LIFE OF JESUS.

A MANUAL FOR ACADEMIC STUDY.

Dr. CARL HASE,
PROFESSOK OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF JENA.

TRANSLATED
FROM THE GERMAN OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH IMPROVED EDITIONS,
BY
JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE.

BOSTON:
WALKER, WISE, AND COMPANY,
245 Washington Steeet.
18 60.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by
WALKER, WISE, AND COMPANY,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.

University PrcBB, Cambridge:
Electrotj-pod and Printed by "Welch, Bigelow, ft Co.

TEANSLATOE'S PEEFACE.

The " Life of Jesus," by Carl Hase, which is now offered
to the American reader in an English form, has been long
known and appreciated in Germany, where it has passed
through several editions. The present translation was
made from the third improved edition, printed at Leipsic,
1840, but has been compared and corrected from the fourth
edition, 1854. The first edition appeared in 1829. Among
the many works on the same subject which have appeared
in Germany, this of Hase is distinguished by uniting
decision with impartiality, and moderation of opinion with
entire freedom. The book avoids extremes, without trying
to avoid them. It treats its subject with fearless earnest
ness, but the result arrived at is neither the conclusion
of Strauss nor that of Hengstenberg. While the scien
tific object is always supreme, there is no cold indifference,
but a warm heart of love throbbing beneath. Reverence
for the character of Jesus is combined with a cool sifting
of all the Gospel statements concerning him. Hase
avoids no question because of its difficulty, and hurries to
no solution with wilful precipitation. As a philosopher,

IVhe accepts miracles, accounting them necessary to the
Divine government of free moral agents. As an historian,
he receives as fact' the miraculous phenomena attending
the course of Jesus. But as a critic, he examines every
particular miracle by itself, and, while admitting most of
them as real supernatural phenomena, rejects some on
account of insufficient evidence. Thus he declares the
truth of the resurrection of Jesus " to be immovably sus
tained by the testimony," and by " the very existence," of
the. Apostolic Church. Of the transfiguration, he says
that "it must be received as a matter of fact, that Jesus
appeared to his Apostles with two unknown companions
surrounded by a singular splendor." But the tribute-
money in the mouth of the fish, (and so of a few others,) he
pronounces an apocryphal miracle, which crept in by a
misunderstanding of a figurative form of speech.
One great merit of Hase is his careful examination
of the opinions of other writers, on each point, before pro
nouncing his own; and his giving in compact form the
reasons for each conclusion. Thus, in studying this book,
one feels in an atmosphere of reason ; not of prejudice,
dogmatism, or feeling. The scales are held by a very
impartial hand. "We know what the writer thinks, and
why he thinks so.
Another merit of the book is its style. The statements
are concise, and the language clear. Few German writers
have these merits in as high degree as Hase. In reading
Neander, for example, we wish to put his book into a
press and reduce it to about one third of its size, — as they
treat cotton:bales in the cotton-presses at New Orleans;

translator's preface. V
and in reading Schleiermacher, each sentence is like a
tangled skein of silk, very hard to unwind. His sentences
sometimes stretch throughout a page and a half, inter
twisted and involved, the nominatives playing hide and
seek with their verbs, while all sorts of parenthetical
clauses and limitations are stuffed into the body of the
sentence. A single paragraph of such a writer is like the
carpet-bag of a hurried traveller, into which books and
boots, clean shirts and brushes, inkstands, stockings, and
bootjacks, are all crowded together. But Hase usually
writes clean, compact, and grammatical sentences. He is
remarkable for picturesque phrases, which characterize by
a single word, where others would use a multitude of
adjectives.* This book is perhaps too concise for the general reader,

* This lucidity of style is of course liable to exceptions. Hase would
be no German if lie were not often involved and obscure. In translating,
¦we have often been obliged to break up and reconstruct his periods.
Take, the following example from § 22 : —
" Gfrorer wollte nachweisen, wie auf dem Boden des auch iiber die
Zeiten des Talmud hinaus sich immer gleichbleibenden Judenthums das
Christenthum aufgewachsen sey, indcm er aus dem dureh historische
Mathematik, mit herzlicher Verachtung aller Metaphysik, als acht
erkannten Johannisevangelium und aus den zustimmenden Anklangen
der andern Sagen-Evangelien, die nur den Glauben der Christen in
Galilaa gegen Ende des 1. Jahrh. enthielten, den historischen Christus
als religiosen Messias nach dem Vorbilde Mosis darstellte, der die sinn-
lich ubernaturliche Messias idee zum rein religiosen Glauben ver-
geistigt, Heilungswunder vollbracht habe und in dem Conflicte mit dem
weltlichen Messiasthum frei untergegangen sey."
How the Translator helped .himself out of this sentence may be seen
by referring to the section. a*

vi translator's preface.
but will be found very satisfactory, we think, by the student.
We hope it may be useful as a manual for theological
students, Bible-classes, and perhaps for the more advanced
scholars in Sunday schools. Clergymen and laymen who
wish to read the New Testament carefully may also
derive advantage from the many striking suggestions of
this writer.
In the original, there is appended to nearly every section
a list of writers and books to be referred to. Many of
these writers have a local and temporary interest to Ger
man students, but would have none to us. Many of the
books referred to cannot be found in this country, and
are only to be met with in some of the large libraries in
Europe. Hase himself says that in these lists of books
he has far exceeded the need even of German students.
Clearly, to translate these lists of titles would be to
increase the size and expense of the book with a useless
parade of learning. On the other hand, to omit entirely
the literature of the subject would be to omit what might
be useful to some readers. Yet to select some books
from this list, and omit others, demands a knowledge
of their contents, and a judgment, which the Translator
does not possess. He has therefore added in an appendix
a list of works, partly selected from Hase, and partly
in addition, which the reader may refer to or not as he
pleases.

Cakl Hase, the writer of this " Life of Jesus," was born
August 25th, 1800, at Steinbach in Altenburg, where his

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. vii
father was a clergyman. After the early death of his
father, he was- educated in the Gymnasium at Altenburg
and the University at Leipsic. He stayed at Leipsic till
1820, and then studied theology at Erlangen. He became
a member at these places of the patriotic associations
of the young students, and, in consequence of some po
litical offence committed by these Burschensehaften, was
imprisoned for seven months in the castle of Hohenapsberg.
After his release, he fitted himself at Leipsic for the office
of a professor, by the advice of his friend Tzschirner. He
was a popular teacher at Leipsic, but afterward was called
to Jena as Professor of Theology in that University, where
he has since remained. His principal works are the " Life
of Jesus," Leipsic, 1829 ; " System of Doctrine," Stutt-
gard, 1825, third edition, Jena, 1841 ; and " Church
History," Jena, 1834, fifth" edition, 1844. The last of
these works has been translated in this country, and was
published by the Appletons in New York, 1855. Beside
these books, he has also published a work in three volumes
called " Gnosis," and several others, including one called
"The New Prophets" (Leipsic, 1851), containing three
lectures on " The Maid of Orleans," " Savonarola," and
"The Anabaptists."

AUTHOE'S PEEFACE

TO THE FIRST EDITION.

I publish this work because I do not find in our litera
ture a purely scientific and scholarly delineation of the
life of Jesus. I have doubted whether to give a com
plete manual, or only an epitome ; and have finally chosen
the latter, in consequence of my academic position. I
could wish by means of this form to do something toward
causing the life of Jesus to be made a regular part
of the course of theological study, and to be treated in
lectures, like those of Schleiermacher and Winer. For
there is, perhaps, no other theological exercise which, by
its subject, takes such immediate hold of the whole man,
and so demands the boldest freedom of investigation joined
with genuine enthusiasm. But this manual may also be
useful to those students who have not the opportunity of
hearing lectures on the life of Jesus.
As regards the fundamental questions concerning the
Nature and the Work of Jesus, I shall probably satisfy
neither extreme of the theological parties ; but I think my

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. ix
view is that which the best of our contemporaries have
either adopted or will adopt. The time has passed in
which the President of a Consistory could say to a pastor
(who excused himself by the example of Jesus for an
action which had been found fault with), "Imitate our
Master on his good side, and not his bad side." But neither
will that time return in which one could say, as a good
old gentleman once said to me, "You must treat of the
Human Nature of Jesus in the first part of your history,
and of his Divine Nature in the last." The good spirit
of our time has rejected the Naturalistic history of the
great Prophet of Nazareth ; but no sickly spirit of the time
will succeed in forcing upon us any Unnatural history of
the God-Man.
It will be seen that I have spoken doubtfully concerning
some events in the Life of Jesus, and stated the opposite
views without deciding between them. I love nothing
better than a brief, decisive word. Any one can see, both
in my writings and my life, that in regard to my convic
tions I do not think whether I shall please or displease.
In philosophy we ought to have distinct convictions; for
we may find them in our own mind, and be certain about
them. But in matters of history, where our judgment
is determined by traditions, the imperfections of which
we are unable to supply, prudence may often require
us to abstain from any conclusion. Our science will then
consist in a thorough knowledge both of our ignorance
and of its cause. In such cases it is usual for each writer
to select amid historic uncertainties the facts which suit
his own doctrinal system, while he ignores the opposite

X PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
facts which may be equally strong. If it is desirable that
this superficial controversy shall cease, in which the same
Pros and -Cons are repeated again and again ; we must
state all the different views, fairly admitting the historic
basis of each, and pronounce a judgment on every extreme
opinion, according to its degree of probability in itself and
its harmonious relation to the whole.

AUTHOE'S PEEFACE

TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Our age has been fruitful in laborious studies on the
present subject "Writings like those of Ullmann on the
" Sinlessness of Jesus," and some exegetic works, have
stimulated thought in this department. I have been helped
by my opponents. All serious objections have been se
riously considered. I have been exceedingly helped by
Dr. Liicke's acute opposition, which I have critically ex
amined, and which has changed my opinions on an impor
tant point. But I have nothing to say to those objectors
who bring forward their complaints in the form of mere
lamentations; and who say that their Christian feelings
have been hurt by this historical criticism, or that they
miss something belonging to their idea of Christ. The
feeling is natural ; but until it becomes a distinct thought,
it cannot help us. For example, I have been thought
to injure the dignity of Jesus by saying that his discourses
are "sometimes full of spirit" (Geistreich), — because his
words contain always the highest revelation of the Spirit.
But I have evidently here used the word " Spirit " in the

xii AUTHOR'S PREFACE
usual sense of esprit. The dignity of Jesus would not
suffer in the least from his not possessing this quality,
since it is a merely casual and temporal advantage. Occa
sionally, a sprightly turn of thought might come in his way,
but it would be quite unsuitable for such sprightliness to
be a prominent feature in his discourse, as witty spright
liness is prominent in the style of Voltaire, and sentimental
sprightliness in that of Jean Paul. Those who are dis
pleased because I do not regard the discourses of Jesus as
always spirited or sprightly, ought, if consistent, to be
equally displeased because I do not regard him as a great
poet, scholar, or musician  I too have found many
results to which I have arrived at unsatisfactory to myself.
For example, the feelings which I have on Christmas
morning would make it exceedingly pleasant to accept the
whole story of the birth of Jesus as genuine history, and,
if possible, to believe that this event happened on the
twenty-fifth of December; but the reasons which opposed
this view were so strong, that I was not able to do so.
For even in science there is a twofold condition of success,
effort on the one side, resignation on the other ; and he who
cannot sacrifice his wishes to the truth is not made for
science. Let me therefore be refuted by the Scripture
itself, or by other clear and cogent reasons; else I can
take back nothing. The fundamental thought of this book
is this, that a divine principle revealed itself in Jesus, but
in a purely human form. From this thought I have not
varied. But in the details of its historic execution I have
yielded many points which it was by no means pleasant
to surrender, moved thereto by the force of sufficient

TO THE SECOND EDITION. xiii
objections. Let those to whom our Christ is no Christ
consider that to us and to many like-minded, he is a
Master and Saviour upon this stand-point of ours.
One worthy critic has accused me of "a certain impa
tience, with which the author, after laborious and serious
preparation, suddenly hastens to his conclusion, hurrying
over the final steps of the argument." I have nothing to
reply to this, but that I am writing an epitome, which'
requires one to spring upon the truth as on a prey, omit
ting many steps of the process  When I consider
how much we are daily suffering from the immense dif-
fuseness of theological writings, I may perhaps, in the
shortness of our human life, take some slight credit for
having labored in the opposite direction.
With regard to the literature, much may be said
against such a mass of titles of books, of which the same"
thing is true which is generally true of titles. If I have
sought a certain completeness in these lists, it may surely
be permitted to a German scholar to have yielded to such
a temptation.

AUTHOE'S PEEFACE

TO THE THIRD EDITION.

The altei'ations in this Edition have been mostly occa
sioned by Strauss's Life of Jesus, and by the literature
caused by that work. Most of what I have said has been
said in opposition to his opinions. But it would be unjust
to rank a manual, with its concise expressions, among the
list of books, sufficiently numerous, already written in
opposition to that much-talked-of work. I have merely
indicated the points where Strauss, in my opinion, is to
be contradicted. But indeed I think that the scientific
study of the life of Jesus has been really promoted by
the merciless criticism of Strauss, and that he has sharp
ened our eye to notice the points upon which pure historic
criticism depends 

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

TO THE FOURTH EDITION.

This little book was written at first with great joy, and
with a single flow of thought. My old and favorite teacher,
Dr. Winer, has, in his Biblical Dictionary (Realworter-
buch), that noble monument of the delight which German
Protestantism takes in the Holy Scripture, spoken of this
book, and said that it has kept watch over the growth of
criticism, in regard to the Life of Jesus, since 1829. I may
add, also over the sprouts of No-Criticism. What I have
added to the present edition is mostly in opposition to those
who have been led to deny the historic substance of the
New Testament in their enthusiasm at escaping from the
bondage of its letter ; and also in opposition to those who
have, from pious reverence for the Scripture, tried to protect
its letter by cunningly devised answers to the historic objec
tions. I cannot expect any enthusiastic interest in a work
occupying this middle ground, but it is the position to which
I am constantly more and more impelled by all the studies
and best convictions of my life 
In the Preface to the First Edition I expressed a wish, the

XVi ' PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.
fulfilment of which I now rejoice over. There is now
scarcely a Protestant University in Germany where lectures
are not read upon the Life of Jesus. I send my book again
into the world, hardly daring to hope for it the high mission
of winning hearts to Christ. But it may nevertheless do
some good by leading them through the difficulties and en
tanglements of the understanding of their Master's earthly
life. A venerable pastor wrote to me that this book, twenty-
four years ago, had helped to make him free, in a healthy
study of the historic and moral character of the Redeemer.
Perhaps, with God's blessing, it may also help to bind some
arbitrary wilfulness, and inspire respect for that lofty Soul,
whose earthly footprints remain impressed, not indeed on
the summit of the Mount of Olives, nor on the stones of the
Soman Chapel of " Quo Domine Vadis," but unalterably
deep on the face of all human history.
Jena, August, 1853.

LETTERS TO THE TRANSLATOR

COSCEKNING

HASE'S LIFE OF JESUS.

I. From Rev. Baknas Seaks, D.D., of Providence.
Providence, September 24, 1858.
Rev. and Dear Sir: — I regret that I cannot do exactly
what you want. I am indeed acquainted with Hase's works,
and have carefully studied his " Church History " and " Hutterus
Redivivus," and have read his " Dogmatik " : I happen not to
have read his " Life of Christ." He is one of the most accurate
theological writers of Germany, and the " Life of Christ" has the
reputation of being one of the most learned and acute on the
subject. I know that this is Professor Hackett's opinion. Its
place in theological literature is very high. I might not agree
with all his opinions. Truly yours, B. SEARS.
II. From Eev. Dr. Osgood, of New York.
. New Yoek, September 24, 1858.
My dear Friend : — I make a point of reading all that Hase
writes, and am glad that you have translated his " Life of Christ."
The author combines literary taste with profound learning more
than any other leading Grerman theologian ; thus his works are
alike for scholars and for general readers who have inquiring
minds. I think that any publisher of good standing would do well to
bring out your translation. Just now the minds of men are
especially alive to the discussion of Christian subjects ; and a book
like Hase's, that is at once free and reverential, reasonable and
evangelical, cannot fail to meet a decided want.
With all good wishes, yours ever,
SAML. OSGOOD.
b*

xviii LETTERS TO THE TRANSLATOR.

in. From Rev. E. E. Hale, of Boston.
Boston, September 23, 1858.
My dear Clarke, — I constantly feel the want of a book
written in the spirit of Hase's " Life of Jesus," both in my own
work, and for others. The whole series of our Sunday-school
instruction seems to suffer from an uneasy feeling on the part of
the teachers that there is learning regarding the Gospels which
they do not get at in the popular commentaries. This uneasi
ness, and the desire to learn which it indicates, would be met at
^once by such a hand-book as this is.
Indeed, it is not teachers only, but everybody, who would be
the better for reading or studying it.
IV. From President Schaff, of Mercersburg.
Mercersburg, Pa., October 11, 1858.
My dear Sir, — I am hardly able to speak of the propriety
and prospect of publishing a translation of Hase's " Leben Jesu."
It has the characteristic merits of all the compends of that genial
and spirited author, in giving a miniature picture of its subject of
high artistic finish, and a very complete and useful literary
apparatus to the different sections. But owing to its subject it
is likely to meet with greater opposition from the reigning type
of Anglo-American theology than his " Church History," recently
published by the Appletons. And I must say myself, that while •
the book gives a valuable and interesting account of the human
development of Christ, as the religious ideal of the race, it is
unsatisfactory in not rising high enough to the full divine-human
grandeur of its sublime subject, and contains, especially at the
beginning and the end of the Gospel History, too many sceptical
elements. The fact is, however, that none of the existing biog
raphies of Jesus do justice to the Saviour of mankind ; and
Eerhaps it is as impossible for mortals, in the present state of
nowledge, to write such a biography, as it is to paint the glory
of the rising sun with charcoal. Yours, very respectfully,
PHIL. SCHAFF.

CONTENTS

INTEODUCTION.
§§ 1-23.
Sect. Pago
1. General Survey of the Subject  l
chapter i.
Sources. (§§ 2-11.)
2. Sources of the First Rank  2
3. The Four Gospels  2
4. The Synoptic Gospels  4
5. The Gospel of John  7
6. Credibility of the Gospels  10
7. The Mythical Element  12
8. Discourses of Jesus  14
9. Writings of Jesus  16
10. Sources of the Second Rank  17
11. Sources of an Uncertain Character  18
CHAPTER II.
Plan of the Work. (§§ 12-23.)
12. Notion of a Biography  20
13. Relation of the History to its Sources  21
14. Idea of the Life of Jesus  22
15. The Historical and the Supernatural  23
16. Order of Time and of Events  24
17. Periods  24
18. Difficulties in the Life of Jesus  26

XX CONTENTS.
Sect. Page
19. Survey of the Literature of the Subject .... 27
20. Harmonies .......... 28
21. Historic Treatment. No. 1  30
22. Historic Treatment. No. H  32
23. Poetic Treatment  38

PRELIMINARY HISTORY.
§§ 24-42.
24. Survey  41
25. Criticism of the Nativity ... ... 41
26. Legends of Infancy  43
27. Descent  45
28. Tear and Day of the Nativity  47
29. The Holy Family  49
30. Childhood of Jesus  50
31. Culture  52
32. Sinlessness and Infallibility  54
33. Descriptions of the Character of Jesus  57
34. The Master in Flesh and Blood  58
35. The Century .  60
36. The Messianic Prophecy  62
37. Mission and Purpose  65
38. Plan of Jesus in General .... 68
39. Jesus as the Theocratic National King ... 69
40. Jesus as King of Truth  73
41. The Result  77
42. Means  ... 78

FIRST PERIOD.
THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.
§§ 43-77.
43. Survey  .
44. The Forerunner ...... g2

80

CONTENTS. xxi
Sect. Page
45. The Baptism  86
46. The Temptation  89
47. The First Disciples  94
48. The Miracles of Jesus  96
49. The Demoniacs  100
50. The Marriage at Cana  102
51. Commencement of the Work of Teaching, and Expulsion
from Nazareth  104
52. The First Passover of the Messiah  106
53. Baptizing in Judaea  110
54. The Messiah in Samaria . . . . . . .112
55. Cures effected at a Distance  114
56. Abode in Capernaum  116
57. The Son of God as a Country Rabbi . . . . 117
58. Celibacy of Jesus  118
59. The Flesh and the Spirit  120
60. The Twelve Apostles  122
61. The Sermon on the Mount  127
62. Spirit of the Teaching of Jesus  131
63. Judaism and Christianity  132
64. Jesus announced as the Messiah  134
65. Divinity and Divine Mission  137
66. Mode of Teaching  139
67. Parables  142
68. Cleansing of Lepers  144
69. Palsy, and Forgiving of Sin  145
70. The Storm  146
71. The Demons, and the Herd of Swine .... 148
72. The Issue of Blood, and the Trance  149
73. Sabbath-Breaking  150
74. The Great Banquet  151
75. On the Lake  154
76. The Hard Saying  157
77. The Death of John the Baptist  158

xxu

CONTENTS.

SECOND PERIOD.

THE YEAR OF CONFLICT.
§§ 78-97.
Sect. 78. Survey 
79. Opposition to Jesus .
80. Hostile Designs 
81. The Inconsistency .
82. The Feast of Tabernacles .
83. Story of the Woman taken in Adultery, narrated
pendix ... ...
84. The Dying Messiah . . .
85. Importance of the Death of Jesus
86. Prophecy of the Resurrection
87. The Transfiguration
88. The Tribute Money 
89. The Followers of Jesus
90. The Seventy Disciples ....
91. The Kingdom of God, and the Church
92. The Departure from Galilee
93. Domestic Life at Bethany 
94. Baising of Lazarus and of the Young Man at Nain
95. The Bloody Council 
96. Zaccheus 
97. The Ointment . ....

as an Ap-

Page 159 160
162 164164
166 167
170172174176
177179 180
182183184
187 188
188

THIRD PERIOD.
PASSION-WEEK.— SUFFERINGS AND GLORY.
§§ 98-122.
98. Survey . ... .... 191
99. Chronology of Passion- Week  192
100. The Triumphal Entrance  195
101. TheFig-Tree ... . ... 197
102. Disputes  , 198

contents. xxiii
Sect. Page
103. A Vision of the Future ....... 201
104. Death-Schemes  203
105. The Traitor  204
106. The Feast of Love  207
107. Soul-Struggle in Gethsemane, and Glory in Death . . 209
108. The Arrest  213
109. The Examination and Trial ... . 214
110. The Denial of Peter  216
111. The Messiah and the Heathen  217
112. The Justice of the Sentence  218
113. Hl-Treatment  221
114. The Hours of Suffering . . .... 222
115. The Crucifixion  .224
116. The Death  226
117. The Grave and the Watch  229
118. The Resurrection  230
119. The Life of the Kisen One  234
120. Reason and Result of the Resurrection .... 236
121. The Earthquake, risen Saints, and Angels . . . 237
122. The Departure from the Earth  238

List of Books referred to bt Hase in this Work . 241
Literature of the Life of Jesus, in English . . 260

LIFE OF JESUS.

INTRODUCTION.
Sect. 1. — General Survey of the Subject.
The History of Jesus is an attempt to show how
Jesus of Nazareth, according to the Divine purpose,
by the free action of his own will, and moved by the
circumstances of his time, became the Saviour of the
world. For every human life results from three fac
tors : first, a nature originally determined to the
individual; secondly, something freely chosen; and
thirdly, something which comes from circumstances.
The first we can recognize only as a matter of fact, the
explanation of which lies hid in the mystery of crea
tion. The second can be traced by other free spirits
in their own intellectual experience. The third may
be perfectly explained ; that is, shown to be neces
sary under the existing circumstances. All these
three elements of life, which in actual existence can
not be distinguished from each other, are arranged
by the Divine Being, but more or less mediately.

LIFE OP JESUS.

CHAPTER I.
SOURCES.
§ 2. Sources of the First Bank.— § 3. The Four Gospels. — § 4.
The Synoptic Gospels. — § 5. Gospel of John. — $ 6. Credibility
of the Gospels. — § 7. Mythical Element. — § 8. Discourses of
Jesus. — § 9. Writings of Jesus. — § 10. Testimony of Josephus
and of the Classics. — § 11. Church Fathers. Apocrypha. The
Koran. Sect. 2. — Sources of the First Rank.
Cheistianity itself, regarded as the life of Christ
prolonged on earth, is the authentic monument of the
existence of Jesus, and of his personality, religious,
creative, and world-historic. But since the course of
time may have introduced foreign elements, or suf
fered original ones to fall away, we must have re
course to the narrations of eyewitnesses and con
temporaries, in order to learn what was the true
character of Jesus. Hence the immediate sources
are the Eour Gospels, — the mediate are the Acts
of the Apostles and their Letters ; both as contain
ing allusions to the words and history of Jesus, and
as showing the original impression which his life
made. Sect. 3. — Tlie Four Gospels.
The Four Gospels have been unanimously recog
nized by the ruling Church, since the middle of the
second century, as containing the only authentic

LIFE OF JESUS. 3
accounts of the life of Jesus. They have a religious
aim, to which the historic purpose is subordinate.
Hence .they do not describe the education of Jesus
for the office of Messiah, but only 'his actions and
fate in that office ; this alone being regarded as the
subject of the apostolic testimony. (Acts i. 21.)
Each of the Gospels proposes to give a picture of
his whole Messianic life, and therefore they all have
in common the main points of its development. The
first three Gospels, up to the last Passover, follow
no chronological order which can be distinctly traced,
though they intend to relate the events in a certain
succession of time. (See Luke i. 3.) But the fourth
Gospel indicates the order of time by means of the
journeys made to attend certain festivals. The first
three Evangelists, until they come to the final Pass
over, contain only the life of Jesus in Galilee : John
describes particularly what occurred at the festivals
in Jerusalem. These chiefly give his miracles and
his discourses bearing on the universal condition of
man, — social, moral, and religious : John records his
spiritual discourses, and what he says of his own rela
tion to God. The Synoptics produce the impression of
a period of joy and hope : John, from the first, has the
dying Messiah in his view, as the climax of the long
conflict between light and darkness. The Synoptics
describe the Christ chiefly in relation to the Jewish
nation : John speaks of him as the religious Saviour
of the world. Finally, the Synoptics appear to give
the events as they learned them, without much
selection : John selects those events which will con
tribute to the idea he means to give of the Christ.

4 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 4. — Tlie Synoptic Gospels.
Papias communicates a testimony from the. apos
tolic age, and one against which no suspicion rests,
that Matthew wrote his account of Jesus in the
Aramaic language.* Our present Gospel of Matthew
can be shown to have been ascribed to this Apostle by
the unanimous judgment of the Church, since the
middle of the second century. It neither sounds like
a translation, nor has it the vivid descriptions and
peculiar style of an eyewitness. Also (apart from
some contradictions with the fourth Gospel, which
make it impossible for both writings to have pro
ceeded from Apostles) it has places (Matt. xxi. 7,
xxvii. 52, &c, xv. 29, &c. ; comp. xiv. 14, &c, xxi.
19, &c. ; comp. Mark xi. 14, 20 ; Matt, xxvii. 44 ;
comp. Luke xxiii. 39, &c.) which indicate a distant
contemporary. It therefore follows that this our
Gospel is a free Greek translation of the Aramaic
text of the Apostle, which was in use among the
Jewish Christians, down to the fifth century, as the
Gospel to the Hebrews. f According to the same
testimonies, Mark wrote his account of the words
and acts of Jesus from his recollection of what
he had heard from the Apostle Peter. J But that

# Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III. § 39.
f Schleiermacher, " Upon the Testimony of Papias in regard to the
first two Gospels" (Studien und Kritiken, 1832). Sieffert, "On the
Origin of the First Canonical Gospel" (Konigsberg, 1832). Schnecken-
burger, " On the Origin of the First Canonical Gospel " (Studien d. ev.
Geist., Wurtemb., 1834). Schott, " Authenticity of the Gospel of Mat
thew " (Leipsic, 1837). See Olshausen, &c.
t Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., III. 39. " Mark being the interpreter of

LIFE OF JESUS. 5
which Papias says of the want of order and connec
tion in the second Gospel (which, according to him,
was. composed merely according to Peter's needs as a
teacher, for purposes of edification) does not seem to
apply to our Gospel of Mark, at least not according
to Luke's view of method. Therefore the identity of
our second Gospel with the original work of Mark
must finally rest on the judgment of the later Chris
tian Church. The author of the third Gospel de
scribes himself (Luke i. 1-4) as an historian who
still enjoyed the society of eyewitnesses. And in the
Book of Acts (xvi. 10, &c, xx. 5, &c, xxvii. 1, &c. ;
comp. Col. iv. 14) he appears as the travelling-com
panion of Paul, and as revising in a characteristic
manner, but without distinct purpose, the sources of
his relation. Hence the unanimous opinion of the
Church that Luke is the writer possesses a high
probability, though the fact is unimportant as re
gards historical security. The existence of a litera
ture concerning the life of Jesus indicates the last
part of the apostolic age (Lukei. 1), and the twenty-
first chapter seems to assume the destruction of Jeru
salem. (Comp. Luke xi. 49, <fec. ; compare Matt.
xxiii. 35 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 - 22. Josephus's Jew
ish Wars, Book IV. § 6. 4.) The period in which

Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy ; but not,
however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he
neither heard nor followed our Lord. But, as before said, he was in com
pany with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but
not to give a history of our Lord's discourses in order. So that Mark has
made no mistake, in writing some things as he has recorded them. For
he cared for this one thing, not to omit anything he heard, or to misstate
anything." 1*

6 LIFE OF JESUS.
the Book of Acts was composed does not contradict
this supposition ; for, notwithstanding the manner
of its conclusion, when we consider the elegiac tone
of the account of Paul's last journey (Acts xx. 22-
38, xxi. 13, &c), it could hardly have been com
posed before the death of Paul, which would be its
natural conclusion, which also is taken for granted
in the oldest testimony we have concerning the time
of the composition of Luke's Gospel. (Irena3us,III. 1.)
At all events, the whole circle of narration in the
three Gospels is so similar that their origin cannot
fall far apart. The theatre upon which they place
the actions of Jesus show also that these Gospels were
principally composed of traditions which came from
the neighborhood of the Lake of Galilee. Notwith
standing this essential resemblance between them,
Matthew places himself most decidedly on Old Testa
ment ground, and takes pleasure in arranging in
symmetrical groups similar transactions belonging
to different periods. Mark confines himself more to
the events, and gives many vivid descriptions, with
natural, yet usually unimportant traits. Luke was
inclined to foreign Jewish culture, and has a certain
historic method in view.* We must recognize in all
a common ground, and in each an individual action
of mind, however we may explain their enigmatical
relation to each other. This consists in an agreement
which extends even to accidental phrases where
there is no reason for it, and a discrepancy which

* Schleiermaclier, "Critical Essay on the Writings of Luke" (Ber
lin, 1817; Works, Berlin, 1836). H. Planck, 1819.

LIFE OF JESUS. 7
extends even to matters of fact.* It is certain as
regards Luke, and probable as regards the first two
Evangelists, that they were acquainted both with
oral traditions and with written records ; none of
which, however, were of sufficient importance to be
referred to by name.
Sect. 5. — The Gospel of John.
The author of the fourth Gospel declares himself
an eyewitness (chap. xix. 35 ; comp. i. 14 ; 1 John
i. 1, &c), and reaffirms the truth of his testimony in
an appendix to his Gospel (xxi. 24) ; but the name of
the writer not being given might easily throw sus
picion on the testimony. The agreement in form and
contents between the Gospel and the first of the
Epistles ascribed to John indicates plainly the com
mon origin of the two. A characteristic passage of
this Epistle seems to be the basis of an expression of
Polycarp ; and, according to Eusebius, Papias has
quoted from it several passages. In Justin and Tatian
we find allusions to the fourth Gospel, with an appli
cation to Christ of the doctrine of the Logos. The use
of this Gospel in the school of Valentine, about the
middle of the second century, would have been- no
recommendation of it to the Catholic Church. The-
ophilus of Antioch, about A. D. 180, has cited a pas
sage from the fourth Gospel as an expression of John.
* De Wette, Introduction to the New Testament, Fred. Frothingham's
translation, (Boston, Crosby, Nichols, & Co., 1858,) ft 79-96. See
also the Introductions of Hug (Fosdick, Andover), Michaelis (Lon
don and Cambridge, by Herbert Marsh, 1793), and especially Home
(last edition, greatly enlarged, 1857).

8 LIFE OF JESUS.
Irenseus assumes, as an undoubted fact, that John the
Apostle was the author of this Gospel. He was the
spiritual grandchild of John, and his youth, passed in
the school of Polycarp, stood clear and bright in his
memory. To be sure, he does not rely in this mat
ter upon Polycarp, but yet finds the Gospel agreeing
in all respects with the traditions communicated by
Polycarp from the mouth of the Apostle. The belief
of the Church has always held John to be the author
of the Gospel, and the first serious historic doubts.on
this subject have come from modern criticism. It is
true that the oldest testimonies in favor of John as
the author of the Apocalypse are still more distinct.
The opposite objections of speculative depth and
superficial tautology were urged about the same time
against the apostolic origin of the Gospel. The dif
ference between the mode of narration and that of
the Synoptics proves by itself nothing against John.
On the contrary, a forgery would have kept more
closely to the traditional character of the Gospels,
whilst the loved disciple might well transcend any
traditional and received style. The journeys to the
festivals are unknown to the Synoptics, though not
contradicted by Mark (x. 32, xi. 11) ; but it is in
itself probable that Jesus should have followed the
custom of his nation, and carried out his aim as the •
Messiah by visiting Jerusalem before he went there
to die. (Comp. Luke vi. 1, x. 38 ; Matt, xxiii. 37 ;
and the parallel passages.) Since a great, unfatli-
omed character must be differently apprehended by
those who surround him, according to the difference
of the observers in the measure of each man's mind

LIFE OF JESUS. 9
it follows that John's different view of Jesus proves
nothing against the authenticity of his Gospel, unless
it could be shown that a higher unity of these diverse
views is an impossibility. And even then, it might
be that the aged Apostle has correctly communicated
to us his idea of Jesus. The character of the Gospel
agrees with the unanimous tradition that John wrote
it, after all the others, in extreme old age. The
inward opposition of Christianity to Judaism has
already been overcome, and yet his recollection of
the matters of fact are still vividly fresh. The dis
tinction made between the first and subsequent under
standing of a saying or an action of Jesus indicates
an eyewitness. (John ii. 21, xii. 16.) The man
ner in which John himself is indicated in the Gospel
(chap. xiii. 23, xx. 2, &c. ; comp. xxi. 20, i. 35, &c.) ;
the way in which Peter is placed a little in the back
ground, showing how zealously he maintains the
pre-eminence of his love ; the connection shown be
tween Christianity and the influences before in the
world drawing to God ; and, finally, the whole of
religion summed up as Love, — all point distinctly to
John, though it remains possible that this may be
a mode of speech and thought belonging to a com
munity having an affinity to him. But two writings
of so sharply marked an individuality as the Gospel
and the First Epistle could hardly have been falsely
attributed to an Apostle without exciting contradic
tion, especially at a time when he alone survived of
the intimate associates of Jesus, and was certainly
known and revered through the widest circles of the
Church. Neither, if the Gospel is an invention,

10 LIFE OF JESUS.
could so deep-minded and creative an intellect as its
author must have been, have passed away leaving no
trace of his existence. Accordingly, John must be
recognized as the author of the Gospel, until criti
cism shall be able to demonstrate, by means of sepa
rate passages, the impossibility of his having written
it. In that case, the next likelihood would attach to
his double* at Ephesus, the Presbyter John, in which
case the historic importance of the Gospel would be
very little diminished. (Eusebius, III. 39.) John
could not have been ignorant of the traditional Evan
gelical narrative, either in its oral form or as written
down by the Synoptics. He must, therefore, have
intended to complete it by additions from his own
reminiscences. A constant feeling in the Church has
regarded his view of the Master as more deep and
interior than that of the others, yet his Gospel fluc
tuates between the popular conception of the Messiah
and the most spiritual view. And, moreover, for the
perfect understanding of Jesus, we also need those
other accounts which bear the stamp of strong
national actuality.

Sect. 6. — Credibility of the Gospels.
The Church was not founded by means of writings.
And the Gospels could only become sacred scriptures
by containing essentially the same thing which was
already held firmly in the faith of the Church. As
regards localities and events, they show clearly the

* In the German, " Doppelgiinger."

LIFE OF JESUS. 11
exact information of contemporaries, though not with
out an occasional oversight. In the worst cases the
authority of the third Gospel comes to the aid of that
of the first two. By their agreement, as well as by
their occasional artless discrepancies, all three appear
as careful, and in a measure independent narrators.
Their representation of the Christian faith shows a
simplicity which disappeared directly after the apos
tolic age, and an elevation quite foreign from their
own limitation and narrowness. As regards their
occasional contradictions of each other, we must
make up our minds on internal evidence, or, where
this is not sufficient, we must admit the difficulty,
and leave it unexplained. John has the advan
tage of being an eyewitness, which yet allows the
Synoptics to be sometimes more exact and minute
than he, on occasions where he troubles himself very
little about the mere outside matter of fact. The
confidence in Luke which comes from his expressly
declared intention of writing with care (chap. i. 3),
is inspired by John's consciousness of the importance
of what he is writing (xx. 31). But as the con
tents of single passages in the Gospel of John may
occasion doubts concerning their genuineness, and
because, owing to the mode in which the other Gos
pels originated, single unhistoric passages may have
crept in, there remains to decide these questions an
unlimited right to the freest historical criticism. It
may also have happened that, by means of the Jewish
notion of a standing connection between facts and
prophecy, as well as by means of the dazzling light
reflected back after the resurrection upon the earlier

12 LIFE OF JESUS.
life of Jesus, many events assumed a foreign color
ing in the memory of the Apostles. On the other
hand, an assumption of infallible accuracy in the
sources, considering the peculiar relation they have
to each other, would make all historic research
unnecessary and impossible, and bring back upon us
only the constraint and untruth of the old-fashioned
Harmonies.

Sect. 7. — The Mythical Element.
If the narrations of the Gospel are to be proved un-
historical, then they must be regarded either as fabu
lous reports or sacred myths. The latter might arise
in this way. Jewish expectations or original Chris
tian ideas might take the historic form of events
in the life of Jesus, by means of an unconscious
plastic power of fancy at work in the first Christian
communities. In this case the thought would create
the fact, or transform the fact to suit itself, or enlarge
the fact by some mythical additions. The culture of
the Jewish nation in that age would lead us to expect
nothing more than popular fables ; but in the Chris
tian churches, with that enthusiasm and inspiration
which was sometimes mixed with a human alloy
(1 Cor. xiv. ; comp. 1 Tim. i. 4 ; 2 Peter i. 16) ; there
was at least not wanting the power to produce
such sacred legends. The origin of the Synoptic
Gospels does not exclude their harmless reception.
But the fourth Gospel, so long as its genuineness
cannot be disproved, will make the admission of such
myths impossible, unless it can be proved, in any

LIFE OF JESUS. 13
case, that John was not present, or except it can be
made probable that his historic judgment has been
disturbed by subsequent personal feelings, or feelings
imbibed from the Church. But the established tra
ditions, so far as they can be regarded as the foun
tain of the Synoptic Gospels, which traditions took
their place in the Church under the eyes of the Apos
tles and of eyewitnesses, are very different things
from the poetic, popular legends which spring up
accidentally from seed scattered carelessly and with
out a purpose. Yet it may be granted that such
legends may have occasionally found their way in ;
and Luke (i. 1-4), as well as Papias (Eusebius, H. E.,
III. 39), pointed out, even in their age, the need of
distinguishing what was certain from what was uncer
tain. The fundamental traits of the character and the
work of Jesus, which were opposed as well to Jewish
expectations as to Apostolic prejudices, conclusively
prove that this character was his own, and not imag- '
ined by the Church. The poetry of its form and sub
stance, which indeed is of the most simple character, is
an indication of the legend, but not a certain one. The
wonderful is the natural subject for sacred legends,
but the entire wonderful glorification of Jesus is not
in itself legendary. It is grounded deep in the his
torical connection, and the same picture of Jesus is
drawn in the Pauline letters, which are the unques
tionable testimony of an earnest-minded man, in the
immediate confidence of the Apostles. Nor is the mere
resemblance of a New Testament event to one in the
Old Testament in itself any evidence of the legend, for
such resemblances might well have occurred of de-

14 LIFE OF JESUS.
sign, especially among a people so closely bound to
its past. Still less is there any proof of myth in
the profound and extraordinary character of Jesus,
for* without this we could not explain the immense
impression of his person and work. But if a single
legendary portion of the Gospels is discovered, the
whole must be studied in reference to this element,
with no narrow prejudice, and no fear mistaking
itself for piety. But the credibility of the four Gos
pels having been established by external and general
reasons, we are by no means bound to prove the
truth in detail of each single matter of fact, for such
a demand would overturn all history. The burden
of proof rests upon criticism, to show, if it can, with
respect to any single fact, that, notwithstanding this
general credibility of the Gospels, there are internal
reasons why it could not have happened.
Sect. 8. — Discourses of Jesus.
Considering the circumstances, it is not probable
that the words of Jesus were written down on the
spot. But the way in which they grow out of the
transactions ; their high individuality ; the fact that
their style differs to a great extent from that of
the Evangelists, as well as from other discourses,
especially those in the Acts of the Apostles ; and,
lastly, the high value which already in the Apostolic
Church was given to the very words of the Master
(1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25), — all show that these dis
courses are not the work of the Evangelists. Never
theless, they are translated from a foreign language ;

LIFE OF JESUS. 15
not protected against involuntary changes from de
fective memory ; and, from the nature of the case,
retained by means of the leading phrases and most
striking expressions. John gives some utterances of
Jesus quite in the practical tendency of the Synoptics
(John vii. 17, xiii. 12, &c, 34, &c), and the Synop
tics give some discourses in the ideal style of John.
(Matt. xi. 25-30, xxviii. 18, &c. ; Luke xxiv. 49;
Acts i. 4, &c.) And, moreover, some of the expres
sions of Jesus recorded by John may be found,
almost word for word, in the Synoptics. (John xii. 8,
25, xiii. 20, ii. 19 ; Matt. xxvi. 11, x. 39, xxvi. 61 ;
Mark xiv. 58.) Hence the different character of their
communications must depend upon a different mode
of selection. The oral tradition embodied by the
Synoptics held fast, according to its nature, whatever
in the words of Jesus was national, parabolic, laconic,
and pointed. But John retained the lofty, calm
flights and soliloquies which corresponded to .his idea
of Jesus. But the discourses of Jesus, in the Gospel
of John, so far as they are not essential parts of the
events narrated, have a far greater resemblance to
the style of John's epistles than to that of the dis
courses of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Even the
Baptist speaks in the same style. And many of the
discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel appear to be
adapted to produce in their immediate effect only
misunderstanding and ill-feeling, and do not corre
spond to the wisdom which Jesus shows as a teacher
according to the Synoptic Gospels. The memory of
men unused to writing is often very strong, and the >
first great impression of John's youth always re-

16 LIFE OF JESUS.
mained for him the fixed centre of his whole life.
But the longer discourses of Jesus are so constructed,
that without some formal record they could hardly
have been preserved with accuracy. They have allu
sions and references to each other (John x. 27 ; comp.
x. 13, &c.) which could result only from being writ
ten down at the same time. Nor does John scruple
to allow the discourses of his two teachers to run into
reflections of his own without marking the transition.
(John iii. 16, &c, 31, &c.) Yet he is so conscien
tious in giving, with objective precision, the expres
sions of Jesus, that he notices his own earlier
misunderstandings of those expressions, and takes
occasion to comment from his subsequent point of
view. (John ii. 19, <fcc, vii. 38, &c.) It is, more
over, difficult to believe that he could have tampered
with the expressions of one whose word to him was
the basis of eternal life. (John xx. 31.) Accord
ingly, his reports of the teachings of Jesus may be
regarded as somewhat free recollections of that which
he had retained in his heart of his Master's words,
but which in the course of a half-century he might
unconsciously have confounded with his own. The
closer these recollections relate to the doctrine of the
Logos, the more uncertain is their historic value.
Sect. 9. — Writings of Jesus.
The fact that Jesus left nothing behind in writing
is perhaps to be considered as accidental, and is by
no means explained by referring to the distinction
between the letter and the spirit. Yet it stands re-

LIFE OF JESUS. 17
lated with the character of his whole life and influ
ence, as something present and immediate, and with
the nature of original Christianity. For the object of
Christianity was, not to be a system of opinions, but
a new life and a new community. Therefore, Jesus
commanded his Gospel to be preached, and did not
command it to be written down. (See the Apoc.
Letter of Jesus to Abgarus of Edessa, in Eusebius,
H. E., I. 13.)
Sect. 10 — Sources of the Second Rank.
The testimony of Josephus, which is first men
tioned by Eusebius, is altogether, or in part, spu
rious. (Antiquities, XVIII. 3, 3.) A motive for
interpolation existed in the wish for a testimony
concerning Jesus from beyond the circle of the Chris
tian Church, and on the other hand in dissatisfaction
at the silence of this historian. Some passing allu
sions of Lathi writers are sufficient, when we consider
the ignorance and contempt of the Jewish supersti
tion existing among the Romans, to prove the exist
ence of a wide-spread belief that the founder of a
religious sect among the Jews by the name of Christ
was crucified under Pontius Pilate. (Taciti Ann.
XV. 44 ; Plinii Epp. X. 97 ; Sueton. Vita Claudii,
c. 25 ; Lucian de Morte Peregrini, c. 11 ; Lamprid.
Vita Alex. Sev., c. 29, 43.) But all the writings of
contemporaries will serve as helps toward the history
of Jesus.

2 *

18 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 11. — Sources of an Uncertain Character.
There are passages in some of the oldest of the
Church Fathers, not derived from the canonical Gos
pels, which are, so far as they profess to be sayings
of Jesus, either parallels to Gospel passages, and of
little importance, or, so' far as they contain anything
actually original, have less the appearance of historic
tradition than of marvellous views based chiefly on
Old Testament prophecies. The Apocryphal Gos
pels, of which not one can be traced higher than the
second century, as to its origin, or as to the form in
which it has reached us, contain usually only taste
less fables. They have nothing of an historic char
acter ; little that is even probable or worthy of Jesus ;
and merely serve, by way of contrast, to make appar
ent the historic truth of the canonical Gospels. They
carry out to an extreme the notion of Jesus as a
magician and master of spirits ; and also mark the
points to which the legendary element first attached
itself. These Gospels fall into three groups. First,
those in honor of the Virgin Mary, intended to glo
rify her birth and virginity, occasioned by the wor
ship of Mary before the Nestorian controversy. Sec
ond, Gospels of the childhood of Jesus, filled with
narrations for which the silence of the genuine Gos
pels, and the opposition to Gnostic assertions, gave
occasion. Lastly, Gospels of Christ's passion, inten
sifying the story according to the old legends con
cerning Pilate, intended to oppose hostile inventions
on the same subject, and to bring out the doctrine
of the descent into Hell. On the other hand, the

LIFE OF JESUS. 19
few fragments of Gospels, like that to the Hebrews,
which come down from the apostolic age, and in
their contents run parallel to the canonical Gos
pels, not unlike them in value, can only be criti
cised according to internal evidence. The narratives
in the itoran, and some other popular legends of the
Arabs and Persians, concerning the youth of Jesus,
are borrowed from the Apocryphas, but with poetic
additions. The stories of the later Jews and Sabse-
ans are grossly abusive writings, full of contradic
tions.

20 LIFE OF JESUS.
CHAPTER II.
PLAN OF THE WORK.
§12. Notion of a Biography. — § 18. Relation of the History to
its Sources. — §14. The Christian Supposition. — §15. Histori
cal Criticism of the Miracles. — § 16. Order of Time and of
Events. — § 17. Periods. — § 18. Difficulties in the Life of
Jesus. — $ 19. Survey of the Literature of the Subject. —
§ 20. Harmonies. — § 21. Histories, No. I. — § 22. Histories, No.
II. — § 23. Poetry.
Sect. 12. — Notion of a Biography.
Universal history is an organic whole, resulting
from the concurrence of Divine Providence and hu
man freedom, and by means of which the infinite
life of humanity is manifested. As in every true
organism every particular member is also organic,
therefore each member of this history is again for
itself an organic unity ; that is, a definite link of the
universal human life, or an individual life. This
arises from the fact, that the universal freedom of
mankind takes form in distinct personalities, which
draw to themselves everything coming within their
circle, and then work back again from this centre to
its circumference. Biography is the description of
such an individual life. The biographer, therefore,
must have a clear view of the precise way in which
the universal human spirit appears in this individual
form. It is possible to obtain this view, becatise hu
manity comes to consciousness in each individual

LIFE OF JESUS. 21
according to the measure of his mind. And there
fore, also, every particular form of the human spirit
can find a place in our consciousness by the contem
plation of its manifestations and memorials. With
out this view or idea of an individual life, out of
which all external manifestations must be explained
as their inmost centre, the mere enumeration of the
external adventures of a life is unintelligible and
dead. In the choice and representation of the events
of a biography, those which serve the development of
an individual life, moulding it, and moulded thereby,
are to be selected, because expressing the connection
of the individual with the universal history, and its
action and reaction thereon. Biography is both an
art and a science. An art, as manifesting perfectly a
particular idea in outward form ; a science, as con
necting itself, both in form and in substance, with the
objective truth of history. The problem of the biog
rapher is to call up in other minds by his narrative
that image of an individual life which he has himself
obtained from the facts which he narrates.
Sect. 13. — Relation of the History to its Sources.
The story of Jesus ought, through this scientific
and artistic treatment, to call up an image of his life.
As regards the facts, it finds its limits in the sources ;
but it ought not merely to reproduce these, but to
select from them such as will show what Jesus was,
what he became, and. what he accomplished through
the reciprocal influence of his character and his time.
As historical criticism, it has to mediate between the

22 LIFE OF JESUS.
subjective and objective material ; that is, it must dis
cover what the Evangelist meant to say, and what
actually occurred ; so far as it is possible, by a com
parison of the different sources among themselves,
with their age, and with the course of history, to
raise one's self above the point of view of each sepa
rate narrator. Sect. 14. — Idea of the Life of Jesus.
According to the faith of Christendom, God be
comes man in Christ, and thereby procures the salva
tion of the world. This Christian prepossession can,
when we proceed scientifically, only have weight as
an idea by which to measure the facts of the life of
Jesus. Therefore the aim of science is to remove
the prepossession as such. A truly religious interest
cannot in this contradict the most rigorous demand
of historic objectivity. Since the Divine can reveal
itself in humanity only as the truly human, the per
fect image of God only as the religious standard for
humanity, the life of Jesus must be regarded as
a purely human life, and without this regular hu
man development we could not speak at all of a
history of Jesus. According to this, the prepos
session of which we speak must be considered as
the question, How far has the religious ideal of
humanity been actually realized in Jesus ? If a
stand-point outside of Christianity might give us a
greater assurance that this idea was not a mere sup
position ; yet, on the other hand, if the life of Jesus
is to be truly understood, Christ must have taken
some distinct shape, at least in our imagination.

LIFE OF JESUS. 23
Sect. 15. — The Historical and the Supernatural.
The government of a world, the moving principle
of which is human freedom, is only conceivable by
means of the intervention of Divine freedom. Every
operation of God in the world, which is usually
recognized as such only by its mysterious and extraor
dinary nature, appears to the religious contemplation
as something supernatural. Especially on the stand
point of antiquity, of the East, and of the found
ing of a religion, there was naturally found the
recognition of an immediate Divine operation, ele
vated above the laws of nature. But to the stand
point of our age and culture belongs the recognition
of a Divine operation whose medium is the connec
tion of Nature and the powers of humanity. For
the operation of God is not outside of the world, but
according to the laws of the world, because the world
itself is in and through God ; hence no particular
fact can ever be known with scientific certainty to be
miraculous. In every matter of fact which has been
handed down as a miracle, it belongs to science to
search for its natural causes. Where these cannot be
shown with historic truth and certainty, there the
miracle indicates either the limits of our natural
powers and natural knowledge, or else those of the
age in which the miracle is recorded. No other law
belongs to this inquiry than the strict law of an hon
est and modest historic investigation, which pretends
to know no more than it is able to know by means of
authentic sources of knowledge and exact balancing
of all circumstances which can be known, and which

24 LIFE OF JESUS.
especially regards each separate matter of fact only
in connection with the whole life to which it belongs.
By this process, though much in the actions and
adventures of Jesus may remain unexplained, yet
nothing need be supposed which shall conflict with
the course of a truly human life.
Sect. 16. — Order of Time and of Events.
To confine ourselves to the chronological order of
narration will cause similar events to be scattered
and separated too widely. The opposite method, of
comprehending all similar events occurring between
the baptism and the crucifixion under general sub
jects, without any chronological order, prevents us
from observing the historical development of events,
and the living movement of the biography. We
must, therefore, unite both methods, — by treating
the history in distinct periods, and the course of
events in an order of time, — so far as the nature
of our sources will enable us to do it. But whenever
it is necessary for the understanding of a particular
event, or whenever the course of history introduces
us to a central fact which is the key to a class, of
facts, a survey of the whole subject should be given.
This may be referred to afterward, when we are
obliged by the connection to consider again in detail
that which has already been treated generally.
Sect. 17. — Periods.
The life of Jesus divides itself, according to time
and character, into a preliminary history, embracing

LIFE OF JESUS. 25
everything which preceded his coming forward as the
Messiah ; and into three periods of his public life.
First, from his 'baptism, a short time before the first
Passover, till the neighborhood of the second Pass
over. Secondly, until his entrance into Jerusalem,
on Palm Sunday, to the third Passover. Thirdly,
until his Ascension. This division, which supposes the
public life of Jesus to have embraced three Passovers,
or two years and some months, rests wholly upon
John (ii. 13, vi. 4, xiii. 1), and it may be objected to
it, that John may have omitted other Passovers,
which would make the conclusion of the life of Jesus
fall at the end of the government of Pilate (A. D.
.36 or 37). But neither in the events themselves,
nor in any tradition, have we reason for extending
the public life of Jesus beyond the period indicated
by John. The shorter period of one year, which
some of the Church Fathers seem to have assumed,
they were led to by the indefinite character of the
Synoptics, and by misunderstanding a prophecy of
Isaiah (Isaiah lxi. 2).*

* The Fathers who accepted this shorter period were Tertullian
(Cont. Jud., u. 8), Clement (Strom., I.), Origen (De Princ, IV.), Lac-
tantius (Instt. Div.), Augustine, the Valentinians according to Irensens,
the Alogi according to Epiphanius. For two years and some months, i. e.
for three Passovers, Epiphanius (Hser., XX. 2), Jerome on ch. ix. of
Daniel. For three years and some months, therefore regarding John v. 1
and vi. 4 as two different Passovers, Ignatius, Eusebius (Ecc. Hist., I. 10),
Theodoret. But Irenseus, though he opposes the three Passovers men
tioned by John to the Gnostic opinion of a single year, asserts as his own
opinion that Jesus, in order to sanctify every period of life, lived to be
fifty years old. (John viii. 57.)

26 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 18. — Difficulties in the Life of Jesus.
In one respect the history of Jesus is easy to treat,
apart from the usual difficulties of a biography taken
from ancient and Oriental sources ; since his charac
ter is free from the ambiguities and inconsistencies
which elsewhere are to be found paradoxically joined
together in great characters. But in another respect
it is the most difficult of all biographies ; since it
marks the highest flight of the human spirit, to con
template which the biographer must elevate himself
in soul high above his own actual condition. Again,
it is easy, because the spirit of Jesus is not a variegat
ed image, produced by the influence of the external
world, but was itself by its own clear will a cause
from which history has taken its form. But it is
difficult, because the hopes attached to the name of
the Messiah, the importance belonging to Jesus as
founder of the Church, and especially a confusion
between the national and religious Messiah in the
first record of his history, disturbed, and down to
the present time has continued to disturb, the im
partiality of history. It is also unavoidable that our
habit of looking at the Master only upon the Mount
of Transfiguration causes us to feel somewhat dis
turbed by any attempt to penetrate ' among the
smaller relations and questions of his life. Hence
this examination will not be extended further than is
necessary to give as clear a view as possible of his in
dividuality ; but the simple truth is great enough in
itself, and in the kingdom of Christ there is no need
of a censorship. The history of Jesus as science

LIFE OF JESUS. 27
distinguishes itself from other modes of treating his
life, by this, — that its only aim is to give a clear viow
of its events ; and that it uses for this end whatever
helps may be offered by the scientific knowledge of
the human mind, and by learned, historic research.
Hence it is intelligible only to those who are able to
make use of these means. It is not co-ordinate with
other modes of representation which have particular
aims or special limits, but stands above them as their
common defender and critic. Without any aim be
yond itself, it gives the grounds and conditions by
which the temporal life of Jesus becomes the foun
tain of Christianity, and thus proves itself to be a
special theological science.
Sect. 19. — Survey of the Literature of the Subject.
¦r
The literature of the life of Jesus has not the
peculiar interest of a progressive science. It is not
the development in reality of its idea, so that its pres
ent form is the result of this development, and can
only be understood by it. It merely shows how vari
ously the life of Jesus has been treated according to
the needs and views of different ages. The princi
pal classes of this literature are these : first, works
whose object is an outward arrangement of the sour
ces ; second, works which give an historical view of
their contents ; third, those which contain an artis
tic handling of these contents ; — or the harmonious,
historic, and poetic treatment. The multitude of
these writings shows the constant and enduring need
of bringing the life of Jesus near to every stage of

28 LIFE OF JESUS.
popular culture, or science ; which cannot be done by
means of the Gospels alone. Yet the Christian sen
timent of all ages has found the most perfect image
of Jesus in these Gospels, so that all works derived
from them have value only on that account, and only
in so far as they introduce us to the true and pro
found under standing of the Evangelical narrative.
Sect. 20. — Harmonies.
So soon as four narratives of the life of Jesus dif
fering among themselves, yet with frequent verbal
agreements, had been received by the Church as of
equal authority, it became necessary to arrange them,
and especially to arrange the first three Gospels into
a whole. This was necessary in order that they
should be understood, necessary for the defence of
Christianity, and necessary as the first step toward a
connected history of Jesus. This necessity was con
tinually felt anew whenever the course of historic
inquiry detected new harmonies or new diversities.
The facility with which artificial arrangements could
be multiplied has produced an innumerable series of
essays in this kind, which, nevertheless, can be mostly
regarded only as editions of the Gospels, or commen
taries upon them. Their principal forms are these.
First, the Monotessaron, or an arrangement of the
four Gospels in one story, so as to tell the same event
only once, and usually indicating by particular signs
what belongs to each Evangelist. Second, Harmo
nies, which place side by side in parallel columns the
parallel passages in the several Evangelists. Third,

LIFE OF JESUS. 29
the Synopsis, which, without fully transcribing the
text, indicates the passages which belong together by
means of suitable signs or rubrics. These names are
often interchanged, and all the three forms connected
together. The chief object of all is to show the cor
respondence of the writers, and to give a correct
order of time. With respect to the first, from the
earliest times there was no timidity in refusing to
admit trifling diversities ; and with respect to the
order of time, though there were various principles,
there was no slavish adherence to the order of the
Evangelists. But Osiander introduced into the Lu
theran Church the superstition that each of the Evan
gelists was an organ of the Holy Ghost, and that
therefore he must have followed exactly the true
order of time, and could not have been mistaken in
any particular. Therefore the same events, being re
corded by the Evangelists in different places and with
different attendant circumstances, were represented
as having happened twice, or even three times.
Freedom of arrangement, which had never been
wholly relinquished by the Catholic or the Reformed
Churches, not even by Chemnitz and his successors,
was restored by J. A. Bengel, even on the ground of
the doctrine of Inspiration. Recently the needs of
academic study, requiring a synoptic interpretation,
have produced critical arrangements of the original
text ; with the addition of John's Gospel in the his
tory of the Passion.

3*

30 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 21. — Historic Treatment. No. I.
The ancient Church never went beyond the expla
nation and harmonic arrangement of the Gospels in
prose. The treatment of the history of Jesus in the
Middle Ages, as afterwards in the Catholic Church,
was without criticism, fantastic and legendary, and
consisted chiefly in works for entertainment and de
votion. Bonaventura's Life of Jesus is less a his
tory than the meditations of a fair poetic soul upon
the history. Ludolphus de Saxonia has filled his
history with the spiritual reflections of Augustine,
the observations of Crusaders, and the whole extent
of apocryphal legends, and naively promises to re
late, not only what has happened, but also how a
pious mind may anticipate what will happen here
after. Simon de Cassia approaches nearer to a
learned examination of the subject, by bringing to*
gether different events under general heads. Hie-
ronymus Xavier, in his History of Christ, gave to his
new converts the apocryphal fables. After the Ref
ormation, extracts and paraphrases form the transi
tion from harmonies to history. In subsequent labors
upon this subject two different tendencies, which are
often mingled together, may be distinguished ; an
ascetic tendency, which seeks in the Ufe of Jesus a
practical example, and a critical, which seeks for the
matter of fact. The ascetic direction embraces in
part writings for the purpose of edification, a mere
narration of matters of fact, with their moral appli
cation to life. They are well intended, and to some
degree well written, but usually too superficial to

LIFE OF JESUS. 31
satisfy a deeper longing for acquaintance with the
Master. This tendency also embraces popular writ
ings, and writings for the use of the young in in
structive outlines and pictures. The critical ten
dency first arose by way of contrast, in writings which
represented Jesus, as the author of an unsuccessful
rebellion, or as the head or instrument of a secret
society, in the acute, bitter fragments of Reimarus, in
the popular writings of Bahrdt, and in the romances
of Venturini, (by the last two in good faith,) all
attempting to bring the prophet of Nazareth to the
level of the culture of their own age. Von Langs-
dorf described under the name of Jesus a pious Jes
uit, who had the fixed idea of becoming a Messiah, in
a work which is the echo of a culture which itself
has passed away. General reflections upon the life
of Jesus received an apologetic aim, as helping to
show the truth of his history and the pure grandeur
of his plan. Especially Relnhard, in his book on the
divine plan of Jesus, became unintentionally an elo
quent interpreter of his purely human majesty ; and
Herder, in his Ideal of Humanity, a work rich in sug
gestions, has seen the unity of the Divine and human.
After older and less perfect attempts in a purely his
toric form, the life of Jesus was written with psycho
logical and antiquarian explanations, for the use of
the educated classes. Hess, who began by being a
lover of novelty and an admirer of the French opin
ions, and who afterward returned to old-fashioned
Orthodoxy, has for more than half a century satisfied
the demands of piety, by a narrative which is a care
ful paraphrase mediating between extreme views.

32 LIFE OF JESUS.
Opitz brings the events before the eye, but his
attempts at naturalness become trivial, his style, is
ornate, and in attempting to supply what is unknown
he becomes apocryphal. Greiling, taking the re
sults of the commentary of Paulus, has with feeling
and eloquence described the life of Jesus as the sym
bol of a history of humanity. Planck, with much
historic skill, has endeavored to prove the Divine ori
gin of Christianity by its rational contents, which
skill, however, helps him to spring too easily over dif
ficult places. Bodent has here introduced the most
remote results of his studies. Finally, Paulus has
made a translation of the Gospel harmony in a care
ful and idiomatic form, accompanying it with an his
torical paraphrase, in direct opposition to the received
view concerning Christ. Yet he tries to unite the
character of a pre-existent Messiah with that of a
mere school-teacher within the narrow limitations of
human nature. His attempt so to explain everything
wonderful as to reduce it to the common course of
events, stands side by side with his assertion of the
thoroughly historical contents of the Gospels.
Sect. 22. — Historic Treatment. No. II.
Afterward, Strauss, carrying the critical 'tenden
cies fully out, by means of an acute polemic, in
opposition both to the miracles of supernaturalism
and to the natural interpretations of the Rationalists,
looks upon the facts of the Gospels as myths. In these
myths, which are magnified reflections of previous
Old .Testament events and of Messianic expectations,

LIFE OF JESUS. 33
he can find but few simple lines of historic truth.
The prepossession in his mind is, partly the origin
of all the Gospels from tradition, and partly his dis
belief in the possibility of the miraculous, and of the
attainment of human perfection by one historic per
son. The scientific importance of his work is, that
it collects and carries out all that can be urged in
detail against the agreement and historic credibility
of the Gospels. In the third revision of his work, we
find, instead of enthusiastic denial, only doubt ; and
the recognition of extraordinary character and gifts
in Jesus gives him the opportunity to admit more of
historic reality, though still often passing into myths.
Next, Weisse, starting with a great and religious
conception of Jesus, and, in opposition to the tradi
tional hypothesis, assuming the genuineness and su
periority of the Gospel of Mark, endeavored to sepa
rate the historic and unhistoric parts of the Gospel
history, by means of an original and talented subjec
tive criticism ; ascribing what is not historic to the
limited aims of the other Evangelists, or to an alle
goric interpretation. Gfrorer attempts to show how
Christianity may have grown up upon the soil of
Judaism, which always remained the same, even be
yond the time of the Talmud. Heartily despising
all metaphysics, and making use of historical mathe
matics, he supposes the historic Christ to have been a
religious Messiah, according to the idea of Moses, and
that he spiritualized to a pure religious faith the idea
of a temporal and supernatural Messiah ; that he
performed miraculous cures, and that he was de
stroyed in the conflict with the worl

84 LIFE OF JESUS.
party. He recognizes the Gospel of John as genu
ine, and finds in the other Gospels corresponding
statements, though he considers the last as legend
ary, and containing the faith of the Christians living
in Galilee toward the end of the first century. Sal
vador has written the Life of Jesus with the results
of modern Jewish culture, representing Christianity
as the final mingling of Hebraism with the religious
notions and images of the East. Hennell, (London,
1838,) in a purely religious interest, and with the
originality of an inquirer unacquainted with the
labors of his predecessors, has composed a Life of
Jesus according to different ideas, which in Ger
many we should name those of Bahrdt, Paulus, and
Strauss. Lutzelberger (1842) describes the historic
Jesus as a preacher of repentance, belonging to the
school of John, and like him announcing the ap
proach of the Messiah ; but put to death on account
of a tumult in the temple, and, in the imagination
of his disciples, himself converted into the Messiah.
Bruno Bauer, taking his stand upon the fragments
which Strauss had left, and with the most laborious
criticism of the Evangelical story, substituted, for the
mystery of an unconscious mythical creation, the
deliberate formation of the Gospel narrative by its
writers. He thinks that the basis is to be found in
Mark, to whose story the other Evangelists have
added an increasing series of misunderstandings.
This was done, he thinks, to meet a need of the
Church ; which, having created a notion of the Mes
siah, applied it to its founder, with suggestions out of
its own history. Becoming constantly more bitter in

LIFE OF JESUS. 35
Ms feeling toward the Christ of the Gospels, as well
as toward the Prussian ministry, he has in the last
editions of his work given up Christianity as some
thing wholly passed by; and nevertheless gives his
hand to an imaginary Jesus, whom he regards as the
hero of a terrific revolutionary conflict. In this great
battle of criticism there mingled the levity which
invented Apocryphal Gospels. (Works by Truelle,
pretended to be from MSS. found in Alexandria.)
This struggle also occasioned a more thorough criti
cism of the sources. Since the time of Strauss, the
subordination of the Synoptics to John has been
given up. An anonymous German writer (" The
Gospels, their Spirit, their Authors, and their Rela
tions to each other," Leipsic, 1845) has with much
ingenuity resolved all the differences in the Gospels
into results of the personal rivalry of the Apostles in
the Apostolic Church. The school of Tubingen
went to work in a more serious way, and came to
these conclusions : that the canonical Gospels were
written in the second century; that the Gospel of
Matthew is the . most genuine, and is a compar
atively authentic translation of the Gospel to the
Hebrews ; that the Gospel of Luke is a compilation
of the materials already existing, proceeding from the
stand-point of Paul, as a balance against the Ebion-
ites ; that the Gospel of Mark consists of extracts
from the two others, with the purpose of taking mid
dle ground between them, and so forming a stepping-
stone from one to the other ; and that the fourth
Gospel was composed subsequently, as a spiritual
romance about the Logos, out of materials taken

36 LIFE OF JESUS.
from the Synoptics, — which opinion assumes that
its ideal contents are necessarily opposed to historic
truth. But all this criticism of the sources comes
back at last to rest for its foundation upon a criticism
of the Gospel narrative itself. Baur himself says (in
his work on the Gospels, Tubingen, 1847, page 530),
" The principal argument for the later origin of the
Gospels must always remain this, — that separately,
and still more when taken together, they give an
account of the life of Jesus which involves impos
sibilities." The opposition which necessarily arose to Strauss
showed itself also in the production of a positive
literature. Neander, whose prepossession concern
ing the nature of Christ fluctuates, but who is
fully inclined to believe in a perfectly historic basis
of fact, and who develops with much ability the
facts of the Gospels as not contradictory to each
other, is yet frequently obliged to depart from the
mere historic contents of the Gospels, or to leave
his opponent's objections unconsidered. Still more
decidedly has Krabbe maintained that the Gospels
were preserved by the Holy Ghost, though without
any literal inspiration, from anything mythical or un-
historic, and, with a constant view to the objections
of Strauss, he supplies by faith and love the weakness
of his apologetic reasonings. Kuhn has undertaken
to raise the life of Jesus to a science by means of the
exact equilibrium of the historical and the ideal, in
the form of an imitation of the Gospel of Matthew,
which he regards as the purest Gospel type. In this
work, starting with the authority of the Church in

LIFE OF JESUS. 37
support of the divine contents of the Gospels, he
seems to yield something to modern culture, but only
so much as will confirm that authority. Ebrard
(" Scientific Criticism of the Evangelical Narra
tive, a Compendium of complete Gospel Criticism,"
Frankfort, 1842) defends the entire reliability and
agreement of the Gospels, in the spirit of an ad
vocate rather than that of an inquirer. He opposes
what he ealls "a God-forsaken criticism;" which
Wieseler also opposes, in a scientific manner, arran
ging the events according to their position in space
and time. Lange attempts to reconcile the ancient
faith and modern culture in his work, (" Life of
Jesus, according to the Gospels," Heidelberg, 1844
-47,) in three parts, asserting with believing ener
gy the wealth of unity, instead of want of it, in
the four Gospels. But his book is more fantastic
than profound, more full of paradox than of ortho
doxy, and has therefore brought him opponents from
his own side. Ammon, like a scribe of the kingdom
of heaven, (" History of the Life of Jesus," Leip
sic, 1842-47,) tries to pass by what is too won
derful without exactly denying it. Hartmann has
written, especially for the use of educated readers
in the Church, a Life of Jesus, which believingly
assumes the truth of the whole historic and divine
contents of the Gospels. Francke has written an-
another, which maintains as historically certain the
divinely gifted life of Jesus so far as is necessary for
Christian faith, but with open admissions in behalf of
criticism. Theile's work, sufficiently unequal in its
contents, is in the main a large and learned com-

38 LIFE OF JESUS.
pendium, taking the middle ground between opposite
tendencies, Hahn (Werner Hahn, " Life of Jesus,"
Berlin, 1844) gives us only a popular and pleasant
story, being too careless concerning criticism, and
taking too much for granted without investigation.
Sect. 23. — Poetic Treatment.
As soon as the fine arts acquired the right of citi
zenship in the Christian Church, the history of Jesus
began to be treated in the epic form. Then the
poesy of Paganism adapted itself, though with dif
ficulty, to the new spirit, and Pagan thoughts received
Christian names. Juvencus (about A. D. 331) kept
closely to the Gospel narrative, merely explaining it
and spiritualizing it. Nonnus (about A. D. 400) de
scribed the Christ of John's Gospel with interpreta
tions and additions expressed in the same glittering
phrases with which he had celebrated the deeds of
Bacchus. C^elius Sedulius (about A. D. 430) treat
ed the life of Jesus as a continued miracle, in a style
in which wit predominated, though not without traces
of nature and poesy. In Sannazar's " Birth of the
Virgin" (1505-25), and in Vida's "Christias"
(A. D. 1520 - 30) this mingling of heathenism and
Roman Catholicism perfected itself in epic splendor, —
the former collecting its images around the cradle at
Bethlehem, and the latter around the cross of Calvary.
Besides this free imitation, the history of Jesus was
made out in an artificial manner by means of verses
from Virgil and Homer. In the ninth century the
Life of Jesus by Otfried of Weissenburg appeared, to

LIFE OF JESUS. 39
mark the beginning and centre of the German Chris
tian poetry. Contemporaneously there arose from
the impulse of Louis the Pious a more free harmony
of the Gospels in the Low Dutch dialect. Both are
thoughtfully simple, in the highest degree pictorial,
according to the colors of their time, and in their
free mode of treatment sometimes truly poetic,
sometimes merely composed of moral and allegorical
reflections. Otfried's " Krist " is more musical and
lyric in its rhymes and assonances ; the " Heliand "
has more of descriptive epic in alliterative verses.
By slow degrees, this kind of poetry melted down to
rhymed prose, above which some, like Schoen and
Greiff, elevated themselves by naive true-heartedness,
or, like Lavater, by vivid painting, or, like Weihe,
by nature and simplicity, or, like Goepp, by an inward
feeling. Klopstock has renewed the antique form,
with the German heart. His " Messiah " as a poetic
work stands at the entrance, and as an ecclesiastical
work at the close, of an epoch. But the feelings are
strained by the continued effort at sublimity ; the
images vanish in shadowy forms ; and the story of a
god, already completed at its commencement, awa
kens no human interest, which is only excited by the
episodes of human fa*e in heaven, in hell, and upon
•the earth. On the other hand, Ruckert has used the
infinite flexibility of the rhymed stanza only to retain
the simplicity and Oriental character of the Gospel.
Halem (Hanover, 1810, Poem in twelve cantos, on
Jesus as the founder of a new kingdom) avoided the
wonderful element even in poetry; and Sallet
(Gospel of the Laity, Leipsic, 1842) has poetized the

40 LIFE OF JESUS.
Gospel of Strauss. The happy treatment of single
traits of the life of Jesus, in poetic images, has given
occasion to lyrical collections in recent times. The
monuments of lyrical treatment begin with Pruden-
tius ; but this style is itself far older, and, according
to its nature, treats single events, and fulfils itself as
it began, in songs for the festivals of the Church.
The tragic treatment is necessarily concentrated on
the history of the Lord's Passion. The " Christus
Patiens," a work of the younger Apollinaris, and
not of Gregory of Nazianzus, is only in words an
imitation of the " Prometheus Bound," with no trace
of the lofty simplicity of iEschylus, nor any under
standing of the inward relationship of that mythus.
" La Passion," by Cristal, (Paris, 1833,) is a modern
drama, for the theatre, executed with French skill.
The evangelical history can never be freely treated
in poetry, because its contents will bear no alteration ;
but poesy will never cease to try its powers on this
highest of all themes.

PRELIMINARY HISTORY.

Sect. 24. — Survey.
The preliminary history of the public life of Jesus,
from his birth to his thirtieth year, treats of the
influences on the inward nature of Jesus, by means
of which he became the Messiah and Saviour of the
world. It is the story of his childhood and of his
culture. The first depends on the testimonies of
Matthew and Luke, and has been treated, apart
from its scientific criticism and learned commen
taries, as a cycle of pictures from the cluldhood of
Jesus, with a just feeling of its character, in popular
legendary or poetic form. The history of his culture
must consist in a great measure of inferences from
the events of his public life, from the well-known
condition of his nation, and from the general laws of
human development. Sect. 25. — Criticism of the Nativity.
1. The accounts of Matthew (chap, i.) and of
Luke (i. and ii. 1-39) are well authenticated as
4*

42 LIFE OF JESUS.
essential parts of their Gospels. They have the
same tendency, but are in detail so different that
each of them has evidently been drawn from differ
ent sources of information. A particular account
from Mary herself was therefore not known in the
Church ; and this, connected with the silence of
Mark, shows that the childhood of Jesus made no
part of the traditions of the Church. John, by his
position toward the mother, the only authoritative
witness, is silent, even when mentioning a popular
opinion, (vii. 41,) according to which Jesus did not
come from Bethlehem.
2. The two accounts to some extent exclude each
other. Luke carries the mother to Bethlehem by
means of a Roman census, which is not in accordance
with the Roman method of taking the census, and
which only by means of forced explanations can be
freed from the suspicion of being a mistake for tlie
census of Quirinus, ten years later. According to
Matthew (ii. 1, 22) Bethlehem appears to be the
residence of Mary. If the Magi came before Jesus
was carried to the temple, he would have fallen into
the hands of Herod on that occasion ; but if they
came after it, Jerusalem would not have been aston
ished at the strange intelligence (Matt. ii. 3 ; comp.
Luke ii. 38), and they would not have found the
child any more in Bethlehem (Luke ii. 39).
3. The silence of Josephus concerning Herod's
attempt to murder the Messiah is possible ; but the
sagacious Herod could hardly have chosen the un
certain method of destroying all the children, whilst
the Messianic child had been generally made known

LIFE OF JESUS. 43
to the people of the small village by the visits of the
shepherds and Magi, and must have been in danger
of being betrayed by every mother whose own child
was threatened.
4. The doubts entertained by the nearest relations
of Jesus of his prophetic and Messianic dignity, and
even of his sound reason, (John vii. 5, Matt. xii.
46-50, Mark hi. 21,) cannot be reconciled with these
wonderful stories, which therefore would scarcely
serve to prepare strangers for faith in the Messiah.
We cannot, therefore, discover their purpose, and
their only known result was the murder of the
children. 5. The supposition of a guiding star, and the cor
rectness of an astrological observation, are altogether
in the spirit of that age, while, taken seriously, they
vanish before a higher and more accurate knowledge
of the starry heavens.
Sect. 26. — Legends of Infancy.
These traditions are, therefore, opposed to every
rigorous historic conclusion ; their substance is the
Wonderful, as antiquity believed it ; their form is Po
etry, by Matthew treated in simple, popular style, —
by Luke, in idyllic style, with lyrics imitated from
the Old Testament ; finally, the historic aspect seems
only the unconscious symbol of religious ideas. They
must, therefore, be regarded as sacred legends, formed
in different circles of the Church by involuntary
means, and by an unconscious wish to elevate the
divine child in significant images and by fitting phe-

44 LIFE OF JESUS.
nomena. Types in the Old Testament, and national
expectation of a Messiah, contributed their part.
But the creative force was the Christian feeling of a
restoration of human nature, a contemplation of the
subsequent fate of Jesus, and forebodings concern
ing the condition of his cause. The aftergrowth of
these legendary tendencies appears in the apocry
phal writings. But the mention of- a cave as the
birthplace of Jesus is very ancient, and fixed in the
memory of the Church. Many incidental circum
stances suited to the legendary impulse have held
their place even in the Protestant imagination.
Some branches of the legend have put forth subse
quently in the Catholic Church, and have seldom
been meddled with by criticism. On the other hand,
Protestant theologians in part have taught the let
ter of Gospel tradition, and in part, for purposes of
edification, have analyzed the story with great sim
plicity, till in the vanishing point of their natural ex
planation the consciousness of its mythical meaning
revived. The origin of the tradition may be more
easily explained by supposing historical elements to
have laid the foundation of the legend, in connection
with the great world-historic event of the birth of
the Saviour. But the traces of history can only be
eliminated from the poetry of this circle of legends
by an arbitrary process. And the explanation based
on natural psychology, which must itself admit of
traditional embellishment, misunderstands the char
acter of the legend, and degrades its lofty forms into
traits which belong less to Bethlehem than to Bed
lam. Its truth is ideal and eternal, but while we

LIFE OF JESUS. 45
deny the historic truth of this story, we by no means
interfere with the historic credibility of the apostolic
testimony, which only first begins with the baptism of
John. (Acts i. 21 ; x. 36-41 ; comp. Mark i. 1.)
Sect. 27. — Descent.
Only the birth from the Virgin, the central point
of this circle of legends, is connected with the doctri
nal system of Christianity. But since even the deity
of Christ depends only apparently on the miraculous
conception, and since, as the child of the Virgin, he
must still inherit a fallen nature, all that remains to
support the doctrine is the hierarchal Essene opin
ion, that the fulfilment of the ancient blessing (Gen.
i. 28) has in itself something impure. The legend
is only the expression of the feeling of the spiritual
purity and divinity of Jesus (Rom. i. 3), though
having its origin among Jewish Christians, and
in this precise form, occasioned by the interpreta
tion given at the time to Isaiah vii. 14 and Psalm
ii. 7. Similar traditions, central points in the myth
ical systems of antiquity and of the East, indicate
indeed a general human need ; not, however, to be
satisfied in this low form. The Eastern traditions
point at the renewal of the world, and the return of
the human race into the unity of God. The Greeks
and Romans in their mythology suffered the idea to
degenerate to a mere play of fancy for poetical enter
tainment, or for a political purpose. But the legends
of sons of God through blood and the will of the
flesh (John i. 12) contain only the symbols of the

46 LIFE OF JESUS.
birth of the divine in humanity through faith and
spirit. Jesus, with a significant name, though not
an unusual one, passed for the first-born son of Mary
and Joseph. This is only contradicted by the first
chapters of Matthew and Luke. (Comp. Matt. iii.
23.) But the places in which Joseph is called the
father of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55, Luke ii. 48, John
i. 46, vi. 42, &c.) may be taken in all the Evange
lists, as they must be in Matthew and Luke, as the
usual phraseology of Galilee, or in a general sense.
K Jesus were not born according to the law, it
would not impair his own worth ; but it is not his
torically probable, for it would have been made use
of in Nazareth as a reproach. Nor does it appear
providentially credible that the purest of all men
should have been born in violation of the moral
order which God has instituted. Every special at
tempt to prove anything of the kind, particularly
with the purpose of introducing the birth of the Mes
siah, is deceptive or fantastic. The descent from
David is not entirely proved by the genealogies in
Matthew and Luke, since these can only be recon
ciled with each other by very artificial means. The
greeting as Son of David may also merely mean the
Messiah, but the descent of Jesus from David, which
is not considered in Mark (xii. 35) to be a false axiom
of the scribes, was regarded by the Apostles as an un
questionable fact. (Acts ii. 30 ; Rom. i. 3.) The
descendants of a brother of Jesus were received at
the court of Domitian as descended from David.
(Euseb. H. E., III. 20.) But this descent from royal
blood is in itself a matter of indifference, though im
portant for psychological explanations.

LIFE OF JESUS. 47
Sect. 28. — Year and Day of the Nativity.
The Church Fathers have only a fluctuating tradi
tion. Dionysius in the sixth century first placed
the year of the birth of Jesus in the 754th year after
the building of Rome, and the 4714th year of the
world, according to the Julian period. This Mra
Dionysiaca rests upon the assumption (Luke iii. V)
of the commencement of the public ministry of the
Baptist in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,
reckoned, according to the highest probability, from
the day of the death of Augustus, August 19, 767
U. C. According to the custom of his nation, John
must have been thirty years old. He already had
disciples and great influence with the people when
Jesus appeared. But a mission like his requires
no long time for its success, and Josephus appears to
regard him only as a transient phenomenon. In no
case can the baptism of Jesus be placed a year later,
for we cannot suppose in Luke such a want of his
toric method as to commence his biography of Jesus
with a careful statement of the time in which a sub
ordinate person came forward, unless he meant to fix
thereby also the period of his principal character.
And since a call like that which Jesus felt for his
work would lead him to commence it as soon as. the
national custom to which Luke alludes would allow,
this appears to be fixed exactly (Luke iii. 23) about
the beginning of his thirtieth year. Calculating
then backward from the public appearance of the
Baptist about twenty-nine years, we have the year
of the Nativity given by Dionysius. In opposition to

48 LIFE OF JESUS.
this view, modern scholars would place the birth of
Jesus in the fourth year before the Dionysian epoch,
or still further back, because Herod had already died
before the Passover in the year of Rome 750. But
those who doubt the thoroughly historic contents of
the first chapter of Matthew have no right to base
an argument on this foundation ; for popular legends
have often committed greater anachronisms than in
thus bringing together these two great kings of Israel.
Nor does the star of the Magi justify an astronomical
calculation, for a guiding star in a poetic legend is
not a planetary conjunction. All such astronomical
calculations fix the year 747 or 748 of the building
of Rome. See Kepler, Ideler (Manual of Chron.,
with Encke's additions). The day of Jesus's birth
has been celebrated in the Church since the third
century, and fixed at different times. (Comp. Clem
ent, Stromata, I. 407.) The Roman festival of the
twenty-fifth of December, which is not inconsistent
indeed with shepherds watching all night in the open
air in the fields, according to the climate of Palestine,
seems, nevertheless, not so much to have resulted
from any definite tradition, as from the adaptation of
a festival of pagan Rome (Natales solis invicti).
The calculations which have been made, backward or
forward, from the course of the priests' service of the
order of Abia (Luke i. 5), indicating December, are
obliged to assume as facts a whole series of mere
possibilities.

LIFE OF JESUS. 49
Sect. 29. — The Holy Family.
Mary appears as a tender and thoughtful mother
(Luke ii. 48-51), afterwards submissive to her great
son (John ii. 3), on one occasion misunderstand
ing him (Matt. xii. 46, Mark iii. 21, 31, etc.), but
with love strong to endure the deepest anguish (John
xix. 25). In the story preserved by Luke, she ap
pears as a meek, devout servant of the Lord, well
acquainted with the poetic past, and deeply moved
with the highest hopes of her nation. In the le
gends of. the Church, she has been regarded as the
type of her sex, uniting in herself what nature
has eternally separated. A religious want was the
cause of this creation, but history is altogether
opposed to this idea. Joseph was a workman in
wood (Matt. xiii. 55), and, from different motives,
sometimes described in the legend as an able work
man, and sometimes as unskilled. That he should
be represented as an old man accorded with the
interests of the Church, as well as those of art. He
probably did not live to see the greatness of Jesus,
and certainly was not alive at the crucifixion. Both
parents were carefully obedient to the directions
of the Law (Luke ii. 41). Four brothers of Jesus
are named ; James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt.
xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). His sisters (Matt. xiii. 56)
have been named, by tradition, Esther and Thamar.
His brothers, mentioned with his father (Matt. xiii.
55), and often with his mother (Matt. xii. 46, Mark
iii. 31, Luke viii. 19, John ii. 12), only believed in
him subsequently, and are not to be confounded with

50 LIFE OF JESUS.
his cousins (John vii. 5, Acts i. 13). It was natu
ral for the Church so to consider them, or at least to
regard them as half-brothers by a forafer marriage
of Joseph. That Jesus committed his mother to the
care of John (John xix. 26) Appears favorable to the
supposition that they were not her own children. But
Matthew unequivocally supposes that Jesus may have
had brothers, and, from the connection in which he
names him as the first-born (Matt. i. 25 ; comp. Luke
ii. 7), seems to assert that he actually had them.
His mother's sister was named Mary, the wife of Cle-
opas, in another form, Alpheus, and she was the
mother of James the younger, and of Joses (John
xix. 25, Mark xv. 40, iii. 18) ; probably, also, of Ju
das Lebbeus (Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13 ; comp. Jude 1),
and according to Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E., IV. 22)
also the mother of Simeon, and the Apostles James
and Jude. According to this the names of the sis
ters, as well as of their children, were the same,
but tradition may early have confounded them to
gether. A relationship with Elizabeth rests only on
Luke (i. 36) ; with Salome, only on a subsequent
tradition. Sect. 30. — Childhood of Jesus.
Amid the cheerful and grand scenery which sur
rounds the hill-summit on which stands the town of
Nazareth, Jesus grew up subject to his parents, in
rich but gradual development, (comp. Luke ii. 40,
52,) without which growth his childhood would be
a mere illusion. The event of his twelfth year

LIFE OF JESUS. 51
(Luke ii. 41 - 50) is, to be sure, not confirmed by
apostolic testimony, but makes the full impression of
historic truth, in contradistinction to the fabulous
character of the Evangelium Infanticc. There is
nothing to cause this historic narration to be re
garded as a myth, but the probable wish of the Apos
tolic Church to have something valuable to record of
this part of the life of Jesus, and the subsequent
legends which ascribed a splendid youth to Moses,
Samuel, and Solomon. The significance of the trans
action itself, which made it worth recording, is the
only additional reason for treating it as unliistoric.
There is no difficulty in supposing that Jesus re
mained behind from some accidental circumstance,
without attributing neglect to his parents. His edu
cation on their part appears to have been liberal and
confiding. His words show the same sense of the
nearness of God in a purely human and childish form
which is the idea of his life, and which indicates that
his subsequent spiritual majesty was not the result of
struggle and conflict with early errors, but of an un-
pausing development of his free choice. Moreover,
Mary received her child's answer as full of signifi
cance, though she did not fathom its profound sense ;
and this, too, distinguishes this story from legendary
histories concerning the children of God. But if we
try to find in it a distinct supernatural consciousness
of his destiny, we shall tear open the folded bud of
this sentiment, and do injustice to childhood with its
real wonders.

52 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 31. — Culture.
The mental culture of Jesus depended upon the
happy endowment of his nature, and was conditioned
by the aim of his life, which being once recognized,
or even felt in obscure longing, must quickly develop
every talent and capacity suited to itself. Yet this
might not overstep the common means of culture be
longing to Palestine, nor the limits of humanity ; for
though that which Jesus aimed at had never before
entered the human heart, it still belonged to the
heart of humanity. It cannot be proved that Jesus
understood any other language than the Syro-Chal-
daic popular dialect, and also probably the ancient
Hebrew, or that he possessed any other learning
than that of the Old Testament and of Pharisaic
tradition. The following of his father's trade did not exclude
him from the highest culture of his nation, since,
according to Eastern customs, the learning of a trade,
in order to be independent, and to be prepared for
any change of fortune, is not unusual even with
scholars and princes. Full opportunity was afforded
for the development of innate intellect amid the
cheerful activity of a middle station in life ; among
a people who, without strongly marked division of
castes, looked upon the careful instruction of youth
as a religious duty ; and also by means of the great
festivals which collected the whole nation together.
Galilee united the advantages of Judaism, whose
whole peculiarity and energy rested upon religious
principles, with the opportunity of a free, though

LIFE OF JESUS. 53
also a simple culture. In particular cases Jesus
showed great knowledge of mankind, powers of utter
ance, presence of mind, and almost every royal trait
belonging to a born ruler of men. But in such qual
ities of worldly greatness of mind others may appear
superior to him ; for its highest development was not
suited to his position. There is no evidence of his
ever belonging to any particular school of his nation,
or having had an actual learned education, but much
rather the contrary (John vii. 15, Matt. xiii. 54),
though certainly he used the schools of his nation
both to gain and to give knowledge (Luke ii. 46 ;
comp. Matt. xiii. 52). The appellation of Rabbi
does not always indicate a particular rank or office,
but was given as a free token of respect. Many-
resemblances between primitive Christianity and the
system of the Essenes lead us to think of personal
intercourse. Jesus may have compared together the
different Jewish sects, and perhaps was acquainted
with the Alexandrian spiritualization of the Mosaic
system. But any attempt to derive Christianity
from a particular school, not only involves in itself
insuperable difficulties, but leaves unexplained the
superiority of Jesus to all the ages. For his pe
culiarity was something which could not be learned
in any school of the East or of the West, but lay in
the perfect fulness of his religious life. This, like
every act of genius or freedom, is inexplicable ; but
being purely human, is something always possible to
humanity. Equally unsuitable, therefore, is it wholly
to separate the culture of Jesus from the means of
culture belonging to his time, or to attempt to de-
5*

54 LIFE OF JESUS.
rive from any external influences his world-creative
and world-transforming nature.
Sect. 32. — Sinlessness and Infallibility.
The perfection of the religious life in relation to
morals, taken negatively, is sinlessness, which con
sists in every moment of life being filled with the
greatest possible fulness of Divine Love, so as to leave
no room for any disturbance of feeling, thought, or
action. This neither excludes inward conflict nor
outward temptation (Heb. iv. 15) ; but it does ex
clude all yielding in the conflict, and all evil desire
in the temptation. It is necessary to such a purity
that Jesus should be separated, even in his origin,
from all connection with depraved human life, which
was only possible by an act of God ; but this implies
no contradiction to the law of human descent ; for
the religious genius is born no less than the artistic
genius, and all individual life depends upon an origi
nally determined essence, which itself is derived from
the Creator. This only renews a pure humanity.
Jesus, like the first man, had the power to conquer,
but also the capacity to fall ; therefore he is what he
is by the grace of God, and yet also by his own will.
And in this every one else, according to the measure
of his capacity, resembles him. The objective his
toric proofs of this position are only of a second
ary order. The hatred of his enemies, which found
nothing to accuse in the purity of his walk, the ad
mission of Pilate, the interest expressed by the noble
Roman lady, the confession of the centurion at the

LIFE OF JESUS. 55
cross, the despair of Judas, — these only testify to a
righteous man, whose blood was undeservedly shed.
That the accounts of the Gospels show no stain in the
character of Jesus is 'something which might occur
in the biography of a much inferior man, without
implying deception on the part of the friends who
composed it, in order to honor his memory and to do
good to the readers. The significance lies in the fact,
that even the further development of our moral no
tions enables us to discover nothing impure in this
history. The homage paid to Jesus by the austere
Baptist, the unlimited reverence of his Apostles, and
their declaration that he was just, holy, and without
sin, (Acts iii. 14 ; 1 Peter ii. 21, iii. 18 ; 1 John ii.
29, iii. 7 ; Heb. iv. 15,) are incontrovertible proofs of
his moral grandeur. But they did not know his past
history, nor could they look into the secrets of his
heart, so as to testify that no sinful desire had ever
found place therein. Nor do we find this rigorous
notion of sinlessness, as modern times has conceived
it, in the assertions of the Apostles. Their evidence,
therefore, implies little more than that of Xenophon
concerning his own teacher (Memorabilia, Book I.
1. 11). The consideration of the moral influence of
Christianity proves decidedly the moral spirit of its
founder, but not with equal historic certainty that all
the imperfections of Christianity are of later origin,
whilst all its glories are to be referred to its founder.
But looking at this merely in an historic view, this
also would be possible, if, after the custom of other
founders of communities, the peculiarity of Christ's
kingdom, and the moral effort which he excited, was

56 LIFE OF JESUS.
only relatively strongest in himself. According to
this strict notion of sinlessness, therefore, the only
certain proof is to be found subjectively in the self-
consciousness of Jesus himself. ' The truth of this self-
consciousness may receive additional support from
these objective proofs. Such a self-consciousness
he has expressed in the demand (John viii. 46) to
convince him of a sin. This, indeed, might be sup
posed to refer to an error or mistake ; yet, profoundly
considered, and regarded according to the Hellenistic
use of language, it refers to purity of heart, and this
is recorded by the same Apostle who declares that in
the case of other men the denial of sinfulness is self-
deception (1 John i. 8). But Jesus, even in the
presence of God, never assumes the position of a
sinner, unless we except the prayer of Matt. vi. 12,
which is not necessarily to be considered his own
individual confession. Again, this self-consciousness
is expressed in his declarations of his oneness with
God, which, looked at in a purely human manner,.
exclude all disturbance of the Divine love through
sin. This is the hidden truth in the ancient argument
for the sinlessness of Christ derived from his Deity,
or, as it stands in a later form, from the testimonies
of God to his sinlessness. But as Jesus was not mor
ally perfected before his death (comp. Philip, ii. 8,
Heb. ii. 9), it must follow that his perfection is hu
man and limited, and that therefore God alone is
perfectly good (Matt. xix. 16). The infallibility of
Jesus is the other side of his religious perfection, in
its relation to knowledge and to the communication
of knowledge. Its limits are those of the age and of

LIFE OF JESUS. 57
humanity. And it belongs to religious knowledge,
without implying an infallible acquaintance with
other arts and sciences. But every age has found
that the pure teaching of Jesus has been the meas
ure of its highest religious convictions.
Sect. 33. — Descriptions of the Character of Jesus.
Every attempt to give the character of Jesus runs
the risk of becoming a merely personified system of
morals or of psychology, and to result in a superficial
enumeration of all possible virtues and qualities. For
to the ideal of humanity, as to that of Deity, it is
essential to have no sharply marked features, but a
beautiful harmony of all powers. Quick suscepti
bilities and depth of feeling appear as character
istic traits in Jesus. Yet even these may belong to
the Gospel manner of description. This advantage,
at least, therefore, may belong to a biography of
Jesus, that, instead of an abstract analysis of his
character, it may follow the example of John in mak
ing a concrete and living picture of his inmost soul,
as expressed in words and deeds. This character
appears fully rounded even at the beginning of his
public life. It is essentially an entire love of God,
manifested in the purest humanity. History has
greater examples of the energy of single virtues and
qualities, but in this Jesus stands alone, that every
virtue, so far as it was possible to manifest it in his
work, appears in full harmony and concord with
everyother, and includes what in other cases a one
sided development has excluded. If, indeed, we

58 LIFE OF JESUS.
should take single actions and even speeches of Jesus,
we might find in them something one-sided. This
must necessarily be the case with every individual
utterance as such ; but other discourses of Jesus will
almost in every case supply what is wanted to the
perfect whole. (Compare, for example, Matt. x. 34
with Matt. v. 9 ; John x. 8 with Matt. v. 17 ; Matt.
xii. 30 with Mark ix. 40.) In such a character, the
religious frame of mind must be the prevailing one,
but it is apparently exclusively so, because the Evan
gelists have selected what belonged to their object
from the life of Jesus. They mention his tears, but
not his smiles, and allude, without design, to the sim
plicity of his manners, and his confidential inter
course in domestic life. His character is thoroughly
manly, and therefore a model for the other sex only
so far as a pure humanity belongs also to woman,
and because she often possesses the most uncorrupt
feeling for genuine manliness.
Sect. 34. — The Master in Flesh and Blood.
The Apostolic Church laid little stress on descrip
tions of the personal appearance of Jesus. The Jew
ish abhorrence of images permitted no portrait to be
taken, and the oppressed Church, in opposition to the
Greek view of their deities, represented its Master, in
the language of Isaiah (liii. 2), as without form and
comeliness. The first images of Jesus, in the second
century, are found in the sanctuaries of the heathen,
and of those with heathen sentiments. The victory
of the Church over the Greek spirit was a conquest

LIFE OF JESUS. - 59
which introduced that spirit, with its human ten
dencies, into the Church itself. So soon as portraits
of Jesus were actually made, all intentional deform
ity became impossible. Eusebius (H. E., VII. 18)
had seen such portraits of Jesus. The votive statue
of Jesus and the woman with the issue of blood, at
Paneas, may be authentic. At the time of Augustine
(De Trin., VIII. 4) the style of the representation
was still variable. After that, a fixed type formed
itself, which represented the Master, so far as the
frigid condition of art admitted, in serious Oriental
beauty, with long hair, parted on the head, and with
a short double-pointed beard. The wish for an his
toric basis caused, in the sixth century, old images
to be reverenced as the work of St. Luke, or as
made by supernatural hands. By such Byzantine
portraits, and by some mosaics in the Roman church
es, has this artistic tradition come down to us.,
All descriptions of the form and face of Jesus reach
no farther back than to these. They first represented
Jesus as a teacher ; afterward, so far as the monu
ments give evidence, as a boy ; then on the Cross ;
and not before the fifth century as an infant.
History contradicts the supposition of any deform
ity, for that which excluded one from the priest
hood would have been objected to him who wished
to be the Messiah. The supposition that he pos
sessed a lofty manly beauty is indeed only sup
ported among the later Church Fathers by the works
of art, and among the older Lutheran dogmatical
writers is doctrinally grounded upon Psalm xlv. 3.
Yet this view is favored by the first impression fre-

60 LIFE OF JESUS.
quently made by his appearance (comp. Luke xi.
27, John xviii. 6), and corresponds to the feeling
which naturally expects that the model of human
ity shall inhabit a beautiful form. History indicates
in Jesus a sound health with a certain tenderness
(Matt. viii. 24, Mark xv. 44), and the absence of
any specially marked characteristic features (John
xx. 14, Luke xxiv. 15).
Sect. 35. — The Century.
All great influences exerted by individuals have
this condition, that in them the tendency of their age
is perfected ; and if this tendency corresponds to the
will of God, expressed in history and reason, their in
fluence becomes a part of universal history. The will
of God in the reason is always the same, in history it
is always different. The true tendency of an age is
not always apparent, but is often the opposite of that
which predominates outwardly; for while the out
ward tendency is that which has reached its ultima
tum in external manifestation, it has lost all hold
over the inward mind, which already has been taken
possession of by a new life. The Indo-Germanic
races constituted entire circles of religious life,
which had the capacity for yet greater development.
But -in the age of Augustus, this religious life had
no influence on the nations which had been col
lected together by the victories of Alexander and
the Romans. And history proves that it was also
incapable of developing a" religion adequate for the
needs of humanity. The Roman-Greek culture had

LIFE OF JESUS. 61
done all it could to beautify earthly life as such,
and at the period of its widest diffusion announced
its downfall by the loss of its 'noblest organs, —
popular freedom and plastic art. The spiritual
grandeur and beauty of the Old World did not
pass away as suddenly as our sweeping rhetoric usu
ally asserts; but already unbelief contended with
superstition, and the love of pleasure triumphed over
moral weakness. To unite the nations in one. relig
ious family, a people was needed who could meet the
first condition requisite, — an energy of faith in one
God. And this could happen only at the period of
such a downfall of its religious nationality as would
permit its noblest minds to be at least susceptible of
a spiritual revolution. One nation possessed these
requisites, and that one situated between the three
continents, hated by all other nations, poor in hu
man culture, Oriental in its natural disposition, but
by the sword of conquest driven into contact with
Western history, and scattered throughout the world.
The original paradox of Judaism — one God for the
whole world, yet limiting his favor to a single nation
— appeared always more striking with this nation's
increasing wretchedness. Its law was a burden, and
even its faith led it into error ; but in the most
frightful degeneracy and immorahty the energy of
this faith remained, and in the midst of general
ruin announced itself in a wide-spread hope and
longing after a higher life, together with a calm
preparation for its coming.

62 LIFE OF JESUS.

Sect. 36. — The Messianic Prophecy.
[Note. — A thorough and reliable work upon the state of opinion
among the Jews in the time of Christ is still a desideratum in
the English language. In German there are many works, all
learned, but affected by the prepossessions of Rationalism on
the one hand, or of Orthodoxy on the other. Among these
are Bertholdt, " Christologia Judseorum Tempore Jesu et Apo-
stolorum," &c; Ofriirer, "Das Jahrhundert des Heils;" Heng-
stenberg, " Christologia des Altes Test. ; " Ammon, " Entwurf
einer Christologie des A. T. ; " and the History of Ewald, pas
sim. — Trans.]
The longing of humanity after its ideal took' a
peculiar and powerful direction among the Hebrew
people ; partly by its consciousness of possessing a
religion destined by its truth, when it became perfect,
to become the religion of the human race ; and partly
by means of a national pride, which, in the midst of
its constant misfortunes, could only maintain its belief
in being the favorite of God by faith in the future.
This faith was expressed as Messianic prophecy ; but
very differently, according to the needs and insight of
different periods and characters. Not, therefore, by
the fulfilment of its details, but by its influence as a
whole, it was a means by which Providence called
forth the Messiah. The Hebrew state was, accord
ing to the popular opinion, a theocracy, — a king
dom governed by God, through his law, and through
a constant exertion of his power by means of his
representatives. It was essentially a community im
mediately held together by its national religion.
Before the exile, theocracy was regarded more as

LIFE OF JESUS. 63
something actually existing, and the nation's hopes
referred only to its continued development. Dur
ing the exile, and afterward, it existed more as an
ideal (Dan. vii. 18-29), that is, a future national
splendor, effected by a moral and religious regen
eration of the people. In opposition to a worldly
kingdom, it is called the kingdom of God, or the
kingdom of Heaven, and, as brought about by the
Messiah, kingdom of the Messiah. It was consid
ered as an inheritance belonging to this peculiar
people, and in the popular mind referred to foreign
nations only so far as they should come under the
yoke of the Jews. But, according to the higher
views of the prophets, the heathen themselves were
to belong to the kingdom, by receiving the true re
ligion. The idea of this kingdom was conceived in a
more or less material form, according to the culture
of particular individuals and periods. But both ele
ments, the political and the religious, — national hap
piness brought about by means' of pure worship, —
though one or the other might predominate, re
mained always combined, both being essential to the
notion of a theocracy.
As already Moses had hoped that a prophet would
come after him to succeed him in his own spirit
(Deut. xviii. 15 ; comp. xxxiv. 14) ; so from the the
ocratic monarchy there was unfolded an expectation
of a king of the perfected theocracy who should be
dear to God ; called the Christ after Dan. ix. 25,
that is, a king anointed after the patriarchal fashion
(1 Sam. xvi. 13). But both kinds of Messianic
prophecy — that of the Messianic realm, after the im-

64 LIFE OF JESUS.
age of the republican theocracy, but without the Mes
sianic king, and that of the personal Messiah — were
held simultaneously. Among the prophets the first
notion predominated. In the time of Jesus the sec
ond prevailed among the people. Yet the other
seems to have been continued in the school of Hillel,
perhaps almost universally among the learned sects,
and in the view of Philo and the Essenes. The Mes
siah passed for the visible representative of the Deity,
and therefore the names and attributes of Jehovah
were attributed to him. In the periods and among
the races which were favorable to the royal house of
David, he was expected from the race of David ; but
after the exile the expectation of a supernatural Mes
siah was formed in consequence of the belief in de
mons, and attached itself to Dan. vii. 13. The belief
of the people varied between these two views (John
vii. 27, 42 ; comp. Origen contra Celsum, IV. 2 ; and
Heb. vii. 3) ; although a century after Christ the
expectation of the son of David was the prevalent
opinion. The attempt which has been made (by B.
Bauer, Zeller, Fleck, Ebrard) to deny the existence of
any Messianic expectation in the age of Jesus, is jus
tified so far as this, that the hope then existed in a
variety of forms, and there was certainly no fixed
Messianic dogma. But the strong popular faith in a
Messiah, which we find in Jewish writings after the
time of Jesus, can certainly not have been borrowed
from Christianity. Many proofs in the Gospels of
the existence of this Jewish popular belief show their
genuineness by their variety of form, and their differ
ence from the belief of the Apostolic Church. Final-

LIFE OF JESUS. 65
ly, though Josephus degrades the great hope of his na
tion to a courtier's flattery (Jewish War, Book VI. 5.
4), he yet confesses at the same time that it was re
ceived by his nation and their teachers in a meaning
of their own. He breaks off intentionally from the
prophecy of Daniel concerning the realm of the Mes
siah, giving as his reason that his purpose was not
to relate the future, but the past. He mentions also
a number of adventurers who excited the people by
claiming to be prophets, and promising to work mir
acles. These men must have relied for their influ
ence upon the Messianic faith, as afterward did the
leader named Bar Cochba. If, therefore, in the age
of Jesus, all the higher life of the nation was concen
trated around this prophecy, the national and neces
sary form was herein given by which alone the people
could be helped. Sect. 37. — Mission and Purpose.
Jesus was from eternity destined to become the
Messiah and Saviour of the world. But this mission,
for the very reason that it belonged to him, he had
freely and independently chosen. Accepting for
himself the will of God, as he saw it expressed in his
own mind, in the expectations of his nation, and in
the whole course of universal history, he applied to
himself the Messianic prophecies, because he knew
himself to be the one whom God had called to be the
Messiah. This certainty, without which his life be
comes unintelUgible, perfectly harmonizes with an
independent choice of his mission. According to a
6* E

66 LIFE OF JESUS.
Rabbinical tradition, every Israelite, and especially
every descendant of David, must wish to be the Mes
siah, and it is the manner of great men to turn into
a fact the ruhng wish of their life. The thought of
a supernatural Messiah could not alarm him who
knew that a truly Messianic work must be fulfilled
by the human Messiah. The supposition of his Mes
sianic consciousness existing even in his childhood, is
contrary to the idea of this history, and contrary to
the Gospel (Luke ii. 40 ; see § 14) ; and even in the
popular view it was considered possible that the Mes
siah, in his hidden condition, might be unknown
even to himself. It has been asserted that Jesus
could have been called to the office of the Messiah
only by an immediate revelation, because this was
not a duty imposed upon every one, but rather a call
which could only come to a single individual. But
we must consider that every call is individual, and
that the greater the mission is, and the more it
makes a part of universal history, so much more is it
adapted only to one person, whose mind and circum
stances fit him for the work. Also those destinies
which extend far beyond any merely subjective
knowledge or will are sometimes announced before
hand to individuals by a profound presentiment.
Yet two suppositions are possible, — either that his
Messianic consciousness was developed at the same
time with his self-consciousness and his acquaint
ance with the national hope of the Messiah, or else
that it became a determined purpose, after a con
flict between inward doubts and hopes. It is possi
ble that the first germ of this consciousness was in

LIFE OF JESUS. 67
the hopes of his mother ; but we should interfere too
much with the originality of Jesus if we laid much
stress on this. Therefore, even those who accept as
historic the marvellous legends of the nativity, are
obliged, if they wish to maintain a genuine human
development, and to avoid an education like that of
the Dalai-lama, to suppose that these indications of
the Messiah were not communicated to the child him
self. It is also possible that the faith of Jesus was
strengthened partly through the coincidence of Messi
anic signs with his outward circumstances, and in part
by the unusual power over nature which he afterward
manifested. But, on the other hand, some of the
Messianic indications pointed out by the prophets or
believed in by the people were not realized in his
case ; and those which were, were common to many
others ; and it is uncertain whether in his youth he
became conscious of his peculiar power in its full
extent. But his faith in himself was decided in
wardly by his perfect love to Deity and humanity,
constituting in him a perfect human and divine life,
which raised him above the common human lot ;
and outwardly by that ruin into which the human
race had fallen, which left for it but a single hope,
which he determined to fulfil. It was formerly usual
to prove that Jesus was the Messiah by a laborious
comparison .of single Messianic prophecies with their
fulfilment in him. But history furnishes a more irre
sistible proof, by showing, as a matter of fact, that
Jesus actually intended and accomplished that which
a Messiah, occupying the liighest.position of religious
insight, ought to have intended and accomplished.

68 LIFE OF JESUS.
That he would change the whole current of universal
history, was clearly conscious to the mind of Jesus.
He expressed it, and it" was written down at a time
when, to the common apprehension, it must have
seemed unmeaning ; and his word has been fulfilled.
Sect. 38. — Plan of Jesus in General.
By the plan of Jesus we must only understand
the subjective conception in his mind of the office
to which God had appointed him, and not anything
arbitrarily arranged by his own reflections. Jesus
adopted into his plan, out of the Messianic prophecies,
only that in which, as eternal truth, no error could
be contained. He accepted as his own God's plan
in behalf of mankind ; determining to found a king
dom of heaven, first among his nation, and then
by it to unite humanity, by means of pious love, into
lasting communion, and so to become its Saviour.
This reference of his work to universal humanity,
which he undeniably expressed at the end of his life,
(Matt. xxi. 43, xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19, and parallel
passages,) did not result from his being rejected by
his own nation. For, first, it was already given in
the higher tone of Messianic prophecy, (Isaiah ii. 2,
&c, Micah iv. 2, Malachi ii. 11,) and even in the
character of later Judaism. Secondly, it corresponds
with the all-loving heart of Jesus, as well as with the
pure spiritual principle of his religion, and was
already early indicated by him (Luke iv. 25 ; Matt.
viii. 11; John iv. 21-24, x. 16). Thirdly, some
opposite expressions (Matt. x. 5, xv. 24 ; comp.

UFE OF JESUS. 69
Acts x. 11) may be explained as coming from a wise
consideration for the national pride, and as a priority
which was historically necessary to be given to the
Jewish people.
Sect. 39. — Jesus as the Theocratic National King.
The assertion that Jesus had a merely political
object, and that he used religious motives merely as
a means to this end, (Reimarus, Of the Aim of Jesus
and his Disciples,) is contradicted by the uncondi
tional supremacy in him of the religious tendency,
by his utter neglect of all political measures, and by
the divine peace of his death. But a very different
view from this is the belief of an original theocratic
plan on the part of Jesus, in which the moral and
religious principle predominated, yet without exclud
ing the political side of the theocracy.* But since
Jesus continued to believe himself victorious, though
outwardly overthrown, it is necessary to suppose, in
addition to the general notion (§ 38), an onward
movement in his plan, — mainly this, that at the com
mencement of his public life he hoped to effect the
moral and religious regeneration of his nation, also
renewing thereby the outward glory of the theocracy,
which should gradually draw all nations into it. But
* Ammon, Biblical Theology ; an article in Henke's Magazine, Vol.
V. ; De Wette, Biblical Dogmatic, in which he gives the reasons for and
against, and decides " that Jesus allowed the earthly expectations of his
disciples to remain uncorrected, and may even have seemed to confirm
them by expressions, which had, however, a spiritual sense ; though such
expressions were transmitted in ruder forms, by the misunderstanding of
the disciples." The opposite view was argued by J. C. Doederlein, and
by Suskind, in Flatt's Magazine.

70 LIFE OF JESUS.
after he had seen, in his own rejection by his people,
the divine rejection of any national limitation of his
work, there opened before him the liigher meaning of
his life, which was to found a spiritual kingdom of
religious life undisturbed by the confusion of states
and the division of nations. The groundwork of this
view consists in the following reasons:* — 1. The
political element belonged not only to the essence of
the theocracy, but to the essence of the Messiah. To
all for whom the name of Messiah possessed a sig
nificance, there was contained in it a political expec
tation, and each one who announced himself as
Messiah must excite that expectation. Jesus, indeed,
always directed the attention from the outward to
the inward, — from the political to the religious ele
ment. And this corresponded to the notions already
held by the nation ; but he never openly and dis
tinctly declared that he did not intend to become the
Messiah in the popular sense. On the other hand, in
the circle of his disciples, he rather confirmed to
some extent their worldly expectation, which was
encouraged by the correspondence of their number
with the national remembrance of the twelve tribes.
(Matt. xix. 27-29.) And he sent out these Ap'ostles
to announce the kingdom which they anticipated as a
political one. 2. We cannot prove by clear evidence
* This view was maintained in the first edition of this manual. It was
opposed by Heubner, in an appendix to his edition of Reinhard's Plan.
See the English translation, by Oliver A. Taylor, New York and Andover,
1831, page 279. Also by Liicke, in a Latin treatise, published in Gotting-
en, 1831; by J. G. Ossiander, Tiibinger Zeitschrift, 1831; and by Ullmann,
in his second edition of the work on the Sinlessness of Jesus, contained
in " German Selections" by Edwards and Park, Andover, 1839.

LIFE OF JESUS. 71
any alteration to have taken place in the plan of
Jesus ; for the Evangelists could not have noticed
such a change, since they themselves, with the
whole Apostolic Church, held fast to the notion of a
worldly Messiah ; being merely compelled afterward
by the pressure of events to apply to a second com
ing of the Messiah what they had formerly expected
from his first coming. But the burden of proof
rests more properly upon those who maintain that
the aim of Jesus Was purely spiritual, because such
an aim, as it differed from all that the prophets had
announced, and the people had expected, should be
sustained by distinct declarations on the part of Jesus
himself. Accordingly they appeal to the following
passages : — (a.) Matt. iv. 9 ; but here he merely re
fused a worldly kingdom, to be obtained by Satanic
means. (6.) John vi. 16. The people who would
here make him a king were impelled by a transient
impulse, and did not represent the earnest collective
will of the nation, (c.) Luke xii. 14. His refusal here
to be a judge or a divider was because he had not re
ceived any public authority to that effect, through the
will of the people. (d.~) John xviii. 36. Apart from
the consideration that this declaration belongs to a
later period of his life, Jesus here merely rejects a
desperate attempt of his followers to deliver him by
force. For it is certain that at no time had he any
thing to do with a worldly kingdom of this kind, to
be contended for by cunning and force ; but rather a
divine kingdom, the'' foundation of which was to be in
the heart. 3. Another proof of the view we have
taken is to be found in the cheerfulness shown by

72 LIFE OF JESUS.
him at the commencement of his mission, and the
sadness in the neighborhood of its termination. This
change could not have been occasioned, in so great a
character as his, merely by the approach of an event
which had made a part of his original plan. The
blessings announced in his first Gospel (Luke iv. 18
-21), and the threatenings subsequently (Matt. xi.
20-24, Luke xix. 41-44); his plain declaration
that he meant to have delivered Jerusalem, and that
now it must undergo political ruin (Luke xix. 41-
44, Matt, xxiii. 37), — all show that he had hoped
to be recognized as the Messiah, and had changed
his plan after the failure of this hope. But had he
been recognized by the collective will of the nation,
and confirmed by its moral support and religious
enthusiasm, the highest power in the state must
naturally have come to him. 4. It is difficult to
see why a mere teacher of morals and founder of
a religion should apply to himself the Messianic
name, which necessarily occasioned so much misun-
"derstanding, and finally cost him his life. 5. Je
sus would have shown less ardor than prudence, if
he had despaired of the power of his spirit over his
nation, before trying it. If it be so, that all truly
human effort seeks to realize and actualize in the
outer world the Divine law which it perceives in the
depth of the soul ; then the striving for a true the
ocracy was a perfectly religious one, and the error of
confining within the limits of man's earthly life this
highest development of human " universal life was
natural, even with lofty spiritual powers of observa
tion and powers of insight, to him who saw in the

LIFE OF JESUS. 73
declarations of the prophets that which called him to
the office of Messiah. Since we have supposed a
gradual development of mind to have taken place in
Jesus, it follows that he freed himself only by degrees
from those errors, not of sentiment, but of insight,
which belonged to the national conception of his
office. But his character, which fulfilled the highest
hope of humanity, is not degraded by the supposi
tion of this tragic error. Much rather will this error,
as a moral act, become more lofty than any single in
cident hi the life of Jesus, if we suppose he at first
thought the throne of his ancestor David to be in
tended for him, and when instead of a throne he
saw a cross erected, that where another would have
despaired, he became, instead of a Jewish Messiah,
the Saviour of the world. His ideal majesty, there
fore, is not injured by this opinion, while the human
interest becomes much greater to us than if we
regard him as a being complete from the begin
ning, with no human progress.
Sect. 40. — Jesus as King of Truth.
The received opinion that Jesus intended only to
found a religious kingdom, without, reference to politi
cal considerations, is argued in opposition to the the
ocratic view thus. In reply to the first argument, it
is said that the national hope of a Messiah bridged
over the gulf between their view and his, and that
Jesus had no right to break down this bridge. He
could only indicate the passage from the outward to
the inward, and therefore openly declared, in presence
7

74 LIFE OF JESUS.
of the people, that the freedom which he came to
bring was the true freedom from sin (John viii. 31),
and that his kingdom would not come in outward
form in this place or in that (Luke xvii. 20). But
the political expectation was so deeply rooted, that
even the declaration of his approaching death could
not take it from the Apostles. There is certainly in
Matt. xix. 27 the appearance of a declaration which
can only be arbitrarily explained away by adopting
an ironical interpretation. Still this promise was
made at a time in which Jesus promised no earthly
reward to his followers except death (Matt. xvii. 22,
xx. 22). The conjecture that it belongs to an earlier
period is arbitrary. At all events, the Evangelist
could only have understood it as being connected
with earthly overthrow and ruin. It belongs to the
circle of images concerning the coming of Christ.
In reply to the second argument, it is said that an
historic assertion which is unsusceptible of proof
must always remain a mere conjecture. At all
events, the burden of proof rests equally on both
sides. For it is admitted that there was a time in
which Jesus relinquished the political element ; there
fore it belongs to those who believe that any such ele
ment ever existed in his plan to prove it. Among
the passages cited, that in Luke xii. 14 proves how
little pleasure Jesus took in mingling in civil dis
putes. For, according to the Jewish view, a public
office was by no means essential to justify him as a
prophet or judge in deciding this difficulty. The tes
timony of Jesus before Pilate, who was to decide on
his life or death concerning the purposes of his life,

LIFE OF JESUS. 75
if it can be taken unconditionally, is at all events
sincere and heroic. The whole Gospel of John is
evidence from a primitive source that the object of
Christ was purely spiritual. One might indeed say
that John has dropped out of his narrative the origi
nal national form of the plan of Jesus, as throughout
his narrative he has everywhere dropped the Jew
ish form. But according to the way in which John
regards his Master, it appears morally impossible that
he can have thought of him as having passed through
error to truth. This, therefore, is evidence that even
the confidential companions of Jesus knew nothing
of his having at first entertained any political expec
tations. If traces of the theocratic Messiah appear
in the other Gospels, there is nowhere to be found any
trace of the preparation for a political movement.
In reply to the third argument, it may be said that
Jesus brought a joyful message, and therefore an
nounced it joyfully, and must necessarily have felt
pained in leaving a nation which had rejected his sal
vation, even though he never had any direct political
purpose. But as the national welfare of the people
would have been renewed by its moral renewal, so
likewise the murder of the Messiah betokened their
political downfall. Had Jesus been recognized as the
Messiah, it would always have depended on himself to
accept or refuse any other than spiritual authority.
In reply to the fourth argument, it may be said that
it was this faith of Jesus in himself as Messiah, and
of his Apostles in his Messianic call, from which the
enthusiasm proceeded, by which the Church was
founded, and by which a higher faith in Christ was

76 LIFE OF JESUS.
formed, and which gave to Christianity a power
among the nations of the world which a mere relig
ion of reason could never have possessed. In reply
to the fifth argument, it may be said that there are
reasons which might deter a thoughtful man from
expecting salvation from a political Messiah. For
example, the Messianic theocracy could not exist as
a Roman province. There is no intimation of a mi
raculous power to be exercised by Jesus in order to
overthrow Roman legions. Jesus appeared too con
siderate to plunge the nation into a war with Rome,
(as a theocratic Messiah would have been compelled
to do by the national enthusiasm, even against his
own will,) in the expectation of miraculous aid from
Heaven. It is true that the prophets believed that a
theocracy and a worldly kingdom might be recon
ciled; but as soon as this union was actualized in
outward form, its evil character would become appar
ent. A hero who strives up through error to truth
is certainly more attractive, but he is not better, than
one who sees his way from the first, and walks firmly
in it. Though such an error might not disturb the
moral greatness of Jesus, it would, nevertheless, be
hard to believe the loftiness and transparency of his
character, with the infallible and divine voice which
speaks in his discourses, (for example, in John xiv.
6,) not to be impaired, if we suppose that he attained
his own idea of life through such mistakes and in
ward struggles.

LIFE OF JESUS. 77

Sect. 41.— The Result.

Jesus must at some time have examined and re
jected the theocratic view of the Messiah, since in this
form only could any faith in the Messiah have come
to him. But it cannot be proved that this did not
happen, through the clear insight of his spirit, before
the commencement of his mission. It cannot be
shown that he came to this conclusion by means of
disappointments experienced in the course of his
work ; yet it can hardly be denied that in the docu
ments before us the political element is more promi
nent than we usually believe. Hence, there continued
to exist an apostolic hope of an outward coming of
Christ, and the idea revived again in the Middle Ages
in the assumption that all the worldly power on earth
was possessed by Christ and given to St. Peter. But
if Christ never laid claim to the government of the
state, nor gave his Apostles commission to exercise
lordship on earth in the manner of earthly kings
(Luke xxii. 25), yet he wished to redeem his country
by sowing broadcast the seeds of virtue, and to renew
by his spirit the national character of his people.
His plan was a moral reformation and a spiritual
kingdom. But the divine law which he would install
was surely destined also to overcome the world in the
course of time ; or, rather, it was destined to pene
trate it as its highest law, and the King of Truth was
also to become the King of Nations.

7*

78 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 42. — Means.
The means used by Jesus for the execution of his
plan must naturally have been, and according to all
historical evidence actually were, of a purely spiritual
character^ (See, for example, Matt. xix. 21.) They
consisted of doctrine, example, education, the power
of love, and the innate superiority of a great char
acter over all that surrounds him. To this were
added the miraculous powers of Jesus, so far as he
knew himself to possess them; yet these could not
give him the certainty of victory. He was never
either member or chief of any secret society.* His
solitary nights passed beneath the vault of heaven in
the company of God and glorified spirits and angels,
to which the Gospels sometimes allude, give no occa
sion for any suspicion of a secret conspiracy. His
plan would not have been forwarded by mystery, and
he himself appealed to the publicity of his whole life,
and ascribed his mission always to God alone (John
viii. 20). The manner, too, in which the Apostles,
after his departure, founded the Church and gradu
ally overcame their own errors (John xviii. 15), shows
an entire independence of all such aids. The greater
degree of confidence shown by Jesus toward his
disciples (Luke viii. 9, xii. 41), and the preference
given to some of them, was the usual relation sustained
by intimate disciples, in consequence of their capacity
* A romantic machinery of this kind has been suggested by Bahrdt
and Venturini. But see, on the other hand, Reinhard's " Plan of the Foun
der of Christianity," translated by Oliver A. Taylor, New York and An
dover, 1831, § 43 and the following sections, and the Appendix.

LIFE OF JESUS. 79
and his affection, and had nothing in common with the
degrees of initiation belonging to the Pagan mysteries. ¦
Much rather, in the teaching of Jesus, the mystery
comes first and is followed by publicity. (Matt. x.
27 ; Mark iv. 21 ; Luke xii. 2.) For this is the nature
of the kingdom of Heaven, that it commences in the
secret places of the heart, but is afterward publicly ,
announced before the world. Before he began to ex- }
ecute his plan, Jesus kept it profoundly hidden, and \
appears to have remained in a mental solitude which
even the friends of his youth did not penetrate. His
reliance upon these means came from an assurance
of his Messianic destiny, and from the nature of his
plan, which, as a divine idea, floated in advance of
human history, and which therefore would be victo
riously executed, even if the name of Jesus should
be wholly forgotten.

FIRST PERIOD.
THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.

Sect. 43. — Survey.
This period begins with the baptism of Jesus,
which preceded the first Passover of his public life
(Sect. 28). At this time the sons of Herod the
Great, Herod Antipas and Philip, governed as Ro
man vassals ; the first, Perea and Galilee ; the other,
Iturea and Trachonitis. Judaea, after the banish
ment of Archelaus to Syria, was a Roman province,
governed, since the year A. D. 26, by the Procurator
Pontius Pilate, and, under his authority, by the Su
preme Council, according to the ancient Jewish laws.
Before the Passover, Jesus was for a short time
(John ii. 12) in Galilee. The Passover is described
in John ii. 13, iii. 21. There was nothing in the
tendency of John's narrative which could have made
it necessary for him to assume a hostility on the part
of the Jews, founded on their unbelief, if it had not
been actually existing. In this their principal seat
of power he does not represent it as existing at that
time in any great strength (John ii. 23). Such a
tendency in his narrative requires a growth in this

LIFE OF JESUS. 81
hostility which would have been interfered with by
laying much stress upon it at this early period. This
supposition of Bauer, therefore, deserves little weight.
After this time Jesus worked more publicly in Judaea,
where John the Baptist was also teaching, as appears
from John iii. 23, in conformity to the statement of
the Synoptics. (Matt. iv. 12 ; Mark i. 14.) These
agree with the fourth Gospel in regard to the coming
of Jesus out of Judaea, but consider his manifestation
of himself to have taken place in Galilee immedi
ately after the Temptation. (Matt. iv. 17 ; Luke iv.
13 ; see Acts x. 37.) The truth may consist in this,
— that Jesus, after the imprisonment of John, went
through Samaria to Galilee ; but probably toward the
end of the harvest. (John iv. 3 - 35.) The object
which Jesus had in leaving Judaea (John iv. 1-3)
could not have been attained, and the favorable re
ception which he met in Galilee (John iv. 45) could
not have been used, if he had not remained there for
some space of time. The termination of this visit is
fixed by the next coming Passover. (John vi. 4.)
On the other hand, the feast of the Jews mentioned
John v. 1, in the absence of the article, does not in
dicate any particular feast. But from the succession
of events, and the indications of time in the fourth
Gospel, it becomes probable that one of the feasts less
generally known, and therefore not to be mentioned
by name to foreign readers, — the Purim, for exam
ple, — may be intended. The motive for not visiting
Jerusalem on the subsequent Passover is given John
vii. 1-4. The feeding of the people, with its con
nected events, forms the concluding point ; where

82 LIFE OF JESUS.
also the Synoptics coincide with John ; on which ac
count, their communications concerning the events
in Galilee, down to this time, may be brought into
the circle of the first year. According to Epipha
nius (Heresies, LI. 25), this is the acceptable, or
pleasant, year of the Lord (Luke iv. 19 ; Isa. lxi.
2) ; — a year filled with hope, and the prophecy of
coming joy, — a year in which conflict was still re
mote, and only at the close of which the symptoms
of misfortune began to appear.
Sect. 44. — The Forerunner.
Matt. iii. 1-12; Mark i. 1-8; Luke iii. 1-20; John i. 19, &c.
John the Baptist was commissioned to prepare
the way of the Messiah by a moral awakening of
the nation; and, as the personification of Juda
ism in its highest form, to express and fulfil its
destiny by introducing to the leader of the new age
his first friends. The story of his birth (Luke i. 5 -
57), though hardly originating in the circle of a
Christian church, is yet so closely interwoven in its
character and place with the accounts of the birth of
Jesus, that it must be judged in the same manner
as these. In the apocryphal legends, John is also
wonderfully rescued from the hostility of Herod, and,
in the opinion of his later followers, miraculously
born as an incarnate God. As a nazarite, Ms mode
of life imitated that of the prophets, and perhaps
that of the Essenes. But it was not his place, either
when speaking to the people (Luke iii. 15) or to the

LIFE OF JESUS. 83
Great Coimcil (John i. 19), to claim a higher author
ity than that of truth, uttered in a lofty, patriotic
form ; and the voluntary reverence of the people
alone accounted him a prophet. (Matt. xxi. 26 ;
Mark xi. 32.) He appeared in the wilderness of
Judaea, and taught in the presence of disciples, to
whom he prescribed prayers (Luke xi. 1) and fasts
(Matt. ix. 14, Mark ii. 18, Luke v. 33), and preached
to alternating multitudes in the valley of the lower
Jordan. His doctrine consisted in a rigorous moral
ity, with sharp practical application to individu
als. His baptism to repentance was both a vow
and a symbol, according to the manner of ablutions
frequent in the East, especially among the Essenes,
but yet intended to mark an epoch for the whole life.
Josephus would not recognize his Messianic char
acter. But it is, in itself, not at all probable that
such an enterprise of reform, making so deep an im
pression upon the ~ nation, should not have had a
definite relation to the great hopes of the people.
His baptism, too, acquired its full significance only
as a fulfilment of a symbol of the Messiah given by
the prophets (Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, Isaiah i. 16), and
its relation to the Messianic baptism of fire, as well
as the image of the Messiah with the fan in his hand
(Matt. iii. 11), is so characteristic, that it could
hardly have come from the Christian stand-point.
But John might have spoken of himself thus gener
ally, and toward the close of his life, as precursor of
the Messiah, according to the existing popular faith
in the coming of a prophet as the Messiah's predeces
sor and companion (Mai. iii. 1, 23, Mark i. 2, Luke

84 LIFE OF JESUS.
ix. 19), as it is expressed in Matt. iii. 2, Acts xiii. 25,
xix. 4, while the Christian tradition may have been un
intentionally led to give this a more individual char
acter after the event. Moreover, Jesus himself first
called him his Elias, with a distinct recognition of
the allegory. (Matt. xi. 14 ; compare John i. 21.)
But there is no internal appearance of contradiction,
which can justify us in rejecting the plain testimony
of all the Evangelists, and of his early personal recog
nition of Jesus. That John continued to baptize in
the name of Him who was to come, and that he kept
together a particular school of disciples, is explained
by the fact that Jesus himself had, up to this time,
only announced the near approach of his kingdom.
The continuance of this school, even after his death,
was owing to its arbitrary preference of their teacher,
who, in the Jewish point of view, stood higher than
Jesus. The message, Matt. xi. 2, Luke vii. 18, was
not principally on account of his disciples, nor did
it indicate any doubt, nor new-risen faith, in his
own mind ; but was simply admonition, and fully
grounded in the theocratic view taken by the Baptist
of the Messiah. The Synoptics could not possibly
have seen in it a doubt inconsistent with the clear
ness of his testimony to Jesus. They rather described
the Baptist in his Jewish national character; and
John, assuming this, has rather described that side of
his character which was related to Jesus. The play
upon words in John i. 15 does not imply in the
mouth of the Baptist, necessarily, the pre-existence of
Jesus. The idea in John i. 29, that the Messiah
must pass through conflict and pain, like a sacrificial

LIFE OF JESUS. • 85
animal on which was laid the sin of the world, was
not necessarily opposed to the national faith in a vic
torious earthly theocracy. (Compare Isa. liii. ; Luke
ii. 34.) The recognition of Jesus as Messiah (in
John iii. 23, 30) only implies that John saw a divine
mission in his lofty spirit and character, and with
manly feeling subordinated himself by the highest
act and sacrifice of friendship ; thus securing his
own continued place in the kingdom of Heaven.
This may be singular, and perhaps, in the recollec
tion of the Evangelist, some simple action may have
been transformed into this free recognition of the
claims of Jesus ; yet it lies in the moral order, that
the lower and more limited nature should subordi
nate itself to the higher and larger one. But the
judgment of Jesus (Matt. xi. 11, Luke vii. 26, 28),
which recognizes him, with subjective truth, as the
greatest soul of antiquity, but yet places him wholly
outside of the kingdom of God, can only be reconciled
with this view, as it contemplates him for the moment
merely as the closing point of Judaism. (Matt. xi.
13.) The discourse of the Baptist (John iii. 31)
passes so entirely into the mode of thought and
speech of the Evangelist, that (compare iii. 11, 18)
it must be considered as containing his own reflec
tions. If characteristic and proverbial sayings, in
which (according to Matt. iii. 2, 5-12) the Baptist
sums up the meaning of his life, afterwards reappear
in the mouth of Jesus (Matt. vii. 19, xxiii. 33),
they express the fulfilment by Jesus of that which
was foretold by John (Matt. iv. 17) in a milder and
larger form (Matt. xiii. 30). Possibly also both dis-

86 LIFE OF JESUS.
courses may have been confounded together in the
recollection of contemporaries. According to Matt.
iii. 14, before the baptism of Jesus the Baptist had
already the highest respect for him. All the feeling
of his dignity arose in his mind at the moment of
their meeting. According to John i. 33, he did not
.at that time know him as the Messiah, which is only
opposed to Luke i. But something special may have
disturbed the recollection either of'one or another
of the discourses of the Baptist. There is nowhere
any trace of conspiracy or combination between Jesus
and John. When Herod Antipas had cast into prison
this terrible preacher of morals, Jesus went into Gali
lee, but not in order to labor for the rescue of his
friend. Sect. 45. — The Baptism.
Matt. iii. 13 - 17 ; Mark i. 9-11 ; Luke iii. 21, 22 ; John i.
32-34.
Jesus could not have been baptized with the bap
tism to repentance, or in the name of the promised
Messiah, without untruth. That he should then
first have known himself to be the Messiah, or have
given himself to the Deity to be declared the Mes
siah, at this important time, is inconsistent with his
subsequent Divine confidence, and would give an
appearance of indecision, and of the want of a clear
consciousness of his mission. Lange supposes it to
have been a necessary washing of purification, to
remove the impurity derived from the communica
tion had with an impure, excommunicated people.

LIFE OF JESUS. 87
But this supposition overlooks the fact that the peo
ple, from a theocratic point of view, must have been
considered the people of God. Ebrard ascribes to
the baptism of Jesus a symbolic meaning in refer
ence to death and resurrection, which errs in giving
to the baptism of John a sense which only came
afterward in Christian baptism. (Rom. vi. 4.) Ac
cording to Matt. iii. 15, he allowed himself to be
baptized, in order to fulfil all that the law, and its
continuation by its subsequent divine ambassadors,
required of the perfect Israelite. But since this ex
planation might have been added afterward, in order
to remove the apparent difficulty, and since Jesus
elsewhere displayed no zeal for any ceremonial en
largement of the law, it is conceivable that he may
have received the baptism of John in both of its
meanings as an individual, — as a personal dedica
tion to God, and consecration as the Messiah, ac
cording to the public expectation, while the Chris
tian baptism was yet not introduced. Either the
people and the disciples were not present, or, since
this is improbable in itself, especially according to the
representation of Luke (iii. 21), they did not per
ceive the miracle ; which would have produced a
decided impression upon the disciples of John, and
would have been appealed to by John and Jesus as
the highest evidence. The voice from Heaven is re
lated somewhat differently by Matthew and by Mark
and Luke. The testimony of- eyewitnesses through
the immediate tradition of the Baptist's disciples is
found in John's Gospel, who yet does not himself
appear as a witness of the transaction. The Baptist

88 LIFE OF JESUS.
testifies to have seen a heavenly appearance ; but he
says nothing of a heavenly voice ; which, if he had
heard it, would have prevented the question and an
swer in Matt. xi. 3. This voice the Synoptics, and
especially Luke, represent as an actual voice, and not
merely as the interpretation of some sign. (Bath
Kol.) Therefore the interpretation which the Bap
tist gave to this phenomenon (John i. 34) became,
in tradition, a heavenly voice ; in connection with
Isaiah xiii. 1 ; Psalm ii. 7. The continuation of the
legend appears in monuments supported by evidences
not less ancient than the canonical Gospels. Luke
relates the phenomenon as an outward matter of
fact ; while in the other writers it has more the
character of an inward impression. According to
Mark, Jesus saw it himself; according to Matthew,
he may have seen it ; according to John, the Baptist
alone testifies to have seen it ; and in his • account,
that which manifested the Messiah is scarcely de
scribed as a sensible appearance. The truth of the
story, therefore, is, that in the moment in which, in
the mind of the Baptist, the consciousness came to
him, " This is the Messiah ! " he expressed his con
viction in traditional images (compare Acts vii. 55,
Luke x. 18, John i. 51), or even represented it to
himself in an outward form, which may have been
occasioned by some actual phenomenon. The attend
ing circumstances are given. (Matt. iii. 14 ; John i.
33.) The indication of the Messiah by the Spirit
resting upon him, is derived from the prophetic vis
ions of the fulness of spirit belonging to Messianic
times. (Compare John iii. 34 ; Acts ii. 17.) The

LIFE OF JESUS. 89
comparison with the dove, from its form or its gen
tle flight, is a symbol which, even if it had never
been used in those times, belongs in itself to nature
and poetry. Some external communication of spirit
ual influence, as a genuine dedication of the Messiah,
belongs to the view of all the Evangelists, but without
strict consistency in the first and third Evangelists,
and with a contradiction as regards the fourth. (See
Neander, Strauss, Olshausen, Liicke, etc.) But the
mere omission in this Gospel of the peculiar baptis
mal act by no means proves it foreign to the idea of
the Logos (as Bauer thinks). For the entire har
mony of what is told by John with the record of the
Synoptics shows that the act of baptism is assumed
by John as known to his readers. When Bruno
Bauer asserts that the baptism of Christ arose after
ward as a tradition in the Church, and denies the
general preparation for the Gospel by the baptism of
John, he shows himself incapable of perceiving what
traditions belong to true history. Jesus did not need
an outward form of spiritual communication, but his
joy may have been strengthened by this first recogni
tion on the part of this the greatest of all the prophets.
But that which marks the epoch is, that at this time
he passed from the sphere of his private conscious
ness into that of public manifestation (Epiphany).
Sect. 46. — The Temptation.
Matt. iv. 1 - 11 ; Mark i. 12, 13 ; Luke iv. 1 - 13.
The temptation of Jesus, regarded as an actual ap
pearance of the Devil, is a useless spectacle, full of
8*

90 LIFE OF JESUS.
inner contradiction, opposed to the character of Jesus,
and to every conceivable character of an actual Devil.
One writer (L. Konnemann, Article in the Journal
for Lutheran Theology and Criticism, 1850) has sup
posed the temptations to be directed against the three
main pillars of redemption, and, having been over
come, to have laid the foundation of the three essen
tial doctrines of Christianity, viz. that of the union
of two natures in Christ, that of the Communicatio
Idiomatum, and that of Justification by Faith. He
regards the last temptation as an attractive offer by the
Devil of the whole realm of fallen souls. But this
resembles the mythical notion of a Satan deceived by
Christ, and contradicts the Gospel, which speaks only
of an offer of all the kingdoms of the world. Eb-
rard strengthens the notion by supposing a threat to
have been added by Satan, to let loose against Jesus
the whole frightful power of sin. But of all this the
Gospel knows nothing. These contradictions are by
no means diminished, if we assume a human tempter
sent- by the Sanhedrim, or by any other persons,
whether for the purpose of helping, testing, or de
stroying Jesus. To attempt to combine the two
views, as Lange has done, by supposing an emissary
of the Sanhedrim, and behind him the Devil, is merely
to bring together the contradictions from both sides.
Considered as a vision brought about by the excite
ment of his residence in the wilderness ; or as a vis
ion in which this residence itself is included, produced
by the Devil for the purpose of temptation, and sent
by God for trial ; or as a natural growth of the imagi
nation, like that of St. Anthony, or like Luther's bat-

LIFE OF JESUS. 91
tie with the Devil, — it stands without object in the
Gospel history. For in visions and dreams virtue can
have no real exercise, since the element of freedom
is wanting ; and the inspiration of Jesus is, in its calm
self-possession, opposed to such a view. Regarded
as a myth, — modelled on the type of the solitude
of Moses and Elias (Exod. xxiv. 18, xxxiv. 28,
1 Kings xix. 8), or on the temptation of Job, or the
legendary temptation of Abraham, or on the Jewish
expectation of a conflict between the Messiah and
Satan, — or as a mythical representation of the battle
between the antagonist principles of absolute good and
evil, — it has no historical meaning in the development
of Jesus, and is inconsistent with the place given it
in the Apostolic record. Bruno Bauer supposes it an
inward event in the life of the Church, which shrank
back in terror before the Christian principle of mira
cles and of passionate expectation of the last day, —
principles which, like an abyss, threatened to swal
low up and destroy the natural and historic course
of things; and therefore placed this event in the
life of the Master. But it is a sufficient argument
against this hypothesis, that no such terror is to be
traced in the Church of that day. As an inward
temptation, represented in the form of a parable, it
has been so explained as to imply some sinful incli
nation in the mind of Jesus. Consequently, it has
latterly been regarded as a parable only in the sense
that Jesus intended to show in what way he was not
to appear as Messiah, and would not have the Messi
anic work carried forward by his Apostles ; or else,
as a parable meant as a warning against earthly Mes-

92 LIFE OF JESUS.
sianic expectations. But this view gives up all the
essential character of a temptation. Much rather is
it a true inward history, embracing the whole devel
opment of the life of Jesus, probably put in this form
of a personal experience by himself, with allusion
to Exod. xvi. ; Deut. viii. 2 ; and Psalm xci. 11.
(Compare Matt. xxv. 31 ; Luke x. 18.) For a long
circle of inward experiences could scarcely be commu
nicated in a more intelligible and instructive manner
than in this picturesque form. In the Evangelical
tradition it is indeed represented as actual history,
in accordance with the national expectation of such
a personal encounter between the Messiah and Satan ;
but it is placed, with a just feeling, at the commence
ment of the life of Jesus. And thus it shows the
development of Jesus, not only by means of tranquil,
undisturbed growth (Luke ii. 40, 52), but also in
free conflict, after a purely human manner, with the
spirit of the world (Heb. iv. 15). Here the battle
is with the attractions of the world ; as, at the close
of his life, with its terrors. Luke, who has con
fused the order of events, appears (chap. iv. 13) to
have had a suspicion of the symbolical meaning of
the narrative ; while Mark wholly misunderstands it,
and has substituted instead an historical notice of a
mere adventure. The tendency of John's mind
would naturally lead him to omit the manifestation
of any inward conflict. Therefore the Temptation is
a picture of humanity becoming, through holy con
victions, victorious over self-love. So it stands as a
striking contrast to the Temptation and Fall of the
first man. It also is a representation of the moral

LIFE OF JESUS. 93
victory by which Jesus became the Messiah. These
temptations are those which beset humanity every
where, but which belong especially to great men,
and therefore most especially to Jesus. The lower
earthly impulses — the love of fame, and the love
of power — were indeed never accepted by the will
of Jesus as motives, nor became fixed as sinful
desire ; but were brought before his mind by the
necessary influence which the common habits of
thought exercise on the imagination. In this re
spect, therefore, they were well represented as out
ward temptations. This view combines the underly
ing historical truth, the form of parable, and the
mythical tradition. Since the scene of the last two
temptations has a poetical aspect, since the order of
the temptations and their continuance are narrated
differently, and the forty days have a typical, sacred
number, there arises a doubt also concerning the
abode in the wilderness; and the fourth Gospel
hardly leaves a space for this residence after its com
mencement. But it is possible that Jesus, following
the example of his spiritual precursors, withdrew into
a desert (Quarantania) , in order, on the eve of his
great enterprise, to meditate once more on the course
of his life in the presence of God ; which circum
stance would give an occasion for individualizing this
general fact.

94 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 47. — The First Disciples.
Johni. 35-51; Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20; Luke
v. 1-11.
According to John, the testimony of the Baptist
led to Jesus, directly before his return into Galilee,
his first disciples, who were seeking the Messiah.
John does not mention himself as one of these, but
betrays himself tenderly by his minute description of
this never-to-be-forgotten hour of his life. After afford
ing a proof of his being the Messiah in his power of
looking into the human mind, — a power belonging
more or less to all royal natures, but described by
John as mysterious knowledge (ii. 24, iv. 17), — the
Master began the education of Peter by a remark on his
name ; which play upon words was afterwards (Matt.
xvi. 18) repeated and carried out on a particular
occasion. Nathaniel also, who came from Cana
(John xxi. 2), where Jesus had friends, was drawn
to him by a remark which showed Jesus to be well
acquainted with an apparently accidental circum
stance, — a wonder of knowledge which the Master
himself regards as small, compared with the manifest
Divine Providence prevailing through his life. Ac
cording to the Synoptics, it was later than this, and
on the shore of the Lake of Galilee, that Jesus called
the four fishermen to be his Apostles. John men
tions a call to follow him, and to become Ms disciples
(i. 44, ii. 2, 12), which Jesus thus early gave ; and
the Synoptics also mention the call of his Apos
tles. But the fact seems to be, that though the

LIFE OF JESUS. 95
spiritual attraction was at work, and a community of
disciples was forming, a return to their homes and
their toil was not at this time excluded. So that
afterward a second call commanded the disciples to
leave all. This has only been preserved in oral tradi
tion, and was modelled after the type in 1 Kings xix.
19-21. In John i. 40, one side of this transaction is
indicated, and the other in Luke iv. 38. Luke has
supplied a motive for the call by an event which,
standing by itself, might be explained as a natural
transaction, but which appears in its place in the nar
rative as a miracle of power or knowledge. Since the
first two Evangelists plainly say nothing of a miracle
in this place, and its historical necessity and moral
purpose may be easily doubted, we may perhaps infer
that Luke has here inserted in his narrative an event
or a story, which is found in the fourth Gospel (John
xxi. 3) in another form, with traits very character
istic of Peter. Whilst the six disciples, thus called
by degrees, not yet indeed inspired with enthusiasm
for the work of Jesus, but with a true interest for his
person, left property and employment, though with
the hope of a rich recompense, they acquired a greater
power than they themselves knew, of sacrificing all
earthly things. Those who were unable to endure
this first test, Jesus rejected, (compare Matt. viii. 19
-22, Luke ix. 57-62,) in the conviction which each
one feels who ascends a lofty path, that his victory
might demand great sacrifices, and could be secured
only by the determination to make the greatest.

96 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 48. — The Miracles of Jesus.
All attempts to explain the miracles of Jesus by
bringing these extraordinary actions to the level of
common events, — whether the material explanation
(physical and psychical), or the formal explanation
(allegorical, mythical, and exegetical), — injure in
various ways the truth of the Evangelical story, the
purity of the character of Jesus and his Apostles, the
seriousness and fidelity of historical criticism. That
Jesus possessed a certain miraculous power, that is
to say, a power of healing, which far surpassed the
knowledge and power of his contemporaries, is certi
fied historically by its continuance in the Apostolic
Church (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28) ; and, so far from being
improbable in itself, is essential to an explanation of
the events of his life. Yet it lies in the nature of
any marvellous narration rather to be enlarged than
diminished by tradition, even in the memory of wit
nesses. And since single events are adduced merely
as examples of an invisible agency, it might easily
happen that here and there parts of different trans
actions may have been woven together. These mir
acles could not indeed contradict the laws of the
world, which are the constant expressions of Divine
will. Therefore amid all apparent contradictions we
must seek for an accordance with law. The recog
nition of the possibility of the miraculous can only be
relative, and in this sense there are degrees of the
miraculous. But our notion of the laws of nature
is very elastic, — limited in its expansion only by the
laws of thought and the amount of sure knowledge.

LIFE OF JESUS. 97
The change of water into wine (John ii. 11) marks
the commencement of the miraculous agency of
Jesus. But here his mother's expectation appears
already to suppose a certain acquaintance with his
power. And since Jesus, according to the laws of a
purely human development, must have become ac
quainted with his miraculous powers, at first acci
dentally or gradually, but hardly in any way except
that of action, it is probable that before Ms public
appearance some slighter manifestations of the sort
occurred, as they have been related by the Synoptics
(Mark i. 21). According to Mark vii. 33, viii. 23 ;
John ix. 6 ; Matt. viii. 16, xvii. 21, his acts of heal
ing, after the occupations of the day, and after
repeated accusations of Sabbath-breaking, were not
always unconnected with outward means, or at least
bodily contact ; possibly, so far having a connection
with Rabbinical or Essene methods of cure, and
in some measure communicable. But the power of
the Word and of the Spirit was always predomi
nant. He demanded of the sick a trustful submis
sion (faith), which is useful, though in a less de
gree, in all attempts to. cure disease. But if this
had been the indispensable physical condition of the
cure, failures would have occurred, of which we do
not find a single historic trace. But his power of heal
ing was not always exercised (Mark vi. 5), nor did all
the sick who sought a cure find it (Mark i. 32 ; com
pare verse 34). On one occasion (John v. 3) he healed
but one out of many collected for that purpose. The
description given (for instance, Mark vi. 56) of the
universality of these cures does not wholly agree with

98 LIFE OF JESUS.
the excitement produced by a single cure, and with
the possibility of doubt concerning their reality (John
ix. 1, 18), or with the presence in Jerusalem, after
the death of Jesus, of persons suffering from chronic
disease, who yet possessed the subjective condition of
cure. The raising of the dead may indeed be ex
plained by the Old Testament types (1 Kings xvii.
17 ; 2 Kings iv. 18), and by misunderstandings of
the Messianic work, (Matt. xi. 5, John v. 28,) as
having originated in the belief of the Church. But
the manner in which they are related, and the mys
terious proximity of death and life, so long as the
organs of life are not absolutely destroyed and the
body not decayed, give reason for regarding them
only as the highest manifestations of the miracle of
healing. Perhaps all cures are confined to the region
where the power of will over the body exists ; which
is often noticed in single cases and in less degree.
These cures, therefore, are not without analogies in
all ages and times. (Compare Matt. vii. 22, xxiv. 24 ;
Mark xiii. 22 ; 2 Thes. ii. 9 ; Acts xiii. 12.) A re
semblance is afforded tis in animal magnetism, only
so far as it contains a mysterious power over disease,
arising out of the great life of nature ; and perhaps,
moreover, the means which Jesus used may have
stood in some relation to magnetic phenomena. But
the miraculous power of Jesus appears far more like
intelligent mastery of nature by the soul. The soul
of man, originally endowed with dominion over- the
earth, recovered its old rights by the holy innocence
of Jesus, conquering the unnatural power of disease
and death. Here, therefore, there was no violation

LIFE OF JESUS. 99
of the laws of nature, but, on the contrary, the dis
turbed order of the world here recovered its original
harmony and truth. Even the wonderful power ex
ercised over external nature may be reduced under
the same law, and be understood according to the
analogy of an accelerated process of nature. Yet,
as these acts have a somewhat fantastic appearance ;
as Jesus sometimes avoided performing them (Matt.
xvi. 1, compare iv. 3, &c.) ; as they form no coherent
cycle of phenomena, and have no essential influence
in the work of Jesus, — the suspicion of something
mythical having crept into the narrative can only
be set aside by the irresistible power of experience,
wMch makes up the full weight of historical evidence.
It is indeed the destiny of man to control Nature,
but only while with indefatigable inquiry he investi
gates her laws. The miracles, taken together, con
stitute no complete proof of the truth of the doctrine
of Jesus ; but as such events were expected in the
Messiah as an evidence of his mission, and almost
universally were the first means of drawing hearts to
him, tMs talent became, in fact, the historical condi
tion of his recognition ; and, accordingly, must in
some way or other have been given by God to the
appointed Messiah. Jesus might, therefore, blame
the wish for miracles which desired the means rather
than the end (Matt. xii. 38, John iv. 48, &c.) ; and,
nevertheless, he may have appealed to his miracles
as a national proof of his being the Messiah (Matt. xi.
4, xii. 27 ; John x. 25). His repeated command
that his miracles should not be made public (Matt.
ix. 30, Mark vii. 36, viii. 26, Luke viii. 56) may

100 LIFE OF JESUS.
have been intended to correct the false wish for'
miracles, and to prevent inconvenient requests. But
we have no adequate explanation of this, since the
knowledge of the miracles by the people seems favor
able to his object as the Messiah, and, at all events,
could not be prevented. Perhaps this command was
given only in particular cases (as Mark i. 44).
Therefore we sometimes find an opposite command.
(Mark v. 19 ; Luke viii. 38.) With few and doubt
ful exceptions (Matt. viii. 32, xiv. 25, xxi. 19), Jesus
used his power only for benevolent purposes, regard
ing it, indeed, as one part of his work (Matt. xxi. 5,
Luke xiii. 32), but never as an ultimate object.
Sect. 49. — The Demoniacs.
That Jesus drove out demons, — which fact sup
poses a possession by evil spirits, — must be main
tained by all who consider themselves bound by the
letter of Scripture. The modern attempt (by Ols-
hausen, Hoffmann in his " Life of Jesus," Theo.
Meyer, Article in " Studies and Criticisms," 1834,
Ebrard, J. P. Lange, Neander) to accept the fact by
means of a theory of influence from Satanic powers,
acting upon nervous patients, but under moral lim
itations, has made something entirely different of
these accounts. The objection that a demonic pos
session is opposed to human freedom and Divine
Providence, is set aside by the fearful evidence of
insanity. But those forms of sickness which the
Jews and the Hellenists regarded in their popular
faith as demonic possession, and which were treated

LIFE OF JESUS. 101
as such usually by the exorcists, were even at that
time described and treated as mental diseases by
educated Greek physicians. All their chief symp
toms appear also in cases of insanity at the present
time. Therefore, these New Testament cases may
partly be regarded as mental derangement, the sub
jects of which were led by the popular opinion to
consider themselves to be possessed, as is still the
case where people believe in possession, and where
there are exorcists. Partly they may have been
cases of Mgh-wrought magnetic excitement ; and
partly also severe bodily diseases which the people as
cribed to demons. It is indeed true, that insanity in
general results from sin ; and that natural evils not
unfrequently come from self-surrender to moral evil.
But undoubted facts are opposed to the opinion that
insanity universally results from guilt. It was neces
sary for Jesus to use the popular language in order
to be understood by the people, and especially in
order to effect the cure by adapting himself to the
patient's state of mind. But we have no evidence in
the Synoptic Gospels that he himself differed in opin
ion from the people on this point. His miraculous
power was shown in the instantaneous and certain
result, which left behind nothing of that incurable
mental stupor or feebleness which we observe at the
present time ; though it was not in accordance with
the feeling of the Evangelists to institute particular
examinations into these matters. Luke xi. 24-26
seems to refer to dangerous relapses. His method
differed from the usual exorcisms (see Matt. xii. 27,
and parallel, Mark ix. 38) in that he only worked on
9*

102 LIFE OF JESUS.
the spirit by the power of his spirit, and was favored
by the national opinion ,that demons must obey the
Messiah. These cures, therefore, must be regarded
as belonging to the works of power performed by the
Messiah. John, who is silent in regard to this kind
of miracles, appears to have obtained a view in re
gard to them, either from his Master's teaching, or
from his later Greek culture, which caused him to
have respect to the opinions of educated Greeks. It
is necessary to suppose the Apostle incapable of this
culture, or the fourth Evangelist to have been incred
ibly ignorant, in order to find in this silence (as
Strauss does) an argument against the genuineness
of John's Gospel.
Sect. 50. — The Marriage at Cana.
John ii. 1 - 12.
The answer of Jesus to his mother, whose ques
tion expressed a distinct expectation, which was justi
fied by the event, is not without some difficulty, even
according to the mode of speech at that time. The
change of water into wine, taken by itself, might be
considered, as Venturini has done, an illusion ; or, as
Langsdorf has explained it, an artificial manufacture
of wine by means of vegetable essences ; or, as Pau
lus has done, a gay surprise and marriage-gift. But
the Gospel undeniably relates a miraculous transfor
mation, in which Jesus manifested, not only his
friendliness, but also his glory. (In particular, the
9th and 11th verses, and iv. 46.) There is little in

LIFE OF JESUS. 103
the Old Testament types to give occasion for such a
story. (Exodus xvii. 1, vii. 17, xiv. 23 ; Judges xv.
18 ; 2 Kings ii. 19.) It can be explained as a para
ble only by means of the secondary incidents, verses
4 and 10. To consider it, as Baur does, (following
a spiritual application of Luther's,) a poetic fiction,
invented to mark the opposition between the water of
Judaism and the wine of Christianity, or between the
watery nature of John's influence and the fiery spirit
of Christ, is to assert what is not suggested by any
thing in the narration. One might as well refer the
miracle to the mysteries of Bacchus as its type. To
suppose, with Bruno Bauer, an allusion to the death
of Christ and to the wine of the Supper, lacks con
nection, and implies absence of thought in the Gos
pel poets. The objections which have been brought
against the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, or, at
least, against this fragment of it, can by no means be
strengthened through the miraculous character of this
event. An immediate change of one substance into
another is indeed opposed to our laws of thought.
But even if none of the analogies which have been
suggested (certainly not that proposed by Lange, of
a mere exaltation of mind at a feast by which one
drinks water as though it were wine) are sufficient,
the supposition yet remains possible of the water
being animated into the apparent qualities of wine.
Some objection certainly lies against the resulting
material, as a luxury not demanded by the needs
of refined society. Its moral meaning, in the con
trast of Christ's larger ethics with the ascetic life
of the Baptist, is not expressed, but rather excluded

104 LIFE OF JESUS.
(by verse 11). The liigher symbolic meaning of the
act is possible indeed, yet nowhere indicated. An
other objection to the fact may be drawn from the
silence of the Synoptics ; since such a miracle, from
its character no less than from the place where it was
performed, could hardly have been lost from the Gal-
ilasan traditions. Nor do the concluding words of
John's account have the aspect of an eyewitness.
Therefore, we are led to conjecture that an occur
rence not originally regarded as a miracle, as Jesus
at that time was not known to his disciples as a
worker of miracles, (John ii. 11,) became trans
formed afterward to its present shape in the remem
brance of the Church and of the Apostle under the
influence of later feelings and views. But the diffi
culty of reconciling this view with his character as
an eyewitness, and with his earnestness, leaves a
question remaining which we can hardly hope ever
to see answered, even in the last development of
Christian thought.
Sect. 51. — Commencement of the Work of Teaching, and
Expulsion from Nazareth.
Luke iv. 16-30; Matt. xiii. 54-58; Mark vi. 1-6;
John iv. 44.
Jesus, during his summer residence in Judaea,
had the Apostles with him. (John iii. 22, iv. 2.)
But their call, which took place in Galilee, sup
poses that he had already appeared there in public
as a teacher. We see, therefore, that his original

LIFE OF JESUS. 105
connection with Galilee was the cause of his first
appearing there in this public capacity. The proph
ecy (Matt. iv. 14) quoted in regard to this, is but
the echo of the fact (compare Luke xxiii. 5). In
this case, he must have been in Galilee teaching,
before the Passover; of which even John gives a
hint (iv. 44), alluding to this first visit, the results
of which were not important. But we must admit,
that, according to this view, John, in Ms enumeration
of the miracles performed in Galilee, omits at least
one case, — that of a cure performed on a demoniac
in Capernaum. The teacMng of Jesus consisted, in
the main, of exhortation to moral reformation, giv
ing as a reason, that the kingdom of God was at
hand. His doctrine was distinguished from the
theme of the Baptist only by its more precise an
nouncement that the new epoch had arrived (Matt.
iv. 17 ; Mark i. 15 ; Luke iv. 43. John (ii. 12) men
tions out of tMs period only a short abode in Caper
naum. Also Mark (i. 21), agreeing with Luke,
places here the commencement of his teacMng and
actions. Luke's relation (iv. 31) is to be placed
(according to verse 23) previous to the expulsion of
Jesus from Nazareth. The first two Gospels indicate
a subsequent appearance iu Nazareth, with the same
fruitless result, though having a less violent termina
tion. It is possible that tradition has given us the
same event in two different forms, but the account of
Luke must not be regarded as the most probable be
cause of its more minute description and clearness.
It is likewise possible that Jesus afterward, in the
glory of Ms renown, made another visit to Ms pater-

106 LIFE OF JESUS.
nal city ; in which case, the account of this second
transaction, standing by itself, might easily become
entangled with a trait borrowed from the first. In
any case the representation of Luke is only adapted
to the commencement of the career of Jesus, and
gives the motive for his change of residence to Ca
pernaum, which is also fixed at this period by Mat
thew (iv. 13). The expulsion of Jesus from Ms
paternal city is regarded by Luke as symbolical of Ms
destiny ; but the cause is not clearly explained. His
first address (Luke iv. 23) was evidently a reply to
some public charge, but still one does not see why
Jesus, who could so easily win hearts, should have
embittered against him the Abderites of Galilee.
His rescue, according to the account of the Evan
gelists, appears miraculous ; though the prophet's
aspect of authority might easily have opened a path
for Mm through the angry crowd.
Se'CT. 52. — The First Passover of the Messiah.'
John ii. 23 - 25 ; iv. 45 ; ii. 13 - 22 ; iii. 1 - 21.
Jesus, while in Jerusalem, obtained the attention
and favor of the people. He knew the fickleness of
the multitude, and looked through the hearts of men.
Among the signs by means of which he elicited
faith, may have been miracles of healing ; but we
must also include his character as manifested in ac
tions, and Ms wisdom as displayed in words. These
last are the only occurrences at the festival wMch
John has selected for his narration.

LIFE OF JESUS. 107
1. His driving the tradesfolk out of the court of
the Temple, which is described as a picture of the
power and indignation of love, might have been done
in accordance with the right of every Israelite (Num.
xxv. 6-13; Selden and Grotius on Natural Law),
to show his zeal for the law of his fathers, — a right
founded on national recollections and feelings, — or
it may be a manifestation of the authority of the
Messiah, commencing thus a reform of worship
(Malachi iii. 1). (See Gfrorer, Hist, of Primitive
Christianity, especially his reference to the Targum
of Jonathan on Zach. xiv. 21.) In the first case, the
only question is, to what this bold action should lead.
In the other case, which is John's supposition, a mir
acle is expected as proof of Ms authority. The
answer of Jesus suits either view (John ii. 19). If
it was correctly understood by the Jews, it would
seem that he only wished to free himself from their
importunity by an evasion. If the allegorical inter
pretation of the Apostle is correct (John ii. 21), it
contains a questionable provocation, excusable only
by being wholly unintelligible to them. Baur's no
tion that it was placed in the mouth of Jesus by the
writer himself from his own consciousness, is opposed
to his admission that he did not understand it at
the time. The apparent ostentation of the first view
disappears when we enter into its full meaning, by
which the Temple appears as the outward symbol of
the national worship ; and Jesus then utters a proph
ecy concerning his whole work and influence which
the purification of this worship itself explains and ful
fils. (John iv. 21.) A repetition of this transaction

108 LIFE OF JESUS.
at the final passover is indeed possible (Matt. xxi.
12 ; Mark xi. 15 ; Luke xix. 45) ; but the circum
stantial differences in the Synoptical accounts make
it improbable. The Synoptics only mention one
Passover, and therefore are compelled to refer to
this all transactions which belonged to any Passover.
For the safe accomplishment of this action, there was
wanting neither a miracle, nor an appeal to public
sympathy, nor the influence acquired by a year's
public activity, to give Jesus authority for an heroic
act, also less in accordance with his position and
frame of mind at the last Passover. 2. The conver
sation with Nicodemus is recorded on account of the
subject, and on account of the person. Jesus chan
ges the subject of conversation from his own praise,
always unsuitable when spoken to one's face, and,
passing to the deeper questions contained therein,
speaks of the condition of entrance into the kingdom
of Heaven. The image of a new birth was tradi
tional in the East, and could not be misunderstood
by a man of learning, through pretence or involun
tarily, with a good or a bad purpose. A dissatisfac
tion occasioned by an Israelite's national pride does
not appear ; and this would have objected, not to
the possibility, but to the necessity of the new birth.
The meaning of this figurative answer of Nicode
mus may be, that the young Galilaean was making
a too severe demand upon an old man, who, after a
worthy life, had a right to be what he was. But
• this subjective or personal discussion passes into a
larger and more universal topic. It is not to be
wondered at, if, in private conversation, two teach-

LIFE OF JESUS. 109
ers in Israel should go more deeply into spiritual
mysteries than was proper in public instruction.
They spoke of the necessity of an entire change
in the state of the soul, and of the creative power
of moral freedom, in the figurative language of
Oriental philosophy. The student of the law de
nied this miraculous power of freedom, and took his
position on the plane of the understanding and sen
sible experience. Jesus maintained its necessity as
the condition of entering the kingdom of Heaven,
both from the ground of reason and of his own spir
itual experience. His closing words rise even above
the moral stand-point, to the highest intuitions of the
religious consciousness. Although the lifting up of
the Son of Man as a means of salvation must, in the
mind of the Apostle, be referred to the death of the
cross (John xii. 32), it is evident that this meaning
could not be apparent to Nicodemus, and could
hardly be of use to him in the way of moral stimu
lus. The conversation which took' place that night
is communicated only as to its most striking expres
sions, and it is uncertain how directly these may
have come to John. His own tone plainly glimmers
through, and in the closing words becomes predomi
nant. Such a conversation as this was no subject
for oral tradition ; and in the Apostolic Church there
was no tendency to invent, consciously or unconscious
ly, associations with the great men of this world.
(Compare 1 Cor. i. 26.) Nicodemus certainly repre
sents a whole class of the Jewish nation in their rela
tion to Christ, and not merely those who, unbelievers
even in their belief, remained timidly concealed.
10

110 LIFE OF JESUS.
(John xii. 42.) But a good historian finds his rep
resentative man in an historical person, and does not
have to invent him, as Baur supposes. That Nico
demus at that time, or subsequently, became con
vinced of the claims of Jesus ; and that the moral
power which he had doubted showed itself in him by
its only possible evidence, action, John has told us
(vii. 50-52, xix. 39).
ect. 53. — Baptizing in Judaea.
John iii. 22 ; iv. 1 - 3.
Concerning the period from the Passover till the
journey into Galilee, John has merely informed us
that Jesus found more disciples in the country of
Judaea than did John the Baptist, and that he did not
baptize in person, but by means of his disciples. His
reasons were the same with those which afterward
influenced the Apostle Paul, and, as in his case, this
course was probably sometimes varied from. (1 Cor.
i. 14-17.) Since we find no trace of all this in the
Synoptics, but, on the other hand, the practice of
water baptism seems opposed both to the expectation
of the Baptist (Matt. iii. 11, John i. 26) and to the
promise of Jesus (Acts i. 5, xi. 16), and since
Paul (Rom. vi. 3, Col. ii. 12) makes the death of
Jesus an essential point in the notion of baptism,
and finally, since, according to Matthew (xxviii. 19,
compare Mark xvi. 16), Jesus first gave a command
to baptize when leaving the world, which command
was not strictly observed in the time of the Apostles,

LIFE OF JESUS. Ill
it might be inferred that baptism first began with the
Apostles. This would suppose that they revived the
practice of the Baptist, but added to the rite the new
meaning of an initiation into their own community.
(See Weisse.) But in order to find proof of this,
even in the fourth Gospel, we must suppose an in
credible carelessness in those who have copied it.
The way in which, immediately after the departure
of Jesus, baptism was adopted without hesitation as
the means of introducing converts (Acts ii. 38,
41), indicates, at least as regards Luke, that some
thing of the same sort had taken place before.
These contradictions may perhaps be reconciled by
the supposition that Jesus in the first place exhorted
men to be baptized, in the same way as the Baptist
did; but that afterward this ceremony was less in
sisted upon, and that only at the close of his life,
when about to found a Church, was it made a uni
versal ordinance. According to the hint in John
(iii. 5, compare 1 John v. 6), and according to the
distinction between baptism by water and the spirit,
the first must be regarded as a symbol, or as an act
of purification, perhaps applying more distinctly to
the kingdom of the Messiah than did that of John. If
Jesus at that time left Judaea to avoid a conflict with
the Pharisees, it might have been because he saw
clearly what John, from his narrower point of view,
expresses less intelligibly (iv. 44), that the time had
come to obtain an influence in Galilee by means of
the reputation previously obtained elsewhere.

112 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 54. — The Messiah in Samaria.
John iv. 4 - 43.
On Ms way back to Galilee, Jesus began to reunite
the people of Samaria in the Messianic kingdom with
their former brethren of kindred tribes. He was
passing through a region full of the recollections of
the common ancestors of the nation. Here, meeting
a woman of Samaria, whose character, as it appears,
was not good, he first interested her by his figurative
discourse, and then moved the depths of her soul by
his prophetic earnestness. It was in her presence,
after she had sought, by an adroit question concern
ing the religious controversies existing between the
nations, to divert Ms attention from her own involved
relations, that he expressed, deeply moved by the
hope and joy of 'this day, the fundamental idea of
his religion, — spiritual communion with God in piety
of life, and the abolition of all ceremonial service.
At the same time he openly declared himself to be
the Messiah who was to establish such a worship of
God. The woman, and the people of her city, recog
nized him as such without any external evidence, but
merely impressed by the inward truth of his discourse.
This city was the ancient Sichem, called by the Jews
in mockery Sychar (after Isa. xxviii. 1, 7), and was
situated at the foot of Mount Gerizim. (Josephus,
Antiquities, Book IV. § 8. 45 ; Robinson's Palestine,
Book III.) The Samaritans, already inclined to a
more spiritual mode of worship, were then expecting
a human Messiah from the race of Joseph, whose

LIFE OF JESUS. 113
chief office should be that of a teacher and moral
reformer. This view of the Samaritan belief is con
firmed by the oldest genuine monuments, as well
as by the latest information concerning the descend
ants of these Samaritans now living in Naplous.
And this view goes to explain and confirm this narra
tion of John. Opposed to this is the command in
Matt. x. 5, which, in connection with John iii. 16,
and the full knowledge of character which Jesus is
presumed to possess, would imply that His great an
swer and large view were unsuited to the notions of
this immoral woman. Hence this story has been re
garded as a myth, relating to the spread of Christian
ity in Samaria after the death of Jesus, and founded
on the patriarchal blessing (Gen. xxiv. 15, xxix. 9),
with which accords the allegorical understanding of
the five husbands as the five idolatries of the coun
try. (Bretschneider.) Bruno Bauer considers it a
religious view, in the form of history, concerning the
position of the Jews and Samaritans to the Gospel ;
Baur as an historic poem, contrasting with the ti
midity of Nicodemus the receptive condition of the
heathen mind. But a certain favor toward the Sa
maritans also appears in Luke (x. 30, xvii. 15 ; com
pare John viii. 48). Therefore, the command in
Matthew may have been occasioned by merely tem
porary reasons. (Compare Luke ix. 52 - 56.) The
knowledge of her conduct may have been obtained
without a miracle, though this cannot be shown ; and
considered miraculous, as John regards it, it has an
analogy in magnetic • clairvoyance. It was suitable
for Jesus to answer in a strain loftier and more
10* H

114 LIFE OF JESUS.
noble than was the question, and the Jewish side of
his answer passes away in the lofty insight which
alone can reconcile such antagonisms. John himself
refers to the common origin of both nations from
Jacob. That the Samaritans were received without
question by the Apostles (Acts viii. 5) implies many
transactions like the one here narrated, and many
expressions like that in Acts i. 8. But the form of
the story is poetical, and, the conversation having
been without witnesses, literal accuracy is not to be
expected in the tradition. 4
Sect. 55. — Cures effected at a Distance.
John iv. 46, 53 ; Matt. viii. 5 -13 ; Luke vii. 1 - 10.
John marks the entrance of Jesus into Galilee by
the healing of a person in Capernaum, mortally sick
with fever, whose father, a nobleman, obtained Ms
cure by entreaties addressed to Jesus, still in Cana.
This cure might be explained, not indeed by medi
cal, but by prophetic foresight; but that the crisis
of the fever should have happened in the precise
hour in which the request was made, indicates an
influence exerted from a distance. It is no contra
diction, as Bruno Bauer asserts, but wholly accords
with the lofty manner of Jesus, that, after giving a
general reproof, he should have granted more than
was at first asked. According to Matthew and Luke,
the sick son of a centurion at Capernaum was healed
when absent, in a similar way, at the father's request,
immediately after the Sermon oh the Mount. The

LIFE OF JESUS. 115
great difference of details, John agreeing now more
with Matthew, and now more with Luke, will not
justify us in assuming two different transactions.
But according to the Synoptical narration there is
something so characteristic in the humility and
strong faith of this stranger in Israel, and in its
deep impression upon Christ something so anti-Jew
ish and profoundly significant, that, if it had been
once present in the traditions of the Church, it
could not possibly have been so diluted away, and
almost changed into its opposite (John iv. 48), by a
writer like the fourth Evangelist. John's nobleman
asking for help can hardly be considered as such an
example of faith as the centurion in the Synoptics ;
considering the reproof, however general, addressed
to him by Jesus. Still, it is possible that oral tradi
tion without the knowledge of the fourth' Evangelist
should have adapted the same facts to a commonplace
account of a miracle. But, on the other hand, the
first and third Evangelists show, by their agreement
as to time and place, that they are describing the
same transaction. Their differences only show how
freely these events were treated by tradition. A cure
performed at a distance, such as is undeniably nar
rated by the Synoptics, and especially by Luke, is
nowise incredible when regarded as a spiritual influ
ence ; and that a third person's faith should be the
medium has its parallel in more than one instance of
apparent death. We conclude, therefore, considering
the full resemblance of tliis to other miraculous nar
rations, and the great particularity of time and place,
that there seems no reason from their miraculous

116 LIFE OF JESUS.
contents to regard the substance of the two stories
as a parable, or as a myth, based on the dissimilar
story in 2 Kings v. 9. Nor is there any more ground
for this opinion in the grandeur of the thought, which
is one belonging to the historic substance of the Sy
noptic narration. Sect. 56. — Abode in Capernaum.
After his return to Galilee (John iv. 43), a culti
vated and populous hill-region, inhabited by a labori
ous and warlike race, independent to a degree, both
politically and in sentiment, of the hierarchy at Jeru
salem (see the Art. in Winer, Biblical Dictionary),
Jesus adopted as his residence the small town of Caper
naum, situated on the beautiful Lake of Genesareth.
(Matt. iv. 13, ix. 1 ; Mark i. 21, ii. 1 ; compare John
vi. 59.) His first disciples either themselves resided
here, or were acquainted with the inhabitants ; and
the general feeling of good-will had previously mani
fested itself among the inhabitants in their endeavor
to detain him among them. (Luke iv. 42 ; Mark i.
38 ; compare John ii. 12. See also Robinson's Pales
tine.) Here, on the west shore of the lake, near
the entrance of the Jordan, on the great highway of
the trade of Damascus, or in short expeditions and
journeys from this point as a centre, occurred those
events which have been narrated by the Synoptics
without connection or chronological order. Here,
probably, under the government of Philip (Jose
phus), Jesus lived in safety, and revered by the com
mon people. Even the teachers of the law, who

LIFE OF JESUS. 117
gradually collected around him, observed his course
without taking decided ground themselves, though
becoming more and more displeased by Ms particular
actions.

Sect. 57. — The Son of God as a Country Rabbi.
The appearance of Jesus at this time was thor
oughly national, and not essentially different from
the position of a travelling country Rabbi. His re
ligious addresses were made on all occasions ; now as
connected harangues, and now as familiar conversa
tions with friends or opponents. His journeys were
intended partly to preach the Gospel; partly they
were also journeys to the national feasts at Jerusa
lem ; and subsequently they were attempts to escape
the interruptions which interfered with the leisure
and security necessary for the education of the Apos
tles. Some women are found in the company, on
the longer expeditions, who provided for the needs
of the party. (Luke viii. 1-3.) Sometimes they
tarried with hospitable friends. (John xii. 1.) Oc
casionally Jesus proposed himself as a guest (Luke
xix. 1), and also accepted invitations from stran
gers or opponents (Luke xi. 37). When they trav
elled through the wilderness, through Samaria, or
through distant regions, the means of life were pur
chased. (Matt. xiv. 17 ; John iv. 8.) But there is
no trace, nor probability, that Jesus worked at his
trade during any portion of his Messiamc life. His
mother, Mary, does not seem to have been rich.
(Luke ii. 24 ; compare John xix. 26.) Jesus either

118 LIFE OF JESUS.
possessed no inheritance, or left it to his brothers.
(Matt. viii. 20 ; compare xix. 21.) But the expres
sions concerning his poverty (2 Cor. viii. 9, Phil.
ii. 7) only refer to the contrast between Ms lowly
and laborious life and the royal prerogatives of the
Messiah. He lived, with Ms Apostles, upon Oriental
hospitality, or on a common purse, made up by the
contributions of his friends (John xii. 6, xiii. 29),
in a situation which permitted Mm to give alms, and
even to procure some costly necessaries (John xiii.
29, xix. 23), and which did not even allow the covet-
ousness of Judas to make a pretext of possible future
need in order to increase their possessions (John
xii. 5) ; and accordingly he was raised above the
cares belonging either to wealth or poverty.*
Sect. 58. — Celibacy of Jesus.
Marriage, according to Jewish morality, was a
universal duty, and a condition to be entered into in
early life, especially by the first-born of a family.
And according to its Christian signification, it is the
completion of the individual, and belongs therefore
to the idea of a perfect man, unless when some spe
cial providential reason hinders. Christ had also
reflected upon the subject of marriage, and had ex
pressed Ms view of its sanctity (Matt. xix. 4.) The
* The Franciscans were induced by the customs of their order, and
the Lutheran Theologians by the logic of their system, to maintain the
entire poverty of Jesus. See J. G. Walch, on the Poverty of Christ,
Halle, 1756 (Latin). Siebenhaar, in Kauffer's Biblical Studies (Ger
man), 1843; a Latin Essay, maintaining that Jesus was "pauper, non
egenus."

LIFE OF JESUS. 119
question, therefore, why he himself did not enter
into this relation, is one which has been discussed
from the earliest antiquity. The answer, that he was
prevented by the laborious nature of Ms public office
and the foresight of his early death, does not account
for the peaceful ten years which preceded his public
life ; and rests on what would have been a narrow
anxiety in regard to his own sufferings, or those of
another. The opinion that the love to God and to
man, which filled him with longing for his future
career, left no room in his soul for the thought of
a happy personal union, takes for granted that
those feelings are antagonistic and exclusive, which
might find ample space together, at least in a
rich heart. The opinion that the dignity of Christ
would allow only a spiritual posterity has led logi
cally to the celibacy of the Roman Catholic clergy.
It might, indeed, appear that Jesus, like the Baptist,
preferred the unmarried state from ascetic reasons,
borrowed from the Essenes. (Matt. xix. 12.) But
such a one-sided view is inconsistent with the pure,
human majesty of his life. If, therefore, the true
reason does not lie concealed in some unknown
events of Ms youth, we may^allow a conjecture that
he, from whose religion that ideal view of marriage
unknown to antiquity has proceeded, found no soul
living in his time equal to his own, and capable of
such a bond. The only passage (Matt. xix. 12)
which considers a voluntary celibacy as some
thing specially adapted for the kingdom of Heaven,
appears even in its form an echo of the Essene-
Ebionite opinions, though it seems certainly to ac-

120 LIFE OF JESUS.
cord with the recommendation of Paul. (1 Cor.
vii. 32.)*

Sect. 59. — The Flesh and the Spirit.
We should expect to find an absolute opposition
between the spirit and flesh in one whose life showed
such immense energy of aspiration toward the Eter
nal, and such a conflict with a hostile world given
over to its lusts. But Jesus himself only regarded
the flesh as the weak and fugitive element. (Matt.
xxvi. 41 ; John iii. 6.) When (in John vi. 63) he
says that " the flesh profits nothing," this is merely
in order to correct another statement (John vi. 56),
understood as though life was to come from the flesh
alone. It profits nothing unless penetrated by the
vitalizing spirit, which, as the word of Christ, would
not cease to create spirit and life after the sacrifice of
his flesh. Jesus made the traditions of the fathers
subordinate to the demands of nature. (Mark ii. 23
- 27 and parallel passages.) His hostility to riches
is moderated by being made applicable to those who
trust in riches (Mark x. 24), and he recognizes a
nobler use of wealth than even that of helping the
poor (Matt. xxvi. 8-11). By calling the publican
to be an Apostle, (Matt. ix. 9-17, Mark ii. 13-22,
Luke v. 27 - 39,) Jesus defended, in opposition to

* See Clement, Stromata, Book IH. " They do not know the reason
that the Lord was not married. For in the first place he had his own
bride, the Church; and next, he was not a common man to need such
an earthly helpmate ; nor was it necessary to him to have children, being
the only begotten Son of God, and remaining eternal."

LIFE OF JESUS. 121
the assumed superiority of the Pharisees, Ms mis
sion to the whole debased part of humanity. By
the same act he opposed to the rigor and external
strictness of the disciples of John the free and joy
ful spirit of his doctrine, which would not suffer
limitation, on. the one hand, by arbitrary human max
ims, and yet, on the other hand, was ready to judge
the errors of others in the mildest way. Though
fasting was a custom belonging to the national mor
als, the Master did not cause his disciples to fast.
(Matt. ix. 14, but compare xvii. 21.) Not that he
wholly rejected such practices, but that he wished
them to be kept for the hour of real need, and then
to be veiled in the secret of a smiling face. (Matt.
ix. 15, vi. 16.) He took the most joyous moment of
earthly gayety as symbol of the highest communion.
No religious hero was ever less afraid of the joys of
this life than was Jesus. He did not scruple to visit
scenes whose customs seem to us strange ; and so to
offend pious zealots, of whose objections he makes
cheerful mention. (Matt. xi. 19 ; JoMi ii. 10.)
But a trait of earnestness, and even of sadness, runs
through his manner even in his most cheerful hours
(for example, Matt. ix. 15).
There was nothing in the mind of Jesus analogous
to that enthusiastic contemplation of nature which is
found in the Book of Psalms ; or to that deep, lov
ing immersion in the life of nature which belongs to
the poetry of India. But his teaching in the open
air, in the midst of beautiful scenery, his spending his
nights upon the mountains, and his discourse about
the lilies, indicate that he loved to pass his time
n

122 LIFE OF JESUS.
with nature, of which he constantly makes use in an
ethical way as an illustration of moral nature and of
the spiritual kingdom. (Matt. v. 45, vi. 26, xiii. 24.)
He does not appear to have ever directed his dis
course to children, nor to have given the Apostles
any directions on this point. But the innocence of
childhood was to him sacred ; his kingdom belonged
to it ; he loved and blessed the little ones. (Matt.
xviii. 1-6, xix. 13 - 15, and the parallel passages.)
Sect. 60. — The Twelve Apostles.
Mark iii. 13 - 19 ; Luke vi. 12 - 16 ; Matt. x. 1 - 4, x. 5 -
43 ; Mark vi. 7 - 13 ; Luke ix. 1-6, 10.
According to Mark and Luke, Jesus chose from
among the disciples who gradually collected around
him twelve Apostles, in order that they, as his con
fidential companions, intimately acquainted with his
doctrine and his life, might become his special agents
in announcing the kingdom of God. This choice
and inauguration was deliberate, and the result of a
previous acquaintance with the Twelve, although the
time when it took place has not been fixed even by
Luke with sufficient precision. But such a deliber
ate choice has been doubted, for the following rea
sons : first, because John could not well remain silent
in regard to so important a point in the development
of the history of Jesus ; secondly, because, according
to this, the traitor must also have been selected by
Jesus ; and lastly, because, after the death of Jesus,
the Apostles returned to their home and work, and

LIFE OF JESUS. 123 i
did not possess exclusively even the apostolic name.
But John mentions the circumstances with which the
apostolic call commenced (i. 37), and, like Matthew,
always assumes this circle of the Twelve to be around
his Master (John vi. 67). Jesus himself testifies
(John xv. 16) that he has chosen the Apostles, and
that they have not chosen him. If he knew what
was in man (John ii. 25), this, nevertheless, was
not omniscience, certainly not knowledge of that
which was still hidden, undeveloped in the self-con
sciousness of another. If the condition of becoming
an Apostle was to leave all (Matt. xix. 21), it was at
all events fulfilled by the Apostles (Matt. xix. 27),
but still did not prevent them, when not employed,
from working with their relatives, and living with
their families. The choice of one to complete their
number (Acts i. 15), even if it proceeded from a
misunderstanding, shows that the Apostles regarded
themselves as members of a definite association ; so
that the choice of the eleven and of Judas must have
been the work of Jesus. Their number, twelve, to
wMch also Paul bears witness (1 Cor. xv. 5, comp.
Acts xxi. 14) was chosen with a national purpose.
They were > all of the humbler classes, and, as men
of the people, were well adapted (Matt. xi. 25)
to be the messengers of a Divine revelation, which
should call forth a spiritual revolution proceeding
from the people. Men of established position could
hardly have been found to take the office of an
apostle (John xii. 42), and the kind of learning then
prevalent would have been a somewhat dangerous
help in fulfilling the simple work of announcing the

124 LIFE OF JESUS.
Gospel. If one considers what a decisive element in
the victory of Christianity was the mighty mind of
Paul, and how often Jesus felt himself saddened and
alone on account of the misunderstandings of the
Apostles, we may believe that he chose the best
whom he could find from - a very limited circle.
(Matt. ix. 38.) But from among these men, mostly
undistinguished, yet faithful and incorruptible, there
came, through the forming influence of their teacher's
wisdom, their own stern experience, and the blessing
of God, the independent founders of an eternal, uni
versal, spiritual union. And while they were still
flattering themselves with the hope of obtaining posts
of honor in the kingdom of an earthly Messiah
(Matt. xix. 28, xx. 20, Mark x. 29), Jesus was
arousing within them moral energies, which enabled
them to dispense with all such earthly hopes. The
Apostles considered their Master, during Ms earthly
life, as divinely commissioned, and endowed with
great and miraculous powers' (Luke ix. 54) ; but yet
as a man, and one by no means elevated above error
and danger (Luke viii. 45 ; John xi. 8 ; compare
Luke xxiv. 21). The national reverence for his dig
nity, and the feeling of his spiritual elevation, infused
into their relation to him a feeling of distance and
awe. (Compare Matt. xvi. 7 ; John xiii. 22, xvi.
18.) Jesus allowed this feeling to remain until the
pain and tenderness of separation urged him to
take them as friends to his heart. (John xiv. 15.)
His sending them out witli wise and courageous
advice, so that, by being lifted above all care and
anxiety in regard to temporal things, they might be

LIFE OF JESUS. 125
made eqtial to any future emergency, must be
regarded — if we consider their limited views at that
period — as only a preparatory work for their own
benefit, and that of the people. In addition, Jesus
gave them power to drive out demons, and to cure
diseases with oil. Yet there was wanting to them at
first spiritual force for a fully successful exercise of
these gifts. (Matt. xvii. 16.) And latterly, Peter
alone appears to have possessed the full power. (Acts
iii. 6, &c, v. 15, ix. 32, &c.) That which' in the
Synoptic relation (Matt. x. 5-43, Mark vi. 7-13,
Luke ix. 1-6, 10) appears like a sending out of all
at once, was perhaps only a sending out of a single
couple at one time, and others in like manner again.
According to the Synoptic Gospels, Peter and the
two sons of Zebedee stand in closest relation to their
Master ; according to the fourth Gospel, only John
and Peter (compare Gal. ii. 9) . Prominent among
them are these : — SnvtON, who was named, as a sign of
what he should become, Cephas, that is, Peter, full of
marked antagonisms of soul and sense, iii the storms
of which conflict he would have sunk had he not
been made, by means of the word of Jesus, the Rock
on which the Church in Judaea was founded, and by
wMch its communication to the heathen was pre
pared. (John i. 43; Matt. xiv. 23-26; John xxi.
7 ; Matt. xvi. 16-19, 22, &c. ; John xviii. 10, &c,
25, &c. ; Matt. xxvi. 58, 69-75 ; John xxi. 15-21 ;
Acts i. 15, <fec, iv. 8, <fec, v. 3, &c, 29, &c, xv. 7-
11 ; Gal. ii. 11-14.) John, as a youth impatient,
irritable, proud, deep-minded, poetic, an eagle, and a
son of thunder, but perhaps with small capacity for
n *

126 LIFE OF JESUS.
utterance, and shut up in himself. In his love to Ms
Master, who had loved him on account of his love,
and who perhaps saw in him the reflection of his own
youth, his whole being was glorified to an infinite
love, in which the highest wisdom was revealed to
him. (Mark ix. 38, &c. ; Luke ix. 54 ; Mark iii. 17 ;
Matt. xx. 20-22; John xiii. 23, xix. 26, &c.)
Thomas, according to slight indications, possessed a
manly character, with a strain of melancholy tender
ness. Jesus founded the brotherly love of the Apos
tles, the condition and image of Christianity, upon
his own love. (John xv. 12.) To destroy their ambi
tion, he sets before them -the unpretending character
of a child (Matt, xviii. 1, Mark ix. 33, &c, Luke
ix. 46, &c), shows them the grandeur of Christian
service, endurance, and martyrdom (Matt. xx. 20,
&c), and his own service of love (John xiii. 4, &c).
In such brotherly love, which can only exist where
man grants without . limit to Ms brother what he
needs without limit from God, he promised to remain
always with his friends in his essential spiritual
being. (Matt, xviii. 20, xxviii. 20.) By this broth
erly love they should be known as his. (John xiii. 35.)
In this sense he answers the question of Peter (Matt.
xviii. 21), who wished to set an arbitrary limit to the
duty of forgiveness. In reply to a question of John,
itself almost a confession, Jesus, with as much wis
dom as goodness, directed the stranger to be allowed
to cast out demons in his name. (Mark ix. 38 - 40 ;
Luke ix. 49.) But he who would not break the
bruised reed yet demanded the highest sacrifices
from the aspiring young man, because he loved him..

LIFE OF JESUS. 127
(Matt. xix. 16-22.) For from all whom he loved
he asked that they should sacrifice the temporal to
the eternal. The particular form of the demand de
pended on circumstances of time and person.
Sect. 61. — The Sermon on the Mount.
Matt. chap. v. - vii. ; Luke vi. 17 - 49.
The accounts in the first and third Gospels must
be intended to refer to the same discourse of Jesus,
if we consider the similarity of the situations and
of the introduction, and the identity of the leading
thoughts, the conclusion, and the event immedi
ately following. (Matt. viii. 5, &c. ; Luke vii. 1,
&c.) The shorter communication of Luke does not
bear throughout the stamp of an original record.
Single passages from the discourse in Matthew are
found in the other Gospels, and even scattered in dif
ferent places through his own, as if spoken upon
different occasions. Especially the Lord's Prayer,
which, containing allusions to Jewish formulas of
prayer, embraces the whole circuit of common relig
ious needs as a model and direction for supplication,
stands in Luke (xi. 1) in a shorter form indeed, but
in a precise, individualized relation. To be sure, it
is also placed by Matthew in a suitable connection.;
but still a prayer which is not addressed to God, but
given, unasked, as a model, has a singular position in
the midst of a public discourse. That Jesus should
have repeated single sayings at different times is
opposed, at first sight, to our idea of his mental ful-

128 LIFE OF JESUS.
ness, but is authenticated with respect to proverbial
sayings, and belongs to the position of a teacher who
is not speaking to himself, but to others. The Ser
mon on the Mount is a well-connected whole, bound
together by a single thought ; but this thought is ex
pressed in so many different directions, the fulness
and variety is so great, especially according to Mat
thew, it is so well carried out, and so much like writ
ten discourse, that such a speech, even if it contained
many passages before thought out, could not easily
have been all spoken at once, freely, from the heart.
Moreover, the Master, though able to speak thus in a
manner opposed to the psychological laws of the
development of thought, would hardly have been
willing to speak in this way, since such a discourse
would scarcely have left behiad a single impression,
or have led to a single purpose. A hearer who was
moved by any one of these thoughts, and whose mind
was pursuing it, would only have been disturbed,
and had his attention distracted, by the variety and
movement of the rest. Still, both of the Evangelists
intend to describe a single discourse, delivered under
certain precise circumstances in the neighborhood of
Capernaum. The course of tradition usually con
nects the sayings of Jesus with accompanying events.
Yet it is natural that evangelical tradition, or the
separate Evangelists, should have wished to present
a general picture of the great Teacher of their na
tion and the world ; and this was most easily done
by making use of some one particularly striking
case. Hence it might happen that to this particu
lar discourse other sayings became attached, and that

LIFE OF JESUS. 129
other remarks of Jesus, which seem suitable to this
collective' image, should be connected with it ; espe
cially as the recollection of portions of an harangue
would be less distinct than a tradition of events.
Both Evangelists have pursued this aim, intentionally
or otherwise, and, after mentioning in general terms
the works of Jesus (Matt. iv. 23, &c, Luke vi. 17,
&c), have given Ms portrait as Teacher. Both dis
courses are therefore identical as regards the pur
pose of the historian and the actual occasion. But
Matthew has treated his subject more extensively, or
has found a richer crystallization of traditions. He
does not allude to any inauguration of the Apostles
on tliis occasion, such as Luke might seem to intend ;
but the sermon is addressed primarily to the disci
ples, secondarily to the people, and ultimately to
the whole of Christendom. It is a Constitution for
the kingdom of Heaven considered as founded in the
moral and religious nature of man. Matthew also
gives it the aspect of a reform of the Jewish law.
The introduction of the sermon (Matt. v. 1 - 16)
pronounces a blessing on those who, through a sense
of their poverty, are longing for such a kingdom of
love. The important place which such persons are
to fill in the world's history is shown by Matthew ;
w"hereas Luke has only seized the other side of the
same view in its outward form, and added to it
a woa against those who enjoy eartMy happiness.
In the first division of the discourse, to chap. v. 48,
the relation of the kingdom of Heaven to the Jewish
theocracy is pointed out in general terms, and shown
by means of single instances to be that of inward.

130 LIFE OF JESUS.
morality to outward righteousness. In the second
division, to chap. vi. 18, is shown the contrast be
tween this spiritual fulfilling of the law, and the
Pharisaic conception of obedience as consisting of
external works of almsgiving, fasting, and prayer.
In the third division, down to chap. vi. 34, is pointed
out the distinction between the temporal and the
eternal, and the supreme value of the last ; but also
how the entire submission to the Infinite moves cheer
fully out into the Finite. In the fourth division,
down to chap. vii. 12, we have unconnected apho
risms of etliics and proverbial wisdom. In the con
clusion, to chap. vii. 27, is the practical application
of the whole theory to the life and the heart, with the
most penetrating appeal to the depths of the soul.
It is possible that sayings might be found similar to
every separate utterance of this discourse, since Jesus
did not invent the Moral Law. Among the com
mands are some which are expressed in the para
bolic form of a single illustration, according to the
custom of that age and the popular form of teach
ing. These have been taken literally by fanatics, by
scoffers, and by pedantic grammarians. But Jesus,
with all his moral strength and clearness of insight,
can hardly have intended to approve a course of con
duct which, instead of contending courageously, de
spairingly throws away any of the sacred gifts of God,
and which would give the world over as a prey to
evil-doers (Matt. v. 29 and 39). But he must rather
have intended to indicate by these maxims the spirit
in which one should act, — the spirit of brotherly
love, of social sympathy and heroic self-sacrifice.

LIFE OF JESUS. 131
Whilst Jesus contemplated the Mosaic law of mar
riage (Deut. xxiv. 1, see Selden, Uxor Hebraica,
1646) as a relaxation of the original divine law al
lowed on account of the hardness of the human
heart, he considered marriage in its idea as indisso
luble. Yet in practice he allowed it to be dissolved,
though only in an extreme case, so recognizing the
element of actual life. In Ms kingdom of truth the
prohibition of the oath is absolute. The Sermon on
the Mount is one side of Christianity, and not the
whole of it.

Sect. 62. — Spirit of the Teaching of Jesus.
The immediate work of Jesus was not to teach a
doctrine, but to found a kingdom which should be
a commumty for the religious culture of universal
humamty. But since tMs community was based on
the knowledge of religious truth, and opposition to its
antagomst errors, it became an essential part of his
work to teach. His doctrine is the communication
of the insights of a perfectly pious soul, with the
purpose of laying the foundation of a pious commu
nity. The pious soul is as old as humanity, and we
accordingly find among the ancients many sayings
parallel to the separate sayings of Jesus. But we
never find anywhere that complete insight and that
perfection of character from which these proceeded.
The religion of Jesus differs from the Christian re
ligion only as cause and effect, and Christianity is
both an historic and positive religion, and also the
eternal, universal religion of man. It is the first, if

132 LIFE OF JESUS.
we regard it objectively as a definite community for
religious culture proceeding from Jesus himself. It
is the other, if we consider it subjectively as that re
ligious state of mind which is developed into full life
by means of this Christian culture. Therefore, in
Christianity any appointed ceremonies can only be
intended to express this common life, and to awaken
this pious sentiment, but not as a mode of worship
necessary in itself. (John iv. 21, 24.) And so, too,
distinct doctrines have a place only as the natural
expression of this heart of piety, and not in distinc
tion from this as an appointed confession of faith.
(Matt. vii. 21-23 ; John xiii. 34.)
Sect. 63. — Judaism and Christianity.
Christianity was an institution no less than Juda
ism. But it was not outwardly limited to a particu
lar nation, through a positive theocratic law ; but, as
a spiritual religion, was to embrace all nations and
ages in time and eternity. Remote, indeed, was this
spirit from the narrowness and the external character
of Judaism. But still, indicated by the foreboding
spirit of the Mosaic and Prophetic teaching, it stands
related to these like the fulfilment of a prophecy ; a
new creation, but yet one growing out of popular ex
pectations, and erected on the basis of national ideas.
The personal relation of Jesus to the Jewish law is
an enigma ; but yet this much stands fast as a matter
of fact. On the one side, it may be said that Paul
was the first who, by an energetic conflict, accom
plished the emancipation of Christianity from the

LIFE OF JESUS. 133
Jewish law. Again, that in this independent devel
opment of the Apostolic Church no party appealed to
the sayings of Jesus ; and, though the Messiah was
justified, in the popular opinion, in doing away cer
tain parts of the law, yet Jesus has declared its per
manence until the time of the great expected catas
trophe, in a manner wMch could then only have been
understood by Ms hearers in a literal and unlimited
sense, and hardly otherwise by the Evangelists them
selves. (Matt. v. 17-19; compare Luke xvi. 16.)
His referring all goodness to the state of the mind
(Matt. xv. 11, Mark xii. 33) does not necessarily sup
pose a decisive opinion in opposition to the Jewish
law. But on the other hand, the spirit of Christianity
must of necessity bring to an end the Jewish law in
its national limitations and in its ceremonial worship.
Jesus announced the approach of this crisis at Jeru
salem. (John ii. 19.) In Samaria (John iv. 21-24)
he spoke of it as already commenced. He expected
the destruction of the temple (Matt. xxiv. 2), recog
nized the need of a new form (Matt. ix. 17), declared
himself Master of the Law (Matt. xii. 6-8), and
even in the Sermon on the Mount, strictly considered,
he opposed not only the Pharisaic additions to the
law, but changed more than one iota in the demands
of the law itself, regarding some things as merely per
mitted for a time because of the hardness of their
hearts. (Matt. xix. 8.) We may bring these con
tradictions into unity by considering that Jesus
allowed the ancestral law to stand, from tenderness
to the popular attachment toward it, and from fear
of lawlessness and license in those not sufficiently
12

134 LIFE OF JESUS.
prepared, by a change of sentiment, for its imme
diate abolition. But he gave to it a liberal inter
pretation, and did away the Pharisaic additions. To
this we must add, that he foresaw and prepared the
way for its entire termination, and trusted to the
development which would necessarily take place of
the ideas set in motion by his own spirit and life.
(John xvi. 12.) But since the highest meaning of
the law consisted in its being a preparation for the
Gospel, finding in this its fulfilment, and obtaining
lasting vitality only thus in an external overthrow,
Jesus might well say that the law was fulfilled by
that spiritual obedience which he should bring.
(Compare Romans iii. 31, viii. 4, and the parallel
Luke xvi. 16.)*
Sect. 64. — Jesus announced as the Messiah.
Jesus only announced that the kingdom of Heaven
was at hand (§ 51), and caused this to be proclaimed
(Matt. x. 7), but was silent concerning himself, even
so far as to forbid the demons (Mark iii. 11) and the
Apostles (Matt. x. 20 and parallels, compare xii. 16,
&c.) to reveal him as the Messiah. The demons were
considered to possess superior knowledge, and it
might actually occur, in certain cases, that a diseased
person, by sympathetic clairvoyance, might discover
him to be the Messiah out of his own consciousness.
The Apostles, indeed, followed Mm as the Messiah
* The law and the prophets are considered to extend only to the time of
the Baptist ; hence the reading of Mansion, which substitutes, for " the
law," " my words," (Matt. > . 18,) is true in the spirit, if not in the letter.

LIFE OF JESUS. 135
(John i. 44, 45, 49, compare Luke v. 8) ; but it
would seem, according to Matthew (xiv. 33, xvi. 15,
&c, and the parallels ; compare John vi. 67, <fec),
that his full recognition as such was rather a mat
ter of surprise and momentary astonishment than of
firmly-rooted, fixed conviction. Therefore, also, the
opinions concerning Mm wavered even among the
well-disposed (Matt. xii. 23, xvi. 14, John vii. 26,
31), and even late in his ministry the request was
made that he should publicly declare himself.
(John vii. 24.) This uncertainty and concealment
in regard to a matter which appeared capable of and
needing the greatest publicity, does not prove that
there was anything uncertain in the mind of Jesus
himself, or that he reluctantly accepted the title of
Messiah ; for the Messianic office appears, quite evi
dently, to be the one fixed pivot on which his whole
life turned. According to the Synoptics, also, Jesus
called himself Messiah from the first (Luke iv. 18),
and at the close of Ms career, even when it was at
the risk of Ms life. (Matt. xxvi. 64.) Throughout
the fourth Gospel is everywhere the same open as
sumption of the Messianic dignity, yet wholly for
eign from the popular conception of the office, con
sisting in the religious claim of union with God.
But the true motive and necessity for his reluctance
in admitting the name was this : that he meant to be
the Messiah in a wholly different way from that which
the people anticipated, so that, if he had announced
himself as such without previously preparing their
minds, he would have excited hopes which he did not
intend to gratify, and would have compelled the public

136 LIFE OF JESUS.
authorities, who must either acknowledge the Messiah
or put him down, to a conflict which he wished as yet
to avoid. Therefore Jesus usually called himself the
Son of Man ; which expression, alluding to Daniel
(vii. 13), contains a Messianic meaning (Matt. xxvi.
64, John iii. 13) , and was also intelligible to the peo
ple (John xii. 34), and is found in Jewish writings
(see the Book of Enoch), but according to his pro
hibition, and according to Matthew (xvi. 13), is not
exactly the same thing as the Messiah, and for that
very reason was preferred by Jesus. For this phrase
only indicated the Messiahship in a covert manner,
turning the attention away from all political expecta
tions to something belonging to universal humanity.
(Compare Matt. ii. 27 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47.) This phrase,
in its deep significance appropriated by Jesus to ex
press Ms own individual conception of the Messiah's
office, and seldom used by the Apostolic Church (only
in Acts vii. 56), can only mean the perfect humanity of
Jesus, and his devotion to the interests of all mankind.
The title of Son of David was merely allowed by Jesus.
(Compare Matt. xxii. 41.) The title of Son of God,
which, according to the Biblical use of language,
marks the most different degrees of union with God
(for example, Matt. v. 9, 45, Luke vi. 35), and which,
in the highest sense, indicates absolutely the Messiah,
(Matt. xvi. 16, xxvi. 63, John i. 50), is, in the fourth
Gospel, assumed by Jesus in its purely religious sense.
But also the strongest assertions of his dignity in
the discourses made, according to John's Gospel,
at the festivals at Jerusalem, were only the rightful
claims to a royalty given by God ; by which, in the

LIFE OF JESUS. 137
national opinion, he was lifted above the humble hab
its of private fife, as, by his human perfection, he was
taken out of those limitations which first came to
human nature through sin.
Sect. 65. — Divinity and Divine Mission.
What Jesus says concermng his oneness with God
(John x. 30), of the power given to him in heaven
and earth (Matt, xxviii. 18), and of himself as .the
exclusive medium of the knowledge of God (Matt.
xi. 27, and parallel passages, John xiv.~ 6), is not
exhausted by considering his will in moral harmony
with the Divine will, nor by the authority which be
longs to each teacher of truth. Yet he describes his
oneness with God as dependence on God (John v.
19, viii. 28, Matt. xxvi. 39), and as destined for all
mankind. (John xiv. 23, xvii. 21 ; Matt. v. 48.)
He ascribes perfect goodness (Mark x. 18, Luke
xviii. 19), and perfect knowledge (Mark xiii. 32),
and exclusive honor (John vii. 18) to the Father
alone. And when accused of arrogating to himself
the name of God, he claims only that of the Son of
God, appealing with entire humility to the Old Testa
ment use of language. (John x. 33 - 36.) There
fore, the expressions above used refer partly to Ms
religious oneness with God, and partly to his Messi
anic destiny as the founder of the kingdom of
Heaven. For both by thought and action he ele
vated the popular notion of the Messiah to the high
est religious idea ; the idea of his life being oneness
with God in a divine life, and Ms aim being the edu-
12 *

138 LIFE OF JESUS.
cation of humanity to the same unity. But if any
single expressions can be explained as referring to a
pre-existence (John viii. 56, &c, xvii. 5), so that
thereby the purely human consciousness of Jesus is
taken away, others also may be explained, on the con
trary, as referring to a merely political Messiahship,
(§ 73,) and we must, therefore, consider both to be
merely echoes of the popular faith in its two forms.
(§ 68.) If Jesus declares himself to have come
down from Heaven (John iii. 13, 31), this, taken lit
erally as referring to a place, would have no mean
ing, when we think of that pure knowledge of God
which he communicates ; for Heaven is God, and the
fulness of a divine life. Since Jesus recognized him
self as the Messiah, he was divinely sent in the high
est national meaning of the phrase ; and since he
made God's order of the world his own, he was him
self divine in the highest religious meaning of the
term. When he says that his doctrine was not Ms
own, but that of Ms Father, he opposes the conjec
ture, that he might either have learned it from an
other, or thought it out for himself. And thus the
difficulty explains itself. The divine consciousness
in Jesus is an original revelation which God makes
of himself in the experience of his Son. Therefore,
Christ, as the archetype of man's religious nature,
not only brought a revelation, but was himself a
revelation. All true religion is revelation, for only
God can convey a true knowledge of himself to the
human heart. (John vi. 45.) Therefore Jesus ap
pealed to each man's experience for proof that his
word was from God, and knew that whoever loved

LIFE OF JESUS. 139
the truth and was of God would be drawn to him.
(John vii. 16, viii. 42, 47.)
Sect. 66. — Mode of Teaching.
Not in a systematic way, but with the unity given
to separate utterances by the full religious life from
wMch they flowed, Jesus gave discourses and taught
single doctrines, as they were called forth by single
events, each with a present application. Therefore,
it sometimes happened that one side of truth was sub
sequently completed by the other side, producing an
apparent contradiction. (John v. 31, viii. 14 ; Luke
ix. 50, xi. 23 ; Matt. ix. 17, xiii. 52.) But always
the outward and earthly form was made the symbol
of the inward and spiritual truth. The method was
sometimes catechetical, sometimes polemical and rhe
torical, sometimes one of abstract propositions ; yet
even these always more practical than theoretical.
It often made use of figurative expressions, and even
figurative actions (John xiii. 4, &c.) ; it sometimes
took the form of wit (Matt. iv. 19, v. 3-11, viii. 22,
xii. 49, Luke viii. 21, xi. 27), sometimes of friendly
or bitter irony (Luke vii. 47, Mark vii. 9, Luke
xiii. 33), and is not unlike the Rabbinical method of
teaching. (Matt. xiii. 52.) But while the Scribes
taught what they had learned, and supported it with
laborious citations, the teaching of Jesus came imme
diately from his own soul, and this gave it its power
over human hearts. (Matt. vii. 28 ; Mark i. 22 ;
John vii. 46.) Beside this loftiest and most human
authority of insight (John vii. 17), it associated

140 LIFE OF JESUS.
with itself the authority of the Holy Scripture,
which was most influential with the nation, quoting
it now by way of allusion, and now as proof. These
two kinds of authority are often interchanged, so that
the last sometimes is made prominent (Luke xxiv.
46) where the first lies at the foundation ; or it is
sometimes used only in a dialectic way (Matt. xxii.
32), or that which once occurred, and which now
occurs again in a higher form, is regarded as proph
ecy and fulfilment. (Luke iv. 18 ; John xiii. 18 ;
compare Matt. xi. 14.) Willingly, too, did Jesus
appeal to the sound common sense of his hearers,
usually in striking examples taken from daily life
(for instance, Matt. xii. 10-12). In all moral rela
tions bearing on practical life, great clearness stands
united with great intelligibleness. But in the rela
tions more immediately religious, there is often
required the power of looking into an infinite depth
of mystery, especially according to the record of
John. The discourse of Jesus is also characterized
by a trait which- has been called, somewhat inac
curately, a tendency to paradox. An objection is
answered by expressing in its entire fulness the
thought against which, in a lower potency, the objec
tion was urged. By this means the greater difficulty
swallows up the less ; and this, by its striking char
acter, overwhelms the mind. (John iii. 12, v. 17 ;
compare viii. 58.) Moreover, the answers of Jesus
go beyond the question, and for that very reason
become answers to the eternal questions of the hu
man mind. (John vi. 26, xi. 25, xii. 23.) Jesus
also pays the most careful attention to the different

LIFE OF JESUS. 141
powers of comprehension in his different hearers
(Mark iv. 33), by whose receptivity he understood
his influence to be conditioned. (Luke viii. 5, &c. ;
John viii. 43.) He intentionally passes over what
ever they were as yet unable to bear (John xvi. 12),
which is especially noticeable in the Synoptic Gospels.
But there are many cases when it would seem to
have been easy for Jesus to have removed a misun
derstanding by a single word (for instance, John viii.
52, &c, vi. 52, 66 ; compare § 51). At other times
he seems to throw away his words of lofty truth
in opposition to his own principle (in Matt. vii. 6).
These cases may be explained by the sharply defined
relation to the Jews which Jesus occupied in John's
recollection, and by the impression which his char
acter had made, as one elevated so far above his con
temporaries that none were able wholly to understand
him. If his manner of teaching stands as the ideal
of all popular instruction in religion, this perfection,
though favored indeed by a great talent, is still more
the result of his moral character and his conscious
ness of his destiny. His teaching of the Apostles
differed only in having distinct reference to their
intellectual culture. It is true that, while Jesus
taught the people with a singular mystery, which
may indeed belong only to the Synoptic manner of
narration, (Mark iv. 10-13, Luke viii. 9, Matt.
xiii. 10 - 18,) allowing his parables to remain unex
plained, he allowed Ms disciples the privilege of a
further insight into secrets plain enough withoiit
explanation if there were any power of insight. But
according to John (xvi. 25, 29), in parting from his

142 LIFE OF JESUS.
t.
disciples, he admitted that he had before spoken to
them in dark figures. The assurance (John xv. 15)
that he had made known to them the whole revela
tion which he had himself received, must be limited
by John xvi. 12. Sect. 67. — Parables.
Although Matt. xiii. 34 and Mark iv. 34 must
not be taken too literally, it yet appears from the Sy
noptics that Jesus was fond of teaching by parables.
By a parable we mean a religious truth Gonveyed by
a narration of facts, borrowed, for the most part,
from common life, and either invented, or treated
in a picturesque form. Jesus made use of the par
able, not to conceal his truth, nor to leave behind
him mysteries for future centuries, but partly, by
the interest belonging to this method, to fix the at
tention, to exercise the intellect, and to fix truth in
the memory ; and partly because the entanglements
of theory in doctrine and in life are often made plain
most easily by means of practical illustrations. These
purposes appear from the nature of the case itself,
and are recognized (Mark iv. 33) even without re
ferring to the singular want of insight in the disci
ples who make the record. This mode of teaching,
which in the East was very ancient, Jesus found ex
isting among his people, although not frequently
occurring in the Old Testament. (2 Samuel xii.
1-4; Isa. v. 1, <fec, xxviii. 23, <fec.) Yet these
masterpieces of popular eloquence do not justify us in
ascribing to Jesus poetic talent, which would be but

LIFE OF JESUS. 143
doubtful praise for one engaged in the work of found
ing a religion Matthew (chap, xiii.) has, according
to his custom, made a collection of these parables.
As Jesus turned the same natural fact so as to look
at it from different sides in his parables (Matt. xiii.
3, &c, compare verse 24, <fcc, John x. 1, &c, compare
verse 7, &c), he may also have narrated the same
parable differently at different times (Matt. xiii. 24,
&c, compare Mark iv. 26, &c), so that the one re
port may contain the more simple form (Matt. xxv.
14, &c, Luke xiv. 16, <fec), and the other the more
complex (Luke xix. 12, &c, Matt. xxii. 2, <fec). For
although such changes in form may have originated
in the tradition itself, yet these parables belong to
those discourses of Jesus which are the most certainly
and peculiarly his own, — a fact which we infer from
the instantaneous cessation of this mode of teaching
in the Apostolic Church. The central point of the
parable is the idea of the kingdom of Heaven in all
its manifold relations. The picturesque execution
frequently gives occasion to details which convey no
essential meaning. Those parables are the most per
fect in form in which the inward meaning and the
outward image are so exactly harmonized that they
have often been popularly taken for true histories,
yet without losing their spiritual significance. And
those are the least perfect in form which, like that
of the unjust steward, have given occasion to the
greatest variety of interpretations. Such a parable,
to an audience who needed an explanation of the
simple story of the sower, must have seemed to
be merely a recommendation of worldly prudence in

144 LIFE OF JESUS.
advancing the kingdom of Heaven, — a meaning
lying on the surface, and in harmony with their an
cient opinions. The supposition of an unvarying
perfection of form and meaning has necessarily driven
interpreters to artificial and labored explanations of
that side of this parable which does not contain a
spiritual meaning.

Sect. -68. — Cleansing of Lepers.
Matt. viii. 1 - 4 ; Mark i. 40 - 45 ; Luke v. 12 - 15.
The healing of the leper by Jesus is not, accord
ing to the narration, intended as a mere declaration
of ceremonial purity, for it is asked of Jesus as a free
act of good-will, and described as being performed by
him in this sense, and that with an immediately suc
cessful result. Taking the matter by itself, it is
indeed possible that Jesus, on these occasions, only
came in contact with that milder form of leprosy,
easily relieved, which occasioned no ceremonial im
purity. But since it is related that on one occasion
(Luke xvii. 11-19) he healed, at once, ten lepers,
it is impossible that such a number should have sep
arated themselves from society from a mistaken notion
concerning the nature of their complaint. It may
be said, indeed, that the joining a Samaritan with
the nine Jews, together with his singular and extraor
dinary gratitude, looks somewhat like the change of
a parable into a matter of fact. (Compare Luke x.
30.) Yet it remains as an unquestionable fact, that
the actual healing of lepers is included in the account

UFE OF JESUS. 145
of wonderful deeds which Jesus performed, and this
is the meaning of /caOapl&tv. (Matt. xi. 5, x. 8.)
The sudden healing of either kind of leprosy would
be the most marked example of a power going be
yond the domain of mental and moral influence.
Nevertheless (in Luke xvii. 14), this suddenness
of healing is the very thing wMch is left uncer
tain ; and diseases of the skin are often subject to
great changes. At all events, the power of Jesus
over leprosy was not an infringement of any well-
known law of nature. Therefore, to assert that this
miracle is too wonderful to be believed, and to main
tain, with Strauss, that these narrations, given by all
the Synoptics, are only copied from Old Testament
legends (Exod. iv. 6, Num. xii. 10, 2 Kings, chap.
v.), must be considered as a prejudice. The com
mand to keep the matter secret would be without
meaning in the situation described by Matthew
(viii. 1). Sect. 69. — Palsy, and Forgiving of Sin.
Matt. ix. 1 - 8 ; Luke v. 17 - 26 ; Mark ii. 1 - 12.
The general connection existing between sin and
suffering appeared to the thoughtful and pious of
ancient times as a special connection of particular
suffering with personal sin. For their view of the
world demanded an exact retribution in this life,
without looking forward to another. A paralytic
man was once brought to Jesus, according to Luke
in a peculiar way, which Mark in his description

146 LIFE OF JESUS.
makes still more extraordinary. On this occasion
Jesus might, very properly, have been led to rouse
the spiritual nature of the sick man by .the con
solation which his assurance brought that his sins
were forgiven. (Compare John v. 14.) Elsewhere
he opposed the prejudice which maintained such an
exact connection between sin and evil in individual
cases. (John ix. 2 ; Luke xiii. 4.) And this view,
which had become a part of the national character
developed through its history, he changed into its
very opposite in his own teaching. (Compare Matt.
v. 4, &c. ; Luke vi. 20, &c.) He opposed the scribes'
misapprehension that he forgave sin by an arbitrary
choice, by the fact of the cure, which to them was
a valid argument. Certainly in this cure both mind
and body were acted upon, and similar effects have
resulted in like diseases, even in modern experi
ence. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Evan
gelical narrative which intimates that the sick man
was merely under the influence of a diseased imagi
nation. Sect. 70.— The Storm.
Matt. viii. 23-27; Mark iv. 36-41; Luke viii. 22-25.
Some have contended that Jesus, by natural means,
was able to predict the approaching end of the tem
pest, while others have maintained that he controlled
the storm by his power over nature. The first suppo
sition is possible in regard to a lake surrounded by
mountains, through whose openings the storm breaks

LIFE OF JESUS. 147
suddenly in and as suddenly subsides, with phenom
ena of a regular character. In this case, the words
intended .to console them by communicating this
termination of the storm, might have been mistaken
for the cause of its cessation. The second view, how
ever, was that taken by eyewitnesses, who were men
acquainted with the lake. If to believers Jesus ap
pears on this occasion as lord over nature, able to still
its paroxysms by the old creative words, there is much
akin to this power over the tempest to be found in
ancient legends and popular traditions. But the ne
cessity of a mythical origin cannot be maintained ;
for Psalm cvi. 9, Gen. xiv. 16, 21, offer but a remote
archetype, and the image of the Church as an ark of
safety had its own origin in this narration, together
with the fact of the deluge. Still, it might easily have
happened that the Messiah, who had slumbered in
the storm, may, in his figurative manner (Matt. xxi.
21, Luke xvii. 6), have commanded the storm in
the Apostles' minds to be at peace, and that they
afterward, when the storm was allayed, had misun
derstood the ground of his confidence. In the first
instance Ms physical power, and in the other his
moral power, would be more manifest. But it is
certain that the confidence which he expressed and
demanded was connected with his trust in God, and
is an example of that assurance which every man
holding an essential place in the history of the world
always feels, that his life is safe, even in the midst of
deadly peril, until he has fmished Ms course.

148 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 71. — The Demons, and the Herd of Swine.
Matt. viii. 28 - 34 ; Mark v. 1 - 20 ; Luke viii. '26 - 39.
The sharply-marked individuality of the man pos
sessed with devils, living at Gadara, is unfavorable to
the account in Matthew, which speaks of two such.
The parenthetical addition (Mark v. 8, Luke viii.
29), concerning the details of the transaction, only
interferes with a clear view of the events. The char
acter of the Evangelical narrative in this account has
disturbed those most favorably disposed to it, on ac
count of its assuming a multitude of demons as in
habiting a single individual, — a conception belonging
only to the popular belief ; on account of the human
behavior of these demons, and their mad conduct in
destroying the organs which they had asked leave to
inhabit ; and finally, on account of the injury done
to private property by the consent of Jesus, who, in
proportion as his power was unlimited, was the more
responsible for the use made of it. The insanity of
the possessed may have been that of a double con
sciousness, by wMch, as there is no real division,
human and demonic thoughts are interchanged. A
positive transfer of the demoniac state from the man
to the beast, in accordance with any laws of nature, is
opposed to the free moral influence exercised on all
other occasions by Jesus, and may have had its source
only in the imagination of the possessed man himself.
But if Jesus entered into this mad fancy of a maniac/
it was only thus to open a way into his mind, in
order to heal him by the wonderful power of his will.

LIFE OF JESUS. 149
The destruction of the herd of swine followed as an
unforeseen event, which might easily have happened
from the panic-struck and sympathetic movements of
these ammals. Every attempt to explain the death
of the swine as occasioned by some cause unconnected
with these transactions is quite opposed to the Gospel
narrative. To regard this hecatomb, with Strauss,
as a mythic addition, makes of it an invention be
longing to the strangest and most unmeaning kind of
apocryphal narrations.

Sect. 72. — The Issue of Blood, and the Trance.
Matt.ix. 18-26; Markv. 22-43; Luke viii. 41-56.
The opinion that a healing power went forth from
Jesus without his own will, is not expressed by Mat
thew, but is mentioned by Mark at the close of the
narration, and is placed by Luke in the mouth of
Jesus himself, and is in accordance with the popular
opinion. (Matt. xiv. 36, and parallel passage ; com
pare Acts v. 15, xix. 11.) The woman with the
bloody issue was healed by means of her own confi
dence and the will of Jesus. The completeness of
the cure could not have been known at the time.
But the mythical origin of the event out of the pop
ular belief is one of those assertions which may be
made to-day and taken back again to-morrow. (See
Strauss and Bruno Bauer.) The officinal plant on
the votive monument at Paneas (Eusebius, H. E.
VII. 18 ; see § 34) represented the cure as its sym
bol, and not as its means. When Jesus said of the,
13*

150 LIFE OF JESUS.
daughter of Jairus that she was not dead, but sleep
ing, he may have meant, considering the mysteri
ous affinity of sleep to death, that this was only a
sleep, since he was able to awaken her out of it.
(Compare John xi. 11 ; Matt. xi. 5.) Yet it may
also be regarded as a statement of fact based on per
sonal knowledge of one who wished to receive no
reputation not founded in perfect truth. The facts
themselves correspond equally well with the assump
tion either of a trance or of actual death. The
account oi the first Evangelist is more simple, and
that of the two other Evangelists more precise ; indi
cating different forms of the tradition, of which one
can be preferred to the other only from subjective
reasons. The command (Mark v. 43, Luke viii.
56) has, perhaps, if we consider the impossibility of
its being executed, (compare Matt. ix. 26,) been
transferred from some other place to this narration,
(§ 95,) or it may refer to the manner of resuscita
tion, which is favored by the selection of the three
Apostles as witnesses.

Sect. 73. — Sabbath-Breaking.
John v. 1 - 18.
Jesus might easily have avoided the frequent dis
putes concerning his conduct on the Sabbath, but
did not do so. (Matt. xii. 5, 11 ; Mark ii. 27 ; Luke
xiii. 15, xiv. 5.) This conflict expresses, in a variety
of ways, the antagonism between a free soul and arbi
trary rules of outward morality. The command to

LIFE OF JESUS. 151
the man at the Pool of Bethesda, sick with an in
firmity for many years, to take up his bed and walk,
cannot be explained, if we consider John v. 5, as the
skilful detection of an impostor ; though while sick
he showed no great faith, nor after being cured much
thankfulness. This cure is especially narrated on
account of the blame which followed for breaking the
Sabbath. Jesus defended his action by the example
of the Deity, who never rests on the Sabbath ; and
by tMs comparison increased the anger of his oppo
nents at Jerusalem. An Apostle might share (verse
4) the popular opinion concerning the pool. Had it
been merely a poetic creation, the historic circum
stances would have been omitted. It is, to be sure,
unusual with Jesus to perform a cure like this, alone,
unnoticed, and without being asked to do it ; but all
this may be accounted for by so many suppositions,
that it throws no improbability upon the narrative,
any more than does its resemblance, in some respects,
with the narration in Mark ii. 9-12, from which it
differs wholly in its internal character.

Sect. 74. — The Great Banquet.
Matt. xiv. 13-21; Mark vi. 32-45; Luke ix. 10-17;
John vi. 1-15.
All four Evangelists describe the marvellous crea
tion of food, the miraculous character of which is not
to be denied, especially when we notice such chance
expressions as frequently occur. (Matt. xiv. 20, and
parallel passages ; Mark vi. 41 ; Jolm vi. 11.) The

152 LIFE OF JESUS.
miraculous increase of food is, to be sure, not ex
pressly stated, but it is implied in the statement of the
quantity of food provided in proportion to the num
ber of men amply fed ; and the purpose of the Evan
gelist scarcely can admit the explanation of a banquet
in which the guests, moved by the hospitable example
of Jesus, themselves supply food from their own pri
vate stores.* Obscure explanations of the fact by
means of a satiety produced by magnetism or spirit
ual influence fail, on account of the wholly material
character of the fragments collected after the feast.
Certainly, an increase of the nourishing substances
without material means, escapes from every earnest
attempt to make it intelligible, and can only remam
before the fancy as something magical. According
to the customs of the East, it is not probable that
thousands, of whom some were pilgrims to the feast
(John vi. 4), should have been travelling without
provisions, and that only a single lad should have
thought of their needs. But if villages were as near
as they seem to have been (according to Luke ix. 10,
12), the need of this extraordinary miracle was all
the less ; and the result, besides, (according to John
vi. 15,) was not desirable. The anxiety of the disci
ples about food (Matt. xvi. 5, &c, Mark viii. 14,
&c), just after witnessing the miraculous supply of
thousands, is hardly credible, even in the case of low-
minded men. But to suppose that the story origi
nated in a parable of Jesus (John vi. 35, &c.) turned
into a myth (Weisse), is not supported by Matthew
* I am by no means sure that I have translated the last clause accu
rately.

LIFE OF JESUS. 153
(xvi. 8, &c), since Jesus here refers the Apostles to
sometMng actually experienced. To suppose it a
myth, founded on Old Testament narratives (Exod.
xvi. ; 1 Kings xxvii. 8 - 16 ; 2 Kings iv. 42, &c.) and
upon Messianic expectations (John vi. 30), is opposed
to the absence of any necessity and any ideal meaning.
Nor could a myth have originated in the misunder
standing of Biblical expressions. (John vi. 27, &c. ;
Matt. xvi. 5, &c.) And the demand for a miracle on
the part of the multitude, as the condition of believing
in Jesus as the Messiah (JqIui vi. 30), when, the day
before, they had experienced the very height of the
supernatural, and had shown themselves only all too
ready to recognize him as the Messiah hi their sense
of the word, is difficult to bring to historical consist
ency. Nor does the leaving the fragments on the
ground correspond with a general view of the fact as
a miraculous one ; nor do the Apostles themselves
appear immediately to have understood its nature.
(Mark vi. 52.) That it was a friendly banquet, where
a multitude ate together, and to which Jesus actually
contributed merely his own presence and hospitable
society, is opposed to nothing except the testimony of
John as an eyewitness. National remembrances and
expectations may have caused this quickly to grow
into a legend of miraculous increase of food. In the
fourth Gospel the commencement of the transaction
(John vi. 5 ; compare Matt. xiv. 14, Mark vi. 34)
is less exact than in the Synoptics, and an eyewit
ness could not so have narrated it. Since (according
to Mark vi. 30, Luke ix. 10) the Apostles returned
from a mission immediately before- the event, it might

154 LIFE OF JESUS.
possibly be that John first met Jesus again in Caper
naum, and the story of tMs event came to him under
circumstances and at a time in which it corresponded
too well with his conception of Christ to be made a
subject of critical inquiry. A second transaction
(Matt. xv. 32-39, Mark viii. 1-10), not more dif
ferent from the first than the Synoptic narrations of
the same events often are, and yet singularly uncon
nected by the Apostles with any recollection with the
first, may indeed, in the main, have been correctly
stated. Or it may be only, another form of the same
story, adopted by the two Evangelical writers for no
other reason than their Mstorical conscientiousness.
According to this view, the otherwise not unimpor
tant discourse (Matt. xvi. 9, and parallel passages)
may have taken its form subsequent to these accounts.
Sect. 75. — On the Lake.
Matt. xiv. 22 - 34 ; Mark vi. 45 - 53 ; John vi. 16 - 21.
The sending away of the Apostles and of the people
(Matt. xiv. 22 ; Mark vi. 45) has no connection with
the conflict with the people. (John vi. 15.) The sup
position that Jesus walked by the sea, as John xxi. 1,
and not upon it, is grammatically possible ; but the lat
ter view appears in Matt. xiv. 28, 29, 24 ; Mark vi. 47.
The fourth Gospel does not make this view so plain ;
but it rather seems, since they were expecting their
Master (John vi. 17), that the Apostles, after crossing
from the wilderness on the eastern side to the west
ern coast of the lake, coasted along the shore, and

LIFE OF JESUS. 155
(according to John vi. 21) landed to take him in.*
But John would, in this case, have given us a narra
tion which contains nothing worth telling, and it
would have been his intention to contradict the Sy
noptic tradition, which, certainly, he has not distinct
ly done. (John vi. 19.) That he himself, being an
eyewitness, believed that he saw Jesus walking on
the sea, being optically deceived, or self-deceived by
Jewish prejudices, and that he nevertheless has truly
narrated the fact as it was, which was opposed to his
own view, is a theory (Gfrorer) which cannot be
made clear to the mind. Another supposition, which
assumes a swimming or wading in the middle of the
sea in a stormy mght, is an absurdity. An explana
tion by means of magnetic influences, or through the
commencement of the glorification of the body, is
founded in the first case upon facts which are not yet
proved, and in the second case upon a theory not
made intellectually clear ; and in neither case is the
adventure of Peter explained, but a walking upon the
stormy waves must be judged according to Matt. iv.
7, and an ethical purpose to strengthen the faith of
* The place where he landed (according to Matt. xiv. 34, Mark vi. 53)
was the Plain of Genesaret, in which were situated the towns of Beth
saida (Mark vi. 45) and Capernaum (John vi. 17), of neither of which
does any trace remain. (Robinson's Palestine, Vol. HI.) But Luke (ix.
10) places the feeding of the people in the neighborhood of Bethsaida
Julias, on the eastern shore of the Jordan before it empties into the lake.
The supposition of Wieseler, which suits some of the facts veiy well,
that Jesus (according to Mark vi. 45) commanded the Apostles to go be
fore him only to Bethsaida and wait for him there (therefore to Bethsaida
Julias, on the side where he was), is obliged to assume arbitrarily that
the " other side " intended their ultimate purpose, and Bethsaida their
stopping-place; and it is opposed to the fact that Bethsaida Julias was
not upon the lake.

156 LIFE OF JESUS.
the disciples is opposed to Mark vi. 48, and would also
justify the most extravagant and adventurous miracle.
If the attempt and failure of Peter, as narrated by
Matthew, and the stilling of the storm, as narrated
by Matthew and Mark, are both Mstorical, and if
John was an eyewitness, it is difficult to see why he
left an empty place in the middle of Ms story, — espe
cially since his Gospel does not contain any similar
exercise of power over the storm, — or why the ad
venture of Peter should be wanting to the general
tradition. The type of this episode, according to
nature, and with a far more reasonable motive, is
given in John xxi. 7. The special story in Matthew
symbolically represents the turning-point in the life
of Peter, (Luke xxii. 31, &c, John xxi. 15, &c.,)
and the universal history of faith. Therefore, the le
gends of the Church may have taken possession of
the subsequent event, and have introduced it in an
ideal form on the occasion of the voyage of Jesus on
the lake. Accordingly, the Messiah walking on the
sea would be the type of the Messiah's resurrection
on the land : to which, also, the popular conceptions
of a magical power over the liquid element have con
tributed (Exod. xiv: 21, &c, 2 Kings ii. 14, vi. 6),
or in which an allegorical meaning may have pre
vailed. But how could a pure creation of fancy
have obtained a like sharply marked place in two
independent and different Evangelical narratives.
Therefore, we must suppose some transaction to
have occurred that night which was developed into
the true legend, and made the basis of the idea.
(Compare Job ix. 8, Septuagint.) John therefore

LIFE OF JESUS. 157
remains in the same position as in § 74, and his
description is truly not without individual traits, but
without the picturesque character belonging to the
descriptions of an eyewitness, and in the conclusion
is to be reconciled with the Synoptics only by some
little violence. Sect. 76. — The Hard Saying.
John vi. 22 - 69.
The people asked for manna, which gave occasion
to Jesus to describe Mmself as the Bread of Heaven ;
which must be eaten in order to obtain eternal fife.
There was no allusion to the Lord's Supper in his
words, for they would at that time have been wholly
unintelligible ; but probably John selected and un
folded this discourse on account of its reference to
the Supper. This figurative discourse expresses the
necessity of making Jesus a part of our spiritual life.
The wisdom of Jesus as a teacher is opposed to the
idea that he could have driven away his disciples
merely by the harshness of figures, not in themselves
foreign to the Hebrew mind, yet often misunderstood
by those immediately around Jesus. There runs
through the discourse the thought of the necessity
of his death, which is a sufficient reason for it ; but
which could only have been felt dimly as the disap
pointment of earthly expectations. The substantial
correctness of the discourse, as we have it, is proved
by its very failure. Jesus found in the faithfulness of
his Apostles, expressed by Peter in his joyful confes
sion, a consolation for his deeply wounded feeling.
14

158 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 77. — The Death of John the Baptist.
Matt. xiv. 3 - 12 ; Mark vi. 17 - 29 ; Luke iii. 19, &c, ix. 9.
Josephus (Antiq., XVIII. 5. 2) relates the circum
stances attending the execution of John the Baptist
differently from the Evangelists, but the main fact in
the same way. If their tradition is correct, and if
Herod's festival was the celebration of his entrance
upon his government, this event occurred immedi
ately before the Passover. The truth of the Evangel
ical narration is attested by its individual character, in
which there are but slight variations between Matthew
and Mark, while Josephus has only general traits, such
as might easily have been taken for granted. Yet
that characteristic picture of the indignant prophet,
the coquettish woman, and the sacred head danced
off and carried in a child's hand, might more easily
have originated in the people's legends, than been for
gotten by history. Possibly the two accounts may be
united, yet they must appear as belonging to two dif
ferent points of view. As, according to the Evan
gelical account, the head was immediately brought to
Herod, the residence of Herod at that time is essential
to complete the picture. As regards John himself, the
judgment of the nation always remained distinct and
unanimous. (Matt. xxi. 26.) Great in everything
to which the national remembrances attached a lofty
value, he still had not the dangerous grandeur of the
Messiah, or even the doubtful claim of being a worker
of miracles. (John x. 41.) This reputation gives
importance to his testimony in behalf of Jesus.

SEC OND PERIOD
THE YEAR OF CONFLICT.

Sect. 78. — Survey.

This period begins about the time of the second
Passover, and closes immediately before the journey
to Jerusalem to the Passover of Death. During the
summer Jesus moved about through Galilee (John
vii. 1), and returned, after a short period of retire
ment, on the borders of Phoenicia, to his usual work
near the lake. (Matt. xv. 21, &c. ; Mark vii. 31.)
In the space of time between the Feast of Taberna
cles (October), and the Feast of Dedication (Decem
ber), which is not distinctly stated by John (x. 22),
the last stay in Galilee seems to be fixed by the
Synoptics. For it is improbable that before the
Feast of Tabernacles Jesus should have already an
nounced so fully his near-approaching death: nor
is it likely, considering Ms favorable position in Gal
ilee at that time, (John vii. 1-4,) that he should
never again have returned to his home. Moreover,
the Synoptic description of the journey to Jerusalem
would absolutely contradict the private journey to
the Feast of Tabernacles, if tMs was the last (John

160 LIFE OF JESUS.
vii. 10). After the Feast of Dedication, Jesus
taught in Perea. (John x. 40.) After the trans
action in Bethany (John xi. 7, &c), which was just
before the Passover, he remained concealed in Ephra-
im, near the wilderness of Judah. (John xi. 54,
&c.) On the other hand, the Synoptics, according
to their general view of the working life of Jesus,
notice but a single journey from Galilee to Jerusa
lem at the time of his death. (Luke ix. 51 ; Matt.
xix. 1, xx. 17 ; Mark x. 1, 32, &c.) Matthew and
Mark make this journey to be through Perea ; Luke,
who unconsciously has mingled together fragments
of different journeys, makes it to be through Sama
ria (ix. 52, x. 38, xiii. 31, xvii. 11). The three
accounts meet again before Jericho. (Matt. xx.
29 ; Mark x. 46 ; Luke xviii. 35.) The journey to
the Passover may have commenced here, and, ac
cording to John (xii. 1), must have begun at Beth
any. The character of this period is a conflict be
tween the power of the kingdom of Heaven, just
begun, and a mighty reaction against it. The ful
ness of the life of Jesus now seldom takes the form
of that early, hopeful cheerfulness, and often shows
itself as indignation against the perversity of the
time, and finally always as a profound sadness, yet
full of hope of a final victory.
Sect. 79. — Opposition to Jesus.
Jesus had addressed himself in the first place to
the poor and the oppressed, (Luke vi. 20, &c, Matt.
ix. 11, &c, xix. 23, &c, and parallel passages,)

LIFE OF JESUS. 161
drawn to them both by the impulse of Ms heart and
the democratic character of the theocracy. The hos-
- tility of the Mgher classes was aroused by his neces
sary opposition as a moral reformer to their immo
ralities ; as a friend of the people, to their contempt
of the people and bad influence over them ; as the
founder of a religion, against the degenerate ortho
doxy of the Pharisees, and the unbelieving ration
alism of the Sadducees. All the Gospels relate the
conflict occasioned by his healing on the Sabbath ; the
Synoptics cMefly speak of the -public rebukes which
Jesus gave to the sins of the Scribes and Pharisees ;
and John describes the anger wMch he excited among
the Jews by asserting his religious position and dig
nity at Jerusalem. But Ms claim to be the Messiah,
which continually grew more prominent, might of
itself have caused distrust even to well-intentioned
statesmen, on account of a series of unfortunate
popular tumults which had taken place before.
Such men might easily consider the peaceful life of
the people, even in their degradation, to be better
than a desperate conflict with the Roman power.
This anxiety, to be sure, might have been allayed
by the method -which Jesus adopted to improve the
.people radically, — working from within out, — and
by Ms abstinence from all political measures. Yet
not only must this have appeared a mask and prep
aration so long as the people only believed in a po
litical Messiah, but every announcement of a Mes
siah, whether public or private, must have excited
political hopes. The upper classes were collected
together in the Great Council, which, though a recent
H* K

162 LIFE OF JESUS.
institution, and not in accordance with theocratic
laws, yet, according to its position, claimed to be the
highest organ of the national will, and to have the
power of deciding upon the claims of Prophet and
Messiah. The national view was, that this Council
must either accept as Supreme Master him who
claimed to be Messiah, or pronounce sentence upon
him as a usurper The true decision, however, lay
with the people themselves. So long as the contest
was waged with spiritual weapons, by influences upon
the people, the victory inclined to the Messiah. But
this very office of Messiah, which had opened for him
a path, became also fatal to him ; since it was natu
ral that all who believed in Mm should expect, as
the Apostles themselves did, that he was to establish
a splendid temporal kingdom. If it was not the
purpose of Jesus to satisfy this hope, it was to be
expected that the majority would forsake one who, in
the popular opinion, was a false Messiah, as soon as
the state authorities determined on bloody measures,
— authorities which, however hated and opposed,
yet retained the power and the respectability wMch
belonged to an established priesthood.

Sect. 80. — Hostile Designs.
Matt. xii. 22-50; Mark iii. 20-35; Luke xi. 14-22,
viii. 19-21.
Pharisees sent from Jerusalem, who from this
time forward are found attending Mm as spies,
sought to destroy him in the public opinion ; first, by

LIFE OF JESUS. 163
explaining his power of driving out demons to have
been obtained by a compact with the Devil ; and next,
by demanding a sign from heaven. Matthew's way
of mentiomng twice both the objection and the de
mand (ix. 32-34, compare xii. 22, &c. ; xii. 38,
&c, compare xvi. 1, &c.) seems (from the parallels,
Luke xi. 14, &c, Mark viii. 11, &c.) to be only a
repetition of the same incident. Jesus showed the
illogical character of the objection, and exposed the
unpardonable wickedness of this wilful misunder
standing of goodness. He withdrew himself from
their demand for a sign, which was one certainly jus
tified by the popular opinion. Then his opponents
endeavored to place him under the control of his
family ; giving out that his inspired manner was
merely insanity. (Compare John x. 20 ; Acts ii. 13.)
This fact, though connected with the charge of using
evil spirits, is so foreign from the subsequent glory
attached to the character of Jesus, that it can be
long neither to legend nor to a combination of Mark.
Jesus avoided the pain of a conflict with his family,
remaining in the close circle of those who adhered to
him, whom he sadly recognized as "those who were to
replace mother, brethren, and sisters ; and offered his
opponents open battle. (Luke xi. 37, xii. 12 ; com
pare Matt. xxii. 1 - 33.) He saw in the signs of the
times a wide and difficult struggle, in the dangers of
which he, however sadly, longed to engage. (Luke
xii. 49-56.)

164 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 81. — The Inconsistency.
Matt. xv. 21 - 28 ; Mark vii' 24 - 30.
Jesus had retired toward the borders of Phoenicia,
not to escape assassins, who could have found him
also there, but probably to gain time for the educa
tion of the Apostles ; and, at all events, in order to
remain concealed. But, touched by the tenderness
of a heathen mother, he performed a miracle, by
wMch he destroyed his hope of remaining unnoticed.
His previous treatment of the woman was not in
tended to try her faith or to instruct her, but was
merely decided refusal. The contradiction (to § 55)
is by the difference of circumstances only so far re
moved as we consider that Jesus wished at this time
to avoid publicity. (Mark vii. 24.) But Luke can
hardly have transformed the woman of Canaan into
the captain of Capernaum. It is not necessary to
suppose this event to be a parable on account of the
cure at a distance, which is a thing not incredible,
nor on account of the severity of Jesus, which was
not unkindness, if we consider him to have had a
sufficient motive.
Sect. 82. — The Feast of Tabernacles.
John vii. 2-10,21.
Urged by Ms relations, Jesus at last went up to
the Feast of Tabernacles, but in a manner indicating
prudence. The discourse may have been held at this

LIFE OF JESUS. 165
time (Luke xiv. 25-35), which showed that he had
carefully asked whether he was fully prepared for the
conflict before him, and that he felt such a certainty
of victory as to venture his all upon the contest.
The events occurring at the festival indicate the
vacillation of public opinion in regard to the Messi
anic character of Jesus, together with the danger, and
the necessity, of Ms presence in the Holy City at these
national feasts. The healing of the man born blind
is explicitly narrated, with picturesque circumstances.
The extraordinary nature of the event ; an ungram-
matical, mystical interpretation, in the spirit of the
age (John ix. 7 ; see Liicke) ; * and the silence of
the Synoptics concerning a transaction, which, how
ever, occurred at a distance from the scene of their
narrative, — do not offer sufficient reasons for suspect
ing any artificial fabrication in this narrative. On
the other hand, the lofty tone of thought on the sub
ject of evil, the proof immediately given by action,
and the reflections of Jesus afterward (ix. 39), have
the stamp of originality, notwithstanding that the
judicial proceedings are not reported in a regular
manner. It is equally unhistorical to ascribe a med
ical cure to proceedings which remind us of the magi
cal processes of healing customary at that period, or,
on the other hand, to call this act an unnecessary
addition, having nothing to do with the cure. A
determination and attempt on the part of the Great
Council to arrest Jesus (vii. 45, &c.) appears, even
according to tliis passage, (and according to xi. 47,
•* On the Pool of Siloam, see " Bobinsfin's Palestine."

166 LIFE OF JESUS.
&c.,) without sufficient motive ; and that wMch is
mentioned by the way (ix. 22) may have been a pri
vate agreement, or a decision of a Synagogue Court.
It was only in transient excitements that occasional
threats were uttered against the life of Jesus. With
boldness and self-possession he met his enemies.
His elevated expressions concerning his divine life
and his Messianic authority were so misrepresented
by his opponents as to make a false impression on
the minds of the people. In his last discourses is
plainly shown both the universality of his plan, and
his determination to sacrifice himself on account of
it. When the festival closed, and the people dis
persed, there was no public or apparent decision in
their minds as to the question of his Messiahship.
But the cause of Jesus, so far as external success
was concerned, was really lost, since it had not con
quered. Sect. 83. — Story of the Woman taken in Adultery, nar
rated as an Appendix.
John viii. 1-11.
This fragment, gradually received into the text
since the fourth century, has all the external evi
dence against its genuineness. The conjecture that
this omission from the text was occasioned by the
fear of encouraging a too indulgent view of the vio
lation of the marriage contract, is not sufficient to
account for its being so generally wanting. Nor are
the internal arguments, apart from antiquarian diffi-

life of jesus. 167
culties, favorable to the truth of the event as an his
torical fact. If the question was intended to entan
gle Jesus, it was so easy for him to evade it (compare
Luke xii. 13) that the Scribes might have foreseen this.
If Jesus departed from his usual course, from his
wish to deliver a human life from the sentence of a
severe law, and to secure for it a higher life, yet the
supposition that only sinless men could pronounce a
sentence is wholly unallowable. And therefore it is
difficult to suppose that the scribes, considering their
judicial position, should have so silently acquiesced
in this opinion. The story, also, has the usual char
acter of the better kind of apocryphal narration,
which represents justly, and even with splendor, one
side of the character of Jesus, but is wanting in
that well-balanced truth which usually distinguishes
a fact from an invention. It is not reasonable, there
fore, to give up John's authority as the author of
this fragment, and yet to maintain its historic truth.-
And. equally unreasonable is it to assert that it makes
a part of the Gospel, and thence to argue against the
genuineness of the whole.
Sect. 84. — The Dying Messiah.
A great heart, which has adopted a great reso
lution, is naturally led to ask itself the question,
whether, in case of necessity, it could also give up
life for the cause. It is possible, therefore, that
images of death hovered around the Master even in
early youth ; but only as the indistinct visions of
his lofty soul. It is certain, indeed, that after he

168 LIFE OF JESUS.
came forward in the bloom of manhood, conscious of
a destiny the highest possible to man, there was no
further change in his inward purpose. But yet a
purely human development does not permit us to
suppose that his whole relation to a changing, ex
ternal world was from the beginning equally clear
before his own mind, and that he saw already the
cross erected at the end of his course. If one says
that even human foresight could conjecture that
his nation would reject Mm, this may appear like
a charge of inadequacy against the divine insti
tutions appointed to educate the Jewish people, or
of want of power in the word of Jesus himself, —
for many less developed nations have since received
Christ. Only experience could decide whether the
nation would accept or reject him. In the prophetic
books, the idea of a suffering Messiah was at most
only indicated by types of very various meaning,
•representing the whole nation in its entire history,
— in its guilt, its penance, and ultimate triumph.
(Isa. Iii. 13 -liii. 12.) In the oldest examples of
its application to the Messiah, all idea of suffering
is excluded. But contemporaries of loftier views
might accustom their minds to the idea of a Mes
siah who should pass through conflict and sorrow.
. (Luke ii. 34 ; John i. 29.) In human nature itself
lies the faith through conflict to victory. And
this path of pain was foreshadowed in the fate of
the prophets, and in the whole history of the nation.
But everywhere behind the conflict stood the vic
tory ; and the Messianic fundamental idea, as all
the prophets had announced it, was of a triumphant

LIFE OF JESUS. 169
and fortunate king. (Compare Luke xxiv. 21 ;
John xii. 34 ; 1 Cor. i. 23.) With such hopes,
even if of a purely spiritual kind, had Jesus begun
his work. (§§ 73 and 76.) Even if he knew from
the first that the people whom he greeted with bless
ings would murder him, this fact must be hard to
prove. It is true that hints of death, though in
obscure figures, are to be found throughout the
whole Gospel of John. But the Synoptics fix with
precision the point of time in which Jesus began to
speak with certainty of a death by violence. (Matt.
xvi. 21-26; Mark viii. 31-37; Luke ix. 22-25.)
It is much more probable that John should have
given more distinctness, after the event, to general
expressions and heroic words of daring, than that
the oral tradition, which everywhere finds it so diffi
cult to retain distinctions of time, should have fixed
tliis epoch without any Mstorical foundation. And
after this period, these allusions to death do not
come merely for the instruction of the Apostles, but
the mouth of Jesus overflows with that of which his
heart is full. It was so impossible to make the
Apostles realize tMs, on account of their previous cir
cle of ideas, that they, though made mournful (Matt.
xvii. 23), and when the Passover drew near not un
conscious of the danger (John xi. 8, 16), yet con
sidered it as nothing but a dark foreboding, from
which they tried to relieve Ms mind. He, on the
other hand, asserted the moral necessity of his death
with an emphasis which almost seems like that of a
newly formed purpose. Apart from any communi
cation from his friends in the Sanhedrim, its hos-
15

170 LIFE OF JESUS.
tility and the fickleness of the people were suffi
ciently apparent to leave no doubt concerning the
abyss which lay in the path of a Messiah like himself.
So far as Jesus foretold the particular circumstances
of his death which lay out of the sphere of human
calculation, we are referred by many traditions to
visions of his death for an explanation. But since
these circumstances are regarded as necessarily
grounded in prophecy, (for instance, Luke xviii.
31 - 33,) whilst the places referred to do not plainly
bear this meaning, it is much more probable that
the faith of the Apostolic Church should have after
ward applied passages of the Old Testament, from
some apparent similarity, to the details of Clirist's
sufferings ; as this evidently appears to have been
done in John xix. 24, 36. At all events, Jesus
must have found the necessity of his death in the
prophets (Luke xxiv. 26, 44, &c, Mark ix. 12)
only after he had recognized the Divine plan by
means of its historical necessity. His kingdom he
knew to be eternal, because the kingdom of God ;
and himself destined, since thousands of years, to be
its founder. In this conviction was rooted the faith,
that, if Providence brought about his death as an his
torical necessity, his death also belonged to the tri
umph of his kingdom.
Sect. 85. — Importance of the Death of Jesus.
The only methods by which Jesus could escape
a violent death were by declaring that he laid no
claim to the office of Messiah, or by flying from

LIFE OF JESUS. 171
Palestine, which would be declaring the same thing
by his conduct. Both were morally impossible with
his conviction of his Messianic destiny. An armed
resistance to the authority of the state would have
been equivalent to a return to the worldly Messiah-
ship. Accordingly, it was his simple and rigorous
duty to meet death. But this moral necessity was
also, according to our general conception of moral re
lations, at the same time an act of freedom ; because
there remained the physical possibility of avoiding
death (John x. 18). Consequently Jesus sacrificed
himself to his work, and since this was the salvation
of man, it follows that he died for man (John x. 15,
vi. 21), as Eleazar for his nation (see Josephus),
a covenant vietim and atoning sacrifice (Matt. xxvi.
28, Mark xiii. 24, Luke xxii. 20, Matt. xx. 28,
Mark x. 45), giving the highest proof of his love
(John x. 11, &c, xv. 13). And, as an immediate
historical consequence for Ms Apostles (John xii.
24), he foresaw the destruction of their eartlily hopes,
and the attainment of self reliance and enthusiasm by
following in his footsteps (John xvi. 7, xii. 26, xv.
20). But it was not for these ends that he died.
He had not contributed to his own death ; on the
other hand, life was dear to him ; and as long as it
seemed necessary for his work, he repeatedly avoided
both the rage and the ambuscades of his foes. But
when no further deliverance remained while within
the path of his calling, he went with a clear mind on
that way of duty which led to death, without caring
whether or not he could in any way postpone for a
few days this inevitable doom.

172 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 86. — Prophecy of the Resurrection.
The more we contemplate the continuance of
existence after death as something in accordance
with the laws of nature, the more easily can we con
ceive of its being foreknown or foreboded. But in
opposition to the expressions in which Jesus an
nounced, together with his death, his resurrection on
the third day, (Matt. xvi. 21, xvii. 22, &c, xx. 19,
Mark viii. 31, ix. 31, Luke xviii. 33 ; compare Matt.
xvii. 9, Mark x. 9, &c.,) stand the hopelessness of
the disciples after the crucifixion; their unbehef
when, from all quarters, the news of the resurrec
tion came ; and the fact that none of the witnesses
appealed to the promise of Jesus as a confirmation of
their report. Next, at the farewell interview, among
so many words of consolation, this promise was no
where distinctly expressed, though at a time when it
was most needed. Lastly, the mournful frame of
mind of Jesus himself at this supper does not look
like the certain expectation of meeting them again in
a few days, and its elevated tone only indicates a
spiritual continuance with them, and a renewal of
intimacy in another world. But if Jesus expressed,
for the consolation of his friends and himself, the im
mortality of his work and the conquering nature of
Ms death, (compare Hosea vi. 2, Septuagint,) it
would almost necessarily happen that this should be
afterward explained by the disciples in the way to
which the Deity himself seemed to point. In some
expressions of Jesus where, on account of the con
nection, a misunderstanding was impossible, his

LIFE OF JESUS. 173
promise of continuing with his friends in a spiritual
manner has been preserved unaltered. (Matt, xviii.
20 ; xxviii. 20.) In other discourses (preserved by
John, x. 17, Ac., xiv. 18-21, xvi. 16-22) the
thought is apparent of a liigher. life obtained even
through death itself (as in xii. 24). But the mis
understanding is already near by. Its actual ap
pearance is shown by means of the truthfulness of
John even in his error (ii. 19- 22 ; § 104). In like
manner Matt. xii. 40 contains an allusion to his
resurrection not reported by Luke (xi. 29, &c),
and not by Matthew himself afterward (xvi. 4).
Consequently, those short, simple, and distinct pre
dictions, claiming to be founded on declarations of
the prophets (John xx. 9), which nevertheless no
grammatical interpretation can discover, are to be
regarded as additions which, after all was fulfilled,
took form in the preaching of the Church concern
ing Christ's Passion. Accordingly they can every
where be omitted without injuring the connection ;
and the disciples of Jesus were always excited by
these discourses "to sorrow alone (Matt. xvii. 23),
and never to inquiries concermng this wonderful
consolation. The true grandeur of Jesus is not
diminished by his ignorance of a matter which was
only in God's hand (compare Acts i. 7) ; on the con
trary, only from this point of view do the joy and
confidence of Jesus in the hour of death, and in the
apparent ruin of all his hopes, appear in their highest
moral greatness. 15*

174 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 87. — The Transfiguration.
Matt. xvii. 1 - 13 ; Mark ix. 2 - 13 ; Luke ix. 28 - 36.
The actual presence of Moses and Elias on the
mountain (according to the tradition, Tabor, accord
ing to Matt. xvi. 13, Luke ix. 28, Paneas or Hermon)
cannot be reconciled with the free application to the
Baptist of the legend concerning the coming of Eli
as ; whilst the . question of the Apostles corresponds
exactly to their state of mind as it may be supposed
to have been, according to the Evangelical narrative.
This luminous appearance of Jesus has been ex
plained as signifying his self-dedication to death as a
manifestation to strengthen the faith of his disciples,
as intended for a message of redemption to the saints
of the Old Testament, as a point in the development
of the spiritual body of Jesus, or as only a breaking
forth of his inward glory and a momentary return to
the eternal world. The explanation as a miraculous
vision offers no adequate aim ; and, so far as this
vision is regarded as an organ by which the spirit
ual world manifests itself, it is exposed to the same
objections. The explanation of naturalism, by means
of electric or magnetic appearances, meets only one
side of the transaction. The explanation ¦ as a
dream is opposed to the number of dreamers, who,
in opposition to the Gospel account, must be reduced
to Peter, and also makes it necessary to assume a
special coincidence in the remarks of Jesus In
favor of a mythic creation, founded on the type of
the luminous face of Moses (Exod. xxxiv. 29, &c,

LIFE OF JESUS. 175 .
compare xxiv. 1, &c), and upon the expectation
that prophets wefe to return at the time of the
Messiah (Mai. iv. 5, compare Ma^t. xvi. 14), may be
urged the unexplained silence of John in regard
to a purely historic matter of fact. For Jolm would
have the highest motive to mention ah event which
he had himself witnessed, and which showed his
Master in glorious intercourse with the order of a
liigher world. The allusion in 2 Peter i. 16-18
proves only that what the Synoptics related was early
spread abroad. But the representation of the ideal
contents of the narrative as a thoroughly carried out
allegory of the insight then possessed by the Apostles
of the true meaning of the Messiahship, is at once
contradicted by the fact that no such lofty insight,
with its spiritual enthusiasm, existed at that time
in the minds of the Apostles. And in opposition
to every purely mythical view stand the accurate
determination of time in regard to what preceded
and followed, the naming of eyewitnesses, some of
whom were alive at the time when the myth must
have originated, the command of Jesus not to tell
of it (inexplicable on this supposition) contained
within the myth itself, and a method of narration so
simple as to enable us to distinguish, even now, be
tween the facts themselves and the way they appeared
to the witnesses. According to the Evangelical nar
rative, it is a matter of fact that Jesus appeared to
the Apostles in unwonted splendor in the company of
two unknown persons. That they were Moses and
Elias is a conclusion not sufficiently supported, con
sidering the situation of the eyewitnesses ; especially

176 LIFE OF JESUS.
according to Luke. The command to be silent, and
the abrupt conclusion, indicate some secret circum
stances in the history. But this matter of fact, his
torically established, contains nothing remarkable as
history, nor ideally important. This came in through
the mode in which the Apostles conceived it ; in
which, unconsciously to themselves, the idea of a
spiritualized Messiah, standing on a national basis,
took form. Accordingly, the Synoptic narratives
show the innocent birthplace of a myth resting on an
Mstoric foundation.

Sect. 88. — The Tribute Money.
Matt. xvii. 24 - 27.
The event shows the unresisting manner in which
the Messiah submitted to the common burdens of
the people ; and the meaning of the transaction is
this, that Jesus expressed by a strong figure, that
it was not worth the trouble of offending others by
asserting even a just right, whose surrender could
be made good by the blessing which God gives to
industry. It is less to our purpose here to support by
quotations, as Paulus and Storr have done, either of
the views of the meaning of evptcr/ceiv, than to refer, as
Ammon has done, to the national custom of speaking
by figures, and its suitableness to the purpose of Jesus.
But the opening of the fish's mouth, and the whole
description, are in the style of a miraculous history,
and would be unintelligible if the Evangelist did not
intend to relate a miraculous story. Yet Jesus only

LIFE OF JESUS. 177
gives as the reason of his procedure, the avoiding of
unnecessary offence ; and, apart from an imaginary
decorum, this miraculous method of obtaining a
piece of money in the midst of a friendly city was
not a necessary one. Therefore, such a miracle done
only for display, and in the amount of money found
in the fish's mouth exceeding all need, contradicts
the maxim of Jesus, Matt. iv. 3. If we assume
the principle that Jesus could pay, by the use of
divine power, the debt which he owed as a human
being, it would reduce his life to a series of fantastic
adventures. For-a myth, it is wanting in a probable
occasion and ideal substance. Nothing, therefore,
remains but to suppose that a figurative mode of
speech has grown, through a popular tradition, into
an apocryphal miracle.
Sect. 89. — The Followers of Jesus.
Considering the small extent of Palestine, and the
thousands who came in contact with Jesus during his
journeys and wanderings, his influence may have ex
tended itself to the greater part of the native Jewish
population. But many only sought either aid in
their physical necessities, or transient excitement and
emotion. If among the higher classes Jesus pos
sessed many friends (John xii. 42), their fear of
appearing openly in his behalf shows that their friend
ship was at that time not confirmed. Repentance
and improvement were the conditions wMch Jesus
made for those who wished to become subjects of Ms
kingdom ; conditions, however, which were complied .

178 LIFE OF JESUS.
with in very different degrees. At other times, it
seemed sufficient for entrance into his kingdom to
manifest a noble tendency of mind, and to recognize
Jesus as the Messiah. (John ix. 35 - 38 ; Luke xxiii.
40-43.) One passage in John, indeed, (iii. 3, &c.,)
makes a liigher demand. But the characters of the
Apostles themselves show that this was an ideal de
mand, and not a condition essential for admittance.
With the promises made by Jesus to Ms followers,
their hopes may have become mingled (Luke xxii. 30,
xviii. 29), whilst he, at least at the close of his career,
promised them only trials and death for following
Mm. (Matt. x. 16, xx. 22 ; John xvi. 2, &c.) The
more he discouraged their hopes, the more did those
draw back who stood the nearest to Mm. (§ 76.)
If, at the time of his death, he still knew himself
powerful enough to meet the force of the state with
Ms adherents (John xviii. 36), this only means that,
if he would raise the standard of an earthly Mngdom,
as its Messiah, all would again collect around him.
But adherents, according to his own ideas, were few
even at the last ; and of these perhaps not one under
stood him, though there were some who loved him
for his own sake. As he considered the already
existing tendency to truth and to God to be the con
dition of his own reception, (John v. 38, 42, &c,
viii. 42, 47,) so also he consoled himself in view of
the small visible result of his mission by regarding
this likewise as divinely ordained. John vi. 44, xii.
38, &c.)

LIFE OF JESUS. 179
Sect. 90. — The Seventy Disciples.
Lukex. 1-21.
Jesus chose seventy Disciples, as confidential friends
of a second order, and sent them out before himself.
Their wisdom was only an immediate consciousness
of the nearness of God and of the kingdom of Heaven.
Nothing is said of any effect of their preaching, but
only of the success of their miraculous power. Yet
Jesus was moved with joyful emotion. Therefore,
their being sent out seems not so much a great un
dertaking to produce a final and decisive effect upon
the people, but rather sometliing intended for their
own education. Their number reminds us of the
elders appointed by Moses (Numb. xi. 16, <fec), of
the members of the Sanhedrim, and of the seventy'
nations of the earth. In their commission the limita
tion to the Jews is omitted, wMch is contained in the
almost exactly similar address reported by Matthew
on occasion of sending out the Twelve. (§ 60.)
But there is no mention of a universal missionary
purpose. Luke has placed the period of their mis
sion and return during the journey to Jerusalem.
Considering the silence of all other sources of Apos
tolic information, it was natural to regard their
choice and number as mythical, and their instruc
tion as transferred from that which (according to
Luke ix. 1-5) was given to the Apostles. The re
semblance of the Seventy to Paul and to Pauline
Christianity is too remote to allow them to be con
sidered as a symbol of these. Nevertheless, Matthew

180 life of jesus.
is also silent concerning the choise >of the Twelve,
and John concerning their mission. That Jesus had
numerous professed disciples appears from Acts i.
15, 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 6 ; compare John vi. 60. To
suppose that a legend arose in the Apostolic Church
concerning seventy disciples as a symbol of the later
missions, without any one of them being known, is
not so probable, as that they should have been after
ward forgotten by the Evangelists in consequence of
the subsequent insignificance of most of them.
Sect. 91. — The Kingdom of God, and the Church.
Jesus wished to establish a community, a kingdom
in which all nations (Matt, xxviii. 19) should be one,
as children of the same Father, and united in Christ
as the source of their higher life and action. (Jolm
xv. 1-15, xvii. 20, &c.) Since tliis kingdom should
never be overcome by the power of evil, (Matt. xvi.
18,) since the death of the founder should not scatter,
but rather strengthen the community, (John xvi. 7,)
and since each citizen of this realm has already con
quered death, and found eternal life witMn himself,
(John v. 24,) the kingdom is consequently an eter
nal one, embracing this world and the other. That
it should be described, not so much as already pres
ent, but rather as near, and always coming, corre
sponds to its ideal nature. But it is hard to say
whether Jesus intended that this kmgdom in the
hearts of men (Luke xvii. 20) should appear in the
Church as an outward institution. As a matter of.
fact, the Apostles and other disciples (§ 90) formed a

LIFE of JESUS. 181
kind of community, which, however, was only kept
together by the personal influence of Jesus. (Com
pare John vi. 67.) Baptism does not appear any
where during the lifetime of Jesus to have been the
sign of a definite association. (§ 53.) The Lord's
Supper might be a feast appropriated to this union,
but might also be used by a merely social assembly
of individuals. When Jesus referred difficulties
between brethren to the decision of the Church
(Matt, xviii. 15, &c), this could and must, at that
time, have been understood as referring to the Syna
gogue. But the Church which was founded on Peter
(Matt. xvi. 18) appears as something new, — a col
lective community, — and it is only the peculiarity
of the word which may belong to a later Hellenistic
culture. We may indeed conceive of Peter's office
as consisting in a purely spiritual influence for the
edification of believers, which was founded in his in
dividual character. But there is given to him in
this passage, as afterward to all the Apostles, author
ity to govern the kingdom of Christ, and to give laws
to it after the departure of Jesus ; not arbitrarily in
deed, but according to the Divine laws. (Matt. xvi.
19, xviii. 18 ; compare John xx. 22, &c.) In this is
intimated that the kingdom of Heaven shall take an
outward form, which is not described as one which
should afterward vanish away upon the earth. So
also the promise of Jesus (Matt, xviii. 19) supposes
the habitual coming together of believers in a Chris
tian community. The as yet undecided relation to
Judaism was the reason why tMs was not more dis
tinctly expressed. When the Church should be sep-
16

182 LIFE OF JESUS.
arated from Judaism, its establishment was intrusted
to the power of self-development belonging to the
kingdom of Heaven. (Mark iv. 26 - 32.) All the
forms of the Church, therefore, were left to be de
cided by the plastic power of the Spirit. Yet the
Master has expressed some religious facts which were
to find their application in the Church. The Spirit
is the highest power ; Christ alone is the head ; no
man is master, and he shall be the greatest who shall
make himself most useful. (John xvi. 13 ; compare
vi. 63 ; Matt. xx. 25, &c, and parallel passages.)
The Spirit continually reveals the hearts of men, and
judges the evil. (John xvi. 8 ; compare Luke ii.
35.) But good and bad will continue to be blended
together in the Church until the end of the world.
(Matt. xiii. 24-30.) No worldly nor hierarchal
power may circumscribe the Gospel. (Matt. x. 17,
&c, xxviii. 32 ; John xvi. 2.)
Sect. 92. — The Departure from Galilee.
About the time of the Feast of the Dedication, Je
sus left Galilee without any hope of returning thither.
He saw himself forsaken by Ms countrymen and
threatened by Herod, who feared to find in a friend
of the Baptist an avenger of Ms death. (Matt. xiv.
1 ; Mark vi. 14, &c.) In his answer to the prince
was a high manly pride, and that bitter irony which
refers to a whole age, and which terminates in deep
sadness of heart. (Luke xiii. 31-35.) He must
have endured many painful experiences, of which we
have no knowledge. His last word concerning a

LIFE OF JESUS. 183
country on wMch he had before pronounced the
highest blessing was not a curse, but a word of pain
and of dark foreboding. (Matt. xi. 20 -r 24 ; Luke
x. 13-15.) Sect. 93. — Domestic Life at Bethany.
Luke x. 38-42.
A flying leaf of tradition, fixing neither time nor
place, and which, in the most incidental way, cor
responds with events noticed by John, agrees with
John both as to the names and as to the characters
of those two sisters who since that time have been
always regarded as the types of a twofold tendency
in their sex. We have here a picture of family life
in Bethany, which, however, is not necessarily taken
from the first visit of Jesus to that place. The
complaint of the housekeeper and the reply of Jesus
are friendly expressions, ,half in pleasantry, of social
human intercourse. But they are not to be de
graded to commonplace insignificance by supposing
that Jesus only meant by the one thing needful a
single kind of provision or a single dish of meat.
(Michaelis.) But the " one thing " here is certainly
the eternal ; and this connection of the loftiest truth
with pleasantry of expression and urbanity of man
ner accords with the habits of high thinking and
MgMy cultivated men.

184 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 94. — Raising of Lazarus and of the Young
at Nain.
John xi. 1 - 44 ; Luke vii. 11-17.
While in Peraea, Jesus received information con
cerning the sickness, and perhaps also concerning
the death, of Lazarus : in the message lay a request ;
in the answer, a promise. It does not seem to accord
with our conceptions of the character of Jesus, that
he should neglect the cure of the sick in order to
raise the dead ; and in the fifteenth verse he rejoices
over an actual event, and not over anything intended.
It was no part of his regular work to bring the dead
to life, for which opportumties would never have
been wanting ; and there is no historical proof that
Jesus possessed any unconditional power over death.
Accordingly, to assert that Jesus selected those whom
he raised from the dead from a regard to their spirit
ual condition and interests, proves too much, and is
more than can be authenticated. But, considering
the dangers from the Jewish custom of precipitate
burial, it would not be strange if, among so many
miracles of healing, Jesus had sometimes met with
a case of apparent death. According to the general
view, Lazarus was really dead ; and though the ex
pression of Martha in the thirty-ninth verse was based
on no sufficient reason, there is, on the other hand,
no ground for questioning the reality of his death,
unless we suppose that, on account of the mysteri
ous proximity of life to death, the power of Jesus
had enabled the force of life to triumph once more

LIFE OF JESUS. 185
over its antagonist. Though Jesus might have fore
seen this by a prophetic vision, yet any clear foresight
can with difficulty be reconciled with his painful
emotion (verses 33 and 35), and in this case Ms
prayer would not have been a real prayer, but only
an apparent one. On the other hand, a word of
consolation or of hope, such as may still be recog
nized in verses 23-26, might easily, after the result,
have been umntentionally changed into a promise,
without these being removed arbitrarily from the text.
He who formerly had seen the daughter of Jairus
awaken, might first wish, and then hope, that in this
instance his prayer for the life of his friend would
be heard by God, since in this instance his private
wishes were in harmony with the glorification of the
kingdom of Heaven. And so it happened. In deep
emotion he expressed Ms thankfulness for this result,
whilst the immediate outbreak of feeling passed at
once into the reflections which belonged to his posi
tion as the Messiah. The silence of the Synoptics
concerning the most splendid and important of all
the miracles is not explained by their relations to
the family of Lazarus, who were still living, nor in
any other way, but is hidden amid those unknown
reasons which made the Synoptics silent in regard to
all the early events which occurred in Judaea. Noth
ing but the assumed impossibility of a man's coming
to life when apparently dead, can justify the supposi
tion of a myth founded on similar events in the Old
Testament (1 Kings xvii. 17, &c, 2 Kings iv. 18,
&c, xiii. 21), and intended as a pledge of the future
general resurrection. For this still leaves unex-
16*

186 LIFE OF JESUS.
plained the origin of some particulars, — of those,
namely, which are opposed to the idea of a distinct
foresight on the part of Jesus ; it does not explain
the incidental coincidence with Luke, (§ 93,) nor the
interweaving of the transaction with the personages
of a family so well known in Jerusalem and to the
Church, — a family, also, whose actual relation to
Christ is indicated by scattered notices of the Synop
tics. And therefore the explanation which regards
it as an allegory, or as a misunderstanding of a
discourse of Jesus concerning the resurrection of the
dead, is merely arbitrarily to assume the opposite of
that which the Evangelist narrates. To suppose that
John has exceeded the truth in his narration, from a
polemic purpose, and that he has confounded this
transaction with that at Nain, is to imagine a John
much enfeebled by age. The event at Nain is open to
suspicion from the impressive character of the event,
which has even been copied in heathen literature
(see Baur, " Apollonius of Tyana and Christ ; "
also, Celsus, De Med. II. 7 ; Pliny, H. N., XXVI. 8) ;
from the silence of the first two Synoptics, and the
want of allusions in John (xi. 24, 37). The convic
tion of the Apostolic Church that Jesus raised the
dead (Matt. xi. 5, Luke vii. 22, Eusebius, H. E., IV.
3) might easily be confirmed or caused in limited
circles by anonymous narrations of so striking a
character as this. Either the information, or else the
purpose of Luke, does not afford means for a judg
ment concerning the way in which Jesus exerted this
influence.

LIFE OF JESUS. 187
Sect. 95. — The Bloody Council.
John xi. 46-57.
Terrified by the universal admiration which the
raising of Lazarus had excited, the Sanhedrim deter
mined on the death of Jesus. The political expedi
ency given as a reason was not a mere pretence,
although a deadly hatred was hidden under it. Jose
phus named Caiaphas, who had been high-priest since
the eleventh year of the reign of Tiberius, and called
high-priest this year (xi. 49, 51, xviii. 13), perhaps
by a want of precision in the mode of statement,
both a favorite of the Romans and their deadly enemy,
was the man who dared to propose the measure, which
was not only a bold one, but a prudent one, when
regarded from the stand-point of a selfish policy.
He said what the rest had either not yet thought, or
had not ventured to express. As it often happens in
history that a selfish measure brings about a general
good, and as the speech of the priest expresses not
only the principle of the tyrant, but the zeal of the
patriot, John was led to recognize in it a thought
belonging to universal history, and gave the remark
tMs twofold interpretation (compare ii. 21 ; xii. 32 ;
xviii. 9). He expresses in a striking and acute man
ner the thought of a prophetic gift belonging to the
high-priest, who had involuntarily expressed the truth.
The command to point out the abode of Jesus was
intended to accustom the people to the thought of
the imprisonment of their Messiah ; and the multi
tude began now to take the comfortable position of
spectators, curious to see the issue of the conflict.

188 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 96. — Zaccheus.
Luke xix. 1 - 10 ; compare Matt. xx. 29 ; Mark x. 46.
Spreading joy continually around him on his jour
ney toward death, Jesus became the guest of a man
in Jericho, whom he was moved to select by a kind
feeling at the moment, and so brought to his house
the joy of earth and the bliss of heaven. So far as
may be conjectured, this host of Jesus was neither
a specially good nor a specially bad man, but of the
average character of those occupying his odious
office. There needed not a longer or more explicit
exhortation. But when the prophet whom he had
admired at a distance chose him from among thou
sands, and entered his despised house, the course of
his future life was decided ; and in his inward eleva
tion he learned to despise Ms earthly possessions.
Sect. 97. — The Ointment.
Luke vii. 36 - 50 ; John xii. 1 - 8 ; Matt. xxvi. 6 - 13 ; Mark
xiv. 3-9.
Luke relates the anointing of Christ by a woman,
the censure pronounced upon it, and the answer.
The other three Evangelists, on the other hand,
give another account, entirely differing from this
as to the time, the person, and the meaning, which is
in the one case ethic, and in the other sentimental.
And as both stories offer a picture complete in itself,
full of meaning, and presenting no ground of sus-

LIFE OF JESUS. 189
picion, we must conclude that two different events
are the basis of the narrative. And, on the other
hand, the points of difference between the first, sec
ond, and fourth Gospels are not greater than the
oral tradition of the same event naturally becomes in
the narration of mdependent witnesses. Its greater
distinctness in its own connection (§ 94), and in
the description of Luke (§ 93), prove it to belong
to history. The trait of luxury in tMs story, which
appears not only in John but in Mark (xiv. 3, 5),
makes an essential part of the event. The name
of Simon, however, (Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3,)
seems to have been caught in some way from the
other story. In some slighter traits of the narrative
Luke coincides with John. Church tradition and
Church art have often interchanged the two char
acters of Mary Magdalen (considered as a sinner
according to Luke viii. 2) and Mary of Bethany,
showing thus how easily the two anointings can be
confounded with each other. But to derive both
stories from one transaction, we must assume either
that the account in Jolm is correct and the others
derived from it, or else give the original place to
the first and second Gospels. In the first case, the
story in Luke will appear full of extraordinary mis
understandings. In the other case, we must suppose
that Luke has mingled with his story allusions to a
fragment of John's Gospel (John viii. 1) which is not
regarded as genuine. And in this case the fourth
Evangelist may in like manner have made use of a
fragment of Luke (x. 38, <fec). But there is nothing
improbable, according to Jewish customs, in a trans-

190 LIFE OF JESUS.
action of this sort occurring twice, especially under
such different circumstances. According to Luke, a
woman outwardly ruined, yet not having lost a con
cealed longing after a Mgher life, awakened to this hfe
by a bodily cure which Jesus had performed, came to
thank her deliverer with the ardor of Oriental rever
ence. And Jesus defended her action in a manner
equally convincing and benevolent ; explaining at the
same time Ms own connection with the disreputable
classes in a tone of cheerful irony, which was directed
against the inhospitable pride of the Pharisee. Ac
cording to John, it was six days before the Passover,
and according to Matthew and Mark somewhat later,
that, during the feast at Bethany, Mary, moved by
love and sorrow, poured a costly oil over the head
and feet of Jesus. He protected her against narrow-
minded objections, not only because her mtention
was friendly, but also in the feeling that other things
are important beside mere utility. Gladly, on this
one occasion in life, he received an offering belong
ing to earthly luxury, without asMng the cost of
that which had fulfilled its highest purpose, since
it had served to express a noble idea. Surrounded
with images of death, tMs token of love seemed not
so much the anointing of a Christ as of a corpse.
But beyond the grave he saw an earthly immortality
also opening ; and promised that her action, which
sought no reward but that of a friendly look, should
have an immortal memory in the records of his Gos
pel, and so make a part of the history of the world.

THIKD PEKIOD.
PASSION-WEEK. — SUFFERINGS AND GLORY.

Sect. 98. — Survey.

This period begins with the entrance of Jesus into
the Holy City, and ends with Ms departure from the
earth. The writers of the four Gospels necessarily
accompany each other here,- and their differences indi
cate the different sides of the transaction which they
saw, and their various points of view in looking at
each event. The first part is narrated with the minute
ness of detail with which one is accustomed to recall
the last hours of a friend. The second part contains
only fugitive outlines. The literature is partly sci
entific, consisting especially of .antiquarian explana
tions or of harmonies, partly that of edification and of
poetic description. The miraculous powers of Jesus
now retire and give place to Ms moral power, dis
played in patience, and to the great miracle of Divine
Providence. The most marked antagonisms meet to
gether in tMs period. The most frightful entangle
ments of fate, and their supernatural resolution, are
here brought down into earthly existence. There
fore in this history is seen, as in a lasting, mirror, the

192 LIFE OF JESUS.
contradiction between the course of events and the
struggles of the individual. But here is also seen that
harmonious solution of the conflict which, in other
instances, must be referred to the future life, and can
in this world only be foreboded by the hopes of the
human heart. Sect. 99. — Chronology of Passion -Week.
According to the account of the Synoptics (Matt-.
xx. 29, xxi. 1, &c, and parallels), Jesus went imme
diately from Jericho to Jerusalem. According to
John (xii. 1-12), he first passed a night in Beth
any. But both describe the same festal procession
accompanying his entrance into the city. The two
characteristic traits, the jubilee of the people and
the melancholy of Jesus, appear in each of the nar
rations. One could hardly imagine why Jesus should
repeat a spectacle which would be significant if exhib
ited once, but which, repeated, would become trite and
without object. The Synoptical account must be the
description of the first entrance ; but John (xii. 1,9,
12, compared with xi. 56) does not justify us in
assuming that Jesus visited Jerusalem immediately
before passing the night in Bethany. It is not suffi
cient, therefore, to assimilate the two entrances. But
it might easily happen that the tradition, troubling
itself very little about fixing the dates of transac
tions, should have described the journey from Jericho
as a whole. We cannot deny the chronological in
consistency in relation to the supper at Bethany,
and a similar one appears in the Synoptic narra-

LIFE OF JESUS. 193
tions. Jesus died on Friday afternoon before the
commencement of the Sabbath, (Mark xv 42, Luke
xxiii. 54, John xix. 31,) and instituted the Supper
the evening before, but on the same day, according
to the Jewish reckoning. John and the Synoptics
speak of the same farewell supper, (compare Matt.
xxvi. 21-25, John xiii. 21-26,) immediately after
which came the arrest. According to the Synop
tics, (Matt. xxvi. 17, Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7,)
it was the usual Jewish Passover at the beginning of
the fifteenth of the month Nisan ; so that Jesus was
crucified on the first day of the feast. But according
to John (xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28, xix. 14, 31), Jesus did
not eat the Paschal lamb, but died on the day of prep
aration, the festival beginning with the Sabbath, and
accordingly Jesus was crucified on the fourteenth of
Nisan. The attempts at an explanation are incon
sistent either with the Gospels themselves, or with the
legal arrangements of the Paschal feast. They assume
that John is not giving a complete description of the
farewell supper ; that the Paschal feast, in the general
celebration, was put forward a day on account of the
Sabbath ; that it was anticipated by Jesus ; and final
ly, that a Paschal meal on the fourteenth of Nisan,
and on a work-day, is to be distinguished from the
regular Paschal feast, which began on the fifteenth
of Nisan. The Synoptical account unconditionally
contradicts any explanation which might be favorable
to the accuracy of John. It is true that a skilful ex
planation has been found for each of the passages in
John, by means of which the inconsistency between
them and the Synoptic narrative is removed. But it
17 M

194 LIFE OF JESUS.
is unscientific thus to treat an independent witness,
who in many expressions, made with apparent free
dom concerning the point of time, is always in entire
harmony with himself. Such a witness should not
have his account explained differently from what it
would be if it stood alone, merely in order to accom
modate it to the accounts of other witnesses. Grant
ing as undeniable this difference in the point of time,
it is still inexplicable what reason a contemporary
should have to vary, consciously or unconsciously,
from the general and impressive tradition which
made the last meal of Jesus the Passover. In the
typical allusion (John xix. 36, compare Exod. xii.
46) the question of time does not occur, or, if it did,
would be suited much better by the fifteenth of Nisan-
On the other hand, since the supper had from the
first a tendency to be the sacred feast of the new cov
enant (Matt. xxvi. 28), since Christ himself was re
garded as the true Paschal Lamb, and the celebration
of his death in the Church of Jewish Christians coin
cided with that of the Passover, it might easily happen
that the farewell meal, which in the fourth Gospel
appears as a solemn supper at Jerusalem, might
come to be regarded as the Paschal supper. Moreover,
even the Synoptics regard the day of crucifixion as a
work-day and day of preparation ; and the Talmudic
tradition of the arrangements of the Passover at that
time corresponds with John's view. If Jesus died on
the fourteenth of Nisan, and the Passover began with
sunset of that Friday, then Jesus probably came to
Bethany on Sunday, the ninth of Nisan, (John xii. 1,
12,) and entered Jerusalem on the. tenth. The grave

LIFE OF JESUS. 195
was found empty in the morning twilight of the next
Sunday (Mark xvi. 1, Luke xxiv. 1, Matt, xxviii.
1, John xx. 1,) or the sixteenth of Nisan. This
plainly appears from the rhetorical statement of a
resurrection after three days (John ii. 19, Matt.
xxvi. 61, xxvii. 63) and nights (Matt. xii. 40), when
compared with the more precise expression of a res
urrection on the third day (Mark ix. 31 ; Luke xviii.
33; 1 Cor. xv. 4).

Sect. 100. — The Triumphal Entrance.
Matt. xxi. 1-17; Mark xi. 1-19; Luke xix. 28-46;
John xii. 12-19.
Entering into the sacred city amid the jubilees of
the people, who welcomed him as the Messiah, he
wept, contemplating his own death as a cause of
ruin to Ms country. It happened here, as it so often
happens, that the world once more spread a dying
flame of glory around him whom it was about to for
sake. The character of this entrance was that of a
Messiah ; but its relation to the prophecy (Zech. ix.
9, compare Isaiah lxii. 11), which the Rabbins re
ferred to the Messiah, was the result of subsequent
reflection on the part of the Apostles, (Matt. xxi. 4,
John xii. 16,) and without such reference the trans
action was perfectly intelligible. The command to
bring the ass is considered by the Synoptics as im
plying miraculous knowledge, (not so in John xii.
14,) and the mention of two animals by Matthew
comes from his interpretation of the prophecy. So

196 LIFE OF JESUS.
the fact commemorated by the other Synoptics, of the
change of the animal intended for riding for one
intended for sacrifice, shows that, in both accounts,
general thoughts had been substituted for precise
facts. The rejoicing of the people might have been
partly occasioned by the voice from the grave of
Lazarus (John xii. 17), and partly by their belief
that the reign of an earthly Messiah would now com
mence. Jesus had himself given the occasion for
the commencement of this procession, wMch in his
situation was an open declaration against the state
authorities, and in the lofty consciousness of his
true dignity refused to hinder its continuance. (Luke
xix. 40.) Still it could not have been a final, des
perate attempt, by means of force. For, in this case,
it would be impossible to understand why he did not
use the enthusiasm of the masses. That the Roman
garrison in the tower of Antonia took no offence at
this movement, and that even the priests in their
charge of high treason founded no proof upon it, is
decisive. He assumed the position which, by divine
right, belonged to him, and showed the world that, if
he wished to rule by force, he had the power so to do.
This entrance excited the hope of the coming of a
political Messiah; but in view of his coming death, it
was no longer to be feared. Some time or other,
Jesus must openly announce himself as the Messiah ;
and this is the meaning of this public entrance.

LIFE OF JESUS. 197
Sect. 101. — The Fig-Tree.
Mark xi. 12 - 14, 20 - 26 ; Matt. xxi. 18 - 22.
The explanations of this event which suppose that
Jesus merely foresaw that the tree was about to die
(Paulus), or that Jesus only hastened by Ms influ
ence a decay already commenced (Neander), is
opposed to the Evangelical narrative, and to the
application of the event which is made by Jesus.
Though the cursing of a tree, especially in the way
in which Mark narrates the result, is conceivable
through natural magic, yet a penal miracle is neither
suited to the spirit of Jesus, (Luke ix. 55, compare
'Matt. xii. 20,) nor would it have an appropriate
object in vegetable life. A mere proof of the mi
raculous power of Jesus for the sake of the Apostles
(Heydenreich, Ullmann) has no sufficient motive
in the disappointment ; nor would a merely destruc
tive power be of any special use as an example
of the might of faith (Neander), among so many
opportunities already used for beneficent miracles.
Therefore, this act of Jesus has been regarded as a
prophetic symbol, perhaps of the destruction of
Judaea. (Olshausen, &c.) But not only do the
Gospels omit all mention of this meaning, but they
rather make a wholly different application to the
power of faith. Moreover, a parable would have
been sufficient, if only a symbol was required. The
Passover was not the season of figs (Mark xi. 13),
and the foliage of the tree, at that time, by no means
justified the expectation of ripe fruits. Since the
17*

198 LIFE OF JESUS.
thought which the action would symbolize (Matt. iii.
10, vii. 19) is found as an apothegm in Matthew,
and as a parable in Luke (Luke xiii. 6) it is very
probable that a similar parable was changed by tradi
tion into a fact by the literal interpretation of a
metaphorical expression, which is here found in the
subsequent application (Matt. xxi. 21, Mark xi. 23),
and, in a form still more liable to be misunderstood,
in Luke (xvii. 6). Sect. 102. — Disputes.
The passage, John xii. 36, cannot refer to a merely
temporary seclusion on the evening of Ms public en-'
trance, like that in Matthew (xxi. 17, comp. Mark xi.-
11) ; for though the words are not very well chosen,
they are yet intended by John to express the close of
the public teaching of Jesus. But the day is not so
exactly indicated, that it might not be the Wednesday
before the festival. Yet it can hardly be believed
that Jesus, after so splendid a reception, should have
wholly withdrawn himself from the people on the last
days of his life. After this, some days intervene,
which are occupied by the discussions reported by
the Synoptics. But it might be that disputes, which
had taken place at some former feast, should have
been transferred by the Synoptics to this collective
Passover, and Luke (xix. 47, xx. 1) seems to sup
pose a longer circle of days. Among these disputes,
those which indicate the most mortal hostility are
the ones which most certainly belong to this last
Passover. These discussions originated partly in the

LIFE OF JESUS. 199
wish of the Supreme Council to procure materials for
an accusation, or at least to degrade Jesus in public
esteem, and partly in attacks made by individuals for
their own satisfaction, and on their own account. —
1st. (Matt. xxi. 23-46 ; Mark xi. 27 -xii. 12; Luke
xx. 1 - 19.) The demand concerning the authority
of Jesus did not relate especially to Ms Messianic
pretensions, but generally to Ms position as teacher
and guide of the people ; as in John i. 19, &c. It
was intended partly to see what position Jesus would
take towards his opponents and judges ; and partly,
if he answered the question, to gain thereby Ms
admission of their right to examine the claims of
a Divine messenger. The question with which Jesus
met them in return was adapted for every possible
answer. The priests confessed that they were unable
to decide whether John was, or was not, a Divine
ambassador ; and Jesus was justified in refusing to
submit his own claims to their judgment after such a
confession of their incapacity. He then added two
parables, expressing, with terrible clearness, the one,
the rejection of Israel, and the other, its reason in
the approacMng public murder of the Messiah.—
2d. (Matt. xxii. 15-22 ; Mark xii, 13-17 ; Luke xx.
20-26). The question about paying tribute required
either an 'answer which would be offensive to the
Roman authorities, or one which would displease the
Jewish people. Jesus replied to their question con
cerning the Roman authority by a proof triumphantly
addressed to the senses, showing that they themselves
recognized this authority by using the foreign coin.
And, on the other hand, he claimed for the theocracy

200 LIFE OF JESUS.
the rights which belonged to it, in free and popular
language. — 3d. (Matt. xxii. 23 - 32 ; Mark xii. 18-
27 ; Luke xx. 27-38.) This was a private discussion
with some Sadducees. Negatively, Jesus replied to
their objection against immortality, based on a mate
rial view, by taking a higher spiritual view of it ; and,
positively, defended immortality with dialectic skill.
— 4th. (Matt. xxii. 35 - 40 ; Mark. xii. 28 - 34.) A
question was put to Jesus as to which was the great
est commandment, not with a theocratic, but rather
a practical aim, for the sake of a decision in a con
flict of duties. Jesus gave, as an answer, unlimited
love as the principle of religion and morality, — a
principle which had already been expressed in Juda
ism, but rather as a prophecy, and with limita
tions. Matthew supposes, on account of the time and
place, that the question was captious ; but Luke (x.
25-37) gives the essential points of this conversation
as occurring at an earlier period. — 5th. (Matt. xxii.
41-46 ; Mark xii. 35-37 ; Luke xx. 40 - 44.) Per
haps it was in order to deprive his opponents of cour
age to continue these verbal disputes, by showing Ms
own dialectic superiority, that he himself put a ques
tion in turn, demanding an explanation of the Mes
sianic meaning of the one hundred and tenth Psalm.
It is singular, indeed, if they could find nothing to re
ply (Matt. xxii. 46) ; but this is only an expression of
the Christian view of the mental superiority of Jesus.
— 6th. (Matt, xxiii. 1-39.) Finally, he addresses his
disciples in a speech, of which Mark reports (xii. 38-
40, comp. Luke xx. 45-47) only a single striking ex
pression, and Luke some fragments (xi. 37, &c, xiv.

LIFE OF JESUS. 201
1, &c.) on other and less suitable occasions. In this
he unmasked the crimes and faults of the whole hie-
rarchal power with such terrible eloquence, that he
departed with the feeling that he must never again
return to the Temple, or that he must return as the
Messiah.

Sect. 103. — A Vision of the Future.
Matt, xxiv.-xxv.; Mark xiii. 1-37; Luke xxi. 5-36;
compare xvii. 22-37.
When leaving the Temple, and while contemplat
ing its noble architecture, Jesus announced its future
destruction. Upon the Mount of Olives he gave the
Apostles his views of the future ; of monstrous storms
in the life of nature and of nations ; of the destruction
of Jerusalem, and his return as Judge and King of
the world. Ascribing, indeed, to God the sole knowl
edge of the day and hour (Acts i. 6, Matt. xxiv. 36,
Mark xiii. 32) , he .nevertheless fixed his return dur
ing that generation, and immediately after those com
motions (Matt. xvi. 28, xxiv. 29,- 34, Mark ix. 1,
Luke ix. 27). The Apostolic Church, in fact, ex
pected tMs event from day to day. If thousands of
years intervene, there must be an error in the proph
ecy or in the tradition ; but if the Apostles have
mingled together distant periods in one account, if
the destruction of Jerusalem is introduced as an im
age of the general judgment, if an invisible com
ing of Jesus at the destruction of Jerusalem is to be
distinguished from his visible coming to judgment,
or if he continually comes in the Mstory of the world,

202 LIFE OF JESUS.
there vanishes all assurance of any future coming in
the clouds of heaven, as distinguished from these.
It is, indeed, conceivable that Jesus, by means of this
hope, rescued his own Messianic faith, transferring
it to the future out of the gloomy present. But since
such a return of the Messiah is nowhere announced
by the prophets, nor contained in the popular faith, —
since Jesus, from the first, had elevated the national
notion of a Messiah to a religious idea, which could
not be injured by his death, — he did not need to
frame out of visions of a pretehded prophet (Dan.
vii. 13) the fantastic hope of such a speedy return,
whilst in his prophetic pictures a profound view of
the future manifests itself. The images of a general
judgment are indeed those which are traditionally
connected with the coming of the Messiah ; the de
struction of Jerusalem is described after Dan. ix.
26, xii. 11 (compare Josephus's Antiquities, XII. 5),
and after reminiscences of its former destruction
(2 Kings xxv. ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. ; Jerem. xxxix.
8). These may have been made more distinct
after the events occurred, yet the presence of pre
dictions which were not fulfilled goes to show the
genuineness of the prophecy. But it is undeniable
that Jesus foresaw this destruction, and the revolu
tions which followed it, in which the old world was
wrecked, and the sign of the cross conquered.
This was his view of universal Mstory. The proph
ets represented the rise of the theocracy as Jeho
vah coming among his people ; and, in like manner,
Jesus might predict the victory of his kingdom,
under the image of Ms own splendid return. In

LIFE OF JESUS. 203
like manner, traces are found in the Synoptics of
such a free application of Old Testament proph
ecies (Matt. xvii. 11, &c), of the inward character
of Ms kingdom (Luke xvii. 20, &c), and of a pres
ence which needs no return to precede it (in Matt.
xxviii. 20 ; compare xviii. 20). But especially in the
fourth Gospel has the notion been preserved of this
spiritual presence and return. (John xiv. 3, 18, &c,
21, 23.) The misivnderstanding of the Apostolic
Church was occasioned by the fact that Jesus had
left the theocratic national hope unfulfilled, which
was therefore only postponed, so that the hope of
the coming of the Messiah transformed itself into a
hope of his return. The tradition of the discourses
of Jesus was necessarily affected by this error of the
Church ; and however suitable to time and place this
discourse may be, the relation of Matthew to the
other Gospels, and the inward connection of Ms
prophecy, shows that he has collected in this focus
expressions of a different tendency, on account of
their common relation to the future.

Sect. 104. — Death-Schemes.
The enthusiasm of the people necessarily changed
into indifference or hatred as soon as they saw their
hopes disappointed. Jesus could not deceive himself
in relation to the loss of the popular favor. His
opponents saw the necessity of being hasty in their
measures. (John xii. 19 ; Luke xix. 47, &c.) The
question would arise whether he should be destroyed
by a judicial murder, or by assassination. Jesus

204 LIFE OF JESUS.
must desire to avoid the latter fate, which would ex
pose him at his death to calumny ; and perhaps this
is seen in his passing the nights at Bethany, and
possibly in the question about weapons, which can
hardly have been exactly reported. (Luke xxii. 36 -
38.) But the Jewish Council might also believe
that a public and shameful execution would be the
most terrible blow to this deadly enemy and his ad
herents. Those who thought more deeply must have
seen that this Galilaean, so prudent and powerful,
having neglected one great opportunity, would in
no case make use of force. Accordingly, if force was
used against Mm, the people would immediately for
sake him; regarding him as a false Messiah when
they found him helpless in the hand of his ene
mies. Yet, from fear of an insurrection, the Council
did not wish to take any decided steps at the time of
the feast. (Matt. xxvi. 3-5 ; Mark xiv. 1, &c. ;
Luke xxii. 2.) A certain anxiety and want of decis
ion in their measures may also be ascribed to a fear
of the wonderful powers of Jesus. But he himself
expected to die on the national festival. (Matt.
xxvi. 2.) Sect. 105.— The Traitor.
Judas of Kariot accelerated their decision by en
abling the Council to get possession of Jesus without
the danger of popular tumult (Matt. xxvi. 14-16 ;
Mark xiv. 10, &c. ; Luke xxii. 3-6 ; compare John
xiii. 2) ; but John only mentions (xiii. 27, 30) the
last irrevocable act, the execution of the treason.

LIFE OF JESUS. 205
Jesus may, from the beginning, have recognized in
him the tMef and traitor. (Johnvi. 64, xii. 6.) But it
is less likely that, in this case, he would have permit
ted him to remain among his confidential friends, and
have placed him in a situation the most dangerous to
his character, than that John should have interpreted
in this way an earlier expression of blame (John vi.
70, compare Matt. xvi. 23), in accordance with his
view of Jesus (John ii. 24), and in reply to some
misconstruction (compare Maft. xix. 28). All of
the Gospels contain a notice of the fact that Jesus,
at the farewell supper, indicated one of those present
as a traitor. (Matt. xvi. 21-25 ; Mark xiv. 18-21 ;
Luke xxii. 21-23 ; John xiii. 18, &c, 20-30.) The
accounts cannot be brought into exact uniformity as
to the mode of indication ; it is just as likely in
itself, that the second and third Gospels are correct,
as the fourth. The accounts of the death of Judas
may be reconciled, by the conjecture that Matthew
(xxvii. 3 - 10) relates the begmning, and Acts (i.
18-20) the end, of his mode of death ; but it would
be strange if two narrators shared between them so
exactly the same event, if the other half had been
known to each of them. The purchase of the Field of
Blood also seems differently conceived of by the two.
Therefore, it is probable that in those days, when the
Apostles wer.e occupied with far more important in
terests, only the fact of a violent death was known,
whilst no one thought of critically sifting the testi
mony concerning its manner. But this difference
in the tradition concerning the manner by no means
shows that the death itself is merely a Christian

206 LIFE OF JESUS.
myth, constructed out of various Old Testament in
cidents remote from each other. Nor is it probable
that a man, regarded with horror by a widely spread
community, should never have been heard of after
ward during his lifetime. That the motive of the
traitor was disappointed avarice, is hardly made evi
dent by John (xii. 7) . A trick to win money out of
the enemies of Jesus, while relying on his miraculous
power of protecting himself, would be too dangerous
an experiment. If Judas, already desponding or
despairing, wished to cast the whole matter upon
Providence to decide, or if, foreseeing the destruction
of Jesus, he wished only to save himself and his
small profits, the result would not have driven him
to despair. If he was a fiend, thinking only of
treachery from the first, Jesus could never have
chosen Mm as an Apostle. For mere avarice, the
gain seems too small when compared with the ad
vantages and hopes of his existing position. It is
true that the first Gospel doqs not increase the cer
tainty of the amount by the Old Testament attesta
tion (Matt, xxvii. 9) ; but since Jesus might have
been watched, and the place where he went at night
thus discovered, any large sum would scarcely have
been given. All historical intimations are harmon
ized by the conjecture that Judas was not an honest
man, but a merely worldly and energetic character
of a common order of intellect (compare John xii. 5,
Matt. xxvi. 48), — one, moreover, whom it was always
morally possible to rescue from evil, and to secure
for the service of the Mngdom of Heaven ; and that
his motive was to compel the Messiah, who seemed to

LIFE OF JESUS. 207
Mm hesitating, to make use of popular force in estab
lishing his kingdom. In vain warned (Matt. xxvi.
24), he perhaps mistook the words of Jesus, who,
despairing of changing him, sent him from the
circle of Ms friends, (John xiii. 27-30,) and sup
posed that Jesus acquiesced in his plans.

Sect. 106. — The Feast of Love.
John xiii. -xvii.; Matt. xxvi. 17-29; Mark xiv. 12-25;
Luke xxii. 7 - 38.
The appointing of tliis feast has a miraculous aspect
in Mark and Luke, for wMch there is neither any
occasion nor etMcal justification in the facts them
selves. The accounts of the Synoptics and of John
differ as widely as (according to the contents of the
last) a general tradition might have been expected
to differ from the recollections of an eyewitness.
The only obscurity arises from the very exact dis
tribution of the two symbolic actions between the
two sources. The wasMng of the feet, which can
only appear theatrical to our Occidental and modern
ways of thought (compare § 97) , not being adopted
among the ceremonies of the Church, might also
have been lost by the Church tradition. The place
where it belongs is given by Luke (chap. xx. 24-
27). The mere silence of Jolm in regard to a
usage spread through the whole Church, cannot pos
sibly be regarded as a denial of the fact, or as
ignorance concermng its origin. The demand of
exact precision in John's record of the speeches of

208 LIFE OF JESUS.
Jesus (Strauss and Baur), mistakes their nature,
which is that of a whole freely unfolded by the writ
er's mind out of recollections long treasured in his
heart. But the character of these discourses every
where corresponds to the feeling expressed in the
words of imtiation. If the account of the Synoptics
was merely a reflection of the Church ceremony, it
would be impossible to explain the universahty of
this custom at so early a time in connection with
Paul's belief (1 Cor. xi. 22-25), about which there
can be no doubt, that it was originally instituted by
Jesus. Moreover, in the first two Evangelists there
is nothing said of the feast being instituted as a me
morial; if there had been, it might have indicated
that the account originated in a gradually established
feast of commemoration. But the sacred meal of that
night, even if the Pauline account had been omitted
(1 Cor. ii. 24, Luke xxii. 19), would only obtain its
full significance if Jesus, either according to a pre
vious intention, or in the consciousness of the impor
tance of the moment, made it a memorial feast in
commemoration of his death, and a covenant festival.
In the symbols used on this occasion, he expressed the
blessedness conferred by his spiritual reception (as in
John iv. 14, vi. 32, &c), and the promise of continu
ing spiritually with his friends wherever they united
together in love ; as he expressed the same thing,
without a figure, in Matt, xviii. 20 ; xxviii. 20 ; John
xvi. 23. The doubt whether Jesus himself partook
of the bread and wine has arisen from later opinions.
By mstituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus showed Ms
faith that the association founded by himself would

UFE OF JESUS. 209
continue to exist, held together, indeed, by Ms very
death : an assurance which explains the divine cheerr
fulness pervading his discourses as narrated by John.
Whatever there is of elevation in piety, of pathos in
sorrow, and of pure affection in love, is united in this
conversation. Even when on the point of going out
of the room (John xiv. 31), Jesus turned to speak
again in words of infinite tenderness, deterred as
well by the terrors of the night of betrayal without,
as detained witMn by attachment to the circle of
those so dear. His prayer was giving an account of
Ms life before God ; undemably moulded in its form
by the imperfect recollection of the Apostle in regard
to what was said so long before. But in its essential
substance it is in full accordance with the feelings of
this hour, and with the consciousness of a life which
was to found a religion, and to take its place in
umversal history.

Sect. 107. — Soul-Struggle in Gethsemane, and Glory in
Death.
Matt. xxvi. 36 -46 ; Mark xiv. 32 -42 ; Luke xxii. 39-46;
John xviii. 1-12,20-32.
Jesus was deeply depressed in the garden of Geth
semane, a place which is on the side of the Mount of
Olives. This is not ascribed in the narrative to phys
ical weakness, nor to anxiety about any unknown
evil, nor related as if it were vicarious suffering, but
it refers to his own^approaching fate (compare Matt.
xx. 22 ; Luke xxii. 11). It is a trembling of the
18* 2J

210 LIFE OF JESUS.
sensitive nature before an approaching death of
martyrdom. It is also spiritual pain in view of the
mght which was to put an end to Ms career and his
hopes. In his prayer is a wish, and therefore also a
momentary hope, of deliverance ; not by means of
flight, but by the agency of God, who, satisfied with
this submission, might interfere to rescue his Messiah.
But the hope immediately vanished before his insight,
and the wish before his unconditional submission to
the Divine will. The repeated struggle in prayer,
related by Matthew and Luke, is certainly suitable to
such circumstances, even though the prayer as it
stands should be only a well-expressed summary of
its actual contents. The angels and the bloody
sweat recorded by Luke are figurative expressions
changed into a legend. But it is impossible to
ascribe to a legendary source the deep distress of
Jesus, since this does not correspond to the Church
view respecting him, and still less to the opinion that
he expected to rise again in three days. These sud
den alternations from sorrow to joy, and joy to sor
row, which undeniably belong to the last days of
Jesus, (Luke xii/ 49, &c, John xi. 35, xiii. 21,
compare Heb. v. *7,~) are not owing to his being mo
mentarily forsaken by God, nor to any sudden loss
of courage, (which are equally opposed to the Church
belief and to the human character of Jesus,) but
rather to the fuMess and depth of his human feel
ing, and Ms disappointment in regard to his aim.
No martyr was ever in his situation, and least of
all Socrates. Therefore a struggle of the natural
man, for the very reason that it could not change

LIFE OF JESUS. 211
Ms sentiments, might naturally affect his mood.
A different spirit breathes in the last discourses
recorded by John. But no one, who is still in the
flesh, has obtained such a perfect conquest over
himself as to prevent the possibility of new conflicts
arising in Ms soul. An event in which the same
frame of mind showed itself on its two sides is related
by John as occurring between the entrance into the
city and the departure from the Temple. (John xii.
20.) The wish of the Greeks to speak to Jesus
brought before his mind the universal recognition of
his character which was to come. But the path to
tMs recognition lay tlirough the grave. Therefore,
anguish seized him in view of the gloomy termina
tion which was at hand. But the free soul recovered
itself immediately, in the thought that this death was
a destmy freely chosen, (compare John x. 18,) and
lifted itself into a prayer that the Father might be
glorified in such a death, endured for the sake of
the kingdom of Heaven. A voice from heaven in
reply might be understood as a divine answer, so far
as we can depend N on the uncertain brevity of the
account. The impression it made on those around
is truthfully described as resembling the sound of
thunder. Some took it to be an answer from heaven,
and this was the view of Jesus himself; but, in the
confidence of a self-poised mind, he declared that he
himself needed no outward sign for his own satisfac
tion. The supposition that this event is a confused
account of what occurred at Gethsemane is contra
dicted by the difference in all the circumstances.
The assertion that it is a pure invention of the

212 LIFE OF JESUS.
Evangelist, in order to embrace in one anecdote
some genuine traditions which had come from John,
or that he composed it from gossiping rumors de
rived from the death-anguish at Gethsemane and
the Transfiguration on the Mount, supposes such
levity in the writer, and such an ignorance of the
actual events or the prevailing traditions about the
life of Jesus, that it is contradicted by the unques
tionable facts of the fourth Gospel. If the material
facts were borrowed from the story of Gethsemane
and the Transfiguration, in order by umting them
with the incident of the Greeks, as representatives of
believing heathemsm, to represent the glorification
of Christ through death (Strauss), then this idealiz
ing author has only injured Ms allegory, already suf
ficiently obscure, by his mention of thunder. John
has omitted the transaction after the supper, be
cause he never relates any event on its own account,
and because he had already given a full account of
the spirit manifested at that time. Possibly he pre
ferred to insert the earlier incident, because the
prayers of anguish at Gethsemane and on the cross,
if inserted after the prayer of farewell, would cer
tainly interfere a little with the literary unity of his
work.

LIFE OF JESUS. 21.3

Sect. 108.— The Arrest.
Matt. xxvi. 47 - 56 ; Mark xiv. 43 -50 ; Luke xxii. 47 - 54 ;
John xviii. 3-12.
It is more probable that John (xviii. 3, 12) gave a
Roman name to the Temple guard (Neander, Gfrorer ;
on the other hand, Theile, Liicke) than that the
high-priest, fearing a popular tumult, should have
strengthened his officers with a detachment of the
Roman cohort. If the legend has not heightened
the unnatural deed of Judas (compare John xviii.
5), then his kiss, described by the Synoptics, may
be harmonized with John's account of the meeting,
and of the question of Jesus, in the following way.
We may suppose that Judas preceded the troop, and
that Jesus, after his sorrowful reproof, went to meet
the soldiers, not in order to rescue his disciples, but
meeting an unavoidable danger with that manly
pride wMch appears in his whole demeanor. (Tho-
luck on John, Olshausen, Liicke, Neander.) Peter's
act of violence, and its reproof, are expressed most
distinctly in the fourth Gospel ; and the miraculous
lieahng narrated by Luke may be' believed, since it
appears suitable to the circumstances. The shrink
ing back and falling down of the officers were prob
ably regarded by John as miraculous, though in that
view aimless, and, in fact, not so related. Regarded
as instinctive reverence and awe before the great
prophet, it is not only most impressive, but tends to
soften beforehand the effect of the subsequent scene
of cruel scorn.

214 LIFE OF JESUS.

Sect. 109. — The Examination and Trial.
John xviii. 13, 19 -21 ; Matt. xxvi. 57, 59 - 66 ; Mark xiv.
53, 55 - 64 ; Luke xxii. 66-71.
According to John's account, Jesus was carried
first before Annas, who, having ceased to be high-
priest since the first year of Tiberius, still exercised
an influence through his son-in-law, Caiaphas. This
appears to have been merely a preliminary investiga
tion. Jesus only appealed to the publicity of his
whole life ; regarding any other defence as unworthy
in the presence of foes who had already pronounced
his doom. (Compare Luke xxii. 53.) According to
the Synoptics, who agree essentially together, (see
the differences in Strauss,) Jesus was brought be
fore the Sanhedrim, who were assembled together in
the palace of Caiaphas. The question regarded the
proper judicial form of a sentence. The charge of
offending against the national religion, or of im
piety, could not be directly proved for want of sat
isfactory evidence. Accordingly, the accusation was
based on an assumption of the Messiah's dignity.
And it was upon this charge, proved by the confes
sion of Jesus, who openly claimed the majesty of the
Messiah, that the sentence of death was pronounced,
as upon an indirect act of impiety. It is not remark
able that the Galilaean tradition should have omitted
the preliminary investigation before Annas, which did
not contribute to the development of the process.
But it is strange that John should have passed over
the decisive trial, whose historic position (xviii. 24,

LIFE OF JESUS. 215
28) he was well acquainted with ; and the substance
of whose proceedings (John xix. 7) he also knew.
Therefore, by the assumption that John xviii. 24 is
to be regarded, by means of an enallage temporum,
as a remark referring backward to what precedes,
the trial is made to be the same with the one before
Caiaphas, recorded by the Synoptics. (So Calvm,
Liicke, De Wette, Tholuck, etc.) In opposition to
this explanation is the difficulty of understanding
why, in this case, Annas should have been at all
mentioned ; but in favor of it is the fact that John
(xviii. 24, compare 18) makes the place of Peter's
demal the same. But even in tMs case, instead
of giving an account of the main transaction, John
has related only a supplementary and secondary one.
TMs would show that he had in his mind the fact
that the other Gospels contained what he omitted.
And perhaps he may have considered his own ac
count sufficiently complete, as the result of the
decision of the Council is contained in the delivery
of Jesus to Pilate, and the decision itself had been
previously related by him (§ 95) at the time when
it was really made. (Weisse.) Baur supposes a
desire to heighten the unbelief of the Jews by a
double priestly sentence pronounced against Jesus.
This is contradicted by the fact that it is not John's
custom to strengthen his case by repeating a second
time the incident which supports it, and he does not
in tMs instance relate even once the sentence of con
demnation pronounced by Annas.

216 LIFE OF JESUS.
Sect. 110. — The Denial of Peter.
John xiii. 33 - 38, xviii. 15 - 18, 25 - 27 ; Matt. xxvi. 31 -
35, 69-75; Mark xiv. 27-31,54, 66-72; Luke xxii.
31-34; 54-62.
Nothing but the prediction by Jesus of such a
weakness in the greatest of the Apostles explains
the motive which led all the Evangelists to record
it. Its occasion might be either the one given by
the first two Evangelists, or that recorded by the
fourth. Though the exact prediction would not be
unexampled, yet according to the intimation (Luke
xxii. 31) it is less to be regarded as a tragic fate
than as a moral warning. The common tradition of
three different denials takes a different form in each
of the Gospels, and these differences cannot be recon
ciled with each other. (See Paulus and Strauss.) In
favor of John's narrative, wMch places the scene of
the denial in the palace-court of Annas, it may be
said that Peter would have been less likely to enter
the palace of one whose servant he had just wounded.
(Schleiermacher.) The terror of Peter arose from
the fact of his recent act of violence, connected with
his wish to remain near to Jesus. It was easier not
to commit the error than not to repeat it ; but the
disgrace of the situation, and the contrast between
his action and his opinion, necessarily brought the
pain of self-contempt upon this noble soul.

LIFE OF JESUS. 217

Sect. 111. — The Messiah and the Heathen.
John xviii. 28 -xix. 23 ; Matt, xxvii. 2 - 26 ; Mark xv. 1 -
15 ; Luke xxiii. 1 -25.
The Sanhedrim, which had been deprived of the
power of inflicting capital punishment, carried him
whom they had condemned before the tribunal of the
Procurator. The character of the proceedings is the
same in all the Gospels. The accounts of any process,
however, not reported from attested records, but nar
rated by different persons, are very apt to differ from
each other. These differences appear, in part, as in
complete statements, which mutually complete each
other. Thus the question in John xviii. 33 is condi
tioned by the accusation in Luke xxiii. 2 ; and, again,
Luke xxiii. 4 needs the passage John xviii. 34-38 to
make it perfectly clear. The reluctance of Pilate is,
perhaps, more decidedly marked in the account of
John, but the Synoptics also narrate that he found
no fault in him, and Matthew says distinctly that the
Jewish people took the guilt upon themselves (Matt.
xxvii. 25). Baur's notion is therefore unfounded,
which considers the fourth Gospel unhistoric, and in
tended to excuse Pilate and throw all the blame upon
the Jews. That which was said in the Praetorium
might have been afterward reported to John in this
conversational, lapidary style, by some belonging to
the household of the Procurator ; for to invent it
would have required an extraordinary talent. The
accusation of usurping the office of Messiah must
have sounded to a Roman tribunal like a charge of
19

218 LIFE OF JESUS.
high treason (Luke xxiii. 2, John xix. 12, 19), and
the religious accusation could have been added only
from a zeal to accumulate and strengthen the proofs
of criminality (John xix. 7). Pontius Pilate — a
sceptic in regard to truth and justice, despising the
Sanhedrim, but fearing it from his consciousness of
his tyrannical and venal administration, unacquainted
with the Messianic hope of the Jews, yet scarcely
wholly unacquainted with the character' of Jesus —
regarded him as an innocent enthusiast pursued by
sectarian hatred. But, interested by the calm dig
nity of his defence, — and, according to Matthew
(xvii. 19), moved moreover by a dream of Ms wife, —
he made some imprudent and inconsistent attempts
to protect Mm against the accusation of the Sanhe
drim and the hatred of the people. Caught in his
own schemes, and possessing in himself no moral
courage or firmness of mind, he finally consented to
inflict the punishment of high treason, according to
the Roman custom in the provinces.
Sect. 112. — The Justice of the Sentence.
There can be no possible doubt that, according to
objective and eternal justice, a judicial murder was
here committed. The question in regard to the jus
tice of the procedure only relates to the subjective
conviction of the judges, according to the then tra
ditional judicial views, and according to the actual
laws. Therefore no odium should attach to the de
cision of the question, though it were that the judg
ment was legally correct. For many benefactors of

LIFE OF JESUS. 219
mankind have been put to death with strict legality,
and in accordance with established forms. Positive
law, adapted to the usual course of things, can oft 311
reward only with the prison and scaffold actions
demanded by extraordinary times and dared by ex-
traordin - y characters. The witnesses who testified
before the council, judging by what we are told of
their statements and the result (Matt. xxvi. 59 - 61,
Mark xiv. 55-59, compare John ii. 19), were not
false witnesses, but only hostile witnesses. The sen
tence against Jesus by the Sanhedrim was on the
charge of his calling himself the Messiah. In a theo
cratic state, a false pretence to a divine mission must
be regarded as the highest crime ; for it contains the
assumption of superiority to the whole existing power
of the nation. The power of deciding whether a
prophet was true or false belonged originally to every
individual, and to the whole people of God (Deut.
xiii. 1-11) ; but, in the development of an official
system, it afterward fell into the hands of the San
hedrim as the highest national organ. (John i. 19,
&c.) With respect to the Messiah, there could not
exist any established rule of inquiry ; for it would be
supposed that the splendor of Ms coming would leave
no room for doubt. If such a doubt should exist, it
would indeed be owing to the position taken by him
who, knowing himself to be the Messiah, might feel
himself raised above all jurisdiction by his divine
mission. But the Sanhedrim must consider them
selves justified, according to the analogy of their
laws, in pronouncing sentence on a false Messiah.
Since Jesus did not intend to be a Messiah according

220 LIFE OF JESUS.
to the popular expectation, but meant rather to over
throw the religion of the state, every zealous Jew,
who was only a Jew, must regard him as a false
Messiah. Yet the very thing which made him so,
that is, his renunciation of the political theocracy,
withdrew Mm from the rigor of theocratic procedure.
Hence there might arise such a view in the council
as took form afterwards (Acts v. 34, &c), that the
decision of this matter must be left to God and to
time. But at that period, this purely spiritual view
of the enterprise of Jesus was as foreign to the major
ity of the Sanhedrim as it was to the Apostles them
selves. It therefore only remained for them to de
cide whether they would submit to him who claimed
to be the Messiah, or destroy him. They decided
to destroy him ; blinding themselves, indeed, to the
moral greatness and marvellous glory of Jesus, and
openly confessing that they yielded to a political
necessity, and without strict attention to legal formal
ities ; but still in accordance with the traditional
notions of justice which belonged to their time.
Pilate unquestionably believed the accused to be in
nocent ; and merely wanted moral energy to rescue
him. But if acquainted with the Jewish Messianic
hope, he would, according to Roman law, and in the
interest of his government, have considered the charge
one of treason. Even without this knowledge, he did
not pass beyond the limits of his official authority.
It is true that the execution of all capital sentences
was notoriously given to the Procurator, that he
might protect from the vengeance of the Jews those
who sold themselves to the Romans. But according

LIFE OF JESUS. 221
to Roman policy, no governor was bound to rescue
from the religious fanaticism of a conquered nation a
victim whose fate was indifferent to them in other
respects. Therefore Pilate did not undertake to pro
nounce a sentence according to Roman law, but set
aside all Roman judicial forms, and turned himself to
the assembled multitude, in order to find in their
sympathy a point of support against the religious
persecution of the Sanhedrim. But failing of any
response here, he publicly declared that he had pro
nounced no judgment, but merely, according to the
principles of Roman tolerance, had allowed the fa
naticism of a superstitious people to run its course.
Sect. 113. — III- Treatment.
'The abuse inflicted on Jesus (of which there may
have been as many repetitions as there are said to be
in the Gospels) was practised and allowed by the
Jewish authorities, no less from hatred, than by such
disgrace to bring the cause of the Messiah into con
tempt with the people. (Matt. xxvi. 67 ; Mark xiv.
65 ; Luke xxii. 63-65.) It was encouraged by the
courtiers of Herod in mockery, to defend their own
shadowy king from inward annihilation, by the out
ward annihilation of the King of Truth. (Luke
xxiii. 8-11.) It was allowed by Pilate partly from
the unwise purpose to move the people to sympathy,
(a plan to be explained only by his ignorance of the
Messianic idea,) and partly in accordance with the
procedure in Roman criminal trials, which often per
mitted the soldier's jests and mimicry. (John xix.
19*

222 LIFE OF JESUS.
1 - 5 ; Matt, xxvii. 26 - 30 ; Mark xv. 15 - 19.) Only
once did Jesus complain of the unreasonableness of
these cruelties (John xviii. 23) ; afterward he bore
them silently. Sect. 114. — The Hours of Suffering.
According to Matthew (xxvi. 57), the council
seems to have been assembled at the house of Caia
phas before Jesus arrived ; while, according to Luke
(xxii. 52), the members of the council were present
at the arrest. Three Gospels speak of the judg
ment as taking place in the night-time ; according
to Luke (xxii. 66), the council assembled at day
break. But Matthew (xxvii. 1) and Mark (xv. 1)
also intimate that it was not till morning that the
decisive conclusion was reached, and that immedi
ately after this Jesus was led away to Pilate (com
pare John xviii. 28). According to John (xix. 14),
the hour in which Pilate pronounced his sentence
was about the sixth hour, <i? Icti? (12 o'clock) ; ac
cording to Mark (xv. 25), the beginning of the cru
cifixion was the third hour, rpirrj (9 o'clock). A
reading adopted by Nonnus, and otherwise supported
rather by curious than by important authorities,
makes this verse of John read third, rpiTtj, instead of
sixth. It is certainly possible that the Greek nu
meral signs rJ and $' (gamma and stigma) may have
been exchanged by the transcriber ; but it seems
more likely that this change should have been de
signedly made to restore the harmony, than acciden
tally to occasion the contradiction. It was a Jewish

LIFE OF JESUS, 223
custom to divide the day into quarters, and the same
quarter would be called the third hour from its be
ginning, or the sixth from its end. But this expla
nation will not here apply, since both Evangelists
show, by their statement of the hour, that they are
counting by hours, and not by quarters of the day.
The supposition that Jolm makes use of the old Ro
man reckoning, from midnight to midnight, would
give us the sixth hour in the mornmg ; which makes
a pretty good harmony with Mark. But if the pro
ceedings before Pilate began in the morning, and the
episode with Herod is to come in (Luke xxiii. 7, &c),
the judgment could not have been pronounced as
early as six o'clock in the morning, though scarcely
as late as noon. According to another statement of
the Synoptics (Matt, xxvii. 45, and parallels), the
Master was already hanging from the cross at twelve
o'clock. This gives no new weight to Mark's ac
count, for the three Synoptics, in their relation to
John, are but as a single witness ; but it dimin
ishes also the necessary amount of difference. This
contradiction is, at all events, an accidental one, and
can only be explained by the personal situation of
each writer in relation to the facts. The time of the
death, according to Matthew (xxvii. 46), was about
the ninth hour, -n-epl ttjv evvaTr/v mpav (three o'clock ;
compare Mark xv. 34 ; Luke xxiii. 44) . The time
of burial was before sundown. (John xix. 42 ; Luke
xxiii. 54.)

224 LIFE OF JESUS.

Sect. 115. — The Crucifixion.
Matt, xxvii. 32-56; Mark xv. 20-41; Luke xxiii. 26-
49; John xix. 16-30.
John (xix. 17) says that Jesus bore the cross him
self; but according to Mark (xv. 21, and parallel
passages), it is said to have been carried by one
whom they met. Yet the Synoptics also imply that
at first it was carried by Jesus himself. The place of
execution — thence called the Place of a Skull —
was situated, according to the Jewish custom, (com
pare Matt, xxvii. 33, John xix. 17, Heb. xiii. 12,)
outside the walls of the city, as it then existed. The
Roman customs are to be supposed ; — the cross little
above the height of a man ; the naked body sup
ported between the limbs upon a peg which came out
of the middle of the shaft ; the hands tied and nailed
to the cross-beams. According to John (xx. 20, 25,
27) it would seem that the feet were not nailed,
especially as the Evangelical history does not allude
to a prediction lying so close at hand (Psalm xxii.
16). On the other hand, Luke (xxiv. 39) favors .
the other view ; and the Church Fathers assume the
existence of this custom at the time when crucifixion
was still in use, with strong allusion to Psalm xxii.
16. Over the head was the tablet indicating the
crime ; in which the Procurator, in irony, and in
lapidary style, gave the first public recogmtion of
Jesus as Messiah in the three principal languages of
the world. The division of the clothes (Matt, xxvii.
35, and parallels) in the particular way related by

LIFE OF JESUS. 225
John (xix. 23, &c.) is indeed connected with a
prophecy, but is probable also in itself. According
to the manner of life of Jesus, according to the way
in which he looked at death, and the deep impression
left behind on his contemporaries, it is not to be ex
pected but that he should have expressed himself in
his own great manner during the slow agony of this
death, though some of his last expressions are related
by one Evangelist without the knowledge of the rest.
It is told by Luke (xxiii. 27-32, 34) in the style of
his time, but wholly in the spirit of Jesus, that upon
the road to death he thought more of the rum of
those who were weeping around him than of his own ;
and that he fulfilled his own difficult command (Matt.
v. 44) in the midst of the mockery of his enemies,
who quoted agamst Mm a passage perverted from the
Psalms. (Matt, xxvii. 43 ; Psahn xxii. 9.) The
'accounts of the drink vary, and are also perplexed
by their allusions to prophecy (especially Matt, xxvii.
34, . compare Psalm lxix. 21) ; but refer to a custom
Mstorically authenticated, and contain what is suitable
in itself. It is probable that Jesus first refused the
intoxicating drink, and only relieved his thirst when
about to die. (Mark xv. 23 ; John xix. 28, <fec.)
John speaks of those crucified with Jesus, but does
not mention that they spoke. Matthew and Mark
(Matt, xxvii. 44, Mark xv. 32) tell of their derid
ing Mm; while Luke (xxiii. 39-43) relates _ that
one in spirit took hold of the fettered and mangled
hand of Jesus, to be led by it into a higher life.
TMs may easily be regarded as a legend, but can by
no means be proved such, since there was so little.

226 LIFE OF JESUS.
occasion for it in the circumstances, and since the
fact itself is at once so tmexpected and yet so psy
chologically deep, true, and great. There was no
reason why any other Evangelist than John should
mention the bequest of Jesus. (John xix. 25-27.)
Since the mother of Jesus was not supposed to be
childless, there is no reason for supposing a mythical
origin of the story ; and according to Luke (Acts
i. 14), Mary was at that time in Jerusalem. But the
Synoptics seem to have been ignorant of this painful
scene. (Compare Matt, xxvii. 55, &c, and paral
lels.) Using the first words of the twenty-second
Psalm, Jesus expressed the feeling of this moment.
(Matt, xxvii. 4, 6 ; Mark xv. 34.) A legend would
never have placed in the mouth of Jesus an expres
sion which has occasioned so much difficulty. That
which Luke (xxiii. 46) regards as his last words,
may have been a formula for the dying, partly mod
elled on Psalm xxxi. 6. According to John (xix.
30), the last words were an expression of triumph.
Sect. 116.— The Death.
Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Mark xv. 37 ; Luke xxiii. 46 ; John xix. 30.
After a small loss of blood, which soon ceased
by inflammation and swelling, crucifixion produced
death only through spasms, exhaustion, or hunger.
It began with rigidity in the extremities, and was
sometimes several days in coming. The death of
Jesus after a few hours was indeed so unusually
sudden (Mark xv. 44), that it was regarded often
in the Church as his own free and divine act ; but

LIFE OF JESUS. 227
might not improbably have been caused by his bod
ily and spiritual sufferings during this day. Since,
however, a crucifixion of some hours did not neces
sarily produce death ; but, on the contrary, a fact is
reported from that very time and region, of a man
taken from the cross and cured by the physicians
(Life of Josephus, Chap. LXXV.) ; experienced per
sons have regarded the proof of his death as rest
ing on the wound in the side. (John xix. 31 - 37.)
There is no historical confirmation elsewhere of any
custom of breaking the legs as a regular part of cru
cifixion. But since, according to the Jewish laws, the
crucified must be taken down before sunset (Deut.
xxi. 22), which necessity was made more urgent by
the sanctity of the approaching festival (John xix.
31), it was necessary, in some way, to hasten the
death. And according to the Roman legal analogy,
the . " Crurifragium " was naturally chosen. The
object of piercing with the spear was not to produce
death, but to see how much life remained. The
flowing of blood and water has occasioned various
explanations, on account of the indefiniteness of the
expression. If the water came from the pericardium,
it would be already mixed with blood, supposing the
position of the body to allow it to run out ; at all
events, a wound in the pericardium is not necessarily
fatal. Since only in extremely rare cases does the
blood run from deep wounds in a corpse after it has
undergone the change into cruor and serum, this
could not have been a familiar sign of death. There
fore John perhaps only meant the running out of
lymph, with wMch the bleeding of a wound in the

228 LIFE OF JESUS.
open air usually ends. Yet a difficulty remains on
account of the two fluids being mentioned separately,
to which a mystic interest might belong, if more
stress be laid on it than the nature of the case de
mands (compare 1 John v. 6). But thus a tasteless
hendiadys would stand here, instead of the natural
expression of fluid blood. Yet we may also suppose
that the water, which might have issued to a remark
able degree from the vessels of the pleura, which
are principally lymphatic, was not already mixed
with the blood. The statement of John on this
point was hardly intended to furnish a proof of the
certainty of the death of Jesus, which no scepticism
at that time called for. It was rather meant as a
token of his presence as an eyewitness, and as a ful
filment of the prophecies referred to. (Ex. xii. 46 ;
Zach. xii. 10.) Yet in these prophecies there is not
enough, either of Messianic necessity, or of allusion
to blood and water, to authorize the conjecture that
the story could have originated in them.* It is im
possible to demonstrate absolutely the death of Jesus,
since there is no certain criterion of death in any
case except the commencement of decay, or the de
struction of an organ essential to life. But there was
no human power or contrivance which could have
prevented death ; and we have the assurance of all,
* Two other opinions, one that the death was occasioned by dropsy
(Schmidtmann, Philosophical and Medical Proof of the Death of Jesus,
Osnaburgh, 1830), and another, that he died literally of a broken heart
(William Stroudt, M. D., Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death
of Christ, London, 1847, reprinted in Littell's Livmg Age, Boston), are
destitute of any historic basis, especially when applie'd to one who was
the source of life and healing to such multitudes.

LIFE OF JESUS. 229
both friends and enemies, that death had actually
taken place. Therefore, the fact that the death of
Jesus was universally preached and everywhere be
lieved is a perfectly satisfactory proof of its reality.
On the other hand, the assertion of naturalism that
Ms death was only apparent, is derived wholly from
objections to the subsequent resurrection ; for it
(considering the mystery of all death) we can only
say, according to a universally recognized truth (Acts
ii. 31, xiii. 35, &c), that the organic principle of the
body is not released till the lower powers of decay
commence their work. In the case of Jesus this de
cay of the body had not begun.
Sect. 117. — The Grave and the Watch.
Matt, xxvii. 57-66, xxviii. 2-4, 11-15; Mark xv. 42 - 47 ;
Luke xxiii. 50 - 56 ; John xix. 38 — 42.
According to Matthew (xxvii. 60), the tomb in the
rock belonged to Josephus ; and according to John
(xix. 42), the body of the Lord was placed in a
grave close by, on account of the nearness of the
Sabbath. The last fact may have been the occasion
of the belief of the other ; but John relates that Jo
sephus and Nicodemus immediately embalmed the
corpse in the most costly way, according to the Jew
ish custom. If, therefore, the women only came on
Sunday morning to complete the embalming, whilst,
according to all the Synoptics, they had been present
when the body was laid in the grave, we may con
jecture that their motive was, after the manner of
20

230 LIFE OF JESUS.
women, to add another, though superfluous, proof of
their love. The fact recorded by John is ignored by
the Synoptic narrative. In opposition to the conjec
ture that this is a legend which gradually grew up,
originating in the facts of Matthew and ending in
the story told in the fourth Gospel, we may say that,
if rich friends of Jesus, in high positions, could now,
after his death, express themselves boldly, which ac
cords with human nature, it is likely that they would
also have paid to his remains the last honors which
Jewish customs required of persons in a good situa
tion. (Compare Mark xiv. 8, and parallel passages.)
The story of guarding the grave, which is only told
in the first Gospel, is so improbable«as to the reason
given, and as to the behavior of all those implicated,
that it must be considered a legend, the motive for
which Matthew himself has given (xxviii. 15) in the
Jewish rumor of the body being stolen. If, in order
to avoid the chief difficulty (Acts v. 34, &c), it is
supposed that this matter was arranged only by Caia
phas, this is almost an admission of the historic un
certainty of the story.
Sect. 118. — The Resurrection.
Matt, xxviii. ; Mark xvi. ; Luke xxiv. ; John xx.
The Gospels are only unanimous in this : that on
the morning after the Sabbath the women found the
grave empty, and went and told the Apostles of the
resurrection. All the Gospels relate that Jesus
showed himself immediately in various ways ; and

LIFE OF JESUS. 231
these appearances are in part the same. (Luke xxiv.
13 - 35 ; compare Mark xvi. 12 ; John xx. 1 - 10 ;
compare Luke xxiv. 12, 34 ; John xx. 19-23 ; com
pare Luke xxiv. 36, &c.) But these accounts differ
materially, and sometimes so much as not to refer to
the same thing. Of the appearances mentioned by
Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5, &c), that to James is only men
tioned beside with mythic additions in an uncanon-
ical Gospel ; that to the five hundred has dropped
out of the Gospels altogether. In trying to har-
momze these accounts, we meet the difficulty that,
according to Matthew and Mark (Matt. xxvi. 32,
xxviii. 7, 10, Mark xiv. 28, xvi. 7), the Apostles
were directed to go to Galilee, there to meet their
risen -Master ; and Matthew relates only this one
meeting. But, on the contrary, according to Luke
(xxiv. 36, &c.) and John (xx. 19, &c), Jesus
comes to the Apostles in Jerusalem, on the very
day of the resurrection, and according to John (xx.
26, &c.) was seen again seven days after. A com
mand in Luke (xxiv. 49), not to leave Jerusalem,
nevertheless leaves room for a temporary abode in
Galilee, according to a subsequent explanation of the
same writer (Acts i. 3, 4). The three appearances
of Jesus contained in Mark must be located in the
territory of Jerusalem ; but Mark xvi. 9, &c. has so
little connection with what precedes, that it seems
like a conclusion by a foreign hand. The only other
meeting in Galilee is related in John (xxi.) ; but this
additional chapter of John enumerates, in the 14th
verse, the times Jesus had showed himself to his dis
ciples in a way wMch, if it be considered authentic,

232 LIFE OF JESUS.
excludes the possibility of reconciling the different
accounts. The particulars, therefore, of these meet
ings remain as fluctuating traditions ; as might be ex
pected from the strangeness of the facts, and from
the inartificial character of the history. For, with
out a regular transition, the narrative passes at once
from the last story in the Gospel of Luke, to the first
story in the Book of Acts. But it is proved beyond
all question by the Apostolic letters, and especially
by 1 Corinthians (xv. 5, &c), that the Apostles and
many other disciples were convinced that they had
repeatedly enjoyed the sight of the risen Christ.
This excludes all possibility of a pure myth. That
the Apostles should themselves have been deceived
is impossible, from their cause, their character, and
their fate. The very thing on which every rejection
of the resurrection as an historic fact must be sup
ported, that is, the contradictions or want of accu
racy in the Evangelical narratives, is precisely no sup
port at all to this hypothesis. If Jesus had appeared
openly in public, it might have had some important
results, nor would it necessarily have forced any to
believe to the detriment of moral freedom and respon
sibility. But it would have produced a violent con
flict between the people and the authorities, or else
very unsatisfactory investigations concerning Ms iden
tity. One view is, that the Apostles became gradu
ally reconciled to the death of their Master, and
accepted him according to the Scriptures, and so, as
he took his place in their belief as the Messiah, each
of them imagined that he saw him also visibly pres
ent in visions. (Strauss; also Thomas Woolston,

LIFE OF JESUS. 233
London, 1729.) But in order to give probability to
this view we must assume the strangest misunder
standings, and suppose visions to be poetized into
proofs of material existence at Jerusalem. This
would be more like falsehoods than like myths. But
we must in such a case, moreover, suppose a power
of faith of a nature hitherto unknown to be pro
duced out of utter despair. An immeasurable effect
is thus ascribed to the most insignificant cause, and
a revolution in the history of the world is supposed
to have come from an accidental self-deception.
Therefore, those who adopt this view are more
over obliged to suppose that Jesus, after his death,
had, by means of some magical and miraculous
power, assured those who believed in him of his
actual existence, and in this way produced these
strong convictions. (Weisse.) The historical basis
for such a view consists in the fact that Paul places
Ms own inward experiences with the risen Jesus on
the same plane as the outward manifestations made
to the other disciples. Paul was inclined to this way
of looking at the subject by his pergonal wishes. He
was also justified in doing it, since the catastrophe of
his own life was the personal, but inward, appearance
to him of Jesus Christ. Yet his faith in the resur
rection of Jesus was not derived from these experi
ences of Ms own ; for the disciple of Gamaliel could
not have considered the ascent of a soul out of Hades
to be equivalent to a resurrection. Any merely spir
itual appearances, necessarily a matter of purely sub
jective perception, must immediately sink to the rank
of mental visions. These would leave only an uncer-
20*

234 LIFE OF JESUS.
tain and uneasy impression, and never create such a
great moral enthusiasm Whatever may be said of
the historic contents of the first chapter of Acts, it
cannot be denied that the early establishment of the
church at Jerusalem was based on faith in the risen
Master, who, unless he arose from the dead, would
be nothing but a disgraced corpse. Hence the truth
of the Resurrection stands immovably based upon
the testimony, and we may even say upon the very
existence, of the Apostolic Church itself.
Sect. 119. — The Life of the Risen One.
After this, the Gospels no longer give a connected
account of the life of Jesus, but only describe his
separate appearances, by which the history is not
developed further, and which, apart from the closing
chapter of the fourth Gospel, have very little which
is peculiar in their contents. In these accounts of
the risen Master a twofold tendency appears. First,
to represent him as manifesting himself in a strange
and ghost-like way. (Matt, xxvhi. 17 ; Mark xvi. 12 ;
Luke xxiv. 31 ; John xx. 19, 26.) The other, to
consider him as possessing his former human body.
(Matt, xxviii. 9; Luke xxiv. 39-43; John xx. 20,
27, xxi. 5.) To reconcile these views, some have sup
posed that it was a glorified body, and not the same
earthly one. If anything distinct is intended by this,
the process of decay must have been changed into a
sudden obliteration of the earthly element. But in
this case, it would be a mere illusion that Jesus ate
food and was actually touched. The Resurrection

LIFE OF JESUS. 235
and Ascension are not the same event, either in the
view of the Fourth Evangelist (Baur ; see John xx.
17 and 22), or as a matter of fact. For in that case
the appearance of Jesus after the Resurrection would
be that of a ghost (Weisse), or we must else accept a
series of ascensions (Kinkel). The view of Rothe
(Theolog. Ethik.), that " death, resurrection, and
ascension fall in the same moment, as the excarnation
of the indwelling God," involves a repeated resump
tion of the body for the purpose of showing himself
to his disciples. Something magical appears in tMs
manifestation of a dead and decaying body us one
alive with the marks of its wounds. This view is
also opposed to Luke xxiv. 39, and is borrowed from
Gnosticism. Yet it is not likely that these proofs, of
the reality of his body should have been invented by
the legends, smce there was very early a tendency to
believe that the risen body was a glorified body, and
the same as that which ascended to heaven. And
the ghost-like element in these appearances, (which,
however, according to the Evangelists, do not exceed
the limits of earthly phenomena,) so far as it has not
subsequently crept in, or belongs to the style of nar
ration, may have come from the feeling of strange
ness with which everything belonging to the dead is
beheld by the living, and from the sense of majesty
inspired by this earthly immortality. (Compare
Matt, xxviii. 10 ; Mark xvi. 8 ; Luke xxiv. 37, &c. ;
John xxi. 12.) But we find no solution of the mys
tery of his place of residence, (which the disciples
do not seem even to have asked after,) or of his man
ner of coming and going. The Divine plan of the

236 LIFE OF JESUS.
world, which he had believed in during the darkest
hours, was now clearly spread out before him as the
fulfilment of all prophecies. He sent out the Apos
tles in order to collect humanity into a spiritual king
dom of divine and human love, which should be
independent of all the relations of state, and of all
the divisions of races and nations.

Sect. 120. — Reason and Result of the Resurrection.
Some (Gfrorer) have conjectured that the friends
of Jesus prevented his limbs from being broken, and
managed to control Ms burial, in the hope of render
ing him some sort of aid. This can neither be his
torically proved, nor historically disproved. Unques
tionably, one who had been crucified was not brought
to life again on the third day by merely medical
assistance ; and a weak convalescent (Paulus ; in
opposition to him, Strauss), moving about here and
there, would never have appeared to the Apostles as
the conqueror of death and the grave. We might
expect beforehand that the wonderful power of heal
ing which was' at the command of Jesus would have
certainly powerfully manifested itself in his own per
son. We can scarcely venture to give an account
of the first revival of his consciousness. Yet the
thought immediately occurs that death, as violent
dissolution of the body, could not originally belong
to the nature of an immortal being, but first arose
through sin ; and therefore that He who was un
touched by sin could not have been subject to this
element not natural to death. At all events, it is

LIFE OF JESUS. 237
historically certain that Jesus himself did not, by any
combinations, produce a merely apparent death, but
seriously expected to die. And therefore his res
urrection, in whatever way it occurred, is a manifest
work of Providence. Christianity in its essence —
that is, as a perfect religion, essentially true — 'does
not depend on the resurrection. But Christianity in
its existence does ; for it was victoriously established,
and the Church actually founded upon the grave of
the risen Master.

Sect. 121. — The Earthquake, risen Saints, and Angels.
That during the crucifixion the sun was veiled
in vapors (Matt, xxvii. 45, Mark xv. 33, Luke xxiii.
44, 45), and that the earth shook (Matt, xxvii. 52),
as though it sympathized with the sorrows of her
greatest son, is indeed made suspicious on account
of the prophecy (Amos viii. 9), which, neverthe
less, was first noticed by the fathers of the Church.
Doubt is also thrown upon these events by the silence
of John, who, however, might very easily have omit
ted such facts as these. Nor is there any satisfactory
confirmation of them from other quarters. Yet the
publicity belonging to such facts, which are in them
selves not improbable, prevents their being regarded
as wholly legendary. That the curtain of the Holy
of Holies was rent (Matt, xxvii. 51, Mark xv. 38,
Luke xxiii. 45), is wholly in the symbolical style of
the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi. 19, x. 19, 20, and
other places) , and is not used in this epistle as a mat
ter of fact. The resurrection of the saints, only men
tioned by Matthew (xxvii. 52), — beginning in a

238 LIFE OF JESUS.
bodily way, but vanishing afterwards in a spectral ob
scurity, — is opposed to another opinion of the first
Christians. (Col. i. 18 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20.) As a mat
ter of fact, it seems incapable of a natural explana
tion ; and its historical basis vanishes as soon as we
try to conceive of it intelligibly. (Steudel.) Whether
open graves or Messianic expectations lie at its foun
dation, the story is apocryphal (compare " Gospel of
Nicodemus "), though every attempt has failed to
remove it from the Gospel of Matthew as spurious.
The angels at the grave (Matt, xxviii. 2, 3, 5, 6,
John xx. 12, 13) might, indeed, if not explained as
natural appearances, or visions, yet according to
Mark (xvi. 5) and Luke (xxiv. 4) be regarded as
men. But the stories concerning them are contra
dictory, and they come without any motive being
assigned, except in Matthew (xxviii. 2), and in a
fragment of Mark (xvi. 6, 7), which, compared with
the other Gospels, has not the appearance of entire
originality. Hence, judging them like other angelic
manifestations, they seem to belong to early legend
ary additions to the Gospels. (See account of these
events in Furness's " Four Gospels " and " Jesus
and his Biographers." — Transl.)
Sect. 122. — The Departure from the Earth.
Matt, xxviii. 16-20; Mark xvi. 19, 20 ; Luke xxix. 50-
52; Acts i. 2-11.
The epilogue by Mark indicates, and Luke nar
rates, that the Master was taken into heaven before
the eyes of his Apostles. The relation of the Gospel

LIFE OF JESUS. 239
to the Book of Acts shows that Luke, after writing
Ms Gospel, (with which the Epistle of Barnabas
agrees,*) obtained a full and precise account of an
ascension from the Mount of Olives, forty days after
the resurrection. The other accounts concerning the
last days of Jesus point toward Galilee. Matthew
describes Ms Master as there taking leave of his dis
ciples in words which intimate neither that he as
cended into heaven, nor that they met again on
earth Any one who had been an eyewitness of this
distinct and splendid close of the Messianic life of
Jesus could hardly have omitted speaking of it ; but
John preferred to end his Gospel without any such
distinct closing incident. The same silence prevails
in the other apostolic writings. They take for granted
that Jesus is in heaven, but a bodily ascension does
not belong to the" contents of the first Christian creed.
(John vi. 62 Perhaps there is a trace of the ascen
sion in 1 Tim. iii. 16.) It is opposed to history, and
a dangerous opinion, to declare that the resurrection
has no meaning except conjoined with the ascension.
(Krabbe.) It was the faith of the Apostolic Church
(Rom. vi. 9) that Jesus did not pass into a higher
existence through a second death, and it is prob
able in itself that Jesus did not leave this world in
the usual manner. But we need not infer from this
the necessity of a visible ascension.f The natural
* Barnabas, Ep. c. 15 : " For which cause we observe the eighth day
with gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead, and, having manifested
himself to his disciples, ascended into heaven."
t Some who defend the ascension do not intend by it a visible one,
which they feel to be opposed to any correct view of the spiritual world,
which is not to be located above us in the sky. So Neander (Life of

240 LIFE OF JESUS.
explanation (Paulus) first accepts uncertain author
ities as historical, and afterwards forces them to its
purpose. It is neither conceivable from the character
of Jesus, nor can it be shown from a single trace in
history, that he lived concealed upon the earth. for a
number of years. (Brenneke, " Biblical Proof that
Jesus remained on Earth Twenty-seven Years after
his Resurrection, and labored for the Good of Man
kind in Silence." See Gfrorer, &c.) To regard the
ascension as a vision is only to express one's despair
of giving any historical account of it. There is no
proof of any influence derived from legends ; though
similar thoughts may be shown in some of them.
(Gen. v. 24 ; 2 Kings ii. 11, 12, 16.) The ascension
of Jesus is to be regarded as a mythical expression of
his return to his Father, — not in the strictest sense
apostolic, — occasioned by the need of having a dis
tinct conclusion to the mysterious close of the life of
Jesus ; also occasioned by the hope of his return in
the clouds of heaven, a view based upon popular con
ceptions in ancient times. For his departure was not
the sad departure of a mortal, but the blessing of a
glorified being, who, being one with the Godhead
through his love, promised also to remain an undy
ing presence with Ms friends. And he has thus
remained with us.

Jesus, § 306): " The essential feature is, that Christ did not pass from his
earthly existence to a higher through natural death, but in a supernatural
way." Lange says: " Any last appearance of Jesus on earth would have
been his ascension." But we need not deny the historic ascension when
we receive the ideal and universal view of it. The critic may remember
that the ascent of an earthly body into the air is not an incredible event,
so long as there are such creatures as birds in existence.

LIST OF BOOKS
REFEREED TO BY HASE IN THIS "WORK.

[Fok the reason given in the Preface, the translator has omitted many
of the references, where the books referred to are such as can hardly be
obtained even in Europe, and are of little importance for the investigation
of the subject. The more important works are indicated by Hase by a
star, and these are retained. A few of the most valuable works in Eng
lish are added in a list at the end.]

Sect. 3. — The Four Evangelists.
Clausse (Latin), " Dissertation on the Reasons why more con
cerning the Life of Jesus was not written by the Evangelists."
Frankfort, 1766. A. H. Niemei/er (Latin), "Conjectures, &c,
on the Silence of the New Testament "Writers." Halle, 1790.
F. A. Krummacher (German), " On the Spirit and Form of the
Evangelical History," &c. Leipsic, 1805. Kuchler (Latin),
" Simplicity of the Sacred "Writers," &c. Leipsic, 1821. San
der (German), " On the Plan of the Four Gospels." 1827.
Lachmann (Latin), " Order of Narration in the Synoptics "
(Studien u. Krit., 1835). Kulin (German), " On the Literary
Character of the Evangelists " (Jahrbuch d. Theol., 1836).
Sect. 4. — The Synoptic Gospels.
Eusebius (Greek), " Ecclesiastical History," HI. 39. ScUeier-
macher (German), " On the Testimony of Papias concerning the
first two Gospels" (Studien u. Krit., 1832). Sieffert (German),
" On the Origin of the First Canonical Gospel." Konigsb., 1832.
Klenert (Latin), " Authorship of Matthew." Gotting., 1832.
21 p

242 LIST OF BOOKS EEFERRED TO
Schneckenburger (German), " Origin of Matthew's Gospel." 1834.
Scholt (German), "Authenticity of Matthew." Leipsic, 1837.
Iiem (German), " Origin of Gospel of Matthew." Tubingen
Quarterly, 1834. Olshausen (Latin), " Defence of the Apostolic
Origin of Matthew." Erlangen, 1835. Fritzsche (Latin), " Gos
pel of Matthew." Leipsic, 1826. Gfrorer (German), " History
of Original Christianity." Hosier (German), " Composition of the
Gospel of Matthew" (Theol. Mitarbeiten, 1838). Van Willes
(Latin), " Gospel of Mark." 1811. J. D. Schulze (German),
" Gospel of Mark." Saunier (German), " Sources of Gospel of
Mark." Berlin, 1825. De Welte (German), " Gospel of Mark"
(Studien u. Krit., 1828). Knoble (Latin), " Gospel of Mark;"
1831. Schleiermacher (German), " On the Gospel of Luke." Ber
lin, 1817. H. Planck (Latin), " Remarks on Schleiermacher," &c.
Gbtting., 1819. Theile (German), " Relation of the Synoptics"
(Winer's Critical Journal). De Welte (German), " Introduc
tion to the New Testament." Berlin, 1834. Credner (German),
" Introduction to the New Testament." Halle, 1836. Wilke
(German), " The Original Gospel, or Mark," &c. Dresden, 1838.
Sect. 5. — Gospel of John.
Storr (German) , " Purpose of the Gospel of John." Tubing.,
1786. Schulze (German), " Literary Character of John." Leips.,
1803. Russwurm (German), "John the Son of Thunder." 1806.
Wegsheider (German), "Introduction to John." 1806. Other
writings upon John's Gospel by Borger (Latin), 1816 ; Seyffarth
(German), 1823 ; Rettberg (Latin), 1826 ; Reinecke (Latin), 1827 ;
Heydenrich (German), 1827 ; Fleck (Latin), 1831 ; Frommann
(German), 1839. The best German Cohimentaries upon John
are those of Liicke and Tholuck. For modern doubts concerning
the authorship of John, consult Bretschneider (Latin), "Probabil
ities," &c, Leipsic, 1820 ; Strauss, Weisse, Eckermann, Hemsen,
Hauff, Crome. See, also, Polycarp ad Philipp. c. 7 ; Eusebius,
H. E., HI. 39 (about Papias) ; Justin, Apol. I. c. 61 (quotes from
John iii. about the new birth) ; Clement, Homil. XI. 26 ; Tatian
c. Grsec. Or. c. 13 (quotes John i. 5) ; Theoph. ad Autol. II. 22'
(quotes John i. 1) ; Irenceus, III. 1 ; Eusebius, H. E., V. 20.

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 243
Sect. 6. — Credibility of the Gospels. .
Lardner (English), " Credibility of the Gospel History." Lon
don, 1727. Tholuck (German), " Credibility of the Gospel His
tory." Hamburg, 1838. Mosheim, " Demonstratio Vitas J. C. ex
Morte Apostol." 172-1.
Sect. 7. — Mythical Element.
Strauss (German, and English translation), " Life of Jesus,"
in the Introduction ; and the different replies to this work.
Sect. 8. — Discourses of Jesus.
Consult Bertholdt (Latin), " On the Origin of John," Liicke
(German), and other commentaries. See Thucyd., I. 22.
Sect. 9. — Writings of Jesus.
Sartorius (Latin), " Reasons why Jesus left nothing in "Writ
ing." Basel, 1818. Witting (German), on the same subject.
1822. Giesecke (German), on the same subject. 1822. Kuhn
(German), " Life of Jesus." Apocryphal Letter of Jesus to Abga-
rus, in the Eccles. Hist, of Eusebius, I. 13. Grdbe, " Spicilegium
Patrum," 1700. Sect. 10. — Sources of the Second Rank.
The passage in Josephus (Antiq. XVHI. 3. 3) concerning
Christ, is first referred to by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. I. 11, De-
monst. Evang., IH 5. Examined, among others, by Bretschneider,
Knittel, Bohmert (1823), Schoedel (1840), Paulus, Olshausen, and
Gieseler in his Church History. Christ referred to by Tacitus,
Annals, XV. 44 ; Pliny, Epistles, X. 97; Suetonius, Life of Clau
dius, § 25 ; Lucian, De Morte Peregrini, § 11 ; Lampridius, Life of
Alexander Severus, §§ 29, 43.
Sect. 11. — Uncertain Sources.
Grdbe (Latin), Spicilegium, Tom. I. Fabricius (Latin), " Of
the Sayings of Christ which are not in the Canonical Gospels."

244 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO
Korner (Latin), " On the Unwritten "Words of Christ." ThUo
(Latin), " Apocryphal Codex of the New Testament." Leipsic,
1832. Kleuker (German), " On the New Testament Apocry
pha." 1798. Arabian Legends concerning Jesus in Herbelot
(French), " Oriental Library." Augusti (German), " Christology
of the Koran." Leipsic, 1800. Schmidt (German), " Sayings of
Jesus from Oriental "Writings:*' On the Jews and Sabians, see
works by Eisenmenger (German), Werner, Staudlin, Lorsbach,
and the Encyclopaedia of Gesenius, Art. Zabians.
Sect. 17. — Periods in the Life of Jesus.
Priestley (English), "Two Letters on the Duration of our
Saviour's Ministry." 1780. Newcome (English), "Reply to
Priestley." 1780. In German, an Essay by Cludius in Henke's
Museum. Jacobi (in Studien u. Krit., 1838). Joseph Scaliger
(who maintains five Passovers) and F. Burmann (who maintains
only one). The Church Fathers who maintain one year for
Christ's ministry are Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Lactantius,
Augustine, the Valentinians, and the Allogi. Those who extend it
over three Passovers are Epiphanius and Jerome ; over three years
and some months, Ignatius, Eusebius, and Theodoret.
Sect. 20. — Harmonies of the New Testament.
The number of Harmonies, and writings on that subject, is so
great, that we give only the more recent ones. Priestley (Eng
lish), " Harmony of the Evangelists," in Greek, to which are pre
fixed Critical Dissertations. London, 1777. Newcome (English),
" Harmony of the Gospels," who follows Le Gere's method,
1778. Griesbach (Latin), 1822. J. White (Latin), "Diatessa-
ron," &c. Oxford, 1800. De Wette and Liicke (Latin), " Synap
sis of Matthew, Mark, and Luke." Berlin and London, 1818.
Matthai (German), " Synopsis," 1826. Clausen (Latin), " Four
Synoptic Tables," &c. 1829. Rodiger (Latin), Synopsis. 1829.
Kiichler (Greek), " Monotessaron." Leipsic, 1835. Tischendorf.
Synoptic Commentaries : Paulus, Thiess, Olshausen. Glockler
(German), " The Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, har
monised and explained." Frankfort, 1834.

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 245

Sect. 21, 22. — Historic Representations.
The Lives of Jesus being so numerous, and the principal ones
having been mentioned in the text of this section, the names will
be omitted here. Sect. 23. — Poetic Representation.
The principal works having been named in the text, the names
will be omitted here.

Sect. 24-26. — Infancy and Childhood of Jesus.
Niemeyer (Latin), " Conjectures on the Silence of the New
Testament Writers concerning the Childhood of Jesus." Halle,
1789. Ammon (Latin), Gott, 1798, and Schubert (Latin), 1815,
" On the Infancy of Jesus." J. J. Hess (German), 1771, Zurich.
See A. Dann (German), Stuttgard, 1830, " On the Infancy of
Jesus." Tholuck (German), " Credibility of the Gospel History."
Otto Thiess (German), "On the Magi." 1790. Venturini, and
especially Paulus in his Commentary. Consult, also, on the Magi
and the Star, Schleiermacher (German), " On the Gospel of
Luke," De Wette (German), "Dogmatics," Strauss and Weisse;
and in answer to them, Neander and Lange.
Sect. 27. — Descent.
See, for the expectation of a Messiah in Eastern nations, on
the Hindoos, Miiller, Rhode, and Bohlen (all in German) ; on •
China, Du Halde (French). See also Jamblichus (Latin), " Life
of Pythagoras." Modern works in German, by J. E. C. Schmidt,
Rosenmiiller (in Gabler's Journal, 1806), Neander, Ludewig, 1831.
Hug (German), " Introduction to the New Testament," trans
lated -by Fosdick, Andover. Winer (German), " Realworter-
buch."

21*

246 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO

Sect. 28. — Year and Day of Christ s Birth.
A few of the more important writings on this subject are by
Bennigsen, 1778 ; /. G. Frank, 1783 ; Silskind (in Bengel's " Ar
chives ") ; Wurm (the same) ; Ideler, " Handbook of Chronology,"
Berlin, 1826 ; Paulus; Goschen (in Studien u. Krit., 1831) ; Light-
foot, on Luke ii. 8, &c.

Sect. 29. — The Holy Family.
Antonio Sandini (Latin), "History of the Holy Family, col
lected from Ancient Monuments." Padua, 1734. Spanheim
(Latin), " Dissertation upon Mary the Mother." Leyden, 1686.
J. A. Schmid (Latin), " Essays upon the Virgin Mary, edited by
Mosheim." 1733. Upon Joseph, see Justin against Tryphon, chap.
88. Epiphanius, Heresies, 51. 10; 88. 7. Augustine, Consensus
Evan. 2. 1. Jerome, against Helvid. 7, and upon Matt. xii. 46.
Thilo, Codex Apocryph. In opposition to the common tradition,
Hilarius and Beda regard Joseph, not as a carpenter, but as a
blacksmith. On the brethren of Jesus, Clemen (German). " On
the Brethren of Jesus " in Winer's Zeitschrift, 1829. Schott (Ger
man), in Rohr's Magazine, 1830. Kuhn (German), in the Jahr-
buch fiir Theologie, &c, 1834. Winer (German), "Biblical
Realwbrterbuch." " Legends of the Virgin," by Mrs. Jameson.
Sect. 30. — Childhood.
See among German writers essays by Gabler, Grulich, Schu-
deroff, and the works of Strauss, Weisse, Tholuck, Olshausen, and
Reinhard. Sect. 31. — Culture.
Reiske (Latin), " On the Vernacular of Jesus." Jena, 1670.
Diodati (Latin), " On Christ as speaking Greek." Naples, 17G7.
Pfannkuche (German), Essay in Eichhorn's Allg. Bibl., Vol. VEIL
p. 365. Paulus (Latin), " Language of Palestine,!' &c. Jena,
1803. Wiseman (Latin), " Language of Christ and the Apostles."

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 247
Rome, 1828. Greiling (German), in Henke's Museum, 1805.
Kuhn (German), in Tubingen Quarterly. 1838. Gfrorer (Ger
man), " Philo and the Alexandrians." Stuttgard, 1831. Staud-
lin (German), " History of the Moral System of Jesus." Bengel
(German), in Flatt's Magazine. Atger (French), " On the
Originality of the Moral System of Jesus." Strasburg, 1838.
Sect. 32. — Sinlessness of Jesus.
Ullman (German), " On the Sinlessness of Jesus." Translated
in the Selections from German Literature, by Edwards and Park.
Andover, 1839. (Athanasius believed in the existence of sinless
beings, and of perfect virtue on the earth.) Schweizer (German),
" On the Dignity of the Founder of a Religion " (Studien und
Kritiken, 1834). Sect. 33. — Descriptions of Character.
Greiling (German), " Life of Jesus." Rahler (German),
" Christ in Relation to his Predecessors" (SchuderofF's Annual).
Reinhard (German), Sermon upon John ii. 1 - 11.
Sect. 34. — The Lord in Flesh and Figure.
Thomas Lewis (English), " Inquiry into the Shape, Beauty,
and Stature of Christ and Mary." London, 1735. Ammon
(German), " On the Portraits of Christ" (Magazine for Preach
ers). Munter (German), " Portraits, &c. of the Early Christians."
Altona, 1825. Tholuck's (German) " Literary Index.'* 1834.
Beausobre (French), " Treatise on the Image at Paneas."
Sect. 36. — Messianic Prophecies.
Ernesti (Latin), " Critical History of the Interpretation of the
Prophecies of the Messiah in the Christian Church." Hengsten-
berg (German), " Christology of the Old Testament." Mi-
chaelis (German), " Plan of a Typology." Kuinoel (German),
" Prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament translated
and explained." Leipsic, 1792. Jahn (Latin), " Prophecies of

248 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO
the Messiah " (in the Appendix to Hermeneutics). Vienna, 1813.
Kanne (German), " Christ in the Old Testament." 1818. Steu
del (Latin), " Essays &c. on the Messianic Prophecies." Tu
bingen, 1824. F. Milnter (Latin), " Progress of the Messianic
Notion among the Jews." 1789. Stahl (German), "Of the
Messianic Times " (in Eichhorn's Universal Library). Ammon
(German), " Plan of a Christology of the Old Testament." Er-
langen, 1794. Konynenburg (German), "Examination of the
Nature of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah." Win-
zer (Latin), " The Jews' Hope of a Golden Age." Leipsic, 1800.
Griesinger (German), " Examination of the Usual Proof of the
Supernatural Origin of the Prophetic Predictions." Stuttgard,
1818. Veck (German), " Representation of the Messianic Idea
in the Holy Scriptures." Hanover, 1835.
Sect. 37. — Messianic Kingdom.
Schottgen (Latin), "Dissertation on the Kingdom of Heaven "
(Horse Hebraicae). Rhenferd (Latin), " Dissertation on the Fu
ture Age " (Menschenius, " New Testament illustrated from the
Talmud"). Hess (German), "Essence of the Doctrine of the
Kingdom of God." Zurich, 1812. Keil (Latin), "History of the
Doctrine of the Kingdom of the Messiah." Leipsic, 1781. Fleck
(German), " Exegetical-Historical Books on the Kingdom of
Heaven, embracing the Doctrine of the Four Evangelists."
Leipsic, 1829. Immanuel Schwarz (Latin), Targumic Commen
tary upon Jesus. 1758. Bertholdt (Latin), " Christology of the
Jews in the Age of Jesus and his Apostles." Erlangen, 1811.
Gfrorer (German), " History of Primitive Christianity."
Sect. 38. — Plan of Jesus.
Storr (Latin), " On the Notion of the Kingdom of Heaven in
the New Testament." C. G. Bauer (Latin), " On the Notion of
the Kingdom of Heaven in the New Testament." Leipsic, 1810.
Theremin (German), " Doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven."
Berlin, 1823. Reinhard (German), "Plan of Jesus." Trans
lated, and printed at Andover. Zittman (Latin), " Consciousness
of Jesus of his Work." Leipsic, 1816.

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 249

Sect. 44. — John the Baptist.
Writings by CeUarius, Witsius, Hottinger, Abegg, Leopold, Usteri
(in Studien und Kritiken, 1829), Rohden, Winer (Realworter-
buch), Wessenberg, Krummacher (A Drama, Leipsic, 1815).
Silvio Pellico (Erodiade). Endeman (Latin), " On the Food of
John the Baptist." 1752. Amnell (Latin), " Food and Clothing
of John the Baptist." 1755. Ammon (Latin), "Doctrine of
John." 1809. Ernst (Latin), "Doctrine of John." 1831.
Bengel (German), Antiquity of the Jewish Baptism of Proselytes."
Tubingen, 1814. Schneckenburger (German), " On the Antiquity
of the Jewish Baptism of Proselytes and its Connection to the
Johannic and Christian Rite." Berlin, 1828. Batt (English),
"Dissertation on the Message from John the Baptist to our
Saviour." London, 1789. Comp. Monthly Review, 1789. See
also Liicke, Strauss, Weisse, Neander.
Sect. 46. — The Temptation.
See Ullmann on the " Sinlessness of Jesus," and monographs
by Hottinger (1709), Heumann, Storr, Fritzsche, Feilmoser in the
Tubingen Quarterly, 1828. Among the Church Fathers was a
common opinion of a vision produced by the Devil. So Origen,
Cyprian, &c. As a vision produced by God, Farmer (English),
" Inquiry into the Nature and Design of Christ's Temptation."
As natural, Gabler, Bertholdt, Le Clerc, &c. As myth, Thiess
(German), Commentary; Ziegler (German), in Gabler's Jour
nal; Lqffter (German), in the Preacher's Magazine, 1804 ; Usteri
(German), in Studien und Kritiken, 1832; Strauss, De Wette,
Gfrorer. As a parable describing an inward temptation, Am
mon (German), " Biblical Theology," Eichhorn, Augusti, and Ull
mann. Also, to some extent, Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Schweizer, and Theile. Sect. 48. — The Miracles.
Works taking the Naturalistic View : Blount (English), " The
Oracles of Reason," London, 1693 ; Thos. WoolsUm (English),

250 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO
"A Discourse on the Miracles of our Saviour," London, 1727;
"Defence of his Discourse," 1729; Eck (German), " Attempt to
explain the Miracles of the New Testament by Natural Causes,"
Berlin, 1795; Paulus (German), "Commentary on the Life of
Jesus;" G. L. Bauer (German), "Hebrew Mythology of the
Old and New Testaments, with Parallels from the Mythology of
other Nations," Leipsic, 1802; Gabler (German), "Essay on
New Testament Myths," in the Journal for Foreign Literature ;
Krug (German), in Henke's Museum, Vol. I. ; Strauss. In reply
to these views : J. Bradley (English), " An Impartial View of the
Truth of Christianity" (against Blount), London, 1699 ; against
Woolston, Edmund Gibson (English), "A Pastoral Letter," &c,
London, 1728; Rich. Smalbroke (English), "Vindication of the
Miracles," London, 1728; Noesselt (Latin), "Dissertation on
Miracles," Halle, 1762; BaJmrneier (Latin), "On Miracles,"
Tubingen, 1797; Thienemann (German), Leipsic, 1798; Heub-
ner (Latin), 1807 ; Fritz (German) ; Wagner (German) ; Ne
ander (German), "Life of Jesus;" Daub (German), Berlin,
1839; Julius Mutter (Latin), "On the Nature and Necessity
of the Miracles of Jesus," Marburg, 1839. On the analogy of
cures by magnetism : Gutsmuths (Latin), Medical Dissertation,
Jena, 1812; Kieser (German), " System of Tellurism," Leipsic,
1822; Meyer (German), " Natural Analogies," &c., Gotha, 1839;
Rosier (German), '¦ Immanuel," &c, Gbttingen, 1826 ; De Wetie
(German), in Studien und Kritiken, 1828. In opposition to the
proof from miracles : Eckermann (German), " Did Jesus perform
Miracles as Proofs of his Divine Mission ? " 1796 ; Paulus (Ger
man), in Theological Journal, 1797 ; Johannsen (German), " Jesus
and his Miracles." The opposite side taken by Storr (German),
in Flatt's Magazine ; also by Flatt in the same. C. L. Nitzsch,
1796. Schott (Latin), various writings.
Sect. 49. — The Demoniacs.
Different opinions stated by John (German and English), in
his Biblical Archaeology. Josephus's Jewish War, VII. 6, 3, mixes
the Hebrew view with that of Greece and Rome. Storr, Disserta
tion in his Works. Olshausen, in his Commentary. Meyer, in the

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 251
Studien und Kritiken, 1834. Kerner, " History of those who are
possessed by Evil Spirits in Modern Times." Carlsruhe, 1834.
Sender (Latin), 1 760. Farmer (English), " Essay on the Demo
niacs of the New Testament." London, 1775. Timmermann,
Latin Essay. Winzer (Latin), 1812. Heinroth (who deduces
insanity from sin). Leipsic, 1836. For the resemblance between
the methods of Jesus and the usual exorcisms, see Matt. xii. 27 ;
Mark ix. 38 ; Josephus's Antiquities, VIH. 2, 5. Justin against
Tryphon, § 85. Lucian, Philo-Pseud., § 16.
Sect. 52. — Tlie First Passover.
Gurlitt (Latin), "Lectures on the New Testament," on John
ii. 13. Hamburg, 1805. Voretzsch (Latin), " Inquiry as to the
Nature of the Works to which Jesus appealed." 1834. Kohl-
schutler (Latin), " Commentary on John ii. 19." Dresden, 1839.
Storr and Siiskind, in Flatt's Magazine. Kling, in Studien und
Kritiken, 1836. Henke (Latin), " On some of the Apothegms
of Jesus." Bleek, in Studien und Kritiken, 1833. For the iden
tity of the two transactions with the money-changers, see Liicke
on John. On the conversation with Nicodemus, see Holwerda
(Latin), " Dissertation," &c. 1830. Scholl, in Klaiber's Studien.
Goldhorn (Latin), " On the Phrase, ' To be born again.' " Leip
sic, 1799. Menken, " On the Brazen Serpent." Frankfort, 1812.
Also, Kern, in Bengel's Archives, 1822. Jacobi, in Studien und
Kritiken, 1835. Sect. 58. — Celibacy of Jesus.
Clemens, in the " Strommata," 3. See Schleiermacher, Chris
tian Doctrine. Luther's Letters, by De Wette, Book II, page
675. Fichte, " System of Morals," page 449.
Sect. 60. — The Twelve Apostles.
SpanJieim, " Three Dissertations," 1679. Burmann (Latin).
Walch (Latin). Mahn (Latin). Ernesti (Latin). Kortholt,
upon the Apostle Peter. Meyer, in Pelt's Magazine, 1838, upon
Peter. Gurlitt, upon John. Also Liicke and Frommann.

252 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO

Sect. 61. — Sermon on the Mount.
Augustine, Luther, Pott, and especially Tholuck, whose very
complete Commentary contains all the literature on this subject.

Sect. 64. — The Messiah.
Haumann (Latin), " Why did the Son of God very frequently
call himself the Son of Man ? " Gbttingen, 1740. Schmidt, on
the Expression, " Son of Man," in Henke's Magazine, 1798.
Scholten (Latin), 1809. Horn, in Rohr's Magazine.
Sect. 66. — Mode of Teaching.
Olearius (Latin), " On the Method of Christ in Teaching."
1747. Weise (Latin), "Method of Jesus differing from that of
the Jews." Martini (Latin), " Of the Orations of Christ." 1793.
Winkler (German), "The Mode of Teaching of Jesus." 1797.
Winer (German^), " Exegetic Remarks on the Irony in the Dis
courses of Jesus." 1822. Grulich (German), "Irony in the
Discourses of Jesus." Leipsic, 1838. Bleek (German), " On
the Use of Old Testament Places in the New Testament " (in
the Studien und Kritiken, 1835). Tholuck (German), " Of the
Old Testament in the New." Hamburg, 1836. Hemert (Latin),
" On the Prudence of Christ and the Apostles in their Discourses,
and their accommodating themselves to the Understanding of the
People." Amsterdam, 1791.
Sect. 67. — The Parables.
Herder (German), "Letters concerning the Study of Theol
ogy." Krummacher (German), " Spirit and Form of the Evangel
ical History." Liicke (German), "Principles of New Testament
Interpretation." Schott (German), " Theory of Oratory." Fleck,
(Latin), " On the Kingdom of Heaven." Gray (English),
"Lectures on the Parables." Storr (Latin), "Dissertation on
the Parables." Eylert (German), " Sermons on the Parables."
1818. Bartel (German), " Special Homiletik on the Parables."

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 253
1824. Pflaum (German), " The Parables," &c. 1823. Krome
(German), " All the Parables of Jesus translated and explained."
1823. Lisco (German), "The Parables treated exegetically
and homiletically." Parallels from the Rabbins, in Wetstein,
Lightfoot, and Schottgen.
Sect. 77. — The Death of John the Baptist.
The testimony of Josephus, Antiquities, XVHI. 5. 2, is as fol
lows (Translation of Sir Roger L'Estrange, New York, 1775) :
" Now the generality of the Jews were of opinion that this was
only a just judgment of God upon Herod and his army, for the
benefits of John surnamed the Baptist, which excellent man this
tetrarch murdered. And what was his crime, but only his ex
horting the Jews to the love and practice of virtue ; and in the
first place, of piety and justice, and to a regeneration by baptism
and a new life, not by abstaining from this or that particular sin,
but by an habitual purity of mind as well as of body ? Now so
great was the credit and the authority of this holy man, as ap
peared by the multitude of his disciples, and the veneration they
had for his doctrine (for he could do what he would with them),
that Herod did not know how far the reputation of a man of his
spirit might influence the people toward a revolt. So that, for
fear of the worst, he chose rather to take him out of the way in
time before any hurt was done, than to put it to the hazard of an
unprofitable repentance, when it should be too late. Wherefore
he sent him away bound to Machaerus (the place before men
tioned), with order to have him put to death, which was accord
ingly executed ; and that impious fact was followed with a divine
vengeance upon Herod, for the blood of that just man, as the
Jews reasonably enough persuaded themselves."
Sect. 82. — Feast of Tabernacles.
On John vii. 8, ovk avafialva>, see Liicke and Tholuck on John.
See description of the customs at this feast in the Talmud, with
the remarks of Lightfoot. Robinson's Palestine.
22

254 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO

Sect. 83. — The Criminal Woman.
See the literature on this passage in the Commentaries of
Liicke and Kuinoel. The most important defenders of the genuine
ness of the passage are : Dettmers (Latin), " Vindication," &c,
1793; Staudlin (Latin), "Defence of the Authenticity," &c,
1806 ; Hug (Latin), " On the Permanence of Christian Marriage,"
1816. See also Schulthess (German), in Winer's Critical Journal,
1826, and Dieck (German), "A Legal View of the Question,"
&c, in Studien und Kritiken, 1832.
Sect. 84. — Tlie Dying Messiah.
For the prophecies see Gesenius (German), " Commentary on
Isaiah;" Umbreit (German), in Studien und Kritiken, 1828;
Vatke (German), " Religion of the Old Testament ; " Hengslen-
berg, " Christology ; " De Wette (Latin), " On the Expiatory
Death of Jesus," 1813 ; Menken and Kern, " On the Brazen
Serpent," Frankfort, 1812, and Bengel's Archives, 1822; Jacobi
(German), in Studien und Kritiken, 1835 ; Heydenreich (Ger
man), " On Christ's Foresight of his own Death " (Zimmermann's
Monthly, 1823) ; Gabler (German), " On the Necessity of the
Death of Jesus, considered from the Stand-point of Rationalism,"
in his own Magazine; see L. Nilzsch (Latin), " Moral Necessity
of the Death of Jesus," 1810 ; opposed by Flatt, from the stand
point of Supernaturalism, in Siiskind's Magazine, 1805.
Sect. 86. — Prediction of the Resurrection.
For the prediction : J. G. Walch, 1754; J. F. Reuss, 1768 ; F.
V. Reinhard, 1784, — (all in Latin); F. G. Silskind, in Flatt's
Magazine; Krehl (Latin), 1830. Against it : Herder (German),
" Of the Redeemer of Men ; " Paulus (Latin), "Meletemata,"
&c, Jena, 1796 ; Haserb (German), " Prophecy by Jesus concern
ing his Death and Resurrection," Berlin, 1839.

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 255

Sect. 87. — The Transfiguration.
Heumann, 1732, Essay in Teller's Magazine for Preachers.
Comp. Olshausen, Schleiermacher on Luke, and Strauss,

Sect. 94. — Lazarus.
Jahn, "Biblical Archaeology." De Wette, "Jewish Arche
ology." Schubert (German), " History of the Soul." Stuttgard,
1838. Gabler, in his Journal. Flatt, in Siiskind's Magazine.
Gfrorer (German), " History of Primitive Christianity." Baur
(German), " Apollonius of Tyana and Christ."
Sect. 98. — Passion Week.
Vossius (Latin), " Harmony of the Passion, Death, Resurrec
tion, and Ascension of Jesus." Amsterdam, 1656. Miiller (Latin).
" History of the Passion, Crucifixion, and Burial of Jesus."
1661. Sagittarius (Latin), " Harmony of the Story of Christ's
Passion." Jena, 1684. Bynaeus (Latin), " On the Death of Jesus
Christ." Amsterdam, 1691. Iken (Latin), " Harmony," &c.
1743. Baumgarten (German), "Interpretation of the Passion-
History, with a Paraphrase." Semler, 1757. J. D. Michaelis
(German), " Comments on the History of the Burial and Resur
rection." 1783. Glanz (German), '' Passion-History," &c. 1809.
Schlegel (German), " Passion-History." 1775. Krummacher (Ger
man), " Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus." With
twelve plates. 1817.
Sect. 99. — Chronology of Passion Week.
Petavius (Latin), "On. the Year and Day of our Lord's Pas
sion." 1682. Witsius (Latin), " On the Day of the Passover."
Gabler (German), " Did Christ really eat the Easter Lamb ? "
Smaller Works (Latin). Lightfoot (English), " Horae Hebraicae."
Gude, 1742. Ikenius, 1749. Ranch, in Studien und Kritiken,
1832. De Wette, in the same journal, 1834. Theile (German),
" On the Last Passover of Christ " (in Winer's Critical Journal).
Ideler (German), Chronology.

256 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO

Sect. 103. — Prediction by Christ of the Future.
Watch (Latin), Dissertation. 1754. Tychsen (Latin), " On
the Second Coming." 1785. Nisbett (Enghsh), "An Attempt
to illustrate Various Important Passages in the Epistles of the
New Testament." Canterbury, 1789. C. F. Ammon. J. G. Siis-
kind. J. F. Flalt. Kklemaker (German), " Prophecy of Jesus,"
&c. 1816. Jahn (German), "Prophecy of the Destruction of
Jerusalem," &c. (in Bengel's Archives, 1816). Scheibel (in
Kothe's Periodical, 1818). Weizel, " Doctrine of Immortality
among the First Christians " (in Studien und Kritiken, 1836).
Sect 105. — Judas Iscariot.
Selden (Latin), "Essay upon Judas Iscariot." Winer, Bibl.
Real-Lexicon. G. Schollmeyer (German), "Jesus and Judas."
1836. Gronovius (Latin), Leyden, 1683. See also Olshausen,
Neander, Liicke, Strauss. Daub (German), " Judas Iscariot."
1816. Essay in Priestley's Theological Repository, &c.

Sect. 106. — The Last Supper.
On the circumstances which preceded it, see Gabler (in the
Theological Journal, 1799), and the Commentaries of Paulus,
Olshausen, &c. On the Foot-washing, see Itlig (Latin), Disserta
tion, &c. 1699. Schulthess (in Winer's Critical Journal). On
the Memorial Feast, see Siiskind (in Flatt's Magazine, 1804).
Weisse. M. Claudius (German), " The Holy Supper." Ham
burg, 1809. Ruperti (German), " The Holy Supper," &c. 1821.
Sartorius (in Zimmermann's Monthly). Scheibel, 1823. Schulz,
1824. Fritzsche (in Winer's Critical Journal).
Sect. 107. — The Garden of Gethsemane.
See writings by Harwood, 1774; Gurlitt, 1800; Tiebe, 1825;
Deitinger (German), " Christ's Struggle in Gethsemane, with ref
erences to the Criticisms of Strauss " (in the Tubingen Quarterly,
1837). Klaiber (German), " New Testament Doctrine concern-

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 257
ing Sin and Redemption." Stuttgard, 1836. Goldhorn (Ger
man), " On the Silence of John the Baptist," &c. (in Tzschirner'3
Magazine). See also Commentaries by Strauss, Neander, Olshau
sen, Paulus, De Wette, and Liicke.
Sect. 111. — Pontius Pilate.
Josephus, Antiquities, XVIH. 2. Philo, De Legatione. Bad-
deus (Latin), "Dissertation concerning Pontius Pilate," &c. 17.
P. J. J. Mounier (Latin), Leyden, 1825. On the Jews' power of
inflicting capital punishment, see Josephus, Antiq. XX. 9. 1.
Lightfoot (English), Commentary on Matt. xxvi. 3. Michaelis
(German and English), " On the Jewish Laws." Selden (Latin),
" De Syned." On Pilate's question, see J. Walch (Latin), Dis
sertation. On the justice of the sentence, see Tliomasius (Latin),
Dissertation. Leipsic, 1675. Goesius (Latin), " Pilate the Judge."
1677. Salvador (French), "Judgment and Condemnation of
Jesus." Dupin (French), " Jesus before Caiaphas and Pilate."
Paris, 1829. Carobee (German), in the Kirchenzeitung, 1830.
Ammon (German), " Development of Christianity." Baumgarten-
Crusius. A. Neubig (German). 1836.
Sect. 115. — The Crucifixion.
Bartholinus (Latin), 1695. J. Lydius, 1701. Yobel (German),
" On the History of the Crucifixion " (in his Magazine of Biblical
Interpretation). L. Hug (German), " Critical Remarks on the
History of the Death of Jesus " (Freiburg Zeitschrift, 1831). Lip-
sius (Latin), " On the Cross." 1670. Plautus, Mostellaria, 2. 1,
13. Justin against Tryphon, 97. Tertullian against Marcion, 3.
19. Lucan, Pharsalia, VI. 547. Lucian, Prometh. I. G. B.
Winer, " De Pedum in Cruce affixione." Leipsic, 1845. In favor
of the opinion that the feet were nailed are Bengzenberg, Hengslen-
berg. Hug, Bohr. For an account of the controversy, see Winer
(Bib. Realwbrterbuch), Strauss, Theile, Neander. For the cry
on the cross, " My God," &c, see Olshausen (Kendrick's Trans
lation), who considers it a kov^is of the Deity. Ebrard's view is
that it was " an inward trembling of God within himself. In the
22* Q

258 LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED TO
essence of the Eternal Love, consequently in the Father himself,
is the necessity that love manifested in time should be torn away
from the feeling of the Eternal Love, in order to be perfect in
Love, by this tremendous experience." The difficulty, however,
is only in the Orthodox view, — how could the Second Person of
the Deity be forsaken by the Deity? Watch (Latin), Disserta
tion on the Drink given to the Dying Saviour. Hartmann (Ger
man), in Bengel's Archives, 1826. On the conversion of the
thief: Wickenhofer (German), in Zimmermann's Monthly, Psy
chological Examination of Matt, xxvii. 47.
Sect. 116. — Death.
Richter (Latin), Medical Dissertation, 1775. Gruner (Latin),
1805. Bretschneider (German), in Studien und Kritiken, 1832.
Schuster, on Matt, xxviii. 2 (in Eichhorn's Universal Library).
Schulthess (in Winer's Studien).
Sect. 117.— The Grave.
Stroth (German), " Exegetic Hand-Book. Siiskind (in Flatt's
Magazine). Kern (in the Tubingen Quarterly, 1834).
Sect. 118. — The Resurrection.
J. G. Rosenmiiller (Latin), " On the Sepulchre of Christ."
Erlangen, 1780. /. J. Griesbach, "Dissertation on the Sources
of the Accounts of the Resurrection." Jena, 1784. C. F. Am
mon (Latin), "Essay." Erlangen, 1808. Frage, " Dissertation
on the Resurrection." Hamburg, 1833. Niemeyer. Halle, 1824.
G. C. Storr (German), " History of the Resurrection and Ascen
sion." Tubingen, 1782. Reimarus, in the Wolfenbuttel Frag
ments, 1777. Chubb (English), Posthumous Works. London,
1748. G. Less, " Reply to Reimarus." Semler (German), " Re
ply to the Fragmentist." Michaelis, another Reply. Friedricli,
" On the Certainty of the Resurrection of Jesus." Brescius, "De
fence of the Resurrection," 1804. Thomas Sherlock (English),
" Trial- of the Witnesses." 1729. /. John, " What did Jesus do

BY HASE IN THIS WORK. 259
during. the Forty Days?" Tubingen, 1821. Mutter (Latin),
" On the Resurrection of Jesus." 1836. H. Kuhn (German),
" How did Jesus pass through the Grave ? " 1838.
Sect. 121. — The Wonders attending the Jtesurrection.
Eusebius, " Ad Olymp.," quotes from the Chronicle of Phlegon :
" A greater eclipse of the sun than was ever known before, so
that night came on the sixth hour of the day, and the stars were
seen in the sky." (Comp. Paulus, Exegetic Hand-Book, and the
parallel passages collected by Wetstein.) Schottgen (German),
"Jewish Testimony for the arising of the Saints with the Mes
siah." Friedrich (German), " On the Angels" (in Eichhorn).
Sect. 122. — The Ascension.
G. F. Seiler (Latin), " On the Question, Did Jesus ascend
into Heaven with Body as well as Soul ? " Erlangen, 1 798. Baur
(German), " On the Practical Ideal Point of View, from which
the Ascension of Jesus can be regarded" (in Siiskind's Magazine).
Weichert, 1811, Heinrichs, 1812, and Fogtmann, 1826, Essays in
Latin on the Ascension. J. J. Griesbach (Latin), " Collection of
the Passages of the New Testament concerning Christ's Ascen
sion." A German writer, J.- A. Brennecke, published a book in
1819, called " Bibhcal Proof that Jesus remained on the Earth
in Bodily Form Twenty-seven Years after his Resurrection,
working for the Good of Humanity in Seclusion." This book has
been answered by Wolfe, Iken, Soltmann, Tinius, Haumann, Wit
ting, Stamm, and especially M. Weber, Halle, 1820.

260 LITERATURE OF THE

LITEEATTJEE OE THE IIEE OE JESUS,
IN ENGLISH.

The following list of English Books, useful for the student of this sub
ject, is added, not because it is complete, or even as full as it might easily
be made, but as a, list out of which a student might select a sufficient
number of works to aid him in this study.
1. Introductions to the New Testament.
Introduction to the New Testament. By John David Michae
lis, late Professor in the University of Gbttingen, &c. Translated
from the Fourth Edition of the German, and considerably aug
mented with Notes, explanatory and supplemental. By Herbert
Marsh, D.D., Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.
An Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Books of
the New Testament. By Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette.
Translated from the Fifth improved and enlarged Edition. By
Frederick Frothingham. Boston: Crosby, Nichols, & Co. 1858.
An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the
Holy Scriptures. By Rev. Thomas Hartwell Home, D.D. As
sisted by the Rev. Samuel Davidson and Rev. Samuel Tregelles.
Tenth Edition. London. 1856.
Hug's Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by
David Fosdick, Andover.
The " Introduction " by Michaelis, was, in its day, a most valuable con
tribution to theological literature, both in Germany and England; but
it is now rather obsolete. The late edition of Home's "Introduction"
contains everything one needs to have in such a work. It is a treasure
of information; but it is large and expensive. Hug's Introduction (trans
lated by Fosdick) is a valuable work, but is out of print. The best Intro
duction — full, accurate, and bringing the information down to the most
recent date — is that of De Wette, translated by Frothingham. This, more
over, is not a costly work.

IN ENGLISH. 261
2. Commentaries on the New Testament.
Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. By Dr. Her
mann Olshausen, Professor of Theology in the University of
Erlangen. Translated from the German for Clark's Foreign
and Theological Library. First American Edition. Revised
after the fourth German Edition. By A. C. Kendrick, D.D.,
Professor of Greek in the University of Rochester. To which
is prefixed Olshausen's Proof of the Genuineness of the Writings
of the New Testament. Translated by David Fosdick, Jr. New
York : Sheldon, Blakeman, & Co. 1858.
Commentary on the Gospel of John. By Augustus Tholuck.
-Translated by Charles P. Krauth, D.D. Philadelphia. 1859.
A. Barnes. Notes on Gospels. 2 vols. Harper. 1859.
The Gospels. By P. Quesnel. With Moral Reflections on
each Verse. Philadelphia." 1855.
Notes (Practical and Expository) on the Gospels. By Rev.
Charles H. Hall. New York. 1857.
The Four Gospels, and a Commentary. By Rev. A. A. Liver-
more. Boston. 1854.
An Exposition of the Historical Writings of the New Testa
ment. By Rev. Timothy Kenrick. 3 vols. Boston. 1828.
Gnomon of the New Testament. By J. Albert Bengel. Ed
inburgh. 1858.
Olshausen's Commentary is only objectionable from its size. It is
orthodox enough for Princeton, yet liberal enough for Cambridge. Its
orthodoxy is mitigated by its learning and wisdom. A concise and com
pact Commentary on the New Testament, embodying all that we need to
know about it, learned but simple, profound but clear, is yet a desidera
tum in English. 3. Monographs on the Life op Jesus.
Selections from German Literature. By B. B. Edwards and
E. A. Park, Professors in the Theol. Sem. Andover. Andover :
Published by Gould, Newman, and Saxton. New York. 1839.
— Containing Ullman's " Sinlessness of Jesus."
Jesus and his Biographers ; or Remarks on the Four Gospels.
Revised, with Copious Additions. By W. H. Furness. Philadel
phia : Carey, Lea, and Blanchard. 1838.

262 LITERATURE OF THE
The History of Christianity, from the Birth of Christ to the
Abolition of Paganism in the Roman Empire. By the Rev. H.
H. Milman, Prebendary of St. Peter's, and Minister of St. Mar
garet's, Westminster. With' a Preface and Notes, by James
Murdock, D.D. New York : Published by Harper and Brothers.
1844. Plan of the Founder of Christianity. By F. V. Reinhard, D.D.,
Court Preacher at Dresden. Translated from the Fifth German
Edition, by Oliver A. Taylor, A.M., Resident Licentiate, Theo
logical Seminary, Andover. Andover : Printed at the Codman
Press, by Flagg and Gould. 1831.
. A Connected History of the Life, &c. of Jesus Christ, from
the Notes of Rev. Newcome Cappe.
Observations on our Lord's Conduct as a Divine Instructor.
By William Newcome, Archbishop of Armagh.
The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined. By Dr. David Fried-
rich Strauss.
All objections to the letter of the Gospels are collected here.
Notes on the Miracles of our Lord. By Richard Chenevix
Trench. London. 1854. (Reprinted, United States.)
Notes on the Parables of our Lord. By Richard Chenevix
Trench. London. (Reprinted, United States.)
These books of Trench, like all his writings, are alive with suggestion,
and solid with information.
History of'Jesus. By W. H. Furness. Boston. 1850.
Thoughts on the Life and Character of Jesus of Nazareth. By
W. H. Furness. 1859.
These books, by Dr. Furness, are invaluable to the student of the char
acter of Jesus.
Legends of the Madonna. By Mrs. Jameson.
Life of Jesus Christ in its Historical Connection and Historical
Development. By Augustus Neander. Translated from the
Fourth German Edition, by John McClintock and Chas. E. Blu-
menthal, Professors in Dickinson College. New York : Harper
and Brothers. 1848.
This is one of the most valuable works on the Life of Jesus. It was
written after the appearance of the work of Strauss, and is intended partly
as a detailed reply to his criticisms. It is the best kind of reply, because,

IN ENGLISH. 263
instead of merely refuting the objections of Strauss, it gives a picture of
the events, to which the objections cannot apply. It is a thorough discus
sion, in a learned and liberal way, of the events in the life of Jesus.
4. Works on the Evidences of Christianity, &c.
The Apocryphal New Testament, being all the Gospels, Epis
tles, and other Pieces now extant, attributed in the First Four
Centuries to Jesus Christ, his Apostles, and their Companions,
and not included in the New Testatment by its Compilers.
Translated from the Original Tongues, and now first collected into
One Volume. London : Printed for William Hone, Ludgate Hill.
1820. Proving the genuineness of the New Testament, by force of contrast.
A View of the Evidences of Christianity. In Three Parts.
Part I. Of the direct Historical Evidence of Christianity, and
wherein it is distinguished from the Evidence alleged for other
Miracles. Part H. Of the Auxiliary Evidences of Christianity.
Part HI. A Brief Consideration of some Popular Objections. By
William Paley, M. A., Archdeacon of Carlisle.
The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of
Caesarea, in Palestine. Translated from the Original, by the
Rev. C. F. Cruse, A. M., Assistant Professor in the University of
Pennsylvania. Boston : James B. Dow and C. Stimpson. 1836.
Carrying back the evidences to the fourth century.
Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. By Andrews
Norton. 3 vols. Second Edition. 1846.
Internal Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. By
Andrews Norton. Boston. 1856.
Nature and the Supernatural. By Horace Bushnell. New
York. 1859.
A profound work, deserving study.
An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by
the Rules of Evidence administered in Courts of Justice, with
an Account of the Trial of Jesus. By Simon Greenleaf, LL. D.,
Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University. Second Edition.
London. 1847.

264 LITERATURE OF THE
5. Harmonies of the Gospels, &c.
An English Harmony of the Four Evangelists. By William
Newcome, Archbishop of Armagh. Philadelphia. 1809.
Harmony of the Gospels in Greek, after Le Clerc and New-
come. By Edward Robinson, D. D. Andover. 1834.
Greek Harmony. By William Newcome. Andover. 1814.
McKnight's Harmony of the Gospels. (Enghsh.) London.
1763. Harmony of the Gospels, after the Plan proposed by Lant
Carpenter. By John Gorham Palfrey, D. D. Boston. 1831.
(English.) Harmony, or Synoptical Arrangement of the Gospels, with
Dissertations. By Lant Carpenter, LL. D. London. 1835.
Dr. Palfrey's Harmony (now out of print) is one of the most convenient
with which the editor is acquainted ; having used it in Bible Classes with
success. It ought to be reprinted. 6. Greek Text.
The Student's Testament. The New Testament in the
Original Greek. Printed from the Text and with the Various
Readings of Knapp ; together with the commonly received Eng
lish Translation. Designed for the use of Students. New York :
Published by Charles Starr. 1835.
An invaluable book for a student.
'H KAINH AIA6HKH. Griesbach's Text, with Various Read
ings of Mill and Scholz, &c. Third Edition. Bohn. 1859.
Cheap and good.
Alford's Greek Text. Harper and Brothers. 1859.
Very valuable ; but expensive.
A Grammar of Idioms of the New Testament. By Dr. G. B.
Winer. Translated by Agnew and Ebbeke. Philadelphia. 1840.
Grammar of the New Testament Diction. By G. B. Winer.
Translated from the Sixth Edition, by Edward Masson. Phila
delphia, New York, and Boston. 1859.
See Christian Examiner, Nov., 1859, for an exposure of the translator's
indefensible tampering with the work, by omitting passages which mili
tate against the Trinity, without giving any notice of such omissions.

LIFE OF JESUS, IN ENGLISH. 265
7. Dictionaries and Concordances.
Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible. American Edition.
Revised, with large additions, by Edward Robinson, Professor
of Sacred Literature, Andover. Boston : Published by Crocker
and Brewster. 1832.
The Protestant Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopaedia :
being a condensed translation of Herzog's Real Encyclopaedia,
with additions from other sources. By Rev. J. H. A. Bomberger,
D. D. In three volumes. Philadelphia : Lindsay and Bla-
kiston. 1858.
The Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Edited by John Kitto,
D. D., F. S. A. Illustrated by numerous Maps and Engravings.
Tenth Edition. New York : Ivison and Phinney. 1857.
The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament :
being an Attempt at a Verbal Connection between the Greek
and the Enghsh Texts ; including a Concordance to the Proper
Names, with Indexes, Greek-English and English-Greek. New
York: Harper and Brothers. 1848.
An invaluable book. With this, and the " Student's Testament," a
student would hardly need anything else for the study.
Encyclopasdia of Religious Knowledge, &c. By Rev, B. B.
Edwards. Philadelphia : J. B. Lippincott. 1859.
An Analytical Concordance to the Holy Scriptures. By John
Eadie. Boston. 1857.
Kitto's Popular Cyclopaedia condensed. 1 vol. 8vo.
Cruden's English Concordance.
Lexicon Manuale Graecc-Latinum in Libros Novi TestamCnti
Auctore Carolo Gottlieb Bretschneider. Lipsiae. 1829.
8. Works on Palestine.
Scripture Lands ; described in a Series of Historical, Geo
graphical, and Topographical Sketches. By John Kitto, D. D.,
F. S. A. And illustrated by a Complete Bibhcal Atlas, — com
prising twenty-four maps, with an index of reference. London :
Henry G. Bohn. 1850.
Expedition to the Dead Sea and the Jordan. By W. F.
Lynch. Philadelphia. Ninth Edition. 1856.
The Land and the Book ; or Bibhcal Illustrations drawn from
23

266 LITERATURE OF THE »
the Manners and Customs, the Scenes and Scenery of the Holy
Land. By W. M. Thomson, D. D., twenty-five years a Mis
sionary in Syria and Palestine. New York. 1859.
Palestine Past and Present. By Rev. Henry S. Osborn,
Salem, Va. Philadelphia. 1859.
Biblical Researches in Palestine in 1838. By E. Robinson
and E. Smith. In 2 vols. Boston. 1856.
Land of Promise. By H. Bonar. New York. 1858.
Sinai and Palestine. By Arthur P. Stanley. New York:
Redfield. 1859.
9. Connection of Old Testament and New. — Jewish
Antiquities, &c.
A Collection of Theological Essays from Various Authors. With
an -Introduction, by George R. Noyes, D. D., Professor of Sa
cred Literature in Harvard University. Boston : American
Unitarian Association. 1856.
Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on .the
Messianic Predictions. By E. W. Hengstenberg, Dr. and Prof.
of • Theol. in Berlin. Second Edition, greatly improved. Trans
lated from the German -by the Rev. Theod. Meyer, Hebrew
Tutor in the New College, Edinburgh. Edinburgh : T. and T.
Clark. 1854.
Biblical Antiquities. By John Jahn, D. D., late Professor "of
the Oriental Languages, of Bibhcal Antiquities, and Theology, in
the University of Vienna. Translated from the Latin, with Ad
ditions and Corrections, by Thomas C. Upham, Professor of Moral
and Intellectual. Philosophy, and of the Hebrew Language, in
Bowdoin College, United States. Andover. Third American
Edition. 1832.
The Relation between Judaism and Christianity, illustrated hv
Notes on Passages in the New Testament containing Quotations
from, or References to, the Old. By John Gorham Palfrey,
D. D., LL. D. Boston : Crosby, Nichols, and Company. 1854.
Academical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities.
By J. G. Palfrey, D. D. In 4 vols. Boston. 1836.
Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Complete in one
vol. New York. 1860.

LIFE OF JESUS, IN ENGLISH. 267
Josephus. By William Whiston. In 4 vols. Philadelphia.
1859. Jahn's Biblical Archaeology. Fifth Edition. New York. 1858.
10. Translations of the Gospels, &c, with and with
out Notes.
A Translation of the Gospels with Notes. By Andrews Nor
ton. Vol. I. The Text. Vol. H. Notes. 1856.
The Four Gospels. Translated from the Greek ; with Disser
tations and Notes Critical and Explanatory. By George Camp
bell, D.D. London. 1790. 2 vols. 4to. — 1807. 2 vols. 8vo.
Third Edition. Aberdeen. 1814. 4 vols. 8vo.
New Testament. Translated from the Syriac (Peshito) Ver
sion. By James Murdock, D. D. New York. 1858.

THE END.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BT
WALKER, WISE, AN]} COMPANY,
PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS,
(also publishers tor the american unitarian association,)
245 Washington Street,
BOSTON.

Important Books Just Published.
THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By Carl Hase, Pro-
fessor of Theology at Jena. Translated from the German of
the Third and Fourth Improved Editions by James Fbee-
man Clarke. 75 cents.
New Commentary on the New Testament.
DISSERTATIONS AND NOTES ON THE
GOSPELS. — MATTHEW. By Rev. John H. Mori-
son, D.D.
This important Book, long expected, is now ready, and will be followed
by a volume from Dr. Peabody on the Epistles.
WOMAN'S RIGHT TO LABOR ; or, Low Wages
and Hard Work. By Mrs. C. H. Dall. Paper, 50 cents ;
cloth, 63 cents.
HITS AT AMERICAN WHIMS, AND •HINTS
FOR HOME USE. By F. W. Sawyer. A thoroughly
live, vigorous, and practical volume. 12mo. $1.00.
ALICE'S DREAM. An exquisite Christmas Story.
With Illustrations by Billings. 50 cents.
This little book has- been received with a unanimity of commendation
quite remarkable.

%ll t\t CJfilfatn'u Jiharj},

PUBLISHED by

WALKEE, WISE, AND COMPANY,
245 Washington Street,
BOSTON.

Noisy Herbert, and other Stories, for Small
Children.
By the Author of " Daisy/' "Violet," &o.
The R. B. R.'s : my Little Neighbors.
A Story for the " Younger Members."
Bessie Grant's Treasure.
By Aunt Doha.
A Summer with the Little Grays.
Bv H. W. P.
Modesty and Merit ; or, The Gray-Bird's Story
of Little May-Rose and John.
From the German.
Faith and Patience.
A Story — and something more — for Boys,

WALKER, WISE, & CO.'S NEW JUVENILES. 3

ALL THE CHILDREN'S LIBRARY.

This entirely new and original series of Juveniles combines several
especially attractive features. The plan adopted is that of gradation,
the first two books on the list being designed for very young children,
just commencing to read. Numbers 3 and 4 meet the requirements
of those three or four years older ; while the last two of the set will
interest older boys and girls, and may be read with pleasure by
almost any one.

Noisy Herbert, and other Stories,
FOR SMALL CHILDREN,
Is from the pen of one whose books are always sought with
avidity by the young. This little volume is printed in Great
Primer, which renders it specially attractive to youthful eyes.
The illustrations are numerous and good, and the book cannot
fail to be a favorite in the family circle. Price, 50 cents.

The R. B. R.'s : my Little Neighbors.
This charming little narrative — as fresh and piquant and
musical as though written in the language of the " little neigh
bors " themselves — is contributed by the author of several suc
cessful juveniles, and bears unmistakable evidences of genius. It
also is printed in readable Great Primer, and profusely illustrated.
No "six-year-old " will be content to do without it. Price, 50 c.

4 WALKER, WISE, & CO.'S NEW JUVENILES.
Bessie Grant's Treasure,
Could only have been written by a mother. It is a domestic
story in the best sense, — natural, affectionate, suggestive. The
incidents are interesting; the moral teachings most admirably
and happily conveyed. It is printed from clear, handsome type,
and illustrated with original designs. Price, 50 cents.

A Summer with the Little Grays.
This sprightly and beautiful narrative of "Life among the
Children " abounds with entertaining incidents of juvenile adven
ture and pastime, and will be read and re-read by those intel
ligent boys and girls into whose hands it may fall. It is written
in a style of great simplicity and beauty. Enriched with fine
engravings on wood. Price, 50 cents.

Faith and Patience,
A STORY — AND SOMETHING MORE — FOR BOYS.
The author of this pleasant volume declares his object in
writing it to have been, "first, to compose an attractive volume
for boys ; second, to illustrate familiarly and practically the vir
tues which form the title of the book ; and, third, to introduce
pertinent truths, interesting facts, and useful information, in such
a manner as will be likely to impress the minds and influence
the characters of the readers."
In this we believe it will be conceded that he has been fully

WALKER, WISE, & CO.'S NEW JUVENILES. 5
successful ; and we hazard little in affirming that it will be sought
with eagerness, and read with pleasure. Embellished with original
illustrations on wood. Price, 75 cents.

Modesty and Merit ;
OR, THE GRAY-BIRD'S STORY OF LITTLE MAY-ROSE
AND JOHN.
We have no hesitation in pronouncing this one of the most fas
cinating Juveniles ever issued from the press. It is from tho
purest and most classical German sources, skilfully translated by
a man of taste and education ; the exquisite gems of poetry with
which it abounds were rendered by Professor Child, of Harvard.
A number of charming stories are introduced into the narrative,
each illustrative of some moral truth.
The easy flow of language, the simplicity, freshness, and sus
tained interest of the story, will render the volume acceptable to
old and young.
The illustrations are beautifully printed in Oil Colors, by a new
process, and have been executed at considerable expense. It is
believed they will be acknowledged as the best specimens of this
sort of illustration as yet produced in this country. Price, 75 c.

0^" The above are aV. printed on fine paper, from clear, handsome
type, attractively illustrated, and neatly bound in muslin. The sets are
put up in pasteboard boxes, but any work can be had separately.

6 WALKER, WISE, & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.
STANDARD
The Altar at Home.
A Collection of Prayers for Private and Social Use, written
by eminent Ministers in and near Boston. Nine editions of
this well-known work have been published.
60 cents. Bevelled boards, antique, 80 cents.
The Christian Doctrine of Prayer.
By James Freeman Clarke. It discusses the whole sub
ject of the foundation of prayer, objections to it, reasons and
preparations for it, its results and bearings upon the spiritual
life, in the bold and clear style of its author. 60 cents.
The Rod and the Staff.
By Rev. Thomas T. Stone. Second Edition. 60 cents.
The Harp and the Cross.
By Rev. S. G. Buxfinch. The work contains between one
and two hundred gems of sacred poetry, culled from the best
writers in the English language, by one who has himself added
some of the choicest contributions to this department of letters.
60 cents.
Athanasia ; or, Foregleams of Immortality.
By Eev. E. H. Sears. Third Edition. In this work, the
subjects of death and a future life are fully considered ; and
cheering views are presented, which " turn the shadow of death
into the morning." 60 cents.
Seven Stormy Sundays.
Dedicated to those who are kept from church by stormy
weather. This is a series of religious services to be read in the
quiet of one's home. There are seven sermons, never before
printed, written by distinguished divines. 60 cents.

WALKER, WISE, & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 7,
Selections from the Works of William E. Chan-
ning, D.D.
A handsome 12mo volume of 480 pages, containing "all the
clearest and fullest statements he gave of his views concerning
theology and religion." 60 cents.
Unitarian Principles confirmed ly Trinitarian
Testimonies ;
Being Selections from the Works of eminent Theologians
belonging to Orthodox Churches, showing what concessions
have been made by Trinitarian writers to the essential truth of
Unitarian views. $ 1.
Statement of Reasons for not lettering the Doc
trines of Trinitarians concerning the Nature
of God and the Person of Christ.
By Andrews Norton. Second Edition. With a Memoir
of the Author, by Rev. Dr. Newell of Cambridge. This is
the fullest, the ablest, and most conclusive argument that has
ever been published on this subject. $ 1.
A Collection of Theological Essays from various
Authors.
With an Introduction by George R. Notes, D. D. $ 1.
Studies of Christianity; or, Timely Thoughts for
Religious Thinkers.
A Series of Papers by James Mabtineatj. Edited by Wil
liam R. Alger. 91.
Regeneration. By E. H. Sears. Sixth Edition. It describes the necessity
and process of the great transformation which the Gospel is de
signed to make in the individual life, and is written in a style
of exceeding freshness and beauty. 44 cents.

8 WALKER, WISE, & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.
The Discipline of Sorrow.
By Rev. William G. Eliot, D.D., of St. Louis. Second
Edition. Hundreds of bereaved families have expressed their
grateful sense of the value of these soothing and hopeful words.
30 cents.
Grains of Gold.
Selections from the Writings of Rev. C. A. Bartol. A
beautiful little gift, containing gems of thought from one of the
most gifted writers. 25 cents.
Channing's Thoughts.
This attractive little gift-book contains those short, epigram
matic sentences into which Dr. Channing so often condensed
his grandest thoughts. 25 cents.

flf ftratel; as, Jt Stammer in tap.
By MARGARET J. M. SWEAT,
author op " Ethel's love life," etc.
Printed on superfine paper, calendered and tinted. 12mo. Price,
$ 1.00. Sent by mail, post-paid, on receipt of price.

Although our author's route was confined for the most part to the
usual track of Continental tourists, the time chosen for the trip
afforded opportunities for observation which would not occur, prob
ably, twice in a lifetime. Being at Paris at the time of the grand
Exposition Universale, and also on the occasion of the visit of Queen
Victoria to the Emperor, her brilliant pen found ample and con
genial employment in chronicling the gorgeous displays incident
to those important events. And those most familiar with the pub
lished records of Continental travel, and even those who have
passed many times over the routes, will read this volume with
interest, from the keenness of its observation, the freshness of its
style, and its multiplicity of interesting detail.