EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF 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 modern 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-witness is ordinarily distinguished by
the precision and minuteness of his narration. [1088] Certainly, when
we read the indefinite designation of times, places and persons, the
perpetually recurring τότε, then, παράγων ἐκεῖθεν, departing from
thence, ἄνθρωπος, a man, which characterize this gospel; when we
recollect its wholesale statements, such as that Jesus went through all
the cities and villages (ix. 35, xi. 1, comp. iv. 23); that they
brought to him all sick people, and that he healed 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 the decision of this
criticism, that Matthew’s whole narrative resembles a record of events
which, before they were committed to writing, had been long current in
oral tradition, and had thus lost the 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 he
has seen. [1089]
But our modern critics have not only measured Matthew by the standard
of what is to be expected from an eye-witness, in the abstract; they
have also compared him with his fellow-evangelists. They are of
opinion, not only that John decidedly surpasses Matthew in the power of
delineation, both in their few parallel passages and in his entire
narrative, but also that the two other synoptists, especially Mark, are
generally far clearer and fuller in their style of narration. [1090]
This is the actual fact, and it ought not to be any longer evaded. With
respect to the fourth Evangelist, it is true that, as one would have
anticipated, he is not devoid of general, wholesale statements, such
as, that Jesus during the feast did many miracles, that 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, he gives the names of individuals whom Matthew 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 he generally
lets us know the district or country in which 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 the resurrection of Lazarus) have a dramatic and life-like
character, which 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 that Jesus went through all cities, and healed all the sick
(Mark i. 32 ff., 38 f.; Luke iv. 40 f.); but they often give us the
details of what Matthew has only stated generally. Not only does Luke
associate many discourses of Jesus with special occasions concerning
which Matthew is silent, but both he and Mark notice the office or
names of persons, to whom Matthew gives no precise designation (Matt.
ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke viii. 41; Matt. xix. 16; Luke xviii. 18; Matt.
xx. 30; Mark x. 46). But it is chiefly in the lively description of
particular incidents, that we perceive the decided superiority of Luke,
and still more of Mark, over Matthew. Let the reader only compare the
narrative of the execution of John the Baptist in Matthew and Mark
(Matt. xiv. 3; Mark vi. 17), and that of the demoniac or demoniacs of
Gadara (Matt. viii. 28 ff. parall.).
These facts are, in the opinion of our latest critics, a confirmation
of the fourth Evangelist’s claim to the character of an eye-witness,
and of the greater proximity of the second and third Evangelists to the
scenes they describe, than can be attributed to the first. But, even
allowing that one who does not narrate graphically cannot be an
eye-witness, this does not involve the proposition that whoever does
narrate graphically must be an eye-witness. In all cases in which there
are extant two accounts of a single fact, the one full, the other
concise, opinions may be divided as to which of them is the original.
[1091] When these accounts have been liable to the modifications of
tradition, it is important to bear in mind that tradition has two
tendencies: the one, to sublimate the concrete into the abstract, the
individual into the general; the other, not less essential, to
substitute arbitrary fictions for the historical reality which is lost.
[1092] If then we put the want of precision in the narrative of the
first Evangelist to the account of the former function of the legend,
ought we at once to regard the precision and dramatic effect of the
other gospels, as a proof that their authors were eye-witnesses? Must
we not rather examine whether these qualities be not derived from the
second function of the legend? [1093] The decision with which the other
inference is drawn, is in fact merely an after-taste of the old
orthodox opinion, that all our gospels proceed immediately from
eye-witnesses, or at least through a medium incapable of error. Modern
criticism has limited this supposition, and admitted the possibility
that one or the other of our gospels may have been affected by oral
tradition. Accordingly it maintains, not without probability, that a
gospel in which the descriptions are throughout destitute of colouring
and life, cannot be the production of an eye-witness, and must have
suffered from the effacing fingers of tradition. But the counter
proposition, that the other gospels, in which the style of narration is
more detailed and dramatic, rest on the testimony of eye-witnesses,
would only follow from the supposed necessity that this must be the
case with some of our gospels. For if such a supposition be made with
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 has
merely a subjective foundation. It was an easier transition for
commentators to make from the old notion that all the gospels were
immediately or mediately autoptical narratives, to the limited
admission that perhaps one may fall short of this character, than to
the general admission that it may be equally wanting to all. But,
according to the rigid rules of consequence, with the orthodox view of
the scriptural canon, falls the assumption of pure ocular testimony,
not only for one or other of the gospels, but for all; the possibility
of the contrary must be presupposed in relation to them all, and their
pretensions must be estimated according to their internal character,
compared with the external testimonies. From this point of view—the
only one that criticism can consistently adopt—it is as probable,
considering the nature of the external testimonies examined in our
Introduction, that the three last Evangelists owe the dramatic effect
in which they surpass Matthew, to the embellishments of a more mature
tradition, as that this quality is the result of a closer communication
with eye-witnesses.
That we may not anticipate, let us, in relation to this question, refer
to the results we have already obtained. The greater particularity by
which Luke is distinguished from Matthew in his account of the
occasions that suggested many discourses of Jesus, has appeared to us
often to be the 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 the narrator. Now, however, that we are
about to enter on an examination of particular narratives, we will
consider, from the point of view above indicated, the constant forms of
introduction, conclusion, and transition, already noticed, in the
several gospels. Here we find the difference between Matthew and the
other synoptists, as to their more or less dramatic style, imprinted in
a manner that can best teach us how much this style is worth.
Matthew (viii. 16 f.) states in general terms, that on the evening
after the cure of Peter’s mother-in-law, many demoniacs were brought to
Jesus, all of whom, together with others that were sick, he healed.
Mark (i. 32) in a highly dramatic manner, as if he himself had
witnessed the scene, tells, that on the same occasion, the whole city
was gathered together at the door of the house in which Jesus was; at
another time, he makes the crowd block up the entrance (ii. 2); in two
other instances, he describes the concourse as so great, that Jesus and
his disciples could not take their food (iii. 20, vi. 31); and Luke on
one occasion states, that the people even gathered together in
innumerable multitudes so that they trode one upon another (xii. 1).
All highly vivid touches, certainly: but the 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
Schleiermacher observes, [1094] give it almost an apocryphal
appearance. In detailed narratives, of which we shall presently notice
many examples, while Matthew simply tells what Jesus said on a certain
occasion, the two other Evangelists are able to describe the glance
with which his words were accompanied (Mark iii. 5, x. 21; Luke vi.
10). On the 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, what the examination of single
narratives will prove: namely, that the copiousness of Mark and Luke is
the product of the second function of the legend, which we may call the
function of embellishment. Was this embellishment gradually wrought out
by oral tradition, or was it the arbitrary addition of our Evangelists?
Concerning this, there may be a difference of opinion, and a degree of
probability in relation to particular passages is the nearest approach
that can be made to a decision. In any case, not only must it be
granted, that a narrative adorned by the writer’s own additions is more
remote from primitive truth than one free from such additions; but we
may venture to pronounce that the earlier efforts of the 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 the whole, including collateral incidents; so
that, in either view, the closest approximation to truth remains on the
side of the first gospel.
While the difference as to the more or less dramatic style of
concluding and connecting forms, lies chiefly between Matthew and the
other synoptists; another difference with respect to these forms,
exists between all the 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, polemically.
It is true that the three first Evangelists sometimes mention, by way
of conclusion, the offence that Jesus gave to the narrow-hearted, and
the machinations of his enemies against him (Matt. viii. 34, xii. 14,
xxi. 46, xxvi. 3 f.; Luke iv. 28 f., xi. 53 f.); and, on the other
hand, the fourth Evangelist closes some discourses and miracles by the
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 the 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 the 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 the contrary, we are
continually told that the Jews sought to kill Jesus (v. 18, vii. 1);
the Pharisees wish to take him, or send out officers to seize him (vii.
30, 32, 44; comp. viii. 20, x. 39); stones are taken up to cast at him
(viii. 59, x. 31); and even in those passages where there is mention of
a favourable disposition on the part of the people, the 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 circumstances, as that before the final catastrophe all the guile
and power of the enemies of Jesus were exerted in vain, because his
hour was not yet come (vii. 30, viii. 20); that the emissaries sent out
against him, overcome by the force of his words, and the dignity of his
person, retired without fulfilling their errand (vii. 32, 44 ff.); and
that Jesus passed unharmed through the midst of an exasperated crowd
(viii. 59, x. 39; comp. Luke iv. 30). The writer, as we have above
remarked, certainly does not intend us in these instances to think of a
natural escape, but of one in which the higher nature of Jesus, his
invulnerability so long as he did not choose to lay down his life, was
his protection. And this throws some light on the object which the
fourth Evangelist had in view, in giving prominence to such traits as
those just enumerated: they helped him to add to the number of the
contrasts, by which, throughout his works, he aims to exalt the person
of Jesus. The profound wisdom of Jesus, as the divine Logos, appeared
the more resplendent, from its opposition to the rude
unapprehensiveness of the Jews; his goodness wore a more touching
aspect, confronted with the inveterate malice of his enemies; his
appearance gained in impressiveness, by the strife he excited among the
people; and his power, as that of one who had life in himself,
commanded the more reverence, the oftener his enemies and their
instruments tried to seize him, and, as if restrained by a higher
power, were not able to lay hands on him,—the more marvellously he
passed through the ranks of adversaries prepared to take away his life.
It has been made matter of praise to the fourth Evangelist, that he
alone presents the opposition of the pharisaic party to Jesus, in its
rise and gradual progress: but there are reasons for questioning
whether the course of events described by him, be not rather fictitious
than real. Partially fictitious, it evidently is; for he appeals to the
supernatural for a reason why the Pharisees so long effected nothing
against Jesus: whereas the synoptists preserve the natural sequence of
the facts by stating as a cause, that the Jewish hierarchy feared the
people, who were attached to Jesus as a prophet (Matt. xxi. 46; Mark
xii. 12; Luke xx. 19). If then the fourth Evangelist was so far guided
by his dogmatical interest, that for the escape of Jesus from the more
early snares and assaults of his enemies, he invented such a reason as
best suited his purpose; what shall assure us that he has not also, in
consistency with the characteristics which we have already discerned in
him, fabricated, for the sake of that interest, entire scenes of the
kind above noticed? Not that we hold it improbable, that 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.
§ 85.
ISOLATED GROUPS OF ANECDOTES. IMPUTATION OF A LEAGUE WITH BEELZEBUB,
AND DEMAND OF 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 the one is a mere
variation of the other: hence, chronology having 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: Schulz has
already complained, that Matthew mentions two instances, in which a
league with Beelzebub was imputed to Jesus, and a sign demanded from
him; circumstances which in Mark and Luke happen only once. [1095] The
first time the imputation occurs (Matt. ix. 32 ff.), Jesus has cured a
dumb demoniac; at this the people marvel, but the Pharisees observe, He
casts out demons through the prince (ἄρχων) of the demons. Matthew does
not here say that Jesus returned any answer to this accusation. On the
second occasion (xii. 22 ff.), it is a blind and dumb demoniac whom
Jesus cures; again the people are amazed, and again the Pharisees
declare that the cure is effected by the help of Beelzebub, the ἄρχων
of the demons, whereupon Jesus immediately exposes the absurdity of the
accusation. That it should have been alleged against Jesus more than
once when he cast out demons, is in itself probable. It is however
suspicious that the demoniac who gives occasion to the assertion of the
Pharisees, is in both instances dumb (in the second only, blindness is
added). Demoniacs were of many kinds, every variety of malady being
ascribed to the influence of evil spirits; why, then, should the above
imputation be not once attached to the cure of another kind of
demoniac, but twice to that of a dumb one? The difficulty is heightened
if we compare the narrative of Luke (xi. 14 f.), which, in its
introductory description of the circumstances, corresponds not to the
second narrative in Matthew, but to the first; for as there, so in
Luke, the demoniac is only dumb, and his cure and the astonishment of
the people are told with precisely the same form of expression:—in all
which points, the second narrative of Matthew is more remote from that
of Luke. But with this cure of the dumb demoniac, which Matthew
represents as passing off in silence on the part of Jesus, Luke
connects the very discourse which Matthew appends to the cure of the
one both blind and dumb; so that Jesus must on both these successive
occasions, have said the same thing. This is a very unlikely
repetition, and united with the improbability, that the same accusation
should be twice made in connexion with a dumb demoniac, it suggests the
question, whether legend may not here have doubled one and the same
incident? How this can have taken place, Matthew himself shows us, by
representing the demoniac as, in the one case, simply dumb, in the
other, blind also. Must it not have been a striking cure which excited,
on the one hand, the astonishment of the people, on the other, this
desperate attack of the enemies of Jesus? Dumbness alone might soon
appear an insufficient malady for the subject of the cure, and the
legend, ever prone to enhance, might deprive him of sight also. If
then, together with this new form of the legend, the old one too was
handed down, what wonder that a compiler, more conscientious than
critical, such as the author of the first gospel, adopted both as
distinct histories, merely omitting on one occasion the discourse of
Jesus, for the sake of avoiding repetition. [1096]
Matthew, having omitted (ix. 34) the discourse of Jesus, was obliged
also to defer the demand of a sign, which required a previous rejoinder
on the part of Jesus, until his second narration of the charge
concerning Beelzebub; and in this point again the narrative of Luke,
who also attaches the demand of a sign to the accusation, is parallel
with the later passage of Matthew. [1097] But Matthew not only has,
with Luke, a demand of a sign in connexion with the above charge; he
has also another, after the second feeding of the multitude (xvi. 1
ff.), and this second demand Mark also has (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, σημεῖον ἑκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. To this Jesus
gives an answer, of which the concluding proposition, a wicked and
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be
given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas; γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ
μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῆ, εἰ μὴ τὸ
σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ τοῦ προφήτου, in Matthew, agrees word for word with the
opening of the earlier refusal. It is already improbable enough, that
Jesus should have twice responded to the above requisition with the
same enigmatical reference to Jonah; but the words (v. 2, 3) which, in
the second passage of Matthew, precede the sentence last quoted, are
totally unintelligible. For why Jesus, in reply to the demand of his
enemies that he would show them a sign from heaven, should tell them
that they were indeed well versed in the natural signs of the heavens,
but were so much the more glaringly ignorant of the spiritual signs of
the messianic times, is so far from evident, that the otherwise
unfounded omission of v. 2 and 3, seems to have arisen from despair of
finding any connexion for them. [1098] Luke, who also has (xii. 54 f.),
in words only partly varied, this reproach of Jesus that his
cotemporaries understood better the signs of the weather than of the
times, gives it another position, which might be regarded as the
preferable one; since after speaking of the fire which he was to
kindle, and the divisions which he was to cause, Jesus might very aptly
say to the people: You take no notice of the unmistakable prognostics
of this great revolution which is being prepared by my means, so ill do
you understand the signs of the times. [1099] But on a closer
examination, Luke’s arrangement appears just as abrupt here, as in the
case of the two parables (xiii. 18). [1100] If from hence we turn again
to Matthew, we easily see how he was led to his mode of representation.
He may have been induced to double the demand of a sign, by the verbal
variation which he met with, the required sign being at one time called
simply a σημεῖον, at another a σημεῖον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. And if he knew
that Jesus had exhorted the Jews to study the signs of the times, as
they had hitherto studied the appearance of the heavens, the conjecture
was not very remote, that the Jews had given occasion for this
admonition by demanding a sign from heaven, σημεῖον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
Thus Matthew here presents us, as Luke often does elsewhere, with a
fictitious introduction to a discourse of Jesus; a proof of the
proposition, advanced indeed, but too little regarded by Sieffert:
[1101] that it is in the nature of traditional records, such as the
three first gospels, that one particular should be best preserved in
this narrative, another in that; so that first one, and then the other,
is at a disadvantage, in comparison with the rest.
§ 86.
VISIT OF THE MOTHER AND BRETHREN OF JESUS. THE WOMAN WHO PRONOUNCES THE
MOTHER OF JESUS BLESSED.
All the synoptists mention a visit of the mother and brethren of Jesus,
on being apprised of which Jesus points to his disciples, and declares
that they who do the will of God are his mother and his brethren (Matt.
xii. 46 ff.; Mark iii. 31 ff.; Luke viii. 19 ff.). Matthew and Luke do
not tell us the object of this visit, nor, consequently, whether this
declaration of Jesus, which appears to imply a disowning of his
relatives, was occasioned by any special circumstance. On this subject
Mark gives us unexpected information; he tells us (v. 21) that while
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. [1102] In describing this incident, the Evangelist makes use of
the expression, ἔλεγον ὅτι ἐξέστη (they said, he is beside himself),
and it was merely this expression, apparently, that suggested to him
what he next proceeds to narrate: οἱ γραμματεῖς ἔλεγον, ὅτι Βεελζεβοὺλ
ἔχει κ.τ.λ. (the scribes said, he hath Beelzebub, etc., comp. John x.
20). With this reproach, which however he does not attach to an
expulsion of demons, he connects the answer of Jesus; he then recurs to
the relatives, whom he now particularizes as the mother and brethren of
Jesus, supposing them to have arrived in the meantime; and he makes
their announcement call forth from Jesus the answer of which we have
above spoken.
These particulars imparted by Mark are very welcome to commentators, as
a means of explaining and justifying the apparent harshness of the
answer which Jesus returns to the announcement of his nearest
relatives, on the ground of the perverted object of their visit. But,
apart from the difficulty that, on the usual interpretation of the
accounts of the childhood of Jesus, it is not to be explained how his
mother could, after the events therein described, be thus mistaken in
her son, it is very questionable whether we ought to accept this
information of Mark’s. In the first place, it is associated with the
obvious exaggeration, that Jesus and his disciples were prevented even
from taking food by the throng of people; and in the second place, it
has in itself a strange appearance, from its want of relation to the
context. If these points are considered, it will scarcely be possible
to avoid agreeing with the opinion of Schleiermacher, that no
explanation of the then existing relations of Jesus with his family is
to be sought in this addition; that it rather belongs to those
exaggerations to which Mark is so prone, as well in his introductions
to isolated incidents, as in his general statements. [1103] He wished
to make it understood why Jesus returned an ungracious answer to the
announcement of his relatives; for this purpose he thought it necessary
to give their visit an object of which Jesus did not approve, and as he
knew that the Pharisees had pronounced him to be under the influence of
Beelzebub, he attributed a similar opinion to his relatives.
If we lay aside this addition of Mark’s, the comparison of the three
very similar narratives presents no result as it regards their matter;
[1104] but there is a striking difference between the connexions in
which the Evangelists place the event. Matthew and Mark insert it after
the defence against the suspicion of diabolical aid, and before the
parable of the sower; whereas Luke makes the visit considerably prior
to that imputation, and places the parable even before the visit. It is
worthy of notice, however, that Luke has, after the defence against the
accusation of a league with Beelzebub, in the position which the two
other Evangelists give to the visit of the relatives of Jesus, an
incident which issues in a declaration, precisely similar to that which
the announcement calls forth. After the refutation of the Pharisaic
reproach, and the discourse on the return of the unclean spirit, a
woman in the crowd is filled with admiration, and pronounces the mother
of Jesus blessed, on which Jesus, as before on the announcement of his
mother, replies; Yea, rather blessed are they who hear the word of God
and keep it! [1105] Schleiermacher here again prefers the account of
Luke: he thinks this little digression on the exclamation of the woman
especially evinces a fresh and lively recollection, which has inserted
it in its real place and circumstances; whereas Matthew, confounding
the answer of Jesus to the ejaculation of the woman, with the very
similar one to the announcement of his relatives, gives to the latter
the place of the former, and thus passes over the scene with the woman.
[1106] But how the woman could feel herself hurried away into so
enthusiastic an exclamation, precisely on hearing the abstruse
discourse on the return of the expelled demons, or even the foregoing
reprehensive reply to the Pharisees, it is difficult to understand, and
the contrary conjecture to that of Schleiermacher might rather be
established; namely, that in the place of the announcement of the
relatives, the writer of the third gospel inserted the scene with the
woman, from its having a like termination. The evangelical tradition,
as we see from Matthew and Mark, whether from historical or merely
accidental motives, had associated the above visit and the saying about
the spiritual relatives, with the discourse of Jesus on the accusation
of a league with Beelzebub, and on the return of the unclean spirit;
and Luke also, when he came to the conclusion of that discourse, was
reminded of the anecdote of the visit and its point—the extolling of a
spiritual relationship to Jesus. But he had already mentioned the
visit; [1107] he therefore seized on the scene with the woman, which
presented a similar termination. From the strong resemblance between
the two anecdotes, I can scarcely believe that they are founded on two
really distinct incidents; rather, it is more likely that the memorable
declaration of Jesus, that he preferred his spiritual before his bodily
relatives, had 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 with an actual rejection of them; to
another, that the exaltation of those who were spiritually near to him,
should be called forth by a blessing pronounced on those who were
nearest to him in the flesh. Of these two forms of the legend, Matthew
and Mark give only the first; Luke, however, had already disposed of
this on an earlier occasion; when, therefore, he came to the passage
where, in the common evangelical tradition, that anecdote occurred, he
was induced to supply its place by the second form.
§ 87.
CONTENTIONS FOR PRE-EMINENCE AMONG THE DISCIPLES. THE LOVE OF JESUS FOR
CHILDREN.
The three first Evangelists narrate several contentions for
pre-eminence which arose among the disciples, with the manner in which
Jesus composed these differences. One such contention, which is said to
have arisen among the disciples after the transfiguration, and the
first prediction of the passion, is common to all the gospels (Matt.
xviii. 1 ff.; Mark ix. 33 ff.; Luke ix. 46 ff.). There are indeed
divergencies in the narratives, but the identity of the incident on
which they are founded is attested by the fact, that in all of them,
Jesus sets a little child before his disciples as an example; a scene
which, as Schleiermacher remarks, [1108] would hardly be repeated.
Matthew and Mark concur in mentioning a dispute about pre-eminence,
which was excited by the two sons of Zebedee. These disciples
(according to Mark), or their mother for them (according to Matthew),
petitioned for the two first places next to Jesus in the messianic
kingdom (Matt. xx. 20 ff.; Mark x. 35 ff.). [1109] Of such a request on
the part of the sons of Zebedee, the third Evangelist knows nothing;
but apart from this occasion, there is a further contention for
pre-eminence, on which discourses are uttered, similar to those which
the two first Evangelists have connected with the above petition. At
the last supper of which Jesus partook with his disciples before his
passion, Luke makes the latter fall into a φιλονεικία (dispute) which
among them shall be the greatest; a dispute which Jesus seeks to quell
by the same reasons, and partly with the same words, that Matthew and
Mark give in connexion with the ἀγανάκτησις, (indignation), excited in
the disciples generally by the request of the sons of Zebedee. Luke
here reproduces a sentence which he, in common with Mark, had
previously given almost in the same form, as accompanying the
presentation of the child; and which Matthew has, not only on the
occasion of Salome’s prayer, but also in the great anti-pharisaic
discourse (comp. Luke xxii. 26; Mark ix. 35; Luke ix. 48; Matt. xx. 26
f., xxiii. 11). However credible it may be that with the worldly
messianic hopes of the disciples, Jesus should often have to suppress
disputes among them on the subject of their future rank in the
Messiah’s kingdom, it is by no means probable that, for example, the
sentence, Whosoever will be great among you, let him be the servant of
all: should be spoken, 1st, on the presentation of the child; 2ndly, in
connexion with the prayer of the sons of Zebedee; 3rdly, in the
anti-pharisaic discourse, and 4thly, at the last supper. There is here
obviously a traditional confusion, whether it be (as Sieffert in such
cases is fond of supposing) that several originally distinct
occurrences have been assimilated by the legend, i.e. the same
discourse erroneously repeated on various occasions; or that out of one
incident the legend has made many, i.e. has invented various occasions
for the same discourse. Our decision between these two possibilities
must depend on the answer to the following question: Have the various
facts, to which the analogous discourses on humility are attached, the
dependent appearance of mere frames to the discourses, or the
independent one of occurrences that carry their truth and significance
in themselves?
It will not be denied that the petition of the sons of Zebedee, is in
itself too specific and remarkable to be a mere background to the
ensuing discourse; and the same judgment must be passed on the scene
with the child: so that we have already two cases of contention for
pre-eminence subsisting in themselves. If we would assign to each of
these occurrences its appropriate discourses, the declarations which
Matthew connects with the presentation of the child: Unless ye become
as this child, etc., and Whosoever shall humble himself as this child,
etc., evidently belong to this occasion. On the other hand, the
sentences on ruling and serving in the world and in the kingdom of
Jesus, seem to be a perfectly suitable comment on the petition of the
sons of Zebedee, with which Matthew associates them: also the saying
about the first and the last, the greatest and the least, which Mark
and Luke give so early as at the scene with the child, Matthew seems
rightly to have reserved for the scene with the sons of Zebedee. It is
otherwise with the contention spoken of by Luke (xxii. 24 ff.). This
contention originates in no particular occasion, nor does it issue in
any strongly marked scene (unless we choose to insert here the washing
of the disciples’ feet, described by John, who, for the rest, mentions
no dispute;—of which scene, however, we cannot treat until we come to
the history of the Passion). On the contrary, this contention is
ushered in merely by the words, ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ φιλονεικία ἐν
αὐτοῖς,—nearly the same by which the first contention is introduced,
ix. 46,—and leads to a discourse from Jesus, which, as we have already
noticed, Matthew and Mark represent him to have delivered in connexion
with the earlier instances of rivalry; so that this passage of Luke has
nothing peculiarly its own, beyond its position, at the last supper.
This position, however, is not very secure; for that immediately after
the discourse on the betrayer, so humiliating to the disciples, pride
should so strongly have taken possession of them, is as difficult to
believe, as it is easy to discover, by a comparison of v. 23 and 24,
how the writer might be led, without historical grounds, to insert here
a contention for pre-eminence. It is clear that the words καὶ αὐτοὶ
ἤρξαντο συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς, τὸ, τίς ἄρα εἴη ἐξ αὐτῶν ὁ τοῦτο μέλλων
πράσσειν; suggested to him the similar ones, ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ φιλονεικία
ἐν αὐτοῖς, τὸ τίς αὐτῶν δοκεῖ εἶναι μείζων; that is, the 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 had yet in reserve those which the two
first Evangelists attach to the petition of the sons of Zebedee, an
occasion which seems not to have been present to the mind of the third
Evangelist, whence he introduces the discourses pertaining to it here,
with the general statement that they originated in a contention for
pre-eminence, which broke out among the disciples. Meanwhile the
chronological position, also, of the two first-named disputes about
rank, has very little probability; for in both instances, it is after a
prediction of the passion, which, like the prediction of the betrayal,
would seem calculated to suppress such thoughts of earthly ambition.
[1110] We therefore welcome the indication which the evangelical
narrative itself presents, of the manner in which the narrators were
led unhistorically to such an arrangement. In the answer of Jesus to
the prayer of Salome, the salient point was the suffering that awaited
him and his disciples; hence by the most natural association of ideas,
the ambition of the two disciples, the antidote to which was the
announcement of approaching trial, was connected with the prediction of
the passion. Again, on the first occasion of rivalry, the preceding
prediction of the passion leads in Mark and Luke to the observation,
that the disciples did not understand the words of Jesus, and yet
feared to ask him concerning them, whence it may be inferred that they
debated and disputed on the subject among themselves; here, then, the
association of ideas caused the Evangelists to introduce the contention
for pre-eminence, also carried on in the absence of Jesus. This
explanation is not applicable to the narrative of Matthew, for there,
between the prediction of the passion and the dispute of the disciples,
the anecdote of the coin angled for by Peter, intervenes.
With the above contentions for pre-eminence, another anecdote is
indirectly connected by means of the child which is put forward on one
of those occasions. Children are brought to Jesus that he may bless
them; the disciples wish to prevent it, but Jesus speaks the
encouraging words, Suffer little children to come unto me, and adds
that only for children, and those who resemble children, is the kingdom
of heaven destined (Matt. xix. 13 ff.; Mark x. 13 ff.; Luke xviii. 15
ff.). This narrative has many points of resemblance to that of the
child placed in the midst of the disciples. Firstly, in both, Jesus
presents children as a model, and declares that only those who resemble
children can enter the kingdom of God; secondly, in both, the disciples
appear in the light of opposition to children; and, thirdly, in both,
Mark says, that Jesus took the children in his arms (ἐναγκαλισάμενος).
If these points of resemblance be esteemed adequate ground for reducing
the two narratives to one, the latter must, beyond all question, be
retained as the nearest to truth, because the saying of Jesus, Suffer
little children, etc., which from its retaining this original form in
all the narratives, bears the stamp of genuineness, could scarcely have
been uttered on the other occasion; whereas, the sentences on children
as patterns of humility, given in connexion with the contention about
rank, might very well have been uttered under the circumstances above
described, in retrospective allusion to previous contentions about
rank. Nevertheless, this might rather be the place for supposing an
assimilation of originally diverse occurrences, since it is at least
evident, that Mark has inserted the expression ἐναγκαλισάμενος in both,
simply on account of the resemblance between the two scenes.
§ 88.
THE PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE.
Jesus, during his first residence in Jerusalem, according to John (ii.
14 ff.), according to the synoptists, during his last (Matt. xxi. 12
ff. parall.), undertook the purification of the temple. The ancient
commentators thought, and many modern ones still think, [1111] that
these were separate events, especially as, besides the chronological
difference, there is some divergency between the three first
Evangelists 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, ἐκβάλλειν, John says that he made a scourge of
small cords, φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων, for this purpose: again, while
according to the former, he treats all the sellers alike, he appears,
according to John, to make some distinction, and to use the sellers of
doves somewhat more mildly; moreover, John does not say that he drove
out the buyers, as well as the sellers. There is also a difference as
to the language used by Jesus on the occasion; in the synoptical
gospels, it is given in the form of an exact quotation from the Old
Testament; in John, merely as a free allusion. But, above all, there is
a difference as to the result: in the fourth gospel, Jesus is
immediately called to account; in the synoptical gospels, we read
nothing of this, and according to them, it is not until the following
day that the Jewish authorities put to Jesus a question, which seems to
have reference to the purification of the temple (Matt. xxi. 23 ff.),
and to which Jesus replies quite otherwise than to the remonstrance in
the fourth gospel. To explain the repetition of such a measure, it is
remarked that the abuse was not likely to cease on the first expulsion,
and that on every revival of it, Jesus would feel himself anew called
on to interfere; that, moreover, the temple purification in John is
indicated to be an earlier event than that in the synoptical gospels,
by the circumstance, that the fourth Evangelist represents Jesus as
being immediately called to account, while his impunity in the other
case appears a natural consequence of the heightened consideration
which he had in the meantime won.
But allowing to these divergencies their full weight, the agreement
between the two narratives preponderates. We have in both the same
abuse, the same violent mode of checking it, by casting out (ἐκβάλλειν)
the people, and overthrowing (ἀναστρέφειν) the tables; nay, virtually,
the same language in justification of this procedure, for in John, as
well as in the other gospels, the words of Jesus contain a reference,
though not a verbally precise one, to Isa. lvi. 7; Jer. vii. 11. These
important points of resemblance must at least extort such an admission
as that of Sieffert, [1112] namely, that the two occurrences,
originally but little alike, were assimilated by tradition, the
features of the one being transferred to the 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 the fourth
Evangelist seems to have passed over the purification of the temple
after the last entrance of Jesus into the metropolis, not because he
presumed it to be already known from the other gospels, but because he
believed that he must give an early date to the sole act of the kind
with which he was acquainted. If then each of the Evangelists knew only
of one purification of the temple, we are not warranted either by the
slight divergencies in the description of the event, or by the
important difference in its chronological position, to suppose that
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 with justice that our most modern interpreters have,
after the example of some older ones, declared themselves in favour of
the identity of the two histories. [1113]
On which side lies the error? We may know beforehand how the criticism
of the present day will decide on this question: namely, in favour of
the fourth gospel. According to Lücke, the scourge, the diversified
treatment of the different classes of traders, the more indirect
allusion to the Old Testament passage, are so many indications that the
writer was an eye and ear witness of the scene he describes; while as
to chronology, it is well known that this is in no degree regarded by
the synoptists, but only by John, whence, according to Sieffert, [1114]
to surrender the narrative of the latter to that of the former, would
be to renounce the certain for the 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 the Jewish custom which
did not permit the court of the temple to be made a thoroughfare.
[1115] If, nevertheless, this particular is put to the account of
Mark’s otherwise ascertained predilection for arbitrary embellishment,
[1116] what authorizes us to regard similar artistic touches from the
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, [1117] is too glaring a petitio principii, at least in
the point of view taken by a comparative criticism, in which the
decision as to whether the artistic details of the fourth Evangelist
are mere embellishments, must depend solely on intrinsic probability.
Although the different treatment of the different classes of men is in
itself a probable feature, and the freer allusion to the Old Testament
is at least an indifferent one; it is quite otherwise with the most
striking feature in the narrative of John. Origen has set the example
of objecting to the twisting and application of the scourge of small
cords, as far too violent and disorderly a procedure. [1118] Modern
interpreters soften the picture by supposing that Jesus used the
scourge merely against the cattle [1119] (a supposition, however,
opposed to the text, which represents all πάντας as being driven out by
the scourge); yet still they cannot avoid perceiving the use of a
scourge at all to be unseemly in a person of the dignity of Jesus, and
only calculated to aggravate the already tumultuary character of the
proceeding. [1120] 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 what way
the fourth Evangelist might be led to the free invention of such a
particular. Now it is evident from the quotation v. 17, which is
peculiar to him, that he looked on the act of Jesus as a demonstration
of holy zeal—a sufficient temptation to exaggerate the traits of
zealousness in his conduct.
In relation to the chronological difference, we need only remember how
the fourth Evangelist antedates the acknowledgment of Jesus as the
Messiah by the disciples, and the conferring of the name of Peter on
Simon, to be freed from the common assumption of his pre-eminent
chronological accuracy, which is alleged in favour of his position of
the purification of the temple. For this particular case, however, it
is impossible to show any reason why the occurrence in question would
better suit the time of the first than of the last passover visited by
Jesus, whereas there are no slight grounds for the opposite opinion. It
is true that nothing in relation to chronology is to be founded on the
improbability that Jesus should so early have referred to his death and
resurrection, as he must have done, according to John’s interpretation
of the saying about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple;
[1121] for we shall see, in the proper place, that this reference to
the death and resurrection, owes its introduction into the declaration
of Jesus to the 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 thus early on so violent an exercise
of his messianic authority. [1122] For in that first period of his
ministry he had not given himself out as the Messiah, and under any
other than messianic authority, such a step could then scarcely have
been hazarded; moreover, he in the beginning 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 the 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 that he did and said, to assert
his messiahship, in defiance of the contradiction of his enemies; then,
all lay so entirely at stake, that 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 should have unresistingly
submitted to a single man,—one, too, whose claims had ever been
obstinately contested: his only resource in this exigency is to appeal
to the superhuman power of Jesus, by virtue of which he was able
suddenly to extinguish the wrath of his enemies, or to render it
impotent; and hence Origen ranks this expulsion among the greatest
miracles of Jesus. [1123] Modern expositors decline the miracle, [1124]
but Paulus is the only one among them who has adequately weighed
Origen’s remark, that in the ordinary course of things the multitude
would have opposed themselves to a single person. Whatever may be said
of the surprise caused by the suddenness of the appearance of Jesus
[1125] (if, as John relates, he made himself a scourge of cords, he
would need some time for preparation), of the force of right on his
side [1126] (on the side of those whom he attacked, however, there was
established usage); or, finally, of the irresistible impression
produced by the personality of Jesus [1127] (on usurers and
cattle-dealers—on brute men, as Paulus calls them?): still, such a
multitude, certain as it might be of the protection of the priesthood,
would not have unresistingly allowed themselves to be driven out of the
temple by a single man. Hence Paulus is of opinion that a number of
others, equally scandalized by the sacrilegious traffic, made common
cause with Jesus, and that to their united strength the buyers and
sellers were compelled to yield. [1128] But this supposition is fatal
to the entire incident, for it makes Jesus the cause of an open tumult;
and it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual
aversion to everything revolutionary, or to explain the omission of his
enemies to use it as an accusation against him. For that they held
themselves bound in conscience to admit that the conduct of Jesus was
justifiable in this case, is the less credible, since, according to a
rabbinical authority, [1129] the Jews appear to have been so far from
taking umbrage at the market in the court of the Gentiles (and this is
all we are to understand by the word ἱερὸν), [1130] that the absence of
it seemed to them like a melancholy desolation of the temple. According
to this, it is not surprising that Origen casts a doubt on the
historical value of this narrative, by the expression, εἴγε καὶ αὐτὴ
γεγένηται (if it really happened), and at most admits that the
Evangelist, in order to present an idea allegorically, καὶ γεγενημένῳ
συνέχρήσατο πράγματι (also borrowed the form of an actual occurrence).
[1131]
But in order to contest the reality of this history, in defiance of the
agreement of all the four Evangelists, the negative grounds hitherto
adduced must be seconded by satisfactory positive ones, from whence it
might be seen how the primitive Christian legend could be led to the
invention of such a scene, apart from any historical foundation. But
these appear to be wanting. For our only positive data in relation to
this occurrence are the passages cited by the synoptists from Isaiah
and Jeremiah, prohibiting that the temple should be made a den of
robbers; and the passage from Malachi iii. 1–3, according to which it
was expected that in the messianic times Jehovah would suddenly come to
his temple, that no one would stand before his appearing, and that he
would undertake a purification of the people and the worship. Certainly
these passages seem to have some bearing on the irresistible reforming
activity of Jesus in the temple, as described by our Evangelists; but
there is so little indication that they had reference in particular to
the market in the outer court of the temple, that it seems necessary to
suppose an actual opposition on the part of Jesus to this abuse, in
order to account for the fulfilment of the above prophecies by him
being represented under the form of an expulsion of buyers and sellers.
§ 89.
NARRATIVES OF THE ANOINTING OF JESUS BY A WOMAN.
An occasion on which Jesus was anointed by a woman as he sat at meat,
is mentioned by all the Evangelists (Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.; Mark xiv. 3
ff.; Luke vii. 36 ff.; John xii. 1 ff.), but with some divergencies,
the most important of which lie between Luke and the other three.
First, as to the chronology; Luke places the incident in the earlier
period of the life of Jesus, before his departure from Galilee, while
the other three assign it to the last week of his life; secondly, as to
the character of the woman who anoints Jesus: she is, according to
Luke, a woman who was a sinner, γυνὴ ἁμαρτωλὸς; according to the two
other synoptists, a person of unsullied reputation; according to John,
who is more precise, Mary of Bethany. From the second point of
difference it follows, that in Luke the objection of the spectators
turns on the admission of so infamous a person, in the other gospels,
on the wastefulness of the woman; from both, it follows, that Jesus in
his defence dwells, in the former, on the grateful love of the woman,
as contrasted with the haughty indifference of the Pharisees, in the
latter, on his approaching departure, in opposition to the constant
presence of the poor. There are yet the minor differences, that the
place in which the entertainment and the anointing occur, is by the two
first and the fourth Evangelists called Bethany, which according to
John xi. 1, was a κώμη (town), by Luke a πόλις (city), without any more
precise designation; further, that the objection, according to the
three former, proceeds from the disciples, according to Luke, from the
entertainer. Hence the majority of commentators distinguish two
anointings, of which one is narrated by Luke the other by the three
remaining Evangelists. [1132]
But it must be asked, if the reconciliation of Luke with the other
three Evangelists is despaired of, whether the agreement of the latter
amongst themselves is so decided, and whether we must not rather
proceed, from the distinction of two anointings, to the distinction of
three, or even four? To four certainly it will scarcely extend; for
Mark does not depart from Matthew, except in a few touches of his
well-known dramatic manner; but between these two Evangelists on the
one side, and John on the other, there are differences which may fairly
be compared with those between Luke and the rest. The first difference
relates to the house in which the entertainment is said to have been
given; according to the two first Evangelists, it was the house of
Simon the leper, a person elsewhere unnoticed; the fourth does not, it
is true, expressly name the host, but since he mentions Martha as the
person who waited on the guests, and her brother Lazarus as one of
those who sat at meat, there is no doubt that he intended to indicate
the house of the latter as the locality of the repast. [1133] Neither
is the time of the occurrence precisely the same, for according to
Matthew and Mark the scene takes place after the solemn entrance of
Jesus into Jerusalem, only two days at the utmost before the passover;
according to John, on the other hand, before the entrance, as early as
six days prior to the passover. [1134] Further, the individual whom
John states to be that Mary of Bethany so intimately united to Jesus,
is only known to the two first evangelists as a woman, γυνὴ; [1135]
neither do they represent her as being, like Mary, in the house, and
one of the host’s family, but as coming, one knows not whence, to
Jesus, while he reclined at table. Moreover, the act of anointing is in
the fourth gospel another than in the two first. In the latter, the
woman pours her ointment of spikenard on the head of Jesus; in John, on
the contrary, she anoints his feet, and dries them with her hair,
[1136] a difference which gives the whole scene a new character.
Lastly, the two synoptists are not aware that it was Judas who gave
utterance to the censure against the woman; Matthew attributing it to
the disciples, Mark, to the spectators generally. [1137]
Thus between the narrative of John, and that of Matthew and Mark, there
is scarcely less difference than between the account of these three
collectively, and that of Luke: whoever supposes two distinct
occurrences in the one case, must, to be consistent, do so in the
other; and thus, with Origen, hold, at least conditionally, that there
were three separate anointings. So soon, however, as this consequence
is more closely examined, it must create a difficulty, for how
improbable is it that Jesus should have been expensively anointed three
times, each time at a feast, each time by a woman, that woman being
always a different one; that moreover Jesus should, in each instance,
have had to defend the act of the woman against the censures of the
spectators! [1138] Above all, how is it to be conceived that after
Jesus, on one and even on two earlier occasions, had so decidedly given
his sanction to the honour rendered to him, the disciples, or one of
them, should have persisted in censuring it? [1139]
These considerations oblige us to think of reductions, and it is the
most natural to commence with the narratives of the two first
synoptists and of John, for these agree not only in the place, Bethany,
but also, generally, in the time of the event, the last week of the
life of Jesus; above all, the censure and the reply are nearly the same
on both sides. In connexion with these similarities the differences
lose their importance, partly from the improbability that an incident
of this kind should be repeated; partly from the probability, that in
the traditional propagation of the anecdote such divergencies should
have insinuated themselves. But if in this case the identity of the
occurrences be admitted, in consideration of the similarities, and in
spite of the dissimilarities; then, on the other hand, the divergencies
peculiar to the narrative of Luke can no longer hinder us from
pronouncing it to be identical with that of the three other
Evangelists, provided that there appear to be only a few important
points of resemblance between the two. And such really exist, for Luke
now strikingly accords with Matthew and Mark, in opposition to John:
now, with the latter, in opposition to the former. Luke gives the
entertainer the same name as the two first synoptists, namely, Simon,
the only difference being, that the former calls him a Pharisee, while
the latter style him the leper. Again, Luke agrees with the other
synoptists in opposition to John, in representing the woman who anoints
Jesus as a nameless individual, not belonging to the house; and
further, in making her appear with a box of ointment, ἀλάβαστρον μύρου,
while John speaks only of a pound of ointment, λίτρα μύρου, without
specifying the vessel. On the other hand, Luke coincides in a
remarkable manner with John, and differs from the two other
Evangelists, as to the mode of the anointing. While, namely, according
to the latter, the ointment is poured on the head of Jesus, according
to Luke, the woman, who was a sinner, as, according to John, Mary,
anoints the feet of Jesus; and even the striking particular, that she
dried them with her hair, [1140] is given by both in nearly the same
words; excepting that in Luke, where the woman is described as a
sinner, it is added that she bathed the feet of Jesus with her tears,
and kissed them. Thus, without doubt, we have here but one history
under three various forms; and this seems to have been the real
conclusion of Origen, as well as recently of Schleiermacher.
In this state of the case, the effort is to escape as cheaply as
possible, and to save the divergencies of the several Evangelists at
least from the appearance of contradiction. First, with regard to the
differences between the two first Evangelists and the last, it has been
attempted to reconcile the discrepant dates by the supposition, that
the meal at Bethany was held really, as John informs us, six days
before Easter; but that Matthew, after whom Mark wrote, has no
contradictory date; that rather he has no date at all; for though he
inserts the narrative of the meal and the anointing after the
declaration of Jesus, that after two days is the feast of the Passover,
ὅτι μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας τὸ πάσχα γίνεται, this does not prove that he
intended to place it later as to time, for it is probable that he gave
it this position simply because he wished to note here, before coming
to the betrayal by Judas, the occasion on which the traitor first
embraced his black resolve, namely, the repast at which he was incensed
by Mary’s prodigality, and embittered by the rebuke of Jesus. [1141]
But in opposition to this, modern criticism has shown that, on the one
hand, in the mild and altogether general reply of Jesus there could lie
nothing personally offensive to Judas; and that, on the other hand, the
two first gospels do not name Judas as the party who censured the
anointing, but the disciples or the bystanders generally: whereas, if
they had noted this scene purely because it was the motive for the
treachery of Judas, they must have especially pointed out the
manifestation of his feeling. [1142] There remains, consequently, a
chronological contradiction in this instance between the two first
synoptists and John: a contradiction which even Olshausen admits.
[1143]
It has been attempted in a variety of ways to evade the farther
difference as to the person of the host. As Matthew and Mark speak only
of the house of Simon the leper, οἰκία Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, some have
distinguished the owner of the house, Simon, from the giver of the
entertainment, who doubtless was Lazarus, and have supposed that hence,
in both cases without error, the fourth Evangelist mentions the latter,
the two first synoptists the former. [1144] But who would distinguish
an entertainment by the name of the householder, if he were not in any
way the giver of the entertainment? Again, since John does not
expressly call Lazarus the host, but merely one of the συνανακειμένων
(those sitting at the table), and since the inference that he was the
host is drawn solely from the circumstance that his sister Martha
served, διηκόνει; others have regarded Simon as the husband of Martha,
either separated on account of his leprosy, or already deceased, and
have supposed that Lazarus then resided with his widowed sister: [1145]
an hypothesis which it is more easy to reconcile with the narratives
than the former, but which is unsupported by any certain information.
We come next to the divergency relative to the mode of anointing;
according to the two first Evangelists, the ointment was poured on the
head of Jesus; according to the fourth, on his feet. The old, trivial
mode of harmonizing the two statements, by supposing that both the head
and the feet were anointed, has recently been expanded into the
conjecture that Mary indeed intended only to anoint the feet of Jesus
(John), but as she accidentally broke the vessel (συντρίψασα, Mark),
the ointment flowed over his head also (Matt.). [1146] This attempt at
reconciliation falls into the comic, for as we cannot imagine how a
woman who was preparing to anoint the feet of Jesus could bring the
vessel of ointment over his head, we must suppose that the ointment
spirted upwards like an effervescing draught. So that here also the
contradiction remains, and not only between Matthew and John, where it
is admitted even by Schneckenburger, but also between the latter
Evangelist and Mark.
The two divergencies relative to the person of the woman who anoints
Jesus, and to the party who blames her, were thought to be the most
readily explained. That what John ascribes to Judas singly, Matthew and
Mark refer to all the disciples or spectators, was believed to be
simply accounted for by the supposition, that while the rest manifested
their disapprobation by gestures only, Judas vented his in words.
[1147] We grant that the word ἔλεγον (they said), preceded as it is in
Mark by the words ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς (having indignation within
themselves), and followed, as in Matthew, by the words γνοὺς δὲ ὁ
Ἰησοῦς (but Jesus knowing), does not necessarily imply that all the
disciples gave audible expression to their feelings; as, however, the
two first Evangelists immediately after this meal narrate the betrayal
by Judas, they would certainly have named the traitor on the above
occasion, had he, to their knowledge, made himself conspicuous in
connection with the covetous blame which the woman’s liberality drew
forth. That John particularizes the woman, whose name is not given by
the synoptists, as Mary of Bethany, is, in the ordinary view, only an
example how the fourth Evangelist supplies the omissions of his
predecessors. [1148] But as the two first synoptists attach so much
importance to the deed of the woman, that they make Jesus predict the
perpetuation of her memory on account of it—a particular which John has
not—they would assuredly have also given her name had they known it; so
that in any case we may conclude thus much: they knew not who the woman
was, still less did they conceive her to be Mary of Bethany.
Thus if the identity only of the last Evangelist’s narrative with that
of the two first be acknowledged, it must be confessed that we have, on
the one side or the other, an account which is inaccurate, and
disfigured by tradition. It is, however, not only between these, but
also between Luke and his fellow Evangelists collectively, that they
who suppose only one incident to be the foundation of their narratives,
seek to remove as far as possible the appearance of contradiction.
Schleiermacher, whose highest authority is John, but who will on no
account renounce Luke, comes in this instance, when the two so widely
diverge, into a peculiar dilemma, from which he must have thought that
he could extricate himself with singular dexterity, since he has not
evaded it, as he does others of a similar kind, by the supposition of
two fundamental occurrences. It is true that he finds himself
constrained to concede, in favour of John, that Luke’s informant could
not in this case have been an eyewitness; whence minor divergencies, as
for instance those relative to the locality, are to be explained. On
the other hand, the apparently important differences that, according to
Luke, the woman is a sinner, according to John, Mary of Bethany; that
according to the former, the host, according to the latter, the
disciples, make objections; and that the reply of Jesus is in the
respective narrations totally different—these, in Schleiermacher’s
opinion, have their foundation in the fact that the occurrence may be
regarded from two points of view. The one aspect of the occurrence is
the murmuring of the disciples, and this is given by Matthew; the
other, namely, the relations of Jesus with the pharisaic host, is
exhibited by Luke; and John confirms both representations. The most
decided impediment to the reconciliation of Luke with the other
evangelists, his designation of the woman as a sinner, ἁμαρτωλὸς,
Schleiermacher invalidates, by calling it a false inference of the
narrator from the address of Jesus to Mary, Thy sins are forgiven thee,
ἀφέωνταί σοι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. This Jesus might say to Mary in allusion to
some error, unknown to us, but such as the purest are liable to,
without compromising her reputation with the spectators, who were well
acquainted with her character; and it was only the narrator who
erroneously concluded from the above words of Jesus, and from his
further discourse, that the woman concerned was a sinner in the
ordinary sense of the word, whence he has incorrectly amplified the
thoughts of the host, v. 39. [1149] It is not, however, simply of sins,
ἁμαρτίαι, but of many sins, πολλαῖ ἁμαρτίαι, that Jesus speaks in
relation to the woman; and if this also be an addition of the narrator,
to be rejected as such because it is inconsistent with the character of
Mary of Bethany, then has the entire speech of Jesus from v. 40–48,
which turns on the opposition between forgiving and loving little and
much, been falsified or misrepresented by the Evangelist: and on the
side of Luke especially, it is in vain to attempt to harmonize the
discordant narratives.
If, then, the four narratives can be reconciled only by the supposition
that several of them have undergone important traditional
modifications: the question is, which of them is the nearest to the
original fact? That modern critics should unanimously decide in favour
of John, cannot surprise us after our previous observations; and as
little can the nature of the reasoning by which their judgment is
supported. The narrative of John, say they (reasoning in a circle),
being that of an eye-witness, must be at once supposed the true one,
[1150] and this conclusion is sometimes rested for greater security on
the false premiss, that the more circumstantial and dramatic narrator
is the more accurate reporter—the eye-witness. [1151] The breaking of
the box of ointment, in Mark, although a dramatic particular, is
readily rejected as a mere embellishment; but does not John’s statement
of the quantity of spikenard as a pound, border on exaggeration? and
ought not the extravagance which Olshausen, in relation to this
disproportionate consumption of ointment, attributes to Mary’s love, to
be rather referred to the Evangelist’s imagination, which would then
also have the entire credit of the circumstance, that the house was
filled with the odour of the ointment? It is worthy of notice, that the
estimate of the value of the perfume at 300 denarii, is given by John
and Mark alone; as also at the miraculous feeding of the multitude, it
is these two Evangelists who rate the necessary food at 200 denarii. If
Mark only had this close estimate, how quickly would it be pronounced,
at least by Schleiermacher, a gratuitous addition of the narrator! What
then is it that, in the actual state of the case, prevents the
utterance of this opinion, even as a conjecture, but the prejudice in
favour of the fourth gospel? Even the anointing of the head, which is
attested by two of the synoptists, is, because John mentions the feet
instead of the head, rejected as unusual, and incompatible with the
position of Jesus at a meal: [1152] whereas the anointing of the feet
with precious oil was far less usual; and this the most recent
commentator on the fourth gospel admits. [1153]
But peculiar gratitude is rendered to the eye-witness John, because he
has rescued from oblivion the names, both of the anointing woman, and
of the censorious disciple. [1154] It has been supposed that the
synoptists did in fact know the name of the woman, but withheld it from
the apprehension that danger might possibly accrue to the family of
Lazarus, while John, writing later, was under no such restraint; [1155]
but this expedient rests on mere assumptions. Our former conclusion
therefore subsists, namely, that the earlier Evangelists knew nothing
of the name of the woman; and the question arises, how was this
possible? Jesus having expressly promised immortal renown to the deed
of the woman, the tendency must arise to perpetuate her name also, and
if this were identical with the known and oft-repeated name of Mary of
Bethany, it is not easy to understand how the association of the deed
and the name could be lost in tradition, and the woman who anointed
Jesus become nameless. It is perhaps still more incomprehensible,
supposing the covetous blame cast upon the woman to have been really
uttered by him who proved the betrayer, that this should be forgotten
in tradition, and the expression of blame attributed to the disciples
generally. When a fact is narrated of a person otherwise unknown, or
even when the person being known, the fact does not obviously accord
with his general character, it is natural that the name should be lost
in tradition; but when the narrated word or work of a person agrees so
entirely with his known character, as does the covetous and
hypocritical blame in question with the character of the traitor, it is
difficult to suppose that the legend would sever it from his name.
Moreover, the history in which this blame occurs, verges so nearly on
the moment of the betrayal (especially according to the position given
to it by the two first Evangelists), that had the blame really
proceeded from Judas, the two facts would have been almost inevitably
associated. Nay, even if that expression of latent cupidity had not
really belonged to Judas, there must have been a temptation eventually
to ascribe it to him, as a help to the delineation of his character,
and to the explanation of his subsequent treachery. Thus the case is
reversed, and the question is whether, instead of praising John that he
has preserved to us this precise information, we ought not rather to
give our approbation to the synoptists, that they have abstained from
so natural but unhistorical a combination. We can arrive at no other
conclusion with respect to the designation of the woman who anoints
Jesus as Mary of Bethany. On the one hand, it is inconceivable that the
deed, if originally hers, should be separated from her celebrated name;
on the other, the legend, in the course of its development, might
naturally come to attribute to one whose spiritual relations with Jesus
had, according to the third and fourth gospels, early obtained great
celebrity in the primitive church, an act of devoted love towards him,
which originally belonged to another and less known person.
But from another side also we find ourselves induced to regard the
narratives of Matthew and Mark, who give no name to the woman, rather
than that of John, who distinguishes her as Mary of Bethany, as the
parent stem of the group of anecdotes before us. Our position of the
identity of all the four narratives must, to be tenable, enable us also
to explain how Luke’s representation of the facts could arise. Now,
supposing the narrative of John to be the nearest to the truth, it is
not a little surprising that in the legend, the anointing woman should
doubly descend from the highly honoured Mary, sister of Lazarus, to an
unknown, nameless individual, and thence even to a notorious sinner; it
appears far more natural to give the intermediate position to the
indifferent statement of the synoptists, out of whose equivocal
nameless woman might equally be made, either in an ascending scale, a
Mary; or, in a descending one, a sinner.
The possibility of the first transformation has been already shown: it
must next be asked, where could be an inducement, without historical
grounds, gradually to invest the anointing woman with the character of
a sinner? In the narrative itself our only clue is a feature which the
two first synoptists have not, but which John has in common with Luke;
namely, that the woman anointed the feet of Jesus. To the fourth
Evangelist, this tribute of feeling appeared in accordance with the
sensitive, devoted nature of Mary, whom he elsewhere also (xi. 32),
represents as falling at the feet of Jesus; but by another it might be
taken, as by Luke, for the gesture of contrition; an idea which might
favour the conception of the woman as a sinner—might favour, we say,
not cause: for a cause, we must search elsewhere.
§ 90.
THE NARRATIVES OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY, AND OF MARY AND MARTHA.
In the Gospel of John (viii. 1–11), the Pharisees and scribes bring a
woman taken in adultery to Jesus, that they may obtain his opinion as
to the procedure to be observed against her; whereupon Jesus, by
appealing to the consciences of the accusers, liberates the woman, and
dismisses her with an admonition. The genuineness of this passage has
been strongly contested, nay, its spuriousness might be regarded as
demonstrated, were it not that even the most thorough investigations on
the subject [1156] indirectly betray a design, which Paulus openly
avows, of warding off the dangerous surmises as to the origin of the
fourth gospel, which are occasioned by the supposition that this
passage, encumbered as it is with improbabilities, is a genuine portion
of that gospel. For in the first place, the scribes say to Jesus: Moses
in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: now in no part of
the Pentateuch is this punishment prescribed for adultery, but simply
death, the mode of inflicting it being left undetermined (Lev. xx. 10;
Deut. xxii. 22); nor was stoning for adultery a latter institution of
the Talmud, for according to the canon: omne mortis supplicium, in
scripturâ absolute positum esse strangulationem, [1157] the punishment
appointed for this offence in the Talmud is strangulation. [1158]
Further, it is difficult to discover what there was to ensnare Jesus in
the question proposed to him; [1159] the scribes quoted to him the
commandment of the law, as if they would warn him, rather than tempt
him, for they could not expect that he would decide otherwise than
agreeably to the law. Again, the decision of Jesus is open to the
stricture, that if only he who is conscious of perfect purity were
authorized to judge and punish, all social order would be at an end.
The circumstance of Jesus writing on the ground has a legendary and
mystical air, for even if it be not correctly explained by the gloss of
Jerome: eorum videlicet, qui accusabant, et omnium mortalium peccata,
it yet seems to imply something more mysterious than a mere
manifestation of contempt for the accusers. Lastly, it is scarcely
conceivable that every one of those men who dragged the woman before
Jesus, zealous for the law, and adverse to his cause as they are
supposed to be, should have had so tender a conscience, as on the
appeal of Jesus to retire without prosecuting their design, and leave
the woman behind them uninjured; this rather appears to belong merely
to the legendary or poetical embellishment of the scene. Yet however
improbable it may appear, from these observations, that the occurrence
happened precisely as it is here narrated, this, as Bretschneider
justly maintains, [1160] proves nothing against the genuineness of the
passage, since it is arguing in a circle to assume the apostolic
composition of the fourth gospel, and the consequent impossibility that
a narrative containing contradictions should form a portion of it,
prior to an examination of its several parts. Nevertheless, on the
other hand, the absence of the passage in the oldest authorities is so
suspicious, that a decision on the subject cannot be hazarded.
In any case, the narrative of an interview between Jesus and a woman of
the above character must be very ancient, since, according to Eusebius,
it was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and in the writings of
Papias. [1161] It was long thought that the woman mentioned in the
Hebrew gospel and by Papias was identical with the adulteress in John;
but against this it has been justly observed, that one who had the
reproach of many sins, must be distinct from her who was detected in
the one act of adultery. [1162] I wonder, however, that no one has, to
my knowledge, thought, in connexion with the passage of Eusebius, of
the woman in Luke of whom Jesus says that her many sins, ἁμαρτίαι
πολλαὶ, are forgiven. It is true that the word διαβληθείσης does not
fully agree with this idea, for Luke does not speak of actual
expressions of the Pharisee in disparagement of the woman, but merely
of the unfavourable thoughts which he had concerning her; and in this
respect the passage in Eusebius would agree better with the narrative
of John, which has an express denunciation, a διαβάλλειν.
Thus we are led on external grounds, by the doubt whether an ancient
notice refer to the one or the other of the two narratives, to a
perception of their affinity, [1163] which is besides evident from
internal reasons. In both we have a woman, a sinner, before Jesus; in
both, this woman is regarded with an evil eye by Pharisaic
sanctimoniousness, but is taken into protection by Jesus, and dismissed
with a friendly πορεύου, go. These were precisely the features, the
origin of which we could not understand in the narrative of Luke,
viewed as a mere variation of the history of the anointing given by the
other Evangelists. Now, what is more natural than to suppose that they
were transferred into Luke’s history of the anointing, from that of the
forgiven sinner? If the Christian legend possessed, on the one side, a
woman who had anointed Jesus, who was on this account reproached, but
was defended by Jesus; and on the other side a woman who was accused
before him of many sins, but whom he pardoned; how easily, aided by the
idea of an anointing of the feet of Jesus, which bears the
interpretation of an act of penitence, might the two histories flow
together—the anointing woman become also a sinner, and the sinner also
an anointer? Then, that the scene of the pardon was an entertainment,
was a feature also drawn from the history of the anointing: the
entertainer must be a Pharisee, because the accusation of the woman
ought to proceed from a Pharisaic party, and because, as we have seen,
Luke has a predilection for Pharisaic entertainments. Lastly, the
discourse of Jesus may have been borrowed, partly from the original
narrative of the woman who was a sinner, partly from analogous
occasions. If these conjectures be correct, the narratives are
preserved unmixed, on the one hand, by the two first Evangelists; on
the other, by the fourth, or whoever was the author of the passage on
the adulteress; for if the latter contains much that is legendary, it
is at least free from any admixture of the history of the anointing.
Having thus accounted for one modification of the narrative concerning
the anointing woman, namely, her degradation into a sinner, by the
influence of another and somewhat similar anecdote, which was current
in the first age of Christianity, we may proceed to consider,
experimentally, whether a like external influence may not have helped
to produce the opposite modification of the unknown into Mary of
Bethany: a modification which, for the rest, we have already seen to be
easy of explanation. Such an influence could only proceed from the sole
notice of Mary (with the exception of her appearance at the
resurrection of Lazarus) which has been preserved to us, and which is
rendered memorable by the declaration of Jesus, One thing is needful,
and Mary hath chosen, etc. (Luke x. 38 ff.). We have, in fact, here as
well as there, Martha occupied in serving (John xii. 2, καὶ ἡ Μάρθα
διηκόνει; Luke x. 40, ἡ δὲ Μάρθα περιεσπᾶτο περὶ πολλὴν διακονίαν);
here, Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus, there, anointing his feet;
here, blamed by her sister, there by Judas, for her useless conduct,
and in both cases, defended by Jesus. It is surely unavoidable to say,
if once the narrative of the anointing of Jesus by a woman were current
together with that of Mary and Martha, it was very natural, from the
numerous points of resemblance between them, that they should be
blended in the legend, or by some individual, into one story; that the
unknown woman who anointed the feet of Jesus, who was blamed by the
spectators, and vindicated by Jesus, should be changed into Mary, whom
tradition had depicted in a similar situation; the task of serving at
the meal with which the anointing was connected attributed to Mary’s
sister, Martha; and finally, her brother Lazarus made a partaker of the
meal:—so that here the narrative of Luke on the one side, and that of
the two synoptists on the other, appear to be pure anecdotes, that of
John a mixed one.
Further, in Luke’s narrative of the visit of Jesus to the two sisters,
there is no mention of Lazarus, with whom, however, according to John
(xi. and xii.), Mary and Martha appear to have dwelt; nay, Luke speaks
precisely as if the presence or existence of this brother, whom indeed
neither he nor either of the other synoptists anywhere notices, were
entirely unknown to him. For had he known anything of Lazarus, or had
he thought of him as present, he could not have said: A certain woman,
named Martha, received him into her house; he must at least have named
her brother also, especially as, according to John, the latter was an
intimate friend of Jesus. This silence is remarkable, and commentators
have not succeeded in finding a better explanation of it than that
given in the Natural History of the Prophet of Nazareth, where the
shortly subsequent death of Lazarus is made available for the
supposition that he was, about the time of that visit of Jesus, on a
journey for the benefit of his health. [1164] Not less striking is
another point relative to the locality of this scene. According to
John, Mary and Martha dwelt in Bethany, a small town in the immediate
vicinity of Jerusalem; whereas Luke, when speaking of the visit of
Jesus to these sisters, only mentions a certain town, κώμην τινὰ, which
is thought, however, to be easily reconciled with the statement of
John, by the observation, that Luke assigns the visit to the journey of
Jesus to Jerusalem, and to one travelling thither out of Galilee,
Bethany would lie in the way. But it would lie quite at the end of this
way, so that the visit of Jesus must fall at the close of his journey,
whereas Luke places it soon after the departure out of Galilee, and
separates it from the entrance into Jerusalem by a multitude of
incidents filling eight entire chapters. Thus much then is clear: the
author or editor of the third gospel was ignorant that that visit was
paid in Bethany, or that Mary and Martha dwelt there, and it is only
that Evangelist who represents Mary as the anointing woman, who also
names Bethany as the home of Mary: the same place where, according to
the two first synoptists, the anointing occurred. If Mary were once
made identical with the anointing woman, and if the anointing were
known to have happened in Bethany, it would naturally follow that this
town would be represented as Mary’s home. Hence it is probable that the
anointing woman owes her name to the current narrative of the visit of
Jesus to Martha and Mary, and that Mary owes her home to the narrative
of the meal at Bethany.
We should thus have a group of five histories, among which the
narrative given by the two first synoptists of the anointing of Jesus
by a woman, would form the centre, that in John of the adulteress, and
that in Luke of Mary and Martha, the extremes, while the anointing by
the sinner in Luke, and that by Mary in John, would fill the
intermediate places. It is true that all the five narratives might with
some plausibility be regarded as varied editions of one historical
incident; but from the essential dissimilarity between the three to
which I have assigned the middle and extreme places, I am rather of
opinion that these are each founded on a special incident, but that the
two intermediate narratives are secondary formations which owe their
existence to the intermixture of the primary ones by tradition.