ. The
attempt is never made to give to the idea of the Logos, as it
is formulated in the Prologue, illustration from the words of
Jesus, for the word of God or of Christ is always spoken of
there in quite another sense : there is nowhere found in them
any explanation of what is said in the Prologue regarding the
prehistoric activity of the Eternal Word. Indeed, an adjust
ment with the views of the Prologue appears necessary, rather
than a deduction from them, when we find the thoroughly
human consciousness of Jesus made so distinctly prominent,
according to which He receives everything from His Father
through prayer, — His ordinary care as well as His miraculous
assistance, His intimations as well as the revelation of His
decrees, the success of His activity as well as the working out
of His destiny, — because He loved the Father and was loved
by Him, because He obeys Him and ,is rewarded by Him
(comp. chap. xi.). The fully-developed view of the significance
for salvation of the death of Christ, the specifically Johannine
view of the being born of God, the doctrine of Antichrist and
of the form in which he was to appear, which are given such
distinct expression to in the Epistle, are not found in the
speeches of Christ. On the other hand, other conceptions,
such as being born of water and of the Spirit, praying in
spirit and truth, the designating Christ as the Son of man,
and the activity of. the Spirit as Paraclete, which are found
nowhere else among the views held by the apostles, and thus
can only be referred to reminiscences peculiar to the author,
— in short, a large part of the symbolical language which
pervades the speeches of Christ, cannot be found either in the
Epistle or in the Prologue. And besides, many of the sayings
preserved by John bear the indubitable stamp of originality.

120 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
Much that is striking in individual turns of the speeches
and conversations, apparently given without sufficient ful
ness, is only explicable by the dependence of the author
upon definite reminiscences. His express separation between
the apostolic interpretation and the actual foundation of
many sayings, can only be referred to a refined practice of
deception, unless there is seen in it the final striking proof
that the author distinguishes the historical sayings of Christ in
a most definite way from his own ideas which have developed
themselves out of these, and that his speeches of Christ are
not mere fictions for the better development of his dogmatic
system. The newest phase of Johannine criticism, which abandons
the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel, and only holds fast
its derivation from Johannine traditions, has attempted to
prove that, under the veil of an unique mode of expression
and teaching which has been spread over his version of the
speeches of Christ, are hidden everywhere the conceptions and
thoughts, the word-pictures and modes of instruction of the
Christ of the Synoptists. This observation must be much
further followed up. It is of course opposed to the prevailing
and dogmatically-asserted view of our Gospel, which hardly
considers it worth looking at. But the more that the attempt
is made to present the speeches and conversations in a really
historical light, the more are we compelled to distinguish
between the historical groundwork and the Johannine repre
sentation, which, just because it has a purely didactic aim,
must necessarily have its historical colouring so far obliterated
in order to place in a clearer light what of abiding significance
it possessed. When this is emphasized, the distinction between
the synoptical and the Johannine speeches of Christ frequently
vanishes. Indeed, when the most recent criticism, especially
as represented by Weizsacker, proceeded to point out in the
Fourth Gospel redactions of whole series of sayings and speeches
in the Synoptics, that was just as fatal to the historicity of the
Gospel as the assertion that its version of the speeches of
Christ is a dogmatic elaboration by the evangelist. If so,
the Gospel could not have originated with an apostle ; and
further, it could no longer, as the critic himself would have
it, be referred to the Johannine traditions. It is manifestly

JOHANNINE REDACTION OF THE SPEECHES OF CHRIST. 121
inconceivable that the reminiscences of an eye-witness should
not have gone beyond the series of addresses which, in the
oldest form of the tradition current in Jerusalem, had become
the favourite, and which, in consequence of the circumstances
in which our older Gospels originated, remained the basis of
all their tradition as to the speeches of Jesus. For a pupil
of the apostle cannot have been confined essentially to the
speeches contained in these Gospels, and cannot but have set
himself to make additions to them. What criticism has-
actually proved is, in fact, nothing else than that the type of
the discourses and teaching of Christ, as deduced with ample
clearness from the specifically Johannine version, is in form
and contents essentially that of the Synoptics.
Without some such separation of the historical groundwork
from the Johannine mode of conceiving and delineating, one
will not be just to the existing facts of the Fourth Gospel, and
the enigmas afforded by the comparison of the speeches of
Christ given there with those of the synoptic version, and in
which the negative criticism is continually finding its points for
attack, can never be solved. It is an incontestable fact, that
in the proportion in which the Johannine speeches of Christ
deviate from the synoptic, they display the type of doctrine
and language found in the Prologue and the Epistle of John.
The favourite expedient of declaring that John formed his
doctrinal language after that of his Master, is wrecked on the
fact that this very type appears imprinted on the words of
the Baptist given by the Fourth Gospel, and even occasionally
on isolated expressions of other persons who are introduced,
and it depreciates the credibility of our very oldest and best
attested tradition of the words of the Lord, which even
without this bears, in form and contents, the most indubitable
of all marks of historical truth. How little, for his speeches
of Christ, the evangelist himself lays claim to a literal
authenticity, is shown by the indisputable fact that he
repeatedly points back to expressions of Jesus, which as
given in the earlier document had the same purport, but were
not uttered by Jesus in the form given here ; that he passes
directly from the speech of Jesus to an explanation of his own
of its concluding words (iiL 19 f.); and that he gathers a
series of the sayings of Jesus into a connected discussion of a

122 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
definite subject (xii. 44 f.), although his own representation
makes it abundantly clear that in its present form this was
not a speech of Jesus, but was only a carrying out of his own
way of dealing with the words of Jesus (xii. 37-43). The
possibility of both of these depends upon whether he was
conscious that this was only a free reproduction of the
speeches of Jesus, i.e. that they were in form and matter not
without an admixture of explanation and interpretation by the
evangelist himself. Unless regard be paid to this, every
attempt to establish their literal authenticity would be
perfectly hopeless. Apart from the fact that the evangelist
wrote in Greek for Greeks, while Jesus spoke Aramaic, there
would be, at this distance of time, no possibility of knowing,
in regard to every isolated statement of Jesus, when, where,
and in what connection He made it more than sixty years
before ; of reproducing a long speech in its entire connection ;
or of so reproducing the particular discussions recorded by our
evangelist, that no word and no turn of the conversation
should be lost. There is no help given here by the expedient
of suggesting that John from an early period had repeated
these speeches and conversations, and had heard them so often
repeated by others, that even at an advanced age he recol
lected them with the greatest accuracy. If this were so, then
much of it must have been transferred to the older tradition,
unless we are to bring against it the severe reproach that it
heedlessly permitted such valuable material to be lost. It
can only have happened thus, that John, when he set to work
to compose his Gospel, collected anew the materials of his
rich reminiscences of the speeches and conversations of Jesus,
and tried to reproduce them in lifelike pictures, — a course
which must have involved considerable insertion and amplifi
cation from his own conjectures. Thus, doubtless, are to be
explained the sharp turns which are real, and do not arise
merely from inaccurate or partial exegesis, and which occur
here and there in the course of these speeches and conversa
tions. Many also of the misconceptions, ostensibly so incom
prehensible, which, according to criticism, are invented only
in order to elevate the wisdom of Jesus by contrast with
human folly, or artificially to spin out impossible proceedings,
may be explained by this, that they are only the model on

John's treatment of the speeches of christ. 123
which to fashion the further development of the thoughts of
Jesus, although it is notorious that none of these misconcep
tions is so grave as that well-known misconception of the
disciples in the Synoptists (Mark viii. 16). That there is
no indication of the place where omissions have occurred,
where relevant portions are awanting, e.g. the place in the
speeches of Jesus at the last supper, where the institution
of the Lord's Supper should be inserted, which to this day
has been vainly sought for, gives adequate proof that even in
cases where certain main features or characteristic turns of the
conversations and speeches were present to the evangelist, he
tried to reconstruct them into a new and connected whole.
It is not only quantitative difference that we are concerned
with here. Apart from the fact that the gnomic sayings of
Jesus, as soon as they were brought together in any other
than their original connection, must have been necessarily
modified in some way in their handling and interpretation, it
has never been the tendency of the evangelical tradition to
fix the sayings of Jesus in their verbal expression, but to
explain the thoughts contained in them, to illustrate them,
and to urge them with emphasis upon the readers (see further
in chap. viii.). The less that John thought of this, but only I
of writing down what, though not in a definite form of words,
was in his memory, the more was he at liberty to give the
freest scope to the play of the didactic purpose in the pro
duction of his Speeches of Christ, the more free was he to go
on with the interpretation and elucidation of particular sayings
and word-pictures, and the allegorical filling up and applica
tion of the parables. Not unjustly has it been remarked, that
the personal witness took up a position of greater freedom
towards the speeches of his Master than did any one else.
He was aware that he had gained from Christ whatever was
best in his new spiritual life ; that the rjpest fruit which it
bore sprang only from germs which the Lord had planted, and
had not arisen in the manner of a natural development, in
which it is so easy to confound what is one's own with what
belongs to others, or right with wrong. For the Spirit who,
according to the promise of the Lord, would bring to the
remembrance of the disciples all things which He had said to
them (xiv. 26), would lead them at the same time into all

124 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
truth, and teach them much which the Lord, for reasons
afforded by the method of their instruction, could not yet
teach them, though drawing only from stores which Jesus
already possessed (xvi. 12-14). The question does not arise
here as to whether these sayings of Jesus were handed down
with literal precision ; they express, at all events, the con
sciousness of the apostle as to the relation which, in accord
ance with the intention and will of Jesus, existed between
what the Spirit had taught them and what they had ob
tained directly from the lips of Jesus. Having such a
consciousness, the apostle would not hesitate to reproduce
freely and elucidate the words of Jesus in the way in
which the Spirit had taught him to understand their deepest
meaning. Even when he reproduced the speeches and con
versations with the greatest freedom, he could have no fear
lest he should mistake the meaning of his Master; on the
contrary, he could explain them to his readers with all the'
greater fulness, and make the impression they produced all
the deeper, the more that he reproduced them in the form
in which, under the guidance of the Spirit, they had become
living in himself.
From this didactic purpose of the Gospel can also be
explained the choice which the evangelist makes from the
rich stores of his reminiscences for communication to us. He
desires to establish faith in Jesus, no longer, indeed, in the
original sense of His Messiahship, but in the sense in which
he had learned to conceive of it as the destination of the Son
of God, to be to believers the vehicle of the highest blessed
ness even in the present, through the beholding of the
perfected revelation of God in Him (xx. 31). This explains
the fact — called by some the monotony of these speeches —
that they always turn on the person of Christ, on the
salvation which He brings, and on faith in Him, with its
fruits and consequences. It is certainly a complete under
estimation of the speeches of Christ in the Synoptics, when
they are imagined to be essentially sermons which preach
only morality. They, too, turn essentially on the person of
Jesus and on the salvation which He brings ; but apart from
the colouring given to these speeches by their concrete
historical relations, their main theme is the salvation which,

FORM AND CONTENTS OF JOHANNINE SPEECHES OF CHRIST. 125
in the form of the kingdom of God, He desires to bring
to the whole people. Here, on the other hand, the
special subject of concern is the salvation of the indi
vidual, which he finds immediately in faith in the person
of Christ ; and if it often occurs that speeches which plainly
treated originally of the former are interpreted in terms of
and applied to the latter, it is at the same time true that
Jesus, in His historical life, had frequently occasion to
speak of His person and of faith in it, of the conditions of
and hindrances to the rise of this faith. If, then, in accord
ance with his doctrinal purpose, John has mainly reproduced
speeches of this kind, it necessarily follows that the impression
made, both by the contents and the form of the Johannine
speeches of Christ, will be totally different from that made by
the synoptic version. In His more especial addresses to the
people, such as form the largely preponderating part of the
contents of the older Gospels, but are awanting in John,
Jesus had good grounds, as we shall see, for drawing attention
away from His person, and for directing it to the subject with
which He was concerned. In the speeches on occasions of
conflict, recorded by the Synoptists, He deals with the sins
and perversity of the dominant parties, and addresses Himself
to the meeting of special attacks and calumnies ; even in the
speeches to the disciples, in the older tradition,' there is con
tained mainly what of reprimand or exhortation was necessary
for the practical life of the community of believers. When
ever John substantially communicates such speeches as were
v made in conflict with the people or the opponents of Jesus,
and which turn on the question of belief or unbelief in Him ;
whenever he strongly prefers to bring before us those pro
found instructions given to the disciples through which Jesus
sought to grapple His own ones ever more and more closely
to His person, it lies in the nature of the case that these
speeches and conversations must not only differ from those
of the Synoptics in contents, but that discussions of this kind
must also, in their form, bear quite another character than
His addresses to the people and announcements of punish
ment, than His parenetic and prophetic utterances.
We have thus amply touched upon the main point dealt
with here, the specific aim which stamps with its own

126 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
character the Fourth Gospel. A book beginning with
a profound theological contemplation (i. 1-18), containing
another at its culminating point (xii. 37-50), and at the end
expressly stating that it has made a selection from a great
abundance of material in order to write them down in accord
ance with a definite didactic purpose (xx. 30, 31), — such a
book is not a biography in our sense of the word, and not one
in the sense in which the three older Gospels are such,
although even in these the biographical aim is subordinated
to the didactic. How, then, at the end of the century, when
the older Gospels, and probably others, had long been in
circulation ; when the evangelical tradition is, in our Gospel,
expressly assumed as being known, — could the Apostle John
\ have desired to relate the history of Jesus ? It has been
''thought that he wished to supplement the older Gospels ; but
apart from the fact that the superficiality of this point of
view is incompatible with the whole character of the Gospel,
it has still too much in common with the older Gospels for
this to be the case ; it would be an unnecessary repetition,
and would be far from sufficing to connect and to place in a
right relation what was added as a supplement with what was
, known. That the Gospel affords us a real enlargement of our
knowledge of the history of Jesus, does not prove that this
was the intention of the evangelist ; on the contrary, criticism,
and by no means the most recent criticism, frequently
expounds his relation to the older evangelists in such a way
as to show that the evangelist has, by his silence, thrust aside
everything which he does not relate, and desired to designate
it as unhistorical, or as no longer compatible with his higher.
view of Christ. But the simple fact that nowhere in the
second century does belief in the historical value of the older
Gospels seem to have suffered from the acknowledgment of
the Gospel of John, shows how foreign to the spirit of the age
was any such purpose which never obtained accomplishment.
If these ostensibly silenced portions of the older tradition
include the history of the institution of the Lord's Supper,
which, according to 1 Cor. xi., was repeated in the Pauline
churches of Asia Minor at each celebration of the Supper, or
portions such as the casting out of demons, the speeches
against the Pharisees, the prophecies regarding the fate of

COMPOSITION OF JOHN'S GOSTEL. 127
Jerusalem and Judea, it is clear how impossible it is that this
view, which on these points plainly shows itself paradoxical,
can be made use of in regard to others. It only remains
now to recognise the fact that the apostle does not so much
desire to relate the history of Jesus, as to place it in a new
light, and that from the abundance of his reminiscences he
has selected with this end such portions and points as more
specially answer this purpose, without taking pains to inquire
whether or not they had already been made known by the
older tradition ; for anything already known had to be dealt
with here from a new point of view. That the eye-witness
dwelt with a certain heightened interest upon such portions
as had been passed over by the older tradition, or too briefly
recorded, can be inferred too directly from the nature of the
case for it to appear incompatible with the design of the
Gospel, and makes it to us of still greater value.
The new point of view occupied by the evangelist in
depicting the history of Jesus, is stated in the Prologue
with indubitable clearness. It is the eternal Divine Word,
which is Jesus Christ become flesh ; and although the world
as a whole, and as represented by His peculiar people,
did not recognise or receive Him, yet the company of be
lievers beheld His glory, and received through Him the great
grace of perfect knowledge of God (i. 1-18). Answering to
this, the first part describes the introduction of Jesus to the
world. This took place, as the Prologue has already indicated,
through the testimony of His forerunner. There is no
account given of the baptismal ministry of the latter, although
it is occasionally assumed as known (i. 28, 31), but there are
communicated two significant testimonies given by him.
Then Jesus introduces Himself by revealing in word and
deed His glory to the first circle of believers. Here the
apostle loves to linger on the moment when he first became
acquainted with Jesus, and closes with the first visit of Jesus
to his native town (i. 1 9— ii. 12). The second part shows
the progress of the faith-stirring self-revelation of Jesus in
the three divisions of the country (ii. 13-iv. 54). Of the
way in which, by the revelation of Himself in His words,
Jesus sought to lead on to a higher faith the superficial belief
in miracles, which had been awakened by His first activity at

128 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the feast of Passover, an example is given in the conversation
with Nicodemus ; and how even His withdrawal to the
baptismal ministry in Judea is made to subserve His glorifica
tion, is shown us by the final testimony of the Baptist
(chap. iii.). In Samaria, by the revelation of Himself in His
words, Jesus leads a most unimpressionable woman to belief
in His being a prophet, and forward from this to faith in
the Messiah ; but He expressly explains that it was not
His earthly task to gather into the kingdom of God the
Samaritans who were prepared to believe, and henceforth
this part of the country disappears from the history. Out
of the whole Galilean ministry of Jesus, so rich in inci
dent, the apostle gives us only the narrative of the noble
man's son, in order through it to show how well Jesus
understood the way to elevate the current belief in miracles
to faith in His word. This eclectic method of illustrating
whole sections of the activity of Jesus by a single typical
history, shows us very clearly that we have not to do here
with a biography, but with a representation taken from a
higher standpoint; but to conclude from this spirituelle
manner of writing history, that it must have invented its own
materials, and that the forms that move in it are not real
persons, but ideal types, is pure wilfulness.
The third part shows us the outbreak of opposition to Jesus.
In Jerusalem, on a journey to the feast, He comes to a rupture
with the hierarchy, whose deep-seated unbelief leads after
wards to deadly enmity towards Him (chap. v.). But also
in Galilee it must come to the crisis in which the sensuously
directed belief in Jesus of the body of the people is turned to
unbelief, because their wishes were not satisfied, and only a
small band of disciples remains faithful to Him (chap. vi.).
There is hardly anything which gives a clearer indication of
the whole construction of the Gospel, than the fact that out of
the whole considerable Galilean ministry, only three decisive
events are treated with thoroughness. Then Galilee also
vanishes from the history ; for the main seat of the unbelief
which was hostile to Jesus is Jerusalem, and on the contest
with this turns the development of His history. After the
evangelist has shown that Jesus did not invite this contest,
but as far as He could, avoided it, he brings us in the fourth

COMPOSITION OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 129
part to the conflict, as yet victorious, of Jesus with His
opponents (chaps, vii.-x.). There is a series of scenes in
which the blows aimed at Jesus in an ever-increasing number
by His enemies always miss, because His hour was not yet
come. There must first come the completion of His self-
revelation, which takes place in the fifth part (chaps, xi-xvii.).
The revelation of His dominion as the Prince of life in the
raising from the dead, produces in the unbelieving Jews only
the determination to compass His death (chap. xi.). The
twelfth chapter shows the completion of His self-revelation
before the people, who afterwards, as they had done before,
oscillate between belief and unbelief, and can only land finally
in the latter. Then Jesus withdraws Himself within the
narrowest circle of His disciples, and in the last love-feast
perfects the revelation of Himself to the believers. The sixth
part shows the completion of unbelief in the history of the
Passion (chaps, xviii, xix.), which, with all its machinations,
only succeeds in enabling the word of Jesus to be fulfilled,
where He pointed out by what death He was to die (xviii.
32). The seventh part follows with the completion of faith
at the open grave by the appearances of the Risen One. Even
the unbelief, which has still a place in the circle of the disciples,
is overcome; Thomas, in conclusion, makes a profession which
the Gospel desires to confirm, and Jesus points him to the
faith which did not need sight (chap. xx.).
It is the Epistle of John, written at the same time as the
Gospel, which first assists us to a view of the ultimate motif
of this profound and spiritually-constructed composition. The
aim of the first two Gospels is to strengthen and establish
faith in the Messiah, in view of the delay in its final attesta
tion which the first Christian generation still hoped to see,
and in view of the destruction of the national hopes which
the Jewish Christians connected with this. Already the
third Gospel understands the vocation of Christ as being in
the Pauline sense for the world. But our Gospel stands on
the threshold of a new era. Here is the powerful Gnostic
movement, whose precursors announce themselves in threaten
ing manifestations. A false philosophy, which, claiming to
be a perfecting of Christianity, has gone beyond the stand
point of simple faith, threatens the foundations of saving
WEISS. — i. i

130 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
truth. It concerns itself with undervaluing the historical
manifestation of Christ. What floated before Gnosticism,
with its confused dreams and mythological ideas, is a heavenly
seon, Christ, which coincided occasionally with the man Jesus,
but without touching upon that which characterized His
human life as such — birth and death ; and in its essence this
is the very mistake made to-day by so many lofty spirits, who
make a separation, supposed to be» necessary, between the
ideal Christ, or the Christ-idea, and the historical manifestation <-
of Jesus. But the final word on the part of Christianity
is the full realization of the ideal in the historical reality,
as it was archetypically in the person of Christ, and so
through Him there is guaranteed to all believers the perfected
revelation of God in an earthly human manifestation, the in
carnation of the Eternal Word. Christianity is no philosophy
which thinks to redeem the world through its ideals, while it
either does not know sin or looks for its being overcome by
the world's natural progress ; Christianity announces an act of
love on the part of God, through which the world is saved in
the sending of His only-begotten Son. That in the manifesta
tion of Christ the divine act of love perfected itself, that it
was the guilt of unpardonable unbelief when Jesus was not
recognised as being what He was, that in Him the faithful
saw the Lordship- of the Eternal Word brought down to the
level of the senses, — these are facts which the Gospel of John
purposes to oppose as an invincible bulwark to the approach
ing storm of that false Gnosticism. No more injurious miscon
ception could be formed regarding this Gospel, than when men
try to resolve it into an intellectual playing with speculative
ideas. It was Strauss himself who had to point out to modern
criticism how difficult it is to mistake the intention of the
Gospel ; but when he sees in the evangelist only a Correggio,
a master of lucid obscurity, on account of his restless oscilla
tions between idea and history, the spiritual and the sensuous,
when he characterizes the Gospel as mystical, sentimental, and
romantic, and thrusts aside the preference which the later time
had for it, he himself understands it just as little. Certainly
the historical colouring of the life of Jesus has lost all sig
nificance for this evangelist, although occasional indications
show that he was acquainted with it as well and even better

DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 131
than the others. Only a limited circle of great, universally
applicable, abiding truths is constantly mirrored in the his
tory, viz. the revelation of the divine Lordship of Christ, the
inexcusableness of unbelief, and the blessedness of faith in
Him. But his history is not the mere transparent garment
of this idea, self-woven out of synoptic reminiscences and
original creations of the phantasy ; for it deals here, not with
ideas the value of which lies in the fact of their being thought,
but with truths which have value only if they actually are.
It is not the existence of an eternal Logos, with what concerns
Him and confession of Him, which is to be proclaimed, but
that this Logos has certainly and truly become flesh 'is to be >
verified from the experience of eye-witnesses, made possible
through His incarnation. This gives to our evangelist his,
ideal elevation and his essentially spiritual form, but it requires
also his historical trustworthiness. As the invention of a
semi-Gnostic philosopher of the second century, it is a delusive
will-o'-the-wisp — in truth, a gigantic lie.

CHAPTER VIII.
EYE-WITNESS AND TRADITION.
ALL historical information is primarily based upon the
testimony of eye-witnesses. Even the information
regarding the life of Jesus, which is transmitted to us through
the Gospels, is to be extensively referred to this most reliable
source of all history. True, the oldest work of an eye
witness, that of the Apostle Matthew, is not directly possessed
by us, but through its employment in the composition of our
three Gospels considerable portions of it are reproduced with
a large degree of certainty. The contributions made by Peter
have been recorded for us by his own pupil, and the fourth
Gospel originates directly with an apostle.
Of late, and especially by Weizsacker, the question has
been raised whether the eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus
were always in a position to grasp its events with precision
and accuracy. This is based upon the disciples' participa
tion in the enthusiasm of the people for Jesus, in conse
quence of which they believed that they were in a world of
miracles, and were thus no longer in a position temperately
and correctly to comprehend what happened in their own
experience. Especially is it based upon their ideas re
garding demons, which for them rendered impossible an
unbiassed experiencing of an act of expulsion of demons, and
made them from the beginning see them in a strange light.
But it is overlooked that the severe" discipline of the religio-
ethical activity of Jesus formed, for the narrower circle of
disciples, a permanent counterpoise to the enthusiasm of the
populace, which was stirred up mainly by the sensuous
impression of His achievements in healing ; and the contrast
between the way in which Jesus founded the kingdom of
God and their hopes, and the internal struggle in which its
development was from an early period involved, must
132

INFORMATION FROM EYE-WITNESSES. 133
constantly have moderated thein and preserved them from
all crass extravagance. But if their views as to demons
were actually so inverted that they changed the living present
into an utterly distorted fancy picture, it is incomprehensible
how this would escape the clear glance of Jesus, and why
He did not, by simple instruction, take steps to secure that
such an essential side of His activity should not be crassly
misconceived, and regarded in an entirely erroneous light.
Renan has chosen another way, assuming that even during'
the lifetime of Jesus there arose regarding Him, as the fruit
of a great voluntary self-deception, a legend which was
circulated around Him, and which, even if Jesus had wished,
He could not have put a stop to. The history of religion and
of the Church does, in fact, teach how fruitful the cloud
which gathers around saints and great men of God, or such
as pass for these, is in the engendering of the most marvellous
conceptions and legends, which even in their own immediate
neighbourhood find ready and unwavering acceptance. But
this phenomenon is easily explained by the fact that, as
humanity is now constituted, high religious enthusiasm and
earnest striving after the fulfilling of a call, either really or
supposititiously divine, are often in the case of the master,
and still more often in that of the scholars, mingled in an
unobtrusive and even an unconscious way with personal
vanity, and with the pursuit of purely human interests, which
that belief must flatter or serve. Not on the ground of the
presuppositions of faith alone, but in the name of the writers
of history, whose first duty is to adjudicate upon every
phenomenon in respect of its consequences and effects, we
must entirely refuse to apply this analogy to Jesus and the
circle of His disciples. It is historically inconceivable that
He to whom the world owes its religio-ethical regeneration
should have basked in the unreal splendour lent Him by the
enthusiasm of a credulous people, that His penetrating glance
failed to see it, or that His endeavour, dedicated as it was to
truth and the honour of God, should not have known how to
prevent it, even if His scholars regarded Him through the
foggy mist with which their obscured sense of truth en
wrapped Him, since it flattered their vanity or served their
interests to see the Master continually exalted higher.

134 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
There is, indeed, another form taken by the question as to
the unconditioned trustworthiness of information gained from
eye-witnesses, so often as memory is obliged to throw a bridge
over the increasing intervals between the actual occurrence
of the events or the time in which the continued intercourse
with Jesus furnished the corrective of any inaccurate view of
them, and the time when the communication of them was
made. In spite of daily experience, we frequently- over
estimate the certainty as well as the reach of the human
memory. We have not to do here with the disappearance
of individual details, in most wonderful contrast as that is
with the definite determination of the position of others in
the current of time, nor with the removal of similar details
belonging to different events, which was doubly unavoidable
in the case of a life passed in humble circumstances, in a
comparatively monotonous calling. Here it is that accident
has play, mocking every calculation, and beyond the reach
of any scientific estimate, and connected only with that side
of events that is plainly unimportant for the history, and can
be left out of consideration by science. It belongs, however,
to the nature of memory, especially when its activity is
called out on behalf of the communication of facts, that
from the beginning it gives fixity to that element of the
incident which has made the greatest impression upon the
eye-witness, and made the event appear to him important.
The greater the distance in time separating the eye
witness from the events, and the more the power of
retaining the original impression is weakened, the more is
the latent plastic power strengthened which exists in every •
memory, and it comes to pass that the picture of the
event is constantly forming itself more exclusively and
distinctly towards being the expression of that which, in
the view of the eye-witness, gave it its significance. In
accordance with these simple psychological laws, the dimen
sions of past events grow on the side on which, for us, their
significance lies ; all which is indifferent with respect to this
significance, or weakens it, vanishes from memory ; and even
isolated portions are put aside or remodelled in the repre
sentation of them, until it completely corresponds to the
signification which we have attributed to them. There is

RECOLLECTIONS OF EYE-WITNESSES. 135
gradually added to this process of formation a new stage,
which is the operation of the combined impression made by
the whole to which the individual events belong, upon the
formation or the strengthening of the signification from the
standpoint of which the particular is reproduced in memory.
It could, no doubt, occur in a case such as this, that in the
memory of the eye-witnesses the grand impression made by
the earthly activity of Jesus, when strengthened by its
wondrous close, and by faith in the divine Lordship of the
Risen One, threw a new light upon the details ; that in this
light the points of main significance in many events were
more distinctly brought forward or were put aside ; that the
natural means employed , were forgotten, the event thus
assuming the express character of the miraculous. But the
first condition of this process is the actual occurrence in the
life of Jesus of such a sufficiency of what was grand and
miraculous as to enable this to appear as what was usual and
orderly, and the particulars of His life having had from the
beginning a higher significance, a place in memory was
assured, and a point of connection for that process of forma
tion was afforded them.1
That the memories of the eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus
were liberated from these Conditions common to men, can only
be affirmed through arbitrary dogmatic assumptions. On the
contrary, it is indubitable that memory, like every side of our
intellectual life, is influenced by the whole ethical develop-)
ment of the man. The weaker and less developed the sense
of truth, the more unbridled will be the play of fancy in the
remodelling of the past; the more that we are obliged to
think of this sense of truth as purified and strengthened
among the disciples in the school of Jesus, the more will it
have exercised a wholesome discipline on the activity of their
memory. The more that the disciples were trained in the
1 But that the faith of the eye-witnesses was strong enough to form in their
memory pictures of external courses of events which were solely the expres
sion of universal truths, as Weizsacker assumes, is contrary to all analogy.
The fashioning of subjective events into objective occurrences would be in
general only conceivable if it was the events in the life of Jesus or of the
Baptist which were under consideration, and it must be referred to a pure
misunderstanding of the facts communicated, and not to the free play of
recollection.

136 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
constant communion with Jesus who had called them to be
His disciples, to keep in mind an essentially correct and un-
dimmed picture of His person and activity, the more was
that formative process, which was completed in their memories,
prevented from blurring the picture of the details of His life
by the introduction of foreign and arbitrary points of view.
There was present, in addition, the influence of the Spirit
whom Jesus had promised them, and who, along with an ever
deeper and clearer comprehension of Jesus, furnished, at the
same time, the conditions of a more faithful recollection
of all that He had said and done. Finally, we recollect
how the external conditions under which the oldest contribu
tions of eye-witnesses took shape were in a unique manner
available for the reciprocal amplification and correction of
the recollection of particulars (comp. p. 17), so that we have
for that information a higher guarantee and certainty than
belongs to the testimony — regarding details — of eye-witnesses
as such. The recollections which the last apostle has recorded
in the latest Gospel are in a different position from those
which are contained in our oldest tradition. In the case of
the former, the almost doubled distance in time, and the
obvious effort to regard and represent particulars under the
most universal points of view, very soon brought it about
that alongside of the wonderful vivacity of the recollection
of details, accustomed as it is in advanced age to reproduce
the particulars of the past, displacements and confusions of
recollections appear to have slipped in, and many connecting
. links to have been lost, — things which could not yet have
occurred in the case of that oldest information derived from
eye-witnesses. What is true of the events of the life of Jesus is doubt
less as a whole true also of His words and speeches. The
unembarrassed confidence with which simple faith or tram
melled apologetic vaunts the literal accuracy of the words
of the Lord contained in the Gospels, is certainly not justified
by historical criticism. Over against the often repeated ap
peals to the power of memory in an age still less accustomed
to the use of written memoranda, or to the isolated experiences
of the capacity for giving a really, accurate reproduction of
comprehensive speeches and sermons which through the deep

RECOLLECTIONS OF EAR- WITNESSES. 137
impression made by them had stamped themselves indelibly
upon the memory, there stands one opposing consideration.
In the case of a life, the daily calling of which was teach
ing, it must have been very difficult for those who were
continually listening to keep separate in their memory each
particular of that which, as a whole, made an impression upon
them. The overwhelmingly difficult fact must be explained,
that all that is contained in our tradition of the speeches
of Jesus, even when it is carried back without stint to
directly apostolic reminiscence, forms only a very insignificant
fraction of what the ear-witnesses must have heard. Still
we must not forget that the historical conditions under which
our tradition arose were uncommonly favourable for the
assurance of an essential authenticity. The very form of
Jesus' manner of teaching, gnomic, figurative, and parabolic,
was in the highest degree favourable for the fixation of details.
We really owe it to the rise of our tradition in the circle of
apostles in Jerusalem, that by means of the common remini
scence, not only did innumerable isolated sayings of Jesus
preserve their certain, fixed, authentic form, but also that
it was possible to reconstruct with essential faithfulness
larger groups of sayings, and indeed whole speeches. It is
true that this faithful reproduction has rather been effected
by the involuntary adjustment of the recollections of indivi
duals, than brought about consciously and of set purpose
by the attempt to establish the authentic form of the say
ings and speeches. From the very first the tendency was
to preserve, not the form, but the contents, and there
fore alongside the fixing of abiding forms there was
always room and inclination for freer repetition, for new
combination and employment of individual sayings in a
didactic interest. There must then have been in this circle
a very vivid consciousness of how little store was to be set
by the reproduction of every individual expression in its
original connection.
In the communications of the ear-witnesses there had been
already introduced a formative process for giving shape to the
original sayings of the Lord, which depended upon other con
ditions than those afforded by the memory of eye-witnesses
for the events of His life, and which must have had a much

138 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
closer bearing upon their wider circulation. To this very day
apologetics with great naivete transfers our requirement of a
literal fixation of the words of the Lord to the age in which
the tradition itself was formed ; but with equal certainty do
facts stand in the way of this transference. The words of
God in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament are in no
one instance cited word for word in the apostolic writings,
but are interpreted in the freest possible way, are made more
emphatic and accommodated to the apostolic usage. Fre
quently as expressions of Jesus are found in them, nowhere
does there appear an effort after verbal fixity ; even in the
very rare cases in which they appear as proper quotations,
they scarcely correspond to the original version as we possess
it. The post-apostolic age, which had already long known
and used our Gospels, nowhere binds itself in its quotations
of the Lord's words to a fixed verbal form of them ; and, as
we said (p. 121), the Fourth Gospel takes the same course
in its reference to earlier words of the Lord. The whole
problem of our synoptic Gospels remains manifestly insoluble,
if there is not assumed an ample freedom in the repetition
of words of the Lord which had already been fixed in writing ;
for it is plainly inconceivable that Mark and Luke could
venture to deviate from the phraseology of a Gospel written
by an ear-witness, so long as there is ascribed to them an
interest like ours in the authentic reproduction of the words
of the Lord. A certain number of differences may be got
rid of through a harmonizing supplementing of the one by
the other, or through the unnatural hypothesis of endless re
petitions of sayings, groups of sayings, and parables in a form
subject to no essential modification ; there always remain
innumerable cases in which the alternative cannot by any
possibility be escaped, that Jesus can only have used one of
two recorded expressions. The common appeal to a dis
cordant tradition is amply contradicted by the plain fact that
the deviations are conditioned by literary motives. But this
freedom in the literary reproduction of words of the Lord
which are already fixed in writing, is only conceivable if
our evangelists were familiar with these words in the oral
tradition, that in their time was so much richer in con
tents than the written tradition, and of equal value. It

-C

THE FREE REPRODUCTION OF OUR LORD'S WORDS. 139
would be perfectly preposterous to refer the disagreements in
the sayings of the Lord in the oral tradition entirely to the
discordance in the recollections of a variety of ear-witnesses.
There will certainly be no lack of these ; but in our evan
gelical tradition the basis is formed so preponderately by the
words of the Lord fixed already in accordance with recollection,
in the circle of the apostles, that any deviation in this field
cannot be referred to the accident of the faulty memory of
individuals, but only to the free mode of dealing with words
already fixed through the reproducing of them in phraseology
employed in sayings of the Lord known to the apostles. It
matters not whether this took place in connection with the
oral tradition, or, upon occasion, in connection with the written
records.1 A threefold and amply sufficient explanation can be given
of this freedom, which, as was said above, accorded doubtless
with the spirit of the age. In the first place, on account of
the proximity in time and the greater familiarity with the
circumstances of the life of Jesus, there was certainly awake
at that period the instinctive consciousness that a verbal
reproduction of the sayings and speeches of Jesus, as well
as an absolute determination of the connection in which
each individual word was spoken, was not to be thought
of: even regarding the form of the Lord's words, which
had become settled within the circle of ear-witnesses,
this could hold good only to a relative degree. Besides
this, the idea could no longer be entertained of a literal
authenticity of the words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, since
the' tradition was propagated substantially in Greek-speaking
circles ; and even of the oldest record of it a translation was
used, which, according to the whole spirit of the time, was
always relatively free. Finally and above all, the oral or
1 We can detect this process with certainty only in the variations which the
Lord's words in our written Gospels have undergone ; but there is no doubt
that it began even in the circle of the ear-witnesses, and established itself in
the oral tradition all the more strongly, the less that the hearers of this tradition
were restricted by their own recollections. Following the precedent set by
them, our evangelists, who themselves were not ear-witnesses, made nse of the
same freedom they saw having everywhere free play in the oral tradition. The
question, whether for their form of the Lord's words there was a single pre
cedent to bias them, is quite relevant.

140 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
I written repetition of the words of Jesus did not serve
the purpose of authenticating what He had been or had
willed, for this was universally established by the apostolic
announcement of salvation, but that of edification, and to a
very great degree that of hortation. The purpose of it could
only be to express the thoughts of Jesus as distinctly and
clearly, as impressively and pointedly, as possible. If a more
striking expression were found for these than had up to this
time been employed, if the word could be elucidated through
an explanatory addition, enriched by a new picture or a parallel
line of thought, or made more pointed by an emphatic turn,
they were ever welcome. More especially did the word-
pictures and parables tend irresistibly to enrich themselves by
an addition, new and full of significance, by the bringing into
prominence of a new point of comparison, and especially by
allegorical ornament and application.1 What holds good of
the form of the words of Christ, holds good in the highest
degree of their connection. As in the case of the oral tradi
tion, the need for hortation determined its employment and
fresh combinations, so in that of the Gospels it determined
the points of view of their composition. Thus the series
of sayings would be arranged in new and larger groups of
speeches, or isolated portions were dropped out of series
which had already been fixed in tradition, in order to employ
them in a narrative when occasion afforded, or make them
more striking by being placed in another connection. It
could not but happen, however, that, through every new
combination entered into, and through every new application
made of them, their form must have been somewhat modified.
1 Points of connection in the words of the Lord were eagerly sought for the
communication of admonitions, warnings, and consolations fitted for the times,
and which, with a slight change, prove themselves intimations of contemporary
phenomena of a threatening or blameworthy kind. It is especially the words
of prophecy spoken by Jesus which afford the amplest occasion for determining
them more closely, in accordance with the definite form in which they were
fulfilled. At one time there lay at the foundation the presupposition that the
older view, in accordance with which they were handed down, could not have
been correct, because it did not correspond with sufficient accuracy to the
actual fulfilment ; at another, the intention of making their relation more fully
intelligible, through clearer reference to the events foretold ; but the point of
view which regarded a falsification of the words of Jesus as having thus been
perpetrated was, as regards that period, plainly excluded.

ADDRESSES OF CHRIST IN JOHN'S GOSPEL. 141
On the other hand, within the range of Gospel literature |
there is nothing corresponding in the slightest degree to the
efforts of classical authors to place in the mouths of their
heroes extemporized declamations. Certainly the critical
analysis of the synoptical speeches of Christ gives no support
to this hypothesis.1
The supposition is most unlikely, that this system, even
in a modified form, influenced the Fourth Gospel. But
certainly the great freedom with which the words of
Christ are here reproduced can, after all that has been
said (comp. chap, vii.), only be understood if we pay attention
to the fact that there is being dealt with here only the
last steps of a formative process which they had been pass
ing through for decades in tradition. At the foundation
there lie, as we saw, an ear-witness's reminiscences of the
words, speeches, and conversations of Jesus ; but in- the pro
portion in which the increasing distance in time excluded
every thought of an immediate, authentic reproduction of
particulars in form and connection, and in which the didactic
interest influenced the record still more strongly, in the same
proportion must the freedom in reproduction have been greater.
It was apparent, moreover, that the eye-witness could make
more unfettered use of it, the more he was without' any appre
hension of confounding his own with extraneous material.
In other respects the categories are just the same as those
under which the formation was carried on. The didactic
elucidation and edifying extension of the original words of
Christ are only put forward more comprehensively, and in
a more unfettered way there is presented the retouching and
meaning of the word-pictures, in which almost everywhere
figure and meaning are inseparably commingled, and the para
bolic form of the speeches has become almost completely
unrecognisable through their allegorical application. There isi
everywhere emphasized an unfettered reference to the great)
truths of which the age stood in need, and the original
historical relations of the speeches are so obliterated as to
be almost unrecognisable. Large new groups of speeches are
1 Even in the speeches of the angels and the songs of praise in the history
of the infancy of Jesus, which might perhaps be so regarded, the case stands
quite otherwise, as we shall show.

142 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
formed out of elements belonging to various periods, and
having originally different relations; while the isolated say
ings of the older traditions are seen combined together in new
connections, where they receive new meanings. In this con
nection there is afforded also a sufficiently ample explanation
of the form of the speeches of Christ in the Fourth Gospel, to
obviate the objections to the authenticity of the Gospel which
have been drawn from it (comp. chap. vii.).
Consideration of the changes undergone by the speeches as
they were being handed down, has already introduced us to
the distinction which is disclosed between the speeches thus
affected and the information supplied by eye-witnesses, and
which certainly in this connection does, in a sense, make its
appearance in the Fourth Gospel. But this is most accentuated
in cases where narratives of events in the life of Jesus are
being dealt with which rest no longer upon the recollection
of eye-witnesses, but on the ground of their communications
(from mouth to mouth. It is generally overlooked, however,
that only to a very limited extent do our Gospels make use
of a tradition which has already passed through several
media of communication. In the Gospel of Mark we possess
at first hand, through the pupil of an apostle, the com
munications made by an eye-witness. In the first and third
Gospels there lies before us in great part a written redaction,
partly of the oldest source, provided by an eye-witness, partly
of the Gospel of Mark. Strictly speaking, we have not here to
deal with a development of the Gospel narrative according to
the laws which determine the propagation of the oral tradition.1
It is otherwise with the portions which the two evangelists
have not borrowed either from Mark or from the apostolic
source. The written sources peculiar to Luke, especially his
main source, are at any rate the work of those who were not
eye-witnesses. But whether his narratives, like those of the
Gospel of Mark, were drawn up directly at second hand or
1 The freedom with which our evangelists remodel a type of narration already
lying before them, as in the case of the words of the Lord, shows indeed that in
their time the oral tradition was placed on the same level as the written, and
that they had a precedent for such freedom. But if there be a possibility
of many of these deviations having been determined by variations of the oral
tradition, it is perfectly groundless and inconceivable to assume a precedent
of this kind as necessary for each of them (comp. p. 139).

ORAL TRADITION. 143
had already passed through several media of communication,
is what we do not know ; the latter is very probable, and in
view of the antecedent history is, in the nature of the case,
indubitable. Besides, in the case of Luke the supposition is
not inadmissible, that many of the narratives peculiar to him
were contributed by the oral tradition ; in regard to the first
evangelist, it is certain that all which goes beyond his written
sources, as they are known to us, originated in this way.
Now it is that we first find ourselves, in a proper sense,
within the domain of oral tradition, circulated from mouth to
mouth for a long period. The Fourth Gospel, also, was not
exempt from a certain influence of the same kind. In the
proportion in which the eye-witness who speaks there was
necessitated, through the distance from the events of the time
in which he wrote, to supplement the incomplete fragments
of his recollections, and to build up a lifelike picture of the
whole, he must alongside of this combination have followed
the tradition, whether oral or already fixed in writing, which,
indeed, even without that, conditioned and influenced him.
Traces of such influence are perceptible in his reproduc
tion of the words of the Baptist and of the Lord ; they
meet us still more clearly and indubitably in his historical
narratives. In regard to the effect on the Gospel narrative through
its circulation in oral tradition, we are not called on to
deal with the variations beyond the range of any scien
tific control, plainly unimportant for the history, and con
ditioned by their originating with a variety of eye-witnesses,
and by the discordance between the recollection of some of
these witnesses and that of others, or which in a similar way
have arisen through inaccurate comprehension and reproduc
tion of what was heard. Rather do we think exclusively
of that influence of tradition which was one essentially
undesigned, but which was exercised through the nature of
tradition itself. No one relates verbally what he has heard ;
he could not do it if he desired to ; and it is only in the
rarest cases that he would desire to do so even if he were
able. All inclination for repetition of a narrative is condi
tioned by the significance which the narrative has gained for
some one who heard it ; and all the satisfaction found in its

144 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
reproduction is conditioned by the impression which the
narrative makes, in other words, by its acquiring for the
hearer the same significance that it has for the narrator.
It follows from this, that every one relates the matter in the
way in which it lives in his imagination, preserved both
through the fact that it was heard, and through the
significance it has for him. He tries also to represent it
in as lifelike a way and with as vivid a colouring as pos
sible, because the impression which he intends to produce
essentially depends upon this. He assumes with perfect
justice that the eye-witness to whom he listened did not
communicate every detail, and thus he does not hesitate to
supplement, from his general conception of the course of
events, the details, the description of which has escaped
his memory or was lacking in the original narrative.1 The
further that the repeater of the story is removed from the
sources derived from eye-witnesses, the more unfettered will
he be in modifying the description given to him, on the
assumption that this or that portion of it, because it does not
correspond with the idea which he has of the whole course of
events, cannot be accurate, or because that this or that portion
which, in accordance with his conception of the history, he
considers indispensable, must have been dropped out of the
traditional narrative. How far the portions, introduced
in this way into the course of development of the oral
tradition or subjected to modification, are true in a higher
sense, if not in that of historical reality, depends partly
upon the correctness of the general idea gained by the
narrator of the whole matter to which he listened, partly
upon the correctness of his conception of the circumstances
in which the course of the events in question went forward,
partly, in the last place, upon the degree in which the
sharpened sense of truth holds in check the tendency to a
reproduction for effect of what was heard.
1 Even the tendency, so often observed, to exaggeration in repeating a story
depends solely on the wish of the narrator to strengthen the impression. With
out any obscuration of the sense of truth, it may proceed from the involuntary
assumption that the individual stages in the course of events, which made a
definite impression upon him as a hearer, must be sufficient to convey with
clearness and distinctness the significance it has for him, and on which that
impression depends.

CHANGES UNDERGONE BY THE NARRATIVE. 145
To what degree these universal human conditions, which
are operative in the circulation of tradition, have actually had
effect upon the Gospel narrative, can only be ascertained by
us through the way in which the evangelists modify what lay
in writing before them, as far as this is in our possession.
The freedom with which they do this has been borrowed
from the oral tradition. Actually, however, the same points
of view are employed here as are furnished to us by the
nature of oral tradition. The evangelist who writes at a
later period tries to depict the event more vividly and in a
more lifelike way. He elucidates the course of events, or
tries to place the decisive moments in a more intense light ;
he adds the motives of the persons concerned, or represents
the deeds as accompanied with suitable gestures ; he amplifies
presumptions which were supposed to be implied, or incidents
that had an influence on the course of events ; he makes
statements regarding the consequences of events, or regarding
the impression made upon spectators, or on those who were
not spectators ; he completes the narrative by portions which
appeared to him to be, according to his presuppositions, self-
evident, and which therefore in the case of the older repre
sentation had only dropped out. He does not shrink from
expressly formulating thoughts or motives which the older
narrative only hints at, and from placing suitable expressions
in the mouths of the persons concerned. In the case of
events recorded by tradition, he tries to determine more
closely the situation ; in that of speeches, the occasion.1
It often occurs, too, that the later writer not only amplifies
the delineation of his predecessor, but tries to correct it.
What lay before the evangelists in a written form were
not sacred books to them, the very letters of which were
binding. They proceed upon the perfectly correct assumption
that no narrator claims for his representation literal and
absolute accuracy ; that every representation is, on this or that
point, susceptible of and in need of correction. The simple
narrator of our Gospel history must not in regard to this
1 It is particularly here that the activity of the nai've narrator becomes the
reflective exertion of the author ; and so we often find in Luke that an aphoristic
speech-portion, given by tradition, is introduced by means of a question or
request, which he places in the mouth of one of the persons concerned.
WEISS.  1. K

146 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
work be thought of as a critical historian, who takes first a
view of new and ascertained sources from which to borrow the
materials for a correction of this kind. The general picture
which he has gained of the course of events plainly deter
mines for him the form which the details are to take. He
tones down or heightens the description, according as the
earlier writer appeared to him to have laid on the colours too
strongly or not strongly enough ; he endeavours to introduce
into it more dramatic vigour ; he does not shrink, in the case
of traditionary conversations or speeches, from changing their
course, because their progression in this way from one
to another seems to him more natural, comprehensible, and
perspicuous. He modifies the explanations given in the
older narrative in accordance with the further progress of the
conversation or the contents of the following speech. The
purport of the question or the request must, as it appears to
him, have been quite different before the answer of Jesus
could be suitable.1 By means of the oral tradition, it may
happen that portions which were originally intended to be
figurative are regarded as literal, and are given a place in
historical actuality ; that what were originally subjective
occurrences are treated and represented as objective events;
that the attempt is made to conceive of the inner divine
revelation in a sensuous way, through the appearance of
angels, through speeches by and conversations with them.
The limits, in themselves undecided, within which the older
tradition is in this way enriched and remodelled, find within
our Gospels their fixed bounds, in the relative proximity in
time of the recorded events, in the control exercised by
tradition, standing in more or less immediate connection with
the information given by eye-witnesses, and in the essentially
correct general view of the events with which it has to deal.
There is no doubt that the choice of our three older Gospels
in the first half of the second century was decided by this,
that they and their view of the Gospel history corresponded
with the common consciousness of the Church, as it had
been formed on the basis of the still richer oral tradition.
1 It is mainly the first evangelist whom we see employing this great freedom.
Of this, as of all that is said here, there is a full treatment in the discussion of
parallel passages in my Commentary on Mark.

LIMITS TO RE- FORMATION. 147
The authors of the first two were Jewish Christians, and
thus more or less at home in the neighbourhood and in the
circumstances in which the life of Jesus was lived. Luke,
although a Gentile Christian, was for a long time the com
panion of the Jewish Paul, and visited Palestine in his
company. In his case it is shown very strikingly, what,
besides, is proved in other ways, that in his amplifications of
the older narrative he does not invent without restraint, but
tries to supplement and enrich a given history by portions
often plainly borrowed from other traditionary narratives. He
is nowhere affected by a biographical tendency which would
carefully ascertain every detail. But nowhere does the pure
desire for story-telling show itself so independently as to
raise suspicion of an unrestrained exercise of fancy. It is,
in fine, the didactic purpose, the intention to edify, which
keeps the balance, and restrains this desire within the limits
of a naiive chasteness. It is the announcement of the salva
tion that appeared in Christ, which, as the deepest motif,
guides the delineation. The apprehension of this, being con
ditioned by the illumination and guidance of the Spirit, is
protected from every essentially obscure conception by the
picture of the life of Jesus; and as little as it guarantees
historical exactitude everywhere, equally little does it awaken
the desire and afford the occasion for fantastic excrescences.

CHAPTER IX.
LEGEND AND MYTH.
THE newer criticism is accustomed to speak of legends aud
myths, or at least of legendary and mythical constituents
within the evangelical tradition ; the older tradition, that of
Strauss, considered it possible to resolve this entirely into a
tissue of myths. But much has to be supplied before clear
and consistent conceptions can be brought under these
categories, which are really only a way of expressing the
assumption that many of the Gospel narratives are unhis-
torical, to say nothing of the fact that a definite explanation
must be given beforehand of the conditions under which those
elements could arise and make good a place in the evangelical
tradition. It is an undeniable fact that the oral tradition, the more
that it severs, connection with its starting-point, — the informa
tion given by eye-witnesses, — becomes gradually more and
more legendary, and finally passes over into pure legend. For
the development of this process, which goes on under varying
conditions and with varying speed and energy, it is evident
that definite limits of time cannot be fixed. The basis, how
ever, of our evangelical tradition, so far as it relates to the
brief public life of Jesus, must have been recorded some forty
years posterior to the close of this life, and at a time when
numerous witnesses must have been alive ; it was, indeed,
essentially fixed long before, to a greater or less degree, in
oral tradition ; and so it is clear that, in this instance, the
scope for the play of such formation of legends is a very
narrow one. The case is somewhat different with the
traditions of the history of the childhood of Jesus or of His
forerunner, which lay more than thirty years behind the
commencement of their public life. But here also it must
not be overlooked, that the mother, and especially the brethren
148

ORIGIN OF LEGEND. 149
of Jesus, belonged, almost up to the time in which our oldest
Gospels arose, to the Church in which that tradition took
shape, and indeed played in it a prominent part. It can,
then, never be asserted that the formation of legends has here
free scope, untrammelled by the testimony of eye-witnesses.
It is more difficult to answer the question, what we are
properly justified in designating legendary touches or pure
legends. It is undoubted that in all oral tradition non-historical
elements mingle from the first with the historical picture of
the events. This is the case not only with regard to the
accidental alterations and inaccuracies which, in consequence
of faulty recollection, gain a place in ever-growing proportion
in the tradition itself as it is circulated from mouth to
mouth, but especially with regard to the portions which the
repeater introduces from his conception of the events and their
significance, in order to remove the supposed or actual incom
pleteness and obscurity of what was handed down, or the
incongruity between it and that conception. Neither the
plastic power of phantasy, which involuntarily forms new
details, nor the ideal significance of these, according to which
they are the expression of a definite conception of the facts, of
the case, characterizes what is essentially a legend ; both make
their appearance in every oral tradition ; indeed, their begin
ning is already seen in the memory of the eye-witnesses. On
the other hand, the legend also is connected with actual
history, and is, involuntary as is its freely-creating activity,
throughout unconscious of the difference between actual and
ideal history. Certain as it is that the repeater only enlarges
or modifies what is given him, because he is convinced that
the events can only have occurred in the way in which they
are represented in his conception of them, and that the
representation which was handed down to him was incom
plete or inaccurate, equally certain is it that even the pure
legend intends, quite ingenuously, to narrate actual history,
because the information of eye-witnesses has long vanished,
through contrast with which alone could it recognise its fancy
pictures to be such.
The dividing line between the two can only lie at the
point where the conception of the events which produces
the ideal history, from being historical becomes unhistorical,

150 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
either because the connection has already been completely
lost which existed between it andThe historical circumstances
in which the events took place, or that between it and the
tradition which retained a lifelike picture of it, or because the
conceptions of the persons and events with which it deals
have long suffered from a complete transformation under
influences which have no longer anything to do with actual
history. Certainly it may also happen in oral tradition that
the course of events is erroneously conceived, and that the
representation of details is influenced by this erroneous con
ception ; certainly, in individual cases, an incorrect compre
hension of the historical circumstances can give occasion for
the arising of a non-historical addition. But as long as the
general idea of the events with which it deals, and of the
circumstances in which these took place, is essentially a
historical one, the additions made by oral tradition are always
true in a higher sense, even if they do not correspond to
actuality ; in other words, underneath the given circumstances
of the course of events, there could actually have been such a
one as has formed itself to the narrator. Even where an
isolated portion of the representation cannot, on the ground of
incompatible assumptions, be regarded as historical, yet the
root of these assumptions always lies somehow in the historical
circumstances, and always gives to the conception based upon
these a certain ideal justification. We have seen the reason
why the basis of our Gospel narratives, even where it most
clearly shows traditionary influences, still does not go beyond
the circle of the tradition possessed of such characteristics.
It is otherwise with legend. Formally considered, indeed,
its creative activity is in no way different from that of oral
tradition ; it is the same formative process which in it,
only a step in advance, is completed in accordance with the
same law. The new conditions, however, under which in
process of time it completes itself, do really afford a material
modification of the result of this process. Legend also desires
to fill up the gaps in tradition, but it lacks all really historical
points of connection. From the name of a place, from the
significant name of a person, it evolves with freely exercised
fancy the only events capable of being connected with them
in its imagination. From the most meagre fragments of

EVANGELICAL HISTORY AND LEGEND. 151
traditionary information it combines, with the free creative
power of phantasy, whole series of events, and enlivens them
with figures and pictures which might well enough correspond
to the ideas of their own age, but not to the historical circum
stances of the age of which they are giving the narrative. In?
legend, too, the dimensions of the events are increased. But
the more that historical actuality is placed in the background,
the more does this increase lack any limit as regards the
consciousness which is still alive or is kept awake by tradi
tion. The persons concerned become heroes, personal disputes
grow into the wars of nations, or historical conflicts of nations
of quite a prosaic description are turned into poetical tragedies,
the parts in which are played by the grand figures in
whom legend embodies the individuality of the people.
Hence the love of legend for the marvellous overleaps all
bounds of human possibility and of experience, allowing its
figures to grow into what is superhuman, and lending to its
narratives an ever more astounding and exciting character.
Since all connection with historical reality is here loosened,
there vanish from it entirely the boundaries between the
human and superhuman worlds, between the historical and
that of which no history can be cognizant. Hence the ap
pearance of heavenly beings, — angels or spirits, — which, speak
ing and acting in a human way, enter directly upon earthly
activity; hence the way in which the lifeless or irrational
creation is placed, in sympathy, or in a relation of mutual
intercourse, with man's world, indeed has occasionally lent to
it human modes of speech and action, or that in which figures
belonging to one sphere of life are miraculously changed into
those -belonging to another.
It would be vain to resist the recognition of such legendary
elements in the historical books of the Old Testament, where
there was often committed to writing a tradition that had
been circulating orally for centuries. The possibility is
in itself not excluded, that such a formation of legends has
already been introduced into the latest portions of our Gospels,
and especially into the history of the childhood of Jesus.
But the connection of their narratives with what is most
characteristic of the world of legend is very slender. Only
isolated portions, such as the meaning of the " field of blood "

152 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
(Matt, xxvii. 8), or the miraculous signs at the death of Jesus,
challenge comparison ; even the so-called miracles of nature
nowhere show a tendency to introduce inanimate nature
as a co-worker, and the appearances of angels are purely
vehicles of divine revelations, whose actuality is quite uncon
nected with the form in which they were thought to take
place ; for from the nature of the case there cannot be given,
in human speech and history, an accurately conceived tradition
regarding the incidents of the inner religious life.1 An attempt
has been made with all the greater confidence to establish such
a connection in the case of what the Gospel history has to com
municate regarding miracles. But it is overlooked that the
legendary character of a narrative of miracles is first evident
in the place where the miracle, purely as such, receives its
significance, where it is only the freely invented expression of
the conception that, in the past of which the legend tells,
everything was much more extraordinary and completely dif
ferent from what it is in the common life of men. What is
related, however, in the Gospels as to miracles stands in the
very closest connection with the vocation and activity of Jesus
as these are given in history ; there are no miracles done by
the child Jesus, no prodigies or feats for display, which only
satisfy the love for the marvellous ; there are everywhere
deeds of compassion, of helping and saving love. In the
isolated cases in which criticism is justified in marking the
absence of this connection, the question as to a remodelling in
the course of tradition is always relevant. In so far as can
still be traced, the links connecting it with the historical reality
show that we are not on the field of legend in which, in accord
ance with its nature, such a consciousness is entirely excluded.
Certainly the age in which the Gospel history was enacted
and thrown into the form of tradition was an age which
believed in miracles.2 But the notion that miracles can
1 It must not be overlooked that of the two individual passages in which
angels appear, in a properly legendary way, as taking an active part at the pool
of Bethesda and in Gethsemane, the one oertainly, and the other with great pro
bability, did not belong to the oldest text of our Gospels. The incarnate devil,
and the angels in the history of the temptation, as well as the angels at the
open grave, are not legendary pictures, but a purely literary clothing of occur
rences which will prove themselves to us to be, in the fullest sense, historical.
2 It is indeed asserted with too great assurance, that it entirely lacked the

THE MIRACULOUS IN THE EVANGELICAL TRADITION. 153
take place does not yet produce of itself the notion that
miracles have taken place. We saw that the tendency in
the memory of eye-witnesses to consider natural events
in the light of miracles was already making itself felt ;
but this does not support the assumption that they may
have freely remodelled the facts, out of prepossession in
favour of the miraculous. It has, most incomprehensibly,
been stated in regard to the facts, that in the most
extensive portion of the life of Jesus, which is occupied
with the miraculous, events are dealt with of which the
apostolic age, according to the indisputable testimony of the
Pauline Epistles, had still personal experience, on the ground
of the so-called miraculous gifts, — miraculous answers to
prayer, cures, and castings out of demons. This fact, then,
must have kept the eye-witnesses from conceiving the
analogous events in the life of Jesus as other than those in
which they themselves had had a personal share, or from
viewing them in such a peculiar way, that from what appeared
in them could be inferred the appearance of what was not
related. This peculiar experience is found operating long
afterwards in the circles in which the oldest tradition was
formed and propagated. If there appears in it the tendency
to regard in a miraculous light what is experienced or heard,
the only explanation can be, that actual events had taken
place, which under special dispensations of divine providence
had received a special significance, in which the natural
means remained hidden or were forgotten, and which sug
gested such an explanation. There have certainly been
introduced through tradition miraculous elements into the
Gospel history; but not because it lacked all power of dis
tinguishing between natural and supernatural, the possible
and the impossible ; but because in the history of Jesus there
idea of what is now called the binding force of the law of nature ; there is,
however, no need of clear scientific theories to enable a distinction to be drawn
between natural events and such as can only be referred to supernatural opera
tion. Judgment may err in particular cases ; and in the proportion in which
the miraculous has a greater importance than the natural, and as the hypothesis
of direct operation by God commends itself to the religious feeling, by which
the history of Jesus is regarded and transmitted, in the same proportion will
the Gospel tradition not have been free from the tendency to overlook the
natural means and believe in miracles, properly so called.

154 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
was present from the very first so much of the miraculous,
that the idea of a generally miraculous character as belonging
-to this history must have been formed, which could then
easily find occasion for tracing or emphasizing the miraculous
in particulars. This view would not in itself be unhistorical,
even if the individual portion, added on grounds afforded by
it, did not correspond to actual history.
It has indeed been thought possible to establish with
certainty the existence in our Gospel of legendary formations,
partly through the ever ampler forms in which a miracle-
narrative appears, partly through the perpetually fresh
variations of the same subject in similar histories. Strauss
especially, in order to prove the gradual growth of the rank
weeds of legend which have twined themselves round the root
of the actual history of Jesus, has always postulated as the
guiding motif of this process, the increase of belief in the
miraculous and the establishment of the miracle. Now it
cannot be denied that, among the additions made in tradition,
there may have been some specially miraculous, in order to
make an event appear more remarkable, impressive, and
significant. But even apart from the fact that criticism has
so frequently sought for an increase in the miraculous
element, in passages which were plainly of equal value for
establishing the existence of miracles, it is. overlooked that
this motif is altogether incompatible with the nature of the
legend-formation. Such a formation in an age credulous of
miracles starts from 'belief in the miracle as a plainly super
natural operation. The idea of growth in the miraculous
element, as entertained by Strauss and others, proceeds from
doubt of the actuality of the miraculous. According to it,'
that which may perhaps be explained in a natural way, and
which finds a certain analogy in natural events, appears less
miraculous ; in other words, properly and in a strict sense,
not yet miraculous. An age ^fchat is credulous of miracles
knows nothing of such distinctions ; it is inclined to regard as
miraculous everything the natural explanation of which is
hidden from it. That is to it in the fullest sense a real
miracle, the miraculous element of which has no need or
possibility of increase, for there is nothing more miraculous
than a truly divine miracle. When it speaks of some.

THE NATURE OF MYTH. 155
miracles as greater than others, it is really not the degree of
the miraculous which is defined, but the significance or the
consequences of the event, in accordance with which it is
inclined to measure the significance or the vocation of the
worker of the miracle. Still less can a formation of legends
on behalf of the establishing of the miraculous be spoken
of. An object of this kind presupposes a critical age not
inclined to accept a miracle as such so long as every possi
bility of a non-miraculous explanation is not taken away, and
the age in question, so credulous of miracles, was not one
like this. Certainly, many of the enemies of Jesus did not
believe in His miracles ; but they did not on that account
regard them as natural events, but as deceit or the work of
the devil. But above all, any such tendency is in antagonism
to the unartificial character of the legendary growths. Legend
may assume that this or that must have taken place, because
it is in harmony with its idea of the extraordinary character
of the event ; but it cannot relate that something has taken
place, merely to give rise to the idea that a miracle has
actually occurred, because it belongs to the nature of legend to
regard with unconscious naivete as having actually taken place,
what it only imagines. Under the name of legend-formation is
hidden the assumption of the conscious working of tendency.
Much less clearly than the notion of the legendary can
that of the mythical be applied to the Gospel history. The
myth is, strictly speaking, a narrative in which an idea is
so embodied, that the imperative necessity it is under of
giving itself scope is transferred involuntarily to a history
in which it finds expression, and thus gives rise to belief in
its actuality.1 The myth in this sense, however, does not,
strictly speaking, admit of application to the Gospel history as
a whole, for this turns upon the historical person of Jesus, while
it is quite essential to the myth to have to deal with a purely
1 It is only in connection with the history of religion that there can be any
mention of such myth-formation, because it is only there that ideas which not
as such have their proper significance, but only on the assumption of their
reality, come up with such constraining force as to require involuntary expres
sion in a history which is regarded as actual. The so-called philosopliic myth
is only a consciously woven garment for thoughts which have not yet attained
to the clearness of abstract ideas, but are first conceived in the pictorial forms of
imagination.

156 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
ideal conception. We must therefore, with Bruno Bauer, raise
the question of the historical existence of the person of Jesus,
and must regard the Gospel history merely as the embodiment
of the picture of the Messiah, which had taken shape in the
religious consciousness of the Church, before we can explain
as pure myths the narratives regarding Him.1 A distinction
is drawn, indeed, between the religious or philosophic myth
and the historical, which rests upon a historical phenomenon
or fact. But it is overlooked that, just because the conscious
ness of actual historicity clings to these historical points of
connection, there is thereby completely removed the naivete
of the myth-forming consciousness for which it is essential to
preserve unwarped for actual history what was gathered
purely from the idea, indeed to be conscious of the idea itself
only in the form of history. In the so-called historical myth
it is no longer an independently conceived idea that is
embodied in a history, but solely a definite conception of a
historical person or fact which finds there its expression.
Thus, then, there can no longer be a fundamental distinction
established between the historical myth and the legend
where the very same thing takes place. A history enriched
by perfectly arbitrary inventions containing no central idea
is not a legend ; and a myth which is connected with
historical persons or circumstances, and gives expression to
the profoundest thoughts in a narrative suitable to them, is
nothing else than a legendary formation amply furnished
with ideas.
Nevertheless, in reference to the carrying out of actual into
more or less ideal history, the distinction between legend and
myth may be retained so far as it is actually an essential
distinction, whether the carrying out of a traditionary history
perfects itself only under the influence of unhistorical ideas,
or whether there is connected with a historical phenomenon an
entirely new, unfettered construction of history, in which an
1 It is a mere inconsequence when Weisse, who alone has tried seriously to
carry out the mythical standpoint, holds that such a myth-formation is con
ceivable, at least in the history of the childhood of Jesus ; and the success of
his attempt has entirely corresponded to this. Now we only laugh at the
odd anachronism which would carry back the profound speculations of the
philosopher of Leipzic to the primitive age of Christianity, and would explain
by means of them the origin of our Gospel narratives.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGEND AND MYTH. 157
idea finds expression purely through its own will. This differ
ence is only apparently a merely quantitative one. Finally,
both forms of the production of ideal history agree in making
the same innocent confusion of what, according to the con
ception entertained of a period, must have taken place with
what actually did take place. But the conditions under which
this self-deception came to completion are essentiallv various.
In the former case, it is agreed that something has taken
place, the only question is as to the delineation which corre
sponds to the later ideas of what it was and how it was done ;
and that i^the essential motif of all legend-formation. In the
latter case, the simple idea carries out its realization in a
history ; because something in a great number of instances
was thought, then since it was supposed to be necessarily
thought, it must also have occurred. Here we have a series
of steps related to the strictest form of myth-formation,
only distinguishable by this, that it deals, not with a
freely conceived idea, but with a conception which connects
itself with a historical phenomenon. Even where the legend
freely forms narratives of miracles, it does so only to give
expression with the most unfettered play of fancy to its con
ception of the miraculous character of the history which it
is relating. In the myth there is always present a special
motif for this act of production, and this lies in an idea which
carries out its realization in a narrative of this kind. When
it is thought possible to treat narratives, such as those of the
miraculous birth of Jesus, the temptation, transfiguration, and
resurrection, not as real histories, but only as ideas, they are
not considered as legends, but as myths ; for it is only, with
serious risk to the moral elevation of Jesus that these facts
could be constructed which gave occasion to legend for its
formation in this shape so rich in ideas. If the Gospel
tradition is once regarded as being to a large extent
unhistorical, the circle of what, according to this distinction,
can still be treated' as legend, becomes very reduced in
comparison with what must be termed mythical.
It is certain that the formation of myths fosters quite
another characteristic of consciousness from that fostered by
the formation of legends ; the latter is .-mainly concerned with
a formative, the former with a creative activity of fancy in its

158 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
proper sense ; in the case of the latter, the conception of past
events, arising from motifs quite other than historical, is
considered as one corresponding to the facts ; in that of the
former, a pure product of fancy is regarded as actual history,
because an idea is here expressed which is held to be true.
It has with justice been asked whether the age in which
Jesus lived, and the nation within which the Gospel tradition
took shape, torn as it was by contending parties, keenly
sensible of the difference between the ideal and the actual,
wounded a thousand times in its religious feelings through
the severe pressure of a political necessity, was still susceptible
of such an ingenuous simplicity. It must not be forgotten
that this nation, as a whole, remained in a position of unbelief
towards the preaching of Jesus, so that even if that naivete,
on the supposition of its continued existence, were not
necessarily destroyed by the differences of perception which
existed even in the circles of eye-witnesses in regard to the
contained tradition, this must have been done by the bitter
opposition of the populace hostile to faith in the Messiah,
When it has been thought that the religious enthusiasm or
the credulousness of an age, accustomed through the crass
deception of superstition to a multiplicity of gods, formed a
substitute for that naivete, it is overlooked that, by this
means, the acceptance given to faith in the mythical nar
ratives can be explained, but not the origin of these narratives.
What is ever most decisive is the question whether in the
faith of the primitive Church there lay the motifs of such a
myth formation, and without a thorough investigation of this
question the current readiness to have recourse to the mythical
explanation of the evangelical narratives remains without
scientific foundation.
The most obvious motif of such a myth-formation is per
manently constituted by the conception of the person of
'Jesus, which was established in the faith of the Church.
What seemed the most fruitful field for the growth of
mythical products was the belief in the divine nature of
Jesus, which was dominant in the Church from the beginning,
and which, resting on His elevation to divine majesty,
demanded a verification of this conception from the facts of
His earthly life. But even the most obvious miracles which

MOTIF OF MYTH-FORMATIONS. 159
are related as having been wrought by Jesus do not surpass
what was recorded of the prophets and other men of God in
the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The narration of them
cannot, then, be conceived as meant to prove the superhuman/
being of Jesus. And the Fourth Gospel, which is the first to
perceive in these miracles a proof of divine Lordship, regards
them very expressly as an indirect proof, while ever and anon
it lays stress upon this, that these miracles were given by the
Father to the Incarnate Son for the sake of His self-attesta
tion. The miraculous birth does indeed appear, at least in
the first Gospel, indirectly as a proof of the Messianic destina
tion of Jesus, but is never, in the Gospel narrative, brought
into connection with His claim to the possession of a higher
nature ; and if in the Fourth Gospel its place, as is sometimes
said, is supplied by the conception of the incarnation of the
Eternal Word, this conception appears plainly a didactic
reflection of the evangelist's, and certainly not in the mythical
dress of a symbolical narrative. The anointing with the
Spirit at His baptism bestows on Jesus a more advanced
prophetic character, and, apart from the difficulty as to the
submission by Jesus to John's water 'baptism, is adopted by
criticism itself in opposition to the idea of a higher Being in
Jesus, in virtue of which He would appear to need nothing
of the kind. That which in the Gospel narrative of the
temptation lays itself open to attack from the attempt of
criticism is much rather a partial or apparent abandonment
to the Satanic power; and as these attempts are built upon
purely human motifs, so their reference to passages of the
Old Testament, which generally express religious considera
tions and duties, in no way appears as a conquest of the
Satanic power by one directly divine. In the transfiguration
Jesus only appears in conjunction with the two men of God
of the old covenant ; and in the resurrection He has only, in
part, before the time, that which the Church looks forward to
for all believers. However ingenuously dogmatic greed draws
from the three older Gospels the proofs for the Godhead of
Christ, for the historical treatment of the New Testament
theology there long ago ceased to be any doubt on this point, 1
that they belong to writings which do not contain an explicit I
conception of the eternal Godhead of Christ, and of His

1G0 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
original heavenly life before His incarnation ; and as, in
accordance with their chronological position, in the face of
a Jewish Christian writing like the Apocalypse, with its
unequivocal Christological statements, it cannot be assumed
that their authors had no knowledge of or share in them,
there is here the most conclusive proof that this conception
has had no myth-forming power.
It was, in fact, an essentially different motif on which
Strauss, in carrying out the mythical standpoint through the
whole Gospel history, has based his explanation of the con
struction of the myths ; it is essentially the conception,
not of a divine elevation of Jesus, but of His Messiahship
in the Old Testament sense. Thus the formation of myths
is now excluded from the period during which Christianity
really developed itself upon Jewish soil, which was far too
narrowly limited for this. With Strauss this returns per
petually to the syllogism : this thing or that was expected of
the Messiah, Jesus was the Messiah for the Church, so that
what was expected of the Messiah must have happened to or
through Him. It does not admit of doubt that the assumption
that there was found in Jesus Him who not only fulfilled the
promise of the Old Testament in general, but literally in
accordance with the conceptions of His age regarding the
essence of prophecy, was already efficacious in tradition, and
more in the written than in the oral, for the delineation of
individual events of His life.1 But here there is clearly
manifested the difference between myth-forming proper and
the fabrication of such unhistorical traits which cannot, in
fact, be called legendary, because in the idea which lies at
the basis of them there is an important historical truth, even
if incorrectly applied. In the other case an historical fact is
present, with which, whether rightly or wrongly, the idea of
the fulfilment of an Old Testament prophecy connects itself,
and which, according to that presupposition, is regarded as
corresponding with it in all details. What has now to be
1 It is specially in the first evangelist that we not infrequently observe
additions or modifications made with the obvious intention of causing the fulfil
ment to conform more closely to the prophecy. That is no falsification of
history ; it is to him indubitable that the older representation must have been
imperfect or incorrect, if this correspondence is not brought forward in it with
sufficient clearness.

OLD TESTAMENT MOTIF OF MYTH-FORMATION. 161
considered is the fact that something is viewed as necessarily\
happening, only because it was foretold or was expected on J
the grourld of a prophecy interpreted in one way or another./
It is demonstrable that, in the carrying out of his view,
Strauss has inordinately over-estimated the precision of the
pre-Christian expectation of the Messiah, and has regarded as
the basis of such anticipations Old Testament passages which
indubitably were now for the first time interpreted as
Messianic ex eventu. A picture of the Messiah so definite,
and equipped with details so firmly fixed, as he everywhere
assumes, did not so much as exist in the pre-Christian period.
And, above all, Jesus had left the popular expectation of
Messiah unfulfilled in main points of so decisive a character,
that all believers in the Messiah must have found themselves
compelled to let go many traits of their picture of the
Messiah. It was then impossible, in regard to this or that
point, for there to be any overwhelming compulsion to con
sider a trait of it to be fulfilled, so that what, according to
that presupposition, ought to have taken place was involun
tarily considered as having really occurred. In point of fact,
our Gospels, the Fourth not excepted, afford us the most
palpable proof of an entirely opposite procedure. Far from
its being the case that these Gospels contain narratives
which plainly betray themselves to be inventions for the
purpose of showing that a certain prophecy was fulfilled,
there is not one whose origin criticism ventures to explain
exclusively in this very simple way. Not infrequently
narratives, the historicity of which is undeniable, appear to
be regarded as fulfilments of Old Testament prophecies, to
which they can be referred only on the strength of very
dubious explanations, so that the Old Testament has often
been rather explained in accordance with attachment to that
presupposition, with the view of finding again in it the
traditional traits of the life of Jesus ; but this has not been
elaborated in a naive commingling of idea and actuality on
the ground of a given interpretation.
Strauss, in point of fact, tries almost everywhere to
supplement this motif by the introduction of another, the
transference to the history of Jesus of traits from the life of
Moses, David, Elias, or other men of God of the Old Testament.
WEISS.  1. L

162 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
There is, in itself, no objection to the co-operation of this
motif. The New Testament sees in the Old not only
verbal prophecies, but also prophetic narratives ; it regards
the persons and events of the ancient sacred history as
types, i.e. as prophetic prefigurations of the Messiah and the
events of the Messianic age ; the occurrence of phenomena,
the types of which are found in Old Testament history, was
at the time of Jesus very probably an essential element in the
popular form of the expectation of the Messiah. We are
hardly yet in a position to prove a given instance of such
expectation to be pre-Christian, and therefore the explaining
of an individual narrative by the positing of an antitype of
this kind is always based upon a thoroughly precarious
hypothesis. The speciousness, however, nevertheless gained
by a mythical explanation, the motifs of which are of this
character, depends upon an erroneous application of the idea
of a myth. It cannot be denied that when the oral tradition
regarding the history of Jesus began to be embodied in a
written form, the authors, who were without literary training,
had before their minds as a pattern the sacred history of the
Old Testament, for they had here to deal with what was a
sacred history in a still higher sense of the term. If, how
ever, the entire form and method of representation employed
were borrowed from the Old Testament, it could not but be
that the narratives of the latter should determine the embel
lishment of the Gospel history, the filling up of actual or
supposed gaps in the tradition, sometimes even conceivably,
on the presupposition of its being a typical parallel for the
remodelling of the form of narrative given in tradition.1 It
is quite another thing when a narrative is formed on the
assumption that this or that antitype must have found its
type in the history of Jesus. There is no Old Testament
figure which, in accordance with its whole signification or
history, necessarily calls for the drawing of this typical
1 The features thus introduced into the Gospel history may be called
legendary in so far as the representation of a conception not actually afforded
by the history itself is here introduced, which can always be recognised as anti-
typical only ex eventu. But the obvious connection between this phenomenon
and the product of the evangelists' literary labours, the total indemonstrable-
ness of the existence, in the oral tradition, of a determining model for it,
completely excludes the application to it of the idea of the legend.

IMPRACTICABILITY OF THE MYTHICAL EXPLANATION. 163
parallel ; it is ever but an individual detail of the Old
Testament history in which a single aspect of the significance
of Jesus, or a single event of His history, finds its analogue.
Thus it is that Strauss was never able to explain a narrative
from the Gospels as being in every respect the antitype of
one from the Old Testament, but could only learn the motif
of its origination through the synthesis of details from histories
which were often very heterogeneous. He did not, more
over, confine himself to the field of the sacred history of the
Old Testament, but found it necessary to borrow from the
miraculous tales of other nations, in order to reinforce the
motifs which he felt were lacking in generative capacity. It
is clear, however, that the explanation of the Gospel narratives
has thus been surreptitiously transferred to a totally different
field. The myth is the spontaneous product of a conscious
ness which is so completely dominated by the constraining
necessity of an idea, that what is ideally necessary appears;
to it self-evidently actual. If it is granted that the possibility;
of it cannot be dismissed, then a given Old Testament anti-'
type present in the Church demands with constraining
necessity its fulfilment in the history of Jesus. But a collo
cation of the most various details from Old Testament or even
from heathen miraculous stories — arbitrary as that collocation
must be, because its product gains no support from the
details themselves — can never cfemand its fulfilment in the
life of Jesus with a necessity so strong as to give rise to the
assumption of its historicity, and, in consequence, to a myth
as the representation of it. On this particular, where it
earliest appears to have certain points of contact, the mythical
explanation becomes, when fully carried out, felo de se, and
leads to the perfectly different attempt at explanation through
voluntary conscious invention.
The more that one tries to gain really clear ideas regard-' ^)
ing the nature of legend and myth, and the conditions of
their origination, the more quickly does he come to the
conclusion that the application of these conceptions to the
domain of tradition, as embodied in the Gospels, is inadmissible,
or that it is at best rather a fruitless verbal dispute as to
whether the ideal portions of the popular tradition, which are /
actually found there, can be called legendary.

CHAPTER X.
FICTION AND TRUTH.
WITHIN the last few decades a remarkable revolution has
taken place in the criticism of the Gospel history.
However much legend and myth are still spoken about, still
the attempt to explain the origin of our Gospel narratives by
means of them has long been given up. What was most peculiar
to this mode of explanation was its starting with the uncon
scious products of phantasy, the productivity in the field of
religion of the consciousness of the community, with that
naive interchange of idea and actuality which holds that what
is necessarily thought must necessarily have taken place.
The attempt to carry this explanation through has involun
tarily led to invention, creating freely and with conscious
purpose, being put in the place of an unconsciousness and
involuntary creative phantasy. But what till now was but
an inconsequential carrying out of an hypothesis firmly held
in principle, has, through the rise of the Tubingen school,
become a new phase of criticism; though that had already
been heralded by Bruno Bauer's polemic against the older
mythical hypothesis of Strauss. The founder of the Tubingen
school, Ferd. Christ. Baur, at first attempted to prove, in regard
to the Fourth Gospel, that the point of view of an historical
work is quite foreign to it, and that it is concerned solely
with an intentional remodelling of the older tradition, and
with conscious rehabilitation of it in accordance with didactic
points of sight. The same explanation was given of the
discrepancies between the older Gospels and between them
and their hypothetical bases. It was more and more defi
nitely asserted by his school that the materials of the tradition
contained in the Gospels had not been regarded in the Church
as a fixed given whole, but as a material open to any trans
formation, which was constantly being remodelled in accord-
164

HYPOTHESIS OF FREE INVENTION. 165
ance with the necessities and views of the time, and was
with a conscious tendency put forward as the expression of
the current dogmatic conceptions. Finally, it was Volkmar
who, retreating to the position of Bruno Bauer in his view of
the order and the relation of dependence of our Gospels,
stated with the utmost definiteness that our Gospels were the
doctrinal writings of the true Christianity. With an un
bridled play of fancy which repelled every current scientific
criticism, he resolved the Gospel narratives into artificial I
doctrinal allegories. Strauss, too, in his Leben Jesu fur das
deutsche VolJc, of 1864, continually transfers the old weapons!
belonging to the period of his mythical explanation in the old'
Leben Jesu of 1835, and employs them as subsidiary. What
we are really concerned here with is conscious invention or
fiction, which always presupposes the most developed reflec
tion and outspoken tendency, indeed, a veritable refinement
in composition.1
It is incontestable that through this last utterance of criti
cism the whole question as to the historicity of our evan
gelical tradition has been brought face to face with a much
clearer and more decisive solution. And the latest attempts,
like those of Schenkel and Keim, to restore the naturalistic
explanation of the old rationalism, have shown its unten-
ableness most clearly. They assumed that the narratives
of miracles in the Gospels treated of events essentially
natural, the motives of which could be psychologically ex
plained. This perpetual disputing over every isolated detail
that might still be preserved as historical, concludes with
a confused relying on mere possibilities or on decisions,
1 Strauss himself was perfectly conscious of the change undergone by his
standpoint. When for the tradition contained in the Gospels he adopts the
name of a mythical history, he justifies it by saying that he is only concerned
with the question whether it is true history or fiction ; whether it be conscious
or unconscious is all the same thing. If the conscious invention had found
acceptance, then it might constantly be called myth, for this acceptance shows
that it took shape at all events in connection with the consciousness of the
time. But the problem proper was thus hidden. For we are not concerned
with the historical character of the Gospel narratives which criticism has denied
from the first and on d priori grounds, but with the explanation on this assump
tion of their origination. This must, however, become something perfectly
different if it is to be referred to the unconscious activity of legend or of the
myth-building phantasy, from what it will be if referred to conscious invention.

166 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
the arbitrariness of which cannot be concealed by all the bold
ness of the critic. For it is an attempt to construct and make
psychologically probable a succession of events, of which our
texts contain not the slightest trace, and which, in fine, is so
unimportant and wanting in significance that we cannot under
stand how legend could ever have adopted it as the starting-
point of the activity of phantasy. A feeling of inward freedom
is experienced when one returns from this artificial and darkling
process of disintegration to Strauss' mythical history. That
possesses some tangibleness. The rise of narratives of that kind
can at last be rendered conceivable if a thoroughly Christian
fundamental conception be clothed in the fictional voluntarily-
created garment of a narrative of Jesus. It is incontestable
that many of the analyses by which he tries to render observ
able the rise of the Gospel miracle-narratives reveal the
exercise of the power of invention, a circumstance which does
no discredit to primitive Christianity. All the motifs may
now be brought into full activity, which could not justly be
employed in the explanation of legend or of myth-formation.
A definite conception of the person of Christ would certainly
have been in the forefront of every process of invention which
chooses this as the central point of its creations. It would be
very natural to represent to oneself in this way the fulfilment
of Old Testament prophecies, where in other respects there
was correspondence with the tendency of invention, or to
adorn these with details from Old Testament narratives. It
is just as comprehensible in the case of the freely-creating
fictional phantasy as it was inconceivable in that of the myth,
that there were presented to it a motley variety of motifs
which, through the exercise of will, were brought to bear
upon it.
Nevertheless, we have now reached the limits placed
from the very first to the carrying out of this hypothesis.
The evidence of this hypothesis depends, in particular,
upon the certainty with which the analysis of a narra
tive sets forth its unified fundamental conceptions. The
fictional dress may be woven out of very multifarious materials,
the choice of which devolves upon the unrestricted play of
fancy. But the fundamental thought must always shine
clearly through it ; for conscious invention is being dealt with,

LIMITS TO THIS HYPOTHESIS. 167
which has its motif not in the desire of poetical creation as
such, but in didactic tendency. The carrying out of this^
hypothesis is often on this point its best refutation. With
more especial reference to the pretended inventions of tendency
in the Fourth Gospel, but also in regard to those in the
older Gospels, the differences which obtain within criticism
in reference to the didactic significance of the narrative, best
proves with how little clearness any significance is set forth.
It is thought that the fictional character of the composition is
the more certainly proved, the more that there are accumulated
didactic points of view and significant relations, such as a
narrative ought to contain. But it is overlooked that in the
course of this kaleidoscopic process the unifying fundamental
thought of the narrative vanishes, while proof cannot be
brought forward that it was formed with fictional freedom
through any process of this kind. It is only in the case of a
doctrinal invention which unconstrainedly lets its fundamental
thoughts be seen, or actually expresses them, that it is still
permissible to think of a certain naivete of conception. The
more artificial the combination and the obscurer the motifs,
the more scope is there for the play of an unbridled fancy
which treats the subject merely as a pleasant pastime or a
refined computation. With Strauss it takes most frequently
the form of the latter, especially when he is following out the
way in which the older forms of evangelical invention had
shape given to them and were subjected to new combinations.1
Certainly conscious invention can also fabricate miraculous
tales, and place them in the most plausible light. But it can-
1 One admires the acumen of the critic, but fails to understand how an age in
which the life of Jesus was made the subject of free invention preferred this
toilsome work of patching together this accurate redaction of what was already
given, to making a new and entirely fresh creation from ample resources. The
constantly recurring motif of these artificial metamorphoses and combinations is
the increase in the miraculous element and the establishing of the same, which
becomes more and more certain. We have already seen how the assumption of
this motif is in direct contradiction to the characteristics of an age credulous of
miracles (comp. p. 153 f. ). As far as regards didactic invention, both motifs do,
even apart from this, come to the ground almost simultaneously ; for the so-
called growth in the miraculous element can only have the object of producing
the clearest evidence of the miraculous character of the course of events, while
the so-called establishing of the latter aims at excluding every varying represen
tation of it.

168 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
not have as its aim what, according to Strauss, the evangelists
constantly have as theirs : by its self-created products to prove >
the actuality of the miracle, or to refute any doubt cast upon
it. For the details or the histories invented for this purpose
could only accomplish this if they had actual existence, but the
evangelist is himself conscious of their being freely invented.
An imaginative creation, however, which consciously attributes
the significance of actual facts to freely- constructed details, is
no longer a fiction, but a lying fabrication. Thus this hypo
thesis necessarily ends with discrediting the moral character
of the evangelists.
Before, however, the carrying out of this hypothesis is con
sidered, the question of its scientific admissibility must be
dealt with. It is clear that a certain space of time must
elapse before an historical phenomenon can be the subject of
free invention. In epochs in which the historical conscious
ness has neither been fully developed nor educated, and men
had no such share in contemporary events as they have now,
a shorter space of time would certainly be required. But in
this phenomenon we have only the last part of a process
we have traced through its different stages, and which
always and everywhere required a not inconsiderable space of
time before it was perfectly completed. The unconsciously
inventing legend assumes that the threads are loosened which
connected the consciousness of the present with the living
actuality of the past, as well as with the faithful tradition1
regarding it. But in this case a real step forward must have
been taken, and the lapse of time must already have been
apprehended.1 We are at present concerned with a didactic
fiction which is not called into existence by historical verity,
but by the higher truth of an actual history, and which, with
the consciousness of freedom, can give shape to the original
historical material only because it is known that actual his
torical information regarding this material no longer exists,
that even the alleged tradition regarding it has already been
1 There is no question here of an artificial invention which can choose its own
historical objects, although even this, if it were aware of its true interests, will
only select those which, through the length of time which separates them from
the present, have assumed the character of ideal types, the representation of
which, delivered from the restraining details of historical actuality, can be
completed in accordance with purely artificial laws.

RISE OF FREE INVENTION. 169
permeated by legendary formations and mythical remodellings,
and has become an object susceptible of being fashioned in
any new, way. Strauss knew what he was about, when, in
his last Leben Jesu, he retained the view that our Gospels
as a body arose in an age which still preserved in memory a
considerable proportion of the sayings of Jesus, while of the
history of His life there were known only the most shadowy
outlines, because all connection with the information given by
eye-witnesses and with the tradition so influenced had long
ago been broken. It was only in a time like this, when men
knew that nothing more accurate could be learned about the
subject, that the hope could be entertained that a free
imaginative treatment could win acceptance for itself, and
could fill up the gaps painfully experienced by the not
unnatural need of learning something regarding the object of
the highest reverence.1 Even the Tubingen school had, in the
case of its more cautious supporters, brought down our Gospels
so far into the second century, that, through the legendary
deterioration of the oldest tradition, the historical conscious
ness which originally connected itself with these materials
may long have been extinguished.
On this point, however, there has lately commenced a
healthy reaction through the more strict literary criticism of
sources. The origin of our evangelists is by no means so
obscure, or their dates so uncertain, that their position in the
second century can be allocated at will according to the
necessities of the judgment which has been formed regarding
the unhistorical character of their contents. Even Volkmar
places the Gospel of Matthew, which he used to consider the
latest of our three older Gospels, more than twenty years
earlier than was done by the first head of the school, although
the latter regarded it as the oldest ; and he places the first
great doctrinal fiction regarding Jesus Christ the Son of God,
our Gospel of Mark, three years after the destruction of
Jerusalem (a.d. 73). Thus the hypothesis which really refers
i In pointed contrast with this acknowledgment stands the fact that Strauss
now seeks to present Ein Leben Jesu im geschichtlkhen Umriss as Volkmar, too,
has lately done ; while, if our Gospels were written on the supposition that on this
subject certainty could no longer be ascertained, this possibility is, as far as we
are concerned, non-existent.

170 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
our Gospel narratives to conscious invention, lands itself in an
insoluble contradiction. That forty years after the death of
Jesus, at a time when many witnesses of His life were still
alive, this life of His should be made the subject of conscious
invention, is a manifest impossibility. If we have proved
(that the oldest of our Gospels employed the memoranda of
an eye-witness who embodied essentially the oldest Church
'tradition, and that this source forms the basis of the later
/ Gospels as well, then the commingling of conscious invention
with our evangelical tradition is plainly excluded.1 It is only
in the Fourth Gospel, if it actually arose far down in the
second century, that the conditions were present for the com
mingling of conscious invention ; but we have seen that this
is contradicted by the character of the Gospels, as well as by
what we can with certainty ascertain regarding its origin.
Those have not been wanting who, even on the assumption of
its apostolicity, have tried to find in it completely free inven
tions ; but the chief defender of this view, Wittichen, has
himself recognised its internal contradiction, and Weizsacker
has not ventured to formulate in a clear and definite statement
the intimations which point in this direction.
We are in the happy position of still possessing in the so-
called apocryphal Gospels, monuments from which we can
discern what could be produced by free invention cut loose
from all tradition of eye-witnesses. Some of these doubtless
date from the first half of the second century, and thus belong
to the period to which Strauss and the other leaders of the
Tubingen school relegate the rise of the Gospel literature
which is preserved to us, and it comes of itself into com
parison with the latter. In this case we see it to be the fact
that only such materials from the past were employed as the
subject of free conscious invention as were not embraced in
any historical record. This can be the only explanation of
why these Gospels do not venture to deal with the history
of the public activity of Jesus, regarding which there still
1 Only when these facts, which are substantially established in the newer
criticism, are simply ignored, is it possible to treat the evangelical narratives
directly as conscious fictions. This is essentially done by those who still
speak of legend and myth. But their employment of the legend- and myth-
formation point of view really substitutes for it one totally dissimilar (comp.
pp. 154, 163).

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 171
remained a trustworthy tradition, partly oral and partly
written, and why they confine themselves particularly to
those portions in which tradition has left a great gap.1 In
this domain, of which nothing was or could be known, it
was natural that inventive phantasy should have unlimited
scope for exercise, for it does not admit of doubt that we
have here to do with pure conscious invention. One doe3
these products of phantasy far too much honour by speaking
of legendary pictures. Certainly the possibility is not set
aside, that isolated legendary pictures may have found their
way into them, as the latter afforded very serviceable material
to the fancy of the narrator ; but the general character of
their narratives lies far beyond the successive steps of the
formation of a myth. The obtrusive way in which the narra
tive makes a display of its prevailing tendency thoroughly
proves its conscious purpose, and only confirms our assertion
that the clearness with which the tendency of the narrative
is manifested is in proportion to the certainty with which it
is recognised as conscious invention.
This instance shows the consequences of the deprivation of
all historical records and of all knowledge of the historical
circumstances. In our Gospels even the contested narratives
are connected with definite localities, and not infrequently are
linked with others by detailed indications of the chronology,
and the events recorded always take place on the field of
familiar historical circumstances. All natural " setting " in
respect of time or place is awanting to the fancy creations of
the apocryphal Gospels. They hang completely in the air ;
they are never connected with actual circumstances ; neither
do they, for the most part, necessarily assume as self-evident
1 Thus the Protevangelium of Jacobi deals mainly with the life of Mary,
regarding which nothing was historically known ; and the Gospel of Thomas
treats of the childhood of Jesus as far as the narrative of the twelve-year-old
Jesus in the temple, a period which the Gospels pass over in profound silence.
The so-called Acts of Pilate, which we hardly possess in the original form, are cer
tainly connected with the history of the Passion, but they offer merely a harmony
of our Gospels with isolated decorative additions and with information regarding
the ultimate fate of some of the personages introduced there, regarding whom
not unnaturally nothing more definite was known. In their present form they
appear along with the Gospel of Nicodemus, which originally was nothing more
than a fictional representation of Jesus' so-called descent into Hades, and thus
dealt with a subject lying beyond the sweep of all historical record.

172 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
circumstances the most impossible, and the most contradictory
of historical fact. The temple is treated as a kind of monas-
tical educational institute, in which Mary was brought up as
a virgin ; and the widows of the capital are called together
in order to select from among them a guardian for her. In
place of the actual world comes a fabulous miraculous world,
amply furnished with angels and devils, in which every
description of magic is appended to the ordinary events, as
when a mountain opens, and the Roman standards bow before
Jesus. It is natural that their main aim should be the
glorification of the personages mentioned in the sacred history,
but this is only sought for in isolated actions. It is sufficient
to observe that in them everything is different from what it
is in the case of ordinary men, e.g. that Mary, although but
six months old, can already take seven steps. The highest
moral idea to which the narrative rises is the unspotted
virginity of Mary ; and it never tires of freshly demonstrating
and confirming this, though often in a manner bereft of all
healthy feeling. The narrative has no inkling of the moral
elevation which belonged historically at least to the person of
whom it tells ; the child Jesus, whom it wishes to glorify, is
boastful, irascible, and vindictive. Care is taken to extol the
poetic beauty of the passage in which the sacred night is
celebrated by a pause in the course of all nature ; but at the
last, even this method of glorification experiences the want
of any deeper idea, and shows that the transgression of laws,
just because that is more striking, is to the narrator the main
element. Of course the chief interest of these Gospels centres in the
miraculous. Here, however, there is clearly shown the
elimination of all historical consciousness of the circumstances
of Jesus' life. In the Gospels the miracles as a rule belong to
the accomplishment of Jesus' calling; the proper theme of
these narratives is the miracles belonging to the period of
His childhood. Simple pranks like that of forming out of
clay sparrows which the child Jesus bid fly, or His conjuring
trick of bringing home water in His clothes when He broke
the pitcher, partly correspond to this shifting of the point of
view, and partly serve for the satisfaction of the vindictive-
ness of the child Jesus, and in the best cases for the resusci-

TRUTH AND FICTION. 173
tation of those who were injured, transformed, or killed by
Him. This is no human child ; it is the permanent mani
festation of a God transmogrified into the shape of a child, to
whom unconditioned omnipotence belongs. But this pre
tended divine omnipotence is itself only the art of making
every impossible thing possible, an art which is applied with
out any purpose but that of setting itself forth as what it is.
The narrative prefers to linger on the vain attempts which
were made to provide a human teacher for a child who, as a
child, could learn and, as God, knew all things which human
teachers could not know. And still it is no lofty divine
knowledge which comes into the foreground, but only a paltry
secret peddling intelligence which has neither sense nor manly
understanding. There is no more patent apology for the historicity of ours
canonical Gospels than the contrasted picture given in the 1
apocryphals. It has, indeed, been said that in so far as it is
unnatural and exaggerated, it is merely the degenerated
remnants of the Christian legends ; but even when our Gospel
narratives are considered products of legend, it is impossible
to mistake the specifically different character of these tasteless
and often silly fictions. Even if we do not fix attention on
the paradox involved in placing these in the same period in
which, according to Strauss, our Gospels originated, it remains
perfectly undiscoverable what could have given rise in the
second century to such a deterioration of the legends. The
historical consciousness, as concerned with the life of Jesus,
had long before been so completely extinguished, that un
limited formation of legends and free invention could lay hold
of this theme, and the first-fruits of this process might bear
as perfectly heterogeneous a character as the very latest.
The glaring contrast between the two is only made clear by
the fact that they had by no means a common origin ; that in
the circles in which the apocryphal Gospels arose, conceptions
had already been formed of the person and work of Jesus
which had not grown up out of the trustworthy tradition
regarding Jesus, and had withdrawn from every determining
influence of this tradition. That this was the case with the
circles which were smaller and more separated from the
Church as a whole, is clear from the fact that when the latter,

174 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
shortly after the middle of the second century, gave our four
Gospels a position of exclusive acceptance, these unhealthy
fanciful productions were never taken into consideration.
This can only be explained through the fact that the common
consciousness of the Church, assimilated to our Gospels and
supported by a tradition which was always retained in a rela
tively pure state, preserved an historical picture of the life of
Jesus still essentially unblurred, and hence with sure tact
rejects this product of a gift of invention which is in opposi
tion to the facts of history. Even in the third century there
are borrowed from them only isolated genealogical notices
certainly of very dubious value ; and it was a much later age,
one calling everything handed down by tradition sacred,
that first lost the gift of discriminating, which was more
amply approved by the ancient Church than by modern
criticism.

CHAPTER XI.
THE "TENDENZ-KRITIK."
BY means of the criticism of the Tubingen school, the
suspicion has been aroused that in our Gospels the
material given by tradition was freely shaped in accordance
with the didactic points of view of their time and author,
that they are not historical documents, but dogmatic party-
writings which serve at one time the interests of polemic, at
another those of conciliation. Rather than for acquaintance
with the history of Jesus and His age, they were thought to
be significant for the history of the antagonisms, from the
reconciling of which, according to the fundamental view of
Baur, the Catholic Church of the second century proceeded.
One may be fully convinced that the significance of Jesus
and of His manifestation does not lie in a new doctrine
which He has brought, and the correct handing down of
which is to us the condition of its comprehension, and yet he
must confess that under the presuppositions of this " Tendenz-
Kritik " all the historical value of the Gospels has for us dis
appeared. It is true that knowledge of the salvation brought
by Christ, as it is communicated to us by the apostolic preach
ing of salvation, is not dependent upon the greater or less i
reliability of the Gospels. That, however, which we look for
in them, the historical form in which the salvation manifested i
in the person of Jesus was originally brought to realization,
must necessarily, so far as we are concerned, become com
pletely unrecognisable as soon as the probability presents
itself that a later age and party here carried their independent
views regarding Christianity back to the time of its origina
tion, and have given expression to them in the representation
of the life of Jesus.
This apprehension is not exclusively dependent upon the
above-mentioned assumption of the Tubingen school, that our
176

176 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
Gospels as a rule deal with conscious fiction or poetry. We
have seen that in tradition, and even in the memory of eye
witnesses, the historical fact-basis is always modified in some
way by the narrator's conceptions of the person or the events
with which he deals. If our Gospels support party tendencies
and aims, which are really one-sided, the author's general view
of Christ and His work cannot fail to be essentially one-sided
and erroneous, and in a greater or less degree will stamp itself
upon the representations given by him. Further, the oral
tradition, which was exposed most immediately to such influ
ences, operated largely, both directly and indirectly, on our
three older Gospels ; and the Fourth, even if regarded as
Johannine, was committed to writing at such a distance of
time from the events, that the representation was necessarily
influenced by the conceptions which had been formed in the
interval. Thus it happens that all our Gospels, and the
Fourth most of all, are by no means mere biographies. They
are really didactic writings, in which it is the dominant inte
rest to make as clear as possible, and bring to actual expres
sion, the view of their authors as to the nature of Christianity.
If, then, our evangelists were partisans, our Gospels and their
sources really originated in the midst of severe party struggles
round the question as to the nature of Christianity, and thus
we have certainly no prospect of obtaining from them a
historical picture of its origin.1
The question, however, whether our Gospels issued from
j one-sided parties, has really been answered in the negative by
the Tubingen school itself. It starts from the universally
accepted fact that our first Gospel is Jewish -Christian, and
our third Gentile -Christian; but it cannot and does not
1 The significance of the question raised by the Tiibingen school does not
depend upon whether the plan, in accordance with which the history of primi
tive Christianity is constructed, is the correct one, or whether there is being
dealt with an original fundamental antagonism between the primitive apostles
and Paul, between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, law and gospel, faith and
works, particularism and nniversalism, and with the gradual reconciliation of
these. Although the view is gaining ground that this was not the case through
out, or else that under these historical presuppositions of the school there existed
only a strictly limited and modified element of truth, still the question cannot
be evaded, whether, with reference to the questions which agitated primitive
Christianity, one-sided tendencies gained a hold in our Gospels, which can have
blurred or altered the original historical picture.

THE " TENDENZ-KRITIK " AND THE FIRST GOSPEL. 177
assume that in them that antagonism obtains pure expression
which in the apostolic age became the subject of controversy.
In our first Gospel the Judaizing particularistic basis has,
through an universalistic redaction, already lost its specific
character, and the Pauline author of the third Gospel has,
through an irenical tendency, already adopted manifestly
Judaizing elements. The second Gospel, however, must have
been redacted in view of the other two, in order to neutralize
the contradictions which are still existent. Thus it has been
established that no one-sided tendency is found in any of our
three Gospels. The statement that the commingling which
exists in them can only be explained in the case of the first
Gospel through the separation of an older basis from its later
redaction ; in that of the third, through the irenical tendencies
of the author; in that of the second, through the mediating
object of the whole construction of the Gospel, rests upon
hypotheses which are extremely doubtful, and do in part
directly contradict the results we have arrived at regarding
the origin of the synoptic Gospels. It is an historical fact
that, on the question of the law and the relation of Jews and
Gentiles in the Christian Church, a variety of views from the
very first gained acceptance ; and a truly historical view will
probably but discover that in the life and in the words of
Jesus there did occur that which afforded points of connection
for one and another of these views, that it corresponds only
to historical actuality, and does not rest upon any party posi
tions whatever, or on artificial arrangements. On this point
the actual construction of the Gospels can only testify to the
fact that they have reproduced the picture of the life of Jesus,
not in a one-sided light, but, as a whole, in a trustworthy
manner. This does not exclude the possibility of an isolated
saying or fact in one or other evangelist being represented in
accordance with the peculiar view taken by him.
In fact, in the case of the first Gospel, a one-sided ten-/
dency cannot be entertained. In the first great speech it
permits Jesus to express the fullest recognition of the Jewish
law, and energetically to further its acceptance (Matt. v. 17-
19), but expressly in accordance with a view of it and a
meaning of it which contradicted contemporary conceptions,
and must have led to the doing away with the law in that
WEISS. — I. M

178 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
form of it which was literal and accommodated to the neces
sities of the life of the Israelitish people (v. 2 0 f.). It permits
Jesus, when about to depart, to instruct His disciples to
admonish those who desired baptism to keep His commands,
and not those of the Mosaic law (xxviii. 20). This Gospel,
therefore, cannot have designed to support the party which
desired to maintain the Mosaic law as being binding on the
Church.1 When the Gospel positively proves the fulfilment
of prophecy in the history of Jesus, and, corresponding to
this, repeatedly brings forward expressly the destination of
Jesus and His first disciples for the people of Israel, and then
at the end speaks of Jesus as sending these very disciples to
all peoples (xxviii. 19), it cannot support a party in the
interests of a tendency which wished to exclude the Gentiles
from salvation, or obstruct in some way or other their par
ticipation in it. On the contrary, we saw that the whole
representation of the Gospel aims at reconciling this apparent
contradiction, and explaining how it happens that He, who
came as the fulfiller of the law and the prophets, does at last
realize the kingdom in a form so contradictory to prophecy
(comp. p. 63 f.). It is incontestable that this point of view
is not the prominent one in history, — that would have been to
make the representation unhistorical, — but it is made apparent
by the course of Jesus' history. That course is first properly
understood through the carrying out of this view.
\ In reference to the third Gospel, the Tubingen school main
tains that it is relatively in contradiction to the first.2 It is
a fact, however, that even this Gospel, in a connection which
excluded all misconception, introduces the axiom as to the
1 Thus it happens that His view, as given in xv. 11-20, involves a certain
antithesis as against the laws regarding eating ; and the course of action, in
accordance with which Christ on His return is to judge, is, taken in its connec
tion, plainly the proof given to His disciples of His self-denial and self-offering
(xvi. 24 f.).
2 It starts from the view, which we have seen to be perfectly untenable, that
the third evangelist knew and employed our first Gospel (comp. p. 74), and
overlooks the fact that when he passes over sayings and even histories with
which he must have been familiar through the older tradition, this does not by
any means necessarily imply an intention to contest these or explain them as
unhistorical, but is adequately explained by this, that, in the absence of fuller
elucidation, they were liable to be misunderstood, and actually had been
misinterpreted (comp. p. 85).

THE " TENDENZ-KRITIK " AND THE THIRD GOSPEL. 179
inviolable validity of the law (Luke xvi. 17), to the com
mands of which Jesus here repeatedly refers (x. 25 f., xviii.
20), and also sayings which give expression to the original
destination for Israel (xxii. 30) of salvation and of the
twelve apostles (xiii. 16, xix. 9; comp. ii. 10). The early
history dwells with manifest delight on pictures of the Jewish
legal life and the highly wrought expression of national
expectation of the Messiah. We have certainly seen that the
Gospel desires to establish the Pauline doctrine; but it is
only the general Christian fundamental truths of the Pauline
system which can be established in the Gospel by means of
sayings and histories, the historicity of which is in part
indubitable (comp. 85 f.). It is only by means of artificial
allegorizing elucidations of histories, and especially of parables,
that criticism has been able to arouse suspicion that these
latter were formed for the purpose of giving expression
to the contradiction existing between the Pauline conceptions
and doctrines of another kind. In combination with the
intentional bringing forward of faith as the condition of
salvation, there runs through the whole Gospel the most
express enforcement of the duty of benevolence, and it shows
that it is not from this that party watchwords are derived.
Neither in the case of the oldest source, which undoubtedly
contained the axiom and the parables of the calling of the
heathen, nor yet in that of our first Gospel, which intention
ally explains and justifies the transference of salvation from
Jews to Gentiles, was there any occasion for providing, in the
life of Jesus, a type or a confirmation of the Pauline mission
to the heathen. Nevertheless, the whole composition of the
Gospel is, according to Baur, directed to the end of accom
plishing this. Because the first miracle which is related as
performed by Jesus is the exorcism of demons in the syna
gogue at Capernaum, Jesus must from the beginning appear
as the vanquisher of demons, i.e. of the power of heathendom.
But apart from the fact that here, as everywhere, Jesus
appears first with the announcement of the kingdom of God
(iv. 15, 21), and that that single exorcism of demons which
he has, in addition to what is contained in the first Gospel, is
undoubtedly related simply as it is in Mark, the demoniacs
who invoked Jesus as the Christ and Son of God (iv. 41,

180 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
viii. 28) cannot be regarded as representatives of heathendom.
The whole of the second main section of the Gospel is made
to afford, in the ministry of Jesus on the soil of Samaria, a
type of the richly blessed mission of Paul among the Gentiles,
as opposed to his fruitless mission on the soil of Israel.. But
apart from the incident in a Samaritan village, where Jesus
finds f*s little acceptance as He did in His own city, this
section contains only one narrative which deals with what
took place within the boundaries of Samaria (xvii. 11); on
the other hand, it contains many bearing on what can only
have taken place on Jewish soil.1 Finally, with the twelve
apostles of Israel there is made to correspond the seventy
disciples who appear as the agents of a ministry rich in bless
ings outside of Israel, and thus as the type of the Pauline
mission to the heathen, in the very proportion in which the
Twelve are in contrast to them regarded. It has already
been often enough shown how artificially Baur has sought
to carry out this idea. It is enough to say here, that a
Gospel which places the calling of Peter in so prominent a
light as is done by the older Mark-document (v. 1-11), and
admits his great profession without the humiliating addition
found in Mark (ix. 20), which promises to the Twelve to sit
on twelve thrones (xxii. 30), and entrusts them with the
mission to the heathen (xxiv. 47), which does not, like the
first evangelist (Matt. xxvi. 35, 56), relate that all the dis
ciples spoke as rashly as Peter and yet fled at the appre
hension of Jesus, cannot possibly be in the service of a
tendency to depreciate the primitive apostles.
I The Gospel of Mark does, in its truly epical manner, in its
simple delight in narratives and pictures, in spite of its
didactic purpose, which in this case is directed only towards
the truths which undoubtedly lie in the history itself (comp.
p. 51), show nothing whatever so little as it does the tendency
to reconcile contradictions and evade burning questions.3 In
general, however, the synoptic Gospels, through the way in
1 If the introduction of Herod into the history of the Passion was made in
order to transfer the blame of the murder of Jesus from the Gentiles to the Jews,
yet even he finds no fault in Jesus (xxiii. 15) ; and, indeed, the scene in which
Pilate washes his hands in innocence, and the people take upon themselves the
whole guilt of the blood (Matt, xxvii. 24 f.), is awanting in the Gospel of Luke.'
8 The naive way in which vii. 27 guards, against misconception the expression

PICTURE OF CHRIST PRESENTED BY THE GOSPELS. 181
which the sayings and groups of sayings given by tradition
reappear in various redactions, afford ample points of vantage
for separating, through a simple critical process, what is
original from what the individual evangelists have, in accord
ance with their characteristics, introduced or modified, so that
the unnoticed introduction of an alteration made from one
sided standpoints is not possible. Criticism is continually
verifying the great fidelity of the first evangelist in minutely
reproducing the speeches of his apostolic source, notwith
standing the freedom of his composition as a whole. The
more distinctive his own idiosyncrasy of speech, the clearer is
the distinction between . the original groundwork and the
little which he added from the language of his own time, but
which had no connection with the proper doctrinal contents.
The speech-portions which can be constructed from them
afford a standard for the determination of the peculiarities
belonging respectively to Mark and Luke.
The picture of Christ presented to us in the first three
Gospels is acknowledged to be essentially one ; we have seen |
already how in them the higher representations of thei
eternally divine existence of Christ are nowhere mythically or
didactically expressed (comp. p. 1 6 0). It is indeed Luke, the
latest of the evangelists, who, like no other, brings forward
the truly human progress of the boy Jesus (ii. 40-52), and
who assumes frequent temptations of Jesus by the devil even
after the days in the wilderness (iv. 13, 22, 28). In Mark,
who, according to the Tubingen school, is of latest date,
occurs that utterance which, according to a not unnatural
misconstruction, appears to exclude the sinlessness of Jesus
(Mark x. 18), — according to him, Jesus expressly refuses to
claim divine omniscience' (xiii. 32); neither the change
undergone by this utterance at the hands of the first evan
gelist (Matt. xix. 17), nor a highly doubtful reading (Matt.
xxiv. 36), in which it has been thought possible to trace such
an intention, really modifies in any way the fundamental
of Jesus regarding His destination for Israel, and in which the intimation of
Jesus in Matt, x.* 18 is turned into a prophecy of the mission to the heathen
(Mark xiii. 10 ; comp. xiv. 9), are perhaps the only occasions on which a reference
can be traced to the questions which agitated the apostolic age. The repro
duction is throughout a, very free one, but it is manifestly directed to the
interpretation and emphatic accentuation of the words of Jesus.

182 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
thought of these declarations.1 The fact that the evangelists
who narrate the miraculous birth of Jesus never once make
the slightest allusion to it in the further course of their history,
is the best proof of how little their representation has been
influenced by advanced views as to Jesus' origin, whether
these are held to be unhistorical or no. It is precisely the
criticism which finds in the idea of Jesus' anointing by the
Spirit in baptism an earlier stage of the notion of the
divinely-wrought conception of Mary, or sees in the stress
laid upon the Davidic descent of Jesus a contradiction with
the later evangelists, which should perceive even in the naive
juxtaposition of these stages the most striking proof of how
far it was from our evangelist's purpose to compose the
picture of Jesus' life according to Christological dogmas.
In the Fourth Gospel the case appears certainly different ;
there the Prologue expressly lays down a complete doctrine
of the origin and essence of Christ's person as regulating the
history related of Him. It seems almost unavoidable that
from this point of view the picture of Jesus' life would have
a strange new light cast upon it ; and it is the continual
endeavour of the newer criticism to demonstrate to what
degree this has taken place. But this ostensible fact abso
lutely disappears so soon as actual proofs are demanded.
Not once is it a God in human form which the narrative of
this Gospel presents to us, but the Logos in the fullest sense
become flesh. His birth and earthly home, His mother and
brethren, are spoken of without constraint. He is tired and
hungry, He thirsts beside Jacob's well as on the cross ; He
knows and feels human joys, and tears are drawn from Him
by His pain at the grief of friends. Most certainly it was not
the task of a writing to depict the story of the temptation, or
of the agony in Gethsemane, when its aim was to show from
selected portions of Jesus' life how the eye-witnesses of it had
1 The attempts of Baur to vindicate for Luke's Gospel a higher Christology
which leaned towards the standpoint of the Logos Gospel, rest upon passages
which, if not elaborated, are simple reproductions of the statements so exactly
preserved by the first evangelist out of the apostolic source (x. 22, xxi. 33,
comp. with Matt. xi. 27, xxiv. 35). The ostensible omission of the so-called
father of Jesus in Mark vi. 3 must be considered as a higher conception of the
person of Christ, whose miraculous birth, however, is candidly narrated by tL«
others.

THE JOHANNINE CHRIST. 183
beheld the glory of the Eternal Logos ; but repeated mention
is made of His being severely agitated and shaken in spirit.
To Him the fulfilment of the divine will consists in the
obedient repression of His own ; the victory over selfishness
and ambition is a moral task, one which is completely
accomplished, and is by God's love richly rewarded. He
looks to the Father as to the one true God (v. 44, xvii. 3),
as to His God (xx. 17), whom He honours.- and adores, whose
goodwill, protection, and aid He requires for Himself, and all
that is His, and always obtains. The Father is greater than
He (xivr28), and not until after His resurrection does He
accept the divine appellation (xx. 28). In order to qualify
Him for the work of His calling, the Spirit descends and rests
upon Him, only more permanently than in the case of the
prophets of the old covenant (i. 32 £). In this picture the
traces of human development are certainly awanting ; but the
history of boyhood is not related by the evangelist, and the
process of development is highly questionable, which it has
been thought possible to discover in the course of His short
public ministry as given by the older Gospels. It is not,
indeed, historically improbable that Jesus entered on His
vocation a mature man.1
By reason of this it has been the more insisted on that
divine omnipotence and omniscience in the widest sense are
here attributed to Jesus. But were that the case, all that is
there affirmed would be, that the evangelist has involved
himself in an incomprehensible contradiction. Most un
equivocally he represents Jesus, on His departure from earth,
as supplicating back the divine glory which had been His
from the first (xvii. 5), which therefore He cannot have
possessed here ; and the evangelist himself speaks repeatedly
of Jesus' approaching elevation to divine glory (vii. 39, xii. 16).
Jesus certainly seems equipped with superhuman penetration
which scrutinizes the hearts of men ; but this is a trait
which constantly recurs in all our older sources. More than
1 It is not worth while to speak of the pitiful attempts made to prove that
the evangelist is making an attack from the side of Docetism ; it is sufficient
that both the principal passages to which Baur appeals (vi. 19, viii. 59)
narrate nothing but what the Synoptists have told already (Mark vi. 48 f. ;
Luke iv. 30), and that the expression used in vii. 10, 15, affords no ground foi
this misconstruction.

184 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
once He speaks words which presuppose a plainly super
natural knowledge, even in regard to outward things; but
apart from the consideration that the older evangelists in
dubitably credited Him with such (Matt. xvii. 27; Luke
v. 4, xix. 32), that is no sign of a metaphysical essential
property in Him who had received the Spirit without measure
(iii. 34), and was under His continual influence. The passages
from which criticism, as naively as dogmatizing exegesis,
deduces an essentially divine omnipotence, say exactly the
same thing as an acknowledged passage from the older Gospels
(Matt, xi 27), which can be misconstrued only when the
understanding of its object and connection is completely
renounced. Appeal is constantly being made to the unique
creative miracle of our Gospel. But the change of water into
wine at Cana, contained by it only, is easier to understand
than the miracle of the loaves, which it shares with the
Synoptics. And the fact, that of the miracles of healing only
certain specially striking ones are brought forward, corresponds
to the eclectic character of the Gospel, which by no means
excludes the fact attested by the Synoptists, that Jesus'
ministry of healing was His constantly pursued professional
work.1 How little the evangelist intended by these narratives
to demonstrate that Jesus was the almighty Logos, is shown
by the simple fact that in the cure of the blind, here, more
than in any one of the older Gospels, Jesus' employment of
outward means in the process of healing is made very pro
minent (ix. 6 f.) ; and in the case of the raising of Lazarus it
is designedly emphasized how this was solicited from and
granted by God (xi. 41 f). Down through the whole Gospel
1 The motif we have repeatedly discussed, that of growth in the miraculous, is
often employed to explain the evangelist's remodelling. But can a growth of
the miraculous be really seen in the enlarging on the distance between Jesus
and the nobleman's son who recovered health without His personal presence ?
or in the mentioning of the lame man's years of infirmity, who at a simple word
of Jesus arose and carried away his bed ? When Jesus heals a man born blind,
or raises one from the dead who had lain in the grave four days, these are
undeniably absolute miracles. But an increase as against the synoptic miracles
is involved in these narratives only when it is granted that those presented in
the Synoptics as healed were not born blind in reality, but only suffered from
some eye complaint easily and naturally removed, and that Jairus' daughter-
and the widow's son were- in truth only apparently dead, which is equally
contrary to the sense and purport of the older narrative.

CHRISTOLOGICAL COLOURING OF THE JOHANNINE ADDRESSES. 185
it is urged again and again that Jesus can do nothing by ;
Himself, that God is the source of all His actions and successes, '
that it is God Himself who through Him performs the actions.
And above all these miraculous tales stands, as inscription,
that saying about the angels of God ascending and descending
upon the Son of man in order to convey to Him divine help
(i. 51).
That the picture of Jesus has here been distorted so as to
favour some dogmatic theory, has not and cannot be proved..
That, besides, the life of Jesus in its fundamental features
was not drawn up in accordance with dogmatic tendencies,
we have in another place fully demonstrated (chap. vii.). It
is certainly indisputable that in a Gospel which is so devoted
to its didactic and edifying aims, apart from a wealth of singly
unmistakeable recollections and invaluable historical motives,
the concrete, richly-coloured traits of historical actuality have
frequently disappeared, or have retired from immediate observa
tion. We have seen that this is so, especially as regards its
longer addresses and conversations.1 But when it has been
attempted to find ground for the misgiving, that on these
points at least every historical substantiation had been made
impossible by the didactic tendency, the ample means have
been overlooked which we have at command for distin
guishing between the original fact-basis and the Johannine
investiture. The recognition of what was added by him is
made very easy to us by the freedom with which the author
formulates from the first his didactic points of view, and by
the directness with which the contemporary Epistle of the
same writer enables us to regard his mind and the whole
character of his religious life. The rich remainder of the
original utterances of Christ, which we possess in the synoptic
tradition, gives us a fixed standard for distinguishing from it
what was original in a material and formal respect.
' We have proved from undoubted facts that these are not, as has been
supposed, simple statements of Johannine theology, or that, by the introduction
of the conceptions of a later time, the original form and historical relations of
Jesus' speeches were rendered unrecognisable. But it is certain that the
endeavour to find in Jesus' own words points of connection for his more advanced
knowledge of Christ's person, and apprehension of the salvation which he had
found in them, caused the evangelist frequently to render these with meanings
and elucidations which far surpassed their original scope.

186 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
There can be no doubt that always where the fundamental
ideas of the Prologue are presented in a severely dogmatic form,
there the evangelist is speaking, and not Jesus Himself. A
little consideration shows us that before an audience to whom,
whether it was irenically or friendly disposed, such thing3
were quite incomprehensible, Jesus could not have spoken of
His eternal existence with the Father, of what in immediate
contemplation of Him He had there seen and heard, of His
descending from and ascending to heaven, as if they were
things perfectly intelligible. When there is here such a well-
defined boundary which these expressions never transgress,
and when there remain statements of the Prologue which have
not been affected, it follows that on this point the evangelist by
no means indiscriminately blended his conceptions with what
belonged to Jesus' speeches. Thus the sentences which were
put in His mouth must have had their points of connection
with the addresses of Jesus; only they would be detached
intimations in which now and then He gave expression
almost involuntarily to that deepest secret of His self-con
sciousness. That, indeed, we still find such, which very
comprehensibly had not passed into the popular tradition of
the older evangelists, gives us new ground for the separation
of the really historical foundation from the Johannine con
tinuation. The Prologue represents the whole history of Jesus as a
struggle of the light which appeared in Him with the dark
ness of this world, and thus we have here the apprehension
of the evangelist who, the first Christian Gnostic, in the
intuitive recognition of the revelation of God which appeared
in Christ, found what was the very highest which Christ
desired to communicate to the world. When, then, this call
ing of Christ to be the Light of the world and to testify the
truth to it is again and again expressed in the strange doctrinal
forms of the Prologue or the Epistle, the objection is started
that the evangelist and not Jesus is here speaking. And yet
it is not difficult to point out in form and material points of
connection in the synoptic tradition even for such declarations,
and by this means to recognise original utterances of Christ
under the disguise of the Johannine presentation. The result
of Christ's fulfilment of His vocation is most clearly summed

MYSTICAL COLOURING OF THE JOHANNINE ADDRESSES. 187
up by the evangelist in his conception of eternal life. The )
beholding of God face to face, which is the chief thing that
the believer looks for in the heavenly life with God, has for
him begun already here; for in the Son he beholds the Father
as clearly as He can be seen. Because of this, the believer
possesses that eternal life already, and the communicating of
this to him was the object of Christ's being sent. But along
side the statements as to the eternal life which commences
here, there often run inseparable declarations as to the
eternal life beyond, which according to the Synoptists had
been made possible by Jesus. The pictures of hungering and
thirsting, of bread and water, of death and resurrection, which
are so applied, do even in their bearing on the spiritual life
accord with the Synoptics also, and prove themselves not to be
foreign to Jesus' method of teaching. The constantly recur
ring expression of the holy gratification which faith finds
immediately in the acknowledgment of Christ and in the
beholding in Him the revelation of God, which delivers the
believer from the judgment, because his fate is already decided
by his actual participation in salvation, neither excludes an
allusion to the last consummation promised by Jesus at the
resurrection and the judgment day or at His own return, nor
to the importance which Christ's death had for the realization
of salvation. It is our evangelist particularly who places
allusions to His death and resurrection in early word-pictures
of Jesus, but nowhere is there introduced into His utterances
a formulated conception of the way in which salvation was
made possible through the death of Christ.
What is most peculiar in the Johannine doctrinal view
is its mysticism. Along with the possession of eternal :<
life in Christ there is presented a sinking of self in Him
as in the one source of life, a continual resting' in Him,
and, as a consequence of this, the existence and continuance
of Christ in the believer. This personal relation to Him,
which is only comparable to the perfect communion of two
persons united by the bond of an indissoluble love, becomes
further the means of attaining fellowship with God, since
Christ is one with the Father as the believer is with Him ;
and thus bringing about his existence in God, and God's in
him. Where this Johannine mysticism is clearly expressed,

188 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
it is the evangelist who is speaking, and not Jesus. In spite
of this, we find even here pictorial addresses of Jesus, which,
allegorically interpreted after the manner of the time, offer
convenient points of connection for the development of this
mysticism ; and it can still be shown how little this latter has
had any effect in altering the original character of Christ's
addresses. According to that mystical idea, the Christian life
is a process which completes itself through internal necessity,
and needs no particular norm. He who has acknowledged
God in Christ, who through Christ abides in Him, in him
God Himself dwells and acts through Christ, he is born of
God, has become a child of God, of like nature to Him ; he
cannot sin, he must be righteous, and love righteousness like
God Himself. But not only are essential elements of this
specifically Johannine group of ideas totally awanting in the
speeches of Christ (comp. p. 119), but their whole parenetic
tone is no other than that in the Synoptics. Jesus' words
and commands are still necessary even for believers, their
conduct and behaviour form the test of His discipleship ;
humility and love are the duties impressed upon them.
As regards these chief points, it is easily shown how surely
the Johannine colouring of Christ's addresses is still distin
guishable, and how little it has rendered the original form
unrecognisable or incomprehensible. But they must assuredly
be analysed with methodical criticism, if they are to be employed
in a historical representation of the life of Jesus. The Pro
logue begins by presenting the destination of Christianity for
the world. The Johannine Christ speaks constantly of what
He had come to bring the world, but so also does the first
evangelist (Matt. v. 14). This is certainly not the historical
Jesus who came only to His own people, as is occasionally
uncontradicted, even by our Gospel (comp. p. 102), and who
did not turn His glance to the nations beyond till His own
had rejected Him ; and this, not because He had ever desired
to withhold His salvation from the world, but because it was
purposed in the counsels of God that Israel should be the
light to the heathen. At the time when John wrote, it had
long been apparent that through Israel's guilt the result dif
fered from what God had designed for His people, that the
universal vocation of Christianity would be realized, but not

THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 189
by means of Israel as a nation. From the commencement
Jesus is to him only the Light of the world, its Life and its
Saviour. The Prologue certainly makes prominent also that
the world, as a whole, did not recognise the Light which
appeared (i. 10); and in the speeches of the Gospels allusions
to this fact of experience are not awanting, but the world fre
quently appears as those who remained unbelieving as opposed
to believers. But it is therefore particularly manifested
here how the introduction of the Johannine knowledge and
experiences into the speeches of Jesus corresponds with their
deepest meaning and ultimate aim, even if dissociated from
his communication of what was necessarily historical. In the
speeches of Christ in the Fourth Gospel, the didactic inten
tion of the evangelist has not made a voluntary caricature of
the original ; he has only been the interpreter of the same,
pointing out the whole in the part, the enduring in the
changing, the end in the beginning, and the eternal in the
temporal.

CHAPTER XII.
THE HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.
A DOGMATIZING view of the Gospels, as in form and
contents these originated with the Holy Ghost, can
yield no historical representation of Jesus' life ; it is nothing
more than reasonable to rest content with this representation
given us by the highest authority. There only remains the
task of welding our four Gospels together by such artistic
combination of their detached portions that no word shall be
lost, nothing be changed, and from beginning to end all that
is related to us of the life of Jesus shall be in progressive
order. The ancient harmonies exhausted themselves, and it
is very unfair to mock what was artificial and arbitrary in
them, so long as the same standpoint is essentially retained
as that which these necessarily demanded. This standpoint
is only broken with when it is recognised that the historical
information of the life of Jesus cannot be an object of faith
like the announcement of His person and work ; and that the
essential credibility of our evangelical tradition was not assured
by a special miracle, by means of which our Gospels arose,
but by the historical conditions of their origination as well as
through the working of the Divine Spirit in the Church, from
which they proceeded, and by which they were acknowledged
as reliable records. Now only can a representation of the life
of Jesus be spoken of which may possibly be formed from
these sources.
But as the essential credibility of the Gospels cannot
possibly answer for the historical exactitude of every detail,
historical criticism, which is the fundamental presupposition
I of each scientific representation, must have free and unlimited
exercise even in respect to the evangelical source-documents.
{ It will certainly not be so exercised, that at each deviation of
the evangelists from one another, the computation will have
190

LITERARY CRITICISM OF SOURCES. 191
to be begun over again as to the greater or less degree of the
credibility belonging to them.1 The results of the inquiry
into the origin, the aim, and the composition of our four
Gospels can first make certain the value of any one Gospel as
a source, and its importance in deciding each separate question.
It is involved in the peculiarity of the material and of the
sources from which they are formed, that the scientific repre
sentation cannot regard that previous investigation as final,
and for a reconstruction of the history of Jesus can employ
the acknowledged material which has been so adequately
guaranteed, along with a revision of all that remains. The
Christian Church, which regards our four Gospels as credible
records of Jesus' life, has a right to require that even in
details our representation should invariably correspond with
the representations contained in the Gospels ; and that the
discrepancy between their version of events and ours should,
in every essential respect, be made perceptible as being histori
cally discernible through the conditions of their origin. There
is thus no possibility of the portrayer of the life of Jesus pre
senting his attained results in the convenient form of a con
tinuous narrative; he must, by means of a critical analysis of
the evangelical reports, present these results to the eyes of his
readers; he must always conjoin with the history of Jesus'
life a history of the tradition regarding it. It pertains to
this that the fundamental correspondence assumed among our
predecessors, at least in their chief schools and representatives,
between the various views of the sources, as well as the
information contained in them, penetrates at one time in a
polemical way, at another in an apologetic, the representation
of an individual Gospel, and colours it accordingly. What it
thus loses in unity of character and in plastic completeness,
it may probably gain in clearness through its exclusion of
antagonisms, and in scientific power of conviction.
1 In Neander's representation of the life of Jesus, which in many other respects
was the first of its kind, this method was dominant, which only shows that at
that time the indispensable conditions for a proper literary criticism of sources
were awanting. And even the latest history of Jesus — that of Keim's — which
appeared with so self-conscious a criticism, by no means offers to the advanced
literary criticism of sources a sufficient firmness to exclude at the discussion of
details a wavering generally uncertain and often very difficult to reconcile with
its fundamental structure.

192 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
But the historical delineation of the life of Jesus does not
! presuppose merely the literary criticism of sources. The
attained results warrant, in addition, that here should con
stantly be exercised that which is demanded by the nature
of every scientific representation, a historical criticism in the
higher sense, i.e. the examination whether what is handed
\ down is in itself credible. This involves not only the question
whether, in accordance with the historical relations in which
our history was enacted, with the psychological laws of all
human life and action, or the presuppositions which have been
ascertained in the course of the inquiry, this or that incident
is probable, but it treats also of the fundamental character of
the history of Jesus as given in tradition, which criticism fre
quently regards as incredible. Here it is that insurmountable
difficulties seem to be in the way of a scientific representation
of Jesus' life. The difficulty is not that entire freedom from
presupposition is necessary for a scientific portraiture of the
history of Jesus, and that it is impossible without presupposi
tions to proceed with the history of Jesus. Even by Strauss
that requirement has long been recognised as equally warranted
and unattainable. The nature of the case yields presumptions
from which historical criticism neither can nor dare free itself.
It is then supposed that the first assumption for every
historical representation is, that that only is credible which
corresponds to constant experience, because only in accordance
with the laws under which every event takes place can
the credibility of every history be adjudicated upon. To this
it is objected that the life of Jesus treats of a history, one
which does not throughout immediately resemble all human
histories, in order that it may present the history of the rise
of the Christian religion. To demand that this history be
treated only according to the rules observed in the examina
tion of the history of other religions, is unjustifiable because
unpracticable. According as the Christian religion is regarded
as one religion among many, or as the true, the perfect one ;
according as one has found in it full satisfaction for his
religious needs, or takes up towards it a sceptical or antagonistic
attitude, must another standard necessarily be applied to the
history of its origin. It is impossible for the Christian to
recede from the assumption that the history through which

PRESUPPOSITIONS OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM. 193
the completion of true religion in humanity is introduced, is
in its nature plainly unique. As certainly as the faith which
was aroused and established by the apostolic announcement
of Christ cannot be accepted as a standard for the historicity
of the recorded events from the life of Jesus, so definitively
must it be denied that, in judging the fundmental character
of this history, this faith is not to be regarded. The Gentile
and Jew, or he who has broken with the Christian religion,
could as little write a history of Jesus, which in its deepest
essence shall be a just one, as a blind man could write a
history of painting, or a deaf man a history of music. A
scientific standpoint which should occupy a place above both
these contradictions is an empty illusion.
But even so the possibility seems to be shut out of treating
this subject with scientific objectivity. And yet what must
first be done is from the beginning to treat the life of Jesus
from the standpoints which are pressed upon us as standards
by the historical results of the life which are now manifest.
From the appearance of Christ there has assuredly issued a
religio-ethical resuscitation and renovation of the world.1
Judgment of the fundamental character of a historical mani
festation according to its effects, appertains to the indis
pensable rules of every historical representation that would go
beyond the barren confirmation and registration of detached
facts. The internal fundamental law of all human history
is applicable here, that like can only produce like, that the
cause cannot be radically different from its effect.2 We ask
nothing but the admission that the criticism of the events of
1 There is one standpoint from which this fact may be contested ; but it can
as little prevent the science of the life of Jesus from starting from this as a pre
supposition, as the scientific representation of the history of Greek and Roman
culture would allow itself to be led astray by a pietistic, contracted view,
which beheld in it only a heathenish abomination and a loathsome work of the
devil. 2 The writer of the Wolfenbiittel fragments saw in Jesus only a Judaic
revolutionist, who on the cross expiated his overthrown political schemes. His
disciples, by the deceitful pretence of his resurrection and speedy return, roused
a belief in him, by means of which they desired to implant sound moral doc
trines, fear of God, and love to humanity. It is not in name of an assumption
of faith, but of a fundamental law of all history, that we protest against the
possibility of a religious renovation having come to the world by such means.
Kenan depicts Jesus as an amiable visionary, who came forward at first with
WEISS. — L N

194 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
Jesus' life handed down by tradition must avoid everything
which throws suspicion on the moral character of Jesus. But
as the result which followed His appearance was to a very
great extent produced by means of the announcement of Him,
and particularly by the evangelical tradition as to His life, we
must add, besides, that in passing judgment everything must
be disregarded which would raise a suspicion of voluntary
deception on the part of the originator. From purely historical
standpoints we dare not go so far as to infer from the excep
tional effects an unique eminence of the person of Jesus, for
each may have been conditioned by the combination of dif
ferent circumstances. In addition, we unavoidably form for
ourselves a distinct picture of that in which lies the unique
ness of this person. This, whether it be fashioned by the
faith generated through the apostolic preaching or by a self-
formed dogmatic theory, brings to bear on the criticism of the
evangelical tradition presuppositions which had from the first
been lying prepared, rendering impossible an unbiassed
historico-critical method. Even from the standpoint of perfect
faith in Christ in the ecclesiastical sense this method must be
rejected. For though to this faith the pre-existent divine
glory of the Son of God is established, it admits His thorough
assumption of humanity, His deepest humiliation. Dogmatic
presuppositions neither can nor dare decide regarding any
given point as to the form this may have given His earthly
life.1 It is certainly an unscientific method to introduce into the
history of Jesus a uniqueness of His person constructed in
innocent moral aphorisms, but gradually took upon himself the rdle of the
Messiah, with all the phantastic excrescences of the Judaic eschatological hopes,
the rdle of a miracle-worker, and indeed that of a divine being. He died at
the right moment for himself, while in tragical conflict with the deep moral
darkness of his own nature, a darkness which Renan very flippantly considers,
We join issue once more, and say that a renovation of the world in this direction
cannot have proceeded from a personality who, in a religio-ethical relation, was
so unreliable.
1 How obstructive a dogmatic theory is to the historical view, is seen nowhere
more clearly than in Schleiermacher's Leben Jesu. A perfectly complete picture
of Christ is placed alongside the sources, not drawn from them. They are
explained and critically remodelled according to this, so that an actual history
and a lifelike form are never obtained ; but throughout his representation we
see the abstract Christological scheme of the dogmatist.

UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST'S APPEARANCE. 195
some way a priori. But it is equally unscientific to cast aside
as unhistorical the picture of Jesus which is contained in the
critically tested and methodically attested sources because it
presents to us a unique relation of this man to God, and an
equally singular moral existence. Of this fault Strauss has
been guilty. We are far from desiring either to infer at once
His sinlessness in a dogmatic sense from the postulate
advanced above, which excluded any moral discrediting of
Jesus' character, or a unique connection with God as His
Father from the absolutely religious character of His life and
action. It is from the sources that we can first gather
whether, and in what sense, both formed a constituent part of
His self-consciousness, and how His history proves it. If,
however, both are found in the sources, it is then dogmatic
arbitrariness to propound the proposition that the idea cares
not to pour all its fulness upon one individual. A man in
whom the archetype of humanity was realized on its religio-
ethical side in absolute perfection was no longer a historical
phenomenon, for in history we know only of merely approximate
realizations of this ideal of humanity. Proceeding upon this
supposition to pronounce unhistorical all those portions of the
evangelical tradition where this ideal is shown to be realized,
is really to exercise criticism on the historical sources in
accordance with a priori suppositions. Such a criticism is
anything but scientific. That ideal figure will, and indeed
must, remain unique in our experience. It is not a philo
sophical presupposition, but history itself, that must decide
whether or not there has been a highest point in the history
of humanity when its ideal became reality. But is the world-
conquering movement which started with the history of Jesus,
and the final goal of which is the full realization of the
religio-ethical ideal of humanity, really what is most excep
tional in that history? If so, it is only natural, i.e. in
correspondence with all historical experience, that the cause
contained what appears in the effect, and that it is only the
perfected realization of this ideal which can have given im
petus to a movement which promises and gives security to
mankind for the attainment of this goal.
Strauss is perfectly right in regard to one thing. The
actual appearance of that ideal of humanity is, and must

196 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
continue to be, an3_bsqlute„..rnJia,ole — that is, it cannot be
completely explained and deduced from the course of the
development of humanity and the factors regulative of
experience which determine this course. It is incontestable
that the perfect cannot be derived from the imperfect, nor the
unique from that which regulates everyday experience. But
Jesus' history does not therefore cease to be actual history,
and capable of scientific representation, because it is obliged
to admit that one historical appearance is incomprehensible
if only the natural factors of every event are taken into
account, and must be referred to the operation of a higher
causality in human history. The operation of this higher
power in all human history is disclosed to him who searches
more deeply, or who looks from the single event to the
significant connection of events. Perfectly as the explanation
of each separate event may be given by its natural factors
and motives, yet the history does not consist in the sum of
such isolated events. It originated first in their combina
tion, in their concurrence and co-operation, such as could
have been planned by no human wisdom and brought about
by no human power. The profane mind is not hindered
from calling this chance, and an external treatment of history
may count it sufficient to register the unavoidable results of
this co-operation. But the higher task of historical investiga
tion is still to follow the course of historical development in its
meaning and aim, alike in its pauses and, in its progress. And
the religious treatment cannot allow its right to be contested
of referring it back to the divine guidance of human history
towards a definite goal. In this view everything is full of
miracles of Divine Providence, and this is so even where
isolated events only are dealt with, which, each one by itself,
are perfectly comprehensible through natural causes, because
the interweaving of these events, according to their idea and
parpose, by means of which definite aims are reached and
important developments hindered or promoted, cannot be
derived from blind and aimless chance, but presupposes the
operation of a higher power lying beyond the physical and
psychological causalities to which we may refer isolated
appearances. Whether and how far it is really an essentially different

THE MIRACULOUS IN CHRIST'S APPEARANCE. 197
phenomenon when a supernatural causality makes itself
apparent, not only when articulated with events which singly
are referable to natural causes, but does itself operate in the
place of natural causes, — this is a question belonging to the
dogmatic treatment. As a fact, it is the last phenomenon
which offends criticism the most, and which, in the strictest
sense, must be designated miraculous. The objection is
specially raised against it, that the miraculous in this sense
can never be historically confirmed, because our knowledge of
the natural causes is not without defects, and it is therefore
always possible that where the religious view believes it can
recognise supernatural interference, natural causes may
actually have been at work which are unknown to, or are
incapable of being recognised by us. On the side of apolo
getics, attempts have never been awanting to reduce the so-
called wonder to this — that at one point in history forces
unknown to us, belonging to a higher order which might still
be a natural one, actually appeared. But these reflections
find no application in the present question. Does Jesus'
appearance prove itself unique ? is the religio-ethical ideal of
humanity realized in Him, so as directly to exclude the ex
periential view of human history ? — then the question of the
miraculous is Taised in the most definite way. The mystery
of this phenomenon does not arise from the absence of know
ledge as to the natural causes which give rise to it, but from
the fact that it could not be what it really is if it were the
outcome of natural causes. It is contradictory to struggle
against the miraculous in the strictest sense if the uniqueness
of Jesus' appearance is still maintained ; and it is logically
consistent when, from the standpoint of the denial of the
miraculous, the representation of our sources which forces
upon us the recognition of that uniqueness is from the first
declared to be unhistorical.
In recognising the miraculous element in the appearance of
Jesus, it is self-evident that we do not desire to establish the
postulate of His miraculous conception, or of a higher nature
belonging originally to Him. In what way the divine
operation was performed in consequence of which there was
introduced into the history of humanity a new departure
containing the germs of its development and completion, can

198 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
neither be determined from the first, nor does it permit one
to say that from necessity it must receive historical confirma
tion. This remark applies also to the point in the concurrence
of the natural causes where a supernatural one must have
interfered in order to make a development possible, which
could not be carried out by the forces and laws inherent in
humanity. All we ask is, that a tradition shall not be pro
nounced unhistorical and incredible, because the facts estab
lished by it render unavoidable the assumption of such an
interference, and thus demand a miracle in the strictest sense.
It is said, indeed, that the contradiction of this demand is
involved in the fact that the treatment of history starts from
our general view of things, and that this always presupposes a
natural connection between cause ,and effect, on the ground
of the enduring laws of nature in the physical domain as in
that of the spiritual life, even where it cannot yet, in every
instance, be completely demonstrated ; and, finally, that the
assumption of such an intervention of supernatural causes
abrogates even those natural laws. This last objection may
conceivably coincide with certain conceptions of the nature of
miracle, according to which a suspension and re-establishment
of the laws of nature are actually assumed. It by no means
suits the character of miracle as a plainly supernatural result
of divine action.1 We are not concerned with whether natural
causes act in opposition to one of the laws which are at
work in them, or whether natural effects have been produced
in ways contrary to all experience. The question here is,
whether an effect, inexplicable by natural causes, may have
been brought about by a supernatural agency. Of course it
is impossible that this can be accepted by a pantheistic or
materialistic philosophy; for such refuse to assume a causation
which transcends the world. From the theistic standpoint,
however, this possibility cannot be denied nor its historical
verification disputed, and this just because it does away with
our concatenated theory of the universe. The natural con-
1 The laws of nature known to us can only testify that certain natural causes
necessarily produce certain effects. The contrary supposition, that certain effects
can be produced only by certain causes, oversteps the bounds of all experience.
For our knowledge of the range of natural causes is perpetually increasing and
advancing towards completion.

NECESSITY FOR THIS MIRACLE. 199
nection of cause and effect, as regulated by natural laws, is
perfectly unaffected by the appearance at various points in
the history of humanity of the operation of a supernatural
power, i.e. of one which is outside of the natural course of the
world, and which necessarily produces supernatural effects.
Let it only be presupposed that the existence and character
of a supernatural power are not to be defined in a way con
tradictory of our philosophy, which could in that case no
longer occupy a theistic standpoint.
From the religious standpoint it has been attempted to find
grounds for the objection, that it would be a depreciation of
God's creation, and therefore of the Creator, if from the earliest
beginning the universe could not perfect its development by
its inherent forces, but constantly, or at least at this one point,
required the intervention of the great Master workman. This
objection would be quite relevant if our history were treating
of a phase in the ordinary development of the world. Not
only, however, the apostolical announcement of Christ, but
also every page of our evangelical tradition, proclaims the aim
of Jesus' appearance to have been the bringing of salvation to
a lost world. It is here presupposed that the development of >^
humanity had taken an abnormal direction, that it had turned
away from the appointed goal instead of approaching it, and
that by itself it could neither return to where it was, find the
right track, nor reach the goaL But it is presupposed also,
that in the attainment of this aim there is no concern with
a high ideal, whose realization can in an emergency be dis
pensed with, but rather that the temporal and eternal salvation
or ruin of mankind depends on it.1 It is when observation
of history and the experience gained from one's own life
appear to warrant the apportioning of those presuppositions,
1 These presuppositions may be contested, they may be regarded as the pro
duct of a pessimist philosophy, and of a one-sided religious conception of life.
But it must also be admitted that from this standpoint the first conditions are
awanting for comprehending and representing our history in accordance to its
own proper character. For undoubtedly the history of Jesus, which starts from
these presuppositions, cannot indicate the point at which a renovating and
furthering influence was brought to bear on the history of human development
on its religio-ethical side. It is itself only a phase in the great history of
disease in the religious life, which, like every other disease in an organism, can
be overcome and brought to a salutary crisis, but it is of very doubtful value for
the history of human development.

200 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
which the history of Jesus requires for its apprehension, that
the standpoint is first attained from which that postulate of
its uniqueness from which we believed that it was necessary
to start can really be verified. In one word, it is the fact of
sin which alone offers the key to its perfect comprehension.
If the religio-ethical development of humanity had actually
taken an abnormal direction, if this was a sinful direction and
one leading to destruction, or if in its own strength humanity
was unable to quit this course, or cure the sickness which had
penetrated its life's-blood, that moment must indeed have
been unique which saw the commencement of the curing of
this sickness, and the entrance into the history of the develop
ment of humanity of forces which make a return possible.
It is then easy to understand why He who brought on this
crisis must stand forth unique in the history of humanity, the
healthy one among the sick, the normal man among those
ruined through the sin of an abnormal development, whom
He would convert and guide to their goal, which can only be
the realization of the religio-ethical ideal of humanity. It is
very evident that in the course of its abnormal development,
diseased humanity could never produce of itself this one healthy
man, and the powers of healing wrapped up in Him. From
a ruined world doomed to destruction the Saviour and the
means of salvation could never come ; and if there was a divine
guidance in history, at this point a fresh intervention by God
in the development of the world must have taken place. Thus,
then, the miracle of this divine intervention is no chance act
of volition; but a necessary practical proof of the Divine Pro
vidence which would lead humanity to its appointed goal in
spite of the retrograde development it had entered on in virtue
of the freedom conferred on it. This would only be necessary
if the scheme of Divine Providence is regarded as one of
love's eternal decrees, and its ultimate realization, in spite of
all that makes humanity unworthy of it, as an act of divine
grace. Thus the miracle forms no moment in the history of
natural human development, but does so in the history of
salvation, which is thereby perfected, rectifying the abnormal
development, healing the sick, saving the lost. But, according
to the presuppositions of our history, this story of salvation
by no means begins with the appearance of Jesus. The

THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 201
historical preparation for it was in the history of Israel, in
the general history of divine revelation.1
If, then, the miracle of Jesus' appearance is not represented
as anything isolated, but only as the highest point in a series
of divine revelations developed according to their own laws
and incorporated into a history, it is certainly not improbable
that in this history the miraculous will find a place. This
was what Schleiermacher wished to avert, and what is even
yet resisted resolutely by a school connected with him.
Jesus' appearance is indeed to be regarded as unique ; but
since the entrance of this new factor into history, its opera
tions have been developed entirely according to the known
laws of all occurrences. This does not exclude the possibility
of these operations being to a large extent without parallel ;
but yet it is only in so far as they proceed from a unique
central force and correspond to its character. In this there
is plainly a contradiction. The effects which proceed from
a unique phenomenon, that is, from one transcending all
experience, are really miraculous events, which may indeed
attach themselves to the presuppositions of natural life, but
can never be measured according to its laws. No precon
ceived theory, but only the credible tradition regarding these
operations, can decide whether they only extended over the
spiritual life or over the natural as well, or whether the latter
may not have been partly owing to the connection existing
between the psychical and the physical. But if Jesus' entire
appearance is comprehensible only through a divine inter
vention in the course of human development, plainly it is
arbitrary to assert that in His history events may not also
have occurred, which can only be referred to a like divine
intervention, i.e. to a miracle in the strictest sense of the term,

1 In this domain the miraculous is nothing new or unprecedented. For the same
conditions which made it requisite at the appearance of Jesus, required it during
the historical preparation for His salvation. Only through new divine mani
festations lying beyond the limits of the divine revelation both in nature and
history, which had failed to guide humanity to a normal religio-ethical develop
ment, could this humanity be prepared for the great crisis connected with the
appearance of Jesus. It mattered not whether these manifestations were presented
as external operations within nature's domain, or as inward influences acting
upon the human spiritual life, i.e. as miracle or as revelation in the narrower
sense.

202 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
as what made the former comprehensible will also explain the
latter. Indeed, whoever regards as attested a miraculous
history of revelation preparative to the appearance of Jesus,
will think it only natural that this possibility also should be
realized. Whether this was so or not, can be decided, not by
the dogmatic view, but by the consideration of the tradition,
the credibility of which was put to the test.
Our evangelical tradition, however, is full of the marvellous,
and no criticism of sources is in a position to remove this
element from it. The oldest apostolic source, the memorabilia
of Peter, the Gospel of John, all contain so much of what
is strictly miraculous, that to approach them with the assump
tion of the miraculous being impossible, is plainly to deny
their credibility. The older rationalism proceeded upon the
assumption of the credibility and partial apostolicity of our
Gospels, and yet discarded the miraculous unceremoniously.
But it was obliged to reckon with the miracle narratives, by
seeking to prove by means of exegetical artifices and by the
amplification of the intermediate members of a narrative,
which it alleged to have been omitted, that in truth no
miracle was here narrated ; where the narrator saw something
which suggested this, it was nothing but a purely natural
event, the original features of which were still perfectly dis
tinguishable, even if they seemed wrapped in a legendary
veil. The pitiless criticism of Strauss pronounced well-
merited judgment on this naturalistic explanation, alike
notorious for its arbitrariness and want of taste, possessing, as
it did in Dr. Paulus of Heidelberg, its classical representative.
But his attempt to explain the collective evangelical tradition
as a tissue of mythical fictions would only succeed if our
Gospels were relegated to a period in which trustworthy
tradition asserts that they did not arise, and in which, accord
ing to the testimony of their character and their relations to
one another, they could not have originated. The more recent
investigation into the sources has recognised this more and
more clearly, and has proved it indubitably. But just on
this account, that criticism which shares in the assumption of
the impossibility of the miraculous finds itself in a strange
predicament. It may abandon John's Gospel ; but the mira
culous is not contained in it to any greater degree than in the

CRITICISM OF THE MIRACLE NARRATIVES. 203
older Gospels. As much of these as ever it chooses may be
credited to later redactions which have introduced miraculous
conceptions into natural occurrences; but even the sources
upon which it relies still retain quite enough of the miraculous,
related in their narratives or assumed in their addresses. And
it is not able, nor does it desire, to deny the close connection
between these sources and the tradition of eye-witnesses.
There is, then, nothing left for this criticism but to return to
the naturalistic explanation given by the old rationalism,
which under the leadership of Schenkel and Keim is again
exercised with amazing naivete. It is, however, clear that as
the methods of Dr. Paulus of Heidelberg can always be traced
to the Wolfenbiittel fragmentist, so those of his modern suc
cessors are referable to Renan. It is impossible to carry
through the naturalistic explanation without casting doubt on
the moral character of Jesus or of the first witnesses. If
Jesus did not prevent the simplest events from being looked
at in a totally strange light, it can only have been through
incomprehensible shortsightedness that He failed to notice it,
or perhaps from impure motives He did not wish to do so ; but
if He did His part to remove the slightest appearance of the
unearthly, suspicion only passes from Him to His followers.
It is evident that not every miracle narrative of the
Gospels can be at once proved credible by these considerations.
We have analysed sufficiently the character and the history of
the reports of eye-witnesses, and the oral as well as the written
tradition, to be convinced how easily actual and ideal history
might be combined here at every stage and in an increasing
degree, also how natural events, too, might appear in a miracu
lous light, and with what facility the difference would to the
ordinary religious mind disappear between the miracles of
Divine Providence, as well as the apparent miracles in which,
though unknown to us, natural causes are at work, and miracles
in the narrowest and strictest sense. But if we are not to fall
into the errors of the old as well as of the new naturalistic
explanation, we must distinctly assert that this process is only
conceivable if the eye-witnesses of the actually miraculous
experienced and related so much, that the conception thus
arising of the miraculous character of this history exhibited as
a miracle what had not been one in the strictest sense of the

204 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
term. We cannot get quit of the miraculous in this way.
We find it but confirmed afresh, that to regard it as a standing
rule for criticism, that the occurrence in our tradition of what
is miraculous proves it to be unhistorical, is an assumption
which is quite irrelevant, and indeed contradicts the express
character of this history. We have not put forward these
considerations in order to avert all criticism, but that we
may be unbiassed in the exercise of it. It frequently occurs
that when criticism has been too severe in regard to the
miraculous, it suddenly becomes naively credulous where the
question of miracles is not concerned. Whether or not every
separate narrative contains a miraculous element, must be
decided according to the character of the sources and its
relation to the reports of the eye-witnesses, as well as accord
ing to the universal rules for determining what is or is not
probable in view of the historical circumstances and the
connection of events. This fact can of itself tell neither for
nor against the credibility of what tradition has handed down.
The most careful critical fixation of every detail taken from
the sources does not of itself result in any historical repre
sentation. Least of all does it do this in the case of our
evangelical sources; for in the circumstances of their origin,
as well as in their literary points of view, the fact is involved
that a connected description of Jesus' life is not attempted in
one of them. The historical sequence of the events cannot
certainly be established from our Gospels.1 But the more
carefully the constitution of each Gospel is apprehended, the
greater is the possibility of amplifying the incomplete intima
tions of the one by the hints given in the others. By far
the most important guides to the understanding of the situa
tion are yielded by the traditional speeches and series of
addresses, so soon as their original form is established by
1 The attempts of Ebrard to restore the sure sequence of the narratives by
means of minute observation of the pretended data afforded by the grammatical
construction, and to attain at last, by arranging these, to an orderly sequence of
all the isolated events and speeches, rest upon a total misconception of the
character of our Gospels. Their supposed result appears as the outcome of the
rarest chance. Wieseler's effort to settle the chronology of all the chief events,
and so at last to discover their sequence, rests on the most daring combinations,
involves itself in palpable impossibilities, and collapses, like a house of cards, as
soon as these combinations are demonstrated to be untenable on one point.

HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION. 205
means of critical analysis, and they are looked at in their
historical relations instead of from the dominant purely dog
matic exegesis. Like our evangelists, we must often remain
satisfied with a topical uniting of what is related when the
attempt to establish the chronology of the individual portions
proves futile. But when looked at as a whole, the sequence
of the chief events, and even their chronological fixation,
appears so assured, that, proceeding upon them, one may often
attain to the understanding of what can in detail no longer
be determined.
A sequence of events, which may possibly be accurate, by
no means results in a historical representation. The exciting
motifs of the events must be disclosed, as well as their
internal pragmatical connection and the occasioning causes
of the occurrences. A description must be given of the
dramatic movement in the development. This is the
proper task of the historian. A dry enumeration of de
tached events may form, indeed, a chronicle, but never a
history. Through his loving absorption in the incident, the
historian will gain a lifelike picture of the events ; and
while picture is succeeding picture, that inner connecting
link will be disclosed to him. Without a vivid intuition,
which can realize in all its amplitude the form of past
events, or without the faculty of historical combination,
which understands how to connect, in a spiritedly lifelike
way, events internally related, there can be no historical
representation. A pictorial activity of the imagination is
demanded, which has some relationship with that which
governs poetical productions; only here a free independent
creation, according to given rules, is treated of; there, it is
a vivid reproduction of the past from the elements, which
must ever be fragmentary, acknowledged to be credible.
Here lies the highest task of the historian, but also his
greatest danger. Renan's Life of Jesus is not a history, but
a romance. And this is so, not because with his rare en
dowments he essayed to solve this problem; but as our
sources in their actual form were in many respects out of
sympathy with, indeed almost incomprehensible to him, he
could not escape the danger of rearranging them according
to his own taste, or in a merely eclectic way. A faithful,

206 FIRST BOOK. THE SOURCES.
even if critical, employment of these sources, and a sympa
thetic understanding of them, protects from this danger, and
leads to the solution of the problem.
Renan has asserted that to our four Gospels a fifth must
be added, and that this first occurred to him as he journeyed
in the Holy Land. I fear that this source may prove very
deceitful. In spite of all appeals to the stability of Oriental
circumstances, the Palestine of to-day assuredly presents a
scene very different from the Holy Land of the time of Jesus,
and not only in ethnographical, but also in geographical
respects. Besides, people delude themselves as to the im
portance which the local and temporal background had for
the history there enacted. It has now become almost fashion
able, in representing the life of Jesus, to lay very great
emphasis on the description of the natural surroundings and
historical circumstances. Josephus and the Talmud appear
to be, second to our four Gospels, competent sources for that
representation; geographical and historical investigations occupy
as large a space as if all comprehension of Jesus' history
depended on them. Yet in many important points no
absolutely assured result is arrived at. If this could be
attained, perhaps something might here and there be gained
for the outward form and course of this life, but it would
yield nothing for its deeper comprehension. This history
would not be so unique as it is, if the apprehension of its
peculiar character depended on the currents of the time in
which it was passed. For the comprehension of its historical
movement, the powers with which Jesus had to combat, and
the causes which conditioned alike its development and its
catastrophe, the clearest and most certain source is found in
our Gospels themselves. What of geographical and historical
presuppositions remain to be added to its own explanation, is
in our narrative easily inserted in the appropriate place. We
can even surmise circumstantial Prolegomena, which depict
the region where it commences. The introductory history, as
contained in our Gospels, presents the opportunity for vividly
transporting ourselves into the circle of religious conceptions,
national needs, and Messianic hopes, among which Jesus
grew up.
The history itself remains of the last importance, for it

THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 207
only receives its meaning from the existence and operation of
Him of whom it relates. It is a history which, like any
biography, starts with the birth of a child, but it closes with
the exercise of power by One who was exalted to God, and
who still possesses might and consolation for all Christendom.
This history could therefore not be related as if it were a
history of what is altogether in the past. A life pulsates in
it, the heart-beats of which can even now be felt, and which,
consciously or unconsciously, nourishes all that is Christian.
Here is the central point of human history, in so far as it
rests on an eternal decree of God's love. In its effects it
reaches as far as the goal of that perfection which we await ;
but its first beginnings were hidden in the depths of eternity.
It is a history which, in every part of it, must be considered
in the light of Him who transcends all history.

SECOND BOOK.

THE PREPARATION

WEISS. — I.

CHAPTER I.
HOME AND FATHER'S HOUSE.
IN one of the deep valleys which lead down, from the
hills of Lower Galilee to the plain of Jezreel, lies the
little town of Nazareth. The Gospel narrative (Luke iv. 29)
assumes that the town was built in the form of terraces, on
one of the rocky hills enclosing the valley-basin, and was
overtopped by their precipitous summits, precisely as its posi
tion is now described by travellers. The horizon of the town
is limited ; but from the summit of the hill there is a splendid
view. The eye sweeps southwards across the wide, fruitful
plain ; westward rise the wooded heights of Carmel ; to the
north tower, higher and higher, the mountains of Upper
Galilee, the crest of Hermon with its everlasting snow; and
close beside the shapely cone of Tabor there opens, towards
the east, a view of the Jordan valley, stretching away to the
basin of the Lake of Gennezareth and to the tableland of Perea
on the other side of the lake. The town, which now contains
six thousand inhabitants, may have at that time been more
populous. We learn from the Gospels that it had its own
synagogue ; but it was only one of the insignificant towns of
the thickly-peopled province. It is not mentioned in all the
Old Testament, nor by the contemporary author Josephus.
We learn from John that the place was, at least in its own
immediate neighbourhood, in no great repute (John i. 47),
although we can no longer indicate the source of the popular
prejudice which affirmed that out of Nazareth nothing good
could come. The nearest town of considerable size was at a
distance of three hours' journey, the large and rich Sepphoris ;
the residence of the prince of the country, beside the Lake of
Tiberias, could be reached in eight hours, while Jerusalem was
at a distance of three days' journey.
In this secluded corner of the northern province Jesus
211

212 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
spent His youth ; Nazareth was always regarded as His
native town (Mark vi. 1 ; Luke iv. 1 6) ; the people knew
Him as the Nazarene or the Galilean, and His followers were
long called Nazarenes after Him (comp. Acts xxiv. 5).1 The
family to which He belonged was, long after the pursuit of
His calling had made Him a stranger to His home, still well
known in His father's town (Mark vi. 3), but in the eyes of
the neighbours it did not possess anything which made it
more distinguished than the others. That it was a family
in very humble circumstances is shown by the fact that
the parents, when presenting Jesus in the temple, brought
the offering of the poor (Luke ii. 24) ; and Jesus was, at
a later period, dependent upon support given by strangers.
Among the people He passed as the son of Joseph, in whose
house He grew up (John i. 46, vi. 42 ; comp. Luke iii. 23).
That this Joseph was a carpenter, appears in the first Gospel
(Matt. xiii. 55) to be only an inference drawn from Jesus
Himself having in His youth wrought at the trade of a
carpenter (Mark vi. 3) ; but the hypothesis has every proba
bility in its favour. It would seem as if Joseph died at an
early period, as he is never spoken of in the Gospels after the
public appearance of Jesus. Jesus' mother, Mary, is referred
to later on as belonging to the innermost circle of His
followers (Acts i. 14).
However modest might be the circumstances of this family,
it had one possession of the greatest possible importance for
the later manifestation of Jesus : it traced its origin back to
the ancient and kingly house of David. The whole people
was possessed with the conviction that, according to the
Scriptures, the Messiah must arise from the seed of David
(John vii. 42), and Jesus could never have hoped to find
acceptance for His claim to be the Messiah if He were without
1 The names applied to the town vary in our documents, but in the Gospel of
Mark it is originally designated Nazareth ; while, according to the joint testi
mony of the best attested reading in Matt. iv. 13 and Luke iv. 16, it was called,
in the oldest sources, Nazara, — a form which occurs in the early ages of the
Church (in Jul. Afric. and Orig.), and easily explains the formation of the name
which denoted Jesus' origin. Mark calls Him the Nazarene ; in Luke occurs
the expression Jesus of Nazareth (xviii. 37), and this is the usual form employed
by Matthew, John, and in the Acts. Jesus is called the Galilean in Matt.
xxvi. 69.

THE DAVIDIC DESCENT. 213
this most popular of all tokens. Thus it was a part of the
course of divine arrangement which prepared the way for Him
through the circumstances of His birth, that He was a member
of the house of David. It has been explained as " a remark
able result of chance," that, in regard to a point which is by
no means essential for the eternal significance of the work of
Jesus, what did actually occur coincided with the popular
expectation. Certainly He did not require this coincidence on
behalf of His own person, or in order to reach the conscious
ness of His divine vocation, because this was by no means
bound up with Davidic origin as such. But in the case of
His nation, the want of this would have been an almost insur
mountable hindrance to His being acknowledged as Messiah.
The conclusion does appear justified, that at a very early
period the disciples of Jesus, when they had been won to the
conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus, assumed that to Him
this token could not have been awanting. This explains the
existence in our evangelical tradition as a self-evident fact
of what was merely an assumption, given rise to by the views
of that age.1
This assumption, however, is opposed by insurmountable
facts. It is incontestable that Jesus was during His lifetime
among the people regarded as one of David's posterity. In
the oldest source He is at an early period addressed as the
Son of David (Matt. ix. 27); at the very height of His
activity the Canaanite woman, from the land of the Gentiles,
has no other thought than that He passes among His people
by the name of the Son of David (Matt. xv. 22) ; and in
Mark, too, this cry is heard when He is going up for the last
time to Jerusalem (x. 47 £). It is vain to try to regard this
as a mere title of honour, with which the Promised One was
greeted as being the successor of the great king who once
was the channel of the blessings of God to his people, just as
these in richest abundance were looked for from Jesus. That
would certainly have been understood if He had fulfilled
the hopes of the people, and had ascended the kingly throne ;
1 This conclusion, though supported by Strauss and Weisse, and, following
them, by Renan and Schenkel, is opposed by Hase and Keim, who on other
grounds hold the existent traditions in our Gospels of the story of the nativity
to be unhistorical, and tu have originated in analogous inferences.

214 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
but not at a time when the faith of the people in His
Messiahship was constantly struggling with the doubts which
were raised by the .omission of the decisive step, and when
that designation could only be an appeal to the expectation,
based on His origin, that He would fulfil all the hopes
placed on the promised great Son of David. Indeed, it
appears as if nothing was known about His Davidic origin.
On the occasion of one of His visits to the feast in Jerusalem,
those who would not believe in His Messiahship asserted
that He lacked the scriptural token of Davidic origin (John
vii. 42). But the utter feebleness and futility of these
detached attempts to discredit His claim show how firmly the
certainty of His Davidic origin was established among the
people, and how this was no mere assumption which could
be maintained so long as no one contradicted it, but that it
held on its way without wavering, even through the midst
of opposing doubt. What an entirely different use would
have been made of this point by Jesus' opponents, whose main
object was to lead the people into error in their belief in Him,
if they might thereby have furnished proof that He was without .
the presupposition most indispensable to His claim, although
they had little chance of success in throwing doubt on the
Davidic origin of the family from which He sprang ! Still,
we never hear of an attempt being made, through any con
siderations of this kind, to discredit Him with the people, not
even on an occasion which gave ample opportunity for the
urging of this objection (comp. Matt. xii. 23 f.).
But, above all, Jesus' behaviour in view of this supposition
current among the people is incomprehensible, if, from the
knowledge which He must have had of the origin of the
family, He was not absolutely certain of His Davidic descent.
When He perceived that owing to this supposition the people
rested their hopes on His person, He would surely for truth's
sake decline a title which was not His by right. This He
did not do, but accepted without protest the appellation Son
of David. And yet He had every reason for declining, for
on this assumption rested the popular expectation in regard
to His way of achieving salvation, which presented the
greatest obstacle to His religio-ethical activity, and at last led
to the tragic close of His . life. On this account search has

HISTORICITY OF THE DAVIDIC DESCENT. 215
been made for a trace of Jesus' having controverted the
assumption of His Davidic descent ; but only one such has
been discovered, and that only by a palpable misinterpreta
tion of a statement of Jesus (Mark xii. 35 f. ; comp. further,
Book vi. 7).
The apostles began with Jesus' Davidic lineage when they
proclaimed His Messiahship before the very eyes of the
Sanhedrim that had condemned Him to death (Acts ii. 30);
and there is no indication of their opponents having dared to
contest this assumption, though that would have been to
destroy any lingering popular credence. From his whole
conception of Christ and His work, there was no call for
Paul to authenticate Jesus' title to the throne of Israel, whose
re-establishment he no longer hoped for, and yet he had not a
doubt that Christ was made of the seed of David according
to the flesh (Rom. i. 3 ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 8). The author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose conception of Christ as
the high-priestly Mediator of the new covenant would rather
have suggested a descent from the house of Aaron, declares
that Jesus came out of Judah (vii. 14), not more distinctly
than is done by the beholder of the Revelation (v. 5 ; comp.
xxii. 16). Strangely enough, the author of the Fourth Gospel
has had ascribed to him the wish to allay the rising scruple
among the people in order not to become himself one who
contested Jesus' Davidic descent, while in reality he presup
poses all the older tradition, which nowhere admits the
slightest doubt on the subject. Even in the middle of the
second century, relatives of Jesus drew down on themselves
the suspicion of the Roman governor through their being
scions of David's royal line.1
It has often been considered inconceivable, that at the time
of Jesus families could still prove their connection with the
1 In his Chwrch History (iii. 19, 20), Eusebius presents us with a circumstan
tial account by the Palestinian Hegesippus, relating how grandsons of the Judas
who was known as a brother of Jesus were brought under suspicion by reason
of their being descendants of King David, and were cited before the Emperor
Domitian. He was reassured by their statements regarding the nature of the
kingdom of Christ, and still more by their poverty-stricken look. The passage
is interesting, on account of the fact that the last members of the family of Jesus
with whom we become acquainted appear as needy, horny-handed rustics, and
thus confirm the statement that the family was without possessions.

216 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
old kingly house which had been for centuries sunk in
poverty and obscurity. But this is to overlook the care with
which in Israel the traditional genealogical trees were pre
served, and the value which was placed upon connection with
the ancient families. Paul knew, and was able to prove
indubitably, that he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin
(Rom. xi. . 1 ; Phil. iii. 5) ; Josephus was able, from public
genealogical tables, to prove his descent ; and, from Talmudic
sources, we learn of Hillel, the contemporary of Jesus, that he
sprang from a side branch of David's house. The malicious
rumour of the burning of the genealogical registers by Herod
presupposes the existence of such in public documents and
private copies ; and the expectation cherished by the pedple of
a great member of the Davidic line as Messiah would be per
fectly inconceivable unless there were in existence families
whose origin could be traced to David.1 It is evidently not
asserted that all these genealogical documents and traditions,
public and private, were of equal fulness and trustworthiness ;
indeed, in the genealogical registers of the Old Testament
Chronicles there are to be found many insoluble contradictions
and confusions. Zerubbabel, for example, who finds a place
in the genealogies of Jesus, appears, in Matthew as well as in
Luke, as a son of Salathiel's; while in Chronicles (I. iii. 19)
he is called a son of Pedaiah, who was Salathiel's brother.
We happen, however, to know that the statement of the
Gospels was by no means an arbitrary change, but that it was
founded upon a different tradition contained in the Book of
Ezra (iii. 2, v. 2). Thus it can occasion no surprise when
neither Abiud, who in Matthew (i. 13), nor Rhesa, -who in
Luke (iii. 27), is called a son of Zerubbabel's, appear among
the sons of the latter enumerated in Chronicles (I. iii. 19, 20).
1 The story of Julius Africanus, told by Eusebius (Oh. Hist. i. 6), according to
which the Idumaean Herod, in order to conceal his humble origin and prevent
any one from proving himself to be of more distinguished descent, caused the
Jewish genealogical register to be burnt, is extremely improbable, although
Africanus asserted that it originated with the blood relations of the Lord.- It
contradicts the express assertion of Josephus ( Vit. i.), referred to above, amflooks
only too like a Jewish satire on the hated upstart. In order, however, to agree
with Schenkel in regarding this statement as thoroughly credible throughout,
one must receive as historical the information which is closely bound up with
it, viz. that the genealogies of the Gospels were formed from copies of the old
genealogical register which were preserved in the family of Jesus.

GENEALOGICAL TRADITIONS. 217
It is quite clear that the tables of Jesus' genealogy which
we possess are independent of each other on this point ; for,
according to Matthew, Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, was,
through Salomo, descended from the kingly line (i. 7-12),
while Luke represents him as springing from an allied branch
connected, through Nathan, with David (iii. 27-31). No
attempt of apologetics or of criticism to resolve or explain this
difference can meet with much success. All we can ascertain
is, that a discrepant genealogical tradition has been employed
here, the circumstances of whose origin we are no longer in a
position to indicate with certainty.1
After what has been said, it would be a hypercritically
despotic act to pronounce the attempts of our Gospels to
demonstrate the descent from David of Jesus' family either
absolutely untrustworthy or pure inventions, which string
together names, whether self-invented or taken at will from
the Old Testament. It conflicts with the fact, indicated
above, that the Old Testament sources were in no case so
thoroughly explored as not still to yield representatives of
the family ; and that Matthew, in the case of Salathiel, quits
the genealogical source followed up to that point, in order to
introduce a divergent tradition, which we can nevertheless
still complete from the Old Testament. It is generally very
1 Apologetics has long attempted to explain this by the hypothesis of a
levirate marriage. Deut. xxv. 5-10 requires the dead man's brother to marry
the widow, in order to perpetuate his name ; her first-born son was thus the
actual child of one brother, but the lawful child of the other. This sufficed in
some degree to explain how Zerubbabel at one time appears as the son of
Salathiel, at another as the son of his brother Pedaiah. But if a different
ancestry is presupposed, we must regard the two as having been half-brothers.
The hypothesis of adoption is caught at by some, or they suppose that an heiress
(Num. xxvii. 8) having married within her father's tribe (Num. xxxvi. 8), her
first-born was judicially the heir of her father's line. Those who regard the
genealogy given by Luke as Joseph's (comp. p. 220), are hampered by the difficulty
of acknowledging a repetition of the occurrence in this pedigree also ; yet this
must be done in order to explain why, in Matthew, Joseph should appear as the
son of Jacob, in Luke as the son of Eli, both of whom traced their descent
from Zerubbabel through distinct lines. No better was the surmise of criticism,
according to which the Gentile-Christian Luke, although he mentions expressly
the promise to Jesus of the throne of His father David (i. 32), yet, in order to
put an end to the hopes of the Jewish Christians, represents Jesus as by no
means descending from David's royal line, or he may have replaced this, sin-
stained royal line by a "purer" branch (?) ; but the fact is palpable, that tho
first and third Gospels drew up their tables independently of each other.

218 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
apparent how carefully the first ancestral pedigree (Matt.
i. 3-6) was taken either from the Book of Ruth (iv. 18-22)
or from Chronicles (1 Chron. ii. 4-15), although probably
shortened by the omission of certain names. The list of kings
in Matt. i. 6-11 was also copied from Chronicles (1 Chron.
iii. 1 0—1 6). Even now we can prove from the text of the
Greek translation how the much discussed omission of
Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah before Ozias (Matt. i. 8) is
caused by the resemblance between the Greek form Ahaziah
and the name Ozias. But the skilfully planned pedigree
shows itself to be the work of the first evangelist, who will
prove the claim of Jesus to the throne of Israel by designating
it the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of
David, the son of Abraham (Matt. i. 1), and by calling David
king, after he had traced the race from Abraham to David
(i. 6). Moreover, he divides the genealogy into three periods,
the first of which closes with David, who was the first to ascend
the royal throne, and to obtain recognition of the right belonging
to his house ; the second extends to the captivity in Babylon,
when the Davidic line was deprived of the crown (i. 17).1
He finds significance in the occurrence in each of those two
divisions of precisely fourteen generations, i.e. 2x7, while
from the exile to the birth of Christ are again fourteen
generations. Quite in the spirit of the age, the evangelist
beholds in this even number a token of the divine guidance
exercised in the history of this house. Fourteen generations
had succeeded one another since the time of Abraham, when
the Abrahamic David received the kingdom of Israel. And
1 This explains also why, in i. 11, Jechonias is called son of Josias, although
really his grandson. For the generation which directly followed Josias witnessed
the downfall in the reign of his son Zedekiah, who was carried to Babylon
(2 Kings xxv. 7), while his elder brother Jehoiakim, the representative of the
main line, was not sent into exile ; his son Jehoiachin was only carried into
captivity in the first great deportation (2 Kings xxiv. 14 f.). Thus it is that
Jechonias appears (through Jehoiakim) as the direct descendant of Josias, it
being indicated that the other sons of Josias, actually his uncles, were regarded
as his brothers, in default of brethren proper. In the third part (i. 17)
Jechonias is taken account of a seeond time, by reason of his being the repre
sentative of the generation directly succeeding Josias (comp. ver. 11), which
should have been derived from the early deceased Jehoiakim, the brother of
Zedekiah ; in ver. 12 he represents the second generation after Josias
subsequent to the carrying captive into Babylon.

THE GENEALOGY IN MATTHEW. 219
once more fourteen generations passed before the exile put an
end to the rule of the Davidic house. The evangelist sees an
indication in the fourteenth generation after the exile of the
time having come when the last heir of David's line should
re-establish the kingdom in Israel, or an indication of Jesus,
who formed the close of the genealogy, being the Messiah in
whom all the promises would be fulfilled, in accordance with
the divine plan which determined the history of this house.
Still other touches reveal to us the attention paid by this
reflective author to the divine control in the history of the
Davidic line. By the prominence given to the fact that Jacob's
son Judah was the father, by Tamar, of Phares and Zara (i. 3), he
would bring to mind the strange divine dispensation by which,
though contrary to human expectation, the twin brother who
was to be the ancestor of the Messiah attained the rights of
the first-born (Gen. xxxviii. 27-30). But to him it is still
more significant how the mother of the two sons became, in
such an unusual way, the ancestress of the Messiah (Gen.
xxxviii. 14-18). Deviating from the common genealogical
method, three women are afterwards named (i. 5, 6) who had
this in common with Tamar, that they became ancestresses of
the Messiah in unusual ways. The stain attaching to the
past of Rahab and Ruth, to the motherhood of Tamar and
Bathsheba, does not disconcert him, for the thought runs
through Holy Writ that the divine control accomplishes its
ends even through the frailties of humanity. But these pos
sessed a significance for him, from their appearing as a prelude
to the miraculous dispensation through which Mary became
the mother of the Messiah. For the closing of the pedigree
without the usual formula, that Joseph begat Jesus, but with
the designation of Joseph as the husband of Mary, of whom
Jesus was born (i. 16), only affirms that all the rights of a
legitimate descendant of David passed to Jesus, but indicates,
at the same time, that, through a divine dispensation, a
secret was connected with the birth of this Jesus, which the
evangelist would divulge in the subsequent narrative.
Though this carefully prepared conclusion does not, as has
so often been conjectured, show that the evangelist corrected
the original conclusion of a genealogy introduced from some
where else, yet it is manifest that Luke took from another

220 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
source the genealogy which is added to his narrative (iii.
23-38). For it appears to have escaped him that it also is
artistically planned, and is divided into four parts. From
Adam to Abraham are 3 x 7 persons, from Isaac to David
2x7, from Nathan to Salathiel, i.e. down to the exile, 3 x 7,
and from Zerubbabel to Jesus there are as many names again
— in all, 11 x 7.1 But this genealogy is so planned as not,
like Matthew, to start with the progenitor of the race, but to
represent Jesus as the son, i.e. the descendant of all these men
whose names stand parallel to each other, not being intended to
represent each one as the son of the following (comp. Gen. xxxvi
2, 39). This undoubtedly explains why at the close of the
genealogy of Jesus — who through all these individuals was a
son of Adam — He is still farther designated Son of God (iii.
38). But the statement at the commencement, that Joseph was
the son of Heli, cannot be understood literally, for previously
Joseph is expressly designated the reputed father of Jesus.
It would have been meaningless to give the pedigree of a man
of whom it had just been stated that Jesus only passed as
his son among the people. It follows from this that Heli is
considered to be Jesus' grandfather on His mother's side, and
that the purpose of the genealogy is to show how through
Mary also He was descended from David. His possession
through His adopted father of the rights of a legitimate
descendant of David's was authenticated by Matthew.8 We
learn also from this that Mary was descended from David's
1 The first division is given according to 1 Chron. i. 1-4, 24-27, only that
ver. 36, following the LXX. , which retained a name between Arphaxad and Sala,
omitted in our Hebrew text, supplies the word by interpolating Canaan ; the
second division agrees with Ruth iv. 18-22, except that, according to the revised
text, two names — Admin and Ami — stand in place of Aram. The even number
of the two last divisions is, as frequently occurs in genealogies, produced by the
omission of single names. There is no such manifestation as in Matt. i. 17 of
their being given accurately.
2 The criticism which insists upon the incompatibility of the two tables
strenuously resists the acceptance of this view. Still, looked at exegetically, it
is the only one possible, for, according to the biblical conception, there is no
sense in which Adam can be called son of God, as is done in iii. 38. As little as
the final possessive is subordinated to the preceding, can the others be regarded
thus ; they must rather be understood as referring, in a parallel fashion, to
Jesus' human forefathers. But even in iii. 23 the omission of the article before
Joseph indicates clearly that he does not belong to the ancestors here enumerated,
that in place of this merely reputed father it is through Mary that Jesus traces His

THE GENEALOGY IN LUKE. 221
line, a fact which was evidently assumed in the source from
which Luke borrowed this pedigree (i. 32-69); indeed, it is
perhaps expressly stated (i. 2 7), and is confirmed in many ways
by later tradition.1
Our conviction of Jesus' Davidic descent does not indeed
rest on these tables, the reliability of which we are not in a
position to test, for even a general view encounters lingering
difficulties, which in the hands of criticism become insoluble
contradictions, and are rendered despicable by the efforts of
an ill - advised apologetic. But apart from them, it is
historically certain that the family in which Jesus grew up
traced its descent from David.2
descent from Heli and his forefathers. As to the aids used by apologetics in
explaining the divergencies between this genealogy, if it is regarded as Joseph's,
and that in Matthew, see remarks on p. 217.
1 In Luke i. 32 it is said of the child who was to be miraculously given to Mary,
but not through Joseph, that God would give unto Him the throne of His father
David, and in i. 69 that God had raised up the Messiah in the house of His
servant David, and thus it is made manifest that Mary is regarded as a descendant
of David's. In spite of the ample expression given to this, i. 27 and ii. 4 seem
to show that the same could be said of Joseph, but that the bringing forward of his
descent was of no pragmatic importance, while that of Mary was important for
the understanding of i. 32. On the question of Mary's descent from David, see
Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. xiv. 100), Irenseus (Adv. Har. iii. 21. 5), Julius
Africanus (in Euseb. Oh. Hist. i. 7), and other Fathers. She is regarded as such
in the apocryphal Gospels, and is called in the Talmud a daughter of Heli, which,
according.to the correct view of Luke iii. 23, she actually was.
2 It was assuredly not this fact which roused Jesus to consciousness of His
Messianic calling, but it made possible the establishment among the people of
His claim to the Messiahship.

CHAPTER II.
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
A SECRET was hidden in that house where Jesus grew up,
which, even more unequivocally than the dispensation
that provided the necessary conditions for the recognition of
His Messiahship, would manifest the action of God in the
birth of Him who conveyed to His people the salvation so
long promised. No pious Israelite doubted that only Jehovah
could devise this salvation. To this end the person of Him
who brought salvation was not to be a scion of the human
race like the children of Adam, but should be presented as a
gift of God, first to His father's house, and thereafter to the
whole nation. He must, indeed, be born of a human mother,
in order to be a truly human child ; but that she bare Him
was the consequence of a miraculous operation by God, in
virtue of which the virgin conceived the Child of Promise.
In Luke's introductory history, which more than once
refers expressly to recollections of Mary's (ii. 19, 51), there
is a description of the moment when, through divine revela
tion, the betrothed of Joseph was made aware that she was
favoured by God to be the mother of the Messiah ; and when
her pure maidenly consciousness started at the idea, it was
indicated to her that this was to take place through the power
of God's creating Spirit (L 26-38). It is impossible to
appreciate thoroughly the chaste beauty of this delineation,
if it is regarded merely as a dry report of the conversation
between Mary and the angel. If a wonder, such as is here
alluded to, is to befall her, the virgin must certainly be made
aware of the divine decree, and must come to a determina
tion to give a willing consent. But the inward experience of
such an hour, when God manifested Himself 'to her soul, and
revealed to her, in a way that cannot be described, the secret
of His most wondrous dispensation, could not be literally
222

THE ANNUNCIATION. 223
repeated at the distance of nearly a generation. If it is
considered to be an actual fact that Mary received a divine
revelation of the miracle which was to be wrought upon her,
it must at the same time be acknowledged that the repre
sentation belongs to the narrator.1 But if anything in it can,
in the highest sense, lay claim to historical truth, it is the
lowly submissiveness with which Mary submits herself to the
disclosed decree of God (i. 38). For it must not be disre
garded, that on her was imposed the heaviest burden a human
heart can carry. The fulfilment of the promise would expose
the spotless virgin to the darkest suspicion of her neighbours,
and of the man to whom she was to belong. With unusual
aberration, criticism reckons it among the most apparent con
tradictions of the Gospels in the history of this birth, that,
according to Matthew, it is Joseph, according to Luke, Mary,
who receives a divine revelation as to this miraculous con
ception, while visibly the one is rendered unnecessary by the
other. The strange expedients resorted to by apologetics to
explain this difficulty exposed that science to just ridicule, and
afforded apparently a justification of criticism. If the ordinary
conditions of human social life cannot be modified by the
intervention at one point in a creature's existence of the divine
miraculous power, then it must be admitted that the condition
of her who had hitherto been a virgin could be interpreted as
nothing else than a grave moral error; and all appeals to
appearances of angels, or to other divine revelations, would
not prevent her being regarded as a traitress, or, at the best,
1 When the words of the narrative are relied on for support, the question
presents itself how Luke, or rather how that version of the source from which
he took the early history, knew that the angel which appeared to her was the
angel Gabriel (i. 26), for in the following conversation he never names himself.
Whence, too, comes the evident similarity of the angel's greeting with Judg.
vi. 12, or of the angel's word with Gen. xviii. 14? Why did God's messenger
clothe his announcement in a form (i. 32 f.) which, while connected with
2 Sam. vii. 13 f., met the national expectations as really as the subsequent
fulfilment failed to realize them ? On the other hand, if we regard the whole
thing as a literary attempt to delineate vividly the experience of that moment,
it is self-evident that the author, who was thoroughly familiar with the histories
of the Old Testament, borrowed from it the colouring of his narrative, and repre
sented the hopes roused in the virgin in the only form they could assume in a
pious Israelite imbued with the expectations of her people. Comp. the follow
ing observation.

224 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
as one miserably deceived. But when the fact is apparent
that in spite of this Joseph took her in marriage, it is inex
plicable, unless by means of a direct divine revelation, such
as the first evangelist tells us of, he also was made aware
of the secret of the divine decree which was accomplished
on her.
If the early histories of our Gospels are to be regarded as
chronicle-like reports of the events preceding and following
the birth of Jesus, it is astonishing how both should have
taken a separate side of this miraculous history. But when
we consider that from the storehouse of traditions surrounding
those events each one selected only what was suitable for the
purpose of his narrative, we find it perfectly comprehensible
why Luke's source begins with the annunciation of the birth
of Jesus and of His forerunner, in order that they may be
artistically combined in Mary's visit to Elizabeth, and the
narrative may proceed to relate the birth of both. The first
evangelist pursues a totally different interest. He starts
from Jesus' genealogical tree, through which His right to the
kingdom in Israel is to be demonstrated ; but this does not
determine that Jesus was the son of the heir of David's royal
line, but that He was born of Mary, who was espoused to this
heir. He therefore passes on to show how Joseph, who had
natural misgivings about bringing- home his betrothed, by a
divine revelation as to the state of the case, was induced to
marry her, not- indeed to live with her, but in order that her
Son should be born in his house, and should become the legi
timate heir of the promises resting on his line (i. 18-25).1
That a historical tradition of this fact forms the basis of both
our evangelical narratives, is manifested not only by their
coinciding accurately in the principal points (comp. Matt. i. 20
with Luke i. 35), although they were drawn up from totally
different points of view, but by their reporting from different
1 What is said above as to Luke's representation of the annunciation is rele
vant to the details of the delineation of this revelation by God. It may possibly
have been given by means of a vision, in which an angel appears to the wakeful
or sleeping one, who hears utterances which contain the divine revelation. But
it is highly probable that this form of the revelation is left to the will of the
narrator. For with the first evangelist these revelations are communicated by
an angel of Jehovah's, who appears to the virgin in a dream (i. 20, ii. 13, 19 ;
comp. ii. 12, 22), while in Luke the two chief promises are brought to the

HISTORICITY OF THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 225
sides the accomplishment of these presuppositions without
which the miraculous conception could not be thought of.
Such a fact as the miraculous conception, with a revelation
from God concerning it, is manifestly inconceivable from the
standpoint of the denial of the miraculous, and the historicity
of these traditions can never be spoken of; but, therefore, all
the objections urged against it from that quarter testify to
the existence of a dogmatic prepossession. Even theologians
who do not regard miracle and revelation in the stricter sense
as inconceivable, have doubted whether, from the connection
in which they appeared, these traditions possess the guarantee
of historicity, or have supposed that they contradicted evident
historical facts. Their almost artificial reproduction in Luke's
source, and their representation in the first Gospel in a
manner influenced by the didactic aim of the author, is
explicable from the nature of the subject and from the late
date of the record. Both these not only permitted, but required
a free literary remodelling of material ; but this in no way
prejudices the historicity of the traditions so redacted. More
express emphasis is therefore laid on the absolute silence of
the remainder of the New Testament regarding this most
important fact. Neither Jesus, even when taunted with His
lowly origin, nor the apostles, while presenting everything by
which to move their nation to recognition of the Messiahship
of Jesus, ever refer to the miracle of His birth. Paul men
tions His being born of woman (Gal. iv. 4) without alluding
to the strange circumstances, which, indeed, he appears to
exclude by the stress he lays upon Jesus' descent from David
(Rom. i. 3); this holds good also of Peter's address (Acts
iii. 20). Among our evangelists even, Mark, the oldest of
them, and the Apostle John, the single eye-witness of Jesus'
life, are without a history of His birth, and the latter is even
silent about Jesus being designated the son of Joseph. But
even the first and third evangelists, who introduce this
watcher by the angel Gabriel, who designates himself as one of the seven angels
round the throne (Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21). In Matt. i. 21, an explanation of the
name Jesus is given, quite comprehensible from the evangelist's standpoint,
while it must have been incomprehensible by Joseph. In i. 22, 23, is a reference
to a fulfilment of prophecy, corresponding so exactly to those exhibited through
out the whole Gospel, that there can be no doubt of the. formulating of God's
message by the evangelists.
WEISS.  1. , p

226 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
tradition into their introductory history, include, besides,
genealogical tables ostensibly formed on the presupposition
of Jesus' actual descent from David. Luke presents narra
tives which discourse naturally about Jesus' parents (ii. 27,
41, 43), about His father and mother (ii. 33, 48); and
neither of them protests against the people calling Him the
son of Joseph ; while in all four, Jesus' nearest relatives, per
haps even Mary, appear as those who could not yet believe in
the very elevated position of Jesus, although it would seem as
if the miracle of His birth must have removed every doubt.
These objections, however, proceed from a perfectly false
assumption. Although from the nature of the case both
announcements connect in thought the miraculous conception
with the Messianic vocation of the child Jesus, yet there is
no direct intimation (even Matt. i. 22 f.) that any manner of
proof was or could be forthcoming. It is a most extraordinary
demand to require Jesus to point out the miracle of His birth
to the masses of the people who remained unbelieving in spite
of the miracles wrought among them daily, or to require the
apostles to do so, who proclaimed the resurrection and exalta
tion of Jesus. This miracle could at the very most only prove
that God had special intentions with regard to this man, and
: no proof could be adduced other than the declarations of His
mother. It is perfectly comprehensible how Jesus' brothers
remained unbelieving (John vii. 5) in spite of what they had
heard of the divine revelations and miracles at His birth, for
to them especially the whole appearance of Jesus offered the
most offensive contrast to their highly wrought expectations.
That even the mother was not placed beyond the reach of
temptation to doubt by the revelations she herself received,
we learn from the history of him whom Jesus called the
greatest of the prophets. But that she was ever in doubt
regarding her Son, is suggested only through a misapprehension
of a passage in one of the Gospels (Mark iii. 21) (comp.
further Book iv. 7). It is equally a mistake to assume that
if the miraculous conception of Jesus was a fact, it must have
been generally admitted during His lifetime. It is over
looked, too, that Jesus' family and all who knew about it had
a high and holy interest in guarding this secret of the house.
If there was never a doubt among the people of Jesus' being

HISTORICAL OBJECTIONS. ¦ 227
the actual son of the man in whose house he grew up, and if
the reproach of illegitimate birth was not employed by Jesus'
enemies till a much later date, and obviously is based upon
our evangelical narrative, are not these proofs that the honour
of the house was not exposed through offering each unbeliever
a pretext for designating Jesus as one born in sin and shame ?
This explains why it was so late, perhaps not until after
Mary's death, that information of the miraculous circumstances
attending the birth of Jesus was disseminated. We know not
whether any part of these traditions was communicated either
to Mark by Peter, to whom he owed his reminiscences, or to
Paul, whose letters show what little stress he laid on the
details of Jesus' life. The former was prevented by the plan
of his Gospel from inquiring into the history of the nativity,
and the latter has nowhere considered the question, whether
Jesus was begotten naturally or supernaturally. That such
an inquiry is excluded by the prominence given to Jesus'
descent from David, is contradicted by both these evangelists,
who by no means laboriously rearrange according to their own
conceptions genealogical tables which were produced by a
totally different view of the origin of Jesus ; but from these one
draws up the genealogy of His foster-father, the other His
natural descent from the lineage of David, i.e. has shown by
means of Mary's pedigree that the race descended from him.
John, who from his relation to Mary possessed certain know
ledge on this subject, had from the whole scope of his Gospel
no inducement to investigate the history of the nativity, and
did not even embrace the occasion (comp. p. 215) to oppose
emphatically the popular opinion (vi. 42). From his demon
strable acquaintance with the older Gospels, and therefore with
their accounts of the nativity, it follows that his silence is
either a confirmation of them or is damaging to his regard for
truth. But even the Gospels which report the supernatural
conception pay so little attention to it in the further course
of their narrative, that they employ and give currency to
popular terms that seem to exclude it. This is surely a proof
that they recapitulated a tradition well known in the Church,
but did not desire to introduce a new conception of the origin
of Jesus, or procure the adoption of such by the Church.
It is usually overlooked that the manner in which this

228 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
tradition appears in the New Testament, as well as its isola
tion, makes the explanation of its rise peculiarly difficult, if it
has no historical foundation. According to the mythical
view, the presupposition, however it may have arisen, that
Jesus was not born in an ordinary human way, was in the
delineation involuntarily transformed into His being super-
naturally begotten. But in accordance with all analogy, this
idea must have found expression in a series of myths which
revolved round this fact, and whose aim really was its illus
tration or glorification. If all the narratives in the introduc
tory history in our Gospels are regarded as fragments of such
a circle of myths, it still appears evident that this view played
no further part, that it is clearly expressed in two passages
only (Matt. i. 20 ; Luke i. 35), and no notice is taken of it
in the other narratives, while it occasionally seems to be
denied by Luke. Further, his almost poetical treatment of
the early history might agree with such a collection of myths,
while Matthew's prosaic reflections on how Joseph was in
duced to secure the legitimacy of the expected child and His
claim to the throne of His fathers, are utterly opposed to the
methods of such mythical productions.1
Just because the apostolic writings never bring forward
Jesus' supernatural generation for didactic purposes, is such
difficulty experienced in elucidating the presuppositions from
which this myth must have arisen. From its actual appear
ance in Jewish- Christian sources, its origin must first be
sought for in Jewish-Christian conceptions. By appealing
to Matthew (i. 22 f.), the rise of the idea of a child born
of a virgin is referred to Isaiah's prophecy (Isa. vii. 14),
which required fulfilment. But it cannot be proved that
in the pre-Christian period this passage was ever supposed to
refer to the Messiah, or indeed that the Jews regarded it as
pointing to a virgin mother. There was no foundation for
this in the Hebrew phrase, which by no means exclusively
indicated an unmarried person.2 It must be considered
1 In any case, the fact-basis laid hold of by that myth-forming epoch must
in his time have been looked upon as dry history, and this is evidently quite
incompatible with the circumstances of the rise of the First Gospel. And yet
this form of the tradition is by Strauss and Keim defended as the original, as
against Weisse and Volkmar, who regard Luke's as the older.
2 The reference to Ps. ii. 7 assumes such a radical misconception of an

THE MYTHICAL EXPLANATION. 229
that the idea of impurity attaching to the marriage rela
tionship, or the notion of the superior purity of the virgin
condition, led to the miraculous conception being thought of.
These contemplations of later ascetic schools certainly gained
currency in Christendom, but they are admittedly opposed to
the view of Judaism, which regarded marriage as a divine
institution, and children as a blessing of God. How far the
conceptions of our Gospels are' from agreeing with such an
opinion of the virgin condition, is manifested by the ingenu
ousness with which it is assumed that Mary's marriage with
Joseph did not continue to be one in appearance only (Matt.
i. 2 5 ; Luke ii. 7), and by the fact that they always present
Mary in company with the brothers of Jesus, who must then
have been her own sons (Matt. xii. 46 ; Luke viii. 19).
Against each attempt to derive this idea from Jewish-Christian
views, there may be adduced the fact that it was specially in
such circles that opposition was presented, in the subsequent
rejection by the Ebionites of the supernatural conception of
Jesus. The origin of this myth must then be looked for on Gentile-
Christian ground, although it was most improbable that anything
from that quarter would find ready acceptance in Jewish-
Christian circles. The mythological conception of sons of the
gods and of heroes seemed to offer an analogy in accordance
with which the greatness of Jesus might be made manifest
through a reference to His more exalted origin. But the
shameless glorifying of sensual desire in these myths could
only arouse the deepest abhorrence in the primitive Christian
consciousness, and every attempt to apply any such idea to
Jesus must have appeared nothing less than a profanation
of what was most holy, by dragging it through the mire of
sensuality. When later apologists amused themselves by
seeing in those myths prototypes and forebodings or demoniac
imitations of what actually took place in the case of Christ,
even they proceeded upon the conception of Jesus' super
natural origin recorded in the Gospels, while here the concep-
Old Testament figure of speech as no Jewish Christian could be credited with.
Moreover, we have seen already that our Gospels nowhere base the Messiahship
of Jesus on His having been supematurally begotten. In Matthew this happens
only indirectly (i. 22 f.).

230 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
tion of this idea is what is in question. It is supposed that
the designation, in the evangelical proclamation, of Jesus as
the Son of God would in its original Old Testament meaning be
incomprehensible to the Gentile Christians who construed it to
signify a supernatural generation. But we perceive from the
New Testament Epistles that the acquaintance of the Gentile-
Christian congregations with the Old Testament was so com
prehensive, that it was impossible for fundamental conceptions,
so current as these, to remain unknown and misunderstood.1
If the origin of this notion can be understood neither from
an intermingling of Judaic nor of Gentile conceptions, we are
driven to seek its connecting points in the more developed
Christian doctrinal view. It is very usual to consider the
freedom of Jesus from the innate sinfulness of empirical
human nature as established by the fact that, in consequence
of His divinely accomplished conception, He does not appear
as a product of the human species, and therefore as not subject
to its universal corruption. But the only apostle who, from
its commencement to its most far-reaching root, has pursued
in a reflective spirit the subject of this universal sinful
depravity which was inherited by the whole race at the time
of Adam's fall (Rom. v. 1 2), never felt it necessary to explain
the sinlessness of Christ by His not being descended by
ordinary generation from the fathers. This deprives us of
the last connecting point for the hypothesis that the primitive
Christian consciousness advanced from the postulate of a
sinless Redeemer to the assumption of His supernatural con
ception. In the New Testament, the sinlessness of Jesus
is nowhere placed in relation to the manner of genera
tion. Even in Luke (i. 35) the predicate of sanctity,
which is also attributed in Matthew (i. 20) to the creative
Spirit of God operative at the conception of Jesus, does not
1 The Gentile-Christian Luke (i. 35, perhaps also iii. 38) may, in using the
name Son of God, point to that unique operation of God which occasioned the
birth of Jesus, but in this he stands completely alone in the whole New Testa
ment. It was Hofmann who first attempted to force it upon the New Testament
language, which was so closely linked with that of the Old. If Luke did so,
his source furnished him with the connecting point in the fact contained therein
of the supernatural conception, and it is more likely that we have here to do
with a not unmeaning play on words, since Luke himself frequently employs the
term Son of God in its genuine Old Testament sense.

PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE MYTHICAL EXPLANATION. 231
thoroughly coincide with the notion of purity that, following
the Apostle Paul, we are accustomed to connect with it. The
hypothesis was more probable, that belief in a supernatural
being of Christ had expression given to it in the conception
of His supernatural origin. This view is still only too current,
as if belief in Jesus' metaphysical divine Sonship stands or
falls with the hypothesis of the miraculous conception. But
apart from the misconstruction of the term Son of God, which
is involved, this view rests upon an extremely crass mingling
of the notion of the divinely effected origin of the man Jesus
with the metaphysical idea of an eternal generation of the
Son by the Father, which is totally foreign to the doctrine of
the New Testament, and was first given shape to in the
ecclesiastical development of doctrine in order to establish
the eternally divine nature of Christ. In the development
in the New Testament of the Christological conceptions,
under the direction of the Spirit, the announcement of Christ's
higher nature and of His heavenly origin is rather connected
with the idea of His exaltation to divine Lordship. With
Paul, it leads to the doctrine of the sending of the Eternal
Son of God in flesh ; with John, to the doctrine of the incar
nation of the originally divine Logos. It was a perversion
to regard these doctrines as in contradiction with the doctrine
of the direct divine generation of the man Jesus, for that
plainly asserts nothing regarding the commencement of
Christ's life in the flesh. Still it is evident that, within the
doctrinal development of the New Testament, these doctrines
did not lead to the postulate of a supernatural generation.
We may not be able without the hypothesis of a super
natural generation to complete the conceptions here offered,
but it is a fact that nowhere did the apostles remark upon
this necessary connection. On the contrary, our Gospels are
without the slightest indication that the miracle of the
nativity is regarded as a proof of a metaphysical form of
existence or a higher nature of Jesus. The hypothesis cannot
be drawn from our sources, that the notion of the miraculous
conception was only a step in the development of the
dogmatic process, by which the primitive Christian Church
endeavoured to apprehend more fully the higher nature of
Christ, and attain to a knowledge of His origin.

232 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
The silence of the New Testament, then, which has so often
proved a stumbling-block to reflective criticism, becomes a
proof that the opinions of the apostolic age do not yield the
presuppositions necessary to explain the mythical commence
ment of the narratives of the miraculous conception. If, then,
they are not historical, nothing is left but to interpret them as
legendary, i.e. to look upon them as an idealistic apprehension
of a historical matter of fact. This matter of fact can, how
ever, be no other than what Judaistic calumny postulated in
plain terms, when it declared Jesus to be an illegitimately
born bastard.1 The older rationalism found no difficulty in
believing that the pure virgin along with a young deceiver, or
along with one blinded by his religious fanaticism, may have
wished to give birth to the longed-for Messiah. But a more
mature ethical and religious philosophic view will never again
attempt to refer the religio-ethical renovation of the world to
one born in sin and shame.
Would we regard as inexplicable the enigma of the origin
of these narratives, and rest content with the, fact of their
gradual formation in the Church, yet the circumstances of the
rise of our Gospels compel us to face the question, how they
remained uncontradicted at a time and in a circle where many
still lived, who had never heard of these things from the per
sons participating most closely in them. For the source of
Luke at least refers assuredly to Palestine. We have seen,
besides, that members of the family of Jesus were living in the
time of Domitian, who would not have allowed it to pass
uncontradicted if histories hitherto unheard of were spread
abroad, which among all unbelievers exposed the memory of
Jesus' mother to the most shameful calumnies ; and yet our
sources know nothing of such a contradiction.2 Looked at in
an unbiassed way, historical reasons compel us to regard these C
1 Comp. Eisenmenger's entdecktes Judenthum, i. p. 105 f.; Philo, ad Cod.
Apocr. i. p. 526 f.
2 The rejection of the virgin motherhood in Ebionitish circles must not be
regarded as an echo of such a protest. For here the dogmatic view was plainly
influential, that on the paternal and maternal side, the Messiah must actually
descend from David's line. On 'the other hand, Gnostic views were early
advanced, which regarded as the real performer of the duties of Messiah, the
higher Being united with the man Jesus, and therefore put no value on His
human origination.

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 233
narratives as historical also. Even the latest biography of
Jesus confesses that we are not just to His greatness when
we do not take up the position that the creative action of
God in regard to the origination of Jesus' person was unique
and specific.1 What form was taken by this creative action
of God's, whether it consisted in a unique influence exercised
on the child Jesus' spiritual life from the very first, or
whether it was also operative at the generation of His
natural life, we may not determine from self-constituted
assumptions. These hypotheses never assert more than a
difference in degree of that divine operation which is to be
assumed in the case of other men, and, according to the testi
mony of that critic, are insufficient to account for the facts of
Jesus' life, and more especially they never reach to a creative
action of God in the biblical sense. This is testified to by
the information of our sources, whose rise and diffusion is in
explicable without the assumption of a foundation-fact. We
have therefore good grounds for our position, that in Jesus'
home was actually hidden that secret which has become a
guarantee to Christianity that the salvation brought by Jesus
was in its ultimate beginning a gift from above. From the
hour when the maiden betrothed to Joseph knew she was a
mother, she knew also that the child she bore was not that of
the man of her choice, but that God Himself had chosen and
qualified her to give birth to Him who1 was to fulfil her
people's hopes.
1 Comp. Keim's Geschichte Jesu von Hazara, Zurich 1867, i. p. 359.

CHAPTER III.
THE SIGN IN THE HILL COUNTRY OF JUDEA.
IN the hill country of Judea, which covered almost the
whole of the interior of the southern province of Pales
tine, there lived in one of the cities of the priests, which
were scattered there, the priest Sachariah, called by us
Zacharias, after the Greek form of his name.1- He belonged
to the course of Abijah, the eighth of the twenty-four courses
which David instituted (1 Chron. xxiv. 3 ff.), and which were
still distinguished even in the post-exilian period, Ezra having
again divided into twenty-four classes the four priestly families
that returned. His wife Eliseheba, or, as pronounced in
Greek, Elisabeth, also belonged to the old priestly nobility,
tracing back her pedigree to the house of Aaron. Both were
highly extolled on account of their legal piety, but they were
childless ; and since they were already advanced in years, they
had long since given up all hope of being blessed with
children (Luke i. 5-7), when Elisabeth found herself with
child (i. 24). Some have found in this a fabulous element,
modelled upon the history of such men of God of Old Testa
ment times as Isaac, Samson, and Samuel ; and, in fact, the
idea that the long-denied blessing of children was a specially
rich one, or that the special grace of God, which still blessed
the aged parents, presignified the special lot of the child,
might have lain at the basis of this portion of the narra-
. . 1 In the thirteen cities which were assigned to the family of Aaron in the time
of Joshua, there still dwelt priests even after the exile (Neh. vii.. 73), although
many had settled in the capital. Luke i. 39 is commonly interpreted as if the
name of the city of Judah, in which Zacharias lived, is not named. Yet there
is probably more to be said in favour of the view that Juttah, one of the cities
of the priests mentioned in Josh. xxi. 16, is meant ; according to xv. 55, it
also lay in the hill country of Judea, and its name was only somewhat corrupted
in the popular Greek manner of pronunciation. The assumption that Hebron
is meant, is altogether improbable. 234

MARY AND ELISABETH. 235
tive.1 But our simple narrative, which points back in the most
ingenuous manner to the traditions which were still current
in later times in the hill country of Judea regarding these
events (i. 65), does not furnish the slightest occasion for such
an assumption. There it was still remembered how the
mother had withdrawn herself for five months into the
quietude of the house, in order, as she said, to give herself
up to pious meditation and thankfulness to God, who had
taken away from her the reproach of her childlessness
(i. 24 f.). Above all, however, the historical character of i
the statement is guaranteed by the circumstance that, on the/
occasion of the circumcision of her child, and before she had)
yet heard of the promise of a higher destiny which rested
upon him, the mother, notwithstanding the objections of her
relatives and friends to a name which was uncommon in the
family, insisted upon it that he should be called John
(i. 59-61). For this name, the Greek form of Jehochanan or
Jochanan, plainly alluded in her mind to the grace of God,
which she had experienced in the gift of this son.
In the sixth month of her pregnancy, however, she dis
covered a new reason for praising God, when her young
kinswoman from Nazareth appeared in the priestly house
(i. 26, 39).2 According to our narrative, the angel had
announced to Mary the blessing bestowed upon the aged
Elisabeth as a sign, which should become a pledge of the
divine miracle which was promised to herself, and Mary now
hastened to the hill country of Judea, in order to become
certain of this sign (i. 36, 39). But since we saw ourselves
compelled to regard the conversation with the angel as a
literary composition of the narrator, there can lie at the basis
of this representation only the fact, that the revelation made
to Mary induced her to seek out her kinswoman, and that
1 It is true we must not refer to the circumstance that according to the later
legend Mary also was presented to her parents in their old age, for this is
plainly an imitation of our history; but for those who regard the essential
elements of the history of the nativity in Luke as fabulous or mythical, there is at
least no reason whatever for excluding such an element as this from that history.
8 It need not at all surprise us that, although Mary was a descendant of
David, she is called a kinswoman of Elisabeth (i. 36) ; for the Levites were not
compelled to marry within their own tribe, and therefore the daughter of Aaron
could very easily be related on the mother's side to the daughter of David.

236 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
what she saw and experienced there became a confirmation
to her of the hopes awakened in her by that revelation. It
is a guarantee only for the historical character of the tradi
tions which lie at the basis of that account, that that
revelation could of itself actually induce Mary to visit her
kinswoman, and that her visit must have brought her such a
confirmation. For it is self-evident that a journey from
Nazareth to the hill country of Judea would not have been
undertaken by that lonely maiden without very weighty
reasons, and that a stay there for three months (i. 56) could
not have been meant as a friendly greeting, or have merely
served the purpose of making herself certain of the informa
tion which she had received. Now nothing, however, is more
natural than that Mary, who, according to what had been
announced to her as her destiny, had to expect within this
time that which would make her appear a sinner in the eyes
of men, hid herself in the pious priestly house, in order at
least to do for her part what was humanly possible, so that,
in consequence of its testimony to her behaviour, she might
receive credit, when she revealed the true and yet so
incredible ground of her hopes as a mother, In that case,
however, she must also have been a witness of the events
which, on the occasion of the circumcision of the son of her
elderly relatives, revealed his high destiny ; while this destiny
must at least have been a token to her that the time of
salvation, which the son promised to her was to bring about,
was near at hand. For at the end of these three months
Elisabeth expected her confinement; and it is at least a
very natural assumption that Mary also took part in the
feast that was given at his circumcision.1
At that feast, which was, according to the custom of the
Jews, also the feast at which its name was given to the
1 This assumption is by no means opposed by Luke i. 56, where her return
to Nazareth is mentioned before (ver. 57) the birth of John is related. For it
is quite natural that the series of narratives, which deals with the annuncia
tions, should be concluded by the mention of that former fact, before the new
series, which passes over to the stories of the births (cf. p. 224), commences.
In exactly the same manner, the history of the birth of the Baptist is concluded
in i. 80, although ii. 1 refers to a time much anterior to it ; and the narrative
of his ministry is concluded in iii. 18-20, although what follows in iii. 21 falls
in its very midst.

CIRCUMCISION OF JOHN. 237
child, it happened that the relatives and friends of the family
proposed that the child should be called Zacharias, after the
name of his father ; while Elisabeth insisted on giving him the
significant name, into which, in keeping with the imaginative
manner of the Jews, she imported the recollection of that
which had been bestowed upon her in the present of this
child. Then it happened that the aged priest, who had up
to this time been a silent witness of this scene, opened his
mouth, and, to the astonishment of all, with inflexible decision
seconded the wish of the mother. He did so, it is true, in a
still far higher sense. For now he told how a revelation had
been once made to him in the temple at Jerusalem, which
promised him this child of his old age, and at the same time
assigned to that child the destiny of becoming the forerunner
of the Messiah. Now he charged even himself with unbelief ;j
he had not dared to give absolute credence to this revelation,!
and therefore until to-day he had kept silent regarding that!
which stirred his heart so deeply. But step by step the
fulfilment of the promise given to him had made him deeply I
ashamed of his unbelief. His wife had become pregnant,
she had given birth to a son ; and in the circumstance that
she would to-day have him called John, he could see only a
confirmation of the destiny assigned to this son, who was
henceforth to be named John, i.e. the grace of God, after the
grace of God which appeared to the waiting people in the
person of the forerunner of the Messiah.
Nothing else than this can actually be the historical basis of
the traditions which are reported in the representation of this
circumcision scene (i. 57-64), with an express reference to the
reminiscences which were still so current in the hill country
of Judea at a later period (i. 65 f.), and which furnished the
source of the evangelist with the material for the account of
the revelation made to Zacharias (i. 8-22), — an account which
is one of the most beautiful portions of this early history.
The conversation of the priest with the angel we can regard'
only as the literary form in which the narrator clothed that!
revelation;1 and it is, moreover, out of keeping with all
1 Here also, just as in the- case of the annunciation to Mary (cf. p. 223), it is
the angel Gabriel who brings the message ; here, too, there are certain features,
such as i. 15, 18, undoubtedly borrowed from the old sacred history (cf. Judg. .

238 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
analogy that the recollection of that circumcision festival,
handed down as it was from mouth to mouth for many a
year, should have remained altogether pure. The confusion,
however, consists simply in this, that the silence of Zacharias,
which he himself regarded as the consequence of his unbelief,
is conceived of in the tradition as having been brought about
by a divine miracle of punishment, and as having been first
broken that day in an equally miraculous manner. From
this there naturally follows everything which in the account
of the circumcision scene goes beyond that historical matter
of fact, and which is related in the scene of the annunciation
over and above the simple revelation regarding the birth and
destiny of the son.1 As for the rest, the account of that
annunciation still points back in all its concrete vivid details
to the communications which the old priest had made
regarding the revelation given to him. Along with the
other members of his course, he was staying at Jerusalem ;
and as the priestly functions were in accordance with custom
assigned by lot, the lot fell upon him to offer the incense
in the morning in the sanctuary, while the people prayed in
the fore-courts of the temple. The simple narrative passes on
without evidencing any perception of the wonderful poetry
of Divine Providence, that here in the sanctuary of the old
covenant the first morning greeting announces the -day of
the new covenant, and thereby only shows how far it was
from inventing this scenery. In the sweet odour of the
incense, which the priest pours upon the glowing coals of the
xiii. 14 ; Gen. xv. 8), and the promise referring to the destiny of the son
(i. 17) is attached to prophetical words found in the Old Testament (cf. Mai.
iv. 5 f.). And although, in accordance with this, the angel did not foreordain
the name of the son (i. 13), it nevertheless remains a Divine Providence that the
inner experiences of the father and mother coincided in the choice of this
significant name.
1 Strauss has striven in vain to obtain from Old Testament and New Testa
ment analogies a point of departure for the mythical origin of the tradition
regarding this miraculously produced silence. For it does not require to be
proven that neither the momentary dumbness of Daniel after a vision (Dan. x.
15 f.), nor the three days' blindness of Paul when he was on his way to
Damascus (Acts ix. 8), furnishes such a point of departure. On the contrary, it
is always characteristic of oral tradition that it conceives of that which is of
subjective origin as being brought about by something external, and endeavours
to represent the spiritual in that which falls under the observation of the
senses.

THE REVELATION TO ZACHARIAS. 239
altar, the prayer of the people rises up to God, — that prayer
the central point of which was always the salvation promised
in the Messiah. It was then that he received the divine
revelation that the prayer of the people was heard, and that
the son, who was to be born to him, would prepare the way
for Jehovah, who was drawing near in the person of His'
Messiah. That it was an hour of the deepest absorption in
meditation and prayer, the inner experiences of which!
awakened in him this hope, however much it still had toj
struggle with the doubts again and again stirred within/
him by the continuance of his wife's barrenness unto her
old age, and by the long fruitless waiting of the people for
the fulfilment of its promises, — that it was such an hour is
shown most clearly by his long tarrying in the temple, which
caused the people to marvel; for the brief conversation with
the angel, in which the -narrator has clothed this revelation,
would evidently not have demanded such a long stay in the
sanctuary. But when he came out of the temple, and every
one pressed round about him with inquiries as to the cause
of his delay, he made signs to the people that they should be
silent. We know why it was that he kept silence.
No doubt he who does not acknowledge any divine
revelation whatever in the narrower sense, but at the most
only such revelations as are brought about psychologically by
the spiritual activity of man, an activity which is always
divinely stimulated, cannot look upon a narrative as historical,
according to which the hope of such a fact as the birth of
this son of the. altar, or of such a destiny as this, which in so
incalculable a manner connects the highest expectations of
the people with a human life which is still to be looked
lor, is owing to divine revelation. But the ultimate ground i
of doubt in the actuality of this revelation lies far deeper, j
Whoever judges of the appearing of Jesus only in accordance \
with the criteria of other historical personages, will also
regard it as a free spiritual act on His part, that He con
nected Himself with the activity of the prophet on the
Jordan, and declared him to be His forerunner. Such an
one will, accordingly, find in this narrative only a mythical
expression of the circumstance, that a historical relation was
regarded in the Church as one that had been divinely willed

240 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
and foreordained.1 If, however, we have good reason to
hold by the historical kernel of these traditions, we must
assume that it was the divine decree, already foretold in
the prophets, that appointed such a forerunner to the Messiah,
and that John had been called from his birth to be this fore
runner. That being the case, however, it can easily be
comprehended how the promise given to his parents should
and could contribute to the child's being prepared from its
earliest years with a view to this calling, and being brought
up for it.2
Undoubtedly the purpose of such revelations as were given
to Zacharias as well as to the parents of Jesus, should by no
means be regarded so narrowly. It was now necessary to
jrevive, primarily in the small circles of the pious in Israel,
'the long sunk Messianic hopes of the people ; and it is very
natural to suppose that in the traditions relating to this early
period there was still current many a word in which the
parties concerned had once, filled with the Spirit, given
expression to the new hopes which were awakened by those
revelations. In this way we can best explain the circum
stance, that in the accounts given of the annunciations these
hopes have found an expression which could not possibly
have been chosen at the time when these narratives were
committed to writing ; for then the fulfilment had long since
followed a path which deviated essentially from the letter of
the promise and the expectations which were founded upon
that letter, and the old language could not possibly have been
poetically reproduced without a very artificial transposing of
1 Such an explanation would, at least, be far more intelligible than that
which sees in the narrative only an imitation of the Old Testament histories of
Samson and Samuel, or, more strictly, only a poetical pendant to the annuncia
tion of the birth of Jesus Himself.
2 It is true the direct instruction which the angel gives to Zacharias' in this
respect (Luke i. 15) is certainly only one of the elements which the narrator
has borrowed from Old Testament history and interwoven into his free literary
representation ; for neither the notice contained in i. 80, nor any other historical
vestige, leads us to conclude that, like Samson and Samuel, John had been
consecrated to lifelong Nazaritism. But that a youth which was spent amidst
constant allusions to such hopes, and with the anticipation of such tasks, could
well contribute to mature a man who should be competent for his divine voca
tion, this sufficiently explains the purpose of such revelations, so far as we
may venture to inquire with reference to divine purposes.

THE REAWAKENING OF PROPHECY. 241
oneself back into the situation and views of a remote past.
This becomes very evident when we compare the explana
tion of the name Jesus (Matt. i. 21), — an explanation which
certainly originates with the first evangelist himself, and
already shows the doctrinal view of the apostolic age, with
the strain of the words in which the vocation of Jesus and
His forerunner is characterized by Luke (i. 32 f. and i. 16 f.).
Here it is still the old prophetical expectation of a son of
David, who ascends the throne of his fathers and sets up an
everlasting kingdom over the house of Jacob (cf. 2 Sam. vii.
1 3) ; here it is Jehovah Himself that comes in the Messianic
time, and before whom the forerunner of the Messiah brings
the nation as one that is thoroughly prepared by the com
pletion of its moral reformation, effected in the spirit and
power of Elias (cf. Mai. iii. 1, iv. 5 f.).1 Where, how
ever, the soil was once prepared by means of such hopes, the
spirit of prophecy could again be poured out, as in days of
old. For four hundred years the voice of prophecy had been
silent, a dead and deadening method of explaining Scripture
had taken the place of the life-giving energy of the Spirit of
God. That the spirit of prophecy was again revived, was the
surest sign of the dawning day of salvation, of the new era,
in which, according to the old prophecy, the spirit was to be
poured out upon all flesh (Joel ii 28). Not only was
Zacharias filled with this spirit (Luke i. 67); in the circles
of the pious in the land, who waited for the consolation of
Israel in the midst of the loud tumults of the capital, we see
the spirit descending also upon the aged Simeon (ii. 25).
Yea, as if that prophecy was now to be literally fulfilled, it
already descends upon all flesh ; Israel's sons and daughters
begin to prophesy. In Jerusalem we hear of the prophetess
Anna, the daughter of Phanuel (ii. 3 6), and Elisabeth herself
is filled with the Holy Ghost (i. 41).
But is not this merely an element in the glorifying
ornamentation of this history of the nativity ? This sus-
1 Yet neither of these events had actually taken place ; neither had John
effected a moral reformation, so that the Messiah found a prepared people, nor
had the latter ascended the throne of His fathers. This being the case, how
ever, such an expectation could not, from the Christian standpoint, have bet-n
put into the mouth of the angel as a divine promise, unless some support or
other had been found for it in traditional prophecies.
WEISS  1. y

242 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
picion, however, must give way when we look more narrowly
at the memorial of this new prophecy — a memorial which
reaches the highest flight of Old Testament prophecy — which
tradition has preserved for us (Luke i. 67-79).1 It is true
also of this hymn of Zacharias, that it still exhibits the form
of the Messianic hopes of the Jews in an originality and
purity which it could no longer preserve in the early Chris
tian age, and which could only have been reproduced by
means of a skill in composition which was altogether foreign
to that age. It blesses Jehovah, the God of Israel, who hath
wrought a redemption for His people, and, in order to bring
it, hath raised up a horn of salvation, i.e. a power which can
bring redemption to the people, in the house of His servant
David, the Messiah, viz., of whom all the prophets have spoken
since the world began. But this redemption is still con
ceived of simply as a salvation from the enemies of the
people, as an emancipation from the power of the Gentiles
who hate them. It is not the deeply sunken generation of
the present day for whom this divine deed is primarily
meant ; it is the pious fathers, who have hoped in the bless
ing of their seed, and mourn over the misery of their
offspring. God shows mercy towards them, by remembering
His inviolable covenant, which He has concluded with them,
the oath which He has once sworn unto the patriarch
Abraham. But however certainly external wellbeing is in
volved in it, that cannot be the ultimate goal to which this
redemption is to lead. Delivered out of the hand of its
enemies, the nation is henceforth to serve its God in holiness
and righteousness. The restoration and completion of the
true theocracy is the final goal ; but political emancipation
1 No doubt it is commonly assumed that this hymn -is put into the mouth of
Zacharias by the narrator, in order to give a poetical adornment to the circum
cision scene. But even when looked at formally this is far from being the case.
For it is a purely arbitrary assumption that this was the hymn into which
Zacharias broke forth when his tongue was again loosed (i. 64). From the
circumstance that this hymn is not interwoven into the narrative, but is
reported after the narrative is finished (i. 66), it is evident that we have to do
here, not with an invention of the writer, but with the communication of a
memorial out of the time of that reawakening prophecy which had maintained
its place in tradition ; although in saying this we naturally do not exclude the
possibility that the first recorder of it, and the evangelist, who has in many
ways worked up his sources, have also their share in giving it its present form.

THE SIGN GIVEN TO MARY. 243
and national completion are still conceived of as its indis
pensable prerequisite. The second portion of his hymn turns
to the child who has been born to him. As a prophet of the
Most High, he is yet to go before Jehovah, who is drawing
near in the time of salvation, in order to make ready His
ways, according to the promise (Isa. xl. 3). The whole
nation shall know that salvation is at hand ; for it is he that
proclaims forgiveness of sins to the people led by him to
repentance, and thus removes the greatest obstacle, the
people's guilt, which stands in the way of its redemption.
There is still no presentiment of the circumstance that it is
by means of the Messiah that this forgiveness can be first
brought or secured ; it is the forerunner who, according to
the prophetic promise (Jer. xxxiii. 8 ; Zech. iii. 9), cleanses
the nation from its sin, as well as from its guilt. The final
goal is the sunrise of the Messianic time, which the tender
mercy of God has resolved upon, in order that He may cause
the light of salvation to shine upon them that sit in the
deepest darkness of misery, so that they may find the way
which leads to peace.
Such voices of prophecy Mary has heard in the hill country
of Judea ; but long ere these could resound ever louder and
clearer after the birth of the child of the priest, she is said
to have received there a sign, which gave her the fullest
confirmation of the hope that was awakened in her breast.
Tradition at least related that, as soon as she entered the
house of the priest, and on the occasion of her first meeting
with Elisabeth, the latter, filled with the Holy Ghost, greeted
her as the mother of the Messiah (i. 40-45). It is true that
when the narrative contained in our Gospel connects this
miraculous enlightenment with a movement on the part of the
child, which she carried under her heart, and which move
ment the Spirit taught her to recognise as an expression of
triumphant joy, which she could explain only as- joy at the
arrival of the mother of the Messiah, it contradicts its own
presuppositions, according to which Elisabeth could as yet
know nothing regarding the Messianic destiny of the child,
for which she was hoping.1 But if, after she had learned the
1 The unmistakeable allusion to the unbelief of Zacharias (cf. the expression
in Luke i. 45, which, moreover, strongly reminds us of Acts xxvii. 25), with

244 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
destiny of her child, Elisabeth had late recalled that moment
to mind, she could easily speak of such a movement on the
part of the child, the meaning of which she now learned to
know in a new light ; and tradition could have already
carried this back into the narrative relating to that meeting
of the two mothers. Yet it cannot be denied that on this
explanation that sudden enlightenment of Elisabeth loses its
real point of departure. The possibility is not on that account
excluded, that it was in tradition that the confirmation of her
hope, which Mary found in the priest's house, and the pro
phetic words of Elisabeth, which later announced to her her
high destiny, were first thrown into the form of this salutation
scene.1 We must not overlook the fact that one of the
essential reasons, at least, why this scene is described, is that
there might be connected with it a second memorial of that
time of reawakening prophecy which, like the prophecy of
the Old Testament, has also found its highly poeticd ex
pression in a psalm. That this outburst of "prophecy is full
of reminiscences of the Psalms of the Old Testament, in which
which she pronounces Mary, in contrast to him, blessed because of her faith,
can only belong to the author, for the presupposition of a written communica
tion of Zacharias referring to his unbelief is contrary to the meaning and
purpose of the narrative regarding the miracle which inflicted upon him the
punishment of speechlessness.
1 At any rate, the deeply conceived narrative, though it seems somewhat
strange to our manner of thought, does not deserve the gross misinterpretations
with which apologetics as well as critics have disfigured it. For there is no
need that the movement of the child in the womb, quite a natural physiological
phenomenon in the sixth month of pregnancy, should be accounted for psycho
logically by the excitement of Elisabeth's mind on the occasion of the visit of
her kinswoman, or be regarded as a special divine miracle, because the mother
explains it so finely. On the other hand, the critics have sought to find in this
the fulfilment of the promise in Luke i. 15. It is true that in its hyperbolical
language this latter passage, in keeping with the poetical strain of the promise,
goes beyond what is brought out in the Gospel itself as to its fulfilment in the
prophetical activity of John, just as with its demand that he should be a
Nazarite it goes beyond what is said regarding his ascetic life in the wilderness
during his youth and manhood (cf. p. 239). But after explaining it, contrary
to the language as well as to the sense, as meaning that the child should be
filled with the Holy Ghost even when in its mother's womb, some have found
here the homage which, after it prophetically recognised the mother of the ^
Messiah, it paid to the embryo of its great successor while slumbering in Mary's
womb, — a combination which is at once insipid and highly artificial, and which
was certainly very alien to the creative activity of the phantasy when engaged
in the forming of myths.

THE MAGNIFICAT. 245
all pious Israelites lived, and in particular has many points
of contact with the hymn of the mother of Samuel which was
spoken on a similar occasion, is naturally no evidence that
we have before us here an imitation of the latter with a
tendency (1 Sam. ii. 1-10). The sketch of the picture of/
hope that fills the soul of the singer, a sketch which is hinted
at rather than drawn, bears testimony to the originality of
this poetical effusion. Naturally we are no longer able to
discover whether Mary was really its author, or whether it
was first put into her mouth (possibly by the insertion of
i. 48) by a narrator of these histories, or by him to whom we
owe the circumstance that they were committed to writing.
At any rate, the account given of that salutation scene is only
meant to point out the historical occasion on which we may
conceive the Magnificat to have originated (Luke i. 46-55).
In strains of unmixed triumph the hymn of praise rises up
to God, who is preparing a great redemption for the people
with the coming of the time of salvation, and tarries with
simple joy over the fame which the promotion of the humble
maid to the highest destiny leads her to anticipate. It
magnifies the miracle which the Almighty has wrought upon
her; but it does so because of the verification which His
holiness and His mercy have thereby found in the case of all
them that fear the Lord, for here also it is still exclusively
for these that the prospect of the Messianic salvation is opened
up. It looks back upon the manifestations of this holiness
and mercy, which God has shown again and again with
mighty arm ; and here also the delineation of the types of
that which Jehovah is now about to do, shows that the
salvation expected is the redemption of the people from their
haughty enemies, whose headlong overthrow promises them
salvation, and that God will exalt the lowly, and will satisfy
those who are pining away in misery with the fulness of all
earthly blessings. At last it reaches its climax in the
allusion to the great saving deed of God, whereby He has
already commenced to help His servant Israel ; and here too
it is His mercy and faithfulness with which He fulfils the
promises given to the fathers, and does to Abraham and his
seed as He has sworn to him.
It is thus that these hymns, these prophecies in the circle

246 SECOND BOOK. ' THE PREPARATION.
of the pious in the hill country of Judea, greet the first
morning red of the new time of salvation, which is already
dawning full of hope. And how often there may have
resounded in. that circle the hymn of praise, which our his
torian puts into the mouth of the heavenly hosts, whom the
shepherds on the plains of Bethlehem believed they heard
praising God: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace among men in whom He is well pleased ! (Luke ii. 24).

CHAPTER IV.
THE NATIVITY IN BETHLEHEM AND SALUTATION IN THE TEMPLE.
SOME six miles to the south-east of Jerusalem, on the road
to Hebron, lies the little town of Bethlehem, originally
named Bethlehem-Ephratah, i.e. house of bread among the
corn-fields. Even now we find the terraced hill-sides of the
near environs covered with plantations of fruit trees and rich
fields, while the neighbouring hills to the south show
luxurious meadows of meadow hay and brilliant flowers. In
the time of Micah (v. 1) it was so insignificant as not to
muster an independent thousand (of heads of .families). Our
sources at one time call it a town (Luke ii. 4), at another a
place (John vii. 42), and so with the later writers. But a
halo from the past rested upon the unimportant little town;
here it was that the renowned king was born, who was
associated with the fairest remembrances of the nation (comp.
1 Sam. xvi. 1, xvii. 12), and the magic of those recollections
surrounded still the old Davidic city (Luke ii. 11).
Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, and there, in obedience
to a divine command, Joseph had doubtless taken home his
bride. It is related nevertheless by two evangelists that
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke ii. 7).
Criticism supposes this to have been inferred from the-pro-
phecy in order to gain for Jesus a new Messianic sign ; and
those, at least, who regard the traditions redacted in our
Gospels as essentially fabulous, have no right to hold this one
incident to be historical. Micah's prophecy (v. 1) may not
really have signified incontrovertibly that the Messiah should
be born in the town of David, but it is apparent from the
Gospels that this was thought to be the meaning of that
passage in the work of the prophet (Matt. ii. 5), and that the
people considered the coming of the Messiah from Bethlehem
as in accordance with Scripture (John vii. 41). It is, however,
247 ft*.

248 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
altogether a different question from that regarding the Davidic
descent (comp. p. 213 f.). When called on to say where the
Messiah should be born, even the speculative acumen of the
scribes could refer to no passage but that in Micah. And
although antipathy to the Galilean Messiah (John vii. 41)
once led to the existence of this Messianic sign being doubted,
this does not prove that the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem had
taken root in the popular expectation as His Davidic descent
had done, which was involved in the whole history of pro
phecy and demanded by the character of the existing Messianic
hopes. But above all, the naive remodelling of such an
expectation, even if proved to be widespread, into the
assumption that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, would be
opposed by the fact of its being widely known that Jesus was
" a Nazarene, Nazareth being (His birthplace) (comp. p. 213).1
For the inference thence drawn of Jesus' actual birth in that
place was a serious difficulty in the way of the formation of a
contrary opinion which could only appeal to a dubious inter
pretation of Micah's prophecy.
Criticism itself is not agreed as to whether Matthew's
account of the early history is the earlier, which simply
assumes the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, and begins with
describing the removal to Nazareth which took place at a
later period. It might be that Luke's narrative is the first,
for it begins with adjusting the hypothetical birth in Beth
lehem to the palpable fact of His Galilean home, which is the
first source that can have provided Matthew with the already
justified presupposition. The one position is as untenable as
the other. A legendary formation, which begins by reasoning
away the objections to an assumption it would pronounce as
fact, is a self-contradiction ; for the unconscious transposing of
1 It is difficult to imagine how this could be considered a historical testimony
against the statement of our Gospels. For the custom is still general of a man's
being named after the town where his youth is passed, even when accidental
circumstances caused his birth to occur in another place, or during his infancy
his parents sojourned elsewhere. We ought not to expect that when John
communicates a popular rumour arising from lack of certain knowledge of the
circumstances without protesting against the truth of it, he may therefore be
summoned as a witness on that side. But there is no need for a misinterpreta
tion of John iv. 44 to make him a witness for the nativity in Bethlehem, for he
presupposes all the older tradition, and his silence in i. 46, vii. 42, does not mean
that its testimony was invalid.

HISTORICITY OF THE NATIVITY IN BETHLEHEM. 249
an assumption into a fact belongs to the nature of legend
as well as to that of myth. The simple assumption of the
fact as it is presented by the first evangelist is absolutely
impossible, for the continuation of his narrative shows how
conscious the author was of the facts standing in the way
of that presupposition. If, on this account, the hypothesis
of an unconscious legend-formation be given up and recourse
had to that of conscious invention, which has of set purpose
embraced this detail in its narrative, the difficulty must at
once be met of the same incident occurring in two perfectly
independent narrative groups, and it must then be derived
from a common tradition lying at the foundation of both,
and one whose origin must be either legendary or historical.
But the independence of our two narrative groups of one
another, already so strikingly apparent in the genealogical
tables, is here made very evident; indeed, the incongruity
of their contradictory accounts has always been one of the
strongest arguments employed by criticism against their
historicity. In regard to the points in question, the Gospels
are undoubtedly only apparently in harmony. No apologetical
ingenuity has succeeded in eliminating the fact that our
Gospel of Matthew, looked at separately, can only be under
stood to mean that Joseph and Mary dwelt originally in
Bethlehem, and only through special circumstances were
induced to remove to Galilee and to choose Nazareth as their
permanent abode (comp. Matt. ii. 22 f.). Luke, on the con
trary, informs us with all the distinctness one could wish, that
Nazareth was their original dwelling-place (i. 26, ii. 4), to
which, after being led to Bethlehem by peculiar circumstances
(ii. 1-5), they returned as soon as possible (ii. 39). From
the fact of both evangelists extracting from their store only
detached traditions regarding this early history, it would not
be surprising were the first evangelist to infer from the tradi-
ditional fact of the birth in Bethlehem that it was the
parent's original home, and that their equally verified recorded;
residence in Nazareth was the result of some such removal.
We shall see presently how even Luke's combination is based
on insufficient information as to the facts. But the naive i
way in which the one completely ignores the assumptions of/
the other is possible only if he were unacquainted with the)

250 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
work of the other. Their concurrence as regards the birth
in Bethlehem rests on the joint foundation of historical
tradition. Perfectly independent of this is the question whether the
reasons that led the parents of Jesus to Bethlehem were
known when our narratives were written. It would not be
at all astonishing if they had been long forgotten. The
descendant of David might easily have had family relations
at the old centre of his family to occasion his journey, while
the narrator would go a step farther, and regard ill as a divine
dispensation which he would represent as being brought about
by express divine arrangement.1 Even if this were not so,
and Joseph's journey was specially connected with some
political event, it is still most probable that the tradition was
guided by a recollection of the actual state of the case. This
does not exclude the possibility of this recollection being
already faded, or of the real occasion of the journey having
been imperfectly apprehended in the tradition. The latter must
have happened if Luke really speaks of a taxing decreed by the
Emperor Augustus for the whole empire (ii. 1). For all the
/attempts of apologetics to prove the probability at that date
[of a universal census of the empire, or at least of a provin
cial census, have been without success. They are shattered
upon the fact that at that time Palestine by no means
belonged to the Roman Empire as a province, but was ruled by
an independent king, who was by rights a confederate of the
Romans. We know historically of only a thrice repeated
imperial census under Augustus which concerned Roman
1 In his Leben Jesu of 1864, p. 335 f., Strauss has, with caustic wit and much
enjoyment, pictured instead of this how the evangelist laboured in vain at the
task of bringing Jesus' parents to Bethlehem, and at last hit upon the taxing by
Cyrenius, which he knew of from Acts v. 37, and could verify from his know
ledge of antiquity. To be sure, this taxing could never have taken place in the
existing political circumstances, and was actually carried out ten years later. It
was certainly confined to Judea, and could not concern the Galilean Joseph. A
census in the Roman form would not have led Joseph to his ancestral town ; and
even though conducted in the Jewish manner, it could never have caused Mary
to accompany him. But this Gentile Christian, who was as ignorant as we are
of the political circumstances of the time and the method of the Roman census,
held fast to those unlucky ideas, and involved himself in a mass of contradictions,
instead of adopting the theory, advanced by Strauss himself, of the parents'
being led to go to Bethlehem by an angel's appearance, which, moreover,
would have given more significance to the birth itself.

THE TAXING OF QUIR1NIUS. 251
citizens, and to these the Jews did not belong. But the
burden of that statement, which must have been contained in
the source employed by Luke, since it forms the necessary
presupposition of the following narrative, does not refer to an
edict ordaining a valuation for the purposes of taxation, which,
according to our knowledge of the historical circumstances,
would not have taken this form, but refers solely to an
administrative measure commanding a general enumeration of
the people, such as suited the consolidating tendency of the
emperor's reign, and is analogous to the general imperial
survey, while it might extend over the countries of the vassal
kings. But if it is a fact that Augustus possessed memoranda
estimating the population, the number capable of bearing
arms, the extent to which the whole empire, including the
countries of the allies, was available for revenue, this involved
throughout the empire just such estimates of the people ; and
it was one of this kind which took Joseph to Bethlehem.1
There is not in the story the slightest indication of the great
significance which the speculative acumen of the apologists
would find in this dispensation, whether by making prominent
the concurrence of the commencement of redemption with the
completion of Israel's bondage, or by finding expressed in it
the signification of Jesus for the whole world. But it follows
from this that no such idea guided tradition to this combina
tion ; it must be founded upon historical recollection.2
If this had been a valuation, then, according to Roman law,
every man would have been subjected to it at his dwelling-
place ; but in this case every one must betake themselves to
1 Comp. Suet. Octav. xxviii. 101 ; Tacit. Ann. i. 11.
2 It is a totally different question whether this historical condition was still
clear to the evangelist, who, writing after the manner of a historiographer
(comp. iii. 1 f.)f has added the explanatory notice ii. 2. It does indeed Seem
most improbable that he should have confounded this measure with the taxing
authorized by Quirinius. For the Acts of the Apostles shows him to have been
well acquainted with the former event and with the accompanying historical
circumstances. The way in which he draws a parallel between it and this
taxation proves that he regarded it as a real valuation, while the simple purport
of his notice tells that he distinguished between them. For when he tells of a
first taxing being carried out during the proconsulate of Quirinius, he cannot
mean a first taxing of the Jews, as, according to ii. 1, he was thinking of an
universal imperial taxation, but only of a first tax taken by Quirinius as
governor of Syria, which he would distinguish from the better kuown second

252 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
their ancestral town (Luke ii. 3), so that a protest is entered
by the narrative itself against the assumption of an actual
census. The people could scarcely refrain from imputing the
measure to momentous ulterior views, and from looking forward
to it with mistrust. It was therefore only politically sagacious
to execute it after the national method of tribal reckoning,
especially when it was facilitated by the tribal registers. But
this may have been done only when families were able to
trace their descent from the old races, while other methods of
reckoning were made use of in the case of those who could
not. We have seen already that Joseph's family belonged to
the first class. It has indeed been maintained that Mary's
journey was by no means obligatory, and that the attempts
made by apologetics to deduce such an obligation have turned
out to be equally artificial and arbitrary. But our source by
no means asserts that she accompanied Joseph in order to be
registered along with him, but, following a correct exegetical
view, explains the journey as owing to her factual] condition <
(ii. 5). It has commonly been supposed that Joseph did not
wish to leave his young wife alone in such an agitated time,
with the dangers of a critical hour before her. But it is
more probable that as Joseph expected with certainty the
birth of a son, he intended, if the confinement should precede
the enrolment, to enter the child in the public register as his
legitimate son.
Thus it was that Joseph and Mary came to Bethlehem.
The fact that they counted upon hospitality being shown
them there, indicates that they still had relations with the
old city of David ; for the narrative mentions expressly how,
one made on the annexation of Judea. A second historical error is bound up
with this confusion, for at the time of Jesus' birth C. Sentius Saturninus, not
P. Sulpicius Quirinius, was proconsul of Syria. Testimonies from antiquity
have frequently been used to substantiate the probability that Quirinius was
twice governor of Syria ; but these attempts fall far short of being perfectly
convincing, and do not refer directly to the time we are treating of. It must
therefore be taken for granted that Quirinius, who, as we know, was about
this time employed in the East in the performance of unusual commissions
(comp. Tacit. Ann. iii. 48), conducted that census as imperial commissioner, and
that Luke mistakenly thought of him as in the higher position which he after
wards possessed as proconsul of Syria. But apologetics will never tire of
torturing the clear text with the most far-fetched exegetical artifices in order to
free it from this easily comprehensible mistake.

THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. 253
owing to the little town being crowded by people on the same
errand, there was no more room in the house of their host
(ii. 7 ; comp. expression xxii. 11). Besides, according to
existent circumstances, there can scarcely have been a cara
vansary in the town, for these are generally referred to by
quite a different expression (x. 34). Their connections were
indeed only shepherds, for it was obviously in a cattle
enclosure that they found shelter at last, as the flocks still
passed the nights in the field (ii. 8). An old tradition,
quoted by Justin and Origen, representing Jesus as having
been born in a cave near the town, is quite compatible with
the evangelical narrative, for such caves were often arranged
as cattle stalls.1 So it came to pass that the first resting-
place of the Saviour of the world was in a manger. This
incident is certainly far from agreeing with the tendency
to throw a halo round the birth of Jesus, which must, how
ever, be assumed if we would look upon this as a fabulous
picture. Assuredly we cannot refrain from seeing a significant dis
pensation in the fact of Christ's entrance into this world being
surrounded by everything that was mean. But if we have,
actually to do with a series of legends or fictions, in which
there were dreams of royal thrones, and which tell of the
parents being led to the old royal town in order that the
royal child, surrounded by the radiance of His heavenly'
origin, should be born there, it is surely a strange intrusion
of modern conceptions to imagine that this brilliancy is only
increased through the contrast of a dark stable and a wretched
manger. And yet it is thought that just here the process of the
formation of the glorifying legends can be observed at work
in its special sphere. Do not the celestial hosts sing their
hymn of praise to the child of heaven, and the adoring shep
herds kneel round the cradle in Bethlehem ? How strange,
1 There is not the slightest likelihood of this being a fabulous incident
originating with the Septuagint version of Isa.. xxxiii. 16, when in the original
text no mention is made of a cave, nor is a reference to the Messiah conceivable.
The statement in Ps. lxxviii. 70, that David was taken from the sheep-folds,
is 'surely no reason for the son of David being born in a stable ; and besides,
if the legend really alludes to Isa. i. 3, yet the later legendary inventions
showed how much more drastically they could incorporate such a trait by their
representing the ox and the ass as adoring the child Jesus.

254 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
indeed, is the intermingling in these conceptions of the charm,
which the imagination of adoring Christendom has ever
woven round the cradle at Bethlehem, with what the unbiassed
view of the simple text tells us ! (Luke ii. 8-20). It
appeals naively to the testimony of the mother of Jesus
(ii. 1 9) when reporting how, during the holy night, shepherds,
who had been keeping watch over their flocks in the field,
appeared beside the manger in Bethlehem, and to the amaze
ment of the bystanders related that they had seen a " vision
of angels," which made known to them that this night in the
city of David the Messiah of Israel was born. There is no
mention of an adoration, and far from there being a glorifying
of the birth from a virgin, the amazement of the parents has
been found surprising. They knew, indeed, of the child's
Messianic vocation, but had every reason to marvel at this
sacred secret of their home being suddenly made known to
strangers. The shepherds returned glorifying and praising
God, for in the babe wrapped in swaddling-clothes and lying
in a manger they had found the confirmation of the message
of peace which had reached them in the field ; now, indeed,
they knew that the hour of deliverance for the nation had
come. In all this the narrative presupposes divine revelations by
means of which the meanest among the pious ones of earth
may know the profoundest secret of the divine decrees. But,
of course, the account given by the highly-excited shepherds
of their experience, which, besides, was first circulated in oral
tradition, must not be taken as a dry prosaic representation.
The declaration made to them is clothed in a form which is
the narrator's own. Do we not hear in the angels' song the
re-echoing of the thoughts that stirred the hearts within the
newly-awakened prophetical circle? (comp. p. 246). It is
unquestionable that this message impelled the shepherds to
Bethlehem ; and that they learnt there in what house a child
had that night been born is quite comprehensible without the
aid which apologetics would give,, by a supposititious relation
of the shepherds to the house where Joseph and Mary had
halted. We understand, from the analogy of earlier occur
rences with which we are already acquainted, how the token
of corroboration found by the shepherds in the manger at

THE DAY OF JESUS' BIRTH. 255
Bethlehem, beside which they doubtless learnt also of the
hopes roused in the parents, is carried back into the angel's
message.1 To the inquisitive question why that revelation
was given to precisely these herds, who may perhaps not have
lived to see 'the fulfilment of those hopes, it is enough to
answer that the birth of Jesus ushers in the time when the
religious life of the individual is first estimated at its true
value, and therefore becomes an object of God's hallowing
and providential grace. But whether the experiences of that
sacred night enabled these shepherds, through all the conflicts
and testings of that time of fulfilment, to attach themselves to
the community of believers in the Messiah, or whether they
died with only a freshly-strengthened faith in the realization
of all the promises, yet their appearance by the manger
strengthened the faith of the parents, and was a ratification of
their hopes as to the future of the child, which, according to
the testimony of our source, they never forgot.
Ingenious calculations have been made to establish from\
the Gospel the day of Jesus' birth, but in vain. The point )
to be first ascertained was the time when the priestly class
of Abia served in the temple (i. 5). But these attempts have
all been shattered on the complete uncertainty as to the
starting-point, which depends on whether the order of the
priestly courses is computed from their commencement at the
dedication of the first temple or from their termination on the
destruction of Jerusalem, as well as on the entire uncertainty
as to whether this course lasted without any interruption or
exceptions. Then, too, the year and the probable season of
Jesus' birth would require to be settled previously, as each
course occurred twice in a year. But even if this calculation
were successful, nothing would be gained. For the state
ment as to the time when Elisabeth conceived, and as to the
sixth month when Mary was told of the conception (Luke i.
24, 26), is of such a general nature that no calculation as to
the day can be founded upon it, especially as the period
which must elapse before the birth (Luke i. 57, ii. 6) cannot
be decided to a day. The day on which, after wavering for
1 The myth-hypothesis labours in vain to explain the part played by the
shepherds by the pastoral tales of the ancients, and is even obliged awkwardly
to press into service the legends of Cyrus and Romulus.

256 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
long, the Church fixed the celebration of the birth of Christ,
was certainly not justified by chronological computations.
But even the hypothesis that at least the negative result can
be ascertained, that the actual day of Christ's birth could not
have been in the winter season, because, according to the
tradition of the Talmud, the flocks remained all night in the
fields from March till November, has not been unassailed.
Attention has with reason been drawn to the probability of
this being applicable to the driving of the herds to the hill
pastures, but that in the valleys and in the neighbourhood of
habitations the flocks could, if the weather were favourable,
remain much longer in the open air.
Eight days after the nativity the child was circumcised
in conformity with the law (Lev. xii. 3), and so was admitted
into the sacred community of Israel. This was done to John
(Luke i. 59), and was now undergone by the child of promise
(ii. 21) ; and in the one case as in the other, the name was
given at the same time. Whether the name Jesus is a con
traction for Jehoshua (Jehovah is help) or a direct reproduc
tion of the Hebrew Jeshua", can no longer be ascertained ; in
any case, it pointed to the help and deliverance that would
reach the people from Him who bore it. It was certainly
not an uncommon name, more particularly after the exile-;
but in this case we^must _either_regard it as being the strangest
accident that this 'freely-selectedjiame^corresponded precisely
to the very lofty calling of Him who bore it, or we must
assume that it was given by divine appointment to shadow
forth the calling of the child. Our evangelists thought that
this dispensation was accomplished by the angel who pro
claimed His birth having foreordained His name (Matt. i.
21 ; Luke i. 31) ; but our own opinion is, that in this annun
ciation scene they only set forth the truth that the hope of
the Messianic destiny of their child, which was awakened in
the parents by a divine revelation, is expressed in this signi
ficant name.
Looked at from the standpoint of the view which beholds
in those narratives only the highly-coloured tradition of the
infancy, it might reasonably be found surprising that circum
cision, which was always regarded as a putting off of the
impurity in the flesh (Col. ii. 11), was performed on the

CIRCUMCISION AND PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE. 257
miraculously God-given child. But a Messiah who was not
incorporated with the people of promise through the rite
of circumcision, was a contradiction to the Jewish-Christian
consciousness, and so it is apparent that men would be
far from inferring the absence of a natural generation.
On the contrary, it is inconceivable how legend could
think of imposing upon the virgin mother the duty of
purification, which proceeded upon the idea of the natural
uncleanness attaching to the act of child-bearing. Accord
ing to the law (Lev. xii. 2 f.), a woman was unclean seven
days after the birth of a man-child, in addition to which
she was commanded to keep within doors for three-and-thirty
days until she could present in the temple her offering for
purification, and again have a full share in the fellowship of
the holy congregation. Yet Luke relates expressly how the
parents of Jesus went to Jerusalem at the proper time in
order to perform their legal duty (ii. 22). He has even
treasured the remembrance of their presenting the qffering of
the poor, a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons (ii. 24 ;
comp. Lev. xii. 8). The tendency to exhibit the parents'
strict observance of the law cannot possibly have been
powerful enough to conceal the contradiction with its own
suppositions in which legend was thereby involved. How
much more natural would it have been to glorify the miracle
of the birth from a virgin by a miraculous prohibition of this
fulfilment of duty, which seemed to be in itself a humiliation !
But the legal regulation which decreed that each first-born
must be presented to Jehovah as being His special property,
and then be released from the obligation to perform service
in the temple after that was entrusted to the Levites (Ex. xiii.
2, 12 f.), did not appear appropriate for this child, who was
dedicated to the service of God in a higher sense than any
priest. Nevertheless this presentation (Luke ii. 22 f.) is said
to be the object of the visit to the temple, with express refer
ence to the command in the law (comp. ii. 27). Assuredly ;
we are not here within the province of legend, but in that of
history, for there was no need of such preparations to intro-j
duce the following scene ; if they had been employed once,
the inventing legend, without necessarily conscious reflections,
would not have failed to introduce some feature in the carry-
weiss. — I. E

258 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
ing out of this legal requirement in order to justify its
applicability, or some higher indication answering to all that
had gone before. But in our narrative these incidents only
form the simple elucidation of the situation which puts us in
a position to picture to ourselves the significant event which
is afterwards related (ii. 25-35).
In those pious circles at Jerusalem where the Messianic
hope was still genuinely active, lived an old man, Simeon by
name, who was greatly respected for his fear of God and
fidelity to the law. He belonged to those on whom the
newly-awakened spirit of prophecy was first bestowed (comp.
p. 241), and in answer to prayer he received the assurance
from this spirit that he should not die without having seen
the Messiah. Moved by the spirit, he entered the temple
just as Jesus' parents appeared there to present their first-born
to God ; in virtue of this prophetical spirit he recognised the
Messiah child, and taking Him in his arms he glorified God
for this fulfilment of His promise, after which he could die in
peace. But the narrative gives prominence, as being specially
important, to Simeon's denoting the deliverance appearing in
the Messiah as one that would be known to all peoples,
because in Him a light would arise for the Gentiles that
would reveal Jehovah to them in the fulness of His majesty,
and would glorify Israel,, the people of God, as the bearer of
His light and salvation. This prophecy also is only a vivid
reproduction of ancient Messianic promises, according to which,
when redemption was perfected, Israel was to be highly
exalted before all nations, who, attracted by the salvation
realized in it, would come to connect themselves with the
perfected theocracy, and find in it knowledge and worship of
the one true God (comp. Isa. ii. 2 f., xi. 10, lx. 1 £). This
prediction also bears in itself the guarantee of its arising in
the period of the newly-awakened prophecy. For the fact
that the light and salvation brought to the Gentiles by the
Messiah actually led to the rejection, not to the glorifying of
Israel, has been expressed by no one more clearly than' by the
apostle, whose pupil adopted this narrative into his Gospel
(Rom. xi. 11, 15). He certainly therefore did not invent it,
but in his Acts of the Apostles has pointed out purposely
how it happened that this was not fulfilled.

SIMEON'S PROPHECY. 259
There is really no reason for being surprised at the amaze
ment of the parents (Luke ii. 3 3), who not only heard a man,
whom they now saw for the first time, openly utter what they
had been guarding in their hearts as a silent hope regarding
the future of their child, but they saw assigned their son a
destiny that included far more than the most pious of Israel
had conceived. For the nation so trodden under foot of the
Gentiles had long forgotten to regard its expected salvation as
one destined also to be brought to the Gentiles through the
instrumentality of Israel, because with and before this salvation
, could only come the judgment of the nations who had so shame
fully abused the chosen of Jehovah. But still more of what
was unexpected awaited the parents. For after blessing them,
as those who were to foster the Messiah as their own child,
Simeon predicted the opposition which this token of divine
grace and deliverance would encounter among His own people.
The most secret thoughts of the hearts would be revealed to
Him, and according as the individuals of Israel attached them
selves to their Messiah should they be saved or destroyed.
Turning to the mother, he said the time would then come
when a sword should pierce through her soul also (ii. 34 f.).
It is to confound the unforeboded fulfilment of this predic
tion, made to the mater dolorosa at the foot of the cross,
with the simple word of prophecy, presented in our source,
when there is seen in it an impossible prediction of the hour
of crucifixion, — impossible, because it had no point of connec
tion within the mental horizon of the speaker. It refers, in
truth, only to the pain in store for the mother's heart when
she saw her child rejected by many who had hitherto been
esteemed the best in Israel, and whose inner nature was
revealed by their opposition to the promised Bringer of salva
tion. The prophet's glance may well have seen farther than
all those who had till now hailed the child of promise ; but
the more contracted the limits to this presentiment, the less
will it be asserted, that along with the highest destiny of the
child, which he clearly saw, there may not also have loomed
before him a presentiment of the most grievous of what was
allotted Him.
But it is not alone the possibility of such a prediction that
can be affirmed ; our narrative offers security of its historicity,

260 second book, the preparation.
and even points out the source from which this tradition
comes. It introduces a second member of that devout circle
in Jerusalem, who was likewise endowed with the spirit of
prophecy. This was the prophetess Anna, accurately described
as a daughter of Phanuel, who could still trace her family to
the long-vanished tribe of Asher. She is minutely described
to us as a widow who had remained without a husband from
her short seven years' marriage till now, when she was in her
eighty-fourth year, in order to devote herself to prayer and
devout exercises. There is nothing to relate of her except
that she joined in Simeon's song, and afterwards spoke of this
event among those in Jerusalem who looked for redemption
(ii. 36-38). It is useless to ask what the object of this
addition can be, if the narrator does not thereby point plainly
to the source from which the tradition of this scene in the
temple is taken. Our source has narrated it afresh as Anna
related the incident in that circle, and as it was there faith
fully preserved as a memorable recollection of that day when
the light of a blessed hope rose on those who had waited for
it so long and so anxiously.
The evangelist, or it may be his source, assumes that when
the cause no longer existed which had led Joseph and Mary
to Bethlehem, and after they had fulfilled their legal duties,
which first kept the mother in the house for forty days, and
then necessitated a journey to Jerusalem, they returned to their
own home (ii. 39). Not so in Matthew, where the narrative
in chap, ii without doubt presupposes the residence of the
parents in Bethlehem for a year at least. It must be con
ceded without qualification, that the narrator who proceeded
on this supposition knew nothing of these traditions, and we
see in it only a new proof of Luke's lack of acquaintance with
our first Gospel. But, in truth, it follows from this that
the traditions from the history of the infancy were circulated
singly, and were known to our evangelists only in a fragmen
tary way; therefore Luke's statement as to the return of
the parents is a mistaken combination induced through his
incomplete knowledge of the state of the case.1 It is only
1 Criticism certainly supposes that here is the point where, as regards time
and place, our history of the infancy is involved in insoluble contradictions,
which from the first are evidence to historical criticism of the entire incredibility

THE SETTLEMENT IN BETHLEHEM. 261
a question whether the supposition forming the basis of
Matthew, that the parents of Jesus remained longer in Beth
lehem, has any probability as against the fact that Nazareth
was their proper home. But, indeed, the parents of Jesus
could scarcely help seeing in the divine dispensation, which
had led them to Bethlehem directly before the birth of their
child, a sign that the promised son of David should grow up
in the old Davidic town, While we are only able to explain
this dispensation as one of the means which should remove
out of the people's way every pretext for disbelief in the
Messiahship of Jesus, it did really seem as if this could only
be done were the old royal city actually His home. According
to all that we have heard of the form of the hopes aroused in
His parents, they can have thought of no other fulfilment of
His destiny than His ascending the throne of His fathers, and
seizing the reins of government. If so, nothing was more
likely to occur to them than to bring Him up here in the
vicinity of the capital, where alone could the fulfilment of His
great life-work one day be completed. We have seen already
that the family was without means, also that it still had con
nections in Bethlehem. It was much the same whether it
was here or in Nazareth that Joseph gained his livelihood by
means of his craft ; for as he was necessitated to remain more
than a month in Bethlehem, he would have found difficulty
in passing the time without seeking and finding work.1 We
of the traditions contained in it. Here, too, apologetics has greatly erred, and
has simply forged the weapons for criticism, either when, contrary to the obvious
meaning of the narrative in Matt. ii. , it endeavours to provide for what is there
recounted in these forty days, or when, contrary to the manifest purport of
Luke ii. 39, it asserts that this passage does not exclude a return to Bethlehem,
with the episodes related in Matt. ii. The first evangelist concluded that
Bethlehem was the original abode of the parents from their having dwelt there
for more than a year (comp. p. 249), and Luke assumed that they returned to
their Galilean home as soon as it was possible. Both were incorrect. But no
credibility would be given to historical traditions regarding a period of which
there could, from the nature of the case, no longer be authentic knowledge, if
one may, without further ceremony, infer the incredibility of the traditions
preserved by these authors from the easily explained differences in the method
pursued by individuals in arranging events which they are imperfectly
acquainted with.
1 Criticism numbers it among the more serious contradictions of our Gospels,
that, according to Luke, the parents lived in a stable, while Matt. ii. 11
represents them in a house. Yet it is easily conceivable how, after the multi-

262 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
need not therefore be surprised to find them in the child's
second year still dwelling in Joruoarleta: But God's purpose
was not like that of men. It was enough for Him, by the
birth in Bethlehem to have brought forward a fresh token of
this being the child of promise. God's ways of fulfilling the
promise were very different from what the parents expected
when they desired to train the child in Bethlehem. The
plans of His enemies must aid in sending the child to His
true home.
tude, brought to Bethlehem by the census, had taken their departure, and
they had made up their minds to remain, they sought and found a lodging,
either in the house of the friend where previously there had been no room, w
elsewhere.

CHAPTER V.
DANGER AND DELIVERANCE.
SINCE the exile, or rather since the difficult and calamitous
times experienced for centuries by the new colony in
the Holy Land, there were numerous Jews scattered through
out the countries of the Gentiles, some as voluntary fugitives,
some as prisoners of war, or those sold into slavery. The Jewish
dispersion extended far to the eastward. There they built
their synagogues, and the simple service, with its reading and
explanation of the sacred rolls, and its prayers to the one God
of heaven and of earth, became an unintentional but mighty
propaganda in the midst of the Gentile world, long dissatisfied
with its religions, and yearning for something better. But
even when they did not go so far as to take the decisive
step of attaching themselves to Judaism by the narrower 01
wider bands of proselytism, the Gentiles must have received
information of what was predicted as to the future of Israel
in those holy books read among them every Sabbath day.
It is related by the Jewish author Josephus, and confirmed
by the Gentile historians Suetonius and Tacitus, how through
out the entire East tidings were diffused of a great King who
was some day to arise in Judea, and to obtain dominion over
the world.1 How many who still hesitated to connect
themselves with the Judaism of the present, would look
longingly towards a future which, along with the fulfilment
of that promise, promised to bring a golden age of peace and
prosperity to the terrestrial world sighing under war and
bloodshed ! Indeed, searching and questioning as to the future
were by no means unusual in the East. Among the Medes
and Persians the Magi were an important priestly caste, who
occupied themselves with secret physics and medicine, and
also with astrology. Far in the West their name was applied
1 Comp, Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 4 ; Suet. Vesp. iv. ; Tacit. Hist. v. 13.

264 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
to all who, coming from the distant Orient, busied themselves
not only with astrology and interpretation of dreams, but also
with magic and all kinds of jugglers' tricks. How many of
them may have sought long in the stars for what was pre
dicted in the writings of the Jews, of that great beautiful
future which should be awarded to all nations !
The evangelical narrative relates how once in Jesus' earliest
infancy such Magi appeared in Joseph's house at Bethlehem
(Matt. ii. 1-11). Every endeavour to glean from our text a
more definite indication as to their country has been in vain;
it only says that they came from the far East, and indicates
that they were Gentiles. Believing they had seen the star
of the great King of the Jews, they set out to pay homage to
the new-born King. Our simple narrative knows nothing of
a miraculous star, i.e. of a phenomenon effected by God and
beyond the course of nature, as later legends pictured it, and
as was willingly supposed by the mythical expounder; it
rather assumes that the astronomical Magi had attributed to an
expected phenomenon the foretelling of the birth of the Desired
One. We can no longer know whether the appearance of a single
star, viz. a comet, is meant, or whether it is the commence
ment of a conjunction of planets ; for the New Testament, like
popular speech, demonstrably does not distinguish sharply
between the designations of a star and a constellation. In
\ all times, astrological belief has held that the birth as well as
the death of distinguished men was proclaimed by sOme sort
[of sidereal appearance. And if the event really occurred,
which the Magi believed they had calculated according to
their astrological rules, we see in it only a divine dispensation
which permitted the Oriental philosophers to find what they
longed for in the line of their searching and inquiries, and,
fitting in with their perceptions, made known to them the
appearance of the Saviour of the world.1
1 Kepler's celebrated discovery is only of importance as showing how such an
astrological combination can have arisen. According to that, an unusual con
junction of the three superior planets, Jupiter, Saturn, and' Mars, must have
occurred in the spring of A.r/.c. 748, that is, about the time of Jesus' birth.
According to Kepler's theory, a star appeared between these, which shone with
the brilliancy of a fixed star of the first magnitude and then after a year and a
half became extinct, just as happened in the conjunction which occurred again
in a.d. 1604 (comp. de Jesu Ghr. servatoris nostri vero anno natalitio, 1606).

THE MAGI IN BETHLEHEM. 265
The fact of the Magi seeking the new-born King of the
Jews first of all in the capital of the country (ii. 1 f.), only
shows that here we are not within the domain of legend ; we
have already seen how they might have learned there that the
Messiah must be born in the old city of David (comp. p. 247).
When they set out for Bethlehem by night — in the East the
favourite time for travel — they evidently required no mira
culous star to point out the well-known highway. That
the house where the child Messiah was to be found could
not be shown them, through any miracle by the star, follows
from the familiar laws of optics, to which even the most
wondrous star is subject when observed by human eyes.
But our tradition shows no trace of any such guiding star,
which could only belong to the wonderful realms of fable.
It relates how the star, whose appearance had announced to
them the birth of the Messiah, was before their eyes all the
way to Bethlehem ; how it seemed to the travellers to go
before and to stand still with them ; and emphasis is laid
naively on their joy at seeing in this, manifest security for
their being on the right road to find what they sought
(ii. 9 f.). The narrator sees no necessity for explaining
expressly how they discovered the infant Messiah in
Bethlehem; he is contented with the declaration that they
found Him with Mary His mother (ii. 11), for in the little
town they could learn without difficulty where the babe of
Mary from Nazareth was, on whom such great hopes were
placed. But they would not approach that royal babe
Even in the fifteenth century the Rabbi Abarbanel speaks in his Commentary
on Daniel of the significance of this conjunction which had happened in the
Constellation Pisces three years before the birth of Moses. He pronounced it
to be the constellation of Israel, and believed that after its return in 1463 the
appearance of the Messiah must be at hand. But this affords no ground for
reckoning the year of Jesus' birth, for the assumption is purely supposititious
that the Magi were guided by this combination, and that the appearance of
that conjunction actually coincided with the birth of Jesus. And it yields no
proof for the historicity of our narrative, as even legend might seize on the
significance of such an appearance. On the other hand, however, no con
firmation of or encouragement to astrological superstition is involved by the
Magi receiving the revelation, destined for them by God, in a way answering to
their spiritual horizon, for even the most marvellous of divine revelations are
always effected through the spiritual life of the receiver and conditioned by its
form.

266 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
without the costly gifts with which in the East one seeks the
presence of the king (ii. 1 1).1
But are we justified in regarding this tradition as historical,
although we can plainly ascertain nothing more regarding the
source from which our first evangelist obtained it than we
succeeded in ascertaining in respect of the narratives in
Luke ? Or is it not simply the recognition which Jesus did
not meet with till much later in the history that is here
carried by legend into His infancy ? There- is certainly no
mention made here of a glorifying of His miraculous
birth, or even a recognition of a supernatural Being; but
the homage paid to the new-born King of the Jews would
even in the heathen world be the legendary anticipation of
the acknowledgment of Jesus as the promised Messiah.8 It
has been thought possible to prove in this case more
especially how two Old Testament motives guided this
legend-formation ; first, the star out of Jacob prophesied by
Balaam (Num. xxii. 1 7), and then the prophetical descriptions
of the pilgrimage made by Gentiles to the light which was to
arise in Zion (comp. particularly Isa. Ix. 1-9 ; Ps. Ixviii. 30, 32,
lxxii. 10 f.). But that prophecy of Balaam's doubtless speaks
of the Messiah Himself, and even in the Targums is interpreted
in no other way. It was not till post-Christian times that,
owing to the influence of our history, and contrary to the clear
1 From the fact of gold and incense coming from Sheba (see Isa. Ix. 6) as
well as spices (see Ezek. xxvii. 22), Arabia has most frequently been regarded
as the country of the Mavf by those who have not held to Persia with its old
priestly caste. But apart from the fact that Arabia was by no means the only
place where such luxuries were found, this cannot mean that they had brought
with them out of their own country what were customary gifts throughout the
entire East.
2 The narrative of the shepherds in the field must then, of course, be another
form of this glorifying legend of infancy, which can the less disclaim connection
with our accounts, since the star, which here effects the revelation of Jesus'
Messianic destiny, is still in the metaphorical language of the Apocalypse the
current symbol of an angel, su«h as appeared to Luke as messenger of the birth
of the Messiah. But even in regard to this, criticism has never been able to
agree as to which of these forms in the development of legend was the original.
For ourselves, indeed, since on internal and external grounds we must regard the
narrative of the shepherds as historical, there is no other possibility but to look I
upon our narrative as a legendary remodelling of that. And even if it were
regarded as legendary, it would yet appear the more original form of the tale,
because connected with the situation of the parents in Bethlehem which is
historically proven.

HISTORICITY OF THE NARRATIVE. 267
parallelism, it. was referred to a star announcing the arrival of
the Messiah. In these prophetical descriptions, however,
those who bring gifts to Zion are always kings, wherefore the
later legends which really reflected upon these predictions did
not fail to transform the Magi into kings. It has actually
been supposed that just the combination of these two motifs
required the substitution of the astronomical Magi. But it
was absolutely impossible for an age dependent on the
metaphorical language of the Old Testament to explain by a
star the light which was breaking upon the Gentiles in the i
Messianic age, and all on account of a misinterpreted prophecy
which contained nothing regarding it ; and such ingenious '
reflections are in all cases opposed to the method of a legend-
formation guided by unconscious motifs. Now, at last, all
idea of an actual legend-formation must be given up, and the
admission must be made that we have here to do either with
history or with conscious invention. Only one of these could
freely modify and combine the motives presented to it,
according to the needs of its composition. But, in fact, this
narrative likewise corresponds entirely with the foundation
ideas of the first Gospel. For while the latter demonstrates
how the salvation, destined and prepared according to promise
for Israel, was, through the guilt of the nation, taken from
Israel and given to the Gentiles, this prefatory narration
appears like a prediction of the issue of the whole evangelical
history (comp. Matt, xxviii. 1 9), for it is Gentiles coming from
afar who render homage to the new-born King of the Jews.
But whether, therefore, this narrative was openly invented, or
whether it was chosen of set purpose from the collection of
traditions at the disposal of the evangelist, can be decided only
according as it rests on historical suppositions or solely on
ideal motifs. We have shown that the former are not lacking,
and the slender efficacy of the latter is made evident by the
fact that the evangelist who at other times searches zealously
for the fulfilment of Old Testament" predictions, nowhere refers
in this narration to one of these prophetical passages from
which it is said to have arisen.
If from this there arises a presumption favourable to our
having to do with a historical tradition, yet it can only be
corroborated by this narrative being by no means one that floats

268 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
in the air, like the productions of the later legend-invention,
but is connected with familiar historical circumstances, and
closely interwoven with a totally different description of narra
tion. This has indeed been regarded as only a variation of a
favourite theme from the tales of the childhood of great men,
which deals with the peril and saving of their lives. But
apart from the fact that the Old Testament, at least, presents
no other analogy than the perfectly different history of Moses
which received a certain similarity in a remodelling by
Josephus, it forms a combination so artificial by reason of its
interweaving with the story of the Magi which was in no way
necessary for the explanation of its motif, that the uncon
sciously forming legend could not possibly have consummated
it. This could far sooner be credited to a freely inventing
author. For to the consciousness of our evangelist the
heathen who came from afar to adore the infant Messiah were
placed in designed contrast with him who was then king of
Israel, who strove to kill the babe, and from whose menaces
it had to be miraculously saved (comp. p. 64). But whether
this situation was brought about by the freely composing
author, or whether, by ingenious selection of subject-matter, it
was made available as a prediction of the destiny of Him of
whom this Gospel will treat, cannot be decided by preconceived
opinions, but can only be answered in so far as the narrative
possesses internal probability, or the details can be sufficiently
explained by the ideal motifs of the narrator.
The Magi related in Bethlehem how King Herod's attention
had been called to them while in Jerusalem, when, as a matter
of course, they had first inquired at the palace for the royal
babe, and how he had himself directed them to Bethlehem,
with the command to bring him tidings of the child in order
that he too might come and adore (Matt. ii. 7 f.). Naturally,
they soon learnt there that this could only be a dissembling
pretext made by a king always fearful about his sovereignty, and
then, without visiting Jerusalem again, they returned to their
own country (ii. 1 2). But the parents of Jesus, fearing to be
waylaid by a king as cruel as he was suspicious, promptly
fled over the not far distant southern frontier of the land,
where, among the numerous Jews of the Roman province of
Egypt, they found a safe refuge until the death of the king

MENACE AND DELIVERANCE. 269
(ii. 13-15). When, shortly after this, some children between
one and two years of age were murdered in Bethlehem, this
was with sufficient probability attributed in the popular mind
.to the suspicion of Herod, who, left unassisted by the Magi,
attempted in this way to make sure of striking the infant
Messiah (ii. 16).
These are doubtless the simple facts lying at the basis of
our first Gospel's delineation. When the narrator pictures
how Herod was struck with fear, and all Jerusalem with him
(ii 3), on hearing of the birth of the promised king, because
the capital adhered more closely to the usurper king than it
waited for the anointed of Jehovah, this is no historical notice,
but only the author's conception, although it corresponds to
the character of the king, who, for a much more trifling cause,
had trembled for throne and life. But the presupposition
that the birth of a child on whom the Messianic hopes were
fastened was not known in the capital till now, is not opposed
to the fact that these hopes had long been talked of among
pious circles (Luke ii. 38). There is certainly no detailed
tradition as to the particular negotiations between Herod and
the Magi, but, as a matter of course, he had himself to inquire
where the babe, so dangerous for his throne, was born. After
he had learnt from the scribes and dignitaries of the theocracy,
who must have had the greatest interest in such things, where
according to prophecy the Messiah was to be born (Matt.ii. 4), he
might easily hope to gain further information through the Magi.1
1 Criticism 'stumbles on what is nothing but a self-created caricature, when
it mocks over the holy assembly summoned by Herod to fix the Messianic
Dogmatic. Herod's calling the Magi privately was an action not without
sagacity, as otherwise they might have been enlightened before the time
as to his true intention, while now they had no reason for mistrust ; but
it was not wise to confide in them generally, while he really deceived them
as to his intentions, and their announcements could not but seem insidious.
Experience teaches, moreover, that suspicion and fear by no means act always
wisely in their intended cunning. But it is quite a mistake to draw from
the question regarding the time when the star appeared (ii. 7), a supposi
tion of Herod's being left unassisted by the Magi, and so being forced to
act for himself. For from the presupposition shared by the Magi, that the
appearance of the star coincided with the birth of the child, he could gather
the probable age of the pretender, as on this all his after measures were
dependent. Whether, indeed, he .asked expressly or only learnt incidentally
when the star appeared, of that we have no certain historical information.
Enough that the murder of children up to the age of two years shows he

270 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
On the other hand, if legend desired to represent a threatening
and a deliverance of the infant Messiah, it had truly no
need for the Magi, because by the presentation of Jesus in the
temple the hopes which rested on this babe must have been
made sufficiently well known in Jerusalem (comp. also Luke
ii. 38). The flight into Egypt, however, has been regarded
as historical even by those who, in general, have found in
all this only a series of legends ; in fact, the tale does not
present the slightest point of connection for such a con
struction.1 But neither does the tale need the Magi in order
to furnish reasons for this flight into Egypt, for the evangelist
refers it to express divine leading (Matt. ii. 13). No one
can dispute that the massacre at Bethlehem was quite in
keeping with the regardless bloodthirstiness of the suspicious
Herod ; and when it is considered that in the little country
town the cruel order would cost the lives of only a limited
number of children, it is not surprising that this one
sanguinary deed is not mentioned by the contemporary
author ; for, compared with the many by which Herod vented
his rage against members of his own family and many others,
it would scarcely be taken into consideration. But more than
all, this deed, which, if it were to accomplish its purpose,
would not be officially arranged, but be carried out by hired
assassins, could be referred to the suspicion of Herod only by
those who knew the destiny of the babe Jesus, and the fears
that had occasioned His parents' flight. From his stand
point, moreover, this measure was neither imprudent nor
superficial. He could, not know that the child which was
being sought for had escaped, and inquiries beforehand were
impossible without frustrating his object. Nothing then
had assumed from the communications of the Magi that this alleged infant
Messiah could at the most be somewhat over a year old.
'The evangelist beholds a typical .prediction of this in Hos. ii. 1, according
to which God called His Son out of Egypt ; but it is evident from his inten
tional avoidance of the expression indicating Israel collectively, contained
in the LXX., which he elsewhere employs so readily, that the original bearing
of this passage upon the people of Israel was by no means unknown to him.- It
was not then from a misinterpretation of this passage that the supposition can
have taken its rise of Jesus being necessarily in Egypt during one period of His
infancy. No one has yet dared to affirm in- earnest that the narrative of the
massacre of the innocents can- have been drawn from Jer. xxxi. 15 (on acco'int
of Matt. ii. I7f.).

DATE OF JESUS' BIRTH. 271
remains in our narrative offering even an apparent * occasion
for its apprehension as legend, except the divine directions
repeatedly communicated in dreams (ii: 12 f . ; comp. ii. 19 f.).
These present little that can be offensive from our standpoint,
and yet it is evident from the statement which we made
above, that they were not needed to bring about the direct
return home of the Magi or the flight of Jesus' parents. It
rather follows from previous discussions that this is only the
form in which our evangelist has communicated the undoubted
fact that it was a divine disposition of the circumstances
which kept the Magi from being entangled in the king's
godless schemes, and had preserved the infant Jesus from his
snares. If our narrative really rests upon historical tradition, we
have at last found a point where our history is connected
with secular history and chronology. In the year 40 B.C.,
Herod the Great, son of the Idume'an upstart Aritipater, was,
on the motion of Antony and Octavius, appointed king of
Palestine by the Roman senate. He had, indeed, first of all
to seize it from Antigonus, the descendant of the Asmonean
dynasty, and then to secure himself by merciless atrocities
perpetrated upon the whole family, which were not abated by
his alliance with the house in marriage. Those who regard
the whole association of Herod with this history as the work
of legend, have assuredly no reason for assuming that it was
in the time of this Herod that Jesus was born. But although
Luke and his sources appear to know nothing of these tales,
yet, in entire independence of our first Gospel, he places Jesus'
birth in the days of King Herod (Luke i. 5), so that, we have
every reason for believing this recollection to be historical. It
is not clear from' Matthew how long the parents of Jesus must
have remained in Egypt, but it cannot have been for any
length of time, as otherwise .more recollections of this period
would have been preserved. What the age of Jesus was,
when His parents fled with Him to Egypt, cannot be ascertained
with any degree of certainty. It was only a supposition on
the part of Herod and the Magi that Jesus was born at the
time when the star or the constellation appeared, and the
measure of infanticide was so regulated in accordance with
this as to prevent the possibility in any circumstances of the

272 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
right child being missed. But even if we could suppose this
story of the Magi to have been enacted somewhere about a
year after the birth of Jesus, we would still be without a clue
for a definite chronological calculation of the year of His
birth. According to the latest investigations, the death of
Herod the Great took place just before the Passover 750
A.U.C. For reasons that we shall see later, our era fixed the
year 754 A.u.c. as the date of Christ's birth; but this was in
any case four or five years too late. The story of the infancy
in no way leads us beyond this negative result.
After the death of Herod his kingdom was divided between
three of his sons, in conformity with his last will. Under
the title of Ethnarch, Archelaus received the provinces of
Judea, Samaria, and Idumea ; Galilee and Perea were granted
to the Tetrarch Herod Antipas, and the provinces lying to
the east of the Lake of Gennesaret to the Tetrarch Philip.
Jesus' parents wished to return to Bethlehem after the death of
Herod ; but learning that a son of Herod's now reigned there,
who was not a whit behind his father in suspiciousness and
cruelty, they looked on it as a divine intimation to give up
their previous intention and to return to their old home (Matt.
ii. 22 £). Our evangelist, who, as we have seen, was unaware
of this being their original home, regarded their choice of
Nazareth as significant, for even the name of the place recalled
the prophetical saying which speaks of the branch (Mtser,
comp. Isa. xi. 1) growing from the roots of Jesse. It must
have been like a first undeceiving of the parents, that the son
to whom so brilliant a future was assigned had to grow up in
that remote corner of the northern province which was regarded
as contemptible in the metropolis of the country (comp. John
vii. 52). But He was well hidden there from the storms that
were soon to break over the south. It was not without reason
that, immediately after the death of Herod the Great, an
embassy was sent by the Jewish nation tot the administrators
in Rome to .protest against the appointment of Archelaus, — an
event from which an allegorizing trait in the parable of the
talents borrows its colouring (Luke xix. 12, 14, 27). The
rough tyrannical rule of the Ethnarch was only endured with
murmuring, while in his private life an unlawful marriage gave
occasion for great scandal. Once more, after an interval of

HISTORICAL CONDITIONS DURING THE CHILDHOOD OF JESUS. 273
nine years, a deputation of the Jewish nobility repaired to
the Emperor Augustus in order to lodge complaints against
Archelaus, and in consequence of this he was deposed and
banished. The portion over which he had ruled was united
to the Roman province of Syria, as had been desired by a
large party among the Jews at the time of Herod's death.
They thought they would live according to their own religion
more undisturbedly under the tolerant Roman rule than under
the dominion of the Herodians, who were always looked on by
the people as aliens. . The authority of the highest ecclesiastical
court could only gain by the alteration, for Roman policy
willingly acquiesced in its retaining a considerable degree of
independence and of jurisdiction within wide limits, only
reserving for the governor of the province the right of deciding
in questions of life and death (John xviii. 31). Of course, the
administration was in Roman hands, the taxes and imposts
flowed into Roman treasuries, while Roman soldiers manned
the fortresses. But it was seen in Rome how a country in
such peculiar circumstances could not well be governed from
Syria. Therefore it was that Judea received a procurator of
her own, who, although certainly under the control of the
proconsul of Syria, was invested with the highest jurisdiction
and military power.
The new arrangement of things was nevertheless not com
pleted without violent convulsions. The Roman occupation
was inaugurated by the Syrian proconsul Publ. Sulp. Quirinius
being charged with the carrying out of a general census,
i.e. of a valuation of property in behoof of taxation (comp.
p. 250 f.). A measure of this kind, unpopular in any case
among the Jews (2 Sam. xxiv.), and now the symbol of the
foreign dominion just commencing, agitated the people pro
foundly. The high priest Joazar succeeded in quieting the
multitude, but the strict theocratical party found an able and
enthusiastic leader in Judas of Gamalar, who, in conjunction
with a Pharisee named Sadduc, incited the people to revolt
against Roman dominion, for their king should be Jehovah
only. Partisans of the Romans were killed, and robber-bands
roamed through the country, burning and plundering. The
insurrection was soon quelled by the procurator Coponius
(comp. Acts v. 3 7), but the party continued under the name
WEISS. — L S

274 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
of Zealots (i.e. the enthusiasts), and under one of its sons,
named Judas, it played an important part in the last desperate
struggles of the Jews.
It is vain to reflect on the impression these events must
have made on Jesus, and the lessons He must have drawn
from them for His future appearance. Jesus at that time
was a boy of ten or eleven years, and His home was not affected
by these storms. Certainly Judas, whose native town was in
Gaulonitis, eastward from the Lake of Gennesaret, is called
by Josephus and in the Acts of the Apostles the Galilean;
and it is not improbable that the impetus to rebellion pro
ceeded from the north, where there was less active interest in
the hierarchy friendly to Rome, and, in consequence, where the
old theocratic principles were still active. But the census
which provoked the revolt was not extended to Galilee, and it
remained untroubled. As we have seen, the tetrarch Antipas
ruled there since the death of Herod ; he was a full brother of
Archelaus, for both were sons of the Samaritan Malthace ; he
named himself Herod on coins, and is so called in the New
Testament. The childhood of Jesus was passed in peace
under the reign of this pleasure-seeking and pomp-loving,
cunning but characterless prince, who entirely lacked his
father's strength of will and pleasure in action, and seemed to
have inherited nothing but the art of winning by flattery the
favour of the powers in Rome.

CHAPTER VI.
IN THE DAYS OF HIS YOUTH.
ONE of the most unique features of the national life of
Israel was its concentration in Jerusalem around the
temple, — a concentration which contributed so essentially to
the strengthening of the consciousness of national unity, and
to the maintenance in their purity of the legal customs
relating to worship. Thrice a year each male Israelite should
appear there (Ex. xxiii. 14 ff. ; Deut. xvi. 16), at the feasts
of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles; and although in
practice most had to be satisfied with one yearly pilgrimage,
and a Jew of the dispersion was often glad to be able to
appear but once in his lifetime before the face of Jehovah,
yet thousands upon thousands gathered together to these
feasts from all regions of the world, so that Josephus reckons
the number of pilgrims who were present at the feast of
Passover at more than two millions. From all the divisions
of the Holy Land, into which it was now broken up politi
cally, the caravans went up, singing their pilgrim psalms, the
" songs of degrees " (Ps. cxx.-cxxxiv.). It was the most sacred
reminiscences connected with the history of their nation,
around which they gathered at these feasts, the departure
from Egypt the house of bondage, the giving of the law at
Sinai, the wandering through the wilderness ; there the
recollection of the great miracles of God, which had accompanied
these events, became once more vivid. Then the enthusiastic
multitude surged in the wide fore-courts of the temple, the
flame leaped high upon the great altar of burnt-offering, and
the people waiting without engaged in prayer, while the priest
brought the incense before God within the sanctuary. How
rich and fruitful must have been the stimulus given to their
religious life, which the pilgrims brought back with them to
their homes ! 275

276 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
It was there also that the Israelitish boy became acquainted
for the first time with the beautiful services connected with
the worship of Jehovah. No doubt his pious mother had
already instructed him at home from his childhood in the
faith of his fathers, according to the Scriptures (2 Tim. i. 5,
iii. 15) ; and, as was enjoined by the law, his father. had dili
gently taught him the commandments and statutes of Jehovah
(Deut. vi. 7, 20 ff.) But as soon as he reached his twelfth
year, he became a " son of the law," and had to take part in
the exercises connected with divine worship. So it was also
in the home of Jesus at Nazareth. And when His father
now went up to the feast of Passover, accompanied by His
mother, who was not compelled by any legal obligation to
make the pilgrimage, but was led to do so by genuine piety,
the twelve-year old boy Jesus was also taken along with
them to Jerusalem (Luke ii. 41 f.). Regarding this, His first
pilgrimage to a feast, the Gospel has preserved for us a
narrative which, like a clear beam of light, scatters the dark
ness which envelopes His youth (ii. 43-51). The week of
the feast was over, and the caravans had gathered together,
in order to commence the return journey. The parents of
Jesus, convinced that the boy would be found in another
circle of pilgrims, consisting of their relatives or friends, had
departed ; but the boy had remained behind. His first
participation in a feast within the national sanctuary had,
unquestionably, made a deep impression upon the mind of
the piously brought-up boy ; He had the feeling that His
true home was here, and He could not sever Himself from
the holy place. He had accordingly come upon one of the
vestibules which surrounded the fore-courts of the temple,
and were used as lecture-rooms by the great teachers of the
law. There He sat at the feet of the teachers in Israel
(cf. Acts xxii. 3), who, sitting in a half circle, disputed over
legal questions and listened readily to the inquiries of eager
disciples ; or, by putting queries to them, awakened and
tested their susceptibility. The eager lad, whose questions
betrayed no less intelligence than His answers, they had
probably drawn near them, and had readily offered Him
support, for from such a pupil they would hope to obtain
honour. But as soon as they reached their first night?

JESUS IN THE TEMPLE. 277
quarters, His parents became aware that the lad was not in
the company which had travelled along with them. Full of
anxiety they returned to Jerusalem on the second day ; and
thus it came to pass that it was not till the third day that
they found Him in the vestibules of the temple. His parents
were astonished to find Him, who had probably never given
any token of any inclination for the profession of the scribes,
sitting here among the teachers of the law ; and it was His
mother that reproved Him, tenderly, it is true, on account of
the painful search which He had caused them. But the
word with which the boy justified Himself was almost more
incomprehensible to His parents than His tarrying behind
had been ; and without a word He returned home with them,
in order to be and to remain subject to them, as is becoming
in a child.1
In connection with this narrative, also, all manner of im
probable individual features have been sought out, for the
purpose of discrediting its trustworthiness ; but the circum
stance has been overlooked that, while the alleged contradic
tions with the presuppositions of this history make the
assumption of the formation of a myth impossible, these
contradictions do not even exist for the historical reality.
For one who takes into account that Jesus had never deserved
to be distrusted, and had therefore been brought up without
needing to be subjected to constant watchfulness, and who
1 With regard to this story, the doubt of those who regard almost the whole
history of the childhood as legendary has been shown to be groundless by
Schleiermacher, Hase, Schenkel, and Keim ; no one would like to pass it over
in his narrative. And yet it is only logical, when Strauss and Weisse declare
that it also is merely a legend or a myth ; for it is undoubtedly derived from
the same source as the rest of the early history ; and although the appeal to
the recollection of Mary (ii. 51) is convincing for us, yet it is nothing else than
that which guaranteed to us the narrative regarding the shepherds of Bethlehem
(ii. 19). But although Strauss strives hard to adduce Old Testament or non-
biblical parallels, which, nevertheless, do not at all affect the kernel of the
matter ; and Weisse philosophizes the deepest thoughts into this history, which
were certainly altogether foreign to that age, — a real motive for the forming of
this myth can nowhere be made apparent, unless we drag into the text what is
altogether alien to it. It is the later apocryphal Gospels that first make the
boy appear upon the scene in the temple before the teachers as a teacher Him
self, and cause all the wise men in Israel to be ashamed by His hidden wisdom ;
our simple narrative does not contain a single trace of this insipid, as well as
subjectively false, glorification of the boy Jesus.

278 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
I also considers the many casualties of a departure under circum-
' stances which are little known among us, the narrative itself
sufficiently explains the negligence of His parents ; whereas a
legend, which had committed a miraculous child to their
protection, would scarcely have invented it. We understand
the sorrowful quest of the parents, for it is not the nature of
anxiety to reflect that the child of promise could not be
harmed in the streets of Jerusalem; we understand the
mother's injured feeling, which first expresses itself in the
word of reproof ; and the astonishment of the parents at a
word, which seems for the first time to overstep the limits of
the purely childish development of a boy twelve years of age.
But a legend would certainly have remembered that the child
which was born in a miraculous manner could not miss its
destiny ; that she, to whom the child had been presented, could
by no means assail it with reproaches, which should have come
from the father, and that the parents should not all on a sudden
disown all the information which, according to the legend,
they had received so liberally concerning the divine sonship of
their child. Here the impeachment of criticism becomes the
most striking confirmation of the trustworthiness of the
history. Or is there anything in the word with which the boy
Jesus justifies Himself, which would be inconceivable for the
consciousness of the twelve-year old boy ? Here, in the first
place, we listen only to the expression of a genuine Israel
itish consciousness, to which the temple at Jerusalem is the
dwelling-place of God, in the specific sense, which feels God
near, in a special sense, within the limited space of this
sanctuary, and which therefore sees in the irresistible draw
ing to this place the justification of its forsaking the circle to
i which the child always primarily belongs. For that by
/ that which is His Father's the boy means His house, and
/ that, too, exclusively, appears indubitably from the context,
i since the place where He was certainly to be found must be
I named, in order that they may feel ashamed of their search.
It is true He calls God His Father ; and whoever will
measure this expression with the measuring line of our
dogmatic, has no longer any right to believe in a Christ
who, like us, has been a child, or he must allow that we have

RELATION TO HIS FATHER. 279
here a fiction with a tendency, a fiction which would already
put into the mouth of the boy Jesus a testimony to the later
article of faith. For a twelve -year old boy, who speaks of
His metaphysical consubstantiality with God, or alludes even
to His supernatural conception, is no longer a living human
child, but a dismal spectre, like those which are found in the
insipid and absurd fancies of the apocryphal Gospels. We may
not find in that expression even an allusion to His Messianic
calling, even supposing we should seek to explain such an
allusion as arising merely from a presentiment or foreboding
of His destiny ; for, apart from the circumstance that that is
not what lies primarily in the word, we should thereby also
step over the impassable boundary-line which is drawn around
the consciousness of this stage of life. But have we a right
to explain that word, which has been handed down to us, by
means of our dogmatic usus loquendi, instead of by means of
the Israelitish consciousness, which we found so unmistakeably
expressed in it ? This consciousness, however, is determined
by the revelation of God in the Old Testament, and the latter
knows the term " divine sonship " only as the expression for
the relation of love into which God has entered with His
elect. In this expression, the highest relation of human love
is employed as an illustration of the love with which Jehovah
encompasses His people on the ground of their election (Deut.
xiv. 1, 2). Israel is His son (Hos. xi. 1; Jer. xxxi. 20),
His first-born (Ex. iv. 22 ; Jer. xxxi. 9), because this is wont
to be the special object of the father's love. It is only from
this usus loquendi that we can start, when we find the word
in the mouth of an Israelitish boy.
It is true, however, He does not, like the prophets (Isa.
lxiii. 16; Jer. xxxi. 9; Mai. i 6), call God the Father of
the people to which He belongs ; nor does he call Him " our
Father," as if the relation of love in which He stands to Him
were brought about by the fact that He belongs to the elect
nature, and as if it were shared by all who belong to that nature;
He calls Him His Father. He therefore describes a personal rela
tion of love to God ; and since the word is meant to justify His
apparent disavowal of the relation of love in which He stands
towards His earthly parents, the former appears as a relation
that is quite unique, inasmuch as the consciousness of belong-

280 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
ing to tne elect sons of Jehovah would never in His case, any
more than in the case of others, have formed an antithesis to
this human relation of love. Here, then, a new religious world
is opened up before our eyes. This boy knows Himself to be
standing in a unique relation to God His Father, whose draw
ing He must follow, even though in doing so He should seem
to be violating the obligation of love which he owes as a
child to His earthly parents. This is either reprehensible
pride, or it is the expression of such a unique religious life as
He has led from His childhood. Since this child, when lying
upon the bosom of His pious mother, learned to look up to
the one God of heaven and earth, the God of His fathers, He
has felt Himself to be the Son of this God, who encompassed
Him with His fatherly love.- This, feeling has constantly
drawn Him to loving intercourse with this Father in heaven ;
and this intercourse was more to Him than all human love,
the love of His mother's heart not excluded. Certainly this
presupposes one thing. No consciousness of sin, no impure
affection of His heart, has ever disturbed the pure blessedness
of this loving intercourse. He has not earned the love of His
Father by His piety or virtuous conduct, for He has possessed
it ever since He could lisp the name Father. But neither has
He ever been conscious of having forfeited it. This is the ray
of light which this word throws upon the past youthful days
of the boy Jesus, which now all at once lie before us in the
utmost clearness. But so they lay also before the eyes of His
parents, and the boy ingenuously takes for granted that they
should have known and understood Him in His uniqueness.
" How is it that ye sought me ? Wist ye not that I must be
in that which is my Father's ? " Nevertheless they had not
altogether understood what it was that so uniquely dis
tinguished this child from other children, and therefore neither
were they able to comprehend in all its fulness the meaning
of the word which He spake.
Again, the Gospel lets the veil fall upon the mystery of
this youthful life. We hear nothing of those caricatures
contained in the apocryphal Gospels, which delight in making
this marvellous child in a most unchildlike manner show off His
divine glory as contrasted with His parents ; "and He was sub
ject unto them," it is said in Luke (ii. 51). We hear nothing

THE FAMILY CIRCLE. 281
of those insipid and absurd childish miracles, of that ostenta
tious display of mysterious wisdom or divine omniscience,
with which the self-conceited boy of the legends impudently
enough shuts the mouth of his parents and teachers. It is a
steady, unimpeded growth and advance in body and spirit, in
wisdom and stature, that the evangelist asserts of Him, and
there is only one thing of which he knows to glory in : He
advanced in favour with God and man (ii. 52). How could
it have been otherwise ? The word of the twelve-year-old
boy in the temple solves for us the enigma of such a blessed
growth ; for such love to God, as gives expression to itself
there, must have been followed by the fulfilling of the divine
will on His part as well as by every promised blessing on the
part of God. And it was no unblessed house in which He
grew up. Only the later worship of Mary, which transferred
its ascetic ideals to her who was blessed among women, had
any interest in making that house childless, or at least, as is
already done by Origen and Eusebius on the ground of later
apocryphal Gospels, in filling it with children of Joseph by a
previous marriage.1 The later opinion, according to which
the so-called brethren of Jesus were really His cousins, — an
opinion which was propounded early, and which has become
current in the West mainly owing to the influence of Jerome
and Augustine, — is also based upon the same prejudice, and
does not find the slightest support in the Gospels. Accord
ing to Mark, Jesus had four brothers, who were called James,
Joses, Simon, and Judas ; 2 sisters are also mentioned there,
who were probably married later in Nazareth, but their names
1 We know already how foreign these views are to our Gospels. When it is
said in Matt. i. 25;that Joseph did not know his wife till she had brought forth a
son, the language as well as the context of the passage teaches that the divinely-
appointed connubial intercourse was only deferred to that point of time out of
regard to higher considerations ; and when Luke calls Jesus the first-born son
(ii. 7), he can have done' so at the time when he wrote his Gospel only because
he knew of other sons who were born later to Mary. Only such can be meant,
when the brethren of Jesus are repeatedly mentioned along with Mary in the
Gospels (Mark iii. 31 ; John ii.- 12), and also in the Acts of the Apostles (i. 14).
2 It is true that in the oldest text of Matt. xiii. 55 the second of these is
called Joseph ; but it is more probable that- the redactor missed the name of the
father among those of his sons and substituted it for the similarly sounding
Joses, than that there should have already been found in Mark a confusion with
the sons of another Mary (cf. Mark xv. 40), which the first evangelist, with
better information, corrected.

'U

282 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
are not mentioned (Mark vi. 3). James, the eldest of His
brothers, afterwards took a leading position at the head of
the church in Jerusalem till his martyrdom, and was for a
long time highly honoured even by his unbelieving fellow-
countrymen on account of his legal piety ; his Epistle and
' that of his brother . Jude, which are contained in our canon,
show us men whose spiritual life had been nourished on the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, and whose speech is not
inferior in illustration and in imaginative flight to the
prophecy and proverbs of the Old Testament. These are
evidences that in the circle in which Jesus grew up, there
was no lack of earnest piety and spiritual riches.
According to Mark, Jesus, while He was growing up in .
His father's house at Nazareth, wrought at the trade of a
carpenter (vi. 3) ; and it is only the incapability of a later age
to represent to itself the true human beginnings of Jesus that
has caused many to take offence at this.1 Among the Jews
a handicraft was not accounted at all degrading. Even Saul
of Tarsus was a tentmaker, although from his youth he had
been educated at the high school of Jerusalem to be a scribe.
It is certain, however, that the latter was not the case with
Jesus. In Nazareth, where they were acquainted with His
youth, they could not comprehend whence He had His wisdom
(Mark vi. 2) ; and in Jerusalem they were aware that He had
not studied there (John vii. 15). If He is addressed as
Rabbi both within and without the circle of His disciples
(Mark ix. 5, xi. 21; John iii. 2, vi. 25), this is sufficiently
explained by the circumstance that He appeared upon the
scene as a teacher of the people, and gathered pupils together;
but even the people received from His teaching the impression
that He did not belong to the guild of scribes (Mark i. 22).
This does not exclude the likelihood that Jesus, who had
already when but a boy of twelve years of age felt Himself
stirred up by the teachers of the law in Jerusalem (Luke
1 Origen regarded this merely as a slander of the inhabitants of Nazareth
(c. Cels. vi. 38), and appealed to the fact that the Gospels relate nothing
regarding this ; and Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. 88) made Jesus teach already
in sacred symbolical language by means of the ploughs and yokes which he
made. Celsus, the Gentile, reproached the Christians with this past condition
of their Master ; and even Neander doubted whether it was not thereby simply
meant to represent the fact that Jesus was in the form of a servant.

JESUS' STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 283
ii. 46), eagerly availed Himself of all the means of education
which His native town afforded Him. But we have no certain
information as to what these means were. The reading and
interpretation of Scripture in the synagogues afforded to one
who habitually frequented these places of worship a valuable
introduction to the word of God ; but it can hardly be doubted
that He, who afterwards disputed so frequently with the
scribes, and had always at hand a fit word taken from Scrip
ture, knew it not merely from hearing, but had Himself read
and searched it. Whether the chassan or clerk of the
synagogue at Nazareth in his time taught reading and writing,
or whether Jesus of His own accord connected Himself with
one or more of the teachers who visited His native town, and
thus acquired the art of reading and understanding the Scrip
tures for Himself, we do not know. Lastly, we can no longer
decide whether He read them in the old original Hebrew,
or in one of the Targums which had translated them into the
dialect of the people ; it is self-evident that He could quote
them only in the Aramaic language which was then spoken
in the land, and which we know He employed both from the
nature of the case and the testimony of the Gospels. Like the
lower classes in Galilee, who, owing to the mixed population,
could not be dainty in intercourse, He, no doubt, also under
stood conversational Greek ; for when He talks with those
who speak Greek, — with the Roman centurion, with the
Syro-Phoenician woman, or with the procurator, — no mention
is made of an interpreter.1
x Certainly for the best, which Jesus sought and found in
Scripture, He required no human teacher ; and the expounders
of Scripture of His time, with their unfruitful literalism and
their fantastic allegorizing, were far from being able to teach
him to find it. From them He could learn to understand the
letter, so often dark and difficult; they could introduce
Him to the various kinds of knowledge required for the
comprehension of this wonderful book, on which centuries
1 It by no means follows from this, however, that Jesus read Greek, or made
use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The latest biographer of
Jesus will hardly be able to convince us that the modest house of His parents
possessed the costly treasure of sacred rolls of Scripture in which He studied ;
but undoubtedly those who had charge of the synagogue were liberal enough to
grant the ardent youthful student access to its treasures.

284 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
had laboured, and which tells the story of thousands of years,
in which the life of nature and of nations is often so richly
reflected, and which is at home in heaven as well as on earth.
It is true they could do this only in so far as they understood
these matters themselves, or rather in so far as a tradition,
which had long since become a dead letter, with an often
wonderful misconception of words as well as of things, thought
it understood them. What the youth, who was ripening into
manhood, sought and found there was information regarding
the divine revelations which had, from the beginning, been
made to the chosen people in the miraculous deeds performed
by God in the course of its history, the breathing of the
Divine Spirit, which He felt in the powerful word of its pro
phets ; the beating of genuine religious life, which He overheard
in the prayer and song of the holy psalmists, as well as in the
enlightened wisdom of the collectors of its proverbs. Here
the unique religious life, which He had led from His childhood,
gave Him a key of sympathetic intelligence, which was so
completely awanting to the men of His time ; and, conversely,
the word of Scripture explained to Him that which up to this
time had still unconsciously stirred within Hi™, and brought
- to full maturity His comprehension of that which fellowship
with His Father in heaven disclosed to Him regarding the most
mysterious depths of the divine Being and the divine decrees.
What further means of , education were required by one
for whom such springs were flowing, to whom the religious '
life was at once the highest end and the deepest satisfaction ?
From this standpoint His eye was open to the glory of nature
all around Him, to its mysterious and yet so significant move
ments ; but as His parables will show us, He beheld therein
only a new revelation of God. From this standpoint He
regarded the life of men around Him with the look of love,
whose eyes are not bound by the self-sufficiency of self-
complacency, and with the clear critical look which no pre
judice blinds and no partiality deceives. Here it may not be
out of place to remind ourselves of the circumstance that the
population of the northern province, among which He grew up,
was simpler and healthier, more versatile and animated, than
that of the south, upon which the pressure of the hierarchy
weighed more directly ; that it was diligent and valiant,

THE PHARISEES. 285
patriotic and full of attachment to the theocracy ; and that\
the more stirring life of the East likes publicity rather than
the quietness of the house. Not, however, as if He could
have received from thence aught which He did not possess in
Himself; only He here became early acquainted with human
life in its manifold circumstances, which He afterwards
depicted so vividly in His parables ; with the national life in
its sores and needs, which He was yet to heal and satisfy ; and,
above all, with the misery of the time, which was crying for
the long yearned-for help. For even he who is richest, who
lives altogether from within and draws from inexhaustible
sources, may have the form, in which his spiritual life
expresses itself, partly determined also by the life around him ;
and in a certain sense it must be so, if he is to remain in
sympathy with it, and if he is to have any influence upon it.
In -this sense Jesus also has undoubtedly lived with His
people, the more so as that which gave its individuality to the
life of this people was religion, which formed the central point
in its life. But the religious life of that age was no longer
uniform ; it had already expressed itself in various forms and
tendencies ; and, accordingly, we cannot a priori refuse to
consider the question whether He had not received from one
of these tendencies impulses for His development. It is, of
course, clear that He neither could nor required to receive
from them the best which He possessed, but nevertheless such
influences might have helped to determine the form and
manner in which that best was represented.
There is no doubt that in Galilee the most popular
tendency was that of the Pharisees, in which the nature of
post-exilian Judaism had found its model expression. In
proportion as in the sorrowful times of the second temple the
nation was denied the development of its independent political
life, with so much the greater zeal it embraced the idea of
completing the religious individuality of its national life, and
of sharply separating it from the mode of life followed by the
Gentile nations around. Once for all it had been thoroughly
cured of all inclination towards idolatry and heathenism by
means of the exile, which its prophets had proclaimed as a
punishment for such sins. Now it was necessary to expound
the law in which the will of God had been revealed to it, and

286 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
which, in addition to its moral and ceremonial precepts, had in
many respects already laid down the outlines of a domestic
and social rule of life ; it was necessary to apply this law to
all the circumstances of the national life until there was
thoroughly impressed upon it the stamp of a condition of
consecration to God, which separated the nation from every
thing Gentile or heathen. Since Ezra's days the guild of the
scribes had worked at this task> and had furnished the law
with a vast number of .explanations and additions, among
/which its kernel often almost disappeared. To realize this
ideal of a life which was regulated at every step in private as
i well as in public by the law, first of all in their own life, then
in the life of the people, was the task of the Pharisaic party.
For this tendency had assumed the form, not of a school or
sect, but of a party, ever since in the time of the Maccabees
it attached itself to the national movement, whereby the
Greek heathenism of their Syrian conquerors, which expressly
threatened the religious side of the nationality of the Jews
both inwardly and outwardly, was overthrown ; although, it
is true, it immediately afterwards lifted itself up against the
new national royal house, because it, with its politics, was
very far from being in keeping with the Pharisaic theocratic
ideals. Already under John Hyrcanus the opposition had
reached the open outbreak, which under Alexander Jannseus
led to a frightful war of extermination against the powerful
party, until even the Asmonaeans recognised that they must
reconcile themselves with this popular movement. When
the Romans intermeddled with the controversies regarding the
throne which raged within this royal house, the Pharisees had
in vain attempted to obtain the complete abolition of the
kingdom, as being alone in keeping with their theocratic
ideal ; they had then turned towards the Idumsean upstarts,
and had experienced in rich measure, though not without
periods of hardship, the favour of Herod the Great, who tried
to make use of their popularity among the people for the
purpose of strengthening his throne. It was involved in their
principles that they could accommodate themselves even to
this form of foreign rule, so long as it did not dispute their
influence upon the religious life of the nation. Indeed, they
saw in it a divine providence ; and, besides, they looked for

THE SADDUOEES. 287
the ultimate realization of their ideals, not from any political
measures whatever, but from a miraculous interposition of
God, which should bring about the completion of the theocracy
in the Messianic future, the blessings of which the nation was
to deserve by a more and more complete subjection to their
leadership. In this sense the Pharisees dominated the
spiritual life of the nation, especially in the northern province,
where it looked up with reverent admiration to these repre
sentatives and embodiments of its religious ideals.
We shall see how the public ministry of Jesus de
veloped itself in a constant struggle with the Pharisaic party,
without His ever having been reproached with being an
apostate from it. Hereby every more intimate contact with
it is already excluded. Like everything that stirred the life
of the nation, He certainly early and carefully directed His
attention also to this party and its powerful influence upon
the people; and His polemic will show us how clearly He
discerned its fundamental errors and the defects that were
involved in its very nature. But what He seems to have in
common with it, and from which some have recently hastily
concluded that He had sympathetic points of contact with it,
and had experienced influences from it, is nevertheless simply
owing to the Old Testament basis, from which He, like it,
started, and to the development of the religious consciousness,
which was thoroughly characteristic of post-exilian Judaism,
and which He also favoured, so far as it was a genuine fruit
of the revelation of God contained in the Old Testament.
On the other hand, some have reflected, on account of His
opposition to Pharisaism, upon the influences of Sadduceism,
with which it is fancied He connected Himself by means of
that opposition; but this view is altogether destitute of
historical support. For in Galilee this latter tendency has
hardly had a party worth mentioning attached to it; and
although Jesus became acquainted with it on the occasions of
His annual visits to the temple, yet it presented no points of
contact whatever with His striving — a striving that aimed at
the inner religious life.
The Sadducees were a political party in the proper sense of
the term ; they were the party of the old priestly families
(comp. Acts v. 17), which formed the real nobility of the

288 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
Jewish nation, and from which the high priests were taken, in
order, in conformity with the old legal constitution, which did
not know of a kingdom, to stand at the head of the theocracy,
and have the most essential influence over it. When
Jonathan, one of the Maccabees, who was still supported by
the Pharisees, attained the dignity of the high-priesthood, the
old priestly families saw themselves eclipsed by this upstart ;
and it is from this period that their opposition to the Pharisaic
party dates. In proportion as the latter gradually came into
collision with the Asmonsean reigning family, the party of the
Sadducees accommodated itself to the unalterable shape which
matters had now assumed, in order to secure power and influ
ence to the old noble families by u close connection with the
kingdom. Accordingly, they still contended for the last scions
of the old royal house, for a long time after the Pharisees had
already come to terms with the Idumeeans, and thereby drew
upon themselves the hostility of Herod in the same measure in
which the latter enjoyed his favour. But they also gradually
learned to accommodate themselves to the new state of affairs ;
and when at last the annexation to Rome came, which no one
had desired more eagerly than they, by means of their pliancy
towards the foreigners, they obtained the measure of power
and influence which they could ever expect to enjoy under a
foreign dominion. Therewith, it is true, the strength of their
political antagonism to Pharisaism was broken ; they had now
to make up their differences with that party, seeing that it
enjoyed the favour of the people, on account of which alone
the Roman Government allowed the priesthood to retain its
position and importance in the land. The Pharisees now sat
along with them in the supreme ecclesiastical council; in
spiritual matters they had now to allow that party the
supremacy, so that they themselves might retain whatever
authority over the nation was still left them. The opposition
between the two parties now became more theoretical, and
thus it could happen that Josephus, who is fond of coquetting
before his Greek readers with all kinds of analogies that he
could find between them and his own nation, represents them
as two opposed philosophical schools ; and even to the present
day this has in many ways caused a total misconception of the
real character of both tendencies.

THE ESSENES. 289
And yet their divergent tenets, which have been so fre
quently discussed, follow in a simple manner from the his
torical development of the two parties. The old priestly
nobility based its rights upon the written law ; for them oral
tradition, this new law, upon which the Pharisees laid the
chief weight, had no interest ; or rather, they felt themselves
bound to reject it, inasmuch as it was it that gave to the
opposite party its power and influence. In proportion as this
new law contributed to guard against Israel's having any
intercourse with the Gentiles, the policy of the Sadducees led
them to cultivate such intercourse ; and they could maintain
that they had a right to do so, seeing that the old law as yet
knew nothing of the Pharisaic exclusiveness against the sur
rounding nations. The Pharisees taught a resurrection, for
the ultimate end they had in view was the glory of the
Messianic kingdom, in which the risen pious of bygone
generations must also share. This doctrine the Sadducees
denied. They were satisfied with the present, provided they
maintained therein their power and dominion ; and here again
they could appeal to the law, which knew no more of a
resurrection than of angels and spirits. Accordingly, they
denied the existence of these also in opposition to the
Pharisees, while in both points the latter only accepted the
legitimate development of the religious consciousness of
Judaism. Lastly, even that antithesis which seems most of
all to be philosophical, was in its deepest ground a very
practical one. According to Josephus, the Pharisees taught a
divine providence, to which everything, even evil, had to be
traced back ; while the Sadducees rather espoused the doctrine
of the freedom of the will, whereby each one was the author
of his own destiny. But even this difference simply amounted
to this, that the Pharisees accepted political changes as a
divine providence, and prepared the nation for a future, which
only the strong hand of God could ultimately bring about,
with none save spiritual means (in their sense); while the
Sadducees carried on practical politics, and sought to control
the destiny of the nation, in their own interest, of course.
If, accordingly, we cannot think of any influence exerted
upon Jesus by either of the two parties, which alone sub
stantially swayed the life of the nation, if neither the popular
WEISS.  1. T

290 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
party of the Pharisees, nor the conservative party of the
Sadducees, if neither the party of religious idealism, nor that
of hierarchical realism, had ever numbered Him in their ranks,
still less can we speak of an influence of the Essenes, who
lived after the manner of a separate religious community,
principally in the region of the Dead Sea. For whether we
regard this peculiar manifestation of mystico-ascetic piety as a
product of genuine Jewish spiritual life, or trace it back to
heathen influences, — a question which is not even yet settled,
^-it involves a withdrawal from the real life of the nation into
a separatistic sectarianism, which is as foreign to the public
appearing of Jesus among the people as their painful pro
vision for purity in the Levitical sense, and their anxious
asceticism, are out of keeping with the emphasis that He laid
exclusively upon purity of heart, and with His liberal views
of life.1 We must, accordingly, come to the conclusion that
Jesus has received no impulses from any of the peculiar
religious tendencies that were current among the people, that
He grew up spiritually as a child of His nation under the
influences of His pious parents' home, and of the free, active,
natural life around Him ; yet in such a manner that the life-
giving spring of Scripture, from which the latter drew its best
animating principles, flowed directly for Him ; and the original
purity of a soul, which breathed in the atmosphere of a divine
love which had never been clouded, preserved Him from every
false way.
His bodily growth was also in keeping with that of His spirit.
1 Nevertheless, English Deism attempted to derive the manifestation of Jesus
altogether from Essenism, while the older rationalism showed a great predilec
tion for adducing all manner of mysterious links between Him and the Essenes,
for the purpose of giving a rational explanation of certain miraculous occurrences,
and traced back His miracles of healing to healing arts practised among them.
But when subjected to a more particular examination, the alleged links con
necting His life and teaching with the practices of the Essenes disappear. The
law of the Essenes forbidding oaths, which was merely meant to give emphasis
to the sacredness of their terribly solemn oath of initiation, has nothing to do
with the fundamental declaration of Jesus regarding that subject ; His living
with the disciples out of a common purse did not rest upon any organized com
munity of goods, and nowhere shows the tendency of becoming a pattern for a
Christian institution ; the endeavouring after the kingdom of God, which was
demanded by Him, has nothing in common with their flight from the world ;
He has never given a commandment forbidding sacrifices and marriage, and,
indeed, celibacy was by no means universal among them.

JESUS' DEVELOPMENT. 291
The promise, which piety has also for this life, was un
doubtedly fulfilled in His physical development, which was
not hampered and impaired by attacks of sickness. On the
ground of prophecies, which were falsely interpreted in a
literal sense, the old Church at first conceived of Him as uglier
than other people, because He should have had no form nor
comeliness (Isa. Iii 14, liii. 2) ; later they praised Him as the
fairest among the children of men (cf. Ps. xiv. 3). We
cannot conceive that the nobility of His soul did not somehow
or other impress itself also upon His bodily appearance ; but
this is not to say that He corresponded to any of our ideals of
beauty.1 Questions have been raised as to the temperament
of Jesus ; but in doing so it has been overlooked that a
marked one-sidedness in the natural disposition, which can be
surmounted only by means of severe conflicts, and leaves its
traces even in the case of the most normal moral development,
cannot be attributed to Him, who should realize the ideal of
, human perfection, and that the always individually different
mixture of blood, without which a real man cannot be con
ceived, no longer comes out in the ethical form of the life of
Him, who does not live according to His nature, but only in
accordance with the will of God, which always demands first
of all the conquest of self. Some have inquired as to
the talents of Jesus ; and yet we can inquire regarding these
only where the point in question is as to the choice of a calling.
But where, as in the case of Jesus, a man's calling has been
originally given him, it is self-evident that no gift can be
awanting which he requires for the fulfilling of his calling ;
and the specific equipment for His vocation could not have
been given to Jesus in any natural disposition; He must
have received it from above. In our time, some prefer to
speak of the development of the character of Jesus, and
describe His life as the " picture of His character." But it
is a mistake to suppose that a marked moral idiosyncrasy
belongs to the reality of human nature ; it is characteristic
1 That which was related later regarding portraits of Jesus, which He sent
to Abgar of Edessa, or imprinted upon the handkerchief of Saint Veronica,
which Luke painted and Nicodemus engraved, or regarding the votive statue,
which the woman whom He had healed erected at Paneas, naturally belongs to
legend, just as the later delineations of Jesus belong to the history of Christian
art.

292 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
only of the imperfection, which always attaches to the reality
of the ethical form of our life, inasmuch as it always shows,
in good as well as in evil, a one-sidedness, which is not
surmounted by means of a complete harmonious development.
However beautiful the words are, with which it has been
attempted to portray the character of Jesus, they always
ultimately amount to this, that in Him that normal harmonious
unfolding of the moral nature, which should be in every man",
but which is perfect in none, has actually taken place ; and
this very fact excludes one-sided traits of character. Some have
"called Him the type of a masculine religious character; but
to be masculine is only the normal nature of man ; and to have
the centre of gravity of His life and being in religiousness is
the common task of man, but no feature of his character.
That His whole spiritual life found its outlet in His religious
calling, lay, not in His character, but in His exclusive
devotion to His calling, which lay within the province of the
religious life. It was not owing to a one-sidedness of His
natural genius or of His character that He did not become also
a scholar or an artist, a statesman or a general. For His
divinely-appointed calling demanded the activity of His
whole person ; and in His always fulfilling this demand He
realized the ideal of human perfection, which shapes itself
diversely for each individual, in accordance with His natural
endowments and His calling.
When he reached his eighteenth year, the Hebrew youth
was wont to enter the state of matrimony. Even in the
early days of the Church there was much speculation as to
the reason why Jesus remained unmarried. Our feeling
revolts against this question. But this very feeling of revul
sion shows that it cannot be passed over ; for such a feeling
is either owing to dogmatic views, which endanger the real
humanity of Jesus, or to a way of regarding the relations of
the sexes which questions the sacredness of marriage, which
Jesus Himself has so energetically accented, and esteems
celibacy as a higher kind of perfection. Much that is trifling,
far-fetched, and perverted has been imported into the answer
given to that question; and often enough the answer has
in the long run violated the deepest interest which gave
occasion to it. It is not even sufficient to answer that in

CELIBACY OF JESUS. 293
His time Jesus did not meet, or, as we prefer to say, ever
could meet, any heart that was worthy of His; for love
cannot be at all merited, and the similarity of the inner, and
at the same time moral life, which the closest bond which
unites hearts presupposes, is always only a similarity that is
growing. Here also the reason is rather to be found in the
uniqueness of His calling, which demanded the whole man,
and left no room for the fulfilment of that universal human
calling which, with few exceptions, unites itself with all
human ways of living. What, however, He should be, that
He also willed to be ; and the fulfilment of His calling fur
nished Him with an inner satisfaction (John iv. 34), which
of itself constituted the full happiness of His life. He was
one of those who, as He expressed it in a bold figure, have
made themselves eunuchs, i.e. have made themselves unfit for
marriage, for the kingdom of God's sake (Matt. xix. 12).
Just because His heart, His love, and His life belonged to all,
whom He had come to serve in conformity with His calling,
no single individual should be able to boast of having pos
sessed all these in a singular manner.
Thus the consideration of the development of the youth of
Jesus leads us over once more to the question as to His
calling.

CHAPTER VII.
THE MESSIANIC CALLING.
WHEN a youth attains to manhood, he has to decide on
the choice of a vocation. But it is the privilege of
all who are intended for great things not to require to seek/
and choose long. The calling forces itself upon them in
exorably, operating secretly with an impulse of external and
internal necessity by which they know it is given them by
God. Why should not He, who was destined for the highest
conceivable calling, have early recognised and apprehended
the same ?
This certainly assumes that this calling was conferred in
accordance with a divine decree, and was not a humanly
devised one. There was much said at one time about the
" plan devised by the founder of the Christian religion for
the good of humanity," 1 and this was regarded as a scheme
for the improvement of religion, of morals, and of society,
which could only be carried through by convincing instruction
and institutions suitable for the purpose, or this design may
have determined Him to implant genuine humanity in man
kind. But although well-intentioned at a time when in the
person of the Wolfenbiittel Fragmentist the modern enlighten
ment had grossly attacked the moral character of Christ and
His apostles (comp. p. 193), yet that period was utterly
wanting in historical sense when it simply transferred to
Jesus its ideal of humanity, and only regarded Him as con
triving means for the realization of this ideal. Even the
older rationalism never got farther than regarding the
establishment of purer ethics as Jesus' ultimate aim. At the
1 Plane, welchen der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menchheit
entwarf, is the title of a pamphlet by Reinhard, 1781, which was once much read.
Comp. Herder, Vom Erloser der Menschen, 1796 ; Vom Gottes Sohne der Welt
Heiland, 1797. 294

CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS MESSIAHSHIP. 295
most, He combined along with it an endeavour to purify the
ancient worship from ceremonial elements, and to elevate it
to the grade of a higher, more purely spiritual worship of
God. In recent times this has been apprehended in an in
comparably more profound way, and Jesus is regarded as the
first on whom the consciousness of divine Sonship broke, by
the implanting and development of which in those around
Him, He became the founder of a new religion and a new
ethical view of the world. There is no one who would now
dispute that, considered historically, the point of view of a
founder of religion, such as is entertained by us who belong
to the modern time, can never be applied to Jesus. For the
Israelitish conception, founded on the Old Testament, knows
no plurality of religions only relatively different. Heathenism
is to it no religion, but an apostasy from the worship of the
one true God (comp. Rom. i. 18-23), who by His revelations
has made the people of Israel the possessors of the one true
religion. Jesus always recognised 'completely and fully the
divine revelation in the Scriptures of the Old Testament ; it
was only by constant association with 'it that His own religious
consciousness was developed ; in the law of the Old Testament
He saw a revelation of the divine will, although He learnt to
understand it better than His age understood it. But His
aim was far beyond a reform of worship or a purification of
ethical ideas, and the idea of founding a new religion could
never occur to a son of Israel.
It is no longer denied that, historically considered, the
calling which Jesus embraced, and with which was bound up
His significance for the world, was and could be no other
than to be the Messiah of His people. It is, however, denied
that He, from the beginning, clearly recognised this vocation.
The fact that Jesus' consciousness of His Messiahship was
gradually matured, is manifestly connected with His genuinely
human development ; but it does not follow that this develop
ment first took place during His public life. In common life
it is considered a sign of immaturity for one to commence a
public activity without being clear about his object and the
means for its attainment. We must therefore suppose that
Jesus did not appear without distinct knowledge of His calling,
and that this knowledge did not acquire a more definite

296 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
shape as well as undergo purification in the two or three years
of His public ministry. But we shall see how the situation
provided for Jesus by John the Baptist gave no scope for a
public ministry, if He Himself were unconscious of His
Messianic calling. If it was during His public ministry that
He first became aware of His Messiahship, surely a moment like
that would have formed such an epoch in His life and activity
that traces of it would certainly be preserved in our tradition ;
and yet there is not one. Indeed, throughout the course of
His public ministry, even those circumstances were lacking
which might have suggested to Him the idea of His Messiah-
ship. For however high His results may be estimated, and
even if these include not alone the spiritual impressions which
He produced, but also His miraculous cures, still it does not
excel the activity of a prophet who was mighty in word and
in deed. He could place everything in its proper relation to
His mission only if convinced of the Messianic character of
His calling, but He could never infer the latter from the
former. So there is nothing left but to assume that the
popular expectation which He encountered first gave Him a
clear understanding of His calling, and that it was only
during the course of His ministry He assumed the character
of the Messiah.1 But quite apart from the difficult ethical
and pedagogic considerations which stand in the way of this
hypothesis, it is a fact, that Jesus neither desired nor was
able to fulfil the expectation of the Messiah in the form in
which He encountered it. Indeed, His struggles against the
popular form of this ^expectation brought about the tragic
1 After picturing a period in the activity of Jesus, prior to the appearance of
the Baptist, of which our sources know nothing, and during which Jesus is
said to have entertained Himself and His followers with innocent aphorisms of
an ethico-religious import, Renan supposes that it was the Baptist who first
drew Him into the Messianic movement. He regards it as a dulling of Jesus'
originally purer consciousness, when, under the impulsion of public opinion,
He lost Himself more and more in Messianic aspirations. According to
Schenkel, Jesus' applying the Messianic conception to Himself was His only
way of permeating at least a portion of Israel with His lately formed ideas.
This is supposed to have first occurred at Csesarea Philippi, although in our
sources the passage manifestly refers to the attitude of the people and the
disciples to the Messianic question. But if before this Jesus only appeared
as the "regenerator of Israel," or as the "founder of a sacred community,"
that meant to an Israelitish consciousness nothing else than the Messiah.

PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE MESSIANIC IDEA. 29 7
course of His public ministry, and led inevitably to the final
catastrophe. It is, however, an insoluble contradiction how
He should first have accommodated Himself to a popular"
expectation, and then wasted His power and caused His ruin_
by His conflicts with it.
On this account it has lately been more generally ac
knowledged, that Jesus could not have appeared publicly
without possessing the consciousness of being the Messiah. -
But the greater number of the recent conceptions are more
or less based on the supposition that this Messianic con
sciousness was, in a child of His age and race, merely the
necessary form by which alone Jesus could be made aware of
His higher calling, but that He must have remodelled it
fundamentally before He could introduce what was new. For
in its historical form the Messianic idea presupposed especially
that, in contradistinction to the surrounding nations, Israel had
not to seek for knowledge of the one true God and of His
holy will, because already possessing these. In this know
ledge Israel possessed an inalienable superiority over these
nations, and was some day to become by reason of it the
dispenser of salvation for all people. It is certainly assumed
also that Israel was not as it ought to be, that its life did
not answer to its knowledge, or its reality to its high destiny.
But what Israel lacked, was not an improvement or increase of
the possession which made this nation a religious people before
all other nations, but the ultimate, complete realization of what
it should and would be so soon as it truly incorporated the divine
revelation confided to it, and translated ^t into life and action ;
so soon as the true religion, whose first conditions it possessed,
had thoroughly penetrated the entire national life, and had
become in the fullest sense the religion of each individual.
These presuppositions were rooted in the history and the
revelations of Israel, and would be shared in to the fullest
extent by a genuine son of Israel who had nourished his
spiritual life on the Holy Scriptures. But they were utterly
gainsaid by Jesus' desiring in any sense to increase or correct
the knowledge of His people on religious or ethical matters,
and His whole activity was vitiated by intrinsic falsity, when
on this behalf He attached to Himself the current Messianic
conception in the presuppositions of which He could not

298 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
share. The Messianic idea, then, was not the form in which
a somewhat recently disclosed ethical or religious conscious
ness would present itself to Him ; He must rather break with
this form and combat all its presuppositions, if He desired
to establish the value of that consciousness.
Jesus did not do this. When He appeared with the know
ledge of being the Messiah of His people, He believed that
He brought the fulfilment of the promises made to them.
When He buried Himself in the sacred books of His nation,
it was these promises He encountered at every step. It is a
question here not of some detached and more or less obscure
predictions, but of the fundamental ideas permeating all Old
Testament prophecy. All the prophets hoped for a future for
their nation in which it would fulfil its appointed destiny, and
the religio-ethical ideal would be realized which dwelt in it
by means of divine revelation, and in conjunction with this
the existence of true religion. But this future would certainly
not be attained by means of a natural development of the
national life. The prophets had seen too deeply for that into
the heinous evils of the national spirit and life ; there was too
active a consciousness in Israel, that as all true religion can
only originate in a divine revelation, therefore every fresh
advance in the religious life, not to speak of its ultimate per
fecting, could only be brought about through fresh acts of
divine revelation. The day of Jehovah would come when
\ God Himself would meet His people, perfecting what He had
begun in them, healing their wounds, and putting an end to
all their miseries. This was the kernel of the so-called
Messianic idea. The form in which it was expressed, the
aspect which the prophets expected the commencement of
that future to present, showed great variation; for it
was conditioned by the historical circumstances within the
framework of which the prophets saw this shortly -expected ,
advent. Although preponderatingly so, it was not always by
the sending of an appointed person that Jehovah was to bring
about this advent in which He was Himself to meet His
people ; and the idea of this person, also, must have fashioned
itself differently in accordance with the historical conditions.
It was most generally the picture of an anointed king of
Davidic lineage, who, as his great ancestor once did, should

MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 299
bring for the nation the age of greatest prosperity ; the desig
nation of Messiah, i.e. the Anointed, given to this Bringer of
blessings, was plainly connected with this expectation. But
after the overthrow of the royal Davidic house by the
exile, we see arising the conception of a simple servant of
Jehovah, in appearance only a prophet. Moreover, the
picture of the external circumstances to which that advent
was to give rise must have been fashioned necessarily in a
different manner, according to the circumstances of each indi
vidual prophet.1 But the one fundamental idea is held ia,st\
all through, that that consummation of the nation would, I
according to its intrinsic character, bring the richest blessings
upon it in all the relations of earthly life. It is the indis-/
pensable conception of any true religion which runs through
the Old Testament, that righteousness advances a nation, that
the accomplishment of the divine will is the condition of all
earthly weal, and that the perfect realization of the full salva
tion which God has decreed for mankind must come along
with the entire realization of religion. Besides all this, the
great purpose of Israel in the history of the world must be
realized at this consummation ; and thus prophecy is per
meated by a hope that in the Messianic age all nations would
come and join themselves to Israel, and receive from her the
true religion, along with that highest salvation of which she
was the channel.
An age of hypercriticism has indeed affirmed by its boldest
spokesman, that at the time of Christ the Messianic hope no
longer existed.2 But it is a simple historical impossibility
1 Some would hide from themselves the fact that predictions which are
literally to be fulfilled are not treated of here, and that it is only the form
in which the prophets were obliged to represent to themselves the future
of Israel that was assured by divine revelation, if they would prophesy of it
vividly. Those who do so must resolve to spiritualize, or give a fantastic
explanation of all these prophecies by a clumsy distortion of their literal mean
ing, and to resign their hopes, which have no foundation in Scripture, of the
ultimate restoration of Israel as a nation. The idea, dominant on the opposite
side, of its being a question here of the carnal hopes and dreams of a high-flying
patriotism, or even of a limited particularism, is, according to what has been
mentioned before, equally unauthorized.
2 This assertion of Bruno Bauer's was only the natural reaction against the
equally unhistorical assumption of the existence at that time of a complete
Messianic dogmatic, a distinct conception of what must and should occur in the
Messianic age, and of what that age was to bring about. It would then have

300 SECOND BOQK. THE PREPARATION.
that this nation, which was edified every Sabbath day by the
words of the law and the prophets, should ever have given up
the hope of a Messiah. The Jewish historian Josephus
appeared -to know nothing about it, and the only thing he
mentions in this connection becomes a flattery of the Roman
emperor's rising star ; but this is only a sign that this Jewish
man of letters was no type of the religious life of his nation.
By reason of their absorption in the politics of the present,
the Sadducees stood coldly aloof from the Messianic expecta
tions of their nation, and besides, although without any
intention of rejecting prophecy, all their interests were
centred in the law. On the other hand, the Messianic idea
was for the Pharisees the soul of all their efforts, even if the
form in which they apprehended it was far inferior to the
conception entertained by the prophets. It is a matter of
course that the great mass of the nation, engrossed as it was
by the pleasures and anxieties of daily life, and the present
oppression and distress, scarcely thought of the Messianic
promise ; but it is equally certain that it was well known
among the circles of the truly pious, and that, in consequence
of the misery of the present, it was perpetuated under the
form of a growing longing for the promised future. We have
seen how the Messianic expectation was -freshly stirred in
these circles by the events attending the births of Jesus and
of John, and we shall hear how the whole nation was set on
fire by the glowing words of the Baptist. In Israel the fire
of this expectation had now and again glimmered from under
been an easy task to decide whether Jesus, who claimed to bring about the
Messianic future, was the Promised One or not ; or, after it had been resolved
to believe in His Messiahship in spite of everything said against it, to sketch
out a picture of His life, not indeed as it was in actuality, but as it ought to
have been in conformity with the idea, and as it therefore represented itself to
faith. But even the prophets themselves did not contain such a unified picture
of the Messiah and the occurrences of the Messianic age, and our Gospels show
how very different in detail were the Messianic expectations and the inter
pretations of single prophecies. It is manifest from them, that, upon the
question whether or not the appearance of Jesus answered to the expectation
founded upon prophecy, it was not easy for the people to attain to a clear
decision. Even when the most undoubted characteristics were still awanting,
they did not at once give up their hope of His being the Expected One. His
very followers had constantly to be taught afresh to modify their expectations
in conformity with the fulfilment, and to adopt, as bearing upon this, traits
from prophecy which till then had been entirely overlooked.

THE MESSIANIC HOPE. 301
the ashes, and only a favourable breath was needed to kindle
it into a blazing flame.
Jesus had no need whatever of fresh revelations and pro
phetical utterances. He believed what His Father had spoken
in the Old Testament- Scripture, and the glaring contradiction
between the internal and external life of the nation and the
ideal placed before them would surely burden His soul most
heavily, and the longing for the time which, according to the
divine promise, should explain this contradiction would become
in Him a hope vanquishing victoriously all the wretchedness
of the present. But when was the age to come in which
this expectation would be realized ? The time and hour had
been revealed to none among the prophets, and although
heaven heard the cry of this nation which was still God's
chosen people, torn as it was by political misery both in north
and south, under the Roman procurators as well as the sons
of Herod, and terribly hurt and bitterly mortified in its most
sacred national feelings, yet it could not be said that times
had never been worse or that the arrogance of the enemies
who trampled on the people had not been more unbearable.
How was Jesus to be certain that the hour of deliverance had
now struck, and that it was He who should bring this deliver
ance ? It may be reasonably doubted whether the pious/
parents had felt themselves called on to tell their son oi\
the prophecies and the miraculous events which surrounded
His birth and the slumber of His unconscious infancy.
According to all we have heard of their idea of the Messianic
future, they must have been absolutely certain of one thing
at least, that it was only the miraculous hand of God which
could so prepare the way before their child as to lead to
this future. They must have thought that to tell Him of
His high calling would be to anticipate the divine dispensa
tion ; and what could human wisdom or calculation do to
bring about the accomplishment of this destiny ? The voices
of the new prophets who had greeted the first dawn of this
salvation time had now long been silent ; and it was per
mitted once more to hope and wait in faith, as had been done
for hundreds of years. And although Jesus may have heard
from one direction or another of the hopes which were
attached to His person, this could only give an impulse

302 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
towards accelerating the development going on in His soul,
but it could not be its starting-point. References have been
made to His Davidic descent, to His birth in Bethlehem, to
His significant name of Jesus ; all may have become signi
ficant to Him after that development was consummated, but
they could not account for it.
r In His own soul must have lain the conditions which
'produced certainty of His being the Chosen One of the
s Messianic future, the God-given Saviour of His people ; and
these conditions existed in Him. When with confident faith
in the promise of Scripture He inquired as to the time when
this expectation of His people, was to be fulfilled, He must
have been assured of one thing, that there was already
realized in His person and life what was to be accomplished
in the people. A life, such as He led, of constant assurance
of the fatherly love of His God, of childlike reliance on Him,
which shut out every clouding of this connection, of joyous
fulfilling of His will, which was to Him a necessity of exist
ence and ordered every step of His way, — what was this but
the perfecting of true religion, and the realization of the ideal
which was placed before His people ? A life on which God's
blessing rested from the beginning, not in respect of outward
riches, but by the inward peace of an unclouded communion
with God, — was not this the commencement of an epoch
of salvation such as the Messianic advent was to bring to
the nation ? To Him indeed the longed-for future had
already dawned : in the midst of the wretchedness of a
quarrelsome people there was already one spot where God's
love had realized all it had ever promised. And because it
was not promised to an individual, but to the whole nation,
what happened in His life could only be the commencement
of that which God's grace would accomplish through Him in
the whole nation. When a twelve-year-old boy, He had in a
unique manner felt Himself to be the Son of God, and the
object of- a divine love, such as neither was nor could be
possessed by any around Him. Even the Old Testament did
not only apply the name Son to the nation as a whole, but also
to an individual, to the Chosen of Jehovah, who was to be the
object of His especial love (2 Sam. vii. 14 ; Ps. ii. 7). The
people were not thereby to be deprived of the love that was

THE DIVINE COMMISSION. 303
promised to Him on His election as First-born, but through
Him they were to be sharers in the most sublime manifesta
tion of Jehovah's love. This is why the Messiah was called
in Israel the Son of God ; it was not giving Him an empty
title of honour, but it denoted the Chosen of divine love, Him
who was called to the noblest vocation, to be the Mediator of
supreme salvation for the people. Did He feel HimseK the
Son of God in this unique sense, then it must be He who
was to bring about the Messianic future for His people.1
According to the whole of prophecy, the Messianic future
could only be brought about by an unparalleled divine act.
This divine act had been performed. One stood there along
with whom had come the time of salvation, and through whom
it would extend over the whole people. Jesus knew that in
the sending of Him that divine action was effectuated which
was to convey the perfecting of salvation to His people ; and
to this end the perfected divine revelation had been disclosed
to Him. The ultimate object of the divine decrees was made
known to him ; He knew how God had prepared the highest
welfare for His people, and that this was accomplished by
sending Him. But here we stand on the spot where the
profoundest secret of Jesus' self-consciousness is disclosed to
us, in so far as it can be penetrated by man. How then was
this divine sending effected ? At other times, when a prophet
was commissioned by God, He poured His Spirit upon him,
and, impelled by the Spirit, he appeared and prophesied ; or
else it was in a vision he was called to the prophetical office.
But of visions seen by Jesus we hear nothing, and of such
extraordinary moments in which the awe of God's Spirit laid
hold on Him He knew nothing ; His transparent and devout
life was passed in beautiful uniformity, and needed no
1 It is incomprehensible how there should be any dispute as to whether Jesus
reached His unprecedented consciousness of sonship from His consciousness of
Messiahship, 01 vice versd. It was not because the Messiah had received an
especial calling that He received the name of Son, but He received the highest,
the Messianic office, because God had chosen Him to be the peculiar object of
His love. Since Jesus realized in Himself what was yet to be realized in the
people, He must have been called to accomplish this. Since He was Son of
God in the fullest sense, it was only through Him that all the individuals of
the nation could become really children of God, and then would the Messianic
age have come ; for in the consciousness of this sonship lay the perfecting of
religion and the assurance of that supreme salvation which sonship conveys.

304 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
momentary excitement. In the consciousness of the divine
love that was directed to Him as to the Chosen One, He
became certain of the calling to which He was destined ;
His mission reposed on His selection by the divine love.
But when was it this selection took place ? When did He
begin to be an object of this unprecedented love of God's ?
We have seen already that in a truly pious Israelite there
could be no question of deserving this love by obedience, or
by any other proof of a genuine childlike spirit (comp. p. 280).
As little as the nation of Israel deserved to be chosen (comp.
Deut. vii. 6 £), so little could the Chosen of Jehovah, through
whom it was to attain its destiny, make this people worthy of
its high destiny. Only in the certainty of God's fatherly
love, possessed by Him from the beginning, could He obey
and love Him as a child ; only in the consciousness of His
selection could He perform the vocation to which He was
chosen. In the persons of the patriarchs, Israel was chosen
to be God's people, and elected to sonship ; and on Sinai it
was called on to become this. As far back as Jesus could
look in His past life, He knew of no moment when God's
choice of Him was made, when God's love had turned
towards Him; He was conscious of possessing it since He
first learnt to look up to God, and knew that in this love He
was chosen as the Messiah ; .His mission, indeed, commenced
with His existence on earth, but did it absolutely begin
there ? Could a babe in his mother's arms be already an
object of divine love, chosen for the calling by which God
would accomplish the promises made during hundreds and
thousands of years ?
It was this course of thought which must have led Jesus
to the consciousness of having possessed that love of God
before His existence on earth began, and to the knowledge of
His selection having had its origin' in the depths of eternity.
When we see Him, although only in obscure enigmatical utter
ances, referring to a heavenly origin, to an existence before
His earthly existence, we find in this the natural key to such
utterances. It is certainly inconceivable that He should have
led an unearthly duplicate iife, one unaffectedly human,
and one in the recollection of that past in heaven with its
participation in divine existence and life. But it may be He

THE ETERNAL ELECTION OF THE MESSIAH. 305
was Himself conscious that the highest object of divine love,
the Revealer and the Perfecter of God's final decrees regard
ing salvation, did not become an object of divine love only
because He was to bring this about, but He must have been
so from the beginning. If this consciousness formed the
deepest background of His unique spiritual life, in which not
only all its peace and holiness, but also its force and power
of action were rooted, — and even if it did not pervade every
moment of His life, uniformly and with like perspicuity, — yet
it is impossible to affirm that no representation whatever can
be given of Jesus' human consciousness, and of the actual
history of His life. We have already had to explain how
unlikely it was that the parents told the Son, at an early age,
of His miraculous birth, and assuredly He would have inferred
from it as little as our evangelists do regarding His heavenly
origin; but when consciousness of this had arisen in Him,
He would see in the miracle of His birth only a confirmation
of the same. Of this profoundest secret of His self-conscious
ness He certainly did not preach on the streets and in the
market-places, as is assumed by those who introduce our dog
matic conceptions and decisions into the name Son, along with
other words which have no such reference ; or by those who
resist the separation of the didactic elucidations of the Apostle
John, which refer with predilection to the ultimate presup
positions of the utterances of Jesus, from the utterances
themselves. Such a declaration would neither have been
understood nor adequately realized by His hearers. But it is /
not surprising that here and there an illuminating flash',
breaks from these profundities, . throwing suddenly a new '
light upon the nature of Him who was most unique among
the children of men. And even when this does not take
place, it must, if we would apprehend them thoroughly, often
be regarded as the concealed presupposition of His words.
Thus did Jesus become conscious of His divine selection
and commission. And from this it appears that it is to
mistake the matter in question to speak of a resolution taken
by the Messiah, or to laud as a noble act Jesus' having
imposed this exaction upon His own. soul. To an Israelitish
consciousness there could be no more certain mark of a
pseudo-Messiah than for one to resolve of himself to become
WEISS. — I. u

306 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
the Messiah. For as certainly as the sending of the Messiah
is a divine act, by which God reveals the profoundest depths
of His character and decrees, it is equally certain that only
He can choose who is to be the Messiah. The chosen one
must assuredly obey the call; but this will first be when
God directs Him as to the method of accomplishing His
vocation. For it is involved in the nature of the Messianic
calling, that the ways and means by which He is to execute
it cannot be planned and devised by man, but can only be
administered and directed by God.1 Therefore it was that
Jesus had to wait till God's call reached Him, telling Him
that His hour was come, and the day of His people's salvation
was about to dawn. And God's call came.
1 It was not alone the impulse of self-dedication which He required to follow
in order to act in a Messianic manner. This was Schleiermacher's idea, and it
led him to deal with * period of Jesus' ministry before the baptism by John,
of which our Gospels are absolutely ignorant.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE PROPHET AT THE JORDAN.
IN the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius,
the entire nation of Israel was agitated by a powerful
spiritual movement such as it had not experienced since the
great days of the Maccabees. A mighty prophet had arisen
as in the days gone by. It was in the southern portion of
the Jordan plain, where the river hastens to the Dead Sea,
and the banks, elsewhere green and luxurious, assume a
desert-like appearance, that he appeared in the garb of the
old prophets, and summoned the people, who came to him in
crowds from far and near. For he preached of the approach
of that great and terrible day of Jehovah which the prophets
had proclaimed (comp. Joel ii. 1 f.; Isa. xiii. 9 f.; Zeph. i 14 f.).
In view of this he called the nation to repentance, to complete
conversion, which they were to seal by immersion in the river
Jordan. And, after confessing their sins, they went down,
man by man, into the waters of Jordan, in order to emerge
new born, a people prepared for the Lord.
We are already acquainted with this prophet. He was
born among the mountains of Judea, and the word of prophecy
was pronounced over the new-born infant, that he was to
prepare the way for the advent of the Messiah. In order
to devote himself to his important but difficult calling, and to ,
prepare for it, 'he passed his youthful years in the desert as a
hermit, like Banus of whom Josephus tells us (Vit. ii.). Now
God's call had reached him, and he had entered upon his office
of prophet (Luke iii. 2 f.). The region where he appeared
must have been called, in the oldest source, the plain of the
Jordan,1 and he lived in tradition as the preacher in the
1 This appears from the two Gospels, which are entirely independent of each
other, mentioning in their narrative of the Baptist the technical designation of the
Jordan plain, although in different connections (Matt. iii. 5 ; Luke iii. 3). The
307

308 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
wilderness ; that this designation was not partially borrowed
from prophecy (Isa. xl. 3), is evident from Jesus asking the
people who had made a pilgrimage to him : " What went ye
out into the wilderness to see ? " (Matt. xi. 7). Jesus refers
to John's rough clothing in the same address when He asks
whether they had sought there a man clad in soft raiment
(xi. 8), and when He reminds them of the prophet's ascetic
mode of life, neither eating nor drinking (xi. 18), i.e. rejecting
with disdain the usual nourishment of man, and contenting
himself with what the desert offered. Mark describes, more
particularly, how he lived on locusts, which were eaten by the
poorer classes in the East, and wild honey, — i.e. probably such
as flows from palm, fig, and other trees, — and how he was
clothed with camel's hair, i.e. he wore a rough garment made
from camel's hair, with a leathern girdle about his loins (i. 6).
The hairy garment seems to have been the prophet's garb
(comp. Zech. xiii. 4) ; but it is not improbable that John
intentionally copied his great model (comp. Luke i 1 7), the
mighty preacher of repentance in the northern kingdom, the
prophet Elijah (comp. 2 Kings i 8). In the East such
externals are supposed to lend a higher significance to the
appearance, and therefore John appeared as a strict ascetic
both in food and dress. It has been supposed that he wished
to express thereby his sorrow over the destruction of the
people. But this ascetic manner of life was only the con
tinuation of his youthful life in the wilderness. It was very
natural that he whose life's task it was to preach repentance
to the people, and to require of them the renunciation of
present desires and passions, and a self-denying beginning of
1 a new life, should wish to show in his own life how no
i renunciation or self-denial affrighted him. His asceticism is
without any peculiar trait that might be referred to Essene
influence; as his dress was conditioned by the prophetic
. model, so was his food by the circumstances in which he was
in the desert. But above all, there is not the slightest trace
first evangelist names especially the wilderness of Judea in chap. iii. 1, but
that did not extend as far as the Jordan. There must either be a confusion
with the desert where John passed his youth, or an approximate but incorrect
definition of the expression in Mark (i. 4), which signifies the steppe -like
character of the country at the southern end of the Jordan, that is designated as
wilderness by Josephus also (Bell. Jud. iii. 10. 7).

THE BAPTIST'S CALL TO REPENTANCE. 309
in our sources of his having demanded the like asceticism
from his more intimate circle of disciples, or from the people,
which alone could have indicated Essene conceptions.
It follows from this that John did not desire, as has been
supposed, to enforce a change of disposition through severe
exercises of penance and austere renunciations. And it was I
•altogether a mistake to seek to exalt Jesus by regarding thei
repentance preached by John as only an outward one, not \
demanding the sacrifice of the whole man. Not only was it
actually the same complete change of disposition required after
wards by Jesus which he demanded, and not a mere improve
ment of the course of life ; but Jesus Himself expressly
recognised his demand of repentance as the condition of true
conversion (Matt. xxi. 32). From the source peculiar to
Luke have been transmitted to us some of the Baptist's
sayings, which show us how he directed the several classes of
the community to the method of effectuating this repent
ance (Luke iii. 10-14) ; and they contain no trace of
any external exercises which he desired to impose upon the
people. He demanded that the publicans should lay aside
their dishonest greed of gain, and the soldiers their great
avarice ; from all he demanded the exercise of charity, and the
sharing of food and raiment with the needy. But it was not his
preaching of repentance, and his demand for absolute change
of disposition and life, that was most extraordinary in his
appearance ; it was his manner of demanding it, the motive by
which he thought to influence the people. Of this we are
informed by the sayings of the Baptist preserved by the
oldest source, which manifestly present a picture of the
powerful words of thunder by which the prophet roused the
nation out of its security and life of sin.1
1 These sayings (Matt. iii. 7-12 ; comp. Luke iii. 7-9, 16 f.) were communi
cated there without any more particular statement as to their occasion, which
may be gathered from their contents, for each of the two evangelists amplifies it
in a different way, and neither of them succeeds completely. For, judging from
their purport, these utterances can neither have been directed to the crowds of
penitents coming for baptism (Luke iii. 7), nor to the Pharisees and Saddncees
(Matt. iii. 7) to whose peculiar character nothing in them refers. The words in
which the first evangelist condenses the sum of the Baptist's preaching (Matt.
iii. 2) are as visibly a literary (reflective) imitation of Mark i. 15, as it is
improbable, on the other hand, that Je'sus adopted intentionally this saying of
the Baptist's. How far it can be said, with Matt. iii. 2, that John explained the

310 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
The words indeed proceed upon the supposition that on the
day of Jehovah the expected " wrath to come " will be nigh.
Already the axe is laid to the root of the trees, and the
hewing is to begin (Matt. iii. 10). As the husbandman who
has threshed the produce of his harvest on his floor takes the
fan in hand and commences the winnowing which is to
separate the chaff from the wheat (iii. 12), so does God's
judgment approach without impediment in order to perform
the great separation which will decide the fate of each
individual among the people. In Old Testament prophecy
also, the Messianic advent dawns with this judgment day of
Jehovah's. This coming wrath of God will certainly con
cern the Gentiles most of all, because they have trampled
His people under foot ; but it is a thought by no means
unusual in the prophets, that among the people of Israel a
sifting will take place at the same time, separating the honest
from the unworthy members of God's people, and, by giving
them over to destruction, will exclude them from the salvation
of the Messianic advent (comp. Luke ii. 34 f., and in addition
p. 259). It is this that John lays hold of exclusively in
order to warn the people to repentance. But then, John
evidently thinks of the course of development precisely as it
was conceived in the prophecies at the birth of Jesus, namely,
that the Messiah would begin by seizing the reins of secular
government, and would immediately hand over to richly-
merited punishment all who had omitted to prepare them
selves worthily for the opening of that age of salvation which
He was to bring.1 For the present generation was far from
being ripe for the perfecting of the theocracy which the
Messiah was to bring about, and it was therefore not worthy
motives of his preaching of repentance by the nearness of the kingdom of God,
is made plain by the succeeding delineation.
1 It has indeed been asserted that he conceived of this judgment as being
directly conducted by Jehovah, and the relation in which his proclamation
(Matt. iii. 12 ; Luke iii. 17) is put with the appearance of the Messiah may have
been conditioned even in the oldest source by the manner in which, as here, all
the traditional sayings of the Baptist were placed together. But in addition to
the fact that it was inconceivable that He who was to come after him, and whom
the Baptist regards as only relatively superior to himself in worth, was Jehovah
Himself, it is perfectly undoubted that John conceived of the Messianic future
as brought about by a human person. And this would be He who was to
execute Jehovah's judgment.

THE PREACHING OF THE BAPTIST. 311
of the salvation that was thus to come to the people. The
prophet calls them a generation of vipers, i.e. a race tainted
through and through by the poison of sin. It is because of
this he demands an entire repentance if they would escape
the wrath to come; and, as was fitting, it was to be a
change the fruit of which was visible in the whole walk and
conversation (iii. 7 f.). He knows, indeed, that even his i
proclamation of the impending judgment will not alarm this |
generation too greatly. They will say that this day of
Jehovah brings, according to prophecy, judgment upon the j
Gentile people. But we have Abraham for our father, the ',
judgment does not affect us ; for we are the chosen nation
with whom, when the horror of the judgment has passed and
left us unscathed, the Messiah will erect the Messianic
kingdom with all its blessings. Against such foolish self-
deception the projihet raises his warning voice. The judgment
falls first of all upon the nation itself; every unfruitful tree
will be hewn down and cast into the fire, the chaff will be
divided from the wheat. And if the entire race continues
as it is, and the whole nation is annihilated at the judgment,
God's miraculous hand is still mighty enough to create a new
Israel, that His promises may be performed to it ; and that,
even if He have to create the new generation from the rough
stones scattered on the banks of the Jordan (iii. 9). The
prophet assuredly did not mean the Gentiles, to whom now-a-
days these words are so often applied.
Every word of this address bears the stamp of genuineness,
just because the immediate future presented so little which
corresponded to the views expressed in it. It proves irre
futably that John considered his task was to prepare for the
Messianic future, and to make ready the way for the coming
Messiah.1 Even Strauss assumes that he did not conceive of
1 This is contested even in the case of Weisse, "Philosophical View of History."
It regards this as an ingenious thought of Jesus to see in Himself the bearer of
the promised salvation in the future, and in the preacher of repentance by the
Jordan, His own forerunner. The divine arrangement for preparing for His
work, which to the evangelical tradition was a glorifying of Jesus, is regarded
as an injury to Him and His divine dignity (comp. p. 239). Weisse will there
fore only admit that John, like every other preacher of ethics, had pointed to
a better future while he denounced the corruption of his age. But, to begin
with, there was no mention of a better future, but of God's "wrath to come,"

312 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
this Messianic future as being imminent. But then it must
also be admitted that John was a prophet in the proper
sense, and was granted direct divine revelations. Otherwise
how could he have proclaimed the Messianic judgment to be
immediately impending ? As little as a son of Israel could
resolve to become the Messiah (p. 305), could John, by
himself, come to the determination to remain no longer idle,
but through his activity to bring about the fulfilment of the
Messianic promise, which was Ewald's view. But if it is
supposed, with Strauss, that he had read in the signs of the
times and in the comfortless position of the people the
approach of the expected Judge and Deliverer, still even
according to human calculation times had been worse, and
the hoped-for assistance had not come. We must also regard
as historical the revelation to the parents of the high calling
of their son, and his own preparation for this during his
residence in the wilderness ; but even John could not appear
till God's command reached him, till the counsel of God was
revealed to him that the hour of the promised deliverance
had struck; along with this revelation given was his call
to the prophetical office. As Luke represented, it must have
been in the wilderness that God's command to appear as
His prophet reached John (iii. 2 f.). The entire nation
regarded him as a prophet (Matt. xi. 9 ; Mark xi. 32),
although, as we learn, he performed no miracles (John x. 41).
Jesus expressly recognised him as such (Matt, xi 9), and
he himself was perfectly conscious of his divine mission
(John i 33). But with him, as with the prophets of
the Old Testament, this does not preclude the possibility
of his having conceived of this future, whose immediate
approach had been revealed to him, under the only form
retained by the expectation of his age, founded as it was on
Old Testament prophecy. The form was that of a national
kingdom, of an earthly empire that the Messiah was to found,
but whose inauguration was to be preceded by a great
awaited on the ground of prophecy ; and as certainly as Jesus did not Himself
plan His calling, but acknowledged it as one meant by God for Him, and pre
pared for throughout Israel's history, equally little can it be contested that
John was himself conscious of being the forerunner of the Messiah, and the
pioneer of the Messianic age.

THE BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE. 313
judgment. This alone gives the key to the enigma of his
after history.
The requirement which John laid on the people, to seal
their repentance by immersion in the Jordan, must really be
referred to the divine command given to him as a prophet.
In tradition he bears the name Baptist, from this rite which
he introduced. The conjoining of this with a confession of
sin, and its designation as a baptism of repentance (Mark i
4 f.), sets forth that this is to accompany the required and
promised repentance, as an emblematical action which in the
manner of the East gives an outward representation of inward
occurrences, and will be to the individual a constant recol
lection and reminder of the undertaken obligation.1 Holy
ablutions were quite customary among the Jews, and with the
Essenes more particularly were characteristic of their mode
of life. But these ablutions aimed at a ceremonial purity in
the Levitical sense, and had nothing in common with this
figurative act, which portrayed through immersion the com
plete disappearance of the old nature, and by the emerging
again the beginning of a totally new life. Every attempt
to explain this rite from Essene influences, or to attribute
to it any effect relative to Levitical purity, is wrecked on
the fact of the action being performed only once ; it is to be
a fact decisive for life, and thus can have only a symbolical
significance. But if this is required to take place at one
definite moment, there is involved its necessary reference
to an immediately imminent future for which the course
indicated in it was of decisive importance.2 The prophecies
1 When this is referred to in Mark as leading to the forgiveness of sins, it
shows that tradition had already transferred to John's baptism the specific
character of the Christian baptism. The Baptist's recorded sayings offer no
support for the idea "of the forgiveness of sins following immediately on the
conversion effected through the prophetical office of the forerunner, or that the
people were thereby prepared for the Messianic age (comp. p. 243). The
addition peculiar to the first evangelist, that John baptized "unto repentance,"
may be misunderstood. Baptism presupposes and seals the change of heart,
it can only bind and lead to a confirmation of the change of heart in life and
conversation. 2 This rite could not be an initiation into the Messiah's kingdom ; for the
kingdom was to come with the Messiah, and*- He alone could decide who were
worthy of it by reason of their fulfilment of the obligation undertaken at John's
baptism. Besides, to account for the rite by proselyte baptism, which in the
full sense was not customary till a much later date, presupposes an utterly

314 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
are certainly suggested to us which present the prospect of a
general lustration of the people in the Messianic era (Ezek.
xxxvi. 25 ; Zech. xiii. 1) ; but the prophet's manner of using
this so as to make the magnitude of the required resolve
perceptible to the people, and to give it a lasting token of
the accepted obligation, was entirely his own act, and as such
was derived from his prophetical consciousness, and perfected
in the certainty of accomplishing the divine will. In this
sense John's baptism was from heaven, and not of human
disposition (comp. Mark xi. 30).
It is a mistake to conceive of John as desiring to establish
a union of those who had undergone baptism, or to combine
those baptized by him into a separate community among the
people. At the very most, this would be analogous to the
Essene confederation. But opposed to this is the entirely
national character of the movement to which he gave rise, as
well as the fact that our sources do not refer to it. They
speak indeed of John's disciples (Mark ii. 18), and this has
been looked upon as a proof of the Baptist's having founded
a school that was far from being inclined to retire before his
greater successor, and that consequently he did not regard
himself as Jesus' forerunner. But these disciples of John <
were by no means those baptized by him, but his assistants '
in the ministry of baptism. When the crowds gathered,
every one confessing his sins and desiring to be immersed in
the Jordan (Mark i. 5), John would doubtless require the help
of colleagues. It Was On this account that he gathered about
him, not certainly a small circle of disciples, but those who
would be more close participators in his religious life. He
taught them particular prayers (Luke xi. 1 ; comp. v. 33),
and directed them to fast frequently, as was done by the
pious throughout the country (Mark ii. 18). Even in prison
his connection with them continued (Matt. xi. 2), and at a
later date they were pointed to as patterns of Israelitish piety
(Mark ii. 18).
Since the Baptist appeared in the south of the country, it
is easily understood how the movement first affected Judea
unhistorical view of it, for in the latter case the question concerns fellow-
countrymen only and all fellow-countrymen comprehensively, and in the former
it concerns the reception of unclean Gentiles.

RESULTS OF THE BAPTIST'S MINISTRY. 315
and its capital (Mark i. 5). But it undoubtedly extended
to Galilee, where Jesus addressed the multitudes as those
who had gone out to the Baptist (Matt. xi. 7). Indeed, in
the Fourth Gospel we find a set of Galileans in the circle
round the Baptist, yea, among his disciples. Even' the
hierarchy must have regarded the movement for a time with
satisfaction (comp. John v. 35) ; but of the scribes and
Pharisees we hear distinctly that they were not baptized by
him (Luke vii. 30 ; comp. Matt. xxi. 32).1 It is quite
intelligible how these patterns of piety regarded themselves
as absolved from a rite by compliance with which they would
have disavowed their whole past history; and it was a
matter of course that those in high station, who formed 'the
party of the Sadducees, had just as little inclination to com
promise themselves by a public confession of sin (comp. John
iii. 1 1). It is indicated by Jesus Himself (Luke vii. 2 9 ;
comp. Matt. xxi. 31 f.) that it was the sunken classes
especially who manifested readiness for repentance, and we
learn from Luke (iii. 12, 14) how publicans and hirelings
were those who particularly inquired after the way of salva
tion. This does not preclude the possibility of many among
the people being profoundly agitated by the prophet's words,
and of their making a good beginning with the renewal of
mind and behaviour ; but even Jesus observed that the
effect was not lasting (comp. Matt. xii. 43-45). We learn,
on the other hand, how the overdone severity of the Baptist
gave offence ; and although the malicious report which
referred his severe asceticism to demoniacal influence (Matt.
xi. 18) assuredly did not originate among the people, but was
repeated only by his Pharisaical opponents, yet this pretext
was readily seized upon to withdraw with a semblance of justi
fication from the too severe requirements of such a fanatic.
The people as a whole retained the conviction that he was a
great prophet (Mark xi. 32), and, regarding one point at least,
there was an inclination to believe this only too easily. His
threat of the approaching Messianic judgment might be dis
regarded, ' but still it had in the background the promise of
1 The notice in Matt. iii. 7, according to which many Pharisees and Sadducees
came to his. baptism, is only inferred from the following speech, regarding which
we have seen that its accuracy cannot be assumed.

316 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
the Messianic advent so long expected, and now doubly
desired in the misery of the present. We possess the distinct
witness of Jesus, that from the days of John the Baptist a
powerful movement had mastered the people, which not only
awaited with certainty the Messianic accomplishment, but
endeavoured with fierce enthusiasm to force it on (Matt. xi.
.; 1 2). The long slumbering hope was aroused, and with
'.mighty billows the Messianic movement surged through the
; entire people.
To that quiet house in Nazareth where Jesus awaited
His Father's signal, penetrated the tidings of the great pro
phet by the Jordan, and of .the nearing of the Messianic
future, which was proclaimed by him. Could He doubt that
this was the long-expected call from God ? He certainly did
not hesitate to obey the command of God which, through the
prophet, was issued to the entire nation, and He would not be
among the last of those who started on a pilgrimage to the
south to respond to the Baptist's calL It is- therefore
absolutely inconceivable that the Baptist's ministry should
have existed for long, perhaps for years before Jesus came to
the Jordan ; the whole style, too, of his activity was not that
of a long-enduring, but gradual influence; rather was it a
momentary, stunning impression, which seized the people like
a hurricane. But from Luke's alluding to the fifteenth year
of the reign of Tiberius, and expressly indicating it by
synchronistic dates (iii. 1), it is evident that he, writing not
the history of the Baptist but that of Jesus, only made this
year, in which the Baptist appeared, so significantly prominent
because it was also the year when Jesus came publicly
forward, perhaps, as we shall see, the year of His ministry
in general. The reason why he enumerates in detail all the
contemporaneous rulers in Palestine and the adjacent countries,
is that he may sketch at the same time a picture of the age
and the district where was enacted the history of the Baptist
and his yet greater successor. But as the Emperor Augustus
died on the 19th August 767 A.u.c, the fifteenth year of the
reign of his successor, who was his stepson Tiberius, would
run from 19th August 781 into 782.1
1 At that date the two sons of Herod ruled in the north, who had entered
upon the government on the death of their father in 750. Their sway lasted

DATE OF JESUS' PUBLIC APPEARANCE. 317
We learn from Luke that Jesus was about thirty years of
age when, soon after His baptism, He began His public
ministry (iii. 23). But as He must have been born one year,
if not more, before 750 (comp. p. 272), He was thirty-two
or thirty- three years of age in 781. Luke's statement would
then require to be regarded as only approximate ; but even if
it did not rest upon a popular custom which could not be
applicable to this case, or upon the canonical age of the priests
and Levites, which as a matter of course had nothing to do
with the Messiah's entrance on office, yet the evangelist might
content himself by naming the decade at the commencement
of which Jesus appeared. But the current calculation of the
fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign is by no means beyond
question. For already, at the commencement of 765 or the
end of 764, Tiberius as co-regent had conferred on him, by
decree of the senate, the full power of his father in all the
provinces and over all the armies ; in the East his reign may
well have been calculated from that time.1 This would bring
us rather to the year 780, when Jesus would be somewhat
beyond the epoch that we must now discuss, since Philip died in 786-787, and
Herod Antipas was not deposed until 792. The south was governed by the fifth
of the Roman procurators, who entered upon office in the year 779, or at the
earliest towards the close of 778, and continued there for ten years. Luke
mentions besides a certain Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene, a territory situated
on Antilebanon with a capital named Abila. A certain criticism finds a useless
pleasure in assuming that this is a crass chronological mistake on Luke's part,
this being a Lysanias who was murdered by Antony about 718 or 720 at the
instigation of Cleopatra. But this Lysanias is nowhere named tetrarch, nor is
Abilene referred to as his possession ; his dominion probably extended over the
district of Chalcis, which Josephus expressly distinguishes from the tetrarchate
of one Lysanias, to which Abila is reckoned, and which was afterwards given to
Agrippa by Caligula and Claudius. It is evident from this, what is assumed by
all thoughtful historical inquirers, that at the time of Christ this region was
governed by a younger Lysanias as tetrarch, who was probably descended from
the family of the elder one.
1 It , is useless to appeal to the fact that neither the Roman historians nor
Josephus reckon thus. It could certainly not be done from the Roman stand
point, for in the capital Tiberius experienced no augmentation in outward autho
rity from that decision of the senate in the provinces ; even an historian, if he
would not produce confusion, when computing according to the imperial years,
would only take into consideration the commencement of Tiberius' own reign.
But when Luke, from the standpoint of a Palestinian, mentions the year of the
reign of him who wields the greatest power there, he migh,t well reckon from
the year in which, along with the co-regentship, Tiberius was invested with
supreme power in the provinces.

318 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
over thirty-one years of age, which answers just as well to
the synchronism of Luke. Our present era, which originated
from a calculation by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century,
starts from the year 781-782, but supposes mistakenly that
the Baptist had been at work for several years when Jesus,
then precisely thirty years of age, presented Himself for
baptism: this makes the date of His birth 754, which is
therefore fixed four or five years too late. For us the question
can only be as to whether the Baptist appeared towards the
close of the year 780 (27 a.d.), or in 781 (28 A.D.), for it is
evident that he could not summon the people into the wilder
ness by the Jordan during the scorching heat of the summer
months. But, according to John, at the first Passover which
Jesus attended, some months after His baptism, it is stated by
the hierarchy that the temple had been forty-six years in
building (ii. 20), and this agrees far better with the first date.
For the magnificent extension and restoration of Zerubbabel's
temple began in the eighteenth year of the reign of Herod
the Great, at the close of 734 or the commencement of 735,
so that in the month Nisan of the year 781, forty-six complete
years had actually elapsed, according to the computation from
the co-regency of Tiberius, to the first Passover in Jesus'
public ministry. A difficulty is presented by the usual
calculation, and by the statement as to Jesus' age, which is
not indeed insoluble, but is avoided by every other method of
computation. We would therefore prefer to think of Jesus journeying
towards the Jordan in the early days of the year 28 a.d., in
order there to obey the command of God, which had been
made known to the entire nation, and therefore to Him also.

CHAPTER IX.
THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT.
WHEN John came forth with his call to repentance, he knew
not who was that Chosen of Jehovah for whom he was
to prepare the way. Not because he was already acquainted
with the Messiah did he appear with his baptism of water ;
it was rather that, after he had created the first conditions
of this, the Messiah would at last be revealed to Israel
(John i. 31).1 The hopes that had once been aroused in
Mary with regard to her son were certainly not unknown to
him; but as, notwithstanding the promises at his birth, he
could not come forth as a prophet until in the wilderness he
received the call of God through divine revelation, neither
might he acknowledge any one as the Messiah till indicated
to him by a new divine revelation: Some such revelation
he might expect in the course of his baptismal ministry ; for
the express promise had been given him, that He who was to
baptize all Israel with the Holy Spirit (comp. Matt. iii. 11)
would be recognisable by His receiving from above the
baptism of the Spirit simultaneously with His submission
to John's baptism of water (John i 33).
It was narrated in the very oldest apostolic source, that
when Jesus presented Himself for baptism, John would at
first have dissuaded Him, saying, " I have need to be baptized
of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" (Matt. iii. 13 f.). This
cannot possibly involve a contradiction of John's declaration
just alluded to (John i 31, 3 3), as has been affirmed ; for it
1 There is no reference here to a personal acquaintance with Jesus. Such an
acquaintance would by no means necessarily follow from Mary's relationship
with the family of the priest in the hill country (Luke i. 36) ; for we neither
know whether there was constant intercourse between the families in spite of
the considerable separation of the respective places of abode, nor how soon it
was that John retired into the wilderness,"and was thereby removed from all such
personal relations. The possibility of it is, however, not gainsaid.
319

320 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
by no means follows from that refusal of the Baptist's that he
recognised the Messiah in the familiar son of Mary, on
account of the promises made concerning Him. As Messiah
He had nothing to do with the baptism of water (comp. Matt.
iii. 1 1), which John therefore could not require of Him ; and
the baptism of the Spirit, which appertained particularly to
the Messiah's vocation, was not required by Him who, as
prophet, was already endowed with the Holy Ghost. The
words mean only that John, who, in spite of his high calling,
was yet conscious of being a sinful man, recognised in the
man standing before him that unique spotless One who needed
no baptism of repentance. As the divinely-commissioned
Baptist had not been able to seal in baptism the change
of heart demanded of himself also, it was fitting that in
presence of this sinless One he should confess, and obtain
baptism at His hands (comp. Mark i. 5). John could not
have had this knowledge of Jesus' purity, even if he had been
personally acquainted with Mary's son from childhood; he
whose daily duty it was to disclose to men their corruption,
could only acquire this knowledge when, assisted by his
prophetical endowment, he read the heart of this man also,
and recognised that there no consciousness of guilt interrupted
the communion between Him and His God. It may be left
undecided whether this happened at their first meeting, or not
until after they had had an interview; for the narrative,
which is naturally inserted along with the question asked at
baptism, does not preclude this. It was quite natural that
this knowledge should rouse the hope in him that his antici
pated great successor would be no other than that spotless
One (Matt. iii. 1 1) ; but this hope could only yield the
necessary psychological point of contact for every divine
revelation ; it did not render the sign promised to him indis
pensable. It was, on the contrary, not a little strengthened
when Jesus, in His answer, fully recognised the feeling
which had prompted the Baptist's refusal. He demanded
baptism in spite of the contradiction to His proper position
as regarded the Baptist that was apparently involved, since it
was fitting both should submit themselves blindly to the will
of God (Matt. iii. 15). This indicates that Jesus presented
Himself for baptism with entire consciousness of His Messiah-

JESUS AND THE BAPTIST. 321
ship ; for the injunction to permit, for the present, an act such
as the being baptized by John, which appeared to express a
subordination to him, necessarily involved a glance into that
future when His actual superiority to John would be made
manifest. For the present, however, all righteousness must
be fulfilled, i.e. what corresponded to the will of God must be
done, even when, humanly speaking, there was difficulty in
comprehending it. For what the prophet proclaimed as God's
will required at the present juncture the baptism by John of
all Israel. Jesus was obliged to submit to him, since He too
was a son of Israel, and John in turn had to yield to Jesus,
although it was not without reason he had thought himself
justified in declining in this exceptional case.1
In opposition to the criticism of a Bruno Bauer, which
denied this fact, Strauss could suggest nothing more natural
than that Jesus permitted Himself to be baptized by John,
although this necessitated the giving up of the presupposition
of Jesus' sinlessness, which was fatal to every historical view,
for even the best and purest of men has to accuse himself of
many failures and omissions. We do not need to consider
the question whether the simple dogmatic presupposition can
be proved, that an actually sinless man there could not be,
and therefore never was. The fact of Jesus not refuting,
John's assumptions when he hesitated about administering \
baptism on account of Jesus' sinlessness, shows in any case*
that He was perfectly conscious of the difficulty as to howl
and in what sense He could submit to the baptism of John.
An attempt has been made to explain this by conceiving of
1 Although this colloquy is visibly coloured by -the oldest source, some are
disposed to regard it as an addition made by the first evangelist for the purpose
of removing what was an offence to a later consciousness — Jesus' baptism of
repentance. At the same time it is granted that, properly speaking, this is no
solution of the difficulty, that this explanation really explains nothing, — an
admission which is completely confirmed by the later heretical remodellings of
the first Gospel having presented the matter in the most diverse ways. In fact,
Jesus' recognition of a certain justification in the Baptist's declinature increases
the difficulty rather than removes it ; and the appeal to the duty of fulfilling
the divine will does not solve the question how Jesus could recognise as being
the will of God what seemed in opposition to His own consciousness. All that
follows from this is that this colloquy cannot have been invented in order to
remove that difficulty, and that the question is still unsolved how He who was
free from sin became conscious that He too must undergo John's baptism.
WEISS.  1. X

322 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
Jesus as in some way partaker in the collective guilt of the
nation, by referring to His solidariU with the impure people,
or even by reason of His assuming the sins of His people.
But when these confused ideas are analysed somewhat more
minutely, the dilemma still presents itself: either Jesus had
something to confess and cast aside in consequence of this
connection, and then He would not be sinless ; or He was
only a passive participator in the sin and guilt of His people,
so that for Him there was no baptism of repentance, in which
He must have indeed abrogated His lofty function, which was
just what from love to His people He had undertaken. To
hold the sinlessness of Jesus in the fullest sense, it is not
necessary to assume, with Schleiermacher, that Jesus only
intended to recognise the attitude and the work of John by
submitting to his baptism, for He could not have expressed
\ this approval by an act that would have involved a contradic-
I tion or an essential falsehood. It is useless to say, like Weisse,
vthat Jesus found in baptism a means of religious elevation
and strengthening; or, like Keim, that He then dedicated
Himself personally to the service of righteousness; for the
symbolism of the deed is thereby ignored equally with its
historical significance. Both views, however, tell against
the conception of baptism as an act of consecration just
as necessary for the founder as for the members of the
Messiah's kingdom, since this point of view of a consecrating
to the Messianic kingdom, promulgated by Neander, Hase,
and others, was utterly strange to the Johannine baptism
(comp. remarks, p. 314). The difficulty of the question arises
especially from the symbolical character of the rite not being
strictly kept in view, and by the conscious or unconscious
intermingling of the idea of its purificatory character; but
the non-repetition of this act precludes the latter view as
decidedly as it agrees with the first. The symbolism mani
festly referred to the complete conclusion of the life up to that
point, and to the commencement of a new life of a totally
different nature. To the sinful people it formed the conclusion
of their life of sin, and the beginning of a new one that was
"free from sin, besides being the seal of their perfect repentance.
It could not be all this to Him who was without spot ; but
'for Him, too, it marked the close of His former life, and the

SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM FOR JESUS. 323
commencement of one perfectly new. Certainly this former
life, which, as it were, was buried beneath the waves of Jordan,
was not tainted with sin, but it had been confined to the
usual conditions of human existence, to the human avocation
which had hitherto been His, and to His personal equipment.
The new life to which He emerged did not differ from the
earlier one by reason of its sinlessness, but only by its being
dedicated from that time forward to His great divine calling. It
was in this sense that Jesus saw in the command of God sum
moning Him to baptism the long-expected token from His Father
that the time was come to enter upon His Messianic career.1
But most surely this was not the only significance of His
baptism. With the baptism of water was conjoined the
baptism of the Spirit, which in the Messianic age was to
come upon all, that they might be fitted for service in the
perfected kingdom of God, and which must come on Him
especially who was to be the founder of this kingdom, and
who needed therefore to be extraordinarily endowed. This
was, indeed, the sign promised to the Baptist (John i 33),
and to whose fulfilment he testified when he said : " I saw the
Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon
Him " 3 (i. 32). Since what is treated of here is the beholding
of a purely spiritual occurrence, — Jesus' endowment with the
Divine Spirit, — it is self-evident that this beholding cannot
have been by means of the natural senses, but only a glimpse
1 Only when it is disputed that Jesus presented Himself for baptism with the
consciousness of being the Messiah, or that it was in baptism He first attained
consciousness of His Messiahship, can it be denied that this was the simplest
way in which the Johannine baptism, in accordance with its peculiar symbolism,
received and retained a significance for Him.
2 In harmony with his view of the Fourth Gospel is the assertion of Baur, that,
through its higher conception of the person of Christ, this Gospel found that the
Johannine baptism was no longer applicable to Him, and therefore eliminated
it. But the words of the Baptist assume expressly that the token promised by
Him who had sent John to baptize was awaited during the course of his mini
stry, i.e. in the case of one of those baptized by him (comp. p. 319). And, in
any case, by merely being silent regarding the act of baptism the evangelist
cannot have supposed that he had removed or confuted a fact everywhere
received by the community on the ground of the older Gospels. It was involved
in the manner and the aim of his whole composition that he related nothing
concerning the Baptist's popular activity which included the baptism of Jesus,
but he commenced with John's witness to the Messiahship of Jesus, in which
he only occasionally calls to mind how this was made known to him, though
only mentioning by the way how he arrived at this.

324 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
in a vision, i.e. something divinely produced that took place
within, in which, though certainly in the form of a sensible
phenomenon, the beholder was made cognizant of a purely
spiritual fact. Visions such as this were seen by the pro
phets of the Old Covenant and, as in this case, by those of the
New. It is generally supposed that the Spirit was presented
to him in the form of a dove, as Luke undoubtedly understood
(iii. 22). But this would presuppose either that the prophet
was acquainted through the Old Testament with the symbolical
significance of the dove, which from this story of the baptism
has become familiar to us, or else he had been expressly
promised that he should see the Spirit descend in this shape.
For this symbolism, however, the Old Testament offers no
point of connection, and there is - no allusion to it in the
promise made to the Baptist (John i. 33). As is undoubtedly
indicated by the position of the words, the Baptist only
compared the descent of the Spirit with the hovering of a
dove in order to indicate that it did not come upon Him like
lightning or seize Him furiously, as happened to the prophets
of the Old Covenant, who were therefore vouchsafed only a
temporary inspiration ; it gently settled down upon Him in'
order that it might permanently tarry with Him. How easily
he might think of the dove that found a resting-place for her
feet (comp. Gen. viii. 9), as of the Spirit of Jehovah, who should
rest on the branch out of the root of Jesse ! (Isa. xi. 1 f.).
Indeed, the evangelist makes it intentionally prominent that
the Spirit remained upon Him. The Baptist does not say
under what sentient form the Spirit was represented to him,
but, according to the symbolical conceptions which obtain in
other parts of Scripture, we are led to think of a luminous
appearance (comp. Acts ii. 3).
Tradition can have received information of this vision only
from the mouth of the Baptist ; and as we find in the
oldest source a colloquy with Jesus before the baptism that
was likewise derived from his communications, it too was in
all probability narrated originally by the Baptist : " And, lo,
the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit descending
like a dove upon Jesus"1 (comp. Matt. iii. 16). As it was
1 The representation of the oldest source is no longer absolutely pure in our
first Gospel, for it is shown by the comparison of parallel texts that the first

THE baptist's VISION. 325
in visions that the prophets beheld appearances apparently
within the range of vision in consequence of the inward
excitement, but not in consequence of an external operation
of light, the eye indeed being shut to the outer world, they /
heard at the same time heavenly voices not sensibly audible
to the outward ear, but which the internal perception
regarded as heard. So, too, in regard to the Baptist's vision,
which is thus amplified by Matthew : " And, lo, a voice
from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased" (iii. 17). It is the voice of God Himself
indicating to the Baptist what the visible sign was to make
him conscious of, viz. that He on whom John saw the
Spirit descending was the Chosen of divine love, He who was
destined for the noblest, the Messianic calling. The fact that,
in the reproduction of this, the words which John thought he
heard accord with an old prophetic utterance regarding the
promised servant of Jehovah (comp. Isa. xiii. 1) only shows
how here, as everywhere, the divine revelation must take form
in the consciousness of the recipient according to the conditions
of his spiritual life. In this case the form was given by his I
acquaintance with Old Testament Scripture. Without express
reference to this voice from heaven, but with a manifest
remembrance of it, the Baptist says in the Fourth Gospel, that
he had seen the promised apparition, in consequence of which
he bare record that Jesus was the Son of God (John i. 34).
It is involved, however, in the nature of a miracle produced
by divine operation, that it does not altogether put before the
beholder an unreal picture answering to no objective actuality,
half of ver. 16 is introduced from Mark. By this means the recipient of the
vision is changed, although the vision itself still speaks of Jesus ; but the voice
from heaven in ver. 17 shows distinctly that in the original representation
mention was made of a vision not to Him, but to John. In it the consummation
of the baptism was in the words : Then he suffered Him, i.e. to be baptized
(iii. 15), so that there followed immediately the vision which on the same
occasion was granted to John. Just as in the utterances of the Baptist given in
the Fourth Gospel, so here also, according to the arrangement of the words, the
descent of the Spirit is compared to a dove. The opening of heaven, however,
is no extraordinary miracle alongside of which scarcely anything else could have
been considered ; for when the observer beholds anything descending from
heaven (comp. John i. 32), it lies in the nature of- the case that it must have
seemed to open, in-order that what is manifested might pass forth. Comp.
Ezek. i. 1 ; Isa. lxiv. 1, and particularly John i. 52, where no one thinks of an
"actual " opening of heaven.

326 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
but a real fact is visible in it, which because of its purely
spiritual nature can therefore not be verified by means of the
senses, and is in this way made perceptible to the eye of the
mind. In this case, moreover, if only a making known of
Jesus' higher spiritual nature was in question, then the token
received by the Baptist would not have expressed what was
thereby pointed out, but would rather have led to the very
opposite. For He on whom the Baptist saw the Spirit
descending could not then have been filled with the Spirit ;
and if from His very nature He was filled with it, there was
no necessity for the descent of the Spirit upon Him.1
It is supposed, indeed, that the view of the Fourth Gospel
regarding the incarnation in Jesus of the eternal divine word,
like that of the first concerning His miraculous conception, in
a like manner excludes the bestowal on Him of the Divine
Spirit. But thus it is overlooked that if the Logos was in
truth made flesh (John i. 14), as this is understood to mean,
He entered thereby the conditions of ordinary human
existence to which it appertained to be as susceptible of the
operation of the Divine Spirit as it was in want of it; and
even that unique divine miracle at His birth would only
serve to restore in the most complete degree its capacity for
receiving this. Even the most normal of human developments
is not one that can produce everything from itself, and dis
pense with such operations of divine grace, but it is always
open to them, and is by them irresistibly influenced. The
difficulty found here consists only in the Divine Spirit being
1 It was affirmed by the Tubingen criticism that the fourth evangelist, by
reason of his higher conception of Christ, found that an endowment of Jesus
with the Spirit was no longer conceivable, and on this account transferred the
entire incident to the subjective consciousness of the Baptist. We have seen,
however, that even the oldest source contains a narrative of the Baptist's
vision. The school of Schleiermacher, on the other hand, regarded the report
of the evangelist John as the original one, and believed that in the older Gospels
there might be perceived a re-echo more or less legendary. It was equally
unjustified in affirming that at the baptism of Jesus all that was in question was
a revelation made to the Baptist, which caused him to recognise Jesus as filled
with the Divine Spirit. Not less so was the idea that it was nothing but a
premonition of Jesus' Messianic calling that flashed upon the Baptist. For the
Fourth Gospel assumes in one of the utterances of the Baptist that Jesus actually
received the Spirit in baptism (John iii. 34), as much as in the source 'of the first
Gospel He appears immediately after the baptism as being led of the Spirit
(Matt. iv. 1).

COMMUNICATION OF THE SPIRIT. 327
regarded as active exclusively in the domain of the religio-
ethical life, while the Apostle Paul teaches us that the Spirit
of God communicated to believers is the principle of the new
religio-ethical life in all God's children. Here this cannot
be so, for we have already seen how Jesus' religio-ethical
existence developed itself normally from the beginning, and
had no need of special impulsions from the Spirit of God.
But everywhere in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, and particularly in the prophecies of the pouring
out of the Spirit during the Messianic age, with which, even
in the Fourth Gospel, the report of Jesus' baptism by the
Spirit is connected, the Spirit is rather the principle of the
gifts of grace by which God equips His servants for the
accomplishment of their calling. This is all, then, that can
be treated of here. It is not once said, as in the case of the
communication of the Spirit received by believers, that the
Spirit was poured into His heart, so becoming a new element
of being; but it descended upon Him in order, as John
expresses it in an emphatic repetition, to rest upon Him,
(i. 32, 33). From this time Jesus was to be under the!
constant operation of the Spirit, which enabled Him to say
and to do what was needful to His Messianic calling, and
what with ordinary human powers He could not have
attempted. Naturally enough, it was not related in the oral tradition,
that what the Baptist communicated was part of his experience
on the occasion of Jesus' baptism, but it was given as
what had then happened to Jesus. Nevertheless, the form
of the oldest narrative was so far secondary that even in it
mention was made of a vision. But, according to the natural
assumption that to Jesus not less than to the Baptist must
the event concerning Him have been made known, what
Jesus beheld is first related, and then the voice from heaven
is apprehended as being directed to Him. Thus arose the
report in Mark (i 10 f.), in which the Spirit Himself appears
to be thought of as in the form of a dove.1 Lastly, and
1 Those who regard our second Gospel as simply the oldest of the evangelical
memoranda, have a certain right in proceeding upon this report, and conceiving
of an inner experience of Jesus, on which those, too, who hold to its being
in substance a vision of the Baptist's, found with readiness. The truth of the

328 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
without reference simply to a vision, it is narrated that from
the opened heaven the Spirit descended upon Jesus in the
bodily shape of a dove, and a voice from heaven declared
Him to be the Messiah (Luke iii. 21 f.). With this secondary
form of the tradition is connected the oldest notion of a
"baptismal miracle," which so readily designates itself as
strictly devout, although it simply ignores the most authen
ticated form of the apostolic report ; following this was the
natural explanation of old rationalism, which here thought of
a sky suddenly clearing, of thunder and lightning, in which
the sultriness discharged itself ; and, finally, there was
Strauss' mythical explanation of the entire story of the
baptism. Strauss sought in vain for a point of connection
in the Jewish expectation, that the Messiah would remain
unknown to Himself and to others until anointed by Elias,
and made public by him (comp. Justin, dial. c. Tryph. c. 8).
There is not a single mention in our report of an anointing
and revealing through the instrumentality of John. Indeed,
before adopting the miraculous generation or the incarnation
of the Logos, Strauss was compelled to go back upon what
was the oldest form of an attempt to explain the unique
elevation of Jesus — the regarding Him as a man anointed by
the Spirit of God. This at once presented the difficulty that
three of our evangelists freely unite this oldest form with
that of the younger evangelist, which is said to contradict it.
But then everything depended upon marking this association
of the Spirit with Jesus as a permanent one, if in this way
report is undoubtedly this, that to Jesus as to the Baptist the fact of His equip
ment for His calling was made known by the Spirit. But if this latter account
be regarded as the original, and referred to Jesus Himself, then, with Weisse,
we can only see that the moment is here depicted when His Messianic conscious
ness awoke, and, as Weizsacker defines it still more definitely, by means of a
divinely-produced vision. But this view is not always in conformity with the
purport of the narrative, and introduces into the life of Jesus visionary situa
tions- which were found even by Keim not to correspond with the calm, clear
quality of His spiritual life (comp. p. 304). Indeed, they could only appear
there when the divine revelation was obliged to make its spiritual meaning
manifest to the still immature human receptivity by means of a sensible
appearance. We have seen, besides, that Jesus was sure of His Messianic
calling before He reached the Jordan, and that this is evidently confirmed by
His colloquy with the Baptist. When Schenkel constructs at pleasure an
internal incident in the life of Jesus, and abandons the form of the representa
tion as a legendary veil, he quits arbitrarily the firm ground of tradition.

MYTHICAL VIEW OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SPIRIT. 329
Jesus was to be elevated above the level of a mentally
endowed prophet, which is all that the Old Testament
parallels adduced by Strauss lead to. And yet this point is
prominent only in John, who, as the latest writer, is said to
have been puzzled by this combination, and to have relegated
it to the Baptist's consciousness (comp. remarks, p. 326). By
this method it can still less be explained why the anointing
of the Spirit was combined with the baptism of water, which
appeared so unsuitable to the unique elevation of Jesus. In
the oldest apostolic announcement, Jesus' anointing by the
Spirit is intended, but without this combination being neces
sary, if from the historical tradition it cannot be assumed as
known (Acts iv. 27, x. 38). All that now remained as a
point of connection was the analogy of the Christian baptism
which combines baptism by water and by the Spirit; but
even this would not elevate Jesus above the level of
believers, and the entire delineation nowhere characterizes
Him as the Messiah who is to mediate for all the baptism
by the Spirit. There is no support for the pretended em
bellishment of the scene. The appearance of a bodily dove
is surely no miracle; and to discover in this a symbol
of the Spirit manifesting Himself, is to assume that this
symbolism was suggested by the Old Testament, which is
far from being the case. Strauss endeavoured to explain the
divine voice through a quotation from one of the Psalms (Ps.
ii. 7), while it was really in the later heretical remodellings
of our evangelical report that this first appears employed in/
a palpable way. If we are justified in regarding as a fact
Jesus' anointing by the Spirit, which was made known to the
Baptist by a vision, then it agrees with this that every
where in His official operation we encounter a unique, assured ,
action, which we can only conceive of as being brought about \
iby the Spirit of God, under whose constant influence He re- >
i mained from His baptism. This is why, as the modern critics
i justly acknowledge, there is no mention of Jesus constructing
la scheme, of His hesitating and doubting, or of a search for
ways and means for the accomplishment of His work. It is
indeed the prerogative of the great ones of the earth to act
more from an inward impulse and instinct, and to attain
their purpose without toilsome reflection. But in the varied

330 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
circumstances of life, when it is often difficult to find the
right, the pious are especially admonished to seek first the
will of God in order that that may be fulfilled. Jesus never
indicates it as His life's task to discern God's will, but only
that He is to do it (John vi. 38); and, nevertheless, He can
do nothing of HimseK (John v. 19, 30). At every moment
He is perfectly conscious of the divine will, of the greater
necessity that guided Him on every step of the way (Luke
xiii. 33) ; this certitude is given by the Spirit which equipped
Him for the fulfilment of His vocation. It is the Spirit
which after the baptism drives Him into the wilderness
(Mark i 12), and it is He who everywhere directs His course
and determines His resolves. This is why we so often see
•Him acting from impulses which cannot be tested by any
psychological analysis, and this not only in John (vii. 8, 10,
xi. 6), but also in the older Gospels (Mark x. 32, xi 1). He
cannot act when His hour is not come (John ii. 4) ; but He
knows when it has come. This life of direct consciousness of
the divine decrees, and of the methods designed by God for its
accomplishment, is the clearest sign that the Spirit which
descended upon Jesus in baptism remained in constant opera
tion within Him.
It was this Spirit which bestowed upon Him the superior
knowledge and supernatural power of operation necessary* for
the execution of His calling. The ordinary view certainly
refers both to His higher divine nature, and so, of course, the
first to His divine omniscience. But although it is dogmati
cally essayed to combine His true humanity with His eternal,
heavenly, aud therefore divine existence, to the acknow
ledgment of which His own religious consciousness as well as
His calling led Him (comp. p. 304), yet our Gospels are only
acquainted with a human existence of Jesus manifestly
j excluding divine omniscience. In Mark (xiii. 32) He
expressly repels it; He demanded who had touched Him
(Mark v. 30), how much bread they had (Mark vi. 38),
where Lazarus had been laid (John xi. $4) ; He is deceived
in the fig-tree which had green leaves but no fruit (Mark
,xi. 13). There is not the slightest trace in our Gospels that
Jesus knew more than others regarding human and secular
Ithings which lay outside His calling, or that His opinions of

ILLUMINATION BY THE SPIRIT. 331
these were other than those of His fellow-countrymen, and so
transcended the limitations assigned to every age and nation.1
If through any kind of higher illumination, or even by reason
of His loftier nature, Jesus was endowed with a knowledge
of these matters, which caused them to appear differently
to Him than to His fellow-countrymen and contemporaries,
this would be no assistance, but rather a constant hindrance
to His working. It would have taken Him out of mental .
sympathy with those on whom He was to act, and would
have necessitated His concealing in an unworthy way His '
better nature, or discussing matters which lay absolutely
outside His calling, and which were lacking in the conditions
necessary for His hearers' comprehension.
Since in this department He could receive no higher
knowledge, He required in His special religious province no
illumination by the Spirit. Our sources know nothing of
progressive divine revelations made to Him during His
official life, such as are assumed by Beysehlag and Weizsacker.
Jesus is Himself conscious of a unique acquaintance with
God that can only be compared with the perfect knowledge
which the Searcher of hearts has of Him (Matt. xi. 27 ; John
x. 15), and is therefore also perfect. But this rests, as we
have seen, upon His original consciousness of His relation to
the Father, upon the perfected divine revelation He recognised
in the divine act of sending Him, upon the certain know
ledge He possessed as to the profoundest secret of the divine
nature and the divine decrees, — a knowledge which had its
roots in the depths of eternity. After He attained to man
hood and to consciousness of His calling, there was in this no
possibility of growth, or necessity for a fresh revelation. But
yet in isolated cases the Spirit who guided every step of His
ministry would give Him what He should say (John xii. 49 £).
This can only mean what it was necessary to say at a given
moment for the attainment of a divine purpose ; the specific
1 It is nothing but an empty fiction when Schleiermacher, in order to prove
in this department the faultlessness of Jesus, assumes that He had no positive
knowledge of such matters, and if He had been questioned about them would
have answered , that He had not made them subjects of inquiry. What is
treated of here are precisely subjects into which no inquiry was instituted, for
in that circle they passed as settled, and therefore their certainty was assumed
as self-evident..

332 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
truth of His speeches He gathered from the inexhaustible
depths of His self-consciousness and His unique religious life.
On the other hand, it is assumed of every prophet that he
looks through those among whom he sojourns (Luke vii. 39);
we have seen how the Baptist in the case of Jesus Himself
manifested such knowledge of men. This acquaintance
belongs to the requirements of his calling; it is connected,
first of all, with ordinary human conditions. For as it is the
want of affection and over-estimation of self which so easily
affects our judgment regarding our neighbours (Matt. vii. 3 ff.),
so the purity of heart with which the glance of love sinks
itself in others may read them naturally. But if this
capability has different grades according to natural endow
ments, He who was free from sin would receive without
measure this gift from the Spirit. Throughout our Gospels
such a penetration of the hearts of men is attributed to Jesus
¦as surpasses all human experience. He is acquainted with
jthe thoughts and intentions of His opponents (Mark ii. 8,
i xii. 1 5 ; Matt. xii. 25); at their first interview He apprehends
[Simon and Nathanael according to their radical character
; (John i. 43, 48), He reads the heart of Judas (vi. 70), and
knows better than themselves how it stands with His
followers, andjwhat was going on within them (vi. 64). ffiiis")
khowledgeTiad, of courseTitTllnutsj^He knows indeed what
is m man "(John ii. 2?), but "what will be in him and will
become of him He cannot know, since this depends on the
course of development entered upon by man- as a consequence
of new decisions. Did He know it, His professional activity
would not be advanced but hindered ; it would rob Him of
all the gladness, and therefore of the power of action by
which He will operate on these personal decisions, if He
foresaw in any way the certain failure of all His endeavours.
But the man standing before Him He must search with a sure
glance, in order to find the proper word and the right method
for winning him or rendering him inoffensive ; the Spirit,
under whose constant influence He stood, made Him capable
of this infallible knowledge of the heart.
The look into the future is granted, under the influence
of the Divine Spirit, even to the prophet ; he does not prophesy
in the way the Gentile seer claimed to do, but he can announce

JESUS' SUPERNATURAL KNOWLEDGE. 333
the future because the divine decrees which prepare the future in
the present have been made manifest to him. This talent, too,
is connected with the ordinary human faculty of presentiment,
and with the penetration of aU the truly great of this world,
who understand their age, and therefore foresee the develop
ments indicated by the signs of the times. But where the
Spirit of God illumines the eye of the mind, this seeing into
the future is manifestly infallible. Thus Jesus prophesies
His own fate, the fate of His disciples, the fall of the nation
and the destruction of the temple, the election of the Gentiles,
and the completion of His work on His return. But this
foreknowledge also is limited, and indeed doubly so. There
is no foreseeing of accidental occurrences, a result which the
heathen prophets strove to attain, but a knowledge of how,
under the given historical conditions, the divine decree made
known to Him must and will be realized. These conditions,
however, are formed by the conduct of men, by their incalcul
able decisions. This foreknowledge, therefore, is an increasing
one ; it is granted to Him step by step in connection with the
results of His ministry, and with the varying situation brought
about by the behaviour of the people to Him and to His work.
But, then, conduct in the present is not decisive for that in
the future, it may alter; therefore this foreknowledge has
frequently something hypothetical about it. The final purpose
of the divine decrees rests assured, but the manner of its
realization is definitely fixed; according to the eternal laws
of God's holiness and mercy, although in accordance with His
mercy and righteousness, it is made dependent on the behaviour
of the children of men. This is why He does not know the
day and the hour which God in His wisdom will fix (Mark
xiii 32), and why even to the last moment there remains a
possibility that God's hand will turn aside the fate that appeared
to be approaching irresistibly (Mark xiv. 35 f., xv. 34).
There is nothing in the superior knowledge of Jesus that I
would suggest a divine omniscience ; it is the prophetical
knowledge needful for His professional activity, only His life
does not exhibit isolated times of prophetical illumination,
but an existence constantly and immutably enlightened by
the Spirit who rested upon Him. The modern view would
gain for Jesus a genuinely human greatness by referring all

334 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
this to the exceptional penetration of a judge of men, to the
increased divining talent of one who understands the world,
the age, and history. But, according to the view of Scripture,
human greatness does not consist in a man's producing every
thing in a natural way out of himself, but in possessing
perfect receptivity for God's greatest gift; therefore God's
Son, in whom He is well pleased, receives without measure
the Spirit (John iii. 34), to whom He owes this superior
knowledge. It is given to Him in cases where every analogy
from the human power of presentiment ceases ; when it is
required by the object of His professional activity, a know
ledge is granted Him that plainly oversteps the bounds of
usual human knowledge. He wins the heart of Nathanael
by beholding him where no mere man could (John i. 49, 51) ;
the heart of the Samaritan woman, though she was a stranger
to Him, He wins by His acquaintance with her past (John
iv. 1 8). He does not express forebodings regarding the death
of Lazarus ; He knows it has happened (John xi. II).1
What was true in regard to His higher knowledge held
good, too, of His miraculously powerful operation; as little
as the Gospels refer the former to His own divine omniscience,
can the latter be referred to divine omnipotence, or to His
own miraculous faculty. God alone performs miracles ; these
are events which could not be brought about through the
mediation of natural causes, but by means of a directly
divine operation. Thus Jesus Himself declares that the
works which none other had done (John xv. 24), but which
the Father who sent Him had given Him to do on behoof of
the preparation for His mission -fv!-&6), were done, properly
speaking, not by Him, but by the Father (xiv. 10). His
works are what God shows Him to do (v. 19 f., ix. 3). God's
glory is visible in them (John xi 40) ; what the man healed
is to tell, is what God had done to him (Mark v. 1 9), and the
evangelists represent men as praising God for what He had
done for them by Jesus (Matt. xv. 31; Luke ix. 43). But
it is in answer to prayer that God gives Him His works to
1 These traits are by no means peculiar to John's Gospel ; passages such as
Matt. xvii. 27, Luke v. 4, show that the idea of some such plainly supernatural
foreknowledge is current in the other evangelists, and is concealed in the occur
rences where they assume it.

JESUS SUPERNATURAL ACTION. 335
do. Jesus sighs and looks to heaven before proceeding to heal
(Mark vii. 34). He prays beside the grave of Lazarus ; but
He knows all along that God hears, and therefore His prayer
resolves itself directly into thanksgiving (John xi. 41 f.).
The prayer of thanksgiving pronounced over the slender
provision (Matt. xiv. 19) shows that it was God who had
granted it to Him that the thousands might be satisfied. If
it is asked in what way power was given Him to do what no
man could accomplish by himseK, He Himself refers to the
Spirit of God, under whose perpetual influence He is. He
casts out devils by the Spirit of God (Matt. xii. 28) ; it is
said in Luke (v. 17) that the power of God was upon Him to
heal. It follows from this that the evangelists could not
refer His mighty acts to a loftier divine nature, for had not
the prophets performed miracles in the power of God when
the Spirit came upon them ? But this is the difference, that
through the aid of God's Spirit, under whose influence He is,
Jesus is sure of the continuous and miraculous help of God
whenever He needs it for the execution of His Messianic
calling. Above Him, says Jesus, will the disciples see the
heaven opened and the angels of God, who brought Him this
miraculous help, ascending and descending (John i. 52). It
is absolutely the same whether it is conceived of as being
given by the Spirit who rested upon Him, or by the messengers
of God, who were near Him. But what holds good of the
divinely miraculous, holds also good of the divine miraculous
protection. He can protect Himself as little as He can do
anything of Himself (John v. 30). But were He to ask the
Father, He would send legions of angels for His protection
(Matt, xxvi 53). And He is sure of His request being granted
whenever He asks what is necessary for fulfilling His vocation.
We know already how the Spirit made Him sure of what, for
this end, He had to do, and what paths He had to tread in
accordance with God's will ; on these paths divine help and
protection would never fail Him. Only this was necessary,
that out of unfettered love to God and to His work He should
yield to the will of God who had pointed out His path ; then
He knows everything He would desire to know, can perform
all He has to do, and neither person nor circumstance can
affect Him.

336 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
Will He do this ? The equipment in baptism for His
vocation is of no value if the fulfilment of the vocation does
not follow ; indeed, it is of such a kind as only to be effectual
when He completely resigns Himself to the will of God, and
only employs the talent God has given Him in order to
accomplish His wilL Is He the Son of God who desires to
be nothing but the instrument of the divine will, and will
use what is given Him only that He may accomplish the
work His Father has given Him to do ? We have now
reached the test of this ; how Jesus stood the trial, is narrated
in the story of the temptation.

CHAPTER X.
TEMPTATION AND APPROBATION.
ALTHOUGH the life of the Baptist during the days of his
youth in the wilderness had other motives beside its
furnishing him with a retreat into loneliness for the purposes
of self-meditation and of undisturbed communion with God,
yet we have an undoubted example of such a retreat in the
story of Saul for almost three years in the wilderness of
Arabia, whither he retired after his conversion (Gal. i 17).
Jesus also loved such retreats; but if He felt the need of
retiring into the wilderness immediately after the occurrence
at His baptism, which was so decisive for His life, yet it was
not a necessity of His personal life which drove Him thither.
It is expressly stated that the Spirit, who always showed Him
the will of God as to His calling, drove Him into the wilder
ness (Mark i 1 2), in order that He might be there alone with
His God in the uninhabited desert (cf. i. 13), and in com
munion with Him become clear as to the ways and means
whereby He would have, in accordance with that will, to
fulfil the calling upon which He was now to enter.1 We have
no particular knowledge of the locality in which Jesus abode.
Evidently the oldest narrative already represented Him as
led up from the valley of the Jordan into the higher-lying
wilderness ; and this must have been the so-called wilderness
of Judah, a rocky district in the eastern part of Judea, which,
bounding the hill country of Judea in the east, stretched away
towards the Dead Sea, extending towards its south-western
1 Although it is probable that the oldest source already so represented it, as if
He was led into the wilderness to be tempted there (Matt. iv. 1), yet it is
evident that it can only be inferred from the result that this was the object in
view ; but it lies in the very nature of the case, that with the revelation of the
divine command, which is addressed to man, the temptation at the same time
approaches Him, to refrain from fulfilling it, and to take the directly opposite
course. WEISS.  L Y

338 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
extremity. As to the length of time during which this stay
in the wilderness lasted, tradition will certainly have possessed
no, chronologically accurate information ; it will only have
an approximative estimate, which it formed according to the
interval which elapsed between His baptism and His first
reappearance on the banks of the Jordan. Accordingly this
time was evidently very early reduced to the round number
of forty days (Mark i 13), a number which commended
itself so much the more readily, as it reminded them of the
forty years' wandering of Israel in the wilderness. In the
oldest source it seems merely to have been related that during
these days Jesus had nothing to eat, i.e. no common food,
seeing that He had to fall back upon the most meagre means
of support which the wilderness afforded (Luke iv. 2) ; and
this statement is there plainly an echo of the manner in which
the ascetic life of the Baptist is usually described (cf. Matt.
xi. 18). But if John satisfied himself with the nourishment
¦supplied by the wilderness, in order that he might set himself
forth in his very appearance as a strict ascetic, although he
could quite easily have provided himseK with other means
-of livelihood, seeing that he lived in continual intercourse with
the people, and in the midst of a circle of disciples upon whom
he was far from imposing this same asceticism (cf. p. 309),
it was different with Jesus, who had purposely gone in quest
/of the loneliness of the wilderness. Here we can by no means
speak of a special observance of the practice of fasting ; the
fasting of Jesus was simply imposed upon Him as a necessity
arising from the situation in which He was placed in the
^wilderness.1 It is altogether inconceivable that any form whatever of
tradition should simply have related that Jesus was tempted
¦ As Mark had determined the time during which Jesus abode in the wilder
ness to be forty days, so the first evangelist conceived of His fasting during that
time as miraculous, like that related of Moses and Elias (Ex. xxxiv. 28 ;
1 Kings xix. 8 ; cf. Matt. iv. 2) ; and, owing to his exaggerating the parallel
expression, even Luke appears to think of a complete abstinence from food
(Lukeiv. 2 ; cf. vii 33). From this, however, there arises the self-contradictory
notion that, although Jesus was nevertheless miraculously maintained alive,
now at the end of the forty days' hunger, the natural consequence of fasting
ensued, and that thereupon the temptation, which connects itself primarily
with that feeling, first commenced, although, according to Mark i. 13, it lasted
the whole of the time that He spent in the wilderness.

THE TEMPTATION. 339
by Satan in the wilderness, and that it was only afterwards
that a later form of the same tradition attempted to form an
idea of the course of this temptation in its details. For that
first form of the narrative would have been altogether awant
ing in intuitive evidence and comprehensibility. Mark could
write as he has done (i. 12 f.) only on the supposition that
narratives were already in circulation which referred to
individual temptations, and thereby gave men an idea of the
manner in which Satan tempted Jesus ; and with reference to
these narratives he would simply point, in the introduction
to his Gospel, to the fact that the Messiah who. «had" been
anointed in baptism was also approved as such" in temptation
(cf. p. 49). Now, however, it unquestionably follows from
the essential and, in part at least, literal agreement of the
first and third evangelists, that an account of the three
individual temptations already lay before them both ; and
according to what we have discovered as to the origin of these
Gospels, this account must' have stood in the apostolic source.
If we are not to regard /such an account as a myth or a pure
fiction, we can trace it back only to a communication made
by Jesus Himself, seeing that it treats of events that befell
Him in the loneliness of the desert. One of His own parables
has been justly referred to (Matt. xii. 29), the intended
application of which to Himself presupposes that, before He
began in His official life His victorious campaign against the
kingdom of Satan, He must have vanquished even Satan;
and this can only have happened in a decisive instance.
Here, therefore, there is evidently an allusion to communica
tions made by Jesus, in which He had given an account of
severe temptations undergone by Him previous to the com
mencement of His official life ; these temptations He invariably
recognised to be Satanic, and He would have His disciples
also recognise them as such.
Such temptations must some time or other have come in
the way of Jesus ; for there is no morally valuable self-
surrender to the will of God which is not clearly conscious
of the antithesis excluded by it, and susceptible of the full
feeling for the charm possessed by ways that are directly
opposed to the divine will. This charm lies in this, that
these godless ways seem to promise a higher satisfaction to.

340 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
the natural, and in itself by no means sinful, inclination for
seK-preservation and self-advancement ; and the value of the
moral decision depends upon this, that this satisfaction is
declined in order that God's commands may be fulfilled.
Now Jesus had gone into the wilderness for the express
purpose of becoming conscious of the ways which the will of
God pointed out to Him for the carrying out of His calling,
and of deciding for these ways with a clear discernment of the
significance of His decision. For this end it was not necessary
that the indination and desire to enter upon godless paths
should be roused within Him, for such an inclination can
emerge only from the sinful basis of the human heart ; nor
was it even required that it was only after an inner conflict
that He should decide for the divine will, for such a conflict
is not conceivable without a vacillation which, even though
momentary, is nevertheless already sinful. But meditation
over the divinely ordained ways whereby He was to fulfil
His vocation, must necessarily have presented to His mind
the picture also of those which were in direct opposition to
the divine will. Of course, we must not think of an idle, and
in the long run by no means altogether sinless, play of the
reflective faculty or of the imagination with these images.
For the circumstances under which He would have to work,
the notions and desires which dominated His surroundings,
of themselves showed Him that way of carrying out His
calling which was contrary to the divine will, as lying nearest
to His hand and apparently justifiable. The charm of this
devious path lay in the satisfaction which acquiescence in
these wishes promised to His natural human feeling, and in
the success which it promised to His labours ; whereas the
will of God and acquiescence in it demanded, here as every
where, self-denial and conflict. That Jesus nevertheless
recognised as a Satanic delusion the satisfaction which these
devious paths promised to His natural age and to its lawful
needs, and therefore decisively rejected everything which was
hostile to the will of God, — in this lay the moral value of
His voluntary decision for that will, a decision which, in the
hour of trial, brought about His approbation.
The question whether Jesus could have communicated
these iriner experiences to His disciples in a form which sub-

WHAT JESUS COMMUNICATED. 341
stantially still lies before us in our Gospels (Matt. iv. 3-11 ;
Luke iv. 3-13), depends primarily upon this other question,
whether He conceived of the power of sin, which seeks to
delude man as to that which is demanded by the will of God,
and to set before him a higher satisfaction of his natural
human needs, at the cost of acting in a manner contrary to it,
as a superhuman spiritual power which endeavours to influ
ence men so as to hinder them from fulfilling the divine
will and disturb God's work upon earth. It is true that in
the form of a kingdom which is ruled by Satan, and in
conflict with God and His kingdom, this idea was foreign to
the Old Testament ; but even there it already had its points
of contact, and in the time of Jesus this form had, as a matter
of fact, been long familiar to the orthodox Jews, whatever
may have been the influences under which the deeper know
ledge of the nature and power of the sin which deceives and
dominates men had so shaped itself. Accordingly, even these,
who believe that they themselves must give up this notion, allow
that, looking at the matter historically, it would be altogether
inexpKcable how Jesus should not have shared it. It is not
only that in the earlier Gospels He speaks so often of the
devil or Satan as the sovereign of a kingdom of evil spirits, —
in John also this Satan appears so decisively as the ruler of
this world, i.e. as the superhuman power that dominates sinful
humanity, that all appeals to the figurative character of these
discourses, with which even Schleiermacher believed he could
get rid of this fact, are altogether insufficient. If we will not
assume, with the older rationalism, that, with reference to a
point that so intimately concerned man's religious and moral
life, Jesus allowed Himself an accommodation to the prevailing
popular notion, an accommodation which appears to be very
questionable, whether we regard it pedagogically or morally,
then we must grant that He Himself shared in it. That
being the case, however, the picture of the godless ways,
whereby He might strive to attain His ends, and of the charm
which these had for the natural human feeling, this picture,
which did not arise up out of the impure depths of His own
sinful desires, but presented itself to Him in the world
surrounding Him, could not but appear to Him as an illusion
of Satan, who endeavoured to tempt Him to deviate from

342 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
the way of God. Because it was all-important in His eyes
that His disciples also should recognise that the manner of
fulfilling His vocation, which was chosen by Him, was that
which had been ordained by God, and that that which He
rejected, however much it seemed to have its justification
in traditional ideas and wishes, was one which received its
seductive power from the deceit of Satan; for this very
reason He attempted to give them a full comprehension
of the inner occurrences in which He overcame the tempta
tion. It is quite in keeping, however, with His usual manner
of teaching and speaking, for Him not to analyse these
inner occurrences in an abstract didactic way, but to present
them to His disciples in a plastic figurative form. He
frequently speaks of a coming of Satan, where He means an
inner temptation occasioned by Him (Luke xxii. 31 ; John
xiv. 30), while the notion of a bodily appearing of Satan is
altogether foreign to the whole of the New Testament. When
the thoughts, which are traced back to Satanic illusion, are
clothed in the form of a conversation with Him, the case does
not stand otherwise than when the revelation, which is traced
back to God, is represented as a word spoken by Him or His
Spirit to the spirit of man. The change of situation, however,
is necessarily connected with the figurative and plastic form, in
which Jesus sought to give a vivid idea of the seductive
thoughts that occurred to His mind. When, lastly, Jesus
clothes the thoughts with which He overcame the temptation
in the form of words of Scripture, He only seeks thereby to
point out to His disciples that no special enlightenment was
required, but that simple obedience to the revelation of God
contained in Scripture, of itself fitted Him for recognising
these devious ways as Satanic illusions, and for refusing to
follow them.1

1 The false literal interpretation of our narrative insists, it is true, upon this,
that it receives its true significance only if Satan presented himself before Jesus
" face to face, " and that he must therefore have appeared in some disguise or
other, however little even one who has the heartiest belief in miracles is able to
form a real notion of such a disguise. But even if that were the case, it was
only from the character of the demands that were made upon Him, or of the
suggestions that were presented to Him, that Jesus could recognise the Satanic
nature of the form that stood before Him. If, however, it is maintained, with
Hofmann, that here "tempter and temptation appeared upon the scene undis-

THE FIRST TEMPTATION. 343
The first temptation of Jesus is generally regarded as a
temptation to make a selfish or even godless misuse of His
power to work miracles. But neither does our narrative
indicate that His fasting was laid upon Him by God, and that,
therefore, the endeavour to procure for Himself the means
of satisfaction was contrary to His command; nor should
it be regarded as an arbitrary abuse of His power to work
miracles, if Jesus makes use of the forces at His disposal,
in order to procure the means of stilling His hunger, i.e.
of preserving Himself, in conformity with His duty. Above
all, however, this view depends upon an altogether erroneous
idea of the power of Jesus to work miracles. For Jesus had
not at His disposal a power to work miracles, which, like
every natural gift, He might misuse; and such a power
there can never be. According to the representation of the
Gospels, God, who alone does wonders, by means of His Spirit
gives to Jesus in each individual case the power to perform
His works, and, naturally, only where and how He wills.
Accordingly it may happen, -and indeed it will happen, that
with misery around Him, crying for help, yet He cannot aid,
because God commands Him not to do so. Undoubtedly
it was one of the most difficult tasks laid upon Him in the
course of the life that He led in the fulfilment of His
Messianic calling, not to render assistance even in cases where

guised and openly, as they had never done before, and have never done since, "
this cannot increase the significance of the temptation, but must rather make it
altogether illusory ; for it is only the hardened villain whom evil as such entices, ,,
whereas all temptation depends upon this, that evil presents itself to us in a j
form in which its character is not at once discernible, but conceals itself behind
the appearance of that which is justifiable, necessary, or at least desirable. The
magical change of situation could only have been actually brought about if Jesus
followed Satan in a manner the morality of which is exceedingly questionable, or
if He had been delivered by God into his power, a supposition which is out of
keeping with all the other views of the New Testament, according to which
Satan has power only over those who have surrendered themselves to sin, and
therewith to him. And although the first evangelist already seems to have
understood the traditional narrative as referring to a bodily appearance of Satan,
and to magical transportations effected by him, yet the account given by Luke
does not suggest to us anything more than an inner address of the tempter and
a translation by means of the demonic spirit into the tempting situation, i.e. it
suggests nothing more than a presentation of it to the mind. Accordingly,
there is no reason to assume that the form of the narrative that lay before the
two evangelists gave occasion for the former conception.

344 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
His natural feeling, the desires of the men around Him, and
His love to them, urged Him most pressingly to do so, but
to wait and see whether and how God would bid Him come
to their help. The whole possibility of His fulfilling His
calling depended upon His solution of this problem ; here lay
the mystery of His power to work miracles. For if He waited
not upon the indication given by God, if He would help men
without His command, He could not do so at all ; and the
experience of His own weakness must have led Him to doubt
whether He was really God's elect One. But was He not
always directly subjected to the test, whether He would at all
times perform this difficult task ? If He was really to -be the
Elect One of Jehovah, the great Helper of His people, the One
who should put an end to all its want, then He must surely
in the first place be able to help HimseK in His own
extremity. He was in the wilderness and suffered hunger.
Command, then, that these stones become bread; so speaks
the voice of the tempter ; and if Thou canst not do so, then
Thou art not the Son of God. Of course, just as little as the
hunger, which was the consequence of His insufficient nourish
ment in the wilderness, was not felt till a definite moment,
just so little did the tempter need to approach Him, and
whisper this temptation to Him only at that moment ; it is
His whole situation in the wilderness that takes advantage, so
to speak, of His natural human feeling to challenge Him to
make trial of His power to help, anH, in the event of His not
possessing it, to make Him doubtful of His calling for that
purpose. But in this thought, which the contrast between His
situation in the wilderness and His high calling presents to
His mind, Jesus recognises the voice of the tempter. For it
is written : " Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God " x (Deut.
viii. 3). In these words it is asserted, that the life of man does
not depend only upon the means of nourishment, for which
1 It is in vain that attempts have been made to make this word of Scripture
suit the false conception of the sense of the temptation ; for it neither speaks of
trust in a word of God, who miraculously supports life, nor of a fulfilment
of the divine command. It is in vain that attention has been called to the
historical connection in which the word was spoken, and where it refers to the
miraculous food provided to the people in the wilderness ; for it is not the

THE SECOND TEMPTATION. 345
his natural wants long, but also upon everything which God
bids him do ; and that accordingly it is not our natural wish,
however justifiable it may appear, but only the divine will
which has been made known to us, that gives the rule for its
right preservation and furtherance. The Messiah has also
been subjected to this universal rule of human life. If God
through His Spirit bids Him -go into the wilderness, He
thereby also tells Him that He must be satisfied with thej
insufficient nourishment which the wilderness affords. If Hei
willed to provide Him with food, He would bid Him change
the stones into bread. If God does not do so, then neither ;
should nor can the Messiah ; and nevertheless He remains
the Son of God, the One who is called to the highest vocation.
Therewith He has overcome the temptation and laid down
the principle, which is once for all to guide the Kfe He is to
lead in the fulfilment of His calling. That life depends not
only upon the means whereby the promised help is expected,
and to which the wish of the natural man would fain render
assistance, but also upon every command of God, which tells
Him where and how He is to come to man's aid. For this
command He will listen, upon it He will wait, and then, but
only then, He will be able to effect everything which belongs
to the fulfilment of His calling.
The second temptation is also frequently interpreted in a
totally false manner. It is often regarded as an ostentatious
miracle of display, by means of which Jesus sought to take
the favour of the multitude by storm. In that case He
must, of coilrse, have really stood upon the pinnacle of
the temple, with the gaping multitude in the quadrangle
below ; before this multitude, it is supposed, He was to hurl
HimseK down, in order to show them that as the elect One of
God He remained uninjured. But our narrative does not say
a single word regarding the multitude of people that was
absolutely indispensable for this situation; and could this
absurd play-acting really have had any seductive charm
whatever for Jesus ? Could He really have yearned for the
approbation of a crowd, which measured the grandeur of
manner of that time, not even of Jesus, to explain such words by means of
their historical connection, but to consider what, according to their language,
they have to say to us in the present time.

346 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
its Messiah in accordance with the number of fathoms He
could leap without receiving any injury ? It is not the
applause of the multitude that is set before Him as the
means of seduction, but the promise contained in Scripture
(Ps. xci 1 1 f.), — a promise which assures all the pious of the
miraculous protection of God, and which must therefore apply
above all to the Messiah. In order to appropriate this pro
mise to Himself, Jesus certainly does not need to stand upon
the pinnacle of the temple. The life that He led in the
discharge of His Messianic calling will often represent Him
as threatened with danger and persecuted by enemies ; and
in such cases it will be an exceedingly natural suggestion,
that, in order to put the certainty of His high calling to
the proof, He should boldly hurl Himself in the face of all
danger, instead of adopting the way of deliverance pointed
out by natural human prudence. He communicated these
thoughts to His disciples, and in His plastic, concrete manner
exemplified them by means of an extreme instance of the
kind. If He were to stand upon the pinnacle of the temple,
threatened by enemies, ought He to daringly hazard a leap,
, which appears to hurl Him into immediate destruction,
because He knows that the angels of God will bear Him up
on their hands, so that His foot shall not dash against a
stone ? But even a false trust in God can become a source
of temptation to us, no less than despair with regard to our
calling, when God's longed-for help is delayed. For again it
is written : " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God "
(Deut. vi 16), i.e. thou shalt not by means of a mad daring
act at your own pleasure summon forth God's miraculous
protection. This is most surely promised to the man of
piety, when threatened with danger while walking in the
ways pointed out to him by God, not, however, when in a
self-willed way he chooses dangerous paths, in order to put
this to the proof. The divine promise no more protects even
the Messiah upon paths chosen by HimseK, than there stands
at His disposal a divine power to work miracles, which He
Himself chooses to perform.1
1 It is clear that this word of Scripture is far from suiting the traditional way
of regarding the temptation ; for a snatching after popular favour, which would
have led Him to risk such a foolhardy deed, is reprehensible on grounds totally

THE THIRD TEMPTATION. 347
There was one way whereby Jesus could bring to Himself
and others the assistance that was longed for in every
extremity, and thus be raised above all danger ; and in the/,
third temptation this way presents itself to Him. It was thei
way of the worldly Messiahship, which His people desired froni,
Him. If He placed HimseK at the head of His enthusiastic
people, and obtained for them in an earthly sense the
dominion of the world, into which the prophetic picture of
the hope of a spiritual dominion of the world had been changed
in His day, all difficulty and danger would cease at once.
He could attain this goal, but at what cost ? He would have)
to acquiesce in the wishes of the people, instead of obeying the!
will of God, which pointed out to Him a way for His working
that was totally different from the short straight way to the
royal throne. Here the antithesis between self-chosen and
divinely-appointed ways reached its climax ; in the first two
temptations it presented itseK to Him only in a covert
manner, now it was clear and direct : the will of God or the
will of men. But behind the latter Jesus clearly perceived
Satan, who, as the adversary of God, directs the sinful hearts
of men and influences their wishes. That way to earthly
different from that assigned in the passage quoted. Besides, it is only the
assumption of an actual magical transportation of Jesus to the pinnacle of the
temple that leads to the adoption of this false interpretation. By introducing
them both in the same manner, by means of an allusion, viz., to His Messianic
calling, the narrative itself points out the inner connection of the two first
temptations. In fact, the first involves a self-willed summoning forth of divine
miraculous assistance, just as the second involves an appeal to divine miraculojisj
protection ; and in both temptations the point in question is, in truth, the
testing of the Messianic calling of Him, to whom both that assistance and this
protection had been promised on the occasion of His baptism. On the other
hand, however, the two temptations form a certain contrast, inasmuch as, the
divine miraculous assistance not being granted, the first would make it natural
for Jesus to be perplexed as to the reality of His Messianic calling, whereas, in
the full consciousness of His calling, He might be led by the second to an j
exaggeration of confidence in the divine promise ; while both are to be overcome
only in unselfish acquiescence in the divine will and in obedience to it. From
both sides it is plain that the order of the temptations as given by Matthew is
the only correct one. Luke, of course, can hardly have been induced to give the
second place to the third temptation by the trifling consideration that the way
from the wilderness towards Jerusalem leads over the hill country, an opinion
which has often found favour since it was propounded by Schleiermacher ; he
was led to do so simply by His view of the gradation of the temptations, which,
however, can be more particularly determined only by means of uncertain
conjectures.

348 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
glory was by subjection to the adversary of God, by
acquiescence in his will. With this the temptation reached
its climax, and also its final decision. Acquiescence of
any kind in the will of the world around Him and of
Satan, who dominated it, was an encroachment on the
sovereign rights of God, to whom alone service and worship
belong. With the recognition of this fact the temptation
was overcome. He who has resolved to obey truthfully and
continually the will of God, which is revealed in Scripture
(Deut. vi. 13), has but one answer to the suggestion that He
should acquiesce in the will of the world, even when that
suggestion offers Him the highest rewards, the answer, viz.,
" Get thee hence, Satan." x
When the temptation was overcome, and Jesus had proved
Himself to be the One who was at all times resolved to
fulfil the will of God, and it alone, then, and not till then,
did the equipment, which at baptism was given Him for
His calling, come upon Him in full power and actuality.
Under a figure, which He has also used elsewhere (John
i. 51), Jesus told His disciples that more was given Him
as a reward of such a confirmation of His fidelity, than He
could ever have gained by these false ways. Now the
angels of God were always around Him, to bring to Him
divine assistance and protection ; when on the ways of His
God, He had command at all times, not of the kingdoms of
the world, but of the heavenly hosts. It may be that even
1 Jesus certainly related to His disciples that He stood in spirit upon a
mountain and beheld the glory of the world, which might be His, if He would
resolve to turn aside from the will of God. But for this purpose there was no
need that Satan should lead Him to an actual mountain ; for even supposing
it were as high as the first evangelist conceives it, yet no one could look from
it over the whole world ; and if Satan was able to show Him the whole world
by means of a magical illusion, as Luke appears to think, it was not required
that they should ascend a mountain. Above all, however, it is upon this
temptation that the literal interpretation is hopelessly wrecked. For the
suggestion that He would fall down before the actual devil and worship him,
is a suggestion which even he who is but moderately pious would without
hesitation and with abhorrence refuse to entertain. Herein lies the moral
achievement of Jesus, that He recognises that indirect homage, which He would
have paid to the devil by acquiescing in the wishes of the people, as that which
it really is, and also as that which is absolutely excluded by the obligation
to worship God, which He accordingly expressly imports into the passage He
quotes from Deuteronomy (vi. 13).

MYTHICAL THEORY OF THE TEMPTATION. 349
the first evangelist thought that they ministered unto the
hungry one with food, after the analogy of what is recorded
regarding Elijah (1 Kings xix. 5 f.); undoubtedly Mark
so conceived it as meaning that in the uninhabited desert,
where only the beasts of the wilderness were around Him,
the angels of God, who were more to Him than all human
help, were always at the service of the approved Messiah
(i. 13). But in the earliest narrative this feature can only
have referred in a much more comprehensive sense to the
unbroken intercourse with His heavenly Father, which was
guaranteed to Jesus by the confirmation of His fidelity, an
intercourse which provided Him with everything which He
required for the fulfilling of His calling, whether we think of
it as being brought about by means of God's Spirit, as it
descended upon Him at baptism, or by means of the minis
tration of His angels, as here.
If we will not acquiesce in this conception of the history
of the temptation as the history of an inner occurrence, which
Jesus communicated to His disciples, nothing else remains
than to regard it as pure myth.1 But this conception already
shows its untenableness in this, that it has not succeeded
in pointing out a sure point of departure for the formation
of such a myth. At one time, the point of departure is the
temptation of our first parents in Paradise; at another, the
temptation of Abraham or of the children of Israel in the
wilderness, so as to obtain here an antitype of these ; again it
is the abstract idea of the antithesis between the Messiah and
His adversary, — an idea which must have ultimately expressed
1 The correct conception of this history has already been essentially established
by Weisse, Neander, and Ullmann, although there has too frequently been a ten
dency, on the one hand, to drag in a superabundance of one's own thoughts, with
an appeal to the symbolical form in which the narrative is clothed ; while, on the
other, the salient points of the several temptations have not been rightly under
stood. The common objections to this view proceed partly on the assumption
that it reduces the whole temptation to an empty play of thought, and partly on
the assumption that to transfer it to the inner life of Jesus injures His sinlessness ;
they do not touch the representation which we have given above. Since the
notion of a misunderstanding of a parable, which was Schleiermacher's idea,
cannot be adopted, for the simple reason that neither the form, nor the purport,
nor the aim of our narrative offers any analogy to the parables with which
we are acquainted, Strauss has here also, after Usteri, de Wette, etc. , attempted
to carry out the mythical interpretation.

350 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
itself in the notion of a conflict between the two, and the
conquest of the latter by the former; and, remarkably enough,
both points of departure led to the scenery of the wilderness,
which was suggested by the historical situation of Israel, or
by the popular idea that the wilderness was the abode of the
daemons. Above all, however, it breaks down upon the
utter impossibility of construing the three several temptations,
with their deep ethical import, by means of the mythical
process. However externaUy we may regard these tempta
tions, as temptations to sensual lust, to ambition, and to
inordinate desire of power, the vain efforts of Strauss show best
of all that they can no more be derived from the history of
the wandering in the wilderness, to which, moreover, only the
number of the days of the temptation, and the circumstance
that all the passages of Scripture quoted by Jesus are borrowed
from the Book of Deuteronomy would point, than from the
idea of a conflict with Satan, who, besides, does not appear
upon the scene here as an opponent of Jesus, but as a flatter
ing tempter. For this very reason, criticism, dissatisfied with
this view, is always returning to the search for a historical
kernel, which, however, can be gained only if we trace back
the whole narrative to the testimony of Jesus HimseK.1
When Luke states that the tempter departed from Jesus
only for a season (iv. 13), he rightly takes for granted that
1 The older rationalists, in whose footsteps J. P. Lange still walks, already
substituted for the actual devil a common man, a Pharisee or a Sadducee, who
in the name, or at least in the spirit of the devil, sought to gain over Jesus to
his political programme. They did so without perceiving that they by no
means got rid, in this way, of the worst impossibilities of the false, literal
interpretation. Or they made the whole occurrence consist of a vision (which
Olshausen, following some of the Fathers, even traced back to the working of
the devil), without considering that they thereby did away altogether with its
moral significance. In more recent times many have surrendered the form of
our narrative as being legendary, while maintaining that it contains some
historical kernel or other, whether, like Schenkel and Keim, they have
attempted with more or less skill to analyse psychologically the inner conflicts
which Jesus had to pass through when He entered upon His public ministry ;
or whether, like Pfleiderer and Hiinefeld, they have endeavoured to find out
historical events in His official life, the temptations connected with which are
gathered together in this narrative. But as soon as one refuses to fall back upon
communications made by Jesus to His disciples, one has no sure ground to go
upon in pointing out any historical kernel whatever in this tradition, and it even
becomes altogether doubtful whether there is any justification for maintaining
His stay in the wilderness to be historical.

THE CONTINUED TEMPTATIONS. 351
the temptation which was surmounted in the wilderness was
renewed from time to time during His life, and that, too, not
only when altogether new tasks were laid upon Him as His
destined Passion drew near, but also as often as it was neces
sary to carry out in detail the fundamental resolutions which
were formed on the occasion of the first assault. Not only
does the proclamation of the apostles assert that Jesus was in
all points tempted like as we are (Heb. ii. 18, iv. 15), but in
Luke, Jesus Himself also speaks of His temptations, which
His disciples have experienced along with Him (xxii. 28);
and in Mark He characterizes Peter as His tempter (viii. 33).
The manner in which He sets Himself forth as an example
(Matt, xi 29 ; John xiii. 15), or in which He makes the
divine favour, which He enjoys, dependent upon His fulfilment
of the divine will (John viii. 29), is not compatible with
the notion of a holiness belonging to Him by nature, the
attainment of which cost Him no moral labour and no conflict.
For Him, too, it was necessary by constant self-denial to
refuse to follow the paths that promised Him a satisfaction
of His natural human wishes, and by an obedient acquiescence
in the divine wiU to resolve upon those ways that were
right ; as in the case of all men, this was and remained the
moral task of His life. Hence the need of prayer (Mark
i. 35, vi. 46, xiv. 35), a need which Luke especially delights
in setting forth (iii. 21, vi. 12, ix. 18, 28, xi. 1), and which
only he can feel who has still to strengthen himself for the
fulfilment of the moral task assigned him. For this moral
labour, however, every situation which furnishes occasion to
choose one's own godless ways, and promises in consequence
the maintenance and furtherance of one's own IKe,' becomes a
source of temptation; and this temptation cannot be over
come without a conflict with natural impulse, which, though
sinless in itself, becomes sinful K, when the higher divine
will demands its suppression, the human will acquiesces in it,
and asserts it in opposition to the will of God. This conflict
can be carried through victoriously without wavering and
doubts, but it is renewed again and again as often as life
brings new tasks. Accordingly, Jesus refuses to be called
good (Mark x. 18). There is none good but one, that is,
God. Man can only become good, because even after the most

352 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
perfect solution of his moral problem, new problems are being
continually presented to him, until, having reached the goal,
he is approved as perfect.
But have we any right to assume that Jesus solved that
problem for all time ? Can it be historically established that
His life was sinless ? This has been most confidently denied
by Strauss and Renan ; and even enthusiastic adorers of Jesus
stand in doubt as to whether His highest perfection, according
to which He was altogether that which He should be, excludes
all human weaknesses and onesidedness, and includes the
perfection of all virtues. Of course, we shall not attempt to
prove the contrary by means of an inquisitorial examination
into His walk and conversation, or by means of a judicial
hearing of witnesses. For it must be granted that the meagre
selection of narratives concerning Him which tradition has
preserved for us leaves wide departments, yea, even the most
important portion of His outer and inner life, altogether
untouched, and that His adorers were not interested in
reporting anything regarding Him that was offensive. An
appeal has been made to the testimony of Pilate and his
wKe, to that of the centurion under the cross, and of Judas ;
yea, even to the silent testimony of His enemies, who could
not bring anything tenable against Him ; but all these merely
prove that His external life was blameless. Even the argu
ment drawn from the pure moral tendencies and results of
His life, although it is very important, and absolutely excludes
all immoral motives and means, nevertheless does not warrant
us in inferring more than a moral purity, or at the best, a
relative moral greatness. It is altogether different with the
testimony of the apostles, who all with one accord ascribe to
Him perfect freedom from sin (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 22, iii. 18 ; 1 John
ii. 29, iii. 7 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Heb. iv. 15). And this must not
be placed on the same level with the testimony of Xenophon
regarding his teacher, for it goes hand in hand with the
consciousness of the universal sinfulness of humanity, and of
its need of redemption, and is therefore certainly to be taken
in the strictest sense. It is true, however, that even this
testimony does not depend upon an exhaustive investigation,
but partly upon the general impression made by His person,
and partly upon a dogmatic postulate, which, considering the

SINLESSNESS OF JESUS. 353
experience they had had of the ministry of their exalted
Master, they were perfectly justified in forming, but which
cannot from the nature of the case establish any historical
proof. Nevertheless we may enter upon this proof, and that, too,
by starting from the unquestionable utterances of the self-
consciousness of Jesus, which, from the very fact that the
evidence they afford is indirect, forbid any suspicion that
they have been forged on account of dogmatic motives. One
of the earliest of these utterances already leads us to an
altitude of the religious moral consciousness where the world
of sin, with its shadows, is altogether left behind. He to
whom the fulfilling of the will of God has become the deepest
need of His inner life, He to whom this is as necessary as
food is required for the Kfe of His body (John iv. 34), can sin
no more. He who can say of HimseK that He always does
those things that please God (John viii. 29), must either be
seK-deceived in the saddest manner by sinful pride, or His
life must bear testimony to His word. It is true that when
Jesus asks : " Which of you convinceth me of sin 1 " (John
viii 46), nothing more can be inferred from the silence of
His adversaries than that His public life was free from
reproach. But if He, who so often accused the pattern men
of His time of hypocrisy, makes use of this evident external
blamelessness of His to deduce from it a sinlessness which
would guarantee His truthfulness, He was either more wicked
than any hypocrite scourged by Him, or He must have been
conscious that the most hidden recesses of His heart and
life, as well as His outward walk and conversation, were free
from reproach. It is vain to argue that the language in
which the Fourth Gospel sets forth these utterances is quite
destitute of weight. For in the earlier Gospels also, He
demands repentance from all men (Mark i 15), He takes
for granted that they are all evil by nature (Matt. vii. 11),
with regard to all His disciples He declares that an infinite
debt has been forgiven them (Matt, xviii. 24, 35), and He
teaches them to pray daily for the forgiveness of their debts.
But there never appears in HimseK the slightest trace of any
feeling of penitence ; no prayer for forgiveness crosses His
lips; He never gives expression to the consciousness of in
WEISS. — I. z

354 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
any way enjoying for the first time a peace with God. He
is and remains the Son of God, the One who is conscious
of the love of His heavenly Father, while all others must
first become such. He sets Himself over against the whole
sinful world as its Redeemer, yea, even ultimately as its
Judge. These are facts which no criticism can shake. They speak
for themselves. The dilemma is one from which there is no
escape. He who has removed from the eyes of us all the
bandage of self-deception and of self-righteousness, who has
taught us all to seek forgiveness where it is to be found, He
was either the chief of sinners, for self-righteous pride is the
root and climax of all sin, or He was the only sinless One,
upon whose life the peace of God rested. Not because He
knew not the temptation and the conflict, without which no
man can reach the summit of moral perfection, but because
He approved Himself in every temptation and gained the
victory in every conflict. Thus He became that which He
would not be called until the trial of His whole life was
accomplished, He became the absolutely Good, the image of
His Father in heaven.

CHAPTER XI.
FORMATION OF THE EARLIEST DISCIPLESHTPS.
THE supreme ecclesiastical court in Israel was the
Sanhedrin.1 It held its sittings in Jerusalem, and
consisted of seventy-one members, separated by the evangelists
into high priests, elders, and scribes. Whether the elders
belonged merely to the laity is not perfectly certain. The
scribes were the legal (judicial) assessors. Among them would
be numbered the members of the Pharisaical party, who long
previously had gained entrance into the supreme court, and
by intellectual influence largely controlled it, while the
leading personalities proper belonged to the first class, which]
formed the kernel of the Sadducean party. At its head stood
naturally the high priest actually in office, although this
title was borne by those who had been so, and probably too
by the members of the prominent families from whom the
high priests were taken. The office of high priest was at
first hereditary in the family of Aaron, and was held for life.
But eve4. since the Syrian period many depositions had
occurred owing to the influence of the civil rulers ; Herod
the Great had even allowed this honour to be conferred
on common priests. During the past years especially the
changes had been many. In the beginning of the reign of
Tiberius the procurator Valerius Gratus deposed the high
priest Annas (Ananus) ; and about 18 a.d., after three high
priests had rapidly succeeded each other, Joseph, surnamed
Caiaphas, a son-in-law of Annas (John xviii. 1 3), was appointed
1 Jewish tradition has no historical basis for referring, as it does, the origin
of this court to Moses ; indeed, it is manifest from the original Greek name
(Synedrium) that this college was first formed in the Grecian age. When the
Jewish writer Jost disputes the fact that at the time of Jesus a constitutional
Synedrium did exist, we may understand this from the very unimportant rdle
which it has played in the greatest drama of the world's history ; but there is
no historical foundation for its existence. 355

356 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
high priest, and continued to hold the office until the de
position of the procurator Pontius Pilate, 36 a.d. But
throughout this period Annas — several of whose sons were
made high priests — appears to have exercised the most signal
influence, on account of the great respect in which he was
held by Jews and Romans, so much so that Luke mentions
him before the actual high priest (iii. 2). But it cannot be
proved that he was the high priest's deputy, or along with
him president of the Synedrium. It is affirmed with possible
truth that the college had a president of its own. Probably
the high priest actually in office presided.
We do not know in how far the Roman supreme authority
acquiesced in the Sanhedrin retaining a competence in civil
affairs ; but its power in religious matters extended over the
whole of Palestine, indeed it was recognised, though volun
tarily, by the dispersion. It possessed a full course of
procedure, could issue commands for imprisonment, hear
witnesses and dispense punishments ; but condemnation to
death had to be confirmed and executed by the governor
(John xviii. 31). Such a court could not refrain from
noticing a movement like that stirred up by the Baptist ;
yea, more, it was forced to enter into communication with the
prophet on the banks of the Jordan, in order to discover what
it was he purposed and on what he based his ministry, for it
would be undoubtedly behoving to pass sentence on him as a
false prophet if he should prove himseK one. It seems to
have been owing to the incitation of the Pharisaical party
that the Sanhedrin at last resolved to send a deputation of
priests to John, who with much display appeared officially at
the Jordan accompanied by Levitical attendants (John i.
19, 24). On account of the general liberty in regard to doc
trine and the innocuousness of the preaching of repentance,
the Council might not have felt itseK called on to take notice
of the Baptist. But the Pharisees in the Council could not
remain indifferent when a man in whose legal devoutness they
found little to censure (comp. Mark ii. 18), but who kept
himself completely detached from their party, obtained a far-
reaching influence with the people, such as till now they
alone had possessed ; and more than this, his reference to the
nearness of the Messiah's advent touched their highest ideals.

THE BAPTIST AND THE DEPUTATION. 357
Laconic though the evangelist is, for his report of the
negotiations between the deputation and the Baptist depended
entirely upon the testimony to Jesus given by the latter, yet
it is manifest from the words of the Baptist that the delegates
in their questioning proceeded on the assumption that John
believed himself called to bring about the Messianic advent
when he proclaimed its approach with such assurance (i 20).
On his repelling this emphatically, he was then asked
whether he was one of the Messiah's forerunners in the sense
of the popular expectation (i 21 f.). We understand from
this that this anticipation took two forms. Either the bodily
return of Elias to prepare for the Messianic advent was
looked for on the ground of a prophecy in Malachi (MaL
iii. 23), or it was expected that the prophet promised in a
Mosaic passage (Deut. xviii. 18) would act like Moses (comp.
John vii. 40), although it is clear from other passages (John
i. 45, vi. 14) that the latter prophecy referred directly to the
Messiah. We understand how the Baptist could neither
allude to that superstitious anticipation nor compare himself
with the great founder of the theocracy. He was contented
to call himself the preparer of the way; from him in the
desert the summons went forth to the people to make straight
the way for the coming Jehovah (i 23). After this explana
tion the delegates were surprised that .he should baptize,
which is regarded with justice by the evangelist as a sign of
the dogged non-receptivity of their usual conceptions. They
were right in connecting it with the nearing Messianic advent ;
but as John was not able to present his relation to this
advent in terms of their current conceptions, they were
disposed to view his baptism as a pretension (i. 24). He
pointed out, however, that he laid claim to nothing by his
baptism of water, because the baptism peculiar to the Messianic
age was a totally different institution, and by this he un
doubtedly meant the pouring out of the Spirit promised by
the prophets, which might be regarded as an immersion in the
element of the Spirit, i.e. as a baptism of the Spirit (comp.
John i 33). That the time was come for this preparative
baptism of water, although he was not one of the expected
forerunners, he proves by this, that One had already appeared
among them, who should come after him, i.e. appear after

358 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
him, historically, and yet was so far exalted above him that
he did not count himself worthy to perform for Him the
„ meanest menial duties (i. 26 f.). This makes it clear that
'Jesus had already been baptized, for it was not till the occasion
of His baptism that John himself recognised Jesus to be the
Messiah; then it was that Jesus was anointed Messiah, so
that the Baptist could caU Him one who had appeared
in their midst (comp. i. 33 f.). Nothing could be urged
against this, and these explanations offered no occasion for
interference. The older tradition contained no detail of this transaction
except the word in which the Baptist refers to his great
successor (Mark i 7 f.) ; and even Luke acknowledged that
this was spoken because there was an inclination to look
upon him as the Messiah (iii. 15). But the apostolical
source retains even yet the original form employed by the
Baptist in characterizing the superiority of his successor to
himself, not considering himseK worthy to perform the service
of a slave, such as the carrying of sandals, and placing his
water baptism in direct opposition with the baptism of the
Spirit (Matt. iii. II).1 But even here the older* tradition
1 Of the traditionary utterances of the Baptist, Mark only records the prophecy
of the Messiah who was to follow immediately. In his pictorial manner he
expresses still more plastically the abasement of the Baptist before the Messiah,
which was so profound, that he did not regard himself worthy to bend down
and — by his very posture exhibiting the deepest subjection — unloose the latchets
of His sandals (Mark i. 7). This is essentially repeated by John (i. 27) in this
same accented form which was later in common use (comp. Luke iii. 16). The
fact of the baptism by fire at the judgment, when, under the form of fire, the
wrath of God is represented as being manifested (Matt. iii. 11), being mentioned
in the apostolic source along with the Messiah's baptism by the Spirit, which,
judging from John i. 33, is probably expressly made mention of, is connected
with this other fact, that in Matthew this word is combined with the Baptist's
threatening of judgment. It is by no means unlikely that this most original
representation is founded upon an authentic saying of the Baptist's. According
to the older evangelists, it appears as if this were an utterance before the baptism
of Jesus ; but this arises from their lack of acquaintance with the historical
condition. There is no reference to the Messiah having appeared, but it is
reported along with what they have otherwise to relate of the Baptist before
they pass from the history of John to that of Jesus with the baptism of the
latter by the former. Opposed to this is the remembrance still contained in
Acts xiii. 25, of this being attested when the Baptist was finishing his course,
not meaning his imprisonment, but the time when by the appearing of Jesus
(John i. 26) his activity came to a close.

SYNOPTIC ACCOUNT OF THE BAPTIST' S TESTIMONY. 359
contains one remembrance of the transactions recorded in the
Fourth Gospel. Our first three Gospels unanimously represent
the passage in Isaiah, by which the Baptist had characterized
his appearance (Isa. xl. 3 ; comp. John i 23), as a prophecy
of his history (Matt. iii. 3 ; Mark i 3 ; Luke iii. 4-6). They
present the same deviation from the original text in causing
the prophets to speak of a voice crying in the wilderness,
while Isaiah only mentions the preparation of the way in the
wilderness. Modern criticism, which discovers no historical
tradition in the Fourth Gospel, must, of course, assume
inversely that it transformed the general reference made by
the Baptist to a great successor, and contained in the older
tradition, into a distinct testimony to the Messiahship of Him
who had already appeared. In order to bring into prominence
His bearing on the unbelief of the people, this was solemnly
proclaimed before a deputation from the supreme ecclesiastical
authority, and the application to the Baptist of the passage
from Isaiah, which had first been made by the older tradition,
now became a statement by the Baptist himself. But it is
certain that all that was of importance to the fourth evangelist
in the history of the Baptist was his testimony to the
Messiahship of Jesus ; the situation when this witness was
given was to him of such great importance that reference is
made to it at the commencement of his narrative (John
i 1 9). It is equally certain that from his previous conception
of the person of Jesus, he least of all would be likely to
invent such a scene which solemnly attested the Messiahship
of Jesus in the Old Testament sense. In the only passage
in which Jesus mentions the Baptist, He says expressly, that
He had no need of his human testimony (John v. 33 £). It
is a complete inversion of every natural way of regarding
history, to connect this invention with the question as to His
authority put to Jesus by the like-minded sections of the
hierarchy (Mark xi. 27 f.), for it is shown by this analogy
that the historical circumstances involved the proceeding of
the Sanhedrin against the Baptist, as did the later circum
stances the action against Jesus.1 But the assumption of the
1 To say that a point of connection is offered for the question of the deputation
in Luke iii. 15, is to overlook the fact that every kind of connection is shut
out by the way in which the question indirectly assumes the expectation of

360 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
Johannine account, that the Baptist recognised Jesus as the
Messiah, is confirmed by the oldest source, which tells of
the apparition he saw on the occasion of Jesus' baptism
(p. 325).
It is indeed objected that K John really looked upon
Jesus as the Messiah, he would on His appearance have at
once ceased to baptize, and must have referred his disciples
to Jesus as to one from whom they could receive ampler and
better instruction. But this is to assume, in an entirely
unhistorical manner, that in consequence of this recognition
of Jesus, the Baptist regarded Him as a wise teacher ; what
he saw in Jesus was the Chosen of Jehovah, by whom, as his
own words tell us, he supposed the Messianic judgment would
be accomplished and the kingdom established. Before the
Messiah began this, it was evident that John dared not cease
his preparative ministry, which, indeed, became more urgent
the nearer this decisive hour approached. There was no
reason for directing his disciples to Jesus, partly because he
still required them during the continuance of his ministry,
and partly because Jesus had as yet collected no scholars
around Him. The distinct position occupied by his disciples
even after his imprisonment (Mark ii. 18) was manifestly
connected with the fact that Jesus had not yet taken the step,
by means of which, according to their master's utterances, He
could alone become what He was destined to be, and what
He assuredly was not so long as He only traversed the country
John's regarding himself as the bringer of the Messianic future. Strauss'
conception of this mission to the Baptist as only a repetition of the message,
recorded in the Synoptists, of the Baptist with the question as to who it was
who was looked for, is a frivolous play of fancy, lacking in any scientific
importance. On the contrary, the precise characteristics of the delegates, which
could not be gathered from the older Gospels (John i. 19-24), and the way in
which their questions disclose the fluctuations of the Messianic expectations
(i. 21), testify to the truth of the historical reminiscence. In accordance with
historical truth, it is comprehensible how the Baptist should deny being the
actual Elias or a prophet like unto Moses, but not so how it was that the
evangelist could put such a denial into his mouth, who knew from the older
Gospels how Jesus had declared that the Baptist was His Elias (Matt. xi. 14 ;
Mark ix. 13 ; comp. Luke i. 17), indeed that he was greater than all the
prophets, even than Moses (Matt. xi. 9-11). It is a pure evasion to say that he
considered these designations "too Jewish," for they rested on the prophecy of
the Old Testament as much as the looking upon Jesus as the Messiah and the
self-designating of the Baptist did on the fortieth chapter of Isaiah.

HISTORICITY OF THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY. 361
healing and instructing. That Jesus still made no preparations :
for this, was the reason why the Baptist himself became at t
last doubtful, and sent to Jesus with the question whether j
He was the expected One (Matt. xi. 3), while all mis- '
interpretations of this narrative, in spite of the following
words of Jesus (xi. 6 f.), show unequivocally that earlier the
Baptist had so regarded Him. But when it has been explained
to .be inconceivable how John could ever be mistaken in Him,
if he had actually received a revelation and recognised Jesus
as the Messiah, this rests upon an entire misconception of the
nature of divine revelation. However effected, this can
produce no certainty when resting on sentient experience or|
logical evidence ; but as it can only be received in faith, so
the conviction attained to by it can only be retained through
faith. But belief, whatever be its purport, may be caused to .
falter by manifold influences, and even in the case of the
illuminated prophets was attacked by doubt (comp. further,
Book iv. 1). That, according to the Johannine representation,
the Baptist designated Jesus at once as the Messiah, cannot
be rendered incredible by asserting that the apostolic
announcement did not refer to this testimony, for after the
resurrection and ascension of Jesus human testimony was still
less needed here than by Jesus Himself (John v. 33 f.).
The historicity of this scene, related by John only, is
guaranteed by his reminiscence being definitely fixed in
respect of time and place. He remarks that the Baptist was
then sojourning' in Bethany beyond Jordan (i. 28); and the
palpable identity of this name with that of the well-known
locality on the Mount of Olives, shows that here there is no
question of an invention.1 This must have been the spot
1 The suspicion excited by modern criticism, of there being here a confusion
with the more familiar Bethany, or even an incorrect and intentionally decep
tive transposition of it to Pera?a, is directly excluded by the Gospel itself. In
chap. xi. 18 the evangelist appears to be accurately aware of the distance of/
this Bethany from Jerusalem, and expressly mentions in chaps, x. 40, xi. 17 f.j
the removal of Jesus from the Bethany in Peraa to the one near Jerusalem^
Gertainly Bethabara stands in our present text, having probably, through a
conjecture of Origen's, crept into the manuscript ; but this is condemned by thej
oldest texts. His inability to discover the place there mentioned is simply.
explained by the Baptist's having appeared in the wilderness, therefore not in1;
the neighbourhood of a. populous locality, perhaps it might be beside some ferry*
which could easily disappear in the course of a couple of centuries, during which

362 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
where the Baptist first appeared, for, so far, there had been no
occasion for him to change his station. But the evangelist
not only recollects this, but also the day when the deputation
appeared before the Baptist. He remarks that it was the day
before that memorable one on which Jesus appeared at the
Jordan for the first time after His baptism (John i. 29). It
is not clear from the words of the Baptist how long before it
was that the Messiah had appeared of whom he had spoken
the day previous (i 26), and who was now in their midst, and
who, at His baptism, had been so recognised ; but there is
nothing against the assumption that in the interval Jesus had
been in the desert, and had now returned to the place where
John baptized.1 It is shown now and again (i. 36, iii 26) that
the Baptist then pointed his disciples to Jesus, and directly
denoted Him the Messiah.
But this John did with an unmistakeable allusion to a
prophecy in Isaiah, which was fulfilled in Him. What was
spoken of there was the Servant of God, who should bear the
sins of the people (Isa. liii. 4), i.e. endure conjointly or alone
an undeserved degree of suffering which had come or was about
to come upon the sinful nation as a punishment ; on account
of His innocence, and the calm patience with which He will
ingly took these sufferings upon HimseK, this Servant of God
is compared to a lamb dumb before his shearer (liii. 7). The
Baptist pointed out Jesus as this Lamb of God, who bore
the sins of the people (John i 29). We know not whether
or in what sense that prophecy in Isaiah pointed to the
Messiah; in any case, the conceptions aroused by it were
the country was repeatedly laid waste by war. The very name may indicate
this, the meaning of which — boat or ferry house — is not interfered with by the
fact of the corresponding Bethany on the Mount of Olives clearly requiring
another derivation and interpretation.
1 The fourth evangelist, who never relates in detail the baptism of Jesus, can
neither desire to shut out expressly Jesus' sojourn in the wilderness, because the
genuinely human temptation of Jesus does not agree with his conception of
Christ, nor can the older tradition, which begins at once with Jesus' Galilean
ministry, from reasons involved in the circumstances of its origination, exclude
His return to the Jordan. That neither here nor in i. 36 does the evangelist
indicate what Jesus desired at the Jordan, agrees with his way of mentioning
the external details, in so far only as they were of importance for his didactic
purpose, and gives no ground for the suspicion of a purely ideal composition,
which only permits of a communication between Jesus and the Baptist in so
far as the latter could testify concerning Him.

THE LAMB OF GOD. 363
very far from answering to the picture of the Messiah as it
had now taken shape in popular expectation. But it by no
means follows from this, that only through an especial divine
revelation could the Baptist infer the calamitous fate of the
Messiah, and the fulfilment in Him of that prophecy. To the
preacher of repentance, more especially, who had gained an
insight deeper than that of others into the power of the sins
which were practised by the people, it could not be doubtful
that the Messiah, who was to bring about the judgment of all
the godless among the people, would not be able to accomplish
His task without a severe struggle, and that the sins of His
people would prepare grievous sufferings for the Sinless One,
but which He would willingly take upon HimseK for the sake
of His vocation and the salvation of His people. It is by no
means clear from the words whether and in how far the Baptist
regarded the endurance of these sufferings as expiatory.1 Even
if we refer this to an immediate revelation, it was not the
custom of divine revelation to communicate knowledge which
found no points of connection in the prophet's range of ideas,
or in those of his auditors. Only because this has been
involuntarily expounded in conformity with later notions has
doubt been thrown on the genuineness of this word of the
Baptist, which, according to the views of the prophet familiar
to us, did not exclude the possibility of these conflicts being
carried through victoriously, or of the Messiah being clothed
with honour after these sufferings, and exalted to the complete
glory destined for Him.
1 It was the Apostle John who first introduced into that utterance of the
Baptist his more mature conception of the importance for salvation of the suffer
ings of Jesus. By an expression he was wont to employ (comp. 1 John iii. 5),
he says that this Lamb takes away sins (stained as its working is with guilt ;
comp. 1 John i. 7) ; indeed, the significance of the Lamb for the entire sinful
world is made manifest by a specific expression in his doctrinal language,
although, from the allusion to the saying in Isaiah regarding the bearing of sins,
both are for the Baptist excluded. When, however, criticism acknowledges that
Jesus is here characterized by the evangelist as the true Paschal Lamb, this again
is contradicted by the manifest allusion to Isa. liii. ; and the fact that, according
to law, lambs were taken for sin-offerings, forbids the deduction of the sacrificial
idea from Isa. liii. 10. From our conception of the fulfilment of this word, we
are accustomed to carry into it the picture of the Saviour dying on the cross for
the redemption of the world, although it does not transcend the idea which we
found in the mouth of Simeon (Luke ii. 35) ; indeed, that was produced by
express reflection on Isa. Iviii.

364 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
I The Baptist knew well how far his disciples would be from
recognising in this picture which he presented to them the
Messiah they hoped for and expected. Therefore he shows
once again that he meant no other than Him who should
come after him, and of whom he had yesterday testified to
the delegates of the Sanhedrin (i. 27), that He surpassed him
as much in dignity as He was exalted above him by His
Messianic calling (i 30). The point of the statement lies in
this, that he designates his successor one who should far sur
pass him in dignity, and then solves this enigma through His
nobler vocation.1 It was now that he expressed himself circum
stantially as to how he had become aware of Jesus' Messianic
calling through that apparition at the baptism (i 31-34).
This double testimony of the Baptist before his disciples
became, later on, important to the evangelist as a proof that
he indicated complete knowledge of the work and being of
Jesus; yet it was not that alone which led to his com
municating it. Rather because this was connected with the
most sacred recoUection of his life, when he became associated
with Jesus, in whom he was to find his all.
Another day passed, and Jesus once more appeared among
the circle round the Baptist, who pointed him out as the
Lamb of God, of whom he had yesterday spoken (i 3 5). It
is by no means clear that the Baptist in any way required
his disciples to turn from him to Jesus. We have seen
already that he could not think then of giving up his
baptismal activity, and could therefore not dispense with the
circle of followers who aided him in this (comp. p. 360).
Moreover, the majority of them may have been little disposed
1 In this saying, also, the evangelist has introduced his more advanced
knowledge of the eternal being and antecedent activity of the Logos (John
i. 1-4). He takes the foundation tenet from an earlier existence in time, and
apprehends the previous existence from His antecedent activity. It is perfectly
idle to discuss whether the Baptist could obtain this knowledge from the Old
Testament, or whether it was derived from immediate divine revelation. From
the manner in which, according to the apprehension of the evangelist, the
utterance assumes the knowledge of the Messiah's eternal existence, it is
impossible that he could have spoken to his disciples who suspected nothing of
this ; and the expressly retained reference to i. 27, where mention is only made
of the dignity of the Messiah, shows distinctly how the interpretation of the
evangelist, important as it became to him (comp. i. 15), introduced an idea,
which originally was strange to him, into that profound enigmatical word.

JESUS' FIRST FOLLOWERS. 365
to leave this distinguished man of the people and betake
themselves to the carpenter's son, who as yet possessed nothing
but the hope of a great future. But of his limited circle
of followers two were deeply moved by his word spoken
yesterday, and now desired to become more intimately
acquainted with Him on whom the hopes of Israel rested.
When again the Baptist pointed to Jesus as the expected
One, they saw in the word of their master an indirect
command or a permission to separate themselves from him
and to follow Jesus. They did not dare to address Jesus
themselves ; but when His attention was attracted by steps
behind them, He turned and asked what they wanted. Full
of reverence for Him whom their former master had declared
stood far above him, they addressed Him with the Jewish
title, Rabbi, and inquired as to His abode. They did not
desire to detain Him on the way, but to seek Him out later,
in order to become more intimately acquainted. But in a
friendly way He invited them to come with Him at once ;
and as it was now four o'clock in the afternoon — according to
Jewish reckoning, the tenth hour — they remained with Him
during the remainder of the day. These few hours assuredly
sufficed to convince them that what they had found was what
their souls so longed for (John i. 37-40). Indeed, this
narrative with its details, unimportant for any one else, and
its exact statement as to time and hour, gives the impression
of a personal experience which has been remembered and been
repeated only because of the importance it had for the narrator.1
1 Baur found in this nothing but an ideal representation of the effect of the
Baptist's testimony on the belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, and of the way in
which it prompted the following of Him. But the disciples do not salute Him
as Messiah, but as Rabbi ; and it is not a command from the Baptist, but
an invitation from Jesus Himself, which induces them to remain with Him.
Strauss lias twice seen in this a remodelling of the sending of the two
disciples to Jesus, which according to the older Gospels issued from the prison,
but here takes place at the Jordan. In the one case it was occasioned by the
doubt of the Baptist, in the other by his testimony ; in the one case the
Baptist, in the other the disciples themselves, are convicted by what they saw. .
It is certain that no subsequent poet would let his heroes make their appearance
by introducing them into a scene where nothing memorable happens, and where
nothing is spoken that would yield a presentiment of their maj esty. We can only
understand this scene if it is the evangelist himself who has here recounted in
plain words the most memorable recollection of his life. It was the natal
hour of the new life which he found in fellowship with Jesus.

366 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
We are well acquainted with this narrator. It was John,
the younger son of a prosperous fisherman on the Lake of Genne-
sareth, by name Zebedee, — i.e. Zebadja, — and probably a native
of Capernaum (Mark i 19). Along with John and his brother
James, who in the older sources is always mentioned first, and
was certainly therefore the elder of the two, the father carried
on a flourishing trade; he had hired servants (Mark i 20),
and his connections extended as far as Jerusalem, for only
this can explain how John should be known in the house of
the high priest, though probably by the servants alone (John
xviii. 15). In after days his mother seems to have belonged
to the most faithful followers of Jesus ; at least the Salome
who, according to Mark, belonged to the Galilean women
present at the crucifixion (Mark xv. 40), is expressly pointed
out by the redactor as the mother of Zebedee's children (Matt.
xxvii. 56). But this passage presents a more extended com
bination still, and it is this, that the two other women there
mentioned are expressly aUuded to by name in the parallel
passage in John (xix. 25), and according to the old view,
one of the two Marys is regarded as a sister of the
mother of Jesus. But then it seems singular that two sisters
should be caUed Mary, and it is much more likely, and is
permitted by the expression employed, that this sister of
Jesus' mother was the third of the women named by Mark,
i.e. Salome.1 According to this, the two sons of Zebedee were
cousins of Jesus ; and thus it is easily comprehensible why
Jesus took them into the circle of His most intimate con
fidants, and on the cross commended His mother to John's
filial care (xix. 27). On one occasion the two brothers were
called by Jesus, sons of thunder, which probably pointed to a
fiery disposition (Mark iii. 17). With the heat of unmoderated
wrath, they desired to call down fire from heaven upon a
Samaritan village which had refused to receive their Master
(Luke ix. 54) ; that such high-flying wishes were not strange
to them, is shown by their request for the highest place beside
the throne of the Messiah (Mark x. 37), which becomes more
comprehensible if they were actually closely related to Him.
1 It quite answers to John's method that he should refer to his mother only
indirectly, for in speaking of himself he never declares his name, and never
even mentions his brother.

THE APOSTLE JOHN. 367
His brother James, who in the evangelical history retires
into the background, is shown to have played a prominent
part in the Messianic community, by the. fact that he
drew upon himself the first enmity manifested by the Jews,
and that Herod Agrippa caused him to be beheaded (Acts
xii. 1 £).
If, according to a thoroughly credible tradition (comp. p. 90 f.),
John lived till towards the end of the century, he must have
been very youthful at the commencement of 2 8 a.d. As the
younger son he could more easily be spared, and so probably
that child of a pious Israelitish house, who had certainly
apprehended with intense ardour the Messianic movement
excited by the prophet at the Jordan, joined himself in a
permanent discipleship to the Baptist, with whom he was,
moreover, connected on his mother's side. If John directed
him to Jesus, with whom he was still more closely connected,
he was now in a position to remain with Him constantly. It
seems indeed as if, after that, he never quitted Him for any
length of time, and so there was formed between the man of
thirty-two and the youth of perhaps half that age that rela
tion of ardent love and most intimate confidence which gives
such a warm tone to the Fourth Gospel, and to which the older
tradition bears witness by naming John among the closest con
fidants of Jesus. It was he whom Jesus loved so especially
(John xix. 26, xx. 2), and to whom He granted the place of
honour on His breast (xiii 23) when lying at meal-time at
His right hand. John's was a contemplative nature, whose
whole force lay in the depths of his disposition, whose wealth
consisted in what he could appropriate and assimilate. He was
not fitted for active enterprise, and in later times does not
appear to have determined on an independent mission activity.
The Acts of the Apostles presents him in an unobtrusive
connection with the strikingly powerful nature of Peter
(iii. 11, xi. 8, 14) ; and his later activity in Asia Minor
concerned rather the nurture, deepening, and purification of
the Christianity already established there. With much more
glowing love did he attach himself to Jesus, whom, doubt
less, he, among all the other disciples, apprehended most
deeply, whose person, with all that he found in it, soon
became the animating and comforting central point of his

368 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
whole life. From this arose that impatience which would
know of no other association with Jesus than the absolute
devotion of discipleship (Mark ix. 38) ; from this that fervent
enthusiasm with which, in face of the cruelties of the age of
Nero, he depicted God's judgment of the enemies of Christ,
and finally described in the Gospel the great decisive struggle
of universal history, that between light and darkness, truth
and falsehood, life and death, which was wrought out in
the history of Jesus (comp. p. 105 f.). Certainly a disciple
of love, as he has so often been represented, or a weak,
somewhat feminine nature, this son of thunder never was.
Fancy and sentiment were dominant in him ; but this
sentiment was an all -devouring flame, it was that fervent
energy which knew of no mean between love and hate. This
nature did not attain its perfect proportion till John, through
faith in his Master, had found eternal Kfe here, and till he
could repose in the profundities of a religious mysticism as it
had stamped itself on his view of immediate fellowship with
Christ, and through Him with God.
There was another who had been with him among the
slender number of John's disciples, and who came with him
to Jesus ; this was Andrew (John i 35, 37, 41), the younger
brother of that Simon (Symeon, comp. 2 Pet. i. 1) who was
to play such a prominent part in the history of Jesus and of
Christianity. . They, too, came from the Lake of Gennesareth,
being natives of Bethsaida (John i. 44), and sons of a certain
Jonah (Matt. xvi. 17) or Joanes (John i. 42), who was
presumably dead at the time when this history was enacted.
For the elder brother in company with the younger pursued
his fisher's calling in self-dependence, and owned a house in
Capernaum (Mark i. 29). As not long before his martyr
death, in the last years of Nero, he felt himself an old man
(2 Pet. i. 13 f.), it follows that in 28 a.d. he was in the prime
of his manhood, or at last of equal age with Jesus. He is
commonly spoken of as being married ; but a sketch of his life
by Mark rather suggests his being then a widower, whose
house was kept by his mother-in-law (i. 30 f.). In the
evangelical history the younger brother retreats into the back
ground ; even what we learn of him from the Fourth Gospel
is not sufficient for us to form a picture of his character ;

ANDREW AND SIMON. 369
there the picture of the elder presented by the Gospels is
more distinct. Along with the sons of Zebedee he formed
one of the three confidants of Jesus (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiii. 3,
xiv. 33), and Jesus placed upon him the greatest hopes for
the future of His cause (Matt. xvi. 18). His was an impetuous
nature, in speech we see how determined he was, and how he
surpassed the other disciples in action. Receptive of every
impression, and easily excited by any impulse which affected
him, he let himself be carried away into imprudent speech
and action ; at one time bold and presumptuous, at another,
yielding without resistance to the most immediate incentive,
and not considering the consequences of his actions and the
range of his words. On this account he was not lacking in
powerful initiative, effective influence, and love of achievement.
We understand with what fervid energy such a nature would
grasp the Messianic hopes of Israel, — how he afterwards boldly
resolved to associate himseK with Him who promised the
fulfilment of aU these hopes. But we also understand how
difficult it must have been to reconcile himself to the slow
and apparently contradictory way in which this hope was to
be perfected, and how it must have been through long-
continued struggles that his innate tendency to the quick
apprehension of the future accomplishment was transformed
into the likeness of the apostle of hope, which we meet with
in his letters. Such a nature excites great expectations, but
conceals at the same time great dangers. Everything depends
on what the strongest impulse may be which sets this exces
sive energy in motion, on whether or not it contains a fixed
kernel which remains unaltered even when, in its momentary
behaviour, it is determined without opposition by the changing
impulses from without. Only the incomparable Searcher of
Hearts could foresee the development of such a nature.
An opportunity was soon to present itself. It does not
seem as if Andrew at once connected himseK permanently
with Jesus, like his young Galilean relative. At least he is
not with Jesus on the day after that evening which he passed
in company with the two inseparables. He met his brother
Simon. It is not clear that he sought him out ; the evan
gelist seems rather to call it a divinely-ordained coincidence
that so many of Jesus' later disciples became acquainted with
WEISS. — I. 2 A

370 SECOKD BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
Him now on the banks of the Jordan. Simon, too, had be
taken himself to the Jordan in obedience to the Baptist's
summons ; and we can understand what an impression was
made on him by the tidings brought by his younger brother,
that they had found the Messiah to whom the Baptist referred.
Andrew was obliged to lead him to Jesus, in order that they
might be made acquainted ; and then it was that Jesus, with
a glance penetrating his inmost soul, looked on him and said:
" Thou art Simon, son of Jonah ; thou shalt be called Peter,
i.e. the rock" (John i 42 f.). The evangelist is right when he
beholds in this a token of more than human acumen. To the
superficial observer, this nature, more than others, presented a
contradictory vacillation produced by his innate rashness and
his sanguine-choleric temperament. Jesus looked deep into
this nature, and recognised the solid kernel which, only
through sad experience of the dangers lying in his character,
and through the serious work of subduing self, could be
matured to an indomitable energy from which great things
could be hoped. The history shows that He was not deceived
in Peter.1
But how so ? Have we not here substantially the calling of
the two sets of brothers, which, according to Mark (i 18-20),
did not take place till a much later date, at the side of the
Lake of Gennesareth ? Proceeding upon this supposition, the
older criticism, in its onesided partiality for John, simply
gave up the synoptical account as unhistorical. But the
1 It is quite unnecessary to refer the designation of rock to the special destiny
-which Jesus gave the disciple on a later day as the Rock of His Church, in which
there was a manifest allusion to the title of honour bestowed on him, because
that denoted the quality in virtue of which he could become this. Therefore
there is no ground for assuming that this is an anticipation of Matt. xvi. 18.
Simon was evidently not to bear this name immediately, but "only" when deserv-
ing of it. Apart from this allusion, Jesus Himself, according to all the Gospels,
nowhere called him anything but Simon (Mark xiy. 37 ; Matt. xvii. 25 ; Luke
xxii. 31 : John xxi. 15-17). He was not distinguished by this title of honour
till he had proved himself to be the rock of the congregation ; Paul names him
everywhere Peter or Cephas, and preponderatingly in our Gospels he is called
Peter or Simon Beter, in cases where they do not intentionally keep to the
personal name in order to preserve the historical colouring. It was because this
became his apostolic name proper that Mark was led to think it had been given
at the call of the apostles (iii. 16), although, as we have seen, it had no such
significance for him as marking an epoch in his life. This idea is corrected in
the course of our narrative.

JESUS AND PETER. 371
opposition offered to this by modern criticism is perfectly
justifiable — viz. that this report is incomparably the older,
and in the case of Mark especially, goes back to Peter himself.
Conversely, according to. it, the account in the Fourth Gospel
is absolutely unhistorical, and yet nowhere is there a compre
hensible motive for this anticipation and remodelling of the
synoptical narrative. It is not apparent how this could con
tribute to the glorifying of Jesus, for it is incomparably
grander if Jesus, with a single word, wins those, till then
unknown to Him, than if they were guided either by the
Baptist or by one another.1
A truly historical examination will ask first of all whether
both accounts may not be authentic, i.e. representations of
distinct incidents in the life of the disciple. But then it is
apparent that the synoptical call of the disciples, by which the
four brothers were summoned to permanent association with
Jesus, with a view to their after activity in His service, is!
perfectly incomprehensible if we suppose, that no manner of
relation had commenced between them and Jesus ; it rather
assumes an acquaintanceship with these men and their acknow
ledgment of His Messiahship. But what this narrative treats
¦of is precisely the commencement of this acquaintance, and
the first establishment of this conviction. The narrative says
* Renan, indeed, regarded it as credible that John, irritated by the lowly part
he played in the older Gospels, desired for once to push himself into the fore
ground. Later critics assume that the great Gentile Christian of the second
century wished to supplant Peter, because of his zeal for the law, in the primacy
of the apostles, by thrusting forward the loved disciple, whom he made bearer of
liis liberal views. According to Strauss, he scattered the apostolic triumvirate
in Jerusalem, hostile to Paul (Gal. ii. 9), to which another James belonged,
not the Zebedean James, unfortunately silenced by death. But then John is
not represented here as being the first called ; he shares that position with the
otherwise unknown Andrew. Why then is Peter placed also after his younger
brother ? Why, is no mention made of James ? Why is this same Peter, the dis
regard of whom is in question, especially distinguished from among the three at
this very moment by the anticipation of the appellation ? If such motives really
lay at the foundation of the evangelist's representation, he had no need to trans
pose the call of the apostles from the Sea of Galilee to the Jordan, thus breaking
completely, but without reason, with the whole of the older tradition, while the
same end could have been attained better, and with less trouble, by a slight
alteration in the older narrative. Strauss' supposition, that he wished to make
the connection of the apostle with the trade of fisherman forgotten (comp. Orig.
¦c. Cels. i. 62), only betrays his utter incapacity to enter into the spirit of the
ancient Church, and into the ideas of the Judaism in which it originated.

372 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
nothing of Peter having from that hour remained permanently
with Jesus. Indeed, how could he do so, for Jesus did not
require it ; and for him, who had a house and trade to leave,
this was not so easy as for the two younger brothers, who had,
moreover, already quitted their home in order to participate in
the Baptist's ministry ? Neither is it said of Andrew that he
at once associated himself permanently with Jesus and broke
off his connection with the Baptist; but we conclude this
regarding John from his beginning his narrative of Jesus at
this point, and from his recounting so much concerning it, of
which Mark seems to have learned nothing from Peter. Mark's
history commences at the moment when Peter entered into
permanent companionship with Jesus, but that of John at the
point when his relation to Jesus was begun, which had really
been decided the very first day, and when he, along with
others of his after co-disciples, first became acquainted with
their Master and attained to belief in His Messiahship.
Where is there any contradiction in this, unless there is an
arbitrary identification of things that are totally distinct ?
The greatest stumbling-block to modern criticism is just
this fact of the Fourth Gospel representing the after disciples
as having attained now to belief in the Messiahship of Jesus,
while, according to a current idea founded on a view of Mark's
communications about the day at Ceesarea Philippi, which is
contradicted by the entire historical connection of his report,
this knowledge did not break on the disciples till a later
period. Of course, only the continuation of the narrative can
show us whether this idea is really compatible with the mani
fest historical facts. But it is still incomprehensible what
can have moved the Baptist's followers to quit the great
prophet and join themselves to the nameless man from
Nazareth.1 Criticism affirms, indeed, that the first disciples
were disciples of John. But the question remains essentially
the same, whether these Galilean fishermen were won by Him
1 On the other hand, it is totally inexplicable why the fourth evangelist should
think of antedating the faith of the disciples in the Messiah. According to the
view of criticism, the popular Messianic idea had become so strange to him, that,
as Baur thought, he only entered it as an antiquarian notice, while there was
certainly much more than this required for a complete knowledge of Jesus.
Surely he would see no glorification of Jesus in the early appearance of such an
imperfect knowledge of His significance. If this were so, he must have intended

THE JOHANNINE AND SYNOPTICAL ACCOUNTS. 373
by the Lake of Gennesareth or not. Belief in the great prophet
existed there also ; and even if the Baptist, as criticism sup
poses, never pointed directly to Jesus as the Messiah, yet he
had proclaimed the approach of the Messianic future, and had
referred to his great successor who was to bring this about.
Now One came after him who almost won them to Himself by
storm, and caused them to quit home and calling in order to
find a higher vocation in His companionship. Whom could
these men regard this successor of the Baptist as being, for
whom they were to give up more than they had done — accord
ing to criticism — for God's prophet ? They certainly never
imagined that this plain Rabbi from Nazareth was the Messiah
as they pictured Him from Old Testament. But the purport
of their Messianic belief was, that He and no other was the
Chosen of Jehovah, who, through God's miraculous power,
would one day reach that position of honour from which alone
He would be able to fulfil all the hopes of the nation, and so
to prove Himself the Messiah ; this, and this alone, can have
been the meaning of their acknowledgment of the Messiah.
Assuredly this was faith's first beginnings, which, in face of
the apparent and evermore acutely felt non-fulfilment of the
presuppositions with which this belief was connected, had to
pass through severe trials and manifold developments. But
may it not have been in reliance on that word of the prophet,
and when first impressed by Jesus' forcible personality, that
these clothed themselves in the hopeful acknowledgment, "We
have found the Messiah" ?
We may suppose with considerable certainty, that these
sunny days, brightened by the radiance of a divinely-directed
finding on Jesus' side, and of a blessed discovery on the part
of the first disciples of the object of their most glorious hopes,
is no picture drawn by the evangelist's fancy, but is historically
true. They were soon to come to an end. Jesus took His
departure for His home to visit His father's house once more,
and to take leave of it before the hour of His public appear
ance arrived. He was naturally enough accompanied by His
to represent this as the faith of a novice, elevated at Csssarea Philippi to a
higher stage, but which evidently and avowedly did not happen (John vi. 69),
for in that passage there is only the technical expression for the popular Messianic
belief (comp. Mark i. 24)."

374 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
young relative ; and Simon, who had in a higher sense, as he
himself suspected, attained the end of his pilgrimage to the
Jordan, joined Him also. But as He was departing, Jesus
encountered another of those pious Galileans who had under
taken a pilgrimage to the Jordan, a countryman of the two
sons of Jonah, named Philip from Bethsaida, whom He
summoned to accompany Him (John i. 44 f.). It is pure
arbitrariness, and opposed to the manifest coherence of the
evangelical narrative, to hold that this meant a summons to
discipleship. And, moreover, it is clear that the evangelist
only introduces this notice, so indifferent in itself, and therefore
the more certainly resting on historical reminiscence, because
it was this Philip who brought a fresh disciple to Jesus, the
winning of whom was an object of desire to the evangelist.
We know not what the bond was that united him with
Nathanael, i.e. gift of God, Theodore ; it could hardly be
relationship, since, according to John, his home was in Cana
(xxi. 2). We are also ignorant whether he was on his way
to baptism, or more probably returning from it, when Philip
met him and announced the joyful tidings that in Joseph's
son from Nazareth they had found Him who was promised by
the entire Scriptures (i. 46). We learn how this presented a
difficulty to the man from Cana, that the Messiah should come
from a neighbouring town not specially reputable, at least not
so in his circle (comp. p. 211). He, nevertheless, willingly
complied with the invitation to see for himself, and here again
Jesus' heart-searching acumen approved itself. For, seeing
Philip coming to Him, He said, " Behold an Israelite indeed,
in whom is no guile ! " (i. 47). His sober understanding plainly
hesitated at allowing himself to be deceived by an enthusiastic
hope. But he was an honest doubter, who, resolved to
overcome his doubts, searched after truth even when it
meant the refutation of aU his ingenuous scruples, while the
doubt which Jesus afterwards so frequently encountered in
Israel was nothing but the pretext of an irrational inward
dislike. This pure soul must be gained to the Messianic faith.
Nathanael was, of course, surprised that this strange man
should speak of him as if they were already acquainted. But
it became Jesus to show that He knew him, that He had

NATHANAEL. 375
seen into the profoundest secrets of his heart. It was one of
those moments when the Spirit of God, bestowed upon Jesus
in baptism, equipped Him with more than human knowledge
that He might accomplish His Father's work. This sincere
Israelite had hitherto dwelt in peace under his vine and fig-
tree, but a longing had never ceased to stir within him, —
that hope of his nation, the much-longed-for coming of the
Messianic time. He, too, had been reached by the summons of
the Baptist, which sounded like the herald of the first morn
of that glorious future. Do we know what flashed across his
soul when, under the fig-tree, ready for departure to the
Jordan, he implored God's blessing on his pilgrimage ? Did
he, like that grey-haired Simeon, receive a promise that he
should not return thence before seeing God's Messiah ? We
know not, but Jesus knew, and said, " Before that Philip called
thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee." Who
was He who had beheld him in that hour when alone with
his God ? Only the Messiah Himself could be enlightened
by God as to the most secret moment of his inward life, which
had actually been occupied in communion between his God
and himseK concerning the Messiah. Openly exulting, he
cried, " Thou art Jehovah's Chosen One ; Thou art the promised
King of Israel " (i 49- £).
It is admissible for the historian so to accommodate the
effect of these words of Jesus, reported in this source, as to show
that it could not have been a proof of supernatural knowledge ;
it may possibly have represented His prophetical endowment
(comp. John iv. 19), never His Messiahship. But the fact of
plainly supernatural knowledge cannot be gainsaid. What is
mentioned is not one isolated glance into the depths of the
soul ; it is past events which, along with their outward
circumstances, are known to Jesus. To say that Jesus had
in any way seen him accidentaUy beneath the fig-tree is not
only contrary to the evident sense of the narrative, which
manifestly assumes that Nathanael could not be seen there,
but it throws a blemish on the moral purity of Jesus.1
1 Such a one as Renan saw nothing striking in Jesus' occasionally, in order to
win men, making use of the innocent artifice, employed too by Joan of Arc, of
acting as if He possessed a knowledge of a secret, known only to Himself. But
if He employed this appearance to produce faith in Nathanael, or at least, if Ha

?

376 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
Nevertheless, no divine omniscience is here attributed to Him,
such as, according to the criticism, is peculiar to the Incarnate
Logos of the Fourth Gospel. What Jesus says afterwards,
unequivocally ascribes this miracle, like all that followed, to
the divine and miraculous help which He had ever at
command, whose conditions He had learnt certainly in the
desert, where He accepted them in willing obedience.
On the enthusiastic confession of the vanquished doubter,
Jesus showed that in this He had a proof of the divine
assistance as an aid to faith, and He promised Nathanael that
he should see greater things than these. Then it was that
He spake that word we noticed at His baptism and after the
temptation (John i 52; comp. pp. 336, 348). The dream of
the ancient forefather was fulfilled in Him (Gen. xxviii. 12).
Over Him the heavens were opened, and the angels of God,
the mediators of this divine assistance, ascended and descended
upon the Son of man.
made no attempt to correct the false suppositions on which His faith was
grounded, then He undeniably made use of immoral means for the accomplish
ment of His purpose. For those who will not acknowledge the fact, there is
nothing left but the hypothesis of pure invention, for which no other motive
can be alleged than the usual one of a glorification of Jesus. It must then be
assumed, with Strauss, that the great idealist k who remodelled the synoptic
tradition according to his higher ideas, rechristened Zaccheus, Nathanael, put
him under the branches instead of at the top of the fig-tree, and out of the
repentant son of Abraham made an Israelite without guile, and all that an
apostle might be delivered from his publican descent, and the natural sight of
Jesus be changed to a supernatural beholding.

CHAPTER XII.
AT THE MARRIAGE IN CANA.
JESUS' journey took Him to the little town of Cana.1
What was it that led Him there ? Even apart from
the extreme improbability of such an invitation having followed
Him into the wilderness or to the Jordan, the statement in
the text, which indubitably declares that He was not invited
until He appeared there (John ii 2), precludes the possibility
of His having been bidden to the wedding. But His going
to Nazareth and there receiving the invitation, or thence
following His mother to Cana, are pure inventions. It is
further to be said, that when, after an absence of six months,
Jesus returned to His native province from the south, He
proceeded at once to Cana (iv. 46). It is there we find His
mother at a wedding in what apparently is an intimately related
family (ii 1) ; and still more noticeable is the after account
of Jesus' proceeding to Capernaum, along with His mother
and the brethren (ii. 12), although it is not said of the
brothers that the marriage was the reason of their being
there. It may be inferred with great likelihood from this,
that Mary had removed to Cana after the death of her
husband ; indeed, this is confirmed by a remark made by the
1 We have here another of those recollections in detail which testify indu
bitably to the historical character of the Fourth Gospel. This name occurs
nowhere in the older tradition, but John knows the place so exactly that he
distinguishes it— the Galilean Cana— from another locality of the same name,
which, though belonging originally to the tribe of Asher (comp. Josh. xix. 28),
lay so near the Phcenician frontier that it had probably been for long within
the domain of aliens. Our Cana, on the contrary, was scarcely seven miles
north-west from Nazareth, at the foot of the mountains which shut in, on the
north, the plain of Asoschis (now el Battauf), while on the south rose the
mountains of Nazareth. 377

378 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
inhabitants of Nazareth, quoted by Mark, to the effect that of
the family only the sisters — who had probably married there
— now dwelt in their original home (Mark vi. 3). It was
therefore to His present home that Jesus went on His return
to Galilee.
No wonder that Jesus was at once invited to the marriage
by His mother's friends, and that, agreeably to the hospitality
of the East, the invitation included the newly won friends
who accompanied Him (John ii. 2). The narrative does not
say what their number was, nor who they were. Of course,
Simon had left them long before and returned to his home ;
but Nathanael was himself out of Cana, and perhaps may have
brought his friend Philip along with him, K he had not already
turned his face homewards. John only was undoubtedly
present at the marriage, about which he narrates an event
memorable to him. Besides, he only recounted Jesus' first
acquaintance with the above-named men, because specially
memorable sayings of Jesus were connected with it ; but
this does not preclude the possibility of others having joined
themselves to the tiny caravan, journeying northwards, or of
some of them having appeared with Jesus in Cana. The
current notion of the marriage feast having lasted for several
days is shown to be perfectly inadmissible by the fact that
the evangelist recollects how it took place on the third day
after the departure from the Jordan ; from the most southerly
end, Cana could easily be reached in two or three days.
According to Jewish custom, the wedding took place in the
house of the bridegroom (comp. ii. 9), who provided every
thing necessary ; that this was not done in a niggardly way,
is shown by the fact of a special master of the ceremonies
being in command of the servants (ii. 8) ; and the number and
size of the waterpots, which were placed there on account of
the Jewish cleansings (ii. 6), may be supposed fitted for the
requirements of a large number of guests.
In the course of the feast, the wine began to fail, and the
mother of Jesus, whose friendly eye had quickly observed the
imminent embarrassment, communicated the fact to her Son.
It is incomprehensible how this should generally be regarded
as containing indirectly a demand for aid by means of a
miracle. This is really to assume that Mary had already

THE MARRIAGE AT CANA. 379
experienced some such manifestations of her Son's miraculous
power as are so liberally imputed to Him by the apocryphal
Gospels in their absurd miracles of the infancy, while the
Gospel expressly aUudes to this event at the marriage as the
first of His miracles (ii. 11). Everything miraculous which*
the mother had experienced at His birth pointed to her Son's
high destiny, but not perhaps to a higher nature in virtue of
which He had at command an unlimited miraculous power.
Even if she had already heard of the occurrences at His
baptism, or of the testimony borne by the Baptist and the
experiences of His disciples, which is highly improbable, the
utmost she could have looked forward to was a speedy
declaration of His Messianic dignity. But if we enter in any
degree into the form and purport of the Messianic expectation
at that period, we see how far she would be from supposing
that this would occur through a miracle performed at a
wedding. The assumption is then unavoidable, that Mary
thought of a natural remedy. It is quite comprehensible how
for that reason it occurred to her to apply to her Son. There
is no need whatever for reflecting how the grown-up Son,
with His certain and unclouded confidence in God, had
probably often quieted her anxieties in regard to the petty
troubles of domestic Kfe, and in temporal matters had shown
Himself ready and able to aid. Manifestly, too, the threatened
dilemma had been really brought about by the unexpected
guests whom He had brought with Him ; it was therefore a
likely expedient to call upon Him indirectly for assistance by
telling Him about it. Since He was surrounded by friends
who, like Nathanael, had connections in the place, He could
soon find ways and means for this. From the first, Jesus
apprehended it otherwise. He saw in the well-reasoned
summons of His mother a sign that the opportunity was to
be granted Him of showing what He had just promised to
the disciples (i. 52). We know, however, from the history of
the temptation, that He could not aid where natural need or
human desire impelled Him to do so, but that He was obliged
to wait until a divine intimation bade Him help, and He was
made fit to perform the miraculous action. On this account
He had to set aside the well-meant inference of His mother ;
but He did it with the firm conviction that the hour was to

380 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
come when He would be permitted to aid.1 Even His
mother saw in this utterance only a delay in assistance. But
how far she was from thinking of directly divine miraculous
aid, is shown by her directing the servants to obey Him. For
a miracle of divine omnipotence human helpers are not
necessary (ii. 3—5).
According to the narrative of the evangelist, when Jesus
knew that His hour was come, He commanded the servants
to fill afresh the waterpots of stone, which had been emptied
after the purification of the hands and vessels before dinner ;
and when they had done so, He bade them take some of it
for the governor of the feast to taste. Now it was that wine
was discovered in the pitchers ; and the governor of the feast,
amazed at its delicious flavour, called the bridegroom, and gave
expression to his astonishment that, contrary to custom, he
should have kept the best wine to the last, when the guests
were hardly in a condition to appreciate it properly (ii. 7-10).
That playful observation, uttered in pleasant surprise, neither
assumes that the guests in the wedding hall were already
intoxicated, nor must it be judged of and found wanting
according to the customs of refined luxury ; it only serves to
establish the costliness of Jesus' gift. Such it was to the
bridegroom, even if he learnt as little as the wedding
company of the actual state of the case. It was by no means
Jesus' way to produce a sensation by His miracles. Even
the servants knew right well that they had filled the jar with
water ; how it happened that the steward found precious
wine in it, they knew not. What the evangelist expressly
reports is only that Jesus' lately-gained followers had their
faith strengthened by the abundant blessing of God which
was bestowed upon their Master (ii. 11). It is clear that
Jesus did not appear at this wedding as in any way a pubUc
character, but simply as an intimate neighbour's son who
1 It is also incomprehensible how a certain severity can be found in this, which
it is thought to justify by the perfectly preposterous assumption of its being
a correction of unfounded maternal vanity. Even the much criticized speech
to His mother is no other than that with which Jesus on the cross began His
last loving words (xix. 26, comp. xx. 15), and cannot be judged of according to
our taste as to language. Jesus only says that His hour did not depend on
human persuasion, but on the divine resolve as to His actions, which now, as
at other times, will be directly made known to Him.

THE MIRACLE AT CANA. 381
brought his friends along with him. The story was therefore
enacted before the commencement of His public ministry
proper, and so it is perfectly explicable why it did not pass
into the tradition of the older evangelists.1
The narrator leaves no doubt as to how he would have
the miracle apprehended. He speaks of the water which
became wine; he expressly establishes the fact that it was
water the servants drew, and exquisite wine that the master
of the feast found in the jars (ii. 9 f.). He designedly
precludes any artificial limitation of the "luxury miracle"
over which Strauss was at one time sorely troubled. For the
intentional prominence given to the number and size of the
vessels according to measure (ii. 6), and the emphasis laid on
their being filled to the brim (ii. 7), plainly assumes that all
the . water had become wine, not only what had been drawn
out; and Jesus' uncircumscribed command to draw (ii. 8),
assumes that the water in all the pitchers had been changed.
There is certainly no need for troubling oneself and others
with the notion of a " change in substance," or for insisting
upon such a wine having originated here as was usually
produced by human art from the fruit of the vine, since
water which, through a miraculous act, had taken on the
taste and the effect of wine, had in the popular estimation
become wine.2 There is certainly no question here of this
1 Just as little as this tells against the historicity of the narrative, can there
now be any mention of the small criticisms with which the narrative was
formerly tortured in order to gain some kind of pretext for getting rid of the
miracle which formed its central point. It is actually the criticism which most
frequently declared it to be fiction, that has fully acknowledged the harmonious
connection of the whole.
2 It does not in any way tell against this when an endeavour like Neander's
is made to render the conception of this event more vivid, which, being
miraculous, does, by reason of its very nature, shun representation, and to
do so by remembering how it is the power of God which daily produces wine
from the natural juice of the vine, or communicates greater powers to the
healing waters, so much so, that even the ancients spoke of waters which
flowed from the earth resembling wine in their intoxicating powers. But
these analogies must not be misused in order to make the miracle appear as
something half natural by means of the conception, so open to contradiction, of
an "accelerated natural process," which was discovered by the faint-hearted
supranaturalism of Olshausen. For the difference remains in this, that what
in those analogies is brought about by natural causes involving the gradation of
a natural process of development, is in this case accomplished by a directly
divine act, independent of these conditions.

382 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
operation being thought of as proceeding from Jesus' divine
omniscience. For the narrative is expressly introduced as a
first confirmation of the words by which Jesus promised His
disciples that they should behold the miraculous help of God,
ever at His disposal (John i. 52). Every attempt to sub
stitute for the miracle an entirely natural incident, which
had first taken the character of a miracle in the evangelist's
conception or in later legend, has been wrecked on the
evangelist's statement regarding the impression which it
made on the disciples (ii. 11). Whether this is regarded,
as by the older rationalism, as an unexpected wedding-
present, or a species of mirth on Jesus' part, or is referred,
as was done by Sclienkel, to Jesus' genuinely humane care,
Jesus is thereby always involved in a highly doubtful situa
tion, since He must either have meant that impression to be
left, which rested on a totally different view of the incident,
or, at least, did not gainsay it by an explanation to the
disciples. But more than all, although we were to put that
impression to the account of the later idealizing view, there
is no conceivable proof bow such an utterly unimportant
incident could in legend be extended to a miracle. If any
one says that the plain simplicity of the later conception of
Jesus was no longer satisfying, the only consequence would
be that that history would be quickly forgotten, and not
passed on into tradition ; but there would be no reason for
regarding it as miraculous.1
On the other hand, this does not preclude the possibility
of an incident of original importance assuming a still higher
character in the after-recoUections of eye-witnesses, in which
the wondrous impression of Jesus' whole life threw a radiance
over isolated experiences. What still prompts the question,
Did this happen? is not the miracle, as such, of divine
1 It is only another form of the natural explanation to transfer the miracle,
as is done by Ewald and Lange, more or less distinctly to the minds of the
guests, who, inspired by the speeches of Jesus, believed they had drunk wine,
while it was nothing but water. Moreover, this view assumes what the text
gives no hint of, that Jesus had disclosed His didactic activity at the wedding ;
but it offers no explanation of how an incident which must frequently have
happened, when Jesus, who did not withdraw Himself from society, made use
of the same for the accomplishment of His highest aim, became in this one case
the legend of such a unique miracle.

A MIRACLE OF OMNIPOTENCE OR OF PROVIDENCE % 383
omnipotence, but the isolated position in which it stands in
the midst of the differently constituted miracles of evangelical
history, and the disproportion in degree between one such
unique miracle and the result following the strengthening of
the disciples' faith — which is stated by this evangelist alone.
It must be added that this simple statement as to the result,
however much it is opposed to the origination of the narrative
in legend, which would naturally increase not only the idea
of the event, but also that of its impression and result, still
xetains something very striking. It is absolutely incompre
hensible how this miracle, which, according to the representa
tion of the evangelist, was so striking, did not become known
to the whole company, and how they could escape being
powerfully impressed. The narrative itself refers immediately
after this to an incident which was perfected among the
narrow circle of disciples, and which, in its miraculous cha
racter, was only there appreciated. There must thus have
been something in the occurrence, which had at the time
given the disciples the impression of the miraculous, and
which could therefore present a point of contact for that
re-formation in the remembrance. That, however, could only
consist in this, that in unconditioned confidence on God,
after Jesus had promised a remedy, He turned to His com
panions for assistance ; they at first saw no way of doing so,
but ultimately means presented themselves for removing the
difficulty which had arisen in a way humanly unforeseen,
although brought about by human instrumentality. It would
then only be an undoubted miracle of divine providence,
which, from the first, gave the disciples the impression that
the divine miraculous aid had not failed or disappointed their
Master's bold confidence in God, and which, in their after
memory, when the details of the incident had faded, appeared
as a miracle of divine omnipotence. A thoughtful historical
inquiry will be compelled to leave it to the unified impression
of the history of Jesus, whether one thinks he can make a
stand at a miracle of divine omnipotence, or believes he must
assume in this the transposing of a miracle of divine provi
dence, chiefly because the peculiar meaning of the incident
amounts in both views to essentially the same thing.
Modern criticism supposes that this meaning can only be

384 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
discovered by regarding the whole narrative as a free didactic
fiction.1 But the impossibility of carrying out this view is
shown by the very attempt to grasp the didactic ideas of
the invention. Showing the most diverse sides, constantly
disclosing new references, tendering the most heterogeneous
motives, and yet never exhausted by one of them, never
carrying out one of them absolutely — the simple narrative
mocks every possibility of such an exposition. At first that
bright picture of a wedding, and Jesus' sympathy for all the
joys of life, appeared to form a contrast to the gloomy asceti
cism of the Baptist, and therefore to express the difference
between Jesus and His forerunner. Thus a reference could
be seen in the water of the cleansing jars to the Baptist's
baptism of water, and the gKt of the Messianic fulness of the
Spirit might be compared with the generous wine which here
flowed in torrents. But thereupon the significance became
yet loftier. Now it was Judaism itself whose wine had failed,
and the new wine of Christianity which had taken its place ;
or what for some was actual wine, was for others the spiritual
wine of faith in the Son of God. According to a common
idea, Jesus Himself became further the Messianic Bridegroom,
who provided for His Church at the promised great Messianic
marriage-supper. This led again to the Christian sacrament,
where in wine the Messiah offers His blood for the acceptance
of the Church ; and therefore the hour to which He pointed was
really the hour of His death. From the other side it seemed
more advisable to point out a connection with synoptical
materials, which the evangelist is, moreover, said to have
redacted in a prejudiced manner; and since the words of
Jesus, which alone' can be thought of in this connection
(Luke ii. 49, v. 39), present too few points of contact with
1 The older view may now be looked upon as superseded, which saw here a
myth analogous to the Old Testament miracles in the desert, or even to the
Grecian miracles of Bacchus ; and so, too, may the view which imagined a
misunderstood parable. It is now thought that the narrative may be appre
hended with more likelihood as a profound fiction, in which the evangelist
embodied his didactic thoughts. Even this kind of explanation has long been
anticipated by a certain species of apologetics, which was never satisfied with
the various references it found in a narrative certainly regarded as historical, —
references which must necessarily lead to mistrust of the fiction, since Jesus'
history cannot be resolved into pure symbolical enigmas, which nothing but the
acuteness of a modern interpreter understands how to solve.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MIRACLE. 385
the real purport of the narration, hold was laid upon the story
of the temptation,- the solemn fast-days of which should,
moreover, be replaced by these joyous feast-days. Now, as
then, Jesus was challenged to perform a miracle ; in the
former case He was to change stones into bread, in the latter,
water into wine ; there the devil had to stand aside, here, the
mother ; only, in the latter case, He afterwards did what was
asked of Him, and through that refusal desired only to secure
His personal lordship, and not to prove His resignation to
the divine will. The more it was believed that such refer
ences had been found, and the more their number grew from
one interpreter to another, the more assuredly was it supposed
that the problem of the narrative had been solved ; and it was
overlooked how the first trait of character in each tendency-
fiction is to permit an evident prominence to one compact
foundation idea, or when, as in this case, it is deeply veiled,
to indicate it by some word. But our evangelist, who on
other occasions has always a word of Jesus ready when it is
needful to point out the deeper significance of His miracles,
does not give the slightest intimation here. Add to this the
sure historical framework of the nairation, the minute recol
lection of time and place, the appearance of the mother, which
is accounted for by no one from the idea of the history, and
the observation made by the ruler of the feast, which is taken
from life, and has often proved a stumbling-block, — all these
resist in the most decided way the interpreting of this narra
tive as pure fiction.
The evangelist leaves us in no doubt as to how he explained
the significance of the history from his standpoint. Jesus
was to him the Incarnate Logos, to whose originally divine
glory this miracle of divine omnipotence referred (ii. 11).
But certainly for the first believers that cannot have been the
historical significance of this miracle, for as yet they did not
suspect the appearance in Jesus of the Divine Logos. It|
probably consisted only in a confirmation of His Messianici]
calling ; for such an abstract idea as the operation of Christi-J
anity, not destroying what is innate, but transfiguring it, which/
besides, could only be connected with the purely formal side
of the miracle, was certainly not present to Jesus. But as a
contrast to the preaching, of the Baptist especially, there was
WEISS. — I. 2 B

386 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
a call for Him to reveal Himself as He who was come to
open for His people the fountains of all the promised blessings.
Thus His appearance at the marriage presented an opportunity
for making Himself known as the great Dispenser of gladness
and blessing, who, in the power of God, bears the richest
supply of divine gifts into the misery of the earthly tife. The
staying of the threatened deficiency became a symbolical
utterance in deeds, which the Orientals are more accustomed
to understand than we sober inhabitants of the West, even
apart from the probability of Jesus having spoken some word
of intimation, which had passed out of memory. It is mani
fest, however, how perfectly the same it is for the significance
of the incident, whether it was brought about through a miracle
of divine providence or through one of divine omnipotence, as
the evangelist was obliged to conceive of it according to his
view of the significance of the occurrence. It is therefore
equally clear how the fulness of the divine gift, which was at
one time regarded as being provided because of the soberness
of the wedding guests, and in a paltry way, at another, as care
for the housekeeping of the young couple, belongs particularly
to the significance of the miracle. It may therefore be
constantly admitted that John's eye-witness is not prejudiced,
if his declarations as to the abundance of the wine only
expressed the narrator's conception of the extent of the miracle
(ii. 6-8).
We do not know how long Jesus' residence in Cana lasted ;
but it cannot have been long before the approach of the Pass
over, when Jesus prepared for His journey to the feast. He
employed the last remaining days in visiting Capernaum, where
His mother and brethren accompanied Him, as well as some
of His lately-won followers, who were, in part indeed, at home
by the Lake of Gennesareth (ii. 12). Assuredly His visit
would be, first of all, to the closely-related family of Zebedee ;
but He would seek out Simon also, in order to draw tighter
their mutual bond.1 It is incomprehensible how not only the
beginning of Jesus' public ministry, but also the calling of the
1 When criticism sees in this only an anticipation of the removal to
Capernaum, mentioned in Matt. iv. 13, it forgets to explain how a removal
can be deduced from a residence which is expressly limited to a few days. For
us, the perfectly unimportant notice of this visit is only another proof that some

THE VISIT TO THE FEAST. 387
disciples, of which the evangelist relates nothing, should be
placed in those " not many days." Certainly just as little
now as at the marriage did Jesus appear in any way as a
public character. It was in order to appear for the first time
publicly that He went up to Jerusalem for the next feast of
Passover, as soon as that approached (ii. 13). Nothing is
said of any accompanying disciples ; but it is mentioned, by
the way (ii 17), that also at the feast followers collected
around Him, believing that in Him they had found the
Messiah ; and, after what we heard before, this is quite
intelligible. It is especially this representation in the Fourth Gospel,
however, according to which Jesus went up to Jerusalem at
the commencement of His public ministry, that is declared by
the Tubingen criticism to be absolutely unhistoricaL1 The
evangelist, it is said, could not rapidly enough confront Jesus
with His enemies on a more important scene of His ministry
than was presented by His remote native province. But this
is to overlook the fact that the evangelist, who is always said by
criticism to have represented Jesus as highly anti- Jewish, and
as superior to the law, could not possibly have an interest in
making Him a faithful visitor to the feast, while it is in entire
correspondence with His historical position to the law as pre
sented in the other evangelists, when now, as often in later
memorable recollection was, for the narrator, connected with it ; it would
probably be the first visit made by God's Chosen One to the home of the
evangelist. 1 Baur even affirmed that the evangelist made Judea the special scene of Jesus'
ministry in resolute opposition to the older tradition. But this was founded
partially on a misconstruction of John iv. 44, where by home Jesus cannot
have meant Judea, for it was not intended to make good His leaving Judea, but
why He passed from Samaria to Galilee, and partially on the fact that a large
number of the events related by John happened in Jerusalem and Judea (comp.
ii. 13 to iv. 3, chap, v., and nearly all that follows vii. 10). But the reason for
this manifestly was that the evangelist, in accordance with his plan, represented
preponderatingly the conflict between Jesus and the true unbelief which had its
chief seat in Judea (comp. p. 128). Moreover, even he assumes repeatedly a
longer activity in Galilee (iv. 44 f., vi. 1 f., vii. 1-4); he knows that the
disciples were Galileans (i. 45, xxi. 2) ; represents Him as being called in
Jerusalem the Galilean prophet or Messiah (vii. 41-52) ; and there, where Jesus
is said to have had His proper sphere of action, He appears to be quite
unknown (v. 13). It is true, however, that in the Fourth Gospel Jesus goes
twice up to the feast besides that first visit (v. 1, vii. 10), while the older
Gospels know nothing of these earlier visits.

388 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
days, He joined in the pious custom of visiting the feast,
especially as He would have given great and just offence to
the people if He had emancipated Himself from this. It is
alleged, indeed, that this would have brought about much
earlier the catastrophe, which occurred at His last visit to
the feast ; but that is to forget how, conversely, that cata
strophe would be historically incomprehensible, if the conflict
with the hierarchy, which prepared the way for His ruin, had
not begun long before, for there was little reason for its being
roused by the ministry of the Prophet of Galilee. To suppose
it was not till the close of His Galilean ministry that He saw
how His cause would meet with no decisive success so long as
He kept away from the capital, is still to leave it incompre
hensible how one, who was at home among the peculiar
circumstances of Jewish national life, should not have seen
this clearly from the first. Indeed, since His ministry was
planned from the beginning in regard to the nation as a whole,
He could not refrain from searching for it first and foremost
where the central point of the nation's collective life was to
be found ; and only experience of the failure of His ministry
there could induce Him to confine Himself for a time to His
native province.
Thus every historical probability is in favour of the
representation of the Fourth GospeL Certainly the older
Gospels seem to contradict it, in so far as there, according to
the usual view, Jesus' last journey, which was to the Passover
at which He met His death, is directly connected with the
Galilean ministry. But the reason for this is evidently that
Mark, whose scheme forms the foundation of the other two
Gospels, arranged according to purely topical points of view
the reminiscences of the more rich and successful Galilean
ministry, at the commencement of which his voucher first
entered into permanent association with Jesus ; to these he
added, in the same topical way, reminiscences from the last
decisive time in Jerusalem.1 It follows, however, from
detached reminiscences, preserved by the older evangelists
1 It cannot be affirmed that he directly excludes earlier visits made by Jesus
to the feasts, for it is impossible that Mark xi. 11 can say that Jesus, who up to
His thirtieth year must have been frequently in Jerusalem, looked about Him
like a novice. From indirect intimations in Matt. xxi. 10 f., Luke xxiv. 6, it

THE HISTORICITY OF THE FEAST. 389
themselves, that Jesus must have visited Jerusalem at an
earlier date. Certainly, the repeatedly mentioned influx of
people from Judea and Jerusalem (Mark iii. 8), with
particular allusion to the scribes (iii. 22, vii. 1), may be
explained by the excitement which tidings of Him would
arouse in the capital, although it is hardly probable, in view
of the profound contempt with which that remote province
was there regarded (comp. John vii. 52), that any special
notice would have been taken of this Galilean celebrity, if
Jesus Himself had not given a challenge. A disciple like
Joseph of Arimathea (Mark xv. 43) Jesus may possibly
have gained at the feast, during the last days of His ministry ;
but before entering the capital He shows Himself at home in
Bethany, which lay before the gates (Mark xi. 1 f. ; comp.
ver. 11 f., xiv. 3) ; and the ordering of the Last Supper
(xiv. 13-15) presupposes acquaintanceships in Jerusalem
which cannot possibly have been formed in those last days, for
Jesus, along with His entire following of disciples, reckoned
upon the upper chamber of their acquaintance. Perfectly
decisive, however, is that mournful farewell in which Jesus
reminded the inhabitants of the capital of His often repeated
endeavours on their behalf, which had all been unavailing
(Matt, xxiii. 37).1 Later critics assist themselves by apply
ing the word to a longer residence before the last Passover ;
but this at once interrupts the synoptic scheme, and concedes
one important point to the Fourth GospeL
This question is closely connected with that concerning the
seems as if the other two evangelists, proceeding upon his representation, had
thought of it as if Jesus had then come to Jerusalem for the first time during
His public ministry.
1 How invincible this word is found by "criticism to be, is best shown by the
unheard-of distortion of palpable meaning attempted by Baur, as well as by the
directly adventurous experiments by which Strauss sought to throw doubt on
its dependence upon the oldest groundwork of evangelical traditions (comp.
Luke xiii. 34). Baur thought that by "children of Jerusalem," which, accord
ing to a well-known Hebrew custom, applied to the inhabitants, might be under
stood a simple reference to the whole people. Strauss supposed that this word
contained a citation from a book entitled The Wisdom of God, in which God
was represented as speaking. This supposition rested upon a wantonly mis
construed passage (comp. Luke xi. 49), because it was in the same speech which
in the case of Matthew (who makes no mention of what undoubtedly was a
secondary expression), but not in the case of Luke, contains that word to
Jerusalem.

390 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
chronology. If Jesus began His public ministry, even in a
limited degree, at a Passover, and also died during a feast of
Passover, then His ministry must have embraced at least two
complete years, for one Passover, at all events, occurred between
(John vi. 4). The older Gospels were frequently apprehended
by the Church Fathers as showing that the ministry had lasted
for one year only, and thus they interpreted the prophecy in
Isaiah (lxi. 2 ; comp. Luke iv. 19), which is also by Jesus applied
to Himself; we have seen already how Luke perhaps wished
to characterize the fifteenth year of Tiberius as this year (Luke
iii. 1). But Luke's view cannot have much influence with us,
for he may simply have drawn it from Mark's representation,
and his narrative was by no means chronological, but detached
traditions were arranged according to topical points of view
(comp. p. 46 f.). In his case, the appearance of a one-year's
ministry only arises from the fact of the Passion alone being
fixed chronologically, because of the way in which it is con
nected with a feast of Passover ; and therefore it looks as if
no other feast of the same kind occurred during Jesus' public
life. On the other hand, during the course of this year, as
represented by Mark, we find a narration which assumes that
the ears of corn were then ripe (Mark ii. 23), and which must
therefore have occurred at the time of the Passover. Besides
this, there is a narrative given by the first evangelist, which
must be referred to the culminating point of Jesus' ministry,
and the incidents of which took place in the month Adar, and
therefore not long before a feast of Passover (Matt. xvii. 24).1
It is not possible, however, to comprehend how it occurred to
the fourth evangelist to break with the idea of a one-year's
ministry, if it was really verified in the oldest tradition in
spite of its pretended purely ideal tendencies. Even repeated
visits in one year, if that were necessary, were provided for by
ancient custom. For this reason, even those who in general
regard John's Gospel as totally unhistorical, hold fast to a
ministry of several years' duration. If in this point, then, the
1 The strange mention of a Sabbath in Luke vi. 1, which is frequently referred '
to a Sabbath about the time of the feast of Passover, I regard as an old cor
ruption of the text, and this for reasons connected with language and with
criticism of the text. The reference in Luke xiii. 6-9, or even in xiii. 32 f. , to a
ministry of several years' duration, I hold to be an allegorizing misinteipretation.

DURATION OF JESUS' PUBLIC MINISTRY. 391
Fourth Gospel proves itself to be historically more exact, it
will have more authority in regard to the journey taken by
Jesus, which it alone relates.
In itself, indeed, John's eclectic manner of narration offers
apparently no sure guarantee that Jesus' public ministry lasted
for only two years. The second year is certainly marked out,
step by step, by the Passover in spring (vi. 4), the feast of
Tabernacles in autumn (vii. 2), that of the Dedication of the
Temple in winter (x. 22), and the death Passover (xi. 55); but
for the first we possess only one certain datum in a word of
Jesus', which points distinctly to the beginning of December
(iv. 35). As immediately thereafter His chief activity in
Galilee began, whose culminating and turning point was
marked by events occurring during the time of the Passover,
the space for it seems to be reduced to narrow limits. Still
another journey took place during this time, although it is not
said to which feast it was that Jesus went up (v. 1). If this
was a Passover, or one of the two principal feasts which
followed, but which it is not possible to fix, then Jesus'
ministry extended over another whole year ; but although the
events related in chaps, v. and vi are manifestly conjoined on
account of their great importance, yet it is hardly compatible
with the evangelist's way of relating (vi. 1), that they should
have been separated by six or even by twelve months. We
shall see besides, that, judging from palpable combinations, this
journey took place at a time when Jesus looked on the result
of His Galilean ministry as essentially settled. It will there
fore be safest to think of that feast which alone, in the time
between December and April, can be taken into account.
This is the feast of Purim, held in the month Adar (March),
which perhaps John did not describe more particularly, since
it was unknown to his Grecian readers. The fact of its not
being necessary to celebrate this feast at the central sanctuary,
and there being no certain proof of great esteem for it in the
time of Jesus, is no argument whatever against Jesus' going
up to Jerusalem, and His doing so for other reasons than
merely to attend the feast. We believe, then, that a public
ministry of two years' duration must still be held, for any
thing else there is nothing definite to rely on ; we only gain
an extended period, over which the phases of the history,

392 SECOND BOOK. THE PREPARATION.
which developed so rapidly and so plainly, cannot -be dis
tributed. Nothing is more intelligible than that Jesus should choose
the nearest of the three great feasts at which all Israel was
collected in the capital, for appearing there publicly for the
first time. It is frequently overlooked, however, that if
Jesus Himself was conscious of His Messianic calling, which
in reality concerned the entire nation, He could not begin in
a narrow sphere a ministry such as every rabbi exercised,
without placing His calling in a false light. Unlikely as it
was that He should think of beginning by proclaiming Him
self before all the people as the Messiah, yet He would cer
tainly seek opportunity for at once making Himself publicly
known as one whose divinely - given calling was directed
to the religious centre of the national life of the people.
For this end, the congregation at the feast was obviously
the proper place. What occurred there, before the eyes of
thousands who were collected from all quarters of the land,
was certain of public attention ; what was there applauded
passed as legitimated. In His more contracted home, the
carpenter's son found a constant obstacle in His own past
life ; Jesus Himself recognised it as belonging to the course
of the world, that they, who had seen Him in straitened cir
cumstances leading a life like that of others, could not easily
reconcile themselves to beholding Him all at once in such a
unique position, and with such a unique significance, — verily
a prophet is not regarded in his own country (Mark vi. 4 ;
John iv. 44). Even if He succeeded in finding adherents
there, yet His recognition in a remote corner of the land, which
in the capital was partly despised, partly suspected in regard
to its orthodoxy and social customs (John vii. 41, 52), would
rather be against than helpful to His recognition by the body
of the people. A Galilean Messiah would from the first have
to fear the opposition excited on the one side by the natural
tension between the capital and the province, and on the other by
the jealousy of the former regarding its position of pre-eminent
culture. It was especially associated with the peculiarity of
the Israelitish national life, that it, in a most unique way, was
concentrated round Jerusalem, which, as the centre of culture,
was at once the spot where everything had to be legitimated

MOTIVE FOR THE FIRST JOURNEY TO THE FEAST. 393
that claimed to possess significance for the religious national
life of Israel. The Baptist could summon the people to him at
the Jordan, because he aimed first of all at the repentance and
conversion of the individual. Jesus, who desired to create a
new life in the nation itself, and in the theocracy of Israel,
had to reach the people at what was the centre of its religious
life. Of course there was no question of a legalizing by the
actual leaders of the people, neither by the official leaders in
the Sanhedrin nor those freely chosen in the popular Phari
saical party ; Jesus could not rest His recognition upon an
outward authority, and He was sufficiently acquainted with
these leaders of the people to know what position they would
ultimately take up towards Him. But even they owed their
authority principally to the fact of their representing the
spirit which dwelt in the community of Israel ; and so it was
desirable to obtain a public recognition which alone could
prepare the way to the heart of His little province. This
could be done best and most fully where the congregation
was gathered in solemn assembly, and when a natural point of
contact was offered Him in the religious excitement of the
people. He certainly could not know when and how an opportunity
would present itself during the feast. In this case, also, He
would have to wait till His Father in heaven pointed out the
time and hour, the way and the means.

END OF VOLUME L

MORRISON AND OTBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Four Volumes, imperial 8w, handsomely bound, price 18s. each,
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS.
Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.

Volume I.
THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Bt PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., and MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D.
Volume II.
ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL.
By W. MILLIGAN, D.D., and W. F. MOULTON, D.D.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
By the Veky Rev. Dean HOWSON and Rev. Canon SPENCE.
Volume III. (Just published.)
Romans. By Philip Schaff, D.D., and Matthew B. Riddle, D.D. —
Corinthians. By Principal David Brown, D.D. — Galatians. By Philip
Schaff, D.D. — Ephesians. By Matthew B. Riddle, D.D. — Philippians. By
J. Eawson Lumby, D.D.— Colossians. By Matthew B. Riddle, D.D.—
Thessalonians. By Marcus Dods, D.D. — Timothy. By the Very Rev. Dean
Plumptre.— Titus. By J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. — Philemon. By J. Rawson
Lumby, D.D. Volume IV. (Shortly.)
Hebrews. Joseph Angus, D.D. — James. Paton J. Gloag, D.D. — I. and
II. Peter. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.— I. II. and III. John. William B. Pope,
D.D.— Jude. Joseph Angus, D.D.— Revelation. William Milligan, D.D.
Slaps and Flans — Professor Arnold Guyot.
Illustrations— W. M. Thomson, D.D., Author of ' The Land and the Book.'

From the Eight Rev. the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
1 A useful, valuable, and instructive Commentary. In all the interpretation is set forth
with clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the volumes to the
thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and refleots great credit on the
publishers as well as the writers.'
From ' The London Quarterly Review.'
1 The second volume lies before us, and cannot fail to be successful. We have care
fully examined that part of the volume which is occupied with St. John— of the Acts we
shall speak by and by, and 'elsewhere— and think that a more honest, thorough, and, in
some respects, perfect piece of work has not lately been given to the public. The two
writers are tolerably well known ; and known as possessing precisely the qualities,
severally and jointly, which this kind of labour demands. We may be sure that in them
the highest Biblical scholarship, literary taste, and evangelical orthodoxy meet.'
From ' The Record.'
' The first volume of this Commentary was warmly recommended in these columns
soon after it was published, and we are glad to be able to give as favourable a testimony
to the second volume. . . . The commentators have given the results of their own
researches in a simple style, with brevity, but with sufficient fulness; and their exposi
tion is, all through, eminently readable. . . . The work is one which students of even
considerable learning may read with interest and with profit. The results of the
most recent inquiries are given in a very able and scholarly manner. The doctrines of
this Commentary are evangelical, and tho work everywhere exhibits a reverence which
will make it acceptable to devout readers.'

T. and T. Clark' s Publications.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s.,
THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Ninth Series of the Cunningham Hectares.
By Eev. GEO. SMEATON, D.D.,
Professor of Exegetical Theology, New College, Edinburgh ; Author of ' Our
Lord's and the Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement.'
'This work amply sustains the reputation that the series in its past volumes has
gained for learning, for freshness of treatment, and for adaptations to tbe needs of our
time. Indeed, it is one of the best of the series. . . . The volume is sure to take a
leading place in our best theological literature.' — Christian Treasury.
'A valuable monograph. . . . The masterly exposition of doctrine given in these
lectures has been augmented in value by the wise references to current needs and
common misconceptions.' — British and Foreign Evangelicd Review.
1 It is not only a scholarly treatise, but it is eloquent in style and spiritual in feeling.'
Evangelical Magazine. Just published, Fifth Edition, crown 8vo, price 6s.,
THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN:
SPIKIT, SOUL, AND BODY.
Applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New
Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body.
By Eev. J. B. HEARD, M.A.
' The author has got a striking and consistent theory. Whether agreeing or disagree
ing with that theory, it is a book which any student of the Bible may read with pleasure.'
— Guardian.
' An elaborate, ingenious, and very able book.' — London Quarterly Review.
' The subject is discussed with much ability and learning, and the style is sprightly
and readable. It is candid in its tone, and original both iu thought and illustration.'—
Wesleyan Methodist Magazine.
WORKS OF JOHN CALVIN.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3 vols.
Tracts on the Beformation, 3 vols.
Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols.
Harmony of the Last Four Books of the
Pentateuch. 4 vols.
Commentary on Joshua, 1 vol.
on the Psalms, 5 vols.
on Isaiah, 4 vols.
on Jeremiah and Lamentations, 5 vols.
on Ezekiel, 2 vols.
on Daniel, 2 vols.
on Hosea, 1 vol.
on Joel, Amos, and Obadiah, 1 vol.
on Jonah, Micah, and Nahum, 1 vol.
on Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Eaggai,
1 vol.
A Selection of Six Volumes (or more at the same proportion) for 21s., with the exception
of the Institutes, 3 vols. ; Psalms, vol. 5; Habakkuk, and Corinthians, 2 vols.
Any separate Volume (with the above exceptions), 6s.
The Letters, edited by Dr. Bonnet, 2 vols., 10s. 6d.
The Institutes, 2 vols., translated, 14s.
The Institutes, in Latin, Tholuck's Edition, 2 vols., (Subscription price) 14s.

Commentary on Zechariah and Malachi,
1 vol.
Harmony of the Synoptical Evangelists,
3 vols.
Commentary on John's Gospel, 2 vols.
„ on Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols.
,, on Romans, 1 vol.
„ on Corinthians, 2 vols.
„ on Galatians and Ephesians, 1 vol;
„ on Philippians, Colossians, and Thes-
salonians, 1 vol.
„ on Timothy, . Titus, and Philemon,
1 vol.
„ on Hebrews, 1 vol.
„ en Peter, John, James, and Jude, 1 vol.

X-s^ *

m.

x

^>

<%.

f$M~g.

'^hVi

~9 ^' ""r's~~^5L"~

y+*

**!*&.rt*iE

, 1

f

p
*.'"> :¦:'¦ ¦ ¦'¦>*•

¦

*£^
%
/• -¦
¦*+¦¦¦%
M
;>^
-i,