the consequences of its recognition of the character of the
preaching of Jesus and examining the tradition from the
eschatological standpoint can be seen from Johannes Weiss’s work,
“The Earliest Gospel” (_Das älteste Evangelium_), Göttingen, 1903,
414 pp. Ingenious and interesting as this work is in detail, one is
surprised to find the author of the “Preaching of Jesus” here
endeavouring to distinguish between Mark and “Ur‐Markus,” to point
to examples of Pauline influence, to exhibit clearly the
“tendencies” which guided, respectively, the original Evangelist and
the redactor—all this as if he did not possess in his eschatological
view of the preaching of Jesus a dominant conception which gives him
a clue to quite a different psychology from that which he actually
applies. Against Wrede he brings forward many arguments which are
worthy of attention, but he can hardly be said to have refuted him,
because it is impossible for Weiss to treat the question in the
exact form in which it was raised by Wrede.
270 Wrede certainly goes too far in asserting that even in Mark’s
version the experience at the baptism is conceived as an open
miracle, perceptible to others. The way in which the revelations to
the prophets are recounted in the Old Testament does not make in
favour of this. Otherwise we should have to suppose that the
Evangelist described the incident as a miracle which took place in
the presence of a multitude without perceiving that in this case the
Messianic secret was a secret no longer. If so, the story of the
baptism stands on the same footing as the story of the Messianic
entry: it is a revelation of the Messiahship which has absolutely no
results.
271 The statement of Mark that Jesus, coming out of the north, appeared
for a moment again in Decapolis and Capernaum, and then started off
to the north once more (Mark vii. 31‐viii. 27), may here
provisionally be left out of account since it stands in relation
with the twofold account of the feeding of the multitude. So too the
enigmatic appearance and disappearance of the people (Mark viii.
34‐ix. 30) may here be passed over. These statements make no
difference to the fact that Jesus really broke off his work in
Galilee shortly after the Mission of the Twelve, since they imply at
most a quite transient contact with the people.
272 On the theory of the successful and unsuccessful periods in the work
of Jesus see the “Sketch,” p. 3 ff., “The four Pre‐suppositions of
the Modern Historical Solution.”
273 Weisse found that there was no hint in the sources of the desertion
of the people, since according to these, Jesus was opposed only by
the Pharisees, not by the people. The abandonment of the Galilaean
work, and the departure to Jerusalem, must, he thought, have been
due to some unrecorded fact which revealed to Jesus that the time
had come to act in this way. Perhaps, he adds, it was the waning of
Jesus’ miracle‐working power which caused the change in His
attitude, since it is remarkable that He performed no further
miracles during His sojourn at Jerusalem.
274 The most logical attitude in regard to it is Bousset’s, who proposes
to treat the mission and everything connected with it as a “confused
and unintelligible” tradition.
275 Joel iii. 13, “Put in the sickle for the harvest is ripe!” In the
Apocalypse of John, too, the Last Judgment is described as the
heavenly harvest: “Thrust in thy sickle and reap; for the time is
come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he
that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the
earth was reaped” (Rev. xiv. 15 and 16).
The most remarkable parallel to the discourse at the sending forth
of the disciples is offered by the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch:
“Behold, the days come, when the time of the world shall be ripe,
and the harvest of the sowing of the good and of the evil shall
come, when the Almighty shall bring upon the earth and upon its
inhabitants and upon their rulers confusion of spirit and terror
that makes the heart stand still; and they shall hate one another
and provoke one another to war; and the despised shall have power
over them of reputation, and the mean shall exalt themselves over
them that are highly esteemed. And the many shall be at the mercy of
the few ... and all who shall be saved and shall escape the before‐
mentioned (dangers) ... shall be given into the hands of my servant,
the Messiah.” (Cap. lxx. 2, 3, 9. Following the translation of E.
Kautzsch.)
The connexion between the ideas of harvest and of judgment was
therefore one of the stock features of the apocalyptic writings. And
as the Apocalypse of Baruch dates from the period about A.D. 70, it
may be assumed that this association of ideas was also current in
the Jewish apocalyptic of the time of Jesus. Here is a basis for
understanding the secret of the Kingdom of God in the parables of
sowing and reaping historically and in accordance with the ideas of
the time. What Jesus did was to make known to those who understood
Him that the coming earthly harvest was the last, and was also the
token of the coming heavenly harvest. The eschatological
interpretation is immensely strengthened by these parallels.
276 With what right does modern critical theology tear apart even the
discourse in Matt. xi. in order to make the “cry of jubilation” into
the cry with which Jesus saluted the return of His disciples, and to
find lodgment for the woes upon Chorazin and Bethsaida somewhere
else in an appropriately gloomy context? Is not all this apparently
disconnected material held together by an inner bond of
connexion—the secret of the Kingdom of God which is imminently
impending over Jesus and the people? Or, is Jesus expected to preach
like one who has a thesis to maintain and seeks about for the most
logical arrangement? Does not a certain lack of orderly connexion
belong to the very idea of prophetic speech?
277 If, therefore, Jesus at a later point predicted to His disciples His
resurrection, He means by that, not a single isolated act, but a
complex occurrence consisting of His metamorphosis, translation to
heaven, and Parousia as the Son of Man. And with this is associated
the general eschatological resurrection of the dead. It is,
therefore, one and the same thing whether He speaks of His
resurrection or of His coming on the clouds of heaven.
278 The title of Baldensperger’s book, _The Self‐consciousness of Jesus
in the Light of the Messianic Hopes of His Time_, really contains a
promise which is impossible of fulfilment. The contemporary
“Messianic hopes” can only explain the hopes of Jesus so far as they
corresponded thereto, not His view of His own Person, in which He is
absolutely original.
279 Even Baldensperger’s book, _Die messianisch‐apokalyptischen
Hoffnungen des Judentums_ (1903), passes at a stride from the Psalms
of Solomon to Fourth Ezra. The coming volume is to deal with the
eschatology of Jesus. That is a “theological,” but not an historical
division of the material. The second volume should properly come in
the middle of the first.
280 The fact that in the Psalms of Solomon the Messiah is designated by
the ancient prophetic name of the Son of David is significant of the
rising influence of the ancient prophetic literature. This
designation has nothing whatever to do with a political ideal of a
kingly Messiah. This Davidic King and his Kingdom are, in their
character and the manner of their coming, every whit as supernatural
as the Son of Man and His coming. The same historical fact was read
into both Daniel and the prophets.
281 Enoch is an offshoot of the Danielic apocalyptic writings. The
earliest portion, the Apocalypse of the Ten Weeks, is independent of
Daniel and of contemporary origin. The Similitudes (capp.
xxxvii.‐lxix.), which, with their description of the Judgment of the
Son of Man, are so important in connexion with the thoughts of
Jesus, may be placed in 80‐70 B.C. They do not presuppose the taking
of Jerusalem by Pompey.
282 The Psalms of Solomon are therefore a decade later than the
Similitudes.
283 The Apocalypse of Baruch seems to have been composed not very long
after the Fall of Jerusalem. Fourth Ezra is twenty to thirty years
later.
284 The Psalms of Solomon form the last document of Jewish eschatology
before the coming of the Baptist. For almost a hundred years, from
60 B.C. until A.D. 30, we have no information regarding
eschatological movements! And do the Psalms of Solomon really point
to a deep eschatological movement at the time of the taking of
Jerusalem by Pompey? Hardly, I think. It is to be noticed in
studying the times of Jesus that the surrounding circumstances have
no eschatological character. The Fall of Jerusalem marks the next
turning‐point in the history of the apocalyptic hope, as Baruch and
Fourth Ezra show.
285 Jesus promises them expressly that at the appearing of the Son of
Man they shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel (Matt. xix. 28). It is to their part in the judgment that
belong also the authority to bind and to loose which He entrusts to
them—first to Peter personally (Matt. xvi. 19) and afterwards to all
the Twelve (Matt. xviii. 18)—in such a way, too, that their present
decisions will be somehow or other binding at the Judgment. Or does
the “upon earth” refer only to the fact that the Messianic Last
Judgment will be held on earth? “I give unto thee the Keys of the
Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven” (Matt. xvi. 19). Why should these words not be
historical? Is it because in the same context Jesus speaks of the
“church” which He will found upon the Rock‐disciple? But if one has
once got a clear idea from Paul, a Clement, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the Shepherd of Hermas, what the pre‐existing “church”
was which was to appear in the last times, it will no longer appear
impossible that Jesus might have spoken of the church against which
the gates of hell shall not prevail. Of course, if the passage is
given an uneschatological reference to the Church as we know it, it
loses all real meaning and becomes a treasure‐trove to the Roman
Catholic exegete, and a terror to the Protestant.
286 That he could be taken for the Baptist risen from the dead shows how
short a time before the death of the Baptist His ministry had begun.
He only became known, as the Baptist’s question shows, at the time
of the mission of the disciples; Herod first heard of Him after the
death of the Baptist. Had he known anything of Jesus beforehand, it
would have been impossible for him suddenly to identify Him with the
Baptist risen from the dead. This elementary consideration has been
overlooked in all calculations of the length of the public ministry
of Jesus.
287 That had been rightly remarked by Colani. Later, however, theology
lost sight of the fact because it did not know how to make any
historical use of it.
288 Psal. Sol. xv. 8.
289 That the baptism of John was essentially an act which gave a claim
to something future may be seen from the fact that Jesus speaks of
His sufferings and death as a special baptism, and asks the sons of
Zebedee whether they are willing, for the sake of gaining the
thrones on His right hand and His left, to undergo this baptism. If
the baptism of John had had no real sacramental significance it
would be unintelligible that Jesus should use this metaphor.
290 The thought of the Messianic feast is found in Isaiah lv. 1 ff. and
lxv. 12 ff. It is very strongly marked in Isa. xxv. 6‐8, a passage
which perhaps dates from the time of Alexander the Great, “and
Jahweh of Hosts will prepare upon this mountain for all peoples a
feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things
prepared with marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. He shall
destroy, in this mountain, among all peoples, the veil which has
veiled all peoples and the covering which has covered all nations.
He shall destroy death for ever, and the Lord Jahweh shall wipe away
the tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people shall
disappear from the earth.” (The German follows Kautzsch’s
translation.)
In Enoch xxiv. and xxv. the conception of the Messianic feast is
connected with that of the tree of life which shall offer its fruits
to the elect upon the mountain of the King. Similarly in the
Testament of Levi, cap. xviii. 11.
The decisive passage is in Enoch lxii. 14. After the Parousia of the
Son of Man, and after the Judgment, the elect who have been saved
“shall eat with the Son of Man, shall sit down and rise up with Him
to all eternity.”
Jesus’ references to the Messianic feast are therefore not merely
images, but point to a reality. In Matt. viii. 11 and 12 He
prophesies that many shall come from the East and from the West to
sit at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Matt. xxii. 1‐14 the
Messianic feast is pictured as a royal marriage, in Matt. xxv. 1‐13
as a marriage feast.
The Apocalypse is dominated by the thought of the feast in all its
forms. In Rev. ii. 7 it appears in connexion with the thought of the
tree of life; in ii. 17 it is pictured as a feeding with manna; in
iii. 21 it is the feast which the Lord will celebrate with His
followers; in vii. 16, 17 there is an allusion to the Lamb who shall
feed His own so that they shall no more hunger or thirst; chapter
xix. describes the marriage feast of the Lamb.
The Messianic feast therefore played a dominant part in the
conception of blessedness from Enoch to the Apocalypse of John. From
this we can estimate what sacramental significance a guarantee of
taking part in that feast must have had. The meaning of the
celebration was obvious in itself, and was made manifest in the
conduct of it. The sacramental effect was wholly independent of the
apprehension and comprehension of the recipient. Therefore, in this
also the meal at the lake‐side was a true sacrament.
291 Weisse rightly remarks that the task of the historian in dealing
with Mark must consist in explaining how such “myths” could be
accepted by a chronicler who stood so relatively near the events as
our Mark does.
292 It is to be noticed that the cry of Jesus from the cross, “Eli,
Eli,” was immediately interpreted by the bystanders as referring to
Elias.
293 From this difficulty we can see, too, how impossible it was for any
of them to have “arrived gradually at the knowledge of the
Messiahship of Jesus.”
294 For the hypothesis of the two sets of narratives which have been
worked into one another, see the “Sketch of the Life of Jesus,”
1901, p. 52 ff., “After the Mission of the Disciples. Literary and
historical problems.” A theory resting on the same principle was
lately worked out in detail by Johannes Weiss, _Das älteste
Evangelium_ (The Earliest Gospel), 1903, p. 205 ff.
295 It is typical of the constant agreement of the critical conclusions
in thoroughgoing scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology that Wrede
also observes: “The transfiguration and Peter’s confession are
closely connected in content” (p. 123). He also clearly perceives
the inconsistency in the fact that Peter at Caesarea Philippi gives
evidence of possessing a knowledge which he and his fellow‐disciples
do not show elsewhere (p. 119), but the fact that it is Peter, not
Jesus, who reveals the Messianic secret, constitutes a very serious
difficulty for Wrede’s reading of the facts, since this assumes
Jesus to have been the revealer of it.
296 “After these years shall my Son, the Christ, die, together with all
who have the breath of men. Then shall the Age be changed into the
primeval silence; seven days, as at the first beginning so that no
man shall be left. After seven days shall the Age, which now sleeps,
awake, and perishability shall itself perish.”
297 Difficult problems are involved in the prediction of the
resurrection in Mark xiv. 28. Jesus there promises His disciples
that He will “go before them” into Galilee. That cannot mean that He
will go alone into Galilee before them, and that they shall there
meet with Him, their risen Master; what He contemplates is that He
shall return _with_ them, at their head, from Jerusalem to Galilee.
Was it that the manifestation of the Son of Man and of the Judgment
should take place there? So much is clear: the saying, far from
directing the disciples to go away to Galilee, chains them to
Jerusalem, there to await Him who should lead them home. It should
not therefore be claimed as supporting the tradition of the
Galilaean appearances.
We find it “corrected” by the saying of the “young man” at the
grave, who says to the women, “Go, tell His disciples and Peter that
He goeth before you into Galilee. There shall ye see Him as He said
unto you.”
Here then the idea of following in point of time is foisted upon the
words “he goeth before you,” whereas in the original the word has a
purely local sense, corresponding to the καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ
Ιησοῦς in Mark x. 32.
But the correction is itself meaningless since the visions took
place in Jerusalem. We have therefore in this passage a more
detailed indication of the way in which Jesus thought of the events
subsequent to His Resurrection. The interpretation of this
unfulfilled saying is, however, wholly impossible for us: it was not
less so for the earliest tradition, as is shown by the attempt to
give it a meaning by the “correction.”
298 Here it is evident also from the form taken by the prophecy of the
sufferings that the section Mark viii. 34 ff. cannot possibly come
after the revelation at Caesarea Philippi, since in it, it is the
thought of the general sufferings which is implied. For the same
reason the predictions of suffering and tribulation in the Synoptic
Apocalypse in Mark xiii. cannot be derived from Jesus.
299 Weisse and Bruno Bauer had long ago pointed out how curious it was
that Jesus in the sayings about His sufferings spoke of “many”
instead of speaking of “His own” or “the believers.” Weisse found in
the words the thought that Jesus died for the nation as a whole;
Bruno Bauer that the “for many” in the words of Jesus was derived
from the view of the later theology of the Christian community. This
explanation is certainly wrong, for so soon as the words of Jesus
come into any kind of contact with early theology the “many”
disappear to give place to the “believers.” In the Pauline words of
institution the form is: My body for you (1 Cor. xi. 24).
Johannes Weiss follows in the footsteps of Weisse when he interprets
the “many” as the nation (_Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes_, 2nd
ed., 1909, p. 201). He gives however, quite a false turn to this
interpretation by arguing that the “many” cannot include the
disciples, since they “who in faith and penitence have received the
tidings of the Kingdom of God no longer need a special means of
deliverance such as this.” They are the chosen, to them the Kingdom
is assured. But a ransom, a special means of salvation, is needful
for the mass of the people, who in their blindness have incurred the
guilt of rejecting the Messiah. For this grave sin, which is,
nevertheless, to some extent excused as due to ignorance, there is a
unique atoning sacrifice, the death of the Messiah.
This theory is based on a distinction of which there is no hint in
the teaching of Jesus; and it takes no account of the
predestinarianism which is an integral part of eschatology, and
which, in fact, dominated the thoughts of Jesus. The Lord is
conscious that He dies only for the elect. For others His death can
avail nothing, nor even their own repentance. Moreover, He does not
die in order that this one or that one may come into the Kingdom of
God; He provides the atonement in order that the Kingdom itself may
come. Until the Kingdom comes even the elect cannot possess it.
300 One might use it as a principle of division by which to classify the
lives of Jesus, whether they make Him go to Jerusalem to work or to
die. Here as in so many other places Weisse’s clearness of
perception is surprising. Jesus’ journey was according to him a
pilgrimage to death, not to the Passover.
301 “That ye enter not into temptation” is the content of the prayer
that they are to offer while watching with Him.
302 As long ago as 1880, H. W. Bleby (_The Trial of Jesus considered as
a Judicial Act_) had emphasised this circumstance as significant.
The injustice in the trial of Jesus consisted, according to him, in
the fact that He was condemned on His own admission without any
witnesses being called. Dalman, it is true, will not admit that this
technical error was very serious.
But the really important point is not whether the condemnation was
legal or not; it is the significant fact that the High Priest called
no witnesses. Why did he not call any? This question was obscured
for Bleby and Dalman by other problems.
303 That would have been to utter a heresy which would alone have
sufficed to secure His condemnation. It would certainly have been
brought up as a charge against Him.
304 When it is assumed that the Messianic claims of Jesus were generally
known during those last days at Jerusalem there is a temptation to
explain the absence of witnesses in regard to them by supposing that
they were too much a matter of common knowledge to require evidence.
But in that case why should the High Priest not have fulfilled the
prescribed formalities? Why make such efforts first to establish a
different charge? Thus the obscure and unintelligible procedure at
the trial of Jesus becomes in the end the clearest proof that the
public knew nothing of the Messiahship of Jesus.