"T^p^ikeffjBS^M
-for t'e fucrsdiag- if a College in this Colony''

>Y^LE°WJMII¥E]i£SinrY- • iLniais^mr •

LIFE OF CHEIST.

PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,
* FOE
T. & T. CLAKK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, . . . JOHN ROBERTSON AND 00.
NEW YORK, . SORIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG.

A CHRONOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL
INTRODUCTION

LIFE OF CHRIST.
"by
CH. ED. CASPARI.
dfrom tfjc Original ©trman Wlorfe, 3&et>t£fcB bn tf>e &utIjov.
TRANSLATED, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES, BY
MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A.

WITH MAP OF THE SCENE OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS,
AND PLAN OF JERUSALEM.

EDINBUEGH:
T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET.
MDCCCLXXVI.

AUTHOE'S PEEFACE.

The negative criticism of the Gospels, as conducted in the
present day, and as it has manifested itself in a series of
works treating of the life of Jesus, bases its destructive
results — no doubt without always admitting it — upon philo
sophic presuppositions, derived from a conception of the
universe hostile to the idea of a revelation. It denies the
supernatural in the life of Christ, because it rejects the super
natural in general. But in connection with this, it by no
means despises the external evidences derived from history
and geography, so far as the testimony of these may serve as
a support for those suppositions. In this manner disquiet and
doubt is introduced into many a mind whose conception of
the world's order is in harmony with belief in a revelation,
and which would desire to remain unassailed by those philo
sophic doubts and presuppositions. History and chronology,
geography and topography, are with great skill employed as
instruments for assailing the authenticity of the Gospels, for
bringing the contents of these books into mutual contradiction,
and for denying the possibility of reconciling the statements of
the Gospels with the facts of history and chorography.
Some years ago, therefore, I imposed upon myself the task
of coming to a distinct appreciation of the value or worthless-
ness of these objections and attacks. I very soon became
convinced that the works professedly handling these ques
tions hitherto existing stood in need of an entire revision,
and applied therefore in every case to the original sources.
Since these studies proved useful to myself, and often led to

VI AUTHOR S PREFACE.
results unexpected, and in my opinion not unimportant, I
thought it incumbent on me to publish these results, nattering
myself with the hope they might be made serviceable to others
also. It might perhaps appear strange that in studies like Biblical
geography and chronology, which have been so abundantly
treated of, and from so many points of view, there should yet
remain important discoveries to be gleaned ; but the enigma
is solved when it is considered that the exegetes have seldom
drawn their chronology and geography — regarded by them as
subordinate questions — from the sources themselves, but have
received them at second or third hand; that, on the other
hand, professional geographers and chronologists, even the
Masters among them, are no exegetes, but are often misled
by inaccurate translations of the Gospels. This evil I have
earnestly striven to avoid, inasmuch as in all the sources I
have had recourse to the original text, and that, in addition to
the sources of which my predecessors have availed themselves,
I have ransacked the books of Jewish tradition — hitherto, to
the great loss of the cause, too much neglected.
The literature bearing on the subject is not easily acces
sible ; the Patristic, archeeological, and Talmudic writings, as
well as the descriptions of travels, are often difficult to find.
The more am I under obligations on this account to honoured
friends who have been helpful to me in this respect, especially
to Professor Eeuss of Strassburg, as well as to the librarians
of the City Library at Strassburg,1 and of the Protestant
and Catholic Seminary Libraries there, who have favoured
me with advice and help.
And so may this little book, notwithstanding its defects
and imperfections, go its way under the Lord's blessing.
Ch. Ed. Caspari.
Geudertheim, Alsace, 11th September 1868.
1 This famous library no longer exists.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

This volume, as its title indicates, is designed not to set
before us the Person of the Son of God in the experiences of
His inner life, but to present us with a clear and well-ordered
account of the various incidents in that divine-human Life on
earth, drawn from the narrative of the four evangelists. For this
purpose it is not necessary to prove the inspiration of these
evangelists themselves. That they wrote under the immediate
impulse and control of the Holy Spirit will be believed by all
who accept the testimony of Christ and His apostles ; but it
is with the testimony of these authoritative documents, only
as that of honest and competent witnesses, that we have here
to do. By the method of a keen and thorough analysis, the
author renders evident the real and essential — though by no
means always formal — agreement in the testimony delivered
by the four separate witnesses. For our belief in the divine
inspiration of the evangelists is surely not jeopardized by the
admission of a certain freedom on their part in the grouping
of the incidents and discourses of our Lord's life, and the
more full and complete record of details on the part of one
evangelist rather than another. His argument for the authen
ticity of the fourth Gospel is of special value in the present
day, as opposed to the ever varied assaults of modern unbelief.
The instances he gives of its being the work of an eye-witness
might be largely increased. To these might be added the
evangelist's recital of the very words rumoured throughout
Judea, "Jesus maketh and baptizeth more disciples than
John " (iv. 1), the minute details given by him in the history
of the feeding of the five thousand, and of the storm upon the
lake, and many similar traits.
The importance of the preliminary examination, with regard

viii translator's preface.
to the Jewish chronology, will be at once apparent. Thus the
nobleman of Capernaum is with the Saviour at 1 P.M. (John
iv. 52). Shortly after this he returns home. After a journey
of some four hours, he is met near home by those announcing
the recovery of his son. But it is already sunset, and they
reply to his inquiry, " Yesterday, at the seventh hour, the
fever left him." — Mark i. 32, Luke iv. 40, with the sunset a
multitude of diseased are brought to Christ. Because with
the setting of the sun the Sabbath was brought to a close, and
the following day began. — In Luke xxiv. 29 the disciples
constrain their Lord to abide with them ; because the day has
declined. The disciples were again in Jerusalem, after a
journey of two or three hours, on the same day, i.e. before
sunset. But from p. 4 we see the day was said to decline
(icXlveiv) half an hour after mid-day. Similarly is the declining
day of Luke ix. 12 to be understood. I have added (p. 18)
a supplementary table of the Jewish calendar as compared
with the Eoman, by which the date (according to the Julian
calendar) of the festivals occurring during the public ministry
of Christ will be readily found. It must be remembered,
however, that the Jewish day begins only on the evening of
the week day there indicated ; the day properly so called — to
avinfKijpoofia, Acts ii. 1 — falls on the following week day.
Thus 15th Nisan, a.d. 28, was properly Wednesday, 31st
March; as it only began on the evening of Tuesday, 30th
March. So with all the other dates.
The key to the right understanding of the chronology of
the Lord's public ministry is to be sought in the determina
tion of the date of the festival mentioned John v. 1. That
this date was the 10th Tisri (18-1 9th September), the day of
Atonement, a.tj.c. 781, a.d. 28, may be regarded as fully
established in the following pages. The fact that this date
falls in 781 tends further to confirm the argument by which
the 15 th year of Tiberius is shown to begin with the
commencement of 781. But it further follows, that since
Christ was only about (a>ael, fere) thirty years of age in the
spring of this year, He could not have been born so early as
the beginning of 750; otherwise He would have already
entered on His thirty-second year. His birth took place

TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. IX
several weeks — probably some months — before a Passover
which followed the death of Herod {Antig. xvii. 9, sec. 3 ; de
Bello.u. 1, sec. 3), either that of 750 or that of 753. The
difficulties connected with our accepting the Passover of 750
as the one following our Lord's birth are : (1) that of crowding
in, between the time of the lunar eclipse, March 12-13, and
that of Passover, April 12, the long succession of events
mentioned by Josephus (Antia. xvii. 6, sec. 5- — 8, sec. 4),
including the journey made by Herod to the baths on the
eastern shore of the Dead Sea (WMy Zerka Main), and his
return to Jericho ; and the procession of the funeral cortege
to the mountain fort of Herodium in the Jebel Purdis, about
four miles from Bethlehem. Whiston would therefore sup
pose a period of thirteen months to elapse between the eclipse
and the Passover, after which Archelaus went to Eome ; with
how little reason, will be clear upon a moment's consideration
of the relations between Archelaus and Caesar. (2) Varus,
not Quirinus, was Prefect of Syria during the greater part of
750; and (3) the time of Herod's death cannot be placed
earlier than the beginning of the Sabbatic year, September
752. The difficulties connected with our supposing the Passover
753 to be the one which followed our Lord's birth are : (1) the
fact that this presidency of Quirinus over Syria (and probably
Cilicia) is not mentioned by Josephus. But the silence of
Josephus cannot invalidate the express statement of the
evangelist, confirmed as it is by the testimony of Justin
Martyr (himself a native of Sichem, which formed part of
the former kingdom of Herod) in his First Apology, addressed
in the first half of the second century to one so well qualified
to judge of the truth of Justin's assertion as the Emperor
Antoninus.1 Justin Martyr says (Apol. i. 34): "JSTow, there
1 An abstract of the argument, by which Zumpt shows that Quirinus in all
probability entered on the presidency of the conjoint provinces of Syria and
Cilicia about the close of 750, will be found in the English translation of
"Wieseler, pp. 129 ff., and in Fairbairn's Hermeneutical Manual, p. 507. It
may well have happened that, on account of the extent of his province and the
wars on the frontiers (Tacitus, Annal. iii. 48), he should entrust the charge of
the Roman interests in Judsea to Varus, acting in concert with himself. The
conclusion of Zumpt is accepted by Mcrivale and Mommsen.

X TRANSLATOR S PREFACE.
is a certain village (Bethlehem) in the land of the Jews,
distant from Jerusalem thirty-five stades, in which Jesus
Christ was born ; as you can learn from the returns (airo-
<ypa<f)£>v) made in the time of Quirinus, who became your first
governor in Judea" (compare also chap. 46, and Dial, cum
Tryphone, chap. 78). (2) Josephus appears to imply that
Herod Antipas, who is known from coins to have entered on
his forty-third regnal year, was deposed in the second year of
Caligula (792). Vaillant and Galland have preserved the
inscription of a coin dating from the forty-fourth regnal year
of Antipas. This would point to the year 749, at the latest,
as the time of his accession. (3) Josephus assigns thirty-
seven full years to the reign of Philip the tetrarch. But
Philip must then have begun to reign in 749, that is to say,
during the lifetime of Herod. It is almost certain, there
fore, that the princely dignity formerly (B.C. 9) conferred upon
Alexander and Aristobulus ¦ — tu^v /SacrtXetas tow viols
irapaBlSaifu (de Bello, i. 23, sees. 1-5) — 'devolved about three
years before Herod's death (i.e. 749) upon Philip and Antipas.
There is a coin of the thirty- seventh year of Philip's reign.
As regards the commencement of John's ministry, the
reasons for believing that this coincided with the beginning
of the Sabbatic year (Sept. 780) are given in a footnote. If
this view be the correct one, Luke (iii. 2) refers not to the
commencement of his ministry, but to a later call received
by him while in the wilderness of Judea. With the time of
autumn rather than winter agrees, too, the account given us of
the food on which John lived at his first arising. The circuit
of the Jordan mentioned by Luke embraces alike Bethania
and iEnon.
In accordance with the principles laid down by the author,
the gospel narrative has been arranged in tables of parallel
columns. The order of Mark forms the basis of this arrange
ment, although it is not possible, within the limits of a preface,
to explain and justify every deviation from that order. The
succession of events occurring at various times in the neigh
bourhood of Capernaum, " the Lord's city " (rj 18 ia iroXos
avrov), is naturally most difficult to determine. Sometimes
the note of time is to be found in an incident like that of •

TRANSLATORS PREFACE. xi
the" payment of the tribute-money ; sometimes the note of
place is to be found in a single expression, as in " the hem of
the mantle " of Matt. xiv. 36, as compared with ix. 20.1 The
time at which the Sermon on the Mount was delivered is
incidentally fixed by the Lord Himself in His allusion to the
fair robes of the wild lilies, not woven with hands. The
scarlet anemone was seen by Tristram in full flower in the
early part of March (March 1-8); and the tuberous purple iris,
supposed by Thomson to be the flower alluded to, is in bloom
equally early (March 5). When Tristram saw it, it was the
18 th March. The allusion to these flowers in Luke's
narrative (xxii. 27) shows that he too is reporting the same
discourse of the Lord as is Matthew. The author recognises
only one rejection of the Lord at Nazareth. That He was not
twice rejected there, is also the opinion of Van Oosterzee and
other good expositors. To suppose that He was, would seem
to involve a disregard of the Lord's own direction to His
disciples for their guidance (Matt. x. 14). That His rejection
be placed where Luke places it, is necessary to account for
the Lord's withdrawal from Nazareth and taking up His abode
at Capernaum. The evidence to be derived from Matt, xxiii.
37, of our Lord's having made several visits to Jerusalem,
unrecorded in the first two evangelists, has already been
observed by Wieseler and others. That John, in turn, was
acquainted with the fact of our Lord's visible Ascension, which
he does not record, is apparent from his report of the Lord's
words to the disciples at Capernaum : " What, then, if ye
1 From the report of the Lord's own words, — that most certain of all data, —
there is good reason for believing that, alike the raising of the young man at
Nain, and the raising of the daughter of Jairus at Capernaum, bear date not
later than the early spring of the year 29 ; since the Lord could already say to
the messengers of John, "Dead are raised ;" and Matthew records their visit
to the Saviour before the events of the second-first Sabbath (April 5). It is true
the Lord, in His commission to the Twelve (Matt. x. 8), conferred upon them
authority to "raise dead persons ;" but His language throughout this discourse
is evidently to a large extent prophetic in its application (cf. v. 18), and it is
only after the day of Pentecost that the terms of His commission were fully
complied with. It is certainly strange that Stier, who in other respects saw so
clearly the perspective in that part of the Lord's discourse which is related
Matt, x., should regard the words, "Raise dead persons," — contained as they are
in the oldest mss., — as a later interpolation. (According to the order of Luke,
this commission was given only subsequently to the visit of John's disciples. )

xii translator's PREFACE.
should see (dewprjre) the Son of man ascending thither, where
He was before?" (vi. 62). Just as he shows his acquaint
ance with the fact of the Lord's baptism, by his report of
the words oi" the Baptist relating to that event (i. 33, 34).
The ground for the silence of this evangehst with regard to
the Transfiguration is, perhaps, rather to be sought in the
peculiar character of his Gospel itself, which sees in the
whole manifestation of Christ the manifestation of His glory
(i. 14). As far as the authenticity of Mark xvi. 9-20 is
concerned, we may safely accept the verdict of Scrivener,
that " the more closely it is scrutinized, the more manifestly
will it be seen to form a genuine portion of the second Gospel."
Whether or not the author's conclusions as to the year of the
conversion of Paul, and to the presence of Judas at the insti
tution of the Lord's Supper, be accepted, his general chrono
logical order remains the same.
A peculiar feature of this work is the identification of
Judea beyond Jordan with the pastoral district of the Jaulan.
In harmony with the pastoral character of this district is the
type of parables uttered by the Lord during His ministry here,
as, e.g., the sheep feeding " in the wilderness " (Luke xv. 4),
the lost sheep "on the mountains'' (Matt, xviii. 12). See
Stanley, p. 423. To the north of this district alone, Thomson
saw " the pelican of the wilderness" (p. 260). Thomson, too
(p. 254), places Judah of the Jordan to the north of the Sea
of Galilee ; but, misled by the discovery of a Seid Yehuda
immediately to the south of Tell el-Kady, — probably the
Jehud of Josh. xix. 45, — he places this district to the S.E. of
the ancient Dan. That a Bethania did exist between Beth
saida- Julias and Caesarea-Philippi, is 'shown from the reading
of several western codices in Mark viii. 22. That Bethsaida
cannot be meant, is evident from the fact that the Evangelist
Mark speaks of Bethania as a place without walls (/eco/*??),
whereas Bethsaida is spoken of as a walled town (7ro7u<?,
Luke ix. 10 ; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2, sec. 1). Ewald
accordingly, on the ground of the reading in codex D, etc.,
entirely endorses Caspari's view.
That the site of Eastern Bethsaida is not at Et-Tell is
affirmed by Pliny (see p. 94), and is confirmed by Thomson

TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. Xlll
in his text, although on his map the ordinary position is
assigned to it. Thomson says (p. 360): " When I was here
in 1855, the Bedawin in the Butaiha applied the name
Bethsaida to a bank on the shore of the lake, which is dis
tinguished 'by a few palm trees, and in some modern maps
this site is called Masadiyeh, a derivative from the same root
as Bethsaida, both having reference to fishing. ... It is
nearly certain that it was located on the shore, and not several
miles from it, at the Tell to which the name is now affixed."
In the case of the woes pronounced upon the three cities, it
would appear more natural to think the Western Bethsaida
was present to the Lord's mind. This was the scene of the
miracles recorded Matt. xiv. 3 6, and many others. Of the
Eastern Bethsaida, it is difficult to say He had wrought "many"
mighty works there. It is, moreover, associated by Him with
the cities of Galilee. That the apostles report the Lord's
words in a sense different from that in which they were
accustomed to speak themselves, is only one proof the more
of the strictly objective fidelity of their narration. Whether
the modern Btr Kerazeh is the Chorazin of the age of Christ,
or has only received its name from the fact of the inhabitants
of the ancient Chorazin having migrated there to escape the
threat of earthquakes, — which is the supposition of Canon
Tristram, — may be left an open question. At any rate, it was
taken for Chorazin as early as the time of Eusebius. The
conclusions of the author as to the site of Capernaum have
received striking corroboration from the researches of Tristram,
prosecuted on the spot almost simultaneously with those of
Caspari at home. " Wherever the cities stood," adds Canon
Tristram, " the absence of remains and the obliteration of their
very names more utterly than those of Sodom and Gomorrah,
testify to a fulfilment of that prophetic woe which, though not
denounced against the walls and stones, but against those who
dwelt in them, is illustrated by their erasure from the face of
the earth — ' cast down to hell,' lost, and forgotten, though
consecrated by the presence and mighty works of the divine
Saviour. Capernaum in its oblivion preaches to Christendom
a sermon more forcible than the columns of Tyre or the stones
of Jerusalem." The general conclusions of the author are

XIV TRANSLATOR S PREFACE.
favourably discussed in an able review by Dr. Klaiber, Jahr-
biicher fur Deutsche Theologie, xiv. 1, pp. 326-336.
In the Topography of Jerusalem, it will be seen that the
Pool of Bethesda is identified with the Birket Israin or Israil.
No other reservoir in Jerusalem would seem indeed to be
sufficiently large to comply with the requirements of the
gospel narrative. This locality, too, would appear to be
assigned to it by Eusebius, who speaks of it as Bezatha
(Brj&da).1 That the present Garden of Gethsemane, although
greatly shorn of its former dimensions (now only 50 paces
square), occupies the site of the former garden or olive-yard
bearing that name, is as certain as the identity of almost any
historical site can be. What other locality will equally well
answer to the requirements of the history ? (Por some excel
lent observations on this point, see p. 285 of Dr. William
Smith's valuable N. T. History!) Interesting in connection
with this spot is the name Bezetha (Be^eOd), borne by the
northern quarter of the city, which, according to its true
derivation, is from NJVT n,2 (= Olive Place), of which the name
borne in the present day by one of the five wards of Gaza is
the exact Arabic equivalent.2
The derivation assigned by the author to the name Golgotha
receives confirmation from the investigations of Eitter, iv.
134, 135. Por the identity of that which is known as the
Holy Sepulchre with the tomb " hewn out in the rock," the
testimony of Cyril, adduced in Eitter, ii. p. 33, is of great
value. He speaks of " traces and remains of the garden " as
still being left in his day. Of equal interest, as describing
the appearance of the Sepulchre before the time of the Crusades,
are the words of the venerable Bede, belonging to the first
half of the eighth century. "... In the northern part of
which monument the Sepulchre itself, that is, the place of the
Lord's body, is formed from the same rock, being seven feet
long, and raised to the extent of three palms' width above the
rest of the pavement. Which place is open, not from above,
1 That the healings wrought there were the effect of a miraculous intervention,
appears to follow from the statement of John v. 7, even though the account of
the angel be entirely left out.
2 So Bsedecker, p. 152, with whose view on this subject Caspari agrees.

TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. XV
but on the whole southern side, where the body was placed in.
Now the colour of this monument and niche is said to be a
mixture of red and white." This information Bede gives on
the testimony of eye-witnesses. (The citation will be found
in full, in the original Latin, in Macknight, ii. 542 of the fifth
edition.) The origin of the substructures under the Aksa Mosque is
still a matter of discussion among scholars. Por Tristram's
handling of the subject, see pp. 183, 184 of his work, where
a good description of these subterranean edifices is given. A
general impression of their appearance is to be obtained from
a woodcut on p. 689 of Thomson's Land and the Book.
As regards the English literature of this whole subject, I
have in the notes appended made no attempt at anything like
completeness in the citation of authors. My aim has been
simply to supply such hints and references as may less readily
be found collected in any one book. To this alone must the
fact be attributed, that the admirable Handbook of Dr. Porter,
for example, has been passed over in silence. The classical
work of Eitter is cited, when not otherwise specified, from the
English translation of Messrs. T. and T. Clark. The references
to the elaborate work of Dr. Eobinson are to the third and last
(complete) edition of his Besearches (1867). Bishop Ellicott
is cited from the first edition of his Lectures, — a work which,
after an interval of fifteen years, remains an unsurpassed model
of critical tact and spiritual insight. The citations from Dean
Stanley are from the fifth edition of his Sinai and Palestine;
those from Canon Tristram, from his second edition (1866).
Por Mr. Bonar's Narrative, the sixteenth edition ; and for Dr.
Thomson's Land and the Book, the English edition of 1863
is referred to. Wieseler is cited according to the scholarly
translation of Mr. Venables (1864).
In conclusion, I have to acknowledge my obligation to M.
Caspari for the readiness with which he has furnished me
with information of great value, while the English edition of
this work was being prepared for the press ; with the effect,
it is hoped, of rendering this work — embodying, as it does, to
a great extent the labour of the author's lifetime — fully abreast
with the present stage of scientific knowledge. (For that

XVI TRANSLATOR S PREFACE.
portion of the work included within square brackets he bears
no part of the responsibility.) At the same time I desire to
express my thanks to the Eev. James Kennedy, M.A, of New
College, Edinburgh, for his kindness in verifying certain
references, and thus adding to the efficiency of the work ; and
to the Eev. Ellis Edwards, M.A., of the Calvinistic Methodist
College, Bala, for services of a Like nature. Every effort has
been made, on the part of the printers and myself, to secure
as great degree of accuracy as possible. If any typographical
errors have nevertheless escaped attention, they will not, it is
believed, be found to be of such importance as to interfere
with the general trustworthiness of the volume as a book of
reference.
M. J. E.
Carnarvon, December 1875.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

It is not the portrait of Jesus Christ which is here presented,
but merely the frame for that portrait.
A history of the life of Jesus, such as is on many sides
aimed at in the present day, is a genetic presentation not only
of that which He was, but of the reasons why He was so, and
the manner in which He became so.
" In the fulness of the time " Jesus Christ came. It is
therefore one of the abiding tasks of science to depict more
and more clearly the then existing condition of the world, to
present vividly the state of affairs, the moral conditions, of
society, the seeking and aspirations of the men among whom
He lived. This it is necessary to do, in order to gain a back
ground for the life of Christ, such as shall set forth that Life
in its full and true light. So soon, however, as this background
is itself regarded as the central figure, the light to whose
brightness it serves as a foil ; so soon as one's efforts are
directed to the end of finding in these conditions of the world
and of minds the dynamic force which, so to speak, has
created this life ; so soon as these external agencies are
accepted as the cause, by the operation of which Jesus
became, and could not but become, that which He was, — the
firm ground of history is at once abandoned, and — however
great the efforts historically to explain and adjust the facts of
His life — the memoir becomes a work of the imagination, a
romance. The sources whence such a biography must be
derived are the Gospels. These too, we admit, recognise a
development in the life of Jesus, for they teach that He
grew, and waxed strong in spirit — to iracSlov rjvgave koX
itcpaTaiovTO, Luke ii. 40. But how this took place, by what
powers, means, and influences, is nowhere said ; on the con^-
b

a

XVU1 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
trary, the Gospels set Jesus before us in the completeness of
His person. It is nowhere shown when, where, and how He
formed His plan of redemption ; in what way His ideas arose
and developed themselves, were modified or perfected. That
which He willed and was on the day of His crucifixion, that
He perfectly willed and was at the moment of His first
arising, — there is no trace of progress, development, or modifi
cation. A genetic life of Jesus is an impracticable under
taking. On the other hand, not only do we regard it as possible,
but esteem it a problem propounded to the effort of scientific
thought, to obtain such a grasp of the history of Christ as to
present Him, and render His Life intelligible, not in the
process of His becoming what He was, but in the completeness
of that which He ultimately was. That, however, this work
is no easy one, of which a single thinker can fully acquit
himself, is seen from the fact that it was always, and ever
remains, the task of the whole of Christendom, and of the
Church in particular, ever more deeply, many-sidedly, and
perfectly, so to apprehend and comprehend Christ " that He
may gain a form and outline (fiop<pa)6fj)."
To the solution of this question, however, the frame and
outwork contributes more than is ordinarily recognised and
acknowledged. Frequently is the opinion expressed that the
chronological and geographical element in the life of Christ is
without significance. It is, many suppose, a matter of in
difference to ascertain whether Christ's public labours extended
to several years, or only a few months ; whether He was
crucified a.d. 30, or in some other year; whether the day of
His death was the preparation for Passover, or the day of the
paschal festival ; whether Capernaum was situated in the
territory of Gennesar, or at the northern end of the Sea of
Tiberias ; whether Sychar was identical with Sichem, or was
distinct from it ; whether or not the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre marks the scene of the crucifixion and resurrection ;
whether Jesus was once only, or several times, in Jerusalem :
all these outworks, it is thought, may be dispensed with, if
only the spirit, nature, and doctrine of Jesus is seized. Yet
this is a great and ruinous mistake. If Jesus Christ is thus

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XIX
spiritualized, and severed from the relations of time and space,
such false spiritualism receives its punishment in the result
that the whole objectively historical character of the person of
Jesus becomes eventualLy doubtful, and is subtilized into the
ideal. It belongs to the very nature of history to have its
roots in time and space ; the reality of the historical person
is conditionated by the fact that place, relations, and time are
clearly ascertained. Many of the weightiest doubts urged
against the authenticity of the Gospel of John fall within
this category. In this Gospel, e.g., it is said that Jesus pro
ceeded from the place where John was baptizing to Cana of
Galilee in a single day. It is assumed, then, as a proved
truth that this place of baptism was in the neighbourhood of
Jericho — a city fully three days' journey from Cana ; from
this the conclusion is drawn that it is impossible the account
which represents Jesus as travelling ninety miles in one clay
can be the work of an eye-witness. The objection, however,
disappears when it is shown that the scene of John's baptism
was not near Jericho, but at the northern end of the Sea of
Gennesareth, on the Upper Jordan, at a place some six or
seven hours' distance from Cana of Galilee.
So, too, do we frequently read that the Synoptists teach that
Jesus was crucified on the 15th Nisan; but that the fourth
Gospel, on the other hand, places this event on the preparation-
day, and is thus in contradiction not only with the Synoptists,
but also with the veritable Apostle John, who, according to
the tradition of Asia Minor, taught that Jesus was crucified
on the 15th Nisan. From this it is concluded that the same
John could not be the author of that Gospel which declares
precisely the opposite. This objection, however, disappears
so soon as it is shown that not only the author of the fourth
Gospel, but also the Synoptists and the tradition of Asia
Minor give the 14th Nisan as the day of the crucifixion.
Such instances prove that this outwork has its indisputable
value. To prepare the frame for the portrait of Jesus is the
object of the present work ; the main epochs in the hfe of the
Lord are to be chronologically determined, His journeyings
presented in their natural sequence, the localities affected by
these journeys geographically fixed. In this behoof must

XX PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
especially a harmony of the Gospels be aimed at. , The
possibility or impossibility of succeeding in such an under
taking depends mainly upon the conception which one forms
to himself of the Gospels. On this point, therefore, we are
bound, first of alL, to give an intelligible explanation.
That the three first Gospels admit of a synoptical treatment
is acknowledged by all; but that the fourth Gospel can be.
brought within this complex is in the present day frequently
and decidedly denied. This very impossibility, thus assumed,
of bringing the fourth Gospel into harmony with the Synoptists
is one of the main arguments urged against the authenticity
of the Johannine books. The fourth Gospel, it is supposed,
assigns to Jesus several years of public labour, and places
the scene of His activity almost exclusively in Judea, and
especially at Jerusalem ; the Synoptists, on the other hand,
know only of a few months of public labour on the part of
Jesus, and place, with the exception of the last fatal Passover,
the scene of His activity in Galilee, and especially on the
shore of the Lake of Gennesareth ; on this account, it is
asserted, one must choose between the Logos-Gospel and the
Synoptists, and the decision is, as a rule, unfavourable to the
claims of the fourth Gospel. We admit that if it is true the
Gospel of John places Christ in entirely different relations of
time and place, the truth cannot exist on both sides, and a
choice and decision becomes necessary. But, above all, the
attempt at harmony must be seriously made before it is pro
nounced impossible. Our mode of proceeding would be
censured, and certainly deservedly so, if we approached our
task with a ready-formed, cut and dried opinion. Precisely
because chronology and geography have to speak a decisive
word in relation to the Gospel of John, it is our bounden
duty, in the first place, to subject to a new test the possibility
or impossibility of a harmony in this respect. We do not,
indeed, approach the task free from alL preconceived opinion.
Christian antiquity hands down to us the fourth Gospel as a
work of the Apostle John ; the book itself, -it is true, ascribes
itself to this apostle only in its superscription ; the author
nowhere mentions himself by name, but refers to himself as
" the other disciple," " the disciple whom Jesus loved ; " but

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXI
that the Apostle John is intended by these expressions is
placed beyond doubt. This Gospel is avowedly the work of
an eye-witness (John i. 14) ; a series of scenes bear the un-
mistakeable stamp of personal contemplation, inasmuch as
incidental circumstances are narrated, such as a tradition
would nowhere and never have preserved. To these, in the
first place, belongs John i. 35-52. Observe ver. 38, "he
turned himself about;" ver. 40, "it was about the tenth
hour;" further, vers. 35, 41, iii. 1, the careful enumeration
of the days, etc. These are subordinate circumstances, which
in tradition get softened down ; only in the mind of a deeply-
affected eye-witness do such minutiae continue to cleave to
the picture as its ineffaceable colouring. The same, too, is
the case with regard to the scene, John xx. 2-10. Observe
in this narrative especially ver. 4, " The two ran together ;
and the other disciple ran first, quicker than Peter ; '' and
vers. 6, 8, " Simon Peter went in . . . and then also the
other disciple." If representations of this kind are not the
work of an 'eye-witness, they are the product of an inten
tionally misleading invention ; tradition, at any rate, they are
not We are therefore justified in starting with the pre
supposition that this Gospel proceeds from John the apostle,
and in retaining this conviction until insuperable arguments
convince us of the contrary.
The mission of the apostles was to testify of that which
they had seen and heard. Now, if all had seen the same
things, if all had been witnesses of all the Lord's acts, their
accounts must necessarily accord. But the supposition that
the apostles were from the very first called to the apostolate,
and were all twelve from that time the Lord's companions, is
an entirely baseless hypothesis. Each one of the apostles,
after accompanying the Lord on a particular journey, returned
to his home and calling until a fresh opportunity was
presented of accompanying the Lord. Even passages like
Luke v. 11 do not justify our inferring that there was a
constant accompanying of Him, since, it is evident that after
this event Peter still continued to be a fisherman. So soon,
however, as we come to the conclusion that to-day this
disciple, to-morrow that, was one of the Lord's attendants, it is

XX11 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
naturally to be expected that each one of them would especially
accompany the Lord, when He was in the native land of the
disciple. Nathanael in Cana, Peter on the shore of the lake,
John in Judea. John was a Jerusalemite ; he had in Jeru
salem his acquaintances (John xviii. 15), and his house
(xix. 27). No doubt there occur passages in the Synoptists,
as e.g. Luke v. 1 0, which would seem to imply that John and
his father Zebedee dwelt at Capernaum. Yet this apparent
contradiction finds a simple solution in the following fact.
Ancient Jewish tradition (Bab. Baba Kama, fol. 80. 2) teaches
that one of the privileges of the Israelites, when dwelling in
the land of Israel, was, that each one had the right of catch
ing fish in the Sea of Gennesareth, with the single restriction
of not interfering by his net with the navigation of the lake.
Of this right some inhabitants of Jerusalem availed them
selves, in that, during more than one month which preceded
the Passover, they were wont by the Sea of Galilee to catch,
dry, and perhaps salt the fish [then called Taproot, cf. Eitter,
ii. 279], in order at Jerusalem to set them before the million
guests who would require provisions. Zebedee and his sons
were among those inhabitants of Jerusalem who were fisher
men, and were wont at this season to ply their craft, in
company with Simon and Andrew, upon the lake. Hence it
is we always find John at the Sea of Galilee before the
Passover (John i. 37, vi. 1, xi. 1 ff.), but only at this season.
When, therefore, Jesus was sojourning in Judea, and parti
cularly in Jerusalem, John was His attendant, while Peter
and the other Galilean disciples pursued their calling by the
lake side. That which John himself witnessed on such
occasions, but only that which he himself witnessed, did he
set down in his Gospel.
It might be objected that facts like those of John iii. 1 ff.,
the conversation of the Lord with Nicodemus, iv. 7 ff., the
conversation with the woman of Samaria, and, xviii. 33-38,
the conversation with Pilate in the Praetoriuni, could not
have been listened to by John. But why, we ask, might
not John have been an ear-witness of these facts ? Since
in aLl probability Jesus, when He was in Jerusalem, dwelt in
John's house, the latter might as the host be present at these

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XX111
conversations. In like manner John, whom there was
nothing to prevent from entering into the Prsetorium, may
have been present at the examination of Christ before Pilate.
It is conceivable, too, that John may have remained with
Jesus at Jacob's Fountain, and heard the conversation. If,
however, chap. iv. 8 shall be thought to contradict this
supposition, it must at any rate be admitted that, immediately
after his return from the city, he heard, either from the Lord
Himself, or from the Samaritan woman, the substance of the
conversation. This he must of necessity introduce into his
Gospel ; because by means of it is explained that of which he
immediately afterwards gives an account, the conversion of the
inhabitants of Sychar.
The earliest Christian tradition relates that Mark composed
his Gospel under the direction of the Apostle Peter. This
Petrine Gospel narrates, consequently, that which had been
personally witnessed by Peter ; that is to say, what he had
himself seen and heard when Jesus was sojourning on the
shore of the lake. Under such circumstances, it is evident
that but few points of contact could arise between the
accounts of John and those of Mark, or, in other words,
Peter ; since the former [almost] exclusively relates that which
took place in Judea, the latter that which took place in
Galilee. The Gospel of Matthew has the same narrative basis as
that of Mark, augmented by many discourses of Christ which
are wanting in the former. The case is otherwise with Luke,
whose Gospel is a collection (Luke i. 1-3), embracing not
only that which was witnessed by Peter, but also much which
was seen and heard by other apostles and disciples. On this
account the Gospel of Luke frequently places the scene of
events at Jerusalem, and thus becomes a supplementary
middle link between John and Mark. That Luke supplies
the connecting link, has been with more or less of clearness
recognised by some, while by others this is denied. This
connection is not indeed apparent on the surface ; in order to
trace it out, and to avail ourselves of it for purposes of
criticism, it is necessary to enter upon the question of the
origin of the synoptical Gospels.

XXIV PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
Since the mission of the apostles was to testify of that
which they had seen and heard, it was incumbent on them
to narrate the history of the' Lord's Life, so far as they them
selves had witnessed it. That Peter especially took the lead
in a proclamation of this kind, and was the first who imparted
to these narratives their precise form, and, moreover, furnished
the material of the narrative, may be inferred from the
prominent position he took in the apostolic circle. Through
the frequent repetition of the same accounts, the narration
would gradually assume a stereotyped form. Duly qualified
believers received from the apostles a fund of narrative,
the same in contents and form : hence there arose a peculiar
office of companions of the apostles, who narrated the words
and deeds of the Lord. These appear to have been identical
with the evangelists mentioned Acts xxi. 8, Eph. iv. 11.
This fund of narrative was first reduced to writing by Mark,
the companion of Peter. The framework of the narrative,
once accepted, was (under the influence of Matthew) augmented
by the addition of the discourses of the Lord, and this cyclus,
too, perpetuated in writing. We thus regard the written
redaction of Matthew as later than that of Mark ; because, as
will presently be shown more than once, the oral proclamation
has already lost much in point of precision. Whether the
Gospel of Matthew was composed originally in Aramaic or
not, is a question into which we need not here enter. Luke
has once more reduced to writing the fund of gospel narrative,
which he has enriched with the fruits of his own diligent
research. It is not necessary to conceive of the one author
of the written Gospel as dependent on the writing of the
other. The cycle of narrative, sprung originally from one
and the same source, might well, in the mouth of the apostolic
narrators or evangelists — so near to the source — retain a
harmony sufficient to explain the frequently verbal corre
spondence in the three Synoptists, and at the same time their
deviation the one from the other. This last feature, on the
other hand, would be incomprehensible if the one evangelist
were supposed to be dependent on the written narrative of
the other. It is well known that popular traditions are
related, often with verbal agreement, in very different dis-

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXV
tricts ; how much more must this be the case with the gospel
cycles, which were ever still formed under the oversight,
as respects contents and form, of their founders the apostles !
But if the Gospels at first existed as stereotyped oral
narratives, it is only to be expected that their defmiteness, in
point of time and place, should become partially softened
down, and that the material belonging to one pericope should
assume the appearance of being closely connected as to time
and place ; because change of time and place, as not being a
matter of primary importance, was after a time no longer
indicated. This blending of events in the narrative must
necessarily become most apparent in the accounts of the
manifestations of the Eisen One. These manifestations were
of brief duration, sporadic, and disconnected ; taking place
now here, now there ; on one occasion in the presence of these
disciples — on another, of those ; to-day this word was heard
from the mouth of the Lord — to-morrow, that ; more than once
was repeated the same fact of the pointing to His wounds, the
breaking of the bread ; more than once was addressed to them
the same salutation, Peace be unto you ! Events occurring
so abruptly, so transient in their duration, so apparently dis
connected, and bearing so great resemblance the one to the
other as to their main features, could not in oral narration be
long preserved in their distinctness as to time and place ; they
blended in a single manifestation, of which the scene would
appear, according to the one, to be exclusively Jerusalem —
according to the other, to be Galilee. These accounts con
fined themselves to the testimony : Jesus is risen from the dead,
and the apostles saw the Risen One. Only John, the eye
witness, preserved the history of the manifestations distinct
as regards time and place, and only under his guidance is it
possible to assign to the facts* — grouped together by the
Synoptists in one picture — their due place.
If Matthew and Mark have been silent as to the journeyings
through Judea, it is otherwise with Luke. This latter evan
gehst indicates, on several occasions, a journey to Judea and
Jerusalem. Luke iv. 44, according to the better codices ; ix.
51, xiii. 22, xvii. 11, xviii. 31. That from ix. 51 for
ward all indications that Jesus set His face towards Jerusalem

XXV1 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
relate to the last journey, seems indeed to follow from the
language employed in this last passage, where it is said : " It
came to pass, when the days of His being taken up were
accomplished, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem."
But in the meantime we find Jesus at Bethany, x. 38 ; on
the shore of the lake, xiii. 31 ff. ; in Samaria and Galilee,
xvii. 11. If now all these declarations are to be referred to
one and the same journey, it must be assumed that Luke — in
contradiction with his promise to narrate a/c/3i/3o3s — has related
the events in an entirely unchronological order. Criticism is
justified in coming to such a judgment, only after the failure
of every attempt to point out a chronological order. But it
is found that John is acquainted with the same number of
journeys to Jerusalem as Luke. On this account we deem
ourselves justified in the inference, that the narratives in Luke
are given in the order of their occurrence ; while in the oral
accounts the various journeys to Jerusalem are not duly dis
tinguished the one from the other, and to the second visit is
attached the fatal import which properly belongs exclusively
to the last. This would take place the more easily, since the
Galilean apostles, to whom we owe the fund of narrative
furnished by the Synoptists, are acquainted indeed with the
earlier journeys of Jesus to Jerusalem, but did not themselves
accompany the Lord upon these journeys ; at least not those
of them who — like Peter and Matthew — gave origin to the
gospel cycles.
After giving expression to our view touching the main
source of the history of Jesus, the Gospels, it becomes us
further to give an account of the various subsidiary works of
which we have availed ourselves. Much as has been already
done by scientific research for the right understanding of the
chronology and geography of our Lord's life, yet the present
condition of the science everywhere calls for a return to the
original sources. This duty we have strictly imposed upon
ourselves, and thus it happens that we seldom cite the works
of the said authorities, although they are known to us, and we
owe to them many an important solution. To a much greater
extent than is usually the case, we have availed ourselves of
the assistance afforded by Jewish tradition, and this certainly

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. xxvii
to the advantage of our cause. As regards the geography of
Palestine, its literature has grown during the most recent times
to enormous dimensions : that any one should be acquainted
with it all can no longer be required. Yet we can give the
assurance that the geographical portion of our work is based
upon a thorough study of the ancient authors and of those
travellers of highest authority.
The material here treated arranges itself naturally in six
divisions : —
The first treats of the chronological basis of the history of
Christ, sees. 1-38.
The second, of the birth and childhood of our Lord, sees.
39-56. The third, of the environs of the Lake of Gennesareth, the
scene of our Lord's deeds, sees. 57-74.
The fourth, of the first year of our Lord's public ministry,
sees. 75-99.
The fifth, of the second year of His ministry, sees. 100-134.
The sixth, of the third and last year, sees. 135-205.
All that concerns the topography of Jerusalem is dealt with
in the Appendix.

ERRATA.
Page 166, note, line 3 from bottom, for Fogiie read Vogue.
The following footnote refers to p. 272 : —
The presentation of the above views as to Zion-Akra first appeared in the
Studien u. Kritilcen, 1864, ii. pp. 304-328 : Caspari, " Zion und Akra die der
Syrer." Since then it has made its way. Compare, e.g., the biblische Geo-
grapMe of Riess, Freiburg 1872, where it is adopted and developed. Only the
writer has forgotten to mention his source. (Later note of author. )

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Author's Preface,
Translator's Preface,
Preliminary Observations,

PAGE v
vii
xvii

FIEST DIVISION.
CHEONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHEIST. 2 23 4
55

I. — The Jewish Calendar, ...
Sec. 3. The Civil Day of the Jews,
Sec. 4. The Night,
Sec. 5. The Day, ...
Sec. 6. The "Week,
Sec. 7. The Month,
Sec. 8. The' Year, . . . .
II. — The Principal Epochs in the Life of King Herod, .
Sec. 25. The Year of Herod's Death, .
III. — The Principal Epochs in the Life of Christ,
Sec. 30. The Census, ....
Sec. 31. The Star of the "Wise Men, .
Sec. 32. The Year of Christ's entering on His Public "Work,
Sec. 33. The Fifteenth Year of the Emperor Tiberius, .
Sec. 35. The Year of the Conversion of the Apostle Paul,
IV. — The Year of our Lord's Death,

19
28
34 3438 40
414550

SECOND DIVISION.
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
I. — The "Birth of John the Baptist,
Sec. 41. The City of Juda,
Sec. 42. The Time of the Birth of John,
II. — The Birth of Jesus, » . . .
Sec. 44. Nazareth,
Sec. 45. Bethlehem, ....
Sec. 47. The Field of the Shepherds,
III. — History of the Childhood of Jesus, .
Sec. 48. The Slaughter of the Children at Bethlehem,
Sec. 49. Rachel's Sepulchre,
Sec. 50. The Flight to Egypt, .
IV. — History of the Youth of Jesus,

54
54 5658
5861
63 64 64
65 68 72

XXX

CONTENTS.

THIED DIVISION.
THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.

PAGE

Sec. 58.

The Sea of Gennesareth,

77

Sec. 59.

Tiberias,

78

Sec. 61.

Magdala, ...

79

Sec. 62.

The Land of Gennesareth,

79

Sec. 63.

Capernaum, .....

80

Sec. 64.

The Boundaries of Zebulon and Naphthaleim,

83

Sec. 66.

Bethsaida, .....

86

Sec. 67.

Chorazin, .....

87

Sec. 68.

Judah of the Jordan, ....

89

Sec. 69.

El-Batiheh, .

91

Sec. 70.

Bethania beyond Jordan,

92

Sec. 71.

Bethsaida-Julias,

93

Sec. 72.

The Decapolis,

96

(a) Scythopolis, ....

97

(b) Hippos, . . .
97
(c) Gadara, .
98
(d) Adraa, .....
98
(e) Raphana,
98
(/) Capitolias, ....
99
(g) Philadelphia, ....
100
(h) Gerasa, .....
100
(i) Dion, . . . .
101
(&)Pella, . ...
101
Sec. 73.
Magadan, .....
105
Sec. 74.
Dalmanutha, . ., .
106
FOUETH DIVISION.
THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHEIST.
Sec. 75. Synopsis of the Four Gospels, . . . 107
I. — The Baptism of our Lord, . . . no
II. — The Beginning of the Public Ministry of Christ, . 114
Sec. 82. Cana of Galilee, . . . . 115
III. — The First Passover, ..... 118
Sec. 85. Cleansing of the Sanctuary, .... 118
Sec. 88. iEnon near to Saleim, ..... 122
Sec. 89. Samaria, .... . 122
Sec. 90. Jacob's "Well, ... . . 123
Sec. 91. Sychar, . . . . . . .124
IV.— Our Lord's Second Sojourn in Galilee, . . 127
V. — Our Lord's Visit to Jerusalem at the Fast of Atonement, 130
Sec. 99. The Pool of Bethesda, . . . .132
CONTENTS.

XXXI

FIFTH DIVISION.
THE SECOND YEAR OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY.
PAGE
Synopsis of the Gospels, . . . . .134
I. — From the Lord's Return to Galilee to the Second-first
Sabbath, ....... 138
Sec. 103. The Second-first Sabbath, . . . .138
Sec. 104. The Imprisonment of John the .Baptist, . . 139
Sec. 105. Herod the Tetrarch, ..... 141
II. — From the Second-first Sabbath to the Storm upon the Sea, 144
Synopsis of the Gospels, . . . . . .144,
Sec. 108. The Sermon on the Mount, . . . .145
Sec. 109. Healing of the Centurion's Servant, and Raising of
the Young Man at Nain, . . . .147
Sec. 110. Nain, ...... 147
Sec. 111. The Message of the Baptist, . . . .148
Sec. 113. First Crossing of the Lake, .... 150
III. — Feeding of the Five Thousand, .... 152
Sec. 116. Death of John the Baptist, . . . .152
IV. — Synopsis of Events from the Feeding of the Five Thousand
to the End of the Year, ..... 157
V. — Journey of Jesus within the Confines of Tyre and Sidon, 161
VI. — Feeding of the Four Thousand, .... 161
VII. — Passage of Jesus to Gesarea-Philippi, . . . 162
Sec. 123. Csesarea-Philippi, ..... 163
VIII. — The Transfiguration, ...... 165
IX. — Journey of Jesus to the Feast of Tabernacles, . . 167
Sec. 128. Feast of Tabernacles, . . .. . .169
X. — Jesus at the Feast of Dedication, .... 173

SIXTH DIVISION.
THE THIED AND LAST YEAR OF OUE LOED'S LABOUES.
I. — Synopsis of the Historical Material, . . . 176

II. — Jesus abides in Judea beyond Jordan,
III. — The Raising of Lazarus,
IV.— Our Lord's Sojourn at Ephraim,
Y. — Last Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem,
Sec. 142. Jericho,
Sec. 144. Bethphage, .
VI.— The Mode of observing Passover at the Time of Christ,

177180184186
186 189 192

XXX11

CONTENTS.

PAGE
VII.— The Time of Christ's Suffering according to the single
Evangelists, ...... 196
Sec. 151. The Time of the Passion according to the Gospel of
John,  .196
JULIAN DAY— JEWISH NIGHT-DAY, . 199
Sec. 155. The Time of the Passion according to Luke, . . 200
Sec. 158. The Paschal Meal, ..... 202
Sec. 159. The Time of the Passion according to Mark, . . 205
Sec. 160. The Time of the Passion according to Matthew, . 207
VIII. — The Time of Christ's Suffering according to Christian
Tradition, ....... 209
IX. — Synopsis of the History of the Passion, . . . 217
Sec. 167. The Supper, .... .219
Sec. 180. The Crucifixion, . ... 232
Sec. 181. The Taking Down from the Cross, . . .234
Sec. 182. The Grave, .... .234
X. — History of the Resurrection of Christ, . . . 235
Sec. 191. Emmaus, ...... 242
XI. — Critical Review of the History of the Resurrection, . 248

APPENDIX.
TOPOGRAPHY OF JEEUSALEM.

ni-.ii.uas, .......
Jerusalem according to Josephus,

zoo
259

The Second Wall,

261

The Third Wall, . . . . .

262

The Sanctuary, .....

265

Bezetha, Fore City, Upper City,

265

Lower City, . .

266

The Acra, . . . .

271

The City of David, . .

272

Jerusalem according to the Biblical Text,

275

The Pool of Siloah, ....

275

The Dnng Gate, . ...

275

The Valley Gate, .....

275

The City of David, .....

276

The Horse Gate, . ...

278

Ophel, ......

279

Zion, .......

282

Jerusalem according to, Christian Tradition,

295

The Church of Zion, .....

295

The Portico of Solomon, ....

297

Moria extra Muros,

299

Golgotha, .....

304

^ — ^-^r— \ /^ ^""^

/ j

..,,-J

"gT , ^~^^^ /V
/ ¦¦/
\ -i
w^
'' Ty" •
/Cf-_-
\\l
V />-'
^) j ., \^
Q
on
Y^ 0s
•-/""v ¦**
O
M
=3 o
/ j '
V^  ©
¦ ©
03<o
' ',„i o
00
>n9
_l000-
A
CHEONOLOGICAL AND GEOGEAPHICAL INTRODUCTION
TO THE
LIFE OF CHRIST.

DIVISION I.
CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
Sec 1. IV^any earnest investigators have despaired of gaining a
chronological basis for the history of Jesus. And such despair
ing of the possibility of the matter seems really justified, when
we compare that which chronologists, each from his own
standpoint, have given us as the result of their investigations.
"Some fix the birth of Christ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, yea, even 19
years earlier than Dionysius did; the baptism, in the year 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ; His death, in the 29th or 30th, or 31st,
3 2d, 33d, 35th year of our era."1 That the task we have
imposed on ourselves is accompanied with great difficulties,
cannot be denied ; but insuperable they are not. Above all,
it must not be overlooked that these difficulties have their
ground, not in the Gospel narratives themselves, but in the
contemporaneous profane history, of which the chronology is
wrongly determined. Before we thus make the attempt to
arrange the facts of the Gospels in the order of time, it is
incumbent on us to determine chronologically that part of
profane history which synchronizes with them.
No historic fact has ever so powerfully affected the course
of the world's history as the word and work of Jesus Christ.
But this influence on the course of affairs first became noticeable
decades of years after the death of Jesus. During His hfe
He came but little into contact with the great powers of this
world ; on which account the chronological hints are, as might
1 Seyffarth, Chron. Sacra, 8. 1.
A

2 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
be expected, comparatively very few. But however limited
in point of number, they are sufficient for the purpose, if
examined thoroughly and without previous bias.
According to Matt, ii 1 and Luke i. 5, Christ was born
during the reign of Herod I., and, indeed, towards the end of
that reign;. since when this king died he was still a "child."1
A first problem is consequently to determine the year of this
king's death.
At the time of the birth of Jesus a census ordered by
Augustus was made, and the star of the wise men was seen
in the sky.2
According to Luke, the public labours of Jesus began in the
15th year of the Emperor Tiberius f and
According to John, this, His public appearing, took place in
the 46 th year of the rebuilding of the temple by Herod.4
To the determination of the year of Jesus' death belongs, in
addition to the dates just referred to, Gal. i. 16— ii. 1, where it
is said that the second journey of the Apostle Paul to Jerusalem
took place seventeen years after his conversion.
The date of all these synchronistic facts is now to be deter
mined. Before this, however, we must communicate so much
with regard to the mode of reckoning current among the Jews
at the time of Jesus, as is indispensable for the understanding
of the Gospel narratives. I. — The Jewish Calendar.
Sec. 2. The year of the Jews consisted of twelve lunar
months, and thus contained about 354 days. But since the
principal festivals were attached to definite days of the month,
as well as to different seasons of the year, the lunar year was
made to agree with the solar year by the intercalation of a
thirteenth month every third year.
Sec. 3. The civil day of the Jews began with sunset, and
ended with the sunset of the following day. On this account
Paul, in 2 Cor. xi. 2 5, calls it a night-day,5 vvftOrffiepov. This
1 tfa;5ia», Matt. ii. 20. * Luke ii. 1 ; Matt. ii. 1 ff.
3 Luke iii. 1. * John ii. 20.
5 A term which will he generally employed throughout this work, where it is
necessary to remember that the day in question is a Jewish day.

THE JEWISH CALENDAR. 3
mode of beginning the day is met with even in the history
of creation ; for, Gen. i. 5, we read : " It was evening, and it
was morning, one day." It is well known that other ancient
nations besides Israel began the civil day with the night, as
e.g. the Germans ; whence Tacitus says, that with them the
night draws after it the day.1 In Pliny we read : " Some
looked upon the day in one way, some in another ; the Baby
lonians as between two sunrises, the Athenians between two
sunsets, the Umbrians from noon to noon," etc. Ipsum diem
alii aliter observavere : Babylonii inter duos solis ortus, Athe-
nienses inter duos occasus, Umbrii a meridie ad meridiem, etc.2
This explains the fact that the expression vv^O^fiepov, used
by Paul, occurs with the Athenian Plato. That the epoch of
the Jewish day was really sunset, is confirmed by the writings
of Jewish tradition. In Menachoth, x. 3, the cutting of the
paschal sheaf on the 16 th Nisan is described. The deputies
of the Sanhedrim repaired, at the close of the 1 5th Nisan, to
the field previously indicated, and waited until the reaper
said : " BWn &u, the sun is gone down." The others repeated
these words ; only then was it permitted to put in the sickle,
because with the setting of the sun the 15th Nisan was
brought to an end, and the 16 th began. The Karaite Elia
ben Mosheh says that the month, and thus, of course, the day
too, began with the third evening, when the sun had set, 2*iyD
tswn &ao tons? *t?^B>n.3 This period was naturally divided into
night and day ; the former extended from sunset to sunrise,
the latter from sunrise to sunset.
Sec. 4. The night was divided by the ancient Hebrews,
with reference to the placing of the guards, into three watches,
nvWK, fyvXaical; of which the first, rvriBB>K B>&n, occurs in
Lam. ii. 19; the second or middle watch, ruu'nn mOB>K,
Judg. vii 19; and the morning watch, ipan mDB'K, Ex. xiv.
24; 1 Sam. xi. 11. This division was retained by the Jews
in connection with the temple guards.4 But, besides this, the
Boman division into foitr night watches was also in use. It is
met with in the New Testament, Acts xii. 3, 4, Matt. xiv. 25,
as well as in Josephus, who (Antiq. v. 6, sec. 5) relates that
1 Tacitus, Germania, xi. 2 Plinius, H. N. ii. 79.
3 See Von Gumpach, Ueber den altjiidischen Kalender, p. 20.
? Bab. Menachoth, i. 1. 6.

4 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
Gideon led his company against the enemy at the fourth
watch of the night, KaTot t^v TeTaprrjv fyvkaicriv. The four
watches of the night might be indicated in Mark xiii. 35 by
the appellations, evening, midnight, cock-crowing, morning.1
Sec. 5. The day was divided naturally into morning, noon,
and evening ; and artificially into twelve hours, of which the
first began with sunrise. Noon embraced that time, "from
half an hour before to half an hour after the sixth hour;
then the sun stands still above the head of every one, casts
its shadow down direct before it, and inclines to neither side ;
from half an hour after the sixth, however, it inclines in the
sky towards evening." 2 Prom this it results that the morning,
"ipa, extended from the first hour to the sixth hour and a half,
and the evening, any, from the sixth hour and a half to the
twelfth. The Jews spoke of the period from the setting of
the sun to the appearing of the stars as " the third evening,"
consequently the beginning of the new day.8 The first even
ing corresponded to our afternoon ; the second, to our evening
before sunset ; the third, to that from sunset to the time when
the stars appear. According to Ex. xii. 6, Lev. xxiii. 5, Num.
ix. 3, the paschal lamb was to be sacrificed "between the two
evenings," D'aiyn pa, just as was prescribed in Ex. xxix. 39,
41, Num. xxviii. 4, for the daily sacrifice at even, T'DD. It
lies not within our province to determine the signification of
the expression, " between the two evenings," in the Old Testa
ment sense ; it suffices us to show how the Jews at the time of
Jesus understood it. Now we read in the Mishna Pesachim,
v. 1, that the thamid or evening sacrifice, which, as has been
said, was to be presented between the two evenings, was slain
at the eighth hour and a half, and presented at the ninth hour
and a half; on the eve or preparation-day of the Passover it
was slain at the seventh hour and a half, and presented at the
eighth hour and a half ; if the preparation-day fell on a Friday,
thamid was slain at the sixth hour and a half, and offered at
the seventh hour and a half, and after this the paschal lamb.
Dnfcw d^ds aijn nxnai nytwn aipi nxnrn ruiDtya oneo T>Dn
wrb nDS mj&n nac5>a pa Wa. pi nsnoi njo&ja a-ipi nxnoi j?aK>a
: mrix riDsm nsnoi jnea aipi nxnoi wa tonw nasj> a-ija
1 See Von Gumpach, as before, p. 47. 2 Bab. Pesachim, v. 3.
3 See sec. 3, the citation from ben Mosheh.

THE JEWISH CALENDAR. 5
Prom this it follows that the whole afternoon, from the sixth
hour and a half to sunset, was comprised under the term,
" between the two evenings." In the same sense does Jarchi
express himself on Ex. xii. 6 : " The time from the sixth hour
is called Daiyn pa, because the sun is declining towards sun
set. The evening of the day begins about the seventh hour,
because then the shadows begin to decline ; the evening of
the night, on the other hand, commences with the beginning
of the night." So also Kimchi in rad. any.1
Sec. 6. The week, inae>, ended with the Sabbath, the seventh
day. The other days of the week had no special names, but
were counted in order : the first day of the week, the second,
and so on. This we find already to be the case in the history
of the creation, Gen. i. In the New Testament mention is
made only of the Sabbath and the first day of the week, i.e.
Sunday. This latter is expressed by the following formulae :
Trj /ua t&v o-aftfidrcov, Mark xvi. 2, Luke xxiv. 1, Acts xx.
7 ; TrpSyrr) o-afSfiarov, Mark xvi. 9 ; Kara piav o-a/3/SaTtw,
1 Cor. xvi. 2. In Mark xv. 42 the Priday is called -jrapao--
icevr), and among the Babbis, errubta, xnavyj.
Sec. 7. The month of the Jews was, as we have said, a
lunar month, and extended from one appearing of the new
moon to another. The time elapsing between one astronomi
cal new moon and another consists of 29^- days.2 But since
the month consisted of entire days, they counted it with pretty
regular alternation as 29 or 30 days. A month of 30 days
was called a full month, s6o vnn ; if it had only 2 9 days, it
was called an imperfect month, iDn Enn. The Jewish month
could never have more than 30 days, and never fewer than
29. It began, not with the astronomical new moon, but
with the new light ; that is to say, when the first light of
the renewed phase of the moon became visible. We give
here the names of the months as they were current after
the exile and during the age of Jesus, to which we add the
Macedonian names employed by Josephus as the equivalents
of the Jewish ones, and the months of our calendar more or
less corresponding to these : —
1 See Von Gumpach, p. 24.
2 Properly, 29 days 12 hours 44 min. 34; sec.

6 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.

1. Nisan,

p^.

Xanthicus,

April.

2. Ijar,

TK,

Artemisius,

May.

3. Sivan,

JVD,

Dasius,

June.

4. Thammuz,

non,

Panemus,

July.

5. Ab,

??>

Lous,

August.

6. Elul,

W«K,

Goripiseus,

September.

7. Tisri,

"Hen,

Hyperberetseus,

October.

8. Marchesvan,

jiB'mo,

Dius,

November.

9. Kisleu,

lS>D3,

Apellseus,

December.

10. Tebeth,

naa,

Audinseus,

January.

11. Shebet,

t3ae>,

Peritius,

February.

12. Adar,

T1K,

Dystrus,

March.

The intercalary month was always a repetition of the Adar,
and was called " the second Adar," W tin, or Veadar, nisi.1
Sec. 8. The year was a lunar year, consisting of twelve of
these lunar months, which was brought into accord with the
solar year by the intercalation of a thirteenth month, the
Veadar, about every third year, so that the great festivals
should always fall at the same season of the year. "The
beginnings of the year (New Year's days) were four : (1) the
1st of Nisan, the same is the beginning of the year,
me>n mn, for the kings and the festivals. (2) The 1st of
Elul is the beginning of the year which determines the age of
the cattle for the tithes.2 (3) The 1st of Tisri is the New
Year's day for the years (from the creation ?), for the Sabbath
years and for the Jubilee years, as well as for the planting of
trees and of vegetables. (4) The 1st of Shebet is the
beginning of the year for the trees (i.e. for the tithing of the
fruit trees)." 3 Of these four New Year's days, the 1st of
Nisan and the 1st of Tisri are of special importance ; with
the former the ecclesiastical year began, and with the latter
the civil. Hence the rabbinical dictum : " Nisan is the
beginning of the months, and Tisri the beginning of the year,"
ruB>n rptn sin •nam wr6 nwi Kin py.
In harmony with this, Josephus jsays, " The flood took place
in the 600th year of Noah, in the second month, called by the
Macedonians Dius, but by the Hebrews Marsuane (Marchesvan).
1 Bosh hashanna, vi. 2.
2 R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, however, make this fall on the 1st of Tisri.
8 Mishna Bosh hashanna, i. 1.

THE JEWISH CALENDAR. 7
For so had they (the fathers) ordered the year in Egypt.
Moses, on the other hand, appointed Nisan or Xanthicus
the first month as regards their festivals, ; . . yet for buying
and selling and other civil affairs, he preserved the original
order." x
Sec. 9. We have, in all that has hitherto been said, pre
sented the Jewish calendar, in accordance with what is given
in the books of Jewish tradition, on the assumption that these
books are in this respect worthy of eredit. But had the
ancient Jews, and particularly at the time of Jesus, such
lunar months and years with an intercalary month, as the
Talmud asserts ? The great majority of chronologists, amongst
whom are Wurm, Ideler, Wieseler, v. Gumpach, and Winer,
return an affirmative answer to this question. There have
not been wanting, however, those who maintain the contrary,
and claim for the Jews of the age of Jesus the reckoning by
solar months and years. This view finds an advocate parti
cularly in Seyffarth, in a treatise2 which has the special
object of vindicating the New Testament chronology of the
Fathers. Among the assertions of the Fathers, there is one
to the effect that the obscuration of the sun on the day of
the crucifixion of Jesus was due to an astronomical eclipse.
To maintain this position, solar months must be ascribed to
the Jews ; for if they reckoned by lunar months, and these
months began with the new moon, the 15 th Nisan must fall
at the time of the full moon, in which an eclipse of the sun
is impossible, since this can take place only at the time of
a new moon. Seyffarth maintains that the Sanhedrim of
Tiberias, which drew up the present Jewish calendar about
a.d. 200, invented the lunar months and years, and got them
surreptitiously introduced into the books of Jewish tradition.
To this it must be objected that the Sanhedrim, if it had
really practised this deception, would assuredly have repre
sented this newly-invented calendar as handed down in the
lump by tradition. But this is not the case ; on the contrary,
the calendar of the modern Jews introduced by the Sanhedrim
is in many respects different from that described in tradition,
especially in the Mishna Bosh hashanna, and even in con-
1 Antiq. i. 3, sec. 3. 2 Ohron. sacra, p. 43 ff.

8 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
tradiction therewith. According to tradition, e.g., the. new
light defining the first day of the month was confirmed de
visu and by witnesses, while in the modern Jewish calendar
it is astronomically determined. According to tradition, the
15 th of Nisan, and consequently also the 1st, could fall
upon any day of the week ; according to the calendar, it can
never fall on the 2d, the 4th, or the 6th day of the week.
Seyffarth seeks confirmation for his assertion mainly in the fact
that Josephus never makes mention of the intercalary month,
and infers from this silence that Josephus is not acquainted
with it, and consequently also that he knows nothing of the
lunar months and years which stand in close connection with
the intercalary month. The silence of Josephus, however, is
no sufficient proof, and the less so, since this author distinctly
asserts that the months began with the moon's phase, and
that the festivals were attached to definite days of the month
and seasons of the year. Antiq. iii. 10, sec. 5, he says that in
the month Nisan, on the 14th day, "according to the moon,"
KaTa o-ekr)vr)v (that is to say, counting from the phase), Pass
over began; and Antiq. iii. 10, sec. 3, he speaks of the 10th
day of the month Tisri, " according to the moon." But even
if Josephus leaves the matter in part undetermined, other
trustworthy witnesses can be adduced who confirm it.
Sec. 10. The earliest, and consequently the most important,
evidence in favour of the lunar month is found in a fragment
from the Canon Paschalis of the learned Anatolius, bishop of
Laodicea in the third century, which is handed down to us by
Eusebius. Anatolius cites a commentary on the Pentateuch
attributed to the two Agathobulos, disciples of Aristobulos,
contemporary with Ptolemy Philadelphus. "Aristobulos," it
is there said, "maintained that at the paschal festival the
sun as well as the moon must necessarily have passed the
equinoctial point ; that the day of the paschal festival began
on the lith of Nisan after the evening, when the moon stands
diametrically opposed to the sun, as any one can see at tlie time
of the full moon. The sun then stands in the sign of the
vernal equinox." 'O Be 'Apio-To/3ov\o<; irpoo-TiB^o-Lv, w? eirj e£
avdyKTji; Ty t&v 8oa/3aTr)pia>v eopTtj jj,r) fiovov tov rj\iov to
la7)/j,ept,vbv Biairopevecrdat,, Kal ttjv o-eXtfvrjv Be. . . . Ao0elar]<{,

THE JEWISH CALENDAR. 9
Te Trjs t5)v Siafiarripuov rjfiepas ttj Teo-crapes-Kai-BeKaTt) tov
/itjvos fieO' eo-irepav, eo-TijcreTai, /j,ev aeKrivrj ttjv evavTiav ical
oidfierpov Tea rjXiw o-toujiv wenrep ovv e^eo-nv iv Tals Travo-eXij-
vais opav eo-ovTat 8e o p,ev KaTa to eapivbv io-7]/j,epivbv o tfktos
Tfj,rjfj,a, r) 8e e'£ dvdyKys Kara to (pdiv07ra>ptvbv fj creXijvt]}
Anatolius, who lived at the period of the Sanhedrim of
Tiberias, to which we have already frequently referred, made
an excerpt from a book, probably genuine, at all events very
ancient, which describes a manner of determining the paschal
festival, in all respects agreeing with the data afforded by
Jewish tradition. In this citation the fact is confirmed, first,
that the day began with the evening, /Meff eo-rrepav ; secondly,
that the -paschal festival was always observed after the vernal
equinox; and, finally, that on the 14th Nisan the moon was
necessarily full, and in opposition with the sun ; from which
follows with equal necessity, that the 1st of Nisan, and con
sequently the first day of each month, coincided with the new
moon ; that the Jews had lunar months ; and, since the
festivals were attached to definite seasons of the year, that the
intercalary month could not be wanting.
Sec. 11. Galen, born at Pergamus in Asia Minor, about
a.d. 131, says, "With those in Palestine the twelve months
together number 354 days. But since the time from one
conjunction to another requires the addition of another half-
day to the 29 days, the two months together number 59
days, which they divide into two unequal parts, and assign to
the one month 30 days, to the other 29. Since they
arrange the months in this manner, they are compelled to
make an intercalary month, when the deficiency of the previous
years, counted together, makes up the time of a month."
Tots KaTa, UaXaiaTlvqv dpidp.ovo~iv oi BcoSeKa fiyves dpid/x,bs
rjfieptov 'ylr/vovTai tvS '. 'EirevSr) yap o diro avvoSov Trjs irpos
rjKiov avTTJs xpovos ayjpi irdo-rjs aXXrjs crvvoBov irpbs Tas ff Kal
k rjfiepas eTi Kal aXXo fiepos ijfiicrv 7rpoo-\ap,/3dvet, Bid tovto Kal
Toils Bvo /jLrjvas ytvofievovs & Kal v Te/movaiv els avtaa fiepr/,
tov fiev erepov avTcov \' r)p,epa>v ipya^ofievot, tov S' erepov ff
Kal k . 'Avar/Ka^ovTai roiyapovv oi ovtccs ar/ovres tovs jirjvas
ifi/3o\i/MOv Tiva iroiely, orav irparov ddpoto-ffy to tcov e/x-
1 Euseb. Hist. Bed. vii. 32.

10 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
irpoadev eviavr&v eXXei/Ma, Kal yivtyrai ^(povos evbs firjvos.
We have here the whole system of the ancient Jewish calen
dar. But since Galen, who belongs to the first half of the
second century, lived seventy years before the Sanhedrim of
Tiberias, which, according to Seyffarth, invented the lunar year,
the whole hypothesis of this chronologist falls to the ground.
Sec. 12. Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom vi., adduces a passage
from the writing entitled The Preaching of Peter, and belonging
to the second century, which reads as follows : " The Jews
render religious honour to the angels and archangels, to the
month, and to the moon ; if the moon does not shine, they do
not keep the so-called first Sabbath, nor do they observe the
new moon, nor the feast of unleavened bread, nor any feast,
nor the day of atonement." AaTpevovcri (oi 'lovBaiot) dyyeXols
Kal dp^ayyeXots, fjtrjvl Kal o-eXrjvy, Kal idv /Mr) aeXrjvq <j>avfj,
caftftaTov ovk ayovo-t to Xeyoptevov irp&Tov, oiBe veofirjviav
af overt, oisre eopTr)v, ovTe pteydXqv vptepav. This passage, at
any rate, tells us that the Jews began the month with the
moonlight. Sec. 13. Philo, in Decalogf says: "The paschal festival is
observed on the 14:th Nisan, when the moon's disc is coming to
the full (jieXXovTos tov o~eXr)viaKov kvkXov yivecrOat TrX7)pi<paovs
dyeTat rd Sta^aTijpta)." But if the moon was full on the 14th,
it was new on the 1st. By this it is already proved that the
Jews had lunar months ; we have consequently to attach no
special weight to the more definite utterances of another work
by the same author, De Septimanis et Festis, of which the
authenticity is open to suspicion. In this the first of the
month is called " the new moon according to the phase," r) Kara
o-eXrjvyv vovfir/via ; and it is further said, " the beginning of this
(paschal) festival takes place on the 15th, and also for the
reason adduced, at the time of the vernal equinox, that on that
occasion, not only by day, but also during the night, the world
may be filled with the all-glorious light of the sun and the
moon." UdXtv Be TavTijs rr)s eoprrjs dpj(r] irevTeKaiBeKaTrj
fjtijvbs ivio-Tarat Bta ttjv Xe%delo-av Kal iirl t»5? iaptvrjs Spas
alrlav Iva p/q pteff rjp,epav povov, dXXa Kat vvKTmp 7rXyprjs 6
1 Comment. I. in Hippocratis epidem., ed. Kiihn, t. xvii. p. 23.
2 T. ii. p. 206, ed. Mangey.

THE JEWISH CALENDAR. 11
Kocr/ios xi rov TrajKaXov (parros r)Xiov Kal o-eXrjvrjs. The above
developed Talmudic system of the Jewish calendar receives
confirmation, and Seyffarth's objections their refutation, on the
part of all the witnesses here adduced.
Sec. 14. It has already been said, that the beginning of
the Jewish month was determined, not by the astronomic new
moon or the moment of the conjunction, but by the new light, i.e.
the appearing of the phase. This is clearly expressed in the pas
sage cited above, sec. 1 2, from The Preaching of Peter, in which
it is said, when the moon does not shine, they do not observe
the new moon, iav firj aeXrjvri <pavf). . . . ov veop,rjviav dyovat.
The new moon must thus shine, its first light be visible. Yet
more clearly is it said in Philo, De Septiman. et Fed., " At the
numenia the sun begins to irradiate the moon with perceptible
splendour, and she displays to the beholders her own beauty."
Novp/rjvia yap apfteTat <j)WTi£eiv alo-Qryrw <f>eyyel o-eXrjvrjv rjXios,
r) Be to ISiov KaXXbs dva<patvet tois opaxrt. The new moon
and the new light, or the first of the month, were not astrono
mically determined, although the means of doing this were
not unknown to the Jews. A commission of three members,
appointed by the Sanhedrim, attested the appearing of the
moonlight by the evidence of eye-witnesses.1 Yet the exami
nation of witnesses took place only when the moon's phase
was seen on the 30th of the month, in which case this 30th
day was declared the first of the new month, and the old
counted only 29 days; if, however, the phase was not observed
on this day, it was counted as the 30th day of the old month,
and the following day became of right, and without examina
tion of witnesses, the first of the following month. In Bosh
hashanna, ii. 7, it is said, " If the moon was not seen at its
time (i.e. on the 30 th day) it did not sanctify the month, for
heaven had already sanctified it." pEHpD pa UDD HSOJ tib DK
D'DB' inisnp 133B> 1TOK. Not only were inhabitants of Jerusalem
accepted as witnesses concerning the moon, but any Jew
who saw the moonlight was to come to Jerusalem to wit
ness, and might for this end break the Sabbath. On this
account it is said, Bosh hashanna, i. 9, " For a journey which
required a night and a day they desecrated the Sabbath, to
1 Mishna Sanhedrin, 1. 2.

12 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
attest the appearing of the moon." DN p^no DIM rbb l^HD by
unnn myb psvn naK>n, and, ibid. i. 4, " At the time when the
temple was standing they broke the Sabbath every month, on
account of the preparation of the offerings, EnpDH rva riT^ai
janpn njpn ,oso \ha by *|K p^no D"p. In order to give the
witnesses from a distance time to arrive, the examination at
first took place in the afternoon, before mincha and the evening
sacrifice. If it was attested by witnesses that the moon was
seen on the previous evening, the day was sanctified, the sacri
fice of the new moon was presented, and a special liturgy for
the new moon was sung before the offering of the daily even
ing sacrifice. At first the witnesses occupied the whole day.
Afterwards, however, these began to put off till the evening,
and the Levites were thereby thrown into perplexity as to
their singing (since they knew not whether they' should keep
back the liturgy for the new moon or the daily liturgy) ; it
was resolved to receive witnesses at the latest only up to
mincha. If they came after mincha, this day was sanctified,
and the following day too." 1 The sacramental formula for
the declaration that the moon had appeared, and consequently
that the 30 th day was the first of the new month, was the
calling out on the part of the president of the word " hallowed!"
BHpD, which cry was twice repeated by the other members
of the bench and by the people.2 — In such wise is the matter
represented by Jewish tradition. In connection with this
view, a difficulty, we admit, presents itself. For according
to the Mosaic law the day of the new light was to be a feast
day, and to have the rank of a Sabbath ; and in this sense
it is, in the passage from The Preaching of Peter above
cited, called ad[i{SaTov Trpcorov. But how could this day be
observed as a festival when it was only sanctified and pro
claimed just before the evening sacrifice, four hours before its
end i. This difficulty, it is true, applies only to those days of
new light which followed on a month of 29 days; but of
these there were generally six in a year. Von Gumpach
therefore says,3 " It cannot thus admit of the slightest doubt
that the first day of the month with the Jews began not with
1 Bosh hashanna, iii. 4. 2 Ibid. ii. 7.
3 Von Gumpach, as before, p. 125.

THE JEWISH CALENDAR. 13
the evening (of the civil day) already past, but with the even
ing following upon this, at sunset." Such doubt must, how
ever, be permitted us. Por if, as is clear, the examination
of the witnesses took place only on the 30th of the month,
and this 30th could never itself become the first of the
following month, because the result of the examination was
proclaimed only at the end, in the last hours of the day, so
that the day following, i.e. the 31st, was the first day of the
month,. — then the Jews could never have a month of 29 days,
which, on the supposition of lunar months, is simply an
absurdity. The matter stands rather thus : If, on account of
the delay of the witnesses, the "hallowed" could be pro
claimed only after the mincha, yet the 30 th day in question
was sanctified and declared the first of the month, the Sabbath
of the new moon, o-d/3j3arov -jrpwTov ; but because the pre
scribed sacrifices could not then be presented, since the day
was expired, the following day also, the second of the month,
was sanctified, set apart for the prescribed sacrifices, and
declared the second-first Sabbath, o-dftfiaTov BevTepoirpaTov.
This is taught clearly and definitely in the above cited
passage from the Bosh hashanna, iii. 4, where it is said, if the
witnesses arrived after mincha, then that day, and also the
following, was sanctified. lniN pnu rbyob\ nruD jd any ixa dki
tnp inD^l tnp DVn. Now, that which took place in Jerusalem
within the precincts of the temple only in this special case of
the delay of the witnesses, must necessarily be the standing
rule for the remainder of the land of Israel, and still more for
the Jews of the dispersion, for all days of the new light which
followed a month of 29 days. It could never be known
whether the "hallowed" had been pronounced on the 30th
day or not ; they learnt that the proclamation had been made,
only by beacons after the day had closed. In order, therefore,
that the law might be kept, even where the case was doubtful,
they regularly observed the 30th and 31st as days of the new
moon, and called the former the " first Sabbath," ad/3/3aTov
Trp&Tov, the latter the " after Sabbath," o-d/3/3aTov BevTepo-
irpoiTov} 1 Cf. Joh. Seldeni de Anno civili et calendario veteris ecclesice Judaicce, pp,
71, 77.

14 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
When, therefore, it is a question of restoring the calendar
of a given year of the Jews, the new moon of each month
must first be astronomically determined, and then it must be
further discovered on which of the days following the new
light became visible. Now, what is the difference between
the time of the astronomical new moon (the conjunction) and
that of the new light becoming visible ? Pliny says : " To
have seen on the same day or in the same night the last light
of the old moon and the first light of the new is what has
happened to but few mortals ; and this can take place in no
other sign than that of Aries." Novissimam vero primamque
lunam eadem die vel nocte, nullo aho signo quam ariete,
paucis mortalibus contigit.1 It happened once, according to
Bosh hashanna ii., that witnesses deposed they had seen the
moon in the morning in the east, and in the evening in the
west, anyoa rvaim mroa rmntp lnwto now aw ito. Babbi
Johanan declared them to be false witnesses. It was thus
generally regarded as impossible that the new light should be
visible six hours after the conjunction. Von Gumpach 2 cites
a passage from Elias ben Mosheh, according to which the
smallest arc of vision for the moon contains 8° 10', by which is
implied that the moon's disc may become visible under certain
circumstances between 8° 10' and 14°, but with a greater dis
tance from the sun must become visible. According to this
authority, it is possible, under given circumstances, to see the
moon 14 to 23 hours after the conjunction ; with certainty,
however, it is visible only after 24 hours. Wurm3.has ex
amined this subject with special attention. " He says that the
arc of vision, i.e. the distance of the moon from the sun, is in
general difficult to determine. How soon or how late the
moon's disc becomes visible after the new moon depends, in
addition to the state of the weather, upon very different cir
cumstances — the angle of the ecliptic with the western horizon
at which the moon is about to set, the moon's altitude and
declination, its more or less rapid movement in its orbit, and
on the length of the twilight. Kepler does not doubt the
possibility of seeing the moon within the first 24 hours after
1 Plinius, H. N. ii. 14. 2 Von Gumpach, as before, p. 119.
3 Wurm, in Bengel's Archiv. 1816, ii. p. 273.

THE JEWISH CALENDAR. 15
new moon ; and gives us an instance that the moon was seen
in Seville about mid-day, March 13, 1553, in the 23d degree
of Pisces, and only 10° west from the sun, or at an arc of 10° —
which requires a lapse of about 18 hours after the conjunction.
Americus Vespucius in the course of his travels saw the moon
on the day of the conjunction. Wurm, finally, expresses his
opinion that we should not go far wrong if, in order to find
the first day of the month, according to the old Jewish style,
by the moon's phase, we add 24 to 48 hours to the true new
moon astronomically calculated; and on p. 279 he lays down
the rule that we have on an average to add 1^ days. This
principle has been accepted and carried out by Ideler, Wieseler,
and most chronologists.
Sec. 15. From what has been already said, it results that
the ancient Jewish year — not only the ecclesiastical, but also
the civil, of which the beginning was the 1st of Tisri — was
determined by the 1st of Nisan; and that the fixing of this
day depended, first of all, indeed, upon astronomical facts, the
new moon and the vernal equinox, but then also upon
accidental circumstances, such as whether the new moon was
seen or not, and upon arbitrary decision, such as whether the
preceding Adar was doubled or not. The conditionating cause
of the intercalation was the paschal festival, which was
celebrated on the 15 th. On this day the sun must have
passed the vernal equinox.1 On the 16 th Nisan the paschal
sheaf was gathered; respect must therefore be had, in
determining the 1st Nisan, to the 16 th falling when there
were ripe ears. In addition to these main conditions, others
also had to be taken into account. Of these we find a relation
in a remarkable passage of the Talmud, Jerus. Sanhedrin,
xvii. 4,2 which thus reads : " Babban Gamaliel sat upon
the steps of the temple mountain and wrote to the brethren
who are in Upper and Lower Daroma, in Upper and Lower
Galilee, and to the brethren of the captivity in Babylon, in
Media, and Greece, and to all Israel in captivity wherever they
may be. We herewith do you to wit, that the young doves
1 Bab. Sanhedr. xii. 2, xiii. 1. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 10, sec. 5 : U xfiS
r»v hy'tov xa.6tffTVTos. See also above, sees. 10-12.
2 Ugolini, Thes. xxv. p. 21.

1 6 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.

and lambs are yet tender, and the time of the ripe ears is not
yet come ; it has seemed good to us, therefore, to add to this
year 30 days." This circular letter of the elder Gamahel, as
to the authenticity of which there is no doubt, proves the
existence of the intercalary system at the time of Christ, and
details the arbitrary motives for the intercalation. To which,
finally, we must add, that at that time the vernal equinox
fell on the 23d of March. The 1st Nisan could not thus at
the earliest fall before the 8 th of March.
Sec. 16. For the New Testament history the determining
of the 1st Nisan is of special importance; because it can and
must contribute to the settling of the day of Jesus' death,
and, by means of the day, also of the year. To this end
Wurm has calculated and arranged in a table the new moons
in question from the years 28 to 36.1 In this table he has
defined the moment of the new moon, and from this, by the
application of his principles, as above given, gained the date
of the 1st Nisan according to the phase, and finally registered
the 15 th Nisan, with the day of the week on which it falls,
first according to the true new moon, and then according to
the phase. We excerpt only so much of this table as concerns
the new moon, adding the day of the week, which is the same
for the 15th Nisan as for the 1st: —

Day of

1st Nisan accord

Day of

A.D.

Time of the New Moon.

the

ing to the

the

Week.
Moon's Phase.
Week.
28
15th March, 2 h. 16 m. a.m.
2
16th March.
3
28
13th April, 4 h. 10 m. P.M.
3
15th April.
5
29
2d April, 7 h. 42 m. p.m.
7
4th April.
2
30
22d March, 8 h. 8 m. P.M.
4
24th March.
6
31
12th March, 12 h. 56 m. A.M.
2
13th March.
3
31
10th April, 2 h. 0 m. P.M.
3
12th April.
5
32
29th March, 10 h. 57 m. P.M.
7
31st March.
2
33
19th March, 1 h. 16 m. P.M.
5
21st March.
7
33
17th April, 9 h. 30 m. P.M.
6
19th April.
1
34
9th March, 9 h. 2 m. a.m.
3
11th March.
5
34
7th April, 6 h. 42 m. p.m.
4
9th April.
6
35
28th March, 6 h. 19 m. a.m.
2
30th March.
4
36
16th March, 5 h. 53 m. p.m.
6
18th March.
1
36
15th April, 5 h. 15 m. a.m.
1
16th April.
2
1 Wurm, as before, p. 293.
THE JEWISH CALENDAR. 17
For the right understanding of this table as to the day of
the week, a remark is necessary with regard to a fact unfor
tunately overlooked by Wurm, Von Gumpach, and most
chronologists. Wurm's day of the week has reference to the
Julian day, which extends from midnight to midnight, and
does not apply to the Jewish day of the week, which consists
of a night-day, of which the epoch is sunset. Let us explain
ourselves by an example. In the year 2 8 the new moon fell on
the 15th March, feria 2, a Monday; the 1st Nisan, according
to the phase, was thus the 16 th March, feria 3, a Tuesday.
But on this Tuesday the 1st Nisan began only about six in
the evening ; with this hour, however, the Jewish feria 3 had
ceased, and feria 4 had begun. If the Jewish feria 3 had
been meant here, the date of the 1 5th March, on which the
Jewish third day of the week fell at six in the evening, must
have been given ; but this Wurm could not intend, since it is
in formal contradiction with his established rule. If we
would thus translate the Julian days of the week, given by
Wurm, into the Jewish, — in those cases where they indicate
the 1st and 15 th Nisan according to the phase, — we must
always take a day of the week one stage later.
In order to become convinced of the correctness of Wurm's
calculation, we compare here a calculation made entirely in
dependently of that of Wurm, by Z. Oudemans, Professor of
Astronomy in Utrecht } —
Year of Christ. Time of Conjunction.
28 . . . Monday, 15th March, 2 h. 25 m. morning.
28 . . Tuesday, 13th April, 3 h. 52 m. evening.
29 . . Saturday, 2d April, 7 h. 28 m. evening.
30 . . . Wednesday, 22d March, 8 h. 2 m. evening.
31 . . . Sunday, 11th March, 11 h. 47 m. evening.
31 . . . Tuesday, 10th April, 1 h. 51 m. evening.
The difference in the results amounts only to minutes. Even in the year
31, where Wurm gives 12th March, and Oudemans 11th, there is between
11 h. 47 m. evening, and 12 h. 56 m. morning, a difference only of 69
minutes. Sec. 17. We must yet further show by an example how
the 1st Nisan according to the phase, and consequently also
1 It is to be found in a Mtmoire by Chavannes in the Strasburg Bevue de
TliAologie, 1863, p. 221. B

18 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.

the 15 th Nisan, is to be determined by means of this table.
We shall later show that the year of the death of Jesus is the
30th of the Dionysian era, A.D. 30, and that the crucifixion
took place on the 14th Nisan, at the preparation for the Pass
over. We take thus this year 30 as an example.
The conjunction took place Wednesday, 2 2d March, at
about 8 h. 8 m. in the evening. At 6 P.M. on this 2 2d March
the Jewish fifth day of the week (Thursday) had begun ; but
this could not possibly be the 1st Nisan, because the moon
at the beginning of this night-day was the old decreasing one.
Just as little could the Jewish sixth day of the week, beginning
23d March at 6 p.m., be the 1st Nisan, because at this hour
the moon was only 22 hours old, and thus as a rule not yet
visible. At that time, consequently, the 1st Nisan fell on
Friday, 24th March, as Wurm also gives it. Only we must
here repeat that this 1st Nisan was the night-day beginning
on the said Friday at 6 p.m., consequently for the Jews the
seventh day, or Sabbath. At the beginning of this night-day the
moon was 46 hours old. The 15th Nisan was always on the
same day of the week as the 1st. From this it follows that
the great day of Passover, the 1 5 th Nisan, fell in the year 3 0 on
Friday the 7th April, — 7 April, feria 6, as Wurm gives it, — and
began on this day at 6 p.m., with the beginning of the Sabbath.
Below is appended, for convenience of reference, a brief
calendar of the Jewish year, from the beginning of January
A.D. 28, to the third Pentecost, Saturday, 27th May, A.D. 30,
nine days after the Lord's ascension.

Date in
Julian Year.

AD. 28.

A.D. 29.

AD. 30.

Jan. 1
Feb. 1
March 1
April 1
May 1
June 1
July 1
Aug. 1
Sept. 1
Oct. 1
Nov. 1
Dec. 1

15th Thebet, Friday.
17th Shebet, Monday.
15th Adar, Monday.
17th Nisan, Thursday.
17th Ijar, Saturday.
19th Sivan, Tuesday.
19th Thammuz, Thurs.
21st Ab, Sunday.
22d Elul, Wednesday.
23d Tisri, Friday.
24th Marchesvan, Mon.
25th Kisleu, Wed.

26th Thebet, Saturday.
28th Shebet, Tuesday.
26th Adar, Tuesday.
27th Veadar, Friday.
28th Nisan, Sunday.
29th Ijar, Wednesday.
30th Sivan, Friday.
2d Ab, Monday.
3d Elul, Thursday.
4th Tisri, Saturday.
5th Marchesvan, Tues.
6th Kisleu, Thursday.

7th Thebet, Sunday.
9th Shebet, Wed.
7th Adar, Wednesday.
9th Nisan, Saturday.
9th Ijar, Monday.
11th Sivan, Thursday.

THE PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF KING HEROD. 19
In the year a.d. 30 the 1st Nisan began on the 24th
March, a Friday, at 6 p.m., with the opening Sabbath ; the
15 th Nisan fell on Friday, 7th April, and began at 6 p.m.
with the Sabbath. The 14th Nisan, or preparation of the
Passover, began on Thursday, 6th April, at 6 P.M., and con
tinued till Friday at 6 p.m.
II. — The Principal Epochs in the Life of King Herod.
Sec. 18. Josephus1 says that Herod died 34 years after
the execution of Antigonus, and 37 years after his own
appointment as king by the Eoman senate. We have thus
here the three main epochs in the hfe of Herod which mutually
determine each other — his appointment as king ; his actual
occupation of the throne, in consequence of the capture of
Jerusalem and the death of the Asmonsean Antigonus ; and,
lastly, his own death.
Sec. 19. According to Antiq. xiv. 14, sec. 5, Herod obtained
from the senate at Bome the title of king in the 184th
Olympiad, during the consulate of Caius Domitius Calvinus,
consul the second time, and of Caius Asinius Pollio. After
the sitting of the senate Anthony and Augustus went out,
taking Herod between them, pecrov e^pvres 'HpoiBrjv 'Avtcovios
Kal Katcrap, in order to present the offering in the Capitol.
This took place, consequently, after the reconciliation between
Anthony and Augustus, which took place after the peace of
Brundusium, towards the end of the year u.c. 714, B.C. 40.
The appointment of Herod, however, took place in the follow
ing year ; because it is said, Antiq. xiv. 14, sec. 2, that Herod
had entered upon his journey to Bome, which led him to this
high dignity, during the winter season, ¦^etp.wvos T6 ovtos,
from which it is to be inferred that- he reached Bome either
during the winter or in early spring. At this season of the
year 40 Anthony was not in Bome, and was still in hostility
towards Augustus. The chronologists who place the appoint
ment of Herod by the senate in the year B.C. 40, thus come
into collision with the patent facts of history. This appoint
ment took place in the spring of the year u.c. 715, B.C. 39.
1 Antiq. xviii. 8, sec. 1.

20 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
With this agrees the 184th Olympiad, which embraces the
years 715-718.
Sec. 20. Herod had by this recognition obtained only the title
of king, and the reversionary right to the throne, the actual
possession of which he must first obtain by force of arms.
To this possession he attained by the conquest of Jerusalem
and the murder of Antigonus, by which this event was
quickly followed. According to Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 6,
sec. 4, Herod took Jerusalem under the consulate of Marcus
Agrippa and Caninius Gallus, in the 1 8 5th Olympiad. The
185th Olympiad embraced the years u.c. 719-722. But,
since the epoch of the Olympiads was in the time of autumn,
the latter part of the year of Bome 718, from about August,
counted as part of the 185th Olympiad. The consulate men
tioned was the third after that under which the appointment
had been made. In the Chronicon of Cassiodorus we read of
the following succession of the consulates : —
Gn. Domitius and C. Asinius,
L. Censorinus and C. Norbanus,
App. Claudius and C. Norbanus,
M. Agrippa. and L. Caninius.
If now, of which there can be no doubt, the date of the
appointment was u.c. 715, the capture of the city must
have taken place in the year 718 ; and the more so, since
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15, sec. 14, expressly says that the two
events were separated by an interval of three years. The
occupation of the city, however, must fall at the end of the
year 718, since it belongs not to the 184th, but to the 185th
Olympiad. The correctness of the particular last determined
will presently become evident. It is incumbent on us first
of all to discover by another method the date of the capture.
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16, sec. 4, says that "this capture
took place in the third month, on the fast of the Atonement,
as though it were a periodical return of the calamity inflicted
upon the Jews by Pompey ; for by the man before referred
to (Herod) was their city taken on the same day, after an
interval of 2 7 years : tw Tplrq) pyvl, Ty eopTy tt)s vyo-Teias,
otairep iic TrepirpoTrys ttjs yevoptevys iirl Tlop,irytov rols 'IovBaiois
avptpopds' Kal yap vir' eKeivov jy avTy idXwaav ypepa pLerd ery

THE PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF KING HEROD. 21

Now, according to Antiq. xiv. 4, sec. 3, the
capture of Jerusalem by Pompey took place "in the third
month, on the day of the Atonement, during the 179th
Olympiad, under the consuls C. Antonius and Marcus Tullius
Cicero." The 179th Olympiad comprises the years u.c.
691-694. The consulate mentioned belongs certainly to the
year u.c. 691, or b.c. 63. According to Cassiodorus, the
consulate of M. Agrippa and L. Caninius is really the 2 7th
after that of Antonius and Cicero. Twenty-seven years after
691 is 718. When Josephus says that the capture of Jeru
salem took place "in the third month," not the third month
of the year (Sivan) is to be understood thereby, as Wieseler
and others suppose, but the third month of the siege ; the
capture took place not in Sivan, but in Tisri, at the fast of
Atonement, which was celebrated on the 10 th Tisri. 'H yptepa
ttjs vyo-Teias is the constant expression for the fast of the
Atonement,1 and does not designate " any fast day whatever."
Von Gumpach thinks the Jews must certainly have instituted
a fast in commemoration of the capture of Jerusalem by
Pompey, and that this fast — naturally in the month of Sivan
— is intended by Josephus in the account of the capture by
Herod on the same day of the year. But, unfortunately, not
only does history and the Jewish calendar of fasts and
festivals know nothing of such appointment, but Josephus
says of Pompey himself that he took the city Ty rys vyo-Teias
yptepa. This fast-day thus existed even before the capture
by Pompey. What has been already said before receives
elucidation from the following comparison of texts : —
Capture of Jerusalem.

By Pompey.

By Herod.

Bell. i. 7, sec.
4: Tpiru yip
f&nvl rqs to-
'Kiapx.ia.s litxi-
imrroii el; to
Hpou.

Antiq. xiv.
4, sec. 3 : K«J
yip Mhovans rqs
•7r6Kias,'7r£pi rov
rplroii fii.ii»a.rf
tsj? ittidnias
ifiipef.

Antiq. xiv. 16, sec. 4 : Tovto
to fftitlos avue/ivi TJ5 ' lipoooKvf&iTaii
iro'hu rtp rplra ftyvl, rri loprvi
T)j? vvmrtlttf, aawip ix. nipi-
rpofftis T»j? •ytvoftiiitis tir\ Jlofi-
Tnti'lov Toig lovoxtijtg avfi^)opag.

'.[Cf. Actsxxvii. 9.]

22 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
When Josephus, de Bello, says that Pompey captured the
temple in the third month of the siege, it follows that in the
same history, in the Antiq., " the third month " is also to be
counted from the beginning of the siege ; and since the occu
pation by Herod is described as a remarkable repetition of the
same incidents, so must in that case also the words "in the
third month '' have reference to the time of the siege. Once
this is admitted, and there is in no case seen a reference to
the day of the year, it follows as a matter of course that the
words y eopTy or y yptepa Trjs vyaTeias must be taken in the
sense we have assumed, of "fast of the Atonement." The
parallel instituted by Josephus, the irepirpoTry, has either no
meaning at all, or it says that Jerusalem with its temple was
twice captured within the space of 2 7 years, on each occasion
on the fast of the Atonement, and each time after a siege of
three months.
The main objection to our explanation of the matter is,
according to Wieseler, the statement of Josephus,1 that the
Jews had endured a siege of five months before Herod took
the city : irevTe ptyal Btyveyxav Tyv iroXtopKiav ; from which it
is supposed to follow that " the third month " could not be
that of the siege. But the difficulty entirely disappears so
soon as one considers that in de Bello Josephus reckons also
the blockade begun before Herod's wedding, but in the
Antiquities counts from the time of the siege properly so
called, which began with the arrival of Sosius and the Boman
allied troops. In the former case the siege lasted five months,
in the latter three. Antiq. xiv. 15, sec. 14, we read that
after the winter was past, Xy^avTos Be tov ¦^etptwvos — thus
about the beginning of March — in the third year after his
elevation to the dignity of king, Herod pitched his camp in
the neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; afterwards he broke up this
camp, approached close to the walls, and began the blockade.
Now if the festival of Passover had been disturbed by this
blockade or the siege following it, Josephus would, as is his
wont, have made mention of this not unimportant circum
stance. Since he does not do so, it may be assumed as
certain that Herod had remained quiet in his first camp
1 Josephus, de Bello, i. 18, sec. 2.

THE PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF KING HEROD. 23
during the whole time of the Passover, in order not to rouse
the body of the Jews against him by the interruption of the
festival. He thus began the blockade after the season of
Passover, at the end of Nisan. Then he repaired to Samaria,
where he celebrated his wedding with Mariamne. After this
wedding there now began, according to Antiq. xiv. 16, sec. 1,
the siege properly so called, in conjunction with Sosius, who
had now arrived. But the siege began in summer, — Oepos re
yap yv,1 — how then could it be assumed that, after a lapse of
five months, it was already at an end in Sivan, i.e. June, at
the beginning of summer ? The first wall was stormed 40
days after the beginning of the actual siege, 1 5 days later
the second waU fell ; this makes together 5 5 days, not
quite two full months. The siege of the temple and out
buildings lasted, finally, until the 10th Tisri, thus one full
month. These results are to be chronologically arranged as
follows : —
With the first spring Herod takes up a camp in the neigh
bourhood of Jerusalem, and waits in this until the Passover
guests have withdrawn.
After Passover, at the beginning of Ijar, five months before
the fast of Atonement, he sits down before the city and in
vests it, and then goes to the wedding in Samaria.
At the beginning of Thammuz, three months before the
fast of the Atonement, he begins, in conjunction with Sosius,
the actual siege ; storms the first (outermost) wall after 40
days, i.e. in the middle of Ab ; and the second 1 5 days later,
end of Ab or beginning of Elul ; lays siege to the temple for
about a month, and occupies it on the 10th Tisri, the fast of
the Atonement, all in the year u.c. 718, B.C. 36.
Sec. 21. In connection with the siege of Jerusalem by
Herod, Josephus makes mention2 of yet another circumstance
of great chronological importance. He says that the besieged
were distressed by famine on account of its being a Sabbatic
year at the time, to yap e/38op,aTtKov ivtavTov o-vvej3y Kara
Tavrbv eivat ; and later,3 the distress following the surrender of
the city is partly explained by the fact that a Sabbath year was
3 Antiq. xiv. 16, sec. 2. 2 Antiq. xiv. 16, sec. 2.
3 Antiq. xv. 1, sec. 2.

24 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
still running its course, ivetaTyKet yap roTe to e/38op,aTtKbv btos.
But, according to Jewish tradition, the year of the destruction
of the temple by Titus was also a Sabbatic year. Now,
Jerusalem was destroyed A.D. 70, u.c. 823 ; and in reality the
year Tisri 822 to Tisri 823 is the 15 -times- 7th from
the year 717-718. It would lead us too far to enter upon the
proof — in Apposition to those chronologists who accept the year
71 as that of the destruction of Jerusalem — that the year 70
is the true date. On this question we refer the reader to Von
Gumpach's thorough handling of this difficult subject.1 We
believe that the proof for the year 70 may be satisfactorily
derived from the statements of Jewish tradition. In Seder
Olam Babba xxx. we read a saying of B. Jose, often repeated in
the Talmud,2 " In like manner as the first temple was destroyed
at the end of the Sabbath, and at the end of the Sabbath-year,
when the order of Jehoiarib was ministering, on the 9 th of
the month Ab, so was it with the second temple." anriBO
*?w lmo^oi ruvn n^at? <t«ioi n\n nac wm nvn lmx n:ie>&na ivan
ni|'OB> pi hti asa nyctni nrvn inw. Here we at once encounter
a first difficulty. Many chronologists translate wats* ^XXID
" in the year after the Sabbath-year," and not " at the end of
the Sabbath-year." They appeal to the fact that it is said,
Bab. Sanhedrin, i. 2, " The intercalary month is not made on
the Sabbath-year, not even at the end of it;" and in the
scholium to this passage, " at the end" is explained by " in the
eighth year." From this, then, it is concluded that "in the
end of the Sabbath-year" means " in the year following the
Sabbath-year." But this conclusion is incorrect, and is based
on a misunderstanding of the nature of the Jewish calendar.
The Jewish year began with Nisan : in the seventh year, which
opened with this month, there began with the seventh month,
Tisri, the Sabbath-year, to which were accordingly counted the
first six months of the eighth year, with which the new cycle
began. The first half of the eighth year was accordingly an
integral part of the Sabbatic year. The temple was destroyed
in Ab, the eleventh month of the seventh year, beginning with
Tisri, and the fifth month of the eighth year, beginning with
1 Von Gumpach, as before, p. 283 ff.
2 Cf. B. Bab. Brachin, fol. 11, 2 ; Bab. Taanith, fol. 29, 1.

THE PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF KING HEROD. 25
Nisan, and belonged thus to the end of the Sabbath-year, and
at the same time to the eighth Nisan year. The scholium
thus does not say that " the end of the Sabbath-year" is the
year following the Sabbatic year, but that it is the Sabbatic
year itself. The month Ab which follows the Sabbath-year
belongs not to the eighth, but to the ninth year, the second of
the new cycle. We have thus to understand the saying of
B. Jose to mean, that the temple was destroyed in the month
Ab, the eleventh month of the Sabbath-year itself. His
statement, so far as concerns the first temple, is not in accord
ance with history. The first temple was not destroyed in the
Sabbath-year, — which institution, moreover, was not observed
before the captivity,1 — and the destruction took place not on
the 9 th, but on the 10 th Ab.2 Neither does the statement of
B. Jose entirely accord with the history of the destruction of
the second temple. Josephus says, de Bello, vi. 4, sees. 1-5,
that on the 8 th Lous (Ab) the porticos of the inner court were
set on fire. On the 9 th, the Jews, overwhelmed with dismay,
were quiet, and Titus gave orders to get the fire under; on
the 10th, about the fifth hour, the Jews made a sortie upon
the Bomans engaged in subduing the flames, but were re
pulsed. On this occasion the Bomans penetrated as far as
the temple itself, into which one of them now cast a fire
brand. This took place, Josephus expressly tells us, on the
1 0th Ab, the day of the destruction of the first temple. The
fire now raged throughout that day and the night which
followed it. According to Jewish notions, fire was thus set
to the temple on the 8 th Ab, since the inner courts were
an integral part of the sacred buildings. In order to com
memorate on one fast-day the two destructions, that of the
first and that of the second temple, one of which temples was
set on fire on the 10th, and the other on the 8th Ab, the
Jews selected the intervening 9th Ab, and justified themselves
by artificial explanations, about which much is to be read in
Tosaphta Taanith, iii. 7, and Jerus. Taanith, iii. 7.3 It still
remains for us to examine how the matter stands as regards
the Sabbath, on which day the temple is said to have been
1 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. 2 Jer. Iii. 12.
3 Ugolini, Thes. xviii. pp. 669, 809.

26 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
destroyed. In the year 70, the astronomical new moon de
termining the month Ab fell on the evening of the 26 th July ;
the phase became visible on the 27th, perhaps not before the
28th, at any rate not on the 26 th July. If the 27th was the
1st Ab, the 8th Ab, the night-day beginning on the evening
of August 3, was a Sabbath.1 If the 1st Ab fell on 28th
July, then the 8 th fell on the evening of 4th August, on the
first day of the week. The 9th Ab was thus either on the first
or second day of the week, but not possibly on a Sabbath.
But, since the 8 th was a Sabbath, and on this 8 th, according
to Josephus, the fire broke out in the sacred buildings, the
whole matter is explained on the presupposition that the Jews
had designedly transposed the date to the 9 th, in order to
commemorate at the same time the destruction of the former
temple on one anniversary day. Let us now test the result
of the supposition that the temple was destroyed a.d. 71. In
this year the 1st Nisan corresponded with the 20th March :
the 9th Ab was either the 126th or 127th day after this
date — consequently 24th or 25 th July, Wednesday or Thurs
day; but in no case Sabbath. And just as little could the
8th be a Sabbath. The year 71, consequently, cannot be the
year of the destruction. The sanctuary was set in flames in
the year 70, on the [evening of the] 3d of August, in a
Sabbatic year.
Sec. 22. We have seen that the Sabbath-years 717-718
and 822-823 mutually determine and confirm each other.
The same is the case with two other Sabbath-years, of which
we read in the history after the captivity. In 1 Mace.
vi. 20, 49, 53, 57, mention is made of the great dearth which
was occasioned in the 150th year of the Seleucidan era by
the intervention of a Sabbath-year. The epoch of this era is
Tisri, B.C. 312, u.c. 442 ; the 150th year of this era is Tisri
592-593. The events recorded manifestly fall in the winter.
According to 2 Mace. xiii. 1, 2, it came to the knowledge of
the Jews that Antiochus Eupater was marching against Judea.
There is no improbability in the supposition that this was at
the end of the year 149, about the m,onth Ab. Induced
1 [That is to say, the 4th of August in the year 70, according to the Julian
calendar, fell on a Saturday.]

THE PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF KING HEROD. 27
most likely by such reports, Judas sought to make himself
master of the Acra in Jerusalem before the arrival of the
Syrians ; he laid siege to it in the year 150,1 in the beginning
of the year, about the month of Tisri. In the meantime the
Syrians had laid siege to Bethsura. The place was obliged
to capitulate on account of the dearth of provisions occasioned
by the Sabbath-year. That must evidently mean, because
there was no harvest on the previous Nisan. The previous
Nisan, however, belonged to the 149th year. The Sabbath-
year was consequently the year of Bome 591-592. This
year actuaUy precedes that of the taking of Jerusalem by
Herod by 18 times 7 years, and that of the destruction of
the temple by 33 times 7 years. They were thus each and
all of them Sabbatic years. — 1 Mace. xvi. 14-16, it is related
that Simon was murdered in the month of Shebet, in the year
177 ; and Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7, sees. 4-8, teUs us that it
was then a Sabbatic year. The year 177 ser. Seleuc. is the
year of Bome, Tisri 619-620. This year is the 14-times-7th
from the taking of Jerusalem by Herod, and the 29-times-7th
from the destruction of the temple. From this it follows
that 591-592, 619-620, 717-718, 822-823, were Sab
batic years, and that the taking of Jerusalem by Herod
really belongs to the year 718. This date may be looked
upon as the most certain of any given in the history of
Herod. Sec. 23. Josephus says, de Bello, i. 19, sec. 3, that an earth
quake took place in the 7th year of the reign of Herod,
when that king was at war with the Arabians, and the war
around Actium was coming to a point, i.e. was beginning, at
the commencement of the spring, Kai' eros rfjs fiaatXeias
e/38opiov, aKptd^ovTOS Be tov Trepl "Aktiov iroXeptov, Kara yap
ap^optevov eapos. The Actic war began in the year of Bome
722, by the declaration of war against Cleopatra, and ended
with the battle of Actium, 2d September, in the year of
Bome 723. If, at the beginning of the spring of the year
722, in which the war in question began, Herod had been
king for seven years, he must have obtained this dignity in the
year 715, which, as we have already seen,2 was the case.
1 1 Mace. vi. 20. » Cf. sec. 19.

28 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
From this passage is to be explained the parallel passage,
Antiq. xv. 5, sec. 2, which, according to our view, must be
translated : " In the meantime, while the battle at Actium
between Octavius Caesar and Anthony was impending, — rijs
eV 'AktI(£> ptd-^ys (rvvecrraptevys, — in the 7th year of the
rule of Herod, was an earthquake." 1
Sec. 24. Antiq. xv. 11, sec. 1, Josephus says that Herod
had begun the construction of the temple in the 18 th year
of his reign ; de Bello, i. 21, sec. 1, it stands in the 15th year.
Since, however, Josephus counts the years of Herod sometimes
from the appointment by the senate, sometimes from the
taking of Jerusalem, which happened three years later, it
appears that the fifteen years have reference to this latter
fact, and the eighteen to the former. The year of the temple-
building was, consequently, 715 plus 18, equal to 718 plus
15, i.e. u.c. 733. We have, however, another method whereby
to arrive at the date of the temple-building. We are told,
Antiq. xv. 10, sec. 3, immediately before the mention of the
temple-building, that when the 17th year of Herod was at
an end — r)8y Be airov Ttjs fiacriXelas eirreKatBeKaTov irapeX-
06vtos (not Trapepxpplvov) erovs — Csesar (Augustus) came into
Syria. Now, the journey of Augustus falls in the spring of
the year of Bome 734, B.C. 20. But because the 17th year
was past, the 18th, which is presently given as the year of
the temple - building, had begun. The rebuilding of the
temple thus belongs to the year 734, the year of Augustus'
journey to Syria: it is really the 15th plus a few months
after the taking of Jerusalem, which happened in Tisri ; but
the 19 th, and not the 18 th, after the appointment by the
senate. Sec. 25. Year of Herod's Death. — Antiq. xvii. 8, sec. 1,
Josephus tells us that Herod's reign, counted from the death
of Antigonus, lasted 34 years, from his appointment by the
Bomans 37 years: 715 plus 37 equals 718 plus 34, i.e. u.c.
i [If, as seems to be implied by the words of Josephus, the battle of Actium
was actually fought in the 1th year of Herod's reign, the historian must date
from the latter part of the year 717, before "the depth of the winter " (Antiq.
xiv. 15, sec. 12), at which time Herod had entered on the campaign for the final
subjugation of Judea.]

THE PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF KING HEROD. 29
752. But since Herod died at the beginning of the year,
before Passover, and took Jerusalem in the autumn, it is
possible that the year of Herod's death was 753. Antiq.
xvii.# 6, sec. 1, and de Bello, i. 33, sec. 1, it is said that
Herod at the time of his death was about seventy years of age.
According to Antiq. xiv. 9, sec. 2, as compared with xiv. 8,
sec. 5, Herod was fifteen years old in the ninth year of the
reign of Hyrkanus, i.e. nine years after the taking of Jerusalem
by Pompey; he was therefore born about 684, and would
have been fully 70 years old in 754, and was thus almost 70
years old (o-%e86v) in 753.
In the 15 th year of Tiberius, Jesus was about 30 years
of age.1 The 15th year of Tiberius is u.c. 781 ; if thus the
birth of Jesus was in the year 751, it seems the time of
Herod's death — which was after the birth of Christ — could
not have been, at the earliest, before 752.
All these accounts place the death of Herod, at the earliest,
in the year 752.
Sec. 26. As opposed to these, there is another series of
texts, which make the year 750 the year of Herod's death.
In Antiq. xvii. 13, sec. 2, it is stated that Archelaus the
son of Herod was banished by Augustus in the 1 0th — Bell. ii.
7, sec. 3, says in the 9th — year of his ethnarchy. According
to Antiq. xviii. 2, sec. 1, Quirinus had already, in the 37th
year after the battle of Actium, confiscated the property of
the banished Archelaus. This 37th year ended with the 2d
September u.c. 760. The banishment must thus have taken
place at the latest in the year 760 ; if Herod died ten or even
nine years earlier, his death must have been in the year 750
or 751. [If, however, the 9th year of his reign was reckoned
from the completion of eight full years, Herod's death might
most naturally be supposed to fall in the year 752.]
According to Antiq. xviii. 6, sec. 1 ; 7, sees. 1, 2, Agrippa
received from Caligula, who had succeeded Tiberius on the
16th March, year of Bome 790, permission to enter upon his
kingdom. Upon this Herod the tetrarch repaired to Bome,
at the same time to solicit the title of king; but was sent into
exile. This banishment fell in the year of Bome 792 or 793.
; Luke iii. 1, 23. [««/, about, towards, cf. John xix. 14.]

30 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
Now, according to Eckhel,1 coins of Herod the tetrarch,
belonging to the 43d year of his reign, are still in existence.
Beckoning back these years from 792-793, we get the year
of Herod's death as u.c. 750 or 751.
According to Antiq. xviii. 4, sec. 6, Philip the tetrarch
died in the 2 0th year of the reign of Tiberius, after a rule of
37 years. The 20th year of Tiberius ended in August 787 ;
reckoning 3 7 years backwards from this, gives the year of
Bome 750 as the year of Herod's death.
Sec. 27. The calculation from above downwards gives uni
formly u.c. 752 or 753 as the year of Herod's death; the
calculation from below upwards gives, on the other hand, 750,
or, at most, 751 [in one case 752] as the possible year. It
is self-evident that Josephus has somewhere reckoned two
years two many ; probably because he counted certain con
sulates, which lasted only a short time, as embracing full
years. That he has in reality counted two years too much
is clear from Antiq. xx. 10, sec. 1, where it is said that the
office of the high priest, from the death of Antigonus to the
destruction of the temple, had continued 107 years. But
from 718 to 823 there are only 105 years! Both dates
were, as we have seen, Sabbatic years ; these could not be 107
years from each other, because that number is not divisible
by seven.
Chronologists have sought in various ways to explain this
contradiction. Wieseler [p. 48 of English translation] seeks
to remove the difficulty by the application of the rabbinical
principle, that Nisan is the beginning of the year for the
kings, and that a single day over the year counts as another
year ; 2 but he forgets that it is expressly said this rule
applies only to the Icings of Israel.3 The rule was an ex
pedient for resolving the chronological difficulties connected
with the duration of the reign of the kings before the cap
tivity, who alone with the Babbis bear the name of " kings of
Israel ; " and cannot be applied to the history after the cap
tivity, since neither the Asmonseans nor the Herodians were
1 Doct. Num. Vet. iii. p. 486.
2 Wieseler, Synopsis [p. 48 of English translation].
3 btir\W ^btb K>K W i6, Bosh hashanna, i.

THE PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF KING HEROD. 3 1
kings of Israel. Seyffarth, on the other hand,1 gets out of the
difficulty by maintaining — not that Josephus counts two
years too much, but — that modern chronologists count two
years too little, between the accession of Herod and the
destruction of Jerusalem. We cannot enter here into his
elaborate argumentation; we confess ourselves, however, un
convinced by his reasoning.
It remains thus admitted that Josephus somewhere counts
two years too much. But where does the error lurk ? In
the history of Herod ? or in the history after his death ?
Here, unfortunately, all certain data are wanting. We cannot
afford to leave unexhausted any means which may contribute
to the deciding of this question.
Sec. 28. Josephus relates that some time before the death
of Herod an eclipse of the moon took place. Let us see if we
can avail ourselves of this circumstance to determine the year
of this king's death. With a view to this result, Wurm 2 has
calculated the eclipses occurring from B.C. 6 to B.C. 1, which
were visible at Jerusalem.
In the year B.C. 6 there was no lunar eclipse.
In the year B.C. 5 there were two, total, the one on the 23d March, the
other on the 15th September.
In the year B.C. 4 there was a partial one, of 5 inches, on the 13th
March, at 3 h. 4 m. a.m.
In the years B.C. 3 and 2, none.
In the year B.C. 1, a total eclipse on the 10th January, at 1 h. 54 m. a.m.
The years 6, 3, and 2 before Christ are thus inadmissible,
because they are without any lunar eclipse. The choice con
sequently lies between the years B.C. 5, 4, and 1, or u.c. 749,
750, 753, the very years between which sections 25 and 26
had already left us a choice, without casting into either scale
a decisive weight. Let us now more closely examine the
history of this eclipse. Josephus relates3 that Herod caused
a certain Judas Sariphsei and one Matthias Margolothi to be
burned alive. On the same night there occurred an eclipse of
the moon. From that time forward the sickness of Herod
increased. When the sufferings became unendurable, lie
1 Chron. Sacra, pp. 11, 92 ff. 2 Wurm, as before, p. 26 ff.
3 Antiq. xvii. 6, sees. 2-4.

32 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
betook himself to Callirhoe, beyond Jordan, where he used
the warm baths. There his physicans thought it advisable to
warm him by a bath of oil ; in this, however, he was near
dying. Coming to consciousness again, and having no hopes
of his recovery, he divided large sums of money amongst his
soldiers, officers, and friends, and returned to Jericho. In
a paroxysm of melancholy he gave orders for summoning
together the leading men among the Jews from every part
(oiroviroTe). Their number was great, because they were
collected together out of the whole nation. These he caused
to be shut up in the hippodrome, and ordered his sister Salome
after his death to have them all put to death, that the Jews
might not rejoice over his decease.1 After he had issued this
command, letters reached him from Bome, announcing that
the emperor authorized him to banish or execute his son.
This news revived him. When, however, the pains again got
the upper hand, he sought to kill himself, but was prevented.
The outcry raised on account of this attempt led Antipater in
his prison to suppose his father was dead, and he sought to
bribe his jailor. When Herod heard of this, he caused Antipater
to be put to death, and five days afterwards himself expired.2
Salome then set at liberty the members of the Jewish leading
families shut up in the hippodrome.3 Archelaus honoured his
father with a royal funeral, mourned seven days, gave a
banquet to the populace, and after laying aside his mourning,
repaired to the temple, where he was well received by the
populace.4 Soon, however, a hostile reaction set in, which
became the more perilous, inasmuch as the festival of Passover
was near at hand.5 Now, how many days do all these events
require for their occurrence ? That they might occupy three
months, no one will be inclined to doubt ; neither can it be
denied that they might have happened within thirty days
even. The eclipse does not thus decide our question. The
eclipses of the years 5 and 4 occurring just thirty days before
Passover are possible, that of the year 1 before Christ oc
curring three months before Passover is equally so. There
1 Antiq. xvii. 6, sees. 5, 6. 2 Antiq. xvii. 7, xviii. 8, sec. 1.
3 Antiq. xvii. 8, sec. 2. * Antiq. xvii. 8, sees. 3, 4.
5 Antiq. xvii. 9, sees. 1-3.

THE PRINCD?AL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF KING HEROD. 33
remains to us, considering the multitude of intervening events,
only a presumption against the years 5 and 4, and in favour
of the year 1. Let us see now what Jewish tradition has to
say to us on this intricate question.
Sec. 29. Particularly fortunate or unfortunate events are
yearly celebrated by the Jews on the anniversary of their
occurrence by days of rejoicing or mourning. These days are
designated in the old calendar of festivals, the Megillath-
Taanith. In this book two days are spoken of as the days
of Herod's death. In chap. ix. it says : " The 7th Kisleu
is a fortunate day (aiD DV), because on that day Herod died,
who was an enemy to the sages." Chronologists have rightly
rejected this date, since it is five months from the Passover.
In chap, xi, however, of the same book we read — what has
hitherto been overlooked by the chronologists — " The first
Shebet is a doubly fortunate day, as the day of the death of
Herod and Jannai; for there is joy before God when the
wicked are taken out of this world. The sages relate that
King Jannai, when he came to die, shut up the seventy elders
of Israel, and gave orders to the jailor to put them to death
when he (Jannai) should die ; that the Israelites, instead of
rejoicing over his death, might have to bewail their sages.
Now," it goes on to say, " King Jannai had an intelligent wife,
Salome Qwc^t?}. When the king was dead, she took the signet
off his finger, and sent it to the jailor with the message,
' Your sick master gives the elders their liberty.' He set them
at liberty, and each one went to his house. Only after their
deliverance was the king's death made known." This account
does not at all tally with the account of King Alexander
Janneeus ; for he did not wait until his death to accomplish
the slaughter of the Babbis and Sanhedrists, but had banished
and executed them long before. If we substitute for the
name of Jannai the name of Herod, we have • almost word for
word that which Josephus relates: the shutting up of the
leading Jews in the hippodrome, the order for their execution
and the motive for it, the liberation of them by Salome.
Tradition has, as is often the case, interchanged the names,
but preserved the facts and the date. The 1st of Shebet is
thus the day of Herod's death, while, perhaps, the 7th of

34 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
Kisleu is to be assigned to Jannai. If Herod died on the 1st
Shebet, the lunar eclipse occurring before his death can be
neither the first of the year 5, nor that of the year 4 ; because
both occurred on the 15th Adar, i.e. six weeks later. In the
year 753, anno 1 before Christ, the 10th January, the day
of the lunar eclipse, was on the 15th Tebeth ; when, 14
days later, on the 1st Shebet, Herod died, it was the 24th
January. Jewish tradition may in this way be right, and
would thus be a confirmation of the year 753, or 752 plus
24 days. We confess, nevertheless, that the time of 14 days
is a very short ope for all that is related between the eclipse
and the death of Herod ; and that, on the other hand, two
and a half months is very long for that which occurred be
tween this death and Passover. But must not the royal
interment of Herod at Herodium have occupied several weeks
in its accomplishment ?
III.' — -Principal Epochs in the Life of Christ.
Sec. 30. The Census. — Joseph and Mary dwelt at Nazareth;
if, this notwithstanding, Jesus was born at Bethlehem, the
occasion is to be found in the census, on account of which
Joseph must repair to his ancestral city. It is said in Luke
ii. 1-4, " It came to pass in those days (in which John was
born), that there went out a decree from Augustus Ceesar,
that all the world should be enrolled. This enrolment was
(before that made")
< or > by Quirinus, governor of Syria [or,
(the first made )
better : as governor of Syria]. And every one, in order to be
enrolled, went into his own city. And Joseph also went up
from Gahlee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the
city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of
the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled, with Mary, who
was espoused to him." The main point is, consequently, to
know what is meant by the words Avry y diroypa<py wpcory
iyevero yyeptovevovros Trjs Ilvplas Kvpyviov. The common
translation is : This census was the first, and was made under
Quirinus. We prefer the other : This census was that imme-

PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 35
diately preceding the census of Quirinus. Grammatically, this
rendering is justified by the irpcoTos pov, " He was before me,"
of John i. 15, while the historical difficulties are removed by
it.1 Quirinus, who as prseses of Syria held a census in the
year of Bome 759 or 760,2 obtained this office about the year
758. That Luke does not by an anachronism transfer this
census of the year 759 to the time of Christ's birth, but
intends an earlier one, is shown even by the word irpmry,
" the first," taken in the ordinary sense. It is not impossible,
indeed, that Quirinus — before that well-known census — may
have conducted an earlier one in some subordinate capacity
under C. Sentius Satuminus or P. Quintilius Varus ; but then
the expression yyeptovevovros would be misleading, because it
must be taken by every reader in the sense of " when he was
hegemon, president." Luke characterizes the census which
was contemporaneous with Jesus' birth as a general census of
the empire, not as one affecting only Syria and Palestine.
The fact of the existence of a Boman census embracing the
land of Judea, before the well-known census of Quirinus in
A.D. 6, has been doubted : (1) because Judea was not then
an immediately Boman province ; and (2) because neither
Josephus nor any other historian makes mention of such a
census. As concerns this last objection, it may suffice here,
as in many other cases, that Luke — who is an historian as well
as Josephus, and proves himself thoroughly conversant with
the history — testifies to the actual fact of this diroypa^y.
The silence of profane authors is to be explained by the fact
that the work of Dio Cassius, the principal historical work
relating to that period, is defective precisely in the epoch at
which the birth of Christ must be placed.3 But Josephus
1 [Zumpt, however, has sought to show that Quirinus was in all probability
twice pro-praitor of Syria — once, as successor of Quintilius Varus, from about
the end of B.C. 4 to the end of B.C. 1 ; and again, as successor of Volusius
Satuminus, from AD. 6 to a.d. 11. See note to the English translation of
Wieseler, pp. 129-135 ; and comp. A. W. Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi,
Leipzig 1870 ; cf. Ellicott, Life of our Lord, pp. 58, 59, and note to p. 58.]
2 Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1, sec. 1 ; Acts v. 37.
3 [Josephus also, who passes over the entire interval between the accession of
Archelaus and his deposition, makes no mention of the first presidency of
Quirinus. He ascribes to Varus the merit of quelling the disturbances which
arose after the death of Herod, and next speaks of the (second) well-known

36 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
might pass over this census, just because it was a measure
affecting not only Palestine, but also the whole Boman empire,
the execution of which was completed in Judea without tumult.
As regards the first objection, it rests in the first place upon a
misconception, since the expression diroypa<py is taken in the
strict sense of a census, or valuation for purposes of assessment
of property, for which the more exact Greek term is diroTi-
pycrts. 'Airoypa<py may designate the census in the narrower
sense, but may equally well denote an enrolment or return of
the population. The Emperor Augustus possessed a breviarium
totius imperii, in which also was contained quantum sociorum
in armis : l in this, Judea could certainly not be wanting.
This "breviarium" necessarily presupposes one if not more
registrations, although the historians tell us nothing of them.
That the vassal-Prince Herod was not so independent of Bome
as some would assume, is manifest from the fact that, even
under Pompey, Judea was tributary;2 which requires us to
presuppose a census in the strict sense of the term, although
Josephus is equally silent about this also. It is, besides,
incorrect to say that Luke alone is acquainted with a census
preceding that of Quirinus in a.d. 6 ; Tertullian3 speaks of
such a census as taking place under Sentius Satuminus, be
tween 744 and 748 ; and Eusebius, of another belonging to
the 42d year of the reign of Augustus. The supposition that
these two Christian writers derived their statement only from
the account of Luke, is entirely baseless; and even though this
were the case with Eusebius' Chronicon, it cannot be said of
Tertullian, who places the birth of Christ in the 41st year of
the reign of Augustus, when Satuminus had long ceased to be
presidency of Quirinus. If, however, Herod died between the close of B. c. 4 and
of B. c. 1, all that is related concerning the period of Herod's death belongs, ac
cording to the dates fixed by Zumpt, to the administration of Quirinus. If, on
the other hand, Herod died in the year of Rome 750, the census preceding or
contemporaneous with Herod's death could not have been carried out by
Quirinus, on the assumption that Zumpt's argument is well founded. The
testimony of the evangelist as to this census would therefore seem to point to
the later year as the true date of Herod's death.]
1 Sueton. Octav. 101 ; Tacit. Ann. i. 11.
2 Antiq. xiv. 4, sec. 4, iixartxiis ipipcv. Pompejus captis Hierosolymis tribu
taries Judseos fecit : Chron. Euseb. ad Olymp. 179.
3 Adv. Marcionem, iv. 6.

PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 37
prseses of Syria. The historians speak expressly of three
censuses under Augustus ; these took place in the years of
Bome 726, 746, 767. If, now, we suppose that of 726 was
delayed a year owing to some political obstacle or other, then
the years 725,. 746, 767 are regularly separated from each
other by an interval of seven years, and its multiple. But
since these censuses are called lustra, we may infer that during
the age of Augustus the lustra were septennial If, as is pro
bable from the nature of the case, the assessment of those
lands of the olKovp.evy in any way dependent on Bome was
simultaneous with these lustra, it becomes in the highest
degree probable that the census at the close of Herod's reign
would be carried into effect as part of a more general measure
of state. Seyffarth is perfectly justified in calling attention
to the fact that the censuses under Augustus, above referred
to, all fell on Sabbatic years of the Jews. Sabbatic years
were: 725, 732, 739, 746, 753, 760, 767. The census of
72 5 was, as we have said, owing to some cause, postponed till
726 ; that of 746 includes the registration made by Satur-
ninus, for which Tertullian vouches ; the census for which
Luke vouches must have coincided with the year 753 ; that
of 767 falls in the year of Augustus' death. With regard to
the Sabbatic years above noticed, it must be premised that
their point of beginning is always the month of Tisri in the
preceding year. It is evident that the result of this com
bination renders probable the year 753 as that of the death of
Herod, at least by the proof that this king cannot have died
before Tisri 752-753. — Objection has been further raised
that, according to Luke, every one, in order to be enrolled,
was under obligation to proceed to the city of his tribe and
family, and that even the women were compelled to do so.
In opposition to this, we remark that this last particular is
not adduced, as required by a general rule : Mary might
accompany Joseph of free choice, and the more so since
Joseph probably intended to take up his permanent abode in
Bethlehem, the city of David, " where Christ should be born."
And if he afterwards turned aside to Nazareth, this took place
under divine direction.1 Such a journeying of multitudes,
1 Matt. ii. 23.

38 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
each to his own city, must certainly cause great confusion and
loss of time. But, since the assessments fell in Sabbatic
years, these inconveniences lost a great part of their signifi
cance.1 Sec. 31. The Star of the Wise Men. — In Matt. ii. 1-4, 9,
we read, " When Jesus was born . . . there came magi out of
the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King
of the Jews ? for we have His star (avTov tov do-Tepa) in the
east, and are come to worship Him. . . . And, lo, the star
which they saw in the east went before them, till it came and
stood over where the child was." Is there any chronological
datum to be derived from this account ? Abarbanel says that
three years before the birth of Moses a conjunction of Jupiter
and Saturn was witnessed in the sign of Israel, to wit,
" Pisces," and that the recurrence of this phenomenon, in the
year a.d. 1463, would introduce the birth of the Messiah.
Other Jewish traditions, of a hke kind, bearing on this ques
tion, have been coUected by Seyffarth.2 To some such supposi
tion Josephus also would seem to allude.3 The conjunction of
the said two planets was consequently looked upon by the Jews
as the constellation of Moses and Messias. Kepler was the
first to calculate for chronological purposes the time of this
conjunction in " Pisces," and showed that it took place in the
year of Bome 747. Ideler4 subjected the matter to a new
test, and found that in the year 747 u.c, Jupiter and 'Saturn
first entered into conjunction on the 20th May, in the 20th
degree of " Pisces." They then appeared, before sunrise, in
the eastern sky, and were only one degree distant from each
other. On the 20 th October there was a second conjunction
in the 16th degree of Pisces, and, on the 2d November, a
third in the 15th degree of the same sign. In the two last
conjunctions, too, the difference of declination amounted only
to about one degree. Two years later, in the year of Bome
749, there was a conjunction of aU the planets ; this assumed
the form of a child, the form which Jewish tradition gives to
1 On the question of the census here discussed, comp. Winer, artt. " Quirinus,
Schatzung, Abgaben ; " Wieseler, as before, p. 65 ff. of Engl. tr. ; Seyffarth,
as before, p. 87 ff.
2 Seyffarth, as before, p. 89 ff. 8 Antiq. ii. 9, sees. 2, 7.
' Ideler, Chron. ii. p. 405.

PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 39
the constellation of Messiah.- Was, then, this last conjunction,
or one of the others, the star of the wise men 1 The Gospel
narrative speaks of a star (do-Tijp), and not of a constellation
or combination of stars (darpov) ; although, it is true, the
usage of the Greek writers would seem not to distinguish very
sharply between the significations of these two words. This
would thus be a possible explanation. The latest moment at
which the conjunction of the planets could point out to the
magi the place where the child was, was the year of Bome
749. If we were then to assume this to be the year of
Jesus' birth, he would have been, in the 1 5th year of Tiberius,
not about 30, but fully 33 years of age. But this con
junction, which assumed the form of a child, did not appear
in " Pisces," the sign of Israel, and could not therefore be the
constellation of Messiah. This we should rather have to seek
in the conjunctions of 747 ; but by this means the difficulty
is only increased, since Jesus would then have been 35 years
of age in the 15 th year of Tiberius. According to Jewish
tradition, Moses was not born during the time of the con
junction, but only three or four years after it ; this conjunction
was thus not an indication of the birth of Moses, as an event
which had already taken place, but a pre-indication of it in
the future. In this sense the same conjunction was now to
be regarded as the star of the Messiah ; it was to precede His
birth by several years. But in this way the matter loses its
definite character, and ceases to serve as an element in the
chronology. Wieseler sees the star of the wise men in
another star, a new one, probably a comet, appearing in the
year B.C. 4, of which the Chinese astronomical tables give an
account, which was visible in February and March.1 But
how could the magi know that a comet — usually the sign of
misfortune — was the star of the Messiah ? It will be apparent
that facts of this kind can afford no certain basis for the
determination of the year of Jesus' birth ; and we can follow
neither Ideler and Sanclemente nor Wieseler when, on such
astronomical grounds, they declare in favour of the year 747
or 750 as that of the Lord's birth.
From the Fathers, too, nothing which greatly avails us is to
1 Wieseler, as before, p. 61 of Engl. tr.

40 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
be gleaned. Tertullian, as we have said, places the birth of
Christ in the 41st year of Augustus, that is, the year of Bome
752. The Chronicon paschah places the birth of Jesus in the
41st year of Augustus, the death of Herod in the 44th year,
thus u.c. 754. Eusebius, in his Chronicon, places the birth of
Jesus in the year 42 of Augustus, and the death of Herod in
the year 47 of this prince, thus in the year of Bome 758.
Others, e.g. Cassiodorus, Chronicon, state that Jesus was born
during the consulate of C. Lentulus and M. Messala, which
falls in the 41st year of Augustus. The consulates are the
most certain means of determining the chronology of this
period. Unfortunately, however, it must here be observed
that, according to the assertion of Augustine, no original tra
dition has preserved the consulate either of the year of the
Lord's birth or of His death: per Olympiades et consulum
nomina multa saspe quseruntur a nobis, et ignorantia consulatus
quo natus est Dominus et quo passus, nonnullos coegit errare.1
Thus much remains as the result of the declarations of the
Fathers, that they all, without exception, were of opinion that
Herod was alive at any rate in the 41st year of Augustus,
that is to say, in the year of Bome 752. This confirms our
view that Herod died at the beginning of the year 753.
Sec. 32. The year of Jesus' entering on His public work.
— That the appearing of Jesus at the feast of Passover, related
in the 2d chapter of John, belongs to the year in which
the public ministry of Jesus began, and, indeed, to the first
months of this year, is perfectly clear. Now during that
festival the Jews demanded of Jesus a sign.2 He answered,
" Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
The Jews replied, " Forty and six years was this temple
(6 vaos) in building."3 In the language of the New Testa
ment, a strict distinction is, as a rule, maintained between
to iepov, the sanctuary in general, without the holy house,
and 6 vaos, the holy house, in distinction from the rest of
the sanctuary. But since there is no expression covering
at the same time both ideas, here, in consequence of this
expression being just before used by Jesus, the term vaos is
1 Augustinus, De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 28.
2 John ii. 19. s John ii. 20.

PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 41
employed for the sanctuary, inclusive of the temple proper.
The objection of the Jews has consequently the following
sense : During 46 years have workmen been employed on these
sacred buildings, — temple and porticos, — and wilt Thou accom
plish this in three days ? Josephus says, indeed, that the
holy house was completed in a year and a half, and the outer
courts in 8 years.1 He cannot, however, here be speaking
of an absolute completion; for the works were continued
until shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish war, since,
according to Antiq. xx. 9, sec. 7, the sanctuary was completed
only under the Procurator Albinus — yBy tot6 Kal to iepbv
erereXeo-To. From Mark xiii. 1, 2, it is to be inferred that
this work of building was still being urgently pressed forward
in the year of Jesus' death ; for, in the mouth of persons who
came yearly to Jerusalem, the exclamation, , " Behold, what
stones, what a building !" could not have reference to buildings
completed now thirty years, and already often seen before ;
but to a structure rising before their eyes. According to what
has been said in sec. 24, Herod began the building in the
year 734; 46 years added to this gives the year 780, which,
according to the Jewish mode of calculation, expired with
1st Nisan of the year 781. Since the Jews held their con
versation with Jesus at the beginning of the Jewish year,
they would not count in the year 781, on which they had
scarcely entered.
Sec. 33. The 15th year of the reign of the Emperor
Tiberius. — In Luke iii. 1, 2 we read : " In the 15 th year of
the reign of Tiberius Csesar, Pontius Pilate being governor
of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother
Philip tetrarch of Itursea and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas
being the high priests, the word of God came unto John, the
son of Zacharias, in the wilderness." Since Luke is writing
the history of Jesus, and not that of John, this wealth of
chronological data must refer primarily to Jesus, and only
incidentally to the Baptist. The time of John's activity is
involved in the nearer definition of the time of Jesus' appear
ing, since his arising was simultaneous with that of the Lord,
1 Antiq. xv. 11, sees. 5, 6.

42 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
in the sense that the baptism of Jesus coincided with the
early part of the ministry of John. Since the great mission
of John was to make known the person of Him who should
come, after he had himself recognised Him, the beginning of
John's labours is only to be placed at such an interval before
the baptism of Jesus as might be necessary in order for him to
gather the multitude around him, for which the space of a month
might very well suffice. The year 15 of Tiberius is thus the
year in which Jesus and John alike began their labours.1
The further notes of time in Luke do not more nearly
define the date. Pontius Pilate was procurator from u.c.
779 to 789, when he was deposed shortly before the Pass
over.2 Herod Antipas reigned from the death of Herod I.
until [the second year of Caligula] 792. Philip was also
tetrarch from Herod's death until the 20th year of Tiberius,
i.e. 786-787. Of Lysanias of Abilene nothing further is
known.3 The greatest difficulty is occasioned by the mention
of Annas as high priest, dp%iepevs. This man, according to
Antiq. xviii. 2, sec. 1, became high priest at the time of the
census under Quirinus, about 759, and was deposed at the
beginning of the reign of Tiberius, towards 767 of Bome.
Caiaphas attained to this dignity in the year 770, and lost it
in the year 789.4 How could Luke, then, advance the state
ment that Annas was high priest in the 15 th year of Tiberius ?
We are greatly inclined to share Wieseler's view,8 that Luke
caUs not alone the high priest, strictly speaking, by the name
of dpxtepevs, but applies this name also to the Nasi, or presi
dent of the Sanhedrim. In Matt, xxvii. 1, Mark xv. 1, Luke
xxii. 66, and often elsewhere, the high priests, oi dp%tepels,
are spoken of in the plural, and in connection with the
members of the Great Council, from which it necessarily
follows that other offices, or, better, another office was honoured
1 [This conclusion is inevitable, if we suppose the beginning of John's ministry
to be included under this reference. If, however, we suppose a later stage to be
intended (cf. Acts xiii. 24, 25), nothing prevents our placing the beginning of
John's ministry anywhere after the early part of September in the previous year,
at which time a Sabbatic year commenced. ]
2 Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4, sec. 2.
3 See, on the subject of this tetrarch, Wieseler> as before, p. 160 of Engl. tr.
• Antiq. xviii. 2, sec. 2 ; 4, sec. 3. 5 Synopsis, p. 169.

PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 43
with this title. This usage might arise from the fact that
Annas, when he was high priest, was also at the same time
Nasi of the Sanhedrim, and that, after being deprived of the
office of high priest, he continued to retain the dignity of
Nasi, and at the same time the old title of high priest, which
is still bestowed upon him in Acts iv. 6. Jewish tradition
indeed says1 that Hillel and his descendants, Simeon ben
Hill el and Gamaliel ben Simeon, filled the office of Nasi for
a hundred years in succession, until the destruction of the
temple. But there is here an intervening domination of the
Sadducees passed over,2 during which the family of the Hillels,
who belonged to the Pharisaic party, assuredly did not hold
the presidential chair. Throughout the whole of this interval
of Sadducean domination, then, Annas was probably the Nasi
— say from 759 to 784.
Sec. 34. Dio Cassius says, lvi. 29, " Augustus died on the
19th August of the year of Bome 767," i.e. a.d. 14 of the
Dionysian era. Since it is ordinarily assumed that the years
of Tiberius' reign are to be counted from the death of his
predecessor, the 15 th year of Tiberius is fixed as from the
19th August 781 to the same date 782, a.d. 28-29, ser.
Dionys. According to the 'results obtained, sec. 32, Jesus
began His public labours with the opening of the year 781 ;
according to the datum of Luke, however, it could begin at
the earliest only on the 19 th August of this year. Are we
to suppose this statement of the evangehst is a blunder ?
Since the whole history of the labours of Jesus detailed in
the Gospel of Mark does not require us to suppose a full
year, and since Luke seems to have taken Mark's Gospel as a
framework for his own, the thought occurs that Luke, who
knew the year of Jesus' death, — which is the 16th of Tiberius,
reckoning from August to August, — had ascribed to the Lord
only one year of public labour, and on that account placed
the beginning of it in the. 15th year of Tiberius. This
hypothesis, however, does not hold good, because it pre
supposes that Luke derived this year 15 not from certain
testimony, but from a computation. The memorable year of
the arising of the Baptist and of Jesus was certainly fixed
1 Bab. Sanhedrin, f. 15. 2 Conip. on this point sec. 145.

44 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
in the recollection of the avToinat and contemporaries of the
evangelist, from whom (Luke i. 2) he derived his account.
But if the date received by tradition was the year 15, then
the whole year 781, reckoned from January, and not merely
from the 19 th August, must have been intended. Seyffarth
makes a remark, in our view well-founded, which the more
deserves notice, inasmuch as the author himself had not
specially the 15th year of Tiberius before his mind. He
says : 1 " Primarily, we must suppose the first year of an
emperor's reign was counted from the time at which his
predecessor died. ... In the course of a few years, however,
the first year of the new prince was extended to the new year's
day of the year in the course of which the preceding ruler
died." According to this principle, the entire year 781 was
comprised under the 15 th year of Tiberius. Without, how
ever, leaning upon this, which is after all only an hypothesis,
we will seek rather to obtain an immediate historic support
for our position. Augustus died, as has been said, on the
19th August, u.c. 767. Tiberius died 16th March 790;
the regnal period of the latter was consequently 22 years,
6 months, 27 days. (Josephus2 has 22 years, 6 months,
3 days, because, by an oversight, he has subtracted 16 days
from 19, instead of 19 from 16.) Now Suetonius says,
Obiit (Tiberius) anno tertio et vigesimo imperii, decimo sep-
timo Kalend. Aprilis, Cn. Acerronio Proculo, C. Pontio Nigro,
coss. : he thus ascribes to Tiberius 23 full years.3 Now,
it is not the wont of this historian to express the regnal
period of the emperors by round numbers of years, but by
years, months, and days. Thus he says of Caligula that he
reigned 3 years, 10 months, and 8 days. And so with
the other emperors. The same is true in the case of other
historians, as Cassiodorus, Eusebius in his Chronicon, etc.,
1 Seyffarth, as before, p. 10. 2 Josephus, de Bello, ii. 9, sec. 5.
3 [Suetonius, in speaking of the death of Tiberius in the 23d year of his
reign, would seem, however, only to mean that he had completed his 22d.
That Luke reckons Tiberius' reign from the beginning of the year is self-
evident, from the fact that the baptism, which took place in the beginning of
February (sec. 84), must otherwise have fallen in the 14th year. The mode of
computation of the regnal years of Tiberius from the time of his joint sovereignty
is now adopted by Wieseler, art. " Neutest. Zeitrechnung," in Herzog's B. E.~\

PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 45
who usually give months and days, and yet, like Suetonius,
ascribe to Tiberius 23 years, instead of 22 years, 7 months.
All these count Tiberius' years from the beginning of the
year — at the latest from the month of March — u.c. 767.
Now, Suetonius says1 that Tiberius celebrated his triumph,
falhng in the beginning of the year 767, " ac, non multo
post, lege per consules lata ut provincias cum Augusto com-
muniter administraret, simulque censum ageret. Condito lustro
in Illyricum profectus est. Et statim ex itinere revocatus ;
jamquidem affectum sed tamen spirantem Augustum reperit."
To this corresponds that which Tacitus says, Ann. i. 3,
Filius, collega imperii, consors tribunitise potestatis adsumitur
(Tiberius) omnisque per exercitus ostentatur. Suetonius and
the other historians consequently reckon the years of Tiberius
not from the death of Augustus, but from the day in which
he became collega imperii, i.e. from February, the month of the
lustra. In the same manner Luke reckons. The 15th regnal
year of Tiberius is thus the whole year 781 ; and in this way
the notes of time in Luke perfectly agree with those of John.
Sec. 35. Year of the Conversion of the Apostle Paul. —
The apostle says, Gal. i. 18, ii. 1, 2, that 3 years after his
conversion he came for the first time into contact with the
apostles at Jerusalem; and then, 14 years later, a second
time, in consequence of a revelation. To these two journeys
to Jerusalem unquestionably correspond that first journey of
Acts ix. 26, at the same time related as being his first
journey; and the other, narrated in Acts xi. 30, which like
wise was occasioned by a revelation,2 and followed by a return
to Antioch.3 To what year, then, does this second journey
belong? Acts xi. 27-30 we read, "In those days came
prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, Agabus
by name, stood up, and testified by the Spirit that there
should be presently a great dearth throughout all the world.
This actually took place in the time of Claudius. Each,
then, of the disciples determined, every one according to his
means, to send ministration to the brethren dwelling in Judea.
This they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barna-
1 Sueton. Tiber. 21. 2 Acts xi. 27.
3 Acts xii. 25, xiii. 1 ; Gal. ii. 11.

46 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
bas and Saul." And, xii. 25, it is said, "Now Barnabas and
Saul returned from Jerusalem (to Antioch), after having com
pleted the ministration." Between these accounts — narrating
the arrival in Jerusalem and the departure from the city —
the account is inserted of the acts of Herod (Agrippa I.) in
persecuting the church -at Jerusalem, putting to death James
the brother of John, and imprisoning Peter, who was, never
theless, miraculously delivered; and the further history of
Herod, in that he was praised as a god, and on that account
eaten up of worms.1 Manifestly not all that is related, chap.
xii. 1-24, can have taken place during Paul's stay in Jeru
salem. The first point, then, is to explain why this account
is inserted at this precise stage of the history. After Luke,
Acts i— viii, had detailed the events connected with the rise
and early vicissitudes of the congregation at Jerusalem, he
relates, chap, ix., the conversion of Paul, an event, thus,
which — according to Gal. i. 18 ff. — took place 17 years
before the second journey. In the same chapter, ix. 26,
mention is made of the first journey of the converted Saul to
Jerusalem. That which is recorded, Acts ix. 31 to xiii. 1,
consequently occupies, according to Gal. ii. 2, a space of 14
years. Acts ix. 31-xi. 18 we have the history of the Pales
tinian Christian congregations, grouping themselves around
Jerusalem; then, xi. 19, the account is resumed of the perse
cution which followed the death of Stephen, and the rise and
development of the congregations among the Gentiles is de
scribed, up to the period when Paul brought the contribution
to Jerusalem, and in this way effected a union between the
Gentile congregations and the mother church. Acts xi. 19-30
embraces thus a period of 17 years. Having reached this
point of the history, Luke had to take up into his narra
tive that which had in the meantime happened in Jerusalem,
between the conversion of Cornelius and the arrival of the
deputation from Antioch. This is done, chap. xii. 1-24. When
was Cornelius converted ? According to Acts x. 1, he was
centurio of the cohors Italica. The presence of a Boman gar
rison at Csesarea shows that the town was then under the
immediate supremacy of Bome. This town, together with
1 Acts xii. 1-24.

. PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 47
Samaria and Judea, came under the sway of Herod Agrippa I. in
the year a.d. 41 or 42, and became the capital of his kingdom.1
The conversion of Cornelius falls thus at the latest in the year
41, and the parenthesis, Acts xii, embraces aU that happened
under Agrippa at Jerusalem during three years ; and extends
even beyond the death of Agrippa, since it is said, xii. 24,
that after his death the word grew and multiplied, up to the
time at which, by the coming of Paul, the Gentile Christians
were brought into closer connection with Jerusalem. How
far beyond the death of Agrippa these words lead us, must be
further shown below. First of all, we have to determine the
time of Agrippa's death. Antiq. xix. 8, sec. 2, we read that
Agrippa reigned four years under Caius Csesar (Caligula), and
three years under Claudius. The reign of Claudius began in
the January of the year 41.2 The death of Agrippa conse
quently fell in the year 44. His kingdom was then, on account
of the minority of his son, Agrippa II., administered by the
procurators Cuspius Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, and Cumanus.
This last entered into office in the beginning of the year 49 ;
the two former held it from 44 to the end of 48. It was,
according to Josephus,3 under these two that the famine broke
out which is referred to in Acts xi. 28. Since this raged
under both procurators, Fadus and Alexander, it belongs to the
last year of the former and to the beginning of the governor
ship of the latter. The year of the change of procurators is
unfortunately unknown. When, however, we compare what
took place under the government of the one and of the other,4
we must suppose Fadus to have remained at the helm of affairs
considerably longer than Alexander. The mutation of pro
curators cannot be placed earlier, but also not later, than the
vear 47. This is consequently the year of the famine, in
which Paul brought the contribution of the Antiochian Chris
tians to Jerusalem. The conversion of this apostle, having
taken place 3 plus 14 = 17 years earlier, belongs to the year
30. Since Paul counts in round numbers of years, by the
sum of 3 plus 14 it is possible something more or less than
1 Antiq. xix. 4, 5, sec. 1 ; 6, sec. 1 ; de Bello, ii. 11 ; 12, sec. 6.
2 Sueton. Calig. 58. 3 Antiq. xx. 5, sec. 2.
' Antiq. xix. 9, sec. 2-xx. 2, sec. 3.

48 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
17 full years may be meant, thus from the end of 29 to the
end of 3 0. The year 2 9 is a priori impossible ; because the
crucifixion of Christ must be placed in the 17th year of
Tiberius. Paul's conversion took place after Pentecost ; thus
towards the end of the year 30, but not later. When we
take into account the intense excitement awakened by the
earlier activity of the apostles, and the rapid succession of
events thereby occasioned, we feel no difficulty in supposing
that all that is recorded in Acts iii. 1-ix. 3 took place in a
space of from two to three months ; and the more so, inas
much as we are justified by viii. 1 in regarding that which is
related viii. 4—40 as being synchronous with the conversion
of Paul,, described chap. ix. 1 ff. If the raging of the young
Pharisaic zealot continued only for a month after the stoning of
Stephen, this may have sufficed to inflict incalculable injury.
Paul's conversion belongs thus to the autumn of the year 30.
Sec. 36. Our note of time, as concerns the conversion of
the apostle, differs very considerably from the views generally
prevalent. This conversion is made much later by all chrono
logists. Pearson and Suskind place it in the year 35, Hug
in the year 36, Eichhorn and Schott in the year 37, Anger
in the year 38, Schrader in the year 39, and Wurm in the
year 41. But thus the second journey of the apostle, which
took place 17 years later, comes out as late as from 52
to '58. The chronologists have felt this difficulty, indeed,
and sought to evade it, either by regarding the second
journey of the apostle, Gal. ii. 1, as not identical with the
second in Acts, chap. xii. 25, but with the third, chap. xv. —
or, by not counting together the years 3 and 14, but assuming
the terminus a quo of the 14 years is not the first journey,
but again the conversion of the apostle. As regards this last
expedient, it is contrary to the ordinary mode of speaking.
Every unprejudiced reader will understand the words (of
ver. 1) e ire it a Bid BeKaTeaadpcov iTwv irdXiv dve/3yv
els 'I. as meaning that the terminus a quo was the first
journey just related. Let us test the other expedient, which
consists in regarding the second journey, of which the account
is given in Gal. ii. 1, as the journey of the apostle to the
Apostolic Council, Acts xv. It must thus be assumed, either

PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 49
that, Luke, contrary to the truth, invented one or other of the
journeys recounted, Acts ix. 26, xi. 30; or else, that Paul,
notwithstanding the asseveration of Gal. i. 20 : Behold, before
God, I lie not ! nevertheless, did not speak the truth, but in
tentionally passed over in silence one or other of his journeys ;
for that he should forget one of them is impossible. If we
are not to call in question the trustworthiness either of Paul
or of Luke, then the second journey of Paul, that of Acts
xi. 30, must be the one meant in Gal. ii. 1. It must be so,
even on account of the subordinate circumstances. The
journey of Gal. ii. 1 was occasioned by a revelation, KaTa
diroKdXvtyiv ; a revelation, Acts xi. 2 8, was the occasion of
the journey in Acts xi. 30, but not of that to the Apostohc
Council. In both cases Barnabas was the companion of the
apostle ;a no mention is made, in either case in the Acts, of
Titus as accompanying him.2 That Paul, during his second
visit to Jerusalem, both could and must give an account of
the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles — such as that
referred to in Gal. ii. 2 — although such account is passed over
by Luke, is a necessary consequence of the first contact of the
Pauline Gentile Christians with the assembly at Jerusalem.
The recommendation of the contribution made to the apostle,
Gal. ii. 10, most naturaUy attaches itself to the contribution
of which Paul had been the messenger, Acts xi. 30. It need
not awaken surprise that Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians,
makes no mention of his third journey, that to the Apostohc
Council. His object is to prove that he derived his apostolic
office not from the twelve, but from the Lord. Had he
received it from the apostles, this must have taken place on
the occasion of the first journey, or at the latest of the second ;
since it was precisely in his character as an apostle that he
came to the Apostolic Council. It sufficed, therefore, that
Paul assured the Galatians such had not been the case, either
on his first or second meeting with the twelve : the third he
could safely leave out of the question. Besides, it is possible
that the Epistle to the Galatians was written before the
Apostolic Council was held.
1 Acts xi. 30, xv. 2 ; Gal. ii. 1. 2 Cf. Gal. ii. 2.

50 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.

IV — The Year of our Lord's Death.
Sec. 37. Jesus entered upon His public labours 46 years
after the beginning of the temple reconstruction; that is to
say, at the beginning of the year u.c. 781, a.d. 28, asra Dionys.
(sec. 33). His labours began shortly before the Passover of this
year j1 at the time of the Passover festival in the following year
He was staying by the Sea of Gennesareth ;2 on the Passover
of the year of Bome 783, a.d. 30, He was crucified. Earlier
than the second year after the 15 th of Tiberius, thus before
the year a.d. 30, the crucifixion cannot have taken place; but
also not later, since the conversion of the Apostle Paul cannot
be placed later than the autumn of the year a.d. 30 (sec. 35).
We shall show that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, which
was the preparation for the Passover, the 14th Nisan. On
that year the 15 th Nisan consequently feU on a Sabbath.
The ordinary supposition is, that that Friday, the day of the
crucifixion, was the 1 5th Nisan. Since this point of difference
cannot here be decided, we state the requirement that, on the
year of the Lord's death, the 15th Nisan must fall on a Satur
day or a Friday. We would refer here to Wurm's table,
communicated sec. 16, with the single observation that the
15 th Nisan always falls on the same day of the week as the
1st Nisan ; the feria given for this last is also the feria of the
15 th. But in order to avoid mistake, we will give the days
of the week marked in Wurm's table as those on which the
15th Nisan fell: —
Day on which the 15th Nisan fell, according to the Lunar Phase,
in the Years 28-36.

Year.

Month.

Day of Week.
28
30th March
3, or
28
29th April
5.
29
18th April
2.
30
7th April
6.
31
27 th March
3, or
31
26th April
5.
32
14th April
2.
33
4th April
7.
1 Jc
hn ii. 1-13.
2J
ahn v
i. 4.
THE YEAR OF OUR LORD S DEATH.

51

Year.

Month.

Day op
Week.
34
25th March
•\
or
34
23d April
6.
35
13th April
4.
36
1st April
1,
or
36
30th April
2.
[The second (
late in
the
years 28, 31, 34,
36
is owing
to the intervention
of the Veadar, sec. 8.]
We have already shown, sec. 16, that the week-day of
the 15th Nisan began about six on the previous evening; so
that the Jewish feria is always to be taken one stage later
than ours. In the year 28, e.g., the 15th Nisan was on the
evening of the 30th March, feria 3, that is, Tuesday; but
with it began the Jewish fourth day, Wurm's table accordingly
teaches us that the 15 th Nisan fell on Friday evening, feria
6, thus the Sabbath of the Jews — in the years 30, 33, 34.
The year 3 3, however, is to be struck out; since in this year the
15 th Nisan, properly speaking, fell on the Jewish first day of
the week. If we were to ask in what years the 15 th Nisan
feU on feria 6 of the Jews (feria 5,, Thursday, of the Chris
tians), the year 30 is no doubt possible ;J and in addition, the
years 31 and 34. We have already by another method
established the fact that the year 30. was- that of the Lord's
crucifixion; the calculation of the 15th Nisan confirms this
result. For in the year 30 the 15th Nisan fell on the Jewish
Sabbath, which began on Friday, 7th April, at six o'clock in
the evening. The years 28, 29, 31, 32" are already excluded
by the fact that in them' the 1.5 th Nisan did not fall on a
Sabbath. The year 3>3 is impossible on account of the epoch
of Paul's conversion [and of the length of ministry it would
require us to presuppose]. The same is the case with the
years 34-36.
We can therefore say, with perfect certainty, that Jesus
was crucified in the year 30, sera Dionys., 783 of Bome, on
the preparation of the Passover, Friday, 7th April.,
If we had not been assured by the statement of Augustine,
above cited (sec. 32), that the consulate of the year of Christ's
death is not made known with the documentaiy evidence of
certain tradition, the assertion of many Fathers, Tertullian
i Cf. sec. 17.
52 CHRONOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST.
especially, would cause us perplexity. These maintain that
Jesus was crucified under the consulate of the Gemini. Now
this consulate coincides with the 15 th year of Tiberius' reign,
U.c. 781. Since, however, this consulate is not adduced on
the authority of any documents, Tertullian could only have
arrived at it by a calculation. This miscalculation was
based on the fact that Luke, after mentioning the 15 th year
of Tiberius,1 affords no further chronological datum. Ter
tullian, hke many who in modern times have made research
into the matter, supposed that the whole history of Jesus, as
related by the Synoptists, was completed in a few months —
that consequently Jesus was crucified in the very year in
which He began His public labours. It is to be remarked
that Tertullian and most of those Fathers who place the death
of Jesus under the consulate of the Gemini, expressly add
that it was the 15 th year of Tiberius. This year they have
manifestly derived from Luke iii. 1.
Sec. 38. We present below in a tabulated form the collected
results of our chronological investigations hitherto made : —

Tisri. Epoch of Seleucidan era, sec. 22.
Tisri-Tisri. Sabbatic year, 1 Mace. vi. 49, 53,
sec. 22.
Tisri-Tisri. Sabbatic year, 1 Mace. xvi. 14 ; Antiq.
xiii. 8. 1, sec. 22.
Year of Herod's birth, sec. 27.
Capture of Jerusalem by Titus on the day of
Atonement, 10th Tisri, sec. 20.
715 39 Herod receives from the Senate at Eome the title of
king, sec. 19.
718 36 Herod takes Jerusalem (27 years after Pompey had
captured it) in the third year of his appointment,
during a Sabbatic year, which began Tisri 717,
sees. 20, 21.
734 20 In the spring, after the expiration of the 17th year
of Herod's reign, Augustus came to Syria.
During this year, summer 734, the building of
the temple, began, sec. 24.
752 2 Jes-us is born. Census and Sabbatic year from
Tisri 752-753. 1 Luks iii. 1.

u.c.

A.C.

441

313

591-592

163-162

619-620

135-134

685

69

691

63

THE YEAR OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 53
U.C. A.D.
753 Lunar eclipse, 10th January. Herod died 24th
January, at an age of about 70 years — 37 years
after his appointment as king, 34 after the
taking of Jerusalem, sees. 25-29.
781 28 Jesus, about 30 years of age, is baptized in the
beginning of the year, 15th Tiberius. He was in
Jerusalem at the Passover 30th March, 46 years
from the beginning of the temple restoration,
sees. 32, 33.1
783 30 Jesus crucified — on Friday, 7th April, which was the
14th Nisan, sec. 37. Conversion of Paul towards
the close of the year, sec. 35.
786 33 First journey of the Apostle Paul to Jerusalem,
three years after his conversion, sec. 35.
797 44 Death of Agrippa I., sec. 35.
800 47 Second journey of the Apostle Paul to Jerusalem,
17 years after his conversion, and 14 years after
his first journey, sec. 35.
823 70 Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, at the end of
the Sabbatic year, which extended from Tisri 822
to Tisri 823, sec 21.
1 [The work of the temple-restoration properly so called, after being pushed
forward during nine and a half years, was brought to a close on the anniversary of
Herod's accession, the festival of whieh was observed at the same time with that
of the temple-restoration (Antiq. xv. 11, sees. 5, 6). As the anniversary of the
storming of Jerusalem can hardly be intended here, the reference must be to the
time of Herod's becoming king dejure, which event — as is shown above, sec. 19
— took place in the spring. The work of rebuilding must therefore have begun
in the latter part of summer or in autumn, but not in the winter-month of
Kisleu.]

54 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.

DIVISION II.
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
Sec. 39. Since the evangelists Mark and John begin the
history of Jesus with His baptism by John, we are limited,
as regards the history of the birth and childhood of the Lord,
to the account given by Matthew and Luke. This last evan
gelist first gives an account of the birth of the Lord's fore
runner, John the Baptist, whose history from beginning to
end is most closely interwoven with the history of Jesus
Christ. This birth is treated of in the first chapter of the
present division. In the second chapter we shall speak of the
birth of Jesus ; in the third, of the history of His childhood ;
and in the fourth, of the history of His youth.
I. — The Birth of John the Baptist.
Sec. 40. John was born in the city Juda,1 in the days of
King Herod.2 His father was Zacharias, a priest of the course
of Abia, and his mother Ehzabeth, of the family of Aaron.3 The
birth of John took place six months before that of Jesus Christ.4
Sec. 41. The city of Juda, the. birthplace of John the
Baptist. — Luke i. 39, 40 we read : " Mary arose in those
days (when it had been proclaimed to her she should become
the mother of the promised Son of David), and went (from
Nazareth) into the hill country with haste, into a city of
Juda, and entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted
Ehzabeth." It is ordinarily assumed that the words els t^i/
bpetvyv . . . els iroXiv 'lovBa are to be taken in such wise that
'loiBa shall apply equally to the hill country and to the city,
' Luke i. 39. 2 Luke i. 5.
s Luke i. 5. * Luke i. 39, 40 ; cf. i. 31, 36.

THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 55
so that it is equivalent to saying, et? ttjv opetvyv 'IovBa . . . els
iroXtv 'IovBa. This view fails to commend itself to us ; because
the two members of the sentence are separated by the words
pLeTa o-irovBijs, beyond which the attraction cannot be supposed
to pass. There was in the land of Judea a district known as
y opetvy} Now Phny calls the neighbourhood of Jerusalem
Orine — Orine, in qua fuere Hierosolyma.2 This affords an
important clue. What, then, is the city of Juda, iroXts 'IovSa ?
It cannot by any means be admitted that the evangehst is
speaking in general terms, and means only that Mary repaired
to some city or other of Judah. There can be no question
but Luke, at a time so httle removed from the events of which
he gives the narrative, was in a position to learn. — whether
through the disciples of John or through Christians — in what
city of Judea John was born, and whither Mary repaired to
Ehzabeth. His words are to be taken as meaning that Mary
went to a place which is called the city of Juda. The great
majority of Biblical geographers espouse the view of Beland,
that the city of Juda is identical with Jutta, ntav, the Levitical
city in the mountains of Judah.3 Certainly it is not impossible
that a hard T should in the later dialect assume the softer
sound of D ; but that such was not the case with the word
in question, is shown by the existing name, which is still
pronounced Jutta.4 The place lies to the south of Hebron,
and thus deep in the territory occupied from the time of the
Captivity by the Idumseans, to which even Hebron belonged,
since Josephus speaks of this as a city of Idumsea.5 In such
a place assuredly no families of the priestly order would make
their abode. — It is true we meet with a city of Juda or Judah,
mini -vy, in the Old Testament. In 2 Chron. xxv. 28 it is
stated that Amaziah was buried in the city of Judah. Now
since, according to 2 Kings xiv. 20, Amaziah was buried in
the city of David, the city of Judah must be synonymous
with the city of David, and must denote that part of Jerusalem
belonging to the tribe of Judah. But the supposition that
John was born at Jerusalem cannot be reconciled with the
statement of Luke i. 65. In the neighbourhood of Jerusalem,
i Luke i. 39, 65. * Plin. H. N. v. 15. 3 Josh. xv. 55, xxi. 16.
* Robinson, Palest, i. 494, ii. 206. 5 Josephus, de Bello, iv. 9, sec. 7.

56 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
however, in the WMy Bettir, there . exists a place known as
Khirbet el-Jehud, a name which is identical with rVTliT TJ?,
irbXts 'IovBa. It is supposed, indeed, that this name signifies
" ruins of the Jews ; " but a hundred ruins in Palestine would
be as much entitled as this place to bear the name of " ruins
of the Jews," which yet are not called so. Whence, then,
does this ruin in the Wady Bettir derive the exclusive right
to this appellation ? When we consider the tenacity with
which the names of places are clung to in the East, it becomes
apparent that we have here to do with an ancient name
retained until now, and that Khirbet el-Jehud is no other
than the city of Juda, the birthplace of John the Baptist.
The fact must not, moreover, be entirely overlooked, that in
the immediate vicinity of Khirbet el-Jehud tradition points out
spots intimately connected with the childhood of the Baptist.
We need only remind of " the wilderness of John," of " Mar
Zacharia," the monastery of John at En-Karim,1 etc. Similarly
is the position of this town defined in the Chronicon paschale,
Olymp. 184, where it is said the city of Juda is distant
from Jerusalem twelve miles — els iroXtv 'IovBa, ovaav dirb
puXimv 10 ?
Sec. 42. The time of the birth of John the Baptist is not
more nearly defined by Luke. We learn only that his birth
took place in the days of Herod, and preceded that of Jesus
by an interval of six months. There is, however, another
statement, of which some have sought to avail themselves as
affording a chronological datum. Zacharias, the father of the
Baptist, was, according to Luke i. 5, of the course of Abia.
During his ministration in the temple a son was promised to
him. Upon the expiration of the days of his ministering he
returned home. After these days Elizabeth his wife conceived
(i. 24). Prom this it follows that the promised son was born
after nine months, and Jesus after fifteen months. Is, then,
anything to be determined concerning these dates from the time
1 [Where, indeed, Thomson (Land and Booh, p. 664) would, in accordance
with tradition, fix the actual birthplace of John. ]
2 On Khirbet el-Jehud, cf. Ritter, Erdhunde, xvi. pp. 428, 515 ; Robinson, iii.
266, 267. [It lies a good six miles W.N.W. of Bethlehem, from which it is
difficult of approach.]

THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 5 7
of ministration of the class of Abia ? Since this period of ser
vice may be calculated for each year, it follows that the month
and day of the birth of John, and consequently of Christ,
could be deduced from it, if we were only sure of the year ;
this, however, is not the case, so that a calculation as to the
time of service of Abia can help us but little. Yet, since the
question is an interesting one in itself, we will proceed to
state it. According to 1 Chron. xxiv. the priests were divided
into twenty-four classes, of which the class of Jehoiarib was
the first, the class of Abia the eighth. Each class accom
plished a ministry of one week, always from the first day
of the week to the end of the Sabbath. This order, too,
was observed after -the Captivity,1 so that if we learnt what
particular class was ministering on any occasion after the
Captivity, we could calculate the time of service of the class
of Abia in a given year. Wieseler assumes that the temple
service restored by Judas Maccabseus began with the order of
' Jehoiarib. Seyffarth supposes that Zerubbabel began with
the course of Abia. But these are only hypotheses, wanting
in any confirmatory text, and consequently cannot serve as
the foundation of a calculation. Jewish tradition affords us
a more certain basis. When the temple was destroyed, it
affirms 2 that the course of Jehoiarib was ministering. The
day of the destruction of the temple was a Sabbath, 3d
August. The class of Abia would thus, according to our rule,
have been entering on its ministration on the 14th September,
and have closed it on the 21st September, in the year 823
(A.D. 70). A very simple calculation shows that the course
of Abia would come out of office in the year 748, on the 10th
April and the 1st October; in the year 749, on the 18th
March and the 2d September; in the year 750, the 17th
February and the 4th August; in the year 751, the 1st
February, the 18th July, and the 2d December. If, thus,
we presuppose — what is most probable — that Jesus was born
in the year 752, towards the end of the year, then the son
was promised to Zacharias during the ministering of his class,
which went out of office in the year 751, on the 18th July.
Nine months later, consequently about the 18th April 752,
1 Josephus, Antiq. vii. 14, sec. 7. 2 Cf. sec. 21.

58 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
took place the birth of John the Baptist, and yet six months
later — consequently, about the 18th October 752 — that of
Jesus Christ. But how little reliance is to be placed upon
conclusions of this kind will be evident to all.
II. — The Birth of Jesus Christ.
Sec. 43. The Messiah, the Son of David, was, according to
the prophecy of Micah, v. 2, to be born at Bethlehem of
Judah. Joseph and Mary, however, dwelt at Nazareth in
Galilee. The census of the empire enjoined by Augustus
became, under the divine guidance, the occasion of a transitory
settlement on their part in Bethlehem, the city of David, because
Joseph was of the house and lineage of David. Thus was Jesus
born at Bethlehem, six months after the birth of the Baptist.
Sec. 44. Nazareth. — In this town dwelt the parents of
Jesus before His birth ; there was the promise given to Mary,
that the Messiah should be born of her ; x thither did they
return, and there did they dwell, after the birth of Jesus at
Bethlehem, and the flight to Egypt.2 Because Jesus was
brought up in this place, and there passed His youth, He is
also called the Nazarsean,3 or Nazarene.4 Palestine, on the
west side of the Jordan, is divided by nature into two hilly
table-lands, of which the southern bore the name of Judea,
the northern that of Galilee. These table-lands are divided
by a fruitful plain, which rises a httle above the level of the
sea, and was formerly known as Jezreel or Esdrelon,5 but now
bears the name of Merj Ibn 'Aamir. The mountain-wall
forming the northern boundary of this plain, and at the same
time the southern dip in the Galilean table-land, is pierced,
at about mid distance between its eastern and western
extremities, by a narrow valley. Through, this passes the
ordinary pilgrims' route from Jerusalem to Galilee, which
leads, after a journey of about three miles, to en-Nasira. This
is the present name of the ancient Nazareth. The place lies in
a natural amphitheatre, formed by white chalky hills, in the
1 Luke i. 26. 2 Luke ii. 39 ; Matt. ii. 22 ; Luke ii. 51, iv. 16.
3 HaZwpxTas, Matt. ii. 23. * T$a.Z,apmis, Mark i. 24.
5 Written also ' EtrSpvXuft, Judith i. 8.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST. 59
midst of which some travellers have thought they recognised
the crater of an extinct volcano. Eusebius writes in the
Onomasticon, " Nazareth ... in Galilee, opposite Legio (now
Ledjun) towards the east (read N.E.), fifteen miles distant
therefrom, near to Mount Tabor." ' The name Nazareth does
not occur in the 0. T. It is nevertheless in the highest
degree probable that this name is only a later dialectic trans
formation of Sared, ~rn&, the border city of Zebulon.2 The
initial N of the modern name is probably derived from the
Ain of En-Sered. The ancient Sared must at all events have
occupied the site of the present Nazareth ; for the boundaries
of Zebulon on its north side are marked out east and west
from Sared. There _ is named as the nearest town on the east,
Chisloth-Tabor,3 a place which is confessedly to be identified
with Iksal, an hour's journey east of Nazareth. From Sared
towards the west the frontier ran through Maralah, now
Malul, an hour's journey west of Nazareth. Nazareth, the
former Sared, thus belonged to the tribe of Zebulon. Nazareth
lies on the western side of the lovely amphitheatre-like
hollow, which, narrow and somewhat oval in form, extends
from S.S.W. to N.N.E., with a length of about a mile, and a width
of from a third to half a mile. Its houses stand upon the
lower part of the declivity of the western mountain, which
rises abrupt and high above them. Upon the summit of this
mountain, which is richly adorned with sweet-smelling herbs
and flowers, lies a Wely called Neby Ismail, situated about
500 feet higher than the Latin convent, which itself rises
1182 feet above the level of the sea.4 To the south-east
the basin of the valley contracts itself, and ends in this
direction towards the plain of Esdrelon. From the moun
tain of the foresaid Wely opens up the magnificent panorama
described by so many travellers. The town of Nazareth
consists of stone houses with flat roofs, among which towers
especially the fortress-like Latin convent, well walled round,
Na^ff^ . . . Iv TncXiXaTop, uvTtxpu rys Aeytajvo;, ais C6T0 ffnfAliuv ;s irpas avXToXris,
vrXvioiov rov bpaug Qocfioip.
2 Josh. xix. 10, 12. Iksal-Chesulloth. 3 Josh. xix. 12.
* [ Eitter, ii. 379, gives the height of Neby Ismail as 1790 feet above the
Mediterranean ; Baedecker, p. 378, gives it 545 metres, which amounts to nearly
the same.]

60 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
which is the principal building of the place. Its little church
of the Annunciation is said by tradition to stand on the site
of the house of the Virgin Mary, which is supposed to have
been carried by angels to Loretto. The pilgrims' hospice
belonging to the convent, and called Casa nuova, is said to be
one of the pleasantest in the East. The Maronites have a
little church in the south-western part of the town, lying
under a rocky mountain wall which falls precipitously a
distance of 40 or 50 feet. Several such cliffs are to be found
in the western mountains about the town. One of these may
weU have been the place from which they sought to cast
Jesus down.1 That, on the other hand, which passes for it
with the monks, lies two English miles south-east of the
town. The church of the Greeks is situated in the south
eastern part of Nazareth, and claims equally with that of the
Latins to stand on the spot which became the scene of the
Annunciation. Beneath this church rises the fountain of the
Virgin.2 The legendary sites are of later origin ; Jerome and
Antoninus Martyr know nothing of them. This latter pilgrim,
1 Luke iv. 28, 29. [Stanley identifies the cliff with this very one over the
Maronite convent. He says : Nazareth " is built ' upon,' i.e. on the side of, 'a
mountain, ' but the ' brow ' is not beneath but over the town, and such a cliff
(xpnfx.vis) as is here implied is to be found, as all modern travellers describe, in
the abrupt face of the limestone rock, about 30 or 40 feet high, overhanging
the Maronite convent at the south-west corner of the town." — Sin. and Pal.
p. 367. Ancient Nazareth was, however, according to Tristram, on the "brow"
of the hill. See Land of Israel, p. 122 ff., where, moreover, the character of
the Christian inhabitants is fairly vindicated. ]
2 [ " Hither, doubtless, went Mary daily for water, just as we saw the mothers of
Nazareth to-day . . ." " We took a long ramble afterwards over those hills where
our Lord must often have wandered when a child. Bare and featureless, singularly
unattractive in its landscape, with scarcely a tree to relieve the monotony of its
brown and dreary hills (I speak, of course, of their winter character), without
ruins or remains, without one precisely identified locality, there is yet a reality
in the associations of Nazareth which stirs the soul of the Christian to its very
depths. It was not the place where the sublimity of the scenery, the depth of
the gorges, or the solitude of the forest, could have filled a boyish mind with
wild dreams or enthusiastic visions — there was nothing here to suggest deeds of
heroism or feed the reveries of romance ; it was the nursery of One whose
mission was to meet man and man's deepest needs on the platform of common
place daily life." — (Tristram, p. 122.) . . . "The one locality in Nazareth of
which there is no doubt that it has remained unchanged from the days of our
Lord. Often must He in childhood have trodden the path down to that fountain
with His blessed mother." — (Ibid. p. 419.)]

THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST. 6 1
however, speaks with enthusiasm of the beauty of the women
and the marvellous fertility of the district around the town.
" In civitate (Nazareth) tanta est gratia mulierum Hebrseorum
ut inter Hebrseos pulchriores non inveniantur, et hoc a S.
Maria sibi cohcessum dicunt, nam et parentem suam dicunt
earn. Et dunr nulla sit caritas Hebrseis erga Christianos, illse
sunt omni caritate plense. Provincia paradiso similis : in
tritico, in frugibus similis iEgypto, sed prsecelht in vino et
oleo, pomis et melle." 1
Sec. 45. Bethlehem. — In this town was Jesus born.2 In
Matthew it was called Bethlehem of Judea, BydXeepu t^?
'IovBaias, in contradistinction from Bethlehem of Galilee,3 of
which without the addition the reader might think, and the
more so since Joseph and Mary came from Nazareth in Galilee
to Bethlehem. The place, now called Beit-Lahm, lies six miles
to the south of Jerusalem, near to the road leading from
Jerusalem to Hebron, upon the ridge of the mountains of
Judah, on a hill stretching from east to west. At the eastern
end of the httle town, upon an eminence, stands the strongly-
built convent, in which is found the cave (transformed into a
church) which tradition reveres as the birthplace of Jesus.4
In Luke ii. 7 it is said, " She (Mary) brought forth her first
born son, and wrapped him in swaddling-clothes, and laid him
in a manger, because there was no room for them in the khan "
— StoTt ovk r)v avTots tottos iv to> KaTaXvp,aTt. The stable in
which Jesus was born might well be a cave. Tradition has the
Gospel narrative neither for nor against it. It is noteworthy
that, according to Jewish tradition,5 the Messiah should be
bom in Birath-Arba of Bethlehem Judah, orb ffn vany riT'aa
HTTP. Birah denotes a citadel. The "castle of Arba,"
belonging to Bethlehem, could not have existed anywhere else
1 On Nazareth, cf. Robinson, Palestine, ii. pp. 333-343 ; Ritter, Palestine,
iv. 368-375 ; and the monograph of Tobler, Nazareth in Palestina.
2 Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke ii. 4. 3 Josh. xix. 15.
4 [The authority on which this tradition rests is specified in Ellicott (p. 62,
note 1), who considers the tradition itself a far from improbable one. Tristram
(p. 73) believes that the farm was in the lower room of some humble dwelling,
whither the holy family had repaired for hospitality on being shut out from the
already overcrowded khan.]
5 Bcha Balbati, fol. 72. 1.

62 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
than on the site of the fortress-hke convent, in which the
sacred cave is found. In any case the Christian tradition
dates from a very early period ; for even Justin Martyr, who
was a native of Sichem, and lived at the beginning of the
second century, says, in his Dialogue with Trypho, that Christ
was born in a cave ; so also Origen, Contra Celsum, 1. 1, and
Jerome, in Epitaph. Paulas, where he says of this pilgrim, " In
Bethlehem ingressa et in specum Salvatoris introiens, postquam
vidit sacrum virginis diversorium et stabulum . . ." The
church Marise de prsesepio, above the hewn-out cave, is the
oldest in Palestine, and is built in Grecian style in the form
of a cross. Whether it is the same which, according to the
account of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (a.d. 333), in the Itiner.
hierosol., was built by Constantine, we must leave undecided.
Two flights of stairs, one on each side the altar, lead down by
fifteen steps into the rocky cavern, which is 39 feet long, 11
feet broad, and 9 feet high. A white marble slab, with a
wreath of silver rays, marks the place of the birth ; it bears
the inscription, Hie de virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est}
Bethlehem is called in Luke ii. 4, 1 1, as well as in 1 Sam.
xx. 6, " the city of David," because David was born there.2
Thither repaired Joseph, Luke ii. 4, because he was of the
house and lineage of David.
Sec. 46. Too much is inferred when, from Luke ii. 4, it is
concluded that every Israelite must on the occasion of the
census repair to the city of his tribe and family, in order to
be enrolled. It is quite possible that the journey to Bethle
hem was an act of free choice on Joseph's part, having as its
object the availing himself of the opportunity afforded of thus
confirming his descent from King David, and of having
registered in his name the ancestral possessions which should
come to him. His intention seems at the same time to have
been, henceforth to dwell in Bethlehem ; since after the flight
into Egypt he returned thither, and was only led by a divine
admonition to turn aside to Nazareth.8 We know unfor
tunately very little concerning the way in which the Mosaic
precepts affecting family registers and hereditary possessions
1 Von Raumer, Palestina, p. 315. [Stanley, 438, 439 ; Ritter, iii. 339-350.]
1 1 Sam. xvi. 3 Matt. ii. 22, 23.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST. 63
were carried out after the Captivity, and particularly at the
time of Christ. But if we take into account the scrupulous
endeavour pecuhar to the Judaism after the Exile, to comply
as far as possible with the requirements of the law, we
may be certain that in both respects all that was possible
was accomplished. That registers of descent were kept,
is vouched for by Ezra ii. 1-5 7, and especially ii. 5 9—6 3 ;
and that they were preserved in the case of those performing
the functions of the priesthood, and particularly in that of
descendants of the house of David, is confirmed by the books
of Jewish tradition. Thus we read in Jerus. Taanith, fol.
68. 1, that a genealogical table existed in Jerusalem, which
showed that Hillel was descended from David through Abital;
and in Jerus. Kidushin, iv. 5, that in the archives of Jeshana
at Zippori (Sepphoris), nniss b& ru&^n iaiy, trustworthy records
of the descent of the priests were to be found. This place,
called Jeshana, was the seat of the Sanhedrim under B.
Jehuda hakkadosh. The ordinary Jew did not indeed cling
with great tenacity to such registers of his family, any more
than to his family inheritance ; but every one went where he
thought he could attain to a prosperity which had only
too narrow a basis in his ancestral heritage. But David's
descendants might well cleave to their inheritance, especially
if they were without fortune. Not all Israelites absent from
the place whence they sprung were consequently in a position
to repair at the census to their ancestral city ; but only those
who, hke the descendants of David and of Aaron, had heredi
tary rights and an ancestral heritage to confirm. How many
of these there were, and how great was the stir caused by the
taxing, cannot now be ascertained. At any rate, it could be
carried out without occasioning great material loss, since, as
we have seen (sec. 30), it fell on a Sabbatic year.
Sec. 47. The Field of the Shepherds.— The birth of Messiah
was proclaimed by an angel of the Lord to the shepherds, who
in that same district, iv Ty 'x&pa t{j avTy, were in the field, and
kept watch by night over their sheep.1 The place where the
shepherds received the heavenly message was thus close to
Bethlehem. It was early pointed out by Christian tradition
1 Luke ii. 8.

64 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
to the devout pilgrim. In the Onomasticon, art. " Bethlehem,"
it is said : " About a thousand paces distant (from Bethlehem)
is the tower of Eder, the Tower of the Flock, which name fore
tokened the revelation of the birth of the Lord given to the
shepherds." At the distance indicated, east from Bethlehem,
on the road leading from Jerusalem to Hebron, are to be found
the ruins of a church erected by Helena, mother of Constantine,
at the place which was the scene of the heavenly appearing.1
That this occupied the site of the former Tower of the Flock
is beyond doubt. Jewish tradition, too, is acquainted with a
tower of this name. In Jerus. Shekalim, viii. 8, and Jerus.
Kidushin, ii. 9, it is said that flocks which are met with
between Jerusalem and Migdal-Eder, my bliv, are to be con
sidered sheep for sacrifice. A keeping watch of the shepherds
by night can be looked for nowhere else in the neighbourhood
of Bethlehem than at this tower.

III. — History of the Childhood of Jesus.
Sec. 48. The Slaughter of the Children at Bethlehem. —
Matt. ii. 1-8. When Herod saw himself deceived by the
magi, who were to bring him intelligence concerning the new
born King of the Jews, he, in his wrath, issued the command
that all children of two years and under in Bethlehem and its
neighbourhood should be slain. The child Jesus escaped this
slaughter, which aimed at Him alone, by the flight into Egypt,
enjoined upon Joseph by a revelation in dream.
The truth of this history has been doubted by many, on
the ground that Josephus does not relate it. Mention, how
ever, is made of it by a heathen historian, Macrobius, who says,
Saturnalia, ii. 4 : " When Augustus heard that Herod, king of
the Jews, had, with the children under two years of age, which
he caused to be put to death, caused his own son to be slain,
he said: 'It is better to be Herod's swine than his son.'"2
1 The place is now called Er-Rawal, and lies near to BSt-Sahur. Tobler,
Denhblatter aus Jerusalem, p. 693.
2 Cum enim audisset (Augustus), inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes, Rex
Judseoruni, infra biennium jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait :
Melius est Herodis porcum (Sv) esse, quam filium (w'ii).

HISTORY OF THE CHILDHOOD OF JESUS. 65
The massacre by Herod of the children under two years of age
is consequently a proved fact, 'the evidence for which cannot
be shaken by the silence of Josephus. What else could move
the tyrant to a slaughter of children, save the dread of a
family which might imperil his throne and succession ? and
what family could inspire him with terror, save that of the
Asmonseans, dethroned by him, or the house of David, dear
to the nation ?
According to Macrobius, the slaughter of the children was
connected, not indeed in point of fact, but in point of time,
with the execution of his son Antipater, which took place five
days before Herod's death. The murder of the children was
thus one of the last atrocities of the raving and raging tyrant,
impelled by painful disease, while he had not as yet repaired
to Jericho, but was still in Jerusalem, Matt. ii. 3 — synchronous
thus with the execution of Matthias and the eclipse of the
moon. Sec. 49. Rachel's Grave. — In reference to this slaughter of
the children, Matthew says, ii. 17, 18: " Then was fulfilled
that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,1 saying, In
Eama was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and
great mourning, Bachel weeping for her children, and would
not be comforted, because they are not." The writer had
manifestly before his mind the grave of Bachel, which lies
about a mile and a half north of Bethlehem, on the road lead
ing to Jerusalem The position of this grave corresponds
exactly to the requirements of the text in Gen. xxxv. 19, 20 :
" And Bachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath,
that is, Bethlehem. And Jacob set up a pillar over her grave ;
that is the pillar of Bachel's grave unto this day." The
distance of the place from Ephrath, given in the text, xxxv.
16, psn rrna, can no longer be determined ; but it was at all
events, judging from 2 Kings v. 19, but a short distance.
This grave of the mother of Benjamin lay in the domain of
Judah. It was only what might be expected, that the Ben-
jamites should erect a cenotaph on their own domain. That
the Israelites were wont to erect empty tombs of this sort is
evident, e.g., from the statement of the Onomasticon, art. " Beth-
1 Jer. xxxi. 15.
E

66 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
lehem," where it is said that in this town was shown also the
grave of Jesse and that of David. The pilgrim of Bordeaux
also says that, not far from the basilica erected by Constantine
at Bethlehem, there are to be found in a cave the monuments
of Ezekiel, Asaph, Job, Jesse, David, and Solomon, with a
Hebrew inscription, containing these names : inde non longe
est monumentum Ezekiel, Job, et Jesse, David, Solomon, et
habet in ipsa cripta, ad latus deorsum descendentibus hebraice
scriptum nomina supra scripta. Now it is well known that
Ezekiel was buried at Babylon, David and Solomon at Jeru
salem. At Bethlehem there could thus only be their cenotaphs.
Such cenotaph had Bachel, as we learn from 1 Sam. x. ¦ 2.
Samuel, in dismissing Saul at Bama or Bamathaim Zophim,
to return to Gibeah, said to him : " When thou art departed
from me to-day, thou shalt find two men by Eachel's sepulchre
in the border of Benjamin at ZeLzah ((coa b)2i2 bm mup oy
m&J3)." Here the grave of Bachel at Bethlehem cannot be
meant, because this lies neither within nor on the confines
of Benjamin, but four miles and a half distant from it, in the
tribe of Judah ; and because the way pointed out to Saul led
to Gibeah. Samuel had his house and his high place at Bamah,
dwelt there during the whole time of his judgeship,1 and was
buried there in his house.2 Therefore it is caUed Bamah,
"his city," i.e. Bamah- Samuel.3 In 1 Sam. i. 1 it is called
Bamathaim Zophim of Mount Ephraim, D'nax 1HD CBlV DTiD"i,
and at the same time it is said that an ancestor was then
called Zuph-Ephrathi, wiBK t)1X. But since, according to
1 Chron. vi. 1, 33, Samuel was descended from Levi, the word
Ephrathi in this place cannot have the meaning " descendant
of Ephraim," but is to be derived from the name of the
mountain, Ephraim or Ephrem. The position of this mountain
is to be learnt from the appellation of Bamah-" Zophim."
According to 1 Sam. ix 5, 6, Bamah lay in the land of Zuph ;
and for this reason Josephus4 renders the words, " when they
came into the land of Zuph," by the words, " when they were
come to the town of Bamah " — d>s iyevovro Kara ttjv 'PaptaOdv
¦jroXtv. Now mention is often made in the books of Jewish
1 1 Sam. vii. 17, viii. 4, xix. 18. ! 1 Sam. xxv. 1.
3 1 Sam. xxviii. 3. * Antiq. vi. 4, sec. 2.

niSTORY OF THE CHILDHOOD OF JESUS. 67
tradition of a place Zophim, CBIS, from which those coming
from the north first obtain a view of Jerusalem. " When any
one at Zophim catches sight of Jerusalem (the desolate), he is
to rend his garments." 1 The space between Jerusalem and
Zophim shares, in some respects, in the sanctity of that city.2
The place is thus the Scopus of Josephus.3 Now at the spot
where alone the Scopus can be looked for, all the maps indi
cate the existence of a hamlet, Shafdt, in which is to be recog
nised the old name Zuph, Zophim. The land of Zuph is thus
the upland plain of Benjamin, extending northward from
Jerusalem. On this spot was to be found Bama, now En
Nebi SamwiL For it is usual with the present inhabitants of
Palestine to give to a place the name of a distinguished man
belonging to it. Thus, in the present day, Bethany is called
El-Azirieh, or better, El-Lazirieh, i.e. Lazarus ; Hebron is called
El-Khalil, the Friend (sc. of God), i.e. Abraham. En Nebi
Samwil lies on the aforesaid plain, upon a mountain rising 500
feet above the surrounding country, five or six miles north
west of Jerusalem. In this place there exists, built upon the
ruins of an ancient church, a mosque with Samuel's grave.
The position corresponds to the data furnished by the Ono-
masticon, " Bama, civitas Saulis (read Samuelis) in 6° milhario
ab iElia, ad septentrionalem plagam contra Bethel ;" and that
of Josephus : " Bamathon, distant 40 stadia from Jerusalem." 4
This position becomes perfectly clear from the history of the
concubine, Judg. xix. 11—15. The Levite, coming from
Bethlehem, passed (on the western route) by Jebus, when the
day was fast declining,6 and thought of passing the night
in Gibeah or Bamah : 6 the sun set when they came to
Gibeah.7 The two places were thus adjacent, and were the
first one met with after passing Jebus. Where then did
Gibeah lie ? According to Josephus,8 it was distant 2 0 stadia
from Jerusalem ; and Jerome, in Epitaph. Paula, says of this
pilgrim, that she came through Ajalon and Gibeon (El-Jib), and
1 Jerus. Moed Raton, iii.
2 Bab. Berachoih, fol. 13. 2 ; Pesachim, iii. 8.
3 De Bello, v. 2, sec. 3. * Antiq. viii. 12, sec. 3.
6 Chap. ix. 11. 6 Chap. ix. 13.
7 Chap. ix. 14. 8 Antiq. v. 2, sec. 8.

68 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
then to Gibeah, the town of the concubine ; and then leaving
the monument of Helena on the left, came to Jerusalem.1 The
monument of Helena lay north-west of Jerusalem, near to the
Psephinus tower;2 and, in order to leave this to the left,
Paula must come from the west-north-west : in this direction,
accordingly, was Gibeah to be found, where also the name is pre
served to this day. Tobler says3 that down where the Wady
Nebi Samwil debouches, in the vicinity of Nebi Samwil, into the
Wady Bet-Hanina, he saw a cave-sepulchre, Mogharet ed Jibeh.
Ed-Jibeh is Gibeah ; the place lies at the foot of the Nebi
Samwil. Consequently Bamah and Gibeah were near to each
other. The Levite preferred Gibeah, because there was not,
as at Bamah, a mountain to climb. This full examination of
the ground was necessary, because Bobinson has too hastily
identified En-Nebi Samwil with Mizpah, and placed Gibeah and
Bamah on the route to Sichem. When, then, we consider how
uncertain is the orthography of names in the Old Testament,
it must greatly strike us that, precisely in the neighbourhood
of our En-Nebi Samwil, we meet with a Mount Ephron,4 and a
town Hophra.5 Must not Mount Ephraim, Ephrati, Ephron,
Hophra, be one and the same ? Of Ephrath-Bethlehem we
cannot at any rate think in this connection. Where, then, did
Bachel's cenotaph lie ? In any case near Nebi Samwil, i.e.
Bamah, " before one comes to Zelzah," which latter place seems
to us to be preserved in Bir el-'Ozeiz, upon the way from El- Jib
to Nebi Samwil.6 This cenotaph in Benjamin was before the
mind of Jeremiah in connection with the words cited : the
Evangehst, however, applies these words to the sepulchre near
Bethlehem. Sec. 50. The Flight to Egypt. — When the Magi had left
Bethlehem, Joseph received a command in a dream to arise,
and, taking the child and His mother, to flee into Egypt,
because Herod sought the child's life. Upon the death of
Herod, Joseph, who was supernaturally informed of this event
1 In Gabaa urbe usque ad solum diruto paululum substitit, recordato peccato
ejus et concubinse in frustra divisse . . . Quid diu moror ? ad laevam mausolajo
Helena? derelicto . . . ingressa est Jerusalem.
2 Josephus, de Bello, v. 4, sec. 2. 3 Denlcbldtter, p. 367.
* Josh. xv. 9. 6 Josh, xviii. 23. 6 Robinson, ii. p. 256.

HISTORY OF THE CHILDHOOD OF JESUS. 69
in a dream, returned with the child and His mother to the
land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was king
in Judea in Herod's stead, he feared to enter this land, and,
repairing to Galilee, went and dwelt at Nazareth.1 The
journey from Bethlehem to the north of Egypt is one of
about seven days. The sojourn in Egypt was in any case of
brief duration, since Jesus is called a young child after as
before.2 The return took place when Archelaus was king ; 8
but the title of king was borne only for a short time by this
prince, when it was changed by Augustus into that of Eth-
narch.4 If Herod died on the 24th January u.c. 753, and
the departure of Archelaus for Bome took place immediately
after the. Passover, then the return from Egypt would fall
somewhere between these two events — perhaps about the time
of the Passover.
Sec. 51. Before we venture on the attempt more precisely
to define the date of all these events, we have to harmonize
Matthew's account of the birth of Jesus with that given by
Luke. Both Evangelists represent Christ as being born in Beth
lehem. If, however, the Gospel of Matthew were our only
source of knowledge on this point, the impression would be left
upon us that Bethlehem had been up to that time the dweU-
ing-place of Joseph and Mary, because no mention is made of
a journey thither, and afterwards Galilee and Nazareth become
the new dwelling-place only in consequence of a divine com
mand.5 Luke, on the other hand [taken alone], would lead
us to suppose that Nazareth was the original dwelling-place
of Joseph and Mary, and that some two months after the
birth of the child they returned to Nazareth.6 Yet it does
not foUow that Matthew is in contradiction with Luke, from
the fact of his not mentioning the earlier dwelling in Nazareth ;
he might weU pass over this circumstance as not pertaining
to the subject of his history. It is remarkable that only
Matthew gives an account of the star of the wise men, of the
1 Matt ii. 13-23. 2 «tiS«v, Matt. ii. 20. 3 Matt. ii. 22.
* Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8, sees. 1-4 ; 11, sec. 4.
6 Matt ii. 22.
6 Luke ii. 89. The offering for purification of Luke ii. 22 was, according to
Lev. xii. i, 6, presented forty days after the birth.

70 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
slaughter of the children, and the flight into Egypt ; and, on
the other hand, only Luke of the presentation in the temple ;
but even with regard to these facts the narratives do not
contradict, but complement each other. Nothing prevents
our supposing that the Magi arrived in Bethlehem only a
few days after the birth of Christ, and that Herod instantly,
after finding himself deceived, issued his command of blood,
the effect of which was frustrated by the flight into Egypt.
The- sojourn there, with the journey to and fro, calls for no
more than three or four weeks; because Joseph had learnt the
facts of Herod's death not by rumour, but by a divine revela
tion. On the other hand, the fact that Archelaus was made
king, or rather had made himself so, he learnt not from
revelation, but from the report of the people ; x he may well
thus have returned to Bethlehem, have offered the offering of
purification for Mary,2 and only then have returned by divine
direction to Nazareth.3 On the supposition of a rapid suc
cession of events in the order here given, the two accounts
may be harmonized, but only in this order. For if, with
many exegetes, we should assume that the presentation in the
sanctuary took place before the flight, we should have to
choose between the statement of the one Evangelist concerning
this flight, and that of the other concerning the return to
Nazareth ; side by side these two accounts could not exist.4
Sec. 5 2. If now we combine all the chronological elements
which relate to the birth of Jesus, the foUowing results are
obtained therefrom : —
(1.) Jesus was born at Bethlehem in the year of Bome
752. His birth took place during the lifetime of Herod,
consequently before the 24th January 753. Long before
the death of this king it cannot be placed, because Matt. ii.
gives to every reader the impression of an intimate connection
1 Matt. ii. 22. 2 Luke ii. 22. ' Matt. ii. 22 ; Luke ii. 39.
4 [If no other considerations entered into the question than those derived from
chronological data, this conclusion would be warranted. On psychological
grounds, however, the scene of Luke ii. 25-35 becomes, after the flight into
Egypt and the death of Herod, impossible. On the other hand, it falls most
naturally before the visit of the Magi. We cannot, therefore, from Luke ii. 39,
insist upon the immediate sequence of the return to Nazareth upon the presen
tation in the temple.]

HISTORY OF THE CHILDHOOD OF JESUS. 71
between the facts related, and also that of their rapid succession.
It is true, it is assumed by many that Jesus must have been
born about two years before the arrival of the Magi, because
Herod caused the children of two years and under to be put
to death. That he included children even of two years is to
he explained as a measure of precaution on the part of the
tyrant, who could not from the words of the Magi alone
discover with certainty the age of the child. The star is
evidently spoken of as something miraculous, which did not
proclaim to the Magi the birth of the child after an interval
of about two years, but immediately revealed to them that
event ; so that they could be in Bethlehem in about fourteen
days after it. If we were required to suppose that Jesus had
been born about two years earher, we should have to surrender
the account of Luke, which represents the sojourn at Bethlehem
as something passing, brought about incidentally by the census,
and terminating with that event and the birth of the Lord,
which was contemporaneous with it.
Sec. 53. (2.) Jesus cannot have been born before the month
of October 752. We have already, sec. 30, drawn attention
to the great degree of probability there is that the census in
Judea was always held on the Sabbatic year. If such census
took place in the year 752, this probability becomes a certainty.
For since Tisri 752 to Tisri 753 was a Sabbatic year, the
simplest statecraft required that an operation, in any case
tedious and disturbing, should not be entered on before the
beginning of the year of rest. In the year 752, the 1st Tisri,
consequently the beginning of the Sabbatic year, probably fell
on the 24th August. Before this date Joseph did not enter
upon his journey. The calculation of the service of the course
of Abia, sec. 42, also points actually to the middle of the
month of October, so that the birth cannot well be placed
earher, although it may fairly be placed later. We thus
remain not very far removed from the ancient Christian
tradition, which gives 25th December as the date of the birth
of Jesus Christ. We cannot, nevertheless, regard this date as
one handed down from the beginning, but must trace its
origin to an astrological consideration. In the first Christian
centuries the 25th December was looked upon as the day of

72 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
the winter solstice. The Church Fathers disposed of the four
cardinal days of the year as follows : —
1. Vernal equinox. Annunciation, 25th March.
2. Summer solstice. Birth of John the Baptist, 24th June.
3. Autumnal equinox. Conception of John, 24th September.
4. Winter solstice. Birth of Jesus, 25th December.
It is not for a moment to be supposed that Providence
would, by such an arrangement, give countenance to the dicta
of astrological reveries. If the presentation in the temple
coincided with the return from Egypt, consequent upon the
death of Herod, then it belongs to a date subsequent to the
24th January ; but since it took place forty days after the
birth, the birth of Jesus can at the earhest have taken place
14th December 752, and at the latest towards the 10th
January, after which Herod left Jerusalem.
We have thought we ought to present the possible deduc
tions from the given premisses; but, as some of these premisses
are very uncertain, we must not attach too great a value to
these deductions. As a certain result we obtain the fact that
Jesus was born after the 1st Tisri 752, in the first half of the
Sabbatic year.
Sec. 54. The year of Bome 752 is the second before a.d. 1
of the era of Dionysius. But since Dionysius placed the
birth of Christ on the 25th December, he may not have
taken into account the six remaining days of the year, and
have looked upon the year 753 as the year Null, and the year
754 as the year a.d. 1. In this way the reckoning of the
Dionysian era is perfectly correct. The unmathematical,
confusing disorder in our chronology, through which the name
of B.C. 1 is given to the year before a.d. 1, cannot be laid to
the charge of Dionysius, who probably placed a year Null
between B.C. 1 and a.d. 1, and began the year a.d. 1 a year
(and those six days) after the day of the birth.
IV. — History of the Youth of Jesus.
Sec. 55. The Evangelists relate nothing concerning the
youth of Jesus, beyond the visit to the Paschal festival, when

HISTORY OF THE YOUTH OF JESUS. 73
He was twelve years of age.1 In the law all the males in
Israel are required to appear before the presence of Jehovah
thrice every year,2 namely, at the feast of Passover, of Pente
cost, and of the Ingathering in the end of the year. As
concerns the women and children, nothing is prescribed in the
law. According to Hillel's school, the women were to attend
the feast once, namely, at Passover. The fathers were to take
with them their sons as soon as they were twelve years of
age, with which age they became " sons of the law," rmnn ya.
With this custom the account of the Evangelist Luke corre
sponds. How great the number of the Passover guests at
that time was, may be inferred from the following report
of Josephus, who says:3 "The paschal lambs were slain (on
the 14th Nisan) between the ninth hour and the eleventh.
Around every lamb there are gathered at least ten, often as
many as twenty, guests ; and the number of the lambs slain
was 25,600." From this it follows that the number of
persons taking part in the festival was something like two
millions and a half. If the population of Jerusalem be rated
ever so highly, and a considerable number be set down to the
account of exaggeration, there still remains a million of guests
coming from elsewhere. These all left Jerusalem pretty
much on the same day. That in such a sea of human beings,
a child, who, moreover, purposely remained behind, might be
lost, without the parents on that account being chargeable
with negligence or indifference, ought to have been evident to
the exegetes. The festival guests of the same place and the
same house could not possibly, under such circumstances,
muster in Jerusalem itself; they would, on the contrary, meet
in the evening at a resting-place previously agreed upon.
When Joseph and Mary did not find the child there, they
returned and sought Him for three days. Neither this seek
ing, nor the maternal remonstrance, " Son, why hast thou thus
dealt with us ? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee
sorrowing," justifies the supposition of indifference or negli
gence. They found the child in the sanctuary ;4 there He was
i Luke ii. 41-52. 2 Ex. xxiii. 14-17. 3 De Bello, vi. 9, sec. 3.
4 h tS hpf, that is to say, in the courts of the temple, not in the temple
itself.

74 BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS.
sitting in the midst of the doctors. Sitting was not permitted
in the court of Israel ; consequently the court of the women,
or the outer court, the so-called court of the Gentiles, must be
meant. Not even one of the synagogues is to be thought of,
of which several were to be found on the temple mountain ;
but rather one of the gates, which, for the purpose of such
assemblies, were made in the form of an exedra. — The history
teaches that Jesus as a child had the consciousness of being
the Son of God j1 but at the same time that He passed naturally
through all the stages of human development, and was not as
a child already in intellect a perfect man: " He went down with
them, and was subject unto them — and increased in wisdom
and stature, and in grace with God and with men." 2
This history is the only one which has come down to us
concerning the youth of Jesus. That He passed His youth
at Nazareth, may be safely inferred from the appellation
" Nazarsean " or " Nazarene " which was given Him, and which
even descended to His Church, and from the name "own
city" (iraTpis) of Jesus, by which Nazareth is frequently
designated.3 Significant for forming a conception of the youth
and family relations of Christ is the exclamation of the
inhabitants of Nazareth, in Mark vi. 3 : " Is not this the car
penter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and
of Judas and Simon ? and are not his sisters here with us ? "
In Matt. xiii. 55, this exclamation is given thus : " Is not this
the carpenter's son ? are there not with us his brethren,
James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, and all his sisters ?"
From this we must infer that not only Joseph but also Jesus
Himself was a carpenter (TeKTwv) ; that He had brothers and
sisters according to the flesh ; that Joseph was no longer
alive, because in Mark Jesus and His brethren are called the
sons of Mary ; and that Jesus had not, before beginning His
ministry, attended some rabbinical school. — "Whence then
hath this man all these things ? " 4
Sec. 56. That which is narrated to us by two Evangelists
concerning the childhood of Jesus, and by one Evangelist
concerning His youth, forms a preparatory history, which it did
1 Luke ii. 49. 2 Luke ii. 51, 52.
3 Cf. e.g. Matt. xiii. 54-57 ; Mark vi. 1, etc. * Matt. xiii. 56.

HISTORY OF THE YOUTH OF JESUS. 75
not seem necessary to the other two Evangelists, Mark and
John, to relate. The history proper with all begins at the
baptism of the Lord.1 The beginning of His ministry, and a
considerable proportion of the after events, have the shore of
the Sea of Gennesareth as their theatre. More fully to
.describe this important point of our earth, the birthplace of
Christianity, is the object of the following division.
1 Matt. iii. 13 ; Mark i. 9 ; Luke iii. 21 ; John i. 33.

76 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.

DIVISION III.
THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
Sec. 57. The Land of Promise, strictly speaking, which
stretches along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, is separated
from the trans-Jordan domain, the former inheritance of the
two and a half tribes, by a level valley (carse), of an average
width of 12 miles, which extends north to south from the
sources of the Jordan to the Dead Sea, over three and a half
degrees of latitude. The upper, northern half of this valley
contains the bed of the Jordan (Jardin)} This stream forms in
its course three lakes. The upper, northernmost of these is
called Bahr el-Huleh, and bears this name as early as the
time of the Talmudic writings.2 Erroneously, and in contra
diction alike with the Bibhcal text and with the references of
Josephus and Jerome, this lake is on most maps called the
Sea of Merom? The Jordan, issuing forth from the Huleh,
forms, after a brief course, the second lake, the Sea of Tiberias
or Lake of Gennesareth ; then, after a course of about 70
miles, it forms the third lake, called the Dead Sea, which has
no outflow. From the Dead Sea to the Allatic Gulf the Ghor
1 [In the present day it is called the Jordan only above the Sea of Tiberias ;
below, it is called Sheriat el-Khebir.]
2 ND/lPI NO"1 ; Jerus. Ketuboth, in Ugolini Thes. xxx. p. 1001 ; Jerus.
Kilaim, fol. 31. 1 ; Bab. Baba-Balhra, fol. 74 ; cf. Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10,
sec. 3.
3 [On the Huleh-lahe (Heb. ChtU, a circle or district), called by Josephus
Semechonitis-lake, and described by him in de Bello, iv. 1, sec. 1, see Thomson,
Land and Book, p. 259 ; Tristram, Land of Israel, 594, 595 ; cf. Eitter, ii.
209, 210. Since the time of Canon Tristram's visit the lake has been fully
explored by Mr. Macgregor in his canoe, the "Rob Roy." The Phiala-lalce is
well described by Robinson, iii. 399, 400 ; Thomson, p. 241 ; Tristram, 589.
On this lake, erroneously supposed by Josephus to be the source of the Jordan,
compare Ritter, ii. 177 ff. " The river which gushes out at Banias would
exhaust this lake in forty-eight hours" (Thomson).]

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 77
is prolonged to a length of 1 5 0 miles ; nay, the basin of the
Dead Sea itself is a continuation of the cleft forming this
valley. The whole valley from the Lake of Gennesareth to
the Dead Sea is called in the Old Testament the 'Araba ; x in
the present day, however, the name is applied only to the
southern part of it, stretching from the Dead Sea ; the
northern part, on the other hand, which contains the bed of
the Jordan, is now called El-Ghor. The chain of- mountains
skirting the hoUow on either side are as rocky walls, which
form the more or less abrupt declivity from the upland
plain on either side Jordan. The uppermost source of the
Jordan, the Wady Hasbani, hes at Hasbeiia, 568 metres [1862
feet] above the level of the sea ; the Banias fountain, which
the ancients took for the true source of the Jordan, has an
absolute height of 383 metres [1255 feet]. The source of the
Little Jordan at Tell el-Kadi, the ancient Dan, lies 185 metres
[604 feet] above the level of the sea. At the Lake of Gen
nesareth we are already 189 metres [617 feet] below the level
of the sea ; the depression of the Dead Sea attains 392 metres
[1285 feet]. To the south of the Dead Sea the valley of the
'Araba gradually rises again, until it attains an absolute height of
240 metres [768 feet], and then falls until, having sunk below
the ocean level, it is covered by the waters of the Bed Sea.2
Sec. 58. The Lake of Gennesareth or Sea of Tiberias, now
Bahr Tabarieh, in the Old Testament, Sea of Chinnereth, is
formed and fed by the Jordan, which flows through it. Its
dimensions are very differently given by different travellers.
Its length from north to south seems to be about 14 miles,
its breadth 6-8 miles. It is to be reckoned among the shallow
lakes ; since its medium depth amounts only to 1 0 fathoms,
its greatest depth to not more than 2 6 fathoms. Its waters are
sweet, clear, and very abundant in fish. On the western and
the eastern side of the lake run the mountain ranges which
form the break in the opposite upland plains. The Galilean
range rises about 450 feet above the level of the lake ; the
opposite, eastern or Gaulonitic range, about 900 feet. In the
1 n3"IJ?n, ibe wilderness, Deut. i. 1, ii. 8, iv. 49 ; Josh. iii. 16, etc.
2 The altitudes here given are those ascertained by the Due de Luynes during
his travels in 1 864.

78 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
latter the Haur&n basalt, in the former the Jura limestone, is
the prevailing feature.
Sec. 59. Tiberias, now Tabarieh or Tabartyeh, is at present
the single place of any importance on that sea whose coast
was at the time of Jesus so densely populated. This place
lies on the western shore, about 6 miles from the outflow of
the Jordan, and nearly 9 miles below the entrance of this
stream. The town itself is not mentioned in the New Testa
ment, although John speaks once of the " Sea of Tiberias." 1
It was built by the tetrarch Herod Antipas, and named after
the Emperor Tiberius. The population, consisting of Gentiles
and Jews, was brought together in part by coercion. The
place on which Tiberias was built was formerly a graveyard,2
and on that account unclean for the Jews. According to the
Chronicon of Eusebius, this town was founded in the 14th
year of the reign of Tiberius ; it was therefore still in the
course of erection in the days of Jesus.
Sec. 60. The narrow strip of coast on which Tiberias is
built extends in the same proportions towards the south, as
far as the lower end of the lake. A mile and a half south of
Tiberias are to be found the Thermal Springs of Tiberias, now
Hammam, called by the Talmudists Hamatha, Knon, non
tf'iaw, or " the warm springs of Tiberias," nnaDT nplDT ''ID.3
This place affords us an important archaeological support;
since it is one and the same with the Hamath mentioned
with Bekath and Chinnereth, in Josh. xix. 35, as belonging
to Naphtali. This name signifies " warm springs " (thermce),
and must be identical with Hammam, the more so since this
place has from the earliest times been celebrated as a medicinal
spring, and since the ancient Hamath is to be sought, for
only on the shore of that lake, to which the sister city of
Chinnereth gives the name. There are still present manifest
traces which go to show that Tiberias at one time extended
as far as Hammam.
South from the warm springs he two ruins, a good mile
and a half from each other ; the northern is called Kades, the
southern Kerak. This latter place is unquestionably the
1 John xxi. 1. ' Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2, sec. 3.
3 Jerus. Erubin, fol. 23. 4 ; Midrash Koheleth, fol. 116. 2.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 79
ancient Tarichcea, according to Josephus 30 stadia distant
from Tiberias,1 on the margin of the lake,2 with which it
communicated by means of a canal.3 In the neighbourhood
of this town lay another, known as Sennabris, which is like
wise given as distant 30 stadia from Tiberias.4 Since
Josephus always gives the stadia in round numbers of tens,
— so that something may be added to the distance of Tarichsea
from Tiberias, something deducted from that of Sennabris, —
it becomes highly probable that Sennabris is identical with
Kades. In a passage of the Talmud, of which more hereafter,
mention is made of two Gennesaroth or Abtinoth, which are
called Bethjerach, or better, Beth-Therach 5 and Zennabri;6
these are thus Tarichsea and Sennabris.
Sec. 61. Magdala. — As one journeys northward from Tibe
rias, the mountain range soon approaches so near to the sea,
that there is no longer any room for the road on the beach,
but it must pass over the ridge of the hill. Where the road
descends again on the north side of the hiH, a good three
miles from Tiberias, lies a wretched Arab village, El-Mejdel,
in which is preserved the old name of Magdala. Of this
place was, in aU probability, Mary Magdalene a native.7 The
name Magdala itself occurs in the New Testament only in
Matt. xv. 39, where it is critically doubtful, and must give
place to Magadan or Magedan.8
Sec. 62. The Land of Gennesareth.9 — Josephus, de Bello,
iii. 10, sec. 8, describes the land as a fair plain, fruitful and
well watered, of 30 stadia long by 20 broad, lying on the
western coast of the lake. With this description corresponds
the unique plain El-Ghuweir, situated on the western side of
the lake. It stretches northward from Mejdel to a length
of about three miles, and is a mile and a half wide from west
to east. It is still abundantly watered and fertile. The land
1 Josephus, Vita, 32. a Vita, 18 ; de Bello, ii. 21, sec. 8, iii. 10, sec. 5.
3 Vita, 31 : liupvyu. vrtmo-ets a-r aurtis (Tapi%ttiatv) sti <rm Xi/iviiv ayaitexj.
* j,fna^pU, de Bello, iii. 9, sec. 7.
6 mm = rrvma = mvrrM. 6 narif ¦
7 i MxyixXwn, Matt. xv. 40, xvi. 1 ; Luke viii. 1 ; Jqhn xx. 1, etc.
' See below, sec. 73.
9 yn Tivmeizpir, or, according to some mss., yv Tmnirip, Matt. xiv. 34 ; JlVpa
1DVM with tne Talmudists ; Tmnrt^nt with Josephus.

80 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
of Gennesar is often mentioned in the books of Jewish
tradition, and praised especially on account of the excellence
of its fruits. In Bab. Pesachim, fol. 8. 2, it is said : " Why
were not the fruits of Gennesar sold at Jerusalem ? Lest
those who came up to the feast should say, We have come
only to taste fruits of Gennesar." In the prophetic benediction
upon Naphtali1 mention is made of the fulness of blessing
promised to this tribe. The rabbis explain this " fulness " by
saying the plain of Gennesar is meant by it.2 From this
follows, first, the great value that was attached to this small
strip of land ; but then also — what must here already be-
emphatically brought out — that the land of Naphtali, to
which it belonged, extended along the western shore of the
lake. Sec. 63. Capernaum.3 — In the description of the land of
Gennesar by Josephus, de Bello, iii. 10, sec. 8, it is said:
" This land is watered by a very abundant fountain, which the
people of the country call Kapharnaum — Tryyy BtapBerat
yovtpwTary, Ka<papvaovp, aiiTyv oi hrtj^oiptot KaXovcrt. Some
have taken it to be a vein of the Nile, because it brings forth
a sort of fish very similar to the kind called coracinus (cat
fish) in the lake of Alexandria." This name Caphar-Naum
was given to the fountain of a caphar or village situated there.
There was thus, according to Josephus, a place in the terri
tory of Gennesar known as Kapharnaum. In the El-Ghuweir
there is to be found to the present day a remarkable fountain
corresponding to this description, Ain El-Mudawarah (round
fountain), which forms an oval reservoir or basin of about 100
feet diameter, and is walled round. The depth of water may
be two feet. It is beautifully clear and sweet, springs up
with great force, and flows rapidly in a full stream to water
the plain below. Numerous small fishes disport themselves
in its basin.4 This fountain is on the west side of the El-
1 Deut. xxxiii. 23. 2 Siphri, in Ugolini Thes. xv. p. 979.
3 Kx'ripincaifi, or, according to the better mss., KaQxptxoift, ; in the Talmud
DIPD "133, Nahums-thorp, where, according to the Jewish Itinerary of Isaac
Chelo, belonging to the 1 4th century, cited in Carmoly's Itiniraire, p. 259, the
grave of Nahum, the old (? prophet) was to be found.
* Robinson, ii. p. 400. [Canon Tristram, p. 446 ff, comes to the same con
clusion as Caspari concerning the identity of Ain Mudawarah with Capernaum.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 8 1
Ghuweir, a mile and a half from the lake. If Capernaum was
in its neighbourhood, this town is not to be sought immediately
on the shore of the lake, but at some distance from it. It
win be easily understood that this town, though situated a
mile and a half from the shore, might yet bear the name of
irapaOaXao-o-ia ; 1 and the more so since this appellation was
intended only to distinguish it from another Capernaum, at a
distance from the lake, namely, on the Kishon, 1 8 miles from
Csesarea.2 Euins of a town in the vicinity of this fountain have
not hitherto been discovered ; this, however, proves nothing
against its former existence, in a locality so frequently visited
by earthquakes. Thus Schubert3 found the town of Tiberias
utterly destroyed by an earthquake, which had happened on
(Sunday) the 1st January 1837. This explains to us how
Capernaum might disappear without a trace, even as it was
predicted, Matt. xi. 23, that it should disappear. But if this
town was in reality early destroyed, it is probable that the
place Tell-Hum, at the northern end of the lake, was already
early mistaken for Capernaum. For to Tell-Hum, and not to
the Ghuweir, does the following description of Adamnanus 4
seem to relate : " Quse (Capernaum), ut Arculfus refert, qui
earn de monte vicino prospexit, murum non habens, angusto
inter montem et stagnum coarctata spatio, per illam mariti-
mam oram longo tramite protenditur, montem ab aquilonari
plaga, lacum vero ab australi habens, ab occasu in ortum
He sajrs: "When we come to the Round Fountain of Ain Mudawarah, we find a
spot in perfect harmony with the accounts of the evangelists and of Josephus, and,
in fact, the only possible locality which will harmonize all the accounts. Here is
a fountain in the centre of the western boundary of the plain, sending forth to
this day a copious stream which exactly bisects the Ghuweir on its way to the
lake, and is the most important source of fertility in the plain. The stream
from Wady Haniam waters the southern end, the Wady of Armud the northern,
while this supplies the central plain, and is not less copious nor less permanent
than the others. . . . But the most decisive argument in its favour is to my
mind the statement of Josephus, that Capharnaum produced the xopxxTtc;, a fish
like that of the lake near Alexandria. The fact is, that the remarkable siluroid
the catfish, or coracine (xcpa-xivas) — Clarias macracanthus, Gunthr.- — identical
with the catfish of Lower Egypt, does abound to a remarkable degree in the
Round Fountain to this day. " See the argument cited more at length in the
appendix to the English translation of Ritter, ii. 410-414.]
i Matt. iv. 13. ' Guil. Tyr. de Bello sacro, x. 26.
3 Beisen, iii. p. 233. * ii. 25.
F

82 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
extensa dirigitur." Even to the present day many Bibhcal
geographers regard Tell-Hum as Capernaum, although this
supposition is in glaring opposition to the statement of
Josephus. The cause of it lies in an erroneous conception
as to the boundaries of Naphtali, which shall come under
examination in the succeeding paragraphs. For the position
of Capernaum in the land of Gennesar, we have the testimony
of Jerome and of the Jewish itineraries. Jerome says : 1
" Lacum Gennesareth, in cujus litore Caphamaum et Tiberias
et Bethsaida et Chorazeim sitse sunt." In this order of suc
cession could the towns be mentioned only when the pilgrim
visiting the Sea of Gahlee is supposed to come down by the
route from Nazareth and Tabor. This ancient highway led
down from the Galilean table-land into the El-Ghuweir, in
the vicinity of the Mudawarah fountain, and thence in a
south-easterly direction by Mejdel and Tiberias, and from
Mejdel northerly, along the lake side to Bethsaida and
Chorazin. If Jerome had conceived of Capernaum as occu
pying the place of Tell-Hum, he could not possibly have
enumerated these places in this order. The Jewish itineraries,
too, place Caphar-Nahum in the territory of Gennesar; accord
ing to the Isaac Chelo above cited, the place lay between
Arbela and Caphar-Anan. Between these two places, still
known under their old names, Irbil and Kefr Anan, lies El-
Ghuweir, but not Tell-Hum. Samuel ben Simon, belonging
to the 13 th century,2 travelled from Tiberias through Caphar-
Hanuim to Arbela ; that is to say, he ascended the high
ground by the main route just mentioned, which passes
through El-Ghuweir. There accordingly lay Caphar-Hanuim,
a)in *isa, which is evidently the name Caphar-Nahum, written
with letters transposed — own for mra Against this position
of Capernaum, Von Baumer and many others declare them
selves. Capernaum, say they, lay on the confines of Zebulon
and Naphtali ; now the western shore belonged to Zebulon,
and Naphtali could touch the lake only at the northern end,
where Tell- Hum lies ; there, then, Capernaum is to be sought.
It is thus incumbent on us to ascertain the boundaries of these
two tribes. 1 In Bsaiam, ix. 1. * Carmoly, Itin. p. 130.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 83
Sec. 64. The Boundaries of Zabulon and Nephthaleim.
— Josephus says :x " The Zebulonites obtained as an inherit
ance the land about Carmel and the sea, extending as far as
Gennesaritis " — ^aftovXwvvrat Be t^v ptexpt TevvyaaptTtBos
KaOyKovaav Be irepl KapptyXov Kal dd\ao-crav eXa^ov. That
7?jz> must be supplied to ttjv KaOyKovaav is self-evident ; and
that the word TevvyaaptTtBos be supplemented by yfjs, and
not Xiptvys, is demanded by the grammatical structure. The
proposition is thus : the Zebulonites obtained the land about
Carmel and the sea, which stretches on the east as far as the
land Gennesaritis. Gennesar is evidently the name of the
land, for it is formed from "id yj, " the gardens of the (lake-)
basin," and can be transferred to the lake itself only by the
addition of the word Xiptvys ; where this addition is wanting,
the name can only refer to the land. But when Josephus
represents the territory of Zebulon as extending only as far
as the land of Gennesaritis, this land itself, and consequently
also the shore of the lake, remains excluded, and must be
assigned to the tribe of Naphtah. Wholly in harmony
with this, Jerome says : 2 " Naphtali in Galilaea usque ad
Jordanem, ubi Tiberias, quae olim Chennereth." It is here a
matter of indifference whether or not Tiberias is rightly
identified with Chinnereth ; the Church Father, so well versed
in Biblical geography, at any rate says that Tiberias belonged
to Naphtali, that consequently also the shore of the lake was
in the territory of this tribe. That Jewish tradition shares
this view, we have already seen, sec. 62, inasmuch as it
explains the fulness of the blessing of Naphtali by the land
of Gennesar. This tradition is also unanimously of opinion
that the towns of this tribe, Hamath, Bekath, and Chinnereth,
enumerated in Josh. xix. 35, belong to the western shore of
the lake.3 And, in truth, where should one place Chinnereth,
the town which gave the name to the lake, except on the
lake itself? Where Hamath, except at Hammam, the place
of warm springs ? But if these places were on the shore of
the lake, then its western shore belonged to Naphtali, and
not to Zebulon. Furthermore, it is said in Bab. Baba-Kamma,
1 Antiq. v. 1, sec. 22. 2 In Ezech. 48.
3 Jerus. MegiUa, i. 1, in Ugolini Thes. xviii. p. 845, and elsewhere.

84 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
fol. 81. 2: "The Sea. of Tiberias lies in the portion of the
tribe of Naphtali ; " and further : " This tribe possessed, too, a
tract of land south of the lake." J When, moreover, we test
the description of Zebulon given in Josh. xix. 10-16, we find
not the slightest hint which might lead us to suppose that
this tribe extended on the east as far as the Jordan or the
lake. Very different is the case with Naphtali, of which
the territory is described Josh. xix. 32-39. Ver. 33 it is
said : " Their frontier went from Heleph, from Elon to Zaa-
nanim, and Adami ha-Nekeb, and Jabneel ; and the outgoings
thereof were at Jordan." After this it says in the 34th
verse : " And the frontier turneth westward to Asnoth-Tabor."
This last place was necessarily in the vicinity of Mount
Tabor. Since it lay westward of the point of contact of the
frontier of Naphtali with the Jordan, the reference is
evidently to the Jordan lying to the east of Tabor, i.e. to the
Jordan not above the lake, but below it. Thus much is
accordingly certain — that the domain of Naphtali below the
lake touched on the Jordan opposite Tabor ; and from this it
necessarily follows that the western coast of the lake belonged
to this tribe. But let us still further trace out the boundaries
of this tribe. It began with Heleph. This place we may
pass over as unknown ; it suffices to know that it serves to
mark the northern point at which their domain began. With
Zaananim we are acquainted; according to Judg. iv. 11, it
was near to Kedes in Naphtali.2 Adami is to be recognised
in Damun, about nine miles E.S.E. from Acco, west from
Cabul. That Adami in reality became transformed in the
lapse of ages into Damun, is vouched for by Jerus. Megilla,
i. I,3 where it is expressly stated that WK is pDI. Naphtali
thus formed from Heleph, i.e. from the northern side, a narrow
strip of land on the western bank of the Upper Jordan to
Kedes, where the frontier declined to the west, and extended
to the neighbourhood of Acco. Thence the frontier proceeded
to Jabneel. There were two places of this name in the land
1 So also Baba-Bathra, v. 1. [Cf. "the sea (ydm) and the south" of Deut.
xxxiii. 23.]
* [Kedesh-Naphtali is described by Tristram, p. 583. The general features
of Naphtali are, moreover, vividly portrayed by Thomson, pp. 213, 214.]
3 Ugolini, Thes. xviii. p. 847.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 85
of Israel ; first, Jabneel in Judah,1 later called by the rabbis
Jabrte, by the Greeks Jamnia ; and then Jabneel in Galilee,
in hke manner called by Josephus Jamnia, as with the
Semitic races in general the sounds of B and M often pass over
the one into the other. According to Josephus, Vita 37, and
de Bello, ii. 20, sec. 6, Jamnia was a town of Upper Galilee,
which formed one group with Meroth and Achabara. Acha-
bara is still to be recognised in Tell-Achbarah, south of Safed,
and Meroth in Meron, west of Safed. Jabneel (or Jamnia)
was, consequently, if not Safed itself, — which is highly pro
bable, — at least in the vicinity of it. Naphtali accordingly
possessed a strip of land between Kedes and Safed, which
extended on the west as far as Acco. From Jabneel (Safed)
the boundary struck southwards as far as the Lower Jordan,
opposite Tabor, after it had touched at Lakum.2 This name
we might be content to pass over as unknown, because the
direction of the frontier is clear without this. It seems to us,
however, that this name has left a trace to the present day.
Burckhardt3 speaks of a plain, Ard-el-Hamma, which lies
upon the mountain ridge westward of Tiberias. May not this
be the word Ard-el-Lhamma ? if so, Lakum or Lachum is
to be recognised in it. — From the Lower Jordan the frontier
proceeded westward to Asnoth Tabor, and thence (ver. 34) to
Hukkok, now Jakuk or Yakuk, six miles south of Safed. By
this line drawn from Tabor to Jakuk is the narrow strip of
territory on the sea-side, belonging to Naphtali, separated
from Zebulon, which lies to the west of it. With perfect
justice, then, it is said, ver. 34 : "Naphtali abuts on Zebulon
on the south, on Asher on the west, and on Judah of Jordan
on the east." For a line drawn from Damun to Safed in
reality forms the southern boundary of Naphtali, and the
northern boundary of Zebulon; the narrow wedge, which
penetrates by the coast of the lake into the south, is not here
taken into consideration. Of Judah of the Jordan we shall
have occasion to treat hereafter in sec. 68.
Sec. 65. It now becomes possible for us to explain the
much-discussed passage of Matt. iv. 13-16. It is there said :
" Leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which
' Josh. xv. 11. 2 Josh. xix. 33. 3 Beisen, p. 577.

86 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
is upon the sea-coast, on the confines of Zebulon and Neph-
thaleim, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias
the prophet, saying,1 ' Land of Zabulon and land of Nephthaleim,
way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations.' "
Here it is evidently implied that Capernaum lay upon the
confines of the two tribes mentioned, and at the same time
upon the sea route which leads out of Gahlee beyond Jordan.
Since the prophet is speaking of two cis- Jordan tribes, and of
Galilee, the words pTTi nay DTI fn must be translated, " Sea
way which leads over the Jordan." Now, the main route
from Jerusalem to Damascus, passing by Tabor, descended
into the territory of Gennesar, then from Mejdel passed
along the shore to Khan Minyeh, where it left the shore to
reach the table-land lying to the north of El-Ghuweir ; it
thence advanced in a straight line to the Jacob's Bridge, where
it crossed the Jordan. It is one of the merits of Van de
Velde to have traced out and marked on his map this route,
which during some part of its course is seen to be a Via
Bomana. This road, which from Tabor northwards indicates
the before-mentioned boundaries of the two tribes, passed
near to the Mudawarah fountain, thus to the true Capernaum ;
Tell-Hum, on the other hand, was left at a considerable
distance to the east of this route. What is more, Bobinson 2
has shown that no coast route whatever could pass through
Tell-Hum, the supposed Capernaum.
Sec. 66. Bethsaida.3 — Of the place of this name, called also
Julias, which lay on the east side of the lake, we shall here
after have to speak, sec. 71. Here we have only to do with
the Bethsaida on this side. That a place of this name lay
upon the western shore, is evident from John xii. 21, where
it is said that Philip was of Bethsaida of Galilee, for Galilee
nowhere extended to the east side of Jordan or of the lake.
But the same Philip was, according to John i. 45, of Bethsaida,
the city of Andrew and Peter. The place was situated, as
the name itself, which signifies house of fish, would lead us to
conjecture, near to the lake,4 and not far from Capernaum.6
1 Isa. viii. 23-ix. 1 [ix. 1, A. V.]. 2 Palestine, iii. 346 ff.
3 [Written in Matthew and Mark, Bnfcai'Sa*.]
* Matt. iv. 18. 5 Matt. viii. 14 ; cf. vers. 5, 18.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 87
The Lord pronounced the woes upon Bethsaida no less than
upon Capernaum and Chorazin.1 The geographical hints of
the Evangelists with regard to it are too indefinite for deter
mining its position from them, and the name is not found in
any other writings, either sacred or profane. The attempt to
determine the position of this place can be ventured on only
if a trace of the name has been preserved to the present day.
Seetzen,2 in crossing from the district of Jolan, which hes to
the east of the lake and the Upper Jordan, to the western
shore, at a ford of the Jordan above the lake, came upon the
ruins of a Khan Batszaida, in the vicinity of a rocky lime
stone mountain. On the shore was a path or bridle road
cut in the rock. The Khan lies six miles from Tabariye, at
the northern opening of the plain of Tabariye (El-Ghuweir),
near to a brook. And he in fact marks upon his map
Batszaida at the north-east corner of the El-Ghuweir, where
Bobinson places the KMn Minyeh. After Seetzen, no other
traveller has heard this name ; but we are not on that account
justified in charging this trustworthy investigator with an
error. It is well known that since the time of Jesus the
population of the western shore of the lake has become
entirely changed ; we cannot, therefore; feel surprise that the
present inhabitants have lost many of the names, and have
no longer any knowledge of Capernaum, Gennesareth, Beth
saida, etc. It is very different with the wild, independent
mountain tribes of the Jolan, who, unchanged, have braved
the centuries. Traditions must there have been preserved
which on the western side have disappeared. The more recent
travellers have aU derived their accounts of the Gahlean lake
district from people about Tiberias or El-Ghuweir ; Seetzen
alone had a Bedouin of Jolan as a guide, and from him he
learnt the name of Khan Batszaida, which therefore appears
to us perfectly well attested.
Sec. 67. Chorazin. — The place is mentioned only Matt.
xi. 21 and Luke x. 13, where the Lord pronounces the woe
upon Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, because these towns,
notwithstanding the miraculous works (Bvvdptets) wrought in
1 Matt. xi. 21-24 ; Luke x. 13-15.
2 Beisen, i. 344 ; Zach, Correspond, xviii. 348 ; Ritter, ii. p. 270.

88 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
them, had not repented. The connection with Bethsaida and
Capernaum gives no nearer direction as to the position of the
place than the hint that it is to be sought in the neighbour
hood of the Sea of Gennesareth. The books of Jewish
tradition several times speak of it. In Bab. Menachoth x it is
said that the place produced wheat of the second quality ; it
is there called Chorazaim, D"t*ia. In Jerus. Baba-Bathra, fol.
15. 1, it is stated that the flocks were driven from Judah
even as far as Chorasin in Naphtali. Here the name is
written jwin. Northwards from Tell-Hum there is found,
according to Van de Velde, upon the rising ground, the ruins
of a town, Bir Kerazeh, in which name Chorazin is to be
recognised. According to Eusebius, in the Onomasticon,
Xapa^etv was a little town of Galilee, t/3', i.e. 12 miles,
distant from Capernaum. When Jerome has, in his trans
lation of the Onomasticon, instead of t(3 ', only II. Millia; there
is manifestly an error of the copyist in the question, owing
to which the sign X has been left out in the number xii.
The distance of 12 miles (11 miles Enghsh) corresponds
exactly to that from the Ain Mudawarah, the true Capernaum,
to Bir Kerazeh.
Sec. 67&. It has already been observed that at Khan
Minyeh, or KMn Batszaida, the road leaves the lake side and
passes northward upon the mountains, because at this point
the mountain approaches so near to the lake that there is no
longer any room left for it on the shore. Farther north,
where the coast of the lake bends round from west to east,
there opens up again a narrow strip of coast, on the margin
of which he the oft-mentioned ruins of Tell-Hum. Beland,
Von Baumer, and others, have thought it was to be identified
with the ancient Capernaum. We have above given the
reasons which lead us to reject this opinion. De Saulcy, on
the other hand, thinks Tell-Hum is Bethsaida-Julias. The
untenable character of this hypothesis will be made manifest
hereafter, sec. 71. To what ancient town, then, do these
ruins correspond ? Everything seems to us to plead in, favour
of the ancient Thella, ©eXXd, of which Josephus says 2 that
1 Ugolini, Thes. xv. p. 392.
2 Josephus, de Bello, iii. 3, sec. 1.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 89
it is near to the Jordan, and marks on one (the eastern)
side the length of Upper Galilee, which extends from north
to south, beginning in the north at Meroth, to end in the
south at Thella. Evidently Tell-Hum fulfils the condition
not merely as regards position, but also as regards the form of
the name. As a preliminary remark, we observe that the
name is not always written Tell-Hum ; several travellers write
it Tell Hunn, or Tel-hhewn.1 As is well known, Tell denotes
a hill ; now the ruins in question occupy no hill at all, but
he on the shore of the lake. We conclude therefrom that the
syllable Tel belongs to the root of the name, which is to be
written Tellum, Tellun, or Telhewn, from which the Greek
form QeXXd then arose. It is, indeed, quite possible, as we
have already remarked, that even in the Byzantine period
this place was mistaken for the lost Capernaum, and that
the ruins of the churches built in pseudo-Capernaum still
exist. Sec. 68. Judah of the Jordan. — In Matt. xix. 1 we read :
" Jesus departed from Galilee, and came into the confines of
Judea beyond Jordan" — r)X0ev els to opta Trjs 'lovBalas irepav
tov 'IopBdvov. Beyond the Jordan there could be no confines
of Judea, because the land to which this name properly be
longed was cis-Jordanic. We have here, consequently, to do
with a particular district, which bore the name " Judea
beyond Jordan." This name we have already met with in
sec. 64. According to Josh. xix. 3, Naphtali abutted on
Zebulon towards the south, on Asher towards the west, and
towards the east on Judah of the Jordan, pnTi iTTiiT. Since,
then, the boundaries of Naphtali in Upper Galilee are known
to us, the position of Judah of the Jordan can be open to no
doubt. Naphtali had as its eastern boundary the Upper
Jordan, the Lake of Gennesareth, and the Lower Jordan at its
egress from the lake. Judah of the Jordan is consequently
the Jolan, the ancient Gaulonitis ; and the New Testament
Judea beyond Jordan is the same district.
But how came the name Judah of the Jordan to be applied
to the district of Gaulonitis ? Beland says of this question :
" Maximus et insolubilis fere nodus, qui plurimos interpretes
1 De Saulcy, Voy. ii. 199 ff. ; Ritter, Erdk. xv. 337.

9 0 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
torsit." This difficult question Von Baumer1 has most satis
factorily solved. We present here that which is essential in
his argument. According to Deut. iii. 13, 14, Moses gave to
the half tribe of Manasseh aH Bashan and the whole tract of
Argob ; but Jair the son of Manasseh took the whole tract
of Argob, to the confines of Geshuri and Maachathi, and called
it after his own name, the " Bashan Havoth Jair " (Bashan of
the villages of Jair) unto this day.2 What, then, was the
position of Argob and the villages of Jair ? Jerome answers
in the Onomasticon : " Argob, Eegis Og, regis Basan super
Jordanem,'' and, " Avoth-Jair, qui locus nunc vocatur Golan."
The villages of Jair are consequently Gaulonitis, the present
Jolan. Thus also Josephus3 translates the expressions Gilead
and Argob, used of the districts in 1 Kings iv. 13, by
" Galaaditis and Gaulanitis, as far as Lebanon." The tract
of Argob was counted to Manasseh ; because, according to the
above-cited texts, its possessor was a " son of Manasseh."
But in what sense was he Manasseh's son ? According to
1 Chron. ii. 3, 4, 21, 24, Judah was the father of Perez,
Perez of Hezron ; to Hezron, Segub was born (out of wedlock)
of the daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead. Jair was
consequently, on his father's side, of the tribe of Judah ; on his
mother's side, of the tribe of Manasseh. But since, according
to Num. xxxvi. 7, " every one shall keep himself to the
heritage of the tribe of his fathers," Clericus says justly :
Jair Manassita. Hie contra morem in tribu materna mansit.
The ground of this exception to the rule was the illegitimate
birth of his father, Seglib. This latter was at first cut off
from the tribe of his fathers, but his descendants were after
wards legitimated and received into it again. A similar
instance is afforded by Jephthah, Judg. xi. 1, 2, 7, 8. So
long, then, as Jair was excluded from Judah on account
of his illegitimate descent, his land was reckoned part of
Manasseh ; after the legitimation of his family, he and his
land, the tract of Argob, i.e. Gaulonitis, were reckoned to
Judah, and this land obtained the name of Judah of the
Jordan. And thus, too, the state of affairs continued to the
1 Palest, p. 233 ff. * Cf. Num. xxxii. 41 ; Josh. xiii. 29, 30.
3 Antiq. viii. 2, sec. 3.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 91
time of Jesus : for Josephus, de Bello, iii. 3, gives a description
of the whole Holy Land, as consisting of Galilee,1 Persea,2
Samaria,3 and Judea, which last again was divided into eleven
toparchies ;4 but, besides these (xairl Tamats), there belonged
to Judea, Gaulonitis, Gamalitis, Batansea, and Trachonitis,
provinces which belonged too, at the same time, to Agrippa's
kingdom. Here, then, Gaulonitis is expressly reckoned as
belonging to Judea. Thus it is explained why the eastern
boundary of Naphtali was called Judah of the Jordan, and
afterwards Judea beyond Jordan. The southern boundary of
this district is the Wady Fik, separating it from Decapolis.
Sec. 69. El-Batiheh.— Wilson6 makes the remark that he
was much struck with the similarity of the three little plains
on the shore of the Lake of Gennesareth : in the west, El-
Ghuweir; in the south, Ard es-Semakh; in the north, El-
Batiheh ; which entirely correspond to each other in point of
form, soil, extent, and productions. El-Batiheh is a hollow,
resembling that of the Ghuweir, but situated on the east side
of the Jordan, at its point of influx into the lake. Eobinson6
says that this plain is skirted on the east by the mountains
which enclose the lake, and on the north by similar mountains
of considerable height, which, farther up, reach down to the
Jordan. It is a perfect level, and a more fruitful strip of soil
can hardly be conceived of. A striking similarity has often
been observed between it and El-Ghuweir in point of form,
climate, soil, and productions ; but the Batiheh seems rather
to deserve the preference. This extraordinary fertility is to
be ascribed not only to the rich black, loamy soil, but also
to the abundance of water. No fewer than three perennial
streams, besides the Jordan — the streams on the eastern side
are almost all of them perennial — contribute to its irrigation.
They are, taken in the order from south to north, Wady
es - Sanam, Wady ed - Dalieh [" vine - valley "], and Wady
es-Sufa. In this plain — the name of which Burckhardt writes
Battykha — are to be found several of the localities mentioned
1 iii. 3, sees. 1, 2. » iii. 3, sec. 3. 3 iii. 3, sec. 4. * iii. 3, sec. 5.
s Lands of the Bible, ii. p. 150. [On the fertility of this plain, see Thomson,
p. 361. Compare, on the beauty of the district, Tristram, p. 586.]
« Palestine, ii. 409-112 ; Ritter, ii. 231, 232.

92 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
in the Gospel narratives, among which Bethania beyond
Jordan and Bethsaida-Julias are particularly distinguished.
Sec. 70. Bethania beyond Jordan. — In John i. 28, the place
where John baptized, and where Jesus was pointed out by
him as the Messiah, is called Bethany beyond Jordan, ByOavla
irepav tov 'IopBdvov. For that this is the original reading, is
now pretty generally acknowledged.1 Origen instituted in
quiries as to the place and position, and came to the conclu
sion that there was no Bethania on the eastern bank of the
Jordan, but there was a Bethabara ; through him the reading
By&afiapd was introduced into the mss. Origen failed to
discover it, because, misled by tradition, he sought the scene
of John's baptism on the left bank of the Lower Jordan.
When Seetzen2 was returning from Fik, before passing the
ford of the Jordan in order to reach the western bank, he
came to the village Tellanije.3 This place, at which aloes
were growing, had a beautiful situation ; the lovely region
through which his line of march lay was marked by a dark
loamy soil, and intersected between Tellanihje and the Jordan
by several brooks. From the Jacob's Bridge, he says,4 to a
point westward from Tellanihje, the Jordan flows through a
gorge between basalt mountains. This description corre
sponds so perfectly with that which Bobinson6 tells us as to
the site of Et-Tell, that no doubt can exist as to the iden
tity of Et-Tell and Tellanihje ; the more so, since the maps
of both travellers fully correspond on this point. Et-Tell
is, says Bobinson, the greatest of all the ruins of this plain
El-Batiheh. The Tell stretches from the foot of the northern
' [BiiiWa may also be regarded with a very high degree of probability as the
true reading of Mark viii. 22, as pointed out by Ewald (Gutting, gelehrte
Anzeigen, 3d March 1869). It has the support of Codex D and the Italic and
Gothic versions, and can hardly have originated in an oversight. In ver. 23,
Mark calls Bnfcw'oc a xa/m.]
2 Beisen, i. p. 343.
3 Written also Tellanihje ; cf. Zach, Correspond, xviii. p. 348.
4 Beisen, i. p. 342. [On the Jacob's Bridge itself, compare Ritter, ii. 174,
228 ; Thomson, p. 260. The latter says : " Thence it (the Jordan) commences
its headlong race over basaltic rocks down to the Lake of Tiberias, a distance
of about six miles, and the distance (? plunge), according to my aneroid, is
1050 feet." The Jordan is easily forded at the Tell. Robinson, ii. p. 413.
Thomson extends the name Tellaiya to the whole valley, p. 366.]
6 ii. p. 414.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. ' 93
mountain southwards, near to the point at which the Jordan
emerges from the mountain. The ruins cover a great part of
the same, and are of wide extent ; but consist, so far as could
be observed, entirely of unhewn volcanic stones, without any
distinct trace of architecture. Bobinson and his companions,
who recognised the identity of this place with the Tellanihje
of Seetzen, could not learn that it had any other name than
Et-Tell. This, however, proves nothing against the correct
ness of Seetzen's information, since Pococke also1 calls the
place Telouy, where we have to read Telony. Seetzen had, as
has already been observed, sec. 66, a Gaulonitic Bedouin as a
guide, whilst Bobinson's companions conversed only with the
Gwarineh, who had not long before immigrated from Egypt.
Among the primitive occupants of the Jolan alone is a genuine
tradition regarding the environs of the Sea of Gennesareth to
be looked for. Seetzen drew from the right source. The
information he gives us is the more valuable, because he had
no theory to support by means of the name he had discovered,
and thus was not likely by incautious questioning to call forth
an erroneous answer. He, like Bobinson, mistook the place
for Bethsaida-Julias. The Arabs often substitute the name
Tell, hill, for the ancient Beth ; Tell Anihje is Beth Anihje, or
Bethania, the place beyond the Jordan where John was bap
tizing ; it lies near the ford of the Jordan, thus complying
with the conditions of our text; it is, moreover, the only
possible place on the farther shore whence Jesus could reach
Cana of Galilee in one day.2 In Matt. xix. 1 it is said,
Jesus departed from Galilee, and entered the confines of Judea
beyond Jordan. In the parallel passage, John x. 40, it is
said : "And Jesus went away again beyond Jordan, into the
place where John at first was baptizing." Now John was
first baptizing at Bethania beyond Jordan — the place lay, con
sequently, on the farther side of Jordan, i.e. in the Jolan, where
in reality Tellanihje lies. With regard to the accuracy of
our conclusion respecting the site, there can therefore be no
doubt. Sec. 71. Bethsaida-Julias. — Josephus3 relates that the
tetrarch Philip had, not long after a.d. 6, built Paneas at the
1 Pococke, ii. p. 106. 2 John i. 44, ii. 1. 3 Antiq. xviii. 2, sec. 1.

94 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
sources of the Jordan, and called it Cozsarea ; that he had,
moreover, at the same time raised Bethsaida, on the Sea of
Gennesareth, formerly a village, to the rank of a city, pro
vided it with many inhabitants and much grandeur, and
conferred upon it the name of the daughter of Csesar, Julia.
According to de Bello, ii. 9, sec. 1, the town of Julias was in
Lower Gaulonitis. On passing Julias — pteTa iroXtv 'IovXtdBa 1
— the Jordan divides in its course the Sea of Gennesareth
into two equal parts. Julias marked the western boundary
of the kingdom of Agrippa, as Arpha did its eastern.2 That
this town was situated on the shore of the Sea of Gennesareth
is testified also by Pliny : 3 Jordanis amnis ... in lacum se
fundit, quern plures Genesaram vocant, xvi. m. passuum longi-
tudinis, vi. m. latitudinis, amcenis circumseptum oppidis : ab
oriente Juliade et Hippo, a meridie Tarichsea, ab occidente
Tiberiade. That no doubt may yet remain as to the trans-
Jordanic locality of this place, we adduce also the testimony
of Jerome, who says : 4 Philippus ... ex nomine filise ejus
(Csesaris) Juliadem trans Jordanem exstruxit. If, then, Ptolemy6
enumerates Juhas among the cities of Galilee, this represen
tation must be regarded as erroneous. Yet upon this evidence ,
alone H. de Saulcy proceeds to deny the existence of a town
Julias on the east side of the Jordan, and consequently also
to identify a trans-Jordanic Bethsaida-Julias with Tell-Hum.6
This hypothesis is contrary to all the texts. The trans-
Jordanic, Gaulonitic Bethsaida is often mentioned in the New
Testament, especially in the account of the feeding of the five
thousand. What, then, was the position of this place ? The
great majority of the geographers, Pococke, Von Baumer,
Bobinson, and others, place Julias at Et-Tell. We have
already seen that these ruins rather mark the site of Bethania
beyond Jordan. This position, moreover, is in contradiction
with the above-mentioned authorities ; for Et-Tell does not
he, as Pliny says of Juhas, at the eastern side of the lake,
neither does it lie, as Josephus tells us of Bethsaida, imme-
i De Bello, iii. 10, sec. 7. 2 De Belh, iii. 3, sec. 5. 3 H. N. v. 15.
4 Ad Matth. xvi. 5 Tab. iv. Asise.
8 [For an ingenious but inconclusive argument in favour of the identity of
Bethsaida-Julias with Bethsaida of Galilee, cf. Thomson, The Land and the
Book, pp. 373, 374.]

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 95
diately at the point of the influx of the Jordan into the lake.
Seetzen places on his map a castle of Szeida, " Schloss Szeida,"
to the south-east of the mouth of the Jordan, at about the
point where other maps have Aradsh or Mesadijeh. We have
above indicated why we give the preference to the discoveries
of Seetzen, on account of the better knowledge of his Gaulonitio
guide. We regard " Schloss Szeida " as authentic, the more
so because Seetzen makes no use of his discovery, but connects
Bethsaida-Julias with Tellanihje. Unfortunately, Seetzen's
text affords us no help here. Bobinson had pitched his tent 1
ten minutes' walk to the north of the mouth of the Jordan.
Below the tent, near to the lake, his companions crossed the
river — he himself being confined to his tent by sickness —
and reached in five minutes, in a direction S. 40° E., the
ruins of a village of moderate dimensions, called El-A'raj,
which consisted entirely of unhewn volcanic stones. The
only thing here observable belonging to antiquity was a small
sarcophagus of the same material. Proceeding in the same
direction along the coast, they came, in twenty minutes after
crossing the Jordan, upon Mes'adiyeh, a village in ruins.
These details show, and de Bertou's map confirms the fact,
that Bobinson has placed Mes'adiyeh (which is in reality
about fifteen minutes' distance from the mouth of the Jordan)
much too far to the south. El-A'raj lies a httle above the
mouth of the river, and Mesadiyeh — or, as it is written
by de Bertou, Maschadieh — opposite to the point at which
the Jordan enters the lake. This latter name, Mesadiyeh,
Mashadieh, is related to Szaida, and seems to be only a
corruption of this last. This place we take to be Bethsaida-
Julias. On the lake, the northern part of which abounds
with fish, and net on the Jordan, must the " House of Fish "
be looked for. Mesadiyeh, or Seetzen's Szaida, lies on the
east side of the lake ; 2 in accordance with the expression of
Josephus, " the Jordan, after (passing) Juhas, cleaves the lake
of Gennesareth in the midst." 3 A camp pitched in the
1 [On the western bank of the Jordan.] Palestine, ii. 410.
2 [Where Thomson, too, knows of a Khirbet Saida (" Ruins of Saida "), but
not of a Beit Saida ; Land and Book, p. 366. ]
3 De Bello, iii. 10, sec. 7 J /(£Ta <xoXiv 'iov*.ia$oi iiixri/tvit (o 'lopZurn;) rhv Viyvtirxa
jiXsni.

96 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
vicinity of the Jordan might very well be only a stadium
distant from this Julias.1 It may, indeed, seem surprising
that of such a city only insignificant ruins should have
remained. Yet we must observe that Bobinson's companions
are the only travellers who have explored these ruins ; how
superficially these explorations were conducted, is evident from
the fact that they traversed El-Batiheh in all directions within
the space of three hours without anywhere making a stay. It
is reserved to future travellers more thoroughly to examine
this region, of so great importance in connection with the
study of New Testament history.
Sec. 72. Decapolis. — This region is mentioned Matt. iv. 25 ;
Mark v. 20, vii. 31. Decapohs was a confederacy of Gentile
cities existing on Israehtish soil. On the nature of their
mutual connection, which in any case was a loose one, we are
left in uncertainty ; and just as little is it possible to determine
with certainty what towns belonged to this league, since the
various ancient geographers differ to some extent in regard to
their names. Their number was probably not always the
same, and at any rate not always confined to ten. Pliny
says 2 that the names of the single towns of the Decapohs
were differently given, but that according to the general view
the following towns belonged to it : Damascus, Philadelphia,
Baphana, Scythopolis, Gadara on the Hieromax, Hippos, Dion,
Pella, abounding in water, Gelasa, Canatha. Ptolemy enume
rates as the cities of the Syrian Decapolis 3 the following :
Abila Lysanion, Saana, Ina, Damascus, Samulis, Abida, Hippos,
Capitolias, Gadara, Adra, Scythopolis, Gerasa, Pella, Dion,
Gadora, Philadelphia, Kanatha. Josephus nowhere gives an
enumeration of the towns belonging to the Decapohs ; he
mentions, however, single ones as belonging to this league —
Scythopolis,4 Philadelphia,6 Gadara, and Hippos.6 Some of
the towns mentioned lie scattered about, or forming lit.tle
separate groups, such as Abila, Damascus, Canatha ; others
are still undiscovered, as Saana, Ina, Samuhs. The rest form
1 Josephus, Vita, 72. * H. N. v. 16.
3 Ko/xjis tii/Ui Aixxtrixsas mXus, v. 15 ; Tab. iv. Asia ; cf. Reland, Palcest.
p. 456.
4 De Bello, iii. 9, sec. 7. 6 Ibid. iii. 18, sec. 1. 6 Vita, 65. 74.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 9 7
a large connected group, spread on both banks of the Hieromax,
and forming the region of the Decapohs proper. These are
Scythopolis, Hippos, Gadara, Adra, Eaphana, Capitolias, Pella,
Dion, Gerasa, and Philadelphia, which will now further
occupy us.
(a) Scythopolis, the only one of the Decapolitan towns
which lies to the west of the Jordan. In the Old Testament
it is called Bethshan,1 now Beisan or Bisan, and lies about 12
miles south from Tiberias, and 6 miles west of the Jordan, in
the Ghor. Its domain abutted on that of Gadara and of
Hippos.2 (b) Hippos, called by the Talmudists Susitha. It was
situated beyond Jordan,3 30 stadia from Tiberias,4 near to
Apheka, the Pik of the present day.6 This Fik lies opposite
Tiberias, upon the high ground, at the upper end of the Wady
Fik. About a couple of miles to the west of this place is-
El-Hoesnn,6 which word signifies " Horse." Hippos and
Susitha have the same meaning, from which we infer the
identity of place. Between El-Hoesnn and the southern
extremity of the lake, Burckhardt indicates a ruin, Tell-Hun.7
In Bitter, the place is called Kalaat El-Husn.8 This coinci
dence between Susitha and El-Husn or Hun is too striking
for us to be able to overlook it. In Gen. xiv. 5 it is said :
" There came Cadorlaomer and the kings that were with him,
and smote the Bephaim at Ashteroth-Kamaim, and the Susim
at Ham." Ashteroth lay to the north of the Hieromax, and
in the same tract of ground we must look for Susim. In it
we really find Susitha, which reminds of Susim, and Hun,
which reminds of Ham — the more so since in the Targum
Ham, on, is always represented by Hun, )in. The fact that
Susim is written DW, while Susitha is written XIT'DID, proves
nothing against the identity, since the orthography of the
rabbis is arbitrary and without fixed rules. Thus in Jerus.
Demai, foL 22. 4, in the description of the tithe-boundaries
there stands nrfDlD, and in the repetition of this description in
1 Judg. i. 27 (LXX.) ; Judith iii. 11 ; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8, sec. 5.
2 Josephus, Vita, 9. 3 Vita, 31. 4 Vita, 65.
5 Onomasticon, art. "Apheca." 6 Burckhardt, p. 437.
7 Burckhardt, p. 437. * Ritter, ii. 281.
G

98 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
Tosaphtha Shibiith l there stands nnws. According to Jerus.
Shibiith, fol. 36. 3, Susitha was the land of Tob, Judg. xi. 3.
(c) Gadara, the chief town of the land of the Gadarenes —
TaBapyvwv, of whom mention is made in Matt. viii. 28. This
town was situated, according to Pliny, on the Hieromax.2 It
belonged to Decapolis, and was the metropolis of Persea.3 Its
distance was 60 stades from Tiberias,4 and 16 miles from
Scythopolis.6 Answering pretty nearly to these points in the
description, and therefore generally taken for Gadara, are the
important ruins of Mkes,6 or Om-keis,7 [or Um-Keis].8 The
place lies on a mountain, on the southern side of the Mandhur,
the Hieromax of the Greeks, the Jarmuk of the Talmudists.
The valley of this river is, at Um-Keis, an immense ravine, in
which are to be found the celebrated thermal springs of
Gadara. According to Seetzen, Um-Keis is separated by the
Wady El- Arab from an adjacent ridge, on which lies the
great inhabited cave of Jedur. This name is the modern
form of Gedor, or Gadara.
(d) Adraa, the ancient Edrei, the capital of the kingdom
of Bashan,9 now called Draa or Dera, on the Upper Mandhur.10
According to the Tab. Peuting., Adraa is distant from Bostra
24 miles ; from Capitolias, 16 miles ; from Gadara, 32 miles.
In the Onomasticon the distance from Bostra is given as 25
miles. These distances show that the position of this place
on Bobinson's and Van de Velde's maps is incorrectly given.
(e) Baphana. — This town, reckoned by Pliny as belonging
to the Decapolis, is certainly the Baphon mentioned 1 Mace. v.
Timotheus, it is there said, ver. 3 7, encamped against Baphon,
1 Ugolini, Thes. xx. p. 223. 2 Gadara, Hieromace prsefluente, v. 16.
3 Josephus, de Belh, iv. 7, sec. 3. [It was situated "above [the Lower]
Jordan, opposite Scythopolis and Tiberias, and to the east of them " (Eusebius,
Onomasticon). Gadara was, as is indicated by the etymology of the name
(rmi)i a fortified place. Cf. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13, sec. 3. It was rendered
yet stronger by its position, 1 3, sec. 5. This town would seem, from Matt. viii. 28,
to have given its name to all the inhabitants of the district as far north as the
Wady Semakh. — The name Jedur is still given to a large part of the Hauran
territory east of Um Keis, and upon the north bank of the Mandhur. Ritter,
Palestine, ii. 302.]
4 Vita, 65. According to Tab. Peuting. 16 miles [i.e. by land].
5 Itiner. hieros. 6 Seetzen, i. p. 368. 7 Burckhardt, p. 426.
8 Thomson, The Land and the Book, pp. 376-378.
3 Num. xxi. 33 ; Deut. i. 4, iii. 10 ; Josh. xii. 4. 10 Burckhardt, p. 385.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 9 9
beyond the brook, i.e. the Mandhur, because the writer had
before (ver. 36) been speaking of Bosor, i.e. Bostra. Judas
passed over the brook and defeated the Gentiles, who were
commanded by Timotheus. These fled to the temple of
Karnaim. The Jews burned the temple, with all that were
in it (vers. 42-44). Baphon, or Baphana, was thus in the
vicinity of Karnaim. Now, Eusebius says in the Onomasticon :
" Astaroth, an ancient town of Og, king in Basan, in which
the giants (Bephaim) dwelt. It lies 6 miles from Adar
(Edrei), which again is 2 5 miles from Bostra ; farther up lies
Astaroth Karnaim." Of Ashtaroth Karnaim he says : " The
land of the giants, whom Kador-Laomer defeated. To this
day there are two villages of this name in Batanaaa and
Batulua (?), distant 9 miles from each other, between Adra and
Abila." Now, 6 miles from Adra is the present Mezarib, and
distant 9 miles from this is Tel-Ashtereh. These two places
are consequently the two Ashteroth — towns of the giants, i.e.
of the Bephaim — of which one acquired the name of Baphon,
after all only a later form of Bephaim.1 This name is, how
ever, seen to be preserved in Mezarib, when written Mezar-
Bib or Bif, a name signifying " the sepulchre of the Bephaim."
(/) Capitolias. — This town was situated, according to the
Tab. Beuting., midway between Adraa and Gadara, and distant
from each of these towns 16 miles. This distance of 16
miles from Capitohas to Adraa and Gadara is twice repeated
in the Itiner. Antonini. Now, at the distance indicated
between these two towns he the ruins of B§t er-B§,s ; thus it
is shown on Seetzen's map and in his text.2 This place must
be Capitolias, the more so since its present name signifies
Domus Capitis. Von Baumer,3 misled by the erroneous sup
position that the ancient road from Damascus to Gadara
crosses the Mandhur near to its egress from the mountain,
where it forms an impassable ravine, places Capitolias at
Tseil, near to Nava ; because, according to the Ltin. Antonini,
the road from Damascus had the following course : From
Damascus to iEre, 3 2 miles ; thence to Neve, 3 0 miles ;
Neve to Capitolias, 36 miles; thence to Gadara, 16 miles.
But he is obliged — and this in itself is fatal to his hypothesis
1 VttSTIt Gen. xiv. 5. * Seetzen, i. 371. 3 Palest. 246.

100 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
— to change the distance of 36 miles there given, between
Neve and Capitolias, into 6 miles. The road from Damascus
to Gadara, on the contrary, crossed the Mandhur near Adraa,
and then struck off in a westerly direction to Gadara, along
the southern bank of the Mandhur. On this southern side,
consequently, lay Capitohas also.1
(g) Philadelphia.- — This is the Greek name of Babbath-
Ammon, Deut. hi. 11 ; 2 Sam. xi. 14, xii. 31. It is now
called Amman, and possesses magnificent ruins.2 It is situated
on the Nahr 'Amman, i.e. the Upper Jabbok.
(h) Gerasa. — In the Old Testament this name does not
occur. In the present day the place is still called Jerash.
It lies 40 miles north of Ammon, and contains ruins of con
siderable extent. Some mss. of Matt. viii. 28, Mark v. 1,
Luke viii. 26, have Vepaayv&v — Gerasenes, for Gadarenes or
Gergesenes, as other mss. have it. If this is the correct
reading [as it is, so far as Luke's Gospel is concerned, the best
supported one], then the term Gerasenes must be taken in
the general sense of " inhabitants of the Decapolis." It is
possible that, at the time of Christ, Gerasa was the metro
polis of Decapolis [situated about 12 miles north of the
Lower Jabbok]. Gerasa itself is upwards of 5 0 miles distant
from the lake whose shore is the scene of the events narrated
in the passages cited from the Gospels.3 [The reading Gerge
senes is adopted by Alford in the text of Mark. According to
Josephus, Antiq. i. 6, sec. 2, the name only of the ancient
Tepyecralot of Scripture (Gen. xv. 21 ; Deut. vii. 1 ; Josh.
xxiv. 11, LXX.) existed in his day.4 Origen, however, asserts
1 The Tabula Peutingeriana knows no direct route from Damascus to Gadara,
but traces that from Damascus to Capitolias. The Itinerarium Antonini has :
Damascus, 32 m. ; Aere, 30 m. ; Neve, 36 m. ; Capitoliade, 16 m. — Gadara.
The Roman route thus passed to the east. The descent from Fik into the gorge
of the Hieromax was never a via Bomana.
2 [For a plan of these ruins, cf. Bsedecker, p. 319 ; for those of Jerash, p. 408.
For a description of the ruins of 'Amman, see Tristram, pp. 550-554 ; for a
description of those of Jerash, pp. 565, 566.]
3 [Since the above was written, the author has come to identify the Kersa
visited by Dr. Thomson with the Gerasa or Gergesa of the Gospels. It is opposite
the plain of Gennesareth, and near the point at which the Wady es-Samakh enters
the lake. Cf. Tlie Land and the Book, pp. 377, 378.]
4 Cf. Meyer on Matt. viii. 28.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 101
there was an ancient town of that name still existing near the
lake. This might be the Gerasa of Luke.]
(t) Dion. — Josephus relates that this city was captured by
Alexander Jannseus,1 and that the towns of Hippos, Scythopohs,
Pella, and Dion were restored by Pompey to their original
Gentile inhabitants.2 Dion was proverbial for its unwhole
some water.'3 In an epigram it reads :
N«,«« to Amvov yTwKipou ncoroi/, &» to Ss iritis
Iloewjj ftsv Si'^ijj, tv&i/ SI x.a] fiiorov.
Dion's fountain yields a sweet draught ; but, when you drink it,
Quenches for ever the thirst, and soon the life with it.
Now Burckhardt, p. 399, copied at Suf, near Jerash (Gerasa),
a fragment of an inscription found by him on a broken stone
in the water at the fountain Ain Keikebe, which was as
follows: AlflNTOIAP. ANETTEPIACX . . . TETEI
TMOT. These barbaric-Greek words are intended to say,
AIBN TO TAPov . . . ANETTEPIAC TETEI HMOT.—
" The water (of) Dion delivers from old age, and gives you to
drink at once (refreshment and death)."
Dion is thus to be recognised in Suf, a village lying four
or five miles NNW. of Jerash ; and Ain Keikebe is Dion's
poisonous spring.
(k) Pella. — This town is of importance for the Christian
investigator ; not only because its position more nearly defined
the territory of the Ten Tribes, but also because it was the
place of refuge for the early Christian Church of Jerusalem,
during the siege and after the destruction of the mother city.
In the Onomasticon we read: iEmath, urbs quas cecidit in
sortem Euben. Sed nunc Amathus villa dicitur trans Jordanem
in XXI"10 lapide Pellse ad meridiem. Amathus lay 21 miles
south of Pella. Beyond Jordan there were two places which
bore the name of Amath ; that is to say, the warm springs of
Gadara, in the ravine of the Mandhur; and a town of this name,
which Josephus speaks of as the principal fortress beyond
Jordan.4 To this last correspond the ruins of Amata, two to
1 Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15, sec. 3. 2 Ibid. xiv. 4, sec. 4.
3 jjV Simp ma-spot, Steph. Byz.
4 De Bello, i. 4, sec. 2 ; Antiq. xiii. 13, sec. 3 ; cf. xiv, 5, sec. 4 ; xvii. 10,
sec. 6; de Bello, i. 8, sec. 5.

102 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
three miles north of the entrance of the Zerka or Jabbok into
the Ghor. This place is the one intended in the passage
cited from the Onomasticon ; for Pella, according to de Bello,
iii. 3, sec. 3, marked the northern boundary of Persea. Now,
this province lay to the south of the Mandhur. Pella could
not, consequently, be 21 miles north of the Amath in the
ravine of the Mandhur. Ptolemy thus determines the position
of Pella: latitude 67f, longitude 3 If-. Scythopolis has,
according to the same geographer, a longitude of 67^-, and a
latitude of 31^-, -g-, ^. The diagonal gives a distance of 30
miles from Scythopolis to Pella. If now we take a radius of
30 miles from Bisan, and another of 21 miles from Amatha,
at the point at which they intersect each other, there will be
found on any good map — that of Baumer, for example — a
place Erbad or Irbid. Erbad, or a place near to it, is conse
quently Pella. It is further said in the Onomasticon, art.
" Asiroth : " " Jabis trans Jordanem ... a civitate Pella 6
mill, distans." And, art. "Jabis": "Jabis Galaad . . . nunc
autem est vicus trans Jordanem in sexto milliario civitatis
Pella, super montem, euntibus Gerasam." Jabesh itself has
not yet been discovered ; but a Wady Jabes, 14 miles north
of Amata, still recalls to our mind the name of this town in
which Saul and Jonathan were buried. Since it was situated
" upon the mountain," it must necessarily be sought on the
upper eastern opening of the valley of this name. The ob
jection that Jabesh was in that case too far distant from
Bethshan for all that is related, 1 Sam. xxxi. 3-13, to have
been accomplished in a night, is without foundation ; since,
according to the text, only the departure took place on that
night, and Josephus1 characterizes this deed as the perilous
feat of specially strong and daring men. According to
Seetzen's map, Erbad is in reality situated about 6 miles
north of the upper eastern opening of the Jabesh valley, in
which we look for the town of this name. This lay upon the
route which united Pella with Gerasa. Bobinson, Von Baumer,
Van de Velde, and others, believe they have discovered Pella
in Tabakat-Fuhil, five hours' distance northward from Amata.
But Tabakat-Fuhil is distant from Amata, not 21, but 14
1 Antiq. vi. 14, sec. 8.

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 103
miles, and from Bethshan not 30, but 10 miles. Further,
this place could never have formed the northern boundary of
Persea, if — as Josephus expressly asserts — Gadara, situated a
few miles to the north of it, was the metropolis of Persea.
The said geographers have also forgotten to explain how a
route passing from Fuhil to Gerasa would be continued over
the ravines of the intervening wadys. Stephen of Byzantium
says that Pella was formerly called Butis, IleXXa . . . y
BovTts Xeyoptevy. Now in the Jerus. Aboda Zara, mention is
made of three celebrated market towns: Gaza, Acco, and
Butneh, roma. That this last place, however, is Butis-Pella,
is placed beyond doubt by the following considerations : —
Seetzen says x that the tract between the Mandhur and the
Wady Jabes is called El-Bothin, a name which agrees with
Butneh and Butis, and one in which Irbid 2 or Erbad is to be
recognised. He further says that the wady, on the edge of
which lies Draa (Adraa), is called the Wady Middan. Now
Middan signifies " market," or " fair." William of Tyre3
describes an expedition of the Crusaders from Tiberias against
Damascus. The army advanced through the Cavea Bob, and
came upon the plain of Medan, a wide level tract, with an
open prospect. This plain is intersected by the Biver Dan,
which enters the Jordan between Tiberias and Scythopolis.
This Biver Dan is evidently the Mandhur ; the name owes its
origin to a false etymology adopted on the part of the
Crusaders, inasmuch as they derived the name of the Wady Mid
dan from Me-Dan, " waters of Dan." We find, moreover, that
the Wady Middan of Seetzen is represented by Van de Velde
as Wady Dan. The plain of Medan corresponds to Seetzen's
Bothin. The same William of Tyre afterwards describes a
second expedition,4 which set out from Tiberias, and pene
trated through Cavea Bob, over the plain of Medan, as far as
Adratum (Adraa, Edrei). There can thus no longer exist any
doubt as to the position, because it lies between Tiberias and
Edrei, on the river which flows into the Jordan between
Tiberias and Scythopolis. Now, Sanutus says,5 that in the
1 Seetzen, i. 394.
2 [Irbid is placed by Robinson at 32° 40' N. and 36° E.]
3 Gesta Dei, i. 843. 4 Ibid. i. 895. 5 Gesta Dei, ii. 247.

104 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
plain of Medan the Saracens yearly held a fair of particular
magnificence. This perfectly answers to the requirements of
the passage from the Talmud above adduced, and to the true
etymology of the word Middan. But since he, too, like his
predecessor William of Tyre, derived the word from M^-Dan,
and knew that the ancient Dan lay to the north of the Huleh
lake, he erroneously placed the scene of this fair of the
Saracens upon the eastern shore of the Huleh, where to the
present day many maps, e.g. that of Baumer, indicate a plain
of Midan, when William of Tyre ought surely to have taught
them better. The market was held in El-Bothin, the Batneh
of the Talmud, the Boutis-Pella of Steph. Byzantinus. If it
is then a question of more nearly defining the position of
Pella, it must, first of all, be observed that this name no
longer exists. It is a known fact that most of the ap
pellations bestowed by the Greeks and Bomans upon towns
in the East disappeared again, and gave place to the earlier
names. Pella is a Macedonian name, of which we cannot
expect to find a trace in the present day. If, however, we
inquire in those regions for the name Butis, we are embar
rassed by the too great plenty. Seetzen found in the neigh
bourhood of Irbid, in El-Bothin, a brook — Ain Beda — which
flows in a deep valley, and forms many foaming waterfalls :
also a village of Beda.1 Now the name Irbid or Erbad seems
to us to come from 'Vy, city, and la or ca ; 'so that the original
name was t3a_T,y, Ir-Bat = Boutis-Pella. Since Pliny speaks
of Pellam, aquis divitem, an abundance of water must be shown
to exist at Irbid. But it has been proved in the present day
that the great aqueduct, Kanatir-Pir'aun, was carried past
Irbid ; it is possible also that the waters of Ain Beda, which
now flow unused into the valley, at one time supplied this
town. Buckingham found there a reservoir comparable to the
pools of Solomon at Etam.2
1 i. p. 383 ff.
2 Ritter, Erdk. xv. 1064. [Bsedecker's Handbuch, pp. 421, 423, places this
reservoir on the route from Mezarib to Bozrah. " In the depression of the valley
lies a great reservoir, of 160 paces in length, 65 in width, and about 6 metres
[19J feet] in depth. It is supplied by an aqueduct coming from the north,
which is called Kandtir Fir'aun (Pharaoh's arches). The Kandtir Fir'aun are
a gigantic work. This channel has a length of 60 miles ; all inequalities in the

THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS. 105
(Pj The region of Decapohs, mentioned in the New Testa
ment, thus lay on both sides of the Mandhur. It abutted on
the Lake of Gennesareth, from the Wady-Semakh — which
formed the southern boundary of Gaulonitis, or Judah of the
Jordan — to the southern end of the lake.
Sec. 73. Magadan. — The miraculous feeding of the four
thousand took place beyond the Sea of Galilee.1 After working
this miracle, Jesus entered the ship and departed into the con
fines of Magadan.2 The Beceived Text has, instead of this name,
that of Magdala. The reading Magadan, however, is proved to
be the true one ; because it is found in the Codex Sinaiticus,
B Vaticanus, D Cantabrigiensis, and in the ancient translations,
namely, the Peshito, Syriaca Hieros., Persica, etc. It is easily
explicable how, in place of the unknown name Magadan, the
well-known name Magdala was introduced into the manuscripts
by conjecture; but it would be inexplicable how this well-known
name should be replaced by an unknown one. Magadan is
consequently the correct reading. Van de Velde indicates
upon his map a Wady Madshideh, to the west of Bisan, — the
ancient Scythopohs, — which runs down from the south side
of Mount Gilboa, the present Jebel Fakua, into the Ghor.
On the lower part of this wady, Schultz3 found considerable
ruins of black basalt rock, bearing the name of Mudshiddaah,
or, as Van de Velde writes it, Khan Madshideh. This name
is clearly one with Magadan, or Magado, as it is given in
the Peshito. The region of Magadan, ra opta MayaBdv, is
thus the western domain of Scythopohs, or the " region of the
Ten Cities," on this side Jordan. Christ had withdrawn from
the Pharisees — first into the Phoenician territory, then into
the trans-Jordanic land near Julias, where the second miracu
lous feeding of the multitude had taken place. Thence He
ground being spanned over by arches." On the abundance of water in the
neighbourhood, cf. Ritter, ii. p. 300.]
1 Matt. xv. 29. ' 2 «« ™ opia. Mxya.'Sx», Matt. xv. 39.
3 Ritter, ii. 337. [Robinson says, iii. 314 : " About two hours south of
Beis&n, at the foot of the same mountains (sc. Gilboa), is also a fountain and the
ruin of Mujedda'." Robinson supposes the Wady Mujedda' of Schultz to be
probably another name for the Wady K&bdsh. Otherwise it would be only a
small wady. Thomson places on his map a Wady Mujeidah immediately to the
south of Beisan.]

106 THE SEA OF GENNESARETH AND ITS ENVIRONS.
returned, not almost into the midst of His enemies, to Magdala,
but into the Scythopolitan domain, to Magadan.1
Sec. 74. Dalmanutha. — Where Matthew says that Jesus
went into the confines of Magadan, Mark viii. 1 0 has : He
went into the region of Dalmanutha — yX6ev els t« ptepy
AaXptavovdd. Some 12 miles to the south of the Sea of
Gennesareth, on the eastern bank of the Jordan, hes a village,
the name of which Lynch writes Delhemiyeh,2 as it is also
given on Bobinson's and Van de Velde's maps. If we strike
off from the root of the name Dalmanutha the Aramsean ter
mination — ordinarily Nfi, but also often ru, or lengthened :
Nnr, nm; xriti" — there remains as the name itself, Dalma,
which is one with Delamiyeh. This place, too, like Magadan,
lies in the Decapolitan Ghor. Since, then, Matthew does not
say that Jesus repaired to the town Magadan, but into the dis
trict belonging to it ; and Mark, in hke manner, does not speak
of the township, but of the region of Dalmanutha, as the place
of retreat of Jesus, — these Evangehsts are not in contradiction
with each other ; the less so, since Jesus there too, as was His
wont elsewhere, did not remain domiciled in one place, but
journeyed throughout the region. They tell us He repaired to
the Decapolitan Ghor ; where He remained, now on this side of
the Jordan, now on that, near Mudshideh and near Delamiyeh.
1 Matt. xv. 21, 29, 39.
2 Ritter, ii. 296. [Robinson, ii. 387, who did not visit it, places Delhemiyeh
about half a mile above the mouth of the Mandhur. So Baedecker, 353, who
calls it Delhabiye. At this point it would be only four or five miles from the
lake. ]

FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST. 107

DIVISION IV
THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST : FROM THE
BEGINNING OF HIS MINISTRY TO THE DEATH OF JOHN THE
BAPTIST, A.U.C. 781, A.D. 28.
Sec. 75. Synopsis of the Four Gospels.— Before we enter on
the attempt to present chronologically and geographically the
life and labours of Jesus Christ in time and space, we must
give some explanation as to the mutual relationship of the
sources whence we have to draw the historical material.
The Gospel of Mark appears to us by no means to be, as
has long been asserted, a meagre epitome drawn from the first
and third Gospels ; but an original work, composed by Mark
under the personal oversight of the Apostle Peter, and de
scribing the labours of Christ during the last year of His
life, so far as Peter was personally an eye-witness thereof.
It is an error fatal to the right understanding of the Gospel
history, to take one's start from the presupposition that all
the Apostles were wont, during the whole period of the public
ministry of Christ, from beginning to end, constantly and
everywhere to accompany the Lord. This is true, with im
portant exceptions, only of the last year, but by no means
of the earlier period. Each of the Apostles returned, after an
often brief intercourse with Jesus, again to his town and to
his social calling. Peter, in particular, followed the Lord
when He was in Galilee, and remained in Bethsaida when
Jesus repaired to Judea; for to Jerusalem he accompanied
Him only at the last Passover. Since, then, he related to his
companion and assistant, Mark, only that which he had seen
and heard, the scene of the events narrated by this Evangelist
must necessarily be confined to Galilee. So soon as we
regard the Gospel of Mark as an original work, we can explain

108 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
its relation to the Gospel of Matthew only on the supposition
that the author of this latter took Mark's Gospel as the basis
and framework within which to group his own collection of
the discourses of Jesus. This might well be the case, since
Matthew was in the same position with Peter, and hke him,
followed Jesus only in Gahlee. Luke, who wrote later, would
take these two previous works, which rested on apostohc
authority, as the basis of his own history ; but at the same
time would enlarge, where it was necessary, the framework too
narrow for the material he had collected. The Apostle John,
on the other hand, was of Jerusalem, where he was known,
and had his own house ;J he first became acquainted with the
Saviour at the Sea of Gennesareth, then accompanied Him to
Jerusalem, and there remained and dwelt, accompanying Jesus
only when He was in Judea. Thus is the fact perfectly ex
plained, that the narratives of this Evangelist — who relates
only what he has himself seen and heard — have almost ex
clusively Judea as their scene. The life of Christ is nothing
better than one-sided and fragmentary, so long as we confine
ourselves either to the Synoptics or to John. We obtain a har
monious whole, only when we allow these sources to blend the one
with the other. The great thing is to find the certain points
of connection between them. The Four Evangehsts agree in
making the public ministry of Christ begin from the baptism
of John. Then each one goes his way, until all meet together
again in the account — common to them all — of the miraculous
feeding of the five thousand. From this point they deviate
from each other again, until they all meet once more in the
history of the Lord's passion, which all record in common.
These points at which the Pour Evangehsts meet, designate at
the same time important chronological epochs in the life of
Jesus. Prom John2 we learn that the Lord's entry on His pub
lic ministry took place shortly before a Passover; and, from the
same Evangelist,3 that the feeding of the five thousand likewise
took place at the time of Passover. From this it follows that
the events occurring between the baptism and the feeding of the
five thousand occupy a year ; and that another year separates
this miraculous feeding from the crucifixion of the Lord.
1 John xviii. 15, xix. 27. 2 John ii. 13. * John vi. 4.

FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.

109

The present chapter is devoted to the first year of the
public ministry of Christ. As regards the material to be
arranged within this year, the history of John the Baptist
affords us some valuable data from which to form a synoptical
view. All that the two first Gospels relate of Jesus after the
Temptation — all, consequently, that follows Matt. iv. 12,
Mark i. 14 — took place after the imprisonment of the Baptist ;
and from Matt. xiv. 1, Mark vi. 16 onwards, events are referred
to which took place after the execution of the Baptist. John,
again, begins his account earlier. In John iii. 22-iv. 1, the
Baptist was still at hberty; in John v. 35, 36, on the other
hand, the Lord speaks of him as one who " was," whose
labour was brought to a close, either by his imprisonment or
by his untimely death. From this it follows that all that is
related in John previous to the events of John v. 1, must be
inserted before Matt. xiv. 1 and Mark vi. 16. In the Gospel
of Luke, the whole history of the Baptist is completed in
chap. hi. 1-22. No mention, therefore, is made in the later
context of the imprisonment of John, although it is presup
posed in chap. vii. 18-35. How much of that related, Luke
iv. 14— vii. 17, precedes the imprisonment of the Baptist, will
be matter for subsequent inquiry. In Luke ix. 7 the execution
is presupposed ; consequently what follows belongs to the time
after John's death.
The first year of the public ministry of Christ comprehends
thus the following synoptical rubrics : —

From the arisiDg of

Matt.

Makk.

Luke.

John.

John the Baptist
to the baptism of
Christ, .
iii. 1-17.
i. 1-11.
iii. 1-22.
i. 1-33.
From the baptism of
Christ to the begin
ning of His public
ministry,
iv. 1-11.
i. 12, 13.
iv. 1-13.
i. 19-28.
From the beginning
of Christ's ministry
to the imprisonment
of the Baptist,
...
...
iv. 14^vii, 17.
i. 29-iv. 54.
From the imprison
ment of John to his
death,
iv. 12-xiii. 58.
i. 14-vi. 14.
vii. 17-ix. 6.
v. 1-47.
From the death of the
Baptist to the feed
ing of the Five
Thousand,
xiv. 1-13.
vi. 14-31.
ix. 7-11.
vi. 1-4.
110 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.

I. — T/ie Baptism of our Lord.
Sec. 76. That John the Baptist was born at the beginning
of the year A.c. 2, year of Bome 752, and that Khirbet el-
Jehud in the Wady Bettir was his birthplace, has already
(sees. 40-42) been shown to be probable. With regard to
his childhood and youth, it is related : " The child grew, and
waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day
of his showing unto Israel." x These deserts are not more
nearly indicated. It is known that the tradition of the monks
speaks of a definite place of the land of Judea as " the desert
of John," and points it out as the solitude in which the Bap
tist spent his youth. This so-called wilderness lies near to
'Ain-Karim [Fountain of the Vineyard], some six miles west of
Jerusalem, and is one of the fairest and most fertile regions of
culture in all Judea.2 Thereby this tradition is, of course,
judged. It is, nevertheless, one deserving of attention, inas
much as it assigns to this same district the birthplace of the
Baptist and the dwelhng of Zacharias ; for this region conse
crated to John lies near to his actual birthplace, Khirbet-el-
Jehud, in the Wady Bettir.
Sec. 77. The beginning of John's ministry, as of that of the
Lord, fell in the loth year of the reign of Tiberius,3 i.e. in
the beginning of the year 28 4 The manner of this arising, as
well as the scene of it, is thus described by Luke, chap. iii. 2,3:
" The word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in
the wilderness. And he came into all the country about
Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance, for the remission
' Luke i. 80. 2 Ritter, iv. 215 ; Bsedecker, p. 289. 3 Luke iii. 1.
* Cf. sec. 32. [For like reasons, since we learn from Acts xiii. 25 that the.
events of Luke iii. 15-18 (cf. iii. 21) belong to a comparatively late period
in the ministry of John, we may infer that the date of the 15th year of
Tiberius has reference not so much to the time when John arose, as to the time
when Christ was baptized by him (sec. 33). With the autumn of the preceding
year, tr.c. 780, a Sabbatic year began (sec. 53). If John's ministry began with
the Sabbatic year, the presence of such great multitudes is easily explained.
This would place the arising of the Baptist nearly six months before the call
of Andrew, Peter, and John (John i. 35-42). The brief ministry of the Baptist
would appear to have been confined to this Sabbatic year ; as he was in all
probability imprisoned in the early summer of a.d. 28, soon after the events of
John iv. 1. See sec. 104.]

THE BAPTISM OF OUR LORD. Ill
of sins." Since it is said, " He came into all the country
about Jordan," it follows that Luke intended to designate not
the place of his first arising, but the whole theatre of all the
public labours of the Baptist. John in reahty, up to the time
of his imprisonment, never forsook the Jordan district, but
continued to baptize in it ; if not always in the Jordan itself,
yet sometimes at one spot, sometimes at another, in the Ghor.
But where did he first arise ? According to the Gospel of
John, this took place at Bethania beyond Jordan, in the
province of Gaulonitis, called " Judea beyond Jordan." 1 The
place is thus given by Matthew, chap. iii. 1 : "In those days
came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea —
iv toj ipyptw Trjs 'IovBaias — and saying, Bepent ye ... " This
wilderness of Judea cannot possibly be the region called in
the Old Testament the " wilderness of Judah," 2 alike because
this latter district is without water, as because it stands in
close connection with the Dead Sea, but nowhere with the
Jordan, in which John baptized, chap. iii. 6. The wilderness of
Judea is nothing else but Judea beyond Jordan, or Gaulonitis ;
in a word, Bethania. The name wilderness was very appro
priately given to this land, since the Jolan is not arable, but
pasture land. Even the glorious fertile plain El-Batiheh is
called a " wilderness ! " 3 John and Matthew are thus in this
respect in perfect harmony ; and the more general expressions
of Mark * and Luke 6 do not at any rate exclude Bethania.
In Bethania John thus began his labours. For the per
formance of the baptismal rite this was unquestionably the
best spot that could be chosen. The Upper Jordan before it
enters the lake has a quiet course, is moderately shallow, and,
on account of its sloping banks, is easily accessible. The
Lower Jordan, on the contrary, flows with a strong current
in a deep valley, clothed with timber and brushwood (which
extends through the whole length of the Ghor), in which the
stream has channelled out its steep-banked bed. This Lower
Jordan is rendered thereby generally inaccessible. Only at
1 John i. 28, a. 40. Cf. Matt. xix. 1 ; and see sec. 70.
2 Josh. xv. 61, 62 ; Judg. i. 16. Cf. Robinson, Palestine, i. p. 466 sqq.
- 3 Matt. xiv. 15. 4 " John did baptize in the wilderness," Mark i. 4.
5 In the whole country about the Jordan, iii. 3.

112 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
the three fords can it be approached. The first of these is to
be found below the point at which the Mandhur enters the
Jordan ; the second, above x the mouth of the Jabbok, is
called Damieh-ford ; the third is in the neighbourhood of
Jericho. The first of these is impossible as the scene of
John's baptism, because it was situated on purely Gentile
territory ; the last is in winter so perilous, on account of the
current, that every year pilgrims bathing there meet with
their death ; and at other seasons is, on account of the tropical
heat, inaccessible to the inhabitants of the Jewish table-land.
The middle ford, Ed-Damieh, by which the route passes from
Nablous to Es-Szalt (Bamoth), is probably the Bethabara
which Origen introduced into the text of the Gospel of John
in place of Bethania. It offers the same perilous depth of
stream and rapidity of current, and is exposed to the same
tropical climate.2 That under such circumstances John
baptized somewhere on the Lower Jordan, is in the highest
degree improbable. What is more, Jewish tradition roundly
declares the Lower Jordan to be unclean for the purposes of
lustration.3 In the passage cited it is true the Jordan in
general, and not the Lower Jordan, is mentioned ; but, accord
ing to Tosaphtha Berachoth, vii. 2, it is expressly said that the
name Jordan applies only to the lower part of the stream.
This is an error, no doubt, but nevertheless it serves to explain
that tradition. Had, then, John baptized in this less pure
division of the river, he would have incurred the censure of
the Pharisees and Sanhedrists : of this, however, there is no
trace in John i. 1 9 ff. ; and according to Matthew, chap. iii. 7,
many even of the Pharisees underwent baptism at his hand.
Bethania beyond Jordan, on the contrary, was in every respect
suitable as a place of baptism ; and was situated, more than
any other ford, on pecuharly Israelitish territory, between
Naphtali and Judah of the Jordan.
Sec. 78. The work of John was the preaching of repentance,
baptism for the remission of sins, the proclamation of the
coming of Messiah, and the pointing out of His person. This
1 Not below, as Van de Velde supposes ; vid. Ritter, Erdk. xv. 718, 1035 ;
Stanley, p. 296.
2 Ritter, iii. 28. 3 Mishna Para, viii. 10.

THE BAPTISM OF OUR LORD. 113
last was even his chief mission.1 It is not conceivable that
the fulfilment of this, his chief mission, had long to be waited
for. The baptism of Jesus, by which He was manifested as
the One who should come, must be preceded only by so much
time as was necessary, in order that John and his labours
might become known in the land, and the people flock to him.
The Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, which watched with such jealous
care over every spiritual movement in the land, would
certainly have waited several months before instituting an
inquiry as to John's work and aims. If now, as is evi
dent from John i. 19, 26, the deputation from Jerusalem
came to John only after the baptism of Jesus, this bap
tism must fall in the earliest period of the labours of the
Baptist.2 Sec. 79. The baptism of Jesus and the accompanying
circumstances are related in perfect accord by all Four
Evangehsts.3 When Jesus first came forth in public, John,
according to the Fourth Evangelist, instructed his disciples
concerning Christ's baptism and the circumstances attending
it. From this it follows that, of the persons then surrounding
the Baptist, no one had been present at the baptism of the
Lord, that a considerable time had thus elapsed between the
baptism and the coming forth of Jesus in Bethania ; but as to
what this time was, and where Jesus had meanwhile remained,
John is silent. The Synoptists, however, supply us with
information on both these points.4 They tell us that Jesus
remained forty days in the wilderness ; where He fasted, and
was tempted of the Devil. Why did the Evangehst John pass
over this history in silence ? Modern criticism thinks John
could not relate the history of the Temptation, because it is
in conflict with his idea of the Christ. Much more simply,
more naturally, and more honestly is this silence explained by
the recognition of the principle, manifestly prevailing with
1 Matt iii. 2. 3 ; Mark i. 2, 3-7 : Luke iii. 4, 16.
3 [But the first fresh impulse to a national reformation must have by this
time given place to a spirit of critical questioning. The watchword of the
Baptist, John iii. 80, was already receiving its exemplification.]
3 Matt. iii. 13-17 : Marki. 9-12 ; Luke iii. 21, 22 [in!, ver. 23. as in i. 56, ix.
2S : totcartls, approaching], John i. 32-34, ipsissima verba of the Baptist.
* Matt. iv. 1-11 ; Mark i. 12, 13 ; Luke iv. 1-13.
H

114 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
John, of relating only that which he has seen with his own
eyes, and heard with his own ears.
Sec. 80. The Synoptists do not tell us in what wilderness
the temptation took place : all hypotheses with regard to it
would therefore be rash conjecture. If, however, we must
express an opinion, we should say — since Bethania on the
Jordan was the point from which the Lord was impelled by
the Spirit into the wilderness,1 and at which He first appeared
again among men — the wilderness may have been the
Gaulonitic one, a region which, as we have before seen, was
called simply " the wilderness." The Christian tradition, with
which Arculfus is already acquainted,2 assigns as the scene
of the forty days' fasting in the wilderness the Quarantania
mountain, in the neighbourhood of Jericho. This opinion is a
natural result of the other, which represents Jesus as being
baptized near Jericho, and of course falls with it.
We have no thought of following certain exegetes, who seek
to identify the mountain from whose summit the Tempter
showed to the Lord all the kingdoms of the world.3 We
observe only, that in the other act of temptation it is not said,
either in Matt. iv. 5 or in Luke iv. 9 : The devil set Him
on a pinnacle of the temple ; but what is said is : He set Him
on the pinnacle, or summit, of the sanctuary, €7rt to irTepvytov
tov iepov. The roof of the royal portico is meant, which
formed the limit of the outer court on the southern side, and
towered in dazzhng height above the valley of the Kedron.4
II. — The Beginning of the Public Ministry of Christ.
Sec. 81. The description of the first days in the public life
of our Lord, as given in John i. 28 ff., certainly leaves upon
every unprejudiced reader the impression that he has here
before him the account of an eye-witness, upon whose memory
and heart that scene of so great importance for his whole life
had indelibly impressed itself. This pregnancy of repre
sentation, this mode of narration, in speaking of the different
persons by their own names, not forgetting the hour of the
* Mark i. 12. 2 1. ii. c. 11 ; circa A.D. 670.
3 Matt. iv. 8 ; Luke iv. 5. 5 Josephus, Antiq. xv. 11, sec. 5.

THE BEGINNING OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST. 115
day, and other details in themselves insignificant, — all compels
us to believe that the narrator had seen and heard these things
for himself. On the day after that on which the deputation
from Jerusalem had interrogated the Baptist as to his acts,
he beheld Jesus coming, and testified: This is the Lamb of
God.1 The " next day," thus the first day after the coming
forth of Jesus, the second after the inquiry of the Sanhedrists,
" about the tenth hour," i.e. four o'clock in the afternoon, there
joined Him His first disciples, namely, Andrew, and that
disciple never mentioned by name, consequently John himself,
and through them also Simon Peter.2 The next day, the
second after the coming forth of Jesus, when the Lord was
preparing to go into Galilee, He called Phihp to follow Him,
and Philip brought Nathanael to the Lord.3 On the third
day Jesus went to Cana of Galilee.4 Since Jesus was the
day before on the point of departing for Galilee, it is to be
supposed He fulfilled this intention, and did not pass the night
in Bethania. He thus probably went with His disciples to
Bethsaida, the city of Andrew, Peter, and Phihp.6 There also
does the interview of Nathanael with Christ seem to have
taken place ; for had it been at Bethania, Nathanael would
have heard from the mouth of the Baptist the testimony that
Jesus was the Christ, and Nathanael and Phihp could not
have spoken as, according to i. 45, 46, they did speak. " On
the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee." The
terminus a quo is the day when John became acquainted with
the Lord, and not the day when the deputation arrived from
Jerusalem ; for the former, and not the latter event, was that
which marked an epoch in the life of the apostle.
Sec. 82. Cana of Galilee. — Upon the plateau to the west
of the Sea of Gennesareth there extends between Hattin and
Sepphoris the considerable plain of El-Buttauf.6 At the foot
of the range of hills forming its northern boundary, at
about 15 miles from the lake, and 6 or 8 miles to the
north of Nazareth, he the ruins called Kanet el-Jelil. On the
southern side of the same plain, a good hour's distance from
Nazareth, lies Kefr Kenna. The tradition of the present
1 John i. 29-34. 2 i. 35-43. 3 i. 45 ff. 4 ii. 1.
6 i. 44. 6 " The plain of 'Aa-u^i; " of Josephus ( Vita, 41).

116 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
day points to this last place as the Cana of the New
Testament; its claim, however, must yield to that of the
ancient name still existing. As early as the time of the
Arabic translation of the New Testament, Kavct rys
TaXtXaias is rendered by Kanet el-Jelil. Tradition seems
always to have wavered between these two places. Saewulf J
clearly favours Kanet el-Jelil. He says: "From Nazareth
Chana of Galilsea, where the Lord at the wedding turned
water into wine, is distant six milliariaf situated to the
north, on a mountain : there is nothing there now but a
monastery, called Architriclini. Midway between Nazareth
and Galilsea — so he abbreviates Cana of Gahlee — lies a
Castellum Boma." 3 Adrichomius, in the sixteenth century,
says that Cana has a mountain on the north, and a broad, fair,
fruitful plain in the south. This description, like the preced
ing, applies to Kanet el-Jehl.4 Cana of Galilee was the
city of Nathanael.5 This may well have occasioned the first
visit of our Lord to it, of which we have the record in John
ii. 1-11. A second visit is narrated in John iv. 46-54.6
Sec. 8 3. If the Lord came, as is ordinarily supposed, direct
from Bethania beyond Jordan to Cana in a single day, He
would have a journey of 21 miles ; if He came from Bethsaida,
on the western side of the lake, He would have a journey of
1 5 miles. It must thus become evident how important for the
right understanding of the Gospel narrative is this outwork,
Biblical geography; for by the true determination of the
position of Bethania and Cana important objections to the
authenticity of John's Gospel are thoroughly invalidated.
Schenkel, e.g., in his Charakterbild Jesu, bases his conclusion,
that this Gospel could not have proceeded from an eye-witness,
partly upon the statement made in it that Jesus journeyed in
one day from the place where John was baptizing to Cana.
A long distance truly, if it is supposed that this place of
1 A.D. 1103.
2 His milliaria are longer than the Roman ; for he gives the distance from
Tabor to the lake as 6 miles, whereas it is 13 Roman miles.
3 i.e. Tell Rume.
4 On this place, comp. Robinson, Palestine, ii. 346 ff., and Schulz, in the
Zeitschrift der deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. iii. 50.
5 John xxi. 2. 6 See also Sepp, Architecton. Stud. p. 202.

THE BEGINNING OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST. 117
baptism was in the neighbourhood of Jericho ; for the Lord
would then have to go over something like 90 miles in order
to reach Cana — more than three days' journey.
The miracle which Jesus wrought at Cana in changing
water into wine, and the circumstances accompanying this
miracle, call forth questions of an archaeological, but neither
of a topographical nor chronological nature.
Sec. 84. " After this Jesus went down to Capernaum, He,
and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples ; and
continued there not many days. And the Passover of the
Jews was at hand ; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." x This
passage affords us a firm chronological point of rest in deter
mining the history of Jesus Christ. The year of the com
mencement of His public ministry was the year 28 of the
Dionysian era.2 In this year the 15 th Nisan fell on the
30th March.3 It would have fallen on the 29th April if
this had been an intercalary year ; but since it was a Sabbatic
year, the intercalation could not take place. The time required
for the Lord to be present at Jerusalem, from Capernaum, on
the 14th Nisan, the few days which He spent in Capernaum
— oi TToXXds ypepas — and the journey from Bethania to Cana,
occupy together about 14 days. We can thus assert with a
tolerable degree of certainty, that —
Our Lord was baptized by John about the 1st of February ; *
He returned to Bethania, 40 days later, about the 12th of March ;
He came to Cana on the 15th March ;
He came to Capernaum on the 17th March ;
He came to Jerusalem on the 29th March (14th Nisan).
The beginning of the ministry of the Baptist is to be placed about a
month before the baptism of Christ — thus- about the 1st January u.c. 781.
The way in which the evangelist narrates the journey of
our Lord to Capernaum as taking place, namely, in the society
of His whole family, justifies us in the conjecture that the
true and proper migration to Capernaum is here intended.
That event, it is true, is placed by Matthew, chap. iv. 12-17,
< John ii. 12, 13. 2 Cf. sec. 34. s Cf. sec. 37.
4 [The date of Christ's baptism cannot be fixed much earlier, since the fig-tree
was already in leaf at the time of Nathanael's call ; nor any later, as the whole
time from the early part of March is required for the succession of events before
Passover.]

118 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
in the time after the imprisonment of John. But this evan
gehst, who begins his general account of the labours of Jesus
only with the epoch of this imprisonment, might well leave
out of the account the few days during which, according to
John ii. 12, He dwelt at Capernaum, and begin the removal
with the first lengthened sojourn of the Lord in that town.
III. — The First Passover. Tuesday, 2>0th March,
A.u.c. 781, a.d. 28.
Sec. 85. The opening act of the ministry of Christ in
Jerusalem was the cleansing of the Sanctuary.1 " He found
in the sanctuary those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and
the changers of money sitting. And He made a scourge of
cords, and drove them aU out of the sanctuary, with the sheep
and oxen ; and poured out the change of the money-changers,
and overthrew the tables ; and said to them that were selling
the doves, ' Carry these things hence : make not my Father's
house a house of merchandise.'" At the time of Christ the
Jews had in use Boman and Herodian money, which could not
be employed for sacred purposes ; there were therefore money
changers, who changed the current money into the money of
the temple. Every adult Israelite was required to contribute a
half-shekel annually to the temple, and the time appointed for
its payment was the month of Adar. Now, in Mishna Shekalim,
i 3, we read : " On the 15 th Adar the money-changers seated
themselves at their tables in the city, but on the 25 th they
seated themselves in the sanctuary." Since, then, at the
paschal festival, the money tribute was at the same time paid
1 John xi. 14-17. [The court of the Gentiles in this sanctuary was separated
from the inner court by a stone wall, bearing an inscription which forbade any
Gentile to pass it, under pain of death ; Antiq. xv. 11, sec. 5. The pillar on
which this inscription was graven was discovered not long ago by M. Clermont-
Ganneau, who communicated at the time an account of the discovery to the
columns of the Athenaeum. It appeared likewise in the Bevue d' Archiologie,
1872, vol. xxiii. p. 214 sqq. Subjoined is a copy of the inscription, furnished
by M. Caspari : —
(1) MH0ENA AAAOrENH EI2IIO- (2) PETE20AI ENT02 TOT HE-
(3) PITOIEPONTPTOAKTOTKAI (4) nEPIBOAOTTOSAANAH-
(5) *0H EATTOIAITI02E2- (6) TAIA1ATOE3AKOAOT-
(7) 6EIN0ANATON, i.e. M*l0sm aWoysvri itff<xopivie$a.i evtos too orsp) ro hpov
rpvipdxrou xx) •XiptfioXow o; 2' acv kn$fa iccv-w aiTio; lara.i ~d.cc to l^axoXovSitv 6a.va.Tov. ]

THE FIRST PASSOVER. 119
and deposited in the thirteen chests of the temple, this custom
or abuse may have thus crept in. At the great festivals a
temple-market was held, the Court of the Gentiles serving for
holding it. . The merchants, as well as the money-changers,
crowded into the Court of Israel ; 1 from this place, which no
less than the temple itself was called the " house of God," 2
did Jesus expel the merchants and money-changers. The
same or a similar fact is narrated by the Synoptists on the
occasion of the last Passover.3 Here, then, there are three
cases possible : either the Lord performed the cleansing of
the sanctuary twice, or He did so only once, at the beginning
of His ministry ; or, finally, only once, but at the end of His
ministry. No slight grounds may be adduced in favour of
the repetition. The cleansing of the sanctuary was a symbolical
act, by which the Lord visibly represented that which He
desired and at which He aimed ; it was thus entirely in place
at the very outset of His pubhc ministry, and equally so at
the close too of His labours. By this repetition He implied,
" What I desired two years ago, that I desire still." Matthew
and Mark relate nothing concerning a dialogue between the
Lord and the Jews ; but Luke 4 records one, and according to
him the Lord answered something very different from that
which He answered in John ii. 1 9. It is certainly remarkable
that John tells us nothing of a cleansing of the sanctuary
before the last Passover, of which he must nevertheless have
been an eye-witness. For that that which is related, John ii.
14-20, belongs necessarily to the first Passover, and not to
the last, follows from the chronological reference of John
ii. 20; so that it cannot be admitted that John had merely
transposed this account. It is rather possible that the Synop
tists, who, strictly speaking, relate the history only of the last
year of the Saviour's hfe, have, for the sake of the completeness
of the account, introduced into their only narrative of the
appearing of Christ publicly in the temple much which took
1 Vid. ro Itph rod enov, Matt. xxi. 12. [Cf. the IJJJ33 of Zech. xiv. 21.]
2 to* oixov too vxTpis, John ii. 16. [According to Mark's account, the Lord
cited Isa. Ivi. 7 in such wise as to vindicate for the Gentiles too the same right
of worship. Cf. Ellicott, p. 295, note 3.]
3 Matt. xxi. 12-16 ; Mark xi. 15-18 ; Luke xix. 45-48. 4 Luke xx. 3-8.

120 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST!
place in Jerusalem in earlier years.1 In favour of this view
it may be advanced also, that, according to Matt. xxi. 15 ff.,
the Jews took offence only at the solemn entry, but not at
the act of temple-cleansing. Be this as it may, it must be
maintained that this act took place at the first Passover, as
related by John.
Sec. 86. On that first paschal festival took place the dis
course narrated John iii. 1-21. It belongs not to our task to
explain the purport of this conversation. Wholly without
ground have certain expositors assumed that Christ was on
this occasion absolutely alone with Nicodemus, and then
naively raised the question, Whence could John have learnt
all this ? We cannot indeed see why John, in whose house
it is highly probable the conversation was held, may not have
been present at it. We must hold firmly to the principle
that John relates only what he saw and heard. Because he
did not personally witness the Ascension, for instance, at which
only " Galilean men " were present,2, he does not relate this.
In the whole Gospel of John there is to be found only a
single account, which does not seem to have been derived
from personal observation, namely, the conversation of the
Lord with Pilate ; 3 and even in this case it is not absolutely
impossible that John may have heard it. Into the Prsetorium
the Jews also were permitted to enter, but they would not,
lest they should be defiled ; but a John, who was much more
concerned about the fate of his Master than about a question
of Levitical purity, may well have entered.
Sec. 8 7. " After these things came Jesus and His disciples
[from Jerusalem] into the land of Judea, and there He tarried
with them and baptized. [During the month of April, and
part of May.] And John also was baptizing in iEnon, near
to Saleim ... for John was not yet cast into prison." 4 Who
were these disciples ? The supposition that it was even then
the company of the apostles is a baseless one. Disciples of
Jesus were all those called who attached themselves to Him,
1 [The traces of several earlier visits have been rightly observed in Matt.
xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 34. Vid. Kienlen, in his recension of this work, Bevue
Chritienne, .1 869, p. 747.]
2 Acts i. 11. 3 John xviii. 33 ff. 4 John iii. 22-24.

THE FIRST PASSOVER. 121
although many of them afterwards fell away from their
allegiance.1 That Peter, who is to be regarded as the principal
authority for the Gospel of Mark, was not then present,
although he was already a disciple before his actual vocation
to the apostolic office, which took place on the shore of the
Sea of Galilee a year later, but was quietly plying his avoca
tion as a fisherman somewhere about Bethsaida, we are justified
in concluding, from the silence of the Synoptists concerning
the labours of Jesus at this time, as also from the silence of
John concerning the names of the disciples ; since the same
Evangelist afterwards, for the most part, mentions by name
Peter and the other disciples, not only where they 'were
taking part in the history, but also where they were only
present. During the first sojourn of Christ in Judea He was
accompanied more or less exclusively by Judean disciples,
with John, and perhaps Nathanael.2 This sojourn of Jesus
in Judea was not limited merely to the paschal visit, and the
journeying to and fro consequent upon it ; but " He tarried
there," Bterptfie. The duration of this sojourn may, it seems
to us, be inferred from John iv. 35. Near to Sychar, in the
moment at which He had left Judea, our Lord spoke the
words : " Behold, the fields are white already to harvest." In
the neighbourhood of Sychar the harvest falls towards the end
of May ; Christ had consequently remained in Judea during
the month of April and a part of the month of May. It is
true, indeed, that these words of Jesus were employed in a
figurative sense ; but His figures were, as a rule, taken from
the existing aspect of things. The words, " Do ye not say
(at . sowing-time), 'Yet four months, and it is harvest'?"
might have been spoken either at seed-time or harvest. We
conclude it was the latter, from the Lord's words, " Behold,
the fields are white already to harvest." The cause of the
Lord's withdrawing from Judea is given in John iv. 1-3 :
" When the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that
Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John . . . He
left Judea." At that time John was still at hberty ; but his
1 John vi. 60, 66.
2 This is rendered probable by the fact of our Lord's at once repairing, on His
return to Galilee, to Cana, the city of Nathanael.

122 FIRST YEAR OE THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
imprisonment must have taken place shortly afterwards, for
as early as John v. 35 [latter summer] Jesus speaks of him
as one who " was!'
Sec. 88. .ffinon, near to Saleim. — " John was baptizing in
.ZEnon, near to Saleim, because there was much water there ;
and they came and were baptized. For John was not yet
cast into prison."1 Where was it situated, this place — as
would appear, the last scene of John's ministry ? In the
Onomasticon it is said, art. " Salem," that 8 miles from Scy
thopolis in the plain — that is to say, in opposition to the
mountain-land, in the great plain of the Jordan, the Ghor —
there lies a village which is called Salumias, and corresponds
to the New Testament Saleim. Jerome says :2 Oppidum est
juxta Scythopolin, quod usque hodie appellatur Salem. Of
iEnon it is said in the Onomasticon : " To the present day
this place is shown 8 miles south of Scythopolis, near Salem
and the Jordan." In the direction indicated, and at that
distance from Bisan, at the opening of the Wady Khusneh
into the Ghor, Van de Velde marks a spring, Shech Salim, by
which our place would seem to be designated ; for in the
vicinity are to be found Bir (well), Ain Beda, and other
waters, of which one was iEnon.
Sec. 89. "Jesus left Judea, and departed again into
Galilee. And He must needs go through Samaria. He
comes then to a town of Samaria, called Sychar, near to the
ground which Jacob gave to his son Joseph ; and Jacob's
well was there." 3
Samaria, the town, in Hebrew Shomron, was, from the
time of Omri, metropolis of the kingdom of Israel, and bore
its ancient name until the time of Herod the Great, who
renewed it, and called it, in honour of Augustus, Sebaste*
The small village on its ruins is to the present day called
Sebustieh.6 The name Samaria, ^aptdpeta, passed over to the
province mainly occupied by that people who were attached to
the sect of the Samaritans.6 This sect dwelt principally at
1 John iii. 23, 24. 2 Epistola Ixxiii.
3 John iv. 3-6. i The Greek equivalent to Augusta.
6 Robinson, ii. 304 ff. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 244-246.
6 Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2, sec. 3. Luke xvii. 11 ; Acts i. 8, viii. 1,
ix. 31, xv. 3.

THE FIRST PASSOVER. 123
Sichem, the Nablus of the present day, at the foot of
Gerizim, on which the Samaritan temple once stood, and
which has continued, notwithstanding the destruction of the
temple by John Hyrcanus,1 to be the sacred mountain of this
people to the present day. The name Samaria is used in
John, alike in iv. 7 as iv. 5, to denote not the town, but the
province. This province consisted principally of the valley of
Sichem, extending from west to east, and lying between Mount
Gerizim on the south and Mount Ebal on the north. In this
weB- watered and fruitful valley 2 the town of Sichem existed
so early as Jacob's time.s This city was for a time the
residence of King Jeroboam.4 John Hyrcanus destroyed it,
together with the temple on Gerizim. At the time of Christ
it appears in history under the name of Neapolis, which it has
retained under the shortened form of Nablus to the present
day. Since the destruction of the temple, its former site, a
leveUed surface of the rock, has continued to be the place of
worship of the Samaritan sect, in the present day as in the
age of our Lord.6
Below Nablus the valley widens through the receding of
Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, and opens up at the eastern end of
these mountains into the valley running from south to north,
called Wady d-Mochna.
Sec. 90. Jacob's Well.6 — When Jacob, in returning from
Mesopotamia, came to Shalem, the city of Shechem, he pitched
his tent before the city, and purchased of the sons of
Hamor, father of Shechem, the piece of land on which he had
encamped.' In the piece of ground which Jacob had bought
of the sons of Hamor was Joseph's body buried after the
return from Egypt. From these passages it has been inferred
that Shechem, or Sichem, where Joseph was buried, and
1 Antiq. xiii. 9, sec. 1. a Cf. Ritter, iv. 301 ff.
3 Gen. xxxiii. 18, xxxiv. 24, xxxvii. 12 ff. * 1 Kings xii. 25.
5 On this place of prayer, see Robinson, Pal. ii. 275-2S0 ; Stanley, 234, 24S ;
Tristram, 152 ; and especially de Saulcy, Voyage autour de la mer morte,
ii. p. 407, and plan.
6 [For an admirable description of the locality, see Tristram, pp. 145-147.]
7 Gen. xxxiii. 19. [Knobel and others would translate 0?\1' as an adjective =
unscathed : but Robinson's discovery (ii. 279) presents a solution better corre
sponding to tie requirements of the text ; cf. Ellicott, p. 128, note 1.]

124 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
Shalem, or Salem, where the field lay, are names belonging to
one and the same town. Bather is the field of the sons of
Hamor conceived of sometimes as in the neighbourhood of
Salem, sometimes of Sichem, because it was situated midway
between the two. Jacob's field lies at the opening of the
Sichem valley into the Mochna valley, a mile from Nablus.
The mountain chain rising to the east of the Mochna valley
bears upon its ridge, at a distance of about three-quarters of
an hour from Nablus, half an hour from Jacob's well, the place
now called Salim, corresponding to the ancient Salem. In
this Jacob's field, where the Sichem valley widens out, there
lies on the north side of the valley, nearer to Ebal than to
Gerizim, the grave of Joseph, of which there is no sufficient
ground for doubting the authenticity. In the same field,
three to four hundred feet to the south, lies Ain-el-Belad,
the Jacob's well, 2 0 minutes' distance to the east of Nablus.
According to Quaresmius J it is 105 feet deep ; according to
Wilson,2 75 feet, and 9 feet in diameter, with 15 feet of
water. It is covered at the top with rough stones. Above
the well itself are traces of a former Christian chapel and of
an altar. " Jesus then, being wearied with the journey, sat
thus at the fountain : and it was about the sixth hour." 3
Sec. 91. Sychar. — Herr Bosen (Prussian Consul at Jeru
salem) has given 4 a description and plan of Nablus and its
immediate environs, which we may with "confidence, accept
as our guide. According to this, there is, 8 minutes' walk
north from Joseph's grave — 10 minutes, thus, from Jacob's
well — a village called El-Askar, a name in which that of
Sychar is preserved. Some 150 paces farther north is a
fountain, Ain el-Askar, which issues from a remarkable
structure, — a vaulted passage leading to the foot of Ebal, 6 feet
high, built of large well-smoothed stones, — and presently flows
into a tank enclosed with square stones. The existence of this
place and name has, moreover, been sufficiently vouched for
1 ii. 801.
2 Lands of the Bible, ii. 53. [Now for the most part without water •
Robinson, ii. 283, 284 ; iii. 132. Eli Smith, ^cited by Barnes on John iv.
Stanley, p. 241. Tristram, p. 147.]
3 [ssri rji wyri, John iv. 6. Called from its depth also tppixp, vers. 11, 12.]
4 Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl. Gesellsch. 1860, ii. 334 ff.

THE FIRST PASSOVER. 125
by other traveUers. Walcott says •} " Askar and Belad, two
little villages, lie at the opening of the valley of Nablus
towards the east; Askar on the north side of the valley,
Belad on the south." Many Biblical geographers have
maintained that Sychar, in the text in question from John's
Gospel, is to be taken as identical with Sichem. It is true
that in one or two mss. the name Xv^ep- stands for Xv^ap or
2t%dp ; it is, however, pretty generally acknowledged that
the first of these readings (Sychem) is an exegetical conjecture.
The doubt as to the separate existence of Sychar is based
partly on a want of acquaintance with the geography of the
country, partly on a misapprehension of some passages in the
Church Fathers. Jerome, in Epitaph. Paidce, says of this
pilgrim : " transivit Sichem (non ut plerique errantes legunt,
Sichar), quse nunc Neapolis appellatur." This passage has
been explained as though Jerome denied the separate existence
of Sychar. This, however, is incorrect : he means only that,
according to his own (individual) opinion, Sichem is the true
reading in John iv. 5 ff. Eusebius, in the Onomasticon, says :
" Sychar, in front of Neapolis, near the field which Jacob gave
to bis son Joseph, where our Lord and Bedeemer, according
to the Gospel of John, spoke with the Samaritan woman at the
well, and where now a church is erected." In the Itiner.
Antonini it is said, that a mile from Scythopolis there is a
place called Sechar. The name occurs also in Jewish tradi
tion. In Machoth x. 2 it is related that, in an especial and
exceptional case of necessity, the two loaves of Pentecost
were brought from Ain-Sychar ("DID pV riJJpa). At the time
of our Lord, Palestine was probably ten times as populous
as at present, and there are therefore good grounds for the
supposition that Sychar, which now is a little hamlet or
clachan, but was then a town,2 extended considerably farther
to the south, and that consequently a considerable portion of
it lay nearer to the Jacob's well than to the fountain Ain el-
Askar, and that thus the inhabitants of this southern part of
the town drew their supply of water from the Jacob's well ;
the more so since a special value was attached to this water.3
On the other hand, it is inexplicable that a woman should
1 Biblioth. Sacra, 1843, i. 74. 2 John iv. 5. 3 John iv. 12.

126 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
have come half an hour's journey in the noontide heat,1 from
Sichem or Nablus, abounding in fountains and water, to this
well to fetch water. Sychar is consequently not Sichem, but
El-Askar. Sec. 92. In the conversation of Christ with the Samaritan
woman — of the dogmatic significance of which we have not
here to speak — there occur several topographical and chrono
logical allusions, of which we must take note in order to
bring them into relief. In John iv. 11 it is said that the
well was deep ; in iv. 20, that its position was within sight of
Gerizim, where the Samaritans had their place of worship.
In the conversation with the disciples the Lord says : 2 " Do
ye not say (proverbially) : Yet four months, and harvest is
there ? Behold, I say unto you, lift up your eyes, look on the
country round, it is already white to the harvest." These
words seem to us to have the following sense : " At seed-time
the husbandman consoles himself with the thought, 'Four
months of patience, and the harvest comes ! ' Behold now his
hope fulfilled, the corn is ripe. At the spiritual seed-time,
however, one has ordinarily no such certainty of hope that
the seed will quickly ripen into fruit ; and yet, behold, only
a few moments ago I sowed, in speaking to that woman words
of life, and already is the harvest-field whitening." The
Lord pointed beyond the fields ripe for the harvest to the
multitude of people- streaming to Him from Sychar3 — which
was His harvest. If this explanation is the true one, Jesus
must have been at the Jacob's well towards the end of May,
which is the harvest-time in that district. It would indeed
be possible to assume as our starting-point, that Jesus was in
Sychar at seed-time. But in this case a chronological diffi
culty would arise, fatal to the acceptance of this hypothesis.
Jesus travelled from Sychar into Gahlee, and returned to
Jerusalem at the festival -of Atonement.4 Since this festival
was observed before seed-time, the one which Jesus visited
could not have been Atonement A.D. 28, but that of a.d. 29 ;
the public ministry of our Lord would thus have continued
not two, but three years ; the chronology of John would no
longer harmonize with that of Luke ; and, most surprising of
1 John iv. 6. 2 John iv. 35. 3 John iv. 40. « Cf. sees. 95, 96.

OUR LORD'S SECOND SOJOURN IN GALILEE. 127
all, we should have an entire year of our Lord's labours about
which nothing is recorded by the Evangehsts. We must
therefore assume that the Lord came to Sychar at harvest-
time. Sec. 93. After a sojourn of two days in Sychar, " Jesus
went into Galilee : for He Himself (Jesus) testified that a
prophet is not honoured in his own city — eV Ty 18'ta. iraTpiBt.
When, then, He came into Galilee, the Gahleans received Him,
having seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the
feast : for they also went to the feast.- He went then again to
Cana of Galilee." 1
¦ Here John ceases to be our only authority. For, if we
compare Luke iv. 14-30 with John iv. 43-45, a striking
similarity between the two narratives appears. Jesus returned
to Galilee, whither His fame had preceded Him ; 2 He testi
fied that a prophet is lightly esteemed in his own city : 3
only in Luke this utterance is called forth by the reception
which the people of Nazareth accorded their countryman.4 It
is true indeed that the account of Luke follows immediately
upon the history of the Temptation ; 6 but it is said, chap.
iv. 16, " He went, as was His wont, into the synagogue on the
Sabbath-day, and stood up to read;" further, chap. iv. 23,
" Ye will surely say unto' me . . . Whatsoever we have heard
was done in Capernaum., do also here in thine own city."6
This manifestly presupposes a public activity of Jesus already
begun, so that a gap must be supposed to exist in the third
Gospel between this history and that of the Temptation —
a gap which the fourth in part fills up by that which has
hitherto been narrated.
IV— Our Lord's Second Sojourn in Galilee.
Summer, A.u.c. 781, a.d. 28.
Sec. 94. John, as we have seen, relates that Jesus, on His
coming to Galilee from Sychar, did not settle in the town of
His youth, but repaired to Cana. There He healed the son
1 John iv. 43-46. 2 Luke iv. 14, 15 ; John iv. 43, 45.
3 Luke iv. 24 ; John iv. 44. 4 Luke iv. 16-30.
6 Luke iv. 1-13. 6 [Cf. John ii. 12.]

128 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
of the nobleman, who had come to Him from Capernaum.1
Here the narrative of John breaks off, as concerns the further
labours of Christ at that time in Galilee ; for in that which
follows we find the Lord again in Jerusalem.2 He had, with
other disciples,3 accompanied the Lord into Galilee, and had
enjoyed beyond others the privilege of being constantly in
the company of Jesus. For we must certainly suppose that
while those disciples were gone to buy food, he had remained
at the Jacob's well, and had listened to the conversation
between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. The Galilean
disciples, Andrew, Simon, and others, had not accompanied
Jesus to Jerusalem at the first Passover, but had remained
at home following their avocation. John now returned to
Jerusalem with the same object in view.
Sec. 95. At the point at which John ceases, Luke now
resumes the narrative, and relates — Luke iv. 31 ff. — that
Jesus repaired to Capernaum, where on the Sabbath He taught
in the synagogue,4 and there healed a possessed one.6 On the
same day " He arose out of the synagogue " and came into
Simon's house, where He healed Simon's mother-in-law of a
fever.6 The house of Simon was accordingly at Capernaum ; 7
whereas John, i. 45, speaks of Bethsaida as "the city of
Peter." Are the two Evangehsts here in conflict % We
think not. For it seems that Bethsaida did not constitute a
township in itself, but was part of Capernaum, a suburb lying
on the coast of the lake, the fisher haven of this town. Of
such majumas or havens of the seaside towns, there were
several in Palestine, e.g. that of Gaza [or of Jamnia]. This
explains the fact that neither in Josephus, nor in Jewish
tradition, nor elsewhere, is mention made of this Bethsaida ;
it is counted as part of Capernaum. We can say with cer
tainty only of the Evangelist John that he mentions this
place. The Synoptists often, indeed, speak of a town of this
1 [fixiri\ix'o;, an officer of the court of Herod Antipas, John iv. 46-54.]
2 John v. 1 ff. * John iv. 27. 4 Luke iv. 31, 32.
6 Luke iv. 33-37. 6 Luke iv. 38, 39.
7 Country fever is to this day very prevalent in this seething plain and its
borders, and such a position as Ain Mudawarah would be peculiarly subject to
it. The dry, elevated, rocky ground of Tell Hum cannot be considered as a
probable fever locality. — (Tristram, p. 448, note.)

OUR LORD'S SECOND SOJOURN IN GALILEE. 129
name, but the' trans-Jordanic Julias is always meant. The
only passage which might possibly have reference to this
place is that of Matt. xi. 21, Luke x. 13, where the Lord
pronounces the woe upon Bethsaida. But since this woe
finds its explanation in the fact that the Lord had wrought
" mighty works " in this place, and the Synoptists relate no
single miracle which was wrought there, it is probable that
even in this case the woe relates to Bethsaida Julias, in the
neighbourhood of which they record the healing of the blind
man and the feeding of the five thousand as taking place.1 For
the Synoptists, the western Bethsaida was an integral part of
Capernaum, the " fish-house" of this town ; for them Simon the
fisherman was a dweller at Capernaum ; while John, more
nearly denning, places his house at Bethsaida.
Sec. 96. After the healing of Peter's mother-in-law;, Jesus
was, with the close of the Sabbath? so greatly besieged with
suppliants, that He retired to a desert place ; but even there
the people discovered Him, and they held Him that He
should not depart from them.3 " And He said unto them,
I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also,
for therefore am I sent. And He preached in the synagogues
of Judea." 4 In all editions of the New Testament the read
ing here is yv Kypvcrcraiv iv Tats avvaywyats Trjs TaXtXatas.
This reading has the great majority of MSS. in its favour. But
the two oldest (uncial) manuscripts give a different reading.
Codex C Begins has iv Tats o-vvaycoyals Tys 'IovBalas ; Codex
N Sinaiticus, B Vaticanus, and L Parisiensis, els Tas avvaywyas
tj;? 'IovBalas; so also the Coptic version and the Peshito.
If then we are called to decide on internal grounds as to
which is the true reading, it must be admitted that in the
place of 'IovBalas, the form TaXtXaias might easily be sub
stituted; for Christ was in Gahlee when He spoke these
words, and immediately after — Luke v. 1 — we find Him still,
or again, in Galilee ; a mention of Judea in the interval must
appear so strange, that the word was set down to an error of
the copyist, and was replaced by " Galilee!' On the other
1 Luke ix. 10, 11 and parall. places.
2 Luke iv. 40 and parall. places. 3 Luke iv. 40-42.
4 Luke iv. 43, 44. [As before in those of Galilee, chap. iv. 15.]
I

130 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
hand, one cannot at aU explain how in a history in which
Jesus appears, immediately before and after this reference, at
the Sea of Gahlee, the name Galilee could have been pushed
aside by that of Judea. On the testimony, therefore, of the
most ancient codices and translations, and on important internal
grounds, we regard the reading Trjs 'IovBalas as the true one.
Since, then, Luke here ,mentions a journey to Judea, John v. 1
— where we find Jesus again in Jerusalem — attaches itself
immediately to Luke iv. 44. The sojourn of Jesus by the
lake, Luke iv. 31-43, was in any case of short duration; per
haps two or three days. The preaching of our Lord through
out Judea, on the other hand, must have occupied a consider
able period of time. Luke relates only that He preached in
the synagogues of Judea ; there were consequently no Gahlean
disciples with the Lord on this journey, and John met Him
only at Jerusalem at the festival of Atonement. What towns
our Lord visited on this journey must remain to us for ever
unknown.1 [After this festival, we have no further record of
the ministry of Christ until we meet with Him again on the
shores of the lake of Galilee, in the spring of the year 782
(a.d. 29), when the four apostles were called.]
V. — Our Lord's Visit to Jerusalem, at the Day of Atonement.
10th Tisri, 18-19th September, A.U.C. 781, a.d. 28.
Sec. 9 7. " After that was the festival of the Jews, and
Jesus went up to Jerusalem." 2 What festival is here in
tended ? Many exegetes have sought a nearer definition of it
in the form of expression " festival of the Jews," and regarded
it as a festival instituted after the Captivity, which was not a
Mosaic and Israelitish, but specially Jewish institution, like
the feast of Dedication or of Purim. But the argument is
baseless ; since John calls also the Passover and the feast of
Tabernacles y eopTy twv 'IovSaicov.3 We hope to be able to
1 [If Judea is the genuine reading in Luke iv. 44, the events to which this
verse refers must immediately follow those of Mark i. 39, which, like the present
verse, forms the point of transition to a new period in our Lord's life. The
healing of the leper, Mark i. 40-45, is placed by Matthew and Luke in another
connection, namely, immediately after the call of the four apostles.]
2 John v. 1. 3 John vi. 4, vii. 2.

OUR LORD'S VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 131
prove that, ahke in this passage and in chap. vii. 8, the Day
of Atonement is that which is meant. The Greek word stands
for kdvti, the rabbinical name for the Day of Atonement. We
arrive, too, necessarily at the Day of Atonement by a process
of elimination, whereby all other festivals are excluded. The
majority of exegetes conjecture the feast of Purim, which was
observed on the 14th or 15 th of Adar, a month before Pass
over. [The 14th Veadar, 19th March 782 (a.d. 29), would
have satisfied the condition of falhng on a Saturday ; x but, on
the other hand, allows an interval of nearly twelve months to
elapse between our Lord's first and second visits to Judea.
The character of this festival is, moreover, such that our Lord
could not possibly observe it] It is a festival commemorating
the deliverance of the Jews from the persecution of Haman,
and the bloody revenge taken by the Jews on their enemies.
Its observance consisted in the reading of the required Megil-
lah, i.e. the Book of Esther. After this it was incumbent on
every one to abandon himself to mirth. He was to cry,
" Cursed be Haman, blessed be Mordechai ;" to drink and shout,
until he no longer knew what he was crying, and stammered,
" Blessed be Haman, cursed be Mordechai." 2 Since the poor
also were to be mirthful, the giving of alms on this day was
greatly commended. Of all the Jewish festivals, Purim was
the only one which was not observed in the temple, but at
home. To such a festival of revenge, cursing, and drunken
ness, to which no festive guests were invited, would Jesus
have journeyed up to Jerusalem ? Or would He at once have
left the Holy City to sojourn during the Passover by the Lake
of Gennesareth ? 3 — Others have supposed that the festival in
question was a Passover. [This, however, is impossible ; since
the only festivals, the eve of which fell on a Saturday during
the pubhc ministry of our Lord were, the Day of Atonement,
A.D. 28, and the feast of Purim, A.D. 29.] It is, moreover,
impossible, because in the next chapter a Passover is spoken of
as being nigh.4 Had then a whole year of the Lord's hfe
passed away in such inactivity that John is not able to say a
word concerning it ? — Pentecost is in hke manner impossible,
1 John v. 9. 2 Jerus. Taanith, fol. 63. 3.
3 John vi. 4. * John vi. 4.

132 FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
whether that of a.d. 28 or a.d. 29. The latter, because then
nearly a whole year of inactivity would intervene between
John v. and John vi. ; the former, because Jesus was, according
to chap, iv., at Sychar about the time of Pentecost (May 19th).
Except the festal month of Tisri, there was only one other
festival in addition to those above mentioned, namely, the
feast of Dedication, on the 25 th Kisleu,1 which was observed
seven days. Had John meant this feast, it is incomprehensible
why he should not here, as in chap. x. 22, have mentioned it by
name. This festival took place in winter, which in Jerusalem
is sufficiently cold. How is the presence of a throng of sick
persons desirous of bathing, as seen in John v. 7, to be ex
plained ? — There remains thus only the festive month of Tisri.
Had John meant the feast of Tabernacles, he would have
indicated it by name, as in chap. vii. 2. He had therefore
before his mind the Day of Atonement. He does not mention
it by name ; for the reason that the Jews were not wont so to
speak of it, but designated it by the name of " the Day," KDV.
Sec. 98. During this visit, on the Sabbath, took place at
the Pool of Bethesda the healing of the man who had been
3 8 years diseased.2 This caUed forth the first passionate out
burst of hostihty on the part of the Jews towards Jesus. On
this occasion our Lord appealed to the testimony of the Bap
tist, " He was a burning and a shining lamp." 3 Jesus here
speaks of John as one who was, yv. He had accordingly
quitted the scene of his labours, for captivity or death. " John,
in shining for others, consumed himself," i.e. he was a brilliant
meteor, quickly burning itself out ; which, rising but a few
months before, had already vanished. His labours had con
tinued only for a period of about eight months.
Sec. 99. The Pool of Bethesda. — "At Jerusalem there is,
by the sheep-gate, a pool, called in Hebrew Bethesda, which has
five porches (or porticos)." 4 This name Bethesda [= N"ipn rra,
cf. Syriac], which signifies " House of Mercy," occurs nowhere
1 This fell in the year 28, on the 1st December.
2 John v. 2-9. [With the following sunset the Day of Atonement began. ]
3 'Exuvas ^v a \6%vos o xa.iop.ivos xai <pxivm. [" He was the torch which burned
and shone, " — the wedding torch, in whose light the Jews were willing for a time
to exult. Ltjcendo Consumebatur.]
' John v. 2.

OUR LORD'S VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 133
else. The position of this pool, however, is to be determined
by the remark that it was situated near the sheep-gate ; for that
after etrl ry irpofiaTtKy, not KoXvptfiydpa, but -irvXy is to be
supplied, is generally acknowledged. In Neh. xii. 39, 40, it is
said that the second choir, at the dedication of the waUs of
Jerusalem, went " past the gate of Ephraim, and past the fish-
gate, the tower of Hananeel, and the tower of Meah, even unto
the sheep-gate ; and they stood still at the gate ha-Matara :
and so the two choirs stood by the house of God." The towers
Hananeel and Meah belonged to the fortification of the Birah,
later replaced by the Antonia ; the sheep-gate consequently
lay eastward of Antonia, in the northern wall of enclosure of
the holy mountain. In that locality hes in the present day
the pool called Birket Israin, which later tradition regards
as Bethesda. It may be right in so doing, yet, according to a
still earher tradition,1 the pool near the church of St. Anne,
north of the Birket Israin, although now entirely choked up,
is rather to be regarded as the Pool of Bethesda. This latter,
however, is less probable, because the sheep-gate cannot be
sought there. These two pools are enclosed within the third
waU, built by Agrippa, and consequently at the time of
Christ were without the city walls ; but at the time when
John wrote his Gospel the third wall already existed, and
thus he could say, Bethesda " is in Jerusalem." 2
1 Cf. Robinson, i. 330, note. Ellicott, p. 139, note 2. [Bsedecker's editor
decides in favour of the Hummdm esh-Shefa of Robinson (i. 343) ; probably on
account of the natural properties of the water. See Baedecker, p. 191.]
2 See the Appendix : Topography of Jerusalem.

134 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.

o

DIVISION V.
THE SECOND YEAR OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY : A.U.C. 782, A.D. 29.
Sec. 100. After the Lord's sojourn at Jerusalem, during the
anonymous festival, which we believe we have shown to be
the Day of Atonement, John, vi. 1 ff., presents Him to us
again in Galilee, and soon after, — as we know from the Synop
tists, — beyond the lake, where (shortly before Passover A.D.
29) He wrought the miracle of feeding the five thousand.
This miracle is related in the same manner by all the evan
gelists : Matt. xiv. 1 3 ; Mark vi. 30; Luke ix. 10; John
vi. 2. This fact consequently affords us a trustworthy chrono
logical starting-point, whence to obtain a synoptical view of
the Gospel history. John relates but httle of that which
happened on the lake side before the miraculous feeding of the
multitude ; he only says, " A great multitude followed Him,
because they saw the miracles which He did on them "that
were diseased." 1 From this it at least follows that the feed
ing of the five thousand did not at once take place on the
coming of Jesus into Galilee, but that miraculous heahngs
were before this wrought by the Lord. What these deeds
and wonders were he does not relate ; probably .. because he
was not present. This blank is filled up by the Synoptists.
We have shown above 2 that Luke iv. 14-44 runs, parallel
with John iv. 43-46, and precedes the anonymous festival.
What is there related by Luke is also narrated, although
partly in different order, it is true, by Matthew and Mark.
We may therefore assume that all three evangelists begin
the history of Jesus with His sojourn in Galilee before the
anonymous festival. Their accounts are as follow : —
1 John vi. 2. 2 Cf. sees. 93, 94.

THE SECOND YEAR OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY.

135

The rejection of Christ at\
Nazareth, . . j

John.

Luke.

Matt.

Mark.

iv. 44.

iv. 14-30.

xiii. 53-58.

ji. 14, 15.
ivi. 1-8.

He comes to Capernaum.

i

Healing of thedemoniac,

iv. 31-37.
[iv. 12-17.]
i. 21-28.
Healing of Peter's wife's
mother,
iv. 38-41.
viii. 14-17.
i. 29-34.
Journeyings of Christ.
Preaches in the syna
gogues of Galilee. In
the synagogues of Judea.
Goes up to the festival at
Jerusalem,
v. 1.
iv. 42-44.
i. 35-39.
Matthew and Mark relate that all which they record of the
ministry of our Lord occurred after the imprisonment of the
Baptist.1 We shall hereafter show (sec. 104) that this im
prisonment in reahty took place during the sojourn of Jesus
at Cana, related John iv. 46 ff.
The Lord's ministry in Galilee, after the return from the
anonymous festival, Luke v. 1, begins with the miraculous
draught of fishes, and the calhng of the three (four) first
apostles. The first subsequent event of which we can pre
cisely determine the chronology, is the disciples' plucking the
ears of corn on the second-first Sabbath, Luke vi. 1 ; and after
that, the feeding of the five thousand. After this last event,
the Gospel of John speaks of four different occasions on which
the Lord was absent in Judea; namely, at the feast of
Tabernacles, chap. vii. 1 ff. ; at the feast of Dedication, x.
22 ; on His visit to Bethany, where He raised Lazarus, xi.
17 ; and, finally, at the last Passover, xii. 12. Entirely in
harmony with this is Luke, who mentions a journey to Jeru
salem, ix. 51 ; speaks of His presence at Bethany, x. 38 ; in
dicates anew a journey to Jerusalem, xiii. 22 ; and, finally,
marks the last journey through Jericho to the feast of Pass
over, xviii. 31. We thus obtain as the synoptical points :
John vii. 1 = Luke ix. 51 ; John x. 22 = Luke x. 38 ;
John xi. 17 = Luke xiii. 22 ; John xii. 12 = Luke xviii. 31.
Of these journeys the last two belong to the year a.d. 30.
1 Matt. iv. 12 ; Mark i. 14.
136 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.

The first two, on the other hand, belong to the year A.D. 29 ;
consequently, to the present division.
Below is given a general outline of the history of Christ, as
recorded by Luke and John, to the time of the last Passover,
together with a synoptical view of the history to the feeding
of the five thousand.
(I.) Succession of Events to the Last Passover.

Ordeb of Time.

Place.

Arrangement op
John.

Arrangement of
Luke.

Year i.

Beginning of the ministry, .

Galilee.

i. 1— ii. 13.

iii. 21-iv. 13.

First Passover, .

Judea.

ii. 14-iv. 1.

Departure. Sojourn in
Galilee.
iv. 2-54. .
iv. 14-43.
Journey to the anonymous
festival. Sojourn in
Judea.
v. 1-47.
iv. 44.
Year ii.
From the approach of the
1
second Passover. Sojourn
in . . .
Galilee.
vi. 1— vii. 9.
vi. 1-ix. 50.
Departure, ....
vii. 10.
ix. 51.
Journey in .
Judea.
ix. 52-x. 37.
Sojourn at feast of Taber
nacles, ....
vii. 11-x. 21.
Bethany, ....
x. 38^12.
Feast of Dedication, .
x. 22-39.
Sojourn beyond Jordan,
x. 40-42.
xi. 1-xiii. 21.
Year iii.
Departure to Bethany,
xi. 1-53.
xiii. 22-xvii. 10.
Ephraim. Journey between
Galilee and Samaria,
xi. 54-57.
xvii. 11-xix. 28.
Jericho, Bethany,
...
xii. 1.
xix. 29.
Sec. 101. Division of the historical material to Passover
A.D. 29 : —
(II.) Synoptical View of the History from the Beginning of a.d. 29,
to the Feeding of the Five Thousand.
Order of Events.
Mark.
Luke.
Matthew.
Calling of the first
apostles,
Capernaum. — Healing of
one possessed,
i. 16-20.
i. 21-28.
v. 1-11.
cf. sec. 100.
iv. 18-22.
THE SECOND YEAR OF OUR LORD S MINISTRY.

137

Order of Events.

Mark.

Healing of Peter's mother
in-law,
Jesus retires into a desert
place, ....
Healing of the leper.
Jesus withdraws again
to the wilderness,
After some days returns
to Capernaum. Healing
of the paralytic, .
Repairs to the seaside.
Calling of Levi, .
Christ discourses concern
ing the fasting of John's
disciples,
The disciples pluck the
ears of corn on the Sab
bath day,
Healing of the withered
hand. The Pharisees
and Herodians consult
to put Him to death, .
Jesus retires to the sea.
Several acts of healing,
His mother and His
brethren,
Jesus preaches by the sea,
Returns to the house.
There instructs the
disciples. The pearl of
great price, .
The Lord preaches
throughout Galilee,
Ordaining of the twelve
apostles,
The Sermon on the Mount,
Capernaum. — Healing of
the centurion's servant,
Nain. — Raising of the
widow's son,
Message of the Baptist, .
The three woes,1 .
The Saviour's hour of joy,
The woman that was a
sinner,
The ministering women,
Crossing of the sea: storm,
Jesus in the land of the
Gadarenes, .

Luke.

i. 29-34.
i. 35-37.

i. 40-45.

ii. 1-12.
ii. 13-17.

ii. 18-22.

ii. 23-28.

iii. 1-6.
iii. 7-12, 20-30.
iii. 31-35.
iv. 1-34.

iii. 13-19.

iv. 35-41.
v. 1-20.

Matthew.

v. 12-14.
v. 15-26.
v. 27-32.
v. 33-39.
vi. 1-5.
vi. 6-11.

viii. 19-21.
viii. 4-18.

vi. 12-16.
vi. 17^9;
vii. 1-11.
vii. 12-17.
vii. 18-35.

vii. 36-50.
viii. 1-3.
viii. 22-25.
viii. 26-39.

viii. 14-17.

viii. 1-4.
ix. 1-8.
ix. 9-13.
ix. 14-17.
xii. 1-8.
xii. 9-14.
xii. 15-45.
xii. 46-50.
xiii. 1-35.
xiii. 36-52.
iv. 23-25. '
v. i-vii. 29.
viii. 5-13.
xi. 1 [?].
xi. 2-19.
xi. 20-24.
xi. 25-30.
viii. 18-27.
viii. 28-34.

1 [Unless the historical connection of these words is that of Luke x. 13-15 ;
towards the close of the Lord's ministry, cf. sec. 137.]

138 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.

Order of Events.

Mark.

Luke.

Matthew.

Capernaum. — Healing of
the woman. Raising of
Jairus' daughter,
Healing of two blind men,
and of one who was dumb,
First sending forth of the
apostles,1
Death of the Baptist,
Return of the Twelve, .

v. 21-43.
vi. 7-13.
vi. 14-29.
vi. 30.
vi. 31-56.

viii. 40-56.
ix. 1-6.
ix. 7-9.
ix. 10.
ix. 11-17.

ix. 18-26.
ix. 27-35.
ix. 36-x. 42.
xiv. 1-12.
xiv. 13-36.

Feeding of the
five thousand.
Bethsaida-
Julias. Jesus
walks upon
the sea, .

John.

vi. 1-21.

Sec. 102. Mark and Luke arrange the historical material
in the same order ; it is otherwise with Matthew. This
evangehst places before the history of the disciples plucking
the ears of corn a succession of events which the other two
evangelists place after that history — namely, the message
of the Baptist,2 the storm on the sea, the heahng of the
demoniac, and the sending forth of the twelve. Luke, on the
other hand, relates two histories not contained in the other
Gospels, which are narrated by him after the plucking of the
corn-ears — that, namely, of the raising of the young man at
Nain, and that of the anointing of Jesus' feet. We find Mark
more explicit in point of time and place than the other
evangehsts, who often employ indefinite expressions to desig
nate the change of locality and succession of days. We
therefore regard Mark's arrangement as that preserving the
more strictly chronological order.

I. — From the Beturn of our Lord to Galilee to the Second-First
Sabbath. (From Beginning of the Year till 4:th April
a.d. 29.)
Sec. 103. The Second-First Sabbath. — Thus Luke desig
nates the Sabbath on which the plucking of the ears of corn
i [Cf. Luke xxii. 35.] 2 Not recorded by Mark.

RETURN OF OUR LORD TO GALILEE, ETC. 139
took place. The date of this occurrence was at any rate some
where about the beginning of the month Nisan, A.D. 29. The
subsequent feeding of the five thousand falls shortly before
the 1 5th Nisan ; much more must the Sabbath in question
precede the Passover. Bipe ears of barley may be found in the
Ghuweir as early as the beginning of April, but not earlier.
The given day can, however, be more nearly defined. Luke
tells us 1 that the disciples plucked the ears (of corn) on the
second-first Sabbath, iv o-afiftaTas Bevrepo7rpd>Tq>. There are
few expressions in the New Testament to which such diverse
explanations have been given as to this. Without entering
into the merits of these, we simply give our own interpreta
tion — one resting upon no mere hypothesis. We have
already2 cited a passage from The Preaching of Peter, in
which it is stated that the Jews, when the moon does not
shine, do not observe the "so-called first Sabbath," adBfiaTov
to Xeyoptevov irp&Tov, which preceded, and was connected
with the Neomenia, i.e. the first day of the new month. Now
we have above remarked3 that the Jews at a distance from
Jerusalem were always in uncertainty whether the month
just closed consisted of 29 or 30 days, and whether,
consequently, the first day of the new month would cor
respond to the 30th or the 31st day of the old. They
therefore observed both as festivals or Sabbaths; the first
of these days was called, as we learn from The Preaching of
Peter, crdftfiaTov irp&Tov; the second must accordingly be
called crdfiftaTov BevTepoirpcoTov. Since, then, in the year A.D.
29, the Adar [Veadar] consisted of 29 days (cf. p. 13), the
1st Nisan was consequently the " first Sabbath," and the 2d
Nisan the "second-first Sabbath;" the "first Sabbath" thus
began on the evening of Sunday, 3d April, and the " second-
first" on the evening of Monday, 4th April.
Sec. 104. The Imprisonment of John the Baptist. —
Herod the tetrarch cast John into prison, because he had said
it was not lawful for Herod to have Herodias, his brother
Philip's wife.4 Josephus says : " Herod slew John, called the
Baptist, who was a good man, and who exhorted those Jews
1 Luke vi. 1. 2 Cf. sec. 11. 3 Cf. sec. 14.
4 Matt. xiv. 3, 4 ; Mark vi. 17, 18 ; Luke iii. 19, 20.

140 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
that were intent upon virtue, were righteous towards each
other and pious towards God, to come to baptism. . . . Now
when people crowded to him on all sides, and were carried
away by his words, Herod feared he might abuse his in
fluence over the people to stir up a rebellion, since they
seemed inclined in all things to be obedient to his suggestions.
He thought it therefore advisable to put him out of the way
before he should attempt any commotion. ... In conse
quence of this suspicion on the part of Herod, he was bound,
sent to Machasrus, and there put to death." x Machaerus was
a fortress beyond Jordan, or rather beyond the Dead Sea ; in
the present day the place is called Mkaur, and lies upon a
high mountain, Attarus by name, on the southern hank of the
Wady Zerka Main.2 — The time- at which John was imprisoned
can no longer be determined with precision. Thus much is
certain, that after the Passover of the year A.D. 2 8 he was still
at hberty, and at the Fast of the Atonement of the same year
was already a prisoner ; if, namely — of which there can be no
room for doubt — the anonymous festival in which the Lord
spoke of John as one who was? is to be regarded as the Day
of Atonement. At some time, then, between these two dates,
John was cast into prison. If, as we conclude,4 that event
took place while Jesus was at Cana of Galilee,5 where He
arrived during the month of May, at harvest time, Matthew
and Mark are justified in dating the beginning of their narra
tive from the imprisonment of the Baptist. To the time pre
ceding the anonymous festival belongs, as we have seen,6
Luke iv. 14-44, and consequently also Matt. iv. 12-17 and
Mark i. 14 ff. We can hardly escape the inference that our
Lord, during His sojourn at Cana, was led, by the intelligence
that John had been cast into prison, to come forth by the Sea
of Gennesareth, i.e. to enter on a wider circuit of labour, and
take up His abode at Capernaum.
1 Antiq. xviii. 5, sec. 2.
2 [According to Baedecker (p. 317), 3860 feet above the Dead Sea, and 2546
above the Mediterranean. On the fortress itself, see Ritter, iii. 70. Cf. Ellicott,
p. 129, note 2.]
3 John v. 35.
* [From Matt. iv. 12 ff. as compared with John iv. 43, 44.]
5 John iv. 46. . e Cf. sec. 93.

RETURN OF OUR LORD TO GALILEE, ETC. 141
Sec. 105. Herod the Tetrarch. — The author of John's
death was a son of Herod the Great and of Malthace. After
the death of his father he became tetrarch of Galilee and
Pereea.1 His first wife was the daughter of Aretas, king of
Petra. He subsequently took to himself Herodias, wife of his
brother Herod.2 The daughter of Aretas fled to her father, who
later made war with Herod on account of this injury. John
the Baptist had said to Herod, " It is not lawful for thee to
liaA^e thy brother's wife." This was the cause of his imprison
ment. The same Herod Antipas was the founder of the city of
Tiberias, which, at the time of our Lord's ministry, was still
building. Herod, however, seems already to have had his
residence in this town ; a consideration by which the fact is
explained that our Lord, who avoided this prince, never
entered Tiberias. The relation of the Lord to Herod is
touched upon in Luke ix. 7 ff., xiii. 31 ff. ; Mark viii. 15.
Sec. 106. Nothing would prevent our placing the beginning
of our Lord's ministry at the lake in the latter part of the
year 28, since the Baptist had then at any rate been already
long in captivity, if the Synoptists had related to us some
what more than they have done of the Lord's work at that
time. But that which takes place before the second-first
Sabbath is in too great numerical disproportion with that
which is related of the next fourteen day's, for us to be able
to conceive of the first event, the miraculous draught of
fishes, as happening earlier than the beginning of the year 29.
The place which was the scene of this miracle is not mentioned
by name : it admits of no doubt, however, that it was Bethsaida,
the town of Peter, the fisher-haven of Capernaum, the present
Khan Betszeida, or Minyeh. This miraculous draught was
immediately followed by the calling of Peter, James, and
John, according to Luke ; of Andrew also, according to the
other Synoptists. This calling to the apostolate is not to be
identified with the calling to the discipleship, described in
John i. 3 7 ff., which took place a year earlier. The manner
1 Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8, sec. 1 ; 11, sec. 4.
2 So he is called by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5, sec. 1 ; in Matt. xiv. 3 he is
called Philip. He was probably called Herod Philip ; as the tetrarch of Galilee
and Peraea was called Herod Antipas.

142 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
in which the sons of Zebedee, James and John, are introduced
by the Synoptists might call forth surprise. Zebedee and his
sons were citizens of Jerusalem, where they had their home
and associations ; and here it would appear as though they,
like Andrew and Peter, were inhabitants of Bethsaida. On
this matter the books of Jewish tradition afford us light.
In Bab. Baba Kama, foL 80. 2, it is expressly said that every
Israelite, wherever might be his abode, had a right to engage
in the fishery on the Sea of Tiberias. Of this right many
denizens of Jerusalem would naturally avail themselves ;
especially at the time of the Passover, when it was a question
of providing the Holy City with provisions for a million and a
half of pilgrims. If we think of Zebedee as such a citizen of
Jerusalem, who with Simon and Andrew phed the fishing,
every difficulty and objection disappears. This labour seems
to have been pursued with special zeal in February and
March ; for at this season in the year 2 8 we found John in
company with Simon and Andrew on the shore of the lake,
and now it is the same again in 29. It is probable that
Nathanael, the man of Cana, was present on a like errand at
Bethsaida, when he became the Lord's disciple.1
When, in consequence of this vocation, it is said : " They
left all, and followed Him," it results that such following in
the narrower sense had not previously existed ; although these
men had already been a year the disciples of Jesus, — a connec
tion and acquaintance which the Synoptists too presuppose,
since they, and especiaUy the two first evangelists, assign no
reason for the following of the disciples immediately upon the
call. If the association of these men with Jesus was not as
yet a constant one, we cannot feel surprise that they were
not with Him in Jerusalem, and that John, the Jerusalemite,
alone could give an account of that which took place there.
Even for the subsequent period the following of the disciples
was no constant one in the stricter sense ; we shall still
have often to indicate the absence of one or other of the
apostles. Mark i. 2 1 brings into immediate connection with the call
ing of those four the healing of a demoniac in the synagogue
1 Cf. sec. 81.

RETURN OF OUR LORD TO GALILEE, ETC. 143
at Capernaum. He says, they came away after Him : and
they enter into Capernaum, and straightway1 on the Sabbath
day He entered into the synagogue, where He wrought the
miracle of healing. Luke places this miracle at an earher
period.2 We cannot decide which of them observes the true
order. The same is the case also with the healing of Peter's
mother-in-law. This took place on the same day as the
healing of the demoniac ; 3 so that the same chronological un
certainty attaches to it. Here Mark mentions, chap. i. 38, 39,
a tour of Jesus through Galilee, which is one with that to
Judea, related in Luke iv. 42. The unquestioned reading of
" Galilee " in Mark was on harmonistic grounds substituted in
place of the " Judea " in Luke.
According to Luke, the first miracle wrought by Jesus on
His return from Judea, after the anonymous festival, was the
healing of the leper. Where the scene of this miracle was,
cannot be learnt from the narrative in the evangehsts.
According to Matthew, chap. viii. 1, it took place after the
Sermon on the Mount, before the Lord entered Capernaum.
That it did not take place at Capernaum, we learn also from
Mark i. 40, 45, ii. 1. According to Luke v. 12, it took place
" in one of the towns," iv pta t&v iroXecov.
The healing of the paralytic was, according to Mark ii. 1,
wrought at Capernaum, some days after the healing of the
leper.4 The place was without doubt Capernaum, although
this is nowhere expressly stated. On the same day,6 while
Jesus was going from Capernaum to the sea,6 was the call of
Levi. The customs house lay consequently on the sea-side, i.e.
at Bethsaida ; placed there probably on account of the fishery,
which was not likely to be toll free. On the same day Jesus
gave judgment on the fasting of John's disciples.7 After this,
but without definite connection in point of time with what
precedes, is related the history of the plucking of the ears.
1 xa.) i'oSius ; Mark i. 21. a Luke iv. 31 ff.; cf. sec. 95.
3 Mark i. 29 ; Luke iv. 38.
4 us rm 'ihiav ¦s'oXiv, Matt. ix. 1 ; cf. Luke v. 16, 17.
6 Luke v. 27. 6 Mark ii. 13.
7 Matt. ix. 14-17 ; Mark ii. 18-22 ; Luke v. 33-38. [From Mark's account,
an actual fast-day ; therefore probably a Monday or Thursday. Cf. Luke
xviii. 12.]

144 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
II. — From the Second-First Sabbath to the Storm upon
the Sea.
Sec. 107. The second-first Sabbath we have already shown
to be the 1st Nisan, i.e. the 4th April, A.D. 29. Mark and
Luke make mention, immediately after the history of the
plucking of the corn-ears, which belonged to the events of
that Sabbath, of the healing of the man with the withered
hand, upon a Sabbath day, in the synagogue of Capernaum.
In Matthew the facts are placed in another connection. In
Mark, chap. hi. 1, the transition from the plucking of the ears
to the said healing is brought about by the words, " And He
entered again into the synagogue ; and there was a man there
which had a hand withered. And they watched Him, whether
He would heal him on the Sabbath." According to this
evangelist, the healing of the withered hand thus took place on
the same day on which the disciples had plucked the corn.
On this day the Pharisees, already embittered, wished to test
by an actual case the question how the Lord stood with regard
to the Pharisaic Sabbath tradition. He had permitted an act
to His disciples which seemed to them a Sabbath-desecrating
labour : they would now see — for by them had the presence
of the sick man been contrived — whether Jesus would feel
Himself justified in performing an act which, according to
their tradition, was a toil. Now, that the heahng of a sick
man was really regarded as a Sabbath-breaking labour, is
evident from the Jerus. Berachoth, iii 1, where it is related
that Babbi Meir, the teacher of Babbi Jehuda the holy,
proposed tempering this too severe precept, to the extent of
permitting in future oil and wine to be applied as remedial
agents. The heahng wrought by the Lord now completed the
rupture with the Pharisaic party.1
Luke, chap, vi, connects the healing of this man with the
plucking of the corn, by the words : iyevero Be Kal iv erepa
cra/3/3aTw elo-eX6etv avTov, k.t.X. If we understand by these
words " on another Sabbath," there is a contradiction between
Mark and Luke ; if, however, we render them by, " on the
remaining part of the Sabbath," i.e. on the morrow, the con-
1 Mark iii. 6.

SECOND-FIRST SABBATH TO THE STORM UPON THE SEA. 145
tradiction disappears.1 The plucking of the ears had taken
place on the evening of the 4th April, after the second-first
Sabbath had begun ; on the same Sabbath, but on the follow
ing day, 5th April, Jesus went again into the synagogue and
healed the withered hand. As the Pharisees now took a
decisive step, so also our Lord. He left Capernaum, repaired
to the sea, and presently after to a mountain, where He
ordained the Twelve.2
Sec. 108. The Sermon on the Mount. — According to Luke,
chap. vi. 13, the Lord ordained the Twelve upon the mountain,
calling them to Himself as soon as it was day. He then
went down with them, and took His stand upon a level
place,3 where He addressed to the great assembled multitude
the discourse recorded vers. 20-49. The Sermon on the
Mount is placed by the Evangehst Matthew, the collector of
the discourses, at the head of his Gospel, as the programme
of the kingdom of God. It cannot, however, by any means
be regarded as the first pubhc act of Jesus, for a series of
acts must at any rate have preceded it, in order that the
multitude spoken of in Matt. iv. 25 might be gathered
out of all the lands there mentioned — Galilee, Decapohs,
Jerusalem, Judea, Persea. That which is said Matt. iv.
18-23 does not suffice to explain it. We hold, therefore,
that Luke gives this discourse in its true chronological
order. A very old tradition, already favoured by Jerome,4 against
which no reasonable objection can be raised, places the moun
tain, called from the blessings contained in the discourse there
pronounced the " Mount of Beatitudes," Mons Beatitudinum,
upon the Karun Hattin. This mountain, on which there are
two knolls or horns, lies upon the high plateau which stretches
westward from the lake. It is situated at about four miles
S.W. from Ain-Mudawara, or Capernaum. At its foot extends
the plain of Hattin. There were the people assembled, to
1 [That is to say, Luke speaks of the next day, which was also Sabbath, as
another Sabbath. Cf. sec. 126 on Luke ix. 37.]
2 Mark iii. 7-10 ; Luke ix. 6-12.
3 Wi roiroo vrihvoo, Luke vi. 17.
4 Ep. 44 ad Marcell. t. iv. p. 522, ed. Mart.
K

146 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
whom Jesus came down ; and the discourse which He held to
them was none the less dehvered on the mountain, in ap
proaching which from the land of Gennesar one must make a
considerable rise. That which leads many geographers, e.g.
Von Baumer,1 to reject this tradition, is the unsuitable mis
placing of Capernaum at Tell-Hum, and the incongruous story
of the monks, who point out the same mountain as the scene
of the feeding of the five thousand ; whereas this last must
certainly be sought on the other side of the Sea of Galilee.
That a very ancient tradition of the Christians attaches to
Karun Hattin, is shown by the fact that among the Arabs
certain blocks of rock upon this mountain bear the name of
Hejar Nasara, i.e. stones of the Christians (or, of Christ the
Nazarene ?). Bobinson,2 who in coming up from the south
climbed the eastern horn of the Tell-Hattin, says : " As seen
on this side, the tell or mountain is merely a low ridge,
some 30 or 40 feet in height, and not 10 minutes in length
from east to west. At its eastern end is an elevated point
or horn, perhaps 60 feet above the plain, and at the western
end another not so high. These give to the ridge at a dis
tance the appearance of a saddle, and are called Kurun Hattin,
the ' Horns of Hattin.' But the singularity of this ridge is,
that on reaching the top you find that it lies along the very
border of the great southern plain [of el-Lubieh], where this
latter sinks off at once, by a precipitous offset, to the lower
plain of Hattin, from which the northern side of the tell rises
very steeply, not much less than 400 feet. Below, on the
north, lies the village of Hattin, and further towards the
north and north-east a second similar offset forms the descent
to the level of the lake.
" The summit of the eastern horn is a httle circular plain,
and the top of the lower ridge between the two horns is also
flattened to a plain. The whole mountain is of limestone.
On the eastern horn are the remains of a small building, pro
bably once a Wely, with a few rough ruins of no import ; yet
the natives now dignify the spot with the name of el-Medineh.
This point commands a near view of the great plain [to the
south] north of Tabor, and also of the basin Ard el-Hamma ;
1 Pal. p. 37. 2 Pal. ii. 370 ff.

SECOND-FIRST SABBATH TO THE STORM UPON THE SEA. 147
the latter lying spread out before us with fields of varied
hues, hke a carpet. On the other side the eye takes in, even
here, only the northern part of the Lake of Tiberias, and on
its western shore the httle plain of Gennesareth; while in
the north and north-west Safed and a few other villages are
seen upon the hills. The prospect is in itself pleasing, but
bears no comparison with that which we had just enjoyed
from Mount Tabor. This tell is nearly on a line between
Tabor and Hermon, the latter being about N.N.E. ^ E, and
the former nearly S.S.W. £ W."
Sec. 109. "When He had ended all His sayings in the
audience of the people, He entered into Capernaum," it is
said in Luke vii. 1. There He healed the centurion's
servant.1 This miracle, which Mark does not relate, is nar
rated by Matthew as occurring after the Lord's return to
Capernaum from the Mount of Beatitudes. One proof the
more that the Sermon on the Mount, as related by Matthew,
and the discourse of our Lord in Luke vi. 20 ff., are one
and the same. Here Luke, chap. vii. 11—17, inserts the his
tory of the raising of the young man at Nain ; which history
may find its point of attachment in the journeyings of our
Lord, when " He went thence to teach and preach in their
cities." 2 Matthew has immediately before, chap. x. 1-42,
described the constituting of the apostolate of the Twelve ;
the same as Luke, with the omission of the Sermon on the
Mount, which had already been communicated chap, v.-vii.
" The foBowing day," says Luke, iv Ty e^ijs, consequently,
on the day after the Sermon on the Mount and the heal
ing of the centurion's servant, " Jesus went into a city
called Nain : " at the gates of this city He raised the young
man.3 Sec. 110. Nain. — This place, which in the present day
still bears the ancient name, lies in the plain of Esdraelon, at
the northern foot of the Jebel ed-Duhi (Lesser Hermon),
southward from Mount Tabor, about 24 miles from Caper
naum. Since the Esdraelon plain passes over, without any
considerable plunge, into the Ghor, at Bisan, it is to be
1 Luke vii. 2-10 ; Matt. viii. 5-13. 2 Matt. xi. 1.
" Luke vii. 11-17.

148 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
supposed that our Lord proceeded from the Ghor to Nain,
coming by ship to the southern end of the lake.1 This
journey, thus understood, would not occupy more than two
days. Sec. 111. The Message of the Baptist. — John sent two
of his disciples to Jesus and asked, " Art thou He that should
come, or do we look for another ? " This fact is related by
Matthew and Luke.2 When and where did this happen ?
Luke leaves us in doubt whether these messengers came to
Him in the vicinity of Nain or at Capernaum, where the
events of chap. vii. 36—50 must have taken place. Matthew'
leads us to suppose that it was at Capernaum. Luke places
this history after the second-first Sabbath ; Matthew, on the
other hand, before it. From the second-first Sabbath to the
feeding of the five thousand is an interval of twelve or
thirteen days, of which that which is related until now
takes up seven or eight. Now John's death falls [according
to the order observed in the narrative of Matthew and Mark] 3
two or three days before the feeding of the five thousand ;
but that would be about the day when John's disciples were
with Jesus, and they consequently would not have found their
master alive on their return. The place assigned by Matthew
to the sending of these messengers seems therefore to us to
be the true one. Luke perhaps placed this narrative after
that of the raising of the young man at Nain, in order that
the words of the Lord (ver. 22), " Dead ones are raised,"
might rest upon an accomplished fact. [Nothing, however,
prevents our believing these two events to have happened
in the order recorded by Luke, and at the time indicated •
by Matthew, i.e. before the second - first Sabbath. From
1 Stanley says of this ruined hamlet : " One entrance alone could it have had,
that which opens on the rough hill-side in its downward slope to the plain." —
Sinai and Pal. p. 357, ed. 5. Van de Velde says in his Memoir, that the rock
on the west side of Nain is full of sepulchral caves, whence he infers that the
Lord approached it on that side. See Ellicott, p. 181, note 2. Tristram refers
to the traces still remaining of the ancient walls, as showing that it was once a
walled town, and so with gates, as in the Gospel narrative. — Land of Israel, p.
129. Thomson saw a large number of tombs on the east side of the village. —
Land and Book, p. 445.
2 Matt. xi. 2-19 ; Luke vii. 18-35. 3 Matt. xiv. 6-12 ; Mark vi. 21-29.

SECOND-FIRST SABBATH TO THE STORM UPON THE SEA. 149
Luke ix. 7-9 the Baptist must have been put to death
early in that year, — some considerable time before Passover
a.d. 29.]1
Sec. 112. After the history of the messengers of John,
probably on the evening of the same day, Luke relates 2 that
Jesus went to be a guest with a Pharisee, Simon by name.
There a woman that was a sinner anointed His feet, and the
Lord related the parable of the two pardoned debtors. This
history is not given in Matthew and Mark. In place of it we
read, Matt. xii. 22 ff., the history of one healed by the
Lord, a demoniac who was bhnd and dumb. The Pharisees
exclaimed, " He casteth out the devils by the Prince of the
devils." This drew forth from the Lord the warning regarding
the sin against the Holy Ghost. Since the scribes and
Pharisees required a sign, the Lord promised them the sign of
the prophet Jonah. " While He yet talked to the people,
behold His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring
to speak with Him. . . . And stretching forth His hand
towards His disciples, He said, ' Behold my mother and my
brethren.' " 3 In Mark iii. 2 0 ff. the same reproach also is
found, though introduced in another connection, the reproach
of casting out devils by Beelzebub, as weU as the saying about
Jonah, and the coming of his mother and Iris brethren. This
account, so far as concerns the mother and the brethren, is
found also in Luke viii. 19 ff. ; but after the parable of the
sower, and immediately before the crossing over the sea. The
two first evangehsts, after they have reported the discourse in
which the Lord says who are His mother and His brethren,
add : " On the same day Jesus went out of the house and sat
by the sea ; 4 and . . . He entered into a ship, and the whole
multitude stood on the shore, and He spoke to them in
parables." The parables which are given in Mark iv. 1-33 are
those of the seed on different ground, of the growth of the seed
without the intervention of man, and of the grain of mustard
seed. Matthew, chap. xiii. 1-35, has the same, with the
1 Cf. sec. 115.
2 Luke vii. 36-50. On this history, compare the remarks of Ellicott, p. 182
note 2.
3 Matt. xii. 46-50. 4 Matt. xiii. 1.

150 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
exception of that of the growth of the seed ; instead of which
we have the parable of the tares in the field, of the hidden
treasure, of the pearl of great price, and of the net with which
are taken fish of every kind. Matthew next relates the Lord's
journey to Capernaum and to Nazareth.1 In Mark, on the
other hand, the parables are immediately succeeded by that
crossing of the sea which led to the feeding of the five
thousand ; while in Luke the passage to the land of the
Gadarenes follows the words touching His mother and His
brethren. Sec. 113. The first crossing of the Lake. — This event is
related alike by all the Synoptists.2 Jesus proceeded from the
western shore (Bethsaida) across the lake. During the passage
a tempest arose, and filled the disciples with dismay, — a tem
pest which was presently stilled by the Lord.3 On the other
side of the lake, in the district of the Gadarenes, Gergesenes,
to Gerasenes, He healed a demoniac.4 When did this first
crossing of the sea take place ? According to Matthew's order
of narrating, it belongs to a period considerably earlier, at
any rate before the second-first Sabbath, perhaps before the
anonymous festival, because it is related shortly after the
healing of Peter's wife's mother. According to Mark and
Luke, it preceded by only a few days the feeding of the five
thousand. Since these two last evangehsts are wont in
general to observe the chronological succession of events more
strictly than Matthew, we accept their order as the correct
one in this case too. As concerns the place, it may be
difficult to determine which of the three readings merits the
preference, whether %u>pa Tepyeayvmv, or TaBapyvwv, or
Tepaayvmv. The name Gergesa is absolutely unknown in
geography. Gerasa may, at the time of Jesus, as being the
1 Matt. xiii. 36, 53-58. [orarpis, as distinguished from ftla t'oXis, always
means Nazareth.]
2 Matt. viii. 18-31 ; Mark iv. 35-v. 20 ; Luke viii. 22-39.
3 [On the peculiar features of this miracle, cf. Ellicott, 167, n. 3. It is
touchingly commemorated in the beautiful lines of M'Cheyne, beginning :
" Behind the hills of Naphtali."]
4 According to Matthew, viii. 28 ff., there were two demoniacs healed. [With
reference to the silence of the other evangelists as to the presence of a second
demoniac, cf. Ellicott, Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 188, note 2.]

SECOND-FTRST SABBATH TO THE STORM UPON THE SEA. 151
metropolis of the Decapolis in the general sense of Begio
Decapolitana, have also comprehended under its name the
eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.1 The same remark
applies to Gadara, of which the township, moreover, extended
directly to the sea.2 But if the name of the region is
doubtful, the region itself is not That it belonged to the
Decapolis is evident from Mark v. 2 0, as compared with Luke
viii 39. Now to this domain belonged that part of the
eastern coast which extended from the Wady Semakh to the
southern end of the lake.3 We are accordingly told, Luke
viii 26, that the said region lies over against Galilee —
dvTfirepa. Jesus, in healing the demoniac, permitted the
demons to enter into a herd of swine, who rushed down
the precipitous side of the hill — KaTa tov Kpyptvov — into the
sea.4 This took place then on a part of the coast where the
eastern mountain range slopes down with a steep declivity to
the very edge of the lake ; which seems to be especially the
case in the region of Adveriban. On account, however, of
the striking resemblance between Chersa and Gerasa, or
Gergesa, the scene of the miracle is probably to be placed
by the Wady Semakh.
Sec. 114. The sojourn of Jesus on the Decapolitan do
main was of but brief duration.5 When He landed on the
western coast at Bethsaida a great crowd of people awaited
Him, among them Jairus, whose daughter He raised from the
dead. The scene of this miracle was evidently Capernaum.
On the way thither, the woman who had the issue of blood
was healed by the touch of His garment's hem. This is
foHowed, according to Mark vi. 1, by a journey of Jesus to
Nazareth. Matthew also, chap, xiii 54, places this journey
shortly before the feeding of the five thousand. Luke does
not mention it, unless it is identical with the one recorded
by him, chap. iv. 16. This evangelist relates immediately
after the raising of the daughter of Jairus a first mission of
the apostles.6 " And, " it is said, chap. ix. 6, " going forth
[from Capernaum], they journeyed through the villages, t<z?
1 Cf. sec. 72, h. 2 C£ sec. 72, t.
3 Cf. sec. 72, I * Luke viii. 33.
5 Matt. viii. 34 ; Mark v. 17 ; Luke viii 37. 6 Luke ix. 1-6.

152 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
Kcoptas, everywhere evangelizing and healing." There is thus
here no reference to any considerable journey and prolonged
absence ; but to a journeying through the villages of the
western seaboard, which does not call for more than a single
day for its accomphshment.
Sec. 115. The fact next foHowing is now the feeding of
the five thousand. If we then from this point review the
historical material which the Synoptists have piled up between
the history of the plucking of the ears and that of the feeding
of the five thousand, we must regard it as impossible to range
aU this within the brief period of something like a fortnight,
from 1st to 14th Nisan: we must therefore conclude that the
evangelists did not design to follow any strictly chronological
order. The attempt to determine the exact date of each
single event must thus be abandoned as an impracticable
undertaking. We must be content with fixing in general the
limits of time; and these we may look upon as already
satisfactorily established.
III. — The Feeding of the Five Thousand.
Sec. 116. The immediate occasion of the second crossing of
the lake by Jesus was the death of John the Baptist. For
Herod, who had beheaded John, thought, when he heard of
the deeds of Jesus, that this was the Baptist risen from the
dead.1 The Lord, to avoid this tyrant, repaired therefore to
the eastern side of the lake.2 In connection with this, the
Synoptists relate the manner and cause of the execution of
the forerunner of Christ. The place of the execution was,
according to Josephus, the fortress of Machaerus, on the east
side of the Dead Sea.3 The evangehsts do not mention the
place ; nothing thus hinders our accepting the statement of
the Jewish historian as true.4 The time of the execution of
the Baptist can riot be very nearly determined from the Gospel
accounts. According to Luke vii. 18, John was still ahve
1 Matt. xiv. 1, 2 ; Mark vi. 14 ; Luke ix. 7.
2 Matt. xiv. 13. 3 Cf. sec. 104.
4 [Wieseler places the scene of his death at Livias ; but cf. Ellicott, p. 1 29,
note 2.]

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND. 153
eight days after the second-first Sabbath ; he was dead when
Jesus went to Bethsaida-Julias, about the 12th Nisan: the
execution is thus perhaps to be placed between the 12 th and
16th April a.d. 29. Some chronologists, among others
Wieseler,1 have sought more nearly to define this day from
the statement, Matt. xiv. 6, Mark vi. 21, that the beheading
was ordered at the time when Herod was celebrating his
yeveaia. This term may indicate either the birthday or the
day of accession to the throne. If it signifies the birthday,
this statement avails us nothing, since it is unknown on what
day Herod Antipas was born ; if it signifies the day of his
accession to the throne, it is still a question whether Herod
dated this from the time of his appointment by the Emperor
Augustus, or from that of the death of his father, Herod the
Great. Wieseler supposes this latter. We cannot, however,
by any means accept this view, since Herod was not tetrarch
by inheritance or by his father's will ; on the contrary, Herod
had by his wiU formally disinherited Antipas and the other
sons, and bequeathed his whole kingdom to Archelaus. This
will was overthrown, and Augustus appointed Antipas tetrarch.2
The date of the appointment by the Emperor is unknown ; at
any rate, not in the month of April. The only chronological
result to be gained from these yeveata is the determination of
the month of Herod's birth, — a date to which no interest
attaches. In order to arrive by another method at the year
of the Baptist's death, appeal has been made to Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 5, sec. 2. It is there said that the Jews
attributed the defeat inflicted on Herod by Aretas, king of
Petra, to the judgment of God on account of the death of
John the Baptist. Herod suffered this defeat shortly before
the death of the Emperor Tiberius, A.D. 36. From this, how
ever, it does not at all follow that the Baptist was put to
death a.d. 36 rather than A.D. 29. A calamity overtaking
Herod seven years after the crime might still be regarded as
a punishment for that crime.
1 Wieseler, Synopsis, p. 266 ff. of Engl, irans.
2 Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8, sec. 1 ; 11, sec. ' 4. [The general purport of
Herod's will appears, however, to have been carried out by Augustus ; cf. de
Bello, i. 23, sec. 7 ; ii. 6, sec. 3.]

154 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
Sec. 117. Jesus withdrew again beyond the Sea of Galilee1
to a city which is caUed Bethsaida ; 2 and a great multitude of
people followed Him. Now the Passover, the festival of the
Jews, was nigh.3 There, in a sohtary place,4 where there was
much grass,8 He fed five thousand men with five loaves and
two fishes.6 As concerns the time at which this miracle was
wrought, we shall be guilty of no rashness in concluding that
the day in question was the 12th or 13th Nisan [15th or
16th April]. That Bethsaida beyond Jordan, called also
Julias, and identical with the castle of Szeida, is here meant,
has been shown above, sec. 71.
When Jesus perceived that they would come and carry
Him off to make Him king, He retired to a mountain alone
to pray. The disciples, when it was already evening, began to
cross the sea. In the midst of the sea, however, they had to
contend with contrary winds.7 About the fourth watch of
the night,8 when they had proceeded some five and twenty
furlongs,9 they saw Jesus walking on the sea, coming to them.
They received Him into the ship ; and immediately the ship
was at the land, whither they went.10 The land to which
they were going was Capernaum ; u there, consequently, in
the haven of Capernaum, at Bethsaida, they landed. Now,
Matthew, as weU as Mark, says that they landed in the
country of Gennesareth.12 The position of Capernaum must
thus, as we have already determined it, have been in the land
of Gennesar, the El-Ghuweir. The accepting of TeU-Hum as
the site of the Lord's city (IBia iroXts) would involve John in
contradiction with the Synoptists. One proof the more for
1 John vi. 1. s Luke ix. 10. 3 John vi. 2-4.
* Mark vi. 35. [The scene of this miracle is well described by Thomson,
p. 372.]
5 John vi. 10.
6 Matt. xiv. 19 ; Mark vi. 39 ; Luke ix. 14 ; John vi. 10.
7 Matt. xiv. 24 ; Mark vi. 47 ; cf. John vi. 14.
8 Matt. xiv. 25. » John vi. 19.
10 John vi. 21. [For a vivid description of a similar tempest witnessed on the
lake, see Dr. Thomson, The Land and the Book, p. 375 ; and especially Tris
tram, Land of Israel, pp. 433, 434 ; for some excellent remarks on this whole
history, Ellicott, pp. 208, 209.]
11 John vi. 17.
18 its tyiv ynv Tivvwapir, Matt. xiv. 34 ; Mark vi. 53.

THE FEEDING OF THE FD7E THOUSAND. 155
the correctness of the position we have assigned to Capernaum,
sec. 63. John's account appears to differ from that of the
Synoptists to the extent that, according to these latter, the
meeting of the disciples with Jesus took place in the midst
of the sea ; whilst John states that so soon as they had
received Jesus on board the ship, they were immediately at
the shore. The contradiction, however, is only apparent.
When they were in the midst of the sea, or yet more
definitely, with John, when they had made 25 out of the 40
stades of the sea's width,1 they saw one walking on the sea,
whom they did not at once recognise as the Lord ; when at
length they recognised Him, and received Him into the ship,
they came immediately to the shore.2 Here again we have a
fresh proof that Capernaum is not TeU-Hum. From Bethsaida
to TeU-Hum is scarcely the half of the total breadth of the
lake, about 20 stades therefore ; thus, after having already
traversed 25 stades in this direction, they could no longer be
on the high sea.
Sec. 118. On the day after the feeding of the five thousand,
the Lord, according to John vi 22—59, held in the syna
gogue at Capernaum, the discourse concerning the eating of
His flesh and the drinking of His blood. It became a critical
turning-point for the disciples of Jesus, of whom many from
that time drew back from foUowing Him.3 It seems to us to
be the place here to enter upon the question why the Evan
gelist John, in the description of the last paschal meal, does
not mention the institution of the Lord's Supper. That the
discourse now before us has the design of, in some measure,
making amends for this silence, has often been asserted, and
certainly with perfect justice ; but those who assert this have,
it seems to us, stopped short at half-way. A meal of this
nature — of which the Supper on the eve of the Lord's death
was only a somewhat modified continuation — seems to have
1 Cf. Josephus, de Bello, iii. 10, sec. 7.
[2 John says : "They were willing then to receive Him " (vi. 21). The con
trast he institutes is with the terror they had before displayed. That Christ
was willing to enter the ship it was not necessary to say. Upon His coming on
board the wind ceased, and immediately they were at the shore. The narrative
is in undesigned agreement with that of the Synoptists.]
3 John vi. 60 ff.

156 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
been already ordained at the paschal season of the year 29,
which Jesus spent on the shore of the Lake of Gennesareth.
If one considers the expression so frequently recurring in the
Gospels, " He was made known to them in the breaking of
the bread," 1 as weU as the oft-repeated formula, " He took
the bread, gave thanks, brake it, and gave to the disciples,"
which occurs alike at the institution of the Supper, at the
feeding of the five thousand, and at that of the four thousand,
— the thought suggests itself that aU these were sacramental
repasts, to which the words of John vi. 22 ff. form the com
mentary. As early as the Passover a.d. 29 had the Lord, if
not already substituted His Passover for the Mosaic one, yet
instituted it side by side with the other, and drawn His
disciples closer to Himself, and confirmed them in personal
communion with Himself, by that meal which He distributed
to them. Such a step, from the previous mere proclamation
of the coming kingdom of God to the actual summoning of
foUowers, must frighten away the undecided ; but, on the other
hand, must call forth and stimulate true believers. This very
effect it is described as having in John vi. 60-71. The mere
words could not produce this ; it must have now come to a
decisive act. The so-called institution of the Lord's Supper
was thus only to such an extent an instituting, as something
already existing was enriched with new thoughts, and destined
to continuance after the Lord's death. But since this new
element was for the Apostle John already virtuaUy communi
cated in every meal till then blessed- and distributed by the
Lord from the time of the Passover by the lake, the last meal
also was for him nothing else than each previously partaken
of — namely, a sacrament of communion of life with the Lord.
This discourse of Jesus is communicated only in the Gospel
of John ; but the effect it produced, namely, the falhng away
of some, the joyful confession of others, — in a word, the crisis,
— is simultaneously indicated by Matthew and Luke.2
1 Luke xxiv. 30, 31, 35 ; John xxi. 13 ; cf. Luke xxii..l9 ; Mark vi. 41, viii
6, and parallel places.
2 Luke ix. 19-27 ; Matt. xiv. 33.

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND.

157

IV. — Synopsis of the Events following the Feeding of the Five
Thousand, during the Year AJ). 29. (Matt. xv. 1-
xix. 1 ; Mark vii. 1-x. 1 ; Luke is. 18-xiii 30 ;
John vii 1— x. 40.)
Sec. 119. Up to the time of the feeding of the five thousand,
the Gospel of Luke, by virtue of its more numerous points of
contact with the Johannine accounts on the one hand, and
with the accounts of the two first Synoptists on the other,
formed a sure element from which to obtain a synopsis of the
four Gospels. This, however, is, so far as concerns the events
of the year 29, henceforth unfortunately in much less degree
the case; since the three Synoptists are very sparing with
regard to chronological and topographical data. Nevertheless
we may attain, with some degree of certainty, an historical
groundwork, by means of the tables of contents of the four
Gospels, given below.

(ILT.) Succession of Events, according to the Fibst Two
Evangelists.

C05TEST3 OT TtTR NARRATIVE.

Immediately after the return from
the feeding of the five thousand,
Jesus converses, with the scribes
and Pharisees from Jerusalem, on
The washing of hands,
Journey of Jesus in the district of
Tyre and Sidon,
Return to the Galilean Sea, region
of Decapolis, ....
Feeding of the four thousand.
Passage to Magadan (Dalmanntha),
Passage to Bethsaida ( Julias),
Healing of the blind man,
Journey to Cassarea Philippi,
Transfiguration of Jesus,
Journey through Galilee,
Jesus at Capernaum. Temple
tribute, ....
Jesus in judea beyond Jordan,

Rep. rsMATr.

Ref. rs' Mark.

xv. 1-20.

xv.

21-28.

xv. 29-31.
xv. 32-38.
xv. 39-xvi. 4.
xvL 5-12.
xvi. 13-28.
xviL 1—21.

xviL 24-xviii.
•Ht. 1.

vn. 1-23.

vu. 1'-

-oi.1.

vii. 31-37.
viii. 1-9.
viii. lC-12.
viii 13-22.
viii 22-26.
viii. 27-ix. 1.
is. 2-29.
ix. 30-32.
ix. 33-50.
x.1.

158 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
(IV.) Succession or Events, according to Luke.

Contents.

Reference.

Jesus asks the disciples, Whom do the people say that
I am ? (cf. Matt. xvi. 13 ; Mark viii. 27),
Transfiguration of Christ, ......
Journey to Jerusalem, through the land of the
Second mission of the disciples. Woe upon Chorazin,
etc. (cf. Matt. x. 20-28), 
Jesus at Bethany. Mary and Martha,
Doctrine of prayer. Healing of the dumb man,
Jesus at table with a Pharisee, ....
Words and works, 
Jesus warned against Herod. " It cannot be that a
prophet perish out of Jerusalem," ....
Jesus is guest at the house of an archon of the Phari
sees. Heals one suffering from dropsy. Parables,
Journey to Jerusalem, through the confines of Samaria
and Galilee. The ten lepers, ....
Last journey to Jerusalem, by Jericho,

ix. 18-27.
ix. 28-50.
ix. 51-62.
x. 1-37.
x. 38-42.
xi. 1-36.
xi. 37-54.
xii. 1-xiii. 30.
xiii. 31-35.
xiv. 1-xvii. 10.
xvii. 11-xviii. 30.
xviii. 31.

(V.) Succession of Events, according to John.

Contents.

Reference.

Jesus remains in Galilee after the feeding of the five
thousand until the feast of Tabernacles, 14th
Nisan-lOth Tisri (17th April-7th Oct.) a.d. 29, .
Jesus at Jerusalem at the feast of Tabernacles.
Healing of the man born blind' (Tisri, until ?),
Jesus at Jerusalem during the feast of Dedication,
25th Kisleu (20th Dec.) a.d. 29, .
Jesus withdraws beyond Jordan, where John at first
baptized, and remains there, .....
Resurrection of Lazarus. (This belongs to the events

vii. 1-9.
vii. 10-x. 21.
x. 22-39.
x. 40-42.
xi. 1.

Between the feast of Dedication and the resurrection of
Lazarus — thus from the end of a.d 29 to the beginning of
A.D. 30 — Jesus tarried, according to John, in the place where
John at first baptized, i.e. at or near Bethania in Judea beyond
Jordan. Thither also we find the Lord repairing, according
to Matt. xix. 1 and Mark x. 1. We have thus here a syn
chronistic datum, according to which all that precedes Matt.
xix. 1 belongs to the year 29. Luke does not give this

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND. 159
journey to Judah of the Jordan ; his synopsis with John
must therefore be arrived at in another way. After the
feeding of the five thousand, John knows of three journeys of
Jesus to Judea ; the going up to the feast of Tabernacles, the
coming to Bethany for the raising of Lazarus, and the journey
from Ephraim to the eventful Passover. It is doubtful
whether or not a fourth journey is to be presupposed. Did
Jesus remain at Jerusalem from the feast of Tabernacles to
the feast of Dedication? On this question we find nothing
to guide us in John x. 21, 22. In Luke ix. 51, we find
mention of a journey to Jerusalem ; x. 38, of a sojourn in
Bethany; xvii. 11, of a journey to Jerusalem, "through the
middle ground of Samaria and Gahlee," i.e. necessarily through
the marches between these two provinces ; otherwise it must
have been said, through the midst. of Galilee and Samaria.
Now this was the route of Jesus from Ephraim, through the
Ghor, to Jericho, in order finally, after passing through
Bethany, to celebrate His last public entrance into Jerusalem.
Before this journey between Samaria and Galilee, mention is
made, chap. xiv. 1, of a meal of which Jesus partook in the
house of an archon of the Pharisees. Such archons, members
of the Sanhedrim, are to be sought in the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem, perhaps at Bethany. We have thus here to do
with the short sojourn of Jesus at Bethany, on the occasion
of the raising of Lazarus. Previously, chap. xiii. 31, we read
of a warning addressed to Jesus, with regard to the danger
threatening Him on the part of Herod. These conditions
perfectly correspond to those we are led to presuppose by the
flight of Jesus to the place where John at first was baptizing.1
Whence it foUows : Luke ix. 18-xiii. 30 = John vii. 1-x. 40
= Matt. xv. 1-xix. 1 = Mark vii. 1-x. 1. The journey to
Jerusalem and sojourn in Bethlehem, Luke ix. 5 1-x. 42,
synchronizes with the sojourn of Jesus at Jerusalem, at the
feasts of Tabernacles and Dedication, John vii 1-x. 3 9, during
which Jesus spent the nights on Olivet, John viii 1, therefore
beyond doubt at Bethany.
Prom this we gain the following general arrangement of the
historical material : — 1 John x. 40 ; Matt. xix. 1.

(VI.) Synoptical View of the Histoiiy to the Feast of Dedication, a.d.

29.

Reference in
Contents of the Narrative.
Matthew.
Mark.
Luke.
John.
I.
Jesus in Galilee from the feeding of the five thousand to
Sojourn in
the feast of Tabernacles, 
>
vii. 1, 2.
Galilee.
a. Jesus at Capernaum, Matt. xiv. 34-36 ; Mark vi. 53-56,
xv. 1-20.
vii. 1-23.
[vi. 22-71.]
b. Journey in the district of Tyre and Sidon, .
xv. 21-28.
vii. 24-30.
c. Return by the seaside into the region of Decapolis,
xv. 29-31.
vii. 31-37.
d. Feeding of the four thousand. Passage to Dal
manutha (Magadan), 
xv. 32-xvi. 4.
viii. 1-12.
e. Passage to Bethsaida-Julias, . . . .
xvi. 5-12.
viii. 13-26.
f. Journey to Cassarea-Philippi 
xvi. 13-28.
viii. 27-ix. 1
[ix. 18-27.]
II.
g. The Transfiguration, and journey through Galilee,
xvii. 1-23.
ix. 2-32
ix. 28-50.
Journey to
a. Jesus leaves Galilee later than His brethren,
•
vii. 3-10.
the feast of
b. He takes His way through Samaria, ....
ix. 51-62.
Tabernacles.
c. Second mission of the disciples. Woes on the three cities,
x. 1-37.
III.
a. In the midst of the festival, He arose in the sanctuary
Jesus at
• •¦
vii. 14-36.
the feast
b. On the last day of the festival Jesus again teaches there,
vii. 37-53.
of Taber
c. He retires to the Mount of Olives, to Bethany, .
x. 38-42.
viii. 1.
nacles.
d. The pardon in the sanctuary of the woman who was
Jerusalem.
taken in adultery,1 .
e. Discourses of Jesus (in the so-called Court of the
/. Healing of the man born blind. Pool of Siloam,
viii. 2-11.
viii. 12-59.
ix. 1-x. 21.
IV.
a. (Does a journey of Jesus intervene between this festival
Jesus at the
and the last?) [Cf. sec. 133.] . . . .
feast of
b. Jesus teaches in Solomon's porch, ....
x. 22-42.
Dedication.
c. Journey of Jesus to Judea beyond Jordan,2 .
xix. 1.
x. 1.
(xi. 1 ?)
x. 40.
[An unquestionably apostolic tradition ; although, chiefly for doctrinal reasons, not appearing in the four earliest existing mss. It first
appears (or re-appears) in the important MS., codex D. On the whole question of its genuineness, cf. Lange in loc. Ellicott, p. 253,
considers the'proper place of this narrative to be at the end of Luke xxi. ]
2 [On the place of Matt. xvii. 24-xviii. 35 = Mark ix. 33-50, cf. sec. 137.]
JOURNEY OF JESUS WITHIN TYRE AND SIDON. 161
V. — Journey of Jesus within the confines of Tyre and Sidon.
Sec. 120. After the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus held
a conversation with scribes and Pharisees, who had come down
from Jerusalem to Capernaum (after the festival), and com
plained to Him that His disciples eat with unwashen hands.
The manner of the Lord's answer offended them ; * therefore
" Jesus went thence, and withdrew to the confines of Tyre
and Sidon." Here He healed the diseased daughter of the
Canaanitish mother. At the time of Christ the domain of
Tyre and Sidon extended in the north of Galilee from the
Mediterranean to the Jordan.2 It cannot be determined in
what part of the Phoenician domain Jesus tarried, probably
in the vicinity of the Jordan. [According to the best MSS. of
Mark, however, Jesus sojourned within the confines of Tyre
(ver. 24), and returned through Sidon (Btd ^tBwvos, ver. 31)
to the Sea of Galilee. The spiritual significance of this fact
has not escaped the attention of EUicott. Cf. Lectures, p. 218,
note 3.] VI. — Tlte Feeding of the Four Thousand.
Sec. 121. Prom the Phoenician domain Jesus came, on the
[eastern] side of the Sea of Galilee,3 to the confines of the
Decapolis.4 There they brought to Him one deaf, and with
difficulty speaking.6 In those days when great multitudes
were with Him,6 upon a mountain 7 He fed four thousand men
with seven loaves and a few fishes (l%6vBta). The place where
Jesus wrought this miracle is not more nearly defined ; at any
rate, it was more southerly situated than the place of the
feeding of the five thousand, since it " was in the midst of the
confines of Decapohs," thus to the south of the Wady Semakh,
the northern boundary of the Decapolis.8 After the feeding
of the four thousand, Jesus, we are told by Matthew, entered
the ship, and came into the district of Magadan. In Mark it
is said that, " embarking on the ship with His disciples, He
1 Matt. xv. 12. * Josephus, de Bello, iii. 3, sec. 1. 3 Matt. xv. 29.
4 Through the midst of the confines, Mark vii. 31. 5 Mark vii. 32 ff.
6 Mark viii. 1. 7 Matt. xv. 29 ff. 8 Cf. sec. 72, I.
L

162 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
came to the parts (about) Dalmanutha." 1 We have shown, in
sec. 73, that Magadan, not Magdala, is the true reading in
Matthew. The place is to be recognised in Mudshiddah,
westwards of Beisan. This place must at one time have
formed a sort of frontier town at the boundary line between
the Scythopolitan domain belonging to Decapohs, and the
provinces of Galilee and Samaria. The place was conse
quently exceedingly favourably situated for Jesus, who would
retire before the machinations of His enemies. Dalmanutha
is identical with Delhemiyeh,2 on the left bank of the Jordan,
about four hours' distance below the lake. This place, too,
belonged to the Decapolitan territory. Probably Jesus re
paired first to Dalmanutha, and then to Magadan.
VII. — Passage of Jesus to Ccesarea Philippi.
Sec. 122. According to Mark viii. 11, Jesus, whUe at
Dalmanutha, met with Pharisees, who required a sign from Him.
On this account He went on board again, and crossed the sea.3
During the passage Jesus warned the disciples of the leaven
of the Pharisees, and of Herod. The supposition is possible
that this passage brought Jesus to the western shore, whence
He reached Magadan. Yet the manner in which Jesus speaks
of the feeding of the four thousand, Mark viii. 19, 20, gives
the impression of a reminiscence of something which had
taken place a while ago, rather than of that which had
happened on the same day.4 After some length of sojourn in
the Decapolitan Ghor, Jesus, disturbed by the Pharisees, went
on board the ship, and sailed for Bethsaida.5 Bethsaida-
Julias, to the east of the lake, appears to be here intended.
First, because the Synoptists never mention the western Beth
saida,6 but treat it as an integral part of Capernaum ; and
1 Matt. xv. 39 ; Mark viii. 10. 2 Cf. sec. 74.
3 iraXiv ip^cis, Mark viii. 13-29.
* [The parallel in Matthew also favours the supposition of an eastward voy
age, namely, from the district about Magadan. From a, comparison of Matt.
xvi. 1-4 with Mark viii. 10-13, the scene of the conversation with the Pharisees
would seem to be in each case identical, sc. in the Gh6r, between Magadan and
Dalmanutha.] 6 Mark viii. 22. Some codices have Bnlaviav. 6[OnMarkvL 45, see Lange.]

PASSAGE OF JESUS TO CESAREA PHILIPPI. 163
then, because Jesus was at this time evidently avoiding
the western shore on account of His enemies, the Pharisees
and Herod. At Bethsaida He healed a blind man,1 and
then repaired to the region of Csesarea Philippi. In Matthew,
the passage to Bethsaida, and the heahng of the blind man,
is not mentioned; but immediately after the sojourn at
Magadan we have the account of the journey to Cesarea
Philippi2 Sec. 123. Csesarea Philippi.3 — The sources of the Jordan
rise at the south-west foot of Hermon, in a cave which in
antiquity was consecrated to Pan, and caUed Paneion. On
this spot Herod the Great built a temple in honour of the
Emperor Augustus.4 His son Phihp, to whose tetrarchy the
place belonged,5 adorned and enlarged the town built near to
the Paneion, and formerly known as Paneas — caUed by the
Babbis Pamias, D"»a, now known as Bdnias. To this place he
gave the name of Cassarea. In order to distinguish it from
the Csesarea Palaestina situated on the coast of the Mediter
ranean south from Carmel, the name of the founder was
usuaUy added to it. The population was mostly heathen ;
but there were also Jews dwelling there.6 This town lies 25
to 30 miles north of the Sea of Gennesareth, in the most
charming region of Palestine.7 Owing to its being situated
on Gentile territory, and under the dominion of the peaceful
1 Mark viii. 23.
2 [Matthew xvi. 13, as compared with xvi. 5, indicates that they would pro
bably land at Bethsaida. Their route would thus lie through Bethania, in
journeying to Caesarea Philippi. ]
3 [Tristram says of this place (p. 586) : "Dean Stanley calls it » Syrian
Tivoli, and certainly there is much in the rocks, caverns, cascades, and the
natural beauty of the scenery to recall the Roman Tibur. Behind the village,
in front of a great natural cavern, a river bursts forth from the earth, the ' upper
source ' of the Jordan. Inscriptions and niches in the face of the cliff tell of the
old idol- worship of Baal and of Pan." The description is continued on the next
two pages. Beside the admirable remarks of Tristram should be read the no
less brilliant historic sketch of Stanley, pp. 397-400. Compare also the excel
lent description of Robinson, iii. 409-413.]
4 Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10, sec. 3. 6 Luke iii. 1. 6 Josephus, Vila, 13.
7 The peculiar beauty of this Huleh district is described in glowing terms by
Thomson, Land and Book, p. 225. Its solitude is illustrated by the fact that
it is the only district in Palestine where he found the pelican, pp. 260, 261.
Compare also Ritter, ii. 163-167.

164 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
Philip, it offered a secure asylum to Jesus and His disciples.
A very ancient Christian legend 1 relates that the woman who
was healed by the touch of the hem of Christ's mantle was a
Gentile woman of Csesarea Philippi ; and that out of gratitude
to Jesus, she had a statue of Him made and set up in front of
her house. The godless Julian cast it down, and substituted
for it his own image ; but a flash of lightning smote and
destroyed this latter. The statue of Jesus was brought into a
church, and by this statue sprung up an herb which healed
aU diseases. This tradition at any rate proves that very
early a Christian church flourished in this place.
Sec. 124. In this region of Csesarea — according to Mark
viii. 27, on the way thither — the Lord asked the disciples
who the people said, and who they themselves said, He was.
Upon which Peter confessed, " Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God." 2 Six days afterwards the Transfiguration
took place, as related by Matt. xvii. 1 ff., Mark ix. 2 ff,
and Luke ix. 28 ff. This last evangehst teUs us that it took
place " about an eight days" after the confession of Peter. He
relates nothing of the visit of Jesus to the Tyro-Sidonian
territory, of the feeding of the four thousand, and of the
journey to Csesarea. It seems thus as though the confession
of Peter took place immediately after the feeding of the five
thousand, in the vicinity of the lake ; and eight days after the
said feeding, the Transfiguration. This view has in its favour
the fact that Peter's confession of Luke ix. 20 thus syn
chronizes with that of John vi. 68, 69. Yet that which is
related by the two first Synoptists, between the feeding of the
five thousand and the Transfiguration, bears so clearly the
stamp of chronological succession, that we cannot hesitate
to regard it as given in its due order. Luke ix. 18 offers a
place for the insertion of that which has been omitted, by the
indefinite formula, Kal iyeveTO iv tg> eivat avTov irpocrevyp-
ptevov — "it came to pass (once), when He was praying . . ."
1 Glycas, Ann. iv. ; cf. Reland, Palcest. 922.
2 Matt. xvi. 13-20 ; Mark viii. 27-30 ; Luke ix. 18-21. [In Mark the same
confession appears in a shorter form, "Thou art the Christ ; " while Luke has
simply, "The Christ of God." Peter's confession at Capernaum, "Thou art
the Holy One of God " (John vi. 69), thus strikes the first note of this later
Confession of Faith. ]

THE TRANSFIGURATION. 165
This praying may be conceived of as immediately foUowing
the feeding of the five thousand ; but also equally weU as
taking place a considerable period after that event.1
VIII. — The Transfiguration.
Sec. 125. "Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his
brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
and was transfigured before them . . ." 2 Among the chosen
disciples who witnessed this scene John also is mentioned.
Whence is it that this apostle does not mention in his Gospel
the event of the Transfiguration ? John, it is true, relates
only what he has himself seen ; he does not, however, relate
all that he has seen, but only that which might confirm the
readers' faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God,3 and that
by which His glory was manifested. The Transfiguration
could not, however, be adduced as proving this ; partly because
it was witnessed only by three persons, but especiaUy because
the seeing of the disciples was no objective and physical one,
but an inner vision. This is shown by the form of expression
&<p6y<rav ainots, " there appeared unto them Moses and
Elias ; " and especiaUy by the statement of Mark ix. 6, that
Peter knew not what he should say ; as also that of Luke ix.
32, that they — the three disciples — •" were heavy with sleep."
Such inner visions and revelations, in a condition of sleep or
of dream, occur frequently in the New Testament.4 It would
be a great mistake to wish to take from these events the sub
jective character which Scripture evidently attaches to them ;
on the contrary, it is of great importance to distinguish between
such subjective experiences and those miracles to which Holy
Scripture distinctly and definitely ascribes an objective cha
racter. If the apologetes mingle subjective with objective, the
right is conceded to subversive criticism to do the same, and
to rarefy the whole gospel history into that which is subjective,
inner, and spiritual. Inner spiritual experiences, like the vision
1 [Manifestly a distinct occasion from that of Matt. xiv. 33 ; Mark vi. 46 ;
John vi. 15. Cf. Ellicott, p. 212, note 1.]
2 Matt. xvii. 1-13 ; Mark ix. 2-13 ; Luke ix. 28-36. 3 John xx. 30, 31.
* Matt. ii. 12, 13, 19 ; Acts x. 10, 11 ; 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, and elsewhere.

¦166 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
the apostles had of the glorification, exerted a refreshing, con
soling power upon the disciples themselves ; but as arguments
for others, they are not to be employed and are not employed.
John could and would thus omit the history of the Trans
figuration, as not bearing upon the object he had in view.
Sec. 126. Which was the high mountain on which the
Transfiguration took place ? From the accounts of Matthew
and Mark, we should be inchned to look for it in the district
about Csesarea Philippi. According to Luke — who entirely
passes over the three journeys on Gentile territory — one would
rather think of it as situated in the neighbourhood of Caper
naum. Hints, too, are not wanting in the first two Synop
tists which would favour the supposition of a mountain in
Gahlee.1 A multitude, such as here appears,2 did not surely
follow Jesus as far as Csesarea ? Since the Gospels neither
mention the mountain by name, nor more clearly define it, it
is a thankless task to attempt to discover it. A very ancient
tradition, already advocated by Jerome and CyrU of Jeru
salem, points out Tabor as the Mount of the Transfiguration.3
Jerome, in Epitaphio Paulm, says, " Scandebat (Paula) montem
Tabor, in quo transfiguratus est Dominus." At any rate the
Transfiguration cannot have taken place, as tradition repre
sents, upon the summit of Tabor ; since at the time of Christ a
town — the Atabyrion of Polybius, the Itabyrion of Josephus —
existed there, which is contrary to the conditions of the text,
privacy and solitude. And if this mountain had been the
scene of the Transfiguration, the evangelists would assuredly not
have omitted to mention it by name.4 When Jesus had come
1 [Whither there would be no difficulty in journeying during the six or eight
days which preceded the scene of the Transfiguration.]
2 Matt. xvii. 14 ; Mark ix. 14 (xx) ypx/t/ixriTs) ; Luke ix. 37.
3 [The summit of Tabor is, according to Tristram, only 1300 feet from its own
base, and 1865 feet above the sea ; according to Von Schubert, 2283 feet above
Lake Tiberias. Its position in relation to the surrounding country gives it the
appearance of an altitude it does not possess. It is well described by Stanley, pp.
550, 551. The beauty of the prospect from Tabor is celebrated by all travellers ;
cf. especially Tristram, p. 503, and Ritter, ii. 314 ff. A small church on the
plateau of Tabor, belonging to the former Convent of Elias, dates, according to
Fogiie, from the fourth to the fifth century. Its width is 13 feet, its length 17 to
20 feet. The floor is inlaid with black and white mosaic. Cf. Bsedecker, p. 380.]
4 [Ellicott, p. 226, favours the view which places the scene of this miracle on

JOURNEY OF JESUS T"0 THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 167
down with the three apostles from the mountain,1 on the fol
lowing night-day in the Jewish sense, thus on the same day
after sunset, He healed the youth who was possessed. Im
mediately after He entered on a journey through GalUee,
which, by reason of the words of Jesus then spoken con
cerning His approaching death, attaches itself to Luke ix. 51,
where a journey to Jerusalem is recorded. Between the
Passover, at which Jesus fed the five thousand, and the feast
of Tabernacles, was an interval of fuUy six months. On this
whole period we should know next to nothing, if we were
confined to the narratives of Luke and John. Here, how
ever, the two first Synoptists satisfactorily fill up the gap.
During this period Jesus abode partly in Gahlee,2 but prin-
cipaUy in GentUe lands, because the Pharisees and Herod
" held counsel against Him how they might destroy Him."
IX. — Journey of Jesus to the Feast of Tabernacles at Jerusalem.
15th to 2 2d Tisri, 12th to 20th Oct., A.D. 29.
Sec. 127. The brethren of Jesus, who believed not in Him,
caUed upon Him, since the feast of Tabernacles was at hand,
to manifest Himself to the world. Jesus answered them,
My time is not yet come. ... Go ye up to the feast ; I do
not go up to this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled.
— He remained in Gahlee. When His brethren were gone up,
He also went up to the feast, but, as it were, in private.3
The manner in which Jesus auswered His brethren has been
characterized as an infraction of the law of truth. We must
certainly assent to this judgment, if Jesus had attended the
festival of which He had said : " I go not up to this feast."
This, however, was by no means the case. The Jews who
came up from a distance to Jerusalem naturaUy arranged to
Gentile territory — ' ' on one of the lofty spurs of the snow-capt Hermon. " (So
Ellicott, with an allusion to Shakespeare.) It is remarkable that the scene of
the baptism, the transfiguration, and the manifestation to the five hundred, is, in
any case, to be sought in the country north of Judea proper.]
1 Matt. xvii. 14 ff. ; Mark ix. 14 ff. ; Lukeix. 37, h rri Igns ipipx.
2 [Only passing through Galilee in privacy and seclusion, •rxpioropsiovro, Mark
ix. 30.]
3 John vii. 2-10. [As a prophet coming up out of seclusion. — Lange.]

168 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
be in Jerusalem on the Day of Atonement, which was held
on the 10 th Tisri, five days before the feast of Tabernacles ;
partly for the sake of this festival itself, partly because the
thrice sacred Sabbath of Atonement, on which the severest
fasting was enjoined, under penalty of being cut off from
among the people, must have been in the highest degree in
convenient for the festive journey. At this festival, els Tyv
eopTyv Taxnyv, Jesus did not purpose being at Jerusalem ;
nor did He go. Unquestionably He said this to His brethren
in such a way that they understood that precisely the first
part of the festal season — the Day of Atonement — was in
tended. Our Lord journeyed from Gahlee in such wise as to
be able to arise in the sanctuary in the midst of the festival,
i.e. on the third or fourth day of the feast of Tabernacles.1
The route which He took is made known to us by Luke,
who says : 2 "It came to pass, when the days were being
accomplished that He should be received up, He steadfastly
set His face to go to Jerusalem. . . . And they went and
entered into a viUage of the Samaritans, to make ready for
Him. And they (the Samaritans) did not receive Him. . . ."
The starting-point was unquestionably Capernaum ; for there
dwelt His brethren, with whom He had previously spoken
about the festival Prom the shore of the lake three routes
led to Jerusalem. The one went from Capernaum over the
western uplands, past Tabor, by Nazareth, through the plain of
Esdraelon, and through Samaria to the Jewish uplands. This
is still the ordinary route. A second route went from Caper
naum along the coast of the lake into the Ghor, then through
the plain of Esdraelon, past Nain, into the land of the Sama
ritans, where it united with the former one. The third con
tinued in the Ghor as far as Jericho, and then ascended the
mountains by the sharp ascent of Adumim to Bethany, and
then down the Mount of Ohves. Those Bibhcal geographers
who are not acquainted with these two last pilgrim routes
usuaUy say that two routes led from Capernaum to Jerusalem :
the one (our first) through Samaria ; the other, through the
Ghor on the eastern side of the Jordan to Jericho. Of this
route there is no trace in history. It is asserted that Jesus
1 John vii. 14. ! Luke ix. 51, 52.

JOURNEY OF JESUS TO THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 169
took this route on His last journey to Jerusalem ; but this, as
we shaU see, is an error. The shortest and most frequented
route was the first, which, moreover, was pursued by Jesus
when He went up to the feast of Tabernacles. It was often
rendered insecure by the hostility of the Samaritans, through
which scenes of blood were sometimes enacted.1 Jesus, too,
was on this occasion inhospitably received by the Samaritans.
On this account James and John thought it was a case for
calling down fire from heaven upon them ; to such an extent
that the Lord must correct them, by reminding them that they
knew not of what spirit they were the chUdren.2
Sec. 128. The Feast of Tabernacles was, according to the
law,3 one of the three festivals which called for the personal
appearing of the Israehte before the face of Jehovah in the
sanctuary. It was observed in the seventh month, Tisri, five
days after the Day of Atonement: it began on the 15th of the
month, and lasted eight days. During these eight days the
Israelites were to dweU in tabernacles made of green boughs,
in commemoration of their fathers' dwelling in tents in the
wilderness. The first day and the eighth were observed as
Sabbaths.4 After the Captivity this festival was the favourite
one, and the greatest of aU.5 In the sanctuary the altar of
burnt-offering was hung round with green boughs ; the festive
pUgrims carried in their hand the Lulab (? palm-leaf), and a
bough with citrons on it. On the occasion of the morning
sacrifice took place that water libation peculiar to the feast of
Tabernacles. A priest filled a golden vessel from the fountain
of SUoa, entered through the water-gate into the sanctuary,
and poured it out at the foot of the altar.6 This practice,
however, pecuhar to the Jews after the Captivity, was not
universally regarded as obligatory. The Sadducees disapproved
of it.7 It happened once that a Sadducean high priest — it
was Alexander Jannseus — instead of pouring the libation
water upon the altar, poured it out at his own feet. By this
act a tumult was stirred up, and the pilgrims pelted him with
1 Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6, sec. 1. a Luke ix. 53-56.
3 Lev. xxiii. 33-44. 4 Lev. xxiii. 39.
6 uprZv ft-tyicTti, Philo, Opp. ii. 286. Josephus, Antiq. viii. 4, sec. 1 ;
xv. 3, sec. 3.
6 Mishna Succa, iv. ? Jerus. Shbiith, fol. 33. 2.

170 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
the citrons which they carried in their hands. In that storm
the altar lost one of its horns.1 On the evening of these
feast days the sanctuary was, by means of torches in the
Court of the Women, burning upon candelabra of fifty cubits
high, so brilliantly Uluminated, that aU Jerusalem was flooded
with hght ; 2 the Levites stood upon the fifteen steps of the
gate leading from the Court of the Women to the Court of
Israel, and sang with musical accompaniment the so-caUed
Psalms of degrees (Ps. cxx.-cxxxiv.) ; at the same time the
sages and leading men of Jerusalem joined in a torch dance
in the Court of the Women ; while the women, apart from the
men, were spectators of it from a separate platform.3 Babban
Simeon ben Gamahel distinguished himself in this dance by
the dexterity with which he cast into the air eight torches,
and caught them again, without ever letting one of them fall
to the ground.4 In short, " He who has not seen the joy of
the drawing-house (rutoBTi rP3, for so this festive solemnity
was called) knows not what joy is.."6 Whether, as is thought
by many exegetes, Jesus aUuded to the water libation in the
words of John vii. 3 7, we leave an open question. We only
remind of the fact that the Ubation-water was not drunk, but
poured forth ; and Jesus says, " If any man thirsteth, let him
come unto me and drink" These words spoke Jesus " on the
last, the most glorious day of the feast." 6 It has already been
said that the eighth day was observed as a Sabbath.7 It
formed a separate festival in itseU, caUed especially for the
personal appearing in the presence of Jehovah, and bore the
name of " Assembly." s
Sec. 129. This sojourn of our Lord made manifest the de
cided hostihty of the hierarchs and Pharisees, tUl then more or
less veUed. It is weU known that the Sanhedrim accused
Jesus of a threefold crime ; hostihty towards the holy place, the
misleading of the nation, and declaring Himself to be God, or
the Son of God.9 The first charge rested upon a perversion of
1 Mishna Succa, vi. 9. Bab. Joma, fol. 39. 1. Bab. Bosh hashanna, fol.
16. 1, fol. 48. 1.
2 Succa, v. 2. 9. Jerus. Succa, fol. 55. 2. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 2.
3 Succa, v. 2-4.
4 Tosaphtha Succa, iv. 2. 5 Ibid. 6 John vii. 37. 7 Succa, v. 6.
8 mXJ>, Lev. xxiii. 36. s Mark xiv. 58, 61 ; John xix. 7, 12.

JOUKNKY OF JF.SU8 TO THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 171
tho words He had spoken at the first Passover ;x where Ho was
accused of having said : " I will break down tho temple, and
in throe days raise it up." From that time dates the hostility
of tho hierarchs. The hostihty of the Pharisees was not so
quickly developed ; nevertheless it was already beginning to
show itself at tho anonymous festival, when Jesus healed a
siek man at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath day,3 and He
was declared to bo a contemner of tho Sabbath.8 Through the
eating of the disciples with unwasheoi hands His disregard of
the traditionary ordinances of the fathers was made manifest.4
But to an open hostihty. which demanded the deatli of the
Lord, matters came only at the feast of Tabernacles, where
Ho was declared to bo a seducer of the people.6 Later than
this the charge was added of proclaiming Himself to be 0 od."
The nation was divided, they knew not what to think of
Jesus ; yet the multitude was more for Him than against
Him. and eagerly awaited His arrival at the festival.' The
journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, which is mentioned Luke ix.
f>l, and seems to us to indicate this visit to the feast of
Tabernacles, is announced in the words. " It came to pass,
when the days were being fulfilled that He should be received
lip"' — c^ei-cTO c'v tu> o-X'p^Xypovo-Ptu t<\s >;ptpas Ttjs araXirtyeios
avrov. We have already, in the introduction, explained how
they are to be understood. Here we may further add, that
this journey was in reality one fraught with the most
import ant results, and paving the way for the final decision:
since the hostility of the Jews was brought to a climax by the
sojourn of Jesus in Jerusalem at the feast of Tabernacles.
See. 130. At the end of the eighth day Jesus went to the
Mount of Olives :s in connection with this we have probably
to think of Bethany. To this period might belong Luke
x. 3 $—42 : but it is. as we shall hereafter show, more probable
that this sojourn at Bethany belongs to the period of the
feast of Dedication. When, on the next day, Jesus entered
again into the temple, the incident of the woman taken in
1 John ii. 19. ' John v. 16.
1 John vii. 2C*-25. * Mark vii. 1 ff.
1 John Til. 12, S3, 44, 5-:. « John x. S3.
r John vii. 11-15. "Of. E'.hVou, p. £50, note £.]
11 John viii. 1.

172 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
adultery occurs.1 Whether or not this history was reaUy
incorporated by John himself into his Gospel, is a question of
criticism which we are not caUed to solve ; if, however, it is
authentic, it is our province to determine the place in the
sanctuary where the scene occurred. In Mishna Sota, i. 5,
we read that the women accused of adultery were judged at
the Nicanor Gate, and especially had to undergo the judicial
test which consisted in the drinking of the bitter waters
prepared from the ashes of a red heifer which had been burnt.
There indeed Jesus was caUed to give judgment in the case of
the accused woman. The Nicanor Gate, known also as the
Eastern Gate, the Corinthian Gate, and the Beautiful Gate, led
from the Court of the Gentiles to the Court of the Women
on the east, and lay facing the Great Gate which by
means of the fifteen steps connected the Court of the Women
with the Court of Israel ; so that from the Nicanor Gate one
had, through the Great Gate, a view of the altar and the
temple. That the Nicanor Gate belonged to the Court of the
Women is already apparent from the judgment there held
upon the adulteress ; for the women were not permitted to
enter into the Court of Israel. That it lay towards the east,
is twice said in Mishna Middoth (i 4, ii. 6). That it was
identical with the Corinthian Gate described by Josephus,2
follows from Middoth, ii. 2, where it is said that the Nicanor
Gate was of brass, whereas all the other gates of the sanctuary
were gilded. That, moreover, Jesus was then in the Court of
the Women is to be inferred, not only from the fact that
at the feast of Tabernacles all the festivities were held
there, but also from John viii. 20, where it is said that Jesus
was then teaching by the temple-coffer in the sanctuary.3
According to Mishna Shekalim, vi. 1 and 6, the temple-
coffer, with its thirteen boxes for offerings, stood in the Court
of the Women ; 4 and Josephus 6 says, in describing the Court
of the Women, that the porticos which surrounded it on three
1 John viii. 3 ff. 2 Josephus, de Bello, v. 5, sec. 2.
3 [In the portico which contained the temple-coffer, h tZ yxZ,ofoXxxioi.']
1 [So called because the women were not allowed to pass beyond it. In this
court was always to be found the greatest concourse of those going and coming-
Cf. Mark xii. 41.]
6 Josephus, ut supra.

JESUS IN JERUSALEM AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION. 173
sides lay over against the Treasury — ya£o<pvXaKta. This was
found consequently on the fourth (western) side, which
separated the Court of the Women from the Court of Israel.
The history of the woman taken in adultery falls on the first
day after the day of the Assembly.
Sec. 131. After this festival, on a Sabbath [? 23d October],
Jesus healed the man born blind, anointing his eyes with a
clay made with spittle, and bidding him wash in the Pool of
SUoam.1 The Pool of Siloam, Siloah, or Siloa, is situated in
the lower Tyropceon vaUey, which separates the temple moun
tain from the so-called Mount Zion, a few minutes' distance
from the city of Jerusalem. It is a small, deep, oblong reser
voir of 18 feet wide, which receives its water from a yet
smaUer basin, of 5 or 6 feet in width, hewn out in the rock,
and lying a few feet higher. Into this last basin the fountain
of Siloa discharges itself. The fountain is now caUed Ain
SUwan, and by means of a subterranean channel carried
through the rocks, and running from N.E. to S.W., serves as
an outflow to the Fountain of the Virgin.2 At the time of
Christ the city wall extended as far as the fountain of
SUoa.3 To the fortifications in the vicinity of the fountain
belonged no doubt the tower in SUoam, spoken of Luke xhi. 4.
X. — Jesus in Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication. (Evening
of 20th to 28th December, a.d. 29.)
Sec. 132. The festival of Dedication, ra iyKaivta, was
celebrated eight days, from the 25 th Kisleu, in commemora
tion of the restoring of the temple service by Judas Macca-
bseus.4 The ceremony consisted — in addition to the special
sacrifices — in a brilliant Ulumination of the sanctuary, and
aU the houses in Jerusalem.5 Hence the Greek name of the
festival is eyKatvlwv eopTy, or (pa>Ta; whUst the Hebrew
name, rutin Of, signifies day of consecration. The occasion of
this Ulumination is not known. Jewish tradition invents
with regard to it the fable, that when the Jews entered into
1 John ix. 1 ff. [In going out ; cf. Acts iii. 2.] 2 Robinson, Pal. i. 338 ff.
3 Josephus, de Bello, v. 4, sec. 1. 4 1 Mace. iv. 45 ff.
5 Bab. Shabbath, fol. 21. 2 ; Antiq. xii. 7, sec. 7.

174 SECOND YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF CHRIST.
the sanctuary desecrated by the heathen, in order to cleanse it
and restore the worship, they could find no pure oil for the
sacred light, save a single bottle, which bore the seal of the
high priest. In the ordinary course this oil would only have
met the requirement of a single day, but by a miracle it was
caused to suffice for seven days. Hence the feast of lights.1
According to the school of Shammai, there were kindled for
the Ulumination on the first day eight lamps, on the second
seven, and so on; every day one less. According to the
school of Hillel, there was conversely, one lamp lit on the
first day, on the second two, and so increasing to the eighth
day, when eight lamps were enkindled.2
Sec. 133. Immediately after the actions to which the healing
on a Sabbath day, shortly after the feast of Tabernacles, of one
born blind, had given rise, the Evangelist John, chap. x. 2 2 ff.,
relates the words and work of Christ at the feast of Dedica
tion. Where did Jesus remain during the two months which
intervened between these festivals ? The Gospel of John
affords us no information on this point. That Jesus spent
this whole time at Jerusalem is not probable ; first, because so
long a sojourn in one place was not in accordance with the
Lord's practice, and then especially because the hostility of
the Jewish rulers had now attained so high a degree as to
render impossible a quiet sojourn of two months in their
vicinity. We have already remarked that the journey to
Jerusalem through Samaria, of Luke ix. 51, coincides with
that to the feast of Tabernacles ; and that the account of the
appearing of Jesus at Bethany mentioned soon after, chap.
x. 38—42, harmonizes best with the sojourn of Jesus at
Jerusalem during the feast of Dedication. Then, too, Luke
relates, chap. x. 1-37, a second mission of seventy disciples,
with a discourse of the Lord, in which the woe upon Chorazin,
Bethsaida, and Capernaum is pronounced. It must indeed be
acknowledged that it is more probable Jesus pronounced these
woes upon the three cities, as related by Luke, towards the
end of His ministry, rather than at the beginning of it, as we
should be led to suppose from Matt. xi. 20— 24, were we to
take for granted that Matthew gives this discourse of Jesus in
1 Megillath Taanith, ix., 25th Kisleu. * Ibid.

JESUS IN JERUSALEM AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION. 175
a purely chronological order. If, however, Jesus pronounced
the woe upon those cities on the occasion of His afresh
sending forth His disciples, we must certainly beheve that the
words were pronounced,- not somewhere in the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem, but within sight of the cities addressed. From
this it foUows that between the feast of Tabernacles and that
of Dedication, Jesus was on the shore of the lake, and there
appointed to the Seventy their mission.
Sec. 134. "Now it was the feast of Dedication at Jeru
salem. It was winter. And Jesus walked ... in the portico
of Solomon." -1 As concerns the stoa [portico or colonnade] of
Solomon, we refer the reader to the Appendix, on the topo
graphy of Jerusalem, 20, where it is shown that this is the
subterranean portico still existing under the mosque of El-
Aksa. 1 John x. 22, 23.

176 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.

DIVISION VI.
THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS, A.U.C. 731, A.D. 30.
I. — Synopsis of the Historical Material.
Sec. 135. Synoptical view of the history, from end of A.D.
29 to the Besurrection, 9th April a.d. 30.— -See pp. 178, 179.
Sec. 136. The journey of Jesus, mentioned by the fourth
evangehst, to the place where John at first was baptizing —
thus to Bethania beyond the Jordan — is introduced by
Matthew with the words, " He came into the confines of
Judea beyond the Jordan ; " for in the land of this name had
John his first place of baptism. In Mark it is said : " He
cometh into the confines of Judea, and beyond the Jordan."
This evangehst thus indicates that there were two journeys of
Jesus ; the former expression implying the visit to Judea at
the feast of Dedication, and the second that from thence
beyond Jordan. The two first evangelists thus complement
each other, and thus complemented their account perfectly
taUies with that of John. In Matthew and Mark the two
journeys apparently blend in one — namely, the visit to
Bethany, and then the last journey by way of Jericho. But
here again Luke steps in to remove the discrepancy. The
journey to Jerusalem of Luke xiii. 22 is the journey to
Bethany for the raising of Lazarus ; the sojourn in Ephraim
testified by John is with Luke 1 a sojourn on the frontier line
between Samaria and Gahlee. On this frontier line did Jesus
descend into the Ghor, through which He came down on the
west side of the Jordan to Jericho. The three Synoptists now
agree in mentioning the journey from Jericho to Bethphage-
Bethany, where, according to John xii. 1, was held the supper
[' Luke xvii. 11.]

JESUS REMAINS IN JUDEA BEYOND JORDAN. 177
at which Jesus was anointed. After this took place the public
entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.1 The Synoptists place the
anointing after this entry. From this point it becomes easy
to harmonize the narratives of the four evangehsts.
II. — Jesus remains in Judea beyond Jordan.
Sec. 137. From Jerusalem, whither He had gone to the
feast of Dedication, our Lord retired to the place where John
was at first baptizing, and abode there.2 This place was
Bethania, the present TeU- Anihje,3 in the El-Batiheh. But
this belonged to Judea beyond Jordan, by which is meant the
ancient Gaulonitis, the Jolan of the present.4 Yet Jesus
seems to have paid a brief visit to Capernaum, where the
events connected with the temple-tribute occurred.6 According
to Ex. xxx. 13, every Israelite was required to contribute
yearly half a sUver shekel to the sanctuary.6 This obligation
was stiU in full force after the Captivity.7 The time fixed for
paying over the tax into the temple treasury was, according
to Mishna Shekalim, ii. 4, from the 15 th to the 25 th Adar.
But since the sums coUected were paid over in the order of
the different townships and provinces, the coUection of the
didrachma — for this is the value of the half shekel — must be
made at the latest by the beginning of the month Adar.
That which is related, Matt. xvii. 24 ff., thus took place at
the beginning of the month Adar, or even during the month
of Shebet [middle of February]. According to John, Jesus in
reahty tarried in that region from the end of Kisleu, during
the months of Thebet and Shebet, until the beginning of Adar.
That, however, the tax referred to in this history is not, as
Wieseler supposes, the poU-tax to be contributed to the civil
authority, but the temple-tribute, follows first from the fact
that Peter was asked whether his Master was wont to pay the
didrachma or not ; for the poll-tax was not a voluntary one,
whUst at the time of Christ the temple-tax was to such extent
optional that no compulsory measures could be taken against
1 John xii. 12 ff. 2 John x. 40-42. 3 Cf. sec. 70.
4 Cf. sec. 68. '•> Matt. xvii. 24 ff.
6 Cf. 2 Chron. xxiv. 6. 7 Josephus, de Bello, vii. 6, sec. 6.
M

(VII.) Synoptical View of the History, from End of a.d. 29 to the Resurrection,
9th April a.d. 30.

CO

Contents op the Narrative.

Reference in

Matthew.
Mark.
Luke.
John.
Jesus at Capernaum. The tribute
money, 
xvii. 24-xviii. 35.
[ix. 33-50.]
After the sojourn at Bethany (at feast
of Dedication) Jesus goes away again
beyond Jordan, and abides there. In
a certain place teaches His disciples
to pray, 
xix. 1-xx. 16.
x. 1-31.
xi. 1-13.
x. 40-42.
Healing of a demonaic who was dumb.
Other deeds and discourses,
xi. 14-xiii. 21.
Journey to Bethany for the raising of
Lazarus, ......
xiii. 22-30.
xi. 1-45.
He is warned against Herod. " It can
not be that a prophet perish out of
Jerusalem," 
xiii. 31-35.
"
Deeds and discourses, ....
xiv. 1-xvii. 10.
The Sanhedrim decides on the death of
Jesus, 
xi. 46-53.
Sojourn at Ephraim, ....
xi. 54-57.
Last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem,
through the confines of Samaria and
Galilee. The ten lepers, .
xx. 17-28.
x. 32-45.
xvii. 11-xviii. 34.
Jesus passes through Jericho,
Six days before the Passover comes to
Bethany. Anointing of Jesus, .
Triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the
following day, 
Jesus returns to Bethany in the evening,
On the morrow cleanses the sanctuary,
The barren fig-tree, ....
Jesus teaches during the day-time in
the sanctuary, and passes the nights
upon Olivet, . , .
Returns to the sanctuary, .
Discourses upon the Mount of Olives, .
Two days before the Passover. Decision
of chief priests and elders. Treachery
of Judas, ......
The paschal supper on first day of un
leavened bread, ....
Gethsemane. The apprehension, .
Jesus before the high priest,
In the morning taken before Pilate [and
Herod], .
The Crucifixion, .
The Burial, .
The Resurrection,
The Ascension,

xx. 29-34.
[xxvi. 6-13.]
xxi. 1-11.
xxi. 17.
xxi. 12-16.
xxi. 18-22.

xxi. 23-xxiv. 1.
xxiv. 1-xxv. 46.

xxvi. 1-16.
xxvi. 17-30.
xxvi. 31-57.
xxvi. 57-75.
xxvii. 1-30.
xxvii. 31-56.
xxvii. 57-66.
xx viii. 1-20.

x. 46-52.

xviii. 35-xix. 27.

[xiv. 3-9.]

...

xii. 1-8.

xi. 1-10.

xix. 28-44.

xii. 9-50.

xi. 11.

• ••

xi. 15-18.

xix. 45, 46.

(xi. 12-14.)

( xi. 19-26.}
(xix. 47, 48. )
(xxi. 37, 38. f
xi. 27-xiii. 1.
xx. 1-xxi. 4..
...
xiii. 1-37.
xxi. 5-36.
xiv. 1-11.
xxii. 1-6.
...
xiv. 12-26.
xxii. 7-38.
xiii. 1-xiv. 31.
xiv. 27-53.
xxii. 39-54.
xv. 1-xviri. 13.
xiv. 53-72.
xxii. 54-71.
xviii. 13-27.
xv. 1-19.
xxiii. 1-25.
xviii. 28-xix. 15.
xv. 20-41.
xxiii. 26-49.
xix. 16-30.
xv. 42-47.
xxiii. 50-56.
xix. 31-42.
xvi. 1-18.
xxiv. 1-49.
xx., xxi.
xvi. 19, 20.
xxiv. 50-53.
o
TJl
oH W
coH
O >— \
Q> >HWt"1
180 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
those refusing to pay it, as indeed the Sadducees did refuse to
pay it. That the temple-tribute is meant, follows also from
the reason adduced by Jesus to show that it cannot be claimed
as due from Him, because He is a Son,1 i.e. a Son of God, and
not, e.g., of Herod or of Caesar. A sure chronological point of
support is not afforded us by this history, partly because the
time of the coUection of the temple-tribute is uncertain, and
partly because the place occupied by this account, in strictly
chronological order, is also doubtful. Immediately after the
account of this incident we read in Matthew of the contro
versy among the disciples on the question who of them should
be the greatest — a controversy which, according to Mark [?]
and Luke, belongs to an earher period.2
III. — The Baising of Lazarus (about 27th February, A.D. 30).
Sec. 138. While Jesus was with His disciples in Judea
beyond Jordan, the sisters of Lazarus sent to tell Him that
their brother was sick. After two days of further sojourn in
that place, Jesus revealed to His disciples the fact that
Lazarus was dead, and made known His resolution of going
to Bethany. Which of the apostles accompanied Him on this
journey ? That John, and also Thomas,3 belonged to the
company is certain ; but equahy certain, too, that Peter did
not belong to it, because his reporter, Mark, does not relate
anything of this raising of Lazarus. As a whole, the journey
has the appearance of being made with but a smaU company
of disciples, without imposing circumstances, and in haste.
We have already said that Luke xiii. 22, where it says, " He
went through towns and villages, teaching and journeying
towards Jerusalem," is to be explained of this journey.4 It is
true, indeed, that on this occasion He did not proceed so far
1 oUs, Matt. xvii. 25.
2 Mark ix. 33 ; Luke ix. 46. [Luke, who also places the scene in Galilee, but
records it immediately after the Transfiguration, does not appear to have observed
the chronological order.]
3 John xi. 16.
4 [A journey of three days, before that event which should constitute the
crowning and closing act of His personal ministry ; Luke xiii. 32. Hence
forth He presents Himself as King — for acceptance or rejection.]

THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 181
as Jerusalem itself ; but a journey to Bethany, which was
distant only 15 stades from this city,1 might weU be caUed a
journey to Jerusalem. The warning given to the Lord to
flee, since Herod was seeking His life,2 caUed forth from the
Lord the answer, that to Jerusalem belonged the high pre
rogative of slaying the prophets, and a lament over Jerusalem
specially in harmony with the then state of affairs.3 The raising
of Lazarus is related, John xi. 17-44, with great fulness of
detail, and in a manner which must draw from every unpre
judiced reader the confession that we have here before us the
narrative of an eye-witness. That Jesus had been already
previously acquainted with Lazarus and his sisters, is to be
gathered with certainty from the account, and especiaUy from
the words of the message : Lord, behold, he whom Thou lovest
is sick4 With John, however, there is no mention of this
relation of friendship ; Luke, on the other hand,5 speaks of it
in a narrative which appears to coincide in point of time with
the sojourn of Jesus at Jerusalem during the feast of Dedication.
Sec. 139. The inteUigence of the miracle wrought at
Bethany was for the enemies of Jesus the occasion of a
decisive step. The Sanhedrim was caUed together, and the
sentence of death pronounced against Him.6 And since
Jesus withdrew Himself out of their hands, the injunction
was issued that whosoever knew His place of abode should
reveal it, that He might be taken.7 It has been urged as an
argument against the authenticity of the Gospel of John, that
the author of the fourth Gospel has been guUty of an over
sight which could not have happened in the case of an eye
witness — the omission, namely, of the judgment of the
Sanhedrim passed upon Jesus. And, indeed, no trial is
reported in John xviii. 12-27. But the fact has been over
looked that the sentence had long been pronounced, and that
the whole significance of the then sitting of the Sanhedrim
was merely to receive Jesus as one already condemned, and
captured by their authority. What is here said finds its full
confirmation in the foUowing remarks : —
1 John xi. 18. 2 Luke xiii. 31. a John x. 39, xi. 8, 16.
* John xi. 3. * Luke x. 38-42. 6 John xi. 47-54.
7 John xi. 57.

182 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
The books of Jewish tradition contain so many odious and
infamous fables about Jesus, that the whole has been rejected
in the lump; and any historic value whatever has been
denied to the Talmudic accounts concerning the Lord. There
is, however, found in these writings a passage to which a real
historic character must be acknowledged. In Mishna San
hedrin, vi. 1, it is said that when any one was condemned to
death by the Sanhedrim a public crier proclaimed the sen
tence, in order that witnesses in favour of the condemned
might have time and opportunity for presenting themselves.
Now, as an instance of this proceeding, there is cited in Bab.
Sanhedrin, foL 43. 1, a passage taken from the Baraitho, a
supplement to the Mishna codex, which reads thus : " Jesus
was crucified (literally, hanged) on the eve of the Passover.
A public crier went forth with regard to him during forty
days (proclaiming) : ' One who is to be stoned, because he
has bewitched and seduced Israel, and led it into schism.
Whoever can bring forward anything in his justification, let
him come and testify for him.' But no justification was
found for him ; so they crucified him on the eve of the Pass
over " (ypo^ kvv av 'd Yish *w |roro ik»!> im&6n riDS mjn twrini
vby noh so* mar "b jnve> '» b bxw ns rrrm irDTn t\W2v by
riDa a-yn mvbm niar ib ikxd k^).
Por the right understanding of this passage we must ob
serve that, according to Jerus. Sanhedrin, vi. 7, the bodies
of those stoned were to be hanged until the evening ; the
hanging was consequently a Jewish custom.1 The Eabbis,
however, employ the word denoting this act, vbn, also simply
for crucifixion. M. Penan, in his Life of Jesus, infers from
the passage above cited that Jewish tradition declares Jesus
to have been stoned. But the text does not say this. It
asserts, on the contrary, that Jesus was indeed sentenced to
be stoned ; but the execution was not by stoning, but by
hanging, i.e. by crucifixion, as it is twice stated in the text.
But if the Sanhedrim condemned Jesus to stoning, how comes
it to pass that, contrary to the sentence, He was crucified ?
On this point again, Jewish tradition itself gives us explicit
information. In Jerus. Sanhedrin, i. 1, it is said that the
1 [Cf. Deut. xxi. 22, 23.]

THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 183
Sanhedrim, forty years before the destruction of the temple,
was deprived of the right to carry out the death punishment.
The words ascribed to the Jews in the Gospel of John i1 " We
may not put any one to death," are thus testified to by the
Talmud itself. Jesus was crucified forty years before the
destruction of Jerusalem. At that time the Sanhedrim was
already — for forty is with the Eabbis a favourite round num
ber — deprived of the power of executing the capital sentence,
but was obliged to seek its execution at the hands of the
Eoman Procurator, who changed the sentence of stoning pro
nounced by the Sanhedrim into that of crucifixion.2 Between
the condemnation and the execution of the sentence there
thus intervened, according to our text, a period of forty days.
During this period the crier published the sentence with
regard to Jesus ('ME&), and summoned the people who had
anything to bring forward in favour of the condemned to put
in an appearance. But with this agrees the Gospel of John,
which states that the Sanhedrim pronounced the sentence of
death upon Jesus immediately after the raising of Lazarus ;
so that the sojourn of Jesus at Ephraim faUs between the
condemnation and the execution. That the evangelists, and
especiaUy John, mention nothing of the function of the crier,
proves nothing against the matter, for John relates only what
he himself saw and heard ; and since at the time in question
he was not at Jerusalem, but in the wilderness with Jesus, he
was not acquainted with this fact from personal observation.
But that the sentence of the Supreme Council was in reality
published, is clearly implied in the saying of John xi. 54,
that Jesus could no longer walk openly among the Jews ; and
in that of xi. 57, that the chief priests had issued injunctions
(ivToXds) — probably by means of the pubhc crier — that any
one who knew should give information where Jesus was, in
order that they might apprehend Him. From this it foUows
that the assembly of the Supreme CouncU on the night before
the Lord's crucifixion was not reaUy a session for passing
1 John xviii. 31.
2 [The cry of o-rxipou, o-Txipoo x'vt'ov, Luke xxiii. 21, and parall., only shows
that the Jews knew how to accommodate themselves to the altered circum
stances. The execution of Stephen was, on the other hand, a violation of Roman
law.]

184 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
judgment, but for the final examination of witnesses. We
shaU presently see that the statement of the Talmudic text,
that Jesus was crucified — not on the day of Passover itself,
but — on the preparation day, i.e. the 14th Msan, is perfectly
true. We have thus, in the passage cited, a highly important
and thoroughly genuine historic document. The forty days
mentioned in this text are not to be greatly pressed, for it is
weU known that with the Semitic races the number " forty "
was, and stiU is, a round number, signifying " many." Yet it
is by no means impossible to take it here in the literal sense.
The sentence was executed on the 14th Nisan, and must there
fore have been passed on the 5th Adar. Jesus would thus have
left Bethania beyond Jordan on the 2d Adar (24th February),
and might still be in the neighbourhood of the Sea of Gahlee
when the half-shekel was collected there. We may suppose
with certainty that Jesus spent about a month in the wUderness
near Ephrem. IV. — Our Lord's Sojourn at Ephraim.
Sec. 140. "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among
the Jews, but went away from thence to the country near the
wilderness, to a town caUed Ephraim ('E<ppalpt), and abode
there with the disciples." * The words immediately foUowing
these : " And the Passover of the Jews was nigh," belong
not to this, but to the following sentence, and refer to the
end of the " abiding " at Ephraim, — which, as we have just re
marked, may certainly be estimated at a month, if not at fuUy
forty days. The meaning of this journey is clearly indicated.
Jesus was withdrawing from the plots of the hierarchs and
Sanhedrim, which had condemned Him to death, and now
sought to obtain possession of Him. As regards the name of
the place whither Jesus withdrew, in the Eeceived Text it is
written 'Eqbpatp., in some mss. it is caUed 'E<ppept,2 in others
'Ecppdp. and 'E<ppadd. Eusebius, in the Onomasticon, regards
this place as identical with Ephron, which was situated 8 mUes
(northward ?) of iElia [Jerusalem]. Jerome, on the other hand,
says, by way of correction, that Ephron, and consequently
1 John xi. 54. 2[tf L, Coptic version.]

OUR LORD'S SOJOURN AT EPHRAIM. 185
Ephraim, was 20 mUes north of Jerusalem. But we have
serious doubts as to the identity of Ephrem at aU with Ephron.
Ephron, and the Bethel mentioned with it,1 belonged to Judah,
and was too near Jerusalem, and too much under the imme
diate influence of the authorities in that city, to be able to
afford Jesus a secure hiding-place. Only a district bordering
on Samaritan territory could accomplish this purpose. In the
Samaritan domain, about 3 5 miles north of Jerusalem, 6 mUes
N.E. from Nablus, on the road to Beisan, lies a place visited
by Schultz caUed El-Faria or El-Parah, at the beginning of a
wady which runs down into the Gh6r, known as the Wady
El-Paria or El-Farah. With the Hebrew article this name
would be Ha-pharah. It is possible, moreover, that the ori
ginal name, Ephram, has been metamorphosed by the Arabs
into El-Pharah. Nevertheless, our Ephrem might be the
Atqbpaaipt of the Onomasticon, which was situated 6 miles
north of Legio. The place is now caUed Afuleh, and is
situated between Ledjun and Nazareth,2 where, immediately to
the east, begins the wUderness of the Jebel ed-Duhy. At this
point fits in remarkably weU the account of the Evangehst
Luke,3 where it says : " It came to pass, as He was journey
ing to Jerusalem, that He also passed through the confines of
Samaria and Gahlee : " Btd ptecrov Xaptapeias Kal TaXiXaias}
Ginaea, the present Jenin [En-gannim],6 was the northern
frontier town of Samaria,6 and thus the southern frontier of
Gahlee. Thither Jesus repaired, in order to travel along the
confines into the Ghor, and thence to Jericho. On this route,
on the frontiers between Samaria and Gahlee, the Lord healed
the ten lepers.7 The discourses and deeds of the Lord, re
corded Luke xvii 20-xviU. 34, took place on the way.
1 2 Chron. xiii. 19. Josephus, de Bello, iv. 9, sec. 9.
2 [On the northern confines of the plain of J'ezreel, about 8 miles north of
Jenin (Ginma).']
3 Luke xvii. 11 ff.
* Not, as ordinarily rendered, " through the midst of Samaria and Galilee ; "
for the way which goes first through Samaria and then through Galilee leads
not to Jerusalem, but farther and farther from that city. It must have been
written, " through the midst of Galilee and Samaria."
5 [Formerly belonging to the tribe of Issachar, Josh. xix. 21 .]
6 Josephus, de Bello, iii. 3, sec. 4.
7 Luke xvii. 12-19.

186 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
Among these is speciaUy to be emphasized the proclamation
of His approaching death and resurrection.1
V. — The Last Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem.
Sec. 141. According to the three Synoptists, Jesus came to
Jerusalem, on His last journey, through Jericho.2 In what
way did He reach this town 1 It is pretty generaUy assumed
that Jesus came down on the eastern bank of the Jordan from
the district of the Sea of Galilee, untU opposite Jericho, and
then crossed the Jordan, and so entered Jericho. All this,
however, is pure hypothesis ; not the shghtest indication of
it is found in the texts. More than this, the absolute sUence
of the narrative regarding a passing across the Jordan renders
such a supposition in the highest degree improbable. Jesus,
after quitting Ephrem, passed along the frontiers between
Samaria and Galilee into the Ghor, and then pursued down
the Gh6r the route described in the Tabula Peutingeriana
from Scythopolis to Jericho, on the western side of the Jordan.
The way on the eastern side of this river would have gone
through the territory of Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee and
Persea, whom Jesus had every reason for avoiding ; 3 whereas
He proceeded by the much shorter cis-Jordan route, with a
protecting caravan of festive pilgrims.
Sec. 142. Jericho. — In the region where the Jordan
empties itself into the Dead Sea, the Ghor forms, on the
western side of the river, the well - watered and naturally
fruitful oasis of Jericho. In this oasis there exists at the
present day a miserable village named Eiha, or er-Eiha.
This name ¦ — • formerly written Eriha — resembles that of
Jericho.4 The viUage, however, does not indicate the site of
the ancient city : this latter was situated at the Elisha-
Pountain [Ain es-Sultan], a mile to the north of Eiha. The
town of Jericho at tiie time of Christ seems, moreover, not to
have occupied exactly the place of the former city destroyed
by Joshua. Important in this connection is the remark of
Eusebius in the Onomasticon, that the town of Jericho visited
1 Luke xviii. 31-34. 2 Matt. xx. 26 ; Mark x. 46 ; Luke xviii. 35.
3 Luke xiii. 31. * [Cf. i" Jr-TV ]

THE LAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM. 187
by the Lord was destroyed by the Eomans at the time of the
siege of Jerusalem, on account of the faithlessness of its
inhabitants ; that to replace this the third city was built,
which existed in Eusebius' time ; " the traces also," he adds,
" of the two former cities are shown to this day." The oasis
of Jericho was at the time of Jesus world-famed for the
culture of the balsam and date-palm ; it has — owing to the
protection of the surrounding mountains, and its depression
below the level of the sea, which amounts to more than a
thousand feet — a reaUy tropical climate, and brings forth
tropical productions.
At Jericho — before His entrance into the city, according
to Luke xviii. 35 ; after He had passed through it, according
to Matt. xx. 29 ; Mark x. 46 — Jesus healed the bhnd man,
and turned aside to sojourn (KaTaXvcrat) in the house of the
pubhcan Zacchaeus.1
Sec. 143. In order to reach Jerusalem from Jericho, the
traveUer must climb the mountain-wall which supports the
Judean uplands, and forms the western boundary of the Gh6r.
The height to which he must rise attains to something like
3500 feet; since Jerusalem hes 3700 feet above the level of
the Dead Sea, and Jericho only 200 feet above that level.
The route hes through a gloomy desert of cretaceous and
calcareous hiUs. The distance amounts to about 18 mUes.
This road is stUl and was always rendered unsafe by robbers
and highwaymen, and especiaUy was the ascent of Adumim
(Khan Hadrur) notorious on this account.2 From the uplands
to which this road leads Jerusalem is divided by the valley
of Jehoshaphat — the upper part of the Kidron — running from
north to south. The western declivity of these uplands, lying
opposite Jerusalem, is caUed the Mount of Olives.3 This rises
above the valley of Jehoshaphat like a far-stretching wall of
rock, spreading from north to south. At its summit it assumes
a less rugged form than at its base. It rises terrace-wise, in
perpendicularly shelving layers and strata of limestone, to its
1 Luke xix. 1-10. [If the healing took place on the way to the house of
Zacchaeus, there is no discrepancy between the different narratives.]
2 Luke x. 30 ff. Cf. Stanley, Sin. and Pal. chap. xiii. p. 424.
3 [Called Olivet in Luke xix. 29, xxi. 37 ; Acts i. 12.]

188 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
three principal plateau-hke summits, — somewhat higher than
the rest of the mountain, yet flattened at the top, — which
tower only by about 200 feet above the highest parts of the
city. The absolute height of the Mount of Olives is 2500
feet; opposite to St. Stephen's Gate it rises 600 feet above
the Kidron. A moderate number of the olive trees, from
which it takes its name, stiU adorn the mountain ; and at its
western foot the oldest group of its veterans in the Garden of
Gethsemane is world-famed as a spot sacred to the Christian
pilgrim. A great part of the mountain is occupied with level
fields ; and even the highest peak is ploughed up, and sown
with barley. The southernmost of these three summits is
known under the name of " Mountain of Offence," with
reference to the idolatry of Solomon recorded 1 Kings xi. 7.
The northernmost is called " Viri GalUaei." 1 The centre one,
and at the same time the highest, bears on it the Chapel of
the Ascension. On the eastern side of this last summit lies
the Arab viUage El-Azirieh, or, what is better, El-Lazirieh,
i.e. Lazarus. It has already been remarked that the Arabs
have attached to many ancient localities the name of some
renowned man belonging to them. Thus they caU Hebron
El-Khahl, the friend (sc. of God), i.e. Abraham ; Eama of
Samuel, Neby SamwU. So also Bethany, after Lazarus, El-
Lazirieh. The place in reahty corresponds to aU the require
ments of the sacred text. It hes 2 mUes from Jerusalem, —
the distance thus agreeing with the 15 stadia of John xi. 18.
From El-Azirieh Jerusalem is not visible, owing to the inter
vening HiU of the Ascension. The traveUer gains a view of
the city only when he has left behind him half the way, has
gone round the HiU of the Ascension, and has reached the
slope of Olivet.2 Thus also, according to Luke xix. 37, 41,
1 [Cf. Acts i. 11.]
2 [In connection with the history of the Lord's descent from Olivet on the
occasion of His last triumphal entry, the student should ponder the memorable
description of Stanley, Sin. and Pal. chap. iii. pp. 192, 193. With this let
him compare the account of Tristram : " There is but one true approach to
Jerusalem, and, if possible, even at the cost of some hours' ditour, let the
pilgrim endeavour to enter from the east, the favourite approach of our Lord,
the path of His last and triumphant entry. It is a glorious burst as the traveller
rounds the shoulder of Mount Olivet, and the Haram wall starts up before him

THE LAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM. 189
Jesus first gained a view of the city a considerable time after
He had left Bethany.
Sec. 144. Bethphage. — In the account given by Matthew
Bethany is not mentioned, but it is said ' that when Jesus had
gone up from Jericho, and had drawn near to Jerusalem, He
came to Bethphage, and from that point sent out two of His
disciples. ... In Mark xi. 1 and Luke xix. 29, on the other
hand, it is said : "And when they were come unto Bethany
and Bethphage, et? Byd(payfj Kal Bydaviav, He sendeth forth
two of His disciples. . . ." Had Bethphage been a village,' its
site must have been eastwards of Bethany, since it is men
tioned before this latter viUage. Jesus makes a halt, to wait
for the bringing up of the ass on which He is to ride into the
city ; this point of halting and of rest was Bethphage and
Bethany. How could Jesus be waiting in two villages at one
time ? In connection with this question it must at once
strike one, that while ancient and modern Bibhcal geographers
agree with tradition in pointing out with certainty the site of
Bethany, they are, with regard to Bethphage, uncertain and
mutuaUy contradictory. AU difficulties vanish, however, so
soon as we understand by Bethphage not a village, but a
whole district — namely, the Mount of Olives from the eastern
wall of Jerusalem as far as Bethany ; and that this is reaUy
meant by the term Bethphage, may be proved with certainty
from the books of Jewish tradition. If at the feast of Pass
over millions of pilgrims came up to Jerusalem, it is evident
that only a comparatively small proportion of them could find
from the deep gorge of the Kedron, with its domes and crescents sparkling in
the sunlight — a royal city. On that very spot He once paused and gazed on the
same bold cliffs supporting a far more glorious pile, and when He beheld the
city He wept over it. . . . We gazed for a few moments, grouped in silence.
'That is the mosque,' 'There is the Mount of Olives,' 'That is the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre,' were remarks enough. The one thought, 'This is
Jerusalem,' absorbs all others. ' Thy servants take pleasure in her stones.' It
is like revisiting a father's grave or the home of one's youth, and no one is dis
posed to expatiate on the outline or details of the landscape which rivets itself
upon the soul with magnetic power, for over it hover the memories of redemption
achieved, and the victory over the grave " (Land of Israel, p. 174). The devout
and judicious remarks of Andrew Bonar, Narrative, before cited, p. 157, are
also worthy of careful attention.]
1 Matt. xxi. 1.

190 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
quarters in the city ; the great majority encamped outside the
city, where also they must prepare their Paschal meals. But
since this must, according to the law, be performed in " the
camp," i.e. according to later conceptions, at Jerusalem, the dis
trict lying eastward of Jerusalem, and comprising the Kidron
and the Mount of Olives, was " sanctified," i.e. declared an
integral part of " the camp," in which every sacred act which
should be performed by the Israehte at Jerusalem was per
mitted and vahd. This supplement of the Holy City was
caUed by the Eabbis Bethphage, ya TV2. In this sense is to
be understood the oft-reiterated assertion : " Bethphage is
without the city ; but since it rests immediately upon the holy
mountain, the bread prepared there is sacred." r Since Beth
phage is the whole Mount of Ohves, sanctified as part of the
" camp," the evangelists could say with justice that Jesus
came to Bethany and Bethphage ; for it then means that He
came into the district known as Bethphage, and into the
particular spot of this district which is called Bethany.
Sec. 145. That which Jewish tradition teUs us about
Bethphage and Bethany, affords us important information on
points connected with the history of the Sanhedrim in the
age of Jesus. The Pharisaic Talmudists often reproach the
Sadducees with being bloodthirsty and ferocious in the applica
tion of capital punishment. Thus it is said in Bab. Sanhedrin,
fol. 14. 2, and in Bab. Sota, fol. 45. 1, that the Sanhedrim of
Bethphage condemned to death those elders — i.e. members of
the Great CouncU — who opposed the decrees of the majority.
What is to be understood by this Sadducean Sanhedrim at
Bethphage ? According to Bab. Bosh hashanna, fol. 31. 1, and
Bab. Sanhedrin,2 the Synedrium had originaUy its seat in
Leshkath ha-Gasith, on the south side of the Court of Israel;
but forty years before the destruction of the temple this
supreme court of judicature migrated, and removed to Hanioth;
and later, from thence to Jerusalem — into the city, but not
into the sanctuary ; then to Jabne (at the time of the destruc
tion of Jerusalem), etc., until at last it came to Tiberias.
1 Bab. Pesachim, fol. 63. 2 ; Menachoth, vii. 6, ii. 2 ; Tosaphtha Menachoth,
ii. 2 ; Siphri in Ugolini, Thes. xv. p. 399.
2 Ugolini, Thes. xxv. 589.

THE LAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM, 191
Further, we read in Bab. Baba Mezia, fol. 88. 1, "Hanioth,
nvon, the place of the sons of Hanan, pn 'on, was destroyed
before the overthrow of the temple ; and why was Hanioth at
Heno, wri b& nvin, destroyed ? Because they (i.e. the Bend
Hanan) at Hanioth founded their decrees on the law alone,
without regard to the traditions of the fathers." The San
hedrim at Hanioth, whose members were caUcd, on account of
the place of session, Bend Hanan, was thus — like that of
Bethphage on the Mount of Ohves — Sadduceanj But Hanioth
too was situated on the Mount of Olives.1 From this it fol
lows that the Sanhedrim of Hanioth and that of Bethphage is
one and the same, and Hanioth or Hanio is nothing else than
Beth-hania or Bethany. We observe that the orthography
of this name with the Talmudists is in the highest degree
unsettled. As corresponding with the above-cited bw nvon
iyn, we read in Bab. Pesachim, fol. 53. 1, iyr\ ; in Bab. Erubin,
fol. 28. 1, yy TV2-; in Tosaphtha Trumoth, vii. 6, 'OIN TO.
The most natural etymology seems to us to be a contracted
rvwn )T3, i.e. yn n'a The word nvon signifies booths or tents,
set up by the merchants in the fairs or markets. That tents
of this kind were to be found at the encampment of the
pUgrims who came up to the festival, wUl be seU-evident.
The locality in which they were mainly to be found was
Bethany. Sec. 146. We have already2 cited a passage from the Tal
mud, to the effect that forty years before the destruction of
the temple, the Sanhedrim was deprived of the right of inflict
ing capital punishment. In the citation just made, it is said
that, forty years before the destruction of the temple, the
Sanhedrim removed from Leshkath Hagasith to Bethany; this
migration, and that loss of a privilege which, according to the
Talmudists, stood and feU with the possession of Leshkath
Hagasith as a place of sitting, belong thus to one and the
same occasion. Later, probably after only a brief sojourn at
Bethany of Bethphage, the Great CouncU withdrew to Jeru
salem ; where, in reahty, it held its sessions during the period
of the life of Christ now under consideration.3 The number
1 Jerus. Taanith, iv. 8, fol. 69, 2. z Sec. 139.
3 John xviii. 13 ; Matt. xxvi. 57, 58 ; Mark xiv. 53 ; Luke xxii. 54.

192 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
forty is not, as we have already said, to be taken literaUy.
The Sanhedrim was in the year 783, thus forty years before
the destruction of Jerusalem, already in this city ; the time of
their assembhng at Bethany faUs thus somewhat earlier. It
would seem that at Bethany-Bethphage the Great Council was
exclusively Sadducean ; at Jerusalem it was composed of
Pharisees and Sadducees combined ;x and shortly before the
destruction of Jerusalem it became exclusively Pharisaic,
under the influence of the Eabban Johanan Ben Zacchai.2
Eemarkable, in connection with this name, is the following
passage of the Talmud:3 "Forty years before the destruction
of the temple" — thus in the year of the death of Christ —
" the doors of the temple opened of themselves. Johanan
Ben Zacchai began to chide them, and said, ' Temple, why
openest thou of thyself ? From this I see that thine end is
near, for it is written (Zech. xi. 1), Open thy doors, 0 Lebanon,
that the fire may devour thy cedars.' " Does not this spon
taneous opening of the doors of the temple, in the year of the
death of Christ, remind of Matt, xxvii. 51, "The veil of the
temple was rent in twain, from the top to the bottom " ?
VI. — The Mode of observing Passover at the Time of Christ.
Sec. 147. The right understanding of the history of the
passion, even as respects its chronology, depends in a high
degree upon a true insight into the order of observance for
the Jewish Passover. In the law, Ex. xii. 1-18, it is com
manded : " The month Abib (Nisan) shaU be unto you the
first month. On the tenth day of this month shaU every man
take a lamb for a house . . . without blemish, a male, of a
year old. On the fourteenth day of this month shall they kiU
it, the whole assembled congregation of Israel, between the
two evenings (ffaijin p), and shaU eat the flesh in that night,
roasted with fire ; and mazoth (unleavened bread) shaU they
eat to bitter herbs . . . Seven days shall ye eat mazoth ; even
on the first day shaU ye put away leaven out of your houses.
1 Acts iv. 1 ff, v. 17, 21, 34, 40.
2 Megillath Taanith, 27th Marchesvan.
3 Bab. Toma, fol. 39. 2.

MODE OF OBSERVING PASSOVER AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 193
. . . On the first day and on the seventh day shaU be holy
convocation : no labour shaU be done, save the preparation for
the eating. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the
month, at even (aijn), shaU ye eat mazoth, untU the twenty-first
at even." This order for the observance of the Passover is
repeated, with some variations, in Lev. xxiii. 5-14; Num.
xxviii 16-25; Deut. xvi 1-8. Taken as a whole, the
directions are distinct. The single difficulties connected with
exegesis and harmonistics we may disregard, since our object
is only to see how the Jews, at the time of Christ, understood
them and carried them out.
Sec. 148. The 14th Nisan is invariably designated in the
Talmudic writings by the expression riDBn 2iy, eve of the
Passover ; in the same sense in which natrn any denotes the
Jewish sixth day, preceding the Sabbath. In the N. T.
the 14th Nisan is caUed irapaaKevy tov irda^a, very pro
perly translated by Luther, " Eiisttag." On the evening of
this 14th, i.e. at its beginning, — since the Jewish day begins
with the evening, and " evening and morning"1 make up the
day, — the Jews began to eat the mazoth.2 This could not but
be the case, since on the evening of the 14th Nisan aU leaven
must be put away by daylight.3 This preparation day, the
14th Nisan, was — equaUy as the Passover day, the 15 th, or
as the " Day of Convocation," the 21st — a festival,4 although
the practice with regard to it was somewhat different in the
different provinces. In Judea, work was permitted on the
preparation day until the dawn of the morning ; in Galilee,
the whole day, evening, night, and morning, was kept sacred.5
Besides the putting away of the leaven, and the beginning
of the eating of the mazoth, the principal event of the 14th
Nisan was the offering of the paschal lamb in the sanctuary.
This offering of the lamb consisted not, however, as is main
tained by many exegetes, in the eating of it, but in the killing
of it in the sanctuary. This was to take place Dnayn pa,
" between the two evenings." We have not to investigate
1 Gen. i. 5. 3 Ex. xii. 18. 3 Mishna Pesachim, i.— iii.
4 Jerus. Ohagiga, iii. 7 : mVW fUD Of HDSa riDSn anjJ.
5 bo psfiy vn xb b'bm nixn ny D'nDS "mjn mvho peny vn mirva
Ip'J?. — Pesachim, iv. 5. N

194 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
what significance this expression had in the Mosaic writings,
but merely how it was understood in the age of Christ. The
thamid, or evening sacrifice, was, according to Ex. xxix. 38,
39, xii. 6, Num. xxviii. 3, 4, to be presented "between the
two evenings." Now we read in Mishna Pesachim, v. 1 :
" Thamid was killed at the eighth hour and a half, and offered
at the ninth hour and a half. On the preparation for the
Passover it was kiUed at the seventh hour and a half, and
offered at the eighth hour and a half. But if the preparation for
Passover feU on a Friday, thamid was kiUed at the sixth hour
and a half, and offered at the seventh hour and a half; and
after this foUowed Passover." By this is explained the signi
fication of the expression " between the two evenings : " it is
the time at which both the thamid and the paschal lamb
were offered, thus between the sixth hour and a half and the
twelfth hour; or from half an hour after mid-day to six
o'clock in the evening, or rather to sunset. On the 14th
Nisan, when the foUowing day did not coincide with a
Sabbath, the evening sacrifice was kiUed at half-past one,
offered at half-past two, and then, at about half-past three, the
Israelites began to slay the paschal lamb. The offering of
the Passover consisted in the burning of the fat, and in the
pouring out of the blood of the lamb at the foot of the altar
of burnt-offering. Josephus 1 says that the paschal lamb was
offered, or slain, between the ninth hour and the eleventh, —
thus between three and five in the afternoon. The lamb was
then skinned, prepared, and roasted.
Sec. 149. The 15th Nisan was a "Day of Convocation,"
like the 21st, and bore the name of Sabbath, which might also
be that of the week-day on which it fell.2 In the night with
which this day began the paschal lamb was eaten. That this
was, and must be, an eating by night, foUows from Ex. xii. 8,
10. It did not thus take place on the 14th Nisan, which
ended with sunset. This would have been, in the nature of
things, impossible ; since the roasting of a whole lamb, which
was killed only at five o'clock in the evening, could not
possibly have been accomplished before the close of the night-
1 Josephus, de Bello, vi. 9, sec. 3.
* Lev. xxiii. 6, 7, 11.

MODE OF OBSERVING PASSOVER AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. 195
day. It is consequently an error, when it is asserted that the
paschal lamb was consumed at the end of the 14th Nisan.
The 15th Nisan was observed strictly as a Sabbath: the fol
lowing days, from the 16 th to the 20 th Nisan, were work
days, only the use of leavened bread was interdicted on them.
Yet on the 16 th took place the special celebration of the
harvest, and the presentation of the paschal sheaf.1 The
barley sheaf was gathered in, by those deputed by the Sanhe
drim, immediately upon the setting of the sun, thus at the
beginning of the 1 6th Nisan. For this purpose, a field in the
neighbourhood of Jerusalem, in the vaUey of the Kidron, was
ordinarily chosen ; because in this vaUey, which sank down
abruptly to the tropical Ghor, the corn was ripe considerably
earlier than in the rest of Palestine.2 The presentation took
place at the time of the morning sacrifice, and proclaimed
the beginning of the harvest. From this 16 th Nisan was
determined the feast of Pentecost, which fell seven weeks
later. It thus took place fifty days later than the l'5th
Nisan, on the next day of the week. If, for instance, the
15 th was a Sabbath, — as was the case in the year a.d.
30, — then the day of Pentecost was Feria I.3 The 21st
Nisan was again a " Day of Convocation," which was ob
served as a Sabbath, and brought to a close the feast of the
Mazoth. Sec. 150. In the modern Jewish calendar, the new moon,
and consequently the 1st Nisan, is no longer determined by
the phase, but by astronomical calculation. It can, moreover,
be arbitrarUy postponed. The 1st of Nisan is therefore in
such wise ordered in the modern calendar that the 15 th
never faUs on the second, fourth, and sixth days of the week,
i.e. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, in the Jewish sense.
That, however, this limitation did not exist in the ancient
Jewish period, but that at that time — consequently also in
the age of Christ — the Passover might faU on any day of
the week, may be proved with certainty from the Talmud.
In Mishna Pesachim, vii. 10, it is said that the remains,
1 Lev. xxiii. 10 ff. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 10, sec. 5.
2 Tosaphtha Menachoth, x. 10. [Cf. Tristram, p. 596.]
3 Cf. Lev. xxiii. 15 ff. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 10, sec. 6.

19C THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
bones, etc., of the Easter lamb were burnt on the 16 th
Nisan ; but that, if this fell on a Sabbath, the burning took
place on the 1 7th. From this it foUows that the 1 6th might
fall on a seventh day, and consequently the 15th might be a
sixth day, or Friday. So also in Mishna Chagiga, ii. 4, the
case of the day of Pentecost falhng on a Sabbath is dis
cussed. We might have passed over this fact without notice,
had not some interpreters sought additional support for their
position that the 15 th Nisan in the year of the death of
Jesus was not a Friday, as is generally supposed, but a
Saturday, by an appeal to the law that the 15th Nisan could
never faU on a Friday. We maintain the same position, that
in the year of the death of Christ the day of Passover feU on
a Sabbath. It was incumbent on us, therefore, to say why
we did not avaU ourselves of this argument. It is because
this rule does not apply to the age of Christ.
VII. — The Time of Christ's Suffering, according to the single
Evangelists.
Sec. 151. The time of the Passion according to the
Gospel of John. — The question dominating and conditionating
every other is this : On what Jewish day of the week and
month was Jesus crucified ? Now, in John xix. 14 it is said
that the day on which the Lord was crucified was the pre
paration day of the Passover, r)v Be irapao-Kevy tov irao-yct.
That by this is meant the Eabbinical nDSn any, cannot be
explained away by any exegetical artifice. If the evangelist
is not to be charged with employing expressions necessarily
misleading to the reader, it must be admitted that . he places
the day of the crucifixion of Christ on the 14th Nisan. To
the same conclusion does John xviii. 28 necessarUy lead,
where it is said : " They (the Jews) led Jesus from Caiaphas
unto the praetorium ; but they themselves went not into the
praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might be able
to eat the Passover," 'Cva pty pttavdwatv, dXX' tva (pdycoat to
•n-da^a. That the " eating of the Passover " is not of necessity
to be understood of the partaking of the paschal lamb, we
admit, and even postulate ; but that it may imply the eating

THE TIME OF CHRIST'S SUFFERING. 197
of the paschal lamb must equaUy be admitted. The observ
ance of the feast of Unleavened Bread was an eating of the
Passover in the proper sense of the term ; but to this ob
servance was not attached the condition of Levitical purity ;
for even those who were unclean might, yea must, partake of
unleavened bread in these days, for other bread was inter
dicted to every one, under pain of being cut off.. The Jews,
however, in the passage cited, have before their mind an
eating of the Passover which is permitted only to those
ceremoniaUy clean : this could only be the eating of the
paschal lamb. Some exegetes have asserted that the festive
thank-offering, Chagiga, and the sacrificial meal which follows
it, is what is meant. It is said, Deut. xvi. 16, 17, " Three times
in a year shaU aU thy males appear before the face of Jehovah
thy God, in the place which He shaU choose, namely, at the
feast of the Mazoth, at the feast of Pentecost, and at the
feast of Tabernacles. And there shaU not any one appear
empty before Jehovah, according as his hand can give, and
according to the blessing which Jehovah hath given to each
one." This " not appearing empty " the Jews understood in
the sense of a thank-offering, and the meal which foUows
this, which they called Chagiga. That was generally pre
sented on the 15th Nisan, but could also be offered on the
14th, simultaneously with the paschal lamb ; 1 but the sacri
ficial flesh thereof could be preserved two days and a night.2
Since, then, the entering into a Gentile house defiled only
untU evening,3 there would still have been time enough for
the Jews to partake of the sacrificial meal a day later, if they
had entered into the praetorium. But the main reason why
we cannot regard the eating for which they should preserve
themselves clean as Chagiga is, that to this sacrifice there is
wanting any special paschal character, since it could be pre
sented on aU festivals, and must be presented at Pentecost
and Tabernacles ; the expression, " to eat the Passover," does
not therefore rightly apply to it. The Jews avoided entering
the praetorium in order that they might be able to eat the
1 Mishna Pesachim, vi. 3, 4.
2 Bid. vi. 4.
3 Judith xii. 7-9.

198 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LOWS LABOURS.
paschal lamb on the night which was before them, — the night
with which the 15th Nisan began; the day on which they
had used such precaution was thus the 14th Nisan. On this
day, consequently, was Jesus crucified.
Sec. 152. According to John, Jesus was judged,1 crucified,2
and buried,3 on the 14th Nisan. Further, as concerns the day
of the week, it must have been on the sixth day, a Friday ;
since, according to xx. 1, Jesus rose on a Sunday, — t§ ptia
rrnv o-a/3/3aTcov, — after being buried at the end of the day of
preparation,4 and lying in the grave over the Sabbath, the
great one,5 which was thus both a week Sabbath and the high
day of Passover. In the year u.c. 783, A.D. 30, the 15th
Nisan was in fact a Sabbath; and consequently the 14th,
Feria VI., a Friday. The statement of the Gospel of John thus
perfectly taUies with that of Jewish tradition, which is to the
effect that Jesus was crucified on the preparation day of the
Passover, nDsn a-ijn.6
Sec. 153. It wiU be self-evident that, if Jesus was crucified
on the 14th Nisan, the last supper which He held with His
disciples will also be on the 14th Nisan. Yet this fact may
be immediately proved. In John xiii. 1, 2 it is said, " Before
the feast of the Passover . . . supper being come . . . Jesus
riseth from supper," irpb Be Trjs eoprys tov Trdo-y_a . . . Kal
Behrvov yevopevovJ The paschal festival was observed on the
15th; before the feast of the Passover was, consequently, the
14th. That this meal took place at night is seen from chap.
xiii. 30. This night then, in which, after the supper, Jesus
was in Gethsemane, belonged to the 14th Nisan. This 14th
Nisan had begun with sunset, and consequently with the
evening of our Thursday.
The relation of the Jewish night-days of that paschal
season to our days, which begin with midnight, will be
apparent from the following scheme : —
1 John xviii. 28. 2 John xix. 14.
3 John xix. 31, 42. 4 John xix. 42.
5 John xix. 31. 6 Cf. sec. 139.
7 [Tischendorf, with the Sinaitic and Vatican Mss., reads yivopivoo. The
meaning would then rather be, " supper beginning, " or "coming on:" ympivoo
(retained by Alford) is " being come. "]

THE TIME OF CHRIST S SUFFERING.

199

Thursday, 6th
April.

Friday, 7th
April.

Julian Day.
•Midnight till morning.
Forenoon. . . .
Afternoon. . . .

-Evening till midnight.
! Midnight till morning.
Forenoon. . . .
Afternoon. . . .
Evening till midnight.

Jewish Night-Day.

13th Nisan,
Feria Y.

14th Nisan,
Feria VI.

Saturday, f^1^ ^ morning.
o , , •" j 1 orenoon. . . .
April. Aftem°on- • • •
L Evening till midnight.
Sunday, ["Midnight till morning.
9th J Forenoon. . . .
April. 1 Afternoon. . . .
[.Evening till midnight.

15th Nisan.
Sabbath.

The Last Supper ; be
ginning of the Mazoth ;
Gethsemane ; putting
away of the leaven ;
-{ judgment. ( Offering 1
Crucifixion ) of- the f
and burial. ) paschal [
I ( lamb. )
f Eating of the paschal
J lamb.
I Jesus in )

[the grave. $

Passover.

16th Nisan,
Feria I.

Jesus in the grave ; in
gathering of first-fruits.
Eesurrection of Jesus.

Sec. 154. Every unprejudiced reader is surely convinced
by what has been already said, that John places the crucifixion
of Jesus on the preparation day of the Passover, i.e. the 14th
Nisan, and not on the great day of Passover. Further proof
is not necessary. Yet, by way of supererogation, we may
adduce stiU further the passage John xiii 29. After the
meal, whUe it was night,1 Jesus had said to Judas, " That thou
doest, do quickly." " Some of them thought, because Judas
had the purse, that Jesus had said to him, Buy what we have
need of against the feast." That feast is the 15 th Nisan.
Now if Jesus was crucified on the 15 th, the supper would
have taken place on the same night-day; but on the 15th
Nisan, the great Sabbath, no "buying" was possible ; this
must have been looked after on the 14th. Jesus then spoke
the words we have cited, on the 14th Nisan, at the beginning
of that night-day in the second haU of which the crucifixion
took place.
If, then, many interpreters have nevertheless attempted to
show that John admits of the supposition that Christ was
1 John xiii. 30.

200 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
crucified on the loth Nisan, this takes place on harmonistic
grounds. They seek to bring John's account into harmony
with that of the Synoptists, who, as is supposed, fix as the day
of the Lord's death the great day of Passover itself, the 1 5th
Nisan. Of this we shaU now speak in the foUowing section.
Sec. 155. The time of the Passion according to Luke.—
In Luke xxii. 7, 8 we read : " Then came the day of unleavened
bread, on which the Passover must be kiUed. And Jesus
sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the Passover,
that we may eat." For the moment we leave undecided the
question as to what this paschal meal was, contenting our
selves with saying that it does not foUow with absolute
necessity that this was the eating of the paschal lamb, for the
very reason that no mention is made of any lamb. The day
of unleavened bread, when the Passover should be offered, i.e.
the lamb should be slain, its blood poured forth on the altar,
and its fat be consumed, was the 14th of Nisan — and only on
the 15th foUowed the eating. The command to prepare the
Passover was given to the disciples on the afternoon of
Thursday, 6 th April ; the eating took place on the same date,
after sunset of the Thursday, on what was consequently
already the 14th Nisan, the Jewish Feria VI. If, as is
ordinarily supposed, Jesus had given the command at the end
of the 14th Nisan, in such wise that the meal took place at
the beginning of the 15 th, then Luke could not have said that
the day came, on which the Passover must be kiUed. He
must, on the contrary, have said that the day on which the
Passover must be kiUed was drawing to its close ; for at that
hour of the afternoon the offering of the jpaschal lamb was, if
not already accomplished, in the full course of accomphshment.
Sec. 156. If the meal which Jesus held with His disciples
had been the eating of the paschal lamb, the Lord must have
partaken of it prolepticaUy, and against the rule, at the begin
ning of the 14th Nisan; for at this time, according to Luke
no less than John, did the eating take place. It must in that
case be explained how the disciples came to be authorized by
the priests, prolepticaUy and against the law, to slay their
lamb in the sanctuary a day earlier than others. But if it
had reaUy been the case that Jesus had already partaken of

THE TIME OF CHRIST'S SUFFERING. 201
the paschal lamb on the 14th Nisan, it would foUow there
from that He was also crucified on the 14th; for, after the
eating of the supper, Jesus addressed to Peter the words, " I
say unto thee, Peter, the cock wiU not crow this day, a-yptepov,
untU thou shalt thrice have denied that thou knowest me." x
From this foUows that Peter's denial took place on the same
night-day on which the meal was partaken of. — Another
passage, Luke xxni. 26, proves that the day of the Lord's
death could not possibly faU on the 15th Nisan. It is there
said that Simon the Cyrenian was coming up from the field,
air dypov, when they compelled him to bear the cross of
Jesus. Of a man who is returning from a Sabbath walk it
cannot be said that he is coming up from the field ; 2 this
expression, on the contrary, implies that he was returning from
field labour. Now field labour was not permitted to any one
on the great day of the Passover ; although it was so, where
necessity required it, on the preparation day.
Sec. 157. When Jesus had expired upon the cross, Joseph
of Arimathea buried the body ; and " it was the preparation,
and ,the Sabbath drew on." 3 The name " preparation,"
irapao-Kevy, may denote either the day before the Passover or
the day before the week Sabbath. In this last sense — as
preparation day for the week Sabbath — is it taken by those
interpreters who suppose that Jesus was crucified on the 1 5th
Nisan, a Friday. But for whom must not a difficulty lie in
the supposition that the greatest and most sacred festive
Sabbath of the whole year should here be caUed simply the
preparation of the Sabbath, as any other Friday of the year ?
The 15 th Nisan was, on the other hand, so exceptionaUy
sacred, that the week Sabbath might serve as preparation day
for this. When the 15 th Nisan fell on the Jewish Feria I.,
and consequently the 14th Nisan was a Sabbath, it was per
mitted to break this last to such extent as was required by
the preparations for the festival.4 From this it foUows that
the Passover was more sacred than the week Sabbath, and
consequently could not serve as preparation day to it. The
1 Luke xxii. 34.
2 Compare, for the use of iypis, Luke xiv. 18 ; Matt. xxii. 5.
3 Luke xxiii. 54. * Mishna Pesachim, iii. 6, vi. 1 ; Jerus. Pesachim, fol. 33. 1.

202 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
Paraskeue in Luke thus signifies, as we have already found to
be the case in John, the preparation day for Passover, the
14th Nisan. From this it foUows that, according to Luke,
Jesus observed the supper at the beginning of the 14th Nisan,
Thursday after sunset ; and that on the same Jewish night-
day, the 14th Nisan — though, according to our mode of
reckoning, on the Friday — He was condemned, crucified, and
buried. In the meantime the Sabbath drew on, with the
sunset of Friday ; and this night-day was at once the week
Sabbath, Feria VII., and the great paschal Sabbath. This
Sabbath they passed in quiet, according to the commandment.1
On the Sunday following, Ty Be ptia to3v o-aBBdT<ov, Jesus
rose from the grave.2 The chronology of Luke thus perfectly
harmonizes with that of John.
Sec. 158. The Paschal Meal. — That the "eating of the
Passover" may signify the eating of the paschal lamb is
beyond doubt, and is, moreover, proved from John xviii. 28.
But that it has not exclusively this signification, we have now
to show. That the last supper, as John relates it, was not the
eating of the paschal lamb, is perfectly clear. If, then, that
described by Luke had been the paschal lamb of the 15 th
Nisan, we must assume a manifest contradiction between
these two evangelists. The opinion, however, that Luke
designates the 15 th Nisan as the day of the supper and of the
crucifixion, is based simply and alone upon the fact that the
evangelist caUs this meal " the Passover ; " for the other
chronological hints point, as we have already seen, rather to
the 14th Nisan. If Luke had anywhere expressly said that at
this meal the lamb was eaten, we should be confined to the
paschal supper of the 15th; but the word "lamb" does not
at all occur in his narrative. In chap. xxn. 14-23 he has
described this supper carefully and in detail : Jesus gave to
the disciples the cup to drink ; 3 then the bread to eat, which
is His body,4 and the cup of the New Testament to drink,
which is His blood ; s but of a lamb not a trace. If any
where surely here, the argumentum e silentio is valid. Luke
does not speak of the paschal lamb ; therefore it was not the
1 Luke xxiii. 56. 2 Luke xxiv. 1. " Luke xxii. 17, 18.
* Luke xxii. 19. 5 Luke xxii. 20.

THE TIME OF CHRIST'S SUFFERING. 203
eating of the paschal lamb. But what was this paschal meal ?
Here Jewish tradition alone can afford us any' light. The
paschal meal of the Jews is described with fulness of detail in
the Mishna Pesachim, x. This tractate teaches us in what the
eating of the Passover consisted, and when it took place. It
began with the head of the family passing round the first cup
of wine,1 and then followed the eating.2 After this foUowed
a second cup ; 3 the son asked the father concerning the mean
ing of the festival, and the father instructed him concerning
it.4 After this they began to intone the great Hallel, Ps.
cxui.-cxviii. ; then was handed forth the third cup, caUed by
the Eabbis " the cup of blessing." 5 The singing of the Hallel
was continued, and at the close of it the fourth cup was
administered ; 6 by which the meal was brought to an end.
That which was eaten on this occasion is enumerated x. 3,
where it says : " They set before him (the head of the family)
lettuce for dipping, until the dessert comes. There is set
before him unleavened bread, lettuce, and sweet paste,7
and the two dressed dishes. . . . Eabbi Ehezer bar Zadok
says, Mazoth ! and they set before him the body of the Pass
over in the sanctuary." (mtnth jnoK> Tj> mtna 5>aBO VJsb Wan
riDi-in psc '•a $>y W r^^n 'opi riDinm mtm nv» v:sb wan ran
bv iau v:sb Dwao vn tnpDai niso nais ttiv ia nrjrta m • nivo
riDfi.) The body of the Passover is the paschal lamb. In
the whole carefully detaUed account of the paschal meal in
the Mishna, this is the only reference to the paschal lamb.
The remark of E. Ehezer is evidently designed to say that in
the eating of the Passover, the Mazoth is that which is obli
gatory ; in addition to this, the eating of the lamb is also
obhgatory, but only for those who observe the festival in the
sanctuary. The Mishna consequently describes the paschal
meal as it was observed by aU Israehtes without distinction.
Not only at Jerusalem was Passover eaten, but also in every
Israehtish famUy, wherever they might dweU ; and this meal
1 Pesachim, x. 2. 2 Ibid. x. 3. 3 Bid. x. 4.
4 Bid. x. 5, 6. 5 naiaT ND3, cf. 1 Cor. x. 26. 6 Pesachim, x. 7.
7 [The Charoset, a sort of sweet paste composed of dates, figs, etc., and
made of the colour of a brick, in order to remind of the Egyptian bondage. Cf.
Meyer on Matt. xxvi. 23. Into this the unleavened bread and bitter herbs
were dipped. Winer, art. "Pascha."]

204 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
had as the essential element the mazoth. This meal does not
presuppose personal presence in the sanctuary ; yea, what is
more, it does not even require the existence of the sanctuary
for its observance. It was held, and is stiU held, in banish
ment, and at a time when neither temple, nor altar, nor
sacrifice existed. But at the time when the sanctuary existed,
it was equally so held by aU Israehtes who could not, might
not, or would not appear in the sanctuary. It is thus an
error when it is asserted that fyayelv to -n-dcr^a denotes
necessarily the eating of the paschal lamb ; the earliest
Jewish tradition teaches definitely the contrary : the mazoth
meal, observed with solemnity in every Israelitish house, was
a <payelv to Trdo-^a. Now it is further asked, When was this
meal held ? Pesachim, x. 1, says, " On the evenings of the
Passover we eat first about the time of the Mincha prayer,
when darkness is come on : then they eat in Israel the bread
of affliction." What is to be understood by " the evenings of
the Passover, cnDS 'aijJ ? If the expression is equivalent
to nDan 2~\y, it signifies the 14th Nisan, the day of the
Paraskeue ; but it may signify the evening with which the
15th Nisan begins. In the first case it would mean that the
Jews observed the paschal meal, which they held at home, on
the beginning of the preparation day ; in the second case it
would faU on the 15 th Nisan. We do not intend to enter on
this phUological examination, because it has no importance
with regard to the object we have in view. If the paschal
meal was held as a rule on the 14th Nisan, then the last
supper of the Lord coincides with it ; if, on the other hand, it
was as a rule held on the 15th, then the Lord's Supper, which
was held on the 14th, was an anticipation, not permitted
indeed with regard to the paschal lamb, but which, so far as
eating of the mazoth was concerned, might without difficulty
take place, where sufficient grounds were present. Such
ground, however, the Lord supplies, Luke xxii. 15, "With
desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you, before I
suffer." The anticipation of the mazoth meal presented no
difficulty, because this was not dependent, as was the case
with the lamb, upon a priestly act in the sanctuary, but upon
the wiU of the father of the family alone. The 14th Nisan

THE TIME OF CHRIST'S SUFFERING. 205
was in any case the day of the mazoth. It seems to us, how
ever, that this anticipation has not necessarily to be presup
posed. The D^nDS "any in question stands, we think, in the very
common signification of noan a~iy, preparation day. In that
night which began with the 14th Nisan, the leavened bread
was destroyed and aU leaven put away ; at the supper at the
beginning of this night-day they therefore necessarily partook
of mazoth. Now, it is only to be expected that to the first
partaking of this festive bread was attached a certain
solemnity, which is precisely that described in the Mishna.
Luke does not say, any more than John, that the supper con
sisted in the partaking of the paschal lamb ; and so soon as
the erroneous supposition, that only the eating of the lamb
could be understood by it, is set aside, there is not the
shghtest ground for this hypothesis in his account. More
than this, if that meal had been the paschal lamb, we could
not but feel surprise that the evangelist — who enters into so
many detaUs in describing it — does not devote a single word
to the mention of that which was the main point, neither to
the buying, nor to the kUling, nor to the offering, nor to the
eating of the lamb.
Sec. 159. The time of the Passion according to Mark.
— "After two days was the Passover, the feast of unleavened
bread, and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they
might take Him by craft and put Him to death. But they
said, Not'at the feast, lest there be an uproar of the people."1
If this wish of the chief priests, "not on the feast day," was
not carried into effect, but Jesus was taken on the 15th
Nisan, we cannot in any way see a reason why Mark should
make mention of such a futile resolution ; he would either
have passed over it in sUence, or have made mention of its
non-fulfilment. But if, as is manifestly implied by the evan
gelist, this resolution was carried out, and Jesus was not
taken captive on the great day of the Passover, the 15th
Nisan, then neither was He crucified on this day ; for,
according to Mark, no less than the other evangelists, Jesus
was crucified on the same night-day on which He was appre
hended. Hence this passage of Mark definitely excludes the
1 Mark xiv. 1, 2.

206 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
supposition of the 15th Nisan as the day of the crucifixion.
At that time, two days before the Passover, thus on the 13 th
Nisan, Jesus was in Bethany, where,- according to the order
of relating on the part of this evangelist, He was anointed.
After this, thus on the same night-day, Judas Iscariot went
to the chief priests to betray Jesus, " and he sought how he
might have opportunity to betray Him." By a " timely "
betrayal (evKaipms) he evidently meant, at the time designed
by the Great Council : " not on the feast day." x
" On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they
kiUed the Passover, His disciples say to Him, Where wilt
Thou that we go and prepare, that Thou mayest eat the
Passover ? " 2 That the reference here cannot be to the par
taking of the paschal lamb on the 15 th Nisan, is shown by
these words, " not on the feast day." That Jesus did not eat
the paschal lamb, prolepticaUy, before the time, on the 14th
Nisan, is evident from the fact that the proposition with
regard to the paschal meal proceeded, not from the Lord, as
foreseeing His speedy death, but from the disciples ; for these
asked the Lord, not whether (this was understood without
their asking), but where they should prepare for Him. That
here, too, as in Luke, only the above-described 3 first eating of
the mazoth, on the evening or beginning of the 14th Nisan,
is in case, wiU need no extended demonstration. Mark, too,
represents the last meal as an eating by night ; 4 he, too,
describes it without making any mention of the lamb ; 5 he,
too, says that Simon the Cyrenian was " coming from the
field ; " 6 he, too, calls the day of crucifixion " the preparation
or fore-Sabbath," 7 and affords not the shghtest indication that
the day on which the Lord was crucified was a sacred feast-
day of the Jews ; and he, too, places the resurrection of the
1 [The reference is evidently not to the place, but to the time of the feast
The plan of the Sanhedrim, however, may have been to take the Lord after the
festival was over. This plan, if such it was, was set aside by the premature
action of Judas. Only in the event of His apprehension taking place on the
15th Nisan would any explanation be necessary on the part of the evangelist.
Since no such explanation is made, St. Mark's statement favours the supposition
of His being taken during the first part of the 14th Nisan.]
2 Mark xiv. 12. " 3 Sec. 158. * Mark xiv. 17.
6 Mark xiv. 18 ff. 6 Mark xv. 21. 7 Mark xv. 42.

THE TIME OF CHRIST'S SUFFERING. 20 7
Lord on a Sunday. This evangelist also thus agrees with
John and Luke in assigning the 14th Nisan as the date of
the supper and the crucifixion.
Sec. 160. The time of the Passion according to Matthew.
— The narrative of that which took place during the Passion-
week comes forth with less distinctness from Matthew than
in the other two Synoptists ; but his statements, perfectly
agree with theirs. Matthew makes known to us, hke Mark,
the resolution of the Great Council to take Jesus captive.
This resolution, which was taken two days before Passover,
makes provision that His capture should take place " not on
the feast day." l Judas engages " at the fit time " to reveal
the Lord's place of abode,2 by which covenant the 15th Nisan,
as the day of His apprehension, is excluded. The account of
the supper,3 and the prediction of the Lord that "in this
night" Peter wiU deny Him,4 is in harmony with Mark's
narrative, and shows that the night-day of the supper and of
the crucifixion is the same. That the day of the crucifixion
was the preparation day, is said in chap, xxvii. 62 ; and
that the day of the resurrection was a Sunday, is taught us
in chap, xxviii. 1. That the irapao-Kevy signifies the pre
paration for Passover, and not simply the preparation for the
week-Sabbath, is especiaUy clear from chap, xxvii. 6 2, where
it is said, " On the next day that followed the day of the
preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together
unto Pilate." If this morrow had been an ordinary Sabbath,
Matthew would certainly not have designated it by this
strange expression : the Paraskeue, from which he designates
the foUowing day, must have a character distinguishing it
from each weekly recurring Friday ; that is to say, it must
have been the Paraskeue of the Passover, yea, a festival day
in itseU. According to Matthew, the day of resurrection
was a Sunday; the day on which Jesus remained in the
grave a Sabbath ; the day of the crucifixion the preparation
for Passover. Thus the 15th Nisan was no other than the
Sabbath of the rest in the grave.
Sec. 161. As soon as the difficulty connected with the
1 Matt. xxvi. 2-4. 2 Matt. xxvi. 15.
3 Matt. xxvi. 17. * Matt. xxvi. 34.

208 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
eating of the Passover is removed, and it is acknowledged
that this was not the eating of the paschal lamb, but the
solemn mazoth-meal, which was eaten in every Jewish house
in the evening, i.e. in the beginning of the 14th Nisan; so
soon is the apparent discrepancy between the Synoptists and
John, and the contradiction in which each of the Synoptists
stands with himself, entirely removed. We say the contra
diction of each one of the Synoptists with himseff; for had
they regarded the Last Supper as the eating of the paschal
lamb, which could be partaken of only at the beginning of
the 15th Nisan, the apprehension of the Lord would have
taken place " on the feast day." This would have been in
contradiction with the saying, " not on the feast day ; " with
the intimation that Judas betrayed the Lord " at the fit time,"
i.e. the time intended; and with the statement that Simon
the Cyrenian was " coming from the field." According to aU
the four Gospels, the day of the Lord's death was the pre
paration day, the 14th Nisan, — a Friday. With this per
fectly talhes the result obtained by a calculation of the
paschal month, according to which, in the year a.d. 30, the
15th Nisan fell on a Sabbath; and the datum of. Jewish tra
dition, which fixes the preparation day of the Passover, as the
day of the crucifixion. We must not overlook the fact that
the books of ancient Jewish tradition have rendered us on
these points a threefold and very important service ; inas
much as they tell us, in the first place, that the day of the
crucifixion was on the preparation day of the Passover ; in
that they further teU us the condemnation of Jesus had been
pronounced forty days before the crucifixion ; and, finaUy, in
that they have made us acquainted with the character of the
paschal meal. It is evident that the study of the Talmud,
conducted in the spirit of rational criticism, might yield
results of great value for the interpretation of the New
Testament. It is true, as we have shown above, if one
bhndfolds his own eyes, and perverts and falsifies the mean
ing by parenthetical interpretations, they will not be able to
afford any light.
One reason why the exegetes cling with such tenacity to
the 15 th Nisan as the day of the Lord's death, is to be found

THE TIME OF THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST. 209
in the tradition of the Christian church of the West ; but in
opposition to this stands that of the church of Asia Minor, which
teaches that the 14th Nisan was the day of the crucifixion.
These traditions shaU be discussed in the following chapter.
VIII. — The Time of the Suffering of Christ, according to
Christian Tradition.
Sec. 162. Eusebius1 reports from Irenaeus : "Anicetus2
was not able to induce Polycarp 3 no longer to observe the
Passover on the 14th of the month; an observance which
Polycarp based on the fact that with John, the disciple of the
Lord, and the other apostles, he had always held it then : "
OvTe yap ' ' AvmyTOS tov TIoXoKaptrov irelaat eBvvaTO p,y Typelv
(creXyvys t^v TeacrapecrKatBeKaTyv), cure peTct 'Iadvvov tov
ptaOyTov tov Kvpiov yp&v Kal t&v Xonrav dwoo-ToXwv, dis
o-wBterpftyev, del TeTypyKoTa. In giving this fact he gives
the first beginning of the afterwards so complicated and
tedious Easter controversy. The Christians of the West in
such wise observed Eastertide that the day of the Lord's
death always feU on a Friday, and the resurrection on a
Sunday ; because, according to the Gospels, the events then
celebrated occurred on the said days of the week. The
churches of Asia Minor, on the other hand, laid the stress
not upon the day of the week, but upon the date of the moon,
which with the Jews determined the time of Passover. The
pecuUarity of the observance on the part of the churches of
Asia Minor consisted in the paschal meal, which they observed
on the 14th Nisan. The passage cited teaches us to see in
Polycarp the representative of the Eastern rite, and at the
same time supplies the foundation on which he rested it —
namely, that of a genuine apostolic tradition, immediately
transmitted. Sec. 163. Baur and his school judge after this fashion
from the above text : " John taught Polycarp that Jesus held
the paschal supper on the 14th Nisan; from this it foUows
that, according to John, Jesus was crucified on the 15 th
Nisan ; John's oral teaching is thus in contradiction with that
1 ff. E. v. 24. 2 Bishop of Rome, a.d. 165-175. * Bishop of Smyrna.
0

210 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
of the fourth Gospel attributed to the same John. But, since
Polycarp vouches for the genuine Johannine tradition, the
fourth Gospel — which contradicts this tradition — cannot pro
ceed from the same John, the disciple of the Lord." How
such sheer nonsense could be asserted and maintained on the
part of discreet and learned persons, and could become for
hundreds a reason for standing in doubt of the Gospel of
John, is for us a real enigma. The critical school has left
unnoticed the fact that those of Asia Minor reckoned, and
could only reckon, ahke the months and the days after the
Jewish fashion, so soon as they determined the paschal season
according to the Jewish fashion and with the Jews. If, then,
John taught orally that Jesus observed the paschal meal on
the 14th Nisan, he must consequently at the same time have
taught that Jesus was crucified on that same 14th Nisan, for
the supper, held after sunset, necessarUy took place on the
same night-day as the crucifixion ; alike the supper, as the
crucifixion, occurred on the same Jewish feria (6), although
on two different dates when the day is begun with midnight.
John had thus by word of mouth taught Polycarp, what the
fourth Gospel teaches in writing, that on the Paraskeue, the
14th Nisan, Jesus held the supper, and that towards the end
of the same night-day He was crucified. Nothing, conse
quently, prevents our regarding the same John as the source
of the oral tradition in question, and as the author of the
fourth Gospel.
Sec. 164. At the head of the Chronicon Paschale there is
found, instead of an introduction, a series of excerpts from the
writings of the Church Fathers of the first centuries on the
Passover. Foremost stands an excerpt from Peter, Bishop
of Alexandria, and martyr, in proof that beyond controversy
the Hebrews, until the destruction of Jerusalem, preserved
the order of beginning the Passover with the 14th of the first
lunar month : HeTpov, ' 'Evict kottov 'AXe^avBpeias Kal Mdp-
Tvpos, OTt dirXav&s eTa^av oi 'EBpatot Tyv iBf tov a' ptyvbs Tys
creXyvys, ecos Trjs dXcoaeus t&v ' IepoaoXvpcov. This Peter, who
died a martyr's death in the year 311, and thus belongs to
the second half of the third century, says : x " Therefore did
1 Page 2, edit, du FrSne.

THE TIME OF THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST. 211
the law (among the Hebrews) rightly prescribe that Passover
should be held after the spring equinox, on the 14th of the
first lunar month, on what week-day soever it might faU : "
' Odev KaXoos vevoptoOeryTat dirb Trjs iaptvrjs icrypeplas, els
oiroiav B' dv eBBoptaTa ipirecry y TeacrepaKatBeKaTaia tov
TrpcoTov ptyvbs, ev aiiTy iirtTeXetv to Hda-^a. This passage
confirms the order above1 ascribed to the Jewish calendar.
After this, page 4, Peter of Alexandria says : " The Lord,
before His preaching and during His preaching, observed with
the people the legal and typical Passover, in eating the typical
lamb. . . . After the preaching (i.e. when His time of labour
was expired at the last Passover), He eat not the lamb, but
Himself suffered as the true lamb at the paschal feast, as the
theologian and Evangehst John teaches us in his Gospel. . . .
On that day, on which Jesus would eat the Passover at even
tide, was our Lord crucified. For ' even Christ was offered
for us as our Paschal Lamb (Passover),' and not — as some
suppose through ignorance — after eating the paschal lamb
was He dehvered up (to be crucified). At the time, then, in
which our Lord suffered for us in His flesh ... He eat not the
legal Passover, but, as He Himself said, as the true Lamb He
was slain for us in the typical Passover on the preparation
day, the 14th of the first lunar month." Kal aiiTos avv ™
Xam iv Tots eTeat toIs irpo tov KypvypaTos, Kal Tots iv t&
Kypvypan, to vopttKov Kal aKtcoBes Udcr^a iireTeXeaev, iaOiav
tov TVirtKov dptvbv . . . itrel Be iKypvtjev ovk e<paye tov dptvbv,
dXX' ai)Tos etraQev dos dXydtvbs dpvbs iv Ty tov Tlda^a eopry,
Ka0a>s BtBdcrKet 6 QeoXoyos Kal EiiayyeXtcrTys 'Iadvvys . . . 'Ev
airy ow Ty ypApa, iv y epteXXov oi 'lovBaiot Trpbs eairepav
iadtetv to Hda^a, io-Tavpd>9y o Kvptos ypt&v. Kal yap to
Ildcr^a yptcov inrep yp&v iTvOy XptaTos, ical ov% ms Ttves
dptadeia (pepoptevot BtaBeBatovvTat, &»9 cpaycbv to Udoya irape-
Body. . . . 'Ev at oiiv Katpm eiradev iiirep yp,5sv KaTa crdpKa o
Kvptos ypasv ... to KaTa voptov ovk k<f)aye Haaya, dXX a>?
e<f>yv aiiTos oas dXyOys dpvbs ervdy inrep ypmv iv Ty tov
o~Ktd>Bovs nda-fta iopTy, iv ypepa Ilapao-Kevy, Ty tB' tov
TrpcoTov ptyvbs ttjs o-eXyvys. From this passage it foUows
incontestably that the Apostolic Fathers of Egypt taught, in
1 Cf. sec. 10.

212 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORDS LABOURS.
harmony with those of Asia Minor, that Jesus was crucified
on the preparation day, the 14th Nisan; and that the supper
was not the eating of the paschal lamb.
As an introduction, the Chronicon Paschale further gives
extracts from Hippolytus, martyr for righteousness, caUed
Bishop of the Portus, a place near to Eome, who in his
writing, Against all Heresies, says, word for word : " I see,
then, what is the ground of the controversy: He (the heretic)
says thus : ' Christ held the Passover (eat the paschal lamb)
at that time, on the day on which He suffered ; therefore it
is meet for me also to do as the Lord did.' But he errs, since
he does not know that Christ, at the time in which He
suffered, did not eat the legally-appointed paschal lamb ; for
He Himself was the Paschal Lamb predicted, and on the
appointed day fulfilled." 'IinroXvTos . . . eypa^rev iirl Xe^ecos
ovtcos' 'Opw ptev ovv o, ti (ptXovtKias to epyov. Aeyet yap ovtoos'
'Eirolycre to Tldo-^a 6 XptaTOS totb Ty yfiepq, Kal eiraOe' Bto
Kapte Bel bv Tpoirov 6 Kvpws iiroiycrev, ovtco irotelv. IleTrXd-
vyTat Be, pty ytvmcrKcov oTt ev S> Katpco eiracr^ev 6 XptaTOS ovk
e$>aye to KaTa voptov Hda^cf ovtos yap r)v to Udcrj^a to irpo-
KeKypvyptevov Kal TeXetovp,evov Ty mptcrptevy yptepa.1 In this
Hippolytus, who lived at the close of the second century and
at the beginning of the third, we have thus an Itahan witness
who teaches, in harmony with those of Asia Minor and of
Egypt, that Christ did not eat the paschal lamb at the last
supper ; but that on the day on which the paschal lamb was
offered, thus on the 14th Nisan, He was Himself offered as the
Paschal Lamb. — We read further in the Chronicon Paschale :
" The same Hippolytus, moreover, said in his treatise on the
Holy Communion : ' He (Christ) who said, I eat no more the
paschal lamb, manifestly held His supper before the (time
of the) paschal lamb : He eat not the paschal lamb, but
suffered ; for it was no time for such eating : ' " IIpoByXov oti
6 irdXat irpoetTTOiv' ' Oti ovk eTt <f>ayoptat to Hdaya, etKOTtos
to ptev Belirvov iBeiirvycre irpo tov Udcrya, to Be Hdaya
ovk ecpayev, dXX' eiraOev' oil Be yap xatpbs yv Trjs Bpd>o-ews
avTov. After this the Chronicon Paschale cites,3 in proof that the
1 Chronicon Paschale, p. 5. 2 Ibid. " Page 5.

5

THE TIME OF THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST. 213
Lord, when He suffered, did not eat of the typical lamb,
ApoUinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, who lived in the second
half of the second century. "ApoUinarius . . . who stood
near to the apostohc times, taught, the same in the book con
cerning Easter, in which he says : Some contend on these
things out of ignorance, and say that on the 14th the Lord eat
the lamb with His disciples, and that He suffered on the great
day of the unleavened bread; and appeal to Matthew, of
whom they say that he favours their view. Therefore is their
opinion in contradiction with the law, and they appear to have
the Gospels against them. Further, the same (Apolhnaris) in
the same book wrote as foUows : The fourteenth of the true
Passover of the Lord is the great sacrifice, the Son of God
instead of the lamb, the bound One who bound the strong
man, the judged One, a judge of the quick and the dead, the
One delivered into the hands of sinners for crucifixion, the
One exalted upon the horns of the unicorn, who was pierced
in His sacred side, who also shed forth the two streams of
cleansing virtue, water and blood, word and Spirit, and who
was in the grave on the day of Passover, the stone being
placed on the grave : '' Kal ' AiroXtvapios . . . 6 iyyi/s tcov
' AiroaToXtKcov vpovcov yeyovms ev tco Trepl tov Tlacrya Xoyca
Ta •n-apairXyo'ta iBiBa^e, Xeycov ovtcos' Elm, toIvvv ot Bt
dyvotav (ptXovetKOvat irepl tovtcov, . . . Kal Xeyovat, OTt Ty
tB to trpoBaTov pterd tcov ptaOyTcov eobayev 6 Kvptos, Ty Be
pteydXy yptepa tcov 'Atyptwv aiiTos errafcV Kal BtyyovvTat MaT-
6aivv ovtco Xeyetv &>? vevoyKaatv' odev aavptcpcovos Te voptco
y voycrts avTcov, Kal aTao-id^etv BoKet Kar' ainovs to, EvayyeXta.
Kal irdXtv o aiiTos iv tS aiiTa Xoyq> yeypaobev ovtcos' 'H tB'
tov aXyOtvov tov Kvpiov Hda^a, y dvcria pteydXy, o dvTt
tov dptvov Hals &eov, 6 Be6els, 6 Bycras tov lcrj(vpbv, Kal 6
KptOels KptTys ^covtcov Kal veKpwv, Kal o irapaBodets els ^elpas
aptapTcoXiav, tva aTavpcoQy , 6 vtycoOels eirl Kepdrcov ptovoKepwTOS,
Kal o T^y ay lav irXevpdv iKKevTyOels, o eVj^ea? e'« t?}? irXevpas
aiiTov Ta Bvo irdXtv Kaddpta, vBcop Kal atpa, Xoyov Kat irvevpa,
Kal o Tacpels iv yptepa Ty tov Hdo-ya, iirtTe&evTOS toj ptvypaTt
tov Xidov. According to ApoUinaris, the 14th Nisan was
thus the day on which Jesus was crucified. The error with
which he charges the opponents is not that of maintaining

214 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
that the supper took place on the 14th Nisan, for this is the
true date ; but with asserting that this meal was the eating of
the paschal lamb, which he does not admit, and, what he
equaUy contests, that Jesus was crucified on the great day of
unleavened bread, that is, on the 15th Nisan; for on this day
He was reposing in the grave.
The Chronicon Paschale, finally,1 adduces as a witness
Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the middle of the second
century, citing his testimony in the following words : " But
also Klemes, the holy priest of the church of Alexandria, a
man of very early antiquity, who was born not far from the
apostolic times, teaches like doctrine in the book concerning
Easter, writing as foUows : In the earher years the Lord used
to eat the slain (lamb) with the Jews, in keeping the feast of
the Passover ; but when He proclaimed that He Himself was
the Passover, the Lamb of God, led as a sheep to the slaughter,
immediately He taught His disciples the hidden meaning of
the type on the 13 th Nisan, on which day they also ask Him,
Where wUt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover ?
On that same day, then, took place both the haUowing of the
unleavened bread ('A&ptot) and the preparation for the feast.
Therefore also John writes that the apostles were already
prepared, in that their feet were washed by the Lord. On
the next day our Saviour suffered, Himself being the Paschal
(Lamb), offered by Jews an acceptable sacrifice. And after
other things he says : So afterwards, on the 14th, the day on
which He also suffered, the chief priests and scribes led Him
at dawn of day to Pilate ; but did not themselves enter into
the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might
unhindered at evening eat the paschal lamb : " AXXd Kal
KXyptys o oaicoTaTos Trjs ' AXeijavSpecov iKKXycrtas yeyovcos
tepevs, dvyp dp^atOTaTos, Kat oi) ptaKpav tow Attoo-toXikcov
yevopevos %povcov, ev tco irepl tov Hdcrya Xoyco Ta irapairXycrta
BtBdcrKet, ypdcpcov ovtco' Tols ptev oiv irapeXyXvdoatv eTecrt to
Ovoptevov Trpbs 'lovBaicov ya6tev, eopTa^cov o Kvptos Hda^a'
irrel Be iKypv^ev aiiTos cov to Hdcrya o dptvbs tov 6eov, co?
nrpoBaTov iirl acpayyv dyoptevos, avTlxa iBtBalfe ptev tovs
ptaOyTas tov tvttov to pvaTyptov Ty vy ev § Kat irvvOdvovTat
' Page 5.

THE TIME OF THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST. 215
avTov' Uov OeXets erotutdacoptev crot to Yldcr-^a cpayelv ; TavTy
ovv Ty yptepa Kat o dytacrptbs tcov 'A^vptcov Kal y irpoeTotptaaia
Tys eoprrjs iyeveTO. ' Odev 6 'Icodvvys iv Tavry Ty ypepa
etKOTcos cos av TrpoeTotpta^optevovs f/By dirov'v^acrQat tovs iroBas
irpos tov Kvpiov tovs p-adyTas dvaypdcf>et. Heirovde Be Ty
eirtovay 6 ^coTyp yptcov, aiiTos cov to Udo-ya, KaXXtepyOels
vtto 'IovBaicov. Kal pterct erepa' ' AkoXovOcos dpa Ty tB", OTe
Kal enradev, ecoOev ainbv ol ^Ap^tepels Kal oi PpaptptaTels tco
UtXaTcp Trpocrdrfovres ovk elcrrjXOov els to irpatTcoptov, "va pty
piavOcoaiv, dXX' aKcoXvTobs eairepas to TldcT^a cf>dya>cn. The
succession of time given by Clement is as foUows : Before the
Passover, on the 13 th Nisan, Thursday before sunset, the
disciples asked the Lord where they should prepare for Him
the Passover, which was to be partaken of on the night
immediately foUowing, the 14th Nisan. The disciples were
prepared for this, and knew that in that year the Lord would
not eat the typical paschal lamb, but would Himself be
sacrificed as the Lamb. That they were thus prepared is
shown, according to Clement, from the fact that John, chap.
xiii 10, represents them as being prepared for the footwash-
ing as pure. This chronology is perfectly correct. Since the
supper was to be partaken of at the very commencement
of the 14th Nisan, the preparation for it must have taken
place on the preceding day, — i.e. the 13th Nisan, Thursday
before sunset, — and consequently also the question of the
disciples. Clement rightly terms this 13th Nisan the day
before the preparation, the preparation for the preparation
day, which last began with the eating of the unleavened bread.
The supper, the footwashing, the crucifixion, Clement further
places on the 14th, i.e. Thursday evening and Friday.
Whether the succeeding passage, page 6 of the Chronicon
Paschale, belongs to the citation from Clement's writing or
not, we cannot decide. At any rate, it perfectly sums up that
which has been already said. It reads thus : " At the time,
then, in which the Lord suffered, He did not eat the legal,
typical lamb ; but He Himself, as the true Lamb, was sacri
ficed for us on the preparation day, the 14th of the first lunar
month : " "Ort ptev ovv ev co Katpco ireTrovBev o Kvptos ypt&v Kal
ScoTyp, ovk ecbaye tov vop.tK.bv Kal o~Ktd)By dptvov, dXX' aiiTos cos

216 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
dXy0ys dptvbs hvSy inrep yptcov iv yptepa HapaaKevy Ty tB! tov
irpcorov ptyvos Trjs aeXyvys.
It was "necessary to place before the reader these texts in
extenso ; since they have hitherto been either overlooked, or
for the most part cited in a fragmentary way, and, apart from
their connection, wrongly explained and misapplied. Upon
an examination of them, it must become manifest that, if the
paschal controversy of the first centuries has remained in
volved in darkness, the modern interpreters alone must bear
the blame of it. That such is the case may be seen to one's
fuU satisfaction in any church history or in any commentary
on the history of the Passover. The gist of the whole ques
tion in the paschal controversy lay in deciding whether or not
the Lord, before He was crucified, eat the paschal lamb ; and
whether He was crucified on the 14th or 15th, on the
Paraskeue or on the great day of the Passover. This contro
versy, in which those were in the right who held to the 14th
as the day of the crucifixion, was set aside by the Council of
Nicaea,1 in their deciding that the Christian Passover had as
its conclusion and point of culmination the day of the resur
rection, the 16th Nisan, the day of the sheaf; and that, since
that day was a Sunday, it should be henceforth held on a
Sunday. Since, then, the Jewish method could not and might
not any longer serve for the determining of this day, the nine
years' Easter cycle was established.2 With this testimony
also agrees that of Julius Africanus (circ. A.D. 2 0 0), who says,
" Before the first day of the Passover the things concerning
the Saviour took place : " irpb Be Trjs pttds tov Ilda^a Ta Trepl
tov XcoTypa crvveBy. On the other hand, the fact must not be
concealed that Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom, and others place
the crucifixion of Christ on the 15 th Nisan. On this side
also — wrongly 'as it seems to us — has Justin Martyr been
cited, who, in the Dial, cum Tryphone, says to the Jews : " On
the day of the Passover did you apprehend Him, and on the
Passover did you crucify Him " (koI oti iv Ty yptepa tov
ndo-ya crvveXaBeTe avTov, Kal opoicos iv tco Udcrya ecrTavpco-
craTe, yeypdirTat) ; for here irdcr^a is the paschal lamb, the
day thereof the 14th Nisan. The earliest Christian tradition
1 Chron. Paschale, p. 6 ff. ' Ibid. p. 11.

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 217
consequently taught that Jesus held the supper on the 14th
Nisan, on the night of the Thursday ; that on the same Jewish
night-day (but, according to Western reckoning, on the
Friday), at the time of slaying the paschal lamb, He was
crucified ; and that on the foUowing day (Saturday) was the
great paschal festival. The Christian tradition, rightly under
stood, teaches thus — as aU the Gospels, and as Jewish
tradition — that Jesus was crucified on the 14th Nisan, a
Friday. If afterwards, in the angry paschal controversy which
ensued, another opinion prevailed, this does not concern us.
IX. — Synopsis of the History of the Passion.
Sec. 165. By the determination of the day of Christ's
death on the 14th Nisan, feria 6, that is, the 6 th to the 7th
April, u.c. 783, A.D. 30, we have gained a foundation for
the chronology of the single facts of the Passion week, which
are now to be synoptically arranged. The conception we
have already formed as to the character of John's Gospel, as
the narrative of an eye-witness, compels us to take the data
of this book as the basis of the synopsis. " Six days before
the Passover " — thus on the 9th Nisan — " Jesus came to
Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom He
raised from the dead." * From the Synoptists we know that
He came thither from Jericho.2 The account of the Synop
tists, taken alone, woiUd lead us to suppose that Jesus re
mained at Bethany only untU the disciples could bring the
ass, upon which He entered Jerusalem without delay. John
teaches us that the Lord previously passed the night at
Bethany. The 9th Nisan was a Sunday ; Jesus had conse
quently remained over the Sabbath in Jericho, in the house of
Zaccheus,3 and had taken the journey to Bethany on the 9th
Nisan, i.e. on the 2d of AprU. There a supper was prepared
for Him, and during the supper Mary anointed Him.4 This
took place thus on the 1 0th Nisan, after sunset on the 2d April.
On the foUowing day, the 10th Nisan, but the 3d April, a
1 John xii. 1. 2 Matt. xxi. 1 ; Mark xi. 1 ; Luke xix. 29.
3 [Compare the expressions /tfjvmand xarxXvirxi, in Luke xix. 5, 7.]
John xii. 2-8.

218 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
Monday, Jesus made His triumphal entrance into Jeru
salem.1 This took place five days before the Passover.
John relates nothing concerning the foUowing days, until the
evening before the Passover, when the last supper was held.
In the interval, it would seem, Jesus Uved greatly in retire
ment with His disciples at Bethany ; for it is said, John xii.
36, " Jesus departed and hid Himself from them." The Synop
tists relate the same facts as John, but in the contrary
order — first, the entrance into Jerusalem, then the anointing.
The entering recorded in John xii. 12 ff. is the same as that
described Matt. xxi. 1 ff, Mark xi. 1 ff., Luke xix. 29 ff.
After this Jesus returned to Bethany, where He passed the
night. Then, on the foUowing morning, — i.e. if we follow
the order of time supplied to us by the fourth Gospel, — on
Tuesday, 4th April, He pronounced judgment upon the fig-
tree which bore no fruit ; 2 and on this day, according to
Mark, chap. xi. 1 5, Jesus cleansed the sanctuary of the buyers
and seUers. According to the order of Matthew, this had
already taken place before the sentence upon the fig-tree. The
events connected with this cleansing are recounted by all
three Synoptists,3 with this difference, that Matthew and Luke
bring these into immediate connection with the pubhc entry,
while Mark separates the entry and the cleansing of the
temple by the night at Bethany. John does not relate this
cleansing of the sanctuary at aU ; perhaps because He had
already, chap. ii. 14, related a simUar history of that which
had occurred two years before. It is possible that we have
inserted here on the part of the Synoptists, where they are for
the first time recording the appearing of Jesus in Jerusalem,
that which, in its due order of narration, belongs to a period
two years earher.4 For the recurrence of the event, thus
that the cleansing recorded by the Synoptists belongs to the
period before the last Passover, pleads the fact that, according
to Luke xx. 1, 2, Jesus was caUed to account by the elders
for this act.6 In the evening Christ returned again to
1 John xii. 12. 2 Matt. xxi. 17-19 ; Mark xi. 11-14.
3 Matt. xxi. 12 ; Mark xi. 15 ; Luke xix. 45. 4 Cf. sec. 85.
6 [As also the evident allusion to the calling of the Gentiles in the case of the
last cleansing, Mark xi. 17.]

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 219
Bethany.1 On the. next morning, thus on Wednesday, 5th
April, Jesus returned to the sanctuary, and the disciples on
the way saw the fig-tree already withered up.2 When, in the
evening, He had again left the temple, and was seated oppo
site thereto upon the Mount of Olives, and the disciples
admired the structure of the sacred buUdings, He predicted
the destruction of this sanctuary and this city.3 Two days
before the Passover,4 thus on the 13 th Nisan, — which began
with the evening of the 5th April, — took place the anointing
of Jesus, according to the order of narration observed by the
Synoptists.5 The contradiction with John is solved by our
understanding that Mark, by the words, " And after two days
was the feast of the Passover," intends to give, not so much
the date of the anointing as the date of Judas' betrayal of
the Lord to the chief priests.6 * But since the reproof received
on the occasion of the anointing 7 seems to have contributed
somewhat to the resolution of Judas, the anointing is related
out of its chronological order, in connection with the act of
the traitor on this day.
Sec: 166. The succession of events seems to have been the
foUowing. See table, p. 220.
Sec. 167. The Supper. — The time at which this was pre
pared and partaken of is thus indicated by Matthew.8 " On
the first day of unleavened bread the disciples asked Jesus,
Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pass
over ? . . . And when it was become evening, He sat down
with the twelve." The first day of unleavened bread is the
14th Nisan : on this day, late in the evening, Jesus sat down
to the table. For the object of the evangehst is evidently to
make known the date of the eating, and not the date of the
asking ; since this last was an incident without significance,
the other, on the contrary, a fact of great importance. Now,
the evening of the 14th Nisan was its commencement. Mark
in like manner teaches that the meal was held in the latter
part of the evening.9 The day he indicates in the words,
1 Mark xi. 19. 2 Mark xi. 20 ff.
3 Mark xiii. 1 ff. ; cf. Matt. xxiv. 1 ; Luke xxi. 5. 4 Mark xiv. 1.
5 Matt. xxvi. 1 ; Mark xiv. 1. 6 Mark xiv. 10. 7 John xii. 4-7.
8 Matt. xxvi. 17, 20. s Mark xiv. 12, 17.

220

THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD S LABOURS.

Date.

Events.

April

Nisan.

Feria.

2d.
2d.3d.
4th.4th.
5th.5th. 6th.6th.
7th.
7th.
8th. 8th.
9th.

9th.
10th.
10th.
11th.12th.
12th.13th.
13th. 14th.
14th.15th.15th.16th.
16th.

1
2
23
4
4 5
566
7711

(Six days before the Passover, on the Sunday,
J Jesus came to Bethany.
Anointing of Christ.
(Entry into Jerusalem. Jesus spends the night at
I Bethany. Monday.
(Sentence upon the fig-tree. Cleansing of the
| Sanctuary. Tuesday.
Return to Bethany.
^Return to Jerusalem. The fig-tree is seen to be
( withered. Wednesday.
1 Return to Olivet. Prophecy of the destruction
] of Jerusalem. According to Mark's order,
( anointing of Jesus. Wednesday.
J Judas bargains with the high priests to deliver
| the Lord up. Thursday.
The Last Supper. Thursday. Betrayal.
jjesus before the high priests. Denial, cruci-
\ fixion, and burial. Friday.
(The great paschal Sabbath begins. Jesus in the
{ grave.
Jesus in the grave. Saturday.
Jesus in the grave.
Resurrection of Jesus. Sunday.

" On the first day of unleavened bread, when they used to
offer the Passover, His disciples say to "Him, Where wilt Thou
that we go and prepare, that Thou mayest eat the Passover ?"
They were wont to offer the Passover at the end of the 14th
Nisan. If, when the disciples asked, it was the time of the
offering of the Passover, the eating was the beginning of the
15 th. But against this hes the emphasis which the evan
gelist himself lays upon the resolution of the Supreme Coun-
cU, " Not on the feast day ; " x the words ore to Udo~ya eOvov
must consequently be taken in the sense of ev y eOvov, " the
day on which they offered the Passover." Luke 2 says, " Then
came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must
be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, Go and pre
pare us the Passover, that we may eat." That day is the
14th Nisan, on which the Passover was slain. In the first
hours of this night -day the meal was provided. Here, as

1 Mark xiv. 2.

Luke xxii. 7, 8.

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 221
in Matthew and Mark, the preparation and eating are placed,
not at the end, but at the beginning of the 14th Nisan. Had
they meant the end of that day, they must have said,
When the day on which the Passover must be killed was at
an end. John, finaUy,1 places the supper " before the feast
of the Passover," 7rpo Trjs eop-rys tov trdo-ya, at the beginning
of the preparation day of the Passover, at the end of which
Jesus was crucified;2 consequently on the 14th Nisan.
With John, too, the meal is held at night.3 It was observed
in the city of Jerusalem, in a private house.4 That it was
not, according to any of the evangelists, the eating of the
paschal lamb ; that in none of them is found a trace of the
eating of the paschal lamb, has been above shown in detail
It was, on the contrary, the first solemn mazoth meal, as
described by Jewish tradition : this is vouched for by the
elements exclusively present in the supper — wine and bread
with bitter herbs, the dipping of the morsel, the great haUeL5
AU the four evangelists teU us that during this supper Judas'
treachery was made known to his feUow-apostles.6 John does
not describe the meal itseU, but simply relates what occurred
during the meal,7 especiaUy the washing of the disciples' feet.
From this it foUows that the single events can be thought of
only in the foUowing order : (1) The mazoth meal ; (2) the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper attached to this ; (3) the
washing of the disciples' feet ; (4) manifestation of the traitor;
(5) withdrawing of Judas. The attempt to present these facts
in another order arises from the wish to remove the traitor as
unworthy, before the sacrament. On the other hand, we must
freely or perforce admit that Judas partook of the Lord's Supper.
Sec. 168. It is perfectly right to speak of that new element
which the Lord attached to the paschal or mazoth supper, as
the institution of the Lord's Supper; yet only in the sense
that what was given on this evening was not something
absolutely new, but that the sacrament already instituted at
the feeding of the five thousand8 was here constituted a
1 John xiii. 1, 2. * John xix. 14. 3 John xiii. 30.
4 Matt. xxvL 18, 19 ; Mark xiv. 13-16 ; Luke xxii. 10-13.
5 Matt. xxvi. 30 ; Mark xiv. 26.
6 Matt, xxvi 21 ; Mark xiv. 18 ; Luke xxii. 21 ; John xiii. 21.
7 icinoo yivo/tiiou, John xiii. 2. 8 Cf. sec. 118.

222 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
legacy for the future, and brought into more definite connec
tion with the death of the Lord. The existence of the sacra
ment, which had been dispensed to the disciples during the
last year every time the Lord broke to them the bread,
explains why John makes no mention of it on this occasion.
It would have been a repetition of that which is said in John
vi 27 ff. The Synoptists do not record the washing of the
disciples' feet ; yet they do record the occasion of this sym
bolic action.1
Sec. 169. After the supper Jesus went with His disciples
out of the city, beyond the brook,2 into a garden caUed Geth
semane, and situated on the Mount of Olives,3 where He
passed the night in conflict of soul. Whether the traditional
Gethsemane, with its venerable olive trees, lying opposite to
the so-called " Eternal Gate " in the Haram waU, is the place
where Jesus spent His last night on earth, must remain
undetermined ; yet it is not to be denied that the tradition
attaching to this place appears to be a very ancient one.4
Here Jesus, during the night,5 but towards morning, was
taken captive.6
Sec. 170. When Jesus was taken captive in the Garden of
Gethsemane, " aU the disciples forsook Him, and fled." 7 This
statement admits of some limitation ; for John, and in part
Peter, were witnesses of that which afterwards took place.
On this account also the Gospel of John, as the account of
an eye-witness, must in that which foUows be our principal
1 Luke xxii. 24-30, especially ver. 27 ; cf. John xiii. 14.
2 The Kedron in any case, even though the reading of John xviii. 1 is
doubtful. 3 Matt. xxvi. 30, 36 ; Mark xiv. 26, 32 ; cf. Luke xxii. 39.
4 Robinson, i. 235. [Thomson, Land and Boole, p. 634, is very unfavourable
to the authenticity of the traditional Gethsemane. Andrew Bonar, who visited
it with M'Cheyne in 1839, is equally favourable. An interesting account of his
visit is given in his Narrative of a Mission to the Jews, pp. 161, 162 ; where he
well observes, from John xviii. 2, that Gethsemane was often appointed by the
Lord as a meeting-place, "when His disciples, dispersed through the city by
day, were to join His company in the evening, and go with Him over the hill to
Bethany." The same thing has been since brought out by Lange, on John
xviii. 2.]
5 Luke xxii. 53.
6 Matt. xxvi. 47 ff. ; Mark xiv. 13 ; Luke xxii. 47 ; John xviii. 3 ff.
7 Matt. xxvi. 56 ; Mark xiv. 50.

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 223
guide, in connection with whose data the statements of the
Synoptists are to be viewed.
According to John, chap. xvui. 12 ff., the band [cohort],
the Chiliarch, and the servants of the Jews, took Jesus, bound
Him, and led Him away to Annas first, the father-in-law of
Caiaphas — " who was that same year high priest " — and after
wards Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.1
While Jesus was in the power of Annas, the denial on the
part of Peter began, and was repeated a second and third
time when Jesus was already 'delivered over to Caiaphas.2
Since, now, Peter was the whole time, with the " other
disciple," i.e. John, in the palace, or rather in the court of the
high priest,3 and was warming himself at the same fire, and
saw aU that happened to Jesus,4 certain exegetes have raised
an objection in regard to the matter, and asked how Peter in
the palace of Caiaphas could see into that of Annas ? Of
course this difficulty must furnish a new and important testi
mony against the authenticity of John's Gospel. But what if
Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and, moreover, the former
high priest, who now and later continued to bear the title of
high priest, should be found to dweU with his daughter's
husband in the high priest's palace, perhaps in another wing
of the building, but one looking into the same court ? Then
Peter and " the other disciple " could, without leaving the fire
in the court, observe aU that took place in the open porticos
facing the court, both in the case of Annas and Caiaphas ; for
the leading away of Jesus from the one to the other took
place across that same courtyard. The leading away of Jesus
from Annas to Caiaphas was the delivering up of the condemned
to the executive power of the high priest. The Great CouncU
had assembled in aU haste in the house of Annas, on the
intelhgence that Jesus was apprehended. We have already
observed earher, sec. 33, that possibly Annas in his character
of Nasi of the Sanhedrim bore the title of high priest : the
assembling at the house of this man would thus be sufficiently
explained. Perhaps, however, they met here because Annas
was an ordinary member of the Great Council. At any rate,
1 John xviii. 24. 2 John xviii. 17, 25-27.
3 iif ritv ao\hv too ap%nptue, John xviii. 15. * Luke xxii. 61.

224 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
the Sanhedrim must stiU pronounce a judgment, before Jesus
was delivered over to the executive power. Nothing prevents
our supposing that Caiaphas, as a member of the Great Council,
attended the sitting for judgment, and was the high priest
mentioned in John xviii. 19 as interrogating Jesus. But
as high priest, he obtained power over Jesus only by the fact
that Jesus was dehvered over by judgment and condemnation
to his executive power.
Sec. 171. The objection has been raised against the Johan
nine relation, that it, properly speaking, describes no trial at
all, and makes mention of no sentence ; and especiaUy that it
says nothing of that which took place before Caiaphas. To
this it must be rejoined, that at that time no trial in the strict
sense of the word was held ; for trial and sentence had been
given' a month earlier.1 Of this John reminds us when he
says, chap, xviii. 14, " Now Caiaphas was he which gave the
counsel to the Jews : It is expedient that one man should die
for the nation." When Caiaphas spoke these words,2 the
trial, properly speaking, was held ; from the time of that sit
ting of the Great CouncU Jesus was condemned to death. The
object of the present sitting of the 1 4th Nisan was only to
hear such new witnesses as might present themselves, and
to confirm the sentence previously passed. Before Caiaphas
there was now no trial held. It is true Matthew, chap.
xxiv. 57, places the scene of the trial not before Annas, but
before Caiaphas ; but since both dwelt in the same palace,
and both were members of the Sanhedrim, and Caiaphas, as
Sanhedrist and as high priest, took an active part in the
matter, no importance attaches to the apparent contradic
tion. Sec. 172. These events in the palace of the high priest
took place before sunrise, about the time of cock-crowing,3
thus from three to five in the morning. With the first dawn,4
they led Jesus away to the praetorium to PUate. Where was
this praetorium ? Pilate fixed his residence not at Jerusalem,
1 Cf. sec. 139. 2 John xi. 47-57.
3 Matt. xxvi. 74 ; Mark xiv. 72 ; Luke xxii. 60 ; John xviii. 27.
4 trpwixs Se yivopXvm, Matt, xxvii. 1 ; trl to orpoi'i, Mark xv. 1 ; rtv Ss vpaii,
John xviii. 28.

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 225
but at Ccesarea Maritima. When, as at the time of the Pass
over A.D. 30, he came to Jerusalem, he dwelt in one of the
two fortresses occupied by the Eomans, — either in the royal
palace of Herod in the Upper City, or in the citadel of Antonia,
on the north-west side of the Temple Mountain. By a hint
occurring in John xix. 13, the site of the praetorium may be
determined with probability. For PUate, when he gave judg
ment, took his seat on the tribunal, caUed Lithostroton, and
in the Hebrew Gabbatha. Now Josephus mentions1 that the
whole surface of the Temple Mountain was paved with varie
gated mosaic work. PUate accordingly, in order to pronounce
the sentence, came forth from the Antonia into the northern
court of the sanctuary, to the Lithostroton ; by which in any
case a definite place in Jerusalem is to be understood, and
not the moveable and portable tesselated pavement which
the Eoman judges used to carry about with them, in order
to fix their tribunal upon it — and for this reason, that
it has a special Hebrew name. To the Antonia, as the
scene of the trial of Jesus, points also an ancient tradi
tion, of which the PUgrim of Bordeaux (a.d. 333) already
testifies.2 Sec. 173. By far the most difficult point to determine in
the history of the Passion is the hour of the crucifixion.
According to John xix. 14,3 PUate took his seat upon the
tribunal, in order to pronounce sentence, about the sixth hour;
and, according to Mark xv. 25, about the third hour they
crucified Jesus. All kinds of attempts have been made to
remove this contradiction ; some would refer the sixth hour
mentioned by John to something else than the trial and
crucifixion; others suppose that John counts his hours from mid
night, whUe Mark counts his from sunrise. 1. Can " the sixth
hour" be referred to anything else than the condemnation to the
death on the cross ? The words read, " It was the preparation
day of the Passover, about the sixth hour :" Spa r)v cocrel Iktjj,
1 Antiq. v. 5, sec. 2. 2 See Appendix, 19.
3 [oipa yv at ixTti, towards the sixth hour, i.e. between nine and twelve A.M.
The Lord's examination before Pilate would thus begin before six A.M., and end
between nine and twelve. According to Mark, the third hour had come before
the crucifixion, i.e. the day was already in its second quarter. The second,
fourth, and fifth hours are not mentioned in the New Testament.]
P

226 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
or co? eKTy.1 Von Gumpach proposes to read, &pa Be cocrel
eKTy, and to translate, " The time of preparation was at about
the sixth hour." He takes the proposition as a parenthesis,
designed to explain why Pilate hurried the trial through ;
namely, in order that the execution might be accomphshed
before the time of the preparation. Thus understood, the
passage says nothing as to the time of the crucifixion, and it
remains possible to accept as the hour of the crucifixion the
hour mentioned by Mark. But against this explanation it
is to be objected, that (a) all MSS. with one accord have flPA-
EKTH, and not S2PAI-EKTHI ; the alteration of the text
is consequently an unsupported conjecture, (b) It is presup
posed that irapao-Kevy tov Hdo-yct — and therefore the synony
mous rroan 2~sy — signifies " the time of preparation," which is
conceived of as beginning only at mid-day ; whereas the term
denotes the whole 14th of Nisan. And (c) it is taken for
granted that PUate, in order to please the Jews, did hurry the
trial through — a presupposition not at aU warranted by the
Johannine text. This conjecture is consequently untenable.
2. Has John an epoch from which to reckon the hours, other
than that of Mark ? It is beyond question that, at the time
of Christ, the Jews, like the Eomans, divided the day into
twelve hours, of which the first began with sunrise : this
custom is foUowed by the Synoptists. Of John, it is asserted
that he counted the hours from midnight to midnight, as with .
us. In this case, the sixth hour would correspond pretty
nearly to our six in the morning. If Jesus was condemned
at this hour, the carrying out of the sentence might weU take
place at the time indicated by Mark, about the third hour, i.e.
towards nine A.M. But, to render this hypothesis acceptable, it
must be shown that such a division of hours was then current,
side by side with the other ; and this proof is wanting. If,
what is with reason doubted, it were reaUy the case that the
Eomans thus reckoned their hours judicially from midnight, it
would stiU be incomprehensible that Pilate should be able to
pass sentence upon Jesus by six a.m., when Christ had been
1 [The reading of the Beceptus is 2>p x St «i • 'Ixrx, which, like the Latin circa,
expresses less strongly than J>; the idea of approaching a given number : about,
nearly, not far from, almost. ]

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 227
brought into the praetorium only at early morning (irpcot), i.e.
at the soonest about five A.M. This difficulty is the greater,
when we take into account the many intervening circum
stances, occupying together a considerable interval, such as the
sending away of the accused to Herod, and the determining of
the question whether Christ or Barabbas was to be set free.
Sec. 1 74. John, like the Synoptists, reckoned his hours from
the time of sunrise ; and indicates in the passage before us that
about the sixth hour, i.e. towards noon, Jesus was delivered
over to be crucified, and it is clear that the datum thus afforded
us is not an erroneous one, but veritable history. Matthew
and Luke do not expressly mention the hour of the crucifixion ;
but they teU us 1 that a darkness came over the whole land
from the sixth hour to the ninth. This darkness is evidently
represented by the evangehsts as a miraculous one, designed
to show that creation veUed itself in mourning on account of
the act of transgression then wrought by man. But that
miracle possessed demonstrative force, only inasmuch as the
darkness occupied precisely the time , during which Christ
hung on the cross. If thus any one would come to a judg
ment from Matthew and Luke as to the hour at which Jesus
was crucified, he would without doubt conclude that it was
about the sixth hour, at which time also the sun was darkened.
Matthew and Luke are consequently in harmony with the
statement of John. But this account of a darkening of the
sun from the sixth to the ninth hour is found equaUy in
Mark, chap. xv. 33; so that this evangelist also regards the
sixth hour as that of the crucifixion of Christ. Against this
conclusion it is objected that the Synoptists do not mention
the darkness at the beginning of their account of the cruci
fixion, but only in the course of the same ; so that what is
' recorded before the mention of this darkness also took place
before it, whUe that recorded afterwards took place during its
prevalence. Let us then try whether this objection will
stand. In Matt, xxvii 45, 46, 50, we read: "And from the
sixth hour there came a darkness over the whole land until
the ninth hour ; and about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a
loud voice, Eli, Eli, lama sabachtha'ni. . . . And Jesus again
1 Matt, xxvii. 45 ; Luke xxiii. 44.

228 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
having cried with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Matthew
consequently does not give an account of the darkness at the
time of its beginning; but when, simultaneously with the
death of Jesus, it came to an end. For the beginning of the
darkness we have thus no other terminus a quo than the
crucifixion itself, which consequently began about the sixth
hour. Entirely the same account is given us in Mark, chap.
xv. 33, 34, 37: " And from the sixth hour there came a
darkness upon aU the land until the ninth hour. And at the
ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice . . ." EquaUy do
we see that Luke, chap, xxiii. 44-46, mentions the account of
the darkness simultaneously with the death of Jesus. We
conclude from this that the sixth hour was the hour of the
crucifixion, not only according to John, but also according to
the Synoptists, Mark included. If now it is said, Mark xv.
25, that Jesus was crucified about the third hour, a false
number must here have crept into the text : the Tpfoy must
be spurious, even though all the mss. were unanimous in
giving this reading. This, however, is not the case ; in some
mss. is found wry, and several ancient versions read the same.1
Sec. 175. If we are right in regarding the sixth hour as
that at which Jesus was given up to crucifixion, the proceed
ings in the praetorium lasted about six hours. This time is
not too long, when it is considered that PUate sent Jesus to
Herod,2 and that the discussion as to whether Jesus or
Barabbas should be set free occupies a considerable time.
We understand, therefore, that Jesus was taken prisoner soon
after midnight ; that the interpeUation in the palace of the
high priest took place about the time of cock-crowing, i.e. three
a.m. ; that towards six o'clock in the morning Jesus was led
away into the praetorium, and about noon was crucified ; that
simultaneously with the crucifixion there supervened a dark
ness not explainable on natural and astronomical grounds, but
arising from a supernatural cause ; that, finaUy, after hanging
upon the cross three hours, Jesus expired at about three in
the afternoon.
1 Jerome, on Ps. lxxvii., says that the three in Mark arose from the fact that
many in place of the Greek ? (o-rxo) read a r.
2 Luke xxiii. 6 ff.

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 229
Sec. 176. The place where Jesus was crucified was situated
outside of the city,1 but near to it,2 and was caUed Golgotha,
which is translated, " place of a skull." 3 If Golgotha signifies
" place of a skuU," the original name was Golgoltha (ttrfa^i),
from which snj?J arose by abbreviation. That this etymology
was generaUy accepted at the time of Christ, is evident from
the consensus of the evangelists. It is not an impossible one,
for contractions of this kind frequently occur in names. We
adduce as an example only Bezetha, which, according to
Josephus,4 signifies KatvoiroXts, i.e. Newtown : the original
form must have accordingly been Bethhadatha, wnnrva.
Krafft's conjecture, however,6 that the name is rather to be
derived from Golgoatha (xnj?13^), " Hill of Death," i.e. place of
execution, is deserving of attention. This topograph connects
the name with the place Goath (nyo), mentioned Jer. xxxi.
39, as weU as with the gate Gennath of Josephus, Bell. v. 4,
sec. 2, which, in important mss., is written TvdO, Guath,6 and
consequently appears to be the gate which led to the place or
pile, hiU (bj) Goath. These statements will be found to be
examined in the Appendix.
Sec. 177. According to Christian tradition, Golgotha, the
place where Jesus was crucified, and the grave in which His
body was laid, are both enclosed within the Basilica of the
Holy Sepulchre. The union of the two places, the place of
crucifixion and the grave, under one and the same roof,
presents no difficulty. It is justified by the expression of
John : 7 " There was at the place (iv tco tottco) where He was
crucified a garden, and in the garden a new sepulchre . . . there
laid they Jesus." The great thing now is to ascertam whether
this tradition is worthy of credence or not. Eusebius relates
in his Life of Constantine,8 that after the Council of Nicaea
this emperor caused a magnificent temple to be erected above
1 i^nXhv, John xix. 17 ; l%tpxi*rxi, Matt, xxvii. 32.
2 lyybt %v o rbtfos Tnt rtoXiat, John xix. 20.
3 xpxviou riwot, Matt, xxvii. 33 ; Mark xv. 22 ; Luke xxiii. 33 ; John xix. 17..
* De Bello, v. 4, sec. 2. 5 Topogr. Jerus. p. 158.
6 [Toii is not found, however, among the various readings of Cardwell's Oxford
edition, 1837. This reading seems in reality, as asserted by Robinson, to have
originated in an error on the part of Krafft. ]
7 John xix. 41. 8 Vit. Constant, iii. 25-40.

230 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
the grave of Jesus. This grave the heathen had in former
times stopped up with earth, and built thereon a temple of
Venus. That the place on which Constantine buUt this temple
is the site of the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre has
been confirmed by such unbroken tradition from the time
of Constantine downwards, that it is acknowledged even by
the opponents of the authenticity of the sepulchre. The first
link in this chain of tradition is formed by the Pilgrim of
Bordeaux, who visited Jerusalem in 333. He says that in
proceeding from the praetorium of Pontius PUate (i.e. from the
Antonia at the north-west corner of the Temple Mountain) to
the Neapolitan Gate (Gate of Nablus, now Damascus Gate,
Bab-el-Amud), he had on his left hand (i.e. to the westward)
the hiU of Golgotha, where the Lord was crucified. A stone's-
throw from thence is the cave where His body was laid, and
where He rose on the third day. There, at the command of
the Emperor Constantine, a Basilica of surprising beauty was
lately erected : a sinistra autem parte est monticulus Golgotha,
ubi Dominus crucifixus est. Inde quasi ad lapidis missum,
est cripta, ubi corpus ejus positum fuit et tertia die resurrexit.
Ibidem modo jussu Constantini imperatoris basUica facta .est
mirae pulchritudinis. . . . This description points, beyond
doubt, to the position of the present Church of the Holy
Sepulchre. Sec. 178. That such a tradition might be perpetuated from
apostohc times can be doubted by no one ; for the Christians
were never banished from Jerusalem for a whole generation
together, not even under Hadrian. That the first Christians
knew where the place of the crucifixion was is certain ; that
they held this place in reverence, they who held in honoured
memory the grave of the least of the martyrs, is equaUy
certain, as it is that it was in accordance with the practice of
the heathen to erect a fanum upon every place reputed sacred.
Constantine was thus able to learn by a sure tradition the
identity of the place which, as the place of the grave of
Jesus, he adorned with a temple. If, instead of a genuine
tradition, a pious fraud had obtained ; if a deceiver, merely in
order to satisfy the emperor, had pointed out any place at
random as the sacred spot, he would never, in order to pre-

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 231
serve the semblance of probabihty, and to obtain credence for
his fiction,. have selected as the desired spot a place within
the city of Jerusalem, but outside its waUs ; for at that time,
equaUy as now, the Scripture was known, which says that
Jesus was crucified and buried without the city. This un
suitable, improbable site in the midst of the city vouches for
the genuineness of the tradition ; a pious fraud or a scientific
research would have led to a result more in accordance with
probabUity. The temple of Venus, which may have been
designed to mislead the Christians with regard to the site,
served only the more definitely to mark it out.
Sec. 179. A veritable crusade has been directed against
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and countless volumes
have been written to show that the place assigned by tradi
tion is not the true Golgotha. The principal argument which
is urged against this site of Golgotha is this : " Jesus was
crucified and buried outside of Jerusalem. But the place
which is claimed as the scene of the crucifixion hes within
the waUs, and must have lain within them at the time of
Christ ; this tradition is therefore spurious." The first pro
position is weU-founded : the scene of the crucifixion was
without the city. The second proposition is also true : the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre lies nearly in the middle of
the present city. But whether this place was already enclosed
within the city waUs at the time of Christ, is the very point
at issue ; and on this unquestionably depends the genuineness
or spuriousness of the tradition which makes this site to be
Golgotha. From Josephus, de Bello, v. 4, sees. 1-4, we know
that the third waU, which surrounded the New City, the
northernmost quarter of the city of Jerusalem, was buUt a
short time before the destruction of Jerusalem ; this quarter
was consequently at the time of Christ — that is to say, forty
years before this destruction, and about twelve years before
the bunding of said waU — not yet incorporated with the city.
If, then, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre hes in this quarter
of the New City, the place was stiU without Jerusalem at the
time of Christ ; but if the place Ues within the second waU,
it already belonged to the city at the time of Jesus, and cannot
therefore by any possibihty be the locahty of the grave of

232 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
Christ. We content ourselves here with the remark that the
more recent researches and excavations prove with ever-
increasing certainty that the site of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre was without the second waU, and consequently was
first incorporated into the city by the third waU ; and on this
account nothing prevents our regarding this as the locahty of
the true grave, and of Golgotha. The further discussion of
this important question we reserve for the Topographical
Appendix, No. 24.
Mount Calvary, or Golgotha, hes 110 feet E.S.E. of the Holy
Sepulchre ; both sacred places, as we have said, being enclosed
within the one structure of the BasUica. It is not here the
place to enter into a detaUed description of this church — such
description is to be found in Eitter's Erdkunde,1 and especiaUy
in Von Eaumer's Palestina, p. 303 ff.
Sec. 180. The Crucifixion. — The form of death to which
Jesus was condemned was by no means a Jewish punish
ment. It is true Josephus relates 2 that Alexander Jannseus
caused about eight hundred of his Jewish opponents to be
crucified ; but it does not follow therefrom that in this mode
of revenging himself he conformed to the custom of his
ancestors. If the Sanhedrim had possessed the authority to
carry out the sentence of death, they would have stoned
Jesus ; even as the Jewish tradition testifies He was sentenced
to be stoned.3 But since their sentence must be confirmed
and executed by the Eoman procurator, the latter condemned
Jesus to the death of the cross. The matter seems to us to
have had the foUowing course : The Sanhedrists demanded of
Pilate that he should ratify the sentence they had pronounced ;
had this been done, they would themselves have carried out
the sentence, and stoned Jesus. But since the procurator
refused to confirm the sentence on their mere recommendation,
entering upon a revision of the process, and having the air of
being resolved not to sacrifice a single human life to the law
of the Jews, they changed their accusation, charged Jesus
with rebellion against Caesar, and delivered up the Lord to
1 [Ritter, Palestine, Engl, trans., iv. pp. 135-140.]
2 Antiq. xiii. 14, sec. 2.
3 [And as Stephen actually was stoned, in violation of the Roman law.]

SYNOPSIS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION. 233
the GentUes, who condemned Him as a state criminal against
the Eomans, to the crucifixion awarded to those guUty of
revolt. So soon as the Jews accused Jesus before the Eoman
tribunal, they were fuUy aware what punishment the pro
curator must impose upon Him, if he adjudged Him guilty ;
for this reason they cried, Crucify, crucify I1 as an answer to
the question, What shall I do to this man ? 2
Crucifixion 3 was one of the most painful and dishonourable
modes of punishment,4 and as such was inflicted upon revolted
slaves, those engaged in sedition, and highwaymen. Those
condemned to crucifixion must, after undergoing scourging,5
themselves bear their cross to the place of execution.6 They
were then deprived of their garments,7 and affixed to the cross
previously erected.8 This cross might vary in point of height.
Whether they were affixed by the hands and feet, or by the
hands alone, is difficult to determine. No universal custom
seems to have obtained with regard to it. Lucan. vi. 547
speaks of nails in hands.9 The New Testament does not
express itself decisively on the question. The body of the
crucified rested upon a projecting piece of wood (irfjypa),
fixed at about the middle of the upright beam of the cross,1®
and was, moreover, fast bound with cords.11 Death ensued
under the most horrible sufferings — rarely before the twelfth
hour of the crucifixion, not seldom only after two days.
Origen says, " Miraculum erat, quomodo post tres horas
receptus est (Jesus), qui forte biduum victurus erat in cruce,
secundum consuetudinem eorum, qui suspenduntur quidem
non autem percutiuntur." After the execution the crucified
ones continued to hang upon the cross until they were con
sumed by the birds. The Jews, however, were wont to take
1 Properly, Bang, PiSTl-
2 John xix. 15 ; Matt, xxvii. 23 ; Mark xv. 14.
3 Cf. Winer, Bealw. i. 677.
4 Crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium, Cic. Verr. v. 64.
6 Livius, xxxiii. 36. 6 Plutarchus, de Serd Vind. c. 9.
7 Artemidorus, ii. 53.
8 Cicero, Verr. v. 66. Josephus, de Bello, vii. 6, sec. 4.
9 Insertum manibus chalybem. [Meyer, however, has shown from Plautus,
Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, that the nailing of the feet also was general.
Comm. on Matt. chap, xxvii. 35.]
10 Iren. Adv. ffcer. ii. 42. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. u Lucan. vi. 543 sq^.

234 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
them away and bury them.1 The breaking of the legs (tci
o-KeXy) 2 took place as a coup de grace on account of the
approaching festival. This was inflicted only upon the two
crucified with Jesus, because He was already deceased.
(? From a rupture of the heart, or of an artery.) The piercing
of the side had as its object to guard against the taking down
from the cross one who had possibly merely swooned.
Sec. 181. The taking down from the cross took place
" when even was come," " when the Sabbath drew on." 3 At
about the ninth hour, i.e. about three in the afternoon, Jesus
had died. The obtaining of permission to take Him down
from the cross and bury Him had occupied some time. The
burial nevertheless took place before the time of the great
paschal Sabbath.4 Among those engaged in this work is
especiaUy mentioned a member of the Sanhedrim, a secret
disciple of Jesus, named Joseph of Arimathaea.8 The question
where this Arimathaea was situated is of but slight importance.
Aiimathaea is evidently the Graecised Aramaic form of Ha-
Eamathaim. Among the different places known as Eama,
only the one Eama of Samuel has this dual form of the name.6
That this Eamathaim, and consequently Arimathaea, is to be
recognised in Neby Samwil, N.W. from Jerusalem, has already
been shown.7 How Biblical geographers have been able to
see Arimathaea in Bamleh — a name which denotes sand — we
are at a loss to explain.
Sec. 182. That the grave, in which the body of Jesus was
laid, was one simUar to other Jewish graves, hewn out
horizontally in the rocks and closed with a door of stone, is
evident from Mark xv. 46, Matt, xxvii. 60, Luke xxiii. 53,
John xix. 41. The grave shown in the BasUica is really
such an one, although the rock above it has been in part cut
away, for the sake of buUding the tomb over.
Sec. 183. After the burial, which had taken place in haste,
and could be only a preliminary one, the women who had
foUowed Jesus out of GalUee, and had seen the grave,
1 Josephus, de Bello, iv. 5, sec. 2. 2 John xix. 31.
3 i^ixs yivo/iivnt, Matt, xxvii. 57 ; Mark xv. 42 ; cf. Luke xxiii. 54.
4 bpipx ijv vrxpxexion, Luke xxiii. 54.
s Matt, xxvii. 57 ; Mark xv. 43 ; Luke xxiii. 50 ; John xix. 38.
8 1 Sam. i. 1. 7 Cf. sec. 49.

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 235
returned to the city, prepared spices and ointments, and were
resting on the Sabbath day according to the commandment.1
Now this Sabbath is brought into relief, as one of special
sacredness and importance. John xix. 31 caUs it the Great
Sabbath day — r)v yap pteydXy y yptepa tov crafiBaTOV — and all
the Evangehsts call the day which precedes it " the prepara
tion day." 2 Had then, as is supposed by the majority of
exegetes, the day of Christ's death been the 15 th Nisan, the
great sacred paschal Sabbath, it could not be at all explained
how this highest festival of the Jews should be characterized
as the preparation day for an ordinary week Sabbath, and by
no other distinctive mark whatever. How can we suppose
that during this feast day, termed in the law Sabbath, one
could buy 3 and go to the field ; 4 whUst the week Sabbath,
which could be broken for the sake of the paschal Sabbath,
must be esteemed so sacred ? Why should the Sabbath
foUowing Passover be -termed " the great Sabbath day," when
the 16 th Nisan in itself was only a working day, and the
week Sabbath falling at this date could be broken by the
gathering in of the sheaf. Precisely in the history of the
burial of Jesus does it come forth clear as day, that not only
according to John, but according to aU the Synoptists, the
day of the burial was the 14th Nisan, the day before the
great paschal festival, which in this year feU on a week
Sabbath. The day of the Lord's repose in the grave, on which the
Sanhedrim importuned PUate to set a watch upon the sepul
chre, is the 15 th Nisan.
X. — History of the Besurrection of Christ.
Sec. 184. We cannot deny that it is a much more difficult
task to present a harmony of the four Gospels as regards the
history of the resurrection, than is the synoptical arrangement
of the history of the Passion.
1 Luke xxiii. 55, 56.
2 a Kxpxaxwh simply, Matt, xxvii. 62 ; irxpxsxivri, i ss-tj vrpotr&l&lSxmv, Mark
xv. 42 ; vipiiptz riv irxpxtrxivn, Luke xxiii. 54 ; orxpettrxivvt «v . . . irctpxffxioii ruv
'looSxiut, John xix. 31, 42.
3 John xiii. 29 ; Luke xxiii. 56. 4 Mark xv. 21.

236 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
A first difficulty arises from the suspicion of non-genuine
ness which attaches to the history of the resurrection in Mark
xvi. 9—20. This section is wanting in the Sinaiticus, Vati-
canus [and earliest codices of the Armenian version], and is re
presented as doubtful in several other codices. The Canones of
Eusebius end with xvi. 8. Eusebius himself testifies 1 that,
according to Mark, Jesus did not appear to the disciples. From
the Schol. in Codd. L. and Syr. Philoxenus, on the margin, one
sees that there was another ending of this Gospel.2 On the
other hand, all codices, except K B, and all versions [except
the Armenian], have this pericope xvi. 9—20 in a text agree
ing with ours. If Mark had reaUy closed his Gospel with
chap. xvi. 8, we might certainly conceive, and even expect,
that a later hand would have added an appendix concerning
the manifestations of the Eisen One ; but it is inconceivable
that Mark xvi. 9-20 should be such addition. A history of
the resurrection appended by later Christians could manifestly
have been nothing more than an excerpt from the other
Gospels. But the pericope is no such excerpt ; for in ver. 1 8
it contains additional particulars not related by the others,
and relates the history of the Ascension in a connection not
in harmony with that of Luke, but rather in apparent contra
diction with it. It is difficult, moreover, in such case to
comprehend how it could find its way into almost aU the MSS.
and versions. On the other hand, it is easy to explain how
this pericope, if it was originaUy found in Mark's Gospel,
should become suspected; since Mark apparently contradicts
himself, inasmuch as the appearing of the Eisen One was in
ver. 7 promised in Gahlee, and according to ver. 9 took place
in Jerusalem, and especially because it is difficult to bring it
into harmony with Matthew and Luke. We therefore regard
the pericope as genuine ; without, however, wishing to attach
to it all the value of an undisputed account.
Sec. 185. "On the first day of the week cometh Mary
Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre,
1 Schol. b. Victor Antioch. ii. p. 208.
2 Ver. 8 : . . . llfo^oovro yxp. iiptrxt irao xxi txvtx' Hxvtx Se tx vrxpxyyiXptivx
roit mpi tov UsTpov trovrofcut V^nyyuXxv. Mit« 5s txotx xxi xoros o 'luffoot xvro
avxToXtit xxi a%pi ^ufftus i^xTlffTttXl S*' xotuv to Hpov xxi xQSapTov xr\poypt.x rrit ximlov
VUTTiptXS.

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 237
and she seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then
she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the ' other
disciple ' whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have
taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not
where they have laid Him." x On this occasion of the first
visit to the grave, Mary Magdalene alone is mentioned. She
did not go there alone, however, but in company with others ;
for she does not say, I know not — but, We know not (ovk
oiBaptev), where they have laid Him. Who they were who
were with her at the grave is recorded by the Synoptists. Of
this we shaU hereafter have occasion to speak.
" Peter then and the other disciple went out and came to
the sepulchre. The two ran together ; and the other disciple
did run before, more quickly than Peter, and came the first to
the sepulchre. And stooping down, he seeth the linen clothes
lying there ; yet did he not go in. Peter then cometh foUow
ing him, and went into the sepulchre, and looks upon the
linen clothes lying there, and the napkin, which was about
His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but apart, roUed
up, in a separate place. Then went in also that other
disciple which came first to the sepulchre, and saw, and
believed." 2 This vividness of presentation, this bringing into
bold relief of the minor detaUs, which for every other person
would have been without significance, this feverish alternation
of tenses and of verbs, could proceed only from an eye-wit
ness, who, after an interval of many years, realizes to himself
the scene as though it were stiU before his eyes. The two
disciples now returned. Mary Magdalene, however, went
again to the grave, where she was favoured with the first
manifestation of the Eisen One.3 That which foUows in the
Gospel of John carries us to the evening hours of that
Sunday. Before we enter on the treatment of this part of our
subject, it is necessary here to compare that which is said by
the Synoptists.
Sec. 186. Luke relates, chap. xxiv. 1-12, " On the first day
of the week, at early dawn, came they — the women from
Gahlee, mentioned xxiii. 55, of whom (chap. xxiv. 10) Mary
Magdalene and Johanna, and Mary of James are mentioned
1 John xx. 1, 2. 2 John xx. 3-9. 8 John xx. 11-18.

238 THIRD AND. LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
by name, with the addition, ' and the others with them ' — to
the sepulchre, bearing the spices which they had prepared.
And they found the stone roUed away from the sepulchre ;
but when they entered in they found not the body 1 [of the
Lord Jesus]. Two men, who stood near them, proclaimed to
them that Jesus was risen. They made all this known to the
apostles." Then Peter ran to the grave, stooped down, and
saw the linen clothes lying alone.2 The time of the visit to
the grave is with Luke, as with John, the time of the grey
dawn ; for opOov BaOecos is equivalent to trpcol, crKOTlas en
ovays ; the plurality of the women is indicated, as we have
seen, by John too ; that the stone was rolled away is equaUy
recorded by both. That the object of the women was to com
plete the preparations for the burial, is not in contradiction
with John xix. 40, since it may at any rate be supposed that
that first preparation remained, on account of the haste with
which it was performed, an incomplete one; that Luke does
not speak of John, as weU as Peter, as visiting the grave is of
slight importance. The most striking difference between the
two accounts is the mention on the part of Luke of the two
men in shining garments, who confirmed the fact of the resur
rection of Jesus, but of whom John says nothing. The narra
tive of Luke has not the oral accounts of John as its source ;
otherwise he would have mentioned John with Peter in
xxiv: 12.3 But so soon as it is seen that Luke derived his
report from other witnesses, the agreement with the teaching
of the fourth Gospel must be brought into prominence, as a
matter of great importance.
Sec. 187. Mark xvi. 1—8 begins the account yet earlier.
" When the Sabbath was' over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of
James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and
anoint Him." This took place thus on the evening of the
Saturday, when the Sabbath, which was at the same time the
Sabbath of the festival and of the week, was at an end.
From Luke xxiii. 5 6 it would seem as though the buying of
1 [o-S/ix, never irrSJ/tx.'] 2 Cf. Luke xxiv. 22-24.
3 [This verse, which is wanting in Codex D and some of the early versions, is
omitted by Tischendorf. The visit of Peter and John is in any case alluded to
in the 24th verse.]

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 239
the spices had taken place already on the Friday evening,
before the beginning of the Sabbath ; but this is not expressly
said there, and consequently the account given by Mark
remains uncontradicted. "And very early on the first day of
the week they went to the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun.
They saw that the stone was roUed away. When they
entered the sepulchre they saw a youth in a white robe,
sitting at the right hand side . . . who proclaimed to them
that Jesus was risen, and bade them teU the disciples and
Peter, ' He goeth before you into GalUee, there shall ye see
Him.' And they fled, and said nothing to any one ; for they
were afraid." This account is in contradiction with that of
John and of Luke, as regards the time when the women came
to the grave, if we translate dvaTetXavTos tov yk'tov by " when
the sun was risen ; " but it is also in contradiction with itself,
since the time when the sun is already risen cannot be caUed
" exceedingly early," Xlav irpoii. It seems to us that, both
here and often elsewhere in the N. T., the aorist parti
ciple is used in the sense of the participle of the future, and
that dvaTeiXavTos must be translated, " when it was about to
rise." 1 That Mark speaks only of one man, Luke of two, is
without significance. Of greater importance, however, is the
directing of the disciples to GalUee, as the place where they
should see the Lord, — of this we shall speak hereafter, — and
the statement that the women said nothing to any one ;
whereas, according to Luke, they related it to the apostles.
Yet these words can only mean that they said nothing to the
people whom they met by the way; for, since they had
received an express commission with regard to the disciples
and Peter, it is not to be supposed that they neglected to
fulfil it.
Sec. 188. Matthew says, chap, xxviii. 1, 'O^e Be craBBdrcov,
Ty itrtcjicocrKovay els ptiav cra/3BdTcov, TjXde Mapia y MayBaXyvy
Kal y dXXy Mapia, Oewpycrat tov Tacpov. In order to bring
this passage into approximate harmony with the accounts of
1 [The aorist does not here denote the actual phenomenon, but is — as re
marked by Ellicott — to be regarded only as a general definition of time. ' Com
pare the voro tvv lot (about the time of the dawn), ipuros «S» tJjv ynv ovxoyx\ovTos.
"No turn est solem non uno momento oriri." — Eisner.]

240 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
the other evangelists, various translations have been proposed.
De Wette translates, " Now after the Sabbath, on the dawn of
the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and another
Mary, to see the sepulchre." Others render it, " When the
week was at an end, and the first day of the new week began
to appear. . . ." By this means, no doubt, we arrive at the
Sunday morning ; but the violence done in such translations
is evident, since they are equivalent to, " Late on the Sabbath,
when the light of the first day of the new week began to
appear, came Mary, etc." But late on the Sabbath points to
the sunset on Saturday evening, not to the Sunday morning.
If the passage is taken in this way, Matthew will be brought
into absolute contradiction with the other evangehsts, who
place the visit to the grave on the Sunday morning. But,
however it is translated, the use of the aorist Oecopycrai con
tinues to present a difficulty, since we should rather expect
Becopelv or Oecopycretv ; unless we suppose that here also the
sense of the future is to be attributed to the aorist.1 If we
regard the matter from the point of view that Matthew, so far
as the history is concerned — for in the collection of discourses
he is original — stands in a relation of dependence on Mark,
the supposition forces itself upon us, that Matt, xxviii. 1 is
formed from the combination in one proposition of the two
propositions of Mark xvi. 1, 2, of which the one teUs us
what was done in the evening, the other towards morning.
In Matthew the mention of the purchase made in the evening
has dropped out, and the time at which it was made has
remained standing. The restoration of the text would give
something like the foUowing : " At the close of the Sabbath
[the women of Gahlee purchased spices] ; when the first day
of the new week began to dawn (thus, early on the Sunday
morning), went Mary Magdalene ... to see the sepulchre." 2
1 [Kiihner (Smaller Grammar, sec. 257, 1 obs. c.) says, "The aorist infinitive
has the signification oipast time only after expressions of saying or thinking, and
in the accusativus cum infinitivo with the article. ... In all other cases it has
the signification of the present."]
2 [These remarks are based on the fact that in the N. T. and the LXX.
i^ix or tyi means towards the close of day (Matt. xx. 8), sunset (Mark iv. 35),
the dusk (Mark xiii. 35), the time at which the lamps were kindled (Ex. xxx.
8) ; though not necessarily the time after sunset (Matt, xxvii. 57). Cf. sec. 5.]

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 241
EquaUy, in vers. 5-10, are the two visits of Mary to the
grave combined in one ; so that the women accompanying
Mary Magdalene — at least the other Mary — were witnesses
with her of the first manifestation. Whether or not the two
women were present at the wondrous scene of xxviii. 2-4, is
not clear.1 The manifestation of the Eisen One is promised
in Gahlee; and only this is described, in addition to the
manifestation which was vouchsafed to the women at the
sepulchre.2 Sec. 189. The fact proclaimed ahke by aU the evangehsts
is, that Mary Magdalene, with other women from Gahlee,
found the grave empty, and that to Mary Magdalene the Lord
first manifested HimseU; from that point, however, the narra
tive of the two first evangehsts differs considerably from that
of the two last ; inasmuch as the former mention nothing of
the other manifestations at Jerusalem, recorded by the latter,
but point at once to Gahlee. That the command to repair to
Gahlee was obeyed by the disciples after the completion of
the paschal season, must be accepted as a fact. One and
another of them, however, would seem to have fled to GalUee
immediately after the Lord's crucifixion, among whom was
probably Matthew, so that they could speak from their own
experience only of that which took place there.
Sec. 190. After Mary Magdalene, Peter was the first who
saw the Lord.3 That John is sUent as to this event, arises
not from his jealousy of his feUow-apostle, but simply from
the fact that John relates only that which he has himself
witnessed. To this principle he remained true from the
beginning of his Gospel to its end. He departs from it only
when he treats of facts which stood in causal connection with
that which he had himself experienced, and which were com
municated to him by eye-witnesses, as is the case with that
which was witnessed by Mary Magdalene, chap. xx. 1,
11-18. Sec. 191. The third manifestation is that on the way to
Emmaus.4 It took place after Peter had seen the Lord, on
the very day of the resurrection. A nearer denning of the
1 [But compare Mark xvi. 3.] 2 Matt, xxviii. 9-20.
3 Luke xxiv. 34 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5. 4 Luke xxiv. 13-35 ; Mark xvi. 12, 13.

242 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
time is given in the words of the disciples, chap. xxiv. 29,
" Abide with us, for it is towards evening, and the day is
far spent (KeKXtKev)." This urgency is' not necessarily to be
explained as a warning addressed to the unknown one
against traveUing alone by night, but rather as an act of
hospitality. We know already the wide application of the
word " evening" with the Jews ; it includes the whole after
noon, from half -past twelve, " when the sun inclines towards
evening." Emmaus. — Of this place Luke says that it is a viUage,
Kcopy, distant 60 stades from Jerusalem.1 A very ancient
tradition identifies this place with Ammaus, the later Nico-
polis, and present Amwas, S.E. from Lydda. It is favoured
by Eusebius in the Onomasticon, and Jerome in Dan. viii.,
and Ezek. xlvni. This town, however, is distant not 60, but
180 stades from Jerusalem. Besides this Ammaus near to
Lydda, another Ammaus is known to Josephus. This latter
must now claim our attention. De Bello, vii. 6, sec. 6, he
mentions that Caesar (Titus) assigned as a residence to
800 veterans discharged from the army a place (%copiov)
called Ammaus, 'Aptpaovs, distant from Jerusalem 60 stades.
This Ammaus thus became a colony of veterans. Now, there
is to be found in the present day, at a distance of 60 stades
WN.W. of Jerusalem, a place caUed Kolonieh — a name con
fessedly derived from Colonia. But Josephus knew only of a
single Eoman colony in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem,
namely, this place evidently corresponding with the Emmaus
of Luke. Emmaus is consequently Kolonieh. This conclu
sion is confirmed, moreover, by the Talmud. In Mishna
Succa, iv. 5, it is said that the green wiUow branches, with
which the altar was decorated at the feast of Tabernacles, were
brought from a place near to Jerusalem caUed Mauza, nvio.
In the Babylonian Talmud Succa it is observed that Mauza is
Kolonieh. If we give the name of the place with the article
prefixed — as it is also written Josh, xviii. 26 — we have KXion,
Hammauza, which is evidently identical with Ammaus. There
is therefore no rashness in asserting that in Kolonieh the
Emmaus of the Gospel is certainly discovered. Travellers teU
1 Luke xxiv. 13.

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 243
us but httle about this place. Tobler1 visited it, and found
there a considerable spring.2
Sec. 192. From Emmaus the two disciples returned to
Jerusalem, after they had seen and recognised the Eisen
One. The intelligence they had to bring lent speed to their
feet, so that they did not require two hours to leave behind
them the 6 0 stades ; whilst from Nicopolis they would have
had a six hours' journey, and could not hope to reach Jeru
salem the same evening. They found, it is said Luke xxiv.
3 3, the Eleven gathered together, and others with them. ' It
is here the place to observe that before the treachery of Judas
" the Twelve," and after that treachery " the Eleven," means
just the apostles, without regard to the number,8 and it is
not necessary that the number should be always complete.
On this occasion Matthew was wanting,4 as also Thomas
and Peter, of whom they speak in Luke xxiv. 34 as an
absent one. During the account given by the disciples from
Emmaus, the Lord manifested Himself to the assembled
apostles.5 That Mark xvi. 14, 15 does not belong to this
place is shown in the foUowing section. Whether 1 Cor.
xv. 56 belongs to this, or designates the foUowing manifesta
tion, must be left undecided. But it is certain that in John
xx. 19-23 the same appearing of the Eisen One is intended,
from a comparison of John xx. 19, 20 with Luke xxiv.
36,37. In John it is said, " When it was now evening "
(not, was becoming evening) " on that Sunday." With the faU of
night the Emmaus-disciples were able to be again in Jerusalem.
Sec. 193. Eight days later, — the 16th April, Sunday, —
another manifestation of the Eisen One was, according to
John xx. 24-29, vouchsafed in the presence of the assembled
apostles. Among these was now present Thomas, who had
not witnessed the previous one. This manifestation is the
one referred to in Mark xvi. 14, 15, and probably also .in
1 Denkbldtter, p. 662. [Andrew Bonar, Narrative, p. 125. Robinson, iii.
158.] 2 The author had regarded the site of Emmaus as his own discovery. All this
was recognised and written before Sepp's works, Jerusalem and the Holy Land,
and New Architect. Studies, had been seen by him. From these it is evident
that the discovery had already been made in the same manner long since.
3 [Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 56.] * Sec. 189. 5 Luke xxiv. 36-43.

244 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
1 Cor. xv. 6. What place was the scene of it ? John does
not teU us; and this sUence would lead to the conjecture
that, as in the case of the former appearing, so of this too,
the scene is at Jerusalem. But when we consider that an
express command was given to the apostles and disciples to
repair to Galilee, where they should see the Lord, there is
every reason for supposing that they obeyed this command
without delay, after the completion of the eight days of the
paschal festival, and that thus this manifestation took place
in Gahlee, at Capernaum, or Bethsaida. Anything by which
the acceptance of this view could be absolutely precluded
does not exist. On the contrary, John, chap. xxi. 1, seems in
the words, " Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples
at the Sea of Tiberias," to presuppose an earlier, before-
mentioned manifestation on this sea. If the scene of this
manifestation was Gahlee, the way is prepared for arriving at
the desired harmony with the two first Synoptists. Mark
xvi. 7 leads to expect a manifestation — the one mentioned
xvi. 14, 15 must thus be intended ; but this [probably]
corresponds to that described John xx. 26, and [certainly] to
that related Matt, xxviii. 16, as is seen from the command
recorded alike in both Gospels, — Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Mark
xvi. 15: "Go ye into aU the world, and preach the gospel."
In Matthew, it is true, this manifestation is spoken of as
taking place upon the mountain, consequently in the open
air ; in Mark and John, on the other hand, in a house during
the meal, the doors being closed. But it would seem that
here, as often elsewhere, Matthew has combined the two facts
in one in his narrative, namely, the appearing in the presence
of the apostles in a house, with that upon the mountain in
the presence of aU the disciples. Such manifestation un
questionably took place, although the evangelists do not make
distinct mention of it ; for, 1 Cor. xv. 6, it reads : " After
that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once ; of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are
fallen asleep." EquaUy silent are the evangelists concerning
a manifestation of the Lord vouchsafed to James, of which
the apostle speaks in ver. 7, which must yet have been a
weU-known occurrence.

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 245
Sec. 194. The manifestation on the Sea of Gennesareth,
John xxi. 1-25, appended by John as a supplement to his
Gospel, is caUed the third ; x namely, of those witnessed by
the apostle himself. He does not reckon among them the
appearing of the Lord to Mary Magdalene, because the
account of this does not rest on his own ocular contemplation.
Because he was not personaUy present, he does not record the
Galilean manifestations.
Sec. 195. We have already several times availed ourselves
of the right — now in the case of one evangehst, now of
another — to make divisions where the text appeared to pro
ceed without break. The authorization thereto is rendered
unquestionable by the following example. In Acts i. 1—11,
Luke relates that the Lord manifested Himself from time to
time during the forty days, until His Ascension. None the
less is it the case with the same evangelist that all these
manifestations are in his Gospel blended in a single one —
that of chap. xxiv. 36-51. We must necessarily suppose
that a new section begins with xxiv. 41, which probably ends
with ver. 43, and forms the paraUel of John xxi. 1. A second
section, xxiv. 44-48, probably corresponds to Matt, xxviii.
18-20, and — as to its contents — to John xx. 21. The last
section, finaUy, Luke xxiv. 49-53, belongs to the end of the
forty days. [Corresponding to Mark xvi. 19, 20.] Then the
Galilean apostles were again at Jerusalem, and received from
the Lord the promise of power from on high, for which they
were to wait henceforth in Jerusalem.2 The command, " But
tarry ye in Jerusalem," was not given to the disciples as
early as the day of the Eesurrection, — by which, of course,
aU that belongs to their sojourn in Gahlee would have been
rendered impossible, — but forty days later, after they had re
turned from GalUee. From the Ascension to Pentecost they
did in fact remain at Jerusalem.
Sec. 196. The manifestations of the Eisen One recorded by
the different evangelists may, consequently, be presented in
the foUowing order : —
1. Mary Magdalene sees the Risen One on the morning of the Resurrec-
1 John xxi. 14. 2 Kxtiio-xTi iv rn triXu, Luke xxiv. 49.

246 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
tion — Sunday. The four evangelists have this account in common. Cf.
sec. 189.
2. Peter alone sees the Lord on the afternoon of the same day. Luke
and Paul vouch for this fact. Cf. sec. 190.
3. The two disciples on the way to Emmaus see Him on the same
afternoon. The witnesses are Mark and Luke. Cf. sec. 191.
4. On the evening of the same day the Lord manifests Himself to the
disciples, the doors being shut, after the return of the two disciples from
Emmaus. This manifestation is reported by John and Luke. On this
occasion there were absent Thomas, Peter the authority for the second
Gospel, as well as the author of the first. Cf. sec. 192.
5. Eight days later the Lord manifested Himself to His disciples under
similar circumstances, — but probably in Galilee, — Thomas being present.
This is given on the authority of John, Mark, and Paul ; those who vouch
for the facts of the first and of the third Gospel were absent. Cf. sec. 193.
6. Jesus manifests Himself in Galilee upon the mountain : this is re
ported by Matthew and Paul. John and Peter were not present. Cf. sec.
193. 7. Jesus the Risen One was seen upon the shore of the lake. John alone
records this fact. Cf. sec. 194.
8. Last manifestation at Jerusalem, immediately before the Ascension.
Witnessed by the Galilean disciples alone, John being absent. Cf . sec. 195.
Sec. 197. The Ascension is presupposed as a fact by aU the
evangelists and apostles, inasmuch as they speak of Jesus as the
Lord in heaven, in the glory at the right hand of God. But
the event itself is recorded only by two evangehsts, Mark and
Luke. The narrative of the former of these is such as to leave
it doubtful whether the Ascension took place before the eyes of
the disciples or not. It is there said, " The Lord then, after
He had spoken to them, was received into heaven, and sat down
at the right hand of God.1 Luke, however, represents the fact
as one taking place before the eyes of the GalUean disciples.
According to. the Gospel,2 He led them out (from the city of
Jerusalem) as far as Bethany, lifted up His hands and blessed
them ; and while He blessed them [He was parted from
them and] was carried up into heaven. In the Acts of the
Apostles there are to be found further notes of time and
place : the time during which the Eisen One manifested
Himself to His disciples was forty days ; 3 the place of the
Ascension was " Olivet, which is nigh to Jerusalem, being
distant a Sabbath-day's journ sy." 4 A Sabbath-day's journey
1 Mark xvi. 19. 2 Luke xxiv. 50. 3 Acts i. 3. 4 Acts i. 12.

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 247
contains 2000 cubits, or 6 stades. If Luke intends in this
place only to indicate in general the distance of Olivet from
Jerusalem, his statement tallies with that of Josephus, who
fixes it at 5 or 6 stades.1 If, however, he intends to mark
the distance of the place of the Ascension, this datum corre
sponds pretty nearly to the site of the Chapel of the Ascension,
where tradition indicates the point from which the Lord rose
to heaven. In this case, however, the Acts would be in con
tradiction with the Gospel, in which the scene of the Ascen
sion is placed at Bethany, a viUage 1 5 stades from Jerusalem.2
Sec. 198. The Lord before His exaltation left with His
disciples the injunction to tarry in the city of Jerusalem
until they were endued with power from on high.3 This
promise had its accomphshment " when the day of Pentecost
was being fulfilled,"4 that is to say, on the second part of the
night-day on which the feast of Pentecost feU. Now Pentecost
was held fifty days after Passover, and consequently always
feU on the same week-day as the 16th Nisan. In the year
3 0 A.D. Passover was a Sabbath, and thus Pentecost a Sunday.
When this night-day was drawing towards its close, i.e. on
the day after the eve of Pentecost, the promised outpouring
of the Holy Ghost took place — thus on a Sunday, as is
maintained by Christian tradition. This could not have
been the case if — as is erroneously supposed by the great
majority of exegetes — the 15 th Nisan in that year had
faUen on a Friday. In the year 30 the 15 th Nisan was, as
we have seen, a Saturday, 7-8th April ; the day of the
Eesurrection, 9th AprU ; the day of the Ascension, 18th May;
and the day of the gift of the Holy Ghost, Pentecost, 2 7-2 8th
May. The events of Acts ii 1 ff. accordingly took place on
the morning of Sunday, 28th May, at about the third hour,5 i.e.
nine a.m. The place where the disciples were assembled was
1 Antiq. xx. 8, sec. 6 ; Bell. v. 2, sec. 3.
2 The contradiction, however, disappears if in Luke xxiv. 50 we read, with
[{BC, 'lat *pos Btiixtlxv, or, with D, simply orplt Bnfxvixv. For it then says, He
led them out in the direction of Bethany, thus not into it. The site of the
Church of the Ascension may then, according to the better supported reading of
Luke, be the true one ; since it lies immediately above Bethany, on the mountain.
3 Luke xxiv. 49.
4 Acts ii. 1, it rip o-ufinXtipoue-lxi rm Sifiipxv ; of. Luke ix. 51. 5 Acts ii. 15.

248 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
" a house ; " J but that it could not be a private house foUows
from the statement that they were all together, airavTes
6pto9vp,aB6v, thus at least 120 in number,2 in the same; for a
room of such magnitude cannot be supposed to exist in private
dwellings. It is weU known that a very ancient tradition,
vouched for by CyrU of Jerusalem,3 points to the Church of
Zion as the place where the outpouring of the Holy Spirit
took place ; and Jerome represents the pilgrim Paula as
ascending Mount Zion, and there visiting the place where the
Holy Ghost was poured forth into the hearts of the 120
believers. The edifice in which this tradition places the
miracle of Pentecost was thus yet standing in the days of the
before-mentioned Fathers, and was a Jewish building which
had outhved the faU of the city ; but at the same time also a
crypt, because " the mother of the churches " was the prototype
of the Christian churches of the first century, which were aU
of them crypts. Such structure is the subterranean building
under the Aska-Mosque at the south side of the temple area.
That these celebrated substructures were the Holy Church of
Zion wiU be shown in the Appendix, No. 19.
XI. — Critical Beview of the History of the Besurrection.
Sec. 199. The most striking difference between John and
the Synoptists is, that these last seem to be acquainted with
only a single manifestation of the Ei^en One, whereas he
describes a series of such manifestations. The Synoptists,
moreover, differ from each other, inasmuch as the two first
place the scene of the manifestation in Galilee, whUe Luke
places it in Jerusalem. Matthew finaUy differs from Mark,
in that the former speaks of " a mountain " as the scene of
the appearing ; Mark, on the other hand, places it in a house.
But if the Gospel of Luke leaves upon us the impression that
the apostles had seen the Eisen One only once, this impression
is weakened by the statement of Acts i. 3, that Jesus had
shown Himself alive after His Passion by many evident signs 4
during forty days. Now, it is possible that by the " many
1 Acts ii. 2. 2 Acts i. 15.
3 Born A.D. 315. 4 Iv TroXXolt Tixpiitpioit.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 249
proofs " Luke would speak of only a single manifestation ; but
it is also equally possible that he combined the quintessence
of the " many " in a single one. This latter seems to us the
true state of the matter. The main purport of the apostolic
ministry was the testifying of the Lord, the proclaiming to
men of that which they had seen and heard. The first form
of preaching was narration. By the frequent repetition of the
same fact there must necessarUy be formed a stock of narrative
consisting of a series of cycles, which was for the most part
presented in a purely chronological order, and in the same
words. This form of communication led to a blending of
single facts, separated by time and place, into one connected
image. Such mode of proceeding is especially observable in
the first Gospel, and has often been pointed out in that which
we have already said. This must, however, from the nature
of the case, reveal itseU most of all in the history of the
resurrection. The manifestations of the Eisen One were
sporadic, brief, without local connection the one with the
other, now granted to a single individual, now to an assembly
of disciples. Such an account of disconnected events must in
the oral relations — divested of the mention of place and time,
and of the individual beholders — assume the form in which
the Synoptists have related them to us ; and thus with Luke
the many proofs during the forty days have seemingly blended
into a single one, perhaps on the last of these days. Luke
had certainly — the account of the Acts shows this — the con
sciousness of such blending ; on this account we must pre
suppose it also in Matthew and Mark. If we are right in
what has hitherto been said, then we have also the means at
hand for establishing a harmony of the Gospels in this history,
in the manner in which we have above sought to effect it.
Sec. 200. The apostles and evangehsts who testify of the
resurrection of Christ from the dead present this truth, not as
one revealed to them in an extraordinary way, but as a fact
of experience. They testify that they have seen it — have
perceived it with their senses. If the resurrection of Christ
had been a revealed truth, it would have been incumbent
indeed on Christians to believe it ; the behever would have
had, in reliance upon the truth of that which was manifested

250 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
by the Spirit of God, the blessing of the gifts of hope, con
solation, and power contained in that resurrection. But the
resurrection of Jesus would then remain exclusively a private
possession of the beheving Church, a mystery disclosed only
to Christians, of which no apologetic or missionary use were
possible ; the Christian would accept the resurrection, because
he believes in Christ. But the apostles make a missionary
use of it ; Christ has been manifested to them as the Son of
God by the fact of the resurrection from the dead ; 1 they seek
to convince men of this fact by their testimony, and only
upon this assurance (certainty) do they rear up the edifice of
repentance and faith. John says : 2 " We proclaim unto you
that which we have seen with our eyes, which our hands have
touched of the Word of Life." Paul, who, where this is
necessary, appeals also to revelations, does not make such
appeal where he will lay the foundation of faith in the resur
rection of Jesus, but cites witnesses, and appeals to that which
others and he himself have seen.3 From this very circum
stance it arises that all the different evangehsts do not report
the same appearances of the newly-risen Lord, but each one
only that which is attested by himself personaUy, or by the
eye-witness on whose authority his Gospel is penned. As a
pure fact of experience they present each of their histories.
The account, too, in Matt, xxviii. 2-4 must be so regarded ;
for if the women themselves were not witnesses of the event,
it may have transpired through the guards.
Sec. 201. But if the resurrection is presented, not as a
revelation, but as a fact of experience, on which the faith of
the believer is to be based, we have also to judge of it accord
ing to the ordinary laws of evidence, by which we judge of
other facts of experience ; only we protest against the importa
tion of principles drawn from metaphysical reasoning, which
formulate that which is historicaUy possible, in such wise as
to exclude a priori that which is supernatural and miraculous.
The possible is not the criterion of the actual, but the converse
is the case.
Sec. 202. It is certain that the evangelists present the
resurrection as a fact of experience. What they testify to
1 Rom. i. 4 ; Acts ii. 32. 2 1 John i. 1-3. 3 1 Cor. xv. 5-8.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 251
having experienced is therefore either objectively real and
true, or the narrators have deceived themselves, or else have
intentionaUy spoken untruth. The hypothesis of a design to
deceive cannot, in the presence of the moral character of these
witnesses, be for a moment entertained ; this is testified by
the universal outburst of indignation with which M. Eenan's
presentation of the resurrection of Lazarus was received.
Men shrank from it as an historical scandal. On the other
hand, the hypothesis of unintentional self-deception has found
acceptance on many sides ; it must therefore be subjected to
a closer examination.
Sec. 203. If it is asserted that the witnesses of the resur
rection of Jesus deceived themselves, nothing else can be
meant by this than that in a condition of excessive spiritual
tension and haUucination they fancied they saw something,
although no object sensuously perceptible presented itself to
their senses. Such conditions indisputably exist. In our
waking condition, the nerves of our senses play the part of the
keys of a musical instrument ; the external world, with its
impressions, is the hand which plays on these keys, and in the
soul resound the emotions awakened by this playing. In the
hfe of sleep the case is reversed : passive conditions of the
organism deprived of voluntary activity — an interruption in the
flow of the blood or in the action of respiration, etc., awakens
in the soul emotions and tones, bear a resemblance to the
emotions which, in the waking condition of the life of day, are
caUed forth by the impressions of external objects. It has
perhaps happened that a dangerous, raging beast has inspired
us with such sudden terror, that the blood ceased to flow,
and we experienced a cold trickhng about the spinal cord. If
now in sleep, by any physical perturbation, by an attack of
fever or something of the sort, the same sensation is produced,
that the blood is arrested, and a cold trickhng is produced
about the spinal cord, the imagination conjures up before us
this raging beast as the cause of our sensation. This is a
dream. The sensation originates in the nerves of the senses,
imagination creates the hand which touches the keys. The
sensation is real, the hand which plays on the keys is
imaginary. A hke physical condition may, however, steal

252 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
upon us in a waking state. The emotions of joy, of anguish,
or of longing stirred up in the soul, may become so intense
that for a moment they arrest the activity of the senses —
the pupUs of the eyes, e.g., may become so greatly dUated
that actual seeing becomes impossible. In a condition hke
this, the imaginative power may attain to such a degree of
energy that the eye imagines it sees, the ear that it hears, and
the senses in general seem to receive an impression of that
which occasions the emotion in the soul. If this condition is
produced by a morbid affection of our organism, it is caUed
haUucination ; if, however, an objective spiritual power is
active in the production of it — a power which will inspire
into the soul a spiritual revelation — the condition is caUed
vision. In one respect, therefore, there is an important differ
ence between haUucination and vision; in another respect
they are, as a psychological act, identical — namely, a percep
tion by the senses, without the presence of an object sensu
ously perceptible.
Sec. 204. Of what nature, then, was the beholding of the
Eisen One ? Was it, strictly speaking, the seeing of a real
object ? or a purely inner vision without the presence of an
object perceptible to the senses ? Visions as the medium of
revelation are, in the New Testament, well-known phenomena,
as weU those given in sleep as those which present themselves
while in a waking condition. As regards those experiences
by night in the dream-life, these are always distinguished
from actual seeing and hearing, and are represented as a
dream. To these belong Matt. i. 20, 24, u. 13, etc. But
even the visions and trances (iKcrTdcrets) which faU upon one
in a waking condition, as Acts x. 10 ff, 2 Cor. xU. 2 ff.,
Matt. xvii. 1-3, 1 are definitely distinguished from seeing in
the strict sense of the term. Of a vision,2 e.g., Paul says,
" Whether in the body, I cannot teU ; or whether out of the
body, I cannot tell." If any have wished to represent the
seeing of the Eisen One by the apostles as a vision or ecstasy,
— as an inner beholding, — the ground of this judgment does
not at any rate he in the nature of the accounts, which testify
to an actual seeing ; but in a metaphysical motive, in the
1 Cf. sec. 125. 2 [Here, however, there was an actual xp*&"£uv, rapture.']

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 253
endeavour to set aside the miraculous and supernatural
altogether. Where this endeavour does not obtain, it must
be acknowledged that the reporters maintain that what they
saw were not visions, but an actual beholding of Jesus. Were
they perhaps deceived, and led to regard something that was
only a vision as an actual beholding ? Something of the
kind would be conceivable, if the beholding of the Lord had
been a fleeting one, one quickly passing, and granted only to
single individuals. But the beholding of the Eisen One, on
the contrary, is presented by the evangelists as continuing for
a lengthened period, and as being shared simultaneously by
several hundreds of persons. The Lord is described as holding
prolonged discourses, expounding texts, uttering doctrines,
commands, promises ; He eats and drinks, suffers Himself to
be touched. In aU this, no seK-deception was possible ;
unless it was manifest fraud, it was a real beholding.
Sec. 205. Those critics who explain the beholding of the
Eisen One as visions, appeal principaUy to the presentation of
that which was experienced by the Apostle Paul on the way
to Damascus, which is regarded by them as a vision. But
was this event reaUy a vision ? And if it was, must that
which is related by the evangehsts necessarily be so too 1
The account of that event comes down to us in three rela
tions. According to the first — Acts ix. 3-8 — a light suddenly
shone round Saul ; he feU to the ground, and heard a voice,
which said to him, " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? "
. . . The men who were journeying with him stood speechless,
hearing indeed the voice, but beholding no one. In the
second — Acts xxii. 6-11 — Paul speaks again of a sudden
light, which beamed around him. He feU to the ground,
heard a voice speaking to him, ..." and they that were with
me beheld indeed the light, but the voice of Him that was
speaking to me heard they not." FinaUy, Acts xxvi. 12-18
does not treat of the experiences of those accompanying him.
If we combine these texts, we learn that Saul beheld a dazzling
Ught, by which he was blinded ; heard a voice, and received
words which were spoken to him. Those who accompanied
him saw the Ught, but no person ; heard a voice (t% cpcovys),
but understood not the words (tt)v cpwvyv). Since those who

s

254 THIRD AND LAST YEAR OF OUR LORD'S LABOURS.
accompanied him had like perceptions as Saul, it was not a
vision in the strict apphcation of the term. On the contrary,
the senses were affected by an external object. At most, one
could only assert that it was a real perception by the senses,
accompanied by a visionary tension, since Saul heard more
intensely than those who accompanied him. Paul says, 1 Cor.
ix. 1, xv. 8, that he has seen the Eisen One, and makes
use of this fact as a proof of the reality of the resurrection.
The great significance of this revelation for the apostle was,
next to the conversion wrought by it, his caUing to the office
of apostle of the Gentiles.1 The narrative does not indeed
speak of this in the two first accounts which are given of the
great event on the way to Damascus ; but it does in the third,
xxvi. 16-18. From this it foUows with certainty that the
apostle, when he speaks in the Epistles of having seen the
Lord, refers to this event on the way to Damascus. In favour
of this view pleads also 1 Cor. xv. 8, where Paul says that
this manifestation was vouchsafed to him, while he was yet an
eKTpcopa — an unripe foetus, not yet born to the new life — that
is, an unbeliever ;2 whilst the other apostles saw the Lord as
men already born again. If Paul, when he saw the Lord, was
as yet unconverted, this revelation cannot have been experi
enced by him later than the event on the way to Damascus,
with which it must indeed be identical. It is true, according
to the three accounts, he did not actuaUy see the Lord, and,
because blinded, could not see, but heard. It is, however,
well known that " seeing" is often used for any perception by
the senses.3
If, however, that which was experienced by Paul was reaUy
— what, nevertheless, we cannot admit — purely and merely an
inner [subjective] vision, it cannot be concluded from this that
the facts related in the Gospels were visions too; these are not
1 Rom. i. 5.
2 [The force of the argument will remain the same, if we understand by this
expression, " One born out of the ordinary course (of the apostleship), " which
was by the call of the Lord in the days of His flesh. ]
3 [The apostle declares in Acts xxvi. 19, that he actually saw the glory that
smote him — the ohpxviot Wrxcia, by the splendour of which, according to chap.
xxii. 11, he was blinded. A comparison with Gal. i. 16 shows, nevertheless,
that the subjective element was that which predominated in this manifestation.]

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 25 5
to be judged of by that which was experienced by Paul, but
to be accepted as that which they claim to be, real and true
perceptions by the senses. There is, in any case, the great
difference in the experience of Paul and that of the other
apostles, that Paul saw the Lord after His exaltation to
heaven, and thus after the ordinary manifestations had
ceased. It is comprehensible that in this latter case some
thing visionary accompanied the real perception. In the case
of the rest of the apostles, on the other hand, it was a real,
objective beholding.

APPENDIX.

THE TOPOGEAPHY OF JERUSALEM.
1. In the New Testament history we meet with the foUowing
topographical references to locahties in Jerusalem : —
Siloah, the Pool, John ix. 7 ; and the Tower, Luke xhi. 4.
The Sheep Gate, and near it
The Pool of Bethesda, John v. 2.
The Prwtorium (Gabbatha), John xvin. 28, xix. 13.
The Temple, 6 vaos, Matt, xxvii. 51 ; Mark xv. 38 ;
Luke xxiii. 45, etc.1
The Sanctuary, or Temple-enclosure, to iepov, Matt. xxi. 12 ;
John ii. 14, and frequently elsewhere.
The Pinnacle of the Sanctuary, Matt. iv. 5 ; Luke iv. 9.
The Beautiful Gate of the Sanctuary, Acts iii. 2, 1 0.
The Stoa of Solomon, John x. 23 ; Acts in. 11, v. 12.
Golgotha, Matt, xxvii. 33 ; John xix. 17 ; and near this
The Sepulchre of Jesus, John xix. 41.
The Sepulchre of David, Acts ii 29.
The determination of these locahties is possible, only if
the general archaeological topography of the Holy City is
scientifically proved, and set free from its traditional errors.
This subject, however, is one unfortunately stiU left in
obscurity up to the present time. No further justification
therefore is required for here making the attempt to settle
the topography of Ancient Jerusalem.
2. El-Kuds, as Jerusalem is now caUed, is situated upon a
1 [Compare the use made of vxU, Luke i. 21, with that- of Up'ov, chap, ii, 27.]
256

PLAS" OF MODEM JERUSALEM,
With, the remains of the ancient city.

T — <;

The first tvaU
1. Tower of Pluzjatibj^r
2 A Gate., p (rermath
¦i. Bridge, on lhe-3f#tujs
¦I. The Jars IfirilingPlajCe;

The second wall
ana Priiuuns o/'lln- wall
b)'llir ll<i.<j)ir,- of ihs.Iiniijhl.s
ofS'-JohJt.betoreJJieCIuirrh
ufQi/'IIoly.S'epuh'hw.ajttltiii
Ijic Via., Dolorosa

"4S.JiJ.lmjl.n.XAmbw*>..

The third wall

b The Vimnatj Unrfr*

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM. 257
tongue of land, which on the western side is connected
by an isthmus of about 800 paces [about 700 yards] wide
with the uplands of Judea, but is on every other side shut
off by vaUeys. One of these valleys, the vaUey of the Kidron
or Jehoshaphat, closes up the northern side. ShaUow at its
beginning, it runs from west to east, and then suddenly
taking a southerly direction it bounds the isthmus on the
eastern side, and separates it from the Mount of Olives. The
second valley, called Ben-Hinnom, takes its origin on the
southern side of the isthmus, and pursues its course at first in
a southerly direction, then turning to the east unites with the
valley of Jehoshaphat, where the latter descends as the Wady
en-Nar to the Dead Sea. The city does not enclose the whole
plain of the tongue, but only its southern half. El-Kuds has
the form of an irregular square, the sides of which nearly
enough correspond to the four points of the compass. The
city has seven gates, of which the northern wall contains two.
One of these, Bab el-Amud, caUed also Damascus gate,
occupies the middle of the waU. In the middle of the
eastern half of the waU lies Bab es-Sahari, or Herod's gate ;
it is at present blocked up. The eastern wall is divided by
two gates into three pretty equal parts. The northernmost
of these is caUed Bab Sitti-Mariam, and by the Christians St.
Stephen's gate ; the southernmost hes in the east waU of the
Haram, and is an ancient double gate, now blocked up. It is
called by the Mahommedans Bab ed-Daheriyeh, and by the
Christians the Golden gate [Porta aureu]. In the southern
waU there are also two gates. The first, at the east end, is
caUed Bab el-MogMrbeh, and by the Christians the Dung
gate ; it is always closed. The second opens not far from the
west end. of the southern wall, and is called Bab en-Neby
Daiid, and also Zion gate. In the western waU, finally, there
opens only one, Bab el-Chaln, i.e. Hebron gate. CaUed also
Jaffa (Ydfa) gate.
3. The ground of the present Jerusalem is pretty much a
plain, sloping from west to east. This was not, however, the
conformation of the original soU, which, on the contrary, was
intersected by vaUeys now fiUed up with masses of dSbris in
parts of great depth. Of these depressions the one most
R

258 APPENDIX.
clearly marked is that which extends from the Damascus
gate to the Dung gate. It is known as el- Wad, is continued
to the south beyond the city in the form of a deep ravine,
caUed the Tyropoeon, and opens into the valley of Jehoshaphat
at the point of union between this latter and the Kidron.
El-Wad divides the city into two halves. The more easterly
of these is separated into two quarters by a depression, partly
artificial, which proceeds from west to east, and runs out at
the one end into El- Wad, and at the other sinks down per
pendicularly into the Kidron. It is represented by the lower
half of the so-caUed Via Dolorosa. The southern of these
eastern quarters forms the Haram — the former temple area,
with the addition of a smaU portion of the town adjoining its
west side ; the northern consists of a hiU, which Josephus
caUs Bezetha. The half, too, which lies to the west of el-WM
divides itself into two quarters, which were formerly separated
by a vaUey extending from the Jaffa gate towards the
southern part of the Haram. This is now indeed obliterated
by masses of rubbish ; but from the citadel [el-Kula'ah] there
extends along the street of David, as far as the Mekhmeh,1
an immense cloaca, which, without ever needing cleansing,
carries off aU the filth of the city.2 This clearly marks out
the course of the former valley. The northern of these two
west-quarters contains the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It
is situated upon the isthmus which connects the tongue of
land with the Judean uplands, and is not a hiU, properly so
caUed, but the continuation of the uplands in their gradual
sloping down from west to east. The southern of the two
west-quarters is on the other hand a hill, at the north-west
corner of which is the citadel el-Kula'ah, and on the ridge of
which is situated the Armenian Church of St. James. Later
Christian tradition calls this hiU — without justice, as we shall
see — Mount Zion.
The object of the archaeological topography is to trace out
again upon this ground the form of the ancient Jerusalem.
1 [The Council House at the west wall of the Haram, Ritter, iv. 101, of
English translation. ]
2 Rosen. " Topographisches aus Jerus." in the Zeitschr. der Deutsch. Morgenl.
Gesellsch., 1860, ii. 610.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 259
4. Josephus says :x " The city was fortified by three waUs,
except where it was surrounded by inaccessible vaUeys
[<pdpayi;tv] ; for there it had but one waU." The vaUeys or
ravines here intended are Ben Hinnom and Kidron, which,
running south from the citadel, protect the west side, and after
that the whole southern and eastern side. And again : 2 " The
oldest waU was inaccessible by reason of the ravines, and the
hUl which was overhanging them, upon which the waU was
buUt. . . . The north side of this waU began at the tower
named Hippicus, and stretching to the place known as Xystus,
then touched the CouncU House (jy BovXy), and ended at the
western stoa of the sanctuary." As to the general direction
of this wall, there can be no doubt. The tower of Hippicus
was at any rate situated in the citadel, at the N.W. corner of
which M. de Saulcy 3 discovered the foundations of an ancient
tower, which perfectly corresponded to the dimensions given
by Josephus, de Bell. v. 4, sec. 3. From this tower the waU
ran in an easterly direction along the northern brow of the
south-west hiU, and abutted on the western wall of the Haram,
after having passed by the Xystus. The site of this public
place is perfectly determinable. In de Bello, vi. 6, sec. 2,
it is said that a bridge which connected the sanctuary
with the Upper City led over the Xystus — inrep tov
"Evcttov. Considerable remains of this bridge are still to be
found at the west waU of the Haram, 39 English feet north
from the S.W. corner of it.4 The Xystus was thus the broad
leveUed vaUey-bed of the Tyropoeon, which extends south
from the Moors' quarter to the Dung gate. Such a situation
in the hoUow is also predicated of the Xystus by Josephus,
de Bello, iv. 9, sec. 12; vi. 8, sec. 1. Josephus continues:
" On the other side, towards the west, the wall began at the
same tower — Hippicus, namely, — proceeding through the place
caUed Bethso, to the gate of the Essenes ; then taking a
southerly direction above the fountain Siloam, and thence
again inclining eastwards to Solomon's Pool, it extended as far
1 De Bello, v. 4, sec. 1.
2 De Bello, v. 4, sec. 2.
3 Voyage en Terre Sainte, ii. 40.
4 Robinson, Pal. i. 288.

260 APPENDIX.
as the place which is called Ophla, where it abutted on the
eastern stoa of the sanctuary." Bobinson,1 and with him
many others, translate otherwise. The words of Josephus 2
are by him rendered : " Thence it kept along on the south to
a point over SUoam; and thence on the east was carried
along by Solomon's Pool, and Ophla (Ophel), tiU it terminated
at the eastern portico of the temple." But Trpbs votov . . .
hrtcrTpec\>ov does not mean a lying towards the south, but the
turning of a course to the south, and designates, not a
southern waU, but the western waU of the southern Moriah,
which runs in a southerly direction, EquaUy does iKKXivov
irpbs dvaToXyv designate a tending or continuation of the wall
towards the east, from Siloah to the Pool of Solomon; thus —
not an east wall, but — a southern waU running in an easterly
direction. If Bobinson's translation were correct, it must be
supposed that the southern waU was carried across the
Tyropoeon along the extreme verge of the south-west hiU at
Siloah. But it is certain that the city waU on Moriah was to
such an extent separated from the city waU on the south
west hill, that this latter stUl continued a fortress complete
in itself, when the former was already in the hand of the
enemy. In this way a dividing wall must have existed along
the whole southern Tyropoeon, of which, however, there is
nowhere found any trace. A translation which leads to such
results cannot be accepted. The western wall ran from
Hippicus to the place Bethso,3 which seems to correspond
to the site of the Enghsh school-house ; thence it was
continued to the gate of the Essenes, which can only be the
Mogharbeh gate ; because from that point the waU was
carried (along the west side of Moriah) south to Siloah. From
this fountain to the Pool of Solomon the southern wall of
Moriah stretched eastwards, and thence finaUy the eastern
1 Robinson, Pal. i. 279.
£ Ka) eVlira ffpot votov b-jrip Tnv SiXeoxfic i-Titrrfiitpov tfnyqv, svhv ts orxXtv ixxXtvov
orpos xvxroXhv vri tviv SoXof&wvot xoXofifintipxv. . . .
3 Vitringa explains this name as = HKiX JV2, "house of dung ; " but it is
better to derive it from KitJ' rV3i " house of destruction, or perdition," a name
which has reference to the idolatry of the valley of Ben Hinnom. There is, at
any rate, no connection between Bethso and Shaar ha-Shephoth, the Dung gate
of Nehemiah. (Later note of author.)

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 261
waU extended to the south-east corner of the Haram. The
southern part of Moriah, as weU as of the south-west hiU,
which now lie without the city wall, were within the en
closure of the ancient Jerusalem. For Josephus says, that
on the other side of the vaUeys the city was unassaUable, and
the history of the sieges of Jerusalem proves the truth of this
statement ; for never was so much as an attempt made by the
enemy to assaU the walls on the south or east side. But had
the city waUs of the ancient Jerusalem occupied the site of
the present ones, the attack on the south side would have
been easUy possible by means of the instruments of siege
employed by the ancients, since both hiUs present in the
present day a free, open plain beyond the waUs. At the
time of the Crusaders the walls had already their present
course ; for this reason the city was assaUed also on its south
west hiU,1 a thing which had never taken place in antiquity.2
We have consequently to suppose that the walls extended in
such wise as to enclose the Mosque En-Neby Daud on the
south-west hiU, and to make the ridge of the Moria extra
muros as far as the Pool of SUoah, also part of the city ; but
yet in such wise that the bottom of the Tyropoeon, at pre
sent excluded, was excluded at that time too, and that the
gate of the Essenes stood on the site of the present Bab
el-Mogharbeh. 5. " The second wall had its beginning at the gate caUed
Gennath, which belonged to the first waU ; and encircling
only the tract to the north, it extended up to Antonia."
The gate Gennath belonged to the first wall, which ex
tended from the Hippicus to the Xystus, and consequently
lay to the east of Hippicus. The extreme point of this
wall was Antonia, i.e. the north-west corner of the temple
area or Haram. This wall was a comparatively smaU one,
since it was crowned with only fourteen towers, whilst the
third waU mounted ninety.8 That it took its course, start
ing from the first waU towards the north, along the Damascus
street, is indicated by the ancient remains of a wall which
have been discovered in the domain of the Knights of St.
* Gesta Dei, i. pp. 74, 175, 750. s De Bello, v. 4, sec. 2.
3 De Bello, v. 1, sec. 3.

262 APPENDIX.
John.1 From the Porta Judiciaria it must then have taken
its course eastward, along the Via Dolorosa.
6. " The third waU began at the tower Hippicus, whence,
striking northwards, it extended to the Psephinus tower ;
then, passing in front of the monument of Helena, it was
continued through the midst of the Kings' Caves2 to the
corner tower, where it swept round past what is caUed the
Fuller's Monument, and, joining the ancient waU, ended in
the vaUey of the Kidron. This waU Agrippa placed around
the part added to the city ; since this was before entirely
unfortified (yvptvd). For the city, being over-populated, had
gradually crept beyond the waUs, so that north of the sanc
tuary the buUding was considerably extended, and thus the
fourth hiU, caUed Bezetha, was covered with houses. This
hiU hes over against the Antonia, from which it is cut off by
a deep trench artificially constructed. By the inhabitants the
place is caUed Bezetha — a name which signifies New-town" 3
The Antonia was situated at the north-west corner of the
Haram. Immediately to the north of this lay the hiU
Bezetha, which is consequently the hill on which lies the
Dervish mosque. The course of the third waU is defined by
a series of certain points, which show that it was identical
with that of the present city waU. The third waU began at
the Hippicus, i.e. at the north-west corner of the citadel, and
extended to the north as far as the Psephinus tower (flint-
stone tower). Considerable remains of this tower, composed
of flint-stones or pebbles, firmly cemented together, were dis
covered by Krafft 4 in Kasr Jalud (Goliath's Castle), at the
north-west corner of the town, and the discovery has been
fuUy confirmed by de Saulcy.5 From this tower, which, at
Josephus' time, as now, formed the north-west corner of the
city, the waU ran eastwards and intersected the King's Caves.
Now the city waU to the east of the Damascus gate rests
upon a bed of rock, the side of which has been hewn into a
perpendicular form, showing that here the Bezetha hill was
1 De Saulcy, 11., Plan of Jerus., sub litt. w.
2 Sia cviiXxiuv fixetXixZiv. 3 De Bello, v. 4, sec. 2.
* Topogr. 40. [Ritter, iv. 68 ff. of Engl, trans. ; Robinson, i. 318, iii. 193.]
5 Voyage, ii. 128.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 263
cut through and lowered. Opposite to this wall of rock lies
the grotto of Jeremiah, in a waU of rock corresponding to
this. Now in the rock under the city wall there is the
entrance to a very considerable cave, penetrating under the
city, towards the south.1 It is thus evident that Agrippa
had constructed at this place magnificent subterranean
quarries, of which the grotto of Jeremiah and the one just
mentioned are the northern and southern remains. These are
the King's Caves. In the Damascus gate itself there are
found considerable remains of a tower, of Jewish structure,
which belonged with the rest to the third waU. If now,
from this point to the corner tower, and thence to the eastern
wall of the Haram, no remains of waUs have been found, as
to the antiquity of which we can be certain ; yet, on the other
hand, there is to be found about the north-east corner of the
city such an enormous city-moat hewn in the sohd rock — a
Jewish work of colossal dimensions — as thoroughly estabhshes
the course of the waU.2
7. Many topographers are of opinion that the ancient
Jerusalem occupied a considerably larger space than the
modern, by virtue of an extension not only to the south,
but also to the north. According to them, the present
northern waU of the city corresponds more or less to the
second waU of Josephus, and they seek the third on the
northern extremity of the tongue of land, where it is bounded
by the Kidron in its eastward course, the present Wady
el-Jos. The foUowing passage of Josephus, understood aright,
may assist in the decision of this question : — " The waUs,"
he says,3 "were mounted with towers, of which each one
was 20 cubits broad. The number of these upon the third
wall amounted to ninety ; they were distant from each other
200 cubits. The middle (second) waU had fourteen of them,
the old waU was parted nto sixty (els e^yKovTa pteptiptaTo).
The whole circuit of the city embraced 33 stades." Here,
unfortunately, a numerical error has crept in. A stadium
contains 400 cubits. The third wall, with its ninety towers,
1 Tobler, dritte Wanderung, 256 ff. [Tristram, p. 190.]
2 [Cf. Ritter, iv. 97, Engl, translation.]
3 De Bello, v. 4, sec. 3.

264 APPENDIX.
each at a distance of 200 cubits — or a half stadium — from
the next, had thus in itself alone a length of 45 stades, and
yet the compass of the whole city was only 33 stades ! The
error evidently hes in the distance of the towers, which is
given at 200 cubits. We will endeavour by another method
to attain to the correct number. Since Josephus defines the
fortifications of Jerusalem in such wise that the third wall
contains ninety towers, the second fourteen,1 and the first
sixty, the total enclosure, Tys TroXecos 6 irds kvkXos, must be
the sum of the three towers, and not merely the exposed front
of the fortifications. The towers amounted in aU to 90 + 14
+ 60 = 164. If we divide by this number the 33 stades, or
33 x 400 cubits = 13,200 cubits, it results in a distance
from tower to tower of 87, or, in round numbers, 90 cubits.
The number 90, however, is expressed by the sign 5' (Ko-n-rra),
and the number 200 by cr'. It is easUy conceivable that a
copyist should have substituted the latter sign for the former ;
and the more so, in that immediately before the number of
towers was given at ninety, and he might thus regard the
repetition of the same numeral as an error, which he corrected
into a'. But since Josephus determines the whole sum of
the three waUs at 33 stades, we find the outer extent of the
city waU, if from .this sum we subtract the length of the
inner walls. The inner waUs were, of the first or oldest wall,
the part lying between the Hippicus and the Xystus, —
amounting to about 3 stades, — and then the whole of the
second waU, amounting to 14 x 90 cubits, or about 3^ stades
— together 6^- stades ; which, being deducted from 33 stades,
gives 26^ stades as the length of the line of fortifications
which encompassed Jerusalem. The modern Jerusalem has,
according to Eichardson, 4630 paces, or 2315 Eoman double
paces. [Eobinson 2 gives, from actual measurement, 12,978
feet Enghsh, which is equal to 2703 Eoman double paces,
since one of these was equal to 44feet English.] The 26^
stades give 3312 passus : whence it follows that the ancient
Jerusalem counted about 1000 paces [according to Eobinson's
measurement, 600] more in circumference than the modern.
1 [Tio-o-xptirxxiiixx, not forty, as given by Whiston.]
2 Robinson, i. p. 268.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 265
This difference is to be explained from the form of the
southern waU, which did not, hke the modern, describe a
straight line.
8. The description Josephus gives of Jerusalem shows most
clearly that at his time — before the destruction by Titus — the
town was divided into five quarters or districts, of which each
one was separated from the rest by a waU, and formed a
fortress complete in itself. These were :
First quarter — The Sanctuary, which was enclosed on
every side by walls, in such wise that the enemy who had
made himself master of all the rest of the city, did not, on
that account, obtain possession of the Temple Mountain, but on
the contrary, must undertake a formal siege of it, as is evident
from the history of the conquest of Jerusalem by Herod. In
addition to this general enclosure of the Temple Mountain,
there were also two separate works of fortification, namely, the
Antonia, which occupied the north-west corner of the temple
area, and formed a strong citadel ; and the inner court, which
was separated from the outer by a fortified waU drawn aU
around it.
Second quarter — Bezetha, or the New City, which was
covered on the outer sides by the third waU, and on- the
inner was cut off from the rest of the city by the second wall
and the northern wall of the Temple Mountain. This was the
most northerly part of the Holy City.
Third quarter — The Suburb, or Fore City, to irpodaTetov}
probably identical with the part of the city caUed Parphar,
1S13, mentioned 1 Chron. xxvi. 1 8. It was that part shut off
from the rest of the city on the north and west by the second
waU, on the east by the west wall of the Temple Mountain, on
the south by the waU extending from the Hippicus tower to
the Xystus.
Fourth quarter — The Upper City. Such was the name of
that part of the city which was situated upon the south-west
hiU, which modern tradition falsely calls Zion. It was pro
tected by the oldest or first waU on every side except that
over against the sanctuary ; on which side it was defended by
the high rock, hewn into a perpendicular, which formed the
1 Antiq. xv. 11, sec. 5.

266 APPENDIX.
western skirt of the Tyropoeon or Xystus. When Titus had
reduced the New City, the Old City, the Sanctuary, and the
Lower City, and only the Upper City remained in the hands
of the Jews, a parley was held between the Eomans and the
Jews : " Titus stood upon the western side of the outer
Sanctuary, where was an arch provided with gates [Bobinson's
Bridge], connecting the Upper City with the Sanctuary — yeobvpa
crvvd-KTOvcra tco iepco Tyv "Avco iroXtv ; this bridge divided
Titus from the tyrants (patriots)."1 This account is sufficient
to justify the position we have assigned to the Upper City.
That this part of Jerusalem constituted a fortress in itself, is
shown by the formal siege which Titus had to lay to it, after
he had made himself master of aU the rest of the town.
Fifth quarter — The Lower City. This made up, with the
Sanctuary and the Upper City, the Old City properly so caUed.
It, too, was enclosed within the oldest or first wall ; but was
situated upon the eastern hiU, the Moriah, south from the
Sanctuary. This quarter is in the present day entirely extra
muros ; only the garden of the Aksa, which formed part of it,
now belongs to El-Kuds. This determination of the Lower
City calls for a thorough proof, since topographers are pretty
generally of another opinion.
9. Josephus says:2 "The city, y ttoXis, was fortified by three
walls, except on the side of the inaccessible ravines, for there
there was only one wall. The city was built, one part facing
another, upon two hills. These hiUs were separated by an in
tervening vaUey, down to the edge of which the houses extended
on either side. One of these hills, that which had the Upper
City, was considerably higher and straighter [steeper ?] through
out its length. It was thus, on account of its strength, caUed
by David Bhrurion (cppovptov = strong place, fortress) . . . among
us it is known as the Upper Market. The other hill, which
sustained the Lower City, was caUed Acra. It was crescent-
shaped (dpttpUvpTos). Over against this was a third hiU, by
nature lower than Acra, from which it was formerly divided
by another shaUow ravine. But afterwards, in the time of
the Asmonseans, they fiUed up this ravine, with a view to
bringing the city into connection with the Sanctuary ; and
1 De Bello, vi. 6, sec. 2. 2 De Bello, v. 4, sec. 1.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 267
levelling the top of the Acra, they made it lower than the
Sanctuary, in order that the latter might tower above it. But
the vaUey caUed the Tyropoeon, which, as we have said, sepa
rated the hill of the Upper City from the lower hiU, extends
as far as SUoam : for so we caU that sweet and abundant
fountain. But on the outer side, the two hiUs of the city were
encompassed by deep ravines ; so that, on account of the cliffs
on either side, approach was impossible." By means of this
description of Josephus, topographers determine the site of the
Lower City simply as foUows : — Jerusalem, say they, is here
divided into the Upper and Lower City — the Upper City is the
south-west hiU; aU the rest of Jerusalem is thus the Lower City.
This reasoning would be sound, if by " the city," y iroXts,
Josephus meant aU Jerusalem. But this is not the case. On
the contrary, it is seen on closer examination that he understands
by this term not the whole of Jerusalem, but only the original
Old City, which was enclosed within the first waU. For he says
that the iroXts was built upon two hiUs ; but of the New City,
he says,1 that it occupied the fourth bill — TeTapTov Xocpov.
Bezetha thus did not belong to the City of the Two HiUs, and
in particular did not form part of the Lower City, which,
indeed, was situated on the second hUl ; iroXts thus denotes in
this place Jerusalem, with the exception of the New City.
This mode of expression is, moreover, entirely in keeping with
ancient usage, according to which the term iroXts often ex
cludes the suburbs and outskirts, and is applied by way of
distinction to the original fortified place or Old Town. For the
rest, it is evident that not of aU Jerusalem, but only of the
Old City, could it be said that it was fortified with three waUs ;
for the Suburb, irpodo-Tetov, was covered only by two, the New
City only by one. From this we should be justified in con
cluding that not only is not the New City covered by the
third waU, but not even is the Suburb covered by the second
to be reckoned as forming part of the Lower City, and thus as
belonging to the iroXts. Yet this amount of proof does not
content us ; we shaU below furnish a more thorough demon
stration. Concerning the hiU of the Acra or Lower City,
Josephus says that formerly it was confronted by a third hiU;
1 De Bello, v. 4, sec. 2. See above, sec. 6.

268 APPENDIX.
and the context shows clearly that by this third hill the
Temple Mount was intended. Why then were there formerly
three of them, and now only two ? What has become of the
third ? If the vaUey separating the two hills has been fiUed
up, and one of them has been considerably lowered, the two
hills henceforth form only one single hiU. It would therefore
be folly in the Jerusalem of the present day to seek for a hill
of Acra, separate from the Temple hill, since Acra has in fact
become part and parcel of the Temple Mountain. The "Moria
extra muros" fulfils aU the conditions of the text; it is one with
the Temple hill, and lower than the Haram. The garden of
the Aksa is a levelled soU, which in its northern part may weU
be a filled up vaUey. This hUl of the Lower City is separated
from the Upper City by a valley, namely, the lower El- Wad.
The name Tyropoeon, i.e. " Cheesemakers' VaUey," was mani
festly borne only by that part of the valley which was outside
the city, since the cheesemakers could there ply their craft.
10. The determining of the position of the Lower City just
given by us, receives confirmation from the history of the
siege and conquest of Jerusalem by Titus. Josephus relates '
that the Eomans from the north carried the third waU by
storm, and thereby became masters of the entire New City ;
of the Lower City there is on this occasion no trace of
mention, from which it follows that this name was not applied
to the New City. De Bello, v. 8, sec. 1, we have an account
of the capture of the second wall, whereby the Suburb (Fore
City) feU into the hands of the Eomans. But the name of
" Lower City " is not given to this part of the city either.
De Bello, vi. 1-5, gives an acccunt of the taking of the
Sanctuary and the destruction of the temple. After this
conquest the Eomans had consequently everything in their
hands that was comprised within the third and second waUs,
together with the Sanctuary. To the Jews there then
remained nothing but the Old City, contained behind the
first waU. At this juncture of affairs was held the parley
before alluded to between Titus and the heads of the Jews.
Their deliberations were without result. Therefore Titus gave
orders for the plundering and burning of the city. " On the
1 De Bello, v. 7, sec. 2.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 2^9
next day," it is said, de Bello, vi. 7, sec. 2, "the Eomans drove
the robbers (patriots) out of the Lower City — Tpeyjrdptevot
tovs XyaTas e« Trjs KaTco iroXecos — they burnt everything
down to Siloam . . . but the rebels carried off aU the spoU,
and retired into the Upper City." 1 Here we have the first
reference to the Lower City during the whole history of the
siege. The place from which the Eomans expelled the Jews
belonged necessarily to the Old City ; for from the New City
as weU as from the Suburb they had long been driven. When,
then, the Jews had evacuated the Lower City too, the Eomans
burnt everything — naturaUy in this Lower City — down to
Siloam, to which point the Lower City thus reached. To the
Jews there remained nothing but the Upper City, which
formed a citadel in itself. If now we take away from the
Old City — which here too is again called y 7roXts — the Upper
City, that which, remains must be the Lower City. But yet,
since many topographers, for reasons hereafter to be spoken
of, seek to discover the Lower City in various parts of
Jerusalem, just as it suits them, it wUl contribute to the end
in view if we adduce additional passages confirmatory of the
proof. We have already seen that Josephus, de Bello, v. 4,
sec. 1, states that the Acra hiU bore the Lower City. Hence
it comes to pass that these two names are used interchange
ably as exact synonyms. De Bello, v. 6, sec. 1, it reads,
" Acra, which is the Lower City : " t^i> "AKpav, avTy B' yv y
KaTco iroXts. Now in this passage it is said that when Titus
began the siege of Jerusalem, this city was torn with factions.
The head of one of these factions, " Simon, had under his
power the Upper City, the great wall as far as the Kidron,
and that part of the old waU which stretches eastward from
SUoam, and extends to the palace of Monobazus. He
possessed also the fountain (namely, Siloah), and the Acra,
which was the Lower City, and aU as far as the. palace of
Helena." Thus here, too, the Lower City is brought into
1 There was in any case a gate at the southern extremity of the Lower Town,
" the Fountain gate " of Nehemiah. They would retire by this gate, and enter
the Upper City by the Gea gate ( Valley gate) of Nehemiah, corresponding to
the Bab en-Neby Daud. There must, besides, • have been means of effecting
their retreat into the Upper City from the Tyropoeon itself; since there were in
the walls of Jerusalem numerous little hidden gates.

270 APPENDIX.
connection with Siloah. We return further to the discussion
of the passage already cited, de Bello, vi. 6, sec. 3. After the
negotiations with the Jews at the Xystus, Titus gave orders
for the plundering and burning of the city. By this he could
not intend Bezetha and the Suburb, which had already been
long in the power of the Eomans, and had been plundered till
there was nothing left, and indeed had been reduced to ashes.
Nor did he mean the Sanctuary, which was destroyed ; nor
yet the Upper City, which was inaccessible to him, and stUl
in the possession of the Jews. But the southern Moriah was
accessible to him ; because he had under his power the double
gate which led to it from the precincts of the Sanctuary.
The order for destruction was executed, and "the Eomans
burnt the Archeion, Acra, the Council House, and the place
caUed Ophla ; and the fire spread as far as the palace of
Helena, which was situated in the midst of Acra." These
buUdings were all of them situated in the eastern Old
City. Of these the Council House was manifestly the most
northerly ; because at this structure, as we have seen, the
northern first wall impinged upon the outer sanctuary. Now
the CouncU House was built on the side of the Xystus, south
from the quarter of the Barbaresques (Hftret el-Mugharibeh).
The other buildings were situated farther to the south. In a
text earlier cited we found that the Lower City extended as
far as SUoah : here we become acquainted with the fact that
it began at the Council House, and extended to Ophla —
which latter place must necessarily be sought on the eastern
side of the southern Moriah. If, finaUy, we add the boundary
vaUey Tyropoeon, we have aU the desired landmarks for
determining the extent of the Lower City. Our text caUs
forth the observation that Josephus — here, as often elsewhere
¦ — used the term Acra at one time in the narrower acceptation
for the Syrian fortress, at another in the wider for the whole
Lower City ; for only thus can this name be understood, as it
occurs twice within the same clause. Further, it is said, de
Bello, iv. 9, sec. 12, that when Simon was besieging the
zealots in the Sanctuary, these latter — in order to be able
from a higher position to combat their assaUants — erected four
great towers — the first at the north-east corner of the temple

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 271
area, the second above the Xystus, the third at another corner,
facing the Lower City, and the last upon the parapet of the
Pastophoria.1 Now the temple area had four corners : at
the north-east corner stood the first tower ; at the north-west
corner stood the mighty Antonia, tower enough in itself,
where thus, at any rate, none was erected. There remain
now only the south-east and south-west corners : at one or the
other of these " the tower at the other corner " must have been
raised. It is here a- matter of indifference at which of them
the tower was erected, since the one and the other lay over
against Moria extra muros. There, consequently, was situated
the Lower City ; for " they buUt the third tower at a corner
over against the Lower City."
11. The Acra. — The Lower City was caUed also Acra.
This name it received from the stronghold of the Syrians,
which plays so important a part in the history of the
Asmonseans. In Antiq. xii. 5, sec. 4, Josephus says that
Antioehus Epiphanes came to Jerusalem, threw down the
waUs, and erected the Acra in the Lower City : t^i> iv Ty KaTco
iroXet cpKoBoptycrev "AKpav ; because this was high, and over
looked the Sanctuary — iiirepKetptevy to iepov. In Antiq. xii. 9,
sec. 3, he says : At this time the garrison of the Acra greatly
distressed the Jews by slaying in unexpected sorties those
who were going up to the temple to sacrifice ; for the Acra
was adjacent to the Sanctuary : iireKetTO yap tco iepco y "AKpa.
Finally, Simon the Maccabean succeeded in wrenching this
stronghold out of the hands of the Syrians.2 He razed it to
the ground, and lowered the Acra hill, which before was higher
than the Sanctuary ; so that henceforth the latter was higher
than the former. In this work of lowering, aU the inhabitants
of Jerusalem toUed zealously day and night for three years,
and brought down the hill level with the ground, and made of
it an even plain — Kal KaTyyayov els eBacpos Kal ireBtvyv Xetoryra.
These facts Josephus sums up in his description of Jeru
salem,3 and there speaks, moreover, of a broad valley between
1 Bastophoria is the Greek term for nW?, the chambers of the priests,
which were ordinarily placed in the tower surmounting the gates. The place
mentioned by Josephus should be found above the double gate. (Later note of
author.) 2 Antiq. xiii. 6, sec. 7. 3 See above, sec. 9.

272 APPENDIX.
Acra and the temple area, which was fiUed up, so that the
two hills were fused into one, and the Sanctuary was visible
above the Acra — cos vvepcpatvotTo Kat Tavrys to tepov. The
effect of the carrying away and filling up was, that the Sanc
tuary was placed in connection with the city — crvvd^at
BovXopevot tco iepco t^v iroXtv. We shall hereafter attempt
more nearly to define the site of Acra : suffice it for the pre
sent to say, that its site must have been somewhere on the
southern Moriah, since there alone was the Lower City. See
Note at end of Preliminary Observations, p. xxvii.
12. The City of David. — In 2 Sam. v. 6-9 it is said,
"David and his men went to Jerusalem . . . and he
took the stronghold of Zion . . . and dwelt in the strong
hold, and called it the City of David." What was the situa
tion of this Jebusite fort, the City of David ? In 1 Mace.
i. 3 3 it reads : Antiochus Epiphanes and the Syrians " for
tified the city of David with a great and strong waU, and it
became their Acra " — cpKoBoptycrav Tyv troktv Aav'tB . . . Kal
iyeveTo avrols els ''AKpav. Josephus relates, Antiq. vii. 3,
sees. 1, 2, that " David took the lower city ; but as he had
not yet possession of Acra, Trjs "AKpas Xenroptevys, he pro
mised the chief command in his army to the warrior who
should climb from the intervening vaUeys and penetrate into
the Acra — inl Tyv "AKpav dvaBdvTt. The undertaking was
carried out by Joab . . . David expelled the Jebusites from
Acra, fortified anew Jerusalem, Ta ' IepoaoXvpta, and caUed it
avTyv (namely, t^i> ''AKpav) City of David — iroXtv aiiTyv (sc.
"AKpav) AaviBov irpocryyopevae — and dwelt there." 1 Thus,
according to Josephus, as according to the First Book of
Maccabees, is Acra the City of David. This fact is confirmed
by a third witness. In the old Jewish festival calendar,
Megillath Taanith, h\, we read, " On the 23d Ijar the sons of
the Acra, jopn VD, lost Jerusalem. It is written,2 ' David
took the citadel of Zion, that is the City of David.' This
place, Dlpo KTi nr, the Acrians d'npn, had possessed. In those
days these oppressed the sons of Jerusalem, and the IsraeUtes
could no longer go in and out by day, but only by night.
1 [Or we may translate, " the city itself," sc. riiv x&tu, as opposed to the rest
of Jerusalem.] 2 2 Sam. v. 7.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 273
But when the house of the Hashmonaeans waxed strong, they
drove those out, and the day of their expulsion became a day
of good omen, aits DV." With these three witnesses there is
associated, finally, a fourth, the Targum, in which the in "VJ?, the
City of David, is constantly translated by topn, Acra : thus, e.g.
2 Sam. v. 7 ; 1 Kings viii 1. No topographical fact, indeed,
concerning Jerusalem can be adduced, which is supported in
so many ways and so definitely by certain, credible witnesses,
as the fact that Acra is identical with the City of David. Of
these four witnesses the topographers have hitherto, for some
unaccountable reason, aUowed only one to make its voice
heard, namely, 1 Mace. i. 33. But, since this testimony was
disagreeable to them, — inasmuch as it gave a formal contra
diction to their preconceived opinion, that the City of David
was to be found in the Upper City, — they have sought to
weaken its force, either by declaring it to be an error on the
part of the, author of the First Book of Maccabees, or else,
as Von Baumer,1 have sought to evade the difficulty by un
derstanding " City of David " in this place in a general sense,
as a synonym for " Jerusalem." But this hypothesis faUs
before the statement of Josephus, and especiaUy before that
of the feast calendar, which evidently explain the " City of
David " — which they identify with the Acra — in the limited
sense, as equivalent to the fortress of the Jebusites : Dipn ton nr,
no other than the place which, according to 2 Sam. v. 7,
David had subdued. It might occur to any one, in connec
tion with the passage cited from Josephus — where manifestly
" City of David " is taken in the narrower sense — to take the
expression Acra in the general sense of " fortress." But the
other witnesses show that it is the Syrian fort which is in
tended. The favourite objection that in this very place
Josephus locates the " City of David " in the Upper City,
inasmuch as he says that the Lower City was already captured,
while the fort was stiU holding out, proves nothing. For
Josephus might equally weU intend to say that the Lower
City was already captured, but that the height round which it
lay, the fortress of the said Lower City, did not yield. And
this is actuaUy what he does say. If it appears surprising
1 Balest. p. 419 ff.
S

2 74 APPENDIX.
that this historian on the present occasion makes no mention
whatever of the Upper City, the matter is explained very
simply, by the fact that the Upper City — among the popula
tion of which there was a mixture of Israelites1 — without
making any resistance, voluntarUy threw open its gates to
David. And in fact Josephus says 2 that David came up
from Hebron, not as against Jerusalem, but into the city —
yKev els 'IepoaoXvpa. We have no fear that any one in the
present day wiU seek to weaken the force of the extract
from Megillath Taanith, by the assertion that the reference
there is not to the warriors of the Acra, but to the Karseans
or Karaites, as was fabled by the earlier archaeologists ; for
the date of the 23d Ijar, at which the expulsion of the
Hacrites is there said to have taken place, is the same as
is given 1 Mace. xiii. 51. There it is said that Simon
entered the Acra on the 23d day of the second month of the
17 1st year. The month foUowing Nisan is Ijar, thus the
second of the Jewish year. The City of David is a local
name, and cannot designate Jerusalem in general. EquaUy
is Acra in Jerusalem itself a proper name of a definite locahty,
and can just as little signify another citadel of this town as
it was allowable in Paris to caU the first palace we might
meet with — e.g. the Tuileries — simply the Palais-Eoyal. If
anything is established with regard to the topography of
Jerusalem, it is the identity of the city of David with the
Syrian Acra of the Lower City. This does not prevent our
adducing yet another important witness.
13. Nehemiah, in order to inspect the condition of the
gates and walls of Jerusalem, rode forth from the Valley gate,
past the dragon spring, to the Dung port, and to the Fountain
(SUoah), then up the Nahal (Kidron) ; and returned, and
entered again by the Valley gate into Jerusalem.3 Thereupon
the restoration of the gates and walls was determined on, and
carried out.4 The dedication was celebrated with praise by
two choirs appointed thereto, whose route is described xii
31-43. These three accounts introduce thrice, in regular
succession, the gates of Jerusalem, and afford us a topo-
1 Judg. i. 21. 2 Antiq. vii. 2, sec. 2.
3 Neh. ii. 11-15. 4 Neh. iii. 1-12.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 275
graphical treasure which is without an equal. We must
abandon the thought of explaining the whole description, and
confine ourselves to that which is most indispensable — the
determining of the position of the City of David. The starting-
point for our examination is —
The Pool of Siloah. — In Neh. iii. 15 we read :
" ShaUum restored the Fountain gate, pyn "i)?5J>, . . . and the
wall at the Pool of Siloah, rr?B> nm, by the king's garden."
From this we perceive that Jerusalem, as represented by
Josephus, extended to the Pool and the Fountain of SUoah ;
and that beside the Fountain and the Pool there was a gate,
which was caUed Ain, i.e. Fountain gate, from Ain Shiloach,
the Fountain, which also was called simply Ain, as it is in
Josephus, de Bello, v. 6, sec. 1, y iryyy.
The Dung gate, nistpn ijhp. — This gate was situated im
mediately before the last mentioned. When Nehemiah made
his first examination he rode down the vaUey of Hinnom, and
then up a portion of the Kidron, and thus took a direction in
which he had Jerusalem on his left hand. Pursuing this
direction, he came first upon the Dung gate, and then upon
the Fountain gate.1 The same direction is foUowed in the
description of the Eestoration, in which likewise mention is
made first of the Dung gate, and then of the Fountain gate.2
The first choir of those giving thanks pursued this route, and
confirms the same order of succession.3 The Dung gate is
consequently the gate which immediately precedes the Valley
gate — i.e. the Bdb el-Mogharbeh, the gate of the Essenes of
Josephus. The VaUey gate, Wi<\ "ijH5>.— It was, according to Neh. ii.
13, situated before, i.e. to the west of, the Dung gate. The
waU lying between these two gates had a length of 1000
cubits,4 i.e. 1500 feet, or 300 double paces. Now Eichardson
relates that from B&b el-Mogharbeh to Bab en-Neby Daud
there are 605 paces— that is, 302 double paces. [Eobinson
finds it 1700 feet.] The correspondence is so striking, that
the supposition of the identity of the Bab el-Neby Daud with
the VaUey gate, and the inference that the wall described by
1 Neh. ii. 13, 14. * Neh. iii. 14, 15.
3 Neh. xii. 31, 37. L Neh. iii. 13.

276 APPENDIX.
Nehemiah upon the south-west hill has the same course as
the present one, is almost unavoidable. But we have seen
above, that in aU probabihty the ancient waU enclosed within
the city the site of the Mosque of David. Here, then, comes
into account the remarkable fact that from B&b en-Neby Daud
two paths run towards the south-east, and unite again at a
point which, according to de Saulcy's plan, is likewise distant
300 double paces, or 1000 cubits, from the Dung gate. Paths
in mountain districts are never the work of caprice, but are
always determined by the nature of the ground. The said
two paths correspond, therefore, to two former streets of the
Upper City, and their place of union is the site of the VaUey
gate. This VaUey or Gaia gate points to the vaUey of Hinnom,
which is just as regularly termed 'J or SW as the Kidron is
bra. In the description of the journey of the choirs of praise
this gate is not mentioned, just because it was the common
starting-point of both choirs, as is distinctly evident upon a
comparison of xii. 31 with iii. 13, and of xii. 38 with iii.
11. Thus in Nehemiah's account the VaUey gate represents the
gate of David, but hes farther to the south ; the Dung gate
corresponds to the B&b el-Mogharbeh, of which it occupies the
site ; and then the Fountain or SUoah gate is to be looked for
south of the Mogharbeh gate, in the wall of the Lower City, at
the end of the Tyropoeon.
The City of David.- — In Neh. iii. 15 we read : " Shallum
restored the wall at the Pool Siloah, by the king's garden, as
far as the steps which come down from the City of David."
Where were these steps \ At the west, or the east side of
the lower Tyropoeon ? To this Nehemiah gives answer, chap.
xii. 37:" They, the choir, went from the Dung gate to the
Fountain gate — thus from north to south, on the east side of
the Tyropoeon ; then they went mjj, beside, or over against,
themselves, i.e. paraUel with the course hitherto pursued, but
in the opposite direction, from south to north, and went up
the steps that lead to the City of David, at the ascent in the
waU, above the house of David to the Water gate eastward."
The Water gate lay on the south side of the Court of the
Women. From the Fountain gate the choir thus entered into

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 277
the Sanctuary, where it met the counter-choir.1 But in order
to reach the Sanctuary in coming from SUoah, the choir must
first ascend the hill of Moriah ; the ascent to the house of
David, — which was situated, as is admitted by all, in the City
of David, — and consequently also the ascent to the City of
David, led thus from the Fountain SUoah up the Moriah hill.
There, accordingly, was the City of David situated. Nehemiah's
account thus perfectly talhes with that of the First Book of
Maccabees, with Josephus, and with Jewish tradition. If
topographers have not been able to understand the description
given by Nehemiah, the ground thereof lies only and alone in
the baseless supposition that the City of David belongs to the
Upper City.
Here we might break off our argument, since our main
object — that of defining the position of the City of David — is
attained. But since we are here pleading for a view which is
in direct contradiction with that hitherto accepted, it becomes
us to support it on every side by confirmatory testimony. For
this the narrative supplied by Nehemiah affords us the most
favourable occasion. If this report, so clear in itself, has
hitherto occasioned such great difficulties to the interpreters,
the cause of this faUure to understand it is to be sought only
in the hypothesis accepted by the topographers, that the City
of David was situated in the Upper City. So soon as this
hypothesis is dismissed, and the true position is assigned to
the City of David on the southern Moriah, all difficulties
vanish, and a series of topographical points becomes perfectly
clear. We proceed to furnish some illustrations.
The city, the house, and the sepulchres of David mani
festly go together. When David had captured the Jebusite
fortress, " he caUed it the City of David, and dwelt there."
David's house or palace was consequently within the fortress,
upon South Moriah. So, too, we find it in Neh. xn. 3 7, where
it is said that " they went up from the Fountain gate over
against themselves" — that is to say, paraUel with the route
previously taken from the Dung gate to the Fountain gate, but
in the opposite direction — " upon the steps of the City of
David, up the ascent of the waU to the house of David, to
' Neh. xii. 40.

278 APPENDIX.
the Water gate on the east." In the same locality, too, are
the sepulchres of David shown to us.1 We have already
observed that the description of the restoration of the waUs
foUows such direction as always to have Jerusalem on the left.
The description of the southern waU advances thus from west
to east. Now Nehemiah says that after ShaUum — who built
from the Fountain or Siloah gate to the ascent to the City of
David — a Nehemiah Ben Asbuq built over against the
sepulchres of David. It is self-evident that here, eastward
from SUoah, the expression " over against the sepulchres of
David" cannot mean "over against the Mosque En-Neby
Daud," the locality assigned by tradition to the said sepulchres,
but points to Moriah itself, at the southern end of which
the labour took place. And in point of fact the sepulchres of
David can only be sought for in the City of David.2
The Horse gate. — We read, Neh. iii. 28, "The priests
repaired above the Horse-gate, each before his house." The
fact that the priests were buUding there shows that the place
was within the precincts of the Sanctuary. The groups of
labourers enumerated after Nehemiah Ben Asbuq bring us up
to the east side of Moriah, as far as the eastern waU of the
Temple Mount. There, in fact, must the Horse gate be sought,
since it is caUed, Jer. xxxi. 40, " The Horse gate eastwards."
It derived its name from the proximity of the royal stables.
The entrance to this stabling was the triple gateway, discovered
by de Saulcy,3 which lies to the east of the double gate, and
leads to the renowned subterranean edifices in which were the
king's stables. So Felix Fabri terms them in the year 1495.4
Benjamin a Tudelis says of them : " There, even at Jerusalem,
in the house which was Solomon's, are the stables, ninK
D'DlDn, which Solomon built ; a sohd edifice, of which the
stones are very large, the like of which exists no longer on
earth." A gate, of which the traces are stiU distinctly visible,
led out of these stables and subterranean edifices at the south
east corner of the Haram, into the vaUey of the Kidron, and
this is no other than the Horse gate. The discovery of this
gate was made by Gadow, who regarded its projection as the
1 Neh. iii. 16. 2 1 Kings ii. 10, and elsewhere.
3 Mer Morte, ii. 202. 4 Vol. ii. 125, 252.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 279
arc of an ancient bridge.1 De Saulcy more closely investigated
the matter. At first he took it for the remains of a balcony ;
but later he became convinced it was a gate, the traces of
which appear not only outside the eastern waU of the Haram,
but also within in the substructures.2 This Horse gate played
a part in Athaliah's tragic end. In 2 Kings xi. 16 it is said
that they cast the queen forth from the Sanctuary, laid hands
on her, and made her go by the way which the horses of the
king go ; and slew her there. The same fact is thus related :
" They laid hands on her ; and they went by the way of the
Horse gate of the king's house, and there they slew her." 3
Josephus, Antiq. ix. 7, sec. 3, relates the history in this wise :
Jehoiada commanded to bring Athaliah into the valley of the
Kidron, that she might there be slain. They thus laid hands
on her, and led her to the gate of the king's mules, and slew
her there. Since the locahty is now known to us, this history
is explained to us with dramatic force. Athaliah was cast
through the double gate out of the Sanctuary — not, however,
into the palace lying right before her, but was led round by
the left, through the triple gate into the stables, and out from
them through the Horse gate into the vaUey of the Kidron.
Ophel. — In Neh. iii. 27 the waU of Ophel is mentioned
immediately before the Horse gate ; the place thus lay upon
the eastern dechvity of southern Moriah, and probably drew
its water supply from the Fountain of the Virgin. There
dwelt the Nethinim or slaves of the sanctuary, iii. 26. The
place seems — as was usual in the case of slave quarters — to
have been encompassed with a waU, and to have been shut
off from the Lower City proper. This place is probably the
one intended in Joseph, de Bello, vi. 6, sec. 3, where it is said,
that with the Lower City were burnt " the lanes, aTevcoiroi,
and the houses which were filled with the corpses of those
who had died from famine."
136. That which has been already said serves to show
that Moria extra muros was formerly one of the quarters of
the city, namely the Lower City ; and that in ancient time a
peculiar importance attached to this part, notwithstanding, the
1 Ritter, Balestine, iv. 46 of Engl, trans. * Voyage en Terre Sainte, i. 130.
3 2 Chron. xxiii. 15.

280 APPENDIX.
smaUness of its extent. Whilst the Upper City and the
Suburb (Fore City) constituted the civil city, the Lower City
was the city of the kings. For in this was, before the exUe,
the royal fortress, the royal palace, the arsenal, the barracks,
and the royal tombs. Of aU these monuments the name,
cleaving to the locahty, had preserved itself untU the time of
Nehemiah.1 At the time of Josephus there was in this quarter
the CouncU House, the Archeion, the palace of Helena and
that of her son Monobazus, and a row of houses facing the
Upper City. For aU these does the southern Moriah afford
the necessary space — but not for more. It is a long, narrow
extent of rock, flat at the top, but falhng precipitously on the
sides, the east especiaUy, whose ridge descends rapidly towards
the south, in terrace-like platforms. The length of it from
the south waU of the Aksa Garden to the Siloah Fountain
amounts, according to Bobinson,2 to 1550 feet ; the width
from brow to brow, taken in the middle of the ridge, to 290
feet. From the south waU of the Aksa Garden to the temple
area there are, according to de Saulcy, 90 metres = about
300 feet English ; the upper terrace, the garden of the Aksa
included, is about 600 feet wide. The whole area of southern
Moriah thus amounts to about 107,500 square metres (= 10^
hectares), or 26^- acres English. The southern Moriah thus
affords the space necessary for the edifices of the Lower City.
14. We have untU now been occupied in showing that the
Lower City was situated on the southern part of Moriah ; that
upon the rocky ridge thereof once rose the Syrian Acra, which
Antiochus Epiphanes had built in place of the City of David.
With regard to all this we are in contradiction with most
topographers, who, with the exception of the Upper City,
regard the whole remainder of Jerusalem, with the Fore City
and New City, as the Lower City; place the City of David in
the Upper City, and seek the Acra in any spot that may com
mend itself to them in their hypothetical Lower City.
The reason why, in opposition to aU the texts, they place
the City of David in the Upper City, is twofold. First, they
1 Neh. iii. 16 sqq., xii. 37 sqq.
2 Robinson, i. 267. [The southern end of the ridge is "a rocky bluff, forty or
fifty feet above the Pool of Siloam." Idem. Cf. Ritter, iv. 47, 48.]

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 281
assume withput proof the identity of the south - west hill,
called by modern tradition Zion, with the Mount Zion of the
Old Testament; but since it is said in the Old Testament
that Zion is the City of David, they place the latter upon this
south-west hUl. We shaU presently subject this matter to a
critical examination. It must at any rate be admitted that a
tradition is to be rejected when it conflicts with definite texts,
like those above adduced. Then, secondly, they appeal to
Josephus, de Bello, v. 4, sec. 1, where it is said of the hiU of
the Upper City, " on account of its strength it was caUed by
David, Phrurion," cppovpiov ptev inrb AaBlBov tov BaatXecos
iKaXelTo. They explain these words as though it were written
cppovptov AaBlBov, Phrurion of David, i.e. City of David. In
opposition to this, however, it is to be observed, first, that
Josephus means to say the Upper City was called before the
exile, from the time of David downwards, simply " Phrurion ; "
but after the exile was caUed the " Upper Market." Further,
he himseU caUs the City of David 7roXts AaBtB,1 and he
would certainly have made use of the same expression here,
and not have caUed the place cppovptov, if he. had intended to
speak of the City of David. We have seen that Josephus
elsewhere identifies the City of David with the Acra, and
places the Acra in the Lower City. From this fundamental
error — the separation of the City of David from the Acra — '
is alone to be explained the topographical curiosity, that the
Acra, like the wandering Jew, can nowhere find a permanent
abode. There is not a corner in Jerusalem to which some
topographer or another has not sought to bring down the
Acra ; and always has it been found possible to adduce
sufficient reasons for again removing it, and declaring the
place to be impossible. We sum up at this point the con
ditions a place must fulfil, in order that it may hear the
name of Acra.
Acra is identical with the City of David.
It was situated in the Old City, enclosed by the first and
oldest waU ; because the Jebusite fortress is to be sought not
in a Fore City or New City, which had sprung up in later
time, but in the original Jerusalem.
1 Antiq. vii. 3, sec. 2.

282 APPENDIX.
It was situated near to the Sanctuary.
The place on which it stood must, in the present day, form
with the Temple Mountain one connected hiU, and must be
lower than the Sanctuary.
It must be divided from the Upper City by a vaUey —
Tyropoeon. To these conditions the southern Moriah alone corre
sponds. AU other proposed sites he either outside of the
Old City, or else higher than the temple area, or at least
as high as it.-
15. Zion.1 Topographers, relying on the authority of
tradition, are unanimous in caUing the south-west hUl or Upper
City — as weU the part enclosed within the present waUs,
as the part lying outside the same — " Mount Zion." This
opinion is now to be criticaUy examined.
In the historical books of the Old Testament the name of
Zion occurs only twice — 2 Sam. v. 7, where it is said, " David
took the stronghold of Zion, which is the City of David ; "
and 1 Kings viii. 1 (2 Chron. v. 2), where it is said that the
Ark of the Covenant was brought into the newly-erected
temple, '' out of the City of David, which is Zion." In each
of these passages Zion is identical with the City of David : in
the latter it is definitely distinguished from the temple.
In the First Book of the Maccabees, on the other hand, Zion
is formaUy distinguished from the City of David or the Acra ;
for while the Syrians garrisoned the Acra, 'i.e. the City of
David,2 the Jews held possession of Zion.3 The name Zion
seems thus, in the course of time, to have been transferred to
another locahty ; and for this reason, if for no other, topo
graphers should have avoided employing this term, after the
example of Josephus, who entirely ignores it. In so far, then,
as Zion is synonymous with the City of David, it belongs
manifestly to the southern hill of Moriah, and by no means to
the Upper City. But where was the Zion of the Maccabees,
distinguished from the City of David ? In 1 Mace. vi. 61, 62
we read, Antiochus entered into Mount Zion, and saw the
1 See also the author's article, " Zion und die Akra, '" in Theol. Studien und
Kritilcen, 1864, ii. 309 ff.
2 1 Mace. i. 33, and elsewhere. 3 1 Mace. iv. 37, vi. 48.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT. 283
fortifications of the place ; then he broke his oath, and com
manded to pull down the waUs round about. Josephus, who
relates the same history of the Maccabees in language of often
verbal agreement, says:1 "The Jews received the oath and
evacuated the Sanctuary (to iepov), and Antiochus went into the
same (et? ainb, sc. to iepov); but when he saw how strong the
place was, he broke the oath, and commanded to demolish the
waUs to the ground." That which is said, 1 Mace. vi. 62, of
Zion, Josephus says of the Sanctuary. — In 1 Mace. vii. 33 it
is said that Nicanor went up to Mount Zion, where the priests
showed him the sacrifices which they were offering for the
king. According to Josephus,2 Nicanor came down from the
Acra into the Sanctuary, where the offerings for the king
were shown him. It is seff-evident that the Book of Mac
cabees understands by Zion the fortified Sanctuary, for only
in the Sanctuary could sacrifices be shown. That at that'
time the Sanctuary was a fortress garrisoned by the Jews, is
said not only in Josephus, but also 1 Mace. vi. 26, oti to
dyiacrpta . . . coyypcocrav. If, then, Zion had been distinguished
from the Sanctuary, the Jews would — according to the Book
of the Maccabees — have possessed two fortresses at Jerusalem,
namely, Zion and the Sanctuary. This, however, is not only
in the highest degree improbable, the Jews then being so
greatly depressed; but it would also be purely inexphcable
that Josephus should know nothing of it, and yet more
inexplicable that he should transfer to the Sanctuary that
which the other says of Zion. Zion and Sanctuary cannot
possibly in this history be distinguished the one from the
other : in the Book of the Maccabees the two names are
synonymous. At the time of the Jebusites, Zion was the
name of the whole of Moriah; a definite point, a towering
peak of rock, was caUed " Fortress of Zion." When this
fortress received the new name of City of David, the name
Zion was exclusively confined to the northern part of the
Moriah ridge — the Sanctuary. In this way the whole pro
blem is solved. It is well known that in the Psalms and
Prophets the name Zion signifies the Sanctuary. " Jehovah
dweUeth in Zion."3 "Jehovah hath chosen Zion, desired it
1 Antiq. xii. 9, sec. 7. 2 Antiq. xii. 10, sec. 5. 3 Joel iii. 21.

284 APPENDIX.
for His habitation : ' This is my rest for ever.' " 1 In all such
places Zion is speciaUy the Sanctuary ; and if in the case of
some few others — e.g. Ps. lxix. 35, lxxvi. 2; Isa. xlix. 14;
Jer. xxxi. 12 — this name seems to designate the whole of
Jerusalem, it is nevertheless always with the accessory idea
of the Holy City, the City of God or the Church, of which
the centre was precisely the House of God upon the Uteral
Zion. 16. Since we have now discovered the true site of the
0. T. Zion, a multitude of passages admit of an explanation,
— passages which have hitherto been a source of acknow
ledged perplexity to interpreters. We mention the most
important of these, because ' they strongly confirm the con
clusion we have reached with regard to the position of Zion.
In Isa. xiv. 13 the king of Babylon is represented as saying,
" I wiU dwell upon the Mount of the Assembly, on the side of
the north," pax TDTa. The signification of these words is
explained in ver. 14, where the king of Babylon adds : " I
shaU be like the Most High." The meaning of the words is,
he would seat himself in the temple in the place of God. As
victorious over the king of Judah, he had the right to dwell
in the City of David, in the royal palace ; this lay upon the
south side of the Mount of the Assembly ; but inasmuch as
he will dweU upon the north side of this mountain, he con
templates treating not only the king of Judah, but also
Jehovah Himself, as vanquished. This passage of the prophet
affords the key to the right understanding of Ps. xlviii. 1, 2.
There it is said : " Great is Jehovah, and greatly to be praised ;
in the city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness. Fair
towers aloft, the joy of the whole earth, Mount Zion, on the
north side of the city of the mighty King," nnp pa* tot jvx "in
m "]ta. The city of the great King is the City of David, which
lay upon the south side of the mountain ; the north side of this
Mount Zion, and the north side of the City of David, is the
Sanctuary of Jehovah. AU this is in perfect harmony with
the topographical position of both places. But, since this
grammatically accurate translation could not be reconciled
1 Ps. cxxxii. 13, 14. Cf. Ps. xx. 2, 3, lxv. 1, Ixxxiv. 7, 1. 2, [Jer. xxxi. 6],
and other places.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 285
with the received opinion as to the position of the above-
mentioned localities, it was proposed to, read: " Mount Zion,
whose north side is the city of the great King." We maintain
our translation, however, in favour of which we can adduce
philologists like Aben-Ezra, Lightfoot, Winer (Beat WorUr-
buch, s.v. " Zion "). — In Ezek. xl. 2 it is related that the prophet,
in a vision, was set upon a high mountain, — according to ver.
3, it was the mountain of the Sanctuary, — upon it was " as it
were a frame (structure) of a city on the south." From this
it foUows that south from the Sanctuary, upon the part of
Moriah now lying outside the waUs, was a city — namely, the
city par excellence, i.e. the City of David. But one of the most
important passages is Ezek. xhii. 7-9, in which it is said :
" My holy name shaU the house of Israel no more defile, they
nor their kings, by their whoredom, by the carcases of their
kings, their high places, in that they set their threshold to my
threshold, and their door to my door, so that only a wall is
between me and them." Thus God's sanctuary and the palace
of the kings had threshold to threshold, door to door ; only a
waU was between them. This corresponds perfectly to our
topographical presentation, and can by no means be made to
harmonize with the supposition of a Zion and a City of David
upon the hiU of the Upper City.
17. Until now we have concerned ourselves only with the
Bibhcal texts, without taking great notice of the Christian
tradition prevailing in the present day. We have now to
turn our attention to this latter.
Modern topographers are unanimous in regarding the hill
of the Upper City as Mount Zion and the City of David, and
rest their view upon the support of Church tradition. A high
degree of antiquity cannot be denied to this latter, but to the
primitive age of Christianity it does not extend. We have
subjected this matter to a thorough, detaUed examination, and
are in a position to prove that in Christian antiquity Zion
was, in accordance with the Biblical representation, the
southern hiU of the Moriah. — There was situated the Holy
Zion Church, which was no other than the magnificent ancient
substructures of the Aksa Mosque, behind the double gate —
buildings belonging in part to the age of Solomon. When, in

286 APPENDIX.
the year a.d. 637, the Mahommedans captured Jerusalem, they
took possession of the temple area, which they occupied ex
clusively for their purposes of worship. That which is to be
found within this area in the present day consists mainly of
two sanctuaries — namely, the Mosque es-Sukhrah, a magni
ficent circular building standing in the midst of the sacred
enclosure, and covering the sacred rock; and the Mosque
el- Aksa at the south end of the area, buUt over the Salomonic
substructures" which stand in close connection with the double
gate. The earher topographers, Eobinson and others, regarded
the Mosque es-Sukhrah — which they also call the Mosque of
Omar — as a Saracenic edifice, and the Aksa as originaUy a
Christian church. More recent investigations, however, have
thoroughly proved that the converse is the case. The Aksa
is by no means a Christian, but a purely Saracenic edifice ;
and the circular structure of the Mosque es-Sukhrah is the
celebrated Basilica of the Theotokos, erected by the Emperor
Justinian.1 The edifice of the Zion Church, which for five
centuries consisted of the substructures of the temple area, as
well as the sumptuous temple of Justinian, which probably,
as the parish church, took the place of the other, were
wrenched from the Christians by the Moslem ; the circular
building became a mosque, and the substructures were built
over by the Aksa Mosque> with which they have been incor
porated as a crypt, and remain so even to the present day.
The Zion congregation, deprived of its church, fixed its abode
on the hill of the Upper City extra muros, either buUding there
the church which is now the en-Neby Daud, or else taking
possession of this structure already to hand. With the con
gregation the name, too, of Church of Zion and Mount Zion
passed over to this place and the south-west hiU, where it has
preserved itself to the present day.2 It is possible that even
earher than this, almost at the beginning of the second century,
from the time of Hadrian, the name of Zion, which certainly
1 Comp. on this subject, Sepp, Neue architechton. Studien, p. 25 ff., 45 ff. ;
De Saulcy, Voyage, etc.
2 Such migrations of names in Jerusalem are not rare. St. Stephen's gate was
once the Damascus gate, and is now the Bab Sitti Mariam. San Salvator was
once in the Upper City, and is now near the Holy Sepulchre. The Via Dolorosa
once ran from the tower of David, now from Antonia ! (Later note of author.)

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 287
belonged to the southern hiU of Moriah, was also given to the
hiU of the Upper City extra muros — in other words, that the
Christians caUed aU the ground of the ancient Jerusalem
which was cut off on the south side by the waUs of Hadrian,
as by the present walls, Zion. Any kind of proof for this
hypothesis is, nevertheless, wanting to us. One might perhaps
understand in this sense that which Eusebius says of Golgotha
in the Onomasticon, that this, the place of the crucifixion of
the Lord, was to the north of Mount Zion — ToXyodd . . .
irpbs toIs ftopetots tov Xtcov opovs ; but Eusebius determines
the position of a locality exclusively according to the four
cardinal points, and could not thus indicate the position of
the garden of the Aksa, to the S.S.E., otherwise than he has
here done.
18. From the time when the Mahommedans first took
possession of the Temple Mountain, the south-west hiU has
been constantly known, in agreement with modern tradition,
as Mount Zion. The earUest Christian pUgrim of this period
is, if we mistake not, Arculf, who visited the Holy City about
a.d. 670, thus nearly 50 years after the capture of Jerusalem
by the Saracens. This pilgrim says of the Porta David, by
which name he means the modem Jaffa gate, that it lies on
the west side of Mount Zion.1 It is remarkable that Willi-
bald, who journeyed to the Holy City about the year 728
expressly and frequently says of the Church of Zion that it
was situated in the midst of Jerusalem.2 But though the
name Zion had already at that period forsaken its original
locahty, and migrated to the western hiU, yet the Church of
Zion upon this hiU does not seem to have been always the
same. At the time of the Crusades all wavering in this
respect comes to an end. WUliam of Tyre says : 3 " Horum
(montium) alter, ab occidente Syon appeUatur, alter vero, qui
ab oriente, Moria appeUatur." With hke distinctness speaks
Saewulf, who was in Jerusalem about 1103. Of the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre, and even of aU Jerusalem, he says that
1 Porta David, ad occidentalem partem montis Sion.
2 Gap. 18 ... ad illam ecclesiam, qua? vocatur Sion ; ilia stat in medio
Hierusalem ; and cap. 19, S. Maria in illo loco in medio Hierusalem exivit de
hoc sfflculo, qui nominatur sancta Sion.
3 Gesta Dei, i. 747.

288 APPENDIX,.
they are situated on the northern slope of Zion ; ' and of the
Church of the Holy Ghost, that it is outside the city, a dart's
throw from the southern wall,2 by which, beyond doubt,
en-Neby Daud is intended. Thus the matter has remained
untU the present day, with this difference, that in the course
of time tradition has graduaUy enriched this new Zion with
the single objects of veneration which belonged to the genuine
Zion. Arculf pointed out, in his Church of the Holy Spirit,
the place where the Lord instituted the Supper, where the
Holy Ghost descended upon the apostles, where Mary died,
and where was the column at which the Lord was scourged.
At the time of the Crusades there was added the grave of
David, the house of PUate, and the place where the Eisen
One first appeared to His disciples, which place was caUed by
them Galilaea. It is further to be observed that the Crusaders
attached to the Mosque es-Sukhrah the name Templum Domini,
and to the Aksa Mosque, with its substructures, the name
Templum or Palatium Salomonis. Tradition has not, however,
entirely forgotten the originaUy Christian character of the
substructures at the south side of the Haram, since even to
this day the cradle of Christ is shown in the subterranean
chamber of the south-east corner.
19. Let us now see what the Church fathers and pilgrims
of the pre-Saracen period have to relate touching Mount Zion.
Jerome says, on Matth. x., " ad radices montis Moria, in quibus
Siloe fluit;" and on Isa. viii. 6, "SUoe fontem esse ad radices
montis Sion dubitare non possumus, nos praesertim, qui in hac
habitamus provincia." If, according to this Father, SUoa
issues from Moriah and Zion, Moriah and Zion must be one
and the same mountain. According to Jerome, the hUl from
which SUoah springs is Zion. But this fountain comes by a
subterranean canal from the Fountain of the Virgin on the
eastern hill ;3 this eastern hiU is therefore the Zion of Jerome,
as of the Old Testament. Had Jerome understood by Zion,
in the place cited, the hiU of the Upper City, he would have
1 Ista ecclesia, scil. s. Sepulchri, est in declivio montis Syon, sicut civitas.
' Ecclesia Spuitus sancti in monti Syon extra murum ad austrum, quantum
potest projici sagitta.
3 [Cf. Isa. viii. 6, where the meaning is well given by Andrew Bonar :
" waters of Siloah, that flow unperceived." Narrative, p. 155.]

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 289
been guilty of a glaring inaccuracy in placing the fountain in
this locahty, and that precisely where he vouches for the
correctness of his datum on the ground of his special acquaint
ance with the district — dubitare non possumus, praesertim nos,
qui in hac habitamus provincia. The SUoah flows indeed
into the Tyropoeon, but not from the foot of the hiU of the
Upper City. Of the greater Piscina Siloe, he might certainly
have said, that it lies at the foot of the hiU of the Upper City ;
but not of the fountain. The same Father says, Ep. 30, de
Assumtione, that the Sepulchrum of the Holy Virgin Mary is
" in vaUis Jesaphat medio, inter montem Sion et montem
Ohvetum." But the tomb of the Virgin lies close to Geth
semane, between the Mount of Ohves and the Temple
Mountain ; this latter therefore is caUed by Jerome " Mount
Zion." The same Church Father says of Paula : Unde (sepul-
chro resurrectionis) egrediens, ascendit Sion, quae in arcem vel
speluncam vertitur. Hanc urbem quondam expugnavit et
reaedificavit David. De expugnata scribitur, " Vse tibi Ariel,
id est leo Dei, et quondam fortissima, quam expugnavit
David." 1 Et de ea, quae aedificata est, dictum est, " Funda-
menta ejus in montibus Sanctis, diligit Dominus portas Sion
super omnia tabernacula Jacob."2 . . . Ostenditur Ulic columna'
ecclesiae porticum sustinens, infecta cruore Domini, ad quam
vinctus dicitur flageUatus. Monstratur locus, ubi super CXX.
credentium animas Spiritus sanctus descendisset. The render
ing of the word Zion by " Fortress or Cave," imphes that Zion
presents both : a fortress, the city of David, and a cave — the
Church of Zion, in the substructures of the Haram under El-
Aksa, behind the double gate. Here the celebrated Columna
porticum sustinens ecclesioe is stiU found in the present day.
The " foundations of Zion upon the holy mountains " point to
Moriah, and not to the hiU of the Upper City. Ariel is both
the City of David3 and the altar of burnt-offering;4 both
which characteristics must therefore belong to the same hUl.
Everything points to Moriah, and nothing to the hiU of the
Upper City. What, again, did Paula find on Zion ? She saw
there, supporting the portico of a church, a piUar, on which
1 Isa. xxix. 1. 2 Ps. lxxxvii. 1, 2.
3 Isa, xxix. 1. 4 Ezek. xliii. 15 (margin).

290 APPENDIX.
the Lord is said to have been scourged ; she saw, moreover,
the place of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. But this
was, as we shaU presently see, the Church of Zion, so greatly
celebrated in Christian antiquity. Whoever so acquainted
with Jerome's archaeological learning and love of truth, wiU
acknowledge that he aUowed himself to become the channel
of such traditions, only when he was fuUy assured that pUlar,
portico, and church were not the handiwork of Christians, but
indisputable remains of a Jewish structure, which had sur
vived the destruction of Jerusalem. He could have before
his eye only the purely Jewish substructures of the Aksa
Mosque, with their mighty piUar — behind the double gate —
which supports the portico ; and not the manifestly Christian
structure of the Mosque en-Neby Daud upon the S.W. hiU,
which is wanting in any trace of remote antiquity.
The Pilgrim of Bordeaux, who visited Jerusalem in the
year 333, thus fifty years before Jerome, speaks of the statues
of Hadrian on the site of the old Jewish temple, and after
wards says, " est et non longe de statuis lapis pertusus, ad
quern veniunt Judaei singulis annis ut unguent eum et lamen-
tant se cum genitu et vestimenta sua scindunt, et sic redeunt.
Est ibi et domus Ezechiae regis Judae." That this perforated
stone, lapis pertusus, is not the rocky cave under the temple,
but the present waning place of the Jews, is evident from
the fact that the lapis pertusus, if not far removed from the
site of the temple, was yet at any rate at some distance from
it — est non longe de Statuis. The wailing place of the Jews,
situated down in the Tyropoeon valley, in the Haram waU near
to the S.W. corner, presents several niches in the old Salomonic
wall, of which one is about four feet high. This is the lapis
pertusus, the object of the special veneration of the Jews.
" Lapis " never denotes a natural rock rooted to the soil, but
a detached stone ; a natural rock with a cave in it of mag
nificent proportions is never, even in the worst ecclesiastical
Latin, called a " perforated stone," lapis pertusus. The
Pilgrim had consequently descended through a gate in the
Haram, from the site of the statues, into the Tyropoeon — the
present as well as the former wailing place of the Jews — and
stood thus within the Dung gate. His account immediately

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 291
after continues thus : " Item exeuntibus Hierusalem,1 ut
ascendas Sion, in parte sinistra et deorsum in vaUe juxta
murum est piscina, quae dicitur Silua. Habet quadriporticum,
et aha piscina grandis foras. Haec fons sex diebus atque
noctibus currit ; septima vero die est sabbatum, in totum nee
nocte nee die currit." The rendering of this barbarous Latin
turns on the meaning given to the words exeuntibus Hierusalem.
The translation, according to the text here adopted, would be :
In going out of Jerusalem, in order to ascend Zion, there is on
the left hand and down in the valley by the waU, a pool caUed
SUoah, etc. The PUgrim was, as we have seen, at the wailing
place of the Jews, and by Hezekiah's palace (El-Mekmeh ?)
within the Dung gate. In order to reach Siloah, he must
thus go out of the city. And that the Pilgrim in reahty went
out is manifest from the succession of the piscinae, since he
came first to the smaUer one — the fountain basin itself — and
then farther on (foras) to the greater one [En-Bogel] ; for in
this order do the two pools succeed each other from north to
south. If the Pilgrim had come up the vaUey of the Tyropoeon
from the south, he would have had the hiU of the Upper City,
and consequently his Zion, on the left ; if he came out of the
city and down the Tyropoeon, he had Moriah on his left, and
this was his Zion. Let us see now what he found on
Zion. " In eadem (sc. fonte ; he writes immediately before :
haec fons) ascenditur Sion, et paret ubi fuit Domus Caifae
sacerdotis, et columna adhuc ibi est, in qua Christum flageUis
ceciderunt. Intus autem intra murum Sion paret locus ubi
palatium habuit David, et septem Synagogae quae illic fuerunt,
una tandem remansit, reliquae autem arantur et seminantur,
sicut Jesajas propheta dixit." 2 If we suppose now, with most
topographers, that the Pilgrim, starting from SUoah, climbed
the hiU of the Upper City, it is at once surprising that he
should say " in eadem, sc. fonte, ascenditur Sion ; " for the
fountain would all the while be lying on the opposite side of
the vaUey. He next came to the place where the palace of
1 We follow the text of the oldest MS., belonging to the eighth century,
printed in the Bevue ArcUologique, 1864, Juillet, p. 98 sqq. The reading of
the ordinary editions— exeuntibus in Hierusalem— yields no intelligible sense.
2 [The reference here is toMic. iii. 12, as cited by Jeremiah, chap. xxvi. 18.]

292 APPENDIX.
the high priest Caiaphas once stood. This is again surprising ;
for the palace of the high priest was near to the Sanctuary,
upon the eastern hiU or Moriah.1 He found, moreover, near
or in the house of Caiaphas the pillar at which the Lord was
scourged, yet standing — consequently the remains of an old
Jewish buUding, of which neither in En-Neby Daud, nor
in the so-caUed house of Caiaphas, on the S.W. hUl extra
muros, a trace is to be found. All this, it is to be observed,
Caiaphas' house and the pillar, existed according to our
Pilgrim, outside the city wall. He now mentions what was to
be found within the city waU. He found there nothing but
an old synagogue ; the rest was ploughed fields ! Thus upon
the hiU of the Upper City, within the city waU — intus, intra
murum — where is now one of the most populous quarters,
there was anno 333 nothing but an old synagogue ? Not
even the tower of David ? It must after all be confessed that
the Pilgrim of Bordeaux did not mean the western hiU in thus
speaking of Zion. — Let us now suppose that, coming from the
city, he went down the Tyropoeon ; he found there, as the text
asserts, on the left hand, down in the valley, SUoah ; he went
up the slope of Moriah, by the route stUl frequented, which
passes near to the fountain, " in eadem fonte ascenditur Sion ;"
came next to the place where, according to Neh. iii. 21, stood
the house of the high priest; saw, within the substructures of the
Haram, behind the double gate, the gigantic pUlar ; on his left
was the ancient weU of the garden of the Aksa Mosque, which
is just the waU of Zion or the City of David ; there he found
an old synagogue, which seems now to have disappeared ; the
rest within these bounds was tilled land then, as in the present
day. From this it foUows that the PUgrim of Bordeaux, like
Jerome, regarded the upper terrace of southern Moriah as Zion.
In like manner, too, does Eusebius of Caesarea say, on Isa.
xxn. 1, that the temple was built upon Zion ($tcov . . . icp'
ov 6 Necos tov &eov cpKoBopyTo), and so also Athanasius on
Psalm lxxxvn.
Aurehus Prudentius Clemens wrote in the year 394 :
Bxcidio templi veteris stat pinna superstes :
Structus enim lapide ex Mo manet angulus, usque
1 Neh. iii. 21.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 293
f In ssecula Saeculi, quern sprerunt sedificantes.
Nunc caput est Templi et laterum compago duorum.
The stone thus, which the buUders had rejected, and which
is become the corner-stone, existed, according to early Chris
tian tradition, in a corner of the waU belonging to the
Sanctuary, which had survived the destruction. There is
nothing unwarranted in the supposition that the south-east
corner of the Haram is intended, in which enormous stones
form the foundation. Of this stone, which had become the
corner-stone, the Pilgrim of Bordeaux also gives an account.
He, too, places it within the precincts of the temple, and,
moreover, brings it into connection with the pinnacle of the
temple upon which the tempter had placed Him. After he
had described the Pool of Bethesda,1 he says : " Est ibi et
crypta, ubi Salomon Daemones torquebat. Ibi est angulus
turris excelsissimae, ubi dominus ascendit ; . . . Ibi est lapis
angularis magnus, de quo dictum : ' lapidem quern repro-
baverunt aedificantes.' Item ad caput angeh 2 et sub pinna
turris ipsius sunt cubicula plurima, ubi Salomon palatium
habebat ; ibi etiam constat cubiculus, in quo sedit et sapien-
tiam descripsit, ipse vero cubiculus uno lapide est tectus ;
sunt ibi et excepturia magna aquae subterraneae et piscinae
magno opere aedificatae, et in aede ipsa ubi templum fuit quod
Salomon ssdificavit, etc. . . . Sunt ibi statuae duae Adriani ;
est et non longe de statuis lapis pertusus." The text then
continues in the form in which we have treated of it in the
preceding section. That the passage adduced places us in
the area of the Sanctuary does not admit of doubt. That
the palace of Solomon and the cubicula plurima are the sub
structures in the south-east corner must in like manner be
admitted. Thus the pinnacle of the south-east corner is
regarded as the place of temptation ; and in its basis is seen
the lapis angularis, as is the case with Prudentius. That
which has been hitherto related could be seen and visited by
the Pilgrim without forsaking the Haram, since a subterranean
passage with stairs leads down to those substructures. The
approach to the vaulted chamber, which is connected with
the double gate, was, however, at that time — probably from
1 He writes this name, Vetaida. 5 Bead anguli.

294 APPENDIX.
strategetical considerations — blocked up from above. The
PUgrim was obhged, therefore, in order to enter upon the
Zion extra muros, to quit the Haram, to enter the Tyropoeon
at the house of Hezekiah, and to pass out through the Dung
gate. Here, then, he relates, as we have seen in the preced
ing paragraph, the " exeuntibus Hierusalem, ut ascendas Sion,
in parte sinistra," and here met with that which we have seen
above. — Antoninus Martyr visited Jerusalem in the sixth
century. After speaking of the Turris David, he continues :
Deinde venimus in Basilicam Sion, ubi sunt mirabUia multa,
inter quae est quod legitur de lapide angulari . . . Ingresso
Domino in ipsam ecclesiam, quae fuit domus Jacobi, invenit
lapidem istum deformem in medio jacentem, tenuit eum et
posuit in angulum. ... In ipsa ecclesia est columna, ubi
Dominus flageUatus est ; . . . ibi est monasterium pueUarum.
De Sion usque ad basilicam Sanctae Mariae, ubi est congre-
gatio magna monachorum ac muUerum innumerabilis, lecta
languentium plus quinque (? quoque) miUia ad minus tria.
Et oravimus in praetorio, etc. This text does not enable us
to discover which of the two hiUs Antoninus regarded as
Zion. That which immediately precedes the account of the
tower of David, would lead us to conclude it was the Upper
City ; that which immediately follows, on the other hand,
places us in the area of the temple, for the Basilica S. Mariae
with its Xenodochium is- unquestionably Justinian's temple of
the ©eoTOKos and the thereto appertaining 'Sevcoves. Anto
ninus' account must therefore be explained from the previous
accounts of Jerome, of the Burdigalensis, and of Prudentius,
who place the mirabilia here treated of, and in particular the
lapis angularis, upon Mount Moriah. That, moreover, the
Zion of Antoninus was the Temple Mountain, is evident from
the foUowing datum : Vallis Gethsemani inter montem Sion
et montem Oliveti posita. Epiphanius of Eleutheropohs, who
belongs to the end of the fourth century, writes in his work
adv. Hceres.,1 " The Acra, which was formerly upon Zion, but
is now removed, was then higher than Golgotha." Here thus
we find in a Church Father the assimilation of Zion with
1 Adv. Hceres. 1. i. t. iii. ; Hceres. Tatian, 5 : v "Axpx « tot\ oirxp%ooo-x iv
2;<av, vov ol TpcviHlcra, xx) xliTri v^/riXoTipx ovrvp%f too roirov (ToXyatlx).

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 295
Acra, the Lower City,1 as already takes place in the First Book
of Maccabees. The Zion of Epiphanius, therefore, cannot
possibly be the hiU of the Upper City.
In harmony, consequently, with the Old Testament, does the
earhest Christian tradition place the City of David and Zion
upon the Moriah extra muros. The tradition which places
Zion upon the hiU of the Upper City is thus of later origin.
20. The Church of Zion. — Among all Christian churches
the Basilica upon Zion is unquestionably the oldest. CyrU
of Jerusalem — about the year 330— relates (Cateches. xvi):
"We know that the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost,
here at Jerusalem, in the Upper Church of the Apostles, de
scended upon the apostles." Epiphanius, who belongs to the
end of the fourth century, writes : 2 " The Emperor Hadrian
found the city of Jerusalem destroyed, the temple desolated
and trodden under foot, with the exception of a few buildings
and the little church of God, which existed at the place whither
the disciples repaired after the Ascension of the Lord from
the Mount of Ohves, and went up into the upper room (to
virepcoov). It stood upon that part of Zion which, with a
few side buUdings, and the seven synagogues — which stood
upon the same hiU like shepherds' tents — was all that re
mained of the city. One of these synagogues had continued
standing tiU the time of Bishop Maximonas and of Constan
tine, ' as a hut in a vineyard.' " The congregation of this
church had its burying-place, at the time of the Greeks, in
the vaUey of Hinnom, where the inscription is often found
upon sepulchral caves: f THC ATIAC CII2N. This
church upon Zion is known also to Jerome.3 He says :
Ostenditur iUic columna ecclesiae porticum sustinens, infecta
cruore Domini ; . . . monstratur locus, ubi super CXX. cre-
dentium animas Spiritus Sanctus descendisset. If men Uke
CyrU, Jerome, and Epiphanius make themselves responsible
for a tradition marking out in their day a certain church
as that which the Lord Himself had entered, and in which
the Bentecostal miracle had been witnessed, it must at any
rate be admitted that the house so designated was an ancient
1 See above, Appendix, No. 12. " De Bonderibus et Mensuris, xiv.
3 See above, No. 19.

296 APPENDIX.
Jewish structure, which could be shown to have survived the
destruction of the city. These men, therefore, could not
have before their mind En-Neby Daud, upon the hiU of the
Upper City extra muros — a mosque which is evidently a church
erected by the Christians, and not a Jewish structure. En-
Neby Daud, too, is a very large church, and, according to the
authority last cited, the Church of the Apostles upon Zion was
smaU. Jerusalem has three places of special sanctity for the
Christians : the Holy Sepulchre, the scene of the Ascension,
and the scene of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. Con
stantine provided the two first places with sumptuous buUd-
ings, why not the third ? Manifestly because he did not
presume to lay hands upon the sacred waUs of the yet exist
ing buUding. Now it is weU known that the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre and that of the Ascension have been several
times destroyed and rebuUt. History records the destruction
and rebuilding even of churches and chapels of lesser rank ; but
nowhere is there an account of this kind concerning the Church
of Zion. If this had been destroyed, history would have related
it ; since it has not done so, we are perfectly justified in con
cluding that it is standing to the present day. It exists stiU
in reahty, in the substructures of the Haram under the Aksa
Mosque upon the true Zion, that is to say, upon Moria extra
muros. 21. In the southern waU of the Haram, which is — at least
so far as its basement is concerned — confessedly of ancient
Jewish origin, there is found somewhere about the middle an
ancient double gate, now buUt up. It is partly concealed by
the city waU from the south, which abuts upon it, and to the
west of it encloses the garden of the Aksa. A grated window
fitted in beneath the arch of the gate affords a glance into
the vault behind. In the vicinity of the window one per
ceives a flight of eight stairs, leading from within to the
double gate. A colossal circular pillar, of which the capital is
adorned with palm leaves, supports, along with the pUlars some
what projecting on either side, the httle cupola of the gate.1
On the north front of the Aksa Mosque, which extends to a
length of 280 EngUsh feet, there leads out from the inner
1 Krafft, Topogr. 72.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 297
area of the Haram a doubly vaulted passage, proceeding from
north to south, under the said mosque, and ending at the
double gate. Thick square piUars separate this passage from
the paraUel side corridor ; the latter maintaining a horizontal
course, while the former continues to descend untU it leads to
a square chamber, in the midst of which rises majestically the
monohth piUar, of which the capital is of remarkable forma
tion, and strikingly reminds of the Egyptian style. Hebrew
inscriptions — partly, alas ! plastered over — which are to be
seen on the piUars and waUs, prove beyond question the
ancient Jewish origin of these structures.1 This subter
ranean passage, 280 feet in length and 50 feet in width, is
undoubtedly the connecting route formed by King Solomon,
between the City of David and the Sanctuary ; " the ascent
which led up to the house of Jehovah," which the Queen of
Sheba so greatly admired ; " the going up in the wall above
the house of David." 2 On the eastern side of this corridor is
found a door, at present waUed up : this door leads to the
mighty substructures at the south-east corner of the Haram.
These substructures are vaults, resting upon fifteen rows of
square piUars, composed of bevelled stones. They are about
300 feet broad from east to west, and extend from 1 to 300
feet from the south waU towards the north. These are the
stables of Solomon, which had their outlet into the valley' of
the Kidron, at the " Horse gate " in the eastern waU, near to
the south-east corner. Somewhere about midway between.
the south-east corner and the double gate is a triple gate,
discovered by de Saulcy 3 — likewise of ancient origin — which
seems by one of its openings to have led into the stables,
while the two other doors led, and stUl lead, to the area of
the temple.4 The porch, supported by the colossal piUar,
existing immediately behind the double gate, was the Church
of the Apostles.
22. The Portico of Solomon. — "Now there came the
1 Cf. de Saulcy, Voyage, ii. 327. 2 2 Chron. ix. 4 ; Neh. xii. 37.
3 Josephus seems to presuppose the existence of these gates — the double and
the triple gate — to <rpot f&tCTiftPpixv (p.irca'jrov) it%s pCtv xxi abro toXx$ xxtx ptiirov
(Antiq. xv. 11, sec. 5).
4 See on this question de Saulcy, Voy. i. 123 ff., and comp. Ritter, Bal. iv.
42, 43 (translation) ; Robinson, i. 302-306 ; Tristram, 183, 184.

298 APPENDIX.
Encaenia (feast of Dedication) in Jerusalem. It was winter ;
and Jesus walked in the Sanctuary, in the portico of
Solomon."1 We read in Acts iii 11, that in consequence of
the healing of the lame man at the Beautiful gate of the
Sanctuary aU the people ran together to Peter and John, as
they walked in the portico of Solomon. And, Acts v. 12,
we read : " By the hands of the apostles were wrought signs
and wonders, many in number, among the people, and they
(the Christians) were all with one accord in the portico of
Solomon ; but of the rest durst no man join himself to
them." Where was this portico of Solomon ? Josephus2
speaks of the eastern portico of the outer Sanctuary,
dvaToXtKy crTod, which rose above the deep (Kidron) vaUey,
and had 400 cubits of waU This does not mean, as it is
ordinarily interpreted, that it was 400 cubits high, but
400 cubits — or one stadium — long, a length which Josephus
gives to each side of the Sanctuary. " The waU was of
white squared stones, which were 20 cubits long, and 6
high ; it was the work of King Solomon, the first founder
of the temple." Because Josephus here ascribes the eastern
waU of the temple area to King Solomon, this name has been
erroneously transferred to the portico which rises above it, and
it has been asserted that this eastern stoa was the portico of
Solomon mentioned in the N. T. The topographers forgot
that Josephus does not say of the portico, that it is the
work of Solomon, but of the waU. Had the portico borne
that name, we may be sure Josephus would not have passed
it over in silence; yet he calls it simply the eastern stoa.
It is certain that in Josephus' day there no longer existed
any such portico dating from the age of Solomon. That,
however, which reaUy was Solomon's work, and which has
been preserved until that time, and even to the present day,
is to be found in the substructures under the Aksa ; the
subterranean passage, especiaUy, which led from the City of
David into the Sanctuary ; the corridor with the double gate.
This we regard as the portico of Solomon : there Jesus walked
in winter ; because the cold did not penetrate into this crypt,
and this must naturally be a frequented place of resort during
1 John x. 22, 23. 2 Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9, sec-. 7.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 299
the winter season. According to the Acts of the Apostles,
they selected this place for holding their meetings ; this place
we have accordingly to look upon as the scene of the out
pouring of the Holy Ghost, as indeed early tradition asserts it
was. The portico of Solomon became for later Christians the
Church of Zion. We know not how to explain the origin of
the tradition which represents this as the pillar of the scourg
ing. The evangelists mention only the scourging in the
praetorium. Does the tradition perhaps imply that the Lord
was also scourged by the high priest, whose house was close
at hand ? The praetorium is to be sought nowhere else than
in the Antonia. This is evident from the indications of the
PUgrim of Bordeaux, who says : Inde, ut eas foris de Sion
euntibus ad Portam Neapolitanam ad partem dextram, deorsum
in valle sunt parietes ubi domus fuit sive Praetorium Pontii
Pilati ; ibi Dominus auditus est antequam pateretur ; a
sinistra autem parte est monticulus Golgotha, ubi Dominus
crucifixus est ; inde quasi ad lapidis missum est cripta, ubi
corpus ejus positum fuit. From Zion the Pilgrim entered the
Tyropoeon vaUey intra muros, went northwards towards the
Neapohtan [Nablus] or Damascus gate, and had below him in
the valley, — i.e. at aU events, in El- Wad, — at a given point,
the praetorium on the right, and Golgotha on the left. He
had accordingly, passing along the western waU of the Haram,
reached the north-west corner of the same — the site on which
Antonia formerly stood. Those topographers who seek the
praetorium in the Upper City must either leave this most
important text entirely out of consideration, or do violence to
it ; for the bearings on the right and left, and the deorsum in
valle, do not agree with the position of the Upper City.
Thus we recognise in the corridor under El- Aksa the Holy
Church of Zion, the place of the outpouring of the Holy
Ghost, the place where the Lord walked in Solomon's porch.
2 3. Moria extra muros. — That which has been already
said sufficiently proves the archaeological importance of the
southern part of Moriah — a locality the topographers pass
over in almost entire silence, or at best attach an historical
significance to it only under the name of Ophel. It becomes
necessary here, finaUy, to describe the place more nearly.

300 APPENDIX.
The southern wall of the Haram, which runs from east to
west over the hiU of Moriah, has a length of 840 feet. The
south-east and south-west corners of the Haram waU con
fessedly present in the immense rough square stones, beveUed at
the edges, the indisputable characteristics of the early Jewish
style of buUding. The south wall which unites them bears
the same stamp of antiquity. We do not hesitate therefore,
with archaeologists of note, such as M. de Saulcy and others,
to regard it — at least in its foundation — as of Salomonic
origin. In this wall there is to be found, 230 feet from its
south-east corner, the triple gate above mentioned, which was
discovered by de Saulcy. This gate, now buUt up, formerly
led on the one hand into the Haram, and on the other into
the royal stables. 500 feet west from this same east corner
the present city waU impinges at right angles upon the wall
of the Haram, and partly covers the double gate existing in
the same at this point. Westwards from this gate, and the city
waU abutting upon it, the Haram waU is continued in unde-
viating hne to the south-west corner, near to which are found
in the western wall the remains of the ancient bridge. In
this southern waU not only are the lowest tiers of rectangular
stones, but also the foundation of the gates, of decidedly early
date. The upper parts are of a more or less recent origin —
Eoman or Saracenic. That part of the city waU which from
the south abuts on the double gate is of later origin. It runs
in a southerly direction from the Haram waU, but retreats in
two sections to the west; after the second section, 85 feet
south from the double gate, it runs again towards the south;
and then — again turning west at a distance of 240 feet from
the double gate — -pursues a. straight course to the Dung gate.
The last portion of this wall running south, as weU as part of
that which is prolonged to the Dung gate, is again of ancient
origin. Bobinson1 calculates the height of this waU at 60
feet ; inasmuch as there are 8 courses of stones having an
average thickness of at least 3 feet, and above these 24 courses
each of 1 foot to 1-g- in thickness. From the double gate to the
south-east corner of the garden wall and city waU, the ground
of the plateau of Moriah sinks about 50 feet. Within the
1 Bal. i. 285.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. "01
garden itself this depression does not take place, but the soil
there is perfectly level. It is at the lowest corner 50 feet
higher than the external ground. Robinson thinks this ground
has been artificiaUy raised. But a fiUing up to a depth of
50 feet on this spot would be a surprising performance.
That such really was the case is for us in the highest degree
doubtful. On the contrary, we are convinced that excavations
wiU bring to hght the natural rock at but a short distance
beneath the suface of the cultivated soU. For here, in this
garden of the Aksa,1 must have been situated the Acra, the
hiU of which was levelled by Simon Maccabams, until it was
20 feet lower than the temple area. The zigzag-formed
modern fragment of waU, between this ancient waU at the
south of the garden and the double gate, marks the place of
the fiUed up valley, which probably had its upper commence
ment immediately to the west of this gate, and ran down
beside the Haram waU into' the Tyropoeon. The whole
garden, as well as the land contiguous to it on the west, is
almost a perfect plain — a plain reminding of the words of
Josephus, de Bello, v. 4, sec. 1 : " They filled up the valley,
with a view to bringing the (Upper) City into connection
with the Sanctuary ; " for from the Xystus one may reach the
double gate by a level route.2 The summit of the Acra or
City of David, of M'hich there remains now only a fiUing up
of 50 feet in depth within the ancient garden waU, may have
risen at one time yet 50 feet above the level of the garden.
If, as is probable, it was surrounded on the four sides by a
waU, of which the south-east comer of the garden wall may
be the remains, it presented a tower or fortress of about 100
feet high, with a basis of 150 feet square, which was unas-
saUable for the instruments of siege known to the ancients,3
since at the most accessible point — in the vicinity of the
double gate — it rose to a sheer elevation of 60 feet. Such a
1 This garden is still, according to Wilson, called Hahh-at el-Khatuniye — a
title in which is to be recognised an echo of the old name Acra. Even though
"Hakura" might signify "ruin," this signification does not apply in the
case of the Aksa Garden, where the ruin is wanting.
2 Captain Warren's excavations, moreover, prove the existence, at the south
west end of the Haram, of a mass of refuse of about 50 feet in thickness. (Later
note of author.) 3 - Sam. v. 6-S.

302 APPENDIX.
position of the Acra explains how perUous a hostile garrison
might become to the Jews entering the Temple through the
double gate ; because the Acra was situated so near' at hand,
and towered above the Sanctuary. Such a rocky fortress had
in any case but one entrance ; it required, therefore, only a
little piece of wall to close up the egress of the garrison, and
to reduce them by famine. This Simon reaUy did : " he built
through the midst of the city a wall, in order to cut off from
those in the Acra the market or supply of provisions." 1
The sepulchres of the Davidic kings were in the rock of the
City of David upon Zion-Moriah ;2 when the rock was lowered
they necessarily disappeared. Without any mention of the
fact on the part of the historian, we may infer with certainty
that the sarcophagi and bodies were deposited in another
grave ; that the newly-erected monument was raised outside
the city, foUows from Ezek. xhii. 7—9 ; that it was prepared
with royal splendour is only what was to be expected. Now
there is to the north of Jerusalem a monument worthy of the
kings of Judah — the Tombs of the Kings, with their twenty-
six sepulchral chambers. A sarcophagus from the same was
brought by M. de Saulcy to Paris, and placed in the Museum
of the Louvre. It bears, in Samaritan (ancient Jewish)
characters, the inscription rota my or my, — and not, as de
Saulcy would read, nrota, — and underneath, scratched in
Hebrew letters, nrota my. This shows that at the time of
the removal of the coffins in the Maccabaean age the names
were added in later Hebrew characters for the guidance of the
labourers ignorant of the ancient Hebrew writing. That at
the time of Hyrcanus the Tombs of David were no longer in
the City of David, but outside, of Jerusalem, foUows to a
certainty, from the fact that, according to Antiq. xiii. 8, sees. 3,
4, Hyrcanus did not at once take out of the Tomb of David
the ransom price promised to Antioehus, who was laying siege
to him, but must first await the departure of the enemy before
he could obtain access to the treasure contained in the sepulchre.
The Tombs of the Kings, north of Jerusalem, are thus in
reahty the posthumous graves of the Davidic kings, from the
time of the leveUing of the Acra rock.
1 Antiq. xiii. 5, sec. 11. 2 Neh. iii. 16.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 303
Thus, too, we are in a position to explain the course of the
aqueduct of Hezekiah. We read, 2 Chron. xxxii. 30, " This
same Hezekiah stopped the upper water-spring of Gihon, and
conducted it straight, by the west side, to the City of David."
Now Antoninus Martyr says of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre : Juxta ipsum altare est crypta, ubi ponis aurem et
audis flumina aquarum, et jacta pomum et vadis ad Siloa
fontem ubi iUud recipies. Inter Siloa et Golgotha credo
esse miUiarium. SimUar reports are afloat in the present
day, to the effect that if you put your ear to the earth
in the vicinity of the Damascus gate, you wiU hear the
sound of water. Not long ago in El- WaU, in digging for
a foundation, there was opened an arched roof, which covers a
weU-supplied channel of water. The water-course along the
west side of the Haram, which feeds Turkish baths, has long
been known,1 and it has been shown that the water has the
same sweetish salt taste as that of the Fountain of Siloah.
The water-course seems in the present day to be conducted
through, under the Haram, to the Fountain of the Virgin,
because it is no longer needed on South Moriah. Hezekiah
conducted it on the west side of the Temple Mountain to the
City of David, i.e. into the garden of the Aksa, whence it
flowed away to the Fountain of the Virgin. The Gihon
Fountain would appear to be somewhere near to the Holy
Sepulchre. That this Gihon is to be sought in the upper
vaUey of Hinnom, is one of those errors of topographers which
has its origin in the false position assigned to Zion. It is
further to be observed that de Saulcy, in connection with
excavations in front of the triple door, discovered several canals
and subterraneous water-courses, which may be connected with
Hezekiah's works. (Voyage, U. 9.2)
1 Cf. Ritter, iv. 87.
2 Renewed investigations with regard to this part of the geography of Jerusalem
have led me to the conviction, that the palace, cf Solomon was in the Haram
itself, on the south side tliereof. The construction of the Beth ha-Melech is de
scribed, 1 Kings vii. sqq. ; 2 Chron. vii. 11 sqq. Where was this palace situated ?
The groups of workmen, Neh. iii. 15-28, proceed from the south towards the
north-east, in the following order : Pool of Siloah— Steps of the City of David —
Tombs of David — Angle and Corner— Upper King's House in Hazar ha-Mattara
 Water gate eastward. Since this Water gate eastward was situated within the
Sanctuary — Neh. xii. 37, 40 — the King's House and Mattara were consequently

304 APPENDIX.
24. Golgotha. — " Jesus went forth (HpjXOev) to the place
called place of a skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha; there they crucified
also in the Haram. In Ezek. xliii. 7, 8, the charge is made that the kings placed
" their threshold against my threshold, and their posts beside my posts ; so that
only a wall was between me and them." That which should be no more in the
future, thus existed in the past : threshold to threshold, post to post, only a
partition wall (not even an outside wall) between palace and Sanctuary. The
palace was thus situated upon the Haram. Athaliah was led out from the Beth-
Jehovah by the way of the going of the horses from Beth ha-Melech, and there
slain, 2 Kings xi. 16. (So also 2 Chron. xxiii. 15 : " Way of the Horse gate of
the King's House.") Further, according to 2 Kings xi. 20, "they slew Athaliah
in Beth ha-Melech. " Josephus says, Antiq. ix. 7, sec. 3, " Gotholja was led
forth out of the Sanctuary into the valley of Kidron, in order to be slain there ;
so they led her to the gate of the king's mules, and there put her to death. " The
Horse gate, which Jeremiah (xxxi. 40) places by the Kidron, at a corner on the
east side, thus belonged to the King's House ; and, according to Neh. iii. 28,
assuredly to the Haram. Remains of the Horse gate are to be found even to
the present day, under the form of an ancient cornice, in the eastern wall of the
Haram, near to the S. E. corner. At the time of the Crusaders the Aksa and its
surroundings were known as the Balatium Salomonis ; and the substructures were
called, and still are called, the Stables of Solomon, in accordance with a tradition
thoroughly well-founded. — On the other hand, it has been observed that it is not
conceivable the kings should presume to dwell on the same area with Jehovah.
To this we reply : The fact that they did so venture stands recorded in Ezek.
xliii. 8. Royalty was, before the Captivity, a theocratic institution, and was
permitted to occupy theocratic soil ; as, moreover, it had its tombs in the Holy
City. If, after the exile, a profane Baris, the palace of the Asmona^ans, and
later the Antonia, could exist without offence on the north side of the Haram,
why should the King's House on the south side of the same be », thing unheard
of ? To the proofs already given we add that, according to 2 Kings xi. 5, 6,
three watches were set in the Sanctuary upon Beth ha-Melech, which conse
quently was bordering on the Sanctuary. — By the Hazar ha-Mattara, which was
situated near to the King's House, Jer. xxxii. 2, there was a gate, in which the
second dedication choir remained standing, and which was consequently in the
Sanctuary, Neh. xii. 39, 40. — Further, we read, 1 Kings vii. 1-12, the descrip
tion of the erection of the King's House, ending with the following words : "And
the great court round about was of three rows of Gasith, etc., — and so also the
inner court of Beth- Jehovah. " Whence arose this mention of the outer and
inner court, in the account of the building of the King's House, unless the great
court belonged alike to the King's House and to the house of God, and these two
houses formed architecturally one whole ? — Josephus says, Antiq. viii. 5, sec. 2,
that in the palace of Solomon there were subterranean chambers (oIxypxTx
b-r'oyxix xx) i.<pxvri) ; are not these the substructures in the Haram ? So also the
LXX., Jer. xxxviii. 11, are acquainted with a subterranean house of the king —
Tnv olxlxv too gtxmx'iait tyiv bvoyxiov. The triple portico on the south side of the
Sanctuary was called the royal portico, lixo-iXixh <mx, that is, Beth ha-Melech.
The people, however, called it by a more definite title : the portico of Solomon.
The Millo, — i.e. "that which is filled in," — of which the construction occupied
so long a time, is the pile of walls which support the Haram ; and on this
account a part of the palace was called Beth-Millo, 2 Kings xii. 20 ; cf. 2 Chron.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 305
Him : the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city!' 1
Near to Jerusalem therefore, but outside the city, was Jesus
crucified; or, as it is said in Heb. xiii. 12, Jesus "suffered
without the gate." 2 As concerns the site of the Lord's grave,
it is written, John xix. 41, 42 : " Now in the place, eV toj
Toirco, where He was crucified there was a garden ; and in the
garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid :
there then, on account of the preparation day of the Jews,
because the sepulchre was nigh, they laid Jesus." Where was
Golgotha, and the sepulchre ? Eusebius, Vita Constantini,
Ui. 25—40, relates that after the proceedings connected with
the CouncU of Nicaea the desire arose in the mind of Con
stantine to accomplish a laudable work in Palestine, by adorn
ing and consecrating the place of the resurrection of our Lord.
For untU then, wicked men, or rather the whole race of
xxiv. 25. [Millo is thrice rendered by the LXX. "Axpx ; viz. 2 Sam. v. 9 ;
1 Kings ix. 15 (x. 22 of the Sept. ), andxi. 27.] It becomes a question worthy
of consideration, whether the TBD of 1 Kings vii. 9, 10 does not denote the
IT T
substructures ; for one does not make use of "precious hewn stones " as a
foundation. De Saulcy (Voyage, ii. p. 17) supplies an inscription which he
found on the inner side of the triple gate. The ancient Hebrew characters are
difficult to decipher ; but it is quite certain that the first word reads JiDta-
Does not this imply that this gate led to Solomon's " Forest of Lebanon" ? The
same traveller communicates an old Hebrew inscription from the portico of the
double gate, in which the name of IB", Jesus, twice distinctly occurs — and there
we have already recognised the Church of Zion.
Yet a word as to our opinion with regard to the antiquity of the south wall.
We regard it as Salomonic in its foundation : (1) Because the S.W. and S.E.
corners thereof are decidedly the most ancient structures in Jerusalem.
(2) Because Captain Warren discovered at the foundations of the S.E. corner
Phoenician writing, which can point only to the age of Solomon. (3) The
structure cannot belong to the time of Herod ; because Josephus credits this
king with an enlargement of the area on the north, but not on the south.
(4) Still less can the south wall have been erected by Hadrian or Justinian after
the destruction of Jerusalem ; for at that time, when access to the temple was
denied to the Jews, the old Jewish inscriptions could not possibly have arisen,
as they nevertheless exist in the porticos of the double and triple gates.
The history of the southern Haram seems thus to be as follows. Solomon
built his palace upon this rocky height, Millo ; this was destroyed by Nebu
chadnezzar, and there was consequently left a vacant broad space, which from
this time belonged to the Sanctuary, Ezra x. 9 ; Neh. viii. 1, 16. Here
Herod afterwards built the royal portico. In this the Christians had their
bit'.pZov, and in the double gate their Church of Zion ; which they held until they
were expelled therefrom by the Mahommedans. (Later note of author.)
1 John xix. 17, 20. 2 Cf. Matt, xxvii. 32.
U

306 apphkiux.
daemons through them, had put forth their utmost efforts to
consign to obhvion this glorious monument of immortality.
They had covered up the cave with earth brought from else
where, and had raised upon it a temple of Venus, there to
celebrate the impure worship of this goddess and her un-
haUowed rites. Thereupon he gave commands to erect upon
and around the sepulchre a sumptuous temple. This church
was completed in the thirtieth year of the reign of Constantine,
a.d. 335. On this occasion there was summoned by the
Emperor a great Council of bishops out of all provinces of
the empire, first in Tyre, and then in Jerusalem. Among
them was also Eusebius.1 Thus much must at once be
admitted, that by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre erected
by Constantine the place regarded as the site of Golgotha
and the Holy Sepulchre was determined ; and that from that
time to the present day the same place has been regarded,
without intermission, as the scene of the crucifixion and resur
rection ; and that the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre
stands on the site of Constantine's edifice. It consequently
remains for us only to test the question whether the cave,
which Constantine regarded as such, is the genuine grave of
the Lord; for with the answer to this question stands or
falls the claim of this locality to be regarded as the scene of
the resurrection. How did Constantine learn that the place
built over by him was reaUy the Holy Sepulchre ? Eobinson
supposes, Because the place was revealed to him by a miracle, —
that is to say, by an act of pious fraud, — and appeals in
proof to a letter of this Emperor to the patriarch Macarius,
preserved in Eusebius.2 Constantine speaks in this letter of
the gladdening discovery of " the sign of the most sacred
passion of the Eedeemer, . which had been so long buried
beneath the earth," and regards this discovery as miraculous.
But the sign of the passion, to yvcoptapa tov irdOovs, is not
the grave, but the cross ; Constantine does not here speak at
all of the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre, but of that of the
cross, of which the genuineness could of course be made
manifest only by miracle. How the sepulchre was discovered
we are told neither by Constantine nor Eusebius, because
1 Cf. Robinson, i. 372 ff. 2 Vita Const, iii. 30.

JERUSALEM ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN TRADITION. 307
there was no room for speaking of any discovery whatever :
on the contrary, it is presupposed that the place is well
known ; the Christians knew that it was marked out by the
temple of Venus ; it was a question, therefore, simply of
removing the temple and the rubbish. But when three crosses
were found therein, only a miracle could decide which of these
was the cross of Christ.1 With the account of Eusebius, it is
true, Jerome is in conflict.2 He says that from the time of
Hadrian to that of Constantine, a period of about a hundred
and eighty years, there was worshipped in the place of the
resurrection an image of Jupiter ; upon the rock of the cross,
a marble statue of Venus. But that here an error obtains, is
evident from another passage of the same Jerome,3 where he
says, that on the site of the Holy Sepulchre there was a
temple of Venus. That, however, the tradition followed by
Constantine really pointed out the true sepulchre, follows
from the main argument directed against the genuineness of
the Holy Sepulchre, which consists in the following deduc
tion : " According to the Gospels, Jesus was crucified and
buried without the city ; but the Church of the Sepulchre hes
in the midst of Jerusalem ; it cannot therefore indicate the
true spot." But in Constantine's day, too, they were acquainted
with the Gospels, as well as with the statement of Heb.
xin. 12 ; if, nevertheless, they accepted a spot lying within the
city as the site of the grave, the improbabUity of this being
the true site must have been counterbalanced by a trust
worthy and primitive tradition. If at the time of Constantine
the place had been no longer known, but had first to be sought
out, it could not possibly have been sought in the city itself,
but must have been looked for without it. The place is
therefore genuine, because improbable.
25. If the place is from the nature of the case possible, it
must be the true position, because improbable ; that is to say,
because it would not be looked for in the city. This possibihty
in the nature of the case we have now to show. The third
waU of Jerusalem was built by Agrippa I., ten years after
1 Rufin. i. (xi.) 7, 8. Theodoret., Hist. Eccles. i. 17.
° Epist. ad Baulin., 49. Tom. iv. 564, edit. Mart.
3 Contra Jovian. Opp. iv. 2, 16.

308

Ari'JSJNJJIA.

the crucifixion of Christ. At the time of Christ, the city had
only two waUs. If, then, that part of the city which was
enclosed by the third wall, and incorporated with Jerusalem,
comprehends the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,
the same would lie, at the time of the crucifixion, without the
city, that is to say, without the second wall. That the present
waU corresponds on the western, northern, and eastern sides
to the course of the third waU, we have already shown above,
sec. 6. It now devolves upon us to prove that the second wall
did not enclose the site of the Holy Sepulchre, but passed to
the east of the same. About a hundred paces to the east of
Mount Calvary, at the north-east corner of the crossing of the
Damascus Street with the Via Dolorosa, excavations were
made under Pierotti's direction, with the view of preparing
for the erection (not carried out) of a Eussian consulate : these
excavations laid bare a fragment of ancient waU, which beyond
doubt belonged to the second city waU. Similar ancient
fragments of a wall are to be found on the eastern side of the
demesne of the Knights of St. John, and between the Damascus
Street and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It is true that
the Fore City, enclosed within the second wall, appears to be a
moderately insignificant little space, if the second waU had the
course indicated by these ancient remains. But the manner
in which Josephus speaks of this Fore City, and especiaUy
the comparatively insignificant number of fourteen towers
which he ascribes to this wall, confirm the conclusion as to the
narrow space of this quarter. Many topographers object that
in this case, as indeed is true, the Pool of the Patriarchs, or
Birket Hammam, was extra micros, if it was not dug by Agrippa
for the use of the New City.1 But the most important, SUoa,
MamiUa, Es-Sultan, etc., lie without the city. It is inconceivable
that the Christians, who were never banished during a whole
generation from Jerusalem, should not have preserved in hal
lowed memory the site of the crucifixion and the resurrection.
The tradition unquestionably reaches back to the apostolic
age, and vouches for the genuineness of the Holy Sepulchre.
1 [On this pool, which bears also the name Bool of Hezekiah, cf. Ritter,
iv. 72-75 ; and, on the fragments of an ancient wall discovered near to it,
Robinson, i. 329, 330.]

INDEXES.

I— GENEEAL INDEX.

PAGE
Abia, Class of, . . . 56 ff.
Acra, . 226, 267, 270, 271, 281
Actian era, Epoch of (b.c. 31), 27, 29
Adumim, Ascent of, . 168, 187
Aenon (springs), . . .122
Annas, son of Seth t^Avxvot,
|:n), ... 42, 190
Probably Sadducean Nasi of
Sanhedrim, ... 43
Anointing, First, of Christ
(? Capernaum), . . 149
Anointing at Bethany, . . 217
"Aval ToXit, h, . . . . 265
Antigonus, Death of, . 20
Antipater, Death of, . . 32
.Antonia, . . . 133, 225
Apprehension of Christ in
Gethsemane, . . 222, 223
Archelaus, Accession of, . 69
Arimathaea, . . 234
Ascension of Christ, . . 246
Chapel of the, . . .247
Atonement, Day of (10th
Tisri), . . 21, 130, 168
Augustus, Journey of, to Syria, 28
Regnal year of, in which
Christ was born (reckoned
from the first year of the
triumvirate, u.c. 711), . 40
Year of death of, . . 43
Bahr Tabariyeh, ... 77
Baris (= Birah), . . 304, n.
El-Batiheh, ... 91, 177
Bethania beyond Jordan, 92, 116, 177
Bethanv, . . 171, 188, 218
Bethesda, Pool of, . . .132
Bethlehem of Judea, . . 61
Bethphage (Place of Figs), . 189
Bethsaida of Galilee, . 86, 154
Julias, . . 93, 154, 162
Bettir, or Bittir, Wady, . . 56
Between the Two Evenings, 5, 192
Bezetha, . . 229, 262, 265
Birah,  133

Birath Arba, .

PAGE 61

Bisan, .

97, 105

El-Buttauf, .

. 115

Csesarea-Philippi, . . . 163
Caiaphas, Joseph (High Priest,
_ a.d. 25-36), . . 223, 224
Caligula, Accession of, . . 29
Cana of Galilee, . . 115,127
Capernaum, Site of, . . 80
First ministry of Christ in, . 117
Abode of Christ in, 127, 128, 147,
149, 150, 151, 154, 174
Routes from, to Jerusalem, 168, 186
Capitolias, Site of, . . . 99
Caves of the Kings, . 262, 263
Census, Years in which held, . 37
The, under Quirinus (752), . 34
Chagiga, . . .197
Charoseth, . . . 203, n.
Chinnereth, . . . . 78
Chisloth - Tabor (Flanks of
. Tabor), .... 59
Chorazin, .... 87
Christ, Year of birth of, . 70 ff.
Death  51
Chronicon-Paschale, 8, 40, 56, 2io
Citadel (el-Kula'ah), . 258, 259
City of David, . 272,273,276
Clemens Alexandrinus, . . 10
Corner Tower (now Stork's
Tower), .... 263
Council House, . 258, 259, 270
Crucifixion, Hour of the Lord's, 227
Mode of, . . . . 233
Dalmanutha, . . . 106, 162
Day, Jewish, Beginning of, . 2
Divisions of, 4
Dead Sea  76
Decapolis, ... 96, 161
Decline of the day, . . 4
Dedication, Feast of (25th
Kisleu), . . . .173

ilO

GENERAL INDEX.

Eclipses (Lunar) visible at
Jerusalem, B.C. 6-1, . 31
Eder (Gen. xxxv. 21 ; Micah
iv. 8), .... 64
Emmaus (Kulonieh), . . 242
En-Gannim (Fountain of Gar
dens), .... 185
En-Karim .(Fountain of Vineyard), 56
Ephraim or Ephrem, . 183, 184
Esdraelon or Esdrelon, Plain of, 58
Eusebius, .... 8
Evening sacrifice, ... 4
Examination of Christ before
Sanhedrim, . . 223, 224
Before Pilate (avxxpio-it), . 232
Feeding of the five thousand, , 154
Four thousand, . . . 161
Field of the shepherds, . . 64
Fik(Apheca), ... 97
Fountain Gate, . . 275, 277

Gabbatha,

225

Gadara, .....

9S

Galen, 

9

Gates of Jerusalem,

222, 230, 257, 261,

275

Gemini (C. Rubenius Geminus

and C. Rufius Geminus),

Consulate of the,
52
Genealogical tables among the
Hebrews,
63
Tivigia, .
153
Gennath, Gate of, .
261
Gennesareth, Lake of,
77
Territory of,
79
Gerasa or Gergesa, .
100,
150
Gethsemane (Oil-Press),
222
El-Gh6r,
77
El-Ghuweir, .
79
Gibea, Position of, .
66
Gihon, .
303
Golgotha,
229 ff.
304
Haret el-Mogharibeh,
270
Hermon,
167, n.
Lesser,
147
Herod, Appointment of, by the
Roman Senate,
19
Commencement of reign of,
20
Time of death of, . . 29, 34
According to Jewish tradition,
33
Herod Antipas, 29, 42, ]
41, 152
153
Hezekiah, Palace of,
Hinnom, Valley of,
Hippicus, Tower of,
Horse Gate, The, .
Huleh, Ard el-,
Lake, .
Hyrcanus, John, .
290, 291
257, 276
. 259
278, 297
163, n.
76
29, 123
(When this consonant is indi
cated as representing the
Arabic Ye, it is to be pro
nounced Y. In the other
cases as the English J. )
Jabbok, Wady Zerka (Blue
Water), .... 102
Upper (Nahr 'Amman), . 100
Jabes (Jabis), Wady Yabes, . 102
Jabneel in Galilee (? Safed), 85
Jarmuk or Yarmuk (Hieromax), 98
Jaulan (Gaulonitis), . . 89
Jebel ed-Diihi, . . 147, 185
Jerash (Gerasa of the Classics), 100
Jericho (er-Rtha), . . .187
Jerusalem, el-Kuds (the Holy), 256
Our Lord's sojourns in,
72, 118, 130, 173
Taken by Herod, . . 20, 27
By Pompey, ... 21
Destroyed by Titus (a.d. 70), 24
Acra of, . . . 266, 271
Bezetha of, . . . . 265
Fore City of, 265
Lower City of, . . . 266
Upper City of, . . .265
Jerusalemites, Antagonism of
the, to Christ, . 120, 132
El-Jib (Gibeon), ... 67
Johanan Ben Zacchai (Phari
saic) Nasi of the Sanhed
rim, .... 192
John the Apostle, Call of, 115, 142
Reference of, to events before
the feeding of the five
thousand, . .134
John the Baptist, Birth of, . 54
Commencement of ministry, • 110
Scene of labours of, . . 110
Nature of mission, . . 112
Time of imprisonment, . 140
Message from the prison, . 148
Date of death, . . 152, 153
John's disciples, Growing Ebion-
itism of, after their master's
imprisonment, . . 143
Jordan (Yarden), the Descender, 76
H> Fords of the, . . . 112
Josephus, . . . . 8, 15
El-J8z, Wady, . . .263
Judas, Plan of, to deliver up
Christ  206
Judea beyond Jordan, . 89, 177
Juttah (Yuttah), ... 55
Kadesh-Naphtali (Kedes), . 84
Kariin Hattin, . . .146
Kasr Seida, .... 95
Kxroj vroXts, ri, 266
GENERAL INDEX.

311

Kedron (Kidron, black-water),
winter torrent, 114, 222, 257, 274, 276
Bir Kerazeh (Chorazin), . . 88
Khan Minyeh, . . . 87
Khirbet el-Jehud, or Yehud, . 56
Khusneh, Wady, . . . 122
Lazarus, Raising of, . . 181
Legio (Ledjun), Megiddo, . 185
Magadan (Mujedda), . 105, 162
Magdala (Mejdel), ... 79
Mandhur (Hieromax), . . 98
Manifestations of the risen
Christ, . . . 245, 246
Mazoth ("A^opo,), 192, 197, 204, 214
Merj Ibn Aamir, . . . 58
(First) miraculous draught of
fishes,  141
Money - changers in the Sanc
tuary, .... 118
Month of the Jews, always lunar, 9
Wten called full, . . 5
The intercalary, ... 6
Months, Names of the Jewish, 6
Nain (Nein), . . . .147
Nativity, Church of the, . 62
Nazareth (en-Nasira), 58, 74, 127, 150
Northern route from, . . 82
yix^upxiot (with allusion to lyj), 58
New month, how determined, 11 ff.
Nicanor Gate, . . . 172
Nicodemus, .... 120
Night-watches, . . 3
T$u%06fispov, .... 2

Olives, Mount of,

171, 187, 188

Paraskeue, . . 201, 207, 208
Paschal eve, 783, the time of
the Lord's death, . . 217
Paschal lamb, when eaten, . 200
Passover (15thNisan) falls after
the vernal equinox, . 9
How determined, . . 9
Feast of, how observed, 192, 202
781 determines the begin
ning of Christ's ministry, 41
Paul, Year of conversion of, . 45 ff.
Manifestations of the Lord
to,  253ff.
Pella (Irbid), . . . .102
Pentecost, Feast of the In
gathering, . . . 247
Peter, Call of, . . 115, 152

rAGE
Pharisees (and Sadducees),
Growing hostility of, 144, 162, 170
Phiala-lake (er-Ram), . . 76
Philip the tetrarch, date of
his death, . . .30, 42
Philip Herod, husband of
Herodias, . . .141
Philo,  10
Pilgrim of Bordeaux, 62, 225, 290
Pliny,  3, 14
Pontius Pilate, term of office, . 42
Prsetorium, . . . 225, 299
npoxo-ruov, . . . 265, 267
Proclamation of Sanhedrim
against Christ, . . 182
Quirinus, P. Sulpicius, Prefect
of Syria (I. 751, 752), Cen
sus under, . . . 34ff.
Rachel, Sepulchre of, at Beth
lehem, .... 65
Cenotapb of, at Rama, . 68
Rama (Arimathaea), Position
of, . . . . 66, 234
Resurrection of the Lord, . 234 ff.
Robinson's Arch, . . 259, 266
Sabbatic years, . 23, 28, 37, 71
Not observed before the Exile, 25
2a[S[ixTov o*svT£poorpo>Tev, . 13, 138
Saleim, ..... 122
Samaria, .... 124
Samaria and Galilee, Confines
of,  185
Samaritans, Hostility of the,
towards the Jews, . . 169
Sanctuary (to kp'ov), . 40, 265
Pinnacle of the, . . 114
First cleansing of the, . 118
Last cleansing of the, . . 218
Sanhedrim, its sentence upon
the Lord, . . 181, 182
Sared,  59
Scopus, Position of, . . 67
Seleucidan era, Epoch of the
(B.c. 312), . . 26, 274
Sepulchre of the Lord, . . 234
Church of the Holy, . . 306
Sermon on the Mount, . . 145
Seventy, Mission of the, . 174
Sichem, . . . .123
Siloah, Pool of, . 173, 274, 275
Simon the Cyrenian, . . 201
Sxot'ix (twilight), . . . 238
Supper of the Lord, its institu
tion, .... 219
Sychar (el-Askar), . . .125

312

INDEX TO SYNOPTICAL ARRANGEMENT.

PAGE
Tabakat Fahil or Fuhil, . . 102
Tabernacles, Feast of (15th Tisri), 169
Tabor,  166
Tellanlyeh (Tell, as a prefix, is
the regular substitute for
Bet, when a place has
ceased to be inhabited), .
Tell-Hum, ....
Temple, Rebuilding of the,
begun by Herod, B.C. 20,
Final destruction of, .
Temple-tribute, The,
Tiberias (Tabariyeh),
Sanhedrim of, .
Tiberius, Fifteenth year of, 29, 43
Duration of reign of, .
Transfiguration, The, of the
Lord, . . . 164, 165
Twelve, Appointment of the, . 145
First mission of the, . . 147
Tyre and Sidon, District of (the
SiJ»w'« of Luke iv. 26), . 161
Tyropoeon, . . . 258, 268

92

28
26
184 78 7
, 45
44

Valley Gate,

269, ii., 275

Veil of the Temple, Rending of
the, .... 192
El-Wad  258
Wailing Place of the Jews, . 290
Washing of the Disciples' feet, 221
Way of the Sea, ... 86
Week, Divisions of the, . . 5
Week-day, in Jewish Calendar, 17
WeU, or Spring, of Jacob, . 123
Xystus, The, 259, 264, 266, 270
Year, Lunar, how brought into
agreement with Solar, . 6
Of Christ's birth, . . 70, 71
According to the Fathers, . 40
Zacchaeus, Visit of Christ to, 187, 217
Zebulon and Naphtali, Con
fines of, . . . . 83
. 102
. 140
282 ff., 288, 292
248, 2S5, 295

Zerka, Wady,
Zerka Main, Wady,
Zion, Site of,
Church of,

IL— -INDEX TO THE SYNOPTICAL AEEANGEMENT
OF THE GOSPEL HISTOEY.

Matthew.

Matthew — continued.

Matthew — continued.

CHAP.

PAGE

CHAP.

PAGE

CHAP.

PAGE

i. 18-ii. 23,

61

xi. 1-19, .

137

xix. 1-xx. 16, .

178

ii. 1-12, .

64

xi. 20-24, .

S)

xx. 17-28,

„

ii. 13-23, .

69

xi. 25-30, .

xx. 29-34,

179

iii. 1-17, .

109

xii. 1-8, .

JJ

xxi. 1-11, .

iv. 1-11, .

,,

xii. 9-14, .

)}

xxi. 12-17,

iv. 12-17, .

135

xii. 15-45,

J)

xxi. 18-22,

iv. 18-22, .
136
xii. 46-50,
»}
xxi. 23-xxiv. 1,
iv. 23-25, .
137
xiii. 1-35,
1 >}
xxiv. 1-xxv. 46,
v. 1-vii. 29,
) J
xiii. 36-52,
a
xxvi. 1-16,
viii. 1-4, .
ii
xiii. 53-58,
135
xxvi. 17-30,
viii. 5-13,
xiv. 1-12, .
138
xxvi. 81-57,
viii. 14-17,
JJ
xiv. 13-36,
»»
xxvi. 57-75,
viii. 18-27,
J)
xv. 1-20, .
160
xxvii. 1-30,
viii. 28-34,
J»
xv. 21-28,
»)
xxvii. 31-56,
ix. 1-8, .
))
xv. 29-31,
J J
xxvii. 57-66,
ix. 9-13, .
J J
xv. 32-xvi. 4,
J)
xxviii. 1-20,
ix. 14-17, .
ii
xvi. 5-12,
it
ix. 18-26, .
ix. 27-35, .
138 >>
xvi. 13-28,
xvii. 1-23,
ii
Mark.
ix. 36-x. 42,
xvii. 24-xviii. 3
5, 178,
i. 1-11, .
109
INDEX TO SYNOPTICAL ARRANGEMENT.

313

Mark — contin

ued.

Mark — continued.

Luke — con tinned.

CHAP.

PAGE

CHAP.

PAGE

CHAP.

PAGE

i. 12, 13, .

109

xv. 20-41, .

179

xiv. 1-xvii. 10, .

178

i. 14, 15, . 135, 140

xv. 42-47, .

11

xvii. 11-xviii. 34

) 11

i. 16-20, .

136

xvi. 1-18, .

it

xviii. 35-xix. 27,

179

i. 21-28, .

135

xvi. 19, 20,

xix. 28-44,

,,

i. 29-34, .

xix. 45-48,
i. 35-39, .
i. 40-45, .
137
Luke.
xx. 1-xxi. 4,
xxi. 5-36, .
ii. 1-12, .
i. 1-80,
54
xxii. 1-6, .
i '
ii. 13-17, .
ii. 1-40, .
58
xxii. 7-38,
ii. 18-22, .
ii. 41-52, .
73
xxii. 39-54,
a
ii. 23-28, .
a
iii. 1-23, .
109
xxii. 54-71,
il
iii. 1-6,
a
iv. 1-13, .
11
xxiii. 1-25,
11
iii. 7-12, .
iv. 14-30, .
135
xxiii. 26-49,
>t
iii. 13-19, .
iv. 31-37, .
i,
xxiii. 50-56,
11
iii. 20-30, .
ii
iv. 38-41, .
il
xxiv. 1-49,
,,
iii. 31-35, .
iv. 42-44, .
xxiv. 50-53,
11
iv. 1-34, .
a
v. 1-11, .
136
iv. 35-41, .
a
v. 12-14, .
137
v. 1-20,
v. 15-26, .
,,
John.
v. 21-43, .
138
v. 27-32, .
,i
vi. 1-6, .
135
v. 33-39, .
ii
i. 1-18,
109
vi. 7-13, .
138
vi. 1-5, .
i. 19-28, .
a
vi. 14-29, .
11
vi. 6-11, .
a
i. 29-iii. 21,
11
vi. 30,
vi. 12-16, .
n
iii. 22-iv. 54,
31
vi. 31-56, .
J)
vi. 17-49, .
it
v. 1-47, .
11
vii. 1-23, .
160
vii. 1-11, .
j j
vi. 1-21, .
138
vii. 24-30, .
• a
vii. 12-17, .
)!
vi. 22-71, .
160
vii. 31-37, .
jj
vii. 18-35, .
J i
vii. 1, 2, .
11
viii. 1-12, .
160
vii. 36-50, .
>'
vii. 3-10, .
11
viii. 13-26,
•
viii. 1-3, .
137
vii. 11-36, .
11
viii. 27-ix. 1,
a
viii. 4-18, .
)}
vii. 37-53,
11
ix. 2-32, .
a
viii. 19-21,
a
viii. 1-11, .
,t
ix. 33-50, .
178
viii. 22-25,
a
viii. 12-59,
11
x. 1-31, .
>)
viii. 26-39,
»»
ix. 1-x. 21,
160
x. 32-45, .
i.
viii. 40-56,
138
x. 22-39, .
J J
x. 46-52, .
179
ix. 1-6,
"
x. 40-42, .
178
xi. 1-10, .
, »
ix. 7-9,
11
xi. 1-45, .
11
xi. 11,
ix. 10,
)1
xi. 46-53, .
J )
xi. 12-14, .
.
ix. 11-17, .
xi. 54-57, .
,,
xi. 15-18, .
n
ix. 18-27, .
160
xii. 1-8, .
179
xi. 19-26, .
jj
ix. 28-50, .
il
xii. 9-50, .
a
xi. 27-xiii. 1,
>>
ix. 51-62, .
11
xiii. 1-xiv. 31,
a
xiii. 2-37, .
j)
x. 1-37, .
11
xv. 1-xviii. 13,
179
xiv. 1-11, .
tt
x. 38-42, .
a
xviii. 13-27,
• 11
xiv. 12-26,
i >
xi. 1-13, .
178
xviii. 28-xix. 15
1 li
xiv. 27-52,
;)
xi. 14-xiii. 21,
,,
xix. 16-30,
' 11
xiv. 53-72,
s j
xiii. 22-30,
,,
xix. 31-42,
11
xv. 1-19, .
53
xiii. 31-35,
¦ .)
| xx., xxi., .
11
314

INDEX TO CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.

UI._CHEONOLOGICAL TABLES.

(To find the year B.C., subtract the year u.c. from 754. To find the year a.d.,
subtract 753 from the year u.c.) PAGE
Time of the New Moon before Passover, a.d. 28-36, .... 16
Table of the Jewish Calendar, January, a.d. 28-May, a.d. 30, . . 18
Table of Principal Events, B.C. 313-A.D. 70,  52
Synoptical Outline of the first year of Christ's ministry, . . . 109
Synopsis of the History, May-September, a.d. 28, . . . 135
Succession of Events to the last Passover,  136
Synopsis of the History, January-December, A. D. 29, . . . 136-138
Synopsis of the History from Passover (18-19th April) to Dedication
(20-21st December), a.d. 29,  160
Synopsis of the History from end of a.d. 29, to the Resurrection, 9th
April, a.d. 30  .178
Succession of Events during the Passion week, .... 220

MURRAY AND GITsB, EDINBURGH,
PKINTEKS TO HKR MAJliSTl's STATIOKEKT OlFICi..

FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY,
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION:
One Guinea (payable in advance) for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo.
When not paid in advance, the Retail BookseUer is entitled to charge 24s.
ALB. — Any two Years in this Series can be had at Subscription Price. A single Tear's
Books (except in the case of the current Year) cannot be supplied separately. Non-
subscribers, price 10s. 6d. each volume, with exceptions marked.
18 6 4 — Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. Two Volumes.
Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vols. I. and II.
18 6 5 — Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vol. III.
Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. Two Volumes.
Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Volume.
18 6 6 — Keil and' Delitzsch on Samuel. One Volume.
Keil and Delitzsch on Job. Two Volumes.
Martensen's System of Christian Doctrine. One Volume.
18 6 7 — Delitzsch on Isaiah. Vol. I.
Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology. 12s.
Delitzsch on Isaiah. Vol. II.
Auberlen on Divine Revelation. One Volume.
18 6 8 — Keil's Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Volumes.
Delitzsch' s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. I.
Harless' System of Christian Ethics. One Volume.
18 6 9 — Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. One Volume.
Stier on the Words of the Apostles. One Volume,
Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. I.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I.
18 7 0 — Keil's Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II.
Schmid's New Testament Theology. One Volume.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. II.
18 7 1 — Delitzsch's Commentary, on the Psalms. Three Volumes.
Hengstenberg' s History of the Kingdom of God under the Old
Testament. Vol. I.
18 7 2 — Keil's Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume.
Hengstenberg' s History of the Kingdom of God under the Old
Testament. Vol. II.
18 7 3 — Keil's Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Volume.
Winer's Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. I.
Martensen on Christian Ethics.
18 7 4— Christlieb's Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol.
Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. II.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. I.
Oehler's BibUcal Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. I.
18 7 5 — Godet's Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Volumes.
Oehler's Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. II.

MESSRS. CLARK allow a SELECTION of Twehty Volumes (or more at the same
ratio) from the various Series previous to the Volumes issued in 1873 (see next page),
At the Subscription Price of Five Guineas.
They trust that this will still more largely extend the usefulness of the Foreign
Theological Library, which has so long been recognised as holding an important
place in modern Theological literature.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued.

The following are the works from which a Selection may be made (non-subscription
prices within brackets) : —
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on the Psalms. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in Berlin. In Three Vols. 8vo. (33s.)
Dr. Gieseler. — Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. By J. C. L. Gieseler,
D.D., Professor of Theology in Gottingen. Five Vols. 8vo. (£2, 12s. 6d.)
Dr. Olshausen. — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts, adapted especiaUy
for Preachers and Students. By Hermann Olshausen, D.D., Professor of Theology
in the University of Erlangen. In Four Vols. 8vo. (£2, 2s.)
Biblical Commentary on the Romans, adapted especially for Preachers and Stu
dents. By Hermann Olshausen, D.D. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians.
By Hermann Olshausen, D.D. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.)
Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colos
sians, and Thessalonians. By Hermann Olshausen, D.D. One Vol. 8vo.
(10s. 6d.)
Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians, to Titus, and the
First to Timothy; in continuation of the Work of Olshausen. By Lie.
August Wiesinger. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Biblical Commentary on the Hebrews. By Dr. Ebrard. In continuation of the
Work of Olshausen. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Neander. — General History of the Christian Religion and Church. By
Augustus Neander, D.D. Translated from the Second and Improved Edition.
Nine Vols. 8vo. (£2, lis. 6d.)
This is the only Edition in a Library size.
Prof. H. A. Ch. Havernick. — General Introduction to the Old Testament. By
Professor Havernick. ¦ One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Muller. — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr. Julius Muller. Two
Vols. 8vo. (21s.) New Edition.
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the
Messianic Predictions. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D. D. Four Vols. (£2, 2s.)
Dr. M. Baumgarten. — The Acts of the Apostles ; or the History of the Church
in the Apostolic Age. By M. Baumgarten, Ph.D., and Professor in the
University of Rostock. Three Vols. (£1, 7s.)
Dr. Stier. — The Words of the Lord Jesus. By Rudolph Stier, D.D., Chief
Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. In Eight Vols. 8vo. (£4, 4s.)
Dr. Carl Ullmann. — Reformers before the Reformation, principaUy in Germany
and the Netherlands. Two Vols. 8vo. (£1, Is.)
Professor Kurtz. — History of the Old Covenant ; or, Old Testament Dispensation.
By Professor Kurtz of Dorpat. In Three Vols. (£1, lis. 6d.)
Dr. Stier. — The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the Epistle of
St. James. By Rudolph Stier, D.D. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. By Professor
Tholuck of Halle. In One Vol. (9s.)
Professor Tholuck. — Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. By Professor
Tholuck. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg  Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are
appended : Treatises on the Song of Solomon ; on the Book of Job ; on the
Prophet Isaiah ; on the Sacrifices of Holy Scripture ; and on the Jews and the
Christian Church. By E. W. Hengstenberg, D.D. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.)
Dr. Ebrard. — Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. By Dr. John H. A.
Ebrard, Professor of Theology. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Lange. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St.
Matthew and Mark. Specially .Designed and Adapted for the Use of Ministers
and Students. By J. P. Lange, D.D. Three Vols. (10s. 6d. each.)

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Continued.

Dr. Dorner. — History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ.
By Dr. J. A. Dorner, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin.
Five Vols. (£2, 12s. 6d.)
Lange and Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on
the Gospel of St. Luke. Specially Designed and Adapted for the Use of
Ministers and Students. Edited by J. P. Lange, D.D. Two Vols. (18s.)
Dr. Ebrard. — The Gospel History: A Compendium of Critical Investigations in
support of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Lange, Lechler, and Gerok. — Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the
Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Dr. Lange. Two Vols. (21s.)
Dr. Hengstenberg.— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. — Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. — Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (1,0s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.)
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s. )
Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Book of Job. Two Vols. (21s.)
Bishop Martensen. — Christian Dogmatics. A Compendium of the Doctrines of
Christianity. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. J. P. Lange. — Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel
of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil — Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols. (21s.)
Dr. Harless.— A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Stier.— The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil — Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s. )
Professor Bleek. — Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Schmid. — New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. — Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. — History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant.
Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume.
Professor Keil — Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume.
Professor Keil. — Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume.
And, in connection with the Series—
Alexander's Commentary on Isaiah. Two Volumes. (17s.)
Bitter's (Carl) Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Volumes. (32s.)
Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine. Two Volumes. (21s.)
Macdonald's Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Volumes. (21s.)
Ackerman on the Christian Element in Plato. (7s. 6d.)
Robinson's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. 8vo. (9s.)
Gerlach's Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. — Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.)
The series, in 128 Volumes (including 1875), price £33, 12s., forms an Apparatus
without which it may be truly said no Theological Library can be complete ; and the Pub
lishers take the liberty of suggesting that no more appropriate gift could be presented to
a Clergyman than the Series, in whole or in part.
*„* no duplicates can be included i/ti the Selection of Twenty Volumes ; and it will save
trouble and correspondence if it be distinctly understood that NO LESS number
than Twenty can be supplied, unless at non-subscription price.
Subscribers' Names received by all Retail Booksellers.
London : (For Works at Non-subscription price only) Hamilton, Adams, & Co.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

LANG E'S
COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
Translations of the Commentaries of Dr. Lange and his CoUaborateurs
on the Old and New Testaments.
Edited by Dr. PHILIP SCHAFP.
There are now ready (in imperial 8vo, double columns), price 21s. per
Volume, OLD TESTAMENT, Eight Volumes:
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH, in One
Volume.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF KINGS, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF JOB.
COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, AND
THE SONG OF SOLOMON, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS,
in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON MINOR PROPHETS, in One Volume.
The other Books of the Old Testament are in active preparation, and will be
announced as soon as ready.
NEW TESTAMENT (now complete), Ten Volumes:
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK and ST.
LUKE.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE
ROMANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE
CORINTHIANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE
GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSA
LONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON, and HEBREWS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF JAMES, PETER,
JOHN, and JUDE.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
'Lange's comprehensive aud elaborate "Bibelwerk." . . . We hail its publication as a
valuable addition to the stores of our Biblical literature.'— Edinburgh Review.
The price to Subscribers to the Foreign Theological Library, St. Augustine's
Works, and Ante-Nicene Library, and Meyer's Commentary on the New
Testament, or to Purchasers of Complete Sets of the Commentary (so far as
published), will be FIFTEEN SHILLINGS PER VOLUME.
Dr. Lange's Commentary on the Gospels and Acts (without Dr. Schaff's
Notes) is also published in the Foreign Theological Library, in Nine Volumes
demy 8vo, and may be had in that form if desired. (For particulars, see List
of Foreign Theological Library.)

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

DR. LUTHARDT'S NEW WORK.
Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s.,
ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE
FOURTH GOSPEL.
By Professor C. E. LUTHARDT,
AUTHOR OF 'FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY,' ETC.
foranslaleir aitb t\i ^iterates <£ttlanf*0
By C. R. GREGORY, Leipzig.

Chap. I. Tradition. II. St. John's Authorship disputed. III. The Testimony
of the Church. IV. Testimony outside of the Church. V. St. John's ,
Residence at Ephesus. VI. The Passover Controversy. VII. The Testi
mony of the Gospel itself. VIII. St. John's Gospel and the Second
Century. IX. St. John's Gospel and the Synoptists. X. St. John's Gos
pel and the Revelation. XI. St. John's Christology psychologically
possible. Appendix.— Literature of the disputed Origin of the Fourth
Gospel, from 1792 to the present.
' A work which must be regarded as a very able and almost exhaustive summary of
the arguments in favour of the catholic tradition on this subject — exhaustive, that is to
say, in the present state of the question, and until new evidence shall have been dis
covered. Nothing can be more lucid or effective than the author's method of arranging
and presenting his arguments.' — Scotsman.
' There are few works in the later theological literature which contain, in such a con
fined space, such wealth of sober theological knowledge, and such an invulnerable
phalanx of objective apologetical criticism.' — Professor Guericke.
' In this work, from the pen of one of the greatest divines of Germany, the facts are
made to speak for themselves, and the result is a complete refutation of the Apti-
Johannine school of criticism, and a correspondingly complete establishment of the
truth on which the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church is shown to rest. . . .
Such a work as this was much needed.' — Dickinson's Quarterly.
'It is with no ordinary gratification that we welcome Dr. Luthardt's exhaustive
treatise. All the more so, that while he writes evidently with the earnestness of a man
fighting for a treasure, he never descends to the mere special pleader. . . . We cor
dially commend Dr. Luthardt's work as an able and seasonable contribution to the
literature of this question.' — Courant.
' Those who consult Luthardt's volume will find him to be a safe guide. He is
remarkably temperate and fair. He makes the liberal concessions of one who feels that
his resources are substantial, and that he need not fight for trifles. . . . This is by
far the be8t handbook on the subject which any inquirer can have. We hope that in its
present form it will find a large circle of readers.'— Daily Review.

fust Published, in Demy c\vo, Price is. 6d.,
THE
MIRACLES OF OUR LORD
IN RELATION TO MODERN CELTICISM.
BY
F. L. STEINMEYER, D.D.,
ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN.
TRANSLATED, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR, FROM
THE GERMAN BY
L. A. WHEATLEY.

Introduction.— 1. The Problem. 2. Method of Solving it. 3. Value of the
Solution. Jesus as a Worker of Miracles.
First Group. — Miracles considered as Signs of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Second Group. — Miracles considered as Symbols.
Third Group. — Miracles as Witnesses of the Power of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Fourth Group. — Miracles as Prophecies.
' In this exegesis Dr. Steinmeyer displays a very high degree of critical acumen and
a rare subtlety and originality of thought.' — Scotsman.
1 We have read this excellent translation of Professor Steinmeyer's famous work on
Miracles with great satisfaction. It is a careful and masterly reply to Strauss — to his
attack on the historical veracity of the Gospels and on the reality of Biblical Miracles.
It is therefore, by anticipation, a reply to " Supernatural Religion." . . . We most
cordially recommend the volume to young theological students.' — Watchman.
' This work will be found of great and lasting service in the cause of truth against the
sceptical tendencies of the present eager age. . . . The whole argument is bold, masterly,
and convincing; and the essay will take its place among the best recent volumes of
Christian evidence.' — Standard.
' A work of intrinsic importance at the present time, and both as an argument for the
miracles and an exposition of their meaning, deserves thoughtful consideration.' —
English Independent.
' Besides the value of the work apologetically, there is much of acute criticism and
suggestive exegesis, which will be prized by all who have learned to value duly even the
smallest contribution to a more fresh, life-like, and correct conception of that unique
divine life portrayed in the Gospels.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.

¦ ,

:':¦ '

;.;

.;,

¦;-,-: ;¦;¦¦¦ V'iv. ' -. '¦¦¦ fffmf
¦¦¦ \ :¦: ....-¦ ;¦¦ . ..;v/-

;

¦ ¦:

V,:,,,;,
ff
.:-H-::'>-'.;. ..'¦-'¦ ¦'¦:¦¦': ;!v-ti'-