SECOND PART. HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. CHAPTER L RELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. § 44. CHEONOLOGICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN JOHN AND JESUS. FOE the ministry of John the Baptist, mentioned in all the Gospels, the second and fourth evangelists fix no epoch; the first gives us an inexact one; the third, one apparently precise. Accord- ing to Matt. iii. 1. John appeared as a preacher of repentance, in. those dans, EV rcTiv; fj^epai-g siceivaK;, that is, if we interpret strictly this reference to the previous narrative, about the time when the parents of Jesus settled at Nazareth, and when Jesus was yet a child. We are told, however, in the context, that Jesus came to John for baptism; hence between the first appearance of the Baptist, which was cotemporary with the childhood of Jesus, and the period at which the latter was baptized, we must intercalculate a number of years, during which Jesus might have become sufficiently matured to partake of John's baptism. But Matthew's description of the person and work of the Baptist is so concise, the office attributed to him is so little independent, so entirely subservient to that of Jesus, that it was certainly not the intention of the evangelist to assign a long series of years to his single ministry. His meaning incontest- ably is, that John's short career early attained its goal in the bap- tism of Jesus. It being thus inadmissible to suppose between the appearance of John and the baptism of Jesus, that is, between verses 12 and 13 of the 3rd chapter of Matthew, the long interval which is in every case indispensable, nothing remains but to insert it between the close of the second and the beginning of the third chapter, namely, between the settlement of the parents of Jesus at Nazareth and the appearance of the Baptist. To this end we may presume, with Paulus, tliat Matthew has here introduced a fragment from a history of the Baptist, narrating many particulars of his life immedi- 210 THE LIFE OF JESUS. with the words, in those days, KV T(W? fnispaif sitstva^, which con- necting phrase Matthew, although he omitted that to which it refer- red, lias nevertheless retained ;* or we may, witli Sfiskind, apply the words, not to the settlement, but to tlic subsequent residence of Jesus at Nazareth ;f or better still, ev rate; ruiKpaic; enelvaic;, like the corresponding Hebrew expression, Wl o'1'?^? e. g., Exod. ii. 11. is probably to be interpreted as relating indeed to the establishment at Nazareth, but so that an event happening thirty years afterwards may yet be said, speaking indefinitely, to occur in those days.^ In neither case do we learn from Matthew concerning the time of John's appearance more than the, very vague information, tliat it took place in the interval between the infancy and manhood of Jesus. Luke determines tlie date of John's appearance by various syn- chronisms, placing it in the time of Pilate's government in Judea; in the sovereignty of Herod (Antipas), of Philip and of Lysanias over the other divisions of Palestine ; in the high priesthood of Annas and Gaiaphas ; and, moreover, precisely in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, which, reckoning from the death of Augustus, corresponds with the year 28-29 of our era§ (iii. 1. 2). With this last and closest demarcation of time all tlie foregoing less precise .ones agree. Even that which makes Annas high priest together witli Caiaplias appears correct, if we consider the peculiar influence which, according to John xviii. 13. Acts iv. 6., that ex-liigh priest retained, even when deposed, especially after the assumption of •office by his son-in-law, Caiaphas. A single exception occurs in the statement about Lysanias, whom Luke makes cotemporary with Antipas and Pliilip as tetrarch of Abilene. Josephus, it is true, speaks of an 'A)3(Aa T] Avaaviov, and mentions a Lysanias as governor of Clialcis in Lebanon, near to which lay the territory of Abila ; so that the same Lvsanias was probably master of the latter. But this Lysanias was, at the insti- gation of Cleopatra, put to death 34 years before tlie birth of Christ, and a second Lysanias is not mentioned either by Josephus, or by any other writer on tlie period in question. || Tlius, not only is tlie time of his government earlier by 60 years than tlie loth year of Tiberius, but it is also at, issue with tlie other dates associated with it by Luke. Hence it has been conjectured that Luke here speaks of a younger Lysanias, the descendant of the earlier one, wlio pos- sessed Abilene under Tiberius, but who, being less famous, is not noticed by Josephus.^ We cannot indeed prove what Saskind * Exeget. Handbuch. 1, a, S. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, iiber den Ur- aprung des ersten kanon. Evang. S. 30. ^ Vermisehte Aufsafcze, S. 76 ft'. Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup. ^ Ue Wette and Fril.zsche, in loc. § See Paulus, ut sup. 336. || I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysaniaa, with the parallel pas- sages in Dio Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8-Aiitiq. xv. iv. 1, B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 33). Antiq. xv. x. 1-3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii. xi. 4. B.j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix. S) Antiq. xix. v. 1. B i. ii. xi. 5. AntiiX'i,n~ov-rsrpap^ovv-og T?^ 'IrovpatcK;, K. r. X., and wlien it follows: nal Avaaviov rrjr; 'A;3(/b;r?)c Terpap^ovvroy : we cannot possibly understand from this, that Philip reigned also over the Abilene of Lysanias. Por in that case tlie word re-pap^owroc ought not to have been repeated,^ and rij<; ouglit to have been placed before Lysanias, if tlie author wished to avoid misconstruction. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the writer himself erred, and, from tlie circumstance that Abilene, even in recent times, was called, after tlie last ruler of the former dynasty, f] Avaaviov, drew the in- ference tliat a monarch of that name was still existing; wliile, in fact, Abilene either belonged to Pliilip, or was immediately subject to tlie E,omans.§ The above chronological notation relates directly to John the Baptist alone; a similar one is wanting wlien Luke begins farther on (v. 21 ff.) to speak of Jesus. Of him it is merely said tliat he was about thirty years of age, masi er&v -pidnovra, on his public appearance, (dp^Ojuevo?), but 'no date is given; while, in tlie case of John, there is a contrary omission. Thus even if John commenced his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius, we cannot thence gatlier anything as to the time when Jesus commenced his, as it is nowhere said how long John liad been baptizing wlien Jesus came to him on tlie Jordan; wliile on the other hand, although we know that Jesus, at his baptism, was about 30 years old, this does not help us to ascertain the age of John wlien he entered on his ministry as Baptist. Remembering, however, Luke i. 26, according to which John was just half a year older than Jesus, and calling to our aid * Tlioluck thinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 43 (A. D. 17), mentions the death of an Arehelaus, king of Cap- podocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A. D. 36), cites an Archelans, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clittie, the same historical conjecture, says Tholuck, is necessary, viz. that there •were two Cappadocians named Arehelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two suc- cessive persons; a conjecture so much the less historial, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers "would have been siient respecting the second of the like- named men, had such an one existed. •}• Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann's und Umlireit's Studien, 1833, 4. Heft. S. 1036 ff. Tholuck, S. 201 ff. t For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erasp, with Schneckenburger and others, the secend vsTpap^ovvrof, is too evident violence. § Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit, Zt-cr ]R(l:-t \n Sll « r.KO. n- W,,**- -.-- tr...,.ll..._l. :-1»., 212 THE LIFE OF JESU8. the fact tliat Jewish usage •would, scarcely permit the exercise of public functions before the thirtieth year, we miglit infer that the Baptist could only have appeared half a year before the arrival of Jesus on the banks of the Jordan, since he would only so much earlier have attained the requisite age. But no express law forbade a public appearance previous to the thirtieth year; and it has been justly questioned whether we can apply to the freer office of a Prophet a restriction which concerned the Priests and Levites, for whom the thirtieth year was fixed for tlieir entrance on regular service* (Num. iv. 3. 47. Compare besides 2 Chron. xxxi. 17. where the 20th year is named). This then would not hinder us from placing the appearance of Jolin considerably prior to that of Jesus, even pre- supposing the averred relation between their ages. Hardly, how- ever, could tills be the intention of the Evangelist. For to ascertain so carefully tlie date of the Forerunner's appearance, and leave that of the Messiah himself undetermined, would be too great an over- sight,! and we cannot but suppose that his design, in the particulars he gives concerning John, was to fix the time for the appearance of Jesus. To agree with this purpose, he must have understood that Jesus came to the banks of tlie Jordan and began to teach, shortly after the appearance of John.} For that the above chronological determination was originally merely the introduction to a document concerning John, quoted by Luke, is improbable, since its exactness corresponds with the style of him who had perfect understanding of alt things from the very first, •napi]iio'^.ovQi]K6-i avuOev •KOOIV wpipSx;, and who souglit to determine, in like manner, tlie epoch of the Messiah's birth. It is not easy, however, to imagine, in accordance with this statement, that John was by so little the predecessor of Jesus, nor is it without reason that tlie improbability of his having had so short an agency is maintained. For he had. a considerable number of disciples, wliom he not only baptized but taught (Luke xi. 1.), and he left behind a party of his peculiar followers (Acts xviii. 25. xix. 3.), all which could hardly be the work of a few months. There needed time, it lias been observed, for the Baptist to become so well known, that people would undertake a journey to him in the wilder- ness ; there needed time for his doctrine to be comprehended, time for it to gain a footing and establish itself, especially as it clashed with the current Jewish ideas; in a word, the deep and lasting vener- ation in which John was held by his nation, according to Josephus § as well as the evangelists, could not have been so hastily won.jj But the foregoing considerations, although they demand, in gen- eral, a longer agency for the Baptist, do not prove tliat the evange- lists err in placing the commencement of his ministry shortly before * See Paulus, S. 294. f See Schleiermacher, ilber den Lulsas, S. 62. :{ Bengel waa also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, S. 204 f. ed. 2. § Antiq. xviii. v, 2, || So Clu- diua, ubcr die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesiii In Ueuke's Museum, iii iii, RELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 213 that of Jesus, since they might suppose the required prolongation as a sequel, instead of an introduction, to the appearance of Jesus. Such a prolongation of the Baptist's ministry, however, is not to be found, at least in the first two Gospels; for not only do these con- tain no details concerning John, after the baptism of Jesus, except his sending two disciples (Matt. xi.), wliich is represented as a con- sequence of his imprisonment; but we gather from Matt. iv. 12. Mark i. 14. tliat during or shortly after the forty days' abode of Jesus in the wilderness, the Baptist was arrested, and thereupon Jesus went into Galilee, and entered on his public career. Luke, it is true, (iv. 14.) does not mention the imprisonment of Jolm as the cause of the appearance of Jesus in G-alilee, and he seems to regard the commission of the two disciples as occurring while John was at large (vii. 18 ff.); and the fourth Evangelist testifies yet more decisively against the notion that Jolm was arrested so soon after the baptism of Jesus : for in cliap. iii. 24. it is expressly stated, that John was actively engaged in his ministry after tlie first pass- over, attended by Jesus during his public life. But on the one hand, as it appears from Luke ix. 9. Matt. xiv. 1 ff. Mark xiv. 16. that John was put to death long before Jesus, tlie continuance of his agency after the rise of the latter could not be very protracted (Luke ix. 9. Matt. xiv. 1 ff. Mark xiv. 16.); and on tlie other, that which may be added to the agency of John after tlie appearance of Jesus, will not make amends for that which is subtracted from it before that epocli. For, apart from the tact implied by the fourth Evangelist (i. 35.) tliat the Baptist liad formed a definite circle of familiar disciples before the appearance of Jesus, it would be diffi- cult to account for the firm footing acquired by his scliool, if he liad laboured only a few months, to be, at their close, eclipsed by Jesus. There is yet one resource, namely, to separate the baptism of Jesus from the commencement of his ministry, and to say: It was indeed after the first half year of John's agency that Jesus was so attracted by his fame, as to become a candidate for his baptism; but for some time subsequently, he eitlier remained among tlie fol- lowers of the Baptist, or went again into retirement, and did not present himself independently until a considerable interval had elapsed. By this means we should obtain the requisite extension of John's ministry prior to the more brilliant career of Jesus, with- out impugning the apparent statement of our evangelists that the baptism of Jesus followed close upon the public appearance of Jolm. But the idea of a long interim, between tlie baptism of Jesus and the commencement of Ills ministry, is utterly foreign to tlie ]Sew Testament writers. For tliat they regard tlie baptism of Jesus as his consecration to the Messianic office, is proved by tlie accompany- ing descent of tlie spirit and the voice from heaven; the only pause wliich they allow to intervene, is the six weeks' last in the wilder- ness, immediately after wliich, according to Luke, or after tlie ap- ______1 , " , i« . 1 7^ ^ • . T . -»«-.,1 214 THE LIFE OF JESUS. and Mark, Jesus, appears in Galilee. Luke, in particular, by de- signating (iii. 23.) the baptism of Jesus as his dp^Ea6ai, his assump- tion of office, and by dating the intercourse of Jesus witli his disciples from the pdnriap.a '\wvvav (Acts i. 22.), evinces his persuasion that the baptism and public manifestation of Jesus were identical. Tlius the gospel narrative is an obstacle to the adoption of tlie two most plausible expedients for tlie prolongation of John's minis- try, viz., that Jesus presented liimself for baptism later, or that his public appearance was retarded longer after his baptism, than has been generally inferred. We are not, however, compelled to re- nounce either of these suppositions, if we can show that the New Testament writers miglit have been led to their point of view even without historical grounds. A sufficient motive lies close at hand, and is implied in tlie foregoing observations. Let the Baptist once be considered, as was the case in the Christian church (Acts xix. 4.), not a person of independent significance, but simply a Forerunner of the Christ; and the imagination would not linger with tlie mere Precursor, but would hasten forward to tlie object at which he pointed. Yet more obvious is tlie interest which primitive Christian tradition must have had in excluding, whatever might have beeii the fact, any interval between the baptism of Jeeus and the begin- ning of Ills public course. For to allow tliat Jesus, by his submis- sion to John's baptism, declared himself his disciple, and remained in that relation for any length of time, was offensive to the religious sentiment of tlie new church, which desired a Founder instructed by God, and not by man: another turn, therefore, would soon be given to the facts, and tlie baptism of Jesus would be lield to signify, not his initiation into tlie school of Jolm, but a consecration to his in- dependent office. Thus the diverging testimony of the evangelists does not preclude our adopting tlie conclusion to wliich the nature of tlie case leads us; viz., that tlie Baptist had been long labouring, anterior to the appearance of Jesus. If, in addition to tills, we accept tlie statement of Luke (i. 26. and iii. 23.), that Jesus, being only half a year younger tlian Jolin, •was about in his thirtieth year ht his appearance, we must suppose that Jolin was in his twentieth year wlien be began his ministry. There is, as we have seen, no express law against so early an exer- cise of the prophetic office; neither do I, so decidedly as Cludius*, hold it improbable that so young a preacher of repentance should make an impression, or even that lie should be taken for a propliet of the olden time-an Elias; I will only appeal to tlie ordinary course of tilings as a sanction for presuming, tliat one who entered so much earlier upon tlie scene of action was proportionately older, especially wlien tlie principles and spirit of his teaching tell so plainly of a mature age as do tlie discourses of John. There are exceptions to this rule; but the statement of Luke (i. 26.), tliat John was only six months older than Jesus, is insufficient to establish one in tins DELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 215 instance, as it accords with the interest of the poetical legend, and must therefore be renounced for the slightest .improbability. The result then of our critique on the chronological data Luke iii. 1. 2. comp. 23. and i. 26. is this: if Jesus, as Luke seems to understand, appeared in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, tlie appear- ance of John occurred, not in the same year, but earlier; and if Jesus was in his thirtieth year when he began his ministry, the Baptist, so much his predecessor, could hardly be but six months his senior. § 45. APPEARANCE AND DESIGN OF THE BAPTIST-HIS PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH JESUS. JOHN, a Nazarite, according to our authorities (Matt. iii. 4. ix. 14. xi. 18. Luke i. 15.), and in the opinion of several theologians,* an Essene, is said by Luke (iii. 2.) to have been summoned to his public work by the word of God p'^a Oeov, which came to him in the wilderness. Not possessing tlie Baptist's own declaration, we cannot accept as complete the dilemma stated by Paulus,f when he says, that we know not whether Jolin himself interpreted some ex- ternal or internal fact as a divine call, or whether he received a sum- mons from another individual; and we must add as a third possibil- ity, that his followers sought to dignify the vocation of their Teacher by an expression which recalls to mind the ancient Prophets. While from tlie account of Luke it appears that the divine call came to John in the wilderness, ev ry ep^y, but that for the pur- pose of teaching and baptizing he resorted to the country about Jordan, mpi^upog rov 'lopSuvov (ver. 3.); Matthew (iii. ff.) makes the wilderness of Judea the scene of his labours, as if the Jordan in which he baptized flowed through that wilderness. It is true that, according to Joseplms, tlie Jordan before emptying itself into the Dead Sea traverses a great wilderness, VO\\T(V Kprifiiav,^ but this was not the wilderness of Judea, wliich lay farther south. § Hence it has been supposed that Matthew, misled by his application of the prophecy, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, (f>wvfj ftoGivTog ev ry ep^y, to John, who issued from the wilderness of Judea, epypog rf^ 'lovSaiaS, placed there his labours as a preacher of repent- ance and a baptizer, although their true scene was tlie blooming valley of tlie Jordan. || In the course of Luke's narrative, however, this evangelist ceases to intimate that John forsook the wilderness after receiving his call, for on the occasion of John's message to Jesus, he makes the latter ask, Whom went ye out into the, wilderness to see ? 61 E^rftvOare EM- TT]V ep^ov OsdvaaOal (vii. 24.). Now as the * Stiiudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, S. 580. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1 a & 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, S. 413 ff. f Ut sup. p. 347. f Bril. jud' iii. x. 7. § See Winer, bibl. Kealworterbuch, A. Waste. Schneckenburger, uber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, S. 39. -la c ' j| Schneckenburger, ut sup. S. 216 THE LIFE Of JESUS. vallev of the Jordan in the vicinity of the Dead Sea was in fact a barren plain, the narrow margin of the river excepted, no greater mistake may belong to Matthew than that of specifying the wilder- ness as tlie eprifzoi; T'/JC 'lov6aiai;; and even that may be explained away by the supposition, either that John, as lie alternately preached and baptized, passed from the wilderness of Judea to the borders of the Jordan,* or that the waste tract through which that river flowed, being a continuation of the wilderness of Judea, retained the same name.f The baptism of John could scarcely have been derived from the baptism of proselytes, f for this rite was unquestionably posterior to the rise of Christianity. It was more analogous to the religious lustrations in practice amongst the Jews, especially the Essenes, and was apparently founded chiefly on certain expressions used by several of the prophets in a figurative sense, but afterwards under- stood literally. According to these expressions, God requires from the Israelitish people, as a condition of their restoration to his favour, a washing and purification from their iniquity, and lie promises that he will himself cleanse them with water (Isa. i. 16. Ez. xxxvi. 25. comp. Jer. ii. 22). Add to this tlie Jewish notion that the Messiah would not appear with his kingdom until the Israelites repented, § and we have the combination necessary for the belief that an ablu- tion, symbolical of conversion and forgiveness of sins, must precede the advent of the Messiah. Our accounts are not unanimous as to the signification of John's baptism. They all, it is true, agree in stating repentance, iiETavoia, to be one of its essential requirements; for even what Josephus says of the Baptist, that lie admonished tlie Jews, practising virtue, just towards each other, and devout towards G-od, to come to his baptism, ^perfjv eTTaunovvrw;, ical ~y TTpog d.AA'qX,ov(; Sinaioavv-y nal npof rov Oeov evasQeia ^pufisvovi; paT!Tiap,w avvisvcn, [| lias the same sense under a Greek form. Mark and Luke, however, while designating the baptism of John ftdrrTiafia fieravoia^, add, £({• aeaiv dfiapTt.&v (i. 4. in. 3). Matthew has not the same addition; but he, with Mark, describes the baptized as confessing their sins, ^o^oXo-yovfievoi. rag apapria^ avruv (iii. 6.) Joseplius, on tlie other hand, appears in direct contradiction to them, when he gives it as the opinion of the Baptist, that baptism is pleasing to G-od, not when we ask pardon for some transgressions, but when we pzirify the body, after hav- ing first purified the mind by righteousness, ovw yap not. TT]V PanTt.ai.v aToSeitrrfv avru h-u Oecfi) ^avcZo-Odi, pj E-TI rivuv a^apTd'^uv wapaTriaei %pu^e.vuv, d/U' s(j)' ayveia rov o&ya-oc, are. Sfj Kal rr^ ^v^ SiKaioavvg •npwKKenaQapy.svr^. We might here be led to the suppo- sition that tlie words for the remission of sins, ei? d^eaiv af.i.ap-Mv, as in Acts ii. 38. and other passages, was commonly used in relation * Winer, ut sup. S. G31. f Paulus, ut sup. S. 301. t Scliiieckenburger, uher das Alter der Jii]|isi:lii;a l'rosi;lytentaut'c. §. Sanhcdr. f. xcvii. 3 : R. Elleser d'uit: si Isra'e- litm vamttntiam anunf. tune un- Co'eirm Uberitntu.r; sin vero, noil liberantur. Schottgen, RELATIONS BETWEEN JiSSUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 217 to Christian baptism, and was thence transferred unhistorically to that of John; but as in the passages quoted from Ezekiel the wash- ing typified not only reformation but forgiveness, the probabilities are in favour of the evangelical statement. Moreover, it is possible to reconcile Josephus and tlie Evangelists, by understanding the words of the former to mean that the baptism of John was intended to effect a purification, not from particular or merely Levitical trans- gressions, but of the entire man, not immediately and mysteriously through the agency of water, but by means of tlie moral acts of ref- ormation.* The several accounts concerning John are farther at variance, as to the relation in which they place his baptism to the kingdom of heaven, ftawrjeia TUV ovpavuv. According to Matthew, the concise purport of the appeal with which he accompanied his baptism was, JSepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, p-eravoelTe rjyyuce yap T[ paoiXsia r&v ovpavwv (iii. 2.) ; according to Luke, the Baptist in the first instance mentions only repentance and remission of sins, but no kingdom of heaven; and it is the conjecture of the people, that he might be the Messiah, by which he is first led to direct them to one wlio was coming after him (iii. 15 ft.). In Josephus, there is no trace of a relation between the ministry of John and the Messianic idea. Yet. we must not therefore conclude that the Baptist himself recognized no such relation, and that its only source was the Chris- tian legend. Tor the baptism of John, waiving the opinion that it was derived from tlie baptism of proselytes, is not quite explicable without a reference to the above-mentioned expiatory lustrations of the people-lustrations which were to usher in tlie times of the Mes- siah ; moreover, the appearance of Jesus is made more comprehen- sible by the supposition, that John had introduced the idea of the proximity of the Messiah's kingdom. That Josephus should keep back the Messianic aspect of tlie fact, is in accordance with his gen- eral practice, which is explained by the position of his people with respect to the Romans. Besides, in the expression, to assemble for baptism, pcnTTia{zu avvieval, in his mention of popular assemblages, avarpe^eiyOal, and in the fear of Antipas lest John should excite a revolt, dTroorao-t?, there lies an intimation of precisely such a religious and political movement as the liopc of the Messiah was calculated to produce. That the Baptist should so distinctly foretell the im- mediate appearance of the Messiah's kingdom must create surprise, and (Luke's reference to a divine call and revelation being held un- satisfactory) might lead to the supposition that the Christian nar- rator, believing that the true Messiah was actually manifested in the person of Jesus, the cotemporary of John, gave to the language of the latter a definiteness which did not belong to it originally; and wliile tlie Baptist merely said, consonantly with tlie Jewish notion already mentioned: Repent, that the kingdom of heaven may come, ueravoelTe, 'iya ^6y T] f3aa. r. ovp., a later edition of bis words gave 218 THE LIFE OF JESUS. yap (for) instead of Iva (thaf). But such a supposition is needless. In tliose times of commotion, John'might easily believe that he dis- cerned signs, which certified to him the proximity of the Messiah's kingdom ; the exact degree of its proximity he left undecided. According to tlie Evangelists, the coming of the kingdom of heaven, paai^sia r&v ovpavuv, -was associated by John with a Mes- sianic individual to whom he ascribed, in distinction from his own baptism with water, a baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire, ftaTTT^eiv TTvev^art. dyw nal -n-vpl (Matt. iii. 11. paralL), the outpour- ing of the Holy Spirit being regarded as a leading feature of the Messianic times (Joel ii. 28; Acts ii. 16 ff.) Of this personage lie farther predicted, in imagery akin to that used by the prophets on the same subject, that he would winnow the people as wheat (Mal. iii. 2, 3. Zecli. xiii. 9.). The Synoptical Gospels state tlie case as if John expressly understood this Messianic individual to be Je- sus of Nazareth. According to Luke, indeed, the mothers of these two men were cousins, and aware of the destination of their sons. The Baptist while yet unborn acknowledged the divinity of Jesus, and all the circumstances imply that both were early acquainted with their relative position, predetermined by a lieavenly communi- cation. Mattliew, it is true, says nothing of such a family connexion between John and Jesus; but when the latter presents himself for baptism, lie puts into the mouth of John words which seem to pre- suppose an earlier acquaintance. His expression of astonishment that Jesus should come to him for baptism, when he had need to be baptized of Jesus, could only arise from a previous knowledge or instantaneous revelation of his character. Of the latter there is no intimation ; for the first visible sign of the Messiahship of Jesus did not occur till afterwards. While in the first and third Gospels (in the second, tlie facts are so epitomized that the writers view on the subject is not evident), John and Jesus seem to have been no stran- gers to each other prior to the baptism; in the fourth, the Baptist pointedly asserts that he knew not Jesus before the heavenly ap- pearance, which, according to the Synoptical Gospels, was coincident with l)is baptism (i. 31, 33.). Simply considered, this looks like a contradiction. By Luke, the previous acquaintance of tlie two is stated objectively, as an external matter of fact; by Mattliew, it is betrayed in the involuntary confession of the astonished Baptist; in tlie fourth Gospel, on tlie contrary, their previous unacqnaintance is attested subjectively, by his premeditated assertion. It was not, therefore, a ve'"' farfetched idea of the Wolfenbiittel fragmentist, to put down the contradiction to tlie account of John and Jesus, and to presume that they had in fact long known and consulted each other, but tliat in public (in order better to play into one another's hands) they demeaned themselves as if they had hitherto been mut- ual strangers, and each delivered an unbiassed testimony to the other's excellence.* * T^r.-li-rmpTit vnn ^PTTI Zwprltfl .Tftan nnd apinor Jfinnw hornnawoCT EELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 219 That such premeditated dissimulation might not be imputed to John, and indirectly to Jesus, it has been sought to disprove the existence of the contradiction in question exegetically. What John learned from the heavenly sign was the Messiahship of Jesus; to this therefore, and not to his person, refer the words, I knew him not, aayu OVK •y6eiv avrbv* But it may be questioned whether sucli an acquaintance as John must have had with Jesus, presupposing the narrative of Matthew and Luke, was separable from a knowledge of his Messiahship. The connexion and intercourse of the two fam- ilies, as described by Luke, would render it impossible for John not to be early informed how solemnly Jesus had been announced as the Messiah, before and at his birth: he could not therefore say at a later period that, prior to the sign from heaven, he liad not known, but only that he had not believed, the story of former wonders, one of which relates to himself.f It being thus unavoidable to acknowl- edge that by the above declaration in tlie fourth Gospel, the Baptist is excluded, not only from a knowledge of tlie Messiahship of Je- sus,. but also from a personal acquaintance with him ; it has been attempted to reconcile the first chapter of Luke with this ignorance, by appealing to the distance of residence between the two families, as a preventive to tlie continuance of their intercourse. :j: But if the journey from Nazareth to the hill country of Judea was not too formidable for the betrothed Mary, how could it be so for tlie two sons when ripening to maturity? What culpable indifference is hereby supposed in both families to tlie heavenly communications they had received! nay, what could be the object of those communi- cations, if they had no influence on the early life and intercourse of the two sons?§ Let it be granted that the fourth gospel excludes an acquaintance witli the Messiahship only of Jesus, and tliat the tliird presupposes an acquaintance with his person only, on the part of John; still the contradiction is not removed. For in Matthew, John, when required to baptize Jesus, addresses him as if he knew him, not generally and personally alone, but specially, in his character of Messiah. It is true that the words: I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me ? (iii. 14.) have been interpreted, in the true spirit of harmonizing, as referring to the general superior excellence of Jesus, and not to his Messiahship. || But the right to undertake the baptism which was to prepare the way for the Messiali's king- * So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in 'oc.; t3 think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einfuhrang, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Kealworterb., 1, S, 691. f Let the reader judge for himself whether NeAnder's arguments be not forced : "Even if the Baptist could have expected" (say rather must necessarily have known) "from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testi- mony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance." p. 68. t Lucke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, S. 362. § Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for-keeping the two youths apart! S. 127. || Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, S. 117 f. Pau- 220 THE LIFE OP JESUS. dom, was not to be obtained by moral superiority in general, but was conferred by a special call, such as Jolin himself had received, and such as could belong only to a prophet, or to the Messiah and his Forerunner (John i. 19 ff.) If then John attributed to Jesus authority to baptize, he must have regarded him not merely as an excellent man, but as indubitably a prophet, nay, since he lield him worthy to baptize himself, as his own superior; that is, since John conceived himself to be the Messiah's Forerunner, no other than the Messiah himself. Add to this, that Matthew had just cited a discourse of tlie Baptist, in which he ascribes to the coming Mes- siah a baptism more powerful than his own; how then can we un- derstand his subsequent language towards Jesus otherwise than thus : "Of what use is my water baptism to tliee, 0 Messiah? Far more do I need thy baptism of the Spirit !"* The contradiction cannot be cleared away; we must therefore, if we would not lay the burthen of intentional deception on the agents, let the narrators bear the blame; and there will be the less hindrance to our doing so, the more obvious it is how one or both of them might be led into an erroneous statement. There is in the present case no obstacle to the reconciliation of Matthew with the fourth evangelist, farther than the words by which the Baptist seeks to deter Jesus from receiving baptism; words wliicli, if uttered be- fore the occurence of any thing supernatural, presuppose a knowl- edge of Jesus in his character of Messiah. Now the Gospel of the Hebrews, according to Epiplianius, places the entreaty of Jolin that Jesus would baptize him, as a sequel to the sign from heaven ;f and this account has been recently regarded as tlie original one, abridged by the writer of our first Gospel, who, for tlie sake of effect, made the refusal and confession of the Baptist coincident with tlie first approach of Jesus. ^ But that we have not in the Gospel of the Hebrews the. original form of the narrative, is sufficiently proved by its very tedious repetition of tlie heavenly voice and the diffuse style of the whole. It is rather a very traditional record, and tlie inser- tion of John's refusal after tlie sign and voice from heaven, was not made with the view of avoiding a contradiction of tlie fourth Gospel, which cannot be supposed to have been recognized in the circle of the Ebionite Christians, but from the very motive erroneously at- tributed to Matthew in his alleged transposition, namely, to give greater effect to the scene. A simple refusal on the part of the * Comp. the Fragmcntist, ut sup. •i" HaBres.xxx.l3: Ka; u{ u.vfi\9ev inro TOV VOQ.TOC, ^wi^ijcav o[ ovpavoc, Kai el^e TO Trvcv^a TOV QEOV TO uyLov ev elSei TTFptOTi.^uc K. T. /.. nal (^}(-)V7/ i^'kVKTO K. T. A. K(U ei'i3vc Trfc-ptE'/a^'e TOV TOTTOV ^(JC p-Eya' ov Mail', i^jaiv. u 'l^uz'wjt; ^yyt arnJ ov Tit; u. Kvpie ; K(U •Ku\,iv f^wrJ a. r. ^.. Kal Tore, ^rjaiv, o '\ua.vv'f]c 7rffpan"£(Tti)V avT^ ^sys &£0^ai aov KvfW, ai' ^s /5a7rncw. And vhen he came J'roin the water, the heav- ens u'ere opened, and Ac --saw the holy spirit (if God in the form of a doi'e, ra 'epya TOV Xpicn-ov, K. T. A,. It might then be conceived, that John had indeed been convinced, at a former period, of the Messiahship of Jesus ; now, however, in his imprisonment, the works of Jesus --_„ „„ i^^.^ +„ i,;a para. and imaErinina: him inactive, he was as- EELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 225 sailed with doubt. But had John been previously satisfied of the Messiahship of Jesus, the mere want of acquaintance with his mira- cles could not have unhinged his faith. The actual cause of John's doubt, however, was the report of these miracles;-a state of the case which is irreconcileable with any previous confidence. Bat how could he become uncertain about tlie Messiahship of Jesus, if he had never recognized it ? Not indeed in. the sense of beginning to suspect that Jesus was not the Messiah; but quite possibly in the sense of beginning to conjecture that a man of such deeds was the Messiah. We have here, not a decaying, but a growing certainty, and. this discrimination tlirows light on tlie whole purport of the passages in question. John knew nothing of Jesus before, but that he had, like many others, partaken of his baptism, and perhaps frequented the circle of his disciples ; and not until after tlie imprisonment of the Baptist did Jesus appear as a teacher, and worker of miracles. Of this John heard, and then arose in his mind a conjecture, fraught with hope, that as he had announced the proximity of the Messiah's kingdom, this Jesus miglit be he wlio would verify his idea.* So interpreted, this message of the Baptist excludes his previous testi- mony ; if lie had so spoken formerly, he could not have so inquired latterly, and vice versa. It is our task, therefore, to compare the two contradictory statements, that we may ascertain which has more traces than tlie other, of truth or untruth. The most definite expressions of John's conviction that Jes.us was the Messiah are found in the fourth Gospel, and these suggest two distinct questions: first, whether it be conceivable that John had such a notion of the Messiah as is therein contained; and, secondly, whether it be probable that he believed it realized in the person of Jesus. With respect to the former, the fourth Gospel makes the Bap- tist's idea of the Messiah include the characteristics of expiatory suffering, and of a premundane, heavenly existence. It has been attempted, indeed, so to interpret the expressions with which he directs his disciples to Jesus, aa to efface tlie notion of expiatory suffering. Jesus, we are told, is compared to a lamb on account of his meekness and patience; alpeiv Tffv ayLapnav TOV nooy.ov, is to be understood either of a patient endurance of the world's malice, or of an endeavour to remove the sins of the world by reformins; it; and tlie sense of the Baptist's words is this: "How moving is it that this meek and gentle Jesus should have undertaken so difficult and painful an office !"f But the best critics have shown that even * The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist, of coarse understood the question to express doubt, whence probably v. 6 (Matt.) and v. 23 (Luke) came in this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest another conjecture ; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence of corporeal ones. The UKOvaas TU Spya T, X, must then be set down to the writer's misapprehension of the es- THE LIFE OF JESUS. 226 if alpeiv by itself might; bear this interpretation, still c/ivb?, not merely with the article but with the addition rov QEOV, must signify, not a Iamb in general, but a special, holy Lamb; and if, as is most probable, this designation has reference to Isai. liii. 7., a'ipsi-v rf]v djiaprlav can only be expounded by wliat is there predicated of tlie lamblike servant of God, that he Tag apapriac; •r\\iw> (pepsi, nal •n-Epi •qfJi&v oSwarai (V. 4, LXX.), words which must signify vicarious suffering.* Now that tlie Baptist should have referred the above prophetic passage to the Messiah, and hence liave thought of him as suffering, lias been recently held more than doubtful. + For so foreign to the current opinion, at least, was this notion of tlie Messiah, that tlie disciples of Jesus, during the wliole period of their intercourse with him, could not reconcile them selves to it; and. wlien his death had actually resulted, their trust in him as the Messiah was utterly confounded (Luke xxiv. 20 ff.). How, then, could the Baptist, who, according to tlie solemn declaration of Jesus, Matt. xi. 11., confirmed by the allusions in the Gospels to his strict ascetic life, ranked below the least in tlie kingdom of heaven, to which the apostles already belonged-how could this alien discern, long before tlie sufferings of Jesus, that they pertained to the character of the Messiah, when the denizens were only taught the same lesson by tlie issue ? Or, if the Baptist really had sucli in- sight, and communicated it to his disciples, wliy did it not, by means of those wlio left his circle for that of Jesus, win an entrance into the latter-nay, why did it not, by means of the great credit which John enjoyed, mitigate the offence caused by tlie death of Jesus, in tlie public at large ?f Add to this, that in none of our accounts of the Baptist, with the exception of the fourth Gospel, do we find that he entertained such views of the Messiah's character; for, not to mention Josephus, the Synoptical Gospels confine his representa- tion of the Messianic office to the spiritual baptism and winnowing of the people. Still it remains possible that a penetrating mind, like that of the Baptist, might, even before tlie death of Jesus, gather from Old Testament- phrases and types tlie notion of a suf- fering Messiah, and that his obscure hints on the subject might not be comprehended by his disciples and cotemporaries. Thus the above considerations are not decisive, and we there- fore turn to tlie expressions concerning tlie pi-cmundane existence and heavenly origin of tlie Messiah, with the question: Could the Baptist have really held such tenets ? That from tlie words, John i. 15, 27, 30: He that cmneth after m£ is preferred before me.; for /ie was before me, 6 o-iau p.ov ep^opevot; 'EpTTpoaOiv p.ov yeyovev, STI vpuTog [tov iyVy notliing but dogmatical obstinacy can banish the notion of pre-existence, is seen by a mere glance at such expositions as this of Paulus: "He wlio in the course of time comes after me; • De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol, S. 77 ft. Lucke, Comm. -"~ If.,,. .LA. 1 s. .1.17 ff. Winar. liilil. Kealworterbuch 1, S, 693, Anm, •{• Gabler nail RELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 227 has so appeared in my eyes, ^irpoaQiv fwv, that he (Sri-uare, premiss-conclusion!) deserves rather from his rank and character to be called the-first."* With preponderating arguments more un- prejudiced commentators have maintained, that the reason here given why Jesus, wlio appeared after tlie Baptist in point of time, liad the precedence of him in dignity, is tlie pre-existence of tlie former. + We have here obviously the favourite dogma of the fourth evangelist, the eternal pre-existence of the /loyoc, present indeed to tlie mind of tliat writer, who liad just been inditing his proem, but that it was also present to tlie mind of tlie Baptist is another ques- tion. The most recent expositor allows that the sense in which the evangelist intends r^puToi; ^wv, must have been very remote from the Baptist's point of view, at least so far as the ^.oyot; is concerned. Tlie Baptist, he thinks, Iield tlie popular Jewish notion of the pre- existence of tlie Mcssiali, as the subject of tlie Old Testament theoplianies.t There are traces of this Jewish notion in the writings of Paul (e. g. 1 Cor. x. 4. Col. i. 15 f.) and tlie rabbins ;§ and allowing tliat it was of Alexandrian origin, as Bretschneider argues, || we may yet ask whether even before tlie time of Christ, the Alexan- drian-Judaic theology may not have modified the opinions of the mother country ?^ Even these expressions then, taken alone, are not conclusive, altliougli it begins to appear suspicious that tlie Baptist, otherwise conspicuous for exhibiting the practical side of the idea of tlie Messiali's kingdom, should have ascribed to him by the fourth evangelist solely, two notions which at tliat time undoubtedly belonged only to tlie deepest messianic speculations; and tliat tlie form in which tliose notions are expressed is too peculiarly that of the writer, not to be put to his account. We arrive at a more decisive result by taking into examination the passage John iii. 27-36, where Jolin replies to the complaints of his disciples at the rival baptism of Jesus, in a way that reduces all commentators to perplexity. After showing how it lay at the foundation of their respective destinies, which he desired not to overstep, tliat he must decrease, while Jesus must increase, he proceeds (ver. 31) to use forms of expression precisely similar to those in which tlie evangelist makes Jesus speak of himself, and in winch he delivers his own thoughts concerning Jesus. Our most recent, commentator** allows that this discourse of John seems tlie eclio of tlie foregoing conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.ft * Parlus, Leben Jesu, 2, a, die Uebers. S. 29. 31. f Tholuck and Luke, in loc, ^ Lucke, ut sup. § See Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum Jesu apostolorumque sctate, § '23-26. [I Prol.aLilia, p.-11, ^ See Gfrorer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180. ** Lucke, ut sup. p. 500. ft Compare especially : Job. iii, 11 (Jesu to Xicodemus): ufit/v, "W, ic.'yu O«M, on o a'tSa/.iev, ^.a?.ovftfv Kal o supu.it.a/.iev, ftaprvpovfisv- nal TT/V p.apTvplav Joh. iii. 33 (the Baptist): Kal 6 tupanc aw. i}Kovae, TOVTO /.taprvpcl iT(U OTf W 3T&- THE LIFE OF JESUS. 228 The expressions in the speech lent to the Baptist are peculiarly those of the apostle John; for instance, afpayi^m (to seal), papTVpia (testimony), the antithesis of dvwOev and EK. T^ •ygc (from above and of the earth), the phrase t'^etv ^wqv aluvwv (to have eternal life); and. the question presents itself: Is it more probable tliat the evangelist, as well as Jesus, in whose mouth these expressions are so often put, borrowed them from tlie Baptist, or that the evangelist lent them (I will only at present say) to the latter ? This must be decided by the fact that the ideas, to which the Baptist here gives utterance, lie entirely within the domain of Christianity, and belong specially to the Christianity of the apostle John. Take for example that antithesis of avu (from above), and EK -rg<- y^ (of the earth), the designation of Jesus as aruOev epXoftevo^ (lie that cometh from above), as 'ov aveorei.Xs.v b Qeb(; (he -whom God had sent), who con- sequently TO. p^-tara rov QEOV XaXsl (speaketh the words of God), tlie relation of Jesus to God as the vwc; (son), whom 6 Tra-ffp dya-ro (the Father loveth):-what can be characteristic of Christianity, and of the Apostle John's mode of presenting it, if these ideas are not so ? and could they belong to the Baptist ? Christianismits ante Christum! And then, as Olshauscn well observes,* is it consistent for John, who, even on the fourth evangelist's own show- ing, remained separate from Jesus, to speak of the blessedness of a believing union with him ? (v. 33 and 36.) Thus much then is certain, and lias been acknowledged by the majority of modern commentators: tlie words v. 31-36, cannot have been spoken by the Baptist. Hence theologians have con- cluded, that the evangelist cannot have intended to ascribe them to him, but from v. 31 speaks in his own person."|' This sounds plausible, if they can only point out any mark of division between the discourse of the Baptist and the addenda of the evangelist. But none such is to be found. It is true that the speaker from v. 31. •uses tlie third person, and not the first as in v, 30., when referring to the Baptist: but in the former passage the Baptist is no longer alluded to directly and individually, but as one of a class, in which case lie must, though himself tlie speaker, choose the third person. Thus there is no definitive boundary, and tlie speech glides imper- ceptibly from those passages which might have been uttered by tlie Baptist, into those which are altogether incongruous with his posi- tion ; moreover from v. 30. Jesus is spoken of in tlie present tense, as the evangelist might represent tlie Baptist to speak daring tlie lifetime of Jesus, but could not in his own person have written after the death of Jesus. In other passages, when presenting his own, re- viaTcvuev els TO ovofia TOV fiovoyevovf vlov i,wiv, u.W ff opyi) TOD Qsw fisvel tn' avrw. TOV 9eou» Comp. also the words of the Paptist v. 31, with Joh. iii. C. 12 f. viii. 23; V. 32 withviil. 26; T. 33 with vi. 27; Y, 34 with xii. 49, 60 ; v. 35 with v. 22, 27. x. 28 f. xvii. 2. * Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 10.'">. •t' Paulua, Olshausen, in loc. RELATIONS BETWEEN JESL'S AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 229 flections concerning Jesus, lie uses the preterite.* Thus, grammati- cally, tlie Baptist continues to speak from v. 31, and yet, histori- cally, it is impossible tliat lie should have uttered the sequel; a con- tradiction not to be solved, if it be added tliat, dogmatically, the evangelist cannot liave ascribed to tlie Baptist words wliich he never really pronounced. Now if we do not clioose to defy the clear rules of grammar, and tlie sure data of liistory, for the sake of the vision- ary dogma of inspiration, we sliall rather conclude from tlie given premises, witli tlie author of tlie Probabilia, that the evangelist false- ly ascribes tlie language in question to tlie Baptist, putting into his mouth a Christology of his own, of wliich tlie latter could know nothing. Tilis is no more than Luckef confesses, though not quite so frankly, when he says that the reflections of the evangelist are here more tlian equally mixed witli tlie discourse of tlie Baptist, m such a way as to be undistinguishable. In point of fact, however, the reflections of the evangelist are easily to be recognized; but of the fundamental ideas of tlie Baptist there is no trace, unless they arc souglit for witli a good will wliich amounts to prejudice, and to wliicli therefore we make no pretension. If tlien we have a proof in tlie passages just considered, that tlie fourth evangelist did not hesitate to lend to the Baptist messianic and other ideas which were never his; we may lience conclude retrospectively concerning the passages on wliich we formerly suspended our decision, that the ideas expressed in them of a suffering and pre-existcnt Messiah be- longed, not to tlie Baptist, but to the evangelist. In giving the above reply to our first question, we have, in strictness, answered tlie remaining one; for if the Baptist had no such messianic ideas, he could not refer them to the person of Jesus. But to strengthen tlie evidence for the result already obtained, we will make tlie second question the object of a special examination. Ac- cording to tlie fourth evangelist tlie Baptist ascribed to Jesus all the messianic attributes above discussed. If he did this so enthusiasti- cally, publicly, and repeatedly, as we road in John, he could not have been excluded by Jesus from tlie kingdom of heaven (Matt. xi. 11.), nor have been placed below tlie least of its citizens. For such a confession as tliat of tlie Baptist, when lie calls Jesus the vi6g TOV Qeov, who was before him,-such refined insight into the messianic economy, as is sliown by his designating Jesus 6 ay.v'b^ TOV QEOV, b aipw rijv dfiapTlav rov Koaflov, Peter himself had not to produce, though Jesus not only receives him into tlie kingdom of heaven for his confession, Matt. xvi. 16., but constitutes him the rock on wliich that kingdom was to be founded. But we have something yet more incomprehensible. John, in tlie fourth Gospel, gives it as tlie object of his baptism, 'iva ipavepuOy (Jesus as Mes- siah) TU 'I(Tpar)/l (i. 31.), and acknowledges it to be the divine ordi- nance, that by the side of the increasing Jesus, lie must decrease rock on wliich that kingdom was to be founded. * E. g. here, v. 32, it is said: rf/v fiapTvpiav avrov ouoeif ^afifim'ci, but in the Pro- 230 THE LIFE OF JESU8. (iii. 30.); nevertheless after Jesus had begun to baptize by the in- strumentality of his disciples, John continues to practise his baptism (iii. 32.). "Why so, if he knew the object of his baptism to be ful- filled by tlie introduction of Jesus, and if he directed his followers to him as the Messiah ? (i. 36 f.).* The continuance of his baptism would be to no purpose; for Liikc's supposition, tliat John's bap- tism was still of effect in those places where Jesus had not appeared, lie himself overthrows by tlie observation, that at least at tlie period treated of in John iii. 22 ft., Jesus and John must have been bap- tizing near to each other, since tlie disciples of Jolin were jealous of the concourse to tlie baptism of Jesus. But tlie continuance of Jolin's baptism appears even to counteract his aim, if tliat aim were merely to point out Jesus as the Messiah. He thereby detained a circle of individuals on tlie borders of tlie Messiah's kingdom, and retarded or hindered their going over to Jesus (and tliat tlirougli his own fault, not theirs alonc,t for lie nullified Ills verbal direction to Jesus by his contradictory example). Accordingly we find tlie party of John's disciples still existing in the time of the Apostle Paul (Acts xvlii. 24 f. xix. 1 ft.); and, if tlie Sabeeans are to be credited concerning their own history, tlie sect remains to this day.} Cer- tainly, presupposing tlie averred conviction of tlie Baptist relative to Jesus, it would seem most natural for him to have attached him- self to tlie latter; this, however, did not liappen, and lience we con- dude tliat lie cannot have liad that conviction.S But chiefly the character and entire demeanour of tlie Baptist render it impossible to believe tliat he placed himself on tliat foot- ing with Jesus, described by tlie fourth evangelist. How could the man of tlie wilderness, tlie stern ascetic, wlio fed on locusts and wild honey, and prescribed severe fasts to his disciples, tlie gloomy, threatening preacher of repentance, animated with tlie spirit of Eli- as-liow could lie form a friendship with Jesus, in every tiling his opposite ? He must assuredly, with his disciples, have stumbled at :thc liberal manners of Jesus, and have been hindered by them from recognizing him as tlie Messiah. Notliing is more unbending tlian ascetic prejudice; lie wlio, like the Baptist, esteems it piety to fast and mortify the body, will never assign a higli grade in tilings di- vine to him wlio disregards such asceticism. A mind witli narrow views can never comprehend one whose vision takes a wider range, al- * De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81 ; biblische Dog- matik, § 209 ; Winer, bilil. Kealworterlmch 1, S. 692. f Neander, p. 7]'). This author erroneously supposes thai. there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus in Acts xviii. 25, wlu're it is said of Apollos: iSlSaaKCV unpifSut: TU. Trep/ rov K.vpiou, imaru.u£VO(; TO ^aTTTiaint ^luuvvov. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that raul had to teach the disciples of John, that Ly the Ep^o^evof announced by their master, they were to understand Jesus ; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which lie received from the Christians, Aqiiila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fullilment in the person of Je- sus. t Gesenius, I'robeheft der Gruber'schen Encyclopiidie, d. A. Zabier. § Bretschnei- EELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AM> JOHN THE BAPTIST. 231 though the latter may know how to do justice to its inferior; hence Jesus could value and sanction John in his proper place, but the Baptist could never give the precedence to Jesus, as he is reported to have done in the fourth Gospel. The declaration of the Baptist (John iii. 30.), that he must decrease, but Jesus must increase, is frequently praised as an example of tlie noblest and sublimcst re- signation.* The beauty of this representation we grant; but not its truth. The instance would be a solitary one, if a man wliose life liad its influence on the world's history, had so readily yielded tlie ascendant, in his own sera, to one who came to eclipse him and render him superfluous. Such a step is not less difficult for individ- uals than for nations, and that not from any vice, as egotism or ambition, so tliat an exception miglit be presumed (though not with- out prejudice) in the case of a man like the Baptist; it is a conse- quence of tliat blameless, limitation which, as we have already re- marked, is proper to a low point of view in relation to a higher, and which is all the more obstinately maintained if tlie inferior indi- vidual is, like John, of a coarse, rugged nature. Only from tlie di- vine point of view, or from tliat of an historian, bent on establishing religious doctrines, could sucli tilings be spoken, and the fourth evangelist has in fact put into the mouth of tlie Baptist the very same thoughts concerning tlie relation between him and Jesus, that the compiler of tlie 2nd book of Samuel has communicated, as his own observation, on the corresponding relation between Saul and David, f Competent judges have recently acknowledged that there exists a discrepancy between tlie Synoptical Gospels and tlie fourth, tlie blame of wliicli must be imputed to the latter:} and this opinion is confirmed and strengthened by tlie fact, that tlie fourth evangelist transforms tlie Baptist, into a totally different character from tliat in wliicli lie appears in the Synoptical Gospels and in Joseplius; out of a practical preacher lie makes a speculative christologist; out of a hard and unbending, a yielding and self-renunciating nature. Tlie style in which the scenes between John and Jesus (John i. 29 ff. 35 ff.) arc depicted, shows them to have originated partly in the free composition of the imagination, partly in a remodelling of the synoptical narratives with a view to tlie glorification of Jesus. With respect to tlie former : Jesus is walking, v. 35, near to John; in v. 29 lie is said to come directly to him ; yet on neither occasion is there any account of an interview between tlie two. Could Jesus really have avoided contact with the Baptist, tliat, there miglit be no appearance of preconcerted action? This is Lampc's conjecture; but it is tlie product of modern reflections, foreign to the time and circumstances of Jesus. Or shall we suppose that the narrator, * Greiling, Leben Jcsu von Nazaret, S. 132 f. •)• 2 yam. iii. 1. pini T^h TW ! t3''i"n la's'ph "b^'s f^ai John iii. 80. inslvov Scl avfuvciv. ^UE St i\aTTOvs9ai. THE LIFE OF JESUS. 232 whether fortuitously or purposely, omitted known details ? But the meetings of Jesus and John must liave furnished him with pe- culiarly interesting matter, so that, as Lucke allows,* his silence is enigmatical. From our point of view the enigma is solved. The Baptist had, in the evangelist's idea, pointed to Jesus as tlie Mes- siah. This, understood as a visible pointing, required that Jesus should pass by or approach John; hence this feature was inserted in tlie narrative : but the particulars of an actual meeting being un- necessary, were, though very awkwardly, omitted. Tlie incident of some disciples attaching themselves to Jesus in consequence of the Baptist's direction, seems to be a free version of the sending of two disciples by John from his prison. Thus, as in Matthew xi. 2, and Luke vii. 18, John despatches two disciples to Jesus witli the dubitativc question, "Art thou he that should come ? " so in the fourth Gospel he likewise sends two disciples to Jesus, but with the positive assertion that he (Jesus) is the .Lamb of God, d[zvbc; Qeov; as Jesus in the former case gives to the disciples, after the delivery of their message, tlie direction: "Go and tell John the. things ye, haw seen and heard," a eiSe-e nal rjnovaaTe : so in the latter, he gives to the inquiry concerning Ids abode, tlie answer: come and see, ^p^eaOe nal ISs-e. But wliilc in the synoptical gos- pels tlie two disciples return to John, in the fourth, they permanently attach themselves to Jesus. From the foregoing considerations, it is inconceivable tliat John should ever liave held and pronounced Jesus to be the Messiah: but it is easy to show how a belief that he did so might obtain, without . historical foundation. According to Acts xix. 4, the apostle Paul declares what seems sufficiently guaranteed by history, tliat John baptized elg TOV ep'^o[ievov, and this coming Messiali, adds Paul, to whom John pointed was Jesus (rov-es-iv eic; Xpiorbv ITJCTOW). This was an interpretation of the Baptist's words by the issue; for Jesua had approved himself to a great number of his cotemporaries, as the Messiah announced by John. There was but a step to the notion that the Baptist himself had, under tlie ep^o^ievo?, understood the individual Jesus,-had himself the TOV-KOTIV, K. r. /I. in his mind; a view which, however unhistorical, would be inviting to tlie early Christians, in proportion to their wisli to sustain the dignity of Je- sus by tlie authority of the Baptist, then very influential in the Jewisli world, f There was yet another reason, gathered from the * Commentar, S. 330. •(• The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth evangelist of all others should he solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. Accord- ing to v. 1 ff. there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John's baptism, and were therefore rebaptizcd by the apoatle Paul in tlie name of Jesus. Now an old tradition re- presents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephcsus (Irsencus adv. hasr. iii, ].). If •we accept this, (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for tlie composi- tion of this Gospel,) and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist's followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; tlie endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable RELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 233 < Old Testament. The ancestor of tlie Messiah, David, had likewise in the old Hebrew legend a kind of forerunner in the person of Sa- muel, wlio by order from Jehovah anointed him to be king over Israel (1 Sam. xvi.), and aftenvards stood in the relation of a witness to liis claims. If tlien it behoved the Messiali to liave a forerunner, who, besides, was more closely characterized in the prophecy of Malaclii as a second Elias, and if, historically, Jesus was preceded by John, wliose baptism as a consecration corresponded to an anoint- ing; tlie idea was not remote of conforming tlie relation between John and Jesus to tliat between Samuel and David. We might have decided witli tolerable certainty which of the two incompatible statements concerning tlie relation between the Baptist and Jesus is to be renounced as unhistorical, by tlie univer- sal canon of interpretation, tliat where, in narratives having a ten- dency to aggrandize a person or a fact, (a tendency which the Gospels evince at every step,) two contradictory statements are found, tliat which best corresponds to tills aim is tlie least historical; because if, in accordance with it, tlie original fact had been so dazzling, it is inconceivable tliat the other less brilliant representation should afterwards arise; as here, if John so early acknowledged Jesus, it is inexplicable how a story could be fabricated, wliicli reports him to have been in doubt on tlie same subject at a very late period. We have, however, by a separate examination of tlie narrative in the fourth gospel, ascertained tliat it is self-contradictory and contains its own solution; hence our result, found independently of tlie above canon, serves for its confirmation. Meanwiiile tliat result is only tlie negative, tliat all which turns upon tlie early acknowledgment of Jesus by John has no claim to be received as historical; of tlie positive we know nothing, unless the message out of prison, may be regarded as a clue to the truth, and we must therefore subject this side of the matter to a separate examination. We will not extend our arguments against tlie prob- ability of an early and decided conviction on tlie part of tlie Baptist, to a mere conjecture awakened in him at a later period that Jesus was tlie Messiah; and therefore we leave uncontested tlie proper con- tents of tlie narrative. But as regards the form, it is not to be con- ceived witliout difficulty. That tlie Baptist in prison, iv -n? 6eap.u- TW"^, sliould liave information of tlie proceedings of Jesus; that he should from tliat locality send liis disciples to Jesus; and tliat tliese, as we are led to infer, sliould bring him an answer in liis imprisonment. According to Josephus,* Herod imprisoned John from fear of disturbances; allowing tills to be merely a joint cause with that given by tlie evangelist, it is yet difficult to believe that to a man, one motive of wliose imprisonment was to seclude him from his follow- ers, his disciples sliould liave retained free access; although we cannot remarked and discussed this, uber den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefa Joliannis S. 3 ff. 2-t f. Compare Hug. Einlcitung in das N. T. S. 190 3te Aiisg. * Anti.i. win v o THE LIFE OF JESUS. 234 prove it an impossibility that circumstances might favour the admis- sion of certain individuals. Now that the message was sent from prison we learn from Matthew alone; Luke says nothing of it, although he tells of the message. We might hence, witli Schleicrmacher,* consider Luke's account the true one, and the ^sff^u-^p^u of Matthew an unhistorical addition. But that critic has himself very convinc- ingly shown, from the tedious amplifications, partly betraying even misunderstanding, which the narrative of Luke contains (vii. 20, 21, 29, 30), that Matthew gives tlie incident in its original, Luke in a revised fonn.t It would indeed be singular if Mattliew liad supplied the Seofzu-ripw when it was originally wanting; it is far more natural to suppose that. Luke, wlio in tlic whole paragraph appears as a re- viser, expunged tlie original mention of tlie prison. In judging of Luke's motives for so doing, we are led to notice tlie difference in tlie dates given by the evangelists for tlie imprison- ment of John. Mattliew, witli whom Mark agrees, places it before the public appearance of Jesus in Gahlee; for he gives it as tlie mo- tive for tlie return of Jesus into that province (Matt. iv. 12; MaA i, 14.). Luke assigns no precise date to the arrest of the Baptist (iii. 19 f.), yet it is to be inferred from his silence about tlie prison, in connexion witli tlie sending of tlie two disciples, tliat he regarded it as a later occurrence; but John expressly says, tliat after tlie first passover attended by Jesus in Ills public character, John was not yet cast into prison (iii. 24.). If it be asked, who is right? we answer that there is something on the face of the account of tlie first evan- gelist, which has inclined many commentators to renounce it in fa- vour of tlie two last. Tliat Jesus, on tlic report of John's impris- onment in Galilee by Herod Antipas, should have returned into the dominions of tliat prince for the sake of safety, is, as Schneckcnbur- gerwell maintains,:}: highly improbable, since there, of all places, he was tlie least secure from a similar fate. But even if it be held impossible to dissociate the dve^wprfaev {fie withdrew) from tlie con- nate idea of seeking security, we may still ask whether, disregard- ing tlie mistake in tlie motive, tlie fact itself may not be maintained. Mattliew and Mark connect witli this journey into Galilee after John's imprisonment, tlie commencement of tlie public ministry of Jesus; and tliat this was consequent on tlie removal of tlie Baptist, I am quite inclined to believe, For it is in itself tlie most natural that the exit of the Baptist should incite Jesus to carry on in his stead tlie preaching of ^iK~avoiEi-e ffyyute yap i] ftaaiXsia T&V ovpav&v ; and the canon cited above is entirely in favour of Matthew. Ym if it be asked which fiction best accords witli the aggrandizing spirit ot the^ Christian legend,-tliat of John's removal before tlie appearance of Jesus, or tliat of tlicir having long laboured in conjunction ?-the answer must be, the latter. If he to whom tlie hero of a narrative is superior disappears from the scene before tlie entrance of tlic latter, the crowning opportunity for tlic hero to demonstrate his ascendancy -- - - .„,. 4. IT.].,,, ,]„„ TTranriin"- U. S. W. S. 79. RELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST. 235 is lost-tlie full splendour of the rising sun can only be appreciated, when the waning moon is seen above the horizon, growing paler and paler in the presence of the greater luminary. Such is the case in the Gospels of Luke and John, wliilc Mattliew and Mark rest satis- fied witli tlie less effective representation. Hence, as tlie least cal- culated to magnify Jesus, tlie account of Matthew lias the advantage in historical probability. Thus at the time wlicn tlie two disciples must have been sent to Jesus, tlie Baptist was already imprisoned, and we have remarked above, tliat lie could hardly, so situated, transmit and receive mes- sages. But popular legend might be prompted to fabricate sucli a message tliat tlie Baptist might not depart without at least an incipi- ent recognition of Jesus as the Messiali; so that neither the one nor tlie oilier of the two incompatible statements is to be regarded as historical. §. 47. OPINION OF THE EVANGELISTS AND JESUS CONCERNING THE BAPTIST, WITH HIS OWN JUDGMENT ON HIMSELF--RESULT OF THE INQUIKY INTO THE EELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS. THE Evangelists apply to John, as tlic prcparer of the Messiah's kingdom, several passages of the Old Testament. Tlie abode of tlie preacher of repentance in the wilderness, his activity in preparing tlie way for tlie Messiali, necessarily recalled the passage of Isaiah (xl. 3 ff. LXX.): if>uvfj ftouv-cx; ev Ep^w £TO(- juaoa-e -i}v b6bv Kvpfti), K. r.