DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS. 357 CHAPTER VI. THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIEST GOSPELS.* §. 76. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. IN reviewing the public life of Jesus, we may separate from the events tliose discourses which were not merely incidental, but which stand independent and entire. This distinction, however, is not precise, for many discourses, owing to the occurrences that suggested them, may be classed as events; and many events, from the expla- nations annexed to tliem, seem to range themselves with the dis- courses. Tlie discourses of Jesus given in tlie synoptical gospels, and those attributed to him in tlie fourth, diner widely both in form and matter, having only a few isolated sentences in common: they must, therefore, be subjected to a separate examination. Again, there is a dissimilitude between the three first evangelists : Mattliew affects long discourses, and collects into one mass a number of say- rigs, which in Luke are distributed among various places and occa- lons; eacli of tliese two evangelists lias also some discourses pecu- liar to himself. In Mark, tlie element of discourses exists in a very small proportion. Our purpose will, therefore, be best answered, if we make Matthew's comprehensive discourses our starting point; ascertain all the corresponding ones in tlie other gospels; inquire which amongst them has tlie best arrangement and representation of these discourses; and, finally, endeavour to form a judgment as to liow far they really proceeded from tlie lips of Jesus. Tlie first long discourse in Mattliew is tliat known as tlie sermon on tlie mount (v.-vii.). The evangelist, having recorded tlie re- turn of Jesus after his baptism into Galileo, and the calling of the fishermen, informs us, that Jesus went through all Galileo, teaching and healing; that great multitudes followed him from all parts of Palestine; and that for their instruction lie ascended a mountain, and delivered tlie sermon in question (iv. 23, ft). We seek in vain for its parallel in Mark, but Luke (vi. 20-49) gives a discourse which has the same introduction and conclusion, and presents in its whole tenor tlie most striking similarity with that of Mattliew; moreover, in botli cases, Jesus, at the termination of his discourse, goes to Capernaum, and lieals tlie centurion's servant. It is true that Luke gives a later insertion to the discourse, for previous to it 368 Till: LIFI: OF JESU'5. lie narrates many journeyings and cures of Jesus, which Matthew places after it; and while tlic latter represents Jesus as ascending a mountain, and being seated there during delivery of his discourse, Luke says, almost in contradiction to him, tliat Jesus came down and stood in the plain. Further, the sermon in Luke contains but a fourth part of that in Matthew, while it lias some elements pecu- liarly its own. To avoid tlie unpleasant admission that one of two inspired evangelists must be in error,-wliicli is inevitable if in relation to tlic same discourse one of them makes Jesus deliver it on tlie moun- tain, tlie other in tlic plain; the one sitting, the other standing; the one earlier, the other later; if either tlie one has made important omissions, or tlie other as important additions ;-the ancient har- monists pronounced tlicse discourses to be distinct,* on tlie plea tliat Jesus must frequently liave treated of tlic essential points of his doctrine, and may therefore have repeated word for word certain im- pressive enunciations. This may be positively denied witli respect to long discourses, and even concise maxims will always be repro- duced in a new guise and connexion by a gifted and inventive teacher; to say the least, it is impossible tliat any but a very bar- ren mind should repeat tlie same formal exordium, and tlic same concluding illustration, on separate occasions. Tlie identity of tlic discourses being established, the first effort was to conciliate or to explain tlic divergencies between the two ac- counts so as to leave their credibility unimpeaclicd. In reference to the different designation of the locality, Paulus insists on the KTH of Luke, wliicli lie interprets to imply tliat Jesus stood over tlie plain and therefore on a hill. Tholuck, more liappily, distinguishes the level space TUTTOC; Tredn'of, from tlic plain properly so called, and re- gards it as a less abrupt part of tlic mountain. But as one evange- list makes Jesua ascend tlie mountain to deliver Ills discourse, while the oilier makes him descend for tlic same purpose, these conciliators ought to admit, witli Olshausen, tliat if Jesus taught in the plain, according to Luke, Matthew^ lias overlooked tlie descent tliat pre- ceded tlic discourse; or if, as Matthew says, Jesus tauglit seated o;i tlie mountain, Luke lias forgotten to mention tliat after lie liad descended, tlie pressure of tlic crowd induced him to reasccnd before lie commenced his harano-uc. And without doubt each was ignorant 0 0 of wliat lie omits, but each knew that tradition associated this dis- course witli a sojourn of Jesus on a mountain. Matthew thought tlic mountain a convenient elevation for one addressing a multitud-c; Luke, on tlic contrary, imagined a descent necessary for tlic pur- pose ; hence tlic double discrepancy, for lie who teaclics from a mountain is sufficiently elevated over his hearers to sit, but lie wlio teaches in a plain will naturally stand. Tlic chronological diver- * Augustin, de conscus. ev. ii. 19.; Storr, liber den Zweck des Evang. und dor Bricfe Joli., S. 347 ff. For further references sec Tholuck's Auslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl.. % 1. DISCOL'KSES OF JESUS IN THE THfiEE FIKST GOSPELS. 359 gencies, as well as the local, must be admitted, if we would abstain from fruitless efforts at conciliation.* The difference as to tlie length and contents of tlie discourse is susceptible of three explanations: either the concise record of Luke is a mere extract from tlie entire discourse wliicli Matthew gives without abridgment; or Mattlicw lias incorporated many sayings belonging properly to other occasions; or lastly, both tlicse causes of variety have concurred. lie wlio, with Tholuck, wislics to pre- serve intact tlie fides divina, or with Paulus, tlie fides humana of the evangelists, will prefer tlic first supposition, because to withhold the true is more innocent than to add the false. Tlic, above theolo- gians hold tliat tlie train of thought in tlic sermon on tlie mount as s;iven by Mattliew, is closely consecutive, and that this is a proof of its original unity. But any compiler not totally devoid of ability, can give a tolerable appearance of connectedness to sayings which did not originally belong to each other; and even tlicse commenta- tors are obliged to adinitf tliat the alleged consecutivcness extends over no more than half tlie sermon, for from vi. 19, it is a string of more or less isolated sentences, some of them very unlikely to have been uttered on tlic occasion. More recent criticism has therefore decided that tlie shorter account of Luke presents tlie discourse of Jesus in its original form, and that Matthew lias taken tlie license of incorporating witli tills much tliat was uttered by Jesus at various times, so as to retain tlic general sketch-the exordium, peroration, and essential train of thought; wliile between these compartments he inserted many sayings more or less analogous borrowed from else- where.:}: This view is especially supported by the fact that many of the sentences, wliicli in Mattlicw make part of tlie sermon on tlie mount, are in Mark and Luke dispersed through a variety of scenes. Compelled to grant this, yet earnestly solicitous to avert from the evangelist an imputation tliat might invalidate his claim to be con- sidered an eye-witness, other theologians maintain tliat Mattliew did not compile tlic discourse under tlic idea tliat it was actually spoken on a sino-le occasion, but with tlic clearest knowledge tliat such was 0 • o not tlic casc.§ It is witli justice remarked in opposition to this, that when Mattliew represents Jesus as ascending tlie mountain before he begins Ills discourse, and descending after its close, he obviously makes tlicse two incidents tlic limits of a single address; and that wlien lie speaks of tlie impression which the discourse produced on the multitude, wliose presence lie states as the inducement to its delivery, lie could not but intend to convey tlie idea of a continuous harangue. || As to Luke's edition of tlie sermon, there are parts in which the interrupted connexion betrays deficiencies, and there are * Comp. De "ft'ette, exeg, Handbuch, 1, 1, S. 47 it'. 1, 2, S. 44. + Tholuck, S. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1. B. S. 584. f. Schuiz, vom Abendmalil, S. 313 f.; Sief- fert, S. 74 ft'.; Fritzsclie, S. 301. ^ Okhausen, bibl. Comm., 1, S. 197; Kmi, in der Tub. Schrift, 1 834. 2. S. 33. II Schuiz-ut sun. S. 31,-'> • S<.linr.,.1,-,.n)iiir, and in loc. ^ Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 370 THE LIFE OF JESUS. the seventy, had no other than happy result? (Luke ix. 10; x. 17); they presuppose the troublous circumstances which supervened after tlie deatli of Jesus, or perhaps in the latter period of his life. Ac- cording to this, Luke is more correct tlian Matthew in assigning tliesc discourses to the last journey of Jesus ;* unless, indeed, such descriptions of the subsequent fate of the apostles and other adhe- rents of Jesus were produced ex eventu, after his death, and put into his mouth in the form of prophecies ; a conjecture which is strongly suggested by the words, He who taJceth not up his cross, &c. (v.'38.).t The next long discourse of Jesus in Matthew (chap. xi.) we have already considered, so far as it relates to the Baptist. From v. 20- 24, there follow complaints and threatcnings against tlie Galilean cities, in wliicli most of his mighty works were done, and which, nevertheless, believed not. Our modern critics are perhaps right in their opinion that these apostrophes are less suitable to the period of liis Galilean ministry, in wliicli Matthew places them, tlian to that in wliicli they are introduced by Luke (x. 13 ft'.); namely, wlien Jesus had left Gablee, and was on his way to Judea and Jerusalem, witli a view to liis final experiment, j: But a consideration of the immediate context seems to reserve the probability. In Matthew, the description of the ungracious reception which Jesus and John had alike met witli, leads very naturally to tlie accusations against tliose places which liad been the chief theatres of the ministry of the former; but it is difficult to suppose, according to Luke, that Jesus would speak of liis past sad experience to tlie seventy, wliose minds must have been entirely directed to tlie future, unless v,'c conceive that he chose a subject so little adapted to the exigencies of those whom he was addressing, in order to unite tlie threatened judgment on the Galilean cities, with that which lie had just denounced against the cities tliat should reject liis messengers. But it is more likely that this association proceeded solely from tlie writer, who, by tlie comparison of a city that should prove rciractorv to tlie disciples of Jesus, to Sodom, was reminded of the analogous comparison to Tyre and Sidon, of places that had been disobedient to Jesus himself, without perceiving the incongruity of the one with the circumstances which liad dictated tlie othcr.S The joy, ayaU^aan;, expressed by Jesus (v, 25-27) on account of the insiglit afforded to babes, vrfn'wiq, is but loosely attached by Matthew to the preceding maledictions. As it supposes a change in the mental frame of Jesus, induced by pleasing circumstanced, Luke (x. 17. 21 ff.) would have all the probabilities on his side, in making the return of tlie seventy with satisfactory tidings tlie cause * The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism fin'i of Luke, I am as little alilc to discover as Tholuck, Ausk'^un; who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermachef i Matthew, f VL1. Us Wette, in loc. t Schleiermacln'r, i, Schneckenliurgcr, lUier dun Ursprung u. a. f, S. 32 f. § Cr'ii ' tlirrtiiH'hoiit the 12th chap. ; di.r Kergpredigt, S. 13 f.. r i.like, to the prejudice of ,.r ilen Lukas, S. 1(;'J f. ; i,. l)e Wette, exeg. Handb. DISCOUESES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIKST GOSPELS. 371 of the above expression; were it not that the appointment of tlie seventy, and consequently their return, are altogether problemati- cal ; besides it is possible to refer tlie passage in question to tlie return of tlie twelve from their mission. Matthew connects with this rejoicing of Jesus liis invitation to tlie vxary and heavy laden (v. 28-30). This is wanting in Luke, who, instead, makes Jesus turn to liis disciples privately, and pronounce them blessed in being privileged to see and hear tilings which many prophets and kings yearned after in vain (23 f.); an observation wliicli does not so spe- cifically agree with the preceding train of thought, as the context assigned to it by Matthew, and which is moreover inserted by the latter evangelist in a connexion (xiii. 16 f.): that may be advan- tageously confronted with that of Luke. § 78. THE PARABLES. ACCORDING to Matthew (cliap. xiii.), Jesus delivered seven para- bles, all relating to the Raai^eia r&v ovpav&v. Modern criticism, however, has doubted whether Jesus really uttered so many of these symbolical discourses on one occasion.* The parable, it lias been observed, is a kind of problem, to be solved by the reflection of the hearer; liencc after every parable a pause is requisite, if it be tlie object of tlie teacher to convey real instruction, and not to distract by a multiplicity of ill-understood images.f It will, at least, be ad- mitted, witli Neandcr, that parables on tlie same or closely-related subjects can only be spoken consecutively, wlien, under manifold forms, and from various points of view, they lead to the same result.:): Among the seven parables in question, tliose of tlie mustard-seed and tlie leaven have a common fundamental idea, differently shad- owed forth-tlie gradual growth and ultimate prevalence of tlie king- dom of God: tliose of tlie net and the tares represent tlie mingling of the good witli the bad in tlie kingdom of God; tliose of the treas- ure and tlie pearl inculcate tlie inestimable and all-indemnifying value of tlie kingdom of God; and tlie parable'of tlie sower depicts the unequal susceptibility of men to the preaching of the kingdom of God. Thus there arc no less than four separate fundamental ideas involved in tills collection of parables-ideas wliicli are indeed connected by their general relation to tlie kingdom of God, but which present tills object under aspects so widely different, tliat for their thorough comprehension a pause after eacli was indispensable. Hence, it lias been concluded, Jesus would not. merit tlie praise of being a judicious teacher, if as Mattliew represents, lie liad spoken all tlie above parables in rapid succession.§ If we suppose in this instance, again, an assemblage of discourses similar in kind, but delivered on different occasions, we are anew led to tlie discussion • Splin1» r.lir THE LIFE OF JESUS. 372 as to whether Matthew was aware of the latter circumstance, or whether lie believed that lie was recording a continuous harangue. The introductory form, And fie spake many things to them m para- bles, (v. 3.): aal i^d/^aev av-ol<; Tro/l/la KV TapafSo^al^, and tlic con- cluding one, vihen Jesus had finished these parables (v. 53): 5re ETv^eaEv b 'ITJOOVC; Tag TrapaftoA.iK; ~av-ac, seem to be a clear proof that lie did not present tlie intermediate matter as a compilation. Mark, indeed, narrates (iv. 10), that at the close of the first parable, the disciples being again, Ka-af.iovac;, in private, with Jesus, asked him for its interpretation; and hence it lias been contended* that there was an interruption of tlic discourse at this point; but tills cannot serve to explain tlie account of Matthew, for lie represents tlie re- quest of tlic disciples as being preferred on the spot, witliout any previous retirement from tlie crowd; thus proving that lie did not suppose such an interruption. Tlie concluding form wliicli Mattliew inserts after tlie fourth parable (v. 34 f.), might, witli better reason, be adduced as intimating an interruption, for lie there comprises all the foregoing parables in one address by tlie words, All t/tcse i/iings spake Jesus in. parables, c&c., rav-a navro, KAa^rjasv b 'ITJOOVC; iv TTapa0oXal(; n. r. /I., and makes the pause still more complete by tlie application of an Old Testament prophecy; moreover, Jesus is here said (36) to change his locality, to dismiss tlie multitude to whom lie liad hitherto been speaking on tlic shore of tlie Galilcan sea, and enter the house, eic; T''I{V olniav, where lie gives three new parables, in addition to tlic interpretation which his disciples had solicited of the second. But tliat tlie delivery of tlie last three parables was separated from that of tlic preceding ones bv a change of place, and consequently by a short interval of time, very little alters tlio state of tlic case. For it is highly improbable that Jesus would witliout intermission tax tlie memory of tlic populace, wliose minds it was so easy to ovcrburthen, -with four parables, two of wliicli were highly significant; and tliat lie sliould forthwith overwhelm Ills disciples, whose power of comprehension lie had been obliged to aid in the application of tlie first two parables, with three new ones, instead of ascertaining if they were capable of independently expounding the. third and fourth. Further, we have only to look more closely at Matthew's narrative, in order to observe, tliat lie lias fallen quite involuntarily on the interruption at v. 34 ff. If it were his inten- tion to communicate a series of parables, witli tlie explanations tliat Jesus privately gave to his disciples of the two wliicli were most important, and were therefore to be placed at tlic head of tlic series, there were only three methods on wliicli lie could proceed. First, he might make Jesus, immediately after tlie enunciation of a parable, give its interpretation to his disciples in tlic presence of tlic multi- tude, as lie actually does in tlie case of tlie first parable (10-23). But tlic representation is beset witli tlie difficulty of conceiving how Je- sus, surrounded by a crowd, wliose expectation was on tlie stretch, DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS. 373 could find leisure for a conversation aside with his disciples.* This inconvenience Mark perceived, and therefore chose the second re- source tliat was open; to him-that of making Jesus with his dis- ciples withdraw after the first parable into the house, and there deliver its interpretation. But such a proceeding would be too great a hindrance to one wlio proposed publicly to deliver several parables one after the other: for if Jesus returned to tlie house immediately after tlie first parable, he liad left tlic scene in which tlie succeeding ones could be conveniently imparted to the people. Consequently, tlie narrator in tlie first gospel cannot, with respect to tlie interpre- tation of tlie second parable, either repeat his first plan, or resort to the second; lie therefore adopts a third, and proceeding uninter- ruptedly through two further parables, it is only at their close tliat lie conducts Jesus to the liousc, and tliere makes liiin impart the arrear of interpretation. Herewith there arose in tlic mind of tlie narrator a sort of rivalry between tlie parables wliicli lie liad yet in reserve, and the interpretation, the arrear of wliicli embarrassed him; as soon as tlie former w^rc absent from Ills recollection, tlie latter would be present with its inevitably associated form of con- clusion and return homeward; and when any remaining parables recurred to him, he was obliged to make tliem tlic sequel of the inter- pretation. Thus it betel with tlie three last parables in Matthew's narration; so tliat he was reduced almost against his will to make the disciples their sole participants, tliougli it docs not appear to have been the custom of Jesus tlius to clotlie his private instruc- tions ; and Mark (v. 33 f.) plainly supposes tlic parables which fol- low tlie intcroi-etation of tlie second, to be also addressed to the people.f Mark, wlio (iv. 1) depicts tlie same scene by tlie sea-side, as Mattliew, lias in connexion with it only three parables, of which the first and tliird correspond to the first and third of Matthew, but tlie middle one is commonly deemed peculiar to Mark.i: Mattliew lias in its place tlie parable wherein tlie kingdom of lieavcn is likened to a man wlio sowed good seed in Ills field; but while men slept, tlie enemy came and sowed tares among it, which grew up witli tlie wlieat. Tlic servants know not from whence tlic tares come, and propose to root them up ; but tlie master commands them to let both grow together until tlie harvest, when it will be time enough to sepa- rate them. In Mark, Jesus compares tlie kingdom of heaven to a man who casts seed into the ground, and wliile lie sleeps and rises again, tlie seed passes, lie knows not how, from one stage of devel- opment to another: and when it is ripe, he puts in the sic/do, be- cause the harvest is co-ine. In this parable there is wanting wliat constitutes tlic dominant idea in tliat of Mattliew, tlie tares, sown by the enemy; but as, nevertheless, the other ideas, of sowing, •* Schleicrmacher, S. 120. t Fritzschc, Comm. inMarc. S. 120, 128, 131; DC Wette, inloc. ^ Comp. Saumer, uber die Qucllen des Markus, S. 74 , Frifczscho, ufc sup.; DeWcttc, 374 THE LIFE OF JESUS. sleeping, growing one knows not how, and harvest, wliolly corre- spond, it may Le questioned whether Mark does not here merely give tlie same parable in a different version, which lie preferred to that of Matthew, because it seemed more intermediate between the first parable of the sower, and tlic third of tlie mustard-seed. Luke, also, lias only lliree of the seven parables given in Matt. xiii.: namely, tliose of the sower, the mustard-seed, and tlie leaven; so that tlie parables of tlie buried treasure, tlie pearl, and tlie net, as also that of tlic tares in tlie field, arc peculiar to Mattliew. Tlie parable of tlie sower is placed by Luke (viii. 4 ff.) somewhat earlier, and in other circumstances, than by Mattliew, and apart from the two other parables wliicli lie lias in common witli the first evange- list's series. These lie introduces later, xiii. 18-21; a position which recent critics unanimously acknowledge as tlie correct one.* But this decision is one of tlie most remarkable to wliicli tlie criti- cism of tlie present age lias been led by its partiality to Luke. For if we examine the vaunted connectedness of tills evangelist's pas- sages, we find, tliat Jesus, having licaled a woman bowed down by a spirit of infirmity, silences tlic punctilious ruler of tlie synagogue by tlie argument about the ox and ass, after which it is added (v. 17), And, when he had said these things, all his adversaries were as/uiined; and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that vere done by him. iSurely so complete and marked a form of conclusion is intended to wind up tlie previous narrative, and one cannot conceive that tlic sequel went forward in the same scene; on tlic contrary, tlic phrases, then said he, and again lie said, by wliicli tlie parables arc connected, indicate tliat tlie writer liad no longer any knowledge of tlic occasion on wliicli Jesus uttered them, and hence inserted them at random in tills indeterminate manner, far less judiciously than Mattliew, wlio at least was careful to associate them witli analogous matemls.f We proceed to notice tlic other evangelical parables,^ and first among them, those which are peculiar to one evangelist. We come foremost in Mattliew to the parable of tlie servant (xviii. 23 ff.) who, although Ills lord had forgiven him a debt of ten tliousand talents, liad no mercy on Ins fellow-servant wlio owed him a hundred; tol- erably well introduced by an exhortation to placability (v. 15), and tlic question of Peter, How aft shall my brother sin against me, and/forgive him? Likewise peculiar to Matthew is tlie parable of tlic labourers in tlie vineyard (xx. 1 ff.), wliicli suitably enough forms a counterpoise to tlic foregoing promise of a ricli recompense to the disciples. Of the sentences wliicli Mattliew appends to this parable (v. 16), tlie first, So the last shall he first, and the first last, by wliicli lie liad also prefaced it (xix. 30), is tlie only one with * Srhleiermaclier, ut sup. S. 192; Olsliausei], 1, S. 431; Schneckenburgcr, nt sup. & 33. •)• Coinp Ue Wettp, excg. llaiidb. 1, 2, S. 73 f. t Analogies to these parables and apothegms, arc given out of the rabbinical literature bv Wetstein, I.iglitloot, anil Si.holt DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS. 375 which it has any internal connexion; the other, for many are called, tutfezo chosen, rather gives the moral of tlie parable of the royal feast and the wedding garment, in connexion witli which Mat- tliew actually repeats it (xxii. 14). It -wa.3 well adapted, however, even torn from this connexion, to circulate as an independent apo- thegm, and as it appeared fitting to the evangelist to annex one or more short sentences to the end of a parable, lie might be induced, by some superficial similarity to the one already given, to place them in companionship. Farther, the parable of tlie two sons sent into tlie vineyard, is also peculiar to Mattliew (xxi. 28 ft'.), and is not ill- placed in connexion witli the foregoing questions and retorts between Jesus and the Pharisees; its anti-Pharisaic significance is also well brought out by tlic sequel (31 f.). Among the parables which are peculiar to Luke, tliat of tlie two debtors (vli, 41 ff.); tliat of tlic good Samaritan (x. 30 ff.); tliat of tlie man whose accumulation of earthly treasure is interrupted by death (xii. KJ ff. coiup. Wis. xi. 17 ff.); and also tlie two which figure the efficacy of importunate prayer (xi. 5 ff. xviil. 2 ff.); have a definite, clear signification, and witli the exception of tlie last, which is introduced abruptly, a tolerably consistent connexion. We may learn from tlie two last parables, tliat it is often necessary en- tirely to abstract particular features from the parables of Jesus, see- ing that in one ot them God is represented by a lukewarm friend, in the oilier by an unjust nidge. To tlie latter is amicxcd the para- ble of the Pharisee and Publican (9-14), of wliicli only Sclileier- machcr, on tlie strength of a connexion, fabricated by himself be- tween it and the foregoing, can deny tlic antipharisalc tendency.* The parables of tlie lost sheep, tlie piece of silver, and tlie prodigal son (Luke xv. 3-32), have tlic same direction. Mattliew also lias the first of these (xviii. 12 ff.), but in a different connexion, which determines its import somewhat differently, and without doubt, as will presently be shown, less correctly. It is easy to imagine that tliese three parables were spoken in immediate succession, because tlie second is merely a variation of tlie first, and tlie third is an am- plification and elucidation of them both. Whether, according to tlie opinion of modern criticism, tlic two succeeding parables also belong with tlic above to one continuous discourse,! must be determined by a closer examination of their contents, which are in themselves noteworthy. Tlie parable of tlie unjust steward, notoriously the crux inter- pretum, is yet without any intrinsic difficulty. If we read to tlie end of tlic parable, including tlie moral (v. 9), we gatlier the simple result, tliat tlie man who without precisely using unjust means to obtain riches, is yet in tlie siglit of God an iii'prcjitable servant, 6ov^o(; d^ps'io^ (Luke xvii. 10), and, in tlie employment of tlie gifts intrusted to him by God, a steward of injustice, olnovo^ T'/JC acWac, may best atone for this pervading unfaithfulness by lenity and bene- 376 THE LIFE OF JESUS. ficence towards his fellow-men, and may by their intervention procure a place in heaven. It is true tliat tlie beneficence of the fictitious steward is a fraud; but we must abstract this particular, as, in the case of two previous parables, we have to abstract tlie lukewarmness of tlie friend, and tlie injustice of the judge: nay, tlie necessity for sucli an abstraction is intimated in the narrative itself, for from v. 8. we cather tliat what the steward did in a worldly spirit is, in the application, to be understood in a more exalted sense of tlie children of light. Certainly, if we suppose the words, lie that is faithful in that which is least, &c. (10-12) to have been uttered in their present connexion, it appears as if the steward were set fortli as a model, deserving in some sense or other tlie praise of faithfulness; and when (v. 13) it is said that no servant can servf? two masters, tlie intended inference seems to be that this steward liad lield to the rightful one. Hence we have expositions such as tliat of Schleier- maclier, who under tlie master understands tlie Romans; under tlie debtors, the Jewisli people; under tlie steward, tlie publicans, who were generous to tlie latter at tlie expense of tlie former; thus, in the most arbitrary manner, transforming the master into a violent man, and justifying tlie steward.* Olshauscn carries the, perversion of the parable to tlie extreme, for lie degrades tlie master, wlio, by his judicial position evidently announces himself as the rep- resentative of God, into ap^uv -ov nodflov rov-ov, the prince of this world, while lie exalts tlie steward into the image of a man wlio applies the riches of this world to spiritual objects. But as in the moral (v. 9) tlie parable lias a consistent ending; and as inaccurate association is by no means unexampled in Luke ; it is not admissible to concede to the following verses any influence over tlie interpre- tation of tlie parable, unless a close relation of idea can be made manifest. Xow tlie fact is, that the very opposite, namely, the most perplexing diversity, exists. Moreover, it is not difficult to show what might have seduced Luke into a false association. In the parable there was mention of the mammon of unrighteousness, {zajJiwag -Tig dSiitial;; tills suggested to him the saying of Jesus, tliat he wlio proves faithful in tlie ddt/co) fia/J.wva, the unrighteous mam- mon, as that which is least, may also have the true riches committed to his trust. But tlie word mammon having once taken posscsion of tlie writer'a mind, how could he avoid recollecting tlie well known aphorism of Jesus on God and Mammon, as two incompatible masters, and adding it (v. 13), however superfluously, to tlie preceding texts ?t * L't sup. \ Schncckenbnrger has decided, Beitriigc, So, V> where he refutes Olshausen's inter- pretation of tlie parable, that this verse does not really belong to its present position, while with respect to tlie preceding verses from v, 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary opinion. Do 'VVette also considers tliat v. 13 is the only one drciiledly out of place, lie thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate proposition, whirl] he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which led from the prudent use of riclies to faithfulness in presc'rving those entrusK-d to us. to give a sufficient connexion to v. 9 and 10-1^, without neces- sarily referring the idea of faithfulness to tlie conduct of the steward. The numerous at- DISCOUESES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS. 377 That by this addition the previous parable was placed in a thoroughly false liglit, gave tlie writer little concern, perhaps because lie liad not seized its real meaning, or because, in the endeavour completely to disburtlien his evangelical meaning, lie lost all solicitude about tlie sequence of his passages. It ouglit, in general, to be more con- sidered, tliat those of our evangelists wlio, according to tlie now prevalent opinion, noted down oral traditions, must, in tlie compo- sition of their writings have exerted their memory to an extent tliat would repress tlie activity of reflection; consequently tlie arrange- ment of the materials in their narratives is o-ovcrned by the associa- tion of ideas, tlie laws of wliicli are partly dependent on external relations; and we need not be surprised to find many passages, es- pecially from the discourses of Jesus, ranged together for tlie sole cause tliat they happen to have in common certain striking conso- nant words. If from hence we glance back on the position, tliat tlie parable of the unjust steward must have been spoken in connexion with the foregoing one of tlie prodigal son, we perceive tliat it rests merely on a false interpretation. According to Schleicrmachcr, it is the defence of the publicans against tlie Pharisees, that forms the bond; but there is no trace of publicans and Pharisees in the latter parable. According to Olshauscn, tlie compassionate love of God, represented in the foregoing parable, is placed in juxtaposition witli tlie com- passionate love of man, represented in tlie succeeding one; but simple beneficence is the sole idea on which the latter turns, and a parallel between tills and tlie manner in wliicli God meets the lost with par- don, is equally remote from the intention of the teacher and the nat- ure of tlie subject. Tlie remark (v. 14) tliat tlie Pharisees heard all tliesc tilings, and, being covetous, derided Jesus, docs not neces- sarily refer to tlie individuals mentioned xv. 2, so as to imply that they liad listened to tlie intermediate matter as one continuous dis- course ; and even if tliat were tlie case, it would only show tlie view of tlie writer witli respect to tlie connectedness of tlie parables; a view wliicli, in tlie face of the foregoing investigation, cannot pos- sibly be binding on us.* We have already discussed the passage from v. 15 to 18; it consists of disconnected sayings, and to tlie last, on adultery, is an- nexed tlie parable of tlie ricli man, in a manner which, as we have already noticed, it is attempted in vain to show as a real connexion. It must, however, be conceded to Schleiermachcr, that if we separate them, tlie alternative, namely, tlie common application of tlie parable to tlie penal justice of God, is attended witli great difficulties.t For there is no indication throughout tlie parable, of any actions on tlie part of the rich man and Lazarus, tliat could, according to our no- tions, justify tlie exaltation of the one to a place in Abraham's dislocation of the associated passages, arc only so many proofs that it is absolutely r& quisite to a satisfactory interpretatioiii 378 THE LIFE OF JESUS. bosom, and the condemnation of the other to torment; the guilt of the one appears to lie in his wealth, tlie merit of the other in his poverty. It is indeed generally supposed of the rich man, tliat lie was im- moderate in his indulgence, and that he had treated Lazarus un- kindly.* But tlie latter is nowhere intimated; for tlie picture of the beggar lying at tlie door of the rich man, is not intended in tlie light of a reproach to the latter, because lie might easily have tendered his aid, and yet neglected to do so ; it is designed to ex- hibit the contrast, not only between the earthly condition of tlie two parties, but between their proximity in this life, and their wide sep- aration in another. So tlie other particular, tliat tlie beggar was eager for tlie crumbs that fell from tlie rich man's table, docs not imply tliat the rich man denied him tills pittance, or tliat lie ought to have given him more tlian the mere crumbs; it denotes the deep degradation of tlie earthly lot of Lazarus compared witli that of the rich man, in opposition to their reversed position after death, when tlie ricli man is fain to entreat for a drop of water from the hand of Lazarus. On the supposition tliat tlie rich man liad been wanting in compassion towards Lazarus, tlie Abraham of tlie parable could only reply in the following manner: "Thou liadst once easy access to Lazarus, and yet thou didst not, relieve him; how then canst thou expect him to traverse a long distance to give tliee alleviation ?" The sumptuous life of tlie rich man, likewise, is only depicted as a contrast to the misery of tlie beggar ; for if lie liad been supposed guilty of excess, Abraham must have reminded him tliat lie liad taken too much of tlie good things of this life, not merely tliat lie liad received Ins share of them. Equally groundless is it, on tlie other hand, to suppose high moral excellencies in Lazarus, since there is no intimation of such in tlie description of him, which merely regards his outward condition,-neither are such ascribed to him by Abraham: his sole merit is, the having received evil in this life. Thus, in this parable tlie measure of future recompense is not the amount of good done, or wickedness perpetrated, but of evil endured, and fortune cnjoyed,t and tlie aptcst motto for this discourse is to be found in the sermon on tlie mount, according to Luke's edition: -Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kinydom of God! Woe. to you tliat are, 'ricli ! for ye /lave received i/our consolation; a pas- sage concerning which we have already remarked, tliat it accords fully witli tlie Ebionite view of tlie world. A similar estimation of external poverty is ascribed to Jesns by the other synoptists, in tlie narrative of tlie rich young man, and in tlie aphorisms on tlie camel and tlie needle's eye (Matt. xix. 16 tf.; Mark x. 17 if.; comp. Luke xviii. 18 ff.). Whether this estimation belong to Jesus himself, or only to tlie synoptical tradition concerning liirn, it was probably generated by the notions of tlie Essencs.f We have hitherto con- * Ti. •;• Uelier den Lukas, 239 f. Seamier agrees •n-ith Mill, L.J. Chr. p. 188. t 'rn13 ls a '^P^Y t0 Seander's objection, p. 191 note. {i How Paulus, exes', llandb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more complex form of thn narable in Luke as not only the most fully developed but the best wound up, I am at a DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THEEE FIEST GOSPELS. 381 parable of the rebellious citizens, and we then recognise the simil- arity of its tendency with that of the rebellions husbandmen in the vineyard.* A similar relation subsists between the form in which the parable of the marriage feast is given by Luke (xiv. 16 ft.), and that in which it is given by Matthew (xxii. 2 ff".); only tliat in tins case Luke, as in tlie other, Matthew, lias tlie merit of having preserved tlie simple original version. On both sides, tlie particulars of the feast, the invitation, its rejection and the consequent bidding of other guests, testify tlie identity of the two parables; but, on tlie other hand, tlie host who in Luke is merely a certain man, avOpu- TTO(; -tc, is in Matthew a Jcinq, ftaoiXsv(;, whose feast is occasioned by tlie marriage of Ills son ; tlie invited guests, wlio in Luke excuse themselves on various picas to tlie messenger only once sent out to them, in Mattliew refuse to come on the first invitation, and on the second more urgent one, some go to tlicir occupations, wliile others maltreat and kill the servants of tlie king, wlio immediately sends forth Ills armies to destroy tliose murderers, and burn up their city. Nothing of tills is to be found in Luke ; according to him, tlie liost merely causes the poor and afflicted to be assembled in place of tlie guests first invited, a particular wliicli Mattliew also appends to his fore-mentioned incidents. Luke closes the parable with the decla- ration of the host, tliat none of the first bidden guests shall partake of liis supper; but Mattliew proceeds to narrate how, when tlie house was full, and the king had assembled liis guests, one was discovered to be witliout a wedding garment, and was forthwith carried away into outer darkness. Tlie maltreatment and murder of tlio king's messengers are features in tlie narrative of Matthew wliicli at once strike us as inconsistent-as a departure from the original design. Disregard. of an invitation is sufficiently demonstrated by tlie rejection of it on empty pretexts sucli as Luke mentions; the maltreatment and even tlie murder of tlioso wlio deliver the invitation, is an exagger- ation wliicli it is less easy to attribute to Jesus tlian to the Evan- gelist. Tlie latter liad immediately before communicated the parable of tlie rebellious husbandmen; hence there hovered in his recollection tlie manner in which they were said to have used the messengers of tlicir lord, beating one, killing and stoning others, (/la/3wTEC rovf Sov'/.ovc; av~ov bv p,ev USeipav, bv 6e oTre/CTWav, bv de KXi,6op6XT] „ .„„;„,„„, ir, the ThonI 1 .itfratlirblatt. 1831. NO. 88, ha8 DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THBEE FIEST GOSPELS. 383 •we liave here a still more compound parable than in the former case: a parable in which, Istly, the narrative of the ungrateful invited parties (Luke xiv.) forms tlie main tissue, but so tliat, 2ndly, a thread from tlie parable of tlie rebellious husbandmen is interwoven; while, 3rdly, a conclusion is stitclicd on, gathered apparently from an unknown parable on the wedding garment. This analysis gives us an insight into tlie procedure of evangeli- cal tradition with its materials, wliich must be pregnant with results. § 79. MISCELLANEOUS INSTRUCTIONS AND CONTEOVEESIES OF JESUS. AS the discourses in Matt. xv. 1-20 have been already con- sidered, we must pass on to xviii. 1 ff., Mark ix. 33 ff., Luke ix. 46 ff., where various discourses are connected with the exhibition of a little child, occasioned by a contention for pre-eminence among the disciples. Tlie admonition to become as a little child, and to humble one's self as a little child, in Matthew forms a perfectly suit- able comment on tlie symbolical reproof (v. 3, 4.); but the connexion between tills and the following declaration of Jesus, tliat whosoever receives one such little cliild in his name, receives him, is not so obvious. For tlie child was set up to teach the disciples in what they were to imitate it, not how they were to behave towards it, and liow Jesus could all at once lose sight of his original object, it is difficult to conceive. But yet more glaring is tlie irrelevance of the declaration in Mark and Luke; for they make it follow immediately on the exhibition of the cliild, so that, according to tills, Jesus must, in the very act, have forgotten its object, namely, to present tlie child to Ids ambitious disciples as worthy of imitation, not as in want of reception.* Jesus was accustomed to say of his disciples, that whosoever received tliem, received him, and in liirn, the Fattier who liad sent him (Matt. x. 40 ff.; Luke x. 16; John xiii. 20). Of children lie elsewhere says merely, tliat whosoever does not receive the kingdom of heaven as a little cliild cannot, enter therein (Mark x. 15. Luke xviii. 17.) This declaration would be perfectly adapted to the occasion in question, and we may almost venture to conjecture that 5? iav f.ifj Sk^-ai, rfjv paai.^.eiav ~wv ovpavuv we; nai.Slov, was tlie original passage, and tliat tlie actual one is the result of its confusion witli Matt. x. 40, 6(: eav SKETCH TraiSiov TOIOVTOV Iv enl rw oro^tm fiov. Closely connected by tlie word d-n-ofcpitec, answering, with tlie sentences just considered, Mark (ix. 38 f.) and Luke (ix. 49 f.) in- troduce tlie information which John is said to give to Jesus, that •the disciples having seen one casting out devils in tlie name of Je- sus, without attaching himself to their society, liad forbidden liim. Schleiermacher explains tlie connexion tlius: because Jesus had commanded the reception of children in, his name, John was led to 384 THE LIFE OP JESL'S. tlie confession, that he and Ills associates had hitherto been so far from regarding the performing of an act in the name of Jesus as tlie point of chief importance, tliat they liad interdicted tlie use of his name to one who followed not with them.* Allowing this explana- tion to be correct, we must believe tliat Jolm, arrested by the phrase, in my name (which yet is not prominent in the declaration of Jesus, and which must have been thrown still farther into tlie background, by the sight of tlie cliild set up in the midst), drew from it tlie gen- eral inference, tliat in all actions tlie essential point is to perform them in the name of Jesus; and with equal rapidity, leaped to the remote reflection, tliat tlie conduct of tlie disciples towards tlie ex- orcist was in contradiction with this rule. But all this supposes the facility of combination which belongs to a Schlcicrmachcr, not tlie dulness wliicli still characterized tlie disciples. Nevertheless, tlie above critic lias unquestionably opened on the true vein of connexion between tlie preceding apotliegm and this d-oicpwif; of John ; lie lias only failed to perceive tliat this connexion is not intrinsic and orig- inal, but extrinsic and secondary. It was quite beyond tlie reach of tlie disciples to apply tlie words in my name, by a train of de- ductions, to an obliquely connected case in their own experience; but, according to our previous observations, nothing could be more consistent witli the habit of association that characterizes the writer of the evangelical tradition in the third Gospel, whence tlie second evangelist seems to have borrowed, than tliat he sliould be reminded by the striking phrase, in my name, in the preceding discourse of Jesus, of an anecdote containing tlie same expression, and should unite the two for tlie sake of that point of external similarity alone.f To the exhortation to receive such little children, Matthew an- nexes the warning against offending one of these little ones, onav- Sa^eiv h'a T&V fUKpuv -ovruv, an epitliet wliicli, in x. 42, is applied to the disciples of Jesus, but in this passage, apparently, to children.:}: Mark (v. 42) lias tlie same continuation, notwithstanding the inter- ruption above noticed, probably because lie forsook Luke (wlio here breaks off tlie discourse, and docs not introduce the admonition against offences until later, xvii. 1. f., and apart from any occasion tliat might prompt it), and appealed to Matthew.§ Then follows in Matthew (v. 8 f.) and Mark (v. 43 f.) a passage which alone ought to open tlie eyes of commentators to tlie mode in wliicli tlie synop- tists arrange tlie sayina's of Jesus. To tlie warning against tlie of- fending, OKavSaXi^Eiv, of tlie little ones, and tlie woe pronounced on tliose by whom offences come, TO andv6a'A,ov Kp^e-ai, they annex the apothegm on tlie offending ana.vSaA.'i^uv, of the liand, eye, &c. Je- sus could not proceed tlius,-for the injunctions: Mislead not the little ones! and, Let not your sensuality mislead you! have nothing in common but tlie word mislead. It is easy, however, to account * Ceber den Lukas, S. 1 aS f. •i" Comp. De Wette, in loc. + v;.) frit.,....1.0 nrl Tlo Wntto MSCOUESES OP JESUS IN THE THEEE FIEST GOSPELS. 385 for their association by the writer of the first Gospel.* Tlie word anavSa^Eiv recalled to his mind all tlie discourses of Jesus contain- ing a similar expression that liad come to his knowledge, and also he had previously presented the admonitions concerning seduction by the members, in a better connexion, as part of the sermon on tlie mount, he could not resist the temptation of reproducing them here, for tlie sake of this slight verbal affinity with the foregoing text. But at v. 10 he resumes the thread which he had dropped at v. 7, and adds a further discourse on the little ones, fuapov^. Matthew makes Jesus confirm the value of the little ones bv tlie declaration, that the Son of Man was come to seek tlie lost, and by tlie parable of the lost sheep, (v. 11-14). It is not, however, evident wliy Je- sus should class the [UKpovc with tlie drroXGi^bc; (lost) ; and botli ths declaration and tlie parable seem to be better placed by Luke, wlio introduces the former in tlie narrative of the calling of Zacclieus (xix. 10.), and tlie latter, in a reply to the objections of tlie Pharisees against the amity of Jesus with the publicans (xv. 3 ff.). Matthew seems to have placed them here, merely because tlie discourse on tlie little ones reminded him of tliat on the lost,-botli exemplifying the mildness and humility of Jesus. Between tlie moral of tlie above parable (v. 14) and the follow- ing rules for tlie conduct of Christians under injuries (v. 15 ff.), there is again only a verbal connexion, which may be traced by means of the words, dm^fjTai, should perish, and sKspSrjaa^, thou hast gained; for tlie proposition : God wills not tliat one of tliese little ones sliould perish, might recall tlie proposition: We sliould endeavour to win over our brother, by sliowing a readiness to forgive. The direction to bring the offender before the church, kK.n'kqaia, is generally ad- duced as a proof tliat Jesus intended to found a church. But he here speaks of the KKK^Tjaia as an institution already existing: hence we must either refer the expression to the Jewisli synagogue, an inter- pretation which is favoured by tlie analogy of this direction with Jewish precepts ; or if, according to- the strict meaning of the word and its connexion, EKic^fjaia must be understood as tlie designation of the Christian community, which did not tlien exist, it must be admitted tliat we liave liere, at least in the form of expression, an anticipation of a subsequent state of things.f The writer certainly had in view tlie new church, eventually to be founded in the name of Jesus, when, in continuation, lie represented the latter as impart- ing to tlie body of the disciples the authority to bind and to loose, previously given to Peter, and thus to form a messianic religious constitution. Tlie declarations concerning the success of unanimous prayer, and tlie presence of Jesus among two or tliree gathered to- gether in his name, accord with this prospective idea4 The next discourse that presents itself (Matt. xix. 3-12, Mark, '" Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matt. + Vid. De "Wette, exeg. Handlmch 1, .1, p. 155. THE LIFE OF JESUS. 386 x. 2-12), though belonging, according to the evangelists, to the last journey of Jesus, is of the same stamp with tlie disputations which they, for tlie most part, assign to the last residence of Jesus in Je- rusalem. Some Pharisees propose to Jesus the question, at tliat time much discussed in the Jewish schools,* whether it be lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. To avoid a contra- diction between modern practice and tlie dictum of Jesus, it has been alleged that lie here censures tlie species of divorce, which was tlie only one known at that period, namely, the arbitrary dismissal of a wife; but not the 1'udicial separation resorted to in the present tiay.f But tills very argument involves the admission, tliat Jesus denounced all the forms of divorce known to him; hence tlie ques- tion still remains whether, if lie could have liad cognizance of the modern procedure in disolving matrimony, lie would have held it right to limit Ins general censure. Of the succeeding declaration, prompted by a question of tlie disciples,f namely, that celibacy may be practised for the kingdom of heaven's sake, Jesus himself says, that it cannot be understood by all, but only by tliosc to zulwm it is given (v. 11). That tlie doctrine of Jesus may not run counter to modern opinion, it lias been eagerly suggested, tliat his panegyric on celibacy liad relation solely to tlie circumstances of tlie coming time, or to tlie nature of tlie apostolic mission, which would be im- peded by family tics.§ But there is even less intimation of this special bearing in tlio text, than in the analogous passage 1 Cor. vii. 25 ft., || and, adhering to a simple interpretation, it must be granted that we have here one of tlie instances in which ascetic principles, such as were then prevalent, especially among tlie Es- .senes,^ manifest themselves in the teaching of Jesus, as represented in tlie synoptical gospels. The controversial discourses whicli Matthew, almost throuo'hout ' 0 in agreement with tlie other synoptists, places after tlie entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem (xxi. 23-27 ; xxii. 15-46),** are certainly pre-eminently genuine fragments, having precisely tlie spirit and tone of the rabbinical dialectics in tlie time of Jesus. The third and fifth among them are particularly worthy of note, because they exhibit Jesus as an interpreter of Scripture. With respect to tlie former, wherein Jesus endeavours to convince the Sadducees that there will be a resurrection of the dead, from the Mosaic designation of God - 0 as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, maintaining tliat he is not tlie God of the dead, but of the living (Matt. xxii. 31-33 * Ber.ndbar R, ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303. i- E. g. Paulas, L. J. 1. B. S. 4G. ^ For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr. S. 525, Anm. '6 Paulus, ib. ri. 50, exeg. Handb. 2, S. •SCO. i]| In tilis passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended as good for the present distress ; but tlie Apostle iloes not rest there ; for at v. 32 fl. lie adds, lie that is unmarried carhth fur fhc tiling n^'tke Lord--he that is murr'u-d j\n' i/ie thim/s oJ'the world: -a motive to celibacy which must lie equally valid undrr all circumstances, and which -nffiir,^ in; ;i o-linnise into the fundamental asceticism of Paul's views. Comp. Kuckert's DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE PIEST OOSPELS. 387 parall.): Paulus admits that Jesus here argues subtilly, while lie contends tliat the conclusion is really involved in tlie premises. But in tlie expression tsiT^-'n^ the God of Abrahmn &c., which had become a mere formula, nothing more is implied than that Jehovah, as lie had been the protecting Deity of these men, would for ever continue such to their posterity. An individual relation subsisting between Jehovah and the patriarchs after their death, is nowhere else alluded to in the Old Testament, and could only be discovered in tlie above form by rabbinical interpreters, at a time when it was thought desirable, at any cost, to show tliat the idea of immortality, whicli liad become prevalent, was contained in the law; where, how- ever, it is not to be met with by unprejudiced eyes. We find the relation of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, adduced as a guar- antee of immortality el-sewhcre in rabbinical argumentations, all of which could hardly have been modelled on this one of Jesus.* If we look into tlie most recent commentaries, we nowhere find a candid confession as to tlie real character of tlie argumentation in question. Olshausen lias wonders to tell of the deep truth contained in it, and thinks that lie can deduce from it, in the shortest way, tlie authen- ticity and divinity of tlie Pentateuch. Paulus sees tlie validity of the proof between tlie lines of tlie text; Fritzsche is silent. Where- fore these evasions ? Why is the praise of having seen clearly, and spoken openly, in tills matter, abandoned to tlie Wolfenbiittel Frag- mentist ?t Wliat spectres and doublesighted beings, must Moses and Jesus have been, if they mixed wdth their cotcmporaries with- out any real participation in their opinions and weaknesses, their joys and griefs; if, mentally dwelling apart from their age and na- tion, they conformed to tliese relations only externally and by ac- commodation, wdiile, internally and according to their nature, they stood among tlie foremost ranks of the enlightened in modern times '. Far more noble were tliese men, nay, they would then only engage our sympathy and reverence, if, in a genuinely human manner, strug- gling with tlie limitations and prejudices of their age, they succumbed to them in a hundred secondary matters, and only attained perfect freedom, in relation to the one point by which each was destined to contribute to tlie advancement of mankind. A controversial question concerning tlie Mcssiali is proposed (v. 51-46) to the Pharisees by Jesus, namely, How can tlie same per- sonage be at once the Lord and tlie son of David ? Paulus maintains tliat tilis is a model of interpretation in conformity with the text;{ an assertion which is no good augury tliat his ov- possesses that qualification. According to him, Jesus, in asking how David could call tlie Mcssiali, .Lord, when in tlie general opinion he was his son, intended to apprise tlie Pharisees, that in tilis Psalm it is not David who is speaking of tlie Messiah, but another poet wdio is speaking * Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Liglitfoot, p. 423, and E. Manasse Ben Isr. in Schottgen, i. p. 180. •}• See his 4th Fragment, Lessing'3 4tem Bcitrag, S, 434 ff. 388 THE LIFE OP JESUS. of David as his lord, so that to suppose this warlike psalm a mes- sianic one, is a mistake. Why, asks Paulus, should not Jesus have found out this interpretation, since it is the true one? But this is tlie grand error of his entire scheme of interpretation-to suppose that what is truth in itself, or more correctly, for us, must, even to tlie minutest details, liavc been truth for Jesus and the apostles. The majority of ancient Jewish interpreters apply this psalm to the Messiah ;* tlie apostles use it as a prophecy concerning Christ (Acts ii. 34 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 25); Jesus himself, according to Matthew and Mark, adds t'v Trvevfian to C^afUS ica^sl avr'ov K.vplov, thus plainly giving liis approval to tlie notion that it is David wlio there speaks, and that tlie Messiah is liis subject: how then can it be thought tliat he held tlie contrary opinion ? It is far more probable, as Ols- hausen has well shown, that Jesus believed the psalm to be a mes- sianic one: while, on the oilier hand, Paulus is equally correct in maintaining tliat it originally referred, not to the Messiah, but to some Jewish ruler, whether David or another. Thus we find that Jesus here gives a model of interpretation, in conformity, not with tlie text, but with the spirit of liis time; a discovery whicli, if tlie above observations be just, ought to excite no surprise. The solu- tion of the enigma which Jesus here proposes to the Pharisees, lay without doubt, according to liis idea, in tlie doctrine of the higher nature of tlie Mcssiali; whether he held that, in virtue of this, he might be styled the Lord of David, while, in virtue of liis human nature, he might also be regarded as his son ; or whether he wished to remove tlie latter notion as erroneous.f The result, however, and perhaps also tlie intention of Jesus with respect to tlie Pharisees, was merely to convince them that he was capable of retaliating on them, in their own way, by embarassing them with captious ques- tions, and tliat with better success than they had obtained in their attempts to entrap liim. Hence the evangelists place this passage at the close of tlie disputations prompted by the Pharisees, and Mat- thew adds, Neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions: a concluding form which is more suitable here than after the lesson administered to tlie Sadducees, where it is placed by Luke (xx. 40), or than after tlie discussion on tlie greatest com- mandment, where it is introduced by Mark (xii. 34.); Immediately before tills question of Jesus, the first two evan- gelists narrate a conversation witli a lawyer, vofiiiwg, or scribe, ypafi- /m-Evc, concerning the greatest commandment. (Matt. xxii. 34 ff.; Mark xii. 28 ff.) Matthew annexes this conversation to the dispute with tlie Sadducees, as if tlie Pharisees wislicd, by their question as to the greatest commandment, to avenge tlie defeat of tlie Sad- ducees. It is well known, however, that these sects were not thus friendly; on the contrary, -we read in tlie Acts (xxiii. 7), tliat the Pharisees were inclined to go over to the side of one wliom they had .«.„., -nr . . . . , TT...^^._I__ <-,i...,».i i „ c 1 In e . «l«n Pan1ns himself. DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THEEE FIRST GOSPELS. 389 previously persecuted, solely because he had had the address to take the position of an opponent towards the Sadducees. We may Iiere quote Schneckenburger's observation,* that Matthew not seldom (iii. 7 ; xvi. 1) places the Pharisees and Sadducees side by side in a way tliat represents, not their real hostility, but their association in tlie memory of tradition, in wliich one opposite suggested another. In flits respect, Mark's mode of annexing tills conversation to tile foregoing, is more consistent; but all tlie synoptists seem to labour under a common mistake in supposing tliat tliesc discussions, grouped together in tradition on account of their analogy, followed each other so closely in time, that one colloquy elicited another. Luke does not give the question concerning tlie greatest commandment in con- nexion with tlie controversies on the resurrection and on tlie Mes- siah ; but lie lias a similar incident earlier, in his narrative of the journey to Jerusalem (x. 25 ft'.). The general opinion is tliat the first two evangelists recount tlie same occurrence, and the third, a distinct one.f It is true tliat tlie narrative of Luke differs from that of Mattliew and Mark, in several not immaterial points. The first difference, which we liave already noticed, relates to chronological position, and this has been tlie cliief inducement to tlie supposition of two events. The next difference lies in the nature of the ques- tion, which, in Luke, turns on the rule of life calculated to insure tlie inheritance of eternal life, but, in tlie other evangelists, on tlie greatest commandment. The third difference is in tlie subject wlio pronounces this commandment, tlie first two synoptists representing it to be Jesus, tlie third, tlie lawyer. Lastly, there is a difference as to tlie issue, tlie lawyer in Luke putting a second, self-vindica- tory, question, wliich calls forth the parable of tlie good Samaritan; while in tlie two other evangelists, lie retires either satisfied, or silenced by tlie answer to the first. Meanwhile, even between the narrative of Mattliew and that of Mark, there are important diver- gencies. The principal relates to tlie character of the querist, wlio in Matthew proposes liis question with a view to tempt Jesus (w<- oa^fciv); in Mark, with good intentions, because he had perceived that Jesus liad answered tlie Sadducees well. Paulus, indeed, al- though lie elsewhere (Luke x. 25) considers tlie act of tempting (e(fn-(pa^(>)v) as the putting a person to tlie proof to subserve inter- ested views, pronounces tliat the word -retpd^uv in tills instance can Only be intended in a good sense. But tlie sole ground for tills inter- pretation lies, not in Mattliew; but in Mark, and in the iinlbunded supposition tliat tlie two writers could not have a different idea of tlie character and intention of the inquiring doctor of tlie law. Fritzsche lias correctly pointed out the difficulty of conciliating Mat- tliew and Mark as lying, partly in the meaning of the word mipd^v, and parly in tlie context, it being inadmissible to suppose one among a series of malevolent questions friendly, witliout any intimation of the distinction on tlie part of tlie writer. With tills important * TT.I... .1.,.. TT,.^.:,.», „ „ c a AS 17. + Pai.lna and Olsliause.i. in loc. 390 THE LIFE OF JESUS. diversity is connected the minor one, tliat while in Matthew, the scribe, after Jesus lias recited the two commandments, is silent, apparently from shame, which is no sign of a friendly disposition on his part towards Jesus; in Mark, lie not only bestows on Jesus tlic approving expression, Well, Muster, thou hast said the truth, but enlarges on Ills doctrine so as to draw from Jesus the declara- tion tliat lie lias answered discreetly, and is not far from the king- dom of God. It may be also noticed tliat while in Matthew Jesus simply repeats the commandment of love, in Mark lie prefaces it by the words, Hear, 0 Israel, the .Lord t/t.y God is one .Lord. Thus, if it be lield tliat tlie differences between tlie narrative of Luke, and tliat of the two other evangelists, entail a necessity for supposing that they arc founded on two separate events; tlie no slighter dif- ferences between Mark and Mattlicw, must in all consistency be made a reason for supposing a third. But it is so difficult to credit the reality of three occurrences essentially alike, tliat the other alter- native, of reducing them to one, must, prejudice apart, be always preferred. The narratives of Mattlicw and Mark arc tlic most easily identified ; but there are not wanting points of contact between Mat- thew and Luke, for in both tlie lawyer vojuabc; appears as a tempter (rreipd^w'), and is not impressed in favour of Jesus by his answer; nor even between Luke and Mark, for these agree in appending ex- planatory remarks to tlic greatest commandment, as w^ll as in tlic insertion of forms of assent, such as Thou heist answered right, Thozi hast said the truth. Hence it is evident tliat to fuse only two of their narratives is a half measure, and that we must cither regard all three as independent, or all three as identical: whence again we may observe tlie freedom wliicli was used by tlic early Christian legend, in giving various forms to a single fact or idea,- tlic fundamental fact in tlic present case being, tliat, out of tlie whole Mosaic code, Jesus liad selected tlic two commandments concerning tlic love of God and our neighbour as tlic most excellent."* We come now to tlie great anti-pharisaic discourse, which Mat- thew gives (xxiii.) as a sort of pitched battle after the skirmishing of tlie preceding disputations. Mark (xii. 38 ft'.) and Luke (xx. 45 ft'.) have also a discourse of Jesus against tlie scribes ypci/i/za-etc, but extending no farther than a few verses. It is however highly probable, as our modern critics allow, + that Jesus sliould launch out into fuller invectives against tliat body of men under tlie circum- stances in which .Mattlicw places that discourse, and it is almost certain tliat such sharp enunciations must have preceded the cata- strophe; so tliat it is not admissible to control tlie account of tlie first evangelist by tlie meagre one of tlie two other synoptists,t especially as tlic former is distinguished by connectedness and unity. It is true tliat much of wliat Mattlicw here presents as a continuous address, is assigned by Luke to various scenes and occasions, and * Conip. Dr. Wette, exeg. Handb., 3, 1, S. 18C. + Sieffert, uber den Urspruns des DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS. 391 it would hence follow that the former has, in this case again, blended the original elements of tlie discourse with kindred matter, bclono-ino- to the discourses of various periods,* if it could be shown tliat the. arrangement of Luke is tlie correct one: a position which must there- fore be examined. Those parts of the anti-pharisaic harangue which Luke has in common with Mattlicw, are, excepting tlie couple of verses which lie places in the same connexion as Matthew, introduced by him as concomitant with two entertainments to which lie repre- sents Jesus as being invited by Pharisees (xi. 37 ft". ; xiv. 1 ft'.)-a politeness on their part which appears in no other Gospel. Tlie expositors of tlie present day, almost with one voice, concur in ad- miring tlie naturalness and faithfulness witli which Luke lias pre- served to us the original occasions of tliese discourses.! It is cer- tainly natural enough tliat, in the second entertainment, Jesus, observing the efforts of tlie guests to obtain tlie highest places for themselves, sliould take occasion to admonish tlicra against assuming the precedence at feasts, even on the low ground of prudential con- siderations ; and tills admonition appears in a curtailed form, and without any special cause in tlic final anti-pharisaic discourse in Matthew, Mark, and even in Luke again (xx. 46). But is it other- wise with tlie discourse wliicli Luke attaclics to tlie earlier entertain- ment in tlie Pharisee's house. In tlic very commencement of this repast, Jesus not only speaks of tlie ravening, dpnayfj, and wicked- ness, TTorrjpia, with wliicli tlie Pharisees till tlie cup and platter, and honours them witli the title of fools, a(j)poveg, but breaks forth into a denunciation of woe oval, against them and tlie scribes and doctors of the law, threatening them with retribution for all tlic blood that liad been slied by their fathers, wliose deeds they approved. We grant tliat Attic urbanity is not to be expected in a Jcwisli teacher, but even according to tlie oriental standard, such invectives uttered at, table against tlie liost and his guests, would be the grossest dere- liction of what is due to hospitality. Tills was obvious to Schleier- maclier's acute perception; and lie therefore supposes tliat the meal passed oft' amicably, and tliat it was not until its close, when Jesus was again out of tlie house, tliat the host expressed his surprise at the neglect of the usual ablutions by Jesus and Ins disciples, and that Jesus answered witli so much asperity.^ But to assume that the writer has not described tlie meal itself and the incidents tliat accompanied it, and that lie has noticed it merely for tlie sake of its connexion witli tlio subsequent discourse, is an arbitrary mode of overcoming the diftieulty. For the text runs thus : And he went in. and sat doicn to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- velled tliat lie, had not first -washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, elaeAOuv SK avKmoev b 6s 'S'apiaalof i6w eOavpaaev, 6ri. ov TTpu-ov sl3a~~ia0r]-• sirrs SK 6 Kvpto^ 7-p6(- avTov. It is niani- * Schuiz, Ulicr (las Abendmahl, S. 313 f.; Schncckcnburger, liber den Ursprung, S. 54. t iSclileierniac-her, uber den Lukas, S. 182, 19(i, f.; Okhausen, in loc., and the 392 THE LIFE OP JESUS. festly impossible to thrust in between these sentences the duration of tlie meal, and it must liave been tlie intention of the writer to attacli he. marvelled eOavyuicev to he sat down to meat dvs-reffsv, and he said ewer to he marvelled iOav^aaev. But if this could not really have been the case, unless Jesus violated in the grossest man- ner tlie simplest dictates of civility, there is an end to the vaunted accuracy of Luke in Ills allocation of tins discourse: and we have only to inquire how he could be led to give it so false a position. Tills is to be discovered by comparing tlie manner in which tlie two Other synoptists mention the offence of tile Pharisees, at the omis- sion of tlie ablutions before meals by Jesus and his disciples: a cir- cumstance to wliicli they annex discourses different from those given by Luke. In Matthew (xv. 1 ft'), scribes and Pharisees from Je- rusalem ask Jesus why his disciples do not observe tlie custom of washing before meat? It is thus implied tliat they knew of this omission, as may easily be supposed, by report. In Mark (vil. 1 ff.), they look on (tdovTe?), while some disciples of Jesus cat witli ua- •washen hands, and call them to account, for this irregularity. Lastly, in Luke, Jesus himself dines with a Pharisee, and on tills occasion it is observed, that lie neglects tlie usual wasliings. This is an evi- dent climax : hearing, witnessing taking food togetlier. Was it form- ed, in tlie descending gradation, from Luke to Mattliew, or, in the ascending one, from Mattliew to Luke ? From tlie point of view- adopted by the recent critics of tlie first Gospel, tlie former mode will be held tlie most probable, namely, that the memory of the original scene, tlie repast in the Pharisee's house, was lost in the process of tradition, and is therefore wanting in tlie first Gospel. But, apart from tlie difficulty of conceiving tliat this discourse was uttered under tlie circumstances with wliicli it is invested by Luke, it is by no means in accordance with tlie course of tradition, when once in possession of so dramatic a particular as a feast, to let it fall again, but rather to supply it, if lacking. The general tendency of the legend is to transform the abstract into the concrete, the mediate into tlie immediate, liearsay into vision, tlie spectator into the par- ticipator ; and as the offence taken against Jesus by tlie Pharisees referred, among other tilings, to the usages of tlie table, notliing was more natural than for legend to associate the origin of tlie offence with a particular place and occasion, and for tills purpose to imagine invitations given to Jesus by Pharisees-invitations wliicli would be historically suspicious, if for no other reason than tliat Luke alone knows anything of them. Here, then, we again find Luke in his favourite employment of furnishing a frame to tlie discourses of Je- sus which tradition had delivered to him; a procedure much farther removed from historic faithfulness, than tlie effort of Mattliew to give unity to discourses gathered from different periods, without adding matter of his own. Tlie formation of tlie climax above displayed, can only be conceived, in accordance with tlie general relation be- tween the synoptists, in the following manner: Mark, who in this DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THEEE FIEST GOSPELS. 393 instance evidently had Matthew before him, enriched his account with the dramatic expression Moyrec; while Luke, independent of botli, has added a repast, Sel-nvov, whether presented to him by a more developed tradition, or invented by Ills own more fertile im- agination. Together with this unhistorical position, the proportions themselves seem to be disfigured in Luke (xi. 39-4:1, 49.), and the observation of tlie lawyer, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also (xi. 45), too much resembles an artificial transition from the pliilippic against the Pharisees, to that against the doctors of tlie law.* Another passage in this discourse lias been tlie subject of much discussion. It is that (v. 35) in which Jesus threatens his cotem- poraries, tliat all tlie innocent blood shed from that of Abel to tliat of Zacharias, the son of Baracliias, slain in the temple, will be re- quired of their generation. Tlie Zacharias of whom sucli an end is narrated 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 ft', was a son, not of Baracliias, but of Jehoiada. On tlie oilier hand, there was a Zacliarias, the son of Barucli, who came to a similar end in tlie Jewish war.')' Moreover, it appears unlikely tliat Jesus would refer to a murder which took place 850 B. c. as tlie last. Hence it was at first supposed tliat we have in v. 35 a prophecy, and afterwards, a confusion of tlie earlier with tlie later event; and the latter notion lias been used as an ac- cessory proof that the first gospel is a posterior compilation.^ It is, however, equally probable, tliat tlie Zacliarias, son of Jehoiada, whose death is narrated in tlie Chronicles, lias been confounded witli tlie prophet Zachariah, wlio -was a son of Baracliias (Zacli. i. 1; LXX.; Baruch, in Josephus, is not tlie same name) ;§ especially as a Targum, evidently in consequence of a like confusion with tlie prophet who was a grandson oflddo, calls tlie murdered Zachariah a son of Iddo.|] The murder of a prophet, mentioned by Jeremiah (xxvi. 23.), was doubtless subsequent to tliat of Zachariah, but in tlie Jewisli order of tlie canonical books, Jeremiah precedes tlie Chronicles; and to oppose a murder revealed in the first canonical book, to one recorded in the last, was entirely in the style of Jewisli parlance.'lT After having considered all tlie discourses of Jesus given by Mattliew, and compared them witli their parallels, with tlie exception of tliose wliicli had come before us in previous discussions, or which have yet to come before us in our examination of single incidents in the public ministry, or of the history of tlie passion: it might appeal- requisite to tlie completeness of our criticism, tliat we sliould also give a separate investigation to tlie connexion in which tlie two otiier synoptists give tlie discourses of Jesus, and from this point review the parallels in Mattliew. But we have already cast a comparative glance over the most remarkable discourses in Luke and Mark, and * Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, S. IS'J. 1, 2, S. G7, 76. •i- Joseph b. j. iv. v. 4 t Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N. T., 1, S. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N. T., 2, S. 10 ff.; Credner, Eiul., 1, S. 207. ^ Vid. Theile, fiber Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in' Winer's und Engcllinrdt's neuem krit. Journ., 2, S. 401 tf.; De Wette, in loc. || Targum TIiren- ii- 20 in Wiit^pii-i ^ l