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. Jochanan to have been "given"
upon him and his companions when they were sitting on Mount Sinai :
but the Rabbi adds that it was in a dream, b. Chag. 14 . The Voice
said, "Come up hither, come up hither" (1095).

234

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [856]

this same historian inserts another stupendous event for
;i])lc. a message from God to a prophet which the earlier
historians omit, then our supposition will naturally be changed.
U it not likely, we shall ask, that what the earlier writers
regarded as a Bath Kol, or audible Voice "going out of a
Voice " of God, the later regarded as a divine inaudible voice
such (is the Bible implies when it says that " the word of
the Lord came" to this or tJtat prop/iet?

[855] An apparently unsurmountable obstacle, however,
in the way of this harmonization of the Synoptic and the
Johannine traditions, confronts us in the complete difference
between the words of the Synoptic Voice and the words of
the Johannine message. The voice says "beloved Son", or,
more probably (in the Original) " Chosen One". Whichever
version be adopted, this is quite different from the Johannine
designation (i. 33) "He that is to baptize with the Holy
Spirit."

[856] It must be admitted at once that the literal
Hebrew of "baptize with the Holy Spirit" could not possibly
be misunderstood for the Hebrew of " This is my beloved (or,
chosen) Son." But it is not at all likely that the former phrase
was used in its literal form by John the Baptist. At all events,
it is not alleged by commentators to have been in Jewish
use 1 ; and, until the Church had brought it into vogue, it

1 [856 a] Schottgen (on Mt. iii. n) quotes only a scoffing question
from a Sadducee, "How did God wash Himself when He buried Moses?"
The Rabbi answers " With fire". " Did you ever", replies the Sadducee,
"hear of washing with fire?" The Rabbi then quotes Numb. xxxi. 23
"All that will not go into the fire thou shall make to pass through the
water." This single passage and no others are alleged by Wetstein or
Hor. Heb. ad loc. so far from proving that the Jews were familiar with
the phrase "baptism by fire", indicates that there was no such phrase in
use, and that the nearest equivalent the Rabbi could find was one that did
not mention the word "dip", "wash", or "baptise". Such a phrase as
"washing, or baptizing, with fire" the Rabbi, apparently, had never
heard. If he had, his answer to the question "Did you ever hear?"
would have been "Yes, frequently".

235

[857] THE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM,

would probably have seemed as strange to Jews as "wash
in the Spirit", or "wash in wind", to us. Moreover the
fact that Matthew and Luke add to "the Holy Spirit" the
words "and fire" which are omitted by Mark and John
indicates that the Original contained some difficult meta-
phor, denoting a severe purification, but capable of being
variously understood and expressed.

3. The Original 1 ? The " Refiner" ?

[857] Many of the variations might be explained on the
hypothesis of an original metaphor about "soap" (or "lye"}
such as occurs in Malachi's prophecy about the Messenger,
(Mai. iii. 2) " He is like the fire of a refiner and like the soap
of fullers," which may be compared with Isaiah (marg.) (i. 25)
" I will purge away thy dross as [with] lye" and Job (marg.)
(ix. 30) " cleanse my hands with lye" Malachi's Hebrew for
" soap", JV"O, differs but little from HI")! " with the Spirit".
Again, Isaiah's Hebrew for "lye", "purification ", "purity" &c.,
is identical with the New Hebrew for "Son", and this has
actually produced ambiguity in an important Messianic Psalm,
portions of which have greatly influenced early Christian
writings (Ps. ii. 12) (R.V.) " Kiss the Son (marg. in purity"} 1 ,
where the LXX perhaps takes the meaning to be " chasten-
ing". Again, in Proverbs (xxxi. 2) " My son", where the
R.V. gives no alternative, Jewish Tradition takes the word
as typifying Israel under the figure of "pure or fine \wheatf"

1 [857 a] Aquila (Gesen. 135) has "in purity"; LXX, by some error,
or by paraphrase, has "training", iraiftda (? "chastening"). Portions of
this Psalm are quoted in Acts iv. 25, xiii. 33, Heb. i. 5, v. 5, Rev. xii. 5,
xix. 1 5 ; and Ps. ii. 7 " This day have I begotten thee " (792-7) represents
the Voice from Heaven at the Baptism in several Christian authorities :
means in Bibl. Heb. "lye", "purity", but in N. Heb. "son": Is. i. 25
" as [with] lye ", -Q3 = N. Heb. " as a son ".

2 Levy i. 259 b, ii. 35 b.

236

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [859]

4. A mbignities connected with the " Refiner "

[858] It will be observed that "lye" is connected above
by Isaiah with purification of metal, ix. by fire, but by Job
with purification of the hands, i.e. by water. The term is
therefore ambiguous. In Isaiah, the verb used with "lye" is
" pur if y -by -fire" , which would prevent ambiguity. But a
Targum on the Isaiah passage substitutes the more general
"purify" which is the root of "lye", "soap", "purification',
"fine (luhcat} " &c., but is also applied to the refining of gold 1 .
Hence, if the Original had " He shall purify as \with\ lye",
some might add as a marginal explanation "ivithfire". This
might be subsequently added to the text, thus originating the
clause "and (or, even) with fire*" Then might be appended
an explanation of the object of this "fire", namely to burn up
t/te chaff " with fire unquenchable" an addition found in
Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark and John. Others, who
adopted the longer form used by Malachi and who read it as
"wind" or " Spirit", might add a different comment, namely
that it referred to the winnoiving fan that was to separate the
chaff from the wheat*.

[859] This might be combined with the metaphor of
"fire", as it is combined by Matthew and Luke but not by
Mark and John. In this way, the original metaphor of refining
metal would be supplanted by the metap/tor of purifying or
refining wheat. John might feel that the metaphorical " as
[with] lye", even though it had been in the first instance

1 [858 a] Levy, Ch. \. 117*, Levy i. 272*: Bibl. purify -by -fire ", p*,
Targ. "Purify", TO.

8 [858*] In Is. i. 25 (Buhl 123*, Encycl. B. 2840) some read 133 "in
thf furnace " for 133 "like lye n . This might be paraphrased as "-with
fire".

3 [858 c] See 340 a, where it was suggested that (Is. xxx. 24) nm,
" winnowing-fan ", or some other obscure prophetic expression, is needed
to explain the phenomena. But the facts are better explained by JVO
"soap" (or "/yO, the word used by Malachi.

237

[860] THE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM,

erroneously rendered by Mark "with the Spirit" (owing to
a slight confusion of Hebrew letters), was nevertheless repre-
sented by the latter phrase with substantial accuracy. While
Mark's Gospel was new to the Church, the comments added
by Matthew and Luke were needed to interpret " lye " or
"soap" as meaning the purification that was to separate good
from evil and to destroy the latter. But now that Christians
were familiar with the conception of the all-searching Holy
Spirit, there might seem no need to add further comments.
Moreover the transference of these comments to the Baptist
as though they were uttered by him may have seemed to
John erroneous. These feelings may have induced the latter
to confine himself to Mark's paraphrastic tradition without
adopting the comment of Matthew and Luke, and without
adding any comment of his own.

[860] Again, the ambiguous *Q, besides meaning "son"
and " lye " &c., derives also from the radical notion of the
word (" separate ', "sift", "select" &c.) the adjectival meaning
"select" or "chosen". It is thrice rendered thus by LXX
(e'AeTo<?), once when meaning (Amos v. u R.V.) "wheat",
but twice when applied to spotless beauty, or purity, of a
woman (Cant. vi. 9) "the choice one" (marg. " pure"), (ib. vi.
10) "clear" (marg. "pure"). Now we have seen above that in
the Fourth Gospel, though the Baptist's testimony to Jesus
is given by most authorities as " I have borne witness that this
is the Son of God," yet there are good reasons for preferring
the various reading " the Chosen of God." This, then, is one
more of the complex phenomena that could be explained by
the hypothesis of an original allusion to the Refiner or
Purifier.

[861] So much for the probable Original of the last part
of " This is he that is to baptize with the Holy Spirit" But
if the last part was originally "as [with] lye", it almost follows
that the first part was originally "he that is to refine, or
purify!' We have seen (858 a) that a Targum expressed

238

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [862]

"refine" by the more general word "purify", "Y"Q. Now this
word also means "choose" frequently in the Bible as rendered
by LXX, and still more frequently in New Hebrew 1 . And
the passive participle, "Chosen" (or "Elect"}, "Purified", is
easily confused with the active participle, the Purifier or
Refiner. Hence it appears quite possible that the original
testimony of the Baptist to Jesus has not been preserved
either in the reading " Son of God " or in the reading " Chosen
of God ", and that it was " tlie Refiner of God," i.e. the Mes-
senger, or Messiah, predicted by Malachi as coming suddenly
to the Temple to "purify the sons of Levi." This view would
have, at all events, the advantage of harmonizing the testi-
mony given by the Baptist with the divine message to the
Baptist, the message being, in effect, " He on whom thou shalt
see the Spirit abide, he is the Purifier, or Refiner, of the House
of God," the testimony, " I saw the Spirit abide on him and I
testify that he is the Refiner"

5. "Refiner", perhaps, superseded by "Chosen" or "Sou"

[862] The vision of the Refiner of the sons of Levi was
a natural one for John the son of Zachariah the Priest, but
Christians could not be expected to give it prominence. The
Fourth Gospel does indeed suggest it somewhat more clearly
than the Three by placing the Purification of the Temple at
the very outset, as the first of Christ's public acts, "suddenly
coming to His temple," without the triumphant entry pre-
fixed to it by the Synoptists : but it was inevitable that after
Christ's Resurrection, this aspect of His work should be
subordinated. Perhaps the fate of the Temple not "puri-
fied " by the " Refiner", but destroyed by the Romans
when combined with above-mentioned uncertainties about the
personality of the Messenger and the Refiner, would cause

1 [861 a] Trommius gives forms of 113 as = 'icX'yo/zai (3), '<cA<cros (9),

xadapos (l), (i^xytfo/iui (l), irapaffKtvnfa (l). See below 863 <f.

239

[863] THE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM,

Malachi's reference to the " Temple", and the "Messenger"
visiting it, to fall into disuse among Christians. At all events
we have found (837) Clement of Rome the only Ante-Nicene
Father quoting Malachi's description of the coming to the
Temple; and he misquotes it. He also refers it not to the
Purification of the Temple nor to any act of Christ's life on
earth, but to the Second Coming.

[863] Hence the above-mentioned identities or similari-
ties between the Hebrew words implying the Refiner and
those implying the Son and also the possibilities of con-
fusing " chosen " with " purifying " would find Christian
Evangelists predisposed to interpret all doubtful phrases in
a high Messianic sense that would depart from the old-
fashioned metaphor. The Targums on the Pentateuch shew
how the notions of "purify", " choose", and " to be well-
pleased 1 ," may be interchanged, without any doctrinal motive;
and the two latter have been shown above (813) to be inter-
changed in the Chronicler's description of the choosing of
David. Supposing, therefore, that some Hebrew Gospel
blended the metaphor of Malachi with the technical term of
Isaiah, describing the Refiner as coming to "purify like lye,
or, like soap" it does not require much imagination to perceive
the host of glosses that would spring up round such a phrase
in later times when the Refiner was identified with the
Messiah, and with the Son of God.

[864] First among these would perhaps be "the Chosen \
since that was the appellation of the Messiah in the Book of
Enoch. Then " Chosen " would suggest Isaiah's words, " My
servant my Chosen" which, in their Greek form, might be,

1 [863 a] Numb. xvi. 5 "whom he shall choose? Targ. Jer. (Etheridge)
"it hath pleased \nm." \ xvi. 7 "doth choose", Targ. Jer. "shall make
known" (leg. 113, "separate" and hence "distinguish", "make known",
" make manifest "). Hence such a phrase as "for the sake of the Purifier
of Israel" might easily be confused with "for the sake of His being made
manifest to Israel" (comp. Jn i. 31).

240

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [864]

" my son whom / have chosen" \ and we have seen above how
naturally this would become " my beloved Son". Such tradi-
tions as these may be described as honest various readings.
Far less justifiable appears the tradition adopted by Justin
and Clement of Alexandria, "This day have I begotten thee"
which, however, may have been in the first instance added,
orally or in writing, as an illustration rather than as an
essential portion of the history. In any case, all these various
versions of a Voice from Heaven are almost certainly un-
historical. There is also a very strong probability that they
sprang from an utterance of the Baptist, who is said by John
to have described himself as being a Voice, and as having
received a message from God 1 . Finally, as to the message
itself, there is a fair probability that it may have referred to
the Refiner of the sons of Levi predicted by Malachi*.

1 [864 a] Origen says that the Voice at the Baptism (Cels. ii. 72) " is
not stated to have been audible to the multitude" This does not admit,
but it implies, that it was audible to none but John the Baptist. Such a
"Voice", being subjective, would be more commonly called "the Word
of God coming to a prophet" than a " Voice from Heaven".

2 [864*] Schottgen (ii. 263) quotes Midr. Tehill. on Ps. xciii. i, that
God has "seven garments" and that "the seventh is in the times of
Messiah," because (Dan. vii. 9) " His garment was white as snow" and
(ib. ii. 555, comp. 194) Siphra in Jalk. Sim. I. fol. 166^, II. fol. 58 a, that
God took all the sins of Jacob and Esau and poured them on His own
jfttrm,-n/s, whence it was asked (Is. Ixiii. i) "Wherefore are thy garments
redJ" Then He sat down and washed them white, and (Dan. vii. 9)
" His garment was white as snow" These facts suggest that the "fuller ",
mentioned by Mark (ix. 3) alone and omitted or corrupted in many vss.
and MSS. had originally a spiritual significance. Other facts, for which
there is no space here, suggest that Heb. corruption has conflated ~Q,
"lye", as "j<wi"and " word ("O"l) " ; and that Gk corruption in the Acts
of John ( 5) has conflated "lye" (/>. TTOA or TTOIA) as noAd(c), TTOIAC
and OTTOION. See Corrections 522 (iv) a, 522 (vii), which approaches this
hypothesis ; but I now think (contrary to 421) that Mt. xvii. 2, Lk. ix. 29
"nis face" is wrong, and that Mk ix. 2 "before them", i.e. "before their

face ", is right.

A. 241 1 6

CHAPTER II

THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,
WHY OMITTED BY JOHN?

I. A Physical Hypothesis, unsatisfactory

[865] IF a biographer of a mediaeval Saint omitted
such an event as the Transfiguration in spite of its being
recorded by three previous biographers recognized as authori-
tative we should be disposed to infer, without much additional
evidence, that he regarded the event as a non-miraculous
fact exaggerated into a miracle. No doubt it is difficult
assuming the honesty of the first reporters of the event
and of the earliest Evangelists to see how Peter's ecstatic
utterance 1 could have arisen without some basis of fact.
But such a basis might be found without difficulty.

[866] Three disciples, James, John, and Peter, are said by
the Synoptists to have been on a mountain. As they do not
descend till the next day 2 , they may be presumed to have
been there at sun-rise. Their Master is said to have been
praying. They, therefore, may be supposed to have been
watching, standing a little apart. Recall the striking appari-
tions witnessed by travellers and mountain-climbers not only

1 Mk ix. 5 " Master, it is good for us to be here, and let us make
three tabernacles, one for thee and one for Moses and one for Elijah,"
comp. Mt. xvii. 4, Lk. ix. 33.

2 Lk. ix. 37.

I Hi: VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION [887]

on the heights of the Brocken, but also among the Swiss Alps
and in the English Lake District. Assume a wind from the
west and a cloud moving eastward approaching the disciples
;is it approached Elijah on Mount Carmel. The result might
be in the first place three spectral figures seen by the disciples
as they turned towards the west, one with a halo round the
head 1 ; then a clap of thunder, such as the Psalmist would
have called (727-9) the Voice of the Lord ; then the nearer
approach and arrival of the cloud, simultaneously enveloping
the beholders and swallowing up the mysterious figures.
The cloud passes on to the east, and the apparition has
vanished. They look eastward and see Jesus standing alone.
What is wanting, it may be asked, in this hypothesis ? The
definition of the three figures by Peter and his companions as
Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, and the conversion of the thunder
into an articulate utterance from heaven which might be
illustrated by the conversion of the Johannine Voice from
Heaven into thunder might not these illusions arise, in strict
accordance with the laws of human nature and science, in
hearts filled and heated with spiritual prepossession ?

[867] On the other hand, the Brocken phenomenon may
be an impossibility in the present climate of Palestine, and
may also have been so even when the country was better
wooded and watered than at present. Again, if the Synoptic
narrative represents a fact, though an illusive fact, then the
three leading Apostles, including John the son of Zebedee,
were deceived by this illusion. If so such scientific or quasi-
scientific explanations as the one given above being impossible
anachronisms for the first century how could any apostle or

1 [866 <] Many such experiences were attested by letters from corre-
spondents of repute in the Spectator of 1901 (Sept. Dec.): and the facts
do not appear to be questioned or questionable. In particular, the halo
seen round the head of one of the figures was mentioned by several
witnesses. Even supposing all these witnesses were deluded, might not
others be deluded eighteen or nineteen centuries ago?

243 l6 2

[868] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

disciple fail to believe it, and, believing it, how could any
evangelist fail to record it? 1 The author of the Fourth
Gospel might feel, perhaps, that the facts did not quite satisfy
his conception of what the situation demanded ; but still,
had he been convinced of their truth, it appears impossible
that he could have omitted them, or some version of them,
constituting as they do a centre, or crisis, in Christ's career.
A third objection is, that this kind of solution does not
explain a great mass of miracles, such as Samson's spring
that rose out of the ass's jaw-bone and the miracles of
Gideon's fleece in the Old Testament, and some in the New
Testament, which can be traced to linguistic error : and,
although it would be absurd to deny antecedently the
possibility of illusive error as another cause of such narratives,
yet it is not absurd to bid the illusive theory stand aside, as
it were, with a request to wait: " Let us see, first, whether the
phenomena may not be explained by the usual cause."

[868] Proceeding, then, to an investigation on the hypo-
thesis of linguistic error, we have first to ask, what words
in the Synoptic account are both testified to identically by
the three Synoptists, and are most likely, from internal
evidence, to go back closest to the historical fact. If the
words are startling, certain to be turned against the Christian
cause by its enemies and to necessitate apologies from its
friends, so much the better for our purpose ; for then the

1 [867 a] The climate of the mountain would of course depend on the
mountain. The Gospels do not mention the mountain's name. Tradition
is silent till the 4th century. Cyril (A.D. 350) (Cat. xii. 16, Hastings iv.
671) makes it Tabor, and so does Jerome (A.D. 386) (Ep. Paul, xvii ;
cf. Ep. ad Mar. viii., Hastings, ib.}. But "the Bordeaux Pilgrim" (A.D.
333, ib.) makes it the Mount of Olives. "The choice of Tabor," says
Swete (on Mk ix. 2), "was unfortunate", because it was "not 1000 feet
above the plain" and "crowned by a fortress," and he prefers " Hermon,
which rises to the height of 9200 feet." The variations, and others
mentioned later on, favour the view that the " mountain " had no physical
existence (981).

244

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [869]

Is could not have sprung out of an explanatory gloss,
still less could they have been invented by a zealous evangelist.
All these conditions are satisfied by the exclamation of
Peter about the " three tabernacles". This has been so differ-
ently treated by early theologians, and reference will have to
be made to it so frequently, that it must be given in full :
"Rabbi, it is good for us to be here, and let us make three
tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for
Elijah 1 ." These words have every stamp of authenticity.
They are so amazing that we feel them to be the natural
product of ecstasy. As the result of cold-blooded explanation
on the part of evangelist or editor, they are absolutely in-
credible. They appear to be condemned by the Voice from
Heaven. They are apologized for, as it were, by two of the
very Evangelists that record them, and they are bitterly
attacked by Origen as coming from Satan 8 . We may there-
fore take them as our safest approach to history. Not,
of course, that we commit ourselves to every syllable of them;
but the substance appears solid. Something we may feel
sure was said by Peter about Jesus in connection with
" Moses " and " Elijah " and a " building of tabernacles",
This may be taken as fact, and as a basis for seeking further
facts.

2. Origetis view: the Transfiguration subjective

[869] Origen, commenting on the close of the Transfigura-
tion, says of the disciples, " After the touch of the Word,
lifting up their eyes, they saw Jesus only and no other.
Moses, the Law, and Elijah, the Prophets, we find to have
become only one with Jesus, the Gospel. Whereas they were
formerly three, we find them not to have remained three,

1 Mk ix. 5, cotnp. Mt. xvii. 4, Lk. ix. 33.

* Mark says (ix. 6) " He knew not what to answer," Luke (ix. 33)
" Not knowing what he was saying." As to Origen, see next section.

245

[870] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

but the three to have become one 1 ." He also lays stress
on the subjective nature of the Transfiguration, and in
particular on " before them " in the words recorded by Mark
and Matthew but omitted by Luke " He was metamor-
phosed before them" 1 " From these he infers that it was
possible for Jesus to be metamorphosed in this way, "before"
some, and yet at the same time, not "before" ot tiers. In the
same subjective way he interprets the apparitions of Moses
and Elijah to the disciples. If anyone, he says, beholds
Jesus revealed as the Son of God, there will appear to him
Moses, i.e. the Law, and Elijah, i.e. the Prophets. Luke
says, " Moses and Elijah appeared to them in glory." This
is interpreted by Origen as meaning in tlic glory of Law
and Prophecy, as revealed spiritually in Christ ; and hence
a believer, so Origen says, " sees Moses and Elijah ' in glory '
when he sees them with Jesus"

[870] In most cases, Origen's allegorical interpretations
of alleged fact are mere moralizing, and he is only a spiritual
guide : but where the alleged fact may not be real fact,
but may have sprung out of allegory, this spiritual guide
may unconsciously serve as a historical guide by taking
us back to the actual source of the narrative. And there
are grounds for thinking that it may be so in the present in-
stance. When Jesus says, " They have Moses and the Prophets,
let them hear them," everyone knows that the phrase means
the Scriptures, like the similar expression in the Sermon on
the Mount, where it is said concerning the rule of neighbour-
liness, " This is the Law and the Prophets" When Jesus said
to the Twelve, " Will ye also depart ? " 3 Peter is said to have

1 [869 a] Comm. Matth. lib. xii. ch. 43 (Huet p. 303 A). "We find"
is an attempt to render the perfects, ytyovt, /if/ioi/^ao-tv, and ytyovavtv.
Origen adds that this relates to the spiritual action ; for, " in regard to
the bare meaning of the letter? Moses and Elijah departed to the place
whence they had come.

2 16. ch. 37 (p. 297 c). 3 j n vi>

246

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [871]

exclaimed, " Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast words of
eternal life, and we have a fixed faith and knowledge that
thou art the Holy One of God." If this were expressed in
personal metaphor, frequent among the Jews, the result
might be very similar to the language of Origen.

[871] Even concerning an ordinary Rabbi an admiring
pupil says, " I saw the son of Pedath sitting and searching
the Scriptures even as Moses from tJie mouth of the Mighty
One 1 " : and the name of Moses is said to have been used
metaphorically to represent a great teacher 2 . If therefore
it could be said, even of Stephen's enemies, that before his
martyrdom they " beheld his face as it had been the face of
an angel," there is nothing inconceivable, or even hyperbolical,
in the supposition that Peter, being present on some special
occasion while our Lord was preparing Himself by prayer for
the future Sacrifice, felt in his heart a rush of conviction that
here, before his eyes, was the climax of the Law and the
Prophets, " Thou art to us Moses, thou art to us Elijah, and
let us build three Tabernacles, one for thee [as thyself] and one
for [thee as] Moses, and one for \tJice as] Elijah? These
impassioned words, being reduced to narrative along with
a statement that He " appeared to some, or to Peter and those
with Him, as Moses and Elijah" might easily result in a
statement in which "as" was omitted, " There appeared to
them Moses and Elijah" with subsequent explanations and
amplifications for clearness*.

1 Levy iii. 268 b.

* [871 a] Levy ^iii. 269 a) gives several instances. But the name is
always used vocatively, and the quotations do not make it clear that the
meaning might not be adjurative, "[By the life of] Moses!" as Levy
renders it in other instances.

3 [871 b] Comp. Acts of John, 2, roXAa'ir i pot a futpos nvOpwnos
<V0<i(Vfrui 6v<rpof><jn>s Km.... By itself, this would naturally be rendered
"Oftentimes there appears to me also a little illshaped mati" But it
means, as the context shews, "Jesus appears to me both [as] a little
illshaped man and [as] one..." Hebrew often omits "as" where the full

247

[872] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

[872] How easily "some said he was Elijah," or "he
appeared to some Elijah," might be interchanged with " there
appeared Elijah ", may be inferred from a passage before the
Transfiguration, describing the common talk about Jesus :

Mk vi. 15 Mt. om. Lk. ix. 8

But others said " But by some [it

that he was Elijah was said] that Elijah

('HXciW TTIV); but [had] appeared, but

others said that [he by others that a pro-

was] a prophet, as phet of the ancient

one of the prophets." [prophets] had arisen

[from the dead]"

[873] With this should be compared
is in answer to Christ's question as to
gave to Him :

Mt. xvi. 14

"But they said,
Some John the Bap-
tist, but others Eli-
jah, but others-again
(erepoi) Jeremiah or
one of the prophets."

Mk viii. 28 (lit.)
" But they said to
him saying that [some
say] John the Bap-
tist, and others Eli-
jah, but others that
[thou art] one of the
prophets."

the following, which
what name people

Lk ix. 19
" But they answer-
ing said, John the
Baptist, but others
Elijah, but others
that a prophet of the
ancient [prophets]
has arisen [from the
dead]."

[874] The following explanation may be given of
Matthew's omission of the first of these two passages. The
same Hebrew phrase may mean " There were some that said"
or "There are some that say 1 ." Matthew may have con-
sense would require it, as in Is. xl. 6, "all flesh is grass," quoted I Pet. i.
24 " is as grass ", Hab. i. 1 1 " shall sweep by [as] a wind," marg. " the
wind shall sweep by," Is. xlvii. 3 " I will not accept a man" (A.V. " I will
not meet thee [as a] man "), Sir. vi. 31 " Thou shall crown thyself with her
[as a] crown of beauty," LXX om. " as ".

1 [874 a] In Neh. v. 24 ''There were that (B) said" occurs thrice:
LXX has once "were", but twice "are", so as to give the meaning "there
are some that say " : CJ" is mostly present.

248

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [878]

red the former passage a duplicate of the latter, believing
the right rendering to be " There are some that say"

This double meaning may make a serious difference if
it converts a statement of what was actually said by some
persons in past times into a statement of an opinion about a
doubtful point expressed by some persons at the time wlien the
scribe is writing. Thus " There were some that said [sixty
years ago when Jesus was on earth] ' Elijah has appeared,' "
might be converted into a statement of present opinion,
"There are some that say that Elijah appeared [visibly]"
on such and such an occasion.

3. Mark lends itself to tlie subjective hypothesis

[875] A comparison of Mark with Matthew, and of both
with Luke, will shew that the subjective view almost lost in
Matthew, and carefully guarded against by Luke remains,
though slightly obscured, in the earliest Gospel, i.e. Mark.
Mark has (ix. 2 5) " He was metamorphosed before them [i.e.
the disciples}. . .and [//if re] appeared to tliem Elijah with Moses.
And they were conversing with Jesus, and Peter answered and
said to Jesus...." This is compatible with the view that Jesus
was changed in appearance so that the disciples saw Him as
though He were Elijah with Moses, without any actual presence
of the Prophet and tlie Lawgiver \ and then, while " they ", i.e.
tlu- disciples, were conversing with Jesus, Peter exclaimed that
three tabernacles were to be built.

[876] Matthew has (xvii. 2 4) " He was metamorphosed
before them... and behold, appeared (<a$Qi\) (sing.) to them
Moses and Elijah conversing (//.) with him. But Peter
answered and said...." Here, up to the word "conversing",
the singular verb, " appeared ", would allow us to take the
words as we took them in Mark. But the plural "conversing"
makes it necessary to suppose that Moses and Elijah were
the conversers. Then, by inference, it follows that although

249

[877] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

" appeared " is singular, it must nevertheless have for its
subject "Moses and Elijah" (an unusual though possible
construction). Thus the narrative is converted to a state-
ment that Moses and Elijah appeared to the disciples and
conversed with Jesus 1 .

[877] Luke goes much further in definiteness. Probably,
in his time, there were current a great number of explanatory,
or exaggerative, traditions, from which he had to select the
most trustworthy. For example, the Acts of Jo/in (3 6)
has (1072-3) two versions of a glorification, or transformation,
on " the mountain " where no apparition is introduced ; but
Peter and James, in the second, fancy they hear someone
(possibly John) conversing with Jesus. Immediately after-
wards it describes an apparition discoursing with Jesus, not
however now on " the mountain " but at " Gennesaret "
(perhaps (960 b) an error for what Mark and Matthew call
" Gethsemane " but Luke " the Mount of Olives "). The first
version of the Transfiguration describes all the three Apostles
as beholding the "light". The second describes the three
as beholding Jesus "praying", but only John as witnessing
the transformation. The account of the apparition at " Gen-
nesaret " says " I [i.e. John] alone* watched." It also describes
how John "kept awake", though Jesus bade him go to sleep.
In a very different sense, an early tradition quoted by
Clement of Alexandria says that Peter and James and John,
in accordance with Christ's prediction made just before the

1 [876 a] For the ambiguity supposed in the Original, compare Zech.
vi. 13 "And he shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a
priest upon his throne," marg. " and there shall be a priest." The LXX,
taking the latter view, paraphrases the second "upon his throne" as " by
his throne", i.e. "upon his right hand" ("and there shall be the priest on
his right hand"), thus committing itself definitely to the statement that
there are two persons, where perhaps the writer meant only one.

2 [877 a] Comp. the Arabic Diatessaron (on Mk ix. 4) "There ap-
peared unto him Moses and Elijah talking to Jesus." Here "Aim", if it
referred to the person last mentioned, would mean Jesus.

250

WHY OMITTKl) BY JOHN? [879]

Transfiguration (" There are some of those standing here who
shall surely not taste of death until they see the Son of man
in ^lory 1 "), consequently "saw it and \tlicri\fell asleep" In
other words, they saw the glory of Christ before they died.
The Acts of John, also, does not mention Moses and Elijah,
but only one person, unnamed, as speaking with the Lord on
the top of the mountain.

[878] With these facts premised, the reader will be better
able to understand the attitude of an Evangelist attempting,
as Luke attempts, to treat the matter historically. He
emphasizes certain statements of fact, e.g. not one person but
" two ", and not two phantasms, but " two men (ai/Spe?)". The
words (Lk. ix. 31) "in glory " might mean "in opinion", and
seem to be so understood by the Arabic Diatessaron 2 . They
might also mean " in fancy'' or " in a vision ". But Luke,
by adding "saw his glory", clearly defines them. Possibly
also by his mention of " sleep " and his obscure addition about
" remaining awake" (or "when they were fully aiuake"} he may
intend to indicate that, although there was some foundation
for the tradition that the incident was a dream or trance,
yet it was not really one. Luke even tells us the subject
about which Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were " conversing ".
Lastly, he explains Peter's desire to construct three taber-
nacles by saying that he expressed it when Moses and Elijah
were in the act of passing away from Jesus, implying that
Peter wished them to remain :

[879] Lk. ix. 30 33 " And behold, two men were con-
versing with him, who were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing
in glory*, were speaking of his departure, which he was about

1 [877 a] Clem. Alex. (967) " in glory ", not exactly agreeing with any
of the Synoptists.

1 [878 a] "And they thought that the time of his decease which was to
be accomplished at Jerusalem was come."

3 [879 a] Lk. omits "to them" (Mk-Mt. "appeared to them"}, pro-
bably as suggesting a subjective element.

251

[880] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

to accomplish in Jerusalem. But Peter and those with him
were heavy with sleep ; but wtien they were fully awake*
(or, having remained awake} they saw his glory and the two
men that were standing (?) with him 2 . And it came to pass
when they were being separated from him, Peter said to
Jesus...."

4. St Paid favours the subjective hypothesis

[880] From the last section it appears that Luke, the
latest of the Synoptists, emphasizes the objective nature of
the apparitions at the Transfiguration. He takes what may
be called the later Jewish view of the "glory" in which Moses
and Elijah appeared. It may be illustrated by a tradition
about the great Rabbi Eliezer : " While he was teaching, rays
came forth from his face, as formerly from the face of Moses,
so that one could not tell whether it was day or night"."
Another story tells how Rabbi Simeon called heaven and
earth to witness that he beheld what no man had seen from
the day when Moses ascended Sinai for the second time:
" I see my face shining like the splendour of the sun in its
strength, which hath gone forth to the healing of the earth 4 ."

1 "Fully awake" (see 884 ).

2 [879 K\ R.V. " Standing with ". Swccmfc occurs elsewhere in N.T.
only in 2 Pet. iii. 5 "framed" (and crwcorqicf only in Col. i. 17 "consist").
Why does not Lk. use the regular word irapftrrtts ? Does he wish to
suggest "closely united with"? This view is suggested by Greek usage
and by Tertullian (Marc. iv. 22) " Petrus merito contubernium Christi sui
agnoscens [? in] individuitate ej'us." Clark renders this, " Peter, when
recognizing the companions of his Christ in their indissoluble connection
with him." In the canonical LXX, crvcn^t/cu seldom means simply "stand
near" (apart from "combining", "leaguing", &c.) perhaps only in I S.
xvii. 26 (A) where /ier' avroC is added. Comp. Origen above quoted (869)
" the three became one?

3 Wetst. (Mt. xvii. 2).

4 Schottg., on Acts vi. 15 "as the face of an angel," which he illustrates
by many quotations, beginning from Gen. xxxiii. 10.

252

WHY OMIT I I.D MY JOHN? [882]

[881] A late Jewish comment expressly contrasts the
awful splendour of Moses with the mild and inferior illumi-
nation of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration : " Behold,
Moses our Master, of blessed memory, who was mere man,
Ijecause God spake with him face to face, brought back
from His presence a countenance shining in such wise that
the Jews feared to approach him. How much more must
tliis needs be about the Divine Nature itself! Surely the face
of Jesus [had he been divine] should have diffused splendour
from pole to pole ! But he was not endowed with any
splendour but was in all points like other mortals. Where-
fore it is certain that men ought not to believe in him 1 ."
This way of thinking is very natural to those who identify
" gl Qr y " with fear-inspiring manifestations : and, though this
Jewish comment is of late origin, it can be shewn that
Clement of Alexandria (or more probably an earlier author
quoted by him) realized and tried to meet an objection very
similar (Clem. Alex. 967) " How was it that they [the three
Apostles] were not struck with astonishment by seeing the
appearance (or, face) (o-fyiv) bathed-in-light, yet, when they
heard the Voice, they fell on the earth?" His answer is:
" Because ears are less trustworthy than eyes, and the Voice
that comes unexpectedly strikes us with more astonishment."
Certainly, as compared with this defence, the Jewish attack
has the best of it.

[882] The Jew has in his mind the description of Moses
receiving the two stone tables of the Law from God on
Mount Sinai and descending with a countenance so illuminated
by God's glory that the Israelites were afraid to come nigh
him until he called them. The Scripture there uses thrice a
very striking expression (Exod. xxxiv. 29, 30, 35) "the skin
of his face became-honied" i.e. "sent forth horns, or rays, of
li;^ht." This is paraphrased by Onkelos, "(how) great was

1 N izzachon vetus, p. 40 ad Exod. xxxiv. 33, quoted by Wetstcin (on
Mt. xvii. 2).

253

[883] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

the splendour of the glory of his countenance," by the Jerusalem
Targum (I) (once), " shone with the splendour tliat had come
upon him from the brightness of the glory of the Lord's S/u-kinah''
by the Jerusalem Targum (II) (once), " tlte beams of his face
did shine," by the LXX (thrice) " was glorified ". St Paul, in
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, refers to, and quotes
(though very freely) the LXX version of this passage, in order
to shew that all this visible " glory " of the Law was a poor
thing compared with the spiritual glory of the Gospel. The
two tables of stone, he says, are now replaced by the Tables
of the heart ; the Law was wont to condemn to death, the
Gospel justifies to life; the "glory" of the countenance of
Moses lasted only while he was speaking to the people.
When Moses " had done speaking unto them, he put a veil
on his face," says the Hebrew text of Exodus ; and the reason
St Paul gives for this is " that the children of Israel should
not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing
away" (2 Cor. iii. 3 13).

[883] These words of St Paul are followed by a passage
apparently alluding to a Greek tradition about the Metamor-
phosis, or Transformation (commonly called Transfiguration 1 ),
of Christ. We may reasonably infer the allusion partly from
the fact that the Apostle uses the extremely rare word
" metamorphose " nowhere used at all in the LXX and
nowhere in N.T. except in the Synoptic account of the
Transfiguration and one other Pauline passage presently to
be mentioned but still more from the contextual mention of
the "glory" of the "countenance" of Moses as compared
with the glory of the Messiah. Returning to the metaphor of
the veil in Exodus and perhaps alluding to the fact that
Moses put off the veil as often as he went into the presence of

1 [883 a] " Transformation ", instead of " transfiguration ", is used in
this paragraph, because the object is to shew that the word used by Mark
and by St Paul is identical, namely, "transform", the word used by R.V.
in the Pauline Epistles.

254

WHY OMITTED BV JOHN? [883]

God St Paul draws the moral that when Israel will " turn to
the Lord " the veil shall be taken away from its heart. Then
lu says that "the Lord" here means "the Spirit"; and he
contrasts the Mosaic fitful entering into the Lord's presence
with the Christian ideal of constant residence in the Spirit,
for the Spirit is the very home of freedom 1 . Then come the
words, " But we all, with unveiled face 1 , mirroring the glory of
the Lord, are being in the same likeness transformed (lit.
from glory to glory in such wise as [might be

1 [883 b\ 2 Cor. iii. 17 " But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
freedom." Perhaps this is to be illustrated, not so much by Ps. li. 12
"a free spirit", as by Jn iii. 7 "The wind, or Spirit, bloweth where it
listeth." Ephrem (p. 155) says that the Spirit spoke through Peter what
Peter did not know (Lk. ix. 33 "not knowing what he said") "although
in this saying freedom is associated with the Spirit (etsi in hoc verbo
libertas cum Spiritu associetur)," an obscure expression explained by
Moesinger as an allusion to Mt. xvii. 4 " if thou wilt ". The coincidence
with 2 Cor. iii. 17 is at all events worth noting.

2 [883 L] "With unveiled face". A non-Jewish reader may fail to see
in this phrase the undoubtedly existent allusion to "freedom". Levy
(Ck. ii. 423*1) quotes vJ K""O "with head uncovered", as a Targum on
Exod. xiv. 8, Numb, xxxiii. 3 (referring to deliverance by Jehovah "with
hand uplifted") and renders it " as free men, whereas slaves in presence
of their master must go with head covered." The Jewish critic above
quoted (881) found fault with the statement that the Apostles could look
on the glory of Christ; St Paul restates it as a sign of ''"'freedom ".

It is interesting to find in the Acts of John traces of this Jewish
phrase and of a misunderstanding arising out of one of its Biblical
equivalents. The Deliverance described in Lev. xxvi. 13 "and made you
go upright" is paraphrased in New Hebrew (Levy iv. 2640) "with raised
up stature" but in Targum Hebrew " with head uncovered". Following
the New Hebrew, certain Rabbis argued (Levy iii. 98) that in the
Messianic Kingdom men would be two hundred ells, or three hundred
ells in stature. A Targum of this kind may explain the fact that the
Acts of John, (a) transferring the "uncovered" to Christ, describes Him
as "naked* during the Transfiguration, and also, (V) applying it to a
disciple, mentions John as peeping out from under his cloak (i.e. with
" head uncovered ") so as to see the mysterious angel at " Gennesaret "
(877). Again, (c) a misunderstanding of the New Hebrew "stature" may
explain the Pseudo-Johannine statement that in the Transfiguration
Christ's head ( 4) " reached to the heaven."

255

[884] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

expected] from ' the Lord ' [that is, as I have explained] the
Spirit." By " metamorphose " he means what the word most
naturally would mean complete change of essential form, a
spiritual change, as is seen from the only other instance of its
use in N.T. (Rom. xii. i) "I beseech you therefore, brethren,
by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.... And be not conformed-
in-outward-fashion with this world, but be ye transformed (lit.
metamorphosed} by the new-creation of the mind, to the intent
that ye may test-and-know what is the Will of God, the Good,
the Approved, the Perfect." Here an inward and complete
change of heart and nature is called " metamorphosis' ', and it is
contrasted with an outward and transient change of non-
essential qualities.

[884] From this it appears that St Paul would not accept
the statement that Christ was " metamorphosed", except as a
popular way of stating that tlie disciples were metamorphosed,
" with unveiled face, from glory to glory " by " mirroring the
glory" of their Lord. Similarly we speak of the sun as "going
down " in the west when we really mean that we are " going
down" in the east. And similarly Origen implying that
Christ's face is always shining as the sun, if only we did not
hide it from ourselves by sending up the vapours and fogs of
sin says " When He is metamorphosed, His face also shines
as the sun, that He may be manifested to the children of light
who have put off the works of darkness^" Similarly says the
ancient hymn in the Epistle to the Ephesians, "Awake thou
that sleepest and arise from the dead and Christ shall shine
upon thee" and perhaps this meaning may be latent under the
apparently conflated tradition preserved by Luke alone, that
the Apostles " saw his glory when they were fully awake*," i.e.

1 Comm. Matt. lib. xii. ch. 37 (Huet p. 297).

2 [884 a] "Fully awake". So R.V. text, but marg. " having remained
awake". ^iayprjyopS> does not occur in the Gk Test, except here. L.S.

256

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [884]

ulun the eyes of their understanding were fully opened.
Peter needed to " awake ", as an act of his own will, instigated
and aided by the Saviour, and then the " full awaking " and
the manifestation of glory followed as the shining of light
upon the eyes now opened 1 .

give only one instance of it. There it means "keep awake", which
meaning would also accord with the N.T. use of yprryopSt, "watch ". But
the meaning here is obscure and doubtful : Diatess. has "with effort they
roused themselves? SS " when they awoke " ; and we have seen above
(877) that a tradition quoted by Clem. Alex, appears to assume "sleeping"
in the context, but in quite a different sense, the sleep of death. Delitzsch
renders by |"p, which (Levy iv. 300 a) means "watch", but also causatively
"arouse", "awake". The Hebrew Original, therefore, might be am-
biguous. It might mean that the disciples "were awakened" by Jesus,
or that they "kept awake". The latter would naturally be preferred by
an evangelist desiring to emphasize his view that the event was not a
phantasm but a reality.

1 [884 ] It may be added that (besides Origen's above-quoted "the
three became one ") Tertullian and Epiphanius, indicating that Jesus
included Moses and Elijah in His glory, unconsciously suggest an
Original Tradition that the Apostles received a revelation of the Law-
giver and the Prophet in Him. Thus Epiphanius says (Adv. Haer. lib. i.
torn. 3, p. 328) " He brought both of them with Himself in His own (Mfy)
glory" " If they had been alien to Him He would not have revealed them
with Himself in His own glory (leg. avrovt for avrols)." Tertullian also,
without actually employing the phrase "in His own glory," repeatedly
implies it, e.g. (Marc. iv. 22) "associated in glory with Him" "share His
glory". If, he says, Christ had regarded them (with Marcion) as
opponents, they would have been exhibited in mourning garb, the sign
of being cast down ; but "This is His way of casting them down ! He
buihis them tip out of His own rays (sic destruit quos de radiis suis
exstruit) ! " Most striking of all is the obscure passage " Petrus merito
contubernium Christ! sui agnoscens [Pin] individuitate ejus," which
appears to mean that in the unity of one Personality Peter recognized a
joint tabernacling of the Law, the Prophets, and the Messiah.

[884 <] Tertullian also acutely suggests that Peter could not have
recognized Moses and Elijah by sight, as the Jewish Law forbade their
" images, statues, or likenesses" and therefore he must have been forced
by the Spirit to say what he said, without knowledge, being "out of his
mind (amentia)." Some might meet this objection by saying that Moses
emitted "horns" and that Elijah was in his "chariot"; others by sup-
posing that their personality was revealed by their conversation with
Christ: but there are difficulties in either hypothesis.

A. 257 17

[885] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

5. Conflict of opinions as to Lk. ix. 33 "Not
knowing what he was saying"

[885] The authenticity of Peter's utterance about the
Three Tabernacles will be confirmed if we can find evidence
that, from the first century to the fourth, either it was avoided
as difficult, or comment was made on it in quite opposite
directions.

Mark's comment is (ix. 6) "He did not know what to
answer, for they became sore afraid 1 ."

Matthew omits all comment.

Luke has (ix. 33) " Not knoiving what he was saying"

[886] Irenaeus, defending Peter against heretics (pre-
sumably including Marcionites) who alleged that only Paul
knew the truth, says, "How could Peter have been in ignorance,
to whom the Lord gave testimony that flesh and blood had
not revealed to him but the Father who is in heaven 2 ?" The
context does not mention the passage under discussion, which
Irenaeus nowhere quotes. But it shews how the phrase " not
knoiving what lie said" might be turned against Peter in any
discussion ; as for example in Macarius, where the Christian

1 [885 a] "Sore afraid", ?ic<o/3ot. The word occurs in canon. LXX
nowhere but in Deut. ix. 19 (where Moses describes his fear on descending
from Mount Sinai) and in N.T. nowhere except in Heb. xii. 21 quoting
the words of Moses in Deut. ix. 19. This affords strong presumption for
supposing that Mark had in mind Moses on the Mount. In the narrative
of Exodus, the "fear" of Moses is followed, though not immediately, by
a revelation of God's "goodness" (Exod. xxxiii. 19).

Mark (ix. 6) places the "fear" before the Voice, Matthew (xvii. 6)
after it. Luke (ix. 34) represents the " fear " as caused by entrance into a
cloud, after Peter's utterance, but before the Voice.

[885 b] The Acts of John ( 5) represents Peter and James as asking
John who it -was that was talking with the Lord. The writer may
possibly have read Mk ix. 6 as ov yap r/8et m (for W) dirfKpiOrj, "for he
[Peter] did not know who answered."

2 Iren. iii. 13. 2.

2 5 8

WHY OMIITI -:i) IJY JOHN? [889]

Apologist himself, quoting the Apostle's words (Mt. xiv. 28)
" If it be thou," censures him thus (p. 88) " Thou knowest not
ti'hdt tliou sayest: thou speakest as one talking in a dream."

[887] Kphrem Syrus grapples with the difficulty thus,
(P- ! 55) "Simon, in his want of knowledge, shews great know-
ledge in his words. For he recognized Moses and Elijah, as
also John [the Baptist] through t/te Spirit recognized the
Lord coming to him [through the Spirit I say, and not
through knowledge of his own] because he testified (Jn i. 31)
' And I knew him not' If therefore the Spirit gave a revela-
tion to them, t/te Spirit itself spake through Simons mouth
what Simon knew not"

[888] Tertullian 1 makes evident what we might have
inferred from Irenaeus above, that Marcion used Luke's
words against Peter : " But [you say] ' he knew not what he
said' How, ' knew not ' ? Was his ignorance the result of
simple error? Or was it on the principle... that to grace
ecstasy, or rapture (amentia), is incident. For when a man is
rapt in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the. glory of God,
or w/ten God speaks through him, he necessarily loses his
sensation." Tertullian, however, does not touch on the
question whether equality of rank between Christ, Moses, and
Elijah, is implied by Peter in his proposal to erect a tabernacle
for each of them.

[889] Clement of Alexandria and Origen might be ex-
pected to be in general agreement, and it would be interesting
to compare their opinions on this point. But, although the
former quotes from Theodotus at considerable length on the
Transfiguration, he is silent himself. The general tendency
of his thought, combined with such sayings as these, that
Moses (690 691) "raising one Temple to God, announced
that the world was only-begotten and that God is one," and
'The Word prohibits the constructing of temples" though

1 Marc. iv. 22.

259 172

[890] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

not incompatible with a fair interpretation of Peter's "three
tabernacles", nevertheless suggests that he disliked the ex-
pression, or deemed it an utterance of rudimentary revelation.
But Origen while admitting that his view will offend many-
says that Peter spoke tinder the influence of an evil spirit, the
same that " is called a ' stumbling block ' by Jesus, and spoken
of as ' Satan '." It was Satan, he thinks, who " promised also
to build three tabernacles, one apart for Jesus, and one for
Moses, and one for Elijah, as if one tabernacle would not
have sufficed for the three... not desiring that Jesus and Moses
and Elijah should be together, but desiring to separate them
from one another under pretext of the three tabernacles. And
likewise it was a lie ' It is good for us to be here.' For, if it
had been a good thing, they would also have remained
there 1 ."

[890] Chrysostom, while not admitting the suggestion of
an evil spirit, thinks that fear for his Master, and other good
or pardonable motives, accounted for Peter's utterance ; but
he unhesitatingly condemns it : " What sayest thou, Peter ?
Didst thou not a little while ago distinguish Him from the
servants [of God, i.e. the prophets (Mt. xvi. 16)]? Dost thou
again reckon Him with the servants?" And then he meets
the objection that Peter could not have been ignorant of the
superiority of Christ, because he had recently received a
revelation from the Father in heaven, by saying, " For even
though the Father gave him a revelation, yet he did not
continuously hold it fast 2 ."

6. The "three tabernacles"

[891] Assuming (868) that the utterance of Peter about
building "three tabernacles" is historical, we seem driven
by John's omission of it to one of two conclusions : either

1 Comm. Matth. lib. xii. ch. 40.

2 Chrys. Comm, in Matth. ed. Field, vol. ii. p. 140.

260

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [892]

that John \\.is in error as to facts, or that he omitted a fact,
knowing it to be true, because it was unsuitable for his
purpose. But may not this be one of the undoubtedly
numerous instances where John conveys, in entirely different
words, the substance (corrected) of some tradition found in
one or more of the Synoptic Gospels ? This is all the more
worthy of consideration because his intervention is especially
discernible at this crisis in our Lord's history, that is to say,
the Confession of Peter 1 .

[892] Let us suppose, then, that John had before him the
saying about the three tabernacles to be built for Christ,
Moses, and Elijah, and that he desired to give its spirit and
substance in a form intelligible to Gentiles, and detached
from a narrative about apparitions of Moses and Elijah,
which he regarded as erroneous. All agree that Moses and
Elijah typify the Law and the Prophets, i.e. the Scriptures.

1 [891 a] For instances of Jn supporting Mk against Lk. see Enc.
GOSPELS, 815. Further, as regards Mt. xvi. 18 "Thou art Peter",
Jn does not contradict Mt., but he gives quite a different account of the
naming, placing it much earlier (Jn i. 42) "Thou shalt be called Cephas"
(a name preserved by him, alone of the Evangelists). Again, as regards
(Mk viii. 33, Mt. xvi. 23) "Get thee behind me, Satan" (applied to Peter),
(Lk. xxii. 31) "Simon, Simon, Satan hath obtained you," (Jn vi. 70) " One
of you is a devil" (applied not to Simon, but to "a son of Simon"), it will
be shewn in a separate treatise that there may have been some confusion
between a tradition mentioning " Satan " in connection with a Hebrew
word variously read as VIN, " behind ", "NIK, " one ", and tn " obtain ".

[891 /'] Lastly, confusion may have arisen from Gk corruption. Jn
represents the disciples of Jesus as deserting Him in large numbers
shortly before Peter's confession. The expression for " desert " is a
Graeco- Hebraic one (vi. 66) "go backward (or, behind)" i.e. fall away.
In another form, "go after (or, behind)" in O.T. frequently means the
"following" of false gods instead of Jehovah ; and it might be applied by
Christians to anyone that, like Demas, " falls away " from his calling, or
" goes after the Prince of this World," i.t. Satan. Jn says that, during
this desertion, Jesus said to Peter (vi. 67) " Will ye also depart?" This
might well be expressed, in the singular, "Art thou going after Satan ? "
YTT&reiconiccocATANA. Hut the same letters (read as virayt ir (a form of
tit) OTTHTW Sarava) are capable of meaning " Go back, Satan".

26l

[893] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

But the Scriptures would naturally be called by any Jew " the
words of life," and John himself represents Jesus as saying to
the Jews (v. 39) "In them, i.e. in the Scriptures, ye think ye
have eternal lifer Hence, whatever may have been Peter's
exact meaning whether he meant that Jesus included the
Law and the Prophets, or that He broiiglit a new revelation
beyond the Law and the Prophets in any case his metaphor,
when reduced to prose, could not mean less than this, "Thy
words are on a level with those of the Law, concerning which
it is said (Deut. xxxii. 47) // is your life" 1 ; and this would be
well expressed by the paraphrase assigned to Peter in the
Fourth Gospel (vi. 68) " Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou
hast words of eternal life?

[893] We have now to consider whether there may be
any connection between Peter's utterance about " the three
tabernacles" and the rest of the Johannine version of the
Confession, which continues thus (vi. 69) "And we firmly
believe and know that thou art the Holy One of God" " The
Holy One of God," or " Saint of God ", is an appellation that
occurs (812 c} only once in the Bible in the form " Saint of the
Lord," and it is there applied to Aaron (Ps. cvi. 16) "Moses...
and Aaron the Saint of tlie Lord." It is, therefore, a term
that would naturally be applied to a Priest. Now returning
to Peter's saying, may we not paraphrase it or at least may
we not believe that Christians in early times may have
paraphrased it as meaning " We will build one tabernacle
for Moses the Lawgiver, and one for Elijah the Prophet, and
one for thee the Priest* " ?

1 Comp. Aboth v. 32 " Turn it (the Law) over and turn it over ; for
the all is therein and thy all is therein ; and swerve not therefrom, for
thou canst have no greater good than this."

2 [893 a] Christians would add in later times (as we know from
Heb. v. 6 foil.) "Not after the order of Levi, but after the order of
Melchizedek, through whose Highpriesthood we have access to the Holy
of Holies." Jewish tradition regards the Priesthood as transferred from
Melchizedek to Abraham (Enc. Bibl. 3016). But this might not prevent

262

WHY OMITTKI) BY JOHN? [894]

[894] If this interpretation of" Holy One" is reasonable,
it seems to harmonize, not only with the Petrine saying about
cs and Elijah, but also with what might be anticipated
from the Apostle to whom came the first revelation of Christ's
true nature. In the Fourth Gospel, the Lord is not revealed
to Peter as " Messiah " or " Christ " a comparatively con-
ventional term used long before (Jn i. 41, iv. 29) by Andrew
and the woman of Samaria, without any suggestion of revela-
tion but as One who is necessary for the life of His disciples,
One about whom they are not prepared to argue and de-
monstrate, because their "firm belief" and "knowledge" is
not and could not be based on argument or on demonstration
but on personal conviction of holiness. True, the revelation
is probably regarded by John as a rudimentary one : Peter
does not acknowledge Jesus as being " tJie Word of life," but
as having " words " (less likely " the words ") " of life." More-
over, even the high title of " the Holy One of God " would
apparently not be regarded by John as so high as " the
Righteous One of God 1 ," still less as equal to "the Only
Begotten of God." Still, Peter's insight appears to be placed
by the Evangelist above that which prompted Andrew to say
to Peter, in the old days by the Jordan, " We have found the
Christ." And " Holy One " is antecedently more probable
than the Synoptic versions of Peter's Confession, all of which
differ from one another, but agree in using the conventional
term " Christ ". This last term, we may reasonably believe,
was not used' by Peter in that crisis in which he received his
revelation.

Jews from associating the Messiah, as being Abraham's descendant, with
that Highpriesthood. Compare what is said about the future Highpriest
(mentioned in Ezra ii. 63) j. Kiddousch. iv. i (Schwab ix. 277) " Ces mots
n'expriment qu'une cspeVance, comme on dit parfois : jusqu'a la re"surrec-
tion des morts, ou: jusqu'a la venue du Messie, fils de David."

1 [894 a] Comp. Jn xvii. 1125 "Holy Father.. .O righteous Father,"
where climax seems to be intended.

* See above, 790.

263

[895] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

[895] We conclude that although John appears to have
rejected the account of the Transfiguration as unhistorical, it
by no means follows that he rejected the striking utterance
about the "three tabernacles". If, however, he had set it
down literally, with the names of Moses and Elijah, he would
have been bound either to describe their presence in the
Synoptic terms, or else, by his silence, to convey a flat con-
tradiction of the Synoptic story. This latter step he might
not be prepared to take. He might not feel sure that he
knew all the facts. Moreover, such contradiction was not in
accordance with his system. His plan was to convey to his
readers what he knew to be spiritually true without con-
tradicting what he thought to be historically false : and there
is good ground for believing that the spiritual truth of Peter's
ecstatic exclamation is expressed in the saying "Thou hast
words of Eternal Life."

7. Tlte Transfiguration compared with the
Mosaic Theopliany (Exod. xxxiii. 23)

[896] Irenaeus and Tertullian see in the Transfiguration,
and in the presence of Moses on the Mountain, a fulfilment of
a promise made to the latter in Exodus (xxxiii. 23) " Thou
shalt see my back (Tertullian, posteriora}" which they interpret
as meaning the glory that was to be revealed " in later times
(posterioribits temporibns) 1 " The Acts of John, though it does
not mention Moses, mentions the Apostle John as seeing, in
the Transfiguration, the "back parts" of Jesus, and this must
be ultimately traceable to the Mosaic Theophany. It has
also been already noted that the same rare word occurring

> a] Tertull. Marc. iv. 22. Iren. iv. 20. 9 "novissimis temporibus ".
Origen on Mt. xvi. 28 (Huet p. 292) merely says that the "standing" of
the disciples on the Mount was akin to that in Deut. x. 10 "And I stood
on the mountain forty days and forty nights." Heb. HDV "stand".

264

WHY OMHTI.I) BY JOHN?

but once in LXX and once in the Gospels 1 is used to
characterize the "extreme-fear" of Moses at Sinai and of the
Apostles at the Transfiguration. Moreover, there is a fair
probability (420) that Mark's word "metamorphose" is an
atumpt to render the LXX "put out horns", applied to the
countenance of Moses when it shone with the reflected glory
of God J , after he had descended from the Mount.

1 [896 b] *Eit>o0os Mk ix. 6. It occurs also in Heb. xii. 21, but that is
a quotation from Deut. ix. 19. See above 885 a.

* [896 c] The variations of Mk-Mt. and Lk. in the words describing
the Metamorphosis of Christ may be illustrated by the Targums describing
the Metamorphosis of Moses in Exodus (xxxiv. 29).

1 I ) Heb. " That ('3) there-became-homed ( PP ) the skin of his face."

(2) Onk. " How great was the splendour of (?\} the glory 0/(X"W) his
countenance."

(3) Jer. I. "That the visage (form) of his face shone with the
splendour that had come upon him from the brightness of the glory of the
Lord's Shekinah."

(4) Jer. II. "That the beams of his face did shine."

(5) LXX " That there-was-glorijied the aspect of the colour of his face."
Possibly Onkelos read pp '3 as T'3 "like glory", and based his

amplification on this error.

The word used by Onkelos "splendour" (Vf) occurs in Dan. iv. 36
" mine honour and my brightness? LXX (?) 8oa, Theod. /*op<^, v. 6 "His
countenance (marg. brightness} was changed," LXX Spoons, Theod. p.op<j>i),
vii. 28 ib, LXX <, Theod. /*op<ij.

[896 </] From this, it appears that "metamorphose' 1 ' might represent
some Hebrew phrase containing the word "splendour" or "'glory' 1 .
But, whatever may have been its origin, it was a most unfortunate word
(from the Greek point of view) to apply to Christ : for He could not
change His " essential- form" , pop^, though He might change His
"transitory form" or "fashion" (Philipp. ii. 7, <rxV ar ')- His "/arm"
was that of a Son, and also (Philipp. ii. 7) that of a Servant of servants,
which He may be believed to have been from the beginning. His
"fashion 1 ' was the figure of a man, a merely temporary arrangement.
An excuse might be suggested for " metamorphose ", namely, that it may
mean " exhibit a form quite new and startling to the beholders " : but we
cannot be surprised that Luke altered it. The Mark-Appendix (xvi. 12
" in another/0/vw ") commits the same error. Possibly Mark felt (Lightf.
Philipp. pp. 130-1) "that in the account of the transfiguration, /m-acr^i;-
/irifr#ai would have been out of place": but there were other alternatives
besides the heathenish " tnetamorphosc ",

265

[897] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

[897] Collectively, the facts afford good reason for thinking
that the author of Mark's Original had the Mosaic Theophany
in his mind when he wrote of Christ's Transfiguration ; and
this is all the more likely if as is maintained on good
grounds the Assumption of Moses was current in the writer's
time 1 . For, in a quotation from that work, Clement of
Alexandria describes Moses as being seen in two forms by
Joshua, but in only one by Caleb: (806-7) "Moses in /ns
assumption was seen by Joshua in two forms : in one, accom-
panied by angels ; in the other, on the mountains, in the
act of being buried in their rocky recesses. Now this sight
was seen by Joshua below, being lifted up in the Spirit, along
with Caleb also. The two however did not behold it alike.
But the one descended with greater speed, as if the weight he
carried was great ; while the other, on descending after him,
afterwards related the glory which he beheld, being able to
perceive more than the other, as having grown purer."

[898] And this leads us to the greatest of all the diffi-
culties probably presented to the author of the Fourth Gospel
by the story of the Transfiguration in the Three namely,
that, on the surface at all events, it would seem to him to
compare unfavourably with the Mosaic Theophany.

Let us compare the circumstances of the two revelations
or theophanies. Moses, before ascending the Mount, stands
forth as a Mediator willing to lay down his life for his people:
(Exod. xxxii. 31) " Oh, this people have sinned a great sin...
Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin : and if not, blot me,
I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." The

1 [897 a] "The Assumption of Moses was, in all probability, a

composite work , the Testament of Moses, and the Assumption.

The former was written in Hebrew, between 7 and 29 A.D., and possibly
also the latter. A Greek version of the entire work appeared in the first
century A.D. Of this a few phrases and sentences have been preserved
in St Matt. xxiv. 29, Acts vii. 35, St Jude 9, 16, 18 (?), the Apocalypse of
Baruch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other Greek writers," ed.
Charles, p. xiii.

266

WHY OMITTKI) MY JOHN? [900]

Lord replies that He will not go with Israel but will send an
an^el as substitute : but the Mediator pleads for God's own
jnesciice. When he has obtained this petition, he urges
another. < Kxod. xxxiii. 18) "Shew me, I pray thee, thy glory."
To this the first answer is, " I will make all my GOODM -s
pass before thee...." Then comes a second, "Thou canst not
see my FACE : for man shall not see me and live " ; then a
third, "There is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon the
rock ; and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by,
that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee
with my hand until I have passed by; and I will take away
mine hand and thou shalt see my BACK : but my FACE shall
not be seen."

[899] The LXX completely changes the sense of this
remarkable passage by giving the first words thus, " Shew me
tliyself. And he said, I will go before thee in my glory"
substituting "self" for "glory", and "glory" for "goodness".
The Hebrew appears to mean just the opposite. Moses, it is
true, had asked for a revelation of God's "glory"; but God,
in His wisdom, bestows a revelation of His "goodness". The
"glory", being as it were in the front of all the divine
attributes for man's imperfect vision, is here called the "face"}
the " goodness ", being in the back-ground (for human vision),
is here called the " back ".

[900] Of course, as a rule, the "face" of God is regarded
as the source of light and life for His creatures : but here,
owing to its antithesis with " back ", it may have a special
meaning. In the preceding context (Exod. xxxiii. 14) " My
face shall go," "face" is explained, in the Babylonian Talmud,
by R. Jochanan on the authority of R. Jose (A.D. 130 60), as
meaning "aspect of wratk" , so that the words convey a
promise to Moses, "My wrath shall pass away"; and the
same explanation is repeated in the Talmud later on 1 . This

1 [900 a] Berach. 7*. The same explanation is more briefly expressed
(ib. y k ) by R. Jochanan on the authority of R. Simon ben Jochai (A.D.
130-60).

267

[901] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

view of "glory " or "face " is not contradicted by the Jerusalem
Targums (I and II on Exod. xxxiii. 22 23) which para-
phrase the "glory" as "hosts of angels": for, according to
Jewish belief, angels like winds and lightnings, the ministers
of God are often the destructive agents of God's wrath 1 .

[901] According to this view, what is here called God's
"glory", or "face", is what Cowper, in a different metaphor,
calls God's "frowning providence"; and what the Hebrew
calls His "back", because it is in the back-ground, is called
by the English hymn the "smiling face", hidden behind the
cloud. Certainly R. Jochanan's explanation gives a noble
and consistent view of the Mosaic Theophany : Moses, it
implies, cannot see God's "face", as conceived by man ; for the
sight would destroy him. Therefore he is to be covered with
the divine hand until that transient and destructive aspect of
wrath, which man calls "glory", has passed by. Then the
hand shall be removed that he may see what is, for man,
the BACK of God, that is, the highest revelation, the one
that is both best and furthest off, His GOODNESS-.

1 See Hershon Genes. Talm. pp. 61 and 383, Schottg. ii. 475, and
Levy iii. 121 b for traditions that angels are sometimes jealous of men, or
hostile to them.

2 [901 a] The "back" of God has been variously interpreted. 1'hilo
(i. 258 oo-a firra ruv 6t6v, i. 579 /xra TO oi/) regards the phrase as meaning
secondary causes as distinct from the First : so apparently Onkelos, "that
which is after me": Irenaeus and Tertullian, "that which is to be
revealed /'// after-time": Jerusalem Targ. (I) "thou shall see the hand-
border of the tephilla of my glorious Shekinah" : Jerusalem Targ. (II)
"I will make known the oracle": Bab. Talm. Berach. 7* (Schwab i.
p. 247) " God shewed to Moses the construction of the knot of the
phylacteries."

[901^] The Acts of John says ( 4) "And I stood gazing on Him
towards His hinder parts (TO. 6iri<r6ia avrov). And 1 saw Him clothed in
no garments at all, but stripped of these,.. and H\s/ett whiter than fuller's
soap [or] snow [could make them]." Here "snow'" may be a conflation
of "fuller's soap", as it is a substitute for "fuller" in Mk ix. 3 (D, SS).
Or it may be explained by Job ix. 30 "wash myself with snow and
cleanse my hands with lye"

[901 <:] The writer seems to have followed a Hebrew tradition that

268

WHY OMITTED BY JOHN? [903]

[902] In this Theophany we see a clear connection
between cause and effect. Moses, the Lawgiver, who ought
to have known God's justice better, wrongly supposed, though
but for a moment, that the righteous Judge, of all the earth
could blot a righteous man out of the Book of Life to save
an unrighteous nation. It was an error, but at least an
unselfish and magnanimous one, superior to many millions
of merits of ordinary men : and hence it was rewarded by a
revelation, and precisely the one needed by a soul that had
been disposed to magnify God's power or "glory" above His
" goodness ".

[903] Again, Elijah the Prophet and restorer of God's
altar had wrongly dreamed that force and the sword could
re-establish the pure worship of God in the hearts of a back-
sliding people ; and thus, succumbing to the deceptions of
visible things, he had come to suppose that he himself was
the sole pillar of Israel, indispensable to Jehovah erring,
like Moses, but, like Moses, erring with a sublime and
passionate unselfishness, swept away by his exceeding zeal
for the Lord of hosts. Hence he, too, received an appropriate
vision in which he saw the loud, violent, and destructive
forces of nature passing as it were across the stage, each by
itself, alone each unmasked in its natural weakness, weak
because alone, that is to say, because void of God and fulfilling

conflated various renderings of "hinder parts". The Greek word
(oirio-dia) is used in Jeremiah (xiii. 22) to mean "skirts" or "trtiin"', and
" His skirts" (Is. vi. i) means the "train" (LXX "glory") of Jehovah.
The Jerusalem Targum (I) and Bab. Talm., quoted above, seem to have
interpreted somewhat similarly "the back" in Exodus. . The Acts of John
appears to protest, negatively as well as positively, against this interpret-
ation of "hinder parts". First, it says that there were no "garments"
to hide the revealed splendour. Then, as though the writer may have
had the word /It? before him and wished to adopt any rendering of it
except "garments", he perhaps corruptly conflated it as "feet" and
"stripped"; at all events it is rendered "feet" in Lam. i. 9, and the
similar ^1B> (Kri) is rendered (Mic. i. 8) " stripped", LXX a

269

[904] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION,

no divine decree a negative revelation that prepared him to
receive the positive one, that of the " still small voice ".

[904] What can we say, like this, in favour of the Trans-
figuration as told by the Synoptists? In the first place, what
did it reveal to the three Apostles, Peter, James, and John,
that they did not know before? It may be replied, "The
stupendous revelation conveyed in the Voice from Heaven
' This is my beloved Son' " But had not these words been
uttered already (according to the Synoptists) at the Baptism
of Jesus, and presumably in the hearing of John the Baptist ?
And had not John the Apostle been one of the Baptist's
"two disciples" who (according to the Fourth Gospel) heard
their teacher say (Jn i. 36) " Behold, the Lamb of God " and
then " followed Jesus"? And is it conceivable that this pupil
should thus be transferred, as it were, from the Prophet to
the Messiah, without being informed by the Prophet of these
supernatural words from heaven ? But if he had been in-
formed of them then, there was nothing new in them now.
What John the son of Zebedee had heard before from the
Baptist as coming from heaven, he now heard, coming from
the same source, with his own ears ; but it was the same
revelation, or rather not now a revelation, but a reiteration of
what had been before revealed.

[905] Again, Peter had already called Jesus (according
to Matthew) "the Christ, the Son of the living God," or
(according to Mark and Luke) "the Christ", or "the Christ
of God." Had not this been a revelation to Peter? Matthew
distinctly says, in the person of Jesus, that it had been :
" Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father who is in heaven." Here is proof, then, if not of a
Voice from a cloud, at all events of a voice or word from God
to Peter conveying what appears to be substantially the same
revelation as that which was afterwards conveyed on the
mountain.

[906] Thus, by a twofold anticipation, the revelation on

270

WHY OMIT I KD I'.Y JOHN? [907]

tlu Holy Mount is made to appear, so far as the mere Voice
from the cloud is concerned, little more than a repetition of
what had been supernaturally conveyed before by a Word or
Voice of God to John the Baptist and to Peter. For it can
hardly be maintained that the words " Hear ye him ", apart
from subtle and ancient associations with Jewish literature,

titute such an addition to the Baptismal Voice as to
convert the latter into a new message. "Was it necessary"
we can imagine Celsus asking, or Epictetus, a lover of truth
if ever there was one "to add Hear ye him, after the disciples,
represented by Peter, had accepted their Master as God's
Son ?" And then, could we Christians honestly complain if
the sceptical Celsus, having perhaps a little knowledge of the
two Old Testament theophanies above described, were to
proceed somewhat in this strain, " What, then, after all, was
revealed in the Metamorphosis of your Messiah ? Nothing
for certain that is to say, nothing that is asserted by the
three narrators except that there was a bright light about
the garments of Jesus and the forms of Moses and Elijah.
For the rest, the two later accounts say that the face of Jesus
was also changed or illuminated ; but the earliest does not.
And only the latest of the three tells us what Moses and
Elijah said. The earliest writers bring the Lawgiver and the
Prophet on the stage as mutes at a funeral ! Strangest of all,
only Luke tells us that Jesus was praying at the time of the
Metamorphosis, and even Luke does not give us any notion
of the tenor of the prayer. How spiritually meagre is all
this, and how commonplace and vulgar Luke's conception of
' glory ' as compared with the two ancient Hebrew records of
the theophanies vouchsafed on Mount Sinai to Moses and
Elijah!"

[907] These considerations together with those brought
forward in the previous section of this chapter sufficiently
explain why John may have omitted the Transfiguration as
being an inadequate account of a real spiritual fact so

271

[907] THE VOICE AT THE TRANSFIGURATION

inadequate, so misleading, and so variously related by the
three Synoptists that he could not, as he did in the story of
the Baptism, preserve the foundations and something of the
superstructure of the Synoptic narrative, but was forced to
reconstruct almost from the beginning. " But why ' recon-
struct' at all?" it may be asked "Why not simply omit
what he knew to be an error ? " Because, perhaps, he knew
that the error had taken the place of an almost forgotten
truth 1 . The unanimous evidence of the Synoptists so he
may have believed was correct to this extent, that there had
been on one occasion a Bath Kol, which had descended upon
Jesus in a revelation of " glory " ; and, as Luke had testified,
it was in answer to the Lord's prayer. But the " glory " was
not that of Luke's narrative. It was something entirely
different, so different, so alien from the common thaumaturgic
conceptions of divine "glory" that he could not hope to
make his readers feel it except through a new setting forth of
the personality of Jesus. The narrative must be built up by
the Evangelist afresh, in a way of his own. Following the
old historical traditions so far as they were true, but retaining
only their spiritual essence and avoiding the old historical
expressions, he must begin by giving his readers a glimpse of
the " glory " of the Only-begotten " full of grace and truth."
Then he might hope by degrees to prepare them for a fuller
vision of " glory ", so that they might understand the nature
of that prayer in answer to which the Father glorified the Son
by a Voice from heaven.

1 [907 a] E.g. Mark's (ix. 3) " fuller" (864 ) seems to be a survival of a
spiritual doctrine (omitted or obscured by Mt.-Lk.), that the Messiah
revealed His (Dan. vii. 9) "white garments", for His disciples' sake,
(Dan. xi. 35) "to refine them and to purify and to make them white."
Comp. (i Jn iii. 2 3) "We shall see him as he is. And every one that
hath this hope [set] on \i\rn. purifieth himself even as he is pure"

272

BOOK V

THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN
AN ANSWER TO PRAYER

A. 273 18

CHAPTER I

"TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

I. The object of investigation

[908] IF the only remaining question were, "Does the
Johannine Voice from Heaven differ from the Synoptic
Voices in having an objective and historical character ? " our
investigations might almost immediately close. Objective it
was not, as we know from John's own statement that some
regarded it as " thunder " and others as the voice of " an
angel". And that it was not historical may be inferred
in two ways. First, had it been so, it could not well have
been omitted by the three Synoptists. They might mis-
understand and corrupt it, but they would not be likely to
pass over a historical Bath Kol in the life of the Messiah,
while inserting two that are not historical. Secondly, internal
evidence may be brought to shew that the whole of this part
of the Johannine narrative is based upon traditions which,
though sound so far as regards their general and spiritual
purport, are unsound in historical detail.

[909] "Why not stop here, then ?" it may be asked, "Of
what use can it be to ascertain the origin of a tradition about
a confessedly subjective Voice from Heaven, of which the
words can be shewn to have sprung from some misunder-
standing?" The answer is this. John represents the Voice

275 18 2

[910] "TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

as an answer to prayer, and to prayer drawn forth from
Christ by trouble : and, apart from the Last Discourse, this
is the only prayer uttered by Christ in the whole of the
Fourth Gospel. In the Synoptic Gospels also there is only
one occasion in which the Three agree in describing Christ as
praying, and this too is a time of trouble : but in their record
of His prayer, they differ greatly among themselves, and all
of them differ from John. An attempt will be made to shew
that the Revisers have mistranslated Mark and not adequately
translated John ; and that John's version, adequately rendered,
is probably the best approximation to the spirit of Christ's
actual words.

[910] But further, a part of the Synoptic version of
Christ's utterance on this unique occasion (" thy will be
done") has been incorporated by Matthew in what is called
the Lord's Prayer. Luke, however, omits these words in his
form of the Lord's Prayer ; and it will be shewn not only
that he is probably right in omitting them, but also that, in
the narrative of Gethsemane, they should be regarded as not
exactly expressing what our Lord really said.

[911] Lastly, as regards the " trouble " that called forth
the prayer, and as to which Luke deviates altogether from the
two earlier Synoptists, it will be contended that John as
often in the case of Luke's deviations steps in to explain the
substance of the earlier Gospels, shewing that the " trouble "
was of a much higher and nobler nature than might be
inferred from the study of Mark ; and it will be shewn that
John is probably right and that Mark may have given a wrong
impression by mistranslating a Hebrew original.

[912] No one will deny that the results to be attained
if indeed they can be attained are at all events worth
attaining. They do not turn on questions of mere locality
as, for example, whether the place of this great crisis in our
Lord's life was Hermon, or Tabor, or the Mount of Olives, or
Gethsemane, or the Mountain of the Lord's House i.e, the

276

"TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER [913]

Temple : nor shall we trouble ourselves much whether the
" Greeks " who come to Christ in the Fourth Gospel are
identical with the "children" who sing Hosanna to Him in
the Second Gospel (Matthew), or with the "lame and the
blind " whom the same Evangelist describes as coming to
Christ in the sacred building although, according to the
Mishna, they were not included in the obligation to attend
the Feasts 1 ; nor will the "angel" that John mentions as
(according to some) answering Christ's prayer, and the angel
mentioned in a doubtful passage of Luke as " strengthening "
Christ while He was praying, detain us long in the discussion
of their possible identity. These questions are all highly
interesting ; but their interest is as nothing compared with
the fascination of the possibility of a somewhat closer approach
to a true conception of what Christ said and felt on the two
occasions which possibly ought to be called one occasion
on which the Synoptists and John severally record words of
prayer proceeding from His lips.

2. Tlte JoJiannine Voice from Heaven

[913] The words of the Johannine Bath Kol are simply
(xii. 28) " I [have] both glorified and will again glorify."
They are obviously and any one who has made a careful
study of the Gospel and First Epistle will add that they are
deliberately 1 incomplete. The reader is intended to be

1 [912 a] B. Chag. ch. i. (Rodkinson, vol. vi. Chag. p. i) " Mishna; All
are bound in the case of a holocaust except a deaf man, a fool, a minor...
and women, and bondsmen, the lame, the blind, the sick, the old...."
"Holocaust" is said by the translator to =- fVtO "appearing" (see Deut.
xvi. 1 6). Goldschmidt has not yet edited Chag.

1 [913 a] Westcott's notes on the Gospel and Epistle contain abundant
testimony to the careful and subtle arrangements and distinctions that
underlie John's apparent simplicity of style, e.g. his distinction between
ayarrw and </>t\w in Jn xxi. 15 17. As regards pronouns, John generally
uses them profusely. Few or no instances of omission could be all eged
from the Gospel and Epistle parallel to the one under discussion.

277

[914] "TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

thrown back upon the context and to ask "Glorify what*"
The "what" is explained by Christ's prayer on which the
Bath Kol depends for its sense " Father, glorify thy name"
These words are pregnant with a multitude of meanings
which, however, must not detain us here except so far as a
glance at the prayer may be needful to understand the Bath
Kol. Exodus has told us (820) that God's NAME is in the
Messenger whom He sends ("my NAME is in him"). He
cannot therefore glorify His NAME without glorifying the
Messenger. But the Messenger, being the Son, could not
possibly put Himself before the Father, as He would have
done had He said " Glorify me " : He therefore begins by
saying " Glorify thy Name", with the result that, later on, He
says (xvii. i) "Glorify thy Son". The result is in accordance
with a fundamental saying of the Bible, " Them that glorify
me I will glorify" which is accepted by Ben Zoma in the
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers as meaning "Them that glorify
man made in t/te image of God, God will glorify as though
they had glorified Him 1 ." This is a far-reaching interpreta-
tion or perhaps we should say substitution of new thoughts
for old which would harmonize the worship of Jehovah with
a religion of humanity. A similar thought is at the bottom
of the identification of the terms " Son of man " and " Son of
God ".

[914] All the interest here is in the Prayer not in the
Bath Kol, which is a mere echo, meaningless without the
Prayer. The Jewish Bath Kol is a voice "coming out of" a

1 [913 b] See Jewish Prayer Book p. 195, where it is printed as one of
four sayings of Ben Zoma (on whom see 687 a) : " Who is honoured ? He
that honours mankind ; for it is said (i S. ii. 30) For them that honour
me I will honour...." In i S. ii. 30 R.V. has "them that honour me
I will honour": but the LXX there has "them that glorify me I will
glorify (Souo-<u)," and renders the verb p3D) more frequently "glorify"
than "honour". It is the same word as that used in the commandment
"Honour thy father and thy mother," where the LXX has "honour",

TlfJLOt.

2 7 8

TKOl MI.IC" PRECEDING PRAYER [915]

heavenly voice; the Johaiinine Hath Kol is a voice coming
out of a voice that is uttered on earth. But the latter comes
tlie Son, therefore it comes from heaven : for wherever
tin- Son is, there is the Father, and there is heaven. The
Jewish Hath Kol is often a text of Scripture, and the Horae
hfbraicae, ironically but fairly, describes it as occupied in
"applauding the Rabbins": but here God, as it were, seems
to "applaud" Himself, though in reality He is accepting
from the Son a sacrifice of pain, as Abraham from Isaac,
that affects Him as well as His Son. But the main point is
the dependence of the Bath Kol on the prayer of the Son.
It is little more than a twofold Amen : " It has been so. It
shall be so." And the meaning is, " Thou hast been with me
from the beginning in the unity of perfect and self-sacrificing
love, thou shalt be with me in the same unity for ever."

[915] There is no need to say anything about the beauty
of this conception, which can perhaps be best felt in silence.
The point for discussion is its textual origin, as to which the
following suggestion is offered. St Paul says that God bestowed
on Jesus "the name t/uit is above every name? This periphrasis
does not appear to be used in Hebrew literature 1 , and it is
probably an attempt to express for Philippian readers what
Jews would call " the NAME " or sometimes " the glorious
NAME." If so, there was perhaps an early tradition that God,
as Jews might (Ps. xlix. u> say, "called (971 (ii)) on Jesus
the NAME." Now when Deuteronomy mentions the "glorious
and fearful name," Onkelos, in substituting New Hebrew
terms, inevitably alters the letters in such a way as to make
" glorious name " almost identical with " my name will I
glorify*" Again the word "call" often so closely resembles

1 Philipp. ii. 9 TO WQ/J.U TO virip irav Svopa.' Wetstein, Schottgen, and
Bishop Lightfoot allege no parallel to this from any Jewish or Hebrew
source.

[915 a] Deut. xxviii. 58 n333n DBTI, lit. "the name the glorified,"
Onk. K*vp KDe*, " name glorious". In the text of Onkelos, by prefixing
the final N to the following word, we should have N"Vp*N DB* which might

279

[916] "TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

the New Hebrew for " glorious " that it might easily be taken
as a reduplication of the latter 1 . Hence might arise a tradition
converting " called the glorious name" into " glorifying I icill
glorify the name," which might be taken by John as meaning
" I have glorified my name in the past and will glorify it in
the future."

[916J Thus, either out of the Philippian tradition (which
somewhat resembles that in the Testament of the Patriarchs,
"there shall come upon Him consecration" and "the glory of
the Highest shall be uttered upon Him") or else from some
variant of those much-varied words above quoted from
Exodus, " My NAME is in him," NAME being supplemented
by the epithet "glorious", we may easily explain John's
insertion, and the Synoptic omission, of this Bath Kol. The
Synoptists may have omitted it because in their time it was
an apostolic statement of spiritual fact, " Christ received the
glorious name"; John may have inserted it because, when he
was writing, it had been developed into a Voice from Heaven.

From this comparatively unimportant detail we turn to
an investigation of the various evangelic accounts about
the feelings that elicited from Christ the unique prayer
recorded by them severally.

3. ''Exceeding sorrowful", "troubled"

[917] Mark, Matthew, and John describe the "exceeding
sorrow", or "trouble", that preceded our Lord's prayer, as
mentioned in His own words thus :

Mk xiv. 34, Mt. xxvi. 38 Jn xii. 27

" Exceeding-sorrowful is my " Now is my soul troubled"

soul unto death ; abide here and
watch (Mt + with me)."

easily be taken as "Vp1X *DK>, " my name I will glorify." See Levy Ch. i.
343 for New Heb. 1p* substituted for Bib. Heb. 133.

1 [915 ] "Be glorious", Tp\ and "call", N"P, are confused by LXX
in Prov. xx. 6, Dan. iv. 30 (LXX, but not Theod.), Hos. xi. 7.

280

- rROUBLB" I'KKCKDINC, I'RAYER [918]

W.H. print "exceeding-sorrowful is my soul" as a quota-
tion from the Psalms, where a refrain of this kind is thrice
repeated 1 . "My soul is troubled" they print as a quotation
either from the same passage, or from an earlier Psalm.
There can be little doubt, however, that John is quoting from
the same Psalm as the Synoptists, but he deviates from them
for the following reasons.

[918] The Psalm says (xlii. 56) "Why art thou cast
down, O my soul, and why art thou disquieted upon 2 me?
Hope thou in God, for I shall yet praise him for the help of
his countenance. O my God, my soul is cast down upon*
me." In the interrogative (as also in two repetitions of the
interrogative refrain) the LXX renders "cast down" by "ex-
ceeding-sorrowful", but in the affirmative by "troubled". Now
"exceeding-sorrowful" occurs in the canonical LXX elsewhere
only in the sense of " furious", applied to Cain and Nebuchad-
nezzar ; and though it is used by the Psalmist here thrice
about himself, it is always in a question, " Why art thou cast
down?", which question the LXX retains " Why art thou
exceeding-sorrowful?" This "why" implies, as always in
Hebrew, a prohibition, "Be not cast down 3 ." But the Hebrew
" Why?" means also "How!" i.e. " How greatly!" so that a
translator might mistake what really means " Be not in
despair" as though it meant "/ am in utter despair." This

1 Ps. xlii. 5, ii, xliii. 5.

2 [918 <z] " Upon me", so Gesen. 753^, i.e. "pressing upon me", "too
heavy for me to bear," rendered " from me " in LXX of Ps. cxlii. 3,
Jon. ii. 8 &c. It might be paraphrased as "unto death", which Mk-Mt.
here have. Or the word " disquieted ", TO!"in, might be read as rHDH
"death" (comp. Prov. xix. 18, Ezek. vii. 16) and vU might be confused
with iy, " unto " (comp. Exod. xx. 5, I K. xv. 20, xvii. 20, i Chr. vii. 29,
Is. ix. 6, Dan. xi. 10 (LXX)), where ?y and ny are confused.

3 [918^] Gesen. 553 quotes a number of passages where nD = "why?"
in "the transition from the interrog. to the neg. to which in Heb. there
is an approx.," Exod. xiv. 15, xvii. 2, 2 K. vi. 33, &c. He quotes none
where HO " why ? " is used in a question asking for information.

281

[919] "TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

might be paraphrased as " I am exceeding sorrowful unto
death" : or the italicized words might be added by a mis-
understanding of the Hebrew context, which happens to lend
itself to such an addition (918 a). Thus by easy stages an
impassioned command to be hopeful and to put away despair
might be converted into what might be regarded by some as
an avowal of absolute desperation.

[919] This may explain the omission of the words by
Luke who could hardly have omitted a saying assigned at
this point to Christ by the earlier Evangelists without some
strong reason. On the other hand, John may have accepted
the earlier Synoptic tradition so far as this, that Jesus quoted
the Psalmist's refrain forbidding his soul to despair ; but he
would certainly reject any Synoptic version of it that converted,
or might seem to convert, the forbidding into an avowing.
These being the circumstances, all would have been clear
and plain for us if John had represented Jesus as exactly
quoting the LXX, "Why art thou exceeding-sorrowful?"
But, had he done this, he would have come into direct
collision with Mark and Matthew which he always avoids as
far as possible. Moreover it was hardly consistent with his
conception of the Lord that He should, in human fashion,
forbid His soul to do this or that by asking it a question.

[920] A third reason requires somewhat ampler statement.
We have seen that the LXX renders the Hebrew " cast
down" by two words, interrogatively by "exceeding-sorrowful"
(sometimes meaning " wrathful " and " furious "), and affirma-
tively by "troubled". Now this last word happened to hit
precisely a fundamental distinction between the Gospel of
Christ (as John conceived it) and the doctrine of Epictetus
which was in vogue at the beginning of the second century,
and which inculcated on every -philosopher the fundamental
duty of preserving ''freedom from trouble". In opposition to
this Stoic dogma, John thrice connects Christ with "trouble" 1 .

1 Jn xi. 33, xii. 27, xiii. 21.
282

I 'ROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER [022]

IK u-lls us that Jesus "troubled himself' for the death of
Lazarus and the sorrow of the survivors. Much later, Jesus
"was troubled /'// spirit" over the anticipated treachery of
Jiul.is. Between these two comes the "trouble" under dis-

-ion, a " trouble " of " soul".

[921] The cause of this intervening "trouble" appears
from the context to be complex. In part it seems to spring
from a sorrow over the conditions of imperfect humanity,
the Law that death must precede the higher life, and that the
grain must die to bring forth fruit. But in part also, and
probably in much greater part, it seems to be sorrow over His

countrymen, over Israel after the flesh, who manifested their

blindness to the Light at the very moment when the Gentiles

opened their eyes to it. In less than a dozen verses the
contrast is brought out. The Elders of Israel confess that
the Messiah is their enemy against whom they "prevail
nothing", for "the world is gone after him." At once the
"Greeks" come on the stage, saying, " We would see Jesus."

[922] A somewhat similar contrast is described by Luke
on the occasion of the return of the Seventy, the types of the
Apostles of the Gentiles, announcing their success. The Lord
is there represented as acknowledging and acquiescing 1 in the
inscrutable wisdom of the Father who has revealed to babes
what He has hidden from the wise and prudent. There, too,
as here in John, mention is made of a great spiritual triumph,
of "Satan" cast down "from heaven". But it is not to be
supposed that the joy of triumph was untinged by pangs of
failure.

1 [922 a] Lk. x. 17 21 "And the seventy returned... And he said unto
them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.. ..In that same
hour he rejoiced [in] the Holy Spirit and said, I thank thee, O Father...
that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding and
didst reveal them unto babes ; yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in
thy sight."

Instead of "rejoiced [in] the Holy Spirit," Mt. xi. 25 has "answered".

283

[923] "TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

[923] John represents almost the last words of Christ to
"the multitude" as predicting the uplifting of "the Son
of man," and "the multitude" replies, " Who is this Son of
man?" Could failure be more complete? If Moses, for his
countrymen's sake, could pray, " Blot me out of thy book,"
and St Paul, for the same sake, was faftftto wish himself
"anathema" from Christ it is not possible to believe that
the Messiah, who included in Himself all that was noblest
and most patriotic in Israel, could do otherwise than feel
a most bitter " trouble of soul " over the immediate fall of the
nation, even though He "hoped still in the Lord" that it
would be finally restored 1 .

[924] For these three reasons, then and for the third
not least John might not wish to correct Mark's error by
simply converting " My soul is exceeding sorrowful " into a
question. Moreover, another course was open to him. He
had merely to take the neighbouring affirmative clause " my

1 [923 a] There is a striking difference in the way in which Matthew
and Luke introduce Christ's words of acquiescence in the rejection of
"the wise and prudent":

Ml. xi. 25 Lk. x. 11

"In that season answered Jesus "In that same hour he rejoiced [in}

and said, I (lit.) confess unto thee, the Holy Spirit and said, I (lit.) confess

O Father, ... ." unto thee, O Father, ... ."

Compare Hos. ii. 15, nruy (R.V. txt.) "shall make answer", marg.
"shall sing", LXX "shall be afflicted (ran-fii/w^o-rrm) " and Ezr. iii. 11,
"sang'\n praising", LXX " answered in praise".

[923 b] The root H3J7 has the three meanings "answer", "sing", "be
afflicted". Possibly the Original was, "He made answer to the Holy
One, i.e. to God...." This may have been taken by Matthew as "There
made answer the Holy One (Jesus)," i.e. ''Jesus answered". Luke may
have taken it as " sang in praise to the Holy Spirit" (not "/ the Spirit ")
acquiescing in the revelation that the Spirit had bestowed on Him. In
that case the literal translation would be "rejoiced to the Holy Spirit."

[923 c\ The passage seems to imply a message from heaven, though
not a Bath Kol. It should also be noted that the ambiguous verb might
give rise to a tradition that Jesus "was afflicted" by the message although
He at once acquiesced in it.

284

"TROUIH I I Kll DINO PRAYER [925]

i> i a->t doxvn " and to render "cast down "(as the LXX
does in this clause) by the verb "trouble". This gave him
tin- words " My soul is troubled." Thus he adhered to the old
tradition and who shall say that it was not a true one?
that Jesus quoted from the forty-second Psalm ; he avoided
Mark's erroneous rendering ; and yet he could not be said to
contradict Mark ; for the difference between him and the
earlier Evangelist might seem to be no more than this, that,
of two contiguous and parallel clauses in the quotation, Mark
chose one and John the other. Yet in reality there may be
an abyss between the two meanings if the one is equivalent
to " I utterly despair", and the other to " I take upon myself
trouble," or " My soul is troubled [in accordance with the
will of God]."

4. Johns doctrine of " trouble", truer than that of
the Synoptists

[925] Setting aside the description of the Last Supper,
we may say that only on one occasion do the Synoptists give
us a clear expression of the truth that Christ's life and work
and sorrows had a sacrificial or mediatorial meaning, " The
Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister
and to give his soul a ransom for many 1 " This saying occurs
in Christ's Discourse about True Greatness and Lordship ;
and the italicized words, in which Matthew and Mark agree
verbatim, are essential for the meaning. Luke, however,
omits them, and thus leaves it open to his readers to take the
whole discourse as teaching a man " the art of becoming
great" without any regard to his neighbours except so far as
he benefits them for the sake of benefiting himself, as though
Christ simply said, "If you would be a prince over your
brethren in heaven, make yourself their minister upon earth."

1 [925 a] Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28 (Lk. xxii. 27 " But I am in the midst of
you as he that serveth ")

285

[926] "TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

[926] What Luke confessedly omits here, the earlier
Synoptists may be almost demonstratively shewn to have
omitted elsewhere ; and if we do not supply the deficiency
from the Fourth Gospel, or from what we may derive by
inference from the account of the Lord's Supper, we shall be
in danger of missing the force of many of Christ's most
divine sayings. For example, the words uttered just before
the Transfiguration "If any man will follow after me, let
him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,"
might mean " Let a man deny himself every pleasure, mortify
every desire, reduce himself to the position of a condemned
criminal on his way to an ignominious death." And then the
inference would be suggested that by thus making oneself
supremely miserable in the flesh during this life one may
secure supreme happiness in the life to come. But in reality
Christ was teaching His disciples how to lose their lives,
as He was losing His, by laying it down for the lost sheep.
" Losing one's life " did not mean suicide ; nor did " taking up
the cross " mean self-torture : in both cases He implied and
the implied addition is essential for others.

[927] But it may be urged, " How can you be sure that
the Synoptists are not right and John wrong? May not the
latter have read into the earliest Christian traditions a high
sacrificial meaning, noble indeed and spiritual, but not his-
torical?" The answer is founded on cogent facts connected
with Christ's predictions of His Passion. These were almost
certainly based upon Isaiah's description of the Suffering
Servant, who is to " make intercession for trangressors." Now
in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts there is nowhere any
mention of "making intercession" for transgressors or sinners ;
but there is frequent mention of " being delivered up " into
the hands of "transgressors", "sinners", "Gentiles", "men",
"chief priests" &c.; and we find the LXX actually rendering
the Hebrew in Isaiah (liii. 12), "made intercession', by "was
delivered up". To clench the matter, St Paul actually quotes

286

"TROUBIJ: PRECEDING PRAY] [928]

this verse of Isaiah and applies it to Christ in the words of the
LXX, "was delivered ///>"'. It only remains to explain that
the Hebrew preposition here rendered "for" ("make inter-
cession /or") is regularly rendered "/0" a , so that Christian
nudists adopting "deliver ;//" with the LXX as a
rendering of "make intercession", but in other respects
following the Hebrew, might naturally give, as the result,
"A/r</// be delivered up to sinners," interpreting "sinners" either
as the sinful sons of men, or as Gentiles (called " sinners "
by the Jews), or as the sinful persecutors of Christ (i.e. the
"chief priests") &c.

[928] It happens that the same Greek word is used in
N.T. to describe the Father "delivering up" the Son, or the
Son "delivering up" Himself, for the sins of men, and Judas
"delivering up", i.e. "betraying", Jesus to the Chief Priests 3 .
Jesus is said by the Evangelists to have predicted the latter
act. Doubtless they are right. But if He also predicted the
former, the use of the same word in the two predictions
might obviously result in confusing two entirely different
things. For example, in St Paul's description of the Last
Supper, Pauline usage ought to oblige us to render the words,
not (as in R.V.) "on the same night on which he was betrayed"

1 [927 a] Rom. iv. 25. Comp. Rom. viii. 32 "he (God) delivered him
up for us," Gal. ii. 20, Eph. v. 2, 25 " delivered himself up ".

* [927 t>] Is. liii. 12 "for (^) transgressors". Comp. Deut. xxxiii. 8,
12, 13 TW Afwi (intv, rat B., rut 'I., which a Greek would naturally render
"He said to Levi, to Benjamin, to Joseph": but the meaning of -? is
" concerning".

3 [928 a] Why did not the Evangelists use Trpo&'8w/, "betray"?
Partly perhaps because this, too, was an ambiguous word. It occurs in
N.T. only in Rom. xi. 35 (see Heb. of Job xli. n) where it means "give
beforehand' 11 . In canon. LXX it occurs only thrice, and always as an
erroneous translation or various reading, 2 K. vi. 11, Is. xl. 14 AN*,
Ezek. xvi. 34 A. It is worth noting, however, that in the list of the
Apostles, where Mk iii. 19, Mt. x. 4 have "Judas Iscariot who also
delivered him /," Lk. vi. 16 has " became a traitor (wpoiorijr) " a noun
that is free from ambiguity.

287

[928 (i)] "TROUBLE" PRECEDING PRAYER

but " on the same night on which he was delivered up [for our
sins, by the Father]? The same correction ought almost
certainly to be made in the Synoptic accounts of Christ's
predictions of the Passion. This we may infer from the stress
He laid on spiritual and essential things, as well as from the
facts alleged above. Jt is well-nigh impossible that Christ
should have emphasized mere details such as "spitting",
" smiting ", " mocking ", " delivering up ", &c., and yet have
made no reference to His death's spiritual purport, no asser-
tion that it was for others. Yet there is hardly a trace of such
reference in the Synoptic predictions. The Fourth Gospel casts
aside almost all the Synoptic vocabulary here the "suffering
many things", the "delivering up to the hands of the chief
priests", the "spitting", "scourging", and "mocking". It
prefers to speak of the Cross as a place of " glorifying " and
"lifting up", and of Jesus as "drawing" men to Himself when
"lifted up". Historically and verbally, the "delivering t</>"
in Mark may be nearer to the actual words uttered by Jesus
than the " lifting up" in John. But the spirit and the mean-
ing of Christ's doctrine about suffering and trouble as a whole
are incontestably better preserved by John than by any of
the Synoptists.

Addendum on "taking up the cross"

[928 (i)] Perhaps a spiritual meaning differing from the
commonly assumed one, and preparing for the glory that
follows underlies the words " take up the cross" which all the
Synoptists place shortly before the Transfiguration, and which
the Double Tradition repeats in a different context 1 . If

1 [928 (i) a] The Synoptists have (Mk viii. 34, Mt. xvi. 24, Lk. ix. 23)
" If any one desireth to come after me, let him deny himself, and take
up his cross [Lk. adds "daily"] and follow me." The Double Tradition
has (Mt. x. 37-8) " He that loveth father or mother more than me is not

288

TAKING UP THE CROSS [928 (i)]

nall\ iiM-d this phrase, it could hardly convey to His
followers any meaning except that they must be prepared to
be punished by Rome as rebels 1 . Crucifixion was a Roman,
not a Jewish punishment. If a leader of the Servian in-
surgents in the last century said to his men, " Should you
follow me, you must have before your eyes the impaling-
stakt'C his meaning on the assumption that the charges
brought against the Turks in 1880 were substantiated would
be perfectly clear. Almost as clear would have been Christ's
words if He had used to His followers similar language, only
substituting, for " impaling- stake", the word " cross". But, this
being the meaning of the utterance, could He possibly have
uttered it ? The silence, or explanation, of two of the N.T.
commentators best acquainted with Jewish thought*, indicates

worthy of me... and he that doth not take his cross and follow after me
is not worthy of me," (Lk. xiv. 26-7) "If any one is [for] coming after me
and hateth not his own father... Whoever doth not carry his own cross
and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

1 [928 (i) 6] After the first century, Jews might naturally point to the
Sacrifice of Isaac as constituting their national and mediatorial offering,
and might liken Isaac, carrying the wood upon which he was to be
offered, to a man carrying his own cross (Genes, r. set. 56, 55 b , Pesik.
r. set. 31, 57 b quoted by Levy iv. 190*, ii. 439* and elsewhere). The
simile would receive point from the persecutions undergone by the Jews
under the Romans, and might be used pointedly in controversies with
Christians. But no evidence has been alleged that the phrase was in
use among Jews as a metaphor during the first century.

[928 (i) f] Professor Hermann Gollancz informs me that the simile of
Isaac carrying his cross is "taken from Roman habit and quite opposed
to Jewish spirit and experience. The sight of his doom was advisedly
kept away from the criminal till the very last moment. ' Hanging on the
gallows (KD'p J"Gv)' is given by the Targum on Ruth as equivalent to
p3n 'strangling'. Old Jewish illustrations of examples like Haman &c.
do not give the figure ~j~, but F or l~l."

2 [928 (i) d] Horae Hebraiccu is silent (as to the cross) on both
passages of Mt. Schbttgen (on Mt. xvi. 24) says that the Greek "cross
(<rravpdj)" means both (i) the upright "stake" (Lat. "palus") and (2) the
"yoke" (Lat. "furca"). Under the latter (928 (vi)), slaves used to be

A. 289 IQ

[928 (ii)] TAKING UP THE CROSS

the difficulty of the phrase, and raises the question whether it
may not have sprung from some misunderstanding. The full
discussion of this question must be reserved for another
treatise ; but the following facts are submitted as justifying a
working-hypothesis that Jesus mentioned, not the " cross", but
the "yoke"*.

[928 (ii)] It was a fundamental doctrine of our Lord that
entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven depended on the
fulfilment of the Great Commandment to love God (implying
the commandment also to love man) 2 . The verbal repetition
of this Commandment somewhat like the repetition of the
Creed with us was a daily duty for the Jews and was called
" taking on oneself the yoke" sometimes called " the yoke of the

whipped with their hands outstretched: "As a slave", says Schottgen,
" whose hands are tied to the yoke (furcam) has hands indeed but cannot
use them, so the Christian who would follow me, i.e. become my disciple,
is to have tongue, wrath, hands, and passions, but must use them for no
ill purpose." Wetstein (on Mt. x. 38) quotes Cicero for "furcam ferre"
and Plutarch and Artemidorus for "bearing" or "carrying" the cross,
but no Jewish tradition.

1 [928 (i)^] It is very important to realize that no Jewish leader in the
first century, and above all no leader of Galilaeans, could call upon his
followers to face crucifixion without being supposed to prepare them for
a conflict with Rome. During Christ's childhood, Varus had crucified
two thousand rebels. Under Claudius and Nero, robbers, brigands, or
rebels, were frequently crucified. The sons of Judas the Galilaean
suffered crucifixion. Mark and Matthew tell us that two "brigands"
(\ya-rai) were crucified by the Romans along with Jesus. John tells us
that Barabbas, a " brigand", under sentence of death, was saved by
the multitude instead of Jesus. Luke (and similarly Mark) says that
Barabbas was sentenced for "sedition (orarrn/) and murder." This
shews that one whom Evangelists, following the Roman usage, would
call a "brigand" or "robber" (Ajyo-rqr), might really be a "rebel", one
whom Jews might call a "patriot" or "zealot", perhaps even a "prophet",
perhaps even a Messiah. If a Galilaean prophet said to Galilaeans,
" Those who are to follow me must take up the cross," Galilaeans could
hardly fail to infer (rightly or wrongly) that it meant " You must be pre-
pared to be punished by Rome." See 928(x)</and Index II

2 Mk xii. 30, Mt. xxii. 37, Lk. x. 27.

290

TAKING UP THE CROSS [928 (iii)]

Law," "of the Kingdom of Heaven," &c., but sometimes
simply "t/ie yoke" 1 . Christ laid stress on the duty of serving
God (i.e. "taking t/te yoke") in act as well as word, serving
God by serving men. After the repetition of the Great
Commandment, Jesus says to the "lawyer" (Lk. x. 28) "This
do, and thou shalt live"; and then follows the Parable of the
Good Samaritan 1 .

[928 (iii)] In N.T., Matthew alone has preserved the
words " Take my yoke upon you and learn of me," that is to
say, " Become servants of one another, as I make myself your
servant 3 ." But the metaphor is implied in the Voice from
Heaven to Saul in the Acts, where the future Apostle is told
that he finds it hard to " kick against the goads " (being
rebuked as a bullock that will not submit to the yoke and draw
t/te plough'); perhaps, too, in Christ's warning that no one that
has "put his hand to the plough and looks back" is in condition

1 [928 (ii) <i] The passage repeated was called SAe/na, i.e. Hear (horn.
Deut. vi. 49 "Hear, O Israel"). But Deut. xi. 13 21 and Numb. xv.
37 41 were also thus named. The Mishna of Berach. ii. 2 has, "Why
does Hear (Deut. vi. 4) precede And it shall be if ye shall hear (Deut. xi.
13)? In order that one may first take upon oneself the yoke of the
Kingdom of Heaven and then that of the Precept" Hor. Hebr. (on
Mt. iii. 2) says that the Jerusalem Talmud, in this passage, omits "the
yoke of" before "the Kingdom of Heaven." Hor. Heb. (IP.) quotes other
traditions, such as, " We never saw Rabbi taking upon himself the
kingdom of heaven" and the answer is that he did it " when he put his
hands on his face " : another is, " Let him wash his hands, put on his
phylacteries, repeat them, and pray, and this is the kingdom of heaven
fulfilled": another (Berach. ii. 5) mentions first the repetition of "Hear
(O Israel)" and then a reference by R. Gamaliel to the non-repetition
of it as "laying aside the kingdom of heaven" Schottgen (Mt. xi. 29)
gives instances of " the yoke of the Law, of the Precept, of Penitence,
&c."

8 Lk. x. 2933.

3 [928 (iii) a] Mt. xi. 29. The words "for I am meek and lowly in
heart" imply that our Lord Himself bears the yoke that He imposes
on His disciples, and that He serves those whom He commands to
serve. Comp. Gal. v. 13" Through love be servants one to another."

* Acts xxvi. 14.

291 19 2

[928 (iii)] TAKING UP THE CROSS

to enter the Kingdom 1 ; and perhaps in the old tradition of

1 [928 (iii) b] Lk. ix. 62. If the present text of Lk. ix. 62 is correct,
the disciple is represented, not as wearing the yoke, but as driving the
yoked oxen. But this metaphor, though familiar to Greeks and to us,
appears (from the silence of Wetstein and Horcu Hebraicae) not to be
common in Jewish literature. Schottgen illustrates it only by Aboth iii.
7, which rather suggests a person taking the Yoke of the Law on himself
(not ploughing) and looking idly about. Moreover, in the quotations of
Lk. there are great diversities of reading (Resch), e.g. "put his hand to
the plough-share " ; " turning back " for " looking back ". Also D, Clem.
Alex., and Hil., place "looking back" before "putting the hand on the
plough"; and some traditions mention "/arrow" instead of "Kingdom
of God". Orig. twice has &a\<bv for fVi/3aXi', and Hil. has "tenens".

Perhaps the Original mentioned, not "plough", but "ox-goad": for
in Sir. xxxviii. 25 (26) aporpov represents no^D the regular Talmudic
word (Levy iii. 134*) for " ox-g oad", rendered (R.V.) "(or) goad" in
Judg. iii. 31, where B has aporpoirovt, 2. "plough-handle", xVAij (A
conflates as ('KTOS i.e. H37D). ' L.S., for dparpairovs, have simply "plough-
share LXX". If the original Hebrew of Lk. ix. 62 referred to an ox
kicking, or pushing back, against the ox-goad, this, in some early Greek
Gospel, may have been loosely translated ''striking against the plough."
Then Luke may have taken ftaXwv (or, tniftaXuv) '' as applied, not to
the ploughing ox, but to the ploughman, and may have inserted \<lpa to
complete the sense.

Since writing the above, I have been informed by Mr Stanley Cook
that the Syriac in Sir. xxxviii. 25 (26) actually has "the sword of the
plough (or, yoke} (X3HD1 K3TTI)," though the phrase may mean the whole
plough; and Mr F. C. Burkitt tells me that the Syriac Gospels, and
other authorities, have the same phrase in Lk. ix. 62. This somewhat
favours the view that the Original Hebrew in Lk., as in Ben Sira, had
"ox-goad". It is not alleged that "the sword", in the Syriac phrase,
ever means " handle " (e'xtYAij), and the Palestinian Lectionary omits it,
having merely "plough (or, yoke)".

[928 (iii) c] The Bib. Heb. for "yoke" is hy, which also means
"(up}on, eVi. The New Heb. is W. The Targ. Heb., or Aramaic,
is KT3. Hence, in passing from Bib. Heb. to Aramaic, one may expect
occasional confusions. Thus " putting [away] the yoke " might be con-
flated into " putting [one's hand] upon the yoke." Or the ancient term
may be expanded (erroneously) as meaning anything that "goes up",
as in Numb. xix. 2 (lit.) "a heifer... [upon] which never (lit) went-np
upon her (.T^f) yoke (b)," Jer. Targ. (Etheridge) "on which no
male hath come, nor the burden of any work been imposed, neither hurt

292

TAKING UP THE CROSS [928 (iv,]

Justin that Christ, as a carpenter, "fashioned yokes and

[ 928 < iv ) | It has been pointed out (928 (i)) that the Double
Tradition connects the taking up of the "cross" with a
precept not to love parents or children " more than me "
(Luke even says "hate" them). The connection is clear
now to us, but can hardly have been very clear to Jews. At
all events, it would have been clearer to them if Jesus had
said " yoke " instead of " cross " ; for then we might regard it
as a common-place of Jewish literature to be illustrated by
Philo 2 and the Jerusalem Talmud, commenting on the base
slave in Exodus, who says " / love my master, my wife and
my children, I will not go out free" This slave the Talmud
condemns for preferring the yoke of man to the yoke of God
presumably because slaves were excluded from the obligation
to attend the festivals in Jerusalem*. Spiritually interpreted,
the picture may be made an instructive one. The servant of

by the thong, nor grieved by the goad or prick, nor collar (band), or any
like yoke": cf. Hos. xi. 4 "yoke on (to to)," where LXX drops "yoke",
Lam. i. 14 "yoke", LXX "on" &c.

1 [928 (iii) (f\ Tryph. 88 icai TtKTovos vop.ifofi.fvov (raOra yap ra
TfKToviiea fpya tpyd(To iv avdpvirots u>v, nporpa cat Vy, 8*a rovratv *cai
TO rfjs Bueaioo'vvrjs <rvnfio\a 8t8d<TKv KOI fvtpyi) [MS. dtpyrj] ,li<n- .......

* [928 (iv) a] Philo (i. 499) (on Exod. xxi. 56) speaks of " the un-
enfranchised and naturally-slavish race wherein participates [in Scripture]
the man that says / have loved my master... and my "wife... and my
children..,! will not depart as a free man." The slave ought not thus,
says Philo elsewhere (i. 151-2) to have imitated Laban's language (Gen.
xxxi. 43, "my daughters...///;' sons.../y flocks..."), but to have said "all
things are God's possessions." If a man does not say this, he will "be a
slave for ever," and will "obtain his petition by having his ear bored
through, that he may not receive the divine message concerning freedom
of soul (?a free soul) (vntp (\tv6tpint V' u X') f )-"

3 [928 (iv) o] In answer to the question why the ear was pierced,
R. Jochanan b. Zachai replied: Kiddusch. i. 2 (Schwab ix. 215) "The ear
heard on Mount Sinai the second commandment, Thou shalt have none
other gods before me : in spite of that, it shook off the yoke of divine
worship (le joug du culte divin) and preferred the yoke of man." The
Mishna (Chag. I a) exempts slaves from attendance at the Feasts.

293

[928 (v)] TAKING UP THE CROSS

God is to go forth from the habitations of this world, denying
or renouncing kith and kin, and his very self, as well as
all worldly possessions, calling no one and nothing his own
after the flesh, but receiving back houses and kinsfolk a
hundred-fold, because he receives them back as gifts of God 1 .
In this sense, if Christ bade His disciples take up the yoke,
and follow Him, His meaning would be intelligible to all.

[928 (v)] And this sense might indirectly include the
Christian "cross". For Isaiah is said by a Jewish tradition
to have "taken the kingdom of heaven upon himself" when
he cried to God, " Here am I, send me " exposing himself to
persecution that culminated in martyrdom 1 . Jeremiah con-
nects bearing the yoke with giving one's cheek to the smiter 8 .
Akiba is said to have been taking the yoke on himself in the
moment when he breathed his last under torments, taking it
in a double sense, because he was repeating the S/tcma, or
Creed, with his lips, and also " loving God with his soul, or
life (^VXTJ) (fc?)3)" by giving it up for the glory of His Name*.

1 Mk x. 30, Mt. xix. 29, Lk. xviii. 30.

2 Schottg. (on Mt. xi. 29) quoting Jalkut Sim. part 2, fol. 43 a.

3 Lam. iii. 27 30.

4 [928 (v) ] B. Berach. 61 b transl. thus by Taylor (Aboth, n. on iii.
20) "When 'Aqiba was being led out to execution, it was the time of
reading the Shema 1 , and they were combing his flesh with combs of iron,
and he was receiving upon him the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e.
reciting the Shema'). To his disciples who remonstrate, 'Thus far, thou
hast endured enough': 'all my days (said he) I have been troubled
about this verse: Thou shalt love the Lord. ..with all thy soul, even if
He should take away thy spirit'" (? breath, "inOKO, but Goldschm. gives
v. r. 1PDJ and has "Seele", which Pinner also has). '"When, said I,
will it be in my power to fulfil this? Now that I have the opportunity
shall I not fulfil it ? '"

Even if Akiba was not actually driven to execution under the " yoke "
called by the Romans "furca" (928 (vi)), it is easy to see that Gentiles
might interpret such a narrative literally, and that a Greek narrator of
the story might tell how the scourgers combed the Martyr's flesh while
he "carried his cross". "Comb", <uVa>, is the word regularly used by
Dion. Hal. for "scourging", and in particular for the scourging of a slave

294

TAKIVi I.T Mil; CROSS [928 (vii)]

Thus Jews themselves might regard the "yoke" as sometimes
preparatory for martyrdom. Christian Jews would certainly
preparatory for the martyrdom of the Cross.

[928 (vi)] When the Romans crucified a slave, they
whipped him through the streets to the cross, which was, as a
rule, fixed outside the city. During the whipping, his hands
were stretched out apart from each other, fastened to a yoke,
coLar, or other wooden framework that was placed on, or
round, his neck. Probably remaining attached to this frame-
work, the slave was raised to the cross, and nailed, or bound,
to the latter. The Romans are not alleged ever to have used
the phrase " bear the cross (crux)". But the " bearing of the
yoke (furca)" was so familiar to them that the name "yoke-
bearer (furcifer)" became as proverbial as "gallows-bird" with
us. Suppose, then, that an Apostle preached in the Roman
Church (which was largely composed of slaves) the doctrine
that the Son of God, to redeem mankind, assumed (Philipp.
ii. 7) "the form of a slave," "took upon Himself the yoke"
and bade His servants follow His example ; would not the
Roman converts naturally combine this " bearing of the
yoke" with the historical fact of the crucifixion, and infer the
meaning to be that our Lord became, for man's sake, a
" Furcifer ", a bearer of tJie yoke tJiat led to the cross f

[928 (vii)] The Greek word "yoke", 1/769 (of course
excluding Rev. vi. 5 "balance"), occurs thrice in N.T. (outside
Matthew) meaning (once) literal slavery, and (twice) the
bondage of tlie Jewish Law as opposed to tlu freedom of the
Gospel*. The fear of confusing the yoke of Christ with the

described by Plutarch below (928 (vii) b} as a "furcifer", Dion. Hal. vii.
69 vXo> irpn(r^i]<Tavrts,..ira l )riKo\n\>6ovv ^aivovrtt /uj<rrii....

1 [928 (vii) a] Acts xv. io"Why tempt ye God that ye should place
on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear ? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace
of the Lord Jesus in like manner as they," Gal. v. i "With freedom did
Christ set us free. Stand fast therefore and be not entangled again in a
yoke of bondage."

295

[928 (vii)] TAKING UP THE CROSS

yoke of the Law might prevent Greek Evangelists from
rendering the phrase "take up the yoke" literally, and might
predispose them to accept the identification of "the yoke"
with " the yoke that led to the cross," i.e. with the " furca".
But there was no one Greek term that exactly satisfied the
two conditions of (i) corresponding to the Latin crucificial
" furca", (2) being free from vernacular associations'. Hence
the Greek writers may have adopted the phrase " bear the

1 [928 (vii) b} Plutarch Vit. Coriol. 24, and again, Quaest. Rom. Ixx.
mentioning a historical instance of the flogging of a slave, and taking
occasion to explain the term "furcifer", describes the (povpica (furca]* as
being "what the Greeks call iirtxrrnnjr, o-nj/Myjia" or onjpiy^. Dionys.
Hal. vii. 69 mentioning the same instance, calls it a vXov, plank, or
plank-work, that was fastened round the breast and shoulders.

[928 (vii) c\ Herodotus, using the words (vii. 33) {tavra Trpbs aavi&a
trpoo-dujrao-trdXevo-ai', and then (describing the same act] (ix. 120) o-<m'8<i
irpa(T7ra<r(ra\(v(ravTts uvdcptfjuuTav, perhaps implies that the man was first
nailed to the o-cu-iV, and then the o-avis was nailed to a stake or tree.
Plutarch's expression ( Vit. Pericl. 28) cravivi irpov^aat i<p' tjp.fpns 3'a
(of sufferers who are said to have been afterwards beaten to death) shews
that " binding to the <ram," like the nailing to the vavis in Herodotus,
might be briefly used for "crucifying". In Aristoph. Thesm. 931-40, a
man who is to be bound by a policeman "/ the o-avis" (afterwards * to
the aravis") begs that he may not ''feed the crows'" in the garments he is
wearing which shews that he regards the binding /'// (or to) the aavis as
preliminary to exposure on some elevated place where he will be left to
die without receiving burial.

[928 (vii) d] Eusebius (viii. 8. i) describes martyrs crucified and
dying of hunger "on the very planks (V avruv licpiuv)" and Lipsius
(De Cruce, p. 101) quotes an ancient anonymous writer who says that the
Jews nailed the Saviour \pt&>.

[928 (vii) e] We have seen (928 (vii) b) that Plutarch calls the "furca"
a vTTjpiyg. Hesychius says concerning <rrrjptyyfs that some apply the
term to the SiKpow, "fork, placed under the yoke of the chariot" (when
the horses are unharnessed) (where Lipsius (p. 68) would read pv/io> for
fv-yw). Lipsius whose facts and arguments have not been appreciated
by Zockler also quotes (p. 63) " Glossae veteres. Furcifer, <rravpo-
KOfMKrros, 8iKpavo(p6pos," translating the Greek "qui patibulum fert, qui
furcam." Even if oravpoicopuTTos should mean " conveyed to the cross,"
the gloss indicates how naturally people might say that the "furcifer"
"conveyed his cross": but if Lipsius is right, this is a case where a man

296

TAKING UP THE CROSS [928(viiij]

cross" (instead of " bear the yoke, or collar, or plank', or fork,
or cross-piece"} although in fact the actual "cross" was seldom
"borne".

[928 (viii)] If these conclusions are correct we may infer
that one reason why John never puts the word "cross" into
our Lord's mouth is, that He never used it. Another reason
may have been that the word seemed to give undue promi-
nence to the exceptional suffering of a Martyr, and did not
give due prominence to the aspect of continuous service.
Luke, indeed, brings in the continuousness by adding the
phrase (ix. 23) "daily", and this was of use in making readers
think about the essence of the metaphor : but still, the aspect

conveying the Latin "yoke" was said in Greek to be conveying his
" cross ".

[928 (vii)/] Hesychius says, SavtV. dvpa. XfvKvpa iv J at ypa<pa\
Adr)VT)<rtv fypafpovro Trpos TOVS icaicovpyovs. -KOcrai 8i Kal lirl row ravpov.
It is generally agreed that o-ravpov should be substituted for ravpov.
But Alberti takes the meaning to be "a tablet placed on the cross"
("respicitur ad Joann. xix. ig...(6^n(v tirl rov (rravpov"). More prob.
ridfrai tirl signifies " applied to", i.e. "is used to mean" Comp. ib. ii.
1082 TO p.tv yap B6/i/Sa TtOtrai Kal 4irl (T^frXia<r/zoi5 Kal (iri -yt'XwTosr, ib. ii.
728 OiVaioi TT)V \apa8pav. irapoipia TiOcp^vr) lir\ TU>V... (also ib. ii. I2O6
cricAos, TCUra-crcu iir\ TOV (popriKov, and ii. 277 K\T)i8es, Ta<rerTai 8i ^irl TOW
av6pa>ir(Lov pfpovs). If so, Hesychius means that the word a-avis, though
strictly signifying the whipping-collar of plank-work that was preliminary
to the cross, is sometimes used to signify the stake, or the cross as a whole,
or to indicate crucifixion (as it does in Herodotus and Aristophanes).

[928 (vii) g] Deut. xxi. 22 describes "hanging" (!"6n) on a "tree"
0*1?) (which may mean "stake"). Onk. .uses 3?V for " hang ", and says
"Thou shalt hang him on a hanging-post (N2^)." But Jer. Targ.
substitutes for "hanging-post" a word meaning "plank-work", KD'p.
The same three words occur in Gen. xl. 19 Bib. "tree", Onk. "hanging-
post", Jer. " plank-work". This indicates that in Hebrew, as well as in
Greek and Latin, there may have been a confusion between two words
meaning quite distinct things (i) the stake, or cross, which was rarely or
never borne by the condemned, (2) the plank-work, called by many
different names, which was regularly borne to the cross by slaves that
were to be crucified. The " bearing " of this "plank-work " appears to
have been sometimes called "bearing the cross".

297

[928 (ix)] TAKING UP THE CROSS

of service, as a condition for entrance into the Kingdom, was
somewhat subordinated in the Gospels, until the Fourth
Evangelist introduced "the washing of feet" as a kind of
sacramental type of " taking up the yoke of the Kingdom
of Heaven."

[928 (ix)] If we admit that " Take the yoke" meant
originally " Take the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven," and,
in our Lord's lips, " Serve the Father by serving His children,"
and if we add, hypothctically, that it may have been confused
with " taking up the cross" then it may be shewn that there is
a parallelism between the Synoptists and John in the words
of Christ that severally precede the Voice at the Transfigu-
ration and the Johannine Voice from Heaven.

[928 (x)] In the Synoptists, the warning is that a man
desiring to come after Jesus must " deny himself and take n/>
the cross and follow" Him ; and the Double Tradition adds
that he must not be prevented by love of wife or children,
nay, according to Luke, that he must " hate" them, and even
" hate his own life (^fv-^v}" But how perplexing must these
words have been for a Jewish listener : " If I desire to ' come
after,' then I must ' follow ' ! And I am to hate my wife and
children ! And I am to take up the torturing cross of Rome !
What" he might well ask "does all this mean?" John
suggests a new meaning thus : (xii. 24) " Except the grain of
wheat... die, it abideth by itself alone : but, if it die, it beareth
much fruit. He that loveth his life loseth it, and he that
hateth his life (^fv^v) in (his world shall preserve it for life
(&TIV) eternal. If any man would serve me, let him follow
me" i.e. " If any man would take my yoke upon him, let him
cast off the world's yoke, dying to the servitude of the flesh
that he may live in the freedom of the Spirit." This he
explains by describing the Lord as washing the feet of the
disciples like a servant, and as bidding them do the same for
one another. Later on, it is shewn that this yoke may lead to
persecution, i.e. the cross, (xv. 20) " The servant is not greater

298

TAKING UP THE CROSS [028 (x)]

than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also \-r-
ite you." Hut still the "yoke" is not "the cross". The
yoke means "serving" as Christ "served" 1 .

1 [928(x)<f] Zestermann's treatise on the Cross (Leipzig, Parts I. and
ii., 1867-8) contains an extremely valuable and impartial collection of
fully quoted passages from ancient authors : but his conclusions are not
(.qu.illy valuable. He (ll. p. 5) mistranslates (928(vii)r) Herod, ix. 120
o-aviSa irpo<nra<r<raXua-avT, "einen vierkantigen Pfahl mit Pflocken (senk-
rn-lit iiu Hoden) befestigt hatten " ; he (I. p. 14) merely refers to the
Schol. on (928(vii)t-) Aristoph. Thesntoph. 940, and does not see that the
passage implies crucifixion ; he dissents from Lipsius' interpretation of
(I. p. 20) (928 (vii)d) Dion. Hal. vii. 64 (69); he rejects the evidence of
some ancient writers on the ground that they named the instrument of
punishment (ib. p. 21) "in an arbitrary way (willkiirlich)"; he quotes
(ll. p. 29) the evidence of Christian writers as to "bearing the cross",
failing to perceive that such writers would naturally follow the language
of the Gospels. Zockler adopts Zestermann's mistranslations and errors
without imitating his impartiality and ampleness of quotation.

[928 (x)] Zestermann (I. p. 14) quotes Hesych. 'lcpoi>, aavibvpa ^
t'X<>' iv co of KiiKovpyot COIT<H, and adds Lipsius' conj. fituvrai. But
Alberti suggests fcaivovrai (which might be written iovT<u) an almost
certain emendation (see 928(v)rt for aiVo>, "scourge"). Alb. also quotes
Cyrill. Lex. MS. Voss. liepiov. trravpos, (povpica, v\ov, iv iL of KaKoCpyot
Kptpavrai, which interchanges <povp*a and <rruvp6s.

[928(x)<r] The upright and massive stake of the cross at least 13 ft.
long, and higher for distinguished criminals, allowing 3 or 4 ft. in the
ground to resist pressure of ladder, strain of hoisting &c. could not be
borne by the condemned alone without retarding, if not stopping, the
procession, by its weight and swaying. In exceptional cases, where a
cross had not been erected beforehand, it might perhaps (Lk. xxiii. 26)
be laid on two men. But the conclusion remains unshaken that it was
not a Roman custom to bear the cross, but only to bear the patibulum y
furca, or "yoke".

[928(x)</] Of course, the Jews were familiar with crucifixion, as a
heathen punishment, and there was precedent for it (Joseph. Bell. i. 4. 6)
even under a Jewish ruler. But the precedent was thought (ib.) "impious".
The fact remains that, in the mouth of a Galilaean A.D. 30, " Prepare to
be crucified " would mean, *' Prepare to be punishfd by Rome." See
Index II,

299

CHAPTER II

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

I. Tlie Synoptic versions and their meanings

[929] FROM the consideration of Christ's " exceeding
sorrow ", or " trouble ", we pass to the prayer called forth by
that sorrow or trouble. According to Mark unless the first
utterance about " the hour " and the " cup " is to be regarded
as two prayers Jesus offers up one prayer and probably (see
932 a) repeats it once. According to Matthew, He utters two
distinct prayers at different times, and repeats the second, so as
to justify Matthew in saying, as he alone says, that Jesus
"prayed t)ie third time 1 " All these distinctions disappear in
Luke. So they do in John ; who represents Jesus as rejecting
one prayer, and adopting another, but not as uttering two
different prayers.

[930] Mark, alone of the Synoptists, mentions " hour " as
well as "cup". John mentions " liour" here, but "cup" much
later on, in the moment of the arrest and there, not in
a prayer but in words accepting the cup from the Father.

[931] These differences will be discussed further on ; but
there are so many difficulties in the text that the first step

1 [929 a] The parallel Mk also mentions "third time", but quite
differently (" came the third time" no mention being made of " praying ").

300

niKisrs ONE PRAYER

[931]

must be to ascertain the exact meanings of the words in the
lour accounts, which are as follows :

(i) The first Synoptic form

Mk xiv. 35-6 (lit.)
"He prayed in
order that, if it is
[indeed] 1 possible,
there might pass
from him the hour:
and he said, Abba,
Father, all things
are possible to thee 8 .
Cause -to -pass 4 this
cup from me. But
[it is] not [the ques-

Mt. xxvi. 39 (lit.)
"...praying and
saying, My Father,
if it is [indeed] 1
possible, let-there-
pass 4 from me this
cup. Only, [it is]

Lk. xxii. 42 (lit.)
"He prayed, say-
ing, Father, if thou
dost so purpose 8 ,
cause -to -pass 4 this
cup from me. Only

1 [931 a] "Is [indeed]". Unless a writer wishes to emphasize "is",
it is omitted in Gk as in Eng. (" if possible "). The insertion " is " shews
the meaning to be " if it is indeed possible " although there is a difficulty
(at all events on the surface) in combining this with "all things are
possible," which Mk alone has.

[931 b] D (lit.) "he prayed if it is [indeed} possible that...," w/wHnjvxfro
< Swarov t<mv tva.... In Hebraic Greek, this might mean "[saying]
Is it really possible that...?" implying "It is not possible." Comp.
Mk viii. 12 &o0T)o-tTu ; lit. "If there shall be given?" where Mt. xvi. 4,
Lk. xi. 29 have " There shall not be given.''

- [931 c\ " Purpose", /3ov\, implying a combination of "desire" and
" plan ".

3 [931 d} Mk xiv. 36, SS " all things are possible in thy hands," which
suggests an original "all things are in thy hands" conflated as
"possible".

4 [931 e] Mk-Lk. "Cause-to-pass (rapW-y<c)," Mt. "Let-there-pass
(rapA0aT<o)." It is certain that Mark, or his editor, regards 7rapa<p'p
as meaning "cause to pass" here, since he adds ''from me" (and so Lk.).
But rrapatypw, when used with "food", "meat", "cups", "dish" &c.,
regularly means "serve up>\ "lay before (a guest}" "present". Possibly
Mk is in error (see below 975-7). Mt. substitutes a word about which
there is no ambiguity. R.V. has "remove" for "cause-to-pass".

301

[931] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

Mk xiv. 35-36 (lit.) Mt. xxvi. 39 (lit.) Lk. xxii. 42 (lit.)

tion] what 1 I will not' as I will but not my will but thine
but what thou." as thou." be done 8 ."

1 [931 /] The instances in which rig, ri, "who?" "what?" have been
alleged to be used for or, o "(he) who", "(that) which", appear either
probably corrupt, or capable of interrogative rendering, e.g. Sir. vi. 34
''Who is wise? Cleave unto him," i.e. "Can you find a wise man?
Then do not let him go." So Ath. x. 438 E ran r\ rv\r\ Owo-i X(i,3<Yo>
(quoted by Swete ad loc. from Blass) may be rendered, " To whom does
fortune give [her gifts]? Let him take them." In Lev. xxi. 17 "A man
of thy seed...Mrf/ ("C'N) hath a blemish," <ivdpo>irof...vp>t> rivi iav ?/ iv
alria p.>pos, may well be corr. for vfuoomvi, i.e. \>p.>v iamvi. In Deut.
xxix. 1 8, "lest there be any man... or tribe, whose pC'N) heart," P.T) ris
(<rrw...fi <vXi7, rivot fj Kuivma, the negative pr) (if it has not dropped after
-?/) may be intended to be repeated before TWOS (according to Hebrew
idiom) ("lest there be any man or woman. ..or tribe, [lest, / say] any
man's heart").

[931^] In Judg. ix. 48 (R.V.) ''What ye have seen me do...," and
elsewhere, R.V. gives a relative, but Gesen. (553 a) an interrogative
rendering. The same variation is shewn in Judg. ix. 48 by LXX (o) and
A (ri). The latter is the more exact.

[931 /] In any case, this use of the interrogative for the relative is
confined to instances where the afrodosis is expressed^ e.g. " What thou
wilt (or, wilt thou?) I will do (or, do //)." But in Mk xiv. 36 /'/ is not
expressed. Moreover, this use is not at present attested in Greek of Mk's
period. Consequently we are bound to assume that in Mk the meaning
is interrogative, if it makes sense. And it makes excellent sense. Prof.
Swete says, "We may paraphrase: ' However the question is not (ot>, not
fjiT)) what is My will'." But this is not a paraphrase. It is an exact
translation. The R.V. "Not what I will" is doubly wrong, ist, because
"not" in such an English clause would mean "let it not be" (which is
incompatible with the Gk oi), 2nd, because "what", in such an English
clause, would mean " that which " (which is incompatible with the
Gk ri).

[931 /] Matthew altered Mark's interrogative into "as", but omitted
to alter the ov to p.f). Hence Mt. xxvi. 39 is rendered above "only [// is]
not as I will." Perhaps Matthew wished his words to be taken as
meaning "[it is] not [to be arranged] as 1 will." In any case the words
cannot express a wish. See below (1009 foil.).

2 [931 /] D alters the order, "Father, not my will but thine be done.
If thou dost so purpose, cause-to-pass this cup from me."

302

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

[933]

[932J Mark and Matthew give the following repetitions
<-t' the prayer :

(ii) The second Synoptic form

Mk xiv. 39

" And again having

gone away he prayed

[having said the same

words (lit. word)] 1 ."

Mt. xxvi. 42 (lit.)
"Again a second
time having gone
away he prayed [say-
ing] My Father, if
[it] is not possible
[for] this to pass ex-
cept I drink it, thy
will be done."

Lk. om.

(iii) The third Synoptic form
Mk. om. Mt. xxvi. 44 Lk. om.

"And having left
them again having
gone away he prayed
the third time 2 hav-
ing said the same
word again 5 ."

2. The Joltannine Version

[933] (Jn xii. 27) " Now is my soul troubled. But why
should I say, ' Father save me from this hour ' ? Nay, for
this cause came I, to [meet] this hour. ' Father, glorify thy
name 4 .'"

1 [932 a] Diatessaron and D omit the words bracketed by W.H.
Probably they are genuine, and omitted for the sake of harmonizing Mk
and Mt. (see below 949 foil.).

- [932^] D omits "the third time" (prob. in order to harmonize Mk
and Mt.).

3 [932 c\ "The same word again": Diatess. om. "again", and W.H.
marg. connects it with the following verse. SS has, "left them, and
went to pray the third time, and again he spake the same way."

1 [933 a\ Jn xii. 27 v\tv ^ V^X 1 ? M ov TtrdpaKTw KOI T

303

[933] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

Here, John mentions only the "hour". Later on, he
mentions the "cup", but in a context entirely different from
that of the Synoptists, and in an extraordinary construction
to which the commentators have found no parallel in classical
Greek literature except in an exclamatory instance from
Epictetus, which, being in the 3rd person, is no real parallel.
Very few instances occur in the LXX 1 .

(Jn xviii. 1 1) " Put [back] the sword into the sheath. The
cup that the Father hath given me, / am of course (or,
according to thy will) not to drink tt*f"

o-axrov p( (K rijs (Spas TOVTTJS ; d\\a tola TOVTO fj\6ov (Is TTJV eSpav ravrrjv ndrtp,

8oa<rdi/ a-ov TO ovofui. For Km' = "but", see 937. For ri^^wkyf" as
being more probable than "what?" see 938-40. It is, of course, not a
question for information, but equivalent to " How could I possibly say ?"

1 [933^] Epict. iii. 22. 33 introduces Agamemnon lamenting because
his poor Greeks "are going to die, slaughtered by the Trojans." The
Stoic replies, " But if the Trojans do not kill them, then [according to
you] they cannot possibly die (&v d' avrovs ol Tpatts ^17 diroKTdixao-iv, ov
P.TI diroddwai) [i.e. they are insured against death for ever] ! " The king's
answer is, " Yes [they will die] but not all at one blow."

[933 <:] In Ruth iii. i ("Shall I not (K^H) seek rest for thee"), ov w
(rjTrjo-ta perhaps means, "[According to thy will] I am not to [discharge
the duty of a mother toward thee and] seek rest for thee!" Lk. xviii. 7
" But God will not take vengeance for his elect (6 d 0fbs ov ^17 '<c-
8iKT]o-T])\" is the only instance alleged from N.T. The context seems to
give it an antithetical meaning, "The unjust judge takes action and
God [forsooth] will not take action!" In i S. xx. 12, according to A.V.
(and perhaps according to LXX) ov ^17 depends upon an implied "if".
In 2 S. ii. 26, Nehem. ii. 3, Rev. xv. 4, the interrogative force depends
severally (not on ov ^ but) on a contextual tats irort; oia ri; and ris.

2 [933df] Jn xviii. II BaXr TJJI/ fid^aipav fir rrjv 6r)K.i)v TO rrorrjpiov &
b(8d)K(v fj.ni 6 naTTjp <>v p.f] rria> avro; The two best Latin MSS, a and b,
render it " Thou dost not wish me (non vis) to drink it," as though Peter's
action implied " Thou shalt not (ov /zj) drink the cup " and our Lord
repeats " Shall not drink the cup that the Father hath given me ! "
Somewhat similarly, in answer to requests, " do this ", the answer is
"I am to do this!" (i.e. "You would have me do this unreasonable
thing !") in the literal rendering of 2 S. xi. ii "The ark and Israel abide
in tents. ..and [according to thy will] f am to go to my house/" 2 S. xv. 20
"Thy coming is but yesterday... and [according to thy will] I am to make
thee an exile!"

304

CHRIST'S ONI: PRAYER [934]

[934] Before proceeding to state the reasons for adopting
tin- above rendering of the Prayer about the " hour", attention

[933 <] It is natural, at first sight, to suspect Jn's text to be corrupt,
and it is easy to suggest plausible emendations. For example, the
original mi^lu be "The cup that my (/*ov) Father hath given me, um
/<>/(?) to (p-ff) drink it? (TO irurrjpiov ft d(fio>KV p.i>i <> irarrjp p,ov p.f) irio>
HI'TII;)" By dropping p. in /iov, this might have been corrupted into the
present text, ov p.ff. But is it likely that p.f) iriut would be used by John
to mean "Am I not to drink?" And does pj ever mean nonnet

[933 /] Compare Plato Rep. 335 C 'AvOpuirovs 8L..pf) OVTU> <pap.(v
fJ\itirTop.f'i><ivs...xtipovs yiyvtaQat; where Jannaris has simply (1813) py
OITU <t><apu> ; " shall we not say so ?" In view of the freq. use (see below)
of pf}-<pS)ptv ; "are we to deny?" possibly (despite the intervening ovra
and the answering (979 c) iruw piv ovv) the meaning is " But as to men
after asserting above that horses and dogs become worse by being hurt
are -we to deny (p.i} <pap.tv)...?" According to this view p.ff (f>vpa> implies
i previous (po>ptv and is to be taken as a negative verb p,r)-<f><ap,fv equi-
valent to dpi>T)o-<ap.t6a. This would apply to several of the instances
collected by Stallbaum on Plat. Rep. vin. 7, 552 E (Mi) ovv oiu>p.t6a (vulg.
oo/i*0a); where D. and V. have ''Is it or is it not our opinion?" and where
the sense may be influenced by what precedes " Since this is the case are
we (lit.) to not-suppose, i.e. to be precluded from supposing?"). Stallbaum's
instances (see also Goodwin, Syntax, 293) are as follows (but I quote the
text more fully and omit Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 36 p.i)8(, as I am dealing with /iij) :

Sophist, p. 249 A 'AXXa vovv piv tx f ^t Cw?" # M <f>>pfi>; Sophist.
p. 256 C fy>a T&V fjLtv rpiutv (Tfpov avrr^v <pr)<rop.(v fivat, TOV fie r<rprou
pfj (patp.fi>, op.o\oyrj(ravT(s avru (tvat irivrt^ irtpi if cai iv ols irpov6tp.(6a
ffKont'iv; Hipp. Mai. p. 303 A 4>a>/if ovv dp.<p6r(pa ptv icaXa ttviu,
(KUTfpov 8f p.fj <pu>p.(i'; Xen. Mem. I. 2. 45 irdrrtpov ftiav (p<ap.(i>, r) ft,})
(p<t>p.(v (Iv (it; Legg. IX. p. 858 C-D Hartpov ovv rols piv rotv TXXi>
<Tvyypdp.p.a(Tt...irpo<r(xft.tv TOV vovv, TOIS 8( riav vopoStTutv p.tj n-po<T(^<ap.(v ;
17 iravTutv fjuiXurru; Rep. I. p. 337 B M 1 ? anoicpiv<t>p.ai lav Trpotlms p,r)8iv ;

(this may mean "Am I really to be precluded from answering?" so D.
and V. "Am I to be precluded?"). Rep. vin. p. 5548 rofl* 5< o-Kuirti

Kr)<pr)va>o'(is f'nidvp.ias t'v aiVo> dia rfjv dnaiSfvalav pr) (pcafjuv tyyivto'dai, rag
p.v rrT(M>xt*dt, rar 8< KOKovpyovs... ; (in quoting this, Stallbaum omits
o-niiirti which, with different punctuation (as to which Stallbaum himself
varies), might influence the construction. But the text, as it stands, may
be rendered " A re we to deny ? "). See 979 c.

[933 (/] Jannaris (1813) quotes Demosth. 21, 35 6 rotoOror /*>/ doi oi*r)v;
without note of various reading. But Jannaris omits irartpa (which makes
all the difference). The text runs as follows, 6 TOWVTOS v6rpa /-/ f>u> ota
TOVTO oi*r)v f) Ktiv ptifa ooirj ducmair ; tyu> p.fv ot/iat p.dfa, "Can it be that

A. 305 20

[934]

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

must be called to the Synoptic use of the very same Greek
words as those in John (ov /XT; Wa>), only in a context so
different that they must be rendered in the ordinary way,
" / will surely not drink!'

Mk. xiv. 25 (lit.)

"Verily I say unto
you that no longer
surely will I (lit.)
not drink from the
fruit of the vine until
that day when I drink
it new in the king-
dom of God."

Mt. xxvi. 29

" But I say unto
you, / will surely
not drink from this
moment from this
fruit of thevine until
that day when I
drink it new with
you in the kingdom

Lk. xxii. 1 8

" For I say unto
you, / will surely not
drink from the pre-
sent time from the
fruit of thevine until
the kingdom of God
come."

of my Father."

The strong Greek negation " / will surely not " is never
used by Christ about Himself in the Synoptic Gospels except in
this passage*. It is only used in John here and in one other

such a rascal is to avoid Paying any penalty at all, or should he justly
pay a greater one? I think, greater." In theory, a quasi-affirmative inter-
rogative (if} with the subjunctive might correspond to a quasi-affirmative
interrogative ov with the indicative. But in practice the usage seems
non-existent, because nf) = d privative. See 979 c. (In Xen. Oec. iv. 4 Upa
/xr; al(Txw0a>n( v ; the interrogative means "numf").

[933 A] (i) In Biblical Greek, interrogative M appears to be quasi-
negative in Judg. ix. 9, 1 1, 13 (A) "Am I bound to go?" ^ imp* vdS> ; (LXX
irop(v(Top.at) implying that the speaker is not bound. In Mk xii. 15, btaptv
fj HT) 8<ap.fv ; pr) should certainly be taken as part of a negative verb,
fjiT)-8Sip.fv, and the question is implied by the preceding "Are we to give
or ," so that pi)-&S>ptv means simply "refrain-from-giving".

[933 /'] (2) The emendation suggested in 933 e is improbable because
/w, "my", would be more likely to be inserted after " Father" (as it is
by some MSS. in Jn viii. 38, xv. 10) than to be corrupted into ou, especially
since ov introduces an almost unprecedented construction.

[933 y] (3) It will be noticed (934), that <>\> /xij n-iw occurs also in the
Synoptic account of the night before the Crucifixion. This, of itself, gives
good grounds for thinking that Jn is putting a new interpretation upon
an old tradition, and that his text, though extremely difficult, is not
corrupt.

1 Luke, however, uses it twice here (Lk. xxii. 16 18) " I will surely not
eat... I will surely not drink."

306

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [938]

passage 1 . This being the case, it is difficult to resist the
conclusion that when the four Evangelists agree in applying
this rare negation to the "drinking of the cup," they are all
ivu-rrmg to the same original, differently interpreted. The
Synoptists take the phrase negatively, " I will surely not drink
from this (or, tlie) fruit of tlie vine" John if his difficult
text is genuine, as it probably is appears to have taken it
as an affirmative, implied under a negative, referring to the
"cup" of Messianic suffering, and conveying a remonstrance
to the disciples : " Put up the sword [and conform to the
divine Will. If ye have your will] / am not to drink tlie cup
tlie Father hath given me ! "

[935] If this explanation is right, we are just now in the
province of Greek tradition ; for the facts indicate divergent
renderings of one and the same Greek original. This the
Synoptists seem to have interpreted according to the ordinary
rules of Greek syntax and to have amplified so as to make
sense ; but John appears to have regarded it as a fervid
utterance, not indeed ungrammatical, and not requiring
much amplification, but needing in the interpreter a mind
in sympathy with the intense devotion of the Son to the will
of the Father.

[936] John may be wrong, and the Synoptists right.
But in any case this comparison of their language about the
"cup" has an important bearing on the prayer about the
"hour"; for John's divergence as to the former prepares us
for his divergence as to the latter. And the fact that John's
tradition about the " cup " is obscure, abrupt, and liable to be
misinterpreted in a sense exactly opposite to the one intended,
should prevent us from being surprised at the recurrence of
the same phenomena in his version of the prayer about the
" hour". Indeed it appears as though the Evangelist, knowing
that Christ's utterances at this stage had been divergently
and erroneously reported, wished to place before his readers

1 Jn vi. 37 v M"7 <K|3uAa> <<>>.

307 202

[937] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

such an account of the matter as might explain how the
divergence arose. He almost seems to say, in effect, " The
three words that the old Evangelists record, I also record :
but the true context gives them an altogether new meaning."

[937] We return to the words before the prayer. These,
as we contend, ought to be rendered, " Now is my soul
troubled. But (tcai) why should I say, ' Father, save me from
this hour'?"

The first point to be noted is that the Greek "and" has
here the meaning of "but". So it has elsewhere in John,
e.g. " Did not Moses give you the Law ? But (or, and yet)
none of you doeth the Law," "And ye will leave me alone.
But (or, and yet) I am not alone 1 ." In both these passages
R.V. has "and [yet]" (correctly following A.V.) ; and it would
have done well to follow A.V. elsewhere, e.g. " They sought to
seize him, but (so A.V., but R.V. and) none laid hands on
him," " Ye say that he is your God, yet (so A.V., but R.V. and)
ye have not known him'." The truth is that John often uses
"and" as in Hebrew; where the same particle (vaw) may
mean "and" or "but"*, and the reader must choose between
them. So here, we might adopt " and " : but, if we did, we
should have to paraphrase thus, " Now is my soul receiving
[the] trouble [appointed by the Father]* \ and [that being the case]
how could I possibly ask that it should be removed ? " But the
simplest connection is, "Now is my soul troubled: but [in spite
of the trouble] how could I ask to be saved from my hour?"

[938] The next question is whether ri should be rendered
"why" or "what" in the sentence " Why (or, what) should

1 Jn vii. 19, xvi. 32.

2 Jn vii. 30, viii. 55.

3 [937 a] In O.T., the A.V. "a,ut" is changed by R.V. into "/", in
Gen. xv. 15, xxxvii. 22, xliv. 17, 1. 24, Exod. ix. 7, 16, xii. 10 &c. In these
passages the LXX mostly has de, but in Exod. ix. 16 KOI, as also in Lev.
xiv. 8, Numb. xi. 25 &c.

4 [937 b] For the Johannine view about "trouble", as being accepted
by the Son in accordance with the Father's will, see 920 foil.

308

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYKK [939]

I my, -Father, save me'?" The rendering "why" is in
accordance with the rule that when a transitive verb of
>[uech is followed by the words spoken, these words are
the object of the verb. But, in the present instance, by
repeating " should I say?" it is possible to obtain the meaning,
" What should I say ? [Should I say] ' Father, save me ' ? "
In favour, however, of the former (the rendering " Why?")
may be urged both Biblical usage and also accordance with
the Johannine conception of Christ, as follows.

[939] In Hebrew O.T., there are several instances of a
somewhat similar use of "wJterefore?" or "why?" to intro-
duce what ought not to be said, e.g. " Wlierefore should the
heathen say, ' Where is now their God ? ' ? " and " Why sayest
thou, O Jacob, and speakest thou, O Israel, ' My way is hid
from the Lord 1 '?" On the other hand, there is perhaps no
instance in the whole of O.T. where a speaker says " What
should I say ? '[Should I say] this or that*"* " Such a question
would denote a distraction of mind with which we are familiar
in Greek and English drama. But it is certainly not Hebraic,
whereas the expression of the negative by the interrogative
permeates Hebrew literature. A special instance was given
above (918) from the refrain of the 42nd Psalm, " Why
art thou disquieted, O my soul ? " and it was shewn that
Mark has probably used the language of that refrain in
introducing Christ's prayer, and has missed the Psalmist's
meaning by missing the negative force of the Hebraic inter-

1 "Wherefore &c.", Ps. Ixxix. 10, cxv. 2, Joel ii. 17, "Why sayest thou
&c.," Is. xl. 27.

* [939 a] In classical Gk, nuts \tynt; iri>t tliras are as common as the
English "How say you?", in the sense "What say you?" But Jn xiv. 9
irS>t av \tytis, Aftop, does not mean "How sayest thou ? [Sayest thou]
Shew us the Father?" but "How cometh it to pass that thou [my disciple,
bound to know better] sayest, Shew us the Father?"

In Mk ii. 24 ?8 T< iroiovtriv seems, from a glance at the words by
themselves, to mean, " See what they are doing," but is shewn, by what
follows, to mean, "See! Why are they doing...?"

309

[940] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

rogative. If so, there is all the more reason why John should
use the Hebraic construction here in such a way as to indicate
indirectly the source of Mark's error 1 .

[940] A still more cogent reason for accepting the ren-
dering " Why should I say?" and for rejecting " What should
I say?" is that, whereas the former, in accordance with
Hebrew thought, amounts to a vehement negation, and im-
plies no kind of doubt or oscillation, the latter exhibits the
Lord who is in the Fourth Gospel the omniscient Logos
as asking a question for information about the course He
is to pursue, or the words He is to utter. That, in itself, is
highly improbable. Still more improbable is it that this
question should be immediately answered by Himself in the
wrong way by a prayer that He, as it were, puts before the
throne of God interrogatively and then rejects (" Shall I say
Save me from this hour? "). Most improbable of all is it that
He should actually make His first prayer to God a petition

1 [939 />] It may be asked, " If John meant 'whyf could he not have
made his meaning clear by using Ivn TI, or dt<i T?" The former he never
uses. The latter he always uses with a negative, "Why did ye not bring
him?" "Why do ye not understand my speech?" "Why do ye not
believe me?" "Why was not this ointment sold?" "Why cannot
I follow thee now?" (Jn vii. 45, viii. 43, 46, xii. 5, xiii. 37).

[939 <:] Moreover anyone who has taken the trouble to construct a
Johannine Grammar for himself, or even to give a moderate amount of
careful study to his style, must be aware that John does not dislike
ambiguity. Perhaps he often thought it preferable to a precision that
stereotyped one meaning as certain whereas two or more meanings were
possible. A glance at the margin of R.V. will shew that in spite of
John's use of easy words, short sentences, and apparently simple con-
structions there are more ambiguities in the Fourth Gospel than in all
the Three together.

[939 rf] Epiphanius (i. 784 D, Haer. Ixix. 58) is obscure; but, after
quoting the words ri tinu &c., he says that they are uttered irpoKara-
(TKfvatmicoas and tVa/i^t/SoXwr, and he supplies, before aXXd, the words
Tot), fao-i, (1ir<a, apparently meaning "'CoitM I possibly say this ?' says
He ' Nay, for this cause I came (leg. fi\6ov for fafffv)...'." See the next
note.

310

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [040]

for Himself and for His own safety (" What ought I to say ? "
[J \IHSC for reflection} " [/ say\ Father, bring me safe out of
this hour") a supposition surely incompatible with the
character of Christ, not to speak of the Johannine concep-
tion of it 1 .

1 [940 ti] Westcott (ad loc.} defends the rendering "bring me safe out
of the hour," on the ground that e<c means "out of". But (a) Ps. lix. I 2
cruxrov K, 'Xou (K, pi am *K, may mean, not " Bring me safe out after
1 have fallen in" but " Save me [by keeping te] out (of the hands of my
enemies who surround me)"; and surely (b~) Jn xvii. 15, "keep them out
of () the evil [one]," does not mean that the Apostles were at present
"/"the "evil (one)". Compare also 2 S. xxii. 4 (Ps. xviii. 3) "saved
from mine enemies," where LXX has '<, but Luc. an-o. (c) Westcott's
renderings of aXX, as italicized by me in the following sentences:
" Bring me safe out of the hour. Nay, this I need not say: the end is
known" "Nay, this I cannot say, for I came to sustain it," would perhaps
require elXXu ydp : but in any case they are open to the grave objection
that they make the Messiah say what He confesses He "need not or
cannot say." Even to a modern writer this would seem improbable.
Philo who says (i. 554) "[The Scripture] does not set down so much
as a single noun superfluously" might have deemed the suggestion
almost blasphemous. John, a Philonian in respect of style, would pro-
bably have been of the same opinion.

[940 ] Perhaps John paraphrased the Synoptic "cause-to-pass" by
"save me", in order to exhibit the absurdity of supposing that the
Saviour, who came (xii. 47) "to save the world" should Himself ask the
Father to "save" Him, on the single occasion on which (up to that time)
He had offered up a prayer.

[940 c] The above (940 a) was written before I had seen Dr Chase's
demonstration (The Lord's Prayer, p. 77) that "the primary distinction
between ' and UTTO, according to which the former applies to dangers
already experienced, the latter to dangers which only threaten, is not
observed in the LXX." Thus Ps. xxxiii. 19 "to deliver their soul from
(tit) death and to keep them alive," Ps. Ivi. 13 "for thou hast delivered
my soul from (tie) death," obviously mean "keep from dying," not,
" raise from the dead." So, too, St Paul (2 Cor. i. 10) " who delivered
us from (R.V. out of) so great a death and will deliver," means deliverance
from falling into "so great a death"; and the same applies to I Thess. i.
10 "who delivereth MS from (') the wrath to come," where Ur Chase
(p. 79) justly observes that the preposition points to "the completeness of
the deliverance."

[940^] As regards Jn xvii. 15 "I ask not that thou shouldst take

[941]

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

3. Some Synoptic divergences, /tow explicable
[941] In order to understand John's difficulty in disen-
tangling the truth, it will be well to glance at some of the
Synoptic divergences in the context, and especially in the
last words uttered by Jesus before the arrival of Judas.
Italics indicate what Luke omits: capitals, what Luke adopts
from Mark.

Mk xiv. 38-43
"'Watch and PRAY,

THAT YE come 1 NOT
INTO TEMPTATION.

The spirit truly is

willing, but "'

[Here follows a se-
cond mention of
" prayer " and two
mentions of coming

Mt. xxvi. 41-47
"'Watch and PR AY,

THAT YE MAY NOT

enter INTO TEMPTA-
TION. The spirit
truly is willing,

but '" [Here

follows a second
and different prayer
given at full length

Lk. xxii. 46-47
" ' Stand - up and

PRAY, THAT YE MAY

NOT enter i NTO

TEMPTATION.'

"While he was
still speaking, be-
hold. ..Judas...."

them from (') the world but that thou shouldst keep them from (*') the
evil [one]," there can hardly be a doubt that John desires to substitute
for Matthew's "deliver us from (<iro) the evil [one]" a prayer that asks
to be completely kept from the dominion of " the evil [one] ", meaning,
" Do not take them completely out of the life of flesh and blood, but
keep them completely out of the life of sin...." Compare I Jn v. 18
" He...keepeth him, and the evil one toucheth him not." Dr Chase says
(p. in) "The conjecture might be hazarded that in the Gospel and
Epistle of St John we have a Johannine form of the clause of the Lord's
Prayer under discussion, in which TT}pi\aov or <pv\aov (comp. 2 Thess.
iii. 3 (frv\d(i (iTTo TOV novqpov) takes the place of pixrai, and the pre-
position tie the place of the diro of the Synoptists." I should be disposed
to regard this as so probable on general grounds that it hardly needs
detailed demonstration.

1 [941 a] "Come", fX&p-f, D VcXdi?rf,- Bobb. "that the temptation
pass-by you (transeat vos)," Macar. p. 53, (a non-Christian is speaking)
"that the temptation may not pass-by us" (irap(\0j), "pass-by", i.e.
"surpass", "outstrip", "conquer"), the text has "you", u/xar, but the
MS. has f)p.as: and the latter must be right, because the heathen says
that the words are " not worthy of a Son of God, nor even of a wise
man." Egypt Expl. Report (1899-1900) mentions a papyrus-book in
which Christ "seems to apply the words of Matth. xxvi. 41 not to the
disciples but to Himself."

312

( IIKISI'S ONE PRAYER

[942]

Mk. \iv. 38-43 Mt. xxvi. 41-47

as above (932) ; then
a coming to "them",
i.e. the disciples;
tliL-n ;i third prayer
and another coming
to "the disciples'"]
"' Behold, the hour
hath drawn near and
the Son of man is
being delivered up
into the hands of
sinners. Rise, let us
be going. Behold, he
that is delivering me
up hath drawn near'
"And, while he was
still speaking, be-
hold, Judas...."

[942] With this compare Christ's first words to all the
disciples on coming to Gethsemane :

hour hath anne. Be-
hold, the Son of man
is being delivered up
into the hands of
sinners. Rise, let us
be going. Behold, he
that is delivering me
up hath drawn near.'
"And straightway,
while he was still
s|K-aking, there arriv-
eth Judas...."

Mk xiv. 32

"Sit here until I
have prayed."

Lk. xxii. 40

" Pray not to
enter into tempta-
tion."

Mt. xxvi. 36

" Sit where ye are
until I, having gone
away yonder (lit.
there), pray."

and Christ's words to the three selected disciples, omitted by
Luke (w/io makes no mention of any such selection).

Mk xiv. 34 Mt. xxvi. 38

" Abide here and " Abide here and

watch." watch with me."

1 [941*] " Them " (Mk), " the disciples " (Mt.) an important difference,
for the latter suggests all the disciples, whereas "them", in Mk, must
mean those mentioned in Mk xiv. 33, i.e. Peter and his two companions.
In Mt. xxvi. 40, "the disciples" is defined (by " saith unto Peter") as
bemg the three disciples; but confusion might easily arise by omission of
the number,

3'3

[943] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

How are we to account for Luke's omission of the selection
of the three disciples, Peter, James, and John, to whom alone,
according to Mark and Matthew, the injunction is addressed
to pray that they " might not enter into temptation " ? Luke
twice repeats the injunction to " pray ", but represents it as
being addressed to " the disciples " without mention of any
selection.

[943] It is quite impossible that the names "Peter,
James, and John," could be either inserted by Mark, or
omitted by Luke, owing to Hebrew corruption. But, if we
can shew that the three Apostles were called by some
familiar name in the early Church, this may give us a clue.
Now St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians indicates that John
and Peter, together with James the Lord's brother, were called
''pillars" a name often (764^) given to Jewish Rabbis
apparently to distinguish them from the other Apostles. But
the Hebrew "pillar", when thus applied, may be simply a
form of the verb "stand-upright^. Hence Luke's peculiar
phrase (xxii. 46), (lit.) " standing-tip pray ", may have been
his way of rendering a tradition that Jesus commanded " the
Pillars" (i.c. James, John, and Peter), to pray. But, again,
we have seen that Matthew has as a second injunction to
"the pillars" ''watch with me", where Mark omits "with
me". Now both "pillars" (DHIfcy or OHO?), and "standing
up" (DHD^), if the final letter is dropped, become HDJ?, which
means " ivith me ".

[944] In Hebrew literature there is a close connection
between "standing upright" and "praying"; and it was a
saying of the Jews that " standing ", when applied to Abraham
and Phinehas, was the same thing as praying^. Moreover the
attitude was the regular Jewish one for prayer, and it certainly
does seem unlikely that Jesus would have said to the disciples
" Sit,... while I pray." " Sit", in such a context, would imply,

1 Schottg. i. 418.
314

CHRIST'S ONi: I'KAYER [045]

I Jew. (in exhortation not to pray, or, to delay praying, as in
the T.dimul : " The religious anciently used to tarry an hour
[ nit dilating before they began their prayers} : whence was this?
K Joshua Hen Levi saith, ' It was because the Scripture saith,

<.<ed are they who SIT in thy house' R. Joshua Ben Levi
saith also, ' He that prays ought to tarry an hour after prayers:
as it is said, The just shall praise thy name, the ^lpright shall
SIT before thy face : it is necessary, therefore, that he should
stay [meditating] an hour before prayers, and an hour after ;
and the religious anciently used to stay an hour before
prayers, an hour they prayed, and an hour they stayed after
prayers 1 ."

[945] That Mark is in error is all the more probable
because, whereas he and Matthew have " Sit until I have
prayed" the parallel (or what appears to be the parallel) in
Luke has an exhortation to the disciples, "Pray". Mark's
error might possibly arise from a confusion of "sleep" and
" sit ", of which there are several instances in LXX 2 . If so, he
conflated the interrogative "sleep" and the imperative "sit*".
But more probably his error is to be explained somewhat
paradoxically as an erroneous rendering of "stand", in the
following manner. The Hebrew "stand", "iDty has both (i)
a local and (2) a metaphorical meaning. The former (locally)
may mean " stand still", ''remain (where yon are)" i.e. fievci>,
by which it is rendered in the LXX fourteen times: and, in
this sense, it might be paraphrased by Mark as " sit ", which,
in Greek, often means " remain doing nothing ". The latter

1 [944 a] B. Berac. 32 as transl. by Hor. Heb. (on Mt. xxiii. 13)
quoting Ps. Ixxxiv. 4, cxl. 13, where LXX renders "sit" by "dwell",
Koroucb), and so R.V.

* [945 a] i S. iii. 2, xix. 9 (comp. Hos. ii. 18). "Lie down (to sleep}"
= 3De>, "j//" = 3B^. In Prov. vi. 10, "sleep" is conflated as "/" and
"sleep".

s [945*] We have seen above (877) that the Acts of John represents
Jesus as commanding John to "sleep"; but this appears (960) to spring
from Greek corruption.

315

[946] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

(metaphorically) may mean 'stand your ground " ', "persist",
" keep on your guard ", " watch " (e)yp^yopa) by which last
word the LXX renders it in Nehemiah 1 . This may account
for the difference between Mark (who is followed by Mat thru )
and the parallel Luke: "(Mk-Mt) Watch (Lk. Stand up)
and pray that ye enter not into temptation*."

[946] These various meanings of "stand" combined
with what may be called its technical suggestion of "pray-
ing" may very well have produced a multitude of Aramaic
and Greek glosses. Those, for example, who did not take
Luke's view that Jesus commanded the disciples to "pray ", but
thought that He meant them to remain where they were, might
paraphrase the Hebrew "stand" in the margin, by the anti-
thetical Hebrew "sit", so as to indicate that the meaning
precluded " praying ". But unfortunately the word " sit " is so
similar in many forms to the Hebrew word "turn (away)",
" return ", or " repeat " the two being constantly confused in
LXX that this gloss would almost certainly originate a
number of others about Jesus "turning away" (or "depart-
ing") from the disciples and "returning" (or "coming") to
them ; and the same gloss would also facilitate the reception
of the erroneous tradition that Jesus " repeated" His prayer'.

1 [945 c\ Nehem. vii. 3 (A.V.) "standby", (R.V.) " stand [on guard} ",
tyfirjyopovvTwv (NA yptjyopoi/vrw).

2 [945 d] Comp. 13. Megill. 21 a on Deut. ix. 9 "I (lit.) sat on the
mount," and Deut. x. 10 " I (lit.) stood on the mount." (i) One ex-
planation was, that Moses stood while learning and sat while repeating;
(2) another, that he neither sal nor stood, but "bowed down"; (3) an-
other, that "sit" meant "remain" (and so LXX, KaTtyivoprfv) c.
Rodkinson omits (2).

3 [946 a] Since 31^, "(re)turn", means also "return (an answer}",
"reply", the sentence "He turned away and spake according to the
[same] word" which Mark interprets as "He [Jesus] departed and prayed
having said the same word" might be regarded as meaning "He made
reply and spake according to the [same] word." But this, coming after
a prayer of the Son to the Father, might convey to John the meaning
"He [God] made reply according to the [same] word [as the prayer of

316

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [949]

[947J Again, if "stand" may have two totally distinct
meanings, (i) "be steadfast" and (2) " stand ;//" or " rise up",
it is obvious that an ancient precept "Be steadfast and pray,"
when rendered in a later interpretation " Stand up (or rise up)
and pray," might seem to the later interpreter to require an
entirely new context. "Be steadfast" might be merged in
the meaning of watchfulness, and, in that sense, might come
appropriately near the beginning of the Agony ; but " stand
up " (or " rise up ") must come at the very end just before the
arrival of Judas, where indeed Luke places it. Mark, how-
ever, has, in the same place, "Arise, let us be going" without
any mention of praying 1 .

[948] Obviously, the attempt to harmonize or explain
differences is immensely complicated when we find what
seem to have originally been the same words, reported now,
not only in different language, but also in different order and
context, by the three Evangelists : and it may be impossible
now to ascertain the whole truth. Nevertheless a great point
is gained if we have been able to shew that there is no reason
to suspect Luke's deviation to have been dictated by any
doctrinal or ecclesiastical motive for example, a jealousy of
the " pillar " Apostles felt by some of the partisans of St Paul
since it may be explained, at least in one important point,
upon the hypothesis of Hebrew corruption. Having made
this concession to Luke, we shall be prepared, on equal
evidence, to make it to John.

[949] Next, why does Luke omit Christ's second prayer
(as given by Matthew), and the statement that He prayed

Jesus]," that is to say, when the Son said " Glorify ", the Father made
reply "I will glorify".

1 [947 a] John has (xiv. 31) "Arise, let us be going hence," at an
earlier point in the narrative. But if the coming of Judtis is to be
regarded as the coming of one who represents (Lk. xxii. 53) "the power
of darkness" then there is a certain degree of parallelism between the
Synoptists and John, who says (xiv. 3031) "The prince of the world
cometh.. .arise, let us be going hence."

317

[950] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

twice, or thrice (twice according to Mark, thrice according to
Matthew)? The two earlier Evangelists express the repetition
by saying that Jesus " prayed having said the same word"
The Hebrew language has no exact equivalent of " the same ";
hence Delitzsch renders the phrase in Mark "according to
those words" but in Matthew, not quite consistently, " ac-
cording to this word" (Resch, in his Logia, adopting the
latter). But the sentence " He prayed having said according
to that word" might be a corruption of a sentence in which
the italicized clause occurred in the form "According to thy
(or, His) word" a phrase actually found twice in Luke, once
as an utterance of Mary the mother of Jesus, and once in the
prayer of Simeon; and it occurs repeatedly in the H9th
Psalm. Here, too, it would make excellent sense, implying
absolute accordance with the divine will, the words " be it "
(or "it shall be") being understood. Let us suppose, then,
that the Original had " He prayed having said, ' According to
thy (or, His) word'." This might naturally be paraphrased
as " Thy will be done." But it might also be more literally
rendered, with a slight corruption of the Hebrew, " He prayed
having said according to his [previous] word" i.e. saying the
same words as before. Then the two might be combined as
in Mark and Matthew. Luke might accept the paraphrase
alone, omitting the later tradition about repeating the prayer.
If the above explanation is right, Luke's omission is justifiable.
In any case it is explicable.

[950] Again, " according to thy word " the verb " to be"
being omitted might be taken affirmatively so as to mean
" // is according to thy word," i.e. " this particular matter rests
in thy hands," or " the whole matter, everything, rests with
thee," i.e. " all things are possible to thee."

[951] Another way of interpreting " according to thy
word," would be, "as thou sayest", where "as" might be
expressed, in Greek, by /ta#o>?. Now in Esther vi. 10, "As
thou hast said (THD"!)" is rendered, or corrupted

318

CHRIST'S ONK PRAYER [954]

into, " Thou hast said well (icaXfa)" and only one MS. preserves
the correct "as (/ca0a>?)". And here, in the Acts of John, we
find Jesus saying not indeed to God but to the angel or
mysterious apparition that tempts Him " Thou sayest well

[952] But if "according to thy word" were taken interro-
gatively, it might mean "7> it according to thy word?" or
" If it is according to thy word," i.e. " If it is possible" This
might explain why (i) a highly conflative Gospel, like that of
Mark, combines " if it is according to thy word " with " // is
according to thy word," so as to give the two, "if it is possible
...all things are possible"; (2) Matthew (less conflative) has
only the former of these clauses; (3) Luke, the historian, omits
them both.

[953] Finally, this hypothesis of an original "according
to thy (or, his) word" may throw light on the extraordinary
divergence of the Evangelists as to the last words of Jesus
before the arrest, where Mark and Matthew speak of the
"fulfilling" of "Scriptures", or "Scriptures of the Prophets",
Diatess. " Scriptures which were spoken", while Luke com-
pletely deviates, and John mentions the "fulfilling" of a
"word" of Jesus 1 . These differences might be explained if
"according to the word" was paraphrased as "that the word
might be fulfilled" and if " word " was variously interpreted as
the " word " of the Scriptures, or of the Prophets, or of Jesus.

[954] It happens also that one word for "fulfil", tibfi, is
identical with the first three letters of " angel", (*])fcOD, so
that indeed "im^fc^D (regard being had to the practical
identity of medial and final caph) might be translated " ful-
filled according to the word" or "an angel hath spoken"*

1 Jn xviii. 9.

- [954 a] Comp. Jn xii. 29 "An angel hath spoken to him." Such a
tradition might favour the application to Christ of the prophecy of Hosea
about the "angel" (see 959).

[954*] The N. Heb. XQ*? "why?" might also be confused with 160 ;

[955] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

the same letters, *"Q"1, meaning either "word" or "hath
spoken",

[955] The last point to be considered is the omission and
the insertion, by Mark and Matthew severally, of the follow-
ing, of which Luke inserts nothing.

Mk. xiv. 35 Mt. om. Lk. om.

"...that if it is
possible there might
pass from him the
hour 1 ."

Mk. om. Mt. xxvi. 42 Lk. om.

" My Father, if
this can not possibly
pass except I drink
it, thy will be done."

[956] It may be taken as highly probable that Mark's
"hour" is simply a Western paraphrase of the Jewish term
"<///>"*, an< 3 that Mark is giving, in reported or indirect
speech, the substance of the difficult words that he gives in
the next verse as direct speech. Moreover " t/", in Hebraic
Greek, is frequently used to express a negative. Hence, by
transposing "t/iat", Mark's words might be made to mean
" It is not possible that"; and we have seen above (931 b) that

so that "there is fulfilled the word," 131 *o might be read as
n2nN NO 1 ? "why should-I-say?" as in Jn xii. 27.

1 [955 a\ D has, not Iva , but wpo<n;v^ro tl tovvarov ftrriv iva, which
might mean, in Hebraic Greek, " He prayed saying, Is it possible
that...?"

This, according to a frequent sense of the Hebrew interrogative, might
mean, " It is not possible."

2 [956 a] Also "cup", in Jer. Targ. I and II, on Gen. xl. n foil., is
paraphr. as " vial of wrath ", " cup of retribution ", " cup of death "
(Etheridge, i. 297 300). Here it might be paraphrased as " affliction ",=
(Levy, Ch. ii. 229 b] NnV3y, easily confused with Kmy or Nri3iy = (#. 226 a)
"time". In Latin, "tempus", and in Gk, K<up6s, sometimes mean "titue
of trial".

320

(II KIM "S ONE PRAYER [958]

Codex D actually transposes " that " so as to leave an opening
tor rendering the words thus. Lastly, when Greek translators
\\viv oscillating between " if it is possible" and "it is not
possible," some might combine the two into "if not". By
these stages Mark's words might be converted into " If it is
not possible that there should pass the hour, or cup" which
is very similar to the first part of Matthew's insertion 1 .

4. The Epistle to the Hebreivs, the interpolation in Luke,
and the Acts of John

[957] The Epistle to the Hebrews says (v. 57) "So also
Christ was not glorified by himself in being made high priest,
but by him who said to him, Thou art my Son, this day
liarc I begotten //&r...Who, in the days of his flesh, offered up
entreaties and suppliant-prayers to him that was able to save
him from death, with strong crying and tears, and was heard
from [his] godly fear." The Synoptic tradition nowhere
mentions " tears" as shed by Jesus 2 , and though John says
that Jesus "wept", it is only at the side of the grave where
far from Himself asking to be saved He saves Lazarus from
death. Whence, then, we must ask, did the writer to the
Hebrews derive this too vivid tradition ? Was he simply
exaggerating in order to heighten pathos ? Or was he led by
sound Evangelistic tradition, not known to our Evangelists ?
Or was he misled by prophecy incorporated in some Gospel?

[958] The reader will notice that two clauses are italicized
in the extract from the Epistle. The first (" Thou art..
begotten thcc") has been shewn above (792-7) to have been
probably interpolated in Luke's account of the Baptism from
the Psalms. By analogy, we may be prepared to find that
the second ("crying and tears") was similarly inserted from

1 Mt. xxvi. 42 " If this cannot possibly pass...."

2 [957 <j] Compare, however, Lk. xix. 41 " He... saw the city and wept

over it."

A. 321 21

[959] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

Scripture in some Gospel known to the author of the Epistle.
Now it is generally recognized that, in Luke's account of the
Agony, the words describing an "angel strengthening" Jtsus
are an interpolation. If therefore we can discover any
Scriptural passage, applicable to the Agony, that contains a
mention of (i)an "angel" and " strengthening", and also of
(2) "weeping", this must appear a highly probable source
both of the exaggerated tradition in the Epistle and of the
interpolation in the Gospel.

[959] Such a passage occurs in Hosea, describing Jacob
as wrestling with the Angel (xii. 3 4) "In his manhood he
had power with God : yea, he had power over the angel and
prevailed : he wept and made supplication unto him." Here
the LXX has "And in his sufferings he had strength toward
God, and he Juid strength with (/xera) the angel and was made
powerful : they wept and entreated of me." It seems probable
here that the LXX means "had strength with the aid of [not,
in conflict with} the angel." In any case the verb, " had-
strength (fr<*%tf) M , is the same as that used in Luke, so that
the coincident mention of an "angel" and "strengthening" is
very remarkable: and the words of the Hebrew text, "He
-wept and made supplication" might originate the " strong
crying and tears" in the Epistle to the Hebrews'.

[960] The Acts of John says (6) " Again, once when all
of us His disciples were sleeping in one house at Gennesaret*,

1 [959 a] Possibly also Luke's description of Christ's "intense"
praying may conceal an allusion to the phrase in Hosea " had strength
(or, power) with God." At all events, Delitzsch uses the same Hebrew
to render " strengthen " as applied to the angel and " intense " applied to
prayer (Lk. xxii. 43 inTtviartpov]. This suggests conflation in Lk.

2 [960 a] "In one house at Gennesaret," tit Ttw^traptT iv iv\ Kudtv-
S<Wwi> OIKW. The words " in one house " might possibly be a corruption
of the LXX of Hosea xii. 4, which describes the wrestling in (Heb.)
"Bethel", (LXX) OIKCOCON. In the Acts of John, o and to are freq.
interchanged (e.g. (ib.) cadfvdo>i/ ra> for Ka6(vbovTu>v\ and OIKCOON might
be read as OIKCOCN, and then corrected to OIKOOCNI.

[960 ] "Gennesaret "is rabbinically derived (Enc. Bib.) from "garden"

322

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [981]

I alone under 1 cover of my cloak (in which I had wrapped
myself up) watched what He did. And first I heard Him
>a\ , 'John, do thou sleep 1 .' And thereupon I feigned sleep.
And I saw another like unto Him 8 come down, whom also
I heard saying unto my Lord, 'Jesus, those whom thou hast
chosen do still not believe in thee.' And my Lord said unto
him, 'Thou sayest well, for they are [but] man*'." Perverse
though this tradition certainly is, it can be shewn to be in
part based on facts distorted, and not upon inventions. For
example, the command " Do thou sleep" is a perversion of
" Dost thou sleep?" Out of this there would naturally rise
an explanatory gloss ("he did not sleep but only feigned
sleep"): for how could John have seen what he saw had he
been really sleeping?

[961] The descending figure conversing with Jesus ap-
pears to be the counterpart of the " angel " in Luke. But,
instead of "strengthening", he seems to tempt our Lord by
putting before Him suggestions of failure leading to despair
("Thy disciples, thy chosen ones, still do not believe in
thee!"). The tradition is perhaps based upon a parallel
drawn by Christian Jews between what Luke calls the

and "prince". The place called Gethsemane by the Synoptists is said
by John to have been a "garden": and possibly the Acts of John may
have been influenced by some Jewish form of the Johannine tradition.

1 Txt. corr. OTTO TO (James suggests virb T).

2 [960 c] Ku0(v8f. Mk xiv. 37 KaOtvSfts; Lk. xxii. 46 ri KadtiiSert;
(but D omits ri, thus leaving the reader free to take the verb im-
peratively). See Index II, icadfvdo, for illustration of the fact.

3 [960 </] Avrov, an error prob. from taking avro (i.e. avra>) as
avro (see 960/7).

4 [960/] "Man", so the MS., but James "men". If we retain the
sing., with the MS., the meaning may be illustrated by Ps. ciii. 14, "He
knoweth our frame, he remembereth that we are dust." Compare also
Jerem. xvii. 9 (LXX) "The heart is [deceitfully] deep above all things,
and ft fs matt, and who can know him? I, the Lord, try the heart"
(where the LXX has confused " man " with " sick "). Perhaps the words
correspond to Mk xiv. 38 (Mt. xxvi. 41), "The spirit truly is willing, but

' the flesh is weak."

323 212

[962] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

"Agony" of our Lord in Gethsemane, and the "wrestling"
of Jacob with an angel in Penuel. According to the Jerusalem
Targum, this angel " Contended with him [Jacob] in the like-
ness of a man. And he said, Hast thou not promised to give
the tenth of all that is thine?" In other words, it was an
angel of the Adversary, or Satan, who accused Jacob of
neglecting his duty toward God 1 .

[962] St Paul says (2 Cor. xi. 14) " Even Satan trans-
formeth himself into an angel of light"*; he also forbids the
Galatians to accept a novel Gospel even if he himself or "an
angel from heaven" were to preach it. His tacit assumption
of the possibility of such transformations makes it easier to
understand how the author of the Acts of John may have
come to suppose that the same Adversary that tempted Christ
in the Wilderness and departed from Him as Luke says
(iv. 13) "for a season" now resumed the Temptation on the
night before the Crucifixion. In any case, the statement that
the Tempter was "another like unto [our Lord] Himself 1 ,"
and that the trial consisted not in the fear of sufferings and
death but in the faithlessness of His disciples (suggesting
a fear of their final falling away) must be admitted to shew

1 [961 a] Jacob proceeds to give Levi unto God, as the tithe of his
children; and then Michael intervenes in favour of Jacob. Hershon
(Rabb. Genes, ad loc.) quotes, "The angel was the Prince of Esau, i.e.
Edom, or Rome." In the book of Job, Satan slanders Job to God; in
the Targum, the Angel accuses Jacob to his own conscience, leading
him to distrust God. Comp. Zech. iii. i (LXX) "And the Lord shewed
unto me Jesus (rw 'iqorovv), the high priest, standing before the face of an
angel of the Lord; and the devil stood on his right hand to oppose him."
The Hebrew ''Joshua" would be known to non-Jewish Christians as
''Jesus". Justin Martyr (Tryph. 115-7) regards this ''Jesus" as the type
of the Church, identified with Jesus Christ.

2 [962 a] Wetst. and Schottg. ad loc. give no Rabbinical illustration
of this. Eph. vi. 12, "Our wrestling ...is against the rulers of the
darkness of this world,'' would seem to suggest an allusion to the
" wrestling " of Jacob in Penuel.

3 "(lit.) Another like Him", SXXov o^olov avrov (leg. avro, see 960^).

324

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [964]

a spiritual recognition of the kind of temptation that would
most keenly affect a Prophet or Judge in Israel of the noblest
type.

[963] If this explanation is correct, we need not fear to
reject, on fair textual evidence, what may be called the ultra-
human accounts of the Agony in Gethsemane, as though we
were in danger of being biassed by a desire to find in the
narrative nothing but what is manly, and noble, and worthy
of Christ. No doubt it is true that (as a rule) Gospel state-
ments that seem to tell against Christianity must be accepted
as antecedently probable; and what we are disposed to call
"unseemly" has a strong claim to be considered true. But
in this case, what ive may think "unseemly" and what may
have appeared so to a Greek philosopher of the first century,
might not appear so to Jews and Jewish Christians. Their
tendency would be in the opposite direction. They would be
prone to amplify the sufferings of Christ in the flesh, and the
outward manifestations of inward and spiritual trials, as
demonstrations that He was the suffering Messiah, or that
He fulfilled either typical predictions implied by the sacrifice
of Isaac or by the wrestling of Jacob, or particular Messianic
predictions in the Psalms and the Prophets.

[964] The two opposite views of the Agony represented
in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts of John illustrate
the difficulties that must have beset John, or any evangelist
at the beginning of the second century, attempting to record
the historical facts of the night before the Crucifixion. The
Epistle introduces "(t godly) fear", and "tears" 1 . The Acts
of John omits all mention of trial or trouble. There is no
touch of pathos in the Acts from first to last. The disciples,
in going to sleep, do not fail their Master, nor is it suggested
that the sleep is a spiritual slumber. It is taken literally, and
Jesus bids John go to sleep ! Jesus is not disturbed, or pained,

1 Heb. v. 7, see 957, and Index II, Ad/3ia.
325

[965] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

by the weakness of the Apostles. He simply remarks " They
are [but] man." No prayer is uttered by Him at this point
in the strict sense of the term ; but, just before His arrest,
comes a string of short doxologies and aspirations, to which
the only "answer 1 " is from the disciples to whom the Lord
says " A nswcr (vTratcovere) the Amen*." Between these two
extremes (that of the Epistle and that of the Acts) it is
almost certain that there was a vast number of more or less
untrustworthy accounts composed by those " many " authors
who " took in hand " as Luke tells us to write accounts of
the traditions current about Christ's life. We cannot expect
that the latest of the four Evangelists can have been always
successful in selecting the exact truth or the closest ap-
proximation to it ; but since we have hitherto found reason
to think that he does not invent but only spiritualizes, we
ought to approach with a strong prepossession in his favour
the discussion of the Johannine Voice from Heaven, and its
relation to historical fact.

5. T/u' first clauses of 11 The Lords Prayer"

[965] In the attempt to decide between conflicting ver-
sions of our Lord's prayer in the hour of trial, an Evangelist
at the end of the first century might naturally ask which

1 [964 a] In Heb. v. 7, tltrrjuovtrBrj airo rjjr i>Xa/3*i'ar, might be rendered,
according to the precedent of the LXX (Va. = (20 times) H3V) " He was
answered", and this might be taken to refer to the angel sent as an
answer to Christ's prayer. There is probably something wrong in the
phrase an-6 rrjs ev\ndfias. Perhaps " fear " and " vision ", X11O (or K~>D)
and nstD, have been confused. See Index II, dXtijim.

2 [964 b] The hymn begins Aoa <roi, ndrtp. The disciples answer,
"Amen'. It continues, A6a <ro, Xoy- doa troi, \upis. 'A^ijv. A<!a
trot, irvtvpa ayiov 8oa <rov rf) 86r). '\ft,r)v. This suggests that the
writer had before him the Johannine Prayer, " Father, glorify thy Name,"
with Greek glosses as to what the Name implied the Logos, or Word,
Grace, the Holy Spirit, Glory &c. Then these were severally made the
objects of a doxology. If the author desired to substitute a doxology for
a prayer, it would be easy to read John's doa<roi/ as 8oa<roi.

326

CHRIST'S ONE PRAY IK [966]

ion best harmonized with the form of prayer alleged to
have been taught by Jesus to His disciples. But Mark
records no such form. Matthew and Luke give the opening
words of it as follows :

Mt. vi. 9-10 Lk. xi. 2

" Our Father who [art] in the " Father, hallowed be thy

heavens, hallowed be thy name; name; thy kingdom come."
thy kingdom come ; thy will be
done as in heaven so on earth."

[966] The following considerations indicate that Luke
is probably the closer to the original, and that Matthew's
additions are, or were once, explanations. Converts would
naturally ask "How is God*s name to be /tallowed?" The
answer given by an Evangelist might be, in accordance with
Jewish usage, "upon you", i.e. by righteous actions of men on
earth, corresponding to the obedience of angels in Jieaven. This
would be expressed by some such phrase as is frequent in
short Jewish prayers (e.g. the prayer of Rabbi Eliezer [Berach.
29 b]\ " above and below ", " in heaven and earth" " as in lieaven
so on earth" &c. But "as in heaven", in a Greek MS., would
often be indistinguishable from "who [art] in heaven 1 "; and
these two phrases might be included in the text, along
with "Father", although the phrase "our Fattier in heaven"
is almost unknown, vocatively, in the J-ewish Prayer Book 2 .

1 [966 ] "As", las, if written or (in accordance with the interchange
of o and <o so frequent in the Egyptian papyri, the Acts of John (960 a),
&c.), would be identical with "who". Aquila would not write 6 iv ovpav<a
but 6t tv mpavu (see the Fragments of the Book of Kings, ed. Burkitt
and Taylor, Cambr. 1897).

9 [966 6] I have found it nowhere, vocatively, except in p. 9, '* Our
Father who art in heaven, deal kindly with us for the sake of that great
name by which we are called." On the other hand, " O Lord our God,
and God of our fathers," "O Lord our God, King of the Universe" &c.,
occur perhaps hundreds of times. The latter occurs 13 times on a single
page (p. 6). In the Talmuds, "Your Father, their Father in heaven " &c.
is frequent; but I have not hitherto noticed "Our Father in heaven," in

327

[967] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

[967] " Thy will be done" might be added in the same
way, as an explanation of the "hallowing", and also of
" kingdom ", so as to indicate that the latter meant a domina-
tion, not over regions and habitations, nor over the bodies
of men, but over their hearts and wills. Matthew, who in the
Sermon on the Mount combines a great number of discou:
that Luke separates, would feel no hesitation about including
in the Lord's Prayer a clause that he supposed to have been
actually used by Him in Gethsemane. The Talmuds record
several short forms of prayer taught by Rabbis to their disciples
for use in travel and danger 1 ; and Luke tells us that John
the Baptist prescribed such a form, and that Christ's disciples
asked for a similar one a natu/al request for missionar;
Hence Luke perhaps having in view some of these short
forms and particularly the Baptist's might have a special
reason for rejecting any amplifying explanations or glosses
added to the very brief original prescribed by Christ.

[968] Still it is by no means certain that Luke has
preserved our Lord's precise words. It would be more in
accordance with Hebrew idiom and with Jewish thought that
Jesus should have taught His disciples to pray for God's
active rather than passive aid, in such a clause as " Hallow thy
name", or at all events in ''Cause thy kingdom to conic" If
" Hallmv thy name " was the original, it would probably need

the vocative, in praytr. There is an approach to the vocative, however,
in the Jewish Prayer Hook, pp. 69 70 (four times) " May it be the will of
our Father who is in heaven," and (p. 76) " May the prayers... of all Israel
be accepted by their Father who is in heaven." Prof. Eb. Nestld and
Dr Chase have been kind enough to reply (in answer to my appeal to
them for information) that they do not know of any early instance of "Our
Father in Heaven," used vocatively in prayer, except the one quoted
above. The instance quoted by Prof. Nestld ("Lord's Prayer", Enc.
2822) is, I am informed by him, "of late date, being composed by Meir
ben Isaac."

1 J. Berac. iv. 5, B. Berac. 3 a, 29 b.

2 Lk. xi. I.

328

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [970]

explanation for Gentiles. Codex D has, in Luke, " Hallowed
be thy name on us" as in the Jewish Prayer Book 1 : but
Marcion must have read " Be thy Holy Spirit on us" or some-
thing to that effect 8 : and we have seen above (967) that "thy
will be done" was perhaps added by Matthew not only as an
actual prayer of Christ but also as explaining "hallow" and
" kingdom ".

[969] All these variations retain the adjective "holy" or
the verb "hallow". But the famous saying of Isaiah (v. 16)
that " God the Holy is hallowed in righteousness " is rendered
by the LXX "shall be glorified in righteousness"; and the
doctrine embodied in the Greek version is taught by Christ
when He says, " Let your light so shine before men that they
may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in
heaven," a doctrine repeated by Simeon ben Eliezer if at
least man's "righteousness" is God's "will" in the words,
" When the children of Israel do God's will, then His name is
glorified in the world 8 ."

[970] Hence an Evangelist would not be departing sub-
stantially from the spirit of Christ's prayer, "Hallow thy
name ", if he changed it into a form more intelligible for
Greeks and not alien from Jewish thought "glorify thy
name ". And it is worth noticing that what may be called
the Johannine Long Prayer of Christ appears to assume that
God must be "glorified", whereas men, and the Logos re-
garded as man, must be "hallowed". This Long Prayer, if

1 [968 a] Jewish Prayer Book, p. 9 "Hallow thy name upon (hem that
hallow thy name." The passive or middle occurs on p. 86 "Magnified
and hallowed be his great name," or, "let it magnify and hallow itself?
Of course, if human agency is implied, the passive is used, (ib.~) "Blessed,
praised, and glorified, exalted, extolled... be the name of the Holy One,"
where the agency of men (not of angels) is indicated by the following
words, "though he be high above all the blessings... that are uttered in
the world:'

2 Tertull. Marc. iv. 26 (see 971 (iii)-(iv)).

3 Mechilta 27 b, quoted by Wetst. on Mt. v. 16.

329

[971J CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

closely examined, will be found to contain a running com-
mentary on Christ's fulfilment of the Lord's Prayer (" hallowed
be thy name," " daily bread" l : " lead us not into temptation*,"
"deliver us from evil'"), in which the Synoptic words
altered, but their sense is retained. The first part of it refers
specially to the Apostles, the second part to those who are to
believe hereafter, and to the whole Church, including the
Apostles ; and the special prayer for the Apostles begins and
ends thus : " Father, the hour hath come. Glorify thy Son
that the Son may glorify thee.,. Hallow them in the truth...
and in their behalf I hallow myself that they also may be
hallowed in truth*."

[971] Thus we are led to two conclusions: 1st, that, if
an Evangelist were trying to disentangle the actual words
of Christ's prayer from a confused mass of tradition, and
to pause in the perplexing process of weighing textual and
oral evidence in order to ask himself, " What, after all, would
our Lord be likely to say in the hour of trial ? " he would
naturally recur to the words "Hallow thy name", or some
Western paraphrase of them\ 2nd, that, among such para-
phrases, a very natural and obvious one would be that which
rendered " hal/ow" into " glorify ", as the Greeks rendered it
in Isaiah (969) " God the Holy shall be glorified in righteous-
ness."

[971 (i)] Dr Chase's work on the Lord's Prayer, which
I had not read at the time of writing the preceding para-

1 Jn xvii. i6, the statement that the Son has "glorified" the Father
and has "manifested" His "name" to mankind is equivalent to "I have
hallo-wed thy name" : Jn xvii. 8 "The words thou gavest to me I have
given to them," means, " I have given them the bread of life."

2 Jn xvii. 12 " I kept them in thy name and guarded [them]," means,
" I kept them from being led into temptation"

3 Jn xvii. 15 " But [I ask] that thou keep them from the evil\pne\"

4 Jn xvii. i, 2, 17 19.

330

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [971 (i)J

graphs, contains a most useful collection of facts, which
M. L in to confirm the conclusion that the Original Prayer was
nearly as in Luke, that is, without the clauses " who art in
hearen" "as in lieaven so on earth" " thy will be done,"
"deliver its from the evil [one]" some of which may have
arisen as conflations, but others as interpretations of the brief
Original. Thus Gregory of Nyssa (Chase p. 25) says that
the same meaning as that of Matthew (about the " kingdom")
is " more clearly interpreted by Luke " as a prayer for the
Holy Spirit: for, " Instead of Thy kingdom come, he (Luke)
says, Thy Holy Spirit come upon us and purify us"; and later
on, " Whereas Luke mentions Holy Spirit, Matthew uses the
name Kingdom*" Tertullian also, in his De Oratione ( 9),
recapitulates the clauses of the Lord's Prayer as seven (not
eight}: (\) "Father", (2) "Name", (3) "Will", (4) "King-
dom", (5) "Bread", (6) "Asking forgiveness", (7) "Pro-
tection", which last he connects with "the anxious dread of
temptation." To these he has devoted seven sections of
comment. To the eighth clause he devotes no section, but
merely mentions it at the end of his seventh section, append-
ing it as a mere illustration of the seventh clause thus : " To
this (? lit. thither) there corresponds (? eo respondet) the
(or, a) clause that interprets the meaning of (clausula interpre-
tans quid sit) ' Lead us not into temptation? For this is the
force of ' But convey (devehe) us from the evil [one] 2 '."

1 Texts and Studies, Vol. I., No. iii., F. H. Chase, Cambr. 1891,
quoting " Gregory of Nyssa de Oratione Dominica (ed. Krabinger,
p. 60)."

2 [971 (i)a] Dr Chase (p. 134) reads (with Oehler) "Ergo respondet",
and paraphrases thus, "// is for this reason. ..that the explanatory clause
is added" but quotes Canon Cook " When he [Tertullian] adds that the
last clause corresponds to this petition and interprets it..." (the italics are
mine). Whichever reading may be adopted, the facts indicate that
Tertullian regards (i) ''''Lead us not &c." as a regular clause of the Lord's
Prayer on which he must comment at full length, and (2) "Deliver us"
as an interpretation of it. Both in the De Oratione and in the Di Fuga

331

[971 (ii)] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

[971 (ii)] The Jewish Prayer Book has (p. 45) " We will
hallow thy name in the world, even as they hallow it in ths
heavens of the height, ...&s> it is written by the hand of thy
prophet (Is. vi. 3) ' And they called one unto the other and
said, Holy, Holy, Holy,' &c."(rep. P- I37 1 ); (? 9) "Hallow thy
name upon (7J7) them that hallow thy name, and hallow thy
name in (-3) thy world"; (p. 37) "Magnified and hallowed be
His great name in the world that He hath created according to
His will"; (p. 9) "Our Father who art in heaven, deal with
us kindly for the sake of thy great name that is called upon
us " (comp. p. 60 " thy great name is called on us," p. 59
" thy name is called on thy city and on thy people"). These
passages, together with many quoted by Dalman ( Words of
Jesus, p. 100), indicate that a Jewish prayer for the hallowing
of the Name, or for the fulfilment of the Kingdom, might
naturally be defined by a mention of "on us", 'v// thy world",
"in the world", &c., and that, if such a definition were absent
from the Original, there would be a tendency to add it. On
the other hand, since the Jews generally believed that the

in Persecutione he introduces the latter, either close, or immediately,
after the former, with the words "Hoc est enim ", or '''Hoc est enim quod
sequitur," between the two. By this he appears to mean "For this is
[the force of] that which follows" and he implies that the two clauses are
identical in essential sense the latter being added merely to soften the
harshness of "lead us not into temptation" by explaining that the words
really mean "Do not stiver us to be led by Satan," or, in other words,
''Deliver us from [the temptation of] Satan." He has, in effect, said
this at the beginning of the section (De Orat. 8) "Lead us not into
temptation : that is (id est) suffer us not to be led into it, by him, of
course, who tempts [i.e. Satan]." Comp. the italicized words in the De
Fuga in Persecutione ( 2) " In legitima oratione, cum dicimus ad
Patrem, Ne nos inducas in temptationem (quae autem major temptatio
quam persecutio ?), ab eo illam profitemur accidere a quo veniam ejus
deprecamur. Hoc est enim quod sequitur, Sed erue nos a maligno, id
est, ne nos induxeris in temptationem permittendo nos maligno. Tune
enim eruimur diaboli manibus, cum illi non tradimur in temptationem."

1 On p. 137, it is preceded by "Thou art holy, and thy name is holy,
and holy-ones (0C?lp) praise thee daily."

332

CHRIST'S ONi: I'RAVER [971

Name was hallowed " on them", and not on tlie Gentiles, Jesus
miijht expressly omit any such definition, as tending to

.iMveness. Cyprian says (De Orat. 10) "We Christians,
when we pray, say Our Father; because He lias begun to be

. and /ttts iTitsal to be the Father of the Jews, who have
forsaken Him." May not Jesus have deliberately begun
His Prayer with "Father", not "our Father", for the express
purpose of avoiding any such inference (" Our Father, but
iu>t yours")! And, for the same reason, may He not have
avoided saying " Hallow thy name on us" (preferring simply
"Hallow thy name") because many Jews were disposed to
use the phrase as meaning "on us, not on tlie Gentiles" 1

[971 (iii)] How the clause about " tJie Holy Spirit" may
have arisen (as an interpretation) from "the Name", may be
seen from the renderings in the LXX and the Targums
(Pentateuch), of the expressions " I will put, or cause to dwell,
my Name" on Israel, on the Tabernacle &c. The LXX
mostly turns this by " my name" (with " call upon", some form
of eTTiKoXovfjiai): but the Targums have "I will cause my
Shechinah to dwell there." Similarly, in the Gentile Churches,
when the converts were taught to believe that the words
"Hallow thy Name" (or "Hallowed be thy Name") meant
(as Tertullian ( 3) and Cyprian ( 12) say) "Hallowed in us",
it is easy to see that in answer to the question, " How is the
Name to be in us?" some might reply, "The Name means
God's Shechinah, His abiding Presence, i.e. His Holy Spirit"
Hence would arise (as a substitute for " Hallowed be (or,
hallow) thy Name in us ") the prayer, " Be thy Holy Spirit
upon us, or in us." Such an interpretation might be en-
couraged by the use of the Lord's Prayer in connection
with Baptism. "Hallow thy name upon these thy baptized
children " might very well seem to imply " Send thy Holy
Spirit upon them." And in some Churches the latter, as
being more intelligible, might supplant the former.

[971 (iv)] But when "on us" (or, "in us") was transferred

333

[971 (v)] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

from the margin to the text, or from oral Comment to the
oral Prayer, so as to come between the two clauses, thus,
" Hallow thy Name on its (or, in us) cause-to-come thy
Kingdom," might it not be taken with the second of the
clauses (i.e. "On us (or, /';/ us) cause to come thy Kingdom")?
This connection would be supported by a tradition of Luke,
which assigns to Jesus the words " The Kingdom of God is
wit/tin yon" and also by the frequent Jewish phrase which
bids men (928iii)<0 "take uf>on themselves the Kingdom of
Heaven." Hence, leaving the first clause unaltered, some
might alter the second clause as others had altered the first :
that is to say, retaining " Hallowed be thy Name," they
would alter "Thy kingdom come" into some clause indicating
that the kingdom was in the heart, e.g. " Send thy Spirit to
purify us." This is what Gregory of Nyssa does, substituting
a spiritual version for the second clause. Marcion, as h.i>
been briefly mentioned (968), substitutes the spiritual version
for the first clause ; and, not improbably, Tertullian took the
same view in his reading of Luke, though not in Matthew.

[971 (v)] When a marginal clause is incorporated by
several Churches, independently of each other, in the text, it
is natural that they should differ slightly as to the position of
the clause. Hence variation of order in an extant text is a
frequent sign of interpolation. This sign is not wanting here
in Tertullian's treatment of the clause " Thy will be done,"
which he repeatedly and expressly places before " Thy
Kingdom come", both in his comment on the several clauses
and in his recapitulation (i) Father, (2) Name, (3) Will,
(4) Kingdom, &c.

[971 (vi)] In two of the Psalms (ix. 2, xcii. i), "thy
Name", in an address to God, is followed by "O Most High",
}V?y (comp. vii. 17 "the name of the Lord Most High").
This, in the Lord's Prayer, might induce an insertion of
"Most High" after "name", through feelings of reverence.
Indeed some scribes actually insert "Most High" in another

334

CHRIST'S ONK PRAYER [971 (vii)]

iiftt-r the words (Ixvi. 4) " They shall sing to thy name."
If " Most High" were added in oral or marginal addition, it
would almost certainly be altered by some, who would prefer
the expression "heavenly". Thus we find, in Daniel (ii. 19),
that Theodotion and the Hebrew have " the God of Heaven"
but LXX "the Lord, the Most High"; elsewhere (ib. iv. 17)
the Hebrew and Theodotion give " the Most High", but the
LXX " the Lord of Heaven 1 " So in the Gospel, some might
change " Most High " to " of heaven" or " in heaven". Others,
however, who disliked the appellation "Most High" in prayer,
but also disliked " in heaven" as tending to a localization of
God, might avail themselves of the fact that the transposition
of a vaw changes 3V7^ (regard being had 19 the identity of
medial and final n in the first century) to 13 v^, i.e. "on us"*.
Conflating these two glosses (i) "in /leaven", (2) "on us",
Matthew might naturally think that the meaning was " in
heaven above, and on us below" i.e. " in heaven and on earth"

[971 (vii)] The way in which the phrase "on us" might
be misunderstood and paraphrased away may be illustrated
by a tradition quoted by Dalman (Words of f., p. 100, from
Sopher. xiv. 12) "May His Kingdom (i.e. sovereignty) on us
COvy) be revealed (H/Jfi, from PI A!) and manifested," com-
pared with Isaiah (liii. i) "Who hath believed our report?
And the arm of Jehovah on whom (*Q 7^) hath it been
revealed?" When "reveal", n7J, is used with the preposition

1 [971 (vi) a] " The Most High " is generally preferred by Greek
writers, as in i Es. viii. 19, 21 where the parallel Ezra (vii. 21, 23) has
"of heaven". In Sir. xliii. 5 (Heb. txt) "the Lord", LXX has "Lord",
but Heb. rftarg. has "Most High", an important fact because it suggests
that in Sir. xlviii. 5, and elsewhere, though the Heb. txt. has "Lord"
(or " God"), some marginal or textual variation in the Hebrew may have
induced the LXX to give "Most High".

"Of heaven" might seem to Greek Christians to encourage a heathen
limitation of the Deity to heaven, as distinct from Hades, the sea &c.

2 The confusions of ?y as preposition, and as part of the verb
rOy " go up ", are very frequent in the LXX. See 707 /'.

335

[971(viii)] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

"to", the latter is always represented in the Bible by the
Hebrew 7tf or -7 (not by 7^7, the word used here). Aquila
and Theodotion (or, according to others, Symmachus) render
the phrase here " on whom". But the LXX has rendered it
" to whom", and has been followed by John, and several
modern authorities 1 . Similarly in the Lord's Prayer, a written
or oral gloss " on us" might be taken loosely as the dative
"to us", or '''belonging to us", and connected with " Father", so
as to give the meaning of " Our Father".

[971 (viii)] The result of these additional considerations
is to confirm the conclusion that John must have found great
difficulty in selecting the best interpretation of the initial
words of the Lord's Prayer, and that he and Luke are
probably right in rejecting any qualification of the simple
word " Father", with which the Prayer begins. For the rest,
Luke is probably right in retaining the word "hallowed".
But John's "glorify" is more intelligible to the Western
Churches besides the fact that " glory" is also associated by
Isaiah (vi. 3) and by modern Jewish Prayers with the celestial
"hallowing" of God's name and it suggests a practical
reference to Christ's teaching about "good works" that result
in the " glorifying " of the Father in Heaven. As regards
John's use of the active ("glorify") instead of the passive
(" be hallowed") the former appears more in accordance with
Jewish usage in short prayers.

1 [971 (vii) a] Jn xii. 38. In Isaiah, R.V., Ewald, and Cheyne have
"to whom": and, no doubt, this rendering is favoured by the parallelism
"who hath believed... and. to whom hath been revealed" as though two
classes of the blind are being described. Moreover Buhl (153^ " mit
/V") perhaps regards this as one of the Biblical passages where ?y is
used for 7N. Gesen. 163 a silently refers to Is. xl. 5, liii. i, i S. iii. 7,
Is. Ivi. i, in one group, without indicating that in Is. xl. 5, Ivi. I, the verb
is used absolutely, whereas in i S. iii. 7 it is used with ?K. If it is used
absolutely here, the meaning is that the glorious power ("arm") of God
has not been revealed (by its impress) on men's hearts.

336

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [973]

6. John appears closer than the Synoptists to Christ's
language about the "

[972] Modern readers of the Gospels may perhaps be
unfair to John owing to their very sense of fairness and
truthfulness. Realizing in many cases the superior grandeur
and nobility of the Johannine conception, and their own
immense desire to accept it, and not realizing at all (or very
faintly) the desire of early Christians to conform history to
prophecy, they may say, " If John's account was true in this
or that case, it is inconceivable that it could have been
altered and deteriorated into the Synoptic accounts by
disciples of Christ. We are, therefore, bound to reject it,
and to resist, as a temptation, the desire to accept it. More-
over on some occasions we find John passing over words
of Christ that have every appearance of being historical, such
as, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' and
inserting others of extreme beauty but of extreme doubtful-
ness. Hence, in general, and in particular as regards the
'cup', we unwillingly adopt the Synoptic version."

[973] This criticism urges against the Fourth Gospel two
objections, one based on a priori grounds, the other on in-
duction. The former is met by reminding the objectors that
" inconceivable ", as they use it, means " We cannot at present
conceive " : the remedy for which may be that they should
attempt to strengthen their power of conceiving by study and
thought. As to the latter, I contend that here the argument
from induction, on the whole, is in favour of John. In the nu-
merous instances where Luke deviates from Mark, and where
John intervenes, John though extremely bold in his treatment
of the letter of tradition appears mostly to be right in spirit.
For example, in the case just mentioned the omission of the
words "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
it may be shewn that, taken by itself, the tradition of Mark
and Matthew may have been in the highest degree mis-

A. 337 22

[974] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

leading 1 . Besides, in the particular case now under discussion
/>. Christ's praying at Gcthsemane when critics talk about
being bound to " adopt the Synoptic version " instead of John's,
they are talking of that which has no existence. There is no
" Synoptic version ". There are three versions, any one of which,
taken precisely, is absolutely incompatible with any other.

[974] Consequently, the only fair and reasonable course
is to come down from the high a priori ground, and to argue
from the facts of the case, ignoring, for the present, even such
obvious considerations as arise from the purity, consistency,
and self-devotion, of our Lord's character putting aside, in
fact, all antecedent considerations except the probability that
here, as elsewhere, since Luke deviates from Mark, John will
intervene to clear up some obscurity or to rectify some error.
We proceed, then, to discuss the relations between the Johan-
nine and the Synoptic traditions about the "cup", purposing
to discuss them simply from a scribal or grammatical point
of view*.

[975] A doubt has been indicated above (931 e) whether
Mark (as in R.V.) "Remove this cup from me" correctly repre-
sents the original Hebrew or even the earliest Greek tradition.
The proofs of its incorrectness are as follows. The verb
n-apa^tpo), rendered by R.V. "remove", is abundantly used
for " bringing forward ", "tendering", "supplying", applied
to all sorts of objects, e.g. " bring forward, or present wit-
nesses," "present evidence, or letters," " supply fuel ", " bring

1 [973 a] See Appendix II, 1051-69. We must bear in mind the
Jewish habit of naming portions of Scripture by the first two or three
words of the portion. This may have led some evangelists to suppose
that our Lord quoted the first words as representing the whole Psalm.
So, if a Latin writer were to say that a dying saint cried out " Nunc
ditnittis", he would not necessarily mean that the saint uttered those
precise words and no more, or that he implied mere "dismissal" and
had no thought of "peace".

2 In what follows, the reader should refer to the narratives in English
(931) or in Greek (1071).

338

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYKK [976]

stones " ; but it is more especially used of bringing a dish to a
gtit's t, and L.S. mention two instances in which it is used of offer-
ing or bringing "cups" and a "bowl". On the other hand it
comparatively seldom means "turn aside", "distort", "twist";
and then, mostly in the passive, applied to limbs twisted,
or persons, clouds, or vessels, carried out of their course'.
Matthew himself indicates that he found a difficulty in the
word by altering it into "pass". We may say "altering"
because, if "pass" had been the original ("let this cup/^jj"),
so simple a word could hardly have been corrupted, confused,
or rejected, by Mark.

[976] It is also important to note that the Greek verbal
form rendered imperatively might be rendered infinitively",
so that Luke's words now translated by R.V. "If thou be
willing, remove this cup," might be rendered, in accordance
with the regular meaning of the words in Greek, " If thou

1 [975 a] See L.S., and Field's Otium Norv. on Mk xiv. 36. The
latter renders it in Mk "Turn aside, cause (or, suffer) to pass by." But
he renders it in Plut. Vit. Pelop. ix. "letting the remark pass without
notice," and Dem. Meid. (531, 16) "ye suffered to pass" In Xen. Cyrop.
ii. 2. 4 (which, he says, "is usually relied on. ..to prove the sense of ''take
ait/ay") he gives the meaning as ''passing on the dish to the next person."
These are the only instances of the active that Field alleges. In the
LXX, it occurs only in Judg. vi. 5 (A) "they brought-up their tents,"
I S. xxi. 13 "feigned himself mad (irapf<pfp(ro\" Ezr. x. 7 " caused-to-pass
a proclamation in Judah." The active does not occur in N.T. except
in this passage. See Index II, irapafyfput.

* [976 rt] For -(, substituted for -at, see Codex A in Mk and Mt.
fiasst'm, e.g. Mk xiv. 19 Xvn-tla-dt (for -tin-dai), ib. 33 tK.6a\i.$tia6t (for
-fi<r$at). Conversely Mk xiv. 36 (A) irapivtyK.cn is for irapivtyat. In
Exod. iv. 6, 7 (Sir. vi. 24) tl&ivtyKov, Codex A has tltrivfynai^ meaning
to-vryK, which is the reading of F in Exod. iv. 6. In Mk i. 44, Lk. v.
14, irpoirtvtyKi = Mt. viii. 4 irpoa-fvtyKov, Codex L has Mk -at, Lk. -at,
Mt. -(. In Mk xiv. 36 and Lk. xxii. 42, d actually has " transferre ".

[976 ] In Ps. cxix. 88, "quicken me", the LXX has tfaopai. Even
if there were no Gk v. r., it would be almost certain that this error arose
from Gk corruption, through taking >}<roi> /** (when written fijo-o/i*) as
though -* meant -at: and this conclusion is made practically certain by
the reading of N, ZJ/O-G/**, and by that of ART,

339 22

[977] CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

dost desire to give [me] this cup [to drink]." This is followed
by the words " Not my will but thine be done," with which
words, being supposed by the Synoptists to be adversative,
it is connected adversatively (Mk " Remove... ///... thy will,"
Mt.-Lk. "0;//ythy will"). But these connecting particles may
have been added erroneously for the same reason that induced
the Synoptists to add "from we". Taking these additions
away from Luke's text, and rendering -rrapa^cpd) irorijpiov as
usual, we should have " Father, if thon dost desire to give [;//<]
this cup [to drink], not my will but thine be done." This
though not rising quite to the level of the Johannine version,
in which the very suggestion of rejecting the cup is dismissed
as an impossibility is at all events entirely different from the
Synoptic tradition and much closer to that of John.

[977] So far, the argument has proceeded on the suppo-
sition that the words "from me" were added by Mark, or his
archetype, in order to make it clear that the Greek word
''bring ", or "present ", had here the opposite force, " renii
But Mark may not have been so arbitrary as this, and it is
possible to shew that he may have been misled by Hebrew.
John speaks of the "cup" as "given" by the Father: but
"give" in Hebraic Greek often means "appoint", "ordain",
" abortion ". The verb " apportion (POD) " is used of " ap-
pointing" food\ and the Psalmist speaks of Jehovah as (xvi. 5)
"the portion of (J"OD) mine inheritance and of my cup"
Now in another Psalm, where the Hebrew text has (Ixviii. 23)
"from it OTQB) ", which is followed by the LXX, the R.V.,
following unanimous modern authority, has pronounced the
authorized text corrupt and has restored, as the true reading,
"its portion (VOD) 1 ". A similar Hebrew corruption may
have here combined with Greek ambiguity to convert a state-
ment of willingness to receive the cup into a prayer that it

1 Gesen. 584 b. The A.V. " in the same ", loosely translates the
unamended Hebrew. In Ps. Ixi. 7, the imperative of this verb, "prepare
(P) ", is rendered by the LXX rit ('D).

340

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [978]

might be removed, by converting " cup of appointment " into
"cup/hw me (New Heb. ^JD)."

[978] There are also very early traditions, heretical as
well as orthodox, in which Jesus is represented as seeking (not
avoiding) the "cup", or "baptism", or "fire", which was to
try Him. So far as motive is apparent, the heretical tradi-
tions indicate a purpose, not to extol our Lord's constancy,
but to commend a new kind of baptism ; and they exhibit
great verbal variations, which suggest that they all spring
from an obscure original going back to the first century,
differing altogether from the Johannine tradition in letter but
agreeing with it in spirit 1 .

1 [978 a] Lk. xii. 49 50 " I have come to cast fire on the earth, and
what will I if it is already kindled (ri 0<fX d iffy av^drj)! But (d)
I have a baptism to be baptized [with], and how am I straitened (o-tW-
X<>M a O until such time as (W orov) it be accomplished!"

[978 ] That "baptism" may be synonymous with "cup" we know
from Mk x. 38 "Can ye drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized [with]
the baptism that I am [to be] baptized with ?" where the parall. Mt. xx.
22-3 omits "baptism", both in the question and in the answer. Mark
may have added "baptism" as a paraphrase of "cup". But there are
other possible explanations, from the phrase (Mk xiv. 20) "dipping in
the dish," or from an original (as in i Pet. iv. 12) "fiery trial",
Delitzsch "furnace-of p13) affliction," confused with DD, ''cup", or
V3 "wash-basin", or (without any confusion) paraphrased, first as "cup",
and then as "baptism". In any case, it should be noted that "baptism",
" cup ", and " fire " are capable of being used as similar metaphors.

[978 c] Macarius (Resch iii. p. 351) quotes Luke thus (Horn. xxv. 9)
"What will I except (q) it were already kindled (fbrj^A))?" and (De Oust.
Cord. ch. 12)"! could have desired (?) would that it had been already
kindled ! -(^e'Xqo-a fj8rj avrjtfrdt))." Origen quotes it (Philocal. xxvii.)
"And what is more would that it had been lighted! (icai & 8i eVa?;)."
These extraordinary variations as to the "fire" prepare us for others as
to the "baptism '', as follows.

[978 d] The Marcosian heretics, instead of 8<?, "but" (in "But I have
a baptism") seem to have found aXXd, "but", and to have read it as
dXXo, "another", so as to justify their assertion about a different" baptism",
thus: (Iren. i. 21. 2, rep. by Epiphan. i. 255 B) "And I have another
(XXo) baptism to be baptized with, and I am in great urgency (iraw
tirtiyoftai) for it."

[978/] Marcion, quoted by Epiphanius (i. 304), says, in a passage

341

[979]

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

[979] Take more especially the words "Abba,
which occur here in Mark, and in Mark alone. St Paul has
twice preserved the double form (Rom. viii. 15, "Ye received

where the punctuation is doubtful, "The Lord, having been baptized
(&awTur6tit) by John, said to the disciples, ' I have a baptism to be
baptized [with] and what (or, how] (ri) will I [?] if already I have (? would
that I had already) accomplished it (ri rfiXw ft ffcfrtrAtcaafarf)': and
again, ' I have a cup to drink and what (rt) will I ? I will already fulfil
it (ri 6t\ iffy irXtywcrw avro) '." (The text is perhaps corrupt)

[978/] Elsewhere, in his own person, quoting Luke, Epiphanius has
(i. 784 D) " I have a cup to drink and how (?) (ri) do I hasten (mrtvt*)
until the time when (<W ol) I shall drink it ! And I have a baptism to
be baptized [with] and how (?) (ft, perh., as before, to be rendered "how",
but perh. "what") will I (0A)! If [only] () I were already baptized!"
The Pistis Sophia quotes Lk. xii. 49 twice (p. 189) "How I could wish
(quam velim) it were kindled." The quotation in 978 d, " I am in
(now) urgency," indicates that the quoter took the meaning to be "how ",
and paraphrased it as "\how\ grtat'\ There appears to be a parallelism,
or conflation, in Lk. xii. 49 50 " What, or how, will \\...how am I
straitened! (rL..wit). n

[978 g] It will be observed that, in some of these quotations, "//"
appears to have the force of "if only! ", " would that! " In one of them,
Orig. Philocal., "if only/ (W)" is actually substituted. This may have
a bearing on passages where Origen represents the Jew in Celsus as
paraphrasing, or quoting, Christ's prayer about "the cup'" (Cels. ii. 24-5)
"O Father, if (only) ({) this cup can pass away (5 ndrtp, tl Hvvarm ri> n.
rovro iritpt\6tiv)l" " O Father, if only (tWt) this cup could (dvrcuro) pass
away!" On the hypothesis that irap*\6<\v (see above, 931 <; 975) re-
presented some form of an original Greek irapa^tpu, "give ", "present ',
the Original of the tradition in Celsus might mean, " If only the cup
could be presented to me [at once] ! "

[978 A] Both in Greek and in Hebrew, the word "already" on
which several of the above traditions lay great stress is one that lends
itself easily to variations. When it occurs in the Gospels, SS almost
always omits it, but sometimes renders it "behold" (Mt. iii. 10, Lk. iii. 9,
Mk viii. 2): SS renders it "afreatfy" only here (Lk. xii. 49) and Mk xv.
44 (where it follows , as here, ^ riOvrjut). In LXX it most freq.
occurs in Eccles. where it="~O3. This resembles H3^, "according to
the word," suggested above (949-54) as a part of Christ's prayer. But
the rarity of 133 makes it unlikely to be substituted for the more
common "UID. If f}Hr) is corrupt, the corruption is more probably Greek
than Hebrew.

342

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER [979]

not the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but ye received the
spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father /" Gal. iv.
6 7 " And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of
his Son into our hearts crying Abba, Father!"). Having
regard to the fact that the phrase occurs nowhere in the N.T.
except in these three passages, it seems probable that the
Apostle is alluding to a tradition about the Prayer in Geth-
semane. But, if that is the case, does it seem probable that
the phrase was associated in the Apostle's mind with Mark's
context, " My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death,"
and " All things are possible unto thee : cause to pass this
cup from me"? On the contrary, St Paul's use of the
phrase far better suits a context expressing, certainly not
" fear ", and hardly even " sorrow ", but rather the fervent
devotion of sonship, and confidence such as we find in John
("For this cause came I, unto this hour"), and in the tradition
peculiar to Matthew (xxvi. 53 " Thinkest thou that I am not
able to ask of my Father and he will even now send me more
than twelve legions of angels?"), and in Luke as quoted above
("I have a baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitened
till it be accomplished ! "). Moreover Mark and Matthew
themselves describe Jesus as foreseeing the " cup " as one that
He must drink and His disciples also : and all Christ's doc-
trine, as set forth in the Synoptists, manifests (in spite of an
ultimate optimism) a clear foresight of the pain and suffering
through which the end must be reached. On the whole, a
great mass of evidence, antecedent, collateral, and textual,
tends to shew that John is closer than the Synoptists to the
spirit of Christ's utterances in the hour of trial, if not to the
letter 1 .

1 [979 a] In this particular case, it must be remembered that the
"letter" of Christ's sayings would be reported with more than usual
variations owing to the natural desire to preserve the exact words. Just
as the Aramaic sabachthani is rendered by D (1054) into Biblical Hebrew,
so here, although Mark alone has preserved ''Abba" as well as "Father",

343

[979]

CHRIST'S ONE PRAYER

others may have attempted to preserve it and may have failed. An early
misunderstanding of the Aramaic "Abba", N3K, when combined with the
Hebraic "my Father", '3N, might easily generate a multitude of glosses,
some of which would exactly explain variations in our text, e.g. "/ am
able", "my Father", "I/ only", "If".

[979 />] Note the following similarities :

(a) K3K (Jer. Targ. K3K) = "Abba ".

(V) 3K-Bib. Heb. "my father".

(d) 3-Bib. Heb. "I firay'\ but both in Bib. and in New Heb. it
also means "in me", and is often erroneously rendered thus by LXX.

( f ) 3K-(Bib. Heb. rare) "0 that!"

(/) DK "//". Owing to the freq. confusion of D and 3, this is liable
to be confused with 3, "father". Thus, Judg. xi. 36 "my father (3K) "
is conflated by A into three phrases, "my father (*3K) // (DK) in me ('3)."
In Job xxxiv. 36, Perles (58) would read DK for *3K. In Gen. xliv. 20,
Exod. xxi. 15, Lev. xix. 3, Judg. ix. I, Prov. xiii. i, "father (3N)" and
"mother (DK)" seem interchanged or confused in some MSS.

(f) The New Heb. 3 K, "// is in me"-"/ am able", might be
conflated with the Bib. Heb. 3K, "my father" (Mt. xxvi. 53).

[979 1] Addendum on (933) Jn xviii. n. Probably /*) with ist pers.
subjunctive never means "nonnel". But, in dialogue, py $, "am I to
(lit.) not-sayt" mostly implies (what is often expressed in later Gk by
adding 6i\tu) "[Do you wish] that I shotild-not-say, or, should-be-
Precluded-from-sayin^r 1 In practice, the wish, or preclusion, is regarded
as so absurd as to be impossible. Hence the expected answer negatives
the wish or preclusion though it may be expressed interrogatively or
Positively (" How could I [wish it]?" "[Say it] by all means," &c.). Hut
this construction in which \i.r\ falls into the position of d- privative
(i) is very rare in the Bible, (2) seems confined to such verbs as 0ij/*,
dnoicpivopat, otopai &c., and (3) requires prefatory preparation in the
context. [M^ ov occurs freq. in O.T. and N.T. remonstrance, e.g. \ Cor.
ix. 4, 5, and has been suggested as an emendation for ot> \u\ : but is it ever
used with the subjunctive ?]

[979 </] Had John meant simply ''Shall I not drink?" he might have
used oi>xi (cf. Jn xi. 9). But the strongest argument for oi> /ii) irlu non-
interrogative is its use (934) by the Synoptists as a statement. John
seems to say, " It was a ' statement ', but in special circumstances. Peter
said, in effect, to the Lord, 'Thou shalt certainly not drink it'" (cf. Peter's
(Mt. xvi. 22) ov prj) "and the Lord replied, ''Certainly not drink my
Father's cup ! ' "

344

CHAPTER III

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN

I. Tlic trittli negatively

[980] THE preceding investigations lead to the conclusion
that there was on no occasion any objective Voice from
Heaven ; but possibly on several occasions Christ's prayers
were so answered from heaven as to give the disciples an
impression of a Word of God or Voice of God sent down
from the Father to the Son. If so, such Voices must not be
limited to any one occasion (as by John) nor to two (as by
the Synoptists). But there may have been some one special
occasion, some turning-point for the Apostles in their con-
ceptions of the Messiah, when their Master's doctrine and
prayers appeared to them to have received the seal of a
celestial utterance. This positive aspect will be considered
later on.

[981] If there was some one special Voice of this nature,
we may say, negatively, as regards the place, that there is no
evidence to shew that it was (867 a) the summit of Mount
Tabor (the spot selected by the earliest pilgrims) 1 or Mount
Olivet, or Hermon, or any material mountain to which Jesus
was " in the habit " of going up for prayer (as the Acts of

1 [981 a] In i S. x. 3 "Tabor (11371)" is rendered "Chosen",
(leg. "WO (Luc.)). Onomastica S. (p. 166, and comp. 191) has "
(sic), \UKKOS, ticXtKTos" where Aa'<c<cor might arise from a reading 113 H,
and (K\tKT6f from "lirQ. Was the Mountain first called the Mount of
the Chosen One (812-4)? And then was this transliterated as Mount
Taborl Such a corruption might be favoured by Ps. Ixxxix. 12 "Tabor
and Hermon rejoice in thy name."

345

[982] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

John says). It might possibly be " the Mountain ", in the
later Jewish sense of the term, as an abbreviation for " tltc
Mountain of tJie House" i.e. the Temple on earth 1 . Possibly,
however, it was a spiritual mountain like that in our Lord's
Temptation only in a different sphere of the spiritual world
the Mountain of the Lord's House, taken as meaning the
House of God in heaven. If so, the vision of the Lord's
glory, and the hearing of the Voice from heaven, might have
taken place on a plain or in a valley, and yet on the Holy
Mountain of God to which those who witnessed it were
transported by the Spirit. As regards the place, then the
material place we know nothing.

[982] As to the prayer uttered by Jesus before the
answer from heaven, we have strong reasons for thinking
that it was not in such terms of " exceeding sorrow " as to
amount to what Mark calls "amazement" ; nor was it, as the
Synoptic texts suggest (though they may not mean it) for
His own sake ; nor does it appear to have been repeated with
such modifications as to convert it from a petition for deliver-
ance into an utterance of resignation.

1 [981 b} "The Mountain of the House" is said to have meant (Hor.
Hebr. \. 64-5) strictly speaking, the Court of the Gentiles; and a story is
told how (/'.) "Rabban Gamaliel, walking in the Court of the Gentiles"
[lit. "Mountain of the House"] "saw a heathen woman and blessed
concerning her." But the term appears to have been used, apart from
this technical meaning, to signify the whole building. Schwab's Index
to vol. i. has " Montagne sainte, elle doit inspirer le respect, vol. i., p. 482."
When we turn to p. 482 (b. Berachoth, 59**) we find " L'on ne montera
sur la montagne du Temple, ni avec une canne, ni avec ses souliers, ni
avec sa bourse ou ceinture " words curiously like our Lord's precept to
the Twelve; and the literal Hebrew is, not Mountain of the Temple, but
"Mountain of the House" Schwab's rendering and paraphrase shew
how Greeks say the author of 2 Pet. i. 18 might call it "the Holy
Mountain" \ and they perhaps explain the LXX version of Isaiah (ii. 2)
"the Mountain of the House of the Lord," LXX "the Mountain of the
Lord, and the House of God," where the translators may be conflating
part of a correct translation (" the Mountain of the Lord ") with a para-
phrase of the whole (" the House of God ").

346

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [983]

2. Tlie truth positively

[983] As far as we can judge from the Gospels, the
burden borne by the Son of man may be described as three-
fold ; first, the sins and sufferings and sorrows of those around
Him ; 2nd, the failure of the Gospel to touch the hearts of
the Chosen People ; 3rd, the weakness and worldliness of His
own disciples, culminating in the treachery of Judas Iscariot.
Under the pressure of these three trials, even when our
Lord's lips were silent, His soul we may well believe was
continually sighing and His eyes looking up to the doors of
grace above, while His heart cried Ephphatka, "Be opened 1 ".
He felt "virtue" descending to Him from heaven as well as
going out from Him on earth to heal men's miseries. He,
too, like Moses and Paul, was cut to the heart by the sight of
His countrymen, a crooked and perverse generation, stopping
their ears against the truth ; but He realised that out of this
evil good would come in the end through the unsearchable
wisdom of the Father, who hid His deepest truths from the
wise and prudent yet revealed them unto babes, and who out
of death and corruption brought life and immortality to light.
As to the third and severest trial of all the treachery of one
of the Twelve what precise utterances it may have drawn
from Jesus, we cannot feel certain, for Luke deviates from
Mark and Matthew, and the Fourth Gospel from all the
three 2 ; but they agree in leaving the impression that it was

1 Compare the Oxyr. Logia " My soul is distressed for the sons of
men because they are blind in their heart."

2 [983 a] Mk xiv. 21 (Mt. xxvi. 24) "The Son of man is indeed to
depart as it is written concerning him, but woe unto that man through
whom the Son of man is to be delivered up. It were food for him if that
man had not been born" Lk. xxii. 22 omits the last sentence, and has,
"The Son of man is indeed to go according to that which is determined."
Comp. Jn xiii. 3 "He came forth from God and departeth to God,"
Jn xvii. 12 " Not one of them perished except the son of perishing that the
Scripture might be fulfilled"

347

[984] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

the bitterest drop in His cup of suffering, and that He drank
it on the evening before the Crucifixion.

[984] The answer from heaven that came to Jesus when
He raised His thoughts to the Father in each of these trials,
is variously suggested by the Gospels. When He bore the
sins and sorrows of men of such a one, for example, as the
sinful paralytic, and when men "glorified the God of Israel,"
doubtless there was "joy in heaven"; and the echo of the
joy came down to the Healer as a strengthening recompense
for the pain and stress of His soul. Again, when the intellect
of the nation had decided against His claims, and the
multitude had fallen away, and even the disciples were
wavering or deserting, that was the very moment when Peter
received a revelation from above, which whether called a
word, or a roift, or a thought, and whether it employed the
title of Messiah or Holy One of God or whatever else at all
events resulted in a Confession, which has proved to be
a world-pervading fact: and this, we can well believe, came
to Jesus as a Voice from the Father in Heaven. On another
similar occasion, the contrast between the blindness of the
learned and lettered class and the spiritual insight of the poor
and lowly, may have caused Him to express His recognition
of a spiritual Law, or Will, that triumph shall underlie
failure ; and when He made answer, " Even so, for so it hath
pleased thee," it was to a Voice from Heaven, saying, "It is
my will : I have hidden these things from the wise and
prudent and have revealed them unto babes 1 ."

[985] But there remains the third and most poignant
suffering of all. What was the prayer, and what was the
answer from heaven, concerning the treachery of Judas?
The Synoptists mention no prayer, nothing but a " Woe unto
that man !" but we cannot doubt that Jesus felt it as a "woe"
for Himself &t\& laid it before the Father's throne. From one

1 Comp. Mt. xi. 25, Lk. x. 21.

2 See above (983 a) for their several contexts.

348

VOICE FROM HEAVEN

point of view the Synoptists seem to surpass John here,
in representing our Lord as sorrowing for Judas personally,
and not for the sin in the abstract, saying in effect, " I must
be delivered up, that indeed is written (or decreed) ; but alas
that one of the Twelve should be the agent!" Mark and
Matthew add " // were good for that man if fie had never been
born" Luke however omits this addition ; and it was a
common Rabbinical formula 1 , expressed in various shapes,
one of which may have been inserted here as a gloss, or as
a conflation 2 .

[986] Turning to the Fourth Gospel, are we wrong in
thinking that John implies an effort on the part of Christ to
reclaim Judas through the washing of feet, when he writes
thus, " Having loved his own that were in the world, he loved
them to the end "? It is only after this effort has failed
that He predicts that one of His own familiar friends will
turn against Him; and this is followed by the words "Jesus
was troubled in [his] spirit" an addition made by no other
Evangelist, but intended by John to express the climax of
the Messianic suffering 3 . Then follows the giving of the sop
to Judas and the entering of Satan into him 4 , and Judas goes

1 Schottg. ad loc.

- [985 <*] Conflation might possibly but only through serious error
arise from the preceding "Only (Lk. n-XiJi/) (DN 3) woe (in) to him (1^)."
In "only" (\\t. "but if"), "if", ON, might be taken as implying a wish,
"if only!" an occasional Biblical meaning (Gesen. 50): "to him", \>, is
freq. confused with the rare !?, "not" (and the same letters mean "would
that.'"): 'in, "woe", might be confused with rPPI, (ytv^drj, "had been
born". Or, "woe unto him (V? 'Ifl) " might be taken as New H. wS"l,
which (Levy i. 470) = fWt, "would that!" For )^> as N 1 ?, see 779 a.

3 See 920.

4 [986 rf] Luke places the "entering" earlier (Lk. xxii. 3). John
seems to suggest that this final effort of Jesus to reclaim Judas, being
repelled by the latter, made him the permanent possession of Satan, who
before is perhaps supposed to have intermittently visited him. (Jn vi.
70 "one of you is a devil," which is difficult to reconcile with this
hypothesis, is perhaps misplaced and based on some misunderstanding :
but this question needs separate investigation.)

349

[987] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

forth on his errand, and "it was night". Then come the
words " Now hath the Son of man been glorified." How, and
why, "glorified""} Because, according to John, "glory" follows
all " trouble" that is borne in the spirit of Sonship ; and, if
there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, there
was presumably "trouble" in heaven over that one sinner who
would not repent ; and this, the saddest of all troubles, the
Son of God was in that moment enduring.

[987] Afterwards, in the long discourse of praise and
prayer uttered by Christ before coming to the place of arrest,
Judas is referred to in terms most terrible (Jn xvii. 12),
" None of them hath perished except the son of perishing, that
the Scripture might be fulfilled." For the rest of the Apostles
Jesus prays, " Holy Father, keep them in thy name." For
Judas He does not pray; and the silence reminds us of the
words in the Epistle (I Jn v. 16) "There is a sin tliat is unto
death, I say not that thou s hon Ids t pray for that" Among the
Jews, "a sin nnto death" meant a sin that demanded the
extreme punishment of the Law, i.e. death. In John's
writings, the words "sin unto death", and "son of perishing" ,
imply that the sinner is past helping in this world by any
forgiveness of the children of God or any prayers of the Son
of God. Considering that Jesus " came to save the lost," no
words from His lips can be more awful than these about
a "son of perishing", whom not even He can save, and for
whom not even He prays. And there may appear something
cold and unfeeling in the sequel, in which Jesus passes on
from "the son of perishing" to a prayer for the rest of the
disciples, that they with the Son and the Father, may share
in the eternal glory of the divine unity and love. It is not
coldness, however, but the heat of a fervid trust in the good-
ness of the Father, whom He calls first " Holy" and then
"Righteous" (894 a), upon whom the Son casts, as it were,
the burden of the insoluble problem of the origin of evil, in

350

[989]

tlu- -pint of righteous Abraham, "Shall not the judge of all
the world do right ?"

[988 1 Con^it It-red verbally, as we should treat a short-
hand report of a modern sermon or prayer, the Johannine
Last Discourse must be pronounced so completely non-
Synoptic in style that scarcely a phrase can be taken as
exactly representing the earliest tradition of our Lord's
actual sayings, except in the scattered allusions to the Lord's
Prayer. Hut, judged spiritually as revealing Christ's deepest
of all sorrows, and the still deeper faith and trust that enabled
Him, while reali/ing sin at its worst, and His own failure
(which might be called the Father's failure) to heal sin, yet at
the same time to retain His perfect trust in the triumphant
love and glory of the Father who seemed to fail this Last
Discourse seems to bring us far, far closer to the real Jesus of
Nazareth than the words " Thy will be done !"

\ 989] As regards the answer from heaven on the occasion
of this third trial, nothing of a supernatural kind is indicated
by an\" Gospel except the interpolated Luke 1 . Doubtless the
Evangelists all regarded the prayer as answered ; but the
answer appeared to them to be conveyed not in a Bath
Kol, nor in an angelic visitation, but in the supply of patience
and strength for the impending sacrifice. And this view as
the evidence shews would seem to be the true one about all
the answers to Christ's prayers. When enduring men's
corrupt infirmities or sinful blindness, or hostile wickedness,
His prayer was always the same in spirit, and the answer
always an echo to it. The prayer might be expressed
generally in Hebrew tradition by saying that Jesus "prayed
to (lie Name (i.e. to the glory) of God" or " to tlie Name of
glory" &c. : or the exact words might be given as ^Hallow
thy Name ", or " Glorify thy Name ", or " Do according to thy

1 Lk. xxii. 43-4 "And there appeared unto him an angel... the
grounil."

351

[990] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

word"-, but in any case the prayer implied, not passive
resignation, like that of Hezekiah to the evils of posterity,
but an active and filial zeal for the glorifying of the Father,
whose answer in each case was of the nature of an "Amen",
or " I will".

3. The truth as seen by Jo/in

[990] Towards the conclusion of his Gospel, John tells
us that there were " many other signs " done by Jesus that
are not written in his book, but that he has made a selection
of those which tended to belief: (xx. 31) "But these things
are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and that, believing, ye may have life in his
name"; and the Gospel ends thus, " But there are also many
other things that Jesus did, as to which, if they continue to be
written one by one, I take it that even the universe itself will
not contain the books that are continually written."

[991] No doubt there is more than one meaning in this,
as in most of John's utterances. First, perhaps, the writer
wishes to suggest the many-sidedness of Christ's words.
They were like light, which no artist can paint. A single
ray, passing through a chink and cleaving the darkness,
we mortals, children of twilight, may fairly depict ; but the
light of nature in its natural environment, the light of heaven
on earth and sea, no art of man can adequately represent.
That painter, perhaps, least inadequately represents it, who
adds to a vast power of technical execution a vast sense
of the incompetency of all technique, in this particular region
of his labour; so that he does not dare to aim at a profane
literalness, but lets the ethereal substance pass through his
mind, loving and worshipping it, and expressing it as seen or
felt by a disciple of light who has become as it were by
adoption a veritable child of light.

[992] But besides the undoubted bearing of this spiritual
truth upon any criticism of the Fourth Gospel, there remains

352

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [994]

a literal truth, namely, that by the end of the first century
tin re was a multitude of oral and written traditions, probably
a few (\vritten) in Biblical or quasi-Biblical Hebrew, and
many more (written or oral) in New Hebrew, Aramaic, or
Greek. Among these, the vast majority probably consisted
of duplicates, triplicates, or other manifold repetitions, of the
same Original some fairly agreeing in sense though differing
in word, but others disagreeing seriously, others again abso-
lutely contradicting one another, so as to necessitate ex-
planatory and harmonizing glosses or Targums, thereby
giving rise to new and amplified traditions in which the
brief Original was entirely lost.

[993] For example, we have seen above that the phrase,
(i) "according to his (or " thy") word," if uttered by Jesus in
prayer, might be taken as meaning that (i) Jesus repeated His
prayer, or that (3) the Fattier repeated the words of Jesus in
answering that prayer; or, again, they might mean that
(4) things are "possible" with God; or they might contain
some reference to the (5) fulfilment of the "word" of God in
prophecy, or of (6) the "word" of Jesus ; or the fulfilment of
the word might be confused with (7) the "speaking" of an
"angel" ', or the words might be paraphrased as or confused
with (8) a saying about God's "glory". Here are several
(946 a, 949 54, 1011 c) possible ramifications from one stem ;
and if we add the possibilities arising out of the combinations
of one or more of these traditions, and out of different
methods of taking each one by itself, e.g. interrogatively, or
imperatively, or conditionally, not to speak of corrections
dictated by what might appear fit and seemly, or in harmony
with the context it needs no mathematics to perceive that
a hundred ample and absolutely different traditions might
speedily arise out of a single phrase.

[994] The loss of almost all these current Targums,
glosses, traditions from the apostles, and traditions from the
elders of the generation following the apostles, makes it

A- 353 23

[995] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

extremely difficult for modern readers to understand the
position of the author of the Fourth Gospel in the first decad
of the second century striving to separate the truth from
error. But besides (i) the testimony of Eusebius to the
existence of a fair number of early apocryphal works, we have
(2) the invaluable testimony of Luke to the existence of
"many" writers that had taken in hand to set forth Gospel
truth, (3) the testimony of John himself as above quoted,
and (4) the following testimony from Papias, which indicates
that some time before the middle of the second century,
when the Third and Fourth Gospels had been written but
had not yet attained the position of authoritative Gospels,
a bishop in Asia was discontented as he well might be
with such written accounts of Christ's life as were recognized
to be of apostolic origin, and eagerly resorted to oral tradition.

[995] Papias, in language similar to that of Luke and
John, but with manifest condemnation, speaks of those who
^'say the many things," those in whom "the many delighted",
in contrast with " those who teach the truth." But he does
not goon to protest that he consequently confined himself to
the written Gospels. On the contrary he tells us that, when-
ever he met anyone that had been a follower, or pupil, of the
Elders where " Elders " probably means the generation that
succeeded the Apostles he would ask about the sayings of
the Elders, so as to get back to the oral teaching of the
Apostles ("What said Andrew, or Peter, or Philip &c."):
" for", he proceeds, " I did not believe I should be profited by
the sayings from [the] books so much as by those that came
from the voice that lives and abides 1 ."

[996] This statement throws a flood of light on the
position of the writer of the Fourth Gospel. In the first
place it indicates a feeling of impatience at " the many things"

1 [995 a] Euseb. iii. 39. 4 (see Enc. 1814 foil.). One MS. omits "the"
before "books". If genuine, it means "the books (we know)," "the
books (with which we are familiar in the Church)," &c.

354

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [997]

in which " the many" took pleasure, and a strong desire to
find a path through or past them, back to the living and
abiding truth to the personality or voice of Christ Himself.
In the next place it shews the writer's feeling that this could
best be done, not through " the books ", but through persons.
And surely, if he had only Mark and Matthew before him as
authoritative Gospels 1 , Papias was right in wanting something
more. Mark, in spite of occasional graphic touches that
really go back to Christ with the fishermen in Galilee, con-
tains many traces of being what may be called "a note-book
Gospel ", honest, faithful, and literal, but the work of an
unintelligent amanuensis, nervously anxious to omit nothing,
and carrying to such lengths his anxiety to include every
scrap of gloss or marginal comment that his writing is a mass
of conflations ; and even Papias, though acquitting him of
fault, acquits him 'apologetically : "Mark committed no fault
in writing down some things just as he had noted them ; for
he took thought for one thing [only], not to omit anything that
he had heard or to falsify a word in it 1 ." Moreover Matthew
except in the Double Tradition which he shares with
Luke is so imbued with the desire of seeing the Prophets
fulfilled in the Messiah, that he far too often merges the latter
in the former. When we are longing to know what our
Lord thought and did and said, he sometimes puts us off
with a "that it might be fulfilled", and an extract from
Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.

[997] Add to all this the fact that Peter is said by Papias
to have had and presumably to have required Mark as an
"interpreter", and that Matthew is said to have written his
Gospel in Hebrew and that people interpreted it as best they

1 See Appendix VI, 1147.

- [996 <z] Euseb. iii. 39. 15. For ovdV rjpaprtv, "committed no fault",
see Enc. "Gospels", 1812 n. i : and add Macar. p. 29 avSiv buj^aprrjvav,
"committed no serious fault," where the writer is apologizing for the
differences between the Evangelic accounts of the crucifixion.

355 232

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

could! What a world of misunderstandings, literalizings,
materializings, exaggerations, may be implied in these two
statements! 1 St Paul is nowhere said to have required an
"interpreter". His epistles take us into the midst of the
mystery of the "charity" of the Spirit of Christ. But he
scarcely ever gives us an utterance of the Saviour. The only
one of importance that he records besides the Institution of
the Lord's Supper is the saying " It is more blessed to give
than to receive." This is nowhere written in the Gospels :
but it is so beautiful that, had the Evangelists known it as
Christ's saying, they could hardly have all omitted it. Perhaps
it was a Greek or Pauline attempt to express briefly for the
West the teaching of the Lord about the good measure pressed
down and running over, which THKV (738) will give to those
who give to their brother men. It happens that an iambic
line pronounces a giver foolish and a receiver fortunate 8 .
The Pauline epigram may have aimed at expressing the
substance of Christ's teaching so as to supply a retort to
some such worldly maxim. If so, it was what we may call
a Greek Targum. Certainly it comes from the Lord's Spirit;
almost certainly it did not come from His lips.

[998] The same conclusion applies to another saying
related by Irenaeus as coming from an Elder whom Bishop
Lightfoot (very justifiably) identifies with Papias. It is
a comment, or Targum, on the Parable of the Sower, and
especially on that portion of it which mentions the various
gradations of fruitfulness in the seed that brings forth fruit
(" thirtyfold, sixtyfold, a hundredfold "). These it explains
as different stages in the journey towards perfection : " in
my Father's [kingdom} are many mansions 8 ." Nearly the

1 [997 a] Schottgen i. 100 gives an instance of misinterpretation by the
interpreter in the very presence of the teacher.

2 [997 ] Alford (on Acts xx. 35) quotes, from Bengel, "an old poet in

Athenaeus viii. 5 avorjros 6 didovr (VTV\T)S 8' 6 \apfttivu>v."

3 Iren. v. 36. 2.

356

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1000]

same words occur in the Fourth Gospel ', and Papias may
have heard them from the author of that Gospel, or from one
of the author's pupils. It may have been an apostolic ex-
planation of the Parable, or a saying actually uttered by
Christ when He explained the Parable " privately ", as Mark
says, to the disciples. But, in either case, can we wonder that
Papias was glad to receive such sayings as these coming from
" the living and abiding Voice"?

[999] And can we wonder if the author of the Fourth
Gospel felt the same desire? If he did, and if he disliked as
unspiritual, and suspected as untrue, a large number of books
that were "being written", and some that were already
written, about Christ's "mighty works", would not this
explain his extraordinary unwillingness at least it appears
unwillingness that men should go on writing "the things
that were done by Jesus"? He admits that there were such
things ; " many other things" he calls them. But he does not
defer the publication of his own Gospel so as to ascertain and
include them, and apparently he hardly wants other people
to write about them. The universe, he says if people go on
indefinitely piling up such writings will be more than filled !
Perhaps, in part, he wishes to indicate a sense of his own
failure. He had tried to represent the Living Word by
a book and had not succeeded. But partly also he appears
to suggest that "the books" did not tend to truth or faith.
"Books, books, books" he seems to say "if they go on
increasing, they will smother the Living Voice."

[1000] Concerning the plethora of Stoic writings Epictetus
says 'It is not maxims that are wanted now ; nay, the books
are full of the Stoic maxims. What then is wanting? The
man to practise them 1 ." For " Stoic maxims ", substitute

1 Jn xiv. 2 (R.V.) "In my Father's house are many mansions (marg.
abiding-places)."
1 Epict. i. 29. 56.

357

[1001] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

"miracles", "exorcisms", such legends as that of the Gada-
rene and the two thousand swine, or the withering of the
fig-tree all of them, even if true, only so far useful as they
threw light on the personality of the Lord, but probably
neither true nor useful ; and then we have an insight into the
feelings of our Evangelist, who had certainly read Kpictctus,
and who felt, with him, that what was wanting in the Church
was, not " books ", but " the man ". But he went beyond
Epictetus in teaching that "the man", the typical disciple,
could be created by the Spirit of God the Father, entering
into anyone who had been embraced by the personality of
the Son, as revealed in the risen Saviour through the disciples,
who are supposed to be represented by "the disciple whom
He loved." This, then, this personality of Sonship, was what
the Fourth Evangelist desired to portray discarding all
hope or desire of verbal or exact historical accuracy, much
more of historical completeness, if only he could make his
readers feel the breath of the Spirit of Christ.

4. The truth as described by John: (i) tlie words

[1001] The Arians are said by Epiphanius to have
quoted the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane in order to shew
that there was in the Son a will "distinct-and-diflfercnt
(8i7j\\aynvoi>) " from that of the Father. Endeavouring to
refute this argument, Epiphanius asks, "How could (lit. did)
He speak of a will of-His-own contrary to the will of the
Father, when He Himself indicates... 1 ?" Then he goes on
to quote the prayer rejected by Christ as given by John
(" Father, save me from this hour ") and some of the Johannine
context, and, after that, a tradition that he attributes to Luke

1 [1001 a] Epiph. i. 784 C irtas yap Ibtov ftovXrjpa t<f>r] irapa ro roO

TTOTpOS floV\T)p.a OITVTf (IVTOS <Tt]/JL(lil'ft IT pOS TOVf p.a0T)T(lS OTl ____ The literal

" How did He speak" may be expressed by " How should He, or, could
He have spoken," "What did He mean [according to your view] by
speaking," or "In what way is He proved by you to have spoken?"

358

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1003]

(978/), about "hastening to drink the cup" (where Luke
mentions, not "cup" but "fire").

[1002] It is highly probable that, as soon as Christian
Gospels became subjects of controversy, that is to say some
time before the end of the first century, similar arguments
and counter-arguments were going on. If so, we may be sure
that John would have regarded with sympathy some indig-
nant and interrogatory comment (" How could He say...?")
similar to the one above-quoted, upon the Synoptic version
of the prayer in Gethsemane, protesting against the view that
our Lord differentiating His will for a moment from that of
the Father prayed that the cup, or the hour, might pass
from Him, since indeed He was always ready to meet the
hour, and since He was always desiring that the Name of
the Father might be hallowed and glorified. Such a comment
might include contradictions of other erroneous traditions,
e.g. of the Luke-interpolation about an "angel strengthening"
Jesus in Gethsemane : in answer to which, an Evangelist
might say that it was not " an angel ", but " a Voice from
Heaven", though "there are some that say it was an angel."
Then, meeting the objection that " No one heard the Voice
or was convinced by it," and also the tradition that it came
from a material cloud, like thunder, the Evangelist might
teach that, although "some say it was thunder," it was not
really so. It was according to his doctrine a spiritual
voice audible to none but tlwse who had ears to /tear it, sent
as a last warning to a generation tliat had ears to hear but
would not hear, and eyes to see but tltey saw not: what they
might have seen, and w/tat Jesus saw, was t/te vision of a great
casting out of Satan, a judgment of this world, consequent on
tfie sacrifice of Christ; but they saw nothing of all this, making
tlicmselves blind to the Light, so that the Light departed from
them.

[1003] Full of such a conception as this, the Targumist
or Evangelist might introduce his comment (like Epiphanius)

359

[1003] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

with an indignant question: "Jesus said in that moment 1
His SOUL WAS TROUBLED. But how could (or, why should)
He say, Father, save me from this hour* f Nay, for this cause
He came, to undergo this hour. But He prayed to t/te Glory
of the Name. Therefore there came a Voice from Heaven that
the Lord would glorify it. Now some say that it [i.e. the
Voice] was thunder; others, that an angel spake unto Hun.
But that Voice liad not come for the sake of Jesus, but for the
sake of the multitude* For in that moment there was a judg-
ment of this world, and in tliat moment \it was decreed that\
the Ruler of this world should be cast out : because He was to
draw all men unto Him u</u'ii He was lifted up* that is to say,
lifted up on the Cross, by which death He was to die''

1 [1003 a] "In that moment", i.e. in that critical moment. This
might mean either that moment of stress and strain when He was
overcoming Satan, or the moment when He was receiving some special
revelation. It corresponds to the parallel Lk. x. 21 "/'// that hour"
(Mt. xi. 25 "in that season") in the context of which Jesus sees "S<i/<in
fallen from heaven." For the parallelism see 921-3.

The phrase "in that moment", "in that hour", "in that season", or
"then", might easily be transferred from "said" to the verb following it,
i.e. "is troubled" or "is exceeding sorrowful". In that case it would
become, in direct speech of the first person, now ("Now is my soul
troubled ") Matthew has (xxvi. 38) " Then he saith unto them, Exceeding
sorrowful is my soul."

[1003*] "Save me from this hour." If the Targumist had been
referring verbatim to the prayer as recorded by the three Evangelists, he
would have used the word "cup", not "hour", and would not have used
the verb "save" (but "pass" or "cause to pass"). But, (i) as we have
seen, Mark (956) conflates " cup n with "hour", and the latter was
more intelligible to the Gentile sections of the Church ; (2) the Synoptists
are themselves at variance with one another as to the verb used with
"cup"; (3) it might well seem to the Targumist inexpedient to quote
the exact wonts assigned to Christ by ancient and authoritative Evan-
gelists and to represent Him as exclaiming, in effect, "How could I use
those words f"; (4) point is gained by a paraphrase that represents the
"Saviour" as saying, in effect, "How could I, [the Saviour}, possibly
pray to be saved 1 ".

3 [1003 c] "Lifted up" (N. Heb. W) = u hanged", "crucified 1 ": Levy
i. 549* "einen Gehangten".

360

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1005]

[1004] Let us suppose that an Evangelist had in his
mind an oral or written comment of this nature (on the one
Prayer of Jesus recorded by the written Gospels current in
his day) and that he wished to incorporate it in his Gospel.
The first question for him would be at what precise point
or crisis in the Saviour's life the Prayer should be placed.
Mark placed it on the night before the Crucifixion, after the
words " My soul is exceeding sorrowful." John places it after
similar words, " My soul is troubled." But why did he not
assign it to the same time and place (Gethsemane)? The
answer seems to be found, partly, in the much longer prayer,
mingled with praise, which John places just before the arrest.
This, following, at a considerable distance, the climax of
trouble (" he was troubled in spirit "), exhibits Jesus as being
now in such an exalted atmosphere of peace and harmony
that He could not even in a rejecting negative put before
Himself the thought of asking to be " saved from this hour ".

[1005] In other words, John regards that second and
longer prayer, of which the first petition is, " Father,... glorify
thy Son" as being a higher revelation (given to the disciples
alone) than that given to the multitude in the words, " Father,
glorify thy Name." The "Name" was a rudimentary term,
suited to the Old Jerusalem, that is, to the Jews, some of
whom taught that no blessing was worthy to be so called
unless it mentioned the "Name" or the "Kingdom" 1 : the
" Son " was a cosmopolitan term, for the Universal Church,
the New Jerusalem. The inferior and Jewish prayer, " Glorify
thy Name", was followed by an inferior and Jewish sign, the
Bath Kol, which convinced none that were not already
convinced, and which was misheard by the multitude. The
higher and cosmopolitan prayer was followed by no Bath
Kol, nor by any audible answer of words, but by an act,

1 [1005 a] See B. Berach. 12 b, 40 . " Rab said, No blessing in
which mention is not made of the NAME is a blessing.. ..R. Jochanan said,
No blessing in which there is not the KINGDOM is a blessing."

361

[1006] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

or rather by a state of mind and a course of action indicated
by Christ's going forth to meet His captors, with the words
" I am he ", and, " If then ye seek me, let these go"

[1006] It is possible that John was deceived in sup-
posing that these last words 1 were ever uttered: but his
conception of our Lord's final self-preparation in prayer
and prayer not for Himself but for others followed by an
immediate act, not for Himself but for others, is at all events
probably closer than the Synoptic view to the original text
of the Gospel, and far closer to the character of Christ.
When a child of God sends up words of prayer to the Father,
can we conceive of a better answer that He can send down
from Heaven than spiritual strength to convert the words into
their corresponding deeds ?

[1007] Carrying out, then, this conception, and at the same
time exactly following the letter of an old Synoptic tradition
about " assuredly not drinking (the cup) " the only one in-
deed recorded by the three Synoptists in parallel passages
John may have decided that his predecessors had misunder-
stood the words " I will assuredly not drink (the cup)," and
also those which referred to (what they called) the " removal
of the cup." The latter were to be taken, according to John,
as meaning " the presentation " of the cup " The cup that
the Father presents to me." The former, though in appear-
ance negative, were to be taken as equivalent to an affirmation,
coming after the statement that the Father gave Him the
cup : " The Father gives me the cup, and I if I am to be
guided by you my disciples am not to drink it ! ".

[1008] As regards one of these two points, the " presenta-
tion ", we have given reasons for thinking that John is right
and the Synoptists wrong. As regards the other, the "not

1 [1006 a] See Appendix II, indicating the ambiguities of the Hebrew
and Greek words signifying "let go", "pardon", "suffer", "abandon", and
the various evangelic traditions that appear to have arisen from this
origin.

362

VOICE FROM III :.\VKN [1010]

drinking", the reasons arc not so strong, but still they are
and to their intrinsic strength must be added the

;nsic support derived from John's correctness on the first
point. On the whole, our wishes may be honestly and
ally accompanied by our convictions that John is right
on both points. In any case, what may be called the active
part of the Synoptic prayer ("remove the cup") appears to
be placed in some form by John where the Synoptists place
it, i.e. at Gethscmatie, but not in tke forni of a prayer.

[1009] Now we have to deal with the passive part of the
Synoptic prayer, which, though recorded in different versions
with perplexing variations and appearances of confusion,
certainly leaves on the reader the impression that it is an
utterance of sorrowful resignation. The question for John
was, which of the Synoptic versions was to be favoured, and
where this prayer, or some version of it, was to be placed.

[1010] First, as to the wording of the prayer, we have
found (931 //) that Mark (xiv. 36), correctly rendered, scons
not to record a prayer, but a statement, namely, that the Son
could not for a moment put His will beside that of the
Father, or ask which of the two was to be done ("[It is] not
[the question] what I will but what thou "). Greek grammar,
and the character of Christ, alike point to this conclusion
as almost certain 1 . Less certain, but highly probable (because

1 [1010 a] It is worth while noting that (i) there is a Greek verbal
similarity between Mk xiv. 36 "what / ('-y) (emph.) will" (which might
be rendered "What will /") and Lk. xii. 49 "What will I " (in " What will
I if it is already kindled?"), the only difference being that Mk inserts
" I " for emphasis. (2) Both Mk and Lk. assign these words to Christ.
(3) Mk connects them with a "cufl", and Lk. with a "fire" \ but it has
been shewn (978 ) that "fire" and "//>" imply similar metaphors,
mi^ht be confused in Hebrew, and are actually (1001) interchanged by
Epiphanius.

[1010 A] Suppose the meaning of Mk xiv. 36 to have been, originally,
"What do I pray except [the prayer, Be it] according to thy word?"
This, in an early Gk translation, might be paraphrased, "What will I,
except that which thou wilt ?" ri yw 0A n\f)v t <rv [0Aw] retaining the

363

[1010] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

it harmonizes with and explains a number of perplexing
Synoptic variations) is the view that Christ's prayer was

Hebraic negative interrogative, so that the meaning really was, " I do not
will except that which thou wilt."

[1010 c] ''What" being here equivalent to "not", the latter might be
written over the former in the Greek text to express its meaning. A
conflative Evangelist, combining the two, might produce "Not what
will I," oil ri ryw d<Xo>. Then, for parallelism and consistency, he, or a
subsequent editor, might alter o into ri and w\ffv into dXXd, thus creating
Mk's present text, ov ri tya> 0'X dXXo ri <rv, "[It is] not [the question]
what will I but what [wilt] thou." This hypothesis would explain
Matthew's and Luke's agreement in reading w\i\v (against MarKs dXXd) :
they may have been adhering to the earliest Greek tradition. It would
also explain (besides Mark's rather astonishing Greek) M.itthcw's and
Luke's further alterations, as endeavours to extricate the sense from the
obscurities into which Mark had brought it.

[1010 d] That early confusion existed as to the interpretation of the
interrogative " Whatf, " Why?", or " Howf" in Christ's utterance about
the "cup", or "fire", or "baptism", appears from the following variants
given more fully above (978 a-g) :

(1) Lk. xii. 49-50 " What will I. ..how am I straitened ' (ri 6i\<a...irw
<TVVXO/*<M)," Pistis Sophia (189) "how I could wish. ..how shall I endure

(d^fr,).'

(2) Macarius (978 c) " What will I except," "I could have desired
would that..." Orig. "And what is more (&) would that..."

(3) The Marcosians (978 d) " I have another (aXXo for XXd)
baptism": Iren. and Epiph. "I am in great urgency (irdw (irtiyopai)
for it," where "great" seems a paraphrase of "how".

(4) Marcion (978 e) " What (or, how} will I if already I have accom-
plished it."

(5) Epiphanius (978/) "How (?) do I hasten (ri <rirtvbw)...how (or,
what) will I."

[1010^] The variations "hasten", "in urgency", "constrained", may
be illustrated by Jerem. (xvii. 16) "hasten ('HVK)", LXX tuoiriatra, Aq.
ocparmWo, S. fjTrti^&ijv (v.r. riirfi'xdqi', qrX0;i>), Syriac (Field Hex.)
"prohibebar (<httf^fOfi) m . Hesychius says that Jwtixfof
o-wfjitv, " let us take pains." But Dan. Bel. 30 (Theod.) iireiyovaiv
(LXX firia-vvfixdrj 6 o^Xof...<7r' avrov) " throng him ", "press him", shews
that eirdyoftat might be taken to mean "I am pressed" when it really
means "I press on". The same ambiguity might arise (i) from the Heb.
|*1N (in Jerem. xvii. 16) which (Buhl 19 b) in Bib. Heb. means both
"Press" and "hasten", but in New Heb. appears (ib. and Levy i. 69^)10
mean only "press" (especially of pressing grapes &c.); or (2) from fin,

364

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1011]

"According to thy word," but that the Church at large
" interpreted " the brief and obscure phrase to quote the
Baying of 1'apias about Matthew's Gospel "as each man
best was able," the result being a host of unhistorical tradi-
tions enumerated above. It was also pointed out that
although these words, in the form " Thy will be done,"
had found their way into Matthew's version of what we
habitually call "the Lord's Prayer", this clause had been
rejected by Luke.

[1011] Under these circumstances, what course was John
to adopt in the wording of Christ's short prayer? If he had
followed Mark, he would have abolished the prayer, replacing
it by a statement. Had he followed Matthew and Luke, he
would have contradicted, or seemed to contradict, the con-
viction that the will of the Father was at all times the food
and object of the Son's existence so that He could never
speak of it passively but actively, a conviction that his Gospel
repeatedly expresses 1 . If he had followed neither, but had
retained a mention of "will", in an active version of the
clause, e.g. "Accomplish thy will" (a form in use among the
Jews 2 ), he would have challenged a direct comparison between
himself and the Synoptists, which, as a rule, he avoids. More-

which in Bib. Heb. means "hasten", but in New Heb. (Levy Ch, i. 245 b)
"grieved" i "cut to the heart?

[1010 /] In view of all these variations, it is possible that Jn xii. 27
" Why (or, how) should I say," W tiira>, may be a version of " What
will I" i.e. "What do I pray for?" taken as meaning "Why should
I say [in prayer]?"

1 [1011 a] Here is John's first mention of God's will, (iv. 34) " This
is my food, that I do the will of him that sent me"; and this is the
second, (v. 30) " I seek not mine own will but the will of him that
sent me," and this, the third, (vi. 38) " Not that I should do my own will
but the will of him that sent me." In all these cases Christ is speaking.

2 [1011 b] Such was the prayer of the great Rabbi Eliezer (B. Berac.
29 b) "Do thy will in heaven above, and give contentment (Wetst
yuietem (HPU) spiritus) to those who fear thee below, and do that which
is good in thine eyes."

365

[1012] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

over, if the original did not contain the word "will", there
was no textual reason why he should retain it. These being
the facts (according to our hypothesis), John might naturally
adopt a paraphrase (which may have occurred to others
also) expressing " According to thy word " as though it \\vre
" according to thy gloriotis will, or, thy glorious name "-
in accordance with a frequent custom of Targums, to add the
epithet of "glorious" to the Name of God, or to substitute
"glory" for 4> GW. This paraphrase he may have taken as
having an active meaning, "Do according to thy glory, or,
according to thy glorious name" And then, having regard
to the first clause of the Lord's Prayer, "Hallowed be thy
name" and to the essential meaning of the words, i.e. " Make
thy name glorious in us with the glory of righteousness "
(according to the words of Isaiah in the LXX (969) "glorified
in righteousness "), he may have finally adopted, as his version
of the prayer, the words " Glorify thy name" 1 .

5. Tlie truth as described by John : (ii) the time

[1012] And now, Gethsemane being from John's point
of view (1004) out of the question as the place for this short
prayer, what suitable place and what suitable occasion could
he assign to it? In order to answer this question let us go
back to the Targum above suggested as being in his mind
(1003), and, turning its initial words ("Jesus said at that
moment His soul was troubled ") from the third into the first
person ("Jesus said, 'At this moment my soul is troubled'"),
let us note how easily some of the following words might be
taken in the same way, as direct speech, uttered by our Lord
Himself, and some as a narrative of what happened: "Jesus

1 [1011 c] It happens also that "thy glory", "P33 or "11133, somewhat
resembles "according to thy word," "P313, and perhaps this should have
been mentioned. above (949-54) as a possible cause of corruption.

366

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1013]

said, ' At this moment is my soul troubled. But how could (or,
why should} 1 say, Father, save me from this hour f Nay, for
this cause I came, to undergo this hour. To the glory of thy
A'tiwi-/' Therefore there came a Voice from Heaven '/ [have
glorified nnd] will glorify if 1 .' Now some said* that it was
thunder ; others, that an angel spake unto Him. But He said,
' That Voice came not for my sake but for yours. For in this
moment is the judgment of this world, in this moment [it is
decreed that] tlie Ruler of this world shall be cast out : for I
will draw all men unto me when I am lifted up'. By this
He meant the death that He was to die."

[1013] Comparing this result with John's text, we shall
find that the two do not differ except in quite insignificant
details : and the rest of John's dialogue (xii. 34 36) between
Jesus and the multitude might easily spring from the same
origin, namely from a comment on the blindness of the
multitude to Christ's conception of " glory ", and on their
final failure to grasp His doctrine that the "glorifying" of
the Son of man would consist in His being exalted (or
" uplifted ") by an act of sacrifice. The end was that the
Light of the world departed from them and "was hidden".
This John expresses as a literal act as though Jesus finally
departed from the Temple, or from the Jews, and thus
(xii. 36) " was hidden (eiepv/Sr})" but no one has satisfactorily
explained " was hidden ", except as being used strangely
and unnaturally in a literal meaning, so as to suggest a
natural and spiritual one 8 . The crisis, then, contemplated by

1 For the reduplication, see 915.

8 "Some said", a misinterpretation of "some say" : see 874.

3 [1013 a] Comp. Jn viii. 59 (R.V.) "But Jesus hid himself (marg.
"was hidden' 11 ') (icpv/3>j) and went out of the temple," where Westcott
has no note on "hidden". Here (xii. 36) his note is, "The hiding was
not His work but the work of His adversaries, as being the result of their
want of faith." The words ought to be regarded as parallel to Christ's
final appeal to Jerusalem (Lk. xix. 42) " If [only] thou hndst known. ..the
things pertaining to peace! But as it is, they have been hidden

367

[1014] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

our hypothetical Targumist or Evangelist, and by John
(whom we suppose to be his interpreter), is what St Paul
calls the "stumbling" or "hardening" of Israel, but what
Isaiah calls also their " blinding " : and this may be regarded
as mainly, if not entirely, producing Christ's "trouble of soul "
mentioned in the context

[1014] But the "hardening" of Israel is connected in
St Paul's writings 1 with the "coining in of tlie fulness of the
Gentiles" : and it may be taken as highly probable or certain
that the two would be similarly connected by our Evangelist
in thought if not in word. Now it has been shewn above
(921-3) that the " coming in " of the Gentiles appears to be
predicted (though obscurely) in the passage of Luke de-
scribing the return of the Seventy and the response of Jesus
to the Spirit ; when He acknowledges the will of the Father
in hiding the truth from "the wise" (i.e. the higher classes of
Jews) and in revealing it to "babes" (*>. the poorer Jews and
the Gentiles') as though this were a triumph over " Satan "
whom He " beheld fallen as lightning from heaven."

[1015] John also connects the two. But he so utterly
differs from Luke in word having nothing in common
verbally or even semi-verbally except (John) the "casting
out of the Ruler of this world " and (Luke) " Satan fallen
from heaven " that it is easy to overlook the identity of the
connection. Luke, the quasi-historian, mentions a class
(probably non-existent in fact 8 ), the "Seventy" Missionaries
to the Gentiles : John, the poet, personifies the class in

from thine eyes." What Luke represents Christ as saying^ John represents
Him as doing; and Luke's "things pertaining to peace" are personified
in John's "Jesus' (the Prince of Peace).

1 Rom. xi. 11, 25.

2 If these words (Mt. xi. 25, Lk. x. 21) were uttered by Christ before
the Resurrection, they would probably refer to the Jews alone directly, and
would only refer to the Gentiles by implication, in so far as His Gospel
was essentially universal.

8 See Clue (233-5).

368

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [10151

"Philip", presumably the Apostle, but confused in the earliest
days of the Church with Philip the Evangelist, who is said
to be " usually reckoned as one of the Seventy 1 ," and, if so,

1 [1015 a] "Usually. ..Seventy", so Enc. B. 3701 a, and comp. Hippol.
"On the Seventy", Clark, p. 132. The early confusion between the two
Philips (if we are to assume that there were two) and the fact that one
Philip was specially appointed as a minister to the "Hellenists", might
favour the development of a tradition that he was foremost in bringing
the "Greeks" to Jesus.

[1015 b] There may possibly be some connection between Luke's
tradition about (Lk. x. i) the Seventy, mentioned only in his Gospel, and
Luke's tradition about the Seven Ministers to the Hellenists, recorded
only in Acts (vi. 5). In Hebrew, V3E> = " seven", and the plural of this,
D'jnt? = " sev >enty ". Again, the "Hellenists" might be taken as meaning
all the nations of the Roman Empire that spoke Greek, i.e. the Gentiles
generally as distinct from the Jews. Thus a statement that the Lord,
besides first appointing Twelve to minister to the twelve tribes of Israel,
ordained (after His resurrection) that there should be Seven to minister
to the Hellenists, might easily originate a tradition that the Lord ordained
Seventy to minister to the Gentiles, and it may have been assumed that
He did this before His resurrection. Whether these "Seven" have any
connection with the ministration of the "seven loaves" and the few fishes
to the Four Thousand (in which "seven" baskets of fragments are
picked up, whereas "twelve" baskets are gathered in the miracle of the
Five Thousand) and whether John's Seven (who partake (xxi. 2) of bread
and fishes with the Lord after His resurrection) have any further bearing
on Luke's misunderstanding about the Seventy, are questions that can
only be raised, not discussed here.

[1015 c\ Greek corruption might also confirm Luke in his error about
the Seventy. It happens that the second of the Seven was called
Philip (commonly known as "the Evangelist"), the first being Stephen.
Immediately after Stephen's martyrdom, a "Philip" is described as
making a multitude of converts in Samaria. He is commonly supposed
to be Philip the Evangelist, i.e. of the Seven. But some very early
authorities say it was Philip the Apostle, i.e. of the Twelve: and the
same division of opinion occurs in other passages where "Philip" is
mentioned. Elsewhere Acts has (xxi. 8) " Philip the Evangelist, being
of the (Svrot tK -rStv) Sewn," and similarly (for the purpose of distinction)
writes Polycrates, as quoted by Eusebius (iii. 31. 3) (Heinichen) " Philip
of the Twelve Apostles, *. rS>v i. diroirr" (v.r. ovra rS>v, Schwegl. TOK
ru>v, but suggests 6 roi>). Now, owing to the freq. interchange of o> and
o, "of the apostles" might be written roairoaroKw. When was written
above o to indicate the correct spelling, it would be an easy error to

A. 369 24

[1015] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

probably as their leader. According to the Fourth Gospel,
first Philip approaches Andrew. Then the two Apostles
the only members of the Twelve that have Greek names 1

suppose that was not to be substituted but to be inserted. This might
give TwoawooToXwi', read as ritv o nno<rr6\otv, that is, "of the Seventy
Apostles:'

[1015 </] Legend, springing from prophecy, apparently connected
itself at a very early date with Philip, whom Luke describes (after his
conversion of Samaria) as being told by "an angel" (Acts viii. 26-40) to
go "to (icora) the South (lit. noonday) to Gaza, this is deserved)... \\\c
Spirit snatched ({jpiratrtv) Philip... he was found in Azotus" The clause
"this is desert" is very perplexing. It has been explained as a gloss
from Strabo xvi. 30: but perhaps (Index II, "Gaza") some ancient
Christian writer saw in Philip's missionary conquest of the Philistian
coast a fulfilment of Zephaniah (ii. 4-5) "Gaza shall be forsaken (LXX
" snatched (as a prey)," auprao>Wi'i;)...they shall drive out Ashdod (LXX,
Azof us) at the noonday (/irijj*4/W)...M<r word of the Lord is against
you (cty* vfMs)...land of the Philistines." Luke seems to have found some
obscure tradition based on Zephaniah, conflating " Gaza is forsaken "
with "snatched away [from Gaza]" and carried to "Axotus", and taking
" noon-day" as "South ". The last words of the prophecy [" the word...
Philistines"] correspond to Luke's prosaic account of Philip, who (Acts
viii. 40) " was found in Ago/us and passing through [the coast] preached
to all the cities until he came to Caesarea," i.e. all the cities on the coast
of Philistia. As regards "against you" conquest by the sword in O.T.
corresponding to conquest by the Gospel in N.T. see 1018.

1 [1015 <] The tradition of the approach of the Greeks through Philip
and Andrew might be facilitated by a misunderstanding of some personi-
fication or metaphor playing upon the names of the two Apostles, partly
because they were Greek names, and partly because "Andrew", in Greek,
suggested "man", and "Philip", in Hebrew, might suggest, or be con-
fused with, "escape, or, deliverance" (0?D) (a notion connected with his
name by many very old traditions that must be discussed in another
treatise) as appears from the actual substitution of HOvD for 'B'^S,
"Philip "in j. Taan. 68 (Krauss. 448 ). The combination of the two
would suggest "the deliverance of the Greeks or Gentiles?

[1015 /] We find St Paul telling us that (Gal. iv. 25) "this Hagar is
mount Sinai in Arabia," and the Epistle to the Hebrews asserting that
(vii. 9) " So to say, through Abraham, even Levi, who receiveth tithes,
hath paid tithes" With similar etymological personification or poetic
representation, evangelists, about A.D. 70-80, rejoicing over the inclusion
of the Greeks in the Church, might say that it had a prototype in the
"deliverance" of the lost and saved one, Philip, who was a Greek in

370

VOICK 1 ROM HEAVKN* [1017]

approach Jesus to introduce "the Greeks", the representatives
of the Gentiles, or, as Isaiah calls them, "the nations", who
" shall come to the light " in Zion '.

[1016] Our Evangelist has gradually been preparing us
for this " coming ". First, our Lord has spoken of His " other
sJu-ep that are not of this fold' 1 ',' whom He must bring into the
fold. Then Caiaphas, that high-priest of Satan inspired like
Balaam, against his will, by a Higher Power "prophesied
that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation
only, but that he might gather together into one the children
of God that are scattered abroad*" that is, such Jews and
Gentiles alike as were elect. Lastly the whole Sanhedrin,
dejected by Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, un-
consciously predict His triumph speaking of it as past (for
thus Hebrew prophecy often blends its tenses) and saying,
/// what they mean to be vernacular hyperbole but the Evangelist
means otherwise, " Behold how ye prevail nothing : lo, t/te
world is gone after him 4 " By "the world", tJie Pharisees
meant "the multitude", the "common people" the " people
of the earth " as they called them, the " accursed ", who " knew
not the law." But John means the human world, created by
God in His own image. Immediately after this unwilling
prophecy, occurs the coming of the Greeks, the first-fruits of
the nations of " the world".

6. The truth as described by John : (iii) the place

[1017] So much for the time, or occasion, assigned by
John to the Bath Kol. Now Gethsemane being once more,

name, and in the calling of Andrew, " the man (of Greece) " : " [So to say,
even before the Resurrection] the Greeks, who came to the Lord after-
wards through Peter, came to Him already before the beginning of the
Gospel through Philip and Andrew? Drop "So to say... Resurrection,"
and we have the Johannine legend.

1 Is. Ix. 3. * Jn x. 16.

3 Jn xi. 51-2: comp. Hort on i Pet. i. I "'You Christians of the
Asiatic provinces are the true strangers of dispersion] St Peter seems
to say." * Jn xii. 19.

371 242

[1018] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

for the reasons above mentioned, necessarily set aside what
place would he naturally deem appropriate ? The choice of
place would, in some measure, depend upon the choice of
time. If the latter was the moment when the Jews finally
rejected Christ, then the former could be nothing else but the
Temple. According to the Synoptists, it was from the
Temple that Christ after some three days of preaching
following an attempt to purify its uncleanness went forth in
the evening for the last time to sit upon Mount Olivet in the
growing darkness, dooming the building of Herod to de-
struction, and predicting the judgment of the world and the
coming of the Son of man uplifted on the clouds. John
indeed differs from the Synoptists at this stage in some
important points. He places the attempt at purification
long before. According to him, not three days, but three
years of respite, had been given to the nation in vain ; and
no attempt is recorded by him as being made to purify now.
But still he agrees with his predecessors in synchronizing
Christ's rejection by the Jews (the blind people who say,
"Who is this Son of man?") with His final exit from the
building " made with hands ".

[1018] From another point of view, the Temple mi^ r ht
seem to John naturally connected with the coming of the
Greeks. He has just described Christ's entry into Jerusalem
in the words of Zechariah, " Behold, thy king cometh " : and
how could the Son of God and King of Israel, solemnly
entering His city, fail to go at once as the Synoptists say
He did to His Father's palace, still the House of God
though desecrated by men ? This being the case, the Evan-
gelist might naturally pass on in thought to the prophet's
context, which would seem to him to express as Hebrew
prophecy often does to the minds of Christian interpreters
the victories of the Kingdom of Peace in the language of the

sword: "He shall speak peace unto the nations and I

will stir up tliy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and

372

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1019]

will make thee as the sword of a mighty man." " Were not
the Apostles" so an Evangelist might ask "the sons of Z ion
who had been stirred up to conquer the sons of Greece with
the word of the Lord Jesus, which was verily the sword of a
mighty inan ? " The prophet goes on to say of Israel, " The
Lord their God shall save them in that day as \hz flock of Iris
people : for they shall be as the stones of a crown lifted on
high over his land." Did not this predict that " other flock"
the flock of the Gentiles of which the Lord made mention ?
Did it not mean that the Lord, " lifted up " on the Cross and
wearing tJie "crown " of thorns, would " draw all men " up to
share His throne and make them " the stones of his crown* " ?

[1019] In an entirely different metaphor, we find the
same prophet saying of the Messiah that He would grow up
spontaneously as a branch, and that He would " build the
Temple". Now in the mind of any Jew (provided that he has
the least tincture of his national literature) a family is
a "building" ; and a "son" is at once a "builder" and a part
of the " building " 2 . But a building of God is a temple.
Hence "the Son of God" is " the Temple". And hence our
Evangelist declares that when Jesus said "Temple", "he
spake of the temple of his body*? The words of Zechariah are,
" Behold the man whose name is THE BRANCH ; and he shall
grow up out of his place, and he shall build t/te temple of tJie
Lord*" John's conception is that Jesus of Nazareth, "grow-
ing up out of His place," did, by a spiritual act, not only
build the Temple, but become the Temple, being the Eternal
Son. When applying the metaphor of " seed " to the King-
dom of God, the Synoptic Parable of the Sower conveys the
impression that "the seed" is a thought, sown by God or by

1 Zech. ix. 9-13, ix. 16.

1 The two words are etymologically connected, and play on the
connection is frequent in Hebrew of all dates. See Gen. xvi. 2, xxx. 3
"obtain children (marg. be builded}? and Gesen. 125* and 120*.

3 Jn ii. 21. Zech. vi. 12.

373

[1020] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

the Spirit : John speaks of it as a personality, the Son of God.
This is " the grain of wheat" that is to die and rise again and
to grow up as the Temple in the New Jerusalem.

[1020] Lastly, the locality of the Temple was suitable
both to the prayer, " Glorify thy name ", and to the answer,
"I have both glorified and again will glorify? For "in his
temple", says the Psalmist, " everything says ' Glory!"". It
was in the Temple, also, that Isaiah (who according to John
(xii. 41) "saw his^/0ry") heard the Seraphim saying "the
whole earth" not Israel alone " is full of his glory"* ; and,
according to the same prophet, God says (Ix. 7) " The House
of my glory I will glorify" Haggai, too, connects the building
of the Temple with the glory of God and a Christian such
as Justin (and perhaps even John) might find a reference to
the Cross in the context " Go up to the mountain and bring
wood 3 , and build tlif House, and I will take pleasure in it, and
/ will be glorified, saith the Lord 4 ."

1 I's. xxix. 9. * Is. vi. 3.

8 [1020 rf] Hagg. i. 8. The Christian Fathers, from Justin onwards,
constantly see the Cross in the prophetic "wood", or "tree".

4 [1020 /') In "the glory of the Lord" John would certainly include
the self-sacrifice, as being the triumph, of the Son. When he says of
Isaiah that "he saw his glory" though he probably refers as the
commentators say to the vision of "the Lord high and lifted up upon
a throne," he almost certainly takes "lifted up", as usual, to mean "lifted
up on the throne of suffering," the Cross. Hence, under Isaiah's vision
of "glory ", he would see the afflictions of the Suffering Servant. Among
these would come the sense of failure to redeem Israel- This feeling of
sorrow m>er Israel is connected by Isaiah with joy over the Gentiles, in
words that our Evangelist may have had in mind when he spoke of the
"trouble" preceding the mention of glory (Is. xlix. 4-6 Heb. txt, R.V.
marg.) " But I said, / have laboured in vain... yd surely my judgement is

with the Lord, and my recompence with my God but Israel is not

gathered, yet shall I be honourable in the eyes of the Lord yea, he

saith, It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise
up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel : I will also
give thee for a light to the Gentiles."

[1020 c] Describing the influx of the Gentiles into the Church, Isaiah
says (Ix. 7) "the house of (IV3) my glory (mMXn)) / will glorify

374

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1021]

7. The truth as it is

[1021] The truth about a Voice from Heaven in response
to Christ's Prayer is so far as can be judged from the evi-
dence above alleged that although Christ prayed on the night
before the Crucifixion, the exact words of the prayer have
not been preserved ! , nor was there (at least in the popular

(TKQX)." It may be worth noticing that, if the bracketed n were dropped
after n, the last two Hebrew words would mean, " I have glorified, I will
glorify."

1 [1021 rt] In this connection, it is well to recall the fact that the
Church has been permitted for many centuries to believe that Jesus
taught His disciples to say in prayer " For thine is the Kingdom the
power and the glory for ever and ever" words now rejected (not of
course as a useful doxological appendix but as an utterance of Christ's)
by all competent critics.

[1021 6] This fact besides having a bearing on d priori arguments
(unimportant in my opinion) as to what amount of temporary ignorance
God might permit in the Church may bear upon John's version of our
Lord's Prayer, because in the Didacht a Eucharistic doxology occurs in
a short form mentioning "glory" alone (ix. 2-3, x. 2-4) "To thee the
glory for ever." The Acts of John represents Jesus, just before His arrest,
as teaching His disciples to say simply "Glory to thee, Father, Glory to
thee, Logos &c." The Codex Bobbiensis (in its version of Mt. vi. 14)
has merely " thine is the might (virtus)," and the Thebaic Version (Chase
p. 174) and many other authorities omit "kingdom". Now the word
"1133 means not only "glory", but also (and primarily) "weight"; and
the root appears (Trommius) in the LXX as "strengthen" or "prevail",
KaTurxvv (l)> "great", piyas (4), "make (or, be) strong," eVto-^vw (4),
"strong", Ivxvpos (2), "violence", /Sta (i), besides having the frequent
meanings of "heavy", " weight "," wealth " &c. Probably this Hebrew
word was in the mind of the writer of i Pet. v. u "To him the might
(icparos) for ever." This word, if in the Hebrew Original, would naturally
be expressed by two or more Greek words (comp. i Tim. vi. 16 "to
whom honour and might for ever"). The Didache", too, besides the
short form given above, has (ix. 4) "the glory and the power," (x. 5) "the
power and the glory" where the variation of order suggests conflation
from an original "glory", 1133. There is, therefore, reason for supposing
that the interpolated doxology in Mt. vi. 14 was once a short form,
"Glory to thee" or " Glory to thy name," and that it has been enlarged,
somewhat as the Diatessaron has enlarged Mk x. 37 "in \hy glory", by

375

[1022] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

sense of the phrase) either then or at any time, a Voice from
Heaven. But the truth does not end here. Though we do
not know the words, we do know the spirit of the prayer, ami
we do know both that it was answered from heaven and also
what was the nature of the answer.

[1022] The spirit of the Prayer needs to be expressed
for different persons, nations, churches, and generations, in
different phrases, varying with the varieties of human nature.
We may take it as certain that, as coming from our Lord, and
as it would have been then understood by any pious Jew,
it meant something equivalent to " Hallow, or glorify, thy
name." For us, " Glorify thy name" is an antiquated phrase
that needs explanation now. So, too, similar phrases needed to
be explained of old. For example, the words in the Hymn of
Moses, (lit.) " He is my God and I will beautify him 1 ," were
very variously explained by the Jews. "Can man", said
Rabbi Ismacl, "make his Creator beautiful? [No], but the

combining it with the parallel Mt. xx. 21 "in thy kingdom", so as to
produce " in thy glory and thy kingdom"

[1021 f] The doxology is ambiguous. In the Acts of John it probably
means "Glory be to thee"; in the Uidtiche", "Glory belongs to thee." It
is quite possible that John, being aware of the various interpretations
not only of the first clause of the Lord's Prayer but also of this traditional
appendix, may have wished to reconcile those who contended, on the one
hand that God's kingdom and glory were eternal and not dependent on
man's prayers, and on the other that God was not yet King and not yet
glorified because men rebelled against Him. John's solution is that
although the glory of God's name was unchangeable and eternal, yet the
Name had still to be glorified. But men could not glorify it. None but
the Father could glorify it. The divine glory was not dependent on men
any more than the objective brightness of the sun depends upon the
clouds of one small planet. The glory of the Name would remain ever-
more unchanged, but the Name could not be duly glorified till it dis-
persed the mists in the minds of men.

1 [1022 a] Exod. xv. 2 "And I will beautify him (inWKI)." R.V.
" I will praise him," A.V. " I will prepare him a habitation? Onk. " I will
build him a sanctuary" Jer. (in long paraphrase) " we will praise him,"
Gesen. (627 a) ("si vera lectio") "I will beautify, adorn him (with
praises)," LXX 3od<ra>.

376

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1023]

meaning is, I will make for Him that which is beautiful by
observing His precepts. I will make Him a beautiful Lulab
[i.e. Hosanna-bunch of palms &c.], a beautiful Tabernacle
[at the feast of Tabernacles], a beautiful Trumpet [for the
feast of Trumpets] &c." Another Rabbi said that the NAME
is glorified when Israel does God's will, because their enemies
hear how (Josh. v. i) the Lord dried up the waters of Jordan
or (Josh. ii. 10) the Red Sea i.e. because of the military
glories of the Chosen People. But Abba Saul, by splitting
into two and slightly modifying " I will beautify", so as to
make " I and (? even) HE," arrived at or perhaps we should
say illustrated his conclusion that one must imitate God :
" As He is pitiful and tender-hearted, so be thou 1 ." This
Rabbi is indefensible as a grammarian. But spiritually we
may sit at his feet. For he taught in the same spirit as our
Lord, (Lk. vi. 36) " Be ye merciful even as your Father is
merciful," and again, (Mt. v. 16) "Let your light so shine
before men that they may see your good works and glorify
your Father who is in heaven 2 ."

[1023] This is the axiom on which Christ's prayer is based,
namely, that God is glorified when man conforms himself, or
leads his brethren to conform themselves, \r\fact, to that image
of the Father in which man was made in idea. This "con-
formation " called by St Paul "edifying" or "building" may

1 [1022 b\ For these quotations, see Schottg. (Mt. v. 16) quoting
Mechilta 27. I foil., and J. Talm. Schwab ii. 6 (Pea, i). Another Rabbi
(Schwab /#.) taught that one must give the fifth of one's goods to the
poor, another the whole. "Make for Him that which is beautiful"
(Schottg. "pulchrum s. gratum faciam ei") = (Schwab) "on peut embellir
les objets par lesquels on accomplit ses pre'ceptes." The same passage
occurs in B. Sabbath 133^.

* [1022 c] Comp. Schottg. ib. "Unless there were righteous and pious
men in Israel (Schottg., by error, "in mundo") who exalt me more than
all the world by their good works." But in sayings like these the context
needs to be examined to shew whether the "good works" are those of
R. Ismael or Abba Saul. A "good Lulab" is not what Christ and Abba
Saul meant by a "good work".

377

[1024] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

also be called " righteousness ", which, when taken in its full
sense, is the sole duty of man. It is tha building up of a char-
acter, a structure that is at once a temple and an image of
God according to the saying of Plato, " God is as righteous
as possible, and there is nothing more like God than the man
that is as righteous as possible."

[1024] Upon the same axiom is based the truth conveyed
in the answer from heaven, " I have both glorified and will
again glorify." There is probably a reference to the two-fold
glorifying of the Name by the generation and by the resurrec-
tion of the Son. But there is more than this. Though only the
past and the future are indicated in word, the present is also
indicated in the present act, so that the meaning is, " I have
been, am, and shall be, glorifying my Name of Father in glori-
fying Man, my Son, made in my image : and this glorifying
has been and will be fulfilled whenever I raise up this man or
that man nearer to the throne of my glory by inspiring him
with the spirit of sonship and brotherhood through toil, and
trouble, and self-sacrifice 1 ."

[1025] Taken together, the prayer and the answer in-
culcate the essential divinity of a good man. Such a one,
when comparing him to God, we modern orthodox Christians
are disposed to call " a mere man ", or " a common man ". So
did the Greeks and Romans, except in the case of some by
no means always "good " (Hercules for example), whom they
supposed to have been born of supernatural intercourse
between the Gods of Olympus and the women of earth
known to us as " demigods ". Very different is the Johannine
conception. John follows the lines of Peter's vision forbidding
the Apostle to give the name of " common " to what God had
" cleansed ". Accordingly, in its prologue, the Fourth Gospel

1 [1024 a] Comp. Exod. iii. 14 " I AM hath sent me unto you " with
Jer. Targ. (I) " I AM HE WHO is AND WHO WILL BE hath sent me
unto you," where the Targumist expands the single tense into two
tenses.

378

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1027]

tells us that those who received Jesus were " not begotten from
tlic will of t/it'Jlt's/t, nor from t/t will of man, but from God."
These are what many Christians would call "mere men". But
according to John's view, these "mere men" are God's sons
and temples, whom He is continually "begetting", or building.
Each of His sons is a temple of the Holy Spirit : and yet
there are not many sons, but one Son, not many temples, but
one Temple. For, as there is a Unity in the Trinity of
the Godhead, so is there a unity in the multiplicity of the
Church.

[1026] This, then, is the truth about the glory of God
which is the subject of Christ's prayer and of God's answer
namely, that its crowning manifestation is not in ritual, or
beauty, or power, but in a good man. And, so far, many of
the Greek philosophers would go with John. But they under-
rated the difficulty and depreciated the drudgery, so to speak,
of the pursuit of goodness, because they did not understand
the sacredness of labour for others, of pain for others, of
trouble for others, the mystery of the Cross, the secret of the
Father and Lord of all revealing Himself through His Son
as the Servant of His creatures. It was the supreme glory
of Israel (for the most part a stiff-necked and sensual nation),
that a chosen few among them had been inspired Isaiah,
or one of the Isaiahs, most of all with the vision of the ideal
Sovereign, this suffering Servant of servants : and it was the
glory of Him whom Philip called "Jesus of Nazareth the son
of Joseph 1 " that He had fulfilled this ideal.

[1027] According to the present belief of millions of
Christians, if Jesus was " the son of Joseph " He was " a
mere man " ; and Philip himself, apparently sharing this belief,
says to Jesus "Shew us the Father 1 ." If Philip still thought
Him to be " the son of Joseph ", that is to say " a mere man ",
he would seem logically justified, according to the view of
the millions above mentioned, in distinguishing Him from

1 Jn i. 45. * Jn xiv. 8.

379

[1028] THE TRUTH ABOUT THE

God and in uttering this request. Yet Jesus replies, " Have
I been so long time with you and dost thou not know me,
Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. How
sayest thou, Shew us the Father?" What is Philip recorded
by the Fourth Gospel to have learned from Jesus during
that "long time" that should have made him feel that he
saw the Father when he saw "the son of Joseph"? Had
Jesus taught him that He was not " the son of Joseph " ?
There is no hint of it. No theologian worth calling such
has taught, or could teach, that such a thing had happened.
Some indeed, in answer to the question " What had Philip
learned?" may reply, "The Apostle had been taught that
Jesus was God's Son by the Voice from Heaven at the Trans-
figuration." But the Fourth Gospel makes no mention of this.
Others may say, " He had witnessed Christ's miracles." Well,
Elijah (according to the Old Testament) worked miracles, and
as many as the Johannine Christ Elisha worked twice as
many. Yet would Elijah have been justified in saying to
Elisha, or Elisha in saying to one of the sons of the prophets,
" He that hath seen me hath seen Jehovah " ? If either prophet
had said such a thing, would not all Israel have justly stoned
him as a blasphemer?

[1028] The truth appears to be (according to our Evan-
gelist) that what Philip had learned, during that " long time ",
was that Jesus was " a man as righteous as possible" So far
as we can judge from the Fourth Gospel, Philip still believed
Jesus to be " the son of Joseph " ; but, in the eyes of the
Lord, this was no obstacle to the belief in His divinity.
Without correcting Philip's error, if error it was, Jesus in
effect commands him and not without a suggestion of re-
proach for not having anticipated the command to accept
" the son of a carpenter " as one whom, having seen, Philip
had seen the Father in heaven. Some people would regard
such a command as mad or blasphemous. But that is be-
cause they have as yet only heathen conceptions of God, or

380

VOICE FROM HEAVEN [1028]

conceptions far beneath those of the best and wisest of the
he.itlu-n. Let them sit for awhile in the ante-room of the
Greeks at Plato's feet in order to prepare them to pass into
the sanctuary of the Holy One of God. Why should not
Philip accept the carpenter's son as the very image of God,
if he felt him to be "a man as righteous as possible," and if
the Greek philosopher was right in saying that, in comparison
with such a man, " There is nothing more like God" ?

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

NARRATIVES OF THE BAPTISM
(Greek and Latin)

i. The Synoptists (1029^31) ; ii. John (1032-3) ; iii. Arabic Uiates-
saron, see 556; iv. Justin Martyr (1034-6); v. Celsus (1037-9); vi. Testa-
ment of the XII Patriarchs (1040-1); vii. Gospel of the Hebrews or
Nazarenes (1042); viii. Ephrem Syrus (1043-4); ix. Gospel of the
Ebionites (1045); x. Sibylline Oracles (1046-8); xi. Epiphanius (1049-
50). The accentuation somewhat varies in the various extracts.

Mk i. 911

[1029] Kai iyevfTO
iv cKtiVcus rats if/xe'p-
ais rjXQiv 'I^erovs d;ro
NaapT TTJS FaAi-
Xui'a? Kai f(3aTTTto-6r)

CIS TOV 'lopodviJV VTTO

'laxivov. xai wvs
dvafiaivtav ex TOU vSa-
TOS eiocv (r\iop.vovs
rot 1 ? ovpavovs Kal TO
7rvtv/xa ws TTpurTfpav
Karapaivov ts avrov
Kal tfnavrj [cycVcro] CK

T(UV OV/)U1 (01 20 C? O

vio's /iov d
v (Tol

(i) The Synoptists
Mt. iii. 13, 16-17

TO'T irapayivtrai
o Irjcrov? airo TTJ<;
FaXiXatas Vi roi'
'Iop8dvrjv
'Itodvrjv TOV
o-6rjvai vir' CLVTOV....

o^ovs i>0v<i dvfftrj a
TOU uSaros' KOL t

(marg.
ins. avro>) 01 ovpavoi,
Kai tlofv Tri/ev/za ^cou
KaTay3a^^ov were! TTC-

Cp\fJLVOV

fir' avrov Kal loov

K Tt)v oupa-
vtov Xc'youtra OUTOS

<TTIV O VIOS /iOU O

aycnnjTOS, ev w evSo-
Ki/aa (marg. o vlds
/iov, d ayaTT^TOS ev
ui v.).

385

Lk. iii. 21-2

ev TO
airavra
TOV Xaov Kal 'Irjo-ov
Kal irpo-

vat TOV ovpavov Ka

KaTaflrjvai TO -rrvevfta

TO ayiov

tloci ws

ir avrov,

f ovpavov ytveorOat

2i) c? d vids p-ov o

dyaTr>/To's, fv o~ol tv-

ooicrjaa.

[1030]

NARRATIVES OF

[1030] D KOI cyc-

VtTO (V TCUS rjfJL. CKCt-

vais r)\8(v o LIJ<; airo
vaape0 717? yaAt-
Axua? Kat fftairTurdi]
ts Trfv topSavrjr mro
ttoavvov Kat avaftaLvtav
CK TO vSaros ct8cv
TOUS ovpa-

Mt.

D is lost as far
as Karapawovra. CK
TOU ovpavov ws irept-

<TTpaV KOI (p^O/XCVOV

<t? airrov Kat i8oi>
<t>tavT} CK TDI' ovpavcoc
Xeyoiwra irpos airrov
o-v et o vtos

Kat TO wva

ircpurrcpai'

(omits [

[1031] SS is lost.

SS" Then came J.
from G. unto John
that he might bap-
tize him in the Jor-
dan And

when he was bap-
tised and went up
out of the water,
lo, the heavens were
opened, and he saw
the Spirit of God
descending in the
likeness of a dove,
and it abode upon
him : and a voice
was heard from hea-
ven, which said unto
him, Thou art my
Son and my be-
loved, in thee I am
well pleased."

(ii) John

[1032] Jn i. 28 34 Tavra cv
*Iop8dvov OTTOV ffv 6 'Icodvrjs fiaTrri

386

Lk.

D Kat Kat (sif)

vov arot-

(us rrept-

ets avrov KOI
CK TOV ouparov
ycvco~dat vios /mov ct
o~v cyw OT7/xepov ye-
ae.

SS" And when all
the people were bap-
tized, Jesus also was
baptized, and while
he prayed, the hea-
vens were 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."

eyevero irepav TOV

I HI. i:\ITISM [1034]

Tr; e-rravpiov j3\7rei rbv 'lijarovv p%6fjievoi> 717309 avrov, ttai
\yei "loe o u/ii/o? TOU 0eov 6 atptav rrjv dp,apriav rov Ko<rp.ov.

OUTO? <rrtl> VTTCp OV t^O) etTTOV 'OTTtffO) fJLOV p%Tai dl>T)p O?

fnrpoaOei> p.ov yeyovev, on rrpwrbs p.ov r)v tcdyut OVK rjBeiv
avrov, </\X' tVa (paveptaBfj TW 'l<Tpar)\ Bta TOVTO %\6ov eyot v
v&an ftaTrri^wv. Kai papTvpr)<ri> 'Iwai/i/9 Xeytav on
TO Trvvp,a tcaraftalvov <o<? Trepiffrepav e ovpavov, tcai
V avrov tcuyto ovtc jjoeiv avrov, a\\' 6 ire/ii/ra? fie
v voari Ktvo<; pot elirev 'E^>' bv av iSys TO irvevpa Karaftalvov
teal p-fvov eV avrov , ovro? e<rriv o ftaTrrifav ev rrvevpa-ri dyup'
Kayo) pana, /cat p-ep-aprvprfKa on ovrot e<rnv 6 vtb<; rov 6eov.
[\V.H. 1 88 1, marg. 6 e/cXe/cTo? for o i/to<?. This is now con-
firmed by SS, see 1033 ad fin.]

D is lost.

[1033] 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 that he should be made known to Israel, I am come
to baptize with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw
the Spirit [ ] descended from heaven, and abode upon

him. 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
See 556.

(iv) Justin Martyr

[1034] ( Tryph. 88) "Ho-re ov Sia rb elvai avrov
ovvdp,(i)<; 7TTrpo<pi]Tevro eXevtreaOai cV avrov ra<;
Tf/v Karr)pi0fjti]fj.va<i viro 'HoWou, aXXa Bui rb TrKtva p.ij

387 25-2

[1035] NARRATIVES OF

fi\\iv eo-co-dai ...... KOI TpiaKovra err) rj trXeiova rf tcai e\dcr-

ffova fjueivas, /u^pt<> ov TrpO\ij\v@ev 'lotdvvr)*; Kijpv^ avrov TT}?
irapovo-ias, KOI rrjv TOV /9a7TTioyi,aT09 6Bov trpoicav, o>9 Kal
TrpoaTTfBei^a. Kat rare \66vro<; TOV 'Irj&ov eVi TOV *\op&dvi)v
Trorafiov, evda o 'Ituai/j/7/9 e/Qa7rrtie, /eareX^oi/TO? TOV 'Irjo-ov eTrl
TO vBatp real Trvp dvrj<f>6i) 1 cv T^> lopBavy, ical dvabvvTos avTov
OTTO TOV vBaTos to? TrepUTTepdv TO a^fiov TTvevjuia eVtTTTT/z/at eV
avTov eypa^rav 01 diroa-ToXoi avTov TOVTOV TOV \picrTov 77/iwi/.

[1035] Kal ov% a>9 ei/Sea avTov TOV ftaTTTurdiivai rf TOV
TT\0oi>To<; ev eiBei trepKnepa^ 7rvVfiaTO9 eVSe^s TovTdiv VTrepeivev, a\X' vTrep TOV yevovs
TOV Totv dv6pa)7rci>v...Kai e\BovTo<; TOV 'Irjaov 7rl TOV 'lopSdvrjv,
teal vofuofj,evov 'IdHrrjQ TOV TVKTOV 09 vlov vTrdp^etv, Kal deiBovs,
<U9 a'l ypafyal extjpvffaov, (fxuvofievov, teal TZKTOVOS vofjn^ofj,vov
(ravTa yap TO, TCKTOVIKO. epya elpyd&TO ev dv0p<i)7roi<t dav,
apoTpa ical vyd, Sia TOVTWV Kal TO, 1-779 8iKaio<rvvr)<: o-u^i/SoXa
oitaffKUtv Kal evepyf) ftiov), TO trvev^a ovv TO dyiov Kal Bia rou9
dvdpayrrovs, a>9 irpo<j>r)V, ev eiBei Trepio-rfpas eVeTTT?; aurcG, Kal
(f)0)in) ex T0)v ovpavoiv fi/jM \r)\v0i, IJTIS Kal Bid Aa/8t8
\fyoj4vr), ei>9 diro 7rpo<Ta>Trov avTov \eyovTos oirep avTot UTTO
TOV TraT/309 efji\\ \eye<T0at, Tto9 /*ou eZ av, eya) crijpepov
yeyevvrjKa <re, TOTS yeve<nv avTov \eyoyv ylveaBat rofr dv6p(a-

1 [1034 a] '\vT}<t>0r) might be corrected into dvf)<p0ai t as suggested by
Thirlby but not adopted by Otto. 'Avf}<f>dm, written, as in early MSS. is
freq., avrj<f>dt, before the t in i/, might easily drop * and then be corrected
into the familiar avr)<pdr] (comp. Ps. CV. 1 5 a^rja-dt, AK airTtvBai).

[1034 ti] But Justin may have intended to write "a fire was kindled...
and the Spirit descended," then, as he proceeded, becoming impressed
with the necessity of alleging apostolic authority, he perhaps altered the
construction of the last part of the sentence without making the corre-
sponding alteration in the first part.

[1034 c\ Or, he may mean, " We all know that a fire was kindled
because that was a matter of observation; but that the Holy Spirit
descended in the form of a dove could not be known to mere uninspired
men even if they saw the dove, and therefore we accept the latter state-
ment on the authority of the inspired Apostles."

388

THE BAPTISM [1039]

7roi<t, fgorov T) yvtotris avrov 1/teXXe yivevffai Tiot /*ou el av,
tya) (ri'iftepov yeyevinjxd are.

[1036] (ib. 103) Kot yap ovros o SidftoXo? dfjui rut
dva/Sijvai avrov CLTTO rov Trorapov rov 'lopSdvov, TT}<? <^>a)*^<?
avrov 1 \e^6ei(Ti)<f T/o? pov el o~v, eyu) (rijfj,epov yeyevvrjicd <re,
ev rot? (iTrofjutrjuovevfJUHTi TWV diroaroKuiv yeypcnrTai Trpo(T\0a>v
/cat 7reipd(av f^e^pc rov elirelv avrut Upo&Kvvijffov poi.

(v) Celsus (quoted by Origen, ed. Lommatzsch)

[1037] (Cels. i. 40) 'E^<? Se rovroif diro rov tcard Mar-
Baiov, rd%a 8e real rwv Xonrtov evayyeXiwv, Xafioav rd Trepl rij<f
7rnrrd(Tij<; rut a-wrrjpi /3a7rriofjiV(p vrapd rov 'Ia>az/i/ou a frepi-
<rrepa<;, Sta/3d\\eiv f3ov\erai o>9 7r\a<rfta TO elp^^vov.

[1038] (ib.) Nui/i 8e, /tera rrjv CK TrapOevov yevvrja-iv, 6
irdvr 1 el&evai fTrayyeiXdfievof KeXtro? rd rj/jLerepa, fcarrjyopei
rov Trapd TO) /9a7rT4<7/iaTi s (fravevros dyiov Trvevparos ev eiSet
7repi(TTpd<;. Eira //.era rovro 8ia/3d\\et TO 7rpo(f)r)rve<r0ai
rrjv rov crtorrjpos rjfjuov eTriSrjfjiiav. Kat perd ravra ctvarpe^ei
eiri TO efj<i rfj yeveaei rov *Ir)<Tov dvayeypap,p,evov, TO irepl rov
ao-Tepo? 8njyrjfj.a, KOI rwv e\rj\vd6rwv diro dvaro\fj<; fidyiov
7Tpo<TKVvfi<Tat rut TraiBiw.

[1039] (ib. 41) v Eo~Tf S 1 6 'lov&aios avr<a en ravra \eytov,
7rpo<? ov opoXoyovfAev elvai Kvpiov THLWV, rov *\rjo~ovv "\ouo-
peva)," <br)<ri, " trot Trapd TO> 'Itadvvr}* <ao*/ia opviOos ei~ depo?
\eyeis eVtTTT^i/at." EtTa rrvvOavopfvos 6 Trap' avrq> '

1 [1036 a] The sense seems to demand avrw " to him ", which Clark's
transl. gives without note. Otto has no note.

2 [1037 a] " Desunt in Codd. Reg. et Basil, verba : irapa rov 'lodwov.
Vetus Vaticanus legit : irapa r<p 'ludwy. Quid si vero scribendum sit :

irapa T<U 'lopdapi; ; R."

3 [1038 a] We should have expected iv T<J> /9. IIap T 'laxiWi;
occurring ((?) 1037(7, 1039) in the context suggests that an original an-Tio-<m
(*.*. "by the side of him that baptized Him," namely John) may have been
corrupted into /San-rur/xtm.

4 [1039 a] "Cod. Jolian. habet in marg. irapa T 'lopdaVi;. Quae
correctio non spernenda...."

389

[1040] NARRATIVES OF

<j>r}<ri " Tt'<? rovro el8ev ni6x/>eo><? pdprvs TO ^>ao-/to ; rj TI? ijicovffev
el; ovpavov (f>a>i>rjs el<rrroiov<rrj Beat, tr\rjv on <rv <J>rj<?,
Kai riva eva e-Trdyrj rwv perd aov KKO\ao-p,evQ>v ; "

(vi) T/te Testament of the Twelve PatriarcJis (ed. Sinker)

[1040] (Levi 18) Tore eyepet Kvpios lepea icaivov, w Trdvres
ol \6yoi Kupt'ou aTTOKa\v<f>6ij<Toi>rai ...... Kat dvareXel aarpov

avrov ev ovpavo), a><? /SacrtXeu?, <oma>i/ <f>w<f yvaxreo)*; ...... Oi

ovpavol dyaXXidtroi'Tai ev rat<? jjpepats avrov, /cot TJ yij
<reTai l , ical at v<f>\ai ev^pavftr/ffuvrai, /cat 17 yvaxris
Xv0})<TTai eTri Tfjs 7^9, a>-f vStop OaXaffcrwv. Kat ot ayyeXoi TT}?
&on$* r v TrpOffutTTov \\vpiou ^apiffovrai 1 ev ai/rai.

[1041] Ot oCpai'oi dvoiyijaovTai, teal etc TOV vaov rfj?
aVo 'Aftpatip Trarpo? 'l<radtc. Kat Boj-a v^itrrov err avrov
pi)0i]<Trat, /cat rrvevfMi <Tvve<reaj<i /cat dytao-pov KaraTrav<rei far
avrov ev r<p v8ari ...... Kai eVt rq<f lepttxrvvr}^ avrov etcXetyet

rraaa afiaprla, /cat ol avo/zot tear art avo~ovo~ii> eis /ca/ca* ol Be
Bitcaioi Kararravaovatv ev avr<p.

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

[1042] Hieron. comment, in Esaiae xi. 2 (Kirchhofer p. 454)
Illud, quod in Evangelic Matthaei omnes quaerunt Ecclesi-
astic! et non inveniunt ubi scriptum sit : " Quoniam Nazaracus
vocabitur", eruditi Hebraeorum de hoc loco assumptum
putant.... Super hunc igitur florem, qui de trunco et radice
Jesse per Mariam virginem repente consurget, requiescet
Spiritus Domini, quia in ipso complacuit omnem plenitudinem
divinitatis habitare corporaliter, nequaquam per partes ut in
reliquis sanctis, sed juxta Evangelium eorum, quod Hebraeo
sermone conscriptum legunt Nazaraei, " descendit super cum

1 Ed. note. x a P*)'" ^ ere anc ^ elsewhere.

2 Ed. note. 5. K<U.

390

THE BAPTISM [1044]

omnis fons ("EM) 1 Spiritus sancti." Porro in Evangelic

cujus supra fecimus mentionem haec scripta reperimus :
i\ictnm est autem, qutim adscendisset Dominus de aqua,
descendit fans omnis Spiritus sancti et requievit super eum ac
dixit ci : I'ili mi, in omnibus PropJictis exspectabam te, ut
I'cnires et requiescerein in te, tit es enini requies mea, tu es filius
mens primogcnituS) qui regnas in sempiternum"

(viii) Ephrem Syrus (Comm. in Diatess., ed. Moesinger,

PP- 42-3)

[1043] " Et Spiritus sanctus, qui super eum, quum bap-
tizaretur, quievit, testatus est, eum esse pastorem ; per Joan-
nem enim propheticam et sacerdotalem dignitatem accepit.
Regiam dignitatem domus David per nativitatem acceperat,
quia ex domo David ortus erat, sacerdotium vero domus Levi
per secundam nativitatem in baptismo filii Aaronis. Qui jam
credit, secundam nativitatem ei fuisse in terra, ne dubitet,
eum per posteriorem hanc nativitatem in baptismo Joannis
accepisse sacerdotium Joannis. Quum illo die multi bap-
tizarentur, Spiritus super unum descendit et quievit, ut, qui
visu a ceteris non distinguebatur, hoc signo ab omnibus
discerneretur

[1044] "Quare usque ad tricesimum annum eum non
tentavit ? Quia signum manifestum divinitatis ejus de coelo
datum non erat et humilis ut quilibet alius homo apparebat....
Satanas tentationem ejus praetermisit, donee haec fieri in-
ciperent. Et quum audisset ' Ecce venit agnus Dei' et ' is est
qui tollit peccata mundi,' valde quidem obstupuit, sed exspec-
tavit, donee baptizaretur, ut videret, utrum tamquam baptismo
indigens baptizaretur. Quumque ex lumine super aquas
exorto et ex voce de coelo delapsa cognovisset, eum ut

1 So Kirchhofer, but the Hebrew 1X3 i.e. Noser, or Branch, should
have been printed after "eum". The meaning is "upon Him (i.e. the

Nazcr}?

391

[1045] NARRATIVES OF

indigentiarum expletorem in aquam descendisse, non vero ut
indigentem ad baptismum venisse, secum perpendens dixit :
Nisi in certamine et per tentationem eum probavero, cognos-
cere non potero, qui ille sit."

(ix) T/te Gospel of the Ebionites (quoted by Epiphanius)

[1045] (Epiphan. adv. Haer. xxx. I. ii. 13, vol. I. p. 138)
ev Tat? ij/iepatf 'HptoSou TOU /Sao-tXeax? TT}? '
dvvr)S fiairri^wv ft<'nrTio-p.a fj.eravoia<t ei/ TO)
ei), o<? eX^yero elvai etc yevovs 'Aapwz/ rov t'e/aea)?, Trat?
Za^apiov KOI 'EX< crater, teal efyip^ovro TT/JO? O.VTOV
Kat /ifTrt TO etVetf TroXXa, eVt^fpet, on rov \aov
Bevros i)\6e /cat 'IiytroO?, /cat eftaTTTia-Bij VTTO rov *la>dvvov. KOI
a>S dvfjXBev 7ro roO vSaro?, rjvoiyrja-av ol ovpavol, /cat eZSe TO
Trvevfjui rov HeoO TO cuyiov ev eioei TrepHrrepds Kare\6ovo-y<; KOI
l<r\8ov<Tij<; et? avrov. /cat <f>a>vr) eyevero e'/c TOI) ovpavov,
\eyovffdy <rv pov el 6 ut'o? 6 dycnrrjrbs, ev (Toi ijv&oicijfra, /cat
TraXti/, eyw tjr\^pov yeyevvrjKn <re. /cat eO^u? TrepteXa/ti/re TOI/
rorfov <f>d)S fteya. ov l iocav, <^rja"iv, 6 'l(advvi)<> \eyet, avrco, cry TI?
t Kvpte; /cat TrnXtf ^><uj/^ ef ovpavov TTpo<; avrov, ovros eanv
6 v/o<? /iou o d^aTTT^To?, e<^>' ov r)vooKi](Ta. /cat TOT, <f)r)<rlv, o
poo-Trefftov avri>, a^>69, oTt OI/TO)? e
rcperrov irXripwdrjvai rrdvra.

(x) Sibylline Oracles (ed. Friedlieb)

[1046] (i) (Bk vi. 11. I;)

'AQavdrov peyav viov doioijAov etc (f>pevo,
*ri Opovov i/'^rto'TO? yeverrjs irapeStaice \a/3eo~0ai,
OVTTCI) yevvriQevri' eTrel Kara o~dpica ooOeicrav

1 [1045 a] ov is probably an error for o, which has been taken by a
scribe as o (a freq. error).

2 [1045 l>~] ? leg. avTo, i.e. avrov.

392

THE BAPTISM [1049]

j, Trpo\oals diroXovadpevos Trora/Aoto
, o< <f>eperai y\avtc<a iroBl Kv^ara
A O?, irvp6<f K<f>ev^af t irptaros Qebv oyjrerat TjSvv,
Hvevpari ytvopevov Xevicais -rrrepvyfa-ffi 7r\eir)<i.

[1047] (ii) (Ib. vii. 11. 6670)

TXijfJuav, OVK eyvox; rbv <rbv ftew, [o?] TTOT' e\ov<rev
'IopSai/ou eV vBdrea-a-t, KOI e-rrraTO Trvevpa eV
A O? frplv ical yairj<f re /cat ovpavov
yevrjro \6y<p Ylarpo<;,
v(rdfjLvo<; 1 , ra^;u<? 'ITTTCLTO

[1048] (iii) (^.11.7984)

...... \a/3a>v dypirjvd irereivd,

Ey^d/iei/o? Tre/Lii^ret?, etV ovpavov o/i/uara reiva?'
"TBtap Be o-Tret'o-et? KaOaput irvpi, rota j3oTjo-a<;-
"O<; <re Aoyov yevvrjffe Harrjp, frdrep, opvtv affitc
'O^uv dTrayyeXrfjpa \6yu>v Aoyov, v8aa~iv dyvois
'Patvtav <TOV ftdTTTHTfia, 8t ov

(xi) Epiphanius

[1049] (i) (Anaceph. 7, vol. II. p. 153 c D) ...eV d
eroav \oyto-0ei*;, ev dpiQfKp fj,rjv<av, ev KoiXia icvo<J>opr)0i<;, yevo-
fievos etc yvvaiKos, yevojAevo? VTTO VOJJLOV, e\0a>v eVi rov 'IwpBdirrjv,
j3aTrTi<r6ei<? ai/ro? <pr), Traffa Bueaiotrvin}, iva Bel^rj OTI
o~dpica veBvo~aTO, d\ij0ivt}v evavOpcaTnja'iv' tcarep-
et<? ra vBara, Bioovs rprep Xapftdvav, Tr

Tri8eofivo<f, <pci)ri^(ov avrd, ei'Bvvaficav avrd el$ TVTTOV
ev avT(p T\eiova0af 6Va>9 ot avrat

1 [1047 a] Perhaps we should read fK&vtrapfvos. The two words are
easily confused (as in Mt. xxvii. 28 and 31).

8 [1048 a] Otto (Just. Mart. Tryph. 88) adopts, besides d^tt for
africa, the emendation of irvtvfia for nartp. The two words, when
abbreviated, irva and irtp (rarely np), could easily be confused.

393

[1050] NARRATIVES OF THE BAPTISM

ev d\r)0eia, ical e^oi/re? rrjv rrlanv rrjt dXrj&eias, fiddaMTiv on,
d\r)0ivw<i evTjvdptoTrrja-ev, dXyOivo)*; eftaTrricrOr)- icai OUTOX? Bid
TT}? avrov ffvyKaraOea-etaf ical avrol ep^ofievoi, Xaffcacri 7^75
avrov Karaj3do~e(0<; rr)V Bvvafj.iv, teal fywrurdwaiv d-jro T^? avrov
, TrXrjpofopovfjievoi TO) ev rto Ylpo(f>rjTrj pr)Ta), etf
wrifietos, et? 7rapo^rji> (Tfarrjpias Trjf 8ii//zO)<? rov
aprov, diro rrj<; 'lepoytraXi)/! Xa/x/9ai/o/iev7/?, /cat TT}? ttr^uo? roO
voaros.

[1050] (2) (Haer. xxviii. i, vol. I. p. HOD) (w? KOI

ovro<{ etcr>pv<T<Tv) KareXijXvftevai rov Xpto-roz/ et9 avrov,

rovr<rri TO Trvevfia TO ayiov ev eiSet TTfpitrrepd^.

(3) (Haer. xxx. 16, vol. I. p. 140 B) arto rov avwQtv ei<t
avrov iiieovros \pt<rrov ev ftBei irepiffrepd*;.

(4) (Ancor. 119, vol. II. p. 121 B) TO Be aytov "rrvevfia ev
eiBei Trepiffrepd*; icare&aivev eV avrov et<? rd vBara KareXyXv-
6 or a.

(5) (Anac. 7, vol. II. p. I54B) dve\0a>v drro rov 'lopBdvov,
dicovwv <f>wv^v Uarpo<f ei< dtcorfv rrapovrwv r<av fiaO^r&v, et? TO
vTroBel^ai TtV 6 naprvpovfj,evo<;, ical rov dyiov rrvev /zaTo? ev

etoet rrepiarepas xarep^ofievov errucaBe^onevov Be rov rrvev-

/u.aTO9 Kal ep\Ofievov erf avrov, iva o<f>0rj 6 paprvpovfievos

'tva 6 Tto? d\r}0ivo<; o<f>0y, KOI TrXrjpdxrri TO elpr)fj.evov Kal perd
ravra errl Trjs y*}? (a<f>0r), ical perd rwv avOputrrwv crvvav-
eo-rpci(pr).

394

APPENDIX II

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION
"SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW 1 "

i. " S aback" (in Mk xv. 34 " Sabachthanei ") may
mean " suffer"

[1051] An examination of the shorter sayings assigned
to Christ would shew that about some (e.g. " Arise, let us go,"
" It is enough ") the Evangelists appear to agree (or nearly so)
as to the utterance, but to disagree as to its time, place, and
circumstances. It is antecedently probable, as an early
Christian writer has implied 3 , that, in the confusion and

1 Mt. iii. 15.

8 [1051 a] Macarius, defending or explaining the variation (Mk-Mt.)
"reed" and (Jn) "hyssop", says of the Evangelists (p. 29 31) "They
observe the Law of History and do not write a single word beyond what
was said at the time (rdr) in the seething confusion of the [prevailing]
frenzy (V r<j> foi/rt r^s ftavias #o/ju#o>). For the inciters were Jews, and
the judges Romans, barbarous races both, with no claim to a liberal
education, and without any of the refinement of Hellenic training....
Consequently their intoxicated behaviour and the [whole] uncouth busi-
ness [uncouth] in word and deed occurrent at the time in unseemly
fashion was written down by the writers without the addition of any
smoothing falsehood (TTJV dAAoKorov irpafctv tpy<p Kill Adyw TOT* yivofuvrjv
dirpfirus typa^^rav ol ypatfaovrts pr)&iv tir^tv&aftivoi). For it is not lawful
for a historian to write anything beyond what is done [at the time] or
said [at the time] even though the language be barbarous.... It is not
surprising, then, if even the Evangelists appear to use some uncouth

395

[1052]

ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION

disorder during the crucifixion, events would be discordantly
reported almost from the first ; and the same statement might
apply even to the words of the Saviour. Then attempts would
be made, from Greek as well as from Hebrew or Aramaic
traditions, to explain what was obscure and to emend what
seemed corrupt. These explanations and emendations would
in the natural course of things be often erroneously added to
the original text of the Gospels. Then variations would
arise when Evangelists attempted to adjust these additions to
what appeared their fit occasions, and to place them in their
right order. Thus a multitude of varying traditions would be
evolved, adopted by one genuine Gospel, or two at most, or
interpolated spuriously in only one Gospel, or occurring in
some non-canonical tradition. All these would be ramifi-
cations from one stem.

[1052] Such a stem is perhaps to be found in the only,
articulate saying of our Lord upon the Cross recorded by the
two earliest Evangelists, as printed in capital letters below :

Mk xv. 33-7 (lit.) Mt. xxvii. 45-50(111.) Lk. xxiii. 44-6 (lit.)
"...over all the land
until the ninth hour.
But about the ninth
hour Jesus cried
with a loud voice,
saying, ELOI, ELOI,

LEMA SABACHTHANEI,

that is, MY GOD,
MY GOD, WHERE-

"...over the whole
of the land until the
ninth hour. And at
the ninth hour Jesus
cried with a loud
voice, ELOI, ELOI,

LAMA SABACHTHANEI,

which is, being inter-
preted, O MY GOD,

..."over the whole
of the land until the
ninth hour, the sun
failing [or, being e-
clif>sed\ [or, Elijah
failing him i.e. for-
saking (hini)\

...And, having cried
with a loud cry, Jesus

expressions (nva <rvyypd<f>tiv oAXoKora) since they do not like to smooth
words down but take pains to preserve the actual utterance."

[1051 b~\ How could the nationality of Christ's crucifiers or revilers
influence an Evangelist in choosing between the words "reed" and
" hyssop ", unless we are to suppose that the Evangelists owing to
the absence of the disciples from the neighbourhood of the Cross were
dependent on the testimony of subsequently converted spectators, either
Jewish mockers or Roman soldiers? If that were the case, it would
introduce potent elements of confusion.

Mi I l.k I I TO BE SO NOW"

[1064]

Mk \v. 33-7 (lit.)

[MY GOD], TO WHAT

IHOU

FORSAKKMK ? And

some of them that
stood - by, having
heard, began to say,
' Lo, Elijah doth he

call.' Let ye [me

i/o this,] let us see
whether Elijah com-
eth to take him
down. But Jesus,
having (lit.) let-go* a
loud cry, breathed
forth [his spirit]."

Mt. \xvii. 45-50 (lit.)

DIDST THOU
FORSAKE ME? But

some of them that
stood there, having
heard, began to say
[that], 'Elijah doth

this [man] call'

. . . Letthou [it a/one],
let us see whether
Elijah cometh to
save him. But Je-
sus, having again
exclaimed with a
loud cry, let-go 1 his
spirit."

Lk. xxiii. 44-6 (lit.)
said, Father, into thy
hands I comment/ my
spirit. But, having
said this, he breathed
forth [his spirit]."

[1053] The words Eloi, Eloi &c. are from Ps. xxii. I, the
Aramaic setback*, " forsake ", being substituted for the Biblical
azab which has the same meaning. Eloi, however, is not
Aramaic. The Hebrew has " Eli" (not " Heli"}, i.e. "my
strong one", meaning "my God " s . In the Gospel of Peter,
no Hebrew or Aramaic is given but only this translation,
" My strength, strength, thou hast quite left me 4 ." Eloi, " my
God ", is free from this ambiguity, but is neither the exact
Aramaic form nor the original Hebrew.

[1054] The Biblical verb "hast thou forsaken" is azab-
thanci. The scribe of D (in Mark and Matthew) has tried
to give this ; but, by changing b to/, and dropping the first a

1 " Let-go". This and other literalisms in the translation are intended
to indicate that one Greek word, "let (go)", "suffer", "forgive", per-
meates this narrative under different English renderings.

- Strictly shabak, or sabak ; but R.V. and Gk. sabach.

3 [1053 a,] But the Latin MSS., the best guides here, have initial A,
indicating that the Hebrew was transliterated as " Heli " in early times.
Oxf. Cone, says that " Elijah " is aspirated in Joseph., Luc., and Vind.

4 [1053 rt] Evang. Petr. 5 'H bvvafus /ion, fj dvvafut, KarAfi^dr pt.
This drops " why ?" the 2nd " my ", and V- before ieaTaX*Vw.

397

[1055] ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION

(perhaps confused with the final a in lama) he has produced
zapthanei. Codex B (in Mark) has conflated b and p (and
perhaps transposed the initial a) so as to give zabaphthanei.
These facts are important in their bearing on what follows,
and also as shewing what pains were taken in very early
times to recover the exact words, and even syllables, of this
utterance.

[1055] It must be added that D, in Mark, gives an
astonishing rendering of azab, viz. " reproach " (" why didst
thou reproach (<av ei'Sio-a? ) me ? "). This perhaps arose from
one of many attempts to correct the Aramaic sabach into
some Biblical word. It happens that one Biblical word
meaning " forsake" (HST!) is, in its first three letters, almost
identical with 3*111 (Spll), the regular word for " insult " or
"reproach 1 ". But in any case, this astonishing translation
to which attention was called by a very early heathen con-
troversialist* assailing the discrepancies of the Gospels shews
what serious difficulties some of the very earliest Evangelists
experienced in attempting, at this point, to give Christ's exact
words.

[1056] Now the Biblical azab, "forsake", is free from
ambiguity ; but the Aramaic sabach means not only "for-
sake ", but also " let ", " let alone", " let off (from punishment} " ;
and indeed, when it occurs in the Bible as it does five times
in Daniel and Ezra it never means "forsake" but always
"spare", "leave alone". Unfortunately, too, precisely the
same ambiguity adheres to the Greek d<f>ir)fju, which is used
by the LXX in three out of the four cases in which it
translates sabach (which the LXX once omits). This Greek
word means occasionally "forsake " ; but it far more fre-

1 [1055 a] Tromm. has nsnn (hif. of nfi1) = d0tVt (3), (2), eyKara-
\(iira> (2): fpn = oi>di{ (34). But I have found no instance where the
two are confused.

2 Macarius, p. 21.

398

"SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW" [1057]

quently means "/</", "let a/one", "let o/", "forgive*"-, and
this is the word that is used by Mark and Matthew above in
tlu- phrases " let ye", " kt thou ", (lit.) "let-go a cry", (lit)
"/</-< his spirit" all of which are omitted by Luke. But
Luke in a later edition of his Gospel, or in an interpola-
tion has this very word in an utterance of Jesus on the
Cross (xxiii. 34) " Father, (lit.) let them off (\.Q. forgive them)
for they know not what they do." The earlier evangelists
must have been grossly ignorant if Christ uttered this saying
and if they did not know it. They must have been sadly
wanting in spiritual judgment if they knew of it and did not
insert it. Probably it was one of a group of erroneous tradi-
tions that all branched forth from the Biblical or Aramaic
quotation from the Psalms*. We shall presently attempt to
shew the process of ramification, but must first indicate other
sources of error in the context.

2. " Heli" might be taken by Evangelists as "Elijah"

or "the sun" ; " sabach" as "forsake" or "be eclipsed";

"lama n as "why?" or "to some extent"

[1057J It is extremely unlikely that Roman soldiers
would allow a Jew to give drink from their wine to a prisoner
undergoing crucifixion. Mark probably assumes that one of
the soldiers gave it, and that the soldiers took Eloi, or Heli,
to mean "Helios" or "Elijah". But this can hardly be
historical. The two names sound very differently. And a
Roman soldier would not be likely to know about Elijah
(if anything) enough to lead him into this confusion.

has all these meanings, both in O.T. and in N.T.
1 [1066 a] Luke alters "My God" into "Fathfr". Hegesippus says
that James the Righteous, when dying, said (Euseb. ii. 23. 15 i6)"/^>r</,
God, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," perhaps a
conflation of "God vW, as "God* and "Father" (-"and", might be
confused in Gk with Kf = "Lord"). "The Righteous "might mean either
Jesus (Acts vii. 52, xxii. 14) or James the Lord's brother, so that a saying
about the one might easily be taken as referring to the other.

399

[1058] ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION

[1058] More probably Mark's legend arose from glosses, or
Targums, explaining Eloi and (H)eli. For example, opposite
to Eloi, some one might write "This is [in the original Psalm,
not Eloi but] (H)eli (fcOJl **?)." But these letters if the final
X is dropped happen to mean " Elijah" 1 . Or, again, some-
wishing to guard against Pseudo-Peter's rendering of Heli
(namely, "my strength"') might insert "Jehovah" over the
word, and a blending of the two might be taken to mean
"Elijah". But the most probable explanation is that the
reduplication of Heli was misunderstood as Hebrew redupli-
cations are frequently omitted or misrendered by the LXX 2
and rendered as two distinct words, the first Hd (vN) being
taken as the preposition "for" or "to'', and the second as
part of the name "Elijah". Thus ^ Heli, Heli, he (<Sll 'Sfct
Kin) calleth," was taken as "for Elijah (in^N Stf) 3 he-
calleth."

[1059] As regards the dialogue between the soldiers,
it is explicable by the fact (mentioned above (874 a) in similar
instances) that the same Hebrew phrase may mean either
(i) " Some say", " one says", or (2) " some said [at the time}"
"some one said [at the time]" Hence a Hebrew Targum
(" some say ") 4 , intended merely to state contemporaneous differ-
ences of opinion among very early Christian Evangelists as to
the meanings of Heli (and also of sabach and azab\ might be

1 [1058 ] Gescn. 45 a irv = " Elijah" more than 60 times: Levy
(i. 456*) gives instances of in as N. Heb. for Xlil; but Dalman (Aram.
Gr. p. 76) says that this spelling is only with 1 and "I.

2 [1058 b] Comp. Is. xlviii. 11 "for mine own sake," Heb. twice, LXX
once, Ezek. xvi. 6 "in thy blood live," Heb. twice, LXX once. In
2 S. vi. 3 4 "out of the house of A.," Heb. twice, B has "into the house "
once, and omits the repetition (which A however inserts correctly). In
Judg. v. 23 "to the help of the Lord," Heb. twice, B has "to the help
of the Lord, to the help," A " to the help of the Lord, the Lord is our
help." Such instances are numerous.

3 [1058 c] Both Delitzsch and Resch give the Hebrew thus.

4 [1059 a] Comp. the marginal note on Is. ix. I (Q marg.) "some

do not have ' the way of the sea.' "

400

"SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW" [1060]

converted into a Greek dialogue between Roman soldiers n
these iiwv/y, and saying, at the time, " Elijah ", "permit ",
"//" &c.

[1060] The same Greek word may mean " Elijah " or
" sun "'. Hence, in Greek, " He called out [as though] Elijah
were forsaking him," might be taken to refer to the "sun"
instead of "Elijah". We have also seen (1063 a) that the
compound verb erKATAAeirtoo is shortened, in the Gospel of
Peter, by dropping the first of its two prepositions. By
retaining the first and dropping the second preposition, an
Evangelist would obtain the verb erAeinoo read as exAeinoo
"be eclipsed"*, which might seem to Luke exactly adapted
to his rendering of Heli as "the sun " ("the sun being eclipsed"}.
The difficulty of a solar eclipse during a full moon might not
arise till the Gospel had been too widely circulated to suppress
the phrase. As it is, a great number of authorities or MSS.
have altered it into " the sun was darkened',' but W. H. main-
tain in their text "the sun failing, or, being eclipsed" and do
not give " darkened " even as an alternative. " Sun " may
have been a mistake for Heli, and "eclipsed" for "forsake" 9 .

1 [1060 a] In the LXX "Elijah "-mostly HA(e)iOY, in N.T. H Aei&c.
The former, when spelt HAioy, would be identical with "sun". In Orig.
Comm. Joann. (Huet, pp. 17, 69) the Latin renders nAioc first Elias and
then sol. On the breathing of H in HAIAC, see 1053 a^.

1 For erAeiTTU) = eKAeinu>, see Tebtunis Pap. cv. 44, cvi. 23.

3 [1060*] See W.H. ad he. 'ExX*.' might mean "fail", "fall
short ", as applied to candle-light, but could hardly mean anything but
"be eclipsed" when applied to "sun" and "moon", except in poetic
prose of an oriental tinge.

[1060 c] According to this view, "sun" arose from the double process
of transliterating "Elijah" as HAioy and then translating it as a Greek
word. We may compare Josh. xi. 3 "Herman", LXX "wilderness"
(tpwov), but AF Atppvv: i S. xv. 23 (R.V.) " teraphim " (A.V.)
" idolatry ", LXX (Swete) " service ", Btpantiav, but A 0tpa<j>fti> (see
Field): Job vi. 19 "the companies of Skeba? LXX 2ov, but A**- "im-
pious", acre/Sup. In i S. xv. 3, the word "Cherem", meaning "devote to
destruction", is conflated (i) as the name of a place, (2) as "destroy",
(3) as "devote to destruction by a curse," 'ltpt\n...*'o\t6p(v<Tfit...dvafff-

lt. . ..

A. 4OI 26

[1061] ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION

[1061] The word lama, or lema, i.e. "why?", might be
dropped in many Greek traditions, being regarded as a
Hebrew interrogative best dispensed with in Greek. At all
events it is dropped (1053//) in the Gospel of Peter. Mark
renders it et'v ri; " to what end ?" In ordinary circumstances,
this should cause no difficulty ; for although in theory, ct?
rt, without accents, might mean ' to some end ", there are
probably few instances in Greek literature, or at all events
in Biblical Greek, where it has that meaning. But in a case
like the present, where every word seems to have been
strained in various ways to obtain some sense that might
accord with prepossessions, and yet might remain (apparently)
faithful to the text, we ought to be prepared for some dis-
tortion so as to make it mean " to some extent [of place, or
/////]," "for the present", "as far as this " &c.

[1062] If such a phrase, so distorted, was combined with
sabach, "suffer", the result might be a tradition that Jesus said
to some persons or person "suffer thus far". Hence might
arise that obscure and variously rendered tradition, peculiar
to Luke, that Jesus said on the night before the crucifixion
(xxii. 5 1 ) "Suffer ye as far as this" Others, taking the phrase to
mean "for the present ", and supposing (like the Roman soldiers
according to the Synoptists) that Jesus uttered the words to
Elijah, may have inferred that He uttered them to Elijah's
representative, the Baptist concerning whom Jesus was re-
ported to have said (Mt. xi. 14) "This is Elijah". Then the
question would arise, When could Jesus say to the Baptist,
" Suffer it for the present'"} And the answer would be that
it must have been on the only occasion when the Synoptic
Gospels described Jesus and the Baptist as being together,
i.e. at the Baptism. This might explain the tradition peculiar
to Matthew (iii. 15) " Suffer it now".

402

SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW" [1064]

3. Ramifications from " sabach "

[1063] On the hypothesis of ramification, it must be a
matter of great difficulty, and perhaps may prove ultimately
impossible, to shew in its order each stage of development :
but we can at all events enumerate (i) Greek traditions that
may have originated from a bare statement that Jesus used
the -vord "let go", "suffer", or "forgive", in some critical
moment on the night before the crucifixion ; (2) others in-
dicating that He performed the act of " letting go " ; (3) others,
in the same context, indicating that bystanders used the word
" let go ", or "let be", in connection with Christ's utterance.
If these are peculiar to one Evangelist, or at most to two,
that fact will increase the probability that the words were
originally glosses.

[1064] It must be premised that the Greek word that
will be found reiterated in these traditions, "let go", a<f>ir)p.i,
is peculiarly liable to misunderstanding owing to its irregular
forms 1 . For example, the regular meaning of A(J>6ic is pa.r-
ticipial, "/*///>/ go": but the barbarous Greek of the Apocalypse
shews that early Christians might use it as the second person
sing pres., tl t/wu art letting go (or, forsaking)." The regular
Greek for " thou art (or, art thou) forsaking me " would be
A(J)iHC we : but in the written or oral tradition of moderately
learned evangelists this might easily be confused with A(J)IHMI,

1 [1064 a] The LXX mostly shews little more than a free interchange
of forms from <if/n'a> with forms from <i0u;^t, e.g. dtf>iovT(s and d<f>i(vr(s.
But the introduction of a third present tense, the barbarous d<o>, opens
out new possibilities of confusion ; and we find this in Exod. xxxii. 32,
d<fnts, " thou forgivcst (or, wilt forgive)" and the same form (" thou
sVjffitrest") in Rev. ii. 20, and d<f> in a Nubian inscription of the sixth
century (not 3rd or 4th century, as Winer 14. 3, p. 97) (Bockh 5072)
containing such words as tnamav (for tmov) tytyovt^v (for tytvo^ujv) and
t<t>i\oi'iiKii<r<>i'<ri and avax<t>f)T)0T}v. These facts indicate unusual possibilities
of corruption in such a word when employed in Greek oral and written
tradition by illiterate Christians.

403 26 2

[1065] ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION

" I am giving up." Suppose, then, some early Greek Gospel,
giving Christ's quotation from the Psalm in a condensed form
intelligible to Gentiles, to have said, "Jesus, having cried
Dost thou forsake me? in a loud voice, breathed his last,"
Kal 6 'I?;<roO<? <f>(avii<ras A4>iCMMrAAH <t>coNH e^eTrvev&ev. It is
easy to see that, MCME being corrected (as an erroneous re-
duplication) into we, and the barbarous A(J>eic being naturally
taken by educated readers for the participle " letting go ", there
would result " letting go with a loud voice" which, with a slight
variation, is the actual reading of Codex Bobb. in Mark, lit.
"let-go (emisit) with a loud voice (voce magna) 1 ."

[1066] Then some might correct this by altering CJKONH
into the accusative <J>O>NH~ (i.e. jxoinjv), as in Mark's present
text 3 , " letting go, />. uttering, a loud voice." Others might
take the meaning to be ^xui/^'o-av fjieydXrj <fxavf), a<el<? [Vi/eO/na],
%7rvcvafv t " having cried with a loud voice, letting go (or,
sending forth) his spirit, he breathed his last": then, dropping
tl~Tri>v<Tv as superfluous, they might rearrange the sentence
as " having cried with a loud voice, he let go his spirit." This
is Matthew's text. Again, another evangelist, finding A<J>IHC
written (over A<J>ic MC) as the correct form, might suppose
that the barbarous Greek was intended to mean d0t?;/u /xe
" I give myself up " (though it could not lawfully have that
meaning) ; and, knowing by tradition that the words were
supposed to come from the Psalms, might paraphrase the
barbarism into the beautiful quotation uttered by pious Jews
on their deathbed, " Into thy hands I commend my spirit."
This might represent Luke's view.

[1066] This being premised, the variations of this tradi-
tion will now be enumerated under the three heads mentioned
above :

1 SS has "when he had cried with a loud voice," which, however,
may be merely a conformation to Matthew.

2 Codex L, inconsistently, has (f>u>vrj

404

"SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW" [1066]

i I i The word Sabach, eyicaraXeiTrd), d^irjfju, or tw, uttered
by Jcsns, inclining" forsake", "suffer", "forgive".

(</) Used by Jesus during, or just before, the night of
the crucifixion.

(1) Mk xv. 34 (Mt. xxvii. 46) <rafiax6ai>ei ...... et<? ri

(Mt. i'va ri /ie) ey/careX-tire? /AC; (Lk. xxiii. 45 e'/cXeiVoj/TO?),
Mk.-Mt. "forsake"; Lk. "be eclipsed", but in his narrative, not
as an utterance of Jesus.

(2) Lk. xxii. 51 tare 1 ea><? rovrov (?) " suffer ye up to
this point," or " thus far", supposed by some to be addressed
to the soldiers, by others to the disciples.

(3) Jn xviii. 8 afare TOUTOU? vTrdyeiv, " suffer ye these
to depart," certainly addressed to the soldiers.

(4) [Lk. xxiii. 34] Udrp, a<j>e<t avroif, " Father, forgive
them", either an interpolation, or addition made by Luke in
a later edition of his Gospel.

(V) Used by Jesus, but during the Baptism.
Mt. iii. 15 <e? apn, "Suffer it for the present," ad-
dressed to John the Baptist, called by some " Elijah".

(II) The act of " letting go " performed by Jesus.
Mk xv. 37 </>ei? (fxovijv fj.eyd\r)v egeirvevo-ev.

Mt. xxvii. 50 (*/3aa?) (frtavfj peydXr) d<f>fjicev TO Trvevfia.
In Mark, this is applied to the "voice", in Matthew to
the "spirit".

(III) The use of t/te word "let be", not by Jesus Himself,
but in close connection with His last words about "forsaking ".

Mk xv. 36 a^ere iSupev, " Let ye be, let us see whether...".
Mt. xxvii. 49 a<e<? t&u/iev, "Let thou be, let us see
whether...".

1 [1066 a] For a> parall. to dforjiu, see Dan. iv. 26 (23) LXX $i
Theod. '&>: Ezr. vi. 7 d<^;/=i Esdr. vi. 26 w. In both these cases the
original is sabach.

405

[1067]

ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION

In Mark, this appears to mean " let me alone", " permit me
to do this "; in Matthew, " let if, or him, alone 1 ."

[1067] On the whole, it seems probable that Mark's
second version of the cry, (xv. 37) a$ei9 <f><ovij peyaXij, approxi-
mates to the earliest Greek tradition, but that the exact form
was [\e>y(av] a</><? <f>a>vr} fjLfya\r), " [saying] Forsakest thon ?
with a loud cry." This seems originally to have followed
immediately after "the ninth hour" (Mk xv. 33). The
extract from the 22nd Psalm appears to have been subse-
quently inserted as a fuller and more exact account of the
"cry" (as indeed it was). But, along with this correct
amplification, there were inserted, at the same time or after-
wards, a number of glosses explaining the precise meaning of
the words sabach, asab, or aphcs. Some of these glo
suggested, and were developed into, a dialogue between the
Roman soldiers about "letting" one another do, or "desisting"
from doing, this or that. Luke and John were right in
omitting this corrupt legendary dialogue. But they were

1 [1066 b] It should be added that, according to good authority (Levy
i. 145 b) the Greek a<j)tt was adopted as a Hebrew wort/, meaning "leave
alone". The sound of the Greek aphes appears to have suggested an
identity with the Hebrew ephes, DDK ("end", "extremity", "point")
which somewhat like the French " point " was used to mean " not at
all" &c. Thus a comment on Ps. Ixxvii. 8 "Is his mercy clean-gone
(DBN)?" says, "The word is Greek, even as it is said (Amos vi. 10) He
said DDK" (R.V. "he shall say, No") (the Heb. word denoting, first,
coming to an end or cessation, and then negation). An interesting error
appears to arise from the transliteration of this Hebrew word where it is
applied to the extremities of the feet, i.e. "soles", or "ancles", in Ezek.
xlvii. 3, "water of the soles" Aq., Theod. c., "ancles". The LXX has
" water of forgiveness (dtftto-tus)." This exactly illustrates the hypo-
thetical explanation given above of the interpolation in Lk. about "for-
giving". The translator of Ezekiel took the Hebrew ephes to be the
same as the Greek aphes, and interpreted the latter as an error for
aphesis, " forgiveness " : the interpolator in Lk., according to our hypo-
thesis if he did not derive his legend about "forgiving" from the
double meaning of the Aramaic sabach misinterpreted the Greek aphes,
"abandon ", as though it meant "forgive".

406

"SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW" [1068J

probably wrong in omitting the quotation from the Psalm,
which was really uttered by our Lord.

4. " They know not what they do"

[1068] This interpolation might arise in the course of
a Targum protesting against the notion that Jesus called on
Elijah: "Some said that He cried 'Elijah (r)\iov or r)\ia),
Dost thou forsake (ac^et?)?', but He cried 1 God (;A.t), forgive
(a^e?)' and (/cat) they knew (eyvoxrav) [it] not." It has been
shewn above (937 a) that, in the LXX, ical, "and", is re-
peatedly used to represent the Hebrew vaw where we should
use, in English, "but". It must now be added that, owing to
the ambiguity of the same Hebrew particle, translators might
vary between "and" and "for", or "anal" and "but" 1 .

Moreover the past tense eyvaxrav may mean " tkey have
come to know" practically equivalent to "know", as in
Lk. xxiv. 1 8 (R.V.) " knowest (eyj/u?)", Jn vii. 26 (R.V.) "know
(eyvtoo-av)" . Hence an evangelist might turn the latter part
of our hypothetically suggested Targum from " and they
knew [it] not," into "for they know [it] not." This might
naturally be taken to be a prayer for the Roman soldiers, of
whom Jesus might say, "They know not", meaning "They
know not [what they are doing]." Then the bracketed words

1 [1068 a] In the following passages, A.V. has "for", but R.V. and
LXX vary thus: Gen. xiv. 13 "now", d< : xx. 6, xxiv. 65 "and", KM:
xxvi. 14 "and", &': xxvi. 15 "now", K al: Ex. xii. 48 "but", LXX om. :
Judg. ix. 28 "but", icai: i S. xiv. 24 (A.V.) "for Saul had adjured the
people," (R.V.) "but S. adjured* ', LXX " and S. adjureth".

[1068 />] This last passage (i S. xiv. 24) should be carefully noted.
For it shews how the absence of a Hebrew pluperfect (Clue, 241 a) may
combine -with the ambiguity of vaw to make it doubtful whether a clause
(i) refers parenthetically to something that had happened before the
event last mentioned (in which case vaw would mean "but", i.e. "but
I ought to have mentioned " &c.), or (2) describes, in chronological order,
the following of one event on another (in which case vaw would mean
"and "or "so").

407

[1069] ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION

might be supplied to complete the sense. In such a develop-
ment, "God" might be changed into "Father", and "cried"
into " said", as being more suitable for a mediatory utterance,
the result being " Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do."

5. " Whether Elijah cometh "

[1069] A Hebrew Targum " some say that He called for
(1058<r) Elijah" has been shewn above (1059) to have
been capable of a Greek rendering "Some said, 'He calleth
for Elijah'"; and it has been indicated that a repetition of '^K,
" my God", might suggest that the first *7J< was an error
for ^ "for". But ^ might also be confused with iStf
"behold": hence perhaps Mark's "Behold, Elijah he calleth"
parallel to Matthew's " Elijah this [man] 1 calleth." Moreover,
"call" and "come to meet" may be rendered by the same
Hebrew letters and are frequently confused in the LXX.
And the much-disputed and reduplicated (H)e/t, ^7^, being
confused with "for", 7K, might give rise to a reading 17N
New Heb. "i/ only", or the Biblical 'VlN (Gen. xxiv. 39
^>X) "perhaps". The result would be "perhaps (or, what if]
Elijah is coming-to-meet [him]*." The fact that Mark adds
"to take him down" while Matthew has "to save him",
suggests that there was nothing corresponding to either
clause in the original, but that Mark and Matthew have
severally supplied something to define the meaning. It is

1 [1069 a] The pi. of " this ", r6x, would closely resemble I^X. It is
just possible that Matthew's ovros may arise from some conjoint Greek
and Heb. corruption. In Bibl. Heb. "behold" freq. = LXX ovros or odt.

* [1069 ] For top = " meet" see Buhl (742 a). In Proverbs alone,
there are three instances of confusion between "meet" and "call". In
Ps. Ixxv. i, Sir. xiii. 9, Nip is confused with 3"lp, "draw near". Such a
confusion in the present context might convert " For Elijah he doth call'
into " Behold (or, whether) Elijah draiveth near [to help Aim]."

408

"SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW" [1069 (i)]

unsatisfactory to conclude that all the Synoptic Gospels
exhibit at this point a mass of confusions, corruptions, and
interpolations. But there is some compensation in the fact
that, on this hypothesis, the additions peculiar to the several
evangelists appear not to be inventions of their own but the
result of misunderstanding quite compatible with honest
attempt to ascertain the truth.

Addendum on Jewish Legend.

[1069 (i)] The manner in which a number of legends
may spring up from one or two obscure words may be illus-
trated by the story of the ram " behind (*V"IN)" Abraham, in
the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis (xxii. 13), where R.V. txt has
" behind" > but R.V. marg. has "one ("IPIN)" ram, and the
Jerusalem Targum describes it as " a certain ("TPI) ram
(K"1D"1) that had been created (HSTlN) between the evenings
of the accomplishment of the world," i.e. on the eve of the
Sabbath. The Jerusalem Talmud (Taanith ii. 4 (Schwab
vi. 157)), interpreting "IflX as "another", says, " By the word
another, said R. Juda b. Simon, the text means ' In other
generations thy children will be holden by their sins ' " [as the

ram was " holden " in the thicket] " ' but they will finally be

delivered, thanks to the ram's horns, according to the words
of Zechariah (ix. 14) The Lord God shall blow the trumpet'"
The "trumpet", shophar, was identified with the "ram's
horn ", which was, and still is, sounded in Jewish Synagogues
on New Year's Day. Another Rabbi said that Abraham
saw the ram caught in a tree, a forest, a thicket (*>. Babylon,
Greece, and Rome) and successively freed. Professor Gollancz
(Asiatic Q. Rei>iew, Jan. 1895, p. 143) on The Sacrifice of
Isaac, quotes the Midrash thus : " God replied [to Abraham],
' Verily thy children will sin before me, and I shall judge

409

[1069 (ii)] JEWISH LEGEND

them on the [day of the] New Year the Day of Judgment.
Would they, however, seek forgiveness for their sins, let them
sound the trumpet before me on that day'."

[1069 (ii)] These curious traditions are not pure in-
ventions. They can be traced, at least in part, to a textual
origin. The Bib. Heb. TIK may mean (a) "behind",
(b) "another". It is also easily confused with "THN, which
in Bib. Heb. = one, but which in N. Heb. = either (c) "one" or
(d) "catch", "hold-fast", and in Targ. Heb. = only (d) "catch",
" hold-fast". To add to the possibilities of confusion, the
Biblical text has here TTRO the Niph. of THN, "catch", "hold-
fast", for which the Targumists substitute "VHN (Part. 1'ul
of TIN). Lastly, the Targ. Heb. for "one" is TH, or N1PI,
and for "behold" is KH : and these two might be confusrd,
especially as in Onk. and Jer. the letters "INn occur together
("1 being the first letter of "ram"). Levy Ch. i. 20 says that
some MSS. insert "one" KIPl, or pH "another". It would
seem that (a), (b), (c), (d), might all be easily confused.

[1069 (Hi)] The rare Biblical word for a "thicket", "pD
(of which the verbal form means "entangle"), is changed in
the Targums to {oS'N "tree". A conflation of these two
terms, and the addition of a third, would facilitate, if they did
not originate, the tradition above-mentioned (1069 (i)) about
the " tree", the "forest", and the " thicket". For example, one
Rabbi might illustrate the word by Ps. Ixxiv. 5 "thicket of
trees", another by Is. ix. 18 "thickets of the forest'' Then
a third might say that the ram was caught in all the three,
allegorizing as above.

[1069 (iv)] Let us compare the full text as given in R.V.
with the versions of Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum.
Genes, xxii. 13 (R.V. txt) "And A. lifted up his eyes and
looked, and behold, a ram (TN), behind OHN), caught
(TPKO)" = Onk. "And A. lifted up his eyes after (TQ) these
[things] (|'W), and looked, and behold, a ram (KW) [here
the Vienna edition of 1859 repeats 1H1 ? = behind, or after]

410

JEWISH LEGEND [1069 (v)]

caught (THN) in a tree (btt'K)" = Jer. "And A. lifted up
his eyes, and looked, and behold, (lit.) a ram (N"13H) one
(in) that was created ('"njVKI) ....... " Now Onkelos ad-

heres for the most part closely to the sense of the Original,
simply turning the Biblical Hebrew into New Hebrew but
not adding to it ; and it seems unlikely that so faithful a
Targumist would make such a needless insertion as "after
these tilings" out of his own head. We may therefore feel
fairly confident (comp. Berliner, Onk. vol. i. p. 8) that Onk.
means "after these things" to represent something in the
Hebrew ; and his " after", "IfO, appears to be a New Hebrew
rendering of the Biblical Hebrew "1PIX, " behind ". But, if so,
Onkelos would seem to have repeated 7*K, "ram", as
" these things", besides rendering it into the New Heb.
"ram". In other words, he commits the error, a frequent
one even in faithful translators of conflation. The reader
will note that one edition of Onk. repeats *1J"O at the point
where the Jer. Targ. has " One that was created ", "1PI
HSrVXI This suggests that the first impulse toward the fine
poetic tradition about the " creation " (PPHD) of the ram may
possibly have arisen out of some textual combination of "liltf
and "VO although, in a text less corrupt, it would be more
probably explained as arising merely out of a desire to define
the "one ram".

[1069 (v)] Professor Gollancz, in the article above cited,
shews that Jewish literature, describing the sacrifice of Isaac,
abounds with descriptions of dialogues preceding it, dialogues
either between God and Satan, who accuses Abraham ; or
between God and the ministering angels, who bring the same
charge against Abraham that Satan brings ; or between Ishmael
and Isaac ; or between Abraham and his own spirit dis-
coursing on his own neglect of duty toward God. Most
modern critics would assume oflf-hand that these interesting
amplifications were suggested by the mere love of picturesque
detail. But the assumption would be false, since the passages

411

[1069 (v)]

JEWISH LEGEND

shew (eg. Sanhedr. 89 b) that they all sprang out of the
phrase (Gen. xxi. 8) (lit) " after these words (DH3T) " (*>.
"after these things"). On this the Rabbis built up a number
of different suggestions as to what the " words " might be.
This, and the preceding facts (1069 (i) (iv)) should warn us
that in Hebrew and Jewish literature, and in any early Chris-
tian literature based on Jewish tradition, legend would probably
be very largely based on plays upon words, on interchange of
similar letters, and on consequent confusions, corruptions, and
conflations, resulting in amplifications of the Original to an
extent unparalleled in Western literature.

412

APPENDIX III

THE TRANSFIGURATION AND THE AGONY
CANONICAL AND NON-CANONICAL ACCOUNTS

(Greek}

1. The Transfiguration according to the Synoptists (txt as in W.H.)
(1070).

2. The Agony according to the Synoptists (txt 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).

Mk ix. 2 8
[1070] (2) Kai
17/iepa? e Trapa-
Aa/i/3aVi' Kai loxu ;/r,
Kai ava<^>cpci avrovs
eis opos w/ojAoi' KUT
!8iav /ioYoi'S. Kai

<r6(v avraJi', (3) Kai
TO. t/iuTia avrov fye-
fcro (rrtXftovra. Xtv/ca
Atav ota yru<^>vs tVi
n7? y^s ou
OUTOJS Aci'icuvai.

(4) Kai
TOI? 'HActas ox
(TCI, Kai rfffav crvvAa-
AOWTCS TU '

(i) The Transfiguration

Mt. xvii. i 8 Lk. ix. 28 36

(1) Kai fJitQ* 77-
E irapaAa/n-

^Savci 6 'ITJO'OVS TOV
Ilerpov Kai 'laKW^Sov
Kai "luxivTyv TOV a.8A-
<f>ov avTOv, Kai dva-
^>e'pci avTov; ei; opos
v\f/T)\ov KaT* tSi'av.

(2) Kai /AT/XOp-

<^w^7/ fp.7rpoo-6tv av-
T(i)V, Kai (X.ap.\f/v TO
irpocrwTrov avrov <os
6 TyAios, Ta 8t t/iaVta
avrov eyevcTO ACVKO.

O)5 TO <f>(i>S.

(3) Kai tSov u>-

</)^''/ avrois MtovoTy? avrcp,

Kai HAcias crvvAa- Mwvo^c Kai HAct'ut.

AoVVTfS fJitT aVTOV. (3 1 ) * 0<ft6*VTtf

v oo^rj eAtyov r^v
tooov avrov 171' 7jp.(\-
Aev wAi/povV cv *Iepov-

(28) 'EycveTO 8
TOVS Ao'yovs

TOVTOV9 wcrd 7//Ltcpai

OKTO>

Tpov Ka

'laVw/Jov avtftr) is TO

opos Trpoo~vao'6a.i.

(29) Kai eyc'vrro
eV Ti3 Trpoo'ev^eo'^ai
avroi' TO etSos TOV

OVTOV T-

pov Ka i/z.aTio-p.s
avrov AVKOS efa-

(30) Kai iSov av-

[1070] THE TRANSFIGURATION AND THE AGONY

Mk ix. 28

(5) KOI airoKpi6t\<i
6 IltTpos Xeyti T<j

Ii/o-ov/Pa^jSei, KaAdy
Itrriv T;//a<> o)8e cTcat,

KOI TTOlT/CTtO/LltV Tpl

o-KT/yds, <roi /iiay Kai
Mtovact /xiay Kai
*HXl'a flint.

(6) ov yap $8ti
Tt a

yap iyivovTO.

(7) Kai iyivTO

avTois, cai tytvtro
0o)rr/ ic T//S r/tcA.>;;,

OuTO? c'ffTtK 6 VU>

|zov 6 dyaTTT/ro?, d-
Kovtrc avrov.

(8) icai eaViva

7T(pl[$\({f/dp.(rt>l OVK-

eVi ovSe'va eiSov fted*
tain-wi' ct /n^ TDK *I^-
trovv

Mt. xvii. 18

(4) airoKpi6tl<; 8c
o Ilrrpuc CITTCV TU>
'iT^rov, Kvptc, KaXof
cortf 7zas J<8c tu at-

TToa/o-w <o(
, O-QI /AI'U v
xat Mwucrct /xt'av xat
'HAci'a pun:

(5) Ti avrov Aa-

avrov?, cat i

in TT/? vc^c'Xi/s Xc-

yovo-a, OVTO? f'

6 vioc fiov o

TOS, cV w ev^O

dicovrrc avrov.

(6) Kai axovcray-
Tts ol fiafrrjTai tirtcrav
irl irpo<T<j)irov avTwv

(7) xal 7rpoo-^X-
dev 6 'Irjo-ovs Kai
di/'aftevo? avTuJj' ci-

TTCV,

(8) CTra'

TOVS 6<p6a\fjiov<f av-
TOJV ov8va cTSov fi

/U.WOV.

Lk. ix. 2836

(32) o 8c

cat 01 crvv avTw rjcrai'

cISav T^V &>f ay avrov
xai TOV9 8vo u-8pa5
TOV9 o-vytarTwTa? avT<p.

(33) *t

avrov? aTT* atTov <?-
irv 6 Orrpo? TT/XK
TOV 'IT/O-OVV, *E7Tio-Ta'-

a>8< (Trot, KO.I TTOITJ-

<r Kai fjuav

.Mni'irr KOI [inn-

'HXtia, fj.ij

(34) Tavra 8 av-
TOV Xf'yovTO? iycvtro
Kai

Si tv TO)

TOVS C15

(35)

VTO K

Xeyovo-a, OVTOS e

O* VIOS flOV o' KXt\y-
^1<VO?, aVTOV dKOVT.

(36) Kai V TO)
yfvf<r8ai
cvpe&rf 'IT

414

CANONICAL AND NON-CANONICAL ACCOUNTS [1071]

Mk xiv. 32 43
[1071] (32) Kai

0V TO OIO/XU

i, Kai Ac'yci
i avroD

0-UTf Uxc (!> TTfiOiTtV-

(33) *aiirapaAap>
fiavti Toy llcYpof Kai

TOV 'la.KU)(3oV Kai TOV

I wan/i/ fjLtT aurov
Kai iJp
cruaL Kai a

(34) Kai Ac'yci av-
TOIS Ile

77 i/'VX'/' f JLOV

TOV /blCtVUTC oS Kttl

(35) Kai irpot \6wi'

filKpOV CTTlTTTf V CTfi TT/S

tva ct SuraroV O-TV
Tra.ptX.6rj air* avrov rj
wpa,

(36) Kai ?AcyK,

o Tranp, TTO.V-
Ta Sirt'ara' <rof Trapt-
veyKe TO irorrjpiov
TOVTO aV c/xov* aAA'
ou TI fyw ^c'/Voj u'AAa
TI <rv.

(2) 7"^ Agony
Mt. xxvi. 36 47

(36) TOTC />

i'oK Xyo'/xe'o'
i, Kai Xeyet
TO!? fj.a&T)Ta.i9 [ou]
aVeA&W Kt Trpoo-v-

(37) Kai TrapaXa-

US 8vo vlovs Z)3t-
Satov r)pa.TO \virti-
a&ai Kai

(38) TOT Aeyti
avrois, ITepiAvTros
co-Til' iy ^X"} /* ov
?<D? davarov (Mcivarf
toSc Kai yprjyopflre

fJLT C/XOV.

(39) Kai

wpoo'WTrov' avrov Trpo-

ywv, IlaTep /xou, ei
SUVOTOV co-Tik, TrapeA-
^aTU) arr' </LIOU TO
- TrAi/v

ou^ <os eyo
aAA a>9 o*v.

Lie. xxii. 3947
(39) Kai lcA0<W
Kara. TO
cts TO

O aura) [xai] ot fia-
ftfTiW 1 .

(40) ycvd/kicfoc 8c
eVi TOU TOTTOV flirty
avrois Ilpoo-ev^eo-de
/L/T/ eurcA^cii' i? TTCI-
pacrpjov.

(41) Kai avros
dirtfrirdadr] dw' O.VTWV
axrci \idov y8oAi/V, Kai
$ei? TO. yoVaTa irpocr-

(42) Ae'ywv IlaTCp,
ei ftuvX.fi irapevryKe

TOVTO TO irOTTjplOV ttTT

e/xov' TrA^v ^ TO
&f\j)fjid p.ov aAAa TO

[[(43)
avrw ayyeAos diro TOU

ovpavov cVia^vwi' au-
TOi'. (44) Kai ycvd-

1 Lk. xxii. 39 is parallel to Mk xiv. 26, but
connected sense in Lk.

415

is inserted here to give a

[1071] THE TRANSFIGURATION AND THE AGONY

Mk xiv. 32 43

(37) "

KO.I CVptO*KCl

Ka^evSovras, *al Xc'yei
TUJ IIcTo), i('/t<'>r, ca-

/Atav
crat;

(38) ypiryopeire KOL
irpo<rvxr6(, Iva. fir)
t\6rjT cis TrcipaoyAoV
TO /xf Trvev/xa irpoOv-
ftnv, 77 8< <rap^ axrOt-
n;'s.

(39) Kdl TTClXtV

[rot' auroi' Xo'yot' ct-
irulv].

(40) Kal TraXiv
evpev airrovs

, i/o-av yap
avrwc 01 6<f>6a\fjidi
tcarafiapwofJifvoL, KOI
OVK g&cura.v TI
Kpi6wriv avro).

(41) KOI

TO Tpirov KOI Xe'yci
avTotg, Ka^cuScTt [TO]
XOITTOV Kal dvairav-

7} wpa, t8ou TrapaSi'So-
Tat o vios TOV av^pw-
TTOU eis Tas ^eipas TCOV

Mt. xxvi. 36 47

(40) tai
Trpo? TOV

KOt e\>pL<TKfl ai'TOV?

KaflevSovras, cai Xc-
yei T3 IIcTpa), OUTW?
OUK wr^vcraTt /ii'av

/ZCT

(40
MII Trpo<TV)(tcr6f, tva

pr) fltrX.0TJT( CIS 7Tt-

pa<r/AoV' TO /xcv TTVCV-
fta irpoQvfJiov, T/J 8c

(42) TroiXtv C

IlaTep /xou, ei ov 8v-
vaTai TOVTO irapcX-
0eii' <av /AT^ auro TTICJ,
yeiT/^i/TO) TO 6f\rjfJia
<rov.

(43) **" eX^wv
TraXiv evpev auTovs

yap avraJv 01 6<f>0a\-
fiol ftfftaprjfjifvoL.

(44) xai u'^eis
aurov? iraXii/ aVeX-

TplTOV, TOV aUTOI/ Xo-

yov tiTrwv TraXtj/.

(45) TOTC
jrpos TOV

4l6

Lk. xxii. 39 47
v aya)V('a

ai/xaTos Ka.Taf3a.ivov-

TCS 7Tl T7/V y/v]].

(45) Kai avaoTas
airo TT/S Trpoo-ev^T/s
cX^wv Trpos TOUS /xa-

vovs auTou? ao TT/S

(46) >cai ?TTv av-
TOIS Tt
avaoraires
\tcr0t Iva firj eure'X-

CANONICAL AND NON-CANONICAL ACCOUNTS [1073]

Mk MV. ;.-

(42) eyipc<r0 a-
iSov o Trapa-

(43) KOI eu0t-s CTI
avrov

Mt. xxvi. 36 47
tu Xryct avrois, Ka-

wpa Ka
vtos rot) dvOpwirov
irapaStSorai cts ^ct-

(46) iytiptaOt a-
yw/nev iSov ^yytKCJ'
o irapo5(5ov9 /'.

(47) Kat In au-
ro55

I-k. xxii. 3947

(47) <TI avrov Xa-
Xoi)i'TO9...'Iov8a5...

(3) /Jc/j of John*
(a) The first account of the Transfiguration

[1072] iii. "AAAore Se TTOTC TrapaXapfidvei pe Kal 'Ia/ttu)3o*>
teal Ylerpov et? TO opo<; OTTOV i}v avra) e6o<j ev^eadat,' ical ei
i> avrta <<u< roiovrov OTTOIOV OVK eariv Bvvarbv dvOpwTra)

olov ijv.

(b) The second account of the Transfiguration

[1073] iv. TldXiv o^iotaj? avdyei r)(j,a<; TOU? rpet? 6/9 TO
opo?, Xeyiav "EX^aTe <rvv e/xot. rj^el^ 8e ird\t,v e-rropevdyfjiev
Kal 6pa)fjLi> avrov UTTO 8ta(mjfiaTO<f ev%6/j,evov. ya> & ovv,
r) (j)i\i fie, 7/pe/ia o>9 fjiT) 6/3&)i/TO9 avTOV yyi%a> avTio Kal
d<f>opa)i> avrov etv ra oTTi<T0ia avrov Kal opa) avrov
pev fjiijBe oXeo? ^/x^tetr/iei/oi/, yvfjLvbv Se rovrw optofievov
avOpwTrov Be ovBe oXa><?' Kal rovs f*>V TroSa? TT(ia"r}<{
\fVKorpov<f, O)<t xal rrjv yijv Ktm)v Kara\dp,Tr<T0ai into
rtav TTO&tav rrjv Be K<f>a\r)V et? rov ovpavov fpeiBofievijv a>?
(frofSrjOevra pe Kpavyda-ai, avrov Se 7ri<rrpa<f>vra piKpov avOpta-
n-ov o<f>0rjvai,. . .fit) ireipd&iv rov dtreipao-rov.

1 The text followed here is that of Dr James, but I have occasionally
deviated from it slightly in passages discussed above.

417

[1074] THE TRANSFIGURATION AND THE AGONY

v. 'O 8% Herpo<; Kal 'Ia*<oy8o<? epov o^ttXoui/TO? TO>
rjyavaKTOVv Biat>vo/j.i>oi pot OTTO)? Tra.payevwp.at Trpo? avrovs,
a7ro\irru)v p.6vov rov Kvpiov. KOI 7ropev0T)v, Kal elirov p.oi
dfj,<f)6Tpof '() Tci tcvpi(i) trpo(TOp.i\wv pevovTi eVl TOU v-fyovs
ri<f rjv; ical yap ijKpotapeBa ap.^)O^pa)v \a\ovvT(av. Kal avv-
i>07/<ra? TTJV TTo\\r)v ")(apiv avrov Kal Tro\wrrp6a'a>Trov evortjra
Kal &o<f)iav aXrjxrov ek ;/Lta? UTroftXiirovtrav el-jrov
avro TOVTO avrov

[1074] vi. \\tl\iv TTore r)p<av irdvrwv ra>v p-adrirfav avrov
r > vi>T)<rapeT tV evl KaOevSomwv oiK<p, tyta p.6vus UTTO TO

'fTi;\tfrt/il/ON TTTtjpOVV Tl TTp(i<rtTl' Kal fjKOVCra TO

TTpdoTov \<yovTOS avTov ^laxivvij, KaOeuBe. Kayo) Tore Trpo<r-
TTOirja'd^.ei'O'! rov KaQevooira eloov a\\oi> opoiov avrov Kare\-
6ovra rivd, ov Kal ^Kpoaffti^.tjv \eyo^To<? TcU Kvpita p,ov 'I^aoG,
oD? effXefa), ert <TOI a.TTiffrova'iv ; Kal 6 Kvpios fiov eiTrev avrto
Ka\cl>9 \eyeis' avdptairot, yap elcrii>.

(4) The Transfiguration in Tlte Revelation of Peter

[1075] ii. Kot irpoadfls o Kvpios <f>ij "Aytapev et? TO
opo? [/cal] ev^cafjifda. aTrep^ofievoi oe /^CT' avrov jj/^et? ot
otoocKa f^aOrjral e&eijBvjuev OTTW? oei^rj rjfilv eva roav d&e\<f>d)v
rffjiwv \ru>v\ SiKaitav rtav ejffXffovrcov diro rov Kotrpov, iva
TroraTroi eiVt TTJV fiop<pr}v, xal 6ap<Trj<ravTf<t Tra
Kal TOW? aKovovras r^fjuuv (iv0p(i)Trov<>.

iii. Kai ev^ofjievtav rjfjuav a[<pv6> <paiv]ovrai 8uo avSpes
e<TT<wTe<f HftTrpoffffev rov Kvpiov TTpos e[a), ol?] OVK eovvii0r)fJ.v
tbnflKtytU" gijp%TO yap n-rro T?}? [o]-^re&)9 avrwv aKTlv a>9
r)\iov, Kal <f)Q)Tivuv r\v av\ru>v o\ov TO] evSvpa, OTfolov ovoeTrore
6(f>tfa\fjLO<; dv6pa)Tr[ov eloev, ouSe] a-ropa Svvarai e^rjy^a-acrBai
fj Kap[oia K(j>pdcra]i TTJV S6av fjv eveSebvvTo, Kal TO /ca\[\o?
T^9 7r/3oo-o]-^-ea>5 avrdov ov<f IBovTes I6ap,^u)dr)ijiev' ra ftev yap
a-<ap.ara avrutv TJV \evKorepa ird<TTj<; %i6vo<> Kal epvBporepa

418

THi; TRANSFIGURATION AND THE AGONY [1075]

os poBov, avvetceKparo &e TV epvOpov avr&v rw \fvtcrj), /cat
ov Bvva^ai J~rjyij0a<r6ai TO AcaXXo? avrtav tf re yap
tcop.1] avTUtv ov\i) i)V /cat dvdijpa /cat e7rt7rp7roi/<ra avrtav raJ re
irpo<TTTo<? /cat TroitciXoiv dvBwv, rj &<nrep Ipis ev e'/ot, roiavrrj
rjv avrwv r) ei/VpeVeta.

iv. 'ISofre? ovv avrdov TO /cX\o9 i(0apj3oi yeyovajjiev TT/JO?
aOrou?, TTtBrj a(f>v(o e<f>(ivr)crai>, /cat 7rpo(r\6(t>v T&5 Kuptp efaov
TtW? etcrtv oirroi; \eyei pot, Ovroi eiaiv ol d&e\<pol vptov 01
Bixaiot <av ijOeXr/aare ra? pop<f>a<t ISeiv. Kayo* e<pijv avrfi Kai

7TOU t<7t 7Tai>T? Ot SlKdtOl, rj TTOtO? <7TtJ/ 6 aift)!/ fV fi5 t'<Tt

rrjv &6%ai>;

419 27-2

APPENDIX IV

BATH KOL IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS

The following collection of Voices from Heaven mentioned
in the Targums and Talmuds is reprinted from pp. 22 4 of
Pinner's Introduction to the Talmud^ to be found in his valuable
edition of the Babylonian tractate, Berachoth, 1842, which
has been long out of print. No attempt has been made by
the author to annotate it a task left to more competent
hands.

ra-^p ra-N^p ra-*6p rro-^p

BATH KOL, TOCHTKR-STIMME, ECHO, WIEDERHALL

[1076] Einer der wichtigsten Gegenstande, der hierher
gehort, ist unstreitig die nahere Auseinandersetzung des hiiufig
im Talmud vorkommenden Ausdruckes : Tip J"Q Bath Kol,
was darunter gemeint, und wie er aufzufassen sei ; und da eine
solche Erklarung, wenn sie anders wahr und unwiderleglich
sein soil, nur aus der Quelle selbst entnommen werden muss,
so haben wir zu diesem Behufe sammtliche Stellen, wo dieser
Ausdruck im Talmud oder in den vor ihm verfassten Werken
vorkommt, genau untersucht, um zu einem richtigen Resultate
zu gelangen. Wir halten es daher fiir das Zweckmassigste,
wenn wir alle diese Stellen hier mittheilen, und damit die
Ansichten der altesten und berlihmtesten Rabbinen ver-
binden, die in Hinsicht dieses Gegenstandes aufgestellt worden
sind, worauf wir dann unsere Meinung griinden.

420

BATH KOL IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS [1077]

A. tVVW p }JW DUnn Chalddische Uebersetzung
Jonathans, Sohnes Usii : l s

[1077] Gen. 38. 26: ,mfcNl K'Wfc D^W *6

p Dim-in inmBW ]b:ns nin wp pi und ein

Bath Kol fiel vom Himmel und sprach : Von mir ist diese
Sache, und beide sind befreit vom Gerichte. Num. 21. 6:

hi pan prvN moK pi K&I-IB w p n^sj Sp n-a

NDp nnajn pnb 75 KBO *& Ein Bath Kol fiel vom
Himmel und sprach: Es sahen alle Menschen, welche Wohl-
thaten ich diesem Volk erzeigt habe. Deut. 28. 15: TVO

pSmn sb ,niaN pi KOina ^^ p nSs^ Sp

Ein Bath Kol fiel vom Himmel und sprach : Fiirchtet
nicht, Vater der Welt ! Das. 34. 5 : KD^ p nSfii Sp

WD-T nyxn pani xoSy 'SSy ta pnx >niax pi

Bath Kol fiel vom Himmel und sprach : Es komme die ganze
Welt und sehe die Leiden des Moscheh. Prediger, 2. 14:

,rnDK pi NDITO *Dsy p Sp nm npsai

^N^H Und es ertonte ein Bath Kol vom
Himmel und sprach: Gemeine Jisrael ! Du gleichst einer
Taube. Das. 4. i : HDD ,nnaK pi NW p *6p fQ HpM
!^N1^H NnBOS H3 HN* Ein Bath Kol ertonte vom
Himmel und sprach: Wie schon bist du Gemeine Jisrael!
Klagelieder, 3. 38: NTW tfSp nil ^ Auf ein Bath Kol
deutet es. Esther, 5. 14: mDNI ND11D W p Sp HI HpS3
NJTBn pH ^ ,n*S Ein Bath Kol ertonte vom Himmel
und sprach zu ihm : Fur Haman, den Gottlosen ist es
passend '.

1 Man findetauch im '35? D1J1H der zweiten chaldaischen Ueber-
setzung des Buches Esther viermal den Ausdruck 71P O3 Bath Kol,
und zwar Kap. i. 3 zweimal., woselbst auch viermal : NtmpT nn tO'HD
Es erwiederte der heilige Geist vorkommt, dann Kap. 3. 7 und 4. I ;
da wir aber nur diejenige Stellen, wo Bath Kol vorkommt, hier anfiihren,

421

[1078] BATH KOL

B. JOSD Siphra
[1078] Am Anfange der Paraschah *ti& Der achte,

Haiachah 37 : priK pan W nwan pp wo px'p nyK>3
ipiwon ppa nSy&p ,'S "IN ,TDK ;nin&6 Ssji yn-o
DTIK rap 073 noi nit: no run .enipn irn iro'pn

*1!T uj Zur Zeit als Moscheh das Oel der Salbung goss auf
das Haupt Aharon's, vvurde er angstlich und fiel riickwarts,
indem er sagte: Wehe mir, dass ich eine Untreue begangen
habe an dem Oele der Salbung ! Da erwiederte ihm der
heilige Geist (Psalm, 133. i): "Siehe, \vie schon und lieblich
ist es, wenn Briider zusammen wohnen 8 ."

C. *"TSD Sipkri

[1079] Paraschah rO"an H^TI Und dies ist der Segen,
KpD'S Pi-sk a 357: -]V10 NVV Sip H3 ,tb1N

nn^a nn^ni ^a n^y D % ^ ^y S^D ipy

n^D nO ,n"iaiN1 K. Elieser sagt: Ein Bath Kol ertonte
durch das Lager von zwolfmal zwolf Mil und rief und sprach :
Gestorben ist Moscheh. Diesclbe Stelle findet man Sotah,
13.2.

D. rWO Mischnah
[1080] ma^ Jebamoth, Abs. 16, Mis. 6: H^N \

nnn wi ty io?^ inxn n^yo -Si ra

K p

Man erlaubt zu heirathen

die entweder im Talmud oder in den friihern Werken erwahnt werden, so
gehort sowohl dieses Targum als die andern D'BTID Midraschim, die
erst nach dem Talmud verfasst wurden, nicht hierher.

2 Dasselbe findet man mit dem Ausdruck Bath Kol im babyl. Talmud.
Horajoth, 12. i und Kerithoth, 5. 2.

422

IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS [1083]

(lurch <.-in Hath KoK Es ereignete sich, dass Jemand stand
auf dem Gipfel eines Herges und sprach : Der und der, Sohn
n und (lessen, aus dem und dem Orte, 1st gestorben, und
als man hinaufging und Niemanden dort fand, erlaubte man
seiner Frau zu heirathen. Ein anderes mal ereignete es sich
in Xalmon, dass Jemand sagte: Ich, der und der, Sohn dessen
uiul dessen, bin von einer Schlange gebissen vvorden, und ich
sterbe, und als man hinging und ihn nicht erkannte, erlaubte
man seiner Frau zu heirathen.

[1081] JTQN A both 4 , Abs.6, Mis. 2: h p VOTV 'T

^ ,rnpiNi nrpoi a-nn >-ia nxvv Sip ra DVI DV

mm ^ PWf?y!D nVaS OnS Es sagte R. Jehoschua,
Sohn Lewi's: Taglich ertont ein Bath Kol vom Berge Choreb,
welches ruft und spricht: Wehe den Menschen wegen Verach-
tung der Schrift.

E. *Dt5n"V "11o?n Jerusalemischer Talmud
[1082] nllTO Berachoth, Abs. I, Halachah 6:

r\>r\ hix ,Dn D*nS nm iSxi iS^ ,mKi
,pnv "n ctrn *nn ai ?Sip nn nx^* p -SSn nra

^Ip H2 HK^' njTl Wir haben die Lehre : Ein Bath Kol
ertonte und sprach : Diese und jene sind Worte des lebenden
Gottes, aber die Halachah ist nach den Worten der Schule
Hillel's. Wo ertonte das Bath Kol? Rab Bibi sagte im
Namen R. Jochanan's: In Jabneh ertonte das Bath Kol.
Dasselbe findet man Jebamoth, Abs. i, Hal. 6, Kidduschin,
Abs. i, Hal. i, Sotah, Abs. 3, Hal. 4.

[1083] J-IN'S Peah, Abs. i, Hal. 5: tfSp IVO HpSJ

NTon S: pny m in Sxia^ '"i "]ion .mawi Ein Bath

Kol ertonte und sprach : Gestorben ist R. Schemuel, Sohn
Rab Jizchak's, der Wohlthater. Dasselbe findet man Abodah
sarah, Abs. 3, Hal. I.

3 Eine Frau, die von ihrem Manne verlassen ist, von dem ein Bath
Kol sagt, dass er gestorben sei, darf einen andern Mann heirathen.

4 S. Einl. 21. 2, Erl. 2.

423

[1084] BATH KOL

[1084] D'tfa Kilajim, Abs. 9, Hal. 3:

& Sa -pS mow Sip ra nnwr ,Krop

,rvai iTD-a rvStoi mw? pro p yaen jva ,*nxp p

*Op frttTI .mfifefl inp ra f)B3 Siesagten": Vielleicht
haben wir den Sabbath entweiht, da ertonte ein Bath Kol
und sprach zu ihnen : Jeder, der nicht mlissig war bei der
Trauer des Rabbi, ist vviirdig zum kiinftigen Leben, ausge-
nommen jener Walker*. Als er dies horte, ging er auf den
Boden, zerschmetterte seine Knochen und starb. Darauf
ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach : Auch der Walker. Dasselbe
findet man Kethuboth, Abs. 12, Hal. 3, und im babyl. Talmud,
Kethuboth, 103. 2.

[1085] rVJPaP Schebiith, Abs. 9, Hal. i: IVD JW
JVarWNI .Dian .niON Vbp Er horte ein Bath Kol,
welches sprach : Man erbarme sich seiner, und er wurde
befreit.

[1086] rQB> Schabbath, Abs. 6, Hal. 9: ntyStf '"1

in ID "pin HI "TD *]nnD Es sagte R. Elasar: Man
darf sich richten nach dem, was man gehort hat vom Bath
Kol 7 . Aus welchem Grunde? Aus (Jesaia, 30. 21): "Und
deine Ohren werden vernehmen eine Sache hinter dir her, wie
folgt: Dies is der Weg, wandelt auf ihm 8 ." Das.: '1

vn^ Sip ra nn^ny niyS p
oy tysp % D SD JTTOINI E S sag te

R. Jirmejah, Sohn Elasar's : Einst wird ein Bath Kol in den
Zelten der Gerechten ertonen und sprechen : Jeder, der mit
Gott gewirkt hat, komme und nehme seinen Lohn.

6 Als sie bei der Beerdigung des Rabbi, welches am Freitag war, bis
Sonnenuntergang verweilt batten.

6 Der diese ganze Nacht gearbeitet und also den Sabbath entweiht
hatte, ohne um Rabbi zu trauern.

7 Welches nicht fiir eine Art Zauberei zu halten sei.

8 Eine ahnliche Stelle findet man im babylon. Talmud. Megillah, 32. i.

424

IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS [1090]

[1087] rmn Chagigah, Abs. 2, Hal. i : Sip

;L"'-50 rin .0*33 iaie> ,nioiNi D'Bnpn snip n*ao

'3 1101 'PO JTW Ich horte, dass ein Bath Kol ertbnte aus
dem Allcrhcili^stcn, welches sprach (Jeremia, 3. 22): " Kehrct
uni, Sohnc," ausgenommen Elischa, der meine Kraft kennt,
aber mir abtrlinnig 1st. Dasselbe kommt vor im babylonischen
Talmud, Chagigah, 15. i, wo inN Acher statt y^Stf Elischa
steht.

[1088] pp iyiO Moed katon, Abs. 3, Hal. I : pf? ION

nsa'N no DDK ,D'DnSno onan DN ,yKnn^ i

'13 H^Sn ,H101 Sip HI Es sagte zu ihnen
R. Jehoschua : Wenn Mitgenossen sich straiten, was wollt
ihr? Da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach: Die Halachah
ist nach R. Elieser, meinem Sohne.

[1089] myn Taanith, Abs. 4, Hal. 5 : Dl^D IP! T\^ yv

'in ,niOKi Sip na PINT i % o .r
lyiii iro^ j*y Syi lyni ^y am

Er gab ihm einen Stoss 9 und todtete ihn ;
sogleich ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach (Zacharia, u. 17):
" Wehe dem nichtswiirdigen Hirten, dem Vernachlassiger der
Heerde; Verderben iiber seinen Arm und iiber sein rechtes
Auge ! Sein Arm soil verdorren und sein rechtes Auge
stumpf werden."

[1090] nDID Sotah, Abs. 7, Hal. 5 : POM ,'V? '1 ION

niinoaa poy s^> px -nioxi Sip nn nnv* .njnvin ninin

Es sagte R. Lewi : In Jabneh ist das Band gelbst worden ;
ein Bath Kol ertonte und sprach: Ihr habt nichts mit Ge-
heimnissen zu thun. Das. Abs. 9, Hal. 12: D'N*

Sy B)N ,^npi nil ono npos *DxSoi nna? ^n
pivn pyosy yo^cy n^yo -Sip nan vn D^ontro p ^
Dp^v D M 3 m: -iONi D'enpn jrup n^ao NXV Sip na
yotri ^oiD:xa on^nS ony: iKrp ne^o -vniTW iSt:ai

9 Der Sohn Kosiba's dem R. Elasar.
425

[1090] BATH KOL

,mnixi D'Bnpn enip rv3D N*V Sip ra Sins pa pnv
uroi ,nyn nniN inroi ,K'3m rmp irusn ,trr?tJ inw
sryD -nrvn nye> iniK3K> -imvm pi 13
,DnS moan Si ra nnn ,inr3 KHJ rv3

o^pr IDWJ 31^1 -"iTy ^ rrain
rmf? % ii in 03*^3 ^^ DnS n-iDsi Sip

.H3 min |^^ Nachdem
gcstorben waren die letzten Propheten Chaggai, Secharjah
und Maleachi, horte auf bei ihnen der heilige Geist, aber
dessenungeachtet bedienten sie sich des Bath Kol. Es ereig-
nete sich, dass Schimeon der Gercchte hbrte ein Bath Kol
ertonen aus dem Allerheiligsten, welches sprach : Getodtet
ist das Heer des Gulikus und aufgehoben sind seine Verord-
nungen. Es ereignete sich, dass Jtinglinge in den Krieg
nach Antiochja zogen, da horte Jochanan der Hohepriester
ein Bath Kol ertonen aus dem Allerheiligsten, welches sprach:
Es haben gesiegt die Jiinglinge, welche in den Krieg zogen
nach Antiochja ; und sie schrieben diese Stunde auf, be-
stimmten diese Zeit und fanden, dass es zur selben Stunde
geschehen war. Es ereignete sich, dass die Aeltesten in das
Haus des Gadia zu Jericho gingen, da ertbnte ein Bath Kol
und sprach zu ihnen : Ein Mann befindet sich unter euch, der
wiirdig ist zum heiligen Geiste, aber das Zeitalter ist dazu
nicht wiirdig, und sie richteten ihre Blicke auf Hillel den
Aeltern ; und als er gestorben war, sagten sie von ihm: Wehe
iiber den demuthigen und frommen Schuler des Esra. Ein
anderes Mai begaben sich die Aeltesten auf die Gallerie zu
Jabneh, da ertbnte em Bath Kol und sprach zu ihnen : Einer
ist unter euch, der wiirdig ist zum heiligen Geiste, aber das
Zeitalter ist dazu nicht wiirdig, und sie richteten ihre Blicke
auf Schemuel den Kleinen. Dasselbe findet man am Ende
dieses Abschnittes und Abodah sarah, Abs. 3, Hal. r und am
Ende des Tractates Horajoth ; dann im babyl. Talmd. Joma,

426

IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS [1092]

9. 2, Sot.ih. 33. i und 48. 2, Sanhedrin, n. I und
Mcgillath Taanith, Abs. n. An alien diesen Stellen
kommcn mehrcrc abweichende Lesarten vor, deren Erorte-
rungen nicht hierher gehoren.

[1091] pnrOD Sanhedrin, Abs. 10, Hal. 2: S

m rim* ,xnn a'ny? p?n
noi JK N S I -iron nnx o (S) HDND

? "121 nyi* R. Chananjah und R. Jehoschua, Sohn Lewi's,
sagten : Zur Zeit als sie festsetzten und sagten : Drei Konige
und vier Laien habcn keinen Antheil an der kiinftigen Welt,
ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach (lob, 34. 33): " Sollte er
ctuu nach deinem Sinne vergelten, vveil du (sie) verwirfst,
dass du wahlst und nicht ich ; und was wiisstest du sonst zu
reden ? "

F. tt TlDD Babylonischfr Talmud
[1092] mm Berachoth, 3. i : HI

ich sagte zu ihm : Ich horte ein Bath Kol, girrend wie eine
Taube, welches sprach : Wehe den Kindern ! denn durch ihre
Sunden habe ich mein Haus zerstort und meinen Tempel
verbrannt, und Hess sie wegfuhren unter die Volker. Das.

12. 2: -vro SiNB> njnia ' M S D^ypini Minn ^TDK pnii

'" Tna ,H"O< i l Sip ra nn^* /' Aber die Rabbinen sagten :
Von hier (2 Samuel, 21. 6): " Und wir wollen sie aufhangen
flir den Ewigen am Hiigel Schaiil's, des Erkorenen des
Ewigen." Ein Bath Kol ertonte und sprach : " Des Erko-
rcncn des Ewigen." Das. 17. 2: ,2"! TON -miH 1 3

oSiyn SD ,niDii amn pno HNVV Sip ra DVI DV

On 3:n S*3^3 D^IW iSlD Denn es sagte Rab Jehudah,
im Namen Rab's : Taglich ertont ein Bath Kol vom Berge
Choreb und spricht : Die ganze Welt wird ernahrt um Cha-

427

[1093] BATH KOL

nina, meines Sohnes \villen. Dasselbe s. Taanith, 24. 2 und
Chollin, 86. i. Das. 52. i : p ,-tfttn ,K'PI yPIJV *mi
Tip JIM pITJ^a Und dies ist wie R. Jehoschua, welcher
sagte: Man achtet nicht auf das Bath Kol. Dasselbe s.
Erubin, 7. i ; Pesachim, 114. i ; Jebamoth, 14. i ; Baba mezia,
59. 2; Chollin, 44. i. Das. 61. 2: ,m/3N1 Sip W PimP

nriNa -jnww nwrp :ypp "i -pPK Ein Bath KOI

ertbnte und sprach : Wohl dir R. Akiba ! denn deine Seele
ging hiniiber bei Echad. Das.: "jnfiW .PHDNI ^1p m HW

*on oSiyn "nS piio nn^ -'x:rpy "i Ein Bath K O I

ertonte und sprach : Wohl dir R. Akiba ! denn du bist
bestimmt zum Leben der kiinftigen Welt.
[1093] raP Schabbath, 14. 2:

OX DJ *? nOP^ *|3 DDH DK On ,niDN1 ^p Es sa-tc
Rab Jehudah, im Namen Schemuel's: Zur Zeit als Schelomoh
bestimmte die sabbathlichen Verbindungen und das Waschen
der Hande ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach (Spruche, 23. 15):
" Mein Sohn ! \venn dein Herz weise ist, wird sich auch mein
Herz freuen." Dasselbe s. Erubin, 21. 2. Das. 33. 2: TO

,onS mpNi Sip ra nm* 1^3 1*0 -^ jrw

1NV ,n")ON1 ip m nm* ,Bnn Ueberall, wohin
sie 10 ihre Blicke richteten, verbrannte Alles sogleich ; da
ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu ihnen: Seid ihr um meine
Welt zu zerstoren herausgegangen, so kehret zuriick in cure
Hohle. Sie gingen zuriick und verweilten zwolf Monate,
indem sie sagten : Die Verurtheilung der Frevler in der Holle
dauert zwolf Monate ; da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach :
Gehet aus eurer Hohle. Das. 56. 2 : [nJ1!T pi ,37OT WH

xhx nap n^iTSD Sni ?IOP tyn ana *y\

10 R. Schimeon, Sohn Jochai's, und sein Sohn R. Elasar.
428

l\ TARGUM8 A.\l> TALM1 [1093]

r H-IDSI "rip na nnr ,vSya oy nans ne>ye> -pno
r:r.r rtr -rn -iDstr nyira .an IDS .mrr an -IDS : s*3 "13
1 s rnosi Si na nnr ,me>n ns ip^nn sa'i nns

Dies 1st M, wa. -cschneben steht
(i t'hron. 9. 40): " Und der Sohn Jehonathan's war Merib
Baal," hiess er denn Mcrib Baal ? Sein Name war ja Mephi-
boscheth ! Aber gewiss, well er einen Zank gestiftet hat
mit seinem Herrn, ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu ihm :
Zankcr, Sohn des Zankers ! Es sagte Rab Jehudah, im
Namen Rab's : Zur Zeit als Dawid sagte zu Mephiboscheth
.imuel, 19. 30): " Du und Ziba, ihr sollt theilen das Feld,"
ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu ihm : Rechabeam und
Jarobeam sollen theilen das Reich. Dasselbe s. Joma, 22. 2.

Das. 88. i : Wy3 Stf-lfcr IDHpPlP ny^a <"HJPH

osW .nr n *)> rh^ ^D ,|n? H-TDSI Sip na nnr

?ia pPDWD niB^n Es sagte R. Elasar: Zur Zeit als die
Israeliten voransetzten (Ex. 19. 8): " Wir wollen thun" vor:
Wir wollen horen, ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu ihnen :
Wer hat meinen Kindern dieses Geheimniss geoffenbart, dessen
sich die Engel des Dienstes bedienen ? Das. 149. 2 : a*) IDS

Sa ipyi wmS yen inis TVP nytra ,an -IDS ,
is .sa sin Dn^S hwxh sDjy -I-IDS ,w:v;i
nns DJ ^DS^ ,sa sin

ns naatrni rrn nDy^ DD nnDsi ip na nnr

Es sagte Rab Jehudah, im Namen Rab's : Zur Zeit als dieser
Frevler" in die Holle kam, bebten alle Hollenbewohner,
indem sie sagten : Er kame vielleicht tiber sie zu herrschen,
oder zu leiden wie sie; denn es heisst (Jesaia, 14. 10): " Bist
auch du krank wie wir, oder willst du liber uns herrschen ? "
Da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach (Ezechiel, 32. 19) : " Bist
du schoner als irgend einer ? Fahre hinunter und lagere dich
zu den Unbeschnittenen."

11 Nebucadnezar.
429

[1094] BATH KOL

[1094] parry E r u b i n, 1 3. 2 : sMxr TDK ,xaN <an
naw i^Sn ,SSn rvai KJDB> rra ipSro DJ
ip na nnr ,iyni&a naSn ,DnaiK ttfn ,
SSn rvaa nrjSni ,D"n D'nSx nan I^KI iS ES sagte

R. Aba, im Namen Schemuel's: Drei Jahre stritt die Schule
Schammai's mit der Schule Hillel's, diese sagten : Die Hala-
chah ist nach uns, und jene sagten : Die Halachah ist nach
uns ; da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach : Sowohl dieses als
jenes sind Worte des lebenden Gottes, aber die Halachah ist
nach der Schule Hillel's. Das. 54. 2 : m&XI tfS Ha

Ein Bath Kol ertonte und sprach zu ihm : Ist dir lieber, dass
dir vierhundert Jahre vermehrt werden, oder, dass du und
dein Zeitalter wiirdig werde der kiinftigen Welt? Er sagte:
Moge ich und mein Zeitalter wiirdig sein der kiinftigen Welt.
[1095] rmn Chagigah, 13. I : ,^31 p pHV pi

^CNB^ .ny^a ,ycn mvh Sip na ina*trn nai^n
,iS nnDi Sip na nny ?jvSyS HD-TS ax ^naa Sy
ycnn -111D3 S^ wa p yen p yK'n ES sagte

Jochanan, Sohn Saccai's: Welche Antwort gab das Bath Kol
jenem Frevler", als er sagte (Jesaia, 14, 14): " Steigen will ich
auf die Wolkenhohen, mich gleichstellen dem Hochsten ? "
Da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu ihm : Frevler, Sohn
des Frevlers, Enkel Nimrod's, des Frevlers. Das. 14. 2:

p pnv pn vsh onan I^DI ;nan DV

n *]a^ ;37 n^ ,DannSv n^w ,D
na wSy n:n:i yo nn Sy wn paioo 'DiSna DHNI ^

|NaS iSy ,|aS iSy -D^O^n p Sip R. Josi der Priester ging
und erzahlte diese Dinge vor Rabban Jochanan, Sohne
Saccai's, welcher sagte: Wohl euch, wohl euren Erzeugern,
wohl den Augen, die dies gesehen ! und auch ich sah im

12 Nebucadnezar.
430

IN TAKdUMS AND TALMUDS [1098]

I i. mine, d.iss \\ ir s.isscn auf dem Berge Sinai, und ein Bath
Kl vom Himmcl iiber uns crtontc: Steiget hinauf hierher,

hinauf hierher !
[1096] JDp iyiO Moed katon, 9. I : HHIK .pPIV '1 1DN

vni .oison nv r

Sip ra

sagte

R. Jochanan : In demselben Jahre" haben die Israeliten das
Vers6hnunjsfest nicht gefeiert, daher fiirchteten sie und
sagten : Vielleicht haben dadurch die Feinde JisraeTs 14 Aus-
rottung verschuldet ; da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu
ihnen : Ihr alle seid bereit zum Leben der kunftigen Welt.
Das. 16. 2: TllTl miK 1213 pi ,H1DK1 Sip HD HHV^ Min
Hath Kol ertonte und sprach (i Konige, 15. 5): " Ausser in
der Sache Urijah's, des Chitti." Das. 18. 2: ,nTl!T 31

nn .niDiNi nxvv Sip na DVI DV SM bwov

Es sagte Rab Jehudah, im Namen Schemuel's:
Ta^lich ertont ein Bath Kol und spricht : Die Tochter dessen
und dessen ist bestimmt fur den und den. Dasselbe findet
man mit einigen Veranderungen Sotah, 2. i und Sanhedrin,
22. i.

[1097] POET! K^NI Rosch Haschschanah, 21. 2:

ainai ,iS mow 'Tip m nnr ,n^ib3 nvnS

*131 Der Prediger verlangte dem Moscheh, zu gleichen ;
da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach (Prediger, 22. 10) : "Was
geschrieben steht mit Recht sind Worte der Wahrheit."

[1098] KDV Joma, 22. 2 : iS IBKP IW2 ^30 '31 TDK

ON ,ION ,pHoj; nx n*Dm -jS ,Six^S JP -pia
Sx ,iS mow Sip ra nnr PIXDH no D^p ( INDH
nn mo jxii 1 ? ^w^ ^ io^ ny^ai ,min

u Als der Tcmpel eingeweiht wurde.

14 Dieser Ausdruck ist per Euphemismum zu nehmen, indem darunter
die Israeliten selbst gemeint sind.

431

[1099] BATH KOL

nm y&?in SK ,iS maw Sip ro nw ,Don:n

Es sagte R. Mani : Zur Zeit als der Heilige, gepriesen sei er !
zu Schaiil sprach (i Samuel, 15. 3): " Gehe und schlage den
Amalek," sagte er: Wenn die Grossen gesiindigt, was haben
die Kleinen verbrochen ? Da ertonte ein Bath Kol und
sprach (Prediger, 7. 16) : "Sei nicht zu gerecht." Und zur
Zeit als Schaul zu Doeg sagte (i Samuel, 22. 18): " Tritt du
hin und stossc die Priester nieder," ertonte ein Bath Kol und
sprach zu ihm (Prediger, 7. 17): "Sei nicht zu frevelhaft"
[1099] myn Taanith,25.2: YVP /"liy'Stf '11

'i IT ,ruyj tfSi ,nia-a nymw onpy taw n:rnn

Yin -D^D^: HTI ,u cm
.n?o ^na nr^ OBD S .maNi ip m nnv*
Sy "nyo ir nn ,vnna Sy Tnya

Es ereignete sich, dass R. Elieser hintrat vor die Lade 18 und
sagte vierundzwanzig Lobspriiche, aber nicht beantwortet
wurde ; darauf trat R. Akiba hin und sprach : Unser Vater
und Konig! wir haben keinen andern Konig als dich. Unser
Vater und Konig ! um deinetwillen erbarme dich unser, und
es kam Regen. Hieriiber murrten die Rabbinen, da ertonte
ein Bath Kol und sprach: Nicht dass dieser grosser sei als
jener, sondern dieser ist langmlithig, jener aber ist nicht
langmuthig. Das. 29. i : |D1TD HT [11N -HTDNI Sip rQ Pinr
Kin DSiyn *W Ein Bath Kol ertonte und sprach: Dieser
Herr 18 ist bereit zum Leben in der kiinftigen Welt
[1100] PlS*Jfc Megillah, 3. i: JJW

Si ni nm % .oxSai n'-o?

Sy ^N % Tiy p

niS^S ^n "iiyi -win ^N /raw

16 Worin die Gesetzrollen sich befanden.

16 Ein vornehmer Romer, der, um den Rabban Gamliel zu retten,
sein Leben hingab.

432

IN TAK<;UMS AND TALMUD^ [1101]

1 S -TOW *?1p na nny Die chaldaische Uebersetzung
der 1'ropheten hat Jonathan, Sohn Usicl's, mitgetheilt durch
iK 11 Au<sj>ruch Chaggai's, Secharjah's und Maleachi's ; da
nte ein Bath Kol und sprach: Wer ist es, der meine
Geheimnisse den Menschen oflfenbart? Da trat Jonathan,
Sohn Usicl's, auf und sagte: Ich bin es. Auch suchte er die
chaldaische Uebersetzung der Hagiographen zu offenbaren ;
da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu ihm: Du hast genug.

Das. 12. i : Dyie*n ,ur\h mow Sip ra nre* ,Na-i ION

?Dna D'W DnKI D^a JSD V Es sagte Raba: Ein Bath
Kol ertonte und sprach zu ihnen : Die Vormaligen sind
vernichtet worden wegen der Gerathe 17 , und ihr lehrt durch
sie"? Das. 29. i : pTVTn n&S ^TMI W5 ,N1Sp 13 ^"11

zy p ^in no^ ,DnS nnONi ^p nn nnr ?Dji3aj onn

I'VD SVK DHN pOID *Sya D^D ?>^D Es erklarte der Sohn
Kapara's: Was bedeutet, das geschrieben steht (Psalm, 68. 17):
" Warum eifert ihr hockerige Berge ? " Namlich ein Bath
Kol ertonte und sprach zu ihnen : Warum rechtet ihr mit
Sinai ? Ihr alle seid ja Kriippel gegen Sinai !

[iioi] nninp Kethuboth, 77. 2: *h an ,rch IDK
an .r\*h nnoNi vhp na KPSJ ,n^S a % n^ p nin xS /rao

nvn*i Er sagte zu ihm : Gieb mir mein Messer. Er gab es
ihm nicht ; da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu ihm :
Gieb es ihm. Das. 104. i : -lG$7 t|p? /ai h& TlTDfi

.niina
Sip na nnr <*nni3oa DiS^ n^ q^sSD pn *

* In der Sterbestunde des Rabbi,
richtete er seine zehn Finger gen oben und sagte : Herr der

17 Namlich die Nachkommen des Nebucadnezar sind vertilgt worden,
weil sie die Gerathe des Tempels zum gewohnlichen Gebrauche genom-
men hatten.

18 Wie man sie gebrauchen soil.

A. 433 28

[1102] BATH KOL

Welt ! es ist offenbar und bekannt vor dir, dass ich mich mit
meinen zehn Fingern um das Gesetz bemiiht habe, ohne dass
ich auch nur fiir die Miihe des kleinsten Fingers einen Genuss
gehabt hatte, es sei wohlgefallig vor dir, dass Friede wohne in
meiner Ruhe ; da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach (Jesaia,
57. 2) : " Er geht ein zum Frieden, sie ruhen (dort) auf ihren
Lagern."

[1102] &M Gittin, 56. 2 : rm ,fS mow Si ro

n, . : ,

WflJD W rbp Kin Bath Kol ertonte und
sprach zu ihm 18 : Ein kleines Geschopf ist in meiner Welt,
Jatusch ist sein Name. Das. 57. 2: PPM! tth PinSy NTl E)K

nrtDB> D^nn DM ,mDNi Sip ra r\rw ,nnai Auch sie

ging auf das Dach, stiirzte hinunter und starb ; da ertonte ein
Bath Kol und sprach (Psalm, 1 13. 9): "Die Mutter der Sohne
frohlocket."

[1103] PltDID Sotah, 10. 2 : ,'3DD npTX -"1DN1 HIPP |V3

p n^n ^^i ion nSvn nn ,nipi Sip m
JND ,iin p "i^no n^B' ^mDin S
Sip nn nmr ?jn* :a .ODD npn^ -nnijn

-D^HD 1JW* *JBD ,n"UDM1 Als er al bekannte und sagte
(Gen. 38. 26) : " Sie ist gerecht, von mir," ertonte ein Bath
Kol und sprach : Du hast Tamar und ihre beiden Sohne vom
Feuer gerettet, so wahr du lebst ! dass auch ich wegen deines
Verdienstes drei deiner Sohne vom Feuer retten werde.
Wer sind sie? Chananjah, Mischael und Asarjah". "Sie
ist gerecht, von mir," woher wusste er dies? Ein Bath Kol
ertonte und sprach: Von mir sind ausgegangen die Eroberer".

Das. 21. i : pn SD nN GTK jiv DN ,mutK\ Sip m nw

19 Zum Titus, wahrend der Zerstorung Jerusalems.

20 Die Mutter, welche bei der Zerstorung Jerusalems sieben Sohne auf
schreckliche Weise verloren hatte.

21 Jehudah.

S. Daniel, 3. 8 bis 30.

23 Der Welt, namlich Salomon und Messias. S. V 'BH Raschi in
Maccoth, 23. 2, wo diese Stelle ebenfalls vorkommt. Eine ahnliche Stelle

434

IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS [11M]

* TO' T13 mnxn im Kin Bath Kol ertonte und sprach
(Hohelied, 8. 7): " Gabe ein Mann das ganze Vermogen
si-ines Hauses um die Liebe bin, so ware es mir eine
Verachtung."

[1104] Ny*VD KM Baba mezia, 59. 2: ,DnS 1DK1 1TTI

no ,niD60 Sip ra nmr ,imv own p /niaa nabn ox
iniD3

nn -"VD inn mro

sagte er zu ihnen : Wenn die Halachah nach mir ist, so mdge
man vom Himmel entscheiden ; da ertonte ein Bath Kol und
sprach : Was habt ihr gegen R. Elieser ? denn die Halachah
ist iiberall nach ihm. Da stand R. Jehoschua auf und sagte :
Nicht dem Himmel gehort sie an, wir achten nicht auf das
Bath Kol ; denn langst schon ist geschrieben auf dem Berge
Sinai (Ex. 23. 2): "Nach der Menge ist (das Gesetz) zu
beugen." Das. 85. i : ,nTD SllJ HT^ r&b D^Tt 0*11103

rrn ni N^N ,n?a Sru nr^ ^SD xb -HIDNI ^p ra nnr
niyD lyvn nn vh nn ,niyD ijnfi Das voik war der

Meinung zu behaupten, dass jener grosser sei als dieser ; da
ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach : Nicht jener war grosser als
dieser, sondern jener war dem Leiden der Hohle unterworfen**,
dieser aber war nicht dem Leiden der Hohle unterworfen.

Das. Seite 2 : ,nSs>Ss im^3 Plllf! ,lS HIDNI Sip HI HHr
HUH Ein Bath Kol ertonte und sprach zu

findet man im jerusalemischen Talmud. Tractat Sotah, Abs. 9, Hal. 6,
wo aber der Ausdruck : TOX CH^pn nm Und der heilige Geist sprach
steht. Auch in derselben Mischnah findet man diesen Ausdruck, ferner
im *^BD Siphri XpD'S Piska 305 und 355 sechsmal, dann auch Sotah,
1 1. i. Wir ubergehen diese Stellen, da wir uns streng an den Ausdruck :
7!p n3 Bath Kol halten, und nur aus dem NTBD Siphra haben wir eine
solche Stelle angefiihrt. S. Einleitung, Fol. 22. 2, Erl. 2.

14 R. Elasar lebte dreizehn Jahre in einer HOhle, darum war er
heiliger als sein Sohn R. Josi, von dem hier die Rede ist. S. Schabbath,
33-2.

435 282

[1105] BATH KOL

ihm : Das Gesetz hast du zwar mit Scharfsinn behauptet wie
dieser, aber nicht eben so gelehrt hast du es 28 . Das. 86. I :

Sip ra nrur -Tints iinto ,*TDN ,rws3 Km Np nin >:D

nnn "iinta -[sue? ^joro 12 nm

Als seine Seele in Ruhe ging, sagte er: Rein, rein;
da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach : Wohl dir Rabbah, Sohn
Nachmeni's ! denn dein Korper ist rein und deine Seele ist
ausgegangen in Reinheit.

[1105] N'TTO Km Baba bathra, 3. 2: yftV 1PI

nS* KWPI TIDI *my ta .TONI sSp ro N-QJ

Eines Tages horte dieser Mann ein Bath Kol, welches sprach:
Jeder Sklave, der sich jetzt emport, wird begliicken. Das.

58. i : ,mai Sip nn nnx^ p^in DIKT ^nnyDS ND& *3
S^nDn S^ navy 'jpm <opvn n^ia nS^nDJ Ais er zur

Hohle des ersten Menschen kam, ertonte ein Bath Kol und
sprach : Du hast gesehen das, was dem Ebenbilde gleicht,
aber das Ebenbild selbst** darfst du nicht sehen. Das. 73. 2 :

ro Kpsji .pe>S3 nipw 1 ? ,nin^ p^ai Ka
xni3 -aS N^^vn n*S nSsn -ton inirvn v

NpNK X^D p ^ ,'3^ 3B> H Wir sagten : Hier ist
kein Wasser und wollten hingehen, urn uns abzukuhlen ; da
ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu uns : Gehet nicht hierher,
denn bereits vor sieben Jahren ist das Beil eines Zimmer-
mannes hineingefallen, und noch hat es den Boden nicht
erreicht Das. 74. 2: E^ JVN *ND ,]h 1BN Sp H2 pSi
? Nn*7tD"1p HH1 Ein Bath Kol ertonte und sprach zu uns :
Was wollt ihr niit diesem Kasten?

[1106] mr rrray Abodah sarah, 10. 2: Sip ra nnr
r6 pi DiS^ in nyw ,niaw Ein Bath

25 An andere, wie R. Chija es gethan hat.

* Namlich den ersten Menschen, der im Ebenbilde Gottes erschaffen
wurde.

436

IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS [1107]

Kol ertonte und sprach : Ketiah, Sohn Schalom's, ist bereit
zum Leben der kunftigen Welt Das. 17. i : "DTI pN -"TDX

rvaaa nyji vain pa IP&O mn ,*a xS iSn
mn |a ifyStf 'i ,ma*o Sip na nnr ,inoe>:

Kr sagte: Von keinem andern hangt die Sache
ab als von mir; er legte sein Haupt zwischen seine Kniee
und schric weinend so lange bis seine Seele hiniiberging ; da
ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach : R. Elasar, Sohn Dordia's,
ist bereit zum Leben der kunftigen Welt Das. 18. I : nn*

"ft? p p3D1TD TMwf?p1 JVT-in p WJPI "1 ,n"lDl Sip J-Q
X2H D^iyn Ein Bath Kol ertonte und sprach: R. Chanina,
Sohn Teradjon's, und der Statthalter sind bereit zum Leben
der kunftigen Welt

[1107] pnmD Sanhedrin, 39. 2: M7 M&P J1*? "DM

n XT n^n mnniyi -H-I^NI Sip ra nnr ?nnx D^nSx NT
nraS piiD ir nnx S^ wa Sax HIND /M Er sagte zu

ihm": Vielleicht bist du nicht gottesfiirchtig ; da ertonte ein
Bath Kol und sprach (i Konige, 18. 3): "Und Obadjahu
fiirchtete den Ewigen sehr," aber das Haus Achab's ist nicht

bereit zum Segen. Das. 94. i : ^ Tl .H1DN1 Sip Ha

Sip na nrnr ?*HD ny ,'S n *S IN -N^a

D*"i:ia "Uai n^a DHiia ,niOl Ein Bath Kol ertonte
und sprach (Jesaia, 24. 16): " Bei mir ist das Geheimniss, bei
mir ist das Geheimniss." Der Prophet sagte (Das.) : " Wehe
mir, wehe mir, bis wie lange ? " Da ertonte ein Bath Kol
und sprach (Das.) : " Rauber rauben, und Raub rauben
Rauber." Das. 96. 2 : W O /3 HajrS Sl , WSHBD ,"!

,nw ia TI^ ,IDKI Sp pw -ann^oa najn
-'S'D xSa^ni ann Nj^ipDi ,X^DT
-rrS HTDNI S na

Achab zu Obadjahu.
437

[1107] BATH KOL

Jvp llp Er sagte 28 : Ich furchte,
dass sie mit mir so verfahren warden, wie sie mit Sancherib
verfuhren ; da ertonte eine Stimme und sprach : Springer,
Sohn des Springers, Nebuseradan ! springe, denn die Zeit ist
gekommen, dass das Heiligthum zerstort und der Tempel
verbrannt werde. Hierauf wurde er stolz ; da ertonte ein
Bath Kol und sprach zu ihm : Ein getodtetes Volk hast du
getodtet, einen verbrannten Tempel verbrannt und gemahlenes
Mehl gemahlen. Das. 99. 2 : 3BT\ A m&NI

w n ^ ^ n inn *pK pa
-]!T3iK -paa JTPIK nvn Ein Bath Koi

ertonte und sprach zu ihm* (Psalm, 50. 20 und 21): " Du
sitzest da, redest gegen deinen Bruder, hangest dem Sohne
deiner Mutter Makel an." " Solches hast du gethan und ich
schwieg, da meintest du, ich sei dir gleich. Ich verweise
es dir und stelle es dir vor Augen." Das. 102. i :
TDK httW rafjfib 3TDNS TON TO HJ H^IID h

,DnS n-ioxi Sip nn nnx* -NSS "in
^ ^nn nj DDHX enim

"Darum 80 weil ihr Boten bestimmt
gegen den, der Gath vererbt hat und dessen Hauser verlaugnet
gegen die Konige J Israel's, sollt ihr Lugnern zu Theil wer-
den." Es sagte R. Chanina, Sohn Papa's: Ein Bath Kol
ertonte und sprach zu ihnen : Weil ihr gegen die Sohne
dessen, der den Pelischti getodtet" und euch Gath als Erbtheil
verschafft hat, Boten bestimmt, und dessen Hauser verlaugnet
gegen die Konige J Israel's**, sollt ihr Liignern 88 anheimfallen.

28 Nebuseradan, Feldherr des Nebucadnezar, als ihm die Einnahme
Jerusalems nicht gelingen wollte.

29 Zu Menascheh, Sohne Chiskijah's.

30 S. Micha, i. 14.

31 Namlich David, der den Goliath getodtet hat.

32 Indem sie die Nachkommen David's verliessen und andere als
Konige einsetzten.

33 Fremden Machten.

438

IN TARGUMS AND TALMU1> [1109]

Das. 104. 2: HUBS Tip Wp3 ,31 TDK ,mvr 3-)

irotfSiM THS crx mn ,onS maw Sip n3 nnr ,

7V3 cnpns? *D .own ^ 3*71' S3 srrv
irv3i D'JC
3v % n % S3 ,3
Sip

K-hudah, im Namen Rab's: Sic* 4 wollten noch einen darunter
zahlcn"; da ertonte ein Bath Kol und sprach zu ihnen
(Sprtiche, 22. 29) : " Siehst du einen Mann geiibt in seiner
Kunst ; vor Konige stelle er sich, aber er stelle sich nicht vor
Finsterlinge." Wer mein Haus dem seinigen vorgezogen, und
nicht dies allein, sondern mein Haus in sieben Jahren, das
seinige aber erst in dreizehn Jahren gebaut hat, der muss
sich vor Konige* 1 stellen, aber er darf sich nicht stellen vor
Finsterlinge 37 . Allein sie achteten nicht darauf; da ertonte
ein Bath Kol und sprach (lob, 34. 33): " Sollte er etwa nach
deinem Sinne vergelten, weil du (ihn) verwirfst, dass du
\\alilst* 8 , und nicht ich?"(Eine ahnliche Anwendung dieses
Verses s. oben S. 23. I.)

[1108] H13D Maccoth, 23. 2 : ^N ,m&N1 Sip H3 nm %
HI ^313 "TV Kin Bath Kol ertonte und sprach : Ich bin
Zeuge in dieser Sache. Das.: -1DK N71 ^nia^l Sip H3 nm
Kin Hath Kol ertonte und sprach : Diese ist seine Mutter.

[1109] J^IH Chollin, 87. i : D13 .PHDNI Sip H3 HTO*
D^31HT D*V3"W H1^ H313 S^ Ein Bath Kol ertonte und
sprach : Kin Glas des Segenspruches ist werth vierzig Gulden.

* Die Weisen.

84 Unter den Konigen, die keinen Theil an der kiinftigen Welt haben,
n. unlit h den Salomoh.
36 1m Paradiese.
" Die in der Holle leiden.
* Wer des kiinftigen Lebens wiirdig sei.

439

[1110] BATH KOL

Erkldrungen iiber 7lp H3 Bath Kol
[1110] "Bn Raschi. HtDID Sotah, 33. i : nniK ,Sl

njnv ,mo
HP Doysi ni7 D>oys JWB^I W? nnSwo Bath K O I

ist diejenige gottliche Eigenschaft, die siebenzig Sprachen
versteht, weil sie bestimmt ist, gehort zu warden, und in
alien Sprachen gebraucht wird, bald fur diesen, bald fur
jenen.

[1111] JYlSDin Tosephoth. pTttD Sanhedrin, 1 1. i :

-pno X7K .awn jo xvvn ^p pyDi^ yn i6

vn ip inM , piniD^ I:OD vvn -inx ip

7lp H^ IHI^ pip Der eine erklart, dass man nicht die
Stimme selbst, die vom Himmel kam, gehort habe, sondern
durch diese Stimme eine andere entstanden sei, wie zuweilen,
wenn Jemand kraftig aufschlagt, eine andere Stimme dadurch
in der Feme gehort wird, und nur eine solche Stimme hat
man gehort, deshalb nennt man sie Bath Kol.

[1112] DD"fc") R. Moscheh, Sohn Maimon's, in PITIQ
M'OJ Moreh Nebochim, Theil 2, Kap. 42: i;W ,JHn

-rain ni ^ ,0^*33 inewi rn:D N^I ,n^3J n^x nnvon

nn3?

Wisse, dass Hagar, die
Aegypterin, war keine Prophetin, und Manoach und seine
Frau waren keine Propheten ; denn das, was sie gehort oder
sich eingebildet haben, war ahnlich dem Bath Kol, welches
die Weisen haufig erwahnen, und dies ist eine Sache, die sich
Jemandem ereignen kann, der nicht vorbereitet ist, wobei
aber die Verbindung des Namens irre leiten kann.

[1113] lSn n"IP* "1 R. Jehudah der Lewi in
Cosari, Abschnitt 3, Rede 41 : HpS 0*11X0 VH

440

IN r.\K;UMS AND TALMUDS [1115]

no IN .nxiajn DHD npf?nw vbv pe> *?a .meann Sa

^p fiaO HDIpOa "lOytr Denn die Manner des Sanhedrin
muvsten in alien Wissenschaften unterrichtet sein, zumal, da
die Prophczcihung von ihnen nicht gewichen war, oder was
deren Stclle vc-rtrat, n.unlich das Bath Kol. S. Rede II und
73, wo cine ahnliche Krklarung gegeben wird.

[1114] "PIS '1 R. Bechaje, WlS Paraschah nNTI
na-ian Dies ist der Segen. Fol. 243, 2: nyTTN 3 ,yi1

.srnpn mi own D*YIK ,^p na .nsinjn p nimo
p IDN Si ^ip nn TDK^ noa TID e^n
|^ap Kin ,vw^n orS yxsn nrn
iprn ,^nx ' Sipa yD^n jna^ DN irm ,n
^p vnwa I^D: xin^ 'fi 1 ? ,na fcnpj jwjn nn vvisse,

- es vier Grade der Prophezeihung giebt : Bath Kol, Urim
und Tumim, heiligen Geist und Prophezeihung ; auch liegt
darin etwas Wichtiges, dass es heisst Bath Kol (Tochter-
Stimme) und nicht Ben Kol (Sohnes-Stimme), weil diese
Stimme, die zu den Ohren dessen, der sie horte, drang, von
derjenigen Stimme herriihrte, von der geschrieben steht
(Deut. 28. i): "Und es wird geschehen, wenn du horest
auf die Stimme des Ewigen, deines Gottes," daher wird diese
Stimme Tochter genannt, weil sie aus jener Stimme entstand.
Auf ahnliche Weise wird Bath Kol erklart von ja"Tl R. Lewi,
Sohn Gerschon's, 2 Samuel, I. 27. *tDWp*"1 Rekanate,
HEHS Paraschah fcOfcO Ich bin erschienen. Fol. 83, S. 2.
aiD DV niSDin Tosephoth des R. Jom Tob in Jebamoth,
Abs. 16, Mis. 6, nach welchem es deshalb V)p Ha Bath Kol,
Tochter-Stimme heisst, um anzudeuten, dass es ein gerin-
gerer Grad der Prophezeihung sei. R. Eliah in *aE7l Tischbi
fiigt einer ahnlichen Erklarung hinzu : ,D*"101N H^apTI *7^ai

Sip HNIpin .nnN mO SB> *?lp Kinir Die Kabbalisten
sagen, dass dies eine Stimme von derjenigen gottlichen
Eigenschaft sei, die Kol genannt wird.

[1115] Aus den angefuhrten Stellen des Talmud, in

441

[1115] BATH KOL IN TARGUMS AND TALMUDS

welchen der Ausdruck: Tip J"Q Bath Kol vorkommt, wie
aus den mitgetheilten Erklarungen der beriihmtesten Rab-
binen geht hervor, dass unter Bath Kol keine andere Stimme
gemeint sei als eine rein gottliche, die man in der That
gehort hat, die entweder direkt vom Himmel kam, oder aus
einer gottlichen entstanden war, also indirekt vom Himmel
kam. Dafur sprechen nicht nur diejenige Stellen, worin es
heisst : Wo ertonte das Bath Kol ? Und : Dass seitdem die
Prophezeihung oder der heilige Geist aufgehbrt hatte, man
sich des Bath Kol bediente, oder davon Gebrauch machte,
sondern bei weitem mehr jenc, in welchen es heisst, dass das
Bath Kol einen Vers gesprochen habe, und zwar zu einer
Zeit, in welcher noch Prophezeihungen stattgefunden haben,
welches, wie aus den Stellen zu entnehmen ist, mehr als
dreissigmal der Fall war. Dass alle diese Stellen zur Hag-
gadah und nicht zur Halachah gehoren, und also den eigen-
thumlichen Forschungen und Beurtheilungen unterworfen
sind, wie die Haggadah selbst ; ferner, dass man nach dem
Ausspruche eines Bath Kol keine Halachah bestimmen clarf,
ist nicht Gegenstand unserer vorliegenden Untersuchung ;
eben so wenig ist hier der Ort auseinander zu setzen, woher
es komme, dass fast die meisten dieser Stellen vom R. Jehudah,
im Namen Rab's oder Schemuel's, mitgetheilt wurden ; denn
nur die wesentliche Bestimmung des Bath Kol, und was die
Talmudisten darunter gemeint haben, soil hier gezeigt werden,
und dieses ist wie gesagt, und wie aus Allem klar hervor-
leuchtet, nichts Anderes, als eine wahre gottliche Stimme,
die mittel- oder unmittelbar zu den Menschen drang. Nur
muss man wohl unterscheiden die Stellen, wo der Ausdruck
Bath Kol nur bildlich fur eine innere Stimme gebraucht wird,
von denjenigen, in welchen von einem wirklichen Bath Kol
die Rede ist ; so wird in der angefiihrten Mischnah aus
Jebamoth, im jerusalemischen Talmud, Tractat Schabbath,
Abs. 6, Hal. 9, im babylonischen Talmud, Tractat Megillah,
32. i, dieser Ausdruck nur bildlich gebraucht.

442

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] The spuriousness of this Epistle has been so fully
demonstrated by Dr Chase in Hastings' Dictionary of the
Bible*, that I should be content simply to refer my readers to
his article, but for the fact that, in the attempt to give full and
fair representation to the arguments on the other side for the
genuineness of the Epistle mostly special pleading of a very
flimsy and unscholarlike nature the author has been com-
pelled to enter into such minute detail that some may perhaps
fail to appreciate the crushing force of his demonstration
when taken as a whole. I shall therefore attempt to re-state
some of the facts that tell against the Epistle.

[1117] The reason for this digression in a note on the
Fourth Gospel may not be at once apparent. And there is
little indeed that the Epistle and the Gospel have in common ;
but they have this one point, that both of them represent
their respective writers as having "seen" or "heard" what

1 VoL iii. 796813
443

[1118] "THE SECOND EPISTLE

(according to our belief) they did not " see" or "hear". More-
over, what they profess to have severally seen is of a very
sacred nature: in the Epistle, the Transfiguration, in the
Gospel, the blood and water flowing from Christ's side ; and
this, for some modern readers, seems to stamp both writers as
equally guilty of falsehood of a particularly odious description.
The Evangelist, it is true, only implies that he was John,
whereas the letter-writer plainly asserts himself at the outset
to be "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,"
and keeps up the fiction not indeed successfully but at all
events pertinaciously, to the end of the letter, where he
patronizes the Apostle of the Gentiles as "our beloved brother
Paul." But this may seem to make matters no better per-
haps even worse for the writer of the Gospel, at all events
in the eyes of those who agree with Charles Lamb in disliking
"your hesitating half story tellers who go on sounding your
belief," and in preferring one who "did not stand shivering
upon the brink but was a hearty thorough-paced liar, and
plunged at once into the depths of your credulity." It must be
admitted, then, that there is against the author of the Fourth
Gospel a prima facie and plausible case for including him in
the condemnation justly pronounced upon the author of the
Epistle; and I desire to argue in arrest of such a judgment.

[1118] Not that I would conceal my regret that the
Evangelist has not seen his way to be more exact in dis-
tinguishing John's part in originating the Gospel from his
own in preaching and writing it. This, I think, might have
been done, somewhat after the fashion though by the way of
contraries in which the humble Tertius claims his part in a
Pauline letter: "I, Tertius, who write the Epistle." Accord-
ing to our hypothesis, the man that developed and finally
committed to writing the Fourth Gospel, possibly originated
by the son of Zebedee, was much more than an amanuensis:
but still, in place of the text as it stands (Jn xxi. 24 " This is
the disciple that beareth witness of these things and wrote

444

ol 8T N.I i [1119]

these thin^") lu- mi^ht have said something of this kind:
1 hi-> K tlu- iliscipU- that t.iu-ht tlu-sc things, John the son of
Zcbedee, sometime Bishop of Ephesus : and I, who consider
myself but his amanuensis, after having taught them for such
and such a number of years after his death, am now writing
tlu-m down at the request of the Elders."

2. Yet the Evangelist is a true Propliet

[1119] This would have been (according to our hypothesis),
from the modern and historical point of view, very much
better: and I admit that it was a fault to say that the dis-
ciple that "witnessed" was also the disciple that "wrote". But
still it may be contended that this fault proceeded from an
excess of pious devotion in a noble and prophetic nature,
merging its own individuality in the person of "t/ie beloved
disciple", upon whom his eyes were constantly fixed as the
mirror of the Love of Christ. Taken as a whole, the Gospel
reveals a writer imbued with a message of Light, Life, and
Truth, which message he must needs give in his own way.
It is not at all our way. It is not such as we might have
expected from an ordinary prophet of Light : it is far from
being clear, direct, and pointed like the short Synoptic sayings
of Christ. It is as though the writer felt darkened by excess
of illumination. Or else he writes under the conviction that
the light cannot be poured into his readers, but must be drawn
in by some act on their part ; and his first point is to ensure
their co-operation. He appears sometimes to go out of his
way to be ambiguous. He is always mystical, always fraught
with a two-fold or manifold meaning, as though he said,
" You shall not go a step with me unless you will think for
yourselves." Sometimes he seems to meander in long dis-
courses or dialogues. He repeats the same things positively
and negatively, other things with a two-fold, others with

445

[1120] "THE SECOND EPISTLE

a three-fold, testimony: there are also instances of sevenfold
reiteration, and the Gospel begins and ends with a sabbatical
arrangement 1 .

[1120] Indeed, in some respects, the style is as compli-
cated as a sonnet ; and we feel beneath it the influence of
the allegorizing School of Philo and of Jewish canons about
the methods of stating terrestrial and celestial doctrine. But,
underlying all this Philonian or Alexandrian art, which has
become with him a second nature, there is something that is
not Philonian at all a fervent belief that God could become,
and has become, incarnate for the redemption of man in
Jesus Christ, and that His Spirit, moving upon the face of the
waters of humanity, is to create order out of trouble, and to
renew mankind in the likeness of God. This is his message
of Truth, and he is wholly possessed by it as a Prophet should
be. In matters of detail he might go wrong probably he
knew he must go wrong, for there were not the means of going
right but the Law of human nature, the conformation of
man to God, the identity between what is righteous and what
is divine, this was his Truth, and he loved it as he loved
God, and hated all contradictions of it as the brood of Satan.

3. T/ie Letter-writer has no prophecy of his own

[1121] From the Evangelist we pass to the letter-writer
and his apostolic claims. First, what has he to say that is at
all worth saying? Secondly, in what spirit does he say what
he actually says ?

What he has to say refers less to Christ than to other
subjects except in the first chapter, and there mostly in
formal phrases or in the allusion to the Voice at the Trans-
figuration, which the writer claims to have heard 2 . The

1 See Westcott on Jn xii. i, "His Gospel begins and closes with a
sacred week."

2 2 Pet. i. 17-18.

446

I I'M ! [1122]

Kpistle of St James, however, slu-us th.-it .1 letter in;iy seldom
mention I'hrist .ind yet IK- \ ery ( 'hristian in spirit and contain
.ipostolic fervour. But this Kpistle is not Christian
in spirit, much less apostolically Christian. If it is the sign
i Apostle to draw us closer to our Redeemer, to quicken
our sense of the debt \ve owe Him, and to breathe into our
lethargic souls something of His strengthening and purifying
Spirit then an Apostle this man is not. He deals with
many subjects, and now and then gives us a phrase or two of
beauty, but seldom or never what may be called an apostolic
passage. As to prophecy, for example, he tells us briefly
that it is, or was, like a lamp shining in a gloomy place till
the day-star appear, that it was confirmed by the Voice from
Heaven, and that it is not "of private interpretation" 1 . But
his meaning is not quite clear; and this part of his Epistle
reads as though it had been taken out of some frame-work
where it had a sense that is now lost or obscured.

[1122] In the condemnation of heretics he is copious, and
in depicting the endless punishments that await them. He
also informs us that the world was made out of water, and is
to be destroyed by fire ; on which last point he enlarges with
tedious iteration. He is most practical when he cautions his
readers against inferring that, because the end of the world
is delayed, it will never come; and his most moral passage is
a commendation of Christian qualifications (curiously differing
from X.T. vocabulary) beginning with "faith" and "virtue ',
and ending with "love of the brethren" and "love". But in
all this there is no Christ unless a mere list of Christian
qualifications can be taken to represent Him and no Spirit
of Christ, nothing that marks a prophet, or an apostle. It is
wholly different from St Peter's First Epistle.

1 Sec 1135 rf, quoting Philo i. 510, "The prophet utters nothing [of]
priv.ue [utter. mce]." If the writer is borrowing from Philo he h.is
turned a ->trui-htl'oi ward and intelligible sentence into one that has
given commentators a great deal of trouble and has never been satisfac-
torily explained.

447

[1123] "THE SECOND EPISTLE

4. He has no style of his own

[1123] Next, as regards the style and spirit in which he
says what he has to say. Dr Chase has compiled a long list
of rare and curious words and expressions differentiating him
from any other New Testament writer. Few of these are
taken from the LXX, which, though copiously quoted in the
First Epistle of St Peter, is hardly used at all by our author 1 .
He is conclusively demonstrated to have extracted liberally
from Jude; Dr Chase also indicates a likelihood that the work
perhaps borrows from, but is more probably akin to, a second-
century apocryphal work called the Apocalypse of Peter; and
Professor Deissmann calls attention to a remarkable group of
similarities between the Epistle and a Carian inscription
(probably written in the first half of the first century) decree-
ing processions and offerings to Zeus and Hecate.

[1124] When a literary man pilfers in this indiscriminate
way, one is rarely safe in asserting that he stole this particular
phrase or passage from that particular source; for he may
have stolen at second-hand, taking it from somebody who
took it from that source. Hence Prof. Deissmann is well-
advised in not committing himself to the conclusion that the
Epistle-writer borrowed from the Carian inscription. More
probably the inscription used certain expressions, common in
decrees of this kind, and Pseudo-Peter borrowed, not from
one such decree, but from the class. This however makes no
difference as to our argument. The point for us, at present,
is that styles so varied as that of Jude, the Pseudo- Apocalypse,
and the heathen Inscription, are all to be found in this
Epistle, and that this extraordinary mixture indicates the
work to be spurious.

1 [1123 a] See Hastings' Diet. vol. iii. 8070 : "The Epistle contains
no formal quotation from the O.T. W.H. use uncial type only in five
places.... But in none of these passages is the resemblance of language
so close as to make the reference to the LXX. certain."

448

ol ST I'l.l I [1128]

[1125] Why could not the writer be content to say what
he had to say in language of his own ? The answer is two-
foKl. In the first place he has a very imperfect mastery of
Greek, as is apparent from his use, or non-use, of the particles,
and from his general misuse of word and idiom. But thi
not a sufficient answer. John the son of Zebedee, the author
(according to Irenaeus) of the Book of Revelation, writes
t barbaric Greek ; but it is always clear, never con-
temptible; and for the most part one forgets the roughness
of the dialect in the vividness and force of the thought. This
man might have written in the same way, or in a correspond-
ing way of his own, if he had been a real apostle : but being
a false apostle, destitute of original thought, given to bom-
bastic inanities, and of an essentially vulgar, tawdry, and
dishonest mind, he instinctively seeks to disguise his own
spiritual nakedness by stealing patches from others some-
times from prophets, but at other times from mere weavers of
words, since words were his delight.

5. He writes artificially and grandiloquently

[1126] Hence this one short Epistle supplies more in-
stances (probably) than could be found in the whole of the
Pauline Epistles of out-of-the-way, grandiloquent, and what
may be called ambitious words. Sometimes the writer prefers
a long sonorous word to a short and simple one, even though
the latter has received the sanction of our Lord's own usage.
For example, Christ spoke of " Hades", but Pseudo- Peter
speaks of "consigning to Tartarus": the New Testament
speaks of "children of God", or "begotten of God", but this
pseudo-apostle, aping Greek philosophy, gives us "partakers
of ttu divine nature". St Paul once, and only once, bids his
disciples take account of "virtue"' 1 , where Lightfoot para-
phrases thus: "Whatever value may reside in your old

Phil. iv. 8.
A. 449 29

[1127] "THE SECOND EPISTLE

heathen conception of virtue " ; and this is the only use of
the word by an Apostle or Evangelist (speaking in his own
person 1 ) in N.T. In the whole of the LXX, too, apart from
a technical use of " virtues " to render the " praises " of God,
the Greek word occurs only twice as the equivalent of a
Hebrew one: but in the highly rhetorical Fourth Book of
the Maccabees it occurs seventeen times, and once in the
phrase " t/ie virtue of God*'' Similarly this highly rhetorical
Pseudo-Peter uses the word thrice, and mentions the " virtue"
of God, as well as that of man.

[1127] Substituting "obtrude" for "avoid", we may say of
this writer what Lightfoot says of St Paul : " Pseudo-Peter
(St Paul) seems studiously to obtrude (avoid) this common
heathen term for moral excellence." As, in O.T., its frequent
use in Maccabees indicates a writer off the lines of Jewish
thought, so, in N.T., it points to one who either is, or affects
to be, a philosophic or literary Greek. The same tendency
is indicated by the use of some phrase with the word "divine"
in it as a periphrasis for " God ". Occurring in the speech
of Paul of Tarsus the Apostle of the Gentiles addressing
philosophers on the Areopagus it is intelligible as an in-
stance of his becoming all things to all men. But in a letter
to believers in Christ, it is incredible that the real Peter should
have used such phrases as "his divine power hath granted
unto us," and " that through these ye may become partakers
of the divine nature*."

1 i Pet. ii. 9 is not written in the apostle's own person, but is a
quotation from Is. xliii. 21.

8 4 Mace. x. 10.

3 [1127 a] Dr Chase (815 a) quotes, as a parallel to the above quoted
2 Pet. i. 4, "sharers in the divine nature 11 (from Method. Conviv. Virg.
ii. 6) " the decree of that same blessed nature of God." But the whole
context (as given by Dr James, Apoc. Pet. p. 95) indicates that the words
in question belong to Methodius' comment on the Apocalypse, not to the
Apocalypse itself.

450

OF ST PETER" '1128]

6. Some of his mistakes like tliose of Baboo English

[1128] A style of this kind has many points of affinity
with what is called Baboo English, made familiar in recent
years to English readers by Mr Anstey's imitations of it in
the pages of Punch imitations that by no means go beyond
many original instances. One peculiarity of this literature
is that, in straining after novelty of expression, the writer
often uses a word (sometimes an archaic word, and generally
a rare one) in a context that makes no sense, or obscure
sense. For example, " wrangle ", in old days, might mean
" argue ", as we see in the title of " Senior Wrangler " : " boot ",
as late as Shakespeare, meant " profit ", " advantage " ; but
when the Baboo biographer tells us that Mr Mookerjee, as
a barrister, " would wrangle in a logomachy of words for the
boot of his client," we feel that, although some would be
merely amused, others might be perplexed, and a few actually
misled, by such an extraordinary mosaic of words. In this
case, the Baboo writer is (theoretically and archaically)
correct ; but it is easy to see that such a style may often
lead the stylist into error when he quotes a proverb or a verse
unintelligently, as in Mr Anstey's description of Mr Fran-
kenstein. This begins, correctly (though quaintly), by calling
him " so phenomenally addicted to brain-work as to deny
himself the most mediocre spree," but goes on to say that
"he is pegging away under a rose behind the arras," and
that " he is of juvenile exterior, with a countenance sicklied
over, like a pale cast 1 "

1 [1128 fi] That the peculiarities of this style have hardly been exaggerated
by Mr Anstey, will appear from the following phrases selected from little
more than one page describing the death of Mr Mookerjee (pp. 57-8).
" They [the doctors] did what they could do, with their puissance and
knack of medical knowledge, but it proved after all as if to milk the
ram !...He remained sotto voce for a few hours and went to God at about

6 P.M His children did fondre en tarmes...The house presented a

second Babel or a pretty kettle of fish."

451 292

[1129] "THE SECOND EPISTLE

[1129] Blunders of this kind if they had been possible,
which they were not, in a letter really written by the former
fisherman of Gennesaret would almost certainly have been
suppressed or corrected in the first century. But this Epistle
was not generally received as genuine till after ttte fourth century;
and hence some vestiges of error originating from an am-
bitious and affected style may be still traced in it, not indeed
so palpable or amusing as those above described, but still
sufficient to convict the author of unintelligent borrowing.
Thus for example, whereas Jude speaks of " bringing A judg-
ment, i.e. a suit, or action, for blasphemy' 1 Pseudo- Peter mistakes
this for "a blaspliemous accusation"*; and whereas Jude
speaks of "revelling together in your love-feasts" AfAOAIC,
Pseudo- Peter probably has "revelling together in their deceits"
AfTATAIC 1 . Again, Jude spoke of the fallen angels as being

1 [1129 </] 2 Pet. it. 1 1 , fi\d(r<f)T)fiov Kpitrw, Jude 9, itpi(Ttv...f3\a(T<pr]p.ias,
R.V. in both, "a railing judgment." But see Field (Otium, ad loc.), who
quotes fully from Diod. Sic. xvi. 29, xx. 10 and 62, where tiri<pi'pu> MKTJV,
Kpifftu, <v6vvas Kat Kp'<rm = " bring an accusation, or lay an information,
against anyone." Quoting Diod. Sic. (T. x, p. 171, ed. Bip.) ol KaQvftpitr-
BivTts iirrjvtyKav np'uriv roi SaTovpviVw ntp\ rijr tit avroi/t vfiptus, he adds,
"The accusation might be described as a npitru vftptus : here" [i.e. in Jude]
" it is a K/mrtr ft\(ur<pr)p.ias," and he instances the saying of some that
the devil "charged Moses with being a murderer because he slew the
Egyptian" He concludes thus : " Instead of bringing St Jude's phrase-
ology into conformity with St Peter's, it would be better to explain
fiXdo-fapov Kpiiriv in the sense which we have now asserted for npiaiv
f3\a<r(pr)p.t(if." No doubt, it would be correct to render the Greek of Jude
as Field does. But it does not follow that it would be correct to render
the Greek of Pseudo-Peter in the same way. The latter seems to
have mistaken Jude's meaning, and may have altered Jude's words to
suit his own mistake. If so, R.V., though incorrect in Jude, has been
correct in Pseudo- Peter, faithfully rendering into English the mistake
made by the latter in Greek.

2 [1129*] "Deceits," so W.H. 2 Pet. ii. 13, in text (but mafg. "love-
feasts"). See Dr Chase on Jude, Hastings ii. 803 a. Did Pseudo-Peter
take "deceit," as in Mk iv. 19, to mean the deceitful pleasure of this
world? Or does his combination of f'vTpv<pav and andrais combine a
misunderstanding of Jude (12) and a pilfering from Hermas Mand.

452

OF ST I'MTER" [1130]

in "bonds"; but this florid writer appears first to have pre-
ferred a more unusual word meaning " cords ", and then, by
the change of a vowel, to have converted this to a very
unusual term meaning excavations to hold corn, pit-falls, and
hence pits 1 . The Carian inscription uses a fairly common
phrase " exhibiting zeal ", Pseudo-Peter piles on a second
preposition so as to convert this into (at best, as in Demo-
sthenes) " substituting zeal ", or (at worst, as in the Tebtunis
Papyri) " smuggling zeal 2 ."

7. His resemblance to the Pseudo-Peter of ttte Petrine
Apocalypse

[1130] Dr Chase quotes from Dr James (Lect. on Apoc. of
Pet., p. 52) a remarkable series of coincidences of expression
between the Pseudo-Peter of the Apocalypse and the Pseudo-
Peter of the Epistle. The former work, the Apocalypse, is,
as Dr Chase justly says, "simple and natural in style," as
much so indeed as the Epistle is artificial and unnatural. It
ought to be regarded as probable, then, that if these coin-
cidences are not accidental, it is the author of the Epistle,

XI. 12 iv Tpvtpms iroXXaIf...Kai iv trtpcus iro\\als dndrait (or some kindred
writer)? Comp. ib. Sim. vi. 2. I ayytXot rpv<pi)t at dirdrrjs, 2 a'jrdraic
nai Tpvfaiit /wtrauuf, &c. Where Mk iv. 19, Mt. xiii. 22 have " the deceit
of riches," Lk. viii. 14 has "riches and pleasures of life. n

1 [1129 c\ " Pits," see Hastings iii. 808 , where Dr Chase quotes Field,
Otium, ad loc. The hypothesis is that the familiar drp>Ir was altered to
the rare aupals, and this to <m/x>tr.

2 [1129 tt] 2 Pet. i. 5, iraptifTfvt'yKavTfs. Tebt. Pap. xxxviii. 12, 14,
irapHtrtyput (bis) "smuggle? Carian Inscr. (Bockh ii. p. 483, No. 2715*1)
iraaav a-nov&riv l<r<p<pt<rdai : comp. Joseph. XX. 9. 2 itaaav ttfrrjvtyKaro
<rirov&T)v, Diod. Sic. i. 84 ptyd\T)v titrtptpovrm a"irov8r]v, ib. xviii. 34 " ""'

o : Wetstein ad loc. quotes also Libanius xxix. p. 670 D
-Oai (rirovtyv. It thus appears that Pseudo-Peter is
distorting a familiar straightforward idiom from sense to nonsense (or, at
best, to very pedantical sense if irapd could possibly be taken, in such a
word, as " on your part ").

453

[1131] "THE SECOND EPISTLE

not of the Apocalypse, that is the borrower. But, if so, the
Epistle-writer has been not only arbitrary but even erroneous
in his borrowing. The Apocalypse applies the word "squalid,"
or "gloomy," avxMPs> to fe^i tne Epistle (i. 19) to the
"place" in which the lamp of Prophecy is glimmering. Again,
the former speaks of the " mire", Pop/Sopot, of hell, and (sub-
sequently) of the souls "wallowing" in it both of them rare
words : the Epistle, having occasion to quote the proverb of
"the dog returning to its vomit" (Prov. xxvi. 11, LXX
f*Tov), not only improves upon the LXX by substituting
for " vomit " a word not alleged to occur elsewhere (<' e'pa/wi)
just as a Baboo stylist might prefer " returned to his sick-
tsAness"but also takes occasion to duplicate the proverb so
as to bring in the sonorous /3op/3opo<; in the phrase " wallowing
in the mire " (" and the sow that has washed to wallowing in
the mire") 1 . In both these cases the different application
cannot be called a ww-application, for it is only borrowing,
not error. But one more instance if the passages are in-
deed parallel will indicate that the writer confused "testing
(SoKifjuifrmas), or proving, one's soul in this life," a duty
enjoined by our Lord, with " tormenting (i@aaavi%iv) his
[Lot's] soul with unrighteous works [of others] 8 ."

8. His version of the Voice at the Transfiguration

[1131] Owing to this loose way of quoting, or borrowing,
we are unable to attach the importance we could wish to the
one interesting point in this Epistle its version of the Voice
at the Transfiguration " ' This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased.' And this voice we heard " (i) The

1 2 Pet. ii. 22.

2 [1130 a] Both Dr James and Dr Chase print these passages (2 Pet.
ii. 8, Apoc. i) as parallels. If they are, Pseudo-Peter may have thought
that "this life" meant "this world" as St Paul uses the term, i.e. the
life of the flesh and of sin.

454

01 ST 1'KTI [1132]

writer agrees with Matthew, against Mark and Luke and
undoubtedly (798 801) against the earliest tradition in
inserting the words " /;/ whom I am well pleased? (2) He
disagrees from them all in omitting " Hear ye him" which
should follow. (3) He agrees with Matthew in adding "And
the disciples heard it (ical aKovaavrts oi p.adi)Tai)" only that as
Peter is supposed to be speaking he necessarily substitutes
" we ' for " t/te disciples ", so as to give " and this voice we
Ji<\inl." If only our Pseudo-Peter had been a trustworthy
quoter, he might have been of very great advantage to us
at this point. For the text of Matthew suggests that the
Evangelist conflated lyDS? in its double sense of " Hear ye",
and "They heard" 1 : and we might suppose that Pseudo- Peter
had a text that contained only tlie latter. Even as it is, his
evidence, as pointing in that direction, is worth something.
But it is not worth much.

9. His reiterations

[1132] Besides giving other specimens of solecism, for
which space cannot be found here, Dr Chase also calls
attention to many instances of unpleasing, tedious reiteration.
St Paul and St John repeat words, and even play upon them,
but always with a meaning and a purpose. The Pseudo-
Petrine trick of repetition is quite different. It suggests that
the writer, having got hold of a word or phrase that takes
his fancy (sometimes one not elsewhere used in N.T.), cannot

1 [1131 a] Comp. Gen. xxiii. 15, "Hearken (imperat.)," LXX " I have
heard" ; Lam. i. 21 " They have heard," LXX " Hear ye indeed."

[1131 ] The contrast between the Fourth Gospel and the "Second
Epistle of St Peter " comes out nowhere more clearly than in their several
treatments of the Voice from Heaven. The former neither supports nor
contradicts any Synoptist, but gives a highly spiritual account probably
based on some old tradition ; the latter supports the least accurate of the
three accounts (Matthew's) and apparently adds a negative inaccuracy of
his own.

455

[1133] "THE SECOND EPISTLE

let it alone till he has used it again, as, for example, in the
twice-repeated phrase "stir up by putting in remembrance"
and the twofold repetition of the word " be-feverous " used in
Greek literature, so far as we know, only by two medical
writers 1 , to mean " suffer from a remittent fever" but applied
by Pseudo-Peter to the destruction of the world by fire.
Shakespeare, in his four mentions of the word " feverous,"
applies the word twice to the " earth " or " world " ; and it is
possible that an Asiatic, who may have caught up some
Sibylline verses about earthquakes a frequent topic with
the Sibyl may have extracted the word from that source.
And, in florid Asiatic Greek, a single mention of the word
in the Shakespearian sense might be pardonable. But if
that is the meaning, this writer rides it to death, loading
the sentence with other repetitions as well, thus : " But the

elements being-in-a-fever-fit s/iall be dissolved These

things then being thus to be dissolved, what manner of persons
ought ye to be... hastening the day of the Lord by reason of
which the heavens being on fire s/uill be dissolved and the
elements being-in-a-fever-fit shall waste away 3 ." In all this
fine language, where is there a trace of the single-hearted
apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, or of the simple nobility of
such words as these ( I Pet. iv. 7) : " But the end of all things
is at hand: be ye therefore of sound mind, and be sober unto
prayer: abwe all things being fen>ent in your love among
yourselves ; for love covereth a multitude of sins " ?

10. His mention of " all the Epistles" of " our beloved
brot/ier Paul"

[1133] Toward the close of the Epistle, the writer implies
that his readers had previously received a letter, or letters,

1 See Hastings iii. 807. " The word does not appear to occur else-
where," i.e. except in Dioscorides and Galen.

2 2 Pet. iii. 10 12.

456

OF ST I'M i [1135]

i the Apostle Paul : " Even as also our beloved brother
Paul ...hath writtrii unto you, as also in all [//] cpistUs...
in which are some things hard to understand, which the un-
learned and unsteadfast wrest, as they also do t/ie rest of t/u

./ tu res, to their own perdition." It is difficult not to agree
with Dr Chase (i) that the writer of these words had before
him a collection of "#//the Epistles" of St Paul, and (2) that
they had by that time attained to the rank of " Scriptures"
both of which conclusions are incompatible with Petrine au-
thorship and scarcely compatible with authorship of any date
earlier than the second century.

[1134] The argument against the Second Epistle, derivable
from its contrast to the First, need not be insisted on and
this, for two reasons. In the first place, the contrast must be
obvious to all readers, even from the English text ; in the
second, the two most prominent advocates of the genuineness
of the Second Epistle are, so Dr Chase tells us, " obliged to
give up the real Petrine authorship" of the First 1 .

11. Not an " imitator " of Josep/tus, but per/taps a pilferer

from him

[1135] Many years ago, in some articles in the Expositor
(2nd Series, vol. iii. p. 49 flf.), when illustrating the style of the
Second Epistle by quotations from Baboo English, I main-
tained that the author "imitated" Josephus. In the face of
the new testimony to indiscriminate borrowing brought for-
ward by Dr James, Dr Chase, and Professor Deissmann, I am
disposed to think this was an error. One would not speak
of the jackdaw in the fable, arrayed in feathers borrowed from
a number of different birds, as " imitating" any one of them.
"Imitation" implies some kind of artistic unity. At all events
it implies some concentrated effort, as in the fable about the
ass personating the lion, which presupposes that the lion's

1 Hastings iii. 813 .

457

[1135*] "THE SECOND EPISTLE

skin has been stolen whole. In this Epistle there is no such
art, and absolutely no concentration. Though adhering, then,
to everything that I formerly asserted about the mongrel
style, and vacuity of thought, in this blemish on our Canonical
Scriptures, I nevertheless desire to retract the word "imitated"
and to substitute "pilfered". Nor would I now venture to
say with confidence "pilfered from Josephus", but rather,
"pilfered certainly from Jude, almost certainly from the
Petrine Apocalypse, not improbably from some heathen form
of religious decree like the Carian Inscription above quoted,
from some iambic poem, from Sibylline hexameters, from
Philo 1 , from Josephus 1 and from other sources so numerous
that, if they could all be ascertained and the pilferings re-
moved from the Epistle, nothing at all would be left of the
author's own except the true statement that he knew of 'all'
St Paul's Epistles, and the false statement that he heard the
Voice at the Transfiguration."

1 [1135 a] Philo. See Hastings iii. p. 816, where Dr Chase gives as
instances Itroriftot, aptrr^ (applied to God), 17 <v<m rov dtov, fj 6tia <f>vo-is,
and \oyiicf)f KK<Mvvf)ica(Ti (f>v<Tfs. Hut all these might perhaps be
derived from Josephus (see next note). More convincing is Philo i. 510,
"the prophet utters nothing as [his} private [utterance] (J&oi/)" as com-
pared with 2 Pet. i. 20, " of private interpretation". This last passage
suggests that Pseudo- Peter misunderstood Philo.

1 [1135 ] "Not improbably from Josephus." The

Epistle begins by saying that (i) all things are bestowed
on us by "the divine power" through the recognition of
Him that called us through His "virtue" that we may
" become sharers of ttie divine nature'' (2) The middle (and
greater) portion of it deals with the punishing (/ico\ao/zeVof<?)
of those who will not thus recognize God. (3) Much of the
third and last section deals with the physical nature of the

458

OF ST ri:i i [11354]

world (the earth being made out of "water "and destined to
perish by "fire"). But these three thoughts are not connected
in the Kpi^tle.

[1135 f] Josephus, in the Preface to his Antiquities, has
the same three thoughts, in reverse order, and gives them
a logical connection. People ask, he says (Pref. 4), why
the Law deals so largely with "physiology" (i.e. the science
of nature, inanimate, animate, and divine). To this he replies
that Moses made it his first object to " understand the nature
of God" and to become a spectator of His works. Without
this, all that may be enacted "with a view to virtue" will be
fruitless unless people understand that following God brings
blessedness, and departing from Him brings calamity. Moses
taught men to behold God and the structure of the world, and
to perceive that men are "the fairest of God's works upon
earth." When Moses had thus led men to " reverence [of
God] (eiW/3e<aj>)," the rest followed. Other lawgivers begin
fnun human contracts and human rights: some even
slander God with shameful and vicious myths, imputing to
Him the sins of men: "But our lawgiver, exhibiting God
with His virtue intact, resolved that men should attempt
to participate in it " ; and those who refused he " punished
(e'/co \ao-e)."

[1135 d~\ Here, in one short section of Josephus' Preface,
we find, if not the very Pseudo-Petrine phrases, at all events
the Pseudo-Petrine notions in very similar phrases, about
" God's virtue", "divine nature" and our "sharing in it", the
*pumskm**t* for refusal, and a reference to the physical
structure of the world. But in the Preface they follow an
orderly and intelligible arrangement ; in the Epistle they
appear to follow no logical arrangement at all. This is just
what might be expected from an unintelligent pilferer, who
sets words above thoughts and sonorousness above sense.
While withdrawing (for the above-mentioned reasons) the
statement that Pseudo-Peter "imitated" this section, I am

459

[1135/j "THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST PETER"

still of the opinion that he attempted to pilfer thoughts from
it, and that he succeeded in pilfering phrases 1 .

1 [1135 e] Since the circulation of this Appendix in the form of a
pamphlet called Contrast (Feb. 1903) I have been favoured with criticisms
that appear to indicate a confusion arising partly from the technical term
" pseudepigraphy " as though all " pseudepigraphers " were on one level
of morality and partly from a failure to distinguish between an un-
grammatical style, or even a bad style, and a base style. One critic says,
" Is there anything more immoral in mongrel Greek than in the mongrel
English described above (1128)?" There is not, in the abstract. But
does not something depend on the nature of the subject? If a man
garnishes his description of the death of a near relation with such terms
as "fondre en larmes", " sot 'to voce'\ "second Babel", "pretty kettle of
Jish" how different this from the simple straightforward style of "Govinda
Samunda", "The Lake of Palms," and other works of our Indian
fellow-subjects! does it not convict the writer of an egotistical treason
against good feeling almost constituting an offence against morality?
And when the subject mounts still higher, to a description of the Trans-
figuration as recorded by an eye-witness, an Apostle of our Lord, is not
the sin of "the purple patch" proportionately increased? It seems to
me that a pseudepigrapher sinning after this fashion deserves to be
distinguished by a special name. One Pseudo- Peter wrote a Gospel of
Peter. Another wrote an Apocalypse of Peter. Both wrote fictions.
Probably, too, both were heretics. But each was absorbed in his subject
and wrote in his own natural way. So I call both of these simply
" pseudepigraphers ". The third wrote the "Second Epistle of St Peter."
Probably, he was orthodox. Not improbably, he had some motives that
seemed to him good. But he appears to me convicted on irresistible
evidence, not only of writing fiction but also of posing as a fine writer.
Hence, to distinguish him briefly from his namesakes, I called him a
"forger". But I meant by this and should be willing to substitute for
it, if space allowed, in each case "a pseudepigrapher of the baser
sort."

460

APPENDIX VI

THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS 1

[1136] In the opening sentences of Eusebius' History,
the Writings, i.e. Scriptures (ypa<f>ai)* of the New Testament,
receive no mention. Writings, in his mind, are at this stage
subordinate to persons. His first five words indicate the
historian's principal thought, " The successions of (i.e. to) tJte
Holy Apostles" This key-word, "succession", may be illus-
trated by the two key-words in the first sentence of the
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers : " Moses received the Torah
from Sinai, and he delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the
elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets
delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue." The ques-
tion, with both writers, is, not (primarily) what was true, but
what was "delivered" and "received" in due "succession".
If the "succession" was observed, then both Eusebius and
the author of the Aboth would say the doctrine must be
true. " It came from Sinai," says the Jewish writer ; " from

1 [1136 a] There have been recent (Apr. 1903) indications of a failure
to understand or appreciate Bishop Lightfoot's interpretation (Essays on
Supernat. Rel. pp. 36 40) of the Promise of Eusebius in which the
historian pledges himself to record what has been said by previous
ecclesiastical writers about the Canonical and acknowledged Writings,
or Scriptures (ypafai) of the New Testament. This Appendix will re-
state his interpretation and add some confirmatory details.

* Lightfoot sometimes calls them Scriptures, sometimes Writings.
In this Appendix it will be convenient to use the latter term invariably,
even when in other respects adhering to Lightfoot's rendering of
Eusebius.

461

[1137] THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS

Christ", says the Christian. But both say in effect, "The
truth is proved by succession"

[1137] Hence, as long as Eusebius is dealing with the
period of apostolic action while the Apostles were still
preaching the Gospel and founding the Churches the Apos-
tolic Writings receive very little notice from him. But as
soon as he relates an Apostle's death, the historian's thoughts
naturally turn to the Epistles through which he continued to
speak to the Church. This was all the more natural because,
in Greek, Apostle and Epistle are closely related. Both imply
"sending". "Apostle" is a person "sent off with a message";
" Epistle" is something " sent on in addition," either in writing
or by word of mouth. In the Greek Tragedians, "Epistle"
means for the most part an authoritative message, or com-
mand ; and the word is occasionally used of the last injunc-
tions or commands of a dying person, sometimes written but
sometimes unwritten 1 . Thus James is described, first as the
brother of the Lord, and then as the first Bishop of Jerusalem 2 ;
but no mention is made of any writings of his till after the
account of his martyrdom*, when we are told that the first of
the so-called Catholic Epistles is assigned to him, but that
this Epistle, like that of Jude, is called spurious, though both
are read publicly in very many (or, most)(7rXo-Tats) churches*.

[1138] Similarly, as to Peter. The Apostle's actions are
related in the Second Book at considerable length ; but no
mention is made in it of his writings except incidentally, to
say that, in his First Epistle, Peter mentioned Mark, whose
Gospel he approved 8 . Paul, too, in the Second Book, is
described as preaching and founding Churches in Corinth and

1 [1137 a] See Hesych. eVtoroXeu : cVroAai, tirirayai &c. with Alberti's
note. Hemst. on Lucian Dial. x. 2 (l. p. 231) quotes Lysidis Epistolam
av a7r*'crrAfi> (leg. (ir((rrti\(v as in txt of Luc.) "quod paulo ante

8 i. 12. 5, ii. I. 3 foil. 3 ii. 23. I 24.

4 ii. 23. 24-5. 6 ii. 15. 2.

462

THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS [1139]

Rome ; but practically nothing is said in it about his Epistles 1 .
The Third Hook parses from the Apostles to their successors,
and now the aspect of things is changed. Along with the
personal " successions of the Apostles " (i.e. the Bishops), lists
of which he had promised to give, Eusebius perceives that he
must now begin to deal with the Writings that they, i.e. the
Apostles, or their amanuenses or pupils, have left behind them
to represent their doctrine.

[1139J Hence, after recapitulating (iii. i. i) the actions of
"the holy Apostles"" (Thomas, Andrew, John, Peter, and
Paul) in spreading the Gospel throughout the world, and after
mentioning their first successor in Rome (namely (iii. 2. i)
Linus, whose name occurs in Paul's Epistle to Timothy) he
approaches the subject of their writings. Now Thomas and
Andrew left nothing in writing ; John was still alive, but had
not yet written anything. Consequently, of the five Apostles,
above mentioned as evangelizing the world, two alone re-
mained, Peter and Paul, whose writings claimed the his-
torian's attention at this point. But still he regards the
Epistles of all the Apostles as his real subject, although (for
convenience) he limits his detailed remarks, for the present, to
the Epistles of only two of them. And further, while calling
special attention to the disputed character of the so-called
Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle to the Hebrews (at-

1 These negative statements are based upon the Indices of Schwegler
and Heinichen as well as on my own recollection of the text: ii. 17. 12
refers to some theory of the Historian that Philo, in some remarks about
the Therapeutae, may have had in view such expositions as may be found
in the Epistle to the Hebrews and several other Epistles of Paul.

1 iii. i. I 3 ends with a statement that the writer is quoting from a
work of Origen's; but we are without means for ascertaining (as the work
is lost) where the quotation begins. The uncertainty, however, does not
affect the argument, namely, that Eusebius when he speaks of " the holy
Apostles", in iii. i. I, means the Apostles generally, not Peter and Paul
alone ; and that " the Apostles ", in the titles of iii. 2 and iii. 3, ought to
be taken in the same inclusive sense.

463

[1140] THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS

tributed by some to Paul) he takes the opportunity now
which he did not take when he mentioned the Epistle of
James, because he was then in the period of apostolic action,
not in the period of their successors and their Epistles to enter
into the whole question of the Writings that were, and of the
Writings that were not, to be included in the New Testament,
indicating a test by which he will help his readers to
discriminate between Canonical and Uncanonical Writings, as
his history proceeds. And he concludes his section by an
apparent reference to his test as being suggested for the
"demonstration" 1 of canonicity or non-canonicity.

[1140] What is this test? It is, in the first place, the
evidence of a succession of Christian writers, who either
made quotations from a "disputed" document (in a manner
suggesting that they recognized it as authoritative and apos-
tolic) or else handed down traditions about its apostolic or its
non-apostolic character. And here a superficial reading might
suggest that Eusebius would stop. Why should he trouble
himself about the "undisputed" documents? To give the
patristic quotations from them would be endless and useless.
And why should he give traditions about them ?

[1141] Perhaps Eusebius would have replied, " Because
the Gospels of Mark and Luke, though undisputed, were not

1 [1139 a] iii. 3. 7 " Let this suffice (flpfjtrdm) for a demonstration (tig
napdo-rafrtv) of those Divine Writings (faiwv ypa^arviv) which are un-
questionable and of those which are not acknowledged among all." Light-
foot renders napoo-ravis "statement". But Heinichen gives "expositio",
"demonstratio", as the meaning both here, and in i. 3. 10, i. 6. 11,
vi. 19. ii, and De Mart. Pal. x. i, where that sense seems in each case
suitable or necessary. In i. 6. II, ravra 8* tyf*" dvay tains fls irapdaratriv
TTJS Totv xpoviav dXijdfias (?) irporcnjprjo-dw it occurs with r, and in Epictet.
ii. 19. i with Trpof (where Schweig. in Index and Transl. has "probatio",
"demonstratio", "ad probandum"). In the spurious Quaest. et Respons.
ad Orthodox. 68 tls irapda-ratriv TTJS rov rfrov)i.(vov dXrjddas is rendered
(rightly it seems) " ad quaestionis veritatem astruendam." This rendering
makes no difference to Lightfoot's argument, which is rather strengthened
than weakened by it.

464

Till. I'KOM! UM.HIUS [1142]

written by Apostles, and I wish to give early traditions about
them to shew that they were severally written under the sanction
of the Apostles Peter and Paul" He might also have desired
to explain why the Fourth Gospel was so very late, and so
very different from the Three. Lastly, he might feel that it
ua> expedient to meet the following not unnatural objection :
" If the earliest, or any single Gospel, was inspired, why were
later or other Gospels written covering the same ground?"
But from these considerations, which merely indicate the
antecedent probability that Eusebius would give traditions
about "undisputed" Writings, we must pass to his text,
which will prove that he did actually not only promise to
do this, but afterwards refer to his promise, and faithfully
fulfil it.

[1142] This, then, is the text of the Promise, very liter-
ally translated :

(iii. 3. 3) " But, as the history proceeds, I will take care 1 ,
along with the successions 2 , to indicate 8 what [individuals] of
the Church writers, [who flourished] from time to time, have
made use of disputed Writings 4 [and] what [Writings they
were]; and [to indicate] (lit.) what things (riva) have been said
by them about the Canonical and acknowledged Writings
(fpa<l><av\ and as many things as [have been said by them]

1 [1142 a] "Take care", so Lightf., npovpyov Trotqo-o/Mu. But it might
mean "I shall make it my business," "consider it to the point" &c.
(Heinichen, "id agere ut", "sich es angelegen sein lassen," "sich es zum
Geschaft machen," and see L.S.): that is, "Although I mentioned merely
successions at the opening of my History, yet I shall consider Writings
also a part of my work."

* [1142 b] " Successions ", i.f. first, the successions, or successors, to
the Apostles, which he promised (i. i. i) to give, and then the successors
to those successors, and so on (1136).

3 [1142<:] "Indicate", vnwr^vavBai. Not here "suggest", which
would make nonsense, but " record by the way, or, as I go on, as an
integral, though subordinate, part of my work."

* "Writings", i.e. ypatytv, implied by fern, oirotair.

A. 465 30

[1H3] THE PROMISE OF EUSEB1US

about those that are not such [i.e. not acknowledged as
Canonical] 1 ." So much for the Promise.

[1143] Later on, after an interesting anecdote about the
aged Apostle, John, Eusebius proceeds to discuss his " Writ-
ings", including his Gospel and his Apocalypse as well as his
Epistles : and here he states the causes that (according to
"report") induced, first Matthew, and last John, to commit
their Gospels to writing. Then after a brief reference to
Mark's Gospel as having been previously stated to be (ii. 15)
written with Peter's sanction, and Luke's as being written by
a follower of Paul and the other Apostles, he makes what
appears to be a repetition of the Promise thus :

(iii. 24. 1 6) " Thus much we ourselves [have to say] about
these [i.e. the Four Gospels]. But (?) at such season as may
be more suitable 1 , we shall endeavour, by quoting the ancient
writers, to set forth the things said also by the others about
them," i.e. said about the Four Gospels by the other ecclesi-
astical Writers or Fathers who preceded Eusebius.

In view of recent erroneous interpretation, the reader will
do well to note that, if the second passage is a repetition of
the first, then the phrase in the Promise, " wliat things (TIW)
have been said" corresponds, in the repetition of the Promise,

1 See 1145 foil, for the Gk and the details of its interpretation.

* [1143 <i] OiKftdrcpop, Lightfoot (S. R. p. 39) "more particularly".
According to this rendering, the meaning of Eusebius would be that
whereas in the traditions he has hitherto given about the Four Gospels,
he has quoted no persons, only "report", A</yor, generally in his future
remarks he proposes to quote persons particularly, e.g. Papias, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, in order.

In adopting this rendering, Lightfoot was probably influenced by the
order of the words, oixcufopor KOTO. umpov. But might not this have been
intended to emphasize the adjective ? Moreover, Lightfoot himself (it.)
renders iii. 24. 18 eV oiKtio* K<U/JO> "at a proper season." And Valesius
(followed apparently by Heinichen) renders olndos similarly here, and,
I think, rightly. The "more suitable " season for quoting Irenaeus, for
example, will be when the History comes to the period of Irenaeus.

466

1 III. PROMISE <)K Krsi:i;iUS [1145]

.-/// things sai(/", ra fiprjueva, so that the meaning in both
i> " all that has />,YH said."

[1144] When Eusebius comes to the times of Irenaeus,
the " season " has arrived for fulfilling his Promise by quoting
traditions about the Canonical Scriptures from this author, and
he not only does this but expressly says that he does it
in fulfilment of his Promise:

(v. 8. i) "But since at the commencement of our treatise
we have made a promise, saying that we should quote the
utterances of the ancient Elders and Writers of the Church
[each] in [its] season, whereby they have handed down in
writing the traditions that have come down to them about the
Canonical Writings, and [since] of these [Writers] Irenaeus
was one, let us quote his words also, and first those relating
to the sacred Gospels, as follows."

By " also ", he means, in effect, this : " I quoted ' in their
season' the words of Papias (iii. 39. 15 16) about Mark's
and Matthew's Gospels, and a brief statement of Justin (iv.
1 8. 8) about John's Apocalypse: now I will quote those of
Irenaeus also about the Canonical Scriptures and first about
the Gospels." Thus, both by a definite reference to his
general " Promise ", and also by his actual practice in these
three particular cases, Eusebius demonstrates the nature of
the original Promise so clearly that, even if it had been lost,
we should know that the historian had pledged himself to
quote from Hegesippus, Justin, Papias, Irenaeus and sub-
sequent writers in their order, whatever each had said about
the Canonical Scriptures.

[1145] In opposition, however, to this conclusion, it has
been recently 1 maintained concerning the above-quoted (1142)
Promise of Eusebius 1 , (i) that nva cannot mean "what

1 The Contemporary Review \ Apr. 1903.

' iii. 3. 3 npoiovays 8 % TTJS 'urropiat wpoCpynv irotTfirofuu, <riv r.uv
rivts rStv caru \puvovs cicKAij<riarri' <rvy-

467

[1146] THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS

things", but must mean "certain things", because "what"
would be expressed by the singular ri, (2) that ypatfrwv
means "epistles", (3) that the context and the title of the
section shew the " epistles " to mean merely those of Paul
and Peter. The conclusion proposed by the objector is, that
Eusebius merely promised to tell us "certain things" said by
ancient writers concerning the Canonical " Epistles of Peter
and of Paul" and concerning those that are not such.

[1146] Against this view there is, in the first place, the
objection that Eusebius, as a fact, tells us practically not/ting
about the Canonical Epistles of Peter and Paul nothing at
all events comparable in extent and importance with what
he tells us (in quotations from Papias and others) about the
Gospels. In the next place, to deal with the three objections
mentioned above:

(l) nva (a) can mean "what things 1 ", and (b) would
naturally have that meaning here".

ypafptwv orrouuf Kt'xpr)i>Tai ru>v dvTiXtyofttixav, -Hva rt irtpl rutv iv
KH\ /ioXriyni'^M'ci>i' ypa^xav, KOI <~<TU irtp\ rS>v p.ij fwovTW avrois

1 [1146 a] See Euseb. vi. 24 (title) " What-things (riva) he (Origen)
taught at (') Alexandria," ib. vi. 32 (title) " What-things (riva) Origen
taught in Caesarea," Euseb. Praeparatio Evang. i. 2 (title) " What-
things (riva) it is customary to say against us," Job xxiii. 5 "Would that
I might perceive ivhat-things (riva) he will report to me!" In Euseb.
iii. 9. 5, Schwegler and Heinichen read riva, "which [of them]".

2 [1146 b] The interrogative meaning is favoured by the parallelism
of the previous nWf, "what persons", which naturally leads the reader
to take the following riva as "what things". Moreover, if Eusebius had
meant "certain things", he might have expressed this briefly and un-
ambiguously by nva ruv (iprjfj,(va>i>.

[1146 c] It may be urged, however, that Eusebius, if he used an
interrogative riva parallel to a previous interrogative rtvts, ought to have
consistently repeated riva interrogatively in the third parallel clause,
whereas he passes into oa-a. But this variation is characteristic of late
Greek; and somewhat similar variations are found (i) in the very first
sentence of his history, (2) in the titles of his works as compared with
each other, and (3) in an extract that he quotes from Papias. Similar
variations appear in Josephus and Diodorus Siculus.

Comp. (a) Euseb. i. I. I 2 Tas...8ia8o^as...ocra re icat 7rr;Xi'(ca...Kai

468

THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS [1146]

(2) ypa<f>a>v could not mean "epistles" except in
special circumstances, which do not exist here 1 .

o<roi.. .00-0* T...T{V Tf KCtl o<roi...K<ii rii...irtpu\6wra^ ocra r av KCII
<cni Trr;\,'ic<>i wlicrc T{VS Ti Kal o<rov is superfluously long and the whole
sentence shews a desire of variation), (b) Euseb. (quoting Papias) iii. 39. 4
t) T n. flirty, ff ri *. fj TI 0. fj 'I. fj T *I. fj M. ;...& T* 'A. icai 6 IT. 'I...
Xyov<r', (c) (direct) Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2. 4 (Niese 51) o(a /MI> cCi/ota ir/>ur

rc'if iptTtpui' OIKOV irapa\*\i iirnu ; iroca d ffiorir (I'&trjs iarnv ; T($ d( oi
-i'.'i/nn Ti^r;.- quoted by Jan. 589 n., Jos. Ant. xvi. 2. 21 iroia piv (vvota
IT pot TOV vptrtpov mmtv irapaXfiirtTai; rroia d< irioris tv&tijt i<rriv; Tit &' ov
TtrifMijrm n^iij; Neither Niese nor Hudson mentions such variations as
irapoX(cTrTfii and rtri^rfrai. Jan. quotes, immediately before this, Diod.
12, p. 128 01 rovs Qovpiovs oiKOvvrts tOTatrlafov rrpbs dXX^Xou; iro(a$ rrdXfox
(iTroiKoi'ir ciiXturrfiii TOVS Qovpiovs KOI riva K.ria~rr)v Siieniov ovopafatrdiii; but in
Diod. xii. 35 Heyne (vol. v. p. 72) inserts 8t"t before x.a\tl<r6ai and
mentions no v.r.).

[1146 </] Comp. also the titles of Euseb. vi. 24 and 32, " What-things
(riva) he taught," with that of vi. 36 " how -many other-things (5<ra XXa),"
all of which relate to the teaching and writing of Origen. Lastly, i Tim.
i. 7, "not understanding either (lit.) the things that (a) they say or about
what-things (rivtav) they asseverate," illustrates not only the habit of
variation but also the neut. plural use of rit.

[1146 e] Mr F. C. Burkitt, who informs me that the Syriac version of
Euseb. iii. 3. 3 gives no countenance to the opinion that Tti/a = "some
things ", has been kind enough to send me the following literal trans-
lation of the Syriac : " While we proceed with the history, we will make
known, together with the succession [of the Bishops], which of the
writers of the Church, in their times, out of the books about which there
is a doubtful verdict how they used them, and as to how it was said by
them about the Holy Books which the Church acknowledges without doubt,
and about those [books] which are not so." It will also be perceived
that the Syriac discountenances the view that ypafyiav means " Epistles".

1 [1146 /] This note will deal with the passages alleged to shew that
" Eusebius wry often uses the terms Vt<rroX^ and ypn^n interchange-
ably." Some of them, ii. 22. 25, iv. 14. 8 9 (not alleged but perhaps
intended under an erroneous reference to iv. 14. 2 (dufyij<rr, not ypa<t>ri)) t
iv. 15. 46 (perh. intended under an erroneous reference u ib. 15 and 46"),
vii. 22. i u, merely shew that when Eusebius has previously spoken of
an Epistle, he subsequently refers to it as "the same, or above mentioned^
writing," i.e. document, or says "he again communicates in writing^ or
sends a writing" &c. It may be added that in iv. 15. i and iv. 15. 15
T! ypatprj refers to a previous mention of a martyrdom M extant I'M writing
(tyypdjxits)". In Vit. Const, ii. 23. I, describing how Constantine sent

469

[1147] THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS

(3) The context and the title have been shewn above
(1139) to refer to all the Apostles and not to two of them
alone.

To this it may be added that the Greek phrase "Canonical
Writings, or Writing" occurs in the History (according to
Heinichen's Index) four times excluding the passage in ques-
tion : and in all these it means Canonical Scriptures as a
whole, never Canonical Epistles 1 .

[1147] Our conclusion is twofold, positive and negative,
(i) (Positive). Eusebius intended to relate all that was said
by Papias, Justin, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, &c. about all the

out through the empire a proclamation tv ypafpfj, the phrase should not be
rendered "in an epistle", but "in writing". (See context.)

[1146 g] The only passage that repays detailed consideration is
Euseb. ii. 17. 12 "the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles, and...."
Eusebius is here commenting on an expression of Philo's concerning
the sacred books used by certain ascetics in Egypt, commonly called
Therapeutae, whom Eusebius takes to be Christians. Philo calls the
books " treatises (o-uyy/xi/^/iora) of men of old (ira\<u<av dv8pa>v) who,
having been leaders of their sect, left behind many memorials of their
method (?) (I8tas) in dealing with allegorical matter (tv rots d\\r)yopov-
/i*Voif)." These ''treatises", Eusebius thinks, may include "the Gospels"
(two of which, though not written by Apostles, were written under the
influence of Apostles, i.e. " leaders " of the " sect ") and the " writings of
the Apostles" generally. There is no reason to think that "writings"
here means "epistles". If it did, it would exclude the Apocalypse of
John the Apostle, which, although a disputed book, would hardly be
excluded by Eusebius in a passage dealing with allegorical treatment of
prophecy in Christian writings.

[1146 Ji\ In none of these passages, except the last, is ypcxprj used in
the plural, and in none of them is there the slightest danger of ambiguity.
In the only place where the plural is used, the separate mention of
"Gospels" ("Gospels and Writings of the Apostles") makes it clear that
the term Writings of the Apostles does not mean "all the Scriptures".
The examples, then, taken as a whole, tend to shew that Eusebius would
never use ypa<J>ai to mean "letters", where there was any chance of its
being confused with the regular meaning of ypcxfrai, namely " Scriptures".

1 The four passages given by Heinichen's Index (beside the present)
are iii. 9. 5 (O.T., and the context adds " of the Old Testament "), v. 8. i
(N.T.), vi. 14. i (N.T.), vi. 25 (title) (O.T. and N.T.).

470

I III. PROMISE 01 i.l H.l;lUS [1148]

Canonical Scriptures, and he has accordingly related every
ng of importance found at this day in the extant works
of Justin and Irenaeus about the Canonical Scriptures. Hence
we infer that he has been equally faithful in the case of Papias
and Hegesippus (whose works are lost except for a few frag-
ments. (2) (Negative). Hegesippus, the author of a History
in five books, now lost, is freely quoted by Eusebius, who tells
us that the five books had come down to his time and that
the historian (iv. 22. i) says certain things about the Epistle
of Clement to the Corinthians. But Eusebius does not tell us
that he said anything about the Canonical Writings. We
consequently infer that Hegesippus said nothing about them.
Again, Papias who, like Hegesippus, wrote five books
is recorded by Eusebius as saying certain things about the
Gospels of Mark and Matthew, but not as saying anything
about those of Luke and John. We consequently infer that
Papias said nothing about Luke and John.

[1148] It is quite another matter to decide why Hege-
sippus was totally, and Papias partially silent. So, too, it
would be quite another matter to decide why Justin who
avoids the name " Gospel " and prefers " The Memoirs of the
Apostles 1 " says nothing in his extant works about any of
the Four Gospels, and nothing about the Epistles. His only
saying of this kind is one about the Apocalypse. Each
writer may have had his own reasons for silence. Hege-
sippus may have preferred to describe martyrdoms and the
successions of the Apostles. Justin a most rhetorical and
inaccurate writer may have been so absorbed in contro-
verting Jews and correcting the misapprehensions of Gentiles
that he did not trouble himself to draw any careful distinction
between Memoirs of the Apostolic traditions concerning the
Lord written by the followers of the Apostles, and Memoirs
concerning the Lord written by the Apostles themselves, nor to
specify their authors by name.

1 Enc. Bib. 1819
471

[1149] THE PROMISE OF EUSEBIUS

[1149] Papias, on the other hand, expressly says that he
took a great deal of pains to go back as near as possible
to the actual words of the Lord through the words of
His Apostles Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John,
Matthew 1 . Subsequently, Papias tells us certain things about
the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, but nothing about those
of Luke and John 2 . Under these circumstances it appears
reasonable to infer that at the time, and in the place, in which
this historian wrote, the Third and Fourth Gospels were not
as yet recognized as authoritative, or at all events that they
were not recognized as such by the enquiring mind of Papias.
There are other facts as to which I must refer my readers
to the Encyclopaedia Biblica* which make this conclusion
not only reasonable but also extremely probable.

1 iii. 39- 4-

2 iii. 39. 15 16.

3 Enc. Bib. "Gospels", col. 1813.

472

INDICES

I. INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES

II. INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER (ENGLISH AND GREEK)

III. INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER (HEBREW)

INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES

[ The references are to paragraphs, indicated by black numbers}

MATTHKW

MATTHEW

MARK

MB.

PAR.

3 3 830,7

16 33 891 a, b

1 i

851

II 806 a

34 928 (i) a foil.

'-3

830-6, 839a

13 563-724, esp.

38 646 a, 660

837 . 839 a

610-6

17 I 630.;

861

13-16 597-609

3 864 f>, comp.

597- 605; 610-

14 681 , , </, 588 <7,

880-1

606-9

3-4 876

9-1 1

553-724

15 675 a, 609 i,

4 865 foil., 891-5

617-52; 662-

1062, 1066

; 786 foil., -907

16 617-62; 662

6 885,;

1 1

786 816; 850-

19 39 928 (iv)

864

16-17 663-724

20 ii 1021

2 34

939.7

17 786-816; 850-

33-3 OT8A

3 13

630,:

864

38 926

928.7

4 ii 609.2

2'2 37 928 (ii)

4 11

660

5 16 969, 1032

23 13 944a

5 13

680.7

6 9-10 965-71 (viii)

34 831 <i

680.7

13 940 d, 970,

25 31 838 a

6 3

558

971 <i)

26 24 983 ;. 986

872-4

14 1021

39 934-6

630,7

10 4 928.7

36 942 foil.

8 13

931

39 748 :

38 917-24, 942

841. 873-4

37-8 938 (i) a foil.

foil., 1003,;

789-90

11 9-10 830 1

39 929-31 i foil.,

891 a, b

10 839

976-6, 1010 <

928 (i) a foil.

14 1062

40 941

9 i

646.:, 660

35 923 a, />. 984,

41 941.7, 960<

630 <7, 864',

1003 ,/, 1014

41-47 941 foil.

876

39 928 (iii)

43 932, 966-6

864 . 901 A,

12 1 8 672 /. 787, 802-

44 932

907rt

11, 813 a

53 79

875 foil.

13 II 660

27 40 788

866 foil., 875,

16 660

43 788

886 foil.

14 33 630a

45-50 1062 69

886 foil.

16 4 931 /

46 1066

786-849

14 841, 873-4

49 1066, 1069

10 30

938 (iv)

16 789 90

50 1066

1021

17 719. 849 a

54 790 a

978

18 891 a

936

it 979 </

12 15

933 k

475

INDEX OF

MARK

LUKE

JOHN

PAR.

12 30 928 (ii)

9 77 646 a, 660

1 73 830 a

14 30 978

78 630 a

75 829

71 983,;. 985

79 864

36 668 a

75 934-6

30-33 877-9

38 610-6

37 943 foil.

31 878

38-34 853 724; 854-

33 *1*

37 879 A, 884

34 917 foil., 942

33 865 foil. ,883/>,

39 576, 677 a

foil.

885 foil.

3 1 863 a

35 M-6

34 888a

33 594

35-6 929-31, 962-6
foil., 1003 '

35 786 foil.
67 928(iii)4

33-3 646 62; 662-
84; 723 4

36 931 (/-', 976-9;

10 I 1015 b

33 593 4; 855-61

1010

1 7-7 1 922 a

34 593,791,815-6

37, 38 960 f, e

71 938 a, /, 984.

36 904

38-43 941-66 foil.

1003 a, 1014

38 653

39 932, 946 a, 949

34 660

41 894

full.

37 938 (ii)

42 719, 891o

15 37 788

39-33 938 (ii)

45 1026

33-7 1052 69

11 i 967

50 653

34 1061 68

7 966-71 (viii)

51 640-61

35 1069

79 931 b

3 31 1019

36 1066, 1069

49 881 a

87 883 b

37 1064-7
39 790 a

12 49-50 978<z-/; 1010,/
14 76-7 938 (i) a, 928

8 722
13 722

43 698 1>

(iv), (x)

4 39 894

16 17 896 </

15 17 680,/

5 39 892

17 6 764

6 is, 630(7

LUKE

18 7 933 1

37 934

1 5 578

30 938 (iv)

66 891,4

54 809

19 47 1013d

67 891 b

69 809

22 3 680,;, 986 a

67-9 870

2 74 594 a. 686 /'

1 6, 1 8 934-6

68 892-6

46 709 '

33 983,;, 986

69 789, 816 a,

87 860

37 926

893 4

4 830 ,/

31 891, /

70 891,;, 986 a

31 579, 597-606;

40 942 foil.

7 19 937

610-62

43 929-31 foil.,

30 937

31-2 564-724

976 foil.

45 939 b

77 662-84, 717,

43-4 968 foil., 989

8 35 724

786-816 ; 860

46 960

43,46 939 b

-64

46-7 941 foil.

55 937

73 709<,</

51 1062, 1066

59 558(7, 1013 a

6 17 630 a

53 *7a

10 1 6 1016

16 928 a

23 76 928 (x) r

11 9 979 d

36 1022

34 1056, 1066-8

33 920

77 809

35 788

51-3 1016

7 809

37 788

12 i 1120

76-7 830-1

44-6 1052-69

5 939 /

77 839

45 1066

19 1016

8 10 660

47 790 a

74-6 928 (x)

30 680 a

24 19 841

77 917 foil., 920,

37 680 a

75 841

933, 937-40,

9 8 872-4

964*, 1010 f

19 841, 873-4
20 789-90

JOHN

27-3? 1003 foil.
38 ' 913, 1011,

73 928 (i) a foil.,

1 i 793 f, 851^

1020, 1024

928 (viii)

6 693

38-9 728 a

476

. TKSTAMI VI PASSA<

JOHN

Ki >MANS

a THESSALONIANS

PAR.

PAN.

PAR.

19 39 775,/, 954,;

4 35 927 a

8 3 940,/

1013

8 15 979

38 971 (vii) a
41 1020

36 685.
32 927 a

i TIMOTHY

983,:

38 688

1 7 1146,/

31 920. 986

11 II 1014

8 16 655

37 680,:

:.; 1014

4 8 666 A

37 939 b

35 ***<*

6 16 1021

14 3 998

12 i 883

8 1027

9 939 a

i CORINTHIANS

HEBREWS

30-1 947,;
15 30 928 (x)
16 32 937
17 I 913, 970
2 970
6 970
8 970

2 8-10 641
4 4,9 605./.658
63 688
9 4, 5 979 ,
11 10 668
33 928

1 5 793 f
6 665-6
85 807 ,
5 5-7 957-964
7 9 1015/
10 37 839,;
12 21 885,;

1 1 672, 894 a

12 970, 983 , 987

3 CORINTHIANS

i; 940,;. d, 970

1 10 940,

i PETER

17, iv 970

3 3-13 882

1 i 1016

35 672, 894 a

1 7 724, 888 b

12 659/'

18 8 1066

5 3i 606,;

34 850 b

ii 933 6,979r,</,

11 14 962

2 9 1126

1007

4 12 978 />

20 32 671

GALATIANS

14 660,;

31 990 foil.
21 2 1016 h

2 9 764r

5 II 1021''

30 927 a

15-17 91Sa

24 1118
35 990 foil.

4 4 687
6-7 979
35 1015/

"2 PETER 1 "

1 18 981

ACTS

5 i 928 (vii) a
13 928 (iii) a

19 785
85 879 b

J i- 672 *
3 13 809

EPHESIANS

\ JOHN

32-5 846 foil.
36 809

5 3 927 a
14 884

3 2-3 907a

4 :i 800, 809
37 809

35 927a
6 12 962,;

5 16 987
18 940./

30 809

6 5 1015 b

PHILIPPIANS

JUDE

15 880 (n.)
7 37 842
56 646,;

2 6, 7 601, 810 a,
896 </, 928 (vi)
9 916

14 839 a

8 26 1015 </

REVELATION

39 1015 ,/
40 1015 /

COLOSSIANS

1 4 668,;

'. 7 778 ,;

1 17 879 b

2 20 1064 :

15 10 928 (vii) a

19 671 a, 665

8 i 668,1

20 35 997 b

2 9 571,;, 665

8 646,;

-' 1 s 1018 <

45 668,;

22 9 778 ,;

i THESSALONIANS

5 6 6680

-'' 14 928 (iii)

1 10 940,

13 5 704*

1 See also Appendix V, passim.

477

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER
(ENGLISH AND GREEK)

[The references are to paragraphs, indicated by black numbers]

Aaron, "the Saint of the Lord," 812 c,
893

Abide, Jn prefers "a." to "rest", in
describing the resting of the Spirit,
714

Abraham, "a voice as from A.," 798

Aenon, 615, 616 a

Akibah, 678, 783 : hi.- martyrdom,
928 (v)

"And", Heb. vaw, "but", 9S7 ; "in
order to", 698; "even", 818, 834

"Andrew", typical meaning of the
name, 1015 , /

" Angel "=" Messenger" in Heb. and
Gk, 817 a; altered to "Holy One",
839; angel of the Lord, "an" or
"the", 663; "an a. hath spoken to
him," 984; the a. strengthening
Je.sus, 988; wrestling with Jacob,
969 ; an a. called the Prince of Esau,
i.e. Edom or Rome, 961 a\ "an a.
of the Lord " (Acts viii. 26), 1018^

Angels, in bad sense, 668 ; in Heb. i. 6
corresponds to Ps. xcvii. 7 "[? false]
gods", 686; "a. of the face," 867 a;
"of God", 668, 669-61; "seven",
668a; "seventy", 668 a; agents of
God's wrath, 900

Answered, parall. to "rejoiced", 923 a

Antiochus, confused with Antioch, 730a

Apocryphal works, early, 994
Apostles, 1018, 1136 foil.
Appearance, " in its a.", rendered

(R.V.) "in his eyes" (Lev. xiii. 5,

37). 717
"Appeared (as)", ambiguity of, 849,

871-2
Aramaic, said to have been used in the

temple, 730 a
Arians. the, 1001
Arm of Jehovah, the, 971 (vii)
Article, the, in Gk or Heb., 663, 669 a
Axe, the, metaphor of, 704 a
Azotus, 1018 d

ts, confused with OTraratf, 1129
rbi, 786-816, 811 a
688 a

<MlP, 643

-at interchanged with -, 976 a, b

aiptrlfu, 813 a

dXXo, "but", read as 4\Xo, "another",
978^; dUdin Mk = ir\7jj'in Mt.-Lk.,
1010 f

dva.pa.lvu, "go up" in Mk iv. 7, 8, 31
= "grow up", 704 e; fotprj inter-
changed with dvT?i<t>t)Ti, 634

dca/Scum, 629 f>

dvairauofMi, "rest" or "cease", 712

dvtf-w, parall. to avvixofjuu, 1010 d

478

IN hi A OF SUBJECT-MATTER (ENOUGH AND Gl

, 978< ; in: wi

34 /

, 641 <; dwyyiro, 640 </, 646.;

s, 901 <

dirdrcm. confused with d>aToi5, 1129
diro and (V, primary distinction between,
940 < ; dw6 Nafap^r = " */ (not /row)

598/4

dpr7) applied to God, 1130 a
dporpov, 928 (iii) />
dporporoft, 928 (iii)i*

, "begin" or "reign", 709 (/
i, the regular meaning of, 1064
, adojned as a Heb. word, 1066 b;
confused with averts, 1066 /'
&<t>t<rit, " forgiveness ", confused with

&<t>ft (Kzek. xlvii. 3), 1066 A
dforj/ju = " forsake ", " forgive ", " let
go", "utter (a cry)", 1056, 1066-6;
parallel to <w, 1066 </

Hack, the, of God, 896, 901 a
Backward or behind, to go, 891 b
Baptism, The Baptism of Christ sym-
bolical of the bestowal of priesthood,
797^; "b. by fire", not a Jewish
phra.se, 856 <r, "b. with the Holy
Spirit," not a Jewish phrase, 866;
b. synonymous with "cup" and
"fire", 978*
Baptize with the Holy Spirit, not a

Jewish phrase, 886
Barabbas, 928 (i) e
Bar Kochba or Koziba, 667, 783
Bath A'.'/, 728-88; from the midst of
the earth, 741 ; seldom described as
simply A'ol, 741 a ; said to be sub-
stituted for "Holy Spirit", 743;
words of Scripture uttered by, 743 </;
Jewish definition of, 780; as an echo,
780-B; subjective in Jn xii. 29 and
Acts xxii. 9, but never in the
Talmuds, 778 a ; chiding Solomon,
826; regarded by Jn as an inferior
Mijn, 1008; "One does not trouble
oneself about Bath Kol," 762-76
Beautify, Exod. xv. i " I will beautify
him (God)," how explained, 1022

"Beloved Son", 786 816

Beloved, a mistranslation of "chottn",

802 4

Urn /..ma, 687 8, 913
Bcthahara, 666. 612-6
Bethany, 686, 612-6
Belhara, 612-6
Betharabah, 666, 613 a, 616 a
Bethel, 960, /
Beth Gadia, 616 J
Betrayed, in i Cor. xi. 13, should be

"delivered up", 928
Bodily, Lk. iii. 11 "in a b. form," 717 ;

"the fulness of the Godhead b.,"

871 a, 666

Boy, (?) "son " or "servant", 806-11
Branch, The, a name of the Messiah,

1019. comp. 670, 704
Brocken apparitions, 866
Build, the Messiah to "build the

Temple", 1019

" Building 1 ', in Jewish tradition, 1019
"But" or "and", Heb. vaw, 937;

"but" confusable with "for" in

transl. from Heb., 1068 a

, 928

fia\wi>, substituted for
(iii) b

Caiaphas, like Balaam, 1016

Caleb and Joshua at the Assumption of

Mosts, 897
Caligula, alleged Bath Kol concerning,

732
" Called " confusable with " was called ",

638 a
"Came", confusable with "upon" in

Heb., 861
Carpenter, Christ "being supposed a

c.," MS/>

Celsus, on the Baptism of Chri-.t, 660 6
Cephas, a name preserved by no Gospel

but the Fourth. 891 <i
Cerinthus, on " the Dove ", 684, 689.

689, 722
Choose, interchangeable with "be well

pleased", 863; first Biblical mention

of God's "choosing", 812 c

479

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER

"Chosen ", a title of Messiah, 786-816 ;
retained by Luke alone in the Trans-
figuration, 791 ; mistranslated as
"Beloved", 808-4; how explained
by Epiphanius, 815 a ; might re-
present Heb. "13 "son", 860; in the
Book of Enoch, 864; a name of
Tabor, 981 a; "Saul, the Chosen of
the Lord," 783 a, 8Q3t>

Christ, "the Christ" a title likely to
supersede unfamiliar terms, 790

Chrysostom, on the miraculous pheno-
mena of the Baptism, 648

Conquest, meaning of in O.T. and
N.T., 101B</, 1018

Constrained, "I am c.", confusable
with "hasten", 1010 f

Cross, "taking up the C.," 926, 928
(i)-(x)

Crown, "stones of a c.," 1018; "four
crowns", 742

Crucifixion, not a Jewish punishment,
928(i)

Crying, "strong c. and tears" imputed
to Jesus, 957

Cup, (?) paraphrased by "hour", 956;
(?) conflated with "hour", 1003 b;
synonymous with "baptism" and
"fire", 978*, /, 1001, 1010 a; con-
fusible with "furnace", 978 6; the
Synoptic and Johannine traditions
about "not drinking the cup," 933-6,
1007

Daniel, praying "about the time of the

oblation," 628

Daughter, "d. of the desert '^"os-
trich", 716; "d. of voice", 716, 725

(see also Bath AW)
David, anointed by Samuel, 650, 797
Day, "to-day", perh. meaning "endless

and inexhaustible time," 793 c
Deacons, the seven, 1015 b
Delivered-up, LXX "was d." = Heb.

"made intercession ", 927 ; i Cor. xi.

23 R.V. "was betrayed" should be

rendered "was d.", 928
Demas, 891 b

Dew, an angel of, 624 ; a wind of, 624 ;
"d. of God", 625; the Holy Spirit
compared to d., 625

Diatessaron, the Arabic, its relation to
Tatian's work, 556

Divine, "d. nature, virtue" &c., a
periphrasis for "God", 1127

Dove, the, 685-724; "[turtle] dove"
distinguished from "pigeon", 694#,
685; pictures of, in the Catacombs,
689; connected with Polycarp's death,
690; introduced by Aquila without
any warrant in the Hebrew, 696;
Mary reared "as a dove", 698;
"dove" confusable with "resting",
695-6; Wetstein on, 686-7

Doxology in the lord's Prayer, the, in
the Dviacht and the Acts of John,
1021 /'. ,

W, perh. changed to d\Xa read as &\\o,

978 d

"beseech" or "need", 602

), 884 a
640, ri, never used by Jn except with

negative, 939 ft
fatl\\a7fUroi>, used of the Son's Will,

1001

diicpovv, 928 (vii) e foil.
Sofa, 896 f, "glory" interpr. as "opin-

ion" by Diatess., 878
ootctfw, 1022 a
dofcuror, perh. corrupted to Sofa <roi,

964

Sov\ot, interchanged with iralf, 807 d
t, inserted after Sofa, 660 a

Ear, a slave's, why pierced, 928 (iv) b
Ebionites, the, Gospel of, 578 foil.
Echo, Bath Kol as an, 780-5
Eclipsed, "to be e.", confusable with

"forsake", 1060
Edifying, a Pauline term, 1023
Edom meaning Rome, 961 a
Elclad and Medad, 837
Elders, mentioned by Papias, 995; an

Elder identified with Papias, 998
"Eli, Eli", 1053, 1057 foil.

480

(ENGLISH AND GREEK)

Eliezer, Kal)l>i, 763 70; the prayer of,

966, 1011

"Messenger" <>r " Prophet ",
818, 826 9, 834 ; with Moses at the
Transfiguration, 848 9, 872-4; .,
Moses, ain I Kn.nh, as precedents,
836; K. praying "at the offering of
the <>lil.itinn," 627; "Elijah" con-
fusable, in Gk, with "the sun",
1007-60. See also 1027
Klisha. 1027

" l-'.hi, Eloi", 1053. 1087 foil.
Enoch, date of the Book of, 812
Knoch, Elijah, and Moses, as precedents,

836
Ephrem (or Ephraemus) Syrus, date of,

873

Kpictetus the doctrine of, 920
Eusebius, the Promise of, 1136-49
Evangelist, Philip the, 1018 a foil.
[Evening] oblation, the, 627 foil., 724rf
Eyes, "in his e." (R.V. Levit. xiii. s,
37) rendered (Gesen.) "in its ap-
pearance ", 717

Ezra, praying "at the offering of the
oblation," 628

( interchanged with -eu, 978 a, b

fyXflru = (K\( liru, 1060

typriyopu, 946 c

tit, the Heb. for tlffr)\0(v tit wrongly

rendered n^" twl, MO a; fi ru>a
(after tpxofuu &c.) does not mean to
(or, on), but into a person, MO a

tl, meaning "not". 9814; "if only",
"would that", 978^; interchanged
with tl0t, 978 c, g

ttOt, 978 c,g

tUrij\fftf tit, the Heb. for i. t. wrongly
rendered ri\0t if I, 680 a

dffifdponai, 1129 </

(K and d>6, primary distinction be-
tween, 940 c; auaov tn \c. , 940 a

t*\tiirnv, 1060 /'

(K\tKr6t (^XeXry^'ot), 786-816; a
name of Tabor, 981 a

tKTfvtffTtpov, 909 a

j, 886 a, 896 b

w\rpti=Is. xi. 3(R.V.) "his delight
shall be," 666 a
, 687
969
1130

tirtiyofMt, 978 d, 1010 d, *

firfo~x.6fi.rii/, 1010 e

(iri, ri\0cv tirl wrongly substituted for
(lfffj\0(f elt, 680 a

(wipa\wi>, read as /SaXwr, 928 (iii) /'

( TurroXai, 1137 a

iirra. TO, error for (irra.ro, 6M b

(irra.ro, read as iwro. ro, 6M b

fv\dfifia l , Heb. v. 7 " was heard

1 Ei>Ao0ui means " taking good heed to avoid offence," sometimes in a good cense, as when
Fhilo (i. 476-7) praises Abraham for his combination of free speech (Gen. xv. t " What wilt thou
give met") with "godly fear "(Gen. xv. 2 "O Lord (w &<'<nroTa, i.e. Master)"); but often in a
bad tense, as in Wisd. xvii. 8 (of the Egyptian "/ear worthy to be laughed at"), and the verb
is often thus u>ed with negative* (" Be not afraid" &c.). In Prov. xxviii. 14 " Happy is the
man that drtaaetk alway," LXX has Karaimjo-awv, " crouching down ", softened by the
addition of it' *vAa0ctiu-. And so a Greek translator might use cvAa/bia instead of 40f to
imply that the fear was not cowardly, but the "fear of doing evil." But would "fear", in thit
negative tente, be attributed to Christ by an early Evangelist except under a misunder-
standing ?

Note that in Prov. xxx. 5, Nahum i. 7, Zeph. iii. ia, LXX has nrAo/ioG>uu as a rendering of
a form of flOPl "trust", confusing it with HDH "* silent be/art" , "be a/raid 1 of. Thil
suggests that the text might be a misinterpretation of " He was heard because he trusted."

Westcott says " For the use of ard see Luke xix. 3; xxiv. 41 ; Acts xii. 14 ; xxii. it : John
xxi. 6." But all these have a negative ("could not for the crowd," " </ubelieved for joy " &c.) :
and a negative, or some notion of constraint (as with the Latin /ms), occurs in must of the
instances of |Q "from", meaning "by reason of", referred to in Geen. 580 , 583*1. More to
the point would be Josh. xxii. 24 "we did \\ from carefulness," > vAic, but Aq. b
MKT)f "from anxiety": but neither this, nor any of the instances, is exactly parallel to the
present. The preposition points to literal translation from Hebrew, in which case a participial
may have been taken for the prepositional prefix (-QX '" P*- l**ii. ia, Job xxix. ia ftc.

48l

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER

(R.V.) for (dn-6) his godly fear (r^j
i.)," 964,;

, 928 (iii) h
<u, parall. to d,<f>lijfu, 1066 a

il\l, or i\l, 1003 a,, and see "Eli"
17X101;, may mean "sun" or "Elijah",
1087 60, esp. 1060 </

8, see below T

Face, "f. of God", opposed to "back",

898 901
Face (verb), Mai. iii. i (lit.) "shall

face", i.e. "shall clear from before

my face," 830

Fan, "the winnowing f.", 868
Father, "Our Father", not freq. in

Jewish Prayers, 966 f>
Fiery (trial), (?) confused with "cup",

"Fire" or "light", 617-20; fire a
hostile element. 624 ; "the immaterial
f.", 625; confusable with "fire-of-
fering", 684; baptism by f., not a
Jewish phrase, 806 a; interchangeable
with "cup", 978*. /. 1001, 1010a

Firmament, the, 644

Firstborn of God, the, 797 ; connection
between "chosen" and "firstborn",
799

Flock of the Gentiles, the, 1018

"For" (conjunction) and "but", con-
fusable in transl. from Heb., 1068,;

"For" (prep.) (Heb. -^>) rendered
"to", 937*

Forsake, confusable with " be eclipso.l ",
1060

Fountain, "the whole f. of the Holy
Spirit," 660; (Deut. xxxiii. 18)
"fountain of" = (Onk.) "according
to the likeness of," 717 a; "foun-
tain", (?) a name given to a "MHU-
mary " of prayers, 717 b

Freedom, "(he spirit of f.," 724; in
i Cor. iii. 17, 883 b-c

Fuller, (Mk ix. 3) "no f. on earth,"
864*. 901*

Fuller's soap, 901 b

Fullness, "the f. of the G.UUM.|,"
071 a, 668

Furca (Lat.), the yoke of punishment,
928 (i) foil., 928 (vi) (vii) foil.

Furcifer (Lat.), 928 (vi), 928 (vii) b
foil.

Furnace, confusable with "cup", 978*

0, see under P

Gadia, "the House of G.," 616 d, 734
"Gaza 1 ", "G. this is desert," 1010 d
Gennesaret, rabbinical derivation of,

960*; perh. erron. for Gethsemane,

877, 960
Gentiles, "the Court of the G.," 981*;

"the coming in of the G.," 1014
Gethsemane, 1004, 1008; Gennesaret

perh. erron. for G., 877, 960*
Gibeonites, the, 783 a
Glorify, "them that glorify me I will

glorify," 913; "g." interchanged

with "hallow", 969-71, comp. 1011;

of " noonday", Targ. has a deriv. of "Ii"!t2. which may mean "'purify [with water]" , .suggesting
"baptism". The Eunuch, no longer lamenting over himself as (Is. Ivi. 3) "a dry tree", but
being guided to the Man who is (Is. xxxii. 2) "as rivers of water in a dry place," exclaims
(Acts viii. 36) " Here is water ". Receiving life, he departs after God has (Is. Ivi. 7) made him
"joyful". Philip (Acts viii. 40) "is found in Azotus" (?) the city of " No-Life" (L.S. recognize
afutrov only as " ungirt ", but Hesych. adds afiiurrov): where he continues his life-giving

482

(ENGLISH AND c.KKKK)

>rify thy Name", 913, 970, 1011,
1020, 1022

. of Moses, of the Lord &c.,
882-4; of God, 898; substituted for
"goodness", 660 a, 899; paraphrased
as "hosts of angels", 900; the Heb.
for, may mean " weight" or "riches",
660 a, 1021/'; a LXX rendering of
Hub. "goodness", 660 a, 899; a
periphrasis for "God", 660 </; "a
weight ofg.,"660rt; the Gk" glory"
interpr. "opinion" by Diatess. , 878;
glory, in Jn, regarded as following
trouble, 986; "the power and the
glory," \m\a-b; Mk x. 37 "in thy
glory", parall. to Mt. xx. n "in thy
kingdom ", 1021 '< ; see also 1021 .

Goad, mistranslated "plough", 928
(iii) /' ; " kick against the g.," 928 (iii)
periphrases for, e.g. "Glory",
"Heaven", "Name'' &c., 660 a

Gods, false, 658

Going up, confused with" offering", 629 c

Goodness, rendered by LXX "glory",
660 a, 899

I of the Ebionites, 878; of the
Hebrews or Nazarenes, 570 foil. ; the
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, 658;
(?) "according to the Apostles,"
600 />

Greece, called Javan, 696 a; (Zech. ix.
1 3) "thy sons, O Greece," 1018

Greeks, come to Jesus, 921, 1014-6,
comp. 1020 c

, aorist of, 1068
ypajxii, meaning of, 1145-6

635 a
945

Hallow, interchanged with "glorify",

969-71, comp. 1011
Hands, "lay h. on", 611 b
Hasten, confusable with " be con-

.. uned", 1010*
"Hate", applied to parents, 928 (iv),

(x)
"Hear ye him ",817-49

Heaven, a |*riphrasu for "God ", MO a ;

"of Heaven " interchanged with

"Most High", 971 (vi); "the heaven

opened", 641
Hebrews, the, Epistle to, 1139; Gospel

of, 570

(H)eli, aspiration of, 1063 ,
Hellenists, the, 1015 a
Hermon, 867 a, 981, 1060-
Herod, erroneously mentioned, 578 a
Hezekiah, his prayer, 989
Hide, Jesus "was hidden", 1013
High, "Most High", 971 (vi), inter-

changed with "of Heaven" (ik.)
Highpriesthood, 893 a
Hillel, 734-8; the Bath Kol for II .

against Shammai, 766-62; "the

House of H.," 616 c
Holy, "the Holy One" in Clem. Rom.

substituted for "angel", 837; "the

Holy One of God," 893-4; see

"hallow"
Horns (Exod. xxxiv. 29, 30, 35), 882,

896
Hour, (?) a paraphrase of "cup", 956;

(?) conflated with "cup", 1003
House of, meaning "the followers of",

616 c

I AM, how expanded by Jer. Targum,

1024 a
If, implying a negative, 956; meaning

"if only", "would that!" 978^
Intercession, Heb. "made i.", LXX

"was delivered up", 927
Interrogative pronouns, variation of,

1146 <
Isaac, the Sacrifice of I., 928 (i) k\

1069 (i)-<v) ; carrying the wood,

928 (i) b
Isaiah, his martyrdom, 928 (v) ; Mark's

use of the name, 833, 839 a
Israel, "the hardening of I.," 1014

, 928 (vii) ,/, 928 (x) A
lea ri, not used in Jn, 939 '

Jabneh, T85; the synedrion of J.

483

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER

Jacob at Bethel, 659 ; wrestling with

the angel, 959 ; accused by Satan,

961

Javan, i.e. Greece, 696 a
Jesse, the name, confusable with

"aged", 706r; "a weaver of the veil

of the house of the sanctuary," 709 a
"Jesus" interchanged with "John" in

the Ebionite Gospel, 581; Jesus, or

Joshua, son of Nun, 832, 846, cp. 961 a
Jews, Christian, prepossessions of, 963
John (the Baptist), described himself as

being a Voice, 864
John (the Evangelist), his style, 1120;

its apparent simplicity, 913 a ; he

does not dislike ambiguity, 939 c;

intervenes where Luke omits or alters

Mark, 656
"John" (the name), interchanged with

"Jesus" in the Ebionite Gospel, 581;

interchanged with "Jona(h)", 719;

rendered "Otai", 616 c; perh. an

error for "Jordan", 563 a, 565, 610,

611 . 1039 a

John Hyrcanus, 566, 569, 730
"Jonah", a Heb. noun for "dove",

719; interchanged with "John", 719
Jonathan ben Uzziel, 739 a
"Jordan", perh. corrupted to "John",

563 ,1, 565, 610, 611-*, 1039 a; perh.

taken as "going down", 611; the

water of J. to be rejected, 615
Joseph, his "rod", 697-710
Joshua, 897, 961 a; one of "the former

Prophets", 797^; Joshua or Jesus,

the son of Nun, 832, 846, cp. 961 a
Joshua ben Chananya, 763-75
Judas Iscariot, 985 foil.

Kingdom, "the K. of God is within
you," 971 (iv); "the yoke of the
K.," 928 (ii) ; " No blessing in which
there is not the K.," 1005 a; Mt.
"in thy kingdom" parall. to Mk
"in thy glory", 1021 b

Ka.6a.pbv irvp, 625 a

(Mk xiv. 37), corrupted, 960 f
ui, confused with KaX<ij, 951
teal might mean (Heb. vaw) "and" or
"even", 818, 834; "and" or "but",
933 a, 937; "for" or "but", 1068 a
Kcupdj, "time of trial", 956 a
KaXwt, confused with *a0a>j, 951
Kplfftt l$\aff<f>Tifdat, "a charge of blas-
phemy," 1129

, the egotist, 928 (iv) a
"Lama" or "Lewa", i^. "why?"

possible corruptions of, 1061
Lamb, "the L. that taketh away sin,"

636

Legend, Jewish, 1069 (i)-(v)
Leper, purifying of a, 580
"Lifting up", in John, 928; comp.

1003,. 1018, 1020 A
Lightfoot, Bishop L.'s interpretation of

the Promise of Eusebius, 1136 a
Likeness, Deut. xxxiii. 28 (Onk.) "ac-

cording to the 1. of," = (R.V.) "foun-

tain of", 717 a

Luke, his style, 850

', a, 1022

X, i.e. "thirty", perh. dropped, 587 a
Xd/cKo*, name of Tabor, 981 a
l, 928 (i) e

1 As an illustration of (960) John's feigning sleep, comp. the story (no doubt as true as it is
beautiful) about Bernard of Quintavalle (Little Fltnotn of St Francis, p. a) "first companion of
St Francis," who was at that time reckoned "the fool of Assisi." Bernard was entertaining
Francis as his guest for the night, and (Sons o/St Francis, p. 31) " the host fought against sleep,
also feigning unconsciousness, watched, and saw his guest rise and spend the night in prayer,
...till morning broke. By the light of the little chamber lamp he had seen the fool transfigured.
Bernard that night left all his former life behind him." The narrative also illustrates what might
have happened to the two guests of the Lord Jesus who (Jn i. 39) "abode with him that day, it
was about the tenth hour"; and it suggests how some kind of physical "transfiguration" but
very different from the common conception of it might be combined with special spiritual
energy.

484

1 NGLISH AND GR1 IK

Macarius, his comutent on the accounts

of the Crucifixion, 1051 a
Mahanaim, 669 .

ty, vote of the (Exod. xxiii. i),

763, 767
Malachi, his reference to the "Temple",

862; on the "Messenger", 818,

836-9 foil.

Marcosians, the, 978 ./
Mark write* wh.it may be called " a

note-book Gospel ", 996 ; said to

have been Peter's "interpreter", 997
Martyrdom, of Akibah, 783, 928 (v), of

Isaiah, 928 (v)
Mary (the Lord's mother), referred to

as "the root" in Is. xi. 3, 669*;

reared "as a dove", 698; makes a

veil for the Temple of the Lord,

709 a; the "choosing" of, 816 a
Matthew, prepossessed by prophecy,

996 ; >aid to have written his Gospel
in Hebrew, 997

Maxims, " not maxims wanted, but

men," 1000
Melchizedek, 893 a

Menahem, name of the Messiah, 704
"Messenger" and "Angel", identical

both in Heb. and in Gk, 817 a
"Messenger" and "Prophet 11 , 817-49;

Mai. iii. i "Behold, I send my m.,"

818, 826-36 foil. ; Exocl. xxiii. 70 "I

send a m.," 820-4; Philo on, 822
Messiah, the. titles of, 790 ; builder of

the Temple, 1019
Metamorphose, 883 foil., 896, 896 f, d ;

rarity of the word, 883
Metamorphosis of Satan into a sparrow,

688

i on, the, 824
Michael, 991 a

.!////.//<///, oblation, 633-6, 627 ;, 724 </
Misinterpretation in the synagogue,

997 a

Misquotation, in Mk i. 1-3, Mt. xi. 9-10,
Lk. vii. 26-7, 830-1 ; in Acts iii. 11
foil., 846

Moses, "a prophet like unto M.," 826-
44 ; the Assumption of M., 897 ; the

Mosaic Theophany, m-907 ; M
"received the Torah from Sinai,"
1136 ; the name, alleged to mean "a
great teacher", 871 (but sec Mia);
the glory of M., 882; Mose* with
Elijah at the Transfiguration, 848-9;
"Moses and the Prophets," 870

Most High, interchanged with "of
Heaven ", 971 (vi)

Mountain, the, connected with prayer,
630 a ; the M. of the Transfiguration,
867 a, 981; "the M. of the House,"
981 i>\ "a rooter up of mountain-,
764 a

"My", the freq. use of, rebuked by
Philo, 928(iv)

"south" or "noonday",
1016 d

TOLffxrinarlffffOai, 896 d
interrogative, 933 e foil., 979 <
vai (Jn xiv. 7), 998

essential form", contrasted
with o'X'W'Wt, " fashion ", 810 a, 896 d\
in Theod. means (Heb.) "brightness",
896 c

Nail, a, used as a charm, 778

Name, a periphrasis for "God", 660 </,
1022 ; the Name, 916, 964 b ; Name
or Shechinah, 971 (iii) ; "thy (or, the)
Holy Spirit" substituted for "thy (or,
the) Name", 968, 971 (iii); Name of
Glory, 660 ; "Name" compared
with "Son", 1006; "in my n.", a
corruption from Exod. xxiii. ?i, 823

Nathanael, 661

Nations, seventy, 668 a

Nazarene, a, 671; "Gospel of the
Nazarenes," 670 foil.

Nazer or Branch, the, 670, 704

Negative, Heb., confused with personal
pronoun, 779 a

Oblation, "the [evening] o.", 627 a,
724 J; "the going up of the o.,"
629-39 ; connected with Ezra, Daniel,
and Elijah, 627-30

485

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER

Offering, confused with " going up ",

629 f. See also "oblation"
Omens, 778

"Opinion", substituted for "glory" by

Diatess., 878
Origen, on the place of the Baptism,

612-3 ; on the Transfiguration,

869-74
"Original", the term, how used in this

book, p. xxxvi (c)
Oven, "the o. of a snake," 766

o, interchanged with u, 960 u, /, 966 a,

1015 c

6, (?) replaced by ri , 1010 c
olKfi6Tfpw, (?) "more particularly" or

more suitable ", 1143 a
ovona, ins. for, or with, wtv^a, 660 a ;

Phil. ii. 9 TO o. TO vtrip viiv o., 915
6irlff0ia, "rd. diriffBia. afrrov", of Christ

in the Transfiguration, 901 b
oiriffu, 891 /'
of, for ws, 966 <i
06, (?) wrongly translated by R.V. in

Mk xiv. 36, 981 h, comp. 1010
ov /XT} (Epict. iii. . 33), 933 /<
oil n*) viu (Jn xviii. 1 1), 933-6, 979 f, d,

1007

w, interchanged with o, 960 a, J, 966 n,

1015 c
<ii>eWi<raj, D's reading in Mk xv. 34,

1055
wt, written oj, 966 a

Papias, 995-8, 1147 foil.

Passover, " this P. is our Saviour,"

630 b

Paul the Apostle, favours the subjective
hypothesis of the Transfiguration,
880

Penuel,