YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY A NEW LIFE OE JESUS. BT DAVID FEIEDRICH STEAUSS. &ut!jori$etf ©vansslation. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II. "WILLIAMS AND NOEGATE, 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON ; a>-d 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. .1865. YALE CONTENTS OF VOL. II. SECOKD BOOK. MYTHICAL HISTOEY OF JESUS. SEC. PAGE 51. Arrangement .... 3 First Chapter. — Prefatory Mythical History of Jesus . 5—115 52. Subdivision .... 5 Fibst Gbotjp. ojp Myths . . .6 — 39 53, 54. ~~Jesus, the Son of David. — The two Genealogies 6 55. His Birth in the City of David . . .19 56. As Messiah dedicated like David . . 28 Second Gboup of Myths . . .39 — 68 57. Begotten ofthe Holy Ghost . . 39 58. . Annunciation and Birth of the Forerunner . . 46 59. Birth of Jesus . . 52 60, 61. Jesus, the Creative "Word of God, incarnate . 55 Thibd Gboot of_Myths . . . 69 — 115 62, 63. His Life endangered and preserved by the Star . 69 64. His presentation in the Temple . . 87 65. Dedicated like Moses and Samuel . . 95 66. The Messiah withstands temptation in the Desert 100 Second Chapter. — Mythical History ofthe Public Life of Jesus .... 116—295 67. . . . . . .116 Fibst Geoup of Myths . . . • 117 — 126 68. Jesus and his Precursor . . . 117 Second Geottp of Myths . . . 126 — 149 69, 70. Jesus and his Disciples . . . 126 Thibd Gbot?p of. Myths. Jesus as a Peefobmeb OF MlBAClES .... 149—280 71. Cures of the Blind . . . .149 72. Cures of Cripples . . . .160 73. Cures of Lepers, and of the Deaf and Dumb . 172 IV CONTENTS. SEC. 74. Cures of Persons possessed hy Devils 75. Cures involuntary and at a distance 76. Cases of the raiding of the Dead 77.v Ertising of Lazarus 78. Sea Anecdotes .... 79. Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes 80. 'Miracle at Cana .... 81. Cui'sing of the Fig-tree Fourth Geoup of Myths, Transfigueation and Entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem 82. The Transfiguration .... 83. His entrance into Jerusalem Third Chapter. — Mythical History ofthe Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Fibst Gboup of Myths . r 84. The Meal at Bethany, and the Anointing 85. The Passover and the Last Supper 86. The Feet-washing, the Treason, and Denial Second Geoup of Myths. The Agony and Aeeest of Jesus . . 87. The Agony at Gethsemane 88. Arrest of Jesus , Third Geoup of Myths. Trial and Condemnation of Jesus . •„ 89. Trial before the High Priest SO. Death of the Traitor 91. Trial before Pilate and Herod Fourth Group of Myths. Crucifixion; Death, and bueial of jesus 92. The Crucifixion 93. The Words on the Cross 94. The Miracles at his Death 95. The Spear-stab in his Side 96. His Burial Fifth Group of Myths. Ascension 97. History of the Eesurrection 98. The Ascension 99, 100. Conclusion PAGE 179 192 204213237252266 ' 276281—295281 290 296—417 296—324296 304316324—341 324 336 342—365342 348 355 365—402 365 376381 387395 His Eesuebection and VOL. II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS, ITS OEIGIN AND EOEMATION. VOL. 11. MYTHICAL HISTOEY OF JESUS. 51. Arrangement. So far we have drawn the rough outlines of a real Bio graphy of Jesus, have endeavoured to make him as intel ligible to us as is possible in the case of a figure which we view not merely at so remote a distance, but, in the main, through a medium so dim, and one which interrupts the light in a manner so peculiar. We now proceed to decompose the medium itself, i.e. to analyse the images visible in it by pointing out the conditions under which they have originated. For performing these processes we may adopt more than one method of arrangement. We might take each of our four Gospels by itself, according to the epoch which it marks in the course of the development of Christian ideas and con ceptions, and show how, at this epoch, such and such efforts being made by the Church, such and such dogmatical prin ciples being assumed, the Life of Jesus did and must neces sarily have presented itself to men's apprehension; or, looking to the closer relation of the three first Evangelists and the connection of different tendencies in them, we might combine these together, contrast them with the fourth, and develope first the synoptic, then the Johannine circle of Myths, according to their respective origin, so that we should have to go through the course of the Life of Jesus, in the first case four times, in the second at least twice. The first of these processes would certainly be tedious, the second would be somewhat violent. Notwithstanding all the discrepancy B 2 4 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESOS. between the synoptic Gospels and that of John, still the fundamental principles of the former are in close connection with those of the latter ; even in the case of particular narra tives they are assumed by the latter, and stand in the same relation of degree to those of the synoptics as the superla tive does to the positive and comparative. A criticism, therefore, whose highest problem it is to make the Gospels intelligible as literary and historical products, might find it convenient to take each by itself, and to develope connectedly its description of the Life of Jesus ; we, whose object it is to answer the question, whether in the Evangelical narratives we have historical accounts of Jesus, or, if not, what, must take another road. We shall take, not exactly separate narratives, but sepa rate groups of them, for instance, the narratives of the genealogy, the procreation, the baptism, the miracles of Jesus, and pursue them in their development through all four Gospels; and in doing this we shall, as far as is practicable, take as a clue the chronology of the Life of Jesus. The materials for the first section .are,, naturally, the pre fatory mythical history of Jesus, containing the accounts, on the one hand, of the coming of the forerunner, on the other that of his introduction by that forerunner, the history of the baptism, and of the temptation as being inseparable from it. FIRST CHAPTER. Prefatory Mythical History of Jesus. 52. Subdivision. The whole prefatory history of Jesus, in the form in which it lies before us in the Gospels, assuming the historical noEices oTT£s~~domestication in Nazareth, his subsequent relation to John the Baptist, his own name, and perhaps also the names of his parents, was developed from the simple proposition of the_new.faith»_that Jesus .was th*e"~MessiaE.. "Jesuswas the Messiah, i. e. the Son of David, the Son of God, the second Moses, the last, greater, Saviour ofhis people, and of so many of mankind as faithfully turn to him. He was the Son of David, ". e. in the first place be was descended from his family. Efforts were made to prove this on different sides, and from different points of view. Hence the two Genealogies in Matthew and Luke. He was the Son of David, i. e. in the nest place, he was born in the city of David. But as he was notoriously " the Nazarene," the one Evangelist made use of a particular machinery in order to bring the parents of Jesus from Nazareth, the other to bring them away from Bethlehem to Nazareth. He was the Son of David, i. e. in the third place, he was, like David, anointed by a man of a prophetical character, filled, by this anointing, with the Holy Spirit, and prepared to undertake his high calling. As the Messiah, Jesus was also the Son of God, and in the most literal acceptation of the phrase. This meant, in the view of the authors of the first and third Gospels, that he was begotten -in the womb of his mother by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of a human father, announced and b BOOK II. MYTHrCAL HISTORY OF JESUS. welcomed by angels. In the view of the author of the fourth Gospel, it meant that Jesus was the Creative Word of God become incarnate, a dignity in comparison with which not only the descent from David and the birth in the city of David, but also the pastoral scenes of the occasion ofhis announcement and birth vanished, as petty and insignificant. As the Messiah, lastly, Jesus was the second Moses; '. e. had been miraculously preserved from the same dangers as once threatened, in like manner, the infancy of the first Saviour, dangers produced by the fact that the Star out of Jacob promised in the Books of Moses had shown itself on the occasion of his birth, that those who brought gifts from Saba had attended- to do homage to the Messianic Infant; the second Moses, who, like the first and like Samuel, having been even as a child dedicated to his high calling, was the Teacher of the learned ; who, lastly, withstood the tempta tions to which the people, under the guidance of Moses, had succumbed, and thus proved himself to be the Restorer and the Regenerator. FIRST GROUP OF MYTHS. JESUS, THE SON OF DAVID. I. "Jesus, the Messiah, of the Family of David. The two Genealogies. 53. The object being to prove the descent from David, which according to the conceptions of his countrymen, was a neces sary attribute of Jesus if be was the Messiah (John vii. 42 ; Rom. i. 3), this task was facilitated on both sides by two opposite circumstances. The first was that the genealogy of David was known both upwards and downwards, that of Jesus was, unquestionably, unknown. THE SON OF DAVID. 7 The pedigree of David might be read by all men in the list of Jewish Kings down to the Captivity, as given at length in historical narrative by the Books of the Kings and Chronicles, it might be read in the form of a pedigree, as given by the introduction to the first Book of the Chronicles, coming down to Serubabel, the leader of those who returned from the captivity, and his immediate posterity. It was a matter of course that he who was descended from David was, at the same time, a descendant of the national patriarch Abraham. But as not only the Son of David was seen in the Messiah, but also that seed promised to Abraham in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed (1 Mos. xxii. 18 ; Galat. iii. 15), it might appear appropriate to trace the family of David upwards to Abraham, implied as it was already partly in the first Book of Moses, partly at the end of the little Book of Ruth, and in the introduction to the Chronicles. Nay, if it was wished to take a step upwards from Abraham to Adam, the first created man, there was no difficulty in doing so. What was wanted was found in the fifth and eleventh chapter of Genesis,, and again in the introduction to the Chronicles. Consequently the genealogical thread, as given in the Old Testament, ran down from Adam to Serubabel and his im mediate successors ; here it came to an end and hung sus pended in the air, being about 500 years shorter than it ought to be, and requiring to be lengthened by so much if it was to be taken as the genealogy of Jesns. This might be done in two ways ; best naturally, if the descent of Jesus could be known so far up, and supported by original records. But it will be admitted that there is but little probability that this could be done. We do not even require the infor mation of Julius Africanus that Herod, ashamed of his own ignoble descent, destroyed the Jewish genealogical registers,* * Quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, I. 7, 13. 8 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. to make it extremely doubtful that after the stormy periods first of the Macedonian rule, then of that of the Maccabees, and finally of the beginning of that of the Romans, the obscure family of a Galilean carpenter should have had genealogical trees reaching so far up. It may well, indeed, be believed that at a later period, after a Christian Church had sprung up, the relatives of " The Lord" busied them selves much with the genealogy of their family as the same Julius Africanus tells ns they did, and such efforts, in which the members of the family were certainly assisted by other members of the Church, may be supposed to have given rise to our two genealogical tables in Matthew (i. 1 — 17), and Luke (iii. 23 — 28) ; but the fact that these writers fill up the gap already mentioned with totally different names confirms our supposition that they had not at their disposal any origi nal records for doing so, but depended upon their own sur mise and conjecture. The son of Serubabel, through whom the pedigree of Jesus runs, is called by Matthew Abiud, by Luke Resa (both, in this, differing from 1 Chron. iii.), while the father of Joseph, through whom Jesus is supposed to come from Serubabel and David, is called by Matthew Jacob, by Luke Eli, and, between the two, the names are different as well as the number of generations, of which, in Matthew, including Serubabel and excluding Joseph, we find ten, in Luke nearly as many again, namely nineteen. This discrepancy was, as we said, very natural when the authors ofthe two genealogies were thrown back upon their own invention in the filling up of that gap, and neither knew anything of the attempt of the other. But even if the author of the genealogy in Luke was acquainted with that of Matthew he might have his own reasons for differing from it. For he differs from him even as to the members from David down to Serubabel, which he, as well as the composer of the other genealogy, had before him in the Old Testament. From David downwards the genealogy given in Matthew THE SON OF DAVID. V" makes the pedigree of Jesus ran through Solomon and the well known series of the Kings of Judah ; while that in Luke selects Nathan from among the sons of David. Now Na than, in 1 Chron. iii. 5, is named immediately before Solo mon, but his posterity is nowhere spoken of in the Old Tes tament, so that the compiler of the genealogy in Luke, finding no list of them elsewhere, had to invent their names himself. Different reasons may be thought of for hia deviat ing from the royal line, as given in the Old Testament. Naturally it was not, in his opinion, too eminent and too good for his Christ. Consequently it must, in some way or other, have been too mean and unworthy. It is well known that, as is often the case in dynasties merely hereditary, that of David also had degenerated in later times. With regard to the last scion of it, that Jechoniah or Jehoiachin, who was carried away to Babylon, the prophet Jeremiah (xxii. 30) bad delivered judgment in the name of Jehovah : " No man. of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."' It is impossible that any one remembering these words of Jehovah could represent as descending from an ancestor thus rejected, him to whom the Lord should give the throne of his father David and who should ' ' reign over the house of Jacob for ever" (Luke L 32, if.). But in fact that degenerate member of the royal line was not the first that had gone astray, but already Rehoboam, nay even Solomon himself with his licentiousness and his idolatry might be considered as degenerate also, so that we cannot be surprised that according to one ancient account* there was already a party among the Jews who expected, the Messiah not from this, the ruling line of the -posterity of David, tainted as it was with crimes, but from a line that in its obscurity had continued pure. It was as obvious for the author of the third Gospel, educated as he * Comp. Credner's Introduction to the New Testament, I. 68, ff. 10 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. was in the school of Paul, to adopt into his work a genealogy sketched from this point of view as it was for the composer of the first, with his more Jewish- Christian spirit to prefer the other. For the Jewish-Chi-istian was as regards his Messiah naturally a legitimist. On the other hand the Pauline, possessed so to say with an Orleanistic spirit, might prefer a Messiah who, descended from a non-reigning line, appeared* at the same time less as a Jewish King. For the same reason the author of the third Gospel welcomed in the genealogy adopted by him the continuation beyond Abraham up to Adam and God himself, or he himself made that con tinuation, through which Jesus, in the character of the second Adam (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47), was placed outside of the limits of Judaism in a relation to the whole of mankind. But it is not merely in the discrepancy between these two genealogies, but also in the character of each of them separately, that we recognise less the results of historical investigation than the products of dogmatic assumption. That in Matthew divides itself into three portions, containing each an equal number of members, of which the first reaches from Abraham to David, the second from David to the Babylonian captivity, the third from this last to David. It is clear from the title which he gives it, " Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ," that the compiler had in view the bipartite register of the primeval generation in Genesis (1 Mos. v. 1, ff., xi. 1 0, ff.), that in Genesis being called, according to the Alexandrian translation, "Book o'fthe generation of men."f Now this latter gives, first, from Adam to Noah ten genera tions, and then, certainly not without a meaning and a pur pose, the same number from Shem to Abraham. In this correspondence of the periods within which the great histori cal epochs succeeded each other, as in this case the first * Comp. HUgenfeld, The Gospels, p. 165. ¦f 1 Mos. v. 1 : avrn r) fHfikoc, ytviasutc ivSpuiratv. Matt. i. 1 : BiBXoc ytviatiag 'Invov Xptarov. THE SON OF DAVID. 11 Patriarch of mankind was succeeded by the second, and he by the Father of the faithful, the Rhythm of History was supposed to be discovered, the keynote, as it were, of the divine government of the world — the character of which, however, is not quite so simple as that. Now when our Evangelical genealogist combined with the accounts in Genesis the genealogy at the conclusion of the Book of Ruth, he found from Abraham to David, both included, fourteen members. Whether there were ten, as in Genesis, or fourteen, was indifferent to him ; nay, the number fourteen, as the double of seven, was a particularly sacred number ; only as the number ten was repeated in the one case, so must the fourteen be repeated here. And as one more group of fourteen, even taking the numerous Jewish king3 into the genealogy, did not reach to Christ, it was necessary to have two more groups of fourteen, three, therefore, altogether, so that again a sacred number resulted in the number three. Moreover, as the first fourteen ended with David, the third with the Messiah, so also it was necessary that the conclusion ofthe second should coincide with a historical epoch. Now for this there was, this time, no great personage, or favourite of God, but the grand execution of God's judgment in the Babylonish captivity naturally presented itself. Now with the exception of the name of Serubabel and that of his father, with which the compiler of the genealogy wished to embellish it, there were no other names at hand to enable him to make the third portion uniform with the first. But this was no obstacle to him. Again, thirteen generations were not enough for the six hundred years or nearly so, from Jechoniah to Jesus (not counting in the latter), seeing that, on the average, each son must have been born when his father was 64 years old. But this gave him little trouble. The case of the middle portion was more difiicnlt. For from Solomon to the end of the kingdom, there were twenty Jewish kings, or, not counting Joash and Zedekiah, who did -12 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. not carry on the generation, still eighteen, if, therefore, the number fourteen was to prevail, four had to be rejected. It cannot be said that, in doing so, the genealogist fixed on the worst, for Joas and Amaziah, whom he passes over were, in the estimation of the Old Testament historians, praiseworthy princes, and in any case better than Joram and many others, whom nevertheless he thought worthy to occupy a place in his list. But when we see how before Jechoniah or Jehoiachin he passes over his father Jehoiachim, one might suppose a mistake to have been committed from the similarity of sound, especially as he gives Jehoiachin brothers which not he but his father Jehoiachim had. But when we find further on that instead of passing from Joram to Ahaziah, or, in Greek, Ochoziah (omitting three names Ahaziah, Joas, and Amaziah) he goes to Usia, in Greek, Ozias, we are almost inclined to suspect that he had selected for his omissions, intentionally, those passages in which a resemblance in the sound ofthe names might to a certain extent conceal those omissions. Only he did in reality too much, for, after those omissions, the second group of fourteen only has its full complement by counting over again, at the beginning of it, the name of David which had been already counted in the first, and then ending with Josiah. Or if we begin with Solomon, then Jechoniah must be taken in at the end, and, as without him the third division has only thirteen members, he, instead of David, must be counted twice over, being, as he is, named both before and after the Babylonian captivity that defines the section. By these means the object of the compiler is certainly attained: the pedigree of Jesus the Messiah is not merely derived in a general way from Abraham and David, but runs down to him in three uniform cascades of fourteen steps each, a sign, in the mind of the writer, that it was not blind chance that was here at work, but a higher power, ordering the destiny of man, in ours, that the result was notthat of certain historical investigation, bnt of arbitrary and dogmatizing compilation. THE SON OF DAVID. 13 The genealogy in Luke has no such sub -divisions of numbers. The sum total, therefore, assumes greater im portance. This is not brought into relief as it is in Matthew, but it is, reckoning the name of God at the head of it seventy- seven, consequently eleven times the sacred number seven. Some trouble, however, was required to extend it to this number. At the point where it leaves the Old Testament we may see this from the numerous repetitions of the same names, that of Joseph occurring four times, of Judah twice, of Levi, Melchi, Mat that, Mattathias, the same, and one Mattatha besides. Names like these do indeed occur in historical genealogies, but, thus accumulated, they point rather to the exhausted imagination of a writer, who, -when he could think of no new names, kept repeating those he had already used. It is clear, besides, that the compiler of this list was not the author of the third Gospel, but that the latter found the genealogy ready made as a separate portion, and incorporated it into his work as well as he could (perhaps with the exten sion alluded to above). This is clear from the way in which, in the Gospel, it appears, according- to Schleiermacher"3 striking expression, wedged in between the two accounts, so closely connected together, of the Baptism and Temptation of Jesus. In Matthew it stands at the beginning of the Gospel, and very appropriately as the history of the birth of Jesus is in close connection with it. So far it might be sup posed that the Evangelist had himself completed the list with a view to introducing it in this very place. But this assumption is rendered impossible, both in the case of Matthew and of Luke, by a reason involved in the con tents of the genealogy. In their accounts of the Birth, both Evangelists exclude Joseph from all participation in the procreation of Jesus, but the genealogies deduce the pedigree of Jesus from David through Joseph. Both do indeed in their genealogies describe Joseph only as the supposed 14 BOOK H. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. father of Jesus, or as the husband of Mary, his mother ; but these are obviously only interpolations and alterations, made hy them in order to bring the genealogies into harmony with their accounts of the birth. Whoever, in order to prove Jesus to be the Son of David, i. e. the Messiah, planned a genealogy representing Joseph to be a descendant of David, must necessarily have considered this Joseph to have been the real father of Jesus. The two genealogies in the first and third Gospels are memorials of a time and a circle when Jesus was considered a human being naturally begotten. Whoever conceived of him as having been called into ex istence without male co-operation by the operation of Deity in Mary, had no resource, supposing him also to wish to prove him to be the Son of David, but to keep to the mother's side and to derive her from the family of David. Our Evangebsts exhibit genealogies of Joseph which they did not wish _to be lost, but could not use them in the form in which they were, giving Jesus as the real Son of Joseph. So by these additions they cut off the natural connection between Jesus and Joseph, without noticing that they had thus cut the vital nerve, and the power of proof contained in those genealogies. 54. Thus we have considered the genealogies from the natural point of view. From this point they are easily and simply explained, with all their discrepancies, from each other, from the history and the sequel of the Evangelical narrative. So easily and, simply that it is almost inconceivable how from any other point of view difficulties, so desperate, can be found in them, and, a priori, that point of view may be considered as the wrong one from which such difficulties result. But what they do result from is the supposition that not only in these genealogies, and indeed in both, of them, we have THE SON OF DAVID. 15 genuine historical records, but also in the history of the infancy of Jesus, an account of historical value. Can it, in the first place, be explained on this supposition how Matthew, or whoever is the compiler of the genealogy given by him, came to omit out of it four well-known Jewish Kings and to maintain the absolutely false proposition that from David to the Babylonish captivity only fourteen genera tions succeeded each other? In the case of an inspired writer a mistake is not to be thought of, and even one writing independently of inspiration, could at the most only take Jehoiachim and Jehoiachin as one and the same person. But that, besides this, he omits three other kings, that is exactly the number that was necessary in order to bring out his second group of fourteen, cannot have been accidental, but must have been intentional. We say then that the intention was not to get more than fourteen members, but we find in the manner in which the author proceeded an instance of unhistorical caprice. The theologians of the modern Church, on the contrary, as many Fathers of the Church had done before them, find in this something deeply significant. That is, in the omission of the three kings between Joram and TJsia they find an inculcation of the divine prohibition against idolatry (2 Mos. xx. 5) ; Joram, they say,* had in marriage Athalia, the idolatrous daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, whose descendants were unworthy of succeeding to the theocratic throne, and were, therefore, omitted from the genealogy of Christ. But, as all the succeeding kings and ancestors of Jesus were descendants of this married couple, the whole genealogical Hst, on this supposition, should have been broken off at this place. No ! says the Theologian, it is only to the third and fourth generation that Jehovah threatens in that passage of the law to punish the sin of idolatrous men ; * Krafit, Chronology and Harmony of the Four Gospels, p. 55. Ebrard, Scientific Criticism ofthe Evangelical History, p. 192 ofthe 2nd edition. 16 BUOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. consequently it was only for the son, grandson, and great- grandson of that couple, exactly as we find it in Matthew, that the right to figure in the genealogy of Jesus was des troyed. Madness, we see has here its method ; hence the ¦wrong application of reasonable grounds. In the second place, if the genealogies are taken as historical records, the discrepancy between them requires, above everything, to be explained. How can Joseph have been at the same time a son of Jacob and of Heli, how have descended from David at the same time through Solomon and the kings and again through Nathan and a line not royal ? At first sight the answer does not appear so difficult. If we had genealogies of Scipio Africanus the younger, one might give the line of the Scipios the other that of the .ZEmilii, and stall both be historical, as the author of the one might have kept to the natural, the other to the adoptive father of the hero. Thus the father of the Church Augustin* considered the Jacob of Matthew to be the natural, the Heli of Luke to be the adoptive father of Jesus. In the Law of Moses it was provided, in order to prevent families dying out, that when a married man had died childless, his brother, if he had one, should marry the widow, and that their first born son should be entered in the register of the family in the name of the deceased brother (5 Mos. xxv. 5, ff.). Accord ingly, even before the time of Augustin, the learned Christian,t Julius Africanus, thought to explain the dis crepancy between the genealogies by supposing that Joseph's mother had been first married to Heli, by whom she had no son, and that then, after his death, his brother Jacob married her and had by her Josepb in his own name. Consequently Matthew is as correct in saying that Jacob begot Joseph, * De Consensu Evangelistaram, II. 3. | Quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, I. 7, and afterwards corroborated by Augustin in the Retractations, II. 7. THE SON OF DAVID. 17 inasmuch as he was his natural father, as Lake in calling Joseph the son of Heli, in whose name he was registered according to the law. But if Jacob and Heli were brothers-gernian, then they both had the same father, and the two genealogies must have coincided above them, which is by no means the case. There fore Africanus assumed that Jacob and Heli were only bro thers on the* mother's side, and that their mother had two husbands in succession, one of whom belonged to the line of Solomon, the other to that of Nathan, in the family of David, and that of these husbands one was the father of Jacob, the other of Heli. This solution would be indeed farfetched, but still good in so far as it is not impossible, provided the thing was settled by it. But exactly as Joseph in this case, so, higher up, SerubabeFs father Salathiel, in which two names both genealogies, in the midst of clear discrepancies, un fortunately coincide, has in both two different fathers and lines of descent, in Matthew Jechoniah ofthe Royal, in Luke Neri of the other line. So that again the same double hypothesis becomes necessary, first that Jechoniah and Neri were bro thers, and the one the natural, the other, according to the Levitical law, the lawful father of Salathiel, and then that the two were only half-brothers on the mother's side, conse quently that these two fathers married successively the same woman, and that moreover, exactly as before, the one genea logy took the legal, the other, in opposition to the Mosaic ordinance, the natural father. But this is too much even for many theologians, so they prefer either the simple relation of adoption, or explain* Salathiel and Serubabel in Luke to be different persons from those in Matthew—or, and this is the favourite solution, they consider one genealogy as that of Mary. We cannot but be curious to know to which of the two genealogies the last explanation is to apply, as in the one of * As Schmid, Biblical Theology, 1. 45. VOL. II. C 18 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. them Mary is not named at all, in the other only as the wife of Joseph, the descendant of David. And yet it is in this veiy genealogy, which at all events does name her, that the reference of it to her by the expression, ''Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary," is so specifically excluded, that the genealogy in which her name is wanting altogether, i. e. that of Luke, might with more confidence be considered as hers.* In that case, when it is said (ver. 23, ff.), Jesus was (as it was believed) a Son of Joseph, the (Son) of Heli, the (Son) of Matthat, &c, the word Son, in the first, third and following places, is supposed to mean a real Son, and only in the second place, between Joseph and Heli, a Son- in-law ;f or it i3 explained, Jesus was beHeved to be a" Son of Joseph (going higher up, a Son, i. e. through Mary a Grand son) of Heb, (still higher up a Son, i. e. a great Grandson) of Matthat, &c.;J two modes of explanation between which we might hesitate, if it were necessary to award the prize to the most unnatural, which we should choose. Besides this, dif ferent Fathers ofthe Church and the apocryphal Gospels assign a descent from David to Mary also.§ Not so the Gospel of Luke, otherwise, on the occasion of the taxing (ii. 4), it would not say that Joseph also went with Mary to be registered, because he was of the family of David, but because they both were. In the third place, it has to be explained, if not only the genealogies but the account of the Infancy, which we shall discuss further on, are to be taken historically — if therefore Joseph was indeed a descendant of David, but not the father of Jesus, what, as far as Jesus is concerned, the genealogy is intended to prove. The answer is that they, or at least * Thus Kiafft, Chronology and Harmony of the Gospels, p. 56, ff. Ebrard, Scientific Criticism, p. 195. t Paulas, in the Commentary on the passage. $ Krafft, as quoted, p. 58. § Protevang. Jacobi, c. I, 2, 10. Evang. de Nativ. Marias, i. 13. Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. 23. 43, 100. HIS BIRTH IN THE CITY OF DAVID. 19 the genealogy in Matthew, if we appropriate that in Luke to Mary, is intended to show, not the natural pedigree of Jesus but the entailing upon him of the theocratic right to the dignity of the. Messiah from David through the husband of his mother. Thus it would be not a genealogical but a juridical pedigree.* But according to the notions both of the Jews and the original Christians (Rom. i. 3; John vii. 42), the two things were inseparable, as they clearly were also in the original sketch of our genealogies ; the Messianic claim was considered to be a claim inherited with the blood of David, and it was only a change in their view of the person of Jesus, according to which the genealogies could no longer have maintained their ground, at all events as those of Joseph but only as those of Mary, that caused the EvangeHsts, not wishing to lose these old and valued documents, to introduce the break above mentioned, and to make them harmless indeed as far as the new dogma, but at the same time unmean ing as far as the genealogies themselves were concerned. II. Jesus, as the Messiah, is born in the City of David. 55. It was out of Bethlehem, according to the text in the Pro phet (Micah v. 1), that the desired Shepherd of the people of God, i. e. the Messiah, was to come. This was understood of his being born in Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 4, ff.); and thus, if Jesus was the Messiah, he must of course be born in the city of David (John vii. 42) . It was not quite so easy to bring this about as it was to trace the descent of Jesus from David. Of the parents of Jesus it was not known that they were of the line of David, but as no one knew the contrary, any one might boldly maintain upon this point whatever he thought fit. With the * Ebrard, as quoted, p. 191. c 2 20 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. home of Jesu3, the dwelling-place of his parents, the case was otherwise. Of this, on the contrary, every one knew that it had been, as far as could be remembered, Nazareth, not Bethlehem. But, as a home and a birthplace do not necessa rily coincide, the prophecy might still maintain its right. Jesus might possibly have been bom on the road, or his parents might have changed their dwelling in his earliest child hood. In the first case they had always bved in Nazareth, and had only once, on an accidental occasion, sojourned temporarily in Bethlehem. In the other case, Bethlehem had originally been their dwelling-place, but they had subsequently had a motive for changing it to Nazareth. So in this the narrators had their choice of the mode in which they would represent the story, and we may still recognise the motive which might induce one to decide in favour of one statement, the other in favour of another, The stronger the spirit of Jewish dogmatism was in one, the greater the importance he attributed to the prophecy with its Bethlehem : the stronger that of Greek pragmatism in the other, the more he was inclined to the relation with Nazareth, which was historically known. To the one, accordingly, Bethlehem appeared not only as the birthplace of Jesus, but also as the immemorial home of his parents ; to the other Nazareth, as the town in which Jesus was not only brought up, but would also have, been born, if it had not been necessary for him to be . born elsewhere in compliance with the prophecy. We see at once that the first was the case of Matthew the latter of Luke. Matthew begins his narrative with the parents of Jesus, the pregnancy of his mother, the doubts of Joseph and the pacifying of them by the angel in a dream, without saying where all this took place (i. 18 — 25). But immediately afterwards, and without further prefatory remark, he repre sents Jesus as being born in Bethlehem (ii. 1). We must therefore assume that what has been already recounted took HIS BIRTH IN THE CITY OF DAVID. 21 place there, consequently that that was the home of the p irents of Jesus, but that the Evangelist does not name Bethlehem until it was of importance for Ms dogmatic purpose, that is on the occasion of the birth of Jesus, who could not have been the Messiah if he had not been born in the city of David. Here the parents of Jesus receive the visit of the wise men from the East, and would not have thought of quitting the place if they had not been warned by an angel in the dream to take flight into Egypt to avoid the threatened murder of the infants (ii. 14) ; nay, even from there, they were on the point of returning again at once to Bethlehem, after the death of the murderer, had not his successor in Judea, not a much better man than he, caused them alarm : and now the honest angel of the dream makes them settle in the Gablean Nazareth (ii. 22, ff.). Here he who runs may read: the Evangebst assumes as a given fact that the parents of Jesus lived in Bethlehem. He represents them as having been there always, and therefore makes use of no sort of arrange ment to take them there for the purpose of the birth of Jesus ; on the contrary, his problem is to bring them away from the place after it has happened, and to explain how it came to pass that they are, at a later period, to be found, with Jesus, in Nazareth. Luke, on the contrary, as soon as he begins to speak of . the parents of Jesus, mentions Nazareth as their dwelling- place. Here he represents the Angel Gabriel as announcing to Mary her miraculous pregnancy (i. 20, ff.) ; here Mary's household must be supposed to have been, to which she returns after the visit to Elizabeth (i. 56) ; hither, after their temporary sojourn in Bethlehem, the parents of Jesus come back with the child, and on this occasion Nazareth is described expressly as their own city, i. e. their dwelling-place (ii. 39) . In Luke, therefore, the parents of Jesus are not at home in Bethlehem, as Matthew says, but exactly the converse is assumed, namely, Nazareth. The whole object, therefore, 22 BOOK 11. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. of the narrator must be to bring them to Bethlehem at the proper time. Their return thence to Nazareth, being then* home, results naturally. Let us, in the presence of this problem, transport our selves still more definitely into the position of the third Evangelist. He was confronted, on the one hand, by Jesus as the native of Nazareth, as he lived in historical tradition, on the other by Jesus as the Messiah, and who, consequently, in accordance with a dogmatic hypothesis, must be born in Bethlehem. We know not whether he was acquainted with Matthew's account of the birth and infancy of Jesus ; but even if he was he might be of opinion that bis older colleague had made the matter too easy. How came the parents of Jesus to Bethlehem? This was the question he proposed to himself; and the answer of Matthew that they had always been there, must have appeared to him an assumption of a fact for which a cause ought to be assigned. As be is not more economical of his angebc appearances than Matthew he might possibly have brought about a visit to Bethlehem by such an appearance. It might have plainly directed Joseph to travel to Bethlehem with his betrothed in order to fulfil the prophecy of Micah. But this pro ceeding would have been a little abrupt, and consequently not to be appbed except in case of necessity. . Moreover an Angel bad been already used on occasion of the annuncia tion of Jesus and his forerunner, and Angels had to be brought in subsequently on the occasion of his birth. So it seemed a more delicate process to explain that change of locabty by natural causes, by the historical circumstances of the period. And in doing so arrangements of a higher order were not excluded. Especially was an opportunity given to the author of showing that he knew many things of which other Evan gelists were ignorant, that he was no stranger to history and antiquities not merely Jewish, but also Roman. He is fond HIS BIETH IN THE CITY OF DAVID. 23 of bringing forward pieces of information of this kind. We see this not only from the narrative here in question, but from the mode in which he endeavours to define, chronolo gically, the appearance of the Baptist (iii. 1), and from the historical allusions in the speech of Gamaliel in the Acts of the Apostles (v. 36, ff.). We see, indeed, at the same time, from these very proofs of historical knowledge on the part of our Evangebst that it was not very accurate. In the first passage he represents a Lysanias as being in office thirty years after the birth of Christ, whereas he had undoubtedly been dead thirty years before that epoch ;* in the next pas sage he makes a member of the High Council in Jerusalem speak of an " uprising " as an event of the past, which did not take place until ten years after the time of the speech, and represent another " uprising " as having occurred after ', the former which falls thirty odd years earber. "Before these days," says Gamabel in the reign of Tiberius, "rose np Theudas; " and then he goes on to describe his insurrec tion in the same terms as Josephus,t from whom we know that it occurred during the governorship of Cuspius Fadus, whom Claudius had sent to Judea. " After this man," con tinues Gamaliel, " rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing ; " and this was the well-known taxing of Quirinu3 after the deposition of Archelaus by Augustus. But Theolo gians are as indulgent to their authors as markers to great men in rifle shooting ; the latter may have gone as wide of the mark as they please, still they hit the gold. So in this case a later Lysanias and an earber Theudas have been made out of nothing, in order to maintain in due honour the historical knowledge of Luke, or rather of the Holy Spirit. But when an author, employed upon historical learning, makes three mistakes (for we shall find immediately that in I * See the question more accurately examined in my Life of Jesus, critically discussed, p. 341, ff. of the second edition, to which I refer the reader generaUy in this section. t Jewish Antiquities, xx. 5, 1. 24 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. this passage, with which we are now engaged, a similar case occurs), I say makes three mistakes of such a kind that his interpreters have their hands full to set the matter tolerably straight, all is not on this head exactly as it should be, But, however this may be, the author knew, at any rate, many things in history, he knew in particular of the taxing, or the Roman census, the execution of which had before caused among the Jews so much ill blood and occasioned the insurrection of Judas the Galilean. When he was working out the problem how to bring to Bethlehem the parents of Jesus who were hving in Nazareth, for the purposes of his birth, was it extraordinary that in doing so the taxing occurred to him ? As this taxing had been the cause of so much besides, might it not have also caused the parents of Jesus to undertake the journey which the writer so much required ? Taxings or registerings bad it certainly in their power to cause journies ; chronologically, that taxing might appear to him all the better adapted for the purpose of the Evangebst, the less clearly he knew anything about the time of it. When, in the passage in the Acts he represents it as succeeding an event that, happened some thirty years later, he made a mistake about one occurrence or the other, probably about both. He knew, indeed, of several other points in connection with this taxing, as he shows, as well as he can, in the passage in the Acts. He knew (ii. 1, ff.) what is cor roborated by history, that it was the first Roman taxing in Judea; and that this was the very reason that the insurrection of Jndas had been connected with it. He knew, moreover, that it had been imdertaken by Qairinus, as Governor of Syria, as Josephus also tells us. He knew, lastly, that it had been set on foot in obedience to a command that had gone out from the Umperor Augustus Caesar, that the whole in habited world, i.e. the whole Roman Empire should be taxed. On this point he certainly knows more than history does; for no more ancient writer, standing nearer to the time of HIS BIRTH IN THE CITY OF DAVID. 25 Augustus, mentions a general census of the Empire com manded by this Emperor, and neither Suetonius, or Dio Cassius, or the Monument of Ancyra are acquainted with anything but repeated registerings and taxings of the people, i. e. the Roman citizens, nor are there any records, excepting those of a much later date, from the end of the fifth century of the Christian era downwards, which speak of an enumera tion or registering of the whole kingdom, doing so in words which betray their dependency upon the passage in Luke. Meanwhile we might overlook the Evangebst having here taken rather too much in hand, whether from a notion that only an universal decree of this sort was suitable for the Roman ruler of the world, or that what summoned the parents of the world's Saviour to Bethlehem must have been something that set the whole world in motion,* provided only the account of this census in Judea at that time were correct. Now this is indeed the case to this extent that as has been mentioned above, after Archelaus had been appointed to the Ethnarchy over Judea and Samaria and his district had been incorporated with the province of Syria, Quirinus a3 governor of the province did, in accordance with an imperial decree, direct the requisite register to be made of the in habitants and their property for the purposes of taxation.-"- But at that time, according to our Christian, chronology, " Very lately a Christian Jurist (Huschke, " On the Census taken at the time of the Birth of Christ," 1840, p. 35), speaks of the " Internal historical necessity," not only of the introduction of the census of the Empire under Augustus, but also of that of the coincidence of the Birth of Christ with it, in >o far as it was necessary that " the Saviour of the world as the second Adam "rom Heaven " should be born exactly at the moment when Augustus, as " the new earthly Adam," was occupied with the census of the Empire. " Is it," adds the author in a spirit of the staunchest faith, " is it to create any anxiety in us ;hat this general census is not mentioned in any source of history, either con- ;ernporaneous or otherwise, deserving of entire confidence?" Certainly not, specially if, with the clear-sighted Jurist, we suppose such a source to be found in the gaps of Dio Cassius, and the hiatus of the monument of Ancyra-. f See Josephns, Jewish Antiquities, xvii. 13, 5. xviii. 1, 1. 26 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTOBY OF JESUS. Jesus was a child of six or seven years old, and according to Matthew (ii. 1), and probably also according to Luke (1. 5 — 26), he mast, as having been born under Herod the Great, have been even a couple of years older; so that this taxing of Quirinns came in any case too late to bring his mother to Bethlehem for the purpose of his birth. But might not something like a census have been under taken in Judea ten years earlier and the like effect have been produced by it ? Possibly. Only we would premise the remark that according to this Luke would, in the first place have confounded a provincial census with a census of the world, i. e. a census of the kingdom, and in the second an earlier census with a later. Of these two mistakes the latter would be not merely a mistake in chronology, but that earber census could not, as Luke states, have been undertaken by Quirinns as governor of Syria, as it was not until several years after Herod's death that Quirinus undertook the governorship of Syria. Moreover Josephus, who is very ex plicit in the affairs of this period, says not a word of such census, nor .was it the Roman custom to introduce anything of the kind until a country had been entirely deprived of its native rulers and placed immediately 'under the Roman domi nion, and, above all, the census of Quirinus, after the deposi tion of Archelaus, by the commotion which it excited among the people, appears to be marked out as the first that had ever taken place among the Jewish people. But supposing even that for some cause or other — such as is supposed to be found in a passage of Josephus,* exceptionally, and it is supposed to be possible to point out a similar exception in a notice in Tacitus t — supposing that even before the conversion of Judea into a Roman province, a Roman census had been undertaken there, still it must have been carried out in tbe manner usual in such cases and in accordance with the object in view. Now, according to Luke (ii. 3, ff.), every one, in • Jewish Antiquities, xvi. 9, 3. t Annal. vi. 41. HIS BIKTH IN THE CITY OF DAVID. 27 obedience to the imperial decree, every one travelled to his own city, i. e. as is afterwards explained with reference to Joseph, to the place from which his family originally des cended, Joseph therefore to Bethlehem, because, a thousand years before, David, the ancestor of his race, had been born there. Now this, according to the common supposition, was the custom in the Jewish registerings, as the Jewish political system, at least m ancient times, rested upon the basis of family and race; the Romans, on the contrary, whose object was entirely statistic and financial, in the provincial census had no such object, but, according to the most credible accounts,* the country Tpeople were summoned into the chief town of the circle, and generaUy every one to the place of which his real or adoptive father had been a citizen. Now there cannot be the least probabihty in the supposition that the surviving descendants of David (even supposing that Joseph was one of them), if they had settled too in a distant country, should, after all the revolutions of a period of a thousand years, have still been considered as citizens of Bethlehem. And if it is suggested that the Romans in their foreign taxings adopted the usages of the subject countries, they would only have done so in so far as the operation did not tend to defeat their objects, which would manifestly have been the case had they moved a man for the purpose of entering his own name and that of his family, together with an account of his property, from the distant Gablee to Bethlehem, where they could have very little power of checking the entries he might make. But Luke represents Joseph as not only travelbng to Bethlehem himself, but also as taking with him his betrothed, Mary, in order that she might be registered with him (ver. 5) . But thi3 joint journey of Mary was superfluous, not only according to the Roman, but also the Jewish custom. It is known from the Old Testament that no account was taken of women in the / * Proofs are found in Faulus, Manual of Exegesis, on the passage in Luke, and in Huschke, in the treatise quoted, p. 116, ff. 28 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. Jewish registerings ; and, moreover, according to the law of Servius Tuliius, neither had the Roman citizens on the occasion of the census to bring with them their wives and children in person, but only to give in their names, nor, in the case of the provincials can the necessity of the personal appearance of women, according to the Roman law, be proved.* If, therefore, Mary travelled to Bethlehem it must have been by Joseph's free will or her own; nay, the whole journey appears on the part of both to have been voluntary, everything having disappeared that, according to Luke, could have compelled them to it. It cannot have been the census of Quirinus, for that did not take place until ten years later ; it cannot have been one so much earlier, for nothing is known of anything of the sort, and it would be in contra diction to the circumstances ; not a Roman census, for that would not have summoned a Galilean to Bethlehem ; quite as bttle a Jewish registering, for on such an occasion, as on that of a Roman one, Mary might have staid at home. The parents of Jesus had, therefore, no visible cause fbr undertaking that journey just at a moment the most incon venient possible for a pregnant woman. On the other hand, the Evangebst had so much the more reason to represent them as undertaking it, and for him that inconvenient time was just the only convenient "one, in order to make his Jesus be born in the city of David, and thus an important character istic of the Messiah adhere to his person. HI. Jesus, as Messiah, like David, consecrated like David to his Office by a Prophet. 56. In order to represent the greater David in all points, it was necessary for the Messiah not only to be descended of * Not even fromLactant. de Mort. Persecutor. 23, to which Buschke appeals, admitting at the same time that the occurrence was not only 300 years later but also a case of extraordinary severity. AS THE MESSIAH, LIKE DAVID. 29 David's line, and be born in David's city, but also, as in the case of David, for a man of prophetic order to consecrate him to his regal office by divine commission. In the case of David, Samuel performed this task, and it consisted of au anointing with oil, such as the Seer had already executed upon the first king, Saul. But in reference to David, the divine command issued in the dispatch of Samuel to Jesse at Bethlehem, where God had promised him to point out to him from among the sons of that personage the one whom he had chosen (1 Sam. xvi. 1, ff.) ; on the other hand, God had sent Saul to Samuel and told Samuel on the entrance of Saul that Saul was the man whom he was to anoint (1 Sam. ix. 15, ff.). Now this antitype in David, ofthe consecration ofthe Messiah, had been crossed in the time after the captivity by another conception. The degenerate people was threatened with a terrible day of judgment to be held by Jehovah, but before this came upon them, the prophet Malachi promised (iii. 23, ff.), that Jehovah would make a last attempt to purify and save his people, by sending to them the Prophet Ekjah, who, by means of his powerful preaching, would prepare their minds as much as possible for the reception of the God of judgment (Luke i. 17). He was the messenger who was to prepare the way of the Lord (Mai. iii. 1), and to him was referred the voice which at the end of the captivity was heard to call by the second Isaiah, to make straight in the desert a high- way for the God of Israel. This time of the return of Elijah, of this restorer of all that was degenerated and perverted, was waited for by the pious Israebte with longing, and they were called happy who should bve to see it (Sirach xlviii. 11, ff.) ; and as he, for whose coming Elijah was to prepare men was subsequently considered instead of the Jehovah to be the Messiah, Ebjah was expected as the forerunner of the Messiah (Matt.xvii.il). But he "was, in reference to the latter, to undertake at the same time the 30 book n. mythical history of jssus. character which Samuel had had with David, to anoint Mm, and thus as Samuel had made David, to make him known to others in his exalted destination.* Now no human being knew of Ebjah having returned to life and having anointed Jesus, and it would have been dangerous to maintain it ; if therefore this mark ofthe Messiah was not to be lost, it was necessary, among the real persons with whom Jesus had come into contact, to find one who had some resemblance to Ebjah, and had done something to Jesus which might be so strained as to be considered an Anoint ing. Such a resemblance was offered by John the Baptist, who had been popular shortly before the coming of Jesus. He had appeared in the wilderness of Judea, was, therefore, the voice in the desert spoken of by Isaiah ; he called men to repentance because the kingdom of Heaven was near, was therefore the preparer of the way for the Lord; be was a stem ascetic, was therefore in this respect to be compared to the Tishbite. He bad not anointed Jesus, but baptized him ; this might be considered an Anointing, if the object of the ceremony in the case of Jesus was not, as in the case of every one else, considered not as an obbgation to repentance, but the dedication to his Messianic office, and the preparation for it.f The Baptist, who was bound by his calling to the Jordan, could not like Samuel on the previous occasion of the anoint ing of David, be sent to the house of Jesus, but it was neces sary for the latter, as was undoubtedly done, to go to the Baptist at the Jordan. In order to undertake the Baptism of Jesus (Matt. iii. 13—17 ; Mark i. 9—11 ; Luke iii. 21, ff. ; John i. 32 — 34), John did not, like Samuel for the Anointing, * The Jew Trypho, in the dialogue with Justin, viii. 49, states this a3 the expectation spread among the Jewish people. f Even the baptism of Christians was sometimes described as an Anointing, in virtue of the imparting of the Spirit which was inclnded in it.- 1 John ii. 20—27. . . AS THE MESSIAH, LIKE DAVID. 31 require a special divine commission, as he conferred it upon aU without distinction ; but it was necessary that in the case of Jesus a particular importance should attach to it, it was necessary that the powers requisite for the exercise of his Messianic office should be imparted to him, if not by means of, but contemporaneously with the baptism which was to represent his Anointing. The essence of these divine powers, or more accurately the bearer and distributor of them to men was, according to the conception of the Jews, the Spirit of God. When Samuel had anointed David in the midst of bis brethren (1 Sam. xvi. 18), it is said that from that self same day the Spirit of Jehovah fell upon David. And ofthe branch from the root of Jesse, the Messiah, Isaiah (xi. 1, ff.) had prophesied that there shall rest upon him the Spirit of Jehovah, the spnit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. Now in the Old Testament the pre-eminence of men of God in especial favour, as Kings and Prophets (Isaiah bri. 1), bad been, that the Spirit of God came upon them and was observable in consequence of the effects of a higher inspiration. This, in the new Church of the Messiah, had become common property, inasmuch as (according to the prophecy of Joel, iii. 1, ff.) the communication of the Holy Spirit was supposed to be connected with Baptism in the name of Jesus, and the laying on of hands by the Apostles (Acts ii. 38, viii. 17, xix. 5, ff. ; Rom. viii. 9, 11, 15 ; Gal. iii. 2). It was supposed that the communication to Christ himself must have been antecedent to this derived communi cation to the Christians ; it must, it was thought, be percep tible not merely in its extraordinary operations, but it must itself have been a miraculous external occurrence. A natural symbol of the Spirit was always found in fire. John had predicted that he who should come after him would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with Fire. And thus, in fact, when 32 EOOK IT. MYTHICAL HTSTORY OF JESUS. Christ had ascended the first communication from Heaven by him of the Spirit to the Apostles was distinguished from that before effected by their laying on of hands, as reported in the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles (ii. 3), by the visible appearance of tongues of fire, and a Gospel used by Justin represented a fire as being kindled on the occasion of the Baptism of Jesus, as he stepped down into the water.* But together with fire there was, in the expressions which the Old Testament used about the Holy Spirit, another symbol also introduced. It was to " rest" upon the branch of David, to " descend" upon it. Before the beginning of creation it had cc moved upon the face" of the primaeval water (1 Mos. i. 2) : " like a dove," was added by the ancient Jewish interpreters, a dove which " moves" or hovers over her young without touching them.f Moreover, in the time of Noah a Dove bad again appeared (1 Mos. viii. 8—12), and as the saving water of Baptism was looked upon in Chris tendom as the counter-type of this destroying water (1 Peter iii. 21), and the former, with its regenerating power, was moreover a parallel to the water of the creation, how obvious it was when the Baptismal water appeared for the first time in its exalted significance, i. e. on occasion of the Baptism of the Messiah, again to represent the Dove as appearing. The symbohsm of the Dove as well as of the Lamb was besides famibar to Christianity (Matt. x. 16), and might appear oven more suitable than consuming Fire to indicate the mildness of its spirit. The Gospel of the Hebrews represented this Holy Spirit not merely as descending upon Jesus in the form of a Dove, but also as passing into him ; J it was natural that to the * Dial, c Tryph. 88. Similarly the Prsedicatio Pauli ; according to the Traetatus de non iterando bapt. in Cyprian's Works, p. 142, ed. Eigalt. ¦f See these and other passages in my Life of Jesus critically discussed, I. 116, ff. $ Quoted in Epiphanius, Haeres. xxx. 13, comp. 29. AS THE MESSIAH, LIKE DAVID. 33 Ebionites, who, in opposition to the later doctrine of the Church, maintained the original human nature of Jesus, it should be of importance to bring out in the most palpable manner his subsequent liigher preparation. In the three first Gospels also the narrative of the Baptism of Jesus, in its original plan, belongs, like the genealogy, to that point of view which saw in Jesus a human being naturally begotten ; but even from this point of view they might keep themselves aloof from the extravagant feature of the entering of the Dove — without doubt into the mouth of Jesus — as the remaining, i. e. the continuance of the Dove over him, expressly, indeed, stated only by John, but unquestionably assumed by the others, equally well answered the same purpose for them, that namely of indicating, if not the immanence at any rate the permanence of the effect of the divine principle upon Jesus. The Heavens opened and the Dove came out of them. This, indeed, even without the great light which according to the Gospel is said to have shone around the place, showed that it was not a common Dove, but a being of a higher order ; still up to this point the whole proceeding was bub dumb show, requiring an explanation. This explanation the Baptist could. give; it must be to the effect that Jesus, by this communication of the Spirit, was prepared to be the Messiah, and was accredited as such by the visible portion of it. Such an explanation was supposed to be found in a famous passage of the Old Testament, but it was put into the mouth of Jehovah himself, in the words of the Psalm (ii. 7), "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten, thee." That this speech refers to some Israebtish 'King, who is thus declared to be the representative of God, maybe seen as certainly as it is uncertain and of no consequence to us. what king may be alluded to in it.* In the New Testa- * Comp. besides, C. Meier, The Three Royal Psalms, &c. in Zeller's Theolo gical Annual, 1846, p. 334, ff., and Hitzig's Commentary on the passage. VOL. II. D 43 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. ment, on the other hand, the text is thrice repeated (Heb. i. 5, v. 5 ; Acts xiii. 33), referred to Jesus and applied to the declaration of him as the Messiah or the Son of God in the higher sense. In the Psalm it was probably given through David (comp. Acts iv. 25) by divine commission ; what then more obvious now that it was to be verified to represent it as being solemnly repeated by God himself. Already was Heaven opened for the descent of the Holy Spirit as a Dove ; thus from the Heaven so opened the voice of God also might issue down, in order, by the web known divine address to the Messiah, to bring out into full expression the significance of the whole scene. In all this it is assumed that the voice from Heaven origi- naby expressed itself in the form in which Justin quotes it from the memorabilia of the Apostles,* that is^ exactly in the words of Psalm ii. 7 : ' ' Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." In this form the passage was read by several Fathers of the Church of a later age, and this also is the reading given us by one of the MSS. of our Gospels in the passage of Luke.f In the Gospel of the Hebrews of Epiphanins, this form is combined with that known to us in our own Gospels. There, the Voice from Heaven says first, as we now find it in Mark and Luke : " Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased ;" then, again : ' ' This day have I begotten thee." Then, when the flash of light appears the Baptist asks Jesus, " Who art thou, Lord ?" whereupon the Voice from Heaven says in answer what we read in Matthew : " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." We learn clearly from the mode in which Justin attempts to smooth over the difficulty what the reason was for first putting in the background, and then entirely removing the words; " This day have I begotten thee." He says that it does not . * Dial, c Tryph. 88, 103. t Comp. Hilgsnfeld, The Gospels of Justin, Sec. p. 169, ff. AS THE MESSIAH, LIKE DAVID. 35 follow from these words that Jesus had not, until that moment, been begotten as the Son of God; that it was not ob jectively his Sonship with regard to God that commenced with bis baptism by John, but only, subjectively, the knowledge of it on the part of man that did so. The words in question har monised indeed very well with the view which, as we have pointed out above,, lies at the foundation of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and which we find at a later period in Cerinthus and among the Ebionites, that Jesu3 had been a naturally begotten human being, to whom the higher prin ciple was not imparted until his baptism ; but when Jesus came to be looked upon as having been from the first begotten by the Holy Spirit, which we shaU soon see more clearly to have been the case with the authors of our three first Gospels, and as Justin also does, then these words created a difficulty, and had either to be explained artificially or to be entirely removed. But as in the latter case the voice from heaven would have been entirely lost, and this was undesirable, other words of God, also interpreted in a Messianic sense were seized upon, from Isaiah xbi. 1 . Matthew, applying these words to Jesus in another passage (xn. 18), gives them thus : "Behold, my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is weU pleased."" This text must have appeared the more suitable to the baptismal scene, as in the sequel to it Jehovah declares that he has put his Spirit on this beloved one (who, indeed, according to the historical sense of the passage in the prophet is no other than the people of Israel). The harmony with the passage in the prophet is most obvious in the form in Matthew : " This is my beloved Son :" in Mark and Luke in the address, " Thou art my beloved Son," &c. &c, the sound is still heard ofthe rejected passage in the Psalm. Accurately speaking, indeed, it was not this passage in the Psalm only that would not agre.e with the change of view of the person of Jesus. If Jesus had been originally begotten d 2 36 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. by the Holy Spirit, then what need was there for that' Spirit to descend upon him ? Was it then possible that over and above that physical Sonship, to say nothing of the indwelling of the divine Logos, there should be a higher, more perfect communication of the Divinity ? And was it, generally, be fitting that the Son of God should submit himself to the baptism of repentance by John? To remove the latter difficulty, the author of onr first Gospel (Matt. iii. 14, ff.) introduced the scene which represents that when Jesus came to the baptism of John, the Baptist endeavoured to divert him from his purpose by the words, " I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ?" To which Jesus replies, " Suffer it to be so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness ;" i. e. without doubt to satisfy the expectation founded upon supposed types and prophecies that another Ebjah would anoint the Messiah. But while all impropriety in the act of baptism appeared to be removed, there still remained the contradiction between the supplementary communication of the Holy Spirit and the original procreation byit, indeed it came out all the more glaringly. If the Baptist made that objection before the baptism of Jesus, consequently before he had seen the mira culous signs which followed upon it, then he must already have known Jesus as one superior to him, and, as he con fesses himself to have need of the baptism of Jesus by the Holy Spirit and fire, as the Messiah himself; consequently, those signs could not have been intended for him, the Bap tist, but they must have had reference to Jesus himself or to the people. The baptismal miracle referred to Jesus accord ing to the original meaning of the narrative in the very literal sense that it was on this occasion that the Spirit of God was first communicated to him; but this sense was excluded by the higher view of his person, and therefore Matthew and Mark represent the occurrence to us as a spec tacle granted to Jesus (we cannot indeed say with what object) AS THE MESSIAH, LIKE DAVID. o7 and perhaps (for the language is doubtful) also to the Bap tist; while Luke, who also expressly embodies the Dove, makes all the bystanders witnesses of it. It was impossible that this mode of representation should satisfy the fourth Evangelist, who could be but bttle inclined to admit that on this occasion his Christ had gained anything which had not, with the Logos, already dwelt within him ; it was necessary that the purpose of the appearance should be decidedly transferred from Jesus to the Baptist, to whom it was to serve as a token whereby to recognise the Son of God. But he could only require this if he had not already known Jesus to be the Messiah ; and it is therefore, expressly stated by the fourth Evangebst, that he had not, in contradiction and probably with definite reference to the first. And so from this point of view, the voice from heaven was also dropped out, being changed into a statement that God had on a pre vious occasion pointed out to the Baptist the sign that was to be expected. By this understanding the Evangebcal narrative of the miraculous appearances at the baptism of Jesus historically, that is, in the spirit of the narrators and their time, and for this very reason accepting them non-historically, we escape a series of difficulties to which the theological explanation of them in the attempt to maintain the historical character of the occurrence must be subject. Thus, one interpreter, in order to make the miracle more acceptable, considers every thing as a vision, produced indeed by God, but only in the mind of Jesus and the Baptist ; another makes a real, but still a natural Dove hover over Jesus ; another prefers imagin ing a meteoric-phenomenon, a flash of bghtning and a clap of thunder, which at the same time helps him to explain the voice from heaven. Explanations such as these would be the least of what we should have to encounter. But the question recurs as to what could be the object of a supple mentary communication of the Spirit to him who was born 38 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. the Son of God ? In order to answer this question, which from our point of view solves itself, theologians batched a whole nest of artifices and evasions one more absurd than the other. The Spirit of God, says one,* dwelt in Jesus from eternity ; but now the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Godhead, came into a new relation with him, a relation different from the identity of the essence with Son and Father. The Holy Spirit, says another, f was innate in Jesus as the spirit of life, but at his baptism it was imparted to him as the spirit of Ids office ; or he is said to have had from eternity the consciousness of Sonship as the Son of God, but he has received now for the first time the power of proving himself as such to the world — mere miserable sophistries and unmeaning abstractions, in which even the very authors of them can hardly have imagined or intended anything definite. Thus the Evangelical narrative of the occurrences at the Baptism of Jesus, notwithstanding all the additions which it has received from other conceptions, may, in its main features, be derived from the attempt to provide for Jesus as the Son of David an Anointing, and, combined with it, a communi cation of the Sphit, of the same character as was imparted through Samuel to his ancestor. And we find this effort, in the case of one of our Evangebsts, carried still further up. The Books of Samuel, of which David is properly the hero, begin not with the history of David's birth, but with that of Samuel. Similarly Luke prefaces the history of the annun ciation and conception of Jesus with that of his forerunner, and in such a manner that the imitation is not to be mis taken. So far as this goes this would be the place for tracing the origin and rise of the history of the infancy of the Baptist ; but that history is so closely connected with that of the announcement and infancy of Jesus that it can * Ebrard, Scientific Criticism, 261. f Luthardt, The Gospel of John in its peculiarity, &c. p. 238. BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST. 39 only be considered in connection with the latter. And this, being sketched from the point of view which considered Jesus, not as the Son of David, but the Son of God, must begin a new section. SECOND GROUP OF MYTHS. JESUS, THE SON OF GOD. I. JESUS BEGOTTEN OP THE HOLY GHOST. 57. According to ab that has been said so far it appears that Christianity, in its moral and rebgious aspect, issued out of Judaism, but could not have issued out of Judaism until the latter had been penetrated with ab kinds of foreign matter, tending to modify its form, and more especially matter of Greek origin. This is also true of a conception which does not indeed belong to the spiritual basis of Christianity, but has contributed to define its form, the conception of Jesua as the Son of God. This appellation, applied to Jesus con sidered as the Messiah, had its origin in the most ancient Judaism, but had, in this, as we saw above, a merely figura tive sense, not excluding mere human Sonship. As appbed to Jesus the expression was taken bteraby— -Jesus was con sidered as the Son of God, with no human father. In this we cannot fail to see heathen notions acting upon the earbest circle of Christianity. The passage in the Psalm about the Son of God this day . begotten, was, as we have seen, appbed to Jesus, in the first instance, by those who nevertheless considered him as Joseph's Son, and understood that divine procreation and Sonship in the traditional theocratic sense, i. e. that Jesus, 40 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. like the best of the Kings of David's bne before him was to be considered as a favourite and representative of God, only in an incomparably higher degree than they. It is true, indeed, that in reference to Jesus, the bebef in his resurrec tion, in his glorified and continuous existence with God, contributed not a bttle to the exaggeration of this idea, without, however, immediately destroying the natural view of his origin. The Apostle Paul, as we read in the intro duction to the Epistle of the Romans (i. 3), says of Jesus, " which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, accord ing to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" — and thus we see how little these two points of view excluded each other. , There is, moreover, even within the limits of Judaism itself, ' a tendency observable to oppose to one another the natural and rebgious points of view in such a manner that in the birth of personages of importance the share of the natural parents is limited as much as possible in favour of the divine co-operation. The Hebrew legend is fond of de scribing individuals, upon whom in the scheme of God with his chosen people very much depended, as the children of old parents or mothers who had been long barren. Abra ham, says the Apostle Paul (Rom. iv. 17, ff.), trusted in God, who quicken eth the dead and calleth those things which be not as though they were, therefore he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb, but staggered not at the promise of God. through unbelief, but was strong in faith giving glory to God, and being fully per suaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform — that is in their old age to give them Isaae as a son. Again, Joseph, Jacob's wise and favourite son, and the saviour of his family, is the child of a mother who had been long barren ; so also Samson, the strong hero, and Samuel the restorer of BEGOTTEN OP THE HOLY GHOST. 41 the people and the pure worship of God ; in the case ofthe two last their birth, which had become improbable, is announced by heavenly messengers, as that of Isaac by Jehovah himself. The fact that the history of the Baptist's birth in Luke has the same outline has been already alluded to, and in the apocryphal Gospels Mary also, the mother of Jesus, is repre sented as a late born child, and on this occasion one of these Apocryphal writers thus instructively discloses the idea that lies at the bottom of such representations. "God,"' he remarks, " if he closes the womb of a woman only does so in order the more miraculously to open it again, and to show that what is there born is not the fruit of human passion but a gift of God."* If in the case -of such late births it was considered necessary that God should have the greater share, it was obvious enough, in a case the issue of which was to be especially distinguished, to represent him as the sole agent, '. e. as the share of the female, when the origination of a tuman being was in question, could not at all events be dispensed with, as taking entirely and exclusively the place of the male. This supposition, however, involved something calculated to repel the strictly orthodox Jew. God, as the Creator and Preserver of the world, and the operative powers in it, might open a womb that had long been closed, revive the dead powers of generation of old married people, without trenching on the purity of his supersensuous nature ; but to represent his agency as absolutely taking the place of the absent male, as the generative principle, was demurred to, because it appeared to degrade him into sensuabty, to assimilate him to the philoprogenitive Gods of the heathen. There was, indeed, in the Old Testament a passage which lent itself to such a theory, and which has even by Christians been long interpreted in this sense, the passage of the Virgin who is * Evangel, de Kativ. Maria?, c. 3, in Thilo. Cod. apocr. N. T. L 322. Comp. my Life of Jesus, I. 130, Rem. 2. 42 BOOK II. MYTHICAL. HISTORY OP JESUS. to conceive, Isaiah vii. 14. When, in the time of King Ahaz, the kings of Syria and Israel advanced against Judah, and the trembling king sued for the support of Assyria, the Prophet gave him the tranquilbzing- sign : Circumstances, says he, shall change for the better so rapidly that a young woman,* now becoming pregnant (the wife, probably, of the Prophet himself, comp, viii. 3, 8) will be able to call her son, born within the proper period, Emmanuel, i. e. God with us. In this passage, in point of fact neither the Messiah, nor a birth from a Virgin is spoken of: but with the fantastic mode of interpretation prevalent among the Jews, this would have as bttle prevented them from accepting the passage as an abusion to the Messiah, as the Christians would have been prevented by the same reason from considering it as a pro phecy applying to their Christ, if the conception of such an origin of the Messiah had been in existence among the Jews. But we have not succeeded in tracing this interpretation to pr83-Christian times. On the other hand no proof is wanted to show that in the province of the Greco-Roman rebgion the idea of Sons of God was currently in vogue. It referred not merely to the demigods of the mythical period, but was also appbed to historical personages of the later times. In many cases it may have been the vanity of rulers or the flattery of sub jects ; in others it was undeniably a real faith of a narrower or wider circle, and this faith sometimes appears very early, almost before personages so worshipped have departed this- life. To say nothing of Pythagoras, whom, at a later period/ his enthusiastic adherents represented as a son of Apollo, t there was a legend current in Athens, even in the life-time of his nephew Speusippus, that Apollo had had intercourse * For the Hebrew word means a young marriageable woman, whether mar ried or single, not an absolute virgin : like the virgines nuptae, and the puelhe jam virum experta in Horace, Carm. II. 8, 22 ; VS.. 14, 1Q. t Iamblich. "Vita Pythag. 2. BEGOTTEN OP THE HOLY GHOST. 43 with his mother Perictione,* in reference to which a learned Father of the Christian Church makes the remark that people could only conceive of the prince of philosophy as the son of a virgin (and of the God of Wisdom, he might have added). t Alexander the Great may, indeed, have himself originated [ the report that he was begotten by Zeus with his mother Olympias: Livy,J also, insinuates that the elder Scipio favoured the rise of a similar legend that was current about him among the Roman people ; still less was Augustus too good for this, as Suetonius and Dio Cassius§ give us, from ancient sources, an account of his procreation, obviously an imitation of that of Alexander, how, that is to say, his mother Atia fell asleep in the temple, on occasion of a midnight festival held in honour of Apobo, and a snake had intercourse with her, and then after ten months she had a son who was considered the offspring of Apobo. But, however they may have arisen, histories of this kind were bebeved under many forms at a time, with the impulse of which towards contact with the supernatural world they corresponded, and thus we cannot be surprised if the Christians sought to give to their Messiah a birth of equal rank with these Teachers of philo sophy and Rulers of the world of divine origin. In doing so it was natural that everything of a sensuous character, every thing relating to humaji intercourse, carefully removed as it was from the Greco-Roman narratives, should also be struck out from those of the Christians ; it was no God in. a human or serpent form that had enjoyed the intimacy of his mother, but it was the Holy Spirit, the supersensual creative power of God, which, in the womb of the pure Virgin, had calledthe divine fruit into life. In this form the conception might be acceptable even to the Jewish-Christian ; he found a prophecy of this mode of generation in the Son of the Virgin mentioned in Isaiah, ap- * Diog. Suet. HI. 1, 2. t Hieron. adv. Jovin. i. 26. J Book ssvi. 19. § Sueton. Octavi 94. Dio Cass. Hist. 45. 44 BOOK. II, MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. proximating types in the men of God of the Old Testament,- born late and contrary to human expectation, and withdraw ing himself at the same time from the old Jewish prejudices by the nnsensnal form in which the idea was clothed, he had, by the pre-eminence which an origin of this kind assured to Christ above Moses and all Jewish Prophets, gained a strong weapon in the conflict with Judaism. But this conception, once attained, had now to be properly brought upon the scene, to be put forward in a regular narrative. For doing this, the most appropriate means, as in the case of most of those Old Testament births at an advanced period of the parents' bves, was a supernatural announcement previous to the event. Then the natural father was in existence upon whom the Genealogy had built so much, .and who now must be set aside. Finaby it was necessary to prepare for the heavenly scion a fitting re ception upon earth. With regard to the two first points, we have in our Gospels a twofold account, one in the first and one in the third Gospel (Matt. i. 18: — 25 ,- Luke i. 26 — 38), of which, if we consider, them without prejudice, the first wiU appear the earliest and most original. It is both sterner and more simple than the other. Sterner in so far as it puts forward the repulsive fact ofthe pregnancy of a bride without the agency ofthe bride groom, and, so far as the reader is concerned, immediately removes the difficulty by the addition that the pregnancy was caused by the Holy Ghost, but represents Joseph, the bridegroom, as reaby taking offence, and only becoming subsequently pacified by an angel in a dream. In this account we do not learn whether even Mary had been pre viously made acquainted with the cause of her pregnancy. That she should not have been so, appeared to the author of the corresponding narrative in Luke, even if he were other wise acquainted with that of Matthew, altogether too abrupt. Still, in the case of Mary,, violence could not be supposed to BEGOTTEN OP THE HOLY GHOST. 4o have been offered to her as by heathen gods in heathen story, but she must, according to Luke, have come to an under standing about the matter. So an Angel is sent to Mary. And this Angel is not a common nameless one, but the Angel known from the Old Testament (Dan. vin. 16, ix. 21; comp. Tob. xii. 25) as one of the highest dignitaries in the court of God. And he is deputed to announce to her that she is favoured by God, so far as to become pregnant, and to be the Mother of the Messiah, and moreover that . ah this, as the angel adds in answer to her doubting question, is effected by the Holy Ghost, and that therefore the holy offspring of her womb shall be cabed, in the fob sense ofthe words, the Son of God. Mary acquiescing in the divine pleasure, the author considers it superfluous to add any thing by way of explanation as to Joseph's conduct in the matter, and conversely, Matthew thinks it superfluous to state at all how Mary was informed of what was to happen to her. . These discrepancies are caused by the difference in the plan of the two narratives. But they have two main features in common. They are these, first that a heavenly messenger announces the miraculous conception ofthe Messianic infant, and, secondly, that he fixes beforehand on the name, Jesus. Instances of this were already furnished by the Old Testament types, in the histories of Isaac and Ishmael, of Samson and Samuel. As in Matthew the Angel says to Joseph : She, thy wife shall (or in Luke, to Mary, Thou wilt) bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, exactly in the same manner had Jehovah (I Mos. xvii. 19) spoken to Abraham; Thy wife shall bear to thee a son, and thou shalt cab his name Isaac : a3 the latter name is derived from the laughter, at one time of Abraham himself (xvii. 17), at another time of Sarah (xviii. 12 — 15), then of the people (xxi. 6), so, in Matthew the name of Jesus is derived from the destination of the infant to save the people from their sins. And this again is done in words which remind us ofthe announcement of Samson's 46 BOOK n. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. destination to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines {Judges xui. 5). This imitation of Old Testament narratives points to an origin in a Jewish Christian circle. Agreeable to it also is the Jewish view of the destiny of Jesus, especiaby in Luke, where the throne of David, endless dominion over the House of Jacob is spoken of (i. 32, ff.) ; though in Matthew also, not only the sins are abuded to, from which the child, miraculously conceived, sbab redeem his people (i. 21), but also, in the Jewish sense, the consequences of them, that is, subjugation to, and maltreatment by, the people of the Heathen. 58. Annunciation and Birth op the Forerunner. The history ofthe birth of Jesua is more artificially sketched in Luke than in Matthew. This, indeed, appears in the characteristics already considered, but is stiU more decisively shown by the fact that while Matthew is satisfied with making us acquainted with the beginning of the life of Jesus, Luke draws that of his precursor John, within the range of his description (i. 5 — 25. 36. 39 — 80). So far, as has been already remarked, the beginning of his Gospel resembles that of the first Book of Samuel, which also starts from the history of the birth not of King Saul or King David, but of the Seer Samuel, who was destined to anoint them without, however, connecting the accounts of the nativity of these kings with that of Samuel, in the manner in which the author of the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke connects that of Jesus the Messiah and his forerunner John. Samuel's parents bve on Mount Ephraim. So, likewise, those of the Baptist in the hill-country of Judea (i. 39). Samuel, the king-maker, was looked upon, at least in the later Jewish tradition, as a branch of the stem of Levi (1 Chron. vii. 26, ff.), probably because the anointing of ANNUNCIATION AND BIRTH OP THE FORERUNNER. 47 kings was, according to the latest ordinance, performed by a priest (1 Kings i. 39). So also in Luke, the man |who was to anoint the Messiah was, on the father's side, descended from Levites, while his mother is even made a descendant of Aaron, and namesake of his wife (2 Mos. vi. 23) . And by this, perhaps, as the mother of Jesus is cabed a cousin of the mother of his precursor (i. 36), a further point was supposed to be attained, that, namely, of deriving the royal Son of David through his mother from a priestly line, and conse quently of representing him as a Priest and King, after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. ex. 4).* Samuel's mother had been long barren, so also is that of John. But the former, like Rachel and Leah, is associated as the barren but beloved wife with another who bears children to her husband. The mother of the Baptist, on the other hand, is made a second Sarah ; that is, according to the custom of that time she is represented as the only -wife, having grown old in barrenness, of a husband equahy advanced in years. And the similar expression in both cases : " they both were web stricken in years" (Luke L 7; 1 Mos. xviii. 11), leaves no doubt as to the imitation. Then again, it is in accordance with the type of Samuel, that the promise ofthe Son is con nected with a rebgious journey ; in the case of Samuel with the annual journey of his parents to Shiloh, to offer a sacri fice to Jehovah; in that of John, with the journey of his father to perform the duties of his priestly office. The wish to have issue in the parents of Samnel, as the father had children by the other wife, was particularly strong on the part of the barren wife. It is, therefore, she who prays Jehovah for a son, and receives from the High Priest the assurance that her prayers are heard (1 Sam. i. 10, ff.). But in the parents of the Baptist the wish is supposed to be equally strong on both sides ; but, as the wife in this instance * As he appears in the Testament of the twelve patriarchs, comp. Hilgen- feld, The Gospel of Justin, &c, p. 265, Remark. 48 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. does not accompany the husband, we must assume it to have been made known to God by him alone, durmg the offering of incense in the sanctuary, and the angel Gabriel to have appeared and signified to him the assent of the Almighty. The angebc appearance, which is not found in the history of Samuel, was borrowed by the Evangebcal accounts from the history of Samson, who was likewise a son of parents ad vanced in years (Judges xni.) ; to the parents of Samson the angel appears in some undefined place in the country, to Zachariah in the Temple. The cause of this difference is the difference in the position of the parents in each case ; but the name of the angel which is pecubar to the narrative of Luke, and is taken from the mythology of the Jews subse quent to the Captivity, was to a certain extent already given in Samson's history, where indeed the angel refuses to give his name (ver. 18), but is repeatedly designated as a 'Man of God," which is just the meaning of Gabriel. In the history of Samson no doubt whatever is expressed as to the fulfilment of the promise given by the messenger of God. Quite as little in that of Samuel, as to the assurance of the High Priest. The parents are not represented as being old in either of these cases, and consequently the result is not considered as improbable. But the narrative of Luke makes the parents of the Baptist an old married couple, like Abraham and Sarah, and therefore borrowed also the feature of the word of the angel appearing, at first, incredible to Zachariah. As in that case, the parents in succession insist upon the objection arising from their old age (1 Mos, xvii. 17, xviii. 12), so, in this, Zachariah insists upon it on his own behalf and that of his wife (i. 18) ; and as Abraham, on receiving the first promise that he, through his descen dants shall possess the land of Canaan, asks the question, how he is to know this ? (1 Mos. xv. 8), so, and in the same word3 also, Zachariah expresses his doubt to the angel (ver. 18) Thus the unbelief of Abraham andSarah passed away ; ANNUNCIATION AND BIRTH OP THE POKEKUNNER. 49 but they had as yet before them no similar example of tbe effect of miraculous power ; on the other hand, Zachariah, who, in the history of his people had several instances of this sort before him, was struck dumb, as a sign of punishment, until the fulfilment of the promise (ver. 20), as Paul, according to the narrative in the Acts, Avas struck blind for a time after the reproachful apparition of Christ, and as Daniel became dumb after the appearance of the Angel (not indeed by way of punishment, but at the majesty of the figure), until he touched the bps of the prophet, and thu3 restored his speech (Dan. x. 15, ff.). The name of the promised child is fixed beforehand, and this is a feature borrowed from the history of Ishmael and Isaac (b Mos. xvi. 11, xvii. 19). The precepts, again, as to his future mode of life, how he is to avoid wine and strong drink, are word for word the same that were given to the mother of Samson for her observance during her pregnancy (Judges xiii. 4, vii. 14) ; moreover, the dedication of both infants to higher objects from their mother's womb, and their waxing in the spirit is in both cases expressed in similar words (Judges xiii. 5, 24, ff. ; Luke i. 15, 80). On the other hand, the hymns of praise interwoven with the narra tive in Luke, are taken from the history of Samuel. His mother, on bringing to the High Priest the son that had been given to her (1 Sam. ii. 1, ff.), broke out into a hymn of praise. So hkewise does the father of the Baptist, when on the circumcision of the latter his tongue is again loosened (Luke i. 67, ff.) ; although in particular points the hymn of Mary (Luke i. 64, ff.) resembles that of the mother of Samuel more than that of Zachariah does. Thus the author of this prefatory history in the third Gospel compounded his narrative like a Mosaic out of different anti types in the Old Testament. And the process can only appear improbable to one who has no conception of the form of thought and authorship of the later Jews. The Jew of that ; VOL. II. . E 50 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. ' period of the Epigoni lived so entirely in the earber history of bis people, and in the sacred books in Avhich that history was laid down, that he found in them everything that subse quently took place prefigured, everywhere prophecies and symbols of following events, and the Poet likewise who wished to glorify the birth of a man of God of a later period could imagine nothing but that all had taken place in con nection with it as in the corresponding cases of sacred history in primaeval times. Otherwise the composer of the prefatory history is no spiritless imitator, but when the object he has in view re quires it, can, without binding himself to matter already given, exercise independent invention.. This is shown by the original manner in which he brings about a meeting between the mother of the Messiah and that of his precursor. In the arrangement of thi3 meeting, his object was no other but that of glorifying Jesus by putting the Baptist as early as possible into a relation with him, and making that relation one of subordination. This object could not be attained better than by bringing together, not the sons in the first - instance, but the mothers, with the embryos ofthe sons already in the womb, and by representing something to take place significantly prefiguring the subsequent relative position of the two men. . In order to give probability to their meeting, it was necessary that the women should be connected ; their actual meeting was brought about by a hint of the Angel, who in order to make the fulfilment of the promise given to Mary credible to her, referred her to what God had done in the case of her cousin Ebzabeth, and which was- scarcely less incredible. The author indeed puts a prognostic of the relation between the two sons into the words with which he represents the mother of the precursor as saluting the mother ofthe Messiah (i. 43) : " And whence is this to me " that the mother of my Lord should come to me V i. e. how am I so honoured that, &c. And this, only referring to the ANNUNCIATION AND BIRTH OP THE PORE RUNNER. 51 mothers, implies the same as is implied in the words put by Matthew (in. 14) into the mouth of the Baptist on the approach of Jesus : " I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me V But the prognostic was incom parably more striking if the embryo Baptist himself also took part in this homage. And the writer had before him an analogous instance in the Old Testament history. Rebecca, the wife of the patriarch Isaac, was also at first barren, and it was not until after the prayer of her husband that Jehovah bestowed upon her those twins who were to be the progeni tors of two nations, the Edomites and the Israebties (1 Mos. xxv. 21). The subsequent relation between these nations had, according to the Hebrew legend, been already typified in the relation between the two children in the womb of their mother. First, their hostile position to each - other by the fact that the two children struggled in the womb of their mother (xxv. 22) ; next the spiritual superiority of the ver satile but weaker Israel over the uncultivated strength of Edom, in the circumstance that on the occasion of the birth Jacob took hold of the heel of his first-born brother (xxv. 26; comp. xxvii. 36). But as the Baptist was not to be the twin brother of Jesu3, there was nothing else possible but that he should make, in the womb of his mother, a significant movement. Abraham ' had rejoiced that he should see the day of the appearing of Christ, and had been glad when (in Paradise) he had really bved to see it (John x. 56). In like manner the forerunner of Christ, while even in his mother's womb, expressed his joy at the coming of him. whom he wa3 afterwards to announce by making a movement indicative of joy on occasion of the salutation given by Mary on her entrance (i. 44). In order to do this it was necessary, for even miraculous histories. prefer, in the secondary features, clinging to the natural course of things, that he should have entered npon the period at which embryos begin to move : hence the assertion that e 2 52 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Ebzabeth had been already pregnant for sis. months when Mary's visit to her was occasioned by the angelic message. The hymn of praise which the mother of Samuel sings when she debvers np her infant, after being weaned, to his lofty cabing, has been abeady spoken of as a model not likely to be left unused. It was obvious to put a similar hymn into the mouth ofthe father of the Baptist ; but before the birth and circumcision of the latter, gave a fitting oppor tunity for such an outburst, Mary comes in with her visit, and now she anticipates Zachariah in plagiarizing the hymn of praise of Samuel's mother (comp. Luke i. 47 withl Sam. ii. 1 ; Luke ver. 49 with 1 Sam. ver. 2 ; Luke ver. 51 with 1 Sam. ver. 3, ff. ; Luke ver. 52 with 1 Sam. ver. 8 ; Luke ver. 53 with 1 Sam. ver. 5 ; moreover Luke ver. 48 with 1 Sam. i. 11), and leaves to Zachariah, for his hymn of praise on the occasion of the circumcision of his son, only an anthology from different passages in the Psalms and Prophets. 59. Birth op Jesus. Annunciation of the birth of the Baptist; annunciation of the birth of Jesus ;. meeting of their mothers ; birth and circumcision of the Baptist ; birth and circumcision of Jesus : thus, in Luke, the narratives are interwoven with one another. In Matthew, on the other hand, not only is nothing here said of the Baptist, but even the birth of Jesus is only alluded to once before it and once after it : while the birth itself and its attendant circumstances, are not made the subject of a narrative. In Luke such a narrative is found (ii. 1 — 20). The basis of it, the taxation of Quirinus, as the occasion of the journey of the parents of Jesus, we have already examined and found it to be an historical error, occasioned by a dogmatical necessity. The further features of the narrative are referred HIS BIRTH. 53 to this basis. As strangers, only brought to Bethlehem by the taxing, the parents of Jesus have there no dwelhng-place, and the same occasion having brought many strangers to the same locabty, the parents cannot find room even in the inn, but are obbged to find shelter in a stable — or, according to the apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy, and several Fathers of the Church, in a cave not far from the place* — and to lay the new-born infant in a manger. Hence ensues the transi tion into the pastoral world, to which, however, the author of our narrative is led not merely by the staU and manger, but is also concerned with it on its own account. The patriarchs of the Hebrew nation had been shepherds, and had received the revelations made to them in the midst of their flocks : the Angel of the Lord had appeared to Moses, the first Saviour of the people, when he was keeping the flocks of his father-in-law Jethro (2 Mos. iii. 1, ff.), and the ancestor of the Messiah, David, had been taken by God away from the flocks at Bethlehem, in order to feed his people (Ps. lxxviii. 79, ff. ; 1 Sam. xvi. 11.) In the same way the Greco-Roman legends choose to represent their heroes, a Cyrus or Romulus, as being brought up among flocks.f So also in this case they are poor simple shepherds in the field, not the Pharisees and Scribes, or the cruel King in the capital, who are thought worthy of the first intelligence of the birth of the Messianic infant. It is night when the angel appears to the shepherds, and the glory of the Lord shines around them. This, again, is connected with another idea. According to Isaiah (ix. 2), the people that walks in darkness is to see a great hght, and a bght is to shine upon those that dweb in the land of the shadow of death. This prophecy is appbed not only by Matthew (iv. 16) to the Messiah, Jesus, but also in the course * Justin Dial. c. Tryph. 78. Orig. c. Cels. i. 51. Protev. Jacobi, c. 18. Evang. de Nativ. Mar. c 13. Justin also refers to Isaiah xxxiii. 16. t Herodot. i. 110, ff. Liv. i. 4. 54 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. of the history of the Infancy, in Luke (i. 79); it is the Day-star from on high, the bght that shineth in darkness (comp. John i. 5); and as soon as the symbol bad got the privilege of being understood bteraby even once, the night-scene which we have in Luke was the natural result. The Angel that appears to the shepherds in the heavenly light proclaims to them the birth of the Messianic Saviour in the city of David, and as a sign of the truth of his an nouncement, refers them to the fact that on their return to the city they wid find a new-born infant lying in a manger. So Isaiah (vii. 14), bad given to Ahaz as a sign, a child stnl ¦unborn, but to be cabed on his birth by a name of joyful im port. , And it was altogether in the spirit of the Hebrew legend to represent sometimes the truth of a prophecy, sometimes the divine character of an event, sometimes the dignity of a man of .God, as being guaranteed by the coinci dence of an occurrence foretold as being about to happen immediately. "(Comp. e.g. 1 Sam. ii. 34, x. 7, ff. ; Matt. xxi. 2, ff. ; Acts x. 5, ff., 17, ff.). As soon as this one Angel has debvered his message, the heavenly hosts join in chorus, the shepherds return to the city, find the child, and tell the announcement that has been made to them in reference to it. At this the common hearers are surprised, but his mother keeps all these sayings in her heart and ponders on them, as formerly Jacob had thoughtfuhy preserved in his heart what Joseph, his miraculous son, told him of his dreams. The birth of Jesus having been thus glorified by angebc scenes, it seemed superfluous to embebish the scene of the circumcision as had been done on the occasion of that of the Baptist.. Only it could not be passed over (Luke ii. 21), in order, in accordance with the tendency of this history of the Infancy in Luke, to. bring into rebef the exact observance of the law on .the part of the family of Jesus. 55 II. Jesus, the Creative Word op God, Incarnate. 60. The view that Jesus Avas begotten by the Holy Ghost in the womb of a Virgin might indeed, as above explained, be reconciled with the JeAvish idea of God, by the exclusion of every sensuous element from the conception. Stib as the consideration of this element could not be prevented from continuahy intruding, the theory retained something offensive not only to the Jewish Christians, but also to those converted from the Heathen, who had elevated their minds to a spiritual conception of the nature of the Deity. Christians, accord ingly, of this description, and these in particular, were under the necessity of making their new form of religion indepen dent of that of the ancient Jews, of attempting to raise their Christ above the nature of common humanity, and at the same time above the greatest of the Prophets of the Old Testament. A method of doing so, and of keeping clear at the same time of that objectionable theory, appeared to present itself to them, a method by Avhich the same object might be attained, and at last a point even higher might be reached.* When it became impossible for the adherents of the murdered Messiah to consider him as dead, as a disembodied shade, i. e. when their faith in his resurrection and ascension to God arose, they attained to a conception of Jesus which, at least from the moment of his resurrection and ascension to heaven, placed him in the same rank with the rest of the * Compare, on what follows, Zeller, on the Christology of the New Testa ment, Theological Annual, 1842, p. 51, ff. Philosophy ofthe Greeks, iii. 2, p. 621, ff. Schwegler, the post- Apostolic Age, ii. 286, ff. Hellwag, Theory of the Pre-existence of Christ in the Ancient Christian Church, Theological Annual, 1848, p. 144, ff- 227, ff. Lucke, Commentary on the Gospel of John (third edition}, i. 283, ff. Baur, Christianity of the Three First Centuries, p. 308 ,ff. Volkmar, Commentary on the Revelation of John, p. 72, ff. 113. Holsten Paul's Vision of Christ, Journal of Scientific Theology, 1861, p. 231, ff; 56 BOOK II.' MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. court of God, the Angels, nay, even above them, as a Being to whom all poAver in heaven and earth was given by God (Matt, xxviii. 18). But, if his existence had not begun until the time of his human birth, be could not be even in the rank of the Angels, seeing that they Avere as old as the crea tion of the world. If he was to be made equal to them, he must have existed before his human birth ; this must have been, not the origination of his person, but only a descent of it from his earber supersensual existence. The formation of such a view of Jesus as the Messiah was assisted by several JeAvish notions. The Son of Man in Daniel, who comes in the clouds of Heaven before the throne of God and is endowed hy him with dominion of the universe, might have been originally intended merely as a symbol to mean the people of Israel. But when, as is obviously the case in our Gospels, the term was considered to apply to the Messiah, the latter was naturaby looked upon as a supernatural Being. The name of Messiah, as web as the nation and their law, was considered by the JeAvs as among those things which had existed in the mind of God, even before the creation of the world ; that is, as God, as they were taught by their oavu selfishness to bebeve, made the world for the sake of the Jewish people, and for their sake also would send the Messiah into the world, he must at the same time that be sketched the plan of the universe, have also had in bis mind the Messiah and his mission to it. Now, the course of ideas of this kind is web known. What was previously intended is converted into a fact already executed, the ideal becomes the real pre-existence. From the description of God, as the God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob, Jesus inferred the continued existence of these Patriarchs (Matt. xxii. 31, ff.). Just as easily might another person, on the supposition that the appearance of this Messiah was included in the eternal scheme of God in the preation, infer that he had been God at the time of the THE CREATIVE WORD OP GOD, INCARNATE. 57 creation of the world. The description of Jesus as "the Beginning of the creation of God," in the Revelation (in. 3), stands on the dividing bne between the ideal and real appre hension of the notion. Something similar might be suggested by a peculiarity in the Mosaic history of the creation. It is web known that in the first Book of Moses the creation of man is told in two ways. First, i. 27, in the words, "And God made man in his own image, in the image of God made he him, man and woman made he them ;" again, ii. 7, it is stated that God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and then, subsequently, made the woman of one of his ribs. This double narrative, which has persuaded modern criticism that two distinct portions are combined in the first Book of Moses, suggested to Jewish thinkers discoveries of quite a different sort. As it was said of Man, in the first instance, that he was made in the image of God, and, in the second, that he was formed of the dust of the earth, it was supposed that the same man could not be meant, but that the first must have been the supersensual heavenly man, the second the sensual and earthly. We find this distinction in the Alexandrian Jew, Philo ; we find it also in the Apostle Paul, and indeed appbed to Jesus as the Messiah. According to Paul, Jesus is, in his nature, the other man, the second Adam, the image of God; who, as heavenly, is contrasted with the first earthly man (1 Cor. xv. 45; 2 Cor. iv. 4). He is called the second or the last, though created before the other, without doubt because he did not appear until after the first. God waited for the posterity of the earthly Adam to develop itself up to a certain point, and then, and not tib then, in order to close the present period of the world sent upon earth in human form the heavenly Adam, who since his creation had been with him, as the Son of God, in a glorified form of bght.. If the Messiah, as the heavenly Adam, bad thus existed since 58 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. the creation, he might stib, even though he had not ap peared among mortal men until the coming of Jesus, have influenced mankind, and especially the chosen people, and Avhen Paul ou one occasion (1 Cor. x. 4 — 9) calls Christ that spnitnal rock which followed the Israebtes through the wilderness, and Avams the Corinthian Christians not to tempt Christ as some of them had done, we are at aU events not compebed to see in the first case a mere allegory, or in the second by a forced construction to evade the inference that Paul conceived bis Adam-Christ, even at the time of the march through the wilderness, to have stood in a pecubar relation to the people of Israel. It is, as is well known, a disputed point whether be attri buted to him a part in the creation ofthe world. When, indeed, we read in 1 Cor. viii. 6, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are ab things, and we by him ;" we might at first sight suppose that these words can mean only that Christ was the Creator of the world, though in a secondary, more instrumental position. And if Paul is also the author of the Epistle to the Colossians, in which (i. 15, ff.) Christ is cabed the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature, for by him were ab things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible ; and if, therefore, the first passage is to be explained by the last, it would not be possible to doubt the creation of the world by Christ to be the doctrine of Paul. It is true indeed that according to the original Mosaic record, Man, even the Being created in the image of God, was not created until the sixth day, after everything else. And thus it is not exactly clear how he can be supposed to have taken part in the creation. But that his having been created would not exclude the possibibty of hi3 own creative efficacy, we see from this very passage of the Epistle to the Colossians : after he had been created by God, ab else, it is said, THE CREATIVE WORD OP GOD, INCARNATE. 59 Avas then created by him. But if the Epistle to the Colos sians, together with those to the Philippians and Ephesians, belongs to a someAvhat later period, and the passage in that to the Corinthians taken by itself admits of another explanation, stib we see from them, as web as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Avhat the tendency was of the course of the development of these conceptions. The Epistle to the HebreAvs, hke that of the Colossians, while passing over the Pauline idea of the primaeval Man, connects the creation of the world immediately with the attribute of the Messiah, Son of God, taking it not in the JeAvish theocratic but in the metaphysical sense. The Son is the express image of the essence, the brightness of the glory of God, the First born, through whom God created the .<"Eons, i.e. the present and future, the visible and invisible world (i. 1 — 6), whom, afterwards, out of consideration for men, he made to become like unto men, and to take upon him human flesh and blood (b. 14, ff.). In. fact, we have here already the same nature which the fourth Evangelist cabs the Logos, only that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not use this term. And this is the more remarkable as he is acquainted with it (iv. 12, ff.), and must have been acquainted with ifc through his education in the school of Alexandria and Philo. Like the whole of the Alexandrine philosophy, the idea of the Logos in Philo has a double root, Jewish and Grecian. But it is not the speech of God for the purposes of creation, 1 Mos. i. ; for even in the appbcation of it, Ps. xxxiii. 6 ; " By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and ab the host of them by the breath of his mouth," we have not yet even a poetical personification; and the Memra of the Chaldee Paraphrase of the Old Testament is to be considered rather as a retrospective effect of the Alexandrian idea of the Logos. On the other hand, through the whole Hebrew bterature of Reflection and Proverbs, frpm the Book of Job and of Proverbs up to that of Sirach and the Wisdom of 60 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Solomon, there runs the idea ofthe divine Wisdom Avhich, in Job (xxvui. 12, ff.), is plainly only a poetical personification, but in the Proverbs (especially chap. viii. and ix.) is described in such a manner that even if the author did not intend it might easily suggest a real personabty. Wisdom here -appears speaking in her own person. She boasts of having been made by God — as the beginning of his Avay before his other works. When he laid the foundation of the earth she Avas by him, and Avas his delight, as she, on the other hand, has her debghtinthe sons of men. According to Sirach, also (chap, xxiv.), Wisdom was created by God before all time, proceeded at the beginning from the mouth of the Highest ; she sought for herself a firm habitation among the nations, until she was told of God to tabernacle in Jacob,* and to have her possession in Israel (comp. Baruch iii. 36, ff.). In the Book ofthe Wisdom of Solomon (vii. 25, ff., x. 1, ff.), Wisdom is the effluence of the glory of God, and the brightness of the eternal light, the Spirit of God that orders the Avorld and is the friend of men, that preserves goodness in the world, takes his dwebing in the souls of pious men, and in particular led the people of Israel on the march through the wilderness in the shape of the pillar of cloud and the pihar of fire. From this Word of God which forms and preserves the world, the last quoted apocryphal book distinguishes the Word of God not only as the Word that creates but also judges, and likewise represents it as Such in a personal character. When the Egyptians continued in their unbebef in the presence of the miracles of Moses, then, in the midst of the silence of the night (Wisd. xviii. 14, ff.), the A Imighty Word came down as a mighty champion, caiTying his solemn command like a sharp sword, and placed himself, (like the Angel of the pestilence, 1 Chron. xxii. 16) between Heaven and earth, filling ab with death. Now, the system of Greek philosophy that next to the * Ver. 8. iv lanuiS KaraeKTivaaov, John L 14 (of the \6yog) sal kaKtjviiiaiv iv iijuv. THE CREATIVE WORD OP GOD, INCARNATE. 61 Platonic obtained the greatest influence over the Jews in Alexandria was the Stoic. In this system, the term used to de scribe the divine Reason penetrating and artificiahy moulding the world was not Wisdom, but that by which the Alexandriau translation of the Old Testament and the Jews who spoke Greek universahy designated the creative Word of God, the term Logos. This term, from a pecubarity of the Greek language, meant at the same time Reason and Word. The consequence Avas that philosophizing Jews in Alexandria soon accustomed themselves to ascribe to the divine Logos what had been before attributed to the divine Wisdom. Thus, in Philo especiaby, the contemporary of Jesus Avho survived him, the Logos on the one hand corresponds to that which in the Proverbial bterature of the Jews is the divine Wisdom and on the other to that which in the Stoics is the Reason of the World, in Plato and the Neopythagoreans the Soul of the World and the World of Ideas. The Logos of Philo is the Mediator between God and the world : it stands on the boundary bne between the two, and makes their intercourse possible, inasmuch as, in a downward direction, and being the essence of the Divine Ideas, it informs the world with these, while, acting upwards, it represents the world, and especiaby Men, with God. It is neither uncreate, or created as we are, but came into existence, being, however, the most ancient and most original of ab that did come into existence : it is therefore a God to us as Beings who stand far below it, not God absolutely, but a second or subordinate God. This Logos, as an invisible Angel, led the Exodus of the people of Israel out of Egypt, in the pillar of cloud and fire, and is probably to be understood by the superhuman appearance which, according to Philo, in the Messianic period, being cognisable only to the saved, but invisible to ab besides, is to lead back the scattered Jews into the land of promise. Stab, Philo conceived of the Messianic Prince, who was to place himself at the lead of the returning people as something 02 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. distinct from this superhuman reason. For he looked upon the Logos as supersensual, not capable of entering into matter, scarcely indeed as a definite personal Being. But the combination of these two Ideas, that of the Log-os and of the Messiah or Christ, could not be long delayed. The Mediatorial character which the one had to sustain between God and the chosen people, the other between God and the world in general, could not fab to unite them. In the NeAv Testament indeed they are not found in combina tion except in the Gospel of John, or before it (i. 1 — 18). The Apostle Paul, though assuming an existence of the Messiah anterior to man, knoAvs nothing of a Logos in Philo'3 sense. The term is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but in the same way as in the Book of Wisdom it is placed by the side of Wisdom, so the Logos is placed, as a sharp, all-penetrating and judging spirit (iv. 12, ff.), by the side of the Son who creates and redeems the world, the brightness of the glory, and the express image of God (i. 1 — 3). In the Revelation of John (xix. 13) " the Word of God" is written as his mysterious name on the head of Christ ap proaching as a conqueror. But by this Jesus is only intended to be described as the herald and executioner of the Divine sentence upon the world. This is shown by the context, and especiaby by the sharp sword Avhich (ver. 15) goeth out of his mouth, and which is this powerful Avord of God. Besides, it is clear that the later author of the Gospel, who is likewise supposed to have borne the name of John, might take to this description of the Apocalyptic John and understand it in its metaphysical sense. It can however hardly be the case that the author of this Gospel was the first who completed the union of the two ideas. For it is found, if not earber, at all events independent of him in other writings of the same period, especiaby in those of Justin Martyr, who wrote in the interval between 147 and 160 A.D., and, as has been already remarked, it is found in him in a form differing in so many ways from THE CREATIVE WORD OP GOD, INCARNATE. 63 the type of John, that Ave see clearly that he, like the author of the fourth Gospel, adopted the doctrine of the Logos as a current idea of the time, and used it in his own way for his theory of Christianity. The entrance of the higher nature that appeared in Christ into the world of man is described by Paul (Rom. viii. 3) in the following words : " God sent his OAvn Son in the likeness of sinful flesh/' i. e. in a body Avhich was like the sinful human body (only like, because he was himself without sin). When the Apostle expresses this idea in the following terms (Galat. iv. 4) : " God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the law;" this has as little to do with the exclusion of male agency in the -histories of the Infancy as given in Matthew and Luke, as when on any other occasion (Rom. i. 3, ff.) it is said of him that he was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh, but declared to be the Son of God according to the spirit of holiness, by the resur rection from the dead. On the contrary, there is no doubt that Paul conceived of his Christ as a naturaby begotten man, with whom the Son of God, the heavenly Adam, perhaps before his birth, united himself. Nor, in the Gospel of John, which describes the higher Spirit as the divine Logos, the only-begotten Son, who from the beginning was with God, and by whom ab things were made, is anything more accurate stated with regard to the mode ofhis entrance into mortal life. It is only said (i. 14) that the Word became flesh, i. e. took a human body; but at what moment or how we do not learn. We have, in this Gospel, quite as bttle reason as in Paul, for supposing the exclusion of male participation from his procreation. Not only by the Jews (vi. 42), but also by the Apostle Philip, after he had already recognised in Jesus the Messiah pro phesied by the Law and the Prophets, is Jesus, without the. hint of correction, described as the Son of Joseph (i. 46). As faithful Christians, natural human beings in their origin, " are born, not of flesh and blood, nor of the will of man, but 64 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS- of God" (i. 13), so also, according to the view of John, might Christ himself, notwithstanding his perfectly human procreation, be the only begotten Son of God. But the Evangelist does not give a hint as to when this union took place. When, indeed, it is said of the Logos, as the trae bght (apparently in reference to the period of the Baptist's ministry), that it lighteth every man that cometh into the Avorld (i. 9), and immediately after, on the occasion of the baptism, the Holy Spirit is represented (i. 32, ff.) as abiding upon Jesus, the inference "has been draAvn that the fourth Evangelist conceived the baptism of Jesus to have been the moment of the union of the Logos Avith man.* But the Spirit in the form of a dove, which he represents as descending upon Jesus on this occasion, cannot be immediately compared with the Logos, but is a remnant of the most ancient view of the higher nature in Christ, which the Evangebst fobows as tra ditional, though it did not fit in with his doctrme of the Logos ; as the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus on the occa sion of the baptism would not have fitted in with the synoptic notion ofthe procreation of Jesus by him. The most probable supposition is that the fourth Evangelist connected that union with the first beginning of the life of Jesus, after the manner of the Platonic incorporating of pre-existent souls, but passed over the history of the Infancy, partly because it was much more difficult to conceive the subordinate God incarnate in the age of Infancy than the human being who had been begotten of God, partly because a Gospel of the Infancy was too humble for the lofty style and higher flight ofhis description. But if the vieAvs of the Prologue of John and those of the synoptic histories of the birth with regard to the origin of the person of Jesus on the other, are equaby unlike the more ancient view given in the . history of the ¦ baptism of the • Hilgenf eld, The Gospels, p. 241. The Question of the Gospels, Theolo gical Annual, 1857, p. 522. Comp. also Bretschneider, Probabil. p. 6, 128. ¦ THE CREATIVE WORD OP GOD, INCARNATE. 65 Messianic preparation of that person, still they cannot there fore be reconcbed Avith each other. The solution of Justin,* that by the Holy Ghost or power of the Highest, which Matthew and Luke describe as the efficient cause of the pregnancy of Mary, only the Logos is to be understood, does not hold good. Whether Spirit or Word, there must always be a difference between, on the one hand, a divine nature that has become flesh in Jesus and abided immanently in him, and, on the other, merely a divine opera tion occasioning his procreation. In the latter case, the subject of the Evangelical history is produced by this opera tion; in the other case it already exists and only enters, in virtue of its incarnation, into another form of existence. In the one case, the personabty of Jesus is a mixed product of fructifying divine operation, and receptive, human, i. e. female co-operation ; in the other, it is the pure, divine, personality of the Logos, to which the human element in him stands in the relation only of a transitory appurtenance. 61. But it was not merely when a loftier, superhuman subject for the personabty of Jesus, the Messiah, was sought for that. the divine Wisdom of the Proverbs and of Sirach presented itself, but Jesus, the Teacher, pointed in this direction. Wisdom frequently appeared in those writings as the In structress of men ; as soon as Jesus was looked upon as the ideal of a Teacher, it was obvious to put him in the place of Wisdom, the Instructress of men. When, in Proverbs (ix. 1 , ff.) itis said of Wisdom that she hath built her house, she hath slain her beasts, she hath mingled her wine, she hath furnished her table, she hath sent forth her maidens, she •crieth upon the highest places of the city, " Come, eat of my * Apoh I. 31, 35. vol. U. p . Q6 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. bread and drink of the wine which I have mingled !" we are reminded ofthe Evangebcal parable of the Feasts (Matt. xxii. 1, ff. ; Lukexiv. 16, ff.), Avhere, likewise, the Master sends his servants into the streets of the city, with the invita tion that his feast is prepared, bis oxen and his fatbngs are slain, and ab is ready, only the guests are wanting. In this parable it is God himself who takes the place of Wisdom in the Proverbs, but we have already above seen a case in Avhich, in the Evano-ebcal tradition, Jesus has been substituted for her. The speech about the Prophets and Apostles, which Avere sent to the Jews, and ill-treated and murdered by them, which Jesus in Luke (xi. 49, ff.) brings forward as words of the " Wisdom of God," are attributed to him in Matthew (xxhi. 34, ff.) as spoken directly by him, and uttered in his own name ; as the ancient Jewish-Christian Avriter Hegesippus describes the companions of Jesus as those who had been thought worthy to hear, with their own ears, " God-inspired Wisdom."* The conclusion ofthebook of Sirach (chap. 51) is a thanks giving, in which the author, as a pupil and distributor of Wisdom, uses in part exactly the same words which in a well- known passage in the first and- third Gospels we find put into the mouth of Je3us. " I wib praise Thee, O Lord and King," he says (ver. 1, ff), both for protection and preservation, and also for the gift of Wisdom which he has vouchsafeil to him. And now he cries( ver. 23), " Draw near unto me, ye unlearned, seeing your souls are very thirsty (ver. 26), put your neck under the yoke and let your soul receive instruction ; I have had but bttle labour and have gotten unto me much rest." Here the words of Jesus in Matthew (xi. 25, ff.) cannot fail to occur to us : " I praise thee, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth," after which fobows the thanksgiving peculiar indeed to him, for that God has hid these things from the v>ise and prudent and has revealed them unto babes. Then fobows, * Quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii. 32, 8. THE CREATIVE WORD OP GOD, INCARNATE. 67 exactly as in Sirach, the invitation, " Come to me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest ; take my yoke upon you .... and ye sh&llfirtd rest to your souls." Such a coincidence can hardly be accidental ; but it may be supposed that possibly Jesus may have had in his mind the passage of the Book of Sirach, which was originaby written in Hebrew. But in the Proverbs (viii. 1 — 22, ff.) we hear Wisdom call, " The Lord possessed me in the beginning ofhis way, before his works of old. . . . Before the mountains were settled was I brought forth. . . . When he appointed the foundations of the earth, then Avas I by him as one brought up with him, and I was daily his debght Now, therefore, hearken unto me, all ye children : for blessed are they that keep my ways, for whoso findeth me findeth life, and shab obtain favour of the Lord, but he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul ; ab they that hate me love death." Again, we read in Sirach (xxiv. 1, ff.), " Wisdom shab praise herself, and shall glory in the midst of her people. . . I came out of the mouth of the Most High . . . (ver. 19, ff.). Come unto me, all ye that be desirous of me ! . . . they that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shab yet be thirsty," &c. &c. When we are reading these speeches, we are looking into the very cradle of the speeches of Christ as given in John. The historical Jesus was combined with the Wisdom of the Apocrypha and. the Old Testament, the office of Wisdom as the Instructress of mankind assigned to him, and also as helpmate of the Divinity at the creation. The asseveration of Wisdom that whoso findeth her findeth life, that he that sinneth against her wrongeth his own soul, ab they that hate her love death, is re-echoed again in many ways in the speeches of Christ in John (e. g. ni. 20, ff. 36; v. 24); the invitation of Wisdom to eat of her bread and to drink of her drink, nay to eat and drink her herself, is also found in the p 2. ' 68 BOOK II, MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. mouth ofthe Christ of John (iv. 10, ff., vi. 51, ff., vii. 87) ; only that what Wisdom adds, in Sirach, that whoso has eaten and drank her once wib always hunger and thrist for her, is changed in John by Jesus into a higher sense, to the effect, that whoever comes to him and bebeves in him, will never thirst, as the water which he gives becomes in man himself a well springing to eternal life (vi. 27, 35, iv. 14). The Vine also and its branches, to which Christ, in John, com pares himself and his disciples (xv. 1, ff.), is taken from the speeches of Wisdom in Sirach (xxiv. 16, ff). And, generaby, the expression in the Book of Sirach, " Wisdom shab praise herself, and shab glory in the midst of her people," imparts its character to ab the speeches of Christ in the fourth Gospel. Such a continuous glorifying and praising of itself is not the least offensive on the part of a divine Idea or attribute personified, but becomes so immediately it is transferred to a real human person, even though compounded of God and man. Thus, in his speeches, Jesus was identified with that Wisdom which speaks in the Old Testament and its Apocry phal Books. And this Wisdom, in consequence of the famibarity of educated Jews with the Platonic and Stoic phbosophy, was at a later period transformed in Alexandria into the idea ofthe divine Logos, and in the course v of the second century Christianity forced its way into a circle thus cultivated. The natural result was what we have in the Gospel of John, that Jesus in his speeches glorifies himself as the principle of Salvation and of Life, like the Wisdom of the Proverbs and of Sirach, and finaby in the prologue is, in exact accordance with the doctrine of Philo, introduced as the Divine Logos, the Creator ofthe World. 69 THIRD GROUP OF MYTHS. JESUS THE SECOND MAN. 62. His Life endangered and preserved by the Star op the Messiah. It may be said that whoever reads Suetonius intelligently cannot fail to be enlightened as to the mode in which the miracles of the Evangebcal history are to be viewed. For from the supernatural procreation tib the ascension the two lines of miracles run parallel, and though the Old Testament narratives of miracles may offer more decisive points for comparison, still on the side of Suetonius there comes under consideration the useful fact that his prodigies and miracles, when they cannot be explained on natural principles, are recognized by every one as fables, and now, considering the speaking similarity of the almost contemporaneous imperial miracles to the Christian, it begins to be too difficult at the present day to see in the one set fables, in the other true histories. The theme of the group of narratives immediately before us : The life of a child destined for great objects endangered and miraculously preserved is one of the fundamental themes of ab heroic legends; which, not to go in this place beyond the point at which a real connection between the people and legends is probable or possible, we find recurring in the Hebrew, the Persian, the Greek, and Roman legend. To say nothing of the dangers which threatened the infant life of Zeus, or of Hercules, and the mode in which they were averted, we find the theme in the histories of the infancy of Moses in the Pentateuch, of Abraham in the later Jewish legend, of Cyras in Herodotus, of Romulus in Livy, and then in the same century in the history of the childhood of the 70 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. first Roman Emperor in Suetonius, and of the Christian Mes siah in the Gospel of Matthew (chap. n.). The theme is car ried out in ab of these Avith features so similar that it is impossible to overlook either the influence of one legend upon the other, or the common psychological source of all. This source is that law of the imagination which leads men to endeavour to make the value of a good, and therefore also of a great, man the more sensibly felt by the near approach of the possibbity of his loss on the one side, and by the care of providence for bis preservation on the other. .And as regards the influence of one legend upon the other, such influence on the part of the Mosaic legend upon the Christian is unmistakable, on that of Persian on the Greek probable, on that of the Romans at lea3t possible. In the history of the Infancy of Jesus the mode in which the danger is brought about is pecubar. The cause of it is a Star, Avhich about the time of his birth appears in Heaven, and guides Eastern Magi to Jerusalem, where their inquiries after the new-born King of the Jews attracts the attention of Herod the Great to the latter. Thus the Star appears as the means Avhich gives occasion to the danger to his life. Still the legend with regard to it had an object of its own. There is a bebef coming from hoar antiquity even to our own times, that new appearances of stars, particularly comets, coming unexpectedly and vanishing again, prognosticate revolutions in human affairs, birth and death of great men, or, in better cases, good wine. Men start from the supposition that so striking a phenomenon in the Heavens must have, corres ponding to it, a similar one on earth, in the chcumstances of mankind. Then, when among a hundred cases such a coincidence happens, this is looked upon as a proof of the hypothesis. The ninety-nine, meanwhile, are overlooked, in Avhich the natural phenomenon passes without any historical parabel, and then, conversely, when an historical event happens which it is wished particularly to distinguish, some HIS LIFE ENDANGERED AND PRESERVED BY THE STAR. 71 extraordinary natural phenomenon Avhich never took place is invented to correspond to it. Whether in the' case of a traditionary narrative of this kind Ave are to assume that the natural phenomenon reaby occurred, and was only brought by the narrator into close connection with an historical event with Avhich it had in reabty nothing to do, or that the alleged phenomenon rests entirely upon fiction, will have to be decided by the presence or absence of other unsuspicious statements with regard to that phenomenon, also by the character ofthe narrative and its sources. When Suetonius* relates that on the occasion of the first set of games which Octavian gave in honour ofhis great uncle, after his murder, a comet was seen for seven days, and was considered by the people to be the soul of the deified Caesar, it is possible, independently of this superstitious application, that the notice of the appearance of a comet at that time may be perfectly correct, because the narrative contains nothing contradictory to the nature of such a meteor, and because the historian bved near enough to the time and the place of the occurrence to get credible informa tion with regard to it. And we do, in fact, learn from Plinyt that in Augustus' own memoranda the phenomenon was mentioned. But when we read in a rabbinical author}: that at the moment of Abraham's birth a Star stood in the East which swallowed up four other stars, each of which stood in one of four quarters of the Heavens, what is said to have happened is so extravagant, the date of the origin of the account is so far removed from that of the abeged occurrence that in both respects it may be looked upon as a mere romance. Lastly, Justin§ tebs a story about Mithridates, to the effect that in the year in which he was born, and in that of his accession, a comet appeared, each time for seventy days, every day for four hours, of so large- a size and so bright that it occupied a quarter of the sky and outshone- * Julius, 88. Comp. Plutarch. Css. 69. t Hist. Nat.II. 23. J Jalkut. Bubeni, f. 32, 3. § Hist. Philipp.- 37. 2-„ 72 BOOK It. MYTHICAL. HISTORY OP JESUS. the brightness of the sun. In this case, also, the description of the phenomenon is at least highly fabulous, and whether >ve are to believe or not the general statement, that in one, at ab events, of those two periods (for the duplication is more than suspicious) a comet did appear will depend upon an examination of the sources which Justin, or rather Trogus, from whom he extracts, made use of in the composition of his history. Now, in the first place, the composition of the narrative in the Gospel of Matthew of the star that appeared on the occasion of the Birth of Jesus, was not so far removed from the occurrence in question as to be doubted on this ground alone. A report of an extraordinary phenomenon having appeared in Palestine might just as easily have been pre valent in the country eighty, or even a hundred and more years after the event, as that about the comet of Caesar in the time of Suetonius, i. e. of Trajan. But here a distinction appears, to the. disadvantage of the Evangebcal narrative. The comet in Suetonius coincided with the games in honour of Caesar, consequently with an event to which general attention was directed, and in connection with which the celestial phenomenon that coincided with it must have im pressed itself upon the memory of the people and have also been entered in contemporary memoranda. The birth-year of Jesus, on the contrary, apart from the Evangelical narra tives, the truth of which has stib to be proved, was marked by no particular event as regards those who were bving at the time. So that a hundred years after it could scarcely have been known with certainty whether a phenomenon, supposing such a thing- to have been surviving in the memory of men, was seen in that year or in another. As regards, in the second place, the description of the star in Matthew, we learn that the Magi saw it in the East, and that when they had recognised it, we know not how, as the star of the new-born King of the Jews, i. e. the Messiah, HIS LIFE ENDANGERED AND PRESERVED BY THE STAB. 73 they commenced their journey to Jerusalem. It is not said that the star continued visible during this journey. On the contrary when, on the command of Herod, they had set forth on the road to Bethlehem, it comes into sight again ab at once, and not only precedes them as a guide, but also con tinues stationary, in so marked a manner, over the house of Jesus' parents, that the Magi likewise stop and, with their presents, enter the house. What sort of a star it was we are not told, but whatever it may have been it is impossible, if it Avas a natural star, that it should have done what Matthew says it did, and if it Avas a supernatural one, i.e. a star immediately sent from and guided by God, it should have done more, that is it should have avoided Jerusalem and taken the Magi straight to Bethlehem, so as not to have aroused the old Tyrant in the capital and hand over the poor infants in Bethlehem unnecessarily to the sword. We must, therefore, in any case set aside every thing supernatural in the star, such as its going before the Magi> and its stopping, and the only question is, whether we have reason also to give up the appearance of the star altogether, or to maintain it as historical. Now no other historical document of that time, as far as we know at present, does accredit it ; but Kepler— a great name — in order to get a datum for determining the true year of the birth of Christ, has calculated that in the year 748 of the City of Rome, two years before the death of Herod, a conjunction of the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars took place, and in this conjunction, Kepler, and after him a series of modern astronomers and theologians* have found, as they suppose, the historical nucleus of the Star of the Wise men in Matthew. But, independent of the fact that Matthew speaks not of a group of stars but of one star, a conjunction, of two * Comp. as a specimen of allthe rest, Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels. . _ . . 74 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. or even of three planets is not of such rare occurrence (between Jupiter and Saturn every tAventy years) as to appear to Orientals, acquainted with the stars, so very extra ordinary a thing as is represented in the narrative of Matthew. Hence, even Kepler himself did not consider the mere con junction of the planets by itself as sufficient, but surmised that a new and extraordinary star may have been combined Avith it, as Avas the case in his OAvn time in the year 1604. Then these three planets Avere in conjunction, and on a sud den such a star did appear, and having shone for some time Avith the brightness of a star of the first magnitude, it graduaby waned and at last disappeai"ed. As, hoAvever, there is absolutely no internal connection between the appearance of such a star and the conjunction of those planets, the truth or otherwise of the supposition that as in the year 1604 after Christ, so also at the time of his birth, the appearance of an extraordinary star may have coincided with an ordinary conjunction of planets, remained undecided until Professor Wieseler at Gottingen discovered in Chinese registers, that in fact in the fourth year before the beginning of our epoch (and this epoch places the birth of Jesus just this much too late), a bright star did appear and was visible for some tune. Ab honour to the accuracy of the Registers of the celestial kingdom, all honour, too, to a theology whose zeal to rake together proofs of the truth of .Christianity drives it to the wad of China. We, on our part, must confess that the journey is too far, nay, that it appears to us to be a circuit ous route, as we think we have the object of the search in a better and more satisfactory form close at bond. For let us even suppose that we had for the birth-year of Jesus a comet, or an extiaordinary but still natural star, still we have not such an one as Matthew describes his to have been. For that not only appears to the travebers, but actuahy goes before them. And it does not, like other stars, stop HIS LIFE ENDANGERED AND. PRESERVED BY THE STAR. 75 when the persons in motion stop, but stops first where they are to stop. Now a star is a heavenly body, existing for itself and for objects entirely distinct from our earthly affairs. On the other hand, we find exactly such a star as we require, a star from which all the services performed for the Mes sianic pilgrims might be expected, which Matthew boasts that his star performed, in the fourth Book of Moses (xxiv. 17). The Star out of Jacob, announced by Balaam, is not a real star, but the Star of the Messiah, and therefore could not refuse any service Avhich it might be the pleasure of the Jewish- Christian faith to impose upon it in honour of the Messiah. The episode of Balaam and his prophecy is, as is web known, one of the most beautiful poetical pieces in the Old Testament, composed at a happy period, when the spirits of the people had just been raised afresh by victories over hos tile neighbouring tribes, especially Moab and Edom. The composer of the piece clothes this feebng in a narrative, ac cording to which Balak, the terrified Moabitish king, makes Balaam the Seer come from the Euphrates against Moses, advancing victoriously out of the Desert, in order to curse Israel, but who, instead of cursing, is inspired by Jehovah with blessing and lofty prophecies in favour of his people. Among these prophecies is found also the fobowing (ver. 1 7), " I shab see him, but not now; I shab behold him, but not nigh : there shab come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shafl rise out of Israel, and shab smite the corners of Moab, and destroy ab the children of Seth." It is manifest here that the expression, " a star out of Jacob" answers to that of " a scep tre out of Israel" to express the same object. The addition, therefore, in ver. 18, " Out of Jacob shab come he that shab have dominion," is not necessary in order to convince us that by the former ones a glorious ruler is symbobcaby meant. It is equaby clear, in the next place, that by this Ruler is meant, not the Messiah, but an historical King of 76 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Israel, perhaps the very one under whom the Poet was bving, and Avhose achievements, in order to exalt them the more, he represents as being foretold by a Seer as early as the time of Moses, though there may be a question as to what king is intended, whether David or a later one. Now the Chaldee paraphrase of the Pentateuch, which is considered older than our Gospels, has, instead of the star a king, and instead ofthe sceptre the expression an Anomted one. And thus, if the abusion to the Messiah was not exactly estabbshed, stbl the way to it was prepared, as every king might be cabed an Anointed one, or Messiah. It is certain that many of the later Rabbis understood the passage of the Messiah ; and it is also probable that such an interpretation had abeady become traditionary in much earber times, from the fact that the pseudo-Messiah who kindled the Jewish insurrection under Hadrian, openly cabed himself, in accord ance with this passage, Bar Cochba, i. e. Son of the Star. He might, indeed, style himself so if he only understood the Star as a symbobcal description of the Messiah, but the spirit of bteralism and astrological superstition of the time co operated so far, that by the Star out of Jacob a real star came to be understood, Avhich was to appear at the time of the Messiah and announce his coming. In. the Apocryphal Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, dating from the end of the first Christian century, it is said of the Messiah,* "And his Star shab rise in Heaven as a King's, beaming forthwith 'the bght of knowledge r" nay, as the birth of the Messiah was announced by a star, that of Abraham, on the part of the Jews, was represented as being so bkewise. But if the expectation was once estabbshed that a star would appear about the time ofthe birth of the Messiah, it wib be admitted that a Christian who cherished it must have been convinced, and as the author of an EvangeHcal prefatory history would * Test. Levi, 18 j in Fabric. Cod. Pseudepigr. Y. T. 584, & HIS LIFE ENDANGERED AND PRESERVED BY THE STAR. 77 naturally say, that the appearance of it coincided with the birth of Jesus, whether he knew anything of a particular celestial phenomenon or not — also that in the description which be gave ofthe Star ofthe Messiah, he would be guided not by historical inquiry, but solely by his own conception of the Star of the Messiah. Consequently, the author of our narrative took the Star from the fourth Book of Moses, and he took the Magi from the Star. For who could have observed it first and recog nised in it the Star of the Messiah but men initiated into the secrets of natural, and especially astronomical, philosophy, and those too coming from the East, the ancient home of mysterious knowledge, probably from Babylonia, from the Euphrates, whence also Balaam came, who had beheld that Star from far off in the distant future, as now his successors saw it in the nearness of the present ? But the Magi bring presents for the Messianic child whose Star they had seen. Balaam had brought nothing of this kind; on the other hand Balak had been compebed to per suade him to undertake the journey out by presents which he sent to him at the Euphrates (4 Mos. xxn. 7). Balaam came, persuaded by the gifts, and the result was that he saw immediately the Star out of Jacob ; the Magi came guided by the Star in order to bring presents. Here there is in the copy a perturbation, only to be explained by the influence of another type, which, however, we have not to go far to seek. The Messiah was not merely the Star out of Jacob, be was also the Dayspring from on high (Luke i. 78 ; comp. Matt. iv. 16), the hght that, according to the prophecy of Isaiah (lx. 1, ff.), was to rise up over Jerusalem, and to which peo ples and kings were to draw nigh with rich offerings. By this Light, indeed, the Prophet, as he expressly says, under stood the glory of Jehovah, i. e. Jehovah himself, who being reconciled to Israel at the end of the captivity, was to return to Jerusalem which had been deserted by him in consequence 7S BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. of their sins (comp. Iii. 7, ff.), in order to restore and to reign over them, now that they had been purified and received into grace. When however the return out of captivity and the restoration of the worship of Jehovah had taken place, and the further promise of glory had been in no respect fulfibed, the natural consequence Avas that the promise Avas referred to a more distant future which could be none other than the time of the Messiah. For him also the presents of gold and frankincense must be intended (ver. 6), which the Gentiles were to bring, as, indeed, it Avas said in the seventy-second Psalm (ver. 10), of a King who was to judge the people of Israel with righteousness, break in pieces his oppressors, help the poor and needy, and who shall be feared so long as the Sun and Moon endure, thus of a ruler under whom at a later period it was impossible to avoid understanding the Messiah that the Kings of Arabia and Saba shall bring him presents, and among them in particular Gold. And it is, as it were, a sort of obscure reference to the real origin of this feature in the Evangebcal narrative that in ecclesiastical tradition the wise men from the East Avere, at an early period, supposed to have been Kings. The narrative therefore in the first Gospel about the Magi and their Star is the result of a combination of the two pro phecies of Balaam, and the second Isaiah, understood in a Messianic sense. From the first comes the star and the fea ture that those who see it are astronomers ; from the other the feature that they follow the celestial light, i. e. according to the combination of both prophecies, are led by the Star, and that they bring presents to the new-born Messiah, to which the star leads them ; to which the Evangelical narrative, per haps from Psalm xlv. (ver. 9), which is also interpreted in Heb. i. 9, in a Messianic sense, added the Myrrh. More over, they who bring the offerings are represented in Isaiah as belonging to the foreign nations among whom the Jews had sojourned during the captivity. So also in Matthew HIS LIFE ENDANGERED AND PRESERVED BY THE STAR. 79 the Magi are to be considered not as foreign Jews, but as Heathen, and the ecclesiastical legend in taking the wise men from the East to be the first representatives of the con version of the Gentbe world to Christianity, has in this also shown a more correct appreciation of the fact than many modern theologians, who, in order to make the inquiry of the Magi more intelbgible, saw in them foreign Jews. 63. In the Evangebcal narrative, the Magi, in order to find the new-born King of the Jews, turn immediately to Jeru salem. The reason of this representation might appear to be contained in the passage of Isaiah, according to which the bearers of the presents travel to this place. But the main reason is that the tyrant Herod bved there. For the history of the Star and the Magi, although, as we have seen, of inde pendent Messianic import, also serves the purpose in the connected narrative of exposing the life of the new-born Messiah to danger, and of bringing about a miraculous pre servation from it, thus placing in so much clearer bght the great value of his hfe and the divine protection extended over it. It has already been remarked, that the history of the Infancy of the first Saviour of the nation served as a type for that of the second. Herod is the second Pharaoh, and he, like the latter, would have effected the murder of the one he wished to kib, together with that of the others, if that one had not been preserved by a higher Providence. Pharaoh, however, as we are told in 2 Moses i., was concerned with many children, not with the one alone, of whose birth and destination he knew nothing. His object in issuing the command to put to death ab the infants of the Israehtes was only to prevent the dangerous increase of the people. 80 BOOK II. MYTHfCAL HISTORY OP JESU3. Herod, on the contrary, was concerned only with the one Messianic Infant, of whose birth he had been told by the Magi; and it Avas only because he could not effect his object in any other way, that he gave orders to despatch all the male children of a certain age Avho might be found in Bethlehem, the supposed city of the Birth. Meanwhile, bke so many other Old Testament narratives, that of Pharaoh's murderous command has been further embellished in the sequel, and in a manner which made it still better adapted to serve as a type for our Evangebcal account. That Pharaoh, in issuing bis command should have made no particular reference to an Infant of a destiny so exalted, and so dangerous to himself, as Moses, appeared but little in accordance Avith the impor tance of this child. So in Josephus,* who in ab probability followed in this an old tradition, it is represented that Pha raoh was induced to give the order for a general massacre by a declaration of his scribes (as Herod by the inquiries of the stranger astronomers), as to the approaching birth of an Infant who should some time bring help to the Israehtes and bumble the Egyptians. So far the account of Moses follows the track of that of Cyrus, Romulus and Augustus, and upon this track that of Jesus ran parahel to it. Pharaoh or Herod is, in the case of Cyrus, his grandfather Astyages, in that of Romulus and Remus their, great uncle Amubus, in that of Augustus, the Roman Senate. Astyages had a dream, which the Magi interpret for him, that his daughter should bear a son, who would be king instead of him.f Amubus naturally feared the vengeance ofthe twins for the deposition of their grand father. J Before 'the birth of Augustus, it was said to have been prognosticated at Rome by a prodigy that Nature was pregnant of a King for the Roman people.§ How prone the * Antiq. 2, 9, 2. f Herod. L 108. J lay. I. 3. § Sueton.OctaTr. 94. HIS LTPE ENDANGERED AND PRESERVED BY THE STAB. 81 popular imagination of the Hebrews especially was to fictions of this kind, is clear from the fact, that in later Jewish Avrit- ings the account of the peril which threatened the life of the LaAVgiver was copied also in the history of the Patriarch of the nation. In this case Pharaoh is Nimrod: in one account Nimrod sees a star in a dream ; this star, according to the other account, actually appears in the sky, and his sages explain it to him to mean that a Son is at that moment born to Tharah, from whom shall come a mighty nation, destined to inherit the present and the future Avorld.* And when the same feature had been introduced into the history of the Infancy of Jesus, it was at last, like the secondary - rainbow, also introduced into the history of the Infancy of the Baptist, who having been endangered by the massacre at Bethlehem was said to have been preserved by a miracle. f Now in the legend of Cyrus, Romulus, and Abraham, the tyrants give special orders for murdering only the children who are pointed out as dangerous to them ; the narratives of Moses, Augustus, and Christ resemble each other in this that the Potentates seek to catch the desbined infant, who is unknown to them personaby, in a wide net together Avith others. In the original narrative of Moses, Pharaoh, as has been already remarked, does not even knoAV generally that the birth of such a child is impending; in the later- form of the legend in Josephus, bke Herod in MattheAV and the Roman Senate in Suetonius, he does know thus much, but bke them he does not know Avhich of the children that are to be born, or which have just been born, is the dangerous one; So Pharaoh gives orders to drown all the male children of the Israehtes ; the Senate, not to alloAV any male born in that year to be brought up ; Herod, to despatch all male infants found in Bethlehem and the surrounding districts of two years old and under. At first, indeed, Herod wished to • Jalkut Eubeni, f. 32, 3, and the passage out of an Arabian writing in Fabric. Cod. Pseudepigr. V". T. L 343. . f Protevang. Jac. c. 22, ff. VOL. It. G 82 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. put himself in a position, like the tyrants, in the legends of Cyrus, Romulus and Abraham, to attack the dangerous infant immediately, hoping to get information of it through the Magi on their ret aim from Bethlehem ; and it was not untb they, in consequence of a Avarning from above, bad avoided Jerusalem on their return that he took other measures, and we now also understand for the first time Avhy, just at the beginning, Avhen, with his original purpose it could be of but bttle importance to him, he still had felt it necessary to make such careful inquiries of the Magi as to the time when the star had first appeared to them, in order thereby to get a datum for the probable age of the child. Now such an order for a general massacre, though not quite in accord ance with the sagacity, is quite so nevertheless with the cruelty of the old Herod. Still it is rendered more than doubtful by the historical consideration that neither Josephus, who is otherwise so expbcit about Herod, nor any older author makes mention of it, excepting one of the fourth century after Christ, who manifestly confounded the execution of one of Herod sons, ordered by him, Avith the notorious massacre of the infants told in Matthew.* There is a discrepancy between our narratives in the mode in which they represent their miraculous child as being pre served from mortal danger. In the Mosaic and ancient Roman legend, in which in accordance with the geographical character the chbdren were threatened with a watery crave, the Nile plays in Egypt, the Tiber in Latium, Avhich a basket laid upon the shore and the compassion of those concerned, are the means by which the infants are saved ; in that about Cyrus, the sagacity and kindness of those who are charged Avith the commission of the murder; in the legend about Augustus, the interest of the Senators them selves who have had sons born to them in that year deprives the resolution of the Senate (of which, besides, quite as bttle. ": * 1 Macrob. Saturn, ii. 4. "'"' ' HIS LIFE ENDANGERED AND PRESERVED BY THE STAR. 83 is known from other sources as of Herod's massacre) of all effect; the narrator in the first Gospel here introduces a motive, much used indeed generally throughout the legen dary history both of JeAvs and early Christians, but an espe cial favourite of his — a suggestion in a dream. An angel, ap pearing to Joseph in a dream, had already warned him not to be offended at the pregnancy of his bride (i. 20) ; then, in a dream (whether or not by an angel is not expressly said, but at ab eArentsby God), the Magi are cautioned on leaving Beth lehem not to return to Herod (ii. 12) ; now, while the latter is occupied with threatening the infants at Bethlehem with the massacre, the angel of the dream advises Joseph to fly to Egypt (u. 13) ; immediately after the death of the tyrant he tells him to return into the land of Israel (ii. 20) ; and then comes, by Avay of supplement, the recommendation ofthe dream not to go to Bethlehem into the province of the no less cruel Archelaus, but rather to turn towards Gablee (ii. 22). A miraculous star, and five miraculous dreams within a few years, of which four are imparted to the same person, however, is almost too much, especiaby if it can be shown that several of these might have been combined not only without disadvantage, but with manifest advantage. It is clear at once that the last warning by a dream might have been dispensed Avith, if, by the one before the last Joseph had been recommended to go to Galilee, instead of indefi nitely into the land of Israel. Still the separation into dif ferent dreams at least did no harm. On the other hand, as has been already pointed out, it was productive of very im portant harm that either the star, which was so conversant with pointing out the road, did not, instead of leading the Magi to Jerusalem, lead them straight to Bethlehem, and from thence home, or that the warning of the dream was not given on the way to Jerusalem before the visit there. For thus the interference of Herod and the massacre at Beth lehem might have been avoided. It is intelligible that God o 2 84 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. should permit cruelties of this kind in the regular course of nature and history ; but it is incredible that he should himself produce them by his own extraordinary intex-ference. In this case the children at Bethlehem Avould have remained unhurt bad not the Magi given the alarm at Jerusalem after having been guided to that city by the star. We have therefore here not only no natural or historical occurrence, but not even such an one as we might imagine to have happened on the supposition of a miraculous interference by Providence. We are therefore entitled ab the more to consider it as one which a pious Christian from among the Jews would have imagined towards the end of the first century. Such a Christian would feel it necessary to have a massacre of innocents ordered by a tyrant, from which, by a miracle, the second great Saviour ofthe nation escaped, because the first Saviour also escaped, by a higher Providence, a massacre ordered by a tyrant, and because, over and above ab that, the passage in Jeremiah about Rachel weeping for her children (xxxi. 15; Matt. ii. 17, ff.), a passage which did indeed, in the mind ofthe prophet, refer to the carrying away of the people into captivity, might be appbed to this massacre. And then of miraculous dreams, the more the better. Not- only had the men of God of the old covenant had such, bat it was especially considered as a mark ofthe last, i. e. ofthe Messianic times, that in consequence of the imparting of the Holy Spirit men and Avomen should prophesy, old and young see visions and dreams (Joel in. 1 ; Actsii. 17). The method of preserving the Messianic child from the murderer Herod, pointed out to his guardian by the angel in the dream, is flight out of the country. In the Revelation of John (xii. 5, ff.) the child which the woman clothed with the sun, and crowned with stars, standing upon the moon, is to bring forth, is caught up to heaven from before the Dragon that lies in wait for it to swallow it, while the mother flies into the wilderness. Cyrus, Romulus, are brought up among shep-. HIS LIFE ENDANGERED AND PRESERVED BY THE STAR. 85 herds, Moses by the king's daughter, until a subsequent occurrence, that of kilbng an Egyptian, after he has groAvn up to manhood, occasions his flight out of the country (2 Mos. n. 15). It is clear that it is this later flight of the first Saviour which the Evangebcal narrator has in his mind in describing the earlier occurrence in the bfe of the second Saviour, from the fact, that in assigning the motive for the return of the latter after the death of Herod, he uses the same Avords as the Old Testament Avriter uses in speaking of the return of Moses after the death of Herod : " Go," says Jehovah in the latter case, " return into Egypt, for ab the men are dead which sought thy bfe ;" after Avhich it says, " And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt" (2 Mos. iv. 19, ff.). " Arise," says the angel in the dream to Joseph (Avho lay asleep, Jehovah having appeared to Moses while awake, and having therefore m ade use of a different introductory expression), " and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel ; for they are dead which sought the young child's life;" whereupon, we are also told, he arose, took the child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel (Matt. n. 20, ff.). We see here how Joseph steps into the place of Moses, Mary into that of his Avife, and the child Jesus into that of his children, and the ecclesiastical legend with a true feeling as to the origin of the legend has also> out of that of Moses, introduced the ass. The first Saviour, having grown up in Egypt, fled out of Egypt to Midian, the last, born in Palestine, flies to Egypt, and subsequently returns from it again. In this the narrator sees the fulfilment of the prophecy of Hosea (xi. 1) ; " Out of Egypt have I called my Son." By the term " Son" the prophet was, indeed, far from meaning the Messiah. Jehovah begins, " When Israel was a child, then I loved him ;" then continues, '' and out of Egppt I cabed my Son ;" says fui'ther on, " he taught Ephraim to go, taking them by their 86 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. arms, but, notwithstanding, they have offered to idols." Now in all this it is palpable that by the Son, as elseAvhere by the Servant of God, no one is meant but the people of Israel. It is true indeed that the passage spoke of the Son of God ; but the Son of God Avas, according to the Jewish-Christian interpretation, the Messiah Jesus ; if, therefore, God had cabed his Son out of Egypt, Jesus (and -as a chbd, for in Hosea " teaching to go" is spoken of) must once have been in Egypt. That, according to primeval Christian logic, Avas a perfectly conclusive argument, of which the Jews at ab events had no right to complain, as it was from them that the Christians had learnt this logic. Moreover, events of great antiquity rendered Egypt an obvious place for the infant Messiah to fly to.- Even if the lawgiver had fled not to, but out of, Egypt, it had repeatedly been the place of refuge for the Patriarchs from scarcity and famine. If, as Hosea had done, the people of Israel were considered as a whole, it might be said to have passed its earliest childhood (the Patriarchal age) in Palestine, and the later in Egypt, and had subse quently been called thence by God into the land of its destiny, and now it was obvious to copy thi3 course of life of the cobective Son of God, in the individual life of the per sonal one. •Finaby, we have our first Evangebst's assurance that by Joseph's journey to Nazareth, the prediction of the Prophet that " he should be called a Nazarene" (ii. 23) was fulfibed. From this we may see the lengths to which he was carried by his zealous endeavour to seek up supposed prophecies in the Old Testament, and the arbitrary manner in which he pressed such passages into the service in defiance of all rules of correct interpretation. By this prophecy nothing, cer tainly, is meant but that in the Prophets the Messiah is fre quently designated as a Shoot of Jesse, for which Isaiah, in the passage best known, xi. 1, uses the Hebrew word Nezer (other Prophets, as Jeremiah xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15 ; Zech. iii. 8, HIS PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE. 87 vi. 12, the synonymous ZemachJ, in Avhich, together with the literal meaning of the Avord, a mysterious abusion to Nazareth as the future home of the scion of David is supposed to be implied. 64. Parallel Section: Presentation of Jesus in the Temple. Turning noAv from this narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, we throw a glance of comparison on the one other Gospel Avhich gives us a history of the Infancy, that of Luke. And we find in the same place an account totaby different, differing from the other in substance and fundamental ideas (ii. 22 — 40). In Matthew the glorification of the birth of the Messianic child by the star and the homage of the Magi exposes his life to a danger from which he only escapes by flying into a foreign country in consequence of a divine warning, where he is compebed to remain until the death of the persecutor. Meantime, in Luke, he is brought to Jerusalem at the time appointed by law, i. e. forty days after his birth, in order to be presented to Jehovah as a first-born male. And on this occasion his mother, as having been lately debvered, presents her offerings of purification, and the homage which in Mat thew the child receives from the Eastern Magi is performed by Israehtes of strict piety. Not a word is said of danger, but the parents, after having satisfied the exigencies of their pious duty, return in peace to their home, taking the child with them (u. 22 — 40). In Luke, therefore, the glorifying of Jesus is kept within a narrower circle than in Matthew, does not, as in the account of the latter, produce a tragical compbcation, but ab goes off peacefully, and the compbcations that threaten the future are only ahuded to prehminarily in the speech of the aged Simeon about the resistance which SS BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Jesus i3 to meet with, and the sword Avhich shaU pierce his mother's soul. Moreover, in the narrative of Luke no reference is observ able to the antitype in the life of Moses. We find, indeed, in the introduction the laAV of Moses quoted three times, once as to the days of the purification, then as to the redemption of the first-born, and the offering of the mother, and at the conclusion we read that after his parents had fulfibed every thing required by the law of Moses they returned to their home. And we see from this that the narrator, who as we l'emember, also made express mention of the circumcision of Jesus, was much more concerned to show that from the time of the earliest infancy of the Christian Messiah nothing had been neglected which the Mosaic law required in the case of a child. The Jewish zealot hated in Jesus the Person who was to destroy Law and Temple (Matt. xxvi. 61 ; Acts vi. 14). Naturally they indulged in hostile fictions, specimens of which may be found in later Jewish bbels,* to the effect that he was unlaAvfuby begotten and unlawfully brought up, In opposition to this it was important to show that on the contrary Jesus had been the offspring of a strictly pious family, that the alleged Destroyer of the Temple had been early presented to God in the Temple, and received as the long expected Saviour by devout and inspired attendants at the Temple. . In this respect the salutation of the Infant Jesus by Simeon and Hannah, after being saluted at his birth by angels (also in Luke), and therefore in a still more glorious manner, was by no means superfluous from the Jewish point of view. It was not enough for the Jew to know Avhat the relation had been between Jesus and the religion gene rally, he wished also to be accurately informed what the rela-, tion had been between him and Judaism, the Law and the Temple.' * Such as the Book Tholedoth Jeschu ; comp. Eisenmenger, Judaism unveiled. HIS PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE. 89 At the same time the salutation of the Messianic child by pious Israehtes admitted of being used for another purpose. The chief offence Avhich the Jews took at the Christian Mes siah Avas the ignominious end, in a worldly sense, to Avhich he came : the crucifixion of Christ was as to them a stum bling-block which they could not get over (1 Cor. i. 23). When, then, a just and pious man bke Simeon, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, on first seeing the Messianic Infant, predicted to that Infant its future struggles, and to the child's mother her future agony, ahuding in a manner not to be mistaken to the violent death of the former, in all this the lesson was involved that correctly and spiritually understood the Messianic Idea did not exclude but include the mark of suffering and of death. When Simeon expresses himself to the effect that the chbd is set for the fab and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which shab be spoken against, in this an allusion was contained to the fact that the resistance of the Jews to Jesus was already counted upon in the scheme of Providence, and that it was then for every single Jew to see that the Messiah set by God be not, to himself, a fab but a rising again. There is something in the arrangement of the presentation scene in Luke which may remind us of the Magi in Matthew. Simeon comes into the Temple impelled by the Spirit, from whom he has received a promise that before his death he shab yet behold the Messiah. In like manner the Magi came to Jerusalem led by the star, which Avas to them a sign of the birth of the Messiah. As the Magi, when the star had made known to them the house in which the infant Jesus lay, did homage to him and offered him their gifts, so Simeon takes into his arms the child, which, as we must suppose, the Spirit pointed out to him at first sight as the one promised to him, and, in inspired words, offered him his homage. And as, in the first case, the . arrival and inquiries of the Magi caused an excitement in the capital, so in this Hannah, the prophetess, 90 BOOK n. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. takes care, by the reports which she spreads, that the circum stance shab not remain concealed from any one in Jerusalem who has faith in the Messiah. The resemblance may be acci dental, and arise from the chcumstance that at corresponding points of the history of the Messianic infancy similar features naturally appeared ; stib it is not impossible that the author of the narrative in the third Gospel knew that of the first and purposely contrasted another Avith it. We know from Justin Martyr* that one of the accusations of the earliest opponents of Christianity was that the miracles of Jesus were only magical ibusions ; that he himself was a magician and impostor of the same description as several others Avho at that time traveded through the country with pretensions to higher powers. How an accusation of this kind might be supported by the narrative in the first Gospel of the flight to Egypt, the ancient home of sorcery, we see from the work of Celsus against the Christians, in Avhich this heathen philosopher puts into the mouth of a Jew the assertion that Jesus did, in his youth, enter service in Egypt from poverty and there learnt mystical arts which he practised after his return home.f This suspicion having been once excited, not merely the flight to Egypt, but also the contact with Eastern Magi might be demurred to, and thus it might seem advisable to introduce Israelites of unimpeachable character who, instead of stars and astronomy, were concerned with the Temple and the Holy Spirit. Thus, again, the concluding formula as tothe child's increasing in wisdom and stature is of an ancient Hebrew character, being in fact copied, almost word for word, from a similar formula in the history of Samson (Judges xiii. 24, ff.). Independently, however, of the inconceivable character of the accounts of the infancy in Matthew and Luke, or of the fact that in their individual features they are manifestly framed with a purpose in view, it is clear, lastly, that we • Dial. c. Tryph. 69. f Orig. c. Cels. i. 28. HIS PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE. 91 have in them not true histories but fictions, from the conside ration that while each harmonises perfectly with itself, it is absolutely impossible to reconcile one Avith the other. We have already seen above that each of the two EA'angelists starts from a different hypothesis with regard to the original dwelling place of the parents of Jesus, inasmuch as in Matthew Bethlehem appears in that character, in Luke Nazareth. In accordance with this hypothesis, the parents of Jesus, in Matthew, continue after the birth of the child to bve quietly in Bethlehem, receive here the visit of the Magi, and would never have thought of removal had they not, on account of the impending massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, been warned to go into Egypt by the angel in the dream. But having been informed here of the decease of the murderous tyrant, they would immediately have returned home to their Bethlehem if they had not been told in a dream that in Archelaus, now reigning over Judea, the case was one of bke sire bke son, and that they would therefore do web to avoid his district and to settle in Gablee. While, therefore, in Matthew the existence of the parents of Jesus gravitates throughout towards Bethlehem, from which they are removed only by a power from Avithout, in Luke, on the contrary, Nazareth is this point, and in it, accord ingly, the pendulum that has been set in motion comes as soon as possible to rest. Brought to Bethlehem, as strangers, by the taxing, they stay there only the forty days, during which the condition of the mother on the one hand, the necessity of undertaking the journey to Jerusalem at the end of that period on the other, made their sojourn in the place near to the capital advisable ; as soon as their business in Jerusalem is done there is nothing to prevent them from returning to their distant Nazareth. If both accounts were historical they must admit of being incorporated into one another. The Magi must have come either before,, or after the presentation in the Temple, the 92 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. presentation in the Temple must have taken place either before their visit, or, if not, after it ; but still before the flight to Egypt, or, lastly, not until parents and child had returned again from Egypt. But whichever of these positions we attempt to adopt the narratives wib fit into none of them. If we make the presentation in the Temple precede, then im mediately after this the family went back to Nazareth, and the Magi, coming afterwards, would find them no longer in Bethlehem,, which Matthew expressly says was the case. Besides, if on the occasion of the presentation in the Temple, Hannah the prophetess had communicated to all who were hoping for it in Jerusalem the news of the birth of a Messiah, then, on the subsequent arrival of the Magi the event could no longer have been, as Matthew represents it, a novelty in the capital. If then, by way of trial, we place the coming of the Magi together with the flight to Egypt in connection with it before the presentation in the Temple, we fab into a difficulty with the forty days which Luke introduces as the interval between the birth of Jesus and his presentation in the Temple. For when Herod inquired of the Magi how long it was since the star was first visible to them, he seems to have supposed that the Messianic Infant had been bom simultaneously with the appearance of the star ; and when, in consequence of the information Avhich the Magi gave him upon this point, he commanded the Bethlehemitish children up to two years old to be slain, he must have supposed the infant Messiah to be at least approximating to that age. Consequently from the birth of Jesus until the arrival of the Magi we should have, according to Matthew, to suppose more than forty days to have elapsed ; and beside this, in the space of time above-mentioned the Magi must be sup posed to have withdrawn again, the parents to have travebed to Egypt in company with the child, to have staid there till. the death of Herod, and after it to have again travelled out of Egypt- to Palestine. That is manifestly too much for six HIS PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE. 93 weeks; and hence the necessity of an attempt, however difficult it may be to succeed in it, one thing in the narrative of MattheAv - being so closely connected with another, to separate the Egyptian journey from the visit of the Magi, and to drive in, bke a Avedge between the two, the presenta tion in the Temple. So then after the retirement of the Magi, the parents of Jesus would have travebed with the child to Jerusalem, and this must have taken place before the angel had advised the flight to Egypt on account of the danger threatened by Herod. But how is it conceivable that this angel should not, above everything, have prevented the journey, dangerous as it was, to the residence of the tyrant, or that, when the journey had been taken, and the news had been spread in the street, by the loquacious Hannah, of the Infant Messiah having arrived in the capital, Herod did not seize him, and spare himself the expedient, as uncertain as it was odious, of the massacre at Bethlehem ? On the contrary, the account of the presentation in the Temple in Luke, does in no way pre-suppose such an occurrence as the arrival and inquiry of the Magi, but runs as if nothing had ever been heard of the thing before, and there had been no danger to the child heard of far and wide. The unhistorical character, accordingly, of the two Evan gelical descriptions, which the character of each separately had indicated, is confirmed by their incompatibibty, and we must therefore consider them as fictions, which the authors of the first and third Gospels either worked out themselves or adopted into their works. There is, however, stih one thing which may surprise us. For observing as we do the , Judaising element to prevail in the first Gospel and the principles of Paul in the third, if Ave keep together on the one hand the narrative of the star and the Magi, and on the other that of the circumcision and the presentation in the Temple, we might feel some surprise at not finding the latter in Matthew and the former in Luke, instead of the 94 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. converse. For in the star and the Magi there is as manifestly implied a reference to the Heathen world and their admission into the kingdom of Christ, as in the prommence given to the circumcision and presentation in the Temple to the sanctity of the JeAvish juridical system. But we have already found, in the Gospel of Matthew, together with por tions of an undeniably Judaising tendency, at the same time others in which the calling in of the Heathen was brought into view ; and in the narrative of the Magi nothing is said decidedly as to the mode in Avhich or the conditions under which they are to be admitted. On the other hand it is the Apostle of the Heathen himself who declares that Christ, when he appeared on earth, was put under the law (Gal. vi. 4, ff.), so that the description in Luke might be considered only as an ibustration of the expression of Paul in reference to the infancy of Jesus. Meanwhile Paul immediately adds that the object of that ordinance in reference to Christ was that he might redeem those who were subject to the law (ver. 5), and thus put an end to the law (Rom. x. 4) ; an idea which is not alluded to in the history of the infancy in Luke. On the contrary, if we consider this preliminary history in connection with what is said with regard to John the Baptist, we cannot mistake the presence of a Judaising element both in form and substance. But we found in other instances Judaising portions of this kind incorporated into his Gospel by Luke, only balanced at the same time, in some cases by portions of an opposite tendency, in others characterised in themselves by a Catholic spirit. Characteristics of this kind, rendering Judaism unprejudicialto the general scheme of tha Gospel, are found also in this case, either having existed originaby in the narrative, in which case they might be adopted by the author of the Gospel with the less demur, or been introduced for the first time by himself. When Simeon cabs the Infant Messiah a Light to bghten the Gentiles (ii. 31 ; comp. Isaiah xiii. 6), the whole meaning contained in DEDICATED LIKE MOSES AND SAMUEL. 95 the narrative is comprised in this expression; as, on the other hand, in Avhat Simeon says further on of the fall and rising again of many in Israel and the opening of the thoughts of many hearts (ii. 34, ff), the JeAVS are confronted as sharply as possible with the prospect of the sifting that is to come upon them, in which many Avih not stand. II. Jesus, like Moses and Samuel, dedicated early to his high calling. 65. Suetonius tells of Augustus* that, having been, as a little child, laid on the ground in the cradle in a room, he- had vanished on the following morning, and after a long search was found at last in the highest part of the house lying towards the East. Now it Avill be asked what resemblance this story is sup posed to have to that of Jesus at twelve years old in the Temple (Luke ii. 41 — 52). Certainly the age, and what depends upon it is, in both cases, different ; but in both we have still the common feature that a child, destined to higher objects, is missed where he is ordinarily to be found, and dis covered in a place dedicated to God. This, indeed, in the narrative about Augustus is not a temple ; but the East is the sacred quarter of the heavens, and the high tower, as Suetonius expresses himself, alludes to the neighbourhood of the gods, whither, as we must suppose, the child Augustus was removed out of his cradle in a supernatural manner. As in the case of Christ so also in that of Augustus, lofty destination was identical with lofty extraction; for it is hardly possible that the anecdote above quoted should have arisen without reference to the legend of Apollo having been the father, whose property, as the Sun-god, the East espe- * Octay. 94. 96 BOOK ii. mythical history OP JESUS. cially was ; as in our EA^angebcal narrative the ansAver of Jesus as to his Father's House manifestly contains an allu sion to the. history of his supernatural conception. As Jesus Avas a Son of God in human form, so also Avas Cyrus, who Avas brought up as a shepherd's son, a king's grandson in the form of a slave, and also in his case his royal nature and destiny broke through the disguise at an early age, namely, in his tenth year. Having been elected King- by his playfeboAVs when he was about this age, he exercised the duties of his office in so dig nified a manner that the discovery of his real extraction immediately fohowed.* In the case of Moses it Avas somewhat late before his destination as the Saviour of his people declared itself in a similarly pre-eminent manner. For the purposes of the powerful assistance rendered to a feUow-countryman which is said to have been the means of this declaration, it was necessary that he should be " groAvn" as the narrative in Moses (ii. 11) says, though not perhaps exactly forty years old as the Acts of the Apostles (vii. 23), resting upon later JeAvish tradition, more accurately defines his age. But we know that a statement coffering from this, and of Rabbinic origin, made him twenty years of age on that occasion, and even if great physical power could not have developed itself before that period of manhood or youth, stib the distinguished intebigence of the Lawgiver was represented to have come out in his earlier years. According to Josephus, t his intel- bgence was out of ab proportion to his age, according to Philo, J Moses, as a boy, was attracted not by child's play and trifles but by serious occupation, and at an early period teachers had to be engaged for him, to whom in a short time he showed himself superior by natural genius. Samnel was stib an infant when his mother brought him - Herod, chap. I. 114, ff. f Antiq. ii. 9, 6. % De Vita Mosis, Opp. ed. Mang. II. 83, ff. DEDICATED LIKE MOSES AND SAMUEL. 97 to Shiloh for the constant service of Jehovah in the Taber nacle (7 Sam. i. 25), and still a boy when the call and address of Jehovah came to him for the first time in tho night (iii. 1, ff). In the Old Testament his age is not given more accurately ; but as the Acts of the Apostles says with reference to Moses, so also Josephus* says of Samuel, on the authority, no doubt, of a later tradition, that he begun to prophecy at his twelfth year. For it was from the twelfth year that, according to the Talmud, a boy was considered among the Israehtes to be ofthe age of discretion; this age, as the fourteenth year with us, was looked upon as the transition from the period of boyhood to that of youth : hence in a record of Christian origin indeed, but probably in accordance with JeAvish tradition, the wise judgments of Solomon and Daniel (1 Kings iii. 23, ff. ; Susanna 45, ff.) were placed in their twelfth year.f It is clear, however, from other features that the history of Samuel's youth served as a copy to our Evangebcal historian not only in this instance but in those also of an earlier period. In the first place he introduces his narrative with the remark (ver. 41), that the parents of Jesus travebed every year to the Pass over at Jerusalem. Similarly it is remarked of the parents of Samuel, not merely introductorily but repeatedly (i. 21 ; ii. 19), that they went every year to Shiloh in order to make an offering to Jehovah. Secondly, the remark at the end of the Evangelical narrative that the boy Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man (ii. 52), is manifestly copied from the concluding remarks as to the child Samuel that he grew and was in favour both with the Lord and also with men (ii. 26). If we pass from these grounds for the origination of a narrative of this description, grounds existing in the very nature of the heroic legend, and from those, more special, * Antiq. v. 10, 4. f Ignat. Epist. ad Magnec. 3. VOL. II. H 93 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. existing in the lore of the Hebrew prophets, to the peculiar form of the Messianic legend, Ave must remember that the operation of furnishing the Man Jesus with the powers re quired for his Messianic calling was at first connected with his baptism by John, consequently transposed to a mature age, and that it was not until a later period that those poAvers were considered to have, been produced by a supernatural principle, and his higher Messianic powers to have been. peculiar to him from the beginning of his life. Now, if the transition were made, as our first Evangelist makes it, imme diately from the birth and earliest infancy of Jesus to his baptism, there was, between the two events, far too large a gap, and the question might be put : Well, but if your Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, how happens it that the Spirit was so long idle with him, and that it was not until the years of manhood that he gave proofs of his power and wisdom ? This question, through which there was always danger of the Ebionitic doubts as to the super natural conception of Jesus insinuating themselves again, was barred by Apocryphal Gospels of the infancy by means of narratives, according to which Jesus, Avhile stib a child, performed miracles, spoke Avhen in the cradle and declared himself to be the Son of God, disclosed to his tutor in the alphabet its mystical meaning, and, in general, embarrassed ab his teachers by his questions before his twelfth year.* The narrative of Luke, as a comparatively healthy product of primaeval Christian invention, stands in favourable con trast with these late results of the operation of a wild imagi nation. In the first place it altogether avoids the perform ance of the miracles. But as to the wisdom, it does indeed transgress the limits of the human and the probable. For it represents Jesus at twelve years old, instead of sitting at the feet of his teachers, as would have become his age and as * Comp. the Proterang. Jacobi, the Evang. Thomas, also the Arabian Gospel of the Infancy in Thilo's Codex Apocr. I. DEDICATED LIKE MOSES AND SAMUEL.. 99 propriety required (comp. Acts xxii. 3), as sitting in the midst of them and on a par Avith them; and, moreover, as calling God his father in a sense which assumes either the truth of the history of his supernatural procreation, or a maturity of- religious development Avhich, naturally, a boy could not haAre. Still it does not offend so glaringly against nature as those apocryphal stories do ; but, apart from that designation of God as his father, does not go further than the vain Josephus does in reference to himself, when he speaks of the notice which he excited in his fourteenth year by his premature genius and knowledge.* And even in this our narrative gives a very appropriate representation when it places the stepping stone between the birth and early infancy of Jesus on the one hand, and his mature age on the other, exactly on the intermediate point between the age of boyhood and that of youth. The narrative begins with an illustration of that which is the fundamental theme of the whole of the history of the infancy in the third Gospel, the account, that is, of the mode in which the strict piety of the parents of Jesus showed itself in their annual journies to the feast of the Passover at Jerusalem. Immediately on the occasion of the departure of the parents from Jerusalem the chbd remains behind, and they seek for him in vain. Thus it appears at once that his Avays are not the ways of ordinary men, that hg follows a higher law of his own ; in his question on the occasion of their finding him again, why had they sought him, did they not know that he -must be about his Father's business ; he makes them feel this, not without a degree of harshness, which is palliated however by the concluding remark as to his continuous obedience (ver. 51), and is certainly exceeded by John in a speech uttered on another occasion : " Woman, what have I to do Avith thee ?" The inferiority in intebigence on the * Vita, 2. h2 100 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. part of the human parents to the Son of God is further illus trated by the author in the addition of the words, that they did not understand hi* questions (ver. 50), as in the former section he had remarked their surprise at the speech of the old Simeon (ii. 33). But if it had been true that even before the birth of Jesus the angel had foretold both to Mary and to Joseph that the child, as a Being begotten by the Holy Spirit, would be called the Son of God, they must necessarily have understood what he meant by his Father's house, and Avhen the Evangebcal narrator represents them as not under standing, he betrays himself to be not an historian but a narrator of miracles, whose style is appropriately charac terised by accounts of the continuous astonishment and per plexity on the part of the human beings who are placed in contrast Avith the performer of miracles. The remark, lastly, Avhich had already been made when the shepherds told their stories (n. 19), that Mary kept ab these sayings in her heart, shoAVS that the author had in his mind Joseph, the miraculous child of the Old Testament, in Avhose history it is bkewise said, in reference to the important dreams which he told as a boy, that his father kept the saying (or the circumstance) in his mind. IH. The Messiah, Jesus, withstands the Temptation to WHICH THE PEOPLE IN THE WILDERNESS, LED BY MoSES, YIELDED. 66. At the age when young men become their own masters, and show whether they are to pursue the paths of virtue or of vice, the Hercules of Prodicus underwent his temptation, or (according to the expression of Xenophon*) had the choice * Memorab. II., 1, 21. THE MESSIAH WITHSTANDS TEMPTATION IN THE DESERT. 101 given him. Abraham must have been advanced in years Avhen, being commanded to sacrifice his only and late-born son, he was subjected to his temptation — the hard trial of his faith and obedience (1 Mos. xxu.). On the other hand, the people of Israel was, as the prophet says, still young Avhen Jehovah cabed it, as his Son, out of Egypt (Hos. xi. 1), and during the period of forty years tried him in the wilder ness with all sorts of hardships in order to search his heart, and to discover Avhether he Avould keep the commands of God or not (5 Mos. viii. 2). David also, immediately at the outset of his public career, after having been first (according to the combined accounts of the compber of the Books of the Kings) anointedby Samuel and filled with the Holy Spirit, had to submit to a dangerous trial, the battle with the gigantic Phbistine Gobath (1 Sam.xvn.). These trials had been suc cessfully withstood by Abraham and David, as also by Her cules ; but the people of Israel yielded to the temptation, and had been so carried away as to murmur at Jehovah, to prac tise bcentiousness and idolatry. In this they had acted in the same way as the first pair of human beings who had also given ear to the seducing voice of the serpent and sinned against the command of God, thus draAving upon themselves banish-? ment from Paradise and from the tree of bfe. As the Mosaic history generally survived in the memory of the Israehtes, so, in particular, as warning examples, did these trials in the wbderness, so ill withstood, together with the divine punishments which they brought with them. "Now ab these things," writes the Apostle Paul, after giving short accounts of these occurrences, " happened nnto them for ensamples and they are Avritten for our admonition upon Avhom the ends of the world are- come " (1 Cor. x. 6 — 11) ; and so, on another occasion, fearing lest his Corin thian Christians might, in their simplicity, allow themselves to be deceived by false preachers, he reminds them of Eve AYho was beguiled by the subtle serpent (2 Cor. xi. 3). 102 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. It was the calling ofthe Messiah to restore that Avhich was corrupt, to do well what others had done ill. It was neces sary, therefore, that he should withstand temptation better, and that Jesus, as the Messiah, should have withstood it better than the people in the wilderness, or the first parents in Paradise. Now the whole life indeed of Jesus, and especially his suffering, had been a series of such trials (Luke xxii. 28 ; Heb. iv. 15) ; but see at once boAV strong the inducement must have been to separate off one single solemn act of temptation, and, as in the case of Abraham's trial, the temptation of the first parents, to delineate it Avith dramatic picturesqueness (Matt, iv. 1 — 11; Mark i. 12, ff. ;_ Luke iv. 1—13). There was another circumstance that co-operated to this. end. Abraham, the people in the wilderness, had been exposed to temptation by God himself, and, indeed, with a good intention, for the people bad only to withstand it as their ancestor had Avithstood it. But as time went on, it appeared objectionable to refer temptation immediately to God. Many thus fell, who would otherwise have continued upright ; many were thus brought into trouble which- they had not deserved : did not God, if he had exposed them to it, appear in the light of a jealous Being, rejoicing in mischief? God must himself participate in evil, it appeared, if he could tempt any one to evil (James i. 13). Hence the inclination arose, at an early period, to assign to Temptation another author. In Genesis, the Being which excites in Eve the desire to act in opposition to the divine command, is the serpent, as being the subtlest of the beasts of the field ; a fabulous representation, Avhich could not long hold its ground. Now the Israelites in captivity became acquainted with the Zend religion, which assumed the existence of a good and evil principle, and looked upon the development of the whole system of the world as a battle between the two opposing principles. This theory suited the Jewish people in the crisis THE MESSIAH WITHSTANDS TEMPTATION IN THE DESERT. 103 through Avhich it Avas passing at that time, and thus espe cially the conception of the Persian Ahriman adapted itself to the limitation that he did indeed connfceracb the operations of the God of goodness, but remained nevertheless strictly subordinate. He Avas the Enemy (Satan), the Accuser and Slanderer of men to God, Avho by his doubts of the constancy of Job's piety, caused God to tempt him by heavy sorrows : he it Avas also Avho, disguised in the form of a serpent, tempted the first parents in Paradise, and thus brought death and destruction into the Avorld (Wisd. ii. 24 ; 2 Cor. xi. 13 ; Eevel. xii. 9, ff.). With regard to the change in the JeAvish views of the world, nothing is more instructive than a comparison ofthe motives assigned in the older Book of Kings and the later Book of the Chronicles for the numbering of the people undertaken by David, and so severely punished by Jehovah. " And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel," we read in the first account (2 Sam. xxiv. 1), " and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah." In the second, on the contrary (1 Chron. xxi. 1) : " And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel." Now if the history of the Patriarchs and of the journey through the wilderness had been also written in the later period after the captivity, we should probably find Satan in like manner represented as being implicated in the temptations to which Abraham and the people of Israel were exposed. In the Talmud, at all events, this is actually the case. In the Babylonian Gemara, God is represented as being stirred up by Satan to try Abraham, as in the prologue ofthe Book of Job to try Job. Satan, accordingly, meets Abraham as he goes out to sacrifice his son and per- sonaby tempt3 him. In bke manner in the march through the wilderness it is Satan, according to the later Jewish statement whq, while- Moses bngers on the mountain, per- 104 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS- suades the people of his death, and tbu3 seduces them to the ivorship of the calf.* All that was Bad and Evil in the world, especially in so far as it concerned the people of Israel, being thus referred to Satan, as its first cause, it Avas a natural result that the Messiah, who was to purify the people from their sins, and to deliver them from the evils which oppressed them, should be opposed to Satan as his antagonist and conqueror. Christ is come to destroy the works of the Devil (John iii. 8), to destroy bad spirits (Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34) ; he sees Satan fall bke lightning from Heaven (Luke x. 18), the Prince of this world, Avho is no other than the devil, cast out (John xu. 31). But for this end, it was necessary first to conquer him. If he attacks Christ he must find nothing in Christ on which he can lay hold (John xiv. 30) . But attack him he will as surely as he attacked so many Old Testament saints, and also as certainly as he still in the Christian world goes about seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter v. 8). In ordinary cases this sifting by Satan consists only in the entrance of evil, in tempting thoughts (Luke xxii. 31 ; John xiu. 2). But against the Messiah, since a decisive battle was to come off, a personal appearance of Satan Avas required, for, as it were, a duel with the Son of God. As David confronted the proud giant of the Phbistines, so must the Messiah confront Satan, the Prince of the world ; as David overthrows the former by the stone out of his sling, so does the Messiah put Satan to flight by the weapon of the Word of God ; the Holy Spirit approves itself in both, they having received it immediately before, the one through the Anointing by Samuel, the other through the Baptism of John. The period at which the history of the temptation is placed, being thus fixed by this type of David, or, generally, * Gemara Sanhedr. in fabric. Cod. paeudepigr. V.T.,-p^ 335. Schabbat bab. quoted in Gfrorer, the Century of Salvation, ii. 381. THE MESSIAH WITHSTANDS TEMPTATION IN THE DESEKT. 105 by the consideration that the communication of the Spirit just received is to approve itself under the strongest trial, so also the locality of the scene, the duration of Jesus' con tinuance upon it, the substance moreover and form of the temptation, as web as the resistance offered to it, are all copied from the Mosaic history. The theatre is the Wilderness, not merely because it was always considered among the JeAvs as the dAvelbng-place of evb spirits (3 Mos. xvi. 8 — 10; Job vbi. 3; Matt. xii. 43), but, above ab, because the people of Israel also were tempted in the wilder ness. The time of trial for the people in the wilderness had lasted forty years ; in the case of the Messiah the substance of these forty years Avas compressed into as many days ; which at the same time was connected with the character of the first temptation prepared for him by Satan. For the first temptation encountered by the people in the wbderness had been hunger, and they bad yielded immedi ately to this first so far as to murmur against Moses and Aaron, i. e. in the last resort, against Jehovah himself (2 Mos. xvi.), nay, soon after, being dissatisfied with the manna given them, they desired meat (4 Mos. xi.). There fore it was by hunger first that the Messiah was to be tempted : in order to feel hunger he must have fasted ; now Moses had fasted during the march through the wilderness, on Sinai (as Ebjah bad done subsequently and similarly, 1 Kings xix. 8) forty days (2 Mos. xxxiv. 38 ; 5 Mos. ix. 9). So also Christ fasted in the wilderness forty days, and after the lapse of these he felt hunger, Avhereby Satan hoped to be able to get him into bis power. It would be to no purpose to tempt the Messiah to murmur, as in his case the fasting was voluntary; consequently the Tempter fixes upon his character as the Son of God, and endeavours to seduce him to aid himself by his own power. The form in which he does this, the demand made to him to change at a word the stones that be around him into bread, is determined partly by the 106 BOOS II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. stony ground of the desert, partly by proverbial language met Avith elsewhere also in the New Testament. God, said John the Baptist, likeAvise in the desert, could, in case of necessity, raise up children to Abraham from these stones (Matt. viii. *>), and coinciding still more clos-ely with this feature of the history of the temptation, Jesus had asked Avhether any one would give Ms son a stone when he asked for bread (Matt. vii. 9). So much the more suitable it must haA'e seemed to Satan's miscWevous nature to refer a hungry person to stones instead of bread, Avith the additional demand to forestal God by a miraculous word, and change them into bread. But, notwithstanding the fact that a particular fea ture is taken from elseAvhere, the temptation of the people of God in the wilderness is throughout the real antitype of the history of the temptation. This appears immediately from the ansAver by which Je3us repels this first attack of the Tempter. At the close of the march through the desert, Moses, according to the representation in Deuteronomy, calls upon the people to remember all the Avay which Jehovah led them all the time in the wilderness and proved them, and says among other things (5 Mos. viii. 3) : "He humbled thee and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee Avith manna (which thou kneAYest not, neither did thy fathers know), that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out ofthe mouth of the Lord doth man live." These last words are the very ¦words with AArhich Jesus replies to the Tempter (Matt. iv. 4), appeabng at the same time to Avhat " is written," and thus the latter, baffled at the first onset, applies Mmself to a second. In order to understand this second temptation, we must start from the words at the end of it, the answer of Jesus : ' ' Again it is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." In the passage of the fifth Book of Moses, from Avhich also this text is taken (vi. 16), it is said more accu rately: "Ye, that is," the people, shab not" (when ye come THC MF.&5IAH WITHSTANDS TEM1TAT10N IN THE DESERT. 107 into the land of Canaan), " tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him at Massa." That is at the time Avhen from Avant of Avater in the wilderness they murmured against Moses and Aaron (2 Mos. xvii.) ; for this was considered a " tempt ing" of God, implying as it did a doubt of his miraculous support (ver. 7). This tempting of God, or as he seems to understand it, of Christ, is also numbered by the Apostle Paul among the things in which the Christians are to make the precedents of the Israelites in the wilderness a warning example to themselves, so as to escape similar punishments (1 Cor. x. 9, where 2 Mos. xvii. 1, ff. is combined with 4 Mos. xxi. 4, ff.) . Also, in that portion of the Prophet Isaiah, so much read among the first Christians on account of its supposed Messianic importance, chap. vii. where King Ahaz, encouraged by the Prophet to demand an accrediting sign, answers (ver. 12), " I Avih not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord," the expression has without doubt the same mean ing, but might possibly be also explained to mean that the king would not make of God any improper demand, as in Ps. lxxviii. 18, it is said in reference to this murmuring' of the Israelites for meat (4 Mos. xi.) : "And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust." Noav Avhat improper demand was there that could be suggested by Satan to the Messiah to make of God ? Ps. xci. 11, ff., it is said of him who stands under the protection of the Moat .High, as in the most distinguished sense was the case Avith the Messiah, that God shall give his angels charge over him to keep Mm in ab Ms ways, that they shall bear him in their hands, that he strike not his foot against a stone. This, literally understood, mightbe taken to mean that the Protected of God might throw himself without danger from a height, as God's angels would support Mm and bring Mm without hurt to the ground. Satan, therefore, cabs upon Jesus to do this, and as in another Psalm it is said of a man of clean hands and a pure heart, again therefore pre-eminently of the 108 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Messiah (Ps. xxiv. 3, comp. xv. 1), that he shall ascend into the bib of the Lord, and stand in his holy place, the Messiah also is noAv to ascend the pinnacle of the Temple and throw Mrnself down from thence — to which proposal the ansAver came in quite suitably in the text, " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." One of the most prominent warnings drawn by the Apostle Paul in the often-quoted passage of the first Epistle to the CorintMans, from the Mstory of the march through the wilderness, is that in chap. x. 7, not to be idolators, as some of them (2 Mos. xxxii. 6) were. In the same section, idolatry (in accordance Avith the vieAV prevailing among the Jews), is explained to be a worship of devils (x. 20, ff.) ; and the Prince of the Devils is, according to this mode of conception, Beelzebub (Matt. xxii. 24), i. e. Satan. For a considerable time the Jews must have seen the sovereignty of the world in the hands of idolatrous people ; consequently, according to their ideas, the supreme Idol, Satan, was Prince or God ofthe present world (2 Cor. iv. 4; John xxii. 12, 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11). So the temptation to idolatry, which as the antitype of the nation the Messiah had to undergo, took the form, according to the ideas of tins later period, of a demand to worship the devil; and to tMs demand the devil might add as an inducement, the promise to surrender to the Messiah the whole of tMs world, the disposal of which . belonged to him as the Lord of it. In order to invest tMs inducement with the greatest possible strength, it was neces sary to show to Jesus tMs world in all its glory, and with this view he takes Mm to the top of a Mgh mountain, as Jehovah had taken Moses before Ms death to Mount Nebo and made Mm survey the whole country which he would give to the people of Israel (5 Mos. xxxiv. 1, ff.). It is clear that the Messiah would yield to this temptation as bttle as to any of the others, and in tMs case the weapon with which he repels the Tempter is au expression from the speech of Moses THE MESSIAH AVTTHSTANDS TEMPTATION IN THE DESERT. 109 at the end of the Avanderings in the desert, i. e. the command to the people to worship Jehovah, to the exclusion of ab other Gods. Beaten thus in three onsets, Satan is compelled to give in and retires, but, as Luke adds, only to renew his attack at a more convenient season. There is no doubt that by tMa later attack, Luke meant the Suffering* of Jesus. And this, not indeed in Luke bnt in MattheAV, is opened by tM-ee courses, as in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus thrice separates from his sleeping disciples in order to pray to his Father for the putting away of the cup of suffering (Matt. xxvi. 35 — 45). In like manner Peter thrice denies his Master (Matt. xxvi. 69 — 75), and so it followed that Ms love for him must thrice be cabed in question (John xxi. 15 — 17); all instances in which the triple repetition has the same ground, the natural preference not merely of the Jews but of others also for the number three, AvMch must also have appeared especiaby appropriate for the arrangement of dramatic scenes, like that of our Mstory of the Temptation. Hence also the narrative of the Gemara above-mentioned, represented Satan as having tMee courses Avith Abraham ; wMle other rabbinical accounts, perhaps in accordance with the number of Egyptian plagues, speak of ten temptations of Abraham. In the summary accounts in Mark the number three of the Temptations has disappeared, and it is only said, " And im mediately (after the Baptism of Jesus) the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness, and he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan, and Avas with the wild beasts., and the angels ministered unto him." Whether the wild beasts are intended to colour more highly the picture of "the Avilderness" (comp. also 2 Mace. v. 27), or to represent Jesus as the second Adam, stib it is an extravagant feature, and when taken in combination Avith the rest of the description, which is so abbreviated as to be almost unintelhgible, doea 110 BOOK II. THE MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. not say much in favour of the orig-inality of this account and of the second Gospel generally. Even the account in Luke in comparison with tliat of Mark looks liko one at second hand, partly from the fact that, at all events according to the common reading, he is the first to speak of the Temptation as continuing for the forty days, and then represents the three separate acts of the Temptation as following upon the close of them, partly from the artificial touching up of the narrative of the latter as given in Matthew. For an artificial touch it is when Luke puts the temptation to worship the deA^l second, and that to throw himself doAvn from the pinnacle of the Temple third. For in point of substance the call to worship him is the strongest that the devil could make upon Jesus, and forms, therefore, a suitable conclusion; what induced Luke to modify tMs order Avas undoubtedly the reflection that it was more probable that Satan should have gone with Jesus out ofthe wilderness to the mountain, and then into the city,- than out of the wilderness into the city, and then out again to the mountain ; a reflection bttle suitable in the case of a narrative bke ours, where a probability more or less was of bttle consequence. A second hand also is be trayed by additions such as the following, that the devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world " in a moment ;" that he makes Ms own dominion over the world the ground of his offering it to Jesus, and that in conclusion he is said to have departed from him only " for a season/' seeing that he never appeared to Jesus again, at least in this manner, i. e. personally and visibly. Meantime Luke loses the conclusion of the narrative in Matthew, which Matthew in spite of all Ms abbreviations preserves, that after the departure of the devil, angels came and worshipped Jesus. They refreshed him subsequently, as an angel did Elijah preliminarily (1 Kings xix. 5, ff.) , though not with earthly but, undoubt edly, with heavenly food, Avith the bread of angels as the manna was called according to later Jewish notions (Ps. lxxviii. THE MESSIAH AVITHSTANDS TEMPTATION IN THE DESERT. 1 1 1 25, in the Greek translation; Wisd. xvi. 20), and thus proof was given of the confident assertion made by Jesus at the beginning that for the support of the pious God is' not con fined to common material bread. The fourth Gospel has no history of the Temptation, nay, as if it were intended to be pointedly excluded, the particular events, from the time of the Baptism of John to the first performing of miracles by Jesus are connected by the strictest dates (as, on the next, on the third, day) so closely together that the Temptation with its forty days can find no place between them. Here, accordingly, John has certainly one incredible history less than the synoptics, but he passes it over, not because he found it insufficiently accredited from an historical point of view, but because, dogmaticaby, it Avas not to Ms taste. In Ms dogmatic theory, indeed, the devil as the author of sin among men, and as the antagonist of Christ, had a prominent place, but the ideaof Ms appearance in a sensible form was opposed to his Hellenistic education, and that Jesus should have condescended to enter into a formal conflict with him as a Being of equal rank appeared to John to be unsuitable to the dignity of the Son of God in his sense. So on this, as on many other occasions, the author of the fourth Gospel endeavoured, wMle sacrificing the form, to retain the substance and the result of the history of the Temptation, and in doing so adhered to the reference made by the third Evangebst to the suffering of Jesus as a renewed attack of Satan upon him. In tMs sense he refers especially (xiii. 2) the treason of Judas to the inspiration of Satan, thus following Luke (xxii. 3), but avoiding Ms language wMch reminds us of a formal posses sion by a devil, though he retains that language (vii. 70) when it suits the purposes of his oavu representation. Further on, too, and before the opening of the regular history of the passion he comprises ab that can be looked upon as the real dogmatic meaning of the history of the Temptation in the 112 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. Avords which he puts into the mouth of his Christ (xiv. 30) — " The prince of this Avorld cometh and hath notMng in me.." Thus, looking upon the history of the Temptation as a Messianic myth, we escape, in the first place, the necessity of having recourse to any of those traditional quibbles by which attempts are made to make that history and its forty days fit into the tissue of the Johannine narrative which is here so closely Avoven. With this view, apologistic theology has scarcely left a place unattempted between the beginning of the Mstorical narrative of the fourth Gospel, chap. i. 19, and iv. 54. In every case, however, AYith equally bad success, as the object of the narrative of John is not to leave a place where that of the Temptation may possibly be inserted, but conversely, in all probability, absolutely to exclude it. But even independently of this incongruity between the fourth Gospel and the 3ynoptics, which Avith our vieAV of the former proves nothing against the narrative of the latter, this narra tive in itself presents difficulties so numerous and so import ant that a mode of looking at it Avhich cuts these absolutely aAvay must be considered a welcome discovery. For few per sons at the present day will be bold enough, with Ebrard, to assert that the dignity of Jesus as the second Adam required that Satan should appear to him, as to the first, personally and visibly, not as to the latter under the disguise of an animal, but undisguised in his own figure. And it is only necessary to allude to the evasions of a vision, a dream, a parable, &c, in order to show that in view of the text which manifestly speaks of a real objective occurrence they are as inadmissible as the assumption of a myth, provided only the right point of view is taken, is natural and probable. By introducing the history of the Baptism and that of the Temptation we have already overstepped the hue wMch ia generaby.considered to bound the prebminary history of the Gospels, and lately, also, as that witMn which the admission THE MESSIAH WITHSTANDS TEMPTATION IN THE DESERT. 113 of mythical elements is no longer contested. The whole school of theologians which received its stamp from Schleier macher, and as the representatives of which we Avould here name only De Wette and Hase, agree AA'ith their master in giving up as untenable, and to oven a greater extent and more fully than ho does, the historical character of the accounts of the birth and infancy, and consider these as a tissue of primeval Christian legends and fictions, out of Avhich no Mstorical nucleus, even supposing such a nucleus to be contained in them, can be now extracted.* In making these admissions they folloAv the example of wise and decisive generals who, in order to be the better able to maintain a fortress, surrender untenable outworks, and do not even hesitate to burn them doAvn themselves. In modern times, indeed, there has been ample opportunity for discovering that the preliminary history of the Gospels, may, as against the siege artillery of criticism, be compared to such untenable outworks. And nothing but the stiff-necked stupidity of the old Tubingen school, or the pettifogging obstinacy of the modern Church tendency can blind themselves, bke Smith or Ebrard, to this daylight so far as to think of maintaining tMs portion of the Evangelical history to be perfectly Mstorical. Stib there is something in the conduct of theologians of the latter description, in wMch Ave are bound to do them justice, as compared with the former. The burning of a suburb is only advisable when it is cut off from those parts of the city which are intended to be preserved, or when the latter are made of materials so incombustible that there is no fear of the fire spreading from the one to the other. On the other band, if tMs is possible or even probable, it is generally considered better to let the suburb stand, and to see bow long it can be held than to set it on fire and so precipitate the destruction of the whole place. Indeed, if we were to * Hase, Leben Jesn, § 26. VOL. II. I 114 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. listen to theologians of the first description, Ave should liava to believe that the Evangelical account of the public life of Jesus was in every Avay fortified against such danger. The testimony of the Apostle is supposed to answer the purpose of a trench and Avail ; this (according to Acts i. 21, ff, x. 36, ff, comp. with Mark i. 1), begins first Avith the baptism of John.* But these theologians do not recognize apostolical testimony in the synoptic Gospels at all, and as to that of John, whom they cannot give up as an eye-Avitness, they have lately made it illusory by those web-knoAvn alibis which they bring- in whenever be tells anything wMch they cannot believe. But as regards the more durable material of Avhich the narratives of the public life of Jesus are supposed to con sist, they put just within the wall of defence, first the history of the Baptism Avith the dove, and the voice from Heaven, the first of these being also found in the account of the eye witness John, as well as the history of the temptation with the personal appearance of the devil — material as combustible certainly as any in the history of the Infancy, and, conse quently, not merely endangered by the fire kindled in. the suburb, but with no hope of escape from its ravages. Or if we begin with the conclusion of the Evangelical history, then the narrative of the ascension of Jesus is the exact parabel to that of Ms supernatural conception, the history of the transfiguration to that of the baptism, and then there run through the whole of the department of the Life of Jesus the narratives of his miracles which likewise consist of similarly combustible material. If tMs is the case in the interior of the fortress, it is Avell indeed to think twice before firing the outworks, and if I had the misfortune to be inside I should be on the side of those who preferred defending the whole, outworks included, though with uncertain success, rather than set the latter on fire and so sacrifice everything to • Hase, Leben Jesu, as quoted above. THE MESSIAH AVITH8TANDS TEMPTATION IN THE DESERT. 115 certain destruction. The real difference betAveen the history of the Infancy of Jesus and that of his public life, as it lies before us in the Gospels, is only this, that in the former there is, independently of a feAv quite general notices, nothing Avhatever Mstorical, in the latter, in the midst of Avhat is unhistorical there is still much that is historical on which the torch of criticism cannot lay hold. TMs historical element however is at the same time the natural element : the super natural in the Mstory of the pubbc bfe of Jesus is so similar to that in the history of the Infancy, that whoever recogmzes the necessity of maintaining the historical character of the one wib also find it the best course. to admit no doubt to arise in his mind as to the historical character of the other. 116 SECOND CHAPTER. Mythical History op the Public Lipe op Jesus. 67. Thus we see that the history of the birth and infancy of Jesus, a few meagre historical notices excepted, is throughout a tissue spun from dogmatic conceptions, and was, therefore, necessarily drawn within the circle of our present exposition, the object of which is to point out the progressive formation of the mytMcal History of CMist. In the former Book, in which we were concerned with the real History of Jesus, we had nothing , to do with that earber account. But in the Mstory of Ms pubbc Life, there is, as the analysis contained in the former Book has shown, much that must be recognised as Mstorical both in the facts, and especially in the speeches of Jesus, and we shab now therefore be concerned with all that remains, and AvMch did not come under our notice in the Mstorical synthesis of the former Book. The miraculous element wib obviously come first under this investigation, comprising not only the miracles Avlnch Jesus performed, but also those which were performed in his company, or in reference to Mm ; much also that does not indeed, like the miracles, contradict the laws of Nature, but those of historical probabibty — events, that is, with regard to wMch it is easier to understand how they may have arisen as reflexes of sacred or poetical fiction than that they really happened. It is clear, of course, that such an inves tigation wib contain points open to dispute ; we shall there fore content ourselves with bringing forward at present only those portions of the history of the pubbc bfe of Jesus in wMch the mythical formation may be pointed out with some JESUS AND HIS PRECURSOR. 117 degree of certainty. Portions of this description are the accounts, throughout, ofthe relation of Jesus to his precursor and Ms own disciples, towards the conclusion those of the transfiguration of Jesus and his entrance into Jerusalem. Meanwhile the accounts of miracles performed during this period are numerous, and continue from the beginmng to the end of the period. FIBST GROUP OF MYTHS. JESUS AND HIS PEECUESOE. 68. It was recorded, historically, John baptized Jesus. It Avas attempted to be established dogmatically — -by Ms Baptism, as by an Anointing, John dedicated Jesus to his Messiamc office. Hence the history of the baptism already considered. It was recorded further, Mstoricaby, that the Baptist, after having baptized Jesus, did not attach Mmself to him but continued the exercise of Ms baptismal function as before. This, naturaby, did not suit the dogmatic interests of Christen dom : it was supposed that the Baptist himself must have acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. We have seen how the synoptic tradition endeavoured to shoAV this by its mode of representing the history of the Baptism. It made John an eye and ear-witness of the miracle which was supposed to take place on that occasion, and thus it fohowed as a matter of course that he represented what was said as being said to Mmself,. and recognized Jesus as the Person Avhich the voice from Heaven declared him to be. He had already referred to a mightier than himself who -was to come after Mm, and to baptize Avith the Holy Spirit ; it is not expressly said that in doing so he had in vieAv the person of Jesus of Nazareth, but, according to the history of the Infancy in 118 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Luke, it is to be presumed he had, and AA'hen, according to Matthew, he attempted to deter Jesus from coming to his baptism with the declaration, that he, the Baptist, had more need to be baptized by Jesus, he must have recognized the latter, even before the miracle of the Baptism, as that Mightier of whom he bad spoken. The HebreAv Gospel gave to this recogmtion of Jesus on the part of the Baptist a palpable expression, making the latter fab at the feet of Jesus and pray to be baptized by him.* The question, however, stib remained Avhy the Baptist, when that Greater One, for Avhose coming he was only to prepare, had been pointed out, and, as it were, placed before him by God himself, did not immediately desist from his own function, and attach Mmself to him ? To this question the synoptic tradition repbed by pointing to the forty days' sojourn of Jesus in the wilderness, where it was necessary that the Messiah should be alone. Further on Matthew and Mark represent, as we are almost compelled to suppose, the imprisonment ofthe Baptist as taking place during, or at the conclusion of, this sojourn, when of course there would be an end to the possibility of John's attaching himself to the Messiah. Now it was known, or believed to be known, that John had not been immediately put to death, but kept for some time in prison, and as during this time Jesus was supposed to have begun his public ministry, it was considered incon ceivable that the Baptist should not have had intebigence of this (Matt. xi. 1, ff. ; Luke vii. 18, ff). The far-spread rumour of the miraculous deeds of Jesus must, it Avas thought, have come to Ms ears in spite of the prison wabs, and as he had from the first proclaimed one who should come after Mm, the question forced itself upon him whether the man who performed such deeds was not he that should come, and to proclaim whom he had been sent. If he had indeed * Epiphan. hares, ucs. ia. JESUS AND HIS PRECURSOR. 119 already on the occasion of his Baptism seen the Holy Spirit hover over Jesus in the shape of a dove, and heard the heavenly declaration of his being the Son of God, he must have knoAvn, Avithout fui'ther questiomng, that Jesus, and no other, Avas he that should come, and if he had moreover heard meanAvhile of his miraculous deeds, this could only strengthen him in his conviction. The synoptic Gospels represent Mm as not only asking the question, but as adding to it the expression of still further doubt as to Avhether another is to be looked for. Now he could only do this in case he had either become doubtful as to the meaning of the baptismal miracle, or tMs miracle had not taken place at ab. Our narrator however does not give the slightest Mnt of his having been guilty of the grievous sin of falling away while in prison from his bebef in the miraculous sign of which he had been thought worthy to be the witness. We must therefore suppose that this account does not assume the existence of that of the Baptism as we now have it, i. e. that the account of the message of the Baptist out ofthe prison comes originaby from an author who knew nothing of the miraculous occurrence at the Baptism. So the question Avhich John is represented as asking, is one wMeh might have been asked by any other person, namely, as miracles might be ascribed to any one else, whether those which Jesus Avas said to be performing do really indicate the ex pected Messiah, or whether as had already been the case so often before, the hope of that Messiah's coming was to be still further delayed. Jesus is said to have replied to tMs question in words, wMch, if they Avere ever uttered by Mm, might, according to an explanation given above, apply only to the moral miracles of bis ministry, but are understood by the Evangelists as referring to the real material miracles Avhich Jesus performed.* It is not said what the effect of this answer upon the Bap- * See above, First Book, vol. i. p. 364. 120 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. tisfc Avas, whether or not it led Mm to recognise Jesus as him aa-Iio should come. Instead of tMs, a speech about John is put into the mouth of Jesus, Avhich he might indeed have spoken Avithout this message having been sent at all, but wMch was brought in here because it appeared adapted to remove much ofthe difficulty involved in the fact that the Baptist did not attach Mmself to Jesus. For in this speech (Matt. xi. 7, ff. ; Luke vii.- 24, ff.) John is recognised on the one hand as the promised Messiamc forerunner, as the most exalted personage of the ancient time. On the other hand, he is made to draAV a strong* distinction between himself and the children of the more modern period, that of the Messianic Kingdom of Heaven, nay, even to subordinate himself to the- least of them. And thus it might be less surprising that he failed fully to understand him who had introduced this modern period. Luke also states summarily that John had been imprisoned by Herod (in. 20) ; but the statement in Matthew as to when tMs Avas done, and that he sent the message to Jesus straight out ofthe prison, is not given in Luke. Thus the residt of the account of tMs message, which is not said, indeed, to have bad any result at ab, becomes unsatisfactory in another point of vieAV. If John, when the Greater One whom he had announced had begun his pubbc ministry, and who had> moreover, now so expressly answered Ms doubts, was stib at hberty and not prevented from showing his subjection to Mm, why did he not do so ? He must, it was supposed, have done so, not indeed to the extent of giving up Ms oaati Baptism, and attaching himself to Mm, for that he did not do so the continuance ofhis oaati school, wMch was kept so decidedly distinct from that of the folloAvers of Jesus, was too significant a proof, but in such a manner that instead of putting the question as to whether Jesus was He that should come in a doubting spirit, he ansAvered himself and others in a spirit of the firmest faith, and made declarations ofhis JESUS AND HIS PRECURSOR. 121 relation to him, Avhich must have removed ab difficulty. The fourth Evangebst gave this turn to the narrative (i. 19 — 28), and in doing so, not only folloAved Luke, as he does on many other occasions, but also continued and completed AA'hat Luke had left unfinished. In Luke the Baptist refers to a Mightier Avho was to come after him, and the motive for making this reference is stated to be the surmise, on the part of the people who flocked to him, that he might be the Messiah. Luke had also given it the more decisive meaning of a disavoAval of the dignity, and a transference of it to the One who should come after Mm (in. 15, comp. Acts xiii. 25). For the fourth Evangelist this Avas not quite official enough. It was not enough that the people should only have entertained that surmise qmetly in their hearts, they must have expressed it in the form of a question put to the Baptist ; and the people who so put it could not have been mere common crowds, but must have been emissaries of the Jewish government in Jerusalem, Priests and Levites, in order that Jesus might appeal to the declaration of the Baptist made to them as convincing human testimony. But here arose the difficulty, that a proceeding Avhich Avas intebigible enough on the part of an unprejudiced and excitable, mob, is in the case of the Jewish Merarchs and their Pharisaic messengers inconceivable. It is inconceivable that they should have offered to the Baptist, whose preacMng of repentance could not possibly have been agreeable to them, and who had moreover expressly attacked the sect of the Pharisees, the titles in succession of the Messiah, of Elijah, of that Prophet, in order, after all, to meet Avith a refusal. Not a hint is given by the Evangelist that they did tMs with a malicious intent, with the intent, that is, of seizing- John in case he assumed the title, as they subsequently seized Jesus, of bringing him into suspicion with the Romans and dragging him to punishment. On the contrary, the ob ject of the Evangebst seems simply to have been to represent 122 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. John as refusing those titles ; but he could only refuse them in case they Avere offered to Mm. In Luke he had only dis claimed the title of Messiah in favour of Jesus, while in all the synoptics he is declared by Jesus himself to be in a cer tain sense Elijah, and a Prophet in the highest sense (Matt. xvii. 12, ff, comp. xi. 9,14). In the fourth Gospel it Avas necessary that he should be represented as refusing the two last titles, partly in order to place himself still further below Jesus, partly because the view of the Baptist as another Elijah Avas too JeAvish for the author. But the fourth Evangebst has also managed to preserve the mission of the. two disciples of John to Jesus, only in a form modified after his own fashion. In his Gospel John sends two of his disciples to Jesus as he is passing by. He does this, not at a later period out of the prison, but soon after the Baptism, and not with the doubting question as to whether he is the Coming one, but with the decisive assertion that he is the Lamb of God who takes away sins. In the synoptics Jesus bids the messengers tell their master what they hear and see;^— here, in answer to the question of the tvvo disciples as to where he dwells, he says, " Come and see." Upon tMs the two, instead of turning back to John as the synoptic emissaries do, remain in the train cf Jesus and bring to him other disciples (i. 35. ff). The question of the Baptist as put by the two disciples in ¦ Matthew and Luke, standing as it does uoav in the account of those two Evangebsts after the history of the Baptism, could only be understood as arising from doubt and difficulty. But the fourth Evangebst preferred modifying tMs feature and making it harmless, to leaving it uncorrected. The offence, therefore, was transferred to the disciples of the Baptist; they and not their master are said to have been offended at the fact, that he who had formerly been on the Jordan follow ing their master, is noAV attended by more people than John Mmself, and it is not Jesus Avho sends to John, but John. JESUS AND HIS PRECURSOR. 123 himself gives to Ms disciples the explanation that solves the difficulty (iii. 22, ff). The connection between the com plaint of the disciples of John to their master, and the dispute with a Jew about the purification, i. e. the purifying virtue of Baptism (ii. 25), and John's comparison in his ansAver of Jesus Avith the bridegroom, and of Mmself to the bridegroom's friend (ver. 29), reminds us of another synoptic passage (Matt. ix. 14, ff.) , where the disciples of John put to Jesus the question, why they and the Pharisees fast so much, and his disciples do not fast. Jesus ansAvers them that it is not fitting that the children of the bride-chamber mourn and fast, so long as the bridegroom is with them. TMs passage also has been touched up by the fourth, and a turn given to the comparison of Jesus to the bridegroom, such that the time of the bridegroom's presence is not, as in the synoptics, contrasted with that when he will be taken away from Ms followers, i. e. the life-time of Jesus with the time after Ms death, but the Bridegroom, i. e. the Son of God who came from heaven, with his forerunner, who is only of earthly extraction. When on the same occasion the Baptist declares himself to be he who must decrease as compared with Jesus, who must increase, he says of himself the same, in reference to Jesus, as the author of the Books of Samuel says of Said in reference to David (2 Sam. iii. 1) ; and that tMs declaration may have its full value as a voluntary self- subordination, it is expressly said that he had not yet been thrown into prison (ver. 24), so that he may appear to have laid down Ms arms at the feet of Jesus, while stib at bberty and without compulsion. The contradiction to Matthew, who does not represent tMs pubbc ministry of Jesus as beginning until after the im prisonment of the Baptist, is here obvious ; but beside tMs the fourth Evangebst gives us a representation of the Baptist, wMch corresponds neither Avith the description of him in the. three first Gospels nor Avith Mstorical probability, and can. 124 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. only be explained from the peculiar character of tMs Evan gelist. It is true indeed that he gives us no description of the coarse exterior, the clotMng and mode of life of the Baptist. Bnt this may be thought of the less importance as he does apply to Mm the passage in the Prophet of the Voice in the wilderness, in the same way as the synoptics do (i. 23). In the synoptics Ms preacMng consists of two parts : Bepent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. John entirely omits the first part, in order to bring out the other at so much greater length, and in more free and lofty language. Like the synoptics he represents the Baptist as referring to a Mightier and Higher than he who should come after Mm, but the higher dignity of this personage is characterised with features wMch are foreign not only to the synoptic Baptist, but also to the range of thought of the synoptics themselves. The statement that he is the Lamb, who taketh away the sins of the world (John i. 29, 36), involves an appbcation ofthe prophecy in Isaiah (Mi. 4, ff.) to Jesus, which is not indeed unknown to the three first Evangelists, seemg as they do in the dying Jesus a sacrifice for many (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 25 ; comp. Matt. xxvi. 28) : but it does not occur to them to ascribe to the Baptist a vieAv which did not begin to dawn upon the disciples of Jesus until after his death. But the Baptist also declares in the fourth Gospel that Jesus who comes after him is only preferred before Mm because he had been before Mm (i. 15, 30), only stands above all because he comes from heaven and testifies upon earth what he had seen and heard there (iii. 31, ff). Now tMs view of a heavenly pre-existence of Jesus before becoming man is foreign not only to the synoptic Baptist, and peculiar to the fourth Evangebst alone who, m Ms subjective way, attributes it to Ms own Baptist, and, to leave no doubt as to its interpolation, puts into Ms mouth exactly the same expressions and tarns of language as he had just before represented Jesus as using in Ms conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus had said to JESUS AND HIS PRECURSOR. 125 Nicodemus, " That Avhich is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that Avhich is born of the spirit is spirit ; Ave speak that we do knoAV, and testify that Ave have seen ; and ye receive not our witness" (in. 6, 11). The Baptist says of Jesus, "He that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth, he that cometh from heaven is above all, and what he hath seen and heard he testifieth, and no man receiveth Ms testi mony" (iii. 31, ff). Now as in the fourth Gospel the Baptist, Jesus, and the Evangebst where he introduces Ms own reflections, all move Avithin the same round of thoughts and phrases, only three cases are here conceivable. Either Jesus as well as the Evangebst learnt this mode of tMnking and speaking from the Baptist ; or the Baptist as well as the Evangelist took it from Jesus ; or finally the Evangelist lent bis mode of thought and expression to Jesus as Avell as to the Baptist. The first supposition is opposed to that rebgious respect which is thought due to Jesus, and it is also opposed to historical probabibty, as the synoptic Gospels know no thing of such thoughts and expressions in the mouth of the Baptist, and speculations of this kind are not at all suited to Ms stand-point. The second, adopted e.g. by Hengstenberg,* that the Apostle John not only copied his own mode of ex pression from that of Jesus, but also told his earber teacher, John the Baptist, whbe he staid with Jesus in Ms neighbour hood (John iii. 22, ff), of the dialogue wMch the latter had just held with Nicodemus, and that the Baptist immediately appropriated the watch-words out of it — tMs certainly is far less natural and probable than the third, that the Evan gelist represents both the Baptist and Jesus as speaking in the style in wMch he Mmself was accustomed to speak, when he wished to utter Ms own deepest rebgious convictions, and that here in particular he puts the same thoughts and turns into the month of the Baptist as were still floating in Ms • * In his Commentary on John. 126 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. mind and ready to issue from his pen, after Avriting doAVn immediately before the dialogue of Jesus Avith Nicodemus. In the three first Gospels, also, the Baptist, in the spirit ofthe tendency of these -writings, is engaged as the forerunner of the Messiah Jesus, but stib in " his austere preacMng of repentance something of Ms oavu is left him. In the fourth Gospel ab independent existence is taken from Mm; he exists only as a Avitness to him who is to come after him, and as it were as a wooden sign-post : he is bke the heroes of the most modem dramas Avith a purpose, Avhich are deprived of- every rationally human characteristic, stuffed out and crammed with the straw and cMps of the subjective pathos of the composer. SECOND GROUP OF MYTHS. JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. » 69. Historicaby it was knoAvn that there had been, among the most eminent disciples of Jesus, several fishermen and at least one pubhcan. In reference to the first also, the saying of Jesus bad been preserved, that instead of fishermen in the ordinary sense he Avould make them fishers of men. Now it was known, further, from the legends of the Prophets in the Old Testament, how, e. g. Ebjah Avas sup posed to have cabed Ms servant and successor Elisha. The latter was ploughing and driving twelve oxen before him when the Prophet threw his mantle over him : then Elisha left the oxen and foboAved Ebjah (1 Kings xix. 19, ff). It is impossible, in considering this narrative, not to re member the well-known story in Roman history relating how when the perils of Avar became threatening, the emis saries of the Senate summoned L. Quinctius Cmcinnatus from Ms little farm on the other side of the Tiber, where he had JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 127 laid aside his toga and was engaged in ploughing or making a ditch.* This may really have occurred, for it is agreeable to the simpbcifcy of the ancient Roman habits that so eminent a man should have been cultivating Ms OAvn ground, and that the Senate shoidd have summoned Mm from this occupation to the dictatorship may be naturahy explained from the fact that he had already approved Mmself to Ms fellow-citizens in the discharge of several high offices. Stib even in this case a legendary origin of the story is possible, as the imagination is not merely attracted by the contrast between an humble material occupation and a call to an exalted posi tion where such contrast really exists, but has a pleasure in inventing it even where it does not exist. So also as regards the two bibbcal narratives, the suppo sition that an Elisha may have been previously a husband man, a Peter and a John fishermen, involves no difficulty; and, so far, the Mstory of their calls, in the form in wMch we read it, would not lie out of the range of historical probabibty. Only in tMs case there is one difference. These men were not summoned like Cincinnatus, in consequence of the proofs of their competency wMch they had given to those who summoned them ; but Elisha by an immediate divine command (ver. 16), the Apostolic fishermen in virtue of the penetrating eye of the Messiah by means of which he saw what was in men at the very first interview. The summoning of Cincinnatus, though at first sight surprising, is stib a web- grounded, naturally connected event ; tMs natural ground is wanting to the cab of the disciple of the Prophet as well as to that of the Apostles, and thus, wMle in the case of. the Roman narrative we only found it possible that it might be a legendary fiction, we recognise that character as really present in the other. Several of the most distinguished disciples of Jesus may have been previously fishermen,' and Jesus may have named * Liv. HI. 26. 128 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. them, when ho cabed them. Fishers of Men, in allusion to their earber occupation ; just as he compared the kingdom of heaven to a net in which fishes of every kind are caught (Matt. xiii. 47, ff.). But he may also have so entitled them after they had long quitted their earlier trade ; nay, he may even have used the expression that he Avould make them fishers of men Avhen after a longer acquaintance with them he recognized their competency for the Apostolical office Avithout such a scene having actually occurred as MattheAV describes (iv. 18— 22), and Mark (i. 16—20). That, however, we have in this scene a product of legend is clear, not merely from its similarity to the cabing of the Prophet in the Old Testament, but also from a remarkable difference between the two. Elisha had begged permission from Elijah when he summoned Mm first to say farewell to Ms parents, had received tMs permission at once, and did not fobow Ebjah until he had taken leave. In the Evangebcal narrative we1 find tMs feature Avithdrawn. The elevation of the Messiah above the mere Prophets must, it was thought, be proved by the fact that on the occasion of his summomng a follower to attend Mm no such delay could be thought of. The fishermen called by Jesus follow him instantly and un- conditionaby, they qmt not merely the occupation in which they are engaged at the moment, but the Sons of Zebedee abandon their father, and Mark alone, in order not to leave him quite helpless, and so represent his sons as too neglect ful, associates with him permanent hired servants. And tMs request for delay was not only omitted from tMs cabing of Apostles, but, with a cab that had succeeded, having been accepted at once by the persons called, these cases were con trasted which failed in consequence of a request for delay, or in wMch, at ab events, tMs request must have been re jected. The significant words of Jesus, " Leave the dead to bury their dead," and, " No man, having put Ms hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God," JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 129 must be supposed to have been uttered on occasion of such requests, Avhen in the one case a person called had Avished to bury Ms father, and another had expressed a Avish to take leave ofhis friends (Matt. viii. 21, ff. ; Luke ix. 59—62). But a simple unmiraculous history, bice that of the cabing of the Apostles, as given in Matthew and Mark, who folloAV him, AA'as far from satisfying the imagination of the primieval Christian chcle. For us, indeed, it is miraculous enough that Jesus should, without hesitation, have called men to fobow him whom, if we are to believe the narrative, he saAv for the first time, or knew no more of than if he had, and that. these men should also, Avithout hesitation havo obeyed the cab ; but the devout listeners to Evangelical preaching required more than tMs. The declaration of Jesus that he wished to make those who had been cabed fishers of men, was a mere verbal expression : at this turning point of the Evangebcal history, on so eventful an occurrence as the cabing of the first Apostles, a corresponding fact was wanted, a miracle that should at once strengthen and reabze that expression. As already remarked, Jesus had compared the men whom he gamed over to the kingdom of Heaven to fishes that had been caught, the kingdom of Heaven itself to a net thrown into the sea ; if, therefore, caught fishes meant concerted men, a miraculously rich draught of fishes AvMch Jesus now gave to Ms disciples, was the symbol of the numerous conversions to faith in him, which those disciples were subsequently to succeed in making. The narrative appears in this modified form in Luke (v. 1 — 11), who accordingly omits the simple narrative of the cabing in the two first Evangebsts. He places it a bttle latter, and intro duces it in a different manner. In MattheAV and Mark, Jesus, walking about on the shore of the sea of Galilee, sees first the brothers Simon and Andrew, throwing their nets, calls upon them as he stands upon the shore, to follow Mm as fishers of men, whereupon they leave their nets and join him ; VOL. II. k 130 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. then he sees likewise James and John, with their father Zebedee, in the ship, occupied with mending their nets, and cabs them to Mm with the same result. In the corres ponding passage in Luke he sees, while teaching on the sear shore, and thronged by the number ofhis listeners, two ships, one of Avhich belonged to Peter, the other to the two sons of Zebedee, who Avere occupied together on the land Avith washing their nets ; he embarks on board one of these, orders Simon (Andrew is not mentioned in the narrative of Luke) to put off a bttle from the shore, and thus, sitting in the ship, instructs the multitude ; after finisMng his lecture, he calls upon Peter to go out into a deeper place, and to throAV out his net for fish. Peter, though demurring on the ground of their unsuccessful labour during the past night consents, on the command of Jesus, to make the attempt, and noAV in conjunction with Ms sailors, he catches such a quantity of fish, that not Only does the net break, but, while they are emptying a portion of their booty into the ship ofthe sons of Zebedee, both craft tMeaten to sink. Upon this the surprise of the people, and especiaby of Peter, at such a miracle,. almost borders upon terror, but Jesus pacifies the latter by tebinghim that from henceforth he shall catch men, and in consequence of this, the men leave all and fobow Mm. On reading this we see, on the one hand that we have, only in a miraculous form, the same uarrative as in Matthew and Mark, and on the other, there can be no doubt that the miracle is symbobcal, and in accordance Avith the parable of Jesus afready quoted, reabses under the image of a great draught of fishes that ministry of -the Apostles which followed, and wMch was so ricMy blessed. And then it becomes a question whether we ought not to go further, and look for symbobcal allusions even in separate features of the narrative. When Peter meets the command of Jesus to move out into deeper water, and then to throw out the nets, with the mention of the ib success of their work JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 131 during the past night, and then following that command, gets so large a draught, Ave may at first sight find nothing in this, but the contrast betAveen the poor material produce of their ordinary trade, and the rich spiritual fruit of the higher calling imposed upon them by Jesus ; and so likeAvise the tearing of the net, and the necessary partition of the booty between two ships, may be taken only as a picturesque indication of the magnitude of the draught. But is it not possible that the author of the third Gospel, Avho is also the author of the Acts of the Apostles, Avhen he speaks of the toil • of the Apostolical fishers of men, wMch was at first fruitless, - and then, when they repeat it at the command of Jesus, was so ricMy blessed, may have had in Ms mind the sbght success of Evangelical preacMng among the Jews, and the result of it, favourable beyond expectation, among the heathen;* when he speaks of the tearing of Peter's net in consequence ofthe enormous draught, he may have referred to the tMeaten- ing schism in the Church in consequence of the mimstry of Paul; and in the partition ofthe draught into two boats, may have alluded to the rise ofthe Heathen Christian Churches by the side ofthe Jewish Christian ? This is a question deserv ing of ab consideration, and which may perhaps, by com parison with a further narrative, obtain stib further light. The fourth Gospel, in its supplementary chapter (xxi. 1 — 14), has also a miraculous draught of fishes, and the fact that it places this, not as the third does, at the beginning of the public life of Jesus, but at the extreme end of his walk on earth, in the days of Ms resurrection, will not prevent us any more than many other such discrepancies from seeing in it nothing but a modification of the draught of fishes in Luke. With this narrative the author has interwoven traits from two other miraculous accounts, the Walking on the Sea and the Feeding ; but in tMs place these features, the basis of * Comp. Volkmar, Eeligion of Jesus, p. 316. K 2 132 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. the whole, namely, the moving about of the risen Jesus, being miraculous, appear as in themselves divested of their mira culous character : Jesus does not walk upon the sea, which Avould not have been anything remarkable in the case of a person AAho had risen from the grave, but stands upon the shore, and Peter does not attempt to go upon the waters but SAvims over in an ordinary manner, and subsequently the bread and the fish are there, hoAY Ave know not, but with out anything being said of miraculous production or in crease. But even apart from these admixtures the history of the draught of fishes appears changed in many ways. Besides Peter and the Sons of Zebedee, Thomas and Natha- nael are also here, and two disciples, not named, also ; the narrative moreover does not, bke that of Luke, begin on the day following the Mght of the unsuccessful tob, but accom panies Peter < and Ms compamons to their fruitless work during the night, and represents Jesus as appearing first, not during the course of the next day, but at the very first dawn of the morning. But Avhere it is said of those who had gone forth to fish, " That night they caught nothing" (ver. 3), exactly as in Luke, Peter answered the Lord, " We have toiled ab night and taken nothing'" (ver. 5) ; and when, in the morning, Jesus, on the disciples ansAvering in the nega tive his question as to Avhether they had anything to eat, cabs upon them to throw out the net on the right side of the ship, and they shab find (ver. 6), as in Luke he orders Simon to push out into deeper water and to let down the net into the water for the draught (ver. 4) ; and Avhere, according to both accounts, they get so rich a one that the blessing be comes a burthen to them — it is impossible to mistake, in the two accounts, a variation upon the same theme. The discrepancies which appear in the description of the successful result .confirm this conclusion instead of weakening it. Luke only speaks of a great multitude of fishes, but the author of John xxi. gives their number definitely at 153, and JESUS AND niS DISCIPLES. 133 large fishes too; according to Luke their multitude and weight tears the net ; in John it is only said they Avere not able to draAv it up, not that it Avas torn, notwithstanding the multitude of the fishes ; lastly, in Luke, the fishes are divided betAveen the tAvo boats, Avhich threaten to sink in consequence, Avhile in John they are draAvn in the net to the shore. In reference to the number 153, there is a remarkable observa tion of the learned father of the Church, Hieronymus. " The Avriters," he observes,* " upon the nature and characteristics of animals, and among them- the excellent Cilician Poet Oppian, say, that there are 1 53 species of fishes ; ab these were caught by the Apostles, and none were uncaught, just as great and smab, rich and poor, all sorts of men were drawn to happiness out of the sea of this world." Hierony mus, therefore, considers the number 153 as that of ab species of fishes adopted by the writers on natural history of that time, especially by Oppian. And in the fact that exactly this number of fishes were caught by the Apostles at that time, he sees a prophetic symbol of men of ab kinds being incor porated by the preacMng of the Apostles into the kingdom of God. Now, as regards Oppian in his Poem upon Fishing, Avritten, however, according to the most probable supposi tion, in the last year of Marcus Aurelius, and therefore later than the fourth Gospel, we do not find any exact number of the species of fish given, and if we count their numbers, Ave may, according as we take in or not the subdivisions into which many of the same species, may be distributed, and count simnar names twice or not, possibly make out 153, but also quite as easbymore or less. Hieronymus, however, only refers to Oppian among others, and therefore there is still a probabibty that in some writer on natural Mstory, now lost, that number may have been more definitely given. Be this, hoAvever, as it may, it is clear from another feature * Comment, upon Ezekiel, 47. 134 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. in which the narrative of John differs from that of Luke, that the fishes thus caught have a symbobcal reference to the men to be incorporated in the kingdom of God. In Luke the net splits, in John it is expressly stated that in spite of the multitude of fishes, it did not spbt. At first sight, indeed, this only looks like an exaggeration or completion of the miracle, as Ave must suppose that he who gave the fishes could also give the net the supernatural strength re quired to hold them. Meanwhile, we observe that this non- tearing of the net is peculiar to the supplement of the same Gospel, which (with the same Greek word, and that too the word from Avhich ScMsm, i. e. division of the Church, is derived) says also of the coat of Jesus that it was not rent (xix. 24), and which attaches so much importance to the com bination into one flock of the sheep out of two folds, that is of the Christians from among the Jews and the Heathen (x. 16), and observing tMs we can scarcely avoid seeing in the non-tearing of the net on occasion of the great draught, the symbol of the assumption that the entrance of the Hea then into the kingdom of Christ is to produce no schism, that, as the author of the Epistle to the Colossians expresses himself (iii. 11), there is no longer here either Greek or Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision, no longer barbarian or Scy thian, slave or free, but Christ is all in ab. There is also a suitable connection betAveen tMs supposition and the fact that in the narrative of John, one sMp only, from first to last, is spoken of, consequently no distribution of the first into two, as in Luke, but the whole draught is dragged to the neighbouring shore in order to be laid at the feet of Jesus. BetAveen the date of the composition of the third Gospel, together with the Acts, and that of the fourth and its supplementary chapter, the development of the relations betAveen different parties had made such progress that the peaceful juxtaposition of a JeAvish and Gentile Christendom was no longer considered sufficient, but it was the wish of JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 135 the Church to present itself to Christ on Ms second advent as one and undivided. But it Avas known, moreover, that besides the fishermen, among the more confidential disciples of Jesus, there had been also among them one or tAVO publicans, and it was also knoAvn that on the part of Pharisaically disposed JeAvs, much offence had been taken at the harmless intercourse of Jesus with people of tMs class. Noav the transition of a fisherman from his former trade to the discipleship of Jesus may have taken place in many ways without the necessity of Jesus summoning Mm away from the act of casting or mending Ms net. But the legend chose only the latter form as being the most picturesque. Thus also the same thing may have happened in one way or another, quite gradually and naturally, in the case of a publi can. But the course of the legend was exactly the same in the one case and in the other. As Jesus had seen the fisher men in the boat with then" nets, so must he have seen the publican sitting at the seat of custom; as he cabed the former, so must he have called the latter to fobow Mm, whereupon as the fisherman had done in the former case, so in tMs the pubbcan left 'ah and fobowed Jesus (Matt. ix. 9, ff; Mark ii. 13, ff.; Luke v. 27, ff). In this case there is no such expression recorded corresponding to that descriptive of the relation wMch the fisherman's future occupation is to bear to their past one, namely, that of " fishers of men/' but the other circumstance, Mstoricaby well known, that much offence had been taken at the friendly intercourse of Jesus with publicans was brought in here, and thus a phrase, though of a different kind, was gained for the embelbshment of the scene. Jesus certainly may have dined with the pubb- cans whom he found susceptible of Ms influence, without having previously summoned them directly from the seat of custom. But stib, when once such a Mstory of the cabing had gained ground, the pubbcan's dinner, with the expression of Jesus, 136 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. " I am not come to cab the righteous, but sinners to re pentance," and " the AA-hole need not a physician, but the sick," were admirably adapted to be connected with it. The publican thus called by Jesus is named hi the first Gospel Matthew. Referring- to the Mstory of bis call, the catalogue of the Apostles describes him as the publican (x. S)i Mark and Luke give him the name of Levi. They have no person of tMs name in their catalogue of the Apostles, but the name of MattheAV is found there as Avell as in the others, without, however, being described as the publican, a proof that they did not refer this Mstory of the cab to him, as they would have done if their Levi had had the surname of Matthew. As, however, Mstories of " cabs " were narrated Avithoufc names (Luke ix. 59, ff.), because the Avords of them were considered as of principal importance, there might also in another case bo a variation in the name, and the more readily in one bke that before us, where the Mstory of the " cab •" comes in only as an introduction to the scene and speeches on the occasion of the publican's dinner. Another entertainment at the house of a pubbcan is peculiar to the tMrd Gospel. It is placed in the last period of the bfe of Jesus, when he was passing tiirough Jericho on the road to Jerusalem (Luke xix. 1 — 10), where, moreover; ab the synoptics represent the healing of a bbnd man to have occurred. The pubbcan, of the name of Zaccheus, is not an ordinary personage, but a chief among the publicans and rich; he is not sitting at the receipt of custom till Jesus cabs him, but Avhen he hears of Ms approach he rises up to see the great performer of miracles, Avhich he cannot do because of the press and bemg bttle of stature, Avithout cbmbing a mulberry tree on the road. There Jesus sees Mm, bids him come down in haste, because he must on that day abide in his house, and Zaccheus obeys his call, not only overjoyed at it, but abo declaring Mmself ready to give liberally to the poor, and to restore in full measure any thing that he has JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 137 wronged any man of. Upon this Jesus, in answer to the JeAVs Avho murmur, palliates Ms assertion that salvation had that day come to that house, by referring to the fact that the publican also Avas a son of Abraham, and ends Avith the Avords, that the Son of Man was come to seek and to save that which Avas lost. That reference to Abraham has been considered as an indication of a JeAvish CMistian source, from wMch Luke may have drawn.* It Avould, however, be quite in accordance with his manner if he understood the Avords, " Son of Abraham," in a Pauhne sense (as in Galat. M. 7, ff.), according to AvMch faith in Christ stamped even a Heathen (Avhom the pubbcan resembled), Avith the character of a Son of Abraham. 70. The fourth Evangelist also speaks of a fig-tree, and of Jesus having observed one, who subsequently became a dis ciple, not indeed upon, but under it, and as in Luke Zaccheus, after having come down from the tree and disclaimed ab un righteous gain, is declared by Jesus to be a Son of Abraham who is saved,. so in John, Jesus cabs Nathanael, after having seen Mm under the fig-tree, a true Israelite in whom there is no gude. The mode, however,- in wMch Jesus sees Nathanael is not as in the case of Zaccheus a natural, but a supernatural sight, and is recognised by the person so seen as a complete proof of the Sonship of God in Jesus. This, hoAvever, apart from the fact that m the case of Zaccheus, no " call" to disciplesMp in the narrower sense is in question, is the only resemblance between the histories of cabs in the tMee first Evangelists and those in the fourth. The fourth Evangelist also describes the beginning of the acquaintancesMp betAveen Jesus on the one hand, and Peter and AndreAV on the other, and probably, though without * Kostlin, Synoptic Gospels, p. 228. 138 BOOK II, MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. naming him, of Jesus Avith John. On the other hand the name of James is not found either here or throughout the Gospel, except in the supplementary chapter. Instead of Mm Phdip is mentioned, whom Ave also find in the Catalogues of the Apostles in the Synoptics, and Nathanael who bad been already named, and who is known only to the fourth Gospel. Mention is also made of the manner in Avhich they came into connection with Jesus. All the more immediate circum stances are different, in John, from the other Gospels. In the first place, if Ave had merely the fourth Gospel, we should have no inkling whatever of any of the disciples of Jesus having been previously fishers or pubbcans (apart, again, from the supplementary chap. xxi.). On the contrary, it informs us that one of them, and he the one who is of the greatest importance in the author's view, had been an acquaintance ofthe High Priest (xviii. 15) ; a fact of which, the three first have not the sbghtest knowledge. Quite as little as of the secret disciplesMp of Nicodemus the Ruler of the Jews (iii. 1, ff.), and of the fact that, generally, as the fourth Gospel states, many of the cMef rulers believed Jesus, though secretly only from fear of the Pharisees (xu. 42). The fact that the preacMng of Christianity found at first a response mostly among the lower orders of the people, that not many, rich in wSrldly goods, not many of the powerful and great, were to be found among the first believers might be accounted for by the consideration that Christianity, when opposed to the wisdom of the world, appeared only all the more as a divine revelation (Matt. xi. 25, ff. ; 1 Cor. i. 25, ff). On the other hand, however, the reproach of the opponents of Christianity, as we find it in Celsus,* about the middle of the second century, that Jesus had as his disciples only abandoned men, publicans and sailors of the lowest kind, contained a story wMch became the more painful in propor- * Orig. c. Cels. JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 139 tion as Christianity gradually penetrated into the higher circles of society. It may, therefore, only appear natural that a Gospel, the product of a highly educated mind, in tended also to satisfy Christians of superior rank and cul tivation, should have taken up a different position Avith reference to that fact. The allegation that none of the Rulers or Pharisees, but only the lowest of the people believed in Jesus is indeed put into the mouth of the Phari sees as an unrefuted reproach (vii. 48, ff.), and thus the objective fact is necessarily recognized : but we are also assured that many of the Elders of the people (provided they were not Pharisees) bebeved in Jesus inwardly and in then- hearts, but kept their bebef secret for fear of the condemna tion of the Pharisees, and, bke Nicodemus, chose . the night time for their interviews with Jesus (xn. 42, xix. 38, ff). It agrees with this that of the Apostles it is the favourite dis ciple who is raised to a higher sphere by Ms acquaintance with the High Priest, and in the case of the others no mention at least is ever made of their earber career as fishermen or pubbcans. When the obvious motives for representing the call of the disciples as having summoned them from fishing, and the seat of custom, disappeared, so much the more did the Bap tist present himself to the fourth Evangebst as the agent who must have brought about the connection between Jesus and his first disciples. The disciples were exalted if instead of coming from a low industrious occupation they came out of the preparatory school of the Baptist. And the more the fourth Evangelist represented him only as the forerunner of Christ, so much the more natural was it that beside the people, some of whom continued m unbebef, some came only to a half imperfect faith, he should have introduced to Christ the first of the true and entire believers, the Apostles. So when he had described to the multitude gathered round him that Jesus, who Avas approaching Mm, as the Lamb . of God that 140 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. taketh away the sins of the world, be then, the next Hay, when Jesus is passing by, a second time repeats the same description in the presence of two of Ms own disciples, Avith the result' that both follow Jesus, ask him Avhere he dwells, are invited by him to come and see for themselves, continue the remainder of the day Avith Mm, and also, we must sup pose, remain always after in his company (i. 35, ff.). From this first stem, so far as the Evangebst informs us of the manner in which the disciples come together, grows, branch by branch, the company of Jesus' disciples. Andrew, one of the two to whom John points out Jesus, brings his brother Simon to Jesus ; Philip, Avhom, as it would appear, the fact of Ms being the countryman of the two brothers just named puts in the way of Jesus, is called by Mm Mmself, and Phibp, again, brings Nathanael to Mm. As the fishing had disappeared so also does the expression about fishers of men. Instead of this expression, which in Matthew and Mark is referred to the two sons of Jonas, and wMch, moreover, Luke had represented as having been applied only to Simon, the Evangelist introduces here one that applies only to Simon, in the addition of the name of Peter. This the two older Evangelists represent as coming considerably later, after long acquaintance of Jesus with the disciple. John, with great improbabibty, represents the name as having been given on the first meeting of the two, and in such a manner that Jesus would appear to have taken a supernatural view not merely of Ms character as Peter, or the Rock, but also of the name he bore as a citizen and son of his father (ver. 42). Qmte as supernaturally he discovers at a distance the gudelessness of Nathanael when approaching him, and as a proof of Ms abibty to do this he appeals to the fact that before Nathanael came witMn Ms natural range of sight he saAV him under the fig-tree. The attempt to explain the former from physiognomical knowledge of the human countenance, the latter as casual and transient observation is JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 141 absurd in the presence of a Gospel which expressly says of the J esus who is described in it that he did not consider it necessary that any one should testify to him about men, as he himself knew what was in man (ii. 25) ; it was but a slight thing for a Jesus Avho had seen God before the Avorld began to have seen Nathanael under the fig-tree before PMbp cabed him, It is Avell to pay especial attention to the changes which the fourth Evangelist has made in the order in Avhich the first disciples attached themselves to Jesus. In Matthew and Mark, Jesu3 first cabs the two sons of Jonas, of Avhom Simon has the precedence, then the two sons of Zebedee, James having the precedence. In Luke, from first to last, Simon only does anything, Andrew is not named at all, James and John only snpplementarily as Simon's helpers. In the fourth Gospel only two nameless disciples are first spoken of, who, on the Baptist pointing out Jesus, follow Mm (i. 35 — 37) ; we then discover (i. 41) one of these to have been Andrew, the other continues in the obscurity of Ms incognito, wMch in the course of the Gospel gradually clears, so far that John comes out more and more plainly. Peter, therefore, who stands foremost in all the other accounts, is not, in tMs Gospel, even one of the pair first called, but it is composed of AndreAV and the supposed John. And it is only by the agency of his brother Andrew, who every where else is second to Mm, and is altogether passed over by Luke in the Mstory of the cab that Peter is brought into connection with Jesus ; wMle James, John's brother, who is every where else when they are named together, named before him, is not mentioned either here or all through the Gospel. The Prince of the Apostles does indeed receive his traditional honour in the addition of the name of Peter ; but his claim to be the first born of the Apostles is altogether disallowed, in favour indeed, to some extent, ofhis brother, but at the same time of the unnamed party who throughout the whole Gospel is at his side and pushes Mmself before him before he is aware. 142 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. We have here the first intimation of a cleverly laid plan, of t*u> greatest importance, indeed, for the understanding of the fourth Gospel, but only to be explained without compromising the character of its author, if that author is not John. If not, then Avkat tells in favour of this Apostle is not said by him self for himself, but for a principle represented by the author, of wliich principle the chief support is John.* Let us examine this relation a little more accurately. In. the time of the Apostle Paul, we find the three men, James, Cephas, a,nd .Tohn, spoken of as the three pillars of the priimeval Church at Jerusalem (Galat. ii. 9). That poAverful James cannot have been the son of Zebedee, for he had been, already put to death (Acts xii. 2). If, therefore, he was one of the twelve, he must have been the other James of our lists of the Apostles, the son of Alpheus. But the ambiguous phrase in Galat. (i. 19), leaves it uncertain whether he Avas an Apostle or not, but he is here called a brother of the Lord, by which term, if we look upon Mm as the Apostle James the son of Alpheus, only a cousin of Jesus might be meant. According to what was said above, it is more probable to me that he was a real brother of Jesus, and in that case not one of the twelve. And thus also the following phenomenon may be explained. In the three first Evangebsts, as web as in the Epistle to the Galatians, Ave find the same names at the head of the disciples. Peter, James, and John. But in the synoptic Gospels, James is not the brother of the Lord; but the brother of John, the son of Zebedee. It is conceivable, certainly, that Jesus considered these three men as the most faithful or the most competent ofthe Apostles, thought them deserving of his particular confidence, and treated them as it were a select committee of the College of Twelve. The instances, * According to Eenan, vexation at not having been brought forward with sufficient prominence was, in fact, one of John's principal motives for writing an additional Gospel himself. JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 143 indeed, which the synoptics give of his having done so are, historically, more than doubtful. He is said to have taken them apart on the occasion of his Transfiguration on the mountain, on that of the Agony in Gethesmane, and on that of the raismg of the daughter of Jairus ; mysterious occur rences at which the narrators intend to imply that only persons of advanced rebgious culture, and more deeply initiated than others, were present. We are naturaby here reminded of the old story in Clement of Alexandria, that it was to James, John, and Peter, that the Lord delivered, after his resurrec tion, the Gnosis, an esoteric doctrine.* The James, of whom Clement here speaks, is not indeed .the son of Zebedee, but, according to Ms description, James the Just, i. e. the brother of the Lord : but how close these two came together in the tradition of the Church, how, to a certain extent, they changed places with each other, is clear from another ex pression of the same Clement, in which he praises the three Apostles, Peter, James (son of Zebedee) and John, for having, with a modesty that did them honour, refrained from electing one of themselves Bishop of Jerusalem, and appointed James the Just to that ofiice.t The Evangelical triumvirate, therefore, Peter, James, and John, appears to be a reflection of the later and Mstorical one of the same names ; and it was only the notorious fact that in the life-time of Jesus, James, the brother of the Lord, was not one of Ms disciples, that necessitated the introduction of another James instead of him, who was known as one of the twelve. It is web-known that the distingmshed historical triumvirate was disposed to strict Judaism ; it was only with difficulty that Paul could get them to recognise Mm in his ministry as an Apostle of the Heathen (Galat. n. 1 — 10), and even after wards he was kept in continual conflict with the adherents of the triumvirate, especiaby those of James (Galat. ii. 12). It formed the rallying point of Jewish Christiamty ; and again one of the supports of the triumvirate itself, was the dis- * Eusebius, Church History, ii. 1 — 4. f Eusebius as quoted, iii. 144 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. tinguished position which the synonymous triumvirate Avas supposed to have held in the life-time of Christ. However ironically Paul may have spoken of those three supposed pillars of the Church, they continued even after his death to be obstacles to progress, as long as tAvo of them, the same personally, the third as a synonymous double, occupied in the Evangelical tradition, the position "nearest to the person of CMist. In order to make a breach for progress, it was necessary that the triumvirate should be broken, and this the fourth Evangelist undertook to do. By a bold stroke he seized hold of John above every one else, for the purposes of carrying out the opposing spiritual tendency. For a bold stroke it was, indeed madly so, in presence of the Apocalypse and Mstorical record, so he pro ceeded with the greatest caution. Throughout the Gospel he never names John, he only lets Mm be guessed at. First he introduces in the most unobtrusive manner an unnamed party Avith Andrew (i. 35 — 41) , who, hoAvever, can be neither Peter, nor Philip, nor Nathanael, as these are distinguished from him, as having come to Jesus subsequently. Then, when further on Peter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, have been spoken of by name, some of them repeatedly ; we meet at the last supper of Jesus an unnamed disciple, whom Jesus loved, who also at table lay on Jesus' bosom, and to Avhom Peter makes a sign to ask Jesus something (xiu. 23, ff). After the arrest of Jesus it is " another disciple," who, as an acquaintance of the High-priest, procures for Peter the entrance into the palace (xviii. 15). Then, beneath the Cross, we again meet with the disciple whom Jesus loved (xix. 26), who, as an eye-witness, accredits the wound in the side of Jesus (ver. 35), and immediately afterwards we are given to understand that tMs favourite disciple, and that " other disciple," consequently and Avithout doubt the name less one who just at the beginning was introduced with Andrew, are one and the same person (xx. 2). Lastly, in the supplement to the Gospel, among seven disciples, some JESUS AXD HIS DISCIPLES. 145 named, some not named, the disciple whom Jesus loved and Avho, at the last Supper, had lain upon his bosom, appears, and is indicated as the author of the Gospel (xxi. 7, 20, 24). But no name is given even here, and it cannot be strictly proved out of the fourth Gospel in itself that by the disciple so mysteriously alluded to we are to understand John to have been meant at ab. A comparison with the three first Gospels might help us a little if anything which in the fourth Gospel is ascribed to " the other," or to the favourite disciple was told, in them, of John ; but this is not the case. Still the tradition of the Church has undoubtedly appre hended aright the meaning of the . author in having always looked upon this nameless disciple as John. For if the first readers of the Gospels were to understand who was meant, he must have been an Apostle very web known and much respected in the country in which it appeared ; and in Asia Minor, and especially in Ephesus, to wMch both external and internal evidence point as the cradle of the fourth Gospel, this was pre-eminently John. The later supplement, indeed, alone says expressly that the nameless disciple was at the same time the author of the Gospel, but even the Gospel itself intends, most probably, to give its readers to under stand the same thing (xix. 35). But this John of the fourth Gospel is no longer the Judaizing Pblar- Apostle, who gave Paul so much trouble, but as the bosom disciple of the Johannine CMist, as author, or at ab events voucher-man of the Johannine Gospel, he is made the propagator of a spiritual, universal Christianity, advanced beyond that even of Paul himself. And John, thus spiritualized, is taken out of the synoptic Triumvirate, and, as the favourite disciple, is placed above ab the rest in a sense of which the three first Gospels are entirely ignorant. Of the two other members of the Triumvirate James has absolutely disappeared. As regards the brother of the Lord, the James of the historical Triumvirate, there is no Gospel . VOL. II. l '¦ 146 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. in wMch it is said so expressly as in the fourth that the brothers of Jesus did not believe in him. Of their sub sequent belief either the author took no notice cr intended to mtimate that their Judaizing faith Avas no better than no faith at all. In any case, as his . Jesus, speaking from the Cross, presents the disciple whom he loved to his mother as her son, and the latter take's her under Ms protection at once (xix. 26), John, according to Baur's acute observation, is put m the place of the brothers of Jesus, especiaby of James, and the bosom disciple is at the same time declared to be the true spiritual brother of the Lord. Having thus set aside the Judaizing brother of the Lord, the fourth Evangebst had no further motive for bringing forward into prominence, as the synoptics do, James the son of Zebedee, and would even have counteracted Ms own purpose if he had done so; thus Ave can understand Ms sbence about him, a sflence wMch, on the supposition that the author of the Gospel Avas really John, the brother of this James, is not intelligible by any turn of apologetic theology however subtle. The author of the fourth Gospel found no difficulty in avoid- ing^the name of James, as the brother of the Lord had not, in the life-time of Jesus, belonged to Ms nearest circle, and the son of Zebedee had been put to death at an early period, and had long since fallen into oblivion, at least in the tradi tion of the Churches out of Palestine. But Peter could not be thus dealt with. He, in the bfe-time of Jesus, had been famous as one of his most confidential disciples, now he was the head of Jewish Christianity, and, especially since his name had been brought into connection with Rome, the capital of the world, continued to labour in the Church, and therefore also bved in her traditions. A Gospel, silent about Peter, Avould have been no Gospel at all, and a Gospel attempting to deprive Mm of the distinguisMng characteris tics usually associated with Ms image could only have found JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES. 147 a response in very limited and distant circles. This had been well considered by the fourth Evangelist. So he does not deprive the Prince of the Apostles of any of his traditional honours, informs his readers both of the famous surname Avhich Jesus assigns to him (i. 43), and of the strong confes sion of faith of which before all the Apostles he delivers himself (vi. 68, ff., comp. Matt. xvi. 16), represents him as coming forward in action quite as often as the other Evan- gebsts do, nay, on some occasions even oftener— but stib he is adroit enough almost ahvays to append to these advanta geous characteristics, and the more as the Mstory approaches nearer to its conclusion, a slight "But" Avhich disparages them, or he shares them between Peter and his own hero John in a way which gives an advantage to the latter. Thus there is indeed much beauty in the zeal with which Peter, on the occasion of the first supper, first of ab wib not hear of the washmg of the disciples' feet by Jesus, and then desires to have both his hands and his head washed by him (xm. 6 — 1 0) ; but there appears at the same time in tMs jump from one extreme to the other a violence which passes over the deep meaning of the act of Jesus Avithout any fine perception of its meaning. Likewise ab the Evangebsts do indeed tell of a disciple who on the occasion of the arrest of Jesus cut off the ear of a servant of the High Priest, but the fourth is the only one who names Peter as the disciple who did it (xvni. 10). And m doing so he mvests Mm with another charac teristic of that carnal zeal wMch made it more difficult for Mm to penetrate into the spirit of Ms Master. But the subtle calculation of the fourth Evangelist shows itself first m those cases in Avhich he places Ms other or favourite disciple in juxtaposition Avith Peter. Above we have started from a case in wMch, bke the synoptics, he makes Peter come into- connection with Jesus among the four first, not, however, as the first of all, but the third, wMle the supposed John is among the first; Peter being l 2 148 BOOK IT. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. called not immediately by Jesus, but by the agency of one of the tAvo first. TMs agent is here Ms brother AndreAV ; m other cases it is the favourite disciple. The Hebenes, who at the last Passover wished to make the acquaintance of Jesus, apply, not to Peter, but to Philip, and he to AndreAV, both then to Jesus (xii. 20, ff). In like manner Peter him self, in order to extract from Jesus which of his disciples he intends to indicate as Ms betrayer, is obbged to bespeak the mediation of the favourite disciple who is lying on Jesus' bosom. After the arrest of Jesus Peter does indeed fobow him even in the fourth Gospel mto the palace of the High Priest; but not only does the other disciple also go in with Mm, a fact unknoAvn to the other Gospels, but it is he to whom, by means of Ms acquaintance Avith the High Priest, Peter is obbged to apply before he can get leave to enter (xviii. 15) . On the occasion of the cracifixion and death of Jesus, Matthew and Mark represent only the Avomen who came with Mm from Galilee as bemg spectators. Luke indeed adds ab bis acquaintances, but only at a distance (Matt, xxvii. 55, ff. ; Mark xv. 40, ff. ; Luke xxui. 49) : the fourth Evangelist places the women with the mother of Jesus near .the Cross, and associates with them here the favourite disciple, m order to bring Mm, by means of the mother of Jesus, into a very peculiar relation to the latter, of which we have spoken above. But the proceeding of our Evangelist is most remarkable in the history of the Resurrection, in which he places the favourite disciple in juxtaposition with Peter, who, according to Luke, runs to the grave, and in an under hand manner deprives the latter of Ms rank (xx. 2 — 9) ; a proceeding which the author of the supplementary chapter has imitated in the account of the draught of fishes (xxi. 7). Reviewing from tMs point the accounts ofthe " calls," we can no longer think of attempting to reconcile those of the synoptics and John of the mode in wMch the first disciples became connected with Jesus, as, on the contrary, we re- HIS MIRACLES. CURES OP THE BLIND. 149 cognise in the latter a remodelling of those of the synoptics in the spirit of the peculiar position and tendency of the Gospel of John. We may, hoAvever, congratulate ourselves on being elevated by tMs knowledge above the apologetic tricks and artifices by which it is intended to be made intel ligible hoAv the same men, after having been introduced to Jesus by the Baptist, or like Peter through Ms brother, and having already attached themselves to Mm, are said to have been called upon by him to follow him, as if they had been altogether strangers. In Matthew and Mark Jesus says to Simon and AndreAV " Follow me." By these words a con tinuous attachment is confessedly . impbed. Undoubtedly also nothing else can be intended, when in John he says to Phihp " Fobow me." In like manner, the two first Evan gelists, a3 well as the fourth, say of Andrew and John that they followed Jesus. And manifestly the one account as web as the other, intends it to be understood that they immediately accompanied Jesus as disciples, and there could have been as bttle need of a further calling, as stated in Matthew and Mark, after the act of attachment recounted in John, as after the former cab and the success that attended it those men can have been unacquainted with Jesus until introduced by the Baptist to him. THIRD GROUP OF MYTHS. jesus as a performer of miracles. 71. Miracles op Jesus. Cures op the Blind. The Miracles wMch our Gospels speak of Jesus having per formed might be divided into two, or if we wib, into tMee classes, according as they are said to have been performed 150 BOOK II. MYTHICAL* HISTORY OP JESUS. on human beings, or on lifeless natui'e, and the first on the human organism either dead or diseased. With regard to the first class, the cures of the sick, Ave have already in an earber investigation* admitted that sup posed miracles of this sort may sometimes have been really performed by Jesus, though only in a manner perfectly natural. As the Jewish people expected from a Prophet, and stib more from the Messiah, miracles, especially miracu lous cures, and Jesus Avas considered a Prophet, and subsequently the Messiah ; it would, we said, have been extraordinary if many sick persons when in Ms presence, on being accosted and touched by him, had not really felt them selves relieved, and either permanently or transiently better. We thought this more intebigible in proportion as the suffer ings of these persons were open to physiological influence, consequently more so m the case of persons afflicted with mental, nervous, and even muscular diseases, than with ¦ diseases of the' skin or deprivation of a sense, while in the ease of those who were already dead, or those of extra-human natural objects, every explanation of that kind entirely faded. The explanation of miraculous narratives of this latter des cription must be looked for not in psychology and physiology, but m the Mstory of rebgion; it bes in the Jewish and original Christian expectations of the Messiah ; and as even those cures of Jesus which we recognise as naturaby possible would not have succeeded had not the power to perform them been attributed to him as a Prophet, the distinction between the two classes is only tMs, that in consequence of Jewish expectations Jesus considered to be the Messiah, or at all events a Prophet, was really instrumental in introducing one portion of those effects, wMle an incomparably larger portion was subsequently attributed to him in the legend. We have already learnt the Prophetic programme which bes at the bottom of the miracles told of Jesus ; it is in the * First Book, §. 42. HIS MIRACLES. CURES OP THE BLIND. 151 Avords m Isaiah (xxxv. 5, ff.) : " Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shab be unstopped ; then shab the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing." TMs passage, though it stands in the first section of the oracles of Isaiah, stib, like the second, belongs to the period at the end of the captivity, and describes how, from joy at the permission to return, the poor exiles shab forget ab their sorrows, shab feel themselves healed of all their maladies. But as all these prophecies, Avhen Avith the return from captivity the expected period of bliss did not occur, Avere extended m their application to the Messianic age, the ideas of wMch were continuafly taking a form more and more supernatural, so the prophecy originally intended to be only symbobcal, of the blind regaining their sight, of the leaping of the lame, and so on, were, in the sequel, understood actu ally and bteraby of the miracles of the future Messiah, and our Evangelical narratives of the miracles are for the most part only blustrations of the passage of the Prophet so under stood. This passage, moreover, as applied by Jesus to Mmself, underwent certain modifications upon wMch we must remark. Jesus (Matt. xi. 5) directs the emissaries of the Baptist to teb the latter what they see and hear, as being performed by Mm. " The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up." In the first place, therefore, the dumb who are mentioned in the passage of the Prophet are not mentioned in the speech of Jesus, though undoubtedly they are comprised among the deaf whom he names, because both maladies frequently appear in connection, and m the Gospels the deaf, cured by Jesus, are generaby at the same time des cribed as dumb (Matt. ix. 32 ; Mark vii. 32, ff). On the other hand, there is nothmg said m the passage of Isaiah of the cleansing of lepers and raising of the dead, of which Jesus speaks ; but miracles of both kinds are found in the legends of the Prophets in the Old Testament. Elisha cured 152 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. a leper, and he, like Ms master Elijah, raised a dead man. The expulsion of evd spirits which plays so large a part in the Evangelical accounts of miracles is not mentioned either in the passage in Isaiah or in the legend of the Prophets, because in those early times "possession" was. not yet the order of the day ; it is wanting also in the speech of Jesus, wMch had only to enumerate as fulfilled by him those prophecies or types of miracle, the fulfilment of which Avas to be expected from the Old Testament. For the production, therefore, of the Evangebcal accounts of miracles there have, from the first, been two factors at work, wMch may be distinguished as an ideal and a real factor. What is said in the passage in Isaiah of the cures of the blind, ; the deaf, and the lame, interpret it as we will, is in no way to be understood of a miraculous restoration, but non-bteraby and ideally; on the other hand the acts of Elijah and Elisha are told as real actual miracles, and the later JeAvish conceptions of the Messiah expected the same from Mm.* In bke manner, in the speech of Jesus, Matt. xi. 5, the cures and raisings were, in their original sense, undoubtedly understood only morally and ideally, as effects of the preacMng of the Gospel to the poor, the Evangebcal legend understood them bteraby, as real physical miracles, though here and there, in the final remodebing of this legend, in a mystical and artistic spirit, such as we find in the first Gospel, the original ideal character of these miracles again appears. If we first take the miraculous cures by classes, and in the order wMch the speech of Jesus wMch we have just quoted suggests, the Evangelists speak both generally of many blind among other sick persons whose sight Jesus restored (Matt. xv. 30; Luke vn. 21), and give us several particular accounts of cures more or less in detail. The three first Evangebsts have in common a cure of a blind man, which Jesus is said * See above, Introduction, §. 25. HIS MIRACLES. CURES OP THE BLIND. 153 to have performed on the road to Jerusalem at the last prin cipal station, Jericho (Matt. xx. 29 — 34 ; Mark x. 46 — 52 ; Luke xviii. 85 — 43). Accordmg to Matthew and Mark this miracle was performed on going out of the city, according to Luke on going into it, and Ave see at once from tMs discre pancy hoAv little the Evangelists cared about detabs of this sort, wMch are of importance to the Mstorical writer. For the only, reason why in Luke it Avas necessary to represent Jesus as performing the miracle before entering the city is this, that Luke had somethmg to tell of his passage tMough the city, of AvMch Matthew and Mark have nothing particular to say. What Luke had to teb of is the meeting with Zac cheus ; now if, as he continues to do from the middle of the eighteenth chapter, he had chosen to fobow the arrangement of Matthew, and consequently (omitting the history of the mother of Zebedee" s sons, for the substance of whose speech he reserved a place further on), had made the cure of the blind man fobow immediately upon the announcement of his suffering, then Jesus, when he healed the bhnd man, ought not to be represented as having passed Jericho, because, had he done so, he could not have met with Zaccheus in Jericho, a chcumstance which Luke wished to speak of at some length. Another discrepancy is that in Matthew there are two bhnd men, in Mark and Luke only one, and that in Matthew Jesus touches their eyes, whrile the two other narrators say notMng of Ms having done so. Exactly in the same way MattheAV represents Jesus as proceeding with two bhnd men in an earber cure of wMch the other two know nothing (ix. 27 — 31) ; and thus he- may have transferred the number two and the touching' from one narrative into the other, as naturahy such a Mstory might be told, sometimes of one, sometimes of two bhnd men, sometimes assigned to one district, sometimes to another, and with different detabs : a miraculous cure of the blind 154 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. must be had : the particular attendant circumstances Avere unimportant. The trait in the narrative of the bhnd men persisting in appealing to Jesus as the Son of David has lately suggested an interpretation of their blindness as symbolical of the bbndness of JeAvish Christiamty, which in Jcsns sees only the Son of David, untd Jesus Mmself opens its eyes.* Now we have above attempted to show that Jesus, in ascribing to himself the cure of the bhnd, only understood this symboli cally, as when in the appearance aheged to have been vouch safed to Paul, he says that he sends him to the Heathen to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light (Acts xxvi. 18). But that Matthew or any one of the three first Evangebsts did, in their Mstories of the cures of the bbnd, ever tMnk of such a thing — tMs is an hypothesis which on the very face of their narratives we must altogether deny. The idea of Christ as the opener of the eyes of the spirituaby bbnd, had, when those Evangebsts wrote, long disappeared under the sensuous conception of a material miracle, and the particular features of these narratives, must always be ex plained upon this conception of the nature of 'a miracle, unless, as above, hi the Mstory of the draught of fishes the spiritual, reference is transparent : and tMs is not the case in these synoptic Mstories of the cures of the blind. In the first place the continued formation of these narra tives proceeded in anytMng but an ideal direction. In the description of the cure of the bhnd man at Jericho, even Luke, and stib more Mark, distinguishes Mmself by the addition of traits wMch only serve to increase the vividness and picturesqueness of the scene : among these are, in the case of Mark, the name and father's name of the bbnd man,f the * Volkmar, The Religion of Jesus, pp. 235—250. t There have been all sorts of surmises as to the source from which Mark may have taken the names of Tima?us and Bartimaius. What if this source were no other than the Greek tense of n/jaw ? (iireripnae and lirtTtpiav). HIS MIRACLES. CURES OP THE BLIND. 155 address of the people, and the casting off of Ms coat by the subject of the cure. Mark also has, as if dissatisfied with the narratives ofhis predecessors, a Mstory of the cure of a bbnd man peculiar to himself. This he has introduced between the narratives of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the con fession of Peter, and with the Mstory of the cure of a man deaf and dumb, bkewise pecubar to himself, has arranged it exactly according to Ms taste (viii. 22 — 26). The bbnd man who is brought to Jesus at Bethsaida is taken by him first out of the town ; for the miracle is a mystery wMch the uninitiated must not Avitness ; and therefore, when it is com pleted, the publication of it is forbidden, as is done on several occasions m Matthew and Luke, but most industri ously in Mark. Then Jesus spits m the eyes of the blmd man, just as the subservient Procurator of Egypt made Vespasian,* whom he had just saluted as Emperor, spit m the eyes of a man abeged to be blind, because in the case of magical cures, aocordmg to the superstition of the times, sabva was an important ingredient. Again, the bbnd man does not see perfectly ab at once, but on Jesus asking him, after havmg appbed the saliva and laid Ms hands upon Mm once, whether he sees anything, and receiving the reply that he sees, only indistinctly, men walking as trees, he lays his hands once more npon the bbnd man's eyes, and then, and not before, his restoration to sight is perfect. At first sight this looks bke a diminution of the miracle, inasmuch as the sanatory power of the performer appears not to be absolute, but has as it were to contend with the resistance of the complamt ; and it is on tMs feature therefore, that the natural explanation of the miracles mainly rests its assumptions. But tMs is not what is intended by Mark : on the contrary, Ms object is to bring the miracle, ¦without prejudice to its value as such, more witMn the range » Vol. I. p. 369. 156 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. of our conception by dividing' it into its successive factors: certainly an unsuccessful effort, and one by Avhich he loses more than he gains. Miracles, as instances of the inter ference of absolute causality with the chain of finite causes, are essentiaby sudden events, and are only brought into contradiction Avith themselves by being divided into separate factors. We find the author of the fourth Gospel fobowing in the steps of Mark, and carrying stib further the practice of wMch he sets the example in the way of giving picturesqueness to the miracles, and exaggerating their miraculous features. Instead of the- two accounts of cures of the blind in Matthew and Mark, he has only one (ix. 1—41), but this, far otherwise than the single one m Luke, is of a character such as to make ab others superfluous. For the blind man whom Jesus healed according to John, and not in Bethsaida or Jericho, but in the capital itself, was not an ordinary blind man, but bbnd from his- birth, consequently a man bbnd, as it were, absolutely, whose cure was possible only by an absolute miracle ; an idea which the author puts into the mouth of the man himself who had been cured, when he represents him as saying, in opposition to the unbelieving Jews, that since the world began (ver. 31) it has not been heard that any one has opened the eyes of one born blind. By way, moreover, of an external and visible instrument for the cure, Jesus avabs himself not merely of the sabva; he spits, not immediately into the eyes of the bbnd man, but upon the ground, and making clay, anoints his eyes ; a feature which serves at the same time to constitute a work over and above the miraculous cure, i.e. a violation of the Sabbath. Then the clay has to be immediately washed off if the blind man is to enjoy Ms lately given power of sight : so Jesus sends Mm to wash, not indeed in the Jordan, as the Prophet Elisha sent the leprous Naaman (2 Kings v. 10), but to the neighbouring pool of Siloah, from wMch he returns with his HIS MIRACLES. CURES OP THE BLIND. 157 sight restored. All these features are attributable partly to exaggeration, partly to an attempt to invest the miracle Avith picturesqueness and a magical character. There is this addition also, that the fact is laboriously ascertained in a manner unknown to the older Evangebsts in their miraculous Mstories by a regular examination and hearing of witnesses. The speeches of the neighbours, when the well-known bbnd beggar comes back to them seemg, are, in themselves, mere surmises, as they may be deceived by a likeness to the real bbnd man (A~er. 9), Ms own declaration in answer to these questions, especiaby as he has no accurate knoAvledge of Ms benefactor, and is, therefore, so far unprejudiced, is of more importance ; but, before the authorities, before whom he is represented by the Evangelist as being summoned in order to give official corroboration to the occurrence, even this declaration does not suffice ; Ms parents are summoned, as they alone can give credible evidence that their son was blind from Ms birth. If any doubt remains, it is quashed by the remark that the Jewish authorities had laid the con fession of Jesus bemg the Messiah under the ban of excom munication ; if,- nevertheless, the man not only adhered to his statement as to the reality of his cure, but also made no secret of Ms belief in the prophetic dignity of Jesus, he spoke to his own injury ; and this, as the Evangelist intends to imply, he would not have done if he had not been firmly convinced of the miracle that had been performed upon him. But whfle the fourth Evangelist thus carries miracles to the extreme of external reality, and thus gives the finisMng stroke to the tendency originated by Mark, he endeavours at the same time in a manner of which Ms predecessors afford no example to bring into view the ideal meanmg. Thus, in tMs instance, the miracle is introduced and carried on. from first to last not by any request for help on the part of the sufferer, but by a dogmatic question wMch the disciples con- 158 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. nect with Ms condition, a question which is ansAvered by Jesus in Avords to the effect that the man Avas purposely born blind, that by Ms being cured God's almighty power might be mamfested in him. This manifestation or glorification of God by the Son consists, in John, not merely in the per formance, by Jesus, of something which surpasses human power, and wMch, at the same time by its beneficial, charitable character is worthy of God ; but it is in reality a phase in the operations of God and Ms creative Avord re flected as it were symbobcaby in the miraculous acts of Jesus. The divine Logos is, accordmg to the Alexandrine doctrine, the principle of bfe and bght for the world, the nourishment of souls ; the Johannine Jesu3 exhibits himself in each of these capacities by one or more miracles. As regards that which we are considering it is said of the Logos in the preface : " In him was bfe and the bfe was the light of men. And the light shineth m darkness, and the darkness com prehended it not. . . . But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that bebeve in his name" (i. 4, ff. 12). Now, at the conclusion of our miraculous narrative, the Jewish rulers having shown themselves incorrigible, the man who had been cured having declared Ms faith in Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus says, " For judgment am I come into this Avorld, that they wMch see not might see ; and that they which see might be made bbnd." Again, when the Pharisees ask Mm whether they also are bbnd, Jesus answers, that if they were so, i.e. knew themselves to be so, it would be well, but that as the knowledge is wanting, the capacity for improvement is wanting also (31— -41). Now we see that the purport of all tMs is that the man born bbnd who was made to see, first physicafly, then spiritually, represents those men who, though originally belonging to the world, i.e. to darkness, have nevertheless the power and the will to comprehend the Light, and thus to become cMldren of God x the Jews, on, HIS MIRACLES. CURES OP THE BLIND. 159 the other hand, represent those who shut out the bght and continue in darkness, i.e. in sin. For the completion of the allegory it Avould be an appropriate addition to say that, as he who is physically bbnd and spiritually conscious of his blindness comes to see not merely spirituahy, but also phy sically; so, those who see • physically and think they see spiritually, will at last be convinced not merely of their spiritual bbndness but also be struck Avith physical. But ttii3 would contradict the declaration of the Johannine Christ, that he is not come to condemn the world but to bless the Avorld, and that the unbeliever is afready condemned in Mm self (m. 17, ff. ; xii. 47, ff.). From Jesus, as the divine creative word only what is affirmative can proceed, only Light, Life, and Salvation ; he neither requires nor needs to perform a penal miracle ; the creature who excludes Mm, he need but leave in the condition of unhappiness in wMch it is already without the operation of Jesus, and thus it is punished sufficiently. Thus the miracle in John is penetrated in ab its features by the ideal spirit : it is throughout symbobcal, and at the same time throughout real ; it would be the greatest mis- , understandmg to suppose that the fourth Evangebst did not mean to say that Avhat was so important reaby happened. We see even from one single feature in the narrative how little in his vieAV the one excludes the other, and also how strangely such a view of the world was formed. The name of the pool in wMch Jesus bids his bbnd man wash, the Hebrew word Sfloa, meaning without doubt a flow of water, is said by the Evangelist to be by interpretation Sent (ver. 7) ; he looked, therefore, upon the spring and the pool as being, by these names, prophetic of the God-sent Jesus, or of the sending of the bbnd man to it, a prophecy wMch at the same time existed as real water, that being, already, the literal mean ing of the word. 160 EOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. 72. Cures op Cripples. In the answer to the Baptist, so often mentioned, Jesus speaks of cripples as second in the list of those Avho are cured by him. Cripples are also among the many kinds of sick Avho are brought to Jesus previously to the second Feeding, for the purpose of being healed by Mm ; and the people are surprised Avhen, among the bbnd who have been made to see, &c, they observe the lame also walking (Matt. xv. 30, ff). In other places they are more generally Paralytics, translated by Luther, the Palsied, who are spoken of (Matt. iv. 24, viii. 6, ix. 2) ; these, according to the meaning of the word, were those sick persons whose muscles on one side were " slackened," i. e. crippled; wMle the description of the sick man, Matt. ix. 2, ff., appbes to entire lameness, at least of the feet, that of the other, Matt. vib. 5, ff., to a painful palsy. The necessity of Jesus having cured sick of tMs de scription, was impbed in the bteral understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah : " then shab the lame man leap as an hart/' (xxxv. 6) ; a prophecy preceded (ver. 3) by the com mand, " strengthen ye the feeble knees !" where the Greek translation has the same word as that by which Luke (v. 18, 24) describes the paralytic man. It is not so clear in the Evangebcal narratives, that the passage in Isaiah is the root of these miraculous histories, as it. is in one Avhich we find in the Acts. It is web known that in that book the first miracle by wMch the Apostles prove their exalted mission is the cure of a lame mau, who was beggmg before the Temple at Jerusalem, performed by Peter. Of tMs man it is said, that when Peter had commanded him in the name of the Lord to rise up and walk, immediately his feet and ancle bones received strength, and he, leaping up, stood and walked, and entered with them into the Temple, walking and leaping CURES OP CRIPPLES. 1G1 (Acts iii. 7, ff.). In the leaping, so repeatedly mentioned, on the part of the lame man, the leaping like a hart promised in Isaiah is not to be mistaken ; while the strengthened legs and ancle bones, remind us of the strengthening of the feeble knees in the same prophecy. The history of the servant of the Captain at Capernaum, whom moreover only Matthew describes as paralytic, will come into consideration further on under a different point of view : the classical history of the cure of a paralytic is that of the man who, likewise at Capernaum, is brought on a bed to Jesus, and to whom he first announces the forgiveness of Ms sins, and then when the scribes take offence at Ms doing so, bids Mm take up Ms bed and Avalk (Matt. ix. 1 — 8; Mark n. 1 — 12; Luke v. 17—26). We have here nothing more to do with the question, as to whether the cure of a sick per son of this description may have been possible, in virtue of the confidence wMch he may have had m Jesus as a Prophet; we have not, speaking generaby, disputed the possibibty in the former Book ; but in any case these Evangebcal narra tives are so modified according to the conception of Jesus as a performer of miracles, that the real facts, possibly lying at the foundation of them, can no longer be extracted. We see the bberty taken in the remodebmg of these accounts, by the discrepancies of the several Evangebsts from one an other. Matthew only says simply that Jesus went across the sea into his city of Capernaum, that there they brought to him a lame man lying on a bed, and when he saw their faith he assured the sick man of the forgiveness of Ms sins. The faith of the people, of the bearers, and of the sick man Mm self were, according to Matthew, known to Jesus merely from their having taken so much trouble to drag the sufferer there; to Luke this proof of faith did not appear sufficiently special, and as he thought it necessary to introduce the mterference of the scribes, to whom he adds the Pharisees, by representing them as being from the first collected round Jesus, he prefers making vol. II. M 102 BOOK IT. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. the press so great that the men Avith then' pallet bed cannot penetrate to Jesus, but find themselves compebed, carrying* it as they are, to break a separate passage through the roof of the house, and to let doAvn the sick man upon his bed from above Mto the middle of. the room in front of Jesus. It is not out of Matthew, at all events, that Luke gets the notion of Luke having been in a bouse, but he Avanted this feature in order to bring out the peculiar proof of faith wMch he had imagined. In speaking of the passage through the roof, or through the tiles as he expresses himself, there is no doubt that Jesus was thinking of the opening, Avhich according to Eastern architecture was left in the flat, tiled roofs of the houses, by means of which the roof could be reached from the interior, and the interior from the roof; it was through this that, according to the notion of the Evangebst, there being no regular staircase and a ladder could not be used for the purpose, the bed with the sick man on it Avas let down, as it appears, by ropes into the room where Jesus Avas teach ing. Whether the author of the second Gospel was not acquainted with tMs peculiarity of the houses in Palestine, or Avhether he wished to place the faithful zeal of the people in a stib clearer light, he takes no notice of the opening al ready existing in the roof, but represents the bearers, whose number he fixed at four from the four corners of the bed, as first breaking a hole through, without remembering that by domg so he exposed the assemblage immediately under it to the danger of being crushed by the falling bricks. No one Avho remembers merely the history of the unfruitful fig-tree, Avill deny that such precipitancy is quite in the style of Mark, and be will also mark this narrative as one of those which negative the possibility of Mark being the original Evan gelist. There is a miraculous cure connected with this occurrence which the three first Evangelists represent as taking place on the Sabbath, so that in the former case the rock of offence. CURES OP CRITPLES. 163 for the scribes being that Jesus arrogated to himself the power of forgiving sins, in this his sanatory work is called in question as a violation of the Sabbath. Even the arrange^ ment, according to Avhich all the synoptics place the healing of the Avithered hand immediately after the Mstory of the plucking of the ears of corn on the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 9 — 14; Mark hi. 1 — 6; Luke xi. 6 — 11), skoAvs us that they are less concerned with the miracle itself than Avith its having been performed on the Sabbath. The mode of keeping the holiday of the Sabbath and the extent of bcence allowed on it was a disputed question between Jesus and Pharisaic Juda ism, and we therefore find it returning upon us in the Gospels under different forms. The question might be connected with any act hoAvever natural, with the plucking of the ears of corn by the disciples, which, in the Mosaic law, was not considered as injuring another man's property, and was so far generaby permitted (5 Mos. xxiii. 25) ; and as it could not be called regular work, especiaby in case of want, it was con sidered by Jesus as allowable even on the Sabbath, and on the other hand, by the pedantry of later interpreters of the law, among the labours forbidden on the Sabbath. If, on an occasion of this kmd Jesus met the objection of the Pharisees by the example of David who, when compebed by hunger, did not hesitate to- appease it both in Ms own case and that of his followers with the show-bread in the Temple, wMch was generally reserved for the Priests alone, he might, in those cases in Avhich, not Ms own necessity but that of others whom he wished to help made him commit an alleged violation of the Sabbath, avafl himself of the example of the ammal wMch the owner did not hesitate to try to rescue, even on the Sab bath, from a pressing danger. It is clear that a proof thus adduced by no means necessarily presupposes a miracle as the occasion of thus adducing it ; on the contrary, it suited any perfectly natural act of charitable assistance. But it is also equally clear that when men were accustomed to expect m 2 164 BOOK II. MYTHICAL niSTORY OP JESUS. miracles of Jesus, the performance of those miracles on the Sabbath must have appeared a suitable occasion for illustra tions such as this. It might seem so even when it Avas supposed to be effected by the mere Avord of Jesus ; as a Rabbinical school of that time interdicted even the consolation of the sick on the Sabbath. The ibustration of the sheep which is dragged out of the pit on the Sabbath-day is only on tMs occasion found in Matthew; in Mark and Luke Jesus only put to the Pharisees, who are lymg in wait for Mm, the question as to what is laAvful on the Sabbath-day, to do good or evil, to save souls or to destroy them ? On the other hand, Luke has intro duced the ibustration of the domestic animal into two other miraculous accounts; a farther proof that in narratives of tMs kind less emphasis was laid upon the miracle than upon the words of Jesus referring to the proper mode of keeping the Sabbath. On one occasion (Luke xiv. 1 — 6), on the Sabbath-day, at the house of one of the cMef Pharisees, Jesus meets with a man sick of the dropsy, and having healed Mm in spite of the suspicious sdence of the Pharisees to Ms question as to whether it is lawful to heal on the Sab bath-day, he puts to the Pharisees the further question as to which of them, whose ass or ox has fallen into the pit on the Sabbath-day, wib hesitate straightway to pull Mm out ? On the other occasion (xin. 10 — 17), there is in a synagogue a woman bowed by disease for eighteen years. He makes her straight by calbng to her and laying hands upon her, meeting the objection of the ruler of the synagogue by asking him whether each one of them does not on the Sabbath loose Ms ox or Ms ass from the stall, and lead him aAvay to watering? where the discrepancy in the image is occasioned by the circumstance that the woman's malady is looked upon as a case of being bound by Satan, from which Jesus releases her. Of these cures, the latter especiaby, supposing it to have been preserved for us in a strictly Mstorical account, might CURES OF CRIPPLES. 165 bo understood as a cure effected psychologically by the im pression made by the word and touch of Jesus upon the faith of the sick woman. Dr. Paulus has proved, by reference to original authorities, the occurrence of an exactly similar case in modern times.* But the sudden cure of a dropsical man Avill not adapt itself to such a theory; and the history of the withered hand has too manifest a precedent in the legend of the Hebrew Prophet to leave us doubtful as to the origin of it. It is frequently the case, and is so here, that the miraculous account in the New Testament is distinguished from that in the Old by the circumstance that in the latter the malady is first miraculously inflicted as a punishment, and then mira culously removed, whfle m the former, in accordance Avith the spirit of the Gospel, the malady is given and only re moved by the humane performer of the miracle. Thus in the Old Testament (1 Kings xhi. 4, ff), it is a miraculous punishment inflicted by God that the idolatrous Jeroboam has his hand blasphemously stretched out against a prophet of Jehovah -withered for a moment, i. e. so stiffened that he cannot draw it back to him ; and it is not, until at the King's request the Prophet intercedes for Mm Avith Jehovah, that by a second miracle, and that a miracle of grace, its restora tion is effected. In the Evangebcal narrative the hand of the sufferer is already stiff from disease, and this stiffness shows itself, not as in the case of the King, in which it was a pmiishment for a blasphemous stretchmg out of the hand, in Ms inabibty to draw it to him, but conversely in Ms not bemg able to stretch it out ; and Ms cure by Jesus consists in his bemg enabled to stretch it out. But if we compare what is said in the first mstance of Jeroboam (ver. 4) : " And, behold, his hand wMch he stretched out withered;" Avith what is said in tMs (Matt. ver. 10; Mark ver. 1); " And, behold, there was a man with a withered hand;" and then * See above, § 42. 166 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. the words at the conclusion of the first cure (ver. 6) ; " and the hand of the king /was restored agam and was as before," with those at the conclusion of the second (A^er. 13); "and his hand was restored again and AA'as as the other;" the imitation can scarcely be overlooked. But that these were exactly the maladies, the cure of which Avas at that time expected of one " who enjoyed the favour of heaven and the friendship of more exalted beings," is shown by the often- mentioned narrative of Tacitus, according to which, in order to give Vespasian an opportunity of proving Ms power of performing miracles, a man with a maimed hand (according to Suetonius, with a lame leg), was, with a man perfectly blind, stationed in the way of that Emperor.* In the case of this class of miracles also, we find all the elements that in the earlier Gospels appear scattered and dispersed, collected in the fourth, exaggerated on the one hand and spiritualised on the other. We find, also, that the form in wMch they are presented in the fourth Evangebst is in immediate connection with that in which they are pre sented in the second. The Mstory of the sick man at the pool of Bethesda at Jerusalem (John v.) refers to a lame man, in the same way as the Mstory of the cure of the Paralytic at Capernaum ; it is at the same time the history of a cure on the Sabbath, bke that of the man with the withered hand, the dropsical man, and the bent woman. In this it surpasses the former account partly in the brilliancy of the stage upon which the miracle is performed, partly in the account of the duration of the sickness which is wanting in the case of the Paralytic at Capernaum ; this in the case of the bent woman goes to the extent of only eighteen years, wMle here, in John, it is represented as amounting to thirty- eight; and again it endeavours to excel the Mstories of the cures on the Sabbath-day by a more profound view of the * Tacit. Histor. v. 81. Sueton. Vespas. 7. CUKES OP CH11TLES. 167 question in Avhich at the same time is involved the spirituab- sation and symbolising of the Avhole miraculous narrative. The pool of Bethesda (about AvMch, independent of the fourth Evangelist, we find no mformation either in Josephus or in the Rabbis) Avith its five halls full of the bbnd, the lame, and other sufferers is, as it Avere, a great hospital theatre upon AvMch the great practitioner of miracles appears, and selects the patient who has been longest ill of the most obstinate disease, in order in the most brihiant manner to prove Mm self, by operating upon Mm, as the divine Creative Word that gives bfe to ab. The fact that higher powers already had power over the pool itself, an angel descending from time to time in order to move the water, after wMch the patient who first entered was healed,* and that tMs angebc operation proves insufficient for the cure of the one who requires curing most, places Jesus, who heals Mm, so much the Mgher ; wMle tMs feature, in connection with the whole description of miraculous cure, suggests the supposition that something symbobcal may be concealed under it. The thirty-eight years of sickness have been looked upon as the type of the thirty-eight years wMch the people of Israel were compelled to pass in the wilderness before they reached the promised land ( 5 Mos. n. 14) ;f and I am surprised that in the case of the five halls the five Books of Moses have not been thought of, for these are, at ab events, principally to be understood as among the writings in wMch, as Jesus remarks on occasion of tMs miracle (v. 39, comp. 45, ff), the Jews think they have " eternal life, but in wMch they can as bttle find it without CMist, as the sick man could find a remedy without Mm in the halls ofthe pool of Bethesda. According to bebeving * The most convincing critical grounds are in favour of the genuineness of ver. 4, which contains the notice of the angel ; comp. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John, i. 300. t Krafft, Chronology and Synopsis, p. 98. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John, i. 300. 168 BOOK II. MYTHICAL niSTORY OP JESUS. interpreters the historical validity of the narrative is not supposed to be damaged by this symbolical explanation ; on the contrary that opinion is that, hy an arrangement of provi dence, Jesus had here to meet with a man Avhoin the number of years of his sickness presented himself as a type of the people of God, as " the sick man Judah," as Hengstenberg expresses Mmself in the style of the most modern time. From our point of view the story has already lost ab Mstori cal value, and the indication of its supposed symbolical meaning has for us only the merit of suggesting more definite grounds of explanation of the particular features ofthe story, while the uncertainty of such explanations cannot in any way shake our conviction that narratives of this kind are in any case unMstorical. •* That the Johannine narrative in particular is copied from the synoptic account ofthe man with the palsy at Capernaum may be seen from the different features which are common to both. : Thus even the reference to the forgiveness of sins is not wanting in John, only that he has changed the pre liminary words ''Thy sins are forgiven !" into an expression added afterwards, " Sin no more, lest a Avorse tMng happen to thee" (v. 14). But it is impossible to mistake the re semblance m the manner in Avhich the miraculous command of Jesus to the sick man is expressed in the two narratives. The synoptics give the words twice over, once conditionaby on the question of the Pharisees, whether is easier to say to a man in tM3 state, thy sins are forgiven thee, or, arise (Mark, take up thy bed) and walk ! Then follows, as an actual command given to the sick man, Arise, take up thy bed and go home ! The fourth Evangebst not having premised any announcement of the forgiveness of sins, has not the pre liminary question but only the actual command, compounded however of the two speeches in the synoptics. He keeps to the first form, though adopting like Mark, out of the second, the bed wMch was to be packed up ; but that in- doing so CURES OP CRIPPLES. 1 (JO he has particularly followed Mark, appears from the fact that both in describing the bed coincide in the use of a remarkable Avord. MattheAV tAvice speaks of it by the most ordinary Avord Bed ; Luke also, once, and twice by the diminutive meaning, little Bed ; at last peripMastically that upon which the sick man lay. On the other hand Mark uses, tMoughout, i. e. four times, and likeAvise John five times, a word which is not indeed elsewhere unknown in the NeAV Testament, but is quite as strange as if in English we were to describe a bed by the term pallet, and Avhich therefore as it is not found elsewhere in John, but does appear agam in Mark, makes it probable that the former copied from the latter.* Here too, as in the case ofthe history ofthe man born bbnd, itis an arrangement pecubar to the fourth Evangebst, that the fact of the miracle is established by a formal hearing. The Jews, i. e. the Jewish authorities, seeing the man carrying Ms bed, remark to Mm that it is not permitted on the Sab bath-day. He repbes that he Avho had enabled him to walk ordered Mm to do so. They desire to know who it Avas ? He declares that he does not know Mmself, as Jesus, after giving the miraculous command, had gone away to avoid the multitude. Jesus then again meets the man whom he had healed in the Temple, where he gives him the caution mentioned above, and- on tMs occasion the man must have learnt Ms name, for he now announces to the Jews for the first time that it was Jesus who had made Mm whole. WMle, however, m the Mstory of the man born bhnd (who, more over, was afready acquainted with the name of Jesus, but knew nothing else about Mm) the inqmrers press him and Ms connections stib further, in order to learn the description of the malady and the mode of cure appbed by Jesus, in the case under consideration, as soon as Jesus is discovered to have been the author of the violation of the Sabbath, they * The word KpaBBaroc which appears in Mark vi. 55; Acts .v. 15, ix. 33, appears in the same meaning of a portable sick bed. Comp. Catull. Carm. x. 22. 170 BOOK ii. myth;cal HISTORY OP JESDS. cease from their examination, in order to direct their attack upon Mm. Then the description becomes very far from clear. " Therefore," it is said, " did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he had done these things on the Sabbath-day. But Jesus ansAvered them," &c. &c. Now an objection, a re proach, an accusation may be answered ; persecution, on the contrary, unless the word is tobe understood in its absolutely bteral meaning, is a long continued act, Avhich a man may avoid, which he may take precautions against, but which he cannot answer. After the first answer attributed to Jesus, it is then said further, ' ' Therefore the Jews sought the more to kih Mm ;" and thereupon Jesus " answers" a second time, and in a long speech too, which must have given the Jews, if they reaby did wish to kid Mm, plenty of time and oppor tunity for doing so. We see that as soon as the man who had been healed had pointed out Jesus to the Jews as the author ofthe desecration of the Sabbath, the narrator con siders the scene as at an end, he is then only concerned with the speech of Jesus wMch he wished to connect with it, and wMch he therefore introduced so unsatisfactorily, alleging it to be an answer to a persecution. It was this speech that the Evangelist had in view at the very first . when he placed the miraculous cure on the Sabbath-day. The activity attributed to Jesus on the Sabbath might give him an opportuMty of exhibiting the never-resting character of the divine Logos. In order, therefore, to combat the objections of the Jews, he avails Mmself not of the practical argument drawn from the ox and the ass, or from David and the shew-bread, as m the synoptics (though arguments of this kind were not unknown to the author of the fourth Gospel, as we see from vii. 27), but of the metaphysical one, that as God, his Father, works and creates tMoughout the rest of the Sabbath without interruption, so also incessant work is proper for Mm as the Son who in all Ms doings rules himself after the example of CURES OP CRIPPLES. 171 the Father. The doctrme of uninterrupted creation on the part of God was a fundamental doctrine of the JeAvish Alex andrine philosophy ; the same never- resting activity belonged to the Logos as the agent of the operation of God in the world : the digmty of Jesus, as the Logos incarnate, could not be more emphatically illustrated than on an occasion on Avhich the Jewish opponents attempted to limit his divine and infinite energy by their national Sabbatarian law. It has, therefore, been rightly said that of the doctrine of the Johannme preface (i. 4), " In him, the Logos, was life, and the life was the bght of men," the last half is blustrated* in the history of the man born bbnd, the first in the history we have been considering ; only we must always remember this, that in the mind of the Evangebst these Mstories are to be taken as entirely literal as web as entirely symbob cal occurrences. Independently, however, of the connection between the fundamental idea of the speech and the system of Phflo, it is clear that it was arbitrarily invented by the fourth Evan gebst, from, among other things, the unMstorical feature wMch constantly recurs in the fourth Gospel. It is this, that when Jesus cabs God Ms Father, the Jews see in Ms doing so a -virtual equalization of himself with God (ver. 18). To do tMs did not occur to the actual Jews. They were accustomed to the description of the Messiah, nay even of ordinary kings, as Sons, i. e. proteges and vicegererits of God, as a title that assumed nothing at ab. In the next place it is seen from the fact that a series of the propositions of the speech appear some in the Preface (comp. ver. 37 with i. 18), some elsewhere, as the Evangebst's own words (comp. ver. 32 with xix. 35 ; ver. 44 with xn. 43), or as those of the Baptist (comp. 20 with hi. 35), stib more are repeated in the first epistle of John (comp. ver. 24 with * Baur, Critical Investigations into the Canonical Gospels, p. 176. 172 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. 1 John iii. 14; ver. 34 and 36, ff. with 1 John v. 9 ; ver. 38 Avith 1 Jolm i. 1 0 ; ver. 40 with 1 John v. 1 2 ; ver. 42 with 1 John h. 15), the last of Avhich is indeed only a proof resting upon probabbity for those who consider the first Epistle of John as earlier than the Gospel, Avhile the first is sufficient to corroborate the conclusion which forces itself upon ns in reference to ab the speeches of Jesus in the fourth Gospel. 73. Cures of Lepers and op the Deaf and the Dumb. In the speech of Jesus (Matt. xi. 5) the mention of the Maim is followed by that ofthe Lepers, andin Ms address to the Twelve when he sends them forth (Matt. x. 8), they are empowered to perform especially cures of Lepers, among those of other sick persons. Jesus could not have taken the Lepers out of the passage in Isaiah, as he did the bbnd and lame, since the Prophet, in that passage, makes no mention of them. For such mention would not have been smtable to the character of that refreshing joy of the people at the termination of their captivity, wMch the Prophet wished to describe as causing them to forget all soitoavs. But as a programme ofthe Messianic miracles that prophetic utterance was, as has been noticed above, supplemented out of the Prophetic type. In the Prophetical Legend leprosy plays a considerable part, as it also does among the sicknesses tra ditional in Judea, and, accordingly, in the Law of Moses (3 Mos. xiii. 14). A complaint so malignant, so obstinate, and especially terrible from the exclusion wMch its infections character rendered necessary, was especially adapted to be considered as a divine punishment or trial (look at the account in Job), and the cure of it as a divine blessing. So among the miracles which Jehovah qualifies Moses to perform in order to accredit Mm with the people, the production CURES OF LEPERS AND OF THE DEAF AND DUMB. 173 and removal of the leprosy takes nearly the first place (2 Mos. iv. 6, ff). Jehovah commands him to put his hand into Ms bosom, and to pull it out again : it Avas as Avhite as snow; and when he had put it in a second time, and taken it out again, it AYas again whole like the rest ofhis body. This is only as it were a miraculous trick on the part of the Deity; but on another occasion the infiiction and removal of the leprosy is in bitter earnest. Miriam, Moses' sister, having had the audacity to rebel against her brother, the wrath of Jehovah was inflamed against her, and she became as white as snow from leprosy; it was not until Aaron had interceded with Moses for her, and the latter had again interceded with Jehovah, that after seven days exclu sion she was again received as clean (4 Mos. xn. 1 — 15). Then there is the case particularly celebrated, and mentioned also by Jesus himself m a passage of the tMrd Gospel (Luke iv. 27). It is the cure of a leper by the Prophet Ebsha, from whose history so many other features have entered into that of Christ (2 Kings v. 1, ff.). The Syrian Captain Naaman, suffering from leprosy, addresses the. Prophet on the subject of his cure. The latter commands Mm to bathe seven times in the Jordan, but the warrior is offended, and considers Mmself only recommended to have recourse to an ordinary mode of cure by batMng, whereas he had expected that the Prophet, cabing upon Jehovah, Ms God, would haA'e come to Mm, passed his hand over the diseased part, and so have removed the eruption. But he allows Mmself to be persuaded to fobow the prescription of the Prophet, and after seven immersions in the Jordan finds himself perfectly cured; wMle the Prophet immediately after feels it Ms duty to transfer the leprosy to his own avaricious servant Gehazi. In this instance, also, the Messiamc Life, in the form, at least, in wMch it entered into Christianity, omitted the penal side of the Old Testament miracle, but the Messiah could not be deprived of that of heabng and grace. Thus, among 1-74 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. the A-ery first sick persons who apply to Jesus to be healed, it is, according to all the synoptic Gospels (Matt. viii. 1 — 4 ; Marki. 40—45; Luke v. 12 — 16), a leper, who falls down before Mm and declares Ms conviction that if he Avib he can make Mm clean. Jesus, touching him, declares his willing ness, .and in a moment the man is so clean, that Jesus can command Mm to shoAv himself with confidence to the High- Priest, and to prepare his offering of purification. The attempt to explam tMs nairative on the supposition that the man Avas aheady as good as cured, that the leprosy was in its last stage, and that Jesus only pointed this out to Mm, consequently did not make him clean, but only declared that he was so — tMs rationabstic explanation is as violent when appbed to the Evangelical narrative, as it is, from our point of view, ridiculously superfluous. We have here a prophetico- Messianic myth of the clearest stamp ; it wants no natural explanation, but simply an explanation, wMch we have given, founded upon the principle of gradual formation and deve lopment. There is a second cure of leprosy in Luke, and m tMs in stance there are ten lepers all at once who are benefited by the healing power of Jesus (xvii. 11 — 19). Engaged in the journey to Jerusalem, and wMle travelling on the boundary between Galilee and Samaria, he is met outside a vdlage by ten lepers, who stand at the distance from him required by law, calling out to him with a loud voice to have mercy upon them. Without touching them as he does the diseased per son in the former case, or even calbng them to Mm, he commanded them to go and show themselves to the priests ; and wMle they went they became clean. Now at this point the account, considered as a miraculous one, would have been properly at an end, and we should so far have considered it simply as a variation upon the former one, though the remark able exaggeration in the number, increased as it is from one to ten, might to a certain extent surprise us. But the narrative CURES OP LEPERS AND OP THE DEAF AND DUMB. 175 of Luke does not end here. On the contrary, Avhen the ten find themselves cured, nine of them go forward on their Avay, AvMle one returns to fall at the feet of his benefactor with thanks, and this one is a Samaritan. In this man's presence Jesus proceeds to speak unfavourably of the nine JeAvs Avho have left the duty of returning thanks to one Avho Avas not a Jew. He then dismisses the Samaritan Avith the declaration that his faith has made him whole. Now in this turn given to the conclusion we may recog nise, on the one hand, an imitation of the conclusion of the Mstory of Elisha and Naaman, which the former account of leprosy had left unnoticed. For Naaman, when he found Mm self cured, had likewise returned to give thanks to the Prophet, and to acknowledge the God of Israel as the only true God, and Naaman was likeAvise a stranger as the Samaritan in tMs case. And he is also described by Jesus in Luke as the only one among several, when the former says (iv. 27) that m the time of the Prophet Elisha there were many lepers in Israel, and none of them was made clean, but only Naaman the Syrian, just as in this case ten were cleansed, bnt none of them, like Naaman, showed themselves by gratitude to be deserving of cure, but only one Samaritan. Elisha dismisses Naaman, after declining Ms presents, with the parting words " Go in peace." Instead of tMs, Jesus takes leave of the grateful Samaritan Avith the formula that occurs in other places on the performance of miracles, " Go thy way, thy faith hath made thee Avhole." Now it is easy to see that these last words, wMch were entirely in their place on the occasion of the healing of the Avoman Avith the issue of blood (Luke vni. 48), or the bbnd man at Jericho (Luke xvin. 42), are here unsmtable ; for if the Samaritan had been healed on account of the faith he exMbited in Ms return to Jesus, why were the others healed who gave no such proof of their faith ? Consequently, this concluding ex pression has been* transferred by the Evangelist from other 176 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. miraculous accounts into this ; without them the narrative has, in the question of Jesus, whether, of the ten, none have been found to give honour to God but only this stranger, as in structive a conclusion as the parable of the Good Samaritan, in the question (x. 36), which of the three was neighbour to him that" fell among thieves — who is likewise a stranger. The miraculous account of which Ave are speaking, and which bkeAvise is peculiar to Luke, has, generaby, the most striking similarity to tMs parable, wMch is also peculiar to him; both belong to Ms Samaritan stories which are so closely connected Avith the tendency of his Gospel. In the miracle the only one of the ten who is grateful is a Samaritan, and the same is the case m the parable, where a Samaritan is the only one of the three who is good, while in both the others all genuine and regular JeAVS show themselves ungrate ful and uncharitable. The number ten like the number three is a round number and suited to a parable, the first meeting us again in the parable, for instance, of the Ten Virgins (Matt. xxv. 1, ff.) . We cannot say that this story, bke that of the Good Samaritan, was originally given by Jesus as a parable, and at a later period taken historically. When we are told something about an indefimte subject, as a king, a traveber, a sower, or even a tMrd person Avith a favourite name, like Lazarus, an mstructive moral being subjoined, the parable-character is easy to recognise : but when a man tells of something as having really occurred to himself, he has either improperly disguised the fact or imposed upon his hearers. We have as little right to impute to Jesus the one as the other, and can, therefore, in the case of the miracu lous story in question, only suppose that it is the work of a later hand, who gave to the old prophetico-Messianic theme of the heabng of leprosy a turn favourable to the Gentiles, whether it were that in doing so he was thndring of the parable of the Good Samaritan, or that he Mmself was also the author of the latter. CURES OP LEPERS AND OP THE DEAP AND DUMB. 177 In this class of miraculous accounts the fourth Gospel deserts us altogether; lepers are not mentioned. The reason is, indeed, that hi the comparatively early Grecian world of Asia Minor, in which the author bved, maladies of this kind Avere not so common as among the JeAvs in Palestine, also that they could not be so easily adapted to his symbobcal system, Avhich consists in the opposition between light and darkness, bfe and death. TMs is also the case with the deaf, Avho occupy the next place in the answer of Jesus to the emissaries of the Baptist. In the passage of Isaiah from Avhich they are taken, the dumb also are especially mentioned Avith them. In the Greek of the Gospels the same word means deaf and dumb : and hence it is that Matthew and Luke, who represent Jesus as saying nothing in his answer of dumb persons, but only speaking of deaf to whom he restores the power of hearing, say, in their accounts of miracles, nothing of deafness cured by him, but speak only of the dumb to whom he restored their poAvers of utterance. Mark, on the contrary, on two occasions, once m a history of a cure peculiar to Mmself, the second time in an account in wMch the two others only mention possession by devils, con nects deafness and dumbness together. Of these narratives the two first, at least in Matthew, are repetitions of each other. On one occasion (ix. 32 — 34) there is brought to Jesus a man dumb from possession, Avho speaks after the devil is driven out, at which the people ex press their surprise at something the like of wMch has not been seen inIsrael,wMle the Pharisees say that Jesus drives out devfls by the prince of the devils. On the other (xii. 22 — 24; comp. Luke xi. 14), a man possessed is brought to Jesus. This man is bbnd and dumb, Jesus heals him so that he can speak and see, the people surmise that the performer of the miracle is the Son of David, but the Pharisees say that he only drives out devils by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Here it is clear that the author of the first Gospel found ia VOL. II. n 178 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. one of the sources of his history, the account of the cure of a man dumb from possession by a devil, in another, of a man blind and dumb also from possession, stories of this kind being current in different forms and combinations, and that he, bebeving them to be two different occurrences, incor porated in Ms Gospel tAvo narratives, placing one at an earber the other at a later period ; wMle Luke, though not perhaps acquamted with the true state of the case, considered the introduction into his Gospel of two accounts so exactly resembling each other as superfluous. From the stand-point of belief in devils it was natural to look upon th.o dumb as possessed, when we consider the un easy gestures of persons so affected ; it was less obvious in the case of the blind. When, however, we see how delusion had drawn within its circle even cases of diseases of the limbs and muscles, as that of the bent woman, the notion of pos session by devds as a cause of blindness cannot surprise us very much. It i3 a different thing when a sick man, whom Matthew calls a lunatic, but describes, as Luke also does, as one possessed by a devil, is at the same time described by Mark alone as dumb and deaf (ix. 17, 25). As this is the case in which the power of the disciples is insufficient, and Jesus Mmself is obliged to interfere, we see that Mark by aggravating the malady, perhaps Avith reference to the dumb man by possession in Matthew, wished to represent the case as a particularly difficult one. It is manifest that in debneating both the circumstances of the sick man and the scene between Ms father and Jesus, Mark was performmg a task m which he took particular pleasure. This is a point to wMch we shall return hereafter. So also the account of the man with an impediment in Ms speech (vii. 32 — 37), together with that wMch we have con sidered above, the healing of the bbnd man at'Bethsaida, is the true model of a miraculous narrative in the taste of our second Evangebst. In addition to the mysterious taking CURES OP PERSONS POSSESSED BY DEVILS. 179 apart of the sick man, and the abeged command at the con clusion not to publish the fact, we have here also the Aramaic word, with Avhich Jesus orders the closed ears of the deaf man to open. This word, which the author has to translate for his readers, he gives, as a sorb of talisman, m its original foreign form. We do not find here the description of the gradual process of the cure, as in the Mstory of the bbnd man. So instead of tMs, the maMpulation by Jesus, m con nection with the fact that in tMs case a double defect was to be removed, is described ab the more at length ; here he touches the man's tongue with the spittle, which, in the other case, he spits immediately into Ms eyes, while he put. his fingers into his ears. Then m addition we have a sigh and look upwards to heaven, giving an effect to the scene, AvMch we only find repeated m the Mstory of the raismg of Lazarus in the fourth Gospel. At the conclusion the people cry out in an excess of admiration, " He hath done all things well ; he maketh both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak." Noav tMs means nothmg else but that Jesus has performed what, according to the passage in the Prophet, was expected of the Messiah, and what, therefore, Jesus as soon as he was recog nised as the Messiah on better grounds, must, it was taken for granted, have done whether he really did it or not. 74. Cures of Persons possessed by Devils. According to the speech of Jesus, wMch we are following in the consideration of his miracles, we should come next to his raisings of the dead. But there are stib several kinds of miraculou3 cures, wMch, though not mentioned m that speech, must nevertheless be noticed. Among these are the cures of driving out devils, of wMch n 2 180 BOOK n. MYTHICAL history of JESUS. Jesus makes no mention in that speech, in Avhich he only appeals to those miracles AvMch were expected of the Messiah, in accordance, partly with the prophecy, partly with the pre cedent of the Prophets of the Old Testament, in Avhose times, even the latest of them, possession had not been heard of. Noav it has been aheady explamed above that of all the cures performed by Jesus of which the Gospels speak, that of those maladies which were supposed to be caused by demomacal possession, has most natural possibility and historical proba bility in its favour. If Jesus cured sick persons at all, supposed demoniacs were certainly among them. It does not, however, folloAV from this that the accounts of " those cures as we find them in the Gospels are historicaby accurate. On the contrary, we cannot conceive of any of these as having been naturaby performed exactly as we are told they were. And it would also be a remarkable thing if the excitement which the idea of a personal presence of eril spirits and an encounter between them and the Messiah im parted to the imagination, had not resulted m a manifold embelbshment of such stories. Apart from the summary statements that Jesus or his disciples drove out devfls (the former we find in Matthew iv. 24, vni. 16 ; Mark i. 34, 39, iii. 11; Lukeiv. 41, vi. 18; the latter Matth. x. 1, 8; Mark ib. 15, vi. 7, 13 ; Luke ix. 1, x. 17, 20), and from those nar ratives in which the possession appears only in the second degree, as the cause of other maladies, as m the cases of the bbnd and dumb in the accounts just spoken of, or where the sick person, the case bemg one of a cure at a distance, remains in the back ground, as in the instance of the demoniac daughter of the Canaanitish woman — apart from these we have in the synoptic Gospels three cases of this kind, of wMch the first is described as simple, the two others as com- pbcated and difficult. Even in those summary accounts in Luke and Mark, espe cial stress is laid upon the fact that the devils, in the persons CURES OP PERSONS POSSESSED BY DEVILS. 181 possessed, recogmsed Jesus as the Messiah. The unclean spirits, says Mark (iii. 11; comp. Luke iv. 41), when they saAV him, worshipped him and cried out, Thou art the Son of Cod, — AA'hereupon Jesus, if he alloAved them to speak to him at all (comp. Matt. i. 34), forbade them under a heavy penalty to publish abroad that he was so. The devbs, it was supposed, must of course bnoAv the Messiah who Avas sometime to deliver over to damnation themselves and their prince (Matt. viu. 29, xxv. 41 ; Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34; Revel, xx. 1, ff. 10) ; and by force of the penetrating sight of their spiritual nature, they would have considered no one as such who was no.t so really. Consequently, if they recog nised the Messiah in Jesus, tMs, from the stand-point of Jewish popular ideas, was a strong proof that he was the Messiah. At the same time there resulted the practical con trast in the fact that while Jesus was in vain labouring among his contemporaries to plant the faith in him as the Messiah, he, on the contrary, with the more sharp-sighted devils, had only to take care that they did not proclaim Mm to be the Messiah more than Ms modesty abowed. But inas much as in those possessed of devils we see nothing but cases of natural sickness, so neither can we ascribe to them any such penetration mto the character of Jesus in its most profound depths, i. e. Ave cannot assume, what the Evangebsts plainly state to have been the case, that as soon as a man in tMs condition got sight of Jesus, he recognised Mm as the Messiah Avithout knowing anything further about Mm ; but when such a recognition took place we must suppose that sometMng had happened before hand, tending to impress the sick man in a natural manner with tMs conviction. Such an explanatory circumstance is suggested by the Evangelical narrative itself of the Demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark i. 21 — 28; Luke iv. 31— > -37), repre senting as it does Jesus as giving a lecture previously, and thus making a strong impression on the assemblage. The 182 BOOK II. MYTHICAL history OP JESUS. effect produced by this upon a person present suffering from demoniac symptoms, might easdy be such a state of ex citement that he Avould fall into a paroxysm in wMch, in the character of the demon, he Avould beseech the mighty man of God to leave him alone. The Evangelists indeed do not put the two things originahy in connection, but represent the demon as drawing Ms knowledge purely from himself, so that even if Jesus had not spoken he would have known Mm to be what he was. They also represent Mm as declaring Jesus to be not merely a prophet but the Holy One of God, i. e. the Messiah, wMch seems mconceivable at the first begmnmg of the mimstry of Jesus, since, according to a very credible tradition the view that Jesus was the Messiah did not spring up even in Ms own immediate circle until much later. Our narrative therefore either places the standard of the dig nity attributed to Jesus by the subject ofthe possession too high or the occurrence is placed much too early. But from the im pression which Jesus made upon the sick man by Ms speaking, Ms personabty, and ab the rumours about him in the district, the sequel, as stated by the Evangebsts, may be naturaby ex plained. If the man recognised in Jesus only a Prophet he must still have attributed to Mm, according to Jewish ideas, a divine power given from above for combating the power of evd, consequently the kingdom of Devils, and as soon as Jesus, sharing or avaibng Mmself of tMs opinion, commanded the demon to depart out of the man, tMs might have the effect, as we are told, of producing a crisis amid violent spasms wMch put an end to the morbid condition ; whether for ever or not we know, in tMs case, as bttle as m that of any other of these Evangebcal narratives. ' Stib a permanent cure of such a malady by psychological impressions would not be unheard of. The case is different with the narrative which is common to ab the Evangelists of the possessed Gadarene or Gadarene3 (Matt. viii. 28— 34;, Mark v. 1—20; Luke viii. 26— 39) CURES OF PERSONS POSSESSED BY DEVILS. 183 TMs, among the Evangebcal stories of possession is the shoAV-piece ; ricMy embelbshed with every accessory, possible and impossible, the latter indeed being that wMch in certain circles always makes the greatest impression. With refer ence, moreover, to this embellishment there is, betAveen the different accounts, a discrepancy by no means unimportant ; features, AvMch are found in Mark and Luke, being Avanting in the description of Matthew. Conversely the latter has an advantage over the two former in so far as he speaks of two persons possessed, while these speak only of one. These discrepancies have been interpreted to his disadvantage, and only a very faded tradition found in his account, m wMch, in particular, the plurabty of demons in the one sick man had changed into a plurabty of demoniacs ; but it would be just as easy to suppose, conversely, that in order to bring out the plurabty of demons the more decidedly in each individual affected, only one so affected was spoken of in the later repe tition. In ab other portions at ab events the narrative of Matthew in comparison with those of the two others appears as the simpler. Even in his description of the state of the two men possessed, he says in Ms feAV words respecting their great fierceness, " so that no man could pass by the way on wMch they dwelt/" as much as the others say, especially Mark, with their lengthened descriptions. The address of the possessed to Jesus is, according to ab three, in all essential points the same as in the former Mstory ; the question, that is, as to what they have to do with Mm, and the prayer not to torment them before the time. It is, however, more natural that the man possessed should have made it when Jesus came into Ms neighbourhood than that, as Mark espe ciaby says in contradiction to Matthew, he should have run from far off to meet the personage so dreaded. The narra tor, findmg this not quite conceivable, endeavours to suggest a motive for it in a previous command of Jesus that the devil should come out of Mm ; a command as to wMch we are at 1S4 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. a loss to see Avhen Jesus was supposed to have given it if the man possessed had not been before in Ms neighbourhood. Indeed, Matthew's representation is more natural even from the miraculous point of view ; for that a man thus diseased should have recogMsed Jesus as the Messiah at first sight is less conceivable on the further shore, where the events take place, and where Jesus was less known than on the Galilean side. How many devils there were in each of the possessed, and even that there were several in one, is not said in the first Gospel at ab; the question of Jesus as to the name of the devil and the answer that he was cabed Legion, because there were many of them, is an addition of the second and third Gospel. And it is obvious to surmise that the plurality was only an inference drawn from the feature wMch fobows, which Matthew has in common with the others, the prayer, that is, of the devils to be abowed to pass into the swine. This might seem to assume an equabty in number between the devfls and- the swine, on account of wMch the herd in the one case is balanced by a legion in the other. The feature of the swine is one at which the faith of even the most credulous expositors is accustomed to falter. For eA'en if the possession of human souls by evil spirits is con- . ceivable, it is not easy to see how the souls of animals can be possessed in the same way, and even if this notion is admissible, there is a difficulty in the contradiction involved in the abeged behaviour of the evil spirits. First they are said, in order to avoid the necessity of going down the precipice or out of the country, to pray to be abowed to take up their quarters in the swine, and immediately after, when their prayer has been granted, to have given the creatures the impulse to rush into the sea, and so to have themselves destroyed the very quarters they had asked for. Real devils could not have acted so stupidly, but a legend or fiction might easily fall into such a contradiction, when in sketcMng its different features it was led by different views and objects, CURES OP PERSONS POSSESSED BY DEVILS. 185 As in this place not merely a simple Mstory of an expulsion of devils was to be given, but one remarkable in every way, it was considered necessary not merely that the devils should go put of the man, but, as a proof that they had really left him, pass into another object. The object best suited for this was the unclean ammal, the swine, and, if there was a herd of them, a plurality of devils might be inferred from this cir cumstance, and thus a stib further exaggeration for the Avhole history be gained. The prayer of the devils might be alleged as a cause for their going into the swine,, and the idea of tMs prayer resulted from that current at the period, that beings of this sort preferred a parasitical existence in bodies, even those of brutes, to a disembodied bfe in the desert or possibly in heb. But how was it to appear that they had reaby gone into the swine. It was impossible that they should speak out of swine as out of human beings : they might fab to the earth and exhibit contortions, but, consider ing the strange movements which these creatures often indulge in of themselves, tMs would be no certam sign. So nothing remained, but what the brutes would certainly not otherwise have done, to rush spontaneously to destruction, i. e. to be driven to it by the devils ; a feature wMch, inde pendently of the particular case and the prayers of the evil spirits that had preceded, was suited to their destructive nature. There were other stories current at the time of such proofs of expulsion of spirits. Josephus* tells of a Jewish exorcist, who by means of a magic ring and SolomoMan talismans, drew devils out of the nose of persons possessed by them ; that in order to convmce the bystanders that the evil spirit had really gone out, he placed close by a bucket full of water, and ordered the devil to upset it, wMch the latter really did ; and Josephus assures us that he Mmself had been a joint spectator of tMs proof of the mcomparable wisdom of Ms countryman Solomon. In bke manner * Antiq. viii. 2, 5 ] 86 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Phdostratus* tebs how Apollonius of Tyana ordered a devil who had possessed a youth to depart with a visible sign, upon AAhich the devil entreated to be allowed to upset a statue that stood near, and this statue did reaby fab over just at the moment Avhen the devil left the young man. Such an object however being, as these stories say, close at hand, there was, no doubt, room for deception ; but how eould this be supposed possible when, bke the herd of swine, according to Matthew's express assurance, it was a considerable distance off. In Matthew, the narrative concludes by saying that the inhabitants of the town, on hearing the account given of the transaction by the swineherds who had fled into it, came out and besought the performer of miracles, who thus threatened their material interests, to apply Ms energies elsewhere. This is also in the accounts of the two other narrators ; but besides tMs they describe further the condition of the man who had been healed : how he who had been just before a wfld and raving maniac, sat at Jesus' feet clothed, and in his right mind, and how, when Jesus was about to return, he expressed a wish to be allowed to accompany Mm, that Jesus however did not comply with his wish, but recommended Mm to go home to Ms friends, and to tell them of the great things that God had done unto Mm. TMs addition m par ticular, and subsequently the whole narrative, have lately sug gested to several critics an allegorical interpretation, f The man who had been just before possessed by a legion of un clean spirits, now sitting decently and in Ms right mind at the feet of Jesus, appeared to them to be a type of the con version of the Gentde world, for wMch the Gadarene, as an inhabitant of a district for the most part heathen, was par ticularly suited; the Legion of Demons represented the numerous heathen gods wMch from the point of view of the * Vita Apollon. iv. 20. t Baur, Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels, p. 430, ff. Volkmar, Religion of Jesus, p. 229, ff. CURES OP PERSONS POSSESSED BY DEVILS. 187 earliest CMistians appeared in the light of demons (1 Cor. x. 20,ff.) ; their elective affinity to theswine represented the moral impurity of heathenism ; the refusal of Jesus to retain with Mmself and the twelve, the man who had been healed, and his command to him to publish among Ms relations and friends the great things that God had done for him, would be, as it were, the estabbshment of the heathen Apostolate and its ministry, separated by Jesus himself from the Jewish Apostles. Such an explanation is certainly very obvious in tMs case, still it can never be anything but conjecture, and how easily it may be pressed too far is shown by the circumstance that, from the same point of view, the fetters wMch had been in vain put upon tMs man were supposed to mean the legislation of the ancient world, which had proved msufficient to restrain it within the bounds of morabty. The object ofthe tMrd of the miraculous cures indicated above (Matt. xvn. 14 — 21 ; Markix. 14 — 29 ; Luke ix. 37 — 43), wMch is described in its simplest form in Matthew, is to prove the strength of the miraculous power in Jesus, not so much by showing the difficulty of the case in itself, as by pomting out that Ms disciples proving at first to be in competent to render assistance, the Master himself does so with ease. A comparision of tMs kmd between the Master and his disciples, was involved in the nature of the Hebrew legend. Ebsha, to whom .Ave have so often referred as a prototype in the Mstory of Jesus, had sent Ms servant Gehazi with Ms staff, for the purpose of raising the dead son of Ms Shunamitish hostess ; but Gehazi not having succeeded at all, Elisha was compebed to go Mmself in order to raise the youth, which however he does not do without consider able trouble (2 Bongs iv. 8, ff., 29—37). Now, though it is a different description of miracle, for it concerns a young man, not dead but possessed, tMs proceeding is in part copied in the act of Jesus, m part surpassed, masmuch as the latter has no occasion for the busy activity of the Prophet, 188 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. but needs only to flu-eaten the demon, in order to accomplish Ms object. In Matthew, the cause of the inabibty of the disciples to heal the sick man is stated to have been their want of faith : Mark refers tMs want of faith to the father of the youth, and invents upon the strength of it a dialogue between Jesus and him, which we must, undoubtedly, attri bute only to Mark himself. In Matthew, next to the want of faith on the part of the disciples, a second cause is stated for their failure : it is, that this kind of demons cometh not forth but by prayer and fasting. TMs does not exactly agree Avith ab the rest ; for, if prayer and fasting were necessary to drive out the devil in question, then want of faith was not the cause of the disciples' fadure. So Luke sktlftdly omits the speech about want of faith, and limits Mmself to that about fasting and prayer. MattheAV appears here to have combined together the different attempts made to explain failure in driving out devils, such as must often have occurred in Christian communities, without disadvantage to the cause of Jesus. Stib, the inabibty of the disciples to succeed with this sick person in particular, appeared to require some explanation, retrospectively; so even Luke delineates the symptoms of Ms malady more fully than Matthew, while Mark, a3 was said above, adds further that he was deaf and dnmb, and represents the youth as having been subject to thi3 malady from chbdhood. As they describe the case, it appears to have been one of inveterate epilepsy : it is con trary to ab probabibty that such a malady should have given way at once and for ever to a word, though supported by the greatest possible digmty on the part of the speaker and by the greatest possible faith on the part of the sick person ; though in a simpler case the circumstance that the disciples may very possibly have faded, and then Jesus Mmself have stepped in, may very easily have occurred. It has been already remarked above that this class of the miracles of Jesus, the cures of persons possessed, is wanting CURES OP PERSONS POSSESSED BY DEVILS. 189 iu the fourth Gospel. We do indeed find in it, the terms Daamonion, and being Daemoniac, but they are only used as we find them in classic Greek ; and as the Evangebst himself (x. 20) interprets the latter term, that is, as synonymous with being mad or crazy. When Jesus asks the Jews at the feast of Tabernacles, " Why seek ye to kill me ?" the people answer him, Who seeks, to kih thee ? thou hast a devil (John vii. 19, ff), i. e. thou art affected Avith hypochondriac fancies ; as in Matthew (xi. 18) and Luke (vn. 33) it is said of John the Baptist, that because he neither ate nor drink, his con temporaries declared that he had a devil. When, agam, on another occasion Jesus declares to the Jews that they are not from God, and therefore they hear not the words of God, but that he who keeps his word will not die for ab eternity, they maintain a second time that he must have a devil (viii. 48, 52), i. e. be foolish. Now it is true indeed that even in classical Greek, that expression was understood, not merely metaphoricaby, but an influence of demoniac beings and the bke was reaby assumed; as in John the better class of people meet those reproaches applied to Jesus by asking whether a dsemomon, such as the opponents of Jesus sup posed to be in operation witMn Mm, could open the eyes of the blind (John x. 21). Stib this is not the idea of devils, as the causes on the one hand of complaints of different kinds and that occur in other ways as well, on the other of that particular form of malady AvMch is cabed possession in the strict sense. In the fourth Gospel this conception is not found, and there is no mention in it either summarily or in detafl of possessed persons healed by Jesus. There was a time when tMs was considered an advantage m favour of John. The Bibbcal notion of demoniac posses sion was one of those which were the first to seem intolerable to modern interpretation. How welcome then was the absence of so odious a popular belief from the writings of the favourite disciple of Jesus. But we neither find the theory 190 EOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. in John nor the Mstories Avith which the theory was con nected. It were to be desired that those Mstories or others like them, which the synoptics give us as histories of pos sessed persons had been given by John from another and more rational point of view. Instead of this there are no such stories at all, and their absence is suspicious for the reason that accordmg to ab that we know of that period, possession was the most common form of disease precisely in those districts wMch Avere the scene of the events of the Evangelical Mstory. From Josephus to Justin Martyr and PMlostratus downwards, Jewish, Christian, and in part hea then Greek writings are fidl of notices of persons possessed and their cures. Consequently there is every historical pro- babdity in favour of the account of the three first Evangebsts that sick persons of tMs description frequently appeared before Jesus. And when we remember the power exerted by the imagination in diseases of this kind, there is, as has been often remarked before, no form of complaint in wMch we might more easdy suppose a cure to have been performed by the mere word of Jesus than tMs. Now the fourth Gospel says nothing whatever of such sick persons or such cures, and tMs omission does certainly not point to an author who was a contemporary of the bfe and ministry of Jesus, or near to him as a countryman who bved soon after. No one has felt more deeply than Ewald how nearly this chcumstance affects the cretbbibty of the fourth Gospel. He is right in recognizing m the histories of possession an ele ment of the three Gospels of a specially historical character, and he sees that if the fourth is to lay claim to Mstorical validity, it ought not to want this component element. And while we are making the best of it, and observing that the fourth Gospel does indeed want this element, and with it a main support upon wMch its claim to Mstorical validity might be founded — Ewald, on the contrary, says that the Gospel is without it now, but was not originady so ; between the fifth CURES OP PERSONS POSSESSED BY DEVILS. 191 and sixth chapters a portion of the Gospel has been lost, which Avith other matter must also have contained an expul sion of a devil.* We, who are unable to soar after the great Eagle of Gbttingen in so bold a flight of authoritative deci sion, assert on the contrary that as the fourth Evangelist says nothing of expulsion of devds he either knew nothing of them or did not wish to know anything. If he knew nothing of them the reason cannot have been that occurrences of tMs kmd did not take place, for according to the credible testi mony of the synoptic Gospels, they really did take place; but the occurrences must have been unknown to him. TMs cannot have been the case if he was the Apostle John : moreover, it cannot have been the case if he bved at a later period, but was acquamted Avith the synoptic Gospels or others connected Avith them, in all of wMch the cures of persons possessed played an important part : and there is every indication of Ms having been acquamted with these Gospels. If, therefore, he says nothing of those Mstorie3 with wMch he must have been acquainted from these Gospels, it must be because he did not wish to know anything about them. Baur supposes that he may have found Mmself unable to extract from them any important support for the pomt of view in which he places the miracles of Jesus a3 proof of his Logos-nature.f But the theory of possession and the cure of it by Christ would have been sufficiently web adapted to the conflict and antagomsm between Light and Darkness, verging as it does upon duahsm, and running through the whole of Ms Gospel, if it had been suited to the ideas ofthe Evangelist himself and the readers for whom his Gospel was intended. In this pomt of view Kostlm has drawn attention to the fact that the belief in deraomac possession, and a power of the Messiah over devils was emmently Jewish, and Jewish-Chris tian, and that therefore the power of expelling devils is not * The Writings of John, I. 25, note, f Critical Investigations, p. 255, note. 192 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. enumerated by Paul among the gifts of the Spirit practised in the CorintMan Church (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28) ; AA-hile in the author of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles the stress which he lays upon this side of the ministry of Jesus belongs to that Jewish Christian element in him which may be remarked on other occasions.* To this may be added what Bretchneider has aheady noticed, f that in the second cen tury after Christ the abeged cure of demoniacs by exorcism had become so common that a reference to these cures was not considered, even by the most uneducated classes, to say nothing ofthe educated Greeks, any proof of the Mgher nature of Christ. It is enough to say that demons, and the expul sion of demons, at the period, in the district and the state of cultivation in which and for wMch the author of the fourth Gospel wrote, were not in good repute : the Avhole tMng, as one may see from Lucian, had, by means of magieians and impostors, come into such discredit that it appeared most desirable to keep Jesus aloof from the Avhole of tMs depart ment. 75. Cures, involuntary and at a distance. So far we have arranged the miraculous cures of Jesus according to the species of maladies to wMch they were appbed. They might also be arranged according to his mode of operation in applying them. Beginning with those in wMch he availed himself of material means, as sabva or clay, we might pass on to those in which he effected the cure simply by touching, then to those in ayMcIi he operated by a word alone, and in these again distinguish between the cases in wMch the patient was present and himself heard the words spoken, and those in wMch he was absent and the • Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 241. t Probabilia, 1 18. CURES, INVOLUNTARY AND AT A DISTANCE. 103 Avords of Jesus operated at adistance. From all those cures, which assume a defimte individual act of Avill on the part of Jesus as the cause of the cure, those cases, lastly, would have to be distinguished in AvMch he is touched by one or more sick persons, and the cure is as it were stolen from Mm Avith- out any separate act of Avill on Ms part. The miracles of Jesus Avhich we have considered so far, ab come under the head of conscious and intentional cures of persons present, sometimes by means of material instruments, sometimes by touching, sometimes by Avord ; on the other hand, mvoluntary cures, and cures at a distance, have not yet been discussed. According to several summary statements ofthe synoptic Gospels (Matt. xiv. 36 ; Mark vi. 56), Jesus was sometimes besought by sick persons or their connections to allow the hem of his garment to be touched by the former for the purpose of effecting a cure. If he consented, as we must suppose he did, there was, on Ms part, a defimte act of wib to affect the cure. If, on the other hand, as we also read (Mark iu. 10 ; Luke vi. 19), the sick persons came upon him at once, and sought to touch Ms garment, we do not know whether he could take notice of each individual among those who thus pressed upon Mm and specially direct Ms wib towards them. But that the cure did not fobow until he knew upon whom it was conferred, we know for certain from what is told of the woman with the issue of blood, whose history is connected by ab tMee synoptics with that of the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 20 — 22 ; Mark v. .25-34; Lukeviu. 43—48). In tMs account however there is a discrepancy between ab tMee narrators, m which we may plainly see the continued growth of the myth, the increasmg materialization ofthe idea of miracle. In these summary statements Matthew says (xiv. 36), that the sick persons who touched the hem ofthe garment of Jesus became whole, Luke (vi. 19) that virtue went out of him which healed ab. Now it may indeed be VOL. n. ° 194 BOOK IT. MYTOICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. said that these two statements amount to the same tMng, as Matthew conceived the cure to be effected not, as Ave have supposed in many of these cases by the poAver of imagination in the sick persons, but by a miraculous poAver inherent in Jesus. Stib the more cautious or at least mdefinite character of the expression of Matthew, compared Avith the greater concentration and materialism of that of Luke is not to be mistaken. Corresponding to this difference is the tone of the more lengthened narrative given by each of the case of the woman with the issue, where Mark, as might be expected, is on the side of Luke, and even adds here and there a picturesque touch. Matthew tebs that when Jesus, attended by Ms disciples, was going to the house of the Jewish Ruler, in order to raise Ms daughter who had just died, a woman, who had had an issue of blood twelve years, came behind Mm and touched the hem of Ms garment, with the firm convic tion that this touch would suffice to make her whole ; that Jesus turned round and, when he saw the woman, said to her, " Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole !" and from that very hour the woman was healed. There is nothing here, apart from the accounts of the particular form and duration of the malady, wMch might not have occurred as is stated. A sick woman may have touched Jesus in a spirit of faith, may have traced an amend ment in herself in consequence of this touch, and may have been dismissed by Jesus with a comforting word : it is true that the Evangebst conceives the cause of this amendment in her condition to have been a supernatural healing power inherent in Jesus, but what he says and represents Jesus as saying is quite reconcilable with the bebef that it was the faith ofthe sick person that " made her whole." The meaning of the narrative of the first Evangelist depends principauy upon the question as to what it was that made Jesus turn round. This is not expressly stated by Matthew : fobowing his statement we might suppose that Jesus felt in a perfectly CURES, INVOLUNTARY AND AT A DISTANCE. 195 natural manner that some one caught at his garment, for, according to Matthew, he was only attended by his disciples, who did not press on Mm or touch him, so that as he walked on he might easily feel such a stoppage. Now it was just at this point that the narrative of Matthew ceased to satisfy the belief in miracles. The womau, it was supposed, must not merely have felt herself cured, but Jesus also must have felt that healing virtue had gone out of him on being touched by the woman, and have turned round toAvards her for tMs, and no other reason. The pressure of the people, wMch Luke and Mark add to the attendance of the disciples spoken of m Matthew, only avails to make tMs turning round of Jesus inexpbcable on natural grounds. It was impossible for Jesus, in the crush and pressure of the multitude to distinguish, in a natural manner, one particular touch of Ms garment; If he did distinguish it, there must have been something supernatural, there must have been an issue from him of his miraculous power, by wMch he so dis tinguished it. This is intended to be shown by the question of Jesus, the answer of the disciples, and, lastly, by the woman's coming forward, in consequence of Jesus' continued inquiries. And as it appeared at the same time, that the heabng virtue of Jesus had operated on Ms bemg touched by the woman m a spirit of faith, without his being aware of the person who was to benefit by it, he appeared no longer merely as one who could produce a cure by Ms word and Ms will, but as one in whom the healing power was always present> in whom, to apply a well-known expression in a"*somewhafc different sense, ab the fulness of the divine power pf salvation and heabng dwelt bodily (Col. ii. 9). From tMs point, it is no great step to those narratives in the Acts ofthe Apostles of sick persons bemg healed by the application of handkerchiefs or aprons of Paul (xix. 11), nay even by the mere shadow of Peter fading upon them (v. 15). Limitino- the cases, to certain maladies, and for the most part ' o 2 196 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. to transient relief only ofthe sick persons, Ave would as bttle deny the possibility of this as that on the grave ofthe Abbe Paris, or by the appbcation of relics to faithful Cathohcs, results have been sometimes attained which might e claimed as cures. But these effects might be produced whether the bones in wMch faith was put had really belonged to a saint or a sinner, and likewise in the case of Jesus, whether he were a rebgious character quabfied to give us a standard, or only a prophet in the sense of ordinary Judaism, provided only he knew how to make his contemporaries put faith in him. The case is the same if, as modern theologians are fond of domg, the healing power of Jesus i3 supposed to have been ofthe nature of animal-magnetism ; except that an instan taneous and proportionally heabng effect of magnetic power upon sick persons of the most various descriptions and with out continued magnetic relations is unexampled in the Mstory of ammal magnetism. In involuntary cures of this kind, the heabng power of Jesus appears as completely material as an electric flmd, which, on the body filled with it being touched, issues forth upon that wMch touches it. Conversely, in the cures at a distance, instances of Avhich are also given by our Evangebsts, there is qmte a spiritual character, as the mere wib of Jesus is sup posed to have shown itself in operation upon a sick person corporeafly absent. So, as in those other cases, modern theologians are glad to fall back on the analogy of animal magnetism, in these they appeal to that property of spirit in accordance with wMch we describe it as not bemg confined to space. " A cure at a distance,' ' says Hase,* " reaby involves, as a spiritual operation, notMng inconceivable." Certainly, as space is only for corporeal things, and if there were pure spirits, it is conceivable that they should operate upon one another without bemg bound by the conditions of space. But what is the use of such fancies as these, when, as in the • Life of Jesus, § 55 ; comp. 81. CURES, INVOLUNTARY AND AT A DISTANCE. 197 case before us, we are concerned not with pure but Avith embodied spirits ? Embodied spirits, such as we have here, not only in Jesus but in the sick persons, can only operate outside of themselves by means of their bodies, consequently under the conditions of space. Consequently, the appeal to the nature of spirit, in order to explam a cure at a distance, is only a mere form of speech, without any real corresponding meamng. Of cures of this kind, Matthew and Mark have one in common, Matthew and Luke the other, and John also in a somewhat different form. The first is the heabng of the daughter ofthe Canaanitish woman (Matt. xv. 21 — 28), the latter that of the servant or son of the Captam, or king's officer in Capernaum (Matt. vin. 5 — 13; Luke vii. 1 — 10; John iv. 46 — 54) . In the first account the sick person in both Evangebsts is a woman possessed ; in the other we have in Matthew a man with the palsy, grievously tormented, in Luke and John a person stated generaby to be sick unto death. In the first case ab the stress is laid upon the original refusal of Jesus to use his miraculous power for the benefit of the heathen woman, and his subsequent consent in consequence of the persevering faith of the woman ; in the second, everytMng, at least in Matthew, turns upon the fact that wMle Jesus is ready to go into the Captain's house, the latter declares Ms confidence that Jesus can perform the cure at a distance. We have aheady had occasion to consider the first narrative apart from the miracle,* as to the miracle, wMch is ab that remains to discuss, it comcides with the rest of the Mstory. In tMs we again see clearly, first and foremost, how, in the repetition and then in the subjective retoucMng, it passes through a course of continuous exaggeration. In Matthew the Captain beseeches Jesus to aid Ms sick boy ; Jesus offers to go and heal Mm ; the Captain considers tMs too great a * Vol. I. p. 299. 198 . BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. condescension, and also not necessary; Jesus need only speak a Avord and it Avid take effect, as certainly as when he, the Captain, orders one of his subalterns to perform sometMng at a distance; Jesus holds up this faith on the part ofthe heathen man to Ms compatriots as an example wMch may put them to shame. To the Captain he grants the cure in which he has expressed Ms faith, and the cure takes place at the self-same hour. Luke describes the " boy " in MattheAV who might also be possibly a son, a3 a servant, but in order to suggest a more satisfactory motive for the Captain's zealous eagerness for Ms cure, he also describes him as a particularly valuable servant to Ms master. Ab these are un important features. But we may recognise in the other discrepancy a more definite object, that discrepancy consist ing m the fact that the Captain, who in Matthew comes to Jesus in person, sends, in Luke, the elders of the Jews to pray Jesus to come mto Ms house. The object of this change appears in what these elders do, besides conveying the re quest they recommend the heathen Captain as a friend of the Jews who had budt a synogogue for them. H we under stand tMs to mean that Jesus was to be justified as it were for putting Ms mfraculous power at the service of a heathen, such a turn might certainly be expected rather in a Gospel of Judaising than of Pauline tendency. Pf, on the other hand, it is understood to imply a general recommendation of the Heathen to the JeAVS in words to this effect, See, ye Jews and Jewish Christians, there are among the Heathen persons of so graceful a character, and so right-minded as tMs, and you are very wrong in utterly condemnmg them, — we see how such a turn suited completely the scheme of a Gospel, the object of which was to reconcile Jewish and Pauline Christianity. Exactly in the same way we. see m the second part of the work, the Acts ofthe Apostles (x. 1, ff., 22), also a Roman Captam, Cornebus, as a candidate for Christian baptism, recommended by the excebent testimonials CURES, INVOLUNTARY AND AT A DISTANCE. 199 given by ab the JeAvs to his fear of God and his benevolence and charity. In Matthew the Captain had at first only begged, generally, for help for his sick boy, and on Jesus offering to go Avith him into Ms house, modestly, and in a spirit of faith, declines tMs and only prayed for a Messianic command. In Luke he sends first the elders of the Jews praymg Jesus to come to save Ms servant, then, on Jesus going Avith them and ap proaching Ms house, he sends some friends to meet him, decbning his visit and begging for a simple Avord. The narrative of Matthew is perfectly self-consistent ; but in the account of Luke there is an internal inconsistency. If in the first mstance the Captain has asked Jesus, through the elders, to vouchsafe him a personal visit, what could afterwards have made Mm change his mind so as to countermand tMs visit by a second message ? The author Mmself seems to have felt that there was a contradiction here, so he endeavours to re- concde the two messages by the remark put into the mouth of the bearers of the second (ver. 7), that the sending of the first was intended to imply that the Captain thought himself unworthy to commumcate directly with Jesus, and con sequently to be visited personaby by Mm. Nevertheless he had, in the first message, begged for this visit in plain Avords, and therefore it stib remains a question how he came, sub sequently, to countermand it. In the Mstory of the daughter of Jairus we find, in Luke and Mark as distinguished from Matthew, a simflar depreeating message. In the first Gospel (ix. 18, ff.) the daughter is reported to Jesus by the father as having just died, upon wMch the process of Jesus visiting the house, for the purpose of raising the dead, goes on Avith- out interruption. In Luke (vhi. 41, ff.) and Mark (v. 22, ff.) the maiden is lying in her last agonies, and the father prays Jesus to come and save her life ; but as Jesus is going her death takes place, and the father is met by a message from the house recommendmg him not to trouble the Master, as 200 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. the maiden is dead and now nothing can do any good. In this case Ave may suppose that the father, though he had be fore begged for the visit of Jesus, did not >vish to trouble the latter any more : for, as the state of things in Ms house had changed in the meantime, he might now have ceased to wish for Avhat he had before gained by his entreaties. On the other band, in the history of the Capernaum Captain, where the circumstances had continued the same, there was no motive for such a change of mind, and the supposition that it has been improperly transferred out of the other history into this seems the more probable, as the visit of Jesus in per son is, on each occasion, declined in the same words.* The two synoptic accounts have this feature in common that the petitioner, by Ms faith, outbids the offer of Jesus, i. e. Jesus is ready to do more, but the petitioner prefers less, m the conviction that from Jesus even the less is more thau enough. Such a relation between the Logos Christ and a human bemg is contrary to the ground-plan ofthe fourth Gospel. According to tMs the human being isnever to perform more than the God in Man had expected, but, conversely, the latter must always be doing far more than the former could have believed or even conceived: surprise, outbidding, is here as exclusively on the side of Christ, as on the side of man there is nothing but backwardness in faith and under standing. It Avas only when remodelled in this spirit that the'narrative availed at ab ; but, so remodebed, it was of much avad for the purposes of the fourth Gospel. - The author . seems to have compounded the features of Ms own story from those of the two forms which he had before him m the older Gospels. He take3 the boy spoken of in Matthew to have been, not as Luke cabs him, a servant, but a son of the peti tioner ; on the other hand, he knows notMng of the palsy wMch, according to Matthew, tortured the patient, but, with * Luke viii. 49 (Daughter of Jairus) ; fir) exiiWi t'ov StdaoicaXov. Xiiike vii. 6 (Captain of Capernaum), Kypti, ftri okvXXov. CURES, INVOLUNTARY AND AT A DISTANCE. 201 Luke, represents him as being on the point of death Avithout stating the form of the malady. As in Matthew, the peti tioner applies personally to Jesus, not with an undefined prayer for aid, but, as m Luke, with a petition stdl more definitely stated, that Jesus would accompany him for the purpose of heabng the sick person. Now here comes in the peculiarly Johannine turn of the narrative. In two of the synoptics Jesus readily accompanies him, but is stopped either by the faith of the Captain or by his messengers. In the fourth Gospel, on the contrary, Jesus expresses his dis pleasure at the Captain's request, m wMch, however, tbe latter perseveres, and while in the other accounts it 13 the Captam who surprises Jesus and ourselves by Ms faith in the mere word of Jesus as sufficient for the cure of the distant patient, m tMs, to our surprise and that of the man, Jesus pronounces spontaneously the tabsmanic word which operates at a distance, and now for the first time, after receiving the rebuke from Jesus, faith in the mere word of Jesus arises all at once in the man's mind. Had the petitioner been from the first placed m the un favourable light of a man possessed only of the coarsest notions of the higher poAver of Jesus, then, m a Gospel wMch looks upon the heathen world as the proper soil of Christianity, he could no longer be a Roman Captam, i. e. a heathen; he was therefore transformed mto an officer ofthe king, i. e. the Galdean tetrarch Herod Antipas, who had also the title of king (Matt. xiv. 9 ; Mark vi. 14), and, by the expression of Jesus directed to him, " Except ye see signs and wonders ye wfll not believe," set np as a representative of carnal miracle-seeking Judaism. As one, however, who is led by Jesus to bebeve in his mere word, he appears con trasted with the stiff-necked Jews m the character of those Galileans' who m our Gospel form the transition to the more susceptible Samaritans or Heathen. Capernaum, as stated in -the synoptic accounts, is his appropriate dwebing-place; 202 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. but the fourth Evangebst does not choose that his Jesus should sojourn in tMs city, which in the Jewish Chris tian tradition appeared as the proper seat of his ministry (comp. ii. 12) ; the place of his Galdean performance of miracles is here, on the contrary, Cana (iv. 46) : and by this arrangement in the present case, as the sick person lay at Capernaum, an increase of the distance, and consequently an exaggeration of the miracle was gained. We see from another feature that, among other tMngs, the author of the fourth Gospel had in view in a general Avay to give more emphatic importance to the supernatural element m the occurrence and to accredit that element to the utmost of Ms power. In Matthew, it is said that after Jesus had pronounced the words that guaranteed the cure, at the self-same hour the boy was healed : id Luke, that when the messengers came back into the house they found the sick servant recovered. Here certainly, from the nature of the case, no circumstantial mvestigation into the moment at which the cure took place was required, as in Luke the mes sengers found Jesus already in the neighbourhood of the house, and in Matthew the Captain himself came upon Mm in a street of the same bttle town in wMch his house was : it was, therefore, a matter of course that when he or Ms messengers on returmng home found the sick person recovered that the recovery must have followed the words of Jesus. In John, on the contrary, on account of the distance between Cana and Capernaum, it is not until the following day that the father comes home, and there was therefore room for the investigation as to whether it was not until that day or on the day before, and at what hour on the day before that the amendment in the health of the sick person took place. This inquiry is now actuaby made by the father of the boy, and it is found that the hour of the amendment comcided accu rately with that in wMch Jesus spoke the word of bfe for the benefit of the son. Now the laboriousness of this investiga- CURES, INVOLUNTARY AND AT A DISTANCE. 203 tion and settlement of the time, if we compare it with the simple account of Matthew, gives to the statement of the fourth Gospel a very second-hand character, and proves it in tMs case also to be the latest subjective retouchmg of the matter of the synoptics. In the case of this history it is particularly clear that be tween the view ofthe strongest bebever in miracles and that of Rebnar, so long as the Evangebcal accounts are considered Mstorical, there is no intermediate point. For every natural or even hab-natural explanation of the result is excluded, because as the patient is at a distance from the performer of the miracle, it is impossible that faith shoidd have been excited in the former by the personal impress of the latter. Ii, ac- cordmg to Matthew, Jesus said to the Captain, " Go thy way, and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee;'" or, according to John, to the officer of the king, " Go thy way, thy son bveth !" he must either have felt conscious that he could effect such a cure, i. e. he must have been a performer of miracles in the sense of the most decided supranaturahsm ; or, if he attributed to Mmself such miraculous power as this without any ground, he was a Avild enthusiast ; wMle, if he ascribed it to himself with the consciousness that he did not reaby possess it, he was an audacious cheat and impostor. To understand the words, " Thy son bves," as Ewald does, and explam them away to mean that Jesns only intended to say to the father that Ms son would not die, and then to speak of a miraculous (i. e. m plain words, accidental) coincidence between the time at which the words were uttered and the hour of the amendment, is an evasion and of no use. For no one but either a charlatan who was as inconsiderate as he was shameless, or a man who was conscious that he could put an end to an ibness, would declare that a sick person at a distance represented to Mm as dying would not die. In this case, if m any, criticism alone points out a mode of escape from a superstitious bebef in miracles to wMch we cannot bring ourselves, and a naturalistic pragmatism altogether 204 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. unsatisfactory. We have not here a history but a Messianic myth, which has grown out of the myth of the prophet in the Old Testament. The attribute ordinarily ascribed to a Prophet was the poAver of healing on the spot by boddy con tact; it was tMs that the leprous Naaman (2 Kings v. 11) says he expected of Elisha, and when, instead of tMs, the Prophet without . quitting his house tebs Mm he is to wash seven times in the Jordan, he considers Mmself mocked, because he expects no result from doing so. Still he allows himself to be persuaded to follow the advice and is healed ; i. e. the Prophet has performed a miracle at a distance, as the bathing in the Jordan, as in the case of the Johannine cure of the bbnd man the washing in the pool of Siloa, is only the form with which it was Ms pleasure to connect the operation of his word. The Messiah could not be supposed to have fallen short of such miraculous power; and, above ab, the Being in whom the Creative Word of God had become flesh, what would such a Being require but a mere word-to operate in the furthest distance so as to heal and restore to bfe ? . 76. Cases of raising of the Dead. Turning now from those cures effected by Jesus, Avhich Ave do not find mentioned in the list of miracles, Matt. xi. 5, to the order of the miracles there enumerated, Ave find, in the next and last place, raismg of the dead to bfe. Neither the cures of leprosy nor these cases are taken from the prophetic passage (Isaiah xxxv. 5, ff.), as are the other Messiamc signs to wMch Jesus appeals in Matthew, but stib the raising of the dead was suggested by the prophetic prototype. Elijah (1 Kings xvii. 17, ff.) and Ebsha had raised the dead, and among the divine acts which, in accordance with tMs proto type, the Jews expected at the time ofthe Messiah raising of the dead is particularly mentioned.* Added to tMs there was an element involved in Christia- * See-above, Vol. I. p. 204, ff., the passages quoted from Tanchuma.. . cases of raising of the dead. 205 nity itself. It was Jesus who had brought life and immorta- bty to light (2 Tim. i. 10) ; the Christians were not like other men who have no hope beyond the grave (1 Thess. iv. 13) ; Clrristianity was the rebgion of the resurrection and of ^immortabty. A future resurrection of the dead to a new and immortal bfe was, indeed, according to Daniel, xh. 2, also the doctrine of later and especiaby of Pharisaic Judaism (2 Mace, vii.) ; but as it was not found in the books of Moses and of the older Prophets, but reqmred to be foisted upon them by means of artificial interpretation, it was not recognised by the Sadducees, and continued as an apple of discord between the schools, and little else but a scholastic opinion. The raising of the dead was expected to be brought about, sometimes by God Mmself, sometimes it was repre sented as to be undertaken by the Messiah, according as the conception of the latter took a form more or less super natural : and indeed tMs conception was itself uncertain and indefinite until the appearance of Jesus, from whom it re ceived its due precision and hving spirit. From the time of Ms ministry it was known, i. e. his adherents knew, what conception was to be formed of the Messiah ; from the time of his departure they knew — they knew it because they wished it, and knew it for certain because they wished it ardently — that he would return immediately, in order to fulfil ab those Messianic functions wMch on Ms first presence upon earth had been left in arrear, among them the raising of the dead. In view of this immediate raising of the dead by Christ death appeared to Christians nothing but a sleep, and the expression of Jesus over the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 24), "She is not dead, but sleepeth/' apart from the miracle with wMch it is here brought into connection, con tains the early Christian view of death generaby. The faith in the resurrection of Christ, i. e. m the fact that he had been ' raised to bfe by God (1 Cor. xv. 12, ff.), involved, indeed, the principal. guarantee for the future resurrection ; but together 206 BOOK II. .MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. with this passive resurrection men deshed to see also active proofs of the exercise of this power on the part of Mm who was to raise the dead ; he must not merely have been raised from the dead himself, but have also, Mmself, raised the dead. If the answer to the message of the Baptist, which in the present section we are makmg the basis of our discussion, was reaby spoken by Jesus, he attributes to himself, together with the restoration of the blind to sight, &c> also the raising of the dead : not indeed in any other sense than that in AvMch (Matt. viii. 22) he repbed to the man who wished first to bury Ms father, commanding him to leave to the (spiritually) dead the task of burying the (corporeaby) dead, the sym bolical sense, that is, . that he is able to quicken anew the dead mind of man with a feeling for sometMug more exalted, and fill it with a new moral aim. In this sense the fourth Evangelist, in particular, framed the Christian expression, making his Jesus say (xi. 25), " I am the resurrection and the bfe; he that bebeveth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he hve;" or (v. 21), "As. the Father raiseth up the dead and qmckeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth Avhom he will." In these expressions we must, indeed, understand to be impbed the future resuscitation of those who are corporeaby dead, and at the same time that spiritual quickenmg wMch proceeds from Jesus. But whatever was the theory of the early Christian circle, this present spiritual awakening could not suffice as a gua rantee for the future corporeal resurrection of the dead. Jesus, during Ms life on earth, must also have raised the corporeally dead, at least in some cases. Then, and not before, could it be known for certain that there dwelt in him a power to recal ab the dead to life on Ms more glorious second coming. And now the legend of the Prophets came in opportunely. As Ebjah and Ebsha had each raised a dead body to bfe, so Jesus the Messiah must at least have done as much. Matthew and Mark are satisfied with one Mstory of this description, CASES OF RAISING OP THE DEAD. 207 the raismg of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 18, ff. ; Mark v. 22, ff) ; Luke gives two of them, namely, together with the one just mentioned (in him vin. 41, ff.), that ofthe youth at Nain (vu. 11, ff.) ; John only one mdeed, the raismg of Lazarus (chap, xi.), but one of such a character that it stands for all, and that, in comparison with it, every other is simply superfluous. The theme of the first account of a raising of the dead, common to the tMee synoptic Evangebsts is, as has been al ready remarked, the text, " She is not dead, but sleepeth ;" i. e. the fundamental Christian view of death as merely a sleep. We find tMs theme here embodied in the form of a miraculous Mstory, and mdeed in its simplest form in Matthew. The father of the maiden, described indefimtely as a Ruler, announces to Jesus the death of Ms daughter as having just occurred, petitioning Mm to come and lay his hand upon her, so will she become alive again. Jesus, at tended by his disciples, goes with Mm. The interlude of the woman with an issue of blood having taken place, they come into the house of mournmg, and here they find, in accordance with the bad habit of the Jews at that time, the burial of the dead body of the girl about to take place m a few hours, the musicians already on the spot, and a noisy crowd of mourners of other kinds whom Jesus orders out, abeging as a reason what we have just described as the theme of the narrative ; whereupon, however, he is ridiculed by the people. The new CMistian view of death is here immediately contrasted with that of the old Jews as a heathen view. Even the Jew of the old style, with his faith in a resurrection, not grounded on the principles of Moses, bnt wavering in the midst of the conflicts of the schools — a resurrection, moreover, wMch lay in the distant background of a long life amid disembodied shades, belonged no less than the heathen to those who have no hope; the noisy death-wad might therefore suit their notion, but, on the Christian point of view, it had to be 203 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. put aside as something altogether inappropriate ; Avhile, con versely, Christian confidence in death appeared to Jews, as web as to Heathens, a ridiculous delusion. It is Christ Avho has put an end to the inconsolable sorrow for the dead felt by the ancient Avorld, in reabty by the fact that the hope of a resurrection, not 'long to be delayed, and of a happy bfe Avith Mm, was connected with faith in him for ab who believed; here, on the other hand, where this relation is put in the form of a miraculous Mstory, the object of the history is attained by Ms recalling, on the spot, to earthly bfe the maiden for whom the death-wad was intended. After having put out the profane multitude, he accomplishes tMs simply by taking the hand of the maiden, who immediately rises ; in complete contrast with the instances of raising the dead by the Prophets, which were not effected Avithout long exerted efforts by the performers of the miracles. Now, it is certainly a proof of great simpbcity and naivete, that, according to MattheAV, the father at once assumes that Jesus need only come and lay his hand upon the body of the child, and she wib immediately come to life again. By Ms looking upon it thus as a matter of course, so extraordinary a miracle as a raising of the dead is, appeared to be de graded to the level of an ordmary tMng, or at ab events to something short of a miracle. It appeared greater if it was not expected, but nevertheless took place: If indeed the father accosted Jesus, as he is said in Matthew to have donej with a petition to come to his daughter who was dead, he must have considered her recal to life as possible. On this aocount Luke and Mark represent him as gomg to Jesus before the girl is dead. The laymg on of hands, for which he petitions, is supposed to heal only those'who are dangerously sick ; it is not assumed that it is also sufficient to resuscitate a person already dead. But it was necessary that Jesus should have raised a person in that state. So in Mark and Luke the girl dies in the interval between the father's con- CASES OF RAISING OF THE DEAD. 209 versation Avith Jesus, and his arrival at the house of mourn ing, and now the supposition that the assistance of the performer of miracles comes too late, is enunciated by people who come out of the house, and recommend the father, now that it is all over with the child, not to trouble the Master any longer. Whether, on receiving this in telligence, the father himself also abandoned all hope Ave are not told, as Jesus anticipates anything he might say by the encouragmg exhortation not to fear, but only to believe, and his child shall be saved. By this the way is prepared for the subsequent declaration that the maiden is not dead but only sleeping, but this declaration does not produce so strikmg an effect as in MattheAV, where it comes in without any such introduction. Moreover, we see clearly on com paring the form in wMch the history is given in Luke and Mark with that m Matthew, that the raising of the dead is here brought m supplementarily, and placed as it were upon a pedestal. The mode in which the two middle Evangebsts introduce it, is only the objective statement of the reflection that cures of the sick by word and laying on of hands are indeed marvebous enough, but stib something conceivable by the human mind, wMle the raising of the dead transcends ab human thought and intelligence. Luke and Mark limit more accurately the father's office of " Ruler," by stating that he was Ruier of a synagogue, and they also give Ms name. But tMs fact is no advantage to their account over that of Matthew, as the first feature might be an addition from the narrator's oaati invention, while the name of Jair might be chosen simply on account of its meamng in the language.* Another feature pecubar to Luke, that, namely, of the ghl * The Hebrew word Jair (which is moreover the name, among others, of a son of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, 4 Mos. sxsdi. 41 ; Josh. xiii. 30) means, he mill enlighten. In Ps. xiii. 4, it is said, the same word being used, Lord, lighten thon mine eyes, that I sleep not in death. The father might have got this name because this quickening enlightenment showed itself in his daughter. VOL. II. P 210 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. having been her father's only child, only serves the purpose of makmg the scene more pathetic, and appears to be taken from the Mstory of the son of the widow of Nain, where Luke likeAvise has it, as the account in him and Mark, that the girl was twelve years old, is probably introduced in con sequence of the MterAveaving Avith the history we are con sidering, the narrative of the woman with the issue of blood, the period of whose ihnes3 is fixed by ab the narrators at tAvelve years. Matthew is the only one Avho states that Jesus ordered out the people, who could do no good, before setting about the performance of the miracle ; he says nothing of Ms having also excluded some of the disciples. On the other hand, according to Luke and Mark, Jesus takes with him, besides the parents of the girl, only a very smab and select number of his disciples, Peter, James, and John, and in their account, in addition to the stretching out of the hand, by means of which Matthew represents the raising of the girl a3 havmg been effected, there comes the word of command, " Damsel, arise," which Mark repeats in the original Aramaic, which Jesus used. In tMs case also, as in that of the cure of the deaf and dumb man, which is peculiar to Mark, the object of this last mentioned feature can only be to invest the miraculous act with greater mystery ; and this is also the object ofthe exclusion ofthe disciples, with the exception of that triumvirate, and of the command, at the conclusion, not to publish the occurrence, whde Matthew represents it as having been, without hesitation, proclaimed abroad over the whole country ; the command of Jesus in Mark and Luke to give the damsel sometMng to eat, is a feature which adds vividness to,the scene, and one which the natural explanation in vain endeavours to turn to its advantage. As a parallel to the history of the raising of a damsel, there arose another, the object of which is a boy or youth. The formation of such a parallel was suggested by the Old Testament prototypes, as Elijah and Elisha were said, each CASES OF RAISING OP THE DEAD. 211 of them, to have raised the young and only son of a mother, Avho, moreover, in the history of Elijah is a -widow. We find all these elements, calculated as they are to excite sympathy, repeated in the Mstory of the youth of Nain as given in Luke, and which, moreover, in this respect stands in the relation of an exaggerated account, as compared with that of the daughter of Jairus. The mother, thevvidow, accompany ing to the grave her only son, has a stronger claim on our sympathy, than the father whose daughter (as to whom moreover we only learn from the narrator of our history that she also was an only chdd) has died ; in that account the mourners are especiaby mentioned as hired attendants, Avhose conduct is only disgusting, iu this it is the bereaved mother who, by her tears for her only son, moves the compassion of the performer of miracles. Thus Ave find also in the address of Jesus to the widow, when we compare it with that to Jairus, the same substantive meaning, only changed from the objective into the subjective. If, as Jesus had said to Jairus, it is reaby the case that death is only a sleep, the inference is what Jesus says to the widow of Nain, and Luke had aheady introduced in the Mstory ofthe daughter of Jairus, that the dead are not to be wept for. On the pomt of view of the early Christians, this fobows even if they continue dead, as their resurrection is at hand with the second coming of Christ ; in the miraculous Mstory indeed, the consolation appears to be founded upon the fact that the dead person is to be immediately recalled to life on earth. But that such a bringing out of the sympathetic side, is qmte in the character of the third Gospel, any one may see who remembers the principal parables pecubar to him, as distinguished from those of Matthew. But even as regards what actually took place, this cure of raising the dead is an exaggeration, as compared, with that considered above. The daughter of Jairus had just, died, and was lying, as we must suppose not yet cold, upon her bed. p2 212 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. If her recal to bfe was used as a proof of the miraculous poAver of Jesus, how obvious it was for the unbelievers to suspect that the damsel Avas not really dead, but had only fainted, and would have come to herself agam, even without the intervention of Jesus. The case was different Avith a dead person who was aheady bemg carried to the grave ; he was beyond comparison more certainly, was, so to say, notoriously dead. It was, indeed, the custom among the Jews at that time, as has been aheady mentioned, to bury the dead very soon after death ; usually within four hours ; but stib some test of death was instituted wMch had power of proof, at least for contemporaries. Consequently Phdo stratus, also, in Ms biography of Apobomus the Neo-Pytha- gorean performer of mbacles, has copied, in particular, tMs Mstory.* He represents Ms hero as meeting the bier of a bride, whom he recals to life by a touch and a few words. In the case of Jesus it requires only the command to the youth to rise up ; the touch had been only for the coffin, to make the bearers stop. Then, when the dead upon the bier had raised Mmself into a sitting posture, it is said that Jesus gave him to Ms mother. And this is described m exactly the same words, as the act of Ebjah with reference to the son of the widow of Sarepta raised by him (1 Kings xvii. 23). It may, however, be conceded to the natural explanation that in this case, in wMch the pei'son to be raised is aheady bemg borne to the grave, there is not, considering the Jewish custom of early burial, any absolute security that the person bebeved to be dead was not only apparently so. So much the more certam is it that Jesus, when he forbids the mother to weep, orders the bearers to stop and the young man to rise, does not at any moment conduct Mmself as if he recog nised in the condition of the body an apparent death, but as if he had the power and the wib to restore to life one reaby * Comp. Banr, Apollonius of Tyana and Christ, p. 145. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 213 dead. Qmte as bttle can the astonishment of the people, amounting almost to terror, their praise to God, that he had visited his people by sending a great Prophet among them, be looked upon as the mere discovery of an apparent death. Consequently the Mstory, as narrated by the Evangebst, is intended as a real raising of the dead. If we cannot con ceive the occurrence of such an event,then we have remain ing, not a natural history, but no Mstory at all, and we shab have to look for the elements out of wMch the narrative has arisen, in the same department in which the impossibdity lies of looking upon it as a Mstory ; in the conceptions of God and Ms revelation in nature and the world of mankind, wMch among the Jews and the most ancient Christians, were different and produced different effects from what they pro duce among ourselves. 77. The Raising of Lazarus. It was felt, however, that the forms in wMch the miracu- , lous act of raising the dead appears in the Mstory wMch we have just been considering did not put an end to ab doubt, and that the proof wMch it was mtended to establish Avas stib imperfect. And tMs Avas the case, not in the first instance with the rationalists of modern times, or the ancient opponents of Christiamty, but from the very begmning, with in the Christian chcle itself. What men wished to be most certain of by these histories of the raising of the dead, was the future resurrection of the dead by the power of Christ on his coming again. Now this second coming was, m the first years of Christiamty, considered so near that the Apostle Paul, for example, stib hoped to bve to see it (1 Cor. xv. 51, ff. ;. I Thess. iv. 15, ff). But stib, taking only Christians into consideration, a considerable number of these, and the longer 214 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. time went on the more the numbers increased, had long since died, been buried and had seen corruption, and though he in Ms life-time had recabed to bfe cei*tain persons, Avho Avere scarcely dead, and not yet buried, it was by no means sufficiently established, from tMs fact, that the re-aAvakening poAver of CMist on his return would extend to the former. It was necessary that the miracle of the past, which should guarantee the future, should stand to that future in a more direct relation, as a proof that some time or other ab who should be lying in the graA'e, should hear the voice of the Son of God and come out of it (John v. 28, ff); it was neces sary that during Ms earthly pilgrimage he should have called forth out of the grave, with a mighty voice, one who had aheady been lying in it for some time, and been given up to corruption (John xi. 17, 39, 43). TMs is the origin of the Johannine Mstory of the raising of the dead, in which, moreover, all the tMeads coincide that constitute the pecu liarity ofthe Gospel. Among all the tMee raisings of the dead mentioned in the Gospels, that of the daughter of Jairus, which i3 common to them ab, has been described as the posi tive, that of the youth of Nain as the comparative, to wMch the narrative of the raismg of Lazarus, pecubar to John, forms the superlative; but this is exactly the relation in wMch the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John also stand, m general, to each other. In Matthew the miraculous ele ment appears throughout in simple solidity, as if it coidd not be otherwise ; in Luke the principle from which it proceeds, and the effect upon the mind are, each in a degree, brought more fully to light; in John, lastly, everything, principle and mhaculons act, mental impression and spiritual meaning of the miracle, are ab raised to their highest expression, and these different sides at the same time brought into a umty which does not fad to produce its effect, even after the con tradictions involved m it have been long discoverable by the unprejudiced eye. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 215 In order that our sympathies might be engaged from first to last, it was necessary that the subject of the miracle should be, not an unknown person, but a friend of Jesu3, and the female heart that sorrowed for his death, not that of an or dinary mother, but the tender sister-hearts of Martha and Mary, that Mary who hung upon Jesus with such enthusiastic worship peculiar to herself. Nor has the narrator in the fourth Gospel left out of sight that more subtle characteristic by Avhich, in the Mstory of the raismg of the daughter of Jairus, Luke was distinguished from Matthew. In order to get a step from the lower to the higher, he also represents the person subsequently raised, as havmg been announced at first to be not dead but only sick. In the first case the father goes himself, in this the sister sends to Jesus a message, with the intebigence of their brother's ibness : it is not said, but appears nevertheless from what fobows (ver. 21, 32), that their mtention was that he should come and heal him. Jesus was as that time, not as m the case of the former miracle, m the same city with the sick man, but in the pro vince of Peraea, on the other side of Jordan, wMle Lazarus lay at Bethany, near Jerusalem. Nevertheless, instead of going, without delay, to the house of the sick man, he re mains here two days, without making preparations for Ms journey. How was tMs when, on the one hand, the distance, not in considerable, on the other, the close relations between the parties must have urged him to redoubled haste? In the other case, there is a plain statement, implying that Jesus hastened to a sick person, but that she died, contrary to his expectation, before he reached the house.. But tMs defect of knoAvledge in no way derogated from the dignity of the Messiah, having as he had the power to awaken from death at once the damsel who had died unexpectedly as far as he Avas concerned. But with the divine Logos incarnate it was a different thing. In Mm there could be no defect of know- 216 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. ledge of any kind. The Johannine Christ kneAv Avhat he was doing, Avhen he staid two days longer in Perasa, after receiv- ino- the message about the illness; he kneAV that Lazarus CD O " Avould die in the interval, and it was his will that he should do so. When, on the arrival of the message, he said that the sickness was not unto death, but for the glorifying of God and of Ms Son, it is the greatest misapprehension to understand this to mean that at that time Jesus Mmself did not expect a fatal issue of the fllness of Lazarus ; the mean ing is only that the intervening death will not be the last result, but that by means of the resurrection of the dead all will end in the glorification of God and Ms Logos Christ. For when the two days are over, and he is starting on Ms journey to Judaea, he says, without having received meanwhde any further intelligence, consequently, from his Mgher knowledge AvMch penetrates into the distance, that Lazarus has gone to sleep, but that he goes to awaken Mm. This speech gives occasion to the Evangelist to bring in one of his regular misunderstandings. The disciples understand the sleep literally, Jesus having meant it figuratively of death, wMch was soon, bke a bght sleep, to yield to his word of command. Here, also, is the contrast between the Christian view of death and the ordinary one wMch ab persons except himself entertained. And now, also, Jesus discloses the object of Ms delay ; he rejoices, he declares to the disciples, that for their sake he had not been present to prevent the death of their friend, because what he is now intending to accompbsh, namely, Ms restoration to life, wib serve to strengthen their faith far more than a mere heabng of the sick. It requires scarcely a word to point out that such a mode of proceeding on the part of any one— that is, of preferring to allow a friend to die, when he might have saved Mm, in order afterwards to have the power of reviving Mm, is as appropriate to a Being of the imagination like the Johannine Christ, as in the case of a real man, even the most divinely endowed and THE RAISING OP LAZARUS. 217 most closely united with God, it would be inhuman and revolting. But Jesus had bngered not merely on this account, and not merely so long as Avas necessary for the death of Lazarus to have occurred before he arrived at Bethany, but it was requisite that time enough should have passed for Lazarus to have lain four days in the grave (ver. 1 7), so that Martha might say, that by tMs time he stinketh (ver. 39), and that corruption had aheady begun. It is not mdeed said that when the cave Avas opened the latter was the case, or the contrary : it was bebeved among the later Jews that for a space of three days* the soul hovered round the dead body, and departed on the fourth, leaving it to corruption. TMs feature was obviously intended to make the condition of the person who was to be raised as near as possible to that of those whose future resuscitation by Jesus was expected on the last day. In the history of the daughter of Jairus, when Jesus had arrived in the neighbourhood of the house, one or more per sons go out and inform the father of the death of the damsel, wMch had occurred in the mterval, and do not wish to have the Master troubled further. In bke manner, in this case, on hearing that Jesus is coming, Martha goes out of the village to meet Mm. She speaks ofthe death of her brother as if she knew that Jesus was already acquainted with it, and that it would not have happened if Jesus had been present. The fact, however, of its having occurred had not, as was the case with the people of Jairus, deprived her of ab hope ; even before the disciples m our narrative, who had been averse to the journey of Jesus to Judsea, she has a sort of foreboding that ab is not over with her brother's death, that even now Jesus need only pray to the Father in order to' obtam what he wishes. But however impressible the sister of Mary, the member of that devoted circle of Bethany may * Gfrorer, The Sanctuary and the Truth, p. 319, ff. 218 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. be represented as being, stiU it was considered right to represent Jesus as surpassing her understanding and expec tation. So she immediately exposes the indefiniteness of her presentiment and the weakness of her intelligence by taking the assurance of Jesus that her brother shab rise again, to apply only to the resurrection on the last day, and, so far, not very consolatory. But on Jesus referring that assurance to its general principle, by explaining that he is the resur rection and the bfe, and that he who believes in him shall live even though he die, she confidently declares her faith that he is the Christ, the Son of God that cometh into the world, a faith devoid as yet of any intelligent meaning, but from which, however, the germ of such a faith might be de veloped. Moreover, the proposition, " I am the resurrection and the bfe," &c, forms the theme of the Johannine account of a resurrection, exactly as the text, " The damsel is not dead, but sleep.eth," forms that of the account common to the synoptics, and the addition of " weep not" had formed that of the. Mstory in Luke particularly. The Johannine theme is distinguished from both by the characteristic by wMch the Johannine Gospel generaby is distinguished from those of the synoptics. That characteristic consists in the assumption of the principle that, in the first place, Christ appeared not merely actuaby as One who makes death nothing but a sleep, and dries men's tears for the dead, bnt that, as the Son of God in the higher sense of this Gospel, he exists expressly as an object of faith, and estabbshes tMs faith, moreover, as a condition of our participating in eternal bfe ; and that, in the next place, by the bfe spent by Mm is understood neither the future life in general, nor the bodily resurrection to be now granted exceptionaby to any single individual, but, at the same time, the new spiritual bfe that proceeds from him. Martha having confessed this faith, goes to fetch her sister, who not only comes herself but a host of sympathizing and THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 219 sorrowing JeAVs Avith her. These weeping Jews play in the history of Lazarus the same, part as the musicians and the noisy assemblage of mourners in that of the daughter of Jairus : they bring out into rebef the contrast between the old Jewish and Heathen view of death on the one hand, and the neAV Christian view on the other. But how much Mgher above the former point of view the Johannine Christ stands than the CMist of the synoptics is seen in his conduct. To the synoptic Christ the noisy wail of the people appears unsuitable, and therefore he orders them out: here, in John, no waibng is spoken of, the people only weep, and Mary weeps with them ; but Jesus, instead of forbidding them to weep in a kindly tone as he forbid the widow of Nain, " is troubled" (angry) m spirit at their proceedings. That he had no reason for tMs from a human point of view is clear ; but ab attempts to give to the word by which the Evangebst repeatedly describes* the emotion m the mind of Jesus any other meanmg than that of anger, or any appbca- tion except to the tears of the Jews and of Mary are useless. The Logos-Christ is angry that the people and even Mary can weep at the death of Lazarus, whde he, the principle of life, is at hand. This blindness of men to Avhat they have m him excites displeasure in him, fobowed immediately by pain ; for even the tears into which he now bursts as he goes to the grave, cannot, if the description is to be consistent with itself, be tears of sorrow at the death of Lazarus, whom he is on the point of awakening to bfe, and they are not to be considered so because they are so understood by the Jews who, in the fourth Gospel, always misunderstand Jesus. H we look for a parabel in the Evangebcal Mstory, the only other occasion on wMch the tears of Jesus are spoken of is that (Luke xix. 41), when he weeps on beholding the city of Jerusalem, when he thinks of the awful days which shab * Ver. 33, lve/3p»/i»'ffaro rip irvevnaji. Ver. 38, v&Xiv ii>.fipip.i*fitvor iv iavTip. 220 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. . come upon her because she knew not the time of her visita tion. TMs time of visitation for the Jewish people was in the days of the ministry of Jesus, which was at this very time to reach its cubninating point in the miracle of the raising of Lazarus, without, however, bringing the Jews to faith and knowledge. Therefore it is that Jesus weeps, and therefore also Ms tears give way to displeasure when the JeAvs give utterance to the question as to whether the man who a short time before made the bbnd to see, could not also have Mn- dered the death of Lazarus. For in this question was involved, in part, a reproach against Mm, and in part an absence of ab presentiment that here they have before them, in person, the resurrection and the life.* ¦ The sepulcMe, to the front of which we are immediately taken, is described in almost the same terms as, afterwards, the sepulchre of Jesus. It is cabed a cave, as the sepulcMe of Jesus was, according to the synoptics, hewn in rock, and consequently a sort of artificial cave, and it is closed, bke the sepulcMe of Jesus, by a stone robed to the mouth of it. The grave-clothes also, in which the body was wrapt are spoken of exactly in the same manner as in the case of Jesus (xx. 6, ff.). The raismg of Lazarus by Christ was to be not merely a guarantee for the raising of ab the dead by his means, but a type of his own resurrection that was close at hand. And now, notwithstanding Martha's remonstrance on the ground of the probable stench from decomposition, the stone is re moved from the sepulchre. This bemg done, the Johannine CMist, instead of proceeding as the synoptic Christ does in the two previous accounts of raising the dead, that is, simply uttering Ms word of command, considers it right to preface * Hilgenfeld's explanation is (Gospels, p. 296, note 1), that the displeasure of Jesus applies to the sorrow which here threatens to tear the human personality out of its unity with the divine Logos. I am unable to agree with this, because everywhere else in this Gospel, and especially in the following chapter immedi ately after (xii. 27), the unity of these two personalities appears undisturbed. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 221 his act with a prayer to Ms Father. Not, indeed, a prayer containing a petition, such as Elijah offers on raising the dead, and Avhich could not be necessary for the Son who was One with the Father, but a prayer of thanksgiving for the hearing' which had been aheady vouchsafed. Conse quently he had at first prayed in sdence, but with the certainty of being heard ; as prayer and hearing, or, looked at from the other side, command and execution, between the Father and him are to be considered not as a series of Mdividual acts, but as a state of constant correlation subject to no change. In a strict sense, therefore, the notion of an Mdividual act of thanksgiving to the Father can be as little entertained as a prayer, and if Jesus condescends to anytMng of the kind tMs must be solely from accommodation to the by-standers, m order to draw their attention to God who has given such power to the Son (ver. 42). But if an accommodation is to have the deshed effect, the person so accommodating Mmself must not say that it is only accommodation; and on the other hand, a prayer, wMch is only uttered m a spirit of accommodation, is an absurd mockery. It has been thought an acute remark, in opposition to the view of criticism, that the Johanmne CMist is only a persomfied dogmatic idea, that an idea does not go to a marriage, does not feel sympathy, &c* Conversely we may say, no real human Being acts as the Johanmne Christ is said to have acted at the tomb of Lazarus, even though he were a human bemg with a divine nature, hut only an embodied idea, and moreover an idea compounded of two contradictory elements. The Johan mne Christ, bemg on the one hand the everlasting creative Word, one with God, has no need to pray the Father for any tMng particular, or to thank him for anytMng particular, as Ms whole conduct is only a constant effusion of that wMch is bemg infused into him from the Father. On the other hand, • Luthardt, The peculiar character of the Gospel of. John, i. 96. 292 E00K II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. however, he walks among human beings as a human being who is to lead them to the Father, to refer them to the Father on every opportumty, and Avho could least of all omit to do this on occasion of an act in which, as the raising of a dead man, the glory of the Father so especiaby reveals itself. Consequently he offers aloud a prayer to the Father, pre ferring mdeed a prayer of thanksgiving to one of petition, which might be more liable to be misunderstood as bearing an appearance of uncertainty of being heard. But since, in his human character, he is at the same time the Logos incar nate, prayer with him is a mere accommodation, and since he wishes to be recognised also as the Logos, he declares Mmself that he has uttered the prayer, not out of and for him self, but solely for those who are standing around. Considered as a real Bemg, as a Man, the Christ of the fourth Gospel appears m- this prayer of accommodation as an actor, and in his confession that Ms praying is only an act of accommoda tion, an awkward one as well ; but considered as an idea personified, he exposes m a particularly marked manner the contradictory elements wMch in Mm are compounded mto an inconceivable union. The loud voice, with which, Jesus immediately cabs into the sepulchre and orders the dead to come forth, plainly typifies the voice of the Son of God, wMch hereafter all men who are lymg in their graves shab bear, and thereupon come forth out of them (John v. 28, ff.) ; it is the word of com mand for the Resurrection, which in other passages the Archangel, as the herald of the Messiah, is commissioned to pronounce, and wMch is accompamed by a loud sound of a trumpet (1 Cor. xv. 52 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16). We have considered the history of the raising of Lazarus, as web as the 'two other Evangelical Mstories of the raising of dead persons, as an unMstorical emanation of the imagi- nation of the first CMistian3, as an ibustration of the same dogmatic theme, only more conscious and more artificial. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 223 We have felt ourselves bound to take this vieAV by the consi deration that the narrative is as inconceivable historically as its origin is capable of easy and complete explanation from the dogmatic theories and peculiar character of the Johanmne Gospel. There is stib another chcumstance to be considered. The fourth Gospel makes no mention of the two other cases of raising of the dead. It is intelligible that it should not do so, and no one Avould think of impugrnhg its Mstorical character on the ground of its silence about them. For even supposing that they had actually taken place, everytMng that gave them importance was involved in the Mstory of Lazarus to such a Mgh degree, that in a history AvMch besides was under the necessity of proceeding electively, the addition of the former to the latter might be fairly dispensed with. The case is very different if it is asked, conversely, how it is that the synoptics say nothing of the raising of Lazarus — -a history so much more hnportant — why, instead of those cases wMch they do report, so much less important and convincing, they did not choose in preference that of Lazarus ? It has been said that this is ab the worse for the authors of the three first Gospels ; that it proves that none of them, not even Matthew, was an Apostle, or, otherwise, an eye-witness of the bfe of Jesus. For that to any one who had been so, it was impossible that the raising of Lazarus could have been unknown, and if it had been known, he must have given an account of it. But that if none of them was an eye-witness, and all only collectors of traditions, the raising of Lazaru3 might have taken place and yet no account of it been given to them. It might, at the time at which they wrote, have either dropped altogether out of the tradition, or at ab events lost some of its importance. This importance, it is said, con sisted principaby m the effect which it had upon the de velopment of the destiny of Jesus,* inasmuch as it raised • Schleiermacher in particular, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 282, ff. Comp. Liicke, Commentary on the Gospel of John, (third Ed.), ii. 476. 224 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. the animosity of his enemies against him to such a point that they laid that regular plot against his life which ended in his destruction. It has been aheady pomted out what the real miportance of the raising of Lazarus was in tMs respect.* The offence occasioned by a miracle was as bttle required to produce the crucifixion of Jesus, as in the case of Socrates, where m the opposition to the popidar stand-point and the popular interests, there Avere natural causes enough and over enough to account for the result. Quite as little did the rais mg of Lazarus reqmre this sort of importance m order to appear m the character of an event which, if it really happened, could not be passed over in a Gospel containing any sort of details or havmg any intelligent purpose. It was the miracle of miracles, and as such it is evidently represented by the fourth Gospel. We cannot trust our eyes when Ave read m Scldeiermacher the assertion that, as regards the doctrine, the Mstory of Lazarus has no great value. What ? a Mstory no great didactic value, in wMch, more than in any other, Jesus proves himself to be the resurrection and the life ? and not only proves himself practicaby, but also extracts the doctrine out of the history. But Schleiermacher has traced out another cause wMch may have occasioned, at an early period, the Mstory of Lazarus to drop out of the Evangelical tradition. He draws attention to the fact that there is no mention at ab m Matthew and Mark of the relation of Jesus to the famdy which is the subject of the Mstory, that in Luke, who is acquamted with the sisters, the brother and the place where they bved are lost. This, he says, may have arisen from the chcumstance that when the traditions upon which the accounts of the synoptics rest were codected, the family of Lazarus, perhaps by reason of persecutions which they had gone through, was no longer to be met with in Betheny. As if the fame of an event so extraordinary, if it really took place, would not • Vol. I. p. 344. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 225 necessarily have survived in the district, whether the family Avhom it immediately concerned had emigrated, or died out, or not. The silence of the older Evangelists is intelligible only on the supposition that the fourth Evangelist composed the history in the second century. But we need not lose sight of Schleiermacher' s hint, Avith regard to different relations of the Evangebsts to the family at Bethany, even though Ave are led by it to a different result from that at which the acute friend of John arrives. The three first Evangebsts certainly kneAV nothing of a family at Bethany, towards which Jesus stood in a relation of intimate friendship. The two first (Matt. xxvi. '6, ff. ; Mark xiv. 3, ff.), represent Mm as having been anointed a feAv days before Ms last passover in Bethany, but in the house of one Simon, called the leper, and by a woman whose name is not stated. Luke represents an anointing of Jesus as having been performed, still earber, in Gablee, not mentioning the name of the place, but in the house of a Pharisee called Simon, and he describes the woman who anomts Mm, whose name he also omits, as a sinner (vii. 36, ff). On the other hand, he represents Jesus at a later period, on the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, but while stdl far from Ms destination, and in a vfllage Avhich he does not name, as turning in to lodge Avith a Avoman of the name of Martha who has a sister Mary. Here an event takes place which is the subject of a well-rknoAvn history, the cream of which consists in the words " One thing is needful " (x. 38, ff). The fact that we find not only the Mstory but the- names of the two sisters for the first time in Luke certainly excites suspicion, but does not decide agamst the historical value of the account. Martha, who is troubled about many things, and who is dissatisfied with her apparently idle sister Mary, who sits bstening at the feet of Jesus, but who, in Ms judgment, has chosen the better part, are personifications of Jewish Christiamty, with its zeal about works, and Pauline vol. ii. q 226 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Christianity with its inAvard faith.* But it is intelligible that this should be so, e\~en though two such sisters really lived and stood in some such relation to Jesus. Consequently in Matthew and Mark we have in Bethany a woman who anoints, but without a name ; in Luke, on the one hand, a female sinner Avho anoints, likewise Avitkout a name, and not in Bethany; on the other hand, the sisters Martha and Mary, likewise not in Bethany, and different from the Avoman Avho anomts. In John these threads are com bined (xii. 1, ff.). The woman who anoints is Mary, and since the anointing took place, according to the tradition, in Bethany, Maiy with her sister are dwelling in Bethany. Even in Luke the reception which Martha accords to Jesus betokens, certainly, friendly feelings, and the conduct of Mary pomts to a still deeper susceptibility, but a relation of inti mate friendship between Jesus and the family is first spoken of in John (xi. 3, 5, 11, 36). For the rest the characters of the sisters appear in the fourth Gospel exactly as they are described in the third. At the meal, which is followed by the anointing, Martha waits, exactly as m the narrative of Luke she gave herself much trouble with the waiting; even her hastenmg to meet Jesus on hearing of his arrival, after her brother's decease, is quite in character. So also on the side of Mary, her fading at the feet of Jesus, and, subsequently, her pouring out the costly ointment on his feet, is in accord ance with the behaviour of the person who sitting at Jesus' feet and listemng to his words forgets ab besides. And now arises the question — whether is it more probable that ab should in reabty have taken place as John represents, that, therefore, it was Mary Avho anomted Jesus, that she and her sister bved in Bethany near Jerusalem, and that this house afforded a friendly asylum to Jesus on his last journey to a feast, but that the tradition was lost, that the name of Mary as the * Zeller first drew attention to this, Theological Annual, 1843, p. 85. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 227 Avoman aa-Iio anointed had disappeared, that of her and her sister's household in Bethany, which, even though the place was destroyed, must have continued to survi v'e as a sanctuary in the memory of Christendom, no one in the district knew any tMng after only a feAv decads of years — or that, conversely, the true state of the case was Avhat appears in the synoptics, that in the house of a man at Bethany, who stood in no very close relation to Jesus, a woman, otherAvise unknown, anointed Jesus, and that, in another locality, perhaps in Galilee, there lived a pair of sisters, with whom Jesus found a hospitable reception and readiness to bsten to Ms doctrines ; but that the fourth Evangelist adroitly combined these accounts, transferred to the bstener at Jesus' feet, the anointing of his feet, to the busy Martha the task of waiting On that occasion, took the two sisters to Bethany and settled them there, placing them in that relation of mtimate friendsMp to Jesus which meets us in the history of Lazarus ? If we put tMs question to ourselves, we may reply that, according to the discussion as far as it has gone already, the first alternative of the two is sufficiently improbable ; but stib we would not decide until we have taken a more comprehensive view of both. We have, so far, left out of consideration the brother of the two sisters, Lazarus, with whom, however, we com menced. In the first case, therefore, the synoptic tradition must likeAvise have forgotten him ; which, considering the perfectly imique miracle connected with Ms name, is scarcely conceivable. But, it might be said, the tradition did not forget him. There is a Lazarus, too, in Luke. Not, indeed, a real Lazarus, only an abegorical one, the beggar Lazarus, who lies, in this life, covered with sores, and suffering hunger before the rich man's gate, and then, lying after death in Abraham's bosom, excites the envy of the rich man who is tormented in hell (xvi. 19, ff). There is, in fact, a con nection between the two men cabed Lazarus. The Johannme Q 2 228 BOOK IT. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Lazarus is not, indeed, like the alleg'orical Lazarus of Luke a poor man; but he also is sick, and even the introductory words of the two narratives have a remarkable resemblance, " Noav there Avas a certain sick man, Lazarus of Bethany," John begins : " There was a certain poor man of the name of Lazarus," Jesus begins his parable in Luke. Moreover these two men die and are buried. The difference is that the one does indeed return from the tomb to life, while — the other might at least have returned ; it is desired, but not allowed. And why, in the parable, is the prayer of the rich man not granted by Abraham, to send Lazarus unto his father's house m order to convert Ms five bretMen ? For the reason that Abraham foresees that not believing Moses and the prophets they would not believe even if one rose from the dead. And how true was the foresight of Father Abraham in this case ! One really did rise from the dead, namely Jesus, but did the Jews therefore believe ? Nay, a Lazarus, exactly as the rich man would have wished, did rise from the grave, but stib the Jews did not believe, but then first formed a regular design to put Jesus to death. Web then, are we to assume that the historic Lazarus became in the tradition the allegorical one, that the miraculous Mstory became the parable, the event that reaby took place (the return of one dead) a merely hypothetical case ? Who ever has any conception of the mode m which such narratives are remodeded and extended, will feel that the converse is the more probable. The fourth Evangebst adopted into his scheme, out of the third, the two sisters who bved in one village, and who entertamed Jesus in their house. He adopted them into his scheme, as the one of them seemed to him a person adapted to have attributed to her the well- knoAvn anomting, the other the attendance at the meal during wMch the anointing took place. If he was obliged for this purpose to transplant them to Bethany, where, according to the tradition the anointing had taken place, THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. 229 he saAV that there was no place better suited for the history of the raising of the dead, which he wished to tell, than just this very Bethany. This, as the miracle of miracles, Avas to close the career of Jesus as the performer of miracles ; it Avas, further, to bring to a head the animosity of the dominant party of Pharisees and High Priests in Jerusalem ; it Avas necessary, therefore, that it should take place at a later period, and either M, or at all events near to, the capital. To place it, however, in the capital itself, would have been contradictory to the view of the fourth Gospel, according to which Jesus, during the last period, chose to avoid Jerusalem on account of the plots of his enemies, and, if he was there, had every reason for bemg cautious : consequently, a -vibage near was a better place, and, from the history of the anoint ing, Bethany was aheady given. And if the two sisters were transplanted to that place, they might be considered as attending upon their brother who is, consequently, assigned to them as Lazarus. That the fourth Evangebst came to represent the occurrence as he does by first taking the sisters out of the thhd Gospel, and then associatmg the brother Avith them, is plainly shown by the manner in which he intro duces the three relatives for the first time (xi. 1 , ff.) . " Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. It was that Mary Avhich anointed the Lord with omtment, and wiped Ms feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick." A brother is only described thus when Ms sisters are better known than he. Mary and Martha were so, in consequence ofthe story in the third Gospel of Jesus' reception by them, to which also the expression m the fourth, " the town of Mary and her sister Martha," refers; for Luke begins Ms narrative with the state ment that Jesus on Ms journey came to a village, and that there Martha received Mm. And the fourth Evangelist further adds that it was that Mary which anomted Jesus, a circumstance which he does not speak of until afterwards ; 230 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. his noticing it here beforehand looks exactly as if he Avished to put this notice in circulation for the first time. He shows still more plainly that in his Lazarus he is introducing a neAV figure into Evangelical history; for surely he was not "a certain man," a brother of more famous sisters, if Jesus had pei'formed on him the greatest of Ms miracles, he bemg beloved by Jesus as well as his sisters. Consequently the fourth Evangebst had transplanted the tAvo sisters to Bethany, and, for a crowning miracle, such as a raismg of the dead was to be, Bethtny was, in his opmion, the most appropriate theatre. It vras, at all events, an obvious proceeding to associate, in the capacity of Brother, one Avho was to be raised in the flesh, with the sisters Avho were awakened m the spirit. The two synoptics were of no avail to him for the further setting forth of his history of a raismg ofthe dead. He wished to have one who was most certainly and surely dead, one who was at least buried, neither of wMch was the case with the daughter of Jairus, or the son of the widow of Nam. On the other hand, there was, in Luke, a man dead, only indeed in a parable, but Avho Avas buried and certamly dead, for Ms soul was now carried in Abraham's bosom. He also might have returned to earth, but was not permitted to do so, because it would have been in. vain, as he would not have converted the brothers of the rich man. But for tMs veiy reason it was, in the opmion of the fourth Evangebst, Avorth the trouble to represent the dead man as having reaby returned, m order fully to confirm the fact of the mcorrigible unbelief of the Jewish people. Accordingly no figure in the synoptic tradition was more adapted m every respect for a hero of a history of a raising of the dead, wMch the fourth Evangebst Avished to give, than the Lazarus of the parable m Luke. Aud as Ave see from this whence the fourth Evangebst gets his Lazarus, and the attendant circumstances, quite as clearly as we are unable to conceive Avhat the other Evangelists can I I THE RAISING OP LAZARUS. 231 be supposed to have done with him, if he really existed and Avas raised by Jesus, Ave may, it would seem, look upon the investigation upon this point as concluded.* We shall not, hoAvever, consider it as too much trouble to ex amine the explanations of the history of Lazarus, by which others have endeavoured to satisfy themselves. In this case, also, Schleiermacher's theory has given the rule to modern theology.-"- The two dead persons, of Avhose raising by Jesus we readinthesynoptics,were looked upon by Schleiermacher, with out hesitation, as cases of sham death only. In the instance of one narrative, adopting the most miserable form of exegesis, he takes Jesus at his word, that the. damsel is not dead but sleepeth : he remarks also that the youth of Nain, considering the Jewish custom of speedy burial, may very easily have been only in appearance dead. But it was the fourth day of Lazarus' lying in the tomb. So decomposition might, indeed, have already begun. But, says ScMeiermacher, it need not have done so, what Martha says is only surmise on her part. In any case Jesus does not ascribe this act to himself as his own. Indeed it cannot be conceived as having 'been so, without the destruction of the unity and continuity of his human life by such a creative act. But he obtams the result by prayer to God, and thanks God for it, as the immediate act of the latter. Now what, m plain German, does that mean ? Lazarus also, though, from the longer time that he • This investigation owes most to Zeller, who was the first to trace, as is here done, the Johannine Lazarus to the Lazarus of the parable (Studies in New Testament Theology, in the Theological Annual, 1843. p. 89. Comp. also Baur, Critical Investigations, p. 248, ff.). I had already, in the year 1833, thrown out the supposition that the two are identical in a notice of the treatises of Panlus and Hase on the Life of Jesus, a paper which I sent, at their request, to the Society for Scientific Criticism in Berlin ; from which body, however, I received it back, because they observed in it the frons turgida cornibus. But as I had not found the key of the connection, the change of the hypothetical return of one who was dead into a real one, the supposition, as being too bold, was left out of my Life of Jesus. t What follows is from his lectures on the Life of Jesus. 232 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OV JESUS'. had lain m the grave, the case Avas a more uncommon one, had been only apparently dead, and that Jesus Avas the instrument of his resurrection was a mere accident, in AvMch the action of a liigher providence is not to be mistaken. We noAV understand Iioav Schleiermacher could say that the history of Lazarus has no great doctrinal value. So far from having any great value it has, from his point of view, none at all. Scheiermacher has wisely omitted to grapple Avith the more immediate question of the conduct of Jesus as described in the Gospel of John. And yet it is impossible to avoid asking the question : if it Avas only accident, only the impro bable possibdity that Lazarus, who had been buried four days, might be only apparently dead, upon which Jesus counted — how could he, whde still at a distance, how, by the very side of the tomb, utter speeches wMch must be cha racterized as mere triflmg if not backed by the certamty that he could restore his friend alive to his relations ? It is necessary, says Schweizer,* to take into consideration the whole practical and psychological condition of Jesus. At that moment, having avoided the persecntions of the authori ties at Jerusalem by going to Perasa, he was m a state more depressed than he had ever been before. But stib Ms Messiamc consciousness was unbroken. What must the result have been ?f The most confident hope, answers Schweizer, that God wib not desert Mm m such a condition. " For Mm," explains Hase (for in these cases one good turn always meets with another), "before whom Jairus' daughter had been awakened" (from her apparent death), " the wish * The Gospel of St. John, according to its internal value, &c., p. 156, ff. ' t " There are powers," adds Schweizer, with obvious reference to the present writer, " which a Life of Jesus must discover, and use as a key for the under standing of particular acts, before it can deserve the name of a Life of Jesus." Very good, replies the writer, if the alleged facts are critically established. Until they are so, psychological pragmatism is ill applied in opposition to mere legend. THE RAISING OP LAZARUS. 233 might become a presentiment, or, in Ms distress a bold con fidence, that in this case, in which his individual mcbnatiou coincided with the glorifying of the kingdom of God, God would hear his prayer for the life of the man beloved by him."* If, then, continues Schweizer, an external event coiresponds to such confidence, an event AvMch is in itself no real miracle, there arises a miracle notwithstandmg, namely, that of confidence m God justified. So m tMs case, the miracle is not reaby the return of the bfe wMch had only retreated, but the coincidence of that return with the confi dence of Jesus and the openmg at Ms command of the tomb. Why then, concludes the sestheticaby educated theologian, should not, sometimes at least in the bfe of Jesus, a striking result have corresponded with his bold confidence — if there is any truth m the words of the poet, " There exist moments in the life of man," &c.f That is real sublimity, for theology to deck herself out with the pens of modern poets, applymg them, too, m an improper manner. Thus m this case she does not remember how ib the false application of the truth contained in these words suits the hero who utters them. He had settled it arbitrarily in Ms own mmd that the first person who came to meet him the next mormng, with a token of friendship, must be his truest friend, and that very person was Ms betrayer. The friend whom he found dead, must be, as surely as God would not desert Mm, not really dead, but at Ms cab return to bfe — Jesus had got tMs into Ms head, and the result corresponded to so wdd a notion. Ebrard remarks, with perfect truth, that such an explanation, according to which the Lord would have tempted God m the most extravagant manner, contams ten times as many mconceivabibties as twenty writers can find in the account of the Evangebst.J This is not enough; what he should * Life of Jesus, § 94. f Schiller's Wallenstein, Coleridge's translation ; Piceolomini, Act v. sc. 3. % Scientific Criticism, p. 463. 234 BOOK II.- MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESOS. have said is, that it abases Jesus as only naturalists and mockers have abased Mm. The theory is not made much better by folloAving Penan, and taking the raismg of Lazarus to have been an intrigue of the famdy at Bethany, instead of a wild enterprise on the part of Jesus. Mortified at the ib reception wMch their adored friend had met Avith in Jerusalem, Ms worshippers at Bethany attempted to do something which might give a neAV impulse to Ms cause m the unbebevmg city. That, they thought, must be a miracle, if possible the raising of a dead man, and above ab a man well knoAvn M Jerusalem. Now, during: Jesus' absence in Perasa, Lazarus is taken ib. The sisters, becommg alarmed, send for their absent friend. Bnt, before he arrives, the brother has become better ; and now an excebent idea occurs to them. Lazarus, still pale from the effects of Ms iflness, permits Mmself to be put into a wmdmg-sheet bke a dead body and shut up m the family tomb. When Jesus arrives Martha goes to meet Mm, and leads him to the tomb. Jesus wishes to see his departed friend once more, but, on the stone being removed, Lazarus comes forth alive to meet him with Ms winding-sheet and napkins. In this ab the bystanders behold a miracle : — But Jesus ? Hid he permit himself to be bbnded by so coarse a trick ? Or, stib worse, Avas he a party to the deception ? He might, says Benan, have been as bttle able to control the tMrst for miracles on the part of Ms adherents as St. Bernard, as Francis of Assisi. He abowed the miracles which were wanted of him to be forced upon him, rather than that be performed them Mmself. In despair, and reduced to extre mities, he was no longer Ms own master. After a few days, moreover, death debvered him from the distressmg weight of a character wMch dady made greater claims upon him, •was daily more difficult to maintain.* . In fact, as soon as we cease to consider the history of * Kenan, Vie de Jesus, 359, ff. THE RAISING OP LAZARUS. 235 Lazarus as a miracle, ni the true sense of the Avord, notMng remains but either to follow the explanations last described, and to sacrifice the honour of Jesus to the truth of th© account, or the truth of the account to the honour of Jesus and common sense. Ewald is entitled to commendation for havmg preferred the latter, though he has done so certainly Avith all sorts of evasions pecubar to himself. So far is he from maintaming the Avhole of the Johannine narrative, with ab its attendant circumstances, to be Mstorical, that he con siders only the most general result of it to be so. " That Lazarus Avas reaby raised by Christ from the grave (observe, Ewald does not say, from the dead), we cannot doubt, but it would be equaby unreasonable and perverse to overlook the sphit of more elevated bfe which swebs the bosom of the Apostle, and mspires the narrative with the most miraculous character. The recobection of a raising of the dead, wMch he had once reaby bved to see, became to Mm the sign and token of that great general resurrection at the end of the world, that introduction mto a new life wMch the whole Apostobc age expected Avith joy and exultation; ab the several circumstances accompanying it, wMch he could stdl remember, bad become m Ms vieAV parts of tMs most subbme truth, and it was only when seized with the glow of infimte. hope that he now looked back upon that wMch he had once experienced and seen with Ms own eyes, in order to write down with the same most fiery vividness ab that he could remember of this material hnage of heavenly assurance."* So the Apostle John wrote down what he could remember in his old age of the raising of Lazarus ; but he wrote it down with ab the glow of feebng and imagmation excited by the hope of the future general resurrection tMough Christ — his , description of the past was, as Ewald expresses Mmself, " glorified," by the bght of the future. Now tMs may and indeed should at first sight be understood to mean, that by * The Johannine writings, i. 314, ff. 236 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. this prospect of the future only the form of the Johannine narrative is affected, that the description has become more vivid and pathetic, but that the substance consists only of what the Avriter actuaby remembered. But then much more of the narrative mu3t be maintained to be historical than is alloAved by EAvald : that Lazarus was really raised from the tomb by Christ, or, as he expresses it on another occasion, that Christ saved " Mm that was lost."* For this last ex pression, hoAvever ambiguously and cautiously selected, clearly shows us that EAvald's view of this miraculous history shnply extends to this, that Lazarus would have been "lost" if Jesus had not, by the command wMch he gave, we know not why, to open his tomb, " saved" Mm, i.e. made it possible for hbn to wake from Ms death-like trance, and to return to bfe. Everything m the conduct and speeches of Jesus. that goes beyond tMs natural and, probably, merely acci dental fact, which impbes the exhibition of a miracle .per formed by Jesus, more convincing than any other as regards Ms dignity as the Son of God, would be an addition on the part of the Evangelist arising from his mspired expectation. What an Evangebst, in whose mind, supposing his bfe to have been as long as Ave Avdl, a history could change mto something so completely different ! What real value could Ms testimony have ? If the real Christ stood to Ms CMist in the same relation m wMch, according to Ewald, the Ms torical basis of the account of the raismg of Lazarus is sup posed to have stood to what. John has made of it, how much of the real Christ have we left m that of John ? No ! we have here the miserable remnant of a probably natural event, not worth further discussion, but wMch, if only it and notMng further is supposed to have been the Mstorical basis of the Evangebcal narrative, either makes Jesus a mad man, or the Evangelist a dotard. So let us quit this charac terless and isolated thing, and openly admit that we are here * History of Christ, 358. 'SEA ANECDOTES. 237 concerned only with an ideal image, an arbitrary mvention of the Evangelist, from which we learn nothmg whatever of the real Christ, but only the extent to which the conception of the higher element in CMist, first much chang-ed in the Jewish Christian circles, and afterwards in those of the Pauline CMistians, was now completely reflected in the nund of a Christian who had had an Alexandrine education. 78. Sea Anecdotes. As the dAvelbng of Jesus was situated on the Sea of Galilee, and his ministry, for the greatest part of the time, was con fined to its shore, it was natural that there should be a con nection between the sea and a portion of the miraculous Mstories circulated about Mm. Of these anecdotes we may describe one half more immediately as FisMng legends ; the other as Sailing legends, in so far as the one class refers to fisMng as the trade of a portion of the disciples, the other to the element of water as a means of trans port. Of the anecdotes of the first class we have that of the miraculous draught of fish by Peter m Luke. Of this we have aheady spoken, because it is connected with his call to be a fisher of men, and we combined with it, m conse quence of the mternal connection, notwithstanding its occur rence at a period so much later, the draught of fishes m the supplement to the Johanmne Gospel. There remains yet the Mstory of the piece of money, which, as advised by Jesus, Peter is supposed to have found in the mouth of a fish (Matt. xvii. 24—27). By tMs miraculous history, which is peculiar to Matthew, all explanations appear to be put to shame. The behevers in miracles cannot answer the question when asked, where was the necessity or even the good of so strange a miracle as that of bringing to Peter's hook a fish with a piece of money in its mouth, and how, without a second miracle, the 238 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. fish, when opening its mouth to snap at the hook, could still have held the coin in it. The natural explanation wMuh represents the piece of money not as having been found Mimediately in the mouth of the fish, but earned by the sale of it, offends too much against the text Avhich connects the finding of the coin immediately with the opening of the mouth of the fish. As the Evangelist only mentions the recommen dation given by Jesus, but does not say that Peter followed it and really found a piece of gold in the mouth of the fish, there has been lately an inclination to understand the expres sion of Jesus merely figuratively and proverbiaby, as AA'hen we say of the dawn that it has gold in its mouth ; but the execution of an order of Jesus, and the correspondence between a prediction of his and the result predicted, are taken in a Gospel as a matter of course. And even the mytMcal explanation does not appear altogether suitable to an account of a miracle which has neither the character of a fulfilment of a Messianic expectation, nor an embodiment of an original CMistian conception, but of a capricious result of an uncontrobed imagination. Meanwhile, if we examine the case more accurately, the • narrative in question has the character of a miraculous Mstory only at the conclusion. At the beginnmg and in the middle it looks exactly bke one of those discussions, several of wMch are contained in the three first Gospels, and among these it has an unmistakeable connection with that about the tribute money (Matt. xx. 15 — 22; Mark xii. 13—17; Luke xx. 20 — 26) . In each case the discussion refers to a tax ; m the former case, the tribute to the Romans, and the question is asked whether it is right for the Jews to pay it ; m tMs case the tribute is for the Temple at Jerusalem, and the question is whether Jesus and his disciples are bound to pay it. In the former case Jesus decides the question m the affirmative, after ordering the tribute-money, a denarius, to be shown to him ; in this case, after decidmg the question negatively, he SEA ANECDOTES. 230 Mmself miraculously provides the tribute-money, a stater, in order to settle the matter amicably. As the dispute, as to Avhether the people of God were free from sin in recognismg in the Romans any supreme autho rity besides them, had continued among the Jews since the days of Judas the Gaulomte, it is possible that a question bearing upon this dispute may have been at some time or other put to Jesus. It is, on the other hand, less probable that the question as to Ms obligation, and that of Ms fol lowers, to pay tribute to the Temple at Jerusalem vvas mooted in his life-time. It was not until a considerable time after Ms death, when the Christian commumty had separated itself more and more from the Jewish, that the , question could arise as to whether the Christians were bound to contribute to the expenses of the Temple at Jerusalem. And from the Christian point of view, the most correct answer was that in the abstract neither the Messiah, as being/ greater than the Temple (Matt. xii. 6), nor his adherents as the Royal Priesthood (1 Peter ii. 9), could be amenable to the tax, but that stib, for the sake of precious peace, they would not refuse to pay it ; a decision wMch, like so many other results of later development, was attributed to Jesus Mmself, and very probably in direct imitation of the history of the civil tribute-money. But now the miracle ? Jesus, it was thought, was not to prejudice himself at all by that admission — by that acqui escence in the payment of a tax wMch the Messiah was not called upon properly to pay. WMle he submitted to it, he must (it was considered) at the same time show Mmself raised above it ; he must himself provide the token of Ms submission m a manner which placed him. above ab these relations. Thus a miracle was reqmred in tMs case more than in any other. But why especiaby this miracle ? And as on so many other occasions so also on this the disciple Peter is brought forward as the spokesman. It is to Mm that the collectors of the 240 BOOK II. THE MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. tax apply with the question, as to whether his Master pays the tribute to the Temple : it is he whom Jesus catecMses, on entering- the house, with a series of questions which lead to the conclusion that, strictly speaking-, they, as children of God, are not subject to any tax for the support of the house of God ; it was Avith Mm, therefore, that the miracle was most appropriately connected which was to put into its proper light the discharge of this claim on the part of Jesus and Ms followers. Peter, m the original Christian tradition, Avas the fisherman. He had been, before ab, cabed aAvay from his net to undertake the office of a fisher of men ; it Avas to him that the rich draught of fishes Avas vouchsafed as a type of Ms Apostolical ministry. Jesus might now again have granted him another such, wMch, turned into money, Avould have made up the amount of the Temple-tribute. But this was an unnecessary resource. On the occasion of the •former miraculous draught the case had been different : then the question had been not about an amount of money, but about a symbol of the Apostolic ministry. So in that case only ordinary fish, only m great numbers, had been caught. In this case, on the other hand, the question was about the tribute to the Temple, payable by two persons, amounting to four drachms, or a stater. As tMs was to be provided mira culously, why not at once in ready money ? and as it was to be provided by the fisher-Apostle, why not by a fish bring- ing Mm a stater ? Consequently, as on this occasion only one fish is wanted, it was not necessary for Peter to throw out his net, but only Ms lme ; and because, when the fish was caught it was necessary to open its month in order to extract the hook, it was necessary that the fish should have the stater m its mouth. But here the narrator, while he en deavours to make matters easy for Peter, makes the task of the fish far too difficult. Since the times of Polycrates, it has often happened that fishes have swabowed treasures and kept them in their stomachs ; but for a fish, and one too SEA ANECDOTES. 241 caught by a hook, to have kept a piece of money in its mouth together Avith the hook, is Avithout example in the history of the world. Our Evangelist made light of difficulties of this kind. We need only remember the two asses upon which he makes Jesus ride on the entrance into Jerusalem. Stib it would be a great mistake to consider the miracle, one, certainly of a fabulous character, and told by Matthew alone of ab the synoptics, as a proof that he Avas at all events the latest of them. On the contrary, the omission of it by Luke and Mark marks them as later than Matthew. The question as to the obligation of the CMistians to pay the tax for the Temple, could only be of mterest as long as the Temple stood-* Consequently this history does not belong even to the latest portions ofthe Gospel of Matthew. When tMs was worked up into the whole which we now have before us the Temple was, mdeed, aheady destroyed, but the antecedent circumstances, especiaby in Palestine itself, were stib fresh in men's recobection. When, at a later period, Luke and Mark wrote in another country, the subject of the narrative of Matthew appeared to them as no longer of importance, and perhaps even the solution of it too favourable to the Jews to admit of their admitting it among their Evangelical narratives, f In the same manner as the fisMng anecdotes go so far as to say that Jesus granted to Ms disciples a rich and valuable draught of fish, so the saibng anecdotes assert that he rescues * Comp. Kb'stlin, Synoptic Gospels, p. 31, note.- Hilgeufeld, Gospels, p. 91. f Volkmar, The Religion of Jesus and its first development, p. 265, refers the history to the poll-tax, which, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews and consequently the Jewish Christians also had to pay to the Eomans, upon which, he thinks, the question arose 33 to whether the Heathen Christians also had to pay it ? But in that case, as in that of the tribute money, the narrative must have spoken of a tribute to the Emperor. It would have been too absurd to take the Jewish tribute to the Temple as an example of the later poll-tax pay able to the Roman treasury. VOL. II. R 242 book; ii. mythical history op jesus. them out of the distress and trouble mto which wind and Avaves have brought them. On one occasion he is himself present in the sMp, in another he wallcs from the shore over the lake and comes to them. The first history (Matt. viii. 23—27; Markiv. 36—40; Luke. viii. 22 — 25) describes, throughout, what might easdy have happened. After a laborious day, Jesus may have started from Capernaum with his disciples, gone to sleep in the sMp, a storm, alarming the disciples, may have broken out while he slept, they may have awakened him, and begged his assistance, and he may have rebuked their timidity — but he cannot, as the Evangebsts report, have also rebuked the winds and the sea, unless he was either conscious of uncon ditional power over nature, or a miserable braggart and impostor ; the first of which is altogether inconceivable, the second excluded by all that we credibly know of Jesus. A Psalm (cvi. 9>i with the same expression in the Greek trans lation) says, he " rebuked" the Red Sea also, and it re tired, and let the people pass dryshod tMough its waves. And we may certainly suppose that to the Messiah also, as God's representative, the power might be attributed of setting" limits to the raging ofthe sea. But we can only understand tMs narrative completely when Ave take the sMp and the disciples into consideration, as web as Jesus. In tMs, a3 well as in the other history, the Fathers have seen mthe battling with the waves a figure of the Christian Church, in the tempest and the surges an image of the assaults to wMch the Church is exposed in the world. A scholar, distingmshed for his knowledge of Judaism, has shown with praiseworthy industry, that this symbobsm did not come first out of the Mstory we are con sidering mto the circle of Christian ideas, but was aheady in existence among the Jews. Hengstenberg* has drawn * In the preface to the series of the Evangelical Journals for the year 1861, p. 4, ff. Comp. his Commentary on the Gospel of John, i. -352, ff. SEA ANECDOTES. 243 attention to the mode in which in Psalm cvii. the restoration of the people out of captivity is described under the image of sea-faring men, who are happily brought to land by Jehovah, and saved from the bibows and the tempest. " He commandeth," it is said (ver. xxv. 28 — 30), " andraiseth the stormy wind, Avhich lifteth up the waves thereof. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. Then are they glad because they be quiet ; so he bringeth. them unto their deshed haven." Noav Hengstenberg thinks that it was with reference to this Psalm, and its symbolizing imagery, that Jesus reaby under took the miraculous calming of the tempest, in order thereby to give a practical prophecy of the protection which he purposes to give for the comfort of Ms Church m ab its distresses and perils, till the end of time ; and Hengstenberg even says generaby that the symbobcal acts of the Lord m the New Testament usuaby rest upon figures in the Old. In so far as these symbolical acts are understood, as in the present instance, to comprise miracles, we are in perfect agreement with the proposition of Hengstenberg, even though we take it in a somewhat different sense from him. Hengstenberg's opinion is that an Old Testament Avriter was Mspired Avith an image, and that then tMs image was realized by Jesus : ours, on the contrary, is, that images of this kind were m the later legend fictitiously converted into acts which never were reaby performed a3 they are re presented to have been. We know, from the Epistles of Paul, that the first Chris tians, when they met together, were accustomed, among other tMngs, to edify each other with Psalms and spiritual hymn3 (1 Cor. xiv. 26; Eph: v. 19; Col. m. 16). In the Acts (iv. 24 — 30) such an effusion is preserved, which is, Mdeed, in other respects an arbitrary composition, but stib only an appbcation of a passage m a Psalm quoted m it (Ps. n. 1, ff.). There is no doubt, that whole Psalms were thus sung and r 2 244 E00K II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. a]Dplied to Christian circumstances, and for this purpose there were scarcely any more appropriate than that pointed out by Hengstenberg-, the 107th. According to ver. 2, it is to be understood, they say, of the redeemed whom the Lord has redeemed out of the hand of the enemy, and whom he has assembled together out of all lands, from the East and from the West, from the North, and from the sea. In these words the Christians could not fad to recognize themselves, called as they were from the East and from the West, from the North and from the South (Matt.viu. 11 ; Lukexin. 29), and redeemed by Christ out of the band of the enemy — by whom the devil and Ms angels were now understood (Luke i. 74). But further on in the Psalm tempests at sea Avere spoken of, out of which those assembled together had been saved. And these tempests were now no longer referred to the misfor tunes of the ancient people of God, but to the persecutions which the new Church of the Messiah had to undergo at au early period, and the Lord, to whom they called, and who commanded the storms and waves to rest, was no longer Jehovah, but Christ. And thus a point was attained at which the image became, almost necessarily, Mstory, and m- deed miraculous Mstory. Jesus had once lived on earth as a real man ; hence the calming ofthe storm was looked upon as his real act, and those whom he saved out of it must have been his Apostles, the original society Avho surrounded him during Ms pilgrimage on earth. It is stib possible, as was remarked above, that, m company with his disciples, he did really experience a storm on the sea of Galilee, during wMch he Avas at first asleep, and then, havmg been awakened, dis played great presence of nnhd ; but the miraculous story Avould have been told of him, founded upon the passage in the Psalm and the early Christian symbolism, whether any event in his real bfe supplied a pomt of connection or not, and thus, whde we are compebed to declare the miracle in the Evangebcal narrative to be decidedly fiction, we are, as re- SEA ANECDOTES. 245 gards the natural remainder of it, at all events without any guarantee for its historical character. However valuable this history must have been to the Chris tendom of the earbest time, by reason of its consolatory figu rative meaning, still it had one defect. The distress falls upon the disciples while Jesus is Avith them in the ship. Can the Church be attacked by any distress in the presence of its Lord ? He was indeed sleeping, but the guardian of Israel slumbers not nor sleeps (Ps. cxxi. 4). No distress attacks the Church except wMle and during the time that Christ is absent ; indeed he is Avith her until the end of the world (Matt. xxAdii. 20), but only spiritually; he has AvithdraAvn from her his bodily presence, and m order to sift and prove her has left her to the battle with the world. But that even then Ms arm is not shortened, that when the distress of Ms followers is greatest, he is able to help them — tins it is of wMch they would wish to assure themselves, wMch they would wish to behold in the Mstory of a miracle. On tMs occasion (Matt. xiv. 22—33 ; Mark vi. 45—52 ; John vi. 16—21) they em barked alone, and without Jesus ; a somewhat far-fetched reason for his remaining behmd is given in the statement that he did so M order to send the multitude away after the miraculous Feasting. When he had completed this task, he ascends the monntam for the purpose of sobtary prayer; accordmg to Mark he saw from there what m Matthew is only mentioned as having taken place in the meantime— the sMp, now m the middle of the sea, battbng with the waves after mght-fab, m consequence of the wind being agamst it. He abows it thus to battle for some time, and it is not until the fourth watch of the Mght, i.e. towards day-break, that he bestirs himself to help them. ¦ More than once (Matt. xxiv. 42, xxv. 6), accordmg to the Evangebcal narrative, and on one occasion even with direct reference to the division of the mght mto four night watches, he gives it as a motive for watchfulness, that they- cannot know when the Lord cometh, 246 BOOK IJ. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. whether in the evening, or at midnight, or at cock-crow, or in the morning (Mark xiii. 35) : equaby unknown is the hour he has determined for appearing to render assistance; it may, as in this mstance, be the latest, the fourth watch of the night. But again, how Avill Jesus leave the shore without a boat, and render assistance to the disciples while sailing in the very middle of the sea ? It is impossible that this can cause any difficulty to the Messiah : the only question is what land of miraculous passage is the most appropriate for Mm. Fly ing, by means of wMch Abarus the Hyperborean traversed sea and rivers, was not traditionary in the Hebrew Legend, and m that of the first Christians it was only attributed to the wicked magician Simon. The miraculous heroes of the Old Testament, when they wanted to cross a piece of water, had a wand m their hand, wMch they had only to stretch out (2 Mos. xiv. 16), or a cloak with AvMch they had only to strike the water (2 Kings n. 14) ; in other cases, the bearers of the Ark had only to step into the water (Josh. iii. 13 — 17). TMs done, it parted and gave them a road, so that they could pass over on dry ground. TMs celebrated resource from the Mstory of Moses, Joshua, and Ebsha, was, unfor tunately, not appbcable in this case. Jesus did not wish to reach the opposite shore, but to get on board a ship sailing on the surface of the lake, so that it was of no use to lay the bottom dry and walk upon it. So the only way that was left was to walk upon the water itself, and m fact no more appropriate mode of transit could be imagined for the Mes siah, for whom the idea of difficulty was altogether impossible. It was the method of Jehovah Mmself. The march of Israel through the Red Sea, on wMch occasion Jehovah himself formed the rear-guard in the pillar of fire, was sometimes poetically so described that he Mmself was represented more as one Avahdng upon the sea than through the sea. When it is said in Isaiah (xliii. 16), " Thus saith the Lord, which SEA ANECDOTES. 247 maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters," Ave are quite on the ground of the Mosaic narrative ; but when the Psalmist says, (Ixxvii. 19), " Thy way is in the sea, and thy path m the great waters, and thy footsteps are not knoAvn," it is but a step from the last description to that in the Book of Job (ix. 8), Avhere God is described as he avIio treadeth on the waves of the sea, or, according to the Greek translation, who walks upon the sea as upon firm ground. That the Messiah should pass over the water in the same way as Jehovah was certainly the most appropriate thing that could be said of Mm. We must here glance at the mode.in which the peculiarity of the several Evangebsts shows itself in the narrative. The statement of Mark, aheady mentioned, that Jesus saw from the mountain the ship driven in. the midst of the sea, although the comMg on of darkness creates some difficulty, is stib not altogether untenable. The more suspicious, after the words (ver. 48), "About the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them walkmg upon the sea," is the addition of the same Evangelist, " and he would have passed them." When Ewald mamtains,* that these words can mean notiung else but that Jesus would have come to them over the sea, he only says Avhat he wishes his friend Mark had said ; but in fact he does not say so, but he says that Jesus wished to have passed by them, and also that he would have done so, if they had not cried out and so caused him to take notice of them. From first to last, when Jesus sees their distress, and at last bestirs Mmself to go to them, the narrative of Mark might be understood to mean that the bark of the disciples had been the object of Jesus walking upon the sea ; but by that addition we are taught sometMng else, wMch is, that Jesus would have continued to leave the disciples to them selves, and only have passed over the sea on bis own account, * The three first Evangelists. 248 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. for Avhich purpose the way across the surface Avas as passable for him as the road round the shore would have been for another person. As m this point of view the walldng on the sea appears to be a tiling which Jesus performs not merely for the sake of the miracle, but as quite an ordinary act, he becomes a Being perfectly supernatural and foreign to us, and the Evangebst, indulging in such a conception of Jesus cannot, to us at ab events, appear in the character of the original Evangelist. Moreover, we find a not less remarkable feature m the corresponding passage in John. After describing the start of the disciples, he continues (ver. 1 7), " And it was now dark and Jesus was not come to them." But could the dis ciples have expected that he would come to them in the midst of the sea ? They could only have done so if he had either promised them- to come, of which nothing is said, and then, when he came they would not have been afraid ; or, if passages of this kind were customary Avith Mm, as the addi tion of Mark supposes. So that we may in tMs case again see a trace of the fact that the fourth Evangebst, in Ms mira culous histories, is glad to follow the second. When Jesus had come near to the ship, and the first alarm of the disciples had been pacified by Ms " It is I," Matthew has sometlhng pecubar to himself in an mterlude Avith Peter. As if to prove that the apparition approaching him on the waves is not a spirit, but the Being whom it professes to be, Peter cabs out to Mm to be abowed (and at the same time to have power given to Mm to enable him to do so) to go over the water to him. Jesus directs him to come, Peter makes the attempt, succeeds for a moment, but is soon ter rified by the strength of the wind, he begms to sink, and appeals to the Lord for support, who, with the words, " 0 thou of bttle faith,'' seizes him by the hand, and takes Mm Avith him into the sMp. In any case, Ave have here in this addition of Matthew, an extremely ingemous feature, SEA ANECDOTES. 249 not one merely extravagant, bke that in Mark which we have just remarked upon. Eckerman tells us that Goethe* con sidered this narrative as one of the most beautiful, and, to Mm, most valuable of legends, inasmuch as in it is illustrated the lofty truth that man by faith and courage is victorious in the most difficult undertaking, and on the other hand is inevitably lost when the sbghtest doubt arises in Ms mind. In order, hoAvever, to understand its origm, we must go back to the Old Testament, and moreover to the Mstory of the passage of the Israehtes through the Red Sea. There the Israehtes who passed through in safety are contrasted with the Egyptians who would have pursued them, but were drowned in the returnmg waters. And why ? " By faith," says the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 29), " they (the Israehtes) passed tMough the Red Sea as by dry land, AvMch the Egyptians assaymg to do were drowned." They were drowned, because they had not faith ; as on tMs occa sion Peter was on the pomt of bemg drowned because his faith deserted Mm. If it was wished, in order to make the Mosaic parabel complete, to have a counterpart to the unfaith ful who were drowned, out of the chcle that surrounded Jesus, there was Peter whose faith m the hour of danger was nearly extinguished, and who was only preserved by the inter cession of Jesus (Luke xxn. 31, ff.) ; and thus in this he does not actuaby sink as the Egyptians did, but only begms to do so and is saved by Jesus. The two middle Evangebsts omit this episode as they do much beside wMch concerns only Peter in particular; only the author of the supplement to the fourth Gospel, which for a reason above explamed has more to do with Peter, incorporates it with a narrative wMch we have discussed above, but in a form essentially different.f According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus now joins his dis ciples in the sMp, whereupon the wind drops and they * Dialugnes with Goethe, II. 263. t See above, § 69. 250 EOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. accompbsh the remainder of the passage to the other shore without further delay. The distance must have been consi derable, as Avhen Jesus set out upon Ms miraculous walk they had only just arrived at the middle of the lake. According to the fourth Evangebst, on the contrary, they Avished indeed to take Jesus on board, but found themselves, at the same moment, already close to the shore to AvMch they were bound (ver. 21). Consequently Jesus did not go on board. What, therefore, Mark represents him as only mtenchhg to do, that is, to pass the disciples and cross the lake, he actually accom plishes in John. Without availing Mmself of the ship he comes to the opposite shore, and possibly, moreover, acce lerates in a miraculous manner the speed of the vessel.* Accordingly, in tMs instance also the fourth Evangelist treads m the steps of the second in the exaggeration of the miracle ; but only, as m so many others, to attam, in our time at least, the opposite of what he wishes. For as he represents Jesus as not meeting Avith the disciples until they were close in shore, even theologianst who believe in John conclude from tMs, awakening again the shade of old Paulus, that Jesus did not walk over the sea but passed by land round its northern point, and that the disciples in the mist of the mornmg only imagined that they saw him walking over the water; so that even John does not say as the others do that Jesus walked upon the sea, but only that the disciples saw him walking on it. But this does not mean in the least that they merely imagmed what they saw, but comes to exactly the same thing as the two synoptics say. In this case it is not easy to see what meaning the whole narrative is to be supposed to have if Jesus came to the disciples m a natural manner. * Comp. Meyer's Commentary on the Passage. t Bleek, Contributions, I. 103, ff., in remarkable agreement with Gfriirer-, The Sacred Legend, I. 218, ff. In this case also, as in all subterfuges of the same kind, Schleiermacher has set the example in his lectures on the Life of Jesus,. though only in passing allusions. SEA ANECDOTES. 251 That it is not the intention of the fourth Evangelist to re present the passage of Jesus as a natural proceedmg, is clear from the pains wMch he takes to describe the mvestigation carried on on the part of the people mto the mode in Avhich Jesus crossed the lake. When the people who had been col lected around Jesus on the eastern shore for the loaves and fishes, find him on the next mornmg no longer m the spot or M the locabty, they calculate that he cannot have sailed across, because (a) he had not embarked with the disciples on board their ship, and (5) there had been no other ferry boat there. But neither could he have gone by land, as the people, returnmg by water, find Mm already there (ver. 25), and he could not have arrived m so short a time if he had taken the circmt of the shore. Thus ab natural modes of transit havmg been cut off, there remains only a supernatural one by which Jesus could have crossed, and this is the inference drawn by the people themselves in their question of surprise (ver. 25), as to when he came Mther, i. e. back to the west ern shore ? In order to make tMs process of mvestigation mto Ms qmck passage possible, the Evangebst provides " other boats " (ver. 23), i. e. fisMng boats, wMch he gets out of the Mstory of the calming of the storm m Mark (iv. 36), of which, however, a whole fleet would not have sufficed to transport the five thousand men with their wives and chddren. John, therefore, here narrates a miracle if any one ever did, and whoever does not choose to bebeve Mm, but nevertheless considers him, to have been an eye-witness, has no resource left but, with Hase,* to admit that here is an other occasion on wMch he was absent, that is to make a second hole m the theory of the school of the fourth Gospel —in wMch there are already holes enough. * Life of Jesus, § 75, comp. with 74. 252 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. 79. The Miracle oe the' Loaves and Fishes. In the Psalm which describes the distress of the Israehtes during their captivity, by the image of a storcn at sea, and their preservation out of it, as a calming of the tempest by Jehovah, Ave find, just at the beginning, the same thought expressed by the image of a famine, out of which Jehovah saved them. " They wandered," it is said (Psalm cvii. 4 — 9), "in the wddemess in a solitary way ; they found no city to dAvell m. Hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them. Then they cried unto the Lord in their trouble, and he de livered them out of their distresses. And he led them forth by the right way, that they might go to a city of habitation. Oh that men woidd praise the Lord for Ms goodness, and for Ms wonderful works to the children of men! For he satisfieth the longmg soul and fibeth the hungry soul with goodness." But famme in the wilderness, as we may remember from the Mstory of the temptation, not merely figuratively, but as real hunger, had been among the trials which the people of Israel had had to undergo during their exodus from Egypt, and the mode m which Jehovah had relieved them was among the most famous miracles described m the original history of the Hebrews. He had rebeved them by Manna as a substitute for bread, and besides this, as they Avished for flesh as web, by quads. And, according to the Rabbimc text, taken from 5 Mos. xvui. 15 : as was the first Saviour, so is the last Saviour, a new edition of the gift of Manna was especiaby expected from the Messiah.* In famines too the Prophets had proved their divine mis sion by sendmg miraculous relief. When, during the great drought under Ahab, Elijah lodged with the widow of Zare- * See the passage from Midrasch Koheleth, above, p. 204. THE MIRACLE OP TOE LOAVES AND PISHES. 253 phath, Jehovah's miraculous operation in favour of his Pro phet prevented the barrel of meal wasting or the oil fadmg in the widow's cruse, so long as the scarcity lasted (1 Kings xvii. 7, ff.) . Likewise, when in the days of Ebsha a famine occurred, and the hundred disciples of the Prophets whom he had with him Avere m want, twenty barley loaves and some ears of corn in the husk were so completely sufficient at Jehovah's word to satisfy them, that sometMng thereof was left (2 Kings iv. 38, 42—44). Thus, in the Mstory of the Prophets, in accordance with the change of circumstances, the form of the miracle had so far changed, that a new abment from heaven was no longer given, but common and earthly nourishment was made suffi cient for a far longer time, or for far more persons than it would naturally have maintained. And therefore it was natural that the Messiamc hope, Avhde keepmg that strict Mosaic form in view, should also appear in another in which, con necting itself with the Mstory of -the Prophets, it expected* of the Messiah only a miraculous mcrease of means of nourish ment already existing ; only that, M order to excel the Pro phet, the Messiah must feed a larger number with a less amount of provision. But the fact that a miraculous supply of food, such being considered an appropriate act for the Messiah to perform, was attributed to him not m the form of a shower of Manna,. but of a distribution of bread, depends also upon a further consideration. The most important rite of the new Church of Christ consisted in a distribution of bread. After the Pentecostal speech of the Apostle Peter, the first bebevers assembled for the breaking of bread and prayer (Acts u. 42, • Thus in the passage above quoted from Midrasch Koheleth, Ps. lxxii. 16, is brought forward as referring to the Manna to be given by the latter Saviour. In that Psalm only a superabundance of bread-corn is spoken of, which is to be in the land, in the days of the king eulogised in the Psalm, who is, according to the later explanation, the Messiah. 254 BOOK IT. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. 46) ; it Avas at the breakmg of bread that the disciples going to Emmaus recognised Jesus after the resurrection (Luke xxiAr. 30, 35) ; for, it is said, he took the bread exactly as at the last supper, gaAre thanks over it, broke it in pieces, and distributed it to Ms disciples. And when Paul (1 Cor. x. 3) says of the Israelites under Moses, that they had been all baptized in the cloud and in the sea, had all eaten the same sphitual meat, and drunk the same spiritual drink, he con siders the manna and the Avater out of the rock likewise as signs prefigurative "of the bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord, in the same way as he considered the wetting by the cloud and the sea, as a type of CMistian Baptism. Of the last supper indeed, the Christians told each other of the mode in wMch Jesus instituted it on the last evemng he spent on earth ; but it admitted also of bemg represented as a counterpart to thefeedmg with Manna under Moses, and moreover in the character of a miraculous feast : hence our Evangebcal history of the Loaves and Fishes. It does not contain a feature wMch may not be derived from the Mosaico-prophetic type on the one hand, and the antitype of the Christian supper on the other. In the account given in the Books of Moses, there is tMs pecubarity, that the feeding of the people with quads is told twice over. So also the Manna is twice spoken of (2 Mos. xvi. ; 4 Mos. xi.) . And it woidd seem to have been thought necessary to imitate this peculiarity m the Gospels. At all events the two first of these have each two accounts of Feeding respectively. These accounts are, in each mstance, similar in the main, but differ in detail (Matt. xiv. 13 — 21, and xv. 29, 32—39 ; Mark vi. 30—44, viii-. 1 — 10) . On the first oc casion Jesus withdraws into a wild region on the eastern shore ofthe sea of Galilee, on the second to a mountam in the neigh bourhood of the same sea, which is also described as Wilder ness ; on the first, the multitude that followed him staid with Mm a whole day until evening, on the second, three days : on THE MIRACLE OF THE LOAVES AND PISHES. 2oU the first the multitude, without women and chddren, amounted to five thousand, on the second to four thousand men ; on the first, it is the disciples who at first recommend Jesus to dismiss the multitude, that they may buy food ; on the second, it is Jesus who declares to the disciples that he Avdl not send the people away fasting ; on the first there are five loaves and two fishes, on the second, seven loaves and a few fishes ; on the first, there are twelve loaves remaimng, on the second, seven baskets of fragments. But everything else, the hunger, which threatens the numbers that have flocked together, by reason of their prolonged stay, the doubt of the disciples as to the possibibty of providing sufficient nourish ment for them, the question of Jesus as to the provision inhand, the command to the people to sit doAvn, then the prayer, the distribution, the satisfying ofthe hunger, and gathering of what remains, all these are told exactly to the same purport in both, in part in the same terms. Stdl, in both Gospels, reference is expressly made to the two narratives as relating two different events (Matt. xvi. 9, ff; Mark viii. 19, ff). Now this mdeed can scarcely be an intentional imitation of the double narrative in the Old Testament, but may easdy be explamed from the same cause, namely that the author of our first Gospel, as well as the compder of the Pentateuch, found the same history in two different sources given Avith somewhat varymg details, and m a different connection, and took, m consequence, the double narrative of the same Mstory for two histories, and placed them unhesitatingly close to one another. In tMs Mark fobowed Matthew ; Luke, as else where in similar cases, only gives the first Mstory (ix. 10 — 17) and omits the second, while John, likewise qmte in his own manner, compounds Ms narrative out of features of both histories (vi. 1 — 15). He takes the five loaves and two fishes, the five thousand men and the twelve baskets of fragments from the first Mstory of the Feeding ; on the other hand, he .transplants the occurrence, as Matthew and. Mark do the 256 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. second Feeding, to a mountain, represents moreover, as is done in the latter, the scene as being opened by an address of Jesus to the disciples ; and to Ms account, moreover, as to the second of the two first synoptics, there is subjoined the demand for a sign from heaven and a confession of Peter (vi. 30, ff. 68, comp. with Matt. xvi. 1, 16). If, after these prelimmary remarks, we go through the seAreral details ofthe narrative, we shall find that the locabty m Avhich the miracle takes place, the wild district remote from human habitations, supplies on the one hand a motive for the performance of it, whde, on the other hand, as in the case of the history of the temptation, it aheady existed in the Mosaic type. So also the time of day, the late evening, does indeed supply a motive for what was to follow, but it pomts not backwards into the Mosaic, but forwards mto the Christian Mstory. The mode in which the disciples draw the attention of Jesus to the day bemg far advanced, and as a reason for either dismissing the people, or, wMch is the alternative he adopts, feedmg them, reminds us ofthe request ofthe disciples going to Emmaus to stay with them, because it was towards evening and the day was far spent, whereupon follows the breaking of bread aheady mentioned (Luke xxiv. 29) ; it reminds us moreover of the evenmg when Jesus sat at table with the twelve to eat the passover and to institute his holy supper. Jesus' meal of love and miracle is a supper. The beginnmg of the miracle creates uo difficulty on any supposition, Avhether, that is, it is introduced, as in the first account given by the synoptics, by a suggestion of the dis ciples, or, as in the second, by Jesus himself expressing Ms compassion for the multitude, who have already been with Mm three days without sufficient food. On the other hand it is umntefiigible, how Jesus, according to the narrative of the fourth Gospel, the very moment he sees the multitude coming to Mm, can ask Philip " whence can we buy bread THE MIRACLE OP THE LOAVES AND PISHES. 257 that these may eat ?" The people came, not to eat, but, according to the Evangelist's own statement, on account of the healing of the sick, and it was certainly not the business of Jesus, before anytMng else, and Avithout any necessity, AvMch, according to the Johannine narrative, did. not exist, .to look after the bodily support of the people. In fact, on readmg the additional words of the Evangebst, that Jesus put that question to Philip in order to tempt him, we might understand the purport of the speech to be exactly the same as that of Ms speech at Jacob's web in Samaria, when the disciples had fetched means of support for him out of the city, and called upon him to eat. Then he said that he had food of which they knew nothmg. TMs the disciples understand of real food, which some one might have brought for Mm during their absence, whde he is alluding to his performance of the wib of God and the execution of his work (John iv. 31—34). Thus, it might be supposed, on tMs occasion also Jesus has m Ms mind a spiritual feedmg of the people, and so the answer of Phibp, that five hundred pennyworth of bread would not suffice for such a multitude, would be only one of the. regular misunderstandmgs in John, and the solution would be mvolved in the subsequent discussions contained in the sixth chapter, about the Logos as the bread of life given by God to men. But, as usual, in the Gospel of John, tMs flight mto the region of the spiritual, meets with an obstacle wMch brings it to the ground ; m spite of the ideal elements mtroduced, the material miracle goes on, and tMs, after bemg performed m ab its material breadth, is again remodebed and mvested with a spiritual character. But the Evangebst has this ideal perspective in view from the very first; it is because he knows what he intends, at last, to make of the history of the Feedmg, namely, without prejudice to its natural reabty, a symbol of the spiritual nourishment of man kind by the Logos, it is because the material element m the history is, as it were, transparent to him, that he represents vol. n. s 258 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Jesus as puttmg tMs question at the very outset, a question Avhich, unless Ave place ourselves exactly upon Ms pomt of view, must appear absurd. The objections wMch, in the first account of the Feeding, the disciples make to the request of Jesus to them to give food to the people, m the second to his declaration that he cannot send the people away fasting, expressed in the one case by their pointing to the small quantity of their pro vision, in the other by the question as to where sufficient nourishment is to come from in the wilderness, are mdeed of the same description as the narrators of every detaded miraculous Mstory are fond of mtroducmg, in order to give rebef to the accounts, but at the same time are prefigured both m the Mosaic, and also in the prophetic history. Jeho vah declares to Moses Ms intention of feeding the murmuring people with flesh for a whole month even to satiety. He is met by Moses first with an objection founded upon the num ber of the people, and then attention is drawn to what would be required to satisfy so large a host with meat for so long a time. In like manner Avhen Elisha's servant is commanded by Ms master to set before the sons of the Prophets the twenty barley loaves, the latter is met by the question, " What! should I set this before a hundred men ?" (2 Fangs iv. 43). Here also we see the fourth Gospel going further in the steps of the second. It is only M these two that the dis ciples name a sum wMch would be required to provide food for the assembled multitude, and moreover the same sum, two hundred pence, doubtless as an amount wMch would ex ceed that in the treasury of the society ; only that Mark says that tMs amount would certainly be wanted, John, on the contrary, that so much would not suffice for each to have but a small quantity. On the other hand, the assignment of the conversation, which m the other Evangelists the disciples carry on m common, to PMbp and Andrew, together with the introduction of a lad as the bearer of the loaves and fishes, THE MIRACLE OF THE LOAVES AND FISHES. 259 is to be laid to the account of that dramatically picturesque manner of the fourth Gospel Avith which we are already ac quainted. The provision in hand consists principally of bread. This is the result partly of the ecclesiastical tradition, partly of the Mosaic, and also of the prophetical type. For manna takes the place of bread, and is frequently so called. The fact that the bread is in the form of barley loaves, that is, the cheapest kmd of bread, and that John speaks of this alone, may be taken from the history of Elisha. The circumstance that an accessory consisting of meat is added to the bread corresponds to the Mosaic precedent, according to which, besides the manna, quails are also given to the people ; and that M the Evangebcal narrative the accessory consists of fish — this might be derived, though not very satisfactorily, from the remembrance of the murmuring of the people for the fish which they had for nothing m Egypt, and from the expression of Moses, that to feed so many people with flesh ab the fish of the sea must be gathered together. If we look to the other of the types to wMch we have drawn attention, the CMistian supper, the fish, and the accessory of flesh at all might even excite surprise. It would not, indeed, have suited the disciples' mode of bfe, m their travels mto the desert, to have carried wme as well as bread with them; it is there fore quite intelligible that in the history of the loaves and fishes the other element should be unrepresented, but where the fishes came from is a question that from tMs pomt of vieAV is still emgmatical. We might, apart from the Supper, and supposmg the miraculous legend to have had its origin m Galilee, look upon the fishes as a local feature, as in these lake countries fish was a mam element m the food of the people, and mdeed among the proofs of his resurrection Avhich Jesus gives to Ms doubting disciples, the consumption of a piece of broded fish occurs; we might, moreover, remem ber that the Apostles, some bteraby and all figuratively, were s2 260 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. fishermen, consequently the fishes were the most obvious tMngs to connect with the bread. But we are at once, and necessarily, taken back to the Supper, when we look at the description which the Evangel ists give of the distribution of the bread and the fishes by Jesus. It might, mdeed, be said that the fact of Jesus, on this occasion as well on that of the institution of the Supper, first blessmg the bread with a prayer, was a part of the Jewish custom, and still more, here, ofthe intention to perform a miracle ; that Ms breaking the bread twice arose from the nature of it ; Ms distributing it twice from the circumstances of the case ; so that, consequently, no conclusion should be drawn from the simdarity of Ms proceedings in both cases as to an internal relation of the one narrative to the other. But why then is the resemblance of the conduct of Jesus on one occasion to his conduct on another so frequently and so ¦industriously brought forward? Why is the mode m which he acted on these occasions represented as a test by which he might be recognised ? As in tMs Mstance it is said of Mm that he took the five loaves and the two fishes, looked up to heaven, gave thanks, broke the bread and gave it to bis disciples, so it is said, not merely at the mstitution of the Supper, exactly in the same terms, that he took the bread, gave thanks, broke and gave it to his disciples (Matt. xxvi. 26) ;* but also m the scene at the sea of Galilee after the resurrection, Jesus takes the bread and gives it to them, bkewise also of the fish (John xxi. 13) ;t and likewise after the resurrection, with the disciples at Emmaus, " He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them ;" and it * It is said in Mark of the fishes, vi. 41 : Kal roig Svo ix^vag ipipiae vaoi, as in Luke xxii. 17, it is said of the cup that Jesus gave it to his disciples with the words: AaBtre tovto, kclI Sta/upicraTs iavrolc. f Here also the words Kal to dif/apiov bpoitog, remind us of the &>o-avrs Kal to iroTripiov (in Justin, Apol. i. 66: Kal to irorriptov o/toiuc), in the history of the Institution of the Supper, Luke xxii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 25. THE MIRACLE OP THE LOAVES AND PISHES. 261 was by this, " by the breakmg of the bread," that he, who up to that time had been unknown to them, was recogmsed by them as Jesus (Luke xxiv. 30, ff, 35). This, therefore, was the act in the performance of wMch the members of the Church took most pleasure in couceivmg Jesus as being engaged ; it was that in wMch he continued to survive in the holy custom of the Supper, and it was upon tMs conception, independent of the act of instituting the Supper, that similar acts were referred partly to the days of his resurrection, partly to those of Ms natural life. And there is one pomt in wMch our history of the loaves and fishes prefigures the ancient Christian rite of the Supper even more accurately than the Mstory of the consecration itself. In tMs Jesus was only M the company of his disciples, he therefore distributed the bread and wine to them alone ; on the other hand, at the Supper m the most ancient Churches there existed a double gradation, the bread and wine bemg debvered by the cMef to the deacons, and then by them handed to the several mem bers of the congregation,* exactly as in the Mstory of the Feedmg, bread and fish is first given by Jesus to the Apos tles and then by them to the people. The absence of wine at these prebmmary semblances of the Supper, admits of the same explanation as the chcumstance that the celebration of the origmal Christian Supper is some times only described as f ' breaking of bread" (Acts ii. 42, 46, xx. 7). The bread was always the substantial part of the repast. And the chcumstance that here, as m John xxi, the bread is accompamed by fish mstead of wine, may perhaps be explamed from this, that with the Supper, in Christian antiqmty, common meals, the so-cabed agapce, were con nected. An ahusion to these meals properly so-cabed, exceedmg as they did the smiple elements of the Supper, may be found m the fishes ; so that the history of the Feed ing would have a reference not merely to the Supper in the" * Justin Marfyr, Apol. i. 65. 26.2 BOOK II. .MYTHICAL HISTORY' OF JESUS. T more restricted sense, but to the custom of the Christian" love-feasts generally, the Supper included. The comprehen sive nature of Christian love, which at these feasts fed also the poor members of the Church, was represented in the history of the Feeding as a product of the miraculous poAver of CMist, which ricMy provides food for all. Perhaps also from the custom which prevailed at these ancient Christian meals may be explained the feature that, in the first account of the Feeding, Luke represents the people as sitting doAvn some in fifties, some in hundreds : this may be an abasion. to the masses into which a large company might divide itself at the love-feasts. .;._•,'. - That a miracle 'is involved in the Mstory of the Feeding is shown unmistakeably by the fact that Jesus distributes the broken pieces of five or seven loaves, and of two or at ab events only a few fishes, and that by these pieces four or five thousand men,together with the women and chfldren belong-' ing to them, are not merely satisfied,, but besides this on one occasion twelve, on another seven baskets of fragments, i. e. a larger quantity than was origmaby there for distribution, remain, But it is not stated at what moment the miracle reaby took place. Schleiermacher tMnks that an eye-witness would have told us this for certain; we add, yes, if there could be an eye-witness of an impossible event. If we en deavour to put the tMng plamly- before us, especiaby the moment of the miraculous, increase, we see the pieces, before coming mto the mouth and stomach of the people; pass tMough tMee sets of hands : the hands of Jesus, then those of the Apostles, lastly those of the multitude to be fed, and the miraculous increase may be supposed to have taken place under any one of these tMee processes. Supposing the fragments of five loaves to have come into thehaads of more than five thousand men, without preceding increase, so as to: grow in, their, hands, not having done so before, then only very smab crumbs must have been.carefuby distributed by THE MIRACLE OF THE LOAVES AND FISHES. 263 the disciples to the people; a conception that involves an amount of triflmg which certainly was not in the. mind of the Evangebsts. Tliere remam, therefore, only the hands of Jesus or the Apostles, and it appears to be most in accord ance with the sphit of the narrative to suppose that it was in the hands of Mm who looked up to Heaven and blessed the bttle store that the Mcrease of it also took place. We may conceive this mcrease to have taken place in one of two ways : that either when Jesus had fmished with one cake of bread or one fish, a fresh one and then again a fresh one came out of M3 hands ; or that each of the five loaves and • two fishes grew under his hands, that is, tMew off new pieces, untb m the case of the loaves a fifth part, m that of the fishes a half of the multitnde was provided for, and that then another loaf and the second fish came into the series. And as John, certainly M the sense of the other narrators, says that the baskets of fragments were cobected from the five loaves, the occurrence must have taken place, according to their notion, in the manner last described, for M the first case the fragments would not have come from the five loaves, but each loaf would itself have been multipbed. But whatever conception we may form of the miracle, it involves, M any case, something so extravagant that we can not be surprised if modern theology is anxious to get rid of it at any price. But m domg so the theologians should set about the task fairly and openly, admitting-that the Evan gebsts here intend to describe a miracle, but that they do not believe it, and masmuch as simdar cases are constantly recurring m the Gospels they are unable to look upon these, generaby, as Mstorical compositions. Instead of tMs we see M the passage M question a set of miserable shifts and de lusive evasions contending with each other for the mastery. ScMeiermacher, who M tMs case also takes altogether the ground of Paulus, finds m the words of Jesus in John (vi. 26), that the people had fbhowed Mm not because they had 264 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. seen miracles, but because they had eaten of the loaves, an mdication that the Mcrease of the bread had been a natural process.. But as to what the miracles had been AvMch the people saw, and what had happened to the loaves — upon this pomt, with more cunnmg but less candour than Paulus, he avoids every explanation. Naturally- — because on a nearer examination: of the question he cannot avoid seemg that even Ms eye-witness John describes the occurrence as a miracle, and understands the speech of Jesus to mean that the people looked upon the miracle which they had seen as hnportant, not because it was a miracle, that is, a proof and reflex of Ms higher power, but only on its material side, as a distribution of bread. ' The hypothesis that a hospitable meal, provided by Jesus not through Ms oaati miraculous power but M a. per fectly natural manner, for the purpose of setting an example of a man's sharing his own provision with others, operated upon by popular recollections and expectations, quickly took the form of a legend about a miraculous. Feeding — tMs. hypo thesis, accordmg to Hase,* is only opposed by the fact of John'shaving been an eye-witness. But what is to be done, as, according to the admission of the same theologian, " the possibility of an mcrease m a quantity of nourisMng sub stance, without cause assigned, is undeservmg . of serious thought ?" -We know aheady what the scientific investiga tor of the Life of Jesus wib do : he dismisses the unwelcome eye-witness, whose presence, moreover, on the occasion of Jesus' wabring on the- water . (the narrative of wMch imme diately follows, and wMch we have aheady discussed), would place him~m a difficulty. . It is true, mdeed, that according to the express account of the two middle Evangebsts (Mark vi. 30; Luke ix. 10), the Apostles, i.e. the twelve who had been sent out (Luke ix* 1 ; Mark yi. 7), had just before re turned ; but the dreamer John must have been beMndhand, and on meeting afterwards with Jesus, and hearing the '"- '¦• ^ . * life of Jesus, § 7.4. THE MIRACLE OP THE LOAVES AND FISHES. 265 Mstory spoken of, cannot have taken the trouble to examine into the actual circumstances. According to Ewald,* it is impossible now to state with accuracy what was the original occasion of the narrative, in which he sees simply an embodi ment of the doctrine that Avhere true faith is combmed with genuine love, infinite effects may be produced by the smabest external means. When the meaning of a miraculous Mstory is understood to be so abstractedly moral as tMs explanation Miphes, Ave certainly require, if the origin of the Evangelical narrative is to be made intebigible, a special external occa sion. In Ewald's explanation this occasion is simply an immaterial nonentity. We, who have defmitely accounted for the origm of all the mdividual features of the narrative, are formaby exempt from the necessity of suggesting this ex ternal occasion. Of these features there stib remam only the gathering together of the fragments and the number of the baskets : The gathering of fragments generaby may appear on the one hand to be simply an imitation of the Mstory ofthe manna, AvMch is also gathered from first to last, and not merely the remnants. There is, however, a more definite antitype m the history of Elisha, who causes the twenty loaves to be set before the hundred Prophets, with the ex planation, " for thus saith the Lord, They shab eat and shab leave thereof." Then the writer continues, " So* he (the servitor) set it before them, and they did eat and left thereof, accordmg to the word of the Lord " (2 "Kings iv. 43, ff.). On the other hand, tMs gathering up of the remains of the miraculous feast, especiaby when the reason for it given by the Evangebst is taken into account, "that nothmg may remam," remmds us of the horror wMch the ancient Church had of any of the elements of the Supper droppmg to the ground or being otherwise lost.f The fragments are gathered * Three first Evangelists, p. 260. History of Christ, p. 320, ff. •f TertuU. de Cor. Mil. 3. Orig. in Exod. Homil. xiii, 3. 266 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. into baskets. TMs was partly a matter of course; bnt the manna was also gathered into measures of a homer each. In one account the number of baskets is exactly tAvelve. This number may be copied from that of the Apostles who gather. In the other, the number of baskets, seven, might seem to be taken from that of the seven loaves mentioned in the account, possibly also from that of the seven deacons employed* at the celebration of the Supper. (Comp. Acts vi. 1, ff. xxi. 8.) In the first* number, as web as in that of the twelve Apostles, an abusion to the twelve tribes of Israel may at the same time be found ; but whether, because only the remnants of the meal are cobected into the twelve baskets, those who had aheady feasted are to be understood as Heathen, and the feast as the great Supper of the Heathen, by wMch the number of the twelve tribes of the Jews was to be by no means diminished — is a question but few readers would answer in the affirmative, f 80. The Miracle at Cana. In thedustory of Moses (2 Mos. xvii.; 4 Mos. xx.), the gift of manna or bread is accompamed by a miraculous gift of water, and tMs also, m the expectations of the Jews, was transferred from the first Saviour to the second, the Messiah. Metaphorically also, m speaking of spiritual nourishment, the bread of understanding was placed by the side of the water of wisdom (Ecclus. xv. 3) ; M the Apocalypse the water of bfe to wMch the Lamb leads his followers, whose stream * Comp. the passage from Justin quoted above. f Thus Luthardt, The Gospel of John, ii. 44, to the effect that Jesus meant to imply this by the command given, at the conclusion of his miracle, to gather into twelve baskets ; Volkmar, Eeligion of Jesus, p. 232, ff., supposes a fiction,- alluding to the ministry of the Apostle of the Heathen- THE MIRACLE AT CANA. 267 springs forth from the throne of God and the Lamb, plays a great part (vii. 17, xxi. 6, xxii. 1, 17) ; and even in the Gos pel of John, Jesus speaks of a bring water Avhich he gives to men and which appeases thirst for ever (iv. 10, 13, ff). . On other occasions Jesus prefers to compare what be offers to mankmd to wine, and moreover to new wine which shoidd be put mto new bottles (Matt. ix. 17). And in consequence of his mode of life he found Mmself contrasted m many ways and not much to his advantage, as a drinker of wine, Avith the Baptist who drank water (Matt. xi. 18, ff.). Moreover, the frequent comparison of the joys of the kingdom of the Messiah to a feast (Matt. viu. 11, xxvi. 29 ; Eev. m. 20), to a marriage-feast, at wMch the Messiah appears as a bride groom (Matt. xxn. 1 — 14, comp. ix. 15; John hi. 29 ; Eev. xix. 7, xxi. 2, 9, xxn. 17), suggested the idea of wine that rejoices the heart rather than that of sober water. John's cabing was to baptize with water ; he was to be followed by the Messiah with the baptism of the Spirit and fire (Matt. m. 11 ; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26, 33). According to the accounts given in the Acts, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples of Jesus, did actually manifest itself by tongues of fire, resulting in phenomena which were ascribed by mockers to those men bemg fibed with sweet wine (Acts n. 13), the phenomena being on the con trary the effects of the Holy Spirit. But if, on tMs occasion, being filled by the Sphit gave the impression that the effects of the Sphit were those of the heat of new wine, conversely a gift of wine might easily be taken as an image of the com munication of the Spirit. The Baptist belonged to the old covenant, Ms baptism by water was but the last of those purifications, those works of the law by which, smce Moses, the Jewish people had m vain attempted to gam the favour of God. The contrast between the new element that had come in Christ and the old element, between grace and the law, between the Son of God and Moses, 268 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. implying that it Avas only under the first conditions of this series that satisfaction and happiness are to be attained, under the last notMng but imperfection and dissatisfaction, is especiaby involved in the principle of the fourth Gospel, "For the law," it.is said at the conclusion ofthe preface, "was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." " And of his fulness," it had been said just before, " have all we received, and grace for grace" (i. 16, ff.). It has been cor rectly remarked,* that in the narrative of the gift of wine at Cana, exactly the same principle returns in the form of a fact that had been enunciated m that passage of the preface, as to the relation of Moses to Christ, of the law to grace. If, as a parabel to the miraculous gift of food, a similar gift of drink was to be ascribed to Jesus as the second Moses, or the divine Wisdom persomfied, all these considerations must have concurred in causing that drink to be represented as consisting, rather M wine than, a3 M the case of its anti type, in water. And then there came in the additional con sideration wMch had principaby contributed, m the case of Jesus, to change the gift of manna into a gift of bread. It was impossible that a miraculous gift of food should be attri buted to Jesus without an allusion to the Bread at the Supper. QMte as impossible to describe Mm as having, like Moses, miraculously supplied drink as well, without thinkmg of the Wine at the Supper. Thus Paul (1 Cor. x. 3, ff.), m speaking of the water out of the rock in the wilderness, con siders both it and the manna as types of the two elements of the Supper. But if the matter employed at the miraculous Feeding was the same as one of the elements of the Supper, it was obvious to represent the matter of the miraculous supply of drink as corresponding to the other element of the Supper, consequently as consisting of Wine. Moreover, it is intelligible from tMs, why the narrative of the miraculous . * Luthardt, i. 354. THE MIRACLE AT CANA. 269 gift of Wme is found only in the Gospel of John. The three first Evangebsts were satisfied with the history of the Feedmg as prefiguring the Supper, as they ab give a special account besides of the institution of the Supper, in wMch, together with the Bread, its other element also, Wine, has its proper place. On the contrary, as the fourth Evangebst had, as is to be explained below, Ms reasons for avoiding all mention of the scene of the institution of the Supper, he was called upon, M order that both the elements might be spoken of, at ab events Mdirectly, in Ms Gospel, to place a mhaculous supply of drink by the side of a mhaculous supply of food, a gift of wme by the side of a gift of bread. He makes it the beghuuhg of the miracles wMch Jesus did (ii. 11) ; it would seem as though he had felt himself com- pebed, after having ibustrated the propositions of his preface Avith regard to the purpose and testimony of the Baptist, to bring upon the stage, as a sort of a prologue to his whole Gospel, the passage quoted as to the relation of Jesus to Moses, of grace to the law. On tMs principle, perhaps, the form wMch he gives to the miracle may be explained. It would have corresponded to the Evangebcal miracle of the Feedmg, as web as to the Old Testament miracle of the od performed by Ebjah, if Jesus had Mcreased a smah quantity of wme, had made it sufficient for a considerable time, or for many men. Instead of that he changes water mto wine. Mose3 also had opened Ms mhaculous career by a change of water; only it had been the vmdictive change of ab the water m Egypt mto blood. The first-frmts of the miracles of Jesus could not, Mdeed, be a miracle of vengeance; the blood mto which he changed the water must not be real blood, but only the noble blood ofthe grape (lMos.xlix.il; 5 Mos. xxxu. 14), wMch in deed, as taken at the last Supper, is the sacrificial blood of the Messiah (Matt. xxvi. 28), the life-giving blood of the Son of Man who came down from heaven (John vi. 53—58). If, after these prelimmary remarks we examine more closely 270 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS, the Johannine account of the miracle at Cana (ii. 1 — 11), we find that the scene where it takes place, a marriage feast, is fixed by the conception already mentioned, of the kingdom of the Messiah under the figure of a feast, and, more espe cially, a marriage feast. Had the scene of such a feast been transplanted mto the future, or the description been intended to be a mere comparison, as in Matt. ix. 15, xxn. 1, ff ; John iii. 29, then, by a figure probably taken from the Song of Solomon, Jesus Mmself might represent the bridegroom whose bride is sometimes represented to be the Church (Ephes. v. 25 — 27, 29, 32, and the passages from the Eeve- lations above quoted). On the other hand, m the case of a scene placed as an historical occurrence in the bfe of Jesus, the representation of it could not be given ; the bridegroom must be a different person, Jesus himseb' can only be a guest at the marriage ; but still he is the person from whom, in the end, the enjoyment of the feast proceeds. For the natural bridegroom (tMs is necessary as a motive for the miracle) has not provided, or has not been able to provide, a sufficient quantity of wine. The mother of Jesus points out to her Son the deficiency that has occurred, as in the first account of the' loaves and fishes given by the synoptics the disciples call his attention to the fact that it is time to send the people away that they may buy food. Bnt, as is clear from his answer, the mother of Jesus gives him this information intendmg to make a demand upon Ms mhaculous poAvers. The ensmng miracle being the first, according to the Evangebst's oavu account, that Jesus did, and no account having been given of the mhaculous events of Ms infancy, it appeared to the narrator suitable that the mother of Jesus should have been from the first aware of, or at all events have suspected the existence of her Son's exalted nature. But whde he exalts her by im plying this, he degrades her on the other hand far below her Son's unapproachable dignity, by the abrupt retort which THE MIRACLE AT CANA. 271 Jesus makes. By the cutting words, " Woman, what have I to do Avith thee ?" the fourth Evangelist appears to have in tended to outdo the question of Jesus to Ms parents, " Why sought ye me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? ", which the third Evangebst puts into the mouth of Jesus at twelve years of age (Luke ii. 49) ; but that this is too abrupt for him, will be the opmion of every one who does not consider that what we are dealing with here is not a condition of natural humanity, but the relation betAveen the creative Word Mcarnate and every human authority, and that even that authority, wMch is otherwise most sacred, must be repudiated by that Incarnate Word. Jesus adds, as a special ground for tMs repudiation, that his hour is not yet come. That of the day and hour of the Second Commg of the Messiah, and the end ofthe present period of -the world no man knows, but only God the Father alone — tMs is the concurrent view ofthe tMee first Evangelists (Matt. xxiv. 36, xxv. 13 ; Mark xiii. 32 ; Acts i. 7), of whom the second extends that ignor ance to the Son, the Messiah. There, God alone is the Bemg who knows, men (the Messiah bemg more or less expressly included) do not know ; in the fourth Gospel, a most import ant pomt m favour of its fundamental view, the Son of God, the mcarnate Logos is contrasted as the only Being that knows with men who do not know, and the day and the hour in question are not those of Ms future return but of Ms pre sent glorification, first by miracles and lastly by Ms death. It is the latter that is impbed when, as is frequently the case, it is said that the persecution of Ms enemies had no result, because his hour was not yet come (vu. 30, viii. 20), and subsequently that he knew and declared that Ms hour was now come (xii. 21, xiii. 1). On the other hand, with regard to the time for his pubbc entrance mto Jerusalem, he main- tams, M opposition to his brethren, that it is not yet come (vii. 6, 8), as he here objects to Ms mother that it is not yet the hour for Mm to perform miracles : although in this case, 272 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. as web as in the former, he does really and after a short in terval acqmesce in the demand made npon him before the time. Mary knows beforehand that he will do this, and upon this knowledge directs the servants to do as her Son shab direct them. Thus she is again exalted. For though she bears m mind the distance betAveen herself and Mm who is above ab (iii. 31), still, knoAving what she does, she is not embarrassed or perplexed. The symbobcal meamng of the six water-pots of stone, wMch, according to the custom of the Jewish ablution (of the hands before eating, Matt. xv. 2 ; Mark vii. 2, ff), stood at band, cannot be mistaken. Jesus orders them to be fibed with water, thus getting the basis for his miracle. The statement of the capacity of the pots, AvMch was consider able, and their being fibed to the brim, is Mtended to duply that Jesus was he who gives of Ms fuMess (i. 15), who, like God Mmself, gives not his gifts with scanty measure riii. 34). The pots, therefore, are fibed with water, then the servants, at the order of Jesus, draw out, and bear to the Master of the Feast, who, having tasted the liquor, recogmses it as wine, and better too than had before come to table. When, on tMs, the Evangelist uses the expression " the water that became wine," and fui'ther on, describes Cana as the place where Jesus changed the water into wme (iv. 46), when, moreover, he calls this change of water a miracle, in con sequence of which the disciples bebeved m Jesus (ver. 11), and ranks it as the first Galilean miracle, with a cure at a distance as the second (iv. 54) : — when he does ad tMs he describes the act of Jesus unmistakeably as a miracle, and • the mterpretation of believers is justified m the remark that any explanation that does away with the mhaculous element is not merely opposed to the words and the view of John, but also depreciates his credibility and capacity for observation, placing even the character of Jesus m an equivocal light.* * Meyer, Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 108 ofthe third edition. THE MIRACLE AT CANA. 273 If we believe in John, we must believe in the miracle ; if Ave cannot do the latter, we must refuse to believe in the Evangebst, and that not only here, but as he narrates a series of miracles not less incredible, nay, as almost every Avord uttered by Ms CMist is as incredible as tMs miracle, Ave must do so throughout, and particularly as regards Ms giving us to understand that he is the Apostle John. The appli cation m tMs case of Hase's solution, which supposes Mm to have been absent,* is the more ridiculous, as, according to ver. 2, the disciples of Jesus were invited with him to the marriage, and in the unnamed disciple Avho appears among those before engaged by Jesus (i. 35, 41) Hase himself recogmses John ; the appeal of ScMeiermacher and his fol- lowersf to the fact that nothmg is said of the impression made upon the guests by the abeged miracle, and that the narrative generaby is not vivid enough, is a weak juggle about an account wMch no honest reader can misunderstand ; whde Neander'sJ attempt to substitute a mere potentiabza- tion of the water for vinous properties, for the change of water into real wine, can onlybe called a result of imbecibty of thought, as web as of faith, which deserves our compassion. There now follows a speech of the Master ofthe Feast which has caused the expositors much trouble in the attempt to show that the custom which is described in it as common existed somewhere or other M the world. The Master of the Feast says that every man puts before his guests the good wine first, and then, when they have well drunk, that wMch is worse. But, on the contrary, no man does tMs, because it contradicts the nature of the operations of the human mind, which reqmres a gradation of pleasure M the ascending scale. The Evangebst shnply invented this alleged custom alto gether, or rather appropriated it from a synoptic expression * Life of Jesus, § 50. ¦) Among whom, in this case, Ewald must be numbered, The Johannine writings, i. 149, ff. f Life of Jesus Christ, p. 27 1 . VOL. II. T 274 BOOK IT. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. of Jesns. In composing his narrative, he had floating in his mind that speech of Jesus in wMch the latter compared what he offered to mankmd Avith new wme. And, in Luke, he found appended to it (v. 39) the words : " No man also having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new : for he saith, The old is better." This passage in the thhd Gospel is intended to apply to the attachment of men to what is old (in tMs instance Judaism and the Jewish customs), and to their prejudice agamst what is new : and practical experience is appealed to in proof of the assertion : our Evangebst intends, conversely, to show that the new element offered by Jesus is preferable to the old, and that consequently M the miraculous narrative the wine that was given last tasted better than that before placed upon the table by the bridegroom. He endeavours, in Ms own peculiar manner, to idustrate tMs by a contrast, but inasmuch as the question does not, in Ms narrative, as m the passage of Luke, concern the difference between wine that is old, i. e. grown m an earber year, and new, i. e. of a later growth, but only that between wme put on the table sooner or later, that natural and frequently heard phrase in Luke, the old is better, is converted into the pretended custom, but one which cannot be proved to have anywhere existed, of first setting on the better wine, and the fact that immediately after the old the new has no taste, into the imagmary usage of putting the worse wme before the guests after the better. Such "3 the symbolical view of the miracle at Cana, m the form in which it was some time since brought forward by Herder, without impugnmg its Mstorical validity, most lately by Baur in particular who expressly rejects the latter. On critical grounds, the only objection to be made to it is that the Evangebst does not say a word pointing to such a pur port ofthe narrative, and especiaby that he does not, as he does, e. g. in the case of the miracle of the Feeding, connect with it speeches of Jesus fllustrative of this meaning. But this THE MIRACLE AT CANA. 2 t -j very reference to the miracle of the Feeding, assists us in the solution of this difficulty. The two miracles of the gift of bread and the gift of Avine are so essentially connected in form and substance, as Aveb as by their common reference to the Supper, that the meanmg of the one cannot be explamed without that of the other, but the question was only this, whether the Mgher meamng of the mhaculous gift of food should come under discussion on the occasion of the miracu lous gift of drink, or the meaning of the latter on occasion of the former. The miracle of Food, appears M the synoptics nearly in the middle of the narratives about Jesus, and its position was assigned to it by reason of the connection in wMch it appears. And if the fourth Evangelist had reasons for placmg the gift of wine at the beginning of Ms Gospel, it is easily mtebigible that he might^notbe inebned to subjoin to the very first miracle described by Mm that lengthy sort of ibustration. In order to mtroduce a gradual ascent into Ms Gospel, he gives, of the two first miracles (ii. 1, ff., iv. 46, ff.), a short and simple description ; the third is the first to • wMch he annexes long dissertations, and these, in the case of the fourth, the account of the loaves and fishes (the walk ing on the water is treated more as an appendix to this), in crease m importance, until they culminate M the case of the last, the raismg of Lazarus, though here, in consequence ofthe dramatic character of the scene, they are carried on only in the form of a dialogue. In the discussions annexed to the account of the loaves and fishes, it was natural that Jesus should represent himself as the spiritual food of man- kmd in every sense, his flesh as their meat, his blood as theiv drink, and should also abude to the wine given at Cana, at least in its reference to the Supper. But the relation be tween the old and new, Judaism and Christianity, as it was mvolved M the change of water into wine, had been already expounded before hand, in the passage of this preface dis cussed above. T 2 276 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. 81. The Cursing of the Fio-tree. The miracle of the cursing of the fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18—22 ; Mark xi. 12—14, 20—23), AvMch Ave have left to the last, being, as a vindictive miracle, the only one of its kmd in the Evangelical history (the Book of Acts has several such), is indeed as such a particularly difficult one, but still on other accounts remarkably instructive. For in the case of this miracle, not only, as in that of others, may the ele ments be pointed out of which it is compounded, but also the different shapes which it had to pass tMough before becoming a miraculous account, its changes, as it were, from the chrysabs to the butterfly, or from the tadpole to the frog, are still coexisting m the Old and New Testament. In a retrospect of the past ages of Israel, the Prophet Hosea, the Prophet who has, soon after, the passage about the Son or favourite of God, represents Jehovah as saying (ix. 10), " I found Israel bke grapes in the wdderness; I saw your fathers as the first-ripe in the fig-tree at her first time ; but they went to Baal-peor, &c." That is they re quited the care wliich he bestowed upon the isolated and unprotected land by falbng away into idolatry. The same image is found with a different turn given to it in Micah (vii. 1, ff.), Avhen he exclaims, "Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage : there is no cluster to eat : my soul desired the first-ripe fruit (i. e. fig). The good man is perished out of the earth ; and there is none upright among men, . . . the best of them is as a briar," &c. &c. Here the people is not, as above, the grape or early fig, but the fig-tree or the vme-branch, wMch, bke the stripped stem after the vintage, gives no more frmt; degenerate ' Israel, tMowMg out no more good shoots, is a fig-tree barren of fruit. the cursing of the pig-tree. 277 Whether such a tree means a whole people or a single man, we are told in the NeAv Testament Avhat its just fate is to be, first by the Baptist (Matt. iii. 10), then by Jesus him self (Matt. vb. 19). " And uoav also the axe is laid nnto the root of the trees ; every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." And M connec tion, as it were, with the passage of Micah (and also Avith the parable of the Vmeyard in Isaiah, chap, v.), Jesus on another occasion brings forward a parable of a man who had planted a fig-tree in Ms vmeyard, upon which for two years he sought fruit m vain. In the thhd year he again finds none, and then he commands the gardener to cut down the useless tree that only burdens the soil; but the gardener prays for a respite for tMs year, during wMch he will try every means to make the tree frmtful : if, then, it does not answer to their expectation, it may be cut down without further grace. Now it is remarkable that Luke, who alone has tMs parable of the barren fig-tree, passes over the history of the cursing of the fig-tree. Does he not appear to have been conscious that he had aheady commumcated the essen tial substance of this Mstory in that parable, and in a less offensive form than that of a vindictive miracle performed by Jesus might appear to the Evangebst, who likewise is the only one who represents the demand made by certain disci ples for a vmdictive miracle as havmg been rejected by Jesus (Luke ix. 54, ff.) ? But the motive was there. No sooner was a word or an image of this kind found in the original Christian tradition than it became, if possible, a mhaculous history. The severe possessor of the vineyard M the parable was God; the patient gardener, Jesus the Messiah; the year's respite wMch he obtams for the tree, the acceptable year of the Lord (Luke iv. 18), the period of the mmistry of Christ m Israel. But, as is web known, the time of tMs respite expired without result; if it did so the gardener was ready to leave the tree 278 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. to its fate, nay, the Messiah whom he represents Avas himself, accordmg to the CMistian view, returning in the clouds of heaven to execute tMs pumshment in the place of God. If Jesus Avas supposed to have done tMs prefiguratively during his eartMy life to a tree AvMch symbolized unfruitful Israel, stdl the axe, according to the Avords of the text, could not appropriately be put into his hands, so that he might be represented as cutting down the tree bke a day labourer, but the proceedmg was brought mto connection with his mha culous power, and the barren fig-tree was withered by a word from Mm. This is the form in AvMch the Mstory is given by Matthew and Mark, and put into a connection AvMch ou the one side bears traces of its origMal import, while on the other these traces have entirely disappeared. For it is M the last week of the bfe of Jesus, on one of Ms last walks from Bethany to Jerusalem, that he is said to have noticed the barren tree, and to have, passed judgment upon it. TMs is connected with the meamng of the history, M so far as that at that time the Mcapacity of Israel for the salvation offered by Jesus was fuby proved. On the other hand, the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples, which both the Evangebsts append to the miracle, shows that m view of the miracle itself they had altogether lost sight of the original ineanmg of the narrative. For, on the disciples observing Avith surprise how soon the fig-tree was withered away, Jesus repbes, that if they have faith and doubt not, they shall not only do what had been done to the fig-tree, but also if they say to a mountain (Luke, M a simdar speech on another occasion mtroduces a sort of fig-tree, xvii. 6), "Be thou removed and be thou cast mto the sea, it shab be done." These speeches, which only obscure the real meamng of the narrative, might have been added to it when it begun to be looked upon only as a miraculous history; Luke has pre served for us, M connection with Ms parable of the fig-tree, the sort of speeches wMch did origmaby belong to it. There the cursing op the pig-tree. 279 (xiii. 1) Jesus is speakmg of the Gableans, whose blood Pdate had mmgled with their sacrifices, and of the eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell, and asks the Jews whether they thought that this had happened to those people because of any particular guilt. No, he answers, but unless ye repent ye shab ab likewise perish ; and then he con nects with tMs the parable of the Fig-tree. Only this would also be the moral of the Mstory of the accursed fig-tree, and then it would have been addressed, not to the disciples, but, as in the first case to the Jews, to the effect that except they repent they would ab perish like the Fig-tree. H then, M tMs case, as we have found m several others also, and as is natural when we consider the numerous diffe rent sources open to Mm and Matthew alike, Luke has pre served in his parable the pure and origMal form of tMs narrative, it appears on further consideration, if we look at the account as that of a miracle, and compare the description of it M Matthew and Mark, that Matthew's is from two pomts of view the more original. In the first place, he represents the fig-tree as withering m a moment at the command of Jesus ; and tMs, m the case of mhaculous narratives, is the only test of real simplicity. If the performer of a miracle can produce the withering of a tree by a word he can as easily make the effect apparent immediately after the word has been spoken. Separating the two in the way m wMch Mark represents the tree as bemg cursed by Jesus on one mornmg, and then its decay as being observed by the disci ples on the next, and not before, is pedantry and pragmati- cism. It did not Mdeed occur to the Evangebst, that the event might thus be made capable of explanation on natural grounds, a purpose for wMch his representation has been employed, ab that he had M view was to make the thing more vivid and dramatic, but as by other similar modifica tions he has only, by this attempt, weakened the strong and original form of the miraculous account. 280 BOOK IT. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. But he has made a still greater mistake by his addition of the words, that the time of figs was not yet. Not that he was wrong in saying so, if we take the history by the Calendar. That time, the Aveek before Easter, is not yet the time for figs ; for the early fig Avas not ripe till June, the regular fig not tdl August, and when Josephus says of the shore dis trict of the Sea of Galilee that it bears figs* ten months m the year, this proves nothing for the rocky region of Judea. Mark adds these words in order to explaM (what in the case of a particular tree may easdy be explained, even in fig-time, by disease or from local causes), why Jesus found no figs upon it : but in Ms oagerness to explain he overlooks the fact that he thus makes the act of vengeance performed by Jesus unmtelbgible. If it was not yet the time at which a healthy tree should have had fruit, the cursing of it by Jesus had no meanmg. So m tMs respect also Matthew takes the better course in not explaining the barrenness of the tree, i.e. not mentionmg that at that time no fruit whatever could properly have been on a fig-tree, and thus leaving open the possibility of explammg, at least from a certain point of view, the con duct of Jesus with regard to it. In the moral precept and parable upon wMch our history is based no time of year is named, but the period at which fruit was sought m vaM upon the tree is naturaby supposed to have been that of the fruit- harvest. In the form of a miraculous history it was trans planted mto the last day of the bfe of Jesus, and the cause of tMs, as we have seen, was probably a faint remembrance of its origmal meanmg. But the narrators who repeated the story, and who were thinkmg only of its mhaculous charac ter, did not consider that by thus placing the occurrence they brought it into the spring, a season unsuited to it if looked upon as a subject of real history. * Bell. Jud. iii. 10, 8. 281 FOURTH GROUP OF MYTHS. THE TRANSFIGURATION AND ENTRANCE OF JESUS INTO JERUSALEM. 82. The Transfiguration. In a JeAvish work * we read m the narrative, 2 Mos. xxxiv. 29, ff. : " Behold, Moses our Teacher, of blessed memory, Avho was a mere man, God havmg spoken to Mm face to face, obtamed so shinmg a countenance that the Jews feared to approach Mm ; how much must this be assumed of the God head itself, and the face of Jesus must have shone fi-om the one extremity of the world to the other ? But he was not endowed with brightness of any kmd, and was altogether bke other men. Hence it is clear that we are not to believe M Mm." This is mdeed from a late post- CMistian writing; but the inference it draws is that which a Jew must have drawn iu the earbest Christian times so long as he saw, on the part of him who was held up as the last Saviour, nothmg corresponding to the shinmg countenance of the first Saviour. Now it could not Mdeed be said of Jesus, as it was of Moses, that when he spoke with the people he was obliged to put a ved over his face on account of its brightness — because this was notoriously not the case. But so celebrated a feature in the history of Moses could not be left without a parabel in that of Christ; ab that was required was to give it the proper character. Now we find, first of ab, m the Apostle Paul, in a passage (2 Cor. iii. 7, ff.) where he is givmg utterance to Ms exalted feelings, as a Servant of the New Covenant, of the Spirit that giveth bfe, the words : " But if the ministration of death, Avritten and engraven m stones, was glorious, so that the * Nizzachon Vefcus, p. 40. 282 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. cMldren of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance ; Avhich glory Avas to bo done away ; how shab not the ministration of the Sphit be rather glorious ?" In this passage, mdeed, it is not Christ but the Apostles who are contrasted Avith Moses, and the glory of the latter only understood in a spiritual sense. But when it is said further on (ver. 13, 18), that they, the ministers of the New Covenant, do not as Moses did, Avho placed a ved upon his face, " But we all, Avith open face be holding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed mto the same image from glory to glory ;" CMist Mmself also is brought Mto the comparison as the Being from whom the glory of Ms mmisters is reflected, and moreover abusion is made to the outward transfiguration which the lisen Christ has undergone, and which on Ms return Ms fobowers also shall undergo (1 Cor. xv. 43—49). Now it was always a subject of possible objection on the part of Jewish opponents that so much that was expected of the Messiah had not been performed by Jesus durmg his earthly bfe, and must consequently be deferred to Ms second coming. And in order to guarantee this future performance, some prebminary proofs of it, as, e.g. of the raismg of the dead by the Messiah, were mytMcally referred to the bygone bfe of Jesus upon earth. Thus a necessity may have been felt of representing also the glory of that Christ who had risen agaM, and was to return in the clouds of heaven, as having appeared tMough the veil of Ms humanity, though transiently only, during Ms first presence upon earth. TMs, on one side at least, is the mode m which the Mstory of the Transfiguration, as given m the New Testament, arose (Matt, xvii. 1—13; Mark ix. 2—13; Luke ix. 28—36). This Mstory could not be unknown to the Jewish writer quoted above, but no notice is taken of it, no doubt because it does not speak of a permanent glory of the countenance of Jesus like that of Moses in the Old Testament narrative. Instead THE TRANSFIGURATION. 283 of this, as Ave shall see, paMs are taken in other respects to outdo the Mosaic history. The imitation of this M the Evangelical narrative is plain, and mdeed the events mentioned in 2 Mos. xxiv. 1, ff. and xxxiv. 29, are combined. The theatre of the representation, both m the New Testament and the Old, is a mountam. In the latter, it is Sinai, M the former, as elsewhere m the Mstory ofthe New Testament, a mountain without a name, but de scribed, as m the history of the Temptation, as a Mgh moun tain. The number of persons Avhom Jesus takes with Mm for a nearer view of Avhat was to happen to him is three, and they are those who form that smab committee, with AvMch we are web acquaMted, of the Apostobcal college:' as Moses had taken. with him to the mountam, besides the seventy elders, tMee men in particular, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (2 Mos. xxiv. 1, 9) . The Evangebcal narrative is connected with the precedMg events by the date " after six " (M Luke eight) " days," as it is said of Moses, that after the cloud had for six days covered the mountam, he was cabed up to it by Jehovah on the seventh (2 Mos. xxiv. 16). Moreover, there is, M each case, some resemblance in what fobows the scene upon the mountam. When Moses, after Ms cab, comes from the mountain with the tMee men, from whom the triumvirate that accompames Jesus is copied (the iflumMa- tion of Ms countenance is Mdeed spoken of subsequently), the first tMng that meets Ms eyes is the sight of the people dancmg round the golden calf, and his first emotion is one of anger at the incapacity of the representatives he bad left behmd bbn (2 Mos. xxiv. 14), of whom Aaron had been even an accomplice M the preparation of the idol (2 Mos^ xxxu. 15, ff). When Jesus comes from the mountamhis first sight is the boy possessed with a devil, and his first feebng one of displeasure at the inabibty of Ms disciples to drive it out. In both cases the glory of the countenance is developed 284 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. upon the moimtain itself; for that of Moses also had become sMning upon the mountam during Ms conversation with Jehovah, though this was not noticeable until he had descended again to the people. The cloud, moreover, and indeed a bright cloud, because the glory of God must be supposed to have been in it, is likewise a feature taken from the Mosaic Mstory (2 Mos. xix. 16, xxiv. 16, 18). But in the case of Jesus there is tMs addition, that besides bis coun tenance, Ms clothes also became sMnmg; and especially that he, as a glorified Being, takes the place of Moses, while the latter, with Ebjah, stands at Ms side in a subordinate position, nearly in the same manner as the two accompanying angels at the side of Jehovah in the Mstory of Abraham. The object of Moses' ascent of the mountain was to hear the laws from Jehovah, and to receive the tables which he Avas to hand over to the people. No such instruction could be reqmred by the Messiah : he, M whose time the law Avas to be written M the hearts of men by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (Jer. xxxi. 31, ff. ; Ezek. xi. 19, ff. ; xxxvi. 26, ff.) must, above ab men, carry it in Ms heart ; M his case the ascent of the mountam was only intended to exMbit him to Ms followers penetrated by supernatural bght, and in com- munication with exalted personages of Jewish antiquity, and moreover, as had aheady been done at Ms baptism, to be declared by God to be Ms Son. The presence of Moses was naturaby cabed for by the similarity of what was now occur ring to Jesus to that wMch had once occurred to the Lawgiver, and, generally, by the connection between the office of the Messiah and his own. The Messiah was, indeed, according to the interpretation of that time (Acts iii. 22, vii. 36), he whom Moses had once proclaimed M the words (5 Mos. xviii. 15) : " The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy bretMen, bke unto me ; unto Mm ye shab hearken." Moreover, if Moses was now seen m friendly conversation with Jesus, it was proved that the former THE TRANSFIGURATION. 285 saw in him, not, as was the view of JeAvish wranglers, the destroyer, but the fulfiller of the laAV. But, besides the Lawgiver, there appeared upon the moun tain of the transfiguration a Prophet as web — Elijah. Accord ing to the prophecy of Malachi (iii. 23, ff. comp. Ecclus. xlviii, 10, ff.), JehoA_ah was to send Mm before the coming of Ms terrible day of judgment, to move, if possible, the people to repentance. Hence it was a dictum of those learned in the Scriptures that Elijah must first come and restore all things, and that until the forerunner had appeared, the Messiah was not to be expected (Matt. xvii. 10). It is well known how Jesus Mmself (more probably the defensive tactics of the first Christians) was said to have endeavoured to weaken the proof draAvn from the non-appearance of Elijah against his own Messiahship, by representing John the Bap tist to be this Ebjah (Matt. xi. 14; Mark i. 2 ; Luke i. 17) : they were satisfied with an imagmary Ebjah, as the real Elijah was not to be had. But it is in the Mghest degree remarkable that, accordmg to the Evangebcal narrative, Jesus should, just after the appearance of the real Ebjah, have referred Ms disciples to the unreal one, and moreover have referred to the latter because they looked for an appear ance of the former. For after they descended, from the mountain of the transfiguration, his disciples are said to have asked him : How then do the scribes say that Ebjah must first come ? To which he answers, Certainly Ebjah must first come ; but in fact he has aheady come (that is, m John) and not only not been recognised, but m fact maltreated and put to death, which shab be also the fate of the Messiah Mm self (Matt. xvii. 10 — 13 ; Mark ix. 11 — 13). The question of the disciples can only mean — if, as we are convinced (comp. Matt. xvi. 16), thou art the Messiah, what then becomes of the maxim of the scribes, that Ebjah must precede the Mes siah, seemg that be has not preceded thee ? It is hnpossible that the disciples should have asked tMs question if Elijah 286 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. had appeared just before, and quite as little, supposing them to have asked it, would Jesus have referred them to the Baptist, and not simply to the real Tishbite Avhom they had just seen. On the other hand, that question of the disciples would have come in extremely web after the foregoing history of the confession of Peter; and it has therefore been surmised that Matthew found it in this connection, and Mserted, on his own responsibdity, the Mstory of the Transfiguration.* It is, however, quite in the manner of our synoptic Gospels, simply on account of a common subject, in this case the Avord Elijah, to put together two narratives, as frequently on other occasions, two tests, which in point of meanmg have no con nection. In this mstance, indeed, not merely is this done, but the two Mstories formaby exclude each other. Had Elijah just appeared, as is said, the disciples conld not ask the question they are said to have done, if they did ask the ques tion Ebjah could not have appeared just before. It is indeed a very naive proceeding to connect two such histories ; but it is exactly like Matthew to do so.f We can here distin- gmsh plainly between two layers of the tradition. The doubt of the truth of the MessiahsMp of Jesus, arising from the prophecy of Malachi, was first met by investing the Baptist with the character of Elijah; then, when a pressure was put upon the bteral meamng of the prophecy, an attempt was made to exhibit the real Elijah. He could not be represented as appearing publicly to all men, but only apart to one or two. * Kostlin, Synoptic Gospels, p. 25. ¦f Bnur starts with John, and thus his sense of the simplicity of the synoptics becomes obscured. So he tries to introduce a meaning into this conversation, by artificially interpreting the question of the Apostles to imply that after the appearance of Elijah it was only their expectation that he would remain that was disappointed (Review of the latest investigations into the Gospel of Mark, Theological Annual, 1853, p. 78). But their words imply that it was not his stay they were disappointed of, but his coining at aU, of which, according to the preceding history, they could not have been disappointed. THE TRANSFIGURATION. 287 For this purp ose the Mstory of the Transfiguration and the grouping with Moses naturaby suggested itself. The tAvo first Evangebsts do not say Avhat formed the sub ject of the convei'sation betAveen Jesus and the two departed personages. Moreover, nothing depended upon it, as the object of the meeting was only to exhibit Jesus M agreement with the Lawgiver, and not without the Prophets associated with Mm. Luke says that these personages announced to Mm beforehand the death which awaited him in Jerusalem. But this was superfluous, as he had already Mmself prophesied this death (Luke ix. 22) . But there is no doubt that the purpose of the Evangebst is to represent the death of Jesus, that great stumbbng-block to the notions of the Jews, as founded on the divine counsels of which Ms two associates were considered as the depositaries. The proposal of Peter to build tabernacles for Jesus and the two forms from the kingdom of Spirits, to detam the grand supernatural appari tion as somethmg natural and material, is described by Luke and Mark as a misunderstandmg, and the former represents all tMee disciples as overcome with sleep, as they appear subsequently m Gethsemane. By this, on both occasions, the distance between them and Jesus is mtended to be Mdicated. WMle their Master is m the most elevated and mysterious of states, they were lying on the ground with their senses para lysed. On the mountam of the transfiguration, as formerly M Smai, there was a cloud containMg the glory of God, who could not be supposed to have been silent on this occasion, any more than on that. His words were then directed to Moses, wMch the latter was commissioned to convey to the people, now, M accordance with the different objects of the scene, they are addressed to the disciples as a divme testi mony to Jesus. They are the words from Isaiah, xbi. 1, comp. with Psalm ii. 7, which had aheady sounded from Heaven on the occasion of the Baptism of Jesus, only that on 288 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. this occasion, as having a manifest reference to the history of Moses, the call to hear Mm is added to them, from the pas sage in Avhich the LaAvgiver promises to the people a Prophet like unto himself (5 Mos. xviii. 15). After this account of the origin of the Mstory of the Trans figuration, there is only one view of it Avhich need be con sidered Avith respect. It is that which sees in it an objective and miraculous occurrence, Avhich believes in a supernatural brightness of the face and garments of Jesus, a real appear ance of the two personages who had been long dead, and an audible voice of God from out the cloud. Whoever can admit these tMngs seriously, whoever, being himself con vinced, stands on the same point of view as the Evangelist — - to him indeed tMs narrative presents no difficulty, and Ave have nothing to say against him, except that we doubt as to whether he reaby is what he bebeves Mmself to be, and does not merely imagMe it. On the other hand, all those explanations which attempt to represent the occurrence as half natural, or entirely so, are too miserable and absurd to make it worth while to dweb upon them. Who could suppose that in the change of the figure of Jesus, and the brightness AvMch shone around Mm, even ScMeiermacher* sees an optical ibusion, of Avhich, however, no more account can be given, i. e. he will not allow the poMt to be more accurately investigated, because he is well aware that ab closer investigation can only expose more fully the absurdity of the whole view : the two Personages, Avhom the Evangebsts suppose to have been and consequently describe as Moses and Ebjah, were, he imagmes, secret adherents, connected, perhaps, with the Sanhedrim, an idea corroborated by the statement that they foretold Ms death to Jesus, as the deadly hatred of that body agamst Mm might be known to men of tMs description ; an actual voice, indeed, is not supposed to have been heard at * In his Lectures on the Life of Jesus. Likewise Hase, Life of Jesus. THE TRANSFIGURATION. 289 all, but the disciples, after the manner of the Jews, looked upon the optical ibusion as a divine revelation about Jesus, and later Hebenistic narrators misunderstood this revelation to have been expressed by an actual voice. Thus, after the example of Paulus aud Venturini, ab the mam points of the Evangelical narrative are happdy set aside, Jesus was not really transfigured, Mo3es and Ebjah did not appear, no voice from heaven spoke over his head. But then we are at a loss to know what, or whether anytMng of the sort, did occur to Jesus. Ewald appears to be of this opinion when he says,* that we are noAV unable to state of what lower materials this description is formed, but that its inward truth is plain, and that the Mgher materials, of wMch this inward truth avails itself for its representation, are in no way doubtful. By lower materials are meant, in the mysterious language of Ewald, the natural and Mstorical foundations of a narrative, by Mgher materials the Old Testament conceptions and events, from wMchthe narrative is copied, the mward truth is the idea. So that Ewald means to say, that we cannot now know what historical element is at the bottom of the Mstory ofthe transfiguration, but that its ideal truth is evident, and the Old Testament antitypes upon which it was formed; unmistakeable. This is nearly the same thing as we say ; only that we are not concerned to find a professedly natural occasion for what never took place, and, as to ideal truth, all that we see M the narrative is the Jewish opmion that Moses and Christ were antitypes of each other, and that a connection existed between Elijah and the latter. It is because of the Jewish-Christian character of the Mstory that the fourth Evangelist omits it, or only adopted it in a form so changed that we cannot recogmse it.. Of this we cannot speak until we come. to it further on. * Three first Evangelists, p. 274. Comp. History of Christ, p. 338, ff. VOL. II. *J 290 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. 83. The Entrance op Jesus into Jerusalem. The history ofthe Transfiguration is fobowed in all the synoptics by only a few speeches of Jesus. They represent him then as entering npon the eventful journey to the Pass over, at Jerusalem. We have aheady spoken, M an earlier part of the work, of the. mode in wMch, on the subject of tMs journey, the tMee first Evangelists differ, partly from one another, partly from, the fourth. Here we are only con cerned with the conclusion of it (Matt. xxi. 1 — 11 ; Mark xi. 1—10 ; Luke xix. 29—34 ; John xb. 12—16). Among the contrasts wMch resulted from a comparison of passages, of the Old Testament, so different m their character, bnt ab referred to the Messiah, there was one referring to the moda of his Advent. Accordmg to Darnel, vii. 13, he was to come with the clouds of Heaven; accordmg to Zechariah, ix. 9, to enter upon an. Ass. This, passage, in wMch m pomt. of fact an ideal Prince of Peace was abuded to was, more correctly than many others, referred to the Messiah. ." What says the Scripture of the first Saviour ?" it is said m that Eabbmical passage wMch we have aheady quoted so often.* Answer : " 2 Mos. iv. 20, we read: And Moses took his wife and Ms sons, and. set them upon an ass. So also the last Saviour, Zech. ix. 9:~Poor, and sitting upon an ass."f TMs contradiction between the description taken from Zechariah, and that from Daniel, was reconcded by the Eabbis, by explainmg that in case the Israehtes should prove worthy their Messiah was to appear majesti- caby m the clouds of Heaven, but if they were unworthy of Mm, be should ride m upon an ass M a poor and * Midrasch Koheleth, 73, 3. See above, Vol. I. p. 204. f This Ass of Moses and the Messiah is supposed to have been the same as Abraham had saddled when he was preparing for the sacrifice of Isaac. Jalkut Eubeni, 79, 3. HIS ENTRANCE INTO JERUSALEM. 291 needy condition.* The Christians reconciled the contradic tion otherwise. They assigned the riding upon the Ass to the period of the first presence of their Messiah upon the earth, that is, to the eartMy life of Jesus, expecting Ms coming Avith the clouds of Heaven on the occasion of Ms future second Advent. Smce M the passage of Zechariah, in so far as it represents the King as entering meekly seated on the animal of peace (nothing is said of poverty), there seemed to be involved an opposition to the expectation ofthe Messiah current among the Jews, in which he was represented as a mighty warrior, it might indeed be supposed that Jesus on entering the Capital had chosen to ride upon an Ass, with the mtention of recalbng the passage of Zechariah to men's minds, and by th'3 palpable demonstration to divest Mmself of the character of Messiah who was to be a warrior and a pobtician. For we have above explamed that the royal dignity attributed even M Zechariah to the Coming Personage, did not necessarily carry a pobtical meanmg. If, therefore, we are unable to do what has lately been often done, that is, reject as unMstorical the whole of the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem upon an Ass, we shab certainly soon discover thus much, that the Evangebcal narratives about it are formed, not so much upon a given fact, as upon Old Testament passages and dogmatic ideas. The clearest proof of tMs lies in the description ofthe first Evangelist, whose account of the entrance of Jesus contams an impossibdity wMch he cannot have taken from any source of information about a real fact, however much distorted, but only from a passage in a Prophet which he himself mis understood. He tebs us that the two disciples sent by Jesus to Bethphage, brought from that place, M accordance with Ms directions, an ass and its colt, spread their clothes upon> both ammals and set Jesus thereon. Now, if we are to imagine how Jesus could have ridden upon both beasts at the * Gemara Sandhedr. f. 98, 1. U 2 292 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. same time (and considering the shortness ofthe distance the notion of a change from one to the other is qmte in admissible), our understanding is paralysed, nor does it recover itself until we look more accurately at the passag-e of Zechariah, quoted by the Evangebst. " Kejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion (the words, Ted ye the daughter of Zion in Matthew, are from Isaiah lxu. 11), behold, thy King cometh unto thee ; he is just and having salvation, lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." Now, every one who has the least acquamtance Avith the poetical language ofthe Hebrews, knows that by these words not two animals are meant; but the same animal, wMch M the first part of the verse is called an ass, is, m the second, more accurately defined as the foal of an ass. There is no doubt that, M general, the author of the first Gospel knew this as well as we do, but as be saw in tMs passage a prophecy of Christ, he thought that on this occasion be must understand it bteraby, and understand the words as applymg to two ammals. Having thus, as be thought, done full justice to the prophecy, he considered that his task was accompbshed, and did not set himself the further problem of realizMg to his own mind the possibdity of one Messiah ridMg upon two asses. In this Luke and Mark do not follow Mm, but are satis fied with one animal. Their description does not on this account approve itself as the more origmal, for the feature in question comes from the passage of Zechariah, and to tMs Matthew keeps closer than they do, fobowmg it as he does bteraby and bbndly, while the two others, domg the same, do it with a certain amount of reflection. Of the two animals spoken of by Matthew, they choose for the use of Jesus not the dam but the foal. But this again is the result of an unMstorical reflection which they betray by the addition that Jesus ordered them to bring a foal upon which no man. had sate. ..TMs condition was not brought out in HIS ENTRANCE INTO JERUSALEM. 293 the passage of Zechariah, but the foal of which the passage speaks might be understood to be of that description, and moreover met the vieAv that, as subsequently only a tomb in AvMch no man had been laid (Luke xxiii. 53) Avas worthy to receive the sacred body of the Messiah, so noAV only an animal on which no man had sate was Avorthy to carry Mm. More over, it is self-evident that tMs is a reflection far more suitable for a subsequent narrative than for Jesus himself who, if he rode an animal never ridden before, could only expect the procession to be disturbed, and the impression which he Avished to make destroyed. But the original Christian legend was not satisfied with a general fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah by Jesus ridmg into Jerusalem upon an ass ; the Ass of the Messiah, it was supposed, must have been destined for Ms use by a Mgher Providence, and, as the Messiah, he must have known where the Ass intended for him was standmg bound, and had only to be fetched away. He must have known this ab the more, as m an Old Testament prophecy the Messiah was expressly described as he who bmds up his ass. In the blessing of Jacob the dymg Patriarch says of Judah, but m terms that might apply to SMloh, so often understood of the Messiah (1 Mos. xlix. 11) : " Bincbng Ms foal unto the vine, and Ms ass's colt unto the choice vine ;" thus Matthew had here agam Ms two asses, the older one and the young one, wMle ab had the tethered ass wMch Justin Martyr does, in fact, m accordance with the prophecy, represent as being tethered to a vine at the entrance of the vibage.* The Evangebsts have nothing about the vine, but represent Jesus as only saymg to the two disciples whom he despatches, that when they come into the vibage before them, they will find an ass bound. The passage from Jacob's blessing was not so present to their minds as that from Zechariah, but it * Apol. I. 32. 291 BOOK It. MYTHICAL ntSTORY OP JESUS. very naturally occurred to that of the Martyr, as it is certain that the beginnmg of the Evangelical narrative was originally as much taken from the former as the rest of it Avas from the latter. Properly speaking, it might certainly have been expected that, in accordance with the passage from Genesis, the Messiah would have bound his ass to the vine on dis mounting ; but the assumption that it was already standing bound gave at the same time an opportunity of a proof being afforded of the supernatural knowledge of the Messiah, and in addition of the power of his Messianic calling, if the dis ciples had only to say to the owner of the ass, that the Messiah had need of it, to obtain the loan of it without opposition. The fourth Evangelist avoids ab these detads, and simply says that Jesus found a young ass and mounted it. But this is only because when he notices the prophecy of Zechariah he is only concerned with the retrospect of the raismg of Lazarus, to which he passes on bumediately after (ver. 17, ff). But the prophecy of Zechariah did not merely assert that the Messiamc Ruler should enter Jerusalem upon an Ass, but also called on the Capital on this occasion to shout and rejoice ; as also the passage of Isaiah which the first Evan gebst, in consequence of its resemblance, combines Avith that of Zechariah, commands that the daughter of Zion should be told that her Saviour cometh. According to the descrip tion of the three first Evangebsts this is the character which the multitudes that accompany Mm give to Jesus, by the cry, " Hosanna to the Son of David, that cometh M the name of Jehovah \" and by spreading out their garments and strew- mg the road with palm branches; the Capital, in wMch, according to the Mstory as given by the synoptics, Jesus is as yet unknown, is thus thrown into confusion, and the people ask, who this is ? upon which he is represented to them to be Jesus, the Prophet from Nazareth in Gablee. AccordMg to John, on the contrary, the crowds are frpm the HIS ENTRANCE INTO JERUSALEM. 295 city itself, and on hearing of the approach of Jesiu Avho was not unknoAvn M Jerusalem, go to meet him Avith that shont and those offerings of homage, and the reason that is alleged for this solemn introduction is the raising of Lazarus. With the exception of this last feature, ineluchng even the offence taken by the Pharisees and the reply of Jesus, of wMch the account given by the Evangelists is not uniform, all that is here told might have so happened : but even if nothing of it had happened, the narrative was a natural result of the prophetic passage taken M a Messiamc sense. THIRD CHAPTER. Mythical History op the Passion, Death and Resurrection op Jesus. FIRST GROUP OF MYTHS. THE MEAL AT BETHANY, AND THE PASCHAL MEAL. 84. The Meal at Bethany and the Anointing. It is one of the most ancient of the Evangelical traditions that Jesus, shortly before his Passion, Avas anomted with precious omtment by a woman on the occasion of a supper at Bethany (Matt. xxvi. 6 — 13 ; Mark xiv. 3 — 9 ; John xii. 1 — 8). This Mstory was especiaby valuable to the Christen dom of the earliest ages, as is shown by the words wMch Matthew and Mark put into the mouth of Jesus at the time : " Wherever in the world tMs Gospel (but it is scarcely pos sible that Jesus should thus have spoken of ' a Gospel,' meamng thereby Ms own history) shab be preached, there shab also tMs be told for a memorial of this woman." Ac cording to tMs we might have expected that the two first Evangebsts would have preserved for us the name of the woman, or something more definite about her ; as tMs is not the case, it is clear that the earliest Christendom was not so much concerned to know who had anoMted Jesus, as that he had been anointed. And, therefore, not only is Bethany named as the locabty, but the house in wMch the occurrence took place and the owner of it. The reason of so much stress bemg laid upon the fact that Jesus was anointed before Ms passion is given us by the narrative in the expression THE MEAL AT BETHANY AND THE ANOINTING. 297 Avhich it likewise puts into the mouth of Jesus, that m that she poured that ointment on his body, she did it for his burial; or, as Mark rightly explains the expression of Mat thew, that she came beforehand to anoint Ms body to the burying, while the turn given to the words in John, that she had preserved the ointment for the day of his burial, obbte- rates the original meaning of the words till they are almost unintelligible. But the importance thus attributed to tMs anticipation of the anoMting can only be satisfactorily ex plained upon the supposition that the anointing of the body of Jesus at the proper time, that is, on the occasion of his burial did not, M fact, take place. This, accordmg to Mat thew and Mark, was reaby the case ; accordmg to Luke it was intended but not done, and John is the only one who asserts that it was actually performed at the expense of an entire hundred-weight of spices. These statements involve questions to wMch we shall return at the proper place. But these utterances of Jesus only form the conclusion of the scene wMch has been introduced by the appearance of the woman with the box of oMtment, wMch she pours out upon the head of Jesus. TMs act is first censured by the disciples, who point out how much good might have been done to the poor for the value of the precious omtment ; it is then defended by Jesus as a virtuous deed, as the poor are always there, and opportunities of doing them good, wMle he, and with Mm the possibility of showmg Mm love and honour, wib soon be withdrawn from them. It is not im possible that ab this may have been reaby said as it is recounted. But the next speech of Jesus, explainmg the Anointing by the woman as an anticipation of the anoint- mg of Ms dead body, looks very much as if it were evolved out of the consciousness of the Christendom of the earbest period, wMch was pamed at the fact that there had been no AnoMting of the Body of the Master on the occasion of Ms burial. A similar supposition, therefore, as regards the 298 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY 03? JESUS. preceding speech naturally suggests itself. We may suppose the existence in the earliest times of Christianity of an exag gerated feebng for the poor Avhich looked upon benevolence toAvards them in the sha,pe of almsgiving as the only really good work, and on the other hand rejected as AA*aste ab ornament or decoration in worsMp. TMs ummaginative Ebionitish tendency was here met by a feebng of the neces sity of a personal worsMp of CMist — and it is significant that it is the fourth Evangelist who goes so far as to see mere hypocrisy M the objection taken to such expenditure on the ground of the poor, that it is he Avho considers avarice to have been the real motive for it, and accordingly, instead of the disciples generally, Mto whose mouth Matthew puts it, Mark havmg mentioned indefimtely some of them, he attri butes it to Judas, the thief of the treasury^ and subsequent traitor. Naturaby ; if the censure passed upon the expense incurred for the person of the Jewish-Christian Messiah was inadmissible, it can, as against the divine creative Word incarnate, have only been passed by the representative of abandoned profligacy. But, impossible as it was, on the stand-point of the fourth Gospel, that any one of the weak but honest eleven should begrudge the omtment — only the abandoned twelfth could do this — quite as impossible was it that an act so graceful, so appropriate to the dignity of the Son of God, should be performed by an unknown person : it must have been per formed by the most hearty and cordial worshipper of Jesus. Such a person was, as we have seen above, suggested by the author of the tMrd Gospel to that of the fourth in that Mary, the sister of Martha, who in Luke indeed is neither represented as living in Bethany nor as taking part in the Anointing, but wMle her sister is preparing a hospitable reception for Jesus on Ms journey, sits at his feet listening to Ms Avords, is complained of to Jesus, by her busy sister for doing so, and is defended by Mm (Luke x. 38—42). She THE MEAL AT BETHANY AND THE ANOINTING. 299 and no one else must have been the Avoman who anoints Mm : as on that occasion she sate at Jesus' feet, so also on this, she must have anointed not Ms head, as Matthew and Mark say she did, but his feet : she must have used for that pur pose not merely an indefinite quantity, but a Avhole pound of costly spikenard to the value of three hundred pence. In giving a more definite description of the ointment as well as in the statement of its value in figures, the fourth Evangelist here takes as his copy the representation given by the second, as he frequently does in the introduction of features that tend to realize, and strengthen his account. John, fodowing Luke, chap, x., had, as we have seen above, associated with the two sisters Lazarus as their brother, and thus Simon the Leper is excluded from the narrative of the Supper, and Lazarus who had been dead and raised again by Jesus is substituted for Mm. But he is not put altogether m the place of Simon ; he does not appear as Simon does M the character of the master of the house and host, but only as one of those who are sitting at table ; Martha waits, in the same way as she had, in the narrative M Luke, busied' herself much with waiting. We see here that the fourth Evangebst does not intend exactly to contradict the tradi tional account which connected the Anointing with the house of Simon, so he leaves Mm out and names Lazarus, but with out qmte puttmg Mm M the place of the former, so that we do not know, on reading Ms account, who it Avas that really gave the feast to Jesus, and can only guess from Martha's waiting that, according to Luke, it was her household or that of her brother m wMch Jesus was entertamed. But the fourth Evangebst has one feature pointmg M a direction quite different from that of the anecdote about Mary and Martha told by the thhd. The fact that he differs from the two first M representing Mary to anoint not the head but the feet of Jesus might, M default of any other, admit of the explanation that it is founded upon the state- 300 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. ' ment of Mary's having sate, according to Luke, at Jesus' feet ; but she also dries his feet with her hair, and this is a feature of so pecubar a character that we are compelled to ask Avhat it means and AAhence it comes. As regards the first, we might look upon it as a sigu of heart-felt and meek submission, and thus, possibly, as the result of the Evan gelist's own nnagination : but if it is found in another Evangebcal narrative, we shall be compelled to assume a connection between the two, and if it appears to be more essentiaby a part of the other account than it is of tMs, Ave shall be further compelled to assume that the former was the source from Avhich onrs is taken. In fact it is found, and found Avith every mark of originality, in the account of the anoMting of Jesus by a sinful woman; which is pecubar to Luke alone (vii. 36 — 50) . There are many Mdications from Avhich we may gather that this history is not foreign to that wMch we are considering, i.e. is not, as is commonly sup posed, the narrative of an entirely different occurrence. It must strike us at once that Luke knows nothmg of any other Anointmg, that therefore, M Mm, tMs anointing by the smful woman, which he does not indeed place at Bethany and in the last days of Jesus, but M the period of Ms industry in Galilee, takes the place of the AnoMting at Bethany. In Luke, moreover, it not only takes place on the occasion of a supper, but the master of the house and giver of the feast has the same name as he of Bethany M MattheAV and Mark, namely, Simon, only that he is described not as a Leper but as a Pharisee, as befitted the part he had to play in contrast with the sinful Avoman. Moreover, as in MattheAV and Mark, the woman carries her ointment in an alabaster box ; as in their account she is attacked, not mdeed aloud by the disci ples, but by the master of the house m a murmur to Mmself, and defended by Jesus, though the attack as well as the de fence, in accordance Avith the change in the personality of the Avoman, are each qmte different. THE MEAL AT BETHANY AND THE ANOINTING. 301 But how can this change be explamed, and is it conceivable that of the Avoman who is the subject of much praise, Avho, from a feeling of profound reverence, emptied her box of ointment on the head of Jesus, either tradition or modifica tion by a writer should make an accursed sinner, who in a spirit of penitence Avetted the feet of Jesus Avith her tears, dried them with her hah, covered them with kisses, and moistened them with omtment ? Here we must remember that the history of a woman who was accused before Jesus of many sins, as well as that of the woman who anomted him, formed part of the most ancient Evangebcal traditions. The Gospel of the Hebrews is said to have contained it, and Papias also to have given it.* Of the smful woman M Luke it is expressly said (ver. 47), that her many sins were for given; on the other hand, she is not really- accused to Jesus, but the Pharisee only thinks within himself that if Jesus had been a Prophet he must have knoAvn what sort of a wor- sMpper he had got. But we find M the fourth Gospel an account, which is indeed attacked by criticism, f but wMch is, if not origmally a component part of this Gospel, very ancient. It is the sketch of the adulteress (viu. 1 — 11), a woman who is expressly accused before Jesus of only one sin in wMch she had been caught, and was taken by him under his protection. It is clear at once that a narrative of tMs kMd, if Luke had it before Mm in the Gospel of the Hebrews, must have been especially welcome to that disciple of Paul; and qmte as much so that he could not be satisfied with it m the form in wMch we now read it m the Gospel of John. In this account the woman appears throughout as passive, she does not seek Jesus but is dragged to Mm by others ; moreover wMle she * See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, 17. t See, e. g. Ewald, The Johannine "Writings, i. 270. On the other hand its genuineness is defended by Hilgenfeld, The Gospels, p. 285, ff. 302 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OE JESUS. stands before him she performs no act of any kind, but her ac cusers, Pharisees and Scribes, avail themselves ofthe oppor tunity to put a captious question to Jesus, who disarms them ¦ by appeabng to their own consciousness in a manner which, if looked at from an Mstorical point of vieAV, is extremely im probable. It Avas absolutely necessary for Luke, in accordance with his point of vieAV, to represent the impulse of the sinful Avoman for salvation as an independent one, her approach to Jesus as spontaneous. The profligate son, though forced by necessity, had still formed Ms OAvn resolution to return to his Father, had done so, and confessed Ms sin ; Zaccheus, the chief publican, had chmbed a tree from eagerness to behold Jesus ; the Publican M the Temple, praying for forgiveness, had beaten his breast. So also the sinful woman must have exerted herself M some way or other to obtain the indul gence Avhich Jesus showed her. Such exertion might be considered as havMg been involved in the Anointing, and as the Avoman who is said to have performed this was not named by the older Evangelists, nor anytMng else more definite stated about her, a combination of the two narratives was the less difficult, as the description of a man or woman as a sinner, had, m the spirit of the Gospel, nothing degrading in it, repentance being assumed. But as an humble sinner the woman was not to approach the head, but only the feet of Jesus; the first thing Avith which she wetted the latter must have been her tears of repentance; she coidd not have consi dered her hah as too good to dry the feet of the Lord, wMch she had bathed with her tears, nor her lips to touch them with kisses, nor the most precious od wherewith to anoint them : ab features which serve the purpose of ibustrating, in the most striking manner, the proud omission on the part of the Pharisaic host of the. corresponding duties wMch courtesy required. In connection with this, the speeches which are here interchanged, not between Jesus and his disciples, but between Mm and the Pharisaic host, have for their subject THE MEAL AT BETHANY AND THE ANOINTING. 303 not tho expenditure of the ointment, but the character of the Avoman who anoints. While the Pharisee regards her as a person of abandoned character, and one Avho degrades even Jesus by her approach, Jesus represents the Pharisaic self- righteousness as the som-ce of want of love, the forgiveness of sins claimed by the sinner and granted by him as tho source of humble love, m a parable which in many respects may be looked upon as the counterpart to the parable of tho King who reckons with his servants (Matt.xvm. 23 — 35). In both there are two debtors, the one with a larger, the other with a smaber, debt : only that m Luke both are indebted to the same creditor, m Matthew one. of the servants to the king, the other to Ms fellow-servant. In Matthew the servant to whom, at his request, the king* has forgiven the larger debt, refuses to forgive the smaller to his febow- servant, and is consequently set up as an example to be avoided : M Luke, conversely, he to whom much is forgiven is also he who loves most (that is, the creditor Avho has forgiven him the debt, as nothmg is said of any one who was Mdebted in turn to Mm), and it is only said of him to whom bttle is forgiven, or who, bke the self-righteous Pharisee, thinks he has little occasion for forgiveness, that he wib love bttle. We have, therefore, here a group of five narratives, the middle one of wMch is, I, that of Matthew and Mark ofthe unknown woman, who at a supper at Bethany had anointed the head of Jesus, had been censured by the disciples for her extravagance in doing so, and defended by Jesus. On the extreme left of tMs narrative stands, U, that M the Gospel of the Hebrews about a sinful woman, who was accused before Jesus, and by Mm (probably, as we no longer have the original narrative) dismissed uncondemned, with * Here both parables coincide also in expression. Matt, xviii. 25: p.i) exovTO£ Si airov aTroSovvai—. Luke vii. 42-: /*)) exovrwv de avrdv airoSovvat—. 304 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OE JESUS. the recommendation to sin no more ; on the extreme right, IH, that of Luke about the two sisters Martha and Mary, one of whom receives Jesus in her house and serves him industriously, while the other sits bstening at Ms feet, and is defended by him against the censures of her sister. The first and second of these histories is combined by Luke, IV, in his narrative about the sinful woman who anoints the feet of Jesus ; the first and third by John, V, in his narrative about Mary's AnoMting him, only that he has, at the same time, out ofthe fourth composite narrative of Luke, about the AnoMting by the sinful Avoman, introduced the features of the Anointing of the feet, and the drying with the hair, as smtable to the sensitive character of his Mary of Bethany. 85. The Passover, and Institution op the Last Supper. The Meal at Bethany was of importance to the Christendom of the earbest period, on account of the Anointing of Jesus, wMch had taken place at it, as an anticipative compensation for the non-payment of that honour to him after Ms death. So also was the Passover, wMch he had eaten at Jerusalem with Ms fobowers shortly before his death. TMs was be cause there was a connection between it and the memorial meal, the repeated celebration of wMch formed the real centre of the bfe ofthe Church in the first ages of Christianity. So important an event required, above all, a corresponding introduction. The Founder of the Supper of the New Covenant must, it was supposed, even M the mode M wMch he arranged the Supper (Matt. xxvi. 17 — 19 ; Mark xiv. 12 — 15 ; Luke xxu. 7 — 13), have shown his high Onmipotence. In the same way as, when Ms entering the Capital M a manner correspondMg to his digmty was under consideration, he had only to send Ms messengers, who had only to mention the THE PASSOA'ER and the last supper. 305 need of the Lord, in order to persuade the chief inhabitant ofthe neighbouring village to give up Ms beast of burden for Ms use, so on this occasion he has, according to Matthew, only to send his disciples to a friendly citizen of the Capital, Avith the announcement that the Lord intends to keep the Pass over at Ms house Avith his disciples, in order to obtain, Avith- out delay, the use of the required room all ready for his pur pose. Now even in this, as there is no reason for supposing any previous arrangement with the OAvner, M the sense of the Evangebst there is something miraculous impbed, Avhether that miraculous element is to be understood to have consisted in the magical power of the Avord of Jesus, or M an arrange ment of Providence m Ms favour. We have the miraculous element, even without taking into account the difficulty, if not the impossibdity there would naturally be, considering the press of strangers at the time of the Passover, in findmg on the mornmg of the first day of the Feast, a place in the city disengaged for the evening. There was, however, an obvious mducement to bring for ward the miraculous element in a more palpable form, as this history of the engagement of a room resembled very closely the model of that ofthe ass for the entrance mto Jerusalem. That this was the case we see in Mark and Luke, M the cir cumstance that M their description, Jesus is represented as sending, not, as in Matthew, his disciples generally, but, a3 he does for the ass, two of them only (according to Luke, Peter and John) ; then, as M the first case, the two mes sengers are to find an ass bound, and as formerly Samuel had foretold to Saul that, as a proof of Ms gift of prophecy, he should meet certain persons, some of them bearing food and drink (1 Sam.x. 2, ff.), so in the two middle Evangebsts, Jesus here foretebs to the two disciples that when they came into the city, they wib be met by a man with a water-pitcher, whom they are to follow into the house into wMch he enters, and to ask the master of the house, M the name of the vol. n. x 306 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Teacher, for the room in which he can eat the Passover with his disciples; upon wMch the man will shoAv Mm a large upper room, already prorided Avith seats ; and there they are to arrange the feast : all of Avhich turns out accordmgly. The fourth EA^angelist has omitted the whole of this history as he has that of the Entrance. In the case of the latter, he represents the ass as being found by Jesus, Avithout anymore definite statement of the mode or the manner. In this case he represents a feast as bemg prepared, Avithout saying where and hoAV (xiii. ] , ff.) . But is the meal of wMch he speaks reaby the same with that described by the synoptics ? It seems not ; for wMle the synoptics describe theh meal ex pressly as that of the Passover, John gives the clearest in dications that the meal be describes was a meal before the Passover, and Mstead of the institution of the last Supper, which the synoptics represent as taking place during the time of eating the meal, John speaks of a WasMng of Feet which Jesus performed npon Ms disciples during that time. According to Matthew, on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples go to Jesus, with the question, " Where wdt thou that we prepare the Passover for thee ?" and then when the1 room has been engaged, it is said further that Jesus sat down with the twelve (Matt. xxvi. 20), accordmg to Luke (xxii. 15) declaring that he had greatly deshed once more to eat that Passover with them before his Passion. Here then we have the Passover, which, accordmg to the ordi nance of Moses (2 Mos. xii.), was to be eaten on the evening of the 14th of Nisan.* The evasion which assumes that perhaps Jesus, whether foreseeMg that his death was to occur the fobowmg day, or m compbance with a custom re quired (only unfortunately not capable of being proved) by the excessive number of visitors to the feast, enjoyed the * According to the" Jewish method of beginning the day at six o'clock in the evening, the time appointed for eating the Paschal Lamb belonged properly to the fifteenth of Nisan, as the beginning of this high festival ; but, as in the above passage it is, in the ordinary phraseology, reckoned to the fourteenth. THE PASSOVER AND THE LAST SUPPER. 307 feast a day too soon, is contradicted not merely by Luke, Avho describes the day as that on which the Paschal Lamb must be killed (xxii. 7), but in fact by MattheAV as well, when he speaks of the " first day of unleavened bread," which, according to the Mosaic ordmance (2 Mos. xii. 15, 18), was the 14th, and certainly not the 13th of Nisan. On the other hand, not only is there no hint whatever in John that the meal in question was the Passover, but when it is said (xiii. 1, ff.) that Jesus, conscious on the one hand that his end was near, and on the other of Ms exalted dignity, did, at a Supper this or that, hefore the Passover, the meal spoken of cannot have been the Passover, but must have been an earber one. And when the order given by Jesus to Judas to do what he does quickly, is Mterpreted by the disciples to mean that Jesus commissioned him to buy what the Society might want for the feast (xin. 29), the feast, and especiaby that of the Passover, was still to come ; for ab sorts of thmgs had to be bought for it, and that this was not yet over is most unquestionably clear from the fact that on the next mornMg the Jews refuse to enter Mto the prastorium of the heathen, so as not to pollute themselves, but to be M a con dition to eat the Passover (xviu. 28). If, however, in consequence of the manner, so obviously different, M wMch the synoptics on the one hand, and John on the other, describe tMs meal, an attempt is made to dis- tingmsh two meals, one of wMch, with the WasMng of the Feet, took place on the 13th, the other, with the Supper,* as the Passover, on the 14th Nisan, we are immediately con- vmced from other circumstances, that, on the contrary, both parts refer to only one meal. For accordmg to John as web as according to the synoptics it is during tMs meal that the treason of Judas is foretold by Jesus, and durmg it, or at ab * Thus, e.g. Hess j more lately, among others, Rope, Historico-critical treatise, to prove that the Supper of the Eeet-washing, John xiii., is not identical with that of the Passover (1856). X2 308 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OE JESUS. events immediately after its close the denial of Peter bke- wise, and moreover the latter is spoken of by John, Avho is supposed to describe the earlier meal as a thing that is to take place before the next cock-crow (xiii. 38). This datum shows at the same time, what indeed is clear enough Avithout it, not only from the introduction of the Johannine narrative, which represents the Washing of the Disciples' Feet as the last proof of Jesus' love for them, but also from the farewell addresses and the departure to the place of arrest, Avhichare connected with it, that John as well as the synoptics intends to describe the last supper of Jesus with Ms disciples. But as tMs one and last meal of Jesus in the synoptics is as plainly the Passover-meal itself, as it is, M John, a meal on the evenMg before, we have here a contradiction, as entire as a contradiction ever was, and in wMch one side must be wrong.* The fact that there are stib theologians Avho in the face of tMs plaM statement stdl deny the contradiction, clearly shows that in theology a standard prevails totaby different from that of simple truth ; and the further fact that in the endea vour to get rid of it they set to work M opposite ways, one * The following table will show the relation between the two descriptions, and also the course of events in the Passion- week .- — Day of ike Month and Day of the Week accord Day of the Month and Feast according to the ing to all the Evangelists. Feast according to John. Synoptics. 14. Nisan. Thursday. 13. Nisan. Evening, the Supper. 15. Nisan. Friday. 14. Nisan. First Feast-day. Passion and Death of Jesus. 16. Nisan. Saturday (Sabbath). 15. Nisan. Second Feast-day. First FeasMay. Jesus in the Grave. 17. Nisan. Sunday. 16. Nisan. Third Feast-day. - Second Feast-day. In the Morning Resurrection of Jesus. THE PASSOVER AND THE LAST SUPPER. 309 party seeking to draw over the synoptics to the opMion of John, the other John to that of the synoptics, others to find the one account as web as the other possible,* only shoAva that they are- induced to attempt the solution, not by any of the texts on either side, but by that extraneous interest which is indifferent as to which side has to give way, provided both are brought under one roof, i.e. the historical credit of both is saved. That neither may be'wrong, one of the two must sub mit to the greatest wrong, i.e. the violent distortion of their plain words and unmistakeable opMion. Here runs the boundary line between those theologians with whom we can stib treat mtebigently, and those whom Ave must leave to themselves, and to the principle M the service in wMch they have eMisted. By this, however, we do not mean that ab those theolo gians who recogmse in this point the contradiction between the synoptic account and that of John have thereby rid them selves of every prejudice. For if it is asked wMch of the two sides is supposed to be right and wMch wrong, the faithful adherents of John range themselves around their master, who cannot be wrong, because then they themselves, with their modern faith pinned upon Mm, would be wrong. That is a consideration as untrue and erroneous as any; Mstorical testing is a court of justice wMch has to find its verdict un concerned about possible consequences. If the fourth Gospel cannot prove its own credibihty from its own evidence in behalf of itself, the verdict must and wib be given against it, Avhatever may be the amount of displeasure and embarrass ment thus caused to modern theology. FoboAving tMs principle, if we test the two contradictory accounts, that of the synoptics, accordmg to which the last Supper of Jesus was that of the Paschal Supper, on the * The first by (among others) "Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 334, ff. ; .the second by Weizel, The Christian Passover of the three first centuries, p. 31 5, ff. j the third by Schleiermacher in his Lectures on the Life of Jesus. - 310 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. evening of the 14th, and the- clay of his death the clay of the Paschal feast, the 15th of Nisan, is at ab events the oldest. It is admitted indeed that all our tMee first Evangelists Avrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, but used sources m which, to a certain extent, much more ancient Palestmic traditions about Jesus were found. More over, in the dispute as to the celebration of the Passover, which in the second half of the second century repeatedly broke out between the Church of Asia Minor and that of Pome, the custom of keeping the 14th Nisan as the day on Avhich Jesus ate the Paschal Lamb with bis disciples, by the celebration of the Supper on that clay, appears as the ancient tradition M support of which the people of Asia Minor ap pealed, M particular, to the example of the Apostle John. Meanwhile their opponents also, in order to justify the obser vance ofthe Easter Supper, without reference to the day of the month, on the day ofthe Resurrection, i.e. on the Sunday, and not before, appealed to the tradition of the Church ; the dispute was, like all regular ecclesiastical disputes, not of au historical but of a dogmatic character.* Clingmg to the 14th Nisan as the day of the Jewish Passover was looked upon in later times as Judaism, disregard of the day was considered as identical Avith releasing Christianity from Judaism ; hence we see shortly after in the Eastern Church the men of pro gress, as for instance an Apobinaris of Hierapobs, and later stib a Clemens of Alexandria on the side of the Romish observance. To establish this, it was now said that Jesus celebrated the Supper on the day before- the Passover, he did not eat the Paschal Lamb, but Avhile the Jews were eating it * With regard to this dispute, compare Euseb. Eccl. Hist., v. 24. Chron. Paschal. Alex. ed. Bonn. I., 13, ff. Baur, Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels, p. 334, ff. ; Christianity of the three first centuries, p. 156, ff. ; Hilgen- feM, Paschal Dispute of the Ancient Church (1860); Canon and Criticism of the New Testament, p. 219, ff. Besides these, Critical Treatises by both authors in Zcller's Theological Annuals and Hilgcufeld's Journal of Scientific Theology. THE TASS0VER AND THE LAST SUPPER. 311 he was subjected to the Passion ; he Avas, Mdeed, Mmself the real and true Paschal Lamb, the Son of God, of Avhoin the Lamb had been but the unessential type. This Avas tho clironological realization of the notion aheady suggested by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. v. 7), that Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us ; but the same thought also lies at the bottom of the account of the fourth Evangebst. Jesus ate no Paschal Supper before Ms Passion, but represented in Ms oavu person the Paschal Lamb : for on the same day and during the hours during which the typical Paschal Lambs were being slain ou the altars of burnt-offering M the Court of the Temple he wa3 sheddMg his bfe-blood on Golgotha as the true Lamb of God.* Apolbnaris, about a.d. 170, refers to tMs account of the fourth Gospel, at the same time drawMg attention to the fact that the opposite view, wMch appeals to Matthew (if not modified, as Apolbnaris seems to have done, according to John), brMgs the Gospels Mto discrepancy with each other. We may thus penetrate John's motive for giving the repre sentation wMch he does ; we understand Avhy he placed the last Supper of Jesus on the day before the Paschal Supper, and the death of Jesus on the day of tMs Supper, and con sequently antedated by one day the account of the older Evangebsts : it was the endeavour, most mtimately connected with Ms pomt of view from first to last, to represent Jesus at the culmMating pomt of his mMistry as no longer talang partm the bygone Jewish Festival, but as layMg the founda tion of a new religion by substitutmg Ms own death for it. Easy however as it is to see how, according to tMs, the fourth Evangebst may have given an unhistorical account of these matters, it is M the same degree difficult to assume * I avail myself here of the striking word3 of a very orthodox theologian, Kraut, Chronology and History of the four Gospels, p. 130. It is perhaps this typical relation that induced John (xii. 1) to place the Supper at Bethany, at which Jesus was anointed for his death, on the sixth day before the Passover, i.e. the 10th Nisan, on which, according to 2 Mos. xii. 3 — 6, the Paschal Lambs were selected. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Gospels, p. 298 ; Ancient Christianity, p. 40. 312 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY 01' JESUS. that the synoptics can be right in their chronology. The Passover indeed presents no difficulty, but, all the more, what is said to have taken place during the night and on the next clay. That the Sanhedrim, on a night so sacred as that after the eating of the Paschal Lamb, and on a day so sacred as was the fohowing &:st day of the feast, should have not only sent out armed servants for the arrest of Jesus, but have undertaken, personally, to form a court, to go through the trial, to pass judgment, and lay an accusation before the Procurator, and then have induced the Romans to execute the sentence of death on such a clay — all this is extremely improbable. Servants indeed, though it is not expressly stated that they were armed, are represented by John as- having been dispatched by the High Priests and Pharisees to seize Jesus on the principal clay of the feast of Tabernacles (vii. 45, comp. 32), and, according to Acts, xu. 3, ff, Herod imprisoned Peter during the days of unleavened bread, though he certainly intended to defer his condemnation and execution until after the feast. We are very imperfectly informed as to the arrangement of the judicial system of the Jews in reference to their Sabbatical Calendar, and that of their festivals, as Josephus on this point says very little, and the statements in the Talmud are in many ways obscure, and also contradict each other. . Thus we learn from it, indeed, on the one. hand, that the Sanhedrim met on the Sabbath and feast-days, but not in its usual place ; but it is not said that these meetings Avere for the administration of justice ; nay, the admMistration of justice is spoken of elsewhere as one of the things forbidden on the Sabbath. But as regards the execution of a sentence, we have a statement of the Rabbi Akiba preserved from the time of. Hadrian : Who ever says anything against the scribes is taken up to Jeru salem at the time of one of the three great festivals, in order to be then put to death, that the people may take Avarmng. It is not, Mdeed, said that the execution Avas carried out on THE PASSOVER AND THE LAST SUPPER. 313 the very day of the feast ; but there is less difficulty in con nection Avith this, as the sentence, at all events, Avas executed by the Eonians.* It is, hoAvever, further mamtamed, that independent of everything else the account of the synoptics is inconsistent Avith itself, as they describe the day of the execution of Jesus by an expression Avhich contradicts their own assumption that it Avas the first and greatest day ofthe Passover, and that consequently the preceding Supper Avas the Paschal Supper. They describe it (Matt, xxvii. 62 ; Mark xv. 42 ; Luke xxiii. 14) as the preparation day, or the day before the Sabbath ; but it is objected that the first day. of the Passover, having like ad other first days of the numerous festivals, itself the rank of Sabbath could not have been called so, and that this description must have been transferred from an older repre sentation, according to AvMch the day of the execution of Jesus, as is said M John, was not the first day of the feast, but the day before. It is to tMs chcumstance, they maintain, that the statement of Luke refers, that the women prepared spices and oMtments on the evening of the burial, and rested, according to the law, over the fobowing Sabbath (xxiii. 56). Had the day of the death and burial been the first day of the Passover, they could not have occupied them- " selves with the preparation of spices on it any more than on the Sabbath, fobowing it ; and it is only in John, it is said, that the haste to take the Body down from the Cross in the evening with reference to the sanctity of the following day has any real meanmg, as M his account the day of execution is the day before the Passover, and so the following day the first day of the Passover. But, even in John the day of execution is described as the preparation day, not for the Passover, but for the Sabbath (xix. 14), and the reason that * Comp. on this subject, Blcek, Contributions, I. 140, ff. Gfrorer, The Sanctuary and the Truth, p. 197, ff. 314 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. is given why the next day should not be desecrated, is not that it was the first day of the Feast of the Passover, but that it was a Sabbath (xix. 31), and it is only by the addition of the words that that day was a high day, i. e. especially sacred, that its character as being at the same time the first day of the feast is alluded to. If, therefore, we see in the fourth Gospel, in which the Sabbath is also the feast-day, its character as the Sabbath predominating, that Gospel stands in this respect on the same ground as the three former, who, of the tAvo days placed M juxtaposition, consider the second, the Sabbath, as the more sacred, and it is obvious to suppose that at that time m similar cases it was so considered, and indeed it quite corresponds to the spirit of late Judaism to attach such importance to the Sabbath above everything else. At all events, as Bauer rightly remarks, what Avas or was not consistent Avith the custom of the Jews at that time, must have been better known to the author of the first Gospel who stood in so close a relation to Judaism, and still closer to the Pales- tinic sources of history, from wMch he took his own, than to ns at the present day. If, therefore, he did not hesitate to assert that Jesus was condemned and crucified on the first day of Easter, we may fairly be satisfied with tMs statement. It is in the same circumstance wMch induced the fourth Evangelist to antedate the last Supper of Jesus by a single day, and out of the Passover-Supper to make a Supper the the day before, that we have to look for his reason for making no mention, on the occasion of the Supper which he does describe, of the Institution of the Last Supper (Matt. xxvi. 20—29 ; Mark xiv. 1 7—25; Luke xxii. 14—20). That the Supper was knoAvn to him as a Christian rite would be a necessary assumption, even if it were not clear from his sixth chapter that it was so ; but the persuasion also that it was instituted by Jesus himself on the occasion of Ms own Last Supper was already M the days of the Apostle Paul so general throughout Christendom that it must have been THE PASSOVER AND THE LAST SUPrER. 315 knoAvn to the author of the fourth Gospel even Avithout the synoptics. But upon the point of view of the fourth Gospel, the Last Supper of Jesus could in no Avay have been repre sented as a Passover-Supper. QMte as little, upon the same point of view, could he be supposed to have instituted tub Supper on the occasion of it, if the last was not to appear as an offshoot of a Jewish custom. It might indeed be said that it could not appear so if the Last Supper of Jesus was placed on the evening before the Passover : the fourth Evan gelist, having so placed it, might confidently represent Jesus as mstituting the Supper during that meal. But, as is clear from the description of the synoptic Gospels, the Institution of the Supper by Jesus Avas, m the conception of the most ancient Church, so closely connected Avith the Passover, that a last Supper of Jesus, or even any Supper at ab to wMch that Institution was appended, would always have been looked upon as a Passover," and whoever did not wish to acknowledge the Supper as havMg been instituted on the occasion of the Passover would have had to represent it as not having been instituted at a Supper at ab. And M that case it might have been not instituted m any ritual form at all, but only invested Avith a symbobcal meanMg, as is actually done M words M the sixth chapter, but with typical miracles m the account of the gifts of Wine and Bread found in the Gospel. Thus the Supper was mdeed unmistakeably intended and founded by Jesus, but founded not m a real and material manner, but in that mystico -ideal way wMch is peculiar to the Gospel of John, and not in connection with the Jewish custom of a Feast, but as sometMng new M which the exclusion of the old was taken for granted. This last point is brought out by the fourth Evangelist in a manner wMch might seem at first sight as tendmg again to a connection with the usages of the JeAvish Passover. Christ having died about the time when the Paschal Lambs were slain, and. his bones not having been broken as being those of the 316 BOOK II. MYTniC'AL HISTORY OP JESUS. true Paschal' Lamb (of which further on), one of the soldiers pierced his side vvith a spoar, and immediately there flowed thereout blood and Avater, that the Scripture might be ful filled which says : " They shall look on Mm Avhom they have pierced" (John xix. 33—37; comp. Zeeh. xii. 10). They had pierced, that is, the Son of God, Avhose blood is drink indeed (John vi. 55), not merely in the spiritual but also in the material sense at the Supper; on which occasion the water wMch flowed with the blood from the wound in the side, beside its reference to the water of Baptism, might at the same time refer to the water Avhich according to the custom of the earliest Christians used to be mixed with the wine of the Supper.* WMle, therefore, in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus partakes of the Jewish Passover, and founds the Last Supper in connection with its usages, in John he dies as the true Paschal Lamb, that is, as the Son of God, who yields himself for the sins"' of the Avorld, and pours forth from his wounded side the drink of Life, typified indeed by the bloody sacrifices of the JeAvs, but which now for the first time, at the CMistian Supper, is really and truly present. 86. The Feet-avashing, with the Announcement of the Treason and the Denial. If, however, according ,to the representation of John, neither the Paschal Lamb Avas eaten at the Last Supper of Jesus, nor the Supper of the Lord instituted, then was the form deprived of all its proper meamng ; for the announce ment of the Treason and the Denial, wMch was all that re mained, Avas not sufficient to maintam it in its original im portance. And the author of the fourth Gospel did not wish entirely to dispense Avith it, partly because it had obtained * Justin Marti Apol. i. 65, ff. THE FEET-WASHING, ANNOUNCEMENT OF TREASON AND DENIAL. 317 that importance in the Christian tradition, partly because it might serA'e as a desirable foundation for the farewell speeches which he wished to mtroduce mto this portion of his narra tive. He Avas obliged, therefore, to consider of a substitute : if possible one of such a description that, on the one hand, bke the distribution of bread and wine it bore the character of a symbobcal act, and on the other stood in close connec tion Avith the loving and fareweb speeches wMch he proposed to add in tMs place. Accordmg to Ms general practice he took a survey on tMs occasion also of the synoptical accounts before him, to see whether they did not present some mate rial of wMch he could make what he wanted, and as he had frequently done before, he found material of this description in Luke. This Evangebst, certainly most strangely, M de- scribmg the dispute of the disciples as to wMch of them it was to whom the abusion of Jesus as to Ms future betrayal referred, had thought of that other dispute of the disciples about the question wMch of them Avas the greatest, and he had thus represented that dispute about precedence, wMch Matthew more smtably places earber, as breakmg out over the Last Supper (Luke xxn. 24, ff. ; comp. Matt. xx. 20, ff). On tMs occasion he represents Jesus as saying, among other things, that M opposition to the custom of the world, he that is greatest among them shab be as the younger ; and he that is cMef as he that doth serve. "For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth ? Is not he that sitteth at meat ? but I am among you as he that serveth." In another passage of the same Gospel tMs comparison is expanded into a regular parable, the reward of those whom Christ on. his return shab find m a proper moral state bemg represented by the hnage of servants whom their Lord when he returns home at mght finds watching. " Verily, I say unto you," it is said here, " that he shab gird Mmself, and make them to sit down to meat, and wdl come forth and serve them" (Luke xii. 37). Now these images are actually 318 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. brought upon the scene in this passage by the fourth Evan gelist, as he represents Jesus as girding himself and assuming the character of a servant in the presence of his disciples, and then at the conclusion adding the moral that if he, their Lord and Teacher, has done this to them, they should also do the same to one another, as the servant is not greater than Ms lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent Mm (xiii. 4 — 16). But he does not, bke the master in the parable, assume the character of the servant by offering them meat, but by a stid more menial service, that of wash- Mg their feet, wMch at the same time by the purification effected by it, carried with it a further symbolical meanmg. And as a clear Mdication that by this narrative the Evan gelist intends to fib up the gap caused by the omission of the Institution ofthe Supper, he represents Jesus as performing the Washing of the Feet likewise as au act wMch is to be repeated M the Society, for he describes him as declaring to the disciples that as he has washed their feet so are they to wash the feet of each other hereafter ; that he has given them an example wMch they are to imitate. And these expres sions, indeed, in the mind of the Evangelist are only meant symbolically (comp. moreover 1 Timoth. v. 10), but stiU have an Mtentional resemblance to those of Paul and Luke : " This do, as oft as ye shall drink it," &c. &c. It would be, on natural grounds, qmte possible that Jesus should have entertained suspicions of the unfaithful disciple, and even expressed them, but the Evangebsts represent him as foreknowing and foretelling the treason of Judas in a supernatural manner (Matt. xxvi. 21 — 25; Mark xiv. 18 — 21; John xui. 18 — 20), and Mdeed they do so for a reason which must have Mduced them to represent the case so, even if it were not historically true. TMs dogmatic reason, why Jesus must have been supposed to foretel the treason, and must have foretold it at table and no where else, we learn from the fourth Evangebst. With reference to the former he puts THE FEET-WASHING, ANNOUNCEMENT OF TREASON AND DENIAL. 319 into the mouth of Jesus the Avords (xiii. 19) : " Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he." In these words the motive is dis closed, wMch is the source of all those pretended prophecies of their oavu fate, especially if it is an unhappy one, Avhich appear m the mythical Mstory of great personages. The unhappiness, the ill-success in the life of a man of God, is always an offence, Masmuch as the natural assumption is that he Avho is beloved by God, is sent by God, wib also be advanced by God, and this offence has to be set aside, the negation of the high commission, wMch appears to be Mvolved M the unhappMess has agam to be negatived. Such a nega tion is impbed by the man of God foreknowmg and fore telling the unhappiness which is to befab Mm. He can only know it through God, who, by communicating tMs unhappi ness to Mm marks Mm as one who stands near Mm, and indicates at the same time that the unhappMess wMch he causes Mm to know beforehand, is his own providential arrangement, and does not stand M contradiction to the lofty position of Ms ambassador. Moreover, Masmuch as our ambassador from God knows Ms evil fate beforehand, and does not attempt to escape from it, but on the contrary, ac- qmescMg M the ordinance of God, cahnly meets it, he appears in presence of that fate as not merely suffering bnt mdepen- dent, it does not appear to be an external power AvMch oppresses Mm, but a suffering wMch he has undertaken with the consciousness of the Mgher object wMch he has m view. Now, M the misfortune which overtook Jesus, there appeared to be Mvolved a special ground of offence, Mas- much as that misfortune was produced by the treason of one of Ms own disciples. If a famibar friend could betray him to his enemies, it must have been because that famibar friend saw nothmg particular M Mm, and if he retained so false a friend near Mm he cannot have penetrated the mMd of that friend, and, consequently, cannot have been possessed of any .320 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. superior knoAvledge. On the other hand, his adherents Avere possessed with the conviction, first, that their Master did penetrate the mind of tho traitor, and, moreover, as the fourth Evangelist exaggeratiugly assures us, even from the beginning (ati. 64). In the second place, rank ingratitude on the part of a messmate AA-as already prefigured in reference to the Messiah in the life of his ancestor David (2 Sam. xv. 16), and foretold in the passag-e ofthe Psalm (xb. 9) : "Yea, mine oavu familiar friend, in whom I trusted, wMch did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." In this passage, wMch only the fourth Evangebst expressly brings forward, but upon Avhich the whole account must have been formed from first to last, is involved the motive for repre senting Jesus as havMg foretold the treason of Judas actually at table. The exact Avords of the passage M the Psalms gave less occasion for this; the expression, " which does eat of my bread," indicates a relation of dependency, a bond of grati tude, violated by the unfaithful friend; but John quotes, " he that eateth bread with me ,-" the Christian tradition saw_ in the passage of the Psalm the violation by the traitor of the sacred law of hospitality foretold. In the case of such applications and imitations, everythMg is taken as bteraby as possible, and reabzed to the senses as much as possible. If the Messiah says : " he that eateth bread with me," he must have said it just while they were both eating bread together. But if he said it during the time of eating, it Avas said most suitably on the occasion of that eating which hnmediately preceded the performance of what was foretold. But tMs last occasion of eating Avas the Supper of the Pass over, at which the bread was sopped M a dish with broth ; so Jesus says, not simply " he that eateth bread Avith me," but " he that dippeth Ms hand into the dish with me " (in Luke, less defimtely, " the hand of Mm that betrayeth me is with me on the table"). At first sight tMs would be only a periphrasis for social febowship ; the expression " with me " THE FEET- WASHING, ANNOUNCEMENT OP TREASON AND DENIAL. 321 Avould merely mean, during the same eating out of the same dish, so that among the twelve companions of Jesus, no one in particular was indicated; Jesus might indeed have himself known the traitor, but not have thought good to name him, leaving it to the disciples to consider and ask who it could be. In Mark and Luke, the thing is thus left in suspense. Matthew goes further, and represents Judas as being defimtely pointed ' out as the traitor. We cannot but be surprised at Ms not employing the act of the clipping for this purpose, and repre senting him as being declared by Jesus to be the traitor who dips his hand into the dish simultaneously with Mmseff; the mode in Avhich the thMg is done, by Judas asking at last Avhether it is he, and Jesus answering at once Tes, has some thing awkward and improbable about it, which the two middle Evangebsts do not seem to have liked. The fourth Evangebst has displayed greater dexterity M this passage. It is of course to be taken for granted that Ms Logos Christ must now have proved by the most accura/te description of the person of his betrayer, that knowledge of him which he had from everlasting. In this he goes with Matthew, but he goes on a way of Ms own. He does not neglect the opportunity for a more definite description which the dippmg of the hand M the dish afforded him. But a simultaneous clipping was not definite enough for him. He was to be the traitor for whom Jesus dipt, and to whom he gives a sop. Besides, in the fourth Gospel all this is quite differently connected. This last Supper appeared to the author of the account the most favourable opportunity for exalting the Apostle in whose name he wrote, and, with Mm, the whole spiritual tendency which he had m vieAV. Here, if any where, a situation was given for representing his friend John as the bosom-disciple, the confidential friend, from whom the Master kept notMng secret. As the Son of God lies in the bosom of bis Father, the poor Lazarus, after Ms departure, in Abraham's bosom, so John, as the disciple whom Jesus VOL. II. T ¦y22 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. loved, lies in the bosom of Jesus (according to the Oriental custom of lying at table) ; and the natural result was that in the paMful uncertainty as to AvMch of them it could be of whom Jesus spoke as Mm that should betray him, the rest turned to the bosom-disciple, and begged, tMough him, for the solution from Jesus. Peter is represented as the disciple who conveys the Mqmries of the disciples, not hnmediately to Jesus but to the bosom-disciple — this chief ofthe Apostles is compebed expressly to subordmate himself to John — and in this fact one of the inmost tendencies of the fourth Gospel is exposed : it is precisely with the relation of these two Apostles and the tAvo forms of Christianity, one of which was connected with the name of Peter, the other with that of John, that the Gospel is concerned. And because only the latter disciple is Mtended to appear as the one who was acquamted with the inmost thoughts of Jesus, he is here represented as the one who could alone question Mm about Ms secret. Judas makes an offer to the rulers of the Jews to debver Ms Master into their hands. Matthew and Mark allege as the motive for this, the reward of money. In Luke the act is introduced with the remark that Satan had entered into Judas, also called Iscariot, one of the twelve (xxn. 3). TMs is so represented by John, that in the prophecy above men tioned, Jesus expressly declares that one of the twelve is a devil (vi. 70) ; at the begmmng of the narrative of the last Supper this expression is moderated to the effect that the devd put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus (xbi. 2) ; now on occasion of the sop being offered to Mm by Jesus, it is said (ver. 27), that, after the sop, Satan entered into him. The sop, therefore, given to the traitor by Jesus, becomes to him a curse, and notwithstanding that M the Gospel of John the sop is not the bread of the Supper, we cannot help re membering theAvarning of Paul (1 Cor. xi. 27 — 29), that who ever eats of the bread or drinks of the cup of the Lord un- THE PEET-AA' ASHING, ANNOUNCEMENT OP TREASON AND DENIAL. 323 worthily, eats and drinks his own condemnation : the idea of the Supper Avhich the Evangebst Avould have -wished here to keep at a distance, in accordance with his plan, appears nevertheless to have penetrated his mind involuntarily. Thus in the fourth Gospel the malignant purpose of the traitor appears to be assisted by an act undertaken by Jesus Avith a different object. And he is expressly urged on to the execution of Ms design by the expression of Jesus (ver. 27) : " What thou doest do quickly." In these words Bretschneider* has discovered an exaggeration of the synoptic account. The other Evangelists say that Jesus was conscious of the intention of the traitor, and did not prevent its being carried out, but John, he observes, represents Mm as having even hastened its execution. The object is clear :• the courage of Jesus, Ms elevation above ab sorrow that man could bring upon Mm, appeared in so much a clearer light if he not only did not attempt to avoid the sword drawn agamsthim, but met it with a brave Push home. We shall shortly find the scene M Gethsemane also remodebed by the fourth Evangebst in the same spirit. Of the occurrences at the last Supper of Jesus we still have remaMing only the announcement of the Denial of Peter. TMs however is placed by Mark after the conclusion of the meal, on the way to the mount of Olives, and only Luke and John represent it as taking place while the Supper is still going on (Matt. xxvi. 30 — 35 ; Mark xiv. 26 — 31 ; Luke xxii. 31 — 34 ; John xin. 36 — 38). The course of it is in ab four accounts essentially the same. On a somewhat arrogant assertion of Peter to the effect, M the, two first Evangelists, that even though ab men are offended m Jesus, or separated from him, he wdl not be offended ; in the two others, that he is ready, for Ms Master, to go to prison or to death, or to give up his life for him, Jesus foretells to him that on this very mght, before the cock crow, Peter wdl have denied him .? ' Probabit. Y 2 ¦->-4 liOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. thrice. That at that critical time Peter Avas g'Mlty of a weakness which looked like a denial of Christ we may, in accordance with the unanimous tradition of the Evangelists, be Avilling to believe, and the more so in proportion as the statement was opposed to the deep feeling- of reverence with which the chief of the Apostles was regarded m Christendom at the earliest period ; it is also extremely probable Jesus might sometimes meet with a word of caution the exaggerated self- confidence of the disciples Avhich might, show itself on diffe rent occasions ; but that this was clone so immediately before the consequences stated to have followed, and in this exact form, is the more doubtful in proportion as there is no mistakMg the legendary elements in the cock-crow and the number three appbed to the acts of denial. In Mark we see the poetical impulse advancing a step further : tMs advance is shown by the chcumstance that he alone thinks it necessary to count the number of cock-crows as web as the number of denials : before the cock crows twice Peter wib have demed Mm thrice — a cold idea Mdeed, and one which received no further notice. SECOND GROUP OF MYTHS. THE AGONY AND ARKEST OE JESUS. 87. The Agony at Gethsemane. Relation of the Fourth Gospel to this History. There is a resemblance between the foreknowledge and foretebing ofthe Treason and Denial and that foreboding ofhis suffering which the three first Evangebsts attribute to Jesus and represent as gaining expression in words and action in the scene at Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 36—46; Mark xiv. 32 — 42 ; Luke xxn. 39—46). NotwithstandMg the elevation of his moral character, notwithstanding Ms resignation to what the THE AGONY AT GETHSEMANE. 325 task undertaken by Mm imposed upon him, Jesus might still have had to undergo a severe Mward struggle when his terrible fate presented itself to Ms mmd as imavoidable, and its bursting upon him as every moment possible. But the statement that this struggle, as represented by the Evange lists, occurred at the last moment before the fatal close, has ' an appearance more of poetry than of Mstory, and the events of the scene itself as described by the synoptics leave us in no doubt as to the unhistorical character, at least of the cletabs. An agony of Jesus before Ms Passion is also spoken of in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is said of Jesus (iv. 15), first that we have Mhmi not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feebng of our infirmities, but who was M ab points tempted bke as we are, yet without sM. Then, further on (v. 7), " Who in the days of Ms flesh, Avhen he had offered up prayers and suppbcations, with strong crying and tears, unto Mm that was able to save Mm from death, and was heard in that he feared ; though he were a Son, yet learned he obe dience by the things which he suffered." The allusion to such a scene as that in Gethsemane is here more certain than that the synoptic account of the Temptation is referred to in the other passage ofthe same Epistle (iv. 15, comp. ii. 18) ; but stib the germ of such a reference may be seen in the latter passage, and M the later Evangelical descriptions the two scenes of the Temptation and of the Agony in the Garden Avere treated as parallel pieces. TMs is seen in the fact that m the statement of Matthew, wMch is the most original of ah, who is fobowed by Luke M the Mstory ofthe Temptation, and in that of the Agony by Mark, the struggle of Jesus consists, on each occasion, of tMee courses. On this occasion it is not M the remote wilderness, but in a Garden on the Mount of Olives, M the immediate neigh bourhood of Jerusalem, where Jesus appears often to have passed Ms nights during the festival, that he is attacked, not from without by the personal Tempter, but in his 326 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. inmost mind by the terrifying foreboding of his Passion and violent death. He is not, this time, quite alone, as he Avas be fore with the Devil in the Wilderness, but, though in a solitary place outside the city, he has his disciples with the exception of the Traitor Avith him. But of these, according to MattheAV and Mark, he orders the majority to stay beMnd, so as to pre vent the mystery of the panic and agony of the Son of God from being witnessed by any but the small and exclusive triumv-irate he selected from the College of twalve. They are to Avatch with him in Ms distress, but are unable to do so : the moment he departs from them a bttle in order to pray, he finds them, when he sees them again, fallen asleep, and has to rouse them again to watcMuMess ; they had penetrated the profound meamng of what was takmg place before them qmte as bttle as on the Mount of the Transfiguration, where Luke likewise describes them as fading asleep. In the Mstory of the Temptation the Devd is represented as having thrice approached Jesus, on each occasion with a different temptation, and as having been every time repebed by him with a different text of Scripture. So, here, Jesus is thrice compebed by his mternal agony to pray his heavenly Father to turn away Ms suffering, always, however, reserving the Divine pleasure, to wMch at last he resigns khnself with filial submission, and meets, courageously and decisively, the inevitable suffering. , Matthew does mdeed on the second occasion vary the prayer of Jesus a bttle, and in a manner suited to more entire and complete resignation, then, on the tMrd, represents the same speech as being repeated wMch Mark does on the second. . This shows that from first to last the sacred number three was as much a matter of importance as the general contents of the prayer, i.e. that the narrative arose dogmatically, not Mstoricaby. Luke omits the number three of the disciples, and also the number three of the prayers of Jesus, as, in the history of the Temptation, Mark omits the number three of the separate THE AGONY AT GETHSEMANE. 327 temptations. But this only arises from his having something else to commumcate which intensifies and exaggerates the narrative. After, that is, having repeated the prayer of Jesus in the same terms as MattheAV and Mark, he represents an angel as appearing from Heaven to strengthen Mm, then Jesus as becoming terrified, and praying so earnestly that his sweat feb like drops of blood upon the earth. The two cases might have been expected to have been reversed, but it would seem that the account preferred by Luke should be understood to mean that the appearance of the angel was intended to provide Jesus -with sufficient strength to resist the subsequent mental attack, wMch was to be more violent than any wMch had preceded. Having thus described, not Mdeed tMee acts of Jesus, but stib three separate factors, simple prayer, strengthenmg by the angel, stragghhg prayer with bloody sweat, the thhd Evangelist agrees with the tAvo first in takmg Jesus back to the disciples, when he repeats \ to them the command to pray which he had given them at the very first, at the same time censuring them for their sleepmess. The whole of this history is wanting M the fourth Gospel, M the same way as the histories resembling it in so many pomts of view of the Temptation and Transfiguration of Jesus. The reason is still the same : it is that the Logos Christ of the Johanmne Gospel was once for all elevated above the sphere of trials of tMs Mnd. The Jewish Messiah, as the Lord of the world to come, might put himself M competition with the Devil as Lord of this world, as with an equal, but not so he who came from Heaven, who was above ab; exter nal brightness of the countenance, and a meeting with the Lawgiver and Prophets of the Jews might be a glorifying of the synoptic Christ, anything of this character would only have reduced the Christ of John within narrower limits ; fear of Death, lastly, prayer that it might be averted, as the author of the fourth Gospel saw in death rather the glorifying of Jesus, and even the need of strengthenmg by an angel — 323 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. all this would have been, in the AieAV of this Gospel, an abso lute degradation of Christ. Moreover, even if there was anything in these histories that might have been useful for tho purpose of the Evangelist, he would feel the less incbned to allow it to escape from his pen in proportion as he found such matter firmly rooted in the Evangelical tradition. It has already been pomted out how skilfully he preserved the essential meamng of the history of the temptation, by adopting from Luke the notion of looking upon the passion of Jesus as an attack of Satan. But he was able to relieve the two scenes of the Transfigura tion and the Agony of their offensive elements in the most simple manner, and harmonize them with the pecubar spirit of his own Gospel by combining them together. His Jesus glorifies himself (as he was glorified at the transfiguration) in and through his bfe, and in his Passion he knows himself and shows himself to be glorified : thus is the Jewish material ism of the synoptic Mstory of the transfiguration, as well as the excess of the emotional and passionate element M the synoptic Agony, corrected. Even M the synoptics the Mstory of the Transfiguration stands immediately after an announcement of Passion and Death, with which Jesus, induced by a speech of Peter, connects the warning (Matt. xvi. 25; Mark viii. 35; Luke ix. 24): " Whosoever Avdl save his bfe shab lose it; but Avhosoever shall lose his bfe for my sake, the same shall save it." The same thought meets us in the mouth of the Johan mne Christ, after he had spoken first of his transfiguration, then of Ms death (xii. 23, ff.), M words almost identical (ver. 25), "He that loveth his life shab lose it; and he. that hateth Ms life in tMs world, shab keep it unto bfe eternal." And further on he says (ver. 26) : "If any man serve me let him follow me. ... If any man serve me him will my Father honour:" as he had said in connection with the synoptic announcement of the Passion before. ;the transfiguration, "If THE AGONY AT GETHSEMANE. 329 any man Avib come after me . . . let him follow me . . . for AA'hosoever shall be ashamed of me before this generation, of him shab the Son of Man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, andin his Father's, and ofthe holy angels" (Matt. vi. 24; Mark viii. 34, 38; Luke ix. 23, 26) ; the cor responding passage to Avhich is found in another place (Matt. x. 32) : " Whosoe\-er, therefore, shall confess me before men, him wdl I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." These speeches in the fourth Gospel were occasioned by the fact that during the last visit of Jesus to the Feast, after Ms solemn entrance into Jerusalem, Greeks who had come to worsMp at the Feast, i. e. Heathen who were mcbned to Judaism, and perhaps were Proselytes of the gate, were anxious to see Jesus, and for that purpose appbed to the Apostle PMbp, and he, in company with Andrew, acquamted Jesus with this (xn. 20, ff). Upon this Jesus, without fur ther noticmg the wish of the Hebenes, says, " The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified ;" and in what fobows Ms death is described as the necessary transition to tMs result. We have here one of those cases wMch enable us to see to the bottom of the peculiar character of the Johannine Gospel. On the point of view of the synoptic Gospels, the glorifying of the Messiah is connected at the Transfiguration with a meeting with two ancient Prophets of the JeAvs ; in the fourth it is occasioned by the arrival of the Hebenes, i. e. of the Heathen. The bebevers of the Heathen world are the ripe frmt wMch the gram of wheat falbng Mto the earth produces (ver. 24), but the perishing of the gram, the death of Jesus, is the necessary condition of tMs, and the speaker, therefore, now plunges into the thoughts sug gested by tMs image, and connects with it the texts above quoted about gaimng and losmg bfe, about his servants fobowing Mm and honouring Mm. This idea, that the Death of Jesus is the necessary transition between Ms earthly pilgrimage and his glorification in the Heathen world sng- 330 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. gests to the Evangebst the possibdity of combining, in the scene to which the approach of the Hellenes gives rise, fea tures out of the Mstory of the Transfiguration with features out of that of the Agony in the Garden. Jesus confesses that he is shaken in his Mmost soul by the thoughts of Death that have arisen m him ; but the Evangelist, as if wishMg to correct the synoptic narrative in which Jesus is represented as praymg the Father to let the Cup, or according to Mark (ver. 35, whom in tMs instance also the fourth Evangelist folloAvs), the hour, pass away from Mm, represents his Jesus as putting to himself the question, " And what shall I say ?" (M nearly the. same words as M Mark), " Father, save me from this hour?" (no, I will not say so, for) "for tMs cause came I unto this hour."* In another passage also a correc tive ahusion to the synoptic prayer in Gethsemane is hardly to be mistaken. In John, Jesus subjoins to the order given j to Peter the question (xvin. 11) : " The cup Avhich my Father hath given me shall I not drink it V How appropriate, m a Gospel intended for readers of Greek cultivation and accus tomed to the ideal of Stoic apathy, a correction of the synoptic account in tMs very place was, is proved by the ridicule and censure which from Celsus doAvnwards so many heathen opponents of Christianity have poured forth upon the notion of Jesus trembling in Gethsemane.f It corresponds perfectly to the point of view of the Johan mne Gospel, that the phdosbpMcal Emperor Julian, in con sidering the account of the Agony, looked upon the feature of Jesus, as a God, having needed strengthening by an Angel as particularly absurd. Our Evangebst might have omitted • Even if the words, " Father, save me from this hour !" are regarded not as part of the question, but as a real prayer, still the attack passes over incom parably more quickly and easily than in the synoptics. t See the expressions of Celsus and Julian, as well as those taken from the Gospel of Nicodemus in Vol. ii. p. 429, of my Critical Treatise on the Life of Jesus, fourth edition. THE AGONY AT GETHSEMANE. 331 this feature, and with the less hesitation, as Luke was the only one of his synoptic predecessors who had introduced it ; but it was safer to make it unavadable for an opponent by representing the difficulty that arose upon it as a consequence of a misunderstanding. In those moments, he says, of most profound emotion a Mgher Being did certamly speak to Jesus, but it was not an Angel but God Mmself that so spoke, and he did so not because he was obbged to strengthen Jesus, but, as Jesus had prayed, not for strength for himself, but that the Father might, ¦ in Mm, glorify Ms own name, the heavenly voice only commumcates tMs affirmative assurance of the accompbshment of tMs glorification ; whde of the sur rounding multitude, those who were completely uninitiated and dub of comprehension took the voice of God for thunder,- the half-awakened for an Angel speaking with Mm. But as, by the derivation of the heavenly voice from an Angel, in John, there arises a connection betAveen tMs scene and that in Gethsemane, as described in Luke, it is, on the other hand, m and for itself, taken from the synoptic Mstory of the Transfiguration. In that history it was out of the cloud of bght, or, accordmg to the expression M the second Epistle of Peter (i. 17), out of "the excellent glory" that the voice sounded. In John there is no mention made of a visible appearance, but the glory is adopted Mto the words of the voice, wMch does not, as the Mstory of the Transfiguration, describe Jesus as the beloved Son of God, whom the diseiples are to hear, but only speaks of the glorifymg wMch has already been vouchsafed to Mm, and shab stib be vouchsafed. But even thus tMs sign appears too material for the inward and spiritual relation of the Logos Christ to the Father ; as betAveen these two Bemgs there was no occasion for such a request on the one side, such an appearance on the other, and therefore in this passage it wa3 considered necessary that Jesus should declare expressly (ver. 30), as he had de clared at the raising of Lazarus, that it is only on account of 332 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. the surroundmg multitude, that he thanks the Father for the granting of his prayer. The scenes of the Transfiguration, and of the Agony of Jesus, being thus combined in the fourth. Gospel, they dis appear as separate Mstories, and consequently the places M wMch they stand respectively in the three first Gospels stand vacant. A solemn conclusion of the Galilean ministry of Jesus, such as is formed in the synoptic Gospels by the his tory of the Transfiguration, was not wanted in that of John, because in it there is no such lengthened continuity of the sojourn of Jesus in Galilee, but from first to last there is an mterchange between his stay there and his sojoumings m Judea and Jerusalem. The synoptics place the scene of the ¦Agony between the last Supper and the arrest. But John required nothmg of the kind. Jesus, as represented by him, had no need to struggle for courage and presence of mind on the field of battle, he must have brought there both these quabties with him. Moreover, before being torn away from Ms followersby the hostile power, it was necessary to represent Mm as Mitiating these persons, who had hitherto been chddren in understanding, by a lengthened address, Mto the depths of his mind, especially to familiarize them with the idea of his death, and the salutary effects of it, to make them generaby of ripe age, and instead of disciples and servants, friends and fellow-labourers. This could not be done on the Mount of Olives, where the attack of the enemy was every moment to be expected, but only on the peaceful occasion of the last Supper : moreover, it supposed on the part of Jesus a calmness of mind which could not be disturbed, with which he Avas capable of meeting the violence of his enemies, Avithout any fresh mental struggle. The battle, therefore, must have been already fought, and the correspond ing scene, though in accordance with the point of view of the whole Gospel; of a less violent character, and less highly coloured, be transferred to an earber place, preceding THE AGONY AT GETHSEMANE. 333 the last Supper. Every attempt to insert, in John, the synoptic Agony between the farewell speeches of Jesu3 from the 14th to the 17th chapter, and the approach of the traitor with Ms folloAvers at the beginning of the 18th, is an attack not merely upon the moral elevation, but also generally upon the manly firmness of the character of Jesus. If, according to tMs, the mere thought of the suffering that awaited Mm, was able once more to throw him back into so violent an inward struggle, it would have been a mere empty boast, or at all events a deficiency in self- knowledge, to have asserted beforehand as he does (xvi. 33) that he had overcome the world, and its sorrows. Itis manifest that the composer ofthe Johannine farewell speeches, especially of the High-Priestly prayer in chap, xvii., had quite as little notion of an Agony having afterwards occurred as the synoptic narrators of this Agony have of their Jesu3 havmg stood before upon the elevation of that prayer. One account does not presuppose the other, they are drawn from qmte different pomts of view, they are qmte incompatible representations, but M their present form neither of them can be looked upon as Mstorical, and all Ave can say is that they are both fictitious, one being only the more simple in its conception, the other shoAving more reflection, and conscious purpose. But that even M these fareweb speeches, the fourth Evangelist has only worked up and expanded the materials handed down to Mm by Ms predecessors, is clear from the constant coincidence of what he represents Ms Jesus as say- Mg Avith the synoptic utterances of Jesus. And here we may notice, that it is a law wMch marks the spiritual peculiarity of the Evangebst, that when he modifies the thoughts and expressions of Jesus by additions of Ms own, and makes them approximate to Ms own form of thought and expression, he is very successful M bringing them into connection with the speeches wMch are the result of pure invention : when, on the 334 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. other hand, he leaves them iu their original form, then the discrepancy between them and his own form of thought, or Ms inability to transport himself out of the latter into the mode of thought and expression of the synoptic Jesus, not seldom causes him to introduce original utterances of tMs kind in the wrong place. This incapacity, of which Ave become aware as soon as he attempts to bring what is foreign to the character of his mind into connection with his singular and peculiar mode of description, is so little at variance Avith the dexterity of the same writer when he carves for himself, that, on the contrary, we see that both the one and the other are results of a nature thorougMy subjective and plunged deep into this subjectivity. The synoptic section out of which especially the fourth Evangelist helps himself in these farewell speeches, is the speech in Matt, x., containing the instructions to the Apostles. The Johannine fareweb speeches are mdeed speeches con- taming instructions, only that they are debvered here not on the occasion of his sending them forth during Ms life-time, but of theh taking upon them the Apostobcal office after his impending departure. Even on the occasion of the scene with the Hebenes, which immediately precedes the fareweb Supper we found texts out of this speech of instructions appbed, as the speech about loving and hating bfe, or gaining and losing it, which, at first sight, we could not but suppose to be taken from the announcement of the Passion in Matt. xvi. 25, is also found with an unimportant variation M the speech of mstructions (x. 39) . Moreover, it Avas from this speech, as was mentioned above, that all is borrowed that Jesus says in the fourth Gospel at the last Supper on occa sion of the Feet-wasMng, to the effect that the servant is not greater than his master, he that is sent than he who sent Mm (John xiii. 16; Matt. x. 24). If these synoptic sayings are not badly introduced in connection with the Johanmne description, the same cannot be said of those THE AGONY AT GETHSEMANE. 335 words of Jesus, likewise taken out of the speech of instruc tions (x. 40 ; John xiii. 20), that he that receiveth whom soever he sends, receiveth him, and he that receiveth him receiveth him that sent him. These words are pieced on after the announcement of the treason, without any other apparent connection than that he had the famous speech out of Matt. x. floating before his mind, and presenting some resemblance to that above quoted, and wished likewise to introduce it as aptly as he could. He succeeded incom parably better with the consolatory speech of Jesus (Matt. x. 19, ff), which says that if his disciples are put upon theh trial they are not to trouble themselves as to what they shall say, for it will not be they who speak but the Sphit of their Father wib speak in them. TMs text is made by the fourth Evangelist to a certain extent the theme of Ms fare web speeches, but he Mtrocluces Ms idea ofthe Paraclete, and thus gives to the original thought totally different appbca- tions. Hence we have here only isolated resemblances, but always suitably introduced (as John xiv. 26 ; xvi. 13, &c.) but the text is never fitted in M the original form wMch it bears m the synoptic. There is another saymg of Jesus, not out of the speech of the instructions, but out of the synoptic narrative of the Agony, wMch the fourth Evangelist endeavoured to preserve in its original form, but has only been able to do so with the ib success wMch usuaby attends Mm M such cases. It is the courageous chabenge of Jesus with which Matthew (xxvi. 46) and Mark (xiv. 12) conclude this scene : " Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand." He did not wish to lose this, as it harmonizes with his endeavour to represent the suffering of Jesus a3 voluntarily undertaken. But he was unable to make use of the scene from the Agony, as we have aheady seen ; and so much of it as he could make use of he was, obliged to introduce in an earber place: so he Mtroduces this speech also in an earlier place. The most natural course 336 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. would have been to put it at the end of the farewell speeches, as a challenge to leave the Supper room and the city, and to go out to the Mount of Olives; and that the Evangelist intends to give it this meaning is char from the alteration which he makes in it. Instead of making Jesus say " Rise up, let us go, &c," he represents Jesus as saying, without mention of the traitor, " Arise, let us go hence" xiv. 31). But for the conclusion of his farewell speeches the Evangelist had intended to introduce a prayer of Jesus, in which he represented him as ascending from the speeches which he had made so far to the address to his heavenly Father; after tMs no address to the disciples could follow Avithout weakening the impression; if the speech was stib to find a place it must have been uttered sooner. Then it was M reabty a matter of MdifFerence when it was uttered ; as the challenge Avould M no case have an immediate result, it might be introduced where a point of connection seemed to offer itself. But that was where Jesus represents the suffering thab awaited him as an attack by the Prince of tMs world, who could, however, havro no power over Mm ; the courageous call upon the dis ciples appeared to be suitably introduced here, and thus the synoptic description intensified. In the latter it was appbed only to the traitor ; in the fourth Gospel it is the devil Mm self whom Jesus goes to meet with courage so exalted. It is indeed strange, but not more so than much in the fourth Gospel, that after this encouragement the farewell speeches go on just the same as if it had never been spoken. 88. Arrest of Jesus. In the tMee first Gospels the approach of the traitor does not take place until after the conclusion of the Agony, and the courageous call to the disciples. In the fourth Gospel, HIS ARREST. 337 in Avhich the Mstory of the Agony in this place is dropped out, the first thmg that occurs, after Jesus with his disciples has arrived in the Garden on the other side of the brook Cedion, is the approach of the traitor. Accordmg to Matthew and Mark he comes Avith an armed multitude, despatched by the High-Priests and elders of the people. With this multi tude Luke associates the High-Priests and elders themselves, together Avith the chiefs of the guard of the Temple; John a company of Roman soldiers, and, as it was mght, though the night of the fub moon, he puts into their hands, besides the weapons, torches and lanterns (Matt. xxvi. 47, ff. ; Mark xiv. 43, ff. ; Luke xxii. 47, ff.; John xviii. .1, ff.). It was a tradition M Christendom that Judas served as guide to the people who arrested Jesus (Acts i. 16), and this office of gmde was generally understood to imply that he not only poMted out to the officers of the Jewish Hierarchs the way to the place where Jesus was, but also, by means of a kiss, Mdicated'to them Ms person with wMch they were before imacquamted. The fourth Evangebst has nothing about the kiss ; on the contrary, he represents the whole of what the traitor had to do, as consisting in pointing out the spot where Jesus was at that time to be found, stating also how Judas was enabled to knoAV it ; for the Jesus described by John is known without being pointed out. According to the synoptics, the traitor goes up to Jesus and gives Mm th& Mss agreed upon, upon which, after a reproachful question to the unfaithful disciple, Jesus is seized by the constables. In John, as soon as the people make their appearance M front of the garden or garden-house, Jesus, with a supernatural foreknowledge of all that should come upon him, meets them with the question Whom they seek ? and on theh answering, Jesus of Nazareth, he declares that be is that Person; to wMch the Evangebst, as if wishing expressly to spare the traitor Ms kiss, adds the remark that Judas also stood with the people to whom Jesus thus made himself known, and VOL. II. z 338 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. they, consequently, required no further indication of his per son. In this distinction, that according to the one account Jesus is pointed out by another and delivered to his enemies, according to the other he makes himself knoAvn and. sur renders himself into the hands of Ms enemies, is involved again the whole of the distinction betAveen the fourth Gospel and the older ones. The Logos Christ, he AAho had said of Mmself that no man takes his life from him, but that he him self lays it down of Mmself, that he has power to lay it down. and has power to take it up again (John x. 17), he must prove this on tMs occasion also when he is passing Mto the power of Ms enemies ; he is not to be supposed to have waited tdl a thhd person said, TM3 is he, but must himself have said at once, I am he. Jesus at the same time wished to save Ms disciples, and in this wish the Evangebst discovers the fulfil ment not, as on other occasions, of an Old Testament prophecy, but of some words of Je3us himself, that is of the speech which he had put into his mouth in the High-Priestly prayer (xvii. 12), M a spiritually moral sense, that of those whom his Father had given him (Judas excepted), he had lost none ; a double Mterpretation of the same speech, agreeing perfectly Avith the double Mterpretation of wMch the Avhole of this Gospel is capable. Moreover, by the turn which he gave to the affair, the fourth Evangelist gamed yet another object. What was im- pbed by the kiss of Judas, This is he, could produce no other effect upon the people except that of causMg them to arrest him. On the other hand, if Jesus came forward to meet them with his, i" am he, the scene was prepared for one of those effects which rhetorical writers were fond of intro ducing in the history of a Marius,* of the orator Antony f and others, when the hired assassms were said to have sheathed theh swords, or run away, at the word or the look of the * Velleius, Hist. Rom. ii. 19, 3. f Valer. Max. viii. 9, 2. HIS ARREST. 339 great man. Our Evangelist goes still further; he represents the people not merely as gomg back at the word of Jesus, but as falbng to the ground. He repeats the Avords, I am he, three times (ver. 5 : Jesus said unto them, I am he — ver. 6, As soon as he had said unto them, I am he — ver. 8, 1 have told you that I am he), and tMs shows that he lays par ticular stress upon them. They were the same words Avith which Jesus, when walkMg on the sea of Gablee, had tran- quilbzed the terror of the disciples (John vi. 20; comp. Matt. xiv. 27) ; the faith or the confession that "I am he," ' is repeatedly set up by the JohannMe Christ as the end to which he wishes to lead his followers (viii. 24 ; xxviii. 13, 19) . In the words, " I am he," therefore, the whole fuMess of what Christ is, the whole divmity of Ms personabty is con tained ; thus, when spoken by Mm, they operate as a super natural tabsman. The expression gets tMs meanmg from the Old Testament : " See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god Avith me : I kib and I make alive ; I wound and I heal ; neither is there any that can debver out of my hand." ' ' Ye are my witnesses," says Jehovah on another occasion (Isaiah xlm. 10, ff), " that ye may know and believe that I am he. ... I, even I, am the Lord ; and beside me there is no Saviour." The expression is, therefore, origmaby an expression of God himself, and as the fourth Evangebst puts it into the mouth of Jesus, and represents it as producmg the effect wMch on other occasions the counte nance of God or some other celestial Being produces, he also thereby raises it far above the position wMch it occupies in the synoptics. In Matthew and Mark the sword-cut inflicted by one of the disciples comes after the officers have laid theh hands on Jesus ; in Luke and John it comes before. TMs is a point in wMch the growth of legend and fiction comes most clearly into view. Ab the Evangebsts are agreed that the id-timed courage of one of the attendants of Jesus cost the servant of z2 340 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORT OF JESUS. the High Priest an ear; but neither Matthew, nor Mark who here follows him, says wMch of the two ears it was ; Luke and John are the first to tell us that it Avas the right one : in a picturesque scene of this kmd legend cannot bear any uncertainty. Then Ave learn from the two first and the fourth Evangelist simply that the servant had lost his ear, not that he had got it again; only Luke assures us that Jesus healed it with a touch. Hoav could the charitable physician with miraculous powers, Avho had removed so much evil leave tMs unremoved, when it had been inflicted if not by Mm, at all events on his account ? Possibly the servant of the Priest appeared (to the fourth Evangelist) unAvorthy of the miracle, or the miracle too trifling for this closing portion of the life of Jesus. Lastly, the three synoptics are unable to give the name either of the disciple or the servant ; only John knoAVS that the name of the latter was Malchus, and that the former was Peter. Thus in the Mstory of the Anointing only he knew that the woman who anomted was Mary of Bethany, her heartless censor Judas : he thought this act of AnoMting as appropriate to the character of Mary, the be stowal of the censure to that of the traitor, as the sword-cut to that of Peter. And mdeed M a double sense : the act might be called a courageous act; but the courage was wrongly exhibited and rested npon a grievous error of the disciple as to the true destiny of Jesus. Hence even in Matthew the sword-cut of the unnamed disciple was fobowed by a reprovmg caution of the Master : but it exactly fitted in with the plan of the fourth Evangelist to expose Peter especiaby M the place of a disciple without a name to a cen sure pronounced by Jesus, assuming that the censure appbed to something which did not contradict the traditionary cha racter of Peter. In order to connect this feature firmly with the name of Peter, he subsequently on the occasion of the Denial describes the servant who maintains that he saw Peter M the garden with Jesus as a relation of the one whose' ear HIS ARREST. 341 Peter had cut off (xviii. 26) ; but then the servant Avould scarcely have said merely ; Did I not see thee in the garden with him ? but, Thou art the man who cut off my cousm's car ! and Peter, if conscious of the act, would scarcely have trusted Mmself in the palace of the High Priest. Of the words of reproach M Matthew the fourth Evangebst only adopts the command to the disciple to put up the sword into the sheath ; the threat that they who take the sword shab also perish by the SAvord, he seems to have found incom patible with the crucifixion of Peter (xxi. 18, ff.) ; finally, Avhat Jesus says in Matthew of the more than twelve legions of angels wMch he had only to pray his Father for m order to render him assistance were he not obbged to fulfil the Scripture and his destiny — John had to represent him as proving tMs m act. For if, according to Mm, Jesus caused the armed men to fad to the ground by a word, it was ob vious that it would have been an easy thmg for him to save himself if he had chosen, without legions of angels, by the divine power which dwelt in him. While Matthew and Mark console themselves for the arrest of Jesus like a tMef with the predictions " of the Prophets " (perhaps the passage in Isaiah Mi. 12, Avhich had been quoted by Luke earlier, xxii. 37), they see in the flight of ab the dis ciples the fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah (xiii. 17), Avhich Matthew represents Jesus as reminding them of on the way to the Mount of Obves (xxvi. 31). Whether the feature of the young man, who in terror leaves the hnen cloth beMnd with which he was covered and flees away naked (Mark xiv. 51, ff.), is due to tradition or to the imagmation of the second Evangelist, or whether a particular meamng is concealed behmd it — is a question which it might be difficult to decide. • 342 THIRD GROUP OF MYTHS. TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION 01? JESUS. 19. The Trial before the High Priest and the Denial oe Peter. Jesus, by the Authorities of his own nation, whose Messianic Saviour he proposed to have been, Avas condemned as a criminal, Avas delivered up to the Roman Procurator, and immediately executed by the punishment of crucifixion. This fact Avas the terrible negation by Avhich hope and faith on the part of Ms adherents Avho belonged to this very nation appeared to be for ever annihilated. If they were to be revived this could only be done by that annihilating negative being M turn itself negatived. TMs was done in the first mstance by the production of faith in the Resurrection of Jesus. If death had put an end to his life, Ms Resurrection put an end to his death — death was swabowed up in victory. But the death and the tortures under which it took place, the accusation and the condemnation, the disgrace and the shame, through which the supposed Messiah had passed, remaMed : they could not be obliterated out ofthe memory of men, even of believers in Jesus, could not, therefore, be denied, but must have a turn given to them, in the construction put upon them, such that they should lose their negative meaning, that if possible they should become supports of the faith, theh negative value positive, theh marks of shame signs of honour. TMs might be done M different ways, and from tMs point of view we have to consider the discrepancies between the Evangelical accounts of tMs portion of the Life of Jesus. Ab the Evangelists agree in admitting that Jesus was pronounced guilty of death by the Jewish authorities (Matt. xxvi. 57, xxvii. 1 ; Mark xiv. 53, xv. 1 ; Luke xxii. 54 — 71 ; John xvin. 12 — 30). The two first represent the trial of THE TRIAL BEFORE THE HIGH PRIEST. 343 Jesus as taking place in the night, Luke not until the next morning, AA'hen also the two first state that the formal reso lution of the Sanhedrim was taken. In connection with this Luke describes the Demals of Peter before, the tAvo others after, the trial of Jesus, and both parties, Luke on the one hand, and Matthew and Mark on tho other, place cbffercntly and describe differently the ill-treatment Avhich Jesus ex perienced during these hours. But these are accidental, or, at least, unimportant discrepancies. Then comes the ques tion as to how . the fact of the condemnation of Jesus by the supreme power of Ms country was made harmless for the Faith ? In the first place, it is said that the condemnation wa.s the result of false testimony. Matthew and Mark teb us that the Sanhedrim made exertions to suborn false witnesses, many of whom came forward, but, according to Mark, their evidence proved to be useless by reason of mutual contra diction. At last, according to Matthew, two came forward stating that Jesus said he could destroy the Temple of God, within three days build it up again, or, accordmg to Mark, budd witMn three days another not made with hands. The observation of Mark, after having stated that the substance of what each said was so identical, is superfluously apologetic. It has been aheady explaMed how far tMs testimony, which may Mdeed have been brought forward at this time, was false, and how much of it was true. The thhd and fourth Evange bsts make no mention of such testimony M this place, but the substance of it was not unknown to either of them. According to Luke somethMg of the same kMd was subse quently alleged agaMst Stephen, but there also as false testi mony (Acts vi. 14) ; John seizes the enemy's weapon boldly by the point : yes, Jesus did reaby say, not Mdeed that he Avould himself destroy this Temple, but that if they were to destroy it he would restore it agaM M three days ; but M this he did not, as the stupid Jews thought, speak of their Temple of 344 BOOK II. THE MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. wood and stone, but — of the Temple of his body ! (ii. 19-22). A second expedient by AAhich the original Christian tradi tion nullified the effect of the accusation and condemnation of Jesus, was the industriously repeated statement that to the question of the High Priest as to what the false witnesses said of Mm, as subsequently before Pilate, he gave no answer (Matt. xxvi. 63, xxvii, 12, 14 ; Mark xiv. 61, xv. 5 ; Luke xxiii. 9 ; John xix. 9) . If Jesus gave no answer it showed that he did not recognise the jurisdiction of the court before AvMch he had been brought ; but Avhat is the principal theory, he thereby showed Mmself to be the Lamb who was led to the slaughter and opened not his mouth, as the sheep who is dumb before his shearers, i. e. as the Servant of God, or, accortbng to Christian interpretation, as the Messiah, of whom the prophet Isaiah had prophesied (bii. 7). So to the question as to whether he is the Son (or Servant) of God he makes no reply, but solemnly declares himself in ab form, referring to Ps. ex. 1, and Dan. vii. 13, ff. to be the Messiah; andin the fact that now this is looked upon by the High Priest and the Sanhedrim as a capital crime, there was involved, accordmg to the CMistian view, a third, and, so to say, a self-contra diction of their sentence. If they condemned him because he mamtaMed Mmself to be what he really was, they did in fact pass judgment not upon him but upon themselves, upon theh strong blindness, upon their obstinate unbebef. The insults and abuse wMch Jesus was hereupon compelled to endure from the servants, or even from the Jewish digni taries themselves, are differently described by the Evangelists, but mockery, blows, stripes and spitting m the face are abeged by all : these tMngs also had been prophesied by Isaiah M a passage capable of Messianic explanation (1. 6) : "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hah ; I Md not my face from shame and spitting ;" by this also and by the cabn resignation with wMch he bore THE TRIAL BEFORE THE HIGH PRIEST. 345 it, he proved himself to be that which his bbnded enemies would not recognise in him. The Aveakness ofthe chief of his disciples, m denymg him, is only a discredit to him and to the frailty of human nature, and is immediately repented of by the Apostle with the bit terest remorse; but even this demal becomes rather au evidence of the supernatural character of Jesus by means of the prophecy which he gave of it, and the accuracy with AvMch the result corresponded to his prediction. That the narrators are only concerned with the triple demal, M accord ance with the prophecy of Jesus, we see by the discrepancies AvMch they admit in reference to persons, place and circum stances. In connection with it the double crowMg of the cock M Mark is evidently a feeble refinement, but M Luke the look of Jesns at the disciple when the cock crowed is an effective feature, wMch is Mdeed M poMt of place and cir cumstances as hnprobable, Mstoricaby, as its legendary origin is intelligible. For what Matthew and Mark after him represent subjectively as the vivid awakening of Peter's recollection of the prophecy of Jesus by the crowMg of the cock, becomes, M Luke, objectively a look from Jesus pene trating Ms inmost soul. A peculiarity which John exhibits in this place is connected with a tendency of his Gospel already sufficiently web known to us, and is, M particular, a parabel case to the turn which he gave on the occasion of the last Supper, to the Mquiry of the disciples after the traitor. In the same way as, accordmg to his account, instead of apply ing immediately to Jesus, the disciples there apply tMough Peter to the favourite disciple as spokesman, so here Peter, Avhom the others represent as shnply entering the court of the palace of the High Priest, is Mtroduced by that " other disciple," who is thus represented as an acquamtance of the High Priest ; accordMgly an opportnmty is taken here also of exalting the supposed author of the Gospel at the expence of the cMef of the Apostles. 346 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. In the famous chronological passage of the thhd Gospel (Luke iii. 1, ff.), the author of the fourth had foimd two High Priests, Annas and Caiaphas, for the year in which the Baptist appeared, and taken such good notice of this state ment Avhich was of itself erroneous and inaccurate, that by a still greater mistake he always calls Caiaphas, AA'hen he speaks of him M the Mstory of the last year of the life of Jesus, the High Priest for that year (xi. 49, xviii. 13), as if he had changed Avith Annas, whereas, after Annas had been deposed by the Roman Procurator Valerius Gratus, and some other persons had been invested Avith the High Priestly office for a short time only, his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas held it for a series of years, especially during the whole Procnratorship of Pontius Pdate. Now it was the more obvious for the later Evangebst on an occasion on which the High Priest was supposed to have something to do, as on the trial and condemnation of Jesus, to give that other (supposed) High Priest something really to do, as he thus had an opportunity at the same time of representing Jesus as having been repu diated aud maltreated by two Jewish High Priests ; as Luke, conversely, but with a simdar purpose, represents him as having been found innocent by two judges, neither of them belonging to the JeAvish hierarchy, that is by Herod as well as Pilate. That he had no particular sources of Mformation at Ms command with regard to the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas . betrays itself also in the fact that he makes the maM substance of it, introduced only by a question of the High Priest as to Ms disciples and his doctrine, to consist M the appeal of Jesus to the publicity of his ministry, which the synoptics had put into his mouth on the occasion of Ms arrest (Matt. xxiv. 55 ; Mark xiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52, ff.). He then says notMng whatever of the trial before the real High Priest, to whom he represents Jesus as being sent by Annas. TMs is remarkable, and must remain unintelligible until we observe that with Ms usual object in view of making Jesus play as important a part THE TRIAL BEFORE THE HIGH PRIEST. 347 as possible from first to last, he had already anticipated the tAvo points which, according to the tAvo older Evangelists, were brought out at tMs hearing of the case. In the first place, he had brought m the speech about the destruction and rebuilclmg of the Temple on the occasion of the first visit of Jesus to a Feast (ii. 19) ; in the second place, the assurance that henceforth they shad see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming M the clouds of heaven, had aheady, according to the fourth Gospel, been given by Jesus to Nathanael, on meeting with his first disci ples in simbar words (i. 51), from henceforth they should see the heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descendmg to the Son of Man.* Even of the condemnatory sentence of Caiaphas it may it said that the Evangebst had anticipated it, not only in speaking of the Councfl of Blood (xi. 49, ff.), but also agaM (xviii. 14), where with reference to this narrative he bad described Caiaphas as him who gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should perish instead of the Avhole people. Ab that was left was the " Yes," pronounced by Jesus M answer to the ques tion as to whether be was the Christ, the Son of God ; but the fourth Evangebst did not choose to represent the Jesus of Ms Gospel as thus confessing Mmself at once to be the Messiah of the Jews. Thus he passes over the hearing before Caiaphas with a summary statement, representing the Demal of Peter as takMg place in the court of Annas, and the result of the trial beMg the condemnation of Jesus, he passes on to the following process before Pdate.f * On each occasion, airapri oipee-Oe. t The English translation of the aorist airioTtiXiv by the pluperfect " had sent," which i3 undoubtedly erroneous, gives a totally different impression of the order of events from that which is here assumed by Strauss on the authority of the Greek text, rightly interpreted.— 2K 348 book ii. mythical history of jesus. 90. The Death of the Traitor. There Avas a chffioulty, capable of being turned to the dis advantage of Jesus, in the fact that he had been delivered by one of his disciples into the hands of Ms enemies. This difficulty the ancient Christian legend had, as Ave have seen, attempted from the first to set aside by representing this treason as having been foreknoAvn and foretold by Jesus, and even prophesied in the Old Testament. It had even deprived beforehand the demal of Peter of its sting by such a predic tion on the part of Jesus : but it had also done the same subsequently by the heart-felt repentance which it repre sented Peter as exhibiting. A subsequent repentance of a similar kind was all the more requisite in the case of Judas' treason, M proportion as the guflt of it exceeded that of Peter : M this case simple repentance was not enough, the repent ance must become despair ; nay, whether he repented or not the traitor must be absolutely overtaken by the divine vengeance. That a traitor shoidd feel remorse, that he should even perish either by his own hand or by an accident, is possible and has happened in other cases ; but our New Testament accounts with regard to the death of Judas point, in their discrepancy, not to a fact, but to different. Old Testament passages and types wMch have been connected with one fact at the most, a fact moreover wMch probably has no con nection whatever with the traitor. According to Matthew (xxvii. 3 — 10), Judas, when he heard that Jesus was con demned (and we cannot indeed understand hoAV he could be surprised at it), cast down his reward for treason M the Temple Mto the hands of the High Priest and elders with the confession that he had betrayed to them, innocent blood, and they, Judas having hanged himself from despair, bought from a potter for the money, which as being the price of blood they could not put into the treasury of the Temple, a the death of toe traitor. 349 field to bury strangers M. TMs field, says the Evangebst, on account of the blood of Jesus which clung to it, was called up to his own days the field of blood. Accordmg to the Acts, on the contrary, Avhen on the occasion of Idling up the place of the traitor M the College of the Apostles, Peter is speakMg of his end (i. 16 — 20), he had not restored tho recompense for Ms sin, but bought with it, we are not told from Avhom, a piece of ground, upon wMch be shortly after ended Ms days, not by smcide but by a fab AvMch burst Ms body;* an accident Avhich becommg known all tMough Jeru salem gave to the piece of ground the name of Aceldama or the field of blood, accordmg to this, therefore, from the blood of the traitor. These two narratives have notMng in common but the sudden death of Judas and the name of a piece of ground at Jerusalem ; the first of wMch, that the traitor could have come to no good end, was a postulate of the Christian consciousness : the other, that there was at Jerusalem a piece of ground of that name, is possible, but it need not have anytMng to do with the traitor ; even if it had not, the Christian legend might stib bring the ground of blood Mto connection with the man of blood. Now as regards the narrative M Matthew, we may observe that death by hanging, wMch is represented to have been the end of Judas, is especiaby the traitor's death M the Old Testament. Of AcMtophel, the unfaitMul adviser of David, who had betrayed tMs ancestor of the Messiah to Absalom, it is said (2 Sam. xvii. 23), " He arose, and gat him home . . . and hanged himself," exactly as of Judas, "He departed, and went, and hanged himself." AcMtophel, mdeed, did not do tMs from remorse, but because be saw that his treacherous but clever design had not succeeded: he had mtended to destroy David, and now foresaw his own destruc tion wMch he anticipated by sMcide. Judas saw that the * Luther indeed translates irpi)v^c ysvo/tevog, Acts i. 18, like airr/yXaro, Matt, xxvii. 5, " hanged himself ;" which is clearly a mistake., . 350 BOOK 11. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF i'ESUS. Son of David had been destroyed by him, and this threw Mm into despair. This, according to the narrative of Matthew, is not the first thing, but is preceded by an act of repentance, the restoration of the reward for his treason and the confession of Ms gudt. Even the remorse of Judas was a thing Avhich from a Christian point of view would have been inferred even though nothing Avas historicaby known about it, and an authority for the expression of it by throAvmg the money into the treasury of the Temple was supposed to be discovered in a passage of a prophet. Matthew quotes Jeremiah, but what he quotes is from Zechariah (xi. 13), and the mistake of the Evangelist comes from tMs, that this potter who is spoken of in this passage as he translated it, reminded him of the famous oracle about the potter in Jeremiah (xviii. 1, ff). In the oracle of Zechariah Jehovah appomts the Prophet as a shepherd of the people, but he, soon disgusted with Ms thankless office, demands Ms pass or his dismissal. Thirty shekels of silver are given to him, and Jehovah commands Mm to tMow the goodly price, at which he (Jehovah in Ms representative) was prized at of them, into the treasury; upon which the Prophet takes the thirty pieces and casts them mto the treasury in the house of Jehovah. Now if Judas had really got thirty pieces of silver for his treason, the appbcation of this passage would naturally have forced itself upon men's minds ; but I believe that it did so force •itself apart from any corresponcbng reality, and that the thirty pieces of sdver given to the traitor are taken from tMs passage. A contemptibly low price at which a shepherd sent by God, and m the last resort Jehovah himself, was prized by the ungrateful people, could not fail to suggest the price, at ab events proportionably low, for which the best and truest shepherd of the sheep had been sold by his betrayer (Heb. xiii. 20 ; 1 Peter u. 25) ; and if that price was found M the passage of the Prophet fixed at thirty TnE DEATH OF THE TRAITOR. 351 shekels of silver, it was that passage and no historical infor mation that was the source on the authority of wMch Mat thew — observe, Matthew only, Avho brings forward the pas sage, and in doing so coincides* m a remarkable manner with the Greek translation of it even in the words of his narrative — fixed the reward of the treason of Judas at that sum. The distmction indeed is not to be overlooked that what in the passage of the Prophet is a reward for service, is, in the Evangebcal narrative, pay for a purchase, consequently AvMle in the passage of the Prophet there are only two par ties, the hirer and the hired, there are here tMee, the buyer, the seber, and the subject of the sale : there the party Mred gets the pay, wMle here not the party sold, bnt the seller, receives the price. It is therefore said m the first passage that the party Mred and so ib paid, i.e. the Prophet, did at the command of Jehovah tMow his reward, the tMrty pieces of sdver, into the Temple. In the passage of the Gospel tMs could not be done by the person sold but only by the seber, that is, the traitor, for he had received the pieces of silver. But as appbed to Mm the feature gave an excellent proof of his repentance, Masmuch as casting the money received into the Temple, was the same thMg as casting it at the feet of the guardians of the Temple, the High Priests and Elders, from whom he had received it as the price of his treason. But Matthew goes on to say that the High Priests were unable to put the money restored to them by Judas, as bemg the price of blood, Mto the treasury of the Temple, and that they bought for it a potter's field, and in reference to this he appeals directly to the prediction of the Prophet. Whence the Evangelist gets the field we shab probably discover here after ; but the potter himself he bkewise took from the pas sage in the Prophet, only not from its real meanmg but from an ancient misunderstanding of it. The place mto wMch, * Zech. xi. 12, according to the translation of the LXX. . icai IcTijirav tov pioQbv /iov, rptasora apyvpovg. Matt. xxvi. 15 : Kal iarnaav avrip rpi&KOvra apydpia. 352 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. accordmg to Jehovah's command the Prophet was to cast his scanty pay and did so cast it, is indicated M the Hebrew text by a word which with the vowel points usually marking it, would, mean a Potter, but would be thus absolutely devoid of sense : Avith other voAvel points it may mean the treasury, and thus it must undoubtedly be understood. But the Evangelical narrator adhered to the ordinary reading with its Potter. But it is said further in the passage of the Prophet that ho cast the tMrty pieces of silver into the house of God, after which there follows as a more accurate descrip tion of it the word which we translate by treasury, i.e. the treasury wMch Avas in the Temple, but the Evangelist by Potter, notMng of the kmd bemg there. The casting into the Temple, therefore, cannot have been the same thing with castmg to the Potter, and so the Evangelist made two acts of the proceeding, distributing likewise these two acts between different persons. He who cast the pieces of silver into the Temple was, according to Mm, the traitor; the money was brought to the potter by the High Priests, who cbd not choose to have in theh treasury the price of blood. But for what cbd they bring the money to the potter ? As the price of a piece of ground wMch they bought from him as a buryMg place for strangers, and to which the name of the field of blood continued to cling from the money for which it was bought. The Evangebst cannot have taken this piece of ground from the passage of Zechariah, as there is there no trace of such a thmg ; on the other hand it remMds us of what is said in the Acts of the end of the traitor. TMs narrative, though differing so much in other respects, coMcides with that of Matthew in this particular, that it also speaks of a piece of ground, wMch, however, the traitor bought Mmself, and not for a burying place for strangers, but for his own purposes, and not from a potter. Now it is easy to see whence the author of the narrative got the piece of ground, for he tells THE DEATH OF THE TRAITOR. 353 us himself. He finds in the circumstance of the traitor having come by his death immediately after the purchase of it, the fulfilment of the prophecy, Ps. lxix. 26, " Let their habitation be desolate ; and let none dAvell in theh tents." This is one of the pretended suffering Psalms of David, which were applied in Christendom at an early period to tho suffering of the Messiah. Out of it (ver. 22) is taken tho vinegar mixed with gab Avhich is said to have been given to Jesus to chink upon the cross, and another passage of the same Psalm (ver. 10) is quoted in the fourth Gospel, as fulfilled in the purification of the Temple undertaken by Jesus (ii. 17). The punishments there threatened to the enemies of the speaker, admitted, if the Psalms were under stood in a Messiauic sense, of an application to the opponents of Jesus generally, the party among the Jewish people that were hostde to Mm, but, M a most especial manner, to Mm Avho had sinned most grievously agamst Mm, the traitor. Now if Ms habitation (piece of ground on wMch he dwelt) was to be desolate, he must first have had one, and where could he have got it but from the reward of Ms treason, which was now visited upon Mm by the desolation of the piece of ground, wMch he had bought with the price of it ? But if his habitation were made desolate and unMhabited, he, the inhabitant of it, must have died. The wish that M3 enemies should be blotted out of the Book of Life, was also expressed agaMst them M the same Psalm (ver. 29), and M another Psabn likewise quoted on this occasion (cix. 8), by the author of the Acts, it is said, " Let Ms days be few." Bnt that the premature death of the traitor could not have been a natural one, was M part assumed as a matter of course, in part announced M that Psalm wMch threatened his habita tion with desolation. Let, it is said (ver. 23), " their table become a snare before them;" just as M the Acts of the Apostles it is said of Judas, that he fed headlong and burst asunder in the midst, and all Ms bowels gushed out — because, vol. n. 2 A 351 BOOK n. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. Ave may suppose, he had at his own table fed himself up into fatness on the pay wMch he got for his treason. That the traitor's body swelled to an enormous size, Avas in Christendom a very ancient tradition, noticed even by Papias.* Ifc Avas said that he became so fat that he could not pass tMough a space large enough for a waggon, and of this assertion another writer made out a story (thus legends of tMs kind grow), that he was crashed by a waggon meet ing him, so that his bowels gushed out. Dropsy was said to be the cause of this enormous size, a,nd especiaby the head and the eyebds of the traitor were said to have swollen to such a degree that he ceased to be able to see out of Ms eyes. Here the blindness might be merely a colouring given to the picture, dropsy only an assumed cause of the swelling, and the latter an assumed cause of the bursting; as we read, however, in one of the Psalms to which the author of the Acts of the Apostles appeals m speaking of the fate of Judas, the fobow- mg words recorded against the enemy (cix. 18) : "Let his cursing come Mto his bowels like water, and like ofl into his bones," we have the dropsy, and in the words of the other Psalm (Lrix. 24), " Let their eyes be darkened that they see not," we have the blindness prefigured in the Old Testament. If the double tradition with regard to the end of the trai tor could thus arise M the Christendom of the most ancient period without anything historical beMg known about it, the only question that remains is whether the piece of ground, as to the purchase and name of which the two accounts, other wise so different, agree, is not to be considered as historical. But it is only m the statement that there was, near Jeru salem, a piece of ground cabed the ground or the field of blood, that the two accounts do reaby agree ; each takmg its own way in bringmg the facts mto connection with Judas and * The passages are quoted in my Critical Discussion on the Life of Jesus, ii. p. 490, ff. Note 19 and 20. THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD, 355 his treason. One represents it as having been bought by Judas himself, the other by the High Priests, the one says it was named from the blood of Jesus clinging to it, the other from the blood of the traitor gushing out upon it. The bond, therefore, between the traitor and the ground has no tenacity, but the ground takes an Mdependent position, i. e. there may have been a piece of ground near Jerusalem, which. Heaven knows why, had the name, nay, perhaps have been used for burying strangers in; tMs piece of ground with its awful name the Christians claimed for the traitor, but the mode of bringing it into connection with him was not settled ; the author of the narrative in the Acts looked upon it as the desolate habitation of the traitor, the writer of the first Gospel saw M it the object for which the blood-money restored by the traitor, had been paid to the potter. And it is not here necessary to assume that the field came by its reference to the potter, m consequence ofthe clayey nature of its soil; it was enough that in consequence of the name of Field of Blood it came by its reference to the traitor, with whom the potter was connected by reason of the false Mterpretation s of the oracle of Zechariah. 91. The Trial beeore Pilate and Herod. Until the days of the destruction of Jerusalem and later, and consequently during the period durmg which the sub stance of the narratives of the synoptic Gospels was forming, the real enemies of the youthful Christiauity were found in the Jews of the old belief. On the other hand, Romans and Greeks showed themselves to be partly Mdifferent, partly even capable of bebef, or at any rate, apart from local or transitory obstacles, such as the persecution of the Christians under Nero, tolerant. Up to the date of the composition of the fourth Gospel the conflicts Avith the power ofthe Roman 2a2. 35G BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. Government had indeed increased, but were infinitely out weighed by the extent to which the conversion of the heathen had proceeded ; in consequence of which the Greco-Romish world Avas looked upon as the real and proper field for the spread of Christianity, and the Jews continually more and more as an obstinate and abandoned multitude. Now as Jesus, at the conclusion of his bfe bad come M contact with both powers, Judaism and Heathendom, the hierarchy of Ms own nation, and the civil power of the Romans, it is natural that the conditions prevaihng in both directions in Christen dom generaby, and in separate circles of it at the time of the composition of the several Gospels, should also show them selves M the description of this portion of the Mstory of the bfe of Jesus. That Jesus was put to death by order of the Roman Pro curator is certaM ;* there is no trace of Ms havMg given immediate or personal offence to that officer by his ministry ; there is, therefore, every probabibty M favour of the repre sentation given by our Gospels, that the Jewish authorities being themselves deprived of the power of bfe and death by the Romans, endeavoured to gain over the Roman Procurator for theh purposes, by bringmg the man whom they wished to destroy for MerarcMcal reasons, into suspicion with the Romans on pobtical grounds. The political character of the Jewish idea of the Messiah made it possible to do this. Jesus had recognized tMs idea as applicable to Mmself only hesitat ingly, and with a disavowal of its political side; but the people, and even his own disciples had up to that time, taken the less notice of tMs disavowal in proportion as it was unm- tehigible to them. So much the more easy was it for the Jewish authorities to represent to Pdate in a pobtically dangerous bght the success wMch Jesus met with in gammg foboAvers among the people, the concourse wMch attended * Tacit. Annal. x.v. 44. THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD. 357 Ms lectures, the homage wMch had been given to him on his entrance into the capital. So far, therefore, the Evangebcal account has ab historical probabdity in its favour. But if Pdate lent them Ms support, the inferonco from this wib be that they had either really convinced Mm of the dangerous character of Jesus, or that he Mmself was cou- vmced that Ms own interest called upon Mm, in tMs instance, to comply with the Avishes of the Jewish leaders. In the M-sfc case, he may indeed at first have doubted of the gudt of Jesus, but not, until the last, have had a conviction of his innocence, m the second he would at ab events not have proclaimed this conviction' pubbcly, as he would thereby have placed Mmself unnecessarily M a bad bght, and counteracted Ms object of deservMg the gratitude of the JeAvish authorities, by exciting theh disgust. However pro bable therefore may be the Evangebcal account, as to the mode in wMch the Jewish Merarchs contrived to gain the Roman Procurator to theh side, it is MgMy improbable in respect of ab wMch they represent Pdate as saying or doing, in order to declare loudly and solemnly Ms conviction of the innocence of Jesus. And as we may observe how during the period of the formation of our Gospels, Christendom was continuaby turmng away from Judaism with disgust, and to Heathendom with hope, we see the source from which the unMstorical element became here amalgamated with the Evangebcal narratives. When M the two first Evangebsts, Pdate, on Jesus being brought before Mm, immediately puts to Mm the question as to whether he is the "King of the Jews, tMs is perfectly natural, provided only we assume that the accusation ofthe Jewish authorities, not mentioned until after, consisted in the allegation that he had said he was. Luke, more appropri ately, and more correctly ibustratrng and bringmg forward the political side of the Messianic idea, puts these accusations first, stating that the Jews accused Jesus before Pilate of 35S BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. misleadmg the people, and dissuading them from paying tribute to Caesar. On this accusation ofthe JeAvish authorities, Jesus was silent, and to tMs question of the Procurator, only gave the monosyllabic reply " Thou sayest it," without further explanation. Now this might indeed, as being a frdfilment of the prophecy about the lamb that suffered Avithout opening its mouth, edify the CMistians, but would scarcely gain favour for Jesus with the Romans, which, however, is said to have been the result. And even succeedMg Christians might on this occasion have expected some expression of Jesus having reference to Ms position to the political side of this Messiamc idea, such as the fourth Evangelist does not hesitate to introduce. On the whole, tMs Evangebst has worked up the whole scene before Pdate with especial care. Even at first, M order to keep M sight the Passover, as being immediately at hand, he represents the Jews as not entering Mto the judgment hab, but Jesus as bemg led into it. Then Pdate, when he wishes to question Jesus goes M, and when he wishes to speak with the Jews, comes out, and at last brings Jesus out with him. Thus the scene gets a dramatic, not to say a theatrical character, though indeed to the question as to who is sup posed to have given to the Evangebst, who stood with Ms countrymen outside, a description of the conversations be tween Jesus and Pilate, M the mterior of the judgment hall, the answer is almost impossible. The representation given by the fourth Evangelist, even at the very first, will give as it were the key to the judicial drama that follows. The Jews having sent the prisoner m to Pilate, Pilate comes out and Mquires the accusation wMch they give Mm. Their reply, rude ahnost to absurdity, that if the man had not been a malefactor, they would not have delivered Mm to the Pro curator, is only intelligible by supposing that it was given M order to bring out both Pdate's demand that they should judge him accordmg to theh kw, and also theh rejoinder, wMch was THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD. 359 necessary to explaM that they did not possess the privilege of putting crimmals to death. It was of importance to the Evangelist to Mtroduce tMs notice, because it Avas only in con sequence of this chcumstance that the prediction of Jesus Avith regard to his death, that it would consist M a lifting up from the earth (xii. 32 ; viu. 28) could be fulfdled, in asmuch as in the Jewish code, the pmiishment of crucifixion did not appear ; but for a crime such as Jesus was accused of, the Jewish punishment would rather have consisted in stonmg (3 Mos. xxiv. 16, 23). But when he hereupon re presents Pilate as going to Jesus and putting to him the question in the same terms as those ofthe synoptics, and also as abruptly, whether he is the King of the Jews, we still do not know, notwithstandmg all prehminary explanation, whence Pdate is supposed to have got tMs question, as the Jews had not told Mm what theh accusation against Jesus was ; the explanation therefore which has been continued up to this poMt, the object of wMch was to show the incom petence ofthe Jews to inflict capital punishment, and con sequently to suggest a reason for the crucifixion, here breaks off, and a neAv one begms, the purport of wMch is to expound the supermundane nature of the kingdom and kmgly dignity of Jesus, and wMch ends M the question of Pdate, What is Truth ? Jesus had said that he Avas a King, m so far as he had been born and come Mto the world to bear Avitness of the Truth. Upon tMs Pdate asks, What is Truth ? In the same way at an earber period, when Jesus spoke of the ex altation of the Son of Man, the Jews had asked, Who is this Son of Man? (xii. 32; comp. viii. 28) — consequently this is one of those questions arising from misunderstanding or no understanding at ab, by which the fourth Gospel loves to illustrate the subbmity of the thoughts and utterances of its Christ, the notion of " Truth" being as much connected with fundamental ideas of a specially Johannine character, as that of the Son of Man is with those of Christianity in general, 360 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. When after this conversation, the fourth Evangelist re presents Pdate as coming out and declaring to the Jcavs that he finds no guilt in the accused, there is here at any rate better reason for Ms doing so, than in Luke, Avhere it is smaply unmtebigible how Pilate, when Jesus had refused ab further explanation, with the exception of the dry expression, " Thou sayest it," could declare Ms conviction of Ms Mnocence. The express declaration of innocence m this passage is taken by John ahnost word for Avord from Luke ; for the two first Evangebsts have in tMs place notMng of the kmd, nor anytMng anywhere m this form. But M their description there now comes M the episode of Barabbas, which John represents as fohowmg that declaration of innocence, and wMch, findmg it so firmly rooted M the ancient CMistian tradition, we must consider on the whole to be historical. But whether Pdate, as the Evangebsts represent, proposed to adopt the custom at the Passover of releasmg a prisoner as an appeal from the fanati cal priesthood to the unprejudiced populace, and by contrast with a robber and murderer to facditate the redemption of Jesus, and whether he did this so earnestly with repeated proposals, is indeed another question. And that he, when tMs attempt had failed, improvised the scene of washMg his hands, and thus solemnly testified to the innocence of Jesus, acqmtted Mmself of the blood " of that just man," and laid the responsibdity of it upon the Jews— all tMs is only ex ceeded M improbability by the statement that the assembled Jewish populace took, as solemnly, this responsibdity npon themselves, and expressly laid upon themselves and their chddren the gmlt of the blood of Jesus. This representation, which is pecubar to the first Gospel, is manifestly made up altogether out of the Christian consciousness of a later date, wMch saw m the fearful end of. the Jewish state and nation the execution of vengeance on those cMldren Avhose fathers had shed the blood of Jesus. What their own interest THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE AND nEROD. 361 required was to have as it were official testimony to the Mno« cence of their Christ, and this they foisted upon Pilate. But it is impossible that he could care so much for a JeAvish enthusiast, which at the best he considered Jesus to be, that if he did not find it advisable to save him, he Avould have made an exposure of his own weakness and coAvardice by so solemn a declaration of his innocence. The first Evangebst does to a certain extent suggest a motive for this interest of Pdate in Jesus by a feature like wise peculiar to him, in the warning, that is, AAhich he repre sents as bemg addressed to him by his Avife, while actually sitting on the judgment seat, to have nothing to do with that just man, for she had suffered many thMgs in a dream that day because of Mm. On reading of this warning dream of Claudia Procula, as the legend soon after cabed Pilate's wife, who does not remember the pretended dream of Cal- purma, Cassar's wife, on the mght before the murder, and her prayer to her husband not to go out that day ; and who would not be M a concbtion, remembering on the one hand this universal bebef of the period, and on the other the personal inebnation of the Evangebst for suggestive dreams which we recognise even M the history of the Mfancy, to form a judgment upon tMs narrative of this writer ? These tAvo narratives, of Pdate's washing Ms hands and of his wife's cheam, are simply passed over by the abridging Mark, wMle Luke and J0M1 seek to substitute for them other features producing a simflar effect. Even before the digression about Barabbas, and immediately after Pilate'.1? declaration that he can find no guilt in the silent prisoner, Luke has a statement (xxiii. 6—15), in maMng AvMch he stands as much alone as Matthew does in that of the washing the hands — -the statement as to the leadmg aAvay of Jesus to Herod. He connects it Avith what precedes by saying that the Jews maintain their accusation against Jesus by asserting more particularly that he sths up the people from Galilee up 362 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. to the capital of Judea ; whereupon Pilate seizes upon the word Galilee, and sends the Gablean to the Governor of his cbstrict, that is, the Tetrarch Herod Antipas, who was like wise present in Jerusalem during the feast. Luke has aheady made preparations beforehand for the statement. In the passage (ix. 9), M wMch during the ministry of Jesus in Gablee he mentions the attention which the fame of the miracles of Jesus excited M the mMd of. Herod, he concludes with the remark, peculiar to himself, that Herod wished to see Mm. It is to this wish that allusion is noAV made in the joy wMch the Prince feels at havMg him at length in Ms presence, and as on the former occasion the miracles were the cause for wMch he wished to see Mm, so now also be hopes to witness some mhacle done by him. But as M3 wish is not fulfided, Masmuch as Jesus meets all Herod's questions as well as ab accusations of the cMef priests and scribes who remained with Mm with persistent silence, the disappomted Prince with his men of war resort to ridicule, and finaby he sends back the accused to Pilate arrayed M a gorgeous robe. In and for itself this account contains nothing that might not have really happened as it is told. Neither is anytMng proved against its historical character by the fact of its being pecubar to Luke. But we must add, that it contains no matter whatever of its OAvn. Nothing is stated about the questions of Herod or a sentence passed by him, and the mockery, together with the gorgeous robe, is only taken from the subsequent passage which foboAvs the judicial sentence of Pdate, where the two other synoptics have these features, and they are omitted by Luke. Lastly, we see mo3t plamly the object which the narrative has M view, and so we become distrustful of its Mstorical character. Jesus havMg been brought back from Herod to Pilate, Pilate appeals M support of Ms earlier judgment to the fact that noAV neither Herod or himself find M Mm any guilt worthy of death. That is, the innocence of Jesus is to be attested ' THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD. 363 by two judges, neither of whom could be said to be pre judiced in his favour, and of Avhoin one Avas a heathen, and the other, though a Jew, stdl not a priest; as, on the other side, the fourth EA'angebst represents Jesns as being rejected not merely by one, but by two Jewish chief priests. But there is another way also, in Avhich the thhd Evan gelist attempts to mcrease the Aveight, Avhich, on the part of the Roman Procurator, is throAvn into the scale of the innocence of Jesus. According to the narrative of the tAvo first Evangelists, Pilate, after the failure of the attempt to substitute Barabbas, caused Jesus to be scourged and led away to crucifixion. Here, therefore, the scourgmg appears, accordmg to the custom of the Romans, to be only an acci dent prebminary to crucifixion. But according to Luke, the Procurator repeatedly offers to substitute scourging, as the lighter punishment, for crucifixion, hoping thus to spare Jesus the heavier, but the Jews reject his offer, and Msist npon putting Jesus to death (xxiii. 16, 22, ff). If the motive for Luke's preference of tMs distMgmsMng feature is not clear in itself, it can hardly fad to become so, in comparing the fourth Gospel, where Pilate performs, what m Luke he merely offers, ordering Jesus to be really scourged (xix, 1), not as m Matthew and Mark, as an Mtroduction to the cruci fixion, but m order to prevent it, that is to persuade the hard-hearted Jews to desist from theh demand for the punishment of death, on beholding the piteous countenance of the sufferer under the lash. It is on tMs account that the Evangelist here brMgs M also the mockery of the soldiers, the clothing with the robe of purple and the crown of thorns; events which the two first Evangebsts represent indeed as coming after the scourgMg, but when Jesus had been aheady sacrificed by the Procurator, wMle in John they are Mtended to serve the purpose of strengthemng the claims to compas sion expressed in the countenance of Jesus, and thus, if possible, of averting from Him the extreme punishment. 364 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. When then Pilate has brought forward to the Jews their victim, thus accoutred, with the words, Behold the man, and they, untouched even by this, persist in theh demand for his crucifixion, Pilate ou the one hand has done all that was possible to save Jesus, and on the other, Ms Jewish opponents have shown a hardness of heart such as is not seen in the description of any other Gospel. In all the synoptics, after the fadure of the attempt to substitute Barabbas, Pdate yields, and commands Jesus to be led away to cmcifixioD. The fourth Evangebst represents him as stdl persevering in the effort to save Jesus. Hence it becomes an object for him to show how the JeAvish Hierarchs set about attempting to persuade Mm to reverse Ms decision (xix. 6—16); and thus at the same time the process of Ms resistance is prolonged, and the ciuming obstinacy of the Jews is more palpably realized. At first, the endeavour of Pilate to save Jesus receives a fresh impulse from the statement of his opponents, that Jesus had professed to be the Son of God. In this the Jews see a crime worthy of death, but the heathen, on hearing it, is stated to have been penetrated with a feebng, hoAvever dark and mysterious, of the real state of the case. Then comes in the allusion of Jesus to the Mgher power, without which the Procurator could have had no power over Mm (comp. Rom. xin. 1), a Mnt of higher responsibdity wMch can but Mcrease the hesitation of the Roman. But now the Jews play theh best card, for, connecting what they say with the conversation at the begin- nmg about the'kMgly office of Jesus, they represent the dis- mchnation of Pdate. to condemn the pretended king as disloyalty to the Emperor. The Procurator, then, havMg long resisted on good grounds the urgency of the Jews, at last yields to the lowest motive of personal Mterest, and agamst Ms better knowledge too, as he must from Ms former Mterview with Jesus have been web aware that Ms prisoner only professed to be a king M a sense, wMch could not THE CRUCIFIXION. 365 possibly bring him into collision Avith the Ctesar. Certain it is, that the process of the condemnation of Jesus is here represented exactly in correspondence Avith the feelings of later Christendom, but scarcely with reality. For Pilate could only have acted as he is represented here to have acted, from motives of profound sympathy Avith Jesus. And it certainly is not easy to see from what cause these feelings should have arisen in the Roman, though it is very obvious how the Evangebst might be induced, from Ms oavu CMistian consciousness, to attribute them to him. FOURTH GROUP OF MYTHS. CRUCIFIXION, DEATH AND BURIAL 05 JESUS. 92. The Crucifixion. Jesus ended his bfe upon the Cross — he endured the most ignominious of crimmal deaths. Thus, according to tradi tional Jewish ideas he lost ab claim to recognition as the Messiah. The disciples and those of the Jews who were led by them to bebeve M Jesus, modified their ancient Jewish conceptions m accordance with that fact, adopting Mto their idea of the Messiah, the characteristic of Ms Passion as an intercessory sacrifice, of Ms death as an expiatorial one. This, AvithM the chcle of JeAvish ideas, was only possible by passages being pointed out m the writings of the Old Testa ment, M wMch the sufferings and violent death of the Messiah appeared to be spoken of. There were, M reabty, none of this description ; but the servants of Jehovah M Isaiah, spoken of cobectively M the sMgular, and mdividual pious persons, were represented a3 the victims of manifold sufferings, tortured even to death, and apparently abandoned hy God, and to find the Messiah m such passages was the easiest thing M the world M the then state of Scriptural 366 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. interpretation among the Jews at the time. Noav, if at the time Avhen men begun, in the interval between Ms death and Ms return in the clouds of Heaven, to look back upon the past bfe on earth of Jesus the Messiah, the Evangelical narrator encountered the problem of rendering an account of the most untoward event in Ms Mstory, his crucifixion, it was natural that he should, in the attempt to solve it, bear firmly M mmd those passages out of the Old Testament, and taking feature by feature, point out that with ab the contempt and suffering wMch Jesus bore, stib notMng whatever had happened to him but Avhat had long since been prophesied in the Old Testament, as destined to occur to the Messiah, nothmg consequently but what fed in with the scheme of Providence to save the people of Israel and all behevers by the suffering and death of the Messiah. In the description, therefore, which the Evangelists give us of the course of events on the occasion of the crucifixion of Jesus (Matt, xxvii. 32—56; Mark xv. 21— 41 ; Luke xxui. 26— 49 ; John xix. 17 — 30), we shall expect to find, a priori, a mixture of historical recobection and modification of the statements according to alleged prophecies in the Old Testament. The first feature of the Evangebcal narrative to be noticed is, that when Jesus went forth to the place of execution his cross was born by a man of Cyrene, Simon by name, who, accordmg to Mark and Luke, was just coming from the country (Matt, xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26). In this statement the three first Evangebsts agree, and the sdence, or rather the contradiction of the fourth, involved in the assertion that Jesus carried Ms cross himself (xix. 17), wib not, in and for itself, make us doubt its truth, for we may well suppose that to the mind of the latter, the statement of the synoptics might seem to be an anomaly, wMch he must have considered it his duty to get rid of. What, from his point of view, could be conceived more perverse than to introduce a substitute for the purpose of bearing the cross in THE CRUCIFIXION. 367 the place of the Lamb of God who bore the sins of the world, of him who, himself as a Mediator for mankind, had taken upon himself suffering and death npon the Cross ? If this substitution were made in the case of bearing the Cross, why shoidd it not have been carried out also in the Death ? and indeed Basilides the Gnostic is said to have taught that Simon was crucified in the place of Jesus.* Away then, the Evan gelist might have thought, with the false substitute, and thus he represented Jesns as one who as he bore our sorrows, so also bore his own cross. If, accordmg to this view, the synoptic account is not to be shaken by that of John, still a glance into the motive of the Johannine representation places usina point of view where the question arises whether, after an, the synoptic statement also might not ovre its origM to a similar dogmatic motive. The Cross of Christ, when the first offence arismg from it, had once been conquered, soon became the fundamental symbol of Christiamty. For a man to take upon himself the Cross of Christ was identical with following his example, and the call to do so was put into the mouth of Christ in the words (Matt. xvi. 24), "Hany man wib come after me, let Mm deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me." Figurative speeches of this kmd always brought with them the temptation to those who read, or those who heard them to understand them bteraby, as referring to a real external occurrence; but the cross of Jesus could in reality have been borne after him when he was going to the place of execution; and it was certainly not unnatural for the imagmation of the first Christians to set up at this moment a first bearer of the cross who, though forced by others to be come so did not, M accordance with the precept of Jesus in the sermon on the mount, refuse the office, but took the cross upon Mm, and, as Luke says, carried it after Jesus. Quite as natural was it, if, as may well have been the case, * Iren. adv. hser., i. 24, 4. 368 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. the cross of Christ was really borne by another to the place of execution, just for the sake of that symbolical meaning, to retain this feature together with the name of the man who bore it ; and the agreement of the three synoptics, not only in the name, but also in the statement as to the home of the bearer of the cross, wib always approve itself as favouring the latter assumption. There is another occurrence that takes place on the way to the place of execution, described only by Luke, this is that much people, and especially women, lamenting Ms fate, followed Jesus ; he however bid the daughters of Jerusalem to weep rather for themselves and theh cMldren, on account of the terrible days AvMch in a short time would come upon their city (Luke xxm. 27 — 31). It is common to ab the synoptics to represent the destruction of Jerusalem as a pumshment for the gudt of the inhabitants towards Jesus, but Luke displays an especial tendency to do so. Thus he, and he alone, represents Jesus as weepMg over the city on Ms approach, because by her bbndness she is bringing upon herself and her children the misfortune of the siege and her destruction (xix. 41 — 44) . The features whereby Luke repre sents Jesus as describMg the future fate of Jerusalem, are taken from the great fareweb speech, where, in Luke as web as m the other synoptics, Jesus says (xxi. 23), "Woe unto them that are with chdd, and to them that give suck in those days !" as here, " The days are coming M wMch they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps wMch never gave suck ;" and the wish which they shall then utter, that the mountaMs may fall upon them, and the Mils cover them, is borrowed almost bteraby from Hosea x. 8. After the arrival of Jesus at the place of execution, nothmg is more huportant for the two first Evangelists than to show how two Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled in him. First, says Matthew, with ab simplicity (ver. 34), they gave THE CRUCIFIXION. 360 Mm vinegar to drink mixed with gab, and Avhenhe adds that after Jesus had tasted it he would not drink it, this seems less extraordMary than that anythmg of the sort shoidd have been offered to Mm. Moreover, Mark cannot help consider ing it incredible, and therefore he converts the vinegar and gall into -wine and myrrh (ver. 23), and thus gains a, con nection Avith the JeAvish custom of intoxicating beforehand, Avith spiced wme, malefactors who were to be put to death.* It is possible that he thus hit upon the true state of the case, and that such wMe Avas really offered to Jesus, but refused by him, because he did not wish to be mtoxicated; but then the second Evangebst could only have guessed at tMs fact, for what was before Mm in Matthew was not anything that reaby occurred, but only a prophetic feature out of one of the two Psalms, wMch, together with the extract from Isaiah hii. forms, as it were, the programme accordMg to which the whole history of the Crucifixion M our Gospels is drawn up. In the Christendom of the most ancient times, the two Psalms xxu. and brix. were considered, as we have repeatedly had occasion to remark, erroneously Mdeed throughout, as prophecies of the sufferings of the Messiah, and thus all the features m them, in so far as they had not been already appbed, provided only that they suit the situation, are. brought in and adapted to it. One of these features is. the tMrst and the allaying of it by a disagreeable potion. ' •' My tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth," complains the composer of the one Psabn (xxii. 16); that of the other (lxix.. 21), says : " They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my tMrst they gave me vinegar to drink." Matthew, mstead of putting gab Mto the meat, which could have no place at the Crucifixion, mixes it with the drink, and thus brings out the vinegar with gab, representing it as being offered to Jesus. • See the reference in my Life of Jesus, critically discussed, ii. p. 514.. Note 15. VOL. II. £ "C 370 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. before the Crucifixion, perhaps because he knew that on these occasions an Mtoxicating mixture was sometimes offered, wMle Mark is the first to bring the description Mto perfect harmony with the established custom. But as the gab always created a difficulty, another theory kept only to the vmegar, which, according to the Psalm, must have been offered to Jesus the Messiah. Moreover, tMs vmegar presented itself in connection with an Mstorical custom; it was mixed with water, and the Roman soldiers on marches and other expeditions drank it so mixed, and there fore at that time the soldiers who were under orders to be present at the Crucifixion would have had it at hand. But as, accordmg to the passage M the Psalm, the Messiah had vmegar given Mm to drink " for Ms tMrst," or as, accordmg to the other Psalm, his tongue cleaved to the roof of Ms mouth, the theory wMch omitted the gab, and held exclusively by the vinegar, put off the supplying of the latter to a later period, when the prolonged hanging on the cross might be supposed to have excited a more severe tMrst. Then Luke, stib think ing of the soldiers' drink, represents the vinegar as being offered by the soldiers M a spirit of mockery (ver. 36) ; whde John, just at the last moment, and hnmediately before the decease of Jesus, represents some of the bystanders, with, as it appears, a good Mtention, as dippMg a sponge M vmegar and applying it to his mouth upon a stalk of hyssop (ver. 29). All this, a clear proof of the source of the statement, is pre faced by the words to the effect that Jesus said, "in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled : I thirst," by which only the fulfilment of the passage in the Psalm already mentioned can be meant. Besides tMs offer at a later period of vmegar alone, the tMrd and fourth Evangebsts say nothing whatever of -vinegar and gall or myrrh-wme being offered to Jesus quite at first ; while, on the other hand, Matthew and Mark, as usual, and as in the case of the loaves and fishes, that nothing may be lost, have incorporated with theh Gospels the THE CRUCIFIXION. 371 history of the giving of vinegar in both the forms wMch it had taken. The second time they represent, as John does, that the vinegar was given M a sponge : an agreement in a feature not taken out of the Psalm m which we may see the- trace of an historical source, but quite as much also only of a custom at crucifixions. On the other hand, the stalk of hyssop, which appears only in John, i. e. the same Evangebst who' sees m the crucified Jesus the tiue Paschal Lamb, remmds us of the Mosaic ordmance with regard to the blood of the lamb, in wMch, likewise, the hyssop plays a part (2 Mos. xu. 22). After a brief mention of the Crucifixion wMch had in the mean time been completed, the two first Evangebsts now hurry on to the second feature out of these passion-Psalms fulfilled in Jesus — a feature which the two other Evangelists do not abow to escape them (Matt, xxvii. 35 ,- Mark xv. 24 ; Luke xxiii. 34 ; John xix. 23, ff.) . The Sufferer of the 22nd Psalm had, among other thMgs, complamed (ver. 18), "They parted my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." This feature also may possibly have been realized m the case of Jesus, as, according to the Roman law por tions of the clothMg of persons executed became the spoils of the executioners. But that M this place the Evangelists drew not from a Mstorical source but solely from the passage in the Psabn, though tMs is expressly quoted only by the fourth, is clear from tMs, that each of them describes the occur rence exactly as he understood the passage in the Psalm.. Any one understanding it correctly was aware that in the second half of the verse neither a different act nor a different subject was spoken of from those in the first, but that what was said in the first was only more accurately defined. M the second. The passage was thus understood by the tMee synoptics,. most clearly by Mark, and so he tebs us that the soldiers. divided the clothes of Jesus among them, casting lots for them, .wMch Mark explains to mean that they cast lots which. piece each was to have. On the other hand, the fourth Evan- 2 b 2 372" BOOK H. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. gehst understood the passage- wrongly, -'as if it spolce first of a division df the* clothes and their of a castmg of lots for the1 coat; as' two different act? about two' different objects, and' he- fells us- accordmgly that the soldiers (whose number Ee limits t6 four) divided among themselves the other clothes; i.e. the-' upper garhien'ts without the- use of the " lot," and then cast' lots' for the' under garment (this- being what he hh"derstandsv dSy the fount in the passage hi the' Psalm) not vvisMhg" either to apportion' it directly' to one of themselves, or to spod-the" unseamed garment by rehdmg it. Exactly as above M the passage of the Prophet about the ass- and the foal ofthe ass; only rhat here Matthew and John change places— the- im^understanding,' tHs time,-' is as much on the side'df the latter as Deforedn that of. the former.'';; Whether the fourth, :Evangeiis£gfave this' turn to Ms narrative with the Mtention 'at' the same time of abudMg, under the figure of the unseamed-; Vesture of Christ;, as under that of the uhtbrh net (xxi. 11),' ib the unity- ofthe ChurcEy ofthe one flock under diie Shep-|: herd (x.* 16)'/ is ah hypothesis that can only be put iii the-. form of a question. , v It must have been ah especial consolation to the faithful fiistoriau of the crucifixioh that exactly those poMts wMch- made this history so pahiful to the Christian. conscience, the disgrace and the contempt of the crucified Messiah cdhnected with that crucifixion, were so definitely foretold m the Old Testament as he how learnt to understand it. In the Passion Psalm (xxii- ?) it was" said, "AH they that see me laugh me to scorn:" they shoot but the bp, they 'shake the Head;" what. ¦wonder if how, as the- synoptic's tell us (Matt.. ver. 39, ff. ; Mark ver. 29, ff.; Luke ver: 35, ff.),' the passers by, or the Spectators together with the elders, mocked the crucified tJesns and shook theh heads at Mm.® iEveh their mocking speeches are given By Matthew almost M bteral agreement with. the passage in tKe'Psab£> "He trusted "m the Lord that Be Would" d'ebver MmfletMrnclebverHm sOemg he delighted? THE CRUCIFIXION. 373 in Mm" (ver. 8) : "he trusted M God; let hun deliver Mm now, if he will have Mm." Noav in the Psalm the speakers are described as bulls, dogs, bons and unicorns, i.e. as outrageous sinners : however fitting, therefore, it is on the part of the Evangelists to put these speeches into the mouths of the Jewish opponents of Jesus, it is quite as unlikely that men, learned as they were in the Scriptures, should reaby have used the words of that Psalm, Avhich, as they must have remem bered, were, the speeches of godless sinners. It is more probable that they should reaby have uttered those word3 which are not taken from the Psalm, but have reference to the particular circumstances of Jesus ; as for Mstance, the ridicule at the man who saved others but cannot now save Mmself, and the demand that the pretended Son of God and King of Israel, the mighty destroyer and rebuilder of the Temple, should now prove his exalted nature by descendmg from the cross. ;...... . "¦-.*¦; -: "¦,¦ In connection with tMs mention of the King of the Jews in the mocking speeches first ofthe High Priests and Scribes, then of the soldiers on the occasion of the giving of the vinegar to drink, Luke speaks of the Superscription on the Cross (xxm. 38 ; the other Evangebsts had made mention of it earber, Matt, xxvii. 37; Mark xv. 26 ; John xix. 19—22), the maM ppMt of wMch was this very description of Jesus as Kmg of the Jews. Luke first, and subsequently John, state promMently that the superscription was written M three languages, Greek, Latin and Hebrew; both of them, the follower of Paulas web as the author of the Gospel of the Sphit, see M this chcumstance a foreshadowing of the fact that the words of this supposed King of the .Jews shab be spread abroad M the Grecian and Roman iWprld far beyond the range of Judaism. (Besides this the Jatter .gives to the title of a Jesus as Kingof the_Jews,a turn. such that ab the ridicule that might be .connected, with _it became .harmless as far as_th^,;Christians were, concerned anjd.feb,. upon, the^ Jews. 374 '= - BOOK H. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. themselves. They felt, says John, mortified by this title being given to a crucified malefactor, and begged the Procu rator to change it ; but he adhered to what he had written, and so the fact remains that the Jews crucified theh KMg, and that therefore he that was crucified is no longer KMg of the Jews but the Son of God and Savionr of the world, M wMch character he is recognised by the Christiana who have been imtiated into the profound doctrines of John. Luke and John mention as qmte at the begMMng what Matthew and Mark do not Mtroduce until much later, that two transgressors, tMeves, accordmg to the two first Evan gebsts, were crucified with Jesus, and,; moreover, M such a ^position that he 'occupied the intermediate place- between [them (Matt. ver. 38 ; Mark; ver. ' ,27,;ff. ; . Luke ver. 32, , ff. • John ver.. 18). "* Moreover, we read M Mark that by this ; circumstance was fulfilled "the prophecy " which he" quotes (Isaiah liii. 12) : " He Avas counted among the. transgressors." In Luke (xxii. 37) the same passage had been quoted by Jesus Mmself at the close of the last supper, as one wMch T had yet to be fulidled m Mm by the fact of Ms beMg arrested as a transgressor. Mark, or- whoever interpolated this verse Mto Ms Gospel (for the genuMeness of it is doubtful), saw M' the words of the prophet a definite prediction of the crnci- ; fixion of Jesus between two malefactors; a chcumstance so' little aduded to, -in the passage, evenv for the most arbitrary explanation, that we can hardly look upon the feature of these two men being crucified with Jesus as^ one that could be ebcited only out of the passage of the prophet. '"¦' It may have been historical, but stib . welcome to the Evangebsts on account of this" supposed prophetical reference. ¦'¦> A. further use of it also is made by them, each after bis own fasMon. Matthew and Mark represent the two wretches as joMMg m the general chorus of contempt wMch -sounds around the crucified Messiah, Luke's ear is finer and can distinguish ¦between the two voices. Only one ready joMed and mockingly .» THE CRUCIFIXION. 375 called upon Jesus, if he is the Messiah, to save himself and both of them, but the other, better disposed, rebukes his fellow, and not merely recogmsed Jesus, but also begged him, when he returned M his kingdom, consequently in the character of the Messiah, to remember Mm (ver. 39, ff). Here then we have a crimmal, who undoubtedly came now for the first time Mto contact with Jesus, understandino- without prelimmary Mstruction the doctrine of a suflering and dying Messiah. TMs doctrine Jesus had up to that time vaMly tried to' make Ms disciples comprehend. Now that this should have been so is as unMtebigible as the motive is self-evident, wMch influenced the author of the thhd Gospel or Ms representative to give this additional colouring to the feature of his jomt crucifixion with the two crimmals. In the blasphemy uttered by a condemned crimmal the ignommy of the crucified Messiah had reached its lowest point. In tMs fact naturaby lay the Mducement to represent Mm as gammg additional glory from this very humibation. Especiaby was tMs the case with a writer who had given an especial colouring to the general Evangebcal feature of the fiiendsMp of Jesus with smners. The statement that the malefactor on the cross was converted and bebeved was completely m the spirit of the parable of the Prodigal Son, of the narrative of the AnoMting by the sinful woman. Hence the thhd Evangebst adheres so far to the traditional account as to leave one of the two criminals mamtammg Ms character for mockery and contempt, and contrasts with him the other as a repentant and faithful sinner favoured by Jesus. Thus he obtamed a contrast that was, in and for itself, very effective. It has been surmised by Schwegler* that Luke, in his account, Mtended to typify by the two abjects the opposition between the relation of the Jews and the Heathen to Christianity, the obstinate unbebef of the one, the faith,: combmed with repentance * The Post- Apostolic age, i.'50. Comp. Banr, Critical Investigation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 513. Yolkmar, Religion of Jesus, p.332.: : ,: '\ ;. 576 BOOK II. * MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. md a desire for salvation of the other. TMs is Mdeed an tcute conjecture, but again one of those wliich cannot Mdeed je forgotten, nor, on the other hand, maintained and affirmed *s a prayed result. 93. The Words on the Cross. In the answer of Jesus to the repentant criminal, we have dreadjr touched upon one of the "Words on the Cross, of ivhicb. there are, traditionally, seven enumerated. That is he number, if the accounts of all the Evangebsts 'are com- rined. But/taken singly, no one has so. maiiy; Matthew and. Mark have each 'only one, and both of them the "same-; Luke ihree, but'different from these two-; -John the- same number, jut again those of wMch 'none of the three former know any- ihMg. t And if we could now ask 'each. of the Evangelists separately, we do hot know what the 'two first might say to he words oil the Cross df the two others ; of the thhd it is xrobable, and of the fourth beyond doubt that they would lave rejected, with a -protest, the expression which the two irst put Mto the month df Ghrist, the crucified.- /;; .• i: r J This "expression is the welhknown one, *'My God, my Jod, why hast thou forsaken me ?" which both the Evan gebsts give in the original Aramaic, M order-to make intel- igible the confusion "wMch they represent as -havMg been - loimecfced with it (Matt. ver. 46, ff..; Mark, ver. "34, ff.). It 3 web known that 'these words are the beginning of the [2nd Psalm, "and thus on the^ pomt of view of the two first Evangelists it is quite what might be! expected, that after a ; eries of objective features mentioned ia this Passion Psalm ave been pointed oufras'havMg'been fuliilled by thecruci- ;ed Jesus, the introductory verse of it wMch describes the ; iibiectivefeebugr of the person who- speaks iudt shouldnow THE WORDS ON THE CROSS. 377 be adopted by Jesus himself, and thus Ms entire suffering be declared to be the fulfilment of the prophecy contained m the Psalm. Such appeared to the two first Evangebsts to be the case: in them the passage put into the mouth of Jesus is not much more than a quotation ; but if we look to Jesus and the tone of feebng of wMch these words, if he spoke them, must have been the expression, it wib require not merely M the case of the Man-God of ecclesiastical doc trine, most arbitrary assumption to make a feebng .of aban donment by God conceivable in Mm,* but even we upon our purely human poMt of view should be afraid 'of derogating from the spiritual and moral elevation of Jesus, if even at tMs crisis of most profound suffering we were to attribute such a feebng to Mm. For by it would be impbed the supposi tion that he had made and now -discovered a mistake in him self and his work and Ms own conception of both, as he- must otherwise have recognised in tlie very death wMch had now overtaken him personaby, the true and real way :to the triumph of Ms cause which he had long foreseen. Even the thhd Evangelist, with Ms loftier conception of Christ, was dissatisfied with that expression, and it was, perhaps, for tMs very reason that he heightened the description of the agony in Gethsemane, that every symptom .of weakness might be at an end with that scene, and for all that foboAved only calmness and elevation remain. To the fourth Evan gebst, conversely, the scene in Gethsemane was Msupport- able : a mental perturbation, under wMch, however, his con fidence M God was never for a moment lost, was the most that he felt to be conceivable for Ms Logos Christ, but a feeling of abandonment by God was absolutely excluded by the fundamental idea of his personality. That exalted state of mmd wMch under the most extreme personal suffering, so far from losing the command over Comp. my Life of Jesus, critically.-discussed, U.-429, ff. 378 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. itseb, has stib room for sympathy with others, and even for the authors of the suffering is represented by the thhd Evangebst as being realized by Ms Jesus even M the very first words wMch he represents Mm as uttering wMle, as it appears, he hung upon the cross, " Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" (xxiii. 3, 4) ; an expression harmonizing not merely with the command to love enemies, but with that feebng of charity wMch embraces ab, makes the best of every thing, and-wMch has been described to us above as the fundamental feebng of Jesus ; though it must not be overlooked that the Evangebst did undoubtedly Mtend •to exMbit M tMs place, as realized M Jesus what Isaiah had said ofthe Servant of Jehovah, that he/, while numbered among the transgressors, bore the sms of many, and made Mter- cession for the. transgressors (Isaiah hii. 12). "A simdar feebng is exMbited by the second of the expressions on the Cross M 'Luke, the assurance to the behoving malefactor that he, even' before the second comMg of the Messiah; should be with him M Paradise on that day (ver. 43). In the thhd and last, the Crucified does Mdeed remember Mmself, but m a form entirely opposed to the complaint of abandonment by God, in an expression of the most trustful resignation, immediately before Ms decease : " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (ver. 46). A sMular prayer, and a similar Mtercession for M's murderers, is put by Luke M the mouth of Stephen, whom he represents generaby M a different poMt of view, as an Miage of Jesus (Acts vii. 59, ff.) ; but the words are taken out of Psalm xxxi. 6, and bteraby accordmg to the Greek translation. .- The fourth Evangebst takes the words wMch he finds in the tMrd, as the last words of Jesus, and appbes them as a formula to Mdicate his death, representing Mm as bowMg his head, and givmg up his spirit (to his Father), havMg first said " It is finished" (xix. 30). ; Just for the reason that these were supposed to be the last words of Jesus, a different THE AVORDS ON THE CROSS. 379 turn had to be given to the giving up of the ghost, from that in Luke ; but why should these be the last words of Jesus ? Even the expression on the Cross that precedes the last, the expression " I thirst," is introduced by the fourth Evangebst with the Avoids that Jesus uttered it because he knew that now all was fimshed, that also tMs passage in the Scripture about the tMrst, and givmg vinegar to drink, might be fulfilled M Mm (ver. 28, ff). Conse quently it was the completion of Ms work,' wMch had been announced Mdeed beforehand by Jesus M Ms High-Priestly ¦ prayer (xvu. 4), but wMch was now m reality at hand, on the one hand, and the complete fulfilment, of the prophecies re ferring to him, on the other, wMch John, intended to repre sent as beMg spoken of by the dying Jesus : perhaps, also M connection with the description M Luke, accordMg to wMch Jesus, as has been aheady said, had declared before going out to the Mount of Olives, that bke everythMg that had been written of him, so also must the prophecy M Isaiah Mi. 12 be now fulfibed M Mm (xxu. 37). But tMs refer ence to fulfibed Scriptures is a different thMg M John to what it .is M Matthew; the fulfilment of the prophecies M Jesus is, a3 we see M tMs very passage, at the same time the fulfilment of his work, the solution of the problem ofthe incarnate Logos, with which Ms pilgrimage on earth has an end, and his glory begMs ; in the place of his hmited human ministry, the mission of the Paraclete comes M. The two expressions on the Cross M John, Mtherto con sidered, are connected with circumstances of wMch the other Evangebsts also make mention, the thhd, or, M point of time, the first, refers to a situation of wMch, with exception of himself, no other reporter knows anytMng. AccordMg to Matthew (xxvii. 55, ff.) and Mark (xv. 40), the crucifixion was viewed only by a number of women, the Gahlean companions of Jesus, among whom Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, 380 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. or M Mark, Salome, are mentioned by name ; the Twelve they suppose not yet to have reassembled agam. after the flight wMch fobowed upon the arrest of Jesus, though they represent Peter as venturing with doubtful courage Mto the court of the palace of the High Priest. In Luke there is no doubt that among " ab the acquaintances" of Jesus whom he represents as viewing the crucifixion, M company with the women, the Twelve also are comprised (xxiii. 49) : but they, bke women, only place .themselves timidly at a distance. On the other hand, M the fourth Gospel (xix. 25, ff.), there appears together with. the two Marys, the Magdalene and the other, here called the wife of\Cleophas, instead, of the mother of the sons of Zebedee, the mother of Jesus himself, and with her .the beloved disciple,., whom the Evangelist foisted M with Peter, M the: court of- the High Priest, M order to represent Mm here as being the only one ,of the disciples present at ^the Cross of Jesus. And- moreover he places him, and with him the -women, sp close to the Cross that the Crucified, can speak a confidential word to -them. We -do. not require to know, the substance of what was said, to enable us to guess at once .that this arrangement would agree with that cleverly laid plan -whieh the fourth Evangelist fobows with regard to the beloved disciple, whom he chooses as the patron of Ms work.. However, the substance of the speech of Jesus is this, that he recommends the favourite disciple to his mother as her son, her, to the favourite dis ciple as his mother, and he, as the Evangelist observes, from that hour takesher to himself. According to :the Acts (i. 14).the mother of Jesus, after Ms decease, together with the other women, kept with the Eleven, and.the.bretMen .of the Lord. It is -well known that among the first, _Peter, among: the last James, was pre-emment, and if John came M as ..a third.man (G.alat; b.;9),.The was still, as -he ^appears mostly M the synoptic combMations of the same tMee names, only the third and nottthe firsts ; Here, , on ; the - other , hand, THE MIRACLES AT HIS DEATH. 381 he appears not merely as the first, but as the only one, and, by the declaration of Jesus, is brought into a perfectly ex clusive relation not only to Ms mother, but also to himself. As the personage who steps mto the place of Jesus with his mother, he is raised far above all other Apostles, Peter not excepted ; as the younger son, as it were, of Mary and the survivor of Jesus, he is, as Baur acutely observes, the Brother of the Lord, and indeed, according to the whole character of the Gospel, the spiritual Brother, Avith whom the natural Brother, so alien to the spirit of Jesus, cannot be compared. Moreover, tMs narrative, bke so many others apparently peculiar to the fourth Gospel, is only a modifica tion df a well-known, synoptic one. When, on one occasion, during the delivery of a lecture, the mother and the brothers of Jesus were announced to him, he asked " Who is my mother and who are my brothers ?" Then he poMted or looked at Ms disciples with the words, " Behold my mother' and my -brethren!" (Matt. xii. 49; Mark in. 34). This- figure cannot be mistaken in the Johanmne expression on the Cross : " Woman, behold thy son ! and (disciple) behold thy mother !" only that here, not all the disciples, but the favourite disciple exclusively is brought into the fraternal relation with Jesus. 94. The Miracles at the Death op Jesus. About the sixth hour, i. e. as the Jews counted the hours from the dawn of day, about midday, all the synoptics repre- - sent a darkness as coming on, and continuMg untd the Mnth hour, i.e. tfll tMee o'clock M the afternoon (Matt, xxvii. 45 ; Mark xv. 33 ; Luke xxiii. 44, ff.). Accordmg to Mark, who fixes the begMMng of the Crucifixion at the thhd hour, i. e. at nine o'clock M the morning, Jesus had then been hangMg on the cross for tMee hours; according to Matthew and 382 BOOK h. mythical , HISTORY OF JESUS. Luke also he had then been hanging for some time, but how long they do not say. The darkness, which is only described more defmitely by Luke as a darkenMg of the Sun, cannot, at the time of the Easter full moon, have been a natural ecbpse of the Sun ; and Mdeed the addition of ab the reporters to the efiect that it extended over the whole earth, points to a mhaculous event- In proportion as the appearance of Jesus had been of importance must nature have put on mourning for Mm. Such was the taste of the age, the Sun, accordmg to the then, existing Roman legend, had done the same on the occasion', of, the murder of Caesar,* and before the death of Augustus, f. , The darkemng of the Sun about the time of Caesar's murder is indeed described to us as part of the dull. and gloomy character of the whole year, J so that we see how a perfectly natural phenomenon, continuMg for some time, and thus., accidentally coMciding with that event, might be pressed Mto the service of superstition and flattery : but the phenomenon was soon looked upon as a real solar ecbpse, § and moreover to have coincided to the day and hour with -Caesar's murder, as, accordmg ta the tMee first Evangebsts the darkness is said to have coincided, with the hour of the death of Jesus. Modern theologians eulogize the fourth. Evangebst for sparing them such a system of prodigies; it is, certaMly, too objective for his mode of tMnkmg and feebng, only we are, unfortunately, compebed to say, too natural ; moreover for the glorifyMg of the death of Jesus he has M his mmd qmte'other thMgs ; whether they are, for us, more edifyMg, is a point that wib be discussed M its proper place. * Virgil, Georg. 1.463, ff. Ovid, Metam. xv. 785, ff., represents the darken ing of the Sun, and other things which Virgil describes as coming after the murder, as preceding them in the character of prodigies. ,'- -. t Dio, cap. lvi. 29. . .. = J Plutarch, Cass. 69. § Servius on the passage of Virgil. THE MIRACLES AT HIS DEATH. 383 The darkness, then, lasts tMee hours; then, about the nMth homy Jesus, M Matthew and Mark, utters the lament about beMg forsaken by God, and after the drmk mixed Avith vmegar has been offered to him, Ms death follows, accompanied by a loud cry, to which Luke ascribes the words discussed above (Matt, xxvii. 46 — -50; Mark xv. 34 — 37; Luke xxiii. 46). After this Matthew, and the same event Avas also said to have been connected on the occasion of Caesar's death with the darkenMg of the Sun,* represents an earthquake as takMg place; but he also, M agreement with the two other synoptics, reports the occurrence pre viously to tMs of an event stib more far-fetched, wMch is, that the curtain of the Temple, Avithout doubt that which separated the Holy of Hobes from the Holy, was rent M twain from top to bottom (Matt, xxvii. 53 ; Mark xv.. 38; Luke xxiii. 45). . A sudden bursting open of closed. doors often appears m the legends of those times as a prog nostication of approacMng misfortune ; Caesar's murder, the- deaths of the Emperors Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, even the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem are said to- have been. announced in tMs way-t Calpurma, the night before the murder of her husband, saw M a dream the gable of the house fab down : so the Hebrew Gospel had a similar feature on the occurrence of the death of Jesus, representing not that the curtaM of the Temple was rent, but that the roof of it fell in. J The Recognitions of Clement § give to the rend-_ Mg of the curtain the meanmg of a lament at the approach- Mg destruction of the Temple ; but the fact that it is only the curtaM on wMch the prodigy is displayed appears to point M a different direction. The Apostle Paul, abudmg * Virgil, as quoted, v. 475 ; Ovid, as quoted, v. 798. t Suefcon. Jul. 81. Nero, 46. Vespas. 23. Dio Cass. Ix. 35. Tacifc^ Histor. v. 13. ; ' t Hieron. Ep. 120, ad. Hedib. § I. 41. 384 BOOK. IT. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. to the cover wMch Moses put over Ms face, declares that through Christ a veil is taken away which so long as the Old Testament system lasted was spread over heavenly tilings (2 Cor. hi. 13 — 18) ; and the Epistle to the Hebrews con nects a. simflar thought with the* curtain of the Temple. Under the Mosaic system of Religion the Priests had access only into the Holy Place, and the High Priest alone, once a year, Mto the Holy of Hobes, with the expiatory sacrifice of the blood of beasts, Christ, it was said, had once -for ab by means of Ms own blood entered Mto- the space withM the curtaM, Mto the Holy of Hobea M the Heavens, and M doMg so had become the forerunner of Christians and had opened for them also- the entrance to it (vi.- 19, ff., ix. 1~~12, x. 19, ff.).'"' In tMs representation of the -Epistle to- the Hebrews the existence of our Evangelical narrative is mam- festly not assumed, for if the author of the former had known anytMng of a rending* of the curtain of the Temple he would not have omitted to make use of tMs chcumstance so closely connected with his hue of thought. We could not mdeed maMtam, :' conversely, that the Evangebcal narrative was derived from the description in the Epistle -to the Hebrews ; but if we take tMs last M conjunction with the expression of the Apostle Paul, we see a group of thoughts and images current M that most ancient Christianity wMch arose out of Judaism, and wMch, after this had been used long enough as mere comparison must at last have settled down naturally into a narrative bke that wMch we have before us. With- ad these miraculous; events ; Darkness, Earthquake, KendMgof the CurtaM, our first Evangebst's appetite for miracles was not yet satisfied. With the Earthquake, pecubar to himself alone, he connects the splitting of the rocks (ver. 51) ; as the tempest M which Jehovah had once passed before Ebjah on Mount Horeb, had rent monntaMs and shattered rocks (1 ElMgs xix. 11). But on tMs occasion, the sphtting of the rocks is only a means adapted to produce the next ' THE MIRACLES AT HIS DEATH. 385 feature with wMch the Evangebst is properly concerned, which is that on the decease of Jesus the graves also opened, that out of them there came forthwith many bodies of Saints that had fallen asleep, resuscitated, who after the Resurrec tion of Jesus came into the Holy City and appeared to many (ver. 52, ff.). It has already been mentioned above, that the accounts of raising the dead M our Gospels are nothing but pledges given to itself by the faith of the Christendom of the earbest period, that Jesus, not having performed m Ms lifetime the Messianic raismg of the dead, wib so much the more certainly perform it on Ms second coming. Attention was also drawn to the disproportion between the guarantee and that for which it was to be the guarantee — -a dispropor- . tion consisting M the fact that the dead raised by Jesus during his bfe on earth had returned only to earthly life, to die a second time, wMle under the Messiamc Resurrection • the' dead were to be- raised. M glorified bodies to immortal bfe ; added to wMch was "the smah number of those- isolated Evangebcal cases of Resurrection wMch was quite Mcommen- surate with the- number of those- for whom they were to- answer. To compensate for this doable deficiency, a case was desirable in which a larger number of dead, and these not men liable to die a second time, but as risen saints, should have come forth out of theh graves. Moreover, the idea of such a Resurrection was Mvolved M the expectations of the Jews and early Christians ; it was supposed that at the conung of the Messiah, a selection only, M the first instance, of the most pious Israehtes was to rise M order to participate, with Mm, in the joys of the kingdom of the mibenMum ; and then, and not untfl tMs period had elapsed, theremainMg masses, Good and Bad, to undergo a searcMng. trial.* The Christian theory, Mdeed, as we find it M the Revelation of John (xx. 4, ff), transplanted the Resurrection of the pious also to the time of Christ's second coming, but it was always * ' * Gfrorer, the Century of Salvation, ii. 276-, ff. '-* VOL. II. ^ c : : 386 r:.v^, BOOK II.., MYTHICAL HISTORY. OF JESUS. , useful for the strengthening of the faith if a sample of tMs resurrection had been given during his first presence upon earth. If ifc was asked at what moment of it, the choice might waver between the moment of his death and that of Ms resurrection, for, though his victory over death and the grave had not yet come to light M the latter, stib it was only by Ms yieldmg to death that it had been made possible, and thus Matthew divides as ifc were, the occurrence between the two. The openmg of the graves, and the Resurrection of the SaMts that slept, takes place at the moment of the Death % of Jesus, when the earthquake and the spbtting ofthe rocks in . consequence .furnished v a pomt of connection ; but their comMg forth, and their appearance ,rin Jerusalem, does not , take place until Jesus also had arisen;' who .was always to,be:- ; considered tho first-born of the dead (Col.i. 18; .Revel- i. 5)^ '¦ "the first-fruits of rthem that slept (l.Cor. xv. 20)... -_.,¦„ „¦ ";; •; In conclusion, . the imagination "¦« of the early. Christians represents v-the^. effects produced upon the. bystanders by , all thes© prodigies with wMch it surrounded the death of Jesus, to have been exactly that wMch it endeavoured itself to express.*> Of thosebystanders, the least prejudiced must have been the executioners themselves, the Roman soldiers with their ..CaptaM, who, as heathens, .were certainly not prejudiced, beforehand M favour of Jesus, nor, as Jews, agaMsfc Mm, and accordmg to MattheAV (ver. 54) they, declared the impression made upon them by the earthquake and the other extraordMary circumstances M'words to the effect that he whoin those events concerned was truly the Son of God- In Luke (xxiii, 47), where there is no earthquake mentioned, and only at the last the. departure with aloud-spoken prayer, the emotion of the Captain (the- soldiers are not mentioned here or in Mark) appears to be produced only by this edify- :- Mg end, and Ms words only, declare that tMs, certainly, was. a righteous man. ,, Mark (xv. 39)^ . Mstead of the prayer. - aloud has only a loud cry, and as, on the other hand, in i- THE SPEAR-STAB IN HI3 SIDE. 387 giving the words of the Captain, he fobows, not Luke but Matthew, his statement seems a strange one, that when the CaptaM saw that Jesus departed with such a cry, he declared himself convinced that tMs man was the Son of God. Whether from tMs we are to understand the meanmg of the second Evangelist to have been, as has been surmised, that as evd spirits ordinarily went out with cries, so here the cry Mdicated the departure of the divine Spirit of the Messiah from Ms body, or whether he considered tMs cry wMch so struck the CaptaM, when taken in connection Avith the early approach of death, at which he represents Pdate also as beMg surprised, as a sign that Jesus quitted bfe' spontaneously, before death came in the course of nature— tMs is a pomfc which can scarcely be decided. Of the prodigies wMch Matthew represents as ensuMg on the death of Jesus, Luke (with Mark) omits ad with the exception of the darkness and the rendMg ofthe curtaM. But he contrives to give a more perfect idea of the impression wMch was made upon the by-: standers, by representing not only Mdeed the Roman officer, the heathen, as " givMg honour to God" by an unextorted testimony M favour of Jesus, but the Jewish multitudes as conscience-stricken, and beating their breasts, and conse quently as returmng home not without repentance and self- condemnation. : ,,; 95. The Spear-Stab in the Side of Jesus. . Of ab these events, either objective or subjective, the fourth Evangebst, as has been aheady remarked, has notMng what ever. They appeared to Mm, not so much unhnportant, as of an external, exoteric character, M comparison with what he had to ted (xix. 31 — 37). Perhaps also he was here fobowMg im mediately m'the tracks of Mark.- Mark says (xv. 42 "45), that when on the evening of the day of execution, Joseph of 2c2 388 BOOK II. mythical history- of-jssus. Arimathea begged Pdate to give Mm the body of Jesns (of wMch hereafter), the Procurator expressed surprise at his bemg aheady dead, and did not grant the prayer until the officer had assured him that death Mid, M fact, taken place- some time smce. Now it is Mdeed possible, as has been said, that Mark only thus Mtended to draw attention to the fack that the death of Jesus had occurred not M a natural but M a supernatural manner, but the circumstance M question might also beunderstood as an attempt to prove the reality of the death of Jesus, and for tMs the assertion of the officer might be considered as insufficient;. ! If Pilate had reason to, doubt whether, the death' of Jesus had really taken place M a natural manner, at the time when; they': thought;-, of taking bim down from the cross, he would, ashmight .be supposed,? take care toVreduce the death to a certaMty, or at all events to 'authenticate ifc...'1-.* ym )^^^>^^;~^]-S^A^^\::t^^r^r^r'r That with this object somethMg more -was done with Jesus than what- was imphed by the mere crucifixion, would also appear probable to our Evangebst from another poMt of view. John, as the author of the Revelation, had said, (i. 7) that when Christ comes hereafter with the clouds every eye shall see Mm, even those who have pierced him;: and all kmdreds of the earth shall: wad because :of him. Here the passage M Zechariah (xu. 10) is applied to Jesus and his cruci- , fixion. In tMs passage in the prophet, Mdeed, he that was pierced was Jehovah, consequently the stabbMg or piercmg was understood merely figuratively, of mental mortification ; but the Apocalyptic writer elsewhere also transfers names and attributes of Jehovah to Christ, and what was; here said'? of Jehovah appeared to be much more apphcable to the suffer ing Messiah. The piercmg, accordMgly,: referred by the author of the Revelation to Jesus, theref beMg no hmt of a stab in theside in Ms work any more than M- the synoptics, "was understood by that writer of the piercMg df Ms . hands^ and perhaps :also of Ms :feet,'. with* 'nails at the-crucifbdon. THE SPEAR-STAB IN HIS SIDE. 389 But not only the Hebrew word M Zechariah, but also the Greek word used in the Revelation, might seem to imply more than this. In fact ifc generaby meant piercing with a sword or a spear. If such a word was used in the prophecy, another reader who took prophecies literally (and that the author of the fourth Gospel did so Ave know from the account ofthe division ofthe clothes), might suppose that according to tMs Jesus might have been piered not merely with nads in the extremities, but that Ms body also must have been pierced with a spear or a sword. Supposmg him, then, to have been thus further pierced, this must have been done when he was already dead,, and then, it was supposed, the only object could have been, to make his death at ab events certain. :, But were such special-arrangements necessary for tMs purpose? Why was Jesus not left with, his two fellow criminals simply to hang upon the cross till ab were dead? Accordmg to the synoptics this was the: case- with Jesus: and he could, accordMgly, be at once taken down :. whether the two criminals also were dead when they were exammed and taken down bkewise, is not said, Masmuch as it had notMng to do with the poMt M question. AccordMg to Mark, death took place remarkably early in the case of Jesus ; it was not very probable that it was so with the two others. Consequently, the fourth Evangelist represents them ex pressly as stib bvMg. But why were not they at ab events simply left hanging longer on the cross, tib the next day, or even the day after ? TMs was agaMst the law of Moses, which ordaMed. that bodies of persons crucified should be taken down-before sunset (5 Mos. xxi. 23 ; comp. Josh, x: (27), and we may assume, that this ordinance was respected Mtime of peace even by the Romans. ' Add to this, on the present occasion, that the. fobowmg day was the Sabbath, and moreover, according to the Johanmne reckonmg, a par ticularly solemn Sabbath, that is the -first, not (as in the synoptics) the second day of the Passover. /' Now if- the two 390 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. crinunals were stdl abve towards evening an opportunity was given for hastenmg theh death by the appbcation of some special process. If a fatal stab with a spear was selected for tMs purpose, and the measure extended for the sake of certaMty to Jesus, who was already in appearance dead, then there resulted on the one hand, the wound prophesied by Zechariah, and on the other all the Certainty that could be desired, that if Jesus was not aheady dead this wound had killed him outright. .¦;•¦-. But with the body of Jesus not merely, as it was supposed, must somethmg have been done, but also sometWng have been omitted, namely, the breaking of the legs.. He was not only he whom they pierced, but also the Lamb of God, . especiaby the Paschal Lamb sacrificed M Ms death, and of IMs Lamb it was said im the law, '.'Not a bone of Mm shab be broken" (2 Mos. xii., 46). TMs indeed/accordmg. to the synoptics also, was not done to Jesus ; but why was ifc then so expressly said that it was not to be done to the Paschal Lamb, and consequently also" not to Jesus, if it might not have been very easdy done to Mm, and was only not really done M consequence of a particular arrangement ? Such a danger threatened Mm when the bones of Ms febow sufferers were broken, and as they were stdl abve, and it was neces sary to do somethmg with them M order to render possible the takMg down of the bodies before evenmg, tMs might properly have been the breaking of theh legs with clubs, not Mdeed M immediate connection with the crucifixion, but because it was customary among the Romans as a punish ment for slaves, and was fobowed by death from mortification, if not immediately at ab events with certainty. . The Evan gebst rests the fact of Jesus beMg spared tMs process npon the ground that the soldiers commissioned to perform it. found the victim, who was on the cross and who had died M consequence of the crucifixion, already dead. , If Mdeed theh eyesight did not satisfy them, and if they considered THE SPEAR-STAB IN HrS SIDE. 391 Jesus to be like the two others, at ab events probably stdl abve, ifc is not clear why they did not, as they were now on the spot, extend the breaking of the legs to him as well. Meanwhile, as they certaMly found Mm in a different condi tion from the others, and the breaking of the legs was not completed with a single blow, like the stabbing with the spear, a tolerable reason was thus found for a change of pro ceeding, and at the same time Avhat was dogmatically desir able, namely, the spear stab instead of the leg breaking, was also Mstoricaby Mtroduced. Now, therefore, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus M the side as he hung there apparently dead, and what was the result ? There came out blood and water. That, indeed, as every expert wib tell us, can M no case have come out ; for- if the blood was stib flowMg in the body of Jesus, either from death not having yefc taken place, or only a short time before, nothMg but blood would have come ; if it had ceased flowMg, nothMg whatever would have come ; and even the water from the pericardium, supposmg this to have been touched by the spear, and its fhud had not, as might have been expected, exuded Mto the cavity of the chest, it must M the first case have mixed undistiugmshably with the blood, and, M the other, have appeared without any blood at ab. But the Evangebst assures us that he Mmself saw the blood and water gush out (ver. 35) . He does not, Mdeed, say so directly, but only that he who saw it bare record, and that Ms record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true. By tMs He the Evangebst understands the beloved disciple, the only one of ab of them whom he places at the foot of the cross; tMs disciple, as the author of the Revelation, had testified (i. 7) that Jesus was pierced ; and as he, according to his own declaration (Rev. i. 2), had only testified what he had seen (by wMch the author Mdeed meant his own prophetic visions), the Evangebst concluded that he must also Mmself have seen the wound with the spear and its consequences. , Now the 392 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OP JESUS. Evangebst, as has been explained above,* considered himself as spiritually identical with the beloved disciple and author of the Revelation ; what the latter had seen with the eyes of the body he had seen with the eyes of the spirit ; or rather what he himself thought he knew in the spirit he assumed the Apostle must have seen M the body ?t " They shab look upon him whom they pierced," said the prophecy, and the prophecy must have been fulfibed. Him whom they have pierced they shab behold, i. e. they shab see that he was not a mere man bnt the Mcarnate Word; and they shall see it, plainly by the resM't of the spear-wound, by that wMch wib gush .out -from that wound. . ..Had only blood flowed out, then he that was pierced would have appeared to be only a mere man; somethMg.-must have: flowed out atthe same time, and what else- can this have been but that wMch the death of Jesus was to. bring to "Ms fobowers, namely; the Spirit, under a visible -; sign. But- the visible -sign- of the Spirit is water. Man must be born of water and the Spirit, if he is to come mto the kingdom of God (John iii. 5) ; Jesus had given an assurance that if a man bebeved in him, streams of hvMg water should flow out of Ms body, and, according to the explanation of the Evangebst, he had said tMs of the Holy Sphit, wMch those who bebeved M him should receive, but not until he had himself been glorified (vii- 38, ff.) . It was, therefore,, the pouring out of the Spirit, the communication of the new rebgious life, of wMch the death of Jesus was the condition, that the Evangelist spiri tually beheld m the blood and water that gushed out of the wound M the side of Jesus.. Whether he looked upon the gusMng out of water and blood as at the same time a proof of death,., or the spear-wound of itself appeared to him suffi ciently so, M either case this side of the question waa sub- ordmate to its symbobcal significancy. ,•:;, -And accustomed as ¦ - '¦>"¦ -',-:,- • •¦ '-'?'-'¦%>¦ *¦': *>'-tt-!*f-v-" ¦ ¦¦- >¦! ~£ji?:f**ii'i *¦ -. *VoLL'p.l44>149,ff. '. ~. , ... • "¦ Z^r ¦J Compare, for what follows, Baur, Critical Investigations, p. 215, ff. THE SPEAR-STAB IN HIS SIDE. 393 he is to see" one thing M another, the idea in different reflexes, it is very possible that in speaking of the water and the blood, he, bke the author of the first Epistle of John (v. 6), and the ancient Apolbnaris, Avas thMkmg also of the tAvo Christian mysteries, Baptism and the Last Supper ; and again, in the case of the latter, of what was common in his time, the mixmg of the sacramental wine with water. If there is any passage M which the peculiarity of the fourth Evangebst shows itself to the utmost, ifc is tMs. Ifc is impossible not to see M3 eagerness for the Inward and tho Spiritual, but tMs goes hand M hand with a propensity for what is most objective, most material M form; Ms profundity excites our admiration, but Ms language -is sometimes that of fond conceit. When the three first Evangelists, at the death of the Messiah, represent the sun as beMg darkened, the graves as opemng, the curtaM M the Temple as being rent, we see M ab tMs fables Mdeed, but stdl such as claim our attention, and place us in the state of mind M which they originated : but when, on the other hand, the fourth Evangelist considers ab this as not worth teflmg M com parison with what he hnagmes, that blood and water flowed out of the wound M the side of Christ, when tMs is Ms first and principal thought at the death of Jesus, when he- sees M it the most profound mystery of Christiamty, in corroboration of wMch he appeals to Moses and the Prophets, to eye- testimony and the truth of this eye-witness— we have so bttle sympathy with such a mode of viewing thMgs, it seems to us so extravagant, that we have a difficulty M even eom- prehendmg it.-" --^ : .-. . - -«--¦ --» ... The Johannine narrative of the- spear-wcund wMch- was inflicted on Jesus on the cross betrays itself also to be an unMstorical Mterpolation by the fact that M the synoptic Gospels it is, m the first place, not implied, and M the second, to a certam extent, absolutely excluded. In none of them does Jesus, after Ms Resurrection, as he does M the fourth 394 BOOK II. .- MYTHICAL HI3T0BY OP JESUS. Gospel, show the wound M his side to the disciples. But we cannot rest much upon this, because it is only M Luke that the showing of the hands and the feet, and that without any defimte reference to the marks of the wounds, is spoken of. But it is clear that M Mark the description of the course of events after the decease of Jesus implies that the body of Jesus continued hangmg quietly on the cross until M the evemng it was given up to Joseph M comphance with his prayer. Here it might occur to any one that omission is not exclusion. But the case is represented differently M Luke and Mark. AccordMg to J0M1, Pilate, at the request of the Jews, had given orders to break the bones of the crucified men, and to take them., down. If, therefore, Joseph cama afterwards, he must have found the body of Jesus taken down already.:^ According to Luke (ver. 53) and Mark (yer. 46), on the other hand, Joseph himself took the body down from the cross. , It is clear, therefore, that these Evangebsts do not assume any order to have been given by Pilate, or any talring down from the cross by the soldiers. : But that Pilate, as Mark tebs us, when Joseph made his request to Mm, should have expressed surprise at the death of Jesus having occurred so soon, and have seen M tMs chcumstance a ground for hesitating to grant his request immediately, would be per fectly Mipossible if he had aheady given orders for the break ing of the bones with a view to the takMg down from the cross. -, But what is most extraordMary. is that the fourth Evange list's own narrative does, one might say, exclude the account ofthe breakMg of the bones.* *,He himself, after havMg mentioned it, continues as if he had not mentioned it. That -V* „ * De Wette draws attention to this in his Manual of Exegesis, in speaking .'ofthe passage (fourth edition}, p. 282, ff. It is only from partiality for John -that De Wette satisfies himself, with the explanation that the apy and rjpt, ver. 38, mean simply the carrying away of the body, having meant, in ver. 31, the taking down from the cross. • HIS BURIAL. 395 is, he continues as the synoptics continue immediately after the account of the death of Jesns : that then Joseph of Ari mathea begged Pilate to be abowed to take down the body of Jesus, that Pilate granted Ms request, and that Joseph took the body. Consequently he speaks as if PUate had not aheady ordered the taking down of the bodies of the crucified men; he falls Mto this difficulty because, after makmg his interpolation, he again adheres to the synoptic narrative, but, by faflmg Mto it be shows that this portion of Ms history is nothing bnt his own Mterpolation. 96. Bueial os Jksus. It was naturally of great importance to the earliest Chris tian consciousness that the honour of burial should have been- paid to the body of Jesus. Even Paul mentions it as a tra dition that Jesus was buried (1 Cor. xv. 4) ; but, in sayMg this, he only wishes, as a preparation for what is said Mime- diately afterwards of his resurrection, to estabbsh that the body of Jesus went under the earth. In itself tMs might have been done only in the manner which was usual among the Jews in the case of persons executed, by Ms being taken down from the cross and covered over with soil M the burial place of other crimMals. The Romans, however, as was re marked above, if the relatives announced themselves as coming to apply for the body of a person who had been exe cuted, were accustomed to give it up to them for burial. And accordmg to the Evangebsts such a person did really announce Mmself to Pdate, M a. rich man of Arimathea, by name Joseph, who belonged to Jesus as a disciple (Matt, xxvii.. 57, ff.; Mark xv. 42, ff.; Luke xxhi. 50, ff.;. John xix. 38,ff.). ; -' i .'-^V, v.;;^. •¦.';.. -^>kvt-- --^." A rich man-— these are the first words of the most ancient reporter, Matthew ; he only adds Mcidentahy that the rich 396 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. man was also a disciple of Jesus. - Luke and Mark forget the rich man in the honourable counculor, and whatever else they make of Joseph : while John seizes on the discipleship, and M Ms favourite style makes it- a secret; one, from fear of the Jews. But M other cases wealth, M a good sense, is not of so much importance to the Evangelists : why does the first reporter so mdustriously put it forward here ? The rich man had a tomb wMch he had had hewn for himself M the rock, and M wMch he now laid the dead Messiah. . But it was in his death that the Messiah was brought into connection, with the rich M Isaiah. With the rich Mdeed in a bad sense, as it would appear, when it is said (bi\. 9) : " He made Ms grave indeed with the wicked, and with fthe rich M Ms death," M which words, the rich being taken as synonymous with the wicked,, a 'prophecy . of a dishonourable- burial i might be proved. « But the association- with , the wicked,, the being numbered with the transgressors was considered to have been aheady fulfibed M Jesns by his, apprehension. and crucifixion (Luke xxiii. 37; Mark xv. 28}: thus the rich remained for his burial, he must have been laid in the tomb of a rich man, and this rich man not a godless but a god-fearing man, who* bebevmg in the Messiah, gave up his tomb to the murdered CMist., (-;>_,>? ; [. -ri. „1!'.---?-;'- -, ¦: r :iziom',-' '-" .- \i,j \ on Mgh, and that graveth an habitation for himself M a rock ?''. . TMs indeed was said rebukMgly to a proud-minded man; but of therighteous man: also it was said Mrthe same Isaiah ;.;(xx£jii., 16), that he shall dweU on Mgh M mumtions of rocks, or, according. to the Greek, .translation; in caves of tracks ; then, - consequently, * Reference is made to this passage hy Volkmar, Religion of Jesua, p. 257r.' nis BURIAL. 397 even a God-fearing rich man might have hewn for Mmself a tomb in a, rock, and the question as to whom he has here that he does this, might be answered by a reference to the body of the Messiah, for whom he was there preparing a resting- place. But in order to correspond to its lofty purpose, the tomb must be a new one, not as yet polluted by any corpse, as it was not considered right that any man should have pre viously-ridden on the ass which the- Messiah used on Ms entrance mto the Capital. In the two other synoptics both the ' ' wealth " of the man, mentioned in the passage in the Prophet, as wed as his relation, with regard to the tomb, namely that he Mmself Mid had it heAvn for him m-the rock," is omitted, stdl their meamng undoubtedly is that it was Ms- property; and m John the connection is completely brokeh,- and the new tomb M wMch Jesus. is to belaid is selected not because it belonged to Joseph, but because it was near to the* place of execution, and a burying place close athand was: desirable on account of the near approach of the festal Sabbath. Thus this feature serves "the purpose of the fourth Evangebst, enabbng Mm, as it does, . to make stib more palpable the pressure of time on that evenMg of the burial, which furnishes him with a reason for what is so important to him, the breakMg of the bones in reference to the wound Avith the spear. ... _..-...: -.¦-,-..-.. •:-:-;" .¦-..-. . ; .- . Accordmg to the three first Evangebsts, after Joseph had taken the body of Jesus doAvn from the "cross, and before he- laid it M .the tomb M the rock, he robed it in a bnen cloth.- Matthew adds that the lMen cloth was clean, meamng probably that it had not been. used before. In Matthew's account this ia ab; he knows nothMg of anytMng further bemg done or intended to be done. >i No embalmMg .was, to M3 nund, re quired, because, a few days before, at the supper. at Bethany, Jesus had been embalmed by '> the. woman with the costly spikenard, with a view, accordmg to Jesus' own explanation/ to. his burial. -. -TMs,. account is t likewise in Mark and- John; 398 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. Luke, as we have seen, gives it M a very different form, and so entirely without reference, either of time or otherwise, to the passion and death of Jesus, that he might at first feel sensibly the want of embalmMg on the occasion of the burial of Jesus. Bnt as the more ancient tradition, as it i3 found in Matthew, contaMed notMng of the kMd, Luke also repre sents it not as having been reaby done, but only prepared on the Eriday evenmg by the women. They, he says, buy the necessary spices, but defer the embalmMg itself untd after the Sabbath, that is until the Sunday mormng (Luke xxiii. 56, xxiv. 1). ' Though Mark, like Matthew, has the prelimi nary anoMting shortly before the Passion, stib that wMch was subsequently mtended, as he found it in Luke, is welcome to him ; only he tMnks it more simple to defer- the purchase of the spices until after the Sabbath has elapsed; as tMs ended before six o'clock on the Saturday evenMg, the women did not consider it necessary to trouble- themselves with the par- chase so soon as the Friday evenMg before six o'clock, especiaby as time pressed, but it was time enough to do this on Saturday, and so to proceed with the embahnMg early on the fobowing morning (xvi. 1). But as, when the women came to the grave on Sunday mormng, Jesus had aheady risen, the materials for embalmMg the body were no longer of any use, but as M Matthew, so also M Mark and Luke, it ended M Ms not participating M this honour. TMs was con sidered by the fourth Evangebst as Mtolerable, he therefore changes the mere Mtention to embalm, spoken of by his two- predecessors, mto one actually performed, and represents the body of Jesus as being wrapped, not merely M a bnen cloth, like Matthew, but m bnen clothes with the spices (xix. 40): But, to his mind, the women were physicahy unable to convey these spices. How could they carry the hundred-weight; of myrrh and aloes, wMch the Evangebst considered necessary for. the embahnMg of the Son of God ? For this purpose a man. was required. who was also at hand M Joseph, or at all HIS BURIAL. 399 events in his servants. But Joseph had already performed Ms part in beggMg for, and taking down from the cross, the body of Jesus, and the fom-th Evangebst bad stdl another personage M reserve, of whom Joseph reminded Mm, like wise an emment, though secret, disciple of the Lord, Nico demus. It appeared to the writer to be quite appropriate to represent, as coming forward here for the third and last time, this man who had already twice appeared M Ms narrative m hnportant situations. Ab the Evangelists agree M stating that the sepulchre in the rock, M wMch the body of Jesus was laid, was -closed with a stone robed to the entrance. According to Matthew it was a large stone; M Mark, the women goMg out take counsel, as to who wdl rob aAvay the stone for them from the mouth of the sepulcMe ; consequently they assume it as a difficult thMg to do. WMle, however, the other Evangebsts are satisfied with this closure, Matthew represents the stone as beMg M addition sealed by the High Priests, and the sepulchre as beMg guarded by a watch stationed there by Pdate at their request (xxvu. 62 — 66). - -.-..-:.:' :• :¦ For when, M the earliest times of Christendom, the preach- mg about the resurrection of Jesus had taken the "form that his sepulchre was found empty on the second mornmg after Ms burial, it was met by the unbelievMg Jews with the abegation that it was found M tMs condition, not because its mmate had come out of it restored to life, but because his ' corpse had been stolen out of it by Ms disciples. . TMs Jewish legend M opposition to the Christian, gave rise to* a second Christian legend M opposition to the Jewish.. ... If the Chris tian solution was to satisfy the problem it must, on the one hand, make the stealing -of the body impossible, and on the other, account for the denial of the Resurrection on the part of the Jews.- . The stealing away of the body was impossible : if the sepulchre was watched. Consequently; the High Priests and Pharisees must go to the Roman Procurator and hegMm to secure the SepulcMe. But what M the world could 400 ''| BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESU3. ...:.-;; .,!'*' - move them to make such a request? What, could; the sepul cMe signify .to them, so long as they knew that he who had been laid M ifc was dead ? They remember, they say, that that crucified deceiver did, M his life-time, predict Ms resur rection after three days ; they do not bebeve M a fulfilment of this prediction, but they are afraid lest Ms disciples should steal the body, and M connection.with the prophecy give out that he has arisen. So the High Priests must have remem bered speeches of Jesus of wMch Ms disciples, at the time of his death,, can have known nothmg whatever (else how could they have been so despairing?) ; they must have foreseen the risMg up of the faith M the resurrection of Jesus, which is »; absolutely <_Mconceivable-:' the CMistian legend attributed to them the Christian bebef of. later, times, ' only in the form of. unbebef. -<-'.- Pilate immediately grants them, the watch and orders them,. M addition to. guard the grave. as. well as they can. ...He is , right M doMg so ; a watch may.' be: bribed, hocnssed, and,.. what they ought to protect, be carried off. \ So, they seal the stone that closes the mouth of ^the.: sepulchre, as formerly Darius had sealed the stone at the mouth of the bons' den, , Mto wMch be caused Daniel to be thrown to prove whether his God would save Mm from. the bons (Dan. vi.'18). Were they not, then, antitypes of CMist in. the sepulcMe, on the one hand, Jonas in the belly of the .whale, on the other, Daniel M the bons' den? >£ - ; ,'?-",> ..J -¦•-..' :vt • ' .J'j "¦ -:-- . . '¦ e Thus did the Christian legend estabbsh the impossibdity '. ofthe steabng ofthe body, alleged against, the Christians,; . by that of the Jews ; but, under, the circumstances, how could tMs Jewish legend originate ? 'Ifc was a matter pfcourse for the Christian legend to assert that when the- resurrection of Jesus occurred, an angel descended ..from,; Heaven, and* ' ; shining bke bghtmng,; robed, away ; the stone . from. vfche '.''] sepulchre with a -violent earthquakes/that seals and watches .. availed nothMg, and that the. latter;,- in particular, fell., down bke dead meh: (Matfc. xxvhi. ;4).4 -jvAid , accordMg to that THE iTIRACLES AT HIS DEATH. 401 legend, the watch reported the fact truly to the High Priests (ver. 11). The real High Priests and Elders would have • considered such a report to be false, and have Msisted upon an investigation, which must have elucidated the truth that the watchmen had slept, or had aboAved themselves to be bribed, and the body to be stolen. The High Priests and Elders ofthe Christian legend, on the contrary, look upon the report of the miraculous Resurrection of Jesus as true, and give them money to declare that to be false which the real digmtaries must have considered the truth, which the watchmen had motives for conceahng, and they for elucidating by an investigation. The fact is, therefore, as stated above : the Christian legend attributes to the Jewish authorities the Christian belief, leaving them at the same time, as enemies of Christ, theh unbelief, i. e. they bebeve m silence that Jesus returned miraculously to bfe, but stib they would not re cognise Mm as the Messiah, but persevere in theh opposi tion to his cause. Thus the origin of the Jewish legend was indeed explaMed, bnt awkwardly enough, and only for the CMistians Avho, starting from the same assumptions, did not notice the contradictions involved M the attempt at ex planation. . But the legend is, undoubtedly, very old, and the fact that Matthew alone has it, does not prove that he is more fabulous or later than the others, but, on the contrary, that he bved nearer to the country and to the period of the origin of tMs legend, wMch for his successors, writing later, and not in Palestine, had no longer the same Mteresfc. Stdl, as ifc had aheady existed, they might perhaps have adopted it, had it not stood in the way of another chcumstance wMch was more buportant to- them. This chcumstance was the M- tention ofthe women to embalm the body of Jesus after the Sabbath had elapsed. If the • sepulchre was sealed by authority, and watched by Roman soldiers, and the women knew of it, as aU Jerusalem, especiaby ab the nearest con- . vol. n. 2d •-,'"' 402 BOOK H. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. nections of Jesus must have known of a measure so remar able and so publicly taken, they could not hope to get there wi theh spices; but as they must have hoped to do this, M ord to be able seriously to undertake the Anointing, that obstac must not stand M theh way. H for these reasons the tA middle Evangebsts omitted the episode of the watchMg ai seahhg of the tomb of Jesus, still, with the fourth Evangel it did not stand M the way of the embalmMg, wMch th had undertaken on the Friday evenMg, but, together wi the motives for it, the legend was too far removed from t whole poMt of view of that Evangebst for hMi to adopt FIFTH GROUP OF MYTHS. RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF JESUS 97. History of the Resurrection. We have aheady in the first Book been obliged to treat length of the Resurrection of Jesus, M consideration of i historical importance, as without faith M it a Christi Church could scarcely have been formed. We endeavour to answer the question as to the reabty that lies at the bottc of the tradition, i.e. how the bebef in the fact can ha arisen among the disciples of Jesus. We did this partly fodowMg the indications of the New Testament writing partly by examinMg the analogy -presented by simil phenomena in the mental bfe of men. In doing , this, 3 have already discussed many Mdividnalpoints in the Eva gelical accounts, as well as the summary statements of t Apostle Paul; ifc only rem&Ms to realize the gradual grow of the myth under this head, i. e. to show how the accoui ofthe appearances of the risen Jesus form a series wMch continuabyprogressing from the visionary to the palpab history of the resurrection. 403 from the subjective to the objective. For this purpose Ave must take one by one the narrative portions into which the Evangebsts divide the history of the Resurrection. In doing this, we wib begin with the j'ourney to the grave on Sunday mormng, though this narrative (Matt, xxviii. 1—10; Mark xvi. 1 — 11; Luke xxiv. 1 — 12 ; John xx. 1-— 18) cannot have been formed untd after single appearances of the resuscitated Jesus had been described, and it is for these also that we would now find a starting point. According to Matthew, then, that j'ourney to the sepulchre is performed by the two Marys, her of Magdala and the other who is described by Mark as the mother of James and Joses. Matthew describes, not merely as the other Evangelists do, what happened to the women at the sepulchre, but he also informs us of what had taken place before they came there; how, that is to say, an angel,. shMMg like bghtnMg, had descended from Heaven, rolled the stone from the sepulcMe, and how the terror of the guards laid them for dead upon the ground. It is tMs very point, that of the watch, of whom Matthew alone makes mention, wMch sup- pbes the motive for his thus depicturing the action of the angel : he wished to show how the watchmen were set aside, the other Evangebsts had no occasion to do this, as they omit the watch altogether. When the women came to the grave, they see the angel sitting upon the stone that had been rolled away, tMs angel gives them the account of the resurrection of Jesus, shows them the now empty place where he had lam, directs them to commumcate tMs message to the disciples; with the Mtimation that they are to go to Gablee, where they wib see him. Then, Jesus Mmself havmg met them on the way back to the city, and repeated this commission, they (as must be suppbed from" what precedes and fobows) execute theh commission, and the Eleven, though ab doubt M theh nunds is not satisfied, enter upon • theh journey to Galilee. . ,; -<-:,'p{ 'r' -"¦„;' 2 d 2 .. 404 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. In Luke, apart from some unimportant variations, as for instance two angels withM the sepidcM-e instead of one out side, the chief discrepancy between Ms description and that of Matthew bes in tMs, that the disciples have not to be sent to Gablee because Luke places the appearance of Jesus, when risen, altogether in Jerusalem and the neighbourhood. But in order not entirely to omit the mention of Gablee from the web-known words of the angel, the women are reminded how Jesus, " wMle still in Galilee," prophesied to them Ms death and Ms resurrection. But Luke abstains from adopt- Mg out of Matthew the premature appearance of Jesus Mmself to the women on their return home ; he had to avoid the instructions to them to go to Galdee, and at the same time he wished to- give the factors M a more simple form, how that the risen Jesus is first announced by the angels to the women, by them to the disciples, and then, and not before, comes upon the scene M Ms own person. Hence it is that, on the women commumcating to the disciples the message of the angels, he lays so much stress upon the unbebef of the former, an unbelief which is not to be removed until the appearance of Jesus himself and the Mfalbble proofs given by him of Ms actual resurrection. In Luke the message of the women cannot have put the disciples M motion to go to Gablee, as it contains no Mstruction to that effect ; Mstead of this it moves Peter to go M a different direction, that is, to the sepulcMe, the emptiness of wMch and of the bnen clothes lyMg in it, it was desirable to represent aa bemg attested by a man: meanwhde ifc was not necessary that anytMng beyond surprise should result from Peter's seeMg these things, as the disciples are not to attam to belief M the resurrection of Jesus untd they have had satisfactory proof of it. . .-., Mark, M Ms account, follows Matthew throughout M aU essential points. He represents the news of the resurrection of Jesus, together with the instructions to the disciples to go HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 405 to Galilee, as being communicated by an angel to the women. On the other hand, we not only miss in his account the meetmg with Jesus himself, but the women fail to fobow the direction of the angel, as, from fear — (it is not exactly evident of whom or of what), they do not venture to say anytMng to any one of the appearance wMch they have seen. And when Mark at this point (ver. 9), as if neither the resurrection of Jesus, nor any information about ifc had been given to the Magdalene with the other women, all at once goes on to say, that when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene — this mode of beginning over again M the middle of the narrative is certainly strange enough to lead us to give ab attention to the chcumstance that the concluding section of . Mark (xvi. 9—20), is wanting in two of the best MSS. of the Gospels, and was, according to statements of great antiqmty, wanting M several others which are no longer extant. Only it cannot but strike us as extraordinary that these MSS. contaM the eighth verse, M wMch the incon sistency of the account with itself begMs.* In ver. 7, the angel, as M Matthew, gives to the women a message to be taken to the disciples. And the meamng must originady have been that, as in Matthew, the women imparted tMs message with joy. But, if they had given it, the disciples would certainly, as M Matthew, have gone to Gablee, and this, M Mark, they are not supposed, to have done, as he, with Luke, represents the appearance of the risen Jesus as takmg place not M Gablee but M Jerusalem and the neigh bourhood,. It is, therefore, the sudden veering of the Evan gebst from Matthew to. Luke which so strangely closes the hps of the women M ver. 8, and now, as we shab see more m. detail, ab that fobows from ver. 10, beMg taken from Luke, is M part abridged, M part expanded ; only the nMth verse, together with the appearing of Jesus to Mary Magda- i ' .-. V * ;Volkmar, Religion of Jesus, p. 100, ff., 104. V 406 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. lene seems rather to be taken from John (xx. 11 — 18). TMs, if our results so far Avith regard to the dates of the two Evangelists are correct, would be in favour of the assumption that M the concluding section of Mark we have a later and unauthentic addition. But at ab events the notice of the deAils that had been driven out of Mary comes, not from John but from Luke (viii. 2) ; as also the statement that the disciples did not bebeve the account of the Magdalene, for John says nothMg of it, but Luke does say (xxiv. 11), that when the women told the disciples of the appearance of the angels, they looked upon the account as idle tales, and did not bebeve it. Thus, after ab, the appearance itself might be taken out of Matthew, who also represents Magdalene with the other Mary a3 having the first appearance of Jesus on their return from the grave after the appearance of the angel ; only that Mark, perhaps from another source, from the use of which possibly the abrupt re-commencement may be explaMed, hmited the appeaiance to Magdalene alone. -;• From these accounts before Mm the fourth Evangebst cautiously selected and sagaciously carried on what was available for Ms own poMt of view. Luke had distinguished with great accuracy the separate factors of the publication of the circumstances of the resurrection ; John goes stdl fur ther in doMg so. In Matthew, the women see, on first approachMg the sepulchre, the angel sitting outside on the stone that has been robed away (M Mark they find him after entering the open sepulchre) ; Luke represents them, after entering the sepulchre, as first; missMg the body of Jesus, and then says that immediately after the two angels stood by them and explaMed ab to them. John" distmguishes stdl more accurately between these two factors. - Mary Magda lene, whom he represents aa comMg forward alone at this jMacture, as Mark does M the second section of Ms narra tive, must be kept for a time to the negative proposition that the body of Jesus is no longer there, she has to go Mto HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 407 the city with tMs Mtelhgence to Peter, whose journey to the sepidcM-e with its result, which is bkewise bttle more than negative (mere wonder), seemed to have a more smtable connection with this, than, as M Luke, with the account of the angel's message aheady received. But John represents Peter, not as Luke does, as going alone to the sepulchre, as bttle as he had represented him on an earlier occasion as gomg alone Mto the palace of the High Priest. On both occasions he associates with him the " other disciple," and tMs other disciple is no other than, professedly, himself. Moreover, two disciples, goMg M conjunction, had been aheady suggested to the fourth Evangebst by the third. Immediately after the journey of Peter to the sepulchre, occasioned by the message of the women, Luke tells of the journey undertaken the same day by two disciples, one being named Cleophas, whom Jesus joined, not being at first recognized (xxiv. 13 — 35) ; a non-recognition which Mark, who likewise mentions the chcumstance though only sum marily, explaMs by a change m the figure of Jesus (xvi. 12). TMs feature, as web as the further one that Jesus censures theh want of understandMg in not having gaMed out of Moses and the -Prophets the notion of the suffering Messiah, we shab subsequently find appbed in Ms own way by the fourth Evangebst. So Peter and the other disciple go together to the sepul cMe, and the mode M wMch each of them has his part weighed out to Mm, apparently equally, M wMch every pound put Mto the scale of the one is hnmediately balanced by another put Mto the scale of the other, and at last an over weight brought out in favour of one, that is, the favourite disciple — the description of ab tMs is, as has been aheady pomted out, one of the most manifest proofs of the artful calculation with wMch the Evangebst set to work M the composition of his Gospel. Both disciples ran together, and are, therefore, equalized at first. But the other disciple runs 408 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. fastest and comes to the grave before - Peter— consequently gets an advantage over him. But, bke Peter in Luke, here the other disciple stoops to look into the sepulchre only from the outside, and sees the lmen clothes lying without goMg M ; so the latter is immediately done by Peter, who comes after, and who, in Luke, does not do it. He looks more accurately and observes the linen clothes Mdeed lying in one place, but the napkin with which the head of Jesus had been covered not lyMg with them, but wrapped together M a place by itself: now, therefore, Peter has an advantage over the other. Upon tMs the other disciple also goes into the sepul cMe— but what good now does Peter's earber entrance do Mm, what good ab the external observation which he had made at the moment, if they did not help Mm to that wMch he who arrived at the sepulcMe first, but only entered it last, now attained, namely to see and to believe ? Faith brought about by sight is not, Mdeed, faith in the Mghesfc sense, but the -disciples could not have tMs yet, for, as the Evangebsts remark, they, bke the traveflers to Emmaus M Luke, were stdl without the understandMg of the Scripture, i. e. the knowledge that M it the death and the resurrection of Christ were predicted as sometMng necessary. This true faith could only be given to the disciples by the imparting of the Spirit which had not yet taken place; but the other dis ciple attaMed to such faith as was then alone possible, and thus was estabbshed afresh Ms precedence over the cMef of the Apostles, i. e. of the spiritual and Johanmne over the carnal, Petrine, CMistiamfcy. It was the observation of the Magdalene which the fourth Evangebst divides into its two component parts, keepMg first to the negative, the not-findmg of the body of Jesus, and sendmg her with this result to- the two disciples, that had occasioned their journey to the sepulchre. Now he represents the Magdalene also as appearing agam at the sepulcMe, and bringing up the other and positive part of her history of the resurrection. 409 observation. As M Luke, Peter, and in John at first the other disciple, she only stoops Mto the sepulcMe, without, like the women in Luke, going M ; but, bke them she also sees now not one but two angels, and, moreover, at the head and foot of the place where the body of Jesus had lain. The address of the angels to the women in Luke, Mtrocluced by a question, is expanded by the fourth Evangelist into a question by the angel and an answer by Mary, and uoav he seizes upon Matthew and Mark M order to represent an appearance of Christ as beMg granted to her after that of the angels. But like the two travellers M Luke and Mark, so neither does she at first recognize the Lord, but the sepul cMe being situated M the garden, tMnks at first that he is the gardener, though soon, being more spirituaby-mMded than they, she recognizes Mm, not by the outward act of breakMg bread but by his addressMg her as " Mary," con sequently by his word of mouth. Hereupon we are most expressly reminded of Matthew by the caution given hy Jesus to Magdalene, " Touch me not ;" tMs command beMg muntelbgible unless we remember M the first instance what Matthew teds of the women ; that on being met by Jesus on the way back, they feb down before Mm and seized Ms feet. Here, M Matthew, Jesus forbade them to fear and sent them to his bretMen with the Mstruction to go to Gablee where they were to see Mm. In John, bke the angel in the Apocalypse (xxii. 8, ff.), he commands Mary not to, offer him, as yet, the divMe worship impbed by falling at Ms feet, as he has not yet ascended to his Father, to whom, however, he wib ascend immediately.* ~ •' * The feet of his exaltation not being yet complete, appears to me a suffi cient ground for Jesns not yet accepting divine honours ; that he had risen merely as a man, and that, as Hilgenfeld assumes, the Logos did not unite with him again until after his ascension to the Father, I am as unable to reconcile with the Johannine conception of Christ, as, above (§ 77), Hilgenfeld's explana- %m ol sviBpi/tfiaaTO rip irvev/ian. •110 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. Upon receiving from the two Marys the report of the appearance ofthe angel and of Christ, the Eleven in Matthew start upon their journey to Gablee, and repair to the hill which Jesus had appointed, and where he hnmediately ap pears to them (xxviii. 16—20). TMs, in Matthew, with the exception of the prelimMary meeting with the women is the only appearance of the risen Jesus. It cannot, indeed, be assumed that he may not also have heard or read of many others ; but as in the case of the speeches of Christ he com bined Mto a great mass what had been said on various occasions, so also now he combmes the essential substance of several visions in one grand appearance before the assembled Eleven. As M these appearances the maM pomt is to con- vMce them of the reabty of the resurrection of Jesus, they generaby begM with doubts. . Thus, m this instance, some of them doubt — but Jesus approaches nearer to them, announces Mmself to them as Mm to whom ab power is given in heaven and on earth, and communicates to them Ms last; injunctions and promises. How and by what means he satis fied theh doubts is not said. , Here there was a place left vacant for later hands to fib up the Evangebcal history. Luke had represented Peter, on the receipt of the report of the women as gomg to the sepulcMe and returnMg home surprised, with tMs statement he Mterweaves the narrative of the travebers to Emmaus : when these last, havMg returned to Jerusalem, go M to the disciples, they receive Mtebigence of an appearance of the risen Jesus seen by Simon, of wMch there is no defimte Mformation given, but wMch renunds us of the statement of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xv. j* and as the fcravebera were giving an account of what they had seen and heard to the assembled disciples Jesus stood m the midst and saluted them. The first impression was terror as they thought they * Of the appearance to James, also mentioned by Paul (ver. 7), there is an apocryphal trace in a passage of the Gospel of the Hebrews, see above, p. 402. HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. * 411 saw a spirit ; whereupon to prove that it was he himself and not merely a spirit Avithout flesh and blood, Jesus offered to allow them to touch Ms hands and his feet, and as even then there wa-s a remnant of unbebef, though only in the form of joyful sm-prise, he asked for something to eat, and' consumed before theh eyes a piece of broded fish and honey-comb (xxiv. 38 — 43), havMg, as it seems, on the occasion of the appearance at Emmaus vamshed M the very act of breaking the bread before he had himself partaken of it. Mark appears to combMe tMs narrative Avith that of the last appearance of Jesus, Masmuch as he represents Mm as showing Mmself for the last time while the disciples are at table, without takmg part M the meal. Mmself (xvi. 14). But the fourth Evangelist touches up the account M his own way (xx. 19 — 29). First and foremost, asm the case of Mary Magdalene's journey to the sepulcMe, he separates the factors. On the occasion of the appearance, as Luke describes it, bebef and disbebef, terror and joy are mixed up together. John, M the same way as he there makes two journies of one, the first of wMch gives a negative result and only the second a positive one, so here he makes of one appearance two, at the first of wMch he represents only joy and faith as conung to the surface, whde he reserves the sechmenfc of doubt for a particular second appearance M order to change it by a process ab the more thorough Mto faith. And as in the former case, out of several women he selected one Mary Magdalene, and made her, bke another Mary of Bethany, the representative of the most heartfelt, most personal rela tion of faith and love to the Lord, so now he provides Mmself with a vessel for that doubt wMch Luke ascribed to the dis ciples without distinction, M the person of Thomas, who had aheady been brought Mto prominence by him M a sinular manner. -; It is not, however, merely m these maM poMts that the JohannMe narrative appears copied from that of Luke, but 412 " BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. feature by feature the resemblance may be traced. Thus, in the latter, a supernatural entrance is Mdicated by the expression (ver. 36), whde they so spake Jesus stood in the midst of them, as wed as by the terror which the sudden sight of Mm occasioned. But; M John tMs Mdication is strengthened by the feature of the doors haVmg been shut, and a regular determMation not to understand the Gospels correctly is required m order fco agree with Schleiermacher in assunung a natural opening of the doors. The addition that it was from fear of the Jews that; the disciples closed the doors of the room M wMch they met; is said Mdeed to be the immediate motive for tMs measure, and is consequently in tended to make the statement as to the closed doors all the more credible : but at the same time it looks-' as if in this also the Evangebst had had M view the separation of two features that are umted M Luke. In Ms account it is the appearance of Jesus wMch causes the disciples fear as well as joy; John refers their fear to the hostile Jews, M order to reserve only the joy for the appearance of Jesus. The ex pression "Peace be with you !" wMch, M Luke, Jesus utters on entering, is M Mm nothMg but the web-known Hebrew formula of salutation; but M the mode M wMch, M John, Jesus repeats the words, having before m Ms fareweb speeches spoken to the disciples of the peace wMch he leaves to them, wMch they were to have M Mm (xiv. 27, xvi. 33), andM the mode M which he accompanies the words with breatMng upon them and communicating the Holy Ghosfc, we see even tMs formula charged with the more profound and pregnant meamng of the fourth Gospel. The risen Jesus comes tMough closed doors, but still he is not a spirit ; he may be touched, but stib has not a material body. We cannot, Mdeed, conceive such a combMation, but the Evangebsts could, and John as wed as Luke ha3 framed Ms description upon it. In Luke, however; Jesus offers to the disciples Ms hands and his feet : instead of this, M John HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 413 ifc is his hands and his side. In Luke nothing could be said of the latter because he knows nothMg of a wound M the side, and this time they are only shown to them, not offered, as in Luke, to be touched : as John in this case also sepa rates the factors that are combined in Luke, and reserves the stronger proof for the later appearance which is Mtended to overcome doubt. In order to supply a motive for tMs second appearance, ifc was necessary that at the time of the first one of the Eleven should have been absent. TMs one was Thomas, who on former occasions (xi. 16, xiv. 5) is described as a person slow of apprehension. It was necessary that he should not have been satisfied with the report of his colleagues, and have made it a condition of Ms bebef M -the resurrection of Jesus that he should himself see Mm and feel the marks of Ms wounds. Luke speaks only Mdefinitely of the hands and feet as havmg been shown to the disciples by Jesus M order to convince them of his corporeabty ; it may Mdeed be supposed, but it is not said, that the marks of the wounds were also to be taken into consideration ; in John the marks of the wounds were prominently brought forward, flesh and bones not bemg mentioned : perhaps to the mind of this Evangebst the men tion of them might seem too material, and he imagined a body wMch still preserved the visible traces of wounds re ceived as. honourable scars, and could even be touched, but without havmg regular flesh and bones ; a conception which we Mdeed cannot now realize, but may attribute all the more confidently to the author of the fourth Gospel. So eight days after the first appearance Thomas finds Ms condition fulfibed : the disciples are assembled a second time, and now Thomas is Avith them ; agaM the doors are shut, Jesus passes without hindrance tMough them, stands with the salutation of peace M the midst of them, and now cabs upon Thomas to apply the required test. He does so, and hnmediately being fuhy convmced, he worsMps Jesus as Ms Lord and Ma 414 BOOK n. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. God ; but is compebed to hear from him, who had immedi ately before cabed upon him to be not unbebeving but faithful, the censorious words : " Because thou hast seen me; thou hast bebeved ; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have bebeved." On these words, which close the historical narrative of the fourth Gospel, for what fobows is only a concluding formula, the whole of the two-sided character, the whole of the sensu ous supersensuousness of that Gospel is distinctly stamped. That is declared to be true faith which requires no sensuous proof, as, before, no signs and miracles, so, here, no sight or touch ; but why then is ifc that precisely in this Gospel far more stress is laid than in any other on such sensuous proof? why is it that here the proofs of the resurrection, as before the miraculous narratives, are exaggerated ? If proofs of this kind have no value, why is a description of them given? And if they are only valuable for unbebef, in order to change it to bebef, why are they told by the Evangebst whose belief is so profound, with a sympathy wMch proves that even to him they were valuable ? He indeed, who bved some time after, and who was no more present than Thomas, when on the evening of the day of the resurrection Jesus came in to the assembled disciples, might also, like Thomas, have once doubted, and, M order to be able to believe, have wished to have as he had, sensible proof. If so, then he had renounced the wish for what was impossible, had got faith without sight; and he must have supposed that others Mstead of Mm, that 'the disciples who bved with Jesus had been able to ob- taM these sufficient proofs, that a John had seen blood and water flowMg out of the side of Jesus, that a Thomas had put his fingers Mto the marks of the nails, his hands Mto the wound in the side of Jesus. When, therefore, Baur hmits the meanmg of tMs scene with Thomas to tMs, that ab this seemg and touching, this materiality and palpable corpore ality, proves nothing M favour of the faith in the resurrection HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 415 of Jesus, unless this faith is established in itself as-sometMno- certaM and necessary, that therefore material and empirical faith must* always have absolute faith as its foundation; this, apart from its far too phdosopMcal formalization, is only as true as the opposite, that M the sense of the fourth Gospel pure spiritual faith has, as its assumed foundation, faith rest ing upon sensible proof, or that it Avas M the mind of the Evangebst one and the same act to bebeve without havinc seen signs himself, and to conceive these signs as havMgbeen seen by others.t The mode M wMch, from tMs pomt of view only, the origm of a work bke the fourth Gospel is conceivable, scarcely requires especial notice. The fourthEvangebst,havMg described at greater length the application of the test of sight and feebng, conceived that the necessity for the proof from eating of the reabty of the resur rection of Jesus was superseded. Perhaps too ifc was not to Ms mMd, as bemg, bke the flesh and the bones, of too material a character. The author of the supplement repeats tMs proof, worlring it Mto that strange chaM of narrative M wMch we have aheady found echoes of the narrative of the mhacles of the draught of Fishes and the Feedmg, the attempted walk- mg on the sea and triple denial of Peter, of the rite of the Last Supper, and the Breaking of Bread at Emmaus, as web as of the rivalry M bebevmg between the two Apostles Peter and John at the sepulchre of Jesus. Early M the mornMg, Jesus asks the disciples who are engaged M fisMng on the sea of Gablee, whether they have any meat, and on theh givMg a negative answer, bestows upon them the rich draught of fishes, tebs them, however, to breakfast off the broiled fish and bread which was already lying on the shore, and Mmself distributes both to them (xxi. 1 — 14). Thus M this place, as web as M the whole chapter, ab the particulars Critical Investigations, p. 229. Such is also Hilgenfeld's opinion, Gospels, p. 321. ff. Kbtc. 416 E00K II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. are veiy ambiguous and obscure, but as the risen Jesus does not, as at Emmaus, vanish after the breakmg of bread, but the meal proceeds in his presence, we may assume that he also partook of it himself. BT np to tMs point, together with the repetition and modi fication of one or two miraculous accounts, and a proof of the resurrection, the object of the narrative was at the same thne the further regulation of the relation between the Apostle Peter and the Apostle John, from this point (ver. 15 — 25) forward its purpose is that exclusively. In the first place, by the triple Mterrogatory of Jesus to Peter, whether he loves him (more than the other disciples do), and then, when the latter has thrice affirmed this, on the last occasion with some pain, by the thrice repeated command of Jesus to feed his sheep, the triple demal ef Peter is partly censured, partly forgiven, and the Apostle is confirmed afresh M his office of cMef shepherd ; then, from the web-known event; the death on the cross aheady abuded to* in the Gospel (xib. 36) ia predicted, and finally the circumstance which appeared to place John beloAV him,.that it was not granted to the beloved disciple to glorify God by a Martyr's death, is turned to the advantage of the latter over Peter. Peter is to fobow the Lord M the Martyr's death, but of John the Lord had said, if he would that John should remaM until his condng again: what did that concern any one else ? It is possible that this legend arose M Asia MMor M consequence of the great; age wMch the Apostle John reached, M the sense that he would Hve to see the Second Coming, of Christ : on John's death * On the whole this scene with Peter (xxi. 15—19), is only a further des cription of the conversation between Jesns and Peter, xiii. 36 — 38. There, Jesus had spoken of his departure to a place whither his disciples could not follow him ; then Peter asked whither he is going, and Jesns answered that whither he is going Peter could not follow him then, but he wonld follow him afterwards. There is no doubt that it is implied in these words that the Apostle is to suffer the same death as his Lord. Then foUows the prediction of the denial, to which reference is made in c. 21. ""' :-". THE ASCENSION. 417 the prediction thus understood had become untrue— hence our author attempts to bring it back mto its origMal form, in what sense is uncertaM ; Avhether, that is, he laid the stress on the word " If" (as merely conditional), or understood by the word "Coming," somethmg different from the visible return M the clouds, or, finally, by the word " Tarry," some thing different from survivmg in the body;* ifc is, after ab, his object to involve the matter in a mysterious and sacred obscurity. But as there fobows immediately upon tMs state ment the explanation that tMs was the Disciple who testified to these thMgs, and wrote tMs (ver. 24), it is possible that by "his tarryMg" untd the Coming of Christ, the duration of this his writing, the- continued validity of the Gospel of the Spirit contaihed-inrifc, may be understood. 98. The Ascension. When we consider the visions which the different adhe rents of Jesus, male and female, thought they had had of him after his resurrection, and the legends which soon attached themselves to these- visions as matter aheady existing, it was, as we have seen above, unavoidable that persons should look back and ask themselves when and how tMs new and Mgher bfe of him who had been crucified begun ; i.e. that the con ception of the resurrection of Jesus, his comMg forth from the sepulchre on the tMrd or some other day, should arise and be invested with the traditional decoration of an angelic appearance. And now ifc might be said that the equally necessary result of viewing the matter from the opposite side of the question, as to the close of this new condition, was the conception of the ascent to heaven of him who had arisen, ¦ '* Perhaps a removal to Paradise, there to be exalted until the return of Christ. Comp. HUgenfeld, The Prophets Esra and Daniel, p. 63, ff. VOL. II. . 2 E 418 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. after one or after forty days. But the chcumstance of our finding the account of the Ascension only M two Evange bsts, while that of the resurrection is common to all, shows us at once that the necessity in both dhections was not the same. For the new life of Jesus must Mdeed have had a beginning, as he had certainly been dead; but an end it need not necessarily, nay could not have had, as his bfe was immortal. Or a conclusion was required for the life on which Jesus had entered tMough the resurrection only when it was considered a mere Mtermediate condition ; but originaby it was not so considered, or considered so in quite a different relation from that in wMch the Ascension afterwards made its conclusion. -,.->.. - For it was held that the next epoch M the life of the risen Messiah would be his return at the end of the present period of the world. , He was to come agaM from Heaven, but, accordMg to the most ancient Christian conception, he did not wait forty days after Ms resurrection to enter into it, but entered Mto it at the time of Ms resurrection. At ab events he had appeared fco the Apostle Paul, and even if the Ascen sion is not supposed to have taken place untd forty days after the resurrection, tMs would be much later, consequently from Heaven, and yet the Apostle places the appearance as bemg . of a similar character, M the same category with those wMch the older disciples had had, presumably during those forty days ; he conceived therefore the latter appearances also as coming from Heaven. Matthew also stands upon tMs pomt of view. Indeed the first appearance of Christ, wMch he represents as bemg granted on the morning of the resur- - rection to the women returning from the sepulchre, is so far obscure as that we do not know whether we are to suppose Jesus ashavMg aheady descended from Heaven, i or, as on the occasion of the first JohannMe appearance,' on the pomt of ascendMg there. Then when he shows himself on the mountam M Gablee to the Eleven, stating that all power is THE ASCENSION. 419 given to Mm in heaven and on earth, he manifestly comes from his Messiamc investiture, and tMs (comp. Dan. vn. 14) can only have taken place M Heaven. That the exaltation of the Messiah up to Heaven did not exclude Ms constant, and future operation upon earth we see from the closing declara tion of Jesns in Matthew (ver. 20), that he is with his dis ciples for ever, even to the end of the present period of the world ; i.e. durmg the very term during which lie wib be reaby dwelbng M Heaven, and before he returns from thence to the earth again he wib be, with his Mvisible nuhistration, in company with his followers ; and it fobowed, as a matter of course, that he could not be prevented occasionaby and M an exceptional manner from sometimes shoAvmg Mmself to them in a visible form. It was in the character of prelimi nary exMbitions of tMs bind, prelimmary, that is, not to the Ascension, but to the second Advent that Paul looked upon the appearances of CMist granted to himself as web as to the older Apostles, for wMch therefore no bmit of time was laid down, and wMch might have taken place just as easdy years as days after the resurrection. ; But now it came to pass that the immediately expected return of Christ was longer and longer delayed, while, on the other hand, the bibows of excited mental bfe became calmer and calmer. The appearance granted to Paul remained the last of its kmd, the gates of Heaven wMch had received the ascended Christ had closed, and were not to be opened again- until the end of the world for his glorious return. If, from that troubled time, M wMch men vabdy longed to see one of the days of the Son of Man (Luke xvii. 22), they looked back to those blessed days when the resuscitated Christ had re vealed Mmself to Ms followers on the open Mgh-way and in the closed room, on the sea and on the mountaM, had eaten vvith them and drunken with them (Acts x. 41), that seemed quite another time, between wMch and that wMch fobowed a great gulf was fixed. He could not then, as he had now '"' 2 E 2 420 EOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. done, have retired into Heaven, he must, after coming forth from the grave, have staid a time on earth, have vouchsafed his presence to his fobowers for a time before withdrawing from them for the long period wMch was to Mtervene before Ms future coming again. Thus naturally arose the concep tion of an mterval between the coming forth of Jesus from Ms tomb and Ms ascent to Heaven, of a period during which he that had risen though concealed from the multi tude, walked upon the earth, M order to announce himself to his fobowers as the risen Messiah by separate appearances before finally separating from them. TMs sojourn of the Risen One on earth could only have lasted as long as the object of it required. TMs object was to make Ms resurrection known and certaM to Ms fobowers, and to give them theh last Mstrucfcions and promises. TMs might be done M a short period. Ifc might possibly be done M one day. The other conception did not require such baste. As it brought Jesus upon the place of his Messiamc glory at the very moment of Ms resurrection, it might represent Mm as appearing upon earth at such Mtervals as he pleased. Thus M Matthew the appearance of Jesus upon the mountain M Gablee must be supposed to have taken place long enough after the resurrection, to give time to the disciples to return back from Jerusalem to Gablee, wMch in any case required several days. But if the celestial glory of the Messiah was withheld from Mm after his resurrection untd he had finished ab that remaMed for Mm to do with those whom he left behMd, then haste was required for these things. It was also very possible masmuch as to the glorified body of the risen Jesus space no longer opposed any limits. Thus M Luke he shows hhnself first to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and accompanies them Mto the vibage, wMch is distant tMee hours from Jerusalem, and when they come back into the city he has not only appeared aheady to Simon, but introduces Mmself immediately after into the assemblage of THE ASCENSION. 421 the Eleven and the other disciples, whom he bnmediately led out toAvards Bethany M order to make them witnesses of Ms visible ascent to Heaven (xxiv. 50 — 53). Ab this mani festly takes place on the day of the resurrection, and the circumstances are similarly represented M the abbreviated de scription of Mark (xvi. 14 — 20), the whole of whose concluding section Mdeed is too confused to admit of a definite idea bemg gaMed out of Ms account alone. For as he represents Jesus as appearing to the disciples while they are sitting at table, givMg them Ms Mstructions and promises, and then after these speeches bemg carried up to Heaven, the conse quence is that if we were to take him strictly at Ms word, we should have to enterfcaM the very strange, idea of an ascension out of the room. If then, after the Messiah had thus passed from death to life, there was a strong Mducement not to detaM Mm too long from the final goal of Ms career, to shorten as much as possible the Mtervemng state between Ms resurrection and Ms exaltation to Heaven, stib there was another motive which must have operated with ever Mcreasing Mnuence M an opposite direction. 'Reports had gradually spread of so many appearances of Jesus after Ms resurrection, that it constantly became more difficult to conceive them as havMg ab taken place M one day. Takmg Mto account those only of wMch the Apostle Paul makes mention, to Peter, then to the Twelve, then fco five" hundred brethren, then to James, then to ab the Apostles, there would, even with these, have been too many for one day, the reqmsifce opportunities and situations considered. Even the object of these appearances, the conviction and Mstruction of the disciples, could not, on a nearer view, appear to have been attainable so qmckly : neither disbebef or stupidity could have yielded at; & blow, and the imagMation itself felt the necessity of mfcroducing longer Mtervals. The closeness to each other of these two opposite views,, is shown to us M the • remarkable fact that 422 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. one and the same writer M the half pf his work that Avas written first, has, M his description, fobowed the one vieAV, and M the latter half the other. Luke, who M the con cluding chapter of Ms Gospel implies that Jesus rose to Heaven on the very day of his resurrection, speaks m the introduction to his Acts of the Apostles of forty days, during wMch he appeared to the Apostles after Ms resurrection, showMg Mmself abve by many kmds of proofs, and speaking to them of the kMgdom of God, and it is not untd the ex- phation of forty days that he represents the ascension as takmg place. Whether tMs notion obtaMed currency in the Mterval between the composition of the first and second of Ms works, or he Mmself felt an inducement to imagMe it, the motive can only have lain M the necessity of provichhg the requisite Mterval for the numerous appearances of Christ* current M the legend, and for the great revulsion in the ideas of the disciples, supposed to have taken place during this interval. The bmitation of this space of time to forty days exactly, was Mvolved in the Jewish symbolism of numbers, a symbolism wMch had already become Christian as web. For forty years the people of Israel was M the wdderness, the same number of days Moses had been in SMai, for forty days he and Ebjah had fasted, for the same length of time Jesus had sojourned in the wilderness without meat and drink before the temptation; for forty days long Ezra was said to have retired mto sobtude with his five scribes, in order to devote Mmself to the restoration of the holy Scriptures that had been consumed by fire, before he was withdrawn from earth.* Thus it was that for the period during which the risen Christ was teachMg his disciples about the kingdom of Heaven (Acts i. 3), the number forty (naturahy of days, not years), wMch was traditional for intervals of tMs kmd, * 4 Esr. xiv. 23, ff. Comp. Volkmar, Introduction to the Apocrypha, ii. 288 ; Hilgenfeld,. Prophets Esra and Daniel, p. 71. THE ASCENSION. 423* presented itself as a matter of course. The appearance of CMist presented to the Apostle Paul, could not Mdeed come witMn even tMs extended period ; but it was clearly described by Mrnself as a supplementary one, as some thing out of due time (1 Cor. xv. 8, ff.), and the object of a special distinction to Paul could only be served by Christ condescendmg to appear once more from Heaven in order to gain the Apostle to Ms side. - Moreover, there is one poMt in which these accounts, differing as they do, with regard to the close of the earthly walk of Jesus, harmoMze with each other, even that ofthe fourth Gospel not excepted, wMch we must speak of M par ticular further on. „ It is that they put into the mouth of the departMg Jesus certaM ordinances and promises, which, however different they may be M the different Gospels, coMcide nevertheless M certaM main points. The commis sion to preach the doctrine of Christ to all nations is common to ab the synoptic accounts (Matt, xxvui. 16 — £0 ; Mark xvi. 15—18; Luke xxiv. 44 — 49; Act3 i. 4—8). That Luke does not, as the two others do, mention Baptism, is accidental; but when, what Mark M later phraseology de-- scribes as preacMng the Gospel, Matthew expresses M the Jewish- Christian legal form that the disciples are to teach all mankMd to observe everythMg that Christ has com manded, Luke, more M the sphit of Paul, that they are to preach M Ms name repentance and forgiveness of sMs — M these discrepancies the peculiarities of the different writers, so noticeable also elsewhere, are not to be overlooked. It has been aheady remarked that the destination of the Gospel for ab people, i. e. the admission of the Heathen also Mto the new kingdom of the Messiah without any other con dition than that of Baptism was a view which had by no means presented itself to the" disciples of Jesus so soon after Ms departure, and modern criticism has come pretty gene rally to the . conclusion that the common baptismal formula, 424 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF .JESUS. as unheard of elsewhere in the New Testament, as ifc is cus tomary in the later language of the Church, " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and ofthe Holy Ghost," is due to the hand that put the last touches to onr Gospel. As on the occasion of Jesus meeting with the two traveders to Emmaus, so also M tMs, the concluding scene immediately before gomg forth to the Ascension, it i3, in the view of Luke, a matter of especial importance that Jesus lays before the disciples the right nnderstandmg of the Scriptures, and poMts out to them m the Old Testament the doctrine of the passion and death of the Messiah : the only possible condi tion under wMch the disciples could firmly continue to be beve that theh crucified Master was the Messiah being their conviction that such a fate had been aheady prophesied for him M the Old Testament. The other event which the departing Jesu3 announces in Luke to the disciples is that pouring out of the Sphit in the Capital wMch they had to look for, and wMch it was aheady part of Ms plan to describe M the second division of Ms work. The account of Mark of the last words of Jesus to his disciples stands in unfavourable contrast with these two. After mentionmg the command to baptize, and pointing it with a promise and a threat, he names, as the signs which are to characterize believers; the power to cast out devils, to speak with new tongues, to bft up snakes, to drink deadly poison without harm, to heal the. sick by layMg on of bands ; features which, with the excep tion of the last but one, are taken out of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles (ii. 4, ff., xvi. 16 — 18, xxviii. 2 — 10) ; but are here M part generalized M part multipbed by the Mtroduction of the extravagant feature of drinkmg poison, M a way wMch shows us at how early a period M the Church a superstitious feeling directed only to signs and wonders begun to smother the genuine spirit of Jesus. If we hnagine a Christian travebMg about with pretended credentials of tMs kMd m the heathen world of that period we should have THE ASCENSION. 425 exactly one of those jugglers upon whom Lucian pours out his satire, not without a side-glance at CMistianity. Matthew now concludes his Gospel with the distinct spiritual perspective opened by the promise of Jesus to be with his followers until the end of the Avorld. The two middle Evangelists subjoin the visible concluding act of the Ascension. The statement of Mark, indeed, as has been aheady observed, is so Mdefinite in point of locality and detads that we might even doubt whether he reaby means a visible Ascension or not ; but he Mdicates ab the more defi nitely whence he gets the whole conception. When he says (ver. 19), " So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up Mto heaven, and sat on the right hand of God," he conld not himself have meant that any one saw tMs last proceedmg, but he took it out of the passage M the Psalm (ex. 1) : " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make tMne enemies thy footstool." TMs passage, obviously admitting of a Messiamc appbeation, and wMch moreover Jesus was said to have appbed to hhn- self (Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62), required for its literal fulfilment the exaltation of the Messiah to Heaven, and thus, at the conclusion of Ms earttdy pilgrimage, Jesus must have ascended into Heaven. The narrative of Luke is more fub and more vivid, espe ciaby M the second edition, corrected and enlarged, of his account of the Ascension, the Acts of the Apostles. At the conclusion of Ms Gospel (xxiv. 50 — 53), he says that Jesus led his disciples out to Bethany, and while he was here givmg them Ms blessMg with uplifted hands, he departed from them and ascended Mto Heaven, whereupon the disci ples feb down and worshipped and returned full of joy to Jerusalem. Accordmg to the introduction to the Acts of the Apostles (i. 4 — 12), Jesns cobected the Apostles once more upon the Mount of Obves (at the foot of wMch Bethany lay), and wMle he was giving them Ms last commissions and 426 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. promises, he was taken up ; and a cloud received him out of their sight. They looked after him as he moved from them on the cloud into Heaven, and while they were so engaged, there stood by them two men in white apparel (i. e. angels, bke those described at the tomb), who Mterrupted theh gazing by the assurance that the same Jesus, wMch was taken up from them into Heaven, should so come again in bke manner as they had seen him ascend into Heaven. We need only reverse tMs, M order to discover, how, as before in the case of Mark, this conception of the visible Ascension of Jesus arose. As the Messiah was to come again hereafter, so must he now have gone away ; but accordmg to Darnel, he was to come in the clouds of Heaven, so also must he now have ascended on a cloud Mto Heaven. -! ¦-¦¦ > In the Old Testament two especiaby holy men, Enoch and Elijah, had already been miraculously removed from the earth; but the departure of the first is not described as visible (1 Mos' v. 24; Sir. xliv. 16, xlix. 16; Heb. xi. 5), and the ascent of the latter with its fiery chariot and its fiery horses (2 Kings ii. 11 ; Sir. xlviu. 9), was not M accordance with the mdder spirit of Jesus, and was, generaby, too materially described. There was but one feature that could be taken from this antitype, the feature which Luke (Acts i. 9) brings Mto promMence, that Jesus wa& taken up before the eyes of the disciples, inasmuch as Ebjah had connected the transference of his spirit to Ms disciple with the condi tion that Ebsha should see Mm ascend. The first Saviour, Moses, who is elsewhere so often typical of the second Saviour, had died, according to the Old Testament, a natural death, and only been buried by Jehovah in an undiscoverable place (5 Mos. xxxiv. 5, ff.) ; on the rother hand we find M Josephus a narrative about Ms end wMch bears a striking resemblance to our history of the ascent to Heaven.*; On the mountain to wMch Deuteronomy already took him before Antiq. iv."8, 4& THE ASCENSION. 427 his death, Moses makes first the people, and then the elders, stay behind, and whde he is taking leave of Joshua and the High Priest Eleazar, a cloud suddenly stands over him, and he vanishes M a deep hobow. This narrative, which he un doubtedly took from the later rabbmical tradition, a narrative the object of which was to place the Lawgiver by such an end upon an. equality with Enoch and Elijah, Josephus endeavours to reconcile with the simple statement in the fifth Book of Moses, that he died, by the remark that Moses wrote the latter mtentionally that no one might venture to say that on account of his extraordinary virtue, he had joined the Godhead ; a turn M wMch a side-glance of the Jewish Mstorian at the deification of Christ, which was already be- ginnMg M his time, might be found. Now,. if from tMs poMfc we take a parting look at the fourth Evangebst, we appear to find Mm at the conclusion of the Evangebcal Mstory, not as on other occasions the foremost m MtroducMg unMsfcorical modbications, but standing on the same ground as Matthew does, inasmuch as the brilbant concluding scene of the Ascension is wanting both M Mm and Matthew. TMs may surprise us in the case of an Evan gebst to whose exaggerated conception of the Divimty of Christ such a scene might seem particularly smtable — of a Gospel in which it might appear to be particularly required as a bteral fulfilment of many speeches of the Christ described in it about Ms ascension Mto Heaven, his return Mto his glory with the Father (vi. 62; comp. hi. 13, xvii. 5). If the composer of this Gospel had reaby before Mm the account of the Ascension, it might have been supposed that he could not have avoided adopting ifc though modified in Ms own way, and as he has not done so, we might have con cluded either that he wrote earber than either of them, or that he rejected theh account, if he knew of it, on purely Mstorical grounds, because he was aware, as an eye-witness, that nothmg of the kind had taken place. But M point of 428 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. fact he has adopted it, modified in his own way, and the fact that he has not adopted it M the form M which it was pre sented to Mm M Mark and Luke may be so perfectly explaMed from the sphifc and scheme of his Gospel that there is no necessity for attributing to him any historical motive, such being altogether foreign to him. The fourth Evangelist, we might say, goes to work with the departure of Jesus to Heaven M the same way as he did with his comMg from Heaven. The latter had been thrown by his predecessors Mto the form of the begetting of Jesus by the Holy Ghost, and though the Logos-idea of John required a different turn, stib a correspondMg representation might have been given of the entrance of the Logos Mto the womb of Mary. But the fourth Evangebst entirely passes over the begetting and birth of Christ, and is satisfied with referring to Ms exalted origM, partly M Ms prologue, partly M various passages of the speeches uttered by Jesus. Exactly M the same way with the Ascension of Jesus Mto Heaven, he represents him as somefchues aJludMg to it M Ms speeches, but does not himself describe ifc as a visible occurrence. But that the Evangelist does assume this occurrence as havMg actually taken place is perfectly clear from the scene with the. Magdalene above described, where Jesus speaks of Ms ascendmg to "the Father, not as havMg actuaby taken place but hnmediately to take place-- Attention has also been aheady drawn to the fact that John here fobows Matthew, only that.it comes out more definitely M him than M Mat thew, that it was not before but after this first; appearance that the risen Jesus ascended into Heaven. But as m Mat thew the appearance of Jesus on the mountaM M Gablee assumes the Ascension to Heaven as an event that had already occurred, so also M John does the appearance to the disciples with closed doors. For the comnmnication of the Spirit by breathMg upon them, could not, accordmg to the view of the Evangebst, be accomplished untd Jesus was THE ASCENSION. 429 glorified (vu. 39) ; but Ms glorification was not complete until after his departure to the Father. The fourth Evan gelist, m representing this communication of the Spirit as havMg been made personally by Jesus on the day of his resur rection, places himself m opposition to the thhd, who, in his Acts of the Apostles (chap, n.), represents this communica tion as not having taken place until fifty days later, after Jesus had aheady taken Ms departure from earth. In this case also, as well as in that of the Ascension, he avoids the external sensible occurrence wMch Luke makes of the pour ing out of the Holy Ghost; the soft aspiration appeared to him more spiritual, and M particular more M accordance with the spirit of Christ than the storm and the fiery tongues in the narrative of the Acts ; moreover, the Paraclete, suppos ing Jesus to have commumcated it Mmself by breathMg upon his disciples, appeared to come M more definitely as Ms con tinuing representative. But, besides this omission of the Ascension, there is another poMt M wMch, at tMs concludMg moment, the fourth Evan gelist is connected with the first. The speech of Jesus after breatMng upon the disciples (ver. 23) : " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whoseso ever sMs ye retaM, they are retamed," remmds us of his words M the first Gospel (xvi. 19, xviii. 18), which are represented, Mdeed, m the fourth as havmg been uttered on an earber occasion. The words are, " Whatsoever ye shab bmd on earth shab be bound M heaven ; and whatsoever ye shab loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." Here, the change wMch the fourth Evangebst makes M the speech, might be explained by reference to the dispute as- to the vemahty.of certaM sms, which, as we see from the Shepherd of Hennas, begun to disturb the Church early M the second century. In consequence of this avoidance of the visible Ascension the fourth Gospel has tMs feature M common with the first, that bke the latter, or even more than the latter, it dispenses 430 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. with its proper conclusion, so that an opening was left for the addition of an appendix (in chap, xxi.), and this too after its own properly concluding scene, the appearance of Jesus to the disciples who were assembled with closed doors, has received a supplement in the appearance, eight days later, in favour of Thomas. But this very supplementary scene con cludes with a speech which opens a perspective extremely suitable for the conclusion of the Gospel, and resembling that which is opened by the concluding expression in Matthew. The words, " Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have bebeved !" are spoken, not merely to Thomas, but in his person to ab men who should come to. faith M CMist, without the possibdity of seeing ; they are the legacy of the JohannMe Christ to his Church, a legacy. wMch has stib its meanMg for us, only indeed M the sense of that expression of LessMg, a sense wrapped for our Evangebsts M thick and mystic clouds. The expression is to the effect that accidental Mstoric truths can never form the proofs of necessary truths of the Reason. 99. Conclusion. TMs principle is important to us now that we have arrived at the conclusion of our critical process, M proportion as we are penetrated with the conviction that our Mstorical know ledge of Jesus is defective and uncertaM. After removMg the mass of mythical parasites of different kmds that have clustered round the tree, we see that what we before consi dered branches, foliage, colour, and form of the tree itself belonged for the most part to those parasitical creepers, and instead of the removal of them havMg restored the tree to us M its true condition and appearance, we find, on the contrary, . that they have swept away its proper foliage, sucked out the sap, crippled the shoots and branches, and consequently that CONCLUSION. 431 its original figure has entirely disappeared. Every mythical feature added to the form of Jesus, has not only obscured an historical one, so that with the removal of the first the latter would come to bght, but very many have been destroyed by the mytMcal forms that have overlaid them, and been thus completely lost. It is not agreeable to hear and therefore is disbebeved, but whoever has seriously exammed the subject and chooses to be candid, knows as Aveh as we do, that few great men have existed of whose history we have so unsatisfactory a knowledge as we have of that of Jesus. How much more clear and distinct, beyond all comparison, is the figure of Socrates, which is four hundred years older! Ifc is true, indeed, that of the history of his youth and education we bkewise know bnt bttle. But we know accurately what he was M his mature years, what he attempted and what he effected, the figures of Ms disciples and friends stand out before us with historic clearness, with regard to the causes and the course of Ms condemnation and the facts of Ms death we are perfectly informed. And though a few anec- dotical additions are not wanting, Ms biography has conti nued free, ™- *ne maM, from that mytMcal matter under which the historical figures of many ancient Greek phdosophers, Pythagoras for Mstance, have been, bke the figure of Jesns, almost smothered. This preservation of his image, M the case of Socrates, is due to the chcumstance of his havMg bved M the most cultivated city of Greece, at the most bril- bant period of Mtebectual enlightenment, and when bterature was most flourisMng. And several of his pupils were also disfcMgmshed writers, and M part made theh teacher the Munediafce subject of their works. ; Xenophon and Plato. — -On mention of these names who does not thMk of Matthew and John, but how unfavourable for the two last is the comparison ! In the first place the authors of the Memorabiba of Socrates, of the two Convivia, of 432 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. the Phasdo, &c, Avere actual disciples of Socrates ; the authors of the first and the fourth Gospels, on the contrary, were no immediate disciples of Jesus. Wifch~regard~ to"*thg"above-' mentioned writings of the tAvo"Athenians we should have requhed no external evidence to be preserved; we should still have recognized them as the works of contemporaries and personal acquaintances of Socrates. In the case of the two Gospels, however ancient, however consistent the testimony for theh Apostolic origin might be, stib one should put no faith M it, as it would be contradicted by the plainest primA facie appearance of the books themselves. In the next place the exertions of the two writers about Socrates, are directed throughout to setting plaMly before us Ms pecubar character and value as a man, as a citizen, as a thinker and educator of youth. This, too, our two Evangebsts do after theh own fasMon. But this is not enough for them. Theh Jesus is assumed to have been more than man, he is assumed to have been a miraculous man, begotten of God, and even according to one of them the Divine Creative Word Mcarnate. Hence, M theh description, there not only runs parabel with the activity of Jesus as a teacher a series of miracles and develop ments of miraculous destiny, but tMs miraculous element is an Mgredienfc in the doctrine itself wMch they put Mto M3 mouth, so "that they represent Jesus as saying things about Mmself which "ifc is impossible that any man of sound under- *stancUng should have" ~iaidi. In the third place, Plato and XenqpTioiTagree uTall essential points M what they say about Socrates. There is much which they report M similar terms; several features, peculiar to one, do stib, when taken M con junction with those which the other supphes, unite admirably M one image ; and if Xenophon, as regards the phdosopMcal spirit of Socrates, as often fabs as much below his subject, as Plato with his arbitrary Mvention soars above it, and puts Platonic speculations M the mouth of Socrates, the two de- scriptions easily correct each other by a comparison of the two: CONCLUSION. 433 Avriters, and have no tendency to mislead, because that of Xenophon is evidently the result of naturally inadequate power to grasp Ms subject, wMle Plato in his Socratic Dia logues makes no claim to the character of an historical writer. How irreconcileable, on the other hand, is the Christ of Mat thew with that of John, and how solemnly the author of the fourth Gospel, m particular, protests the truth of Ms reports, we have seen. But everytMng that distinguishes the accounts that have reached us about Jesus from those about Socrates, in respect of Mstorical admissibbity, to the advantage of the latter, has its roots M the difference of times and nationabties. With the clear atmosphere and brilliant bght of Athenian 1 cultivation and dlumMation, M which the Miage of Socrates is seen by ns so plainly, is contrasted the tMck and murky cloud of Jewish error and superstition, and Alexandrine fanaticism, out of which the form of Jesus looks at us and , is scarcely to be recognized as human. v It may be said, and has often been said, that ab that is unsatisfactory in the Evangebcal biograpMes of Jesus is ricMy compensated for by the fact that we stib have before us his work M the Christian Church, and may now draw our - Mferences from tMs work to its origMator. Thus, of Shake speare, for mstance, we know but bttle that is historical, and much that is fabulous is asserted of Mm, we do not, however, abow tMs to disturb us much, as his compositions enable us to restore M perfect distinctness the figure of his personality. The comparison would be appropriate if we had the work of the Prophet of Galdee at first hand as we 'have those of the British Poet. But the former has passed tMough very numerous hands— of ¦ persons who have had no scruple to Mterpolate, to omit,, and to change M every way. The Christian Church, even M its "earliest form as it appears M the r>Tew Testament, was mouldecTby so many other factors _as well as the personakTy~of^esus that any inference from ifc to "Mm must" be most uncertain^. Even Christ the risen, upon~ *" — volts: ~~~r- ~~ -W ; .--• .--. 2 f - 434 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. whom the Church was fonnded, is qmte a different being from Avhat the man Jesus had been, and it was upon that concep-- tion of CMist the risen that not only the conception of Mm and his eartMy life, but also the Church itself was so moulded that it becomes a very doubtful question whether, if Jesus had returned about' the time ofthe destruction of Jerusalem, he would have recogmzed himself again in the Christ who was at that time being preached m the Churches. I do not tMnk that the case is so bad as has lately been maMtamed, as that we cannot know for certain of any one of the texts wMch are put Mto the mouth of Jesus in the Gospels whether he really uttered it or not. I bebeve that there are some which we may ascribe to Jesus with ab that amount of probability beyond which we cannot generaby go in historical matters, and I have endeavoured above to explaM the signs by which we may recognize such. But tMs proba- bibty approacMng to cerfcaMfcy does not extend far, and with the exception of the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem and his death the facts and chcumstances of his bfe are unfavourably situated. There is bttle of wMch we can say for certaM that it took place, anoTofall to AvSch" the faitE~or'lh"e '"Church Wp'eciafly attaches itself, the_ miraculous m^^^ejihaturah' matter m"*the""facts and destMies of Jesus, it is far more v certaM~that"'iF^ that~th~e happMess of\ ^mankind is to depend upon bebef M tMngs of which it is M '"-¦ part certaM that they did not take place, M part uncertain whether they did take place, and only to the smaUest extent beyond doubfc that they took place—that the happMess of mankMd is to depend upon belief in such thMgs as these is so absurd that the assertion of the principle does not, at the present day, require any further contradiction. CONCLUSION. 43" 100. No ! the happiness of man, or, speaking more mtebigibly, the possibibty of fulfilling Ms destiny, developing the powers implanted in Mm, and thus participating in the corresponding amount of web-beMg — it is bnpossible — and on this point the saying of Eehnar is an everlasting truth— it is impossible that tMs can depend on Ms recognition of facts Mto which Scarcely one man m a. thousand is in a position to mstitute a thorough Mvestigation, and, supposMg him to have done so, then to arrive at a satisfactory result. But, as certainly as men have a common destiny, attainable by ab, so the condi tions also of reachmg it, i.e. independent of and before the exertion of the wbilh~~"SEe"~direction of the object, the know- IedgeTof that object must be given to every man, and that knowledge cannot be an accidental acquamtancewith Mstory conung from without, but must be a necessary knowledge attaMable by reason, such as every man can find M Mmself. TMs is the meamng of the profound saymg of SpMoza, that for the purposes of happMess it is not in any way necessary to know Christ after the flesh ; but that the case is different with that eternal Son of God, namely the Divme Wisdom, wMch appears M ab thMgs, especially in the human mind, and M Jesus CMist appearedM apre-emment degree. With out tMs, he says, no one can attaM to happMess, because ifc , alone teaches what is true andfalse, good and bad.* Kant, bke SpMoza, distingmshed between the Mstorical person of Jesus and the Ideal of humanity pleasing to God, Mvolved M human reason, or M the moral sense M its perfect purity, so far as is possible M a system of the world dependent upon wanfcs and Mcbnations. To rise to tMs ideal was, he said, the .general duty of menjjmd though we cannot conceive of it as existing ~ otherwise than under the form of a perfect man, and though , * In Letter 2i: 436 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. it is not impossible that such a man may have lived, as we are ad Mtended to resemble this ideal, stib that it is not necessary that we should know of the existence of such a man" or bebeve in it, but solely that we should keep that ideal before us, recognize" it" as obligatory upon us, and strive to* make ourselves like it.* " ""This distinguishing 'TTelween^the'"histo™ Christ, that is the exemplar of man as he is destined to be, and the transferring of beatifying faith from the first to the second, is the unavoidable result of the modern spiritual develop ment ; it is that carrying forward of the Rebgion of Christ to the Rebgion of Humamty to wMch all the noblest efforts of thejpresentrtime are dhected, /Th ' tMs the world seesan apostacy from Christianity, a denial of Christ. ' TMs view rests upon a misunderstanding, for wMch the modern expres sion, perhaps also the mode of thought of the pMlosophers who made tMs distinction is partly responsible. For they speak as if the -exemplar of human perfection at which the Individual has to aim had existed M the Reason from the first. So that would seem to frnply that tMs exemplar, i.e. the ideal Christ, might have been present witMn us as much as it is now if a Mstoric Christ had never bved or worked. But this is by no means reaby the case. The idea of human perfection, bke other ideas, was imparted to the human mMd only, at first, M an elementary shape, wMch graduaby reaches its perfection by experience. It exMbits a different confor mation M different nations, varying according to the natural character, the conditions • of their climate and Mstory, and admits of our observing a progress M the course of history. The Roman conceived of man as he ought to be differently from the Greek, the Jew differently from both,: the Greek, after Socrates, differently from, and unquestionably more perfectly than before. Every man of moral pre-eminence, * Beligion within the Limits of Pure Beason, second chapter, first section, p. 73, ff. of the second edition. CONCLUSION. 437 eveiy great fchMker Avho has made the active nature of man the object of Ms Mvestigation, has contributed M narroAver or wider circles towards correcting that idea, perfecting or hnprovmg it. And among these improvers of the ideal of humaMty Jesus stands~^"ab3vents in SEe^firsl'*^aisT"*"H9 introduced features Mto it wMch were wanting to it before, or had continued undeveloped; reduced the dimensions of others which prevented its universal application; imparted into it, by the rebgious aspect wMch he gave it, a more lofty consecration, and bestowed upon it, by embodymg it M Ms own person, the most vital warmth; while the Rebgious Society wMch took its rise from Mm provided for tMs ideal .the widest acceptance among mankind. It is true, Mdeed, that tMs Rebgious Society originated in qmte other tMngs than "tEemoral signhTcilncToTTtTIouhcler, andjdid_anything. but e"xMTut^isin its jDurestJrarm — in the only writing of our "New~Testament which perhaps comes from an hnmediate disciple of Jesus, the Revelation of John, there bves a Christ from whom bttle is to be gaMed for the ideal of humanity ; but the features of patience, gentleness, and charity wMch Jesus made predomMant in that image have nob been lost to mankMd, and are exactly those from which all that we now cab Humamty might germMate and grow. Meanwhile, however high may be the place of Jesus among those who have shown to mankind most purely and most plamly what it ought to be, stib he was not the first to do so, nor wdl he be the last. But as he had predecessors in Israel and Hedas, on the Ganges and the Oxus, so also he has not-been without fobowers. On the contrary, that exem plar has been, after him, stdl further developed, more per- ¦ fectly fimshed, its different features brought Mto better proportion with each other. It cannot be overlooked, that. M the pattern exMbited by Jesus M Ms doctrine and M Ms life, some sides beMg finished to perfection, others were only faintly sketched, or not Mdicated at ab. Every point is fuby 438 BOOK II. MYTHICAL HISTORY OF JESUS. developed that has reference to Love towards God and our neighbour, to purity in the heart and life of the Mdividual : but even the bfe of man in the family is left by the Teacher, Mmseb' childless, in the background; his relation towards the body pobtic appears simply passive ; with trade he is not only liy^eason_^f-his--eabing-unconcerhed7liut evenvisibly averse to it, and everythMg relating to art and enjoyment of the elegancies of bfe is absolutely removed from his range of view. That these are important defects, that we have here an one-sidedness before us which is grounded partly on Jewish nationabfcy, partly M the circumstances of the time, partly in the special relation of the life of Jesus, no one would attempt to deny, inasmuch as no one can deny ifc. And the defects are not merely such that only the finisMng detads are wanfc- Mg, whde the rubng principle is given; but as regards the state M particular, trade and art, the true idea is wanting from first to last, and it is a frmtless undertalting to attempt to decide upon the precepts or after the example of Jesus what the action of man ought to be as a citizen, what Ms conduct M connection with the enrichment and embellish ment of existence by trade and art. On these points some-? thmg was wanting that required to be suppbed from the circumstances of other times, other states and other systems of. cultivation. And what was wanted was found in part by lookmg back upon what Greeks and Romans had accom plished M these respects, in part M what was reserved for the further development of mankMd and its history. But ab these defects M what was given by Jesus will be best suppbed if we start with considering what was given as a human acquisition— human, and therefore capable of im provement and reqiuring it. If, on the contrary, Jesus is considered as the God-man, as the pattern form Mtroduced among mankMd of universal and exclusive apphcabihty, any attempt towards givMg this pattern greater perfection must naturally be repudiated— ~its one-sidedness and imperfection CONCLUSION. 439 must be made the rule — and ab those aspects of human action AvMch are not represented in it must be either declined or simply regulated externally. Nay, inasmuch as by the side of or above the moral example set by Jesus he lihnself stands as tho God-man, bebef in whom, apart from and before the reoogmtion of that pattern image, is the duty of man and the condition of his happiness, then that upon wMch every thing depends is thus degraded into the second class, the moral greatness of Jesus is crippled and its first operation prevented, even the moral obligations which derive their authority from being involved M the conditions of human nature are represented M the false bght of bemg positive commands of God. Therefore the critic js convinced thafcj he is committing n^_offence_ji,gaMst^Avhat_ is sacred, nay "fa^Eerthat he is domg a good and necessary work when he_ sweeps away all that makes Jesus a sup ernatural Being, as w'eb_meant*and'perhap*s*even at" first sight beneficial, but in the long run miscMevous and now absolutely destructive; restores, as web as may be, the image ofthe historical Jesus M its simply human features, but refers mankMd for salva- ticih^cTl;he~TdearT/Erisf, to that moral pattern inwMch ..the h^fomiilJj.sus_did ^jndeed first bring to bghfc_many principal features, but wMch as an elementaryprinciple as much belongs to the general endowment of our kind, as its Mxprovemenfc and perfection can only be the problem and the work of mankMd M general. 5921 •NT