•YAnjE-waravEKSiFinr- • iLniaiiyMKy •

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF

BIBLICAL LITERATURE LIBRARY
Professor C. P. Kent.

JESUS

BY GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT

The Student's Life of Jesus, third edition, 1900.
The Revelation of Jesus, 1899.
The First Interpreters of Jesus, 1901.
A Primer of the Christian Religion, 1902.
Interpretation of the Bible, 1908.
The Book of Acts, 1908.
The Student's Life of Paul, 1899.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-S6 Fifth Avenue New York

JESUS

BY
GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT
Ph.D., Leipzie University
D.D., Dartmouth College

jSeto if ork
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1912
AU rizhts reserved

Copyright, 1912
Br THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Set up and electrotyped. Published September, 1912

Fsso Gr4-t

TO THE MEMORY
OF
TBert&a aates <£>U&ett
A NEAR DISCIPLE OF THE MASTER
WHO TO THE LAST HOUR OF HER YOUNG LIFE
SOUGHT TO DO
"SOMETHING GOOD AND BRAVE"

PREFACE
A different view of the sources of our knowledge of
Jesus makes necessary a different story of his life. The
decade and a half since my Student's Life of Jesus was
published has witnessed a wide and important change
among scholars in their estimate of the historical value
of these various sources. In that change I have shared.
Trained in the belief that the four Gospels are independ
ent and supplementary accounts of the career of Jesus,
each having its own point of view indeed but each also
worthy of acceptance as essentially historical, I have come
slowly, through prolonged study of the text, to results
in respect to the sources which render it easier to re
write my book than to revise it. These results and the
steps by which they were reached are stated in Part I.
But though this book registers essential modification
of that view of the sources which was formerly held,
and though, in consequence, it presents a somewhat
different picture of the life of Jesus, it is nevertheless
bound to the earlier editions by two bonds, viz., a pur
pose to get at the simple facts and an unchanged view
of the vital work of the Master.
Influenced no doubt by the conclusions of fellow-
workers — perhaps more deeply influenced than I am
aware — it is yet true that the sources themselves, studied
for the satisfaction of personal desire to know the truth,
have led to every statement in the following story. No
ecclesiastical authority or institutional connection has
been present to influence, either for good or for ill, the
weighing of evidence, or the portrayal of results.
As to the second bond of unity, it seems proper to say,
in view of negative conclusions on such subjects as the
supernatural birth of Jesus and his material resurrection,
that critical study of the sources has not lessened but
rather increasingly deepened my sense of the greatness

viii PREFACE
of Jesus and of the adequacy of his revelation to the
needs of mankind. The conviction that he never called
from the tomb a man who had been dead four days does
not in the slightest degree weaken my faith in him as
able to give spiritual life to men, for that faith rests on
evidence immeasurably stronger than- the story of Laz
arus would be were it historically well established. Again,
the belief that the "mighty works" of Jesus were, in
his own thought of his mission, incidental and subord
inate, and that they in no case transcended the power
of a man who works with God — for such a man is open,
we believe, to incalculable spiritual forces — does not at
all impair my confidence in him as a revealer of God,
or in his wisdom as the founder of the kingdom of
heaven on earth. The story of his life to be drawn from
the sources after the work of criticism has been done is
a story abundantly suited to inspire confidence in him, as
the spiritual leader of mankind, and the practice of his
teaching invariably confirms that confidence.
This book therefore, though much unlike its predeces
sor, is yet, I would believe, one with that in spirit, and
more truly constructive because resting on a more ade
quate analysis and estimate of the sources.
If it should appear to any readers that the space given
to the consideration of The Legendary Jesus is too great,
let these things be borne in mind : First, that some of the
questions here discussed, like the story of the resurrec
tion, are exceedingly complex and can least of all be dis
missed in a summary manner; and, second, that the
treatment of certain topics under the head of The Leg
endary Jesus does not imply an entire lack of value, even
historical value, in these topics. But to ascertain the
nature and extent of the truth involved, it is needful to
recognize the limits of the legendary element.
It requires no special gift for divining the future
course of events to see two things which will sooner or
later come to pass in consequence of the critical inves
tigation of the sources of the life of Jesus in our day,
first, an unsettling of the faith of some people in him,
and second, a reaction on the part of many Christians

PREFACE IX
from the new views and an attempt to support the totter
ing heritage of devout but unscientific ages. In helping
to carry the Church forward through such times of stress
and to establish it in a larger and truer conception of the
Master there is perhaps no higher service which New
Testament scholars can render than to set forth, with the
utmost patience and accuracy, the simple facts of his
life, assured that nothing can so further the Jesus-type
of religious life as an intelligent acquaintance with Jesus
himself. I cannot conclude this prefatory word without an ac
knowledgment of the valuable suggestions given me
by two of my friends and fellow-workers in the field of
New Testament research, Professor Irving F. Wood,
Ph.D., of Smith College, and Professor Ernest De Witt
Burton, D.D., of the University of Chicago.

Dorset, Vermont
February 12, 1912.

CONTENTS
Preface  vii
PART I. THE SOURCES
CHAPTER pAGE
I. The Synoptic Gospels  3
II. The Fourth Gospel  51
III. Other Sources for the Life of Jesus . 73
PART II. THE HISTORICAL JESUS
I. The World in which Jesus Lived ... 87
II. Origin and Early Life  115
III. Entrance into Public Life  123
IV. What Jesus Thought of Himself ... 139
V. The Ideal of Jesus for His People . . 154
VI. The Resources and the Method of Jesus 168
VII. From the Jordan to Caesarea Philippi . 183
VIIL From Caesarea Philippi to the Triumphal
Entry  200
IX. From the Triumphal Entry to Golgotha 215
xi

Xll CONTENTS
PART III. THE LEGENDARY JESUS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. Legends of the Birth and Infancy of
Jesus  239
II. Legends of the Ministry of Jesus . . 256
III. The Legend of a Material Resurrection 275
INDEXES
1. To the Logia  309
2. To the Earliest Gospel with Synoptic
Parallels  311
3. To Matthew's Peculiar Material . . . 318
4. To Luke's Peculiar Material .... 318
5. To the Fourth Gospel  319
Corrigenda   321

PART I
THE SOURCES

CHAPTER I
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
i. Two ways of treating the Gospels as Sources of the
-: Life of Jesus.
There have long been and still are two radically differ
ent methods of treating the Gospels as sources of infor
mation on the life of Jesus. One method — very ancient
and having the sanction of many great names — is to
approach them as books of supernatural origin, and hence
as altogether true and harmonious one with the others.
But this view, though it is ancient, cannot claim to be the
earliest. It cannot appeal to the men who produced the
Gospels, or to the first generation of Christians who> used
them. Not only do the writers themselves make no
claim to supernatural aid or intimate in any wise that
their method of procedure was extraordinary, but the
only one of them who alludes to the way in which he went
about his work reveals clearly that the thought of super
natural aid did not enter his mind. Luke's introduction
to his Gospel1 claims only that he had made a careful and
thorough investigation of all accessible sources of infor
mation. He had searched and discriminated and tested,
and thus had written his story. Many before him had
drawn up narratives on the same subject, but it is obvious
that no one of these narratives wholly satisfied him, for
in that case he would not have troubled himself to pro
duce another. He looked at them all critically, and
either in what they said or what they left unsaid they
appeared to him seriously .defective. This glimpse that
Luke affords us into his mode of work might, so far as
we know, have been given also by the writers of the first
N and the second Gospels. They, too, using their best judg-
'Luke i :i-4. * " ^

4 the sources
ment, discriminated and selected from the material at
hand. Analysis of their Gospels, especially of that of
Matthew, clearly shows that they as well as Luke handled
their materials with freedom.
Further, as the writers of the Gospels thought of their
work, so for a considerable time do others appear to have
regarded it. Clement of Rome (writing about 100 A. D.)
has occasional quotations from the words of Jesus,1 but
gives no intimation whence he had derived them, whether
from documents or oral tradition. The same is true of
the Epistle to Diognetus,2 Polycarp's (fi66 A. D.)
Epistle to the Philippians,3 Ignatius (fi38 A. D.) in his
Epistle to the Ephesians* to the Romans,5 to the Smyr-
naeans* to Polycarp,7 and true also of the Epistle of
Barnabas.9 These writers of the early second century
make occasional references to Gospel words and incidents
— much more frequent reference to the Old Testament —
but they neither mention a written source, nor do their
quotations and allusions necessarily imply such a source.
If, then, they knew any of our Gospels — which can not
be affirmed — it is clearly improbable that they ascribed
to them any peculiar not to say supernatural authority.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (writing about
130 A. D.), is the first to make definite reference to our
evangelical literature. He says that "Mark, having
become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately
whatsoever he remembered," i.e., what he remembered to
have heard Peter say.9 There is obviously no more sug
gestion here of supernatural aid than in what Luke had
said long before about his own writing.
To Papias is also ascribed a remarkable saying to this
effect, that what he got from books — such books as the
Gospels of Luke and Mark — was not so profitable as that
1 See First Epistle, chpts. 13, 24, 27, 46.
2 See chpts. 8, 9. « See chpts. 1, 2.
3 See chpts, 2, 6, 7. ' See ch. 2.
4 See chpts. 5, 6, 14, 17, 19. s See ch. 5.
¦ See ch. 6. • See Eusebius, History, 3, 39, 16.

the synoptic gospels 5
which he drew from the stream of living tradition, that
is, what he had heard one and another say who had
listened to the first disciples.1 This word clearly indi
cates that Papias, though he is said to have written a
commentary on the sayings of the Lord,2 gave to Mark's
Gospel and to Matthew's "oracles," of which he speaks
in the same fragment, no absolute authority. Both living
tradition and written narrative he regarded as alike trust
worthy. In Justin Martyr (-j-165 A. D.) the Gospels come into
clear view, for he says that they were read in the weekly
gatherings of Christians, together with the Prophets.3 He
calls them memorabilia ( airo/ivyifiovevimTa ) , a term which
is suggestive rather of the exercise of human judgment
in their composition than of supernatural aid.
But before the century of Papias and Justin closed a
new view of the Gospels, as of all the New Testament,
was well established. Irenaeus (115-202 A. D.) says
that the apostles had perfect knowledge after the Holy
Spirit had come upon them, and that they did equally
and individually possess the Gospel of Christ.4 The four
Gospels are now regarded as the four necessary aspects
of the one Gospel and are said to have been given by the
Artificer of all things.5 This high view, with various
modifications by individual writers, is fully and frequently
expressed in the first half of the third century, and it has
been dominant in the Church from that time to the
present. The second way of treating the Gospels as sources for
the life of Jesus is to regard them as natural products of
the early Church. It is to approach them in precisely the
same spirit in which Luke tells us that he produced his
Gospel. While therefore it may be called the modern
method in distinction from that of tradition, it is never-
1 See Eus. Hist., 3, 39, ,4.
2 See Eus. Hist., 3, 39, 1.
s See First Apology, 67.
4 See Ad. haer., 3, 1, 1.
6 See Ad. haer., 1, 11, 8.

6 THE SOURCES
theless simply the method which the preface to Luke's
Gospel requires. We do not say that this method has no
other justification than that which flows from the man
ner in which the evangelists used their materials and the
way in which the subsequent generation regarded the
Gospels, but only that this justification is quite adequate.
If Luke's procedure was reasonable, then this modern
method of treating the Gospels is also reasonable. They
are to be approached and analyzed as natural products of
the early Church. There is no absolute line of separation
between them and other products of that Church which
deal with the same subject, as the Gospel of Peter and
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is, demon
strably, no clear line of demarcation between Luke's Gos
pel and the narratives which he says had been" drawn up
before he wrote, for one of Luke's predecessors was
Mark, and no one will assert that an absolute distinction
is to be made between the writings of these men.
2. The Sayings of Jesus (called also the Logia and Q1).
The first written contribution to our Gospel literature
is now commonly held by scholars to have been a collection
of the words of Jesus. Papias ascribed what may well
have been such a composition, which he called the Logia,
to the apostle Matthew,2 and says that it was written in
the Hebrew tongue, that is, the Aramaic dialect which
was then spoken by the Jews of Palestine. He could not
have had the first Gospel in mind, for the term which he
used, Logia, oracles or sayings, does not properly describe
that Gospel, large sections of which (e.g., chpts. 1-2,
27-28) are purely narrative ; and further, it has long been
agreed that our first Gospel was not written in Aramaic
but in Greek. At the same time, however, no separate
document containing the words of Jesus is known to' have
been extant in the Church at the beginning of the second
century. Papias does not intimate that he had ever seen
such a writing. But a collection of the words of the
Master, made by one of his apostles, was surely a thing
1 First letter of the German word QueIle=so\irce.
2 See Eusebius, Church History, 3, 39, 16.

the synoptic gospels 7
which, though its form might be variously modified, could
not easily be lost while the Church remained loyal to
Jesus. Hence there is a strong presumption that this
early collection of the Lord's sayings was indeed pre
served in a writing or writings of later origin which were
everywhere known and accepted.
Now this presumption is strikingly confirmed by the
literary analysis of the first and third Gospels. A definite
collection of the sayings of Jesus is here discovered. For
the authors of these writings have in common a certain
body of Jesus' words, and neither of them drew this com
mon material from the other.1 The necessary inference
therefore is that both writers drew it from a common
source,2 in other words, that some previously existing col
lection of the sayings of Jesus was taken up and absorbed
in our Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This collection
was probably older than Mark's Gospel. The fact that it
is the only collection of Jesus' sayings which was incor
porated in any two of the Gospels implies that it was
widely regarded as the standard collection, and this fact,
while it might be explained by the eminence of its com
piler, is more adequately explained if we suppose that it
had also been a long time in circulation. Again, as com
pared with the earliest Gospel, this collection implies a
higher antiquity by virtue of its greater simplicity with
regard to the person of Jesus and with regard to the super
natural. It is relatively free from that interpretative ele
ment which is found in all the Gospels.
5. The Extent and General Content of the Logia.
The words of Jesus which Matthew and Luke have in
common and Which are not found elsewhere, if we include
with them the preaching of the Baptist which also is
peculiar to Matthew and Luke, amount approximately to
one-sixth of the entire narrative.3 Assuming for the
1 For detailed proof that Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each
other the reader is referred to recent works on New Testament Introduction.
2 It is of course possible that they used different editions of the Logia.
3 Hawkins, Home Synopticae, sec. ed. 1909, p. no, counts 186 verses and
six fragments in Matthew, 179 verses and four .fragments in Luke, as from
the Logia; Huck's Synopse sets off 231 verses in Matthew and 210 in Luke
as parallel; Holtzmann, Das Leben Jesu, 1901, credits Matthew with 441

8 the sources
present that this ancient document contained substantially
only what is strictly common to Matthew and Luke, the
following is a brief sketch of its content, not in the order
of the original document itself, for that order cannot be
determined, but in the order of Matthew.
There is, first, the Baptist's call to repentance with the
solemn word that the Messiah who is near will deal as a
judge with the wheat and the chaff f then the story of the
Temptation;2 then a group of nineteen sayings put by
Matthew in a single discourse but assigned by Luke to at
least five different occasions;3 the centurion of Caper
naum ;* words to would-be disciples ;5 words to the dis
ciples when they were sent out to preach and heal which
Matthew associates with the mission of the Twelve
alone,6 but which Luke associates in part with the mis
sion of the Twelve,7 in part with that of Seventy,8 and in
part with other occasions ;9 the message to John the Bap
tist,10 and witness borne concerning him ;" woes on certain
Galilean cities ;12 thanksgiving to the Father for his reve
lation to "babes ;"13 a word on the treasure of the heart ;14
a defense against the charge of cooperating with Beelze
bub ;15 words on the craving for signs ;16 on a second pos
session by unclean spirits;17 on the blessedness of dis
ciples ;18 the parable of the Leaven ;19 words on the might
verses from the Logia and Luke with 217; Wernle, Die Synoptische Frage,
1899, gives Matthew 314 verses and Luke 230; Harnack, The Sayings of
Jesus, gives Matthew but 202 verses and Luke 195. The extent of the
Logia varies according as one limits it to what is strictly common to Mat
thew and Luke, or allows it to have included somewhat more.
'Mt 3:7-io=Lk. 3:7-9; Mt. 3:i2=Lk. 3:17.
2Mt 4:3-n=Lk. 4:3-13.
8Mt. 5:1-4, 6=Lk. 6:20-21; Mt. 5:n-i2=Lk. 6:20-23; Mt. 5:i8=Lk. 16:
17; Mt. s:25-26=Lk. 12:58-59; Mt. 5:39, 40, 42=Lk. 6:29-30; Mt. 5:44-48
=Lk. 6:27-28, 32-33. 36; Mt. 6:9-i3=Lk. 11:2-4; Mt. 6:20-2i=Lk. 12:33-34;
ML 6:22-23=Lk. 11:34-35; Mt. 6:24=Lk. 6:13; Mt 6:25-33=Lk. 12:22-31:
Mt. 7:i-2=Lk. 6:37-38; Mt. 7:3-5=Lk. 6:41-42; Mr, 7:7-u=Lk. 11:9-13;
Mt. 7:i2=Lk. 6:31; Mt. 7:i3-i4=Llc 13:23-24; Mt. 7:2i=Lk. 6:46; Mt. 7:
22-23=Lk. 13:26-27; Mt. 7:24-27=Lk. 6:47-49.
*Mt. 8:5-io=Lk. 7:1-3, 6-9; Mt. 8:n-i2=Lk. 13:28-20.
'Mt. 8:i9-22=Lk. 9:57-60. »Lk. 10:1-12.
"Mt 9:37-10:38. »Lk. 12:2-9, n-12, 51-53; 14:25-27.
7 Lk. 9:i-5- MMt. n:2-6=Lk. 7T18-23.
11 Mt. n:7-i9=Lk. 7:24-28, 31-35; 16:16 (?).
32 Mt. ii:2i-24=Lk. 10:13-15.
15 Mt. n:25-27=Lk. 10:21-22.
11 Mt. i2:35=Lk. 6:45.
1B Mt. 12:22-23, 27-28, 3o=Lk. 11:14, 19-20, 23.
lsMt. i3:i6-i7=Lk. 10:23-24. "Mt. i2:38-42=Lk. 11:20-72
"Mt i3:33=Lk. 13:20-21. "Mt. i2:43-45=Lk. 11:24-26.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS Q
of faith j1 on causing offense ;2 on the twelve thrones for
the twelve apostles ;3 a condemnation of Pharisaism ;4
words regarding the day of the Son of Man;5 a saying
about watchful servants;6 and words about the faithful
and unfaithful servant.7
Thus this document which Matthew and Luke used as
one of their sources, though short, contained a wealth of
fundamental teaching. Its omissions are indeed notable,
for it had but one parable, possibly two,8 no miracles that
seem to have been introduced for their own sake, though
it had the healing of the centurion's servant,9 the healing
of a dumb demoniac,10 and a reference to mighty works
done in three Galilean cities;11 it had nothing about the
Lord's Supper, the crucifixion or the resurrection. But
it contained Jesus' conception of the heavenly Father, his
conception of man, his ideal of human life, and a clear
implication of his Messiahship.
We remark in conclusion that, while an exact repro
duction of the Logia can not be expected, there appears to
be no good reason why we should not hold that its essen
tial character and content are adequately made known to
us through the common material of the Gospels of Mat
thew and Luke.
4. Biographical Value of the Logia.
The sketch of the general content of the Logia in the
last section shows the wide difference between its sug-
gestiveness for our view of the life of Jesus and that
material bearing on this subject which we find in the let
ters of Paul. With the exception of the fact that Jesus
had disciples, of whom twelve stood nearer to him than
the rest, the Logia gives us no one of the details which
>Mt. i7:20=Lk. 17:6. 2 Mt. i8:7=Lk. 17:1.
8Mt. i9:28=Lk. 22:28-30.
1 Mt. 23:4, 12-13, 23, 25-26, 27, 29-31, 34-36, 37-39=Lk. 11:46; 14:11;
11:52, 42, 39, 41, 47-48, 49-51; 13:34-35-
BMt. 24:27-28, 37-4i=Lk. 17:24, 26-27, 37.
6 Mt. 24:42-44=Lk. 12:37-40.
' Mt. 24:45-5i=Lk. 12:41-46.
8 See Mt. i8:i2-i4=Lk. 15:4-7-
9 Mt. 8:5-10, n-i2=:Lk. 7:1-3, 6-9; 13:28-29.
10 Mt. i2:22=Lk. 11:14.
u Mt. n:2i-24=Lk. 10:13-15-

IO THE SOURCES
Paul has.1 But this is not the most important aspect of
the matter. The Logia, though collected and preserved
as containing thoughts of Jesus, gives at the same time a
series of living, intense glimpses of his life, which are
the more valuable as undesigned and incidental. The
information they convey often lacks definiteness in some
direction : it is not complete or systematic, but it is vivid
and suggestive. Thus the word that Jesus sent to the
Baptist in prison pictures his own life-giving activity f his
words concerning John mirror the attitude of men
toward himself and toward the Baptist ;3 his words to
would-be disciples on a certain occasion throw light on
his poverty at that time and on the moral deadness of
many who heard him f and the saying about the harvest
and the laborers5 gives a vivid suggestion of a very differ
ent state of things. The woes on Galilean cities not only
locate a part of his ministry, but also give an intense
characterization both of its appeal and the dulness of the
hearts on which the appeal fell.0 Again, through the
words spoken in answer to the accusation brought against
Jesus of being in league with Beelzebub7 we have light on
the view which Jesus took of the casting out of demons,
also on the permanency of the cures effected. The saying
about Jonah and the Ninevites8 gives a broad characteriza
tion of Jesus' career as a teaching ministry, just as the
word to the disciples about divisions9 throws light on
the variety of results which his preaching had already
produced. Thus the Logia was a document of first-rate importance
not only for the message of Jesus which it was intended
to preserve, but also for the general character of his
ministry and to some extent for its specific course.
5. The First Narrative of the Career of Jesus.
The Logia, or Sayings, of Jesus, though warm with
biographical light, as we have just seen, gave the reader
1 See Part I, ch. 3. 4 Mt. 8:i9-22=Lk. 0:57-60.
2Mt. n:2-6=Lk. 7:18-23. 'Mt 9:37-38=Lk. 10:2.
8Mt. n:7-9=Lk. 7:24-28, 31-35. "Mt. n:2i-24=Lk. 20:13-15.
T Mt. 12:22-23, 27-28, 3o^Lk. 11:14, 19-20, 23.
8Mt. 12:39-40=^. 11:29-30. »Mt. io:34-36=Lk. 12:51-53.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS II
but little detail of the movement of Jesus' career and noth
ing about his death. It was natural then that the next
step in the production of records to be used in extending
the new religion should be a narrative giving prominence
to what Jesus did and suffered. Such a narrative,
according to the general consent of recent scholars, we
have in the Gospel of Mark, and this, as far as we know,
was the earliest of its kind.' That it preceded the first and
the third Gospels is shown by the generally accepted fact
that these rest upon it as one of their sources — a point
of which later sections will furnish illustrations.
This first account of the career of Jesus, to which with
the others, since the time of Justin Martyr, the name
Gospel has been given,1 does not consist wholly of narra
tive, for about one-third of it is words of Jesus (about
231 verses out of a total of 661), but narrative is its char
acteristic feature. And this narrative enables the reader
to follow the career of Jesus both in its outward and its
inward movement, to picture to himself, at least with some
degree of completeness, its geographical stages and also
those critical events which determined its course. This
is a fact of such great moment that it gives to the Gos
pel of Mark a unique value. We shall briefly consider
each of these characteristics.
And first, this narrative contains an intelligent geo
graphical outline of the public career of Jesus. It is not
complete and is not always clear, but it is comparatively
adequate. The "wilderness" (1:13) is vague, the first
tour of Galilee leaves no definite local trace (1 139) , the
healing of the leper is not located (1 140), a second tour
of villages is mentioned but in a wholly general manner
(6:6), the place from which the Twelve are sent is left
indeterminate (6 7) , nor is any light thrown either on the
direction or extent of their activity ; we are not told where
Jesus was while the Twelve were away on this mission ;
the narrative leaves us in doubt regarding the place where
the disciples met Jesus after their tour was complete
(6 :30) , and there is confusion in regard to their course
with Jesus until they came to Gennesaret (6:53) ; there
1 First Apology, 66.

12 THE SOURCES
is no trace of his movements in Perea after he had set out
on the journey to Jerusalem (10:1), and in the narrative
of the last week the statement that Jesus went forth out
of the city every evening is by itself vague, leaving us in
doubt whither he went (11:19). But notwithstanding
all these deficiencies and obscurities in Mark's narrative,
it enables us to follow the career of Jesus in its main
features. From the Jordan and the wilderness he re
turned to Galilee and began his public ministry in and
near Capernaum (1:14, 16, 21) ; from there he made a
tour of Galilee (1 :39), returning at length to Capernaum
(2:1) ; on a mountain in the vicinity he appointed the
Twelve (3:13, 20), and from Capernaum after a time
went to the east side of the lake (5 :i), returned again to
Capernaum (5:21, 35), and from there went to his own
country (6:1). After the mission of the Twelve and the
withdrawal with them, on their return, to a desert-place
which they reached by boat, we are on solid ground again
at Gennesaret (6:53). From there Jesus went with his
chosen band to the region of Tyre and Sidon (7:24),
thence by way of the Decapolis he came to the eastern
shore of the lake of Galilee (7:31), and from there by
way of Bethsaida (8:22) to the villages of Caesarea
Philippi (8:27). From this place again his course is
clearly sketched — through Galilee (9:30) to Capernaum
(9:33), then to Perea through the borders of Judea
(10:1), and finally, by way of Jericho (10:46) to Jeru
salem (n :i), where his movements through the last
eventful week are in general carefully indicated.
We pass on to note the second fundamental character
istic of Mark's narrative — its preservation of the se
quences of an orderly development. Thus the opposition
to Jesus which arose in Capernaum on the occasion of the
forgiveness of a man's sins (2:5-7), which was strength
ened by Jesus' disregard of traditional statutes (2 :i6, 24;
3:2, 6), led at last to his withdrawal to heathen territory
(7:24). Equally plain in Mark's narrative is the crucial
significance of what transpired in the region of Caesarea
Philippi (8:27-30). Prior to that time the attitude of
Jesus toward Messiahship was one of extreme caution

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 1 3
and reserve. There was indeed the revelation at the
Jordan, but that was to Jesus himself and not to others
(1:11). The voice of the demoniac who acknowledged
him as the "Holy One of God" was sternly silenced
( 1 :24) . Jesus left Capernaum, apparently because of the
effect of his cures (1:35), and when, subsequently, he
wrought any cure he sought to avoid excitement, which
might easily lead to an attempt to force him into the
popular Messianic role (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26). He
presented himself to his disciples as a preacher (1:38),
one who had authority to forgive sin (2 :io) as well as
power to cast out demons, but he made no Messianic
claim. At Caesarea Philippi, however, he accepted the con
fession of Messiahship in the circle of his disciples, though
even then enjoining upon them that they should tell no
man (8 :3o) , and it was probably not earlier than this that
he used the title "Son of Man." From this time to the
day of Jesus' trial there is still in Mark's narrative the
same reserve of Jesus in public regarding his Messiah-
ship, though his intercourse with his disciples is in the
light of the event at Caesarea Philippi (e.g. 8:31; 9:31-
32510:33). But although the Gospel of Mark thus enables the
reader to follow the career of Jesus to some extent both in
its outward and its inward development, it is probable
that the author's real aim was religious rather than his
torical. The biographical motive was subordinate to the
evangelistic. This is suggested already by the tradition
that Mark's impulse to write came from Peter's preach
ing, and that this preaching was a source of his Gospel.
For while Peter in his preaching may have told the story
of Jesus' career, his purpose in so doing was not to teach
history but to win converts. He selected and marshalled
his facts with this end in view. Had Mark's aim been
primarily historical, had he set out to write the life of
Jesus, he would hardly have ignored its first thirty years,
nor would he have allowed himself to dwell so long on the
details of the work of Jesus as a healer and to pass so
lightly over the details of his teaching ministry.

14 THE SOURCES
6. The Sources of Mark's Gospel.
According to Papias1 the preaching of Peter seems to
have been the exclusive, or at least the chief, source from
which Mark drew. This view, however, does not appear
to be supported by the analysis of the writing itself. For
though it contains a large element that may well have been
derived from those addresses of Peter which Mark had
heard, it contains other material that does not point
toward Peter as its source. To this analysis then it is
needful that some thought be given.
Sir J. C. Hawkins, who has worked out the linguistic
features of each of the Synoptic Gospels with minute
care, finds that the fifty verses which are peculiar to
Mark, though they constitute only about one-thirteenth
of the entire Gospel, contain about one-tenth of the occur
rences of characteristic2 words or phrases.3 This fact may
suggest that the author felt himself bound more closely by
some of his material than by other parts, though, taken
by itself, it cannot be given any great weight.
Other and more conclusive evidence that Mark rested
in part on documents and not altogether on the preach
ing of Peter is furnished by the following facts. In the
first place, in his reference to parables, he seems to indi
cate that more were known to him than he records, and
known as having been spoken on a particular occasion
(4:2, 10, 33, 35). This is most easily understood if he
was acquainted with a collection of parables which indi
cated the occasions on which Jesus spoke them, or, if
not a collection of parables, yet with some document
that contained groups of parables. Again — and this point
is still more important — in the account of the feeding of
five thousand4 all the evangelists use the same Greek word
for basket (koQwos), and in the account of the feeding
of four5 thousand the two evangelists who have this story
(Matt, and Mark) use the same Greek word (o-QvpC?) ,
1 Eusebius, History, 3, 39, 15.
3 That is, words or phrases that occur at least three times in the Gospel
and which either are not found at all in Matthew or Luke, or which occur
in Mark oftener than in Matthew and' Luke together.
8 See Op. cit., p. 12.
4Mk. 6:31-44; Mt. 14:13-21; Lk. 9:10-17.
5 Mk. 8:1-10; Mt. 15:32-39.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS IS
but not that which is employed in the preceding narrative.
Now the singular circumstance is that in the subsequent
words of Jesus about dangerous "leaven" — words occa
sioned by the disciples' embarrassment because they had
so little bread with them — the two Greek words are used,
each one as in the original account. This schematic
adherence to the particular terms of the respective narra
tives hardly admits of explanation except on the suppo
sition that Mark had at this point written documents (at
least two) before him, and documents which he regarded
with great respect.
When now we ask what particular parts of Mark's
narrative may have been drawn from Peter's preaching,
we must admit that we can hardly advance beyond a
moderate probability. To Peter may most naturally be
traced the account of scenes that are located in his home
in Capernaum,1 and certain incidents personal to him.2
It seems reasonable also to regard him as the source of
such passages as clearly point to an eye-witness,3 for
Mark, according to tradition, had not heard the Lord.4
The question of Mark's relation to the Logia is one on
which it is difficult to reach a decided conclusion. The
few instances in which he gives words of Jesus that are
found in the Sermon on the Mount5 suggest that he may
have drawn them from oral tradition, whence also he not
improbably drew an appreciable element of his total
material. If the evangelist had been acquainted with the
Logia document, it would be strange indeed that he so
completely ignored it.
/. Matthew's Use of Mark's Gospel as a Source.
On reading and comparing Mark's Gospel and Mat
thew's we notice, in the first place, that while Matthew
has a large amount of matter not found in Mark, Mark
1 1:29, 2:1.
28:29, 10:28, 11:21, 16:7.
8 For example, 2:1-12.
4The tradition is not invalidated even if the young man of 14:51-52 was
Mark, for this momentary appearance does not imply discipleship or any
special acquaintance with Jesus.
5 Mk. 4:24=Mt. 7:2; Mk. 9:so=Mt. 5:13, Lk. 14:34-35; Mk. 4!2i=Mt.
5:14-16; Mk. io:ii = Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18a.

l6 THE SOURCES
has very little that is not found in Matthew. He has
eight1 short sections, aggregating thirty-six verses, or
somewhat less than six per cent of the entire Gospel, and
nine2 very short passages, usually a single verse each,
which either give an independent item not found in Mat
thew or certain notable details of some incident that is
common to both narratives. With these slight exceptions
the whole of Mark's Gospel is contained in Matthew.
Further, Mark's order of narration is, in the main, fol
lowed in the first Gospel. Of some sixty-nine sections
into which the common material of Matthew and Mark
may be divided nearly ninety per cent follow in the same
order in the narrative of Matthew as in that of Mark.
There are in Matthew only four notable departures from
Mark's order. Matthew puts a tour of Galilee (4 :23-25)
before the day of great works in Capernaum (8:14-17),
which in Mark follows that day (1 :29-39). The call of
the Twelve is put by Matthew before the controversy
regarding the Sabbath (10:2-4; 12:1-8, 9-14) instead of
after it, as in Mark. The group of three events (or
four)3 — storm on the lake, cure of the Gerasene and cure
of the daughter of Jairus, this latter incident enclosing
the story of the woman who touched the garment of Jesus
— are given individually in Mark's order, but the entire
group is placed in a different setting. And finally, the
mission of the Twelve (10:5-16) is put soon after their
call (10:1), while Mark inserts between these events a
certain teaching in parables, a visit to the region of
Gerasa, the return to Capernaum and the rejection in
Nazareth ( 3 : 1 3-6 :7 ) .
Matthew's agreement with the order of narration in
Mark appears the more noteworthy when it is considered
that he has inserted a large amount of independent ma
terial into the framework of Mark's Gospel. For had he
not highly regarded the Marcan order of events in the
life of Jesus, he might easily have allowed the introduc
tion of new material to obscure it.
But these facts touching the relation of Matthew's
1 1:21-28, 35-38, 3:20-21, 4:26-29, 7:32-37. 8:22-26, 9:38-40, 12:41-44.
5:5; 6:5, 19, 55-56; 9:15-16, 21-24, 49-5o; 11:11, 16; i2:32-34a; 15:44.
8 8:18, 23-27, 28-34; 9:18-26. •) J4 , 5.44.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 17
Gospel to that of Mark, which have just been presented,
are not in themselves proof that Mark's Gospel was a
source of Matthew's work. They might be explained
though the order of dependence were inverted. But
when we take account not merely of the fact that Mat
thew's Gospel contains almost all the material of Mark
and in Mark's order, but have regard also to certain
modifications of the material in Matthew, then the ques
tion of the priority of Mark's Gospel is seen to be closed,
and doubt on the order of the two writings is excluded.
First of all, the Greek of Matthew is better than that of
Mark. Thus for a number of rare and questionable
terms used by Mark, we have in Matthew terms that are
unobjectionable.1 Instead of the constant and monot
onous repetition of the conjunction and, the parallel nar
rative of Matthew offers a good degree of variety.2 And
again, where Mark's narrative has redundant expressions,
as is frequently the case, Matthew removes the redund
ancy.3 This better Greek of Matthew's narrative is explicable
as a refinement on that of Mark, but we could not assume
that Mark, having this better Greek before him, would
have cast it aside for something inferior. For though his
Greek style is often criticizable — a fact not at all to be.
wondered at in view of his Jewish nationality and his tra
ditional residence in Jerusalem — it would not be allow
able to suppose that he was an uneducated man, or one
•For itpoi0aTTos(e.g.. 2:4). condemned by Phrynicus (see Rutherford, JVezti
Pkrynicns, pp. 137-8). Matthew has (cAiVi; (9:2); for empairrei (2:21), not elsewhere
in the N. T.. Matthew has empUAAei (9:16); for fluyaTpioi/, only in Mk. 5:23. 7:25 in
the N. T.. Matthew has fluvaTijp (9:18); for eo-x*™' «x" (condemned by Phryni
cus see Rutherford, p. 481), not used elsewhere in the N. T., Matthew has
irt\c\iTi\trev (9:18), obviously not an equivalent; for cnSeroTWio",(i4:44), unknown
elsewhere in Greek, Matthew has tryiielov (26:48), and for irpoai/Aiov (14:68), found
only in Mark, Matthew has jrvKav (26:71). The term eKc<j>aki.<jio-av(i2:4), unknown
elsewhere in Greek, is avoided by Matthew.
2 Thus Matthew in 4:1 replaces the koI of Mark with rtf™, in 4:18 with
Se in 9:10 with a participial construction. Where Mark uses k<" eighty-six
times in beginning sections of his narrative, Matthew has it only thirty-five
times. 8 The following passages will sufficiently illustrate this feature. Mk. 1 132
has "And at even, when the sun did set;'5 Mt 8:16 omits the second clause.
Mk 2-20 reads: "And then will they fast, in that day," but Mt. 9:15 drops
the tautological words "in that day." Mk. 2:25 has Did ye never read
what David did, when he had need and was hungry,' but in Mt. 12:3 the
last clause is dropped.
2

10 THE SOURCES
who would not have sought the most suitable language in
which to set forth his story.
But, in the second place, not only is the Greek of
Matthew better than that of Mark, but his modification of
the thought of Mark's Gospel also leads irresistibly to
the conclusion that he wrote at a later time. Consider
first a series of passages which concern Jesus. Mark
says that in the evening of the notable day when the
ministry in Capernaum was begun Jesus healed many
who were sick with divers diseases ( i -.34) , a statement
that allows the reader to think that there were some sick
people present whom he did not heal ; but Matthew tells
us that on this same occasion Jesus healed all who were
sick (8:16). Again, when Jesus visited Nazareth dur
ing his ministry, Mark records that he could do no mighty
work there, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk
and healed them (6 :5) . It is clear that he thought of the
power of Jesus in this case as limited. Only a few sick
folk and they not extreme cases ( appuia-roii) were cured.
The unbelief of the people of Nazareth prevented further
manifestations of the gracious might of Jesus. But Mat
thew makes a significant change. He does not say that
Jesus could do no mighty work, but simply, "he did not"
(13:58). The suggestion of inability to heal is thus re
moved. Another illustration is furnished by the story of
the withered fig-tree. According to Mark (11:12, 20)
the disciples did not notice that the fig-tree was withered
until at least the day after Jesus had sought fruit on it;
but Matthew represents that the withering took place
immediately, to the great amazement of the disciples
(21 :i9-2o). Obviously this report sets the act of Jesus
in a stronger light — renders the miracle more impressive.
A fourth parallel instance is found on comparing Mark
6 :3 with Matthew 13 :55. According to Mark, the Nazar-
enes said of Jesus: "Is not this the carpenter?" but in
Matthew their query runs: "Is not this the son of the
carpenter?" Thus the expression is softened and made
less objectionable for those who separated Jesus from
other men as widely as possible.
There is another class of passages in Matthew's Gospel

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 19
which modify Mark by suggestive omissions. Thus he
omits the cure of the man in Decapolis who was deaf and
had an impediment in his speech (7:32-35) and the cure
of the blind man in Bethsaida (8:22-26), the two in
stances of healing which have the least glamour of the
supernatural about them. In both cases Jesus made use
of spittle and in one case the cure was gradual. Again,
Mark says that Jesus on a certain occasion in the syna
gogue at Capernaum looked round on the people with
anger (3:5), and that at another time he was moved
with indignation (10:14) \ Matthew omits both expres
sions. Mark also tells, us that the relatives of Jesus
thought he was beside himself (3:21) ; this too Matthew
omits. In the story of Jesus on the lake Mark says
(6:48) that "he would have passed by them;" Matthew
omits this. He also makes a significant omission in the
account of the, sending for an ass on which Jesus might
ride into the city, for he does not say, with Mark (11 :3),
that the Lord would send the ass back to the owner — an
omission which heightens the authority with which Jesus
proceeds in the matter. Finally, in the incident of the
withered tree, Mark's word of apology for the tree's
barrenness, namely, that it was not "the season of figs,"
is not found in Matthew. Its omission in this writing
may have been dictated by the desire to defend the act
of Jesus from the charge of unreasonableness.
Now these eight omissions are in line with the positive
modifications of Mark's thought which Matthew makes
and are therefore naturally to be ascribed to the same
motive. Both classes of passages are intelligible if Mat
thew used Mark as a source, but not if that relation be
inverted. In keeping with the fact that Jesus was more
and more exalted as time passed and as the evidences of
his gracious power accumulated, we must regard Mat
thew's narrative as secondary and Mark's as primary,
since Matthew removes these questionable features of
Mark's picture of Jesus.
We conclude then' that our first Gospel used Mark as
one of its sources. Further, it would not be too much to
say that the writer regarded this earlier document as his

20 THE SOURCES
standard authority. He incorporates nearly all of it in
his own story and he rarely departs from its order of nar
ration. The sole important feature of it which seemed to
him inadequate was its view of Jesus, except, of course,
the fact that it seemed to him to leave out much valuable
material. 8. Matthew's Use of the Logia as a Source.
Outwardly, the most notable point in Matthew's use of
the Logia is his grouping of the material. Thus he brings
together in one address delivered on a "mountain" (5 :i)
words which in Luke are represented as spoken on a half
dozen separate occasions. The address itself bears marks
of its composite character, for it contains some material
that does not suit the time and the occasion on which it is
said to have been spoken. Thus, for example, the severe
condemnation of scribes and Pharisees (5 :20; 6:2, 5, 16)
does not belong at the beginning of the Galilean ministry,
nor can we suppose that the words 7 :2i, 22 were spoken
long before Jesus had let even his chosen disciples know
that he regarded himself as the Messiah — a revelation
that dates from the days at Caesarea Philippi (16:13).
Again, this grouping of material from the Logia is obvious
in the address to the apostles, which was given on the
occasion of their going out in Galilee during the life-time
of Jesus (10), for this address contains passages which
clearly belong to a much later time (e.g., 16:16-18, 23,
34). They are brought together here simply because they
come under the general head of instructions, to the dis
ciples in view of their work in the world.
The strong impression of topical grouping which is
made by these addresses in Matthew is abundantly con
firmed by a comparison of Matthew with the Lucan paral
lels. This point, however, needs no elaborate illustration.
Take simply the case of the Lord's Prayer. According
to Matthew, that Prayer was given to the disciples by
Jesus on his own initiative, as a part of the body of funda
mental teaching which he communicated to them on the
mountain, but according to Luke (11 a-4), it was given
in response to a request of the disciples, and given long

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 21
after the Sermon on the Mount. This Lucan representa
tion is intrinsically probable as far as the initiative is con
cerned. For Jesus never established new rites and cere
monies for his followers, unless indeed we suppose an
exception in this single case. It was wholly foreign to
his method and purpose. He who left his disciples mem
bers of the Jewish Church, who did not suggest that they
should establish an organization by themselves, would not
have been likely to prescribe, of his own accord, a form
of prayer. He was concerned to create a new life in the
heart, not to reform the Jewish ritual. Hence the account
of Luke in reference to the occasion of the Lord's Prayer
is to be preferred to that in Matthew. It was not a part
of the fundamental teaching of the Sermon on the Mount,
but was put there by the author of the first Gospel in
pursuance of his plan to give a topical arrangement of his
material. This view that the first evangelist made an independent
grouping of the material which he had before him in the
Logia is further confirmed by the fact that he appears to
represent Jesus as having given to his disciples five series
of words or teachings,1 which, in the light of the Gospel
narrative, is plainly an arbitrary division. The occasions
on which Jesus spoke in Galilee, in Perea and in Jerusalem
were numerous, one might safely say nearer five hundred
than five. But one whose scheme of presenting the teach
ing of Jesus led him to make this general five-fold
division2 would obviously have proceeded with perfect
freedom in the grouping of individual sayings of Jesus.
A second point to be noticed in Matthew's use of the
Logia is a certain freedom in dealing with the thought.
This is plainly in line with the preceding characteristic,
for the grouping of the Lord's words, in so far as it
obscures the occasion on which different words were
spoken, may not only render their interpretation difficult,
but may also easily modify their original sense.
1 See the formula "when Jesus had finished these words," with slight
modifications, in 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1.
2 Had this division belonged to the Logia itself, which Hawkins suggests
as possible, it would seem a little strange that no clear trace of it is to be
found in Luke. The single use of an expression (7:1) parallel to Matthew a
formula is hardly such a trace.

22 THE SOURCES
This freedom of the first evangelist in handling the
thought of the Logia is a matter of great importance, and
though it is not necessary at present to study every point
which illustrates this freedom, the truth of the assertion
ought to be put beyond question. For that purpose we
shall consider a number of passages which set the com
piler's freedom in a clear and strong light.
According to Luke, Jesus pronounced a blessing on the
"poor" (6 :2o) ; according to Matthew, on the poor "in
spirit" (5 13) ; according to Luke, he blessed the "hungry"
(6:21); according to Matthew, those who are hungry
"after righteousness" (5:6). The Lucan saying starts
from the physical1 state, if it is not concerned with that
altogether; the Matthaean begins and ends with the
spiritual. The version in Luke is more difficult than that
in Matthew. It is easy to believe that the word "poor"
may have been interpreted to mean poor in spirit, but not
that a writer who had the words "poor in spirit" changed
them to poor. If Jesus spoke a blessing on the poor, leav
ing that word undefined, we can see that it may have been
regarded as putting a premium on poverty, and that Chris
tian teachers, rightly feeling that this was not consistent
with the life and general teaching of Jesus, defined the
term as is done in Matthew.
As a second instance of the freedom under discussion,
take the Lord's Prayer. Matthew's version is half as long
again as Luke's, Luke having thirty-eight words (Greek)
and Matthew fifty-seven. Matthew has seven petitions
and Luke only five. But the two which are peculiar to
Matthew are only an unessential expansion of the thought
contained in Luke. But since the style of Jesus is known
to us as concise and full of vigor, it is more probable that
the amplifying words of Matthew are a late modification
than' that they are original.
A third illuminating instance is the sign of Jonah. Ac
cording to Luke, this consisted in Jonah's appearing as a
prophet in Nineveh (11 =30), and the sign of the Son of
Man to his generation was to be of the same sort. No
"sign" such as men were demanding — no miracle — should
1 This is made all the plainer by the contrast in verse 24.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 23
be given, but only the sign of Jonah, that is, the simple
prosaic fact of preaching. But Matthew's understanding
of the sign is wholly different from this. To him the sign
consisted in Jonah's experience with the sea-monster, and
the parallel in the case of the Son of Man was to be his
burial in the earth for three days and three nights ( 12 40) .
This view, however, is entirely unsuited to the occasion
on which Jesus spoke of the sign of Jonah. He had posi
tively refused to give a sign such as was demanded by
scribes and Pharisees (12:39), Dut tms interpretation
represents him as immediately setting aside his own ex
plicit refusal and as granting a supernatural sign after all.
Further, it is to be noted that the resurrection of Jesus
was not a sign to that unbelieving generation. The risen
Lord, according to the Gospels, appeared only to his own
disciples. We must then regard Matthew's version of
this saying of Jesus as a departure from the Logia, if we
ascribe Lk. 1 1 :30 to that document. That version exhibits
a marked characteristic of the author of the first Gospel,
for he delighted in the discovery of hidden agreement
between details in the life of Jesus and passages of the
Old Testament.
Another instance of the relatively great freedom with
which Matthew handled the thought of the Logia is fur
nished by the passage in regard to the pardon of an
offending brother. Jesus affirmed, according to Luke
( 17 :3~4) , that one should forgive a penitent brother with
out limit, even seven times in a single day. But in Mat
thew we have the outline of a course of procedure that
appears to be a clear reflection of early ecclesiastical prac
tice (18:15-17). For Jesus is represented as referring
the matter to the Church, though he nowhere in the
synoptic Gospels contemplates the departure of his fol
lowers from the Jewish religious fellowship or intimates
that they are to establish a new organization. And
further, he is not only represented as directing his dis
ciples to refer the matter to the Church, but also as mak
ing the Church's decision final. Continued impenitence
on a brother's part justifies the treatment of him as a
heathen and a publican. This outcome surely does not

24 THE SOURCES
breathe the spirit of Jesus, but rather that of the early
Church in its struggle with unworthy members.1
A final illustration of Matthew's freedom is afforded
by the story of the Wedding Feast or Great Supper.2 The
freedom of the first evangelist is seen especially in two
additions. When the invitation to the feast is persistently
declined, the host is angry. Luke says no more than this.
But in Matthew the King who offers the feast sends out
his armies and burns the city in which the people live
whom he has invited. But this again does not show the
spirit of Jesus who instead of destroying those who did
not accept his invitation allowed them to destroy him.
Thus we find here a disturbing element, which appears
to have been brought into the story from subsequent his
tory, for Jerusalem, whose citizens did not welcome Jesus,
was actually burned by the Romans. The second addi
tion to the story is in the spirit of the first (22:11-13).
A king who would burn a city whose inhabitants had
refused his invitation to a feast might be expected to act
as the king does in verses 11-13. He gives command
that the man who has no wedding-garment be bound
hand and foot and be cast into the outer darkness. We
need not stop to discuss this passage further than to say
that it seems to be an addition inasmuch as its thought is
foreign to the manifest purpose of the parable. That
purpose is to teach that the "feast" which the Jews refuse
will be offered to others less favored than they. But the
thought of verses 11-13 is obviously quite different. It
is not concerned with the acceptance of the kingdom of
heaven, but with-some subjective preparation for member
ship therein. We need not inquire what deep theological
meaning the author saw in the "wedding-garment." It is
enough for the present to recognize that his addition to
Luke's version takes us into a different sphere of thought
and one not in harmony with the lesson of the parable.
The data which we have now considered seem fully
to establish the view that the author of the first Gospel
exercised a large degree of freedom both in the arrange-
1 See e.g., I Cor. 5:5; I Tim. 1:20; III Jn. 9-10.
aMt. 22:1-14; Lk. 14:15-24.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 25
ment and in the treatment of the material found in the
Logia. That document was for him a standard authority,
as was the Gospel according to Mark, but nevertheless
he did not incorporate it in his narrative unchanged, even
as he did not that earlier Gospel. His interest in proph
ecy, which we find illustrated in other portions of his
story besides that which he had from the Logia, moulded
his use of that material, as did also the course of early
Christian history.
p. Matthew's Peculiar Material.
About one quarter of the first Gospel — approximately
260 verses — is not found elsewhere, and so may be re
garded as the peculiar property of the author. Of this
large mass of material only about four per cent consists
of incidents in the ministry of Jesus.1 Nearly one quarter
of it concerns his childhood or consists of details of his
death and resurrection, the remaining seventy-two per
cent of Matthew's peculiar matter is teaching of Jesus.
Of the incidents in the ministry of Jesus, which only
Matthew has, all but one are supernatural, and the two
main incidents are distinctly marked off from the ordinary
mighty works of Jesus. These are Peter's walking on
the water (14:28-31) and his finding a coin in the mouth
of a fish (17:24-27). Remarkable in character are also
Matthew's details in the story of the death and resurrec
tion of Jesus. Thus an earthquake followed the death on
the cross, and opened certain tombs in the neighborhood
of Jerusalem, and from these the bodies of saints were
raised, and entering into the holy city they appeared unto
many (27 :5i-53). Again, the great earthquake which in
Matthew preceded the resurrection seems to have been
regarded as supernatural in its origin, for it resulted from
the descent of an angel out of heaven (28 :2).
These incidents give to the first Gospel a unique color
ing. The typical mighty work of Jesus, according to all
the synoptists, is the cure of disease, but these events
recorded by Matthew alone — namely, the two in which
Jesus is active — lie in the realm of nature. It may fitly
*Viz., 14:28-31; 17:24-27; 21:10-11, 14.

26 THE SOURCES
be noticed in this connection that Matthew's version of
miraculous incidents which are common to all the synop-
tists reveals a tendency to emphasize the supernatural.
Thus, while Mark represents Jesus as helping the mother
of Peter's wife to rise from her bed (1:31), Matthew
says that Jesus touched her hand and she arose (8:15).
Again, Mark says that the little daughter of Jairus was
at the point of death (5 :2i), Matthew says that she was
already dead (9 :i8). Mark tells us that Jesus, just prior
to the feeding of the multitude near Bethsaida, taught
them many things (6:34) ; Matthew says nothing of his
teaching, but writes that Jesus healed the sick (14 :i4).
In view of the supernatural element in Matthew's
peculiar material we are doubtless justified in attributing
to him also these touches whereby the miraculous in the
triple1 tradition is made more impressive. The writer is
thus brought before us as one who laid stress on the
miraculous and who made no distinction between the
typical healing of the sick and such prodigies as finding a
coin in the mouth of a fish and walking on water.
But it is in the sphere of doctrine that the peculiar mat
ter of the first Gospel departs most widely from the com
mon teaching of all the synoptists. This departure is
obvious, first, in its doctrine of Christ, and second, in its
ecclesiology. We begin with Matthew's addition to the
older account of the baptism of Jesus (3:14-15). The
hesitation of John the Baptist when Jesus stood before
him is psychologically conceivable, though opinions may
differ as to whether it is probable, but the response of
Jesus to John's word is not so easily accepted. For it
represents his submission to the rite of baptism as having
only a temporary (apn) and superficial (TrpeVov) signifi
cance, whereas we are constrained by the profound expe
rience of God's favor, which Jesus had immediately after
his baptism, to believe that he came to the Jordan with a
great longing to dedicate himself to the kingdom of God
but with no thought that he himself was called to realize
that kingdom. Further, the difficulty of accepting Mt.
1This term is more convenient than accurate. It is the attestation of
tradition that is triple rather than the tradition itself.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 2.f
3 :i5 as words of Jesus is heightened by the circumstance
in vs. 17 that what in Mark is a message to the soul of
Jesus is here a testimony to the Baptist. The writer
apparently did not think that Jesus needed a divine affir
mation of his sonship to God. But when we find that the
writer of Mt. 3 :i7 departs from the older conception of
the heavenly message which we have in Mk. 1:11, and
that his new conception has the same obvious aim as the
incident in vs. 14-15, which he alone gives, we cannot
avoid the conclusion that the later view of the person of
Jesus, which is fully developed in John, has found its way
into Matthew's story of the baptism.1
We pass to the interpretation of the parable of the
Tares (13:37-43)- There are reasons which appear
weighty why we should regard this as an early Christian
interpretation. Thus, in the first place, it attaches a
symbolic meaning to the details of the parable — a fact
which, since it makes the teaching of the passage vague,
we can hardly ascribe to Jesus himself. Again, this
interpretation declares that the field is the world, but Jesus
limited his activity to the house of Israel. Even later than
the time when this passage was spoken he was only con
strained to help the Syro-Phoenician woman by her extra
ordinary faith (Mk. 7:26-29). Jesus doubtless antici
pated that his ministry would bless other peoples than the
Jews, and toward the close of his life this thought found
plainer expression; but it is quite clear that he regarded
Israel as the field of his own labors. So obvious was this
devotion of Jesus that his apostles continued in the same
field, and it was only after a special discipline that Peter
ventured to preach the Gospel to the Gentile Cornelius
(Acts 10). It was in large degree the work of Paul that
brought home to the consciousness of the Church that the
field is the world. Once more, it is unfavorable to the
originality of this Matthaean interpretation that it speaks
of the angels and the kingdom as belonging to the Son of
Man (vs. 41). The angels are never thus described in
1 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 4, 7, calls attention to^ the fact that
this addition contains three characteristic Matthaean words — aprt, SiKaLoavtn],
and TrAijpdw,

28 THE SOURCES
Mark or Luke, nor, with the partial exception of Lk.
22 :29, does either of these Gospels ever speak of a king
dom of the Son of Man. In them the angels are always
angels of God, when any ownership is expressed,1 and the
kingdom in the full sense of the term is always the pos
session of God. The usage then of the first Gospel2 in
this point is in harmony with its story of the baptism of
Jesus, but is not supported by Mark and Luke. Finally,
it is not favorable to the originality of Matthew's inter
pretation of the Tares that it uses symbols of judgment
which Mark and Luke never use. Such are the "furnace
of fire" and "the weeping and the gnashing of teeth."
This latter expression is found six times3 in Matthew,
never in Mark and but once in Luke (13:28), where,
however, it has a meaning quite different from that which
it uniformly has in Matthew. But this symbolism of suf
fering and judgment which is not found in the oldest Gos
pel nor in Luke's version of the Logia is akin to that of
the apocalyptic writings and the Psalms rather than to the
language of Jesus.4 Thus there seems to be good reason
for the conclusion that the interpretation of the parable of
the Tares is not from Jesus.
The next significant passage in the peculiar material of
Matthew is 16:18-19: "And I also say unto thee, that
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ;
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven." Now as we have seen, Matthew's
narrative rests on Mark as one of its chief sources, and
tradition makes Peter a chief source of Mark. But if
Peter was a chief source of Mark, it would be most
strange if he had not communicated to him this surpass
ingly important word of Jesus. Yet had Mark known
this word, we cannot easily believe that he would have
omitted it from his narrative of the great event at Caes-
1 Lk. 1:11; 2:9; 12:8; 15:10.
"16:27, 28; 20:21; 24:31.
8 8:12: 13:42-50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30.
4 See Dan. 3:6; Similitudes of Enoch 54:6; Psalms 112:10.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 29
area Philippi, especially as it put high honor on a man
to whom he was deeply indebted.
Again, in this word to Peter there is a play on the
name of the apostle : "Thou art Petros and upon this
petra I will build my Church." But the language of
Jesus was Aramaic, and the Aramaic does not allow this
play on the name. It is peculiar to the Greek. Then
there is the strange fact that Jesus is here represented as
using the word "Church." No reason is apparent why
he should not have used the word "kingdom," which he
had employed from, the beginning of his ministry and
which he continued to employ after this day at Caesarea
Philippi. Why a new term just here, and one never
used in either of the other Gospels ? Let it be noted also
that though Matthew uses the word "Church" on one
other occasion (18:17), ne uses it there in a different
sense, and that the two senses — that of a local body and
that of the Church universal — are what we find in Paul.
Moreover it does not accord with the well established
usage of Jesus that he should have said "/ will build" and
"My" Church. He taught his disciples to pray to the
Father. "Thy kingdom come ;" and although he regarded
himself as the Messiah, the Gospel contains no explicit
and undoubted words of his in regard to a personal activ
ity on earth after his death. But at the time of the event
at Caesarea Philippi Jesus clearly regarded his death as
imminent (16:21), and therefore the building of the
Church here contemplated implies a posthumous activity
on his part. Then too the relative position assured to
Peter in vs. 19 plainly conflicts with the unquestioned
words and practice of Jesus and also with apostolic his
tory. It is impossible to see how one who declared that
rank among his disciples must depend on service rend
ered,1 and who, at a later day, said it was not in his power
to grant the request of James and John that they might
have the first places in his kingdom,2 one who, after the
day at Caesarea Philippi, never intimated to Peter that
•See Mk. 9:35; Mt. 20:27; Lk. 22:26.
8 See Mk. 10:40; Mt. 20:23.

30 THE SOURCES
he was to have a higher authority than the other apostles,
can have spoken the words of Mt. 16 :i8-i9.
And these words in Matthew are not only in conflict
with the teaching and practice of Jesus but in conflict
also with apostolic history. For though Peter was con
spicuous in the Church at Jerusalem,1 neither the letters
of Paul nor the book of Acts distinguishes him officially
from the other apostles.
We conclude then that this particular item in Matthew's
peculiar matter acquaints us not with words and thoughts
of Jesus, but rather with the early Catholic movement.
Another important passage that is peculiar to Matthew
is the dramatic account of the Judgment (25:31-46).
There are three serious objections to the genuineness of
this passage as it stands. First, it conflicts with what the
Gospels elsewhere represent as the habitual attitude of
Jesus toward the subject of future awards. That attitude
is one of great reserve. The Logia has significant allu
sions to judgment, but they are brief and incidental.2 The
earliest Gospel has fewer allusions to the subject than has
the Logia, and these are of the same general character.3
But here in Matthew we have a formal and complete
judgment scene. Second, the terminology of this pas
sage in Matthew departs widely from the usage of Jesus
as elsewhere shown in the Gospels. Thus a "throne of
glory" is found in the Gospels only here and in Mt. 19 :28
— a passage not supported by the other narratives; and
nowhere else is Jesus represented as calling himself
"king." The cognate phrase of 13:41 and 16:28 is' not
supported by the Logia, by Mark or Luke. Then certain
terms are used here of the wicked which are limited either
to this passage or to this gospel. Here only is the word
"cursed" (Karqpap,evoi.) ascribed to Jesus when he speaks
of the wicked, and here only occurs the expression
"eternal punishment" (vs. 46). Nowhere else except in
18:8 (Mk. 9:43) do the Gospels use the term "eternal
fire," and there the earlier Gospel has "unquenchable."
1 See Gal. 1:18; 2:9; I Cor. 1:12; 3:22; Acts 1:15; 2:14, etc.
2 See, e.g., Lk. 13:26, 28; 12:5, 9, 46; Mt. 10:32-33.
3Mk. 8:38; 10:30; 13:26-27.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 3 1
Finally, under this head, this passage is the only one in
the Gospels where bad men are assigned to the same fate
with the Devil and his angels. Third, it is unfavorable
to the genuineness of this passage that its basis of judg
ment is not in. accord with other teaching of Jesus. The
righteous are accepted because they have ministered to
the bodily needs of the King's "brethren," and those on
the left hand are rejected because they have not min
istered to the bodily needs of the King's brethren. The
righteous do not recognize that in serving the hungry and
the thirsty, they are serving the King. Their motive
seems not to be taken into account at all. The King
regards what they have done for his brethren as done for
him, and thereon pronounces them blessed. Now this
teaching departs in two points from the common thought
of Jesus. In the first place, the personal relation to Jesus
is not mentioned nor necessarily implied, yet this relation
is represented as fundamental in various unquestioned
passages.1 And second, in this judgment scene of Mat
thew, the ministry which wins the Father's Kingdom is
ministry to the King's "brethren," but both the example
and precept of Jesus enjoin the duty of service toward all
who need service, and not simply toward the righteous.2
We pass now to Mt. 18 :20, with which the related pas
sage 28 :20b is to be coupled. The assertion of Jesus in
18 :20 that he would be with two or three disciples gath
ered in his name and the kindred assertion of the risen
Lord to the eleven apostles that he would be with them
always, even unto the consummation of the age, are not
only peculiar to Matthew, but like the entire series of
passages which have just been considered they are alien
to the common tradition of the Lord's teaching. The
Logia has no intimation of this thought. On the con
trary, in the word of encouragement to his disciples in
view of future need, which Matthew took from the Logia
(10:20), Jesus says: "It is not ye who speak but the
Spirit of your Father speaketh in you." He turns their
*See Mk. 8:38; Mt. 10:32-33; 16:24-26; 7:24; 8:3-13; 10:39; Mk. 9=37,
with their Lucan parallels.
2 See, e.g., Mk. 10:45; Lk. 10:25-37; 15.

32 THE SOURCES
thought not to his own presence with them but to the
presence of the Father. As in the Logia, so in the later
Gospel narrative, the thought of a future presence of
Jesus with his disciples is excluded. The triple tradition
speaks of his "rising,"1 but not of his continuing on earth.
Such continuance would conflict with the frequently
expressed idea of a coming of the Son of Man.2 When
Jesus took leave of his disciples on the evening before his
crucifixion, he alluded to a reunion in the Kingdom of
God — a fact which is obviously at variance with the idea
of Mt. 1 8 :20.
Finally, peculiar to Matthew and at the same time
foreign to the common synoptic teaching is the passage
28:i8-2oa. The assurance of the oldest Gospel (16:7)
was that in Galilee the disciples should "see" the risen
one ; there was no promise or suggestion of new teaching.
Paul speaks of appearances of the risen Lord, but does
not intimate that he gave further teaching to his disciples.
Thus the very circumstance that, according to Mt. 28:
i8-2oa, a weighty teaching was communicated to the
disciples by the risen Master is suspicious. It is not
supported by Mark or Paul, who give us our earliest
material bearing on the resurrection. But this teaching
itself is the insuperable obstacle in the way of accepting
the genuineness of the passage. When examined in the
light of the ministry of Jesus in word and deed, this
alleged post-resurrection utterance is found wanting.
It is unlike the synoptic Jesus, in tlie first place, to
declare that all authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to him. The only seeming parallel is in Mt. 1 1 :27,
but when examined closely that is found to be far from
parallel to the passage before us. For the "all things"
of which that passage speaks are obviously the knowl
edge of the Father which Jesus possessed — a statement
quite different from a claim to all authority in heaven and
on earth. But were one to assume that this high author
ity had been conferred on Jesus after his resurrection,
then one would make an assumption which nothing in the
1 See Mk. 8:31; 9:31; 10:34 with parallels.
2 E.g., Mk. 8:38; 13:26; 14:62.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 33
words of Jesus remotely suggests. But this claim to all
authority does not stand here by itself: it is part of the
writer's conception of Christ and is supplemented by the
following verse. For doubtless by placing the Son be
tween the Father and the Holy Spirit the writer wished
to be understood as claiming for him essential divinity.
This claim brings the passage into line with the Chris-
tology of Paul's later epistles and of the fourth Gospel.
How far removed it is from the teaching of Jesus himself
may be indicated with sufficient clearness and complete
ness by a survey of what he claims for himself according
to the Logia. We have the most comprehensive state
ment of his claims in Mt. 1 1 =27. According to this state
ment, Jesus and he alone has a complete knowledge of
the Father, and he can impart this to other receptive
souls. One conscious of possessing this knowledge and
power could say, as Jesus did, that the man who heard
and did his words was like one who builds on the rock
(Mt. 7:24) ; he could reasonably look for faith in his
word and rejoice when he found it (Mt. 8:10) ; he could
say that confession or denial of him was of transcendent
importance (Mk. 8 :38 ; Mt. 10:32) ; he could say that the
members of his kingdom were greater than John the
Baptist, though John was equal to any of the former
prophets (Mt. 11:11); he could declare that he had
come to fulfil the Old Testament (Mt. 5:17), and also
that something greater than Jonah and greater than Sol
omon had been manifested in his appearance and work
(Mt. 12:41-42) ; and because all this was true, he could
pronounce his disciples more blessed than the kings and
prophets of old (Mt. 13:16-17). Yea more, one con
scious of possessing this knowledge of the Father and of
an appointment to transmit it to others might naturally
believe that the "day of Jehovah" known to the Old Testa
ment would at last appear as the "day of the Son of
Man" (Lk. 17:23, 24, 27).
Thus, according to the Logia, Jesus, though in the line
of the prophets, was far above them. He had a unique
mission as revealer of God and builder of his kingdom.
But the Logia document does not -enter at all into the
3

34 THE SOURCES
sphere of thought of Mt. 28:19. It involves the con
sciousness of a unique knowledge of God, but contains
no suggestion regarding transcendental relationships.
Again, it does not accord with the synoptic representa
tion of Jesus that he is here in Mt. 28:18 made to ground
the commission of his disciples upon his authority. It
was not his way to seek results by the assertion of per
sonal claims. He believed himself to be the Messiah, but
never either in his public relations or in relation to his
own chosen apostles did he put this claim forward as a
reason why men should hear and do his word. His way
was to reveal and enforce the truth, and trust to its own
divine power to bring men into fellowship with him. It
is therefore distinctly unlike Jesus to make his authority,
whether on earth or in heaven, the reason why his dis
ciples should go out and disciple all the nations. His
principle is expressed rather in the word, "Freely ye
received, freely give" (Mt. 10:8). It is the nature of his
disciples, since they are the "leaven" of the kingdom
(Mt. 13:33), to work for its extension. As children of
God they must live in his spirit, showing mercy and doing
good as did the Son of Man who came to minister
(Mk. 10:45).
Once more, had Jesus given his eleven apostles an
explioit command to go forth to all the nations, it would
be difficult indeed to explain why they clung to Jerusalem
and to the ministry to their own people, difficult to ex
plain why even Peter must be instructed by a vision before
he would take the Gospel into a Gentile home. A clear
and positive word from their Lord would have overcome
their scruples. It would surely have been as potent with
Peter as was a dream which he had difficulty in under
standing (Acts 10:17).
Finally, it is quite foreign to the synoptic representation
of Jesus to suppose that he instituted baptism after he
was risen from the dead. There is not in the synoptists
a single allusion to baptism as associated with entrance
into the circle of Christ's followers. Not only so, but
there is explicit teaching to the effect that men become
members of the Kingdom of God on the fulfilment of cer-

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 35
tain spiritual conditions.1 It is impossible to believe that
Jesus said nothing to his disciples about baptism while
with them in the flesh, and then, after the resurrection,
while with them in such a manner that some even doubted
his presence (Mt. 28 :i7), instructed them to baptize their
converts. The synoptic record of the earthly ministry of
Jesus is unanimously and absolutely opposed to the gen
uineness of this alleged post-resurrection teaching on bap
tism. And we could scarcely say less if we should look
at apostolic practice. For that practice, as described in
Acts and Paul's epistles was to baptize into the name of
Jesus only,2 but if the eleven apostles had been positively
commanded by the risen Lord to baptize into the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the
custom of the early Church would be unintelligible.3
Thus every clause of this passage in Mt. 28:i8-2oa has
against it the unbroken evidence of the Logia and the
common tradition of the synoptic Gospels. It is intel
ligible as an expression of Christian belief in the latter
part of the first century, and as such it must be regarded.
This survey of Matthew's peculiar material reveals in
it an element4 which, especially in regard to the super
natural in the life of Jesus, in regard also to his person
and the doctrine of the Church, is widely different from
the earliest sources. The recognition of this fact is of
fundamental importance for the historical understanding
qf our subject.
10. Historical Value of the Various Strata of Matthevfs
Gospel.
Literary analysis of the synoptic material discloses the
fact that our first Gospel consists of three main deposits
— the Logia, the narrative of Mark, and the heterogeneous
matter which is peculiar to this Gospel.
1See, e.g., Mk. 8:34; 3=35; 10:15.
2 See Acts 2:38; 16:2; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12.
8 The practice of baptism in the early Church may have been due to the
fact that it was practiced in the Messianic movement under John and that
Jesus himself submitted to it.
4 Matthew's peculiar material is not all on the same level. Some parts
of it, e.g., sections of the Sermon on the Mount, are of the highest intrinsic
credibility. Thus the writer seems to have drawn from some good source
besides the Logia.

36 THE SOURCES
The Aramaic Logia document was very probably com
piled by the apostle Matthew, but of its rendering into
Greek we have no knowledge. That the author of the
first Gospel handled this Logia-rmterial with a consider
able degree of freedom has already been shown. Its
essential character, however, was not altered by him, as
appears from a comparative study of his version of ihe
Logia with that of Luke. The historical worth of the
Logia is attested by a variety of facts. The document
contains, implicitly, a simple and self-consistent portrait of
Jesus ; it is without theological or speculative elements ; it
is in accord with the general facts of the triple tradition
of Jesus' life; and by its incorporation in both of the
Synoptic Gospels which aim to give a picture of Jesus
not only as a teacher but also as a doer of deeds, it bears
in a marked degree the imprimatur of the early Church.
Its value therefore as a source of knowledge regarding
the historical Jesus is supreme.
The second stratum of Matthew's Gospel is that ele
ment which it took from Mark. But Mark, as Papias
says, was not himself a follower of the Lord, and though
he may have had Peter as a chief source of his informa
tion, his narrative as a whole has not quite the same claim
to authority that may be advanced for the Logia.
Whether the Logia as a written document was earlier than
Mark's Gospel or not, the traditional collector of the Logia
stood nearer to Jesus. Yet Mark's narrative of the life
of Jesus in distinction from his word is our primary docu
ment, and as far as the second stratum in Matthew's
Gospel is in essential agreement with its Marcan source, it
obviously has the weight of that source. Of the third
element in Matthew's Gospel — the matter which is pecu
liar to this document — the historical value is clearly not
uniform, nor the source one and the same. The small
percentage of new incidents, as has already been indi
cated, has a color given by its supernatural element which
differentiates it from the common synoptic type and marks
it as of secondary worth. But the greater part of the
words attributed to Jesus in this part of Matthew's Gos
pel are in essential agreement with the Logia, and indeed

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 37
may have been derived, at least in part, from 'that source.1
In strong contrast with this element is that which was
considered in the last section — those passages in Mat
thew's peculiar material that concern the person of Christ
and those that concern the Church. In spirit and doc
trine these stand at the farthest remove from the Logia
and from the common synoptic tradition. They are thus
shown to belong to the early Christian interpretation and
application of the Gospel. Thus what we have called the
third element of Matthew, when regarded from the point
of view of its origin, splits into two parts, one of which is
early, the other late. The second may be assigned to the
evangelist himself.
ii. Luke's Use of Mark as a Source.
Luke incorporates in his narrative about seventy-six
per cent of the Gospel of Mark. There are thirteen pas
sages, aggregating 140 verses, which he omits.2 A prob
able reason can be assigned for the omission of some of
these passages. Thus Luke may have omitted Mark's
call of the four disciples near Capernaum (1:16-20)
because he wished to use another story in his possession
which was to some extent parallel (5:1-9), and he may
have passed over the charge that Jesus was beside himself
(3:20-21) because he was to make use of the accusation
that he cast out demons by Beelzebub (11 :i5). A sim
ilar reason may be given in some other instances.3 It is
not improbable that Luke omitted the story of feeding
4000 (Mk. 8:1-10) because he regarded it as another
version of the feeding of the multitudes near Bethsaida
(6:31-34). Then, again, some of the passages of Mark
which Luke omits may well have seemed to him unsuit
able for his Gentile readers because of their strong Jewish
Sharacter, for example, the section in regard to ceremonial
purity (7:1-23). It is possible that he omitted the story
of the selfish wish of James and John (10:35-40) because
it reflected unpleasantly on men who, when he wrote, were
1 Thus, e.g., Holtzmann treats the entire Sermon on the Mount as from Q.
2 1:16-20; 3:20-21; 4:26-29; 6:19-29; 6:45-8:26; 9:9-13; 9:42-10:12; 10:35-
40; 11:12-14, 20-26; 12:28-34; 13:33-37; 14:23-28; 15:1, 16-20.
8 E.g., Mk. 8:1-10, 22-26; 13:33-37; 15:16-20.

38 THE SOURCES
held in high esteem throughout the Church. Thus there
seems to be no difficulty in supposing that Luke, though
he does not give certain sections of Mark's narrative, had
the entire Gospel before him.
As regards the Marcan order of narrating the events in
the life of Jesus, it was adopted by Luke even more
largely than was Mark's material. There are only ten
points at which he departs from the order of the earlier
Gospel, and two of these are not incidents but parables.1
Thus, as regards the general framework of the life of
Jesus, Mark's narrative had a determinative influence on
Luke. This writer was obviously not satisfied with
Mark's Gospel as a whole, but it is equally plain that he
had no radical criticism to make on Mark's order.
But although Luke's use of Mark as a source was thus
comprehensive in respect both to the matter and the order,
his formal reproduction of the Marcan material was char
acterized by great freedom. As a Greek of cultivated
literary tastes he recast the somewhat rough un-Hellenic
speech of the narrative before him. He chose Greek
words for Mark's occasional Aramaic and Latin terms,2
and in place of Mark's simple verbs he frequently sets the
more suggestive compound ones.3 He transformed into
select speech the provincial, common or vulgar language
of his source. He also abbreviated or expanded, as he
saw fit. How he used his Marcan source in this respect
brief study of a single concrete case will indicate. For
this purpose we take the story of the Gerasene demoniac
(Mk. 5 :i-2o; Lk. 8:26-39), though almost any other pas
sage would serve as well. Mark says of Jesus and his
disciples that they "came" to the country of the Gerasenes,
Luke says they "sailed down" there; Mark that they
came to the "other side," Luke that they came to the
other side of the "lake," and adds that the region to
which they came was "over against Galilee." The de
moniac who met them as they disembarked was, accord-
1The Lucan references are 3:19-20; 4:16; 5:1-11; 6:12-16; 8:4-8, 19-21;
13:18-19; 18:15-1;;; 22:15-20, 31-34-
"For example, aAijfluis instead of inty, <J>dpos instead of icijwos, Mo \eitrd. instead
of KoSpavnqs. "See, e.g., 4:42; 8:6; 9:47; 18:22; 19:36; 20:10 with the Marcan parallels.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 39
ing to Mark, "in an unclean spirit" — 'whatever he may
have meant by this phrase; Luke says that he "had
demons." Mark represents the demoniac as saying to
Jesus "I adjure thee," but Luke, as though thinking this
term somewhat unsuited to such a creature in his ap
proach to Jesus, lets him say "I pray thee." When Mark
changes abruptly and without apparent reason from an
historical tense to the present, Luke consistently uses the
historical tense.1 The demon says, according to Mark,
"My name is legion, for we are many;" but Luke, to
avoid this obscure passing from the singular to the
plural, lets the man's answer be simply "Legion," and
then adds in way of explanation, "for many demons had
entered into him." And finally, where Mark relates that
the demoniac besought Jesus that he would not send them
out of the country, Luke lets the request come from the
demons themselves, and then, in place of the Jewish con
ception that the demons might not like to leave that
particular region — perhaps because it was wild and rocky
and largely inhabited by Gentiles, Luke substitutes the
classical conception of the "abyss."
These are not all the modifications that Luke makes in
the brief passage, but they are the chief, and sufficiently
illustrate the point that he freely expanded or abbreviated
his source.
One important fact remains to be noted in Luke's rela
tion to Mark as a source, namely, that his freedom in
modifying the words of Jesus in his Marcan source is
perceptibly more limited than his freedom in handling
the narrative sections. Speaking only in approximate
terms and with the distinct admission that it is difficult to
state this literary difference arithmetically, we may say
that where Luke departs once from Mark's version of
words of Jesus, he departs twice from Mark's narrative.
We speak now of departures which affect the sense, for
in regard to literary form alone Luke rarely leaves Mark's
version of words of Jesus wholly unchanged. The
greater freedom with which he handles the narrative parts
1 See, e.g., Mk. 5:9; 8:3. Hawkins, in work cited, pp. 144-149, gives a
list of 151 historical presents in Mk., 78 in Mt. and 4 (or 6) in Lk.

40 THE SOURCES
of his source is an indication that he did not feel for these
quite the same reverence that he felt for Mark's version
of the Master's sayings.
is. Luke's Use of the Logia as a Source.
The first point that invites attention in a survey of
Luke's use of the Logia is the manner in which he intro
duces various words of Jesus. There are not less than
ten instances in which he either gives an historical intro
duction to a saying of Jesus or sets it in a connection
which is preferable to that in which Matthew puts it.
Some of these cases are of great interest and importance,
and in most of them at least it seems quite certain that
Luke did not furnish the introduction out of his own
sense of the fitness of things as Thucydides composed the
speeches which he put on the lips of various characters
in his great history, but drew from' some historical source,
presumably from the Logia itself. When the author of
the first Gospel decided to group the sayings of Jesus
according to their content, he was obliged to ignore the
hints which his source gave in regard to the occasion of
each individual saying. Luke may not always have
found the sayings of the Logia associated with a definite
occasion, indeed it is improbable that such can have been
the case, and furthermore he may not in every instance
have followed the hints which his document contained,
for he appears always to have considered it his duty to
exercise his own judgment in dealing with his sources,
but the instances in which he furnishes the words of Jesus
with a fitting occasion are so many and the setting so suit
able that it would be unwarrantable to conclude that he
did not find these data in the Logia.
The significance of his attitude toward the Logia in
this respect can be indicated by a glance at the passages
in question. He teaches that the Lord's Prayer was given
in response to a request of some disciples who were
familiar with the Baptist's example, and not on the
initiative of Jesus (Mt. 6:9; Lk." 11 :i). The saying
about a narrow gate and a wide one was occasioned,
according to Luke (13:23), by the query of a certain

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 41
one, "Lord, are they few that are saved?" The solemn
word concerning those who in the judgment will say:
"We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst
teach in our streets," is put by Luke (13:26) much later
than the Sermon on the Mount where it is found in Mat
thew, as is also the saying, "The harvest is plenteous but
the laborers are few" (Lk. 10:2), which obviously does
not suit the day when the Twelve were first sent forth in
Galilee, for at that time one could hardly have said so
much as that there were even a "few" Christian laborers.
The word of Jesus that his disciples should put him higher
than father and mother, and that they should follow him,
each bearing his own cross, was spoken, according to
Luke (14:25), when a multitude were following him and
after the outcome of his career was clear to his thought,
and the word is more intelligible as spoken on this occa
sion than when regarded as a part of the message given
to the Twelve when they were sent out in Galilee. The
Great Confession, which in Matthew is out of connection
with the foregoing narrative (11 125), has in Luke (10:
21) a clear historical motive. Again, the parable of the
Great Supper which, according to Matthew (22:1-14),
was given by Jesus on his own initiative, has in Luke a
definite and most suitable setting (14:15-24). The say
ing about the Faithful Steward was occasioned, Luke tells
us (12 :4i), by a question of Peter, and the parable of the
Minas (19:11-27) is said to have been spoken as Jesus
and the Twelve were going up to Jerusalem with the
caravan for the last Passover, when there was an expec
tation that the kingdom of heaven was about to appear.
The inference that seems to be justified by the fore
going data is that we have greater fidelity to the Logia
in Luke than in Matthew.1 But this inference is con
firmed, it seems to me, by the analysis of the Lucan form
of separate sayings of Jesus as compared with the form
in Matthew. There are many sayings in regard to which
1 Hawkins, p. 112, regards the question whether Matthew or Luke was
the more faithful to the Logia as unsolved and probably insoluble." Sol-
tau, Unsere Evangelien ihre Quellen und ihr Quellen werth, 1901, holds
that Luke had a different collection of Logia from Matthew, perhaps a
Jewish-Christian edition.

42 THE SOURCES
no attempt will here be made to decide between the
Matthaean and the Lucan version.1 There is at least one
— there are more in the judgment of some writers — of
which Luke's version appears less satisfactory than Mat
thew's. This is 11:13 (Mt. 7:11). In Matthew the
passage on Prayer closes with the words, "How much
more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things
to those who ask him?" but the Lucan conclusion is,
"How ¦ much more shall your heavenly Father give a
holy spirit (ttvcv/w. ayiov) to those who ask him?" Now
as Jesus, according to both writers, is not contrasting
gifts but givers, Luke's introduction of "holy spirit"
where Matthew has "good things" may not improbably
show the influence of a time when the doctrine of the
Spirit had come to have a much larger place in Christian
thought than it had in the synoptic words of Jesus.
But over against this single passage there is a con
siderable number of others in which Luke's version is
favored by the internal evidence and by its congruity with
the general character of the synoptic teaching of Jesus.
These must now be briefly considered.
Of the Lucan form of the Lord's Prayer we have
spoken in a previous paragraph. Luke's version of the
story about a centurion at Capernaum whose servant
Jesus healed (7:1-10) takes precedence of that in Mat
thew (8:5-13). For, in the first place, it is intrinsically
probable that a Gentile who wished to secure a favor from
the Jewish teacher and healer would have sent Jewish
friends to present his request, as Luke says was the case.
The centurion must have known how averse the Jews
were to any association with Gentiles, and Jesus had not
as yet been known to have any dealing whatever with
foreigners. Again, the passage in Matthew, since its
chief aim is to warn Jews, is not especially suited to the
preceding context, while its parallel in Luke stands in
another connection with which it fully accords. In both
these points then the Lucan form of the incident com
mends itself.
"For example, Mt. 6:27=Lk. I2:25; Mt. n:i2=Lk. 16:16; Mt 10:15 =
Lk. 10:12; Mt. io:28=Lk. 12:4; Mt 8:2i=Lk. 9:59. s

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 43
Passing by the saying about the "sign of Jonah," the
double version of which has already been discussed in
another connection, we come to Luke 10:23-24. The
hour in which this word was spoken was that when the
disciples returned with the joyous message regarding
their power over demons (10:17) and when Jesus
thanked the Father for what he had revealed to the dis
ciples. Jesus then said to his followers, "Blessed are the
eyes which see the things that ye see : for I say unto you,
that many prophets and kings desired to see the things
which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things
which ye hear, and heard them not." This saying suits
the context. The disciples are congratulated by the
Master on their opportunities, which prophets and kings
had desired in vain. But Matthew forces the saying into
an entirely different context. Jesus had just told his
disciples why he spoke to the multitudes in parables
(13:10), and then he congratulated them that they in
contrast to the multitude had seeing eyes and hearing
ears. This word was followed by the thought of the
present opportunity, the same thought as in Luke. Thus
the version of Matthew embodies ideas that are not ac
cordant. The disciples are contrasted with prophets and
righteous men of the past, yet these did not lack seeing
eyes and hearing ears : what they lacked was a vision of
God's fulfilment of his promise. Thus the thought of
Luke 10 :23-24 has suffered change in Matthew to suit it
to a different occasion.
The introduction to the saying of Lk. 14:26 has already
been noticed. This saying in itself appears worthy to be
called the original rather than that of Matthew's parallel
(10:37). Luke says, "If any one cometh unto me and
hateth not his father and mother" etc., but Matthew gives
what may be regarded as an interpretation of this hard
word, for he says, "He that loveth father or mother more
than me is not worthy of me." Had this been the form
of the saying in the Logia it is hardly probable that any
one would have changed it into the Lucan expression, but
this Lucan expression, on the contrary, might easily have
taken the softened form of Matthew.

44 THE SOURCES
When speaking of Matthew's freedom in handling the
Logia the parable of the Great Supper or King's Wed
ding Feast was considered, and perhaps it is not needful
to say more of that passage, though the secondary char
acter of Matthew might be more strongly stated. We
will pass on to the parable of the Minas (Lk. 19:11-27)
and its parallel in Matthew (25:14-30). The general
purpose of the two narratives is identical and the method
in both is the same. The kingdom is not to appear at
once, and in the meantime the disciples are given service
in the interest of their absent Lord. It is a time of test
ing, and will be followed by awards suited to each one's
faithfulness to his trust. Thus the two passages are
apparently variants of one original, and only by their
analysis can it be determined which may claim to be
nearer to the Logia. Here as in preceding cases the his
torical introduction is not without significance. The fact
that Luke gives an intelligible setting of the parable
favors his version of it. But there are also other points
which speak for the greater originality of his form of the
parable. There is first its greater simplicity and clear
ness. The servant who gains ten minas is appointed over
ten cities and he who gains five is set over five cities. The
award is proportionate to the achievement; and it is also
intelligible. In Matthew, on the other hand, the man
who handles five talents receives the same award as the
one who handles but two, and a part of their common
award is indefinite and unsuitable from the parable's
business point of view. That is the invitation, "Enter
into the joy of thy Lord." But this is vague. Does it
mean that the faithful servant is summoned to a perman
ent place in the household of his lord and to a share in
all his personal comforts ? Would that, however, be sup
ported by any known facts out of the business life of
Palestine in the time of Jesus ? Probably we are to see
here a reflection of the Christian hope that the faithful
disciple will share in the heavenly glory of Christ. If so,
then this passage as compared with the simpler concep
tion in Luke must be regarded as later and secondary.
A reference to the Christian's future reward may easily

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 45
be understood as an interpretative modification of the
original parable, but it obviously cannot be regarded as
germane to the story itself, which is taken from the busi
ness world.
Again, the treatment of the unprofitable servant in the
Lucan version is more congruous with the general tenor
of the parable than is his treatment in the version of
Matthew. For in Luke his judgment consists simply in
the withdrawal of the unused mina, while in Matthew he
not only loses the money entrusted to him but is "cast out
into the outer darkness" where there is "the weeping
and the gnashing of teeth." Manifestly this symbolism
does not suit the sphere of business relations to which the
parable belongs. It is the symbolism which in the first
Gospel is always associated with the final judgment of
men.1 But this blending of two distinct spheres of
thought in one parable must be regarded as secondary in
comparison with the simple conclusion in Luke.
The data which have now been considered seem to con
firm the inference drawn from Luke's introductions to
various sayings of Jesus, namely, that he has preserved
the Logia in a purer form than that of Matthew.
13. Luke's Peculiar Material.
Of the 1 149 verses in the Gospel according to Luke
about 398, or a little more than one-third, are his own.
A little more than a quarter of this peculiar material
(113 vs.) concerns events that were prior to the public
ministry of Jesus — namely, the birth and preaching of
John the Baptist, the birth and childhood of Jesus; and a
little less than one quarter of it (97 vs.) consists of
parables. Luke has eight2 parables in common with Mark
and Matthew or with Matthew alone, aggregating 62
verses, and has thirteen3 as his own peculiar property.
On the other hand, he has fourteen miraculous incidents
1 See Mt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51.
2 The Sower, The Mustard Seed, The Vineyard, The Leaven, The Lost
Sheep, The Great Supper, The Servants, and The Minas.
8 The Merciful Samaritan, The Importunate Friend, The Rich Fool,
The Fig Tree, The Tower-Builder, The King, The Lost Coin, The Lost Son,
The Steward, The Rich Man and Lazarus, The Judge, The Pharisee and
Publican, and The Unprofitable Servants.

46 THE SOURCES
in common with both Mark and Matthew, one in com
mon with Mark alone, but only six1 such incidents pecu
liar to his own narrative. And these miraculous inci
dents, with one exception which is confined to a single
verse (22:51), do not depart in character from the com
mon synoptic type. Thus it appears that Luke's peculiar
matter, as far as the public career of Jesus is concerned,
consists predominantly of teaching.
With this general survey of the subject we will now
consider some details as indicating the author's interests
and tendencies.
He informs Theophilus (1:3) that he has traced the
course of all things accurately "from the first," and this
phrase taken in the light of the first two chapters of his
narrative may be referred to the origin and early life of
Jesus and of his forerunner. The Gospel of Mark which
he had as one of his chief sources had nothing to say on
these origins and possibly seemed to Luke defective on
that very ground. At any rate, the fact that he devotes
one-ninth of his entire narrative to the birth of John and
Jesus, with three events belonging to the infancy and
childhood of the latter, is evidence that he counted these
things important for Theophilus.
When we come to the ministry of Jesus and survey
Luke's peculiar material, we find that it presents incident
after incident and saying after saying which set forth
from varying points of view the broad and tender sym
pathy of Jesus. The author seems to have been fasci
nated by his hero's noble humanity. Thus he preserves
a parable that sets the tax-gatherer above the proud
Pharisee (18:9-14) and records how Jesus lodged with
a chief publican (19:1-10). On his pages the despised
Samaritan is exalted. He appears to narrate the story
of the cure of ten lepers for the sake of the fact that the
only one of the ten who returned to give thanks to Jesus
was a Samaritan (11:11-19). He records that -Jesus
rebuked his disciples because they were disposed to de
stroy the Samaritan village which refused entertainment
1 Simon's Catch of Fish, The Widow of Nain, The Deformed Woman,
Case of Dropsy, Ten Lepers, The Servant's Ear.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 47
to their Master (9:51-56), and he preserves the great
parable in which a Samaritan is held up as an example
of true neighborliness (10:29-37).
A unique place in his narrative is held by women, an
other class in the society of that day and land who were
not given the honor they deserved. It is Luke who tells
us that certain women ministered of their substance to
Jesus and the Twelve (8:1-13), anCl who gives us the
priceless miniature of the scene in the home of Mary and
Martha (10:38-42) ; Luke who records the enthusiastic
salutation of a woman who had been deeply impressed
by the words of Jesus (11 :27-28), and Luke who rescued
from oblivion two parables whose chief actor is a woman
(15:8-10; 18:1-8) ; finally, it is Luke who sheds a ray of
light on the procession to Golgotha by the word about
those women who followed Jesus with lamentation (23:
27-29). Other details in Luke's peculiar material which
may be regarded as touches helping to perfect his por
trayal of the humane and sympathetic character of Jesus
are the statement that he wept over Jerusalem (19:41)
and that a mere look from him melted Peter's obdurate
heart (22:61).
We cannot doubt that Luke, who was little interested
in the miraculous element in the stories of Jesus, was pro
foundly moved by what he learned of the depth and
universality of the Master's sympathy. Indeed, it ap
pears as though in at least two of his stories of miraculous
help Luke was impressed not by the miraculous incident
as such but by the revelation of the sympathetic nature
of Jesus which it afforded. Thus, in his portrayal of
what occurred near the town of Nain (7:11-17) he tells
us that the woman whose son was being carried to burial
was a widow and that it was her only son who lay upon
the bier. When the son sat up and began to speak,
Luke says that Jesus "gave him to his mother." Appar
ently the crown of the story for him was that it revealed
the heart of Jesus. So in the story of the deformed
woman (13:10-17) Jesus seems to have been moved not
by any request but by clear pity for one who had long
been "bound by Satan."

48 THE SOURCES
We have to assume that Luke in gathering and testing
the material which is peculiar to his narrative proceeded
with the same care and the same freedom which we see
illustrated in his use of Mark's Gospel and the Logia.
That this material has not all the like claim to acceptance
is obvious from a comparison of it with the Logia and
with the common or triple tradition. Every part of it
must be weighed in this manner in order to determine
its intrinsic value. For the present, where we are con
sidering in a general manner Luke's peculiar material, it
is needful only to illustrate the statement that its claim
to acceptance is not uniform, or, in other words, that his
sources were not all of equal historical worth.
Take for instance the story of the boy Jesus in the
temple at twelve years of age (2:40-52) and the story of
Zacchaeus the chief publican of Jericho (19:1-10). In
the latter there is not even a detail which is at variance
with the teaching of the common tradition in regard to
Jesus' relation toward publicans or their relation to him.
And the words that Jesus speaks are in harmony with
the Logia. Thus the story stands the documentary test of
historicity. Quite different is it with the story- of the boy
Jesus in the temple. It is neither intrinsically probable
nor is it congruous with the fundamental documents. It
is not intrinsically probable. The boy who was already full
of wisdom and on whom the grace of God rested (2 40),
the boy who went back to Nazareth and was subject to
his parents, would hardly have been willing to cause them
two days of needless searching and anxiety. Further, it
is difficult to suppose that at one moment Jesus felt that
he must be in the things of his Father and the next left
them without a word and returned to Nazareth. But,
again, the story is not congruous with the fundamental
documents, and that in two points : First, the portrait of
Jesus as contained both in the Logia and the common
tradition of the synoptists is against the view that he had
ever associated the "things of the Father" in a pre
eminent degree with hearing the doctors and asking them
questions ; and second, the synoptic tradition, which dates
from the baptism of Jesus his sense of standing in a

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 49
unique relation to the Father, is against this word of
Luke which attributes even to the boy of twelve years a
sense of unique relationship to God.
Or take as a second illustration the two Lucan parables
of the Lost Son and the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-
31 ; 19:1-10). The teaching of the former is felt to be in
vital accord with the purpose of the whole life of Jesus.
In portraying the father's treatment of his lost child Jesus
portrayed his own feeling toward publicans and sinners,
which he believed to be in deepest harmony with God's
feeling toward them. But on the other hand, the parable
of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not congruous with the
thought of Jesus as contained in the common tradition and
the Logia. It departs from it notably in two points. First,
it subordinates character to outward condition as a factor
determining one's future state. Lazarus, because he
received "evil things" on earth, that is, because he was a
beggar and full of sores, came at last to "Abraham's
bosom." Not a word is said of his character. And in
the case of the rich man, nothing is said of his selfish
neglect of Lazarus. It seems to be a sufficient reason
why he reaps anguish beyond the grave that "in his life
time" he had received his "good things." But this is a
materialistic Jewish1 conception and not the ethical view
of Jesus, who in all his teaching laid stress on the
determinative character of the inner and spiritual as
against the outer and material.
Second, this parable seems to be out of accord with the
general habit of Jesus in his references to the future, for
it goes into much detail, while the manner of Jesus as
witnessed elsewhere was one of great reserve. Thus it
is here only that we find the figure of "Abraham's bosom,"
here only the word "torments," here only "anguish" and
the "flame," here only the conception of two compart
ments in Hades, here only the "great gulf" (xSo>a) that
cannot be passed, here only that the spirits of departed
men are represented as speaking, and here only that there
is reference to the witness of one who had risen from the
dead. 1 See Weber, Judische Theologie, p. 322.
4

50 THE SOURCES
But while, as these illustrations show, Luke's own
peculiar matter has not all the like claim to acceptance,
yet taken as a whole and judged in the light of the Logia
and of the common synoptic tradition, it must be given
a place among our most valuable sources of knowledge
on the life and teaching of Jesus.

CHAPTER II
THE FOURTH GOSPEL
14. Agreement of the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptists.
(a) In the Narrative. In the triple tradition of the
synoptists, beginning with the Baptist's activity and con
tinuing up to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, there
are approximately thirty-five events narrated. Of these
the Gospel of John has three, namely, the activity of a
forerunner by the name of John, the return of Jesus into
Galilee after his meeting with the Baptist, and the feeding
of five thousand people on the east side of the lake of
Galilee.1 To these should be added the descent of the
Dove upon Jesus (1 132), which constitutes a part of one
of the thirty-five events. In the double tradition of Mat
thew and Luke we may count seven2 incidents belonging
to this same period, and of these John has one, that is,
if we regard his story of a king's officer (4 :46-54) as a
variant form of the synoptic centurion of Capernaum.
In the double tradition of Mark and Matthew there are
eight3 incidents, of which John has one (6:16-21). The
double tradition of Mark and Luke contains three inci
dents,4 all wanting in John.
In the single tradition of the various synoptists we
count approximately fifteen6 incidents, of which not one
is found in John.
1 1:5, 26; 1:43; 6:5.
2 John's preaching to the multitude (Mt. 3:1-12), Sermon on the Mount
(Mt. 5-7), the Centurion at Capernaum (Mt. 8:5-13), Message from the
Baptist (Mt. 11:2-6), Demand for Signs (Mt. 12:38-42), Woes on Galilean
cities (Mt. 11:20-24), and the case of would-be Disciples (Mt. 8:19-22).
"The Call of Four (Mk. 1:16-20), Walking on the Lake (6:45-52), Return
to Gennesaret (6:53-56), Washing of Hands (7:1-23), Canaanitish Woman
(7:24-30), Journey through Tyre and Sidon (7:31-37), Feeding 4000
(8:1-10), and Departure from Galilee (10:1).
* Day in Capernaum (Mk. 1:21-28), Flight of Jesus (1:35-38), and
Unknown Worker (9:38-41).
5 Coin in Fish's Mouth (Mt.), Attempt by Family of Jesus (Mk.), Blind
Man of Bethsaida (Mk.), Simon's Catch (Lk.), Ten Lepers (Lk.), Deformed
Si

52 THE SOURCES
When, however, we pass to the last week of the life of
Jesus the case is different. Now, instead of having but
little of the synoptic narrative, John has the larger part
of it. Out of some twenty events common to the story
of all the synoptists John has thirteen. If we omit the
five controversies with the leaders,1 which might be
reckoned with the teaching sections rather than with the
strictly biographical material, then all but two of the
fifteen synoptic incidents of this period are found in John.
Thus it appears that of the entire synoptic narrative
from the work of the Baptist to the triumphal entry of
Jesus into Jerusalem John has less than eight per cent,
while of the narrative concerning the last week he has
about eighty-six per cent.
(b) In the Teaching of Jesus. Here we have to notice
first the agreement between John and the synoptists as
regards form. In the triple tradition of the synoptists
there are approximately 180 verses which consist, in
whole or in part, of words of Jesus. Of these the Gospel
of John has but three verses (13:21, 38; i8:37).2 The
Logia as preserved in Matthew and Luke contained about
200 verses, and of these John has one (13:16; 15:20).
Outside these two fundamental elements of the synoptic
Gospels there are a very few sayings or significant terms
which we meet again in John. Thus Jesus speaks here
to Philip (1:43), as to certain men in the synoptists
(e.g., Mk. 2:14), saying, "Follow me." Here, as in the
synoptists, he speaks of "seeing" and of "entering" the
kingdom of heaven (3:3, 5). Here, as in Mark and
Matthew, we have the proverbial saying about a prophet
in his own country (4 144), here the same words to a sick
man (5:8) which we have elsewhere, "Arise, take up thy
bed and walk" (e.g., Mk. 2:11). As in Mark and
Matthew, so in John we have the saying, "For the poor
Woman (Lk.), Dropsical Man (Lk.), Woman's Salutation (Lk.), Youth of
Nam (Lk.), Seventy Disciples (Lk.), Departure from Perea (?) (Lk.),
Samaritan Village (Lk.), Ministering Women (Lk.), Mary and Martha
(Lk.), Zacchaeus (Lk.).
1Mk. 11:27; 12:13; 12:18; 12:28; 12:35.
2 The synoptic word about "losing" life and "finding" it (Mk. 8:35) has
a substantial parallel in John, where "loving" and "hating" are substituted
for "losing" and "finding" (12:25).

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 53
ye have always with you, but me ye have not always"
(12:8). As in Matthew, so in John we have the word,
"He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me, and
he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (13 :2o).
John has much the same announcement of the traitor
(13:18) as have Matthew and Mark, and essentially the
same word about the scattering of the disciples at Jesus'
death (16:32).
Thus it appears that of the words of Jesus in the two
fundamental strata of the synoptists John has a little
more than one per cent, and of other sayings of Jesus he
has less than a dozen. Yet the Gospel of John, exclusive
of the last chapter, has about 404 verses which are
ascribed to Jesus, a percentage of the entire Gospel some
what larger than his words make in Luke's Gospel.
When therefore we have regard to the form of the teach
ing of Jesus — that is, the very words used — it is seen
that what John has in common with the first three or
with any one or two of them is very slight.
But, secondly, we have to enquire how far John agrees
with the synoptists as regards the content of the Master's
teaching. Here it is less easy to speak in exact terms,
for his teaching both according to the synoptists and John
is many-sided and profound, but nevertheless some ap
proximation to the truth may be reached. In John as in
the synoptists we have, then, in the first place, the father
hood of God, a universal fatherhood of love,1 and we
have the two claims of Jesus that he has a unique knowl
edge of the Father2 and that he is the Messiah (4:26).
Also in what Jesus says of his work there is a certain
agreement between John and the synoptists. Thus, it
is the prerogative of the Son, according to John (5:21;
10:10), to give life, and this — his supreme function —
may be regarded as closely akin to that which is claimed
in the synoptists, namely, that he can give a perfect
knowledge of the Father (Mt. 11:27). Further, as in
John Jesus is himself the bread of life (6:35), so in the
synoptists the bread which he gives to his disciples on the
1 E.g., 4:21, 23; 10:29; 3:16.
27:29; 10:15.

54 THE SOURCES
last evening in some way represents his body (e.g., Mk.
14:22). Again, in John as in the synoptists Jesus speaks
of his life as being in some respects an exemplar to his
disciples. He washes their feet, they ought to wash one
another's feet (13:14-15); he came to serve, they too
must serve (Mk. 10:44-45). In John, as in the synop
tists, Jesus protests against the profanation of the temple,1
and according to both sources he uttered some dark say
ing about the temple's overthrow.2 In John, as in the
synoptists, he accuses the Jews of transgressing the Law ;3
in both he lays stress on doing his word ;4 and in both he
warns his disciples that they will have to meet persecu
tion, as he has.5 Finally, in John, as in the synoptists,
Jesus speaks of a meeting with his disciples after the
impending separation by death.6
It is obvious at once that the agreement of John with
the synoptists as regards the content of the teaching of
Jesus is far more extensive than the agreement as to the
form and letter. In one case the agreement is almost a
negligible quantity, in the other it is broad and deep.
But so far we have touched only one side of the relation
ship of these writings to each other, and that not the
most striking or most important.
15. Departures of the Fourth Gospel from the Synoptists.
A clear and comprehensive survey of the departures of
the Fourth Gospel from the Synoptists is necessary to a
true judgment of this great work and of its author's aim.
In presenting this feature of the book we shall notice
briefly nine conspicuous points.
1. John the Baptist. According to the synoptists,
John was a mighty preacher of repentance, and announced
one greater than himself who was soon to appear in
Israel. He baptized Jesus, but later, when in prison, sent
to ask whether he was "the coming one" (Mt. 11:3).
Jesus, while recognizing John as his forerunner and con
fessing his greatness, said that he was less than the least
'John 2:19; Mk. 11:17. "John 13:17; Mt. 7:24.
2Mt. 26:61; 27:40; John 2:19. 6John 15:20; 16:2; Mt. 10:25, 28.
"John 7:19; Mt 23:23. "John 16:16, 22; Mk. 14:28; 16:7.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 55
in the kingdom of heaven — a word called forth by John's
failure to see in the ministry of Jesus the fulfilment of
Israel's hope.
. But in the Gospel of John, the exclusive mission of the
Baptist is to bear witness to Jesus ( i :y, 31 ) . He declares
that Jesus was "before" him, that is to say, pre-existed
(1 :i5, 30) ; that he was the Son of God (1 :34) ; and the
Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world ( 1 :29,
36). Jesus is represented as saying that John's witness
of him was true (5 :32). There is, accordingly, no room
in the Fourth Gospel for the Baptist's doubt regarding
the Messiahship of Jesus, which is reported in the synop
tists, nor does this Gospel allow it to be said of him that
he was less than the least in the kingdom of heaven. On
the contrary, according to the Fourth Gospel, he has in
a preeminent degree just that which constitutes one a
member of that kingdom.
2. The Descent of the Spirit upon Jesus. The signifi
cance of this descent of the Spirit was for Jesus himself,
according to the synoptists, though Matthew allows John
the Baptist also to< hear the heavenly voice. In John, on
the other hand, the significance of the event was primarily
for the Baptist (1 :3i-34), being a sign previously given
to him by God whereby he should recognize Jesus as the
one who was to baptize with the Spirit. He it was who
saw the Spirit's descent, and there is no suggestion in
John's narrative that the event was of critical importance
for Jesus, or, even that Jesus was baptized by John.
3. The Scene of Jesus' Ministry. The Fourth Gospel,
like the synoptists, represents Jesus as returning from
the interview with the Baptist into Galilee (1:43; 2:1),
but from this point forward it differs from them in its
geographical outline of the Lord's career. For in the
synoptists, Galilee is the field to which Jesus devotes
himself until near the close of his ministry when he visits
Perea, and afterward, a few days before his death, goes
to Jerusalem. They have no clear trace of any second
visit in the capital after the beginning of his public work.1
1The words "how often" of Mt. 23:37; Lk. 13:34. even if they are
words of Jesus and not rather, as Schmiedel thinks (see The Johannine

56 THE SOURCES
They also represent Capernaum as the center of the
activity of Jesus, the place where he was "at home"
(e.g., Mk. 2:1). But according to John, Jesus abides
only a few days in Capernaum on his first visit (2:12),
and his second visit there, which is also the last, appears
to have been equally short (6:16-17; 7:1). His entire
stay in Galilee is covered by three passages,2 two of which
are brief and concerned with events in Cana, which is not
mentioned in the synoptists. On the other hand, Jerusa
lem is now the proper field of the activity of Jesus,3 and
the temple occupies much the same place that Capernaum
has in the synoptists (e.g., 18:20). The land of Judea is
visited by him,4 and Samaria as well (4:5-42), though
according to the Synoptists he forbade the Twelve to go
into any city of the Samaritans (Mt. 10:5) and said of
himself on another occasion, "I was not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 15 :24).
It is doubtless true that each of the Gospel narratives is
fragmentary, and it is conceivable that one writer should
have concerned himself especially with Galilean incidents
and another with the Judean, but in that case their nar
ratives ought to be adjustable one to the other. But
John's representation of the scene of the ministry of Jesus
seems to exclude that of the synoptists. It leaves no
room for a long Galilean ministry, which resulted in the
popular rejection of Jesus. It seems impossible to regard
it as supplementing the synoptists in regard to the scene
of the ministry of Jesus. It gives us not a supplement
but a contrast. Moreover, the geographical dissonance is
closely bound up with other dissonances, and cannot be
judged apart by itself. The difficulty in removing it is
increased as we go from point to point of the Johannine
story. 4. The Mighty Works of Jesus. The ministry of Jesus,
according to the synoptists, included from the very first
Writings, 1908, pp. 60-61), a quotation from the Wisdom of God, wrongly
attributed to him, modify the verb ijfleJujow ; but the wish to help the Jeru-
salemites does not necessarily imply the presence in Jerusalem of the
wisher. 22:i-i2; 4:43-54; 6:1-7:10.
8 See 2:13-3:21; 5:1-47; 7:14-10:39; 12:12-20:29.
'3:22; 7:1; 11:54.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 57
some attention to the sick and especially to demoniacs.
In the triple tradition twelve mighty works are described,
of which nine are cures of disease. In the same source
we read a charge of the scribes that Jesus cast out demons
by Beelzebub (Mk. 3 :22) — an admission that they were
indeed cast out by him, and we read also that Jesus, on
sending out the Twelve, gave them authority over unclean
spirits (Mk. 6:7). We may say then that, according to
the synoptists, the typical mighty work of Jesus was the
cure of the sick. But in John the "beginning of the
signs" of Jesus is the change of water into wine (2:9).
Six other signs follow and all are remarkable in the
highest degree. Three sick folk are healed — one without
visiting him (4:46), another who had been lame 38
years (5:5), and the third a man who was born blind
(9:1). The remaining miracles are the feeding of the
multitude (6:5), walking on the sea (6:19), and the
raising of Lazarus (11 43). Thus the most conspicuous
synoptic work of Jesus — the casting out of demons — does
not appear at all in John, and the works which we find
there are uniformly of an astounding character.
Furthermore, the prevailing attitude of Jesus toward
"signs" in the Fourth Gospel is radically different from
his attitude toward works of healing in the synoptists.
When the Jews ask, "What sign showest thou unto us ?"
(2:18) Jesus does not rebuke them and declare that no
sign shall be given, as he does on a similar occasion in
the synoptists.1 From the author's point of view Jesus
could not well refuse signs since by them he "manifested
his glory" (2:11) and through them the disciples were
led to believe on him (20:31). This different attitude of
Jesus toward signs is seen clearly in the case of the man
who was born blind and in the case of Lazarus. In the
former, the miracle illustrated the word which Jesus had
just spoken, "I am the light of the world" (9:5), and in
the latter it is a symbolic utterance of the truth of the
Master's word, "I am the resurrection and the life"
(11:25). Of this significant conception of miracles the
synoptists have no trace.
1 See Mt. 12:39; Mk. 8:12; Lk. 11:29.

58 THE SOURCES
Again, it is to be noted that, in the synoptists, the
mighty works of Jesus are habitually wrought at the solic
itation of the suffering,1 they show the compassion of
Jesus,2 and are evidence of the presence of the kingdom
of God;3 but in John Jesus habitually proceeds on his
own initiative in working miracles,4 and they are, for the
author, a manifestation of the glorious nature of Jesus
(1:14; 17 :24), a supreme proof that he is the Son of God
(20:31). 5. The Mutual Relation of Jesus and his People. In
the synoptists Jesus is confronted by several classes of
varying social and official rank. From early in the Gali
lean ministry (Mk. 2 :6) he is watched by scribes and asso
ciates with publicans and "sinners." And his relations
with these classes are sometimes of great importance for
the course of his work. But in John the scribes do not
once appear, neither do publicans and "sinners." Again,
in the synoptists, but especially in Mark, there is a clearly
traceable development both of faith in Jesus and of hos
tility toward him ; but in John both forms of development
are wanting. The earliest disciples here recognize Jesus
as the Messiah at their first meeting (1:41) and even the
Baptist has full insight into his character and mission
(1:29). Furthermore, hostility toward him appears as
soon as he comes forward publicly (2 :i8). This hostility
is shown not by Pharisees and Herodians, as in the synop
tists, but by the "Jews" — a term which occurs more than
sixty times in John. This is found in the synoptists also,
but never as a designation of the enemies of Jesus (e.g.,
Mk. 7:3).
Now both the disappearance of such concrete facts as
the scribes, the publicans and the "sinners," and on the
other hand the emergence of the thought of national
opposition call attention to the marked change of atmos
phere which is found as one passes from the synoptists
into John.
'See, e.g., Mk. 1:31, 32, 40; 2:3; 5:23; 7:26, 32; 8:22; 9:17, etc.
2Mk. 8:2; Mt. 14:14; 15:32; 20:34.
8 E.g., Lk. 1 1 :20.
*See 2:7; 5:6; 6:5; 9:6; 11:3, 34.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL

59

6. The Teaching of Jesus. A word only in regard to
the obvious literary difference between the synoptic and
the Johannine teaching of Jesus. According to the
synoptists Jesus loved to speak in parables, and it is in this
form that his thought of God and the heavenly kingdom
is most fully set forth, but in John there is no parable, the
passages about the Door and the Sheep Fold, the Branch
and the Vine, being of the nature of allegory. Again,
according to the synoptists the sayings of Jesus are terse,
epigrammatic and pictorial, and are clearly distinct from
the accompanying narrative ; but in John the literary style
of Jesus is not different from that of the writer, and
instead of the short, vigorous and often paradoxical say
ings of the synoptists with a background of nature and
human life we have long, repetitious discourses with a
philosophical background.
But when we go deeper, into the teaching itself, John's
departure from the synoptists is no less remarkable. Thus
the Kingdom of God, which has been called the theme of
Jesus' teaching according to the synoptists, appears in
John on but two occasions and one of these was private
(3 13, 5 ; 18 :36). Life, on the other hand, and eternal life
are nearly as conspicuous in John1 as is the Kingdom of
God in the synoptists. In the synoptists Jesus speaks of
men as sons of God,2 and on a single occasion speaks of
himself as son in a unique sense (Mt. 11 :27) ; but in John
men are never called sons of God but "children" (e.g.,
1 :i2; 11 :52), and Jesus speaks of himself as Son in a
unique sense more than a score of times.3 In the synop
tists Jesus does not publicly claim Messiahship until the
day of his death (Mk. 14:62), and even then not on his
own initiative; but in John he explicitly declares his
Messiahship to the woman at the well (4 :26) and to the
man born blind (9:35-38), and on another occasion when
the Jews demand a plain answer to the question whether
he is the Christ, he replies that he has told them
(10:24-25). •See, e.g., 1:4; 3:15; 4:14; 5:24; 6:27; 8:12; 10:10, etc.
2 See, e.g., Matt. 5:9, 45; Lk. 20:36.
8 See, e.g., 1:18, 34, 49; 3 = i6; 5:20; 6:62; 8:28, etc.

60 THE SOURCES
Another point of deep significance is that of Jesus in
prayer. Here we refer especially to his own example.
That Jesus was in the habit of praying is well attested in
the synoptists,1 but in John there is not only no instance
of Jesus' retiring into solitude for prayer, but the religious
term for praying ( n-poo-ei^eo-fai ) , which all the synoptists
employ, is not found in his Gospel. Here Jesus "asks" or
"requests" the Father (airetv, iparSiv), as one person
asks another. How different this Johannine "asking" is
from real prayer appears from two of the three instances
when Jesus, in John's narrative, spoke to the Father. At
the tomb of Lazarus, after the words, "Father, I thank
thee that thou heardest me," he adds that he spoke thus
"because of the multitude" (n :4i-42), and on the occa
sion of the visit of certain Greeks, when he had said,
"Father, glorify thy name," and when a voice had come
out of heaven in response, he said of it, "This voice hath
not come for my sake, but for your sakes" (12:27-30).
Thus it would seem that, in the opinion of the writer,
Jesus had no need of prayer in the synoptic sense, and
hence of course no need of answers from the Father.
It may be noticed in this connection that the author of
the fourth Gospel seems to neutralize the most conspic
uous synoptic narrative of Jesus in prayer. Jesus prayed
in the garden that a certain "cup" — presumably the cruel
death that awaited him on the morrow — might pass from
him (Mk. 14:36), but in John, when Jesus was consider
ing his approaching fate, he asked in deep trouble of soul,
"What shall I say?" (12:27-28). Then, recognizing that
he had come "unto this hour" for "this cause," that is,
that he might experience what it had in store for him, he
said, "Father, glorify thy name." The situation is essen
tially the same that we have in the synoptists, but Jesus
is represented as refusing to ask for deliverance from the
"hour."2 Again, in the synoptists the universalism of Jesus is
implicit, in John it is explicit. In the synoptic narrative
'E.g., Mk. 1:35; 6:46; 14:32.
2 Even if we take the words: "Father, save me from this hour," as a
prayer rather than as a part of his question, the very next words recall the
prayer, and the contrast with the synoptic scene remains altogether striking.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 6l
he is represented as averse to answering the prayer of the
Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk. 7:27), but in John the
coming to him of certain foreigners brings exalted joy
(12:20-23). From the conversation with Nicodemus
forward the references of Jesus to his relation to man
kind in its entirety are so numerous1 as to constitute a
conspicuous feature of the narrative.
Finally, in the synoptists Jesus says but little of the
Spirit, and that little is not different from what is said in
the prophets. The Spirit of God is God as present in
human hearts and lives. In John, on the other hand,
Jesus not only says much of the Spirit, but what he says
is not essentially what was said by the prophets : it is
something new. The Spirit is treated as personally dis
tinct from God. In a sense, the Spirit is subordinate to
Jesus (15 :26; 14:26), which is the reverse of the relation
ship suggested in the synoptists (Lk. 12:10).
7. Chronology. It may be doubted whether the
synoptists wished to indicate the length of the Master's
public life, but if we infer anything from their narrative
on this point it must be that it favors a ministry of about
one year. They speak of only one Passover (Mk. 14:1).
John, on the other hand, seems to give a chronological out
line of the ministry of Jesus, and this outline includes
three2 Passovers, thus giving the ministry a duration of
about two years.
John puts the cleansing of the temple at the beginning
of Jesus' ministry (2:13-22), the synoptists put it in the
last week of his life (Mk. 11 :i5-i7). Peter's confession,
according to the synoptists, was in the region of Caesarea
Philippi (Mk. 8:27, 29), and was the confession of a
faith hitherto unuttered ; but in John Peter makes a con
fession in Capernaum, before the day at Caesarea Philippi,
and this confession renders the synoptic one impossible
(6:66-71). According to the synoptists Jesus was
anointed in Bethany two days before the last Passover
(Mk. 14:1-9), but in John there is an anointing in Beth
any which must probably be identified with that of the
•See, e.g., 3:16-21; 5:22-23, 25, 28; 6:33; 8:12; 12:17; 17:21, 23.
2 2:13; 6:4; 12:1.

62 THE SOURCES
synoptists and it is six days before the Passover of the
last week (12:1). Finally, the crucifixion occurred, ac
cording to the synoptists, on the 15th of the month
Nisan (Mk. 14:12), the third hour (Mk. 15:25), but in
John on the 14th,1 -at about the sixth hour (19:14).
The data which have now been presented, both those
that show the agreement of John with the synoptists and
those that show his departure from them, though they
furnish good ground for a conclusion in regard to the
historical character of John's Gospel, are not all the evi
dence that must be taken into account. The most im
portant material of all, and that which has been too little
considered, will be presented in the next section.
16. The Greek Element in John.
A Greek element is not only manifest in the introduc
tion of John's Gospel but it is manifest as of fundamental
significance for the entire course of the narrative about
Jesus. The term Logos is indeed confined to the first
fourteen verses, but the conception colors the author's
thought of Jesus and of his work throughout. The state
ment that the Logos became flesh (1 :i4) (i.e., in Jesus)
gives the reader the point of view from which everything
in the subsequent chapters is to be regarded. That is the
author's evident purpose. He did not regard, the Logos
and its relation to Jesus as a mere hypothesis, but as a
great and unquestionable verity. Therefore he makes
the incarnation of the Logos in Jesus the starting-point
and foundation of his Gospel.
The author in his general description of the Logos
betrays the source whence his conception was drawn.
He affirms that the Logos had existed from the begin
ning and had existed in a relation of fellowship with God
(1:1). He affirms that the Logos was 6<-6s, not 'O0eds.
Thus while he identifies him with God he also discrim
inates, in some sense, between the two. Then he con
nects him with the universe and with history by the
statements that he was the agent in universal creation,
the source of life and light to mankind (1 13, 4) ; that he
"See 13:1, 29; 18:28.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 63
came to his own, though not welcomed by them, and that
in the author's own day he became flesh (i :ii, 14).
This conception of the Logos is not Hebrew and it is
not purely Greek. It is Greek as modified by the his
torical appearance of Jesus. It is not Hebrew : it has no
living root in the Old Testament. The utmost that can
be said is that certain Old Testament expressions — "word
of God," "Spirit of God," and "wisdom" — are more or
less parallel to it, and so made its introduction into Chris
tian thought possible and easy.
The "word of God" in the Hebrew Scriptures is a
symbol of his participation in human affairs.1 Like his
"breath" and his "hand" it brings him near, into actual
contact with the world and with men. The conception
of the Logos, on the other hand, removes God from such
contact, for the Logos is an intermediary between God
and his world. Again, the "Spirit of God" in the Old
Testament is God in his most intimate approach to his
spiritual creatures : it is not personally distinct from him.
Functions are attributed to the Spirit (e.g., Gen. 1 -.2)
which resemble those attributed to the Logos in John
and in Greek philosophy, but nevertheless the two con
ceptions are by no means the same. From the Old
Testament point of view, since the Spirit is not personally
distinct from God, it is inconceivable that it should
become flesh, as the Logos does in John. And again, the
conception of the Spirit in the Old Testament serves to
make the nearness of God felt, while the Logos doctrine
in the Greek philosophers and Philo rather emphasizes
the apartness, the transcendence, of God.
Finally, the conception of Wisdom which we find in
Proverbs and in Sirach cannot be regarded as a living
root of the Logos doctrine. For although wisdom is, in
part, described in terms which remind us of the Logos
(e.g., Prov. 8:30-31), it is nevertheless itself a work of
God (Prov. 8:22), not his agent in creation.
It seems futile therefore to try to derive the doctrine
of the Logos from the Old Testament. It is rather
opposed to the Old Testament conception of God, for
1 See, e.g., Ps. 33:6; 107:20, etc.

64 THE SOURCES
the Old Testament is monotheistic, but the doctrine of the
Logos brings in a second Divine Being.
But when we turn from the Old Testament to Philo
we come into a sphere of thought that is truly akin to that
of John's Prologue. To Philo as to John the Logos is
eternal.1 In Philo as in John the Logos is called "God
like" (?) in distinction from God (&ds, not 60edc).2
In Philo as in John the Logos is the agent in universal
creation.3 In Philo as in John the Logos stands in an
intimate relation to man, for it is man's archetype even
as God is its own archetype, and in general it is the
mediator between God and man.4 Finally, in Philo as
in John the Logos seems to be thought of, at times, as a
personal being, as, for example, when it is called "high
priest," "ambassador" between God and the cosmos, and
"archangel of many names."5
This agreement between Philo and John is so broad
and deep that we cannot reasonably deny a determinative
influence of the earlier writer upon the later, though we
need not suppose that this influence was exercised through
books. There are indeed differences between John's Logos
conception and that of Philo, nor are these to be under
valued. Thus, the cloud of uncertainty resting on the
personality of the Logos in Philo does not pertain to the
Logos of John. Again, in John, but not clearly in Philo,
the function of the Logos culminates in his religious
service for men, for he brings them into the estate of
children of God (1:11-12). Finally, the difference be
tween Philo and John is seen in this, that John's doctrine
has a supreme historical illustration.6 It is a creed of
flesh and blood. In these respects John's conception is
unlike Philo's, but the differences constitute a develop-
1 See Confus. ling. 28: Plant. Noe 2 and 5.
2 See Leg. all. 3:73; Somn. 1:29, 41.
8 See Quod deus im. 12; Vita Mosis 3:14; Cherub. 35; Monorchia 2:5;
De Cain, et Ab. 3.
*See Mundi op. 51; Spec. leg. 3:27, 4:4; Plant Noe s\De Prof. 19.
"See Confus. ling. 28; Leg. all. 3:25-26; Cherub. 5; Somn. 1:37, 40-41;
Qms rer. div. heres 42; Gigant. 11 1 Migrat. Abrah. 18.
" Scott, The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology, 1906, p. 155, holds
that in Philo the Logos has more the force of reason and in John the force
of word.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 65
ment rather than an essential contrast. They are such as
followed necessarily from the identification of the Logos
with the historical Jesus.
Now since the Logos doctrine is essentially Greek,
whatever we find in the Gospel of John that departs from
the synoptic tradition and at the same time obviously
stands in close relation to this doctrine as it is set forth
in the prologue, must be regarded as a Greek modifica
tion of the primitive teaching. The following features
of the Gospel present themselves here for consideration.
1. John the Baptist. According to the synoptists the
Baptist announced that one was to come after him who
was mightier than he ; in John's Gospel the Baptist says
that the one coming after him was before him, and does
this in a manner to suggest something mysterious in the
prior existence of Jesus (1:15, 30). This language is
obviously explained by the statement in the Prologue
that the Logos was "in the beginning." The author
clearly modifies the synoptic representation to bring it
into harmony with his new point of view. The doctrine
that fills his own soul he imputes to the great forerunner
of Jesus.
Again, when the Baptist, on recognizing Jesus as the
one of whom he had witnessed to his disciples (1:29),
puts him at once in relation to the entire world as the
bearer of sin, we are constrained to see the influence of
the Logos doctrine of the author. For, according to the
synoptists, Jesus said of John that, though he was equal
to any prophet, he was less than the least in the kingdom
of God (Mt. 1-1 :ii). But how could Jesus have said that
if John, far in advance of his own disciples, had recog
nized and declared the universal spiritual character of his
ministry ? This man was surely not the least in the king
dom of God, nor was he the same one who from the
prison sent to Jesus to ask whether he was the "coming
one." This is clearly the John of the Prologue (1:7, 15),
and what he says is required by the Prologue's identifica
tion of the Logos with Jesus. For the Logos is there said
to be the source of life and light for mankind (1:4), not
simply for an elect people.
5

66 THE SOURCES
2. The Knowledge of Christ, (a) Extent. Since
the Logos was thought of by the author as incarnate in
Jesus, we expect Jesus to exhibit the same degree of
knowledge that the Logos had possessed. The Logos as
the eternal companion of God (1:1, irpos tov 6e6v) and
the agent in universal creation must have a knowledge
immeasurably transcending that of man, and such, accord
ing to this Gospel, was indeed the knowledge of the his
torical Jesus. When first he met Simon, he gave his
father's name, and foreseeing what Simon would become,
gave to him the name Cephas (i =42). When Nathanael
was brought to him, he not only read his character but
announced that he had seen him beneath the fig-tree — an
announcement which convinced Nathanael that he was
the Son of God (1:45-51). He told the Samaritan
woman that she had had five husbands (4:18), and when
far away across the Jordan, in Perea, he was aware of
what transpired in the home of Lazarus in Bethany
(11:14). The author of the Gospel declares compre
hensively, that Jesus knew what was in man (2:25).
When Jesus asked Philip whence they were to secure
bread for the multitude, he did it to prove him, for he
himself knew what he would do (6:6). In like manner
he knew from "the beginning" who they were who be
lieved not, and who it was that should betray him (6 :64) .
The apostles are represented as confessing : "Now know
we that thou knowest all things" (16:30), and in the
Appendix Peter makes the same confession (21 :i7).
Thus the Jesus who, according to the synoptists, de
clared that he did not know the day or the hour of his
own coming in glory (Mk. 13:32), he who was deceived
by the appearance of a certain fig-tree (Mk. 11 113), who
asked questions for information as other men did,1 and
who in Gethsemane prayed that a certain cup might pass
from him (Mk. 14:36) — a prayer which, like every other
real prayer for a specific boon, implied ignorance of the
Father's will — this Jesus is here, in John, clothed with
seeming omniscience, but surely with a knowledge indefi
nitely surpassing that of man. To what is this trans-
1 See, e.g., Mk. 8:5, 27; 9:16, 21.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 67
formation to be attributed? We need not look beyond
the Logos-doctrine of the author. What the Logos
knew, Jesus knew, for Jesus was the incarnate Logos.
This conclusion receives confirmation from the following
paragraph. (b) Acquisition. The knowledge of Jesus, according
to John, was not only supernatural in extent, but it
dated from a preexistent state. Jesus said he could tell
Nicodemus "heavenly things" because he himself had
descended out of heaven (3:12-13). He knew God be
cause he was from him (6:46; 7:29), and he declared his
witness to be true because he knew whence he came and
whither he went (8:14). He spoke those things which
the Father had taught him or which he had heard from
him (8:26, 28) ; he bore witness to what he had seen
(3:ii)- Now this thought which is attributed to Jesus in the
Gospel of John — that his teaching was in words that he
had heard with the Father, that his knowledge of God
was conditioned on his having come forth from God —
this same thought is also found in the author's own sum
mary declaration at the beginning of his narrative, "the
only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him" (1 :i8), and it is implied in his funda
mental proposition that the Logos became flesh in Jesus
(1:14). The synoptists, however, make no allusion to
this heavenly state and heavenly tuition. In them, the
Old Testament is the background of Jesus' thought, and
there is no suggestion that his knowledge of God had
been acquired in any extraordinary way.
3. The Nature of Jesus. We find in John both the
early conception of Jesus as a man clothed with the
Messianic office and also a new transcendental element.
He is the Son of Man, that is, the Messiah (e.g., 6:53),
as in the synoptists, but he is the Son of Man who has
come down from heaven (3:13), and who is to ascend
where he was before (6:62). Again, he is the Christ,
the King of Israel, the Son of God, even he that was to
come,1 which is no more than the synoptists also assert,2
"See 1:49; 11:27; 20:31. 2 See, e.g., Mk. 14:61, 62; 1:11; 9:7.

68 THE SOURCES
but now the "coming" is no longer, as in the synoptists,1
a simple equivalent for a man's appearance on the stage
of history, but it is a coming from another world into
this (e.g., 16:28). The "Son" is uniquely begotten of
God,2 and not in the same manner in which the "children"
of God are begotten of him (1 :i3, 3 13). Therefore the
union of the Son with the Father is more than moral
harmony, though it is certainly this (17:11) : it also rises
into what we of the present call the sphere of essential
being. Hence it is the Son, according to this Gospel,
and only the Son, who glorifies the Father, and whom
the Father will glorify with himself.3
There are other data in John that throw light on the
transcendental element in the nature of Jesus. Thus the
statement that the Son has life in himself, as has the
Father (5:26), from which it follows that he can lay
down his life and take it again (10:18), and that he can
bestow life on whom he will (5 :2i ; 6 44), implies, as does
the term "only-begotten," a unique metaphysical relation
to God. Again, it seems not improbable that the author
thought of Jesus as able at will to become invisible, for
twice, while still in the midst of his enemies, he is "hid
den" from them (8 :59 ; 12 =36) . Last of all, we must note
in this connection the significant omissions of the Johan-
nine narrative. The baptism, the temptation, the agony
in the garden are all wanting here, as is also the entire
element of supplication in Jesus' communion with the
Father. It is obvious, with a little thought, that each of
these omitted features presents difficulties to the adoption
of the Logos doctrine. It is probable that for this very
reason they were omitted.
This departure from the synoptic representation of
Jesus is too obviously congruous with the Logos con
ception of the Prologue to need comment. It is not only
congruous with that conception, but seems to be neces
sarily involved in it.
4. Mediatorship of Jesus, (a) Its Nature. Jesus
appears in John as the sovereign representative of God.
'See Mt 11:3, 14. 2See 1:18, 3:j6, 18.
See 13:31; 14:13; 16:14; 17:1, 5-

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 69
The Father recedes into the background : he is not needed
where Jesus is. It is peculiar to the Johannine mediator-
ship of Jesus that it separates God and the soul rather
than unites them. By keeping the commandments of
Christ the disciple abides in his love, as he abides in the
love of the Father (15:10). It is not said that the
disciple abides in the Father's love : that is the privilege
of Jesus only. The disciple can only aspire to an abiding
in him as he abides in the Father. The passage 17:21
is not a real exception, for it does not speak of an
independent abiding of the believer in God, but it repre
sents Jesus as saying "that they may be in us," that is to
say, the believer is in the Father only by virtue of his
relation to Jesus.
This conception of the mediatorship of Jesus is much
unlike that of the synoptists. We may take the parable
of the Lost Son as typical of Jesus' mediatorship according
to the early Gospel (Lk. 15 : 11-32). That story is a reve
lation of God's character. Its power lies in its presenta
tion of the Father's love. Jesus makes that so real and
mighty that it draws the wanderer back to his Father's
house. As Jesus trusted in the Father and found his
own strength in that trust, so he sought to establish his
disciples also on the same foundation. It is emphatically
true of Jesus that he preached not himself but the Father.
Far from claiming that men should honor him as they
honored the Father (Jn. 5:23), he studiously avoided,
until the very end of his ministry, even the claim to be
the Messiah.
But while this conception of mediatorship is widely dif
ferent from that of the synoptists, it is quite in harmony
with the Logos-doctrine of the author. For according to
this, God does not come into contact with the world or
with men, but works through the Logos. Once identify
the Logos in all his fulness with Jesus, as the Prologue of
John does, and we cannot be surprised to hear Jesus say
that men should honor him as they honor the Father, and
that the goal of spiritual development is that the disciple
should abide in him as he abides in the Father.
Thus the difference between the mediatorship of Jesus

70 THE SOURCES
according to John and that of the synoptists is just such
as the Logos doctrine naturally introduces. And as that
doctrine is Greek, so this modification of early teaching
must be set down to Greek influence.
(b) Its universality. Hardly a feature of the Gospel
of John is more striking, as one comes to it from the
synoptists, than its universality. The Baptist and the
woman of Samaria, as well as Jesus himself, speak of the
Gospel in its relation to the whole world. The bread of
God gives life to humanity in general, irrespective of all
national lines (6:33). The light in Jesus is the light of
the world (8:12; 9:5). What he speaks, he speaks to
the world (8 :26), and his promise is that he will draw all
men unto himself (12:32).
This universalism of John is in marked contrast to the
synoptic representation. There Jesus told his disciples
that he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel
(Mt. 15:24), and to them he sent his disciples (10:6).
His habitual outlook was national, though references to a
world-wide influence are not wholly wanting (e.g., Mt. 5 :
14; 14:9). Jesus would have been less optimistic than
the Old Testament had he not anticipated that his king
dom would eventually bless all nations. But at the same
time, his eye was habitually upon his own people Israel,
and allusions to a universal work are exceptional. He
was a Jew and spoke with Jews in mind. But in John
the national character of the work of Jesus is lost in its
universal character. He does not talk as a prophet of
Israel, but as the Light of the world.
But while in strongest contrast to the synoptic teaching
this feature of John is a natural corollary of the Logos-
doctrine. Since the Logos, before his incarnation, was
the light of all men (1:4), it was to be expected that,
when incarnate, his mission would be universal. The
pre-incarnate Logos had indeed sustained a peculiar rela
tion to the Jewish people (1:11), and so, according to
John, did the incarnate Logos, inasmuch as his earthly
manifestation was almost wholly limited to them ; but this
limitation was only temporary. His essential relation
ships are thought of as universal.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 7 1
5. The Fatherhood of God. In the Gospel of John
God's fatherhood is practically limited to Jesus. The
familiar synoptic words "your Father" occur but once in
John (20:17), and even then they are limited to the
disciples of Jesus. God is occasionally spoken of as "the
Father'' in an absolute sense,1 but with the single excep
tion noted above his fatherhood is not brought into
personal relation to any one besides Jesus. This fact is
the more noticeable because John uses the name "Father"
almost as many times as all the synoptists together. Jesus
says "my Father" many times, and many times says "the
Father" when the connection limits the fatherly relation
to himself, but the free and gracious use of the term
which characterizes the synoptic story is absent here.
In harmony with this limitation of fatherhood is the
fact that, in John, with the single exception of 3 :i6, the
love of God is confined to Jesus and to those who love
Jesus. The thought is emphatically expressed that the
way to secure the Father's love is to love Jesus (e.g., 14 :
21 ; 16:27).
Now this limitation of God's fatherhood, which stands
in such striking opposition to the synoptic teaching, is
easily intelligible from the standpoint of the Prologue.
A Jesus who was the incarnation of the eternal Logos,
that being who had always stood in intimate fellowship
with God and through whom God's power and grace had
been revealed, might naturally claim an altogether unique
place in God's love, and his sonship might naturally be
set forth as the fact supremely worthy of consideration.
This survey of the Greek element in the Gospel of John,
though it may have omitted details that ought to appear
and may include others which might be otherwise ex
plained, seems to me to be the cap-stone of the evidence
that in this remarkable writing we have, not history and
not biography, but a profound philosophical meditation in
which the facts of the life of Jesus are treated with
sovereign freedom. It is not necessary to believe that
every fact has been so treated — that there are no trust
worthy data in the document. Much indeed can be said
"See 4:2; 6:27, 46, etc.

f2 THE SOURCES
for the historical value of certain features of the Johan-
nine representation,1 and a wise criticism will ever seek
to discover and use all such reliable material; but the
author himself unmistakably puts us on our guard against
accepting any statement in his writing as historical except
on thorough investigation, and in this investigation the
earliest documents embedded in the synoptic Gospels will
always have a determinative influence. And, in any case,
whether one sees in the Gospel of John a relatively small
historical element or a relatively large one, its value for
the reconstruction of the life of Jesus is less than its value
for the history of early Christian belief. Much that the
author carries back to the teaching of Jesus is probably
the utterance of his own spiritual experience and that of
his contemporaries. Without going the length of regard
ing the book as "the supremely true interpretation of
Jesus Christ," it can hardly be denied that some of its
affirmations are confirmed by common Christian exper
ience. A word, finally, as to the author and date of composi
tion of this writing.
The pervasive Greek element in the Gospel of John —
not to mention other significant considerations — seems to
render the traditional view that it was composed by John
the son of Zebedee, whom Acts calls a "pillar" of the
church at Jerusalem, impossible. Whether the Gospel
made use of a Johannine tradition, written or oral, is an
open question. Recent discussion of the date of composi
tion of this work is strongly in favor of the early part of
the second century. The suggestion that the author sus
tained a double relation to Gnosticism, showing now a
sympathy with its teaching (note his emphasis on knowl
edge, 5:42; 7:17; 8:32; 17:2) and again turning away
from it (note his insistence on the reality of Christ's
humanity, 4:6; 11:35; 19=34), seems a better reason for
assigning the book to the period 100-120 A.D. than the
language of 5 43 is for assigning it to a time subsequent
to Barcochba's uprising (132 A.D.).
1 See the discussion of The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel by
Alan England Brooke in the volume of Cambridge Essays, ed. by H. B.
Swete, 1909, pp. 291-328.

CHAPTER III "
OTHER SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF JESUS
18. The Lack of early Jewish or Pagan References to
Jesus.
All early and first-hand knowledge of Jesus comes from
Christian sources. In the century after his death one
Jewish writer and three Romans allude to him or to the
new religion that bore his name, but their allusions are
of the most meagre sort. Josephus (37 to about 100
A.D.) refers to Jesus in a wholly incidental manner when
describing the death of James. This man, he says, was
the brother of Jesus who was called Christ1 — that is all.
He says much more about John the Baptist, more about
Judas of Galilee who made an insurrection in 6 A.D.
Whether he ignored Jesus from a personal anti-Christian
motive or out of regard for his Roman readers does not
appear. Pliny the younger (62-113 A.D.), who had made a
campaign in Syria in the generation following Paul's
work there and who was consul of Pontus and Bithynia
in 103 A.D., in a letter to Trajan regarding the persecu
tion of Christians, says that they sang hymns to Christ,
from which it appears that he regarded Christ as the
founder of the Christian sect, but he manifests not the
slightest personal interest in him. The new sect was in
his judgment a "debased and immoderate superstition"
which he believed could be suppressed. Suetonius, a
historian of the Caesars who wrote after the close of the
apostolic age, has merely a vague echo of the name of
Christ2 in a passage regarding the expulsion of the Jews
from Rome. Finally, Tacitus himself (about 51-113
1 Antiq. 20.9.1. The passage 18.3.3 is universally recognized as corrupt
3 Claudius, 25. 73

74 THE SOURCES
A.D.), though he had so far investigated the history of
the Jews that he was able to give a half-dozen theories
of their origin,1 and though he thought it worthy of his
pages to mention the prodigies said to have been seen in
Jerusalem before its fall,2 refers to Christ only as an item
of subordinate interest in his description of the burning
of Rome. He says that the man from whom the Chris
tians were called — "this most mischievous superstition" —
suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius
at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Evidently the celebrated
Roman historian saw nothing in Christ and the Christian
movement of his time that was significant for the empire
or for himself. As far as that movement had any mean
ing at all, it was evil and evil only.
Other eminent writers of the early Christian decades,
as Philo of Alexandria (a contemporary of Jesus and
Paul), Seneca (f65 A.D.) and Plutarch (tea. 120 A.D.),
do not even allude to Jesus. This is particularly note
worthy in the case of Plutarch, for he had both a wide
knowledge of men and events and also an intense interest
in whatever concerned morals and religion. He wrote
biographies of men who were nearly or quite contem
porary with Jesus, but of this man, whose influence now
immeasurably outweighs that of all the heroes of his
fascinating pages, he appears not even to have heard.
With facts like these in view we are reminded of the
words of Jesus that the kingdom of heaven is like leaven,
and that it cometh not with observation. Paul indeed
said to the Romans "your faith is proclaimed throughout
the whole world" (1:8), and to the Thessalonians "from
you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only in
Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to
God-ward is gone forth" (I Th. 1:8), but this is the
language of ardent enthusiasm. Until long after Paul had
finished his "good fight" the great Greek and Roman
world as represented by its distinguished writers was
apparently quite unacquainted with Jesus and knew of
his followers only to despise them as an offshoot of the
1 History, 5 -.2.
2 History, 5:13.

OTHER SOURCES 75
Jewish religion, which was generally regarded as "taste
less and mean."
When therefore we speak of the sources of our his
torical knowledge of Jesus we must recognize that they
are distinctly Christian and almost exclusively limited to
the New Testament.
ip. The Epistles of the New Testament and the Life of
Jesus.
Of New Testament epistles there is a group of at least
six1 which are conceded to have been written some years
before the earliest of our Gospels. When we examine
these writings in relation to the life and teaching of Jesus,
we notice, first, that they give a number of concrete facts
regarding his life but make scarcely any direct reference
to his teaching; and second that they show no trace of
written sources of information on these subjects. Paul
gives a considerable number of details about the earthly
career of Jesus. He speaks of him as sprung from the
seed of David, as a man who had several brothers, of
whom one was called James.2 He was meek and gentle
in manner and lived a sinless life.3 He gathered a com
pany of disciples which at the time of his death numbered
more than five hundred, and he appointed twelve apostles.4
His distinctive teaching, which Paul calls a "law," was
concerned with man's relation to his fellowmen.5 He
instituted a supper for his disciples in the night of his
betrayal ; he was crucified and buried ; on the third day he
was raised.6 Afterward he appeared to Peter, to James,
twice to the Twelve, and once to more than five hundred
brethren.7 Now while these details, with the exception of the
second and third, are important, they are quite discon
nected, and no one of the passages gives us a warm and
vivid glimpse of the Master's life.
1The four major epistles of Paul — Romans, Corinthians (i-n) and
Galatians. This group might be enlarged to ten with very wide consent of
scholars. 2 Rom. 1:3; I Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19.
8 II Cor. 10:1; 5:21.
*I Cor. 15:6; 15:5. «Gal. 6:2.
8 1 Cor. 11:23; Gal. 2:20; I Cor. 15:4. 7I Cor. 15:5-7.

76 THE SOURCES
Again, these letters make little direct account of the
teaching of Jesus. By bearing one another's burdens the
Galatians are told that they fulfil the "law" of Christ
(6:2), and one may assume that in his preaching to the
Galatians Paul had illustrated this "law of Christ" by
quotations from the Master's teaching, but this is of
course not certain. In his first letter to the Corinthians
he alludes to the teaching of Jesus on the subject of
divorce (7:10-12), and later cites the words which Jesus
is said to have used at the Supper (11 124-26) . This lack
of appeal to the spoken words of Jesus seems to have
been according to a settled principle of the apostle, for
he declares that the gospel preached by him came
"through revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1 :i2). Among
the Corinthians at least he was determined not to know
anything save Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Cor. 2 \2),
— a word which certainly suggests a relatively slight
interest in the teaching of Jesus which had been handed
down by tradition and also in the events of his career
with the exception of the crucifixion. Possibly this tra
dition was in mind when the apostle declared that he no
longer knew Christ "after the flesh" (2 Cor. 5:16).
The second point noted above was that these early
Christian letters make no reference to any writing on the
life or the teaching of Jesus. Converts were not referred
to any Christian writings for instruction, but were re
ferred to the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul, even when speak
ing on the resurrection — a subject that he argued at
length — made no appeal to Christian documents in con
firmation of the alleged event. It may well be that this
would in any case have seemed to him unnecessary in
view of the fact that there were living witnesses
(I Cor. 15:6).
Not only does Paul make no allusion to a written
source of information on the life and words of Jesus,
but the details which he gives imply a source somewhat
different from our synoptic Gospels. Thus these Gospels
know nothing of an appearance of the risen Jesus to
above five hundred brethren at once, nor do the words
of Jesus at the giving of the bread and wine which Paul

OTHER SOURCES 'J'J
records in I Cor. 11:24-25 agree wholly with those in
either of the synoptists.
Such then, in few words, is the relation of the earliest
New Testament letters to the life and teaching of Jesus.
What has been said of the early Church1 is eminently true
of Paul, that his thought was "fixed on the heavenly
Christ, in whose career the earthly appearance of Jesus
was a mere transitory, though an important, episode."
Doubtless the speedy coming of Christ which was uni
versally anticipated in the first Christian decades tended
powerfully to turn the mind of the Church away from
the past to the all-absorbing future.
20. Fragments of Lost Gospels.
• (1) The Gospel according to the Hebrews.2 Jerome
and Origen, to whom we are indebted for most of the
fragments of this ancient writing, most commonly desig
nated it as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There
was a copy of it in the library at Caesarea in the time of
Jerome. The Gospel was written, Jerome tells us, in
Hebrew characters but in the Chaldee tongue. He trans
lated it both into' Greek and Latin.3 It was used in his
time by the sects of the Nazarenes and Ebionites,4 and it
is plain from the manner in which Origen refers to it
that it was not accepted by all Christians in his time.
The esteem in which this Gospel was held by such men
as Origen and Jerome, who had the complete Gospel in
their hands, is a fact that commends it to us, as also is
Jerome's statement — which we are not able to test — that
the Gospel of the Hebrews cited the Old Testament
according to the original and not from the Septuagint.6
A further presumption in its favor is established if we
accept Harnack's6 conclusion that its composition must
be assigned to the period 65 (70) -100 A.D., which makes
it a contemporary of the synoptic Gospels.
It is necessary therefore to consider the extant frag-
1 Menzies, The Earliest Gospel.
2 Jerome refers to it as evangelium secundum Hebraeos, Evang. juxta
Hebraeos, and hebraicum (evang.) ; Clement of Alexandria and Origin call
it t& k<l9' "Eppaiow; evayye\iov ; Origen also calls it simply t6 lovSaiicbv.
8 De vir. ill. c. 2. * Contra Pel. 3, 2: Com. on Matt. 12:13.
*De vir. ill. c. 3. "Geschichte der Altchristl. Literatur, 2:1, p. 650.

78 THE SOURCES
ments of this Gospel somewhat in detail in order that we
may determine whether they are to be regarded as trust
worthy sources of information on the life of Jesus.
With the exception of two or three minor textual points,
the fragments are as follows i1
(1) "Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brothers
said to him, John the Baptist is baptizing for the remission
of sins : let us go and be baptized of him. But he said to
them, In what have I sinned that I should go and be bap
tized of him, unless perchance this very word that I have
spoken be ignorance."
(2) "Moreover it came to pass, when the Lord came
up out of the water, that all the fountain of the Holy
Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said to him:
My Son, in all the prophets I waited for thee to come,
that I might rest in thee ; for thou art my rest, thou art
my first-born Son, who reigneth for ever."
(3) "Now my mother the Hoiy Spirit took me by one
of the hairs of my head, and bore me away to the great
mountain Tabor."
(4) In the Lord's Prayer the Gospel according to
Hebrews had, instead of "daily," the word "morrow."
(5) "I was a stone-mason, earning my food with my
hands. I pray thee, Jesus, to restore me to health that
I may not beg bread in shame."
(6) "If thy brother have sinned in word and have con
fessed to thee, receive him seven times in the day. Simon,
his disciple, said to him, Seven times in the day? The
Lord replied and said to him, Yea, I say to thee, until
seventy times seven. For even in the prophets, after
they had been anointed with the Holy Spirit, sinful
speech was found."
(7) "Another of the rich men said to him, Master,
what good thing shall I do that I may live ? He said to
him, Man, do the laws and the prophets. He replied, I
have done (them). He said to him, Go, sell all thou hast,
and divide it among the poor, and come, follow me. But
the rich man began to scratch his head and he was not
pleased. And the Lord said to him, How sayest thou, I
1 From Nestle's N. T. Graeci Supplementum, 1896, pp. 76-81.

OTHER SOURCES 79
have done the law and the prophets? For it is written
in the law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; and
lo, many brothers of thine, sons of Abraham, are clothed
in filth, dying of hunger, and thy house is full of good
things, and nothing at all goes forth from it to them.
And having turned he said to Simon his disciple who was
sitting near him, Simon, son of John, it is easier for 3.
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
(8) In the Gospel of the Hebrews it was said that "the
lintel of the temple, which was of great size, collapsed,"
i.e. at the death of Jesus.
(9) "But the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth
to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared
to him. For James had vowed that he would not eat
bread from that hour when he had drunk the cup of the
Lord until he should see him risen from those who sleep."
. . . "The Lord said, Bring a table and bread." . . . "He
took bread and blessed and brake and gave to James the
Just and said to him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the
Son of Man is risen from those who sleep."
(10) "And never rejoice, said he, unless ye see your
brother in love."
(11) "He who wonders shall rule and he who rules
shall find rest."
Of these fragments only one is purely narrative, that
concerning the lintel of the temple. This feature looks
like a modification of Amos 9:1. In itself it is vague, for
there was more than one door in the temple, and so more
than one lintel.
In the remaining fragments we have words of Jesus,
or — in one instance — simply words to Jesus. These we
must look at in the light of the Logia and of the triple
tradition. The summons to Jesus from his mother and brothers
to go to the baptism of John is certainly not intrinsically
probable. It is more likely that Jesus was the first of the
household to start for the Jordan than that his mother
and brothers were first.
But the evident point of this story is the answer of

80 THE SOURCES
Jesus. He is represented as conceding the possibility
that he had been guilty of a sin of ignorance in uttering
words which implied sinlessness. It has been said that
no one in the early Church would have imputed these
words to Jesus, for he was everywhere regarded as sin
less, and that they must therefore have been spoken by
him.1 But surely the Jesus who comes before us in the
Logia and in the synoptic narrative knew himself. His
mind was not in a hazy state. He is not the kind of man
to say that "perhaps" he has spoken in ignorance. It is
easier to suppose that these words are quite fictitious
than to reconcile them with what our best sources teach
about Jesus.
In the account of the baptism of Jesus the Gospel of
the Hebrews departs widely both from the Old Testament
and from the synoptic Gospels. It represents the Messiah
as the Son of the Spirit, not as the Son of the Father
(Ps. 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14), and as addressed at his baptism
not by the Father (Mk. 1 :ii), but by the Spirit. This
language is in line with the account of the miraculous
birth of Jesus, and may have come from the same circle.
Further, the Spirit's identification of itself with the
prophets and its longing for the Messiah's coming that it
might find rest in him are features of secondary char
acter. For whatever conversation the Spirit had with
Jesus at his baptism must have been reported to the dis
ciples by him ; but we know from the Logia that his con
ception of the Spirit was that of the Old Testament
prophets — a conception fundamentally different from this.
The other passage in which the Spirit is involved makes
an equally strong impression of being secondary in char
acter. The words "My mother the Holy Spirit took
me by one of the hairs of my head and bore me away to
the great mountain Tabor" are obviously a reminiscence
of Ezekiel 8:8. The conception of the Spirit is as far
removed as possible from that in the synoptic narrative.
According to that, Jesus went forth into the wilderness
under the stress of an inner impulse; but here he is
•Harnack, Gesch. d. alt. Literatur, 2:1, p. 648; Holtzmann, The Life of
Jesus, Engl. ed. p. 47.

OTHER SOURCES 8l
taken to Tabor by a purely external agency of the Spirit.
As to the peculiar reading of the Lord's Prayer in the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, we surely ought not
to argue that it must be original because it is Aramaic.
Who can guarantee that the Jewish Christian disciples of
Palestine were blameless preservers of tradition? The
mere fact that they spoke the language of Jesus is surely
not a proof that they comprehended his teaching. The
reading machar (ino), which Jerome renders crastinum,
is assuredly difficult, but that fact alone cannot secure
its acceptance as original. It is too difficult, for it intro
duces a thought which is directly at variance with the
context. Jesus was seeking to' inculcate trust in the
heavenly Father. He told his disciples that they were
not to be anxious for the morrow. Are we then to hold
that he taught them to pray, "Give us today tomorrow's
bread"? Before we substitute this for the reading of
the Logia, we ought at least to see the entire verse as it
stood in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
The next passage in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, parallel to Mark 3 :i-6, makes a favorable im
pression, and so also does the clause which it adds to the
words of Jesus regarding the forgiveness of a penitent
brother: "For even in the prophets, after they had been
anointed with the Holy Spirit, sinful speech was found."
We come now to the story of the rich young man who
came to Jesus with the question what good thing he
should do in order that he might live. The course of
thought in the Gospel according to the Hebrews is not so
clear as it is in the synoptists. When the man says that
he has kept the law and the prophets, Jesus does not chal
lenge the claim: he calls upon him to dispose of his
property and become his disciple. But afterward, when
the man is displeased at Jesus' word, the Lord is repre
sented as going back to the former response and as show
ing up the man's insincerity. But it is inherently improb
able that Jesus, knowing that the man was insincere,
would have summoned him to discipleship.
Thus while the story appears to be independent of the
synoptists, it is also inferior to them,
6

82 THE SOURCES
The remaining fragment, if we except the two brief
ethical maxims which are without special weight for the
question of the historical value of the document, is con
cerned with the resurrection of Jesus, and reveals the
utterly secondary character of this Nazarene Gospel. The
gift of the linen cloth to the "servant of the priest"
involves a departure from all New Testament represen
tations of the resurrection, for it implies an appearance
of the risen Lord to a person who was not a disciple.
Again, the assumption that one of the brothers of Jesus
could have made a vow not to eat until he should see Jesus
risen from those who sleep is utterly improbable. That
would clearly imply a sure belief that Jesus would soon
rise, but this is contrary to all that we know even of the
disciples' attitude toward the resurrection of Jesus, not to
speak of the attitude of those who were not disciples.
We conclude therefore from this examination of the
fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews that
'this writing, even though of high antiquity, was not
worthy to be classed with the synoptic Gospels as a
source of information on the life and teaching of Jesus.
The fragments are of interest and in various ways throw
light on our Gospels, but they are of no independent his
torical value.
(2) The Gospel of Peter. A Gospel with this name
was in use at the close of the second century at Rhossus,
and Serapion, bishop of Antioch (190-203 A.D.), to
whose see Rhossus belonged, judged concerning it that
while most of it belonged to the right teaching of the
Saviour, some things were added. Eusebius put it among
the writings which had been produced by heretics and
falsely ascribed to apostles.1
A fragment of this Gospel, equal to about two average
chapters of Mark, was discovered in 1886 at Akhmim,
Egypt, and was published in 1892. From this it is evi
dent that the author was unacquainted with the political
condition of Palestine in the time of Christ, for it repre
sents Herod as giving command that Jesus should be
crucified, while Pilate holds a subordinate position.
1 Church Hist. 3.25.6.

OTHER SOURCES 83
The legendary strain in this fragment is conspicuous.
Thus it says that when the body of Jesus, having been
lowered from the cross, touched the ground, the "whole
earth quaked;" and again, when the two heavenly ones
who had entered the sepulchre come forth, supporting
Jesus between them, a cross follows them, and this cross
utters an intelligible "yea" in response to the question
from the sky, "Hast thou preached to them that slept?"
To the same strain belongs the statement that the heads
of the two who supported Jesus reached unto the heavens,
but "the head of him that was led by them overpassed the
heavens." This element goes much beyond anything in
the synoptic Gospels.
The dogmatic bias of the Gospel of Peter, to judge from
our fragment, agrees with what Eusebius reports Sera-
pion as having said of it, namely, that it came from the
Docetists. These men distinguished between Jesus and
Christ, and taught that Christ departed from Jesus before
his death. The most notable utterance of the fragment
is its version of the cry of Jesus on the cross, which reads,
"My Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me." This
is nearer to the peculiar view of the Docetists than it is
to the thought of Ps. 22 :i, which is quoted in the canonical
Gospels. The crude workmanship of the story is variously mani
fest. Thus the representation that it became light just
after the body was taken down from the cross and that
it was then found to be the ninth hour is intrinsically
improbable, for it shortens the time that Jesus was on the
cross — a period so short even in the synoptists that Pilate
"marvelled" (Mk. 15:44). It is also improbable that,
after the sun had come out again, "the Jews and the
elders and the priests, perceiving what evil they had
done to themselves, began to lament and to say, "Woe
for our sins : the judgment hath drawn nigh and the
end of Jerusalem." So to speak is to attribute to Jews
the Christian sense of the importance of the death of
Jesus. We conclude that this fragment of the Gospel of Peter,
though it may have originated in the early part of the

84 THE SOURCES
second century,1 has no claim to be ranked with the
synoptists as a source of information on the life of Jesus.
Its chief historical interest lies in the fact that it corrob
orates the Marcan view of the appearance of the risen
Lord (Mk. 14:28; 16:7) and also the Johannine impli
cation that the ascension was on the day of the resurrec
tion (Jn. 20:17).
1 Harnack, Geschichte d. alt. Literatur, 2:1, p. 622.

PART II
THE HISTORICAL JESUS

CHAPTER I
THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED
Every man who lives among men, however unique his
native endowments and however absorbing his con
templation of God, is in a real and important sense a son
of his people and his age. His roots go down deep into
forgotten generations, while the attitude and the utter
ance of his spirit, deeply determined by his nearer en
vironment, are not wholly unaffected by those wider
circles and movements of thought and action that lie far
out beyond the horizon.
Among the great and abiding achievements of modern
biblical science, perhaps the first of all in its far-reaching
and profound significance, is the fact that through its
agency the Bible, so long isolated and treated as a thing
by itself, having affiliations heavenward only, has come
to be set in the midst of the world's sacred books as a
near blood-relative, a member even of the same family,
though having in its heart a purer hope and having an
eye that is kindled by a clearer and completer vision of
what the human spirit longs to know.
From the sweep of this tendency to understand the bib
lical religion as a part of the multiform religious life of
mankind it is impossible, even were it desired, to pre
serve, untouched, the life and teaching of him in whom
the Semitic religious spirit found its final and perfect
expression. A survey of the world, therefore, as it was in the days
of Jesus is needful to one who would see in true perspec
tive this character which, by a truer interpretation and
more intelligent acceptance on the part of men, is destined
to an ever higher place among the spiritual forces of
history. 87

88 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
We go back in imagination to the year 749 of the
Roman Era, which we will assume to have been the year
of Jesus' birth, and we shall seek through the interroga
tion of men then living, and by observance of what was
transpiring, to get a somewhat intimate yet comprehen
sive view of the world into which he was born, and there
after shall follow swiftly the general course of Roman
and Palestinian history through the brief span of that
life which terminated in a public execution about the year
29 A.D.
In that year of 749 we find the world, that is, the
Roman Empire, which stretched from the borders of
India to the Pillars of Hercules and from the North Sea
to the First Cataract of the Nile,1 dominated by one great
personality, Octavius Caesar, who was then at the height
of his power. Twelve years before this, beginning at
midnight of the last day of May, he had solemnly opened
the New Age with religious services continued through
three days and nights.2 It was the common belief,
greatly strengthened by the comet of the preceding winter,
that the Golden Age had at last begun. Still earlier by
fourteen years, at the battle of Actium (31 B.C.), Octa
vius, by the overthrow of Antony after twice seven years
of bloody civil strife, had established his claim to be the
heir of Julius Caesar.
From the time when he returned to Italy (29 B.C.)
until the birth of Jesus, a period of about twenty-four
years, the march of events had steadily heightened the
glory of his name. The plain statement which he left to
be inscribed on the iron pillars at the door of his mauso
leum on the bank of the Tiber shows us vividly what
manner of man he was in whose Egyptian title3 he is
styled "Prince of Princes," "Son of the Sun," and "The
Ever Living One." We read in this inscription,4 pre
served in a remote temple of Asia Minor, that Augustus
'Pliny, Natural History, a, 112, quotes Artemidorus as authority for the
statement that the distance from India to the Pillars of Hercules is 8568
miles and that the greatest width of the Empire was 4490.
2 See Gardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit, 1896, I. 2, p. 1004.
8 See Wendland, Die Hellenisch-Romische Kultur, 1907, p. 102.
1 We quote this inscription according to the edition of the University of
Pennsylvania, 1899.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED 89
had undertaken wars throughout the whole world and
had extended the bounds of all the Roman provinces
which were bordered by nations not yet subject to his
sway ; that because of his successes the Senate had decreed
thanksgivings to the immortal gods fifty-five times, in
volving a total of 890 days given up to celebrations ; that
the temple of Janus, which in the seven centuries before
his time had been closed but twice, he had closed three
times ; that he had constructed fourteen temples in Rome
at his own expense, and had restored eighty-two, not
passing by any that was in need ; that in his seventh con
sulship he received by decree of the Senate the title
Augustus;1 that in his eleventh consulship he made dona
tions of food ,to the Roman populace twelve times and of
money three times, never to less than 250,000 men at a
time, and that in his twelfth consulship he gave twelve
dollars apiece to 320,000 people; that he had settled the
veterans of his legions on farms in Italy which cost him
about thirty millions of dollars ; and that the Senate had
decreed him the name "Father of the Fatherland," to be
inscribed in the vestibule of his house, also in the Curia
and the Forum. We read further in this most illuminat
ing inscription that Caesar's name had long stood in the
sacred Salian Hymn, thus associating him with the gods
of Rome, and that on his return from Gaul in the sum
mer of 741, that is, about eight years before Jesus was
born, an altar of Augustan Peace was decreed on which
annual sacrifices were to be offered.
To these autobiographical statements which help us to
picture the man through his deeds a significant word may
be added from Plutarch.2 According to this writer when
the lament of Alexander the Great over the fact that there
were no more kingdoms for him to conquer was men
tioned in the presence of Augustus, the Emperor won
dered that Alexander should not have thought it a smaller
work to gain a great empire than to set in order what he
had. Thus, unconsciously perhaps, Augustus described his
*On the significance of this title see Firth, Augustus Caesar, 1903, P- «7°>
2 See Miscellanies, Goodwin's ed., 1.249.

90 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
own dominant purpose. It was to set the Roman world
in order. It is true, he added vast areas to the imperial
domain, and the statement of Eutropius1 was a venial
exaggeration, if any exaggeration at all, that no one was
ever more fortunate in war than Augustus ; yet it was the
blessings and sweetness of public peace, the protection
of law and the sense of security, which seemed to his con
temporaries the greatest and most characteristic gift of
his genius.2
In the work of setting the Roman Empire in order
Augustus himself, apart from all his administrative
measures, was the chief factor. The ends of the Empire
were at one in their worship of him. In Egypt where
the highest divine title had been given to rulers for nearly
two centuries, in Egypt whose beautiful capital Augustus
had graciously spared on entering it as conqueror, it was
easy and natural that he should at once be counted with
the elder gods. Nor does it seem to have been any the
less natural in the Greek islands and along the shore of
Asia Minor, the home of philosophy and art. The Hali-
carnassus inscription calls Augustus "Zeus of the Father
land" and "Saviour of the common race of man," and in
a decree of Assos he is called "god."3 Suetonius says
that temples and altars to Augustus were erected in all
the provinces.4 On the Monument of Ancyra,5 Augustus,
looking back over his life, says : "The whole body of citi
zens have constantly sacrificed at every shrine for my
good health." This is of course not formal divine wor
ship, such as during his life was paid to him in the
provinces, but it illustrates the point in hand," that Au
gustus himself was the great unifying force throughout
the Empire The poets of his day used language
stronger than that of Augustus to which reference has
just been made. Let the following lines of Horace repre
sent both him and the younger poet Ovid. These writers
shrank not from applying to their fellow Roman the
1 See Breviarium Hist. Romanae, ed. Nisard, 1883, 7, 8. For a catalogue
of the misfortunes of Augustus see Pliny, Nat. Hist., 7, 46.
2 See Tacitus, Annals, 1,9.
8Wendland, op. cit., p. 102.
* Lives of the Caesars: Augustus, 49.
0 See chapt. 9 of Mon. Ancyr.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED 91
supreme divine title, as was done in the provinces. In
an ode to Augustus Horace says :
"Each, passing his own day at his own doors,
Trains vines athwart his trees ; the joyous cup
Then handles as he wills, and thee adores
As God, in winding up.
As Hercules in Greece, or Castor, may,
So thou hast our libations and our prayers ;
Before our Lares we, our debt to pay,
Thy Godhead blend with theirs."1
This cult of Augustus which, especially among Roman
citizens, we may regard as "a sincere expression of loyalty
to a political principle," while in the provinces it may
have been rather the expression of a servile and idolatrous
flattery, rested on great and substantial facts. Augustus
by his pacific and lawful rule stood forth in a real sense
as the "Saviour of the common race of men."2 He did
not come up to the ideal Wise Man of the Stoics, neither
did any philosopher of that sect, though free from the
dazzling temptations and the tremendous responsibilities
which were inseparable from the high position of Augus
tus. Yet we may freely concede the truth of his modest
words that he had committed to posterity many examples
worthy of imitation?
He lived in great plainness of dress and food, though
master of endless resources. He preferred to wear gar
ments that had been woven and made in his own dwelling
by members of his own family.4 The old Roman domestic
virtues were dear to him,6 and he sought to restore them
in the society of his day. He preached the duty of mar
riage even though knights should be obliged to take wives
from among emancipated slaves, and by the Julian Laws
he sought to guard the sacredness of the marriage bond.6
He revived the worship of the Lares, the gods of the
1 Odes, iv, 5, 15, Gladstone's version.
2 Philo called him "the first and greatest and universal benefactor."
Ambassadors, 22.
8 See Mon. Ancyr., 8.
* See Suetonius, Augustus, 73.
6 If we may trust Suetonius, the emperor's practice in this matter was
not quite consistent with his principles.
8 See Gardthausen, op. cit., p. 902.

92 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
hearth-stone and the common life.1 He recognized the
evil of making donations to the Roman populace, but he
was not able to abolish the custom, though he did much
for the revival of agriculture in Italy and thus lessened
the number of the poor in Rome. When soldiers were
discharged at the end of their long term of service, he
settled them on farms and in this way not only kept them
from swelling the dangerous pauper class in the capital,
but secured to them a comfortable living. He founded
the largest public library in Rome,2 and we may infer
that he was not indifferent in respect to the character of
the books placed in it, for he gathered together all the
so-called prophetic books which could be discovered, and
caused them to be burned, excepting only the Sibylline
writings. Suetonius tells us that about 2,000 books were
thus destroyed.3
When Jesus was born, there was in the Hall of Agrippa
in Rome a new and more accurate chart of the world,
inscribed on marble and containing from 12,000 to 16,000
geographical names, and this work was completed by
Augustus.4 When Jesus was born, the coinage of gold
was uniform throughout practically the entire Roman
Empire,5 and this too was due to Augustus. When Jesus
was born, pirates had been swept from the seas,6 mile
stones had been set up along all the great military roads
across the Empire and itineraries made which were based
on a uniform unit of distance/ and traffic and travel, far
and near, had enormously increased. To this result!
Augustus was the chief contributor.
Thus the great and varied services of Augustus fur
nished a real basis for his cult and were together with that
cult a means of unifying his wide and diversified realm.
But there was another great unifying force in active
operation when Jesus was born, which is imperfectly
'See Horace, Ode quoted; Suetonius, Augustus, 31.
2 The first public library in Rome is ascribed to A. Pollio. [Plutarch
ascribes another to Octavia.
8 See his Augustus, 31.
4 See Gardthausen, op. cit., p. 939.
6 See Gardthausen, op. cit., p. 554.
8 See Mon. Ancyr., 25; Philo, Ambassadors, si.
7 See Schiller, Gesch. d. rom. Kaiserzeit, 1883, 1, 419.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED 93
represented to us by the terms Greek thought and Greek
speech. When Augustus worshipped at the tomb of
Alexander in Egypt, dedicating to him a coronet and
flowers, he may not himself have fully realized the pro
priety of the act. By breaking down the barriers be
tween Greek and barbarian, and by extending southward
and eastward the benefits of Greek civilization, Alexander
had done much to unify the various, races in preparation
for Augustus. Nor was this unifying influence confined
wholly to the East. It had been at work also in Rome
and Italy for generations. Greek speech and literature,
Greek philosophers, Greek games, Greek merchants and
physicians, tutors and artists, playwrights and astrol
ogers, had long been found in the maritime cities of Italy
and in Rome.1 They were there at the time of which we
speak, unconsciously working with Augustus for the
unification of the world. Where the Greek tongue was
studied, Greek philosophy might go, and where Greek
philosophy in its more practical ethical form went, there
to some extent the way was prepared for the Gospel. As
Clement of Alexandria said, Greek philosophy was a
schoolmaster to lead the Gentiles to Christ, as the Law
was for the Jews.2
When Jesus was born, the Greek language was spoken
from Seleucia on the Tigris to Rome and Puteoii, from
Pontus and Bithynia to the cities on the Nile. When
Jesus was born, not only the princes of the world, like
the sons of Herod the Great and the grandsons of Au
gustus, but also great numbers of the prosperous and
great numbers of the common people throughout the
Roman Empire, with the partial exception of the Euro
pean provinces, had been influenced for good by the
ethical and religious teaching of Greek philosophy. In
respect to numbers and earnestness the preachers of that
philosophy have been compared to the representatives of
the Salvation Army in England.3
1 See, e.g., Tacitus, Agricola 4, which speaks of Marseilles as a seat of
learning where the refinements of Greece were happily blended with the
sober manners of provincial economy. See also Mahaffy, Greek World
under Roman Sway, p. 215.
a See Stromata, 1, 5.
8 See Wendland, op. cit., p. 43.

94 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
But we must pass on from Augustus and Hellenism
to sketch some other features of the stage upon which
Jesus entered in the year 749 of Rome. Three years
before the birth of Jesus Augustus took a census of
Roman citizens, and the number was 4,230,ooo.1 Some
parts of the Empire were more densely populated then
than at the present day, but this was not the rule. In
the last century long-continued wars had greatly reduced
the population, especially of Italy, and the population of
Greece had been declining for a hundred years before the
battle of Actium.2 But while the population of the
Empire as a whole was perhaps not above one half of
the present population of the same lands, the great cities
were without doubt greater than their successors of the
twentieth century. * Rome and Alexandria, Jerusalem
and Antioch, Seleucia and Ephesus and Corinth were
more populous than any cities of the same regions at
present. If we strike an average between the estimates
of Hecataeus and Tacitus, the population of Jerusalem
was seven times greater then than now.3 As to Rome,
Augustus made a donation to 320,000 in his twelfth
consulship, and this number, as it was exclusive of slaves
and of children under twelve years of age, implies a
population from two to four times that of the modern city
on the Tiber.4 To judge from statements in Josephus
and Philo, the population of Alexandria must have ex
ceeded that of any city of Egypt in the present day.5
The world into which Jesus was born was not only a
world of great cities, but it was also a world of human
slavery. This conspicuous feature, though more familiar
than some others, demands at least a moment's notice in
any attempt to sketch a world-view of his times.
There are certain broad distinctions between modern
slavery and that which prevailed when Jesus was born.
The modern slave was a negro, Wantonly seized and torn
from his African home, or was the descendant of such a
1 See Mon. Ancyr., 8.
2 See Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, i, 290.
8 See Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums, 1902, p. 65.
* The mean between the estimates of Bunsen and Merivale is one mil
lion. 6 See Josephus, Jewish War, 2, 18, 8, and Philo, Contra Flaccum.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED 95
negro ; in the time of Augustus, slaves, as a rule, were of
the races that inhabited the Roman Empire — Syrians,
Greeks, Egyptians, Germans, Gauls, Jews, Illyrians,
Parthians and Pannonians, and they were a part of the
prize of victorious war.1 Thus it came about that a man
might own a slave who was thoroughly competent to teach
his children Greek, and another who was an expert musi
cian, and yet a third who was an able expounder of Greek
philosophy. Pliny tells us of a slave by the name of
Daphnus who was sold for 700,000 sesterces, or about
$28,ooo.2 This slave was a noted grammarian, and we
can readily imagine how eagerly millionaire buyers who
wished to shine in society as the owners of distinguished
property would have raised their bids to secure him, as
some modern millionaires, with less reason, bid against
each other for a great collection of autographs or snuff
boxes of the time of Louis XIV. Obviously slaves of
such note and value were few, but there were many whose
native or acquired talents made them most serviceable
to their owners, and of the great mass we can say that
they were not separated from their owners by any such
chasm as lay between the modern slave population and
the ruling class.
The number of slaves in the time of Augustus, both in
country and in city, was large. Pliny, whose Natural
History contains so much valuable information which does
not strictly belong to natural history, tells of a certain
Claudius Isodorus whose last testament disposed of
264,000 head of cattle and 41 16 slaves, not to mention
numerous other possessions.3
Augustus had a law enacted which forbade any owner
of slaves to free more than one hundred,4 which obviously
suggests that a good rnany Roman citizens owned more
than a hundred slaves, and also that the unlimited eman
cipation of slaves in ancient Rome and Italy, as well as
in the United States in the nineteenth century, had some
serious consequences.
1 Plutarch in his Life of Caesar says that in his campaigns in the North
he captured one million people.
2 See Nat. Hist., 7, 40.
8 See Nat. Hist., 33, 47. * See Gardthausen, op. cit, p. 9°9-

96 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
It is but a snort step from the slavery of Augustus' day
to the next feature which invites our attention, that is,
the extreme inequality in respect to outward fortune
which characterized all society in the Roman Empire, if
we except rude and uncivilized tribes. The great middle
class of modern times, who' have neither poverty nor
riches, was either small or quite lacking when Jesus was
born. We have vivid glimpses of the wretchedness of
the common man and the luxury of the few. The veter
ans of Augustus, after twenty or twenty-five years of
service, had little to show save bent and scarred forms.
To keep them from absolute want Augustus gave them
small farms1 — a gift which in amount at least is not to
be distantly compared with the universal pension of
American soldiers. The condition of the great slave
population, whose owners had a legal power of life and
death and who, if they chose, could kill a slave to feed
their fish, may be left to the imagination. Of the people
in great cities who were almost always on the verge of
starvation the number was certainly much larger than it
is today.
That there was vast wealth in the hands of a few in the
time of Augustus is perfectly evident. It is only in a few
rich cities of our own prosperous age that choice building
sites bring as high as a hundred dollars per square foot,
but it is estimated that the land on which Augustus
erected the temple of Mars cost about double that
amount.2 No inconsiderable number of millionaires may
safely be inferred from the single fact that Augustus in
the last twenty years of his reign received in bequests or
in gifts from the living the sum of 4,000 million of
sesterces, or about $160,000,000. Had not men suc
ceeded in amassing enormous fortunes, and had they not
tasted the power which such fortunes confer, we should
not hear Longinus complaining that his generation "dei
fied" wealth. But the rich were few, the masses were
poor, and the gulf between was wide. There are glaring
inequalities of fortune today, especially in great cities,
1 See Mon. Ancyr., 16, 19.
8 See Gardthausen, op. cit., p. 972.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED 97
but they were worse in the world of Augustus, not merely
in Italy but also throughout the East.
There was another feature of life in the Roman Empire
when Jesus was born which appealed to the society of
that day and fascinated it in a manner to which the pres
ent offers no parallel. This was the exhibition of mortal
combats. While Hellenism built theaters in which the
works of the great poets were still presented and stadia
for the bloodless contests of youth and for the chariot-
race, the Roman genius built the amphitheater where
wild beasts with each other, or wild beasts with men, or
finally men with men, fought in dead earnest. Augustus
is said to have gone beyond all men in the number, variety
and magnitude of his solemn shows,1 and this is amply
confirmed by the famous Ancyran inscription. "Three
times in my own name," says the old emperor who de
lighted to play with little children, — "three times in my
own name and five times in that of my sons and grand
sons I have given gladiatorial exhibitions ; in these exhi
bitions about ten thousand men have fought. Twenty-
six times in my own name, or in that of my sons and
grandsons, I have given hunts of African wild beasts in
the circus, the forum, the amphitheaters, and about 3,500
beasts have been killed."2 He does not say how many
men lost their lives in this mad conflict with 3,500 African
wild beasts. To set forth the lavish manner in which he
had entertained his subjects it was enough to mention
the prodigious number of wild beasts.
And again Augustus says: "I gave the people the
spectacle of a naval battle beyond the Tiber, where now
is the grave of the Caesars. For this purpose an excava
tion was made 1800 feet long and 1200 feet wide. In
this contest thirty beaked ships, triremes and biremes,
were engaged, besides more of smaller size. About
3,000 men fought in these vessels in addition to the
rowers."3 We are not to fancy that this was a mock
battle, given as an illustration of naval tactics like the
1 See Suetonius, Augustus, 43.
2 See Mon. Ancyr., 22.
8 See Mon. Ancyr., 23.
7

98 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
show manoeuvres of modern times. Such a battle would
not have satisfied the Roman people.
How insatiable was the lust of witnessing these fierce
combats and on what a magnificent scale the rulers sought
to gratify it is suggested by the calamity that occurred at
Fidena near Rome. The amphitheater at this place, built
by Atilius for sordid gain and not with a worthy muni
cipal ambition, collapsed, and Tacitus informs us that
50,000 people were either killed or injured.1 When Jesus
was born, there were massive amphitheaters in the cities
of the East as well as in Italy, and even by the walls of
Jerusalem there was one, which as boy or man he doubt
less saw.
When Jesus was born, the belief in magic and miracles
was universal, but we shall not dwell on this feature in
the present survey. That belief is still almost universal.
A careful observer of the first century said there was a
stone to be found in the Nile, resembling a bean, which
if held to the nostril of one who was possessed by an evil
spirit, would expel that spirit.2 Today thousands of
people crowd certain churches or make pilgrimages to
shrines in 'the expectation that sacred reliques or the
Virgin Mary will heal their diseases : and sometimes they
are healed. Likewise in the ancient time evil spirits were
doubtless exorcized. There is no essential difference
between the two cases. From this whole subject, then,
as somewhat familiar, we shall pass at once to the next
vantage-point of our world-survey.
Within the large circle of the Roman Empire, over
which we have been passing, there was a small circle to
whose general condition, when Jesus was born, we must
give a few minutes' attention. Without doubt this smaller
circle — the region of Palestine — is better known than the
large one ; but the more familiar ways we will either avoid
or traverse swiftly that we may have time for ways and
facts that are less familiar.
Herod the Great, an Idumean with a Greek name, a
Roman citizen by birth,8 whose ancestors in the previous
1 See Tacitus, Annals, 4, 62. 2 See Plutarch's Miscellanies, 5, 496.
8 See Josephus, Antiq., 14.8.3.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED 99
century had been forced to accept the Jewish law,1 was
about sixty-five years old when Jesus was horn. We
read in Matthew of his interview with the wise men and
the subsequent attempt to destroy the new-born King of
the Jews by the indiscriminate slaughter of all the male
infants in Bethlehem. This scene — whether historical or
legendary we will not stop to inquire — is all that the New
Testament tells us about the man who, as Professor
Mahaffy says,2 was the most interesting Hellenistic figure
of the day. We may have read in Josephus3 of Herod's
proud and beautiful wife Mariamme, and how he, when
his mind had been poisoned by false whisperers, had her
strangled, and then in an agonizing revulsion of feeling
was rendered more than half insane by his crime and
loss. We may have read in the same author4 how Herod's
two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, educated in Rome
and not without noble qualities, were executed at the
command of their father, and how, when he himself stood
on the brink of the grave, his hatred of another son,
Antipater, held death at bay, as it were, until this son also
was destroyed. We have heard or read these and sim
ilar things, and we think of Herod the Great as a great
monster. But there is another side. This man who had
ruled Palestine with an iron hand for a full generation,5
when Jesus was born, was in point of mental power and
force of will worthy to be ranked with the greatest kings
who had ever wielded the scepter in Jerusalem. He
managed his cause during the vicissitudes of the Civil
Wars with eminent ability. The frankness and boldness
with which, at Rhodes, he met Octavius, now the master
of the world, evoke admiration.6 So in like manner does
the fact that for thirty-four years he not only maintained
himself on his throne in the midst of a people who hated
him with a religious hatred, but also improved the material
condition of that people. Again and again he remitted a
considerable part of the taxes for all his subjects.7 He
1 Antiq., 13.9.x.
2 See Greek World under Roman Sway, p. 171.
8 See Jew. War, 1.22.2-5; Antiq., 15.7.4; I5-7-6-7.
* See Antiq., 16. 4.1-6; 8.i-6;ii.i-7; Jew. War, 1.23.7.
c He received the Kingdom of Palestine in 37 B.C.
8 See Antiq., 15.6.6. 7 See Antiq., 15.10.4; 16.2.4.

IOO THE HISTORICAL JESUS
conceived and executed large plans for municipal and
national improvement, not only commercial but also
aesthetic and religious. He gave to Jerusalem its first
safe and commodious sea-port in the construction of
Caesarea. He crushed the robber bands of Galilee. He
honored his father in building Antipatris on the way from
Caesarea to Jerusalem, and his brother in building
Phasaelis in the Jordan valley.1 He built Sebaste (Sama
ria) on the road from the capital to Galilee. If he built
a theater and an amphitheater at Jerusalem to the scan
dalizing of all strict Jews,3 he also erected a temple to
Jehovah there whose magnificence impressed every be
holder, even in an age of extraordinary buildings, and
whose glory passed into a proverb.4
Nor was the kingly beneficence of Herod confined to
Palestine and the Jews. He paved with marble the chief
street in Antioch, constructing also a beautiful colonnade
on either side;5 he restored the temple of Apollo in
Rhodes at great cost;6 he made donations to the inhabi
tants of various towns on the coast of Ionia and Lycia;
he opened his purse to aid in the building of temples, or
for other public improvements, in Damascus and Tripoli,
in Byblus and Berytus, Tyre and Sidon, in Athens and
Olympia, in Pergamum and Nicopolis.7 Most of this
money that was so freely lavished on public works far
and near may have been veritable mammon of unright
eousness. We know as little how it was amassed as we do
how some modern Midases have amassed their fabulous
riches : we speak only of the generous and wise manner
in which it was expended. It is rather startling to realize
that this man at whose domestic crimes the blood runs
cold and whose palace in his last years may well have
seemed to him to be filled with the ghosts of those whom
he had passionately loved and as passionately sacrificed —
that this man was also, next to Augustus Caesar himself,
1 See Antiq., 16.5.2.
2 See Antiq., 16.5. 1 ; Jew. War, 1.21.2.
8 See Antiq., 15. 8.1; 15. n. 1-7.
* See 7ra. War, 1.21.1; 5.5.1-8.
c See Antiq., 16.5.3.
6 See Jew. War, 1.2. 21. n; Antiq., 16.5.3.
7 See Antiq., 16.5.3; Jew. War, 1.21.8.11.12.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED IOI
the most widely influential patron of religion not only of
his own generation but of all antiquity. Such, however,
is the fact, and it is a relief to one's feelings to know
something of Herod the Builder if one must know Herod
the Destroyer.
There is another feature of the Jewish world into' which
Jesus was born which, though unfamiliar to many, is of
decided interest and value, that is, the Hellenization of
the Jews. There can be no doubt that Herod, whose
father is said to have been a servant in the temple of
Apollo at Ascalon, powerfully promoted this introduction
of Greek civilization into his realm, whether as a matter
of simple political expediency, or because it appealed to
him as superior to the narrow illiberal Judaism of his
time, we need not now inquire. Nor shall we seek to
answer the question whether in promoting the introduc
tion of Hellenism Herod was a true furtherer of the
highest interests of the Jewish people or rather a corrupter
of their life. We are concerned here only with the facts
themselves. When Jesus was born, the Greek-speaking man — Greek
in blood or Syrian — was a familiar figure in Palestine.
There were towns and cities, especially on the western
coast and beyond Jordan, that were largely or predom
inantly Greek. Such were Caesarea by the sea, where
Paul was a prisoner for two years, Gaza and Anthedon,
Samaria, Gadara and Hippus. The erection of a temple
to Augustus in Samaria1 and another at Paneas2 is clear
evidence of the presence in those regions of a non- Jewish
population, and if non-Jewish, then Greek-speaking.
Likewise the existence of theaters and amphitheaters at
Caesarea, Jericho, Sebaste and Jerusalem8 argues either
the presence of Greek-speaking people in considerable
numbers or the wholesale Hellenizing of the Jews. Prob
ably it is evidence of the presence of some people who
spoke Greek and of the Hellenizing of some Jews. More
over the party of the Herodians, who approved Herod's
political policy, are not likely to have frowned on his pro-
1 See Antiq., 17. 8. 2.
2 See Antiq., 15. 10.3. 'See Antiq., 15.8.6; 17.8.2; 16. 5.1.

102 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
motion of closer relations with Rome and the great world
by the introduction of Greek and Roman amusements.
Herod's court too was thoroughly Hellenistic. His
leading adviser was a Greek from Damascus, another was
Eurycles the Spartan.1 His sons were sent to Rome to
be educated.2 To judge from historical examples not a
few, we should say that if the court of a forceful ruler
like Herod was Greek in its tastes and customs, in speech
and dress and manner of life, that fact would not be with
out deep influence on the Jews, to break down their
religious prejudice against things foreign.
In addition to these facts — a Hellenistic court, Greek
and Roman games and shows, Greek architecture, and
the presence of Greek-speaking people in considerable
numbers — there was a steady and powerful influence
toward Hellenism flowing from contact with those Jews
who came from all parts of the Empire to worship at
Jerusalem. When Jesus was born, there were probably
as many Jews living abroad as there were in the home
land, and these foreign Jews were not inferior in wealth
to those of Palestine. They remained true to their
paternal faith, but they were liberalized. It was a com
mercial necessity that they should mingle with the Gen
tiles, if they were to succeed. It was necessary to learn
the tongues of the Gentiles, especially Greek, which was
spoken or understood almost everywhere.3
Now this intimate contact with Greek civilization bad
already continued several generations before the time of
which we speak. Multitudes of Jews therefore spoke
Greek as their native tongue, just as multitudes of their
descendants in New York today, whose fathers came
from Russia or Poland, speak English as their native
tongue. These Jews of the Dispersion at the time of
Jesus' birth, when they returned to Jerusalem and met
old friends or made new ones, inevitably, though often
unconsciously, sowed the seeds of that Greek civilization
in which they lived and moved. They could not have
'See Jew. War, 1.26.1; Antiq., 16.2.3; 12.3.2; Philo, Ambassadors,
31. 3,3. 36- .
2 See Antiq., 15.10.1.
8 See Mahaf/y, op. cit., p. 215.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED IO3
helped so doing any more than the Americanized Italians
or Slavs of today, when they return to their old homes
can help carrying with them certain evidences of the influ
ence of our republican institutions.
r Thus at the birth of Jesus the Jews of Palestine had
deeply felt the influence of that great Hellenistic move
ment which began with the campaigns of Alexander. Its
traces were evident to the eye as one journeyed about
the country. They came into the hand as often as one
handled a gold coin, for these bore the image of Augustus
and came from his mint in Rome, or when one passed
the more common coins of Herod with their Greek in
scriptions. Traces of that movement were evident to
the ear on the streets of many cities and towns. And
finally, when the Jews from abroad came up to Jerusa
lem, bringing rich gifts for the temple and with minds
broadened by contact with Greek thought, their influence
on the native population was but a part of the great
process of Hellenization which Alexander had originated.
Having now completed our too rapid survey of the
world at the birth of Jesus it remains to sketch what
was happening near and far while he was living his quiet
life in Nazareth and then for a little space was setting
in motion in Galilee and Judea those forces which have
given its greatest distinction to all subsequent history.
The year 750 of Rome, or 4 B.C., was momentous for
the kingdom of Herod the Great. His death, which
occurred in the spring of that year,1 was announced to
his soldiers in the amphitheater at Jericho, in which city
he had died ; there, too, his will was read, and Archelaus
his son was acclaimed king, subject of course to the
approval of Augustus. When the dead ruler, borne upon
a golden bier that was covered with purple and adorned
with precious stones, his scepter in his hand and a crown
of gold upon his head, had been brought up the steep
road from Jericho to his tomb in the rugged fortress of
Herodeum a few miles distant from Jerusalem, followed
by a long line of foreign soldiers and these followed by
1 See Schiirer, Hist, of the Jewish People in the Time of Chrisf, Div. i,
vol. 1, p. 464, Note 165.

104 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
five hundred servants of the palace bearing spices,1 then
began a period of terror and confusion that must have
filled the whole land with dismal forebodings. Before the
sacred feast of the Passover was completed — one won
ders whether Joseph and Mary were present, or any of
their neighbors in Nazareth — Archelaus, to suppress the
persistent disturbances of the multitude about the temple
slew of them three thousand people.2 But while he was
in Rome seeking to' secure for himself his father's throne,
matters rapidly went from bad to worse. Sabinus, the
Roman who had been sent to manage affairs in the
interim, plundered the temple,3 and the revolt became
more bitter and wide-spread. Discontent with the gen
eral condition of things, long smothered, now shot out
lurid flames in various parts of the land.4 The report of
this brought down Varus, Governor of Syria, with an
army of many thousands. The city of Sepphoris, a few
miles north of Nazareth and visible from the Nazareth
hills, was given to the flames and its inhabitants sold into
slavery.6 Thence the army proceeded to Jerusalem, and
having crushed the revolt there, companies of soldiers
went throughout the land in search of those who were
suspected of being favorable to the revolution. Of such
they seized and crucified two thousand.6 It is not im
probable that some crosses were set up in Nazareth.
Certain it is that Jesus must have heard, even from child
hood, of this Roman mode of execution.
Following this short reign of terror came the reestab-
lishment of order under the sons of Herod. Galilee and
Perea were given to Antipas, Judea, Samaria and Id'umea
to Archelaus, the region to the north and east of Galilee
to Philips while one city in the Jordan valley, two on the
western sea and the palace in Ascalon went to Salome,
sister of Herod the Great.7 Antipas, to whom Jesus
paid taxes as a citizen of Nazareth, was, like Archelaus,
1 See Antiq., 17. 8.1-4.
8 See Jew. War, 2.1.3.
8 See Antiq., 17.9.3; 17.10.1-2.
'See Antiq., 17. 10.4-8.
8 See Antiq., 17. 10.9.
8 See Antiq., 17.10.10.
7 See Antiq., 17.11.4.

THE WORLD IN .WHICH JESUS LIVED 105
half Samaritan and half Idumean,1 while Philip, son of a
Cleopatra of Jerusalem,2 was probably half Jewish.
Herod the Great, like Henry VIII of England, was often
married, and among his wives were at least one Samari
tan, several Jewesses, and possibly two or three Greeks.
We must glance at each of these sons of Herod. Our
interest in Philip is due mainly to the fact that certain
important events in the life of Jesus transpired in his
domain. He was a person of moderation and quietness
in the conduct of his life and government.3 He stayed
among his own subjects, and was always ready to settle
disputes between man and man. The income of his
domain was about one hundred talents4 — somewhat more
than one hundred thousand dollars — and as Augustus
restored to the children of Herod the royal bequest which
their father had made to him,5 a considerable sum must
have fallen to Philip. Of these revenues he spent large
amounts on the enlarging of Paneas, where his father
had built a marble temple to Augustus, a city that hence
forth bore the name Caesarea Philippi, and upon the
restoration and enlargement of Bethsaida, a town on the
left of the Jordan at its entrance into the Lake of Galilee,
to which, in honor of the daughter of Augustus, he gave
the name Julias.6
Antipas, of whom Jesus was a subject and through
whose rash vow John the Baptist came to' his death, had
double the income of Philip,7 but lacked his moral worth.
He intrigued with Herodias, his brother's wife, and took
her as his own, and would have divorced his former wife
who was an Arabian and a king's daughter had not she,
becoming acquainted with his plan, fled to her father
Aretas, whence in due time there arose a war for Antipas
and with it great loss.8 To the ambition of Herodias it
was also due that Antipas, seeking further honor from
the Roman emperor lost what he had, and ended his life
in banishment in the West.9 This was about ten years
1 See Antiq., 17. 1.3.
2 See Jew. War, 1.28.4. "See Antiq., 18.2.1.
8 See Antiq., 18.4.6. 'See Antiq., 17. n. 4.
1 See Antiq., 17.11.4. 8 See Antiq., 18.5.1.
8 See Antiq., 17.11.5. "See Antiq., 18.7.1-2.

Io6 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
after the crucifixion of Jesus. It should be added that
Herodias, though having an opportunity to live in com
fort on an estate in Palestine, chose to share her hus
band's exile.
In the boyhood of Jesus Antipas resided in Sepphoris,1
which had been rebuilt and surrounded with strong walls,
and it would be strange if the Nazareth boy never saw
him as he came or went with his princely retinue. Later,
probably in the young manhood of Jesus, Antipas built a
royal residence on the south-west of the Lake of Galilee,
whose stadium and splendid marble buildings Jesus must
often have seen at a distance, even if he never entered
the city.2
As Antipas was worse than Philip, so Archelaus was
worse than Antipas. His treatment both of the Jews and
the Samaritans was so barbarous,3 and his hand so heavy
both on the rich and the poor, that the chief men of Judea
and Samaria went to Rome and accused him to the
Emperor, with the fortunate result that he was stripped
of his possessions and banished to Gaul. This took place
when Jesus was about eleven years old. In his short
reign Archelaus had built a magnificent palace in Jericho,
had set out a large grove of palms north of that city for
which he provided an artificial system of irrigation, and
had built a town that bore his own slightly modified
name, Archelais.4 This town and palm-grove and palace
must have been familiar sights to Jesus.
With this glance at the men who came into power in
Palestine when Jesus was a very young child, we shall
turn to some happenings afar off, remembering always
the close contact of Palestine with the city of Augustus
on the Tiber.
An important event marked the year 2 B.C., when Jesus
was about three years old. The temple of Mars in Rome,
purposed by Julius Caesar and vowed by Octavius before
the battle of Actium,5 an edifice which had been eighteen
years in process of erection and on which untold riches
1 See Antiq., 18.2. 1; Josephus, Life, 67.
2 See Antiq., 18.2.3; Jew. War, 2.7.3.
'See Jew. War, 2.7.3.
* See Antiq., 17.13. 1. » See Gardthausen, op. cit, pp. 971-972.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED IO7
had been lavished, was solemnly dedicated in August of
that year. In its magnificence and in the costliness and
beauty of its adorning it might compare with the temple
of Jehovah in Jerusalem which Herod the Great had be
gun to build at about the same time that Augustus began
his temple to Mars.1 Treasures of Greek statuary in
bronze and marble, some of which were centuries old, and
paintings by Apelles, gave to its stately halls the charm
of rich antiquity.
In his Ode on the Nativity Milton fancies that all the
gods of the peoples felt the "dreaded hand" of the infant
Jesus, and fled away as shadows before the sun. But this
was hardly more than a fancy. Mars, the god of war, to
whom this magnificent temple was consecrated in the
infancy of Jesus, not to mention other gods and goddesses
to' whom, under Augustus, new and beautiful temples
arose, seems not to have felt the "dreaded infant's hand."
On the contrary, there went forth from this very temple,
in 26 A.D., that procurator Pontius Pilate who issued
the death-warrant of Jesus of Nazareth.2
Coming forward three years, to i A.D., when Jesus
was about five, we hear the applause at Olympia when
Tiberius the future Emperor won the chariot-race,3 not
as modern kings and great men win similar races by
means of high-salaried jockeys, but by his own skill and
brawn. To this man, who was to succeed Augustus,
Pilate must have reported the execution of a Jewish pre
tender and two robbers, if indeed this was considered a
matter of sufficient note to be reported to the Emperor.
The year 6 A.D., when Jesus was now a boy of about
eleven, was one the events of which must have deeply
impressed his young mind. It was the year — as we have
seen — that Archelaus was summoned to Rome to answer
his accusers before Caesar. It was also the year when
Judea, and sa Jerusalem with the holy temple, came under
the direct control of Roman procurators, which form of
government continued, with the exception of four years
under Agrippa I (41-44 A.D.), until the outbreak of the
1 See Antiq., 15.11.1. 2 See Suetonius, Augustus, 29.
8 See Gardthausen, op. cit, 1:3, p. mi.

108 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
war that ended with the complete destruction of Jerusa
lem. Of these Roman rulers there were five during the
life-time of Jesus.1
Again, it was in 6 A.D. that Cyrenius, Governor of
Syria, made an assessment of the property of all the peo
ple of Palestine.2 Joseph the carpenter must have been
visited by some agent of Cyrenius, to whom he was
obliged to declare what goods and property he possessed.
This visit of the assessors Jesus would naturally have
followed with boyish curiosity.
But this year when Jesus was eleven was memorable
for another and even more exciting event. On an almost
inaccessible rocky height on the south-east shore of the
Lake of Galilee was perched the city of Gamala.3 From
this place sprang a certain Judas4 to whom the Roman
assessment seems to have come as a trumpet-call to arise
and deliver his people from the foreign yoke. This man
with a companion named Sadduc are dignified by the
Jewish historian as the founders of a philosophical sect,5
whose philosophy, however, seems to have consisted
chiefly in the belief that they ought to be free from foreign
rule and that they would be free at all costs.6 Men of
Galilee rallied to the standard of Judas, only to be cut
down and dispersed by the Romans.7 He did not see the
day of deliverance, but the movement which he inaugu
rated — the party of the Zealots which he called into exis
tence — went forward, Josephus says,8 until the nation
was infected to an incredible degree. There can be little
doubt that Jesus, living in Galilee where zealotism was
strongest, often heard men talk of Judas and of his way
of getting free from Rome; and it is a fact of great
interest that he not only refused to be carried away by
this movement for immediate political liberty, but that he
JThey were Coponius (6 A.D.-?), Marcus Ambivius (?-io A.D.), Annius
Rufus (10-14 A.D.), Valerius Gratus (14-26 A.D.) and Pontius Pilate
(26-36 A.D.).
2 See Antiq., 17. 13. 5; 18.1.1; 18. 2.1.
8 See Jew. War, 4.1.1.
1 See Antiq., 18.1.1-6; Jew. War, 2.8.1.
5 See Antiq., 18.1.1.
8 See Antiq., 18. 1.6.
'See Acts 5:37.
8 See Antiq., 18.1.1.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED I09
also found one of his twelve apostles among the adherents
of Judas of Gamala.1
In 14 A.D., when Jesus was nineteen years old and at
work as a carpenter, the news came to Nazareth that the
old Emperor, who for more than fifty years had been the
dominant genius of the Roman world, had passed away.2
In the following months Jesus may have heard how the
spirit of Augustus had been seen ascending from the
funeral pyre to heaven,3 and of the magnificent temple
which was being erected in Rome for his worship.4 For
with the death of Augustus, his worship, hitherto mainly
confined to the eastern provinces, became a part also of
the religious life of the Latin people. The historian
Tacitus informs us that a temple and divine worship
were decreed for Augustus immediately after his death.5
Soon a college of priests, twenty-five in number, sacred
to the deity of Augustus, was established to have charge
of his worship.6
When Herod the Great died, the people of Palestine
rejoiced ; when Augustus died, the Roman people and all
the provinces built temples for his worship. If the name
of Jesus is mentioned the world over in connection with
the feast of December twenty-fifth, so the name of Au
gustus is mentioned as often as we name the eighth month
of the year. We may well credit the statement of the
historian Suetonius when he says that Augustus had a
"pair of clear and shining eyes in which was seated a
kind of divine vigor."7 He fulfilled a lofty mission in
his day, and for centuries his name far outshone that of
Jesus; but now the student of history can see that the
most abiding significance of his great work lay in the fact
that it was contributory to the spread of Christianity.
Velleius Paterculus, writing a few years after the death
of Augustus, refers to that event in these significant
words: "Whereas we had dreaded the total ruin of the
1 See Luke 6:15.
'Augustus died Aug. 19.
•See Gardthausen, 1:3, pp. 1276-1277.
* See Velleius Paterculus, Rom. Hist., 2, 130.
0 See Annals, 1 ; also Eutropius, op. cit., 7, 10.
• See Tacitus, Annals, 1.
7 See his Augustus, 79.

IIO THE HISTORICAL JESUS
world, we did not perceive that it felt the slightest
shock."1 This suggests one way, perhaps the supreme
one, in which Augustus unconsciously cooperated with
Jesus. He established order throughout the Roman
Empire so firmly that it survived his death and remained
unshaken for centuries.
It does not concern us to speak at length of Tiberius,
the step-son of Augustus, who was ruler of the Roman
world in the latter part of the life of Jesus and for some
years beyond his death. Only what Tacitus says2 of his
attitude toward the question of erecting altars and temples
for his worship, as had been done in the case of Augustus,
shall be noticed. Tiberius said that he had at first fol
lowed the example of the deified Augustus and had al
lowed the cities of Asia to render him worship, but had
decided that to allow the extension of this worship in all
places would denote a vain spirit and a heart swelled
with ambition. "I am a mortal man," he said; "I am
confined to the functions of human nature ; and if I well
supply the principal place among you, it suffices me.
Posterity will do abundant right to my memory if they
shall believe me to have been worthy of my ancestors,
watchful of the Roman state, unmoved in perils, fearless
of private enmities." These sentiments are not unworthy
of a king. This was the man in whose honor Antipas
named his new capital by the Lake of Galilee, that city
which probably brought nearest to Nazareth the splendor
of Greek architecture and the excitement of the Greek
and Roman amusements.3
Tacitus says4 that the appointments of Tiberius could
not have been better, but one wonders what the outcome
of the ministry of Jesus would have been had Tiberius
sent as procurator to Judea, in the place of Pilate, a
man who was not only capable of recognizing the inno-
cency of Jesus, as Pilate did, but who also had the courage
and strength to acquit the innocent.
1 See his Rom. Hist., 2, 124.
2 See Annals, 4.
8 Sepphoris was nearer to Nazareth than was Tiberias, and as it was
at first the capital, there may have been a theater and an amphitheater
there. * See Annals, 4.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED III
And now our survey of what transpired in the life
time of Jesus has little further to record. An echo of the
calamity which befel "twelve noble cities of Asia,"1 over
thrown by an earthquake in a single night in the year
16 A.D., when Jesus was about twenty-one years old, may
well have reached Nazareth, as also a report of the death
of the noble Germanicus at Epidaphne near Antioch in
19 A.D., and of the pomp with which his ashes were
borne the following spring from Brundusium to Rome
and there received with universal sorrow. The name of
Germanicus reminds us again that the world of Jesus'
day was not barren either of able or of worthy men.2
In the year 29 A.D., in which we assume that the
ministry of Jesus terminated, there died in Rome at the
age of more than eighty the foremost woman of that
time, Livia, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius.
The Roman people would have accorded her divine
honors, like those accorded to Augustus, had not Tiberius
objected.3 There were coins, minted in her life-time,
that bore her image and the title "goddess." She was
faithful to her husband, and like him lived very simply,
though possessed of great wealth in her own name. Like
the "worthy woman" of Hebrew literature, she sought
wool and flax and worked willingly with her own hands.
Strength and dignity were her clothing. She gave lib
erally for education and to provide marriage portions
for poor girls.4
That there werei serious defects in her character,
judged from our point of view, is quite obvious. She
allowed a divine name to be given to her, and she was
strongly suspected of using unworthy means in securing
the succession to her son Tiberius; but judged by the
standards of her time and people she was eminent in
respect to character as well as ability. It would have
seemed the extreme of folly had one who was acquainted
both with Livia and with the Jewish teacher who, in the
year of her death, was crucified with malefactors, made
1 See Annals, 2.
2 See the judgment of Tacitus, Annals, 2.
' See Annals, 5.
'See Annals, 5; also Gardthausen, op. cit., 1:2, pp. 1018-1030.

112 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
bold to mention the two together as belonging to the
same class of world-benefactors, and as destined alike to
an enduring fame. But now she is "divine" only on the
ancient coins in museums of history, while the teaching
and spirit of that Jewish carpenter are the inspiration
and the goal of the ruling nations of the world.
A few words in conclusion comparing the world into
which Jesus was born with that in which we live. Polit
ically that world was a unit, while the same geographical
boundaries include today a part of the territory of six
great European and Asiatic powers. These are now at
peace,1 but are prepared for war with standing armies
several times as large as that which sufficed for Augustus.
He dedicated an altar of Peace on the fourth of July, 741,
eight years before Jesus was born: the nations among
whom his empire is now divided helped to establish the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague on July
twenty-nine, 1899, and they seek to promote peace by an
amount of intelligent public opinion and by an interna
tional organization to which the Roman world in Jesus'
day did not offer the remotest parallel.
Industrially that world into which Jesus was born en
joyed a large measure of prosperity, which in Palestine
and Syria, in Asia Minor and Mauretania, far surpassed
what those lands can show at the present time.
Socially that world, though made acquainted with the
idea of human brotherhood by the teaching of the Greek
philosophers, was a world in which the institution of
slavery was conspicuous, and in which, excepting the
Germans and the Jews, people paid little respect to the
marriage bond. But slavery is no longer found within the
borders of the Empire of Augustus, and as for domestic
virtue it is safe to say that public opinion even in Turkey,
Egypt or Persia would not tolerate in high officials what
Roman society jested over in Augustus' day.
Intellectually the condition of the world in Jesus' day
was not wholly unworthy to be compared with the present
condition throughout the same regions. The small class
1 Since these words were written, war has been waged between Italy and
Turkey.

THE WORLD IN WHICH JESUS LIVED II3
who were trained in philosophy and law, in literature and
art, were probably the equals of their successors of the
present day ; but the technical schools, as that for math
ematics at Alexandria and those for medicine in the Greek
islands, have been surpassed both in method and in
knowledge by institutions of our time within the ancient
realm of Augustus. As regards the intelligence and
culture of the mass of the people, the present average in
some parts of the former Roman Empire, as western
Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria south of the
Danube, is probably much higher than the average in any
considerable part of the Augustan world.
Religiously the world of Jesus' day offers a parallel
and a contrast to the same region at the beginning of the
twentieth century. Religious rites and writings filled
as large a place in the public mind then as they do now.
The highest type of pagan ethics and life of the period
with which we are occupied, as seen, for example, in
Octavia and Germanicus, Agrippa, Maecenas and Plu
tarch, might bear comparison with the best types of Chris
tian ethics and life to be found in the realm where
Augustus ruled. Now as then there is a large element
of superstition in religious thought and life, whether we
look at Mohammedanism which dominates the eastern
and southern parts of the old Roman Empire or at the
Christianity which is prominent in its western part.
But there is a contrast as well as a parallel. The
larger part of the population of the Roman Empire when
Jesus was born believed in the existence of many gods,
while the entire present population of the same region
believes in the existence of one God only. Again, the
religious propaganda of that age, though characterized
by great earnestness and perseverance, especially among
the Jews and the preachers of Greek philosophy, when
compared with the religious propaganda in the same
regions today, presents a significant contrast. The Jew
ish missionary brought his convert into the synagogue
and to the reading of the Old Testament, but both he and
the preacher of Greek ethics failed to conserve and
accumulate the fruits of their labors. At present there is
8

114 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
a religious propaganda in the region where Augustus
once ruled, represented by such institutions as Robert
College in Constantinople, which is of a far different
sort. It has an assurance of faith that is born of many
generations of triumphant labor and has a breadth of out
look which was wanting to that earlier propaganda. It
build's great institutions that are sure to multiply them
selves in coming time. It has appropriated the wisdom
of the past and the results of modern science, and is
making them contribute to the realization of the ideal of
Christian manhood.
In our last word we turn from the world of Jesus' day
to the spread of the Jesus' faith in our own day. The
Roman Empire was not a tenth as large as our modern
world, and probably had not more than a twentieth as
many inhabitants. Out of this ten-fold larger modern
world might be carved two empires, each as vast as that
of Augustus, the genius of whose civilization is insepar
able from the historical work of Jesus; and throughout
the remaining region, eight times as large as the Roman
world, wherever the quickening of life is deepest and
most hopeful, and the outreaching after better things is
most determined, there too this movement appears to be
related to the message of Jesus as the effect is related to
its cause.

CHAPTER II
ORIGIN AND EARLY LIFE
Back of the earliest Gospel was the Logia — that col
lection of the words of Jesus which is preserved for us
in Matthew and Luke, and to this, as the most ancient
documentary source of Christianity, we first turn for
light on the Master's birth and private life. And we
turn to it as a source which is peculiarly sacred and full
of authority. If Jesus himself gives us any information
on his parentage or private life, that should be regarded
as final ; if, however, he is silent, that fact also is of
primary importance.
Now we might expect in advance that such a document
as the Logia would contain some direct references to the
past life of Jesus and some references also that were
indirect. We find, however, on examination that this
collection of the Lord's words contains no direct allusion
whatever to his parentage, or his birth, or to any single
specific incident of his private life.1
There are, however, in the Logia many words which
may have a certain indirect autobiographical value. It
is not to be supposed that the inner spiritual life of Jesus
was radically different after his baptism from what it had
been before. His response to the summons of the Bap
tist and the assurance, received at the Jordan, that he
was called to the Messianic office, gave a new expression
to his life — turned it into a new channel — but as far as we
know did not alter its quality or change its method either
of acquiring or of using truth. We are to suppose, then,
that the public teaching of Jesus was deeply rooted in his
private life, that it was not something that came to him
1 Mt. 10:36 is reminiscent of Micah 7:6, but even if one sees in it an
autobiographical allusion (cf. Mk. 6:4), it does not necessarily refer back
to Jesus' private life. "S

Il6 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
with the Jordan experience. It was the outcome of
many years of thought, many years of walking with God
in the obscure period before his baptism. It was then
that he stored up those deep observations of the ways of
men which mark his teaching, then that he pondered the
forms and processes of the natural world and learned to
speak in parables, then that he gained his mastery of the
principles of the Law and the Prophets, then that he
reached conclusions on the need of his people and the
unsatisfactoriness of the ministry in synagogue and
temple, then that he learned to trust God and not be
anxious, then that he discovered the secret of living and
attained true peace, then, in short, that he was prepared
to see the heavens opened and to hear a voice out of
heaven saying, "Thou art my beloved Son."
If then the public teaching of Jesus, that is, its funda
mental principles rather than its details, flowered out of
his past life, we should expect to find that many of his
words look as though born of his own experience, and
that is what we do find. When his disciples asked him
to teach them to pray as John also taught his disciples,1
and he in response gave them a form of prayer, it is most
natural to see in this the ripe fruit of his own experience.
When he made the birds of the heaven and the lilies of
the field teach deep lessons of life,2 when he spoke of
different ways of building,3 when he declared the power
of faith4 and the certainty that he who asks shall receive,5
when he invited others to share his yoke and burden,6 he
was giving glimpses into his own past life. So in like
manner when he contrasted his own appearance with
that of John the Baptist and said that the Son of Man
came eating and drinking,7 he intimated that his life had
been that of a normal man. The illustrations that he
employed in his teaching indicate that he had lived in the
country rather than in the city, and with the poor rather
than with the rich.8
»Lk. 11:2-4. 4Mt. 17:20.
aMt. 6:26-30. 8Mt. 7:8.
8Mt. 7:24-27. 8Mt. 11:28.
TMt. 11:19.
8 See in addition to the passages just cited Mt. 7:9-10; 8:20; 9:37-38; 10:
16, 29; 12:33, 34; 18:12-14; 24:28.

ORIGIN AND EARLY LIFE II7
But while the light which these passages throw on the
private life of Jesus is of great value, it does not enable
one to write a history or even a sketch of those years.
It was said above that the Logia contains no direct
allusion to the parentage or birth of Jesus. There is,
however, a word of Jesus found in all the synoptists
which, whether it stood in the Logia or not, is of unques
tioned genuineness, and which does allude to his family.
This is Mark 3:33-34 (Matt. 12:48-50; Lk. 8:21). The
word is inseparable from the preceding incident. The
mother and brothers of Jesus had come where he was
teaching, apparently in or near Capernaum,1 and sending
to him in the house asked him to come forth. He said in
reply that those who were seated about him, listening to
his words, were his mother and his brothers. He admitted
a physical kinship with those who stood outside and who
requested him to come forth, but he set this over against
a kinship of spirit. This is the only direct allusion to his
•family made by Jesus in the synoptic Gospels, and it is
significant. It gives no names, but we learn from it that
Jesus belonged to a family of several members, and that
they were not in sympathy with his present course of
action. This passage, however, does not necessarily
imply that, before Jesus came forward as a public teacher,
there had been lack of harmony between him and his
home circle. The change in his outward life was so
radical and surprising in its nature that it obviously
might disturb the most friendly relationships.
This solitary passage therefore in which Jesus alluded
to his family does not throw any clear light into the past
beyond the information that he had a mother and brothers.
From the circumstance that a father is not mentioned
here we must not draw too large a conclusion. The
silence would be explicable if the father was no longer
alive, but this single passage by itself does not justify
us in saying that he was dead. We may find some sup
port for that view elsewhere, but now we are concerned
simply with words that are attributed to Jesus himself.
These words would allow us to suppose that the father
1 Mk. 3 :20, margin of Rev. Ver.

Il8 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
was alive, but was not willing to share in the attempt
which his wife and sons were making to turn Jesus from
his public work. We must therefore leave this point for
the present unsettled.
There is another word of Jesus, recorded by all the
synoptists, which demands consideration in this connec
tion because of its bearing on his lineage. The various
factions that were opposed to him had been trying him,
on a certain occasion,1 with crafty question — first the
Herodians with the Pharisees, then the Sadducees, and
finally a scribe. When the questions thus raised had
been disposed of, Jesus in his turn asked a question, which
concerned the descent of the Messiah. He began with a
reference to the view of the scribes who traced the Mes
siah's genealogy to David.2 He then quoted from Ps.
no, which was regarded as Messianic, and asked how
one whom David had called "Lord" could be his "son."
He seems to have regarded this as an unanswerable ques
tion, and as a plain refutation of the. view of the scribes.
But what was the aim of Jesus in these words? Was
it to set forth his own belief regarding the descent of the
Messiah, or was it to silence those who were asking ques
tions which were more academic than vital? We are
told that he once silenced the leaders in the temple by a
question in regard to the baptism performed by John.8
It is possible that on this occasion also his primary
motive was to silence the adversaries. For Jesus must
have known that there are certain Old Testament pas
sages which clearly involve the Davidic descent of the
Messiah, e.g., Mic. 5:2; Is. 9:7; n :i, and we are hardly
justified in supposing that he set all these aside in favor
of an apparently counter statement in Ps. no. But if
the chief motive of Jesus was to silence his opponents
1 See Mk. 12:13-17 (=Matt. 22:15-22; Lk. 20:20-26); Mk. 12:18-27
(—Matt. 22:23-33; Lk. 20:27-38); Mk. 12:28-34 (=Matt. 22:34-40; Lk. 20:
39-40, 10:25-28).
2 Mk. 12:35. Mt. 22:41 ascribes this view to the Pharisees, and Lk. does
not directly intimate who the holders of it were (20:41). The N. T. writings
nowhere directly espouse a different view of the Messiah's descent. See
Mt. 1:1; Lk. 1:27, 69; Jn. 7:42; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 5:5; 22:16.
However, since the Davidic lineage always carries the idea of the Messiah
as a ruler, those passages in which he is thought of as the prophet of Dt.
18:15 turn us away from Davidic descent rather than toward it.
8 Mk. 11:30.

ORIGIN AND EARLY LIFE

119

and put an end to idle questions, then we can hardly use
this verse as a clear proof of his belief that the Messiah
was not of Davidic descent. But if we allow it any bear
ing whatever on his thought of his own lineage, we must
admit that it is against his claiming to be in the Davidic
line.1 It is easy to sum up all the information that Jesus him
self gives us in regard to his origin. He refers to a
mother and brothers, and his general teaching suggests
that his private life had been spent in the country, in
contact with men, especially those of the humbler sort,
and that it had been a normal life. If we consider that
the reference to mother and brothers was called out by
circumstances over which Jesus had no control, we see
that, as far as the synoptic record informs us, he had
nothing to say to his disciples either about his origin or
his early life. We must infer, then, that he did not con
sider it important for his disciples that he should talk
with them on these subjects.
But we are not yet through with the historical data
which concern the life of Jesus prior to his public min
istry. We have considered the Logia and some other
words of Jesus. We now: turn to the earliest evangelist
and ask what light, if any, he throws upon the subject.
Mark begins with the work of John the Baptist and his
first reference to Jesus ( 1 :g) is that he came from
Nazareth of Galilee to John's baptism. He makes no
allusion in this place to his earlier life nor to his parentage.
Later, in the account of the early Galilean career of Jesus,
Mark records, as we have seen, the incident of the mother
and' brothers of Jesus, but evidently not for the sake of
making his readers acquainted with the origin and family
of his hero. In the rest of his narrative there is one
other passage which incidentally relates to' the home and
private life of Jesus. This is the account of a visit which
Jesus made in Nazareth.2 We learn from this that the
1 The fact that Jesus seems to have allowed men, on one occasion at
least, to address him as "Son of David" (Mk. 10:47; Lk. 18:38; Mt. 20:30)
has no significance for the question of his physical descent. This term was
a popular equivalent of "Messiah."
'Mk. 6:1-6; Mt. 13:53-58; cf. Lk. 4:16-30.

120 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
mother of Jesus, like the sister of Moses, bore the name
Miriam or Mary,1 that he was a member of a large family,
hence a family which, according to the Hebrew concep
tion, Jehovah had signally blessed,2 and that there was
nothing in the position or history of this family—nothing
known to the people of Nazareth — which justified the
public appearance of one of its members as a teacher in
Israel. For his neighbors would not have spoken as they
did — "Whence hath this man these things ? ... Is not this
the carpenter, the Son of Mary?" — if Jesus had been a
pupil of the rabbis and had been trained by them in the
interpretation of the Scriptures, for obviously in that case
his appearance as a teacher need have occasioned no sur
prise. This passage has a bearing also on the claim
which was made at a later time, that Jesus was descended
from David. If it had been known to the people of
Nazareth that the family of Joseph was of the royal
Davidic lineage, they could hardly have been so greatly
astonished at the assumption of a public role by a mem
ber of that family. These words therefore afford strong
evidence that the Nazarenes — people who were acquainted
with Joseph's family — knew nothing of its Davidic
descent. But the question may be raised whether, if the life of
Jesus in past years had been just like the common life of
Nazareth, the people would have regarded his appear
ance in the new role with such indignation, and would
not rather have taken pride in the fact that one of their
number had become famous. It may not be wrong to
infer from the warmth of their opposition to him that his
life had not been just like theirs, but that by a superior
moral quality and perhaps by an aggressive righteousness
it had silently or otherwise made them feel that they were
not approved by Jesus and thus made them hostile
toward him. But this cannot be stated with positiveness.
It will be noticed that this incident recorded by Mark
and Matthew goes somewhat further than those words
of Jesus which we have considered. We now hear not
1 Mt. writes it, as in the Septuagint of Ex. 15:20, Mapta/i.
'See, e.g., Ps. 127:3-5.

ORIGIN AND EARLY LIFE 121
only of a mother and brothers but their names are given,
the number of brothers is mentioned, reference is made
also> to sisters, and most important of all, we are told that
Jesus was a carpenter.1 This last item of information,
though not directly supported by anything in the Gospels,
is not therefore to be questioned. It accords with the
words of Jesus in this respect that they also point to a
background of humble life. It is the first specific fact
that we have found regarding his private life on its
external side, and it is also' the only one we have. We
may almost forgive the people of Nazareth their unbelief
if — as seems to be the case — we should not otherwise have
known that Jesus was a carpenter.
The earliest Gospel affords us no further light on the
origin or private life of Jesus. Even this that it gives is
wholly incidental. The author has no desire to instruct
his readers on this subject. His writing is devoted ex
clusively to the Lord's public ministry. Now this fact
would be significant even if we knew nothing of Mark's
sources; it is the more significant when we remember
that one of his sources — perhaps the chief one — was
Peter. This apostle, one of the most intimate friend's of
Jesus, is likely to have known whatever Jesus said at any
time about his early life, and had Peter in his teaching
communicated any information on this subject, it is prob
able that Mark would have preserved it. Therefore
Mark's silence naturally suggests that Peter also was
silent. We are now at the end of our historical data in regard
to the origin and the early life of Jesus.2 They are
meagre, perhaps disappointing to some readers, but they
are harmonious with the known career of Jesus, and
they contain one element that must be more and more
satisfying as it is duly weighed. We say that these
meagre data are harmonious with the known career of
Jesus. That he came from Nazareth of Galilee, that he
was a carpenter by trade, that his townsmen knew nothing
1 On Matthew's modification of Mark's language see Part I, IT 7, P- 18.
2 The first two chapters of Matthew and the first three of Luke must be
considered elsewhere. See Part III, chapter I.

122 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
of his past life or of his family which justified his
appearance as a public teacher, that he was a member of
a large family and had lived in contact with men rather
than as a recluse — all these circumstances are in intimate
accord with the well known facts of the public life of
Jesus. Thus the statement that he came from the small
and obscure town of Nazareth agrees well with such facts
as that he chose his disciples from the humbler walks of
life, that he knew how to get near to the lowest and to
attract them, and that the rabbis from the first looked
askance upon him as an unqualified and unauthorized
teacher. That he was a Galilean accords well with the
fact that nearly the whole of his public ministry was
passed in Galilee and Perea; that his townspeople knew
of nothing remarkable in his past life or in the position
of his family is in harmony with the fact that in his work
he relied neither on great claims nor on striking acts,
but on the quiet force of truth ; and finally, that he had
lived in contact with men agrees well with such facts as
his knowledge of all sorts of character and his reliance on
the influence of personal fellowship rather than on written
words. These data are fit though meagre. And it must never
be forgotten that this meagreness expresses the wish of
the Master himself ; that he did not speak to his disciples
about his parentage and early life; that, so far as they
were concerned, his own past was simply ignored. We
may therefore rest assured that in the judgment of him
who was the wisest of teachers a knowledge of that past
was, for his disciples, neither necessary nor even desir
able. The time soon came when the imagination of well
meaning Christians began to fill out that initial blank-
page, and different persons did it in different ways. It
will be well for the Church when it learns to distinguish
between what the Master said of himself and what
others, even in very ancient times, said about him.

CHAPTER III
ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE
That which drew Jesus from the deep privacy of
Nazareth, and brought about the great crisis of his life,
was a wide-spread and profound religious movement,
originated by John the Baptist. Of this man and his
work we have some definite information in the Logia.
Indeed, it seems that this ancient document began with
some account of John's appearance and preaching, for
Mt. 3:12 and Lk. 3:17 imply that some such statement
preceded in the Logia as we have in Mark 1 :7-8. From
this initial statement we learn that John was an effective
preacher of repentance, and also that he announced a
successor who was mightier than he and of far greater
dignity, one who would judge Israel and divide the
wheat from the chaff.1
A second passage in the Logia leads us to our most
important source of information, for it gives Jesus' own
estimate of the Baptist. The preacher of repentance was
now in prison.2 A report of the deeds of Jesus reached
him, and he sent asking Jesus the direct question, "Art
thou the coming one, or are we to look for another?"3
To this question Jesus did not answer with yes or no,
but indirectly. He bade the messengers report to John
what they saw and heard.4 The imprisoned man would
thus be in as favorable a position to judge of Jesus as
other people were. But we are told that Jesus summed
up what was seen and heard in words borrowed from
certain Messianic passages of the Old Testament,5 adding
a beatitude for those who should find no occasion of

1 Mt. 3:7-10, 12; Lk. 3:7-9, 17.
2 Mt. 11:2; Lk. 3 :2c
8 Mt. 11:3; Lk. 7:19.
4 Mt. 11:4; Lk. 7:22.
6 See, e.g., Is. 35:5; 61:1.

123

124 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
stumbling in him.1 Then to the multitude who were
present Jesus bore witness concerning John,2 from which
witness it appears that he had drawn people into the
"wilderness" to hear him, as the triple tradition narrates ;3
also that he was the messenger of whom Malachi had
spoken (Mai. 3:1),* and that he was thus of more than
prophetic rank; but that, notwithstanding all this great
ness which belonged to him, he was, in the thought of
Jesus, less than the least in the kingdom of God. Jesus
left this paradox unillumined, but they who knew of
John's present condition and of his anxious question had
a clue to his meaning.
Then, a little later, when characterizing the present
generation, Jesus drew an illustration from John's mode
of life which further helps us to form a true idea of the
man. He said that John came neither eating nor drink
ing,5 that is, he lived an ascetic life, which may have
seemed to him to be demanded by the nature of his preach
ing and by the nearness of judgment. That this mode of
life was declared by some to be a proof of demonic
possession6 suggests — what is not elsewhere intimated —
that there was sharp criticism of John in certain quarters.
To this sketch of the Baptist which is contained in the
Logia later documents, though adding some details con
cerning his dress and external fortunes, added nothing in
regard to his character. It is only a filling out of the
picture of an ascetic, marks of which we have found in
the Logia, when it is said that John was clad in a hair
garment with a leather girdle.7 The statements too that
he had disciples and that they were in the habit of fasting8
are quite in accord with the Logia. A man such as Jesus
there described would be sure to have a following, and
the ascetic quality of his life would naturally be imitated.
1 Mt. 11:5-6; Lk. 7:22-23.
3 Mt. 11:7-11; Lk. 7:24-28.
8Mk. 1:4; Mt. 3:1; Lk. 3:2.
?This thought recurs in Mt. 11:14 and is hinted at in Mk. 9:11. Here
belongs also the obscure word of Mt. 11:12-13; Lk. 16:16, for it represents
John as the end of the old era.
BCf. Mk. 1:6; Mt. 3:4-
8 Matt. 11:18; Lk. 16:33.
rMk. 1:6; Mt. 3:4.
8Mk. 2:18; Mt. 9:14; Lk. 5:33.

ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 125
The statement in all the synoptists that John was uni
versally regarded as a prophet (i.e., by the populace of
Jerusalem)1 shows unmistakably that his influence had
been felt in the capital, but adds nothing to our knowl
edge of the man. The story of John's tragic fate, given
most fully in Mark (6:14-29) and more briefly in Mat
thew (14:1-12), is in substance quite in accord with the
Logia. He is there said to be in prison, here we read
that he was beheaded by command of Herod Antipas.2
And finally, the scattered references, direct and indi
rect, to the extent and depth of John's influence say no
more than is implied in the Logia. Mark says that all
Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went forth to John's
baptism (1:5), to which Matthew adds "the country
about the Jordan" (3:5) — an expression that naturally
includes a part of Perea. Luke's statement (3:3) that
he came into all the region about the Jordan is the most
moderate of all.
Quite different but perhaps equally significant is the
fact that when Jesus himself was at the height of his
popularity some people said that he was the Baptist come
to life. Herod is reported to have spoken thus,3 and the
triple tradition ascribes the same belief to a part of the
community at large.4 But this belief, as a measure of
the greatness of John, does not go beyond the word of
Jesus when he declared that John was more than a
prophet. Luke has two sayings regarding John which appear to
be drawn from a good source: they are at least in har
mony with the outline of the Logia. Thus the words of
John contrasting his baptism with that of his successor
are introduced by a statement to the effect that all men
were reasoning in their hearts whether this great
preacher might not be the Christ,5 and again in his intro
duction to the Lord's Prayer he represents the disciples
as saying, "Teach us to pray, as also John taught his
1 Mk. 11:30; Mt. 21:25; Lk. 20:4.
2 Josephus, Antiq., 18.5.2, puts the execution in Machaerus on the north
east of the Dead Sea.
8Mk. 6:16.
4Mk. 8:28; Mt. 16:14; Lk. 9:19.
BLk. 3:15, cf. John 1:19.

126 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
disciples."1 This latter saying, in harmony with Mk.
2 :i8, indicates that John organized his converts and
sought to provide for their religious welfare.2
These data, if one point be excepted, present a con
sistent outline of John and his work. That one point is
the characterization of the baptism which was to be
introduced by John's successor. According to Mark this
baptism was to be with the Holy Spirit, but Matthew
and Luke add to this description the words "and with
fire."3 There seems to be good reason for holding that
Mark's language shows the influence of Christian bap
tism, and that the original antithesis was not "water" and
"spirit," but water and "fire." Thus the preaching of
John as preserved in the Logia points not to grace but to
judgment, not to the gentle sanctifying influence of the
Holy Spirit, or, to speak according to Joel, not to him as
the giver of visions and dreams, but to wrath, to an
axe at the root of the tree, to the fan of the threshing-
floor and to fire unquenchable.4 This symbolism is not
consistent with a reference to the Holy Spirit in Mark
i :8, but suggests that the term which the Baptist used
was "fire." The change to "Spirit" is natural in view of
the fact that baptism by Jesus, that is, the baptism that
was practiced by his followers, proved to be a baptism
with the Spirit of God. What we see here illustrates a
tendency that is often manifest in New Testament writ
ings, viz. a tendency to let early Christian history influ
ence the narrative of the origin of Christianity. The
beginning is viewed in the light of later events.
The addition of "fire" to the description of the Mes
siah's baptism in Matthew and Luke may well have been
made under the influence of the destruction of Jerusalem.
This event, foretold by Jesus, was regarded by Paul and
doubtless by many others as a judgment on the Jewish
people.5 In any case Matthew and Luke make the bap-
*Lk. ii ;i.
2 Acts 18:25; 19:3 suggest that John's organization preserved his personal
influence through a considerable period and among people who lived far
from the scene of his labors.
8Mk. 1:8; Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16.
4 Mt. 3:7, 10, 12; Lk. 3:7, 9, 17.
0 1 Thess. 2:16.

ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 127
tism which John announced for his successor a two-fold
one — a baptism with fire for the impenitent and a baptism
with the Spirit for the penitent.
On the basis of the data which have been presented we
can form an idea of the occasion which summoned Jesus
from the quiet of Nazareth. A prophet of great power
had appeared in Israel. Though an ascetic, calling peo
ple forth into waste places to hear him, he was not an
idle dreamer who laid the stress in his preaching on the
glories of a coming age, and he was not a political
reformer who like the Zealots would break off the foreign
yoke and restore the scepter to Israel by violence. He
called on people to turn from their sins and to live
righteously. The motives which he used in making this
appeal for right living carried it home with tremendous
force. The kingdom of God was at hand, he declared,
and only they were to enter it who could abide the day of
judgment. What specific meaning John attached to the
words "Kingdom of God" we cannot know. Clearly,
whatever it was, that kingdom was for good men only,
for those who ceased to do evil and learned to do well.
The fact that John's preaching deeply stirred Israel,
especially southern Palestine, is evidence that the kingdom
whose nearness he announced was regarded as in some
way the fulfilment of the hope of a Golden Age. It is
not likely that the preacher and his audience pictured the
kingdom of God to their minds in the same form and
color, but to all alike it was something from God and
something far better than their present lot.
With the near kingdom was associated in John's
thought the one "mightier" than he, the coming one of
Hebrew prophecy and hope. The only function of the
coming one of which, according to our sources, John
spoke to the people was that of judge. It is evident from
the Logia that he had not thought of the Messiah as one
who would do such works as Jesus afterward did.1
From what specific source John had drawn the con
viction that the Messiah was at hand, and that the king
dom of God was soon to be made manifest, we have no
1Mt. 11:2; Lk. 7:18.

128 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
means of ascertaining.1 Probably, as in the case of the
old prophets, it rested on a study of God's dealing with
Israel in the past and a study of the present condition of
his people.
The Logia — so far as that document can be recon
structed from Matthew and Luke — contained no direct
allusion to the baptism of Jesus. It did, however, con
tain two passages which have a bearing on that event.
There is first the lofty praise which Jesus bestowed on
John.2 If he regarded John as Elijah and his baptism
as from heaven, that is at least favorable to the supposi
tion that he himself had been baptized by John.
Further, the story of the temptation of Jesus, which stood
in the Logia, seems to imply some such experience as is
described in the synoptic account of the baptism of Jesus.
For the repeated statement of Satan "If thou art the Son
of God" obviously presupposes that Jesus did so consider
himself; but if he so considered himself, and if this
thought was the gateway by which temptation suddenly
assailed him, then it points to some recent experience by
which Jesus had come to think of himself as the Son
of God. Thus the Logia, though without a direct trace
of the baptism of Jesus, is not only consistent with the
synoptic account of his baptism, but in one passage
actually presupposes an experience such as the synoptists
associate with the baptism in the Jordan.
The triple tradition of the Jordan baptism is confined
to a single verse.3 It serves merely as a vestibule by
which we enter into the transcendent experience of Jesus
after he had come up out of the river. This subordina
tion is most clearly marked in Luke, for he does not even
give the baptism as an independent fact but dispatches it
in a participial clause.4
The one affirmation in which all three narratives agree
is that Jesus was baptized by John. There is no sugges-
_ J Luke's story of the birth of John with its claim of relationship between
his mother and the mother of Jesus is inseparable from his story of the
nativity of Jesus (1:36). It may be noted here that the author of the
Fourth Gospel seems not to have known of this relationship (1:33).
2 Mt. 11:7-11; Lk. 7:24-28. Compare Mk. 11:30; Mt. 21:25; Lk. 20:4.
- 8Mk. 1:9; Mt. 3:13; Lk. 3:21. On Mt's addition (3:14-15), see Part I.
pp. 26-27. 4 'IlJtTOU PaiTTl,<r9cVTQ$.

ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE I2g
tion that the act differed from John's baptism of any other
person. Luke's statement that the baptism of Jesus fol
lowed that of all the people — that is, was the last baptism
performed by John — appears to be an inference from the
larger conception that the work of John as the forerunner
must have closed with the appearance of his successor.
The brevity with which the synoptists treat the baptism
of Jesus suggests that the event, at the time of its trans
action, was not the subject of remark, and that no special
significance had come to be attached to it in1 later times.
Its importance was wholly eclipsed by the experience
which immediately followed. But why, one may ask,
did that experience follow immediately on the act of sub
mission to John's baptism ? The sequence is surely sug
gestive. But if the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan con
ditioned the coming of that experience which turned his
life into an entirely new channel, it must have been im
portant for Jesus himself. What this importance was we
can only conjecture. I think of it somewhat as follows :
Since Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, he
must of course have heard of John and his message.
When he reached the Jordan, he with others heard John
preach. Now if in later days he thought of John's bap
tism as "from heaven" (Lk. 20:4), so at this time, as he
stood by the Jordan and heard him preach, he may well
have felt that his message also, or the burden of it at least,
was from heaven. And if in later days he declared that
among those born of women there had not arisen a
greater than John the Baptist (Lk. 7:28), it is readily
conceivable that as he, just come from the quiet life of a
Nazareth carpenter, stood face to face with this mighty
prophet, and heard this "Voice" announce that the king
dom of God was at hand, the spirit of longing for that
kingdom and the devotion of himself to its service reached
a culmination in which his whole being was absorbed and
flooded with a heavenly light. Thus without transcend
ing the bounds of the probable we have an adequate
psychological ground for the experience which followed
the act of baptism in the Jordan, and that act itself, com
monplace to an observer, one of thousands that preceded

130 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
or followed, is seen to be a fit beginning of the public
ministry of Jesus.
Of what transpired in the moments after the baptism
of Jesus our sources give differing accounts. In the
graphic language of Mark (i :io) Jesus saw the heavens.
"rent asunder," as though they were thought to be of a
texture which would only yield to a strong force. Mat
thew and Luke substitute a quiet term, and say that the
heavens "were opened" (Mt. 3:16; Lk. 3:21). Either
• term announces that a vision is to be described.1 From
the rent sky the Spirit (Mk.), or the Spirit of God (Mt.),
or the Holy Spirit (Lk.), was seen by Jesus descending
upon him as a dove. Luke lays stress on the unusualness
of the Spirit's appearance by adding the words "in a
bodily form," which make the comparison with a dove
perfectly explicit.
A second independent phenomenon out of the cleft sky
was a voice, which by the following utterance was shown
to be the voice of God. According to Mark (1 :n) and
Luke (3 :22) this voice said, "Thou art my beloved Son,
in thee I am well pleased;" but according to Matthew
(3:17), "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased."2 Thus Matthew thought of the voice as a
testimony, probably for the Baptist, concerning Jesus.
Thus he either conceived of the phenomenon materially,
or supposed that one or more persons besides Jesus shared
in the vision.
But why did the author of the first Gospel depart in
this point from the view of Mark? Probably it was
under the influence of that conception of the person of
Christ which is conspicuous in his writings.3 It may have
appeared to him difficult to conceive how it could be
needful that one who was essentially on an equality with
God should be told that he was God's Son. Therefore it
may have seemed necessary to him to let the voice out
of heaven come to the Baptist and be a divine testimony
concerning the person of Jesus. By this modification
1 Cf. Acts 10:11; Rev. 4:1.
2 The version of Matthew suggests the influence of Is. 42 : i, while that
pf Mark and Luke suggests Psalm 2:7.
8 See Mt. 14:33; 16:18-19; 18:20; 28:18-20.

ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 131
the phenomenon of the voice ceases to be of significance
for Jesus. That only which concerned him was the
descent of the Spirit.
It is obvious that this view of Matthew introduces a
rather serious inconsistency into his own narrative, for if
the Baptist received a supernatural assurance that Jesus
was the beloved Son of God, how could he a few weeks
later have sent to Jesus the question, "Art thou he that
cometh?"1 To have forgotten the divine voice so soon,
or thus to have ignored its message, seems inexplicable
in a great prophet like John.
There is yet another aspect of the question. The
method of Jesus was to reveal truth, and let men draw
their own inferences in regard to the revealer. He did
not come forward with the bold assertion of great
claims: his method was spiritual. Now it tends to dis
credit Matthew's version of the words spoken by the
heavenly voice that they are not in accord with the method
of Jesus, in which, we may certainly assume, he was
guided by the Spirit of God. For a heavenly voice to
declare to the Baptist that Jesus was the Son of God is
foreign to the manner of Jesus in regard to himself.
But turning again to the text of the earliest Gospel as
intrinsically preferable to that of Matthew, the question
arises whether even this is original. One important
codex (D), the old Latin translation, and a number of
authorities in the Church of the East and of the West,
including some of the second century, give the words of
the heavenly voice according to Ps. 2 :f —
"Thou art my Son,
This day have I begotten thee."
Now the early existence of two versions of what the
heavenly voice said — one according to Ps. 2:y and the
other according to Is. 42:1 — is unfavorable to the abso
lute originality of either version. It is best explained on
the hypothesis that what Jesus said of his experience in
that hour2 was more general than our accounts and did
1 TV/Tf j 1 *2'"K
2 We cannot suppose that Jesus told his disciples of this vision and
experience by the Jordan before the day at Caesarea Philippi.

132 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
not go beyond the assertion of a divine assurance _ of
sonship. Subsequently this assurance found differing
literary expression in different Christian circles.
What now was the spiritual experience of Jesus by the
Jordan after he had been baptized by John? What did
the descent of the Spirit mean to him and what the assur
ance that he was God's Son?
As to the descent of the Spirit upon him we have no
light save that which may be derived from the Old Testa
ment; but since the religious life of Jesus was grounded
on this, we may turn to it with some confidence.
There are two passages in Second Isaiah which may
reasonably be supposed to account for the vision of the
Spirit's descent upon Jesus. In one of these an unknown
prophet says that the Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon
him and that he is anointed to' preach good tidings to the
meek (Is. 61:1-3), and in the other the Servant of
Jehovah is described as the chosen of God, the one on
whom the Lord has put his Spirit (Is. 42 :i~4). The tone
of both passages is evangelic, and with the ministry of
Jesus in our mind we could readily believe that these pas
sages had served him as a sort of ideal.
Now since in the Old Testament the prophet and the
Servant of Jehovah are equipped for their ministry to
Israel and to the Gentiles by the presence of the Spirit of
Jehovah, when Jesus saw the Spirit coming upon him,
or when he had an experience which he could symbolic
ally describe in this manner, we may well believe that he
felt himself in the position of the prophet of old, that he
was filled with a sense of being called to minister in
Jehovah's name to the captives and the broken-hearted
and the mourners in Zion. The touch of a great prophet
had brought him to self-realization. He too is a prophet,
the chosen of Jehovah. Yea more: his experience has
not yet reached its climax. To the sense of being a
prophet of Jehovah is added the assurance of being his
Son. As the vision of the Spirit leads us back to the
prophetic Scriptures, so the voice and the title "Son" lead
us back tothe same Scriptures in their Messianic outlook.
The combination of a voice out of heaven and the title

ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 1 33
"Son" points to Ps. 2. No other passage in the Old
Testament combines these two features. And no other
is needed as a background for the experience in question.
Thus we have to think, or at least may think, that in
the soul of Jesus the sense of being a prophet, clothed
with the Spirit of God, was succeeded, perhaps instantly,
by the yet more momentous conviction of being the
Messianic prophet who was to bring the realization of
God's promised kingdom.
The sudden recognition of this fact, the realization of
this overwhelming responsibility that was laid upon him
by God, found a natural expression in his immediate
retirement into solitude, that in communion with God
and his own soul he might learn what he had to do as
the anointed Messiah of his people.
The Logia contained some account of the experience of
Jesus in the wilderness.1 This account appears to have
consisted of three scenes, each containing a proposed
course of action together with a Scripture ground for its
rejection. The second and third scenes of Matthew's
version are inverted in Luke. That Matthew preserves
the original order is favored by the fact that his order
gives a regular gradation in the inducements from the
first to the third.
The essence of these three scenes is identical in the
two versions, a fact that is notable in view of the unusual
number of variants in the presentation of the scenes
(about 40). The formal diversity is evidence of freedom
in the individual handling of the Logia material. The
general setting of these scenes points to the same freedom.
Thus according to Matthew Jesus was led up into the
wilderness under the impulse of the Spirit, while accord
ing to Luke he returned from the Jordan, full of the
Spirit, and, in the Spirit, was led in the wilderness, that
is, led about from place to place. Again, according to
Matthew, the time of trial was after forty days, while
according to Luke the trial continued all through the
forty days, culminating in the three specific scenes. Ac
cording to Matthew, Jesus fasted during the forty days
JMt. 4:3-11; Lk. 4:3-13-

134 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
and nights ; according to Luke, he ate nothing. Matthew
says that Jesus went into the wilderness for the purpose
of being tempted — a thought not found in Luke. Accord
ing to Matthew, the devil left Jesus ; according to Luke,
he left him for a season. Finally, Luke has no reference
to a ministry of angels.
This diversity in the setting in Matthew and Luke sug
gests that the account in the. Logia was mainly devoid of
setting. It doubtless located the trial in the "wilderness,"
but may not have done much more than this.
The narrative of Mark (i :i2-i3) gives no specific sug
gestion in regard to the nature of Jesus' experience in the
wilderness. It shows no trace of acquaintance with the
Logia account. Taken as a whole, it is not intelligible as
a report by Jesus of his retirement into the wilderness,
for we cannot suppose that he would have told his dis
ciples that he was tempted, and yet not have said anything
of the nature of the temptation, or how he had met it.
To have done that would only have bewildered them.
Attention has been called to the freedom with which the
temptation scenes are presented in Matthew and Luke
while the substance is identical in the two versions.
This fact indicates that the substance was in the Logia,
a circumstance which, though not a proof of the historical
character of the material, establishes a presumption in its
favor. But if the story is in essence historical, it must
have come ultimately from the lips of Jesus, for he was
alone in the wilderness. In determining whether the
story is in reality historical it is important to ask whether
it agrees with the situation which it has in the life of
Jesus, whether also the burden of its teaching is harmon
ious with what preceded and what followed. We must
ask then, in the first place, what its teaching is, and in
doing this we will take up the three scenes in order.
In a desert region and hungry, Jesus was confronted
with the proposition, "If1 thou art the Son of God, com-
1 Since the tempting proposals are to be thought of as arising in the
mind of Jesus, the conditional form "if thou art the Son of God" may be
thought to imply momentary doubt in regard to the recent assurance of
Sonship. It is not certain, however, that the conditional particle has more
than a rhetorical force.

ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 1 35
mand that these stones become bread." The title "Son
of God" shows that the present experience of Jesus was
in closest connection with that by the Jordan. Its mean
ing must be thence derived. As we have seen in the
study of that experience, the title is equivalent to "Mes
siah." Out of this new consciousness of his mission the
proposal came to Jesus to satisfy his hunger miraculously.
And this — it might have been urged — would be making
a natural and reasonable use of the power associated with
his new office.1
This proposal was rejected. It had assumed, and
wrongly, that the present occasion justified a miraculous
production of bread. It had thus ignored the truth that
man is a spirit, whose life is maintained by other food
than bread (Dt. 8:3).
The second proposal was in the words, "If thou art the
Son of God, cast thyself down : for it is written :
"He shall give his angels charge concerning thee,
And on their hands they shall bear thee up,
Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone."
(Ps. 91 :n-i2).
In the setting of this scene in Matthew and Luke the
height from which it was proposed that Jesus should cast
himself down was a pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem.
This requires the introduction of a new element into the
story, viz. the element of imagination. For we cannot
suppose that Jesus actually left the wilderness, went up
to Jerusalem, climbed to the roof of the temple, and
there met the proposal to throw himself down. But if
this is inconceivable, if the second proposal, like the first,
confronted him in the wilderness, then the ascent of a
pinnacle of the temple was only imaginary. But it is
not at all necessary to introduce this new element, and so
to weaken the force of the proposal. It is easier and
more natural to suppose that the suggestion to cast him
self down came to Jesus as he stood on the brink of some
precipice in the wilderness which may unexpectedly have
1 This implies of course that Jesus, at that_ time, shared the popular
belief regarding the power of the Messiah, which we have no reason to
doubt was the case.

I36 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
checked him in his wanderings. In the course of time,
while the tradition was yet fluid, this situation may have
been exchanged for the more striking one of our text.
The proposal amounts to this: If thou art the Mes
siah, cast thyself down, for angels will preserve thee
from harm. The desirable thing is to see whether, as
Messiah, he bears a charmed life for which he does not
need to be careful. That this suggestion arose, and that
it had power, is evidence that Jesus shared the popular
belief in regard to the miraculous resources of the
Messiah. But this proposal also was rejected. To accept it
would be to tempt God, which is a forbidden thing. The
man who is promised divine protection is the ordinary
wayfarer who sets his love on God and dwells in his
secret place (Ps. 91:1, 14), not the man who presump
tuously leaps from precipices.
The third proposal, like the others, does not necessarily
take us out of the "wilderness." The original situation
— if we follow the suggestion of Luke's narrative — may
have been some rocky point overlooking both the Jordan
valley and the country to the west, with a far view also
into the regions of Perea and Moab. On such a height,
whether west of the Jordan or east of it does not matter,
Jesus met the proposal contained in the words : "All these
things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship
me." There is nothing here about his being the Son of
God. That title does not enter into the proposition, as
in the preceding cases. But though not expressed, it is
surely implied : that is to say, the proposition arose in the
mind of Jesus in connection with the consciousness of
the Messianic call. It is that which now filled all his
thought^ and only in the light of that is the proposal at
all intelligible.
The devil of this third scene differs notably from the
tempter of the two preceding scenes. There is a show
of reason in the proposals there made, but the third pro
posal, as it stands in our text, is too gross to appeal to any
being who is not morally on the same level with Satan
himself. It is therefore impossible to regard this as

ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 1 37
original. We must rather take the words "if thou wilt
fall down and worship me" as giving, from Jesus' point of
view, the real condition on which he could secure the
dominion of the world. It would be, virtually, by wor
shipping Satan. This is the final thought of Jesus in
regard to the popular materialistic conception of a Mes
sianic kingdom. One could not realize that kingdom
except by Satanic means.
Such are the three scenes of our text. In each one the
fulcrum of the tempting suggestion is the consciousness
of being called to the Messianic ministry. The power of
the temptation sprang out of the popular conception of
the Messiah. The rejection of each proposition came
from considering it in the light of a man's supreme
allegiance, from which even the Messiah is not liberated.
The question now arises whether this mental conflict
and its outcome are in accord with what preceded and
what followed in the life of Jesus. What preceded was
the private life in Nazareth, terminated by the consecra
tion to the kingdom of God with the accompanying ex
perience of a new and wondrous relationship to him.
That private life, out of which flowered the teaching of
Jesus, must have been profoundly spiritual. If now into
such a life there came the consciousness of being called
to realize the Messianic kingdom — came moreover in an
age when the conception of this kingdom was intensely
material and political1 — a conflict would seem to be in
evitable. We may suppose that Jesus in earlier years
had not wholly sympathized with the prevailing Messianic
views, but he then considered them from without and, as
it were, at a distance; now under the pressure of the
personal conviction of his own Messianic responsibility
there must be realized within him an absolute harmony
between his spiritual life in God and his Messianic ideal.
We can understand therefore how there should have been
within him a profound struggle: indeed we can hardly
understand how he could have escaped such a struggle.
But let us now approach the story of the wilderness
1 Even the apostles are represented as clinging to this conception after
the resurrection of Jesus. See Acts 1 :6.

I38 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
experience from the other side. Here a very brief state
ment will be sufficient. The result of the struggle in the
wilderness was the rejection of a material miraculous
Messiahship. So far its significance was negative. To
learn its positive significance we must go back to the
vision by the Jordan.
In Jesus' consciousness that he was clothed upon with
the Spirit of God, as was the Servant of Jehovah in
Isaiah, there was involved the thought of a prophetic
ministry, and as this consciousness was immediately
enlarged or exalted to that of Messiahship, we may
assume that the rejection of the popular conception of
Messiahship1 in the wilderness left in the soul of Jesus
the conception of a prophetic Messiahship. But this is
just the conception which we actually find both in the
words of Jesus and for the most part in the Gospel narra
tive as well.
We conclude then that the substance of the temptation
is in accord with what preceded and what followed in the
life of Jesus; in other words, it seems to be an integral
part of the experience of the Master.
We have now considered the critical events which ter
minated the private life of Jesus, and which not only fore
shadowed a public career, but also indicated of what
nature that career would be.
"¦According to this the Messiah was to be a political leader and his work
a material kingdom.

CHAPTER IV
WHAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF
We have already touched the subject of this chapter in
the discussion of what transpired at the baptism of Jesus
and in the wilderness. We shall now take it up on the
basis of all the data, beginning with the Logia.
A striking feature of that oldest document is the
meagreness of its personal disclosures. Seven-eighths of
it consists of ethical and religious instruction, without an
allusion to the speaker. This instruction is similar to that
of the great prophets of the earlier times, especially to
that of Second Isaiah. It is marked off from that teach
ing by greater simplicity and spirituality, and by its
wonderful blending of gentleness and authority. Taken
by itself, apart from the personal element yet to be men
tioned, it might be regarded merely as the culmination of
Hebrew prophecy. It is therefore what the vision of
Jesus by the Jordan, when he saw the Spirit descending
upon him, would lead us to expect.
But while by far the greater part of the Logia would
lead us to think of the speaker as the supreme prophet,
there is a small but weighty class of passages which seem
to set him apart from the prophets, and in some sense
above them. But not all of these have the same claim to
be regarded as part of the common source of Matthew
and Luke. Let those that are doubtful be first con
sidered. Jesus is represented by Matthew as setting himself
directly against both the traditional law and the Penta
teuch.1 This strong assertion of superiority to former
authorities in Israel is not supported by Luke.2 There is
'Mt, 5:28, 32, 34, 39, 44.
2 The antithesis of Luke 6:27 is not with the Law, but with the thought
of the verse just preceding. 139

140 THE HISTORICAL JESUS •
also an intrinsic improbability in supposing that Jesus,
who, in Mt. 5:18, had declared that while heaven and
earth remain, one jot of the Law should not pass, would
have voluntarily antagonized the scribes by setting his
word above the sacred volume. As he most carefully
sought to avoid a popular misunderstanding of his atti
tude toward Messiahship, even so, we may naturally
think, he would not have provoked a conflict with the
rulers in regard to that Law which was certainly of as
great importance in their sight as was the Messianic
hope. It seems probable therefore that the sharp juxta
position of Jesus' teaching to the letter of the Law is to
be ascribed to the editorial activity of the evangelist.
The thought of Jesus in these verses did, indeed, go be
yond, or possibly even against, that of the Old Testament,
but we need not suppose that he expressed himself in a
form that would surely be obnoxious to his hearers.
Again, it appears doubtful whether Mt. 8 :2i preserves,
unchanged, a saying of the Logia, for Luke (6 46) gives
us, in the same general setting, these words: "Why call
ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"
This is a protest against the present insincerity of his
hearers, while the words of Mt. 7:21 — "Not everyone
that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king
dom of heaven" — evidently refer to the future judgment.
Moreover, it is not favorable to the originality of the say
ing in Matthew that it involves a conception of Jesus
which cannot be carried back to so early a time as that
of the Sermon on the Mount. People who could possibly
imagine that a reverent attitude toward Jesus would be a
sufficient passport in the day of judgment must of course
be supposed to have clearly recognized him as the Mes
siah ; but such recognition, even on the part of his intimate
disciples, seems not to have taken place before the great
day at Caesarea Philippi, and on the part of the general
public it never took place. It is obvious therefore that,
as compared with the version of Luke, that of Matthew
is secondary.
There is yet another passage in the double tradition of
Matthew and Luke of which the two texts are so divergent

WHAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF 141
that the original saying back of them is obscured. Ac
cording to Mt. 19 :28 Jesus said to the Twelve: "Verily, I
say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the
regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel ;" but according to Lk. 22 :28-30
he said : "But ye are they which have continued with me
in my temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom,
even as my Father appointed unto me; that ye may eat
and drink at my table, in my kingdom ; and ye shall sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Now it is noticeable, in the first place, that the settings
of this passage in Matthew and Luke are unusually
divergent. In Matthew it is spoken in response to a
question of Peter, in Luke it is a spontaneous utterance
of Jesus. Peter seems to be actuated, in Matthew, by
much the same motive that led James and John to seek
the first places in the coming kingdom, but in Luke Jesus,
of his own accord, promises kingly rule to the Twelve in
view of their faithfulness.
Still more significant are the phraseology and the ideas.
Thus the word "regeneration" (7raAivy£i/eo-ia) occurs no
where else in the Gospels, nor indeed in the entire New
Testament in the sense it has here, for in Titus 3:5 it
is individual and ethical, not cosmical.1 Further, there
is nothing in the teaching of Jesus that throws light on
this term, no idea that is parallel to the meaning which
it seems to have. Thus it appears in the text as a
foreign element.
Again, the thought that Jesus is to sit upon a throne in
the realized kingdom is found only in Matthew, and the
other passage where it occurs bears marks of a late date.2
Then the promise that the Twelve should be enthroned
as judges of the twelve tribes of Israel seems to depart
in two fundamental points from the thought of Jesus.
He told James and John that it was not in his power to
assign places of honor in the kingdom of God,3 and he
1 Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 145, tells us that this word cannot be
literally translated into either Hebrew or Aramaic.
2Mt. 25:31-46.
sMk. 10:40; Mt. 20:23.

142 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
made it clear on one notable occasion that the way of true
honor was open to all disciples without distinction,1 but
according to the present passage he surrenders both these
principles. We conclude therefore that this passage is not
available with those of the Logia which give us light on
the view which Jesus took regarding himself.2
We pass now to the more important words which Mat
thew and Luke derived from the Logia, bearing upon our
subject. There is first a group of sayings that concern
the attitude of men toward Jesus. Thus the Sermon on
the Mount closes with the assertion that one who hears
and does the words of Jesus is like a man who builds on
a rock-foundation.3 The winds and floods cannot shake
his structure. With this take also the word spoken of
the centurion of Capernaum : "I have not found so great
faith, no, not in Israel."4 From this it appears that Jesus
had been looking for faith on the part of those who had
heard his word and seen his works. To judge from this
narrative the faith which Jesus welcomed was trust in
him as able and willing to help.
There is yet another saying of the Logia which belongs
here, that of Lk. 12:8-9; Mt. 10:32-33: "Everyone who
shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of Man
confess before the angels of God : but he that denieth me
in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of
the angels of God." The general sense of the word
"confess" is clear from the antithetic word "deny" and
from the antithesis of the two scenes of confession or
denial, one in the presence of men, the other before the
angels of God, that is, in the day of judgment. The say
ing plainly assumes that a man's attitude toward Jesus
is of vital importance. And that is also the implication
of the two preceding passages. Why a man's attitude
toward Jesus is of vital importance is suggested by the
first of the three passages before us. It is because he
reveals the character and will of God, because he is the
supreme Teacher.
1 Mk. 10:43-45; Mt. 20:26-28; Lk. 22:26.
2 The notable peculiarities of Luke's version of this saying (e.g., the use
of TretpoKT/ids and JSatriAeta) serve to confirm this conclusion.
8Lk. 6:47-49; Mt. 7:24-27. * Lit. 7:2-10; Mt. 8:10.

WHAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF I43
A second group of sayings in the Logia help to define
the thought of Jesus regarding himself by contrasting
him with the earlier revelations of God. There is first
the message of Jesus to John.1 The messengers were
to tell John what they had heard and seen in the presence
of Jesus — his deeds of mercy and his preaching — and it
appears that these facts were thought to be suggestive
for John because of a correspondence between them
and certain Messianic forecasts, as Is. 35:5 and 60:1.
Then the messengers were also to bear back this most
significant word: "Blessed is he whosoever shall find
none occasion of stumbling in me." It is here plainly
admitted to be possible that, in spite of the fact that the
activity of Jesus answers in a remarkable manner to pro
phetic visions of the coming age, one may find in him
occasion of stumbling. The one who spoke thus evi
dently realized that he did not altogether correspond to
all the prophetic forecasts. A man might stand securely
and intelligently on Old Testament ground and yet not
recognize him as the "coming one."
Two other sayings belong here. When scribes and
Pharisees sought a sign from Jesus,2 he put his appear
ance and work in line with Jonah's appearance in Nine
veh, and then went on to declare that the men of Nineveh
would condemn the present generation because they had
repented at Jonah's preaching, and "something greater"
than Jonah was now among them. In like manner the
Queen of the South would condemn the present genera
tion, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the
wisdom of Solomon, and "something greater" than Sol
omon was now among them. This "something" that is
"greater"3 (irXaov) than prophets and wise men of old
is not here defined, but the context clearly leads us to see
it in the message of Jesus.
The second saying is that of Lk. 10:23-24; Mt. 13:
16-17. "Blessed are the eyes which see the things which
'Mt. 11:4-6; Lk. 7:22-23.
2Lk. 11:29-32; Mt. 12:38-42. ,.,,.,
8 It is surely significant that Jesus did not directly contrast himself with
prophets and wise men. He did not say "one greater," but "something
greater."

144 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
ye see : for I say unto you that many prophets and kings
desired to see the things which ye see and saw them not,
and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them
not." This word sets Jesus apart from the prophets, at
least in the completeness of his message.1
Following these two groups of passages which throw
light on our subject from two points of view, we have
finally a single passage which touches it in a different
manner. This is the saying of Lk. 10:21-22; Mt. 11:
25-27. Unfortunately the text of this great passage is
not altogether certain and its original setting is unknown.
As regards the text, the uncertainty belongs to the last
verse. Harnack2 has pointed out that the clause "and
who the Son is save the Father" does not suit the context.
That has to do with knowledge of the Father, not of the
Son. It was knowledge of the Father for which Jesus
gave thanks in verse 25 (Mt.), and it is knowledge of
the Father with which the last half of verse 27 has to do.
Again, the aim of this verse appears to be theological,
while that of the context is wholly practical. The knowl
edge of the Father which the Son has he imparts to others.
He shares it with all who are receptive. It is the very
knowledge for whose acceptance by his disciples he gave
thanks in verse 25, for though his own mediation did not
come into sight there it must of course be understood.
But the statement that no one knows the Son save the
Father appears to have no other aim than to claim that
Jesus can be known by the Father only, in other words
to claim that he is of the same nature with the Father,
as is done by the author of Mt. 28 :i9. Because then this
statement regarding the Father's knowledge of the Son
appears to be at variance with the context, we may best
regard it as a later development.
But the passage, even after this deduction, is the most
comprehensive and weighty for the subject in hand which
is to be found in the Logia. It contains the threefold
claim that Jesus had a complete knowledge of the Father,
that he alone had this knowledge, and that he could im-
1 Cf. Lk. 10:12-15; Mt. 11:20-24.
•See Spriiche und Reden Jesu, pp. 189-21 1.

WHAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF I45
part it to receptive souls. The form of this saying sug
gests the experience by the Jordan in which Jesus was
conscious of being the Son of God. The completeness
of the knowledge of the Father which is claimed puts
the passage in the class with those already considered
where Jesus contrasts God's message through him with
the former revelation.
We may say that this verse sums up the content of all
the passages of the Logia which have come into view in
the present chapter. For one who was conscious of pos
sessing a complete knowledge of the Father and conscious
of being able to impart it to others could say, as Jesus
did, that the man who heard and did his words was like
one who' builds on the rock ; he could reasonably look for
faith in his word and rejoice when he found it; he could
say that confession or denial of him was of transcendent
importance; he could say that the members of his king
dom were greater than the Baptist, though the Baptist
was equal to any prophet; he could declare that some
thing greater than Jonah and greater than Solomon had
been manifested in his appearance and work, and there
fore could pronounce his disciples blessed as compared
with kings and prophets of old.
Thus according to those words of Jesus which are
found in the Logia — that earliest Christian document of
which we have any trace — he thought of himself as chosen
to be the revealer of God. His mission was to make
known the truth. He thought of himself as a prophet,
but as marked off from those who had gone before by
the possession of complete knowledge of the Father. In
the vision by the Jordan, but not elsewhere in the Logia,
is there a distinct reference to the Messianic title.
We pass now from the Logia to the data which are
furnished by the common tradition of all the synoptists,
that is, to those data of the oldest Gospel which, with or
without change, were incorporated by Matthew and Luke
in their narratives. How, according to these data, did
Jesus regard himself ?
Here, as in the Logia, the great body of the words
ascribed to Jesus make no allusion to the speaker: the
10

I46 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
1
teaching is impersonal. Naturally then, when we have
only this teaching in mind, we Infer that the one who
gave it regarded himself as a teacher or prophet. And
when we go forward to the small class of passages
which do allude to the speaker, we find both these terms
on his lips. Jesus placed himself in the category of
prophets when he said to his unbelieving townsmen in
Nazareth:1 "A prophet is not without honor save in his
own country and among his own kin and in his own
house;" and he classed himself with teachers when on
the last evening he sent to make preparation for the pass-
over meal, and told his disciples to say to the good man
of the house, "The teacher saith, where is my guest cham
ber where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?"2
To one other saying our attention is rightly called in
this connection. Jesus said to a paralytic, "Thy sins are
forgiven,"3 and when he saw that this word caused
offense, he justified it by healing the man. But first he
asked his silent critics whether it was easier to forgive
sins or to heal disease. He assumed that the former was
the easier, and that no one could challenge this assump
tion. Then he spoke the healing word to the paralytic,
that his adversaries might know that he, the Son of Man,
had authority to forgive sins upon earth. He seems to
have regarded the announcement of forgiveness as a
prophetic act, for he classed it with healing as the easier
of the two, and acts of healing were certainly regarded by
him as within the prophet's sphere.4 It is to be noted
that Jesus did not assume to forgive sins by any right or
power _ inherent in himself. He only claimed to be
authorized so to act, which word clearly points away
from himself to another as the original source of for
giveness. A prophet and a teacher, then, was Jesus in his own
eyes, and the great mass of his words in the triple tradi
tion, probably nine-tenths, do not suggest any other office.
But there is here also, as in the Logia, a group of pas
sages which separate, in some sense, between Jesus and
*Mk. 6:4. 2Mk. 14:14. 8Mk. 2:5.
4 See, e.g., Mt. 10:8. 3

WHAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF I47
other prophets, and to these data we now turn. First in
order is the famous Caesarean passage.1 Jesus asked
his disciples what men thought of him, who or what he
was, and received the answer that some regarded him as
John the Baptist, others as Elijah, and still others as a
prophet. That is to say, the highest opinion of his mis
sion which men held made him the forerunner of the
Messiah. Then he put the direct question to his disciples :
"But whom say ye that I am?" One voice only — that of
Peter — replied: "Thou art the Christ." Yet this one
voice appears to have been in reality representative, for
the narrative continues that Jesus charged "them" not
to speak concerning him to any one, that is, not to pro
claim him as the Christ ; but we cannot suppose that they
would have thus proclaimed him had they not believed
him to be the Messiah.
Jesus accepted this avowal of belief — indeed he seems
to have sought it — but the belief was not to be noised
abroad. It was to remain for the present a secret of
friendship. It appears from what immediately followed
that Jesus did not seek this avowal of faith in his Mes
siahship on his own account, but rather for the sake of
his disciples themselves, that he might lead them on into
a chapter of truth which he had not yet opened and for
the mere hearing of which they needed the help which
would come from his acknowledgment of Messiahship.
The next occasion on which Jesus is credited by the
synoptists with words of unique personal import is that
when, sitting on the Mount of Olives, he spoke of the
destruction of the temple, and of his own future.2 Two
utterances are here to be considered. The first is that
which affirms the imperishability of his teaching : "Heaven
and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away."3 It is most natural to take this saying in connec
tion with Mt. 1 1 :27 in the Logia. If that reflects more
than a prophetic consciousness, or perhaps we should say
the culmination of the prophetic consciousness, so does
this.

1 Mk. 8:27-28; Mt. 16:13-14; Lk. g:i8-i9.
2 Mk. 13, Mt. 24, Lk. 21.

8 Mk. 13:31-

I48 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
The second word in the Olivet discourse which belongs
in the group under discussion is this : "Then shall they
see the Son_oiJ\!an coming in the clouds with power and
great glory."1 Here we meet the title "Son of Man," not
indeed for the first time in the common tradition of the
synoptists,2 but for the first time where its source and
general sense seem to stand revealed. Not only the title
itself butThe "clouds of heaven" and the purpose of the
coming on clouds, that is, the entire scene, is drawn from
Dan. 7:13-14. The main thought of that passage in
Daniel is plain: the being who receives the final and
everlasting kingdom is the representative of perfected
humanity; he comes not from beneath, as the "beasts"
(7:3) that symbolize the worldly and ungodly, but from
above, with the clouds of heaven. This picture is Mes
sianic in the sense that it has the_jiote__of finality, of
consummation. We turn from the Olivet discourse to a word which
Jesus spoke on the last evening of his life, while he was
with the Twelve in the upper room and while his thought
was upon the treachery of Judas : "The Son of Man
goeth even as it is written of him, but woe unto that man
through whom the Son of Man is betrayed."3 But it is
nowhere written in the Old Testament that one called
the "Son of Man" goes to death.4 Therefore, if Jesus
used this title, it seems that he must have used it as a
synonym of "Messiah." There are in the Old Testament
certain forecasts of the Messiah's suffering, and we have
already seen that both in the Logia and in the common
tradition of the synoptists there are words of Jesus which
clearly point to a Messianic claim. It seems therefore
that in this instance Jesus used the title "Son of Man" in
a general Messianic sense.
We come now to the last passage of the present group.
At the trial of Jesus, first by the sanhedrin and then by
Pontius Pilate, the synoptists represent him as having
1Mk. 13:26; Mt. 24:30; Lk. 21:27.
2 See Mk. 2:5, io, 28; Mt._9:6; 12:8; Lk. 5:24; 6:5.
8 Lk. 22 :22 has Kara rb mpi.o-it.ivov instead of a reference to the Scrip
tures. This more philosophical form, akin to Greek thought rather than
to the Hebrew, cannot stand as against that of Mk. 14:21 and Mt. 26:24.
*Cf. Mk. 9:13.

WHAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF I49
answered affirmatively the question of Caiaphas, "Art
thou the Christ?"1 and the question of Pilate, "Art thou
the king of the Jews ?"2 These two scenes form a con
trast to that at Caesarea Philippi in this sense that, while
Jesus there tacitly accepted the disciples' avowal of be
lief in his Messiahship, he here, in the presence of his
enemies and in the most solemn manner, affirms his Mes
siahship. He knew that to make this claim before the
high priest would cost him his life. We have no right to
say that the conviction of his Messianic call was any
clearer in the day of his trial than it was at Caesarea
Philippi : we say only that the expression of it was the
most solemn that he ever made.
The data which we have now considered are all that
the triple tradition contains which imply that Jesus
thought of himself as more than a prophet. His works
of healing fall within the prophetic office. Such works
had been done by men of God in former times, and such
were done by the disciples of Jesus. What such works
were thought to show was the presence of God with the
one who wrought them,3 or, otherwise expressed, they
authenticated one as a prophet.4
There is one passage in the common tradition of the
synoptists in which Jesus speaks of God as his Father,6
and only one. But it is not clear that this has any peculiar
bearing whatever on the individual relation of Jesus to
God. For, according to the Logia, Jesus taught his
disciples to address God as Father,6 nor is there any sug
gestion in that document, or in the common synoptic
tradition, that in his thought the fatherhood of God was
one thing for them and something essentially different
for him.
In conclusion on this part of our sources it may be said
that in the common synoptic tradition as in the Logia
1 Mk. 14:61; Mt. 26:63; Lk. 22:67, 70. The terms "Son of Man" and
"Messiah" are here used without difference of meaning. Luke's divergent
text cannot be regarded as in any point superior to that of Mark and
Matthew. 2Mk. 15:2, Mt. 27:11, Lk. 23:3.
8 See Acts 7 :g.
«Lk. 7:16; Mk. 6:15; 8:28.
BMk. 8:38; Mt. 16:27; Lk. 9:26.
•Mt. 5:48; Lk. 6:36.

150 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Jesus thinks of himself as a prophet and thinks of himself
also as the Messiah. This latter thought is more explicit
here than in the Logia, but we cannot say that it is more
developed. The tone of finality in Mt. n =27, or in the
manner in which Jesus contrasted himself with the former
revelation of God, carries in it all the Messianic meaning
which is contained in Peter's confession at Caesarea
Philippi, or in the solemn affirmation before the sanhedrin.
From the triple tradition we pass now to those data
which are found in one or two of the synoptic narratives
but not in all.
In Mark and Matthew1 Jesus said, speaking of a cer
tain future hour, that neither the angels in heaven nor
the Son knew of it ; only the Father knew. But this term
"Son" and the juxtaposition of Son and Father do not
take us beyond that spiritual experience of Jesus by the
Jordan the expression of which was suggested by Ps. 2.
The verse belongs with those already considered which
reflect a Messianic consciousness. It is of interest to note
that here where knowledge is concerned the Son is
placed above the angels. The word is of kin with Mt.
1 1 :27, and breathes the consciousness of an unique office.
Parallel to this thought is the teaching of Lk. 10 :38-42.
He who was confident that he knew the Father as no
other had known him could say that to sit at his feet and
hear his word, as Mary did, was the one thing needful.
And finally, it is in accord with the Logia and with the
triple tradition when, according to Luke 13:33, Jesus
classed himself with the prophets, saying, "It cannot be
that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem," and when,
according to Matthew 28:8, he spoke of himself as a
teacher. All that has been said thus far in the present chapter
has concerned the historical mission of Jesus. But this
unique mission in which Jesus felt himself to be the ful
filment of the highest aspirations of his people — did it, >
in his own thought, imply any essential difference between
him and his fellowmen?
In the first place, it is to be said that, so far as our
1Mk. 13:32; Mt. 24:36.

WHAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF 151
oldest sources are concerned, there is not the slightest
indication that Jesus ever considered this question.
There is no indication that he ever said a word on the
conditions of Messiahship — why he was chosen for this
mission rather than any one else, whether it was because
of inner purity, or because his being was different from
that of other men. His followers have indulged in much
speculation along this line, and speculations have hard
ened into dogmas, but Jesus was silent. There is evi
dence that he thought much of the will of God and of
conforming his will to the Father's, but none whatever
that he discussed with himself the question whether his
being was like or unlike that of the men around him.
A more difficult question is whether Jesus thought of
himself as wholly different from other men in character.
The Logia, if we except the story of the temptation, has
nothing that bears directly on this point. If Jesus had
there presented himself as the judge of men, that would
have required investigation to determine whether the
function of universal judge implied perfect character, but
it is doubtful whether he did so speak of himself. For
Mt. 7:23 is not supported by Lk. 13:25-27. In the
former passage words of judgment are ascribed to Jesus ;
but in the parallel, Jesus speaks in a parable of the rela
tion of a lord and his steward. The point of the passage
moreover is the call to faithfulness, not the decision of
the question who is to judge the faithful and the unfaith
ful. And again, in Mt. 10:32-33; Lk. 12:8-9, Jesus
speaks of confessing or denying certain men in the pres
ence of God, which language appears to give him the
function of a witness and to ascribe judgment to God.
It may be noted at once that this uncertainty of the Logia
is found also in various passages of Matthew and Luke
which were not in the Logia. Thus in Mt. 6:5 and
18:35 it is God who either forgives, or judges and exe
cutes, and in those parables of Matthew which associate
the Son of Man with judgment,1 the real testing and
execution are left to angels. In Lk. 18 :8 the avenger of
the elect is God
'Mr. 13:41, 49.

152 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
We have then in the Logia simply the story of the
temptation that bears on the point in hand. With this
may be associated one word in the common synoptic
tradition.1 To the rich man who addressed Jesus as
"Good Teacher" the reply was made, "Why callest thou
me good? none is good save one, God." It is obvious
that the primary purpose of Jesus here is to direct the
man's thought to God as the one perfect standard of
right. Incidental to this is his refusal to accept for him
self the title "good." But though incidental, this word
appears to be significant for our thought of Jesus. If we
define its significance in harmony with the story of the
temptation in the wilderness, we shall say that it implies
a sense of human weakness and liability to sin. It does
not imply a consciousness of sin, but it is not intelligible
unless behind it lay a consciousness of being temptable.
This consciousness would be ample reason for rejecting
the unqualified epithet of "good." In accord with the
recognition that he was temptable is the well established
fact that Jesus prayed.
Further than this our sources do not directly justify us
in going. To believe that Jesus was the purest and best
of mankind is required both by the story of his life and
by his influence on the world ; but that he regarded him
self as wholly sinless we are not justified in affirming on
the ground of his own words and deeds. That in such
crises as the temptation in the wilderness and the night
in Gethsemane he was conscious of utmost loyalty to
God's will is indeed strong evidence that in the interval
between these two scenes, in circumstances of less terrible
aspect, his inner allegiance was unmarred. And the idea
of this spiritual integrity, preserved by struggle and
prayer, is not inconsistent with the refusal to be called
good. For the sense that there was need of struggle and
need of prayer would not allow him to think of his good
ness as on the same level with the unchangeable goodness
of God. Even though he had never been overcome, he
felt that he might be.
We are now at the end of what the historical sources
1Mk. 10:17-22; Mt. 19:16-22; Lk. 18:18-23.

WHAT JESUS THOUGHT OF HIMSELF 1 53
have to teach on the question how Jesus regarded him
self. We shall conclude with a survey of the ground
which has been covered.
In the Logia, in the common tradition of the synoptists,
and in other words ascribed to Jesus by only one. or two
of the Gospels, there is extremely little reference to him
self. The bulk of the teaching is impersonal, and from
its character we infer that the speaker was a prophet, was
the greatest of the prophets. But in all these sources
there are also some personal assertions or allusions.
From these we learn that Jesus explicitly classed himself
with the prophets and spoke of himself as a teacher. We
learn also, both from the Logia and from the oldest Gos
pel, that he believed himself to be the Messiah. This
belief was not privately avowed until the day at Caesarea
Philippi, and not avowed in public until the day of his
death, and even then not spontaneously. Jesus never
defined his Messiahship. The withholding of the claim
to be Messiah is sufficient evidence, and was at the time
sufficient evidence, that he did not share the popular view.
On the other hand, the simple fact that his life was given)
to teaching, of which his deeds furnished visible illustra-1
tion, makes it plain that, in his own mind, the ministry o£
the Messiah was the culmination of prophetic ministry.
As to the nature of Jesus, whether it was different
from that of other men, there is no evidence in our sources
that this was ever the subject of remark or of reflection
on his part.
That, in the sphere of character, Jesus made an abso
lute separation between himself and others we are not
warranted bjjrisjwords and acts in affirming. He made
it clear that he was acquainted with temptation and con
scious of needing God's help. But a sense of creaturely
dependence is by no means inconsistent with a conscious
ness of perfect moral integrity, and such a consciousness,
it seems to us, can hardly be separated from the un-
1 clouded conviction of Jesus that he knew the Father as
1 no one had ever known him and that he could impart this
'saving knowledge to other.0/.

CHAPTER V
THE IDEAL OF JESUS FOR HIS PEOPLE
We have seen that Jesus thought of himself as a
prophet and as the Messiah of his people, as the one
chosen to complete the revelation of God which had been
imperfectly made known in former times. To this truth
the present question is nearly related. As jhe final
prophet of his people, what was his ideal for them?
In seeking to answer this question we begin with the
oldest source, the Logia. This document, miscellaneous
in character, contains no formal statement of the thought
of Jesus on any subject. It does not announce his ideal.
It contains three or four score of sayings which pro
foundly touch many sides of man's life, but it sets no one
particular truth in the center. It must therefore be re
garded with great care if we are to derive from it any
clear and satisfactory light on the ideal of Jesus for his
people. There are two ways of approaching Jesus' ideal as far
as it is reflected in the Logia. One is to take the various
spiritual utterances, like the beatitude for those who
hunger and thirst after righteousness, analyze these
utterances, and classify their content. This may have
been the way that a thoughtful hearer actually proceeded
for a time. Such an one heard new and beautiful truths
from the lips of Jesus, compared them, more or less
consciously, with similar utterances of the Old Testament,
and laid them up in memory as so many separate teach
ings on this subject and on that. The other and better
way to the goal is to start from those sayings which are
personal in character and which cannot be separated from
the speaker. Of these there are several that bear on the
present subject.
The first is given by Matthew in the address to the
i54

THE IDEAL OF JESUS FOR HIS PEOPLE 155
disciples when they were sent out to teach and to heal i1
"A disciple is not above his master, nor a servant above
his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his
master, and the servant as his lord."2 It is implied in
these words that the disciple of Jesus can become like
him, and that to be like him is the goal of discipleship.
The application of this principle that follows, viz. that the
disciple is to expect hardship and suffering since that has
been the lot of the Master, is not to be regarded as giving
its entire scope. It is simply one particular, of immediate
practical importance, which illustrates the principle.
The second saying of this group is given by Matthew
in the same address,3 though Luke puts it much later
when the consequences of following Jesus were more to
be feared than at the time of the mission of the Twelve.4
The saying turns on the thought of confessing Jesus, or
denying him, before men. This is represented as of
fundamental importance, for it is implied that it deter
mines one's acceptance or rejection by God. Yet the
character of the confession or denial is not indicated.
Elsewhere in this address and in other teaching of Jesus
we learn what is meant. He that doeth the will of the
Father, he that builds on the words of Jesus, he that is
as his Master — he it is who confesses him.5 Thus it is
seen to be a matter of the life, not of the lips.
The third saying is that of Mt. n ^5-27 ; Lk. 10:21-22.
Jesus thanked the Father that he had revealed truth to
his disciples, but it is quite manifest that he thought of
the Father's revelation as made through him. He is the
one who knows the Father and who can reveal him to
others. These three sayings from the Logia help us to under
stand the ideal which Jesus had for his people. The
disciple is to know the Father through Jesus; he is to
make a living confession of Jesus ; he is to be like Jesus.
Hence Jesus could say, "He that receives you receives
1 This location of the saying as well as Matthew's version of it is
preferable to Luke's (6:40).
2 Mt. 10:24-25.
8Mt. 10:32-33.
*Lk. 12:8-9. Mt- ?:2I> 24! 10:25.

156 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me."1
The disciple is to have his spirit as he has the Father's
spirit, that is to say, he is to have the spirit of the Father
through him.
Stated then in the simplest terms, the ideal of Jesus
for his people, as we find it in the Logia, was that they
should be like him. It was a personal ideal. It was
grounded wholly, so far as we can see, in Jesus' own
spiritual experience. It was not theoretical, but absolutely
vital. Since therefore the ideal of Jesus for his people arose
out of his own inner experience as a flower comes forth
out of the hidden roots of the plant, we are justified in
returning to the impersonal sayings of the Logia with
the presumption that they had a personal background,
and were born out of the real experience of a living man.
There are some sayings in the Logia that obviously can
not be brought under this head — sayings in regard to the
past and the future, and sayings that interpret points of
the Law or touch great principles of right and justice.
Thus, when Jesus said that one jot should not pass from
the Law until all was fulfilled,2 that many should come
from the east and the west, and should sit down with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,3
and that it should be more tolerable for Sodom in the day
of judgment than for certain Galilean cities,4 and other
similar words, it is evident that his thought was moving
beyond the range of personal experience. But in the
much larger class of passages of moral and spiritual
import, which constituted the bulk of the Logia, we are
doubtless justified in seeing an expression of what he had
learned and felt in his own soul. The beatitudes on the
poor and the mourners, and on those who hunger and
thirst after righteousness;6 the injunctions not to resist
him who is evil," to love one's enemies,7 to refrain from
judging,8 to practice unlimited forgiveness,9 and to do to
'Mt. 10:40; Lk. 10:16. 8Mt. 5:39-40; Lk. 6:27-30.
fMt. 5:18; Lk. 16:17. 'Mt. 5:44-48; Lk. 6:32-36.
•Mt. 8:11-12; Lk. 13:28, 29. 8 Mt. 7:1-2; Lk. 6:37-38.
•Mt. 10:15; Lk. 10:12. »Mt. 18:21-22; Lk. 17:4.
•Mt. 5:3, 4. 6; Lk. 6:20-21. ' 7 4

THE IDEAL OF JESUS FOR HIS PEOPLE 1 57
others what one would desire from them -1 the exhortation
regarding anxiety,2 the appeal to trust God's constant
and minute care,3 all words on the power of faith4 and
the absolute value of reality in religion5 — these and other
fundamental teachings on the individual and social life
we have reason to believe were born out of Jesus' own
deep experience. This is the great ground, we may well
believe, why people felt a tone of authority in his teach
ing.6 He spoke not by rote but out of the heart.
Another passage of very peculiar value remains to be
noted in this connection, and that is the Lord's Prayer.7
If we approach this from the side of those great utter
ances of the Logia which present the ideal of Jesus for
his people as the reflex of his own inner life, and remem
ber the stress which he laid on reality, we shall regard it
as drawn from his own experience — as the sort of prayer
that he himself had prayed, it may be for many years.
The petition for the forgiveness of sins may be an excep
tion — certainly is an exception — unless we hold, as per
haps we should, that Jesus with his unique sense of the
holiness of God may have accounted as sin even such a
momentary entertainment of wrong thoughts as vexed
his soul in the wilderness and the conscious need of
effort to obtain a perfect acquiescence in the Divine will,
as in the hour in Gethsemane.
It appears then that so far as the ideal of Jesus for his
people can be learned from the Logia it was a purely
religious ideal, born of his own experience. It was re
lated indeed to the domestic, social, political and national
life, but it was not an ideal for any one of these spheres.
It was rather the essential condition of right ideals for all
of them — for the home and society and the state.
We have thus far taken no account of one term that is
used in the Logia, though it is a term which has often
served as the starting-point in discussions of the ideal of
'Mt. 7:12; Lk. 6:31.
2Mt. 6:25-33; Lk. 12:22-31.
3 Mt. 7:7-11; 10:29-30; Lk. 10:9-13; 12:6-8.
1 E.g., Mt. 17:20; Lk. 17:6.
BMt. 7:21, 24-27; Lk. 6:46, 47-9.
8 E.g., Mk. 1:22, 27.
7Mt. 6:9-13; Lk. 11:2-4.

158 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Jesus, or even as synonymous with that ideal, viz. the
term "kingdom of God." But this subordination, so far
at least as the Logia is concerned, is in accordance with
the data. Let these now be brought forward. Take
first the passages in which the sense of the term is plain.
When Jesus declared that many should come from the
east and the west and should sit down with Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but that the
sons of the kingdom should be cast forth into the outer
darkness,1 the term is a simple equivalent of "heaven."
With this use of the term we have here no further
concern. Again, there are two passages in the Logia where the
term has a present significance which is not doubtful.
These are the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Thy king
dom come,"2 and the exhortation, "Seek ye his king
dom."3 Matthew's amplification of the petition with the
words "Thy will be done" explains the petition. This we
are warranted in saying by passages in the same source
which represent man's supreme duty as the doing of God's
will which Jesus had made known.4 In like manner
Matthew's amplification of the other saying suggests its
meaning. Where Luke says "Seek ye his kingdom,"
Matthew has "Seek ye his kingdom and his righteous
ness." One who seeks and finds God's righteousness,
finds his kingdom. Thus in both these sayings of the
Logia the "kingdom of God" is the rule of God in man's
heart. When his will is done, his kingdom has come.
With these passages may be classed that which likens
the kingdom to leaven,5 and probably also that beatitude
which promises the kingdom to the poor.6
In the two passages that remain to be noted, the term
"kingdom" may still be taken in the sense of rule — God's
rule in man's heart — but the context suggests in each case
that this rule has a unique realization in and through
Jesus. It is the consciousness of this truth that finds
expression in the words of Jesus to the Twelve when he
'Mt. 8:11-12; Lk. 13:28-29. *Mt. 7:24-27: 11:25-27; Lk. 6:47-49; 10:21-22.
2Mt. 6:10; Lk. 11:2. BMt. 13:33; Lk. 13:20-21.
8Mt. 6:33; Lk. 12:31. «Mt. 5:3; Lk. 6:20.

THE IDEAL OF JESUS FOR HIS PEOPLE 1 59
declared that the kingdom was at hand, or had come
nigh,1 and also in that saying wherein he contrasted his
disciples with the Baptist — "he that is least in the king
dom of heaven is greater than he."2 It is impossible to
suppose that he compared his disciples with John in the
simple matter of conformity to God's will. John was
surely in the kingdom of God in the sense that he was
obedient to God's will as made known to him in Law and
Prophets ; but he did not belong to the New Era in which
God's will was uniquely made known in Jesus. Thus in
both these passages the term "kingdom of God" acquires
a new meaning through its association with Jesus. It
still denotes God's rule in the heart, but God's rule as
historically realized.
Thus it is seen that Jesus' use of the term "kingdom of
God" confirms what had previously been said about his
ideal for Israel.
We pass now from the Logia to the common tradition
of the synoptists. What light does this throw on the
ideal of Jesus for his people ? It is to be remarked, in the
first place, that here, even as in the Logia, those words of
Jesus in which his thought for his people is most pro
nounced and comprehensive present that thought or ideal
in a personal form. Thus he said to his disciples and to
the multitude that he required men to follow him at all
hazards,3 and that nothing should be allowed to make them
ashamed of him or of his words.4 The rich ruler who
had kept the commandments of the Law he summoned
to follow him.5 Another scene that presents his thought
even more completely is that in which his mother and
brothers sought to have him come forth to them from the
house where he was teaching.6 Looking about on those
who sat around him he said, "Behold my mother and my
brothers ! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the
same is my brother and sister and mother." Surely they
who had come into the near relationship to him of
brother and sister and mother were actually realizing his
'Mt. 10:7; Lk. 10:9. * Mk. 8:38; Mt. 16:27; Lk. 9:26.
2 Mt. 11:11; Lk. 7:28. 6 Mk. 10:21; Mt. 19:21; Lk. 18:22.
8Mk. 8:34; Mt. 16:24; Lk. 9:23. 6Mk. 3:34; Mt. 12:49; Lk. 8:21.

l6o THE HISTORICAL JESUS
ideal for his people. And that ideal bound them to him
as it bound them to God. It was personal, and it was
religious. To hear him receptively was to do the will of
God. There is no scene in the triple tradition that is
more impressive and illuminating than this. There is no
uncertainty in the words of Jesus or in the situation in
which they were spoken. All is clear and explicit.
It seems fitting to place by the side of this scene that
other equally characteristic one where Jesus took little
children in his arms and said, "To such belongeth the
kingdom of God."1 The kingdom is something that can
be received and possessed, but only as a little child re
ceives, that is, humbly and with a trustful heart. Now
the people seated around Jesus in the former scene were
receiving his word in such a spirit that he referred to
them as doing God's will. A comparison of the two
scenes suggests that, in the passage about the children,
Jesus meant by "kingdom" just the Father's rule in the
heart and nothing else.2
But we have not yet exhausted the data in the com
mon synoptic tradition which present the ideal of Jesus
for his people in a personal form. Conspicuous among
these data is the declaration that the Son of Man came to
minister.3 This is given as the ground of his appeal to
the Twelve to regard the way of service as the way to
true greatness. Twice, according to the common synop
tic tradition, he emphasized this principle. Once was in
Capernaum, after the question of their individual great
ness had been discussed by the Twelve on the way
thither,4 and the other time, just referred to, was when,
on the way to Jerusalem, James and John sought assur
ance from the Master that they should have the first
places in his kingdom. Here he bases his appeal upon
his own example. The principle of service is to be
fundamental in their lives because it has been funda
mental in the life of the Son of Man. This is not the
whole of his ideal for his people, but it is an essential
1 Mk. 10:14; Mt. 19:14; Lk. 18:16.
2 Cf. Mk. 4:11, 30; 10:23 with the parallels in Mt. and Lk.
8 Mk. 10:45; Mt. 20:28; Lk. 22:27.
* Mk. 9:33-34; Mt. 18:1; Lk. 9:46.

THE IDEAL OF JESUS FOR HIS PEOPLE l6l
part of it, and it is purely personal. It was the very
culmination of this thought when, on the last evening,
Jesus gave his disciples bread and wine as symbols of
his body and blood. The gift of these implied that he
was about to give the supreme illustration of willing
devotion to the principle of service. The supper was
the consecration of his ideal on its social side. By
partaking of the bread and wine they were solemnly
pledged to him in his capacity of a ministering friend.
We may note, in passing, what the ideal of Jesus for
his people implied in relation to the Old Dispensation.
The data on this point are incidental and doubtless
fragmentary. We are not to suppose that they are a
formal and complete statement of the thought of Jesus
on the relation of his ideal to the Old Covenant. But
though incidental, they are important.
When the disciples of Jesus were criticized because
they did not fast, as did the Pharisees and the disciples
of John, Jesus defended them on the ground that the
present was a time for joy.1 Therefore to require
fasting of his disciples would be as unfit and injurious
as to use unfulled cloth in patching an old garment, or
to put new wine into old wine skins.2 The fasting in
question was doubtless not that which the Law re
quired on the great day of atonement,3 but some tradi
tional institution. This fact, however, does not affect
the principle. The word of Jesus excludes all fasting,
for fasting was to express sorrow of heart, but his
disciples were glad. Nor was this gladness to be
temporary, for it was due to him and his teaching.
True, he was not to remain with them in person, but
his teaching could not be torn from their souls, and
through that teaching they would always, in a sense,
have him.
That Jesus expected the ground-tone of the life of
his disciples to be one of gladness and not sorrow is
implied in the saying of the common tradition that they
who followed him should receive in the present an
'Mk. 2:18-19; Mt. 9:15; Lk. 5:34.
2Mk. 2:21-22; Mt. 9:16-17; Lk. 5:36-38. "Lev. 16:29.

l62 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
hundred fold for all that they must relinquish, and, in
the future, eternal life.1 This promise, as regards the
present, may well have sprung out of his own ex
perience. He had left house and brothers and sisters
and mother for the sake of the kingdom of God, and
had he not received an hundred fold? What could be
compared to the joy of seeing his disciples come into
the possession of his own trust in. God? What would
have been to him an equivalent in houses and lands of
the joy of hearing the confession of Peter at Caesarea
Philippi? What could the present offer that would so
fill his heart with thanksgiving as the evidence he had
that the Father had revealed a knowledge of his king
dom to the disciples ? If then his disciples followed him,
if they confessed him in their lives — to use the figure of
the Logia — he could assure them, on the ground of his
own experience, that they would receive an hundred fold
for all that this course required them to give up. Jesus
felt that with his work a New Era had begun,2 and that
one mark of this New Era was gladness.
We have now examined the Logia and the common
tradition of the synoptists to learn what ideal Jesus
had for his people. We have yet to consider certain
material which is peculiar to Matthew or to Luke, but
which is historically accredited.
The single tradition of Matthew has nothing to put by
the side of what the Logia and the common synoptic
tradition give us in regard to Jesus' ideal for his people.
It has suggestive details, but no clear commanding utter
ance on the subject.3 What it has, however, falls into
line with the teaching of the sources which have been
examined. In the address concerning scribes and Pharisees Mat
thew has these two sayings : "Be not ye called Rabbi, for
one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no
man your father on the earth, for one is your Father,
which is in heaven."4 The bearing of these words on
1 Mk. 10:30; Mt. 19:29; Lk. 18:30.
2Mt. 11:13; Lk. 16:16.
3 On Mt. 11:28-30, see pp. 144-145, note.
4Mt. 23:8.

THE IDEAL OF JESUS FOR HIS PEOPLE 163
the present subject is that they assert the supremacy of
the teachership of Jesus,1 a consciousness of his mission
which we have found already in the Logia. And here,
as in that document, the fatherhood of God stands in
close connection with the teachership of Jesus. It is not
indeed directly suggested that the subject of his teaching
is the character of God, and in this respect the passage is
not so important as Mt. 1 1 :27, but it is parallel to the
Logia and the triple tradition in its general suggestion
that the ideal of Jesus for his people was something which
they were to acquire through personal contact with him.
As to the "kingdom of God," the single tradition of
Matthew brings us two parables — The Hid Treasure and
The Goodly Pearl2 — which represent that kingdom as the
highest good and which are therefore in intimate accord
with those passages in the Logia and the common synop
tic tradition in which the kingdom of God is thought of
as God's rule in man. There can be no doubt that Jesus
regarded this identification of man's will with God as
indeed the highest good.
But Matthew has two- other passages — The Tares in
the Wheat and the Drag-net3 — which also have an indirect
bearing on the ideal of Jesus for his people. According
to the Logia, the Baptist announced a radical separation
of society at the Messiah's advent;4 but in these passages
Jesus presents a different view of his mission. His king
dom is not to be like a field of wheat unmixed with any
weeds, or a net that contains only good fish. Therefore
his ideal for his people does not contemplate a new sort
of external environment: the old environment, which is
both bad and good, is to remain.
The single tradition of Luke has two passages which
are of the first importance for the question now before
us, as well as several which only duplicate the thought of
those which we have found in the Logia and the common
synoptic tradition. To note the latter group first. In a
sermon which Luke puts in the synagogue at Nazareth5
•Implied also in Mt. 5:17. 8 Mt. 13:24-30, 47-50.
2Mt. 13:44-46. 4Mt. 3:12; Lk. 3:17.
8 The oldest Gospel, followed by Matthew, puts the beginning of the
ministry of Jesus in Capernaum. Mk. 1:21; Mt. 4:12-13.

164 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Jesus took as his text the opening paragraph of Is. 61.
This is the passage that seems to have determined the
form of the vision which Jesus had by the Jordan, and
to this passage he may also have referred in his reply to
the message of the Baptist, as reported in the Logia. The
use of the passage by Jesus throws light on his ideal for
his people no less than on his thought of himself. He
said that the prophet's word was fulfilled in their ears.
Accordingly, the release of captives here mentioned, the
recovering of sight to the blind, and the liberation of the
bruised, are to be understood, primarily, in a spiritual
sense. If this be correct, then the suggestion of the pas
sage is that Jesus' great desire for his people was to have
them come into a state of freedom and vision in their
relation to God. A second word in this group is the
beatitude on those who hear the word of God and keep
it.1 This is obviously parallel to that scene in the com
mon synoptic tradition where Jesus owned as his true
relatives those who did the will of God. And finally,
Luke's word on counting the cost of discipleship before
hand2 is in line with the Logia and with the common
synoptic tradition. Its suggestion regarding the ideal of
Jesus is indirect, viz. that this ideal is associated with
Jesus himself and that its attainment calls for whole
hearted devotion to him.
We turn now to the two more significant texts in
Luke's peculiar material. One is the inimitable story of
what took place in the home of Mary and Martha.3 This
has all the originality and clearness of that other scene
when Jesus sat among receptive listeners. Mary re
clined at his feet and received his word. Martha took
thought for many things to set before her guests. Jesus,
gently rebuking her, said that but few things were need
ful, or even one. It is obvious from the next words that
this clause "even one" has a double meaning. One
course only was needful for their supper, one thing only
was needful for their higher life, and that one thing
Mary had chosen. It was to learn the will of God
'Lk. 11:27-28. 2Lk. 14:28-33.
8Lk. 10:38-42. John (n :i) puts this home in Bethany near Jerusalem.

THE IDEAL OF JESUS FOR HIS PEOPLE 165
through Jesus. This we may safely supply from the
united evidence of the Logia and the common synoptic
tradition. The great word of Lk. 10:22 would alone
warrant us in assuming that what Jesus had been saying
in the home of the two sisters was about the heavenly
Father and the religious life.
The other word of the Lucan tradition which bears on
our subject is that which was addressed to certain
Pharisees who had asked when the kingdom of God was
to come. Jesus said : "The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation : neither shall they say, Lo, here ! or,
There ! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you."1
Whether we translate "within you" or "in the midst of
you" we come at last to the same result ; the kingdom of
God is inner and spiritual. If it was at that moment in
the midst of the auditors of Jesus, it was there because
it was in his soul and planted in the souls of his disciples.
If then we describe the ideal of Jesus for his people by
the term "kingdom of God," we say nothing different
from the teaching of those passages which describe it as
doing the will of God or confessing Jesus, as learning
of the "Father through him and living as he lived.
It remains to sum up briefly the results reached in the
examination of the various sources. It is very significant
that not only the Logia and the common synoptic tradi
tion but also the other sources from which Matthew and
Luke drew, all witness to the same general ideal of Jesus
for his people. That ideal is, first of all, an ideal for
the inner life. It is religious: it concerns a man's rela
tion to God and his relation to his fellowmen. If we
designate these two relationships as religious and moral,
it must be remembered that, in the thought of Jesus, the
spirit and the motive in both are the same. Again, the
ideal of Jesus is not only an ideal for the entire inner
life ; it is also an ideal realized in him and to be realized
through him. It is inseparable from him. The relation
to him of those who may hope to realize his ideal is one
of life and death. On this aspect of the ideal the utmost
1 Lk. 17:20-21.

l66 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
emphasis is laid. And finally, the ideal of Jesus sprang
out of his knowledge of God — his character and will —
and there is no reason to think that this knowledge was
attained otherwise than by the way of personal experience.
It is obvious that this ideal was widely unlike the pop
ular dream of a Messianic kingdom. The most that they
had in common was that both looked toward a better
state in Israel. But one was prevailingly outward, polit
ical, national ; the other prevailingly inner, spiritual, and
therefore essentially universal in its scope. The one was
to be realized from without, the other from within.
Whether Jesus, at any time, thought that this spiritual
ideal would work itself out in a new and glorious Jewish
state, there is no evidence to determine in an absolute
manner. The Logia speaks of the "day of the Son of
Man," which is associated with judgment,1 but it never
says what lies beyond it; and its clearest references to
judgment do not allude to the day of the Son of Man,
and they look entirely away from the earth.2 In the
common tradition of the synoptists also there are two
references to a coming of the Son of Man,3 but the only
thought associated with this is the thought of judgment.
We do not need to pursue this inquiry further at
present. The ideal of Jesus for his people is clearly
deducible from his words, and we should not obscure it
by association with questions that certainly were not
prominent in his thought. His great concern for men
was immediate and practical; he had little to say of the
details of any future state of his people, whether here or
hereafter. The ideal of Jesus for his people was, in regard to
spirituality, in line with Is. 61 :i-3, but both in its personal
association with himself and in its claim to knowledge of
God it transcended all prophetic foreshadowings. The
tone of authority and finality in the words of Jesus sprang
out of the conviction that he had come to know God as
no one else had known him. What it was in God that
'Mt. 24:27, 37-39, 40-41, 43-51; Lk. 17:24, 26-27, 34-35 i 12:42-46.
2Mt. 6:20-21; 8:ii-iz; 10:32-33; Lk. 12:33; 13:28-29; 12:8-9.
8 Mk. 8:38; 13:26; Mt. 16:27; 24:30; Lk. 9:26; 21:27.

THE IDEAL OF JESUS FOR HIS PEOPLE 167
he had seen as no one else before him had seen can be
expressed in the single word "fatherhood." This truth
is stamped deeply on the Logia1 and on Luke's peculiar
material.2 We may say that Jesus' ideal for his people
flowered out of the fatherhood of God, as that had been
apprehended by him in his own spiritual life.
1 Mt. 5:44-48; 6:9, 26, 32; 7:11; 11:25-27; Lk. 6:22, 364 11:2; 12:24, 30;
11:13; 10:21-22.
2 E.g., Lk. 15.

CHAPTER VI
THE RESOURCES AND THE METHOD OF JESUS
With what equipment and in what ways did Jesus
seek to realize his ideal for the people round about him ?
In endeavoring to answer this question our first duty is
to examine the Logia. We are here confronted by a
number of facts which bear on the resources of Jesus.
Doubtless the most characteristic feature of the Logia
— and we may believe that it was most characteristic of
the preaching of Jesus — is its disclosure of God, more
particularly of his limitless goodness. It was a sense of
this goodness which made the first word of Jesus in the
Sermon on the Mount "Blessed," and promised the king
dom of God to the poor, comfort to mourners, and satis
faction to those who hunger and thirst after righteous
ness.1 The fact of this goodness, manifested alike to the
evil and the good in the commonest mercies of life, was
the basis of the plea of Jesus that men should rise to a
life of unselfish love.2 This divine goodness determined
every clause of the prayer which Jesus gave his disciples
as a pattern for their prayers.3 It inspires the confidence
that says "Father;" it makes it forever natural for the
beet of men to utter, first of all, the petitions, "Thy king
dom come, thy will be done;" it is this which justifies
every child of earth in asking for the forgiveness of sins
with the same absolute trust that he has in asking for
daily bread ; and it is this also — this fact of the fatherly
goodness of God — that makes the language of ideal
prayer simple and quiet. Again, it was in view of the
loving thoughtfulness of God that Jesus sought to lift
men above anxiety for the material necessities of life into
'Mt. 5:3, 4, 6.
2Mt. 5:44-48.
3Mt. 6:9-13; Lk. 11:2-4. 168

RESOURCES AND METHOD OF JESUS 169
an atmosphere of serenity, that they might be wholly free
for the present day and duty.1 It is difficult to read this
passage and not feel that it reflects a habit of thought,
and that it admits us into many a meditation of Jesus in
the years before he came to the Jordan to acknowledge
his longing for the kingdom of God.
The same style of argument is used by Jesus in another
passage of the Logia that may summarize many an earnest
talk. If men give good gifts to their children, how much
more shall the heavenly Father give to those who ask him.2
Thus the fatherly goodness of God is the sufficient reason
for prayer, and the ground of assurance that no one asks
in vain. The disciple should not fear even among mortal
foes, for he is of more value than many sparrows, and
yet God notes a sparrow's fall.3 Finally, it is still the
goodness of God that is Jesus' text in his story of the
man who, having a hundred sheep, lost one.4 As a man
seeks his lost sheep, SO' God in his great love seeks the
publican and the sinner.
So the Logia teaches that one of the resources of Jesus
— perhaps the very greatest — was his knowledge of God.
He himself believed that this knowledge was unique,5
that it surpassed all that had been known by prophets and
wise men of old.6
It should never be forgotten that this knowledge of God
is knowledge of his character, not of his works nor of his
ways. There is, in the Logia, not only no indication that
Jesus claimed this latter knowledge, but, on the contrary,
there is clear evidence that on some subjects, he shared
the common intelligence of his land and day. It is suf
ficient to mention the fact of belief in the existence of
demons, that they enter into men, and that various phy
sical ills are due to them.7
The Logia has yet one suggestion in respect to the
resources of Jesus. He not only claimed a unique knowl
edge of God, which he believed to be man's highest good,
but he also believed himself divinely appointed to reveal
'Mt. 6:26-34; Lk. 12:22-31. 'Mt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22.
2Mt. 7:7-11; Lk. 11:9-13- °Mt- 12:41-42; Lk. 11:31-32.
8Mt. 10:29-31; Lk. 12:6-7. 7Mt. 12:22-24, 43-45; Lk. 11:14, 24-26.
?Mt. 18:12-14; Lk. 15:4-7-

170 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
this knowledge. Nothing in the Logia is more impres
sive than the tone with which Jesus speaks. It is the
calm positive tone of one who is sure of his message.
"No one knoweth the Father save the Son;"1 "Follow
me and leave the dead to bury their own dead ;"2 "Every
one who shall confess me before men, him will I also
confess before my Father who is in heaven ;"3 "Woe unto
thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida!"4 "Behold,
something greater than Jonah is here," "Behold, some
thing greater than Solomon is here !"5 This sublime
assurance of Jesus seems never to have made men feel
that he was proud. His manner of life would have
effectually disposed of such a thought had it once arisen.
Such, then, according to the Logia, was the extra
ordinary equipment of Jesus for the realization of his
ideal for his people. Of his ordinary equipment, such as
resources of physical strength, sympathetic nature, quick
ness and depth of insight into the souls of men, self con
trol and poise, we learn nothing from the Logia. Had
Jesus possessed these gifts, even in the highest measure,
that fact alone would not have gone far toward the
explanation of his inner or his outer life. Had he been
by nature without these resources in any marked degree,
still his knowledge of God's fatherly character and the
conviction that he had been called to reveal that to men,
for their salvation — these facts, with the peace and
strength born of inner harmony with God, would help us
to understand the course and the results of his ministry.
The method of Jesus, as reflected in the Logia, seems
plainly to have been determined by his resources. This
method was teaching: that is its general character. To
impart to others his own knowledge of God as the center
and secret of the highest life, he must gain the ear and
the heart, at least this is evidently what he sought to do.
And the particular details of his didactic method, both in
word and in deed, were natural deductions from the
consciousness of his resources.
'Mt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22. 4Mt. 11:21; Lk. 10:13.
2Mt. 8:22; Lk. 9:60. °Mt. 12:41-42; Lk. 10:31-32.
8 Mt 10:33; Lk. 12:9.

RESOURCES AND METHOD OF JESUS I7I
The first appearance of Jesus in the Logia is as a
teacher in a group of disciples,1 and his last appearance
there is not different from the first.2 How large this
group of disciples was we cannot learn from the Logia,
but about the time when they were sent out to preach, they
were few in number.3 These disciples were to be as
their master ;4 they were to give freely as he had freely
given to them.5 Thus it appears, even in the Logia, that
the training of his disciples by Jesus included some
actual work in the field.
But while the conspicuous fact in the Logia, as regards
the method of Jesus, is that he sought to realize his ideal
by teaching, there is another fact of importance, viz. that
he healed disease. Of specific instances of healing this
earliest Christian document refers to only one, that of a
dumb demoniac.6 This appears to be mentioned by Mat
thew and Luke not for its own sake, but rather for the
sake of the conversation that arose from it.7 Its actual
occurrence is thus attested in the strongest manner.
The Logia says nothing of the manner in which Jesus
cured this dumb person — what he said or did to him: it
only records the fact of a cure. But Jesus, in reply to
the charge of his adversaries that he had wrought the
cure by Beelzebub, that is, with his aid, spoke words of
the utmost significance not only in regard to this special
case but in regard to all similar cases. "If I by Beelzebub
cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?
therefore shall they be your judges. But if I by the
finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of
God come upon you."8 Thus Jesus argued that in accus
ing him of being in league with Beelzebub, they accused
also those of their own number who cast out demons.
'Mt. 5:1; Lk. 6:20.
2 Mt. 24:43; Lk. 12:42.
8 Mt. 9:37; Lk. 10:2; Cf. Mt. 13:33; Lk. 13:20-21.
4 Mt. 10:24; Lk. 6:40.
6Mt. 10:8; Lk. 10:9.
8 Lk. 11:14; Mt. 9:32-34 (12:22-24).
' Matthew, in keeping with the tendency that is very marked in the
material which is peculiar to him, represents the demoniac as both dumb
and blind. The fact of this tendency in Matthew, of which we speak else
where, leads us to regard Luke's version as the probably historical one.
sLk. 11:19-20; Mt. 12:27-28.

172 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
He therefore admitted that cures similar to his were
actually wrought by others. This admission is of great
value. So is also the claim of the next verse that it was
by "the finger of God" (Mt. has "Spirit of God"), that is,
by Divine aid, not by aid diabolical, and not in his own
strength, that he cast out demons. Thus Jesus gave to
God the glory of healing the man, and said that if this
was true, it was proof that the kingdom of God had
"come upon them" — was at hand and manifest.
There is a second specific incident in the Logia that
demands attention, viz. that of the servant of a centurion
who was stationed in Capernaum.1 It has already been
shown2 that of the two divergent versions of this incident
there is good reason for the acceptance of that by Luke.
But Luke does not say that Jesus healed the servant; he
does not indicate that he sent any message to the father.
He records that when the messengers of the centurion
returned, they found the servant whole, but he does not
directly suggest that the recovery was due to Jesus. Ac
cording to Matthew's version, which lets the centurion
come in person to Jesus instead of sending, Jesus spoke
to the man a word of comfort and promise. The cure is
thus ascribed to him, and we have to think of it as we do
of the cure of the Syrophoenician's daughter.
But while the Logia refers clearly to but one specific
case of healing by Jesus, it has three passages which may
imply similar activity on his part, or on the part of his
disciples. Thus it is perhaps probable that the "mighty
works" done in Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum
were works of healing.3 Again, there is the commission
of the Twelve. Luke, in the words attributed to Jesus
when the Twelve were sent out,4 has no authorization to
heal disease, but in the words attributed to Jesus when
another larger company were sent out, he has the authori
zation to heal the sick.6 This passage, by reason of its
relation to Matthew, is to be ascribed to the Logia. But
Matthew6 goes far beyond Luke in the authorization of
'Lk. 7:1-3, 6-9; 13:28-29; Mt 8:5-13. «Lk. 9:1-5.
•See Part I, p. 42. • Lk. 10:9.
•Mt 11:21-24; Lk. 10:12-15. 'Mt. 10:8.

RESOURCES AND METHOD OF JESUS I73
the disciples to do other things than preach. He says :
"Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out
demons." This passage illustrates the tendency of the
author of the first Gospel to emphasize the supernatural.
We are not justified in ascribing to the Logia anything
more than an injunction to heal the sick, or, better, to
cast out demons.
We have to consider next the words of Jesus to the
messengers from John the Baptist. He bade them tell
John what they had seen and heard. Then follow these
words, as though summing up what was to be heard and
seen.1 "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk,
the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead
are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached
unto them." Now in one sense and one only, so far as
can be learned from the Logia, had these words found
illustration in the ministry of Jesus. They described,
spiritually, what he had done. With the exception of
cleansing lepers and raising dead persons the language is
from prophetic passages about the good time that was in
store for Israel.2 But if this language is a fit descrip
tion of the spiritual work of Jesus, according to the
Logia, and if that document has no trace of events corre
sponding to this language if literally understood,3 that
twofold fact is good evidence for taking the words
spiritually. But there is also another consideration.
Here was a question put to Jesus in regard to his mission.
How should we expect that it would be answered?
Should we expect Jesus to refer to such acts as cleansing
lepers and raising the dead, or to his making the heavenly
Father known? On the basis of the Logia there can be
no doubt which course we should expect him to take.
There remains in the Logia a single passage that de
mands brief notice in this connection. Jesus spoke of a
case where an unclean spirit went out of a man — pre
sumably was cast out — and afterward with seven others
returned.4 Now while this language is most naturally
'Mt. 11:5; Lk. 7:22.
2 See Is. 35:5-6; 61:1-3.
3 The cue of demons is not specified in this message to John.
*Mt 12:43-45; Lk. 11:24-26.

174 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
taken as referring to some experience which Jesus himself
had had with a demoniac — some case of a cure that was
succeeded by a state worse than the first — there seems to
be no reason why he might not have used it as a result of
observation, apart from any experience of his own.
To sum up the evidence of the Logia on this point.
Jesus cured a dumb demoniac, and bade his disciples do
similar works. In the cure of the demoniac he felt that
it was God's "Spirit" or "finger" that wrought through
him. We must suppose that he expected his disciples to
cast out demons in reliance on the same Divine aid. He
admitted also that demons were cast out by the Jewish
exorcists. From this it seems to follow that his cure of
the demoniac did not necessarily imply any extraordinary
resource. If Jewish exorcists cast out demons, how much
more would demons flee before the pure, beneficent and
vastly potent personality of Jesus ! His resource of
unique knowledge of the heavenly Father, and his re
source of strength and courage wrapped up in the con
viction of his supreme office as revealer of the Father,
would not only make him an absolute opponent of every
thing that he regarded as demoniacal, but would give
him — so at least it would seem to us — a consciousness of
superiority to demons, and a sure confidence that they
muSt yield before him. However this may have been,
the source with which we are now concerned suggests no
difference whatever between his power to cast out a
demon and his power to do any act of his ministry. As
to the disciples, he bade them preach the kingdom of God
and cast out demons — language which seems to take for
granted that if they were prepared to do the first thing,
they were prepared also to do the second.1
When now we come down from the Logia to the com
mon tradition of the synoptists we find some fresh illus
trations of the view that the peculiar resources of Jesus
were knowledge of God and conviction that he was sent
to make God known. Thus the saying of Jesus that he
came to call sinners2 and that he had authority to forgive
'According to Lk. 10:17 the disciples actually cured demoniacs.
2Mk. 2:17; Mt. 9:13; Lk. 5:32.

RESOURCES AND METHOD OF JESUS 175
sin1 were but a natural and logical and glad utterance of
his vision of God's fatherly character. The declaration
that his disciples were like "sons of the bride-chamber,"
glad of heart because he was with them,2 and the teaching
that no statutes of the past were to be allowed to encroach
on this joy and freedom,3 were also simple deductions
from that vision. These words witness to the conscious
ness of such lofty resources as an unique knowledge of
God and a Divine call to reveal that knowledge to men.
It was because Jesus was master of these resources that
he said : "Whosoever shall cause one of these little ones
that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a
great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were
cast into the sea,"4 and again, that he said, in view of the
treachery of Judas: "Woe unto that man through whom
the Son of Man is betrayed."5 One might almost say
that such words were uttered by Jesus because he was
mastered by these sublime resources, because he felt that
God's revelation in him constituted the supreme call to
man's better self.
But we have not yet touched the most characteristic
feature of the common synoptic tradition. There is no
single term with which this feature may be historically
described unless it be that which is found once in the
Logia? and once in the oldest Gospel,7 on the lips of Jesus,
viz. "mighty works" ( oW/mk) . This term we shall em
ploy, though it is obviously popular and indefinite.
Mighty works are the most conspicuous element of the
common synoptic tradition. There are eleven of these
described in some detail, which together constitute about
one-sixth part of the entire Gospel of Mark. Besides
these there is a general reference to a number of cures
accomplished one evening in front of Peter's house in
Capernaum.8 Two of the eleven specific mighty works
'Mk. 2:10; Mt. 9:6; Lk. 5:24.
2Mk. 2:19; Mt. 9:15; Lk. 5:34.
8 Mk. 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Mt. 12:1-14; Lk. 6:1-11.
*Mk. 9:42; Mt. 18:6; Lk. 17:2.
°Mk. 14:21; Mt. 26:24;Lk. 22:22.
8 Mt. 11 :ai; Lk. 10:13.
7 Mk. 9:39.
8 Mk. 1:32-34; Mt. 8:16-17; Lk. 4:40-41.

176 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
are cures of demoniacs, two have to do with nature rather
than with man, one is the resuscitation of Jairus' daugh
ter, and the remaining six have to do with as many
different physical conditions — fever, leprosy, paralysis,
palsy, hemorrhage and blindness.
How do these "mighty works" stand related to the
resources of Jesus with which the Logia makes us ac
quainted — resources that are purely spiritual? Must we
now add something to those resources ?
Of the restoration of two demoniacs nothing need be
said beyond that which was said in the early part of the
chapter. The words of Jesus show how he regarded the
cure of demoniacs. Nor need many words be said today
of the adequacy of purely spiritual influence to the over
coming of physical diseases as grave as paralysis and
leprosy. The cures at Treves in 1891 included blindness
and paralysis, lupus, chronic inflammation of the spinal
cord, cancerous tumor and St. Vitus' dance.1 These
cures were accomplished in persons who looked in faith
upon the Holy Coat. On the evidence of trustworthy
physicians no medical explanation of these particular
cures could be given. We are then shut up to the con
clusion that it was by the power of faith. But if faith
in the Holy Coat was instrumental in effecting these
cures, it is surely not difficult to believe that faith in Jesus
once effected similar cures.
The case of the little daughter of Jairus was not
essentially different from these. We must judge of it
by the words of Jesus. He said that the child was not
dead.2 He was summoned to heal a person who was
at the point of death,3 and when he had reached the house
and presumably had seen the girl, he contradicted the
report which had gone forth that she was dead. As in
the case of Peter's wife's mother, he took the child's
hand and summoned her to rise up. It is clear that in
Jesus's thought, his act was the resuscitation of a girl
who was only apparently dead. It was therefore an act
quite as explicable as those which have just been men-
1 See Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, pp. 149-150.
2Mk. 5:39; Mt 9:24; Lk. 8:52. 8On Mt. 9:18 see Part I, p. 26.

RESOURCES AND METHOD OF JESUS I77
tioned. His calmness, his hand-grasp, his confident
summons — these aroused the girl, and gave her new life.
Since people had thought that the child was dead, it was
very easy and natural for the belief soon to arise that
Jesus had raised a dead person to life. It was an age
when people were eager to believe in the arbitrary and
freakish invasion of life by invisible beings clothed with
superhuman powers, and the disciples, when they came to
tell the story, naturally told it in the way which they
thought would honor Jesus most. But fortunately they
preserved his own words, and in the light of these we
must judge of the event.
But the spiritual resources of Jesus do not appear to be
adequate to account for the two mighty works which
remain to be noticed, viz. the stilling of the storm on the
Lake of Galilee1 and the feeding of a great multitude with
five loaves and two fishes.2 Here we have no longer to
do with susceptible human spirits and the mysterious
reactions from the spirit on the body, but with inanimate
matter — the bread and fish, and with forces of nature —
the winds and the waves. These narratives therefore, as
they stand, are at variance with the older record in which
we learn of the resources of Jesus through his own words.
All the preceding nine mighty works of the common
synoptic tradition lead to the question whether, in the
actual occurrence on the lake and in the actual experience
with the multitude, Jesus did not, after all, have to do not
with forces of nature and with inanimate matter, but with
human minds and hearts. If, guided by the character
of all the other mighty works, we proceed to these two
exceptional ones, which on their face appear to be ex
cluded by the high authority of the Logia, we shall think
that the actual occurrence on the lake was the restoration
of calmness and confidence and strength by the presence
and words of Jesus who had been awakened from sleep,
and that the actual occurrence when the multitude were
satisfied from five loaves and two little fishes was that
Jesus gave himself to them in such an outpouring of

'Mk. 4:35-41; Mt. 8:18, 23-27; Lk. 8:22-25.
2Mk. 6:30-44; Mt. 14:13-21; Lk. 9:10-17. .
12

I78 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
grace and wisdom that they became oblivious of their
physical condition.
To this reconstruction we are led not only by the con
ception of himself which we 'have from Jesus in the
Logia and by the character of all the other mighty works
of the common synoptic tradition ; but, on the other hand,
by the serious objections that present themselves to the
view that Jesus exercised omnipotent power. These
objections need not be presented at length. There is,
first, the obvious consideration that neither of the two
situations called for anything beyond what the spiritual
resources of Jesus could supply. As to the peril on the
lake, the calmness and confidence of a single person have
more than once brought deliverance from similar danger ;
and as to the satisfaction of the multitude, if the printed
Gospel of Jesus has often beguiled the heart of man into
complete forgetfulness of physical conditions, much more
may that Gospel as it fell from the lips of Jesus himself
have wrought a like effect.
There is, second, the consideration that Jesus, in the
wilderness, had rejected the popular Messianic role which
involved such astounding manifestations as turning stones
into bread or leaping unharmed from lofty precipices. To
suppose that he saved the boat by silencing the winds and
laying the billows, or that he multiplied the loaves and
fishes to the actual filling of five thousand men, with a
surplus of twelve baskets, is to make him recede from the
high spiritual ground on which he stood in the wilderness.
Are we ready to do that? Is it more likely that he — the
spiritual leader of the race — was inconstant in his spirit
ual purpose, or that the wonder-loving disciples, perhaps
many years after his death, exaggerated mighty but
explicable events into unspiritual displays of what we
can hardly call by a better name than omnipotent magic?
For man has nowhere discovered the power of God work
ing arbitrarily : the deeper he has penetrated into nature,
the more perfectly has he become convinced that "order,"
if not "heaven's first law," is yet an inviolable law of
Heaven. To command two dead fish to become fifty or
five hundred is surely far removed from God's way, who

RESOURCES AND METHOD OF JESUS 179
says to the living, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the
waters in the seas" (Gen. 1:22). One might credit a
wizard with such a command, but the sane spiritual
method of Jesus was the very antipodes of wizardry.
We conclude then that the mighty works of Jesus,
according to the common tradition of the synoptists, do
not justify us in any departure from that conception of
his extraordinary resources which we find in his own
words in the Logia.
As to the method of Jesus according to the common
synoptic tradition, we find here two significant points of
which the Logia has no trace. We have seen in that
document that the disciples of Jesus, about the time when
they went out to teach, were few; the synoptic tradition
informs us definitely that he had a circle of twelve who
alone were with him on certain important occasions.1
These twelve, according to the oldest Gospel,2 were with
Jesus a considerable time before he sent them out to
teach; these were with him at Caesarea Philippi,3 and it
was they with whom he observed the last Passover, and
to whom he gave memorial bread and wine.4 Thus it
seems that Jesus, though speaking to crowds and sowing
his good tidings broadcast, gave himself in an especial
manner to a little group of men, probably the most recep
tive and the most promising for the work he had in mind
of all who gathered around him. This agrees thoroughly
with the fact that the extraordinary resources of Jesus
were of a spiritual sort. If the kingdom of God was
merely to be announced as an approaching event, it would
hardly have been necessary to prepare men to make that
announcement by a long course of training. Moreover,
if in the thought of Jesus the kingdom of God had been
a worldly political state, it does not appear probable that,
in preparing for its introduction into the world, he would
have chosen only a dozen men and these from the walks
of common life. But this accords perfectly with the fact
that he felt himself called to reveal to men the fatherly
'Mk. 3:14; Mt 10:2; Lk. 6:13.
2 Mt. obscures this fact, Luke follows Mark. — Mk. 3:14; 6:7.
8Mk. 8:27; Mt. 16:13; Lk. 9:18.
1 Mk. 14:17; Mt. 26:20; Lk. 22:14.

ISO THE HISTORICAL JESUS
character of God, which was not different from setting
up the rule of God in their hearts. For the accomplish
ment of this purpose it was natural that he chose men
from the common walks of life; and natural also, as it
seems to us now, that he chose only a small group, that he
might come near to them individually, and by intensive
effort might the sooner and the more deeply reflect his
vision into their souls.
The second point regarding the method of Jesus that
we meet first in the common synoptic tradition is that he
communicated to his chosen inner group one fact at least
which was not declared to the public, or even to that part
of the public which was friendly to him, and this fact was
fundamental in character. To this small circle alone he*
imparted, in his own way, his Messianic claim.1 This
was at Caesarea Philippi,2 near the close of the Galilean
ministry. The one aspect of this fact which we wish to
mention in the present connection is that, even with those
who stood nearest to him, Jesus came gradually, by a long
process of teaching, to speak of the personal secret of his
mission. He had spoken freely of the heavenly Father,
and had given ample ground for those who had spiritual
insight to see in him the Father's supreme revealer, but
he had not told his disciples that he held himself to be the
Messiah. The reason for this long reserve is probably
the wide difference between his thought of Messiahship
and theirs. Until he had established a strong personal
bond between the disciples and himself he could not ex
pect that they would listen to his secret, seeing that his
course of action was utterly unlike what was popularly
associated with the Messiah. The human heart was
ready to hear the gracious message of the heavenly
Father, but Jesus had to create an audience to whom he
could declare his conviction in regard to his own relation
to that Father and his kingdom.
It remains now to consider what bearing the peculiar
material of Matthew and Luke has upon the subject of
the Resources and the Method of Jesus.
1 The affirmation of it on the day of his trial is of course excepted.
3 Mk. 8:27-29; Mt. 16:13-16; Lk. 9:18-20.

RESOURCES AND METHOD OF JESUS l8l
The words of Jesus to his disciples in the Sermon on
the Mount — "ye are the salt of the earth," "ye are the
light of the world"1 — if not from the Logia, yet present
no conception which is at variance with that document.
The lofty mission of his disciples implies of course a
consciousness that his own mission was lofty, and the
character of his own mission is clearly suggested by the
ultimate goal which is held up before them, viz. that the
Father may be glorified. This accords with the view that
his first extraordinary resource was a unique knowledge
of God. It is by virtue of that knowledge — knowledge,
be it remembered, which, as in the case of Jesus, deter
mines the whole life — that the disciples are the salt which
preserves the earth from utter corruption and the light
of mankind into a larger and better day.2
In Luke's peculiar material, that which bears most
directly on the resources of Jesus is the parable of the
Lost Son.3 The situation out of which this sprang was
important. Jesus was receiving publicans and sinners,
and the scribes and Pharisees were murmuring. In
defense of his conduct Jesus told this story. While
speaking in terms of an earthly father and son, his argu
ment looked toward a higher relationship, even that of
God to the sinner. Thus we come back again to the
fundamental fact that he regarded his ministry as a
revelation of the character of the heavenly Father.
It appears then that the conclusion to be drawn from
the Logia in regard to the peculiar resources of Jesus
and in regard to his method is not essentially modified
either by the common synoptic tradition, or — with the
exceptions noted above — by the material which is found
in Matthew or Luke. That conclusion may now be
restated : The extraordinary resources of Jesus were
unique knowledge of God's character and the conviction
'Mt 5:13, 14.
2 If Mt. 1 1 :28-30 be regarded as from the lips of Jesus, it illustrates the
view of his extraordinary resources which is derived from the Logia. The
language, however, is peculiarly Matthaean. Three of the important terms
— £uyos irpav's, ikvfypov — are not found in the other Gospels, and a fourth
— XPHtrrfc — is not found in the other Gospels in a moral sense, as here.
Not only so, but the thought of the passage has parallels in John rather
than in the synoptists (e.g., 8:12; 11:25).
8Lk. 15:8-32.

l82 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
of a unique mission as the revealer of that character;
and his method, innerly accordant with these resources,
was that of personal spiritual influence by word and by
example.

CHAPTER VII
THE PUBLIC CAREER: FROM THE JORDAN TO
CAESAREA PHILIPPI
When the earlier and the later strata of the Gospel
narratives are discriminated, and their relative historical
value appraised, as is now increasingly done by scholars,
the general picture of the public career of Jesus is deeply
affected. It is the purpose of this chapter and the two
following ones to consider that career as a whole on the
basis of such discrimination of the sources. No atten
tion will be given to those views of the public ministry
of Jesus which rest upon the traditional estimate of the
various Gospels. The aim is not controversial, but purely
constructive. The fundamental Christian document is
the Logia and therefore our survey must begin with this.
Though it is a collection of the sayings of Jesus, it is not
wholly devoid of light on the course of his life. If we
had this document and nothing more, we should conclude
that Jesus, after the experience in the wilderness, labored
as a teacher on the northwest of the Lake of Galilee;1
that Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida were the main
centers of his activity ;2 that at some time he visited Jeru
salem;3 that his ministry continued for some months at
least, for it is assumed that his "generation" had become
acquainted with him,4 and disciples were won and trained
of whom the Master said: "He that receiveth you re
ceiveth me,"5 and finally, we should conclude that, though
the opposition to him was bitter,6 his success was marked.7
'Mt 8:5; Lk. 7:1; Mt. 11:21; Lk. 10:13; Mt- 11:23; Lk. 10:15.
2 Matt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:13-16.
3Mt 23:37; Lk. 13:34. Note, however, that Luke puts the lament over
Jerusalem, at a distance from the capital. See Lk. 13:34-35.
'Mt. 11:16-19; Lk. 16:31-35.
5Mt. 10:40.
8 Mt. 11:19; Lk. 16:34; Mt. 11:21; Lk. 10:13; Mt. 12:27; Lk. 11:19.
rMt. 11:25; Lk. 10:21. 183

184 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
With the exception of one point, all this outline is taken
up by the earliest narrative. That point is the ministry
of Jesus in Chorazin and Bethsaida. The language of the
Logia implies a somewhat prolonged stay in both these
places, yet the oldest narrative has no trace of a visit to
either of them. This fact suggests that between the
ministry of Jesus and the composition of the oldest Gos
pel some events in his public career had become indistinct,
or been forgotten ; it also plainly suggests that the words
of the Logia had peculiar sacredness, for in this case at
least they were preserved and handed down even when
the background needful for their understanding was
entirely lacking.
Such is our oldest sketch of the career of Jesus, most
meagre yet most trustworthy.
We pass on from the Logia to the earliest Gospel.
This also represents the ministry of Jesus as beginning
by the Lake of Galilee, and apparently in immediate suc
cession after the experience in the wilderness. For
though the synoptists all mention the imprisonment of the
Baptist as preceding Jesus' return to Galilee,1 they do not
seem to have thought that there was an indefinite interval
between the temptation and the beginning of the Galilean
work. They certainly knew of no preaching of the Gos
pel by Jesus until he came into Galilee and knew of no
disciples won by him before that. Their description of
these things is manifestly the description of what was
new, or what they supposed was new.2 If Peter was the
chief source of Mark's Gospel, it would seem very strange
that he could have represented his discipleship to Jesus
as beginning at the lake near Capernaum if, as the
Johannine narrative has it, he had already received his
new name from Jesus,3 and had been with him in Cana
and Capernaum, Jerusalem and Samaria, and only after
that had come into Galilee to labor.4
The ministry of Jesus then, according to the earliest
Gospel, began by the Lake of Galilee, more definitely it
1 Mk. 1:14; Mt. 4:12; Lk. 3:20.
2Mk. 1:14-15; Mt. 4:17; Lk. 4:14-15.
8 Jn. 1:41-42.
*Jn. 2:1, 12, 13; 4:1-42, 43-45.

FROM' THE JORDAN TO CAESAREA PHILIPPI 185
began in the town of Capernaum where the two first
disciples, Peter and Andrew, lived,1 presumably also
James and John who were called to discipleship at the
same time with Peter and Andrew and in the same place.2
Whether Jesus on his return from the Jordan and the
wilderness went directly to Capernaum, as the narrative
of Mark implies,3 or first visited his home in Nazareth,
as the later narrative of Matthew reports,4 cannot be
positively determined, but fortunately is unimportant.
Whatever moved him thereto, the fact is that he began
preaching and won his first disciples in Capernaum. It is
of course possible that he had become acquainted with
one or more of these first disciples while at the Jordan
with the Baptist, and the narrative of John5 may have
to that extent a historical basis.
The winning of these four fishermen was the great
event of the first stay in Capernaum. What they had
seen in Jesus that induced them to drop their nets and
follow him we are not told. It is probably safe to say
that he had "fished" for them, but whether in private
conversation, or only in the general preaching of the
kingdom of God, cannot be said. As he promised to
make them "fishers of men,"6 he must have believed that
he possessed the secret, and perhaps they were the earliest
evidence that this belief was well founded.
But the winning of four disciples, though the most
important event of this first stay in Capernaum, was not
the most conspicuous and exciting. That distinction be
longs to the cures which Jesus performed in Peter's
house,7 at the door" of his house,8 and probably, first of all,
in the synagogue.9 The nature of these and other cures
by Jesus was briefly discussed in the last chapter, and
need not interrupt our general sketch of his life. -
'Mk. 1:29; Mt. 8:14; Lk. 4:38.
2 Mk. 1:19; Mt. 4:21; cf. Lk. 4:10.
8 Mk. 1:14, 16.
'Mt. 4:13.
"Jn. i:35-42.
8 Mk. 1:17; Mt. 4:19; Lk. 4:10.
TMk. 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk. 4:38-39.
8Mk. 1:32-34; Mt. 8:16, 17; Lk. 4: 40-41.
• Mk. 1:21-28; Lk. 4:31-37. This cure is not in Matthew, hence not
strictly a part of the common tradition.

l86 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
How long this first visit in Capernaum was we have
no means of determining. The cures seem all to have
been wrought on one day,1 and on the day following
Jesus with his four disciples left Capernaum to visit
neighboring places.2
This is the next fixed point in the career of Jesus,3 and
though extremely vague, it is important. Here was a
tour of which no single specific incident has been pre
served unless the cure of a leper belongs in it.4 Yet
according to the earliest account it covered all the province
of Galilee5 — a densely-populated region of some 1600
square miles. If we think of the tour as consisting of
such visits as that in Capernaum — and we have absolutely
no other clue to its general character — we shall picture
Jesus with his four disciples passing rapidly from town
to town. That the tour included all the cities and vil
lages of Galilee we cannot suppose. Such a journey
would have filled many months with uninterrupted travel
ling and labors, and can hardly have occurred without
leaving some further traces of itself than a single meagre
verse. If Jesus visited a dozen towns somewhat widely
scattered, that would justify the language of our narra
tives. However extensive the tour may have been, the
preaching of Jesus was in the synagogues — a circum
stance which shows that, in Galilee at least, if a man had
a message and was a man of power, his formal right to
preach was not too closely scrutinized.
It appears that this tour was broken off in consequence
of one of the "mighty works" of Jesus, viz. the cure of a
leper. As after the notable day in Capernaum Jesus
retired to a solitary place, so now, leaving his work, he
does the same.6 That he had apprehended such a con
sequence seems to follow from the strict injunction to
' Mk. 1:23, 29, 32, 35.
2 According to Mk. i :38 Jesus said that he had come forth (i.e., from
Capernaum) that he might preach in neighboring towns, but according to
Lk. 4:43 he struck a higher note and said that he had been "sent" (i.e.,
from God) to preach the kingdom in other cities. In both cases he inti
mated clearly that his departure from Capernaum was due to a definite
purpose, and that he was not subject to recall at the wish of the crowd.
3 Mk. 1:39; Mt. 4:23; Lk. 4:44.
4Mk. 1:40; Mt. 8:2; Lk. 5:12.
"Mk. 1:39. 8Mk. 1:45; Lk. 5:15-16.

FR0M1 THE JORDAN TO CAESAREA PHILIPPI 187
the man to say nothing of the event. The incident shows
clearly that one might be healed by his faith in Jesus and
yet be disloyal to him. It must have brought home to
the Master the fact that his cures might seriously inter
fere with the work which he had most at heart.
What drew Jesus back to Capernaum after this indef
inite tour we can only conjecture. His disciples may
have needed to- visit their homes, or the outlook in Caper
naum.' may have been more promising than elsewhere.
The somewhat extended sojourn in the lake-city which
how began proved to be of very great importance for the
new religious movement. From a reference to ripening
grain1 we may infer that Jesus came back to the lake
about the first of June. Several circumstances suggest,
but only suggest, that his second visit continued for some
weeks at least. Such are the references to apparently
two Sabbaths;2 the fact that his mother and brothers,
having heard in Nazareth what was being done, came
down to Capernaum hoping to take Jesus home with
them;3 and especially the fact that people from distant
parts of the land came to Capernaum to see him and to
be healed.
It seems altogether probable that Jesus during this
period of labor in Capernaum lodged with Peter and
Andrew, for Mark's Gospel, which was based to some
extent on Peter's teaching, plainly implies this relation
ship.5 If this view be correct, then it localizes several
important incidents. It must have been the roof of
Peter's house that was partly uncovered to allow the
paralytic's cot to be lowered into the room where Jesus
was sitting;6 it was in Peter's house where Jesus sat
surrounded by receptive hearers when his mother and
brothers wished him to come out to them;7 and it may
have been there also that his disciples asked him the
meaning of the parable of the Sower and other parables,8
'Mk. 2:23; Mt 12:1; Lk. 6:1.
2 Mk. 2:23; 3:2; Mt. 12:1, 10; Lk. 6.1, 6.
8Mk. 3:21, 31-35; Mt. 12:46-50; Lk. 8:19-21.
*Mk. 3:8; Mt. 4:25; Lk. 6:17.
5 Mk. 1:29, 32; 2:1.
6Mk. 2:4; Lk. 5:19.
7Mk. 3:31; Mt. 12:46; Lk. 8:19, 20. 8Mk. 4:10.

l88 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
in which case the saying about the lamp and stand, the
bushel and the bed, may have been uttered with these
utensils and furniture in sight and at hand.
This second visit in Capernaum is noteworthy for the
rapid development of opposition to Jesus. His assump
tion of authority to forgive sin made certain scribes who
were present evil affected toward him, but their hostile
feeling seems not to have expressed itself in words at
once;1 and his call of Levi the taxgatherer to disciple
ship led the scribes to speak slurringly of him as one who
ate and drank with publicans and sinners — a grievous
offense against their ceremonial code.2 The act of his
disciples in plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath was
brought against him as an infraction of the Sabbath law ;3
his cure of a withered hand on the Sabbath filled his
critics with rage ;4 and his power to cast out demons was
declared to come from Beelzebub the prince of demons.5
The freedom of his disciples in the matter of fasting was
also looked upon as blameworthy not only by Pharisees
but also by the disciples of the Baptist.6 Thus Jesus
was now criticized on all sides, but only by the religious
authorities. Disregard of the traditional law was the
chief source of opposition and engendered the intense
bitterness that malignantly ascribed his good works to
Beelzebub. The manner in which Jesus met these attacks shows
that, though he came from' a humble calling in a humble
community, he had thought deeply on moral and religious
questions and had reached perfectly definite conclusions,
which did not accord with the orthodox views of the
synagogue. Thus in defense of his authority to forgive
sin he healed the paralytic ; in reply to the contemptuous
remark about associating with publicans and sinners he
said it was the sick who needed a physician. The free
dom of his disciples in the matter of fasting he defended
' That they thought him guilty of "blasphemy" may have been inferred
from their looks and gestures.
2Mk. 2:16; Mt. 9:11; Lk. 5:30.
8 Mk. 2:24; Mt. 12:2; Lk. 6:2.
*Mk. 3:6; Mt. 12:14; Lk. 6:11.
"Mk. 3:22; Mt 12:24; Lk. 11:15.
'Mk. 2:18; Mt. 9:14; Lk. 5:33.

FROM! THE JORDAN TO CAESAREA PHILIPPI 189
on the ground that the present was for them a time of
joy; the charge that his disciples had done an unlawful
thing in plucking grain on the Sabbath he easily refuted
out of the Scriptures, adding the enfranchising word
that the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath ¦} the attempt
to get a valid accusation against him as a violator of the
Sabbath by his cure of disease he met with the principle
that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath — the asser
tion of sound moral instinct as against the refinements
of ceremonial law; and the charge of partnership with
Beelzebub he demolished with simple but unanswerable
logic. A second characteristic feature of this visit in Caper
naum was that, in spite of the unconcealed opposition of
the religious authorities, the new movement was greatly
strengthened. The winning of Levi and the acceptance
of his hospitality by Jesus seems to have been accom
panied by a general turning to him of publicans and
sinners.2 The number of genuine disciples became so
large that Jesus was able to choose twelve men with a
view to sending them forth as co-workers.3 The first
four of the twelve were the men who had been with
Jesus on his early tour from Capernaum, and Matthew,
according to the author of the first Gospel,4 was identical
with the publican Levi, of whose call the oldest Gospel
gives an account. Of the remaining seven men the
synoptic tradition contains no information beyond what
is found in the list of names. It is significant that one
of them (Simon) was known as the "Zealot," that is, an
adherent of Judas of Gamala. That a man should have
passed from the party which advocated radical revolution
ary measures to the circle of the disciples of Jesus whose
teaching was purely spiritual is a testimony not only to
his personal power but also to his confidence that the
influence of his message would blend into one the most
diverse elements. A tax-gatherer and a Zealot were
as far apart as possible in their political views, one
a servant and the other a sworn enemy of the Roman
'Mk. 2:28; Mt 12:8; Lk. 6:5. "Mk. 3:14; Mt. 10:2; Lk. 6:13.
2Mk. 2:15; Mt. 9:10; Lk. 5:29. 'Mt 9:9.

igO THE HISTORICAL JESUS
government. Of the other men — Philip and Barthol
omew, Thomas and James of Alphaeus, Thaddeus and
Judas Iscariot — the synoptic tradition gives no informa
tion. The natural presumption is that, as Jesus had
worked only in Galilee, they were Galileans, but that
cannot be certainly affirmed. We know nothing of their
respective vocations. The lack of agreement between
Luke's list of names and that of the oldest Gospel1 is
without explanation. The fact that Peter was one of the
sources of Mark's Gospel, as well as the somewhat more
archaic form of Mark's list,2 speaks for the historical
correctness of the name "Thaddeus" rather than Luke's
designation "Judas son of James."
A third notable feature of this second stay in Caper
naum is the fact that people were drawn thither from
distant parts of the land. This is hardly to be counted
as a mark of the true growth of the new movement.
Jesus, on one occasion, was forced to betake himself to a
boat in order to get an opportunity to speak to the peo
ple, so great was the rush for healing,3 and it is not
improbable that his crossing to the east side of the lake4
was to escape a multitude whose chief motive in coming
to him was either curiosity to witness some of his works
or the desire for healing. Superstition in regard to him
as a healer was so gross that people located a magical
power in his very garments,5 and thus thought of him as
a sort of dynamo of curative energies quite apart from
his will.6 It is obvious that where people regarded Jesus
in this light, their thronging him was not promotive of
his spiritual ends. The fact that many flocked to Caper
naum from afar, to be healed, is clear evidence that the
physicians of the time were inefficient, and it may be that
a knowledge of this truth inclined the merciful heart of
Jesus the more strongly to alleviate physical suffering
'Mk. 3:18; Lk. 6:16.
2 The name "Boanerges," which appears only in Mark, points to his
priority. We can understand why, in later times, this was dropped, because
of the criticism it involved, more readily than we can regard it as an
invention of Mark.
8Mk. 3:9.
'Mk. 4:35; Mt. 8:18; Lk. 8:22.
BMk. 5:28; Mt. 9:21; Lk. 8:44.
8 Even the evangelists shared this view. See Mk. 5:30; Lk. 8:45-46.

FROM THE JORDAN TO CAESAREA PHILIPPI I9I
whenever he could, though he soon became aware that
healing interfered with preaching. The perception of
this fact accounts for the strictness with which he
enjoined silence on those who had seen the resuscitation
of the little daughter of Jairus.1 Whether this' injunction
was successful we do not know. It is suggestive, how
ever, that this act in the house of Jairus closed the second
period of ministry in Capernaum, so far as our sources
inform us.
We have now reached a chapter in the public life of
Jesus which is in some respects more obscure than what
has gone before. In the interval between his departure
from Capernaum and his journey to Caesarea Philippi2
Luke follows the earliest Gospel only in the mission of
the Twelve, their return to Jesus, and the story of the
feeding of the great multitude.3 The other material
which Mark and Matthew put in this interval is wanting
in Luke.4
If we follow the earliest Gospel, when Jesus left Caper
naum he made a tour of some extent with the Twelve,
and on this tour visited his native town.5 We have no
clue to the extent or the duration of this tour,6 no inci
dent from it except the visit in Nazareth. His rejection
in his native town, by people who had long known him as
a private citizen, must have had its own peculiar bitterness
for him. Further, this incident throws the first shadow
on the record of Jesus' career as a doer of mighty works.
Here the unbelieving attitude of people toward him made
this kind of ministry in the main impossible.
The next luminous point in the history of Jesus is the
sending of the twelve apostles. They had been with him
now for some weeks — four of them longer than the rest
'Mk; 5:43; Lk. 8:56.
2Mk. 8:27; Mt. 16:13; Lk. 9:18.
3 Lk. 9:1-5, 10, 11-17.
* His account of a visit to Nazareth is doubtless parallel to Mk. 6:1-6,
though placed by him before the first visit in Capernaum; and he has a
reminiscence of Mk. 8:11-12 but in a different setting (Lk. 11:16, 29).
»Mk. 6:1, 6, 7- ,',,,.*,_ ¦ , ¦
8 Mark's kh'kAu (6:6) may suggest that he thought of the region lying
about Nazareth, *" Matthew's comprehensive statement, "all the cities and
the villages" (9:35), seems hardly to accord with the subsequent mission of
the Twelve.

IQ2 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
— and he must have come to know them well. It appears
that he sent them to say and to do what they had heard
and seen him do: that«they were to be continuators of the
movement which he had inaugurated. The directions
given them suggest that they were not expected to go
very far or be gone a great while,1 and that they were not
to anticipate uniformly good treatment.2 It does not
appear from what place they went forth, or to what place
they returned, or how long the tour lasted. Since Caper
naum was certainly the home of some of them and had
been the center of Jesus' work thus far, it is not unlikely
that they went forth with the understanding that they
were to return thither after their tour had been com
pleted.3 No details of the work and experience of the
Twelve have been preserved. It is, however, stated in a
general way that they preached and healed.4 Where
Jesus himself was during this absence of the apostles can
only be conjectured.
Soon after the return of the Twelve — at Capernaum,
if this town was indeed their rendezvous — Jesus sum
moned them to go apart with him to some quiet spot, for
a little rest.5 This quiet spot, according to the following
account, was somewhere on the shore of the lake,6 and,
to judge from Mark 6 45, on the west side of the lake.7
From this spot, after the notable experience with a great
multitude, Jesus sent his disciples away by boat to
"Bethsaida."8 When, however, they came to land, they
were not at Bethsaida, but on the coast of Gennesaret.9
The wind had beaten them back from the point which
they set out to make.
What Jesus had sought to avoid by going from Caper
naum to a solitary spot somewhere on the shore of the
lake now awaited him on the following day in the thickly
'Mk. 6:8-9; Mt. 10:9-10; Lk. 9:3.
2Mk. 6:11; Mt. 10:14; Lk. 9:5.
3 Mk. 1 :3o, 32 favors this view.
* Mk. 6:12-13; Lk. 9:6.
8 Mk. 6:31. Mt. 14:13 gives the Baptist's death as the occasion of the
retirement of Jesus at this time.
8 Mk. 6:33.
7 Luke's statement that they withdrew to "a city called Bethsaida"
(9:10) is not in harmony with Mark.
»Mk. 6:45. "Mk. 6:53; Mt. 14:34.

FROMi THE JORDAN TO CAESAREA PHILIPPI I93
populated Gennesaret plain. He was at once recognized
as the great healer, and whichever way he turned he was
beset by those who craved healing.1 It is notable that
he is not said to have healed anyone,2 although he was
thus thronged — an indication of a change of mind. Of
this we shall have confirmation as we follow down the
course of events.
It was about this time that Jesus was confronted with
a new accusation from the scribes and Pharisees, viz.
that he disregarded ceremonial cleansing.3 And this
charge was doubtless quite true. Jesus in his reply to
the criticism declared that the tradition of the elders —
ceremonial cleansing belonged to that tradition — was
radically opposed to the commandment of God. He
cited a case in point. A man is bound by the Law to
honor father and mother, but according to the elders'
tradition, what was rightfully due to parents might be
withheld by merely pronouncing over it the word "kor-
ban" (=a gift, i.e., to the Lord). Thus God's word was
made of no effect.
So much for the traditional law in general. As to the
particular rite of ceremonial hand-washing, which was
neglected by the disciples of Jesus, he said, in substance,
that it was an insignificant matter. A man is defiled by
that which comes from within him, and not by what he
eats, still less therefore by touching what he eats with
hands that are not ceremonially clean. Jesus thus virtu
ally denied that the rite for which his critics stood had a
valid basis. This was not a formal attack on the
Levitical law, but it was a relegation of ceremonialism to
the class of things that are relatively unimportant.4 Any
man who took this position in the time of Jesus was
doomed. He might escape for a season, but his fate was
sealed. The presence of hostile scribes and Pharisees from
Jerusalem,5 together with the fact that people thronged
'Mk. 6:55-56; Mt 14:33-36-  . ,,..,.
2 People are said to have touched him with good results, but he could
hardly have prevented this when in the midst of crowds.
8Mk. 7:1-23; Mt. 15:1-20.
'Cf. Mt. 23:23-26. BMk. 7:1; Mt 15:1.
13

194 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
him for physical healing, probably led Jesus to take a
trip to the north, beyond the borders of Galilee. In the
region of Tyre and Sidon he was in the Roman province
of Syria, in a land predominantly Gentile,1 but from there
around to the east of the lake, by a way through the
midst of Decapolis,2 he may not have left the territory of
Philip. Here again the record is exceedingly meagre.
There is no clue to the time spent on this trip except the
mere fact of the distance from place to place, nor is
there any suggestion as to how Jesus and the Twelve
were occupied. That he was teaching them and training
them to promote the new movement may safely be
assumed, but with the exception of a single incident the
entire trip is a perfect blank. That incident — the meeting
with a Gentile woman who craved healing for her
demonized daughter3 — is important in various respects.
It shows that Jesus was unwilling to' have here a repeti
tion of the scenes he had recently witnessed by the lake.
He did at length grant the woman's request, but only
when moved thereto by her extraordinary trust. It seems
also to show that Jesus did not look upon Gentiles as
having, at present, any claim upon his ministry. First,
the children at the table — this was his thought ; then, the
little pet dogs under the table.4 If this discrimination
between Jews and Gentiles by Jesus shocks us, it is to be
noticed that it is not so harsh as it at first appears. If the
Gentiles are to have the blessings of the Gospel, though
not at once, then they must be regarded as capable of
receiving those blessings ; in other words, they are after
all on the same plane with the Jews. Thus the word
"first" takes away much of the sting of the term "little
dogs." It may be inferred from the words of Jesus to
this woman that he did not regard his work for the
"children" as finished, although when he left Galilee the
prospect of continuing his labor there was not hopeful.
What led Jesus to return by way of the Decapolis and
'Mk. 7:24; Mt. 15:21.
2 Mk. 7:31.
3 Mk. 7:25-30; Mt. 15:22-28.
'Mk. 7:27. — Matthew omits this idea of order, and therefore is decidedly
further removed from the sympathy and gentleness of Jesus.

FROMI THE JORDAN TO CAESAREA PHILIPPI I95
to make a stop on the east side of the lake can only be
conjectured. Possibly it was that he might learn the state
of feeling in Capernaum and the vicinity while being
himself somewhat hidden and beyond easy reach. Mark's
account of a cure which he wrought when he reached the
east shore is highly suggestive.1 Jesus took the deaf man
apart from the crowd ; he made use of physical agents in
the cure, putting his fingers into the man's ears for the
deafness and putting spittle on his tongue for the dumb
ness — a course of procedure not said to' have been
adopted in any instance thus far; he uttered an inartic
ulate prayer before speaking the word of healing — a
feature hitherto wanting in the accounts of healing,
though quite germane to the principle found in the Logia
in connection with the charge that he wrought his cures
with the aid of Beelzebub; and finally, Jesus enjoined
upon those who were cognizant of the healing to say noth
ing about it — an injunction which is said to have been
disregarded. It is clear from this account that Jesus was becoming
deeply averse to the work of public healing. This change
of attitude, to judge from the narrative of the last days
in Galilee, was due to the fact that healing seriously inter
fered with his preaching.2
The movements of Jesus for a time after this incident
on the east side of the lake are wholly uncertain.3 The
fact that he was at once importuned to heal disease, even
in this region where he was comparatively unknown, was
a plain indication of what awaited him should he cross
to the scene of his longest ministry on the west shore.
Apparently he resolved to continue with his disciples in
as quiet a mode of life as possible. Mark speaks of a
trip to the parts of Dalmanutha,4 Matthew to the borders
of Magadan,5 but where these towns were located, or this
'Mk. 7:32-35. — Matthew's representation that Jesus took up the work of
healing on a large scale (15:29-30) is excluded by the character of Mark's
narrative and by the general situation.
2 The modern parallel to the cures by Jesus is not the medical mission
but the faith-cults.
"The incident of Mk. 8:1-9, Mt 15:32-39 is probably a duplicate of the
feeding of five thousand.
'Mk. 8:10.
'Mt 15:39-

I96 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
town, for both names may refer to the same place, it is
not possible to say. It is significant that just as Jesus is
not said to have entered Tyre or Sidon, so here he is not
said to have entered Dalmanutha. He was obviously
seeking to remain unrecognized. This, however, was not
everywhere possible. His presence near Dalmanutha be
came known and Pharisees came forth — perhaps from
this town1 — and asked of him a divine sign.2 What the
sign was to be for, what it was to prove, the reader is left
to judge from the general situation. This situation sug
gests that they wanted credentials, supernatural and
unmistakable credentials, for his appearance as a teacher
and a doer of mighty works in Israel. Jesus recognized
that in making this request these Pharisees were typical
representatives of their entire generation. To him, how
ever, their spirit was alien: he had rejected a course that
relied on "signs" as a temptation of Satan,3 and therefore
on this occasion also his answer was a negative.
This chance encounter with the Pharisees occasioned
a remark by Jesus to the Twelve, as they were with
drawing by boat toward some haven unknown to us,
which throws some light on the extreme seriousness of
the situation. "Take heed," he said, "and beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees."4 The disciples thought, at the
time, that he was warning them against buying bread of
the Pharisees,5 and Luke interpreted the "leaven" as an
allusion to Pharisaic hypocrisy.6 We can hardly suppose,
however, that the Twelve needed to be solemnly warned
against hypocrisy at this time when they were bravely
sharing the fortunes of Jesus as semi-fugitives from their
own land. But while there is no indication that they were
hypocrites, they certainly were sharers of the popular
Messianic expectations, and the positive refusal of Jesus
to satisfy the Pharisees' desire for a divine sign may well
have started some questioning in their hearts. The fact
1 The word ef^XSov may refer to a coming forth from Jerusalem, or
from the land on the west of the Jordan. The reference is uncertain.
2Mk. 8:11; Mt. 16:1.
8 Mt. 4:3-11; Lk. 4:3-13.
'Mk. 8:15; Mt. 16:6; Lk. 12:1.
"Mk. 8:16; Mt. 16:7.
•Lk. 12:1.

FROM THE JORDAN TO CAESAREA PHILIPPI I97
that Jesus warned them is evidence that he regarded
them, or some of them at least, as liable to be swept away
from their attachment to him by reason of his attitude
toward tlie popular views.
Thus one thing after another was arising to darken the
way before Jesus — the complete interruption of his teach
ing by the irresistible rush to get healed, the rejection in
Nazareth, the increasing hostility of the religious leaders,
and finally a doubt regarding the steadfastness of the
chosen band.
From the unknown "parts of Dalmanutha" the little
company went north and came to Bethsaida, for the story
of Mark 8:22-26, though not adopted by the later Gos
pels, perfectly suits the place where he puts it, and accords
with the present attitude of Jesus toward the subject of
healing. On reaching Bethsaida he was recognized, and
a blind man was brought to him for healing. As in the
case of the deaf man on the east side of the lake farther
south, so Jesus now takes the blind man apart, leading
him out of the village.1 He makes use of physical means
in the process of healing, putting spittle on the eyes — a
well known remedy for certain kinds of ophthalmia.2 The
man is restored, but only by degrees, for at first, men
appear to him like walking trees, and only after a second
laying on of Jesus' hands does he see clearly.3 Here we
observe an unwillingness to work a public cure, and,
what is equally significant, the cure is gradual. To keep
the affair as quiet as possible the man, who did not live in
Bethsaida, was sent home directly, without returning to
the town.
In keeping with his movements in the past weeks Jesus,
failing to find in the lake region the wished-for quiet and
relief from the demand for physical cures, withdrew again
to the north, this time to the region about Caesarea
Philippi, about a day's journey from Bethsaida.4 He
appears not to have entered Caesarea Philippi itself —
Philip's handsome capital — but went to various villages
in the vicinity. How long he remained in this region
'Mk. 8:23. 2Mk. 8:23. "Mk. 8:24-25.
«Mk. 8:27; Mt. 16:13; Lk. 9:18.

I98 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
does not appear. He seems to have been little known
here, and not until the close of his stay do we hear of a
request for healing.1 This was made, in the first in
stance, to his disciples, not to him, but they were unable
to cast out the demon from the epileptic boy.2 The treat
ment of the case by Jesus is noteworthy because of what
he said in regard to faith. When confronted with his
disciples' failure, he spoke, apparently with deep feeling,
of the unbelief of that generation.8 Then, before taking
the boy in hand, he awakened trust in the father's heart,4
and finally, in the private conversation with his disciples,
he attributed their failure to lack of faith.5 Thus it is
plain that in his thought these cures called for faith both
in the healer and his patient, or, as in this case, in some
one who represented the patient.
This stay in the region of Caesarea Philippi was not
devoted by Jesus to his disciples exclusively.6 It seems
that he preached to others, and was uninterrupted by calls
for the healing of disease, that is, until the instance which
has just been considered.
And yet the great event of these days was not his
preaching of the kingdom of God and the possible
winning of new disciples: it was that which took place
within the circle of the Twelve. Now for the first time
a disciple called him "Christ," and he not only did not
check this utterance but rather sought it. Yet not for
his own glory did he seek it, nor as a first step toward
the realization of the disciples' dream of a Messianic
kingdom. He sought it that he and his apostles might
be bound the more closely together for the dark days
which he knew were approaching. It must have been
indelibly impressed upon the memory of the disciples
that immediately after this acceptance by Jesus of the
great title of hope, the title "Messiah," he announced his
death.7 Thug the darkest, most bewildering problem of
'Mk. 9:14; Mt. 17:14; Lk. 9:37.
2Mk. 9:18; Mt. 17:16; Lk. 9:40.
8 Mk. 9:19; Mt. 17:17; Lk. 9:41.
' Mk. 9:21-24.
8 Mk. 9:28-29; Mt. 17:19-20.
"Mk. 8:34; Lk. 9:23.
* Mk. 8:31; Mt 16:21; Lk. 9:22.

FROM' THE JORDAN TO CAESAREA PHILIPPI IOO
their new life followed closely on the hour that may well
have been to them the gladdest of all hours since they had
come to know Jesus.1
We have now traced the course of Jesus from his first
preaching in Capernaum up to the days at Caesarea
Philippi. We see him here surrounded by a little band
of men, some of whom at least believed him to be their
Messiah, and all of whom, with the possible exception of
Judas, must have been personally attached to him.
Abroad in the land where he has worked men hold con
cerning him widely divergent views, some honorable,
some dishonorable. He is a prophet, or Elijah, or John
the Baptist, to some; to others, a glutton and a wine-
bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners, who works cures
by the aid of Beelzebub. Some of the seed of his preach
ing has fallen on good ground, others have fallen by the
wayside, or on rocky soil, or among thorns. He has
found in his own experience that the kingdom of God is
as a grain of mustard seed and as a net that encloses at
the same time both bad fish and good. He has found also
that it is a difficult thing to lead men up into the quiet
place of sonship to God. Yet he has attached a few men
closely to himself, and in this fact lies his hope for the
future. 'It is remarkable that the single tradition of Matthew and that of Luke
add practically nothing to this sketch which is based on the Logia and the
common synoptic tradition. Mt. 10:5 is obviously spoken from the stand
point of later times. Lk. 8:1-3 may well be regarded as historical.

CHAPTER VIII
THE PUBLIC CAREER: FROM CAESAREA PHILIPPI
TO THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY
The problems of the career of Jesus increase as we
pass on from the critical days spent at Caesarea Philippi.
It has already been pointed out that the confession of
faith in Jesus as the Messiah was immediately followed
by his announcement of the suffering which he saw
awaiting him. It is to be noticed now that it was also
soon followed by his final departure from Galilee, where,
according to the oldest sources, he had spent all the time
since his return from the Jordan and the wilderness.
Journeying as quietly as possible he came down from the
mountains, where his heart had experienced a new and
deep joy,1 and passing through Galilee he stopped at
Capernaum.2 On the way thither he told his disciples
that the Son of Man was to be delivered into the hands
of men3 — the same ominous word that he had uttered
first before leaving the region of Caesarea Philippi. Yet
it is said that they understood it not, and were afraid to
ask him about it.4 They must have had at least a vague
understanding of the word or they would not have
feared to ask for an explanation. They must have felt
that it meant some great suffering — a fact they could not
harmonize with Messiahship.
Matthew and Luke abbreviate Mark's version of the
words of Jesus and by so doing make it more difficult to
understand the bewilderment of the disciples. They have
only the statement that the Son of Man is to be delivered
into the hands of men: Mark has the announcement of
'It seems to me not unlikely that Mt 11:25-27 was spoken at the time of
Peter's confession.
2 Mk. 9:33; Mt. 17:24.
3 Mk. 9:31; Mt 17:22; Lk. 9:44.
*Mk. 9:32; Lk. 9:45. 200

FROM CAESAREA TO THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 201
death, and of a "rising" after three days.1 This latter
word may well have been the most unintelligible of all,
while the word about "death" must have filled them with
foreboding and with an unwillingness to probe the sub
ject further.
Arrived in Capernaum and lodging perhaps in Peter's
house, two incidents of recent occurrence were made the
subject of remark by Jesus. First, there had been a dis
pute among the Twelve as to their relative greatness.2
The point is left vague in the text, but may be somewhat
defined from the general situation. Jesus had recently
acknowledged his Messiahship to them, and if they were
disputing as to who of them was greatest, the probability
is that they were thinking of the future, of some sort of
outward Messianic kingdom and of their relative rank in
that. How they harmonized such a thought with the
repeated word of Jesus in regard to his approaching death
does not appear.
This thoroughly human dispute gave Jesus the text for
a personal talk to the Twelve, the principle and illustra
tion of which were not forgotten. The principle was
that humility is the way to greatness, and the living
illustration was a little child.3 Embracing the child and
setting it in the midst of the Twelve were symbolic acts
of obvious significance.
The second incident4 — that of an unknown man who
cast out demons independently of the apostles — may with
most probability be located in the vicinity of Capernaum,
for there Jesus was best known. It is highly suggestive
in its bearing on the cures wrought by Jesus. Here was
a man who by using the name of Jesus cured people who
were supposed to be possessed by demons. His success
is unquestioned. Apparently. he had taken up this merci
ful work entirely on his own responsibility. Jesus in
ferred from the man's deeds that he was his friend, and
that he would not quickly speak evil of him.5 The fact
1 Mk. 9:31.
2 Mk. 9:34; Lk. 9:46. — Matthew's transformation of the question (18:1)
may have been occasioned by a desire to spare the apostles,
8Mk. 9:35-37; Mt. 18:25; Lk. 9:47-48.
'Mk. 9:38-41; Lk. 9:49-50. 5Mk. 9:39.

202 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
of the man's success is striking proof of the profound
impression made by Jesus as a healer. It also clearly
shows that miraculous power was not needed in order
that one might cast out demons. According to the oldest
Gospel1 Jesus added a severe warning against that pure
formalism which was manifest in the apostles' attempt
to suppress this unknown worker. One might better be
cast into the lake, he said, with a great stone fastened
about the neck, than cause "one of these little ones" to
stumble, that is, in the present instance, to stop casting
out demons in the name of Jesus. The severity of this
language is justified when one considers that this spirit
which his own apostles had exhibited was the very antip
odes of that spirit which it was his sole purpose in life
to implant in the hearts of men. If the words of Mk.
9:43, 45, 47 were also spoken at this time, then Jesus
gave still greater emphasis to his warning by dwelling on
the value of loyalty to him — for so we interpret the words
about not stumbling. Here we touch on that conscious
ness of being the supreme revealer of God which was
discussed in an earlier chapter.
With this warning to his disciples, more severe in tone
than any word of Jesus thus far considered, may be
associated that utterance of the Logia concerning the
Galilean cities where he had labored.2 Unmistakably
does this indicate that these cities were, as a wholq,
untouched by the preaching of Jesus. Of Capernaum we
know that it had been moved by his mighty works, but
moved only to an eager desire to see and experience
more of them. The present passage is most significant
because it is the first word of Jesus that indicates what
he had hoped from his works of healing. If such works
had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have
repented in sackcloth and ashes. Jesus makes no men
tion here of his preaching : the works alone would have
wrought repentance. It is not clear whether the preach
ing, which was always in the foreground of Jesus' min-
1 Mk. 9:42. — In Mt. 18:6 the "little ones" are the class represented by
the child, but this connection affords no explanation of the word "stumble.
2 Mt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:13-16.

FROM CAESAREA TO THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 203
istry, is here taken for granted as working together with
the deeds of healing. If it is not, we must ask why Jesus
thought that his mighty works ought to have led men to
repentance. But to this question the narrative gives no
answer. We may suppose that, since Jesus looked upon
his mighty works as wrought by the power of God
through him, he felt that they ought to have made men
sensible of the presence of God, and so have made them
turn from their sins; but it is equally possible to hold
that, in his thought, the kindness which was manifested
in these acts of healing ought to have been a motive strong
enough to turn men unto God. In any event we have
here a confession of Jesus that, as regards these cities at
least, his ministry of healing had failed to accomplish
what he had hoped from it.
That ministry, as well as the ministry of preaching,
was now ended as far as Galilee was concerned. There
is no certain, or even valuable, clue, in the oldest Gos
pel as to how long it had continued. The circumstance
that the narrative up to this point contains no allusion
to the occurrence of a Passover may indeed favor the
view that none had occurred since Jesus returned to
Capernaum. In the single tradition of Matthew there is a reference
to the collection of the temple tax,1 and that event is
located about the time of Jesus' final departure from
Galilee. If we assume that in the days of Jesus the
temple tax was collected in Palestine shortly before the
Passover, as was done in later centuries, according to the
Talmud, this passage would obviously help to fix the time
when Jesus left Galilee, but this assumption is of a some
what doubtful character. One other consideration should
be noted as having a bearing on the length of the ministry
of Jesus in Galilee, viz. the radical opposition between
him and the religious authorities. Even though his work
was in the northern province, at a distance from the
theological center, it is not probable that the hierarchy
would long tolerate so powerful and dangerous an enemy.
Taken together these points, while proving nothing,
' Mt. 17:24-27.

204 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
may be allowed to favor the view that the Passover which
was drawing near when Jesus left Galilee forever was
the first since his public ministry began.
When Jesus left Capernaum, whither he had come
from Caesarea Philippi, he set his face to go to Jerusa
lem, and the journey was a memorable one. According
to the oldest narrative he went through Perea,1 the longer
route to the capital, but Luke in a passage which bears
the evident stamp of trustworthiness says that he started
by the short Samaritan route.2 He does not indeed speak
at all of the Perean way, but neither does his narrative
exclude the possibility that Jesus, being repulsed in
Samaria, altered his course and crossed the Jordan into
Perea. He no less than Mark lets Jesus go up to Jeru
salem from Jericho,3 which implies that he had come
down the Jordan valley.
The story of being repulsed in a Samaritan village
brings out the deep, sad contrast between the spirit of
the apostles and the spirit of Jesus. James and John,
zealous for the honor of a Master whom they believed
to be the Messiah, suggested destroying the village by
calling down fire from heaven, for which act they might
have pleaded an Old Testament precedent.4 And this
proposition was submitted by two of the four disciples
who had been longest with Jesus ! It may have been
hard for Jesus to hear that he could not find lodging in
the Samaritan village, but certainly it was not so hard as
to hear this suggestion of vengeance from his intimate
friends. He could lodge indeed under God's open sky,
but when should he succeed in begetting a new spirit in
these men! Thus unpropitiously did the journey toward
Jerusalem begin.
The next scene is in Perea, but in what town or locality
we are not told. No place is mentioned by name until
they cross back to the west side and come to Jericho.5
But the journey through Perea was not without incident.
That it was a leisurely journey, extending through a
number of days if not weeks, is implied in Mark's state-
'Mk. 10:1. 2Lk. 9:51-56. 3 Lk. 18:35; 19:1.
*2 Kings 1:10-12. ' Mk. 10:46.

FROM CAESAREA TO THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 205
ment that crowds gathered and that Jesus taught them.1
For the first time in his ministry when he met and taught
crowds of people there is no reference to mighty works.2
Doubtless there were sick people in Perea in the villages
through which Jesus passed, and doubtless they would
have been glad to be healed. Since, however, the oldest
narrative, which gives prominence to the healing ministry
of Jesus, knows of no cure on this Perean journey, we
have to conclude that his aversion to healing, which has
been noticed from the close of the longer stay in Caper
naum, still continued.
Three or four incidents, according to the oldest narra
tive, marked this journey through Perea. First, there
was the question about divorce,3 which concerns us here
only as showing that the critics of Jesus were on the
watch, hoping, in this instance, to discredit him with the
people, possibly also with Herod Antipas. The popular
view regarding divorce was extremely lax. Antipas had
arrested the Baptist because he condemned his marriage
with Herodias, and the enemies of Jesus, apprehending
that he would severely condemn the lax view, may have
hoped to involve him in trouble with the ruler of Perea,
or, at least, to have hurt his reputation with the multitude.
The second incident — that of bringing to him little
children4 — also had a most discouraging side, though,
unlike the first, it was not altogether disappointing. That
there were people who desired his blessing for their little
ones was, in these dark days, a bit of glad sunshine — an
evidence that some fathers and mothers thought him a
good and kindly man if nothing more. But here again,
among his apostles, was manifest a lack of sympathy
with him and with the Gospel, which moved him with
deep displeasure.5 For they would have stayed the par
ents from bringing their children to Jesus — for what
'Mk. 10:1.
2Mt. 19:2 is intrinsically less probable than the older source.
"Mk. 10:2-12; Mt. 19:3-4, 7-8; Lk. 16:18.
*Mk. 10:13-16; Mt. 19:13-15; Lk. 18:15-17.
6 Matthew and Luke drop this feature of the oldest Gospel, perhaps
thinking that it marred the picture of a divine Saviour's dignity.

206 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
reason we are not told. How far they were from his
view of the matter is clear from his declaration that the
kingdom of heaven — and therefore any service that he
could render — belonged to just such persons as these
children. The third Perean incident in the common synoptic
tradition is that of an upright rich man who wanted to
know what he should do to make sure of eternal life.1
There was a frankness and earnestness about the man
who had kept the commandments from his youth that
deeply impressed Jesus, and he would fain have had him
as a disciple, but only on the condition that he was ready
to give up everything for his sake. That was too high a
doctrine for the man, and he went away with downcast
countenance. Commenting on the incident — which may
not have been the only one of its kind in his experience —
Jesus amazed his disciples by his strong language, saying
that it was easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. To
their wondering exclamation "And who can be saved!"
he replied in substance that no one (i.e., of the "rich)
could be saved without the aid of the Almighty.
This incident was naturally discouraging, and possibly
there was something in the look or tone of Jesus which
led Peter to' speak his word of comfort — "Behold we
have left all and followed thee."2 The general purport of
the response of Jesus to this word of Peter is clear : one
who leaves all for his sake shall receive much more than
he leaves. According to Mark, he shall receive an
hundred-fold in kind for that which he is obliged to give
up but with persecutions — a clause which suggests that
all the details preceding — houses, brothers, sisters, moth
ers, children, and fields — are not only to be understood
figuratively, but also as a figurative expression of spirit
ual goods. This is the great reward for the present time,
and that in the coming age is eternal life.
Another incident which the synoptists put before the
'Mk. 10:17-27; Mt. 19:16-26; Lk. 18:18-23.
2Mk. 10:28; Mt. 19:27: Lk. 18:28. — Matthew's addition "what then shall
we have?" is unnecessarily hard on Peter.

FROM: CAESAREA TO THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 207
arrival of Jesus at Jericho-, and therefore presumably in
the Perean days, is a repetition of the announcement of
his approaching death,1 made first in the region of
Caesarea Philippi and again before Jesus with the
Twelve reached Capernaum. According to the dramatic
representation of the oldest source Jesus on a certain
occasion was walking in advance of his apostles; they
were amazed, apparently because he did this ; others who
were following were afraid, whether for their own
safety or, more probably, for his, does not appear.2 Now
this state of things implies that something unusual had
taken place. We may perhaps explain the order of the
little cavalcade and the aroused feelings of those who
followed Jesus by supposing that the incident of Lk. 13:
31-33 had just occurred, or that the ominous word about
the accomplishment of his "baptism" had just been
spoken.3 But whatever the occasion may have been, the
scene is suggestive, and the account can hardly have
arisen except from the words of a participant. Jesus
goes in advance as though "straitened" until his bap
tism should be accomplished ; the Twelve are amazed,
and others, presumably friendly to him if not outspoken
disciples, are afraid. Jesus takes the Twelve apart, and
tells them what is to befall the Son of Man in Jerusalem.
The thought that is uppermost in his mind appears to be
that they shall fully know what they are about to face.
Yet it seems doubtful whether they understood his words
any more deeply and truly than on the former occasions
when he had said something of the same sort. For
James and John, when they got opportunity, asked for
the first seats in his glory,4, as though the intervening
events were of slightest moment. Not so in the thought
of Jesus. These events were rather the indispensable
stepping-stones to that "glory," and could these forward
disciples, who already contemplated the first seats in his
kingdom, share these events at his side? Their answer
showed how little they appreciated what he had said.
' Mk. 10:32-34; Mt 20:17-19; Lk. 18:31-34.
2 Mk. 10:32.
3 Lk. 12:49-50.
' Mk. 10:35-40; Mt. 20:20-23.

208 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Then he told them that their request went beyond his
authority. He could indeed assure them of suffering,
but not of the rank they would attain in the kingdom of
God. One discouragement followed swiftly upon another in
these days. The ambition of the two aroused the indig
nation of the remaining ten, and Jesus saw the veritable
spirit of the world in the men in whom he had long
striven to create the spirit of the kingdom.1 Once more
therefore he told them what a difference lay between
them as his disciples and the world, and illustrated the
familiar principle from the event that was now constantly
in view.2
Thus far we have followed the common synoptic tradi
tion, with the addition of a single detail from Luke. But
Luke has other material peculiar to- himself which may
not improbably belong in these Perean days when Jesus
was slowly journeying toward Jerusalem. Such is the
incident of a man who volunteered to follow Jesus, but
who wished first to bid farewell to his family.3 The
Master regarded this request as a sign of divided affec
tion, and said, "No man, having put his hand to the
plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
Again, to this period may well be assigned that dark and
threatening word of Jesus about a mission to cast fire on
the earth and about a baptism which he had to meet.4
Not that the fire of conflict was now first kindled, for
that indeed was not the case, but the heat of the conflict
was now at hand. Or, to change the figure, the "bap
tism" which he had to undergo — doubtless a symbol of
the dark days which he foresaw — was felt to be near, and
he was "straitened" until it should be accomplished; he
would that it were past. This desire is perhaps to be
understood in connection with a word in his message to
Herod, which may have been spoken at about the same
time. Certain Pharisees are said to have notified Jesus
of Herod's desire to kill him and to have advised him to
' Mk. 10:41; Mt 20:24; Lk. 22:24.
2 Mk. 10:42-45; Mt 20:25-28; Lk. 22:25-27.
3Lk. 9:61-62.
*Lk. 12:49-50.

FROM CAESAREA TO THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 209
flee out of Herod's territory.1 The reply of Jesus was
ostensibly for Herod, but was fraught with definite in
formation for the Pharisees also, if they too, as well as
Herod, had sinister thoughts and designs against him:
"Go and say to that fox, Behold, I cast out demons and
perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I
am perfected."2 This word is obscure, but if it contains
the thought that his death was to crown his ministry,
then it throws a light back upon that other saying about
a baptism which he wished were past. In that light this
word does not indicate impatience to be beyond the reach
of his foes, where the wicked cease from troubling, but
rather a longing to have his mission become more effec
tive. It is obvious that this message to Herod reflects a
conviction of Jesus that his end was very near. The
"third day" I am perfected, that is, in the immediate
future. But neither this conviction of the nearness of
his death, nor the belief that it would be in Jerusalem,
suggests supernatural prevision. One had but to know
the temper of the hierarchy and to have observed the
meaning of recent events to feel that a visit to Jerusalem
would end the career of Jesus. And surely Jesus knew,
as no one else did, the spirit of the religious leaders,
and he read the signs of the times with unparalleled
insight. Thus with multiplying omens of evil days Jesus with
the Twelve came to Jericho, to the beginning of the last
stage of their journey.3
Here two memorable events occurred, for the story of
Lk. 19:1-10 may, in point of historical value, be set by
the side of that which the oldest Gospel locates at Jericho. .
For the first time in days or weeks Jesus performed a
cure, restoring sight to a blind beggar,4 who had evidently
heard of him as a healer and who was not to be cheated
out of his one chance to get help. The incident is notable

'Lk. 13:31.
2 Lk. 11 :^2.
3Mk. 10:46; Mt 20:29; Lk. 18:35.
*Mk. 10:46-52; Mt. 20:29-34; Lk. 18:33-43.
14

2IO THE HISTORICAL JESUS
as the single instance in the oldest Gospel1 where Jesus
was addressed as "Son of David." If this be regarded
as historical, we must assume that the rumor of Jesus'
mighty works had come to this man's knowledge and that
he — a rare exception in his generation — drew the infer
ence that Jesus was the Messiah. The reply of Jesus
took no account of this particular character of the man's
faith, for he said to him, as he had to others whose con
fidence in him was simply confidence that he was able to
help, "Thy faith hath saved thee."
The second incident — that of Zacchaeus — justified the
reputation of Jesus as a friend of publicans, for this man
was a chief publican, perhaps because located at this
border-city, which was also a center of the balsam trade
and of other semi-tropical products of the Jordan valley.
The reputation which Jesus had for friendliness toward
publicans, possibly also a knowledge of the circumstance
that one of his chosen apostles was a publican, was suffi
cient reason why Zacchaeus was willing to expose himself
to ridicule by climbing into a tree by the road in order to
see the famous rabbi. The remarkable insight of Jesus
and his swiftness of decision are strikingly illustrated in
his words to Zacchaeus. The name and calling of the man
he may have learned from those about him as he passed
along, but that this tax-gatherer up in the tree would be a
glad host for him and probably also for his apostles, and
that this was the desirable arrangement to make for the
night — these were the intuitive conclusions of the moment.
The fact of a general murmur at this very democratic
step of Jesus may best be regarded as springing out of
the popular dislike of Zacchaeus, not as an indication that
people, being proud of Jesus, were unwilling that he
should be contaminated by contact with one who was
regarded as no better than a robber.
The effect of the friendliness of Jesus toward Zacch
aeus and, as we may suppose, of gracious words about
the kingdom of God, was that the publican at once turned
a new page and formed a resolve which led Jesus to say
confidently that salvation had come to his house. This
'There is a single instance in the Logia (Mt. 12:23; Lk. 11:14).

FROM CAESAREA TO THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 21 1
was one of the few incidents belonging to these days
which were fitted to encourage Jesus, and to sustain his
confidence in the ultimate triumph of his mission.
There is in Luke a hint of suppressed excitement as
the company of Galileans climbed the steep road from
Jericho to Jerusalem, for on this journey he puts the
parable of the Pounds,1 which was spoken, he thought, to
counteract the belief entertained by those who were with
Jesus that the kingdom of God was immediately to
appear. The thought of Luke has in its favor those two
passages belonging to recent days which represent the
apostles as eagerly considering who were to have the
first places in the kingdom. This eagerness is best ex
plained if they thought that, notwithstanding what Jesus
had said of his approaching death, the kingdom was to be
inaugurated when he should reach Jerusalem.2
With the arrival at Bethany a few days before the last
act of the public career of Jesus we come to a remarkable
expansion and fulness of our sources. About one-third
of the oldest Gospel is devoted to an account of the short
interval between the arrival in Bethany and the morning
of the execution — a period of which the Logia has no
clear trace whatsoever. This sudden broadening of the
early tradition, due in part, we may suppose, to the fact
that the last words and acts of a great leader naturally
impress themselves most deeply on the minds of his fol
lowers, and in part to the fact that the Apostolic Church
ascribed fundamental importance to the death of Jesus, is
not without certain interesting chronological marks,
which are clearest and most consistent in the oldest Gos
pel. Of no other period in the life of Jesus can anything
at all approaching a diary be constructed; but even here,
where we seem to be able to trace his movements from
day to day, we must be on our guard against too great
positiveness. A brief survey of these chronological hints may fitly
precede the final portion of our narrative.
'Lk. 19:11-28.
2 They may reasonably have found support for their belief in the words
spoken at Caesarea Philippi, Mk. 9:1.

212 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
The evening of the day of the triumphal entry into
Jerusalem found Jesus again in Bethany.1 The following
nights were spent without the city, but Mark does not say
that Jesus came again to Bethany until 14 :3- The state
ment of Luke that Jesus lodged on the Mount of Olives,2
presumably in the open air, may be regarded as simply a
more definite description than Mark's statement3 that he
was in the habit of going forth out of the city. The
morning of the second day after the entry is specified4
and the subsequent visit to the temple,5 which was "two
days" before the Passover.6 Now as Jesus was put to
death on the day before the Sabbath,7 i.e., on Friday, the
observance of the Passover must have fallen on Thursday
evening. Probably the expression "two days before the
Passover" takes us back to Tuesday, in which case the
first day after the entry was Monday and the entry itself
on Sunday.
Adopting this chronological outline as the only one
that makes serious claims of trustworthiness, we must
conclude that the Sabbath was spent in Jericho, probably
in the home of Zacchaeus — a fact which would help to
account for Bartimaeus' knowledge of Jesus and which
would also render the transformation of Zacchaeus more
intelligible. If the pilgrims set out for Jerusalem in the
early morning and rested during the heat of the day, the
entry into Jerusalem would have fallen in the late after
noon, as Mark implies.8
This entry amid cheering crowds who hailed Jesus
as coming in the Lord's name and hailed the coming
kingdom of David — all so different from the absolute
public reserve of Jesus hitherto, in regard to his Mes
siahship — how is it to be judged according to the oldest
sources ?
In the first place, it is to be regarded not as a formal
plan but as a momentary inspiration. That Jesus pur
posed to make a public assertion, in Jerusalem, of his
claim to be the Messiah, save as he had already done else-
'Mk. 11:11. =Mk. 11:27.
2 Lk. 21 :37. ,.--« Mk. 14:2.
8Mk. 11:19. 7Mk. 15:42.
'Mk. 11:20. 8Mk. 11:11.

FROM CAESAREA TO THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY 213
where by his divine sympathy and by his teaching of the
kingdom of God, cannot be affirmed.
The incident of the ass bears the stamp of unpre-
meditatedness. The whole thing was arranged on the
spur of the moment. Jesus sent two disciples to a near
village1 where an ass was tied in the open street.2 They
were to say to the owner, "The Master has need of it,
and straightway he will return it."3 The probability is
that Jesus had seen the ass4 shortly before, as they had
left one of the villages through which they passed, and
then, possibly as he reflected on Zech. 9 :g and perhaps
at the same time saw throngs coming forth to meet him,5
suddenly resolved to send for it and to ride into the city.
But this mode of entry was hardly the same as a Mes
sianic declaration : it was rather a living parable, yet one
whose meaning would be caught by few if by any. No
doubt those who cried "Hosanna" and who spoke of the
coming Davidic Kingdom were filled with the idea that
Jesus was about to do' some wonderful thing and in
augurate the wished-for Messianic reign. Nor was it
the wish of Jesus that they should be silent. It was high
time that he should be publicly recognized. Were all
men now to hold their peace, after what they had seen
and heard in the past months, the very stones would cry
out.6 Public recognition, yes, but let there be due heed to his
claims. This entry does not suggest a changed concep
tion of Messiahship in Jesus' mind. It is peaceful, not
martial. The disciples have boughs in their hands, not
bows and spears. The Master does not own even the
humble beast that he rides, but has borrowed it for the
occasion. The people who are shouting are a small
company of Galileans : they are not the rich and mighty
' Mk. 11:2. 2Mk. 11:4. _
8 Mk. 11:3. — The promise to return the ass is omitted in Matthew and s
Luke. In Matthew (21 :3) its place is taken by words which refer not to
Jesus but to the owner of the ass. Both the omission and the substitute
may be explained as due to a tendency to heighten the glory of Jesus.
* Matthew's version of this incident, according to which Jesus sent for
two beasts and sat on them ( e-navia ai/ratv ), was doubtless due to a mis
understanding of the Hebrew parallelism in Zech. 9:9.
8 Consider the ol npodyovres in Mk. 11:9, and Jn. 12:12-13.
0 Lk. 19:39-40.

214 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
of the land. Indeed, the scene is the very antipodes of
that which the popular imagination would have painted as
the fitting entry of the Messiah into the city of David.1
As an outward and spectacular expression of Jesus'
thought of himself it was justified by its exceeding sim
plicity, and justified further by its being a realization of a
Messianic passage in the Old Testament. It was espec
ially fitting, if, as the synoptic record teaches, this was
the first time Jesus had come to Jerusalem since the
beginning of his public ministry.2
What became of the singular cavalcade when it reached
the temple we do not know, or how Jesus separated him
self from the jubilant Galilean throng. That he "looked
around" on everything in the sanctuary, as the oldest
Gospel informs us,3 is quite in accord with the view that
this was his first appearance there since his public career
began, and also becomes fraught with peculiar meaning
in view of what transpired on the next day. After this
significant survey of the state of things in the temple
Jesus went forth from the city, and returned to Bethany.
'How much of the passage Lk. 19:41-44 can be regarded as historical
it is difficult to say. The minute description of vs. 43-44 is without sup
port in the other sayings of Jesus regarding the future, and was probably
written with the siege and fall of the city in mind. Vs. 42 may have been
spoken by Jesus, but hardly at this time.
2 Mt. 21:10-11 implies that Jesus was unknown by face in Jerusalem.
3Mk. 11:11.

CHAPTER IX
THE PUBLIC CAREER: FROM THE TRIUMPHAL
ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA
The day after the entry into Jerusalem was eventful.
There was, first, the incident of the fruitless figtree1 —
evidently somewhat obscure to the disciples at the time,2
and still obscure. How did it happen that Jesus was
hungry in the morning, just after leaving his friends in
Bethany? Did his disciples know that he was hungry
except as they inferred it from his coming to the fig-tree ?
But could they be sure that his motive in approaching
the fig-tree — one that had leaves at this season — was to
get food? These questions assume new importance in
view of the improbability that Jesus, simply because he
was disappointed in his search for figs to satisfy hunger,
would have consigned a tree to perpetual barrenness.
One is fully justified in regarding this as extremely
improbable in view of the entire picture of the character
of Jesus which the Gospels give us. The conviction that
we have but a fragmentary and inadequate account of
the incident is heightened by the fact that while in Mark
the withering of the tree was not noticed until the fol
lowing morning,3 in Matthew it took place immediately,
to the great wonder of the disciples.4 We are therefore
forced to the conclusion that no safe judgment can be
formed of the historical incident back of the narrative.
But the great event of the day took place in the temple.
What Jesus had observed the previous evening — the
encroachment of business, and dishonestly conducted busi
ness at that, upon the sacredness of the house of God —
' Mk. 11:12-14; Mt. 21:18-19.
2 Mk. 11:13c; Mt. 21:20. Possibly Luke omitted the incident because
it was obscure.
8 Mk. 11:21.
4Mt. 21:20. 215

2l6 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
led to the decision of a forcible interference with the
traffic that was being carried on there. This was a bold
course, fraught with the utmost peril to himself, yet a
course which he knew would be approved by the moral
sense of the average man. How it was carried out,
whether single-handed or with the aid of the Twelve and
others, we are not told. To understand how it was pos
sible that a Galilean teacher could set at nought the
temple police, and overthrow the established order of the
holy place, one must remember the reputation that had
preceded his coming to Jerusalem, and, still more im
portant, remember the almost irresistible power which
inheres in human personality when there is an absolute
conviction of God's presence and aid. It was with a
crushing quotation of Scripture that Jesus laid violent
hands on the desecrating traffic.1
We can only conjecture what Jesus hoped to accomplish
by this violent Overturning of temple practices. It may
indeed be that he had no thought of ultimate conse
quences, that he did the deed simply because he saw that
it ought to be done, and because he felt in himself the
power to do it. There was nothing distinctively Mes
sianic in the act: any prophet might have attempted it
and, conceivably, might have accomplished it ; at the same
time, however, it was an assertion by Jesus of a religious
authority superior to that of the actual leaders of religion.
It was therefore an act which must inevitably focus
public attention upon him. Clearly too it was an act
which the priests and scribes could not forgive. That
from this hour they sought how they might destroy him,
as the oldest Gospel reports,2 we cannot doubt. To this
manifest hostility may be attributed the circumstance that
Jesus is not said to have gone to Bethany that night,
where he might have been seized, but simply to have gone
forth out of the city.3
The next day (Tuesday?) was spent largely in the
courts of the temple, and must have added to the prestige
of Jesus with the multitude no less than to the bitterness
'Mk. 11:17; Mt. 21:13; Lk. 19:46.
BMk. 11:18; Lk. 19:47-48. "Mk. 11:19.

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 217
of the leaders against him. His brave act in cleansing
the temple insured him an eager audience, and made it
unwise for the authorities to' attempt to seize him while
he was surrounded by listening crowds. But they could
seek to embarrass him and to undermine the respect
which was being shown him. This they accordingly did.
First, an imposing body of dignitaries challenged him
to produce credentials that would justify his present
course.1 They knew well that he had no credentials of
a technical sort — that he was not a rabbinically authorized
teacher, and they may have hoped to weaken his influence
by exposing this fact. But Jesus silenced them with a
skillful counter question: "The baptism of John, was it
, from heaven, or from men ?" Their hostile attitude
toward John2 did not allow them to say that his baptism
was from heaven, and their fear of the multitude3 pre
vented their saying that his baptism was from men, as
in their hearts they would have liked to do. In this
dilemma they were forced to confess their ignorance — a
fact which must at once have lowered their standing with
the crowd and have raised that of Jesus.
The parable of the Unfaithful Vinedressers4 is repre
sented as having been spoken on this day, and this setting
appears to be most suitable. Indeed, this parable may be
regarded as a virtual reply to the question concerning
Jesus' authority. If the vinedressers were intended to
represent the religious authorities in Israel — the same
who had just challenged him to produce his credentials —
then Jesus corresponded to the "son," and accordingly
the justification of his course was the fact that he had
been sent by God for this very work. In picturing the
son of the householder as killed and cast out of the vine
yard Jesus gave indirect expression to his sense of the
certainty and immediacy of his own death; and the
declaration that the Lord of the vineyard would destroy
the unfaithful vinedressers, and would give the vineyard
to others, reflects a conviction of the hopelessness of the
spiritual condition of the religious leaders.
1 Mk. 11:27-28; Mt 21:23; Lk. 20:1-2. 2Mt 3:7; 21:32.
8 Mk. 11:32. ' Mk. 12:12; Mt. 21:33-46; Lk. 20:9-19.

2l8 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Thus this parable of the Unfaithful Vinedressers was
a much more severe arraignment of the authorities of
the temple than had been involved in the reformatory act
of the preceding day. Only their fear of the people
restrained them from seizing Jesus on the spot.1
How intense the hatred of the authorities was. appears
in the fact that the next scheme to entangle Jesus was
carried out jointly by Pharisees and Herodians — parties
that were to be blended only by some overwhelming com
mon danger.2 The aim of these«men was to get a yes or
a no from Jesus to the question whether it was lawful to
pay tribute to Caesar.3 With either answer they hoped
to gain an advantage over him. If he said yes, the
Pharisees might call him a traitor to Israel; and if he
said no, the Herodians could accuse him to the Governor
as disloyal. But Jesus saw through their clever plan,
and, calling for a denarius, he asked whose the image and
superscription were. They must acknowledge that they
were Caesar's. Then at length he answered their ques
tion, but evaded their plot. For while his answer was in
line with Herodian policy, so that this party had no
argument against him, it also thwarted the Pharisees,
for it conceded the sovereignty of God, though in a
sphere distinct from Caesar's. They have two Masters,
he said in substance, but not in the same sphere; hence
they can serve both.
Then there came Sadducees who sought to get the
better of Jesus in a discussion regarding the doctrine of
resurrection.4 They must have known that on this sub
ject he shared the view of the Pharisees. So they laid
before him the case of a woman who had had seven legal
husbands, and, assuming that if there were a life beyond
the grave the same order of things must obtain in it as
in the present, they asked to which of the seven she would
belong in the resurrection. In their judgment, this case
reduced the doctrine to an absurdity. For it would be
contrary to the Mosaic law that she should be the wife
' Mk. 12:12; Mt. 21:46; Lk. 20:19.
2 Mk. 12:13; Mt. 21:15.
8 Mk. 12:14; Mt. 22:17; Lk. 20:22.
'Mk. 12:18-27; Mt. 22:23-33; Lk. 20:27-38.

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 219
of all the seven at the same time, and they assumed that
she must belong to one of them.
In his reply, Jesus simply denied their premise. The
old earthly relations are discontinued in the resurrection.
People no longer marry nor are given in marriage, but
they are as angels.
Jesus then goes on to show from Scripture that the
belief in the immortality of man is grounded in God's
relation to him. He refers them to Jehovah's words to
Moses at the Bush : "I am the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac and the God of Jacob."1 He lays it down as a
self-evident truth that the living God must be the God of
living ones. If then God declares himself the God of
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, it follows that they are
alive, that death did not end their existence. To be the God
of anyone, as of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is, for Jesus,
to sustain a relation to that one which is essentially eternal.
The highest that heart can conceive, the fulfilment of its
deep pure longings, is wrapt up for any one in the asser
tion of Jehovah, "I am his God." Thus the use of the
passage in Exodus did not hinge on the present tense of
the verb ("I am the God of Abraham"), but rather on
the Divine relationship between these men and Jehovah.
This incident of Jesus' encounter with Sadducees is
worthy of notice in a general sketch of his public career
because it not only helps to show how universal was the
opposition of the ruling classes toward him on his arrival
in Jerusalem, but also illustrates the astonishing readiness
and breadth of his interpretation of Scripture.
This latter point was further illustrated on the same
occasion by Jesus' reply to one of the hair-splitting
casuistical questions in which the scribes delighted, viz.
which of the commandments — the Jews counted 613 —
was the greatest of all.2 The man who asked this ques
tion, if we follow the oldest account which is intrinsically
the most consistent,3 had no hostile intent, but, on the
contrary, appears to have been in a receptive mood. Jesus
'Ex. 3:6.
2Mk. 12:28-37; Mt. 22:34-40, 46; Lk. 10:25-28; 20:40.
2Lk. 10:25-28 credits a certain lawyer with the same comprehensive
summary of Law and Prophets which Mark here ascribes to Jesus.

220 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
in his answer ignored even the Decalogue itself, and
declared that the two great commandments were to love
God supremely and to love one's neighbor as one's self.
His answer had no savor of the rabbinical method of
Scripture interpretation, but was given him by his own
deepest experience of life.
In line with the cleansing of the temple and the parable
of the Unfaithful Vinedressers was the denunciation of
the scribes, which also, according to the oldest Gospel,
belonged to the same eventful day with the preceding
public controversies. This denunciation necessarily im
plies a depth and extent of popular interest in Jesus which
was regarded by the adversaries as a most formidable
barrier. The scribes were arraigned as proud, avaricious
and hypocritical.1 It will be noticed that nothing was
said of their attitude toward him, and thus the denuncia
tion is marked off from that which was directed against
the Galilean cities. This feature of the words accords
with the representation of the synoptic tradition that Jesus
had not labored in Jerusalem prior to these last few days.
If the quiet scene of Mk. 12:41-44, Lk. 21:1-4 fol
lowed upon the severe denunciation of the scribes, or
even occurred on the same day, it bears further evidence
to the relative security which Jesus had won by his bold
invasion of the temple and his victory over the religious
authorities, and, at the same time, shows his astonishing
power of self-control and self-forgetfulness. As the
storm on the lake did not disturb his serenity, so the
greater perils of the present hour were ignored. He
observed the act of a poor widow who cast two mites into
the treasury, he reflected upon it, then called his disciples
and explained to them its significance; and he did these
things with a composed and unperturbed mind, though
all about him were powerful enemies who were bent on
his immediate destruction.
As Jesus left the temple at the close of this memorable
day a certain disciple — presumably a Galilean and there-
' Mk. 12:38-40; Mt. 23:1-7; Lk. 20:45-47. — Also, if certain words of the
Logia were spoken on this_ occasion, they were arraigned as blind guides
and as those who shut the kingdom of heaven against men (Mt. 23:13, 23-24;
Lk. 11:52, 42).

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 221
fore one whom the glory of the great edifice filled with
fresh wonder owing to the infrequency of his visits — re
marked on its magnificence.1 The response of Jesus to
this word of admiration was on a different plane. Not
the magnificence of the temple, but its destruction, was
before his mind. "There shall not be left here one stone
upon another, which shall not be thrown down."2 A
natural conclusion was this concerning a temple of God
in which the Messiah himself, God's unique messenger,
was not safe from assault.
Later, on the Mount of Olives, when perhaps the
company of disciples had broken up for the night, the
four men first called to discipleship asked Jesus privately
to tell them when these things "were to be and what
would be the sign of their accomplishment3 — questions
that were more curious than important.4 The reply of
Jesus did not gratify their curiosity — he said he was not
able to do that5 — but it was of a practical character. It
is certain that the report of his words embodies some
later material,6 but difficult to determine how much. For
the present biographical purpose it is sufficient to note
two salient features of his reply. In the first place, it is
clear that he warned them to be on their guard, for a
time of great tribulation was before them.7 They would
be hated and persecuted8 — a word spoken to them once
before — but the Spirit of God would aid them in their
sore need.9 Second, after this approaching tribulation10
but within the present generation,11 the Son of Man would
be seen coming on the clouds with power and great
glory12 — an event to be ushered in by the Old Testament
signs of the "Day of Jehovah."13 Because this consum-
'Mk. 13:1; Mt. 24:1; Lk. 21:5.
2Mk. 13:2; Mt. 24:2; Lk. 21 ;6.
8 Peculiar to Matthew and doubtless secondary is the term irapovo-Ca
(24:3. 27, 37, 39).
?Mk. 13:3-4; Mt. 24:4; Lk. 21:7.
6Mk. 13:32; Mt. 24:36.
•E.g., Mk. 13:14-
'Mk. 13:5; Mt. 24:4; Lk. 21:8.
8Mk. 13:9, 13; Mt 24:9; Lk. 21:16-17.
0 Mk. 13:11; Lk. 21:15.
10 Mk. 13:24; Mt. 24:29.
" Mk. 13:30; Mt. 24:34; Lk. 21:32.
32 Mk. 13:26; Mt. 24:30; Lk. 21:27.
18 Mk. 13:24-25; Mt. 24:29; Lk. 21:25.

222 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
mation was imminent and uncertain they and all disciples
should "watch."1 It seems therefore that, though Jesus
disclaimed a knowledge of the exact time of these great
occurrences of the future, he was convinced that they
would fall within a generation, or, as he said on another
occasion when speaking of the coming of the kingdom
with power,2 it would be while some of those present
were still alive. Now history records the destruction of
the temple some forty years after the death of Jesus
(Sept. 70 A.D.), and a coming of the kingdom of God
with power long before that time ;3 but of a subsequent
event or series of events, which yet lay within the distance
of a life-time from the day when Jesus spoke and which
could possibly be thought of as a fulfilment of the word
about the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power
and great glory, history has no record. We here face an
unsolved problem. That Jesus shared the views of his
people and age, sometimes erroneous views, as in the case
of demoniac possession, is to be admitted. It is possible
that he also held, in common with his age, that there was
to be a consummation of the present order in the near
future. But in this case as little as in the other do we
confront a fact that in the slightest degree affects "the
essential claims of Jesus to be the revealer of the
character of God.
With this last eventful day of public teaching the
oldest Gospel associates yet two significant incidents —
the anointing of Jesus in Bethany,4 and the enlistment of
Judas in the service of the priests.5 The story of the
anointing was apparently preserved because of the words
of Jesus which it called forth. Hence it is not surprising
'Mk. 13:32-37; Mt. 24:42; 25:13-14; Lk. 21:36; 12:40.
2Mk. 9:1. 8See the Book of Acts.
1 Mk. 14:3-9; Mt. 26:6-13. — Luke omits this incident, but gives, in an
earlier connection, a somewhat similar one (7:36-50). Jesus is anointed by
a woman in the house of a certain Simon, but all the other circumstances
are different. Luke was probably acquainted with Mark 14:3-9, and may
have omitted it because of its resemblance to the other story. — The account
in Jn. 12:1-11 appears to be based on the oldest Gospel, but seriously
modifies it. It drops Simon, and seems to put the incident in the home of
Lazarus. It fills out the blanks left in the oldest Gospel, and relieves the
other apostles of blame by casting it all upon Judas. These features point
to its secondary character.
6Mk. 14:10-11; Mt. 26:14-16; Lk. 22:3-6.

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 223
that only a meagre statement of the details of the event
is given. Who the woman was who anointed the head
of Jesus, or what her motive, or who Simon the "leper"
was, are questions that cannot be answered. They are,
however, of no great importance. And who were in
dignant at the supposed extravagance of using fifty dol
lars' worth of spikenard on the hair of Jesus is a point
left vague in the oldest Gospel. It was very natural for
a later generation1 to make Judas the scape-goat to bear
the blame of this parsimonious criticism, but evidence for
this conclusion is wanting.
Jesus rebuked those who murmured at the woman's
act, and himself generously defended it. It was a "good
work;" it was preparatory to his burial; and its record
should go as widely as the Gospel. Moreover the time
was at hand when they could no more offer him any
personal ministry of affection or honor. Thus it is mani
fest that Jesus, though he had silenced his adversaries in
the temple, and though he was temporarily shielded by
popular favor, was convinced that his end was near. That
he took occasion to refer to it at table is in harmony with
repeated utterances of the last few weeks and shows how
important he felt it to be that his disciples should be fore
warned of the approaching tragedy.
It is possible that this repeated and heavy announce
ment of Jesus concerning his immediate future had
something to do with the resolve of Judas to betray him.
If that disciple concluded from what Jesus said of his
death that he could not be the Messiah — a very natural
conclusion at that time — then his mind would be open to
suggestions regarding the unwisdom of being identified
with one against whom the leaders of Israel were arrayed
as one man. But it is idle, with the data at our disposal,
to attempt to analyze the mental process by which Judas
became the betrayer of his Master. How far back that
process reached we cannot tell.2 There is no ground for
' See John 12:5-6.
2 The view of the latest Gospel that Jesus knew from the beginning who
it was that should betray him (6:64), and that, as early as the longer
visit in Capernaum, Jesus said to the apostles, "Did not I choose you the
Twelve and one of you is a devil (6:71),*' is simply an inference from the
assumed supernatural knowledge of Jesus.

224 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
supposing that when Jesus and the Twelve came up to
Jerusalem, Judas had already contemplated turning
against him. The fact that the all-powerful authorities
in Jerusalem were declared enemies of Jesus was suf
ficiently ominous to set any disciple to thinking of his
own personal safety, and to bring any germ of latent
unbelief to rapid development. According to the oldest
Gospel Judas was in touch with the priests two days
before the Passover and was seeking how he might
opportunely deliver Jesus to them.1 We can readily
believe that it was desired to dispose of Jesus before the
great feast.2 To proceed against him openly at that time
would be likely to produce a dangerous uprising in his
favor, and yet to leave him at large during the feast
would be to run the risk of further strengthening his
cause. Hence the urgent need of immediate action.
An apprehension of what was being plotted by his foes
may account for the seeming fact that, according to the
hints of time in the oldest Gospel,3 Jesus spent the last
day before the Passover in close retirement. This would
suggest very clearly that he purposed to determine in
some measure the outward course of hostile procedure
against him. Whether he had any other reason for wish
ing to postpone his arrest than the desire to keep the
Passover with his disciples,4 we can only conjecture.
On the day when the Jews were accustomed to kill the
Passover,5 that is, the 14th of the month Nisan,6 Jesus —
whether at Bethany or elsewhere cannot be determined
— sent two7 disciples into the city to prepare for the cele
bration of the feast. There is an air of mystery about
the directions which Jesus gave to these men,8 which is
probably to be explained as due to the presence of Judas
'Mk. 14:11.
2 Mk. 14:2; Mt. 26:5; Lk. 22:2.
8 If Mk. 11:20 denotes the next day after that of 11:12, then this Gospel
leaves Wednesday a blank.
* Lk. 22:15.
8Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:7.
"Lev. 23:5.
'According to Lk. 22:8 these two disciples were Peter and John — pos
sibly an inference from the fact that these were the chief apostles. It is
at least singular that Mark, who derived his facts in part from Peter,
should have omitted the names if he had ever heard them from that apostle.
8iMk. 14:13, 15; Mt. 26:18; Lk. 22:10, 12.

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 225
and to the desire to leave him ignorant of the place of
meeting. That the owner of the house to whom they
were sent was acquainted with Jesus and knew how many
apostles he had is clearly implied in the message to him :
"The teacher saith, where is my guest-chamber, where I
shall eat the Passover with my disciples?"1 Surely not
every householder in Jerusalem would have known who
was meant by "The teacher," or would have been able
and willing to place a large room at his disposal. There
fore it appears that Jesus had some definite person in
mind, but was aware of the need of secrecy if he would
have a quiet evening for the supper.2
At evening Jesus with the Twelve entered Jerusalem
to keep the Passover, but no single detail of the observ
ance has been preserved.3 That which, in this hour,
impressed itself on the memory of the apostles was quite
separate from the old national observance. There was,
first, the startling word of Jesus that one of the Twelve
would betray him.4 No doubt Jesus expressed himself
in this general manner for a pedagogical reason. He
wished that there should be a searching of heart among
his disciples. But he who had extraordinary insight into
the souls of men can hardly have been unaware of the
alienation of Judas, and that it was he who' was about to
deliver him to his foes. To that disciple it must now have
been plain that the Master was convinced of his dis
loyalty, and yet, by couching his disclosure in general
terms, Jesus had spared Judas the humiliation which he
must have felt had he been designated by name as the
traitor. It is possible — we cannot say probable — that one motive
which led Jesus to make this announcement concerning
his betrayal was that the traitor, finding that the Master
saw through him, might depart and thus clear the spirit-
1 Mk. 14:14; Mt. 26:18; Lk. 22:11.
2 If the "young man" who was present at the arrest of Jesus (Mk. 14:
51-52) was John Mark, the author of the second Gospel, then it seems
probable that the Passover was celebrated by Jesus in the house of Mary
the mother of Mark (Acts 12:12).
3 Unless Lk. 22:17-18 contains such a detail, for this connects the Lord's
Supper with the passing of a cup in the paschal observance.
' Mk. 14:18; Mt. 26:21; Lk. 22:21.
15

226 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
ual atmosphere for the last hour of intercourse between
Jesus and his friends ; and yet we cannot positively affirm
that Judas went forth at this time. The oldest Gospel
is silent, Luke lets Judas remain through the Lord's
Supper,1 but John sends him forth and relates the very
circumstances of his departure (13:26-30).
The second unforgettable incident in the upper room
was the profoundly personal turn which Jesus gave to
the paschal supper. The account of this in the oldest
Gospel, because of its greater simplicity, is to be pre
ferred to those of Matthew and Luke.2 According to
this least ritualistic narrative Jesus, during the progress
of the paschal meal,3 broke a loaf4 of bread with thanks
giving, and gave to the apostles with the words, "Take;
this is my body."5 Later he gave them a cup, after words
of thanksgiving, and they all drank of it.6 Then, after
they had drunk, he told them what meaning he attached
to the wine : "This is my covenant-blood which is shed
for many."7 Finally, in line with this word about cove
nant-blood, he solemnly declared that he should not drink
wine again until he drank it in the kingdom of God;8
that is to say, he announced that his end was near, but
also alluded to a continuation of fellowship in the future.
We recognize that Jesus spoke in symbols, that bread
and wine stood for his body and his blood. So much is
clear. Further, the fact of his death is certainly in the
foreground of the scene, and the partaking of the symbolic
bread and wine received some of its significance, in his
thought, from that fact. It is impossible to dissociate
either symbol from him or from his selfsacrificing love.
Herein may lie its essential meaning. But on the partic
ular content of the symbols — if such there was in Jesus'
thought — and on their appropriation by the disciples, the
Master shed no light.
To return to the narrative. We cannot tell why Jesus
went out to the Mount of Olives late in the night, though
from what transpired there it is natural to conjecture
1 Lk. 22:21.
2 Preferred also to that of I Cor. 11:23-25.
8 Mk. 14:22. 'Thin like our crackers but larger.
8Mk. 14:22. "Mk. 14:23. TMk. 14:24. 8Mk. 14.25.

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 227
that he wished a degree of privacy which was not pos
sible in the upper room. His reflections as they went
forth from the city were full of sadness. He foresaw
that all his disciples would be scattered in the days ahead,1
but when he spoke his thought Peter declared that he at
least would remain loyal.2 In this strong self-confidence
Jesus saw the shadow of Peter's aggravated denial.3 One
of his apostles had already betrayed him, another was
soon to deny him, and all the rest were to "stumble."
With such thoughts he came to Gethsemane across the
brook Kedron, not far from the city.
Of what transpired in that sacred spot we have glimpses
only, for the three disciples who were near enough to
Jesus to hear his words4 repeatedly fell asleep.5 Yet the
words which one and another heard before sleep had
overcome them, or in later intervals when Jesus aroused
them, may give us an understanding of the nature of his
experience. The time spent in Gethsemane, whether short or long,6
was spent by Jesus chiefly in prayer, though the oldest
Gospel seems to have a trace of an interval of quiet
between the prayer and the arrest.7 One word that fell
from the lips of Jesus in Gethsemane, perhaps fell from
his lips many times in that hour, has come to us un
changed — the Aramaic word "Abba." The disciples
heard him calling upon the Father, as he had taught them
to do. They heard him make supplication that a certain
"cup" might pass from him.8 This was his sole petition,
so far as we know, though not all of his prayer, for the
words "Not what I will but what thou wilt" may have
been as vital a part of his communion with the Father,
as profoundly involving both heart and will, as was the
petition for the passing of the "cup." As to this "cup,"
'Mk. 14:27; Mt. 26:31.
2Mk. 14; 29; Mt. 26:33; Lk. 22:33.
3Mk. 14:30; Mt. 26:34; Lk. 22:34.
'Mk. 14:33; Mt. 26:37.
6Mk. 14:37, 40; Mt. 26:40, 43; Lk. 22:45.
6 A period of an hour is perhaps the least that would satisfy the con
ditions of the narrative.
' It seems necessary to assume an interval between the words Sleep on
now and take your rest," and, "Arise, let us be going" (Mk. 14:41-42).
8Mk. 14:36; Mt. 26:39; Lk. 22:42.

228 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
the situation suggests that the symbol has the same mean
ing here as in Mk. 10:38, where it apparently refers to
his death at the hands of the religious authorities in Israel.
This petition implies that it seemed to Jesus possible for
his Father, who has all power, to lead him to the goal of
his Messianic labor by some other way than that of the
shameful death which he saw just ahead. This thought
is doubtless in contrast with that of the past weeks, even
with that which was expressed in the upper room. Again
and again Jesus had anticipated a violent death, and had
spoken of it calmly, as in some sense a necessary and
unavoidable event in his career. Now he prayed that the
"cup" might pass away from him. The contrast is great,
yet not wholly inexplicable. Jesus realized now, as he
could not have done before, the loneliness and the horror
of his fate. The nearest of his disciples could not watch
with him one hour. The bravest of his friends was
about to deny him. The religious leaders of his people
stood ready to treat him as accursed. And all this was
the return which men made for the most unselfish min
istry and the most divine religious ideals. That the
sensitive spirit of Jesus was overwhelmed and prayed
that this "cup" might pass is the testimony of the oldest
Gospel, nor does it seem unworthy of the greatest of all
God's messengers. When, however, Jesus realized that
it was his Father's will that the cup should not pass, he
calmly awaited the approach of his enemies.
The seizure of Jesus was made by an armed band sent
by the priests and led by Judas.1 As it was carried out
in the dead of night, and as Judas knew that Jesus would
offer no resistance, it is not likely that the "multitude"
( oxXos ) who came to take him was very large.2 There
was no attempt to seize the disciples. Even that one who
wounded a servant of the high priest was allowed to
escape.3 The young man of whom the oldest Gospel
1 Mk. 14:43; Mt. 26:47; Lk. 22:47.
2 There is no occasion for the serious modification of the synoptic tradi
tion by adopting Jn. 18:2.
3 According to the oldest Gospel (Mk. 14:47), the person who drew a
sword was one of those who "stood by." It is not said that he was a
disciple, nor is it necessary to assume that he was. It might have been the
young man of vs. 51, or some other like him. If it had been an apostle,

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 229
speaks,1, who appears to have followed the company even
after the disciples had fled,2 was laid hold upon indeed,
but when he loosed himself from his captors and fled, no
further notice was taken of him. It is clear that the
authorities had no fear of the followers of Jesus.
The fact that Judas on coming up kissed Jesus3 was
regarded by the disciples as a preconcerted signal by
which Jesus should be pointed out to those who had
come to seize him — another indication that he was not
well known by sight to the temple police. Though Jesus
offered no forcible resistance to seizure, he protested
against its method, saying, "Are ye come out as against
a robber with swords and staves to seize me ?"4 He who
had been allowed to teach in the temple unmolested is now
seized as though he were a robber. To assume that he
would fight for his freedom was utterly to mistake the
spirit of his teaching, and hence he spoke the words of
protest. From the hour of the arrest of Jesus the details of his
treatment are more variously given in the various Gospels
than are the details of the preceding hours and days.
This is not strange, for the disciples had fled from Jesus
in Gethsemane. Peter followed into the court of the
high priest,5 and was perhaps near enough to hear what
was said in the trial of Jesus ; but he himself was on trial,
and not in a condition to take accurate note of what'
transpired in the high priest's court.6 Knowledge of that
trial must therefore have come from persons — to us un
known — who were present, possibly from some one like
Joseph of Arimathea7 who was even then friendly toward
and indeed the chief of the apostles, as the latest Gospel assumes (Jn. 18:
10), it would be strange that the synoptic tradition knew nothing of it.
Moreover it is not easy to believe that Jesus allowed one of his apostles to
go armed. Luke 22:35-38, taken literally, might appear to justify the
disciples in taking weapons as they went to Gethsemane, but we cannot
understand how Jesus would have allowed them to act on a mistaken inter
pretation of his word.
1 Mk. 14:51-52.
2 Mk. 14:50.
3 Mk. 14:44-45; Mt. 26:48-49; Lk. 22:47-48.
'Mk. 14:48; Mt. 26:55; Lk. 22:52.
°Mk. 14:54; Mt. 26:58; Lk. 22:54-55.
8 If John also was present (18:15), 't 's strange that he was not chal
lenged as well as Peter.
7Mk. 15:43-46.

23O THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Jesus, possibly also from some one who, though not at
that time friendly, afterward became a disciple. Of the
more public trial before the Roman procurator and of the
execution there may well have been friendly witnesses,
if no one of the Twelve. But despite the numerous dis
agreements in the reports of the last hours of the life of
Jesus — a fact which should induce great caution in the
handling of separate details — the main steps in the trial
and execution are ascertainable. Here as in many other
places the oldest Gospel narrative is preeminent by reason
of its simplicity and inner consistency. To this then we
must give the greatest weight.
It was still night1 when Jesus was taken to the high-
priest,2 and yet the different elements which constituted
the sanhedrin appear to have been represented in the body
which was gathered there.3 This fact indicates that some
considerable time had elapsed since Judas left the upper
room. There were, according to Mark, certain witnesses who
appeared against Jesus,4 and one remarkable piece of
testimony — which is characterized in the narrative as
false5 — is given, to wit, that Jesus had said, "I will
destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three
days I will build another made without hands."6 The
oldest narrative in its representation that the sanhedrin
heard various witnesses and yet refused to accept their
testimony as sufficient certainly throws a favorable light
upon that body. But it is of small account to know what
was said against Jesus in the sanhedrin, for it is clear
that he was at length judged worthy of death simply and
solely on the strength of his own confession. The high-
priest asked him if he was the Christ, and he replied
affirmatively, adding a prophetic word expressive of con
fidence in the triumphant outcome of his mission.7 This
' Luke (22 :66) postpones the formal gathering until morning, perhaps
influenced thereto by Mk. 15:1.
2Mk. 14:72; 15:1. 8Mk. 14:53; Mt 26:57. *Mk. 14:56-58.
8 Yet the latest narrative (Jn. 2:19) has something quite similar which
is given as historical.
" Mk. 14:58.
T Mk. 14:61-62; Mt. 26:63-64. — Luke's version of this incident (22:67-70)
departs widely from that of Mark. The critical question is not put by the

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 23 1
dramatic moment when Jesus and the highpriest faced
each other and exchanged these solemn words would not
have been easily forgotten by any one present, nor the
fact that the confession of Jesus was held to be justly
decisive against him. It was blasphemy, and for blas
phemy he was condemned to death.1 If there was any
favorable sentiment among the judges, it did not mani
fest itself, and Jesus was immediately treated as a con
demned and hated criminal.2
It is not for us summarily to condemn the Supreme
Court of Israel because of this verdict against Jesus.
Nineteen centuries of Christian history show indeed that
it was essentially wrong, but do not prove that it was
technically invalid, or that the judges were wholly and
wilfully blind to the truth. From the orthodox point of
view the case against Jesus appeared to be strong. He
had come forward as a teacher, and had even assumed
authority unsparingly to criticize the religious leaders,
and yet he had no rabbinical credentials to show; he had
allowed himself to be hailed as the bringer of the Davidic
kingdom, though he was unacknowledged by the head of
God's people, and had no other support than that of a
few Galilean rustics ; and now, though a helpless prisoner,
without a shred of Messianic equipment, as that was
popularly conceived, he had dared to claim to be the
supreme messenger of God ! That it must have appeared
blasphemous in the judgment of the court for such an
individual to arrogate to himself the sublime Messianic
mission one may readily admit. Jesus' conception of the
kingdom of God was, at least for the present, unintel
ligible both to the leaders and to the people.
The episode of Peter's denial3 must be looked at against
the background of the completed trial and condemnation
of Jesus. The fall of his leader may have heightened
Peter's sense of his own peril, and more than that, it may
high priest but by all the sanhedrists; Jesus does not answer frankly and
clearly, but vaguely; and instead of using the symbolism of Dan. 7:13, as
is done in Mark, we have this very different thought: "From henceforth
shall the Son of Man be seated at the right hand of God."
'Mk. 14:63-64; Mt. 26:65-66; Lk. 22:71.
2Mk. 14:65; Mt. 26:67-68; Lk. 22:63-65.
8Mk. 14:66-72; Mt. 26:69-75; Lk. 22:56-62.

232 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
well have shattered, temporarily, his faith in that leader,
for it is altogether probable that the disciples continued
to the last to hope that, in the hour of the Messiah's
utmost extremity, God would wondrously intervene on
his behalf. In these circumstances Peter repeatedly
denied that he was a disciple, and when the charge was
finally backed up with the obvious fact that he was a
Galilean, he was driven to use oaths in confirmation of
his denial. Yet his peril was more apparent than real,
for he was allowed to go forth from the place of trial
whithersoever he would.
In the early morning the sanhedrists, after a consulta
tion that probably concerned the method in which they
should seek Pilate's sanction of their verdict, took Jesus
to the Roman Governor.1
We must suppose that the charge which "they brought
against him was that he claimed to be the king of the
Jews, for Pilate's question implies this.2 In a certain
sense this charge was valid, for Jesus had said that he
was the Christ, and the Christ was universally thought of
as a king; yet as it must have been understood by the
Roman, who cannot be credited with any knowledge of
Jesus' own conception of Messiahship, it undoubtedly
conveyed a wrong impression. He must have thought of
Jesus as a political pretender, and when Jesus, in response
to his question, "Art thou the king of the Jews ?" replied
in the affirmative, he probably regarded him as a harmless
fanatic. It is obvious at any rate that he saw nothing
serious in the accusation.
It appears that the narrative of the oldest Gospel is here
to be supplemented from Luke, who reports that Pilate,
on hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, sent him to Herod.3
This incident may have been omitted as not materially
affecting the story. It certainly accords with Pilate's
1 Mk. 15:1; Mt. 27:1.— Since Judea was a Roman province only the
procurator had the power of life and death. — 'The great divergence between
Matthew and Luke (Mt. 27:3-10, Acts 1:18-20) in regard to the fate of
Judas, which Matthew introduces at this point in his narrative, is unfavor
able to the supposition that there was any certain knowledge on the subject
at the time of the composition of these writings. Matthew's story looks as
though determined more or less completely by Zech. 11:12-13.
2 Mk. 15:2; Mt. 27:11; Lk. 23:3. °Lk. 23:5-7.

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 233
manifest unwillingness to grant the request of the Jews
that he should have sought to shift the responsibility
of judgment to Herod's shoulders. Why Herod refused
to dispose of the case, as he had done with that of
the Baptist, we are not told. Had he done so, the axe
instead of the cross, might have been the symbol of
Christianity !
When Jesus was brought back to the Roman bar, Pilate,
either in response to a request of the populace that he
should release unto them a prisoner according to custom,1
or of his own motion,2 proposed to set him free.3 This was
a clever proposition, especially so if Pilate had detected any
signs of popular sympathy for Jesus, but it was counter
acted by the priests who were evidently present in such
numbers that they controlled the crowd.4 When after
ward Pilate sounded the feeling of those present in regard
to the popular will, there was a cry that Jesus should be
crucified, that is, be dealt with as one who was guilty in
the eye of the Roman law,5 and when Pilate, who had
some sense of justice in his bosom, asked what evil Jesus
had done, he was answered with the same fanatical cry.6
Then, as he feared a tumult more than he cared to secure
justice for the prisoner, he delivered him to be crucified.7
His technical justification of the act must have been that
Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews. This was the
indictment placed upon the cross.8 The soldiers to whom
Jesus was delivered — whether Italian or Syrian we do not
know — seem to have shared the very general popular
feeling of ill-will against Jews, for while making prepara
tion, in the praetorium, for the execution, they are
reported to have treated him cruelly.9
At the third hour of the morning,10 the soldiers
'Mk. 15:6-8. * Mk. 15:11; Mt. 27:20.
2 Mt. 27:17; Lk. 23:16-18. 5 Mk. 15:13; Mt. 27:22; Lk. 23:21.
3Mk. 15:9. " Mk. 15:14; Mt. 27:23; Lk. 23:23.
''The incident of Pilate's wife (Mt. 27:19) and the washing of his hands
before the multitude (27:24) are both designed to emphasize the innocence
of Jesus. It is difficult to regard them as containing any historical element.
"Mk. 15:26; Mt. 27:37; Lk. 23:38.
• Mk. 15:16-20; Mt. 27:27-31.
10 Mk. 15:25. — In view of our ignorance as to the time needful for the
various incidents between the arrest of Jesus and his crucifixion, and the
indefiniteness of irpmi in Mk. 15:1, it seems unwarrantable to say that the
third hour is intrinsically improbable.

234 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
appointed to the task1 took Jesus out of the city,2 on the
way forcing an African Jew by the name of Simon to
carry his cross,3 and at a place called Golgotha ("skull"),4
in a manner that is fortunately not described and on a
cross whose shape is not determinable,5 after they had
mercifully offered him a narcotic which he did not re
ceive,6 they executed him, and with him two robbers.7
The garments of Jesus were divided among the soldiers
with the casting of lots8 — an evidence that they were con
sidered to have some intrinsic value, for these foreign
soldiers would not have prized them for any sentimental
reason. There is no trace in the oldest Gospel that any one of
the apostles witnessed the crucifixion of their Master,9
but certain women are said to have beheld it from afar.10
We are told that the hatred of his foes followed him to
the cross and there sought to add to his torments, and that
even those who hung in agony beside him railed on him.11
In the middle of the afternoon the only words which
fell from the lips of the crucified, according to the oldest
Gospel,12 were spoken, being the first words of Ps. 22:
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The
agony which could have wrung from the heart of Jesus
this cry of utter loneliness is unimaginable. The con
ception of the character of God which Jesus has done the
'The number can hardly have been as small as four (Jn. 19:23) since
there were three prisoners to be executed.
2 Mk. 15:20; Mt. 27:32.
8 Mk. 15:21; Mt. 27:32; Lk. 23:26.
*Mk. 15:22.
5 The statement of Mt. 27:37, that the judicial charge was placed over
the head of Jesus, shows that in the thought of its author the upright beam
extended somewhat higher than the body which was affixed to it.
6 Mk. 15:27; Mt. 27:38; Lk. 23:32.
7 Mk. 15:27.
8 Mk. 15:24.
9 The situation in Jn. 19:26-27 is at variance with the oldest Gospel
(Mk. 15:40); Jn. 19:28-29 can not be held by the side of Mk. 15:34-36;
and Jn. 19:30 is hardly in accord with Mk. 15:37 or with Lk. 23:46.
10 Mk. 15:40-41; Mt. 27:55-56; Lk. 23:49.
"Mk. 15:29-32; Mt. 27:39-44; Lk. 23:35-37.
12 Mk. I5:34-Lk. 23:34 is double-bracketed by Westcott and Hort as an
early interpolation; 23:39-43, in view of the oldest Gospel (Mk. 15:32),
must apparently be regarded as of late origin; and 23:46, a modification of
Ps. 31:5, takes the place in this Gospel which is held in the oldest narra
tive by the quotation from Ps. 22:1 — a fact that seems to require a choice
between the two utterances, and if this be so, the choice must be for the
words of the oldest Gospel.

FROM THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY TO GOLGOTHA 235
most to establish in the human heart forbids our think
ing that the Father had in any sense forsaken him, yea
rather requires us to believe that he looked on Jesus
with immeasurable love and compassion, and that if he
ever arbitrarily departed from his divinely ordered
modes of working, he would here have intervened with
a miracle to deliver from agony the one pure spirit of
earth. The Aramaic words of Jesus caught the ear of some
Jewish onlookers who were more familiar with apocalyptic
dreams than with the text of Scripture, and who there
fore thought that Jesus was calling on Elijah for help;1
and when some one, moved with pity by the sufferings of
Jesus, pressed a sponge of strong wine to his lips, those
who thought he was calling for Elijah interfered, saying,
"Wait: let us see whether Elijah comes to take him
down."2 But the end was at hand, and with a loud cry
— whether voluntary or involuntary we do not know —
Jesus expired.3
According to the oldest Gospel, which puts the death of
Jesus in the middle of the afternoon, his lifeless body
hung upon the cross several hours, for not until even
ing was it taken down.4 Then a stranger appeared on
the scene, one Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable coun
cillor,5 and he boldly went to Pilate and asked for the
body of Jesus. The act required some boldness, for it
identified the doer with what appeared to be a lost
cause, and affixed to him a social stigma, for Jesus had
been put to death by the leading priests and scribes.
Where the apostles were in this hour of opportunity we
do not know. Some of them at least were potential
heroes, as later history shows, but their failure to care
for the body of their Master was very human and
unheroic. So the body of Jesus .was taken in charge by a charitable
stranger and placed in a rock-tomb.6 Where this tomb
' Mk. 15:34-35; Mt. 27:46-47.
2 We follow here the view of Mt. 27:48-49.
3Mk. 15:37; Mt. 27:50; Lk. 23:46.
*Mk. 15:42; Mt. 27:57; Lk. 23:54.
"Mk. 15:43; Mt. 27:57; Lk. 23:50. aMk. 15:46.

236 THE HISTORICAL JESUS
was we do not know,1 and whether it belonged to Joseph
the oldest Gospel does not say. Two women — Mary
Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses2 — beheld where
the body was laid. They therefore form the connecting
link between the earthly life of Jesus and that mysterious
forty-day period between the Resurrection and the
Ascension, which still furnishes Christian thought with
some difficult problems.
But the career of Jesus as a character of history
terminated at an unknown tomb near Jerusalem. Here
therefore this part of our study ends.
' The representation of the latest Gospel appears to be idealized through
out (Jn. 19:38-42). There the body is not buried hastily, and merely
enswathed in linen wrapping, but with all due regard to custom, in an
elaborate and expensive manner. Moreover the tomb is new and unde
nted by contact with a dead body.
2Mk. 15:47,

PART III
THE LEGENDARY JESUS

CHAPTER I
LEGENDS OF THE BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS'
The material of Matthew's story of the birth of Jesus
may be conveniently described under three heads — the
Gen§alogy, Joseph's acceptance of Mary when her con
dition was known, and the visit of the Magi with its
consequences in the massacre of the children of Bethlehem
and the flight of Joseph with his family into Egypt.
The form of the Genealogy1 is obviously artificial —
fourteen generations from Abraham to David, again the
same number from David to the Babylonian captivity
(a period about half as long as the preceding), and
finally fourteen more from that event to Christ. That
the generations are not all enumerated is seen, for ex
ample, in the fact that the writer passes from Jehoram
directly to Uzziah,2 thus omitting three generations —
Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah. The purpose of this
Genealogy is to show that Jesus was sprung from Davidic
stock, and so fulfilled the prevailing expectation in regard
to the coming Deliverer. He is not only sprung from
David, but like him he stands at the apex of a long series
of generations. Not otherwise can we explain the arti
ficial arrangement which sets Jesus over against David
as the last of a series of fourteen. That the purpose of
the Genealogy was thus doctrinal rather than historical is
confirmed in a measure by the fact that the first Gospel
shows a fondness for the title "Son of David."3
The second section of Matthew's story of the nativity
of Jesus centers in Joseph's acceptance of his betrothed
after her condition had become known to him. The
supernatural conception of Jesus is the great assertion of
'Mt. 1:1-17.
2Mt. 1:8.
3 Peculiar to it are the following instances: 9:27; 12:23; 13:22; 21:9, 15.
239

1

24O THE LEGENDARY JESUS
these verses,1 but it is regarded from the point of view of
Joseph, and as a fact of a somewhat distant past. Joseph
believed, at first, that his betrothed had been unfaithful
to him. While in this state of mind he dreamed, and in
his dream he heard from the lips of an angel that the
condition of Mary was of supernatural origin. It was
due to the Spirit of God. He was also informed that the
child was to deliver the people from their sins. Con
vinced by this dream, Joseph took his betrothed to his
home. But before narrating this result the writer says
that the condition of Mary, and the mission of her child,
were a fulfilment of the prophet's words :2
"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son,
And they shall call his name Immanuel."
Here is manifest the purpose of this section, which is to
show that the birth of Jesus without a human father was
what had been foretold.
The third section of Matthew's story3 consists of the
visit of the Magi together with two widely diverse conse
quences of that visit. The time of the visit of the Magi
is roughly indicated as less than two years after the birth
of Jesus. The author lets Herod inquire of the Magi at
what time the star of the new king appeared,4 and then
says that Herod, in order to destroy the child, slew all
the male children in Bethlehem and its vicinity from
two years old and under, according to the time which he
had carefully learned of the wise men.5 It is assumed
by Herod that the star appeared at the same time that
Jesus was born, but there is no indication how long the
journey of the Magi had been, and it is left uncertain
whether they started immediately on the star's appearance.
It is in this section regarding the Magi that the nar
rative first mentions the place of Jesus' birth. This was
unknown to the seekers from the East. The star which
they had seen told them only that the king of the Jews
was born. Then they journeyed to the capital, and
there sought more specific information. Herod obtained
'Mt. 1:18-25. 2 Is. 7:14. "Mt 2.
'Mt. 2:7. 8Mt 2:16.

LEGENDS OF BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS 24I
this information for them from the highest rabbinical
authorities, who based their answer on Micah 5 :2, and
then he sent them to Bethlehem, the town which the
scribes and priests had designated, leaving them to ascer
tain for themselves the exact location of the child. Just
at this juncture, to their glad surprise, the star again
appeared to them and guided them to the house which
they sought. They presented their gifts and homage,
and would have returned to Herod with the information
which he desired had they not received warning in a
dream, which led them to take another route.1 The
obvious purpose of this section is to glorify the birth of
Jesus. The visit of the Magi had two important consequences.
In the first place, it brought destruction upon the male
children of Bethlehem and its vicinity,2 for Herod, who
had planned to get possession of the new-born king with
the aid of the Magi, thought he could accomplish his fell
design in spite of their refusal to aid him. If he could
not destroy one child by itself, he yet would destroy it by
destroying all. And in this deed of blood was fulfilled,
the writer tells us, the word of Jeremiah (31 :i5) :
"A voice was heard in Ramah,
Weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children;
And she would not be comforted, because they are not."
The other consequence, though not tragic, was most
noteworthy. Joseph was warned of Herod's design and
was commanded to flee into Egypt with the child and its
mother.3 He was also commanded to remain in Egypt
until the heavenly messenger should give him further
direction as to his course.
Thus warned, Joseph left Bethlehem by night, and fled
into Egypt, where he remained until the death of Herod.
The flight into Egypt made it possible, the writer says,
that the prophet's word4 should be fulfilled, "Out of
Egypt did I call my son."
Then, after narrating the bloody deed of Herod and
'Mt 2:12. 8Mt. 2:13.
2Mt. 2:16. 'Hos. 11:1.
16

242 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
Herod's own death, the writer tells how Joseph returned
to the land of Israel, and how, fearing to go into Judea
where Archelaus was reigning in his father's stead, and
being instructed in a dream, he withdrew into Galilee,
and settled in a city called Nazareth. This move also was
to the end that what was spoken by the prophets might be
fulfilled that he should be called a "Nazarene."1
Such, in brief statement, is Matthew's familiar story of
the birth and infancy of Jesus. This treatment of the
subject is to be regarded as poeticaLand doctrinal rather
than historical. To this conclusion we are forced when
we examine the story in the light of what Jesus says of
himself, and in the light of the earliest Gospel. That
witness has already been presented, and we can proceed
at once to test this story by it.
Matthew's story is framed, in part, to prove the Davidic
descent of Jesus. This is the sole purpose of the Geneal
ogy, and in the story of the visit of the Magi the prom
inence given to Micah's words emphasizes the point of
Davidic descent. But Jesus never suggested that he was
of the lineage of David; on the contrary, he appears to
have regarded the Scripture proof for the Messiah's
descent from David as, to say the least, uncertain. And
the townsmen of Jesus in Nazareth appear not to have
heard of this relationship. This item, therefore, while
not absolutely excluded from the domain of history, is
set in an unfavorable light by the Logia and the earliest
Gospel. Following Matthew's order of narration, we come next
to the statement of supernatural conception. How does
this agree with the Logia and with the oldest Gospel?
Two points, very unequal in weight, are here to be
considered. We shall first mention me less important of
the two. The oldest Gospel represents the mother of
Jesus with some of her sons as seeking to interrupt his
public work.2 They thought that he was out of his right
mind. Now it seems impossible to explain this action of
Mary if she knew that Jesus was of supernatural origin.
1 Mt. 2 :23.
2Mk. 3:21, 31.

LEGENDS OF BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS 243
It would betray an unexampled presumption and extreme
forgetfulness of what her secret required of her. Her
action is not easy of explanation even if Jesus was her
child by Joseph; but it seems hopelessly at variance with
the view that he had been supernaturally given to her.
The other point to be considered in answering the
question how Matthew's story of the supernatural con
ception agrees with the Logia and the oldest Gospel is
the silence of Jesus. To this fact, hitherto quite neg
lected, it would seem as though we ought to ascribe
supreme significance. We have seen that in the words
of Jesus both in the Logia and throughout the synoptists
there is no allusion to his birth. So far as his words
have been preserved, we can say that they completely
ignore the subject of his origin.
Now it is reasonable to believe that Jesus knew all that
was to be known regarding his parentage and birth. It
it also reasonable to* believe that he would have told his
disciples if there had been anything regarding his paren
tage or birth that was of importance for their understand
ing of him. If he was aware that his birth had been
absolutely unique ; if, to quote the language of the creed,
he was aware that he had been "conceived by the Holy
Ghost, born of the virgin Mary;" if he was aware that
his relation to God was thus essentially different from
that of his brothers and sisters and of all men, then his
silence becomes unintelligible, if not wholly unthinkable.
For those who look upon Jesus as the final authority in
regard to himself the teaching of Matthew's story that he
had no human father cannot be looked on as historical.
We come now to the visit of the Magi. These men,
whether Arabians or Persians, were Gentiles, and they
came to worship the king of the Jews. That they used
the word "king" in its common significance, and meant
a political ruler of the Jews, need not be argued. It is
obvious that Herod so understood them, and all Jeru
salem. This event and its consequences — the massacre
of the male children of Bethlehem and the flight into
Egypt — were too extraordinary to be forgotten in a single
generation, or to have remained without an echo in the

244 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
career of Jesus. That an occurrence of national signifi
cance, and one that touched the burning question of the
appearance of the Messiah, could have transpired and
have left no other trace in the literature of the first
century than what we have in the second chapter of
Matthew seems most improbable. One should be care
ful, of course, in using the argument from silence, but it
would be foolish to refuse to use it at all. The visit of
the Magi, even if their precious gifts were not kept as
souvenirs, would have been a family tradition of the first
magnitude, and it is not in keeping with human nature to
suppose that it would not have become known in Nazar
eth. Had the visit of the Magi been a fact of history, ,
and had Jesus been hailed by them as king of the Jews,
it would have tended, humanly speaking, to fit him
for a leader of the Zealots, a greater Judas of Gamala,
rather than to be a carpenter, and then a spiritual teacher
of the kingdom of heaven. For such a visit from afar,
suggested by a heavenly sign, would have been regarded,
in that age of the world, as an unmistakable expression
of the will of God. It would have laid the most solemn
responsibility on the parents and later on the child. The
parents would have trained Jesus with that royal destiny
ever in view, and he, when arrived at maturity, would
least of all have failed to be influenced by it.
The material of Luke's story of the Nativity forms a
cycle of three parts — the Annunciation, with the resulting
visit to Elizabeth,1 the birth in Bethlehem, which includes
the shepherd idyl,2 and the presentation in the temple,
with the accompanying songs of Simeon and Anna.3
The annunciation to Mary is elaborate and full of
detail. It was in the sixth month after the conception of
John the Baptist, it was made by Gabriel to a virgin
named Mary in Nazareth of Galilee, and made after her
betrothal to Joseph, who was of Davidic lineage. There
is no suggestion that the interview with Gabriel was in a
dream. The annunciation by the angel consists of two parts —
'Lk. 1:26-56.
2Lk. 2:1-20. 8 Lk. 2:21-39.

LEGENDS OF BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS 245
the first full and complete,1 and the second occasioned by
Mary's question.2 The original and independent an
nouncement was that Mary should have a son, Jesus, to
whom should be given the throne of his father David and
who should set up an everlasting kingdom. With the
exception of the personal name "Jesus" the announcement
is drawn entirely from Old Testament passages, and there
is no suggestion that the origin of the child was to be
unique.3 Mary's wondering question brings a further and much
more remarkable communication from Gabriel. It is now
said that the promised child shall be supernaturally given,
and for that reason shall be called "holy," the "Son of
God." The announcement closes with a word of human
comfort. The angel says that a kinswoman of Mary,
Elizabeth by name, has come to know the mighty power
of God's word, for though old and childless she is soon
to have a son. In consequence of this announcement
Mary visits Elizabeth in some unnamed city of Judah,4
and there, apparently under the influence of Elizabeth's
words of greeting, her heart overflows with song.5 The
personal note in this, song culminates in the thought that
she was to be called "Blessed" unto all generations.6 In
the future which was opened unto her she saw the proud
put down and the lowly exalted.
Not less elaborate and rich in detail is the second sec
tion of Luke's story of the nativity. Mary now goes a
second time into Judea, this time to Bethlehem, in com
pany with Joseph, the occasion being an imperial enroll
ment. Although Joseph was of the house and family of
David, he could not secure accommodations in the inn,
but must lodge where cattle were kept. In such an
environment Jesus was born.
This event was at once celebrated in a wondrous man
ner. Somewhere in the vicinity of Bethlehem an angel
'Lk. 1:30-33.
2Lk. 1:35-37- ....
8 The difference between the original announcement and the response to
Mary's question is significant, and somewhat confirms the textual argument
against vs. 35. It is to be noted also that the reason for the title "Son
of God" is not consistent with its meaning in the synoptic Gospels.
*Lk. 1:39, 56. 6Lk. 1:46-55. "Lk. 1:48.

246 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
announced to shepherds that a saviour had been born,
and gave them certain particulars by means of which they
would be able to find him. This announcement was fol
lowed by words of praise to God from a multitude of the
heavenly host who had suddenly become visible. When
at length the angels vanished, the shepherds went to
Bethlehem, found the babe in a manger, and returned to
their flocks, glorifying and praising God.
The last scene in Luke's cycle of the Nativity includes
the two acts by which the requirements of the Law were
met — circumcision on the eighth day,1 when the child was
also named, and presentation in the temple, accompanied
by a sacrifice, on the fortieth day. This latter event be
came memorable in a wholly unexpected manner. For
when a certain Jerusalemite by the name of Simeon saw
the child, he recognized him as the Lord's Christ,2
"A light for revelation to the Gentiles
And the glory of thy people Israel."
He blessed the parents and spoke prophetic words to
Mary, whose tragic tone contrasts strongly with the joy
ous satisfaction of the preceding words, for he declared
that a sword should pierce through her soul.
When Simeon had finished speaking, the prophetess
Anna came up, and seems immediately to have recog
nized the great mission of the child, for she gave thanks
to God and spoke of him to all who were looking for the
redemption of Jerusalem.3 Then the parents took their
child to their own city Nazareth.4
Such is Luke's story of the Nativity. That its form is
largely poetical needs no proof; that its content also is
poetical, not historical, one is led to admit by examining
it in the light of the Logia and of the oldest Gospel. It
is not necessary to dwell here on the assertion that the
conception of Jesus was supernatural. We have already
spoken of that in discussing Matthew's story of the birth
of Jesus. On one point, however, it is well to reflect. If
the attitude of Mary toward Jesus, as recorded in the
earliest Gospel, is inconsistent with Matthew's narrative
'Lk. 2:21. 3Lk. 2:36-38.
2 Lk. 2 :26. * Lk. 2 :39.

LEGENDS OF BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS 247
of the supernatural conception, it is still more strikingly
inconsistent with Luke's narrative. For here Mary is
explicitly told by Gabriel that her Son is to be a gift of
the Holy Spirit, and that he is to receive the throne of
his father David; she is greeted by Elizabeth as blessed
among women; she hears from the shepherds — we may
naturally assume this — what the angel had told them;
and finally, she hears the words of the devout Simeon
and the prophetess Anna. We cannot believe that after
all these testimonies, human and divine, testimonies of
the most absolute and unimpeachable character, she could
have been so far from believing in her Son that she
thought him out of his right mind, and sought to interrupt
the course of his ministry, when he was teaching and
healing in Galilee.
The idyl of the shepherds and the scene in the temple
at the presentation of Jesus, if taken as historical, seem
deeply inconsistent with the experience of Jesus at his
baptism in the Jordan. Let the two facts be set clearly
side by side. The event which turned the life of Jesus
into the channel of public service, the event which pro
duced a deeper commotion in his soul than any other
except the fate that he confronted when in Gethsemane,
was the divine assurance that he was called to the Mes
sianic work. This was the culmination of his devotion
of himself to the kingdom Of God in submitting to the
baptism of John. We not only have no trace of this
great assurance in the earlier life of Jesus, but the
experience itself, with the subsequent temptation of which
it was the occasion, is psychologically inconceivable if, in
his private life from childhood on, he had gone about with
the angelic announcement in his soul which was made by
the shepherds, and had been familiar with the prophetic
declarations of Simeon and Anna. These events, unlike
the announcement to Mary concerning the origin of her
son, were public property, and we should be unfaithful
to the laws of human nature were we to suppose that
these extraordinary occurrences were promptly forgotten,
and that Jesus grew up totally ignorant of them.
The unhistorical character of the Matthaean and Lucan

248 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
stories of the Nativity cannot be more strongly presented
than by showing that they are not consistent with the
words of Jesus or with the oldest Gospel. There are,
however, certain other aspects of the two narratives
which are not to be overlooked when seeking to know
whether these narratives are historical, and to these we
now turn.
There is first, a lack of harmony between the two nar
ratives. Thus we find an unremovable difference of
view as to the home of Joseph and Mary. According to
Luke, this was Nazareth,1 according to Matthew it was
Bethlehem.2 According to Luke, the parents returned
to Nazareth immediately after the presentation of Jesus
in the temple, that is, when he was about forty days old ;3
according to Matthew, they remained in Bethlehem a
considerable time, perhaps a year, for Herod's calculation
that the child would surely be included if he destroyed all
the children of Bethlehem who were under two years of
age is left uncorrected by the evangelist.4 Luke's narra
tive, it will be noticed, leaves no room for a flight into
Egypt. It will also be noticed that it leaves no place for
the visit of the Magi. For Matthew's narrative clearly
implies that at the time of this visit the child was several
months old. But according to Luke the family left for
Nazareth when Jesus was only about forty days old.
Moreover, if we were to assume, contrary to the evident
sense of Matthew, that the visit of the Magi fell within
these forty days, then we should be face to face with the
difficulty that, while in Matthew the family of Joseph flee
into Egypt to escape Herod, in Luke they go, as it were,
into the lion's den — go to Jerusalem, into the temple, and
there attract extraordinary attention, which surely would
not be favorable to their escape from Herod's aroused
suspicions. Thus the two narratives, in respect to these matters of
place and time, are not consistent with each other — a
serious matter indeed if they are held to be historical, but
not serious if they are free poetic treatments of the sub
ject of Jesus' birth.
'Lk. 2:4, 39. 2Mt. 2:1, 23. 8Lk. 2:22, 39. *Mt. 2:16.

LEGENDS OF BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS 249
Another aspect of these narratives which supports what
has been said is the literary difference between them and
the Gospels as a whole. According to the Logia Jesus
said nothing about angels and in the earliest Gospel there
is but a single reference to angels in the earthly career of
Jesus,1 and that is in a passage which is generally re
garded as rhetorical. In Luke there is also a single
reference to an angel appearing to Jesus, but the text of
this passage is uncertain.2 But in the narratives of the
birth of Jesus, on the other hand, angels are in the fore
ground. Joseph is persuaded by an angel to take Mary,3
he is commanded by an angel to fly into Egypt and by an
angel to return to the land of Israel ;4 Gabriel visits Mary
in Nazareth,5 an angel announces the birth of Jesus to
the shepherds,6 and a multitude of angels celebrate that
announcement.7 Thus the narrative is strongly charac
terized and at the same time marked off from the story
of the public ministry of Jesus by the presence of angels.
Does that suggest history or poetry?
Akin to this feature is Matthew's star. What the Magi
saw in the east need not occasion wonder, but what took
place between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and then over
Bethlehem, can hardly be looked upon otherwise than as
poetry, for now the star moved before them and stood
over the spot where the young child was. But obviously
the wise men of old could not have found a particular
house in a village by its being located exactly under a
star — a feat impossible to modern astronomers with the
most accurate instruments.
Another point is to be noted in speaking of the literary
peculiarity of the narratives of the birth of Jesus, and
that is the presence of poetry in Luke's story. Mary re
plied in verse to Elizabeth's greeting, and in verse did
Simeon also utter his joy. We do not naturally think of
these poems as extemporary, but rather as careful delib
erate productions, and their presence is another sign that
the story in which they are found is not to be read as
history. 1 Mk. 1:13. 8Mt. 1:20. 8Lk. 1:26. 7Lk. 2:13.
2 Lk. 22:43. ' Mt. 2:13, ig. 8Lk. 2:9.

250 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
While speaking of the differences between the two
synoptic stories of the birth of Jesus, it may be noted that
neither story is consistent with the implications of the
Fourth Gospel. According to this writing, the Logos be
came flesh in Jesus,1 and the Logos is conceived as an
eternal, divine, personal Being.2 But if Jesus was the
incarnation of the eternal Logos, he was obviously not a
child of the Spirit, as the synoptic story represents. More
over the author of the Fourth Gospel suggests that the
incarnation of the Logos in Jesus was an ethical process*
and therefore essentially unlike the origin of Jesus as
given in the synoptic stories.
It has already been suggested what aim the writers
had in various sections of their narratives of the birth of
Jesus. Let this aspect of the subject be here briefly sum
marized. . Matthew in his Genealogy wished to show the
Davidic descent of Jesus ; in his account of the Lord's
birth, to show that he had no human father; in the visit
of the Magi, to show the world-wide significance of
Jesus' birth; and in the Egyptian sojourn and the settle
ment in Nazareth, to show both the fulfilment of Scrip
ture in the career of Jesus and also how he was cared for
in the providence of God.
Pass to Luke's narrative. In the Annunciation, the
promised child is described, first, as a descendant of
David and heir to his throne, then as without earthly
father; in the account of Jesus' birth, there is an evident
emphasis on the significance of its occurrence in Beth
lehem, the city of David ; in the idyl of the shepherds, the
birth of Jesus is glorified by a disclosure of the profound
interest which the unseen world took in it; and in the
story of the presentation in the temple, the words of
prophecy celebrate Jesus as the fulfilment of the promise
of God, and also throw across the story of the Nativity
its only shadow in the reference to the Messiah's tragic
fate. 'Jn. 1:14.
2Jn. 1:1-5.
3 Jn. 1 : 12. — The incarnation seems to have been regarded by the author
as the supreme instance of the same divine process that had been realized
in former times.

LEGENDS OF BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS 25 1
These motives differ somewhat among themselves, yet
they may all without violence be comprehended under the
general thought of glorifying Jesus. With this aim the
Church sympathizes as deeply today as did its predeces
sor at the close of the first century, but we should not
express ourselves in the same way that was chosen by
the ancient Church. With the changed view of the
nature of prophecy and the tendency to judge Jesus by
what he was in himself, we are coming to disregard the
corner-stone of the old apologetics, and to consider it a
matter of little moment whether Jesus was physically
descended from David, whether he was called out of
Egypt agreeably to Hosea 10:1, and whether it is possible
to make Jeremiah's words apply to the massacre of the
male infants of Bethlehem.
Again, the changed thought of the universe which has
brought astrology into disrepute and which finds the man
ifestation of God's good pleasure in the laws of matter
and spirit under which we live rather than in the appear
ance of supernatural beings, would lead us, if we were
for the first time seeking to describe the significance of
the birth of Jesus in a worthy manner — would lead us to
forms of expression quite different from the story of the
Magi and the idyl of the shepherds. The nature and
scope of the mission of Jesus are far more broadly and
truly understood in the Church of today than they were
at the close of the first century. Inevitably, therefore, if
we were freely imagining the circumstances of his birth,
our pictures would not wholly agree with those of the
early writers who essayed this task. With their funda
mental aim and feeling we truly sympathize, and we
cherish their expression of that aim and feeling as a
permanent enrichment of Christian literature, though it
is no longer a natural expression for us.
There is one point in the story of the origin of Jesus
which, because it deeply affects his person, has been of
overshadowing influence in the history of the Church —
we refer of course to its representation that Jesus had
no human father. We have already considered this in
the light of the Logia and the oldest Gospel. As it is

252 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
inconsistent with those sources, it cannot be> regarded as
historical. But the great importance which it has had in
Christian history leads us, in concluding this chapter, to
consider its origin.
It is hardly necessary to show that the doctrine of the
supernatural conception of the Messiah is essentially
un-Jewish. It is well known that the Old Testament
never contemplates a future deliverer who is other than
a true normal man. The thought of a Messiah who is
physically sprung from God is altogether foreign to it.
The appeal to Is. 7:14, first made in Matthew, is not
an appeal to the original text of the prophet, but to an
incorrect Greek translation. The "young woman" of the
Hebrew original became a "virgin" in the Septuagint,
and this seemed to furnish excellent Scripture authority
for the view set forth in our first and third Gospels. But
this was a delusion. The great prophet was made
responsible for a teaching which neither he nor any Old
Testament writer ever entertained.
This teaching is likewise foreign to Jewish writings of
the period between the Old Testament and the coming of
Jesus. The Similitudes o£ Enoch speak of a heavenly
Messiah, but there is no trace of the idea that this heav
enly being was to come into organic relation to man
kind by birth from a virgin.
It is true that the story of the birth of Jesus, especially
as given by Luke, has a Jewish color. It speaks of
Gabriel, of the throne of David, the house of Jacob and
other details that are Jewish; but this color may have
been given by a Gentile writer as well as by a Jew.1
Moreover, it is merely color; it does not touch the
essence of the story. For the source of this we must
turn to the Greek element of the early Church. This
element was saturated with the thought that great per
sons were the offspring of gods. Such were the mighty
figures of prehistoric times, Hercules and Aesculapius,
Hermes and Dionysos. Such also were the distinguished
' Wilhelm Tell has even more than a mere Swiss color, yet Schiller was
not Swiss; and Julius Caesar has more than a mere Latin color, yet Shake-
spere was not a Roman.

LEGENDS OF BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS 253
characters of history in ever increasing numbers. From
the fifth century before Christ onward into our era the
belief in physical descent from a god and an earthly
mother pervaded all classes of society. Speusippus,
nephew and successor of Plato as head of the Academy,
believed that the great philosopher was born of a virgin.
Philo of Alexandria was so deeply influenced by Greek
philosophy that he ascribed the paternity of Isaac di
rectly to God. Justin Martyr, who was born not long
after the composition of our Matthew and Luke and in
whom we can see how an educated Greek Christian looked
at the doctrine of the supernatural origin of Jesus, said
in his Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius : "When we
say that the Word, who is the first birth of God, was
produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ,
our teacher, was crucified and rose again and ascended
into heaven, we propound nothing different from what
you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of
Jupiter." And again he says : "If we affirm that he was
born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you
accept of Perseus."
We shall not transcend the Greek environment of the
early Church if we draw an illustration from Roman
history, for in this point of descent from the gods, as in
a thousand others, the Romans borrowed from the Greeks.
Suetonius in his History of Augustus does not hesitate
to ascribe to Apollo the paternity of the great Emperor ;
and Vergil, a century earlier, called him an offspring of
Jupiter. These illustrations are sufficient to show that the Greek
world had long been familiar with the belief that great
men spring from the gods. Whether we think with
Justin that the Greeks and Romans were led to this
belief by "wicked demons," or regard it, somewhat more
charitably, as a sincere religious attempt to account for
the mystery of extraordinary personalities, the fact itself
remains. Now when one reflects that the Christian Church after
the destruction of Jerusalem was very largely, perhaps
we might say essentially, a church made up of Greek-

254 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
speaking people; when also one reflects that this con
ception of physical descent from gods in the case of
great men was as characteristic of the Greeks in the first
century as the thought of Evolution is of the present
generation, and when, finally, one considers that the
earliest Gospel left the origin and childhood of Jesus a
blank, and so an open field for speculation, it cannot
appear strange that Gentile converts claimed a miraculous
birth for that teacher and wonder-worker whose wisdom
and might far transcended those of all other great men.
From the Greek point of view this result was almost
inevitable. They who originated the stories of the birth of Jesus
doubtless believed that they were writing what was true.
The supernatural conception was for them a natural, if
not necessary, inference from the stupendous results of
the teaching of Jesus. A man whose name had pene
trated the entire empire of Rome in less than a century
and had called ipto being almost countless societies of
disciples must — as it would have seemed to them — have
sprung directly from God. Hence it is not likely that it
occurred to them to search for contemporary evidence
of the truth of their belief. Moreover it was not an age
which was given to investigating the historical grounds
of its beliefs. This particular article of belief was simply
a part of the Greek heritage, and in the thought of Gen-.
tile believers it needed no other support than that which
any one could find in abundance in the victories which
were daily being achieved in the name of Jesus.
And the originators of the story not only believed it
to be essentially true to fact, they also, beyond question,-
felt that this story rendered to Jesus a just meed of honor.
Wide circles must have shared this feeling, for not other
wise could we explain how it came to be incorporated in
the narratives of Matthew and Luke.
But in this matter of the supernatural origin of Jesus
the modern view differs from that of the early Greek
Christians. We do not seek to account for great person
alities, even for the greatest known among men, in the
way they did. To us God appears as a God of order,

LEGENDS OF BIRTH AND INFANCY OF JESUS 255
who invariably honors his own laws and institutions.
Doubtless the person of Jesus still has its profound
mysteries, but these are not illuminat.ed for us by the
Greek solution. That only begets fresh mysteries. But,
finally, it cannot be said of the age that is beginning to
reject the Greek story of the miraculous conception of
Jesus that it is less concerned to honor him than were
those unknown believers who first gave currency to that
story. No age has ever given to Jesus more intelligent
and sincere homage than is being rendered by the present.
But our world is widely different from that of the first
century, and some things that seemed natural then are
for us irrational and impossible.

CHAPTER II
LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS'
To discriminate in an absolute manner between the
historical and the legendary in our synoptic Gospels, to
point out the exact amount of historical material in any
doubtful narrative, will probably always be impossible.
It is certainly not the purpose of this chapter to attempt
such a task. But the impossibility of an absolute and
final discrimination ought not to deter one from making
any discrimination at all. Loyalty to Jesus ought to
make every disciple eager to know just as far as possible
where the faithful portrait of the Master has been over
laid with later material, no matter how dear that material
may have become through long and unquestioned use.
It is a fact of much importance that, as respects legen
dary accretions, the story of the public ministry of Jesus
differs widely both from the story of his childhood and
from the story of what succeeded his death. It is rela
tively free from such accretions. When one considers
the character of the age in which the Gospel took shape,
its extreme credulity and love of the supernatural, one is
not surprised that the account of the public ministry of
Jesus has some legendary elements in it, but rather that
it has so little which must be called legendary.
In the preceding study of the ministry of Jesus in
Part II some incidents were considered which are not
free from legendary color, and which might therefore
be included in the present chapter. The reason why they
were considered there and why they are not classed with
the material of this chapter is that the historical element
in them was regarded as clear and important. Only that
material is taken up in the present chapter whose histor
ical element is obscure or even unrecognizable. The dis
tinction between the two classes is one of degree.
256

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 257
The earliest Christian source — the Logia — contains
nothing which need be regarded as in any degree legen
dary. The oldest Gospel — the basis of the first and third
— contains perhaps no more than five incidents which are
to be regarded as legendary, but there are easily double
this number in the material which is peculiar to Matthew
and in that which is peculiar to Luke. The Johannine
tradition yet further illustrates the law that, in unhistoric
ages, the growth of legend becomes more luxuriant the
further one is removed in time from the subject which
is being treated.
We turn first to the legendary element in the oldest
Gospel. The storm on the lake, which threatened death
to the apostles and to Jesus who was asleep, and the
feeding of the great multitude with five loaves and two
fishes have already been discussed,1 and reason has been
given for the view that the actual incident in each case
was such as the spiritual resources of Jesus amply ex
plain. We shall not here retrace that argument, but only
call attention to the fact that by the legendary modifica
tion of the historical incident its spiritual uniqueness has
been lost, and what remains is on a plane with many a
story of the nations. If Jesus, when awakened out of
sleep in the midst of a dangerous tempest, delivered his
disciples from their terror by his own perfect calmness,
and so brought them safely to the shore ; and if his pres
ence with the multitude and the outpouring of his gracious
message concerning the heavenly Father made of the
little food at hand a satisfying feast for all, we have
therein facts of abiding significance, facts moreover which
are in perfect accord with the spirituality of the method
of Jesus as seen in the Logia and the earliest Gospel.
The motive which led to the transformation of the his
torical incidents was probably the desire to make Jesus
outshine all other wonder-workers, or that transformation
was due to the view of the person of Jesus which, con
trary to his own words about himself, arose and flour
ished in the Early Church.
'See pp. i77-'79.
17

258 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
Another incident in the oldest Gospel,1 followed by Mat
thew and John,2 is that of Jesus walking upon the lake.
One who comes to this story from a study of the Logia
— that collection of the words of Jesus which doubtless
gives us our most trustworthy picture of his mind and
method — seems to be in a different sphere. The law of
spiritual means for spiritual ends is dropped, and we have
instead the use of most extraordinary physical means for
a spiritual end.3 We have an event precisely of that
character which Jesus, in the wilderness, when contem
plating the great work which had been opened before him,
positively refused to employ. He there rejected forever
that conception of Messiahship which called for outward
material proofs, miraculous in nature. But here he is
said to have walked on the water and thereby to have
brought his disciples to the confession, "Of a truth thou
art the Son of God !" Did he then really abandon the
high ground which he took at the beginning of his public
ministry and drop into the popular, conception of the
Messiah, or should we rather conclude that the popular
conception has here modified some striking historical
incident? The second alternative seems immeasurably
the more probable. The other alternative has against it
not only the great weight of the Logia, but also certain
details of the text itself, which we will now consider.
We need not dwell on the fact that the three accounts of
the incident have each one its own geographical setting,
the oldest Gospel saying that the disciples started for
Bethsaida4 and finally anchored at Gennesaret,5 Matthew
that they started for the "other side"6 — whichever that
may have been — and came to Gennesaret,7 and John that
they started for Capernaum8 and ' ultimately reached
there,9 though this vagueness is not favorable to the
complete trustworthiness of the tradition. Passing this
'Mk. 6:45-52; Mt 14:22-27, 32-33.
2Jn. 6:16-21.
8 That Matthew understood the story to teach spiritual truth is plain
from 14:33. It is implied also in Mk. 6:52. Moreover there is no reason
able ground for thinking that these old fishermen would have been
drowned had there not been a miraculous intervention on their behalf.
'Mk. 6:45. 'Mt. 14:34.
8Mk. 6:53. sJn. 6:17.
8Mt 14:22. 9Jn. 6:21.

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 259
we will briefly note two points which concern the kernel
of the present narrative more closely.
The oldest Gospel, speaking from the standpoint of
those on the boat, says that Jesus "would have passed by
them,"1 that is, they saw him moving parallel with their
own course. This point is dropped by Matthew, and in
John we have a contradictory statement, viz. that Jesus
was drawing nigh unto the boat.2 Now this detail of
the oldest Gospel seems out of harmony with the rest of
the present story, for which reason it may have been
dropped by Matthew and John. This lack of harmony
suggests that the detail in question may be a survival of
an earlier form of the tradition. If Jesus was indeed
walking on the water for the relief of his disciples, then
the view of John that he approached the boat is certainly
preferable to that of Mark that he "would have passed
by them," for this detail only heightens the spectacular
nature of the act; but if he was on the shore, walking
toward their common destination according to his prev
ious agreement with them,3 then these words of the old
est Gospel are perfectly intelligible. Again, the way in
which the narratives of Mark and Matthew conclude
should not be overlooked. According to Mark, the effect
of the whole incident on the disciples was a silent amaze
ment,4 in which the author saw spiritual obtuseness ;5 but
according to Matthew, the effect was an outspoken con
fession which implied not spiritual obtuseness but spiritual
illumination. This divergence is certainly more in the
manner of legend than of history. Legend is relatively
free, history relatively bound.
We come now to the story of the metamorphosis
(transfiguration) of Jesus.6 Perhaps the chief if not
only reason why any of us think, of this as an actual
historical occurrence is that we find it in the Gospels, and
we have been brought up in ignorance of the fact that
the Gospels contain much besides history. Such a story
found anywhere else — a story telling how: a man's face
'Mk. 6:48. «Mk. 6:51.
2Jn. 6:19. BMk. 6:52.
3Mk. 6:45 (TrpoayeuO. * Mk. 9:2-8; Mt. 17:1-9; Lk. 9:28-36.

260 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
shone as the sun, and his garments became glistening
white, how other men who had been dead long centuries
came and talked with him, and how an articulate voice
came out of a cloud — would at once, without the slightest
hesitation, be regarded as a legend.
But this is found in the midst of incidents which are
unquestionably historical, and concerns the most extra
ordinary of all men. May it not therefore be historical ?
Let us see. The episode of Moses and Elijah is partially
explained, for, Luke says that these men spoke to Jesus of
his approaching death in Jerusalem.1 The oldest Gospel
says simply that they "talked with him;"2 but when it
adds that the disciples were charged not to tell what they
had seen until after the Son of Man should have arisen
from the dead,3 it suggests at least that the subject of
conversation on the mountain may have been such as
Luke mentions. But what did it mean that Moses and
Elijah talked with Jesus of his approaching death in
Jerusalem? The fact that the narrative does not tell
what they said, or how they regarded this approaching
event, deprives the incident of all possible value for the
readers unless it be held that the Old Testament itself,
represented by Moses and Elijah, tells us what they must
have said. Hence we cannot doubt that the evangelists
in saying that Moses and Elijah talked with Jesus of his
approaching death assumed that what they said could be
found in Scripture, when this was read in the light of
the resurrection. We are also- doubtless safe in saying
that, in the thought of the narrators, Moses and Elijah
did not talk with Jesus for his instruction : their concep
tion of Jesus excludes such dependence. If not for his
instruction, it must have been for the instruction of the
disciples. Now two considerations suggest themselves at this
point. First, that the attitude of Jesus toward the Old
Testament, judged by the clearest light which the Gos
pels throw upon it, does not warrant the view that he
used either the peculiar circumstances of the death of
'Lk. 9:31. 2Mk. 9:4. 8Mk. 9:9.

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 26l
Mosss and Elijah, or the words attributed to them in the
Old Testament, to prove that he was about to die in
Jerusalem, or that he must die there. Second, it is not in
agreement with the teaching of Jesus who said that he
came to fulfil the law and the prophets to suppose that he
would have summoned Moses and Elijah to instruct his
disciples. Why should he? Might not one say — adapt
ing to this end the parable of Jesus : If the disciples
would not believe the word of the Master regarding the
necessity of his death, neither would they believe though
Moses and Elijah should rise from the dead to declare it
to them ?
The episode of Moses and Elijah is followed by that of
the voice out of the cloud. There is no evident connec
tion between them. According to Luke,1 Moses and
Elijah had already vanished2 before the heavenly voice
was heard. The voice out of the cloud was not for Jesus,
but for the disciples. They are expressly told to hear
him. The injunction is perfectly general, but its place
in this story may suggest that it refers especially to what
Jesus says of his death. Thus it would seem to be meant
as a re-inforcement of the teaching of the last episode,
for surely the evangelists did not suppose there was any
disagreement between the heavenly visitants and Jesus.
The disciples are not bidden to hear him in contrast to
Moses and Elijah, but simply to hear him. He had
recently spoken to them of his impending death,3 and
now they have heard Moses and Elijah address him on
that very subject. Obviously then the doctrine of the
Messiah's death was not new and questionable, but
ancient and divine. Such would seem to be the sense of
the story.
Against the historical character of this episode, as of
the last, one consideration of great weight is the subse
quent course of events. Had these three disciples been
supernaturally informed that the death of Jesus was a
doctrine of the Law and Prophets, and had they been
'Lk. 9:33.
2 They were in the act of vanishing when Peter began to speak about the
"booths." 8Mk. 8:31.

262 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
commanded by the voice of God himself to hear Jesus,
that is, receive his words about his approaching death,
then it is difficult to believe that they could afterward
have been in fear and ignorance when he spoke of his
approaching death.1
But while this story is thu's seemingly unintelligible as
history, it is not difficult to comprehend it as an attempt
— parallel to Luke 24 — to ground the death of the Mes
siah in the Scriptures. How could this have been done,
in the latter half of the first century, more vividly than
by summoning Moses and Elijah — representatives of the
Law and the Prophets — and by letting them talk with
Jesus of his approaching death in Jerusalem? And how
could the divinity of the doctrine of the Messiah's death
be suggested so impressively for that age as by a direct
voice from the sky commanding the disciples to hear
Jesus, where the context seems to refer in particular to
hearing what he says on this very subject? We must
not forget that the death of Jesus was for the Jews the
great "stumbling-block"2 in the way of accepting him as
the Messiah. Hence the insistence of the early Church
upon the scripturalness of the doctrine, and the desire to
find it enunciated by Jesus.
Of Matthew's peculiar material which falls within the
present chapter only two incidents involve Jesus in a
personal way; the others belong to his trial and to the
period between that and the resurrection. The first of
these two incidents is that of Peter's walking on the
water,3 which is inserted in the story of how Jesus came
to his disciples when they were distressed in rowing.4 If
that story is legendary, as we seem compelled to hold,
then is this also, and for the same essential reason. It
conflicts with the known principles and method of Jesus.
It represents him as working an astounding miracle,
utterly unlike his mighty works, and for no apparent
reason unless it was that his disciples might believe him
to be the Messiah,5 but such a deed is fairly excluded by
the teaching of the wilderness experience. It may be
'Mk. 9:32; Lk. 18:34. 8Mt 14:28-33. °Mt. 14:33.
2 E.g., I Cor. 1:23. 'Mk. 6:45-52.

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 263
added that this story of Peter's adventure is evidently
dependent upon the view that Jesus himself was at that
moment walking on the water, for had Peter supposed
him to be on the shore, and had he desired to reach him,
we should rather have expected him to cast himself into
the water and swim ashore1 than request Jesus to help
him out miraculously. But if there is no sufficient reason
for believing that Jesus walked on the water, then the
other and dependent story must be regarded as a legend.
The other Matthaean incident which belongs here is
that of the coin in the fish's mouth.2 Jesus with his
apostles had come down to Capernaum from the region
of Caesarea Philippi. While there, Peter was approached
by those who collected the temple dues and asked whether
his teacher did not pay the half-shekel. Jesus, cognisant
of what had taken place, anticipated Peter's request, as
he came up, with the argument that kings do not receive
tribute from their own sons. Then he added that, lest
they should cause others to "stumble," Peter should give
the collectors a shekel, and that he would find this money
in the mouth of the first fish which he should catch in
the lake.
The difference between this story and the stories of
the ordinary mighty works of Jesus is too obvious to need
much comment. It is the difference between reason and
unreason, between a sane moral method and an arbitrary
unmoral, if not immoral, one. If Jesus, when in the
wilderness, refused to attempt a miracle to satisfy his
hunger, or even to assure himself of God's care of the
Messiah, we cannot believe that he here undertook a
miracle to pay a tax of some thirty cents for himself and
as much for Peter. The thing is not only altogether
inconsistent with his action in the wilderness, but it is
quite devoid of any adequate ground. Peter could easily
earn enough to pay the tax, supposing — which we hardly
have a right to do, that he had no money whatever, not
even two shillings; not only so, but the friends who
ministered to Jesus' support at other times would gladly
have served him in this trifling need.
'Cf. Jn. 21:7. 2Mt. 17:24-27.

264 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
In Luke's peculiar material there are two1 incidents of
the ministry of Jesus which belong in the present chapter.
One of these is the raising of the son of a widow who
lived in Nain.2 This is not parallel to the story of the
daughter of Jairus. Perhaps the incident itself was like
that, but the present story is different. That was a case
of resuscitating a person wrongly given up as dead, this
a case of restoring the dead to life. The young man
was at least accounted to be dead, and the body was
being borne to its burial. Jesus came nigh, touched the
bier, and said, "Young man, I say unto thee, arise." It
is possible that he saw, as in the case of the daughter of
Jairus, that the young man was only in a swoon, or
in a death-like stupor. This supposition is somewhat
strengthened by another incident which Luke gives in
his second "treatise."3 He says there of the young man
Eutychus, who had fallen from a third-story window,
that he was taken up "dead ;" but when Paul came down
stairs and saw the youth, he said, "Make ye no ado; for
his life is in him." So in the present case, though Luke
may have believed that the young man was dead, Jesus
may have perceived, as Paul did in the other instance, that
death had not come. This, we say, may have been the
actual fact, and hence what Jesus did was to resuscitate
a person who lay in a death-like condition ; but the nar
rative before us appears, on its face, to tell of the raising
of a dead man to life. Can we accept it at its apparent
face-value? We must answer, in the light of what Jesus
himself says, and in the light of the clearest tradition of
his work, that we can not. Jesus rejected, in the wilder
ness, the popular Messianic role, and chose the simple
quiet method of spiritual influence. He refused to give
the Pharisees "signs" from heaven. But what more
stupendous "sign" could he have given than to halt a
funeral procession and by a mere word restore the dead
to life ! I will not raise the idle question whether Jesus
'The passage 22:43-44 is not taken into account as the text is uncertain.
— Lk. 10:1 and 17:11-19 are possibly legendary developments of the mission
of the Twelve and the cure of the leper in Mk. 1:40.
2Lk. 7:11-17.
3 Acts 20:9-12.

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 265
could have wrought such a result ; the question is simply
whether our sources allow us to believe that he would
have done it. To this question we must give a negative
reply. It remains only to add that in an age ignorant of
medicine, which was also a wonder-loving age, it would
obviously have been very easy to make out of the resusci
tation of a person who seemed to be dead the resurrection
of one who had actually expired.
Luke's second incident is that of healing the high-
priest's servant.1 His ear had been severed from his
head by a blow from a sword: Jesus "touched his ear
and healed him." The verb does not imply that Jesus
gave the man a new ear in the place of the one cut off.
We cannot say whether the writer so thought of the
healing. But even if he did not suppose that the member
was restored, he certainly thought of the ugly wound as
healed by a touch. The objections to regarding this as
historical are not remote. In the first place, Jesus had
for weeks systematically refrained from his customary
"mighty works." Second, those mighty works were con
ditioned on faith in him ; but- can we reasonably suppose
that this servant, sent with others to arrest Jesus and
now maimed by one of his disciples, had faith in him!
That is surely too improbable to warrant serious con
sideration. Third, the mighty works of Jesus were in
telligible; this is not. Jesus was uniquely equipped to
heal the body through the mind; we have no evidence
that he was equipped to heal the body in any other way.
In restoring the body through the mind, as in restoring
the mind itself, he acted in harmony with the nature of
things; but in staunching the flow of blood by a touch
and healing thus the wound where an entire member
had been cut off, he did not act in harmony with the
nature of things, but rather with profound disregard of
physical laws.
The change of atmosphere as we pass now from the
synoptic story of the ministry of Jesus to that of John
is unmistakably announced by the way in which certain
synoptic incidents are here retold. The first of these is
'Lk. 22:51.

266 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
the account of the cure of an officer's son in Capernaum.1
That this is a variant version of the synoptists' story of
the healing of a centurion's servant seems to be required
by certain conspicuous points of agreement. Thus in
both cases the man who sought help was a foreigner, in
both cases he was located in Capernaum, in both cases
Jesus was at a distance and remained at a distance from
the man's house, and in both cases the man, though a
foreigner, had remarkable trust in Jesus. It seems
highly improbable that there were two foreign officials
in Capernaum whose need, whose relation to Jesus, and
whose approach to him were so strikingly alike. But
the supernatural element in the later story marks a
decided advance upon that of the older narrative. Thus,
in Matthew and Luke, Jesus, though at a distance from
the centurion's house, is yet in the same village of Caper
naum ; in John, he is some twenty miles away in Cana ; in
Luke, the servant was found whole when the messengers
returned ; in John, it is particularly stated that just when
Jesus, in Cana, spoke the healing word, the fever left its
victim in Capernaum; and finally, while in Matthew and
Luke nothing is said of the effect of the cure upon
others, it is said in John that the man and his whole house
"believed," that is, believed in the Messiahship of Jesus
— a result which, in the synoptists, is never said to follow
a cure. A second incident which is signally modified in John
is that of Jesus walking on the lake.2 We will note here,
as in the other case, only those points of difference which
intensify the supernatural element of the story. It is
said that the disciples had rowed twenty-five or thirty
furlongs, that is, approximately half way to Capernaum.
Consequently they were about in the middle of the lake
with reference to this village and the point of departure
on the "other side :" they were halfway across where the
lake is about eight miles wide. Thus the writer appears
to exclude the possibility that Jesus, when seen by the
boat's company, was walking along the shore. If now
'Jn. 4:46-54.
2Jn. 6:16-21.

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 267
he had followed in their wake, he had walked on the
water twenty-five or thirty furlongs ; and if he had come
out to them from the nearest point of the shore, he had
walked nearly as far.
Another significant point in John's version of the
incident is that when the disciples had received Jesus
into the boat, "straightway the boat was at the land
whither they were going." The winds and waves are
not quieted, but the boat is now no longer hindered by
them. Instantaneously the remaining miles of water
are passed, and the haven is reached.
If now the writer of the last Gospel did not hesitate
thus to heighten the supernatural element in the narrative
of these synoptic incidents which had long been known
in the churches and which, we should suppose, must
have been regarded as somewhat fixed, it would not be
surprising if, in handling material that is unknown to
the synoptic Gospels, and known to us only in his own
version, he should depart even further from the early
Gospels in the matter of the supernatural.
There are four1 such incidents in his Gospel. We are
here concerned with these incidents not as the vehicles of
ethical or spiritual teaching, but merely with regard to
the prior question whether they are historical.
There is, first, the changing of water into wine at a
marriage in Cana of Galilee.2 Read as history, this in
volves us in a hopeless conflict with the oldest Gospel.
We will not dwell upon the fact that Jesus is already said
to have had "disciples," though it was but the third day
since he had left the Jordan,3 nor upon the author's state
ment that the turning of water into wine was the first
sign of Jesus,4 while according to the synoptists the first
was the cure of a demoniac in Capernaum ;5 but we will
come at once to matters which are fundamental. And
first, when the wine provided for the entertainment failed,
the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."6
It is apparent both from the construction which Jesus put

'Not including that of the supplementary twenty-first chapter.
'Jn. 2:11.
eMk. 1:23,

Jn. 2:1-4. *J% 2:tI- "Jn- 2'-3-
Jn. 2:1.

268 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
upon these words1 and from the subsequent remark of
Mary to the servants2 that she meant them as a sugges
tion that Jesus should intervene in a supernatural man
ner for the relief of the painful situation. But this atti
tude of Mary is excluded by the representation of the
oldest Gospel, according to which, some weeks later than
the marriage in Cana, she thought her son was "beside
himself" because of his mighty works and his preaching.3
The two attitudes are plainly contradictory : both cannot
be historical. If Mary expected supernatural help from
Jesus in Cana, then she can not have sought to interrupt
his work a few weeks later when he was relieving far
deeper needs than the need of wine at Cana, and was
doing it in part by mighty works.
Again, it is said that, as a result of this sign at Cana,
the disciples of Jesus "believed" on him,4 that is, believed
him to be the Messiah, which is the invariable meaning
of the term in the Fourth Gospel. But according to the
synoptists the disciples did not come to believe in Jesus
as Messiah until about the close of the Galilean ministry.
These representations too are mutually exclusive. But let
us come now to the "sign" itself. Six stone jars were
filled with water at Jesus' command,5 and when their con
tents were tasted by the ruler of the feast he declared
that it was wine and more choice than what they had
already drunk.6 The author's meaning is unmistakable:
Jesus was equipped with omnipotence. But the difficulty
in the way of accepting this incident is insurmountable.
Jesus is here represented as acting upon a principle
which, while he was in the wilderness, he had utterly
rejected. He here manifests his "glory" by a stupendous
sign, that is to say, he proceeds in exactly the way in
which the Messiah, according to the popular expectation,
was to proceed. Not a word is said of teaching, as
though it too were a part of his "hour."7 His "glory" is
manifested exclusively by the "sign," and this was of a
character fitted to overwhelm the beholder. But this
'Jn. 2:4. 6Jn. 2:6-7.
2Jn. 2:5. flJn. 2:10.
8Mk. 3:21, 31. TJn. 2:4.
*Jn. 2:11.

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 269
method of reaching the Messianic goal was regarded by
Jesus in the wilderness as a temptation of Satan.
Now it is impossible that Jesus was thus fickle, that at
one time he most positively turned from a certain con
ception of Messiahship, and again, after a few days, acted
on that very conception as though he had always held it.
It is not thus that he came to the spiritual leadership of
the world.
Another grave difficulty in the way of accepting this
incident as historical is that it implies a conception of the
resources of Jesus which is contradicted by the Logia and
the oldest Gospel. For there, as has been shown, his
equipment is spiritual : it is a unique knowledge of the
character of God and the conviction of a unique mission
to make this character known; but here we are made
acquainted with an extraordinary equipment which is not
spiritual — an equipment of almighty power. This equip
ment follows naturally from the author's general view of
Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, but it is just as
obviously irreconcilable with the view of the oldest
sources. The second of the four incidents under discussion is
that which occurred at the Bethesda pool in Jerusalem.1
This was a water-cure, and a multitude of sick people
were present in the porches when Jesus visited the place.
Some were blind, some lame and some palsied. One man
had been in his infirmity thirty-eight years. Jesus
singled him out of the multitude, and asked him if he
would be made whole. The man did not say yes, but told
how it happened that he had not yet secured health. He
was always a little late in reaching the pool when the
water was "troubled," that is, when it had curative virtue.
Jesus then told him to arise, take up his bed, and walk,
which the man at once did.
We will not dwell on the fact that our synoptic Gospels
represent Jesus as averse to working so-called "mighty
works" after his second and longer visit in Capernaum,
and that they do not agree in locating a single cure in
'Jn. 5:1-9.

27O THE LEGENDARY JESUS
Jerusalem; but we will at once consider some points
which are more fundamental.
First, it is quite strange to our oldest sources that
Jesus should take the initiative, as here, and ask a sick
man if he wished to be made whole. According to
those sources, Jesus never healed except as people came,
or were brought, to him, and sought healing. That
fact is in obvious accord with the representation of the
oldest sources that Jesus regarded himself primarily
as a revealer of God rather than as a healer of men's
bodies. For him to go into a hospital or water-cure
and ask a sick man if he wished to be made whole was
certainly to give his healing ministry a new and striking
prominence. Second, the representation of the oldest sources is that
the cures of Jesus were invariably wrought by faith —
faith in him as able to heal, but here, in the Bethesda
incident, there is no indication whatever that the sick
person had faith in the man who asked him the strange
question, nor is there the slightest trace of a desire on
Jesus' part that the man should exercise faith!. He
simply asked him if he wanted to be made whole.
And finally, there is no instance in the oldest sources
where Jesus worked incognito. All who sought his help
knew him as Jesus, the teacher and healer. But here, in
the Johannine story, he is a total stranger to the man who
is healed. That person did not know even the name of
his benefactor.1 There was therefore no possibility of his
being affected by the great reputation of Jesus as a
worker of cures.
Now these three striking peculiarities in the story of
the Bethesda cure all conspire to mark it off as a work
of sheer omnipotence. Jesus seeks out a sick man — the
most unpromising case, apparently, in the entire multi
tude of sick people present, for the man had been thirty-
eight years in his infirmity — and without making himself
known and without the aid of trust on the part of the
sick man, he gives him the gift of wholeness. The
entire incident is thus so radically unlike the typical cures
1Jn. 5:13.

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 271
of Jesus according to the oldest sources that it cannot be
accepted as on the same plane with them.
The third sign peculiar to John is that of the healing
of a man who was born blind.1 As in the Bethesda inci
dent, so here also Jesus takes the initiative, and here too
nothing is said of trust. Jesus was in Jerusalem, and
seeing a blind beggar, he took him in hand and healed
him. The incident is introduced as a confirmation of the
word which Jesus had just spoken — "I am the light of
the world."2 The man knew indeed that his benefactor's
name was Jesus,3 but that seems to have been all that he
knew. After he had been healed, he inferred that Jesus
must be a prophet, and when Jesus, a little later, dis
closed to him that he was the Son of God, he promptly
accepted him as such.4
One feature of this story is like what is sometimes met
in the synoptists, viz. that Jesus made use of physical
means in healing the man,5 and this fact may suggest a
historical nucleus. But this feature appears to be out of
harmony with the rest of the story, for this implies that
the cure depended on the man's obedience to the word of
Jesus, while according to the introduction it is presented
rather as an illustration of his sovereign power. As re
gards this feature then the story is to be classed with the
Bethesda incident, though taken as a whole it does not
depart so widely from the synoptic type.
The last incident which we have to consider is that of
raising Lazarus.6 This is as foreign to the typical
mighty work of the oldest sources as are the Cana and
Bethesda incidents. Equally with the Cana incident it
runs squarely counter to the Messianic conception which
Jesus adopted in the wilderness. He there rejected the
popular conception of a material Messiahship which in
volved supernatural manifestations, but here he delib
erately proceeds to the most stupendous of all his reputed
signs, and does it that men may believe him to be the
Messiah.7 He even orders his course to the end that the
'Jn. 9. *Jn. 9:35-38. 6Jn. 11:1-44.
2Jn. 9:5. 6 See, e.g., Mk. 8:23. 7Jn. 11:15, 42.
8Jn. 9:11.

272 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
impressiveness of the sign may be enhanced. Thus he
remains two days in Perea after the message has come
from the sisters of Lazarus,1 and at the tomb the thanks
giving to the Father is for the sake of the multitude who
stand by.2 This feature forms as sharp a contrast as
possible to the synoptic representation that Jesus, even
early in the Galilean ministry, avoided publicity in his
mighty works.
The contrast of results is also most striking. Here
many of the Jews were brought by the sign to a belief in
the Messiahship of Jesus,3 while in the synoptic narrative
such a belief is never said to have resulted from the
mighty works of Jesus.
The deed itself forms an obvious advance on the inci
dent in the home of Jairus and that outside the village of
Nain. From the resuscitation of a person wrongly sup
posed to be dead we pass to the raising of one who was
about to be buried, and from that to the tomb of one who
had been dead four days. Here at last all doubt of
Jesus' power to raise the dead is to be obliterated. This
seems to be the purpose of the narrative, which is only
another way of saying that it is designed as an illustra
tion of the truth of the words to Martha, "I am the
resurrection and the life."4 Those words are beyond
doubt profoundly true. The spirit of Jesus has raised a
considerable portion of humanity to a new and higher
life, and we who follow him believe that this spirit will
ultimately elevate the entire race. But the illustration of
the truth of these words which we have in the resurrec
tion of Lazarus, when studied in the light of the oldest
sources, cannot be regarded otherwise than as an illustra
tion freely constructed for the purpose. As such it may
well have been effective in a wonder-loving age, but in
an age which is beginning to reverence the Master far
more than it reverences any man's conception of the
Master, this illustration is seen to obscure and confuse
the original portrait.
We have now completed our survey of those incidents
'Jn. 11:6. 8Jn. 11:45.
2Jn. 11:4a. 'Jn. 11:25.

LEGENDS OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 273
belonging to the narrative of the public ministry of Jesus
which, judged in the light of what Jesus said of himself
and his mission, in the light also of the typical mighty
works which he wrought, seem to us to be predominantly
legendary in character.
We have seen that our sources reveal with perfect
clearness a gradual increase in the amount of legendary
matter, and to some extent also a gradual heightening or
intensification of the legendary character. The Logia-
source is wholly free from legendary accretions. This
is the less remarkable of course in view of the fact that
it is a collection of the words of Jesus, but still it is sig
nificant, for it is not exclusively a document of words but
contains also some incidents, and what is more, it has
references to the character of Jesus' ministry which are
quite as important for the point under discussion as any
narrative of mighty works would be. Passing from the
Logia to the oldest Gospel we find some legendary
matter, but in nearly every instance the historical basis
is not difficult of recognition. This group of passages
may be illustrated by the story of Jesus' walking on the
water. Then we come to that considerable body of
material which is peculiar either to Matthew or to Luke,
and we find here, in the aggregate, a relatively larger ele
ment of legendary matter and it is also of a more intense
sort. This class may be illustrated by the incident of the
coin in the fish's mouth and the story of Peter's walking
on the water. Finally, in the incidents of the Johannine
tradition, we have the widest departure from the oldest
Gospel both in the relative amount of legendary matter
and in its character. The number of "signs" is less than
the number of mighty works in the triple tradition, but
the relative space which they occupy is more than twice
as great as that taken by mighty works in Matthew and
is slightly greater than the space occupied by mighty
works even in Mark.1 The most striking fact, however,
is that, whereas less than twenty-five per cent, of the
1 About twelve per cent of Matthew's Gospel is taken up with mighty
works and about twenty-six per cent of Mark, but in John about twenty-
nine per cent is given to signs.
18

274 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
mighty works in Mark need be regarded as showing any
influence of legend, there is not one in John which is free
from such influence. In character also, the Johannine
signs depart further from the typical mighty works of
the synoptists than do the legendary incidents that are
found in those narratives. This is seen in the fact that
some of these signs, like the incident of the raising of
Lazarus, have no recognizable historical element, while
such an element may be found in the legendary incidents
of the synoptists, even in the incident of the coin in the
mouth of a fish.
In closing this chapter on the legendary element in the
narrative of the public ministry of Jesus let me revert to
a thought expressed at the outset, that loyalty to the
Founder of our faith demands such an investigation as
we have made. It is not a matter which concerns schol
ars alone. If the conclusions of this chapter are true,
they are of practical importance to every Christian
disciple, for whatever affects, even in the slightest degree,
our conception of the character and life of Jesus thereby
affects the central historical fact in our religion. If the
conclusions of this chapter are valid, then our sources do
make possible the restoration of a picture of the activity
of Jesus which is self-consistent and harmonious.

CHAPTER III
THE LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION
What, if anything, did Jesus ever say of his own
resurrection? The oldest source — the Logia — is silent
on this question. It has no word of Jesus either regard
ing his death or his resurrection.1 This is remarkable in
view of the large place which the story of his resurrection
has occupied in the life and teaching of the Church. But
the Logia has one point of great interest respecting the
resurrection of Jesus. This is Matthew's version of the
sign of Jonah.2 We see here how the story of the resur
rection of Jesus sought for justification in the words of
Jesus, which he had spoken while on earth. There can
be no doubt that Luke has preserved the original sense
of the Master's allusion to Jonah.3 But this was not
satisfactory to one who like the author of the first Gospel
sought to establish a close and detailed correspondence
between the life of Jesus and the Old Testament. He
therefore put Jonah's parallelism to Jesus in his three
days' experience in the belly of the great fish.4 True,
this did not exactly agree with the form of the resurrec
tion story which he in common with Luke adopted, ac
cording to which the Lord rose not after three days and
three nights but after two5 nights, yet the striking pas
sage in Jonah could not be disregarded simply on account
of this discrepancy/^
Thus our oldest source not only gives no word of
Jesus in regard to his own resurrection, but it seems to
contain in Matthew's version of the words about Jonah
'See pp. 22-23 on Mt 12:38-42.
2Mt. 12:38-42.
8 See pp. 22-23.
'Jonah 1:17.
"Jesus was crucified on Friday and his resurrection is placed on Sunday
morning. 27S

2f6 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
clear evidence of an early attempt to supply the lack of
authentic teaching on this point.
When we come to the triple tradition we find two
classes of utterances of Jesus in regard to his fate. We
have, in the first place, a number of plain allusions to his
death unaccompanied with any reference to resurrection.
Thus in the defence of his disciples, when they disre
garded the customary fasts, he likened them to the sons
of the bride-chamber, and said that days would come
when the bridegroom would be taken from them.1 Again,
on the last evening, in the disclosure of the traitor, he
said, "The Son of Man goes, as it has been written con
cerning him."2 Later, during the supper, he alluded
variously to his death."3
But, in the second place, we find other passages in
which the thought of death is followed by that of resur
rection. There are, as is well known, three of these pas
sages. Of these three the first4 which for that very
reason must be supposed to have impressed itself most
deeply on the minds of the hearers, does not attempt to
give the very words of Jesus, but only the substance of
what he said. And even in regard to this there seems to
have been no certain knowledge, no fixed tradition, for
the version of Matthew and Luke departs from that of
Mark, being influenced apparently by the story of the
resurrection. Instead of Mark's "three days," Matthew
and Luke have the "third day,"5 and instead of Mark^s
active verb "rise," they have the passive "be raised."0
The former detail accords with the story of the resurrec
tion according to which Jesus was buried Friday at
evening and arose early on the second morning there
after ; and the use of the passive by Matthew and Luke
agrees with the view, clearly expressed in Matthew
(28:2), that the resurrection was initiated and carried
out from above. But since the second and third evan-
'Mk. 2:20; Mt. 9:15; Lk. 5:35.
2 Mk. 14:21; Mt. 26:24; Lk. 22:22.
3Mk. 14:22, 25; Mt. 26:26, 29; Lk. 22:19, 18.
'Mk. 8:31; Mt. 16:21; Lk. 9:22.
8 Mt. 16:21; Lk. 9:22.
0 Mk. has avao-Tyvai., Matthew and Luke have eyep$ijvo.it

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 277
gelists handled this part of the earliest narrative with
such freedom, we must conclude that for them and the
circles which they represented there was no explicit word
of Jesus touching his bodily resurrection.
There is moreover in the earliest Gospel itself evidence
that what Jesus said of his "resurrection" was, at the
time, unintelligible to the disciples. It is said, after the
second announcement of death and resurrection, that they
understood not the saying and feared to ask about it.1
This word naturally reflects how the matter appeared to
them in later times, in the light of the resurrection story.
Evidently what Jesus had said did not point necessarily
to an empty grave and an obvious victory over death,
for in that case they would not have "feared," but would
have rejoiced.
We are then at liberty to ask what Jesus meant by his
word about rising after three days, and the narrative of
the oldest Gospel does not leave us helpless. It contains
. another word of Jesus which throws light on this saying
1 about a resurrection after three days.
N Soon after the first announcement of death, or perhaps
on the same occasion when that was made, Jesus said
that some of those present should not taste death until
they should see the kingdom of God manifested in power.2
He had spoken of his death, he had spoken of the hard
way his disciples must go, but another scene arose before
his inner eye, a scene of victory. And the reality was
not far removed; some of those present would live to see
it. Now by this passage we may interpret that other of
which it is said that the disciples did not understand it
and were afraid to make inquiry. There as here Jesus
spoke of his death, and then of a rising after three days.
This number may have been used by him, as it is often
used in Scripture,3 to denote the full or appointed time,
and thus it would agree with the statement of time in
Mk. 9:1. The "rising" — if we define it by the clearer
word of Mk. 9 :i — is the opposite of defeat : it is triumph,
'Mk. 9:32; Lk. 9:4s. T „.
3Mk. 9:1. 8Ex. 2:2; Josh. 2:22; I Kings 12:5; Is. 20:3.

278 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
here his personal triumph; and there is no distinction to
be made between that and the powerful establishment of
the kingdom of God.
Turning from the Logia and the triple tradition to cer
tain material which is common to Mark and Matthew,
there are two passages to be considered. First, there is
the word spoken in Bethany, on the occasion of his being
anointed.1 Jesus said that what the woman had done, who
poured the precious ointment on his head, was in prepara
tion for his "burial." The word does not imply, of
course, that no further funeral rite would be given to his
body, but it does seem to imply that the speaker thought
of his body as about to share the fortune common to all
bodies from which the spirits have departed.
In striking contrast with this saying is the second to
which reference was made. After Jesus with his disciples
had left the upper room, on the last night, he is said to
have announced that all would be "offended" — all those
who were with him — and then to have quoted Zechariah
13 :j in support of this word.2 Over against this sad
discomfiture and scattering of the disciples another and
comforting scene is depicted in the words: "Howbeit
after I am raised up I will go before you into Galilee."
There are some weighty reasons for regarding this
passage in Mark as a late addition from Matthew — a
case of the assimilation of one narrative to the other.
First, it is characteristic of Matthew to point out detailed
agreement between the life of Jesus and Old Testament
passages, While in Mark this feature is quite inconspic
uous. Indeed it is doubtful whether there is a single
passage in Mark — the present being excepted — in which
Jesus himself points to a particular Scripture as fulfilled
in him.3 The second reason is that, while in the three
passages where all the synoptists4 refer to a resurrection,
Mark always uses one Greek word ( avumnu. ) and Mat
thew always another ( iyelpm ) , here Mark has Matthew's
'Mk. 14:8; Mt. 26:12.
2Mk. 14:27; Mt. 26:31.
8Mk. 14:21 does not refer to any particular O. T. word and 14:62 does
not quote Daniel though alluding to it. Mk. 12:10 is a possible exception.
* Except Luke 9 :44.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 279
term. And finally, it is only Matthew's Gospel that has
a resurrection story in harmony with this reputed saying
of Jesus. His one appearance of the risen Jesus to the
apostles is in Galilee.1
For these reasons we regard Mark 14:27-28 as an in
stance of the late conformation of his narrative to that of
Matthew. Now the difficulty of regarding the passage
as a genuine saying of Jesus is very great, if not insur
mountable. It is hard to believe that Jesus, had he ex
pected to renew his bodily fellowship with his disciples
after his death, would have alluded to this great expec
tation but once, and then in an incidental manner. More
over the word seems unintelligible. Why should he
precede the disciples in returning to Galilee, and why
return to Galilee at all? It is impossible to answer these
questions. We can understand them as the evangelist's
own introduction to the appearance of Jesus in Galilee —
an appearance which he alone records — but we cannot
understand them as spoken by Jesus.
Our examination of the sources has led to this result,
that Jesus said nothing of a resurrection of his body from
the grave. The word about "rising after three days,"
interpreted in the light of a kindred saying, refers not to
the fortunes of his physical body but to the triumph of his
cause, the establishment of the kingdom of God. It is
perhaps conceivable that Jesus may have been inwardly
assured of his bodily resurrection and yet for some
reason have said nothing of it to his disciples, but it is
at least very improbable. Consideration for his friends
would have been a strong inducement to lead him to
share with them this great assurance, if he had possessed
it. Therefore we come to the story of the bodily resur
rection of Jesus with a distinct presumption against its
historicity, which presumption is based on the silence of
Jesus. Presumption, however, is not proof, and the story
still demands investigation.
The resurrection story of the oldest Gospel — seemingly
incomplete since it announces, but does not record, an
'Mt 28:16.

280 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
appearance of the risen Jesus1 — consists of only eight
verses, which may conveniently be divided into an intro
duction,2 the approach to the tomb,3 the scene in the tomb,4
and the flight from the tomb.5 The introduction names
the women who came to the tomb, specifies the time when
they bought spices and the use they purposed to make of
them. As they approached the tomb, they expected to
find the door closed with the great stone, and were sur
prised6 to find the stone rolled back.
The scene in the tomb is the center of the story. On
their entrance into the sepulchre the women saw an angel
— described as "a young man in a white robe" — and were
amazed. He soothed their amazed spirits, and told them
that Jesus whom they were seeking was risen, and called
their attention to the place where men had laid him.
Then he sent them to announce to the disciples and Peter :
"He goes before you into Galilee ; there shall ye see him,
as he told you." Following this word, the women fled
from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come
upon them. Moreover they said nothing to anyone, for
they were afraid.
These last two clauses are somewhat vague. For how
long a time did they keep their secret, and what was it
that they "feared"? Certainly the writer did not mean
that the secret had never been told until he wrote his
narrative. The Greek tense used does not allow that
view.7 We may suppose that this was the writer's
thought, viz. that the women, though bidden by the angel
to make an announcement to the disciples, did not at once
carry out this injunction. The ground of their silence
was an undefined dread. The author may have sup
posed that they were afraid to tell what they knew lest
they should be regarded as having lost their wits, or he
may have meant merely that the trembling and astonish-
'Mk. 16:7.
2Mk. 16:1.
8 Mk. 16:2-4.
* Mk. 16:5-7.
8Mk. 16:8.
6 Surprise is involved in the words: "looking up they see that the stone
is rolled back; for it was exceeding great."
7 It is the aorist, not the perfect.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 28 1
ment which had come upon them in the tomb made it,
temporarily, impossible for them to tell what had been
told them.
So far the oldest Gospel. Had we only this narrative
of Mark we should be much at a loss what to believe.
We can hardly avoid asking whether it is intrinsically
probable. Thus, for example, is it probable that women
who realized that they could not roll back the stone from
the tomb would have gone thither alone on an errand
requiring admission to the tomb? One of the number
was Salome, whose sons James and John were in the city,
and not only in the city but very probably lodging in the
same house with her. Again,* is it quite probable that
a supernatural being would have appeared to the women
in the tomb merely to repeat to them what Jesus had
already said?1 Then too, as the disciples were sure to
return to their native Galilee and were there to see Jesus
for themselves, what need was there of a supernatural
messenger to inform them, by way of the women, that
the word of Jesus would there be fulfilled? Finally, is
it probable that three women, friends of Jesus, would
have kept to themselves the joyous announcement of an
angel that their Master was risen and was to be seen in
Galilee ? Would they not rather have urged the disciples
to start at once, that they might see the fulfilment of this
angelic promise ?
But turning from these intrinsic difficulties of the nar
rative, which appear serious, we pass on to consider how
Matthew and Luke handled the same incident.2 An
examination of this point will show the state of the tradi
tion when these Gospels arose.
Omitting all merely formal details, Matthew's narra
tive, which is a trifle shorter than Mark's, agrees with it
in five points and differs from it in seventeen. Luke's
narrative, which is a little longer than Mark's, agrees
with it in six points and differs from it in ten or eleven.
The difference between Luke's narrative and that of
Matthew is a little greater than the difference between it
'Mk. 14:28.
2 Mt. 28:1-10; Lk. 24:1-7.

282 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
and Mark, there being here four points of agreement
and some fourteen of disagreement.
Thus the three narratives of the same incident reveal a
measure of disagreement which is without parallel in the
story of any part of the public ministry of Jesus. But
something more than a numerical statement is needed in
order to set forth the remarkable character of the unlike-
ness between the various synoptic accounts of the visit
which certain women made to the tomb of Jesus early on
Sunday morning.
The main points in which they all agree are that at least
two women went to the sepulchre, that they found the
stone rolled back, and that they received there an angelic
announcement that Jesus was risen. This is the extent
of their common element. We come next to the differ
ences, and first to those between Matthew and Mark.
Matthew says that the women came to the tomb "late on
the Sabbath day,"1 Mark that it was on the first day of
the week f Matthew says that they came to see the tomb,3
making no' reference at all to spices, Mark that they had
bought spices in order that they might anoint the body;4
in Matthew the angel who speaks to the women is seated
on the stone,5 in Mark he is in the tomb f in Matthew the
women do not enter the tomb,7 in Mark they do ;8 accord
ing to Matthew the message of the angel contains the
words, "He is risen from the dead,"9 which are not in
Mark; Matthew says that the women went away with
fear and great joy10 Mark that "trembling and astonish
ment" came upon them ;" and finally, according to Mat
thew the women ran to tell the disciples,12 while according
to Mark they said nothing to any one.13 Of lesser sig
nificance is the fact that Matthew omits the name of
Salome, and instead of "Mary the mother of James" has
the singular expression "the other Mary." Apparently
this means "the other Mary" mentioned in Mark, for the
'Mt. 28:1. 2Mk. 16:2. 'Mt 28:1.
*Mk. 16:1. BMt. 28:2. °Mk. 16:5.
7 When the angel finishes speaking, the women go away from the tomb,
not out of it.
8Mk. 16:5, 8. 9Mt 28:7. '»Mt. 28:8.
"Mk. 16:8. "Mt 28:8. '3Mk. 16:8.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 283
Gospel story knows of two others by that name.1 Mat
thew has a great earthquake,2 which is seemingly caused
in some manner by the angel, either by his descent out of
heaven3 or by his rolling back the stone. To be noticed
also is the inversion of the Marcan clauses in the mes
sage of the angel, "He is risen ; he is not here."4 Accord
ing to Matthew the angel said, "He is not here, for he is
risen."5 This is not simply an inversion, but also a log
ical modification. The thought in the foreground is that
Jesus was not there, to which, by way of explanation, is
added the statement that he is risen. His body might
have been absent from the tomb because it had been taken
away.6 This possibility the author excludes in saying,
"He is not here, for he is risen."
It is not necessary to dwell at greater length on these
differences. It is obvious that the two stories, though
having a common element, are mutually exclusive. They
cannot be maintained side by side. They do not explain
or supplement each other. They are rather contradictory.
If the women came late on the Sabbath, it was not the
first day of the week; if they received the angelic mes
sage outside the tomb, they did not receive it within the
tomb; and if they said nothing to any one, they did not
run to tell the disciples. It is evident that the writer of
the first Gospel did not feel himself bound by the narra
tive of Mark. He appears to deal with the incident as
freely as a poet deals with a given historical theme.
Consider next the narrative of Luke in its departure
from Mark. Instead of three women who sought the
tomb there are in Luke not only three but an indefinite
number more;7 instead of one angel in the tomb there
are here two;8 instead of seeing the angel at once on
entering the tomb, the women are first aware that the
body of the Lord is gone, and only then, while perplexed
thereabout, do they see the angels ;° instead of reminding
the women of the saying: "He goeth before you into
'See Mk. 6:3; Lk. 10:39.— Jn. 19:25 appears to give yet another Mary.
2 Mt. 28:2. 6 See Mt. 28:13.
3 Analogous to Ex. 19:18. ' Lk. 24:40.
'Mk. 16:6. 8Lk. 24:4.
°Mt. 28:6, "Lk.. 24:3, 4.

284 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
Galilee; there shall ye see him," the angels here remind
them of an entirely different word of Jesus, viz. that the
Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of men and
be crucified and the third day rise again;1 and finally,
instead of saying nothing to any one, they tell every
thing to all the disciples.2
It is obvious that these two stories also, though having
a common element, are mutually exclusive. The point
which is perhaps of the greatest significance is that Luke
drops the promise of Jesus to precede his disciples into
Galilee,3 and lets the angel confirm his statement that
Jesus is risen by reference to another word of the
Master.4 Thus even the angelic message, which is the
center of the story in each of the synoptists, is freely
modified. In Mark and Matthew the main point in the
message of the angel is that the disciples shall see Jesus
in Galilee; in Luke it is to remind the women of what
Jesus had said while still in Galilee.
We have thus far noticed the stories of Matthew and
Luke in relation to that of Mark. It remains to add that
the differences between these two are also not merely
formal. If Luke departs from Mark in that he has two
angels instead of one, he also departs from Matthew in
that his two angels are in the tomb while that of Mat
thew is outside. While in Matthew the angel is appar
ently on the earth for the sake of opening the tomb, in
Luke the two angels appear to be present, especially if
not exclusively, for the sake of the perplexed women.
The significant difference between the message of the
angel in Luke and his message in Matthew is essentially
the same as that between Luke and Mark, which has
already been discussed. Luke agrees with Matthew
against Mark that the women carried out the injunction
of the angel (or angels), but differs from him in being
more circumstantial.
So far the analysis of the oldest sources in regard to
1 Lk. 24:7.
2 Lk. 24:9.
3 Luke has no appearance of Jesus in Galilee.
* It is to be noted that the angel does not give this according to Luke's
version but rather according to that of Matthew (20:19).

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 285
what transpired at the tomb of Jesus on the morning of
the first day of the week, the third day after the crucifix
ion. The conclusions to which this analysis leads are
( 1 ) that the story of the oldest Gospel was handled with
great freedom by both Matthew and Luke; and (2) that
the mutual exclusiveness of the three synoptic narratives
shows that when these originated there was no standard
tradition concerning the incident of the women at the
tomb. The question therefore naturally arises what historical
value belongs to the common element in these strangely
conflicting stories. Let that common element be again
stated. It is that at least two women went to the tomb
of Jesus on the third day after his death, that they found
the stone rolled back, and that they received there an
angelic announcement to the effect that Jesus was risen.
The sources differ sharply as to why the women went to
the sepulchre, Matthew saying that it was to view the
tomb, Mark and Luke representing that it was to anoint
the body of Jesus, but all agree that they went. All agree
also that Mary Magdalene and another person by the
name of Mary visited the tomb. The oldest Gospel seems
to know of only three who went while Luke, after naming
three, refers to "the other women" with them. Further,
the women found the tomb open — the stone rolled away.
On this the narratives are at one. The oldest Gospel
does not suggest how the stone came to be removed from
its place, no more does Luke, but Matthew attributes it
to an angel.
Thus we face a serious problem. The women found
the tomb open, but the only suggestion in our sources as
to how it came to be open is that an angel did it. And
from this point on the story runs into the supernatural.
We have one angel or two angels, outside the tomb or
within it, and their message is variously reported. Ac
cording to the oldest Gospel, which is followed by Luke,
the women entered the tomb, and so were presumably able
to confirm the angelic word, "He is not here." But in
view of the general contradictoriness of the three narra
tives it is perhaps too much to say that we can here

286 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
confidently accept the statement of Mark and Luke that
the women entered the tomb. If, however, they did,
the fact that they found not the body of Jesus is only
what the open door has already suggested. But the
main point is that their testimony goes no further than —
to say the most — an open and empty tomb. That Jesus
had risen was the word of the angel. Here again, what
ever we may think about angels as witnesses to earthly
and material facts, we face a serious problem. For the
narratives are so contradictory that it is impossible to
see behind them any definite witness to an objective
angelic appearance. One is therefore led to ask whether
the angel is not a literary device by which the writers
sought to express the divine origin of a new and inspir
ing belief. This supposition would at least account for
the variations in the angelic message in the different
Gospels. But however this point be judged, we must not lose
sight of the simple fact that, so far as the story of the
resurrection is concerned, our sources, when they come
to the explanation of the empty tomb, give us the word
of an angel. We are then no longer dealing with ordi
nary evidence, with human witnesses and natural facts
— such as we find exclusively in the 'record of the min
istry of Jesus — but we are dealing with another order of
beings, belonging to another sphere.
Jesus himself does not appear in the story of the
resurrection. We have a report of an open and probably
of an empty tomb, but on the question what had become
of the body of Jesus we have a message attributed to an
angel, or to angels, who are variously said to have been
in the tomb or outside it. It does not then appear that
more can be accepted as historical than that the tomb of
Jesus was found empty. This, however, is a point of
great importance both in itself and in relation to sub
sequent events.
We now pass beyond the oldest Gospel and the story
of the open tomb to consider other material in Matthew
and Luke which has to do with the risen Lord.
Matthew records two appearances of Jesus, one to the

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 287
women near the tomb1 and the other to the eleven dis
ciples in Galilee.2 To the women he said: "Fear not; go
tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there
shall they see me." This event is beset with difficulties.
The women have just been told by an angel that Jesus
precedes the disciples into Galilee, and that they shall
see him there.3 Why then should it be needful that the
same message be given them by Jesus? And if Jesus
was to tell them, what necessity was there for the appear
ance of an angel to give them the very same message?
Moreover, if Jesus could appear to the women, near the
tomb, why not also to his apostles ? Why postpone that
great event until they returned to Galilee?
There is yet other difficulty created by this passage.
It conflicts with the oldest Gospel and is excluded by
Luke. For Mark's statement that the women said noth
ing to any one4 certainly precludes the possibility that,
in the moment after leaving the tomb, they had an unmis
takable meeting with Jesus, when they took hold of his
feet and heard words from his lips. It is also excluded
by Luke's narrative, for according to him the women
went at once to the apostles and told what they had
learned at the tomb; but if they had met Jesus himself
as they returned from the tomb, they must have reported
that fact, for it wholly eclipsed the other in importance.
But Luke's narrative has no trace of this superlatively
significant event.
We seem forbidden therefore to regard this passage
in Matthew as strictly historical. The purpose of the
author in writing it appears to be obvious. His eye is
upon the Galilean manifestation of Jesus5 — the sole ap
pearance to the apostles which he records — and the
importance of that manifestation is heightened by letting
Jesus refer to it in advance.
We turn now to this conspicuous Galilean appearance
of the risen Jesus, which is peculiar to Matthew. The
oldest Gospel anticipated something of the sort,6 but in
'Mt. 28:9-10. 4Mk. 16 :S.
2Mt 28:16-20. 6Mt. 28:16-20.
sMt 28:7. "Mk- i6=7-

288 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
its extant form does not record it. Let us consider the
details of the story with a view to determining its his
torical character. First, it is said that the particular
mountain where the Eleven assembled had been ap
pointed for them by Jesus.1 But we have seen above
that our oldest sources do not contain a single indisput
able reference by Jesus to a bodily resurrection and return
to his disciples. Hence this view of Matthew that the
very spot where the risen Jesus would meet his disciples
had been fixed by him has against it the lack of a single
confirmatory word in the body of the Gospel. It seems
remarkable, too, that if the very spot had been fixed by
Jesus himself, it should have been necessary to send an
angelic message to the apostles to go into Galilee,2 and
then to reenforce this angelic message by a word from
Jesus to the same effect.3 One would naturally suppose
that if Jesus had told his disciples that, when risen, he
would meet them on a certain mountain in the home-land,
they would have needed no command to go thither.
Second, the words attributed to the risen Jesus at this
appearance in Galilee.4 Does the story of the life and
teaching of Jesus allow us to regard these words as
genuine? Let us see. Is it like Jesus to claim all
authority in heaven and on earth ?5 In the oldest collec
tion of his words — the Logia — the highest claim that he
makes is the claim to a unique knowledge of God.8 As
for authority, he had authority to teach,7 authority to for
give sin,8 and authority to cast out demons0 — that is, he
had authority adequate to his need as the revealer of
God; but of all authority, and all authority in heaven as
well as on earth, the record of the ministry of Jesus con
tains no claim and no trace of a claim. On the contrary,
the true and absolute dependence of Jesus upon the
heavenly Father is fundamental in all that record.
Again, is it like Jesus to base the mission of his disciples
'Mt. 28:16. 2Mt. 28:7. 3Mt. 28:10.
'It is worth noting that the Greek word for "doubt" in vs. 17 (eSio-TOo-av)
is found only here and in Mt. 14:31 — a passage which is certainly to be
regarded as legendary.
6Mt. 28:18. 8Mk. 2:10.
8Mt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22. 'Mk. 6:7.
'Mk. 1:22.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 289
in the world upon his own authority f1 Was not his
principle rather this : "Freely ye received, freely give" ?2
Did he not think of his Gospel as a seed which when
planted in the heart inevitably develops, irrespective of
all external authority ? Did he not think of it as "leaven,"3
as something whose very nature compelled it to expand
until it should touch all the world ?
Third, is it like Jesus to command baptism?4 The
record of his ministry contains no word about the baptism
of his disciples. Further, that record does make mem
bership in his kingdom depend exclusively upon inward
spiritual conditions. In the face of this perfectly explicit
historical teaching the post-resurrection command in
Matthew's narrative cannot be defended as genuine.
This impossibility is intensified by the formula of bap
tism which is here ascribed to Jesus, which is that the
nations be baptized into the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit.5 The thought of this
formula is certainly not after the manner of Jesus. For
by placing the Son between the Father and the Holy
Spirit the writer doubtless meant to claim that he has
the same essential nature as they, that he is in the same
sense and same degree divine. But neither in the Logia,
the triple tradition or the critically established single tra
ditions of Matthew and Luke is there one word of Jesus
to justify this claim.6 It obviously belongs to a time
later than the apostolic age,7 when men had not only
begun to speculate on the relation of Jesus to God — for
there is speculation on this subject in Paul — but when
their speculations had assumed a definite trinitarian
formulation. Again, in the fourth place, is it like Jesus to refer to his
communications to his disciples as commands f8 The verb
which Matthew here uses ( evr&Xeo-Oai) is never used by
Jesus in regard to' his own teaching. He spoke of the
commands of God in the Old Testament,9 but he did not
'Mt. 28:19. 4Mt 28:19.
2Mt. 10:8. 'Mt 28:19.
3 Mt. 13 :33. • See Part II, chaps. 3-4.
7 Baptism in the apostolic age was into the name of Jesus only.
8Mt 28:20. 'E.g., Mk. 7:8; 10:19.
19

29O THE LEGENDARY JESUS
add to them. He conceived of himself not as a second
Moses, imposing upon men a legal form of religion, but
rather as a communicator of life to man's spirit by reveal
ing the character of God.
Finally, is it like Jesus to say, "I am with you all the
days, even unto the end of the world"?1 Certainly the
record of his ministry does not offer any parallel. On
the contrary, it presents a teaching which is opposed to
this word. Thus, at the feast in Bethany, Jesus said to
his disciples, "The poor ye have always with you, but me
ye have not always."2 In the parable of the Talents8 he
alluded to a period when he should be absent from his
disciples. He referred repeatedly to his death and de
parture from the world,4 but never, unless we except this
passage in Matthew, to a resumption of personal fellow
ship with the disciples on earth. Hence we must regard
the closing promise in Matthew's Gospel as a word born
out of the spiritual experience of the early Church.
We come now to our conclusion regarding the character
of the passage before us. Since the reference to a
rendezvous on a mountain in Galilee is at variance with
the record of the ministry of Jesus, and since the words
attributed to him are throughout contrary to the clear
facts and teaching of his public life, we cannot regard
the passage as historical.
We turn now to Luke, who describes two appearances
of Jesus and alludes to a third. All are put on the day
of the resurrection, the two that are fully described
occurring toward night. To begin with the incident to
which only an allusion is made. When the two disciples
came into Jerusalem from Emmaus, at evening of the day
of the resurrection, and found the apostles gathered
together, they were greeted with the words : "The Lord is
risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon."5 Let two
points be briefly noted here. First, we have an alleged
appearance of Jesus to Simon in or near Jerusalem,'
though the angelic message to the women at the tomb,
'Mt. 28:20. 'Seep. 276.
2Mk. 14:7. 8Lk. 24:34.
"Mt 25:14-30.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 29I
according to Mark, implies that the disciples — and so of
course Peter — will see him only in Galilee, and though,
according to Matthew, Jesus himself sent word to the
disciples that they should depart into Galilee where they
should see him. This point will demand further consid
eration later. Second, the Greek word here employed
by Luke (o>cf>6ri), which is rendered by "appeared," is
used by him elsewhere in ten passages to designate spirit
ual appearances or visions.1 This usage is uniform
unless Acts 7 :26 be an exception. It is used of the mani
festation of God to Abraham and of the angel of the Lord
to Zechariah in the temple, also' of the appearance of the
heavenly Christ to Paul on the way to Damascus. There
fore, from the term used, we should infer that what came
into Simon's experience on the day of the resurrection
was a "heavenly vision." The writer seems at least to
regard this vision to Peter as proof that Jesus was indeed
"risen," though to us it is evidence only that he was
alive, and implies nothing in regard to his physical body.
That Peter's vision was psychologically dependent upon
the women's report of the empty tomb may be surmised,
but obviously cannot be proved.
The story of the appearance of Jesus to two disciples
as they went to Emmaus has several new features. Thus,
first, Jesus walked and talked with them a long time
unrecognized. He interpreted to them in "all the Scrip
tures the things concerning himself," but still they did
not recognize him. Finally, when in the house at
Emmaus, he blessed the bread and breaking it gave to
them, their eyes were opened and they knew him.2 The
difficulty here is that the story presupposes an intimate
acquaintance on the part of these two disciples with the
last supper which Jesus observed with his apostles; but
is it at all likely that this event, celebrated only three
days before, had already been made known to other
disciples outside the apostolic circle, and so made known
that by its means they could recognize the Master, even
when his interpretation of Scripture failed to make him
'Lk. 1:11; 9:31; Acts 2:3; 7:2, 30, 35; 9:17; 10:31; 16:19; 26:16.
2 Lk. 24:31.

292 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
known ? Let it be remembered that one of the interven
ing days was a Sabbath and the other the awful day of
the crucifixion. This detail suggests that we are dealing
with a free composition.
Again, in this story of the Emmaus appearance, Jesus
is subject and also not subject to physical laws. He
walked and talked, sat down and broke bread, as a true
corporeal being; but at the close of the interview he
"vanished" ( ooWtos iyevero ) . He did not depart as a
creature of flesh and blood, but simply faded out, became
invisible as mist vanishes in the air. Thus he is repre
sented as a being of whose body we can form no true
conception. We know physical bodies and laws, we can
conceive of a body that is not subject to physical laws, but
we are helpless in view of the problem presented by a
body which, at will, is subject to physical laws and then,
at will, is not subject to them. It is of course not to be
declared impossible simply because it is inconceivable by
us, for many actual things are yet inconceivable ; but we
may demand the strongest evidence in support of an
alleged reality so astounding as a body which is subject
and again not subject to physical laws.
Once more, when we try to take this story as history,
we are embarrassed by the conception that Jesus, while
walking with these men toward Emmaus, would have
spoken of having entered into his glory.1 These words,
interpreted by other passages in Luke,2 lead us away from
earth and earthly relationships to heaven and the con
summation of the kingdom of God. We should have no
difficulty whatever in supposing that early Christians
argued in the very words of this verse, but can we sup
pose that Jesus would have talked of himself as having
entered into his glory, while he was yet present on earth ?
Finally, it is not after the manner of Jesus to argue his
case "from Moses and from all the prophets." That was
what Paul did with the Jews in Rome,3 and what no
doubt other Christian teachers did in those days, but it
'Lk. 24:26.
2 See 9:26; 21:27.
3 Acts 28:23.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 293
was not the manner of Jesus. He rested indeed upon the
revelation of God in the Old Testament, and he saw
there foreshadowings of himself, even of his death; but
as a teacher, as the revealer of God, he certainly spoke
out of his own spiritual experience. That was why he,
in contrast to the scribes, impressed men as speaking with
authority.1 This picture of him on the way to Emmaus
"beginning from Moses and from all the prophets and
interpreting in all the Scriptures the things concerning
himself" is a picture of a Christian rabbi of the first cen
tury, drawn to the life ; but Jesus was not a rabbi.
Luke's other story of an appearance of the risen Jesus
presents several distinctly new aspects. It was the even
ing of the day of the resurrection.2 The eleven apostles
and those with them, as also the two disciples just come
from Emmaus, were together.3 As the two from Em
maus related their experience, Jesus himself stood in the
midst of them. Undoubtedly the writer thought of his
coming as mysterious and inexplicable. The disciples
did not hear him come or see him, but all at once he was
there ! This coming corresponds to his departure from
the two disciples in Emmaus. It is no wonder that the
disciples inferred from the mode of his; ippearance that
what they saw was a "spirit."4 Hence their terror — a
feature wholly lacking in Matthew's story of the appear
ances of Jesus, and lacking also in Luke's other story.
Another new element in this passage is that Jesus
offered various proofs that he was not a spirit. "See
my hands and my feet," he said, "that it is I myself:
handle me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,
as ye behold me having." And a little later he said:
"Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave him a
piece of a broiled fish. And he took it and ate before
them."6 Thus he demonstrated to them his materiality.
By so doing the mystery of his appearing in the midst of
them is affirmed and emphasized. Having demonstrated
his materiality, as though his teaching would not other-
'Mk. 1:22. *Lk. 24:37.
2Lk. 24:29, 33, 36. BLk. 24:39, 41, 42.
sLk. 24: 33, 35, 36.

294 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
wise be valid, he proceeded to say certain things to his
disciples, which we shall now consider.
The difficulties of this address, regarded as history, are
these : First, the clause "while I was yet with you."1 But
he was with them now, and had just given an ocular
demonstration that it was he himself. These things
obviously do not accord with each other. Second, the
verse affirms that Jesus, during his ministry, had told
his disciples that "all things which are written in the law
of Moses and the prophets and the psalms" concerning
him must needs be fulfilled ; but our sources do not con
tain this or any similar statement. It is quite different
from the thought of Mt. 5 :i7, and goes beyond Mk. 14 49.
Third, Jesus is here represented as finding in Scripture
the following points of doctrine : that the Christ should
suffer, that he should rise again from the dead the third
day, and that repentance should be preached in his name
unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.2 But the
record of the teaching of Jesus is unfavorable to the
acceptance of the second and third of these points as
really from him. The oldest Gospel does indeed attribute
to him a saying about "rising" after three days, but it does
not define this "rising" as a rising from the dead; and
reason has elsewhere been given for believing that the
original saying was spiritual in character.3 As to the
third point, it is not borne out by the teaching of Jesus.
It is possible that he' told his disciples to preach repent
ance,4 though even this is not specifically recorded; but
there is no evidence in the Gospel that he told them to
preach "in his name." Least of all is the record of the
teaching of Jesus favorable to the view that he bade his
disciples "begin from Jerusalem." He gave them prin
ciples, not specific directions. We say then that the
record of the teaching of Jesus is distinctly unfavorable
to the acceptance of the second and third points as from
him. We conclude then that verses 46-47 are more easily
understood as a resume of early Christian preaching

1 Lk. 24:44. 8 See p. 277
2 Lk. 24:46-47. ' See Mk. 6

6:12.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 295
than as spoken by the risen Jesus. They are in this
respect parallel to the words spoken to the two disciples
on the way to Emmaus.
It remains to consider the last words attributed to
Jesus on the occasion of his appearance to the eleven and
others in Jerusalem:1 "I send forth the promise of my
Father upon you : but tarry ye in the city until ye be
clothed with power from on high." The difficulty in
accepting these words as historical is not less serious
than is that of the preceding verse. The Gospel story of
the teaching of Jesus says nothing about a promise of the
Father which was to be sent upon the disciples, and yet
the speaker seems to take for granted that the allusion
will be understood. There is of course no doubt that the
writer had the Holy Spirit in mind as the "promise" of
the Father,2 but one must ask whether his conception
agrees with what Jesus said of the Spirit in the course of
his ministry. In the very little that he ever said on the
subject according to the oldest sources the Spirit is
regarded by him as it was by the great prophets.3 It is
God as he comes into contact with man. It seems then
unlikely that Jesus would ever speak of sending this
Spirit. But again it may be seriously questioned whether it
was in harmony with the thought of Jesus as revealed in
the Gospel to represent his disciples as unfit for their
ministry until they should be "clothed with power from
on high" — this being thought of as something quite dis
tinct from the preparation he had given them. Had they
not gone forth in Galilee and cast out demons? Had
they not in their souls the words of Jesus and the example
of his life and the consciousness of his love? Did they
not know his spirit and how to gain it, and was it not
that spirit which changed their lives and is it not that
which is changing the world? Was it not a "clothing
with power" to live and walk and work with Jesus ?
'Lk. 24:49.
2 See Acts 2:1-41. , „ . .
8 See Mk. 12:36; 13:11. — The Logia has no reference to the Spirit unless
it be in Mt. 12:28 (cf. Lk. 11:20).

296 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
The conclusion to which we are led in regard to this
passage is that, like Mt. 28:16-20 and Lk. 24:25-27, it is
a carrying back to Jesus of early Christian reflections
on his death and resurrection and on the spiritual power
of believers. But it does not follow that the account of
the appearance of Jesus is without historical value. That
might be a reliable tradition even though the address put
in the mouth of Jesus were regarded as the work of the
author of this Gospel. Whether the tradition of his ap
pearance is reliable we do not yet attempt to say.
We must first consider the closing paragraph of the
story and certain other data which lie outside the Gospel.
According to the closing paragraph Jesus parted from
his disciples "over against Bethany" on the evening of
the resurrection day.1 They "returned to Jerusalem with
great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing
God." It seems plain that in the thought of the author
such appearances of Jesus as he had recorded were now
at an end. But when we open his second volume — the
Book of Acts — we hear that the appearances of the risen
Jesus were not confined to one day but continued "by the
space of forty days,"2 and that instead of a simple vanish
ing from them,3 he ascended into heaven in a visible form
and a cloud received him out of their sight.4 What is the
significance of this diversity of view? It is thought by
some scholars that in the interval between the composition
of the Gospel and of Acts the author came into possession
of fresh material and that he accordingly modified his
first view. Whether this was the case or not, such vary
ing accounts point to the absence of any fixed tradition
in the church of the apostles. We should notice here a
further illustration of this fact. As we have seen, Mat
thew's Gospel knows of only one appearance of the risen
Jesus and that was on a mountain in Galilee which had
been specially designated by the Master. Moreover, that
appearance in Galilee was apparently regarded by the
author as the final one. But Luke, on the other hand,
tells of three appearances of the risen Jesus, and all were
'Lk. 24:50-51. 8Lk. 24:51.
2 Acts 1:3. 'Acts 1:9.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 297
in or near Jerusalem, Luke's third appearance was appar
ently regarded by him as the final one (i.e., when he wrote
the Gospel), and yet the words attributed to Jesus on that
occasion are wholly different from those attributed to him
in Matthew. Further, all of Luke's appearances of the
risen Jesus were on the day of the resurrection, while
Matthew's appearance on a mountain in Galilee could
not have been earlier than the third day after the resur
rection. Thus these narratives are at all points mutually
exclusive. Having now before us all the data of the synoptists
on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus let us take into
account the words of Paul, written some years earlier
than the oldest Gospel.
Paul was either not acquainted with the story of the
women at the tomb or else was not interested in it, for he
passes it in silence. His interest lay in the appearance
of the risen Jesus to his disciples. Of these appearances
he mentions five, and in the alleged order of their histor
ical occurrence. He has no word of time or place,
whether the appearances were on one day or during
forty days, whether in Galilee or in Judea, or in both.
Nor does he say a word of the nature of these appear
ances except as a suggestion is contained in the single
term "appeared" (w^Oin).1 This is the term he used when
speaking of the appearance of Jesus to himself on the
way to Damascus,2 an appearance which he described as
a "heavenly vision,"3 a revealing of the Son of God in
him.4, Paul does not claim to have seen the risen Jesus
with the eye of flesh, but only, according to Luke, to
have seen a great light which blinded him.5 The appear
ance of Jesus to the Twelve and to others Paul classed
with his appearance to him. But this appearance — a
heavenly vision and a revelation in him — obviously does
not require the resurrection of the physical body of Jesus,
and Paul's chapter on the resurrection appears to imply
that it did not rise.6
'I Cor. 15:5, 6, 7. *Gal. 1:15.
2 I Cor. 15:8. "Acts 9:3; 22:6; 26:13.
3 Acts 26:19. 6I Cor- IS!44. 5°-

298 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
One point to be specially noted is that Paul's five
appearances include two which are foreign to the Gospel
narrative — viz. those to James and to above five hundred
brethren — and two whose identification with appearances
described in the Gospels is more or less doubtful, leaving
only one, that to Cephas, which is surely found in the
synoptists. That one of his five appearances which seems
altogether the most important, viz. the appearance to
more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom the
greater part were alive when Paul wrote First Corinth
ians, is wanting in Matthew and Luke.
We conclude that the data of Paul help to confirm two
points : first, that there was no fixed tradition in the early
Church regarding the appearances of Jesus, and second,
that the appearance of Jesus was visionary in its nature.
We ask in the next place what bearing the Johannine
tradition has on these data of the synoptists and Paul. It
describes four appearances of the risen Jesus with a good
deal of detail. The first was to Mary Magdalene at the
tomb in the morning of the day of the resurrection.1
This agrees with the synoptic story of the women at the
sepulchre in three points, viz., that Mary Magdalene came
to the tomb, that she came early in the morning, and that
she found the stone taken away; but it differs from the
synoptic tradition in three important particulars. Thus
it has no clear trace that anyone was with Mary Magda
lene ; she does not enter the tomb,2 as do the women in
Mark and Luke, one of whom is this same Mary Magda
lene; she infers from the opened tomb that the body of
Jesus has been removed;3 and she receives no angelic
message that Jesus has risen, as she does according to
all the synoptists. Further, it differs from Mark in that
Mary reports the open tomb4 and later the appearance of
Jesus,5 while there she and others said nothing to any
one ; and it differs from Matthew and Luke in that Mary
reports the open tomb to Simon only and one other,6
while in Matthew the women, of whom she is one, report

'Jn.

20:i-l8.

4Jn.

20:2.

2Jn.

20:i, 2,

II.

BJn.

20:18.

"Jn.

20:2.

6Jn.

20:2.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 299
it to the "disciples," and in Luke they report it to the
Eleven and all the rest.
Again, this Johannine tradition of Mary at the sepulchre
conflicts with the oldest Gospel, for according to that the
women all fled from the tomb in trembling and astonish
ment,1 but here Mary Magdalene has an interview with
Jesus at the sepulchre.2 It agrees with Matthew in this
respect that both know of an appearance of the risen Jesus
not far from the tomb, but it differs from Matthew totally
in the character of the meeting and of the communication
from Jesus. For in Matthew the women — one of whom
is Mary Magdalene — recognize Jesus and hold his feet,3
but in John Mary Magdalene does not recognize him at
first,4 and when she does recognize him he forbids her
touching him.5 In Matthew he said to the women — and
one of them, be it remembered, is Mary Magdalene —
"Go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and
there shall they see me;" but here he says nothing of
Galilee, but bids her tell his brethren that he is about to
ascend to his God and their God.6
The Johannine tradition agrees with Luke that two
angels were seen in the tomb, but differs from him utterly
as to what the angels said, for here they simply ask her
why she weeps, but there they tell the women — of whom
she is one — that Jesus is risen.7
Finally, this Johannine story of Mary at the sepulchre
agrees with Lk. 24:16, 31, that the risen Jesus was able,
at will, to conceal or reveal his identity.8 It is noticeable
that, although the story of the appearance of the risen
Jesus to Mary Magdalene implies that he was just on the
point of ascending to the Father, he is present eight days
later with the apostles8 and still later has an interview
with seven disciples at the Lake of Galilee.10 Whether
the author thought that Jesus did ascend to the Father
on the day of the resurrection, and that the subsequent
appearances were manifestations from on high, we can-
' Mk 16-8. * Jn- 20:18.
2Jn 20:11-18. 'Mt. 28:6; Lk. 24:6.
3Mt. 28:9. \\n- 2o:if' l6-
*Jn. 20:14. , *"• 20:26-
»Jn. 20:17. «>Jn. 21:1.

3CO THE LEGENDARY JESUS
not tell, neither is it plain what he meant by "ascending"
to the Father.
Thus taking the synoptists together and individually, in
their account of the women at the tomb, there are six
points of agreement between them and the Johannine
tradition, of which the most important are that the stone
was found rolled back and the tomb_jempty, and nine
points of difference, of which not lesT'than seven are
virtually contradictions.
The second appearance of the risen Jesus in the Fourth
Gospel was on the evening of the day of the resurrection
and was to the disciples, apparently to ten of the apostles,1
in a house in Jerusalem. It thus offers itself as a parallel
to Luke's second story.2 Place and time are the same,
and though Luke's circle is larger than John's, it includes
that. But the differences between the two stories are
striking. According to Luke, when Jesus appeared
among the disciples, they were "terrified and affrighted ;"3
according to John, they were "glad."4 Again, the mes
sage of Jesus is utterly different in the two stories. In
Luke it is demonstration from Scripture that' the Christ
should suffer and rise again from the dead the third
day, and that repentance should be preached in his name
to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. To this are
added the words about the Spirit: "Behold, I send forth
the promise of my Father upon you ; but tarry ye in the
city until ye be clothed with power from on high."5 Of
these points, which, in Luke, are substantiated out of the
Scriptures, the Johannine tradition has not one. Instead,
it has the simple commission: "As the Father hath sent
me, even so send I you."6 It speaks of the Spirit, but its
words are widely at variance with those of Luke. It
does not promise the Spirit for some future time, but
represents that it was imparted then and there.7 More
over, while in Luke the Spirit is to clothe the disciples
with power ( Svvap.ii ) , here it is to give them authority
to forgive or to retain sins8 — two quite unlike conceptions.
'Jn. 20:19, 24. sLk. 24:46-49.
2Lk. 24:33, 36-39. °Jn. 20:21.
3 Lk. 24:37. 7 Jn. 20:22.
'Jn. 20:20. 8Jn. 20:23.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 3OI
The third appearance of the risen Jesus according to
John was eight days after the second,1 and apparently to
the Eleven apostles, gathered where they were before.2
This also, like the second appearance, agrees with Luke's
view that the risen Jesus, though in a material body, was
not subject to the laws of matter, for he appeared in the
midst of the disciples when the doors were shut.3 It is
also closely related to the story in Luke in this particular
that it puts in the foreground a demonstration of the
identity of Jesus by himself.4 The remaining words of
Jesus are peculiar to this passage : "Because" thou hast
seen me thou hast believed : blessed are they that have not
seen, and yet have believed."5 This is highly significant.
It implies that from the very first days of Christianity
there had been those who believed in the resurrection of
Jesus though they had not seen him. Whether the writer
supposed that such persons had heard of the empty tomb,
or that they believed on other grounds, we cannot say.
But by putting on the lips of Jesus himself the words,
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have be
lieved," he obviously wished to counteract a tendency to
lay too great stress, as he thought, on the value of these
appearances of the risen Jesus.
It is plain that this third appearance of Jesus in John,
which was eight days after the resurrection, excludes the
view of Luke's Gospel that the final appearance of Jesus
was on the very day of the resurrection, and that it also
excludes the view of Matthew, which is favored by the
oldest Gospel, according to which the disciples were bid
den by Jesus himself to go into Galilee. Here they are
quietly staying in Jerusalem and having interviews with
the risen Jesus, which according to Mark and Matthew
they were to have in Galilee.
The fourth6 and last appearance of the risen Jesus in
the Fourth Gospel is that which is contained in the Appen
dix. The time of this is not indicated further than that
'Jn. 20:24. sJn- 20:26. 6Jn. 20:29.
2Jn. 20:26. *Jn. 20:27.
8 The writer in vs. 14 calls this the third appearance of Jesus to the
disciples, a statement which is at variance with 20:11, 19, 26 unless he
meant by "disciples" the apostles.

302 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
it was later than the others,1 the place is by the "sea of
Tiberias." They who shared in this meeting with the
risen Jesus were seven disciples, four of whom at least
were apostles.2 They had spent the night fishing, and
were still in the boat, but not far from the shore.3 Jesus
stood on the beach,4 but they did not recognize him until
he, by bidding them cast on the right side of the boat, had
filled their net with fish.5 Jesus had a fire on the beach,
on which there was a single small fish ( 6ij/dpiov) and a loaf
— whether for himself, or in preparation for them, does
not appear.6
The words spoken by Jesus on this occasion were
chiefly for Peter,7 one incidental remark only concerning
"the disciple whom Jesus loved."8 The words to Peter
are the only ones attributed to the risen Lord which seem
to concern an event in his earthly life, for they appear
to allude to Peter's denial of him in the night of his trial.9
With regard to the question of the historicity of these
words to Peter the following points are to be noted:
first, the conversation with Peter turns largely on a dis
tinction between two Greek verbs ( oitXtTv and ayairav ),
which elsewhere in this Gospel seem to be used indis
criminately.10 Literary subtleties of this sort are surely
foreign to the style of Jesus. Second, Peter is given a
certain official preeminence among believers, for he is
commanded to "feed" the "lambs" of Jesus, to "tend"
and to "feed" his "sheep;"11 but of such preeminence our
oldest sources have not a trace,12 while the division of
believers into "lambs" and "sheep," which appears here
as though well known, is without parallel and is vague in
itself. Third, according to the writer of this passage,
Jesus indicated what the "manner" of Peter's death was
to be.13 But this feature is quite unlike the attitude of
'Jn. 21:1. 6Jn. 21:6, 7,

Jn. 21:2. 8Jn. 21:9.
Jn. 21:8. TJn. 21:15-19.
Jn. 21:8. 8Jn. 21:20-23.

__:20-23.
9 This allusion lies in the fact that the question of Jesus was repeated
thrice and thrice had Peter denied him.
10 See, e.g., Jn. 11:3, 5; 14:15; 16:27.
"Jn. 21:15-17. 12On Mt. 16:17-19 see pp. 28-30.
18 Jn. 21:18-19. — This "manner" is apparently crucifixion, since it is with
outstretched hands.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 303
Jesus toward the future of his disciples, according to the
oldest sources. These do not contain a single specific
personal prediction. Is it likely that Jesus' principle in
this matter was changed by the circumstance of death?
So much for the words to Peter on this occasion. There
was an incidental remark also to another disciple, and this
must now be considered.
Peter was following Jesus along the beach, and behind
him came the "disciple whom Jesus loved."1 Having
heard about his own future Peter asked what this other
man should do.2 Jesus replied: "If I will that he tarry
till I come, what is that to thee ?"3 Now this answer does
not seem to be in the manner of Jesus. He was always
frank and plain-spoken. He knew what he willed to do
and say to his disciples. If the words of the text are
taken to mean that Jesus had not yet made up his mind
whether that particular disciple should remain on earth
until he came, then the objection to them is clearly that
Jesus was not one who spoke out of an unsettled state of
mind; but if they mean simply, as the writer took them,
that Jesus purposely gave a vague answer to the effect
that he might possibly wish to have the disciple in question
remain on earth until he should come, then the objection
to it is just its vagueness, where vagueness seems to have
no practical end. Such a word was sure to be misunder
stood, and what was there to justify the ambiguity?
But we will not dwell on this point, nor insist that the
saying cannot possibly be historical. We say only that
it does not seem to be in the manner of Jesus. If John
lived to a great age, as tradition affirms, that fact may
readily account for the rise of a belief that Jesus had
foretold this very thing.
A few words on the Johannine tradition as a whole.
Three of its appearances are at Jerusalem and one at the
Lake of Galilee. Thus it combines the traditions of
Matthew and Luke, for the former knows only of a
Galilean appearance and the latter only of appearances in
or near Jerusalem. The last of the Johannine appear-
'Jn. 21:20. 2Jn. 21:21. 3Jn. 21:22.

304 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
ances is apparently regarded as the last which was known
to have occurred. Thus it contradicts the tradition of
Matthew which seems to put the final appearance of the
risen Jesus on a mountain in Galilee, and contradicts also
that of Luke, according to which the final appearance
was near Bethany in Judea.
It remains now to sum up the results of this analysis
of the four appearances of the risen Jesus which are
found in John. We may say that the analysis strongly
confirms the conclusion drawn from the independent study
of the synoptists and Paul that there was no fixed tradi
tion in the early Church regarding either the women at
the sepulchre, or the appearances of the risen Jesus. The
element which it shares with all the early narratives is
that the tomb was found empty, and the further element
which it shares with Matthew and Luke is that Jesus
appeared to one or more of his disciples. Aside from
this common element its numerous details only add to the
confusion that reigns in the synoptists.
What now, in view of all the data, is to be said of the
common element in the narratives? What is to be said
of the evidence that the tomb was found empty? What
also of the nature of the appearances of the risen Jesus,
and of the connection of these two events?
It has been shown that no saying of Jesus regarding
his future warrants an expectation that his body was to
come forth from the tomb. Paul, as we have seen, whose
account of the resurrection antedates the Gospel, has
nothing to say of the empty tomb, and it does not appear
that he regarded it as necessary to his view of the
resurrection. The oldest Gospel, however, says that the tomb was
found open, and with this statement the others agree.
That the tomb was empty also, that the body of Jesus was
not there, this, in the oldest Gospel, is not said as some
thing which the women observed, but it is told them by
the angel. At this point the divergence begins and goes
on increasing at every forward step. We may grant that,
if the body had left the tomb, having been reanimated, it
was natural enough that the tomb remained open; but

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 3O5
we cannot affirm that the simple fact of an open tomb
implied that it was also empty, for any ordinary tomb,
being intended for more than one body, was liable to be
opened at any time.
That the body of Jesus was not in the tomb rests, in
the oldest Gospel, on angelic evidence, in the later Luke
it rests also on the observation of Peter, and in the last
of the narratives it rests not at all on angelic evidence but
on the _ witness of Peter and another disciple. This
change in the evidence, or in the statement of the evidence,
as time passed, is significant. It seems to imply an in
creasing sense of the importance of showing that the
tomb was empty. It is of interest to note that the
parallel fact that, while in Matthew the materiality of the
risen Jesus is barely implied, in Luke's last appearance
and in the Johannine tradition it is strongly emphasized.
These two facts raise the question whether the interest
of Christians in the material resurrection of Jesus, when
our Gospels were written, was not due wholly to a belief
that, without a material resurrection, the reality of his
appearances would fall to the ground. That seems to me
the probable explanation of the increasing emphasis on
this point.
But to return to the evidence for an open tomb, not to
say an empty one. The oldest Gospel witnesses to it, the
others likewise. But we are bound to consider the strange
divergences in the stories, for these may reflect unfavor
ably upon any common element which they have. It is
difficult to believe that there was from the beginning a
sure tradition that the tomb was found open on the third
day after the crucifixion, and yet no sure tradition as to
who found it open, or why any one had come thither.
But such is the fact, as we have seen. John says that one
woman came, Matthew two, Mark three, and Luke not
less than five, possibly more. And as to the why. In
Mark and Luke, the women come to anoint the body, in
Matthew to see the tomb, while in John the same Mary
who in Matthew comes to see the tomb and in Mark to
anoint the body, speaks of wishing to find the body that
she may take it away. Now it does not seem credible

306 THE LEGENDARY JESUS
that there can have been an original tradition regarding
an open tomb which yet preserved nothing definite as to
who came, or why they came.
As to the other point which the oldest sources, except
Mark, share in common, viz. that Jesus appeared to some
of his disciples soon after his death and burial, the
sources, by their numerous and radical divergence from
each other, drive us to the conclusion that the stories, as
they stand, cannot be accepted as historical. In the free
dom with which they deal with the same incident, for
example, the appearance to Mary Magdalene or that to
the apostles on the evening of the day of the resurrection,
they plainly suggest that the writers were unhampered by
the past.
Yet while, as historical students, we cannot regard
these stories as historical, we must still, in the name of
history, hold that some of Hhe. disciples had visions of
Jesus. Paul, who may very probably have drawn his
information from Peter, believed this, and the stories of
the Gospels — not to mention the stupendous fact that the
disciples were changed by something from a scattered and
timid band into a bold and triumphant power — can hardly
be accounted for had there been no vision of Jesus. What
this vision was we cannot learn from the contradictory
reports in the Gospels. We must either say that we do
not know, or, what is more satisfactory, we must say with
Paul that the appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples
was like the appearance to him on the way to Damascus.
It was a "heavenly vision," a revelation of the Son of
God in them.
The motives which led to the development of the
materialistic stories of Matthew, Luke and John are likely
to have been, first, a desire to make the appearance of
Jesus more impressive and to give it greater demonstra
tive power, and second, a desire to gain the authority of
Jesus for various beliefs of later times.
I cannot close this chapter, which will be disappointing
to some of my readers, without a word on its relation to
the ministry of Jesus and to the present ministry of his
Gospel in the world.

LEGEND OF A MATERIAL RESURRECTION 307
And first, it seems to me that the hypothesis of a
spiritual vision of the risen Jesus by his disciples is in
fullest accord with the record of his ministry. That he
who had most profoundly impressed a number of disciples
should have appeared to them in the days following his
death is certainly as reasonable as that Paul should
have had a vision of him.
Further, there is no part of the message of Jesus which
is in the least affected by the conclusion that the stories of
an empty tomb and the appearance of a materially risen
Master are not historical. That message remains in all
its freshness and power. It was sealed by the life and
love of Jesus. He did not teach that it was to be sealed
by a material . resurrection of his body.
And finally, it cannot be doubted that, for the present
age and for all subsequent ages which, like this, shall be
scientific in their temper and activities, the Gospel is and
will be more effective when relieved of the burden of
belief in the material resurrection of Jesus. It must be
more effective, ultimately, we should say, the more truth
fully it is set forth, and this belief is shown to be devoid
of historical support by an impartial critical examination
of the Gospel records.
The Church of the twentieth century is at one with the
Apostolic Church in the belief that Jesus, having suffered
death on the cross, continued to live; but the grounds of
that belief which found a place in the Gospel narrative
cannot be regarded as valid. The abiding foundation of
that belief is not material — an empty tomb, a re-animated
physical body — but it is spiritual.

INDEXES

i. Passages from the Logia.1
Mt. Lk. Page
Chapt 3:7-11 3:7-9
3"2 3:17
4:3-n 4:3-13
5:1 6:20

5:3

6:20

5:3, 4. 6

6:20-21

5:18

6:17

5:20

6:2, 5, 16
5:32, 39.
44
5:39. 40
6:27-30
5 144-48
6:32-36
5:48
6:36
6:9
11 :i
6:9-13
11 :2-4
6:9, 26,
32
11:2; 12:24, 3°
6:20-21
12:33
6:25-33
12:22-31
6:26-30
6:27
12:25
6:33
12:31
7:1-2
6:37-38
7:7-11
11:9-13
7:9-10
7:11
11:13
7:12
6:31
7:21
6:46
7:21, 24-27
6:46, 47-49
7:21-22
7:23
13:25-27
7:24
6:47
7 : 24-28
7:24-27
6 :47-49
7:28
126,
217
123,
163
133-
138,
196
171
22
-
22,
.56,
158, 168
156
20
139
156
156,
167-
168
149
40
157.
158,
168
167,
168
166
157.
168-
169
116
42
158
156
157,
169,
167
116
42,
172
157
140
157
20
151
31. .
33
116
142
' Perhaps some of these passages should be followed by marks of inter
rogation. 3og
3io

INDEX

Page183
13:28-30 31, 42, I?3
33156, 158, 166
10
42170

171io, 171
41
'58, 159
171, 172-173
31 31'54-155, 171
42 '57, 169
30, 33, 166
3i, 142, 151, 155
170 "5
4331'55-156, 183
165
116
21 123
127131
10, 123-124, 143
173124, 128, I20
31-35 10
33159116, 124
162
183124
116
202 '70, 175
10, 172, 183
41, 183
'44-145, 147, 155. 167,
11:27 l69' *7°' 20°
32-33

Mt.

Lk.

Chapt 8:5

7:1

8:5-13

7:1-10

8:10

8:11-12

i3:28-2<

8:19-22

9:57-61

8:21

9:59

8:22

9:60

9:32-34

11:14

9:37-38

10:2

10:2

10:7

10:9

10:8

10:9:

10:15

10:12

10:20

10:24-25

6:40

10:28

12:4

10:29-30

12:6-8

'0:32-33

10:32-33
12:8-9
10:33
12:9
10:36
10:37
14:26
10:39
9:24
10:40
10:16
10:22
1 1 :2-4
11:1
11:2
3:20
11:2
7:18
11:2-3
1 1 :2-6
7:18-23
":5
7:22
11:7-11
7:24-28
11:7-9
7 :24-28,
11:11
11:11
7:28
11:12
16:16
11:13
16:16
11:16, 19
'6:31-35
11:18
16:33
11:19
1 1 :20-24
10:13-16
11:21
10:13
11:21-24
10:13-15
11:25
10:21
11:25-27
10:21-22
INDEX 3II
Mt. Lk. Page
ii:i(?) 41
12:22-23, 27-28, 3011:14, 19-20, 23 10, 171-172, 210
12:22-24, 43-45 11:14, 24-26 169, 173
12:8 28
12:5, 9, 46 30
12:41 41
12:38-42 11:29-32 143, 169, 275
12:39-40 11:29-39 10, 23
12:41-42 10:31-32 33, 170
13:16-17 33
13:16-17 10:23-24 43, 143-144
13:23, 26, 28 40-41
13:33 34
13:33 13:20-21 158
13:53 21
14.25 41
'7:20 17:6 116, 157, 169
18:12-14 15:4-7 169
18:15-17 17:3-4 23
18:21-22 17:4 156
19:1 21
19:11-27 41
19:28 22:28-30 141
22:1-14 14:15-24 24, 41
23:13, 23-24 11:42, 52 220
23:37 13:34 183
23:37-39 13:34-35 55
24:37, 37-39, 40- 17:24, 26-27, 34-35; 12:
4i. 43-45 42-46 166
24:43 12:42 171
25:14-30 19:11-27 44-45
26:1 (?) 21
2. Passages from the Earliest Gospel with Synoptic parallels
where such are found.
Mk. Mt. Lk. Page
Chapt 1:5 3:5 3:3 I25
1:6 3:4 124
1:7-8 3:7-10 3=7-9. '7 123
1:8 3:11 3:16 126
1:9 3:13 3:21 128
1:10 3:16 3:21 130
1:11 3:17 3:22 13, 27
1:12-13 !34
1:13 249

312

INDEX

Mk. Mt. Lk. Page
4:1 "
3:20 184
4:14-15 l84 185
4:14, 31 I2
4:10 185 185 16
4--3I-37 l85 186
3:34 '3
4:38 '85
4:38-39 '5. '85
187 192
26
4:40-41 175. 185
17 18

1:13

4:1

1:14

4:12

1:14-15

4:17

1:14, 16

4:13
1:14, 16,
21
4:12, 18
1:17
4:19
1:19
4:21
1 :2i-28,
35-38
1:21-28
1:23, 29, ;
32,35
1 ;24
1 :29
8:14
1:29-31
8:14-15
1:29, 32
2:1
1:30, 32
1:31
8:15
1:32-34
8:16-17
1:32
8:16
1:34
8:16
1:35
1:38
i:39
4:23
1 140
8:2
1:44
8:4
i:45
2:1
9:1
2:1-12
9:1-8
2:4
9:2
2:4
2:5-7
9:2-3
2:10
9:6
2:15
9:10
2:16
9:11
2:17
9:13
2:16
9:14
2:18-19
9:15
2:19
9:iS
2:20
9:15
2:21
9:16
2:21-22
9:16-17
2:23
12:1
2:23; 3
•2
12:1, ic
2:24
12:2
3:28
12:8
3:5; 10
:i4
3:6
12:14
4:42 13
4:43 '3. "86
4-44
5:12 5:i4 '3
5
11, 12, 186
86
15-16 186
5:1. 3 I2
5:17-26 1517
5:19 '87
5:20-21 12
5:24 '3
5:29 189
5:30 12, 188
5=32 174-175
5:33 "4. "6. '88
5=34 '6i
5:34 '75
5:35 '7. 276
17
5:36-38 161
6:1 187
6:1, 6 175. 187
6:2 188
6:5 189
19
6:11 »88
INDEX 3I3

Mk.

Mt.

Lk.

Page

3:8

4:25

6:17

187

3:13. M

5:1

6:12, 13

12

3:14

10:2

6:13

179, 189

3:18

6:16

190

3:20-21

16

3:21, 31

1.9, 268
3:21, 31-35
12:46-50
8:19-21
187
3:22
12:24
11:15
188
3:31
12:46
8:19, 20
187
3:33-34
12:48-50
8:21
117-118
3=34
12:49
8:21
159-160
3:35
12:50
8:21
35
4:2
13:3
8:4
14
4:10
13:10
8:9
14, 187
4:21
5:14. 16
8:16
15
4:24
7:2
8:18
15 16
4:26-29
4=33
13:34
14
4:35
8:18
8:22
'4
4:35-41;
5:21-43
8:18,23-27, 9 : 18-26
28-34; 8:22-25
16, 177-179,
5:15:1-20
8:28
8:26
12
8:26-39
38-39 16
5:5
5:21, 35
8:40, 49
12
26
5:21
9:18
5:23; 7:25
9:18
17
5:28
9:21
8:44
190
5=39
9:24
8:52
176
6:1
13:54
4:16
12
6:1, 6, 7
9:35
igr
6:1-6
13:53-58
4:16-30
119-12118 146
18
6:3 6:4 6:5
13:5513:58
6:6
9:35
13:22
11
6:7
10:1
9:1
11
6:8-9, 11
10:9-10, 14
9=3, 5
192
6:12-13
9:6
192
6:14-29 6:16
14:1-12
125 125
6:30
9:10
11
6:30-44
14:13-2*
9:iO-I7
177-179
6:31
14:13
192
6:31-34
14:13-21; 9
no-17
14
314

Mk.
6:33
6:34 6:45
6:45
6:45-52
6:48
6:51, 52
6:53
6:55-56 7:1-23
7:24
7:317:26-29
7:25-307:32-35
7:32-35
7:36
8:i-g
8:1-10
8:1-10
8:108:11

S:i

15 23-27,
28-34
22-26

8:22

27
.¦27
:27-28:27-3o
:29:3o
:3i
:3l ¦34 38

INDEX
Mt. Lk.
14:14

14:22-27, 32-33

'4:34
14:35-36
15:1-20
15:21
15:29

15:22-28
'5:29-30

'5:32-39
'5:32-39
15:39 16:1
16:6

16:1316:13
16:13-14
16:13-2016:16
16:20
16:21
16:27

9:10

9:18
9:18-19 9:18-21
9:20
9:21
9:22 9:23
9:26

9:1

9:2-8
17:1-9
9:28
9:15-16,
21
24,
49-50
9:149:189:19
9:21-24
17:14
I7M6I7:i7
9:379HO
9:41
9:28-29
17:19-20
Page
192
26
259
192
258
262
259
259
II,
12, 192
258
193
37.
193
12,
194
12,
194
27
194
16,
9
195
13.
19
195
37
14
195
196
196
16
16, 1
9. 197.
13
'91, 197. 179. 180
125, 147
12
IS
13
261 13. 31. 198, 276
'59. 198, 35
159, 166, 149, 31,
33, 32
222, 277
259, 260
698
98
98
98
98
INDEX 315
Mk. Mt. Lk. Page

9:30

17:22

12

9:31

17:22

9:44

13, 200, 201

9:32

18:34
262
9:32
9:45
277, 200
9:33
17:24
12, 200
9:34
18:1
9:46
l60, 201
9:35-36
18:25
9:47-48
201
9:35
20:27
22:26
29
9:37
18:5
9:48
31
9:39
175
9:38-41
9H9-50
201
9:42
18:6
17:2
175, 202
9:43
30, 202
9:50
5:13
'4:34-35
15
10:1
19:1
II, 12
10:1
19:2
9:51-56
204, 205
10:2-12
19:3-4
. 7-8
16:18
205
10:13-16
19:13-
15
18:15-17
205
10:14
19:14
18:16
l60
10:15
37
10:17-27
19:16-
26
18:18-23
152, 206
10:21
19:21
18:22
159
10:21; 5:32
19:9
16:18a
15
10:28
19:27
18:28
15, 206
10:30
19:29
18:30
161-162
10:32-34
20:17-
19
i8:3'-34
207
10:33
20:18
18:32
13
10:35-40
37. 207
10:38
228
10:40
20:23
29, 141
10:41
20:24
22:24
208
10:42-45
20:26-
28
22:26
142, 208
10:4s
20:28
34. 160
10:46
20:29
18:35
12, 204, 209
10:46-50
20:29-34
'8:35-43
209
10:47
20:30
18:38
119
11:1
21:1
19:29
12
11:2, 3. 4
21:3
26, 213
11 :n
16, 214, 212
11:11
3:17
3:22
130
11:12, 20
21 :i9-
20
18, 212
11:19, 20, 27
212
11:21
13
11:21
21 '.20
15
11:30
21:25
20:4
125, 129
11:12-14
21:18-
19
215
11:21
21 :20
2IS
3l6 INDEX
Mk. Mt. Lit. Page
11:17 21:13 19:46 216
.11:18 19:47-48 216
Ii:i9 12, 2l6
11:27-28, 32 2i:23 20:i-3 217
I2U-I3 21:33-46 30:9-19 217, 2l8

12:4

17

12:10
278
12:13
21:15
218
12:14
22:17
20:22
218
12:18-27
22:23-33
20:27-38
218
12:28-37
22 :34-40
10:25-28; 20:40
219
12:32-34, 41-44
16
12:35
22:41
20:41
118
12:38-40
23:1-7
20:45-47
220
12:41-44
21 :i-4
220
13:1. 2-4
24:1, 2
. 4
21:5. 6, 7
221
13:5
24:4
21:8
221
13:14
221
13:5. 9, 13
24:4.9
21:8, 16-17
221
13:11
21:15
221
13:24
24:29
221
13:24-26
24:29,
30
21:25, 27
148,
221, 166
13:26
32
13:31
H7
13:32
24:36
150,
221
13 :32-37
24:42;
25:13-14
21:36; 12:40
221
14:2
26:5
22:2
224
14:3-9
26:6-13
7:36-50
222
14:8
26:12
278
14:10-11
26:14-1
6
22:3-6
222
14:11
224
14:12
22:7
224
14:14
26:18
22:11
225
14:17
26:20
22:14
179
14:18
26:21
22:21
225
14:21
26:24
22:22
148,
276, 175
14:21,62
278
14:22
226
14:22
26:26,
29
22:18, 19
276
14:23-25
226
14:27
26:31
«7,
278
14:29
26:33
22:33
227
14:30
26:34
22:34
227
14:33
26:27
227
14:36
26:39
22:42
227
14:37. 40
26:40,
43
22:45
227
INDEX

Mk.

Mt.

Lk.

Page

14:41-42

227
'4:43
26:47
22:47
228
14:44
26:48
17
14:47. 51
228, 229
14:44-45
26 148-49
22 :47-48
229
14:48
26:55
22:52
229
14:51-52
15
14:53
26:57
229
14:54
26:58
22:54-55
229
14:56-58
229
14:58
230
14:61
26:63
22:67, 70
I49
14:61-63
26:63-64
22 :67-7o
230-231
14:62
32
14:63-64
26:65-66
22:71
231
14:65
26:67-68
22:63-65
231
14:66-72
26:69-75
22:56-62
231-232
14:68
26:71
17
15:1
27:1
232
15:2
27:11
23:3
149, 232
15:6-8
27:17
23:16-18
233
15:9
233
15:11
27:20
233
15:13
27:22
23:11
233
15:14
27:23
23:23
233
15:16-20
22:27-31
233
15:20
27:32
234
15:21
27:32
23:26
234
15:23
27:28
23:32
234
15:24
234
'5:25
233
15:29-32
27:39-44
23:35-37
234
15:34
2.34
'5:34-35
27:46-47
235
15:34-36
234
'5=37
23-t
'5:37
27:50
23:46
235
15:37
27:57
23:54
235
15:40
234
15:40-41
27:55-56
23:49
234
27 :48-49
235
15:42
212
15:43
27:59
23:50
235
15:44
16
15:46, 47
235
16:1-8
28:1-10
24:1-7
280-286
16:7
28:7
32
16:7
28:7
24:6
15
317
3i8

INDEX

3. Passages from the Material peculiar1 to Matthew.5

Chapt.

Paga

Chapt. 1:1-17

239

1:18-25

239-240

1 :20

249

2:1-23

240

2:7, 16

240

2:12, 13,

16

241

2:13, 19

249

2:23

242

2:1, 16, 23

248

3:14-15

26

3:17

27

5:13-14

181

6:6

151

9=9

189

10:5

199

10:8

34

11:28

116

1 1 :28-3o

181

13:37-43

27

13:41

30

13:44-46

163

Chapt.

Paga

14:28-31

25

14:28-33

262

16:18-19

28-29

16:28

30

17:24-27

203, 263, 2

18:8

3"

18:17

29

18:20

31

18:35

151

19:28

30

21 :io-ii

214

21:10-11, 14 25

23:8

162-163, 150

25:31-46

30-31

27:3-10

232

27:19, 24

233

27:51-53

25

28:2

25

28:9-10

286-287

28:16-20

287-290

28:17

35

28:18-203

32-34

28 :20b

31

1 Chapters 1-2 are more or less parallel to Luke 1-2.
2 This index does not take account of single words peculiar to the author
of the First Gospel but only of verses.
4. Passages from the Material peculiar1 to Luke.2

Chapt.

Page

1:1-4

3

1:3

46

i:n

28

1 :26

249

1:36

128

1 :26-56

244

1:30-33

245

i:35-37

245

i:39. 56

245

1 :46-55

245

Chapt

Pago

2:1-20

244

2:9

28, 249

2:21-39

244

2:4. 39

248

2:13

249

2:21, 26

246

2:36-38

246

2:39, 22

246, 248

2:40-52

48-49

* Chapters 1-2 are parallel in part to Mt._ 1-2.
2 This index, as in the case of the preceding one, does not include single
words.

INDEX

319

Chapt

Page

Chapt

Page

3:15

125

i8:l-8
18:9-14

47, 151
46

5:1-9

37, 163-164

19:1-10
46, 48, 49,
209-10
7:11-17
47, 264-265
19:11-28
211
8:1-3
47. 199
19:39-4019:41
213 47
9:33
261
19:41-44
214
9:51-56
46-47
9:61-62
208
21:37 22:8, 15
212 224
10:1
264
22:17-18
225
10:9
172
22:21
226
10:29-37
47
22:29
28
10:38-42
47, 150, 164
22:43-44
249, 264
11 :i
125-126
22:51
46, 265
11 :n-i9
46
22:61
47
11:27-28
47. 164
22:66
230
12:49-50
208
23:5-7
232
12:50
207
23:27-29
47
23:34, 39-43
13:10-17
47
46
234
13:33
150
13:31-33
207, 208, 209
24:2624:29, 41,
292
is:
167
42
293
15:8-32
181
24:31
291-292
15:10
28
24:34
290
15:8-10
47
24:40 24:44
283 294
16:19-31
49
24:46-47
294-295
17:11-19
264
24:49
295-296
17:20-21
165
24:50-51
296
5. Passages from the Fourth Gospel.
Chapt
Page
1:1
62, 66
1:1-5 •
250
1:3. 4
62
1:4
59. 65, 70
1:5. 26
5i
1:7. 15
65
1:7. 31
55
1:11, 14
63, 70
1:11-12
64
1:12
250, 59
1:13; 3:3
68
Chapt
Page
1:14
250, 58
62
1:15. 30
65. 55
1:18
59, 68,
67
1:29, 36
65. 55.
58
1:32
5i
1:33
128
1:35-42
185. 55
1:41-42
184
1:42, 45-51 66
1:43
51. 52,
55
1:49
67
67
320

INDEX

Chapt

Page

Chapt

Page

2:1-4

267-269

8:59

68

2:1, 12, 13

184

9:1. 5

57

2:11

57. 267

9:6

58

2:12

56

9:1-41

271

2:13-22

61

9:5

70

2:18

57. 58

9:35-38

59

2:19

230, 54

2:25

66

10:10

53

10:15
53
3:3. 5
52, 59
10:18
68
3:"
67
10:24-25
59
3:12-13
67
10:29
53
3:16
53
3:22
56
11:1-44
271-272
11:3. 34
58
4:1-42, 43,
11:14
66
45
184
11:25
57
4:2
71
11:41-42
60
4:6
72
n:43
57
4:18
66
11:45
272
4:21, 23
53
11:52
59
4:26
53. 59
11:54
56
4:44
52
12:1
61-62
4:5-42 4:46-54
56
51. 56. 57. 265-266
12:5-612:8
223 52-53
12:12-13
213
5:1-9
269-271
61 52
5:1-47. 56 56, 57. 58
12:20-2312:25
5:8
52
12:27-30
60
5:13 5:26, 21
270 68, 53
12:32 12:36
70
68
5:23
69
i3:i4-'5
54
6:5
51. 57. 58
13:16
52
6:6, 64
66
13:17
54
6:16-21
258, 266
13:18
53
6:19
259
13:20
53
6:33
70
13:21, 38
52
6:3S
53
13:26-30
226
6:44
68
13:31
68
6:46
67
6:53. 62
67
14:21
7'
6:66-71
61, 223
14:26
61
7:1
56
15:10 15:20
69 52, 54
7:19
54
15:26
61
7:29
53. 67
8:12
70, 181
16:2
54
8:14. 26,
16:16, 22
54
28
67, 70
16:27
71
INDEX

321

Chapt
16:2816:3017:11
17:21 17:24
18:218:1518:20
18:3618:37 19:1419:23

Page 68
66
6869 58
228
229 56
59 52
62
234

Chapt. Page

19:25

283

19:26-27

234

19:28-29, 30 234

19:38-42

236

20:1-18

298-300

20:17

7i

20:19-23

300

20:24, 26

301

20:31

58

21:1-22

301-303

21:17

66

21:7

263

CORRIGENDA
Page 10, note 6, for Lk. 20 read Lk. 10.
Page 12, line 13, for 20 read 14.
Page 150, for Mt. 28:8 read 23:8.
Page 157, note 3, for Lk. 10 read Lk. II.
Page 163, note 5, insert the reference 5:1-9 at the beginning.
Page 167, note, omit Lk. 6:22.

THE following pages contain advertisements of
books by the same author and on kindred subjects.

By GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT, D.D.
Revelation of Jesus
Cloth, 12mo, $1.25 net; postpaid, $1.35
"The book is to be heartily commended for general reading,
for its conclusions are the proved results of modern scholar
ship." — Boston Transcript.
"Will be most helpful to Bible students and clergymen." —
Los Angeles, Express.
"An invaluable handbook, leading to the study of essential
factors in our faith."— Northern Christian Advocate.
The Acts
(Bible for Home and School.)
Decorated Cloth, 16mo, $0.75 net; postpaid, $0.84
"A notable number in this excellent series. It must prove of
high value to Sunday School teachers and busy laymen and
pastors." — Geo. B. Stewart.
Interpretation of the Bible
A Short History
Cloth, 12mo, $1.25 net; postpaid, $1.35
"Here is shown much study and vigorous treatment of a great
but neglected field." — Advance.
"Scholarly, interesting and accurate." — Congregationalist.
"Every page of this book is of value, and it should be in the
possession of every student of the Bible." — Deaconess Advocate.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York

Other Books by Dr. Gilbert
A Primer of the Christian Religion
Based on the Teaching of Jesus
Cloth, 16mo, $1 net; by mail $1.08
The book is unique as an attempt to outline the Christian re
ligion on the basis of the revelation in Jesus, assuming that
Christianity as a doctrine is neither less or more than the teach
ing of Jesus. It is concerned with facts rather than inferences
from them.
The Revelation of Jesus Cloth, 12mo, $1.25 net
"This is the most noteworthy historical study of the New
Testament sources of Christian doctrine that has appeared in
English since the publication of Professor McGiffert's ' The
Apostolic Age.' "—The Outlook.
The First Interpreters of Jesus
Cloth, 12mo, $1.25 net; by mail $1.35
"Nothing could be fairer than the effort made by Professor
Gilbert to draw out the thought of the first interpreters of Christ
without injecting his own predilections; and the result is illumi
native and helpful." — The Independent.
The Student's Life of Jesus Cloth, 12mo, $1.25 net
"Acuteness, candor, and conspicuous fidelity to its purpose are
the notable characteristics of this . . . useful book."
— Congregationalist.
The Student's Life of Paul
Cloth, 12mo, $1.25 net
"We unreservedly and heartily commend this volume."
— Zion's Herald.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York

NEW RELIGIOUS WORKS
By HENRY CHURCHILL KING
President of Oberlin College
The Moral and F^eligious
Challenge of Our Times
. Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net
"Its appearance is timely and undoubtedly it will aid in a better
understanding of the difficulties that are to be disposed of, as well
as indicate the spirit of broad humanity in which they should be
approached." — Knickerbocker Press.
"A comprehensive review of all the main features of the mod
ern world as man finds himself, morally and religiously related to
them, and a guiding clew by which man can orient himself in
this respect. It is clearly and thoughtfully written and succeeds
in being one of the most suggestive of recent writings concerning
the soul and duty of man." — Syracuse Post-Standard.
"With much insight into the latest teachings of economics,
psychology and comparative religion, the president of Oberlin
studies the problem of human development in its entirety, as a
world problem. Perhaps the master stroke of the book is the
most suggestive contrast between ancient and modern civili
zation." — Boston Advertiser.
"A valuable book on a great subject." — Kindergarten Magazine.

By GEORGE HODGES
Dean of the Episcopal Theological School of Harvard University
Everyman's Religion
Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net
Underlying the many sects of the Christian religion there are
certain fundamental facts which are sometimes lost sight of in the
devotion to a particular creed. The purpose of Dean Hodges's
book is to present these essential elements of Christian faith and
life in a manner simple, unconventional and appealing to a man's
common sense. The conclusions which the author arrives at are
largely orthodox, but the reasoning makes no use of the argu
ment from authority.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York

RELIGION
By HENRY C. KING
President of Oberlin College
The Laws of Friendship, Human and Divine
A summing up in brief compass and in a most winning manner of Dr.
King's well-known philosophy of the end of life as the cultivation of friendship
with God and man. — Haverford Library Lectures. Cloth, 12mo, $1.25 net
The Seeming Unreality of the Spiritual Life
As more than one reader comments, this frank discussion of religious per
plexities marks a notable and hopeful advance in recent years in rationality, in
charity, in catholicity, in spirituality, and in real religious effectiveness. Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net
Personal and Ideal Elements in Education
"I am reading it with ereat profit. It is a magnificent utterance."— Wil
liam F. Anderson, Secretary, Board of Education of the Methodist Episcopal
Church. Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net
Reconstruction in Theology
"Its pages represent what is nearly, if not actually, the highwater mark of
skill and success in blending a fearless yet discriminating progressiveness
with a loyal conservatism in theology."— The Congregationalist. Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net

Theology and the Social Consciousness
"A valuable contribution to current discussion. ... It is not scholastic;
it is not phrased in the technical language of the schools; the thoughtful layman
will readily understand it.— The Outlook. Cloth, crown Bvo, $1.25 net

By the Rev. R. J. CAMPBELL
Minister of the City Temple, London
Christianity and the Social Order
"There is a wonderful force of conviction felt pulsating in these clear and
trenchant sentences."— Standard. Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net; by mail. $1.62

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York

RELIGION
New Theology Sermons
A SELECTION OF THE SERMONS PREACHED IN THE CITV TEMPLE, LONDON
"All who know Mr. Campbell admit his goodness and transparent sincer
ity. He has stirred the intellectual and religious life of England as it has not
been stirred for many years."— The Standard. Cloth. 12mo. $1.50 net; by mail. $1.62
Thursday Mornings at the City Temple
A selection of the informal addresses which has done much to give Mr.
Campbell a larger personal following than any other preacher in England.
Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net; by mail $1.60

BOOKS BY Dr. SHAILER MATHEWS
Professor of Historical and Comparative Theology in the University of Chicago
Editor of the Series of "New Testament Handbooks"
The Church and the Changing Order
. . .a most interesting and valuable contribution to the literature of a
subject that is growing in popular attention every day. While among the
deeply, really religious and genuinely scientific there is no conflict or antag
onism where even there is not accord, this unfortunately is not commonly the
case among the masses who have only caught the forms of religious and scien
tific knowledge without their spirit. This book is addressed much more, it
seems, to the religious than the scientific, possibly because the latter have the
less need for repentance. Those who are troubled in any way at the seeming
conflict between the demands of faith, on the one hand, and the experiences of
their own reason and the problems of modern social and industrial life will find
here much sage, illuminating, and practical counsel."— Evening Post.
Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net; by mail. $1.60
The Social Teaching of Jesus
An Essay in Christian Socioloey, of which The Congregationalist writes :
"The author is scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conser
vative and preeminently sane." Cloth, 12mo, $1.50 net; by mail $1.60
The History of New Testament
Times in Palestine
The initial volume in the series of "New Testament Handbooks," edited
by Dr. Mathews. New Edition. Cloth, 12mo, $1.00 net; by mail, $1.10

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York

3 9002 05106 7'