EVENTS CHAPTER VIII. IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OP JESUS, EXCLUDING THE MIRACLES. § 84. GENERAL COMPARISON OF THE MANNER OF NARRATION THAT DISTINGUISHES THE SEVERAL EVANGELISTS. IF, before proceeding to the consideration of details, we compare the general character and tone of the historical narration in the various gospels, we find differences, first, between Matthew and the two other synoptists; secondly, between the three first evangelists collectively and the fourth. Among the reproaches which modem criticism has heaped on the gospel of Matthew, a prominent place has been given to its want of individualized and dramatic life; a want which is thought to prove that the author was not an eye-witness, since an eye-wit- ness is ordinarily distinguished by the precision and minuteness of his narration.* Certainly, when we read the indefinite designation rnliocrentibv-s conte.ceras, nmmunquam ex contranis, nonnunquam ex sim'ilibus, nonnunquam ex '''*" -^'l nratwnis quodque mewhrum semper excipiat prius, szc ut ---*n«* EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LITE OF JESUS, 421 of times, places and persons, the perpetually recurring rvre, then, wapdyuv eneWev, departing from thence, avSpuircx;, a man, which characterize tills gospel; wlien we recollect its wholesale statements, such as that Jesus went through all the cities and villages (ix. 35; xi. 1; comp. iv. 23); tliat they brought to him all sick people, and that lie liealed them all (iv. 24 f.; xiv. 35 f.; comp. xv. 29 ff.); and finally, the bareness and brevity of many isolated narratives: we cannot disapprove tlie decision of this criticism, that Matthew's whole narrative resembles a record of events which, before they were committed to writing, liad been long current in oral tradition, and had tlius lost tlie impress of particularity and. minuteness. But it must be admitted, that this proof, taken alone, is not absolutely convincing; for in most cases we may verify the remark, that even an eye-witness may be unable graphically to narrate what lie has seen.* But our modern critics liave not only measured Matthew by the standard of wliat is to be expected from an eye-witness, in the abstract; they have also compared him witli Ins fellow-evangelists. They are of opinion, not only tliat Jolin decidedly surpasses Mat- thew in tlie power of delineation, both in their few parallel passages and in his entire narrative, but also tliat the two other synoptists, especially Mark, are generally far clearer and fuller in their style of narration, f This is tlie actual fact, and it ought not to be any longer evaded. With respect to tlie fourth evangelist, it is true that, as one would have anticipated, he is net devoid of general, wliolesale statements, such as, that Jesus during the feast did many miracles, tliat hence many believed on him (ii. 23), with others of a similar kind (iii. 22; vii. 1): and he not seldom designates persons indecisively. Sometimes, however, lie gives the names of individuals whom Mattlicw does not specify (xii. 3, 4; comp. with Matt. xxvi. 7, 8 ; and xviii. 10. with Matt. xxvi. 51; also vi. 5 ff. with Matt. xiv. 16 f.); and lie generally lets us know the district or country in whicli an event happened. His careful chronology we have already noticed; but the point of chief importance is that his narratives, (e, g. that of the man born blind, and. that of tlie resurrection of Lazarus,) liave a dramatic and life-like character, whicli we seek in vain in the first gospel. The two intermediate evangelists are not free from indecisive designations of time (e. g. Mark viii. 1; Luke v. 17 ; viii. 22); of place (Mark iii. 13 ; Luke vi. 12); and of persons (Mark x. 17; Luke xiii. 23); nor from statements tliat Jesus went through all cities, and liealed all the sick (Mark i. 32 ff.; 38 f.; Luke iv. 40 f.); but they often give ua the details of what Matthew has only stated generally. Not only does Luke associate many discourses of Jesus witli special occasions concerning which Matthew is silent, but botli he and Mark notice the office or names of persons, to whom Mattliew gives no precise * Olshauaen, b. Comm. 1, S. 15. + See the above named critics, passim ; and Hug. 422 THE LIFE OF JESUS. designation (Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke viii. 41; Mattli. xix. 16; Luke xviii. 18; Matt. xx. 30; Mark x. 46). But it is chiefly in tlie lively description of particular incidents, that we perceive the decided superiority of Luke, and still more of Mark, over Matthew. Let tlie reader only compare tlie narrative of tlie execu- tion of John tlie Baptist in Mattlicw and Mark (Mattli. xiv. 3: Mark vi. 17), and tliat of tlie demoniac or dcmoniacs of Gadara (Matt. viii. 28 ff. parall.). These facts are, in tlie opinion of our latest critics, a confirmation of tlie fourth evangelist's claim to tlie character of an eye-witness, and of tlie greater proximity of tlie second and third evangelists to tlie scenes they describe, than can Le attributed to tlie first. But, even allowing tliat one wlio does not narrate graphically cannot he an eye-witness, tin's docs not involve tlie proposition tliat whoever docs narrate graphically must be an eye-witness. In all cases in wliicli there are extant two accounts of a single fact, tlie one full, tlie other concise, opinions may be divided as to wliicli of them is the original.* When tliese accounts liave been liable to the modifica- tions of tradition, it is important to bear in mind that tradition has two tendencies: the one, to sublimate the concrete into tlie abstract, tlie individual into tlie general; the other, not less essential, to sub- stitute arbitrary fictions for tlie historical reality wliicli is lost.f If then we put tlie want of precision in the narrative of tlie first evange- list to tlie account of tlie former function of the legend, ouo-ht we at o 7 0 once to regard tlie precision and dramatic effect of tlie other gospels, as a proof tliat their authors were eye-witnesses? Must we not rather cxamino whether tlicsc qualities bo not derived from tlie second function of tlie legend?.): Tlie decision with which tlie other infer- ence is drawn, is in fact merely an after-taste of the old orthodox opinion, tliat all our gospels proceed immediately from eye-witnesses, or at least through a medium incapable of error. Modern criticism has limited tills supposition, and admitted the possibility that one or the other of our gospels may liave been affected by oral tradition. Accordingly it maintains, not without probability, tliat a gospel in which the descriptions are throughout destitute of colouring and life, cannot be tlie production of an eye-witness, and must liave suffered from tlie effacing fingers of tradition. But tlie counter proposition, tliat tlie other gospels, in which tlie style of narration is more de- tailed and dramatic, rest on tlie testimony of eye-witnesses, would only follow from tlie supposed necessity that this must. be the case witli some of our gospels. For if such a supposition be made witli respect to several narratives of both the above kinds, there is no question that the more graphic and vivid ones are with preponderant probability to be referred to eye-witnesses. But this supposition lias * Conip. Sunnier, ttbcr die Qucllen des Markus, S. 42 ff. •)- Kern, uber den Trs.pr, ties Ev"i -MiUthi lit sup, St TO fi ^ 1 sav, examim'. u'hvtker-not, consider it dvcidfd fhrii ^^ *!,„» +i./, „,.,...„„+:,.„ ^ ^, ,„»„„„»-. tiiot T i,c.' 1 ntli thp n;irtu-ii1antv and tlie brevitv ul EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 42S merely a subjective foundation. It was an easier transition for com- mentators to make from tlie old notion that all the gospels were im- mediately or mediately autoptical narratives, to tlie limited admission that perhaps one may fall short of this character, than to the eeneral admission tliat it mav be equally wanting to all. But, accordino- to the rigid rules of consequence, with the orthodox view of tlie scriptu- ral canon, falls the assumption of pure ocular testimony, not only for one or oilier of tlie gospels, but for all: tlie, possibility of the con- trary must be presupposed in relation to them all, and tlicir preten- sions must be estimated according to their internal character, com- pared with the external testimonies. From this point of view-tlie only one that criticism can consistently adopt-it is as probable, con- sidering tlie nature of tlie external testimonies examined in our In- troduction, that the three last evangelists owe the dramatic effect in which they surpass Matthew, to tlie embellishments of a more mature tradition, as tliat tins quality is tlie result of a closer communication with eye-witnesses. Tliat we may not anticipate, let us, in relation to this question, refer to the results we have already obtained. The greater particu- larity by which Luke is distinguished from Mattliew in his account of tlie occasions that suggested many discourses of Jesus, has ap- peared to us often to be tlie result of subsequent additions; and the names of persons in Mark (xiii. 3. comp. v. 37; Luke viii. 51.) have seemed to rest on a mere inference of tlie narrator. Now, however, tliat we arc about to er.ter on an examination of particular narratives, w; will consider, from tlie point of view above indicated, the constant forms of introduction, conclusion, and transition, already noticed, in tlie several gospels. Here we rind the difference between Matthew and the other synoptists, as to tlicir more or less dramatic style, im- printed in a manner tliat can best teacli us how much tills style is worth. Mattliew (viii. 16 f.) states in general terms, tliat on tlie evening- after tlie cure of Peter's mother-in-law, many dcmoniacs were brought to Jesus, all of whom, together witli others that were sick, lie healed. Mark (i. 32.) in a highly dramatic manner, as if lie himself had wit- nessed the scene, tells, tliat on the same occasion, the wliole city was gathered together at tlie door of tlie liouse in wliicli Jesus w^as ; at another time, he makes tlie crowd block up the entrance (ii. 2.); in two other instances, lie describes tlie concourse as so great, tliat Je- .sus and his disciples could not take their food (iii. 20; vi. 31.); and Luke on one occasion states, tliat tlie people even gathered togetlier in innumerable multitudes so tliat they trode one upon another. (xii. 1.). All highly vivid touches, certainly: but tlie want of them can hardly be prejudicial to Matthew, for they look thoroughly like strokes of imagination, such as abound in Mark's narrative, and often, as Schlcicrmachcr observes,* give it almost an apocryphal appear- ance. In detailed narratives, of which we shall presently notice 424 THE LIFE OF JE8US. many examples, while Matthew simply tells what Jesus said on a certain occasion, the two other evangelists are able to describe tlie glance with which his words were accompanied (Mark iii. 5; x. 21; Luke vi. 10). On tlie mention of a blind beggar of Jericho, Mark is careful to give us his name, and the name of his father (x. 46). From these particulars we might already augur, wliat tlie examina- tion of single narratives will prove: namely, that tlie copiousness of Mark and Luke is the product of tlie second function of tlie legend, which we may call the function of embellishment. Was tills em- bellishment gradually wrought out by oral tradition, or was it the arbitrary addition of our evangelists ? Concerning tills, there may be a difference of opinion, and a degree of probability in relation to particular passages is tlie nearest, approach that can be made to a de- cision. In any case, not only must it be granted, that a narrative adorned by tlie writer's own additions is more remote from primitive truth tlian one free from sucli additions; but we may venture to pronounce that the earlier efforts of tlie legend are rapid sketches, tending to set off' only the leading points whether of speech or action, and that at a later period it aims rather to give a symmetrical effect to tlie whole, including collateral incidents; so that, in either view, the closest approximation to truth remains on tlie side of the first gospel. While the difference as to tlie more or less dramatic style of concluding and connecting forms, lies chiefly between Mattliew and the other synoptists ; another difference with respect to these forms exists between all tlie synoptists and John. While most of the synoptical anecdotes from the public life of Jesus are wound up by a panegyric, those of John generally terminate, so to speak, polemi- cally. It is true that tlie three first evangelists sometimes mention, by way of conclusion, tlie offence tliat J esus gave to the narrow- hearted, and tlie machinations of Ills enemies against liiin (Matt. viii. 34; xii. 14; xxi. 46 ; xxvi. 3 f.; Luke iv. 28 f.; xi. 35 f.); and, on the other liand, tlie fourth evangelist closes some discourses and miracles by tlie remark, that in consequence of them, many believed on Jesus (ii. 23; iv. 39. 53; vii. 31. 40 f.; viii 30; x. 42 ; xi. 45). But in the synoptical gospels, throughout the period previous to the residence of Jesus in Jerusalem, we find forms implying that tlie fame of Jesus had extended far and wide (Matt. iv. 24; ix. 26. 31; Mark i. 28. 45 ; v. 20; vii. 36; Luke iv. 37 ; v. 15; vii. 17 ; viii. 39); that tlie people were astonished at his doctrine (Matt. vii. 28; Mark i. 22; xi. 18; Luke xix. 48), and miracles (Matt. viii. 27; ix. 8; xiv. 33; xv. 31), and hence followed him from all parts (Matt. iv. 25; viii. 1; ix, 36; xii. 15; xiii. 2; xiv. 13). In the fourth gospel, on tlie contrary, we are continually told that the Jews sought to kill Jesus (v. 18 ; vii. 1); tlie Pharisees wish to take him, or send out officers to seize him (vii. 30. 32. 54; comp. viii. 20; x. 39); stones are taken up to cast at him (viii. 59 ; x. 31); and cvp.n in tlinsp. iiaaaivo-p.c; whpro there is mention of a favourable dis- EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 425 position on the part of the people, tlie evangelist limits it to one portion of them, and represents the other as inimical to Jesus (vii. 11-13). He is especially fond of drawing attention to such cir- cumstances, as tliat before tlie final catastrophe all the guile and power of tlie enemies of Jesus were exerted in vain, because his liour was not yet come (vii. 30; viii. 20); tliat the emissaries sent out against him, overcome by tlie force of his words, and the dignity of his person, retired without fulfilling their errand (vii. 32. 44 ff.); and tliat Jesus passed unharmed through the midst of an exasper- ated crowd (viii. 59; x. 39: comp. Luke iv. 30). The writer, as we liave above remarked, certainly does not intend us in tliese in- stances to think of a natural escape, but of one in which tlie higher nature of Jesus, his invulnerability so long as lie did not clioose to lay down his life, was his protection. And tins throws some liglit on tlie object which the fourth evangelist had in view, in giving prominence to sucli traits as those just enumerated : they helped him to add to the number of tlie contrasts, by wliicli, throughout his works, lie aims to exalt the person of Jesus. Tlie profound-wisdom of Jesus, as tlie divine Logos, appeared the more resplendent, from its opposition to the rude unapprehensiveness of the Jews ; his good- ness wore a more touching aspect, confronted with tlie inveterate malice of his enemies; his appearance gained in impressiveness, by the strife lie excited among the people; and his power, as that of one who liad life in himself, commanded tlie more reverence, tlie oftcncr his enemies and their instruments tried to seize him, and, as if restrained by a higher power, w-ere not able to lay hands on him,- tlie more marvellously lie passed through the ranks of adversaries prepared to take away his,l'ife. It lias been made matter of praise to the fourth evangelis,t,-'tliat lie alone presents the opposition of tlie pharisaic party to Jesus, in its rise and gradual progress: but there are reasons for,questioning whether tlie course of events described by him, be^n'ot rather fictitious than real. Partially fictitious, it evideiitlyTs; for lie appeals to tlie supernatural for a reason why the Pharisees so long effected nothing against Jesus: "whereas the sy- noptists preserve tlie natural sequence of tlie facts by stating as a 'cause, tliat tlie Jewish hierarchy feared tlie people, wlio where at- tached to Jesus as a prophet (Matt. xxi. 46; Mark xii. 12; Luke xx. 19). If then tlie fourth evangelist was so far guided by his dogmatical interest, tliat for tlie escape of Jesus from the more early snares and assaults of his enemies, lie invented such a reason as best suited his purpose; wliat shall assure us that lie has not also, in consistency witli tlie characteristics which we have already discerned in him, fabricated, for tlie sake of tliat interest, entire scenes of the kind above noticed ? Not tliat we liold it improbable, tliat many futile plots and attacks of the enemies of Jesus preceded the final catastrophe of his fate:-we are only dubious whether these attempts were precisely such as the gospel of John describes. 426 THE LIFE OF JESUS. § 85. ISOLATED GROUPS OF ANECDOTES-IMPUTATION OF A LEAGUE WITH BEELZEBUB, AND DEMAND OP A SIGN. IN conformity with the aim of our criticism, we shall here confine our attention to those narratives, in which the influence of the legend may be demonstrated. The strongest evidence of this influence is found where one narrative is blended with another, or where tlie one is a mere variation of the other: hence, chronology liaving refused us its aid, we shall arrange the anecdotes about to be considered according to their mutual affinity. To begin with the more simple form of legendary influence: Schuiz has already complained, tliat Matthew mentions two in- stances, in which a league with Beelzebub was imputed to Jesus, and a sign demanded from Ilim; circumstances which in Mark and Luke liappcn only once.* The first time tlie imputation occurs (Matt. ix. 32 ft'.), Jesus has cured a dumb dcinonianic; at tills the people marvel, but tlie Pharisees observe, JIe casts out demons through tha prince, (ap^uv) of tlw demons. Matthew does not here say that Jesus returned any answer to this accusation. On tlie sec- ond occasion (xii. 22. ff), it is a blind and dumb demonianic whom Jesus cures; again tlie people are amazed, and again tlie Pharisees declare tliat the cure is effected by tlie help of Beelzebub, tlie ap,V"r of tlie demons, whereupon Jesus immediately exposes tlie absurdity of the accusation. Tliat it should have been alleged against Jesus more than once when he cast out demons, is in itself probable. It is however suspicious that tlie demoniac who gives occasion to the assertion of the Pharisees, is in both instances dumb (in tlie second only, blindness is added). Dcmoniacs were of many kinds, every variety of malady being ascribed to the influence of evil spirits ; why, then, sliould tlie above imputation be not once attaclied to the cure of another kind of demoniac, but twice to that of a dumb one'? The difficulty is heightened, if we compare tlie narrative of Luke (xi. 14 f), which, in its introductory description of tlie circumstances, corresponds not to tlie second narrative in Matthew, but to tlie first; for as there, so in Luke, tlie demoniac is only dumb, and his cure and the astonishment of the people are told witli precisely the same form of expression:-in all which points, tlie second narrative of Mattliew is more remote from tliat of Luke. But with tills cure of tlie dumb demoniac, wliicli Mattliew represents as passing off in silence on tlie part of Jesus, Luke connects tlie very discourse which Mattliew appends to tlie cure of tlie one both blind and dumb; so tliat Jesus must on botli these successive occasions, have said the same thing. This is a very unlikely repetition, and united with tlie improbability, that tlie same accusation sliould be twice made in connexion with a dumb demoniac, it suggests tlie question, whether legend may not here have doubled one, and the same incident? How this can liave taken place, Mattliew himself shows us, by represent- EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 427 ing tlie demoniac as, in tlie one case, simply dumb, in tlie other, blind also. Must it not liave been a striking cure wliicli excited, on tlie one hand, the astonishment of tlie people, on the other, this desperate attack of tlie enemies of Jesus ? Dumbness alone might soon appear an insufficient malady for tlie subject of tlie cure, and the legend, ever, prone to enhance, might deprive him of siglit also. If then, together witli this new form of the legend, the old one too was handed down, what wonder tliat a compiler, more conscientious than critical, such as tlie author of tlie first gospel, adopted both as distinct histories, merely omitting on one occasion the discourse of Jesus, for the sake of avoiding repetition.* Mattliew, having omitted (ix. 34) the discourse of Jesus, was obliged also to defer tlie demand of a sign, which required a previ- ous rejoinder on tlie part of Jesus, until his second narration of the charge concerning Bclzebub; and in tills point again tlie narrative of Luke, who also attaclics tlie demand of a sign to tlie accusation, is parallel witli tlie latter passage of Matthew, f But Matthew not only has, with Luke, a demand of a sign in connexion witli the * Schleiermacher (S, 175), does not perceive the connexion of the discourse on the blasphemy against tlie Holy Gliost, in Matthew (xii, 31 f.) though it links on excellently to the foregoing expression, eyu iv •srvei'fia.Ti Scov enfSuW.u -u Saifiovia (v. 38), It is more easy, however, to understand this difficulty, than that he sliould think (S. 183 f,) that discourse better introduced in Luke (xii* 10)i For here, between the preceding proposi- tion, tliat. whosoever denies the Son of man before men, shall be denied before tlie angels of God, and tlie one in question, the only connexion is that the expression upvuff'Qa.i. T&V vlov TOV uv^pc-iTTOV brought to the writer's recollection the words Enrsiv Etc Uyov rbv vlov TOV dvi?p(J7roy. One proof of this is tliat between the latter passage and the succeeding dec- laration, that tlie necessary words would be given to the disciples, when before tlie tribu- nal, by the irvevp.a uf'iov, the connexion consists just as siipcrlicially in the expression irvEv^a flyiov. Wliat follows in Matthew (v, 33-37), had been partly given already in the sermon on the mount, but stands licre in a better connexion than Schleiermacher is willing to admit. ^ Luke makes tlie demand of a sign follow immediately on the accusation, and then gives in succession the answers of Jesus to both. This representation modern criticism holds to be far more probable than that of Matthew, wlio gives first the accusation and its answer, tlien tlie demand of a sign and its refusal; and tills judgment is grounded on the difficulty of supposing, that after Jesus had given a sufficiently long answer to tlie accusation, the very same people who liad urged it would still demand a sign (Schleiermacher, S. 175 ; Schneckenburger, fiber den L'rsprung, S. 52 f.) But on the other liand, it is equally improbable tliat Jc.sns, after having some time ago delivered a forcible discourse on tlie more important point, the accusation concerning Beelzebub, and even after an interruption which had led him to a totally irrelevant declaration (Luke xi. 27 ft), should revert to tlie less important point, namely, the demand of a sign, The dis- course OH tlie departure and return of the unclean spirit, is in Matthew (v. 4:3-4-5) an- nexed to tlie reply of Jesus to this demand ; but in Luke (xi. 24; ff.) it follows the answer to the imputation of a league with Beelzebub, and this may at first seem to be a more suitable arrangcmcnti But on a closer examination, it will appear very improbable that Jesus should conclude a defence, exacted from him by his enemies, with so calm and purely theoretical a discourse, which supposes an audience, if not favourably prepossessed, at least open to instruction ; and it will be found tliat here again there is no further con- nexion than that both discourses treat of tlie expulsion of demons. By this single feature of resemblance, tlie writer of the third gospel was led to sover the connexion between the answer to (lie oft-named accusation, and that to the demand of a sign, wliich accusation and demand, as the s;rongest proofs of the malevolent unbelief of the enemies of Jesus, seem to have been associated by tradition. The first evangelist refrained from this vio- lence, and reserved tlie discourse on the return of the unclean spirit, which was suggested by the suspicion cast on tlie expulsion of demons by Jesus, until he had communicated thff 428 THE LIFE OF JESUS. above charge; he lias also another, after tlie second feeding of the multitude (xvi. 1 ff.), and this second demand Mark also lias (viii. 11 f.), while he omits the first. Here the Pharisees come to Jesus (according to Matthew, in the unlikely companionship of Sadducees), and tempt him by asking for a. sign, from. heaven, ai]ueiov en TW ovpavov. To this Jesus gives an answer, of wliicli the concluding pro- position, a zoicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas, ysvea r:ovi]pa aal jUOi^a/lZc (3i]i.isiov eTt^reZ, KCU or)iie~iov ov 60- 0fiaerai avry, d yiff -o a'q^elov 'luva -ov -rpo^^-ov, in Matthew, agrees word for word witli the opening of the earlier refusal. It is already improbable enough, tliat Jesus sliould have twice responded to the above requisition with tlie same cnismatical reference to Jonah ; but the words (v. 2, 3) wdilch, in the second passage of Matthew, precede the sentence last quoted, are totally unintelligible. Por wliy Jesus, in reply to tlie demand of his enemies that lie would show them a sign from heaven, should tell them tliat they were indeed well versed in the natural signs of the heavens, but were so much tlie more glar- ingly ignorant of the spiritual signs of the messianic times, is so far from evident, tliat the otherwise unfounded omission of v. 2 and 3, seems to have arisen from despair of rinding any connexion for them.* Luke, who also lias, (xii. 44 f.), in words only partly varied, tills reproach of Jesus that his cotemporaries understood better tlie signs of tlie weather than of the times, gives it another position, wliich might be regarded as the preferable one ; since after speaking of tlie fire which he was to kindle, and the divisions which lie was to cause, Jesus might very aptly say to the people: You take no notice of the. unmistakeable prognostics of this great revolution which is being prepared by my means, so ill do you understand the signs of the times.t But on a closer examination, Luke's arrange- ment appears just as abrupt here, as in tlie case of the two parables (xiii. 18)4 If from hence we turn again to Matthew, we easily see liow he was led to his mode of representation, He may have been induced to double tlie demand of a sign, by the verbal variation which he met witli, the required sign being at one time called simply a ari[is~iov, at another a O-^MOV en TOV ovpavov. And if lie knew that Jesus had exhorted tlie Jews to study the signs of the times, as they liad hitherto studied tlie appearance of tlie heavens, the con- jecture was not very remote, tliat the Jews liad given occasion for this admonition by demanding a sign from. heaven, cny.ewv KK TOV ovpavov. Thus Mattliew here presents us, as Luke often does else- where, with a fictitious introduction to a discourse of Jesus ; a proof of the proposition, advaaiced indeed, but too little regarded by Sicf- fert :§ that it is in tlie nature of traditional records, such as the three first gospels, tliat one particular should be best preserved in this * Vid. Griesbach, Coniin. crit. in loc. f Comp. Schkiiirmacher, S. 190 f. + Wptte pv,-p- Hanrlllucli. i. S. 139. EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 429 narrative, another in that; so that first one, and then the other, ia at a disadvantage, in comparison with the rest. § 86. VISIT OF THE' MOTHEE AND BEETHEEN OF JESUS--THE WOMAN WHO PEONOUNCES THE MOTIIEE OF JESUS BLESSED. ALL the synoptists mention a visit of the mother and brethren of Jesus, on being apprised of wliich Jesus points to his disciples, and declares tliat they who do tlie wdll of God arc his mother and liig brethren (Matt. xii. 46 ff.; Mark iii. 31 ff.; Luke viii. 19 ff.). Matthew and Luke do not tell us tlie object of this visit, nor, con- sequently, whether tills declaration of Jesus, wliicli appears to imply a disowning of his relatives, was occasioned by any special circum- stance. On tills subject Mark gives us unexpected information : he tells us (v. 21) that wliile Jesus was teaching among a concourse of people, who even prevented him from taking food, his relatives, under the idea that he was beside himself, went out to seize him, and take him into the keeping of his family.* In describing this in- cident, the evangelist makes use of tlie expression, S^-syov on. K^EO-I], {they said, he is beside himself), and it was merely tills expression, apparently, tliat suggested to him wliat lie next proceeds to narrate: ol ypajJ.i.i.a.TEic e^eyov, o-t Bee^efJovX S^ei K. -. \. (the scribes said, he hath Beelzebub, &c., comp. John x. 20). With this reproach, which however, lie does not attacli to an expulsion of demons, he connects the answer of Jesus; he then recurs to the relatives, whom he now particularizes as tlie mother and brethren of Jesus, supposing them to have arrived in tlie meantime; and he makes their announcement call forth from Jesus the answer of wliich we have above spoken. Tliese particulars imparted by Mark are very welcome to com- mentators, as a means of explaining and justifying tlie apparent harshness of tlie answer wliicli Jesus returns to the announcement of his nearest relatives, on tlie ground of the perverted object of their visit. But, apart from the difficulty that, on the usual inter- pretation of tlie accounts of the childhood of Jesus, it is not to be explained liow his mother could, after the events therein described, be thus mistaken in her son, it is very questionable whether we ouglit to accept this information of Mark's. In tlie first place, it is asso- ciated witli tl'.e obvious exaggeration, that Jesus and Ills disciples were prevented even from taking food by tlie throng of people ; and in tlie second place, it has in itself a strange appearance, from its want of relation to tlie context. If these points are considered, it will scarcely be possible to avoid agreeing witli the opinion of Sclileiermacher, tliat no explanation of the tlicn existing relations of Jesus with his family is to be sought in this addition; that it rather belongs to tliose exaggerations to wliicli Mark is so prone, as well in his introductions to isolated incidents, as in his general state- 430 THE LIFE OF JESUS. mcnts.* lie wished to make it understood why Jesus returned an ungracious answer to the announcement of Ills relatives; tor this purpose lie thought it necessary to give their visit an object of which Jesus did not approve, and as he knew tliat tlie Pharisees had pronounced him to be under tlie influence of Beelzebub, lie at- tributed a similar opinion to his relatives. If we lay aside this addition of Mark's, the comparison of tlie three very similar narratives presents no result as it regards their matter;+ but there is a striking difference between tlie connexions in wliicli tlie evangelists place tlie event. Matthew and Mark insert it after tlie defence against tlie suspicion of diabolical aid, and. before tlie parable of tlie sower, whereas Luke makes the visit considerably prior to that imputation, and places the parable even before tlie visit. It is worthy of notice, however, tliat Luke has, after the defence against tlie accusation of a league with Beelzebub, in tlie position wliicli tlie two other evangelists give to tlie visit of the relatives of Jesus, an incident which issues in a declaration, precisely similar to tliat wliicli tlie announcement calls forth. After the refutation of the Pharisaic reproach, and the discourse on the, return of the unclean spirit, a woman in tlie crowd is rilled with admiration, and pronounces tlie mother of Jesus blessed, on which Jesus, as before on tlie announcement of Ills mother, replies; Yea, rather blessed are they v:ho hear the word of God and keep it /f Schleiermacher here again prefers the account of Luke: lie thinks tills little digression on the exclamation of the woman, especially evinces a fresh and lively recollection, wliicli has inserted it in its real place and circumstances; whereas Mattlicw, confounding tlie answer of Jesus to the ejaculation of tlie woman, witli tlie very similar one to the announcement of his relatives, gives to the latter tlie place of the former, and tliua passes over the scene with the wonian.§ But how tlie woman could feel herself hurried away into so enthusiastic an exclamation, precisely on hearing the abstruse discourse on tlie return of tlie expelled demons, or even the. foregoing rcprchcnsive reply to the Pharisees, it is difficult to understand, and tlie contrary conjecture to tliat, of Schleiermacher might rather be established; namely, tliat in tlie place of tlie announcement of tlie relatives, tlie writer of tlie third gospel inserted tlie scene with tlie • Ueber den Lukas, S. 121. •[• Schncckcnbiirger, (illier den Urspr. S. .'">t), finds an attempt at dramatic enect in the tint. "w, and tile t'/crnvac n/v ^npa, of Matthew, as coin- pared with the eiTT'.iv aiid TT^pi^/^'afzKvoc />{'/>:?,<.) of Mark. This is a remarkable proof of the partial acumen which plays so distinguished a part to th1 disadvantage of Matthew in modern criticism. Fur who does not see that if Matthew had SLTTOV, it would lie numbered among tlie proofs tliat his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for tlie vords fhTelvar TI'IV yipii, there is nothing to be discovered in thnn wliicli could give to them more than to tlie KE'}if3^,eipu^£VO(; of murk llie stamp of artiiiciality : we might as well attribute (lie latter expression to Mark^s al eadv discovered fondness for describing tlie action of tlie eyes, and consequently regard t as an addition of Ilia own. ^ Answer to the aimoucen .•nt, viii. 21 ; Answer t.» ti*,.' woman, xi. 28 : fiKvovv'^E ^r?/p JMOV Kai uoiA^oi fiov OL'TO ELOLV ol TOV ^i/capifit (sc. oi'^ ?/ itij~-i]i) uor, u/.Z') Oi ukovov- 'A(i\'nt' -run ^f'nn n^n/'vnr ^al ^Oiof'rr^c Cli'TOV. TCC TOV Aoyur Toil -^sov Kai (!>u/i^(7CorTFf, ^I'TOV. EVENTS IS THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 431 woman, from its having a like termination. The evano-elical tra- dition, as we see from Mattliew and Mark, whether from historical or merely accidental motives, had associated tlie above visit and the saying about tlie spiritual relatives, with the discourse of Jesus on tlie accusation of a league witli Beelzebub, and on the return of the unclean spirit; and Luke also, when lie came to tlie conclusion of tliat discourse, was reminded of the anecdote of the visit and its point-tlie extolling of a spiritual relationship to Jesus. But he liad already mentioned tlie visit ;* he therefore seized on tlie scene witli tlie woman, wdiich presented a similar termination. From the strong resemblance between tlie two anecdotes, I can scarcely believe that they are founded on two really distinct incidents; rather, it is more likely that tlie memorable declaration of Jesus, tliat lie pre- ferred his spiritual before his bodily relatives, liad in the legend received two different settings or frames. According to one, it seemed the most natural that such a depreciation of his kindred should be united witli an actual rejection of them ; to another, that the exaltation of those wlio were spiritually near to him, should be called forth bv a blessing pronounced on those who were nearest to him in the flesh. Of tliese two forms of tlie legend, Mattliew and Mark give only the first: Luke, however, liad already disposed of this on an earlier occasion; when, therefore, lie came to the passage where, in tlio common evangelical tradition, tliat anecdote occurred, he was induced to supply its place by the second form. § 87. CONTENTIONS FOE PKE-EMINENCE AMONG THE DISCIPLES. THE LOVE OF JESUS FOE CHILDREN. Tlie three first evangelists narrate several contentions for pre- eminence which arose among the disciples, with tlie manner in wliicli Jesus composed tliese differences. One such contention, wliicli is said to have arisen among the disciples after tlie trans- figuration, and the first prediction of tlie passion, is common to all tlie gospels (Matt. xviii. 1 ff.; Mark ix. 33 ft. ; Luke ix. 46 ft.). There are indeed divergencies in tlie narratives, but tlie identity of the incident on wliicli they are founded is attested by tlie fact, tliat in all of them, Jesus sets a little child before his disciples as an example; a scene wliicli, as Schleiermacher rcmarks,t would hardly be. repeated. Mattliew and Mark concur in mentioning a dispute about pre-eminence, wliicli was excited by tlie two sons ofZebedee. These disciples (according to Mark), or their mother for them (according to Mattliew), petitioned for the two first places next to * Tliat which decided tlie evangelist to place tlie visit after the parable of the sower, was probably not, as Schleiermacher thinks, a real chronological connexion. On the con- trary, we recognize tlie usual characteristic of his arrangement, in the transition from the concludi.'ig sentence in tlie explanation of the parable : these are Ihry-ie/to hnvwy heard tfie word, ker.p it, o.wl linny forth, fruit iril!i patience, to the simihir expression of Jesus on tlie occasion of the vi-it: iho^e 'n'ho lici^oveiitia ev avroig, -o, T(^' avruv Sonsl elvai [zsi^uv ; that is, tlie disputes about the betrayer called to his remembrance the disputes about pre-eminence. One such dispute indeed, he had already mentioned, but had only connected with it, one sentence excepted, the discourses occasioned by the exhibition of the child; he liad yet in reserve those which tlie two first evangelists attach to the petition of tlie sons of Zebedee, an occasion wliicli seems not to have been present to tlie mind of tlie third evangelist, whence lie introduces tlie discourses pertaining to it here, with tlie general state- ment tliat they originated in a contention for pre-eminence, wliich broke out among tlie disciples. Meanwhile the chronological position, also, of tlie two first-named disputes about rank, lias very little probability; for in both instances, it is after a prediction of tlie pas- sion, which, like tlic prediction of the betrayal, would seem calcu" lated to suppress such thoughts of earthly ambition.* We therefore 434 THE LIFE OF JESUS. welcome tlie indication which tlic evangelical narrative itself presents, of tlic manner in which tlic narrators were led unhistorically to such an arrangement. In tlic answer of Jesus to tlic prayer of Salome, the sail-cut point was tlic suffering tliat awaited him and Ills dis- ciples ; hence by tlic most natural association of ideas, the ambition of the two disciples, the antidote to which was tlie announcement of approaching trial, was connected with tlie prediction of tlie pas- sion. Again, oil tlic first occasion of rivalry, tlie preceding prediction of tlic passion leads in Mark and Luke to tlic observation, that tlic disciples did not understand tlic words of Jesus, and yet feared to ask liiin conccrnino' them, whence it may be inferred tliat they de- bated and disputed on tlie subject among themselves; here, then, the association of ideas caused tlie evangelists to introduce the con- tention for pre-eminence, also carried on in tlie absence of Jesus. This explanation is not applicable to tlic narrative of Matthew, for tticre, between tlie prediction of tlic passion and tlie dispute of tlic disciples, tlie anecdote of the coin angled for by Peter, intervenes. With tlic above contentions for pre-eminence, another anecdote is indirectly connected by means of tlic cliild which is put forward on one of tliosc occasions. Children are brought to Jesus tliat lie may bless them ; tlie disciples wish to prevent it, but Jesus speaks the encouraging words, Suffer little children to coma v.nto rize, and adds that only for children, and tliose wlio resemble children, is the kingdom of heaven destined (Matt. xix. 13 ff.; Mark x. 13 ff.; Luke xviii. 15 ff.). Tills narrative lias many points of resemblance to tliat of the cliild placed in tlic midst of tlie disciples. Istly, in both, Jesus presents children as a model, and" declares that only those who resemble children can enter tlic kingdom of God; 2ndly, in both, tlie disciples appear in tlie liglit of opposition to children; and, 3rdly, in botli, Mark says, that Jesus took tlic children in his arms (eray/ca/lio-a^ei'oc.) If these points of resemblance be esteemed ade- quate ground for reducing tlie two narratives to one, tlie latter must, beyond all question, be retained as the nearest to truth, because the saying of Jesus, Siijfcr little children &c. which, from its rctainin"' tills original form in all the narratives, bears the stamp of genuine- ness, could scarcely have been uttered on the other occasion; where- as, tlie sentences on children as patterns of humility, given in •connection with the contention about rank, might very well have been uttered under tlie circumstances above described, in retrospec- tive allusion to previous contentions about rank. Nevertheless, tills might rather be tlie place for supposing an assimilation of originally diverse occurrences, since it is at least evident, tliat Mark lias in- serted tlie expression evavKa/ltffa/.iei'oi: in both, simply on account of tlie resemblance between the two scenes. § 88. THE PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE. JESUS, during Ids first residence in Jerusalem, according to John EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 435 12 ff. paralL), undertook the purification of the temple. The ancient commentators thought, and many modern ones still think,* tliat these were separate events, especially as, besides tlie clironolo"-ical difference, there is some divergency between the three first cvano-e- lists and the fourth in their particulars. While, namely, the former, in relation to the conduct of Jesus, merely speak in general terms of an expulsion eK0dA^eiv, John says that he made a scourge of small cords ^pay&'.Utov en ffyomwv, for tills purpose: again, wliilc according to tlie former, lie treats all tlie sellers alike, he appears, according to Jolm, to make some distinction, and to use the sellers of doves somewhat more mildly; moreover, John does not say tliat he drove out tlie buyers, as well as tlic sellers. There is also a dif- ference as to tlie language used by Jesus on tlie occasion; in tlie synoptical gospels, it is given in the form of an exact quotation from tlic Old Testament; in John, merely as a free allusion. But, above all, there is a difference as to tlie result: in the fourth gospel, Jesus is immediately called to account; in tlie synoptical gospels, we read nothing of this, and according to them, it is not until the following day tliat tlie Jewish authorities put to Jesus a question, wliicli seems to have reference to tlie purification of tlic temple (Matt. xxi. 23 ff.^, and to which Jesus replies quite otherwise tlian to the remonstrance in the fourth gospel. To explain .tlie repetition of such a measure, it is remarked that the abuse was not likely to cease on tlic first expulsion, and tliat on every revival of it, Jesus would feel himself anew called on to interfere; that, moreover, tlie temple purification in John is indicated to be an earlier event than that in the synoptical gospels, by the circumstance, tliat tlie fourth evangelist represents Jesus as being immediately called to accoi.mr, wliile his impunity in the other case appears a natural consequence of the heightened consideration which lie had in the meantime won. But allowing to these divergencies their full weight, tlie agree- ment between tlic two narratives preponderates. We liave in botli tlie same abuse, tlie same violent mode of checking it, by casting out (eitpd^ew) the people, and overt In'owing (avaorpE^eiv) tlie tables; nay, virtually, tlic same language in justification of this procedure, for in Jolm, as well as in tlie other gospels, tlie words of Jesus con- tain a reference, though not a verbally precise one, to Isai. Ivi. 7; Jer. vii. 11. These important points of resemblance must at. least extort sucli an admission as that of Sieffert,t namely, that the two occurrences, originally but little alike, were assimilated by tradition, tlie features of tlic one being transferred to tlic other. But thus much seems clear; the synoptists know as little of an earlier event of this kind, as in fact of an earlier visit of Jesus to Jerusalem: and tlie fourth evangelist seems to have passed over tlie purification of the temple after tlie last entrance of Jesus into tlie metropolis, not be- cause lie presumed it to be already known from tlie other gospels, * Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, I- J. Clir., S. 388, Anni. rrfonrntln. 0 IHQ 4f i Ucber dec 436 THE LIFE OF JESUS. but because he believed that he must give an early date to the sole act of tlie kind with which lie was acquainted. It" then each of the evangelists knew only of one purification of tlie temple, we are not warranted cither by the sliglit divergencies in the description of the event, or by tlie important difference in its chronological position, to suppose tliat there were two; since chronological differences are by no means rare in the gospels, and are quite natural in writings of traditional origin. It is therefore witli justice that our most modern interpreters have, after tlie example of some older ones, declared them selves in favour of tlie identity of tlie two histories.* On wliicli side lies the error? We may know beforehand how tlie criticism of the present day will decide on this question : namely, in favour of tlie fourth gospel. According to Lueke, the scourge, the diversified treatment of the different classes of traders, the more indirect allusion to tlie Old Testament passage, are so many indica- tions that the writer was an eye and ear witness of tlie scene he de- scribes ; while as to chronology, it is well known tliat this is in no decree regarded by the synoptists, but only by John, whence, ac- cording to Sicffert,t to surrender tlie narrative of the latter to tliat of the former, would be to renounce the certain for tlie uncertain. As to John's dramatic details, we may match them by a particular peculiar to Mark, And they would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple (v. 16), which besides has a support in tlie Jewish custom wliicli did not permit tlie court of tlie temple to be made a thoroughfare.:}: If, nevertheless, tills particular is put to tlie account of Mark's otherwise ascertained predilection for arbitrary embellishment, § wliat authorizes us to regard similar ar- tistic touches from tlie fourth evangelist, as necessary proofs of his having been an eye witness ? To appeal here to his character of eye witness as a recognized fact, [| is too glaring a petitio princzpii, at least in the point of view taken by a comparative criticism, in wliicli the decision as to whether the artistic details of tlie fourth evangelist are mere embellishments, must depend solely on intrinsic probability. Although the different treatment of tlie different classes of men is in itself a probable feature, and tlie freer allusion to the Old Testament is at least an indifferent one; it is quite otherwise with the most striking feature in tlie narrative of John. Origen has set tlie ex- ample of objecting to tlie twisting and application of tlie scourge of small cords, as far too violent and disorderly a procedure.^ Modern interpreters soften tlie picture by supposing tliat Jesus used the scourge merely against tlie cattle*"" (a supposition, however, opposed to the text, which represents all -navra<; as being driven out by tlie scourge); yet still they cannot avoid perceiving tlie use of a scourge at all to be unseemly in a person of the dignity of Jesus, and only * Lttcke, 1, S. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb. i. 1, S. 174 f.; i. 3, S. 40i t Ut sup. S. 109 ; Comp. Schneckenhurger, S. 26 f. \ Lightfoot, S. C32, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi, 2. § Lueke, S. 438. || Lueke, S. 437 ; Sieffert, S. 110. ^ Comm. in Joh. torn. 10, 9 17 ; Opp. 1, p. 822, cd. Lommatzsch. ** Kuinol, in loc. EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 437 calculated to aggravate the already tumultuary character of tlie pro- ceeding.* The feature peculiar to Mark is encumbered with no such difficulties, and while it is rejected, is this of John .to be received ? Certainly not, if we can only find an indication in wliat way tlie fourth evangelist might be led to the free invention of such a parti- cular. Now it is evident from tlie quotation v. 17, which is peculiar to him, tliat lie looked on the act of Jesus as a demonstration of holy zeal-a sufficient temptation to exaggerate tlie traits of zcal- ousness in his conduct. In relation to tlie chronological difference, we need only remem- ber how tlie fourth evangelist antedates tlie acknowledgment, of Je- sus as the Messiali by tlie disciples, and the conferring of the name of Peter on Simon, to be freed from tlie common assumption of his pre-eminent chronological accuracy, wliicli is alleged in favour of Ills position of the purification of tlie temple. For this particular case, however, it is impossible to show any reason wliy the occurrence in question would better suit tlie time of the first, tlian of the last pass- over visited by Jesus, whereas there are no sliglit grounds for tlie opposite opinion. It is true that nothing in relation to chronology is to be founded on the improbability that Jesus sliould so early have re- ferred to Ills death and resurrection, as lie must have done, according to John's interpretation of the saying about tlie destruction and re- building of tlie temple ;f for we shall see, in tlie proper place, tliat this reference to tlie death and resurrection, owes its introduction into tlie declaration of Jesus to tlie evangelist alone. But it is no inconsiderable argument against John's position of the event, that Jesus, with his prudence and tact, would hardly have ventured tlius early on so violent an exercise of his messianic authority.} For in that first period of his ministry lie had not given himself out as tlie Messiali, and under any other than messianic authority, such a step could than scarcely have been hazarded; moreover, he in tlie be- ginning rather chose to meet his cotemporaries on friendly ground, and it is therefore hardly credible that he should at once, without trying milder means, have adopted an appearance so antagonistic. But to tlie last week of his life such a scene is perfectly suited. Then, after his messianic entrance into Jerusalem, it was his direct aim in all tliat lie did and said, to assert his mcssiahship, in defiance of tlie contradiction of his enemies ; then, all lay so entirely at stake, tliat nothing more was to be lost by such a step. As regards the nature of the event, Origen long ago thought it incredible, that so great a multitude sliould have unresistingly sub- mitted to a single man,-one, too, whose claims had ever been obsii- * Brctclmcidcr, Probal). p. 43. f English Commentators, ap. Lueke, 1, S. 435 f. Anm. f Eng. Cumin, ap Lueke. According to Keander (S. 387, Anm.), Jesus, after his last entrance into Jerusalem, when the enthusiasm of tlie populace was on his side, must have shunned every act that could be interpreted into a design of using external force, and thus creating disturbances. But lie must equally have shunned this at the beginning, as at the end, of his career, and the proceeding in tlie temple was rather a provocation of external force against himself, than a use of it for his own purposes. 438 THE LIFE Off JESU8. nately contested: his only resource in this exigency is to appeal to tlie superhuman power of Jesus, by virtue of which lie was able sud- denly to extinguish tlie wrath of Ills enemies, or to render it impo- tent ; and hence Origen ranks tills expulsion among tlie greatest miracles of Jesus.* Modern expositors decline the miracle,! but Paulus is tlie only one among them wlio lias adequately wciglicd Origen's remark, that in tlie ordinary course of tilings tlie multitude would have opposed themselves to a single person. Whatever may be said of tlie surprise caused by the suddenness of tlie appearance of Jesus:}: (if, as John relates, lie made himself a scourge of cords, he would need some time for preparation), of the force of right on Ills side§ (on the side of those whom lie attacked, however, there was established usa°'e); or, finally, of the irresistible impression produced by tlie personality of Jesus || (on usurers and cattle-dealers-on brute- men, as Paulus calls them ?) : still, such a multitude, certain as it might be of tlie protection of tlie priesthood, would not have unre- sistingly allowed themselves to be driven out of tlie temple by a single man. Hence Paulus is of opinion tliat a number of others, equally scandalized by the sacrilegious traffic, made common cause with Jesus, and that to their united strength tlie buyers and sellers were compelled to yicld.*[ But this supposition is fatal to tlie entire incident, for it makes Jesus tlie cause of an open tumult; and it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual aversion to every tiling revolutionary, or to explain the omission of his enemies to use it as an accusation against him. For tliat they held them- selves bound in conscience to admit tliat tlie conduct of Jesus was justifiable in this case, is tlie less credible, since, according to a rab- binical authority,** the Jews appear to have been so far from taking umbrage at tlie market in tlie court of tlie Gentiles (and this is all we are to understand by tlie word (epw),-)-)- tliat the absence of it seemed to them like a melancholy desolation of the temple. Accord- ing to this, it is not surprising tliat Origcn casts a doubt on the his- torical value of this narrative, by the expression, dye Kai avrfj -yeye- vrf-ai, (jf it really happened}, and at most admits that the evange- list, in order to present an idea allegorically, KS : rorr 7ru(5rtc a'i'Tov-Tal^ John xii. ;i: e^i^in^s ra^ ^pi^v avTy^ Tftitf Sni~, -,:r i;fA I'/.T.rnSTLr f'-linni-F tTOtiaC 01-01'. 442 THE LIFE OF JESUS. that the meal at Bethany was held really, as John informs us, six days before Easter; but tliat Matthew, after whom Mark wrote, lias no contradictory date; tliat rather lie lias no date at all; for though lie inserts the narrative of the meal and tlie anointing after tlic dec- laration of Jesus, that after two days is the feast of the Passover, GTI. pe-a 6vo fjpEpac; TO vda\a yiverai, this does not prove tliat lie in- tended to place it later as to time, for it is probable tliat he gave it this position simply because lie wished to note here, before coming to tlic betrayal by Judas, the occasion on which tlie traitor first em- braced his black resolve, namely, tlic repast at wliicli lie was incensed by Mary's prodigality, and embittered by tlie rebuke of Jesus.* But in opposition to tills, modern criticism lias shown that, on the one hand, in tlie mild and altogether general reply of Jesus there could lie nothing personally offensive to Judas; and that, on the other hand, tlie two first gospels do not name Judas as tlie party who censured tlie anointing, but tlie disciples or tlie bystanders generally: whereas, if they liad noted tills scene purely because it was the motive for tlie treachery of Judas, tlicy must have especially point- ed out tlie manifestation of his feeling, f There remains, consequently, a chronological contradiction in flits instance between the two first synoptists and John: a contradiction which even Olshausen admits.^ It lias been attempted in a variety of ways to evade tlie farther dif- ference as to tlie person of tlie host. As Matthew and Mark speak only of tlie house of Simon the leper, olida ^ifiuvog TOV ^e-pov some have distinguished tlie owner of tlie house, Simon, from tlic giver of the entertainment, wlio doubtless was Lazarus, and liave supposed tliat hence, in botli cases witliout error, tlie fourth evangelist mentions the latter, tlic two first synoptists tlie former. § But wlio would distinguish an entertainment by tlie name of tlie householder, if he were not in any way tlie giver of the entertainment ? Again, since John docs not expressly call Lazarus tlie host, but merely one of the avvavaiieifiKvuv {those sitting at the table), and since tlie inference that lie was the liost is drawn solely from tlie circumstance tliat his sister Martha served di^om; others have regarded Simon as the husband of Martha, either separated on account of his leprosy, or already deceased, and have supposed tliat Lazarus then resided with his widowed sister :|] an hypothesis which it is more easy to recon- cile witli tlie narratives tlian the former, but which is unsupported by any certain information. We come next to tlie divergency relative to the mode of anoint- ing ; according to the two first evangelists, tlie ointment was poured on the licad of Jesus ; according to the fourth, on his feet. Tlie old, trivial mode of harmonizing the two statements, by supposing that botli the liead and the feet were anointed, lias recently been expanded into tlie conjecture tliat Mary indeed intended only to anoint the feet * Kuinul, Coinm. in Malth. p. G87. + Sieftert, tiber den Urspr. 8. 123 f. f K^I. Comm. 2, S. 1:7. § Yiil. Kuinul, ut sup. p. USS ; also Tholuck, S. 228. || Paulua, EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS. 443 of Jesus (John), but that as slie accidentally broke tlie vessel (avv- Tpt'l/'aoa, Mark), tlie ointment flowed over his head also (Matt.).* This attempt at reconciliation falls into tlic comic, for as we cannot imagine how a woman wlio was preparing to anoint tlie feet of Jesus could bring the vessel of ointment over Ins liead, we must suppose that tlie ointment spirted upwards like an effervescing draught. So tliat here also tlic contradiction remains, and not only between Mat- thew and John, where it is admitted even by Schneckenburger, but also between tlie latter evangelist and Mark. Tlic two divergencies relative to tlie person of tlie woman wlio anoints Jesus, and to tlie party wlio blames her, were thought to be tlie most readily explained. Tliat what Jolm ascribes to Judas singly, Mattliew and Mark refer to all tlie disciples or spectators, was believed to be simply accounted for by tlic supposition tliat while tlic rest manifested their disapprobation by gestures only, Ju- das vented his in words.t We grant tliat tlie word e/leyov, (f,hey said) preceded as it is in Mark, by the words ayava,nrovvTK(; -n-poc tw-oL'c (/laving indignation 'within themselves), and followed, as in Mattliew, by tlie words yvoavg SE b 'IJ]