CHAPTER III. LOCALITY AND CHRONOLOGY OP THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. § 57. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SYNOPTICAL WRITERS AND JOHN, AS TO THE CUSTOMARY SCENE OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS. ACCORDINO to the synoptical writers, Jesus, horn indeed at Bethlehem'in Judea, but brought up at Nazareth in Galilee, only absented himself from Galilee during the short interval between his * Note 1. f Bertholdt, Christolog. Judseorum Jesu aetate, § 36. not. 1, and 2; Fritz- Bche, ComiTi. in Matth. S. 1C9 f. f. Compare with the above statement the deductions of Schmidt, Fritzsuhe. and TTsteri. na n-iven a !•,! nn>»= 1-a . 274 THE LIFE OF JESUS. baptism and tlic imprisonment of the Baptist; immediately after which, lie returned thither and began Ills ministry, teaching, healing, callina; disciples, so as to traverse all Galilee ; using as tlic centre of his agency, his previous dwelling-place, Nazareth, alternately with Capernaum, on tlie nortli-wcst border of the lake of Tiberias (Matt. iv. 12-25. parall.). Mark and Luke liave many particulars concerning tills ministry in Galileo which arc not found in Matthew, and those which they liave in common with him are arranged in a different order; but as they all agree in tlie geograpliical circuit which they assign to Jesus, tlie account of tlie first evangelist may serve as tlie basis of our criticism. According to him tlie incidents narrated took place in Galilee, and partly in Capernaum down to viii. 18, where Jesus crosses tlie Galilcan sea, but is scarcely landed on the east side when lie returns to Capernaum. Here follows a series of scenes connected by short transitions, such as -rapaydn' KnelOev (ix. 9, 27), passing from thence, -6-e (v. 14.), then, ravro. avTov XaXovvToc; (v. 18), rchile he spake these things ; expressions which can imply no important change of place, tliat is, of one prov- ince for another, which it is the liabit of tlie writer to mark much more carcfullv. Tlie passage, ix. 35, Trept^yev 6 '\T]GOVI; ra(; no^eif ndaac;-SiSdcKW ev ral(; avvaywyalc; av-uv, is evidently only a repeti- tion of iv. 23, and is therefore to be understood merely of excursions in Galilee. Tlic message of tlie Baptist (cliap. xi.) is also received by Jesus in Galilee, at least such appears to be tlie opinion of the narrator, from his placing in immediate connexion the complaints of Jesus against tlie Galilean cities. When delivering the parable in chap. xiii. Jesus is by the sea, doubtless tliat of Galilee, and, as there is mention of his house, olida (v. 1.), probably in the vicinity of Capernaum. Next, after having visited his native city Nazareth (xiii. 53.) he passes over the sea (xiv. 13.), according to Luke (ix. 10.), into tlie country of Bcthsaida (Julias); whence, however, after the miracle of the loaves, he speedily returns to the western border xiv. 34.). Jesus tlien proceeds to tlie northern extremity of Pal- estine, on the frontiers of Phoenicia (xv. 21.); soon, however, re- turned to tlie sea of Galilee (v. 29), he takes ship to tlie eastern side, in the coast of Magdala (v. 39), but again departs northward into tlie country of Gcsarca Pliilippi (xvi. 13.), in the vicinity of Lebanon, among tlie lower ridges of which is to be souglit the mount of the transfiguration (xvii. 1.). After journeying in Galilee for some time longer with his disciples (xvii. 22.), and once more visiting Capernaum (v. 24.), lie leaves Galilee (xix. 1) to travel (as it is most probably explained*) through Perea into Judca, (a journey which, according to Luke ix. 52, lie seems to liave made through Samaria); xx. 17, he is on his way to Jerusalem ; v. 29, lie cornea through Jericho; and xxL 1, is in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which, v. 10, lie enters. Thus, according to tlie synoptical writers, Jesus, from his return LOCALITY OP THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 275 after being baptized Tby John, to his final journey to Jerusalem, never goes beyond the limits of North Palestine, but traverses tlie countries west and east of tlie Galilcan sea and tlie upper Jordan, in tlie dominions of Herod Antipas and Philip, witliout touching on Samaria to tlic south, still less Judca, or tlic country under tlie im- mediate administration of tlie Romans. And within those limits, to be still more precise, it is tlie land west of tlie Jordan, and the sea of Tibcrias, and therefore Galilee, tlic province of Antipas, in. which Jesus is especially active; only three short excursions on the eastern border of the sea, and two scarcely longer on tlic northern frontiers of tlie country, being recorded. Quite otherwise is the theatre of the ministry of Jesus marked out in the fourth Gospel. It is true that here also he goes after his baptism by Jolin into Gallk-.c, to the wedding at Cana (ii. 1.), and from thence to Capernaum (v. 12); but in a few days the approach- ing pas?o\cr calls him to Jerusalem (v. 13.). From Jerusalem he proceeds into tlic country of Judea (iii. 22.), and after some time exercising his ministry there (iv. 1.), he returns through Samaria into Galilee (v. 43). Nothing is reported of his agency in this prov- ince but a single cure, and immediately on this a new feast sum- mons him to Jerusalem (v. 1.), where lie is represented as perform- ing a cure, being persecuted, and delivering long discourses, until lie betakes himself (vi. 1.) to the eastern shore of tlic sea of Tibcrias, and from thence to Capernaum (v. 17, 59). He then itinerates for some time in Galilee (vii. 1), but again leaves it, on occasion of tlie feast of tabernacles, for Jemsalein (v. 2, 10). To tills visit the evangelist refers many discourses and vicissitudes of Jesus (vii. 10; x. 21.), and moreover connects with it the commencement of his public minisliy at tlie feast of dedication, witliout noticing any in- termediate journey out of Jerusalem and Judca (x. 22.). After tills Jesus again retires into the country of Perca, where lie liad first been witli the Baptist (x. 40.), and there remains until the death of Lazarus recalls him to Betliany, near Jerusalem (xi. 1.), whence lie withdraws to Ephraim, in tlie vicinity of tlie wilderness of Judca, until tlie approach of tlic passover, which lie visited as his last (xii. 1 ff.). Thus, according to John, Jesus was present at four feasts in Je- rusalem, before tlie final one: was besides once in Bethany, and had been active for a considerable time in Judca and on his journey through Samaria. Why, it must be asked, have tlie synoptical writers been silent on tills frequent presence of Jesus in Judca and Jerusalem ? Why have they represented tlic matter, as if Jesus, before Ills last fatal journey to Jerusalem, liad not overstepped the limits of Galileo and Pcrca'/ Tills discrepancy between tlie synoptical writers and Jolin was long overlooked in the church, and of late it lias been tliouglit feasible to deny its existence. It lias been said, tliat Matthew, at thr1 prtmmni>^^->""+ 1--~ ^i ' ^ '" ' " 276 THE LIFE OF JESUS. pursues his narrative without noticing any journey into Judea until the last; but that we are not lience to conclude that Matthew was unacquainted with the earlier ministry of Jesus in Judea, for as with this evangelist the local interest is subordinate to the effort at an appropriate arrangement of his events, many particulars in the for- mer part of his history, which he narrates without indicating any place, may have been known, though not stated by him, to have occurred in the earlier journeys and residences in Judea.* But this alleged subordination of tlic local interest in Matthew, is nothing more than a fiction of the harmonist, ;iS Schneckenburger lias re- cently proved.! Matthew very carefully marks (cliap. iv.) the be- ginning and (chap. xix.) the end of the almost exclusive residence of Jesus in Galileo; all the intervening narration must therefore be regarded as belonging to tliat residence, unless tlie contrary be ex- pressed; and since the evangelist is on the alert to notice the'short excursions of Jesus across the lake and into the north of Galilee, he would hardly pass over in silence tlie more important, and some- times prolonged visits to Judea, liad they been known or credited by him. Thus much only is to be allowed, that Matthew frequently neglects the more precise statement of localities, as the designation of the spot or neighbourhood in wliicli Jesus laboured from time to time: but in his more general biographical statements, such as the designation of the territories and provinces of Palestine, within the "boundaries of which Jesus exercised his ministry, he is as accurate as any other evangelist. Expositors must therefore accommodate themselves to the ad- mission of a difference between the synoptical writers and John,^ and those who think it incumbent on them to harmonize the Gos- pels must take care lest this difference be found a contradiction; which can only be prevented by deducing tlie discrepancy, not from a disparity between the ideas of the evangelists as to the sphere of; the ministry of Jesus, but from the difference of mental bias under which they severally wrote. Some suppose that Matthew, being a Galilean, saw the most interest in G-alilean occurrences, and lience Confined his narrative to them, though aware of the agency of Jesus at Jerusalem.§ But wliat biographer, wlio liad himself accompanied his hero into various provinces, and belield his labours there, would confine his narration to what he had performed in his (the biogra- pher's) native province? Sucli provincial exclusiveness would surely be quite unexampled. Hence others have preferred the supposition that Matthew, writing at Jerusalem, purposely selected from the mass of discourses and actions of Jesus with wliicli lie was ac- quainted, those of which G-alilec was tlie theatre, because they were the least known at Jerusalem, and required narrating more than what had happened within tlie hearing, and was fresh in tlie memo- * Olshausen, Libl. Cornm., 1, S. 189 f. f SchneckenLurger, Beitrage, S. 38 f.i iibel den Ursprung u. 8. {. S. 7 f. f Ue Wette, Einleitimg in das N. T. (; 98 u. 10G. § Pair 277 LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. ries of its inhabitants.* In opposition to this it has been already remarked,! that there is no proof of Mattliew's Gospel being espec- ially intended for the Christians of Judea and Jerusalem: that even assuming this, a reference to tlie events which had happened in the reader's own country could not be superfluous ; and that, lastly, tlie like limitation of the ministry of Jesus to Galilee by Mark and Luke cannot be thus accounted for, since these evangelists obviously did not write for Judea, (neither were they Galileans, so that this objec- tion is equally valid against the first explanation ;) and were not in so servile a relation to Matthew as to have no access to independent information that might give them a more extended horizon. It is curious enough that these two attempts to solve the contradiction between the synoptical writers and John, are themselves in the same predicament of mutual contradiction. For if Matthew has been silent on the incidents in Judea, according to one, on account of his proximity, according to tlie other, on account of his remote- ness, it follows that, two contrary hypotheses being made with equal ease to explain the same fact, both are alike inadequate. No supposition founded on the local relations of the writers suf- ficing to explain the difference in question, liiglier ground must be taken, in a consideration of the spirit and tendency of the evangeli- cal writings. From this point of view the following proposition lias been given: The cause wliicli determined tlie difference in the con- tents of tlie fourth Gospel and that of the synoptical ones, accounts also for their divergency as to tlie limits they assign to the min- istry of Jesus; in other words, the discourses delivered by Jesus in Jerusalem, and recorded by John, required for their comprehen- sion a more mature development of Christianity than that presented in the first apostolic period ; hence they were not retained in the primitive evangelical tradition, of which the synoptical writers were the organs, and were first restored to tlie church by John, who wrote when Christianity was in a more advanced stage.j: But nei- ther is tills attempt at an explanation satisfactory, though it is less superficial than the preceding. For how could tlie popular and tlie esoteric in the teaching of Jesus be separated with such nicety, that tlie former should be confined to Galilee, and the latter to Je- rusalem (tlie harsh discourse in the synagogue at, Capernaum alone excepted ?) It may be said: in Jerusalem he had a more enlio-ht- encd public around him, and could be more readily understood tlian in Galilee. But the Galileans could scarcely have misunderstood Jesus more lamentably than did tlie Jews from first to last, accord- ing to John's representation, and as in Galileo lie liad the most un- disturbed communion with Ills disciples, we should ratlier have con- jectured that here would be the scene of his more profound instruc- * Guerike, Beitriige zur Einleitung in das N. T., S. 33 ; Tholuck, GlauhwUrdigkeit, S. 303. f Schneckenburger, ulier den Ursprung u. s. w., S. 9. { Kern, uber den Ur. sprung des Evang. Matthai, in der Triliinger Zeitschrift, 1834, 2tes Heft S. 198 ff Comp Hug, Einl. in das N. T., 2, S. 203 ff. (3te Ausg.) 278 T;I;: LIFE OF JESUS. tion. Besides, as tlic synoptical writers have given a plentiful glean- ing of lucid and popular discourses from the final residence of Jesus in Jerusalem, there is no ground whatever for believing tliat his ear- lier visits were devoid of such, and that his converse on these occa- sions took throughout a higher tone. But even allowing that all the earlier discourses of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem were beyond the range of tlic first apostolic tradition, deeds were performed there, such as tlic cure of tlic man who Iiad liad an infirmity thirty- eight years, the conferring of siglit on the man Lorn blind, and the raising of Lazarus, wliicli, from their imposing rank among tlic evi- dences of Christianity, must almost have necessitated the mention of tliosc early visits of Jesus to Judea during wliieli tlicy occurred. Thus it is impossible to explain why the synoptical writers, if they knew of tlic earlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, should not have mentioned them, and it must be concluded tliat if John be right, the first three evangelists knew nothing of an essential part of the earlier ministry of Jesus; if, on tlic other hand, tlic Lritcr be right, file author of tlic fourth Gospel, or of tlic tradition by which lie was giiidcd, fabricated a large portion of wliat lie lias narrated concerning the ministry of Jesus, or at least assigned to it a false locality. On a closer examination, however, tlie relation between Jolin and the synoptical writers is not simply sucli, tliat tlic latter might not know wliat tlic former records, but such, that they must have pro- ceeded from positively opposite data. For example, tlic synoptical writers, Matthew especially, as often as Jesus leaves Galllcc, from the time tliat lie takes up his abode there after tlic Baptist's im- prisonment, seldom neglect to give a particular reason; such as that lie wislied to escape from tlie crowd by a passage across the sea (Matt. viii. 18), or tliat lie withdrew into tlie wilderness of Pcrea to avoid tlic snares of Herod (xiv. 13), or tliat lie retired into the region of Tyre and Sidon on account of tlie offence taken by the scribes at his preaching (xv. 21.) : John, on tlic contrary, generally alleges a special reason wliy Jesus leaves Judea and retires into Ga- lilce. Not to contend tliat his very iirst journey thither appears to be occasioned solely bv tlie invitation to Cana, his departure again into Galileo after tlie tirst passovcr attended by him in his public character, is expressly accounted for by tlic ominous attention which tlie increasing number of his disciples liad excited among tlie Phari- sees (iv. 1 ff.). His retirement after tlie second feast also, into tlie country cast of tlie Sea of Tibcrias (vi. 1.), must be viewed in re- lation to tlic iy^rovv avTov ol 'lovSaloi aTTOfcmrai (v. 18.), since im- mediately after, tlic evangelist assigns as a reason for tlic continu- ance of Jesus in Galllee, tlie malignant designs of his enemies, winch rendered his abode in Judea perilous to his life (vii. 1.). The inter- val between tlic Feast of Tabernacles and tlic Feast of tlio Dedica- tion seems to have been spent by Jesus in tlie capital,* no unpro- LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 279 pitious circumstances compelling him to absent Iiimself (x. 22.); on the other hand his journey into Perca (x. 40.) and tliat into Ephraim (xi. 54.) are presented as effects of his persecution by tlie Jews. Thus precisely tlie same relation as tliat which exists between Matthew and Luke, witli respect to tlic original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus, is found between tlie first three evangelists and the fourth, with respect to the principal theatre of his ministry. As, in the former instance, Matthew presupposes Bethlehem to be tlie original place of abode, and Nazareth tlie one subsequently adopted through fortuitous circumstances, while Luke gives tlie con- trary representation ; so in tlie latter, tlie entire statement of the synoptical writers turns on the idea tliat, until his last journey, Ga- lilee v/as tlie cliosen rield of tlie labours of Jesus, and tliat lie only left it occasionally, from particular motives and for a short time ; while that of John, on tlie contrary, turns on tlie supposition, tliat Jesus would have taught solely in Judea and Jerusalem had not prudence sometimes counselled him to retire into tlie more remote provinces.* Of tlicsc two representations one only can be true. Before they were perceived to be contradictory, tlie narrative of John was incor- porated with tliat of tlic synoptical writers ; since they have been allowed to be in-cconcileable, the verdict lias always been in favour of the fourth evangelist; and so prevalent is this custom, that even tlie author of tlie Probabilia does not use tlie difference to the dis- advantage of tlie latter. De Wette numbers it among the objec- tions to tlie authenticity of Mattlicw's G-ospcl, tliat it erroneously limits tlie ministry of Jesus to Galileo, f and Schneckcnburger has no more important ground of doubt to produce against the apostolic origin of tlie first canonical Gospel, tlian tlic unacquaintance of its author with tlie extra-Galilcan labours of Jcsus.t If tills decision be well-founded, it must rest on a careful consideration of the ques- tion, wliicli of the two incompatible narratives lias tlic greater cor- roboration from external sources, and tlic more internal verisimili- tude ? We have shown in tlic introduction tliat tlie external evi- dence or testimony for tlic authenticity of the fourth Gospel and of tlic synoptical ones, tliat of Mattliew emphatically, is of about equal value ; that is, it determines nothing in cither case, but leaves the decision to tlic internal evidence. In relation to this, tlic following question must be considered: is it more probable tliat, although Je- sus was actually often in Judea and Jerusalem previous to Ills last journey, yet at tlie time and place whence tlie synoptical gospels arose, all traces of the fact liad disappeared; or tliat, on tlic contrary, although Jesus never entered Judea for the exercise of his public ministry before his last journey thither, yet at tlie time and place of tlie composition of tlie fourth Gospel a tradition of several such visits liad been formed ? * Comp. LUckc, ut sup. S. 546. -i- De Wette, Einl. in daa N. T., § 98. f Schnecken. 280 THE LIFE OF JESU9. The above critics seek to show that the first might be the case, in tlie following manner. Tlie first Gospel, they say* and more or less the two middle ones, contain the tradition concerning the life of Jesus as it was formed in Galilee, where the memory of what Je- sus did and said in tliat province would be preserved with a natural partiality,-wliile, of that part of his life which was spent out of Galilee, only the most critical incidents, such as his birth, consecra- tion, and especially his last journey, wliicli issued in his death, would bo retained; for the remainder, including his early journeys to the various feasts, being either unknown or forgotten, so that any frag- ments of information concerning one or other of tlie previous resi- dences of Jesus at Jerusalem would be referred to tlie last, no other being known. But John himself, in whom our theologians rest all their confi- dence, expressly mentions (iv. 45) that at tlie first passover visited by Jesus after his baptism (and probably at others also) the Galileans were present, and apparently in great numbers, since as a conse- quence of their having witnessed his works in Jerusalem, Jesus found a favourable reception in Galilee. If we add to tlus, that most of the disciples wlio accompanied Jesus in his early journeys to the feasts were Galileans (John iv. 22, ix. 2), it is inconceivable that tidings of tlie ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem should not from the first reach Galilee. Once tliere, could time extinguish them? We grant that it ia in the nature of tradition to fuse and remodel its materials, and as the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem was pre- eminently memorable, it might absorb tlie recollections of the pre- vious ones. But tradition lias also another impulse, and it is its strongest; namely to glorify. It may indeed be said tliat to circum- scribe the early ministry of Jesus by the frontiers of Galilee would serve the purpose of glorifying that province, in which tlie synoptical tradition had its origin. But the aim of tlie synoptical legend was not to glorify Galilee, on which it pronounces severe judgments;- Jesus is tlie object round whicli it would cast a halo, and his great- ness is proportionate to the sphere of his influence. Hence, to show that from the beginning of his ministry lie made himself known beyond the Galilean angulus terras, and tliat he often presented himself on the brilliant theatre of tlie capital, especially on occasions when it was crowded witli spectators and hearers from all regions, was entirely according to the bent of the legend. If, therefore, there had historically been but one journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, tradi- tion might bo tempted to create more by degrees, since it would argue-how could so great a light as Jesus have remained so long under a busliel, and not rather have early and often placed himself on the lofty stand which Jerusalem presented? Opponents, too, might object, like tlie unbelieving brethren of Jesus, (John vii. 3. 4,) that he who is conscious of tlie power to perform something truly * Kcbnp.ckftnhurirer. BeitrHa-e S. 207. Comp. Galiler's Treatise on the Resurrection LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 281 great, does not conceal himself, but seeks publicity, in order that his capabilities may be recognized; and to these opponents it was thought the best answer to show tliat Jesus actually did seek such publicity, and early obtained recognition in an extended spliere. Out of this representation would easily grow the idea which lies at the foundation of tlie fourth Gospel, tliat not Galilee, but Judea, was tlie proper residence of Jesus. Thus, viewed from the point of tlie possible formation of a legend, the balance inclines in favour of tlie synoptical writers. But is the result the same wlien we ascend to tlie relations and designs of Je- sus, and from tills point of view inquire, if it be more probable tliat Jesus visited Jerusalem once only or several times during his pub- lic life? Tlie alleged difficulty, tliat tlie various journeys to the feasts offer the principal means of accounting for the intellectual development of Jesus, is easily removed. For those journeys alone would not suffice to explain tlie mental pre-eminence of Jesus, and as the main stress must still be placed on his internal gifts, we cannot pronounce whether to a mind like his, even Galilee might not present enough aliment for their maturing; besides, an adherence to tlie synoptical writers would only oblige us to renounce tliose journeys to tlie feasts which Jesus took after his public appearance, so tliat lie might still have been present at many feasts previous to his messianic career, without assuming a conspicuous character. It lias been held incon- ceivable tliat Jesus, so long after his assumption of tlie messianic character, sliould confine himself to Galilee instead of taking his stand in Judea and Jerusalem, whicli, from tlie higher culture and more extensive foreign intercourse of tlieir population, were a much more suitable field for his labours; but it lias been long remarked, on the other hand, that Jesus could find easier access to the simple and energetic minds of Galilee, less fettered by priestcraft and Phar- isaism, and therefore acted judiciously in obtaining a firm footing there by a protracted ministry, before he ventured to Jerusalem, where, in the centre of priestly and Pharisaic domination, he must expect stronger opposition. Tliere is a graver difficulty in the synoptical statement, consid- ered in relation to the Mosaic law and Jewish custom. The law rigorously required tliat every Israelite should appear before Jehovah yearly at the three principal feasts (Exod. xxiii. 14 ff.), and the rev- erence of Jesus for tlie Mosaic institutes (Matt. v. 17 ff.) renders it improbable tliat, during the wliole course of his ministry, he should have undertaken but one journey of observance.* Tlie Gospel of Matthew, however, be our judgment what it may as to tlie date and place of its composition, did certainly arise in a community of Jew- ish Christians, who well knew what the law prescribed to the devout Israelite, and must tlierefore be aware of the contradiction to the law in which the practice of Jesus was involved, wlien, during a public 282 THE LIFE OF JESUS. ministry of several years' duration, only one attendance at Jerusalem was noticed, or (in case tlie synoptical writers supposed but a single year's ministry, of which we shall speak below) wlien lie was repre- sented as neglecting two of the great annual feasts. If, tlien, a circle in close proximity to Jewish usage found nothing offensive in the opinion tliat Jesus attended but one feast, may not tins autliority remove all hesitation on tlic subject from our minds? Besides, on a more careful weighing of the historical and geographical relations, the question suggests itself, whether between tlic distant, lialf G-entile Galileo, and Jerusalem, tlie ecclesiastical bond was so close that the observance of all tlic feasts could be expected from a Galilean ? Even according to tlie fourth Gospel, Jesus omitted attending one Passover tliat occurred in tlie period of Ills public career (John vi. 4). There is, however, one point unfavourable to tho synoptical writers. Tliat Jesus in his last visit to Jerusalem should, within tlie short space of tlie feast day, have brought himself into sueli de- cided hostility to tlie ruling party in tlic capital, that they contrived his arrest and deatli, is inexplicable, if we reject tlie statement of John, tliat tin's liostility originated and was gradually aggravated during his frequent previous visits.* If it be rejoined, that even in Galilcan synagogues there were stationary scribes and phansees (Matt. ix. 3. xii. 14), tliat such as were resident in tlic capital often visited the provinces (Matt. xv. 1), and that thus there existed a hierarchical nexus by means of which a deadly enmity against Jesus might be propagated in Jerusalem, before he had ever publicly ap- peared there; we tlicn have precisely that ecclesiastical bond between Galilee and Jerusalem which renders improbable on tlic part of Je- sus tlie non-observance of a scries of feasts. Moreover the synop- tical writers liave recorded an expression of Jesus wliicli tells strongly against their own view. The words: Jerusalem, Jerusalem-how often would I have gathered thy children together-and ye would not, have no meaning whatever in Luke, who puts them into the mouth of Jesus before lie had even seen Jerusalem during his public ministry (xiii. 34); and even from the better arrangement of Mattliew (xxiii. 37) it is not be understood how Jesus, after a single residence of a few days in Jerusalem, could found his reproaches on multiplied efforts to win over its inhabitants to Ins cause. Tills wliole apos- trophe of Jesus has so original a character, that it is difficult to be- lieve it incorrectly assigned to him; hence to explain its existence, we must suppose a series of earlier residences in Jerusalem, such as those recorded by tlic fourth evangelist. There is only one resource,- to pronounce tlic statement of tlic synoptical writers unliistorical in the particular of limiting the decisive visit of Jesus to Jerusalem to tlie few days of tlie feast, and to suppose tliat he made a more pro- tracted stay in the capital.! It will be seen from the foregoing discussion, wlietlicr, when so much is to be argued pro and contra, the unhesitating decision of LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 283 tlie critics in favour of the fourth evangelist's statement is a just one. For our own part, we are far from being equally hasty in declaring for the synoptical writers, and are content to have submitted the actual state of tlie controversy, as to tlie comparative merit's of John and the synoptical writers, to farther consideration. § 58. THE RESIDENCE OF JESUS AT CAPERNAUM. DLTJXG the time spent by Jesus in Judea, tlie capital and its environs recommended themselves as tlie most eligible theatre for his agency; and we might have conjectured that in like manner when in Galilee, he would have chosen his native city, Nazareth, as tlie centre of his labours. Instead of this we find him, when not travelling, domesticated at Capernaum, as already mentioned; the synoptical writers designate tills place the ISia TTOAK; of Jesus (Matt. ix. 1, comp. Mark. ii. 1); here, according to them, was the ol/coc, which Jesus was accustomed to inhabit, (Mark ii. 1; iii. 20; Matt. xiii. 1. 36,) probably tliat of Peter (Mark i. 29 ; Matt. viii. 14; xvii. 25 ; Luke iv. 38). In tlie fourth Gospel, which only mentions very transient visits of Jesus to Galilee, Capernaum is not given as Ilia dwelling-place, and Cana is tlie place with which he is supposed to have the most connection. After his baptism he proceeds first to Cana, (ii. 1) on a special occasion, it is true: after this he makes a short stay at Capernaum (v. 12); and on his return from his first attendance at the passovcr, it is again Cana to which lie resorts, and in wliieli tlie fourth evangelist makes him effect a cure (iv. 46 ft.), according to the synoptical writers, performed at Capernaum, and after tills we find him once again in the synagogue at Capernaum (vi. 59). Tlic most eminent disciples, also, are said by tlie writer of tlie fourth Gospel, not, as by tlie synoptical writers, to come from Capernaum, but partly from Cana (xxi. 2) and partly from Beth- saida (i. 45). Tlie latter place, even in tlie synoptical gospels, is mentioned, witli Chorazin, as one iii which Jesus had been pre-emi- nently active (Matt. xi. 21; Luke x. 13). Why Jesus chose Capernaum as his central residence in Galilee, Mark does not attempt to show, but conducts him thither without comment after his return into Galilee, and the calling of tlie two pairs of fishermen (i. 21). Matthew (iv. 13 ff.) alleges as a motive, that an Old Testament prophecy, (Isai. viii. 23 ; ix. 1,) was thereby fulfilled; a dogmatical motive, and therefore of no historical value. Luke thinks lie lias found tlie reason in a fact, which is more worthy of notice. According to him, Jesus after his return from baptism does not immediately take up his residence in Capernaum, but makes an essay to teach in Nazareth, and after its failure first turns to Ca- pernaum. This evangelist tells us in tlie most graphic style, how Jesus presented himself at tlie synagogue on the sabbath-day, and expounded a prophetic passage, so as to excite general admiration, but at tlie same time to rirovol.:!--, mnHfImia Toflo,.i-;^a ^" +i." ^-.-- 284 THE LIFE OF JESUS. circumstances of .his family. Jesus, in reply, is made to refer the discontent of the Nazarenes, that he performed no miracles before them as at Capernaum, to the contempt which every prophet meets •with in his own country, and to threaten them in Old Testament allusions, that the divine benefits would be withdrawn from them and conferred on strangers. Exasperated by tills, they lead him to the brow of the liill, intending to cast him down: he, however, passes unhurt through the midst of them (iv. 16-30). Both the other synoptical writers are acquainted witli a visit of Jesus to Nazareth ; but they transfer it to a much later period, when Jesus had been long labouring in Galileo, and resident in Capernaum (Matt. xiii. 54 ff.; Mark vi. 1 ff.). To reconcile their narrative with that of Luke, it has been customary to suppose that Jesus, notwith- standing his first rough reception, as described by Luke, wislied to make one more experiment whether his long absence and subse- quent fame might not liave altered the opinion of the Nazarenes- an opinion worthy of a petty town; but the result was equally un- favourable.* Tlie two scenes, liowever, are too similar to be pre- vented from mingling witli each oilier. In botli instances the teach- ing of Jesus in the synagogue makes the same impression on the Nazarenes,-that of amazement at tlie wisdom of tlie carpenter's son (Luke only giving more details); in both instances there is a lack of miracles on the part of Jesus, the first two evangelists pre- senting more prominently its cause; namely, the unbelief of the Naz- arenes, and the third dwelling more on its unfavourable effect; lastly, in botli instances, Jesus delivers the maxim (tlie result of his expe- rience), that a prophet is the least esteemed in his own country; and to tills Luke appends a more ample discourse, which irritates the Nazarenes to attempt an act of violence, unnoticed by the oilier evangelists. But tlie fact which most decisively shows tliat tlie two narratives cannot exist in each other's presence, is that they both claim to relate the first incident of tlie kind ;f for in both, the Naz- arenes express their astonishment at the suddenly revealed intellect- ual gifts of Jesus, wliicli they could not at once reconcile with Ills known condition.f Tlie first supposition that presents itself is, that the scene described by Luke preceded tliat of Matthew and Mark; but if so, tlie Nazarenes could not wonder a second time and inquire, whence hath this man this wisdom ? since they must have had proof on tliat point on the first occasion; if, on tlie contrary, we try to give the later date to Luke's incident, it appears unnatural, for tlie same reason that they should wonder at the gracious words 'which proceeded out of his mouth, neither could Jesus well say, This day is this scripture fulfilled in, your ears, without severely reflecting on their former insensibility, which had retarded tliat fulfilment. These considerations have led tlie majority of modern commen- * Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, 6, S. 403. t Tins Schleiermachcr has made evident, uber den Luhas, S. 63. \ Sieffert, fiber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, S- 89- LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 285 tators to the opinion, that Luke and the other synoptical evangelists have here given the same history, merely differing in the date, and in the colouring of the facts ;* and the only question among them is, which of the two narrations deserves the preference. With respect to the date, that of Luke seems, at tlie first glance, to have the ad- vantage ; it gives tlie desiderated motive for the change of residence, and the wonder of the Nazarenes appears most natural on the sup- position that then he first assumed the function of a public teacher; hence Matthew's divergency from Luke has been recently made a serious reproach to him, as a chronological error, f But there is one particular in all tlie three narratives which is an obstacle to our re- ferring the incident to so early a period. If Jesus presented him- self thus at Nazareth before he liad made Capernaum the principal theatre of his agency, the Nazarenes could not utter the words which Jesus imputes to them in Luke: Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country ; nor could they, ac- cording to Matthew and Mark, be astonished at the- mighty works of Jesus,} for as he performed few if any miracles at Nazareth, that expression, nothwithstanding its perplexing connection with the aocfi'ia, the wisdom,, manifested in tliat city, must refer to woi'ks per- formed elsewlierc. If, then, tlie Nazarenes wondered at the deeds of Jesus at Capernaum, or were jealous of the distinction conferred on that city, Jesus must have previously resided there, and could not have proceeded thither for tlie first time in consequence of the scene at Nazareth. From this, it is plain that the later chronologi- cal position of the narrative is the original one, and that Luke, in placing it earlier, out of mere conjecture, was honest or careless enough to retain the mention of the wonders at Capernaum, though only consistent with the later position.§ If, with regard to the date of the incident, the advantage is tlius on the side of Matthew and Mark, we are left in darkness as to the motive wliich led Jesus to alter his abode from Nazareth to Capernaum; unless the circum- stance that some of his most confidential disciples had their home there, and the more extensive frame of the place, may be regarded as inducements to the measure. The fullness .and particularity of Luke's description of the scene, contrasted with tlie summary style in which it is given by the other two evangelists, has generally won for the former tlie praise of su- perior accuracy.!] Let us look more closely, and we shall find that the greater particularity of Luke shows itself chiefly in this, that he is not satisfied with a merely general mention of the discourse de- livered by Jesus in the synagogue, but cites tlie Old Testament passage on which he enlarged, and the commencement of its appli- cation. Tlie passage is from Isai. Ixi. 1, 2, where the prophet an- * Olshausen, Fritzsche, in loc. Hase, Leben Jesu, § 62. Sieffert, ut supra. t Sieffert, ut supra. \ What these, rn'igihy works were can only be made clear when we come to the chapter on the Miracles. 286 THE LIFE OF JESUS. nounces the return from exile, with the exception of the words to set at liberty t/iem. that are bruised, aTroarEUai. TeOpavauevov^ ev d(j)K o TO," J-J. c^ c^n^w iihttr ripn Zwpck der evana;. Cresch. und CHRONOLOGY OP THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 289 for limiting the term of the public ministry of Jesus to a single year :* but this objection rests on a supposition borrowed from John himself, namely, that Jesus, Galilean though lie was, made it a rule to attend every Passover: a supposition, again, wliich is overturned by the same writer's own representation. According to him, Jesus left unobserved the passover mentioned vi. 4, for from vi. 1, where Jesus is on the cast side of tlie sea of Tiberias, through vi. 17 and 59, where he goes to Capernaum, and vii. 1, where lie frequents Galilee, in order to avoid the Jews, to vii. 2 and 10, where he pro- ceeds to Jerusalem on occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, tlie Evangelist's narrative is so closely consecutive that a journey to the Passover can nowhere be inserted. Out of tlie synoptical gospels, by themselves, we gather nothing as to the length of tlie public ministry of Jesus, for this representation admits of our assigning him either several years of activity, or only one; their restriction of his intercourse with Jerusalem to his final journey being the sole point in wliich tlicy control our conclusion. It is true that several Fathers of the Church, f as well as some heretics,:}: speak of tlie ministry of Jesus as having lasted but a single year; but that the source of tills opinion was not tlie absence of early journeys to the feasts in tlie synoptical gospels, but an entirely fortuitous associa- tion, we learn from those Fathers themselves, for they derive it from tlie prophetic passage Isai. Ixi. 1 f. applied by Jesus (Luke iv.) to himself. In tills passage there is mention of the acceptable year of the Lord, eviavrbi; Kvpiov de/c-o?, which the prophet or, according to tlie evangelical interpretation, tlie Messiah is sent to announce. Understanding tins phrase in its strict chronological sense, they adopted from it the notion of a single messianic year, which was more easily reconcileable witli tlie synoptical gospels than with that of John, after whose statement the calculation of the church soon came to be regulated. In striking contrast with tills lowest computation of time, is the tradition, also very ancient, that Jesus was baptized in his thirtieth year, but at tlie time of his crucifixion was not far from his fiftieth.§ But this opinion is equally founded on a misunderstanding. The elders who had conversations with John the disciple of the Lord, in Asia, rrpeopvrepot ol Kara rtfv 'A-aiav 'ludvvy rw TOV K.vpiov fia- erj-y avfi^eftXi]ii6rEi;,-on whose testimony Irena?us relies when lie Says, such is the tradition of John, TrapaSeSuKKVal ravra TOV 'ludv- vi]v,-had given no information further than tliat Christ taught, cetatem seniorem habens. That this cetas senior was tlie age of from forty to fifty years is merely the inference of Irenaius, founded oil what tlie Jews allege as an objection to tlie discourse of Jesus, John viii. 57: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen * Winer, bibl. Realworterbuch I, S. 6GG. f Clem. Alex. Stromat. 1, p. 174 Wurzb. ed., 340 Sylburg ; Orig. de principp. iv. 5, comp. homil. in Luc. 32. { Iren. adv. hair. i. 1, a. ii. 33, 38, on the Valentinians. Clem. horn. xvii. 19. § Iren. ii. xxii. 5 {. Comp. 292 THE LIFE OF JESUS. makes nearly cotemporary with. the feeding of tlie five thousand. Here, however, the points of contact between this evangelist and his predecessors are at an end, until we come to the last journey of Jesus ; and if they are too uncertain to promise even a simple divis- ion of the synoptical materials by the two passovera, how can we hope, by the journeys of Jesns to the feast of the Jews, eoprf] T&V 'lovoawv, to the Feast of Tabernacles, or to tlie Feast of Dedication, if that be a separate journey, to classify chronologically tlie uninter- rupted series of Galilean occurences in the first three gospels ? Never- theless tills lias been attempted by a succession of theologians down to the present time, with an expenditure of acumen and erudition, worthy of a more fertile subject :* but unprejudiced judges have de- cided, that as the narrative of the first three evangelists lias scarcely any elements that can give certitude to such a classification, not one of tlie harmonies of the gospels yet written has any claim to be con- sidered anything more than a tissue of historical conjcctures.f It remains to estimate tlie chronological value of the synoptical writers, apart from John. They are so frequently at variance witli each other in the order of events, and it is so seldom tliat one lias all the probabilities on his side, that each of them may be convicted of numerous chronological errors, which must undermine our confi- dence in his accuracy. It has been maintained tliat, in the compo- sition of their books, they meditated no precise chronological ordei-4 and this is partially confirmed by their mode of narration. Through- out the interval between tlie baptism of Jesus and the history of the Passion, their narratives resemble a collection of anecdotes, strung together mostly on a thread of mere analogy and association of ideas. But there is a distinction to be made in reference to the above opin- ion. It is true tliat from tlie purport of their narratives, and the indecisiveness and uniformity of their connecting phrases, we can detect their want of insight into the more accurate chronological re- lations of what they record; but that the authors flattered them- selves they were giving a chronological narration, is evident from those very connecting phrases, which, however indecisive, have al- most always a chronological character, such as na-ra^mri dm TOV opovf, Trapdyuv EKelOev, ravro, avrov XaXovv-og, ev avTy ry ffiJ-fpf, "wre, Kdl ISov, &c.§ The incidents and discourses detailed by Jolin are, for the most part, peculiar to himself; he is therefore not liable to the same con- trol in his chronology from independent authors, as are the synop- tical writers from each other; neither is his narration wanting in connectedness and sequence. Hence our decision on the merits oi his chronological order is dependent on the answer to tlie following * See especially the labours of Paulus in the Chronological Excursus of his Commen- tary and his exegetical Manual; of Hug, in the Einl. z, N. T. 2. S, 2, 233 ff,; and others, given by Winer in his bibl> Eealworterbuch 1, S. 067. •)• Winer, ut sup,; comp. Kaiser, btblische Theologie, 1 S* 2ol» Anm ; die Abhandlung uber die verschiedenen Kueksichtcn JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 293 question: Is the development and progress of the cause and plan of Jesus, as given by tlie fourth evangelist, credible in itself and on comparison with available data, drawn from the other Gospels ? The solution to tills question is involved in the succeeding inquiry.