Full text of "Diatessarica; [a series dealing with the interpretation of the Gospels]"

~. ~ -

Diatrssavira

PART III

FROM LETTER TO SPIRIT

AGENTS IN AMERICA

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK

J_)| U1C,

FROM LETTER TO SPIRIT

AN ATTEMPT TO REACH

THROUGH VARYING VOICES

THE ABIDING WORD

EDWIN A. ABBOTT

"The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life."

St Paul.

"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness."

St John the Baptist.

"Thou hast the words of eternal life."

St Peter.

LONDON

Adam and Charles Black

1903

Cambridge:

PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

TO THE UNKNOWN AUTHOR

OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL

THE NOBLEST ATTEMPT AT INDIRECT BIOGRAPHY
WHERE DIRECT BIOGRAPHY WAS IMPOSSIBLE

PREFACE

" I ^HE original object of this treatise 1 was to in-
-1- vestigate the truth about Voices alleged in the
Gospels to have come from Heaven. But the in-
vestigation besides indicating that the Voices were
of the nature of " the word of the Lord " in the Old
Testament, spiritual, not material led incidentally to
other conclusions, some of which, if true, seemed of
great importance 2 . For example, it appeared almost
demonstrable that Luke and Tertullian were right in
omitting the clause " Deliver us from the Evil One
(or, from evil)," the former from his Gospel, the latter
from his separate and sectional commentary on the
Lord's Prayer*. Again, analysis shewed that the
precept about "taking up the cross" might with
great probability be regarded as a Western paraphrase
of the Jewish precept to " take on oneself the yoke "
the (Jewish) "yoke" of the Kingdom of Heaven
being confused with the (Roman) crucificial "yoke"
borne by the condemned on his way to the Cross,

1 See p. 14. f See pp. 14 20.

* See 971 (i). Tertullian gives seven separate sections of comment to
seven clauses of the Prayer, but no section to this (the eighth) clause,
which he mentions merely as an illustration or interpretation of the
seventh.

Vll

PREFACE

which "yoke" was sometimes identified with the
Cross itself 1 . A third conclusion was, that in the
Descent of the Spirit on our Lord, the words "as a
dove"- if not an error of translation appeared not
originally intended to imply visibility.

These conclusions were obtained by the method
indicated in Clue* the only method lawful for science
by ascending from the known to the unknown. We
knoiv instances where varying Greek versions, those
of the LXX, Aquila, Theodotion, and others, have
ramified from one Hebrew Original, owing to erroneous
translation. Tabulating these instances we can com-
pare them with the Greek of the three Synoptists and
ascertain whether they, too, deviate from one another
in a manner corresponding to the deviations that we
have found in the Old Testament. If they do, there
results a probability that the Synoptic deviations also
proceed from mistranslation of Hebrew : just as mis-
translation of the French " suis " might be inferred
from two parallel documents one of which had the
word " am " whereas the other had " follow ".

But in this volume use has also been made of the
analogy of the Targums of the Old Testament. Some
of these explain or amplify, besides translating. It
is antecedently probable that, if there were early
Christian traditions in Biblical Hebrew, some of the
translators into Aramaic, Greek, and Syriac, would
amplify, as well as translate. If so, the phenomena

1 See 928 (i) (x). 2 The first vol. of this Series, see p. xxxiv.

viii

PREFACE

of the Jewish Targums may illustrate many of the
problems of the- Gospels. At all events the Targumistic
phenomena arc of great literary interest and should be
studied by all who are not afraid of facts, and who are
willing, as Plato says, to "follow the Logos" in pursuit
of Him whom they call the Word. Those who base
their belief in Jesus of Nazareth not alone on the four
precious pamphlets called Gospels, taken by them-
selves, but on the whole Book of the Universe, animate
and inanimate of which the pamphlets are but a part
though a most important one will feel sure that if
they persist in " following the Logos " over mountain
and mire, through light, twilight, and darkness, they
will ultimately find that they have been drawing near
to Christ. Only they must be sure that it is the Logos,
and not the passion for research, or the hope of heaven,
or the fear of hell or the contemptible craving to
"shout with the largest crowd," disguising itself as a
" kindly light " and expressing itself decorously in the
Latin adage "securus judicat orbis terrarum."

In any case risking the charge of presumption
I will be bold enough to assert that the Gospels have
never yet been fairly, because they have never yet been
fully, criticized. Our Lord was a Jew. So were the
Apostles. They all heard in their synagogues the
Scriptures read in (probably) unintelligible Hebrew,
and interpreted for them in Aramaic Targums, or, in
St Paul's case, perhaps in that Greek Targum 1 which

44 Targum " means simply " translation " or " interpretation ". A Jew

ix b 2

PREFACE

we commonly call the Septuagint. Further, they all
heard unwritten traditions about the Scriptures, tradi-
tions not reduced to writing till some centuries after
Christ's birth, but still preserving (in the two Talmuds)
ancient sayings that go back to the first century or
earlier. It was under these Targumist and Talmudist
influences that the Apostles taught and that their teach-
ing was recorded by their successors as " Memoirs of
the Apostles," or Gospels. One Apostle, and only one,
Matthew, is said by Papias (our earliest authority on
the subject) to have himself written. But Papias goes
on to say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and that
people " interpreted " or, as the Jews would say,
Targumized "as best they could 1 ." In the face of
these undisputed facts since it is certain that Jesus
and the Twelve thought in Aramaic, and highly probable
that some author identified in very early days with
Matthew wrote in Hebrew surely we must admit that
the Gospels of the New Testament will not have been
fully criticized until critics have carefully studied those
ancient interpretations of the Old Testament, Aramaic
as well as Greek, which illustrate the confusions of
word and statement, transmutations of thought, and
amplifications of history into legend, experienced in
passing from the dead Hebrew to the living Targum,

might speak about the Targum of the LXX, as he would about the
Targum of Onkelos. The former is less faithful than the latter; the
former is Greek, the latter is Aramaic. But both would be called by
a Jew Targums.

1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. 16.

PREFACE

and from the languages of the East to the "Common
Dialect " of the West.

If this is admitted, then my thesis is proved ; for,
though the Aramaic Targums of the Pentateuch were
translated by Etheridge forty years ago, and the last
page contained an advertisement of the Targum on
some of the Prophets as "in preparation", the published
work is out of print and the promised one has never
been published. The reason is obvious. There was,
and then- is, no demand for it. Yet almost any flimsy
speculation about some imaginary document such as
Ur-Marcus 1 a mere word, but one of those deadly
words that, " as a Tartar's bow, do shoot back upon
the understanding of the wisest, and mightily entangle
and pervert the judgement " will find, if not a great
demand, at all events immediate publication.

Grant that some of these Aramaic Targums are
fancifully, say even wildly, erroneous. Grant that they
intermix legend, or poetry, with the Biblical text. Yet,
as representing the national thought, literature, and
theology, they are historical phenomena well worth
considering. Cobwebs, in a sense, they may be, but
petrified cobwebs, fifteen centuries old, converted from
fly-traps into instructive monuments of antiquity.
They illustrate on every page the differences between
the West and the East, and between legends derived
from bards and legends derived from scribes. Besides,

1 Sec p. xxxvi (<).
xi

PREFACE

even where the Aramaic is furthest verbally from the
Hebrew say, in the Targum on the Suffering Servant
in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah the Greek, though
closer to the letter of the Original, will be found, in
parts, inferior to the Aramaic in spiritual fidelity. In
any case, faithful or unfaithful, the Aramaic versions
are facts bearing on the interpretation of our Gospels,
and, as facts, should be studied. I plead for more
facts. Except in the region of Greek illustration, there
is a dearth of facts, but a plethora of hypotheses,
and of dogmatic reiterations based on authoritative
but erroneous assertions. Sheep-path-criticism follow-
ing authority in clean-cut paths that lead no-whither,
spider-criticism evolving self-deceptions that deceive
others these there are in plenty. But of bee-criticism
there is not enough. I plead for the bees.

I have again to express my thanks for general
revision to the two friends who revised the Corrections
of Mark. Particular obligations are acknowledged
in the passages where they occur.

EDWIN A. ABBOTT.

IVellside,

Hampstead.

1 6 June, 1903.

Xll

CONTENTS

SUMMARY xiii xxxiii

KIIKRENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS . . xxxiv xxxvi

INTRODUCTION I (ON THE HONESTY OF THE
FOURTH GOSPEL)

Summary. The Fourth Gospel may have been
written by one who considered himself but the pen
of John the son of Zebedee, and who gave unity to
the preaching and revelations of the latter ; and this
theory may be illustrated from the Targums of the
Pentateuch i n

INTRODUCTION II (ON THE SUBJECTS DISCUSSED

IN THIS WORK)

Summary. Why does John omit the Voice from
Heaven in his account of the Baptism ? Why does he
omit the whole narrative of the Transfiguration (in-
cluding the Voice)? Why do the Synoptists omit the
Johannine Voice? Why do Luke and John alone
mention prayer as occurring before the Voice? How
account for the evangelistic differences as to Christ's
single short prayer ? What use can be made of non-
canonical accounts of the Baptism and the Trans-
figuration ?

In his differences from his predecessors as to (i) the
Baptism, (2) the Transfiguration, (3) Christ's prayer,
(4) " glry" and (from Matthew and Luke) as to (5) the
nature of the divine Sonship, John is probably closer
than the Synoptists to the historical and the spiritual
truth 1224

xiii

CONTENTS

BOOK I
THE BAPTISM

CHAPTER I
DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE BAPTISM

i The texts in English : the arrangement (553), Synoptists
(554), John (555), Arabic Diatessaron (556), Justin
Martyr (5579), Celsus (5605), Testament of the
XII Patriarchs (5669), Gospel of the Hebrews or
Nazarenes (5702), Ephrem Syrus (5737), Gospel of
the Ebionites (57881), Sibylline Oracles (5825),
Epiphanius (58691)

2 The differences to be considered : What was said by the
Voice ? What was seen ? Who saw it ? (5926)

CHAPTER II
WHAT PRECEDED THE BAPTISM?

i Canonical accounts: (Matthew) "to be baptized" (5978)

2 Non-canonical accounts: "beseeching," or "not needing,"
to be baptized (599605)

3 "I need to be baptized by thee," origin of this tradition
(6069)

Summary. " Was baptized " originated " to be bap-
tized"; this gave rise to various traditions about Jesus
"not needing" to be baptized, and about the Baptist
"beseeching" to be baptized.

XIV

CONTENTS

CHAPTER III
TIIK PLACE OF THE BAPTISM

i Divergences (6101)

2 Where was Jesus baptized ? (6126)

Summary. Hebrew ambiguity originated various
traditions, such as, "in Jordan," "near Jordan," "by the
side of Jordan," and "beyond Jordan," and also Luke's
tradition about "people." The place was not known in
Origen's time and is not known in ours; but "near
Jordan" is more probably correct than "in Jordan."

CHAPTER IV
"GOING UP FROM THE WATER"

I " Fire " or " Light " (61725)
2 Parallels or precedents (6268)

3 The Original may have mentioned " the going up of the
Oblation" (629)

4 Traditions resulting from this (630 9)

Summary. In the Answer from Heaven to Elijah's
sacrifice, I K. xviii. 36 "at the time of the evening
oblation" is omitted by Codex B and corrupted by
Codex A into "at the going up the water." If the
former were the original here, it would explain a large
number of traditions, and, among them, " The Lamb of
God that taketh away the sin of the -world."

CHAPTER V
THE RENDING OF THE HEAVENS

i " Rending," or " opening"! (6402)
2 Why omitted by several authorities ? (6434)
3 Who saw the vision ? (64552)

CONTENTS

4 (Jn i. 5 1) " the heaven set-open " (65361)

Summary. "Rending" was probably the earliest
tradition but was altered to "opening" owing to the
singularity of the former expression, and owing to
Hebrew corruption. The difficulty of deciding between
"rending" and "opening" led to the question "What
was spiritually implied by this vision ? "

John concluded that the "rending" was a rudi-
mentary vision granted to the Baptist. He therefore
omitted it here, as being implied in the descent of the
Spirit, and also as being exaggerated by some Christians.
But he inserted, a little later on, a statement of Jesus
that the heaven would be permanently opened in the
course of a continuous communication between heaven
and earth.

CHAPTER VI
THE DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT

i What descended ? (66276)

2 How? And with what result ? The different traditions
(6778)

3 "Into " Jesus, or " on " Him ? (67984)

Summary. The Original described the descent of
"the Spirit of the Lord" as in Isaiah (xi. 2) ; but, owing
to various interpretations of that passage, and discussions
as to the "spirits" or "spirit" indicated thereby, the
Synoptists used different terms. John preferred Mark's.
There was early difference of opinion as to whether the
Spirit came "into" Jesus or "on" Him. The choice
of phrases would be influenced by notions of the
"dove."

XVI

CONTENTS

CHAPTER VII

TIM: i>

i The Dove in Jewish literature (6868)

2 The Dove in Gentile literature (68991)

3 Obstacles to the acceptance of the tradition of the Dove
(692-4)

4 M Dove * might be confused with " resting" (6956)

5 The " Dove " and Joseph's " rod? the legends (697702).

6 The "Dove" and Joseph's "rod" the legends explained
(703-10)

7 " Resting," how interpreted by Justin Martyr and Ter-
tullian (7116)

8 Other circumstances that might favour the introduction
of the Dove (7169)

9 Conclusion as to the Dove (720 4)

Summary. In Jewish literature, the Dove was the
symbol of repentance, mourning, and timorousness : in
Greek literature, it was the symbol of love and peace.
Greeks were accustomed to symbolize the gods and
their messengers as birds : Jews were not. Some nar-
ratives that omit "dove" add that the Spirit "rested"
(or "abode") : some that insert "dove" omit "rested."
The Hebrew for "rested" closely resembles that for
" dove." The antiquity of some tradition about "resting "
is proved by very early apocryphal writings connecting
the "resting" of a " dove " with " the rod of Jesse "taken
as meaning the rod of Joseph, the descendant of Jesse
and father of Jesus: but by the "dove" these apo-
cryphal writers meant, not the Holy Spirit, but Mary the
wife of Joseph. Justin and Tertullian explain "resting"
as " ceased" i.e. passed away from the Jews.

The conclusion is that "as a dove" if part of the
Original, did not refer to visible shape, but meant " as
a bird seeking its home" More probably, however,
" dove " was not a part of the Original, but was intro-
duced, by error, as a Hebrew corruption for "rested."
John, though not absolutely suppressing the tradition,
excludes it from the message of God to the Baptist, so
as to indicate that it was not an essential part of the
foreordained sign by which the Baptist was to discern
the Messiah.

xvii

CONTENTS

BOOK II

BATH KOL

OR
VOICES FROM HEAVEN IN JEWISH TRADITION

CHAPTER I
BATH KOL BEFORE THE GOSPEL

i " Bath Kol," or " Voice from Heaven " (7256)
2 " The Voice of the Lord " in the Bible (7279)
3 John Hyrcanus and Hillel (7308)

CHAPTER II
BATH KOL IN FAVOUR

i Bath Kol in the Targums of Jonathan ben Uzziel
(73942)

2 Bath Kol in Siphra, Siphri, and Mishna (7436)

3 Bath Kol expressing (i) celestial decisions (747 52)

4 Bath Kol expressing (2) celestial judgments (753 5)

5 The Bath Kol for Hillel against Shammai (75662)

CHAPTER III

BATH KOL ON ITS DEFENCE

i " One does not trouble oneself about Bath Kol " (76375)
2 Apologies for Bath Kol (7769)
3 Bath Kol as an echo (7805)

xviii

CONTENTS

Summary of Book II. The attitude of Jewish writers
towards Hath Kol appears often to have been determined
by doctrinal and personal considerations. The Jeru-
salem and the Babylonian Talmuds, where they happen
to describe the same Voice from Heaven (which is
seldom the case), sometimes take different views of it.
But towards the end of the first century a protest was
made against the application of Hath Kol to doctrinal
questions, or to teachers discussing them. This protest
found favour with many Jewish teachers, and may very
naturally have influenced the Fourth Evangelist, both
negatively, in omitting the Synoptic Voices, and posi-
tively, in inserting a Voice, of a different kind, peculiar
to the Fourth Gospel.

BOOK III

VOICES FROM HEAVEN IN SYNOPTIC
TRADITION

CHAPTER I
"BELOVED SON"

I Canonical traditions (786 91)
2 Non-canonical traditions (792 7)

3 Negative conclusion : the Synoptic tradition probably
erroneous (79ft 801)

4 "Beloved," in Matthew, a mistranslation of "chosen" in
Isaiah (8024)

5 "Son," in the Synoptists, a mistranslation of "servant"
in Isaiah (80511)

6 Evidence, apart from Isaiah, that the Messiah was once
called "Chosen* (812 4)

7 Disuse of " Chosen " as a name for the Messiah (815 6)

xix

CONTENTS

Summary. The early doubt as to the precise words
of the Voice at the Baptism gave rise to various versions
based on various texts of Scripture.

The evidence of Luke (ix. 35), in the account of the
Voice at the Transfiguration, points to an original
" Chosen." John also, who says that the Baptist called
himself a Voice, adds that the Baptist described Jesus,
if we accept the Syro-Sinaitic reading, not as " Son of
God," but as (i. 34) " the chosen of God." These and
other facts indicate that the Synoptic Voice was based
on Isaiah xlii. I ("my Chosen"}. Owing to the simi-
larity of the Hebrew for "my Chosen" and the Hebrew
for " in my beloved" Matthew (xii. 18) has mistranslated
"Chosen" as if it were "Beloved." The context of
Isaiah (xlii. I "my Servant. ..my Chosen 11 ) calls the
Messiah "Servant." This is rendered by the LXX
"boy" meaning "Servant" but liable to be taken to
mean " Son." The Synoptists have mostly taken it thus,
converting Isaiah's " Chosen. ..Servant" into "Beloved
Son" This confusion was facilitated by the fact that
the Hebrew "my belo*>ed" literally means "my only
one" but is specially applied to a "son"

CHAPTER II
" HEAR YE HIM "

i The phrase introduces a "Messenger" in Exodus and
a "Prophet" in Deuteronomy (8178)

2 Jewish traditions concerning the "Messenger" and the
"Prophet" (81929)

3 Christian canonical traditions concerning the "Messenger"
(8305)

4 Christian non-canonical traditions concerning the " Mes-
senger" (83640)

5 Christian traditions concerning the "Prophet* (841 7)
6 " Moses " and " Elijah " (8489)

Summary. The words "Hear ye him" introduce a
future Messenger or Angel in Exodus, and a future
Prophet in Deuteronomy. Malachi, too, speaks of a

CONTENTS

future Messenger, who is to prepare the way of the
Lord : but this is in such ambiguous terms that some
regarded the Messenger as Elijah, others as Messiah.

Early Jewish tradition varies as to the Messenger in
Exodus, and interprets the prophet in Deuteronomy as
being no particular prophet, but a prophet from time to
time inspired with the spirit that inspired Moses.

Some early Christian traditions applied to Christ
prophecies about the Messenger or Angel; but the
application was not persevered in, probably as giving
Him an inadequate title. The Deuteronomic prediction
about the prophet was applied by the Acts of the
Apostles to Christ in a distorted shape, and, through
the Acts, by several Ante-Nicene Fathers, who dis-
torted it still more.

The Synoptic Voice from Heaven, " Hear ye Aim,"
appears to have been part of a narrative describing how
Christ was revealed to Peter and his companions as
being both the Messenger in Exodus and the Prophet
in Deuteronomy. Identifying the Messenger in Exodus
with the Messenger in Malachi, i.e. Elijah, some early
Christians may have believed that Christ was revealed
to the disciples both as "the Prophets" (Elijah) and as
"the Law" (Moses), and that "Hear ye him" meant
"Hear ye him as Messenger and as Prophet." But
others, improving on this, said that He was to be heard
as the Son of God, including in Himself the Law and
the Prophets, i.e. the glory of Moses and the glory of
Elijah.

XXI

CONTENTS

BOOK IV
THE SILENCE OF JOHN

CHAPTER I

THE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM
WHY OMITTED BY JOHN ?

I The Baptist's mission as described by Luke (8503)

2 The Baptist's mission as described by John (854 6)

3 The Original? The "Refiner"! (857)

4 Ambiguities connected with the "Refiner" (85861)

5 "Refiner? perhaps, superseded by "Chosen" or "Son"
(8624)

Summary. The New Hebrew word for "son" is
identical with forms of a Biblical word that might mean
"purified" "chosen" which might be used to denote a
Purifier, or Refiner, like the Messenger predicted by
Malachi.

John omits the Synoptic Voice from Heaven at the
Baptism (" Beloved Son"\ ist, because it did not come
direct from Heaven, but indirectly through the Baptist,
who described himself as a Voice and who received a
message from Heaven ; 2nd, because the Baptist's
testimony did not include the word " Son. 1 ' If the word
mentioned by the Baptist was "the Refiner" it would
naturally be converted into " the Chosen One" meaning
the Messiah, and that again into " the Son"

CHAPTER II

THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION
WHY OMITTED BY JOHN ?

I A physical hypothesis, unsatisfactory (865 8)
2 Origen's view : the Transfiguration subjective (869 74)
3 Mark lends itself to the subjective hypothesis (875 9)

xxii

CONI i.\ is

4 St Paul favours the subjective hypothesis (880 4)

5 Conflict of opinion as to Lk. ix. 33 M Not knowing what
ht was saying" (885-90)

6 The " three tabernacles " (891-5)

7 The Transfiguration compared with the Mosaic Theo-
phany (Exod. xxxiii. 23) (896907)

Summary. If the Transfiguration had actually
occurred on an actual mountain, it might perhaps be
explained, like the phenomenon witnessed on the hills
of the Hrocken and elsewhere, as being an apparition
in which Peter, keeping watch between the two sons of
Zebedee, about sun-rise, saw three figures, the central
one with a halo round its head, shadowed on a cloud
coming from the West, but that is not so probable as
an explanation from linguistic error, which has changed
a manifestation of spiritual glory into one of material
splendour.

Mark's text shews signs of an original narrative in
which the manifestation was of a subjective nature.
St Paul, in his apparent allusion to the Transfiguration
or Transformation, and in his precepts bidding the
disciples to be "transfigured," favours a subjective
hypothesis. Origen who in this instance may guide
us to historical as well as to spiritual truth emphasizes
the truth that Christ may be transfigured for some, and
not for others, among a number of simultaneous spec-
tators. Clement of Alexandria has remarks of the same
tendency.

The solid basis of historical fact in the Synoptic
narrative is Peter's ecstatic cry, "Let us make three
tabernacles^ one for thee, one for Moses, and one for
Elijah." This could neither be invented, nor be
created by accretion ; for the Synoptists apologize as
it were for it, and it caused scandal in very early times.
Origen inveighs against Peter's utterance, as dividing
things that should be undivided, and as coming from
the devil. But the Synoptists imply elsewhere that
Christ appeared to some Elijah, to others the prophet
like Moses : and Peter, in a moment of inspiration, may
have said, in effect, " Thou art, for us, Moses, the Law.
Thou art, for us, Elijah, the Prophet. Thou art, for us,

A. xxiii

CONTENTS

thyself, the Priest, the Holy One of God, to whom point
the Law and the Prophets. For Moses be the court of
the people ! For Elijah, the Holy Place ! For thee,
the Holy of Holies!"

But all this is lost or obscured in the extant Synoptic
narratives partly because they have taken "He ap-
peared [as] Moses and Elijah unto them " as meaning
" There-appeared Moses and Elijah unto them? which
has led them into distracting details. But a greater
obscuration consists in the stress laid on manifestations
of physical splendour, such as "sun," "white," "light,"
" fuller," while there is scarcely an indication or sugges-
tion (except in Luke) of the true glory that of self-
sacrifice. Hence the Synoptic Transfiguration, regarded
as a manifestation of divine glory, is greatly inferior to
the Mosaic Theophany in which, answering the Law-
giver's petition, " Shew me thy glory? God replied " I
will make all my GOODNESS pass before thee." For
these reasons John rejected the whole of the narrative
of the Transfiguration, as being not only historically
false but also spiritually inadequate.

At the same time John accepted from the Synoptists
this nucleus of fact, that at a crisis in Christ's life in
the moment when our Lord took upon Himself what
the Jews call the Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and
achieved that great act of self-renunciation or self-
sacrifice, which was consummated on the Cross there
came a Bath Kol, or Voice from Heaven, which im-
parted a revelation to a few, but only a few, of those
present. John also agreed with Luke in believing that
this Bath Kol was preceded by prayer: but he felt that
it was a defect in Luke's knowledge, or judgment, that
he omitted to tell us the substance of the prayer. Con-
sequently, the Fourth Evangelist, in reconstructing the
narrative of this act spiritually considered, the central
act of Christ's life, felt it right to attempt to represent
in words the essence and spirit of Christ's prayer, and
also to give the readers some conception of the nature
of the "yoke" (called in the Western Church the
"Cross") taken upon Himself by the Saviour in the
moment when He laid the invisible foundations of the
Spiritual Church.

XXIV

CON M

BOOK V

THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN AN ANSWER

TO 1'KAVER

CHAPTER I
"TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

The object of investigation (90812)
2 The Johannine Voice from Heaven (9136)
3 " Exceeding-sorrowful? " troubled " (91724)

4 John's doctrine of "trouble", truer than that of the Synop-
tists (9258) ; " taking up the cross " (928 (i) (x))

Summary. The exact words of the Bath Kol or
Voice from Heaven are unimportant as compared with
the motive and spirit of Christ's prayer. According to
John, the "soul" of Jesus, before His prayer, was
"troubled" an expression taken from the same pas-
sage of the Psalter from which come the words of
Christ given by Mark as uttered in Gethsemane, " My
soul is exceeding-sorrowful"

But Mark, besides apparently mistranslating the
words so as to exaggerate the depression suggested by
them, leaves us under the impression that Christ feared
death for His own sake, and Luke perhaps thinking
this erroneous entirely omits the description of " ex-
ceeding sorrow." John steps in to emphasize the truth
that Christ did feel sorrow, but not such sorrow as
might be inferred from Mark.

Desiring, however, to correct rather than contra-
dict the older Evangelists, John avoids the word
"sorrow" and substitutes "trouble" This word en-
ables him indirectly to contravene the doctrine of
Epictetus, then in vogue, that a philosopher must retain,
;it all costs, "freedom from trouble." Christ, he implies,
on the contrary, regarded Himself as sent to bear

XXV C 2

CONTENTS

" trouble? He " troubled Himself" for the mourners at
the grave of Lazarus; He was '''troubled in spirit" by
the treachery of Judas; and here His "soul" was
''troubled" at the sight of His Chosen People Israel,
finally rejecting their Deliverer in each case, "troubled"
not for Himself but for men, His brethren ; or perhaps
rather for the whole Family of God, for the Name of
the Father darkened by the fear of death, by blindness
to truth, and by hatred of goodness.

CHAPTER II
CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

I The Synoptic versions and their meanings (929 32)

2 The Johannine version (93340)

3 Some Synoptic divergences, how explicable (941 56)

4 The Epistle to the Hebrews, the interpolation in Luke,
and the Acts of John (95764)

5 The first clauses of " The Lord's Prayer" (96571 (viii))

6 John appears closer than the Synoptists to Christ's
language about the "cup" (9729)

Summary, (i) Difficulties. The strong phrase "/
will assuredly not (ot> PTJ) do [this or that] " occurs in
the Synoptists only once, "/ will assuredly not drink."
John has precisely the same. But he refers it to the
"cup" of suffering, and as equivalent to an affirmative,
" I assuredly -will drink " : the Synoptists take it nega-
tively as referring to "the fruit of the vine."

Mark and Luke, in the phrase "remove this cup,"
use a word that elsewhere, in connection with "cup,"
means "present? so that the meaning would naturally
be "present this cup," but for the fact that they add
"from me? John has " The cup that the Father hath
given me."

Mark mentions a prayer that, if possible, "the hour
might pass away." John has " Why [less prob. What}
should I say, 'Father, save me from this hour' /"

xxvi

CONTKNTS

Mark and Matthew have phrases (a) about "if
Possible? "all things are possible? "not possible";
(b) about repeating prayers twice or thrice, and "sitting?
"lispariing? "coming again" etc. All this is omitted
by Luke and John.

(2) Solutions, (a) If "He prayed [saying] thy [or,
His] will be done" was represented in Hebrew by " He
prayed [saying] [be it] according to thy [or, His] word?
the italicized words might be variously interpreted.
Taking "His word" as Christ's word, an Evangelist
might obtain the meaning, " He prayed according to
his [previous] word," i.e. "according to the [same] word
[as before\? i.e. repeating His prayer. Or, supplying
"it is", he might obtain, "He prayed, [saying] [the
matter is] according to thy word? i.e. "it is all in thy
hands," "all things are possible with thee." (V) The
Hebrew " stand" may mean "be steadfast? "stand up?
or "pray": "sit" is frequently confused by the LXX
with "repeating" an action.

John's extraordinary use of "/ will assuredly not"
indicates his conviction that the fervid devotion of
Christ's language had been completely misconstrued by
the early Evangelists, and suggests that he wished
to retain the paradoxical expression, in order to shew
how they had been misled. The omission, by Luke and
John, of the Synoptic details about the repeated prayers,
indicates that they arose from glosses and conflations.

The interpolation, in Luke, about "an angel strength-
ening" Jesus, and the statement in the Epistle to the
Hebrews about His "strong crying and tears? seem to
have arisen from the account of Jacob wrestling with
the angel in Hosea xii. 34 (LXX) "He had strength
with the angel... they wept and entreated"

(3) Conclusion. Almost all these early variations
shew a tendency either to materialize the burden of the
Agony so that it might be intelligible to the most ordin-
ary mind, or else to conform the narrative to prophecy.
They give us the impression that Christ feared death
and suffered agony for His own sake, and not for the
sake of others.

But, having regard to the Jewish forms of prayer
alleged to have been composed by Rabbis of the first

xxvii

CONTENTS

century, and also to the general tenor of Christ's utter-
ances in all the Gospels, we may regard it as antece-
dently probable that Christ's one prayer, as recorded in
the Synoptic Original, was an utterance, not of passive
resignation, but of active acceptance. John may have
known this to be the case and yet may not have known
the exact words of the prayer. Amid a conflict of con-
fusing traditions, he may have determined to select a
version of the opening clause of what is commonly called
the Lord's Prayer ''Hallowed be thy Name," or, more
probably in the Original, " Hal 'low thy Name." But
"hallow" was not so clear to the western churches as
"glorify." The LXX, in Isaiah, renders "hallowing
God" as "glorifying God": and, in the present in-
stance, Hebrew variations may have favoured the sub-
stitution of the word "glorify". We conclude that both
in the prayer ''''glorify thy Name," and in Christ's
language about "the cup" that the Father had "given"
Him, John approached if not verbally at all events
spiritually closer than the Synoptists to our Lord's
actual utterance.

CHAPTER III
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN

i The truth negatively (9802)

2 The truth positively (9839)

3 The truth as seen by John (9901000)

4 The truth as described by John : (i) the words (100111)

5 The truth as described by John : (ii) the time (10126)

6 The truth as described by John : (lii) the place (101720)

7 The truth as it is (10218)

Summary. There was no one Voice, or definite
number of Voices, that came from Heaven to Jesus. But
Voices responsive to His prayers were constantly
coming when He prayed under the burden of men's
sufferings, and the still heavier burden of their passive
and their active sins. Christ's bitterest sorrow appears

xxviii

COM BNTS

to have been for the treachery of Judas. Next to that
cause, might be the blindness of "the wise and the
priuk-nt, .m<l the M-sUKiion of the Gospel to "babes,"
revealed to Jesus in what might be called a Voice from
Heaven to which He answered " Even so, Father, for
so it hath seemed good in thy sight"

John found a multitude of books written, and still,
in his days, being written, about the acts of Jesus ; and
he appears to have feared lest by the accumulated
traditions, largely legendary, about miracles, Voices
from Heaven, Elijah, Moses, metamorphosis etc.
books might distract faith from the personality of the
Son and from the Spirit of Sonship, emphasizing the
"glory" of the flesh, and subordinating that "glory" of
"grace and of truth" which is developed by trouble and
prayer. He therefore desired to concentrate the truth
about the Voices from Heaven into an account of one
particular Voice in answer to one particular prayer
following one particular trouble. At the same time he
wished to follow the old traditions where he believed
them to be correct, and even to reproduce them with
verbal exactness wherever the reproduction might shew
how they had been misunderstood by earlier Evan-
gelistsif he could do this without obtrusively contra-
dicting his predecessors.

Following the words of ancient exposition, perhaps
apostolic, of Christ's single prayer, John represents
Jesus as asking how He could possibly pray to be de-
livered from the hour, since He came for the very
purpose of enduring that hour. As regards "the cup?
he admits that the letter of Christ's utterance was
"/ will assuredly not drink it" ; but he shews by the
context that the meaning was that of a very strong
affirmation, and that Christ expressed astonishment at
the notion of not drinking the cup "given" to Him by
the Father.

The occasion of Christ's prayer John represents as
being the coming of the Greeks to Jesus, just before
He finally "departed and was hidden from" the Jews ;
and probably the Temple is intended by him to be
assumed as the place. In these details he may not be
accurate, and perhaps does not aim at accuracy so
much as at symbolism, since accuracy may have been

xxix

CONTENTS

impossible. But there is abundant reason for thinking
him right as to the spirit of Christ's prayer both at
Gethsemane and elsewhere, when he gives it shape in
the words " Father, glorify thy name" an utterance
inspired by the vital conviction that the greatest glory
of a father is a good son, and the greatest glory of God
is a good man.

APPENDIX I

NARRATIVES OF THE BAPTISM
(Greek and Latin)

i. The Synoptists (102931) ; ii. John (10323) ; iii. Arabic
Diatessaron, see 556 ; iv. Justin Martyr (1034 6) ;
v. Celsus (10379); vi. Testament of the XII Pa-
triarchs (10401) ; vii. Gospel of the Hebrews or
Nazarenes (1042) ; viii. Ephrem Syrus (10434) ;
ix. Gospel of the Ebionites (1045) ; x. Sibylline Oracles
(10468) ; xi. Epiphanius (104950)

APPENDIX II

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION
"SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW"

i "Sabach" (in Mk. xv. 34 " S 'aback thanei") may mean
" surfer" (1051 6)

2 " Heli" might be taken by Evangelists as "Elijah" or
"the sun"] "sabach" as "forsake" or "be eclipsed";
"lama" as "why" or "to some extent" (105762)

3 Ramifications from " sabach " (10637)

4 " They know not what they do " (1068)

5 Elijah cometh " (1069) ; Jewish legend (1069 (i) (v))

Summary, (i) Mark and Matthew, who say that
Jesus, on the Cross, uttered the Aramaic word Sabach-
thanei, render it " hast thou forsaken me." But the
Biblical word for this is Azaphthanei ; and this is
substituted for sabachthanei by some of the best MSS.
and versions in Mark. Azaphthanei is from azab,

XXX

CON IKNTS

which can mean nothing but "forsake." Sabachthanei
is from sabach (properly sabak), an ambiguous word :
it may mean (i) "forsake? but may nho mean (ii) "let
alone? "pass over," "pardon."

One Greek equivalent of sabach has precisely the
same ambiguity as the Aramaic .

Hence arose a multitude of traditions connecting
our Lord's last words with "let alone? "permit?
"suffer? "forgive." Mark and Matthew combined
with some of these the old and true tradition about
"forsaking." But Luke and John adopted the former
instead of the latter-, and their justification was all the
stronger because sabach, in the few instances in which
it occurs in the Bible, does not mean "forsake? but means
" let alone."

(2) The Hebrew for "There are some that say"
may be the same as for " There were some that said."
Hence a gloss (say A.D. 50) "There are some that say,
He called for Elijah," might be incorporated in the
Gospel (say A.D. 70) as "There were some [of the
soldiers] that said, 'He calleth for Elijah'": and this,
when combined with variations of " let \ye me] alone,"
"let \thou him] alone? might originate in Mark the
soldiers' dialogue, justly omitted by Luke and John.

(3) The interpolation in Luke, " Father, forgive? is
a misunderstanding of "Heli, forsake? Heli, i.e. "God,"
being paraphrased as " Father."

(4) The tradition that Jesus said to Heli, or Elijah,
" let alone," or " suffer," gave rise to a far-fetched sug-
gestion that He must have said this iofohn the Baptist,
of whom Jesus had said (Mk xi. 14) "This is Elijah."
But the only Synoptic occasion on which Jesus and
the Baptist were together was the Baptism of Christ.
Hence sprang the legend (only to be found in Matthew)
that Jesus said to the Baptist in answer to the latter,
who deprecated the proposal that he should baptize the
Lord " Suffer it to be so now."

(5) A similar explanation applies to (Lk. xxii. 51)
"Suffer ye thus far," (Jn. xviii. 8) " Suffer ye these to
depart," and to Luke's tradition about a "failing," or
"eclipse," of the "sun" (Heli being taken for "sun?
and sabach for "fail" or "be eclipsed").

xxxi

CONTENTS

APPENDIX III

THE TRANSFIGURATION AND THE AGONY

CANONICAL AND NON-CANONICAL ACCOUNTS

(Greek)

i The Transfiguration according to the Synoptists (text as
in W.H.) (1070)

2 The Agony according to the Synoptists (text as in W.H.)
(1071)

3 The corresponding accounts in the Acts of John (ed.
James) (10724)

4 The Transfiguration in the Revelation of Peter (ed. James)
(1075)

APPENDIX IV

BATH KOL IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS

(A reprint of Pinner's collection in the
Introduction to B. Berachoth^ 1842)

i Instances from the Targums of Jonathan ben Usiel
(1076-7)

2 Instances from Siphra (1078)

3 ,, Siphri(1079)

4 Mischnah (10801)

5 Jerusalem Talmud (108291)

6 Babylonian Talmud (10921109)

7 " Erklarungen " (11105)

XXXll

CONTKNTS

APPENDIX V

"THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST PETER"

CONTRASTED WITH
" THE GOSPEL OF ST JOHN "

I The one point of similarity the claim of both to have
" seen " or " heard " (1116-8)

Yet the Evangelist is a true Prophet (111920)
3 The Letter-writer has no prophecy of his own (1121 2)
4 He has no style of his own (1123 5)
5 He writes artificially and grandiloquently (1126 7)

6 Some of his mistakes like those of Baboo English
(1128-9)

7 His resemblance to the Pseudo- Peter of the Petrine
Apocalypse (1130)

8 His version of the Voice at the Transfiguration (1131)
9 His reiterations (1132)

10 His mention of "all the Epistles" of "our beloved
brother Paul " (11334)

il Not an "imitator" of Josephus, but perhaps a pilferer
from him (1135)

APPENDIX VI
THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS (1136 1149)

INDICES.

I. Of New Testament Passages
II. Of Subject-matter (English and Greek)
III. Of Subject-matter (Hebrew)

XXXlll

REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

REFERENCES

(i) Black Arabic numbers, e.g. (275), refer to subsections indicated
in this volume or in the preceding ones entitled, severally, Clue
and Corrections : subsections 1 272 belong to Clue, 273552 to
Corrections : (2750) means a footnote on subsection 275.

(ii) The Books of Scripture are referred to by the ordinary ab-
breviations, except where specified below. But when it is
said that Samuel, Isaiah, Matthew, or any other writer, wrote
this or that, it is to be understood as meaning the "writer,
whoever he may be, of the words in question, and not as
meaning that the actual writer was Samuel, Isaiah, or Matthew.

(iii) The MSS. known severally as the Alexandrian, the Sinaitic,
the Vatican, and the Codex Bezae, are called by their usual
abbreviations A, X, B, and D. The Syriac version of the Gospels
discovered by Mrs Gibson on Mount Sinai is called in the text
the "Syro-Sinaitic" or "Sinaitic Syrian," and in the notes is
referred to as SS.

(iv) The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted is that of Professor
Swete 1 ; of the New, that of Westcott and Hort.

(v) Modern works are referred to by the name of the work, or author,
the vol., and the page, e.g. Levy iii. 343 a, i.e. column i, page 343,
vol. iii.

ABBREVIATIONS

A and N, see (iii) above.

B, see (iii) above.

B., before a Talmudic tractate, means Babylonian (as distinguished
from J. = Jerusalem), e.g. B. Berach. = the Berachoth in the Babylonian
Talmud, to which references are mostly made by leaves, e.g. 61 b, i.e. the
second side of leaf 61.

Buhl = Buhl's edition of Gesenius, Leipzig, 1899.

Chr. = Chronicles.

Clem. Alex. 42 = Clement of Alexandria in Potter's pages.

D, see (iii) above.

Dalman Words = Words of Jesus, Eng. Transl. 1902.

1 This differs greatly from that of most earlier editions, which are usually based
on Codex A (Clue 33).

xxxiv

Kl I I KKNCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

the Arabic Diatessaron, sometimes called Tatian's, trans-
lated \>\ K. v H. \V. Hogg, B.U., in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
i y . Encyclopaedia liiblt

1 l>hrcm = Ephraemus Syrus, ed. Moesinger.

Esdr.is. tlu I irst Hnuk of, is frequently called, in the text, Esdras.

:.^e- Targums on tht I'cntatfuch, London, Longman, 18625.

Kuseb. -(unless otherwise indicated) the Ecclesiastical History of
Eusc!

Gesen. the edition of Gesenius now being published by the Oxford
University Press.

H.unburger Hamburger's Encyclopaedia.

Hawkins = Hawkins's Home Synopticae, Oxford, 1899.

Heb. LXX = that part of the LXX of which there is an extant Hebrew
Original.

Hcrshon, Genes. Rab. Hershon's Rabbinical commentary on Genesis,
London, 1885.

Hershon, Genes. Talm. = Hershon's Talmudical commentary on
Genesis, London, 1883.

Hor. Heb. Horae Hebraicae, by John Lightfoot, 1658 74, ed.
Gandell, Oxf. 1859.

lren.=the treatise of Irenaeus against Heresies.

J., before a Talmud tc tractate, means Jerusalem (as distinguished
from B. Babylonian), e.g. J. Berach. = the Berachoth in the Jerusalem
Talmud, to which references are mostly made by chapters and sections,
e.g. iii. 2.

Jer. Targ. I and 1 1 the Targums of "Jonathan Ben Uzziel" and the
fragments of the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch.

VL- Kings.

leg. = (as in Tromm.) "legerunt," i.e. the LXX "read" so-and-so
instead of the present Hebrew text.

Levy = Levy's Neuhebrdisches und Chalddisches Worterbuch, 4 vols.,
Leipzig, 1889 ; Levy Ch. Chalddisches Wbrterbuch, 2 vols., 1881.

L.S. = Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.

Onk. = the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch.

Original, for the meaning of, see p. xxxvi (c).

Oxf. Cone. = The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint.

1'hilo is referred to by Mangey's volume and page, e.g. Philo ii. 234.

Resch - Resch's Paralleltexte (4 vols.), except where the Agrapha, or
Logia Jesu, are expressly mentioned.

S. Samuel.

SchOttg. = Schtittgen's Horae Hebraicae, Dresden and Leipzig, 1733.

Sir. = the work of Ben Sira, i.e. the son of Sira. It is commonly called
Ecclesiasticus (see 20<*). The original Hebrew has been edited, in part,
by Cowley and Neubauer, Oxf. 1897 ; in part, by Schechter and Taylor,
Camb. 1899.

XXXV

REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

SS, see (iii) above.

Talmud, see B. Berach. and J. Berach. above.

Tisch. = Tischendorfs New Testament.

Tromm. = Trommius' Concordance to the Septuagint.

Tryph. = the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew.

Wetst. = Wetstein's Comm. on the New Testament, Amsterdam, 1751.

W.H. = Westcott and Hort's New Testament.

(a) A bracketed Arabic number, following the sign =, and connecting
a Hebrew and a Greek word, indicates the number of instances in which
that Hebrew word is represented by that Greek word in the LXX e.g.
Cnn=.ava6tfurrlfo (13), (o\o6p(va> (23), oiroXXu/M (2).

(b) Where verses in Hebrew, Greek, and Revised Version, are
numbered differently, the number of R. V. is given alone.

(c) " Original " in such a phrase as "Mark's Original may have had
this or that" does not mean an "Ur-Marcus", or any definite document,
but the original tradition, written or oral, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek,
that Mark may have had before him when writing the particular words in
question. Each Evangelist may have stamped the materials before him
with his own style. But this book leaves it an open question what those
materials generally were. It merely shews that, in this or that particular
passage, a discrepancy between Evangelists (e.g. if one wrote "delivering-
up" but another "perfecting"} might be explained by the existence of an
Original (e.g. D/>B>, which in Aramaic might mean "deliver-up" but in
Hebrew "perfect"} taken by them, or by the authorities from whom they
borrowed, in these two senses. Comp. Clue (Introd. xvii. n.j " It is quite
possible that in the written Hebrew Gospel, Aramaic words were in-
cluded. ..and even Aramaic passages."

By " Original ", then, is meant, as a rule, relatively (not absolutely)
original the immediate origin of the passage under consideration.
Such an Original may itself have been derived from a more ancient
origin.

xxxvi

INTRODUCTION I

ON THE HONESTY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL

APART from other subordinate objects, enumerated in a
subsequent Introduction of a more personal nature, the aim
of this work is to demonstrate the honesty, and the historical
as well as the spiritual worth, of what is commonly called
" The Gospel according to St John." Evidence prevents me
from believing that it was written by the son of Zebedee or
by any eye-witness of the acts of our Lord, and forces me to
suspect or deny the literal accuracy of some of its statements;
but I most earnestly desire to help unlearned as well as
perhaps some learned readers to discern the impassable gulf
that separates this sublime production from a merely false
and ignoble forgery like the so-called " Second Epistle of
St Peter 1 ."

Nearly five and twenty years ago, while writing an article
on "Gospels" for the Encyclopaedia Britannica,a.r\d circulating
the proof-sheets among friends, availing myself of criticism
from any quarter that promised frankness, ability, spiritual
insight, and critical knowledge, I trespassed upon the leisure
of one of the most able journalists and essayists of the last
century, with whom, though my personal acquaintance did
not extend beyond a single conversation of a quarter of an

1 See Appendix V.

ON THE HONESTY OF

hour, I had the privilege of an occasional epistolary corre-
spondence. His reply, after reading and often re-reading, I
have recently mislaid or destroyed; but I am certain of its
substance and almost certain of two of its key- words. In
effect, it pronounced the Fourth Gospel worthless unless
written by an eye-witness : in detail, it contained (I think)
the word "forgery" and (I am almost sure) the epithet
" impudent ".

My correspondent was then what would perhaps be called
a Broad Churchman, certainly an admirer of F. D. Maurice ;
and his articles on theological subjects combining reverence
and spiritual insight with intellectual force, literary culture,
and a natural nobility of thought and style were a refresh-
ment week by week to thousands of educated readers. If
such a man could express himself in such terms about the
Fourth Gospel, on the hypothesis of its proceeding from one
who was not an eye-witness of the facts, the conclusion was
inevitable that, in the existing state of knowledge among the
professional classes in England, the Fourth Gospel must re-
main either the work of the son of Zebedee, or worse than
worthless, not indeed quite so contemptible in respect of style
as " The Second Epistle of St Peter," but still morally as
bad, or even worse, because better adapted to deceive.

And yet the conviction remained within me that this
criticism was completely erroneous. But it was impossible at
that time to demonstrate its error. I had not a sufficient
mastery of the historical or textual facts. It is true that I
dimly discerned some of the difficulties that must have beset
an honest Evangelist at the beginning of the second century
attempting to convey the real and spiritual truth without
shaking the faith of Christians in the equally honest but not
equally spiritual attempts of a multitude of earlier Evangelists
one or two perhaps so early that they were beginning to be
regarded as "Scripture"; but the difficulties needed to be
not only more clearly discerned by me but also more amply

THE FOURTH GOSI'KI.

illustrated, before I could hope to make them apparent to
others. It was necessary to proceed from the known to the
unknown. In the New Testament, parallel passages of the
Gospels had to be more closely examined and their differences
traced to their several causes. The canonical texts had to be
compared with corrupt versions of them, and with later non-
canonical traditions bearing on them. In the Old Testament,
the distortions of the Hebrew by the Greek translators, to-
gether with their occasional omissions and far more frequent
insertions ; in later Hebrew, the evidence from the Talmuds
and the Targums and other Jewish literature, shewing how
Christian Jews might think and helping one to realise how
Christian Greeks might represent, or misrepresent, their
thoughts ; in the Dark or Middle Ages, the rapid develop-
ments of legendary or non-historical tradition, as for example,
in the accounts of the miracles of St Thomas of Canterbury
all these were facts that might have a bearing upon the
subject to be elucidated ; but with some of them I had then
but a superficial acquaintance, and with others none at all.

Since that time, twenty-five years of study, while deepen-
ing my previous negative convictions as to the evidential
qualifications of the Fourth Evangelist, also convinced me
that I had occasionally underestimated his anxiety to be histori-
cally as well as spiritually truthful. Where I had once sup-
posed him to be inventing or (if I may coin a useful barbarism)
poeticizing, he now appeared to be extracting the spiritual
truth out of some ancient tradition obscured by Mark and
omitted or variously interpreted by the later Evangelists.
For indeed by such obscurities, omissions, and variations,
a lover of Christ and of Christ's truth and of Christ's flock
especially the "lambs " or " little children " writing a Gospel
at the beginning of the second century, might well feel
grievously perplexed. What was he to do ? Was he to adhere
to the Synoptic tradition, correcting it as well as he could ?
Had he done this even supposing that he had felt fairly

A. 3 i

ON THE HONESTY OF

confident of the precise words of the original he would have
added one more Gospel to be criticized, compared, and harmon-
ized. But his object was to write a Gospel that should have
quite different results, one that should lift his readers out of
the critical atmosphere into the region of adoring love, lie-
sides, it may be taken as certain that in most of such cases he
did not feel sure of the real words. What, however, he did
feel sure of was the real spirit, which had passed into him from
the Lord Jesus by what precise personal or impersonal
channel, or channels, we do not know enabling him to repre-
sent our Lord, not as He appeared in the flesh to the multi-
tudes, or even to the disciples in Galilee, but as He appeared
to those who loved Him when they, after His death looking
back upon His past and forward to His future, and feeling
His present influence burning within them summed up the
character and person of their Saviour in one consistent image,
and realized Him as the Holy One of God, their only Light
and Life.

" But how" it may be asked " explain or justify (in one
who loved and revered Christ) the long discourses attributed to
Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, so absolutely different from any-
thing attributed to Him in the Three ? Might not the author
have at least kept as far as possible to the ancient traditions
of Christ's words explaining, paraphrasing, yes, even ampli-
fying, but not substituting long discourses of his own in words
of his own (for his own they undoubtedly are)?" The answer
is probably to be found, partly in the author's desire to break
with the past and introduce a tradition absolutely new in
shape though old in essence ; partly in his objection to any-
thing that involved invidious comparison with the older
Gospels. But partly, and principally, it may be as follows :
" The discourses originated in explanations (perhaps proceed-
ing from John the son of Zebedee) intended by the originator
to explain what Christ meant, and to be as it were a marginal
or parenthetical commentary on the text, not part of the text

I UK FOURTH (;OSI I I.

i. Hut subsequently, being modified and amplified by the
evangelists and ciders of the Ephesian Church, and being
thrown into the form of a consecutive, harmonious, and artistic
whole by one particular Evangelist (perhaps John the Elder),
the whole mass of explanation or comment came to be re-
garded not merely as what Christ meant but as what He
actually said"

It was a custom of the later Jews to paraphrase the
Scriptures in Targums, and to amplify them in what they
called Haggada, often for mere picturesqueness, but some-
times in the attempt to bring out their historical 1 or spiritual
meaning. For example, in the sacrifice of Isaac, the Bible
simply says that Abraham " bound Isaac his son and laid him
on the altar upon the wood, and stretched forth his hand and
took the knife to slay his son," leaving the reader to supply
the willingness of the son to be sacrificed by his father. But
the Jerusalem Targum adds, "And Izhak answered and said
to his father, Bind me aright lest I tremble from the affliction
of my soul, and be cast into the pit of destruction, and there
be found profaneness in thy offering." Now it happens that,
in Hebrew, if a Targumist had wished to say, " Isaac felt
this or that, when he lay on the altar," or " Isaac said this
or that to himself (or, in his /teart\" or " Isaac meant this or
that," a common Biblical way of expressing this would be,
"Isaac said it" omitting " to himself or "in his heart".
Hence the transition must have been easy in Jewish tradition
from Jewish Targums about what "Jesus meant" to Greek

1 "Historical." Comp. Megill. 3*1; concerning Zech. xii. n " In that
day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of
Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon," R. Joseph said, "Without the
Targum I should not have understood that verse, [the Targum is] In that
day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning for
Ahab the son of Omrt\ whom Haiiadrimmon the son of Tabrimmon slew
in Ranwth Gilead, and as the mourning for Josiah the son of Amon, whom
Pharaoh the Lame slew in the plain of Afegiddo."

> 12

ON THE HONESTY OF

traditions about what "Jesus said 1 ". This, in the course of
many years of oral teaching, in which Jewish apostolic
tradition was filtered through Greek thought and Alexandrian
symbolism, may help to explain the origin of the long
Johannine dialogues and discourses the nucleus of which so
the present writer believes is closer than most Synoptic
tradition to the deeper doctrines of Christ.

But further, our Apostle was something more than a
Targumist. According to Luke, the Apostles had not only
seen the Lord Jesus after death, but had received instruction
from Him for "forty days". The number is probably typical,
and the actual period of post-resurrection communication by
voice between the Lord and the Twelve continued long after
that time, sometimes in special visions accompanied by
special voices (such as "Arise, Peter, kill and eat," and
" What God hath cleansed call not thou common ") ; but
sometimes also in more general utterances illuminating the
parables or dark sayings of the Lord in Galilee, or the
meaning of His later words and acts, and especially the
Lord's Supper and the Passion. St Paul was not one of the
Twelve. Yet he had heard the voice of the risen Saviour,
not only at his conversion, but long afterwards in Corinth,
and presumably on other occasions when he had been
snatched up into the third heaven, " whether in the body
I know not," he says, " or whether out of the body, I know
not ; God knoweth." So little stress did this thirteenth Apostle
lay on such a knowledge of the actual words of Christ as he
might have obtained from the Twelve, that he goes straight
from Ananias his baptizer not to Jerusalem but to Arabia*,
there to be alone with the Spirit of Christ. And it was from
Christ, direct > that St Paul asserts himself to have "received"
the words of Institution of the Eucharist: " I received from the

1 For " say " = " say in one's heart," see Gesen. 56 a ; and for a specimen
of the application of this theory to the Fourth Gospel, see 1003 12.

2 Gal. i. 17.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL

Lord that which also I delivered unto you 1 ." According to
t he J e ws, all t/u-ir teaching was " delivered " and " received ". The
original source was God, but there were channels, thus : Moses
the Torah from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, who
delivered it to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and
the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue,
among whom was Simon the Just; Antigonus received from
Simon, and so on*. Hence no Jew could miss the meaning
of St Paul's words ; he did not " receive " from the Twelve, he
eived " from the Lord by revelation the words of the
Institution, including the saying not found in any Gospel
except an amplified or interpolated Luke " Do this in
remembrance of me." Yet Christians, while admitting that
Christ did not actually "say" these words, may feel sure that
He "said" tliem in the Hebrew sense, i.e. He "meant" tltem,
and may accept St Paul's tradition as inspired in the highest
sense, as a comment in which the Holy Spirit, speaking
through the Apostle of the Gentiles, filled up the deficiency
of the language of the East so as to make it intelligible and
living for the West.

But if St Paul, an Apostle " born out of due time," who
was " not worthy to be called an Apostle," who had never
seen or heard Christ in the flesh, and who had once persecuted
His Church, could thus teach in Corinth, and establish in
Christendom, words that were only "meant", not "said", by
the Lord Jesus, how much more might one of the pillar
Apostles*, John the son of Zebedee, "the beloved disciple",
venture to tell the Church in Ephesus that Jesus "said" this
or that, which in fact He did not " say" in articulate words,
but did "say" in the Spirit!

These remarks are intended to prepare the reader to meet
the accusation that the Evangelist says that he " saw " what

1 I Cor. xi. 23. J Aboth i. 13.

* GaL ii. 9, and see below 943.

ON THE HONESTY OF

not being (according to our present hypothesis) an eye-wit-
ness he could not "see". Take for example the words,
" And straightway there came out blood and water [from
Jesus on the cross]. And he that hath seen hath borne
witness, and his witness is true, and he knoweth that he
saith true," compared with the conclusion of the Gospel :
" This [/. e. almost certainly, John the son of Zebedee] is the
disciple that bearetk witness of these things and wrote these
things : and we know that his witness is true 1 ." There are
many obstacles to the acceptance of this assertion (" hath
seen [the flow of blood and water] ") as literally true ; and,
if it is not so, some may be disposed to think that the
above-quoted condemnation of " impudent forgery" is hardly
too severe to apply to it.

But imagine John the son of Zebedee in his old age,
long after his return from Patmos to Ephesus, once more
(as when he wrote the Apocalypse) " in the Spirit on the
Lord's day*," and receiving a revelation as to that mysterious
Cross which was to the Greeks foolishness and to the Jews
a stumbling-block. He may have been sitting with his Elders
or Bishops around him, while they were hotly discussing
their controversies with some keen Stoic, or obstinate Rabbi
of an Ephesian synagogue, as to the nature of purification
and the comparative efficacy of baptism and of sprinkling
with blood : and they may have attributed their Bishop's
apparent indifference to the lethargy of age. Yet he is not
indifferent, but absent. His body is in Ephesus, but his
mind on Golgotha. In a flash his eyes have been opened,
and he is seeing, not water alone nor blood alone, but a
mingled stream of blood and water together flowing from
the heart of his Lord upon the Cross, the " fountain against
sin and uncleanness" predicted by Zechariah 3 , not cleansing

1 Jn xix. 35, xxi. 24. 2 Rev. i. 10.

3 Zech. xiii. i.

THE FOUR III (insPEL

the bodies but pouring a pure life into the souls of sim
This he would say he "saw", and so he did see it as clearly
as any of the numerous visions that he "saw" at Patmos.
years, the Elders of Ephesus, handing on his Gospel,
would ;itu-t hi^ iwelation as a whole, and declare that they
knew his witness to be true. But they would also take
i;il pains to deliver this particular testimony of the be-
lt i\vd disciple concerning the vision of the Cross, as far as
possible in his own words asseverating his conviction of its
truth, as though he were still living among them " I saw
it and I know that my witness is true." Last of all would
come our Evangelist, who with the freedom of a true
prophet would develop, explain, and amplify the nucleus
of truth bequeathed to his predecessors the Elders of
Ephesus, by their first Bishop. Thus he would give to
the rough Hebrew original a Greek literary unity and an
artistic harmony, and yet with the insight of a true pro-
P,het would perceive that " the beloved disciple " was the
real originator and author, he himself being, in comparison,
nothing but the instrument. " Spiritually speaking ", he
would say, "John the Disciple of the Lord wrote, the Elders
attested, I myself was but the pen." In thus executing his
labour of love, while embodying in his written Gospel this
most beautiful vision, he might unfortunately lead later ages
to suppose, and perhaps might himself suppose, that it was
literally and materially true. This conjecture is offered here
for the present only as a conjecture, but as a fairly probable
one, to be supported hereafter in a separate commentary on
the Fourth Gospel by cumulative evidence, but meantime
to be accepted provisionally in arrest of a hasty verdict that
"the Fourth Gospel is either literally true "or else "an im-
pudent forgery 1 ".

1 Compare the following vision of George Fox, as to which we may
feel confident that the seer had not the slightest intention of borrowing

ON THE HONESTY OF

On the first page of this volume hoping to stimulate
readers to reflect on the difficulties besetting the path of
this (as it seemed to me) misunderstood Evangelist I ven-
tured to call his Gospel an "attempt at indirect biography
where direct biography was impossible" I meant " impossible "
both materially and spiritually. The former impossibility
would arise from want of trustworthy matter, letters, reports,
books, and the like : and in this connection it need only be
added that the most ancient of our ecclesiastical historians
reveals a quite Johannine dissatisfaction with "books 1 " and
a longing for traditions about persons who might pass on
to him some echo of the "living and abiding voice." But,
even if short-hand reporters, eye-witnesses, had accurately
written down Christ's each word and act, a second kind of
impossibility would still have existed (I believe) for our
Evangelist, arising from the nature of personality in general
and of this Person in particular. No artist, not even Turner,
can paint the sun. The Synoptists tried to express the
splendour of the transfigured Lord in language about "light",
" whiten", "snow", "lightning", " no fuller on earth", &c. Our
author felt that he could not, no, even " the beloved disciple "
could not, delineate in any words, much less in these, the
glory of the Only Begotten in its fulness of grace and
truth 2 .

from the Fourth Gospel, and that he "saw" what he says he "saw"
(Fox's Journal, p. 14):

" Soon after, there was another great meeting of professors ; and a
captain named Amor (sic) Stoddard came in. They were discoursing of
the blood of Christ. As they were discoursing of it, I saw, through the
immediate opening of the invisible Spirit, the blood of Christ; and
cried out among them, saying ' Do ye not see the blood of Christ?
See it in your hearts, to sprinkle your hearts and consciences from
dead works, to serve the living God.' For I saw the blood of the
new covenant, how it came into the heart."

1 For Papias see 995 6 ; for the Johannine feeling about books
see 999. * Jn i. 14.

THE FOURTH COS I 'I. I.

Hut 'direct biography" is perhaps an obscure expression.
In the original form of the Dedication it was explained by

Is Unit then followed but were subsequently cancelled

inappropriate for their position. After the cancelling,
the expression was still retained as being brief, easily re-
membered, and possibly provocative of thought. Perhaps
tin- discarded portion of the Dedication, a little modified
ami amplified, may not seem too lengthy to come here as
a summary of this Introduction, and also as suggesting an

lanation of what some have called the egotistic element
in the Evangelist's conception of Christ. I have bracketed
the words deleted.

"To the unknown author of the Fourth Gospel, the
noblest attempt at indirect biography where direct bio-
graphy was impossible ; [who, finding the glory of t/u Lord
Jesus so darkened by legendary materialism and misinterpre-
tation that historic detail was no longer discernible, was
inspired by the Holy Spirit not to correct old writings but

..rite things new in letter yet old in essence, not contra-
dicting nor arguing but explaining, so as to reveal his Master
indirectly (as seen in the mirror of " tJie disciple whom He
loved") a Being human and divine, at once the Humblest
and t/te Highest, Lord of Lords because Servant of Servants,
claiming our allegiance not for His separate self but for the
Spirit of the Son within Him, which Spirit if any man has
felt, he has felt t/ie Father in heaven]."

INTRODUCTION II

ON THE SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS WORK

THE Preface to Part I of Diatessarica, giving a programme
of the whole series, described Part III as intended to be a
commentary on Mark. An explanation of the reasons for
deviating from that programme will enable the reader to
understand the origin, nature, and objects, of the present
volume.

Re-studying Mark's text I was led to the conclusion that
almost all the names peculiar to his Gospel such as Abia-
thar, Alexander, Rufus, Bartimaeus, Boanerges, Dalmanutha,
Salome, and Timaeus were erroneous and consequently
omitted by subsequent Evangelists. Further examination
shewed that similar suspicion attached itself to some names
in the later Gospels. Sometimes the spuriousness of one
name, e.g. Dalmanutha, suggested the spuriousness of another,
e.g. Magada (or Magdala), and the two had to be discussed
together. Finally, it appeared that the subject must be treated
as a whole, before I could proceed with my commentary. So
I turned aside to "Gospel Names ".

This new task having been almost completed, I found
myself brought to a stand at the name " Galilee " because of
its insertion, omission, or varying context, in parallel passages
of the profoundest interest where our Lord predicted His
Passion and Resurrection. Examining these predictions

SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS WORK

anew, and the remarkable deviations of Luke from the two
earlier Gospels, and the absolutely new vocabulary in which
John described the Saviour as predicting His death, I was led
to take up in particular the prophecy that the Lord would be
"delivered up", or "betrayed". Comparing Isaiah's saying
th.it the Messiah would "make intercession'" 1 with the LXX's
version that He would " be delivered up ", I came to the
conclusion that Mark had led the Synoptists into a rendering
th.it subordinated, if it did not altogether conceal, our Lord's

c of the "intercessory" nature of His death, and that this
error had extended even to our English translation of St Paul's
ties, and, through them, to that portion of our Communion
Service which speaks of "the same night on which he was
betrayed" whereas it should have been " delivered up [by the
Father for the sins of men]*." The importance of this error,
and of ramifications from it, led to a second digression on
" Christ's Predictions of His Resurrection."

But again, the study of our Lord's sayings on the night
before the Crucifixion (concerning His being "delivered up",
and " he that delivereth me up is at hand ") led me to reflect
on the extraordinary want of agreement between the Evan-
gelists as to His very last utterance just before He was
abandoned by the Twelve. At first, this disagreement seemed
explicable as the result of the momentary consternation of
His disciples. If so, it occurred to me that closer agreement
might be hoped for as to His first words when He entered on
public life. Yet here, Luke entirely deviates from Mark and
Matthew 1 , and John describes things from quite a different
point of view. Perplexed by these variations as to Christ's
first public words, I turned to the consideration of Christ's
first public appearance, the striking event described by John
as well as by the Synoptists the Baptism of Christ and the

1 Is. liii. 12. See below 9278.

3 Mk i. 15, Mt. iv. 17, Lk. iv. 15, Jn i. 38.

ON THE SUBJECTS

descent of the Spirit. Here, if anywhere, I might hope to
find, not indeed identity or even similarity of words, but at all
events substantial unanimity.

The attempt first to find it, and then to explain thoroughly
why it could not be found, originated a third and last
digression, which was originally intended to include merely
the Baptism of Christ and the Voice from Heaven. Indeed
at first sight it appeared that there was no room for a treatise
but only for a string of disappointing antitheses, such as
these: (i) The Synoptists mention a Voice from Heaven,
John does not ; (2) John mentions a message from God to the
Baptist, the Synoptists do not ; (3) John says that the Spirit
was to "remain" on Jesus, the Synoptists do not; (4) John
says that the Baptist saw the descent of the Spirit, the
Synoptists do not (but either state the descent as a fact or
leave it doubtful who saw it), &c. But further examination
shewed that more results might be expected if more labour
were expended.

In the first place, besides a remarkable number of varia-
tions in canonical documents, there were non-canonical
accounts of, or allusions to, the Baptism : and these might
throw light on the subject if they were placed, clause by
clause, beside their several canonical parallels. In the next
place, there were other passages in the Gospels themselves
that had a direct bearing on the problem.

To take the Gospel passages first. I was dealing with a
stupendous Synoptic miracle, a Voice from Heaven, and with
the question why John omitted it. How could I hope to
answer that, if I lazily neglected the fact that the Synoptists
mention another Voice from Heaven (in the Transfiguration)
and that John omits that too? Could it be that John did not
believe in Voices from Heaven ? This led to a new question,
namely, whether the Jews had anything to say on this point.
I soon found as the reader will find too that they had a
great deal to say, and that towards the end of the first century

DISCUSSED IN THIS WORK

tluy became so tired of Voices from Heaven that one of their
Rabbis s.iid, " We do not trouble ourselves about them'' Was
John, I asked, of that opinion? No, he could not be. For
he himself recorded a Voice from Heaven. But this added
perplexity to perplexities, for marvellous to relate I found
the Synoptists, who obviously had no objection to Voices
from Heaven, omitting the Johannine Voice ! Were Voices
from Heaven, then, so common in Christ's life that the Evan-
gelists, like the Rabbi, "did not trouble themselves" to record
all of them? Moreover, in the two Voices that the Synoptists
did insert, how came it to pass that they did not agree as to
the exact words, and that a well-supported text of Luke gave
an entirely different version of the Voice at the Baptism ?

Still keeping to the Canonical Gospels, I had to answer
other questions. Luke in his account of the Voices, twice
mentions Christ's praying as a preliminary to the Voice, but
gives no prayer 1 ; John gives a prayer, and makes the Voice a
kind of reduplicated echo of it*. Again, John's prayer, in its
context, suggested a reference to the prayer at Gethsemane,
the only prayer of Christ recorded by ttte three Synoptists. But
why was the Synoptic version (as commonly accepted) so
different from the Johannine version of the single short appeal
("Glorify thy name") uttered by the Son to the Father in
heaven ? And whence came the curious differences between
Mark and the two later Synoptists in recording the Prayer? 3
This led to a comparison of the Synoptic accounts of the
Agony and to further questions. Why does Luke omit all
mention of the three drowsy disciples watching with Jesus, and
the three prayers ? And why is John's account different both
from Luke's and from that of Mark and Matthew ?

Luke indeed introduces the three drowsy disciples on
another occasion when Christ prays, not, however, on or near

1 Lk. iii. 21, ix. 28.

8 Jn xii. 27 8, " Glorify.. .1 have both glorified and will glorify?

3 See below 929 foil.

ON THE SUBJECTS

the Mount of Olives, but on the Mount of Transfiguration.
Now this was called by the early Church mount Tabor ;
modern critics prefer Hermon ; the Acts of John calls it "the
mountain where it was His custom to pray," and the Second
Epistle of Peter "the holy mount". Was it indeed "the Holy
Mountain" of God, called by the later Jews "the Mountain
of the Lord's House," and did it mean, either literally or
spiritually, the Temple? 1 If so, was the Transfiguration a
vision seen in the Temple (like the vision of Isaiah and the
trance of St Paul') and did that explain John's omission of
the whole event (surely a central and stupendous event, if
true, in the life of Christ)? But how explain the Synoptic
introduction of Elijah and Moses ? Must one be driven to a
materialistic explanation like that of the Brocken phantoms
in which the three disciples saw themselves as three figures? 3
or could this feature be explained by a corruption of an
original tradition that " He (i.e. Jesus) appeared to them [as]
Moses and Elijah," when taken as meaning " There appeared
to them Moses and Elijah 4 " ? This necessitated an exam-
ination of the Transfiguration narrative and of the very re-
markable illustrations of it derivable from the Acts of John
(which omits Elijah and Moses, and places the story in close
connection with that of Gethsemane, called by it " Genne-
saret ").

The Synoptists, variously describing the Transfiguration
in phrases about "light", "snow", "lighten", "fuller", "whiten",
treat it as a manifestation of Christ's " glory" 8 . But was this
the "glory" that Christ really contemplated? Did it even
approach the <( glory" contemplated in the Mosaic theophany
vouchsafed in answer to the prayer "Shew me thy glory"*?
Could John be satisfied with this Synoptic theophany (or

1 See below 867 a, 981. 2 Is. vi. i, Acts xxii. 1718.

s See below 8667. 4 See below 871.

6 See below 901 b, 9067. 6 Exod. xxxiii. 18, see below 898 foil.

DISCUSSED IN THIS WORK

:->t<l>h;iny)? Did it come up to his own description of
the "^!'i\- as of the Only-begotten full of grace and truth"?
According to John, the one short prayer of Christ was pre-
11 by " trouble" and followed by a mention of "glory" 1 .
Was not this sequence in harmony with Christ's deepest
teaching? To give it prominence and emphasis was not
this a leading object for the Fourth Evangelist, and was not
tliis one of the reasons why, besides omitting the "glory" of
the Transfiguration, he systematically described Christ as en-
during, or subjecting Himself to, a threefold "trouble" 8 ? To
answer this question required further examination of those
parts of the Fourth Gospel which speak of "trouble" and
of "glory".

But after "trouble" and "glory" had been considered,
there remained the question, "What as to prayer?" Did
Christ indeed utter the prayer "Glorify thy name"? And as
regards the Cup where the Synoptists have two traditions,
one (at the Agony) asking God apparently to (Mark and
Luke) " remove " the cup, but the other (at the Lord's Supper)
saying " From this moment I shall assuredly not drink of
this 3 " how comes it that Mark and Luke, according to R.V.,
use in the sense " remove " (applied to " cup ") a word that
elsewhere in Greek literature means for the most part
" present " and always (so far as we know) has the latter
meaning when applied to " meat ", " drink ", and especially to
"cups" or "vessels" 4 ? And why does John fasten on pre-
cisely these words " / will assuredly not drink" and take
them in quite a different context as an indignant exclamation
to the disciples, " The cup that the Father hath given me I
[if I am to take your advice} s/tall assuredly not drink it*\"

1 Jn xii. 27, " Now is my soul troubled*

1 Jn xi. 33, "troubled himselj "", xii. 27, "now is my soul troubled,"
xiii. 21, "was troubled in spirit."

8 Mk xiv. 25 &c., see below 934. * See below 931 e, 9757.

6 Jn xviii. 1 1, see below 933 foil.

ON THE SUBJECTS

The prayer as to "the cup" could not be discussed with-
out reference to the other prayer in Matthew's and Luke's
context, "Thy will be done." And this in turn raised new
questions. Why, for example, did the earliest version of this
utterance in Gethsemane (Mark's) make it no prayer at all
but a statement, "[It is] not [the question] what is my will
but what is thine 1 "? Why did Matthew insert this petition-
er utterance of resignation in the formula called the Lord's
Prayer, whereas Luke omits it ? And, in this connection, why
does Matthew say " Our Father who art in heaven " while
Luke omits the italicized words? Why does John omit all
mention of such a prayer? And, to come to John's insertions,
why did the R.V. text give Christ's words as " What shall I
say? Father, save me from this hour," when they could at all
events be less incorrectly rendered (as in R.V. margin),
"What shall I say? [Shall I say] Father, save me from this
hour?", and probably most correctly, " Why should I say,
Father, save me from this hour?" 3 ? In order to answer
these questions, some study was required not only of the
Evangelical texts themselves but also of Jewish forms of
prayer, and especially of those short forms taught by Rabbis
to their pupils, many of which are current in the Talmuds.

Such answers as I have been able to find to all these
questions will be set forth in the following pages. But the
questions at least the most important ones are enumerated
here in order to shew how a comparatively large book grew
up out of what might seem to be a comparatively small
subject, the Baptism of Christ, occupying less than 20 verses
in the Four Gospels taken together. To these, however,
must be added the non-canonical accounts, some of which,
when compared (clause by clause) with the canonical, are of
great value in indicating an Original that might explain and
harmonize Evangelical variations. For example, it will be

1 See below 931. * Jn xii. 27, see below 93740.

IUS< L'SSKI) IN I HIS WORK

pointed out 1 that the Dove in Jewish literature is not (as
with Greeks, Romans, and Christians) the type of love and
peace, but for the most part the type of timorousness, re-
pentance, mourning. Some very early oriental non-canonical
accounts omit "dove" and insert the "abiding" (or "resting"}
of the Spirit on Christ. The Hebrew words that express
"dove" and "resting" are almost identical. The facts point
to the conclusion that there was no "dove" in the Original
but only a mention of the Spirit as "resting" on Jesus. This
is but one of many interesting conclusions to be derived from
the non-canonical documents bearing on the Baptism. And
the non-canonical accounts of the Transfiguration, few though
they are, have even greater interest.

When I said above that " more results might be hoped for
if more labour were expended," such was the "labour" that
1 had in view. It consisted mainly in a very full statement
of the evidence and in varied classifications of it under
such headings as "Voice from Heaven", "Prayer", "Glory",
"Trouble". To take another instance. A question arose as
to the origin of the words " Hear ye him " (in the account of
the Transfiguration). The first " labour " was to go back to
Exodus and Deuteronomy and to put side by side the two
old Hebrew traditions (and the Targums on them) command-
ing Israel first to "hear " a " Messenger" and then to " hear" a
"prophet" like unto Moses, and to trace the influence of these
on Malachi, and then on the Christian Evangelists and
Fathers 1 . Such an investigation as this, besides throwing
light on the Synoptic " Hear ye him ", might illustrate early
Galilaean views of Christ as "Elijah", or as "Moses", or as
"one of the ancient prophets"; but whether it did or not, one
could not hope for any blessing on an effort to discover some
new truth about this " Voice from Heaven " and about John's
reason for omitting it, unless so obvious a preliminary had
been first completed.

1 See below 685, 694. See below 81749.

A. 19 2

ON THE SUBJECTS

If anyone else had done this collecting and classifying, I
would most gratefully have used and acknowledged it, as I
have acknowledged my obligations to Trommius, Wetstein,
Schottgen, Home Hebraicae> Levy's valuable dictionaries,
and the published parts of the Oxford Gesenius 1 . But for
the most part modern writers cover rather more ground with
conjectures of their own, and much more ground with refuta-
tions of other people's conjectures, than with the full state-
ment of the original texts to which they, and those who differ
from them, alike refer. Consequently, when subjected to the
old but never antiquated test, " Verify your references ", the
foundations of much that is popularly received as indisputable
in N.T. criticism will be discovered to be unsound. For
example, none of the articles on the Jewish Voice from
Heaven that I have read appears to me to convey so much
information as Pinner's collection of instances compiled more
than sixty years ago but never, as far as I know, reprinted a .
As to the elucidation of Greek minutiae bearing on the text
of the Gospels, we are only beginning to understand the
requirements of the problem. For example, many good
scholars still assert with confidence that the Fourth Gospel
speaks of being "born again" (when it really means "born
from above"}, supporting their assertion by half-quoting
sentences of authors alien from John's style and by suppress-
ing evidence on the other side from kindred authors 3 ; and
the same much-used Concordance that supports this erroneous
view informs its readers that St Paul's undoubted use of

1 I have also derived advantage from Resch's very valuable collection
of extra-canonical parallel texts. Having made a similar collection on
my own account previous to the appearance of his work, I have frequently
been able to supplement its deficiencies from his book. Wherever I quote
from Resch without being able to verify the quotation, my debt to him is
acknowledged, as also any obligation to him for a conjecture as to the
Hebrew original of the Gospels.

2 I have consequently reprinted it in Appendix IV.

3 Enc. Bib. 1833 n. 5.

DISCUSSED IN THIS WORK

'analyse" for "die"' is illustrated by a passage in Lucian
about a boy who " being eighteen years old was (?) dying."
But if you look at it you will find "Though he was [only]

i i teen years old he was doing analysis"**.

Space has been gained for the full statement of positive
evidence by omitting refutations of (what may seem to me)
erroneous inferences from it. Only in a few instances, where
a Biblical critic of first-rate ability or reputation appears to
be misleading public opinion, have I thought it necessary to
controvert. This will explain, to some extent, the absence
of modern names from the foot-notes in the following pages.
But another explanation is, I must confess, that having spent
a great deal of time in examining the original Greek and
Hebrew texts, I have not had much to devote to the study
of mere opinions about them unless supported by fully-stated
and well-classified evidence.

Is this craving for " evidence " unreasonable or antiquated ?
Surely it is not so, especially in the face of the steady pro-
gress of material science (which is based on classified evidence)
as compared with Biblical criticism (which, till lately, has
been based on authority, endowments, and sectarian pre-
possessions). Moreover, those who believe in a God, and in
the Bible as the word of God, ought to feel specially prepared
to find new evidence from generation to generation bearing
on the Christian religion. The Koran has, I believe, few or
no various readings and disputed or doubtful sections at all
events nothing to compare with the literary uncertainty (as
regards words, texts, passages, and even whole books) that
awaits those who approach the study of the Bible. But has
not this uncertainty been, on the whole, productive of good
for Christians?

1 Phil. i. 23.

* Lucian Philops. 14 (vol. iii. p. 41, ed. Reitz, who renders it
" analysi uteretur "). Of course Lightfoot does not thus misapply Lucian.

21 2 2

ON THE SUBJECTS

May we not believe that these very imperfections-
brought to light after many centuries like the faulty strata
and broken fossils that interest a geologist were intended
to stimulate the sons of Japhet in the end to bring to bear
upon their religion that restless spirit of truth-seeking which
differentiates them from the sons of Shem ? The Hebrew
language with its absence of vowels, paucity of tenses,
and frequent use of identical letters to represent absolutely
different meanings what did God mean by entrusting the
Law and the Prophecies of Israel to such a vehicle as this ?
And further not to speak of four Greek Gospels constantly
differing and sometimes appearing to contradict each other
if we are to believe Papias, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in
Hebrew, and that people " interpreted it as they severally were
able," what did He mean again by sending (according to our
belief) His only Son to convey to mankind a revelation that
was to be thus variously " interpreted " at the very outset of
its literary history? Surely the Christian answer or at all
events a Christian answer may reasonably be to this effect :
" It was God's will that the followers of Christ should have
burdens proportioned to their privileges, that their search
after a fuller knowledge of the Lord Jesus should be con-
tinued through the ages, and that it should call into play all
their faculties pureness of heart, soundness of head, and
robust patience under the labour of scientific investigation."

Strauss, towards the conclusion of his Life of Jesus, after
describing the Gospels as recording many things that are
false, many uncertain, and few certain, continues thus : " No,
the happiness of man, or, speaking more intelligibly, the

possibility of fulfilling his destiny it is impossible that

this can depend on his recognition of facts into which scarcely
one in a thousand is in a position to institute a thorough
investigation, and, supposing him to have done so, then to
arrive at a satisfactory result." But does not " the possibility
of fulfilling his destiny" depend at least for a son of Japhet,

DISCrsSKD IN THIS WORK

and probably in the end for all mankind on his recognition
of the facts of anthropology, history, political economy, and

ice, into many of which not "one in a thousand," but we
may rather say, not one in a hundred thousand, is "in a
position to institute a thorough investigation"? It sounds
plausible, and it has a fine democratic ring, to say that
conclusions cannot be useful to the multitude unless they
are discoverable by the multitude : but it is not true. Again,
whereas Strauss maintains that the real figure of Christ has
been so overgrown with corrupt traditions that it is no longer
discernible, it is among the main objects of the present treatise
to shew that this, though not without truth, is not true to
anything like the extent that he supposes. Celsus is nearer
the mark though he expresses himself spitefully when he
describes the later Gospels as improving on the " intoxication "
of the earlier 1 . Just as some of the later MSS. of the LXX
correct the faults of the earlier by returning closer to the
Hebrew, so it is maintained John often explains or corrects
a tradition of Mark where Luke has misexplained it, or
omitted it as inexplicable : and in many cases John can be
shewn to be, in all probability, more accurate historically and
more trustworthy spiritually than his predecessors.

In particular, as regards the Voice from Heaven, it will
appear that the evidence of the Fourth Gospel outweighs
that of the Three in establishing the following conclusions,
(i) There was no objective Voice from Heaven at any time
in Christ's life, but only such an answer as may be breathed
by the Spirit of God in response to the prayer of the Son,
echoing it with an Amen. (2) The real Transfiguration was
a spiritual act of self-renunciation or sacrifice, in which the
glory was of the nature of grace, truth, and love, not like
"snow"*, "light" or "whiteness"; and it did not take place
on a material elevation, but in a spiritual region*. (3) The

1 Sec Enc. Bib. 1766. See 901*. ' See 981.

SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS WORK

prayer of Christ before His death was not an utterance of
acquiescence or pious resignation, much less a struggle of
will against will, but, in effect, a fervent petition that the
Father would glorify His name : and such, too active not
passive was the original tenor of the opening clauses of
what we call " The Lord's Prayer ", as recorded in the Double
Tradition of Matthew and Luke 1 . (4) The " glory " of Christ
consisted in His power so to undertake and endure "trouble"
in His own soul and spirit as to remove it from the souls
and spirits of His followers. (5) Lastly, His divine nature
did not consist in a miraculous conception but in being from
the beginning the eternal Word, Law, Harmony, Son, of the
Father, taking our human nature as the Son of Joseph and
Mary, and filling His disciples with the conviction that He,
although Son of man, was also Son of God, because He was
incarnate righteousness.

1 See below 968.

BOOK I
THE BAPTISM

CHAPTER I

DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE BAPTISM

i. The texts in English

[553] 1 THE Originals of the texts will be found in the
first of the Appendices at the end of the book, but the texts
are placed here in English that the general reader may survey
the whole region to be traversed, before taking it stage by
stage. Codex Bezae (commonly called D) and Mrs Gibson's
Syro-Sinaitic version (commonly called SS) often present
such important variations from the Canonical Gospels that
their distinctive readings will be generally given, but not
those of other MSS. or versions except in special cases.

Later on, the Canonical accounts, when taken in detail,
will be sometimes rendered rather more literally than is the
case in the Revised Version : but in this section, not to
distract the reader from a general and rapid view of the
subject, that Version is adopted without variation.

Mark's account is placed to the left as being the earliest
of the Gospels, then Matthew, and then Luke. In O. T. it

1 See References : 552 was the last subsection of the second part of
this series, The Corrections of Mark.

[554]

DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

is found that the earliest Greek translations (32 3) are
generally more inaccurate than the later ones, and it has
been shewn in a previous work by the author that this is
probably true of Mark 1 . John is placed separately from
the Synoptists, as he does not cover the same ground. His
Gospel was probably composed 100 no A.D.

Mk. i. 9 ii (R.V.)

[554] " And it
came to pass in those
days, that Jesus came
from Nazareth of
Galilee, and was bap-
tizedof John in(marg.
lit. "into") the Jor-
dan. And straight-
way coming up out
of the water, he saw
the heavens rent a-
sunder, and the Spirit
as a dove descending
upon* him : and a
voice came out of the
heavens, Thou art my
beloved Son, in thee I
am well pleased."

(i) T/te Synoptists

Mt. iii. 13, 16 17
(R.V.)

" Then cometh
Jesus from Galilee to
the Jordan unto John,
to be baptized of

him And Jesus,

when he was baptized,
went up straightway
from the water : and
lo, the heavens were
opened unto him
(marg. " some anc.
auth.om.'untohim '"),
and he saw the Spirit
of God descending as
a dove, and coming
upon him , and lo, a
voice out of the hea-
vens, saying, This is
my beloved Son, in
whom I am well
pleased" (marg. "This
is my Son ; my be-
loved in whom I am
well pleased ").

Lk. iii. 2i2 (R.V.)

" Now it came to
pass, when all the
people were baptized,
that, Jesus also hav-
ing been baptized,
and praying, the hea-
ven was opened, and
the Holy Ghost de-
scended in a bodily
form, as a dove, upon
him, and a voice came
out of heaven, Thou
art my beloved Son ;
in thee I am well
pleased."

1 See Clue passim, and particularly 128 44.

2 "Upon", so R.V.; but really "into", see below (67984).

I I IK BAPTISM

[555]

1) has "the hea- D is lost as far

<>/vW (instead as "coming down."
of " rent ") and some
other variations that
will l>e found in Ap-

pendix I

SS is lost.

It then has "com-
ing down from the
heaven as a dove and
coming to (or, into)
him and behold a
voice from the hea-
vens saying to him,
Thou art my Son..."

SS "Then came
Jesus from Galilee
unto John that he
might baptize him in

the Jordan,

And when he was
baptized and went up
out of the water, lo,
the heavens were
opened, and he saw
the Spirit of God de-
scending in the like-
ness of a dove, and
it abode upon him :
and a voice was heard
from heaven, which
said unto him, Thou
art my Son and my
beloved, in thee I am
well pleased."

D "as a dove to
(or, into) him and
there was a voice
from the heaven, My
Son art thou. I
(emph.) have this day
begotten thee"

SS "And when
all the people were
baptized, Jesus also
was baptized, and
while he prayed, the
heavenswere opened,
and the Holy Ghost
descended upon him
in the likeness of the
body of a dove, and
a voice was heard
from heaven, Thou
art my Son, and my
beloved; in whom I
am well pleased."

(ii) Join i

[555] Jn i. 2834 (R.V.): "These things were done
in Bethany (marg. " many anc. auth. read Bethabarah, some,
BetJiarabah ") beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and
saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away (marg.

[556] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

" beareth ") the sin of the world ! This is he of whom I
said, After me cometh a man which is become before me :
for he was before me (marg. lit. "first in regard of me").
And I knew him not ; but that he should be made manifest
to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing with (marg. " in ")
water. And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the
Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven ; and it abode upon
him. And I knew him not : but he that sent me to baptize
with (marg. " in ") water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever
thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him,
the same is he that baptizeth with (marg. "in") the Holy
Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this
is the Son of God."

D is lost.

SS " These things he spake in Beth 'Abara beyond Jordan,
where John was baptizing.

And the [ ] day Jesus coming unto him and said [ ]
of God who taketh away the sin of the world. This is he
of whom I said, A man cometh after me, and he was before
me : because he existed before me. And I knew him not :
but he that sent me to baptize said unto me, Upon whom
thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon him,
the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And
I saw and bare record that this is the chosen of God."

(iii) T/te Arabic Diatessaron

[556] Tatian composed a Diatessaron, i.e. Harmony of
the Four Gospels, in the latter half of the second century.
The Arabic Harmony professes to be a translation of it, but
of this there is no sufficient evidence \ It is, however, very
early and probably based on Tatian's work.

1 See the author's article on GOSPELS, Enc. Bib. 1838 n. 3.
28

I III. BAPTISM [557]

.on came Jesus from Galilee t<> the Jordan to John, to be bapti/ed <>f him. v
And Jesus was about thirty years old, nnd it was supposed that he was the son of ,
Joseph. And John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, This is the Lamb of Jn i. 99
God, that taki-th on itself the burden of the sins of the world ! This is he concern- Jni. jo

I here cometh after me a man who was before me, because he was

before me. And I knew him not ; hut that he should he made manifest to Israel, j n i. 31
for this cause came I to bapti/e with water. And John was hindering him and Mt. iii. 14
saying, I have need of being baptized by thee, and comest tlum to me? Jesus MI in. is

:ol him .in,! said, Suttei this now : thus it is our duty to fulfil all righteous-
ness. Then he suffered him. And when all the people were baptized, Jesus also Lk. iii. t\
was baptized. And immediately he went up out of the water, and heaven opened Mt. iii. >6
to him, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the similitude of the Lk. iii. 22
body of a dove ; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Mt. iii. 17
Son, in whom I am well pleased. And John bare witness and said, I beheld the j n L 32
Spirit descend from heaven like a dove; and it abode upon him. But I knew him Jn i. 33
not ; hut he that -ent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever
th, HI shah behold the Spirit descending and lighting upon him, the same is he that
baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Jn i. J4
Son of God."

(iv) Justin Martyr (c. I5OA.D.)

[557] ( Tryph. 88) " Consequently it was not because
He [Christ] was in need of power that prophecy foretold
the descent upon Him of the powers enumerated by Isaiah 8 :
rather it was because those powers were destined no longer
to exist.*... And for thirty years, more or less, He waited:

1 The extract is preceded by Jn i. 28, "And that was in Bethany
beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing" and by Mt. iii. 4 10, Lk. iii.
10 18, giving an account of the Baptist's acts and deeds.

1 [657 a] This sentence does not belong to the narrative of the baptism,
but will be found to have an important bearing upon that part of it
which relates the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus as a dove. It shews
that Justin regarded the descent as fulfilling a prophecy of Isaiah (xi. i)
"And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse. ..and the
spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and under-
standing, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of
the fear of the Lord." These gifts of the spirit, Justin calls "the powers
[of the Spirit] enumerated by Isaiah." The Hebrew makes them six,
Justin makes them seven, see below 666 8.

3 [557 ] He means "no longer to exist in the prophets of Israel but
to pass into the Messiah" (see below 711 5).

[558] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

until John came forward, herald of His presence and pre-
decessor in the path of baptism as I shewed before. And
then, when Jesus came to the river Jordan where John was
baptizing, and when Jesus went down to the water, not only
was a fire kindled 1 in the Jordan, but also, on His emerging
from the water, [the statement] that the Holy Spirit alighted
on Him as a dove is recorded in writing by the Apostles of
this very [Jesus] our Christ.

[558] " And we know that it was not owing to any
personal need of being baptized, or need of the descending
Spirit in the form of a dove, that He came to the river ; just
as it was owing to no need that He submitted to be born and
to be crucified, but it was for the sake of the human race....
And when Jesus came to the Jordan, being also supposed to
be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and appearing 'without
form 8 ' as the scriptures proclaimed, and being supposed a
carpenter* (for these works of carpentry did He work...
ploughs and yokes, thereby teaching both the symbols of
righteousness and also [the duty of] an active life) [to resume]

1 [557^] If the reading is correct, Justin records as a fact, on his
own authority, the kindling of the fire, but feels it necessary to adduce
" Apostles " for the descent of the Spirit (see 1034 a c ).

2 [558 a] " Without-form (dt^ovs)." Comp. Is. liii. 2, "He hath no
form," ttios. The adj. means (L.S.) (i) "invisible", (2) "unknown",

(3) " shapeless ", " formless ", or " ugly ". Justin takes it as (3). Jn (i. 26)
" in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know nof," favours (2), and
comp. Ephrem (575) "not visibly distinguished from the rest." There is
no instance in which (i) is fulfilled in the Gospels except Jn viii. 59 "was
hidden" (not "hid himself").

3 [558 b] " Being supposed a carpenter " appears to be a conflation
of some phrase like " He (gen. abs.) being supposed to be [son] of the
carpenter," i/o/iifo/ze'i/ov TOV renrovos tivat. From this Mk vi. 3 (" Is not
this the carpenter?") may have been derived. But the question is com-
plicated by the fact that TOITOVOS " carpenter ", might easily be confused
with TfKovTos " parent ".

If Justin had taken, as authoritative, Mk vi. 3, he could hardly have
said " supposed to be a carpenter " ; for the words imply that everyone
knew the fact.

I ill. l;.\l'HSM 560

then, the Holy Spirit (and, for men's sake, as I said above, in
the form of a dove) alighted upon Him ; and a Voice from
the iu.i\in^ had simultaneously come [forth] one that is

found among the sayings of David, when he 1 , as it were
in character, says [just] that which was destined to be said to
Him from the Father, My Son art thou, I (emph.) have this
day begotten thee. [Hereby, in effect, he was] saying that His
4 birth ' was to come-into-being for men at the moment from
which the knowledge of Him was destined to come-into-being
My Son art t/tou, I (emph.) have this day begotten thee*."

[559] (ib. 103) "For this devil*", [i>. Satan, whose
nature and name are explained by Justin in what precedes]
1 simultaneously with His [Christ's] going up from the river
of the Jordan, when the Voice was uttered to Him 4 , My Son
art thou, / (emph.) have this day begotten thce, is recorded in
the Memoirs of the Apostles to have come to Him and to
have continued tempting Him until he said to Him, Worship
me."

(v) Celsus (quoted by Origen)

[560] It is generally agreed that Celsus wrote in the
course of the second century* and therefore, at latest, not long
after Justin. His testimony is that of an enemy, but whenever
he misquotes, or appears to Origen to misquote, the Gospels,
the latter corrects him. Here he does not charge Celsus with
any inaccuracy.

1 [558 f] "When he" might mean "When Christ", and Otto takes
it thus.

* [558r/] This involved sentence arises partly from Justin's natural
uncouthness of style, partly from his ignorance of the word "subjective".
He means that the begetting of the Son at the moment of the baptism
was not objective, but subjective. He was begotten at that moment
simply for ignorant " men " to whom the Sonship was then first revealed.

3 [559 a] It will be found below (577) that Ephrem, commenting on
the Diatessaron, supposes Satan to have been present at the Baptism
and to have been perplexed by the fire and by the Voice from Heaven.

4 "To Him". The Gk has " His voice", see Appendix I, 1036/7.

Diet. Christ. Biogr., " Celsus ".

[561] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

[561] (Cels. i. 40) " After these [remarks, Celsus,] taking
from the Gospel according to Matthew but perhaps also
from the rest of the Gospels 1 the story about the dove that
alighted on the Saviour when He was being baptized by(?)
the side of John 2 , desires to discredit what is [thus] said, as
being a fiction."

Origen then complains that Celsus does not observe the
right sequence of events :

[562] (id.) "After the birth, from a Virgin, this Celsus,
who professed to know all our facts, attacks the [alleged]
appearance of the Holy Spirit at * the Baptism in the form of
a dove. Then, after this, he discredits the prophesying of the
sojourning of the Saviour [on earth]. And after this he skips
back to what follows immediately upon the birth of Jesus in
the written [Gospel], namely, the narrative of the Star, and
the Magi that came from the east to worship the child 4 ."

1 [561 a] This shews that Origen regards Celsus as quoting freely, but
not inaccurately, and not from apocryphal Gospels.

2 [561 b] The Gk is ''from the side of John." The translation given
above is obtained by altering the genit. into the dat. Two MSS. omit
"from... John", one has "by the side of John," comp. "by the side of
John" in Cels. i. 41 quoted below (563). See 1037 a.

3 [562 a] "At" is a repetition of the prep, rendered "by the side of"
above, and later on. Perhaps we should read " by the side of [John] the
Baptist (1038 a)."

Origen is not here quoting Celsus : for the latter uses "bird" instead
of " dove " and does not mention " the Spirit ".

4 [562^] Perhaps Origen does not make allowance for Celsus, who
may have been perplexed by some of the " many " writers who " took in
hand", as Luke says, to write the Life of our Lord. The "birth",
ytvvrjffiv, and the "prophesying" may possibly refer to the Annunciation.
Apocryphal Gospels (697 702) describe a "dove" as literally descending
on the " rod " of Joseph, who, being a descendant of David, might be
called "the rod of Jesse," concerning whom Isaiah prophesied (xi. 2)
"The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." The Apocryphal writers
place this before the espousal of Mary to Joseph. Celsus may have
confused this with the descent of the dove at the Baptism. See below
697710.

mi; lurns.M [564]

[663] (/A 41) "Now it is the Jew, as his mouth-piece 1 ,
who continues to speak as follows, addressing Him whom we

:iowledge as our Lord, namely Jesus: 'When you were
being washed,' says he, 'by the side of John 1 you say the
appearance of a bird from the lower air* alighted on you.'
Then Cclsus* Jew takes the interrogative thus, Who saw
this i.?. what witness worthy of credit this appearance?
Or who heard a Voice from Heaven adopting you as Son in
tin- family of God 4 except that you say so and that you call
it ness one, and only one, of those who have, along with
you, been punished [by law] 5 ?"

[564] This evidence is of great importance as indicating
that in the second century (and probably at an earlier period)
Christians were called on to answer the question, " Who saw
the dove ?" Origen says that (ib. 48) " No one except John is
recorded to have seen "the heavens opened," and doubtless
he intends this to imply that John also saw the dove (as
stated in the Fourth Gospel). He adds that (ib. 44) " the
Holy Spirit appeared to Jesus in the form of no other living
thing than a dove." But he appears to favour the view that
those who narrated the appearance of the dove and the
Voice from heaven (ib.) did not hear the facts from Jesus or
from John the Baptist, but that the same Spirit that related
the facts of the Creation to Moses " related also to the writers

1 "The Jew, as his mouth-piece," lit. "the Jew, for him." This refers
to a previous statement ( 28) about a Jew whom Celsus introduces as
disputing with, and confuting, our Lord.

* [563*] "By the side of John," see 561*. One MS. has in margin
" By the side of the Jordan." See 565 and 1039 </.

s " Lower air", see 643.

Lit. "for God", see 793 rf and 1039.

& The Jew means (no doubt) John the Baptist. At least Origen later
on (Gels. i. 48) assumes this, and replies, justly enough, that it is not in
the character of " a Jew " to use this contemptuous language about the
i st.

A. 33 3

[565] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

of the Gospel the marvel that came to pass at the time of the
baptism of Jesus 1 ."

[565] It is difficult to explain the recurring preposition
" from-the-side-of? or " by-the-side-of" John. The Editor of
Origen's work suggests that "John" is an error for "Jordan",
and there is much to be said for this view. But it is also
possible that there once existed some early Jewish, or
Ebionite, tradition to the effect that the Spirit passed " out of
(Trapa) John " to Jesus as it might be supposed to have passed
out of Elijah into Elisha. And Tertullian, it will be seen
(713), takes this view that the Spirit departed from Joiin
when it came into Jesus. This view is scarcely compatible
with the actual words of Celsus inserting " from the lower
air." But, curiously enough, Origen's own version of them
might be thus rendered : " The story about the dove that
alighted on the Saviour, in the moment of His Baptism,
[coming] from (Trapa) Jo/in"." Virgil, describing the descent
of the doves of Venus, the mother of ^Eneas, to help her
son, says : " Before his very face from heaven they came in
full flight and alighted on the green ground*." We might
certainly have expected the Christian Sibyl (583), if not the
hostile Celsus, to add " from heaven ". But both omit it.

(vi) The Testament of the XII Patriarchs (ed. Sinker)

[566] This book was composed B.C. 135 103, but it
abounds with Christian interpolations, probably from various
hands and dating from A.D. 150 onwards 4 . The first part

1 See note above 557 c, where it is suggested that Justin Martyr may
have regarded the descent of the Spirit as a fact that could not be
accepted except on the authority of the inspired Evangelists.

2 See below (690) the story of the dove that came forth from Polycarp,
i.e. his spirit.

3 jEneid, vi. 191.

4 See Article by R. H. Charles, Hastings' Diet. B. \\. 7223.

I Hi: MAI'HSM [568]

he extract is said to refer to John Hyrcanus, previously
rred to in the Testament ( 8) as "prophet, priest, and
king 1 ," but possibly the Christian editor, in applying it to
our Lord, may have added the clause about the " star ".

[567] (Lcvi 1 8) "Then the Lord shall raise up a new
t, to whom all the words of the Lord shall be revealed.
...And his star shall arise in heaven, as a king, lightening
with the light of knowledge.... The heavens shall exult in
those days, and the earth shall rejoice and the clouds shall
be glad, and the knowledge of the Lord shall be poured upon
the earth as the water of the seas. And the angels of the
Glory and [the angels] of the face of the Lord* shall rejoice
in him."

Now conies the passage referring to the Baptism :
[568] " The heavens shall be opened, and from the sanc-
tuary of the Glory (or, of Glory) there shall come upon Him
sanctification (or, consecration) with a Voice as from a father,
even as from Abraham the father of Isaac 3 . And the glory
of the Highest shall be uttered on Him, and a spirit of
understanding and sanctification (or, consecration) shall rest
upon Him in the water.... And during His priesthood all
sin shall come to an end and transgressors shall rest from

1 [566 a] Hastings, 722 a compared with 723 a b. The "new priest-
hood" is mentioned in Levi 8, as exercised by "a king" in Judah,
coming as the third of three descendants of Levi, the first two being
Moses and Aaron. But here again Christian interpolation has been at
work. Among these interpolations is probably the phrase, "[As for] the
third, a new name shall be uttered on him" (comp. 915 6).

8 [567 a] " The angels of the face " are those who see the face of God
(Schottg. on Mt. xviii. 10). The Editor cancels "and", so as to make "of
the glory of the face." But this is not needed. "The Glory" may be a
periphrasis for " God ".

3 [568 a] See below (795 a) for Jewish traditions that lay stress on the
reply of Abraham to Isaac (Gen. xxii. 7), "Here am I, my son," as
though it meant, " I am thy father." The writer appears to have com-
pared the Voice from Heaven in the Gospels "Thou art my Son," with
these words of Abraham.

35 32

[569] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

[doing] (lit. for} evil 1 , but the righteous shall rest in
Him."

[569] The High-priest, John Hyrcanus, is the only char-
acter in pre-Christian Jewish history who is recorded both by
Josephus and by the Talmud to have received a supernatural
Voice from the "Sanctuary" (as the historian calls it) or
14 Holy of Holies " (as it is called in the Talmud). Some
reference to this may have been converted by the Christian
editor into a prediction of the Voice at Christ's Baptism 8 .
For the rest, it may be noted (since attention must be called
to it more than once in the following pages) that the writer
lays great emphasis on " resting ", which he repeats thrice in
different connections, but makes no mention of a dove.

(vii) Gospel of the Hebrews or Nasarenes (quoted by Jerome)

[570] The quotation occurs in Jerome's commentary on
Isaiah, not written till A.D. 410. But in an earlier com-
mentary on Matthew (A.D. 387) Jerome mentions it thus,
" In the Gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which
we lately translated into Greek from Hebrew, and which is
called by most [? of them] the authentic [Gospel] of Matthew,
it is written that...." The mere fact that it was in Hebrew
postulates a very early date, and this is confirmed by the
fact that such a scholar as Jerome thought it worth while
to translate it, and mentioned without rejecting the belief

1 [568/5] It is just possible that the writer may have a sinister or
ironical meaning, " Shall rest for [the purpose of enduring] evil [as their
punishment]."

2 [569 a] See below 7308. The Voice to the High-priest John was
"from the sanctuary", but had nothing to do with "consecration"; the
Voice at the Baptism was regarded by some early Christians (575) as
consecrating Jesus to the priesthood, but did not come "from the
sanctuary". It will be shewn however, that one of the seven Jewish
"heavens" might be confused with the "sanctuary".

THE BAPTISM [572J

that it was "the authentic [Gospel] of Matthew 1 ." The words
of Isaiah that lead Jerome to the subject of Christ's Baptism
arc these (xi. I 2): "And there shall come forth a shoot
out of the stock of Jesse and a Nazer, i.e. branch, shall bear
fruit out of his roots, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest
upon him." Jerome proceeds as follows :

[571] " As to that saying in Matthew's Gospel He shall
be called a Nazarcne about which all theologians ask, and
none can say, where it is written learned Hebrews think
that it is taken from this passage [about the Nazer, or

branch] Upon this flower, then, which will suddenly

spring from the stem and root of Jesse through the Virgin
Mary, there will rest [so Isaiah prophesies] the Spirit of the
Lord, because in Him \i.e. in Jesus] it pleased [God] that
all the Fullness [of the Godhead] should dwell bodily 2
[that is to say] not partially, as in the rest of the saints,
but (according to their Gospel, the one written in the Hebrew
language and in use among the Nazarenes) There descended
upon Him " [i.e. upon the Nazer] " tJie whole fountain of the
Holy Spirit"

After an interval, Jerome continues thus :

[572] " Furthermore, in the Gospel above-mentioned we
have found the following record, ' Now it came to pass, when
the Lord had ascended from the water, there descended the
whole fountain of the Holy Spirit and rested upon Him, and
said unto Him, My Son, in all tlie Prophets I was awaiting

1 For the dates of Jerome's comtn., see Diet. Christ. Biogr. iii. 48 a.
The Jerome extract is from Kirchhofer (p. 454).

2 [571 a] Col. i. 19 "In him it pleased [God] that all the fullness
should dwell," ii. 9 " In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily." Jerome quotes the first, and adds "bodily" from the second.
See below (665 b) on the corresponding use of "bodily" in Luke's de-
scription of the descent of the Spirit. Jerome takes it as meaning " in
its whole body" as distinct from limbs. So we speak of "a body of
evidence." A complete collection of Latin poetry is called Corpus Poet-
arum Latinorum, " the Body of the Latin poets."

[573] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

thee, that thou mightest come, and that I might rest in thee.
For thou art my rest, thou art my first-born Son, who reigncst
for ever"

Attention will hereafter be called to the fact that here
again, as in the Testament of the XII Patriarchs, there is
a threefold mention of " rest ", but no mention of the " dove ".

(viii) Ephrem Syr us

[573] Ephrem was born about 308 A.D. 1 But his com-
mentary, besides taking us back probably in many cases
to the actual text of Tatian's Diatessaron (A.D. 150 70),
contains stratum upon stratum of comment, some orthodox,
some heretical, going back to very early times.

[574] The following rather long extract will be found of
great use in helping the reader to understand the questions
that suggested themselves to early Christians about the
Baptism. But it is of importance negatively as well as
positively : for while referring to " a light that arose on
the waters," and a " Voice from heaven ", as signs that per-
plexed Satan, it makes two mentions of the Spirit as "resting"
on Jesus, but no mention of the "dove".

[575] (Comm. in Diatess., ed. Moesinger, pp. 42 3).
" And the Holy Spirit, which rested upon Him when He
was baptized, testified that He was a shepherd 2 . For
through John He received the rank of prophet and priest.
The rank of king 3 , belonging to the house of David, He had
received by birth, because He had sprung from the house

1 Diet. Chr. Biogr. ii.

2 [575 a] "Shepherd." This refers to what precedes. "Further, Let
us fulfil all righteousness (Mt. iii. 15) [is said] because John was the
porter of the sheepfold wherein was the flock of Israel gathered together.
The Lord, therefore, entered to the flock, not by force, but by righteous-
ness," i.e. with the assent of the " porter."

3 [575 b~\ "Prophet", "priest", and "king", are here combined, as in
the Test. XII. Patr. quoted above about John Hyrcanus (566).

THE BAPTISM [576]

of David ; but the rank of priest, belonging to the house of
Levi, He received through a second birth 1 , in the baptism
of the son of Aaron " [/>. in John's Baptism]. " Whoso be-
lieves that He received a second birth upon earth, let him
not doubt that through this later birth, in the baptism of
John, He received the priesthood of John.

" Whereas on that day many were baptized, the Spirit
descended upon one and rested, in order that He, who was
not visibly distinguished from the rest, might by this sign
be discriminated from all [or, discerned by all] 2 ."...

[576] The next passage is important for many reasons.
In the first place it mentions a " light upon the water,"
apparently corresponding to the " fire" mentioned by Justin.
This is not in the Arabic Diatessaron, and its absence is one
of many indications that the Arabic does not faithfully repre-
sent Tatian. In the second place it shews that the writer
placed the Baptism after the words (Jn i. 29) "Behold the
Lamb of God 3 ." Apparently he thinks that John the Baptist,
at the moment when he "seeth Jesus coming unto him and
saith, Behold tlte Lamb of God", saw the Spirit descending
upon Jesus the sign previously appointed by God and
then testified to that effect. In the third place, there is no

1 [575 c] "A second birth." These words make it certain that the
commentator (whether Ephrem or an earlier one) did not take Justin's
view of the subjective nature of the regeneration of Jesus as the Messiah
in baptism. They also make it almost certain that he accepted D's
reading of the Voice from Heaven, " Thou art my Son, this day have
I begotten thee?

1 The Latin is ambiguous, see 1043.

3 So does the present Diatessaron (see above 556). But this arrange-
ment raises a difficulty. On the one hand the Baptist could hardly call
Jesus " the Lamb of God " until he had witnessed the promised sign, the
descent of the Spirit ; but, on the other hand, the Diatessaron describes
that descent as occurring later on in the course of the Baptism. Perhaps
the compiler thought that the Baptist saw it first, as a prophet, spiritually,
but the multitude afterwards. Discussions about the visibility of the
descent caused great differences among early commentators.

[577] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

mention of the dove. Lastly, there is the same emphasis
that we noted in Justin, and shall note later on in Epiphanius,
on the fact that our Lord " did not need" baptism. Ephrem
is answering the question, " Why did not Satan tempt Jesus
till His thirtieth year?" One answer is as follows :

[577] " Because no manifest token of His divinity had
been given from heaven, and He appeared in humble guise as
a common man... Satan delayed tempting Him until these
things began to come to pass. And when he heard ' Behold,
the Lamb of God cometh,' and ' This is he that is to take
away the sins of the world,' he was indeed sorely astounded ;
yet he waited till He should be baptized that he might see
whether He was baptized as one in need of baptism. And
when, from the light that arose upon the water and from the
Voice that came down from heaven 1 , he perceived that He had
descended into the Water to satisfy needs [of others] but had
not come to baptism for any personal need of His own, then he
pondered with himself saying, 'Unless I prove Him in conflict
and temptation I shall not be able to find out who He is.'"

(ix) The Gospel of the Ebionites

[578] This is known only through the quotations made
by Epiphanius in his Treatise Against Heresies (A.D. 374 7)*.
Its prominent characteristic is a tendency to harmonize the

1 [577 a] At this point we should have expected " and from the Spirit
descending in bodily form as a dove."

Later on (p. 99 in a comment on Mt. xi. 2 14) Ephrem has "post
testimonium Spiritus qui descendit in similitudine columbae et post vocem
ex coelo factam : ' Hie est filius meus dilectus etc.' " But there is reason
to think that this is from a different hand : for the writer on p. 99 quotes
Jn i. 29 differently from the forms of quotation of Jn i. 29 on pp. 41 43.
We have also seen that the writer of p. 42 seems to regard Christ as
"born again" in baptism, and probably regarded the Voice as saying,
" Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? but on p. 99 he quotes
the Voice using the canonical phrase, " This is my beloved Son etc?

2 Diet. Chr. Biogr. ii. 149.

THE BAPTISM [570]

canonical Gospels partly by free alterations but more especially

t>y the repetitions known as "conflations" 1 . For example, it

three Voices from Heaven, two in the second person

iiou art", "thee") addressed to Jesus, one in the third
person ("This is") addressed to John the Baptist. In what
looks like an attempt to abridge Luke's long account of the
birth and parentage of John the Baptist, it takes Luke's
opening words (Lk. i. 5) "There was in the days of Herod
the king of Judaea [a certain priest by name Zacharias],"
and applies them to a date more than thirty years later, when
there was no king, but only a Roman governor, of Judaea*.
But it inserts the non-canonical detail of a supernatural
"light*.

[579] (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. vol. i. 138) "It came to pass 3
in the days of Herod the king of Judaea there came John
baptizing [with] a baptism of repentance in the river Jordan,
who was said to be 4 of the family of Aaron the priest, son of
Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all began to go out to him."
Epiphanius then apparently passes over the sayings of John
the Baptist which Luke (iii. 4 19) gives at considerable
length (Lk. iii. 18 "many other things") and which the
Ebionite writer may have repeated and passes to a state-
ment about the baptizing of "the people" which Luke (iii. 21)
alone records. This, at least, is the most probable meaning

1 On "conflations" and "conflative versions", see Clue (20144), and
on the conflative tendency in Mark (145 155).

* [578 a] Such an error is quite consistent with an early date. Comp.
Justin ( Try ph. 103) " Him who was then King of the Jews and was called
Herod, successor of the Herod who... slew all the infants in Bethlehem...
and when Herod succeeded A rchelaus. . . ".

3 "It came to pass (iytvtro)," the same word as "there was" in
Lk. i. 5.

4 [579 a] " Said to be." This looks as though the writer knew of Luke's
Introduction and accepted it as probably accurate, but not as certain.
He appears to introduce the priestly descent of John in order to suggest
(as Ephrem above expressly says (575)) that the priesthood was passed on
from John the Baptist to our Lord.

[580] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

of " And after he [the Baptist] had said many things 1 , he
[the Ebionite] adds/' with which preface Epiphanius intro-
duces the Evangelist's account of the Baptism :

[580] "When the people had been baptized there came
also Jesus and was baptized by John. And when He 2
came up from the water the heavens were opened and He (?)
saw the Holy Spirit of God in the form of a dove that came
down and came into 3 Him. And a Voice came (lit. came to
pass) from the heaven, saying, Thou, art my beloved Son, in tlicc
I am well pleased, and again, /(emph.) have to-day begotten tlicc.

[581] "And straightway there shone round the place a
great light, on seeing which 4 (says [the Ebionite writer]) John
saith unto Him, Who art thou, Lord ? And again [there was]
a voice from heaven to him 5 [i.e. John] This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased. And then (says [the Ebionite])
John fell down before Him and said, I beseech t/iee*,[my] lord,
do thou baptize me. But He [i.e. Jesus] tried to hinder 7 him
[i.e. John], saying, Let be, because thus it is seemly that all
things should be fulfilled."

1 A less probable meaning is "And after he [the author] has said
many things."

a [580 a] "Jesus", not "John", is almost certainly intended. Justin
makes this clear by using "emerged", instead of "came up", from the
water. As the words stand, it is barely possible that " he " may mean the
person last mentioned, namely "John", who saw the vision as he came up
from the water where he had been baptizing Jesus (see below 596, 645 52 .

3 [580^] " Into Him ", not "to Him" (see below 67984).

4 [581 a] " Which ". The Gk has " whom ", probably a corruption of
"which" (1045 a).

5 [581 ] "To him," probably added in order to explain the change of
person "This is" from " Thou art". The Voice is supposed to have said
first "Thou art" to Jesus, and then "This is" to John.

6 [581 c\ " I beseech thee." Forms of this Greek verb mean " I have
need" and the writer is probably confusing some tradition like that of
Matthew, " I have need to be baptized" (see below 599609).

7 [581 d] "Tried to hinder", we should have expected "hindered".
But the writer is probably confusing some statement like that of Matthew
that (Mt. iii. 14) " He [John] tried-his-utmost-to-hinder him (i.e. Jesus)."

THE BAPTISM [582]

(x) TJte Sibylline Oracles

[582] These poems are of widely different dates, perhaps
from B.C. 181 to A.D. 267 or (in the case of one poem) later.
Hut the two poems from which extracts will be given below
supposed to have been written about 234 A.D. by a
Judaizing Christian 1 . Friedlieb's text is given in the Ap-
pendix and is followed here. But the variations of the MSS.
are so great, and the principles upon which one should edit
productions of this kind (some of which may be wholly, or
partially, the work of illiterate or half-literate writers, ignorant
of grammar and scansion, whose work has been touched up
by later hands or improved by oral corrections, while others
may be true literature, blemished by interpolations) are so
extremely uncertain that the readers must be warned against
basing important conclusions upon them. They prove, how-
ever, and it is for this reason mainly that they are quoted
that the writer, or writers, recognized "the fire" as an element
in the Baptism. One of the most able editors of these
"Oracles" concludes that "all the Sibylline writings which
have come from Christian sources are to be traced to writers
in whom heretical or heterodox influences were predominant 2 ."
These extracts favour that conclusion ; but they are all the
more likely to be extremely ancient. Celsus (about 150 A.D.)
says that some of the Christians are " Sibyllists " and accuses
them of interpolating many blasphemies in the Sibyl's
poems 3 . This indicates the possibility of a very early date
indeed for the lines translated below.

1 Diet. Chr. Biogr. iv. 645 b.

* Ib. p. 649 a, giving the opinion of Alexandre.

3 [582 a] Orig. Cels. v. 61, vii. 53. In reply, Origen says (vii. 56) " He
(Celsus) might have proved his assertion by producing some older copies
which are free from the interpolations which he attributes to us." Celsus
had unfortunately died about a century before Origen wrote : but if
Origen could have challenged Celsus thus in the second century instead
of the third, Celsus would probably have been able to satisfy him on
this point.

[583] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

(Orac. Sibyll. ed. Friedlieb,Bk vi. 11. 17)

[583] (i) " The great Son of the Immortal [God] fit-subject-of-song from

my heart I proclaim,
To whom the Most High who begat Him delivered a throne for

a gift
When He was not yet begotten : since (or, when) in [the] flesh

that was given Him
He was raised up, having washed away [?the defilement of flesh]

in the stream of the river
[Even] Jordan, who is borne onward with blue foot drawing his

waves,
Who, having escaped from fire, shall be the first to see God [in

His] sweet [nature]
[God, I say] in (or, through) the Spirit coming [lit. becoming] on

the white wings of a dove."

This literal translation leaves the reader, as the Greek
leaves him, free to suppose that Jesus was (i) "raised up" as it
were from the dead to a new life, from the life of the flesh to
the life of the Spirit, having washed away the defilement of
the flesh of Jesus and having been born again as Christ : or
(2) it may mean "raised up" as a Prophet, or as a Deliverer,
to do " in the flesh " the work of redemption appointed by
God. Also (3) " who " may mean Jordan, " escaping from "
the fire that seeks to dry up its stream : or it may mean the
Son " escaping from" the "fiery trial" 1 . These three points are
uncertain. But it is certain that the writer in some way con-
nects " fire " with the Baptism of Christ, and highly probable
that he regards our Lord as " not yet begotten " in the
character of the Messiah till the Baptism had taken place.

[584] (ii) The following extract appears to imply the
doctrine of Cerinthus 2 , that the Spirit flew down on Jesus as
a dove at the Baptism and flew back again to the Father at
the crucifixion.

1 See below 61725.

2 See below 589, 665, 689 c, 690.

THE BAPTISM [586]

:l. 66 70)

"Hapless [country], thou kncwest not thy God, who once washed
In the waters of the Jordan ; and [the] Spirit lighted on Him
\Vho, before, both of earth and of the starry heaven
Had been the Maker by the word of the Father 1 , but by the pure

Spirit -
(After putting on 3 flesh) He swiftly flew to the house of the Father."

[585] (iii) The next extract appears to refer to the
Jewish custom of purifying a leper when healed, one bird
being killed while another was allowed to fly away.

(Jb. 79 84) " Having taken wild birds,

Pray thou and send them fixing thy gaze heavenward,

And sprinkle water on the immaterial fire 4 , and cry thus aloud,

He who, as Father, begat thee the Logos, O Father 6 , I sent forth

a bird

Swift announcer of words, [the] Word, with pure waters,
Performing thy baptismal sprinkling, whereby thou didst shine forth
from the fire?

The one important conclusion from this corrupt passage is
that the writer again confirms the legend of " fire"'.

(xi) Epip/uinius (A.D. 374)

[586] The following extract from Epiphanius emphasiz-
ing, as it does, the " going down", or " descending", or " con-
descending", of the Saviour, and also His " not needing" to be

1 Another reading is " the Maker, the Word of (lit. belonging to) the
Father."

2 Friedlieb connects the words thus, "after putting on flesh by the
pure Spirit." The above rendering means, After doing the work of the
Incarnation, He was raised up from the dead by the Spirit and returned
to the Father.

3 A very slight change would give " after putting 0^" flesh " (1047 a).

* "The immaterial fire", lit. "pure fire". On the meaning see
below 625 a.

6 Friedlieb's text is given above and literally translated. But it is
corrupt and possibly hopelessly so. Otto (see Appendix, 1048 a) would
read " Spirit " for " O Father ".

* On the meaning the Sibylline writer attached to " shine forth from
the fire," see 6215.

[587] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

baptized, will enable the reader to realize the questions that
suggested themselves to Christians, long before the days of
the writer and probably in the first century, as to the " need"
of baptism for Christ, as to its actuality and other points.
For example, did the purifying influence come from the
Spirit alone ? or from the waters that are above the heavens ?
or from the waters of the Jordan ? and, if the last, how could
they impart purity to One perfectly pure in Himself?

[587] (Epiph. Anaceph. 7, p. 153 C D) "...He had
reached the reckoning of [thirty] years 1 the reckoning of
the number of months, having been borne in the womb,
'born of a woman born under the Law*,' having come unto
the Jordan, having been baptized by John ; not needing [the]
washing, but because of the following out of the incarnation*
under the Law, not disturbing what was righteous, that there
might be fulfilled, as He Himself said, all righteousness ;
that He might shew that He had put on true flesh, true
incarnation ; coming down to the waters, giving rather than
receiving, bestowing rather than needing; enlightening 4 them,
imbuing them with power to be a type of those that should
hereafter be perfected in Him ; in order that those who
have believed in Him in truth, and who have the faith in the
truth, may learn that He was truly incarnate, truly baptized :
and that thus, through His condescending, they too, coming
[to baptism], may receive the power of His descending" and
may be enlightened by His light-bringing, being fulfilled-
with-conviction according to (?) that which is said in the
Prophet, unto a transmutation of power, unto bestowal of

1 [587 a] Txt. eV a pt fy<5 ^v \ oyi <rd f i s . Perhaps X meaning "thirty"
(comp. Clem. 407 * s M., X) has dropped out before the X in Amr*' s
1 Gal. iv. 4.

' Incarnation , e W^^: more literally, humanization ".

617-25? them "' *" r/f "' """' ''* thC WatCrS : SCe bel W (588 '

' Descending ", see below 588 a.

6 "

THE BAPTISM [590]

the salvation of the power of bread, [power] received from
Jerusalem, and of the strength of water 1 ."

[588] We have seen above (557) that two of the details
here mentioned by Epiphanius,viz. the " enlightening" of the
water and the " descending " into the water which we might
have been disposed to take as metaphorical (the latter being
typical of the above-mentioned " condescension ") are both
mentioned in the second century as facts by Justin Martyr
(who, however, has "fire" instead of "light" 2 ).

[589] The following describe the belief of Cerinthus and
others :

(1) (Haer. xxviii. I, vol. i. p. no D) "That Christ came
down to (or, into} Him [i.e. Jesus], that is, the Holy Spirit, in
the form of a dove."

(2) (Haer. xxx. 16, vol. i. p. 140 B) " Christ having come
to (or, into) Him [i.e. Jesus] from the [realm, or One] above
in the form of a dove."

[590] The following is almost unique in mentioning the

1 [587^] "Being fulfilled. ..water", ir\T)po<j>opovp.(voi r eV TG> npo<pr)Tj)
/>TT<J>. Petavius suggests in marg. ir\r)povp.fvov rou. He prints as a
quotation the Latin of (Is ^trraAXayi7i> 8vvtip.f(as, (is irapo^rjv crwrrjpias rijs
8vvdfjias TOV aprov, airb Trjs 'l(pov(ra\f)p, \ap.fiavop.fvr)s (cat rijs lar^vos TOV
vSaTos: but, contrary to his custom, he does not indicate in the margin
the passage referred to. It resembles Isaiah iii. i "The Lord of hosts
doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, the whole
stay of bread and the whole stay of water " ; KV/JIOJ o-aftaad dfaXfi airb
Ifpov(ra\T)fjL teal dirb TIJS 'lovftaias l<r\vovTa Kai Icr^vovtrav, la^vv apTov KOI

l<r\iiv vtiaros. The words " staff", " stay ", in)3yK*D, might perhaps be
confused with some form of VE", so as to be rendered "salvation".

2 [588 a] Ephrem quoted above (577) mentions the "going down" as
well as the "not needing". "He had gone down into the water as the
Satisfier of needs [of others} but had not come to baptism as though He
were [Himself] in need." He also mentions the "light".

Resch quotes (on Mt. iii. 14) a comment of Hilary (who died 368 A.D.)
" ipse quidem lavacri egens non erat," and (Agrapha, p. 364) from the
Severian Liturgy a unique tradition, omitting, but implying, the negative,
"O God. ..who wast baptized in the midst of Jordan. ..as though thou
neededst it (tanquam indigens)." See 606 a.

[591] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

descent of the Spirit as following, not the " coming up " from
the water but the "going down ":

(Ancor. cxix. vol. ii. p. 121 B) "But the Holy Spirit in
the form of a dove went down upon Him when He had come
down 1 into the waters."

[591] The following medley represents the disciples as
hearing the Voice and the Spirit as first " settling on " Jesus
and then "coming upon Him":

(Anac. 8, vol. ii. p. 1546) "Having come up from the
Jordan, in-the-moment-of-hearing the voice of the Father in
the hearing of the disciples who were present 3 , in order to
shew who was being attested, and the Holy Spirit coming
down in the form of a dove... but the Spirit settling upon Hint
and coming upon Him in order that He who was being
manifested might 'appear' [unto men~\ ...... in order that the

Son might 'appear' (?) in truth 3 and might fulfil the saying
[of Baruch, iii. 37] 'And after t/tese things he appeared upon
earth and held converse with men'"

This last extract is also important because it apparently
regards Him who was " attested " by the descent of the Spirit
as " appearing " in the character of Messiah not only to John
the Baptist but also to those present. It may be added that
Petavius, for "coming upon Him", has, "insinuated itself into
Him (in ipsum)." That, no doubt, is demanded by the sense.
But it cannot be obtained from the Greek text without
emendation.

2. The differences to be considered

[592] The reader has probably noticed in the last section
that the Synoptists, as well as the other authorities, differ

, Petav. " Scrib. K
2 Eis d K or,v -rrapovrav T 5>v /xa^Twi/. Does this mean " in the hearing
of people present, namely the disciples"? or "the disciples being present
so as to hear it"?

3 'O vtis d\r,6i v fc tyQf, (? d\r,d lv s> s as below dX^i* 7rp ao -0*tV, or
o may have dropped out after c in yioc).

THE BAPTISM [593]

>tly from one another as to the details of the Baptism.
Moreover Luke, as given in Codex D and the Latin versions,
differs from Luke as given in R.V. The Nazarene Gospel
quoted by Jerome, the Ebionite Gospel quoted by Epi-
phanius, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the
Sibylline Oracles, differ from all the Canonical accounts.
Justin Martyr, though agreeing with Codex D's version of
Luke in one important point the words uttered from heaven
to Jesus differs from it in other respects, and has what
amounts to a version of his own. In these circumstances
we might expect that John would intervene as he does
on several occasions where Luke omits, or deviates from,
Mark's narrative in order to clear up the obscurity 1 .

[593] For example, Mark says that the Voice spoke to
Jesus, " Thou art my beloved Son " ; Matthew, that it spoke
about Him, ' This is my beloved Son." But, according to
John, if we may judge from his silence as well as from his
statement, there was no voice from the clouds, but merely a
message from God conveyed to the Baptist alone, and this,
apparently, to the heart (by what we call revelation or in-
spiration), as follows: (Jn i. 33) "Upon whomsoever thou
shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, this
is he that is to baptize in the Holy Spirit." There was
indeed testimony uttered aloud, but it was not from God,
except so far as God may be said to have spoken through
(Jn i. 6) "a man sent from God whose name was John."
This testimony, according to most MSS., mentioned the
Synoptic word " Son ", but according to other weighty au-
thorities, it used the word "Elect", thus: (Jn i. 34) "And
I have seen and have borne-witness that this is the Elect
(or, Son) of God 1 ."

1 For instances, see the Author's Article on GOSPELS, Etic. Bibl. 1768.

8 [593 ] "Elect", placed by W.H. in marg. of their first ed., was
removed by them afterwards. But it has been confirmed by the dis-
covery of SS, and is therefore given priority above.

A. 49 4

[594] DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF

[594] Again, what was seen, according to John ? The
message of God mentioned simply (Jn i. 33) "the Spirit
descending and abiding." But the preceding verse gives us
the testimony of the Baptist to what he saw, as follows :
(Jn i. 32) "I have beheld the Spirit descending as a d<>.
from heaven and it abode on him." Apparently, then, the
"dove" was not the special sign mentioned by God. Sup-
posing the Spirit to have descended in the form of a " cloud "
(which is sometimes the emblem of the Divine Glory) it
might still have been described with reference to the cir-
cumstances of the descent as being " like a dove " seeking
its nest, or flying to some resting-place. Compare Isaiah
and the Psalms: (Is. Ix. 8) "Who are these that fly as a
cloud, and as the doves to the windows [of the dove-cotes ] ? "
(Ps. Iv. 6) " Oh that I had wings like a doi>e ! Then would
I fly away and be at rest" John only once mentions the
"dove", but he twice mentions what the Synoptists altogether
omit that the Spirit " abode on " Jesus. This subordination
of the emblem, and this reiterated statement that it "abode"
on Him, are calculated to dissipate the impression that a
bodily dove is intended, and to emphasize the "abiding", or
in-dwelling, of the Spirit. To this point we must return
later on.

[595] Again, in the description of the descent, Mark
mentions "the Spirit", Matthew "(the) Spirit of God", Luke
"the Holy Spirit": but John ascribes to God the words
"On whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and
abiding on him, he it is that is to baptize in (the} Holy
Spirit:' Also "the Spirit", not "the Holy Spirit", is men-
tioned by him previously as " beheld " by the Baptist. John,

1 [594 a] "Dove", Trepto-repa. The word is more correctly rendered
by R.V. "pigeon" in Lk. ii. 24 to distinguish it from rpvyovuv in the
context, "turtle-doves", and will be thus rendered hereafter on those
occasions where there are special reasons for bringing out its exact
meaning (see 685 ).

THE BAPTISM [596]

then, does not adopt the corrections of the later Evangelists.
For some reason or other, in this narrative, he reserves the
phrase "( tne ) Holy Spirit", as Mark does, for the statement
about " baptizing".

[596] Lastly, as to the question asked by Celsus, " Who
saw it ? " The text of Mark as may be seen above and
will be seen more clearly hereafter favours indeed the view
that he regards Jesus, and not the Baptist, as the seer, yet
it leaves a loop-hole for doubt. Matthew closes the loop-
hole by inserting "Jesus" in the context. Luke relates the
whole, not as a matter of " seeing ", but as a fact (" it came
to pass. ..the heaven was opened"). John relates the whole
as the "seeing", not of Jesus, but of the Baptist.

All these differences, illustrated by the non-canonical
accounts, will now be discussed in short stages, following
the order of Mark.

CHAPTER II

WHAT PRECEDED THE BAPTISM?

i. Canonical accounts

[597] THE earliest Evangelists, before the act of baptizing,
place a brief statement about the " coming " or " arrival " of
Jesus. Luke (at all events in our present text) omits all
mention of it. It should be noted that, whereas Mark says
"came and was baptized," Matthew has " arriveth . . . to be
baptized by him," words that, by themselves, might be taken
to mean a mere intention. Some, who were unwilling to
believe that Jesus condescended to be baptized, might use
such a tradition for their purposes, maintaining that He did
not really undergo the rite, perhaps because the Baptist
reverentially declined. We do not know whether Matthew
knew of any such traditions. But, if he did, he could not
have contradicted them better than by the story that he, and
he alone, adds at this point, namely that the Baptist actually
expostulated with Jesus but was overruled.

[598] The Hebrew use of vaw for "and" and "in order to"
may encourage loose translation even where vaw is not used.
Hence (2 Chr. xxxvi. 6) "and bound him in fetters to (-?)
carry him away" might be translated "bound him in fetters
and carried him away," which is actually the rendering of the
LXX both there and in the parallel I Esdras i. 4O 1 . This
may possibly have originated Matthew's " to be baptized ".

1 [598 a] Comp. i K. xiii. 33 "whom he would he consecrated that
(1) there might be," LXX "and he became", 2 Chr. xxiii. 19 "that none
should enter," LXX "and there shall not enter in," Dan. ii. 13 R.V. and
Theod. "</.. .were to be slain," A.V. "that they should be slain," and

WHAT PRECEDED THE BAPTISM

[598]

But, whatever may have been the origin, it will appear below
to have resulted in unhistorical developments. In the fol-
lowing parallel passages the tradition inserted by Matthew
alone is italicized.

Mk i. 9.

"And it came to
pass in those days
there came Jesus of
(ciTro) Nazareth of
Galilee and was bap-
in (lit. to) the Jordan
by John."

Mt. iii. 13 16.

"Then arriveth Je-
sus from' 2 (aTro) Gali-
lee [coming] unto
(eVi) the Jordan to
(irpos) John 3 \to be
baptized by him. But
he tried to hinder him
with all his might,
saying '/ have need
to be baptized by thee,
and contest thou to
me ? ' But Jesus an-
swered and said to
him, 'Suffer \ii\ now:
for thus it is becoming
for us to fulfil all
righteousness? Then
he suffereth hini\. And
Jesus, when he was
baptized...."

Lk. iii. 21.
"But it came to
pass when there had
been baptized all the
people, Jesus, too,
having been baptized
and being in the act
of praying...."

so LXX. On the other hand note Prov. xvi. 9 "but (1)," LXX "that".
In Lam. i. 19 both R.V. and LXX render 1 (i.e. "and" or "but") by
"(in order) to". In Dan. ii. 13, 1 is followed by parallel ^ (2402).

1 [598 b] *H\6tv 'lijo-oCf aTri N. T. F 1 ., " there came Jesus of (not, from]
Nazareth of Galilee," is similar to Mk xv. 43 X#o>v 'la><rij^> aV6 'Api/*a-
daias, "there came Joseph of (not, from) Arimathaea." Comp. Judg. xii. 8
(R.V.) "Ibzan of (Heb. lit. from} Bethlehem," also 2 S. xxiii. 20(1 Chr.
xi. 22). This being (apart from the title) the first mention of Jesus in
Mk, it is natural that there should be some statement either of parentage
or of domicile.

- [598 r] " Then arriveth Jesus from Galilee," rort irapayivtrcu 6 'iqo-ovt
drro ri)r TuXtXatar. As Matthew has already described the parents of
Jesus as (ii. 22 3) settling in Nazareth of Galilee, a statement of domicile
would be superfluous : and the domiciliary use of "from" is more frequent
with the names of towns than with those of provinces. Probably, there-
fore, "from " is right in Mt., though "of" is right in Mk.

3 SS has " unto John that he might baptize him in the Jordan."

[599]

WHAT PRECEDED

2. Non-canonical accounts

[599] We shall be better able to understand the origin of
Matthew's insertion if we place beneath it the following non-
canonical statements :

(i) The Ebionite Gospel, after the Voice from Heaven,
has "And then John falling at his feet began to say, '/

beseech (&eopat) thee > "W lord > ba P tize ttwu me - But He [**'
Jesus] tried-to-hinder him [i.e. John], saying, 'Suffer [it to
be as it is] (or, Let be), because thus it is seemly that all
things should be fulfilled.' "

[600] (2) The Nazarene Gospel says, in a passage quoted
by Jerome 1 , " Behold the Lord's mother and brethren said to
Him, ' John the Baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins ;
let us go and be baptized by him.' But He said to them,
' Wherein have I sinned (peccabam, ? peccavi) that I should
go and be baptized by him ? Unless perchance this very
thing that I have said is [a sin of] ignorance.' "

We have seen above that many writers reiterate that
Christ " had no need to be baptized." This Gospel, in effect,
puts such a tradition in the first person, " I have no need to
be baptized."

1 [600 a] Kirchhofer (pp. 453 4) from Hieron. 1. 3, adv. Pelag. c. I,
" In Evangelic juxta Hebraeos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone,
sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni,
secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant juxta Matthaeum."

[600 ] How a Gospel might be called "according to Matthew" and
also " according to the Apostles," may be illustrated by a quotation of
Epiphanius from the Ebionite Gospel quoted above (Epiph. Haer. xxx.
13, vol. i. 137) "And He was about thirty years old who chose us. ..and
He opened His mouth and said,... I chose John and James, sons of
Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot,
and Judas Iscariot, and fAee, Matthew... You therefore I desire to be
twelve^ Apostles." In this extraordinary confusion (which seems to
make "twelve" out of eight) it is at all events clear that Matthew is
specially addressed. Possibly he might be regarded as commissioned to
write in the name of all the Apostles.

THE BAPTISM [603]

[601] (3) Resch (Agraplia, p. 363) quotes a Baptismal
Liturgy of Severus, which, after relating the descent of the
Spirit on Jesus, says, " Our Lord said to Jo/in, ' Come, baptize
me.' But he said to Him, ' It cannot be that I should take
[anything as] a prey (Fieri non potest ut rapinam assumam)."'
These last words appear to refer to Philipp. ii. 6, " counted it
not a prey to be on an equality with God." If so, they would
seem to be appropriately uttered, not by John but by Jesus,
and the pronouns should be reinterpreted, so as to make
the whole run thus : "John [perceiving our Lord to be the
Son of God] said [to Hint], ' Come, baptize me." But He
said to him, ' It cannot be, &c.'"

[602] In the Ebionite Gospel, the word used for "beseech"
(Seo/zot) means also "need". Hence, if Matthew's peculiar
statement that " Jesus came to John to be baptized " was
interpreted as meaning that He came requesting to be bap-
tized, and if perhaps to shew the Lord's humility this
stronger word, " beseech ", was substituted for " request ", the
consequence would be an ambiguous sentence which might
mean either (i) "He came beseeching to be baptized" or
(2) " He came having need to be baptized."

[603] This would naturally evoke contradictions or various
versions. In the way of contradiction we have found Justin
and Ephrem, above, reiterating that Christ " had no need to
be baptized," and we may now add the testimony of Clemens
Alexandrinus (991): "For this cause the Saviour received
baptism (though He Himself was not in want of it}, that He
might consecrate the whole element of water for them that
are to be born again."

To the same effect writes Epiphanius, who places the
clause " having no need of baptism," after such clauses as
" born of a woman, born under the Law," as though it were
as indeed it is an article of faith 1 .

1 See 5868.

[604] WHAT PRECEDED

[604] Having regard to the early traditional repetition
of this phrase "not needing to be baptized," and to the
similarity, in Greek, of the Ebionite "/ beseech thee do thou
baptize me," it seems probable that the latter is a corruption
of the former ; and this is the more likely because the Greek
letters would facilitate a confusion between the two 1 .

[605] On the Hebrew-translation theory, this problem of
Christ's "not needing" to be baptized, and yet submitting
to be baptized, is illustrated by the above-quoted passage
from the Gospel of the Nazarenes 2 : " Behold the Lord's
mother and brethren said unto Him, 'John the Baptist
baptizeth for the remission of sins ; let us go and be bap-
tized by him.' But He said unto them, ' Wherein did I sin
that I should go and be baptized by him ? Unless perchance
this very utterance of mine is a [sin of] ignorance!" It is
by no means improbable that the whole of this interesting
tradition is derived from a Hebrew gloss misinterpreted
owing to the fact that the same Hebrew Word is capable of
meaning, in slightly different forms and contexts, (i) friends

1 [604 a] See Fayum Papyri, p. 50 inscr. about 70 B.C. Aeo/weNoy, an
error for Aeo/v\ecoy, " I beseech thee ".

If the margin contained Aeo/weocoy "needing it not", the dropping of

before c would produce AeoMecoy which, when read as Aeo/wecoy,
would mean " I beseech thee ", and might be assigned to John. If these
words were assigned to our Lord, they might be changed to Aeypo/wecy
wrongly taken as " Come do thou [baptize] me " (as in the Baptismal Liturgy
above-quoted) so as not to represent Jesus as "beseeching".

In Is. xxvi. 18 o-ov is an error for o\i : in Job xx. 13 o is repeated
(from the preceding air-ov) so as to spoil the sense: Is. xxxvii. 12 ovs
2 K. xix. 12 ov (A ovs): <rov is prob. corrupt for TOV in i S. xviii. 18 (A),

1 K. xxii. 12 (see context); and for pov in Ps. cxix. 59 (conversely in

2 S. vii. 15, 16).

Wherever Greek corruption is at work in the Gospels, we may
reasonably suppose that oral tradition may have been at work, and such
a word as Aeo/v\e lends itself to oral error. For this reason Matthew may
have substituted xpW e^a, which is unmistakeable.

2 Kirchhofer, p. 454 (Hieron. lib. iii. adv. Pelag. ch. i) (600).

THE BAPTISM [607]

and acquaintances, (2) conscious of sin, (3) ignorance 1 . But
in any case it indicates that Hebrew as well as Greek
developments would probably be at work, enlarging the
narrative of the circumstances preceding Christ's baptism
so as to prevent His " condescension" as Epiphanius calls
it from being taken as an indication of" need", " deficiency",
or " imperfection of the nature of sin."

3. " / need to be baptized by thee" origin of this tradition

[606] The very large number of non-canonical traditions
about Christ's "not needing", or "not requiring", to be bap-
tized, affords some presumptive evidence that any canonical
tradition on this point inserted by one Evangelist alone (609 b)
is not part of the Original*. More especially is this the case in
Matthew's tradition which omits the negative and imputes
the words " I need " to John because it seems superior to
the negative tradition in heightening the Saviour's dignity,
and yet is omitted both by Luke and by John.

[607] Another reason for suspecting Matthew's tradition
is, that it is not inserted in the Ebionite Gospel, which, as we
have seen, has a "harmonizing" tendency; that is to say,
instead of omitting one of two discordant versions, it modifies
and combines them. Thus we have found it actually making

1 [605 it] Suppose, for example, a gloss to this effect, "Why? Not
because He knew evil?" "Why," in Heb., when it means "For what
inducement ?" = ynD, "knowing what?" which is easily confused, with
y~nO, or jn*D. The latter, though strictly "acquaintance", might (Gesen.
396 a] represent " kinsman ". " Evil " (rendered JH by Delitzsch in
I Cor. iv. 4) might be read as " friend " and " companion ". " Knew
no(t) " might be taken as " ignorance ". The gloss, being taken as speech
or dialogue, might be amplified as above. For " not knowing sin '",
comp. 2 Cor. v. 21 as well as i Cor. iv. 4.

2 [606 a] See also the passage briefly referred to above (588 a) from
the Severian Liturgy (Resch, Agr. p. 364) "O God, who in the midst of
Jordan wast baptized as man by John. ..who, as though thou tuededst it
(tanquam indigens), wast baptized in the river Jordan."

[608]

WHAT PRECEDED

three Voices from Heaven! Why then, does not the writ-
insert at all events Matthew's peculiar tradition that Jesus
came to John "to be baptized"? And surely it would have
been easy to make the Baptist say, first, (Matthew) " I have
need to be baptized by thee," and then to add as a climax
the Ebionite tradition, "I entreat thee, [my] lord, bapti/.e
me." The Ebionite writer makes no attempt to do this. And
whereas Matthew describes John as "trying his utmost to
prevent" Jesus, the Ebionite says that Jesus " tried to prevent "
John! Lastly, according to the former, Jesus said " Suffer [it
to be so] " meaning, " Suffer me to be baptized by t/tee" ; but
according to the latter, He used the same Greek word in
an entirely different sense, "Let be", "Desist", i.e. "Do not
beseech me to baptize ttiee 1 ."

The Ebionite is obviously, in these last two instances,
not harmonizing or "conflating " Matthew, but correcting him ;
and these two instances lead us to make a similar inference
about the one before, namely, that the Ebionite regarded his
" I beseec/i thee, baptize " as a correct version of " / have need
to be baptized."

[608] Now it cannot be urged that the Ebionite makes
all these alterations for any doctrinal tendency, since both he
and Matthew are writing on the same lines, /.^.explaining the
superiority of Jesus to John, and shewing that the latter, not
the former, needed to be baptized. We are therefore led to
infer that the Apocryphal writer if he knew Matthew's
version, as he almost certainly did rejected it as historically
erroneous. And it is not difficult to see why. Matthew
represents the Baptist as saying to Jesus, " I have need to be
baptized by thee " before the Baptism, and therefore, it would
seem, before the descent of the Spirit, But according to the
Fourth Gospel, the descent of the Spirit was the sign given by
God to tJie Prophet by which he was to recognize his successor.

1 On the various meanings of a<, see Appendix II (105666).

THE BAPTISM [609]

How then could the Prophet use the language of recognition
before the appointed sign, which alone would justify him in
using it? This indeed is a question that the Ebionite might
very well ask : and we cannot be in the least surprised that
he regarded Matthew's episode as not only confused and
distorted in expression, but also out of place: " It ought to
have come," so he probably, and many others, argued, " after
the Baptism. Then and not till then, in the moment when
the Spirit descended, the Baptist recognized his Master, and
suppliantly besought Him saying '[I have been ignorantly
baptizing thee, but] do t/iou (emphatic) rather, [my] lord,
baptize me!"

[609] It is a recognized sign of an interpolation or gloss
that the editors, or scribes, who transfer it from the margin,
place it in different positions. Here we have this. sign. If
we had to choose either Matthew or the Ebionite, the latter
would seem to be preferable. But a third course is to reject
both. This, i.e. rejection, is almost certainly right. And,
further, it is fairly probable that both are misunderstandings
arising out of a very ancient Greek tradition that our Lord
came to Baptism though He "needed it not" 1 .

1 [609 a] It may be objected that the whole of Mt.'s tradition has not
been explained above, and in particular the words (Mt. iii. 15) "() Suffer
it to be so now...(b) then he suffereth him."

Concerning (b), space here merely permits the observation that the
same Gk is repeated and again by Matthew alone a little later on
(Mt. iv. ii ror u<f>ir]<ni> avrov) in quite a different sense, "then he [the
devif\ suffereth him [i.e. Jesus]? meaning "leaves Him alone". This
points to conflation.

As regards (), see Appendix II.

[609 ] It might be objected that "Matthew the Publican might have
access to information not available for Mark." Hut would it not be
"available" for John, the son of Zebedee and disciple of the Baptist,
whom such objectors would probably regard as the author of the Fourth
Gospel ?

CHAPTER III
THE PLACE OF THE BAPTISM

I. Divergences

[610] THE Gospels mention the place as follows :
Mk i. 9. Mt. iii. 13. Lk. iii. 21.

(lit.) "came " cometh (lit. arriv- "...when there had

and was baptized to eth) unto (i-n-i) the been baptized all the

(ei?) the Jordan by Jordan to (irpos) John people."
John." to be baptized by

him."

Jn i. 28 " These things came to pass in Bethany (v. r. Beth-
abara) beyond (irepav} the Jordan where John was baptizing."

Compare Orig. Cels. i. 40-1 " being washed, or baptized,
by-the-side-of (ira-pd with dat. or gen.) John (v. r. marg.
Jordan)."

What is needed to explain these divergences is some
Hebrew word that could mean "by tlie side of" or "near",
but could also be confused with other prepositions, and with
the word "people" . These requirements are fairly satisfied
by the preposition used in Genesis (xxv. n) " Isaac dwelt by
(DJ?) the well," which means (when without vowel points) not
only "tvit/i", "near", " by", but also "people" an identity that
results in numerous confusions 1 .

1 [610 a} Dan. ix. 26, R.V. "people", LXX "with" /xra; conversely
i S. xiv. 45, R.V. "with God", LXX "the people (6 Xaek) of God." For

THF. PLACE OK THI; HAPTISM [en]

[611] But further, as a preposition, DJ7 means (Gesen. 7680)
" in the house of" as applied to persons, but "near" as applied
to places ; and in the latter sense it is sometimes mistrans-
lated by the LXX as though it meant "in" 1 . This being
the case, a statement in Hebrew that Jesus was baptized
"near Jordan", i.e. in some stream flowing into the Jordan,
might easily be assumed to mean a baptism "in Jordan".
Luke may have taken "near" as meaning "people", perhaps
also taking " Jordan " as "going down 8 [to be baptized]," or as
"John". At all events he inserts a clause about "the people"

other instances of confusion or conflation see Deut. iii. i (AF), Josh. viii.
14, I Chr. xii. 1 8, xix. 6, Ps. xlvii. 9, ex. 3, Hos. xi. 12 &c.

1 [811 a] Gen. xxxv. 4 "by Shechem," LXX /", Judg. xviii. 3 "by
the house", LXX "in" (A "by", rrapa), 2 S. xxiv. 16=1 Chr. xxi. 15 "by
the threshing-floor," LXX (S.) "by," napd (Chr.) "in". In Judg. xix. II
" by Jebus," LXX probably read TJJ (for DJJ) so as to give "as far as (fas)
Jebus."

[611 b] In Gen. xxv. 1 1 " Isaac dwelt by (DP)," Targ. Jer., instead of
Dy, has TOD, which is often used (fb.) with ^y or ^ (Levy, Ch. ii. 170^) to
express " near ", " with " &c. Hut its verbal form is also frequently used
in the phrase " laying hands on " as a sacred rite, either on a sacrifice
or on one who is being ordained to the priesthood. Now we have
seen above that Ephrem regarded John as ordaining Jesus to the priest-
hood. Hence there would be a temptation to render the prepositional
phrase " near upon " (lit.) "laying on" as though it meant "lay hands on ".
Moreover "-on the bank of the Jordan " might be expressed in a Hebrew
gloss by "on the- hand of the Jordan": and this, being combined with
"laying" by conflation, might confirm the view that the text indicated a
" laying on of hands." Hence we cannot be surprised that the Severian
Liturgy, quoted above (606 a\ actually contains a tradition about "laying
hands on". As is natural with glosses of this kind, it conflates, making
the agent first John, and then Jesus: "John drew near after the manner
of a priest blessed [by God] and placed his right hand on the head of his
Lord.. ..Then he [John] said to Him [Jesus], Qn\y place thy right hand on.
my head, and I am [thereby] baptized." [In the text as quoted by
Resch, Agr. p. 363, " Turn dicebat ei (Dominus noster) " is a manifest
error for "dicebat ei (loannes)"*]

8 Comp. Orig. Comm. Joann. lib. vi. 25, Ante-Nicene Library, p. 371
"'Jordan' means 'their going down'." For "Jordan" interchanged with
"John" see above 563 rf, 565.

j- 612 ] THE PLACE OF

being "baptized", and omits all mention of the place of
baptism. John, perhaps stepping in to correct what seemed
to him false impressions, says that the place was not
Jordan but " beyond Jordan", and gives its name as " Bethany",
or " Bethabara".

2. Where was Jesus baptized 1 ?

[612] The facts point to the conclusion that neither
"Bethany "nor "Bethabara" is the historical place of the
baptism. Origen expressly tells us that he has " been in the
district (yevo^evot ev row TOTTO^)," to enquire as to the foot-
steps of Jesus and His disciples, and that, beside the well
known Bethany of Judaea, "there is no other place of the
same name in the neighbourhood of the Jordan 1 ." This i
very strong as negative evidence.

[613] The positive is much weaker : "But they say (\eyou<n)
that Bethara 2 is pointed out by the bank of the Jordan where
they describe (tcrropovcn) John as having baptized." From
this it appears that (i) the place had not been thus " pointed
out " to Origen although he had " been in the district."
(2) The phrase "they say" does not even indicate certitude as
to the fact of "pointing out", still less as to the identity of
the place " pointed out" with the actual site. (3) The language
suggests that after (and perhaps long after) Origen had
returned from his visit to " the district", some one gave him
this vague information. (4) The spelling, whether as in
Origen's text or as emended to suit his etymological remark,
does not agree with "Bethabara". This is all the stronger
evidence because " Bethabara " i.e. "Place of passage" (either

1 Ib. p. 370. (Huet, p. 131 A.)

2 [613 d\ Such is the spelling of the text, Ei]6apa. O.'s remark that it
means " House of Preparation (KaTaa-Kfvfjs)," from N"O, indicates that we
should read " Bethbara". Later on, it is " Betharaba" (Huet, 133 B), but
" Bethara" again (Huet, 136 A).

THE BAPTISM [615]

in^ " 1'lace of a ford" or "Place of a ferry-boat") by
which one "passed over Jordan" makes a very appropriate
name, not, it would seem, likely to be corrupted by scribes or
others.

[614] Probably John's text sprang, in part, from an
attempt to correct the current impression that Jesus was
baptized in the Jordan. And here he may very well have
been right : the baptism may have taken place, not in the
Jordan but in some affluent of it. Supposing the original to
have been "by", the word used above of Isaac "dwelling by
the well," it should be noted that the corresponding Greek
word in that passage of Genesis might easily be corrupted
into "beyond" owing to the similarity of the two words and the
greater frequency of the phrase " beyond the Jordan " as com-
pared with the rare "by Jordan" 1 . In Joshua (vii. 7) "beyond
Jordan", LXX has "beside Jordan", and a similar error occurs
in Numbers (xxii. i). We have seen some slight reason
above (563 tf, 565) for thinking that Celsus may have described
Jesus as being baptized not ''by the side of John" but
"by the side of (jrapa) Jordan." John may have felt that this
interpretation, implying (as it did) "on the bank of," gave a
wrong impression, because the place was at some distance
from the Jordan.

[615] As regards the rival claims to denominate the
precise spot Bethany, Bethara, Bethbara, Bethabarah, Beth-
arabah, the question is so complicated by the various
spellings, and alleged derivations, of the Talmudic name
Bethany, as well as by the frequent interchanges of the roots
abar, and arab, that it must be reserved for discussion in a
separate treatise. But it may be noted that John elsewhere
describes the Baptist as baptizing, later on, at a place called
./Enon, or ' fountains", because there were many waters there.
A hypothesis that the "Bethany beyond Jordan", mentioned

1 " By " - TTARA, " beyond
63

[616] THE PLACE OF

by John alone, is a corruption of Beth-Ain, or Beth-^non,
i.e. "Place of Fountain, or, Fountains," would have at all events
a great deal more probability than most of the alleged deriva-
tions of the name of the Bethany near Jerusalem. Levy
(ii. 265 b} quotes a tradition to the effect that the water of
the Jordan is to be rejected (for some specially sacred pur-
poses) as being unclean 1 . This is hardly likely to have
influenced the Baptist: but a "place of fountains" might well
be far more convenient for baptizing than a shallow in a wide
river, especially if the baptism was accompanied with exhort-
ation, or preaching, where a rocky recess or amphitheatre
might be found convenient.

[616] On the whole, there is a fair positive probability
that Jesus was baptized near the Jordan and not actually in
it, and that the names Bethany, Bethabara, &c. arose from
various attempts to explain this fact. Perhaps one gloss
said, "a place of springs," another "beyond Jordan"; and
John's tradition conflated the two as "(^0 a place of springs
(i.e. Bethany) (a 2 ) beyond Jordan." But a third gloss may
have combined " place of", beth, with "beyond", abar, read by
some as arab\ and hence came the rival readings "Bethbara",
"Bethabara", "Betharaba". The negative probability, that
none of the names in John represent actual places, is so strong
as to approach certainty 2 .

1 [615 a} Neubauer says (p. 31) "La Mischna" [i.e. Parah viii. 9]
"dit que les eaux du Jourdain et du Jarmouk ne peuvent ctre employees
dans le Temple, parce que ces deux fleuves rec,oivent des eaux impures."
But Levy (quoting Parah viii. 10) says indeed that these waters are D^IDD,
"to be rejected" because they are "waters of mixture (nUVTJjn)"; but
adds that the purpose for which they are to be rejected is their use " as
water of sprinkling (Sprengwasser) with the ashes of the Red Heifer."
If so, there is nothing in the statement to lead to the conclusion that a
Jew would not use the Jordan for the baptism of a proselyte.

2 [616 a] It is probably a mere coincidence that in Josh. xv. 61 the
Greek "Aenon" occurs in LXX along with the Greek "Tharabaam",
where the latter ought to be " Betharabah " and the former " Middin ".

[616 b] In giving the preference to " Bethany " above rival readings,

THi: il.MTISM [816]

Jolm may have been influenced by the similarity of the name to that of
Ik-thany near Jerusalem, so that our Lord might be supposed to have
begun and ended His work in places nominally identical.

[616 c] If the original stated that Jesus was baptized "among the
followers of John," this might be expressed in Hebrew by "in the House
of (Beth-) John" (Levy i. 224* quotes "House of Hillel" &c. = oi -*pi).
Now in Sirach 1. i "John (pnV)" = Oi'tac. Hence, if taken for a place
beginning with the prefix Beth-, the phrase would be transliterated as
Bethonias, which might easily be corrupted into Bethanias, and taken
to mean " Bethany ".

[616 */] See 734, where the Voice from Heaven in honour of Hillel is
said by the Jerusalem Talmud to have descended in the House of Gadia,
which might be transliterated as Bethgady, but by the Babylonian in the
House of Goria, i.e. Bethgory. But there the context seems to indicate
that " house " is to be taken literally. Schwab, however, renders it Beth-
./ (twice, vol. vii. 338, 344). Neubauer's index recognizes no such
place. It was in Jericho.

CHAPTER IV

"GOING UP FROM THE WATER"

i. "Fire" or "light"

[617] AFTER the baptism, the first detail mentioned by
Mark and Matthew relates to " going up out of the water."

Mk i. 10. Mt. iii. 16. Lk. iii. 21.

"And straightway " But, having been "And as he was

he [? John or Jesus] baptized, Jesus praying?

gotng-up out of the straightway went-up

water" from the water \"

[618] The Nazarene Gospel has, like Matthew, "when
the Lord went up from the water."

[619] The Ebionite Gospel has, like Mark, "was baptized
by John, and as he (? John or Jesus) came up from the water."

[620] Justin Martyr has "And a fire was kindled in the
Jordan and when He had emerged from the water" and, later
on, " simultaneously with His going up from the river of the

1 [617 a] Codex a has a conflation: "And when he was baptized a
great light shone around from the water so that all that had come thither
were afraid. And Jesus having been baptized, he straightway went up
(et baptizato Jesu, confestim ascendit)," and similarly S. Germanensis.
Strictly speaking, the last quoted Latin words ought to mean " But when
Jesus had been baptized, he, i.e. John, went up." But doubtless the writer
meant "Jesus went up".

COING UP FROM THE WATER" [624]

The former statement is apparently supported by
an appeal to Apostolic documents : " the Apostles of this
\viy Messiah of ours have written 1 ."

[621] The Sibylline Oracles perhaps describe Christ as

ined to be the first who, "/laving escaped from fire" shall
see God manifested by the Spirit "with the white wings
of a dove"; they also mention a "bird" in connection with
the "sprinkling" of baptism, and say, "thou wast revealed
front fire*."

[622] The Diatessaron, in its present form, makes no
mention of "fire"; but that there was something of the kind
in its original, or at all events in a very early edition, is shewn
by the commentary of Ephrem Syrus quoted above, which
refers to " the light that rose up upon the waters 8 ."

[623] The Ebionite Gospel, besides mentioning the "going
up" of Jesus at the outset of the narrative, has at the close,
" And straightway there shone round the place a great light,
seeing which John saith to Him, 'Who art thou, Lord?'"

[624] It appears, then, that there were two views about
"the fire": one, that of Ephrem and the Ebionite Gospel,
that it was a splendour of homage proceeding from a divine
source, the other, supported by the Sibyl, that it was a fiery
trial, proceeding, it would seem, from Satan. According to
the latter, the fire would be a hostile element, extinguished
by the waters (from above the heavens) that descended with
the Spirit, just as in the LXX version of Daniel (iii. 49) an
angel of the Lord (called in the Syriac version "an angel
of dew ") descends and makes the furnace wherein are the
Three Children " to be as a wind of dew."

1 See 557-9. See 583-5.

8 [622 a] Resch also quotes (Agrapha, p. 358) " Ephraem Syr.
Hymn. l. in Epiph. v. 18 (Nach Usener, p. 62). Es trat Johannes heran
und betete den Sohn an, dessen Gestalt ein ungewohnter Lichtglanz
umstrahlte," and " Ephraem Syr. Hymn. Xiv., v. 48 (Nach Usener p. 62).
Da er die Taufe empfangen, stieg er alsbald empor und sein Licht
erglanzte uber die Welt."

67 52

[625] "GOING UP FROM THE WATER"

[625] And that this was a very early belief is demon-
strated by Irenaeus, who when referring to the descent of
the Spirit on Jesus at baptism, says that we could not be
made one in Christ without "the water from heaven," and
compares the Holy Spirit to "dew", which departed from
rebellious Israel and descended upon the Lord that it might
be diffused throughout all the Earth; (Is. xi. 2) " the spirit
of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might
(virtutis), the spirit of knowledge and piety, the spirit of the
fear of God." This same Spirit again, he says, the Lord
"gave to the Church, into every land sending from heaven
the Paraclete, where (?) also 1 the Lord says that the Devil,
like lightning, has been cast forth. Wherefore the dew of

God is needful for us, that we may not be burned tip " The

whole passage rather favours the view that Irenaeus accepted
the tradition of a hostile fire arising on the water, as also
does a fragment of Clemens Alexandrinus mentioning (991)
" the waters that are above heaven " in connection with Bap-
tism, and saying that the spiritual baptism (988) " averts the
immaterial fire 2 ," or, in other words, " the Spirit given us from
above, being incorporeal, overpowers not only the elements
but also the forces and sovereignties of evil." But these
various interpretations of the " fire " (or " light ") " rising up "

1 Iren. iii. 17. 3 "mittens de caelis Paracletum ubi et Diabolum,
tanquam fulgur, projectum ait Dominus." " Ubi" seems loosely used for
"unde" as "here", in English, for "hither".

2 [625 a] Does this explain Sibyll. vii. 8l "Y8cop 6 a-ireia-fis nadap<a
irvpi, "thou shalt pour water on the pure fire," i.e. the fire that is
immaterial, VOTJTOV ? Otherwise, it would be obvious to suggest that
Kadapa, or nadapo, is an error for Kadapo, i.e. Kadapov, SO as to give " pure
water on the fire."

[625 b} The Severian Liturgy (Resch, Agr. p. 363) has (p. 24)
"calefactae erant aquae quando venit filius Dei ut baptizaretur in medio
Jordanis," and (p. 88) "ascendit mediis ex aquis et exortum est lumen
ejus super terram." This is consistent with a distinction between a
"fiery trial" (of Satan) followed by a divine light.

"GOING UP FROM THE WATER" [627J

(or "shining"), so far from militating against the antiquity
of the detail, indicate ancient controversies about a difficult
tradition, which probably existed long before the contro-
versies began.

2. Parallels, or Precedents

[626] On the hypothesis of one Hebrew Original rami-
fying (through mistranslations and glosses) into the existing
divergent traditions, we have to seek some word or phrase
that might originate (i) Luke's tradition about "Jesus
praying", (2) Mark's "going up from the water," (3) the non-
canonical tradition about "light" or "fire". If this Hebrew
phrase could also originate (4) some parallel Johannine
tradition, e.g. " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin
of the world," its claim to be the Original would be greatly
strengthened. A fifth line of evidence might be called psy-
chological : that is to say, (5) evidence pointing to similar
antecedent details in the History of Israel, so that a Jewish
prophet might be naturally predisposed to receive a vision
in this or that form, or at all events a Jewish evangelist
might naturally have supposed the prophet to have seen it
thus.

[627] Taking this last consideration first, we are led to
the narrative of Elijah, receiving an answer of fire from
heaven almost the last great public act of his life before
the appointment of his successor Elisha. The parallelism
drawn, especially by Mark and Matthew, between Elijah
and the Baptist, makes the precedent of the ancient prophet
particularly applicable. In the baptism of Jesus, the Baptist
(at least according to the Synoptists) is also performing his
last great public act henceforth retiring into silence in their
pages to make way for his successor, the Messiah. The
Elijah-narrative relates that, after the prophet had built an

[628] "GOING UP FROM THE WATER"

altar, he poured water on the sacrifice and round the altar,
and (i K. xviii. 36) "It came to pass at t/te offering- of tlie
oblation^ that Elijah the prophet came near and said, O
Lord, the God of Abraham...," and the fire of the Lord
descended. The waiting for the time appointed for the evening
sacrifice is in obvious harmony with the prophet's building
the altar in the name of the Lord : the two acts indicated
a revival of the Law.

[628] Another great name connected with the restoration
of Israel is that of Daniel. Daniel tells us that, when he
understood the number of years for the accomplishing of the
desolations of Jerusalem, he set his face unto the Lord God
to present his supplication for the holy mountain, and (Dan.
ix. 2 1) " Whiles I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel
...being caused to fly swiftly touched me about the time of
the oblation of the evening" Lastly, the phrase occurs in
connection with Ezra's revival of religion (Ezr. ix. 4 5):
"I sat astonied until the oblation of the evening. And at
the oblation of the evening I arose up from my heaviness
...and spread out my hands unto the Lord my God and
said..."

1 [627 a] i K. xviii. 36 (lit.) "at (3) the-going-up-of (Dly) the oblation
)" : R.V. amplifies so as to make the meaning clear, " at [the time
of] the offering of the [evening] oblation." This is expressed fully in the
Hebrew of Dan. ix. 21. "Evening" is inserted in the Hebrew of
Ezr. ix. 45; 2 K. xvi. 15; Ps. cxli. 2.

Gesen. (585 a] says concerning i K. viii. 36 that i"iri3O is "usually
regarded as " = " oblation of the evening," but that this use of "oblation"
for "oblation of the evening" is a "much later usage". According to
this view, i K. xviii. 29 and xviii. 36 should have been rendered "until
(or, at) the-going-up-of the oblation"; but the context (i K. xviii. 29)
"when midday was past" makes it clear that the "oblation" is that of
the evening and not of the morning. In later times, "oblation", by
itself (apart from context) (Levy iii. 153^), came to mean "evening
oblation ".

r.OING UP FROM THE WATER" [629]

3. T/ie Original may have mentioned " the going up of
the Oblation'

[629] These facts suggest an examination of the LXX
version of the Elijah-narrative; and we find that (i K.
xviii. 36) " at the going up of the oblation " is omitted by
the LXX, but Codex A (which, as a rule, is closer to the
Hebrew than Codex B is) has "And it came to pass at
the going up [of] t/te water that Elijah cried-aloud to heaven
and said ...'." If the italicized words are a scribal corruption
of " at the going up of the oblation" it is worth considering
whether our Synoptic tradition about "going up from tJie
water" may have been a confused translation or corruption of
a similar original 8 .

1 [629 ] The context repeats the phrase "going-up-of the oblation"
twice, first (i K. xviii. 29) preceded by "until", then (i K. xviii. 36)
preceded by "at". In the first case, "going up" is retained ("the going-
up-of (ava^vm) the sacrifice"): but in the second instance possibly
because the repetition of the phrase seemed to be corrupt, inasmuch as
the oblation had already been offered up Codex B omits the phrase.

[629 ] Codex A has (i K. xviii. 36) KCU iyivtro Kara dvdftacriv TO v8up
Km <ivtftoT)(rfv 'H. ds TOV avpavuv. The context thrice mentions a " trench
(!"byn)" as filled with water: and, confusing 6aa\a with 0aAao-<r, it renders
the word meaning "trench" by "sea". The similarity of nn3D to "1!"I3D
"from the river", might lead a perplexed translator from the notion of
"sea" to the notion of "river", which he paraphrased as "water". The
interchange of "river" and "water" is so natural as hardly to need
comment, but comp. above (557, 559) Justin (Tryph. 88) "from the
water", ($ 103) "from the river Jordan." But, more prob., rov&wp is Gk
corr. for (Aq. and Symm.) rovowpov. There are errors and interpolations
in the context, but they do not affect the phrase in question.

* [629 c] For confusions between "going up" and "offering", comp.
2 Chr. ix. 4 " his ascent by which he went up," LXX " the burnt-offerings
that he offered up." In the parallel i K. x. 5, the R.V. has txt. "ascent...
went ///," marg. '"burnt offering... offered? Ezek. xl. 40 "As one goeth
up" (marg. "at the stairs"), LXX " whole burnt-offerings".

[630] "GOING UP FROM THE WATER"

4. Traditions resulting from this

[630] (i) "At the going up of the oblation" implied "at
the hour of prayer" which might be expressed in Greek by
"simultaneously with praying'". Then it might be inferred
that the words meant " while Jesus was praying." This would
account for Luke's distinctive tradition, "having been bap-
tized and being in the act of praying 1 ''

[631] (2) We have seen above that "going up", when
applied to a sacrifice so as to mean " being offered up ", is
frequently confused by the LXX with literal "going up",
"ascent", "staircase", &c. So here, early Western Evange-
lists may have been perplexed by the phrase used in
connection with Christ's baptism in the river Jordan " And
Jesus came and was baptized in the Jordan by John, and
behold the oblation went up and he saw the heavens opened."
Familiar as they would be with such expressions as " Christ
our Passover", "He delivered Himself up as Sacrifice and
Oblation" and, generally, with the view that Christ was " our

1 [630 a] In other places Luke alone mentions "praying", e.g. (i) Mk
iii. 13 " He ascendeth to the mountain," Lk. vi. 12 " He went forth to the
mountain to pray." (ii) Mk ix. 2, Mt. xvii. I " He taketh them up into
a high mountain alone by themselves," Lk. ix. 28 " He ascended the
mountain to pray:' So Mk vi. 46, Mt. xiv. 23 (Lk. wanting) describe Jesus
as going up "to the mountain to pray," where Jn vi. 15 has simply
"withdrew again to the mountain." The subject, which requires special
investigation, is touched on below (981).

[630 ] Here "mountain" is not mentioned. But Luke may have
inferred prayer from the fact that it was the time of the offering of the
oblation; comp. Ps. cxli. 2 "Let my prayer be set forth before thee as
incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice? This
would be in accordance with the precedents of Ezra, Daniel and Elijah,
all of whom were engaged in prayer "at the going up of the oblation."
Luke may have paraphrased the meaning ("at the hour of prayer") so
as to bring out what he considered the inner meaning for Christians:
For iw^the lifting up of His hands was ' the evening sacrifice.' " Comp.
Tryph. ( 72) "This Passover is our Saviour" (from ? "Esdras").

"GOING UP FROM THK WATER" [634]

Oblation ", some might naturally take this as being an Eastern

of saying that our Lord " went up " from the river.

ibly some might acquiesce in this with a feeling that

" the Lord's ascent" typified something more, the "going up"

of a spiritual sacrifice, or the "emerging" (as Justin Martyr

calls it) to a new life or course of action.

[632] Of course if some translators confused P1H3D with
TOO, so as to render "oblation" by "from the river", and if
other translators or editors conflated it so as to produce,
" Behold the Oblation went up from the river'' the temptation
would be much greater to regard the words as meaning
"Jt-sns went up".

John distinctly says that the Baptism took place " beyond
Jordan ", and we have seen reason to suppose that the Original
may have been " near ", not " in ", Jordan. This might lead
editors to substitute "water" for "river". The total result
of these causes would be the version of Mark (?) and Matthew,
" /t-sus went up from the water"

[633] (3) The evening sacrifice is regularly denoted in
New Hebrew by the word Minchah. But the evening sacrifice
consisted of a lamb ; and in Biblical Hebrew the Minchah
meant the meal-offering that accompanied the sacrifice of a
lamb every morning and evening. It is used for the first
time thus in Exodus (xxix. 41) "And the second lamb
thou shalt offer between the two evenings according to the
Minchah* of the morning and according to the drink-offering
thereof thou shalt do thereto, for a sweet savour, a fire-offering
to the Lord."

[634] If therefore Minchah was used in the Original to
mean "sacrifice", an Evangelist or Editor might naturally

1 [633 a] This refers to the words italicized in Exod. xxix. 40, "And
with the one lamb a tenth part \of an ephah~\ of fine flour mingled with
the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil" This defined the Minthah of the
morning sacrifice. That of the evening was to be "according to it", i.e.
the same.

[635] "GOING UP FROM THE WATER"

insert in the margin the word " fire-offering ", to indicate that
it was here used, not Biblically as " meal-offering ", but post-
Biblically as " oblation ", meaning the whole offering, including
the lamb. But " fire-offering " differs only by one letter from
" fire ", and it has been shewn elsewhere that the two are
easily confused 1 . Thus, instead of "the sacrifice went up,"
there might be substituted the tradition, widely and authori-
tatively attested in the first three centuries, " a fire went up."
This might be facilitated by the alteration of the Biblical
" went up " into the New Hebrew " was kindled ", as in Kings
(i K. xviii. 29) "until the going up of the oblation," where
a Targum has a word that may mean " go up ", but may also
mean "kindle" (being used in Ps. Ixxviii. 21, "a fire was
kindled against Jacob "}\

[635] (4) But, on the supposition that Minchah was cor-
rupted into " from the river ", we are able to explain the
origin of the tradition about "light" : for the Biblical verb
Tl3, besides meaning "stream" applied to water, means also
" stream " applied to light : and the latter sense, though ex-
tremely rare in the Bible, is extremely frequent in New
Hebrew. Thus the Jerusalem Targum (Exod. xiv. 20) sub-
stitutes for the Biblical " it gave-light " the form in question
" streamed with light ", *l!"OD, which in Biblical Hebrew could
mean nothing but" from the river"*. The verb is applied in
late Hebrew to Rabbis, and even to the Messiah, as being
"enlighteners", or "enlightened" 4 . By substituting "streaming

1 [634 a] See 289 a for confusions of "fire", V*, and "fire-offering",
nK'K, in i S. ii. 28, Numb, xviii. 9, as possibly originating narratives that
God " answered by Jire".

2 [634 b~] Levy, Ch. ii. 47 pDX Comp. Judg. vi. 21 "there went up
fire," avepT), but A di/j^&j, the word used by Justin (557) to describe the
kindling of the fire on the water.

3 [635 a] In O.T. 1H3, "shine", occurs only in Ps. xxxiv. 5, ^wnV^rf,
Is. Ix. 5 (LXX om. or render "fear", as fr. K"V). In Dan. ii. 22 the noun
form is correctly rendered, but in Dan. v. ii, 14 LXX om. or paraphrase,
Theod. renders " light and understanding " by one word,

4 Levy iii. 351-2.

"GOING UP FROM THE WATER" [637]

light" for "from the river", we should obtain a tradition
similar to that quoted above from the Hymns of Ephraemus,
" When He received baptism, He came up straightway
streaming until light" interpreted by Ephraemus as "and
His light streamed over the world." Or this might be com-
bined with "from the water", as in the above-mentioned
Severian Liturgy 1 . A confusion of this kind would explain
all the traditions about " light ".

[636] (5) At the beginning of the second century, the
author of the Fourth Gospel would find it necessary to re-
view, and choose between, or adopt, or improve upon, a mass
of traditions, which, upon our hypothesis, began with " the
going up of the oblation," and branched out into " going up
from the water," " praying ", " fire " on the water, " light " on
the water. Attempting to revert from the materialistic tra-
ditions about "fire" and "light", and from the commonplace
"going up", he might find an old comment correctly explaining
for the Gentiles that this Minchah was really typical of "Christ
our Oblation ", not being a mere meal-offering but including
the whole of the sacrifice. "// was t/te name given to tlie
Lamb that taketh away sins" such might have been the
comment placed in the margin of the text "at the going
up of the Minchah." What might be the consequences?

[637] The Biblical Hebrew "go up", being frequently
confused with the New Hebrew "approach"', might be taken
as the latter here, so as to give the sense " At his approach ",
*>. " When Jesus came to him [John]."

1 [635 ] Resch, A%r. p. 358 "Der ist getauft worden und ist auf-
gestiegen aus der Mitte der Wasser, und aufgegangen ist sein Licht iiber
die Erde."

[637 a] In the Bible, flto, " go up ", = (Tromm.) (4) "depart", awip-
XM : (5) "g" iroptvofuu: (5) "go out ", '>xM a &c. Besides other
reasons, one may have been (occasionally) the Targum use (Levy, Ch, \\.
218) of 7?y for "come" or "go". In some forms, e.g. V?y, the same
letters might mean "they went up" or "they went", "entered" &c.

[638] "GOING UP FROM THE WATER"

[638] " It was the name given to " might easily be con-
fused with " He [John] gave him the name of" 1 .

From these two confusions combined with the comment
above mentioned might arise a reconstruction of the whole
sentence thus : " When He approached he [John] called Him
the Lamb that taketh away sins."

[639] On the whole, it is probable that Luke's and John's
interpretations are nearest to the spirit of the Original, al-
though those that mention " going up " are nearer to its letter.
The intelligibility of Mark's and Matthew's tradition has given
it predominance. But, though simple in itself, it raises this
very difficult question, Why did Luke omit it ? Moreover it
explains none of the varying traditions. The hypothesis of
what may be called an original " oblation-tradition " labours
under what some may deem the insuperable objection that
it does not survive in any of the extant varying Christian
narratives. But is not the insuperability of this objection
(on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original) disproved by facts ?
Take the Greek of Daniel or of Ben Sira, and suppose no
Hebrew of either had ever been discovered. If a scholar
were to attempt to return to the lost Hebrew in some passage
from the varying versions and MSS., and were to submit to
experts a conjecture that seemed to satisfy the phenomena,
few would urge, as a fatal and final argument, " This reading
is not found in any extant authority." If any did so, the
discovery of the lost Hebrew would often refute them, shewing
that it was the correct reading, and that it had been restored
in the correct way, by tracing visible lines of evidence con-
verging to an invisible centre.

1 [638 a] Comp. 2 S. v. 9, 20 "he called", LXX "was called =
i Chr. xi. 7, xiv. 11 "they called"; i K. ix. 13 "and he called them"
(marg. "they were called"); Is. xli. 25 calleth upon my name," LXX
"shall be called^ my name"; Is. Ixv. i "was not called by (marg. hath
not called upon) my name."

7 6

CHAPTER V

THE RENDING OF THE HEAVENS

i. "Rending", or "opening"?

[640] THE Synoptists have :
Mk i. 10 (lit.). Mt. iii. 16. Lk. iii. 21

" he-saw in-thc-act- " and behold there- " but it came to

of-being-rent the hea- were-opened the hea- pass \haA....therc-was-

vens." vens" (marg. "open- opened the heaven."
ed for him ").

Compare Jn i. 51 " Ye shall see the heaven set open 1 ."

[641] The Bible elsewhere speaks of heaven being "opened",
and of a " door " or " window " in heaven, but the verb " rend "
is nowhere used in this connection except once by Isaiah
(Ixiv. i 4) "Oh that thou wouldest rend- the heavens, that
thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow
down at thy presence ; as when fire kindleth the brushwood
[and] the fire causeth the waters to boil : to make thy name
known to thine adversaries... For from of old men have

1 [640 a] " Set open," avttpyvra, the perf. particip., which suggests, not
"opened for a moment," but "standing open ".

8 [641 <i] "Rend (inp)" = 8io/J/J 1 7yvv/u (44) diao-ji'tw (i) o-x/fw (i) &c.
The only instance in which it = dfo'yo> is Is. Ixiv. i. Probably the L.XX
thought that "open", not "rend", was the appropriate verb in connection
with " heaven ".

[642] THE RENDING OF

not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye
seen a God beside thee, who worketh for him that waiteth
for him." The prophet seems to be praying for a new and
more glorious Sinai and a new and clearer Law. St Paul
applies a portion of this prophecy (freely quoted) to the
glorious revelation of Christ (i Cor. ii. 8 10) "which none

of the rulers of this world knoweth : for had they known it,
they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory: but, as
it is written, Things that eye saw not and ear heard not and
that entered not into the heart of man whatsoever things God
prepared for them that love him: But unto us God revealed
them through the Spirit."

[642] That Mark's version is closer to the Original than
that of Matthew and Luke, is probable for the following
reasons, (i) The fact that the LXX in Isaiah (Ixiv. i) has
wrongly translated " rend the heavens " by " open the heavens "
shews that in N. T. there would be a similar tendency to alter
the unusual into the usual term. (2) There is a special force
about Mark, which is lost in the later Gospels. " Rend " does
not mean the mere "opening" of a window or door which
may be speedily shut after being momentarily opened but
the permanent tearing open of a veil between God and man,
so as to leave an outlet for a continuous stream of revelation
such as St Paul goes on to speak of (i Cor. ii. 10 "But unto
us God revealed them through the Spirit "), and such as we
might expect from the descent of the Spirit. (3) There is
what may be called a psychological probability that a vision
of this kind, based on prophecy realised through startling
phenomena, would be seen by John the Baptist a prophet
somewhat resembling Elijah, and more likely to see the
heavens " rent asunder " than " a door opened in heaven."
(4) It may be objected that John, not indeed in the account
of the Baptism but shortly afterwards, uses the word used
by Matthew and Luke in a somewhat similar context (Jn
i. 51) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the

1111 H HAVENS [644]

heaven set open." But the perfect participle in John seems
to denote something different from the past tenses of Matthew
and Luke. Taken in conjunction with John's context about
;els ascending and descending," his words seem to promise
a continuous revelation and a permanent avenue opened up
between heaven and earth. Such a prediction by our Lord
is not incompatible with the supposition that the Baptist may
have seen a momentary and rudimentary vision in which the
" veil " was rent asunder as a preparation for better things
which he was not destined to see.

2. Why omitted by several authorities f

[643] But why do Justin, the Nazarene Gospel, the Sibyl,
the Jew in Celsus, and Ephrem (in his brief reference to the
signs accompanying the Baptism, describing how Satan re-
cognized the power of the new Prophet) make no mention
either of a " rending " or of an " opening " of the heavens ?
Justin and the Sibyl do not even say that the dove came
from " heaven ". The former says that " as a dove the Holy
Spirit alighted on him," and may possibly assume that his
readers would understand that the Holy Spirit must needs
" alight " from above. The same assumption may also under-
lie the Sybil's statement, " the spirit alighted upon him."
But the Jew in Celsus not only omits mention of a rending
of the heavens, but also uses the expression " You say that
the phantom of a bird alighted on you from the Unver-air"
using the word acr apparently as distinct from aet/u-r, " upper
air ", or from " heaven ".

[644] It happens that the word "rend" in Hebrew, JDp,
is similar to the word " firmament ", JTP^' differing by little
more than transposition 1 . And whereas the "rending of the
heavens " is but once mentioned in the Bible, " the firmament

1 [644 a] For a similar transposition see 2 K. xvii. 21 "he rent (JHP)",
LXX" only "(leg. pi).

[645]

THE RENDING OF

of the heaven " occurs four times in a single chapter of
Genesis : and it would be very natural that " rend " should
be corrupted into "firmament" if anything in the context
suggested the latter. But the context introduces the descent
of a dove. Now the very first mention of birds in Genesis
(i. 20) connects them with " the firmament " ; and in that
passage the Jerusalem Targum alters it into " the lower-air
of the firmament," using the very same word employed by
the Jew in Celsus 1 . Later on, in Deuteronomy (iv. 17 "any
winged fowl that flieth in the heaven "), both Onkelos and
the Jerusalem Targum have " in the loiver-air of the firma-
ment of the heaven." Having, then, in view the following
mention of a " dove ", and (possibly) controversies as to the
precise heaven from which the dove flew, a Jewish evangelist
might possibly substitute the easy "firmament" for the diffi-
cult " rend ", so as to give, " And he beheld the firmament of
the heaven and behold, a dove ...." Another might substitute
for this "the lower air", and this the Jew in Celsus might
quote.

3. Who saw the vision ?

[645] The Synoptists have :

Mk i. 10.

"And straightway
going up out of the

Mt. iii. 1 6.

" But having been
baptized,

Lk. iii. 21.

"But // came to
Jesus pass that. ..when Je-

sus had been baptized
and was in the act of
behold, the heavens praying, the heaven

water he" [prob. Je- straightway went up
sus, but poss. John] from the water, and,
" saw the heavens in

the act of being rent." were opened [marg. was opened."
+ to him}."

[646] Compare Jn i. 323: "And John bare witness
saying, / have beheld the Spirit descending ...... he said to

r ' G See Ley y' Ch - L '5- I" the constructive

by dropping yod, it would become 11K = " light ".

I Hi: HEAVENS [648]

me, On whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending.... '
[No mention of " heaven opened ".]

[Later on, Jesus says to Nathanael (Jn i. 51) "Verily, verily,
I say unto you,^ shall see the heaven set open 1 and the angels
of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."]

[647] Of the narratives given in the Appendix, only the
Ebionite Gospel and the Testament of the Patriarchs mention
the " opening ", and neither of these inserts " to him ".

[648] The parallelism between (Mark) "saw", (Matthew)
" behold ! " and (Luke) " it came to pass," leads us to seek in
the first place some Hebrew word that might be confused
so as to give rise to these three renderings; and the stress
laid by John on the " beholding ", or " seeing ", of the Baptist
(though it refers here to the descent of the Spirit, and not
to the opening of the heavens, which is not mentioned till
later on, and apart from the Baptist) suggests that " see ",
perhaps in the sense of seeing a vision, was the original word.
Many Christian controversialists must have felt the force
of the Jew's argument in Celsus, when he asks WJw saw
the dorc (except Jesus and His companion)? Chrysostom,
at all events, assumes that all tlie miraculous pltenomena of the
Baptism were perceived by tlie senses of the by-standers ; and
he meets the question, " Why then were they not convinced ? "
by pointing to Israel in the Wilderness, surrounded by signs

1 [646 <i] "Set open (avpyora)." The perf. part., in Jn at all events,
is generally used to denote completeness and sometimes permanence.
Here it may be used in contrast to the present participle of Mk's tradition
about a sudden "rending asunder", confused by some with a transitory
" opening " (see above 642). Comp. Acts vii. 56 " I behold the heavens
thrown-open, or opened-widt (toujvoiyptvovs) " perhaps permanently, for
Stephen. The meaning however would depend upon the context. Per-
manence is implied in Rev. iii. 8, but not in Acts x. 1 1.

For a variation between the perf. and pres, participle, compare :

Mk ix. i (lit.). Mt. xvi. 18. Lk. ix. 47.

"The Kingdom of God "The Son of man in- "The Kingdom of

having- pfrmanently- come the-att -of -coming (ipx6- God."

(4\i)\v6via.r) in power." furo*) in his kingdom."

A. 81 6

[649] THE RENDING OF

and miracles quite as wonderful, yet constantly breaking out
into unbelief. The desire for some objective proof was so
natural that we cannot be surprised if Matthew and Luke
availed themselves of any obscurity in the Hebrew Original
to take the narrative out of the category of a vision : as in-
deed they both do, but Luke even more thoroughly than
Matthew. In Mark, the rending of the heavens and the
descent of the Spirit are both "seen". In Matthew, one
of these phenomena is " seen ", the other is a fact. In Luke,
both are facts.

[649] Returning, then, to the hypothesis of a Hebrew
Original, we find a considerable similarity between "see"
(mil), " behold ! " (POPI), and " it came to pass " (JTPI). These
words are confused in the LXX 1 : and the phenomena are
satisfied by the hypothesis that Mark read the first, Matthew
the second, and Luke the third -.

[650] How does John deal with these variations ? He
sides with Mark in using the word " see " or " behold ", but
he differs from all the Synoptists by converting their Evan-
gelistic statement about what some one saw (or, according to
Luke, what "came to pass") into a statement made by the
Baptist about what he himself saw. Moreover, the Baptist,
in John, adds that God warned him beforehand that he
would see the descent of the Spirit (not however including
any " rending " of the heavens). Thus the Johannine account
is compatible with a spiritual Voice and an invisible descent
of the Spirit, such as most would admit to be intended in
the anointing of David by Samuel (i S. xvi. 1213) "And

1 [649 a] In Isaiah ii. i, HTH "see", is rendered "become" (leg. rvfl),
and comp. Job viii. 17, where HTH is read as iTH, which differs little

from rvn.

The LXX substitutes "came to pass" (IVF!) for "behold" (run) in
Is. lix. 9; Ezek. xxxiii. 32; and Hagg. i. 9.

2 [649 b] Of course, conflation may also have been at work, so that
"he saw" may have been conflated with "behold!".

THE HEAVENS [652]

tlu- Lord said, Arise, anoint him : for this is he. Then Samuel
took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his
brethren : and tJie Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David
from that day forward"

651] Mark, whose history deals rather with deeds than
with words, may have taken the Baptist's statement, "/ saw",
as the basis for his own historical statement of fact, "he saw ",
where " he " may have originally meant the Baptist. But it
is also possible that Mark may have mistaken an utterance
of the Baptist's (" I saw ", 6IAON) for a statement of fact (" he
saw ", 6IA6N) owing to the similarity of and 0, which are
frequently confused. The substance of Mark's original may
have been a mixture of the Baptist's speech and parenthetical
statement of fact, which, by doing little more than reading
for 0, Mark might convert into " Now in those days Jesus
came to John and was baptized, and lie saw the Spirit as
a dove descending on him 1 ." This would naturally be ampli-
fied by inserting a statement of the baptism as a fact, and of
some of its details, e.g. the opening of the heavens.

[652] Our conclusion is that Mark is probably more
correct than Matthew and Luke in using " he saw " instead

1 [661 a] The Original Greek translation might be to this effect :

*Ep^crat 6 iff "xyport pos fiov ow/wo) /xov...'Eya> (ftuimtra i'fias v&ari, avrbs
8 fiairr'urtt vpas tv irt>fvp.aTi <iyio> oCroj 8 rjv 'lijaovs iv fKtivais rats
T)ptf)(iis tpxaptvos irpbs TOV ludvrjv KOI f3aim6fjLtvos icai 6I&ON TO wvfCjta,
" There cometh after me, i.e. There is among my followers, one stronger

than I I baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the

Holy Spirit this was Jesus who in those days came to John and was
baptized and / saw (eiAoN) the Spirit "

By simply reading ei&N for eiAoN and punctuating differently, this
might be rendered, without much error, " Now this Jesus came in those
days and was baptized and he saw the Spirit "

[651 />] It should be noted that "cometh after me", if interpreted, as
it well might be, " is one of my followers or disciples," would harmonize
well with the words of the Fourth Gospel, " There standeth one among
you whom you know not,'' i.e. Jesus had already come to the Baptist, but
was still, in Hebrew idiom, '* coming after him ", i.e. following him.

83 6-2

[653]

THE RENDING OF

of " behold ! " or " it came to pass." Putting aside, for the
time, the details of the vision, we may say that John may be
still more correct in using "/ saw " where Mark has " he saw "
and in representing the seer as being John the Baptist.

4- (Jn i. 5 1 ) " The heaven set-open "

[653] In the Fourth Gospel the first words uttered by
Jesus are (Jn i. 38) " What seek ye ? "addressed to future
converts. But the first utterance to disciples collectively is
(Jn i. 50-1 ) l "'Thou shalt see greater things than these.'
And he saith unto him, ' Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye
shall see the heaven set open and the angels of God ascending
and descending upon the Son of man '."

[654] According to Chrysostom, and some passages of
Epiphanius, the " open heaven ", the descending dove, and the
Voice proclaiming the Son of God, had already been witnessed
by the Baptist and his followers, two of whom, at least, are
here addressed. John, however, manifestly regards the dis-
ciples as not yet having witnessed any "opening" of the
heaven. It is as though the Evangelist were tacitly pro-
tecting his readers against any erroneous or exaggerated
impressions derivable from the Synoptists, indicating that,
whatever might have been revealed to the Baptist, the re-
velation for the disciples at all events was still to come.
Considering that the " opening of the heavens " is mentioned
but once in the Three Gospels, and but once in the Fourth,
and in both cases at the very outset of Christ's career, it is
difficult to resist the conclusion that John wrote with a
distinct reference to the Synoptic parallel.

[655] The Johannine passage mentions "angels of God" in
connection with "the Son of man." Mark also and Matthew,

1 It begins as though addressed to Nathanael, the " Israelite without
guile", but passes on to include the whole of the small congregation, five
or six in number.

THE HEAVENS [658]

after the Baptism and the Temptation, on introducing the
public life of Jesus, mention "angels" as "ministering" to
Him. Luke omits this. This is all the more remarkable
because a very early tradition in the Epistle to the Hebrews
ha> (i. 6) "And again when he bringeth the First-born into
the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him"
which might be taken by some as referring to the beginning
of Christ's public career. So, too, might the ancient hymn
(i Tim. iii. 16)" Manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
appeared unto angels, preached among the nations, believed on
in the world, received up in glory 1 ."

[656] In almost every case where Luke omits or entirely
alters an important statement of Mark, it has been shewn
that John intervenes to clear up some obscurity or corruption 1 .
Now that there is some corruption here in the Synoptic
Tradition is indicated by the context, because Mark goes
on to mention the first words of Jesus as " The season is
fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God liath drawn near"\ Matthew,

"From that season (lit. from then) began Jesus to preach '

for tlie kingdom of the fieavens liath drawn near'." But Luke
has nothing of this except the word " season " in the pre-
ceding verse, " the devil departed from him for (or, until)
a season" Without entering into details, it may be pointed
out that in the context that is, on the border line between
the Baptism and the Temptation there occur the words
"angel ", " fulfil ", " kingdom", and that these words are ex-
tremely liable to be confused*. Also the Psalm on which

1 Comp. Clem. Alex. (973) "The Saviour appeared, when coining
down [from heaven at the Nativity] to angels."

* Enc. /?., GOSPELS, 1768-9.

3 [656] "Angel" = -|^D, "fulfil l6o, " kingdom "-naSo. As ist
cent. MSS. probably made no distinction between Caph medial and final,
"kingdom" might easily be confused with "king" "|^D, and this is con-
fused with ~1*OD "angel ", or "messenger", at least 6 times in O.T., either
by the LXX or by the Hebrew text (see especially 2 S. xi. I Heb.

[657] THE RENDING OF

the writer to the Hebrews, following the LXX, seems to
have based his quotation about "angels" (Ps. xcvii. 7 (R. V.),
" Worship him " (lit. " fall down, or crouch, to him ") " all [ye]
gods") was interpreted by the Jews "all the false gods shall
fall down [in fear] before him 1 ."

[657] This points to the paradoxical conclusion that one
and the same Hebrew tradition might originate two totally
opposite traditions in Greek Gospels : (i) "Angels of God fell
down in worship and ministration before Messiah," (2) "Angels
of Satan fell down in fear before Messiah [and departed from
Him]."

[658] "Angels", in the undefined plural, is certainly used
in a bad sense where St Paul speaks of "judging angels", and
probably elsewhere, " We were made a spectacle to the world
both angels and men*" The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy
perhaps takes as its basis the Jewish interpretation of the
Psalm above-mentioned (" all false gods shall fall down before
him ") in a story placed immediately after the arrival of the

Child Jesus in Egypt, ( 10 11) "that idol fell down

the tab/was broken and all the gods fell*"

[659] As an instance of Jewish oscillation between the
good and the bad meaning of "angels" take the Jerusalem
Targum (I) in the story of Jacob's Ladder, where one might
have supposed that ambiguity was excluded by the term (a

"messengers"; 2 K. vii. 17 Heb. "king", but LXX and Syriac rightly
"messenger" (Ginsburg)). I have found only one instance of confusion
of forms of K7E and l^O, Exod. xxxi. 5 ; but it might easily occur. In
Sirach xlviii. 8 "filled", x"?O, = LXX "kings", fr. ^D.

1 See j. Aboda Zara iv. 7 (Schwab xi. 228) and see Biesenthal on
Heb. i. 6.

2 i Cor. vi. 3, iv. 9, possibly also in xi. 10 TOVS a., Rom. viii. 38. After
the Temptation, Mk inserts the article, but Mt. omits it.

3 The Psalmist mentions "images" as well as "gods" (Ps. xcvii. 7)
"Ashamed be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves
of idols ; fall down before him, all [ye] gods."

THE HEAVENS [660]

very rare one) "angels of God 1 ' 1 . The Targumist has "The
tw.> a nijds who went unto Sedom (/>. Sodom) and w/to had
!><< n expelled from the midst of them .... ascended to the high
heavens and said, Come, see Jacob the pious whose likeness
is inlaid in the throne of glory and whom you have so greatly
desired to behold 1 . Then the rest of the angels of tlte Iwly

I descended to look upon him." The second Targum,
though briefer, makes a similar distinction between angels
who accompany Jacob on earth and "angels on high" who are
"desirous to see" the likeness of God in man*. Both Tar-
gums curiously illustrate the saying in the First Epistle of
Peter, that " the angels desire to look into " the mystery
of man's redemption by God.

[660] If we ask what Synoptic promise corresponds not
indeed verbally, but spiritually and essentially to this Johan-

nine promise ("Ye shall see the angels"), we may find

one answer in the words recorded with slight variations by
the three Synoptists, " To you it is given to know the mys-
teries of the Kingdom of God 4 ." But how differently this
glorious revelation of the Kingdom of God might be expressed

1 [659 a] In O.T. the English Concordance gives the plural "angels
of dod" only in Gen. xxviii. 12, xxxii. i, describing Jacob's Ladder and
Jacob at Mahanaim.

* [659 />] Comp. I Pet. i. 12 "which things angels desire to look into."

8 [669 f] Hershon, Genes, Talm., ad loc., says, but without ref. "The
angels, filled with envy at the exact resemblance between the face of
Jacob and the human face of the figure in God's throne, were about to
injure Jacob, and, behold, the Lord stood above him." Levy i. 1 39 a
quotes Genes, r. s. 68, 68 "The angels hopped round him, sprang round
him, teased (neckten) him," but explains it as meaning " in order to shew
their joy." Some said (ib. iii. 533 a) the angels stepped on " the ladder",
others said, " on Jacob ".

4 Mk iv. ii ; Mt. xiii. 11; Lk. viii. 10. In Mt. (xiii. 16), this is
followed by a statement that many "'prophets and righteous men "
(Lk. x. 24 "prophets and kings") have "desired to see" these mysteries;
and reasons have been given (272 (i)) for thinking that the Original was
"prophets and messengers (or, angels) of God?

[661] THE RENDING OF

in three early Greek Gospels is seen from the three following
versions of Christ's Promise before the Transfiguration :

Mk ix. i. Mt. xvi. 28. Lk. ix. 27.

"...until they see "...until they see "...until they see

the kingdom of God the Son of man com- the kingdom of God '."

when-it-hath-come in ing in his kingdom."

power."

A fourth version is given by Clement A. (967) : " until they
see the Son of man in glory 1 ."

[661] Returning to the Johannine promise we seem justi-
fied in the inference that this beautiful allusion to Jacob's
revelation may approximately represent and perhaps more
closely than do the Synoptists the early teaching of Christ
to His disciples. Nathanael wishes to give Him the title of
<; Son of God" simply because Jesus has read his thoughts
under the fig-tree ! Jesus tells him, in effect, that he must
begin from " the Son of man ". On the Son of man as on
a ladder to heaven they may see the angels of God ascending
and descending: (Ps. Ixxxv. 10) "Grace (R. V. "mercy") and

1 [660(2] Comp. I Pet. iv. 14 TO rijs Sd^ijs KOI TO TOV dtov irvtvp-a *'<'
upas dvanavfrai, where several authorities (VV.H.) add " and flower", ca
^wdfjLfats, after "glory". Others insert "name", SvofjM, for, or in com-
bination with, "spirit", irvtvpa (see below (968) for Marcion's reading of
" spirit" in the clause "Hallowed be thy name"). In I Pet. this sub-
stitution of "name" seems to have led several MSS. to insert a gloss to
explain "the name of glory and of God" thus, "though it is blasphemed
in others it \?> glorified in you."

The Jewish habit of expressing "God" by "Glory", "Heaven",
" Name", and other periphrases, may explain many corruptions of text,
even in the Epistles. For, though not translated from Aramaic or
Hebrew, they may have been, at least in some cases, thought in Aramaic,
e.g. " the riches of his glory? " an eternal weight of glory:' The same
Biblical Hebrew root ("nD) originates "weight", "riches", and "glory",
and it is habitually altered in the Targums to a word meaning " precious "
(see 915 a). Later on, we shall find (899) the LXX actually rendering the
"goodness " of God by "glory ".

THE HEAVENS [681]

truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed
each other. Truth springeth out of the earth and righteous-
IH--S hath looked down from heaven." Beginning from this
revelation they will rise upward to the stage where they can
bear to hear from the Son of man, " He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father." For the present so the Evangelist
seems to say it was enough for the disciples to know that
this was the true "opening of the heavens," and to fasten
their gaze on the spiritual glory of grace and truth, casting
aside old Essene stories about the names of angels, good or
bad, and discordant legends about their relations with Jesus 1 .

1 [661 a] See 907, for John's conception of "glory" as affecting his
attitude toward the Synoptic narrative. For a fuller investigation into
the textual origin of Jn i. 51, it would be necessary to examine all
Evangelic passages mentioning angels, in which there are curious differ-
ences. It is not contended that the words "heaven set open" are based
on any parallel Synoptic tradition. They appear to look back to the
Baptism, as much as to say, "That was not the 'opening of heaven ' for
the Church, whatever it may have been for the Baptist." An Evangelist
might very well argue thus : " Samuel did not see the heaven open when
he anointed David and when the Spirit descended on the youth. In
many of the Churches in the West, people take this statement about the
opening of the heaven as though a material window were made visibly
open to a number of spectators. I will not say, ' It was not opened.'
But I will say that Jesus spoke of the 'opening 1 as future"

CHAPTER VI

THE DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT

I. What descended?
[662] THE Canonical Gospels have :
Mk i. 10.

Mt. iii. 1 6.

"[The] Spirit
of God"

Lk. iii. 22.

"The Holy
Spirit in a
bodily form "

Jn i. 32-3.

"The Spirit...
the Spirit "

The reader must note the omission of "the" before "Spirit"
in Matthew ("[the] Spirit of God") in order to be prepared
for some perplexing variations in Greek translations from
Hebrew that will be presented to him in the forthcoming
section.

[663] Unfortunately it is the Hebrew custom to drop
"the" (-PI) before a noun when that noun is defined by a
genitive. Thus " the angel," when standing by itself, is defined
by -H, before "angel" ; but, in "the angel of [the] Lord" (lit.
" angel of Jehovah"), -PI is dropped, and there is actually
nothing in the Hebrew WORDS to tell us whether the writer
means "the angel of the Lord," or "an angel of the Lord."
The sole guide is Hebrew thought. In Judg. ii. i, vi. n, 22,
xiii. 16, 21, where A.V. has "an angel of the Lord," R.V. has
"the angel of the Lord." But R.V., in Judg. ii. I, gives a

THE DESCENT OP THE SPIRIT [865]

marginal alternative "a messenger of the Lord." Generally,
in O.T., R.V. goes on the principle that the Hebrew "angel of
///< Lord, or, of God" is definite, except where a heathen (who
mi^ht be supposed to believe in many angels) is speaking,
e.g. Achish (i S. xxix. 9)*. On the other hand in N.T., when
the Greek writers adopt the indefinite "[the] angel of [the]
Lord", the R.V. goes on the principle that the meaning is
";i:i angel of the Lord," because the Jews of Christ's time
believed in a plurality of angels so that no single one would be
by them called " the angel".

[664] Theoretically the same ambiguity might apply to
"[the] spirit of God", or "[the] spirit of [the] Lord (or, of
Jehovah)", as to " [the] angel of [the] Lord". But in practice
it does not, for this reason, that a belief in a plurality of "spirits
of the Lord" never became so general as a belief in "angels
of the Lord." Nevertheless there was an early Christian
belief in the existence of "seven spirits of God," and it
happens to be connected with the very passage in Isaiah
that we have been, and shall be, discussing, which describes
the Spirit resting on Messiah. The reader must therefore
be prepared to find in the LXX diversities of rendering the
Hebrew "[the] spirit of [the] Lord", and it will be maintained
in this section that this phrase was in Mark's original and
was at least in part the cause of the Evangelic and the
non-evangelic divergences. The latter are given below.

[665] Justin. Ephrem, the Arabic Diatessaron, and Epi-
phanius*, have "the Holy Spirit".

The Ebionite Gospel, conflating as usual, has " the Holy
Spirit of God"

1 In 2 S. xix. 27, xiv. 17, 20 R.V. has txt. "an ", marg. " the".

1 [665 a] Epiphanius above (see 591), when quoting Luke, has "the
Holy Spirit ", but immediately afterwards (when quoting Matthew per-
haps) he has simply "///< Spirit". Writing in his own name, he has in
the context, ist, "the Father and the Spirit," 2nd, "the Father and the
Holy Spirit" A Christian writer might, of course, use either phrase (see
below 672).

[666] THE DESCENT OF

The Nazarene Gospel, "the whole fountain of the Holy
Spirit."

The Testament of the XII Patriarchs, " Consecration.. \\&
Spirit of understanding and consecration."

Cerinthus (Iren. i. 26. i) "Christ descended upon Him
\i.e. upon Jesus] in the form of a dove."

Compare Coloss. ii. 9 " In him dwelleth all the fulness of
the Godhead bodily 1 " and ib. i. 19 "It was the good pleasure
[of the Father] that in him should all the fulness dwell."

The Sibyl mentions "the Spirit", but as "alighting (or,
flying)" not as "descending".

Celsus also mentions only "alighting (or, flying)", no
"descending". But, further, he makes no mention of "Spirit".

[666] Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all connect
the descent of the Spirit at our Lord's baptism with the
prophecy of Isaiah xi. 2 " And there shall rest upon him the
Spirit of the Lord." The prophet proceeds to enumerate
three pairs of "spirits" (or, as Justin calls them, "powers of
the Spirit") as follows, "the spirit of wisdom and understand-
ing, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge
and of the fear of the Lord." Then follow the obscure words
(R.V. text) "And his delight shall be (R.V. marg. And he shall
be of quick understanding) in the fear of the Lord": but
these the LXX renders "And the spirit of the fear of God
shall fill him" thus introducing a seventh spirit, and also the
word vfill" which is not in the Hebrew text 2 . Irenaeus quotes

1 [665 K\ The word " bodily " occurs in N.T. only in these two passages
and i Tim. iv. 8 ("bodily exercise"). The rarity of the word and the
similarity of the thought make it highly probable that the Colossian
phrases refer to some tradition like Luke's about the Baptism of Christ.

2 [666 ] Is. xi. 3 (R.V.) "And his delight shall be (Win)," ( ' M 7rXV
avrov irvevna. Sanhedr. 93" indicates early difference of opinion (see 667)
as to the meaning, one Rabbi even suggesting " mill-stones ", D"m . A
comparison of Ezek. xxiv. 13 (R.V.) "satisfied (marg. brought to rest)
(mn)," e/iirX^o-a, suggests that here the LXX conflated the word as man
(" fill ") and nnn ( the spirit "). In Habak. ii. 5 nu (which might easily

nil. SPIRIT [6671

tin- same version of the same prophecy, and he likens the
Spirit to "voluntary rain from above" or "the water from
heaven," which approaches the language of the Nazarene

!>el'. Tertullian goes a step further by connecting the
prophecy with the terms "fulness (plenitude) of the Spirit"
"completeness (universitas) of spiritual signs," "total substance
of the Spirit*." Lastly, about the middle of the third century,
Novatian quotes it as shewing that the Spirit "came and
abode upon Him dwelling in Christ full and entire... with

its whole overflow copiously distributed the source of the

entire Holy Spirit remaining in Christ so that from Him
might be drawn streams of gifts and works'." This combines
the Nazarene metaphor with the Tertullian insistence on
"fulness" or "completeness".

[667] In Justin, the prophecy of Isaiah is quoted not by
Justin himself but by Trypho the Jew, who assumes that the
Christians will apply it to their Messiah, and asks how he
can possibly be divine since he " needs" all these "spirits" to
rest upon him? The Babylonian Talmud confirms the
Messianic application. Quoting the clause that follows the

ting" of the six "spirits" (rendered by R.V. text "his
delight shall be") the Talmud renders it "he shall have [a]

be confused with my) (Gesen. 627 &) " We. prop. HIT, be satiated." But
if " I rest " may mean " I am satisfied ", " I am filled ", then the opening
words of Is. xi. 2 "There shall rest upon him the Spirit" might be
interpreted "There shall be satisfied^ or filled^ the Spirit upon him," and
this, of itself, might originate a tradition about " the fulness of the Spirit."

1 [666*] Irenaeus (iii. 9. 3) "He was anointed by the Father [with]
the Spirit. ..as also Isaiah says (xi. i 3) 'There shall go forth a rod...'
(as LXX)," and again (iii. 17. 3) where the descending Spirit is likened to
"dew" or "water from heaven". But his quotation, like Tertullian's, is
not consistent. For in iii. 17. 3, "the spirit of the fear of the Lord," he
omits "fill" (in Is. xi. 3 (LXX)).

1 Tertullian Adv. Jud. ix. (ins. "fill"), Marc. iii. 17 (om. "fill"),
Marc. v. 8 (ins. "fill").

3 Novatian (Clark's Ante-Niccne Fathers^ Vol. xiii. p. 373) De Trin.
29-

[668] THE DESCENT OF

keen scent," i.e. he shall judge, not according to appearance,
but with an instinctive power of judgment. Then it continues,
"Bar-Kochba reigned two years and a half. He said to the
Rabbis, 'I am Messiah'. They said to him, 'Concerning
Messiah, it is written that He hath-scent and judgeth [there-
after] ...... '. When they saw that he did not liave-scent and

judge [thereafter] they slew him 1 ." Bar-Kochba's want of
"scent", or discernment in judging, is explained by the
Jerusalem Talmud which, without referring to Isaiah, tells us
that Bar-Kochba put his own uncle to death being deceived
by the misrepresentations of a Samaritan, and a Voice from
Heaven condemned him 2 . Bar-Kochba's short "reign", or
rebellion, ended about 135 A.D., some 15 years before Justin
wrote 3 . These traditions indicate that the Isaiah passage
would be accepted by Jews, as well as Christians, as a pre-
diction of the resting of the "spirits" of God upon the Messiah.
The former, doubtless, would place Jesus on the same level
as Bar-Kochba. Both, they would say, were deceivers:
neither of them had the power of judging with discernment :
on neither had the spirits really rested.

[668] The evidence now extant proves only that con-
troversies of this kind were rife in the time of Justin. But
they must have begun as soon as Jews and Christians began
to dispute as to the "resting" of the "spirits" on Christ. For
the LXX committed Christians to "seven" spirits; but the
Hebrew text mentions only six, and the Babylonian Talmud
emphasizes the number in connection with six descendants

Sank. 93" (ed. Goldschmidt) "they slew him (nV?Dp)",
" toteten sie ihn". Rodkinson, whose text here differs widely from that of
Goldschmidt, has, " Hence, if not by the eye and not by the ear it must
be by smelling ; and therefore the sages did not recognize Bar Kochba."
Possibly the meaning is " THEY slew " (738), i.e. the powers of heaven.
He was not executed by "the Rabbis", but fell in battle against the
Romans.

2 J. Taanith, iv. 5 (6), Schwab, vi. 189.

3 Schiirer, I. ii. 311.

IH K SPIRIT [688]

from Ruth (Hi. 17 "six barleys") and six blessings on the
companions of Daniel (i. 4)' not improbably having in view
the Christian error as to "seven spirits" which is found as
early as the Book of Revelation, but has not yet been paral-
leled by any Jewish tradition*. Thus it appears probable
from many points of view that the earliest preaching and

1 Sanhedr. 93*. Kodkinson (p. 283) after quoting Dan. i. 4 adds in
brackets " Hence all of them were blessed with six things." This is not
in the Heb. as given by Goldschmidt.

2 [668 a] The only mentions of "seven spirits" in the Bible are
Rev. i. 4 " The seven spirits that are before the throne," id. iii. i "the
seven spirits of God and the seven stars," ib. iv. 5 "seven lamps... before
the throne, which are the seven spirits of God" ib. v. 6 "seven eyes
which are the [seven] spirits of God." Welstein and Schottgen adduce
no instances of the phrase in Jewish tradition, and we have seen that the
Talmud, in its comment on Isaiah (xi. 2), insists on the number as being
"six". Schottgen (ii. 269, 277, 332, 362) quotes several late Jewish
traditions (some probably medieval) about "four" spirits, or winds, but
only in one (ib. 362) does a late tradition make Isaiah's six spirits into
"seven" by taking "the Spirit of the Lord" as one of the seven.
Wetstein refers to Tob. xii. 15 ("the seven angels that go in before the
glory of the Holy One") and Targ. Jer. on Genes, xi. 7. But the latter
speaks of the seventy angels that correspond to the seventy nations of the
earth: and the former does not suffice to prove that "the seven spirits"
came from a Jewish source. Possibly the author of the Apocalypse
derived his "seven spirits" from meditation on Zech. iv. 2 10 "seven
A/////j...by my spirit... these seven which are the eyes of the Lord," with
an infusion of Eastern tradition about seven angels before the throne,
and Western tradition, just then entering the Church, erroneously finding
seven spirits in Isaiah. The first patristic reference that I have found to
seven spirits is in Tertullian's Antitheta, iv. 167 where he connects them
with the lamps in the Tabernacle. Hippolytus, Victorinus, and Methodius
connect the phrase with Isaiah xi. I 2.

[668 ] In Orac. Sibyll. vii. 67 instead of "there alighted the spirit,"
two MSS. have "seven", reading ttrraro as though it were tirra TO. The
thought suggests itself that some Greek corruption of this kind amid
conflicting traditions about " the spirit ", " the Spirit of God," " the fulness
of the Spirit," "the seven spirits" may have originated the tradition
about " flying " adopted by Celsus and the Sibyl instead of "going down' 1 .
It must be added, however, that in Nahum (iii. 7), 11T "fly" = LXX "go
down " (leg. TV;, so that Hebrew corruption (together with the nature of
the context) might explain the interchange.

THE DESCENT OF

writing about the descent of the Spirit on Christ would be
based upon the prophecy of Isaiah, and that controversies
about the prophetic meaning would be likely to modify the
evangelic texts.

[669] Returning then to the evangelic differences (Mk
and Jn) "the Spirit", (Mt.) "[the] Spirit of God", (Lk.) "the
Holy Spirit in a bodily form", we have to ask whether the
Hebrew or the Greek of Isaiah, or controversies arising out of
it, may have caused these divergences. The Hebrew begins
"And there shall rest upon him \the\ Spirit of tlie Lord."
But this is rendered by the LXX in a manner unprecedented
in O.T., "And there shall rest upon him [a] spirit of the God"
Not improbably the text is corrupt and the translators wished
to say "the very Spirit of God," or "the Spirit of God
Himself": but the Greek words imply the opposite of this,
not definiteness, but indefiniteness "# spirit of God 1 ." The
Greek is altered in Justin's text, but retained by Origen in
his comment on John. Epiphanius misquotes the whole 8 . It
is clear that similar early differences as to the Greek text of

1 [669 a] Is. xi. 2 nvtvpa TOV dtov (Q. om. TOV, Q. mg. hab.). The
Heb. "[the] Spirit of God " = trixv^a 6fov with occasional variations of
IT. Qdov, Kvplov &c., but nowhere Tri/eO/ia ToO Otov. As a rule, where the
article is ins. before a genitive noun, but not before the noun governing
that genitive, the latter is indefinite in N.T. Possibly Toy is a corruption
of KY " the Lord ", a correction of " God " (the Heb. having " the Lord ").
Or some doctrinal motive may have been at work. In Exod. xxxiii. 14,
15 "my FACE", "thy FACE", is rendered by LXX AYTOC i.e. HE or
SELF, and in Is. Ixiii. 9 " The angel of his FACE saved them," LXX has
"No ambassador or angel but HIMSELF? If therefore the LXX
wished to express the SPIRIT, including all the following " spirits ", they
may have had irvevpaavroQeov "the very Spirit of God": and a being
dropped after a, it would be inevitable to take vro as an error for TOV.

2 [669/5] Epiph. Laud. Mariae (Petav. ii. 291 D) Is. xi. 2, LXX "and
there shall rest upon him (avrov) the Spirit of God," Epiph. " and there
shall rest upon her (avr^v) the Spirit of the fear of God," or Epiph. may
mean " that (root) ", referring to pifts just mentioned. But he apparently
takes the " root " to be Mary, so that the pronoun, however translated,
refers to her.

THK SPIRIT [671]

this Messianic passage, combined with a more or less faint
sense that Jews disputed the accuracy of the Greek, might
induce Kv;mi;elists in the first century to adopt different
expressions.

[670] It might be thought an obvious course that Evan-
gelists should translate the Hebrew literally, "[the] Spirit of
[the] Lord": but this would not differentiate Christ from the
Judges of Israel upon whom "the Spirit of the Lord "is said
to have been 1 . Another course open was to adopt the LXX
in the form in which Justin adopts it, omitting the objection-
able word that gave it an indefinite meaning. This course is
adopted by Matthew who has "Spirit of God". This phrase
has the advantage of suggesting a parallel between the
present passage and the Creation where "the Spirit of God"
is said to have moved upon the face of the waters: but it has
the disadvantage of being applied to Bezaleel, Balaam, and
even to the messengers of Saul, meaning a spirit of artistic
inspiration, or a spirit of ecstatic prophecy. Neither of these
meanings could be applied to the term Holy Spirit, which
Luke employs: but even as to that, converts might ask,
perhaps wrongly but at least naturally, "Does not the Holy
Spirit descend upon all converts, and can it be supposed that
its descent on our Lord was similar so far as the invisible
and spiritual act was concerned to its descent on us?".

[671] John may have objected to Matthew's "Spirit of
God" for the very reason for which it may have commended
itself to those who desired to see in the Baptism a parallel to
the Creation : for according to John the New Creation did
not begin till after the Resurrection, when (xx. 22) "Jesus
breathed on them and said, Receive ye [the] Holy Spirit."
For a somewhat similar reason he may have disliked Luke's
phrase ("the Holy Spirit") as being premature. It was

1 [670 a] Judg. iii. 10 (lit.) "The Spirit of the Lord was upon him"
(R.V. "came") i.e. on Othniel. Comp. ib, vi. 34, xi. 29, xiii. 25, xiv. 6 &c. ;
i S. x. 6, xvi. 14. It often comes and goes fitfully.

A. 97 7

[672] THE DESCENT OF

correct he might think that the Baptist should say "He
will baptize you with the Holy Spirit," looking forward to
the future. But to say that the prophet saw "the Holy
Spirit", even in a vision, might seem to John an anticipation
of a revelation higher than the one vouchsafed to the Baptist,
as though it meant "the Spirit revealed in its attribute of
Holiness, which was manifested after the Resurrection"

[672] These reasons may have induced John to go back
to the earliest of the three Synoptic traditions, which simply
mentions "the Spirit". A Jew could hardly have used this
phrase to denote " the Spirit of the Lord ", or " the Spirit of
God ", or " the Holy Spirit" 1 . But this made it all the more
suitable for distinctive use among Christians, to whom the
frequent mention of " the Holy Spirit ", and its combination
with " the Father " and " the Son " had caused the abbreviated
title of "the Spirit" to be familiar in all the Churches. Be-
sides brevity, it had the merit of definiteness as being " tlic
Spirit". It might also be said to be inclusive ; for it included
all that was good not only holiness but also righteousness
(which John appears (Jn xvii. n, 25) to place as a climax
above holiness), and not only righteousness but also know-
ledge and wisdom all the "powers", or "spirits", be they
six (as the Jews said) or seven (as the Christians said)
mentioned by Isaiah. Doubtless John the Baptist could not
possibly have said to his disciples " I have seen the Spirit
descend"; nor could he (apart from incredible and needless
miracle) have heard from God the words " Upon whomsoever
thou shalt see the Spirit descend." According to the strict

1 [672 a] Buhl (766 a) gives only Num. xxvii. 18 "a man in whom is
spirit? and Hos. ix. 7 " the prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is
mad." In the former, as the man, "Joshua", has not yet had the hands
of Moses laid upon him, " spirit " may mean something different from the
Spirit of God ; in the latter there may be a play on the double meaning,
"spirit" and "wind" (i.e. "empty babble"). Perhaps we should add
i Chr. xii. 18 (lit.) "then spirit [? afflatus] clothed, i.e. fell upon, Amasai."

9 8

THE SPIRIT [674]

letter, therefore, we must pronounce the Fourth Gospel in-
accurate in attributing these words to the Baptist. Doubtless
also the Voices from Heaven that will be found below (734-5)
recorded to have been uttered about Hillel and Samuel the
Little in, or near, the times of Christ, mentioned " Holy
Spirit ", as the regular term distinguishing the divine power
of a successor of the old prophets. But it by no means
follows that the term was used here, even if we suppose the
actual language of John the Baptist to have been recorded ;
for the message of God may have been, " On whomsoever
thou shalt see my spirit descend," and the Baptist may have
testified, " I beheld His Spirit (or, tlte Spirit [above mentioned^)
descend and it abode on him V

[673] Of the three Synoptic versions and their several
claims to represent, or approximate to, the Original, we may
safely say that Luke's (" the Holy Spirit ") is the most im-
probable, as it is the phrase that any ordinary Jewish Christian
would naturally have employed without a full understanding
of the circumstances ; and it could not possibly have been
rejected by Mark who is a plain, simple, and prosaic inter-
preter, wholly incapable of being influenced by the subtle
spiritual considerations that might modify the Fourth Gospel.
For a similar reason we may put aside Matthew's " Spirit of
God " as being, though inadequate, not so inadequate as to
be altered by Mark if he had received it from tradition.

[674] There remains, of course, a possibility that some
rare expression, not now extant in any of the Gospels, may
have been corrupted into their divergent readings, e.g. " the

1 [672*] Comp. Is. xlii. i "I will put my spirit upon him" (quoted
in Mt. xii. 18), Joel ii. 28 "my spirit" (quoted in Acts ii. 17) and
the rarer phrase "his spirit" in Numb. xi. 29 "that the Lord would put
his Spirit upon them," and note that in B. Sira (xlviii. 12) "Elisha was
filled with his (Elijah's) spirit," "his (avrov) spirit" is corrupted into " holy
(ayi'ov) spirit " by A.

In Numb. xi. 2530 "when the spirit. ..his spirit? Onk. and Jer. Targ.
have "the spirit of prophecy."

99 72

[675] THE DESCENT OF

Spirit in fulness V But no hypothesis of that kind so com-
pletely satisfies all the phenomena as that which refers all
the divergences, canonical and uncanonical, to Isaiah's pre-
diction concerning the " spirits " that were to " rest " on the
Messiah 2 .

[675] In that passage we find in the first place a phrase,
" [the] Spirit of the Lord," that suits the circumstances of the
Baptism. In the next place, we find the LXX not only
mistranslating it there in a very exceptional way, but also
mistranslating or omitting it on every one of the six occasions
on which it occurs in Isaiah*. Moreover we find the LXX
introducing a phrase connecting "fill" with "spirit", which
is either mentioned or implied in a long series of Christian
traditions referring to the Baptism. We also find the passage
actually put into the mouth of a Jew by a Christian, writing
in the middle of the second century, as being used by Jews
against Christians, and as being applied by Christians them-
selves to the descent of the Spirit at Christ's Baptism. Lastly
we find a Jewish Messiah accepted at least as Messiah by
the great Rabbi Akibah, and, for a time, by a great multitude
of his countrymen who perished fifteen years before Justin
wrote, judged in an ancient tradition by reference to Isaiah's
prediction ; and internal evidence indicates that long before

1 [674 a] Comp. Jer. iv. 12 irvevpa n-Xijpaxrewr : but it means "wind",
not "spirit", of "fulness". It happens that &6o "full" might be con-
fused by transposition with ^NO " from God " : but there is no instance of
it in O.T.

2 It may be asked, " If the Synoptists have Isaiah as their basis, why
do they omit all mention of 'resting' ?" That point will be dealt with in
the next chapter.

3 [675 a] The Eng. Cone, gives it in Is. xi. 2 n. TOV 0fov, xl. 7 (LXX

om.), xl. 13 vovv Kvpiov, lix. 19 fi op-yiy irapa Kvpiov, Ixi. I "spirit of the Lord
Jehovah," n. nvpiov, Ixiii. 14 IT. napa Kvpiov. In Ezekiel it occurs twice,
xi. 5 LXX simply "spirit" (no "the" nor "of the Lord"), xxxvii. I "He
carried me out in the spirit of the Lord," LXX " the Lord carried me out
in [the] spirit."

100

THE SPIRIT

[677]

that time the nature and number of the Messianic " spirits "
were a subject of controversy between Jews and Christians.

[676] Additional evidence that the Christian narrative is
based upon Isaiah's prophecy might be derived from the fact
that the prophecy, and a large number of Christian traditions,
agree in describing the Spirit as " abiding " or " resting " on
the Messiah. To dwell on this would be to anticipate the
subject of the next section. But our conclusion, so far, is
that " what descended " was described in the Original as
" (the) Spirit of (the) Lord."

2. How? And with what result? T/ie different
traditions

[677] The Synoptists have :

Mk i. 10 (lit).

Mt. iii. 1 6.

Lk. iii. 22.

Jn i. 32.

"...the Spirit

"...the Holy

"I have be-

descending in-

of God de-

Spirit descend-

held the Spirit

to him as a

scending, com-

ed in bodily

descending as

dove."

ing on 1 him

form as a dove

a dove from

like a dove,"

on 1 him."

heaven, and it

or, "descend-

abode on him."

ing like a dove,

coming on

him."

John omits " as a dove " in his account of the word of the
Lord previously uttered to the Baptist :

Jn i. 33: "And I knew him not: but he that sent me
to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever
thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon him,
the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit"

1 [677 a] After verbs of motion and before personal nouns or pronouns,
"on (iri)" sometimes means "to", e.g. Mt. x. 18 "ye shall be brought
to rulers," Lk. xxiii. i "led to Pilate", i. 16 "turn to the Lord," but more
freq. "on".

101

[678] THE DESCENT OF

Diatessaron (in its present text} has, " The Holy Spirit
descended upon him in the similitude of the body of a

dove And John bare witness and said, I beheld the

Spirit descend from heaven like a dove ; and it abode upon
him." It substitutes "lighting" for "abiding" in Jn i. 33,
where " as a dove " is omitted by John.

[678] In the following non-canonical traditions it will be
found that, without exception, those which mention " resting "
omit " dove ", and vice versa.

(1) Ephreiris Comment on Diatessaron (pp. 42-3) : "And
the Holy Spirit, which rested upon Him when He was bap-
tized Whereas on that day many were baptized, the

Spirit descended A upon One, and rested, that He, who was
not distinguished visibly from the rest, might by this sign be
marked off from all (ab omnibus discerneretur, ? discerned by
all) " : " And when from the light that arose on the waters,
and from the voice that came down from heaven, he

[Satan] knew " Mention is made of "resting", but not

of the " dove ".

(2) The Nazarene Gospel: "The whole fountain of the
Holy Spirit descended A and rested upon Him , and said

to Him > " Mention of "resting", but not of the

" dove ".

(3) The Testament of t/te Patriarchs : " Consecration, with

a Voice of the Father,. shall come upon Him and a

Spirit of Understanding and consecration shall rest upon
Him A in the water." Mention of "resting", but not of
the "dove".

(4) The Ebionite Gospel: "He saw the Holy Spirit of
God in the form of a dove that came down and entered into
Him A ." Mention of the "dove", but not of "abiding" or
" resting ".

(5) Justin Martyr: ... that as a dove the Holy Spirit

lighted on Him A the Spirit that came upon Him in

the form of a dove A the Holy Spirit therefore

102

THE SPIRIT [680]

lighted on Him A ." Mention of the "dove", but not of
" abiding " or " resting ".

(6) Celsus in Origen : " the story of the dove that lighted

on the Saviour . you say the phantom of a bird lighted

on you from the lower-air . ." Mention of " the dove ", or " a
bird ", but not of " abiding " or " resting ".

(7) The Sibyl: "He shall be the first to see God [re-
vealed in] gentle [aspect] in (or, through) the Spirit coming
(lit. becoming) with the white pinions of a dove" : " The Spirit
lighted (lit. flew) upon Him who ... having clothed Himself
with flesh quickly flew to the Father's abode." There is a
subsequent mention of " letting go a bird'' Mention of a
" dove " or " bird ", but not of " resting".

3. " Into " Jesus, or "on " Him ?

[679] (i) The first fact to note is that with the exception
of one of the two Johannine passages and the Arabic text
of Diatessaron those traditions which mention the " dove "
omit the "abiding" or "resting", and those which mention
the " resting " omit the " dove " \

(ii) According to John, " descent as a dove" was witnessed
by the Baptist, but "descent" alone was the sign appointed
by God.

(iii) The three non-canonical traditions that mention
"resting" are Eastern, viz. Ephrem Syrus, the Nazarene
Gospel, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.

[680] (iv) The Ebionite Gospel follows Mark, but defines
the meaning more clearly, by describing the Spirit as " coming

1 [679 a] In Mk i. 10, b Corb. and al. (see Swete) ins. "abiding".
Also in Mt. iii. 16, SS. (instead of " coming on him") has "abode on him"
and so has (F. C. Conybeare, Key of TrutA, p. Ixxxix) "the old Georgian
txt." These therefore constitute additional exceptions.

103

[681] THE DESCENT OF

down and entering into" Jesus, not as "lighting on Him ", or
" coming on Him 'V

[681] (v) In Matthew, a superficial view suggests that
"and" must be inserted so as to give "descending and coming
on him like a dove." R.V. has actually inserted this, on the
authority of a reading supported by slight evidence* (and
not mentioned by W.H. even as a marginal alternative).
The Revisers perhaps thought that, without this interpolation,
"coming" was superfluous in the sentence " descending like
a dove coming upon him." But it is possible to connect
"like a dove" with \hzfollozving participle ("coming") in-
stead of with the preceding one (" descending ") ; and then
"coming" may not be superfluous; for "like" may be in-
tended to call attention not to the form assumed by the Spirit
but to its way of coming, or to the motive of its coming :
" He saw the Spirit descending coming upon him as [with
the flight of] a dove {alighting on her nest}"

1 [680 a] (a) Neither Thayer nor Swete (on Mk i. 10) gives any
instance (in the correct text of N.T.) of m rii/a after p^o/iat &c. meaning
" come to (or, on) a person." But tlarfkQtv fls avrov means " entered into
him" (of "spirits" &c.) in Lk. viii. 30, 32 (comp. Mk v. 12, 13), xxii. 3;
Jn xiii. 27. Evangelists, scribes, or editors, not understanding that the
Spirit passed into Jesus, and confused by the notion of the dove alighting
on Him, have substituted the latter. Thus Matthew and Luke have
substituted rt (as also NAL &c. in Mk). In Mk, after "descending",
N has " and abiding on him," b " and abiding in him," Corb. " on him
and abiding'' Lk. xv. 17 f ls tavrbv Se iXQuv affords no proof that ds
Tiva, even in a metaphor, could mean anything but " into " : for it may be
illustrated by the phrase " Become within [thyself] (IWW)", and rendered
"coming into thyself", i.e. into the bounds of thy nature (as Pope,
ironically, "Then drop into thyself, and be a fool").

() The variations of Mt., Lk., and the MSS. of Mk, may be illus-
trated by Ezek. ii. 2, iii. 24, xxxvii. 10, " the spirit entered (lit. came) into
(lit. in, -3) me, or, them," LXX (ii. 2, iii. 24) "came on me", jXdtv ,V <><?,
but (xxxvii. 10) " entered into them ", eltr^XStv f l s airovs.

2 [681 a] The MSS. that insert "and" also change the ambiguous eVi'
which may mean "toward" as well as "on" into * P 6s which must mean
"toward". This shews that they are amending the whole context for
clearness and diminishes their trustworthiness.

104

THE SPIRIT [684]

[682] From these facts we infer that there was an early
difference of opinion. Did the Spirit descend "into" Jesus?
In that case, after having been visible for a brief space, it
would vanish. Or did it descend "ufion" Jesus? In that
case, questions might arise, such as those which Cerinthus
tried (689 90) to answer, as to what became of the dove.

[683] Also, comparing Luke with the other Evangelists,
we infer that Mark and Matthew either believed, or at least
left their readers free to believe, that "as a dove" described,
not the fonn assumed by the Spirit, but the nature of its
descent; that Luke, interpreting the words as implying form,
inserted or availed himself of some tradition that inserted
"in bodily form" to make that meaning clear; and that John,
differing from Luke, returned to Mark's tradition.

[684] The facts of this and of the preceding section
point to the need of investigating the following questions :
What are the Jewish traditions, and more especially those
in prophecy, about the Dove, and about the "resting", or
"abiding", of the Spirit? Are there any Biblical instances in
which these words are confused with others, or with one
another ? What are the Greek traditions about the Dove,
and is there any reason to think that a casual corruption
of Hebrew, introducing an erroneous mention of a dove
in early translations, would find such favour in Greek and
Roman congregations as to take permanent root in the
whole Church?

105

CHAPTER VII

THE DOVE

i. The Dove in Jewish literature

[685] APART from (i) the story of the dove in the Deluge,
(2) the prescriptions of the sacrifices of turtle-doves and young
pigeons, and (3) a few expressions of endearment in the
Song of Solomon ("thou hast dove's eyes", "my love, my
dove" &c.) and two mentions of the word in the Psalms (Iv. 6
"Oh that I had wings like a dove, then would I flee away
and be at rest," Ixviii. 13 "As the wings of a dove covered
with silver"), we may say that the use of the word is confined
to prophecy 1 . The prophets use it as the emblem of sorrow
or penitence, of timorousness resulting in flight once, even
of "silliness" in fleeing to vain helpers 2 . In later Jewish
literature the notion of silliness or timorousness was sub-
ordinated, and the Dove became the recognized emblem

1 On 2 K. vi. 25 " dove's dung", the only exception, see Ency. col. 1 130.

2 [685 a] Hos. vii. 1 1 " Ephraim is like a silly dove without under-
standing, they call unto Egypt, they go to Assyria." The other prophetic
instances are Is. xxxviii. 14 " I did mourn as a dove? lix. n "we. ..mourn
sore like doves? lx. 8 " Who are these that fly as a cloud and as the doves
to their windows ? Surely the isles shall wait for me " where the
context indicates Gentiles drawing near to God, comp. Jer. xlviii. 28;
Ezek. vii. 16; Hos. xi. n ; Nah. ii. 7. These are all the instances in the
prophets. It occurs as the title of Ps. Ivi. I " To the dove of distant
terebinths" (Gesen. 401 b}.

1 06

THE DOVE [886]

of captive or exiled Israel sorrowfully longing for the restora-
tion of Zion and fleeing to Jehovah for succour 1 . Philo indeed
once says that the "turtle-dove" is the emblem of Divine
Wisdom. But he expressly distinguishes that bird (as the
Levitical Law also does) from the "dove (or, pigeon)" 2
mentioned by our Evangelists, calling the latter the emblem
of human wisdom, "a gregarious creature living in the cities
of men." Even supposing the "turtle-dove" to have been
contemplated in the Original of the Gospels, that bird would
not convey the notion of a strength-infusing and re-creating
Spirit but rather that of mourning over desolation, as in the
story of the Jewish Rabbi who, amid the ruins of Jerusalem,
"heard a voice cooing like a dove, saying 'Woe unto the
children, on account of whose iniquities I have desolated
my House, burned my Temple, and banished them among
the nations'." 8

[686] On the other side it may be urged that W T etstein
(on Mt. iii. 16) amid several instances from Western literature
quotes one from the Talmud as follows, "The Dove was
believed by the ancient Jews to represent the Holy Spirit.
(Cantic. ii. 12) 'The voice of the turtle' is to the Chaldaean
interpreter 'the voice of the Holy Spirit' (Chag. c. 2) ' Tlie
Spirit of God was borne npon tlte waters like a dove (I"OVD)
that is brooding on her young".' He adds, "The Dove is also
regarded as the symbol of gentleness and sincerity And

1 Levy (ii. 229 b) quotes the appearance of a dove as an omen of the
temporary exile of David. See also Hamburger ("Taube").

2 [685 b} Philo i. 490-1, " turtle-dove " = Tpvywi/: "dove" or "pigeon"
= n-fptoT*pu. ntpurrtpd is rendered "pigeon" in Lk. ii. 24, "young

pigeons", lit. " young-ones of pigeons "=LXX (Lev. v. 7, ii &c.) vovaovs
irfpi<rrfpS>v (mv 33) : " pigeon " = n3V : " turtle-dove " - 11H. Except in
this Levitical phrase, R.V. translates H3V by "dove".

3 [685 c\ Berachoth 3*. In Rom. viii. 26 "the Spirit" is said to
"make intercession with groanings that cannot be uttered," meaning the
Spirit of God inspiring, and identifying with itself, the spirit of man, and
regarded as resident in a penitent and aspiring heart that desires to
express itself in prayer.

IO7

[687] THE DOVE

whereas God warned the Magi by the appearance of a star,
and Joseph by a dream, it remained that He should also use
the semblance of a bird to inform John the Baptist."

[687] This statement, made by so learned a commentator,
deserves consideration; but he appears in this case to have
been led by the numerous instances of Western symbolism to
attribute the same symbolism erroneously to one instance
(that is all he quotes) which he assumes to represent the
usage of " the ancient Jews". Moreover the full context of
the quotation indicates that it was made by a certain Ben
Zoma (who is elsewhere called "son of obscenity" and "de-
mented" 1 ) and that it was at once contradicted: "Rabbi
Yehoshua asked him: 'Whence and whither, Ben Zoma?'
He replied : ' I have been considering the distance between
the upper and lower waters, and it is no more than the
measure of three fingers ; for it is said (Gen. i. 2) The Spirit
of God hovered over the face of the waters like a dove hover-
ing over her young without touching them.' Rabbi Yehoshua
then observed to his disciples: 'Ben Zoma is still out of his
mind; for was it not on thejirst day that the Spirit of God is
said to have hovered over the face of the waters, whereas the
separation of the upper from the lower waters did not take
place till the second day?'" 2

1 [687 a] Hershon, Genes, with Talm. C, p. 35. It is, however, only
fair to add that (so far as Schwab's Index goes) none of the passages (ten
in number) in the Jerusalem Talmud in which Ben Zoma is mentioned
speak of him as a heretic or immoral. Some of them record his opinions
with obvious respect; others mention him (but not contumeliously) as
differing from "the other Sages". Probably that Index is far from
complete. It omits Chag. ii. i (Schwab vi. 270) describing him as one
who "died after beholding Paradise and of him it is said (Ps. cxvii. 15)
'Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints'." Sayings
of Ben Zoma (Aboth iv. i 4) find a place in the present Jewish Prayer
Book.

2 Ib. p. 14. Rodkinson ad loc. says "We have omitted... what
happened to Ben Zoma with R. Jehoshua b. Hananiah, as it seems to us
the version of the Palestinian Talmud is correct." If this system of

1 08

THE DOVE [889]

(688] It is extremely improbable that Ben Zoma intended
to suggest, by the words "like a dove", that the Holy Spirit
appeared visibly as a bird. He probably meant nothing
more than this, that the motion and action of the Spirit
("hovering and not touching") might be illustrated by the
motion of a bird over her young 1 . Possibly, he may have
been influenced by recollections of Christian accounts of the
Messiah's Baptism ; but whatever may have been his meaning,
it is clear that the Jewish tradition, far from taking it as
typical of the " belief of the ancient Jews," holds it up to
ridicule as the heterodox and impossible conjecture of a
demented heretic. It is apparently in the same spirit of
hostility to such symbolism that another tradition (Levy ii.
22ga) relates how the image of a dove was found on the top
of Mount Gerizim to which the Samaritans offered prayers.
The only instance that has occurred to me of a spirit assuming
the form of a bird is one in the Babylonian Talmud where
Satan metamorphoses himself into a sparrow in order to
tempt David*.

2. The Dove in Gentile Literature

[689] On the other hand in the Iliad, the Aeneid, and
Greek and Roman literature generally, the eagle and the
dove are frequently used as divine messengers or emblems,
and Wetstein appropriately quotes a saying of Eustathius on
Homer, " It is usual with the poet to liken the gods in his
poetry to birds... and this is grander than likening them to

editing the Babylonian Talmud were consistently adhered to, it would be
seriously abridged.

1 [688 a] I find this view confirmed by Dr Edersheim (Life of Jesus,
i. 287) who also adds that a parallel passage (Her. R. 2) has "that bird"
instead of "dove", and that Ben Zoma "is described in Rabbinic
literature as tainted with Christian views." Hershon (Genes. Talm. p. 35)
quotes Chag. 14 col. 2 " Ben Zoma (son of obscenity)." But see 687 a.

* Sanhedr. 107*.

109

[690] THE DOVE

pedestrian animals: for there is a kinship between the things
of heaven and the creatures that fly aloft 1 ." Egyptian art
frequently represented a human soul by a bird. In Rome, an
eagle was let fly from the funeral pyre of Augustus and of
later emperors, as an emblem of the imperial soul ascending
to heaven 2 ; and Lucian, in ridicule, represents a vulture as
rising from the flames of the rapacious Peregrinus 3 . Although
the Gentile Christians must also have been influenced by the
saying of Jesus, " wise as serpents, simple as doves," and by
the story of the Baptism of Christ, there is reason to think
that the Christian pictures of doves in the Catacombs with
the legends "Innocent soul", "Simple (simplex) soul", were
suggested originally by Western not by Jewish thought. In
particular, the heresy of the Egyptian Cerinthus, who taught
that the Christ descended as a dove on Jesus at the Baptism,
and flew back 4 again from Him on the Cross, is probably of
Gentile origin.

[690] The Martyrdom of Polycarp says that when the
sword was plunged into his side ( 16) "there came forth
[a dove and} a flow of blood so as to quench the fire." The
bracketed words are omitted by Eusebius, by all the extant
Greek MSS., and by the Latin and Syriac versions, but "were
certainly found in the archetypal MS. 8 ." Lightfoot says that
" the dove seems out of place. The blood does its work
by extinguishing the fire ; but nothing more is heard of the

1 [689 a\ Wetst. (on Mt. iii. 16) quoting Eustath. on II. vii. 59. A Jew
would have probably assented to this proposition provided that it was
limited to false gods, as in the above-mentioned instance of (Sanhedr.
107 a] Satan appearing to David in the likeness of a bird.

2 [689 ] Comp. Just. Mart, i Apol. 21 "What of the emperors who
die among yourselves, whom you regularly deem worthy of deification,
and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the
cremated Caesar going up to heaven ? " This affidavit appears to have
been an adjunct to the eagle. See Lightf. on Mart. Polycarp. 16.

3 De Mart. Peregr. 39.

4 [689 c\ Iren. i. 26. i " revolasse ".

5 Lightf. shews the improbability of the conjecture

IIO

THE DOVE [691]

dove." IVrhaps, however, a heretic might have urged the
same objection against some versions of the Synoptic account
of the dove, unless they could be interpreted as meaning that
the bird passed "into" Jesus, or "abode" invisibly on Him.
And it may have been as an answer to this very objection,
"nothing more is heard of the dove," that Cerinthus offered
his heretical suggestion that afterwards it "flew back" 1 .

[691] The only passage in the Bible where the Gentile
Churches could find in the Dove the symbol of God's peace-
bringing Spirit is the description of the Deluge, where the
bird returns (Gen. viii. n)"with an olive leaf in her mouth,"
and a very late tradition of Sohar, perhaps blending this story
with that of the brooding on the waters, says* "No man
knows whither that bird has gone. But she has returned to

her place And she shall bring a crown in her mouth and

place it on the head of King Messiah coming on Him and not
coming on Him," i.e. hovering above Him. But a more
trustworthy authority makes the dove in this story a symbol
from the Jewish point of view of " Israel's vocation, to

1 [690 a] In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the objection to omitting the
"dove" is, that, without it, there is no mention of the Martyr's death.
I venture to suggest that the style being highly emotional at this point
it might be lawful to render literally xal TOVTO irmrjvavros 'qA#i>
irtpurrtpa: "And when the executioner had done this, he went forth (as)
a dwe" but to give it a poetic meaning, "the pure soul of the Martyr
went forth from its prison to the free air of Paradise." Lightf. thinks
that the "dove" was interpolated by Pionius. That biographer certainly
interpolated an apparition of a " dove " at the consecration of Polycarp :
but is not that compatible with the view that Pionius first found a story
of a dove going from the Martyr and then added a story of a dove
coming to him ? Similarly Cerinthus fabricated a story of a dove flying
away from Jesus, but he is not generally accused of inventing the story
that a dove came to Jesus. And may not Eusebius and others have
omitted the "dove", because they too, like Lightfoot, felt that it did
nothing, not perceiving that "went forth" implied departure from the cage
of the body to the freedom of heaven ?

8 Schottg. ii. 537 comment, on Gen. viii. 12 "and she returned not
again unto him any more."

Ill

[692] THE DOVE

bring to mankind faith, peace, and propitiation 1 ." From
a Greek and Roman point of view, however, the Dove :
associated not with fear, sorrow, or penitent trustfulness, but
with Love and Peace. Reading their notions into the narra-
tive of the Deluge, the Gentiles might find in the Dove
returning to the Ark with the olive-leaf, a type of the Spirit
of Peace, coming towards, and entering into, Christ, the Ark
of our Salvation, on the waters of the Jordan. As the result
of all these Western prepossessions, it would follow that the
story of the Spirit descending on the Prince of Peace "like a
dove", even if it sprang from a misunderstanding, could not
easily be dislodged from Christian Gospels, when once it had
obtained a footing in the non-Jewish Churches.

3. Obstacles to the acceptance of the tradition of the Dove

[692] Beside the above-mentioned obstacles to the ac-
ceptance of the Dove as an accurate representation of the
vision seen by John the Baptist, there is another based on the
personality of the seer himself. He is generally and justly
regarded as a prophet of an austere character, resembling
Elijah with whom he is so frequently associated. It is barely
possible to conceive that some Jewish seer of later days, with
Jeremiah's plaintive tone but without his force, might like
the Jewish Rabbi above-mentioned have heard the Voice of
Jehovah "as the cooing of a dove"; but, if we believe that
the visions of the prophets were adapted to the spirits of the
prophets, then Elijah and the Baptist would seem the most
unlikely of the whole prophetic order to receive a revelation
of God's own nature through this particular emblem. The
only way to meet this objection would be to call the revela-
tion a psychological miracle; that is to say, the last of the
prophets must be supposed to see a vision alien at once to

1 Hamburger, i. 978.
112

THE DOVE [693J

his own character and to the whole course of prophetic revela-
tion, a vision in which the God of Israel is revealed under an
emblem used by the prophets to denote timorous penitence,
and in post-prophetic literature denoting the Daughter of
Sion sorrowfully fleeing back to her Lord 1 .

[693] Again, if we are to suppose that God vouchsafed to
the Baptist an absolutely unprecedented revelation of Himself
under the form of a Dove, in order to open his eyes to
the beginning of a wholly new Dispensation, should we not
expect that, in preparing the prophet to receive this sign of
the Messiah, the word of God would make some mention of
its novel and special nature, " Upon whomsoever thou shalt
see the Spirit descending as a dove"? Yet John, while follow-
ing the Synoptists in using the phrase elsewhere except that
he assigns it to the prophet while the Synoptists use it in
their own person omits it in the message of God. This
suggests that, although John was unwilling to wholly omit
the picturesque tradition that had established itself in the
three Gospels, and had amplified itself in the third, he
felt that "as a dove" was not of the essence of the vision.
Perhaps he thought it meant simply "with bird-like flight";

1 [692 ] It is quite possible that some of the Western Evangelists, in
accepting the Dove as the emblem seen by the Baptist, perceived in it a
contrast to his previous preaching : " He had predicted ' fire ' and ' blast '
and the 'axe' at the root of the tree, just as Elijah had seen visions of
'tempest', ' earthquake ' and 'fire': then suddenly to Elijah there came
a revelation of the gentler attributes of God, and so it was with his
successor." Thus they might argue. But the absence of divine and
strengthening power from all Jewish associations with the Dove ought to
guard us from assimilating the bird-like emblem to " the still small
Voice." There is no real parallelism from the Jewish point of view
between the bird that moans and sorrows and flees away, and the "Voice"
that quietly but sternly rebukes Elijah's past and dictates his future.

It must also be remembered that, as far as we can judge from the
Gospels, the Baptist is regarded by Jesus as the last and greatest of the
old prophets, but not as being in the New Kingdom, and therefore not
under what the Western Evangelists might call " the dispensation of the
Dove."

A. 113 8

[694] THE DOVE

perhaps he thought it a possible inaccuracy arising from a
misunderstanding, but was not sufficiently sure of this to
adopt a negative view.

[694] Reviewing the evidence, we find (i) that the "dove"
is omitted by some early traditions, of Eastern origin, which
lay stress upon the "resting" of the Spirit; (2) that the
"resting" or, as John calls it, "abiding" is omitted by the
Synoptists, and some others, who insert the "dove"; (3) that
in Biblical Hebrew the Dove is for the most part an emblem
of fear; (4) that in post-biblical Hebrew the Dove is the
emblem of persecuted, penitent Israel, trusting in the Lord ;
(5) that in later Jewish tradition a comparison of the brooding
of the Spirit to the brooding of a dove is mentioned only
once, and then with disapproval, being attributed to a Jewish
Rabbi who lived at the beginning of the second century and
who, according to some authorities, was regarded as tainted
with Christian tendencies ; (6) that the Greeks and Romans
freely adopted the Dove as a Divine emblem, and also as an
emblem of a spotless soul; (7) that Cerinthus took the Dove
to represent Christ descending upon Jesus, and asserted
that the bird subsequently " flew back"; (8) that Polycarp's
Martyrdom contains an account, possibly interpolated, of a
dove going forth from the Martyr in the moment of his death,
while a later biography contains another account, certainly
false, of a dove alighting on Polycarp at his consecration.

All this points to some early error, favoured and perpetuated
by Gentile prepossessions, as to the tradition about the Dove.
It remains to consider errors in the LXX connected with the
word "dove", and the possibility of the recurrence of similar
errors in the Gospels.

4. "Dove" might be confused with "resting"

[695] We have found a long series of Christian writers
connecting our Lord's Baptism with Isaiah's "resting" of the

114

THE DOVE [696]

Spirit upon the Messiah, even though they do not quote
John's phrase about "the abiding" of the Spirit on Jesus.
Combining this with the fact that some accounts inserting the

ting" (or "abiding") omit "dove", while many that insert
"dove" omit " resting" (or "abiding"), we are led to take as a
working hypothesis the assumption that the Original men-
tioned " resting" and not "dove", and to ask whether the two
have ever been, or could be, confused in translation from
Hebrew.

[696] That the two words could be confused is manifest
from the similarity of the Hebrew of "dove" to the Hebrew
of several forms of the verb " rest ", e.g. " he will rest ", the
former being !"OV, and the latter HI}*, so that the mere trans-
position of a vaw would make them almost indistinguishable.
That they have not actually been confused in the LXX is
hardly surprising, considering that "dove" is not a very
common word, and that the context, where "dove" really
occurs in the Hebrew text, often makes the meaning clear.
But we can point to passages where either the LXX, or
Aquila (usually a most accurate translator), has introduced
"dove" without any warrant in the Hebrew, or has substituted
for " dove " some word of similar letters but not so similar to
it as the above-mentioned form of " resting". The word
"dove" is also twice miswritten in the Jerusalem Targum in
a manner calculated to originate an erroneous tradition in
context that favoured the error which, it is just possible,
may explain the story (1014-5) about the coming of the
Greeks to Jesus immediately before the Voice from Heaven
recorded by John 1 .

"Rest" = mj; "He will rest" = m3\ The form H3' is so
frequently used that Tromm. recognizes it as a separate verb from flU,
but Gesen. regards the former as part of the latter.

(l) "Dove"n:V, (2) " oppress = n3\ (3) "Javan" i.e. " Greece " =
]V. Owing to the frequent omission of yod and vaw, and to the inter-
change of one with the other, these three words are actually confused, and

1 1 5 8 2

[697] THE DOVE

5. The "Dove" and Joseph's "rod", the legends

[697] It is a weak point in the preceding section that,
although we have shewn that the Hebrew " dove " is confused
by the LXX and Aquila with words similar to " resting ", we
have not been able to allege any instance where it has been
confused with " resting " itself. We shall now endeavour to
shew that this last confusion has probably taken place in very
early Christian documents connecting the "dove" with the
"rod" of Joseph the husband of Mary, and based upon a
literal interpretation of Isaiah (xi. i), whose words they read
as follows : " And there shall come forth a rod out of the
stock of Jesse 1 (i.e. from the family of Jesse ... and a dove
upon him (or, it)."

[698] (i) The Protevangelium Jacobi, one of the earliest
of the apocryphal Gospels, after describing Mary as being
reared " in the temple of the Lord as a dove," and " receiving
food from the hand of an angel," says that an angel appointed
that the widowers of the people should bring their rods ( 8)
"and, to whomsoever the Lord shall shew a sign, his wife
she shall be." Accordingly ( 9) "Joseph, throwing away
his axe," brought his rod. The rods being returned to
their owners in order, Joseph received the last one, "and
behold a dove came out of the rod and flew* upon Joseph's
head."

any one of them might be confused with forms of " rest ". " Oppressing "
= LXX "dove" in Zeph. iii. i, and "Grecian" in Jerem. xlvi. i6,l. 16. In
Jerem. xlvi. 16, Aq. has "dove", 1. 16, Aq. (Field) "drunken" (? fr. nil).

Levy Ch. (i. 330 ) gives two instances where MSS. of the Jerusalem
Targum (on Lev. xiv. 22, 30) substitute J1V for J3V. As regards the
coming of the Greeks, see 1014 5.

1 [697 a] "Rod", so A.V. and LXX (R.V. "shoot"), see below 704.-.
" Stock ", so R.V., A.V. " stem ". In modern English the meaning would
be more exactly expressed by " stump ", see below 704 d. The preceding
words of Isaiah speak of "lopping", "hewing down ", &c.

2 [698 a] "Flew (eWdo-fy)", so in Clark's Transl. and prob. correctly,

116

THK DOVE

[699] (2) The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is probably later
than the Protevangelium. It mentions no angel predicting a
sii;n, but describes the high priest as proposing to the Con-
gregation that God should be consulted, by means of the lot,
as to the man to whom the Virgin should be entrusted. The
lot falls on the tribe of Judah, and every man of that tribe
without a wife is ordered to bring his rod. The high priest
then enquires of the Lord. The answer of the Lord is ( 8)
"The man from ttte extremity 1 of w/iose rod (ex cuius cacumine
virgae) a dove shall come forth and fly towards heaven, and in
whose hand the rod when given back shall exhibit this sign,
to him let Mary be delivered to be kept." Joseph's rod is
at first overlooked by the priest, so that no sign comes. But
when his rod is brought out to him, unwilling to receive it
and humbly standing last, and when he lays his hand on
it, " immediately, from the extremity of it, came forth a dove
whiter than snow, beautiful exceedingly, which, after long flying
about t/ie roof (fastigia) of the temple, at length flew up to the
heavens"

as the LXX uses the word thus. But L.S. does not recognize this
meaning. In literary Gk it could mean nothing but "was spread out".
See below, 707 a.

1 [699 a] " Extremity " = "cacumen", rendered by Clark "point" and
"top" in this extract, but "end" and "top" in the Nativity of Mary. In
a "staff", the "point" would naturally be the bottom, but, when raised
aloft, might be called the "top". This detail trifling in itself may be
of some importance if the author of the legend based it upon Isaiah's
prediction about "resting" (taken as "dove") which is preceded by
"from its roots", i.e. from the roots of the "rod". Taking the "rod"
to be not a bough but a staff, he would naturally say that " its roots "
meant the " bottom " or " point ". Hut when the priest handed back the
rod to Joseph so that the point was in the air, and the dove alighted on it
in that position, it would naturally be called the " top ".

It will be seen hereafter that the latest legend, approximating to the
Canonical Gospels, makes the dove descend " from heaven " and merely
settle " on the extremity " of the rod.

117

[700] THE DOVE

[700] In describing the answer of the Lord, one MS. inserts
" The man in whose rod this sign shall appear, namely, that
[rod] which puts forth leaf and produces nuts" before the
mention of the " dove ".

[701] (3) The third and probably latest testimony is from
the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary. The Answer of the
Lord is described as follows : " In the hearing of all a voice
issued from the oracle and from the mercy-seat that according
to the prophecy of Isaiah a man should be sought out to whom
the Virgin ought to be entrusted and espoused. For it is
clear that Isaiah says ' A rod shall come forth from the. root of
Jesse and a flower shall ascend from his root, and the Spirit

of the Lord shall rest upon him and he shall be filled

with the spirit of the fear of the Lord V According to this
prophecy therefore he predicted 2 that all men of the house
and family of David, marriageable and not bound to a wife,
should bring their rods to the altar ; and the man whose rod,
after being brought, budded and flowered, and on the extremity
of whose rod the Spirit of the Lord settled (consedisset) in the
form of a dove, he was the man to whom the Virgin ought to
be entrusted and espoused."

[702] The two earlier writers introduced Joseph without
mention of his descent This writer says ( 8) : " Now there
was among the rest Joseph of the house and family of David
of great age, and when all brought their rods in order (juxta
ordinem, ? according to the order) Joseph alone kept his back."
Hence no sign was given by God; and the perplexed high

1 The writer quotes Is. xi. 1,2 and part of xi. 3, according to the LXX,
as above (666).

2 " Praedixit ", if correct and used in its ordinary sense, would seem to
mean "According to these words Isaiah predicted what was about to
happen in the matter of Joseph's rod." But the parallel passages of
6989 suggest that "praedixit" means "(the high priest) forewarned"
them that they should bring their rods.

118

THE DOVE [704]

priest consulted Him again and ascertained that "he alone
to whom the Virgin ought to be espoused had not brought
his rod. Joseph therefore was detected. For when he had
brought his rod and a dove coming from heaven settled on the
extremity thereof > it was manifest to all that the Virgin was to
be espoused to him."

6. Tke "Dove" and Joseplis "rod", the legends explained

[703] The reader will note that no quotation of prophecy
occurs till the latest of the three narratives. This silence
may be paralleled from Mark the earliest of the Gospels,
which in the course of its narrative never quotes prophecy as
being fulfilled, not even in the entry to Jerusalem where
Matthew and John quote Zechariah, nor in " the parting of
the garments " where John quotes from the Psalms. Yet it
is highly probable that Mark wrote these two descriptions
(and many others) with prophecies in his mind. So here, we
may approach the, analysis of the three extracts with the
feeling that probably all the writers had in view traditions
based upon Isaiah's prophecy about the " resting " of the
Spirit, though the third alone quotes it. If so, since the pro-
phecy makes no mention of a " dove ", and since it has been
shewn that "dove" and "resting" could be easily confused,
and probably have been confused in accounts of the Baptism,
the conclusion becomes very probable indeed that these
legends spring from the same confusion.

[704] We shall now shew how the legend, in its different
shapes, may have sprung from a literalizing of the prophecy of
Isaiah. It must be premised that the immediately preceding
words describe Jehovah as " lopping the bough with terror "
and " cutting down the thickets of the forest with iron V

1 [704 a] A very remarkable passage in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berach.
" 4 (3)) quotes Is. xi. i, along with the words immediately preceding it, as

119

[704] THE DOVE

Then follows the prophecy about the Nazer or Branch
(Is. xi. i): "And there shall go forth a rod 1 from the (lit.)
stump 2 of Jesse and a branch from his (or, its) roots shall

though the "lopping of the bough with terror," and its context, meant the
destruction of the Temple, which was as it were to be cut down shortly
before the coming of the Messiah, who would cause it to spring up again.
It is just possible that the description of Joseph as " throwing away his
axe" (peculiar to the Protevangelium) just before the mention of the
" rod ", may be derived from some version of the " lopping of the bough
with terror," with or without confusion of Hebrew. (Is. x. 33 "terror" =
"axe" = (Bib. Heb.) 1Xy: but moreover Is. xi. i "from the
ynO: "axe" = (N. Heb.) N1TJO.) It will be remembered that the
Baptist speaks of " the axe laid at the root of the tree" just before Christ's
baptism.

[704 ] The passage in the Jerusalem Talmud contains a strange
admixture of (a) Jewish with (b} semi-Christian tradition, (a) The Messiah's
name is Menahem, i.e. consolation, his father is Hezekiah, his mother
(see Eng. transl. p. 45 n.) desires to strangle him at birth in order to save
the Temple : (&) he is snatched away by winds and tempests out of the
mother's hands (Rev. xii. 5), the Messiah when born will bring back
ploughs and yokes into use (Justin Mart. Tryph. 88 "a carpenter
making ploughs and yokes").

1 [704 c] "Rod (IDn)", so A.V. and LXX pdftdos, and the Christian
legends must have adopted this rendering. R.V. has "shoot". But
(Gesen.) the radical meaning suggests "staff", "lance", "sceptre". It
means "staff" in Targum Hebrew, and nowhere "branch" or "twig".
Hence some translators might insist that it must be taken literally. In
O.T. the word occurs elsewhere only in Prov. xiv. 3 where the LXX has
"staff", @aKTJ)pia, and this makes an excellent metaphor to describe a
fool striking right and left with his words as with a stick, or staff.

2 [704 rf] "Stump (yTJ) (A.V. "stem", R.V. "stock") has for its
radical meaning (Gesen.) "cut off" or "saw", and it is rendered by LXX
(2) pia "root", (i) <rr(\f X os "trunk". It occurs in Job xiv. 7-8 "For
there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and
that the tender branch thereof will not cease, though the root thereof
wax old in the earth and the stump (R.V. stock) thereof die in the
ground." Comp. Is. xl. 24 "They [i.e. the great ones of the earth] have
not been planted ; yea, they have not been sown ; yea, their stump hath
not taken root in the earth," where the meaning appears to be that under
the withering blast of God's wrath the tree has become as if it had never
been planted and its decaying stump has no more fresh roots. R.V.
"stock" scarcely conveys to modern readers the notion of "cutting" or
"lopping" (except in connection with grafting).

1 2O

THE DOVE [706]

bear-fruit 1 and there-shall-rest upon him (or, upon it) the
Spirit of Jehovah, the spirit" &c.

[705] We must now imagine Christian Evangelists in
Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, or Rome, asking "What is this
' Rod from tfie Stump of Jesse' which all connect with the
birth of the Messiah and some with the coming of a dove to
Him, or into Him, or the resting of a dove upon Him ? " The
answers might be two, as follows :

" ' The Rod from the Stump of Jesse ' means a sceptre-
like branch, or royal descendant, from the decayed house of
David. Instead of 'there shall rest upon him the Spirit,' we
should read (i) 'as a dove, upon Him the Spirit,' or perhaps
(2) ' there shall rest as a dove upon Him the Spirit.' " These
are the answers of the Canonical Evangelists. The former
(i) is the view of the Synoptists, the latter (2) of John.

[706] But here Jewish traditions might intervene to say
that " the dove " could not mean the Spirit of the Lord : " The
Dove is the daughter of Sion regarded as the Bride of
Jehovah; or it means, in dreams, the bride of a mortal 2 ;
here, then, it may be the bride of the Lord's father namely
Joseph; 'The stump of Jesse' means 'Joseph the humble
descendant of the house of Jesse 3 ,' on whom the Dove, or

1 [704/1 " Bear-fruit (mB)", A.V. "grow", LXX "go up'\ d
perhaps taking the word for mD "grow up". "Grow up" is expressed
by dva&aiiHv "go up" in Mk iv. 7, 8, 32. It has been noted above (700)
that one MS. of Pseudo-Matthew interpolates "fluts forth leaf and
produces nuts." That is an attempt to conflate with the tradition of the
Dove "going up" another tradition approximating to, but not quite
expressing, the Hebrew. Strictly speaking, the interpolator should have
said "brings forth fruit" (mQ) instead of "puts forth leaf" (mB). But
he seems to have been influenced by Numb. xvii. 5 "the rod. ..shall
blossom (mD)," and he adds "nuts" from Numb. xvii. 8 "almonds".

* [706 a] Levy ii. 229* "I saw in a dream that I had two doves" is
explained " You married two wives."

3 [706*] Comp. (Levy i. 319 4) "a descendant of (PM) ancient [people]
(D'C"C*)," lit. a branch- (or ? stick) cut-off-from old-ones," somewhat like
our "chip of the old block," "ein Abkommling der Alten (d. h. Sohn

121

[707] THE DOVE

Mother of the Lord, was bestowed by God." (It happens
that this phrase "stump of Jesse" closely resembles another
that in New Hebrew would mean " son of a good old stock,"
but in Biblical Hebrew "son of aged [ones]" ; and the name
"Jesse" itself is easily confused with words signifying " old
man ", " aged " ; and some confusion from this source may
have suggested the tradition, adopted by all three writers
(and naturally commending itself to them), that Joseph was
a very old man) 1 . The Protevangelium prepares us for this
view of the dove by saying that Mary was " as if she were
a dove" that dwelt in the Temple. Thus the first part of
Isaiah's prophecy might be converted into a legend in con-
nection with the marriage of Joseph to Mary and a story
about a dove, saying " There shall go forth a rod belonging
to Joseph the descendant of Jesse." This would naturally
recall the story of the "rod" of Aaron, in which the Lord
directed that all the tribes were to present "rods" in the
Tabernacle and the chosen " rod " was to be manifested by
a sign. Thus interpreted, " there shall go forth a rod " would
mean that a rod would be caused to go forth, or given forth,
by the priests in the Temple as the rods were given forth
by Moses from the Tabernacle. This would account for the
first part of the legend as arising from the first part of Isaiah's
prophecy.

[707] We pass now to the last part " shall-bear-fruit

and there shall rest upon him (or, upon it)." "Shall-bear-
fruit" is actually rendered by the LXX "shall go up". "And
there shall rest" has been shewn to be confusable and
probably confused by very early Greek Evangelists with
"a dove". Thus we obtain " There shall go up a dove upon

ehrwiirdiger Ahnen)." Note that Isaiah's B JJT3, "stump of Jesse", is
identical with the letters of the first portion of this phrase (D WCJ J?tJ.

1 [706 f] The first mention of Jesse (i S. xvii. 12) emphasizes his old
age. "Jesse" = n^, "aged man" = ^E (In i Chr. v. 14 WW is trans-
literated by A 'Ifa-a-ai which is the regular transliteration of "Jesse").

122

THE DOVE [708]

him (*>. Joseph) or, "upon it" (i.e. Joseph's rod). "Upon
///;//" and "upon //" produce two or perhaps three versions.
The Protevangelium, regarding the dove as the symbol of
Mary entrusted to Joseph, represents the dove as alighting
"upon Joseph's head" 1 , i.e. "upon him". The Nativity says
"on the extremity of the rod," i.e. "upon //". Pseudo-Mat-
thew does not render V?V either "upon him" or "upon //".
It probably read rhy "mount upward". At all events it
makes the dove "fly up to the heavens." On the other hand,
the Nativity approaches the canonical accounts by making
the dove descend from the heavens and settle down on the
rod. The confusion between ^y "upon", and !T?y "go up",
is frequent in LXX a , and the corruption in Pseudo-Matthew
has this advantage, that it tells the reader what became of
the dove. But it is quite alien from the original symbolism
in which the dove represented Mary.

[708] The reader should note that the last narrative
alone of the three connects the production of a flower with
the "rod", as well as 'the descent of a dove ("he whose rod
should produce a flower"}. This arises from its having pre-
viously quoted the prophecy of Isaiah according to the LXX,

' [707 a] Protev. 9, nai I8ov ntpurrtpa (?i\0(v tic TTJS pafiSov KOI
firt rrjv KffpaXfjv 'loxrij^ : there are many var. readings, e.g. D rfj
pdfi8(f (pAi'T) irtpwrtpa Ktu (irfSuicf TW 'lo>(rr;(^>. Perh. firfcrraffr)
should be read for iirtraaQr],

Whence does the Protevangelium derive its tradition that the dove
flew "out of the rod"? It may come by implication from the Heb.
which implies that the rod will " bear fruit ", i.e. that fruit will shoot up
miraculously from the rod, not however as in the case of Aaron's rod
real fruit, but a dove. But it is also possible that the preceding word
"from its roots" may be interpreted as meaning from the lower extremity,
or point, of the rod (see above 699 a).

2 [707 ] "Upon him" = Vty, "go up-r6y. Comp. Numb. xxi. 17
R.V. "spring up", lit. "go up", LXX "upon"; Is. xxi. 2 "Go up", LXX
" upon me " ; i S. ii. 10 " against them ", LXX " go up ". See 971 (vi).

123

[709] THE DOVE

which (mistaking TM "branch" for Pitt "flower") 1 has "a
flower shall ascend from his root." But, with extraordinary
inconsistency, the writer omits this miracle when he proceeds
to describe the fulfilment of the prediction.

[709] There is abundant evidence that many passages in
the Protevangelium are derived from Hebrew sources 2 , and
it would be possible to shew that variations in the interpret-
ation of the meaning of "rod", and "root", of Jesse, some
applying them to Jesus, some to Joseph, some (as Epiphanius
quoted above) to Mary, may have originated other traditions,
not only in this very early apocryphal work but even in
Luke's narrative of the childhood of Jesus 8 , and possibly

1 [708 a] Even the accurate Theodotion makes this mistake in Dan.
xi. 7 " out of a shoot pJ) from her roots shall one stand up," Theod.
avdovs, " flower ", LXX (correctly) <f>vrov.

2 [709 rt] For example, Mary is described as (Protev. 10) making a
veil for the Temple of the Lord. But a Targum (2 S. xxi. 19) says that Jesse
(Hastings s.v.) was "a weaver of the veil of the house of the sanctuary."
Levy (i. 158^) quotes the Targum as assigning this occupation to David,
the descendant of Jesse, but how much more suitable for Mary!

3 [709 ] For example, after Mary has been described as twelve years
old, she is brought into the Temple to receive materials for weaving the
veil of the sanctuary along with seven virgins. But the " weaving of the
veil" is explained by Jewish traditions mystically (Levy i. 158 b} of David
and the counsellors of the Sanhedrim because they " wove the teaching of
the Law." Is not Mary, with the virgins her companions, weaving the
veil of the sanctuary, a parallel to the youthful Jesus at the same age of
twelve, in the Temple, with the "doctors" i.e. the Sanhedrim (Lk. ii. 46)
"both hearing them and asking them questions," i.e. weaving the teaching
of the Law?

[709 c] Again, Pseudo- Matthew says of Mary that ( 6) when she was
three years old " she was not supposed (putabatur) a young infant but as
it were a grown up person of thirty years old." " She was supposed "
might = (in Greek) evo^ro: "as it were " = iuni : "of thirty years old"-
(rS>v rpiaKovra. Combining these three, we have, "She was supposed as it
were of thirty years old" tVo/ufero <Wi tr&v rptaxovra. Probably no one
who knows even a few words of Greek will deny that this is connected
with Lk. iii. 23 "And he was [namely] Jesus, [when] beginning, as if were
(o>oVi) of thirty years, being [the] son, as was supposed '[of] Joseph."

[709 d} But what is the nature of the connection? Is it borrowed

I2 4

THE DOVE [710]

in Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the Miraculous Con-
ception. But these important questions must be discussed
else- where. The point now to be insisted on is, that the
whole legend of the Dove and Joseph's rod is assuredly based
upon an interpretation independent of the canonical Gospels
of Isaiah's prophecy about the "resting" of the Spirit;
the interpreter taking "rest" as "dove". This affords
strong confirmation of the conclusion previously arrived at
from other evidence, that the same confusion accounts for
"the Dove" in the Canonical Gospels.

[710] It may even be contended that the Protevangelium
affords a tacit protest against representing the Supreme
Being under the emblem of a dove. It appears to take as its
basis an early verbal confusion between "rest" and "dove" in

straight from Luke and distorted? Or is there anything in O.T. about a
descendant of Jesse that might originate this tradition about "thirty
years", which Pseudo- Matthew might use to magnify the Virgin Mary as
being "the root of Jesse"? The latter solution is suggested by the
following passage, which apart from genealogical tables, Levitical pre-
scriptions, (and Gen. xli. 46) contains the only mention of " thirty
years " that occurs in the Bible (2 S. v. 4) ; (R.V.) " David was thirty years
old when he began to reign." There is no " began " in the Hebrew, but
R.V. has added it for the sense. Moreover the Hebrew for "thirty
years old" is "son of thirty years." LXX has "son", thus: "Son (vlbs)
of thirty years [was] David when he reigned (tv rw #<riA*Crat avrov, lit.
"in his having reigned," perhaps meaning "when he came to the throne")."
As R.V. inserts "begin" for sense, so might a Greek Evangelist. It
happens also that <Vx w in classical Greek means either "begin" or
" reign", and Ht5>, which in New Heb. means "begin", is very similar
t<> ~C> "ruler". Thus, whether from Greek or from Hebrew corruption,
or out of a desire to make sense, a tradition that David was " a son of
thirty years when he reigned" might be converted to a tradition that
" the son of David was thirty years old when he began (to reign)," and
this might be regarded as applying to the Messiah.

(It may be worth adding that Pseudo- Matthew, who applies this
saying to the female descendant of David, says afterwards that she was
called "queen" in jest by her companions.)

This hypothesis would go far to explain Luke's extraordinary Greek,
if Greek it can be called, and the extraordinary variations of MSS. and
patristic quoters.

125

[711] THE DOVE

a famous prophecy of Isaiah, and to present a narrative
shewing how the dove might be connected with the Messiah,
the Rod of Jesse, in a manner quite different from that sug-
gested in the Canonical Gospels, and more in accordance with
the notions of the Jews. For there is nothing here incon-
sistent with Jewish symbolism. The dove does not come
from heaven but from earth; it is not a sign of God's Spirit
but of the pure Mary (the "dove" in New Hebrew frequently
denoting a wife). The whole legend, in its earlier shape,
reads as though it were written or derived from something
written by a Christian Jew, who recognized that the Isaiah-
prophecy had been misinterpreted by the Greeks. The
author seems to say "There was a dove, connected remotely
with the birth of Jesus. It did not rest, however, on the
Messiah Himself, but only on the descendant of Jesse whose
'rod' was brought forth by the high priest, from the 'end'
(lit. root) of which ' rod ' the dove came. And the dove was
not the type of the Spirit of God, but of the pure Virgin
committed to Joseph."

7. " Resting ", Jww interpreted by Justin Martyr
and Tertullian

[711] In the last section it was shewn how the legend
of the Dove in the Protevangelium arose from a quotation
from Isaiah about "resting" and "the rod of Jesse." In
Justin's Dialogue, similarly, a mention of the " rod " in Isaiah
introduces first a mention of" resting" and an explanation of
it, and then a mention of the Dove. The transition is as
follows : Justin has been attempting to find prototypes of
the wood of the Cross in O.T. From the rods of Jacob
and Moses and Aaron he comes to the rod of Jesse pre-
dicted by Isaiah in connection with the "resting" of the
Spirit. When he has completed his instances, his Jewish
adversary retorts by quoting the Isaiah passage at full length

126

THE DOVE [714]

concerning the "rod" and the "resting" of the Spirit, and
by asking, How could Christ be pre-existent God, since
he needed thus to be filled with the powers of the Spirit as if
he were in want of them ?

[712] Justin meets this objection by availing himself of
the double meaning of the Greek "I rest" " I make cessa-
tion" ((ivcnravofiai), which means etymologically "cease".
(Tryph. 87): "The Scripture says that these enumerated
powers of the Spirit have come on Him, not because He
stood in need of them, but because they were destined to
make cessation on Him, that is, find their end or goal (irepa^)
on Him, so that there might be no longer propliets in your
nation in the old manner.... Therefore [the Spirit] made cessa-
tion, that is, ceased 11 ': and he goes on to say that these
powers "ceased" from the Jews in order that having obtained
"cessation" in Christ they might reappear in the form of
spiritual "gifts" to Christians.

[713] Tertullian, adopting the same view, says that

"When Christ was baptized, all the fulness of spiritual

gifts went back [to its source] in Christ 2 "; that, from the
time of the Baptism, " the entire operation of the Spirit of
grace, so far as the Jews were concerned, ceased and came to
an end 3 "; and carrying his materialistic view to its logical
conclusion, he asserts that "even the celestial element that
had been in John, the spirit of prophecy, after the trans-
ference of the whole Spirit into the Lord 4 so utterly failed
that, whereas he had preached [Christ], whereas he had pointed
out [Christ] at His coming, he afterwards sent to enquire
whether He was the real [Christ]."

[714] These extraordinary arguments indicate a host of

1 t At>(irav<raTO ofv, Tovrtfrrw iiravaaro.

* Adv. Jud. 8 "retro.. .in Christo cesserunt." Otto (Just Mart.
Tryph. \ 87 n. 6) proposes " cessarunt ".
Marc . v. 8.
4 De Bapt. 10, "post totius Spiritus in Dominum translationem."

127

[715] THE DOVE

early controversies about the " resting " of the Spirit, or the
seven powers of the Spirit, upon Christ. They explain, in the
first place, why John may have deliberately avoided the
word "rest" and preferred "abide", and why he repeats
"abide" twice, in the message from God as well as in the
Baptist's account of what he saw. He knew, perhaps, that
some controversialists (like Justin, only earlier) used the
ambiguity of the Greek word "rest" in order to alter the
meaning of the prophecy 1 . In the next place they afford an
additional reason why Mark may have gladly preferred the
corrupt reading "dove" to the true reading "rest", because
the latter being applied to the " resting " of the spirit of
Moses on the Seventy Elders and the spirit of Elijah on
Elisha 2 may have seemed to him to suggest that Christ
was "in need" of the descent of the Spirit, and indeed that
He was not Christ, but only Jesus, till the Spirit descended.

[715] In the third place they shew why Justin did not
insert in his account of the Baptism anything that resembles
John's twice repeated statement that the Spirit "abode" on
Jesus, though it substantially represents the meaning of
Isaiah's " resting ", which Justin repeatedly connects with the
Baptism. Probably Justin did not accept John as an
authoritative Evangelist ; but that does not prevent him from
occasionally inserting traditions akin to John's. Here, how-
ever, in all probability, he omits the Johannine tradition

1 It should be added that the Heb. verb itself, in the causative form,
means "cause to rest", "let rest", "let alone", and hence sometimes
"leave", "abandon" (Gesen. 629 a).

2 [714 a] Gesen. (628 a) gives only three instances of "Spirit" "resting
(HU)", "Spirit of "* (/>. Jehovah) Numb. xi. 25-6 (E), Is. xi. 2; spirit
of Elijah 2 K. ii. 15." But see Numb. xi. 25-6 "The Lord came down in
a cloud and spake unto him (i.e. Moses) and took of the spirit that was
upon him (i.e. Moses) and gave [it] (i.e. placed it) upon the seventy elders,
and it came to pass that when the spirit rested on them they prophesied...
and the spirit rested upon them." Would it not be more correct to say
that "the spirit of Moses" rested upon the elders?

128

THE DOVE [716]

because he prefers his own. The fact is, that Justin does not
wish to believe that "rest" means "abide". He desires to
explain away the notion of " resting" by taking the word to
mean "depart from the Jews", "come to an end", "cease".

8. Otlier circumstances tliat might favour t/te introduction

of the Dove

[716] (i) We shall hereafter find (730) that in describing
a supernatural Voice that came to John Hyrcanus, the well-
known High Priest, Josephus uses the word Voice alone, where
Jewish tradition has " The daughter of Voice" \ and a common
Jewish phrase to describe such a miracle is "There fell from
heaven a daughter of Voice" Such an idiom, if used in a
Hebrew Gospel describing the Voice that accompanied the
descent of the Holy Spirit, might well perplex Greek inter-
preters. They might recall, as a parallelism, such passages
as Job xxx. 29 " I am a brother to jackals and a companion
to daughters of tlie desert" i.e. "ostriches"; and possibly they
might have a vague notion of other later Jewish idioms such
as " Daughter of t/te Wine-mixer" " Daughter of the Burier"
to mean a wine-coloured dove (possibly called by the Greeks
Oinanthe") and the carrion crow 1 . With these Jewish sug-
gestions before them, Western translators would be all the
more prone to think that " A daughter of Voice descended
from the sky" must needs mean some bird heralding the
Gospel or Good News of Christ ; and what bird more appro-
priate than the one whose voice preeminently symbolized
love and peace? They would accept "voice" as an ad-
ditional rendering, but that would not displace the tradition,
once implanted, of a dove descending from heaven. "A
dove, or a voice, descended from heaven " would naturally

1 [716 a] Levy i. 275 a, iii. 62 a, iv. 243 b. " Daughter of the desert* is
Wetstein's explanation in Job xxx. 29; Gesen. (419 a) says "daughter of
greed ". The word (H3JP) occurs only with " daughter ".

A. 129 9

[717] THE DOVE

become in the development of the tradition "a dove and
a voice."

[717] (ii) Luke adds " in a bodily form'' Possibly this
addition was intended (683) to explain the "as" in "as a
dove". It answered the question " In what way as a dove?"
by saying, in effect, " Not in its way of flying, and not
symbolically as a dove coming to its nest, but in a visible
appearance." In any case his word "form" (eZ8o<?), in the
LXX, represents thrice 1 a word that means also " fountain ",
so that it might explain the language of the Nazarene Gospel,
which connects the Holy Spirit with a " fountain " (as also
Tertullian does). But, further, this word "appearance", or
"fountain", means (and by far most frequently) "eye". In
Leviticus (xiii. 5, 37), "in his eyes" ought probably (Gesen.
744 b) to be "in its appearance (or, colour)," as later on

(ib. 55) 2 -

[718] A Hebrew Gospel might contain a marginal note
"in his eyes", meaning "in the eyes of John the Baptist," and
intended to shew that the vision was revealed to him and not
to the bystanders. In that case, when " dove " was introduced
by corruption, "in his eyes", when corrected slightly (by
dropping a yod) so as to mean " in its appearance ", might
seem to make exactly the sense required : " the Spirit in
his eyes rested on Jesus " becoming " the Spirit in the form of
a dove upon Jesus."

1 Numb. xi. 7 (bis), Ezek. i. 16, viii. 2 (A), fV.

2 [717 a] That is, W should be read for W. The Targums read
"in its place". Comp. Deut. xxxiii. 28 " the fountain of (|y) Jacob,"
where Onk. has 'JD, i.e. " according to the likeness of," and paraphrases
thus (followed by Jer. I. and II.) "according to the blessing wherewith
Jacob blessed them."

[717*] In the Talmud j. Ber. iv. 3, b. Ber. 28* \V& ("likeness",
"equivalent", "substance") when followed by " eighteen ", was used to
mean "the substance, or summary, of the Eighteen Prayers." Hor.
Heb. ii. 147 says "This summary they called pyo, a fountain." The
letters do mean "a fountain", but Hor. Heb. does not quote any passage
to shew that this play on the word was customary.

130

THE DOVE [721]

[719] (iii) The Hebrew for "dove" is "Jonah". That
"John "and " Jona(h)" could be interchanged we know from
the fact that Peter is called (Mt. xvi. 17) " Simon Bar Jona",
and (Jn i. 42) "Simon son of John ". This suggests an
extension of the hypothesis in (ii). The marginal note might
be "In the eyes of John"; and this might originate, or
support, a tradition that the Spirit manifested itself " in the
appearance of a dove"

9. Conclusion as to tJte Dove

[720] The Original Tradition appears to be best repre-
sented by the Fourth Gospel : the Baptist received from the
Lord a message that one coming after him would baptize
with the Holy Spirit, and that the sign by which he would
discern his successor would be the descent of the Spirit.
Evangelists connected their narrative of this with allusions
to the resting of the Spirit of the Lord on the rod of Jesse
as predicted by Isaiah. But, by a misunderstanding, the sign
specially appointed for the Baptist, as a prophet and re-
corded by him in the language usual to prophets (" I have
beheld ", " I have seen ") came to be regarded as a statement
of a material and visible descent, which Justin, and probably
Luke, regarded as " for the sake of men " in general, i.e. for
the bystanders.

[721] Then arose the question among the non- Jewish
Christians, how could the Spirit be thus made visible ? At
the same time, the Christians were pressed by opponents who
urged that if the Spirit thus rested on Christ at a certain
moment, He must have been without it before that moment.
Up to that time, then so heretics or Jews argued He was
not Christ, or, if Christ, not at all events a perfect Being. In
answer to the question of visibility, the non-Jewish Christians
were prepared to think that the visible emblem must be a
dove, because of its Western associations, as introducing

131 92

[722] THE DOVE

a reign of divine love. A slight variation of the word " rest "
in Isaiah's prophecy enabled them to substitute "dove".
This was perhaps facilitated by various traditional errors as
to the meaning of the Daughter of Voice, the Jewish name
given to a Voice from Heaven. "Resting" being omitted,
it might be urged (as by Justin) that the Spirit was in Christ
before, and that " the dove ", descending, was merely a sign
for men 1 . But this tradition left a critic able to ask, like
the Jew in Celsus, " Who saw the dove except the Baptist ? "
because none of the Synoptists say not even Luke that any
one accepted Jesus as the Christ in consequence of this sign.
Moreover, as in the account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp,
and in the Protevangelium, " the dove " is, so to speak, left on
earth no one stating what became of it, whether it vanished,
or whether it flew visibly up to heaven.

[722] Some of these discussions about ascending and
descending and, in particular, the Cerinthian theory that
Christ descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove John
appears to meet indirectly, not in the actual narrative of the
Baptism, but a little later on, where our Lord promises to
the disciples a sight of the angels of God ascending and
descending on the Son of man, as though to indicate that,
even while He stands on earth, He is also touching heaven
expressed still more clearly (if we may accept the ampler
reading of the text) in the words (iii. 13), "No man hath
ascended into heaven but he that descended out of heaven, even
the Son of man, who is in heaven " ; and the invisibility of
the regenerating Wind, or Spirit, is taught as a rudimentary
truth in the previous context (iii. 8) "Thou knowest not
whence it cometh and whither it goeth."

[723] But, apart from this metaphysical doctrine, John

1 [721 a] Irenaeus (iii. 9. 3) says that " the Word of God " took upon
Him flesh, and, as man, received the Spirit of God to rest upon Him in
accordance with Isaiah (xi. 1-2) or was "anointed" with the Spirit in
accordance with Is. Ixi. I.

132

THE DOVE [724]

places his narrative of the Descent of the Spirit on a more
solid historical basis than that of the Synoptists ; and this
he does in two ways. In the first place, he introduces it
in the style of a prophet of Israel recording a word of the
Lord, "Thou shalt see", and its fulfilment, "I saw". When
a prophet Isaiah, for example, beholding the Lord upon
His throne writes " I saw", no one of sense, and certainly
no Jew of sense, would suppose that bystanders " saw " also.
In the second place, without departing so far from the Greek
tradition as to entirely omit "the dove" which, after all,
might be said in a manner to express the objective though
not the subjective truth 1 John omits all mention of it in
the word of the Lord predicting the sign of the Messiah.
He also adds presumably as an essential part of the sign,
since it is part of the word of God something omitted by
the Synoptists, namely, " abiding ".

[724] As an epithet of the Spirit, "abiding" implies, in
John, the Spirit of Sonship and Freedom (Jn viii. 35) "The
bond-servant abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son
abidetk for ever. If therefore the Son shall make you free>
ye shall be free indeed." The meaning appears to be (as
in St Paul's Hymn of Charity or Love) that, in comparison
with the free Spirit of filial Love, all other spiritual gifts that
come from the Father are fitful and subordinate. Prophecy
appears and vanishes, sonship abides for ever ; and the pre-
sence of the spirit of sonship means the presence of reverent
freedom and the absence of servile fear, so that (2 Cor. iii. 17)

1 [723 a] That is to say, the Spirit was a Spirit of Love and Peace,
and the Dove ivtis the fit emblem to represent the Spirit to the majority
of Christians at the end of the first century, so that the vision might be
called true objectively -for the Church. But on the other hand, it was
doubtful whether any prophet of Israel, and particularly such a prophet
as the Baptist, could at that time have seen the Spirit in the form of a
dove, so that it was not true subjectively for the Baptist. It was only
true by anticipation, not true of what happened at the time.

[724] THE DOVE

" wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty^" This
divine prediction about the "abiding Spirit" subordinates the
phrase " as a dove " in the Baptist's account of what he saw.
But the epithet "abiding" also leaves no room for materialistic
speculations ; for no one would suppose that the form of a
bird, visible to the prophet, "abode" on Jesus during the
period of intercourse between the two. The meaning clearly
is, that in some spiritual way it was revealed to the Baptist's
vision that the Spirit, which came and went on the prophets
of Israel, came to Jesus to " abide " a .

1 [724 a] Comp. the curious connection in Clem. Alex. 113 ...6 de
fXfvfffpos. A.VTIKU yovv fianTiop.fvcj> rut <vpiu>... (see context). Iren. iii. 17.
1-2 speaks of the Spirit that descended on Jesus as identical with the
Spirit mentioned in Ps. li. 12; but, whereas the Hebrew has "a free
Spirit", he follows the LXX in its rendering rjyfpoviKy, "princely",
principal!.

2 [724 b~\ This opens up a question, profoundly interesting, but im-
possible to answer except conjecturally. Was the "abiding" of the
Spirit an actual part of the vision revealed to the Baptist (perhaps under
the influence of Isaiah's prophecy)? Or was it a subsequent detail
imported from Isaiah's prophecy by Christian Evangelists? Thus much,
at least, may be safely asserted, that " resting " in the Bible means some-
times the "rest" of Israel from enemies after their subjugation, so that it
may imply conquering and triumphant liberty, as under Joshua (Deut.
xii. 9 &c.), or glorious liberty as under Solomon (i K. viii. 56, I Chr. xxii.
9); and the same Isaiah passage that begins by predicting the "resting"
of the Spirit on the Messiah goes on to say (Is. xi. 10) "to him shall the
nations seek and his rest (i.e. victorious kingdom) shall be glorious."
Solomon (i Chr. xxii. 9) is called "a man of rest" in this sense, and it is
conceivable that the Baptist may have seen, in the Man on whom the
Spirit was to "resf", a Deliverer whose " rest " was to be obtained through
conflicts and victories.

[724 c\ It may be added that the same noun that means "rest" means
also "resting-place", and indeed is thus rendered by R.V. in the last-
quoted passage from Isaiah (xi. 10). In this sense, it is applied to
Jerusalem and the Temple as the "resting-place" of Jehovah. Such a
phrase as "the man of God's rest" might be interpreted by John the
Baptist as the man who was to repeat the history of Solomon on a far
vaster scale, giving Israel victory over the nations, and peace, and
righteousness, but by John the Evangelist as the man whose body was the
Temple of the Holy Spirit.

134

THE DOVE [724]

[724 </] Lastly in view of above-suggested explanations of the
Johannine tradition about " the Lamb of God," as possibly a paraphrase
for "the evening sacrifice" it should be noted that owing to an accidental
identity of letters, the word "resting" or "resting-place" coming from
"rest" (flU), and the word "evening oblation" coming from "offer"
(PUD), may both be represented by nnJD. In three cases, where the
word means " rest " (or " resting-place "), it is rendered by the LXX
"sacrifice" or "offering" (2 S. xiv. 17, Zech. ix. i, Jerem. It. 59).

135

BOOK II
BATH KOL

VOICES FROM HEAVEN

JEWISH TRADITION

CHAPTER I
BATH KOL BEFORE THE GOSPEL

I. "Bath Kol", or " Voice from Heaven"

[725] Bath Kol (i>. " Daughter of Voice ") was the name
given by the Jews to a voice of a supernatural or providential
kind, pronouncing judgments on, or directing, the actions of
men. Such voices are mentioned both in the Jerusalem
and in the Babylonian Talmuds as occurring frequently,
and with especial frequency in the first century of the
Christian era. The Jewish Rabbis and writers themselves
appear to have been perplexed as they well might be by
the problem of classifying different kinds of Bath Kol ; and
the verdict on its claims pronounced by the best of their
teachers at the end of the first century seems to have been
unfavourable.

[726] If the Synoptic Tradition was put together in some
form about the time of the deaths of St Peter and St Paul,
*>. about 70 A.D., and the Johannine Tradition thirty or forty
years afterwards, the writer of the latter might not be alto-
gether uninfluenced, in recording any Christian instance of
Bath Kol, by the changed opinion of the better Rabbis. By
that time, or a little later, this miraculous agency was, as it
were, put on its defence, and Jews sought texts of Scripture
to justify belief in it (778). This fact, in itself, would naturally

139

[727] BATH KOL

lead us to inquire what there is in Biblical History that cor-
responds to Bath Kol. Even if there is nothing, the inquiry
may throw light on the origin of the name, and possibly of
the thing.

2. " The Voice of the Lord" in the Bible

[727] The word " Voice " occurs in the Bible for the first
time in Genesis (iii. 8) " And they heard the voice of the Lord

God [as he was] walking in the garden and Adam and

his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God."
Schottgen (ii. 439) takes this as meaning. " thunder ", and
this is the meaning of " the voice of the Lord " throughout
the 29th Psalm. The Latin version of Philo's comment on
the passage deprecates a literalizing interpretation of "Voice"
as well as of "walking". It is not, he says, by "a voice sent
forth (voce missa)," i.e. external, that Prophets receive their
message ; for " a kind of Power [within them], a more divine
Voice, soundeth the very words they utter 1 ." This indicates
a comparison, as early as the middle of the first century,
between the prophetic faculty and the Voice of the Lord,
to the (relative) discredit of the latter. In his context, Philo
leads us to understand that this imputation of " walking " and
"voice" to the Absolute would not have occurred to Adam
and Eve unless they had previously " made themselves partners
in deception."

[728] The Hebrew plural " voices " occurs twelve times in
the O. T., and, though almost always rendered literally by the
LXX, it always (except perhaps once) means "thunders".
Generally the context makes the meaning clear, but it is
not so in Exodus xx. 18 (LXX) "and all the people saw
the voice and the torches and the voice of the trumpet," where

1 [727 a] Quaest. Gen. "virtute quadam vocis divinioris sonante vel
ipsa dicta." Mangey would substitute " divinitatis " for " divinioris ", but
the text makes good sense.

140

BEFORE THE GOSPEL [730]

K.V. has "all the people saw the thnndcrings and the lightnings
and the voice of the trumpet '."

[729] There is no mention of Bath Kol in the Bible ; but
this association of " voices " with " thunders ", and the initial

of the "Voice of the Lord" in introducing the doom of
Adam, prepare us for finding an approximation to it in Daniel
(iv. 3 1 ), where it is said that " a voice fell from heaven " to
pass sentence on Nebuchadnezzar.

3- John Hyrcanus and Hillel

[730] The first instance of Bath-Kol is connected with
John Hyrcanus, High Priest about the middle of the second
century B.C., and is thus described by Josephus : " An extra-
ordinary story is told about the High-Priest Hyrcanus, how
the Divine Power held converse with him. They say that
on the very same day on which his sons joined battle with
[Antiochus] Cyzicenus, he was alone in the sanctuary offering
incense as High Priest and heard a voice, [saying] that his
sons had just conquered Antiochus. And this he openly
declared to all the multitude on coming out of the sanctuary.
And so it fell out." Jewish Tradition omitting such phrases
as " an extraordinary story " and " is told " and " they say ",
all of which suggest incredulity felt or affected by a Jew
writing for Greeks says, "John the High Priest heard a
Bath Kol which came out of the Holy of Holies and said 1 :

1 [728 a] In defence of the LXX rendering, "voice", at all events in
Exod. xx. 1 8, may be urged the parall. Deut. iv. 12 "Ye heard the [?a]
voice of words but ye saw no form, only a voice" Cp. Jn xii. 28-9
" There came therefore a voice from heaven.... The multitude therefore
that stood by and heard, said that it had thundered?

[728 b] Philo (i. 443, ii. 188) emphasizes the "seeing" (not "hearing")
of the Voice from Sinai, as indicating that the Voice of God is seen by
the soul's eye, see 781 c, d.

* Derenbourg, pp. 73-4, referring, in note, to Midrasch-rabba sur
Cantique, viii. 7 ; j. Sota ix. 13; b. ibid. 33 a.

[730 a] The Jewish Cyclopaedia (BAT KOL) quotes the passage thus

141

[731] BATH KOL

' The young warriors that have gone to do battle with An-
tiochus have conquered.' They wrote down the day and the
hour, and, in fact, that was the day of the victory."

[731] Somewhat similar is the account given by Herodotus
of the "Fame" that reached the Greeks at Mycate encouraging
them for the conflict with the tidings of the victory gained
by their countrymen on that very morning at Plataea. A
"Theme*", says the historian, "had flown into the whole of
the army," and this word " flying into " he twice repeats,
following the Homeric thought of Phern^ as a winged and
vocal goddess raising a sudden, common, and unanimous cry
among the multitude 1 . So, on the morning of the taking of

(ii. 590 b) " The youth who had proceeded against Antioch had obtained
a victory"; and this is the reading of the Talmud and the Midrash.
But as the battle was fought in Samaria, and as Josephus mentions
" Antiochus", the latter is apparently the true reading, as Derenbourg
contends, or, at least, the reading consistent with fact.

Dalman (Words of Jesus, p. 3) uses "the old tradition that John
Hyrcanus heard in the sanctuary a divine voice speaking in the Aramaic
language]. Sot. 24*"; cf. Ant, xiii. 10. 3," in support of the theory of "the
use of the Aramaic language in the Temple," because the words " the
young... conquered" are written in Aramaic while the narrative is written
in New Hebrew. We must, however, bear in mind that (i) Hyrcanus
would necessarily utter the words in Aramaic if he wished to be intelligible
to the multitude ; (2) in the numerous instances of Talmudic Bath Kol
given by Pinner (see below, 1090) this is the only one where "writing
down " is mentioned, and possibly the very words uttered by Hyrcanus,
as well as the day and hour, might be registered ; (3) as this (apart from
fictitious Biblical instances) is the earliest instance of Bath Kol recorded
in the Talmud, and as it was of the nature of "second sight" dealing
with matters of history, importance might be attached to the preservation
of the exact words.

Had a French or German Archbishop, during the crusades, heard a
Voice from heaven announcing a defeat of the Saracens while he was
officiating in a cathedral, and had he proclaimed it to the whole of the
congregation, he might, and probably would, have used the language of
the people, instead of Latin ; but this would not prove " the use of the
French or German language " in the cathedrals of the land.

Herod, ix. loo lOI. lovai 8e o-^w (j)rjp.rj re eWjrraTO is TO (TTparorrtSov

> s pevroi K\t)8>v av-nj (r<f>i iviirraro. The last two words favour the

rendering "flew into the army" (not "into the camp"}.

142

BEFORE THE GOSPEL [734]

the Bastille, "One idea dawned on Paris with the day

and in each heart one voice, 'Go forth, and thou wilt take

tlu- Bastille' No one proposed: but all believed, all

worked 1 ."

[732] According to some accounts another Bath Kol was
given to Simon the Just, reassuring the people in the time of
a threatened desecration of the Temple. But the names
and date are doubtful 8 . The story may possibly have been
modified so as to refer to the desecration of the Temple by
Caligula about which Josephus tells us that God made the
imperial commands His own care, that is to say, He removed
the Emperor by assassination 8 . But on this occasion the
historian mentions no supernatural voice, although he re-
peatedly recognizes the hand of Providence in frustrating the
proposal to introduce the Emperor's statue into the Temple.

[733] In both of these Jewish instances the Bath Kol
differs from the Greek Phem6 in that the former is said
to have come to one man, and direct from " the Holy of
Holies " : but all three agree in merely referring to what
has happened. There is no claim hitherto in Bath Kol (as
also there is none in the Greek Pheme) to distinguish right
from wrong or to direct man's action.

[734] The next instance of pre-Christian Bath Kol relates
to Hillel who flourished about the birth-time of Christ, told
thus by the Jerusalem Talmud : " The Elders came to the
house of Gadia (Bab. Goria) in Jericho. And there came
forth a Bath Kol and said, TJtere is among you a certain man

1 Quoted from Michelet by Grote, History of Greece (Part n., Ch. 42).
He also quotes Herod, ix. loo 101.

* See Derenbourg p. 207 n. (and p. 446) quoting " Midrasch Rabba
sur Cantique, viii. 9," on "Poracle que Sime'on le Juste entendit de
I'inteYieur du Saint des Saints."

3 [732 a] Ant. xviii. 8. 6 f., Bell. ii. 10. I f. 6(<* 8' Spa tp.t\rv T&V npoo--
TaypuTuv. Hamburger (ii. 1117) makes the desecrator Ptolemy Philopator,
but has to regard " Seleucus " as " irrthiimlich fur Philopator." Deren-
bourg p. 207 f. makes him Caligula.

143

[735] BATH KOL

worthy of the Holy Spirit; only tlie generation is not worthy
thereof. And they turned their eyes on Hillel the Elder,"
and by the Babylonian still more emphatically, " There was
given upon them a Bath Kol from the heavens, There is here
one who is worthy that the Shechinah should rest upon him
as [on] Moses our Master, but that his generation is not worthy
thereof^"

[735] In both Talmuds this is immediately followed by
a Bath Kol in similar words uttered on Samuel the Little
who lived long afterwards. But the Jerusalem Talmud, a
little further on, gives another Bath Kol at the same place,
" Two of those among you are worthy of the Holy Spirit, and

one of the two is Hillel the Elder They cast their eyes

on Samuel 2 ," and then another, uttered at Jabneh, saying
that two in the assembly were worthy of the Holy Spirit,
of whom one was Samuel. The Talmuds also contain other
repetitions of the Bath Kol on Hillel with several variations.

[736] This tradition is of interest because it somewhat
resembles the utterance of John the Baptist about Jesus,

"There standeth one among you whom ye know not

whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose." Some one
in the assembly at Beth Gadia may have uttered the words
in question, referring to Hillel without mentioning him by
name, and the Elders may have unanimously accepted the
saying as expressing the judgment of God concerning Hillel.
This view is confirmed by the fact that the Tosephta Sota
says of Hillel " His contemporary teachers said of him, ' He
was worthy to become a partaker of the Holy Spirit'"
without mentioning this Bath Kol 3 . It is possible that the
compiler of the Tosephta who, as we shall find hereafter,
is said to omit another Bath Kol of great importance in

1 J. Sot. ix. 12 (Pinner, Einleit. p. 23 a), B. Sanh. u a.

2 Abridged from Schwab vii. 344, J. Sot. ix. 16. His translation is
generally diffuse and free.

3 So at least it is quoted by Hamburger, " Hillel" ii. 412.

144

BEFORE THE GOSPEL [738]

which Hillcl's doctrines are supported against those of
Shammai may have regarded the tradition as embodying
a doubtful and rather dangerous superstition 1 . At all events,
if the writer had attached weight to the Bath Kol, we should
have expected him to say " His contemporary teachers, in
accordance with a Voice from Heaveit, said &c." Note that
the Jerusalem Talmud mentions "the Holy Spirit", the Baby-
lonian "the Shechinah"; also the latter mentions " resting ",
whereas the former does not. These variations are illustrative
of those in the Gospels narrating the descent of the Spirit
upon Jesus.

[737] Another Bath Kol was uttered on Hillel when he
" separated from his trading brother Shebna, in order to
devote himself to the study of the Law " 2 : " There went
forth a Bath Kol and said (Cant. viii. 7) Though a man should
give all the substance of his house for love it (or, he) would
be utterly despised " which is hardly noteworthy except for
its obscurity and indefiniteness as to place and ear-witnesses 8 .

[738] In concluding this section we may add a story
relating how Hillel, in his youth, desiring instruction and
unable to pay for it, climbed up outside the window of the
school of Shemaiah and Abtalion and sat there listening
through a winter's night In the morning he was found
covered with snow and almost lifeless. It was the Sabbath,
and the Law forbade a fire to be kindled. But " they brought

1 On the date of the Tosephta and on its mixture of ancient and non-
ancient tradition, see Schiirer I. i. 130 133.

* Aboth i. 1 3 (n. 26, ed. Taylor).

3 [737 a] Pinner (Einleit. p. 240) represents Bab. Sot. 2ia as mis-
reading v "for me" instead of (Cant. viii. 7) 17 "for him" ("so ware es
;///> eine Verachtung "). The Jewish Cycl. says (ii. 591 a) that " Shebna,
who was engaged in business, supported him (i.e. Hillel), thinking they
should share as well everything in common in the life to come. But a
Bat Kol called out...." This seems to imply a rebuke to Shebna (like
l Cor. xiii. 3 " Though I give all my goods to feed the poor...") rather than
praise of Hillel.

A. 145 10

[738] BATH KOL BEFORE THE GOSPEL

him in and attended to his wants, saying, ' He is worthy that
the Sabbath should be profaned for him '." Hamburger,
relating the same story, says, " There rose the cry from all
sides, ' Light a fire ', ' Hillel is 'worthy, &c.' 'V As a fact,
Jewish tradition regularly sanctions the suspension of sab-
batical rules for the saving of the life of any human being,
not merely of the excellent. Hence perhaps the saying did
not become a Bath Kol. But it shews how " a cry from all
sides" might become u t/iey said ". Then "they", owing to a
special Jewish usage, might be taken as "THEY", i.e. God,
thus developing a human into a divine utterance 2 .

1 Taylor, Aboth i. 13 n. 26; Hamburger (" Hillel") ii. 401.

2 [738 a] Comp. Aboth ii. 3 "THEY reckon unto you reward as if ye
had wrought" (with Dr Taylor's note on "the indefinite THEY which
occurs so frequently in Rabbinic"). There the context shews that the
pronoun must mean "the Powers of Heaven." So it does in Dan. iv. 31
"To thee THEY speak" (so Heb. and Theod., but LXX and R.V. "it is
spoken") specially important because it refers to a Voice from Heaven.
Comp. Dan. vii. 5 "THEY said unto it, Stand up." In Dan. iv. 25, 32
"THEY shall drive thee" (R.V. "thou shall be driven") there has been a
previous mention of (Dan. iv. 17) "watchers" and "holy ones", i.e.
"angels", which LXX inserts in iv. 32.

[738(5] In N.T., the Jewish THEY has been altogether dropped byA.V.
R.V. may perhaps be said to suggest it once only, in the margin of Lk.
xii. 20 (Gr. " they require thy soul," where "they" cannot mean "men"),
but R.V. text has "This night is thy soul required of thee." Probably
THEY should be understood also in Lk. vi. 38 " THEY shall give into your
bosom," Jn xv. 6 "THEY gather them and cast them into the fire" (comp.

Mt. xiii. 41 "his angels, and they shall gather and shall cast them into

the furnace of fire ") ; and possibly in Lk. xiv. 35 " THEY cast it out" (A. V.
" men" in each case, R.V. "they" except in Lk. xiv. 35 "men").

146

CHAPTER II
BATH KOL IN FAVOUR

i. Bath Kol in tlte Targums of Jonathan ben Uzziel*

[739] THESE Targums insert eight Voices from Heaven.
Naturally the Targumist could not represent God in the
narrative of the Pentateuch as quoting Scripture not as
yet written. Consequently these Voices are not scriptural
texts. They are always introduced with the words " from
heaven" (inserted exceptionally by the Babylonian Talmud
in the Bath Kol on Hillel and on Samuel, but mostly omitted
by the Talmudists).

[740] The first of these is inserted to pronounce an ac-
quittal of Judah and Tamar s : (Jer. I.) "And the Bath Kol
fell from heaven and said, From before me was this thing done,
and let both be delivered from judgment" (Jer. II.) "The Bath
Kol came forth from heaven and said, Both of you are ac-
quitted in the judgment. Tlie thing was from the Lord?

[741] The next represents God as vindicating Himself
against the children of Israel who murmur against Him more

1 [739 a] Jonathan ben Uzziel lived in the first half of the first
century, and some authorities assign the Targums to that period. But
see Schiirer (I. i 156-7) who maintains that they were revised, or re-edited,
if not composed, in the fourth century.

8 Gen. xxxviii. 26 foil.

147 IO 2

[742] BATH KOL

rebelliously even than the serpent, which did not murmur
when its doom was pronounced. (Jer. I.) " And the Bath Kol
fell from tJte high heaven and thus spake, Come, all men, and
see all the benefits which I have done to the people whom

I brought up free out of Mizraim. I made manna Yet,

behold, the serpent ": (Jer. II.) "The Bath Kol came

forth from the midst of the earth, and a voice 1 was Iieard from
the heights, See, all men, and listen and hear, all ye children

of flesh. The serpent ". 2 This is noteworthy, not only

for the freedom with which, as in the Paradise Lost, words
are imputed to God, but also because the second Targum
appears to make a Daughter of Voice, or Echo, come from
earth, but a Voice from the Jteights of heaven a point that
will demand attention hereafter.

[742] A third Voice "fell from the high heavens" to
console "the fathers of the world," i,e. the elders of Israel,
when they heard the curses pronounced on those who break
the Law 8 . A fourth the last in the Pentateuch taking as
its basis the Scriptural statement that Moses died "according
to the word (lit. mouth) of the Lord *," says, " A voice fell
from heaven and thus spake : Come, all ye that have entered
into the world, and behold the grief of Moses the Rabban of
Israel, who hath laboured, but not to please himself, and who
is ennobled with four goodly crowns " those of the Law-
giver, the Priest, the King, and the Saint (" the crown of a

good name") "Therefore is Moses, the servant of the Lord,

gathered in the land of Moab by the kiss of the Word of the
Lord." Here it is important to note that possibly the Bath

1 [741 a] The Bath Kol is very seldom indeed described as a Voice
(instead of Daughter of Voice). The Jewish Cycl. (ii. 588 b} says, " Here
and there in the Talmud it is briefly called "?1p, voice (Sanh. 96 b, comp.
Ta'anit 21 b\ B.M. 85 b Rashi)." In Sanh. 96 , the Voice is a doom on
Nebuchadnezzar, and the simple noun might be used in accordance with
the precedent of the doom recorded in Daniel (729).

2 Numb. xxi. 6. 3 > eut
4 Deut. xxxiv. 5.

148

IN FAVOUR [743]

Kol may not extend through the whole of the passage quoted.
The last sentence, for example, seems to proceed from the
Targumist, paraphrasing the Scripture. This illustrates a
phenomenon that occurs more than once in the Fourth
Gospel, where it is impossible to tell where the words of
Christ, or of John the Baptist, end, and those of the Evan-
gelist begin 1 .

2. Bath Kol in Siphra, Sipkri, and Mis/ma 2

[743] The principal importance of the utterance from
Siphra is that it uses the phrase "Holy Spirit" instead of
Bath Kol thus : " At the time when Moses poured the oil of
anointing on Aaron's head, he was anxious and fell back-
wards, saying, ' Woe is me that I have committed an unfaith-
fulness in the matter of the oil of anointing.' There made
answer to him the Holy Spirit (Ps. cxxxiii. i): Behold how
good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in
unity*." Two treatises of the Babylonian Talmud are said to
quote this, substituting Bath Kol for "Holy Spirit" 4 . The

1 The four remaining Voices are from Targums on the Song of
Solomon, Lamentations, and Esther.

* [743 a] Siphra, and Siphri, in their original form, date back to
A.D. 100 200 (Schiir. I. i. 145), the Mishna to A.D. 200, but the Mishna
embodies earlier documents (ib. 129). These instances are quoted from
Pinner. See Appendix IV, 1078 foil.

3 Pinner who, in the Targum instances, frequently gives only the
initial words of a Bath Kol stops here. Presumably, the Voice implied
or added Ps. cxxxiii. 2 "It is like the precious oil...," i.e. the oil that
flowed downward was not wasted.

4 [743 ] Pinner, B. Horajoth 12 a, Kerithoth 5 . In the preceding
note he says that " Then answered the Holy Spirit " occurs four times in
the Second Chaldaic Translation of Esther, and Bath Kol four times.

[743 c] The Jewish Cycl. (ii. 589*) has, "At three Courts of Justice the
Holy Spirit beamed forth: at the courts of Shem, of Samuel, and of
Solomon. At the first, a Bat Kol cried, She \Tamar\ hath been more
righteous than I (Gen. xxxviii. 26); at the second, I am a witness
(Mak. 23* referring to I Sam. xii. 5) ; and at the third, She is the mother
(i K. iii. 27; Mak. 23*; Gen. R. xii., Ixxv. et seq.)." But these passages

149

[743] BATH KOL

only instance in Siphri is " R. Eliezer said, A Bath Kol went
forth through the camp a space of twelve times twelve miles
and called aloud and said, Moses is dead."

may mean that on three perplexing occasions the Holy Spirit illuminated
an obscurity by means of the Bath Kol, not that the Spirit was identical
with the Bath Kol. It should be noted that in the first and third of
these passages the Bath Kol is represented as saying what, in our text,
Judah and Solomon severally say. The writer seems to imply, "Judah
and Solomon did not really say these words, not at least of their own
accord; they were prompted by the Holy Spirit, which sent them a Bath
Kol." This at all events in the first instance is the view of the
Jerusalem Targums, which represent Tamar as confident that God will
inspire Judah with the spirit of confession, (Jer. I., and simil. II.) "The
Lord of the world will cause him [Judah] in his heart to acknowledge
them {i.e. his pledges]."

[743d] It is at all events certain that the Babylonian Talmudist, in
dealing with the three above-mentioned judgments of the Holy Spirit,
takes words assigned by Scripture severally to Judah, the people of
Israel, and Solomon, and asserts that they were not uttered by these
speakers but by Bath Kol. " How ", he asks in effect (Maccoth 23 b\
"could Judah or Solomon have known this?" And he replies "Much
rather did a Bath Kol teach it to them." As regards the Bath Kol in
Samuel, he takes advantage of the Masoretic text (i S. xii. 5) (R.V.)
"The Lord is witness against you.. .and they said (\\t. and he said] [he is]
witness." The Talmudist proceeds, "'And he said, Witness? How
comes it to be written ' he said ', whereas it ought to be [if ' the people '
was meant] 'they said'? Much rather did a Bath Kol go forth and say,
' I am witness in this matter'."

[743 e\ Compare J. Sota ix. 1 1 (Schwab ix. 6, vol. vii. p. 333) where
the Mishna says that in Deut. xxi. 8 the words of the Elders end at "thy
people Israel", and that the Holy Spirit adds the rest of the verse ; and
the Gemara actually attributes to the Holy Spirit the words (Gen. xxxviii.
26) " and he knew her again no more." See also the Bath Kol on Saul,
" the chosen of the Lord," 783 a.

[743 /] If this view is correct, instead of saying (with Hamburger,
ii. 93) that " several [of the Talmudists] " held the Bath Kol to be on an
equality with the Holy Spirit, "with which they often interchanged it
(Maccoth 23)," it would be truer at all events about the instances in
Maccoth to say that in some cases where words of Scripture were
regarded as uttered by speakers under special inspiration, and where it
was difficult to distinguish them from the contextual narrative, they were
said to be uttered by the Holy Spirit, or by Bath Kol, the meaning being
" the Holy Spirit speaking through Bath Kol."

ISO

IN FAVOUR [745]

[744] In the Mishna there arc only two instances. The
first is, R.-ihhi Jc-hoshua ben Levi said, Every day Hath Kol
goeth forth from Mount Horeb and maketh proclamation and
saith, Woe to tlic tinman creation for contempt of the Law"
interesting as shewing a completely subjective view of Bath
Kol. According to this, any Rabbi might say that Bath Kol,
or God, said anything provided that it was Scripture, or
Scriptural at any suitable time and in any suitable place '.
Such a Bath Kol as this reminds one of that "saying" of the
Lord which preceded the Deluge, "And the Lord said, My
spirit shall not always strive with man" The writer perhaps
meant here, by "said", little more than we should mean if we
said " The Lord purposed", and was as innocent as R. Jehoshua
of any intention to assert that these precise words of God
were ever made terrestrially audible to any human being.

[745] The next instance is of an entirely different nature,
and it is the most perplexing of all the instances in the two
Talmuds ; for it concerns the remarriage of a woman where
the husband has been supposed, but not proved, to be dead ;
and the Mishna allows her to remarry on the evidence of
a Bath Kol, as follows : " A woman is allowed to marry on
the evidence of a Bath Kol. It has come to pass that one 2
has stood on the top of the mountain and has said, The man
N., son of N., from the place N., is dead. [Men] have gone
and found no man there {i.e. on the mountain], and his wife has
been allowed to remarry. And again it has come to pass in

1 [744 a] This freedom might be facilitated by the Hebrew idiom of
using "say" where we use "say to oneself", as in 2 S. xxi. 16 "And he
stint to slay David," i.e. " said to himself that he would slay," R.V.
"thought to have slain."

- [745 a] "One (inN)". Does this mean an "angel"? Comp. Berach.
4 b " How is it known that this 'otu-' (Is. vi. 6 "One from the Seraphim")
means Michael? R. Jochanan said, 'I compare the word 'one' with
the word 'one'" and he quotes Dan. x. 13 "And behold, Michael, otu of
the chief princes...."

[745] BATH KOL

Zalmon 1 (Schwab, ^almon) that one has said /, N., the son of
N. a serpent has bitten me and I am dying. And [men]
have gone and have not recognized him. The wife has been
permitted to remarry 2 (1080)."

1 [745 b\ PO?V, said (Levy iv. 194 a) to be the name of a place (else-
where read DW). The sense seems to demand a place. Otherwise
conjectures might have been based on the likeness of the word to J"l1u?X
"shadow of death" or "thick darkness", and D?V "semblance" (Ps.
xxxix. 6 "man walks in (or, as) a mere semblance (D7X3)"). "Zalmon"
occurs in O.T. only in Judg. ix. 48 (LXX "Hermon" erron.), Ps. Ixviii. 14,
2 S. xxiii. 28 |1O? (a man's name)=i Chr. xi. 29 v*JJ. Zalmon called
by Schwab Tsalmon, Calmona, and Calmon is mentioned in Jer. Talm.
Kilaim iv. 9, Masseroth i. i, Orlah i. 2 (Schwab ii. 271, iii. 137, 319) as a
place of vines or beans.

2 [745 c\ This extraordinary enactment has received inadequate treat-
ment from Hamburger who simply refers to it in a note thus : (ii. 92, n. 14)
"A woman was allowed to remarry owing to Bath Kol, for example, if
anyone had heard the echo of the cry of a man from the other side of a
bank (von jenseits eines Ufers), / am dying? This omits the fact that
men "have gone and not recognized him," which Schwab takes as
meaning that they find a corpse but do not recognize it as that of the
husband.

[745 d] The Jewish Cyclopaedia says (ii. 588 a-b) " Nor is an echo
referred to... the Bat Kol here is more probably the same as when a
voice is heard and no man is seen." This is to say the least loosely
expressed. The sense demands " no man is seen and no man can be
seen" so that the circumstances imply (in the first of the two instances at
all events) a supernatural speaker. Moreover, this comment does not
explain how this the only Bath Kol in the Mishna, with the exception
of the one in the Aboth, and the only one (without exception) that has a
legal application was actually applied to domestic life. It would also
have been interesting to receive some explanation of " Zalmon ", or some
admission that it is unintelligible, and that, if understood, it might affect
the interpretation of the whole passage. All sorts of legal difficulties
also offer themselves to the commentator as to the ear-witnesses required
by Law. Is there any evidence whatever, in the whole of Jewish litera-
ture, to shew that a wife remarried on the strength of such a Bath Kol ?

[745*] The author of Horae Hebraicae (i. 243), on Zalmon, quotes
thus : " There is a story (say they) of a certain man in Zalmon who said,
/, N., the son of N., am bitten by a serpent, and, behold, I die. They
went away and found him not: they went away, therefore, and married
his wife." He continues, "The Gloss is, ' They heard the voice of him

152

IN IAVOUR [746]

[746] The first part of the Mishna says, " It is permitted
to attest what one has seen by the light of a lamp or of the
moon," after which follows, " It is permitted to a woman to
remarry &c." The comment on the Mishna begins thus,
" K. Chanina said, R. Jonathan has taught me that it suffices
(Schwab "suffit"), it is true, to have heard a voice on the

crying, and saying, Behold, I die; but they found not such a man in
Xalmon'." The reader will perceive that Horae Hebraicae translates
inn'an (Pinner and Schwab " recognized ") " found ". That undoubtedly
suits the circumstances better: but Levy gives no authority for this
meaning.

[745 /] The Original and Pinner's translation are as follows :
(Pinner, Einleitung p. 22) D. rOBTS Mischnah. J"11OT Jebamoth, Abs. 16,
Mis. 6:

ex -ioxi inn E>xn hy icyc' inxn nvyo ^ip ra s hy ncrx PKB>Q
ini-x nx ix'L-ni DIX or ixvo x 1 ?! i^n no JI^D mpoa ^D p
eru '33L M 3 ':-6s Ex p 3^D Ex :x noxB' inxn |io^ njryo

in^x nx ix't?m innan x^ is^ni no ^K nni

" Man erlaubt zu heirathen durch ein Bath Kol. Es ereignete sich,
dass Jemand stand auf dem Gipfel eines Berges und sprach : Der und
der, Sohn dessen und dessen, aus dem und dem Orte, ist gestorben, und
als man hinaufging und Niemanden dort fand, erlaubte man seiner Frau
zu heirathen. Ein anderes mal ereignete es sich in Zalmon, dass Jemand
sagte: Ich, der und der, Sohn dessen und dessen, bin von einer Schlange
gebissen worden, und ich sterbe, und als man hinging und ihn nicht
erkannte, erlaubte man seiner Frau zu heirathen."

[745^] Schwab (vol. vii. 218), in a very free translation, inserts words
indicating that in the second instance the corpse was found and was no
longer recognizable. That might be because it had swollen owing to the
venom.

" II est permis d'attester ce que Ton a vu a la clart d'une lumiere,
ou de la lune ; il est permis a une femme de se remarier, n'aurait-elle eu
avis de d<5c6s que par une voix en 1'air (un e*cho). Ainsi il est arrivd a
quelqu'un, plac5 au sommet d'une montagne, de dire qu'un tel fits d'un
tel nc { dans telle localit<5 est mort ; lorsqu'on parvint a ce sommet, Ton
n'y trouva personne, et pourtant il fut permis a la veuve de se remarier.
Une autre fois, il est arrive dans la locahtc de (^almon que Ton a entendu
dire : ' Moi un tel, fils ci'un tel, suis mordu par un serpent, et je meurs.'
Arriv pres du cadavre, les habitants ne le reconnurent plus ; et pourtant
il fut permis a sa veuve de se remarier (par suite de 1'audition de la voix
en 1'air)."

'53

[747] BATH KOL

mountain ; but still it is necessary (" encore faut-il ") to have
perceived the image ("1'image (pupa)") of a man 1 ... On
which R. Jonathan adds, ' // is necessary at least to have seen
an image (reflection) (" une image (reflet)") of a man'."
Taken together, the Mishna and the serious comment almost
force us to believe that in some parts of Palestine there
must have been a gross heathen superstition about oracular
voices from an unseen source, and that these were actually
allowed to have the force of Law in special instances. En-
lightened Rabbis in the first century like enlightened com-
mentators in the nineteenth may have minimized it. But
it appears to be of great antiquity ; and it points to the
conclusion that among the fishermen and peasants of Galilee,
in the first century, Bath Kol was a factor in religious
traditions or legends, as well as an occasionally determining
influence in ordinary life 2 .

3. Bath Kol expressing ( I ) celestial decisions

[747] Belief in Bath Kol appears to be based on a belief
that whatsoever is done by God on earth is done first in
heaven : and the earthly phenomenon is a semblance, echo,
or "daughter", of the heavenly reality. For example, "a
certain mocker said to Cahana, ' What voice (voix) is there at
this instant in heaven?' (What is being said above?) 3 'It
has just been decided,' said Cahana, 'that this man,' i.e.
the interrogator, ' is condemned to death.' Another saw him
and asked him the same question. The solution was the

1 Are we to suppose that "one has stood on the top of the mountain"
is supposed by Jonathan to mean that some man or image, reflection,
or phantasm, of a man has been seen standing there ?

2 [746 a] Hamburger (ii. 94, n . 7) says " Maccoth 23 a wird der
Ausspruch des Bathkol gleich der Aussage eines Zeugen betrachtet und
darnach entschieden," but I cannot find the passage there in Gold-
schmidt's edition.

3 J. Ber. ii. 8 (7), (Schwab i. 49).

154

IN FAVOUR [749]

same, exactly predicted." Cahana was a Babylonian, and he
i> mentioned in the Babylonian Berachoth more than four
times as often as in the Jerusalem ; but the former does not
contain these predictions 1 .

[748] There is no prediction nothing more than a vivid
acknowledgment of the correspondence between the Voices
of Heaven and phenomena on earth in a story about
R Simeon ben Jochai and R. Eliezer his son who, after hiding
themselves in a cave from a persecution that lasted thirteen
years, come out and watch a fowler : " As often as Bath Kol
said Let go, the bird escaped. As often as it said, Despatch,
the bird was caught 2 . Upon which the Rabbi said, ' Not
even a bird is taken without [the decree of] Heaven : how
much less so many souls of men !'"

[749] From this view of a perpetual correspondence
between the fates and fortunes of men on earth and the
words of God in heaven, an inference might be drawn as
to the words of Scripture. These might be regarded as
uttered from the beginning in heaven and repeated there
from time to time, with echoes on earth, as "oracles" to
quote the name often given by the Christian Fathers to
Scriptural texts for the guidance of mankind. Especially

1 At least, as far as can be judged from Schwab's Index, which
indicates 3 mentions in Jer. Berach. and 13 in Bab. Berach. But, in the
latter, several of the references are wrong.

1 [748 a] Wetstein and Schbttgen (on Mt. x. 29) quote this (not quite
identically) from Beresch. R. sect. 79, fol. 77. 4, which (Schiirer, I. i. 147)
is said to have been compiled in the sixth century. It occurs (Wetst.) in
other Jewish post-Talmud ic traditions.

The Bath Kol here uses Latinized Hebrew: " dimus" (Lat. ditnissus)
-"let go," "specula" (i.e. "do the work of a speculator ") = " despatch "
,Kr;mss).

But Pinner also quotes from the Jerusalem Talmud (Schebiith ix. i)
" He [/.. Simeon ben Jochai] heard a Bath Kol which said, Let go
(Pinner, " Man erbarme sich seiner"), and it was set free." The context
does not mention (Schwab) the captured bird. But still the Talmudic
passage indicates an early and possibly pre-Christian proverb in view
of Jewish reluctance to use Christian sources such as Mt. x. 29.

155

[750] BATH KOL

might this be the case when a text fell on the ear unex-
pectedly, or unusually, uttered without the least consciousness
of the special application, e.g. by a child reading a Scripture
lesson. This is like the comparatively modern use of Sortes
Virgilianae; and probably the use of Sortes Biblicae is not
extinct at the present time.

[750] Horae Hebraicae gives the two following instances
(on Mt. iii. 17): " R. Jochanan and R. Simeon ben Lachish
desired to see the face of Samuel [the Babylonian doctor] :
Let us follow, say they, the hearing of Bath Kol. Travelling,
therefore, near a school, they heard a boy's voice reading
[in i Sam. xxv. i] And Samuel died. They observed this,
and so it came to pass, for Samuel of Babylon was dead."

" R. Jonah and R. Josah went to visit R. Acha lying sick :
Let us follow, say they, the hearing of Bath Kol. They
heard the voice of a certain woman speaking to her neigh-
bour, ' The light is put out.' To whom she said, ' Let it not
be put out, nor let the light of Israel be quenched'" 1

[751] In the first of these cases the Voice is a text of
Scripture stating the death of the great Samuel, and the
Daughter of the Voice, or Echo, is a repetition of it, a state-
ment of the death of a lesser Samuel. The second is not
quite so simple. Two women speak about putting out a
candle. The utterance of the first, however, is not taken as
a Bath Kol. But the utterance of the second, " let it not be

1 [750 a] Jer. Shabb. vi. 10 (Schwab iv. 78). The Jewish Cyclopaedia
(ii. 309 b) quotes the last words thus : " Then they " [i.e. the two Rabbis]
"said, 'It shall not go out, and may the light of Israel never be ex-
tinguished'." But Schwab ("non, &\\.-elle") supports Hor. Heb., and the
sense seems to demand it. According to the principles (so to speak) of
Bath Kol, or Sortes Biblicae, no man must select or alter a text. It
must come upon him by chance, e.g. on opening the Bible, or hearing a
child read it, &c. Dr Hermann Gollancz has been kind enough to give
me the following translation of the last words : " She replied : The lights
(i.e. the learned men) of Israel have not been and will not be extinguished."
This seems to blend the words of the woman with the interpretation of
the Rabbis.

I 5 6

IN FAVOUR [754]

put out," falling on the ears of the Rabbis who are hoping
for the best and longing for a good omen, is regarded by
them as a Voice from Heaven, conveyed under a version of
a text of Scripture (2 S. xxi. 17 "that thou quench not t/ie
light of Israel"). Expressed more fitly the answer should
have been, " Let it not be put out," which the Rabbis might
interpret as meaning, "Let not the Light of Israel be quenched"
[752] An extreme instance is that of the heretic Achar,
who, when taken into twelve schools in succession, hears
twelve school-boys read out his doom 1 .

4. Bath Kol expressing (2) celestial judgments

[753] In the last section Bath Kol expressed celestial
decision rather than judgment deciding, for example, that
R. Samuel would die and R. Acha would recover, without
judging the character of either. But deciding ran into judg-
ing in the cases of the mocker whose doom was pronounced
in heaven, and of the heretic Achar condemned by twelve
texts. And generally, we may say that the higher kind of
Bath Kol, like the higher kind of prophecy, expresses celestial
judgments, saying, ' This is right\ ' Tliat is wrong*.

[754] Obviously, it is of little use to call in Bath Kol
to say Right, or Wrong, where all the world says Right, or
Wrong, already. Hence we might be disposed to assume
that its intervention would generally be required by some
knotty point of morality : and this if we set aside a number
of Voices eulogizing particular Rabbis and perhaps springing
from the affectionate hyperbole of their pupils is generally the
case. For example, Voices from heaven justified two Rabbis
who had killed themselves for the sake of their countrymen
the object of one of them being to cancel an edict of persecu-
tion and even sanctioned the non-observance of the Day of

1 Chag. 14^.
157

[755] BATH KOL

Atonement in the year of the consecration of Solomon's
Temple 1 . And we have seen above that in the Jerusalem
Targum a Bath Kol intervened to save the character of Judah
and Tamar. On one occasion, says the Jerusalem Talmud,
some people attending the funeral of an eminent Rabbi were
disquieted by the arrival of the Sabbath, fearing they had
profaned it. " A Bath Kol came forth, Everyone who has
not neglected to attend the funeral is worthy of the life to come,
except the fuller. When the man heard this he mounted his
roof, threw himself down and killed himself. Bath Kol went
forth, Also the fuller" Experts may supply the obscure
relations of the fuller and the Rabbi*: but it seems that the
Bath Kol regarded the suicide as having purchased the future
life by his penitent self-murder.

[755] As long as Bath Kol pronounced moral verdicts
of this kind, which implied no comparison of one Rabbi
with another, the utterances might pass comparatively un-
noticed. But what if a Bath Kol pronounced a Rabbi in
the right at the time when he was contending in argument
against another Rabbi, who, by implication, must necessarily
have been pronounced in the wrong? In such a case, the
opposing Rabbi, or his pupils, might say that they had not
heard the Bath Kol, or that it came from the devil. What
they did say, however, was very different. The problem
actually presented itself in a Bath Kol that intervened in a
contest between the followers of Hillel and those of Shammai.
It is recorded or referred to in both Talmuds and is important
enough to take a separate section.

1 [754 a] Hamburger (ii. 94, n. 6) referring to Aboda sara 10 ft 17 a,
and Moed katon 9 a. Comp. Jewish Cycl. (ii. 590*) which says that in
Shab. 30 a the latter Bath Kol is omitted.

2 Kilaim ix. 3. Pinner says the fuller had worked all night and there-
fore profaned the sabbath without mourning for the Rabbi. Schwab
(ii. 316) calls the man "le blanchisseur de Rabbi qui n'e"tait pas venu en
ce jour." This would seem to require that "except" (JO n3) should be
rendered " but not " (like d rf in N.T.).

I S 8

IN FAVOUR [758]

5. The Bath Kol for llillcl against Shammai

[756] This celebrated Bath Kol is introduced by the
Jerusalem Talmud in a comment on the following Mishna :
" ' I was travelling', said R. Tarphon ; ' and having bowed
down to repeat the Shema [" Hear, O Israel" &c.] in accord-
ance with the prescription of the school of Shammai, I was in
danger of being taken by robbers [not having seen them in
time].' The Sages said unto him, ' Thou didst sin against
thyself, because thou didst transgress the words of the school
of HillelV"

[757] Rabbi Tarphon, who flourished (Schiirer I. i. 127)
A.D. 100 130, followed Shammai, who enforced a bending
attitude. Hillel allowed any attitude. One would have
supposed that Tarphon 's conduct, if faulty, was but slightly
so. The Talmudist however in his comment regards the
Rabbi's guilt as extreme because he contravened the words
of the Sage, which are more authoritative, he says, than the
words of the Prophets. A Prophet, he argued, needs a sign ;
a Sage does not. But then, in this case, there being a conflict
between two Sages, there arose the obvious question, " What
if two Sages disagree?" The reader will see below that the
Talmudist assumes a last resort to Bath Kol:

[758] " Whereunto may be likened the Prophets and the
Sages ? To two couriers sent by a king to a province.
With regard to one, he gives notice that unless he shews the
royal seal and turban, he is not to be trusted : but with
regard to the other, that he may be trusted without these
tokens. Similarly, it is said with regard to the Prophet
(Deut. xiii. 2) 'And he giveth tliee a sign or a wonder} while
in the latter case it is said, (Deut. xvii. 11) 'According to tlie
sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee thou slialt do '

1 Jer. Berach. i. 7 adapted from Schwab's English translation p. 18 as
being closer than the French to the original.

159

[759] BATH KOL

(herein consists their superiority). This however does not
hold good unless a Bath Kol has made itself heard. Without
that, if anyone would act strictly and adopt as rules the
weighty opinions of Shammai and Hillel, he merits to have
applied to him the verse (Eccles. ii. 14) ' The fool walketh in
darkness'; for these opinions are sometimes contradictory.
It would be impious, on the other hand, to adopt the opinions
of one or the other, choosing those which are the easiest.
What then is to be done ? To follow sometimes the easiest,
sometimes the most difficult decisions of one or the other
school would not that be an arbitrary course ? This applies
only in so far as the Bath Kol has not been heard. But
since it has revealed itself (il s'est revl) for Hillel, the
decisions of Hillel are Law, and the transgressor of them
merits death."

[759] "The doctrine is 1 , 'A Bath Kol went forth and
said, These and t/wse- are the words of the living God, but tlie
Halacha is according to the words of the School of Hillel'
Where went forth the Bath Kol? R. Bibi, in the name of
R. Jochanan, [said] ' In Jabneh went forth the Bath Kol."'

[760] This long passage, or a part of it, is repeated thrice
elsewhere by the Jerusalem Talmud 8 . The Babylonian Tal-
mud reports the matter thus: " R. Aba said that Samuel
said, Three years strove the School of Shammai with the
School of Hillel. These said, 'The Halacha is with us,' and
those said, ' The Halacha is with us.' There went forth Bath
Kol and said, These and those are words of the living God,

1 [759 a] "The doctrine is", jn : Pinner, "Wir haben die Lehre";
Schwab, "On a raceme* ", Ehg. transl. " It has been reported."

2 The last paragraph of this translation is quoted from Pinner as
being more faithful than Schwab to the original. "These and those,"
i.e. the words of Hillel and the words of Shammai. Halacha " =
(Schurer I. i. 117) "the traditional Law".

3 Pinner refers to Jebamoth i. 6, Kidduschin i. i, Sola iii. 4. Schwab
in two of these tracts omits, and in one, shortens it, on the ground of its
having been translated before in Berachoth.

160

IN FAVOUR [782]

but the Haliicha is according to tlu School of Hillel" From
the account given by Gratz of this event it would appear
that the two most celebrated Rabbis of the time were dis-
satisfied with this method of decision. It would seem to
have been a chance utterance, like " Dieu le veut " in the
stories of the Crusades, caught up by the majority and not
really approved of even by those who approved of the doc-
trines of Hillel. At least such is the account given by Gratz,
who calls the utterance a chance voice.

[761] "The Synhedrion of Jabne commenced with the

fundamental propositions of Hillel and Shammai, in order to
fix by voting such rules as should hold good in all cases.
But it was not easy to obtain unity; for three and a half

years the contest is said to have lasted Then a voice

heard by chance (Bath-Kol), which was usually considered
as a communication from heaven in difficult cases, is said
to have sounded through the school-house in Jabne a voice
which said, ' The teachings of both schools are the words
of the living God, but practically the laws of Hillel only are
to carry weight.' Joshua, a man of calm disposition, alone
expressed himself against any decision arrived at by the
Bath-Kol. ' We do not require a miraculous voice/ he said,
' for the Law is not given for heavenly beings, but for men,
who in questTbnable cases can decide by taking a majority,
and a miracle cannot in such cases give the decision.' Eliezer
was also not satisfied with the conclusion arrived at, but this
opposition had only slight results V

[762] In accordance with this feelirfg of dissatisfaction,
and in striking contrast with the Jerusalem Berachoth, we
find the Babylonian Berachoth mentioning the Hillelian Bath
Kol indeed, but apparently in language of ironical deference,
as not being entitled to suppress discussion. It first gives a
long Mishna dispassionately enumerating points of difference

1 Gratz (TransL) ii. 340-1.
A. l6l II

[762] BATH KOL IN FAVOUR

between the two schools. Then in the Gemara, or comment,
it appears to incline towards the School of Shammai, but at
all events seems to welcome argument, and continues thus :

"And the doctrine is according to the words of the School
of Hillel ; that is a matter of course, since a Bath Kol has
gone forth. If you please, I say, ' It was before the Bath
Kol.' But, if you please, I say, ' It was after the Bath Kol,'
and it is as R. Joshua [would have it], who said, ' One does
not take heed of (or, trouble oneself about) Bath AV'." We
shall presently describe the circumstances in which Rabbi
Joshua uttered this much-quoted saying, which struck a fatal
blow at the superstition : but one point for immediate con-
sideration is the difference of the attitude towards it adopted
by the two Talmuds. The Jerusalem Talmud reverences
the Voice as a Law the infraction of which is punishable
by death ; the Babylonian hints, with some appearance of
sarcasm, its assent to the famous saying, " One does not
trouble oneself about Bath Kol 1 ."

1 [762 a] (B. Berach. 51 52). The translation given above closely
follows Pinner's version, "Und die Halachah ist nach den Worten der
Schule Hillels, dies versteht sich ja von selbst ! Denn es ist ja erschienen
(XpQ3) ein Bath Kol ! Wenn du willst sage ich : Es war vor dem Bath
Kol. Wenn du aber willst sage ich : Es war nach dem Bath Kol, und es
ist wie R. Jehoschua, welcher sagte: Man beachtet nicht (JTPJErD j'N)
das Bath Kol." Schwab's version is " L'avis de Hillel, dit-on, sert de
regie. Cela ne va-t-il pas sans dire, puisqu'une voix celeste 1'a proclame'?
C'e"tait peut-etre avant cette proclamation qdil ttait utile de le faire
savoir, ou meme apres, et comme R. Josud dit qu'on n'a pas e"gard a cette
voix celeste, il afallu id fixer la regie."

[762 ] The words I have italicized in Schwab appear necessary to
define the ambiguous "it" ("//was before the Bath Kol"). Those who
refused to acknowledge the supreme authority of Bath Kol would say
that, even after its utterance, the demonstration of the predominance of
Hillel's doctrine over Shammai's was still necessary because " one does
not trouble oneself about Bath Kol."

[762 c\ The Jewish Cycl. (ii. 591 a) quotes Jer. Talm., but not Bab.
Berachoth, as mentioning the Bath Kol in favour of Hillel. It adds that
"The Tosefta on the same question.. .does not mention a Bat Kol."

162

CHAPTER III

BATH KOL ON ITS DEFENCE

i. "One does not trouble oneself about Bath AW"

[763] THE origin of this celebrated saying is described
by the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud with great
divergence, but with agreement on this point, that it was
uttered on the occasion of a conflict before the Sanhedrin
between R. Joshua [ben Chananya] and R. Eliezer [ben
Hyrcanos] who flourished between A.D. IOO and A.D. 130
in which it was finally settled that matters of Law were to
be determined not by Bath Kol t but by tlie vote of tlie majority.
This decision was based upon the Jewish interpretation of
the words in Exodus (xxiii. 2) which we render "after a
multitude to wrest [judgment]." The word rendered " wrest "
means also " incline ", and Onkelos, making a pause before
" after ", renders the words, " After tlie many (i.e. in accordance
with the majority) thou shalt fulfil judgment," probably inter-
preting the words as meaning " according to the majority it
[i.e. the balance, or decision] shall incline." The words are
similarly interpreted elsewhere in the Talmud 1 .

1 [763 a] Comp. Jer. Sanh. i. 4 (6) (Schwab x. p. 239), and especially
ib. iv. 4 (fb. p. 266) where Moses says to God, "' Master of the Universe,
Make me to understand the rule as to doctrine,' and God said (Exod.
xxiii. 2) '// must incline after the majority'." Bab. Sanh. 2* agrees with
Jcr. Sanh. i. 4 (6) that, in criminal cases, the words mean "One must go
by the strict majority [even of one] in acquitting but not in condemning,"
for which a majority of two would be required.

163 II 2

[764] BATH KOL

[764] The two accounts are given below in parallel
columns, because of their bearing on important questions
affecting the criticism of the Gospels. The language is that
of Rabbinical hyperbole. We are familiar, through St Paul,
with the metaphor of "removing mountains " the name " up-
rooter of mountains " being frequently bestowed on a Rabbi
who could clear away obstacles from the path of the students
of the Law 1 and Luke (xvii. 6) has prepared us to understand
" uprooting a sycamine " in the same way. But here we have
R. Eliezer first uprooting a carob-tree, then making streams*
run backwards, then shaking almost to the ground the
pillars 3 , or walls, of the school, and finally appealing to
Bath Kol.

[765] The Babylonian Talmud begins scientifically from
the origin of the discussion. The Jerusalem Talmud plunges
poetically in niedias res, beginning from the excommunication
of Eliezer and then returning to the discussion that caused it.

1 [764 a] Bab. Sanhedr. 24* applies the title to Resh Lachish and
R. Meir; Bab. Berach. 64* says that R. Joseph was called "Sinai" and
R. Bar Nachmani " rooter up of mountains," and implies a preference of
R. Joseph.

2 [764 6] " Streams ", i.e. the waters of the Law. Eliezer's eloquence
for a time seemed to reverse the current of tradition. Comp. Hershon
Genes. Talmud p. 150 (quoting Soteh, fol. 49, col. i, 2) "At the death of
R. Akiva the supports (? pillars, or foundations) of the Law ceased, and
\hefountains of wisdom were stopped up."

3 [764 c] "Pillar" is a name frequently (943) given to a learned
Rabbi (Schottg. on Gal. ii. 9) and also (Gal. ii. 9) to some of the Apostles.
Comp. Jer. Aboda Sara iii. i (Schwab xi. 208) " When R. Abahu died,
the pillars of Caesarea wept? Moed. Kat. 25" (Levy iii. 66 1 a) "dropped
tear-drops'\ which the Talmudists have taken as a miracle, though it
merely means that the principal men of Caesarea mourned for him. So
Samson prostrated the "pillars" of Philistia. Eusebius De Mart. Palaest.
ix. 12 contains a similar error, describing "the pillars throughout the
city.. .which began to distil as it were tear-drops."

[764 d\ If this were intended here, the meaning would be "the
principal men of the Sanhedrin." But in Biblical Hebrew DHOy, lit.
"standing", may mean (Gesen. 764-5) either "pillars" or "attendants".
And that complicates the question. See below 771.

164

ON ITS DEFENCE

[786]

Jerusalem Talmud*

' When on another
;>n it was resolved
(on voulut) to excom-
municate R. Eliezer, the
sages asked who would
undertake to inform him
of it. 'I,' said R. Akiba
[one of the best of his
pupils], ' I will go and
let him know it [and
comfort him at once].'
He approached his
master and said, ' Master,
your companions ex-
communicate you.'

[766] "Without re-
plying, R. Eliezer led
him out of doors to a
carob tree and said,
4 Carob tree, if their
opinion is right, be thou
torn up ' but the tree
was not torn up : ' If

Babylonian Talmud*

There is a Mishna (Keilim v. 10)
which treats of an oven which R. Eliezer
makes clean* and the sages unclean, and
it is the oven of a snake*. What does this
mean ? Said R. Jehudah in the name of
Samuel : It intimates that they encircled
it with their evidences as a snake winds
itself around an object. And a Boraitha
states that R. Eliezer related all answers
of the world and they were not accepted.

"Then he said: 'Let this carob-tree
prove that the Halakha prevails as I state'
and the carob was (miraculously) thrown
off to a distance of one hundred ells, and
according to others four hundred ells.
But they said : ' The carob proves no-
thing.' He again said : ' Let, then, the
spring of water prove that so the Halakha
prevails.' The water then began to run
backwards. But again the sages said that
this proved nothing. He again said :
' Then, let the walls of the college prove
that I am right.' The walls were about

1 [765 a] Jer. Moed Katon iii. I (Schwab vi. 321-2). The preceding
sentences describe R. Meir refusing to submit to excommunication until
it is justified by facts and arguments. The extract is translated from the
French of Schwab, which is generally very free.

2 [765 ] H. Metzia 59", quoted from Rodkinson's Transl. p. 140
(Goldschmidt's version of B. Metzia is not yet (Feb. 1903) published).

3 [765 c] "Keilim", D}3, called by Schiirer (i. i. 125) and Schwab
" Kelim ", is a tract on household furniture and its purifying. Presumably
R. Eliezer pronounced an oven clean in circumstances in which the rest
of the Sanhedrin pronounced it unclean. Did the tortuous nature of the
discussion give rise to the saying that the oven was made by " Sna&t"?
or was it because the discussion introduced discord in the Sanhedrin
like the serpent in Paradise?

4 [765 d~\ The translator says, " The expression in text is the oven of
Akhnai, which means in Chaldaic 'snake.' Thosphat, however, maintains
that the man who made the oven was named Akhna."

I6 5

[767]

BATH KOL

Jerusalem Talmud
my opinion is right, be
thou torn up ' and it
was so : ' If their opi-
nion is right, return to
thy place ' and the tree
did not return: 'If my
opinion is right, return
to thy place' and the
tree returned.

[767] "In spite of all
these marvellous deeds,
the judgment of R. Eli-
ezer did not prevail.
The reason is, said R.
Chanina, that since the
promulgation of the Law
it was decided that the
majority should pre-
vail in every discussion
(Exod. xxiii. 2). Was
R. Eliezer ignorant of
this principle and why
did he persist in his iso-
lated opinion ? He in-
sisted simply because
they burned in his pre-
sence the things he had
declared pure.

" Thus, it has been
taught elsewhere, If an

Babylonian Talmud

to fall. R. Joshua, however, rebuked
them, saying : ' If the Scholars of this
College are discussing upon a Halakha,
wherefore should ye interfere ? ' They did
not fall, for the honour of R. Joshua, but
they did not become again straight, for
the honour of R. Eliezer [and they are
still in the same condition].

"He said again: 'Let it be announced
by the heavens that the Halakha prevails
according to my statement,' and a heaven-
ly voice was heard, saying : ' Why do you
quarrel with R. Eliezer, who is always
right in his decisions?' R. Joshua then
arose and proclaimed [Deut. xxx. 12]
' The Law is not in the heavens.' [How
is this to be understood? said R. Jeremiah:
' It means, the Torah was given already
to us on the mountain of Sinai 1 , and we
do not care for a heavenly voice, as it reads
[Exod. xxiii. 2] : " To incline after the
majority"." R. Nathan met Elijah (the
Prophet) and questioned him : ' What
did the Holy One, blessed be He, at
that time ? ' (when R. Joshua proclaimed
the above answer to the heavenly voice),
and he rejoined : ' He laughed and said,
" My children have overruled me, my
children have overruled me.'"]

"It was said that on the same day all

1 [767 d\ Hamburger attributes the words to R. Joshua (ii. 94) "Sofort
erhob sich R. Josua und sprach seinen Protest dagegen : ' Die Thora ist
nicht im Himmel, wir achten nicht auf das Bath Kol '." So does Levy,
quoting this passage (Levy, Ch. i. 112 b] "worauf R. Josua, 'man
kummert sich nicht urn das Bath Kol,' Sanhedr. 1 1 a und oft," which
appears to imply that the words are often repeated in Jewish tradition as
uttered by R. Joshua. Possibly the utterance of R. Jeremiah in the
passage bracketed by Rodkinson should stop at "Sinai".
2 See 763 a.

166

ON ITS DI.IKN( K

[768]

Jerusalem Talmud
oven is composed of
several compartments
united by some kind of
mortar 1 the oven remains
pure according to R.
Eliezer : the other Sages
declared it susceptible
of impurity.... This is
what one names the
Oven of Hakinai.

[768] " A great wrong
was wrought on that
day, said R. Jeremia ;
for henceforth every-
thing that Eliezer's eye
perceived was burned
up 1 : to such an extent
that if one half of [a
portion of] wheat was
seen by him it was re-
duced to ashes, but not
the other half. The
pillars (colonnes) of the
school trembled [under
the angry eye of Eliezer]
1 What business have
you' cried R.Joshua
'with the matters that
the scholars of the Law

Babylonian Talmud

the cases of purity, on which R. Eliezer
decided that they were clean, were brought
into the college and were destroyed by
fire. And they cast a vote, and it was
decided unanimously to bless him (to
place him under the ban). The question
arose, then, who should take the trouble
to inform him, and R. Aqiba said: 'I will
do so immediately, for one who is not fit
for such a message may go and inform
him suddenly, and he will destroy the
world.' What did R. Aqiba? He dressed
himself in black and wrapped himself
with the same colour, and sat at a distance
of four ells from R. Eliezer. And to his
question : ' Aqiba, what is the matter ? '
he answered, ' Rabbi ! it seems to me
that your colleagues have separated them-
selves from you.'

"The rabbi then tore his garments,
took off his shoes, and sat on the floor,
and his eyes began to flow. The world
was then beaten a third in olives, a third in
wheat, and a third in barley. According to
others, even the dough which was already in
the hands of the women became spoiled.
A Boraitha 8 states that that day was the
severest of all days, as every place on which
R. Eliezer had set his eyes was burned."

1 " Si un four est compose* de plusieurs parties creuses et qu'entre
1'une et 1'autre on met une sorte de mortier formant la jonction."

* [768 a] Comp. b. Shabbath 33 (Pinner Einleit. p. 23/1) which says
that when R. Simeon the son of Jochai and his son came out of their
cave, " wherever they turned their eyes everything was burned up," /'./.
they were as " a consuming fire ".

3 [768 ] Schiirer prefers a different spelling (I. i. 133) "Such pro-
positions as are borrowed from earlier times which have not been
incorporated in the Mishna are called Baraytha, Krl*T}, ' cxtratua ', sciL
traditio?

16 7

[769] . BATH KOL

Jerusalem Talmud

(compagnons d'etudes) discuss and dispute?' A Bath Kol (voix
celeste) made itself heard and proclaimed the superiority of the
judgment of R. Eliezer. 'The Law,' said R. Joshua, 'is no
longer in heaven' [it is for us to interpret it after the manner of
men (humainement)] 1 ."

[769] Modern historians dismiss this legendary narrative
very briefly. Schiirer simply says " According to later tra-
dition, this " \i.e. estrangement between Eliezer and Gamaliel
the President] " would be explained by the fact that Elieser
was excommunicated by Gamaliel*," nor does the ample index
to his history contain the word Bath Kol, nor has the Biblical
Index any reference to the passage in Exodus interpreted
by the Jews as referring to " the decision of the majority 8 ."
Gratz indeed mentions the Bath Kol in favour of Hillel, and
R. Joshua's protest against it 4 ; but our legend he thus con-
denses : " There was once a discussion about an oven of
peculiar structure, which a decision of the majority had
pronounced subject to become unclean like earthenware
vessels. Eliezer, following a special tradition, did not wish
to yield to this decision and acted in opposition to it ; at
Gamaliel's instigation, Eliezer was excommunicated."

[770] Yet both Talmuds mention this Voice from Heaven
as well as the excommunication ; and its historical basis seems
to be little, if at all, less solid than that of the Bath Kol in

1 [768 c] After this abrupt termination of the narrative comes a protest
of " R. Crispi, or R. Jochanan in the name of Rabbi," thus : " If I hear
anyone express an opinion uttered in the name of R. Eliezer, I shall
repeat it in his name in spite of the anathema."

2 Schiir. II. i. 371.

3 [769 a] See Schiir. n. i. 334 "the majority of those distinguished for
learning was the decisive tribunal," but the passage contains no reference
to Exodus xxiii. 2.

4 [769 ] Gratz ii. 340 "Then a voice heard by chance (Bath-Kol)
which was usually considered as a communication from heaven in
difficult cases, is said to have sounded through the school-house in
Jabne...." See 761.

1 68

ON ITS DEFENCE [771]

favour of Hillcl. It is therefore worth while to ask whether
both of them may not have been of the nature of that afflatus,
or furor, which fell on the Greeks at Mycale" and has often
fallen upon men since that day, making the multitude cry
out honestly or half-honestly believing in the cry " It is
the will of God," or " It is the voice of God and not of man."
When this cry was raised in honour of Herod Agrippa,
Josephus tells us though Luke does not that it was from
the king's claqueurs 1 ; but what about the officers of the San-
hedrin sent to arrest Jesus and returning to the Council with
the words, " Never spake man as this man " ? This was
certainly not flattery, and might easily have been expressed
(in Jewish idiom) so as to assert that a "Bath Kol went forth."
[771] If therefore we can find any evidence that a
popular audience was admitted to the discussions of the
Sanhedrin, and that these were likely to take part with
Eliezer or against the President who excommunicated him,
we can understand the rise of the legend of a Bath Kol,
and even of one to which Eliezer may have appealed. And
thus everything will be explained. For it has been pointed
out that the appellation " oven of the snake " might be ex-
plained as derived from the Serpent that brought discord into
Paradise : the waters of the Law which are " turned back " by
Eliezer are the currents of tradition ; the uprooted " carob-
trees" are doubts and objections; the "pillars" are the leading
men who incline at first to the side of Eliezer, then to the
side of Joshua, and who are left (according to one tradition)
half-way between the two, though assenting to the vote of
excommunication under the pressure of Gamaliel. We merely
want evidence of the presence of a popular audience who could
cry " Never man spake as this man," or " This is the voice of
God," in order to explain the Bath Kol, like the rest, in a
natural way.

1 Ant. xix. 8. 2.
169

[772] BATH KOL

[772] Now in the first place it must be noted that Eliezer's
decision in favour of the purity of ovens would naturally be
popular, as the opposite one might be inconvenient to many;
and, generally, one cause of Hillel's popularity was probably
the fact that he stood for freedom while Shammai stood for
restriction. But in the next place we have definite evidence
that at this period an audience was admitted to the discus-
sions of the Sages, and an audience that regarded with great
disfavour Gamaliel the Patriarch, the chief instigator of the
excommunication. We learn from Gratz that Gamaliel had
taken measures for limiting or selecting those who were ad-
mitted, but, in spite of this, they on one occasion broke out
against his authority and he was forced to resign.

[773] "The Patriarch of Jabne made a rule that only such
persons should be admitted to the school-house whose up-
rightness had been proved ; and for this purpose he placed
a porter at the doors of the school, in order to prevent the

admission of those who were unworthy The precautions

for admitting members and disciples met with opposition,
which at first was only timidly expressed ... [Then follows
an account of his excommunication of R. Eliezer, followed by
an attempt to censure R. Joshua.] The school-house was
full of people amongst whom there arose a tumult at this
contemptuous treatment of a member who was respected and
loved by the people. The opposition party took courage
and gave utterance to their dissatisfaction. They called out
to the Patriarch ' Who has not already felt thy severity ? '
The School was turned into a tribunal, and the college de-
posed Gamaliel on the spot from the dignity of Patriarch.

[774] " With his fall ended the regulations made by him.
The porter was removed from the door of the school, to which
all could now gain unobstructed admission 1 ."

[775] From these considerations it would seem that the

1 Gratz ii. 341-5. The italics in the last sentence are mine.
I/O

ON ITS IM.1KNCE [776]

" Voices from Heaven ", the one for Hillel at Jericho,
and tlu- other for Eliezer at Jabne, were of the nature of
>n<ii, or Voces Pof>n/i, sudden outbursts of popular feeling,
' This is the voice of God." In the former case, the Voice
prevailed ; in the latter the hero being no longer the gentle
Hillel but the irascible Eliezer, who may have seemed to
appeal as it were to "the galleries" for support it failed.
And thus \ve can understand why R. Joshua is not alleged to
have replied, in answer to Eliezer's appeal to Bath Kol, " I
did not hear it. The Patriarch did not hear it. You say you
heard it. But who supports you ? Who, besides you, heard it?"
If Joshua like the Greek Celsus in questioning the story of
the Dove at Christ's baptism had asked this question, he
might have been met with shouts from the non-voting multi-
tude " We support him, we heard it." And so it may have
come to pass that both these Voices obtained a degree of
acceptance. The former is ironically half acquiesced in, and
half disputed, by the Babylonian Talmud. The latter is not
disputed by R. Joshua. He accepts it, but only for what it is
worth ; and that in a case of Halacha is nothing : " One
does not trouble oneself about Bath Kol 1 ."

2. Apologies for Bath Kol

[776] Speaking of Eliezer's appeal to Bath Kol and its
defeat as recorded in the last section, the translator of the
Jerusalem Talmud says, " Thus, for Talmudism, the miracu-
lous period was closed*." The close was perhaps rather
more gradual than this : but still it cannot be denied that a

1 [775 a] The numerous instances of Bath Kol in the Talmuds do not
appear to include a single one in which Bath Kol is clearly stated to be
subjective^ as the Voice from Heaven is said to be in Jn xii. 29, and
Acts xxii. 9 (but the same voice seems to be regarded as objective in
Acts ix. 7).

1 Schwab, i. Introd. p. Ixxii.

171

[777] BATH KOL

great change must have taken place in the attitude towards
the miraculous Voice from Heaven. Not probably that it
was disused ; but the time had come to defend or apologize
for it, to limit it, and later on to define it.

[777] It appears certain that from the date of the intro-
duction of the term, Bath Kol must have been regarded by
most as an inferior revelation. " Kol " means an inarticulate
sound or "cry" of an animal as well as of man. It stands
therefore beneath "word", which implies reason. There is
the same inferiority in the Greek ^wv/j ("voice", or "sound")
to the Greek \6yos (" word") 1 . Thus both Greek and Hebrew
would recognize the superiority of the Word of the Lord
(which inspired the prophets) to the Voice of the Lord, and
still more to the Daughter of the Voice. No doubt, in
passages from what may be called the Hillelite sections of the
Jerusalem Talmud, and from other exceptional sources, Bath
Kol is hyperbolically extolled. But, as we have seen Philo
above (727) teaching the inferiority of the Voice of the Lord
to the prophetic faculty, i.e. the Word of the Lord, so in later
days, the Babylonian Talmud says "After the death of the
last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, the Holy Spirit
departed from Israel but they still used Bath Kol a ." This
implies inferiority and makeshift in the time of decadence.
In the same spirit scarcely veiling a sarcasm under a playful
allusion to feminine talkativeness R. Jochanan stipulates
that if Bath Kol is to have authority, it must be a woman's
voice in the wilderness, but a man's voice in town (where
women will not usually let a man speak) 8 .

1 See Ignat. Rom. ii. (Lightf.).

2 [777 a] Jewish Cycl. (ii. 589 6) " ' The Bat Kol was yet heard.' Tos.
Sotah, xiii. 2, where prB> is nearer the original than Sotah 48 b, Sanh.
ii a I'BTDnPD." The above is quoted from Sanh. (Hor. Heb. Mt. iii. 17)
" but they used thenceforth the Bath Kol." But Goldschmidt (t'V *JK1
p 'B) "dennoch bedienten sie sich noch," Rodkinson "they were still
used to a heavenly voice."

3 [777 b] Comp. Jewish Cycl. (ii. 309 a) "But, says the Talmud, the

1/2

ON ITS DEFENCE [779]

[778] The Jerusalem Talmud which we have recently
found asserting that the Bath Kol for Hillel had the force of
L.i\v to be enforced by the penalty of death introduces the
subject of personal guidance by Bath Kol in a comment on
tin- following Mishna: "One may go forth [on a journey]

carrying a fox's tooth, or a nail that has been used for

hanging, to serve as a remedy. Such is the judgment of
K. Meir (al. R. Josse). According to the other Sages it is
forbidden even on ordinary weekdays as being a heathen
custom 1 ." The Gemara, or comment, after explaining the
uses of these charms and the different opinions about them,
passes to Bath Kol by saying that R. Eliezer ben Jacob
interpreted the warning of Leviticus (xix. 26) against enchant-
ments and augury in this sense, that " one is to take account
of the omens and there must be three of them 7 !" The
Talmud then adds as an opinion of " R. Eliezer" which
generally means the R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos above men-
tioned that one may take Bath Kol as a guide where one is
in doubt, in accordance with Isaiah (xxx. 21) "Thine ears
shall hear a word behind thee saying, This is the way that ye
should follow*"

[779] Then come three instances in which a man escapes
from a death that overtakes some one else in his place
in two of which the sufferer has kindly warned the survivor,

voice must bt an unusual one, such as a man's voice in a city, or a
woman's voice in a desert (Yer. Shabb. 8 <r, Bab. Meg. 32 a)." This is
not so accurately expressed later on in the same volume (ii. 592 b " Bat
Kol ") " It is said (Meg. 32 a) that it sounds like a man's voice...." The
sense requires u that it must sound," if people are to take notice of it.
1 Jer. Schabb. vi. 10 (Schwab iv. 77).
1 " On en tient compte, et il faut qu'il y en ait trois."
8 [778 a] So Schwab. R.V. has " This is the way, walk ye in it." The
Jewish Cycl. says (ii. 588 b) u On this account [i.e. because no man was
heard] Bat Kol was called a voice which is heard behind the back
(Meg. 32*1)." The passage quoted above suggests that the name ("a
voice... back"), if it was ever really a name, arose from the words of
Isaiah.

173

[781] BATH KOL

to be the original meaning, and " daughter of voice " appeared
to be a subsequent meaning read into the original by Hebraiz-
ing Rabbis interpreting a Syrian idiom it would still be
possible for Jews toward the end of the first century to
regard the meaning as an "echo".

two passages. The first is, " Das 6l gibt (beim Giessen) keinen Schall
von sich nach Schir. R. i. 3." But Levy (i. 275 a) quotes apparently the
same passage more fully thus (Cant. r. sv. nn?) 6 " So wie das Oel (beim
Giessen) keinen Ton (?1p O2) von sich giebt, ebenso giebt Israel (wenn
er leidet) in dieser Welt keinen Wehruf (?1P 113) von sich." This
suggests that in applying the word to " oil " the writer has in view the
immediately following application to the sorrows of Israel in this world.
If so, by reversing the sentence, we might interpret it thus : " Israel,
when it suffers, gives forth in this world no Bath Kol, i.e. no divine echo
to her cries " [such as the Martyr Akiba gave forth (see below 783)]
"no more than oil gives forth a Bath Kol when it flows": that is to say
Bath Kol, as applied to " Israel", would have its usual meaning, and the
term would be applied to "oil" merely by analogy. In any case, a
single instance of this kind cannot be taken as a proof that " Bath Kol ",
in itself, means no more than "sound". If that were true, we should
expect to find, in the voluminous Talmuds and other Jewish literature, a
great number of instances where it is applied to the cries of animals or of
human beings. Until such evidence is adduced, the traditional Jewish
view must hold the field.

[781 ] The other passage is quoted by Dalman thus, "'Die Gottesrede
vom Sinai war nach Schem. R. 29 ohne begleitenden Schall (blp J13),
d. h. ohne Echo." Apparently this is quoted to shew that, in certain
contexts, Bath Kol means "echo". If so, it is not to the point as an
argument that the term may mean "sound". It may be added that
Levy(i. 275<z) who places both passages under the heading "Widerhall",
"Echo" gives the latter more fully thus: "(Exod. r. s. 29 Ende) If a
man calls to another, [his] voice has a daughter-voice (Levy, "Wider-
hall"), but [as for] the voice that went forth from the mouth of the
Holy One, blessed be He, His voice had no daughter-voice."

[781 c\ Here again the author would perhaps not have applied the
word Bath Kol to the echo of the human voice but for the antithesis with
the echo of the divine voice. The saying seems to have reference to the
parallel descriptions of the Voice from Sinai (Exod. xx. 18) "thunders",
(Deut. iv. 12) "voice of words", and perhaps it is intended to negative
some assertion that the Voice was an inferior revelation. Comp. Philo
(i. 443) on Exod. xx. 18, "The voice of mortal creatures has as its

176

ON ITS DKI-KNCE [783]

[782] Unimportant in itself, this question assumes im-
portance for students of the Gospels, because of the contrast
between the Synoptic and the Johannine Voices from heaven.
In the two Synoptic Voices from heaven there is nothing
that resembles, or approximates to, an echo. But the single
instance given by John is of the nature of a celestial echo of
a terrestrial prayer: the Son says "Glorify", and the Father
replies " I have glorified and will glorify." Hence it is worth
asking whether any similar repetitions meet us in Jewish
literature.

[783] There are perhaps, in the Talmuds, only two or
three 1 instances of an echoing Bath Kol. The first occurs in

criterion the sense of hearing, but the Scripture (xpivpoi) indicates that
the words of God are seen, after the manner of light, for it is said, 'All
the people saw the Voice,' not ' heard 1 ." Both writers appear to express
the same meaning in different metaphors. This particular Voice from
Sinai was not like other voices: it went straight to man's heart. It was,
says Philo, like a flash of light. It was says the writer quoted by
Levy like a voice that has no blurring reverberation. Compare Philo
elsewhere (ii. 188) to the same effect.

[781 (C\ There were many traditions about " seeing the thunders " of
Sinai. Levy (iv. 259 ) quotes PL Exod. r. sect. 5, 107* "the Voice went
forth and was divided into seventy voices according to [the] seventy
tongues [of the world]." Jewish Cycl. (ii. 592 b) refers to traditions
("Tan. on Deut. in Griinhut, Likkutim ", v. 1 1 1 b, H2a: "The word
called from heaven") asserting that "the Divine Word of the Ten
Commandments on Sinai was spoken with a strength that adapted itself
to children, youths &c." All this was very natural, in view of the fact
that the revelation was through " thunders ", and might easily be assailed
as an inferior revelation, just as, in John (xii. 29) some of the multitude
say that the Voice from heaven is merely "thunder". Hence we can
easily understand why Philo dwelt on the I'isibility of this particular
voice, and why the later writer quoted above insisted that it had no
Daughter Voice ; i.e. the Parent Voice spoke, direct, to the heart of
Israel.

1 [783a] B. Berach. 12* "(2 S. xxi. 6) 'And we will hang them. ..in
Gibeah of Saul, the Chosen of the Lord' A Bath Kol went forth and
said, ' The Chosen of the Lord''" may be a divine echoing of the mocking
words of the Gibeonites, indicating that (as the Rabbis believed) the
king would be forgiven after death and would (i S. xxviii. 19) rest with

A. 177 12

[783] BATH KOL

the story of the martyrdom of R. Akiba who was put to
death by the Romans with tortures (after a long imprisonment
beginning A.D. 135) for participating in the revolt of Bar
Kochba or Koziba. When he was being led out to execution
it was the time for reciting the Shema (" Hear, O Israel, the
Lord thy God is ONE"), and they were combing his flesh
with combs of iron ; but he persisted in reciting it. His
disciples remonstrated with him, saying that he had en-
dured enough. Akiba replied " All my days I have been
troubled about this verse, [Thou shalt love the Lord] with all
thy soul (or, life), even if He should take away thy spirit
(or, breath). When, said I, will it be in my power to fulfil
this? Now that I have the occasion shall I not fulfil it?".
As he was lengthening out the word ONE, till he expired at
ONE, the Bath Kol went forth " Happy art thou, Akiba, that
thy spirit went forth at ONE 1 ."

Samuel in the grave. But the writer may mean that the Gibeonites
stopped at the word " Saul " and that the Bath Kol added the rest (see
the context). The same doubt applies to Maccoth 23^ (Pinner 24 )
referring to I K. iii. 27 and I S. xii. 5. See above 743 d foil.

1 [783 K\ B. Berach. 61 6, and see Taylor on Aboth iii. 20. It is
interesting to compare this with the account in the Jerusalem Talmud:

"R. Akiba was on the point of undergoing the extremity of the Law
in the presence of the impious Turnus Rufus, when the moment arrived
for reciting the Shema. He began it and it filled him with joy. ' Old
man, old man,' cried the pro-consul, 'art thou a sorcerer (so that thy
tortures cause thee no suffering) or dost thou defy me by shewing joy in
the midst of thy pains?' 'Calm thyself, replied Akiba, 'I am neither
sorcerer, nor mocker; but all my life long I have read this verse of the
Pentateuch and sorrowfully said to myself, When shall I fulfil the three
ways of worshipping God set forth in this profession of faith Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and
with all thy powers'? I have proved that I love him with all my heart
and with all my means (moyens), but I had not yet undergone the test of
love with all my soul, as I undergo it at this moment, and that is the
moment in which I thus recite the Shema. I delight in this occasion of
proving my faith ; and I have shewn my joy." With these final words
(en achevant ces mots) he gave up his soul [to God]. [[ ]]. Nehemi

I 7 8

ON ITS DKI KNCE [784]

[784] The second, quoted (like the first) from the Baby-
lonian Talmud alone, relates to Rabba bar Nachmani ; who is

ribed as being of such super-celestial purity that "the
heavenly college" desired to consult him on a question about
which they were divided. So they sent the angel of death
for him. He was alone in a forest, fleeing from persecution ;
but as he did not for an instant cease studying, the angel
could not touch him. Presently, however, taking the noise of
the trees to be the sound of the officers approaching him,
he said, " It is better for me to die than to be taken by the
Government." He was then questioned about the dispute in
the heavenly college 1 . " As his soul was passing in peace, he
said, Pure, pure. There went forth a Bath Kol and said,
Happy art thou, Rabba bar Nachmani, for pure is thy body and
in purity (lit. at \the word} pure) hath thy soul gone forth* "

Emsouni served R. Akiba 22 years and learned with him the interpreta-
tion of the most insignificant particles of the Bible (also, only &c.) n
(j. Berach. ix. 7, Schwab i. 172).

[783 c] The passage is given in full in order to call the reader's
attention to the fact that the Jerusalem Talmudist, while finding space
for a record about a servant learning " the most insignificant particles of
the Bible," omits the Voice from heaven, which, according to the
Babylonian Talmud, should come in the place indicated by double
brackets.

We could hardly have a more conclusive proof that apart from the
Bath Kol in favour of Hillel, and the Bath Kol to which R. Eliezer
appealed the Talmudic post-Christian Bath Kol about a Rabbi amounts
to little more than a testimonial from the writer or speaker, meaning, in
effect, simply, " This Rabbi was an excellent man."

[783 </] The contrast between the two Talmuds would be incomplete
if we did not add that the Babylonian writer appends a comment of the
angels on Akiba's fate and a second Bath Kol in reply to them.

1 So far, the narrative is taken from Baba Metzia 86* as translated by
Rodkinson vol. XII. 224.

1 [784 a] "As his soul. ..forth" is quoted from Pinner (Einlfit. 24 a).
Rodkinson has "And when he was dying he was questioned about the
dispute in the heavenly college, and he decided that it was pure. Then
a heavenly voice came forth saying: Well is it with thee R. b. NaTimani,
that thy body is pure, and that thy soul left thy body while thou wast

179 122

[783] BATH KOL

the story of the martyrdom of R. Akiba who was put to
death by the Romans with tortures (after a long imprisonment
beginning A.D. 135) for participating in the revolt of Bar
Kochba or Koziba. When he was being led out to execution
it was the time for reciting the Shema (" Hear, O Israel, the
Lord thy God is ONE"), and they were combing his flesh
with combs of iron ; but he persisted in reciting it. His
disciples remonstrated with him, saying that he had en-
dured enough. Akiba replied "All my days I have been
troubled about this verse, [Thou shalt love the Lord] with all
thy soul (or, life), even if He should take away thy spirit
(or, breath). When, said I, will it be in my power to fulfil
this? Now that I have the occasion shall I not fulfil it?".
As he was lengthening out the word ONE, till he expired at
ONE, the Bath Kol went forth " Happy art thou, Akiba, that
thy spirit went forth at ONE 1 ."

Samuel in the grave. But the writer may mean that the Gibeonites
stopped at the word " Saul " and that the Bath Kol added the rest (see
the context). The same doubt applies to Maccoth 23 (Pinner 24 )
referring to I K. iii. 27 and I S. xii. 5. See above 743^ foil.

1 [783 ] B. Berach. 61 b, and see Taylor on Aboth iii. 20. It is
interesting to compare this with the account in the Jerusalem T;ilmud:

"R. Akiba was on the point of undergoing the extremity of the Law
in the presence of the impious Turnus Rufus, when the moment arrived
for reciting the Shema. He began it and it filled him with joy. ' Old
man, old man,' cried the pro-consul, 'art thou a sorcerer (so that thy
tortures cause thee no suffering) or dost thou defy me by shewing joy in
the midst of thy pains?' 'Calm thyself, replied Akiba, ' I am neither
sorcerer, nor mocker ; but all my life long I have read this verse of the
Pentateuch and sorrowfully said to myself, When shall I fulfil the three
ways of worshipping God set forth in this profession of faith Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and
with all thy powers ? I have proved that I love him with all my heart
and with all my means (moyens), but I had not yet undergone the test of
love with all my soul, as I undergo it at this moment, and that is the
moment in which I thus recite the Shema. I delight in this occasion of
proving my faith ; and I have shewn my joy." With these final words
(en achevant ces mots) he gave up his soul [to God]. [[ ]]. Nehemi

I 7 8

ON ITS DEFENCE [784]

[784] The second, quoted (like the first) from the Baby-
lonian Talmud alone, relates to Rabba bar Nachmani ; who is
described as being of such super-celestial purity that " the
heavenly college" desired to consult him on a question about
which they were divided. So they sent the angel of death
for him. He was alone in a forest, fleeing from persecution ;
but as he did not for an instant cease studying, the angel
could not touch him. Presently, however, taking the noise of
the trees to be the sound of the officers approaching him,
he said, " It is better for me to die than to be taken by the
Government." He was then questioned about the dispute in
the heavenly college 1 . " As his soul was passing in peace, he
said, Pure, pure. There went forth a Bath Kol and said,
Happy art thou, Rabba bar Nachmani, for pure is thy body and
in purity (lit. at \tlie word} pure) hatli tliy soul gone forth""

Emsouni served R. Akiba 22 years and learned with him the interpreta-
tion of the most insignificant particles of the Bible (also, only &c.)"
(j. Berach. ix. 7, Schwab i. 172).

[783 c\ The passage is given in full in order to call the reader's
attention to the fact that the Jerusalem Talmudist, while finding space
for a record about a servant learning "the most insignificant particles of
the Bible," omits the Voice from heaven, which, according to the
Babylonian Talmud, should come in the place indicated by double
brackets.

We could hardly have a more conclusive proof that apart from the
Bath Kol in favour of Hillel, and the Bath Kol to which R. Eliezer
appealed the Tahnudic post-Christian Bath Kol about a Rabbi amounts
to little more than a testimonial from the writer or speaker, meaning, in
effect, simply, " This Rabbi was an excellent man."

[783 d] The contrast between the two Talmuds would be incomplete
if we did not add that the Babylonian writer appends a comment of the
angels on Akiba's fate and a second Bath Kol in reply to them.

1 So far, the narrative is taken from Baba Metzia 86* as translated by
Rodkinson vol. XII. 224.

* [784 a] "As his soul. ..forth" is quoted from Pinner (Einleit. 240).
Rodkinson has "And when he was dying he was questioned about the
dispute in the heavenly college, and he decided that it was pure. Then
a heavenly voice came forth saying : Well is it with thee R. b. Na'hmani,
that thy body is pure, and that thy soul left thy body while thou wast

1/9 12 2

BATH KOL

[7851 Without attempting to anticipate the results of a
comparison between the Synoptic and the Johanninc You
from heaven, we may pause here and ask, What i
would probably be the difference of attitude toward Bath
in the middle, and at the conclusion, of the first
And it seems reasonable to give-antecedently, and in s
subordination to facts hereafter to be ascertained-some ,
answer as this: Those Evangelists who taught in Pale
during the middle of the first century, with Hillel's memory
fresh in their mind, would naturally be influenced by 1
precedent and by the popular belief. Recording, for ex
ample, our Lord's baptism in the Jordan near Jericho and
the descent of the Holy Spirit, they may well have said,
" Can it be that in this very neighbourhood in Beth Gadia of
Jericho, Hillel was honoured by a Voice from heaven-
althoug'h he did not receive the Holy Spirit but was merely
pronounced worthy of it and that our Master, on whom the
Holy Spirit actually descended, was not similarly honoured?"
On the other hand, an Evangelist teaching at Ephesus toward
the end of the century saturated, it is true, with Jewish
tradition, but still writing for Greeks might say, " Do not the
better teachers among the Jews themselves now agree that
such a sign from heaven as this cannot be allowed to decide
what is right or wrong for men ? Can celestial thunders or
voices settle for us what teacher possesses, and what teacher

saying 'pure'." "At [the word] pure" is exactly parallel to "At [the
word] ONE," in the story of Akiba's Bath Kol. The Jewish Cycl. has
(ii. 591 b) " Happy art thou, Rabba bar Nahmani, clean in thy body, clean
in thy soul."

Rodkinson continues "A pitacium (sic) (writing) fell in the city of
Pumbaditha, 'Rabba b. Na'hmani was taken to the heavenly college'."
Two other instances of irirraKiov about the same man immediately follow.
The word means "writing-tablet", hence "decree" ; here "the decree of
heaven." Levy (iv. 160 a) quotes this instance, but no other, of its
"falling from heaven". It would be interesting to ascertain how the
Jews differentiated a pittacium from a Bath Kol.

1 80

ON ITS DEFENCE [785]

does not possess, the words of eternal life ? Is a voice, or cry,
of the Lord to be compared with the Word of the Lord ?
And if indeed the Lord ever seems to cry, is it not when a
cry goes up to Him from one of His children and brings
down an echo in the heart which it is given to some to hear,
but only to those who are prepared for it 1 ?"

1 [785 a] Of course other considerations besides chronological ones
would influence the attitude towards Bath Kol. We have seen that the
Jerusalem Talmud vehemently insists upon the legal force of the Voice
for Hillel, but omits the Voice at the martyrdom of Akiba. The
Babylonian Talmud acts reversely here, and the two Talmuds differ in
their general attitude.

[785 1>] Hence we cannot be surprised if the author of the second
Petrine Epistle, though probably writing after the Fourth Evangelist,
takes that view of Bath Kol which commended itself to the less en-
lightened Jews. Philo (727) places the Voice of the Lord below the
prophetic faculty. The Petrine writer, without exactly comparing the
two, represents the Voice at the Transfiguration as confirming prophecy,
and perhaps implies that prophecy, without it, is a poor illumination :
(2 Pet. i. 19) "And we find the prophetic word the stronger [for this
evidence], to which [word] ye do well in attending, as being a lamp
shining in a dark place until the day dawn." Here, then, the difference
arises not from circumstances but from motive and from individuality.
The writer of the Epistle is far below Philo, and infinitely below the
Fourth Evangelist, in spiritual sense.

181

BOOK III

VOICES FROM HEAVEN

IN
SYNOPTIC TRADITION

CHAPTER I

"BELOVED SON"

i. Canonical Traditions
[786] THE Synoptists have :

(i) The Voice at the Baptism

Mk i. n Mt. iii. 17 Lk. iii. 22

"Thou art my "This is my be- "Thou art my be-

beloved Son, in thee loved Son, in whom loved Son, in thee

I am well pleased." I am well pleased." I am well pleased."

(ii) The Voice at the Transfiguration

Mk. ix. 7 Mt. xvii. 5 Lk. ix. 35

"This is my be- "This is my be- "This is my <r/fcw

loved Son, hear ye loved Son in whom Son, hear ye him 1 ."
him." I am well pleased,

hear ye him."

In Luke's account of the Baptism, D has "Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee," a reading very strongly
supported. It will be discussed below in the non-canonical
traditions.

1 [786 a] In these six passages, 6 uldc /*ov 6 dyanrjTos (Lk. ix. 35
6 f KXfXry/if por) might be rendered " my Son, the beloved (Lk. chosen)."
R.V. has, in Lk. ix. 35, "my Son, my chosen." SS. has, in Mt. iii. 17,
" my Son, and my beloved."

I8 5

[787]

BELOVED SON"

[787] The variation of "beloved" and "chosen" in the
Transfiguration may be illustrated by the following quotation
from Isaiah in which Matthew appears to substitute "beloved"
for " chosen " :

Is. xlii. i (lit.)
"Behold my ser-
vant, I uphold him,
my chosen, my soul
is well pleased."

Mt. xii. 1 8
"Behold my ser-
vant whom I se-
lected 1 , my beloved
in whom my soul
was well pleased."

LXX

"Jacob [is] my
servant, I will help
him, Israel [is] my
chosen, my soul ac-
cepted him."

[788] It will be observed that Luke alone has " chosen " in
the Transfiguration. He also alone has it in :

Lk. xxiii. 35, 37
"theChristofGod,
the chosen ... the King
of the Jews."

Mk xv. 32
"the Christ the
King of Israel."

Mt. xxvii. 40, 42
"...the Son of God

...the King of Is- .

rael."

This last passage gives the impression that " Chosen " may
have been in the Original as a name of the Messiah, and that
it may have been variously paraphrased by Evangelists as
"Christ", "Son of God", "Christ of God" &c. If so,
Luke would seem to have conflated the Original with a
paraphrase.

[789] In the same way (as is shewn by Westcott) in the
Johannine version of the Confession of St Peter (Jn vi. 69),
the Original Greek had a comparatively unfamiliar phrase
" the Holy One of God," but it has been corrupted variously
into (i) "the Christ, the Holy One of God," (2) "the Son of
God," (3) " the Christ, the Son of God," (4) " the Christ, the
Son of the living God." The last of these corruptions obviously

" Selected" is intended to represent Mt.'s use of the rare word TJpeYio-a,
instead of the common word "choose" (eKXyo/aai). If dprifa occurred
in the Bible, it might be suspected that Mt. wrote ijprto-a: "|n, "uphold",
never means "choose", but it = (i)

1 86

"BELOVED SON" [791]

comes from Matthew's version of the Petrine confession, which
should be compared with its parallels thus :

Mk viii. 29 Mt. xvi. 16 Lk. ix. 20

"The Christ." "The Christ, the "The Christ of

Son of the living God." God."

[790] This shews how fallacious would be the hasty as-
sumption that (Mk viii. 29) " the Christ" merely because it
is brief and simple must be closer to the Original than the
longer and more complex expressions of Matthew and Luke 1 .
" Christ ", and " Son of God ", being familiar terms among
Christians from the beginning, would tend to supersede the
unfamiliar terms by which Jesus of Nazareth may have been
called in those periods when He was not as yet recognized
as Messiah, or when, though He was beginning to be thus
recognized, the Messianic title (" Christ " or " Messiah ") was
not yet directly ascribed to Him, but only approximated to,
or conveyed under a periphrasis, such as " Son of David,"
" Son of the Holy One (blessed be He)," " the Elect One,"
" the Elect of God," " the Holy One of God," " the Pure and
Righteous One " &c.

[791] In the two Synoptic Voices from Heaven, the evi-
dence, so far as it has gone, points to a suspicion but not
at present more than a suspicion that, instead of " Son ", the
Original had " Chosen ", retained by Luke alone, and only in
the Transfiguration. But before coming to any conclusion
we must consider the non-canonical accounts of the Baptism
and the following questions. How came Matthew to mis-
translate " my Chosen " in Isaiah ? Are the causes that led
him to do it such as may have led others to make the same
mistranslation ? Was " Chosen " ever a regular name for the

1 [790 a] See Corrections (415 a) which compares Mk xv. 39, Mt. xxvii.
54 "a, or the, Son of God," with Lk. xxiii. 47 "righteous", and Dan. iii.
25 (R.V.) " a son of the gods " (A.V. " the Son of God ") Theod. " God's
Son (v tffoi))" (prob. meaning *a son of God") LXX "angel of God".

I8 7

[792] "BELOVED SON"

Messiah ? If so, why was it dropped by the Christian Church ?
Last, but as important as any of these questions, will come
John's account of the Baptism, and the reasons why he
omits the Voice, and the question whether his text contains
any words (parallel to the Voice) e.g. the Syro-Sinaitic
version of Jn i. 34 " this is the C/iosen of God " that he may
have taken as the correct original, misunderstood as a Voice
from heaven by the Synoptists.

S 2. Non-Canonical Traditions

[792] First, as to non-canonical traditions preserved by
the early Fathers. Justin twice quotes the Voice in the form
in which it is represented in Luke by Codex D and the best
Latin MSS. : "Thou art my Son, [it is] I [that have] ' this
day begotten thee." This is from the Psalms (ii. 7), and
accordingly Justin mentions David as the original utterer.
The words favour the views of those who maintained that
Jesus did not become the Christ till He was spiritually born
again as the Son of God, at the moment of baptism. Aware
of this, and desiring to shew that Jesus was Son of God and
Messiah from the beginning and not made so by baptismal
regeneration, Justin endeavours to explain away the words
"this day &c." by giving them a subjective and almost
illusory meaning. The Voice, he says, is to be taken as
" saying that His generation would take place for men from
the time when their knowledge of Him was to begin." This
is a strong proof that Justin knew of no other version of the
Voice from Heaven.

[793] Again, Clement of Alexandria says "There resounded
from [the] heavens on the Lord in the moment of baptism a

1 [792 a] "[It is] I [that] have," expresses the emphasis conveyed in
Gk by the insertion of 'ya>, which would have been omitted if " I " had
not been emphatic. It is also emphatic in the Heb. of Ps. ii. 7, " I [and
no other]." For Justin's quotations, see Appendix I (1035-6).

188

"BKI.OYKI) SON" [793]

Voice [as] witness to [the] Beloved, Thou art my beloved
[if is] I [f/Mf] Itave to-day begotten f/ite'." 1 He proceeds,
" Let us ask of the wise, then : ' Being " begotten-again to-day ",
is the Christ [to be regarded as] now perfect, or which would
he most absurd deficient?" Clement's context, mentioning
as it does "begetting", made it impossible for a scribe to
substitute the canonical " well-pleased " for the non-canonical
" begotten " : and to this cause, i.e. contextual necessity, we
perhaps owe the survival of "begotten", here, and in Justin.
Augustine, it is true, merely admits that it is the reading of

"some MSS though it is stated not to be found in the

more ancient Greek MSS. 8 "; but the facts indicate that Justin
cannot have known, and that Clement probably did not know,
any other version of the Voice from heaven, and that this
very early tradition was once in wide circulation 3 . Originally
it may have been inserted because there was a lacuna, or
an obscurity as to the precise utterance of the Voice from
Heaven, and because the words placed by the Psalmist in
God's mouth seemed applicable to the occasion. Then, when
it occurred to many Evangelists that there was a difficulty
arising out of the words "this day", since they would naturally
be applied to the day of the baptism in Jordan 4 , the Psalm-
tradition was perhaps felt to be inapplicable. From this time,
it would no longer be quoted, and the old quotations of it

1 [793 a] Clem. (113) Afirtua yovv fiaimtopivto rtp Kvpia> an-' ovpavuv
(fttavf) (tdprvs qyanrjuivov, Ylor ftav (i trv dyairrjrot, tyu> crrj^tpov
d <rt. It will be observed that he differs from Justin by inserting
" beloved " (not however " the beloved ", as in the Synoptists).
* Quoted by W.H. on Lk. iii. 22.

3 [793 b} Resch (Agrapha, pp. 347, 348) quotes this reading from the
Acts of Peter and Paul, ch. 29; Methodius Cornriv. viii. 9; the Homilies
of Origen (on Ezekiel vi. 3); Lactant. Inst. div. IV. 15. p. 395; Juvenc.
Hist. ev. I. 361 sqq.

4 [793 r] In Heb. i. 5, the writer may have taken "to-day" to mean
as Philo (i. 554) "endless and inexhaustible time" equivalent to (Jn i. i)
" In the beginning".

I8 9

(794 1 "BELOVED SON"

\v-.uld be suppressed, except where the context made sup-
pression impossible 1 .

[794] The Ebionite Gospel has " And there was a Voice
from Heaven, saying Thou art my beloved Son, in tlicc 1 am

wll pleased; and again, This day lia~<c / begotten tlicc

And again [there was] a Voice from Heaven to him [i.e. to
the Baptist], This is my beloved Son in whom I am wll
pleased? This attempts to harmonize Mark and Matthew by
taking "beloved" to have been uttered twice once to Jesus,
and once about Jesus to John. Adding "This day have I
begotten thee," it makes three utterances. All this however
throws no light on the Original. It merely indicates un-
certainty in the mind of the Kbionite author and a dcsuv
to omit nothing that had a fair claim to be authoritative.

[795] The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs has, "There
shall come upon Him consecration with a Voice as from <i
Father (Trarpi/cT/v), as from Abraham t lie father of Isaac, and
the glory of the Highest shall be uttered on Him." The
writer appears to regard the Saviour as devoting Himself
in the waters of the Jordan to the sacrifice that He afterwards
fulfilled in Jerusalem. This sacrifice he takes to be typified
by that of Isaac. Jesus appears to him to be receiving from
the Father the glorious appellation " my Son ", as Isaac re-
ceived it from Abraham (Gen. xxii. 7 8) 1 . The "glory"
consists in filial obedience and self-sacrifice. This, while

I [793 d] For the traditions of Celsus and the Sibyl see 663 foil, and
583 foil. The former (o-7rotovo-r;r, see L.S.) suggests th.it the Jew meant,
not " beget " but " adopt ", but it is doubtful. The Sibyl rather favours
D's version, but the text affords very slight evidence.

II [795 <i] "Abram", i.e. "father-high", may have sprung from some
Hebrew tradition about the Voice as coming from the "Father" in
" Heaven ", or " from on high ". But it may have been suggested merely
by the parallelism of the spiritual situation. In Gen. xxii. 78, Abraham
twice calls Isaac "my son" while preparing to sacrifice him. The writer
had in view perhaps some such traditions as we find in the Targums on
Gen. xxii. 7 (Onkelos) (Etheridge) "And Izhak spake to Abraham his

190

"BELOVED SON" [797]

from the version of Codex D, cannot be said to
.support by any direct verbal evidence the canonical version,
but is not inconsistent with the latter.

[796J The Nazarene Gospel has, " My Son, in all the
prophets I was awaiting thee, that thou shouldest come and
that I should rest in thce. For thou art my rest. Thou
art my First-born Son, who reignest for ever."

[797] The only passage in the Bible that connects the
First-born of God 1 with the notion of reigning for ever is
the Psalmist's description of the anointing of David and
of the eternal covenant made with the king (Ps. Ixxxix.
27-8) : " I also will make him [my] First-born, the highest
of the kings of the earth ; for ever will I keep my kindness
for him." In other respects the Psalm is appropriate as an
illustration of the Baptism of Jesus. It describes the anointing
of David by Samuel in accordance with a vision ; the Gospel
describes the baptism of the Son of David by the last of the
prophets, which was also (as John tells us) in accordance with
a message from heaven presumably conveyed in a "vision"*.
The combination of internal evidence and antecedent pro-
bability makes it practically certain that the Nazarene Gospel
is borrowing from the Psalm and is largely independent of
any Hebrew Original from which the Synoptists can have

father, and said Father! And he said, Behold, / am, my son"; (Jer.)

"And Izhak my Father! And he said, I am" i.e. "I am indeed thy

father although I am to offer thee on the altar."

1 [797 a] The only other mentions of the first-born of God in O.T. are
Exod. iv. 22 " Israel is my son, my first-born," and Jer. xxxi. 9 " I am
a t.uher to Israel and Ephraim is my first-born." In Ps. Ixxxix. 27, R.V.
inserts "my" before "first-born": and this is justified by what precedes
(ib. 26) " He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father."

a [797 ] In Ps. Ixxxix. 19, whatever be the reading, the reference
must be to Samuel, guided by a " vision " to the anointing of David.
That the Baptism was regarded as symbolical of the bestowal of priest-
hood (which implied a kind of "anointing") is indicated by Ephrem
(p. 42) quoted above (575).

191

[798] "BELOVED SON"

borrowed 1 . This independence indicates an early uncertainty
and variation as to the words of the Voice from Heaven.

3- Negative conclusion: the Synoptic tradition
probably erroneous.

[798] Reviewing these remarkable deviations from the
Synoptic Tradition 2 , can we say that they point either to

1 [797 c] The words "in all the prophets I was awaiting thee n may
be based (like many other Jewish traditions) upon a paraphrase of
Gen. xlix. 18 "For thy salvation I have waited, O Lord," words repeated
thrice every evening by Jews at the present time in the prayer before
retiring to rest (Jewish Prayer Book, p. 296).

[797 d] (i) The Hebrew has (Gen. xlix. 16 18) " Dan shall judge his
people as one of the tribes of Israel, Dan shall be a serpent in the way,
an adder in the path that biteth the horse's heels, so that his rider
falleth backward. I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord."

(2) Targum Onkelos : " From the house of Dan will be chosen and
will arise a man in whose days his people shall be delivered....^ chosen
man will arise from the house of Dan... a [man] who will smite the
Philistines with strength.... For thy salvation have /waited, O Lord."

(3) Targum Jer. I. : " From the house of Dan there is to arise a
man who will judge his people with the judgment of truth.... A chosen

man shall arise from the house of Dan Even thus will Shimshon bar

Manovach slay all the heroes of Philistia.... When Jakob saw Gideon
bar Joash and Shimshon bar Manovach, who were established to be
deliverers, he said, / expect not the salvation of Gideon, nor look I for
the salvation of Shimshon; for their salvation will be the salvation of
an hour; but for thy salvation have I waited and will look, O Lord; for
thy salvation is the salvation of eternity"

(4) Targum Jer. II. : "(Of Dan) He will be the Deliverer who is to
arise. Strong will he be and elevated above all kingdoms.... He is
Shimshon bar Manovach.... Our father Jakob said, My soul hath not
waited for the redemption of Gideon bar Joash, which is for an hour, nor

for the redemption of Shimshon, which is a creature- redemption, but for
the Redemption which thou hast said in thy Word shall come for thy
people the sons of Israel. For this thy Redemption my soul hath
waited."

[797 e] The term " prophet " would include not only Samuel but also
Joshua and other inspired Deliverers of Israel. The Books from Joshua
to II Kings are called in the Hebrew Bible, "the former Prophets".

2 In addition to these, Resch (Parall. iii. 21) quotes a Severian

192

"BELOVED SON" [799]

tlu- word "Chosen", or to any other, as a probable Hebrew
;inal, common to them and to the Synoptists ? It must
be confessed that we cannot find any such connection
in the tradition of Codex D and that of the Testament of
the Patriarchs. But it may be found conjecturally in the
Nazarene Gospel, as follows.

[799] Supposing the Original to have contained the
words " my Chosen " in the Messianic sense in which the
Jerusalem Targums have been shewn to use it, and in which
the Book of Enoch will hereafter be shewn to use it the
Nazarene writer might naturally wish to define the term.
" Chosen " might mean chosen to be priest, to be prophet,
to be king; which of the three titles was suitable here ? None
of the three singly would express the writer's meaning ; but
he might find an answer that would imply the three collectively
in the Psalm from which he has been shewn to be apparently
borrowing, and which begins with the words (Ixxxix. 1-3)
"I will sing of the mercies of the Lord... I have made a
covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my
servant" What is David "chosen" to be? In the first
place a Deliverer, or Saviour, of the people, as the Psalmist
implies later on (ib. 19-20) " / have laid help upon one that is
mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have
found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed
him." But David cannot be the Saviour of Israel except so
far as he is the type, or son, of Jehovah, the real Saviour 1 .
Hence the Psalmist continues (ib. 27) " I also will make him
[my} first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." This
connection between " chosen " and " first-born " pervades the
history and literature of the Hebrews and the Jews as mani-

Baptismal Service and another ancient document as having no more
than "This is my beloved Son."

1 This is implied in the preceding words (Ps. Ixxxix. 18) "our king
[belongeth] to the Holy One of Israel." The closest " belonging" is that
implied in sonship.

A- 193 13

[800] "BELOVED SON"

festly and continuously as it pervades St Paul's Epistle to the
Romans. Hence, if the Original contained " chosen " there
is a fair amount of probability that the Nazarene Evangelist,
following the line of thought of the Sgth Psalm, would define
the term as "chosen to be Son.." or, to use the Psalmist's
exact word, "First-born".

[800] This conjecture has at present until it is sup-
ported by further evidence only a slight positive weight.
But it is useful negatively, as shewing that the Nazarene
tradition is not incompatible with a fundamental tradition
about "a Chosen One". And further, negatively, the dissent
of the non-canonical traditions is very strong indeed against
the recognition of the Synoptic tradition as historical. For,
if that had been the original, why all these deviations ? We
could understand them if the Synoptic Tradition presented
difficulties and if the Apocryphal Traditions removed them.
But the truth lies in the contrary direction. Justin, for
example, appears to be quoting the difficult uncanonical
words " This day have I begotten thee" because he kn<nvs no
other version and feels that he must do his best to explain it
away. Taken collectively, these deviations suggest that the
loose Jewish notions about the connection between a Bath
Kol and some text of Scripture interfered at a very early
period with historical accuracy and even with a unanimous
inaccuracy in this part of the account of the Baptism. The
authority followed by Justin and Clement of Alexandria
certainly took as his source the Psalm about the "Son this
day begotten," obscurely connected with David by the Acts 1
and also by Justin 2 : the Testament of the Patriarchs seems
content with the simple phrase "My son", uttered by Abraham
to Isaac on the way to Mount Moriah : the Nazarene Gospel

[800 a\ Acts iv. 25 6 row Trarpbs !y/itoi/ Sta irixvparos Ayiov
AavelS TraiSos crou dnuv (where see W.H. note).

2 See Appendix I (1035) fris nal Sta Aa#iS Xeyo/xeV?? ws airb
avroii Xf'-yuiror onep ai/ra> ajro TOV irarpbs e/ueXXe Xryftftfat, Ytos /xou &C

194

I'.i.IoVED SON"

has been almost demonstrated to have taken its text from the
1'salm describing the anointing of David, the "chosen", the
" first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth."

[801] In the light of this evidence, it seems as though
the Synoptic Traditions must themselves be regarded as
nothing more than very early explanatory comments, attempt-
ing to define the Bath Kol and basing themselves upon the
Isaiah-passage above quoted as being mistranslated by
Matthew. It was there stated that Matthew substitutes
" beloved" for "chosen". We must now consider why Matthew
does this.

4. "Beloved", in Matthew, a mistranslation of
" chosen " in Isaialt

[802] Here are three translations of the passage in
Isaiah :

Is. xlii. i (lit.) Mt. xii. 18 LXX

"My chosen my "My beloved in "My chosen my

soul is well pleased whom my soul was soul accepted him."

(or accepteth) 1 ." well pleased."

The Hebrew verb rendered " is well pleased " may be
either followed by the Hebrew preposition " in " (comp.
Matthew, " in whom ") or treated as a transitive verb as in the
LXX (" accepted him "). This varying construction of the
Hebrew for " well pleased " may have influenced the inter-
pretation of the Hebrew " chosen", as follows.

[803] The Hebrew preposition " in " is really absent from
the Isaiah passage. It might however be easily supposed
(erroneously) to be present, because the first letter of " chosen "
(-D) might be taken as meaning "in" (-3). Matthew appears

1 A.V. "/ -whom my soul delightetli," indicating by italics that there
is no " in whom " in the Hebrew. R.V. gives no such indication.

195 132

[804] "BELOVED SON"

to have taken it so, reading " my chosen " as " in my beloved"*,
so as to make the meaning " in my beloved my soul is well
pleased " (instead of LXX " my chosen my soul accepted ") 3 .
Matthew's preference of this erroneous rendering would
probably be stimulated by a dislike to call Christ God's
" chosen " or " elect ", because, among Christians, this name
was common to all believers and not distinctive of the Messiah.
On the other hand "only son" might seem to deny the
sonship of Christians. But by using "beloved", he not only
followed the regular rendering of the LXX for the supposed
Hebrew, but also left the uniqueness of Christ's sonship sug-
gested by the occasional use of " beloved son " in Greek to
mean "only son" 3 .

[804] On the hypothesis of the origination of the two
Voices that in the Baptism and that in the Transfiguration
from this one passage of Isaiah (" my chosen... well pleased"},
we could explain how it happens that the original " Chosen "
appears only in the Transfiguration. The erroneous "beloved"
arose in Matthew (xii. 18), as we have just seen (802-3), from
the words " chosen... well pleased", owing to the peculiar
construction suggested by the italicized words. If therefore
those words were absent, that particular cause of error would be
absent. Now the words " I am well pleased " are present,
according to all the three Evangelists, in the account of the

1 [803 a] This would imply his reading '"Vrn as *TfV3, an easy
confusion. Strictly, TTP means "only": but, when applied to "son",
it is rendered by the LXX (6 times) " beloved ", ayajnjros : see 811 a.

2 [803 b} Matthew's error may be illustrated by a converse corruption,
which has probably made its way into the Masoretic text of Samuel
(2 S. xxi. 6) " in Gibeah of Saul the chosen of the Lord." The speakers
are proposing to hang Saul's sons, so that the phrase seems quite
inappropriate. In the reading given by Gesenius (104 ), the first letter
of " chosen " is taken as the preposition " in " or " on ", and VrQ is read
as "in 2, "on the hill". Similar confusions of 3 may be found in
2 Chr. xx. 25, Ps. ix. 9, x. i, Is. ii. 42 (Aqu.), Dan. xi. 33 (LXX).

3 See note below (811 a) on a

196

"BELOVED SON" [806]

Baptism ; and therefore all the three go wrong. But in the
<nt of the Transfiguration these words are absent, so that
this particular cause of error is absent there. It is true that
Mark repeats in the Transfiguration the error that he com-
mitted in the Baptism ; but that might arise from a new and
very frequent cause of error, namely, the desire for consistency.
And as to Matthew who also repeats " beloved " in the
Transfiguration we may explain his mistake at once by the
fact that lie (and he alone) interpolates in tlte Transfiguration
tlu- misleading clause (" I am well pleased ") from the Baptism.
Luke, who omits in the Transfiguration the words that misled
him in the Baptism, gives the rendering correctly in the
former, " Chosen ".

5. " Son ", in the Synoptists, a mistranslation of
" servant " in Isaiah

[805] In support of the thesis that the two Synoptic
Voices from Heaven are based upon Isaiah (xlii. I " Behold
my servant whom I uphold, my chosen [in whom] my soul is
well pleased") we have been able to shew that "beloved" in the
Synoptists may be a mistranslation of "c/ioseu" in Isaiah,
because Matthew has elsewhere (xii. 18) perpetrated this
same mistranslation, and because there are special reasons
for such an error in the Hebrew text of the prophecy. Again,
Evangelists addressing Greeks might, according to Greek
idiom, convert " my soul " (" my soul is well pleased ") into
" I ", and especially where God is represented as speaking.
Thus two of the differences between the prophecy and the
Gospels are explained. But there remains a third, the most
important of all that the prophet mentions a "swart/"
whereas the evangelists mention a "son".

[806] This can be explained as follows. The LXX in
the Isaiah passage renders the Hebrew "servant" by the
Greek " boy ". By this (according to their almost invariable

197

[807] "BELOVED SON"

usage) the translators unquestionably meant "servant", as
"boy" is sometimes used by Shakespeare 1 . But a Greek
uninfluenced by the LXX would comparatively seldom use
the Greek word in the sense " servant " ; far more frequently
he would use it to mean " boy " or " youth " ; but in certain
contexts (as we speak of "his dear boy", "my only boy",
" her darling boy ") it would mean " son ", and this meaning
he would naturally import especially if he were a worshipper
of Christ into the words of Isaiah when applied to the
Messiah. Having imported it, he would then proceed to
make it clear by altering the ambiguous " boy " into the
unambiguous " son " (u/os).

[807] Such an alteration appears actually to have taken
place in the LXX of Deuteronomy (xxxii. 43). Here the
Hebrew has " He [i.e. the Lord] will avenge the blood of his
servants." This was probably originally rendered by the
LXX, as usual, " the blood of his boys (TraiSwv)," and sub-
sequently, being taken to mean "sons", was corrected into
" the blood of his sons (vlwv)," which now stands in the text
without any various reading 2 . Such an error is in no way

1 [806 a] " If thou seest my boy" T. G. of Verona, iii. I. 257 ; "I keep
but three men and a boy" M. IV. of Windsor i. i. 285 &c. Trommius
gives only Prov. iv. i, xx. 7, as instances of irals = ]3, "son", whereas
it = "I3y, "servant", about 320 times. .

2 [807 a] Ezra (ii. 65) gives the number of the congregation " beside
their servants and their maids," and the LXX omits " and ", but renders
"servants" unambiguously, "staves", xwplr &ov\wv avrav iraifao-K&v.
But the writer, or editor, of the parallel Esdras, probably having before
him a version containing the ambiguous " boys " instead of " slaves ",
appears to take it in the first instance as "boys"; and consequently, in
order to make that meaning clear, he introduces a distinction of his own
by telling us that the rest were past boyhood, which he expresses thus:
(i Esd. v. 41) " But they were in all, Israel from twelve years old beside
boys and maids forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty." In the
next sentence Esdras has to give the number of the "boys and maids",
who, if they were the children of 42000, ought to have been a very much
larger number than the one actually mentioned by Esdras, namely only

198

"BELOVED SON" [808]

surprising; the wonder is that the instances of it are not
more numerous 1 .

[808] The Book of Wisdom, when describing the suffer-
ings of the persecuted, probably has in view the persecutions
of Israel by the Gentiles as typified by Isaiah's Suffering
Servant. But the author, knowing perhaps no Hebrew, seems
to have taken Isaiah's word, God's "boy", to mean God's
"SI>H". If he regarded it as meaning God's servant in the
higher sense he might have used the word " attendant ",
BepaTTfov, which (807<r) he actually applies to Moses and to
Aaron. But he does not do this. He represents the perse-
cutors as talking thus concerning their victim (ii. 12-16):

"Let us lie in wait for the righteous one He professeth

to have the knowledge of God and nameth himself tlie Lord's

boy (7rat?) and maketh his boast that God is his fatlier

If the righteous one is God's son (i>/d?) He will help him."

7337! Consequently, he repeats "boys and maids" again, apparently
intending the reader to understand them now as " manservants and
maidservants ".

1 [807*] The Hebrew 13y means (i) "slave", (2) "house-servant",
(3) "servant (of God)". "Slave" is not given by the Eng. Cone, as
occurring in O.T. except in Jer. ii. 14 "home-born slave", Heb. "child of
the house."

[807 c\ The LXX uses dtpdnuv, of Moses the " attendant " of God, in
Numb. xi. n, xii. 7, 8: and this which occurs twice in Wisdom (x. 16,
xviii. 21) of Moses and Aaron has found its way into one passage of
N.T. describing Moses (Heb. iii. 5). If the LXX had used this in
Isaiah to denote the Suffering Servant, and elsewhere to denote Israel
the Servant of God, there would have been no ambiguity. But the LXX
never uses Otpdirwv in the Prophets (and only twice in the historical
books after Joshua). In Exod. vii. 9 viii. 27 it repeatedly applies the
word to the attendants of Pharaoh!

[807 </] The first use of tralf in LXX is in Gen. ix. 25 "Cursed be
Canaan, a servant of servants..." where LXX has waif oim'njr lit. "a boy
inmate of the house." It is curious that in so strong a passage the
translators did not use doOXor "slave 1 '. In parallel passages of Kings
and Chronicles, or Ezra and i Esdras, wait and doCXor are frequently
used according to the taste of the translator, to represent Heb. " servant "
or "slave".

199

[809] "BELOVED SON"

This is conclusive evidence that the writer took the Greek
word, God's " boy " which to the LXX conveyed the mean-
ing, God's ''servant" as being practically identical with
God's "son". The only difference, in his mind, was probably
that "son" appeared to be somewhat more in accordance
with an elevated style than "boy" 1 .

[809] Coming to N.T., we find that in the Acts Jesus is
four times called "boy" in connection with God 8 . This
would seem at first sight to be obviously intended for " son ".
But Acts also calls David " thy (i.e. God's) boy ", and this in
the same context that calls Jesus " boy "'. Moreover Luke
introduces a centurion as saying " my boy" about some one
previously described by Luke himself as "slave"*. Again,
besides twice using the plural as " servants ", Luke speaks of
Israel and David as the "boy" of God, presumably meaning
servant 5 . Hence R.V. is justified in leaving it an open
question whether "boy", in the Acts, means "servant" or
"child" when applied to Jesus. A similar uncertainty,
though in a less degree, applies to three instances in Clement
of Rome 6 .

[810] It is possible that some Jewish Christians, feeling
that God's service is perfect freedom, may have clung to the
old tradition that described Jesus though greater than all

1 [808 a] He uses irais eight times elsewhere. In each case the
meaning might be "child" or "children". In viii. 19, xii. 25, xviii. 9, 10
no other meaning is possible.

2 Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30.

3 Acts iv. 25, 27.

4 Lk. vii. 7, vii. 2.
6 Lk. i. 54, 69.

6 [809 a] Clem. Rom. 59. The passage is Hebraic and emotional,
passing from exhortation into a prayer or hymn. Lightf. says that the
designation was taken from Is. xlii. i (Mt. xii. 18), "but the higher sense
of nlos was soon imported into the ambiguous word TTCUS... and so
Clement seems to have used the word here." "Seems" is all that can
safely be said ; but Prof. Dalman says ( Words of Jesus, p. 278) " The
rendering 'His (Thy) beloved child' is here obviously necessary."

200

"BELOVED SON" [811]

the "servants of God ", greater than David, Moses or
Abraham as delighting to make Himself, and to call Him-
self, " the Servant " '.

[811] Still, for the Greeks at large, the title "boy of
God" would be unseemly, if not repellent. It might be
tolerated in Hebraic hymnal language, but not in historical
narrative especially when describing an utterance from
heaven. Moreover, when " chosen " had been corrupted into
" beloved " by the causes above-mentioned, the latter epithet
would almost seem to require "son" instead of "servant".
Lastly, "beloved son " occurring as it does in the LXX
thrice in a single passage, describing the sacrifice on Mount
Moriah, and almost nowhere else would harmonize with the
general belief among early Christians that there was a
parallelism between Christ and Isaac 2 . On the whole, the
facts almost amount to a demonstration that a Voice from
Heaven about the Messiah, containing the words " my
s t -r:-anf", if originally expressed as in Matthew's version of
Isaiah by the words "my boy (-Trafr)", would speedily be
converted, in most Greek Gospels, into " my son

1 [810 a] Comp. Philipp. ii. 6, " Being in the essential-form (ftop<f>^) of
God... emptied himself, taking the essential-form (pnfQifi) of a slave
.(dovXov)." This is strong language in view of the context, "being made
in the likeness of a man, and being found in the outward-form (o-^/*art)
of a man." The Apostle appears to imply that to be a "slave", i.e.
servant of servants, was more " essential " to the divine Sonship than to
be " a man ".

* [811 a] Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16 "thine only (TIT) son," always rov (or
roC) v. <rov T. dyantjrov (-oC). The phrase occurs in LXX nowhere else
except Jer. xxxi. 20, where " beloved "=Tp\ In Jer. vi. 26, Amos viii. 10,
Zech. xii. 10, TtV "only [one] " = "only [son]", and is rendered "beloved"
by LXX, which does not insert "son".

3 [811 6] Tertullian (Marc. iii. 17, and iv. 22 bis), thrice quotes Is. 1. 10
(' Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his
servant"') as if it were " son ", and (Marc. iv. 22) applies it to the Trans-
ition.

2O I

[812] "BELOVED SON"

6. Evidence, apart from Isaiah, that the Messiah
was once called " Chosen "

[812] The Book of Enoch of which the opening words
are said to have been written about two hundred years before
the preaching of John the Baptist begins thus, " The words
of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the chosen and
righteous 1 ." In another passage written about a hundred
years later (say 70 B.C.) 3 it speaks of a voice ( 40) " blessing
the Chosen One, and the chosen ones who cleave to the Lord
of Spirits"; and "the Chosen One" is repeated frequently to
mean the Messiah 3 . In the Bible, the title of "Chosen" is
given to Jacob because he was chosen above Esau, and to the
nation of Israel because it was chosen above other nations,
and to the tribe of Levi because it was chosen to the priest-
hood, and to Aaron because he was chosen above the rest of
Levi, against the opposition of Korah who was of the same
tribe. In the contest between Korah and Aaron occur the
words uttered by Moses (Numb. xvi. 7) "The man whom the
Lord shall choose, he [shall be] holy V

[813] In one of the latest books of the Bible, we have
the old Hebrew view that the Deliverer is always " chosen "
repeatedly illustrated in a single short passage, supposed to
be uttered by David (i Chr. xxviii. 4-6), "The God of Israel

1 [812 a] Enoch, ed. Charles pp. 25-6. Instead of "elect", I have
everywhere substituted " chosen ", so as to avoid the change from the
noun "elect" to the verb "choose" a change that often obscures in
English the identity of words in a Hebrew or Greek original.

2 Ib. p. 29.

3 [812<] Ib. p. 112 n. mentions "the Chosen One" as occurring about
13 times, " the Messiah" as occurring only twice.

4 [812^] This is the first Biblical mention of God's "choosing", and
it connects the "Chosen" with "holiness". Elsewhere, Aaron and he
alone in O. T.ts called (Ps. cvi. 16) " the Holy One of the Lord." Other
passages of O.T. mentioning (in A.V.) " the holy one " should be trans-
lated differently (Lev. xxi. 7, 8 is not to the point).

202

"BELOVED SON" [815]

chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over

1 for ever, for he hath clioscn Judah to be prince; and in

the house of Judah [he chose} the house of my father; and

among the sons of my father he was well-pleased in me to

make me king over all Israel; and of all my sons he

hath chosen Solomon and he said unto me I have

chosen J him to be my son, and I will be his father 8 ."

[814] Similarly, commenting on the passage in Genesis
(xlix. 17) that describes Jacob as " waiting for" the salvation
of the Lord, the Targum of Onkelos which, as a rule,
adheres closely to the Hebrew and makes very few additions
thus describes the future Deliverer : " From the house of
Dan will be ctwsen and will arise a man in whose days his

people shall be delivered A chosen man will arise from

the house of Dan....*"

7. Disuse of " Chosen " as a name for the Messiah

[815] To the question, " Why did the Messiah cease to
be called the Chosen ? " the answer that at once suggests
itself is, " for the same reasons as those for which (as was
indicated above) the Messiah ceased to be called " the Saint
(or, Holy One) of God." When all Christians came to be
called at least ideally as in St Paul's Epistles " saints ", a
more distinctive term was needed for Him whom "the saints"
worshipped. Similarly, when all were, at least in theory and

1 [813 a] The LXX here renders "choose", alternately, (xXcyo/uu and
a</jfrifw. The latter is comparatively rare, but Mt. (xii. 18) uses it in
the verse in which he mistranslates Isaiah xlii. I.

J [813 b] These words represent the son of David as also son of God.
Ps. Ixxxix. 27 represents David himself as the "firstborn" of God.
Ps. ii. 7 "Thou art my son" is said by Justin Martyr (1035) to have been
uttered through David speaking " in his person " an obscure sentence.
In any case, i Chr. xxviii. 6 affords another instance of the connection, in
Hebrew literature, between divine "choosing" and divine sonship.

s The parallel Jer. I. (797 </) mentions "chosen" only once, Jer. II. not
at all.

203

[816] "BELOVED SON"

name, "the chosen" (or "elect") of God, the latter term
seemed no longer suitable for Christ 1 . It is true that the
Book of Enoch mentions the Chosen One and the chosen ones
together: but that was a century and a half before the
Messiah had come to be regarded as the Eternal Son of God
incarnate for the redemption of man. All this is so obvious
that it would not be worth recording except as an intro-
duction to a passage in John where " the Chosen [One] " is a
various reading (Jn i. 34) " And I have seen and have borne
witness that this is (R.V.) the Son of God." Here the Codex
Sinaiticus and the best Latin MSS. have either "/// Chosen of
God " or " the Chosen Son of God," and the former reading is
now confirmed by the Syro-Sinaitic.

[816] What positive motive, we may well ask, could any
one have for altering " Son of God " here if that had been
John's expression into " Chosen of God " ? Yet on the other
hand, are we to believe that the best Greek MSS. which,
later on 2 , faithfully give us Peter's exact words, " the Holy
One of God," in spite of their unfamiliarity have corrupted

1 [815 a] The necessity felt for explaining the term " Chosen ", when
applied to Christ, comes out in an interesting passage where Epiphanius
(like the Ebionite extract (580), which he has preserved) conflates two
Voices from Heaven as follows (Ancor. 49, Vol. ii. 53) " Let them learn
from the Father, who saith, ' This is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased.' Again, as though to deal with their delay [to believe] (HaXn/
as eV! /xeXXoirwi/), He saith, ' For thou art my beloved Son, whom I have

chosen' These foolish people suppose, that in saying ' I have chosen',

He is called Son in respect of favour, and not in respect of birth." And
he proceeds to explain "chosen", as referring to the "choosing" of Mary,
the Lord's mother !

[815 b] Nothing in the context indicates whether Epiphanius is
quoting the Voice at the Baptism, or that at the Transfiguration. His
first Voice agrees with Matthew's version of the Voice at the Baptism ;
his second agrees with no canonical version of either Voice.

2 [816 a] In Jn vi. 69, NBC*DL have "the Holy One of God" (A and
T are defective). In Jn i. 34, K is the only one of the leading MSS. that
has " the Chosen " (D is defective).

204

-i;i:i.oVEI) SON"

[816]

the Baptist's words here simply because they are unfamiliar
and not sufficiently strong? The question is not to be
hastily decided; but it must be kept before us when we have
to deal with the Johannine narrative, and with the reasons
why John, though giving at some length the Baptist's testi-
mony to Jesus in the place where he was baptizing, yet
mentions no Voice from Heaven.

205

CHAPTER II

"HEAR YE HIM"

i. The phrase introduces a "Messenger" in Exodus and
a "Prophet" in Deuteronomy

[817] HAVING dealt with that portion of the two Synoptic
Voices from Heaven which is common to both of them, we
proceed to the words peculiar to the Voice at the Transfigura-
tion, "Hear ye him". Since the first portion appears to have
been derived from a text of Scripture, it is reasonable to start
with a working hypothesis that the second portion had a
similar origin. If so, there are only two passages that can
claim to be our archetype. The first is in Exodus (xxiii. 20),
where God promises to send a Messenger (or, Angel 1 ) for the
guidance of Israel, and gives them the warning "Hearken

thou unto his voice for my Name is in him." The second,

in Deuteronomy (xviii. 15), introduces Moses saying that
the Lord will raise up for Israel a Prophet like himself, and
adding " Unto him ye shall hearken." So far, then, a Bath
Kol, repeating the words "Hearken ye unto him" over a great

1 [817 a] The Hebrew is the same for " Messenger" and for "Angel",
and so is the Greek. The meaning has to be determined by the context.
Throughout this chapter, "Messenger" may be briefly used for "Messenger
or Angel ".

206

"HEAR YE HIM" [818]

teacher in the first century, would seem likely to suggest to
Jeus cither "Hearken unto him as the 'Messenger' who has in
him the sacred Name," or else, "Hearken unto him as the
'Prophet' like unto Moses."

[818] But might not the Messenger in Exodus be identical
with the Prophet in Deuteronomy? In Malachi, at all events,
one "Messenger" is commonly identified with Elijah the
Prophet. And there is a great similarity between Exodus

cially if we read "my messenger" with the LXX and
Malachi (iii. i) "Behold I send my messenger, and he shall
prepare the way before me." Who is the "Messenger" here?
Malachi's next words might be expected to answer this,
' And the Lord (A don), whom ye seek, shall suddenly
come to his temple and the Messenger of tlie Covenant, whom
ye delight in, behold, he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts."
But unfortunately they are ambiguous. Instead of "and"
{"and the Messenger"), R. V. has, in the margin, "even".
Thus we are left in doubt whether " tlie Messenger of the
Covenant " is " the Lord ", or a servant of the Lord sent to
prepare the way before Him, and in the latter case, whether
he is, or is not, identical with the person previously described
as simply "Messenger". Moreover, a little later on, Malachi
says (iv. 5) " Behold, I will send you Elijah tlie prophet
before the great and terrible day of tlie Lord come? This
suggests that the "Messenger" is "Elijah", descending from
the heaven to which he ascended, and combining the two
titles "Messenger" and "Prophet". But, on the other hand,
according to the marginal reading above-mentioned ("the
Lord... even the Messenger"), we may suppose that the Lord,
'the Messenger" of God, is distinct from Elijah. All this is
extremely confusing, and it ought not to be surprising if we
find signs of confusion both in Jewish and in Christian writers
when they quote or discuss these three passages from Exodus,
Deuteronomy, and Malachi.

207

[819] "HEAR YE HIM"

2. Jewish traditions concerning the "Messenger" and
the "Prophet"

(i) THE MESSENGER

[819] Concerning the prediction in Exodus about the
Messenger the Jerusalem Talmud is silent, and so is a
large part of the Babylonian 1 . Evidence, however, that
there were early variations of interpretation may be derived
from the following facts.

[820] The Hebrew says (Exod. xxiii. 20-21) "Behold,

I send a Messenger before thy face, my name is in him"

lit. "in the midst of him" a rare or unique expression perhaps
intended to denote a higher grade of divine inspiration than
would be implied by " my name is on him."

[821] The LXX has " I send my messenger before thy

face my name is on him," substituting "on", the regular

preposition in such a phrase, for " in the midst of".

[822] Philo quotes the passage thrice (always, of course,
from the LXX). In one place he takes the Messenger as
a Mediator between man and God, the divine Logos, needful
for human nature until it is perfect (i. 463), " For, until one
has been perfected, one needs as guide the divine Logos.
For there is an oracle [that speaks] as follows (Exod. xxiii.

20- 1 ) 'Behold, I send '." Elsewhere he gives to the

Messenger the lower title of " Voice of God " and connects
it with " prophet " thus (Fragm. Mang. vol. vi. p. 243 comm.
on Exod. xxiii. 20), "' Voice of God' we must suppose to be
the meaning of the 'Messenger' just mentioned. For of
Him who is [there] speaking the prophet is a Messenger,
[namely], of [the] Lord 2 ." In a third passage he comments

1 [819 a] Exod. xxiii. 20-21 is not mentioned in the Indices of Levy,
Schwab, or the first three vols. of Goldschmidt.

2 [822 a] The meaning of this is not apparent without a comparison
of the Hebrew with the LXX, which Philo follows. The former says,

208

"HEAR YE HIM [824]

on "name" (LXX "my name is on him"), saying that it
IN ' the sovereign (principalius) name whereby heaven and
L-arth and the whole Universe are controlled," and speaks of
the Messenger as " the Word, called Angel, necessarily con-
stituted Interpreter and Mediator" owing to the inability of
man to receive God's gifts except indirectly 1 .

[823] Onkelos repeats the LXX error of inserting "my"
before Messenger". As to " my name is in tlte midst of him,"
though he does not follow the LXX in substituting " on ", he
departs still further from the Hebrew (and the Jerusalem
Targum deviates similarly): "In my name are his words" a
phrase that might be used of any prophet or leader inspired
by God.

[824] The general silence of Jewish tradition may be
explained, in part at least, by an interesting discussion (in
the Babylonian Talmud) between a heretic (*>. Christian)

"Behold, I send a messenger...", and then, "But if thou shalt indeed
hearken unto his voice and do all that / speak." This means (as Jer.
Tarjj.) "do all that / speak through him" There is therefore in the
change of pronouns ("his voice.../ speak") only a superficial difficulty.
But it seems to have puzzled the LXX, who change "his "into "my".
This alteration having been adopted by Philo (as we know from his fuller
quotation in Quaest. in Exod. Lib. ii. 16) it becomes necessary for him
to explain, in the connection thus created by the LXX (" My Messenger
...my voice"), that by "my voice", i.e. the Voice of God, is indicated
(prjvvtadai) the "Messenger" just mentioned.

1 [822*] Quaest. in Exod. ii. 13 (Mang. P. A. 476-8) "Ex neces-
sitate tamquam arbiter ac mediator constitutum est verbutn quod vocatur
angelus? Subsequently he says that the Messenger, in dealing with the
backslider, " Conviciatur et accusat atque rugiens minis pudefacit."

A fourth quotation (i. 308) deviates from the LXX and is rightly
bracketed by Mangey as an interpolation. It follows a (genuine) mention
of God's Right Word, the First-born Son.

* [823 a] Jer. Targ. does not. "My" might arise from the insertion
of a final yod, or from the fact that the Being spoken of is called " my
Messenger" in Exod. xxiii. 23. In xxiii. 22, "If ye will hear his voice
and do whatsoever I speak," LXX substitutes "my voice"; Jer. Targ.
makes the meaning clear thus : "hear his voice and do whatsoever I speak
by him " (so that "his voice " is, in fact, " my voice ") (see above 822).

A. 2O9 14

[825] "HEAR YE HIM"

and a Rabbi, where the latter says that " the angel " is " the
Metatron whose name is as the name of his Master, because
it is written (Exod. xxiii. 21) My name is in him." Upon
this the Christian insists that we ought to pray to this Being,
and presses the Rabbi hard on the ground of the words " Be
not rebellious against him," and, " He will not forgive your
transgressions." These arguments the Rabbi does not meet.
He breaks off the controversy by saying that he and his
people will have nothing to do with any Mediator, because
it is written (Exod. xxxiii. 15) " If thy face go not up with
us," i.e. thine own Person 1 .

(ii) THE PROPHET

[825] The prediction in Deuteronomy about the " prophet
like unto me (i.e. unto Moses) " seems not to be quoted at all
in the Jerusalem Talmud, and not in the early sections of
the Babylonian. Schottgen says he has nowhere found it
applied to the Messiah in Jewish literature*, but that the
Jews commented upon its relation to the later utterance in
Deuteronomy (xxxiv. 10) " And there hath not arisen a
prophet since in Israel like unto Moses," as though one never
would arise. This view is certainly taken in a passage of the
Babylonian Talmud where a Bath Kol, chiding the Preacher
for desiring equality with Moses, quotes this verse against

1 [824 a] Sanh. 38 b. The Hebrew in Schottgen (ii. 377, 656) differs
somewhat from that in Goldschmidt; and their rendering of what is
identical also differs. With reference to Exod. xxiii. 21 "Thou shalt not
be rebellious pon) against him" it occurs thus in Goldschmidt : "Thou
shalt not be rebellious pon) against him (13), thou shalt not exchange me
(WOTl) with him" ("verwechsle mich nicht mit ihm"). Are we to
suppose that the Rabbi, playing on the similarity of the words "ion (hif.)
"rebel" and TOn (hif.) " exchange "says, in effect, "Read, not inn,
but TDn, and say "Thou shalt not take the Angel in exchange for
God"?

2 Schottg. i. 419. It is absent from the Indices of Schwab, of the
three volumes of Goldschmidt, and of Levy.

210

"HEAR YE HIM" [828]

him 1 . From this it would appear that the Jews took the
prediction to mean merely that God would raise up in Israel
from time to time a prophet inspired, as Moses was, with the
Holy Spirit, but not inspired in the same degree nor to be
compared with him for greatness. This perhaps is the meaning
of the paraphrase in the Jerusalem Targum"a Right Prophet

(or, a Prophet of Righteousness) a Prophet from among

you, like unto me, with the Holy Spirit*'.' There is in this
Targum certainly nothing to imply that the Targumist con-
templates a new Lawgiver, or the introducer of a new epoch*.

(iii) THE MESSENGER AND THE PROPHET

[826] As to the " Messenger " in Malachi, there is no
quotation of the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud, the earlier
portion of the Babylonian, or Levy. Kimchi reads " the
Lord whom ye seek, even the Messenger of the Covenant,"
and says, " He is King Messiah and also the Angel of the
Covenant" ; but other Jews, according to Kimchi's own state-
ment, took the Messenger of the Covenant to be Elijah 4 .

1 Ros. Hasanah 22 a.
* See below 843 foil.

3 [825 a] Fhilo appears nowhere to quote the Deuteronomic prediction
about "the prophet like unto Moses." He does, on the other hand,
quote (i. 51 1) passages that emphasize the inferiority of the later prophets
to Moses, e.g. Numbers (xii. 6-8) (LXX) " If there be among you a
prophet of the Lord, I will make myself known unto him in a vision. ..but
to Moses by the sense of sight (V <H) and not through dark sayings."
Then he quotes the saying (Deut. xxxiv. 10 (LXX)) "There arose not
any more a prophet like Moses whom the Lord knew face to face." If
he had taken the Deuteronomic "Prophet like Moses" either as a type
of the Messiah, or as parallel to "the Messenger (or Angel) " in Exodus,
he could hardly have failed to quote the expression at least once in his
voluminous works. His silence, and his somewhat low general estimate
of prophecy, and the stress laid by him on the inferiority of all prophets
to Moses, all combine to shew that he took the Jewish view of the
phrase as meaning " a succession of prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit
as Moses was."

4 [826 a] See Sch6ttgen (ii. 225), who adds that (#. 224) Debarim
rabba sect. 4 fol. 256. 2 (compiled (Schiir. I. i. 148) about A.D. 900)

211 14 2

[827] "HEAR YE HIM"

[827] Our investigations lead to this conclusion, that at a
very early period there was difference of opinion among the
Jews as to the Messenger mentioned in Exodus, and again
in Malachi, and a tendency to corrupt the former passage,
apparent in the LXX, Onkelos, and the Jerusalem Targum.
To some very slight extent this tendency appears even in
the Babylonian Talmud, which quotes it in a manner in-
dicating that the passage afforded matter of controversy
between Jews and Christians. Its frequent quotation by
Philo should be borne in mind as a contrast with the silence
of the Jerusalem Talmud, and as an indication that in the
first century the passage was much more discussed than in
later times.

[828] Nothing can be concluded with certainty about the
Jewish use of the Deuteronomic prediction concerning the
" prophet like unto Moses," but there is a strong probability
that, from Philo onwards, the Jews regarded it as merely
promising a succession of prophetic teachers each of whom
was to be inspired with some portion of the Spirit that rested
upon Moses. This, however, would not exclude the belief that
tlte Prophet that was to revive t/te succession would be also tJie
Messenger promised in Exodus : and accordingly Malachi, if
he does not actually assert, was at all events believed by
most Jews to imply, that the " Prophet " Elijah was also the
" Messenger " of the Covenant.

[829] Under the head of Jewish tradition we must reckon
a passage in John implying that the Sanhedrin distinguished

connects Malachi's Messenger with Isaiah's prediction (xl. 4) "Every
valley shall be exalted &c." a connection that is of interest inasmuch as
Mark (and Mark alone) combines Malachi (iii. i) and Isaiah (xl. 3)
under the heading of " Isaiah", see below (830 a, 833 a) in describing the
advent of John the Baptist.

Elsewhere Schdttgen says (ii. 15) that, as far as he knows, "solus ex
recentioribus Kimchius Messiam explicuit [angelum foederis]"; but he
adds from Sohar a saying that "the Angel of the Covenant" always
means God.

212

HEAR YE HIM"

between the Messiah, Elijah, and "the prophet", as three
personalities any one of which would have conferred the right
to baptize: (Jn i. 25) "Why baptizest thou then, if thou art
neither tlu Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet ? " These words
harmonize with the Synoptic narrative, which contrasts " Some
say that thou art Elijah" and " Some say that thou art one
of the ancient propliets" with "Thou art the Christ" the
former being the talk of the multitude, the latter the Con-
fession of Peter. The two traditions taken together, the
Synoptic and the Johannine, indicate a close connection,
in Jewish thought, between the Messiah who was to be the
ultimate Deliverer, Elijah the Messenger who was to prepare
the way for the Messiah, and the Prophet like Moses who,
after four centuries, was to revive the succession of the Holy
Spirit and to precede Elijah. Concerning the last two, any
Jew would believe that God, introducing either of them to
Israel, uttered the words " Hear ye him" in heaven, whether
they were, or were not, made audible to men in a Bath Kol
on earth. Concerning the Messiah, there was no such pre-
cedent ; but the utterance might seem to some appropriate
as meaning "Hear ye him, not as the Prophet like unto Moses,
nor as t/te Messenger Elijah, but as my Anointed, Chosen by me
to be my First-born"

3. Christian canonical traditions concerning t/te
"Messenger"

[830] The Synoptists take their mention of the Messenger
not from Exodus but from Malachi. But they all misquote
the prophecy (" thy face " for " my face "). Two of them
attribute the quotation to Jesus, whereas Mark quotes it in
his own person. Mark wrongly attributes it to Isaiah instead
of Malachi. ^

Malachi has (iii. i) " Behold, I send my messenger and he
shall prepare " [lit. " shall face " = " shall clear from before

213

[831] "HEAR YE HIM"

my face," *.*. shall free from obstacles] "a way before my
face."

The LXX has mistaken " shall face " as though it meant
" shall turn the face towards" but is otherwise correct :

" Behold I send forth my messenger and he shall look-to a
way before my face."

The Synoptists have :

Mk i. 1-3 Mt. xi. 9-10, Lk. vii. 26-7
"'The beginning of the "...A prophet? Yea, I say
Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is unto you, and more than a pro-
written in Isaiah the prophet, phet. This is he concerning
'Behold I send my messenger whom it is written, 'Behold I
before thy face who shall prepare send my messenger before thy
thy way 1 .' 'The voice of one face who shall prepare thy way
crying...'." before thee.'"

[831] How came Malachi's words to be so seriously mis-
quoted both in the Synoptic Tradition by Mark, and in the
Double Tradition by Matthew and Luke ? Perhaps the best
conjecture is that, as often in the Talmuds, the quotation in
the Original was not set down in full but simply contained the
initial words, not from Malachi but from Exodus, " Behold I
send my 2 messenger before thy face." This in itself might
lead to confusion with the similar prophecy in Malachi " Be-
hold I send my messenger before my face." We know, too,
that these words are associated with early error in Mark (who
assigns them to " Isaiah ") and also in Clement of Rome,
who (as we shall find) seriously alters the context and per-
haps quotes from some apocryphal document like Eldad and

1 [830 a] The words of Isaiah do not begin till "The voice", but

Mk attributes also "Behold way" to him, though it belongs to

Malachi.

In the Synoptic parallels to Mk i. 3, Matthew (iii. 3) and Luke (iii. 4)
mention "Isaiah", when quoting "The voice"? comp. Jn i. 23 "/ [am]
'the voice of one crying.. .the Lord' (as said the prophet Isaiah)."

2 " My", i.e. the reading (821, 823) of Onkelos and the LXX.

2I 4

"HEAR YE HIM" [832]

It is not difficult to conceive that Evangelists,
deciding that Malachi, not Exodus, was the true source,
ini^ht complete the prediction in the language of the former,
and yet inadvertently retain "thy face" with the latter 2 .

[832; Justin and Tertullian both explain the Exodus pre-
diction about the Messenger, " my name is on him" as being
uttered by the Lord, or the Son of God, Jtereafter to be incarnate
as Jesus of Nazareth, concerning Joshua, or Jesus, the son of
Nun, as bearing His future name. This implies that God
spoke " in the person, or face (TrpotrooTry), of Jesus 8 ." This
very curious tradition which does not appear to have been
derived from Jewish sources, and which certainly did not
commend itself to Christians, if we may draw this inference
from the fact that it is not repeated by a single Ante-Nicene
Father* might possibly arise from an early Greek gloss on
the Malachi quotation in the earliest Gospel, that of Mark.
Mark alone quotes the passage in his own person. The

1 See below (837).

* [831 a] Less probably the error may have sprung from Greek
corruption. Suppose Jesus to have quoted correctly from Malachi
" Behold I send my messenger before my face." Writers of gospels
thinking that "my face" might be misunderstood as "Christ's face"
might write "God's" over "#*/". This might easily be corrupted into
" thy ", because /woy, with 6y over it, might easily be taken as intended
to be corrected into coy- Comp. (though the explanation is different)
Mt. xxiii. 34 " I send" = Lk. xi. 49 "The Wisdom of God said, I send."

3 [832 a] In one of these explanations, Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 9) (but
not Justin) goes on to explain the Malachi prediction as uttered "in the
Person of (ex persona) the Father."

4 [832 6} For Jewish tradition, see 819 foil. Otto (Just Mart. Tryph.
75) besides referring to other passages of Justin and to Tertull. Marc.
iii. 1 6, Adv. Jud. 9 &c., adds Lac tan t. Inst. Div. iv. 17 and Clem. Alex.
134. Hut the last two do not quote or refer to Exodus (" my name is in
him"). Indeed Clem. Alex, quotes Deuteronomy (xviii. 15) where the
essential words do not occur.

[832 1-] Perhaps most Christian Fathers felt a difficulty in very closely
connecting Christ, even typically, with a passage containing the words
(Exod. xxiii. 21) " He will not forgive your transgressions."

2IS

[833] "HEAR YE HIM"

glosser might add, "These words are also uttered in the
person of Jesus." By- this, he might mean that they were
repeated by Jesus when describing John the Baptist in the
Double Tradition of Matthew and Luke: but Justin migtit
take the gloss to refer to the original 0. T. passage as being
" uttered in the person of Jesus" by God the Son concerning His
namesake Jesus tJie son of Nun 1 . Whatever may be its origin,
it points to a very early Christian belief that the words in
Exodus " I send my messenger before thy face " referred
typically to Jesus as " Messenger".

[833] As for Mark's erroneous use of the name " Isaiah",
discussion would be out of place here 8 ; but it must be noted
as one more indication of the mass of early errors that had
clustered round the confusing traditions about the Messenger.
It will be well to recapitulate here the possibilities of Christian
interpretation.

[834] In Exodus, "Messenger before thy face" might be
Jesus typified by Joshua, going before the face of Israel, and
regarded as " the Messenger, or Angel, of the Covenant."

It might also be taken, apart from its context, as the
Baptist going before the face of Jesus.

In Malachi, "My messenger shall prepare the way

before me ; and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come
to his temple and (or, even) the messenger of the Covenant. .."
may mean three persons, if we read <; and " and if the first
"messenger" is distinct, both from the Lord and from the

1 [832 d] Another explanation might be based on the word " face " or
"person". In answer to the question "Whose face?" a marginal note
might be added "The face of Jesus is meant." As the Gk A'y-ai means
"is said", as well as "is meant 1 ', this might easily be corrupted into " In
the person of Jesus // is said"

2 [833 a] The most obvious suggestion is that the Malachi quotation
was first added in the margin as akin to the Isaiah quotation, and was
then inadvertently inserted in the text immediately after "Isaiah".
Schottgen (ii. 224) says that Debarim rabb. (iv. 256*) joins Mai. iii. i
and iii. 23 (R.V. iv. 5) and Is. xl. 4, as referring to the same person.

2l6

"HEAR YE HIM" [838]

second "messenger". If we read "even", only two persons
at most are intended.

If there are three persons, they might be supposed to be
(i) John the Baptist, (2) the Lord Jesus, (3) Elijah 1 (at the
Second Coming of Christ). If there are two, they might be
the Lord Jesus and John the Baptist, or the Lord and Elijah :
or some might say that the Baptist was Elijah reincarnate,
others, that the Baptist was "in the spirit and power of
Elijah."

[835] The main reason for dwelling on these speculative
distinctions is that they help us to understand John's attitude
when he briefly sweeps them all away in the Fourth Gospel,
avoiding the Malachi quotation altogether, and describing the
Baptist simply as "a man sent from God," who expressly
disclaimed the titles of " Elijah " and of " the prophet ", as
well as that of " Christ ".

4. Christian non-canonical traditions concerning tlie
"Messenger"

[836] An early non-canonical quotation of the Exodus
prediction is found in the Acta Pilati (A). The context
describes a conversation among the Jews after Christ's death
upon hearing rumours of His Resurrection. They speak of
Elijah, Enoch, and Moses three precedents of ascension or
mysterious burial and then a Rabbi quotes Exodus (xxiii.
20) thus, " Behold I send my Messenger before thy face who
shall go before thee to keep thee in every good way because
my name is called in it (fern.) [i.e. in tlie way]" The reader
will observe that the Rabbi follows Onkelos and the LXX in
reading "my Messenger", and that, like Onkelos, he deviates

1 " Elijah" is expressly mentioned a little later (Mai. iv. 5) " Behold
I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the
Lord come."

[837] "HEAR YE HIM"

though with a different deviation from the Hebrew phrase
" My name is in him 1 ."

The view of Justin and Tertullian, that "my name" (in
" my name is in him ") means the name of Jesus, and that the
passage refers to Jesus typified by Joshua, has been discussed
incidentally above (832).

[837] There remains a quotation that should have come,
on chronological grounds, immediately after the Synoptists,
since it occurs in the Epistle written about A.D. 90 by Clement
of Rome to the Corinthians ; but it is so transmuted that it
may almost be called a separate tradition. Clement is warning
his readers to be patient under tribulation while waiting for
the Day of the Lord, ( 23) " Far be from us this Scripture
where He saith : Wretched are the doubleminded? ...... Of a

truth, quickly and suddenly shall His will be accomplished,
the Scripture also bearing witness to it, saying : He shall come
quickly and shall not tarry ; and the Lord shall come suddenly
into His temple, even 3 the Holy One whom ye expect? Lightfoot
shews that the " Scripture" first mentioned above " must have
been taken from some spurious prophetic book formed on
the model of the Canonical prophecies. I would conjecture,"
he says, " that it was Eldad and Medad, which was certainly

1 Acta P. (A) xvi. 3. The context suggests that the writer has in view
Jn xiv. 2 " I go to prepare a place for you," and that he regards Jesus as
"going before" His disciples across the river of death.

2 [837 a] Here follows a long quotation ending with an illustration
from the growth of the vine. Lightf. ad loc. " See Herm. Vis. ii. 3 tyyvs
Kvpios Toif Tri(rTp((pop.(vois cas ytyparrTai tv r<5 'E\8aS teat M<8a8 rotr
Trpo<pT)Tfvaraa-iv tv rfj fpr)(jL<a TW Xaw, a passage alleged by Hermas for the
same purpose as our quotation to refute one who is sceptical about the
approaching afflictions of the last times." It is interesting to note that
one MS. alters the uncanonical names 'EXSaS <al Ma>8a8, into tXaXij Kara

[837 b} The article iv rw 'EXSdS illustrates Mk i. 2 i> rw 'Ho-aio. The
name 'Ho-ai'oj occurs about 20 times in N.T. but never preceded by the
article except here (839 a}.

3 " Even ", so Lightfoot renders KOI (see 818).

218

"HEAR YE HIM" [838]

known in the early Roman Church." As to the second
" Scripture" he regards it as a combination of Isaiah (xiii. 22
" shall come quickly and shall not tarry") and Malachi (iii. i).
But it is possible that Clement may be quoting the "Scripture"
just mentioned, which may have combined extracts from the
two prophets, and this might explain the substitution (in
the Malachi extract) of "Holy One" for "Messenger of tlte
Covenant"

[838] Concerning this substitution Lightfoot says that it
" may have been intentional, but is much more probably an
inadvertence of Clement, who quotes from memory largely
but loosely and is influenced by the interpretation which lie has
in :'iew" The words I have italicized appear to mean that
Clement so habitually alters his quotations to suit his own
views of them, and so often " largely but loosely ", that he
perhaps seldom knows whether he alters or not, and there-
fore can never be accused of making an " intentional "
alteration. In any case, the "interpretation" that Clement
(or the author of Eldad and Medad) had here " in view ", was
probably suggested by the feeling that the Lord ought not to
be called Messenger or Angel, nor even " Angel of 'the Covenant ".
The Epistle to the Hebrews which Clement not only quotes
but "imitates" 1 devotes a large part of its opening chapter
to shew that Christ is not one of the " angels ", but superior to
them ; and although Justin Martyr 2 maintains that the name
may be given to our Lord, few Christian writers appear to
have agreed with him. Hence Clement if it is Clement
might wish to paraphrase "angel". If he did, there was
open to him the synonym "Holy One", which in O. T.
occasionally 3 , and in the Book of Enoch very frequently,
means "angel".

1 " Imitates", so Lightfoot, in his Index, under the heading" Hebrews,
Epistle to", where he gives many instances of imitation.
Trypk. 58-61.
8 [838 a] "Holy onts" is said (Buhl) to be used for "anff/s" in

2I 9

[839] "HEAR YE HIM"

[839] Lightfoot continues, "This portion of Malachi's
prophecy is quoted much less frequently in early Christian
writers than we should have expected. On the other hand,
the first part of the same verse iSov aTroo-TeXXw rov dyje\6v
fiov is quoted Matth. xi. 10, Mark i. 2, Luke vii. 27, and not
seldom by the early fathers, by whom, following the Evan-
gelists, it is explained of John the Baptist." From one point
of view we might certainly have expected frequent quotations
of the words in question, since they are peculiarly appropriate
to describe Jesus " coming to his temple " to purify it ; and
they might also well be used, as Clement uses them, to
describe the Second Coming. But the feeling against calling
Christ a Messenger, or " Angel ", is sufficient to explain why
Christian theologians dropped this part of the prophecy.
True, Clement quotes it. But that is because he is able
whether inadvertently or unscrupulously to alter " angel" into
"Holy One". In more careful or scrupulous ages, this could
not be done. Hence the latter part fell into such utter disuse
(as a quotation) that the English Indices of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers do not give a single instance of it except Clement's
corrupt blending of Isaiah and Malachi which may possibly
come, not from Clement, but from the author of some apocry-
phal work like Eldad and Medad^.

Deut. xxxiii. 3 and in Zech. xiv. 5. The latter is printed by W.H.
as quoted from Zech. in Mt. xxv. 31 ; but Mt. has "angels" instead of
" holy ones ". Job v. i (R. V.) " holy ones ", (A. V.) " saints ", - LXX " holy
angels". For the usage in Enoch, see Charles's note on i. 9. Jude 14
("tens of thousands of holy ones"} is printed by W.H. as quoted from
Deut. xxxiii. 2 ((lit.) "ten thousands of holiness',' 1 R.V. "holy ones"} and
Zech. xiv. 5 : but the editors must merely mean that similar expressions
are found in Deut. and Zech., not that Jude is quoting from them. For
Jude expressly tells us that he is quoting " Enoch ".

1 [839 a] Comp. (a) Heb. x. 37, which is a blend of Is. xxvi. 20 and
Hab. ii. 3, (b) Jude 14, a blend of Deut. xxxiii. 2 and Zech. xiv. 5, (c) the
present passage, a blend of Is. xiii. 22 and Mai. iii. i. All three passages
refer to the Second Coming. Jude (14) says that he is quoting from
"Enoch". Again, (d) in Mk i. 2-3, another blend of Malachi and

220

"HEAR YE HIM" [842]

[840] Our conclusion is that, in the first century and a
part of the second, many more Christians than in later times
were disposed to recognize in Christ the Messenger, or Angel,
of the New Covenant ; and the three or four survivals of this
usage are specimens of a much larger number once existing
in a literature that is now submerged.

5. Christian traditions concerning tlie " Prophet"

[841] Though the Gospels frequently connect the title of
" prophet" with Jesus it is almost always in the mouths of the
multitude, or those who are not disciples, e.g. the Samaritan
woman. The general rule is illustrated by an exception,
where the two disciples that have lost faith in Jesus after
His death call Him "a prophet mighty in deed and word
before God," and are rebuked by Him as " foolish and slow
of heart 1 ." Since even the Lord's forerunner, John the Baptist,
is called " more than a prophet," it would be strange if the
Lord Himself received that appellation from His own fol-
lowers. It is true that, in answer to the question, "Whom
say men that I am?" they report that others call Him
" prophet ", but the narrative implies that t/tey do not 2 .

[842] But, when we turn from the Gospels to the Acts,
we find in a speech of Peter* a passage where the Deutero-
nomic prediction about the Prophet is connected with Jesus

Isaiah is attributed to " Isaiah", and "Isaiah" has before it the unique
(837 b} article, found, in Hermas, before " Eldad". Possibly some corrup-
tion is latent under " the Isaiah ".

1 Lk. xxiv. 19, 25.

8 Mk viii. 28, Mt. xvi. 14, Lk. ix. 19.

* One sentence of the prediction is also quoted in the speech of
Stephen, (Acts vii. 37) "This is that Moses who said, A prophet shall
God raise.. .like unto me." (A few MSS. add, "Him shall ye hear.")
Stephen's speech proceeds " This is he that was in the congregation in
the wilderness...," without any further reference to the Prophet. It is
impossible to base on this any secure inference as to a Messianic
application.

221

[843] "HEAR YE HIM"

in such a way as to give the impression that the speaker
regards the words "a prophet like unto me" as pointing
definitely to Christ and to no other. As this view has been
adopted by a multitude of Christian theologians though not
by Wetstein it is important to examine the grounds for it.

[843] The Jewish view briefly mentioned above (825)
is that the prediction indicates a succession of prophets. This
agrees well with the preceding words, which warn Israel
against " augury " and " divination ", i.e. against omens from
birds and beasts, the bones of the dead, demoniacally inspired
utterances, &c. Instead of these, Israel is to receive from
time to time God's special guidance through inspired human
nature, a prophet from one of their own countrymen (" from
the midst of thee, of thy brethren "). The words " like unto
me" appear to mean "not like the soothsayers, seers, and
prophets, of the Greeks, Phrygians, or Babylonians ; not
acting under the influence of mephitic vapours, or trance,
or demoniacal possession, but like Moses, the archetype,
filled with the Spirit of Righteousness." This is what the
Jerusalem Targum may briefly indicate when it inserts the
words " a Right Prophet, or, Prophet of Righteousness," and
" with the Holy Spirit." " Like unto me ", according to this
view, means that each prophet, from time to time, will re-
semble the national type ; and there is no intention to
indicate a special prophet, or to suggest that, in the line
of successors, most will be unlike Moses, and one alone will
be "like" him.

[844] Further, the Deuteronomic writer lays great stress
upon the responsibility of the prophet to Jehovah, whose
words he is to speak, and upon the penalty to be exacted
from the disobedient prophet ; which is to be more severe,
or at least more prompt, than the punishment of the people
for disobeying the prophecy. If the prophet is disobeyed by
his countrymen, the Lord " will require it " of them ; but as
for the prophet that speaks what God has not commanded,

222

"HEAR YE HIM"

[845]

or speaks in the name of other gods, he "shall die". In the
former case the penalty is deferred and left to God ; in the
latter, it is to be inflicted at once by man (comp. Deut. xiii. 5).
How different is this from the tone of the passage as quoted
below in the Acts, where no penalty at all is mentioned for
the prophet ; but tlie penalty of refusing to hearken to the prophet
is to be " utterly destroyed from among tlie people" ! And it is
just this point this transposition of the prophets penalty to
the people that the great mass of Ante-Nicene Fatliers have
fastened on, in order to enhance tlie authority of Christ by in-
timidating tJte disobedient !

[845] The misquotation cannot be proved to have in-
fluenced Christian theology till the date of the composition
of the Acts ; but probably some influence of this kind was
at work during the period when the Gospels were being
composed. The two passages are therefore given at full
length below. After the quotation in the Acts a few words
of Peter's comment are added, because they contain words
that may denote an obscure recognition of the Jewish and
correct interpretation, viz. that " a prophet (from time to titne),"
and not " a (single) prophet ", is contemplated :

Deut. xviii. 15-20
(15) " The Lord thy God will
raise up unto thee a prophet
from the midst of thee, of thy
brethren, like unto me ; unto him
ye shall hearken; (16) accord-
ing to all that thou desiiedst of
the Lord thy God in Horeb in
the day of the assembly, saying,
Let me not hear again the voice

Acts iii. 22-3, 24-5
1 (22) " Moses indeed said,
A prophet shall the Lord God
raise up unto you from among
your brethren, like unto me,
(marg. " as \he raised up\ me "') ;
to him shall ye hearken in all
things whatsoever he shall speak
unto you. (23) And it shall be,
that every soul which shall not

1 The preceding words mention the sufferings of Christ as (iii. 18)
"foreshewed by the mouth of all the prophets" and (iii. 21) "the times
of restoration of all things whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy
prophets which have been since the world began."

[846]

"HEAR YE HIM"

hearken to that prophet, shall
be utterly destroyed from among
the people.

(24) "Yea, and all the pro-
phets from Samuel and them
that followed after, as many as
have spoken, they also told of
these days. (25) Ye are the
sons of the prophets, and of the
covenant which God made with
your fathers, saying unto Abra-
ham..." 1

of the Lord my God, neither let
me see this great fire any more,
that I die not. (17) And the
Lord said unto me, They have
well said that which they have
spoken. (18) I will raise them
up a prophet from among their
brethren, like unto thee ; and I
will put my words in his mouth,
and he shall speak unto them
all that I shall command him.
(19) And it shall come to pass,
that whosoever will not hearken
unto my words, which he shall
speak in my name, I will require
it of him. (20) But the prophet
that shall speak a word pre-
sumptuously in my name, which
I have not commanded him to
speak, or that shall speak in the
name of other gods, that same
prophet shall die."

[846] Passing to the use of the extract (whether as in
Deuteronomy or as in Acts) in the Christian Church, we do
not find it in Justin 2 , nor (except incidentally (Iren. iii. 12. 3)
in a number of long extracts from Peter's speeches) in
Irenaeus. Clement of Alexandria, who seems to be the first
to quote it, says that Moses utters the words prophetically
("A prophet of your brethren"), "darkly mentioning

1 [845 a] Notice the words "all the prophets from Samuel" and, "ye
are the sons of the prophets." These, with the phrases indicated in the
preceding note, suggest that the documents on which Luke based his
version of the speech may have taken the Jewish view. Peter may have
called on the people to accept Jesus as the Restorer, not because He
alone was " a prophet like Moses," but because the unanimous testimony
of the prophets that were "like Moses" pointed to Him.

2 [846 a] Justin would probably be unwilling to call Christ " prophet ".
At all events, when he gives (Tryph. 126) about sixteen names of Christ,
" prophet " is not one of them.

224

HEAR YE HIM" [847]

KSUS the son of Nun," to prepare the way for Jesus the

Son of God 1 : " he (Moses) adds, 'Him shall ye hear'

and, as for ' the man that will not hear that Prop/tet' him he
(Moses) threatens." The vague term, "threatens", is probably
a condensation of Peter's phrase (not in O. T.), " that soul
shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." The
latter is given in full by Tertullian, indicating that he is not
really quoting from O. T. but from t/te Acts*.

[847] This shews that the English Indices to the Fathers
are misleading as to this particular passage. They lead the
reader to suppose that the Deuteronomic text is quoted some
dozen times by Ante-Nicene writers. But, in reality, ttie
quotations are from the Acts, as is shewn by the tell-tale
words about "cutting off" (or "utterly destroying") the man
that disobeys t/te Prophet*. As the quoters do not include

1 [846 ti\ Clem. Alex. (134). Contrast, with this, the words of Bishop
Archelaus {Disputation with Manes, 43), " Now it is plain that this
cannot be understood to have been said of Jesus the son of Nun"

* [846 c\ Tertull. Marc. iv. 22 "Unto him shall ye hearken as unto
me. Everyone that will not hearken unto him, that soul shall be cut off
from amongst his people." Epiphanius (Vol. I. p. 464 D, Haer. liv. 3)
says that Theodotus argued that the words " like me (Moses) " implied
that Christ was a man. Tertullian's rendering " as unto me " gets rid of
the argument of Theodotus. Novatian (Trinity 9) also has "listen to
him as if to me."

3 [847 a] This applies to Origen Comm. Joann. lib. vi. 4 and 8;
Methodius (Simeon and Anna 11); Epiphanius (Vol. I. p. 693 A,
Haer. Ixvi. 72) ; Recognitions of Clement i. 37 ; Apostolical Constitutions
v. 20.

Cyprian Test. agst. Jews i. 18, and Lactantius Div. Inst. iv. 17 quote
correctly from Deuteronomy. Novatian and Archelaus quote too briefly
to indicate their source.

The Clementine Homilies do not quote the passage from the Acts,
but are influenced by it : (iii. 53) " He said, I am he concerning whom
Moses prophesied saying, A Prophet shall the Lord our God raise unto
you of your brethren, like unto me : him hear in all things ; and whosoever
will not hear that Prophet shall die. n

[847 ] Origen against Celsus (i. 36, iv. 95) quotes "A prophet...
brethren" to contrast augury and soothsaying (843) with the revelation

A. 225 15

[848] "HEAR YE HIM"

the context in the Acts referring to the continuity of prophecy,
they retain scarcely a vestige of the meaning of the Deutero-
nomic original.

6. " Moses " and " Elijah "

[848] We have found two distinct streams of post-evangelic
Christian tradition indicating that " Hear ye him " might be
taken by some to mean, " Hear ye Jesus of Nazareth as t/ie
prophet like unto Moses" by others to mean, " Hear him as
the Messenger" that is (i) " Hear ye him as Moses" (2) " Hear
ye him as Elijah'' The two views might be harmonized as
follows, "Hear ye him, not as Moses alone, and not as Elijah
alone, but as the Chosen of God, the Messiah, in zvhom the Law
and the Prophets, Moses and Elijah, are summed up and
included."

[849] Whether there is any detailed and textual basis for
supposing that this last view was actually adopted will have
to be considered later on. Meantime it may be pointed out
that the Synoptists themselves mention, shortly before the
Transfiguration, conflicting opinions about Jesus, some assert-
ing that He was Elijah, others that He was one of the
ancient prophets. The former might be expressed in the
words " He appeared to some Elijah." The latter if it
referred to the " prophet like Moses " might be expressed as
"He appeared to some the ancient prophet," or even, "He
appeared to some Moses." The two together, when combined
with the fact that God revealed to Peter, and to the disciples
through Peter, that Jesus was the Christ, might originate
a tradition of this kind : " To some He appeared Moses and

through (iv. 95) "the most pure and holy of human souls, whom He
inspires and endows with prophetic power." He appears to be the only
Ante-Nicene writer that retains a trace of the Deuteronomic meaning.
The extracts in this note are from Clark's Ante-Nicene Fathers.

226

"HEAR YE HIM" [849]

Elijah, but the Father revealed* the truth (or, a Voice from
Heaven went forth) to the disciples, saying, This is my Chosen*:
Ittar ye Him" It will be shewn (871 b) that, whether in
Greek or Hebrew tradition, " He appeared [as] Moses" may be
indistinguishable from "Moses appeared", and similarly for
" Elijah". Thus there is a prima facie case for explaining
the alleged apparitions of Moses and Elijah (which John
omits) as springing from misunderstood traditions about the
Prophet and tlie Messenger, which seemed to assert that "Moses
and Elijah appeared? More cannot be said without anticipa-
ting the discussion that will follow more fitly later on. But
so much as this will be of use if it prepares the reader to take
a charitable view of John's omission of the whole narrative
of the Transfiguration as well as of the Voice at the Baptism.
By "charitable" it is meant to suggest that John may have
acted as an honourable and truthful historian, in omitting
what he believed to be non-historical. The account of the
Baptism he may have rewritten because he believed he knew
the facts : the Transfiguration he may have entirely omitted
because he did not know the facts and believed the Synoptic
account of them to be erroneous.

1 [849 a] "Revealed". A tradition peculiar to Matthew represents
Jesus as saying in answer to Peter's Confession (Mt. xvi. 17) " Flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven."
In the Transfiguration, the revelation is made to three disciples and by a
Voice from the Cloud.

1 On " Chosen " as the original of " Son " see above 786-816.

227 153

BOOK IV
THE SILENCE OF JOHN

CHAPTER I

THE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM,
WHY OMITTED BY JOHN?

i. The Baptist's mission as described by Luke

[850] THE Synoptic portion of Luke's Gospel begins
with the words (iii. 2) "The word of God came (lit. "was")
unto (lit. '"upon", eVt) John." They at once raise a question.
The formula "The word of tlie Lord came (lit. Heb. and
Gk "was") to" this or that prophet &c. occurs in O.T. more
than 100 times, but perhaps not more than two or three
times with the preposition "upon" either in Hebrew or Greek 1 .
" The word of God came," in the Hebrew text, occurs only
twice, and there are Hebrew parallels in both cases having
" the word of the Lord 1 " Consequently it appears that Luke
not only uses a very rare definition of '''the word", but also

1 [850 *] In this phrase, Heb. "/0" fa) (R.V. "to") appears to
occur only in I Chr. xxii. 8, LXX poi, A in' /w> ano< J er - xxv - ' ("the
word [of the Lord]"), LXX npos. In Jer. i. i "the word of Jeremiah,"
LXX has TO prjpa ToC 6tov o ryVrro iri 'itp. In Dan. ixj 2 "to (?K) ",
Theod. has Trpos, LXX has ini and alters "word of the Lord" into
"ordinance to the land."

8 [850*] "Cam*", lit. "/aj",or "came to pass", Heb. H'H, Gk iy4vtro.
"The word of God came" occurs in i K. xii. 22 ( = 2 Chr. xi. 2), I Chr.
xvii. 3 ( 2 S. vii. 4). The LXX in both cases substitutes the usual
Kvptos for the unusual 0t6s, but renders "word" by the unusual Xoyof
instead of the usual pf/fna. i Pet. i. 24 substitutes the usual rd

Kvptov for Is. xl. 8 TO d< pfifM TOV 6tn

231

[851] THE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM,

describes its " coming" in a manner practically unprecedented
in LXX. This is all the more remarkable because, up to
this point, he has followed the LXX style. Moreover he
seems to be aiming at extreme precision, as may be inferred
from his giving us in the preceding words no less than six

historical data ("In the fifteenth year Annas and Caia-

phas") for determining the exact time and circumstances of
Christ's entrance on the work of an Evangelist. It would be
alien from Luke's custom to interpolate a clause of his own
for the purpose of emphasizing the Baptist's testimony, and
to express it in a phrase needlessly departing from Biblical
usage. We are therefore bound to suppose at all events as
a preliminary supposition that Luke had before him some
ancient tradition that he felt compelled to interpret in these
terms ; and the first question to be asked is whether the
earlier Gospels shew traces of any such original.

[851] The parallel in Mark is "The beginning of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ [the Son of Goo']," where W.H.
say that the bracketed words cannot "be safely rejected" 1 .
This has the appearance of a conflation. Let us suppose a
version of Mark containing "the Son of God" (instead of
"Jesus Christ"} and omitting the prophecies that come
parenthetically in the second and third verses. The Gospel
would then begin thus : " The Beginning of the Gospel of the
Son of God there-came John." But, if this was expressed in
New Hebrew, (i) "of the Son' 1 would be *Q"I, which, in
Biblical Hebrew, means "the word of"; (ii) " tliere-came"
would be, in New Hebrew, 7$*. But this, in Biblical Hebrew,
means "ttpon". Hence a student, familiar with Biblical but
not with New Hebrew, might feel compelled to render this

1 Unfortunately SS. and Diatess. are wanting for the beginning of
Mk : otherwise they might support D, which has the bracketed words.

2 [851 a] Levy (Ch. ii. 218 a) "bty prat, zumeist >y...dass., was
hbr. XII."

232

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [852]

as follows: "The Beginning of the Gospel. The Word 1 of
God [was] upon John." From this, interpreting it as Biblical
Hebrew, Luke may have derived his statement that the
Baptist received a prophetic message from God.

[852] John makes no such statement ; but he represents
the Baptist as supporting it in the words (i. 33) " He that sent

me to baptize said unto me *." Probably all Christians in

the first century assumed that God "said" something to
John about Christ, the only question being as to the precise
nature of the " saying" whether it was a general inspiration
or a particular utterance. About this there might easily
arise differences, as we see from the Targums on the first
Biblical passage that mentions " the word of the Lord "
(Gen. xv. I 4).

(Heb.) "After these things {lit.) there-was the word of

the Lord to Abram in a vision saying And behold

the word of the Lord [was] to him saying,"

(Onk.) "There was the word of the Lord with Abram in

propliecy and behold the word of the Lord [was] with him

saying,"

(Jer. I) (Etheridge) " Thereupon was the word of the

Lord with Abram in a vision and behold, a \vordfrow

before the Lord was to him saying,"

(Jer. II) (Etheridge) "Then was the word of prophecy from
the Lord unto (? 7$') Abram" (ver. 4 is om.).

1 [851 b] If John found such a tradition as, " The Beginning of the
Gospel [was] the Word of God" he might have taken it as meaning " the
beginning of the Plan of Spiritual Creation." This he may have had in
mind in his opening words, "/ the beginning was the Word."

* Comp. i K. xviii. 31 "unto whom the word of the Lord came (lit.

was)," wr t\a\ri<rtv Kr/jiuf npos avrov.

3 [852 a] Levy (Ch. ii. 85) renders }y here by the German "an". As
Aram. (Gesen. 757 a) does not use the Heb. preposition employed here,
/K, the Targumist may substitute ?V with the same meaning, namely
"/////0". But such a practice is not mentioned by Levy (Ch. ii. 216 a)
where the meanings of ty are specified.

233

[853] THE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM,

(LXX) " But after these words was the word of the Lord

to (TT/JO?) Abram in a vision saying and straightway

a (or, the) Voice (<f>o)vij) of the Lord was to (TT/DO?) him saying."

[853] This last is almost the only passage 1 where the
LXX renders the Hebrew "word" as if it were Kol, " Voice \
which when applied to God would commonly denote either
a definite utterance from heaven, Mount Sinai &c., or a definite
command (as in " obey my voice, his voice &c."). The Diates-
saron has, in rendering Luke here, " The command of God
went forth to John." Having regard to the frequency with
which "went forth" is applied (740 foil.) to a Bath Kol, it is
possible that the Arabic translator regarded the original as
meaning that " a Voice from heaven went forth to John."
In any case this tradition about "the word of God upon
John " suggests the stages by which the utterance of a
prophet, or a message given by God to a prophet in a vision 3 ,
might come to be regarded as a Bath Kol 3 .

2. The Baptist's mission as described by John

[854] When an honest and competent historian, relating
an event described by earlier historians, omits a very im-
portant detail inserted by his predecessors, every one will
admit that there are prima facie grounds for supposing that
the later writer believed the insertion to be non-historical.
When the detail is a matter so stupendous as a Voice from
Heaven, the supposition is greatly strengthened. But when

1 Trommius gives also Gen. xi. i.

z [853 a] "Vision". A confusion between "vision" and "prophecy"
might arise from a substitution like that in the Targums, which regularly
substitute the latter for the former, as in Gen. xv. I, quoted above, Is. i. I,
Hab. ii. 2 &c. (Levy, Ch. ii. 85 b).

3 [853 b] A Bath Kol is said by R.